Income/Expense > Income Statement\"\" report, which will sum up your income and spending over a time frame (defaults to the current year). In each report that you run, there is an \"\"Options\"\" button at the top of the screen. Open that and look on the \"\"General\"\" tab, you'll be able to set the time frame that the report displays (if you wanted to set it for the 2 week block since your last paycheck, for example). Other features you're going to want to familiarize yourself with are the Expense charts & statements, the \"\"Cash Flow\"\" report, and the \"\"Budgeting\"\" interface (which is relatively new), although there is a bit of a learning curve to using this last feature. Most of the good ideas when it comes to tracking your spending are independent of the software you're using, but can be augmented with a good financial tracking program. For example, in our household we have multiple credit cards which we pay in full every month. We selected our cards on specific benefits that they provide, such as one card which has a rotating category for cash back at certain business types. We keep that card set on restaurants and put all of our \"\"eating out\"\" expenses on that card. We have other cards for groceries, gas, etc. This makes it easy to see how much we've spent in a given category, and correlates well with the account structure in gnucash.\"","Certainly sounds worthwhile to get a CPA to help you with setting up the books properly and learning to maintain them, even if you do it yourself thereafter. What's your own time worth?","depends entirely on the scope and where your chokepoints are. if its a question of ginormeous amounts of data being stored in your spreadsheet and then extracted/joined with a mess of index match functions, that can quickly run up in size, and can be deftly replaced with a powerquery setup. If it's a computation that requires a few iterative steps or complex nested lookups, but with simple inputs, then a few simply scripted UDFs can lower the complexity (and workload and size) of the workbook. OP also mentions that the workbook is used for the display. If there is a lot of repeated deletion and adding of formats, sometimes workbook size can be seriously affected by these things cluttering up the sheet, and it can be useful to just clear those outs. I'd say it makes sense to move away from workbooks and into something more technical if you the organizational support to do so. If one person sits and codes models in python but none of his colleagues can work on it or fix it, and it's not documented correctly, and there's no support structure, then I'd be cautious of transferring something business critical to that structure, rather than optimizing the solution that people are familiar with and can modify themselves. But if it's a tech-savvy organization that recruits accordingly and has the technical support structures to implement changes and modifications as required by the business, I don't see any problem in using other tools.","Instead of gnucash i suggest you to use kmymoney. It's easier","Actuit offer accounting services to help you in carry out non key activities of your business. Our accounting and online bookkeeping services not only will reduces your cost but also enables you to focus on more critical functions of your business, like your customers by providing you reliable completed work on time for you to act.","That article was terribly generic and ripe with grammatical errors. A quick Google search yields dozens of much more informative articles. Furthermore, this topic has a fringe relation to finance, and would be a better post in a small business, entrepreneur, or accounting subreddit.","I am no expert on the situation nor do I pretend to act like one, but, as a business owner, allow me to give you my personal opinion. Option 3 is closest to what you want. Why? Well: This way, you have both the record of everything that was done, and also IRS can see exactly what happened. Another suggestion would be to ask the GnuCash maintainers and community directly. You can have a chat with them on their IRC channel #gnucash, send them an email, maybe find the answer in the documentation or wiki. Popular software apps usually have both support people and a helpful community, so if the above method is in any way inconvenient for you, you can give this one a try. Hope this helps! Robert","I don't think you need double-entry bookkeeping. To quote Robert Kiyosaki (roughly): Income is when money enters you pocket, and expenses are when money leaves your pocket. Income is an addition; expenses are subtractions. But if you want double-entry accounting, I'm not qualified to answer that. :)","Buxfer is a personal-finance web app which you might like. It's not open-source. But at least none of your complaints about financeworks.intuit.com apply to Buxfer. Buxfer offers a piece of software you can download to your own PC, called Firebux. This macro-recording software provides automation that helps you download statements and upload them to Buxfer. So you never have to give Buxfer any of your bank or brokerage usernames or passwords. Buxfer and Firebux are both free of charge. Wesabe, another personal-finance web app, also used to offer data-uploader software, but Wesabe has now gone out of business.","CashBase has a web app, an iPhone app and an Android app, all sync'ed up. It doesn't integrate with banks automatically, but you can import bank statements as CSV. Disclaimer: I'm CashBase's founder.","In all honesty, the best solution I've come across is Microsoft's now defunct Money."],"string":"[\n \"I think your reasons are good. Fundamentally accounting software is built to ensure you record your accounting data effectively with minimal mistakes and good auditing. But you still need to use the tool properly to get the benefit. One other advantage is that many accountants are familiar with, say QuickBooks, and can do your accounts more effectively if you use their preferred tool.\",\n \"Why use spreadsheets rather than writing your forms and formulas directly in a programming lanuage? Because you've got better things to do than reinvent the wheel, right? Same answer. ===== clarification, since the point apparently wasn't clear: Using a spreadsheet means you're writing and organizing and maintaining the formats and formulas yourself. Essentially, you are writing your own accounting program, using the spreadsheet program as your programming language. Nothing wrong with that, it just means you're doing work to produce something that you could have purchased instead. It's up to you to decide how the value of your time doing that work trades off against the cost of the commercial product. For many people, especially as the bookkeeping becomes more complex, that isn't a good investment of their time. The otherwise billable time it would take them to maintain the spreadsheet is worth more than the cost of buying an off-the-shelf product, and the product offers features that they wouldn't get around to adding to their own solution. Add to that the question of whether people find creating and tweaking spreadsheets rewarding or annoying. The right tool is always the one that lets you focus on what you actually care about, unless the cost is too high to justify it.Most folks care about getting the accounting task done a least cost/least efprt. Buying a solution is least effort; if the real cost including time/effort is also lower, that's the direction they're going to go. I maintained my own accounts, and did my taxes, in spreadsheets for quite some time. These days the time to do so, multiplied by what my time is worth, would exceed the cost of buying tools, and the commercial tools are more pleasant to use, less prone to accidents, and offer featured that I don't need but appreciate. I still use a stylesheet for one small calculation (rebalancing my invedtments) but thst's because I havean odd corner case the built-in tool doesn't handle well...not that it makes any practival difference, but being slightly off annoyed me. Your milage, obviously, will vary. Use the tool that suits your needs; others will do likewise.\",\n \"\\\"I would say that all of the reasons you list in your question are valid, and I would add the following... You are in the landscaping business, not the accounting business. If you manage everything in spreadsheets, at least one of you has to become the bookkeeper and leave the landscaping to the others. Spreadsheets are \\\"\\\"agnostic\\\"\\\" in how you use them, so you have to turn them into an accounting system, which means you're now not only more of a bookkeeper, but you're also more of a developer, too, and even less of a landscaper. Accounting software is already developed by developers who understand accounting. Using it requires you to only perform the data entry tasks, and then you can focus on the landscaping, customer service, sales and marketing, etc., things that actually contribute to your business. It is still good for you to understand basic accounting principles. Specialized accounting software will guide you through the process of learning and help you avoid making many of the costly mistakes you might have made in that learning process.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Since this is a cooperative I'm guessing your partners may want to be able to view the books so another key point you may want to consider is collaboration. QuickBooks desktop has all of these same issues because it is meant to be used on a single desktop. We're in an age of mobile devices, and especially in a business like landscaping it would be nice if certain aspects of record keeping could be done at the point and time where they are incurred. I'd argue you want a Software as a Service (SaaS) accounting package as opposed to \\\"\\\"accounting software\\\"\\\" which might come on a CD in the form of QuickBooks, Sage and others. Additionally, most of these will also have guides to help make sure you are properly entering your records. Most of these SaaS products also have customer success teams to help you along should you need assistance. Depending on the level of your subscription you may get more sophisticated handling of taxes, customized invoices or integrated payroll. Your goal is to keep accurate records so you can better run your business and maintain obligations like filing taxes. You're not keeping the records just to have them. Keep them in a place where they will work for you and provide the insights and functionality that will help your business grow and become successful. Accounting software will always win in this scenario over a spreadsheet. FULL DISCLAIMER: I work for Kashoo, a simple cloud accounting product designed for small businesses. But the points I mention above are true for Xero, QuickBooks Online and Wave as well as Kashoo. And if you really want expertise to go with the actual software consider service providers with a platform like: Indinero, Bench, easyrecordbooks or Liberty Accounting.\\\"\",\n \"Systems to research that may help you out: Less Accounting and Wave are great because they can import data from banks / credit cards. I know you said your bank doesn't export it but it seems like something as a small business you would want.\",\n \"I like Quicken for personal use, and they have a small business edition if you don't want to move into QuickBooks.\",\n \"\\\"Xero and WaveAccounting can make things easy, but they also have their limitations. I've used both for short periods of time but found both of them to be lacking. While the \\\"\\\"ease\\\"\\\" is appealing, the ability to drill into the details and get good reports is the downfall of both of these accounting systems. QuickBooks may seem like the easy answer here, but it really is the best for getting the power you want without getting too complicated.\\\"\",\n \"Business bookkeeping services helps small businesses in all aspect of managing their accounts and financial data within the accounting software. We have expertise in following accounting software QuickBooks, MYOB, and Peachtree. We have also used other small business accounting software like Great plain, Simply Accounting, etc. Using this software we can produce various reports, graphs, and other analysis documents to help you in your bookkeeping tasks.\",\n \"In my opinion, every person, regardless of his or her situation, should be keeping track of their personal finances. In addition, I believe that everyone, regardless of their situation, should have some sort of budget/spending plan. For many people, it is tempting to ignore the details of their finances and not worry about it. After all, the bank knows how much money I have, right? I get a statement from them each month that shows what I have spent, and I can always go to the bank's website and find out how much money I have, right? Unfortunately, this type of thinking can lead to several different problems. Overspending. In olden days, it was difficult to spend more money than you had. Most purchases were made in cash, so if your wallet had cash in it, you could spend it, and when your wallet was empty, you were required to stop spending. In this age of credit and electronic transactions, this is no longer the case. It is extremely easy to spend money that you don't yet have, and find yourself in debt. Debt, of course, leads to interest charges and future burdens. Unpreparedness for the future. Without a plan, it is difficult to know if you have saved up enough for large future expenses. Will you have enough money to pay the water bill that only shows up once every three months or the property tax bill that only shows up once a year? Will you have enough money to pay to fix your car when it breaks? Will you have enough money to replace your car when it is time? How about helping out your kids with college tuition, or funding your retirement? Without a plan, all of these are very difficult to manage without proper accounting. Anxiety. Not having a clear picture of your finances can lead to anxiety. This can happen whether or not you are actually overspending, and whether or not you have enough saved up to cover future expenses, because you simply don't know if you have adequately covered your situation or not. Making a plan and doing the accounting necessary to ensure you are following your plan can take the worry out of your finances. Fear of spending. There was an interesting question from a user last year who was not at all in trouble with his finances, yet was always afraid to spend any money, because he didn't have a budget/spending plan in place. If you spend money on a vacation, are you putting your property tax bill in jeopardy? With a good budget in place, you can know for sure whether or not you will have enough money to pay your future expenses and can spend on something else today. This can all be done with or without the aid of software, but like many things, a computer makes the job easier. A good personal finance program will do two things: Keeps track of your spending and balances, apart from your bank. The bank can only show you things that have cleared the bank. If you set up future payments (outside of the bank), or you write a check that has not been cashed yet, or you spend money on a credit card and have not paid the bill yet, these will not be reflected in your bank balance online. However, if you manually enter these things into your own personal finance program, you can see how much money you actually have available to spend. Lets you plan for future spending. The spending plan, or budget, lets you assign a job to every dollar that you own. By doing this, you won't spend rent money at the bar, and you won't spend the car insurance money on a vacation. I've written before about the details on how some of these software packages work. To answer your question about double-entry accounting: Some software packages do use true double-entry accounting (GnuCash, Ledger) and some do not (YNAB, EveryDollar, Mvelopes). In my opinion, double-entry accounting is an unnecessary complication for personal finances. If you don't already know what double-entry accounting is, stick with one of the simpler solutions.\",\n \"You can try Wave Accounting. Its a free software for Small Business and web-based. http://waveaccounting.com/\",\n \"So there are a lot of people that get into trouble in your type of self employment situation. This is what I do, and I use google drive so there are no cost for tools. However, having an accounting system is better. Getting in trouble with the IRS really sucks bad.\",\n \"Honing in on your last question: Is there a better way? I think there is, but it would require you to change the way you handle your spending, and that may not be of interest to you. Right now you have a lot of manual work, keeping track of expenditures and then entering the, every day. The great thing about switching to a habit where you pay for everything using a debit or credit card is that you can skip the manual entry by importing your transactions from your bank. You mention that your bank doesn't allow for exporting. There's still a chance that your bank can connect with a solution like Wave Accounting (http://www.waveaccouting.com), which is free and made for small business accounting. (Full disclosure: I represent Wave.) If your current bank doesn't permit export or connections with Wave, it may be worth switching to a different bank. It's a bit of a pain to make the switch, I know, but you really will save a massive amount of time and effort over the course of the year, as well as minimize the risk of human error, compared to entering your receipts on a daily basis. In Wave, you can still enter all of your cash receipts manually if you want to continue with your current practice of cash payments. One important thing to mention, too: If you're looking for a better way of doing things, make sure it includes proper backup. There would be nothing worse than entering all that data onto a spreadsheet and then something happening to your computer and you lose it all. Wave Accounting is backed up hourly and uses bank-level security to keep your information safe. One last thing: as I mention above, Wave Accounting is free. So if it is a good match for your small business accounting needs, it will also be a nice fit for your wallet.\",\n \"A desktop application that has the same features (although as already stated, nothing will be identical but if you are looking for functionality then certainly there will be) and pretty simple to use was Microsoft Money, however, Microsoft stopped supporting it with newer versions and while the existing versions will work, I still use mine, there will be no future updates. I like the interface, its simple to use and has all the features you want. They abandoned it in favor of Intuit's Quicken but personally I am not a fan of the Quicken interface. They still had a more extensive and probably too much for the average user application called Office Accounting, but they abandoned future updates and supports on that in favor of Intuit's Quickbooks. Again, I am not a fan of the interface but they are very feature rich including invoicing and payroll, again overkill for the average user. They still have the Small Business Accounting in the form of Microsoft Dynamics, but that is utterly overkill for personal use. I generally don't trust online or cloud based accounting solutions like Mint or even Quicken online because I don't trust my information security to some third party without knowing how they are securing it and what will happen to me if/when they are leaked due to breach. So I like to keep everything local to myself and that's a good move for you, you should do that. It seems at the moment the market standard without much competition is Quicken for personal use and Quickbooks for small business. I would recommend you start with Quicken and if your needs increase in the future, you can easily transfer into Quickbooks to scale up as they are fully compatible with each other. Check it out here and compare their products to see what works best for your needs.\",\n \"It never hurts to get professional help when you're starting something new. It would be best to do it right the first time with the help of an accountant because tax laws and business structures can become complex. According to Xero, here are some reasons why you should hire an accountant when starting a small business: Congrats on starting your own business, it's no small feat. Although Quickbooks definitely can make your life easier, having a CPA to help out along the way wouldn't hurt so that you can learn about the accounting side of a business.\",\n \"The company I work with uses Intuit QuickBooks Online and have had zero problems with it. The functionality is effective and it fits the size of our company as well. (Not huge, but I wouldn't consider it a 'small business') Also, you can try a 30 day free trial. QuickBooks Simple Start focuses on small business accounting, so for this reason it has a cleaner interface and is simple to use. QuickBooks Simple Start compared to Quicken Home This article doesn't exactly have a bright light shining on Quickbooks, but I think it's fair to show you other alternatives: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382514,00.asp [Note that it is from 2011]\",\n \"Not sure you are going to find anything like this in Excel - with the automatic lookup in specific. Microsoft has a template available; but it looks to be a pretty busy page. Why not look at other software? If you have a PC, Quicken and Microsoft Money are of course the big guns. You don't mention why you switched away from MS Money... There are many other packages as well. The one that I use (but have no other financial interest in) is Moneydance as it was the best on Mac at the time I was looking. It also runs on Windows and Linux.\",\n \"\\\"It comes down to the resolution you want to have on your personal finances. A package like GNUCash allows you to easily answer questions like \\\"\\\"Exactly how much do I spend on interest per month/year/decade.\\\"\\\" Same with pretty much any other expense, liability or asset you have whether it be taxes, utilities, your home equity or your net worth. The other tools you mention are nice, and certainly convenient, but they tend to lump things together in broad strokes and omit many categories altogether (taxes). Ultimately by having such a fine grained accounting tool, you can target small or large things to better budget your money. Another thing a package like GNUCash provides is a single, private place to consolidate all of your finances. This is nice for things like net worth and asset accounts that you might not want to give a company access to. Finally, GNUcash in particular helps normal people think like accountants. Rather than lump everything into 'income' and 'expenses', once you start using GNUCash you'll start thinking in terms of equity, liabilities, net-worth and assets in addition to income and expenses. This gives me a much more accurate view of my finances and helps me better target areas for improvement. In short, it helps me to see the broader picture which helps me to keep my eye on the prize - which of course is to not have to worry about money at all.\\\"\",\n \"I use QuickBooks online... It's really the best out there for the price, just make sure to never upgrade to an edition you aren't 100% sure you need or you're forever stuck essentially. That's the mess I'm in right now. Paying $20 more than necessary a month, but it's still cheaper than switching to, say, xero. The starter edition of QuickBooks online is a lot more powerful than the equivalent plans anywhere else for the price.\",\n \"I type the whole fucking thing out myself. All financial statements. I've been trying to figure out a way to make it so I can just have it set up for me so I just have to type numbers in but every company uses different wording and has different accounts for each statement so you're going to have to add and subtract accounts. It'll still be time consuming.\",\n \"Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_accounting_software, in particular the rows with a market focus of 'personal'. This is probably one of the more complete lists available, and shows if they are web-based (like Mint) or standalone (like Quicken or Microsoft Money).\",\n \"Egg. Haven't used it personally. I can do a lot with excel itself, but that is a personal choice. Sometime ago Kublax existed but I read somewhere it went bust.\",\n \"I wouldn't say 90% but it is a lot. Oracle Financials is also quite big. Excel is used for reporting. To give you an idea of how one big organisation does it, the balance sheet is SAP. Transactions are done with Oracle, the two are reconciled and reported via Excel.\",\n \"\\\"I am perfectly qualified to not use an accountant. I am a business professor, and my work crosses over into accounting quite a bit. I would certainly find a CPA that is reputable and hire them for advice before starting. I know a physicist who didn't do that and found they ended up with $78,000 in fines. There are a number of specific things an accountant might provide that Quickbooks will not. First and foremost, they are an outsider's set of eyes. If they are good, they will find a polite way to say \\\"\\\"you want to do what?!?!?!\\\"\\\" If they are good, they won't fall out of their chair, their jaw won't drop to the floor, and they won't giggle until they get home. A good accountant has seen around a hundred successful and unsuccessful businesses. They have seen everything you may have thought of. Intelligence is learning from your own mistakes, wisdom is learning from the mistakes of others. Accountants are the repositories of wisdom. An accountant can point out weaknesses in your plan and help you shore it up. They can provide information about the local market that you may not be aware of. They can assist you with understanding the long run consequences of the legal form that you choose. They can assist you in understanding the trade-offs of different funding models. They can also do tasks that you are not talented at and which will take a lot of time if you do it, and little time if they do it. There is a reason that accountants are required to have 160 semester hours to sit for the CPA. They also have to have a few thousand field hours before they can sit for it as well. There is one thing you may want to keep in mind though. An accountant will often do what you ask them to do, so think about what you want before you visit the accountant. Also, remember to ask the question \\\"\\\"is there a question I should have asked but didn't?\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"Intuit Quicken. Pros: Cons:\",\n \"\\\"I really wish someone would release a similar product to quickbooks, its so SLOW and clunky. Its my number 1 question from my small business IT clients... \\\"\\\"is there anything out there besides quickbooks?\\\"\\\" I hear freshbooks is good, but everyone is so ingrained in the quickbooks way of doing things it would be a strugle to switch people to a different product.\\\"\",\n \"I use GNUCash. It's a bit more like Quickbooks than plain Quicken, but it's not all that complicated. Probably the most difficult part is understanding the idea of income accounts. Benefits: For short term planning, I use scheduled transactions. If I'm spending more than I have, it'll show up here. Every paycheck and dollar spent or invested is recorded with the exact date I anticipate it will happen, 30 days in advance. If that would overdraw my checking account, the Future Minimum Balance field will go negative and red. This lets me move float to higher interest savings and retirement funds, and avoids overdraft fees or other mishaps. By looking 30 days ahead in detail, I have enough time to transfer from illiquid assets. For longer term planning, I keep a spreadsheet around that plans out annual expenses. If I'm spending more than I earn, it shows up here. I estimate everything: expenses, savings, taxes, and income. I need this because I have a lot of expenses that are far less frequent than monthly or paycheck-ly. The beauty of it is that once I've got it in place, I can duplicate the sheet and consider tweaks for say taking a new job or moving, or even just changing an insurance plan (probably less relevant for those with access to NHS). Especially when moving to take a new job, it's not as straightforward as comparing salaries, and thus having a document for the status quo to start from lets you focus on the parts that changed.\",\n \"\\\"As your financial situation becomes more complex, it becomes increasingly more difficult to keep track of everything with a simple spreadsheet. It is much easier to work with software that is specifically designed for personal finances. A good program will allow you to keep track of as many accounts as you want. A great program will completely separate the different account balances (location of the money) from the budget category balances (purpose of the money). Let me explain: When you set up the software, you will enter in all of your different bank accounts with their balances. Perhaps you have three savings accounts and two checking accounts. It doesn't matter. When you are done entering those, the software will total them up, and the next job you have is assigning this money into different budget categories: your spending plan. For example, you might put some of it into a grocery category, some into an entertainment category, some will be assigned to pay your next car insurance bill, and some will be an emergency fund. (These categories are completely customizable, and your budget can be as broad or as detailed as you wish.) When you deposit your paycheck, you assign that new income into budget categories as well. It doesn't matter at this point which accounts your money are located in; the only thing that matters is that you own this money and you have access to it. Now, you might want to use a certain account for a certain budget category, but you are not required to do so. (For example, your grocery category money will probably be in your checking account, since you will be spending from it regularly. Your emergency fund will hopefully be in an account that earns a little higher interest.) Once you take this approach, you might find you don't need as many bank accounts as you thought you did, because the software does the job of separating your money into different \\\"\\\"accounts\\\"\\\" for different purposes. I've written before about the different categories of personal finance software. YNAB, Mvelopes, and EveryDollar are three examples of software that will take this approach of separating the concepts of the bank account and the budget category.\\\"\",\n \"Excel Pros: Cons:\",\n \"Quicken has tools for this, but they have some quirks so i hesitate to actually recommend it on that basis.\",\n \"I haven't used it in years, but look at GnuCash. From the site, one bullet point under Feature Highlights:\",\n \"Best Linux software is PostBooks. It is full double entry, but there is definitely a learning curve. For platform-agnostic, my favorite is Xero, which is web-based. It is full double entry balance sheet, the bank reconciliation is a pleasure to use, and they are coming out with a US version this summer. Easy to use and does everything I need.\",\n \"Good tax people are expensive. If you are comfortable with numbers and computers, you can do it better yourself.\",\n \"Given your needs, GNUcash will do swimmingly. I've used it for the past 3 years and while it's a gradual learning process, it's been able to resolve most stuff I've thrown at it. Schedule bills and deposits in the calendar view so I can keep an eye on cash flow. GNUcash has scheduled payments and receipts and reconcilation, should you need them. I prefer to keep enough float to cover monthly expenses in accounts rather than monitor potential shortfalls. Track all my stock and mutual fund investments across numerous accounts. It pulls stock, mutual and bond quotes from lots of places, domestic and foreign. It can also pull transaction data from your brokers, if they support that. I manually enter all my transactions so I can keep control of them. I just reconcile what I entered into Quicken based on the statements sent to me. I do not use Quicken's bill pay There's a reconciliation mode, but I don't use it personally. The purpose of reconcilation is less about catching bank errors and more about agreeing on the truth so that you don't incur bank fees. When I was doing this by hand I found I had a terrible data entry error rate, but on the other hand, the bayesian importer likes to mark gasoline purchases from the local grocery store as groceries rather than gas. I categorize all my expenditures for help come tax time. GNUcash has accounts, and you can mark expense accounts as tax related. It also generates certain tax forms for you if you need that. Not sure what all you're categorizing that's helpful at tax time though. I use numerous reports including. Net Worth tracking, Cash not is retirement funds and total retirement savings. Tons of reports, and the newest version supports SQL backends if you prefer that vs their reports.\",\n \"\\\"Split transactions are indispensable to anybody interested in accurately tracking their spending. If I go to the big-box pharmacy down the road to pick up a prescription and then also grab a loaf of bread and a jug of milk while there, then I'd want to enter the transaction into my software as: I desire entering precise data into the software so that I can rely on the reports it produces. Often, I don't need an exact amount and estimated category totals would have been fine, e.g. to inform budgeting, or compare to a prior period. However, in other cases, the expenses I'm tracking must be tracked accurately because I'd be using the total to claim an income tax deduction (or credit). Consider how Internet access might be commingled on the same bill with the home's cable TV service. One is a reasonable business expense and deduction for the work-at-home web developer, whereas the other is a personal non-deductible expense. Were split transaction capability not available, the somewhat unattractive alternatives are: Ignore the category difference and, say, categorize the entire transaction as the larger or more important category. But, this deliberately introduces error in the tracked data, rendering it useless for cases where the category totals need to be accurate, or, Split the transaction manually. This doesn't introduce error into the tracked data, but suffers another problem: It makes a lot of work. First, one would need to manually enter two (or more) top-level transactions instead of the single one with sub-amounts. Perhaps not that much more work than if a split were entered. Worse is when it comes time to reconcile: Now there are two (or more) transactions in the register, but the credit card statement has only one. Reconciling would require manually adding up those transactions from the register just to confirm the amount on the statement is correct. Major pain! I'd place split transaction capability near the top of the list of \\\"\\\"must have\\\"\\\" features for any finance management software.\\\"\",\n \"Account statements and the account information provided by your personal finance software should be coming from the same source, namely your bank's internal accounting records. So in theory one is just as good as the other. That being said, an account statement is a snapshot of your account on the date the statement was created, while synchronizations with your personal finance application is dynamically generated upon request (usually once a day or upon login). So what are the implications of this? Your account statement will not show transactions that may have taken place during that period but weren't posted until after the period ended (common with credit card transactions and checks). Instead they'd appear on the next statement. Because electronic account synchronizations are more frequent and not limited to a specific time period those transactions will show up shortly after they are posted. So it is far easier to keep track of your accounts electronically. Every personal finance software I've ever used supports manual entries so what I like to do is on a daily basis I manually enter any transaction which wasn't posted automatically. This usually only takes a few minutes each evening. Then when the transaction eventually shows up it's usually reconciled with my manually entered one automatically. Aside from finding (infrequent) bank errors this has the benefit of keeping me aware of how much I'm spending and how much I have left. I've also caught a number of cashier errors this way (noticing I was double-charged for an item while entering the receipt total) and its the best defense against fraud and identity theft I can think of. If you're looking at your accounts on a daily basis you're far more likely to notice an unusual transaction than any monitoring service.\",\n \"You can absolutely query multiple data points into a unified interface with Gsuites. Not to mention create in-depth dashboards that feed from centralized raw data (coming from multiple channels) and pushes it to charts/forms. The hotkeys are limited, continuously improving with other functionalities, but excel can certainly maintain more data. Probably one of my biggest painpoints with using Gsheets. Excel and PowerPoint produce cleaner and more manipulative charts, but overall, the fundamentals are there if you take the time to digest the differences.\",\n \"If you want to keep any consistent standard, you need to knuckle down and make those transaction entries. Honestly, this is a lot faster doing in bulk than doing day-by-day. But change how you account so it isn't annoying. I minimize my bookable transactions. For instance I deposit all income whole (for tracking) but stop tracking when the money is converted to cash or gift card money - I log adding $50 to a McDonalds gift card, but not the individual meals. I only use cash for the myriad small things I do not want to track - fast food, parking meters, etc. Anything big or that I want to track goes on a credit card. Then it's easy to reconcile credit cards to accounting system. (Cathy) Ryan's Law: if it wasn't written down, it didn't happen.\",\n \"often financial software is dire, with crappy interfaces and poorly integrated to the wider company. I have an ambition one day to create a modern human centred financial software that is focused on the task at hand rather than forcing the user to jump through unnecessary hoops. Also Excel should be banned for many reasons.\",\n \"I use GnuCash which I really like. However, I've never used any other personal finance software so I can't really compare. Before GnuCash, I used an Excel spreadsheet which works fine for very basic finances. Pros Cons\",\n \"If you're good with numbers and understand basic principles of accounting, I suggest using GnuCash - free and open-source accounting software which will provide for all your needs and more. If you're not so comfortable with self-service, many tax preparers also provide bookkeeping services. It can cost somewhere from $50/hour, and you should shop around and also look for references. The bookkeeper doesn't have to be the one to do your taxes, but it will probably make it easier on you to have the same person do all of it.\",\n \"Lots of business do work and buy products for their customers then invoice them later think of landscapers or IT professionals. They keep track of the work and products on post-its they stick on their desks. Need further help, contact QuickBooks Support team by visit our site - https://www.wizxpert.com/quickbooks-support-help-phone-number/\",\n \"In general spreadsheets can do all of what you ask. Have a try of some online training like these to get started.\",\n \"It's been a long time since I've used MS Money and/or Quickbooks (never Quicken), but I've used GnuCash over the past year or so. It works, but it does suffer from some usability problems. Some of the UI is clunky. Data entry sequences are a little harder than they should be. Reports could be a little prettier. But overall it does work, and it's the best I've found on linux. (I would definitely appreciate pointers to something better.)\",\n \"I did my own taxes previously using both H&R Block Tax Cut and TurboTax. When I had a simple return and was single, it worked great. Once I got married it was a little more complicated. When I started a small side business, I switched to an accountant. He does a great job of adjusting deductions between my wife and I and filing separately. This minimizes the amount of taxes we have to pay. It has been a few years since I used the software, but I did not see the ability to easily make adjustments like that.\",\n \"\\\"The official guide can be found here, but that can be a little in depth as well. To make good use of you need at least a little knowledge of double-entry bookkeeping. Double-entry bookkeeping, in accounting, is a system of bookkeeping so named because every entry to an account requires a corresponding and opposite entry to a different account. From Wikipedia Another way to think of it is that everything is an account. You'll need to set up accounts for lots of things that aren't accounts at your bank to make the double-entry system work. For example you'll need to set up various expense accounts like \\\"\\\"office supplies\\\"\\\" even though you'll never have a bank account by that name. Generally an imbalanced transfer is when you have a from or to account specified, but not both. If I have imbalanced transactions I usually work them from the imbalance \\\"\\\"account\\\"\\\", and work each transaction to have its appropriate tying account, at which point it will no longer be listed under imbalance.\\\"\",\n \"In this blog, i will share some important things about QuickBooks Online. In this busy life, Every businessman has limited time. So with the help of QuickBooks Online he/she has to keep a track record of their sales and expenses. For more - https://www.wizxpert.com/quickbooks-online-support/\",\n \"I started my business about 4 years ago. I heard bad things about Quickbooks for Mac so I steered clear. I used an open source program called GnuCash and it does a good job. It's free and fairly easy to set up.\",\n \"I have not used Quicken; I've used GnuCash exclusively. It feels a bit rough with the UI: Balancing that, the data is stored in a gzip-compressed xml file. The compression is also optional, so you can save it as a plain xml file. This means that you have some hope of recovery if you wind up with a corrupted file. (And for programmer-types, you could keep it in source control for additional peace of mind.) My wife and I have been using it for several years now, and has worked well for us. LWN.net had a pair of Grumpy Editor reviews on personal finance software here and here which would be worth reading.\",\n \"\\\"Note: Specific to UK. I can't recommend anything higher than Crunch - they act as your accountant and have their own cloud accounting software, so it's more expensive than just using cloud accounting software, but if you use an accountant to do your year-end anyway, then they cost about the same as using cloud accounting software plus using an accountant to do your year-end. The thing I like (as a software development contractor) is that I don't have to know or worry about different ledger accounts, or journal entries, or any of the other weird accounting things, etc. Most cloud accounting software claim to simplify accounting \\\"\\\"so that you can concentrate on running your business\\\"\\\" whereas the reality is that you still have to spend ages learning how to be an accountant just to fill it in correctly. With Crunch that's actually true, it does actually make it simple. I've used Crunch, Sage, and Xero, so my sample-set isn't very big - just thought I'd share my experiences. If you value your time and get annoyed by having to create multiple internal transfers between different ledgers just to do something simple, it's for you. This probably sounds like a sales pitch, but I have nothing to do with them and nothing to gain by recommending them. The only reason I'm so passionate is I started a new business to do an online shop and tried to use Crunch, but they don't do retail businesses. Only contractors/freelancers or simple service-based businesses (their software is geared up specifically for that which I guess is why it's more simple than the others). Anyway, so now I'm annoyed at having to use the more complicated ones.\\\"\",\n \"Uh, Quicken is virtually identical to MS Money. If you liked money and don't want to change, use that.\",\n \"I'm not directly affiliated with the company (I work for one of the add-on partners) but I can wholeheartedly recommend Xero for both personal and business finances. Their basis is to make accounting simple and clean, without sacrificing any of the power behind having the figures there in the first place.\",\n \"Muscle memory is hard to abandon. Who spent years developing a model understandably wants to maintain control and automatism. Thus my original question: how and at what conditions you transitioned a team from embedded formulas to a proper separation? In my experience when you demonstrate data has become increasingly erroneous as manual updates progressed. And when lack of collaboration features where perceived with enough pain.\",\n \"A checking account is one that permits the account holder to write demand drafts (checks), which can be given to other people as payment and processed by the banks to transfer those funds. (Think of a check as a non-electronic equivalent of a debit card transaction, if that makes more sense to you.) Outside of the ability to write checks, and the slightly lower interest rate usually offered to trade off against that convenience, there really is no significant difference between savings and checking accounts. The software needs to be designed to handle checking accounts if it's to be sold in the US, since many of us do still use checks for some transactions. Adding support for other currencies doesn't change that. If you don't need the ability to track which checks have or haven't been fully processed, I'd suggest that you either simply ignore the checking account feature, or use this category separation in whatever manner makes sense for the way you want to manage your money.\",\n \"It has a bit of a learning curve, but I like GNU Cash. (And since it open source, it's free!)\",\n \"Looks like this is just for billing mostly. We need inventory management that integrates with our PO's but still be able to add line items for sales that do not come from inventory. We need a system similar to SAP.\",\n \"You should consider Turbocash. It's a mature open-source project, installed locally (thick client).\",\n \"I suggest you to test AlauxSoft Accounts and Budget. This software is a money-like. There is a freeware and a shareware (24 EUR). You will find its at http://www.alauxsoft.com Best regards, Michel ALAUX.\",\n \"hledger is a free software, cross-platform double-entry accounting tool I've been working on for a while. It has command-line and web-based interfaces to your local data, and some other interesting features. There's also ledger (http://wiki.github.com/jwiegley/ledger/) which is command-line only. These are.. different, but worth a look for some folks.\",\n \"\\\"Fair enough. FB extends out quite a bit from its core as billing software, but I don't know if it'd do the kind of inventory management you want. SAP, on the other hand, is as pricey as it is because it's *powerful* and \\\"\\\"enterprise ready\\\"\\\" ... probably way more than you need (or enough rope to hang yourself with, as they say). I wonder if the best solution might be to hire a competent contractor to fix / upgrade whatever your current system is lacking. I still recommend taking FreshBooks for a test run; it might just do the trick for you. Care to elaborate on why you're looking to replace the 10-year-old custom solution you've got?\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The real question is what can you NOT do! If you track all your monetary actions, you know everything about your monetary situation. That means you have the tools to ask and answer \\\"\\\"what if\\\"\\\" questions, such as: \\\"\\\"If I get a 10% raise, could I take longer vacations?\\\"\\\" You could calculate how much you spend per day on vacation and then consider the amount of your raise and how much of it you'd need to allocate to vacations to, say, be able to take a two-week vacation instead of a one-week vacation. \\\"\\\"How much more would I have to earn to move to this nicer apartment?\\\"\\\" This may seem like a simple question, but a surprising number of people can't answer it in a reliable way, because they don't have a clear understanding of how much money they make and how much of it they can afford to spend on housing. If you find you have lots of spare income, maybe you can move to the nicer place right away; if not, at least you can get a sense of how much more money you'd need to make it happen. \\\"\\\"If I started taking the bus to work, how much would I save?\\\"\\\" You can look at how much you spend on gas and compare that to the price of a bus pass. By separating out categories like gas, repairs, and car insurance, you can also calculate different scenarios, like if you still kept your car but only used it for occasional trips, versus if you sold the car and used only public transportation. \\\"\\\"If I want to take a trip to Tahiti, what can I cut back on to save the money?\\\"\\\" Using your table you can pencil out scenarios like \\\"\\\"Suppose I stop eating out for lunch at work and just bring my lunch, how long would I have to do that to save enough to pay for a plane ticket?\\\"\\\" These are just a few random examples. The general idea is that with a record of hard numbers, you can start to consider potential tradeoffs in an objective way --- that is, you can ask \\\"\\\"how much in category X would I have to give up to gain this thing I want in category Y?\\\"\\\" The real trick in making use of your data is not so much \\\"\\\"what\\\"\\\" you can do, but \\\"\\\"how\\\"\\\" exactly to do it. You may have to become more of a spreadsheet wizard to really delve into these questions. Also, if you have programming expertise, you can even use something like Python to do calculations that might be laborious in a spreadsheet.\\\"\",\n \"No, as in just coming up start up. I'm sure that's the case but then again there must be some basic software that can make my life easier right? Like accounting softwares, etc that do not depend on the industry the startup is working in. Any?\",\n \"Probably because it's a question of Excel vs Access, not VBA vs SQL. You probably don't need VBA for any of the calcs that the OP mentions. Excel is the one tool everyone uses in Finance. CR and SSRS require tools and permissions that the average guy simply won't have, and a level of expertise that is not useful for most front/middle-office analysis work. I usually see these done in Excel. SSRS and CR seem like way overkill for something done trivially and transparently in Excel, whose presentation will change frequently anyway. Depending on what OP is talking about, analysis is not reporting, and flexibility and transparency usually win. Especially when you want to poke around the underlying data and iterate with other people. SSRS and CR only make sense when you know what you're looking for, that the data is appropriate for it and you don't expect it to change.\",\n \"I would investigate mint.com further. Plenty of people have written off using them because Intuit purchased them, but that seems like cutting of your nose to spite your face. I think mint.com is worth it for its Trends functionality alone, not to mention its automatic categorization of your purchases, reminders when bills are due, notifications of increased credit card interest rates, and overdraft notices. I don't think mint.com schedules bills & deposits, but it tracks stocks & mutual fund investments and compares your portfolio returns against Dow Jones, S&P 500, or NASDAQ if you wish. I'm not sure I see the advantage of manual transaction entry, but you can add cash or check transactions manually. As I mentioned earlier, automated categorization is a great feature. In addition, you can tag certain transactions as reimbursable or tax-related. If the primary feature you're interested in is stock quotes, maybe something like Yahoo Finance or Google Finance will be enough.\",\n \"\\\"For anyone that's curious, I had a number of chats with Quickbooks who recommended I import only the relevant business transactions from my personal account & personal credit card in order to lower the tax liability. This way money \\\"\\\"paid\\\"\\\" from the business account to myself rightly shows up as a transfer and not as income. This means when generating a tax report, it calculates the correct rate of tax to be paid based on income minus allowable expenses, regardless which account they came from.\\\"\",\n \"Thanks for helping me gauge my expectations for this project. The more advanced stuff may require an exception then. I guess they are looking to knock off the casual Excel users while making exceptions for the more advanced Corporate Finance/Financial Reporting team. Thanks for your input though, can I ask you what your organization does and what areas you did have success in transitioning to GSuite?\",\n \"I second the vote for GnuCash. It runs on Linux, Windows, and Mac. It is double-entry accounting, so there is a little bit of a learning curve, but it sounds like you should probably have something a little more powerful than Mint for your situation.\",\n \"I would suggest opening a new account (credit card and bank) for just your business. This protects you in multiple ways, but is no bigger burden for you other than carrying another card in your wallet. Then QB can download the transactions from your website and reconciling is a cinch. If you got audited, you'd be in for a world of pain right now. From personal experience there are a few charges that go unnoticed that reconciling finds every month at our business. We have a very strict process in place, but some things slip through the cracks.\",\n \"This is a retarded statement. Excel was never meant to be used for gigantic complex models based on large data sets but it's still incredibly valuable. I've been using it for 20 years in my career and when it comes to building quick and dirty analyses and forecasting models I will run circles around anybody trying to use R or Python.\",\n \"\\\"One easy way to monitor costs in QuickBooks is to establish sub-bank accounts. For example, you may have an asset account called \\\"\\\"State Bank\\\"\\\" numbered 11100 (asset, cash and cash equivalents, bank). Convert this to a parent account for a middle school by making subaccounts such as At budget formation, transfer $800 from Operations 11110 to Family Fun Committee 11130. Then write all checks for Family Fun from the Family Fun 11130 subaccount. For fundraising, transfer $0 at budget formation to the X Grade accounts. Do deposit all grade-level receipts into the appropriate grade-level subaccounts and write all checks for the grades from the grade-level subaccounts. The downside to the above is that reconciling the check book each month is slightly more complicated because you will be reconciling one monthly paper bank statement to multiple virtual subaccounts. Also, you must remember to never write a check from the parent \\\"\\\"State Bank\\\"\\\" 11100, and instead write the checks from the appropriate subaccounts.\\\"\",\n \"I wrote a small Excel-based bookkeeping system that handles three things: income, expenses, and tax (including VAT, which you Americans can rename GST). Download it here.\",\n \"Like most software it's about what you put in to them. We use ProSeries software which is like TurboTax but $4500 with no questions. I would do your taxes on online and then have a professional do them. You then can ask any questions you may have to better understanding of what's going on. Only take copies of your documents because some unprofessional places will try to keep them. Do this each time something big changes in your life, you have a baby, buy a house or start a business. May cost more but could save you thousands in the long run. I have been doing taxes professionally for 7 years.\",\n \"Mint.com does a pretty good job at this, for a free service, but it's mostly for personal finance. It looks at all of your transactions and tries to categorize them, and also allows you to create your own categories and filters. For example, when I started using it, it imported the last three months of my transactions and detected all of my 'coffee house' transactions. This is how I learned that I was spending about $90 a month going to Starbucks, rather than the $30 I had estimated. I know it's not a 'system' like an accounting outfit might use, but most accounting offices I've worked with have had their own home-brewed system.\",\n \"I switched from Quicken for Mac to Moneydance, and have not regretted it. I see only one weakness in MD compared with Quicken: its reporting is not very good. Your information is all there and well organized, but sometimes it's hard work to extract it in a convenient form. Of course a lot depends on what you need from the application, but I strongly recommend you take a look at MD before deciding.\",\n \"\\\"I think the \\\"\\\"right\\\"\\\" way to approach this is for your personal books and your business's books to be completely separate. You would need to really think of them as separate things, such that rather than being disappointed that there's no \\\"\\\"cross transactions\\\"\\\" between files, you think of it as \\\"\\\"In my personal account I invested in a new business like any other investment\\\"\\\" with a transfer from your personal account to a Stock or other investment account in your company, and \\\"\\\"This business received some additional capital\\\"\\\" which one handles with a transfer (probably from Equity) to its checking account or the like. Yes, you don't get the built-in checks that you entered the same dollar amount in each, but (1) you need to reconcile your books against reality anyway occasionally, so errors should get caught, and (2) the transactions really are separate things from each entity's perspective. The main way to \\\"\\\"hack it\\\"\\\" would be to have separate top-level placeholder accounts for the business's Equity, Income, Expenses, and Assets/Liabilities. That is, your top-level accounts would be \\\"\\\"Personal Equity\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"Business Equity\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"Personal Income\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"Business Income\\\"\\\", and so on. You can combine Assets and Liabilities within a single top-level account if you want, which may help you with that \\\"\\\"outlook of my business value\\\"\\\" you're looking for. (In fact, in my personal books, I have in the \\\"\\\"Current Assets\\\"\\\" account both normal things like my Checking account, but also my credit cards, because once I spend the money on my credit card I want to think of the money as being gone, since it is. Obviously this isn't \\\"\\\"standard accounting\\\"\\\" in any way, but it works well for what I use it for.) You could also just have within each \\\"\\\"normal\\\"\\\" top-level placeholder account, a placeholder account for both \\\"\\\"Personal\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"My Business\\\"\\\", to at least have a consistent structure. Depending on how your business is getting taxed in your jurisdiction, this may even be closer to how your taxing authorities treat things (if, for instance, the business income all goes on your personal tax return, but on a separate form). Regardless of how you set up the accounts, you can then create reports and filter them to include just that set of business accounts. I can see how just looking at the account list and transaction registers can be useful for many things, but the reporting does let you look at everything you need and handles much better when you want to look through a filter to just part of your financial picture. Once you set up the reporting (and you can report on lists of account balances, as well as transaction lists, and lots of other things), you can save them as Custom Reports, and then open them up whenever you want. You can even just leave a report tab (or several) open, and switch to it (refreshing it if needed) just like you might switch to the main Account List tab. I suspect once you got it set up and tried it for a while you'd find it quite satisfactory.\\\"\",\n \"Mint.com is a fantastic free personal finance software that can assist you with managing your money, planning budgets and setting financial goals. I've found the features to be more than adequate with keeping me informed of my financial situation. The advantage with Mint over Microsoft Money is that all of your debit/credit transactions are automatically imported and categorized (imperfectly but good enough). Mint is capable of handling bank accounts, credit card accounts, loans, and assets (such as cars, houses, etc). The downsides are:\",\n \"QuickBooks online is one of the best accounting solution choice for small business owners. So here you find how to convert QB Desktop to QB Online. IF you need more detail and help related to this visit our page- https://www.wizxpert.com/convert-your-quickbooks-desktop-file-to-quickbooks-online/\",\n \"Second time this has come up this week, but I'd recommend spending a bit of time test-driving [FreshBooks](http://www.freshbooks.com). It might take a bit of time to set up the way you want to use it, but you should be able to figure out whether it'll meet your needs with about 3 or 4 hours of focused testing. Their support people are awesome, too: they can help you figure out which way's up, and I can tell you from experience: they like having happy customers, so they won't try to sell you something that's not really a good fit for your business.\",\n \"For double entry bookkeeping, personal or small business, GnuCash is very good. Exists for Mac Os.\",\n \"For academic stuff, SAS and Stata are amazingly better at cleaning and processing huge amounts of data. I love excel and it can certainly do some very amazing things, but at some point you just need a full on statistical software totally driven by its own programming language. That software is pretty cheap for academics, but corporate licenses are usually insanely more expensive. Otherwise I program everything in Python.\",\n \"\\\"> excel Ok, my point still stands. Are we going to make rules around excels? Its heavy \\\"\\\"abuse\\\"\\\" takes jobs away. Let me make this clear, you are not entitle to be paid for something that someone else can do for fraction of cost. If you think your time is worth more, then you should have no problem convincing employer of just that.\\\"\",\n \"I use http://moneydance.com/ it has Mac, Windows and Linux versions and works well for my needs.\",\n \"You would be surprised how amazed people are when you can quickly make a pivot table and summarize their data in 15 seconds. Same reaction with vlookup. Also VBA is somewhat clunky but can be used effectively to automate repetitive Excel tasks or for creating formulas, loops, etc. that would be difficult to produce in Excel cells. These sort of Excel tricks are good to know and utilize because the majority of people do not understand/want to understand so you would be in a good position to help\",\n \"I have used Quicken for over 10 years. It has always provided the information I needed and I have always received good support from Intuit.\",\n \"\\\"Quicken. I am in the same situation. I've tried mint.com and switched back to Quicken because i want to know how much money i'll have in my accounts in 2 weeks, 4 weeks, etc. I have to admit though, quicken is getting worse and worse every year. Can't really say i \\\"\\\"recommend\\\"\\\" it.\\\"\",\n \"Every customer's circumstance is checked on consistently to guarantee top notch control. Amid business hours, one of our Account Associates is accessible for conference and aptitude. Instead of acquiring the cost of a full-time bookkeeper you pay just when you require guidance. Our key favorable position by Miroslav zecevic to our clients is our coordinated business relationship that starts on the principal day a customer joins our firm. Consistently, our experts have worked with businesses of all sizes. Our extensive variety of services and aptitude secures the future development for some businesses over the globe.\",\n \"Frankly, you should probably learn to write code and use a data science package. Pandas lets me do the shit I'd do in excel 10 times quicker with more data and I can generalize it instead of working with just one file. As with most white-collar fields nowadays, writing code or at least understanding how to use it to enhance your productivity is very very attractive.\",\n \"\\\"We're in much the same boat as you. We do make use of the transaction download feature of our software, but we don't let it auto-enter the amounts. We use the downloaded transactions to make entering our receipts easier. We each take responsibility for entering our own transactions, and then I go through and download bills, reconcile statements and such. I'm the numbers person in our house, so it's easier for me to take care of this stuff. We have all of our bills on auto-pay so that we don't have to worry about payments not getting made if we don't have time to get to our banking tasks on time. I try to set aside time on Saturday afternoon while my kids have their \\\"\\\"screen time\\\"\\\", or I'll do it in the evening after the kids are in bed. This year, my wife has been much busier and hasn't had as much time to keep up with her data entry, so we've been doing less well at keeping up with things. Something we're considering (and this might work for you as well) is to use the envelope system for the categories where we're most in danger of over-spending. This way. we would have an easy way to see if we'd overspent a category even if we were behind on our data entry. If you're not familiar with the envelope system, respond here and I'll explain it further.\\\"\",\n \"Perhaps you should use your own tracking software, such as GnuCash, Quicken, Mint, or even Excel. The latter would work given you say you're manually putting in your transactions. There's lots of pre-done spreadsheets for tracking investments if you look around. I'm hoping that a web search gets you help on migrating transaction data, but I've yet to run into any tools to do the export and import beyond a manual effort. Then again, I haven't checked for this lately. Not sure about your other questions, but I'd recommend you edit the question to only contain what you're asking about in the subject.\",\n \"\\\"What you are doing is neither one. You are simply watching to make sure you don't overdraw, which itself suggests you might be living hand to mouth and not saving. Keeping track of your money and budgeting are useful tools which help people get on top of their money. Which tends to have the effect of allowing you to save. How much did you spend on groceries last month? Eating out? Gas? If you were \\\"\\\"keeping track of your money\\\"\\\", you could say immediately what you spent, and whether that is above or below average, and why. How much do you plan to spend in the next 3 months on gas, groceries, eating out? If you knew the answer to that question, then you would have a \\\"\\\"budget\\\"\\\". And if those months go by, and your budget proves to have been accurate, or educates you as to what went wrong so you can learn and fix it... then your budget is a functioning document that is helping you master your money. Certainly the more powerful of the two is the \\\"\\\"keeping track\\\"\\\", or accounting of what has happened to you so far. It's important that you keep track of every penny without letting stuff \\\"\\\"slip through the cracks\\\"\\\". Here you can use proper accounting techniques and maybe accounting software, just like businesses do where they reconcile their accounting against their bank statements and wallet cash. I shortcut that a little. I buy gift cards for McDonalds, Panera, Starbucks, etc. and buy my meals with those. That way, I only have one transaction to log, $40 - McDonalds gift card instead of a dozen little meals. It works perfectly fine since I know all that money went to fast food. A little more dangerous is that I treat wallet cash the same way, logging say two monthly entries of $100 to cash rather than 50 little transactions of left $1 tip at restaurant. This only works because cash is a tiny part of my overall expenditures - not worth accounting. If it added up to a significant part, I'd want accounting on that.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Yes. The simplest option to track your spending over time is to familiarize yourself with the \\\"\\\"Reports\\\"\\\" menu on the toolbar. Take a look specifically at the \\\"\\\"Reports > Income/Expense > Income Statement\\\"\\\" report, which will sum up your income and spending over a time frame (defaults to the current year). In each report that you run, there is an \\\"\\\"Options\\\"\\\" button at the top of the screen. Open that and look on the \\\"\\\"General\\\"\\\" tab, you'll be able to set the time frame that the report displays (if you wanted to set it for the 2 week block since your last paycheck, for example). Other features you're going to want to familiarize yourself with are the Expense charts & statements, the \\\"\\\"Cash Flow\\\"\\\" report, and the \\\"\\\"Budgeting\\\"\\\" interface (which is relatively new), although there is a bit of a learning curve to using this last feature. Most of the good ideas when it comes to tracking your spending are independent of the software you're using, but can be augmented with a good financial tracking program. For example, in our household we have multiple credit cards which we pay in full every month. We selected our cards on specific benefits that they provide, such as one card which has a rotating category for cash back at certain business types. We keep that card set on restaurants and put all of our \\\"\\\"eating out\\\"\\\" expenses on that card. We have other cards for groceries, gas, etc. This makes it easy to see how much we've spent in a given category, and correlates well with the account structure in gnucash.\\\"\",\n \"Certainly sounds worthwhile to get a CPA to help you with setting up the books properly and learning to maintain them, even if you do it yourself thereafter. What's your own time worth?\",\n \"depends entirely on the scope and where your chokepoints are. if its a question of ginormeous amounts of data being stored in your spreadsheet and then extracted/joined with a mess of index match functions, that can quickly run up in size, and can be deftly replaced with a powerquery setup. If it's a computation that requires a few iterative steps or complex nested lookups, but with simple inputs, then a few simply scripted UDFs can lower the complexity (and workload and size) of the workbook. OP also mentions that the workbook is used for the display. If there is a lot of repeated deletion and adding of formats, sometimes workbook size can be seriously affected by these things cluttering up the sheet, and it can be useful to just clear those outs. I'd say it makes sense to move away from workbooks and into something more technical if you the organizational support to do so. If one person sits and codes models in python but none of his colleagues can work on it or fix it, and it's not documented correctly, and there's no support structure, then I'd be cautious of transferring something business critical to that structure, rather than optimizing the solution that people are familiar with and can modify themselves. But if it's a tech-savvy organization that recruits accordingly and has the technical support structures to implement changes and modifications as required by the business, I don't see any problem in using other tools.\",\n \"Instead of gnucash i suggest you to use kmymoney. It's easier\",\n \"Actuit offer accounting services to help you in carry out non key activities of your business. Our accounting and online bookkeeping services not only will reduces your cost but also enables you to focus on more critical functions of your business, like your customers by providing you reliable completed work on time for you to act.\",\n \"That article was terribly generic and ripe with grammatical errors. A quick Google search yields dozens of much more informative articles. Furthermore, this topic has a fringe relation to finance, and would be a better post in a small business, entrepreneur, or accounting subreddit.\",\n \"I am no expert on the situation nor do I pretend to act like one, but, as a business owner, allow me to give you my personal opinion. Option 3 is closest to what you want. Why? Well: This way, you have both the record of everything that was done, and also IRS can see exactly what happened. Another suggestion would be to ask the GnuCash maintainers and community directly. You can have a chat with them on their IRC channel #gnucash, send them an email, maybe find the answer in the documentation or wiki. Popular software apps usually have both support people and a helpful community, so if the above method is in any way inconvenient for you, you can give this one a try. Hope this helps! Robert\",\n \"I don't think you need double-entry bookkeeping. To quote Robert Kiyosaki (roughly): Income is when money enters you pocket, and expenses are when money leaves your pocket. Income is an addition; expenses are subtractions. But if you want double-entry accounting, I'm not qualified to answer that. :)\",\n \"Buxfer is a personal-finance web app which you might like. It's not open-source. But at least none of your complaints about financeworks.intuit.com apply to Buxfer. Buxfer offers a piece of software you can download to your own PC, called Firebux. This macro-recording software provides automation that helps you download statements and upload them to Buxfer. So you never have to give Buxfer any of your bank or brokerage usernames or passwords. Buxfer and Firebux are both free of charge. Wesabe, another personal-finance web app, also used to offer data-uploader software, but Wesabe has now gone out of business.\",\n \"CashBase has a web app, an iPhone app and an Android app, all sync'ed up. It doesn't integrate with banks automatically, but you can import bank statements as CSV. Disclaimer: I'm CashBase's founder.\",\n \"In all honesty, the best solution I've come across is Microsoft's now defunct Money.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"I would say that all of the reasons you list in your question are valid, and I would add the following... You are in the landscaping business, not the accounting business. If you manage everything in spreadsheets, at least one of you has to become the bookkeeper and leave the landscaping to the others. Spreadsheets are \"\"agnostic\"\" in how you use them, so you have to turn them into an accounting system, which means you're now not only more of a bookkeeper, but you're also more of a developer, too, and even less of a landscaper. Accounting software is already developed by developers who understand accounting. Using it requires you to only perform the data entry tasks, and then you can focus on the landscaping, customer service, sales and marketing, etc., things that actually contribute to your business. It is still good for you to understand basic accounting principles. Specialized accounting software will guide you through the process of learning and help you avoid making many of the costly mistakes you might have made in that learning process.\"","I think your reasons are good. Fundamentally accounting software is built to ensure you record your accounting data effectively with minimal mistakes and good auditing. But you still need to use the tool properly to get the benefit. One other advantage is that many accountants are familiar with, say QuickBooks, and can do your accounts more effectively if you use their preferred tool.","I would add to your reasons: Would you mow an entire lawn with a string trimmer just because you can, or would you buy a lawnmower? Use the right tool for the job.","\"Since this is a cooperative I'm guessing your partners may want to be able to view the books so another key point you may want to consider is collaboration. QuickBooks desktop has all of these same issues because it is meant to be used on a single desktop. We're in an age of mobile devices, and especially in a business like landscaping it would be nice if certain aspects of record keeping could be done at the point and time where they are incurred. I'd argue you want a Software as a Service (SaaS) accounting package as opposed to \"\"accounting software\"\" which might come on a CD in the form of QuickBooks, Sage and others. Additionally, most of these will also have guides to help make sure you are properly entering your records. Most of these SaaS products also have customer success teams to help you along should you need assistance. Depending on the level of your subscription you may get more sophisticated handling of taxes, customized invoices or integrated payroll. Your goal is to keep accurate records so you can better run your business and maintain obligations like filing taxes. You're not keeping the records just to have them. Keep them in a place where they will work for you and provide the insights and functionality that will help your business grow and become successful. Accounting software will always win in this scenario over a spreadsheet. FULL DISCLAIMER: I work for Kashoo, a simple cloud accounting product designed for small businesses. But the points I mention above are true for Xero, QuickBooks Online and Wave as well as Kashoo. And if you really want expertise to go with the actual software consider service providers with a platform like: Indinero, Bench, easyrecordbooks or Liberty Accounting.\"","Why use spreadsheets rather than writing your forms and formulas directly in a programming lanuage? Because you've got better things to do than reinvent the wheel, right? Same answer. ===== clarification, since the point apparently wasn't clear: Using a spreadsheet means you're writing and organizing and maintaining the formats and formulas yourself. Essentially, you are writing your own accounting program, using the spreadsheet program as your programming language. Nothing wrong with that, it just means you're doing work to produce something that you could have purchased instead. It's up to you to decide how the value of your time doing that work trades off against the cost of the commercial product. For many people, especially as the bookkeeping becomes more complex, that isn't a good investment of their time. The otherwise billable time it would take them to maintain the spreadsheet is worth more than the cost of buying an off-the-shelf product, and the product offers features that they wouldn't get around to adding to their own solution. Add to that the question of whether people find creating and tweaking spreadsheets rewarding or annoying. The right tool is always the one that lets you focus on what you actually care about, unless the cost is too high to justify it.Most folks care about getting the accounting task done a least cost/least efprt. Buying a solution is least effort; if the real cost including time/effort is also lower, that's the direction they're going to go. I maintained my own accounts, and did my taxes, in spreadsheets for quite some time. These days the time to do so, multiplied by what my time is worth, would exceed the cost of buying tools, and the commercial tools are more pleasant to use, less prone to accidents, and offer featured that I don't need but appreciate. I still use a stylesheet for one small calculation (rebalancing my invedtments) but thst's because I havean odd corner case the built-in tool doesn't handle well...not that it makes any practival difference, but being slightly off annoyed me. Your milage, obviously, will vary. Use the tool that suits your needs; others will do likewise.","Here are the few points: Hope that helps,"],"string":"[\n \"\\\"I would say that all of the reasons you list in your question are valid, and I would add the following... You are in the landscaping business, not the accounting business. If you manage everything in spreadsheets, at least one of you has to become the bookkeeper and leave the landscaping to the others. Spreadsheets are \\\"\\\"agnostic\\\"\\\" in how you use them, so you have to turn them into an accounting system, which means you're now not only more of a bookkeeper, but you're also more of a developer, too, and even less of a landscaper. Accounting software is already developed by developers who understand accounting. Using it requires you to only perform the data entry tasks, and then you can focus on the landscaping, customer service, sales and marketing, etc., things that actually contribute to your business. It is still good for you to understand basic accounting principles. Specialized accounting software will guide you through the process of learning and help you avoid making many of the costly mistakes you might have made in that learning process.\\\"\",\n \"I think your reasons are good. Fundamentally accounting software is built to ensure you record your accounting data effectively with minimal mistakes and good auditing. But you still need to use the tool properly to get the benefit. One other advantage is that many accountants are familiar with, say QuickBooks, and can do your accounts more effectively if you use their preferred tool.\",\n \"I would add to your reasons: Would you mow an entire lawn with a string trimmer just because you can, or would you buy a lawnmower? Use the right tool for the job.\",\n \"\\\"Since this is a cooperative I'm guessing your partners may want to be able to view the books so another key point you may want to consider is collaboration. QuickBooks desktop has all of these same issues because it is meant to be used on a single desktop. We're in an age of mobile devices, and especially in a business like landscaping it would be nice if certain aspects of record keeping could be done at the point and time where they are incurred. I'd argue you want a Software as a Service (SaaS) accounting package as opposed to \\\"\\\"accounting software\\\"\\\" which might come on a CD in the form of QuickBooks, Sage and others. Additionally, most of these will also have guides to help make sure you are properly entering your records. Most of these SaaS products also have customer success teams to help you along should you need assistance. Depending on the level of your subscription you may get more sophisticated handling of taxes, customized invoices or integrated payroll. Your goal is to keep accurate records so you can better run your business and maintain obligations like filing taxes. You're not keeping the records just to have them. Keep them in a place where they will work for you and provide the insights and functionality that will help your business grow and become successful. Accounting software will always win in this scenario over a spreadsheet. FULL DISCLAIMER: I work for Kashoo, a simple cloud accounting product designed for small businesses. But the points I mention above are true for Xero, QuickBooks Online and Wave as well as Kashoo. And if you really want expertise to go with the actual software consider service providers with a platform like: Indinero, Bench, easyrecordbooks or Liberty Accounting.\\\"\",\n \"Why use spreadsheets rather than writing your forms and formulas directly in a programming lanuage? Because you've got better things to do than reinvent the wheel, right? Same answer. ===== clarification, since the point apparently wasn't clear: Using a spreadsheet means you're writing and organizing and maintaining the formats and formulas yourself. Essentially, you are writing your own accounting program, using the spreadsheet program as your programming language. Nothing wrong with that, it just means you're doing work to produce something that you could have purchased instead. It's up to you to decide how the value of your time doing that work trades off against the cost of the commercial product. For many people, especially as the bookkeeping becomes more complex, that isn't a good investment of their time. The otherwise billable time it would take them to maintain the spreadsheet is worth more than the cost of buying an off-the-shelf product, and the product offers features that they wouldn't get around to adding to their own solution. Add to that the question of whether people find creating and tweaking spreadsheets rewarding or annoying. The right tool is always the one that lets you focus on what you actually care about, unless the cost is too high to justify it.Most folks care about getting the accounting task done a least cost/least efprt. Buying a solution is least effort; if the real cost including time/effort is also lower, that's the direction they're going to go. I maintained my own accounts, and did my taxes, in spreadsheets for quite some time. These days the time to do so, multiplied by what my time is worth, would exceed the cost of buying tools, and the commercial tools are more pleasant to use, less prone to accidents, and offer featured that I don't need but appreciate. I still use a stylesheet for one small calculation (rebalancing my invedtments) but thst's because I havean odd corner case the built-in tool doesn't handle well...not that it makes any practival difference, but being slightly off annoyed me. Your milage, obviously, will vary. Use the tool that suits your needs; others will do likewise.\",\n \"Here are the few points: Hope that helps,\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":156,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"4465"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"How to donate to charity that will make a difference?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["376575","344041","299242"],"string":"[\n \"376575\",\n \"344041\",\n \"299242\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["299242","328060","179556","264271","540575","46381","90591","344041","106786","245650","21416","326167","379353","201261","174033","266342","390089","553289","468898","461051","453455","132881","427322","546281","562386","85447","153121","143249","376575","368047","14478","568928","240448","162577","570028","443757","330255","80655","290019","277549","414091","68926","550526","392163","556109","319458","366078","115802","52283","77818","164038","478266","440267","307459","174543","256669","286251","82744","88698","158968","329101","262358","226303","221427","335844","325470","358275","594442","498844","569461","177736","67203","101732","237193","516832","19501","167879","262521","459177","413681","576740","176105","101201","8060","508381","416378","499710","73821","189120","174034","95322","120438","518451","313225","386404","148265","157553","6454","161667","72301"],"string":"[\n \"299242\",\n \"328060\",\n \"179556\",\n \"264271\",\n \"540575\",\n \"46381\",\n \"90591\",\n \"344041\",\n \"106786\",\n \"245650\",\n \"21416\",\n \"326167\",\n \"379353\",\n \"201261\",\n \"174033\",\n \"266342\",\n \"390089\",\n \"553289\",\n \"468898\",\n \"461051\",\n \"453455\",\n \"132881\",\n \"427322\",\n \"546281\",\n \"562386\",\n \"85447\",\n \"153121\",\n \"143249\",\n \"376575\",\n \"368047\",\n \"14478\",\n \"568928\",\n \"240448\",\n \"162577\",\n \"570028\",\n \"443757\",\n \"330255\",\n \"80655\",\n \"290019\",\n \"277549\",\n \"414091\",\n \"68926\",\n \"550526\",\n \"392163\",\n \"556109\",\n \"319458\",\n \"366078\",\n \"115802\",\n \"52283\",\n \"77818\",\n \"164038\",\n \"478266\",\n \"440267\",\n \"307459\",\n \"174543\",\n \"256669\",\n \"286251\",\n \"82744\",\n \"88698\",\n \"158968\",\n \"329101\",\n \"262358\",\n \"226303\",\n \"221427\",\n \"335844\",\n \"325470\",\n \"358275\",\n \"594442\",\n \"498844\",\n \"569461\",\n \"177736\",\n \"67203\",\n \"101732\",\n \"237193\",\n \"516832\",\n \"19501\",\n \"167879\",\n \"262521\",\n \"459177\",\n \"413681\",\n \"576740\",\n \"176105\",\n \"101201\",\n \"8060\",\n \"508381\",\n \"416378\",\n \"499710\",\n \"73821\",\n \"189120\",\n \"174034\",\n \"95322\",\n \"120438\",\n \"518451\",\n \"313225\",\n \"386404\",\n \"148265\",\n \"157553\",\n \"6454\",\n \"161667\",\n \"72301\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["In the. US, i'd suggest hitting the Charity Navigator website for evaluation of how efficiently various charities will use your money. At this point I won't donate money to anything that gets less than three stars unless I know the organization very well indeed -- and I've been progressively swapping out 3-star groups for 4-star organizations in the same category. Many of the groups reviewed by CN are international, so you might find it useful even if you're donating from/to elsewhere.","For people who are good with money (presumably), Kiva.org gives your money to such people who apply for loans through social service organizations in various countries (I believe this is how it's done). The people state what they will use the money for. It can be as simple as 'buying provisions for food truck business' or 'replacing wheels on tractor.' Then they pay the money back and you (who donated x number of dollars) use that repaid money to make another loan.","\"I'll answer your second question: it depends what your charity is for. There are two types: i) Emergency (i.e. to respond to environmental or social disasters where it acts a bit like an insurance policy); ii) Development (i.e. where the intention is to subsidise something missing in the local economy); A lack of insurance is certainly a problem for people who lose their homes and livelihoods to disaster. Your donations can go far. As for development aid: \"\"We find little evidence of a robust positive correlation between aid and growth,\"\" write two ex-IMF economists, Raghuram Rajan, who stepped down as IMF chief economist at the end of 2006, and Arvind Subramanian, who left the IMF this year. \"\"One of the most enduring and important questions in economics is whether foreign aid helps countries grow ... There is a moral imperative to this question: it is a travesty for so many countries to remain poor if a relatively small transfer of resources from rich countries could set them on the path to growth ... But if there is no clear evidence that aid boosts growth, then handing out more money makes little sense,\"\" they conclude. I do somewhat further in declaring that charity is equivalent to trade dumping. By artificially lowering the real cost of a particular good it ensures that there will be no local investment in that good. Free clothes to Africa has destroyed the local textiles industry. Free doctors has resulted in more African doctors in New York than in the whole of Africa. So decide where your charity is going: emergencies or development? Then decide what you can afford. But your first investment should always be in yourself. If by making use of that investment you can benefit the economy and keep others around you employed and productive you will achieve far more.\"","This might be blasphemy in the context of an audience that may be most focused on the gift itself, but you should be donating in a manner that helps advance the landscape, as well as your particular favourite charity. Almost 90% of businesses are in the process of trying to move away from issuing and receiving checks, and several countries in the world have already stopped using them. Checks are inefficient, costly and in a resource constrained environment like that facing most charities, create an opportunity cost that is even higher than the manual processing cost that flows directly. As donors, we need to think about scale in a manner that many individual charities don't. Send your donation via ACH!","GiveDirectly works substantially better than you'd imagine, and is money well spent in terms of unlimited problems and limited resources. But it probably isn't as close to perfect as reports like this make it seem. As a general idea, financial efficiency is super important but you still need to analyze that the approach the organization takes is effective. Part of the downside of GiveDirectly is based on the fact that your average joe won't always spend money in the perfect manner. This article is a pretty good critique and links to a more formal study - https://ssir.org/articles/entry/givedirectly_not_so_fast Think it's a great organization but the flowery praise may be a bit too optimistic. I sure as shit don't know. Depends on the mission but quantifying the efficacy of charities and benefit per dollar spent is very difficult. The most economically efficient charity ever is probably a smaller organization that approaches a very concrete simple problem, and has minimal overhead. Best guess would be a food bank run by a convent/monastery.","\"The definite answer if you want to give a larger amount of money is: Ask the charity. Just drop them a mail with something like: Dear Sirs, I've decided to donate you $1,000,000 because I like what you do. Could you please tell me which option is more convenient and less costly for you? I can do either an online debit/credit card payment, send you a check by mail, or make a bank transfer [cross out whichever you can't do]. I'm looking forward to hearing from you. Yours faithfully, Even if you give \"\"just\"\" $2,000, it's surely enough to be worth for them writing you a reply and clarifying whichever way they prefer, so you don't waste neither their time nor the money this way.\"","\"I know your pain oh, so much. I literally have a 14 gallon rubbermaid container FULL of solicitations I have received. Even worse, for-profit fundraising companies send most of those mailings! They take the money, and deduct their \"\"expenses\"\", rigged to consume almosts all your gift. Some companies have been caught passing as little as 9% to the charity. First let's talk about a few issues. Authentication. Is that outfit really a tax deductible 501c3 charity? Address. Is this their genuine address, or is it the dropbox of a scammer or one of those evil for-profit fundraising companies? Acknowledgement. For gifts over a certain size, you need a thank-you letter from them to show the IRS that you really donated. Will you get it? The limit is $250 (no letter, deduction rejected) but as a practical thing, it helps in an audit to show as many donation letters as possible. Charities cannot issue them retroactively, but can issue you second copies of ones they sent previously. If the charity drops the ball, you lose. Obviously enough, you go to the post office and spend $1 on a money order. This does not authenticate them as a charity. It does not assure it goes to their real address. You can do both these things yourself, by checking their data on the IRS website or on guidestar.org. You don't get an acknowledgement. I mention these because donation websites work much the same way. DAFs require a higher one-time commitment but are much simpler and more efficient after that. If you are planning to give $5000 in a single year, save it up and open a Donor Advised Fund account. A DAF is itself a charity. You donate to the DAF, and take the tax deduction for charitable contributons. Then, you tell the DAF to donate it to other charities on your behalf, or anonymously. Their concept is, you use the DAF as a \"\"buffer\"\" so you can easily make the tax-deductible donation when you need to for tax purposes, then at your leisure research charities and support them. However, I asked my DAF - most people donate and then immediately re-donate the money, leaving the fund at zero balance. My DAF doesn't mind that at all, and they charge zero fees for this. (Its expenses are paid by those of us who leave money sitting around in the DAF. Mine charges 0.6% a year. This money can be invested sort of like in a 401K, and each investment also has an expense ratio, such as 0.18% a year in my chosen index fund.) Websites like \"\"justgive.org\"\" will take any amount of your money and re-donate it to the charity you select. They deduct 3-5% for their expenses (notably paper, stamps, and the 2-3% it costs them to process your credit card).\"","I can't say specifically about charities to help Greece. If someone on here has specific knowledge, please chime in. The only shortcut I know to tell if a charity is legitimate is to consult one of the ratings/watchdog type groups that monitor charities. For example, for explicitly Christian charities, there's a group called the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. To be a member in good standing a charity has to meet a bunch of criteria, like having an independent board of directors, i.e. you can't start a charity, make yourself the president and your brother-in-law the vice president and you're not answerable to anyone else; their fund-raising and administrative costs can't be more than a certain percentage of total income, etc. There are similar groups with similar standards for more general charities. I'm not naming any of those groups because there's a potential catch: How reputable is the group that rates other people's reputations? And I don't want to recommend someone without knowing. Years ago I came across a news story about an organization that rated colleges, and that had given one particular college their top rating. But, the news story said, investigators found that that one college was the ONLY college they ever gave a rating to, and that their address was the same as the college's address. It turned out, of course, that the college was a scam. The other method is to take some time to investigate the charity. For starters, get a copy of their annual report or their newsletter. If they're total frauds, often they don't have an annual report or a newsletter. Of course a fraud could make up beautiful flyers describing all the wonderful work they do, with pictures of people they helped and detailed case histories, and it's all complete fiction. But that's more work than most con men go to. I've gotten lots of pleas for contributions from people who call on the phone or come to my door or send an email. If the message does not have a logo, a mailing address and phone number, reasonably coherent English, and a fair amount of text describing what they do, I don't give them anything. They COULD be a new start up that hasn't had time to prepare these things. They COULD believe that pretty flyers are a waste of money and they want to put all their resources into helping the needy. But more likely it's a scam that somebody through together in his basement. Of course the best thing is if you personally know people who are officers in the organization. (Well, assuming you personally know them AND you know that they are honest people. If you know the president and you know he's a sleazy con man, you might want to stay away from that group.) See if you can find information about the charity in the news or on-line. If they're being investigated for fraud by the Justice Department, you might want to avoid them. Etc. Maybe you've thought this through, but you also might want to think about exactly who in Greece you want to help, and what your philosophy of charity is. Do you want to help people who lost their jobs because of the economic problems there and who are now unemployed? Do you want to donate to the government to help them balance the budget? Do you want to help support an orphanage or a homeless shelter, or give money directly to needy people? Etc. And one piece of unsolicited advice: Unless you have millions to give -- and I'm assuming you don't as you said your first gift would be $50 -- I'd pick one or two charities and give regularly to them. I think you can do more good by giving $X per month to a single charity than to give to a different charity every month. You make more difference.","\"I'd suggest you to separate \"\"doing good\"\" from \"\"earning profit\"\". Look at the guys like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates (or Carnegie and Ford for that matters). They understand that you can't reconcile the two goals, so they donate for free what they earned for profit. If you want to make a social impact with your money, you can check the charity programs that have a confirmed record of a positive impact on people's lives. Non-profits that studied such programs publish their results extensively: AidGrade compiles this research and suggests direct donations to the programs that demonstrated best outcomes per dollar invested:\"","Economic efficiency is overrated. I would rather give money to a charity that spent 15% on human resources and 10% on marketing to get $10 million in incoming donations than to a charity with an 8% expense rate that receives $1 million in incoming donations.","The simplest way to handle this would be to buy money orders, make them out to the charities, and leave your name off them. Money orders don't require you to put your name on them, just the name of whoever they're being paid to. You can mail them with no return address as well if you're sure you have the charity's proper mailing address. This way you can still feel good about giving and leave no trace of who you are for anyone to use for future marketing. I hope this helps. Good luck!","\"In the US: In the UK: You can set up a CAF (Charities Aid foundation) Charity Account. This allows you to donate to charities anonymously, while still allowing the recipient to benefit from Gift Aid (where they can reclaim the income tax you'd paid on the donation). You can even use this account to donate to overseas charities if you're donating at least £250. Or you can use a different intermediary such as BT MyDonate or The Big Give or another intermediary. See the Wikipedia article \"\"Comparison of online charity donation services in the United Kingdom\"\". In Canada: If there's a United Way charity in your country, it may have a donor choice program which may be able to forward a designated donation to any other charity in your country. The United Way probably charges a fee for this service. I'm not sure whether or not the United Way would be willing to keep you anonymous, and I'm not sure whether or not the United Way would add you to its mailing list. More details may be available elsewhere online.\"","If you don't have much money, and more important, don't itemize, donations are strictly between you and your karma. If you itemize (from a combination of mortgage interest, property tax, and state tax), by donating used goods, you can get some return on your taxes, and feel good about yourself. When I donate at charity time (December for me) I don't look at every $1000 check as a $250 benefit back to me, although that's the effect. I care deeply about the charity's cause and have personally visited each of them. You want to drop $50 to some huge agency that's funding cancer research? No objection. But when I visit a Veteran's Center or School for the Blind, I can see the good work my money is doing.","You have money, free hands and free time, you can make an extremely positive impact on the world. I would start with a list of causes that you're passionate about. Narrow that down to 3 and then get involved in all of them. I think you should pick the one you like most, but some people can handle all 3.","If I donate $10,000 to charity then I can deduct that $10,000 from my income and not pay income taxes on it. So if I make $50,000 a year then I will only pay income taxes on $40,000 instead of $50,000 since I donated $10,000 to charity. This is what is meant when charity contributions are said to be tax deductible. Don't feel like you have to donate to charity. You owe no one anything. You do more for others by working (assuming you work in the private sector). If you know of someone personally that is in need of aid then you could give them some help directly. I find this more effective then blindly dumping money in a bureaucratic, inefficient charity. I also find there are very few people in need of charity. Personally, I think charity donations are a way for people to feel good about themselves. They rarely care if their donations are effective.","\"Having worked for both a non-profit and a charity, it is my recommendation that you always donate directly to the charity, and not through any form of solicitation. Most of the telephone calls that you receive are likely from telemarketing companies. It has been my experience (through exploring them as a means of fundraising) that the charity will likely only see about 10% - 25% of the funds raised in their name!! I imagine that a number of door to door solicitations are also done by professional fundraisers. WRT sharing of lists, it is likely not the charities that share the lists, but the companies that they hire to solicit for them. I always ask to be put on their \"\"do not call\"\" list To verify that a person collecting at your door is from the charity that they represent, can you pledge a donation, buying time to look into them? Or write a cheque in the name of the charity if it is known to you? I doubt that many scammers would go to the trouble of trying to open a bank account in the charity's name. I like YMCbuzz's point about the online donation - I use CanadaHelps.org. They are very upfront about the small (3%) fee that they charge, and the rest of the money goes to the charity. I have used them working for a charity, so I can vouch for how much is sent to the charity.\"","In the US, if it's a large donation to a tax-exempt organization (401c3 or equivalent), you may want to consider giving appreciated equities (stocks, bonds, mutual fund shares which are now worth more than you paid for them). You get to claim the deduction's value at the time you transfer it to their account, and you avoid capital gains tax. They would pay the capital-gains tax when they redeem it for cash... but if exempt, they get the full value and the tax is completely avoided. Effectively, your donation costs you less for the same impact. It does take a bit of work to coordinate this with the receiving organization, and there may be brokerage fees, so it probably isn't worth doing for small sums.)Transfers within the same brokerage house may avoid those feee.) So again, you should talk to the charity about what's best. But for larger donations, where larger probably starts at a few thou, it can save you a nice chunk of change.","There isn't going to be one right answer, but LessWrong has some posts on effective altruism you might find helpful. They also link to a TED talk","\"Agreed. One of the comments for this question Good books for learning about tax strategy/planning uses the phrase: \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" It applies to charitable donations. Donate because it is expected by your church; donate because it makes you feel good; but don't donate just to save money on your taxes. Once you have decided to donate take the steps necessary to be able to deduct your donation. Get the receipt or use a check or credit card so you can deduct the donation.\"","If I were donating money to a charity, i.e. an organization set up to help others, I would simply send them the money and ask that my name not be used in publicity. That would mean that the person(s) actually benefiting from my donation didn't know who I was. The charity would know, but they don't themselves benefit.","In the US the best way to solve the problem, IMHO, would be via a trust. Talk to a properly licensed trust/estate attorney and a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). Using intermediary who's not a 501(c) organization may pose income tax issues to that intermediary as providing support to the needy is not a valid business expense. It may also pose gift tax issues, since the aggregate amounts may exceed the statutory exemption limits. Using a (non-revokable) trust you can avoid these issues, but others may come up (such as what to do with the trust income or undistributed moneys). Talk to the advisers about how to avoid them.","If you are interested, simply collect their contact information and donate by mail or in the office. You can't vet a door to door or phone call charity; not quickly enough anyway. A real charity would be happy for your donation anytime, not just when a volunteer happens to catch you at home on the weekend. It is simply to ripe for scams in my opinion. The big exception is when a kid comes to my door with a food item. I try to buy one just to make the kid feel successful. Even if they never turn in the money at least I got a $2 chocolate bar.","\"Charitable donations can be deducted from your income, and in that way make your taxable income lower, hence lower taxes. That's the meaning of \"\"tax deductible\"\". As to \"\"if I donate it then the money will be given right to the charity instead of spread out to many other places\"\" - taxes are being used by the government based on its own decisions (presumably made by elected officials thus representing the will of the voters). Charities use the money based on their defined goals. Giving money to a charity will ensure it is used for the specific goal the charity declared, and that's the way for you to funnel money to the goals of your preference/choice. For example, you can donate money to your temple, orphanage around the corner, or the gay rights organization. Or anti gay, for that matters. Your money will be spent on the goals of your choosing. Re advantages - charitable donations are used by the rich folks to avoid paying taxes on their income (because they're deductible), so someone might donate money to places they use themselves (like the temple/church for example, or the school where the kids go, or politician which will \"\"objectively\"\" choose someone's business for a big government contract, etc etc). For \"\"ordinary\"\" people it's a way to reduce the taxable income and divert the money to the specific goals of their choice. For example, donating $100 to Red Cross Japan Tsunami relief fund, will reduce your taxable income by $100, and total taxes by $28 (assuming you're in the 28% bracket), thus the $28 will go to the specific goal your choose instead of the general taxes.\"","Yes. Donating to name-brand charities or politicians will result in you geting solicitied for more donations -- charities sell your info and donation habits.","This sounds a lot like numerous small-scale development efforts. They may work on some level, but rarely have an impact on the most significant cause of poor development -- corrupt politics. In the end it will likely benefit a few people, and provide data for economists to pore over. Which is worth something, I suppose.","One of the best things you can do for this purpose, while getting a modest ROI on a passive investment, is invest in a company that profitably does whatever you want to see more of. For example, you could invest in a for-profit company that sells needed goods to low-income people at lower prices. Something like Wal-Mart, which is one of the most effective anti-poverty engines in the US. You might also say the same of something like Aldi (owner of Aldi stores and Trader Joe's), which is a discount store chain. This is true even though a company like Wal-Mart is seeking to make money first. Its customer base tends to skew heavily towards low-income consumers, and historically to rural and elderly consumers. When Wal-Mart is able to provide food, clothing, appliances and the like to poor people at a lower cost, it is making it marginally less painful to have a low income. Peter Suderman can explain why Wal-Mart is a humanitarian enterprise: Walmart’s customer base is heavily concentrated in the bottom income quintile, which spends heavily on food. The bottom income quintile spends about 25 percent of income on food compared to just 3.5 percent for the top quintile. So the benefits of Walmart’s substantially lower prices to the lowest earning cohort are huge, especially on food. As Suderman points out, this view of Wal-Mart dramatically lowering prices that low-income people pay for food was corroborated by an Obama adviser. That's just one company. You can pick the industry and company that best suits your personal preferences. Alternatively, you could invest in something like Whole Foods, a company with multiple missions to improve the planet and the community, in addition to the more typical mission of being a prosperous retail chain. Of course, as a general proposition, a less than entirely altruistic, charity-inclined investment doesn't need to be targeted at those with low incomes or at saving the planet. You could invest in almost anything you think is good (yachts, yo-yos, violins, energy production, industrial inputs, music performances) and the company will take care of making more of that good thing. You didn't say whether your goal was to help the poor, the planet, arts, sciences, knowledge, community, or whatever. What I understand you to be saying is you are willing to accept a lower ROI in exchange for some warm-fuzzies from your investment. That seems perfectly valid and reasonable to me, but it makes it much more subjective and particular to your tastes. So you'll need to pick something that's meaningful to you. If you're going to trade ROI for positive feelings, then you should pick whatever gives you your optimal blend of emotions and returns. Alternatively, you could invest in something stable and predictable to beat inflation (some sort of index or fund) and then annually use some portion of those profits to simply give to the charity of your choice. Your investment and your charity do not necessarily need to be the same vehicle.","\"Can you get a cashier's check from your bank, made out in the charity's name, and mail it to the charity? From what I recall of the last few times I've gotten a cashier's check from the bank, it didn't have anything on it that identified me. A determined person could probably trace it back to you, but you're not really looking for strong anonymity. Another possibility would be a postal money order, but I'm not sure whether you can leave the \"\"From\"\" section blank. The money order would have a fee, but the cashier's check should be free. (It is at both my local bank and my CU.)\"","\"But sending money overseas doesn't help here, and government programs that feed people (especially children) and keeping people working or in school (medical programs) do have direct economic benefits to this nation, in addition to being \"\"nice\"\" or \"\"moral\"\". I am not advocating the end of all suffering by giving things away, rather I am advocating the judicious use of government spending to make the world better for everyone.\"","OP wants to do something very honourable, applause for that. Being a Greek I have insider knowledge about the impact of various organisations. Fact is, for people from abroad what is the most highly recommended action would be to support organisations of an international network (red cross, doctors w/out borders etc), because the health system is suffering seriously nowadays -or access to it-, and providing redundancy in that respect can certainly make a difference, via global health efforts. The next best thing you can do, to yourself and others, is basically to take a vacation in Greece and visit both a big city (here's where the problems will be visible) and an island (here's where you'll realise that you are in a place of stunning natural beauty). By taking this action you achieve two things: you put the economy in motion - a small vote, yet it counts - and you actually are a first-person observer. Enough is enough with victimisation via the news coming from inside or outside Greece! People need get the whole respective.","I'm familiar with the quote. The institution you donate to can keep you anonymous. The person actually benefiting is not aware of your generosity. This is how I understand the biblical meaning. By the way, a number of people who donate, do not take the tax deduction, so as to not benefit. To them I suggest they calculate the refund, and add that to their donations the next year.","\"For many people, giving to charity will have minimal effect on their taxes. Non-profits love to attract donations by saying the money is tax deductible, but for most people, it doesn't work out that way. You will only itemize deductions if they exceed your standard deduction. The IRS allows you to either \"\"itemize\"\" your deductions (where you list each deduction you can take) or take the \"\"standard deduction\"\". Consider a married couple filing jointly in 2011. Their standard deduction is $11,400. They are in the 28% tax bracket. They donate $100 of old clothes to the Goodwill, and are looking forward to deducting that on your taxes, and getting $28 of that back. If that's their only deduction, though, they'd have to give up the standard deduction to take the itemized deduction. Not worth it. Suppose instead they have $11,500 of deductions in 2011. Now we're talking, right? No. The tax impact of itemizing is only $28, since they only exceeded the standard deduction by $100. The cost of having a tax accountant fill out the itemization form probably offsets that small gain. There's also all the time that went in to tracking those deductions over the year. Not worth it. Tax deductions only become worthwhile when they significantly exceed the standard deduction. You need some big ticket items to get past the itemized deduction threshold. For most people, this only happens when they have a mortgage, as the interest on a residence is deductible. Folks love to suggest that having a mortgage is a good deal, because the interest is deductible. However, since you have to exceed the standard deduction before it makes sense to itemize, it's not likely to be a big win. For most people: TL;DR: Give to charity because you want that charity to have your money. Tax implications are minimal; let your accountant sort it out. Disclaimer: I am not an accountant.\"","Might I interest you in /r/kiva (Kiva.org) as well? Particularly if you have excess cash lying around that you are wondering how to put to use productively while waiting for the markets to cycle, and/or are interested in /r/churning. Let me know if you have any questions about it.","\"You could always put cash in an envelope and mail it, with no return address on the envelope. Any form of anonymous donation that I can think of has the risk that if the money is intercepted and stolen, you'll never know. Also, you won't get a receipt that you can use for tax purposes. You could try sending this organization a note saying, \"\"I think you're doing great work, but this donation was a one-time gift. Please take me off your mailing list.\"\" I don't know if it would work, but it's worth a try. By the way, the problem is worse than you think: charities share mailing lists. Once one charity has your name, they'll often share it with other related charities. For example, I give to the Catholic Family Association even though I am a Protestant -- I think they're doing good work that Catholics, Protestants, and people of many other faiths could support. But over the years I started getting fundraising letters from other Catholic charities, and then from groups trying to spread Catholicism, and now I'm getting mailings from groups whose stated purpose is to oppose Protestants. I laugh and throw away the letters, but I know some people get really bothered by this sort of thing. \"\"I'm pretty sure that the total cost of the mailings including postage has now exceeded the $20 I donated.\"\" I've occassionally thought of sending some trivial donation, $5 or $10, to some political or activist group that I totally oppose, just so they'll spend way more than that over the course of the next few years asking me for more money. :-) Plus, they'll send me letters that will tell me what the opposition is up to.\"","What I want to know is; How much does all this 'competition', advertising, marketing, etc etc actually increase how much people give as a total yearly sum of their earning? If 40 cents on the dollar is spend advertising and 'collecting' more money. Sure it works on the scale of a single successful charity. What is the cost to charities as a whole though? If someone gives away 2,000 a year to charity, and 19 charities all spend $100 chasing that $2000 dollars, they on average can prove they are 'making money' by spending to get that $100 'more'. But in reality, now instead of being able to give $2000 to the needy the person was actually only able to give $100. That is my fear when we start having charities operate as big business.","We are the second most charitable country on the planet (source: world giving index), if Granny can't find support, she isn't really looking. The support is there for those genuinely in need. And, the money goes further because it doesn't have to pay bureaucrat salaries.","Depending on the size of the donation, you may be able to reduce taxes further by donating appreciated assets, such as stock or fund shares that have gone up a lot. That lets you dodge the capital gains tax on redeeming the shares, and if you're donating to a tax-exempt organization they don't have to pay that tax either. And as @JoeTaxpayer has confirmed, you still get to deduct the current value of the donation, not just the basis value of those shares. So if you're donating anyway, this comes close to being Free Money in exchange for some slightly annoying paperwork. (Yet another benefit of long-term investing!) Of course folks in the top brackets sometimes set up their own tax-exempt foundations so they can decouple taking the tax break from deciding what to do with the donation.","\"I have a short list of charities that I support, so it's relatively easy for me to say \"\"I'm sorry, all my donations go to _.\"\" I do all my donations online, as well, so keeping receipts is very easy.\"","Putting money into your Amazon gift card balance is also a very convenient option, but I like these recurring Red Cross and Wikipedia ideas also.","\"I'm being taxed at a 40% rate, then I can give $500,000 to charity, write it off, and save $200,000 on my taxes. That's a net loss of $300,000. I may have paid less taxes, but it cost me 300 grand. Your logic is correct. However, here's another way to think about it. Suppose you are being taxed at a 40% rate. You wish to purchase $500,000 worth of diamonds. How much do you have to make in income to do so? You need to make $833,333 in income, pay 40% of that ($333,333) in taxes, and then spend the $500,000 on the diamonds. But to spend that $500,000 on a charitable donation, you only need to make an income of $500,000, taxed at a rate of 0%, because donations to charity count against your taxable income. Or, yet another way to think about it, is that if you make $833,333 in income, you can spend it on $500,000 worth of diamonds, or $833,333 worth of charitable contributions; effectively you get to purchase $333,333 worth of charitable contributions \"\"for free\"\" over the equivalent purchase that is not a charitable donation.\"","I once had worked for Koch Industries. I attended a meeting in which Charles Koch said 'do well so that you can do good'. I like that philosophy. It means make money (even if it is from 'bad' companies) so that you have the means (money) to do good things for others. Bill Gates has made money and is now trying to do good with it. You have better control of how your money is used if you manage it yourself. If you let some faceless company manage it you are never quite sure that they are really helping others.","If you have a software company, that can produce a box of software for $5, but the box sells for $100. (You have to make a profit and cover development costs) But then you give these boxes to charity, that is a cost of $5 each and a tax rebate of $100 x 40% = $40. A profit of $35 per donation of $5. Note: You can only do this if you have taxable profit to offset it against.","Give them cash and watch how the violent ones start robbing houses to steal others’ money. P.s poor people are good at managing money. They know the value of each cent. They are bad at managing big amounts. Thats why you give them $1000 over a year instead of lump sum of $50.000 f.e","That plan wouldn't save you any money because tax brackets don't work that way. All of your earnings up to each level are taxed at that rate. You aren't taxed at the highest rate on all of the money. In your example you pay... If you reduce your income to $37,4000 you pay... In the end you'd be spending $100 to save $20. The only way you conceivably come out ahead by donating to charity (not counting the good karma for doing so) is if you own the charity and it is a way for you to funnel money to yourself and write it off.","\"At its heart, I think the best spirit of \"\"donation\"\" is helping others less fortunate than yourself. But as long as the US remains solvent, the chief benefit of paying down the national debt is - like paying off a credit card - lowering the future interest payments the U.S. taxpayer has to make. Since the wealthy pay a disproportionately large portion of taxes (per capita), your hard earned money would be disproportionately benefitting the wealthy. So I'd recommend you do one or both of the following: instead target your donations to a charity whose average beneficiary is less fortunate than yourself take political action with an aim towards balancing the federal budget (since the US national debt is principally financed in the form of 30 year treasuries, the U.S. will be completely out of debt if it can maintain a balanced budget for 30 years recanted, see below)\"","In the United States investing towards donation is a great idea because you can donate appreciated securities directly rather than donating cash. Notice how much this can benefit you: So you get to both (a) donate untaxed money and then (b) deduct that unrealized money from your income total on your tax return. With the above in mind, a good strategy for investing towards this type of donation would be to pick securities that are likely to increase in market value but not likely to produce any other sort of income. So bonds (which produce lots of interest income), or stocks with dividends, or equity mutual funds (which distribute dividends as capital gains) would all be suboptimal for this purpose. Of course, an even better strategy would be to establish a widely diversified investment portfolio without thought to future donations. Then, once a year (or whenever), evaluate all your investments and find some where the market value has increased. Then donate some of those shares. No special advance planning necessary. Note that your tax consequences could be more complicated depending on your exact situation. Read the section about Capital Gain Property in IRS Pub. 26 for all the details. There may be special limits on the amount you can deduct. Also, donations of short term capital gains are treated much less favorably, so make sure you donate only long term capital gain property.","I've found you can give the money to charity. If you text REDCROSS to 90999 for example you can give $10 to the redcross","Now that the labor market in China is near saturation and wages are rising, I think that the Western factories that rely heavily on unskilled labor will start to move from China to sub-Saharan Africa. Edit: I disagree with this line: > tried-and-true strategies of delivering charity Those charities have come under a lot of fire recently, especially from African academics, for distorting the market economies in Africa. Massive supplies of free grain ruin the market for farmers. They inhibit the development of the agricultural sector in Africa and may be harming Africans in the long-term as much as they help in the short-term. Foreign direct investment, better governance, and foreign-built factories will probably help Africa more than food aid.","here is what I have learned with multiple close encounters with bankruptcies: ask yourself.. what if I save vs what if I spend? say you like a new shirt.. ask yourself what can you do saving $40 vs rewarding yourself/your well wishers right away? you will end up spending. just like you the other person needs money. he/she is doing a work. ask yourself what if you are in his/her situation. you would obviously want others to be happy. so spend. I think these two should be good. I must add that you should NOT be wasteful. Eg.. buying a handmade shoes vs corporation made shoes? choose handmade one because it fits above two. buying a corporate one would be more polluting and less rewarding because you just gave your money to someone who already has lots and cares least about you. in what way are you saying mortgage is good? I see that as a waste. you can pay back your mortgage only when someone takes even bigger mortgage (check with some maths before refuting)... in other words you have taken part in ponzi scheme.! I would suggest making a house vs buying one is better spending. finally spending is a best saving.. don't forget that you are getting money only because someone is spending wisely. stop feeding your money to corporates and interests and everyone will have plenty to spend.","\"I think the best way to handle her fears is to explain the income and expenses of the household overall, then explain the savings and investment strategies, retirement projections, and then finally explain a concrete number for allowable monthly or annual discretionary expenses (including charity, entertainment, vacations, etc.). You may have delicate relationship reasons for not doing this, but if you want a reasonable discussion, I would leave it this way. Please do not open with the question \"\"how much do you think we make\"\" or anything similar because that comes off as a trick or a quiz. It sounds very condescending and highlights how much more you know about finances than she does. It also highlights subconsciously how little mental control she has over the finances, which is likely to make her feel greater anxiety. You should emphasize how secure things are and explain why all the savings and investments you're using are conservatively likely to keep her financially secure. This sets the ground for her to be comfortable with the fact that she now has money, in contrast to perhaps a less financially secure personal history. After that, charitable expenses come out of the expense budget, same as vacations, recreation, etc. If it does not implicate financial security, then it's not dangerous to spend on charity. The alternate approach is to avoid the big financial talk and just propose a few small contributions this year. Then increase it every year incrementally. That may be easier to swallow once there's a psychological track record of donating without incident. Please go into the discussion remembering three things: But above all, please do not open up with a quiz. Have a simple discussion with her. Give her time to consider the expenses budget relative to the savings budget as a proportion of income. And then allow for the fact that she may place a strong premium on savings and a strong discount on charity.\"","If the organization is a non-profit. You can search by EIN on Charity Navigator's website FOR FREE. https://www.charitynavigator.org/","\"At this level it's not so much about \"\"handling money\"\" in the way we think of it in the first world. It's more like you have no possible way to get enough capital to get out of a desperately bad situation. But if you do get that capital, you can start digging your way out. For example, in one case I read about, someone used part of that $1000 to buy a cow. Then she started selling milk and saving money.\"","You question is very hard to answer as it is tough to put a value on how much bad your added investment in evil companies would cause and also how much value the charities add. However, there has been a bunch of really good work on socially responsible investing in general. This paper might be too technical for some but the conclusion section is very readable and clear. The big worry about socially responsible investing from a financial standpoint is that it will lower returns in the long run. The paper above and others show fairly clearly that as long as you only exclude a few classes of stocks and still have a fairly broad base that the expected returns are similar. The main issue though is some socially responsible funds have much higher fees. So the usual advice applies, do your research to make sure your investments are well diversified and have low fees. As long as the index is fairly broad you can consider the difference between the fees on the socially responsible index and investing in a more common index as the long run cost. Then you can balance that cost and having more money for charity against the benefits of not investing in evil companies.","FYI, the proposed cuts to food stamps would need to be compensated by an increase fo ~$50,000/church for local food-based organizations to make up the difference. If you want your giving to make up for government programs, you'd best be prepared to give a lot.","\"Fighting poverty is akin to \"\"fighting drug use\"\". No matter how much money is raised via taxation there will always be a bottom percentile of individuals who are not \"\"wealthy\"\" in relation to others above them in society and especially Bill Gates. If he really wants to make a difference then he should support rational and reasonable economic propositions which raises the standard of living and lowers the cost of living, but I suspect that would not bring him any sort of feel good press as his \"\"Tax the rich, give to the poor\"\" proposals.\"","\"It really depends on what your goals are. If your intent is to benefit the charity, I'm sure that they would tell you that the sooner you give them the money, the better. If they think that the money would do them more good invested then spent, they will invest it. The money you have sitting in your \"\"charitable account\"\" doesn't benefit anyone until you give it away. It really doesn't benefit you, either. You take your tax deduction when you contribute, and it is really out of your hands at this point. The only reason I could see for using a charitable account this way is if you don't know who you want to give money to. If this is the case, you can contribute money to your charitable account now and take the tax deduction now, and wait to identify a worthy charity later. But if I were you, I wouldn't wait too long to find someone to give the money to. There are lots of good organizations that would do a lot of good with that money, and the sooner they get it, the better. If you skip the charitable account and donate directly to them on a regular basis, you can experience the joy of partnering with a charity to help people. If you decide in the future to switch to a different charity, then you do so. Waiting until the \"\"right time\"\" to donate doesn't really do anyone any good.\"","\"A budget that you both agree on is a great goal. X% to charity, y% to savings, $z a month to a reserve for house repairs, and so on. Your SO is likely to agree with this, especially if you say it like this: I know you're concerned that I might want to give too much to charity. Why don't we go through the numbers and work out a cap on what I can give away each year? Like, x% of our gross income or y% of our disposable income? Work out x and y in advance so you say real percentages in this \"\"meeting request\"\", but be prepared to actually end up at a different x and y later. Perhaps even suggest an x and y that are a little lower than you would really wish for. If your SO thinks you earn half what you really do, then mental math if you say 5% will lead to half what you want to donate, but don't worry about that at the moment. That could even work in your favour if you've already said you want to give $5000 (or $50,000) a year and mental math with the percentage leads your SO to $2500 (or $25,000), (s)he might think \"\"yes, if we have this meeting I can rein in that crazy generosity.\"\" Make sure your budget is complete. You don't want your SO worrying that if the furnace wears out or the roof needs to be replaced, the money won't be there because you gave it away. Show how these contingencies, and your retirement, will all be taken care of. Show how much you are setting aside to spend on vacations, and so on. That will make it clear that there is room to give to those who are not as fortunate as you. If your SO's motivations are only worry that there won't be money when it's needed, you will not only get permission to donate, you'll get a happier SO. (For those who don't know how this can happen, I knew a woman just like this. The only income she believed they had was her husband's pension. He had several overseas companies and significant royalty income, but she never accounted for that when talking of what they could afford. Her mental image of their income was perhaps a quarter of what it really was, leading to more than one fight about whether they could take a trip, or give a gift, that she thought was too extravagant. For her own happiness I wish he had gone through the budget with her in detail.)\"","Kind of pointless when 1/2 goes to military 1/4 to banks, the rest for poorly organised social services. Better off setting up a separate foundation / charity or it will just get recycled back into wealth disparity activities. No point raising tax revenues when its spent on war inc and wallstreet.","As someone that has run a nonprofit, my 2 cents: First: thank you for giving and for being conscientious about wanting to make things as easy as possible. The best method is the one you'll actually do. If there is a chance that you will end up not donating by check because you don't have a stamp, you forget, etc. go ahead and do it online. A donation with a fee is better than an intention without one. We had one case where a potential donor decided to give, but was so worried about the processing fee that they wanted to write a check. We followed up 3 times on the pledge, spent time following up with the pledge's connection that wanted to see if it came through, and in the end they never sent the check. Their pledge wound up costing us staff time and money as we tried to make their giving easy. If you are as likely to give, size matters. My rule of thumb is that if you are giving $1 up to about a hundred dollars, the fee (which most nonprofits can get to about 3% or 3.5%) is about the same as the added staff time opening the check, adding an extra to the deposit slip, etc. But as soon as you are giving a couple hundred dollars and especially if you are giving in the thousands, it is definitely better to do it by check. Most banks don't charge an extra deposit fee at the scale of most nonprofits, and we probably have some run to the bank happening in the next day or two. Really your thank you note should be the same whether online or by check (even though you'll get the auto-thank you online), so that time difference shouldn't really play into it. The donation will be appreciated either way. While I cringe a bit if I see a $1,500 donation come through online knowing that the check would be cheaper, that is far outweighed by the thankfulness that someone thought of us and made it happen.","This is a long term investment but can be very useful during tough times. Be prepared not only to take but to give as well. Moreover:","People put conditions on donations all the time. They donate to the Red Cross for a specific disaster. The donate money to a church for the building fund. They donate money to a hospital to buy a new x-ray machine. They donate money to the scouts for a new dining hall. It is possible to donate money to a non-profit for a specific purpose. If the non-profit doesn't want to accept the money with those strings they can refuse. Generally these specific projects are initiated by the non-profit. But there is no requirement that the idea originate with the non-profit. It is also up to the non-profit and their legal advisers regarding how strictly they view those strings. If you donate money for web design and they don't spend it all, can they pay net years hosting bill with the money, or must they hold it for a few years for when they need a designer again? If the company wants to provide the service, they can structure the project to pay their employees for their time. They pay employees for $100 of labor while deigning the website. The pay and benefits reduce profit thus lowering taxes. Donating money to the non-profit to be given back to the company doesn't seem to be the best way to structure transaction. At best it is a wash. Donating money to a charity and then directing exactly which contractor will perform the service starts to look like money laundering, and most charities will get wary.","\"If something is tax-deductible in the US, it means that, in the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service, you effectively didn't earn that money. Within restrictions, your adjusted gross income, which is the income that your tax is calculated on, is reduced by the amount of your tax deductions. In the case of the ASPCA, they've jumped through the appropriate hoops to become a 501(c)(3) organization, which, among other things, means that donations to them are tax-deductible by the donor (a) if they itemize, and (b) if they haven't reached a donation cap. That's the carrot that encourages donations to these organizations. There are restrictions, meaning that there can be only certain types of privileges or exchange between the donor and the organization. Essentially, it has to be a donation, and not a purchase of substantial goods or services. Your donation to these kinds of organizations doesn't hurt their funding elsewhere, or shouldn't. As mentioned above, if you don't itemize your deductions, you won't gain any extra tax savings from the donation. (You shouldn't itemize if you're better off taking the standard deduction.) Having said that, though, please give whatever you're led to give, after considering all of the ramifications (financial and spiritual). The tax deduction is only a subsidy; the IRS doesn't \"\"pick up the whole tab\"\" but only refunds a fraction to you in the form of tax savings through itemized deductions. If you don't feel you have the money, then donate your time. It might be more needed anyway!\"","How is taxing them preventing a donation to their charity of choice? It isn't one or the other. You can be taxed and voluntarily charitable. The whole GOP point, though, is to make it ALL voluntary charity so if they give, they get to decide who deserves their money and they deserve a big fat tax deduction.","I know in the UK at least, 99% of the time even legitimate collectors don't work directly for the charity. They work for independent for-profit companies. The companies collect a large comission (around £50-£70) for every direct debit signup. The guy that knocks on your door will see very little of it. Have a look at this: http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2005/08/just-6-for-eight-days-work-for.html The bags you get through your door for clothing donations are run on a similar basis - the clothes and profit go to a private company, which makes a donation to the charity out of their profits. Sometimes as little as 0.1% of your donation will go the charity. Always go direct to your chosen charity.","With a short position you make your money (profit) when you buy the stocks back to close the position at a lower price than what you bought them at. As short selling is classed as speculation and not investing and you at no time own any actual assets, you cannot donate any short possition to charity. If you did want to avoid paying tax on the profits you could donate the proceeds of the profits after closing the position and thus get a tax deduction equal to the profits you made. But that raises a new and more important question, why are you trading in the first place if you are afraid to make profits in case you have to pay tax on those profits?","\"How can I best start a discussion about this topic with SO? I'm guessing your SO is more visual than verbal. I'd break the ice by presenting an income pie chart and an expenses pie chart, maybe just for 2013 or comparing 2012 and 2013, and then offer your interpretation of an interesting slice or two: \"\"I noticed we're saving so much each year that...\"\" Or, instead of starting with graphically demonstrating your cash flow, start with appropriate graphics demonstrating your savings is growing fast enough that making a few donations wouldn't be a serious impact. \"\"See how little we spend compared to our savings?\"\". In any case, a picture is worth a 1,000 words, so starting with pictures is a good way to start your discussion.\"","\"At first, I thought this might be too broad. There are of course thousands of things that you can do with your money to \"\"help the economy\"\". But I think that there is room to discuss some broad strokes without trying to list a thousand details. Regular investing (as you are now) helps the economy in that companies obtain money by selling their stock. They can then use that money to fund expansion, etc. These things can help the economy permanently. Of course, they can also use the money to pay executive bonuses, which don't help the economy so much. Similarly, just spending money does not normally help the economy. Unless we are in a recession, it is mildly harmful to spend wastefully. Money that could be going to support long term improvements in production instead is used to buy a luxury that doesn't terribly interest you. I.e. if you don't want a bigger house or a more luxurious car don't buy it to \"\"stimulate\"\" the economy. Many charitable donations have the same problem. They help short term consumption somewhere. And of course the charity starts asking you for more money. Many charities waste most of a donation trying to get another one from the same person or family. Sir John Maynard Keynes proposed that the best thing that people could do to help the economy is to invest in things that cause economic activity in turn. He was mostly talking about things like roads, bridges, and dams that are out of the investing range of most people, so he wanted governments to do it, particularly during a recession. So we are looking for ways to invest in durable improvements that will support economic activity in the future. A million dollars is a small amount for many things, but there are some activities that work. I'm going to list a few examples, but there are certainly others: Fund microfinance. Basically loan your million dollars to people who need a small amount of money. These programs often allow you to determine the initial recipient and then that person determines the next recipient. A million dollars can finance hundreds if not thousands of these loans. They may be in the United States or in a developing country. Set up a scholarship. My recommendation would be to find an existing scholarship with a few recipients and ask them to add one a year for the million dollars. A million dollars should typically produce about a scholarship a year in returns after inflation. Of course, that's just regular inflation. Education inflation is higher. Solar prize. Fund a program that gives out one solar installation every year or five to a family that owns a house, is struggling to pay utilities, and makes a compelling case. Basically, whenever the investment grows enough to support it, make a new prize. Buy something that will help other people make money. This is just six ideas off the top of my head. The goal here is to create something lasting that will promote economic activity. So a program that loans money forward. Or a scholarship or free textbook, particularly in a STEM field. A small piece of infrastructure that helps people move around to work or spend their money. Solar is a bit of a stretch here, but it can be justified if you believe that an investment now is an investment in moving towards the future. The key thing here is to make your money do double duty. By spending your money during a recession or investing during the rest of the business cycle, you can get some value for your money. But even better is if that spending has a societal return as well. Microfinance, scholarships, and infrastructure do that. There is the immediate spending, plus there is the effect of the spending. A business is established. A mind is trained and working at a high income job. People can move, work, and spend their own money.\"","\"Depending on what your other deductions are and the amount you are wanting to donate, you can save some money by \"\"batching\"\" deductions into every other year. For example, if you are single in 2015, the standard deduction is $6,300. This means the first $6,300 in deductions you have basically don't \"\"matter\"\" because the standard deduction is larger. You only \"\"count\"\" itemized deductions greater than $6,300. Let's imagine you are donating $10k in 2015 and 2016 and have no other itemized deductions. If you donate in both years, you basically get a net deduction of ($10,000 - $6,300) * 2 = $7,400 over the standard deduction. However, if you donate $10k in 2015 and the next $10k on Dec31, 2015, then you now have donated $20k in 2015 and $0k in 2016. This affects your taxes because you now get ($20,000 - $6,300) = $13,700 in \"\"bonus\"\" deductions. You still get the full $6,300 standard deduction in 2016 as well. This can be a significant impact on your taxes (especially if you are married as the married deduction is double the single or have minimal other itemizable deductions)..\"","\"In the UK, one quirky option in this area (OK, admittedly it's not a passive) is the \"\"Battle Against Cancer Investment Trust\"\" (BACIT). Launched in 2012, it's basically a fund-of-funds where the funds held charge zero management charges or performance fees to the trust, but the trust then donates 1% of NAV to charity each year (half to cancer research, investors decide the other half).\"","I actually read that a lot of times, that isn’t necessarily true. In some of these third world countries, the issue is less that the money is wasted but that there isn’t enough to make the kinds of optimal investments that were thinking of. For example, someone might understand intellectually that they need to buy a water buffalo to scale up their farm but saving up the money to do so would mean that they wouldn’t be able to feed their kids for two years. They’re not “bad with money”, they just flat out don’t have enough to go beyond subsistence. I think that’s the target market for these types of programs. They won’t work for everyone, people who are actually irresponsible will screw up no matter how much money and coaching you give them. But this could be a game changer for people who are good with the money they do have and just need a boost.","If the charity accepts stock, you can avoid the tax on the long term cap gain when you donate it. e.g. I donate $10,000 in value of Apple. I write off $10,000 on my taxes, and benefit with a $2500 refund. If I sold it, I'd have nearly a $1500 tax bill (bought long enough ago, the basis is sub $100). Any trading along the way, and it's on you. Gains long or short are taxed on you. It's only the final donation that matters here. Edit - to address Anthony's comment on other answer - I sell my Apple, with a near $10,000 gain (it's really just $9900) and I am taxed $1500. Now I have $8500 cash I donate and get $2125 back in a tax refund. By donating the stock I am ahead nearly $375, and the charity, $1500.","My first question to you is if you itemize? If not the charitable contributions will not do any good. Along these lines, donating unused items to Goodwill or similar can help boost your charitable giving. The bottom line is that the 401K is one of the few real deductions high earners have. If you anticipate earning similarly next year, you could both contribute the max. You still have some time before the end of the year, can you get more in your wife's account? Does your state have income tax? You might be able to deduct sales tax for larger purchases if you made any. However, I would not justify a large purchase just to write off the sales tax. Conventional wisdom will tell you that you should have a large mortgage in order to deduct the interests. However, it does not make sense to pay the bank 10K so you can get 3K back from the government. That seems pretty dumb. If you did not do additional withholding, you probably will have to pay a significant amount plus penalty if you owe more than $1000. You still have time to make one more quarterly payment, so you may want to do so by January 15th. For next year I would recommend the following: The funny thing about giving is that it rarely helps the recipient, it does so much more for the giver. It helps you build wealth. For myself I like to give to charities that have a bent to helping people out of poverty or homelessness. We have two excellent ones here in Orlando, FL: Orlando Rescue Mission and Christian Help. Both have significant job training and budgeting programs.","Timing differences would still all come out in the wash. Might reduce it one year but over a few years it's essentially the same. It's becoming harder to create situations where big timing differences can apply. And generally (although not in every case) companies are seeing the bad press associated with not paying taxes and are being relatively less aggressive than in the past. There's a lot too it but I get annoyed by people saying companies only make donations to avoid tax. I've posted on it before and it's a silly view.","Right you just summed up the conventional wisdom, which is pretty much that poor people are stupid. But in small experiments so far, it's turned out that poor people know exactly what their biggest problem is, and when they've got the money they fix that problem. It's not always what know-it-all Westerners expected, but it's usually effective.","I challenge you to come up with an example of squandering that could not be considered charity, or charity that could not be considered squandering. It entirely depends on how much value you place on the money going where it went. Any spending of money can be considered charity if you feel others need it more than you do.","\"SO has observed a lot of irresponsible spending from a parent, which has scarred SO for life OK, so we've got fear... SO is not very financially savvy and has very little idea about how much we earn ...and ignorance. You are entirely correct to worry about the conversation. Fear plus ignorance equals disastrous conversations. I manage our finances. Apparently your SO wishes to have input on the management of your finances without understanding them. It strikes me that this serves neither of you well. I would note that it is exceedingly difficult to rationally argue someone out of a position that they arrived at through irrational fear and ignorance. So I wouldn't start by having a conversation about charitable giving at all. Rather, I would start by addressing the ignorance, because that's the easy one. how high up we are in terms of being in the top y% of households by income Income is irrelevant to the fearful; income can vanish with debts remaining. If your SO is not earning much of that income then SO's future financial security is dependent on the whims of another, which has already turned out badly once for SO. Focusing on raw income is the wrong way to go; focusing on an abstraction like percentile is even more irrelevant. The figures to focus on are not income and percentile, but rather net worth and change in net worth over time. Income $300K, expenses $350K eventually leads to poverty if you lack net worth, even if you are in the 1% of income earners. Open up with \"\"how much do you think we earn?\"\" Playing rhetorical games with ignorant people seems both risky and perhaps unethical to me, and it seems unlikely to engender trust. I would approach this situation by first removing the ignorance, rather than attempting to take advantage of it for rhetorical purposes. I would also institute a policy that ignorant people don't get a say. If SO wants to abrogate financial responsibility to you, then SO should accept your decisions without question. If SO wants to have a say in your joint financial life then SO has a responsibility to make recommendations based on both facts and feelings, not just feelings. So, how to remove this ignorance? This will take some doing, but not much. Go through your records and account for: From that you can compute your net worth. Then go back a few years and account for: From this you can show the effect of your past prudent decisions on your net worth. There should be no percentages. There should be no math more complicated than adding and subtracting, and it should be very clear what adds and substracts to what. People who are financially savvy are extremely intimidated by jargon. If some of your increase in net worth came from a realized capital gain less taxes do not say \"\"realized capital gain less taxes\"\" on your summary document. There should be no \"\"depreciation\"\" or \"\"cost basis\"\" or anything even vaguely like that. Even \"\"assets\"\" and \"\"liabilities\"\" are too jargonish. \"\"Possessions\"\" and \"\"debts\"\" are more easily understood. I'm thinking something like: My SO is financially savvy and still I do this about twice a year; it's helpful for both of us to have a quick summary of what's coming in, what's going out, and what we've got. Once the ignorance is gone, then start working on the fear. It sounds like the fear comes from a betrayal of trust, so it's not just enough to be trustworthy, you've got to consistently appear trustworthy. A great way to do that is to keep doing what I already suggested: on a regular, ongoing basis inform SO of how you are doing financially. When SO sees that net worth is consistently improving over time, that you are not one bad decision away from poverty, the fear should diminish. Expect this to take a long time.\"","Do you eat out much or go to coffee shops? I add portions of my excess spare change to the tips/tip jars. I make it a bit over the usual percentage to make up for the fact that it's, well, spare change...","There are a number of benefits to this type of account. If one has highly appreciated stock (think Apple), donations of the stock are taken at current value, so for example, I donate $10,000 worth of shares, which cost me $100. In the 28% bracket, and itemizing, I see a $2800 benefit. But, I also avoid a $9900 capital gain and the 15% tax on that, or $1485. In this example, the fund comes into play as it would allow me to break up that $10,000 into smaller donations, and over a number of years. Next example - In my article some years ago Fun with Schedule A I describe how a strategy of 'bunching' ones itemized deductions every other year can help push people into the ability to itemize where normally they just miss doing so. Using the charitable fund can help people smooth out their contributions to the end charities while actually making the out of pocket withdrawal every other year. Last - there are many whose income is irregular for whatever reason. This type of account can be useful to help people in this situation make a deposit in high income/high tax rate years, skipping the deposit in low income/low rate years, but still keep up with the annual charity support. Obviously, one's goal is to help the charities they wish to support, it's silly to donate 'for the deduction.' But, for those who are charitable, these strategies help them divert more money to the charity and less to Uncle Sam. Sorry, I'm not sure about the math to show that 6.46%. My answer was to share the benefits of using these types of accounts.","Donations need to be with no strings attached. In this case, you make the cash donation, a deduction, and then they pay you, in taxable income. It's a wash. Why not just give them the service for free? Otherwise this is just money going back and forth.","Apart from what the other posters have said, you could look at some 'good cause'. I'd keep on saving 50% as spending more won't really make you more happy. You already sound happy. What I used to do, when I could, was to donate 10% of my 'profit' per year. I'd compare year start with year end and do the math. Afterwards it was just a matter of choosing. there are non government organizations that will get most money where it's needed. Edit as soon as the business I'm starting becomes profitable, I'll continue my donations. Thanks for the appreciations.","You can have a way for people to pay, i.e. some kind of payment gateway. Run as Business: Best create a company and get the funds there. This would be treated as income of the website and would be taxed accordingly. One can deduct expenses for running the website, etc. Run as Charity: Register as one, however the cause should be considered as charitable one by the tax authorities. Only then the donations would be tax free.","\"You don't consider a situation where people give to \"\"charity\"\" that they're heading themselves. But generally speaking you're correct, the idea is that charity is tax deductible, and people prefer to give their money to their local church where they get the direct benefit of it, rather than to Uncle Sam.\"","Assuming that what you want to do is to counter the capital gains tax on the short term and long term gains, and that doing so will avoid any underpayment penalties, it is relatively simple to do so. Figure out the tax on the capital gains by determining your tax bracket. Lets say 25% short term and 15% long term or (0.25x7K) + (0.15*8K) or $2950. If you donate to charities an additional amount of items or money to cover that tax. So taking the numbers in step 1 divide by the marginal tax rate $2950/0.25 or $11,800. Money is easier to donate because you will be contributing enough value that the IRS may ask for proof of the value, and that proof needs to be gathered either before the donation is given or at the time the donation is given. Also don't wait until December 31st, if you miss the deadline and the donation is counted for next year, the purpose will have been missed. Now if the goal is just to avoid the underpayment penalty, you have two other options. The safe harbor is the easiest of the two to determine. Look at last years tax form. Look for the amount of tax you paid last year. Not what was withheld, but what you actually paid. If all your withholding this year, is greater than 110% of the total tax from last year, you have reached the safe harbor. There are a few more twists depending on AGI Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers. If at least two-thirds of your gross income for tax year 2014 or 2015 is from farming or fishing, substitute 662/3% for 90% in (2a) under the General rule, earlier. If your AGI for 2014 was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if your filing status for 2015 is married filing a separate return), substitute 110% for 100% in (2b) under General rule , earlier. See Figure 4-A and Publication 505, chapter 2 for more information.","Are you being willfully obtuse? Of course you can do both. However, had you never been taxed you'd have that same money to spend as you see fit, such as giving it to charity. Mind blowing right? Oh so you know how to spend that money better huh? Maybe I say I know how to spend your money better than you. Fuck your charity for down syndrome. People with prostate cancer need it more. Here's your tax bill :)","Sounds about right. From [Give Well](http://www.givewell.org/how-we-work/our-criteria/cost-effectiveness): > As of November 2016, the median estimate of our top charities' cost-effectiveness ranged from ~$900 to ~$7,000 per equivalent life saved (a metric we use to compare interventions with different outcomes, such as income improvements and averting a death) .","\"A slower approach: keep any discussion of income out of it to begin with. Remaining within discretionary income Z, just go back to the charities your SO has proposed, and say that you would like to set up monthly donations. You would also like to donate a similar amount to charities of your choice. Say what bills your proposed contribution is less than. Once your SO has got used to the idea of charitable giving as a regular expenditure, and has got back the grateful charity newsletters and whatnot, then address the issue of how much you \"\"should\"\" give by comparison with income. Whenever you do consider income, your SO doesn't really seem to want anything to do with this. So I'd approach it as seeking agreement. Eric Lippert has a more long-term approach for seeking involvement. So, present the following information however seems best, probably with a pre-amble establishing that you both want to support charities, so the question is how much and how to get it done. \"\"We earn U. This means we are fortunate enough to be in the top V% of households. Our income breaks down as: This being the case, we can afford to be generous. I would like us to give to the charities that we each care about, to the extent of N. Charitable giving is important to me because ... The amount I suggest we give is less than what we spend annually on ..., and I chose that amount because ... \"\" Depending on the tax situation, you may then have to explain how N from gross income translates to an actual amount available to give to charity. Or charitable giving might be tax free. If the N you want is greater than Z-A then it might be wise to suggest a smaller amount, but ask that you both make a plan in increase it in a year or whatever. Similarly if N strikes your SO as a scarily large number then I would think the best thing to do is just reduce it so that at least you start somewhere. If Y is low or zero, and your SO suffers from anxiety about financial security, then increasing Y at the same time might be a good way to offset the fear of N. When stating income you might want to exclude any income from savings/investments. Although legally it's income your SO might see it psychologically as capital gains and hence touching it would endanger your savings/investment/pension returns. Even though it's all fungible.\"","\"Can a company say \"\"StackExchange\"\" donate to a non-profit company say $5,000 in agreement that they will spend that on paying a designer for a new website? And most importantly is this donation still tax deductible? A non-profit would have to typically create a bucket for IT Services or Website design. As long as \"\"StackExchange\"\" specify they employ a profession service to get it done, there would be no issue. If \"\"StackExchange\"\" were to specify an individula/company it would be an issue.\"","\"seems like a dumb idea to me. Will these people know what to do with $1000? Will they know best how to invest it or will it be squandered on booze, or just plain living expenses? It might be better spent giving it to them with a string such as \"\"buy a cow or chickens that can produce\"\" or seed for a patch of land. I expect some will fall in each of the three catagories. Question now is what will be the distribution?\"","\"Ask yourself one question - \"\"Why me?\"\" Say I had no friends or family (that I liked). I have money and I'm dying. There are a half dozen charities I'd write checks to. Under what circumstances would I ever contact a stranger to try to give my money away? That answers why this is a scam.\"","It's a good question. We can't know for sure, but here are some things to think about. Paypal advertises a discounted transaction rate for non-profit organizations. In the U.S. at least, the rate they advertise is 2.2% + 0.30 USD. There are lots of things that can come into play here, such as international rates or any special deal that Wikimedia has struck with Paypal, but it seems reasonable to guess that of your 2€ donation, Wikipedia sees perhaps 1.65€. Note that most of the fee is a flat rate; of the next 2€ in your donation, Wikipedia gets 1.96€. Direct debit probably has lower fees. Paypal has to account for some credit card transaction fees in their fee structure, and direct debit does not. Therefore, I would guess that to maximize your gift, direct debit might result a little better than Paypal. Charities, in general, don't want to tell you the best way to donate, because they want it to be as easy for you as possible, and don't want to discourage any type of donation at all. They are very happy to get any donation, even if one method over another results in slightly higher fees. Wikimedia, in particular, offers many different options for donating.","An answer from PayPal stated that donations may be turned on only for Business PayPal accounts that are verified for its non-profit status. Such PayPal Business account must be opened in the name of non-profit organization (not a single person) and go through verification process. One must provide the following information: That would mean that one cannot ask for donations as a private person, at least in Croatia, and probably in Europe.","You could also start a business. I ran a project called the Thousand Rand Challenge a few years ago in South Africa where we supported people in starting a business for about $100 each. Some of them were surprisingly profitable. You can find a few ideas at the wiki site.","One possibility to consider would be making an arrangement with a registered UK charity where you would donate the necessary amount for the specific purpose of covering medical costs of that particular person. Charitable donations are expressly deductible from business profits. Some charities may be genuinely interested in helping people from developing countries get quality medical help that's not available in those countries. There may be some organizations in the proposed beneficiary's country that have contacts among the UK charities. PS. I am not a lawyer or an accountant, nor do I claim to be either. The above is not a legal or accounting advice. Consider seeking professional assistance.","Jason I think your doing a great thing. Based on what your describing I would look further into a 501(c)(3). Chapter 3 from the IRS Publication 557 offers information. This Wikipedia gives a quick understanding of 501(c)(3) and how to apply. Here is a great article from ehow it has some suggestions for someone who is just starting out. Maybe going through an organization already existing within your community might be a better, perhaps a church or some religious organization.","The relevant page of the CRA's 2016 General Income Tax and Benefit Guide explains how to donate money to the federal debt servicing and reduction account. The guide writes: To make a gift to this account, make it payable to the Receiver General, and send it with a note asking that we apply it to this account, to: Place du Portage Phase III, 11 Laurier Street Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0S5 Donations are tax-deductible: they'll send you a tax receipt.","\"The word you are looking for is \"\"budget\"\" You can't pay off debt if you are spending more than you earn. Therefore, start a budget that you both work on at the same time, and both agree 100% with. Evaluate your progress on that budget on a regular basis. From your question, you understand what your obligations are and you seem to manage money pretty well. Therefore your key to retirement is just the ticket you need. As newlyweds, you both have to be VERY aware that the main reason a marriage fails in the US is money issues. Starting out with a groundwork where you both agree to your budget and can keep it will help you a lot in your upcoming life. Then, for some details Sprinkle your charitable donations anywhere in the list where you feel it is important.\"","i'm not talking about giving money to the gov't to have them help with it (i agree, our gov't should care only about us), but doing it yourself. or maybe flying over there to help yourself with your own money. my point is: a direct approach isnt best in the long run. the best help is having a booming economy. the poor are much better in a booming economy than in a shitty one. and govt redistribution will make a shitty economy. of course a bigger problem is the gov't manipulation of interest rates and over-regulation, but a better economy pulls people out of poverty. that's why everyone was financially equal, yet extremely poor in the USSR. nice and moral are always a good thing, but not by force. libertarians DO believe their policies are best for the poor, despite a lack of redistribution of money.","No, it makes no sense. The US national debt is different from other debt on TWO KEY WAYS : 1.) The national debt is not money we owe to our government IT IS MONEY WE OWE TO OURSELVES. 2.) If the GNP of our country can grow at a rate equal to or greater than the national debt interest, then the figure of national debt has no bearing on anything. So a more philanthropic endeavor would be to help grow the economy.","has very little idea about how much we earn and how high up we are in terms of income percentile. The first part of this sentence is tough to understand. My daughter was 12 when she told us what she estimated our income to be. She looked up the price of our home, worked backwards using conservative numbers, and was pretty close. Here you are saying your wife doesn't know the family income? Percentiles are meaningless. There are $60k couples who donate 10%, and there are $300k earners who are not charitable at all, and don't even save. It's time to have a general budget conversation with her. Perhaps starting with the rate of savings, and show how there's room for charity. If your charitable desire is based on a religious compulsion, share that as well, the 10% is what many feel commanded to share by their maker, and feel that it comes off the top regardless of their income level. In reality, this issue is not financial, it's about open dialog between 2 people. Money is difficult for some to discuss, but you need to start somewhere.","This kind of questions keeps repeating itself on this site and the answer is generally it doesn't matter. As you said yourself, there are costs either way, and these costs are comparable. Generally, merchant fees differ tremendously between the different kinds of merchants, and while gas stations and video rentals may pay up to 5% and even more, charitable organizations and community services are usually not considered as high fraud risk operation and are charged much lower fees. Either way, paying employees, managing cash/check deposits or paying merchant fees is part of the charity operational expenses. Together with maintaining offices, postal office boxes, office supplies, postage expenses and formal stationary and envelopes needed for physical donations handling. I would guess that if the charity's majority of donations come on-line as credit card/paypal payments - check handling will be more expensive. So I suggest you take the route you consider majority of donors pay - that would be the cheapest for them to handle. I would guess, credit cards being the most convenient - would be the way to go.","If your taxes aren't going to healthcare, they are going for something else. Taxes won't go away even if we eliminate Medicaid, Medicare, social security and the EPA. Politicians are very good at spending money, so they will find a place for your taxes. The argument isn't taxes or charity. It's where should taxes be spent for the most good. What will keep the US leading the rest of the world? It isn't charity. It is democracy, standards of living and defense spending."],"string":"[\n \"In the. US, i'd suggest hitting the Charity Navigator website for evaluation of how efficiently various charities will use your money. At this point I won't donate money to anything that gets less than three stars unless I know the organization very well indeed -- and I've been progressively swapping out 3-star groups for 4-star organizations in the same category. Many of the groups reviewed by CN are international, so you might find it useful even if you're donating from/to elsewhere.\",\n \"For people who are good with money (presumably), Kiva.org gives your money to such people who apply for loans through social service organizations in various countries (I believe this is how it's done). The people state what they will use the money for. It can be as simple as 'buying provisions for food truck business' or 'replacing wheels on tractor.' Then they pay the money back and you (who donated x number of dollars) use that repaid money to make another loan.\",\n \"\\\"I'll answer your second question: it depends what your charity is for. There are two types: i) Emergency (i.e. to respond to environmental or social disasters where it acts a bit like an insurance policy); ii) Development (i.e. where the intention is to subsidise something missing in the local economy); A lack of insurance is certainly a problem for people who lose their homes and livelihoods to disaster. Your donations can go far. As for development aid: \\\"\\\"We find little evidence of a robust positive correlation between aid and growth,\\\"\\\" write two ex-IMF economists, Raghuram Rajan, who stepped down as IMF chief economist at the end of 2006, and Arvind Subramanian, who left the IMF this year. \\\"\\\"One of the most enduring and important questions in economics is whether foreign aid helps countries grow ... There is a moral imperative to this question: it is a travesty for so many countries to remain poor if a relatively small transfer of resources from rich countries could set them on the path to growth ... But if there is no clear evidence that aid boosts growth, then handing out more money makes little sense,\\\"\\\" they conclude. I do somewhat further in declaring that charity is equivalent to trade dumping. By artificially lowering the real cost of a particular good it ensures that there will be no local investment in that good. Free clothes to Africa has destroyed the local textiles industry. Free doctors has resulted in more African doctors in New York than in the whole of Africa. So decide where your charity is going: emergencies or development? Then decide what you can afford. But your first investment should always be in yourself. If by making use of that investment you can benefit the economy and keep others around you employed and productive you will achieve far more.\\\"\",\n \"This might be blasphemy in the context of an audience that may be most focused on the gift itself, but you should be donating in a manner that helps advance the landscape, as well as your particular favourite charity. Almost 90% of businesses are in the process of trying to move away from issuing and receiving checks, and several countries in the world have already stopped using them. Checks are inefficient, costly and in a resource constrained environment like that facing most charities, create an opportunity cost that is even higher than the manual processing cost that flows directly. As donors, we need to think about scale in a manner that many individual charities don't. Send your donation via ACH!\",\n \"GiveDirectly works substantially better than you'd imagine, and is money well spent in terms of unlimited problems and limited resources. But it probably isn't as close to perfect as reports like this make it seem. As a general idea, financial efficiency is super important but you still need to analyze that the approach the organization takes is effective. Part of the downside of GiveDirectly is based on the fact that your average joe won't always spend money in the perfect manner. This article is a pretty good critique and links to a more formal study - https://ssir.org/articles/entry/givedirectly_not_so_fast Think it's a great organization but the flowery praise may be a bit too optimistic. I sure as shit don't know. Depends on the mission but quantifying the efficacy of charities and benefit per dollar spent is very difficult. The most economically efficient charity ever is probably a smaller organization that approaches a very concrete simple problem, and has minimal overhead. Best guess would be a food bank run by a convent/monastery.\",\n \"\\\"The definite answer if you want to give a larger amount of money is: Ask the charity. Just drop them a mail with something like: Dear Sirs, I've decided to donate you $1,000,000 because I like what you do. Could you please tell me which option is more convenient and less costly for you? I can do either an online debit/credit card payment, send you a check by mail, or make a bank transfer [cross out whichever you can't do]. I'm looking forward to hearing from you. Yours faithfully, Even if you give \\\"\\\"just\\\"\\\" $2,000, it's surely enough to be worth for them writing you a reply and clarifying whichever way they prefer, so you don't waste neither their time nor the money this way.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I know your pain oh, so much. I literally have a 14 gallon rubbermaid container FULL of solicitations I have received. Even worse, for-profit fundraising companies send most of those mailings! They take the money, and deduct their \\\"\\\"expenses\\\"\\\", rigged to consume almosts all your gift. Some companies have been caught passing as little as 9% to the charity. First let's talk about a few issues. Authentication. Is that outfit really a tax deductible 501c3 charity? Address. Is this their genuine address, or is it the dropbox of a scammer or one of those evil for-profit fundraising companies? Acknowledgement. For gifts over a certain size, you need a thank-you letter from them to show the IRS that you really donated. Will you get it? The limit is $250 (no letter, deduction rejected) but as a practical thing, it helps in an audit to show as many donation letters as possible. Charities cannot issue them retroactively, but can issue you second copies of ones they sent previously. If the charity drops the ball, you lose. Obviously enough, you go to the post office and spend $1 on a money order. This does not authenticate them as a charity. It does not assure it goes to their real address. You can do both these things yourself, by checking their data on the IRS website or on guidestar.org. You don't get an acknowledgement. I mention these because donation websites work much the same way. DAFs require a higher one-time commitment but are much simpler and more efficient after that. If you are planning to give $5000 in a single year, save it up and open a Donor Advised Fund account. A DAF is itself a charity. You donate to the DAF, and take the tax deduction for charitable contributons. Then, you tell the DAF to donate it to other charities on your behalf, or anonymously. Their concept is, you use the DAF as a \\\"\\\"buffer\\\"\\\" so you can easily make the tax-deductible donation when you need to for tax purposes, then at your leisure research charities and support them. However, I asked my DAF - most people donate and then immediately re-donate the money, leaving the fund at zero balance. My DAF doesn't mind that at all, and they charge zero fees for this. (Its expenses are paid by those of us who leave money sitting around in the DAF. Mine charges 0.6% a year. This money can be invested sort of like in a 401K, and each investment also has an expense ratio, such as 0.18% a year in my chosen index fund.) Websites like \\\"\\\"justgive.org\\\"\\\" will take any amount of your money and re-donate it to the charity you select. They deduct 3-5% for their expenses (notably paper, stamps, and the 2-3% it costs them to process your credit card).\\\"\",\n \"I can't say specifically about charities to help Greece. If someone on here has specific knowledge, please chime in. The only shortcut I know to tell if a charity is legitimate is to consult one of the ratings/watchdog type groups that monitor charities. For example, for explicitly Christian charities, there's a group called the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. To be a member in good standing a charity has to meet a bunch of criteria, like having an independent board of directors, i.e. you can't start a charity, make yourself the president and your brother-in-law the vice president and you're not answerable to anyone else; their fund-raising and administrative costs can't be more than a certain percentage of total income, etc. There are similar groups with similar standards for more general charities. I'm not naming any of those groups because there's a potential catch: How reputable is the group that rates other people's reputations? And I don't want to recommend someone without knowing. Years ago I came across a news story about an organization that rated colleges, and that had given one particular college their top rating. But, the news story said, investigators found that that one college was the ONLY college they ever gave a rating to, and that their address was the same as the college's address. It turned out, of course, that the college was a scam. The other method is to take some time to investigate the charity. For starters, get a copy of their annual report or their newsletter. If they're total frauds, often they don't have an annual report or a newsletter. Of course a fraud could make up beautiful flyers describing all the wonderful work they do, with pictures of people they helped and detailed case histories, and it's all complete fiction. But that's more work than most con men go to. I've gotten lots of pleas for contributions from people who call on the phone or come to my door or send an email. If the message does not have a logo, a mailing address and phone number, reasonably coherent English, and a fair amount of text describing what they do, I don't give them anything. They COULD be a new start up that hasn't had time to prepare these things. They COULD believe that pretty flyers are a waste of money and they want to put all their resources into helping the needy. But more likely it's a scam that somebody through together in his basement. Of course the best thing is if you personally know people who are officers in the organization. (Well, assuming you personally know them AND you know that they are honest people. If you know the president and you know he's a sleazy con man, you might want to stay away from that group.) See if you can find information about the charity in the news or on-line. If they're being investigated for fraud by the Justice Department, you might want to avoid them. Etc. Maybe you've thought this through, but you also might want to think about exactly who in Greece you want to help, and what your philosophy of charity is. Do you want to help people who lost their jobs because of the economic problems there and who are now unemployed? Do you want to donate to the government to help them balance the budget? Do you want to help support an orphanage or a homeless shelter, or give money directly to needy people? Etc. And one piece of unsolicited advice: Unless you have millions to give -- and I'm assuming you don't as you said your first gift would be $50 -- I'd pick one or two charities and give regularly to them. I think you can do more good by giving $X per month to a single charity than to give to a different charity every month. You make more difference.\",\n \"\\\"I'd suggest you to separate \\\"\\\"doing good\\\"\\\" from \\\"\\\"earning profit\\\"\\\". Look at the guys like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates (or Carnegie and Ford for that matters). They understand that you can't reconcile the two goals, so they donate for free what they earned for profit. If you want to make a social impact with your money, you can check the charity programs that have a confirmed record of a positive impact on people's lives. Non-profits that studied such programs publish their results extensively: AidGrade compiles this research and suggests direct donations to the programs that demonstrated best outcomes per dollar invested:\\\"\",\n \"Economic efficiency is overrated. I would rather give money to a charity that spent 15% on human resources and 10% on marketing to get $10 million in incoming donations than to a charity with an 8% expense rate that receives $1 million in incoming donations.\",\n \"The simplest way to handle this would be to buy money orders, make them out to the charities, and leave your name off them. Money orders don't require you to put your name on them, just the name of whoever they're being paid to. You can mail them with no return address as well if you're sure you have the charity's proper mailing address. This way you can still feel good about giving and leave no trace of who you are for anyone to use for future marketing. I hope this helps. Good luck!\",\n \"\\\"In the US: In the UK: You can set up a CAF (Charities Aid foundation) Charity Account. This allows you to donate to charities anonymously, while still allowing the recipient to benefit from Gift Aid (where they can reclaim the income tax you'd paid on the donation). You can even use this account to donate to overseas charities if you're donating at least £250. Or you can use a different intermediary such as BT MyDonate or The Big Give or another intermediary. See the Wikipedia article \\\"\\\"Comparison of online charity donation services in the United Kingdom\\\"\\\". In Canada: If there's a United Way charity in your country, it may have a donor choice program which may be able to forward a designated donation to any other charity in your country. The United Way probably charges a fee for this service. I'm not sure whether or not the United Way would be willing to keep you anonymous, and I'm not sure whether or not the United Way would add you to its mailing list. More details may be available elsewhere online.\\\"\",\n \"If you don't have much money, and more important, don't itemize, donations are strictly between you and your karma. If you itemize (from a combination of mortgage interest, property tax, and state tax), by donating used goods, you can get some return on your taxes, and feel good about yourself. When I donate at charity time (December for me) I don't look at every $1000 check as a $250 benefit back to me, although that's the effect. I care deeply about the charity's cause and have personally visited each of them. You want to drop $50 to some huge agency that's funding cancer research? No objection. But when I visit a Veteran's Center or School for the Blind, I can see the good work my money is doing.\",\n \"You have money, free hands and free time, you can make an extremely positive impact on the world. I would start with a list of causes that you're passionate about. Narrow that down to 3 and then get involved in all of them. I think you should pick the one you like most, but some people can handle all 3.\",\n \"If I donate $10,000 to charity then I can deduct that $10,000 from my income and not pay income taxes on it. So if I make $50,000 a year then I will only pay income taxes on $40,000 instead of $50,000 since I donated $10,000 to charity. This is what is meant when charity contributions are said to be tax deductible. Don't feel like you have to donate to charity. You owe no one anything. You do more for others by working (assuming you work in the private sector). If you know of someone personally that is in need of aid then you could give them some help directly. I find this more effective then blindly dumping money in a bureaucratic, inefficient charity. I also find there are very few people in need of charity. Personally, I think charity donations are a way for people to feel good about themselves. They rarely care if their donations are effective.\",\n \"\\\"Having worked for both a non-profit and a charity, it is my recommendation that you always donate directly to the charity, and not through any form of solicitation. Most of the telephone calls that you receive are likely from telemarketing companies. It has been my experience (through exploring them as a means of fundraising) that the charity will likely only see about 10% - 25% of the funds raised in their name!! I imagine that a number of door to door solicitations are also done by professional fundraisers. WRT sharing of lists, it is likely not the charities that share the lists, but the companies that they hire to solicit for them. I always ask to be put on their \\\"\\\"do not call\\\"\\\" list To verify that a person collecting at your door is from the charity that they represent, can you pledge a donation, buying time to look into them? Or write a cheque in the name of the charity if it is known to you? I doubt that many scammers would go to the trouble of trying to open a bank account in the charity's name. I like YMCbuzz's point about the online donation - I use CanadaHelps.org. They are very upfront about the small (3%) fee that they charge, and the rest of the money goes to the charity. I have used them working for a charity, so I can vouch for how much is sent to the charity.\\\"\",\n \"In the US, if it's a large donation to a tax-exempt organization (401c3 or equivalent), you may want to consider giving appreciated equities (stocks, bonds, mutual fund shares which are now worth more than you paid for them). You get to claim the deduction's value at the time you transfer it to their account, and you avoid capital gains tax. They would pay the capital-gains tax when they redeem it for cash... but if exempt, they get the full value and the tax is completely avoided. Effectively, your donation costs you less for the same impact. It does take a bit of work to coordinate this with the receiving organization, and there may be brokerage fees, so it probably isn't worth doing for small sums.)Transfers within the same brokerage house may avoid those feee.) So again, you should talk to the charity about what's best. But for larger donations, where larger probably starts at a few thou, it can save you a nice chunk of change.\",\n \"There isn't going to be one right answer, but LessWrong has some posts on effective altruism you might find helpful. They also link to a TED talk\",\n \"\\\"Agreed. One of the comments for this question Good books for learning about tax strategy/planning uses the phrase: \\\"\\\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\\\"\\\" It applies to charitable donations. Donate because it is expected by your church; donate because it makes you feel good; but don't donate just to save money on your taxes. Once you have decided to donate take the steps necessary to be able to deduct your donation. Get the receipt or use a check or credit card so you can deduct the donation.\\\"\",\n \"If I were donating money to a charity, i.e. an organization set up to help others, I would simply send them the money and ask that my name not be used in publicity. That would mean that the person(s) actually benefiting from my donation didn't know who I was. The charity would know, but they don't themselves benefit.\",\n \"In the US the best way to solve the problem, IMHO, would be via a trust. Talk to a properly licensed trust/estate attorney and a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). Using intermediary who's not a 501(c) organization may pose income tax issues to that intermediary as providing support to the needy is not a valid business expense. It may also pose gift tax issues, since the aggregate amounts may exceed the statutory exemption limits. Using a (non-revokable) trust you can avoid these issues, but others may come up (such as what to do with the trust income or undistributed moneys). Talk to the advisers about how to avoid them.\",\n \"If you are interested, simply collect their contact information and donate by mail or in the office. You can't vet a door to door or phone call charity; not quickly enough anyway. A real charity would be happy for your donation anytime, not just when a volunteer happens to catch you at home on the weekend. It is simply to ripe for scams in my opinion. The big exception is when a kid comes to my door with a food item. I try to buy one just to make the kid feel successful. Even if they never turn in the money at least I got a $2 chocolate bar.\",\n \"\\\"Charitable donations can be deducted from your income, and in that way make your taxable income lower, hence lower taxes. That's the meaning of \\\"\\\"tax deductible\\\"\\\". As to \\\"\\\"if I donate it then the money will be given right to the charity instead of spread out to many other places\\\"\\\" - taxes are being used by the government based on its own decisions (presumably made by elected officials thus representing the will of the voters). Charities use the money based on their defined goals. Giving money to a charity will ensure it is used for the specific goal the charity declared, and that's the way for you to funnel money to the goals of your preference/choice. For example, you can donate money to your temple, orphanage around the corner, or the gay rights organization. Or anti gay, for that matters. Your money will be spent on the goals of your choosing. Re advantages - charitable donations are used by the rich folks to avoid paying taxes on their income (because they're deductible), so someone might donate money to places they use themselves (like the temple/church for example, or the school where the kids go, or politician which will \\\"\\\"objectively\\\"\\\" choose someone's business for a big government contract, etc etc). For \\\"\\\"ordinary\\\"\\\" people it's a way to reduce the taxable income and divert the money to the specific goals of their choice. For example, donating $100 to Red Cross Japan Tsunami relief fund, will reduce your taxable income by $100, and total taxes by $28 (assuming you're in the 28% bracket), thus the $28 will go to the specific goal your choose instead of the general taxes.\\\"\",\n \"Yes. Donating to name-brand charities or politicians will result in you geting solicitied for more donations -- charities sell your info and donation habits.\",\n \"This sounds a lot like numerous small-scale development efforts. They may work on some level, but rarely have an impact on the most significant cause of poor development -- corrupt politics. In the end it will likely benefit a few people, and provide data for economists to pore over. Which is worth something, I suppose.\",\n \"One of the best things you can do for this purpose, while getting a modest ROI on a passive investment, is invest in a company that profitably does whatever you want to see more of. For example, you could invest in a for-profit company that sells needed goods to low-income people at lower prices. Something like Wal-Mart, which is one of the most effective anti-poverty engines in the US. You might also say the same of something like Aldi (owner of Aldi stores and Trader Joe's), which is a discount store chain. This is true even though a company like Wal-Mart is seeking to make money first. Its customer base tends to skew heavily towards low-income consumers, and historically to rural and elderly consumers. When Wal-Mart is able to provide food, clothing, appliances and the like to poor people at a lower cost, it is making it marginally less painful to have a low income. Peter Suderman can explain why Wal-Mart is a humanitarian enterprise: Walmart’s customer base is heavily concentrated in the bottom income quintile, which spends heavily on food. The bottom income quintile spends about 25 percent of income on food compared to just 3.5 percent for the top quintile. So the benefits of Walmart’s substantially lower prices to the lowest earning cohort are huge, especially on food. As Suderman points out, this view of Wal-Mart dramatically lowering prices that low-income people pay for food was corroborated by an Obama adviser. That's just one company. You can pick the industry and company that best suits your personal preferences. Alternatively, you could invest in something like Whole Foods, a company with multiple missions to improve the planet and the community, in addition to the more typical mission of being a prosperous retail chain. Of course, as a general proposition, a less than entirely altruistic, charity-inclined investment doesn't need to be targeted at those with low incomes or at saving the planet. You could invest in almost anything you think is good (yachts, yo-yos, violins, energy production, industrial inputs, music performances) and the company will take care of making more of that good thing. You didn't say whether your goal was to help the poor, the planet, arts, sciences, knowledge, community, or whatever. What I understand you to be saying is you are willing to accept a lower ROI in exchange for some warm-fuzzies from your investment. That seems perfectly valid and reasonable to me, but it makes it much more subjective and particular to your tastes. So you'll need to pick something that's meaningful to you. If you're going to trade ROI for positive feelings, then you should pick whatever gives you your optimal blend of emotions and returns. Alternatively, you could invest in something stable and predictable to beat inflation (some sort of index or fund) and then annually use some portion of those profits to simply give to the charity of your choice. Your investment and your charity do not necessarily need to be the same vehicle.\",\n \"\\\"Can you get a cashier's check from your bank, made out in the charity's name, and mail it to the charity? From what I recall of the last few times I've gotten a cashier's check from the bank, it didn't have anything on it that identified me. A determined person could probably trace it back to you, but you're not really looking for strong anonymity. Another possibility would be a postal money order, but I'm not sure whether you can leave the \\\"\\\"From\\\"\\\" section blank. The money order would have a fee, but the cashier's check should be free. (It is at both my local bank and my CU.)\\\"\",\n \"\\\"But sending money overseas doesn't help here, and government programs that feed people (especially children) and keeping people working or in school (medical programs) do have direct economic benefits to this nation, in addition to being \\\"\\\"nice\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"moral\\\"\\\". I am not advocating the end of all suffering by giving things away, rather I am advocating the judicious use of government spending to make the world better for everyone.\\\"\",\n \"OP wants to do something very honourable, applause for that. Being a Greek I have insider knowledge about the impact of various organisations. Fact is, for people from abroad what is the most highly recommended action would be to support organisations of an international network (red cross, doctors w/out borders etc), because the health system is suffering seriously nowadays -or access to it-, and providing redundancy in that respect can certainly make a difference, via global health efforts. The next best thing you can do, to yourself and others, is basically to take a vacation in Greece and visit both a big city (here's where the problems will be visible) and an island (here's where you'll realise that you are in a place of stunning natural beauty). By taking this action you achieve two things: you put the economy in motion - a small vote, yet it counts - and you actually are a first-person observer. Enough is enough with victimisation via the news coming from inside or outside Greece! People need get the whole respective.\",\n \"I'm familiar with the quote. The institution you donate to can keep you anonymous. The person actually benefiting is not aware of your generosity. This is how I understand the biblical meaning. By the way, a number of people who donate, do not take the tax deduction, so as to not benefit. To them I suggest they calculate the refund, and add that to their donations the next year.\",\n \"\\\"For many people, giving to charity will have minimal effect on their taxes. Non-profits love to attract donations by saying the money is tax deductible, but for most people, it doesn't work out that way. You will only itemize deductions if they exceed your standard deduction. The IRS allows you to either \\\"\\\"itemize\\\"\\\" your deductions (where you list each deduction you can take) or take the \\\"\\\"standard deduction\\\"\\\". Consider a married couple filing jointly in 2011. Their standard deduction is $11,400. They are in the 28% tax bracket. They donate $100 of old clothes to the Goodwill, and are looking forward to deducting that on your taxes, and getting $28 of that back. If that's their only deduction, though, they'd have to give up the standard deduction to take the itemized deduction. Not worth it. Suppose instead they have $11,500 of deductions in 2011. Now we're talking, right? No. The tax impact of itemizing is only $28, since they only exceeded the standard deduction by $100. The cost of having a tax accountant fill out the itemization form probably offsets that small gain. There's also all the time that went in to tracking those deductions over the year. Not worth it. Tax deductions only become worthwhile when they significantly exceed the standard deduction. You need some big ticket items to get past the itemized deduction threshold. For most people, this only happens when they have a mortgage, as the interest on a residence is deductible. Folks love to suggest that having a mortgage is a good deal, because the interest is deductible. However, since you have to exceed the standard deduction before it makes sense to itemize, it's not likely to be a big win. For most people: TL;DR: Give to charity because you want that charity to have your money. Tax implications are minimal; let your accountant sort it out. Disclaimer: I am not an accountant.\\\"\",\n \"Might I interest you in /r/kiva (Kiva.org) as well? Particularly if you have excess cash lying around that you are wondering how to put to use productively while waiting for the markets to cycle, and/or are interested in /r/churning. Let me know if you have any questions about it.\",\n \"\\\"You could always put cash in an envelope and mail it, with no return address on the envelope. Any form of anonymous donation that I can think of has the risk that if the money is intercepted and stolen, you'll never know. Also, you won't get a receipt that you can use for tax purposes. You could try sending this organization a note saying, \\\"\\\"I think you're doing great work, but this donation was a one-time gift. Please take me off your mailing list.\\\"\\\" I don't know if it would work, but it's worth a try. By the way, the problem is worse than you think: charities share mailing lists. Once one charity has your name, they'll often share it with other related charities. For example, I give to the Catholic Family Association even though I am a Protestant -- I think they're doing good work that Catholics, Protestants, and people of many other faiths could support. But over the years I started getting fundraising letters from other Catholic charities, and then from groups trying to spread Catholicism, and now I'm getting mailings from groups whose stated purpose is to oppose Protestants. I laugh and throw away the letters, but I know some people get really bothered by this sort of thing. \\\"\\\"I'm pretty sure that the total cost of the mailings including postage has now exceeded the $20 I donated.\\\"\\\" I've occassionally thought of sending some trivial donation, $5 or $10, to some political or activist group that I totally oppose, just so they'll spend way more than that over the course of the next few years asking me for more money. :-) Plus, they'll send me letters that will tell me what the opposition is up to.\\\"\",\n \"What I want to know is; How much does all this 'competition', advertising, marketing, etc etc actually increase how much people give as a total yearly sum of their earning? If 40 cents on the dollar is spend advertising and 'collecting' more money. Sure it works on the scale of a single successful charity. What is the cost to charities as a whole though? If someone gives away 2,000 a year to charity, and 19 charities all spend $100 chasing that $2000 dollars, they on average can prove they are 'making money' by spending to get that $100 'more'. But in reality, now instead of being able to give $2000 to the needy the person was actually only able to give $100. That is my fear when we start having charities operate as big business.\",\n \"We are the second most charitable country on the planet (source: world giving index), if Granny can't find support, she isn't really looking. The support is there for those genuinely in need. And, the money goes further because it doesn't have to pay bureaucrat salaries.\",\n \"Depending on the size of the donation, you may be able to reduce taxes further by donating appreciated assets, such as stock or fund shares that have gone up a lot. That lets you dodge the capital gains tax on redeeming the shares, and if you're donating to a tax-exempt organization they don't have to pay that tax either. And as @JoeTaxpayer has confirmed, you still get to deduct the current value of the donation, not just the basis value of those shares. So if you're donating anyway, this comes close to being Free Money in exchange for some slightly annoying paperwork. (Yet another benefit of long-term investing!) Of course folks in the top brackets sometimes set up their own tax-exempt foundations so they can decouple taking the tax break from deciding what to do with the donation.\",\n \"\\\"I have a short list of charities that I support, so it's relatively easy for me to say \\\"\\\"I'm sorry, all my donations go to _.\\\"\\\" I do all my donations online, as well, so keeping receipts is very easy.\\\"\",\n \"Putting money into your Amazon gift card balance is also a very convenient option, but I like these recurring Red Cross and Wikipedia ideas also.\",\n \"\\\"I'm being taxed at a 40% rate, then I can give $500,000 to charity, write it off, and save $200,000 on my taxes. That's a net loss of $300,000. I may have paid less taxes, but it cost me 300 grand. Your logic is correct. However, here's another way to think about it. Suppose you are being taxed at a 40% rate. You wish to purchase $500,000 worth of diamonds. How much do you have to make in income to do so? You need to make $833,333 in income, pay 40% of that ($333,333) in taxes, and then spend the $500,000 on the diamonds. But to spend that $500,000 on a charitable donation, you only need to make an income of $500,000, taxed at a rate of 0%, because donations to charity count against your taxable income. Or, yet another way to think about it, is that if you make $833,333 in income, you can spend it on $500,000 worth of diamonds, or $833,333 worth of charitable contributions; effectively you get to purchase $333,333 worth of charitable contributions \\\"\\\"for free\\\"\\\" over the equivalent purchase that is not a charitable donation.\\\"\",\n \"I once had worked for Koch Industries. I attended a meeting in which Charles Koch said 'do well so that you can do good'. I like that philosophy. It means make money (even if it is from 'bad' companies) so that you have the means (money) to do good things for others. Bill Gates has made money and is now trying to do good with it. You have better control of how your money is used if you manage it yourself. If you let some faceless company manage it you are never quite sure that they are really helping others.\",\n \"If you have a software company, that can produce a box of software for $5, but the box sells for $100. (You have to make a profit and cover development costs) But then you give these boxes to charity, that is a cost of $5 each and a tax rebate of $100 x 40% = $40. A profit of $35 per donation of $5. Note: You can only do this if you have taxable profit to offset it against.\",\n \"Give them cash and watch how the violent ones start robbing houses to steal others’ money. P.s poor people are good at managing money. They know the value of each cent. They are bad at managing big amounts. Thats why you give them $1000 over a year instead of lump sum of $50.000 f.e\",\n \"That plan wouldn't save you any money because tax brackets don't work that way. All of your earnings up to each level are taxed at that rate. You aren't taxed at the highest rate on all of the money. In your example you pay... If you reduce your income to $37,4000 you pay... In the end you'd be spending $100 to save $20. The only way you conceivably come out ahead by donating to charity (not counting the good karma for doing so) is if you own the charity and it is a way for you to funnel money to yourself and write it off.\",\n \"\\\"At its heart, I think the best spirit of \\\"\\\"donation\\\"\\\" is helping others less fortunate than yourself. But as long as the US remains solvent, the chief benefit of paying down the national debt is - like paying off a credit card - lowering the future interest payments the U.S. taxpayer has to make. Since the wealthy pay a disproportionately large portion of taxes (per capita), your hard earned money would be disproportionately benefitting the wealthy. So I'd recommend you do one or both of the following: instead target your donations to a charity whose average beneficiary is less fortunate than yourself take political action with an aim towards balancing the federal budget (since the US national debt is principally financed in the form of 30 year treasuries, the U.S. will be completely out of debt if it can maintain a balanced budget for 30 years recanted, see below)\\\"\",\n \"In the United States investing towards donation is a great idea because you can donate appreciated securities directly rather than donating cash. Notice how much this can benefit you: So you get to both (a) donate untaxed money and then (b) deduct that unrealized money from your income total on your tax return. With the above in mind, a good strategy for investing towards this type of donation would be to pick securities that are likely to increase in market value but not likely to produce any other sort of income. So bonds (which produce lots of interest income), or stocks with dividends, or equity mutual funds (which distribute dividends as capital gains) would all be suboptimal for this purpose. Of course, an even better strategy would be to establish a widely diversified investment portfolio without thought to future donations. Then, once a year (or whenever), evaluate all your investments and find some where the market value has increased. Then donate some of those shares. No special advance planning necessary. Note that your tax consequences could be more complicated depending on your exact situation. Read the section about Capital Gain Property in IRS Pub. 26 for all the details. There may be special limits on the amount you can deduct. Also, donations of short term capital gains are treated much less favorably, so make sure you donate only long term capital gain property.\",\n \"I've found you can give the money to charity. If you text REDCROSS to 90999 for example you can give $10 to the redcross\",\n \"Now that the labor market in China is near saturation and wages are rising, I think that the Western factories that rely heavily on unskilled labor will start to move from China to sub-Saharan Africa. Edit: I disagree with this line: > tried-and-true strategies of delivering charity Those charities have come under a lot of fire recently, especially from African academics, for distorting the market economies in Africa. Massive supplies of free grain ruin the market for farmers. They inhibit the development of the agricultural sector in Africa and may be harming Africans in the long-term as much as they help in the short-term. Foreign direct investment, better governance, and foreign-built factories will probably help Africa more than food aid.\",\n \"here is what I have learned with multiple close encounters with bankruptcies: ask yourself.. what if I save vs what if I spend? say you like a new shirt.. ask yourself what can you do saving $40 vs rewarding yourself/your well wishers right away? you will end up spending. just like you the other person needs money. he/she is doing a work. ask yourself what if you are in his/her situation. you would obviously want others to be happy. so spend. I think these two should be good. I must add that you should NOT be wasteful. Eg.. buying a handmade shoes vs corporation made shoes? choose handmade one because it fits above two. buying a corporate one would be more polluting and less rewarding because you just gave your money to someone who already has lots and cares least about you. in what way are you saying mortgage is good? I see that as a waste. you can pay back your mortgage only when someone takes even bigger mortgage (check with some maths before refuting)... in other words you have taken part in ponzi scheme.! I would suggest making a house vs buying one is better spending. finally spending is a best saving.. don't forget that you are getting money only because someone is spending wisely. stop feeding your money to corporates and interests and everyone will have plenty to spend.\",\n \"\\\"I think the best way to handle her fears is to explain the income and expenses of the household overall, then explain the savings and investment strategies, retirement projections, and then finally explain a concrete number for allowable monthly or annual discretionary expenses (including charity, entertainment, vacations, etc.). You may have delicate relationship reasons for not doing this, but if you want a reasonable discussion, I would leave it this way. Please do not open with the question \\\"\\\"how much do you think we make\\\"\\\" or anything similar because that comes off as a trick or a quiz. It sounds very condescending and highlights how much more you know about finances than she does. It also highlights subconsciously how little mental control she has over the finances, which is likely to make her feel greater anxiety. You should emphasize how secure things are and explain why all the savings and investments you're using are conservatively likely to keep her financially secure. This sets the ground for her to be comfortable with the fact that she now has money, in contrast to perhaps a less financially secure personal history. After that, charitable expenses come out of the expense budget, same as vacations, recreation, etc. If it does not implicate financial security, then it's not dangerous to spend on charity. The alternate approach is to avoid the big financial talk and just propose a few small contributions this year. Then increase it every year incrementally. That may be easier to swallow once there's a psychological track record of donating without incident. Please go into the discussion remembering three things: But above all, please do not open up with a quiz. Have a simple discussion with her. Give her time to consider the expenses budget relative to the savings budget as a proportion of income. And then allow for the fact that she may place a strong premium on savings and a strong discount on charity.\\\"\",\n \"If the organization is a non-profit. You can search by EIN on Charity Navigator's website FOR FREE. https://www.charitynavigator.org/\",\n \"\\\"At this level it's not so much about \\\"\\\"handling money\\\"\\\" in the way we think of it in the first world. It's more like you have no possible way to get enough capital to get out of a desperately bad situation. But if you do get that capital, you can start digging your way out. For example, in one case I read about, someone used part of that $1000 to buy a cow. Then she started selling milk and saving money.\\\"\",\n \"You question is very hard to answer as it is tough to put a value on how much bad your added investment in evil companies would cause and also how much value the charities add. However, there has been a bunch of really good work on socially responsible investing in general. This paper might be too technical for some but the conclusion section is very readable and clear. The big worry about socially responsible investing from a financial standpoint is that it will lower returns in the long run. The paper above and others show fairly clearly that as long as you only exclude a few classes of stocks and still have a fairly broad base that the expected returns are similar. The main issue though is some socially responsible funds have much higher fees. So the usual advice applies, do your research to make sure your investments are well diversified and have low fees. As long as the index is fairly broad you can consider the difference between the fees on the socially responsible index and investing in a more common index as the long run cost. Then you can balance that cost and having more money for charity against the benefits of not investing in evil companies.\",\n \"FYI, the proposed cuts to food stamps would need to be compensated by an increase fo ~$50,000/church for local food-based organizations to make up the difference. If you want your giving to make up for government programs, you'd best be prepared to give a lot.\",\n \"\\\"Fighting poverty is akin to \\\"\\\"fighting drug use\\\"\\\". No matter how much money is raised via taxation there will always be a bottom percentile of individuals who are not \\\"\\\"wealthy\\\"\\\" in relation to others above them in society and especially Bill Gates. If he really wants to make a difference then he should support rational and reasonable economic propositions which raises the standard of living and lowers the cost of living, but I suspect that would not bring him any sort of feel good press as his \\\"\\\"Tax the rich, give to the poor\\\"\\\" proposals.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"It really depends on what your goals are. If your intent is to benefit the charity, I'm sure that they would tell you that the sooner you give them the money, the better. If they think that the money would do them more good invested then spent, they will invest it. The money you have sitting in your \\\"\\\"charitable account\\\"\\\" doesn't benefit anyone until you give it away. It really doesn't benefit you, either. You take your tax deduction when you contribute, and it is really out of your hands at this point. The only reason I could see for using a charitable account this way is if you don't know who you want to give money to. If this is the case, you can contribute money to your charitable account now and take the tax deduction now, and wait to identify a worthy charity later. But if I were you, I wouldn't wait too long to find someone to give the money to. There are lots of good organizations that would do a lot of good with that money, and the sooner they get it, the better. If you skip the charitable account and donate directly to them on a regular basis, you can experience the joy of partnering with a charity to help people. If you decide in the future to switch to a different charity, then you do so. Waiting until the \\\"\\\"right time\\\"\\\" to donate doesn't really do anyone any good.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"A budget that you both agree on is a great goal. X% to charity, y% to savings, $z a month to a reserve for house repairs, and so on. Your SO is likely to agree with this, especially if you say it like this: I know you're concerned that I might want to give too much to charity. Why don't we go through the numbers and work out a cap on what I can give away each year? Like, x% of our gross income or y% of our disposable income? Work out x and y in advance so you say real percentages in this \\\"\\\"meeting request\\\"\\\", but be prepared to actually end up at a different x and y later. Perhaps even suggest an x and y that are a little lower than you would really wish for. If your SO thinks you earn half what you really do, then mental math if you say 5% will lead to half what you want to donate, but don't worry about that at the moment. That could even work in your favour if you've already said you want to give $5000 (or $50,000) a year and mental math with the percentage leads your SO to $2500 (or $25,000), (s)he might think \\\"\\\"yes, if we have this meeting I can rein in that crazy generosity.\\\"\\\" Make sure your budget is complete. You don't want your SO worrying that if the furnace wears out or the roof needs to be replaced, the money won't be there because you gave it away. Show how these contingencies, and your retirement, will all be taken care of. Show how much you are setting aside to spend on vacations, and so on. That will make it clear that there is room to give to those who are not as fortunate as you. If your SO's motivations are only worry that there won't be money when it's needed, you will not only get permission to donate, you'll get a happier SO. (For those who don't know how this can happen, I knew a woman just like this. The only income she believed they had was her husband's pension. He had several overseas companies and significant royalty income, but she never accounted for that when talking of what they could afford. Her mental image of their income was perhaps a quarter of what it really was, leading to more than one fight about whether they could take a trip, or give a gift, that she thought was too extravagant. For her own happiness I wish he had gone through the budget with her in detail.)\\\"\",\n \"Kind of pointless when 1/2 goes to military 1/4 to banks, the rest for poorly organised social services. Better off setting up a separate foundation / charity or it will just get recycled back into wealth disparity activities. No point raising tax revenues when its spent on war inc and wallstreet.\",\n \"As someone that has run a nonprofit, my 2 cents: First: thank you for giving and for being conscientious about wanting to make things as easy as possible. The best method is the one you'll actually do. If there is a chance that you will end up not donating by check because you don't have a stamp, you forget, etc. go ahead and do it online. A donation with a fee is better than an intention without one. We had one case where a potential donor decided to give, but was so worried about the processing fee that they wanted to write a check. We followed up 3 times on the pledge, spent time following up with the pledge's connection that wanted to see if it came through, and in the end they never sent the check. Their pledge wound up costing us staff time and money as we tried to make their giving easy. If you are as likely to give, size matters. My rule of thumb is that if you are giving $1 up to about a hundred dollars, the fee (which most nonprofits can get to about 3% or 3.5%) is about the same as the added staff time opening the check, adding an extra to the deposit slip, etc. But as soon as you are giving a couple hundred dollars and especially if you are giving in the thousands, it is definitely better to do it by check. Most banks don't charge an extra deposit fee at the scale of most nonprofits, and we probably have some run to the bank happening in the next day or two. Really your thank you note should be the same whether online or by check (even though you'll get the auto-thank you online), so that time difference shouldn't really play into it. The donation will be appreciated either way. While I cringe a bit if I see a $1,500 donation come through online knowing that the check would be cheaper, that is far outweighed by the thankfulness that someone thought of us and made it happen.\",\n \"This is a long term investment but can be very useful during tough times. Be prepared not only to take but to give as well. Moreover:\",\n \"People put conditions on donations all the time. They donate to the Red Cross for a specific disaster. The donate money to a church for the building fund. They donate money to a hospital to buy a new x-ray machine. They donate money to the scouts for a new dining hall. It is possible to donate money to a non-profit for a specific purpose. If the non-profit doesn't want to accept the money with those strings they can refuse. Generally these specific projects are initiated by the non-profit. But there is no requirement that the idea originate with the non-profit. It is also up to the non-profit and their legal advisers regarding how strictly they view those strings. If you donate money for web design and they don't spend it all, can they pay net years hosting bill with the money, or must they hold it for a few years for when they need a designer again? If the company wants to provide the service, they can structure the project to pay their employees for their time. They pay employees for $100 of labor while deigning the website. The pay and benefits reduce profit thus lowering taxes. Donating money to the non-profit to be given back to the company doesn't seem to be the best way to structure transaction. At best it is a wash. Donating money to a charity and then directing exactly which contractor will perform the service starts to look like money laundering, and most charities will get wary.\",\n \"\\\"If something is tax-deductible in the US, it means that, in the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service, you effectively didn't earn that money. Within restrictions, your adjusted gross income, which is the income that your tax is calculated on, is reduced by the amount of your tax deductions. In the case of the ASPCA, they've jumped through the appropriate hoops to become a 501(c)(3) organization, which, among other things, means that donations to them are tax-deductible by the donor (a) if they itemize, and (b) if they haven't reached a donation cap. That's the carrot that encourages donations to these organizations. There are restrictions, meaning that there can be only certain types of privileges or exchange between the donor and the organization. Essentially, it has to be a donation, and not a purchase of substantial goods or services. Your donation to these kinds of organizations doesn't hurt their funding elsewhere, or shouldn't. As mentioned above, if you don't itemize your deductions, you won't gain any extra tax savings from the donation. (You shouldn't itemize if you're better off taking the standard deduction.) Having said that, though, please give whatever you're led to give, after considering all of the ramifications (financial and spiritual). The tax deduction is only a subsidy; the IRS doesn't \\\"\\\"pick up the whole tab\\\"\\\" but only refunds a fraction to you in the form of tax savings through itemized deductions. If you don't feel you have the money, then donate your time. It might be more needed anyway!\\\"\",\n \"How is taxing them preventing a donation to their charity of choice? It isn't one or the other. You can be taxed and voluntarily charitable. The whole GOP point, though, is to make it ALL voluntary charity so if they give, they get to decide who deserves their money and they deserve a big fat tax deduction.\",\n \"I know in the UK at least, 99% of the time even legitimate collectors don't work directly for the charity. They work for independent for-profit companies. The companies collect a large comission (around £50-£70) for every direct debit signup. The guy that knocks on your door will see very little of it. Have a look at this: http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2005/08/just-6-for-eight-days-work-for.html The bags you get through your door for clothing donations are run on a similar basis - the clothes and profit go to a private company, which makes a donation to the charity out of their profits. Sometimes as little as 0.1% of your donation will go the charity. Always go direct to your chosen charity.\",\n \"With a short position you make your money (profit) when you buy the stocks back to close the position at a lower price than what you bought them at. As short selling is classed as speculation and not investing and you at no time own any actual assets, you cannot donate any short possition to charity. If you did want to avoid paying tax on the profits you could donate the proceeds of the profits after closing the position and thus get a tax deduction equal to the profits you made. But that raises a new and more important question, why are you trading in the first place if you are afraid to make profits in case you have to pay tax on those profits?\",\n \"\\\"How can I best start a discussion about this topic with SO? I'm guessing your SO is more visual than verbal. I'd break the ice by presenting an income pie chart and an expenses pie chart, maybe just for 2013 or comparing 2012 and 2013, and then offer your interpretation of an interesting slice or two: \\\"\\\"I noticed we're saving so much each year that...\\\"\\\" Or, instead of starting with graphically demonstrating your cash flow, start with appropriate graphics demonstrating your savings is growing fast enough that making a few donations wouldn't be a serious impact. \\\"\\\"See how little we spend compared to our savings?\\\"\\\". In any case, a picture is worth a 1,000 words, so starting with pictures is a good way to start your discussion.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"At first, I thought this might be too broad. There are of course thousands of things that you can do with your money to \\\"\\\"help the economy\\\"\\\". But I think that there is room to discuss some broad strokes without trying to list a thousand details. Regular investing (as you are now) helps the economy in that companies obtain money by selling their stock. They can then use that money to fund expansion, etc. These things can help the economy permanently. Of course, they can also use the money to pay executive bonuses, which don't help the economy so much. Similarly, just spending money does not normally help the economy. Unless we are in a recession, it is mildly harmful to spend wastefully. Money that could be going to support long term improvements in production instead is used to buy a luxury that doesn't terribly interest you. I.e. if you don't want a bigger house or a more luxurious car don't buy it to \\\"\\\"stimulate\\\"\\\" the economy. Many charitable donations have the same problem. They help short term consumption somewhere. And of course the charity starts asking you for more money. Many charities waste most of a donation trying to get another one from the same person or family. Sir John Maynard Keynes proposed that the best thing that people could do to help the economy is to invest in things that cause economic activity in turn. He was mostly talking about things like roads, bridges, and dams that are out of the investing range of most people, so he wanted governments to do it, particularly during a recession. So we are looking for ways to invest in durable improvements that will support economic activity in the future. A million dollars is a small amount for many things, but there are some activities that work. I'm going to list a few examples, but there are certainly others: Fund microfinance. Basically loan your million dollars to people who need a small amount of money. These programs often allow you to determine the initial recipient and then that person determines the next recipient. A million dollars can finance hundreds if not thousands of these loans. They may be in the United States or in a developing country. Set up a scholarship. My recommendation would be to find an existing scholarship with a few recipients and ask them to add one a year for the million dollars. A million dollars should typically produce about a scholarship a year in returns after inflation. Of course, that's just regular inflation. Education inflation is higher. Solar prize. Fund a program that gives out one solar installation every year or five to a family that owns a house, is struggling to pay utilities, and makes a compelling case. Basically, whenever the investment grows enough to support it, make a new prize. Buy something that will help other people make money. This is just six ideas off the top of my head. The goal here is to create something lasting that will promote economic activity. So a program that loans money forward. Or a scholarship or free textbook, particularly in a STEM field. A small piece of infrastructure that helps people move around to work or spend their money. Solar is a bit of a stretch here, but it can be justified if you believe that an investment now is an investment in moving towards the future. The key thing here is to make your money do double duty. By spending your money during a recession or investing during the rest of the business cycle, you can get some value for your money. But even better is if that spending has a societal return as well. Microfinance, scholarships, and infrastructure do that. There is the immediate spending, plus there is the effect of the spending. A business is established. A mind is trained and working at a high income job. People can move, work, and spend their own money.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Depending on what your other deductions are and the amount you are wanting to donate, you can save some money by \\\"\\\"batching\\\"\\\" deductions into every other year. For example, if you are single in 2015, the standard deduction is $6,300. This means the first $6,300 in deductions you have basically don't \\\"\\\"matter\\\"\\\" because the standard deduction is larger. You only \\\"\\\"count\\\"\\\" itemized deductions greater than $6,300. Let's imagine you are donating $10k in 2015 and 2016 and have no other itemized deductions. If you donate in both years, you basically get a net deduction of ($10,000 - $6,300) * 2 = $7,400 over the standard deduction. However, if you donate $10k in 2015 and the next $10k on Dec31, 2015, then you now have donated $20k in 2015 and $0k in 2016. This affects your taxes because you now get ($20,000 - $6,300) = $13,700 in \\\"\\\"bonus\\\"\\\" deductions. You still get the full $6,300 standard deduction in 2016 as well. This can be a significant impact on your taxes (especially if you are married as the married deduction is double the single or have minimal other itemizable deductions)..\\\"\",\n \"\\\"In the UK, one quirky option in this area (OK, admittedly it's not a passive) is the \\\"\\\"Battle Against Cancer Investment Trust\\\"\\\" (BACIT). Launched in 2012, it's basically a fund-of-funds where the funds held charge zero management charges or performance fees to the trust, but the trust then donates 1% of NAV to charity each year (half to cancer research, investors decide the other half).\\\"\",\n \"I actually read that a lot of times, that isn’t necessarily true. In some of these third world countries, the issue is less that the money is wasted but that there isn’t enough to make the kinds of optimal investments that were thinking of. For example, someone might understand intellectually that they need to buy a water buffalo to scale up their farm but saving up the money to do so would mean that they wouldn’t be able to feed their kids for two years. They’re not “bad with money”, they just flat out don’t have enough to go beyond subsistence. I think that’s the target market for these types of programs. They won’t work for everyone, people who are actually irresponsible will screw up no matter how much money and coaching you give them. But this could be a game changer for people who are good with the money they do have and just need a boost.\",\n \"If the charity accepts stock, you can avoid the tax on the long term cap gain when you donate it. e.g. I donate $10,000 in value of Apple. I write off $10,000 on my taxes, and benefit with a $2500 refund. If I sold it, I'd have nearly a $1500 tax bill (bought long enough ago, the basis is sub $100). Any trading along the way, and it's on you. Gains long or short are taxed on you. It's only the final donation that matters here. Edit - to address Anthony's comment on other answer - I sell my Apple, with a near $10,000 gain (it's really just $9900) and I am taxed $1500. Now I have $8500 cash I donate and get $2125 back in a tax refund. By donating the stock I am ahead nearly $375, and the charity, $1500.\",\n \"My first question to you is if you itemize? If not the charitable contributions will not do any good. Along these lines, donating unused items to Goodwill or similar can help boost your charitable giving. The bottom line is that the 401K is one of the few real deductions high earners have. If you anticipate earning similarly next year, you could both contribute the max. You still have some time before the end of the year, can you get more in your wife's account? Does your state have income tax? You might be able to deduct sales tax for larger purchases if you made any. However, I would not justify a large purchase just to write off the sales tax. Conventional wisdom will tell you that you should have a large mortgage in order to deduct the interests. However, it does not make sense to pay the bank 10K so you can get 3K back from the government. That seems pretty dumb. If you did not do additional withholding, you probably will have to pay a significant amount plus penalty if you owe more than $1000. You still have time to make one more quarterly payment, so you may want to do so by January 15th. For next year I would recommend the following: The funny thing about giving is that it rarely helps the recipient, it does so much more for the giver. It helps you build wealth. For myself I like to give to charities that have a bent to helping people out of poverty or homelessness. We have two excellent ones here in Orlando, FL: Orlando Rescue Mission and Christian Help. Both have significant job training and budgeting programs.\",\n \"Timing differences would still all come out in the wash. Might reduce it one year but over a few years it's essentially the same. It's becoming harder to create situations where big timing differences can apply. And generally (although not in every case) companies are seeing the bad press associated with not paying taxes and are being relatively less aggressive than in the past. There's a lot too it but I get annoyed by people saying companies only make donations to avoid tax. I've posted on it before and it's a silly view.\",\n \"Right you just summed up the conventional wisdom, which is pretty much that poor people are stupid. But in small experiments so far, it's turned out that poor people know exactly what their biggest problem is, and when they've got the money they fix that problem. It's not always what know-it-all Westerners expected, but it's usually effective.\",\n \"I challenge you to come up with an example of squandering that could not be considered charity, or charity that could not be considered squandering. It entirely depends on how much value you place on the money going where it went. Any spending of money can be considered charity if you feel others need it more than you do.\",\n \"\\\"SO has observed a lot of irresponsible spending from a parent, which has scarred SO for life OK, so we've got fear... SO is not very financially savvy and has very little idea about how much we earn ...and ignorance. You are entirely correct to worry about the conversation. Fear plus ignorance equals disastrous conversations. I manage our finances. Apparently your SO wishes to have input on the management of your finances without understanding them. It strikes me that this serves neither of you well. I would note that it is exceedingly difficult to rationally argue someone out of a position that they arrived at through irrational fear and ignorance. So I wouldn't start by having a conversation about charitable giving at all. Rather, I would start by addressing the ignorance, because that's the easy one. how high up we are in terms of being in the top y% of households by income Income is irrelevant to the fearful; income can vanish with debts remaining. If your SO is not earning much of that income then SO's future financial security is dependent on the whims of another, which has already turned out badly once for SO. Focusing on raw income is the wrong way to go; focusing on an abstraction like percentile is even more irrelevant. The figures to focus on are not income and percentile, but rather net worth and change in net worth over time. Income $300K, expenses $350K eventually leads to poverty if you lack net worth, even if you are in the 1% of income earners. Open up with \\\"\\\"how much do you think we earn?\\\"\\\" Playing rhetorical games with ignorant people seems both risky and perhaps unethical to me, and it seems unlikely to engender trust. I would approach this situation by first removing the ignorance, rather than attempting to take advantage of it for rhetorical purposes. I would also institute a policy that ignorant people don't get a say. If SO wants to abrogate financial responsibility to you, then SO should accept your decisions without question. If SO wants to have a say in your joint financial life then SO has a responsibility to make recommendations based on both facts and feelings, not just feelings. So, how to remove this ignorance? This will take some doing, but not much. Go through your records and account for: From that you can compute your net worth. Then go back a few years and account for: From this you can show the effect of your past prudent decisions on your net worth. There should be no percentages. There should be no math more complicated than adding and subtracting, and it should be very clear what adds and substracts to what. People who are financially savvy are extremely intimidated by jargon. If some of your increase in net worth came from a realized capital gain less taxes do not say \\\"\\\"realized capital gain less taxes\\\"\\\" on your summary document. There should be no \\\"\\\"depreciation\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"cost basis\\\"\\\" or anything even vaguely like that. Even \\\"\\\"assets\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"liabilities\\\"\\\" are too jargonish. \\\"\\\"Possessions\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"debts\\\"\\\" are more easily understood. I'm thinking something like: My SO is financially savvy and still I do this about twice a year; it's helpful for both of us to have a quick summary of what's coming in, what's going out, and what we've got. Once the ignorance is gone, then start working on the fear. It sounds like the fear comes from a betrayal of trust, so it's not just enough to be trustworthy, you've got to consistently appear trustworthy. A great way to do that is to keep doing what I already suggested: on a regular, ongoing basis inform SO of how you are doing financially. When SO sees that net worth is consistently improving over time, that you are not one bad decision away from poverty, the fear should diminish. Expect this to take a long time.\\\"\",\n \"Do you eat out much or go to coffee shops? I add portions of my excess spare change to the tips/tip jars. I make it a bit over the usual percentage to make up for the fact that it's, well, spare change...\",\n \"There are a number of benefits to this type of account. If one has highly appreciated stock (think Apple), donations of the stock are taken at current value, so for example, I donate $10,000 worth of shares, which cost me $100. In the 28% bracket, and itemizing, I see a $2800 benefit. But, I also avoid a $9900 capital gain and the 15% tax on that, or $1485. In this example, the fund comes into play as it would allow me to break up that $10,000 into smaller donations, and over a number of years. Next example - In my article some years ago Fun with Schedule A I describe how a strategy of 'bunching' ones itemized deductions every other year can help push people into the ability to itemize where normally they just miss doing so. Using the charitable fund can help people smooth out their contributions to the end charities while actually making the out of pocket withdrawal every other year. Last - there are many whose income is irregular for whatever reason. This type of account can be useful to help people in this situation make a deposit in high income/high tax rate years, skipping the deposit in low income/low rate years, but still keep up with the annual charity support. Obviously, one's goal is to help the charities they wish to support, it's silly to donate 'for the deduction.' But, for those who are charitable, these strategies help them divert more money to the charity and less to Uncle Sam. Sorry, I'm not sure about the math to show that 6.46%. My answer was to share the benefits of using these types of accounts.\",\n \"Donations need to be with no strings attached. In this case, you make the cash donation, a deduction, and then they pay you, in taxable income. It's a wash. Why not just give them the service for free? Otherwise this is just money going back and forth.\",\n \"Apart from what the other posters have said, you could look at some 'good cause'. I'd keep on saving 50% as spending more won't really make you more happy. You already sound happy. What I used to do, when I could, was to donate 10% of my 'profit' per year. I'd compare year start with year end and do the math. Afterwards it was just a matter of choosing. there are non government organizations that will get most money where it's needed. Edit as soon as the business I'm starting becomes profitable, I'll continue my donations. Thanks for the appreciations.\",\n \"You can have a way for people to pay, i.e. some kind of payment gateway. Run as Business: Best create a company and get the funds there. This would be treated as income of the website and would be taxed accordingly. One can deduct expenses for running the website, etc. Run as Charity: Register as one, however the cause should be considered as charitable one by the tax authorities. Only then the donations would be tax free.\",\n \"\\\"You don't consider a situation where people give to \\\"\\\"charity\\\"\\\" that they're heading themselves. But generally speaking you're correct, the idea is that charity is tax deductible, and people prefer to give their money to their local church where they get the direct benefit of it, rather than to Uncle Sam.\\\"\",\n \"Assuming that what you want to do is to counter the capital gains tax on the short term and long term gains, and that doing so will avoid any underpayment penalties, it is relatively simple to do so. Figure out the tax on the capital gains by determining your tax bracket. Lets say 25% short term and 15% long term or (0.25x7K) + (0.15*8K) or $2950. If you donate to charities an additional amount of items or money to cover that tax. So taking the numbers in step 1 divide by the marginal tax rate $2950/0.25 or $11,800. Money is easier to donate because you will be contributing enough value that the IRS may ask for proof of the value, and that proof needs to be gathered either before the donation is given or at the time the donation is given. Also don't wait until December 31st, if you miss the deadline and the donation is counted for next year, the purpose will have been missed. Now if the goal is just to avoid the underpayment penalty, you have two other options. The safe harbor is the easiest of the two to determine. Look at last years tax form. Look for the amount of tax you paid last year. Not what was withheld, but what you actually paid. If all your withholding this year, is greater than 110% of the total tax from last year, you have reached the safe harbor. There are a few more twists depending on AGI Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers. If at least two-thirds of your gross income for tax year 2014 or 2015 is from farming or fishing, substitute 662/3% for 90% in (2a) under the General rule, earlier. If your AGI for 2014 was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if your filing status for 2015 is married filing a separate return), substitute 110% for 100% in (2b) under General rule , earlier. See Figure 4-A and Publication 505, chapter 2 for more information.\",\n \"Are you being willfully obtuse? Of course you can do both. However, had you never been taxed you'd have that same money to spend as you see fit, such as giving it to charity. Mind blowing right? Oh so you know how to spend that money better huh? Maybe I say I know how to spend your money better than you. Fuck your charity for down syndrome. People with prostate cancer need it more. Here's your tax bill :)\",\n \"Sounds about right. From [Give Well](http://www.givewell.org/how-we-work/our-criteria/cost-effectiveness): > As of November 2016, the median estimate of our top charities' cost-effectiveness ranged from ~$900 to ~$7,000 per equivalent life saved (a metric we use to compare interventions with different outcomes, such as income improvements and averting a death) .\",\n \"\\\"A slower approach: keep any discussion of income out of it to begin with. Remaining within discretionary income Z, just go back to the charities your SO has proposed, and say that you would like to set up monthly donations. You would also like to donate a similar amount to charities of your choice. Say what bills your proposed contribution is less than. Once your SO has got used to the idea of charitable giving as a regular expenditure, and has got back the grateful charity newsletters and whatnot, then address the issue of how much you \\\"\\\"should\\\"\\\" give by comparison with income. Whenever you do consider income, your SO doesn't really seem to want anything to do with this. So I'd approach it as seeking agreement. Eric Lippert has a more long-term approach for seeking involvement. So, present the following information however seems best, probably with a pre-amble establishing that you both want to support charities, so the question is how much and how to get it done. \\\"\\\"We earn U. This means we are fortunate enough to be in the top V% of households. Our income breaks down as: This being the case, we can afford to be generous. I would like us to give to the charities that we each care about, to the extent of N. Charitable giving is important to me because ... The amount I suggest we give is less than what we spend annually on ..., and I chose that amount because ... \\\"\\\" Depending on the tax situation, you may then have to explain how N from gross income translates to an actual amount available to give to charity. Or charitable giving might be tax free. If the N you want is greater than Z-A then it might be wise to suggest a smaller amount, but ask that you both make a plan in increase it in a year or whatever. Similarly if N strikes your SO as a scarily large number then I would think the best thing to do is just reduce it so that at least you start somewhere. If Y is low or zero, and your SO suffers from anxiety about financial security, then increasing Y at the same time might be a good way to offset the fear of N. When stating income you might want to exclude any income from savings/investments. Although legally it's income your SO might see it psychologically as capital gains and hence touching it would endanger your savings/investment/pension returns. Even though it's all fungible.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Can a company say \\\"\\\"StackExchange\\\"\\\" donate to a non-profit company say $5,000 in agreement that they will spend that on paying a designer for a new website? And most importantly is this donation still tax deductible? A non-profit would have to typically create a bucket for IT Services or Website design. As long as \\\"\\\"StackExchange\\\"\\\" specify they employ a profession service to get it done, there would be no issue. If \\\"\\\"StackExchange\\\"\\\" were to specify an individula/company it would be an issue.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"seems like a dumb idea to me. Will these people know what to do with $1000? Will they know best how to invest it or will it be squandered on booze, or just plain living expenses? It might be better spent giving it to them with a string such as \\\"\\\"buy a cow or chickens that can produce\\\"\\\" or seed for a patch of land. I expect some will fall in each of the three catagories. Question now is what will be the distribution?\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Ask yourself one question - \\\"\\\"Why me?\\\"\\\" Say I had no friends or family (that I liked). I have money and I'm dying. There are a half dozen charities I'd write checks to. Under what circumstances would I ever contact a stranger to try to give my money away? That answers why this is a scam.\\\"\",\n \"It's a good question. We can't know for sure, but here are some things to think about. Paypal advertises a discounted transaction rate for non-profit organizations. In the U.S. at least, the rate they advertise is 2.2% + 0.30 USD. There are lots of things that can come into play here, such as international rates or any special deal that Wikimedia has struck with Paypal, but it seems reasonable to guess that of your 2€ donation, Wikipedia sees perhaps 1.65€. Note that most of the fee is a flat rate; of the next 2€ in your donation, Wikipedia gets 1.96€. Direct debit probably has lower fees. Paypal has to account for some credit card transaction fees in their fee structure, and direct debit does not. Therefore, I would guess that to maximize your gift, direct debit might result a little better than Paypal. Charities, in general, don't want to tell you the best way to donate, because they want it to be as easy for you as possible, and don't want to discourage any type of donation at all. They are very happy to get any donation, even if one method over another results in slightly higher fees. Wikimedia, in particular, offers many different options for donating.\",\n \"An answer from PayPal stated that donations may be turned on only for Business PayPal accounts that are verified for its non-profit status. Such PayPal Business account must be opened in the name of non-profit organization (not a single person) and go through verification process. One must provide the following information: That would mean that one cannot ask for donations as a private person, at least in Croatia, and probably in Europe.\",\n \"You could also start a business. I ran a project called the Thousand Rand Challenge a few years ago in South Africa where we supported people in starting a business for about $100 each. Some of them were surprisingly profitable. You can find a few ideas at the wiki site.\",\n \"One possibility to consider would be making an arrangement with a registered UK charity where you would donate the necessary amount for the specific purpose of covering medical costs of that particular person. Charitable donations are expressly deductible from business profits. Some charities may be genuinely interested in helping people from developing countries get quality medical help that's not available in those countries. There may be some organizations in the proposed beneficiary's country that have contacts among the UK charities. PS. I am not a lawyer or an accountant, nor do I claim to be either. The above is not a legal or accounting advice. Consider seeking professional assistance.\",\n \"Jason I think your doing a great thing. Based on what your describing I would look further into a 501(c)(3). Chapter 3 from the IRS Publication 557 offers information. This Wikipedia gives a quick understanding of 501(c)(3) and how to apply. Here is a great article from ehow it has some suggestions for someone who is just starting out. Maybe going through an organization already existing within your community might be a better, perhaps a church or some religious organization.\",\n \"The relevant page of the CRA's 2016 General Income Tax and Benefit Guide explains how to donate money to the federal debt servicing and reduction account. The guide writes: To make a gift to this account, make it payable to the Receiver General, and send it with a note asking that we apply it to this account, to: Place du Portage Phase III, 11 Laurier Street Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0S5 Donations are tax-deductible: they'll send you a tax receipt.\",\n \"\\\"The word you are looking for is \\\"\\\"budget\\\"\\\" You can't pay off debt if you are spending more than you earn. Therefore, start a budget that you both work on at the same time, and both agree 100% with. Evaluate your progress on that budget on a regular basis. From your question, you understand what your obligations are and you seem to manage money pretty well. Therefore your key to retirement is just the ticket you need. As newlyweds, you both have to be VERY aware that the main reason a marriage fails in the US is money issues. Starting out with a groundwork where you both agree to your budget and can keep it will help you a lot in your upcoming life. Then, for some details Sprinkle your charitable donations anywhere in the list where you feel it is important.\\\"\",\n \"i'm not talking about giving money to the gov't to have them help with it (i agree, our gov't should care only about us), but doing it yourself. or maybe flying over there to help yourself with your own money. my point is: a direct approach isnt best in the long run. the best help is having a booming economy. the poor are much better in a booming economy than in a shitty one. and govt redistribution will make a shitty economy. of course a bigger problem is the gov't manipulation of interest rates and over-regulation, but a better economy pulls people out of poverty. that's why everyone was financially equal, yet extremely poor in the USSR. nice and moral are always a good thing, but not by force. libertarians DO believe their policies are best for the poor, despite a lack of redistribution of money.\",\n \"No, it makes no sense. The US national debt is different from other debt on TWO KEY WAYS : 1.) The national debt is not money we owe to our government IT IS MONEY WE OWE TO OURSELVES. 2.) If the GNP of our country can grow at a rate equal to or greater than the national debt interest, then the figure of national debt has no bearing on anything. So a more philanthropic endeavor would be to help grow the economy.\",\n \"has very little idea about how much we earn and how high up we are in terms of income percentile. The first part of this sentence is tough to understand. My daughter was 12 when she told us what she estimated our income to be. She looked up the price of our home, worked backwards using conservative numbers, and was pretty close. Here you are saying your wife doesn't know the family income? Percentiles are meaningless. There are $60k couples who donate 10%, and there are $300k earners who are not charitable at all, and don't even save. It's time to have a general budget conversation with her. Perhaps starting with the rate of savings, and show how there's room for charity. If your charitable desire is based on a religious compulsion, share that as well, the 10% is what many feel commanded to share by their maker, and feel that it comes off the top regardless of their income level. In reality, this issue is not financial, it's about open dialog between 2 people. Money is difficult for some to discuss, but you need to start somewhere.\",\n \"This kind of questions keeps repeating itself on this site and the answer is generally it doesn't matter. As you said yourself, there are costs either way, and these costs are comparable. Generally, merchant fees differ tremendously between the different kinds of merchants, and while gas stations and video rentals may pay up to 5% and even more, charitable organizations and community services are usually not considered as high fraud risk operation and are charged much lower fees. Either way, paying employees, managing cash/check deposits or paying merchant fees is part of the charity operational expenses. Together with maintaining offices, postal office boxes, office supplies, postage expenses and formal stationary and envelopes needed for physical donations handling. I would guess that if the charity's majority of donations come on-line as credit card/paypal payments - check handling will be more expensive. So I suggest you take the route you consider majority of donors pay - that would be the cheapest for them to handle. I would guess, credit cards being the most convenient - would be the way to go.\",\n \"If your taxes aren't going to healthcare, they are going for something else. Taxes won't go away even if we eliminate Medicaid, Medicare, social security and the EPA. Politicians are very good at spending money, so they will find a place for your taxes. The argument isn't taxes or charity. It's where should taxes be spent for the most good. What will keep the US leading the rest of the world? It isn't charity. It is democracy, standards of living and defense spending.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["OP wants to do something very honourable, applause for that. Being a Greek I have insider knowledge about the impact of various organisations. Fact is, for people from abroad what is the most highly recommended action would be to support organisations of an international network (red cross, doctors w/out borders etc), because the health system is suffering seriously nowadays -or access to it-, and providing redundancy in that respect can certainly make a difference, via global health efforts. The next best thing you can do, to yourself and others, is basically to take a vacation in Greece and visit both a big city (here's where the problems will be visible) and an island (here's where you'll realise that you are in a place of stunning natural beauty). By taking this action you achieve two things: you put the economy in motion - a small vote, yet it counts - and you actually are a first-person observer. Enough is enough with victimisation via the news coming from inside or outside Greece! People need get the whole respective.","I can't say specifically about charities to help Greece. If someone on here has specific knowledge, please chime in. The only shortcut I know to tell if a charity is legitimate is to consult one of the ratings/watchdog type groups that monitor charities. For example, for explicitly Christian charities, there's a group called the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. To be a member in good standing a charity has to meet a bunch of criteria, like having an independent board of directors, i.e. you can't start a charity, make yourself the president and your brother-in-law the vice president and you're not answerable to anyone else; their fund-raising and administrative costs can't be more than a certain percentage of total income, etc. There are similar groups with similar standards for more general charities. I'm not naming any of those groups because there's a potential catch: How reputable is the group that rates other people's reputations? And I don't want to recommend someone without knowing. Years ago I came across a news story about an organization that rated colleges, and that had given one particular college their top rating. But, the news story said, investigators found that that one college was the ONLY college they ever gave a rating to, and that their address was the same as the college's address. It turned out, of course, that the college was a scam. The other method is to take some time to investigate the charity. For starters, get a copy of their annual report or their newsletter. If they're total frauds, often they don't have an annual report or a newsletter. Of course a fraud could make up beautiful flyers describing all the wonderful work they do, with pictures of people they helped and detailed case histories, and it's all complete fiction. But that's more work than most con men go to. I've gotten lots of pleas for contributions from people who call on the phone or come to my door or send an email. If the message does not have a logo, a mailing address and phone number, reasonably coherent English, and a fair amount of text describing what they do, I don't give them anything. They COULD be a new start up that hasn't had time to prepare these things. They COULD believe that pretty flyers are a waste of money and they want to put all their resources into helping the needy. But more likely it's a scam that somebody through together in his basement. Of course the best thing is if you personally know people who are officers in the organization. (Well, assuming you personally know them AND you know that they are honest people. If you know the president and you know he's a sleazy con man, you might want to stay away from that group.) See if you can find information about the charity in the news or on-line. If they're being investigated for fraud by the Justice Department, you might want to avoid them. Etc. Maybe you've thought this through, but you also might want to think about exactly who in Greece you want to help, and what your philosophy of charity is. Do you want to help people who lost their jobs because of the economic problems there and who are now unemployed? Do you want to donate to the government to help them balance the budget? Do you want to help support an orphanage or a homeless shelter, or give money directly to needy people? Etc. And one piece of unsolicited advice: Unless you have millions to give -- and I'm assuming you don't as you said your first gift would be $50 -- I'd pick one or two charities and give regularly to them. I think you can do more good by giving $X per month to a single charity than to give to a different charity every month. You make more difference.","In the. US, i'd suggest hitting the Charity Navigator website for evaluation of how efficiently various charities will use your money. At this point I won't donate money to anything that gets less than three stars unless I know the organization very well indeed -- and I've been progressively swapping out 3-star groups for 4-star organizations in the same category. Many of the groups reviewed by CN are international, so you might find it useful even if you're donating from/to elsewhere."],"string":"[\n \"OP wants to do something very honourable, applause for that. Being a Greek I have insider knowledge about the impact of various organisations. Fact is, for people from abroad what is the most highly recommended action would be to support organisations of an international network (red cross, doctors w/out borders etc), because the health system is suffering seriously nowadays -or access to it-, and providing redundancy in that respect can certainly make a difference, via global health efforts. The next best thing you can do, to yourself and others, is basically to take a vacation in Greece and visit both a big city (here's where the problems will be visible) and an island (here's where you'll realise that you are in a place of stunning natural beauty). By taking this action you achieve two things: you put the economy in motion - a small vote, yet it counts - and you actually are a first-person observer. Enough is enough with victimisation via the news coming from inside or outside Greece! People need get the whole respective.\",\n \"I can't say specifically about charities to help Greece. If someone on here has specific knowledge, please chime in. The only shortcut I know to tell if a charity is legitimate is to consult one of the ratings/watchdog type groups that monitor charities. For example, for explicitly Christian charities, there's a group called the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. To be a member in good standing a charity has to meet a bunch of criteria, like having an independent board of directors, i.e. you can't start a charity, make yourself the president and your brother-in-law the vice president and you're not answerable to anyone else; their fund-raising and administrative costs can't be more than a certain percentage of total income, etc. There are similar groups with similar standards for more general charities. I'm not naming any of those groups because there's a potential catch: How reputable is the group that rates other people's reputations? And I don't want to recommend someone without knowing. Years ago I came across a news story about an organization that rated colleges, and that had given one particular college their top rating. But, the news story said, investigators found that that one college was the ONLY college they ever gave a rating to, and that their address was the same as the college's address. It turned out, of course, that the college was a scam. The other method is to take some time to investigate the charity. For starters, get a copy of their annual report or their newsletter. If they're total frauds, often they don't have an annual report or a newsletter. Of course a fraud could make up beautiful flyers describing all the wonderful work they do, with pictures of people they helped and detailed case histories, and it's all complete fiction. But that's more work than most con men go to. I've gotten lots of pleas for contributions from people who call on the phone or come to my door or send an email. If the message does not have a logo, a mailing address and phone number, reasonably coherent English, and a fair amount of text describing what they do, I don't give them anything. They COULD be a new start up that hasn't had time to prepare these things. They COULD believe that pretty flyers are a waste of money and they want to put all their resources into helping the needy. But more likely it's a scam that somebody through together in his basement. Of course the best thing is if you personally know people who are officers in the organization. (Well, assuming you personally know them AND you know that they are honest people. If you know the president and you know he's a sleazy con man, you might want to stay away from that group.) See if you can find information about the charity in the news or on-line. If they're being investigated for fraud by the Justice Department, you might want to avoid them. Etc. Maybe you've thought this through, but you also might want to think about exactly who in Greece you want to help, and what your philosophy of charity is. Do you want to help people who lost their jobs because of the economic problems there and who are now unemployed? Do you want to donate to the government to help them balance the budget? Do you want to help support an orphanage or a homeless shelter, or give money directly to needy people? Etc. And one piece of unsolicited advice: Unless you have millions to give -- and I'm assuming you don't as you said your first gift would be $50 -- I'd pick one or two charities and give regularly to them. I think you can do more good by giving $X per month to a single charity than to give to a different charity every month. You make more difference.\",\n \"In the. US, i'd suggest hitting the Charity Navigator website for evaluation of how efficiently various charities will use your money. At this point I won't donate money to anything that gets less than three stars unless I know the organization very well indeed -- and I've been progressively swapping out 3-star groups for 4-star organizations in the same category. Many of the groups reviewed by CN are international, so you might find it useful even if you're donating from/to elsewhere.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":157,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"4777"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"How to finance necessary repairs to our home in order to sell it?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["590710"],"string":"[\n \"590710\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["365342","570318","468104","416382","542461","412142","359433","422084","482638","473907","451985","434266","468894","574954","86982","396540","202290","110400","118491","537716","597813","52351","133735","58855","452562","579760","145383","444148","478413","375632","336441","151746","232944","72730","281599","69213","329504","171631","223166","234161","83411","172722","205522","446646","97484","87187","125811","395957","487726","566493","497927","104577","422770","309077","294167","451421","421586","466196","43556","38712","96666","354883","374443","578906","426678","517633","505580","321637","360872","293464","180214","473692","570415","46266","415097","379023","89081","544107","244254","205906","565985","299536","222232","352908","87324","438217","141876","573276","496819","479558","432961","349380","111184","248578","294097","342852","80840","332719","587682","403735"],"string":"[\n \"365342\",\n \"570318\",\n \"468104\",\n \"416382\",\n \"542461\",\n \"412142\",\n \"359433\",\n \"422084\",\n \"482638\",\n \"473907\",\n \"451985\",\n \"434266\",\n \"468894\",\n \"574954\",\n \"86982\",\n \"396540\",\n \"202290\",\n \"110400\",\n \"118491\",\n \"537716\",\n \"597813\",\n \"52351\",\n \"133735\",\n \"58855\",\n \"452562\",\n \"579760\",\n \"145383\",\n \"444148\",\n \"478413\",\n \"375632\",\n \"336441\",\n \"151746\",\n \"232944\",\n \"72730\",\n \"281599\",\n \"69213\",\n \"329504\",\n \"171631\",\n \"223166\",\n \"234161\",\n \"83411\",\n \"172722\",\n \"205522\",\n \"446646\",\n \"97484\",\n \"87187\",\n \"125811\",\n \"395957\",\n \"487726\",\n \"566493\",\n \"497927\",\n \"104577\",\n \"422770\",\n \"309077\",\n \"294167\",\n \"451421\",\n \"421586\",\n \"466196\",\n \"43556\",\n \"38712\",\n \"96666\",\n \"354883\",\n \"374443\",\n \"578906\",\n \"426678\",\n \"517633\",\n \"505580\",\n \"321637\",\n \"360872\",\n \"293464\",\n \"180214\",\n \"473692\",\n \"570415\",\n \"46266\",\n \"415097\",\n \"379023\",\n \"89081\",\n \"544107\",\n \"244254\",\n \"205906\",\n \"565985\",\n \"299536\",\n \"222232\",\n \"352908\",\n \"87324\",\n \"438217\",\n \"141876\",\n \"573276\",\n \"496819\",\n \"479558\",\n \"432961\",\n \"349380\",\n \"111184\",\n \"248578\",\n \"294097\",\n \"342852\",\n \"80840\",\n \"332719\",\n \"587682\",\n \"403735\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["If you intend to flip this property, you might consider either a construction loan or private money. A construction loan allows you to borrow from a bank against the value of the finished house a little at a time. As each stage of the construction/repairs are completed, the bank releases more funds to you. Interest accrues during the construction, but no payments need to be made until the construction/repairs are complete. Private money works in a similar manner, but the full amount can be released to you at once so you can get the repairs done more quickly. The interest rate will be higher. If you are flipping, then this higher interest rate is simply a cost of doing business. Since it's a private loan, you ca structure the deal any way you want. Perhaps accruing interest until the property is sold and then paying it back as a single balloon payment on sale of the property. To find private money, contact a mortgage broker and tell them what you have in mind. If you're intending to keep the property for yourself, private money is still an option. Once the repairs are complete, have the bank reassess the property value and refinance based on the new amount. Pay back the private loan with equity pulled from the house and all the shiny new repairs.","I'm not sure about your first two options. But given your situation, a variant of option three seems possible. That way you don't have to throw away your appraisal, although it's possible that you'll need to get some kind of addendum related to the repairs. You also don't have your liquid money tied up long term. You just need to float it for a month or two while the repairs are being done. The bank should be able to preapprove you for the loan. Note that you might be better off without the loan. You'll have to pay interest on the loan and there's extra red tape. I'd just prefer not to tie up so much money in this property. I don't understand this. With a loan, you are even more tied up. Anything you do, you have to work with the bank. Sure, you have $80k more cash available with the loan, but it doesn't sound like you need it. With the loan, the bank makes the profit. If you buy in cash, you lose your interest from the cash, but you save paying the interest on the loan. In general, the interest rate on the loan will be higher than the return on the cash equivalent. A fourth option would be to pay the $15k up front as earnest money. The seller does the repairs through your chosen contractor. You pay the remaining $12.5k for the downpayment and buy the house with the loan. This is a more complicated purchase contract though, so cash might be a better option. You can easily evaluate the difficulty of the second option. Call a different bank and ask. If you explain the situation, they'll let you know if they can use the existing appraisal or not. Also consider asking the appraiser if there are specific banks that will accept the appraisal. That might be quicker than randomly choosing banks. It may be that your current bank just isn't used to investment properties. Requiring the previous owner to do repairs prior to sale is very common in residential properties. It sounds like the loan officer is trying to use the rules for residential for your investment purchase. A different bank may be more inclined to work with you for your actual purchase.","I'll write this up as a more formal answer, here. I'd suggest looking into a Home Equity Line of Credit, or HELOC. You didn't mention in your question how much equity you have in the home, but assuming at least 20%, you might be able to open a HELOC with a line of $40,000. My experience is that you can do 50% of your equity, but depends on the bank. Here are a few notes that are generally in play with HELOC's (YMMV, so be sure to know the specifics before signing on the line) Doing this, at least when we did 8 years ago, did not subject us to PMI. There are certainly plenty of things to research, but it sounds like you're pretty astute based on how you're evaluating the financial side of this endeavor. There are no guarantees in real estate. Houses could be selling like crazy now, but in 6 months they might not. It certainly sounds like that's a lower risk in your area, but you never know what might happen. If you're taking on this extra line of credit, make sure that it's something you could afford should the worst case scenario happen. Equity loans are also available. This is a more traditional fixed-rate loan rather than line of credit, so you'd be looking at set monthly payments rather than the flexibility of paying interest only when you need to. There's a brief write-up on the differences here. I have also heard of a construction loan, which falls into the same category as the aforementioned options, but I can't speak to today's market on those.","I agree with MrChrister about first considering how necessary the renovations are (is it a nice-to-have, or a need-to-have?), as well as the importance of consulting a Realtor, if you are selling your home, as they will advise you wisely. For instance, they might advise you to replace the linoleum with a neutral beige ceramic tile, as you would be assured a better resale value on your dollar spent, than if you were to replace the old linoleum with new linoleum (or laminate). There are many types of renovations that simply don't pay off, and others that do provide good return-on-investment (like intelligent kitchen and bathroom updates). I found this ROI grid at lendingmax.ca (which is pretty consistent with what I remember reading in the Toronto Star this spring): Top 10 Renovations ~ Average return on investment Painting and interior decorating = 73% Kitchen renovations = 72% Bathroom renovations = 68% Exterior painting = 65% Flooring upgrades = 62% Window/door replacement = 57% Family room addition = 51% Fireplace addition = 50% Basement renovation = 49% Furnace/heating updating = 48% If you are selling your home, and your Realtor has suggested improvements, they are probably necessary, and not doing them might serve as an impediment to quickly selling your home - so factor in the (potential) costs of carrying your home for additional weeks/months, or worse, overlapping mortage costs, if it takes your home longer to sell, and you end up owning two homes simultaneously for a bit. As far as your question (should you pay cash for renos or take out a loan), one factor to consider if you live in Canada is the Home Renovation Tax Credit, which applies to renos that take place until Feb 1, 2010, and can deduct up to $1,350. So if you have to do a reno and yours qualifies for this tax credit, and you won't have the cash before that deadline, factor in the cost of borrowing vs. the $1,350. Good luck!","I'm assuming that when you sell the house you expect to be able to pay off these loans. In that case you need a loan that can be paid off in full without penalty, but has as low an interest rate as possible. My suggestions:","One thing I would look into is getting a fixed rate home equity loan for a short term. Not a line of credit, but a home equity loan. The main benefit is they typically offer no closing costs. You can get a very low rate provided you move the loan into first position (replace your current mortgage). I know someone who got a 7 year fixed Home Equity Loan, from Regions Bank, for 2.62% no closing costs.","\"In the first years of a loan, most of what you're paying is interest, so my guess is that this is a bad idea. But there are lots of mortgage calculators offered for free on the web (your bank's website may have one) so I'd suggest that you spend some time running actual numbers before deciding. Reminder: Most renovations do NOT pay for themselves in increased sales price, not least because you'll lose the buyers who don't like what you've done but would have been happy to renovate it themselves to their own tastes. Unless there is something which will actively impair your ability to sell the house, you should usually renovate when you plan to stay there for a while and take your returns in enjoying the house more, NOT on the way out. (There's been some recent discussion of this over in Home Improvement, pointing out that the changes which return more than they cost are usually simple things like refreshing the paint, \"\"staging\"\" the house so it looks lived in but not cluttered, replacing damaged blinds, washing windows, putting out a few more flowers, and so on.)\"","sheegaon's reply looks fine to me, a HELOC can usually be set up for a minimal ($50?) fee, and is currently a pretty low rate, mine is 2.5%. If this doesn't appeal to you, my other suggestion is a 401(k) loan. While this is usually a last resort and 'not' recommended, a short term use may make sense. The rate is low, and you can pay in back in full after moving into the new house.","For alternative financing, pursue a line of credit or a Home Equity Line of Credit. (From the comments of @ChrisInEdmonton and @littleadv on the original question)","There are ups and downs to doing this. This isn't a taxable gain, because it's borrowed money that will be repaid. Whether there are restrictions or not depends upon your contract with the seller and your bank. If the concessions are for health & safety related repairs, your bank may require you to complete the work before closing or within a certain period of time. Overall: Upsides Downsides","Over the last ten years you have reaped the benefits of a good financial decision. (Presumably your low mortgage has freed up money for other financial priorities.) There would be no harm in making a clean break by selling as is. On the other hand, the resale value would probably be rather low considering the condition and the neighborhood. I don't want to assume too much here, but if a potential buyer is interested in the house by virtue of not being able to afford a house in a better neighborhood or better condition, their finances and credit history may make it difficult for them to be approved for a mortgage. That would reduce the potential buyer pool and further reduce the sale price. If you can pull more in rent than the mortgage, you definitely have an opportunity to come ahead. Maybe window A/C units and a repaired chimney are enough if you're renting. Your rental income would pay for that in less than a year even while paying your mortgage for you. (Of course you don't want to become a sleazy slumlord either.)","You should look into a home equity line of credit: A home equity line of credit (often called HELOC and pronounced HEE-lock) is a loan in which the lender agrees to lend a maximum amount within an agreed period (called a term), where the collateral is the borrower's equity in his/her house. Because a home often is a consumer's most valuable asset, many homeowners use home equity credit lines only for major items, such as education, home improvements, or medical bills, and choose not to use them for day-to-day expenses.","A professional home inspection will clue you in on any problems you might be buying, so it's important in any real estate transaction. If the seller finances the loan, you need a lawyer. It might be a nice opportunity - being in the right place at the right time. You just have to investigate all angles.","\"The problem here can be boiled down to that fact you are attempting to obtain a loan without collateral. There are times it can be done, but you have to have a really good relationship with a banker. Your question suggests that avenue has been exhausted. You are looking for an investor, but you are offering something very speculative. Suppose an investor gives you 20K, what recourse does he have if you do not pay the terms of the loan? From what income will this be paid from? What event will trigger the capability to make a balloon payment? Now if you can find a really handy guy that really needs a place to live could you swap rent for repairs? Maybe. Perhaps you buy the materials, and he does the roof in exchange for 6 months worth of rent or whatever. If you approached me with this \"\"investment\"\", the thing that would raise a red flag is why don't you have 20K to do this yourself? If you don't how will you be able to make payments? For example of the items you mentioned: That is a weekend worth of work and some pretty inexpensive materials. Why does money need to be borrowed for this? A weekend worth of demo, and $500 worth of material and another weekend to build something serviceable for a rental. Why does money need to be borrowed for this? 2K? Why does money need to be borrowed for this? This can be expensive, but most roofing companies offer financing. Also doing some of the work yourself can save a ton of money. Demoing an old roof is typically about 1/3 of the roofing cost and is technically simple, but physically difficult. So besides the new roof, you could have a lot of your list solved for less than 3K and three weekends worth of work. You are attempting to change this into a rental, not the Taj Mahal.\"","Great question, but I'm thinking you'll want to get a professional who can look at your specific situation and do it right. I wouldn't go solely on advice here. Having said that, though, my decidedly non-professional advice: The other alternative is to take a bit of a profit hit, and demand that the seller pay cash. Then the transaction becomes much easier and quicker. But again, I urge you to have a pro look at this!","There are deals out there which allow refinancing up to 125% of appraised value so long as you have a solid payment history. You need to research banks in your area working with HARP funded mortgages. An alternate method is to find a bank that will finance 80% of the current value at 4% and the rest as a HELOC. The rate will be higher on the equity line, but the average rate will be better and you can pay the line off faster.","If you have a family member with sufficient funds to lend, you might consider writing a deed that gives them a percentage of ownership in the property in exchange for a loan, then you could later take a mortgage to pay back that loan and purchase that percentage of the property back. If it was me, I would probably just pay cash and try to get a home equity line of credit for emergency funds once I started working again. All the money I would have paid into a mortgage, and perhaps more--I would invest to rebuild the investment account as quickly as possible.","It seems you understand the risks, it seems like a fine enough idea. Hopefully it works out for you. However, you may want to talk to a few local banks about getting a short term home equity loan. I know someone who was able to do this getting a very low rate for 7 years. At the time of the loan, the prevailing rate for a 15 year was 3.25, but they were able to get the HEL at 2.6 fixed. There was no closing costs. The best part about it was the payment was not that much more. While going from ~1200 to ~1800 is a 50% increase it was not that much in dollars in relationship to his household income. Note that I did not say Home Equity Line of Credit, which are vairable rates and amount borrowed.","Your only option might be finding a seller-financed property with a motivated seller who is willing to take the risk of loaning you money. However, be prepared to pay a hefty rate on that loan if you can even pull it off.","Others have covered the usual vehicles for getting money out of a property. There's another category of home loan called a hard money loan. It would take a lot of inquiries to find a hard money loan given your needs, but chances are its doable. The terms can be onerous, and hard money lenders don't mess around when it comes to foreclosing after a few missed payments. It's an off-the-radar industry and the private lenders and specialized trustees operate together with strike-force precision. Trustees normally should be trust-able by borrower and lender, but in the case I describe below, one man owned the small company that lent, and the small company that acted as trustee. Borrower beware. Yet, if your credit score and income are dismal, but your home equity is great, hard money is the only way to borrow against your home. In making hard money loans, lenders don't consider your credit score or income, just how much equity is in the property. I daresay they hope you'll default. They don't always hang onto the loans. If you look like a payer instead of someone they can foreclose on, they might sell the loan to someone who wants a stable monthly income. You don't know a thing about that person. A Cautionary Tale: *Check out HankandHelen.blogspot.com for a currently-unfolding saga, in which an elderly couple's grandson convinced them to let him take title to their house, borrow against it, invest the proceeds, and share the profits. It didn't work that way. He went through hard-money lenders. He borrowed $360,000 and then $65,000. Those were mysteriously paid off (total mystery at this point), and he borrowed $47,000. About a year later, he lost the house by defaulting the $47,000 loan. He was only about $2000 behind in payments when the trustee issued a notice of default, followed by a notice of sale. The trustee put the place up for auction, which didn't require a court order: that's the way it is in California and many western states, and a few others. The hard money lender bought the loan at auction for $83,000, and a home worth about $800,000 no longer belonged to the grandson. A fundraiser brought in about $120,000 and the couple bought a mobile home in a mobile home park. The acre of land and swimming pool they used to own will be for sale soon, or possibly demolished for a mansion to be built. (House in the area go for about $2.5M when improved with very large, new houses.)* I poke around PropertyShark.com when I see a house bought cheaply at a foreclosure auction. Quite often the (former) borrower had inherited the house, treated it like a piggy bank, defaulted, and boom--no more house. It never makes sense to put a house at risk for a small amount like $5000. If you can't pay those credit card bills, the lenders can hound you and maybe get a court order to extract something from your checking account every month, but they can't take your belongings. When you sign a deed of trust or mortgage, you're giving a third party the right to kick you out of your home and take possession of it. You don't have any say in the matter. You might go to court, and say whatever you feel like saying, but if you owe many payments and can't pay them immediately, you're very likely to be out of luck. Someone mentioned paying off credit card balances with the highest interest rates first. That's done by throwing whatever cash you have at them while paying the minimum on the lower-rate balances. That's financially sound, but there's a technique that turns out to be more motivating for some, which is attacking the lowest balance first. It leads to the quickest reduction in the number payments you're required to make every month, and quickly lets you add the money you were applying to the smallest balance to the payment you make on the next-smallest balance. (Close each card as you pay it off if you don't want to accumulate debt again.) P.S. I don't know what your home's feed is, so I didn't address that. If it's some kind of rental income, every lender I have encountered credits 75% of the current monthly rent toward your gross income. They assume there will be vacancies and other costs.","Yes this is possible. The most likely tool to use in this case would be a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). This is a line of credit for which the full amount is backed by home equity (difference between market and book prices). Most likely your financial institution will apply a factor to this collateral to account for various risks which will reduce the maximum amount that can be taken as a line of credit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_equity_line_of_credit","\"We considered similar big renovations when putting our house on the market. The answer turns out to be pretty simple; unless you do renovation-type work as your day job, or have really good friends in the residential contracting business, sell as-is. You will virtually never get back the full price of bringing in a gen-con to renovate any space in your home; you do that when you want to spend the extra to make your home exactly what you wanted, so you can live in it for decades and get the enjoyment out of it. If you're trying to turn a profit with the renovation, like house-flippers do professionally, you look for easy repairs/renos, buy good-looking but inexpensive materials, and do the labor yourself. Whether you sell to the market or to a specifically-interested buyer is your call, but I will caution you that a specifically-interested buyer is going to be looking for a deal, or a steal. When marketing our house, we met with three different realtors. The first one was very overoptimistic about what we could list for (basically assuming that we could get the same price as a fully-upgraded version of our same floor plan with a pool out back). She also had a to-do list a mile long, and my wife and I both noticed that she looked very apprehensive about the house when looking around, even as she reassured us that selling it would be no trouble. We eventually realized why she was so apprehensive, and fired her before we got even halfway through her to-dos, which included major landscaping, new kitchen floors and countertops, etc, which would have cost us thousands and would not have gotten the house price even close to the target. The second one took a look at our half-finished refinish and told us to stop everything we were doing to update the minor stuff like paint and fixtures, saying we were putting lipstick on a pig; she would market the house to some cash buyers she knew personally, for about 80% of the list price our first realtor quoted, and implied that we should be kissing her boots for finding us a buyer willing to take the house off our hands at all. During the tour, she pointed out \"\"problems\"\" with the house that weren't even there, like foundation issues such as sloping floors, in an attempt to scare us into going with her strategy. We sniffed that out pretty quickly, showed her the door at the end of the initial consult and never called back. This, by the way, is the kind of thing you want to avoid; unless your home is really dilapidated or torn apart with unfinished major renos, it should have decent value on the market and you shouldn't have to resort to a cash buyer looking for a flip or a rental property on the cheap. Just like Goldilocks, our third choice was just right. He saw all the same comparables, toured our house, and recommended that we offer about $20k less than the fully-upgraded version (but still about $20k more than the second realtor was estimating), targeting a \"\"real\"\" buyer and not an investor or flipper, but at a price that would make the lack of upgrades more acceptable. We finished the paint and finish projects we started, brought in a weekend's worth of scheduled showings, and our house was under contract for full price within 3 days, giving us the extra $20k worth of down payment to put into our new house. In summary, I highly recommend a realtor, because the one we eventually listed with worked his butt off on the business side while we fixed up the house. However, make sure you find the right one; realtors are ultimately in business for themselves, and their ultimate interest is in getting your house sold and getting you into a new one. That is what gets them paid. Some of them will do it the right way, working the deal with other realtors and their prospective buyers to get you what you need. Others will take the easy way out, at your expense, either giving you bad advice about how to present and price your home so that you end up on the market for 6 months with no offers, or handing your house to their business buddies at a discount.\"","To give the seller cash at the closing, you will need to borrow the money ahead of time, which means a mortgage is out. A bank will only make a mortgage if they get the deed. Therefore, you will have to borrow a different way, such as through a more-expensive home equity loan.","\"Be careful that pride is not getting in the way of making a good decision. As it stands now what difference does it make to have 200K worth of debt and a 200K house or 225K of debt and a 250K house? Sure you would have a 25K higher net worth, but is that really important? Some may even argue that such an increase is not real as equity in primary residence might not be a good indication of wealth. While there is nothing wrong with sitting down with a banker, most are likely to see your scheme as dubious. Home improvements rarely have a 100% ROI and almost never have a 200% ROI, I'd say you'd be pretty lucky to get a 65% ROI. That is not to say they will deny you. The banks are in the business of lending money, and have the goal of taking as much of your hard earned paycheck as possible. They are always looking to \"\"sheer the sheep\"\". Why not take a more systematic approach to improving your home? Save up and pay cash as these don't seem to cause significant discomfort. With that size budget and some elbow grease you can probably get these all done in three years. So in three years you'll have about 192K in debt and a home worth 250K or more.\"","It depends on your equity(assets - liabilities). If you have a lot of equity, banks will be happy to lend you money because they now they can always seize your assets. If you don't have a lot of equity another option is to go to hard money lenders. They charge high rates and some of them lend-to-own, but is an option. And consider what Pete said, you might be a little optimistic.","Depends on the house. If it's a house that's <10 years old, you're looking at pretty minor repair work. You can probably afford to be aggressive. I bought a home built in 1927 in 2006. Since then, I've put on a roof, replaced windows, replaced hot water tanks, replaced bathroom fixtures and corrected plumbing horrors. Total cost: $20k. Had I spent down savings on a down payment, I would have been in rough shape financially. Other things to think about are:","I recommend fixing the roof. You're going to pay for it eventually, either as an emergency repair or a concession at sale.","The reason for borrowing instead of paying cash for major renovations should be the same for the decision about whether to borrow or pay cash for the home itself. Over history, borrowing using low, tax-deductible interest while increasing your retirement contributions has always yielded higher returns than paying off mortgage principal over the long term. You should first determine how much you need to save for retirement, factor that into your budget, then borrow as much as needed (and can afford) to live at whatever level of home you decide is important to you. Using this same logic, if interest rates are low enough, it would behoove you to refinance with cash out leveraging the cash to use as additional retirement savings.","Personally, I'd use my emergency fund first. It is unlikely (though possible, of course) that I will entirely lose my income at the same time I need to replace my roof or my furnace. I'd rather pay my emergency fund back with installment payments than pay off a HELOC to my bank. The lost interest on my emergency fund, which, after all, should be in cash, is much less than the cost of the loan. I could even set up an amortization schedule in a spreadsheet and charge myself interest when paying back into the emergency fund. That said, if I didn't have the cash in my emergency fund, I'd rather borrow against the house than finance with a contractor. If they'd even do that, which is unlikely--I've never dealt with a roofer or heating contractor that required anything but full payment at time of service. Home equity borrowing is generally the cheapest kind. I'm firmly in the camp of those who look at home ownership as a consumption decision rather than an investment. If the value goes up, great, but I just build in about 1% of the cost of building a new house (excluding the land price) into the housing budget each year, right along with mortgage interest, property taxes and basic utilities. Usually, that's enough to cover the major wear-and-tear related repairs (averaged over 3-5 year periods, anyway).","It's just possible that if you have your home appraised (probable cost a few hundred $), and the value is sufficiently higher than what the mortgage company is owed, that they will let this slide, since they are covered. Many banks, at least, allow secured lines of credit against the equity in your home, and allow the amount of the loan to increase if/as the value of the property goes up and your equity increases. However, I'd run this by the mortgage company before investing in the appraisal, since they may not be as flexible this way as the banks I've dealt with, and in any case it's a gamble unless you are certain of the value of your property.","You decide whether the improvements will result in a net higher price. You also need to figure on how long the house will be on the market and the cost of carrying the home, unoccupied. Some people would prefer the quickest sale. Others would wait to get the highest price. If you sell to a known buyer, you avoid using a real estate agent. If you plan to sell on your own and avoid the agent, there's a bit of effort dealing with the public, especially those who just want to look at houses with no real interest in buying. (As an agent, I can tell you, there's nothing like talking for nearly an hour, and then figuring out these people are from 1/2 mile away, but just attend every open house in the area.)","If you do the financing, get a large down payment and make a short loan. Do not expose yourself to risk with a 30 year note, and get some major money up front so the buyer has some skin in the game and will continue to make payments.","It may be possible to get more cash than you currently have. For example, If you have $200,000, you could buy a distressed property for $150,000, spend $50,000 on renovations, get it appraised for $300,000 and then cash out refi $240,000 (keeping 20% equity to avoid MIPs) to invest. This would be analogous to flipping a house for yourself. Normally flippers buy a house for cheap, then sell it to someone else for way more than their total outlay in purchase + improvements. The only difference here is there's no 3rd party - you stay in the house and essentially buy it from yourself with the mortgage.","I know that both Lowes and Home Depot (in Canada at least) will offer a 6 month deferred interest payment on all purchases over a certain dollar amount (IIRC, $500+), and sometimes run product specific 1 year deferred interest specials. This is a very effective way of financing renovations. Details: You've probably seen deferred interest -- It's very commonly used in furniture sales (No money down!!! No interest!!! Do not pay for 1 full year!!!) (Personally, I think it's a plot by the exclamation point manufacturers) It works like this: Typically, I manage these types of purchases by dividing the principal by 6, and then adding 5%, and paying that amount each month. Pay close attention to the end date, because you do not want to pay 22% interest on the entire amount. This also requires that you watch your card balance carefully. All payments are usually put to current purchases (i.e. those not under a plan) first, before they are applied to the plan balance. So if you are paying 250 a month on the new floor, and run up another $150 on paint, You need to pay the entire new balance, and then the $250 floor payment in order for it to be applied correctly. Also http://diy.stackexchange.com Consider doing it yourself.","A bridge loan (or bridging loan) is designed for exactly this circumstance. They're short-term loans (6 months is common) designed to help home-buyers to bridge the gap between buying and selling. MoneySupermarket defines them like this: Bridging loans are designed to help people complete the purchase of a property before selling their existing home by offering them short-term access to money at a high-rate of interest. As well as helping home-movers when there is a gap between the sale and completion dates in a chain, this type of loan can also help someone planning to sell-on quickly after renovating a home, or help someone buying at auction. Interest rates are very high, and there are likely to be fees, because you'll only need the loan for a short period. Here are some links to Canadian websites that explain more.","Your best bet is to talk with a banker about your specific plans. One of the causes of the housing crash was an 80/20 loan. There you would get a first for 80% of the value of a home and 20% on a HELOC for the rest. This would help the buyer avoid PMI. Editorially, the reason this was popular was because the buyer could not afford the home with the PMI and did not have a down payment. They were simply cutting things too close. Could you find a banker willing to do something like this, I bet you could. In your case it seems like you are attempting to increase the value of your home by using money to do an improvement so the situation is better. However, sizable improvements rarely return 100% or more on investments. Typically, I would think, the bank would want you to have some money invested too. So if you wanted to put in a pool, a smart banker would have you put in about 60% of the costs as pools typically have a 40% ROI. However, I bet you can find a banker that would loan you 100%. You don't seem to be looking for advice on making a smart money decision, and it is difficult to render a verdict as very little detail is supplied about your specific situation. However, while certain decisions might look very profitable on paper, they rarely take into consideration risk.","\"There is no guarantee improvements will raise the appraised value. You also don't want your property tax appraisal to go up if you can avoid it. Since you are talking on the order of $10k I'll assume you're only a few thousand dollars more from getting to 20%. That said, any schemes you might come up with like refinancing or second line of credit will probably cost more in fees than they are worth, unless you can get a much nicer interest rate. Figure out how long you plan to stay there, Evaluate your options (do nothing, principal reduction, refinance for 30, 15, or even an ARM) and figure out your bottom line by comparing everything in a spreadsheet One more thing: if you do pay a substantial amount of extra principal, you can ask the lender to \"\"rebalance\"\" which will correct the minimum monthly payment to your remaining term. This will likely incur a fee, but could be helpful in an emergency\"","\"The long and short of it is, the mortgage company has a significant interest in the resale value of the home in the event of a default. Imagine a scenario where you say to yourselves that you're not going to repair the deck just yet (\"\"meh, we'll do that next summer\"\") and something happens that causes a default on the mortgage. The resale value of the home may be harmed by the deck, even though you're willing to live with it. That being the case, the mortgage company has every right to insist that you carry out the repairs in order to maintain the property in salable condition, so the essence of it is, you don't have much choice but to do the repairs. Keep in mind too that the insurance company paid for the roof and the deck to be repaired. If they were to learn that you now have no intention of using the money to repair the property, you could end up in legal hot water with them. After all, you did accept the check for repairs that you're now not carrying out.\"","It sounds like you may need to look into the different types of personal loans that are available to you. Typically, they are in 2 categories: secured vs unsecured. A personal loan is usually of the unsecured variety, meaning that the bank is loaning you money with no collateral to use if you default. These loans will have much higher interest rates than a secured loan. A prime example of a secured loan would be a mortgage or an equity line of credit. If you want an unsecured personal loan to use towards making those improvements, then whether or not you receive the loan will depend on your credit rating and income status. As Aganju stated, these loans don't really care what the money is used for. Because it's not your property that you're fixing up, you won't be able to get a secured loan against that property. If your mother took out a loan against her home (like a second mortgage), she may be able to get a significantly lower interest rate than what you'll get with an unsecured loan. She could also look into a renovation/remodeling loan, which would require information regarding the work being done such as costs and how it will improve the value of the property. If she used an equity line of credit instead, then they don't typically care what the money will be used for as it's just a credit line against the equity she's already built into her mortgage payments over the years.","The most likely reason for this is that the relocation company wants to have a guaranteed sale so as to get a new mortgage in the new location. Understand that the relocation company generally works for a prospective employer. So they are trying to make the process as painless as possible for the homeowner (who is probably getting hired as a professional, either a manager or someone like an engineer or accountant). If the sale is guaranteed to go through regardless of any problems, then it is easy for them to arrange a new mortgage. In fact, they may bridge the gap by securing the initial financing and making the downpayment, then use the payout from the house you are buying to buy out their position. That puts them on the hook for a bunch of money (a downpayment on a house) while they're waiting on the house you're purchasing to close. This does not necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with the house. The relocation company would only know about something wrong if the owner had disclosed it. They don't really care about the house they're selling. Their job is to make the transition easy. With a relocation company, it is more likely that they are simply in a hurry and want to avoid a busted purchase. If this sale fails to go through for any reason, they have to start over. That could make the employment change fall through. This is a variation of a no contingencies sale. Sellers like no contingencies sales because they are easier. Buyers dislike them because their protections are weaker. But some buyers will offer them because they get better prices that way. In particular, house flippers will do this frequently so as to get the house for less money than they might otherwise pay. This is better than a pure no contingencies sale, as they are agreeing to the repairs. This is a reasonable excuse to not proceed with the transaction. If this makes you so uncomfortable that you'd rather continue looking, that's fine. However, it also gives you a bit of leverage, as it means that they are motivated to close this transaction quickly. You can consider any of the following: Or you can do some combination of those or something else entirely that makes you fell more secure. If you do decide to move forward with any version of this provision, get a real estate lawyer to draft the agreement. Also, insist on disclosure of any previous failed sales and the reason for the failure before signing the agreement. The lawyer can make that request in such a way as to get a truthful response. And again, in case you missed it when I said this earlier. You can say no and simply refuse to move forward with such a provision. You may not get the house, but you'll save a certain amount of worry. If you do move forward, you should be sure that you are getting a good deal. They're asking for special provisions; they should bear the cost of that. Either your current deal is already good (and it may be) or you should make them adjust until it is.","\"Plus one to Alexandre for pointing out this is possible. It is also possible to run with scissors, and I would recommend neither. Your money problems are very small and doing something so dramatic to solve them will probably put you in a worse financial decision. Why would you put your home, at risk, to pay off such a small amount (less than 5K)? The \"\"one payment\"\" or consolidation mantra, for a person like you, will often lead a person into reoccurring the same debt and having the consolidation loan. You don't need one payment you need no payments. First off stop borrowing. Second increase your income by working more or selling stuff. You might want to clean some houses, baby sit, or mow some lawns instead of the traditional job. Third decrease your spending. Let your loved ones know it will be a lean Christmas this year. Cut cable as you won't have time to watch TV anyway. If you do all that could you find $1000 per month? I bet you could find more. Doing all that and you will be done in 5 months and still own your home outright. You are a great candidate to pay off your bills by the snowball method, or smallest to largest. While it may not be, on paper, the most mathematically efficient it helps people with motivation and hope. It sounds like you could use that. List your bills smallest to largest and pay off the smallest first while paying minimums on the rest. You can do it!\"","If you are going to live in the house for awhile, you can probably use a regular mortgage. Shop around and look for a mortgage program that works. Look at local banks/credit unions, particularly those with community development programs. Usually an investment mortgage is higher rate, higher payment and has higher underwriting standards.","What you propose is to convert unsecured debt into secured debt. Conversion of unsecured debt into secured debt is not generally a good idea (several reasons). The debt you currently owe does not have assets securing the debt, so the creditor knows they are exposed to risk, and may be more willing to negotiate or relax terms on the debt, should you encounter problems. When you provide an asset to secure debt, you lose freedom to sell that asset. When you incur debt their is usually a spending problem that needs to be corrected, which is typically not fixed when a refinance solution is used. You do not mention interest rate, which would be one benefit to conversion of unsecured to secured debt, so you probably are not gaining adequate benefit from the conversion strategy. This strategy is often contemplated using 'cash-out' refinancing to borrow against a home you already own, and the (claimed) benefit is often to lower the interest rate on the debt. Your scenario is more complicated in that you have not purchased the home (yet). Though it may be a good idea to purchase a home, that choice depends on a different set of considerations (children, job stability, rental vs. buy costs, lifestyle, expected appreciation, etc) from how to best handle a large debt (income vs. expenses, how to increase income or reduce expenses, lifestyle, priorities, etc). Another consideration is that you already have a problem with the large debt owed to one (set of) creditor(s), and you have a plan which would shift the risk/exposure to another (set of) creditor(s) who may have been less complicit in accruing the original debt. Was the debt incurred jointly during the marriage, and something you accepted responsibility to repay? You mention that you make great income, and you specify one expense (rent), but you neither provided the amount of income, total of all your expenses, nor your free cash flow amount, nor any indication of percentages spent on rent, essential expenses, lifestyle, nor amount available to retire debt. Since you did not provide specifics, we can take a look at three scenarios, scenario #1, $4000/month income scenario #1, $6000/month income scenario #1, $8000/month income Depending upon your income and choices, you might have < $500/month to pay towards debt, or as much as $3000/month to pay towards debt, and depending upon interest rate (which OP did not provide), this debt could take < 2 years to pay or > 5 years to pay. Have you accepted the responsibility for the debt? It will be a tough task to repay the debt. And you will learn that debt comes with a cost as you repay it. One problem people often encounter when they refinance debt is they have not changed the habits which produced the debt. So they often continue their spending habits and incur new unsecured debt, landing them back in the same problem position, but with the increased secured debt combined with additional new unsecured debt. Challenge yourself to repay a specific portion of the debt in a specific time, and consider ways to reduce your expenses (and/or increase your income) to provide more money to repay the debt quicker. As you also did not disclose your assets, it is hard to know whether you could repay a portion of the debt from assets you already own. It makes sense to sell assets that have a low (or zero) return to repay debt that has a high interest rate. Perhaps you have substantial assets that you are reluctant to sell, but that you could sell to repay a large part of the debt?","Definitely don't borrow from your 401K. If you quit or get laid off, you have to repay the whole amount back immediately, plus you are borrowing from your opportunity cost. The stock market should be good at least through the end of this year. As one of the commentators already stated, have you calculated your net savings by reducing the interest rate? You will be paying closing costs and not all of these are deductible (only the points are). When calculating the savings, you have to ask yourself how long you will be hanging on the property? Are you likely to be long term landlords, or do you have any ideas on selling in the near future? You can reduce the cost and principal by throwing the equivalent of one to two extra mortgage payments a year to get the repayment period down significantly (by years). In this way, you are not married to a higher payment (as you would be if you refinanced to a 15 year term). I would tend to go with a) eat the appraisal cost, not refinance, and b) throw extra money towards principal to get the term of the loan to be reduced.","You submitted a claim for damage to the deck. The insurance company notified the mortgage company. Now the mortgage company wants to make sure that the collateral for the loan is still in good condition. They want you to make the repairs that you insisted needed to be done. They may even require you to use a licensed contractor before releasing the funds. Once you own the house without a mortgage, then you can decide for yourself if minor repairs need to be done.","\"The \"\"easier\"\" way is to sell the house, and pay back the 95K to the mortgage company. Your taxable gain (if any) is calculated as the difference between the sales price minus the purchased price of 150K. There is a further deduction for any selling expenses, before you have to pay income tax. If you liquidate your other investments to raise the 95K and prepay the mortgage, you might realize, and be taxed on gains on **those ** investments. That's something you might not want. On the other hand, if you have some investments that can be liquidated at a loss, you might want to sell those to generate a tax loss, then prepay all or part of the 95K. Bear in mind that there are limitations of 3K a year for certain types of losses. So see a tax adviser before using this course of action.\"","What you are describing is called a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). While the strategy you are describing is not impossible it would raise the amount of debt in your name and reduce your borrowing potential. A recent HELOC used to finance the down payment on a second property risks sending a signal of bad financial position to credit analysts and may further reduce your chances to obtain the credit approval.","Possible? Sure. The question is where do you plan on going to get the money and how well can you shop around to find the best rate for the loan. Banks and credit unions would be one option but I'd be curious as to how well do you know the various routes you could take.","You can ask the buyer to lower the price by the amount you are approved for and negation transferring the amount to him via a escrow..","Even straight index funds grow at about 6-7%. on average, or over long periods of time. In short time periods (quarters, years), they can fluctuate anywhere from -10% to +20%. Would you be happy if your bank account lost 10% of its value the week before you had to pay the bill for the repairs? Is it appropriate to invest small amounts for short periods of time? In general, no. Most investments are designed for long term appreciation. Even sophisticated financial companies can't do any better than 1 or 2% (annualized) on short-term cash reserves. Where you can make a huge difference is on the cost side. Bargain with suppliers, or wait for sales on retail items. Both will occasionally forego their margin on certain items in order to try to secure future business, which can make a difference of 20% or more in the cost of repairs.","The bank I work with would be more inclined to expand an existing HELOC rather than write a new one. I think that would be your best bet if you decide to continue borrowing against your home. Consider that your own income would have to support the repayment of these larger homes. If it is, why didn't you buy a larger home to begin with? As far as increasing the appraisal, you don't usually get one dollar of increased appraisal for each dollar you spend on improvements unless you have a rundown house in a nice neighborhood; part of the appraisal comes from a comparison with the appraisals of the other homes nearby. Eventually you get close enough to par with the other houses that anyone looking for something more expensive will often choose a different neighborhood entirely. Update: To your edit that mentions the original lender will cap the amount you can borrow, you can take additional secondary mortgages/HELOCs, but the interest rate is usually higher because it is not the first mortgage. I don't generally recommend it, but the option is there.","Does it cost money to refi? I know there are quite a few deals out there, I refi'd in June for $500, not bad. But sometimes can cost couple grand. If so, you have up front costs, plus the cost of the personal loan, that probably would break even at some point after your refi, but at what point? Will you sell before then, or even think about it? Or would you break even next year, then its a no brainer. As mentioned by others, do the numbers.","Run the numbers in advance. Understand what are the current rates for an additional 2nd mortgage, what are the rates for a brand new mortgage that will cover the additional funds. Understand what they are for another lender. Estimate the amount of paperwork involved in each option (new first, new 2nd, and new lender). Ask the what are the options they can offer you. Because you have estimated the costs in money and time for the different options, you can evaluate the offer they make. What they offer you can range from everything you want to nothing you would accept. What they offer will depend on several factors: Do they care to keep you as a customer?; Do they expect you to walk away?; are they trying to get rid of mortgages like the one you have?; Can they make more money with the plan they are offering you? You will be interested in the upfront costs, the monthly costs, and the amount of time required for the process to be completed.","Yes, banks still offer combo loans, but it is going to depend on the appraised value of your home. Typically lenders will allow you to finance up to 80% loan to value on the first mortgage (conforming loan amount) and 95% combined loan to value on a HELOC. I would start by checking with your local credit union or bank branch. They have more competitive rates and can be more flexible with loan amount and appraised value guidelines.","You did borrow money for the downpayment. When you apply for a mortgage loan on your new home, you will be required to list all your assets and all your liabilities. You must disclose the first mortgage as well as the second mortgage on your current condo as well as the monthly payment on each of these loans. If you took out the second mortgage five years ago, you can truthfully say that you have not taken out any loans within the past year to get cash for the down payment when you apply for a mortgage for purchasing your new house. But, what the lender will be looking at is: Can the applicants' current income support monthly payments of $1000 for the first mortgage on the condo plus $300 for the second mortgage on the condo plus $1500 for the proposed mortgage on the new house? You might argue that you will be selling that condo soon, or will be renting it out and that the rental income will cover the mortgage payments on the condo, but will the lender give much credence to this? The condo may not sell easily, you might not be able to find a tenant right away, or be able to rent the condo at a high enough rental to cover the costs etc. If you simply save money from your current extra cash flow and use that to make the down payment, the lender will be pondering the question Can the applicants' current income support monthly payments of $1000 for the mortgage on the condo plus $1500 for the proposed mortgage on the new house? Which deal will the lender be happier with? If you are uncomfortable saving your extra cash flow in a savings account or CD or investing it in stocks and/or bonds until you need the money for the down-payment on your new house, put that money in a sock under your mattress (and don't smoke in bed!)","I think you need to go to a local bank and ask. The key thing is paper trail. For any mortgage I've gotten on a new purchase, the bank needs to see where the down payment came from and how it got to the seller. In this case, it can go either way. If the value is truly 100% to the 80% you are looking to finance, and the paper trail is legit, this may work just fine. The issue others seem to have is that simply buying at a 20% discount is not a legit way to finance the 80%. Here, it appears to me that the 20% came from you in installments, via the rent.","Don't steal from the 401k. If you take the money out, you'll pay 28% in taxes and 10% in penalties -- only getting $12,960 out. Before you do anything, consult an online refi calculator to make sure you'll be in the house beyond the break-even point. With the numbers you've given and some reasonable guesses I made, it looks like you'll break even within a year. If your new employer's plan allows for loans, roll it into the new plan. Based on what you say you're putting in, you should be able to take a loan out of about $15-20k, which would get you to your LTV goal. Before you do this, calculate: and make sure you will comfortably be able to handle all of the payments. Make sure you're aware of the loan terms on your 401k loan. Understand the penalties associated with failing to make timely payments. Finally, beware of sinking all of your liquid cash into this -- how will you handle an emergency that comes up soon after closing on the new loan before you have a chance to rebuild your emergency fund?","\"Yes, a HELOC is great for that. I just had my roof done last month (~$15K, \"\"ugh\"\") and pretty much every major contractor in my area had a 0% same-as-cash for at least 12 months. So that helps - any balance that I don't bank by 11/15/2015 will be on the HELOC.\"","we have little money in cash for a down-payment This is a red flag to me. If you have little money in cash for a down-payment, how are you supposed to be a landlord too? You could try is to do a lease to own from your Dad. Get a renter into the other home for at least a year or more and then close on the house once your financial situation improves. You still have the same problem of being a landlord. Another option is to receive a gift letter from your Dad since he is gifting the money on the home. It might extend your closing a little bit so you can get an appraisal done and loan application. This to me is the most sane option.","\"The first red-flag here is that an appraisal was not performed on an as-is basis - and if it could not be done, you should be told why. Getting an appraisal on an after-improvement basis only makes sense if you are proposing to perform such improvements and want that factored in as a basis of the loan. It seems very bizarre to me that a mortgage lender would do this without any explanation at all. The only way this makes sense is if the lender is only offering you a loan with specific underwriting guidelines on house quality (common with for instance VA-loans and how they require the roof be of a certain maximum age - among dozens of other requirements, and many loan products have their own standards). This should have been disclosed to you during the process, but one can certainly never assume anyone will do their job properly - or it may have only mentioned in some small print as part of pounds of paper products you may have been offered or made to sign already. The bank criteria is \"\"reasonable\"\" to the extent that generally mortgage companies are allowed to set underwriting criteria about the current condition of the house. It doesn't need to be reasonable to you personally, or any of us - it's to protect lender profits by aiding their risk models. Your plans and preferences don't even factor in to their guidelines. Not all criteria are on a a sliding scale, so it doesn't necessarily matter how well you meet their other standards. You are of course correct that paying for thousands of dollars in improvements on a house you don't own is lunacy, and the fact that this was suggested may on it's own suggest you should cut your losses now and seek out a different lender. Given the lender being uncooperative, the only reason to stick with it seems to be the sunk cost of the appraisal you've already paid for. I'd suggest you specifically ask them why they did not perform an as-is appraisal, and listen to the answer (if you can get one). You can try to contact the appraiser directly as well with this question, and ask if you can have the appraisal strictly as-is without having a new appraisal. They might be helpful, they might not. As for taking the appraisal with you to a new bank, you might be able to do this - or you might not. It is strictly up to each lender to set criteria for appraisals they accept, but I've certainly known of people re-using an appraisal done sufficiently recently in this way. It's a possibility that you will need to write off the $800 as an \"\"education expense\"\", but it's certainly worth trying to see if you can salvage it and take it with you - you'll just have to ask each potential lender, as I've heard it go both ways. It's not a crazy or super-rare request - lenders backing out based on appraisal results should be absolutely normal to anyone in the finance business. To do this, you can just state plainly the situation. You paid for an appraisal and the previous lender fell through, and so you would like to know if they would be able to accept that and provide you with a loan without having to buy a whole new appraisal. This would also be a good time to talk about condition requirements, in that you want a loan on an as-is basic for a house that is inhabitable but needs cosmetic repair, and you plan to do this in cash on your own time after the purchase closes. Some lenders will be happy to do this at below 75%-80% LTV, and some absolutely do not want to make this type of loan because the house isn't in perfect condition and that's just what their lending criteria is right now. Based on description alone, I don't think you really should need to go into alternate plans like buy cash and then get a home equity loan to get cash out, special rehab packages, etc. So I'd encourage you to try a more straight-forward option of a different lender, as well as trying to get a straight answer on their odd choice of appraisal order that you paid for, before trying anything more exotic or totally changing your purchase/finance plans.\"","You could look into refinancing with a bank or credit union. But to weed out options quickly, use a service like LendingTree, which can vet multiple options for you a whole lot more quickly than you could probably do yourself. (I don't work for, or get any benefit from LendingTree.) Whatever you do, try to do all the applying within a short span of time, as to not negatively affect your credit score (read here) by creating extraneous inquiries. Then again, if your credit sucks, you might not qualify for a re-fi. If you are turned down, make your payments on time for six months or so, and try again.","You can. You can take out a conventional mortgage and keep the cash. A mortgage is nothing but a secured loan against your home. You can open a HELOC and treat it as a negative-equity bank-account. Note that both a mortgage and a HELOC tend to have significant up-front or administrative costs attached to them. It costs the loaning institution some money to ensure they are in a safe position, and they will want to pass it on to you. They don't want you taking out such a loan and not using it. On the other hand, the interest rates on such a loan are often much lower than interest rates on other loans. If you have a reliable source of significant income, getting a completely unsecured line of credit may be possible with a rate only a few percentage points higher than a HELOC without having to pay a cent in fees. The bank doesn't have to appraise your home or ensure ownership before such a loan, just assess income (which is easy, especially if you have a regular paycheck auto-deposited into an account at the same branch; toss in some signatures from your employer and good to go). If that is feasible, you could end up with a lower rate. Withdraw from the line of credit, pay off your other loans, then work to repay the line of credit. If an unsecured line of credit has a rate 1-3% higher than a secured one, and you are borrowing 5000$ against it and pay it off over 2 years, the total interest you would save from a secured line is about 50$-150$. Note that in some jurisdictions your home is protected against loss from bankruptcy, unless you have used it as collateral for a loan, or it is easier to claim the home if you are insolvent if you have used it as collateral. Determining what the consequences of securing your loan against the house could itself be expensive.","Based on your question details, I doubt you'll like this answer...but first things first, you need to focus on rebuilding your credit and your savings. $1K isn't a huge loan amount, so I'm going to assume you've made some poor decisions in the past to get to this point. I'm a small business owner, and I make it a goal to have 3-6 months of expected expenses in an account, should my circumstances ever drastically change or something happen that would keep me from working. Without knowing your living situation and daily expenses, here's some general advice on building a small business without a loan: 1) Find steady, gainful employment anywhere you can. 2) Pay off outstanding debts and rebuild a savings account to rebuild your credit score. 3) If you need fast cash, sell some stuff you don't need (gaming systems, home electronics, etc.). Also, minimize your unnecessary expenses (dining out, etc.). 4) Once your debts are paid off, create a business startup savings plan (put away as much as you can afford every week, until you reach your goal. 5) Once your goal is reached, you can begin your flipping business. Open a bank account, and separate your profits into buckets for operations, self-pay, and taxes (if you declare this income, which I hope you do). For myself, I put away 35% for income taxes, which I do not touch until my taxes are paid. I put 40% away for daily operations -- this keeps my business running, allowing me to pay for the equipment I need, the products I deliver, and advertising to keep my business running. I pay myself 25%. This is a simple method, but it works well for me.","I would tell the former owner that you will sell him the house for you current loan balance. He wants the home, he may be willing to pay what you owe. You can't really do a short sale unless you are behind on your payments. Banks only agree to a short sale when they think they are going to have to foreclose on the property. Not to mention a short sale is almost as bad as a foreclosure and will wreck your credit. If the former buying is not willing to buy the house for what you owe your only real option is to come up with the difference. If he offers you say $50K less than you owe, you will have to give the mortgage holder the remaining balance $50K in this example for them to release the property. Another problem you will face, if the former owner is willing to pay more than what the house is worth, and he is going to finance it, he will have to have enough cash to put down so that the loan amount is not more than the property is worth. Finally if none of that works you can just hold on to the property until the value comes up or you mortgage is payed down enough to make the balance of the mortgage less than the value of the house. Then offer the property to the former owner again.","There are a few ways to get money from property, but I'm not sure any would work for you: 1) Firstly you could sell it. Selling the building might require enough repairs that the building is habitable; if the repair costs are too high, you might not be able to recover costs from selling. For a particularly old and unkempt building, this is more likely to be the case. In extreme scenarios, you may earn more net profit by demolishing a decrepit building, and simply selling the land. Make sure you aren't setting your price too high if you are desperate to sell; dropping your price might make the headache of upkeep go away, and might be better for you financially in the long run. 2) You could rent it - but if it is so uninhabitable you can't sell it, then this is unlikely without repairs (and it seems you don't want to do this anyway). 3) If your building is in an area where the zoning laws are not strict, you may be able to apply for a permit to have it zoned for commercial use - and either run a business out of it, or rent it to someone else to do so. Again, this would be dependent on repairs if the building is uninhabitable, and also would require the building to well-situated for a business. 4) You could take out a mortgage on the building. Of course, this has two big caveats: (a) the bank would need to assess the building for value [and it seems not to be worth much in your case]; and (b) this provides only temporary cash, which you would need to pay back to the bank over time. In some cases, if you had a solid plan, you might be able to take a mortgage out against the value of the land, and use the cash from the mortgage to do some repairs, so that it would be in good shape for selling.","If I was you I would not borrow from my 401K and shred the credit card offer. Both are very risky ventures, and you are already in a situation that is risky. Doing either will increase your risk significantly. I'd also consider selling the rental house. You seem to be cutting very close on the numbers if you can't raise 17K in cash to refi the house. What happens if you need a roof on the rental, and an HVAC in your current home? My assumption is that you will not sell the home, okay I get it. I would recommend either giving your tenant a better deal then the have now, or something very similar. Having a good tenant is an asset.","In planning to buy a house, and sort out how to handle the costs of some initial renovations, I've been considering using Lowes and Home Depot credit cards (hopefully this will count differently than the typical credit cards I think you're referring to): http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ContentView?pn=Credit_Center&langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053 http://www.lowes.com/cd_Credit+Card+Accounts+from+Lowes_781778798_ You should definitely read the fine print first, as the interest rates can shoot up after the first 6 months if you don't pay the balance in full on some of them. Also, Lowes has a project card that gives you the 6 month no interest (only a minimum payment), and you don't have to pay off the full balance at the end. This one even has more reasonable rates, so this could be a good way to go.","\"If you need less than $125k for the downpayment, I recommend you convert your mutual fund shares to their ETF counterparts tax-free: Can I convert conventional Vanguard mutual fund shares to Vanguard ETFs? Shareholders of Vanguard stock index funds that offer Vanguard ETFs may convert their conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. This conversion is generally tax-free, although some brokerage firms may be unable to convert fractional shares, which could result in a modest taxable gain. (Four of our bond ETFs—Total Bond Market, Short-Term Bond, Intermediate-Term Bond, and Long-Term Bond—do not allow the conversion of bond index fund shares to bond ETF shares of the same fund; the other eight Vanguard bond ETFs allow conversions.) There is no fee for Vanguard Brokerage clients to convert conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. Other brokerage providers may charge a fee for this service. For more information, contact your brokerage firm, or call 866-499-8473. Once you convert from conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs, you cannot convert back to conventional shares. Also, conventional shares held through a 401(k) account cannot be converted to Vanguard ETFs. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/content/Funds/FundsVIPERWhatAreVIPERSharesJSP.jsp Withdraw the money you need as a margin loan, buy the house, get a second mortgage of $125k, take the proceeds from the second mortgage and pay back the margin loan. Even if you have short term credit funds, it'd still be wiser to lever up the house completely as long as you're not overpaying or in a bubble area, considering your ample personal investments and the combined rate of return of the house and the funds exceeding the mortgage interest rate. Also, mortgage interest is tax deductible while margin interest isn't, pushing the net return even higher. $125k Generally, I recommend this figure to you because the biggest S&P collapse since the recession took off about 50% from the top. If you borrow $125k on margin, and the total value of the funds drop 50%, you shouldn't suffer margin calls. I assumed that you were more or less invested in the S&P on average (as most modern \"\"asset allocations\"\" basically recommend a back-door S&P as a mix of credit assets, managed futures, and small caps average the S&P). Second mortgage Yes, you will have two loans that you're paying interest on. You've traded having less invested in securities & a capital gains tax bill for more liabilities, interest payments, interest deductions, more invested in securities, a higher combined rate of return. If you have $500k set aside in securities and want $500k in real estate, this is more than safe for you as you will most likely have a combined rate of return of ~5% on $500k with interest on $500k at ~3.5%. If you're in small cap value, you'll probably be grossing ~15% on $500k. You definitely need to secure your labor income with supplementary insurance. Start a new question if you need a model for that. Secure real estate with securities A local bank would be more likely to do this than a major one, but if you secure the house with the investment account with special provisions like giving them copies of your monthly statements, etc, you might even get a lower rate on your mortgage considering how over-secured the loan would be. You might even be able to wrap it up without a down payment in one loan if it's still legal. Mortgage regulations have changed a lot since the housing crash.\"","what are my options for raising the funds? Assuming you have decent credit, you can either mortgage your home or apply for a land loan in order to purchase the land. Since both your home and the land have value, either one can act as collateral in case you default on your loan. Land loans tend to have a higher interest rate and down payment, however. This is because banks see land loans as a riskier investment since it's easier for you to walk away from an empty plot of land than your own home.","\"The other answers are talking about seller financing. There is another type of arrangement that might be described as \"\"writing your own mortgage,\"\" where the buyer arranges his (or her) own financing. Instead of using a bank, a buyer might find his own investor to hold the mortgage for him. An example would be if I were to buy a house that needs fixing up. I might be able to buy a house for $40,000, but after I fix it up, I believe it will sell for $100,000. Instead of going through a traditional mortgage bank, I find an investor with cash that agrees the house is a good deal, and we arrange for the investor to provide funds for the purchase of the house on a short-term basis (perhaps interest-only), during which I fix up the house and sell it. Just like a regular mortgage, the loan is backed by the house itself. I am not recommending this type of arrangement by any means, but this article does a good job of describing how this would work. It is written by a real-estate guru with lots of training courses and coaching materials that she would like to sell you. :)\"","If you put down 80% of the purchase price for a house, you can very likely get a loan with few problems. After all, people with credit scores in the mid-500 range can get loans with 20% down. My question would be this -- if you actually had $400,000 then why not just buy a $400,000 house? If the goal is to improve your credit then if you buy a house for cash, you can then take out a home equity loan and make the payments, which would greatly improve your credit.","What you are suggesting will not work. Banks have strict guidelines about what they can and cannot do with an FHA loan property. Remember the FHA is only an insurance policy to the bank saying that if you default they will cover a high percentage of the loan. The bank won't take the risk of violating their insurance policy and the government refusing to pay them off if you default. Instead, consider doing a creative sale on your property, maybe a rent to own deal or owner financing. As long as you pay the mortgage the bank won't even know you don't live there and you can rent the house out to someone who eventually will buy it after the timeframe expires. Meanwhile you can go and get a new home or condo either thru regular financing or owner financing(search the internet to see how to do this) and you can use owner financing until you complete the sale of the first house. Otherwise just tough it out in the house you are in until the time expires and then sell. You made no mention of the property value but I am assuming if you bought it 3 years ago that you may have a little equity. Pleas note that if you sell at that time though you will likely have to come out of cash because your equity won't cover the realtor fee and closing cost. But if you do the rent to own I suggested earlier you can sell at a slightly higher price making sure you can cover those cost. I realize this answer is a little out the box but I deal with people who don't want properties all day and I have completed transactions like this many times. Good Luck and God Bless!","\"So either scenario has about $10K upfront costs (either realtor/selling expenses or fixing up for rental). Furthermore, I'm sure that the buyers would want you to fix all these things anyway, or reduce the price accordingly, but let's ignore this. Let's also ignore the remaining mortgage, since it looks like you can comfortably pay it off. Assuming 10% property management and 10% average vacancy (check your market), and rental price at $1000 - you end up with these numbers: I took very conservative estimates both on the rent (lower than you expect) and the maintenance expense (although on average over the years ,since you need to have some reserves, this is probably quite reasonable). You end up with 2.7% ROI, which is not a lot for a rental. The rule of thumb your wife mentioned (1% of cash equity) is indeed usually for ROI of leveraged rental purchase. However, if rental prices in your area are rising, as it sounds like they are, you may end up there quite soon anyway. The downside is that the money is locked in. If you're confident in your ability to rent and are not loosing the tax benefit of selling since it sounds like you've not appreciated, you may take out some cash through a cash-out refi. To keep cash-flow near-0, you need to cash out so that the payments would be at or less than the $3200/year (i.e.: $266/month). That would make about $50K at 30/yr fixed 5% loan. What's best is up to you to decide, of course. Check whether \"\"you can always sell\"\" holds for you. I.e.: how stable is the market, what happens if one or two large employers disappear, etc.\"","\"Assuming \"\"take advantage\"\" means continue to build wealth, as opposed to blow it all on a fancy holiday... Downgrade As you already note, you could downgrade/downsize. This could happen via moving to a smaller house in the same area, or moving to an area where the cost of buying is less. HELOC Take out a Home Equity Line of Credit. You could use the line of credit to do home improvements further boosting the asset value (forced appreciation, assuming the appreciation to date is simply market based). Caution is required if the house has already appreciated \"\"considerably\"\" - you want to keep the home value within tolerance levels for the area. (Best not to have the only $300K house on a street of $190K-ers...) Home Equity Loan Assuming you have built up equity in the house, you could leverage that equity to purchase another property. For most people this would form part of the jigsaw for getting the financing to purchase again.\"","Is it a safety thing? If the heat pump goes out you replace it immediately, if your floor looks bad but you aren't tripping, I would suggest saving. Use the extra time to find a great deal and educate yourself on your options. Maybe even take a class and learn to do it yourself. In these rough times, anything I can save for and pay cash I would. The exception is if you can finance with 0% interest for a period of time and you have enough money to pay that off. The last consideration I can think of is if you plan to sell the home soon? For that you might be getting more value than the loan and a real estate agent would be probably know best.","EDIT: new ideas based on the full story. I wouldn't worry about the price history. While it is certainly true that some buyers might try to leverage that information against you, the bottom line is the price is the price. Both the buyer and the seller have to agree. If the initial listing was too high, then lower the price. If that isn't low enough, then readjust down. I see no harm in moving the price down over time repeatedly. In fact, I thin that is a good tactic to getting the most for the house. If you happen to have the luxury of time, then keep lowering that price until it sells. Don't fret how that behavior appears. You can lower the price as often as you like until it sells. I am not a real estate agent, and I am a terrible negotiator, but I would lower the price every quarter until it sells. You can't go down to fast (a buyer might wait you out) and you can't wait to long as you stated. Also, if you house is priced inline with the neighborhood, you can at least get offers and negotiate. Buy asking for such a premium (25%) folks might not even make an offer. You simply need to decide what is more important, the selling price or the time frame in getting it sold. If you house doesn't sell because the market doesn't support your price, then consider keeping it as a rental. You can do it yourself, or if you are not interested in that (large) amount of work, then hire a rental management company to do it for a fee. Renting a home is hard work and requires attention to detail, a good amount of your time and much labor. If you just need to wait a couple of years before selling, renting it can be a good option to cover your costs while you wait for the market to reach you. You should get advice on how to handle the money, how to rent it, how to deal with renters, and the the laws are in your jurisdiction. Rent it out to a trusted friend or family member for a steal of a deal. They save money, and you get the luxury of time waiting for the sale. With a real estate lawyer you hire, get a contract for a lease option or owner finance deal on the house. Sometimes you can expand the market of people looking to buy your house. If you have a willing purchaser will bad credit, you can be doing them a favor and solving your own issue. It costs money and you will make less on the sale, but it could be better than nothing. Take heed, there is a reason some people cannot get a traditional loan on their own. Before you extend your good name or credit think about it. It is another hassle for sure. This won't help if you have to pay off a mortgage, but you could donate it. This is another tricky deal that you really need to speak with a lawyer who specialize in charitable giving. There are tax benefits, but I would make any kind of a deal where tax deductions are the only benefit. This is common enough these days. If you are unable to pay for the mortgage, it benefits you and the bank to get into a short sale arrangement. They bank gets probably more money than if they have to foreclose (and they save money on legal fees) and you can get rid of the obligation. You will do a deed in lieu or the short sale depending on how the market it and what the house can be sold for. You and the bank will have to work it out. This will ruin for a credit for a while, and you will not likely qualify to get a new mortgage for at least a few years. You can stop paying your mortgage, tell the bank and they will foreclose. This is going to ruin your credit for a long time as well as disqualify you from mortgages in the near future. Don't do this. If you are planning a foreclosure, take the time to contact your bank and arrange a short sale or a deed in lieu. There isn't really any excuse to go into foreclosure if you are having problems. Talk to the bank and work out a deal.","A bank isn't going to offer to lend you money on a property you don't own. You first need to finish the process of probate and get a clear title. Then it's your house and a bank with lend you money based on a combination of your income and the home's value.","Used car dealers will sometimes deliberately issue high-interest-rate subprime loans to folks who have poor credit. But taking that kind of risk on a mortgage, when you aren't also taking profit out of the sale, really isn't of interest to anyone who cares about making a profit. There might be a nonprofit our there which does so, but I don't know of one. Fix your credit before trying to borrow.","The thing with your last option is that the cash-out mortgage is treated differently than purchase mortgage, with regards to taxes. Specifically, tax deduction is limited to $100K mortgage instead of $1M (or a bit higher even). Other than that - you've covered your options, and its up to you to decide what to do.","I am a real estate agent. I know you are in Canada, but will let you know that in the US, agents are not to supposed to offer this kind of advice. They can refer you to a bank or mortgage broker, but should not be giving this type of financial advice. That said, it's a HELOC, it would be rare for your bank to be willing to just add to your mortgage at the current low rate. Still, ask the bank holding your loan. Is the second home to rent out or a vacation/summer home for you to live in?","The crucial question not addressed by other answers is your ability to repay the debt. Borrowing is always about leverage, and leverage is always about risk. In the home improvement loan case, default comes with dire consequences-- to extinguish the debt you might have to sell your home. With a stable job, reliable income, and sufficient cash flow (and, of course, comfort that the project will yield benefits you're happy to pay for), then the clear answer is, go ahead and borrow. But if you work in a highly cyclical industry, have very little cash saved, or for whatever other reason are uncertain about your future ability to pay, then don't borrow. Save until you are more comfortable you can handle the loan. That doesn't necessarily mean save ALL the money; just save enough that you are highly confident in your ability to pay whatever you borrow.","I can probably rent the house out for about $1,600. If sell now I can get 180k at the most. My mortgage will be $1,800 with tax and insurance. If I use the 180k to pay off the house, I can refinance the loan for a lower interest rate too. I think I know what I want to do but just need a second opinion. Thanks btw","If an entity or individual has full rights to the land and land improvements, they can hold, transfer, delegate, or dispose of them on their terms. The only exception may be eminent domain. If the sovereignty meets the public necessity or public purpose tests they can assume or change the rights to your property in exchange for compensation. As others have said writing your own mortgage falls under the category of seller financing. A seller can write a mortgage with the help of a loan servicing company. Some loan service companies report to credit agencies, to help with buyer refinancing at a later point. Other forms of seller financing: Leasing Land contracts mineral contracts and more... Additionally, the seller can finance the minority of the property, called a junior mortgage. For example, the Bank finances 79% of the value, the seller finances 11%, and the buyer's 10% down payment covers the rest. If the buyer defaults, the superior mortgage (bank's) has collection priority. More commonly, the seller can option for a wrap-around mortgage or an 'all-inclusive mortgage'. The seller holds or refinances the existing mortgage and provides a junior mortgage in exchange for a secured promissory note and an all-inclusive trust deed. If the buyer defaults, the seller has foreclosure rights. It is not uncommon for entities or people to use financing strategies other than the traditional mortgage if they are unable to exclude the gain on sale. Check out section 1031 exchanges. In almost all cases I would tell people not to make decisions based on tax consequences alone, if your financial objective/goal for seller financing sounds like a 1031 exchange, take exception and carefully consider the tax consequences.","You might also want to talk directly to a bank. If your credit report is clean, they may have some discretion in making the loan. Note - the 'normal' fully qualified loan has two thresholds, 28% (of monthly income) for housing costs, 36% for all debt servicing. A personal, disclosed loan from a friend/family which is not secured against the house, would count as part of the other debt, as would a credit card. While I don't recommend using a credit card for this purpose, the debt fits in that 28-36 gap. As Kevin points out below, not all paths are equally advisable. Nor are rules of thumb always true. Not having the OP's full details, income, assets, price of house, etc, this is just a list of things to consider. The use of a 401(k) loan in the US can be a great idea for some, bad mistake for others. This format doesn't make it easy to go into great detail, and I'm sure the 401(k) loan issue has been asked and answered in other questions. With respect to Kevin, if he wrote 'usually', I'd agree, but never say 'never.'","In general you do not want to show a taxable gain on rental properties if you can avoid it. One of the more beneficial advantages of owning cash flowing rental properties, is that the income is tax deferred because of the depreciation. I say deferred, because depreciation affects the cost basis of your property. Also since you are considering financing, it sounds like you don't need the cash flow currently. You usually can get better returns by financing and buying more rental properties, especially with investment mortgages at historical lows (Win via inflation over time)","I am; I bought the house as a preforeclosure (short sell) at 120000; 100% financed with a USDA loan and lived there for about 5 years before my wife and I took a job in Birmingham. With a 30 yr fixed rate... 119000 is about as low as I can go before I would have to come out of pocket at closing to get the lien released... and the problem is there's nothing left in my pockets..","You put 20% down and already owe the 80% or $80k, so you don't have the ability to borrow $100k or even $20k for that matter. As LittleAdv stated, the banks have really tightened their lending criteria. Borrowing out more than 80% carries a high premium if you can get it at all. In your example, you want the property to increase in value by at least 10% to borrow $10K.","If you're in the US, you have some no down payment options, but you still need some closing costs money, that can potentially be negotiated with the seller. There are fha loans which have very low down payment options, 80/20 loans which are 100% coverage, hud assistance on fha to get a 100% loan. Your 401k can be leveraged into the loan as 35% collateral paying 7% interest on a traditional no recourse loan. These options are available with a work history and if you're not taking on more debt than you can pay with 30% salary. Finding an angel investor will be harder than working with the bank, they have much less room for risk. It's easier to find a current landlord and asking about a rent to own, though, this will be more expensive than a mortgage. To be honest though, most people are in a rush to be house poor, living on the edge of affordability. I don't know your situation, but I do know that rushing into things can be very expensive in the long run.","\"Let me summarize your question for you: \"\"I do not have the down payment that the lender requires for a mortgage. How can I still acquire the mortgage?\"\" Short answer: Find another lender or find more cash. Don't overly complicate the scenario. The correct answer is that the lender is free to do what they want. They deem it too risky to lend you $1.1M against this $1.8M property, unless they have $700k up front. You want their money, so you must accept their terms. If other lenders have the same outlook, consider that you cannot afford this house. Find a cheaper house.\"","If it is a separate unit from the rest of the property, you can use that portion as an investment property. the part, or unit, you are living in is your primary residence. The remainder is your investment. You are eligible to not pay capital gains on the portion you live in After two years. As always consult a tax accountant For advice... Also, if this is less then 4 unit, you may he able to finance the sale of the home with an FHA loan.","As the other answers suggest, there are a number of ways of going about it and the correct one will be dependent on your situation (amount of equity in your current house, cashflow primarily, amount of time between purchase and sale). If you have a fair amount of equity (for example, $50K mortgage remaining on a house valued at $300K), I'll propose an option that's similar to bridge financing: Place an offer on your new house. Use some of your equity as part of the down payment (eg, $130K). Use some more of your equity as a cash buffer to allow you pay two mortgages in between the purchase and the sale (eg, $30K). The way this would be executed is that your existing mortgage would be discharged and replaced with larger mortgage. The proceeds of that mortgage would be split between the down payment and cash as you desire. Between the closing of your purchase and the closing of your sale, you'll be paying two mortgages and you'll be responsible for two properties. Not fun, but your cash buffer is there to sustain you through this. When the sale of your new home closes, you'll be breaking the mortgage on that house. When you get the proceeds of the sale, it would be a good time to use any lump sum/prepayment privileges you have on the mortgage of the new house. You'll be paying legal fees for each transaction and penalties for each mortgage you break. However, the interest rates will be lower than bridge financing. For this reason, this approach will likely be cheaper than bridge financing only if the time between the closing of the two deals is fairly long (eg, at least 6 months), and the penalties for breaking mortgages are reasonable (eg, 3 months interest). You would need the help of a good mortgage broker and a good lawyer, but you would also have to do your own due diligence - remember that brokers receive a commission for each mortgage they sell. If you won't have any problems selling your current house quickly, bridge financing is likely a better deal. If you need to hold on to it for a while because you need to fix things up or it will be harder to sell, you can consider this approach.","Since you are leaving the country, get it sold by a real estate agent. If you choose to lower the price and get it done quickly, or if you choose to wait for a fair value, the key here is to get many independent referrals (like a dozen) so you agent is trustworthy. I don't think you need to sign over power of attorney as fax machines are pretty reliable these days. I won't matter if you live 50 miles or 5000 miles away. Renting it is not a great option because you can't easily follow up from another country. Don't sell it to the rock bottom places. Either you don't need the money and you can afford to you wait, or you need the money and it would be best to wait.","\"If you mortgage after the fact you will usually pay an extra .25% higher on the interest rate because a \"\"cash out\"\" refinance is treated as riskier than a new home purchase mortgage. You might save enough on the purchase price of the home with a cash offer to make that higher interest rate worth it, but in most cases, if you are planning to hold the loan for a long time, it's best to get that mortgage at the time of purchase. You might be able to get the same deal with an offer that says you will pay cash if there are any problems getting the loan approved.\"","\"There are basically two ways to get value out of an appreciating asset such as a home: (a) Sell it and take the profit. In the case of a home, you presumably still have to live somewhere, so unless you buy a cheaper home to replace it, this doesn't get you anywhere. If you can get another house that is just as nice and in just as nice a location -- whatever you consider \"\"nice\"\" to be -- than this sounds like a winning option. If it means moving to a less desirable home, then you are getting the cash but losing the nice home. You'll have to decide if it's worth it. (b) Use it as collateral for a loan. In this case, that means a second mortgage, home equity loan, or a home equity line of credit. But this can be dangerous. House prices are very volatile these days. If the value of the house falls, you could be stuck with debts greater than your assets. In my humble opinion, you should be very careful about doing this. Borrowing against your house to send the kids to college or pay for your spouse's life-saving operation may be reasonable. Borrowing against your house to go on a fancy vacation is almost surely a bad idea. The vacation will be over within a couple of weeks, but you could be paying off the debt for decades.\"","If it is your primary residence and you lived there continuously and for more than 2 years out of the last 5 - then you can exclude the gain under the IRC Sec. 121. In this case, you'll pay no taxes on your gain. If the property has been a rental or you haven't lived there long enough, the rules become more complicated but you may still be able to exclude some portion of the gain, even all of it, depends on the situation. So it doesn't look like 1031 exchange is good for you here, you don't want to carry excluded gain - you want to recognize it and get the tax benefit. However, refinancing after purchase with cash-out money affects the deductability of the loan interest. You can only deduct interest on money used to buy, not cash-out portion. I believe there's a period (60 days IIRC) during which you can do the cash-out refinance and still count it as purchase money, but check with a licensed tax advier (EA/CPA licensed in your State).","Are you interested in refurbishing your rented home here in Singapore? If you are struggling with financial difficulties, you can apply for a renovation loan offered by banks. Most banks in Singapore offer renovation loans and home loans only to those who own a property. It is very hard to find a renovation loan for a rented home. **Home loans for renovation** You can take a home loan for your rented property and top up your home loan to finance your renovation project. If you already have a home loan, all you need to do is ask your bank representative to add extra financing to your [home loan](https://www.bankbazaar.sg/home-loan.html) for renovation purpose. Applying for a home loan for a rented property is simple. You can use an online loan calculator and compare home loans provided for a rented property. According to your repayment capacity and financial requirements, you can choose a home loan and use it for renovation. Make sure you have a good credit score while applying so that your home loan gets approved easily. **Personal loans for renovation** If you are not able to find too many home loans or renovation loans for rented property, you need not worry. Have you considered taking a personal loan to make awesome home improvement measures? That’s right; you can apply for a personal loan and use the funds to renovate your abode. The best thing about a personal loan is that a lender does not enquire about the purpose for your loan application. So, you can use your personal loan for any of your needs. *Eligibility criteria for personal loans* The general criteria to be qualified for a personal loan in Singapore are: The applicant should be 21 to 65 years old. The applicant should be a Singaporean or a permanent resident or a foreigner. The minimum income requirement for a Singaporean or PR is generally S$20,000 p.a. and S$40,000 p.a. for a foreigner. **When are personal loans ideal for renovation?** There are a few situations when a personal loan is the best option for renovating your rented property: Many banks give personal loans with attractive promotions such as interest-free loan for a certain period. You can take this loan and even repay the full amount before the zero-interest period expires. This will help you save efficiently on your renovation project. The minimum income required to secure a home loan is generally higher than the income requirement for a personal loan. Hence, a personal loan is a better option. A home loan generally gives a higher sum of money than a personal loan. This high amount is suitable for a construction project but will be excessive for renovation work. Therefore, it makes more sense to apply for a personal loan to give the perfect makeover to the kitchenette in your home. The approval process for a home loan is typically very lengthy. Personal loan applications get approved within 24 hours by most banks in Singapore. So now you can apply for a personal loan without any tension and remodel your balcony to have a party at home sweet home! Personal loan rates are generally lower than home loan rates. You can refurbish your living space by paying your loan at an interest rate not more than 4%. Now, you would have got a fair idea about how to finance your remodelling work. Always remember to enquire about every loan’s terms and conditions. Never sign any loan contract without being absolutely clear about the loan’s features.","Talk to your parents, and find out if you are reducing the debt or not. Find buyers, sell the place now and get out the deal. Of course you will have to wait to get a good price on it. Short term you haven't lost that much, but long term you will. Take your 25%, and use it as a down payment on a regular bank mortgage. Lesson learned move on.","I would agree with the other answers about it being a bad idea to invest in stocks in the short term. However, do consider also long-term repairs. For example, you should be prepared to a repair happening in 20 years in addition to repairs happening in a couple of months. So, if it is at all possible for you to save a bit more, put 2% of the construction cost of a typical new house (just a house, not the land the house is standing on) aside every year into a long-term repair fund and invest it into stocks. I would recommend a low-cost index fund or passive ETF instead of manually picking stocks. When you have a long-term repair that requires large amounts of money but will be good for decades to come, you will take some money out of the long-term repair fund. Where I live, houses cost about 4000 EUR per square meter, but most of that is the land and building permit cost. The actual construction cost is about 2500 EUR per square meter. So, I would put away 50 EUR per square meter every year. So, for example, for a relatively small 50 square meter apartment, that would mean 2500 EUR per year. There are quite many repairs that are long-term repairs. For example, in apartment buildings, plumbing needs to be redone every 40 years or so. Given such a long time period, it makes sense to invest the money into stocks. So, my recommendation would be to have two repair funds: short-term repairs and long-term repairs. Only the long-term repair fund should be invested into stocks.","You have the 2 properties, and even though the value of property B is less than the amount you owe on it hopefully you have some equity in propery A. So if you do have enough equity in property A, why don't you just go to the one lender and get both property A and B refinanced under the same mortgage. This way hopefully the combined equity in both properties would be enough to cover the full amount of the loan, and you have the opportunity to refinance at favourable rate and terms. Sounds like you are in the USA with an interest rate of 3.25%, I am in Australia and my mortgage rates are currently between 6.3% to 6.6%.","\"You can definitely do it. But: Refinancing would make more sense to you, you can refinance at no cost and get rates below 4%, so you'll be saving 1% a year, without paying anything extra. If you pay the fees you'll get even lower rates, but then you need to check whether its worth it. I've just refinanced to a 15 years fixed mortgage at no cost a couple of months ago, and got 3.875% rate (in California), so its definitely worth looking into, don't just dismiss it. This will limit your flexibility though, because paying 30yrs loan \"\"as if\"\" is much more flexible than committing on 15yes loan - you can always go back to your original payments if you want to spread it out a bit more. You can add a HELOC once you've accumulated some equity to back you up, that's what I did.\""],"string":"[\n \"If you intend to flip this property, you might consider either a construction loan or private money. A construction loan allows you to borrow from a bank against the value of the finished house a little at a time. As each stage of the construction/repairs are completed, the bank releases more funds to you. Interest accrues during the construction, but no payments need to be made until the construction/repairs are complete. Private money works in a similar manner, but the full amount can be released to you at once so you can get the repairs done more quickly. The interest rate will be higher. If you are flipping, then this higher interest rate is simply a cost of doing business. Since it's a private loan, you ca structure the deal any way you want. Perhaps accruing interest until the property is sold and then paying it back as a single balloon payment on sale of the property. To find private money, contact a mortgage broker and tell them what you have in mind. If you're intending to keep the property for yourself, private money is still an option. Once the repairs are complete, have the bank reassess the property value and refinance based on the new amount. Pay back the private loan with equity pulled from the house and all the shiny new repairs.\",\n \"I'm not sure about your first two options. But given your situation, a variant of option three seems possible. That way you don't have to throw away your appraisal, although it's possible that you'll need to get some kind of addendum related to the repairs. You also don't have your liquid money tied up long term. You just need to float it for a month or two while the repairs are being done. The bank should be able to preapprove you for the loan. Note that you might be better off without the loan. You'll have to pay interest on the loan and there's extra red tape. I'd just prefer not to tie up so much money in this property. I don't understand this. With a loan, you are even more tied up. Anything you do, you have to work with the bank. Sure, you have $80k more cash available with the loan, but it doesn't sound like you need it. With the loan, the bank makes the profit. If you buy in cash, you lose your interest from the cash, but you save paying the interest on the loan. In general, the interest rate on the loan will be higher than the return on the cash equivalent. A fourth option would be to pay the $15k up front as earnest money. The seller does the repairs through your chosen contractor. You pay the remaining $12.5k for the downpayment and buy the house with the loan. This is a more complicated purchase contract though, so cash might be a better option. You can easily evaluate the difficulty of the second option. Call a different bank and ask. If you explain the situation, they'll let you know if they can use the existing appraisal or not. Also consider asking the appraiser if there are specific banks that will accept the appraisal. That might be quicker than randomly choosing banks. It may be that your current bank just isn't used to investment properties. Requiring the previous owner to do repairs prior to sale is very common in residential properties. It sounds like the loan officer is trying to use the rules for residential for your investment purchase. A different bank may be more inclined to work with you for your actual purchase.\",\n \"I'll write this up as a more formal answer, here. I'd suggest looking into a Home Equity Line of Credit, or HELOC. You didn't mention in your question how much equity you have in the home, but assuming at least 20%, you might be able to open a HELOC with a line of $40,000. My experience is that you can do 50% of your equity, but depends on the bank. Here are a few notes that are generally in play with HELOC's (YMMV, so be sure to know the specifics before signing on the line) Doing this, at least when we did 8 years ago, did not subject us to PMI. There are certainly plenty of things to research, but it sounds like you're pretty astute based on how you're evaluating the financial side of this endeavor. There are no guarantees in real estate. Houses could be selling like crazy now, but in 6 months they might not. It certainly sounds like that's a lower risk in your area, but you never know what might happen. If you're taking on this extra line of credit, make sure that it's something you could afford should the worst case scenario happen. Equity loans are also available. This is a more traditional fixed-rate loan rather than line of credit, so you'd be looking at set monthly payments rather than the flexibility of paying interest only when you need to. There's a brief write-up on the differences here. I have also heard of a construction loan, which falls into the same category as the aforementioned options, but I can't speak to today's market on those.\",\n \"I agree with MrChrister about first considering how necessary the renovations are (is it a nice-to-have, or a need-to-have?), as well as the importance of consulting a Realtor, if you are selling your home, as they will advise you wisely. For instance, they might advise you to replace the linoleum with a neutral beige ceramic tile, as you would be assured a better resale value on your dollar spent, than if you were to replace the old linoleum with new linoleum (or laminate). There are many types of renovations that simply don't pay off, and others that do provide good return-on-investment (like intelligent kitchen and bathroom updates). I found this ROI grid at lendingmax.ca (which is pretty consistent with what I remember reading in the Toronto Star this spring): Top 10 Renovations ~ Average return on investment Painting and interior decorating = 73% Kitchen renovations = 72% Bathroom renovations = 68% Exterior painting = 65% Flooring upgrades = 62% Window/door replacement = 57% Family room addition = 51% Fireplace addition = 50% Basement renovation = 49% Furnace/heating updating = 48% If you are selling your home, and your Realtor has suggested improvements, they are probably necessary, and not doing them might serve as an impediment to quickly selling your home - so factor in the (potential) costs of carrying your home for additional weeks/months, or worse, overlapping mortage costs, if it takes your home longer to sell, and you end up owning two homes simultaneously for a bit. As far as your question (should you pay cash for renos or take out a loan), one factor to consider if you live in Canada is the Home Renovation Tax Credit, which applies to renos that take place until Feb 1, 2010, and can deduct up to $1,350. So if you have to do a reno and yours qualifies for this tax credit, and you won't have the cash before that deadline, factor in the cost of borrowing vs. the $1,350. Good luck!\",\n \"I'm assuming that when you sell the house you expect to be able to pay off these loans. In that case you need a loan that can be paid off in full without penalty, but has as low an interest rate as possible. My suggestions:\",\n \"One thing I would look into is getting a fixed rate home equity loan for a short term. Not a line of credit, but a home equity loan. The main benefit is they typically offer no closing costs. You can get a very low rate provided you move the loan into first position (replace your current mortgage). I know someone who got a 7 year fixed Home Equity Loan, from Regions Bank, for 2.62% no closing costs.\",\n \"\\\"In the first years of a loan, most of what you're paying is interest, so my guess is that this is a bad idea. But there are lots of mortgage calculators offered for free on the web (your bank's website may have one) so I'd suggest that you spend some time running actual numbers before deciding. Reminder: Most renovations do NOT pay for themselves in increased sales price, not least because you'll lose the buyers who don't like what you've done but would have been happy to renovate it themselves to their own tastes. Unless there is something which will actively impair your ability to sell the house, you should usually renovate when you plan to stay there for a while and take your returns in enjoying the house more, NOT on the way out. (There's been some recent discussion of this over in Home Improvement, pointing out that the changes which return more than they cost are usually simple things like refreshing the paint, \\\"\\\"staging\\\"\\\" the house so it looks lived in but not cluttered, replacing damaged blinds, washing windows, putting out a few more flowers, and so on.)\\\"\",\n \"sheegaon's reply looks fine to me, a HELOC can usually be set up for a minimal ($50?) fee, and is currently a pretty low rate, mine is 2.5%. If this doesn't appeal to you, my other suggestion is a 401(k) loan. While this is usually a last resort and 'not' recommended, a short term use may make sense. The rate is low, and you can pay in back in full after moving into the new house.\",\n \"For alternative financing, pursue a line of credit or a Home Equity Line of Credit. (From the comments of @ChrisInEdmonton and @littleadv on the original question)\",\n \"There are ups and downs to doing this. This isn't a taxable gain, because it's borrowed money that will be repaid. Whether there are restrictions or not depends upon your contract with the seller and your bank. If the concessions are for health & safety related repairs, your bank may require you to complete the work before closing or within a certain period of time. Overall: Upsides Downsides\",\n \"Over the last ten years you have reaped the benefits of a good financial decision. (Presumably your low mortgage has freed up money for other financial priorities.) There would be no harm in making a clean break by selling as is. On the other hand, the resale value would probably be rather low considering the condition and the neighborhood. I don't want to assume too much here, but if a potential buyer is interested in the house by virtue of not being able to afford a house in a better neighborhood or better condition, their finances and credit history may make it difficult for them to be approved for a mortgage. That would reduce the potential buyer pool and further reduce the sale price. If you can pull more in rent than the mortgage, you definitely have an opportunity to come ahead. Maybe window A/C units and a repaired chimney are enough if you're renting. Your rental income would pay for that in less than a year even while paying your mortgage for you. (Of course you don't want to become a sleazy slumlord either.)\",\n \"You should look into a home equity line of credit: A home equity line of credit (often called HELOC and pronounced HEE-lock) is a loan in which the lender agrees to lend a maximum amount within an agreed period (called a term), where the collateral is the borrower's equity in his/her house. Because a home often is a consumer's most valuable asset, many homeowners use home equity credit lines only for major items, such as education, home improvements, or medical bills, and choose not to use them for day-to-day expenses.\",\n \"A professional home inspection will clue you in on any problems you might be buying, so it's important in any real estate transaction. If the seller finances the loan, you need a lawyer. It might be a nice opportunity - being in the right place at the right time. You just have to investigate all angles.\",\n \"\\\"The problem here can be boiled down to that fact you are attempting to obtain a loan without collateral. There are times it can be done, but you have to have a really good relationship with a banker. Your question suggests that avenue has been exhausted. You are looking for an investor, but you are offering something very speculative. Suppose an investor gives you 20K, what recourse does he have if you do not pay the terms of the loan? From what income will this be paid from? What event will trigger the capability to make a balloon payment? Now if you can find a really handy guy that really needs a place to live could you swap rent for repairs? Maybe. Perhaps you buy the materials, and he does the roof in exchange for 6 months worth of rent or whatever. If you approached me with this \\\"\\\"investment\\\"\\\", the thing that would raise a red flag is why don't you have 20K to do this yourself? If you don't how will you be able to make payments? For example of the items you mentioned: That is a weekend worth of work and some pretty inexpensive materials. Why does money need to be borrowed for this? A weekend worth of demo, and $500 worth of material and another weekend to build something serviceable for a rental. Why does money need to be borrowed for this? 2K? Why does money need to be borrowed for this? This can be expensive, but most roofing companies offer financing. Also doing some of the work yourself can save a ton of money. Demoing an old roof is typically about 1/3 of the roofing cost and is technically simple, but physically difficult. So besides the new roof, you could have a lot of your list solved for less than 3K and three weekends worth of work. You are attempting to change this into a rental, not the Taj Mahal.\\\"\",\n \"Great question, but I'm thinking you'll want to get a professional who can look at your specific situation and do it right. I wouldn't go solely on advice here. Having said that, though, my decidedly non-professional advice: The other alternative is to take a bit of a profit hit, and demand that the seller pay cash. Then the transaction becomes much easier and quicker. But again, I urge you to have a pro look at this!\",\n \"There are deals out there which allow refinancing up to 125% of appraised value so long as you have a solid payment history. You need to research banks in your area working with HARP funded mortgages. An alternate method is to find a bank that will finance 80% of the current value at 4% and the rest as a HELOC. The rate will be higher on the equity line, but the average rate will be better and you can pay the line off faster.\",\n \"If you have a family member with sufficient funds to lend, you might consider writing a deed that gives them a percentage of ownership in the property in exchange for a loan, then you could later take a mortgage to pay back that loan and purchase that percentage of the property back. If it was me, I would probably just pay cash and try to get a home equity line of credit for emergency funds once I started working again. All the money I would have paid into a mortgage, and perhaps more--I would invest to rebuild the investment account as quickly as possible.\",\n \"It seems you understand the risks, it seems like a fine enough idea. Hopefully it works out for you. However, you may want to talk to a few local banks about getting a short term home equity loan. I know someone who was able to do this getting a very low rate for 7 years. At the time of the loan, the prevailing rate for a 15 year was 3.25, but they were able to get the HEL at 2.6 fixed. There was no closing costs. The best part about it was the payment was not that much more. While going from ~1200 to ~1800 is a 50% increase it was not that much in dollars in relationship to his household income. Note that I did not say Home Equity Line of Credit, which are vairable rates and amount borrowed.\",\n \"Your only option might be finding a seller-financed property with a motivated seller who is willing to take the risk of loaning you money. However, be prepared to pay a hefty rate on that loan if you can even pull it off.\",\n \"Others have covered the usual vehicles for getting money out of a property. There's another category of home loan called a hard money loan. It would take a lot of inquiries to find a hard money loan given your needs, but chances are its doable. The terms can be onerous, and hard money lenders don't mess around when it comes to foreclosing after a few missed payments. It's an off-the-radar industry and the private lenders and specialized trustees operate together with strike-force precision. Trustees normally should be trust-able by borrower and lender, but in the case I describe below, one man owned the small company that lent, and the small company that acted as trustee. Borrower beware. Yet, if your credit score and income are dismal, but your home equity is great, hard money is the only way to borrow against your home. In making hard money loans, lenders don't consider your credit score or income, just how much equity is in the property. I daresay they hope you'll default. They don't always hang onto the loans. If you look like a payer instead of someone they can foreclose on, they might sell the loan to someone who wants a stable monthly income. You don't know a thing about that person. A Cautionary Tale: *Check out HankandHelen.blogspot.com for a currently-unfolding saga, in which an elderly couple's grandson convinced them to let him take title to their house, borrow against it, invest the proceeds, and share the profits. It didn't work that way. He went through hard-money lenders. He borrowed $360,000 and then $65,000. Those were mysteriously paid off (total mystery at this point), and he borrowed $47,000. About a year later, he lost the house by defaulting the $47,000 loan. He was only about $2000 behind in payments when the trustee issued a notice of default, followed by a notice of sale. The trustee put the place up for auction, which didn't require a court order: that's the way it is in California and many western states, and a few others. The hard money lender bought the loan at auction for $83,000, and a home worth about $800,000 no longer belonged to the grandson. A fundraiser brought in about $120,000 and the couple bought a mobile home in a mobile home park. The acre of land and swimming pool they used to own will be for sale soon, or possibly demolished for a mansion to be built. (House in the area go for about $2.5M when improved with very large, new houses.)* I poke around PropertyShark.com when I see a house bought cheaply at a foreclosure auction. Quite often the (former) borrower had inherited the house, treated it like a piggy bank, defaulted, and boom--no more house. It never makes sense to put a house at risk for a small amount like $5000. If you can't pay those credit card bills, the lenders can hound you and maybe get a court order to extract something from your checking account every month, but they can't take your belongings. When you sign a deed of trust or mortgage, you're giving a third party the right to kick you out of your home and take possession of it. You don't have any say in the matter. You might go to court, and say whatever you feel like saying, but if you owe many payments and can't pay them immediately, you're very likely to be out of luck. Someone mentioned paying off credit card balances with the highest interest rates first. That's done by throwing whatever cash you have at them while paying the minimum on the lower-rate balances. That's financially sound, but there's a technique that turns out to be more motivating for some, which is attacking the lowest balance first. It leads to the quickest reduction in the number payments you're required to make every month, and quickly lets you add the money you were applying to the smallest balance to the payment you make on the next-smallest balance. (Close each card as you pay it off if you don't want to accumulate debt again.) P.S. I don't know what your home's feed is, so I didn't address that. If it's some kind of rental income, every lender I have encountered credits 75% of the current monthly rent toward your gross income. They assume there will be vacancies and other costs.\",\n \"Yes this is possible. The most likely tool to use in this case would be a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). This is a line of credit for which the full amount is backed by home equity (difference between market and book prices). Most likely your financial institution will apply a factor to this collateral to account for various risks which will reduce the maximum amount that can be taken as a line of credit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_equity_line_of_credit\",\n \"\\\"We considered similar big renovations when putting our house on the market. The answer turns out to be pretty simple; unless you do renovation-type work as your day job, or have really good friends in the residential contracting business, sell as-is. You will virtually never get back the full price of bringing in a gen-con to renovate any space in your home; you do that when you want to spend the extra to make your home exactly what you wanted, so you can live in it for decades and get the enjoyment out of it. If you're trying to turn a profit with the renovation, like house-flippers do professionally, you look for easy repairs/renos, buy good-looking but inexpensive materials, and do the labor yourself. Whether you sell to the market or to a specifically-interested buyer is your call, but I will caution you that a specifically-interested buyer is going to be looking for a deal, or a steal. When marketing our house, we met with three different realtors. The first one was very overoptimistic about what we could list for (basically assuming that we could get the same price as a fully-upgraded version of our same floor plan with a pool out back). She also had a to-do list a mile long, and my wife and I both noticed that she looked very apprehensive about the house when looking around, even as she reassured us that selling it would be no trouble. We eventually realized why she was so apprehensive, and fired her before we got even halfway through her to-dos, which included major landscaping, new kitchen floors and countertops, etc, which would have cost us thousands and would not have gotten the house price even close to the target. The second one took a look at our half-finished refinish and told us to stop everything we were doing to update the minor stuff like paint and fixtures, saying we were putting lipstick on a pig; she would market the house to some cash buyers she knew personally, for about 80% of the list price our first realtor quoted, and implied that we should be kissing her boots for finding us a buyer willing to take the house off our hands at all. During the tour, she pointed out \\\"\\\"problems\\\"\\\" with the house that weren't even there, like foundation issues such as sloping floors, in an attempt to scare us into going with her strategy. We sniffed that out pretty quickly, showed her the door at the end of the initial consult and never called back. This, by the way, is the kind of thing you want to avoid; unless your home is really dilapidated or torn apart with unfinished major renos, it should have decent value on the market and you shouldn't have to resort to a cash buyer looking for a flip or a rental property on the cheap. Just like Goldilocks, our third choice was just right. He saw all the same comparables, toured our house, and recommended that we offer about $20k less than the fully-upgraded version (but still about $20k more than the second realtor was estimating), targeting a \\\"\\\"real\\\"\\\" buyer and not an investor or flipper, but at a price that would make the lack of upgrades more acceptable. We finished the paint and finish projects we started, brought in a weekend's worth of scheduled showings, and our house was under contract for full price within 3 days, giving us the extra $20k worth of down payment to put into our new house. In summary, I highly recommend a realtor, because the one we eventually listed with worked his butt off on the business side while we fixed up the house. However, make sure you find the right one; realtors are ultimately in business for themselves, and their ultimate interest is in getting your house sold and getting you into a new one. That is what gets them paid. Some of them will do it the right way, working the deal with other realtors and their prospective buyers to get you what you need. Others will take the easy way out, at your expense, either giving you bad advice about how to present and price your home so that you end up on the market for 6 months with no offers, or handing your house to their business buddies at a discount.\\\"\",\n \"To give the seller cash at the closing, you will need to borrow the money ahead of time, which means a mortgage is out. A bank will only make a mortgage if they get the deed. Therefore, you will have to borrow a different way, such as through a more-expensive home equity loan.\",\n \"\\\"Be careful that pride is not getting in the way of making a good decision. As it stands now what difference does it make to have 200K worth of debt and a 200K house or 225K of debt and a 250K house? Sure you would have a 25K higher net worth, but is that really important? Some may even argue that such an increase is not real as equity in primary residence might not be a good indication of wealth. While there is nothing wrong with sitting down with a banker, most are likely to see your scheme as dubious. Home improvements rarely have a 100% ROI and almost never have a 200% ROI, I'd say you'd be pretty lucky to get a 65% ROI. That is not to say they will deny you. The banks are in the business of lending money, and have the goal of taking as much of your hard earned paycheck as possible. They are always looking to \\\"\\\"sheer the sheep\\\"\\\". Why not take a more systematic approach to improving your home? Save up and pay cash as these don't seem to cause significant discomfort. With that size budget and some elbow grease you can probably get these all done in three years. So in three years you'll have about 192K in debt and a home worth 250K or more.\\\"\",\n \"It depends on your equity(assets - liabilities). If you have a lot of equity, banks will be happy to lend you money because they now they can always seize your assets. If you don't have a lot of equity another option is to go to hard money lenders. They charge high rates and some of them lend-to-own, but is an option. And consider what Pete said, you might be a little optimistic.\",\n \"Depends on the house. If it's a house that's <10 years old, you're looking at pretty minor repair work. You can probably afford to be aggressive. I bought a home built in 1927 in 2006. Since then, I've put on a roof, replaced windows, replaced hot water tanks, replaced bathroom fixtures and corrected plumbing horrors. Total cost: $20k. Had I spent down savings on a down payment, I would have been in rough shape financially. Other things to think about are:\",\n \"I recommend fixing the roof. You're going to pay for it eventually, either as an emergency repair or a concession at sale.\",\n \"The reason for borrowing instead of paying cash for major renovations should be the same for the decision about whether to borrow or pay cash for the home itself. Over history, borrowing using low, tax-deductible interest while increasing your retirement contributions has always yielded higher returns than paying off mortgage principal over the long term. You should first determine how much you need to save for retirement, factor that into your budget, then borrow as much as needed (and can afford) to live at whatever level of home you decide is important to you. Using this same logic, if interest rates are low enough, it would behoove you to refinance with cash out leveraging the cash to use as additional retirement savings.\",\n \"Personally, I'd use my emergency fund first. It is unlikely (though possible, of course) that I will entirely lose my income at the same time I need to replace my roof or my furnace. I'd rather pay my emergency fund back with installment payments than pay off a HELOC to my bank. The lost interest on my emergency fund, which, after all, should be in cash, is much less than the cost of the loan. I could even set up an amortization schedule in a spreadsheet and charge myself interest when paying back into the emergency fund. That said, if I didn't have the cash in my emergency fund, I'd rather borrow against the house than finance with a contractor. If they'd even do that, which is unlikely--I've never dealt with a roofer or heating contractor that required anything but full payment at time of service. Home equity borrowing is generally the cheapest kind. I'm firmly in the camp of those who look at home ownership as a consumption decision rather than an investment. If the value goes up, great, but I just build in about 1% of the cost of building a new house (excluding the land price) into the housing budget each year, right along with mortgage interest, property taxes and basic utilities. Usually, that's enough to cover the major wear-and-tear related repairs (averaged over 3-5 year periods, anyway).\",\n \"It's just possible that if you have your home appraised (probable cost a few hundred $), and the value is sufficiently higher than what the mortgage company is owed, that they will let this slide, since they are covered. Many banks, at least, allow secured lines of credit against the equity in your home, and allow the amount of the loan to increase if/as the value of the property goes up and your equity increases. However, I'd run this by the mortgage company before investing in the appraisal, since they may not be as flexible this way as the banks I've dealt with, and in any case it's a gamble unless you are certain of the value of your property.\",\n \"You decide whether the improvements will result in a net higher price. You also need to figure on how long the house will be on the market and the cost of carrying the home, unoccupied. Some people would prefer the quickest sale. Others would wait to get the highest price. If you sell to a known buyer, you avoid using a real estate agent. If you plan to sell on your own and avoid the agent, there's a bit of effort dealing with the public, especially those who just want to look at houses with no real interest in buying. (As an agent, I can tell you, there's nothing like talking for nearly an hour, and then figuring out these people are from 1/2 mile away, but just attend every open house in the area.)\",\n \"If you do the financing, get a large down payment and make a short loan. Do not expose yourself to risk with a 30 year note, and get some major money up front so the buyer has some skin in the game and will continue to make payments.\",\n \"It may be possible to get more cash than you currently have. For example, If you have $200,000, you could buy a distressed property for $150,000, spend $50,000 on renovations, get it appraised for $300,000 and then cash out refi $240,000 (keeping 20% equity to avoid MIPs) to invest. This would be analogous to flipping a house for yourself. Normally flippers buy a house for cheap, then sell it to someone else for way more than their total outlay in purchase + improvements. The only difference here is there's no 3rd party - you stay in the house and essentially buy it from yourself with the mortgage.\",\n \"I know that both Lowes and Home Depot (in Canada at least) will offer a 6 month deferred interest payment on all purchases over a certain dollar amount (IIRC, $500+), and sometimes run product specific 1 year deferred interest specials. This is a very effective way of financing renovations. Details: You've probably seen deferred interest -- It's very commonly used in furniture sales (No money down!!! No interest!!! Do not pay for 1 full year!!!) (Personally, I think it's a plot by the exclamation point manufacturers) It works like this: Typically, I manage these types of purchases by dividing the principal by 6, and then adding 5%, and paying that amount each month. Pay close attention to the end date, because you do not want to pay 22% interest on the entire amount. This also requires that you watch your card balance carefully. All payments are usually put to current purchases (i.e. those not under a plan) first, before they are applied to the plan balance. So if you are paying 250 a month on the new floor, and run up another $150 on paint, You need to pay the entire new balance, and then the $250 floor payment in order for it to be applied correctly. Also http://diy.stackexchange.com Consider doing it yourself.\",\n \"A bridge loan (or bridging loan) is designed for exactly this circumstance. They're short-term loans (6 months is common) designed to help home-buyers to bridge the gap between buying and selling. MoneySupermarket defines them like this: Bridging loans are designed to help people complete the purchase of a property before selling their existing home by offering them short-term access to money at a high-rate of interest. As well as helping home-movers when there is a gap between the sale and completion dates in a chain, this type of loan can also help someone planning to sell-on quickly after renovating a home, or help someone buying at auction. Interest rates are very high, and there are likely to be fees, because you'll only need the loan for a short period. Here are some links to Canadian websites that explain more.\",\n \"Your best bet is to talk with a banker about your specific plans. One of the causes of the housing crash was an 80/20 loan. There you would get a first for 80% of the value of a home and 20% on a HELOC for the rest. This would help the buyer avoid PMI. Editorially, the reason this was popular was because the buyer could not afford the home with the PMI and did not have a down payment. They were simply cutting things too close. Could you find a banker willing to do something like this, I bet you could. In your case it seems like you are attempting to increase the value of your home by using money to do an improvement so the situation is better. However, sizable improvements rarely return 100% or more on investments. Typically, I would think, the bank would want you to have some money invested too. So if you wanted to put in a pool, a smart banker would have you put in about 60% of the costs as pools typically have a 40% ROI. However, I bet you can find a banker that would loan you 100%. You don't seem to be looking for advice on making a smart money decision, and it is difficult to render a verdict as very little detail is supplied about your specific situation. However, while certain decisions might look very profitable on paper, they rarely take into consideration risk.\",\n \"\\\"There is no guarantee improvements will raise the appraised value. You also don't want your property tax appraisal to go up if you can avoid it. Since you are talking on the order of $10k I'll assume you're only a few thousand dollars more from getting to 20%. That said, any schemes you might come up with like refinancing or second line of credit will probably cost more in fees than they are worth, unless you can get a much nicer interest rate. Figure out how long you plan to stay there, Evaluate your options (do nothing, principal reduction, refinance for 30, 15, or even an ARM) and figure out your bottom line by comparing everything in a spreadsheet One more thing: if you do pay a substantial amount of extra principal, you can ask the lender to \\\"\\\"rebalance\\\"\\\" which will correct the minimum monthly payment to your remaining term. This will likely incur a fee, but could be helpful in an emergency\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The long and short of it is, the mortgage company has a significant interest in the resale value of the home in the event of a default. Imagine a scenario where you say to yourselves that you're not going to repair the deck just yet (\\\"\\\"meh, we'll do that next summer\\\"\\\") and something happens that causes a default on the mortgage. The resale value of the home may be harmed by the deck, even though you're willing to live with it. That being the case, the mortgage company has every right to insist that you carry out the repairs in order to maintain the property in salable condition, so the essence of it is, you don't have much choice but to do the repairs. Keep in mind too that the insurance company paid for the roof and the deck to be repaired. If they were to learn that you now have no intention of using the money to repair the property, you could end up in legal hot water with them. After all, you did accept the check for repairs that you're now not carrying out.\\\"\",\n \"It sounds like you may need to look into the different types of personal loans that are available to you. Typically, they are in 2 categories: secured vs unsecured. A personal loan is usually of the unsecured variety, meaning that the bank is loaning you money with no collateral to use if you default. These loans will have much higher interest rates than a secured loan. A prime example of a secured loan would be a mortgage or an equity line of credit. If you want an unsecured personal loan to use towards making those improvements, then whether or not you receive the loan will depend on your credit rating and income status. As Aganju stated, these loans don't really care what the money is used for. Because it's not your property that you're fixing up, you won't be able to get a secured loan against that property. If your mother took out a loan against her home (like a second mortgage), she may be able to get a significantly lower interest rate than what you'll get with an unsecured loan. She could also look into a renovation/remodeling loan, which would require information regarding the work being done such as costs and how it will improve the value of the property. If she used an equity line of credit instead, then they don't typically care what the money will be used for as it's just a credit line against the equity she's already built into her mortgage payments over the years.\",\n \"The most likely reason for this is that the relocation company wants to have a guaranteed sale so as to get a new mortgage in the new location. Understand that the relocation company generally works for a prospective employer. So they are trying to make the process as painless as possible for the homeowner (who is probably getting hired as a professional, either a manager or someone like an engineer or accountant). If the sale is guaranteed to go through regardless of any problems, then it is easy for them to arrange a new mortgage. In fact, they may bridge the gap by securing the initial financing and making the downpayment, then use the payout from the house you are buying to buy out their position. That puts them on the hook for a bunch of money (a downpayment on a house) while they're waiting on the house you're purchasing to close. This does not necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with the house. The relocation company would only know about something wrong if the owner had disclosed it. They don't really care about the house they're selling. Their job is to make the transition easy. With a relocation company, it is more likely that they are simply in a hurry and want to avoid a busted purchase. If this sale fails to go through for any reason, they have to start over. That could make the employment change fall through. This is a variation of a no contingencies sale. Sellers like no contingencies sales because they are easier. Buyers dislike them because their protections are weaker. But some buyers will offer them because they get better prices that way. In particular, house flippers will do this frequently so as to get the house for less money than they might otherwise pay. This is better than a pure no contingencies sale, as they are agreeing to the repairs. This is a reasonable excuse to not proceed with the transaction. If this makes you so uncomfortable that you'd rather continue looking, that's fine. However, it also gives you a bit of leverage, as it means that they are motivated to close this transaction quickly. You can consider any of the following: Or you can do some combination of those or something else entirely that makes you fell more secure. If you do decide to move forward with any version of this provision, get a real estate lawyer to draft the agreement. Also, insist on disclosure of any previous failed sales and the reason for the failure before signing the agreement. The lawyer can make that request in such a way as to get a truthful response. And again, in case you missed it when I said this earlier. You can say no and simply refuse to move forward with such a provision. You may not get the house, but you'll save a certain amount of worry. If you do move forward, you should be sure that you are getting a good deal. They're asking for special provisions; they should bear the cost of that. Either your current deal is already good (and it may be) or you should make them adjust until it is.\",\n \"\\\"Plus one to Alexandre for pointing out this is possible. It is also possible to run with scissors, and I would recommend neither. Your money problems are very small and doing something so dramatic to solve them will probably put you in a worse financial decision. Why would you put your home, at risk, to pay off such a small amount (less than 5K)? The \\\"\\\"one payment\\\"\\\" or consolidation mantra, for a person like you, will often lead a person into reoccurring the same debt and having the consolidation loan. You don't need one payment you need no payments. First off stop borrowing. Second increase your income by working more or selling stuff. You might want to clean some houses, baby sit, or mow some lawns instead of the traditional job. Third decrease your spending. Let your loved ones know it will be a lean Christmas this year. Cut cable as you won't have time to watch TV anyway. If you do all that could you find $1000 per month? I bet you could find more. Doing all that and you will be done in 5 months and still own your home outright. You are a great candidate to pay off your bills by the snowball method, or smallest to largest. While it may not be, on paper, the most mathematically efficient it helps people with motivation and hope. It sounds like you could use that. List your bills smallest to largest and pay off the smallest first while paying minimums on the rest. You can do it!\\\"\",\n \"If you are going to live in the house for awhile, you can probably use a regular mortgage. Shop around and look for a mortgage program that works. Look at local banks/credit unions, particularly those with community development programs. Usually an investment mortgage is higher rate, higher payment and has higher underwriting standards.\",\n \"What you propose is to convert unsecured debt into secured debt. Conversion of unsecured debt into secured debt is not generally a good idea (several reasons). The debt you currently owe does not have assets securing the debt, so the creditor knows they are exposed to risk, and may be more willing to negotiate or relax terms on the debt, should you encounter problems. When you provide an asset to secure debt, you lose freedom to sell that asset. When you incur debt their is usually a spending problem that needs to be corrected, which is typically not fixed when a refinance solution is used. You do not mention interest rate, which would be one benefit to conversion of unsecured to secured debt, so you probably are not gaining adequate benefit from the conversion strategy. This strategy is often contemplated using 'cash-out' refinancing to borrow against a home you already own, and the (claimed) benefit is often to lower the interest rate on the debt. Your scenario is more complicated in that you have not purchased the home (yet). Though it may be a good idea to purchase a home, that choice depends on a different set of considerations (children, job stability, rental vs. buy costs, lifestyle, expected appreciation, etc) from how to best handle a large debt (income vs. expenses, how to increase income or reduce expenses, lifestyle, priorities, etc). Another consideration is that you already have a problem with the large debt owed to one (set of) creditor(s), and you have a plan which would shift the risk/exposure to another (set of) creditor(s) who may have been less complicit in accruing the original debt. Was the debt incurred jointly during the marriage, and something you accepted responsibility to repay? You mention that you make great income, and you specify one expense (rent), but you neither provided the amount of income, total of all your expenses, nor your free cash flow amount, nor any indication of percentages spent on rent, essential expenses, lifestyle, nor amount available to retire debt. Since you did not provide specifics, we can take a look at three scenarios, scenario #1, $4000/month income scenario #1, $6000/month income scenario #1, $8000/month income Depending upon your income and choices, you might have < $500/month to pay towards debt, or as much as $3000/month to pay towards debt, and depending upon interest rate (which OP did not provide), this debt could take < 2 years to pay or > 5 years to pay. Have you accepted the responsibility for the debt? It will be a tough task to repay the debt. And you will learn that debt comes with a cost as you repay it. One problem people often encounter when they refinance debt is they have not changed the habits which produced the debt. So they often continue their spending habits and incur new unsecured debt, landing them back in the same problem position, but with the increased secured debt combined with additional new unsecured debt. Challenge yourself to repay a specific portion of the debt in a specific time, and consider ways to reduce your expenses (and/or increase your income) to provide more money to repay the debt quicker. As you also did not disclose your assets, it is hard to know whether you could repay a portion of the debt from assets you already own. It makes sense to sell assets that have a low (or zero) return to repay debt that has a high interest rate. Perhaps you have substantial assets that you are reluctant to sell, but that you could sell to repay a large part of the debt?\",\n \"Definitely don't borrow from your 401K. If you quit or get laid off, you have to repay the whole amount back immediately, plus you are borrowing from your opportunity cost. The stock market should be good at least through the end of this year. As one of the commentators already stated, have you calculated your net savings by reducing the interest rate? You will be paying closing costs and not all of these are deductible (only the points are). When calculating the savings, you have to ask yourself how long you will be hanging on the property? Are you likely to be long term landlords, or do you have any ideas on selling in the near future? You can reduce the cost and principal by throwing the equivalent of one to two extra mortgage payments a year to get the repayment period down significantly (by years). In this way, you are not married to a higher payment (as you would be if you refinanced to a 15 year term). I would tend to go with a) eat the appraisal cost, not refinance, and b) throw extra money towards principal to get the term of the loan to be reduced.\",\n \"You submitted a claim for damage to the deck. The insurance company notified the mortgage company. Now the mortgage company wants to make sure that the collateral for the loan is still in good condition. They want you to make the repairs that you insisted needed to be done. They may even require you to use a licensed contractor before releasing the funds. Once you own the house without a mortgage, then you can decide for yourself if minor repairs need to be done.\",\n \"\\\"The \\\"\\\"easier\\\"\\\" way is to sell the house, and pay back the 95K to the mortgage company. Your taxable gain (if any) is calculated as the difference between the sales price minus the purchased price of 150K. There is a further deduction for any selling expenses, before you have to pay income tax. If you liquidate your other investments to raise the 95K and prepay the mortgage, you might realize, and be taxed on gains on **those ** investments. That's something you might not want. On the other hand, if you have some investments that can be liquidated at a loss, you might want to sell those to generate a tax loss, then prepay all or part of the 95K. Bear in mind that there are limitations of 3K a year for certain types of losses. So see a tax adviser before using this course of action.\\\"\",\n \"What you are describing is called a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). While the strategy you are describing is not impossible it would raise the amount of debt in your name and reduce your borrowing potential. A recent HELOC used to finance the down payment on a second property risks sending a signal of bad financial position to credit analysts and may further reduce your chances to obtain the credit approval.\",\n \"Possible? Sure. The question is where do you plan on going to get the money and how well can you shop around to find the best rate for the loan. Banks and credit unions would be one option but I'd be curious as to how well do you know the various routes you could take.\",\n \"You can ask the buyer to lower the price by the amount you are approved for and negation transferring the amount to him via a escrow..\",\n \"Even straight index funds grow at about 6-7%. on average, or over long periods of time. In short time periods (quarters, years), they can fluctuate anywhere from -10% to +20%. Would you be happy if your bank account lost 10% of its value the week before you had to pay the bill for the repairs? Is it appropriate to invest small amounts for short periods of time? In general, no. Most investments are designed for long term appreciation. Even sophisticated financial companies can't do any better than 1 or 2% (annualized) on short-term cash reserves. Where you can make a huge difference is on the cost side. Bargain with suppliers, or wait for sales on retail items. Both will occasionally forego their margin on certain items in order to try to secure future business, which can make a difference of 20% or more in the cost of repairs.\",\n \"The bank I work with would be more inclined to expand an existing HELOC rather than write a new one. I think that would be your best bet if you decide to continue borrowing against your home. Consider that your own income would have to support the repayment of these larger homes. If it is, why didn't you buy a larger home to begin with? As far as increasing the appraisal, you don't usually get one dollar of increased appraisal for each dollar you spend on improvements unless you have a rundown house in a nice neighborhood; part of the appraisal comes from a comparison with the appraisals of the other homes nearby. Eventually you get close enough to par with the other houses that anyone looking for something more expensive will often choose a different neighborhood entirely. Update: To your edit that mentions the original lender will cap the amount you can borrow, you can take additional secondary mortgages/HELOCs, but the interest rate is usually higher because it is not the first mortgage. I don't generally recommend it, but the option is there.\",\n \"Does it cost money to refi? I know there are quite a few deals out there, I refi'd in June for $500, not bad. But sometimes can cost couple grand. If so, you have up front costs, plus the cost of the personal loan, that probably would break even at some point after your refi, but at what point? Will you sell before then, or even think about it? Or would you break even next year, then its a no brainer. As mentioned by others, do the numbers.\",\n \"Run the numbers in advance. Understand what are the current rates for an additional 2nd mortgage, what are the rates for a brand new mortgage that will cover the additional funds. Understand what they are for another lender. Estimate the amount of paperwork involved in each option (new first, new 2nd, and new lender). Ask the what are the options they can offer you. Because you have estimated the costs in money and time for the different options, you can evaluate the offer they make. What they offer you can range from everything you want to nothing you would accept. What they offer will depend on several factors: Do they care to keep you as a customer?; Do they expect you to walk away?; are they trying to get rid of mortgages like the one you have?; Can they make more money with the plan they are offering you? You will be interested in the upfront costs, the monthly costs, and the amount of time required for the process to be completed.\",\n \"Yes, banks still offer combo loans, but it is going to depend on the appraised value of your home. Typically lenders will allow you to finance up to 80% loan to value on the first mortgage (conforming loan amount) and 95% combined loan to value on a HELOC. I would start by checking with your local credit union or bank branch. They have more competitive rates and can be more flexible with loan amount and appraised value guidelines.\",\n \"You did borrow money for the downpayment. When you apply for a mortgage loan on your new home, you will be required to list all your assets and all your liabilities. You must disclose the first mortgage as well as the second mortgage on your current condo as well as the monthly payment on each of these loans. If you took out the second mortgage five years ago, you can truthfully say that you have not taken out any loans within the past year to get cash for the down payment when you apply for a mortgage for purchasing your new house. But, what the lender will be looking at is: Can the applicants' current income support monthly payments of $1000 for the first mortgage on the condo plus $300 for the second mortgage on the condo plus $1500 for the proposed mortgage on the new house? You might argue that you will be selling that condo soon, or will be renting it out and that the rental income will cover the mortgage payments on the condo, but will the lender give much credence to this? The condo may not sell easily, you might not be able to find a tenant right away, or be able to rent the condo at a high enough rental to cover the costs etc. If you simply save money from your current extra cash flow and use that to make the down payment, the lender will be pondering the question Can the applicants' current income support monthly payments of $1000 for the mortgage on the condo plus $1500 for the proposed mortgage on the new house? Which deal will the lender be happier with? If you are uncomfortable saving your extra cash flow in a savings account or CD or investing it in stocks and/or bonds until you need the money for the down-payment on your new house, put that money in a sock under your mattress (and don't smoke in bed!)\",\n \"I think you need to go to a local bank and ask. The key thing is paper trail. For any mortgage I've gotten on a new purchase, the bank needs to see where the down payment came from and how it got to the seller. In this case, it can go either way. If the value is truly 100% to the 80% you are looking to finance, and the paper trail is legit, this may work just fine. The issue others seem to have is that simply buying at a 20% discount is not a legit way to finance the 80%. Here, it appears to me that the 20% came from you in installments, via the rent.\",\n \"Don't steal from the 401k. If you take the money out, you'll pay 28% in taxes and 10% in penalties -- only getting $12,960 out. Before you do anything, consult an online refi calculator to make sure you'll be in the house beyond the break-even point. With the numbers you've given and some reasonable guesses I made, it looks like you'll break even within a year. If your new employer's plan allows for loans, roll it into the new plan. Based on what you say you're putting in, you should be able to take a loan out of about $15-20k, which would get you to your LTV goal. Before you do this, calculate: and make sure you will comfortably be able to handle all of the payments. Make sure you're aware of the loan terms on your 401k loan. Understand the penalties associated with failing to make timely payments. Finally, beware of sinking all of your liquid cash into this -- how will you handle an emergency that comes up soon after closing on the new loan before you have a chance to rebuild your emergency fund?\",\n \"\\\"Yes, a HELOC is great for that. I just had my roof done last month (~$15K, \\\"\\\"ugh\\\"\\\") and pretty much every major contractor in my area had a 0% same-as-cash for at least 12 months. So that helps - any balance that I don't bank by 11/15/2015 will be on the HELOC.\\\"\",\n \"we have little money in cash for a down-payment This is a red flag to me. If you have little money in cash for a down-payment, how are you supposed to be a landlord too? You could try is to do a lease to own from your Dad. Get a renter into the other home for at least a year or more and then close on the house once your financial situation improves. You still have the same problem of being a landlord. Another option is to receive a gift letter from your Dad since he is gifting the money on the home. It might extend your closing a little bit so you can get an appraisal done and loan application. This to me is the most sane option.\",\n \"\\\"The first red-flag here is that an appraisal was not performed on an as-is basis - and if it could not be done, you should be told why. Getting an appraisal on an after-improvement basis only makes sense if you are proposing to perform such improvements and want that factored in as a basis of the loan. It seems very bizarre to me that a mortgage lender would do this without any explanation at all. The only way this makes sense is if the lender is only offering you a loan with specific underwriting guidelines on house quality (common with for instance VA-loans and how they require the roof be of a certain maximum age - among dozens of other requirements, and many loan products have their own standards). This should have been disclosed to you during the process, but one can certainly never assume anyone will do their job properly - or it may have only mentioned in some small print as part of pounds of paper products you may have been offered or made to sign already. The bank criteria is \\\"\\\"reasonable\\\"\\\" to the extent that generally mortgage companies are allowed to set underwriting criteria about the current condition of the house. It doesn't need to be reasonable to you personally, or any of us - it's to protect lender profits by aiding their risk models. Your plans and preferences don't even factor in to their guidelines. Not all criteria are on a a sliding scale, so it doesn't necessarily matter how well you meet their other standards. You are of course correct that paying for thousands of dollars in improvements on a house you don't own is lunacy, and the fact that this was suggested may on it's own suggest you should cut your losses now and seek out a different lender. Given the lender being uncooperative, the only reason to stick with it seems to be the sunk cost of the appraisal you've already paid for. I'd suggest you specifically ask them why they did not perform an as-is appraisal, and listen to the answer (if you can get one). You can try to contact the appraiser directly as well with this question, and ask if you can have the appraisal strictly as-is without having a new appraisal. They might be helpful, they might not. As for taking the appraisal with you to a new bank, you might be able to do this - or you might not. It is strictly up to each lender to set criteria for appraisals they accept, but I've certainly known of people re-using an appraisal done sufficiently recently in this way. It's a possibility that you will need to write off the $800 as an \\\"\\\"education expense\\\"\\\", but it's certainly worth trying to see if you can salvage it and take it with you - you'll just have to ask each potential lender, as I've heard it go both ways. It's not a crazy or super-rare request - lenders backing out based on appraisal results should be absolutely normal to anyone in the finance business. To do this, you can just state plainly the situation. You paid for an appraisal and the previous lender fell through, and so you would like to know if they would be able to accept that and provide you with a loan without having to buy a whole new appraisal. This would also be a good time to talk about condition requirements, in that you want a loan on an as-is basic for a house that is inhabitable but needs cosmetic repair, and you plan to do this in cash on your own time after the purchase closes. Some lenders will be happy to do this at below 75%-80% LTV, and some absolutely do not want to make this type of loan because the house isn't in perfect condition and that's just what their lending criteria is right now. Based on description alone, I don't think you really should need to go into alternate plans like buy cash and then get a home equity loan to get cash out, special rehab packages, etc. So I'd encourage you to try a more straight-forward option of a different lender, as well as trying to get a straight answer on their odd choice of appraisal order that you paid for, before trying anything more exotic or totally changing your purchase/finance plans.\\\"\",\n \"You could look into refinancing with a bank or credit union. But to weed out options quickly, use a service like LendingTree, which can vet multiple options for you a whole lot more quickly than you could probably do yourself. (I don't work for, or get any benefit from LendingTree.) Whatever you do, try to do all the applying within a short span of time, as to not negatively affect your credit score (read here) by creating extraneous inquiries. Then again, if your credit sucks, you might not qualify for a re-fi. If you are turned down, make your payments on time for six months or so, and try again.\",\n \"You can. You can take out a conventional mortgage and keep the cash. A mortgage is nothing but a secured loan against your home. You can open a HELOC and treat it as a negative-equity bank-account. Note that both a mortgage and a HELOC tend to have significant up-front or administrative costs attached to them. It costs the loaning institution some money to ensure they are in a safe position, and they will want to pass it on to you. They don't want you taking out such a loan and not using it. On the other hand, the interest rates on such a loan are often much lower than interest rates on other loans. If you have a reliable source of significant income, getting a completely unsecured line of credit may be possible with a rate only a few percentage points higher than a HELOC without having to pay a cent in fees. The bank doesn't have to appraise your home or ensure ownership before such a loan, just assess income (which is easy, especially if you have a regular paycheck auto-deposited into an account at the same branch; toss in some signatures from your employer and good to go). If that is feasible, you could end up with a lower rate. Withdraw from the line of credit, pay off your other loans, then work to repay the line of credit. If an unsecured line of credit has a rate 1-3% higher than a secured one, and you are borrowing 5000$ against it and pay it off over 2 years, the total interest you would save from a secured line is about 50$-150$. Note that in some jurisdictions your home is protected against loss from bankruptcy, unless you have used it as collateral for a loan, or it is easier to claim the home if you are insolvent if you have used it as collateral. Determining what the consequences of securing your loan against the house could itself be expensive.\",\n \"Based on your question details, I doubt you'll like this answer...but first things first, you need to focus on rebuilding your credit and your savings. $1K isn't a huge loan amount, so I'm going to assume you've made some poor decisions in the past to get to this point. I'm a small business owner, and I make it a goal to have 3-6 months of expected expenses in an account, should my circumstances ever drastically change or something happen that would keep me from working. Without knowing your living situation and daily expenses, here's some general advice on building a small business without a loan: 1) Find steady, gainful employment anywhere you can. 2) Pay off outstanding debts and rebuild a savings account to rebuild your credit score. 3) If you need fast cash, sell some stuff you don't need (gaming systems, home electronics, etc.). Also, minimize your unnecessary expenses (dining out, etc.). 4) Once your debts are paid off, create a business startup savings plan (put away as much as you can afford every week, until you reach your goal. 5) Once your goal is reached, you can begin your flipping business. Open a bank account, and separate your profits into buckets for operations, self-pay, and taxes (if you declare this income, which I hope you do). For myself, I put away 35% for income taxes, which I do not touch until my taxes are paid. I put 40% away for daily operations -- this keeps my business running, allowing me to pay for the equipment I need, the products I deliver, and advertising to keep my business running. I pay myself 25%. This is a simple method, but it works well for me.\",\n \"I would tell the former owner that you will sell him the house for you current loan balance. He wants the home, he may be willing to pay what you owe. You can't really do a short sale unless you are behind on your payments. Banks only agree to a short sale when they think they are going to have to foreclose on the property. Not to mention a short sale is almost as bad as a foreclosure and will wreck your credit. If the former buying is not willing to buy the house for what you owe your only real option is to come up with the difference. If he offers you say $50K less than you owe, you will have to give the mortgage holder the remaining balance $50K in this example for them to release the property. Another problem you will face, if the former owner is willing to pay more than what the house is worth, and he is going to finance it, he will have to have enough cash to put down so that the loan amount is not more than the property is worth. Finally if none of that works you can just hold on to the property until the value comes up or you mortgage is payed down enough to make the balance of the mortgage less than the value of the house. Then offer the property to the former owner again.\",\n \"There are a few ways to get money from property, but I'm not sure any would work for you: 1) Firstly you could sell it. Selling the building might require enough repairs that the building is habitable; if the repair costs are too high, you might not be able to recover costs from selling. For a particularly old and unkempt building, this is more likely to be the case. In extreme scenarios, you may earn more net profit by demolishing a decrepit building, and simply selling the land. Make sure you aren't setting your price too high if you are desperate to sell; dropping your price might make the headache of upkeep go away, and might be better for you financially in the long run. 2) You could rent it - but if it is so uninhabitable you can't sell it, then this is unlikely without repairs (and it seems you don't want to do this anyway). 3) If your building is in an area where the zoning laws are not strict, you may be able to apply for a permit to have it zoned for commercial use - and either run a business out of it, or rent it to someone else to do so. Again, this would be dependent on repairs if the building is uninhabitable, and also would require the building to well-situated for a business. 4) You could take out a mortgage on the building. Of course, this has two big caveats: (a) the bank would need to assess the building for value [and it seems not to be worth much in your case]; and (b) this provides only temporary cash, which you would need to pay back to the bank over time. In some cases, if you had a solid plan, you might be able to take a mortgage out against the value of the land, and use the cash from the mortgage to do some repairs, so that it would be in good shape for selling.\",\n \"If I was you I would not borrow from my 401K and shred the credit card offer. Both are very risky ventures, and you are already in a situation that is risky. Doing either will increase your risk significantly. I'd also consider selling the rental house. You seem to be cutting very close on the numbers if you can't raise 17K in cash to refi the house. What happens if you need a roof on the rental, and an HVAC in your current home? My assumption is that you will not sell the home, okay I get it. I would recommend either giving your tenant a better deal then the have now, or something very similar. Having a good tenant is an asset.\",\n \"In planning to buy a house, and sort out how to handle the costs of some initial renovations, I've been considering using Lowes and Home Depot credit cards (hopefully this will count differently than the typical credit cards I think you're referring to): http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ContentView?pn=Credit_Center&langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053 http://www.lowes.com/cd_Credit+Card+Accounts+from+Lowes_781778798_ You should definitely read the fine print first, as the interest rates can shoot up after the first 6 months if you don't pay the balance in full on some of them. Also, Lowes has a project card that gives you the 6 month no interest (only a minimum payment), and you don't have to pay off the full balance at the end. This one even has more reasonable rates, so this could be a good way to go.\",\n \"\\\"If you need less than $125k for the downpayment, I recommend you convert your mutual fund shares to their ETF counterparts tax-free: Can I convert conventional Vanguard mutual fund shares to Vanguard ETFs? Shareholders of Vanguard stock index funds that offer Vanguard ETFs may convert their conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. This conversion is generally tax-free, although some brokerage firms may be unable to convert fractional shares, which could result in a modest taxable gain. (Four of our bond ETFs—Total Bond Market, Short-Term Bond, Intermediate-Term Bond, and Long-Term Bond—do not allow the conversion of bond index fund shares to bond ETF shares of the same fund; the other eight Vanguard bond ETFs allow conversions.) There is no fee for Vanguard Brokerage clients to convert conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. Other brokerage providers may charge a fee for this service. For more information, contact your brokerage firm, or call 866-499-8473. Once you convert from conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs, you cannot convert back to conventional shares. Also, conventional shares held through a 401(k) account cannot be converted to Vanguard ETFs. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/content/Funds/FundsVIPERWhatAreVIPERSharesJSP.jsp Withdraw the money you need as a margin loan, buy the house, get a second mortgage of $125k, take the proceeds from the second mortgage and pay back the margin loan. Even if you have short term credit funds, it'd still be wiser to lever up the house completely as long as you're not overpaying or in a bubble area, considering your ample personal investments and the combined rate of return of the house and the funds exceeding the mortgage interest rate. Also, mortgage interest is tax deductible while margin interest isn't, pushing the net return even higher. $125k Generally, I recommend this figure to you because the biggest S&P collapse since the recession took off about 50% from the top. If you borrow $125k on margin, and the total value of the funds drop 50%, you shouldn't suffer margin calls. I assumed that you were more or less invested in the S&P on average (as most modern \\\"\\\"asset allocations\\\"\\\" basically recommend a back-door S&P as a mix of credit assets, managed futures, and small caps average the S&P). Second mortgage Yes, you will have two loans that you're paying interest on. You've traded having less invested in securities & a capital gains tax bill for more liabilities, interest payments, interest deductions, more invested in securities, a higher combined rate of return. If you have $500k set aside in securities and want $500k in real estate, this is more than safe for you as you will most likely have a combined rate of return of ~5% on $500k with interest on $500k at ~3.5%. If you're in small cap value, you'll probably be grossing ~15% on $500k. You definitely need to secure your labor income with supplementary insurance. Start a new question if you need a model for that. Secure real estate with securities A local bank would be more likely to do this than a major one, but if you secure the house with the investment account with special provisions like giving them copies of your monthly statements, etc, you might even get a lower rate on your mortgage considering how over-secured the loan would be. You might even be able to wrap it up without a down payment in one loan if it's still legal. Mortgage regulations have changed a lot since the housing crash.\\\"\",\n \"what are my options for raising the funds? Assuming you have decent credit, you can either mortgage your home or apply for a land loan in order to purchase the land. Since both your home and the land have value, either one can act as collateral in case you default on your loan. Land loans tend to have a higher interest rate and down payment, however. This is because banks see land loans as a riskier investment since it's easier for you to walk away from an empty plot of land than your own home.\",\n \"\\\"The other answers are talking about seller financing. There is another type of arrangement that might be described as \\\"\\\"writing your own mortgage,\\\"\\\" where the buyer arranges his (or her) own financing. Instead of using a bank, a buyer might find his own investor to hold the mortgage for him. An example would be if I were to buy a house that needs fixing up. I might be able to buy a house for $40,000, but after I fix it up, I believe it will sell for $100,000. Instead of going through a traditional mortgage bank, I find an investor with cash that agrees the house is a good deal, and we arrange for the investor to provide funds for the purchase of the house on a short-term basis (perhaps interest-only), during which I fix up the house and sell it. Just like a regular mortgage, the loan is backed by the house itself. I am not recommending this type of arrangement by any means, but this article does a good job of describing how this would work. It is written by a real-estate guru with lots of training courses and coaching materials that she would like to sell you. :)\\\"\",\n \"If you put down 80% of the purchase price for a house, you can very likely get a loan with few problems. After all, people with credit scores in the mid-500 range can get loans with 20% down. My question would be this -- if you actually had $400,000 then why not just buy a $400,000 house? If the goal is to improve your credit then if you buy a house for cash, you can then take out a home equity loan and make the payments, which would greatly improve your credit.\",\n \"What you are suggesting will not work. Banks have strict guidelines about what they can and cannot do with an FHA loan property. Remember the FHA is only an insurance policy to the bank saying that if you default they will cover a high percentage of the loan. The bank won't take the risk of violating their insurance policy and the government refusing to pay them off if you default. Instead, consider doing a creative sale on your property, maybe a rent to own deal or owner financing. As long as you pay the mortgage the bank won't even know you don't live there and you can rent the house out to someone who eventually will buy it after the timeframe expires. Meanwhile you can go and get a new home or condo either thru regular financing or owner financing(search the internet to see how to do this) and you can use owner financing until you complete the sale of the first house. Otherwise just tough it out in the house you are in until the time expires and then sell. You made no mention of the property value but I am assuming if you bought it 3 years ago that you may have a little equity. Pleas note that if you sell at that time though you will likely have to come out of cash because your equity won't cover the realtor fee and closing cost. But if you do the rent to own I suggested earlier you can sell at a slightly higher price making sure you can cover those cost. I realize this answer is a little out the box but I deal with people who don't want properties all day and I have completed transactions like this many times. Good Luck and God Bless!\",\n \"\\\"So either scenario has about $10K upfront costs (either realtor/selling expenses or fixing up for rental). Furthermore, I'm sure that the buyers would want you to fix all these things anyway, or reduce the price accordingly, but let's ignore this. Let's also ignore the remaining mortgage, since it looks like you can comfortably pay it off. Assuming 10% property management and 10% average vacancy (check your market), and rental price at $1000 - you end up with these numbers: I took very conservative estimates both on the rent (lower than you expect) and the maintenance expense (although on average over the years ,since you need to have some reserves, this is probably quite reasonable). You end up with 2.7% ROI, which is not a lot for a rental. The rule of thumb your wife mentioned (1% of cash equity) is indeed usually for ROI of leveraged rental purchase. However, if rental prices in your area are rising, as it sounds like they are, you may end up there quite soon anyway. The downside is that the money is locked in. If you're confident in your ability to rent and are not loosing the tax benefit of selling since it sounds like you've not appreciated, you may take out some cash through a cash-out refi. To keep cash-flow near-0, you need to cash out so that the payments would be at or less than the $3200/year (i.e.: $266/month). That would make about $50K at 30/yr fixed 5% loan. What's best is up to you to decide, of course. Check whether \\\"\\\"you can always sell\\\"\\\" holds for you. I.e.: how stable is the market, what happens if one or two large employers disappear, etc.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Assuming \\\"\\\"take advantage\\\"\\\" means continue to build wealth, as opposed to blow it all on a fancy holiday... Downgrade As you already note, you could downgrade/downsize. This could happen via moving to a smaller house in the same area, or moving to an area where the cost of buying is less. HELOC Take out a Home Equity Line of Credit. You could use the line of credit to do home improvements further boosting the asset value (forced appreciation, assuming the appreciation to date is simply market based). Caution is required if the house has already appreciated \\\"\\\"considerably\\\"\\\" - you want to keep the home value within tolerance levels for the area. (Best not to have the only $300K house on a street of $190K-ers...) Home Equity Loan Assuming you have built up equity in the house, you could leverage that equity to purchase another property. For most people this would form part of the jigsaw for getting the financing to purchase again.\\\"\",\n \"Is it a safety thing? If the heat pump goes out you replace it immediately, if your floor looks bad but you aren't tripping, I would suggest saving. Use the extra time to find a great deal and educate yourself on your options. Maybe even take a class and learn to do it yourself. In these rough times, anything I can save for and pay cash I would. The exception is if you can finance with 0% interest for a period of time and you have enough money to pay that off. The last consideration I can think of is if you plan to sell the home soon? For that you might be getting more value than the loan and a real estate agent would be probably know best.\",\n \"EDIT: new ideas based on the full story. I wouldn't worry about the price history. While it is certainly true that some buyers might try to leverage that information against you, the bottom line is the price is the price. Both the buyer and the seller have to agree. If the initial listing was too high, then lower the price. If that isn't low enough, then readjust down. I see no harm in moving the price down over time repeatedly. In fact, I thin that is a good tactic to getting the most for the house. If you happen to have the luxury of time, then keep lowering that price until it sells. Don't fret how that behavior appears. You can lower the price as often as you like until it sells. I am not a real estate agent, and I am a terrible negotiator, but I would lower the price every quarter until it sells. You can't go down to fast (a buyer might wait you out) and you can't wait to long as you stated. Also, if you house is priced inline with the neighborhood, you can at least get offers and negotiate. Buy asking for such a premium (25%) folks might not even make an offer. You simply need to decide what is more important, the selling price or the time frame in getting it sold. If you house doesn't sell because the market doesn't support your price, then consider keeping it as a rental. You can do it yourself, or if you are not interested in that (large) amount of work, then hire a rental management company to do it for a fee. Renting a home is hard work and requires attention to detail, a good amount of your time and much labor. If you just need to wait a couple of years before selling, renting it can be a good option to cover your costs while you wait for the market to reach you. You should get advice on how to handle the money, how to rent it, how to deal with renters, and the the laws are in your jurisdiction. Rent it out to a trusted friend or family member for a steal of a deal. They save money, and you get the luxury of time waiting for the sale. With a real estate lawyer you hire, get a contract for a lease option or owner finance deal on the house. Sometimes you can expand the market of people looking to buy your house. If you have a willing purchaser will bad credit, you can be doing them a favor and solving your own issue. It costs money and you will make less on the sale, but it could be better than nothing. Take heed, there is a reason some people cannot get a traditional loan on their own. Before you extend your good name or credit think about it. It is another hassle for sure. This won't help if you have to pay off a mortgage, but you could donate it. This is another tricky deal that you really need to speak with a lawyer who specialize in charitable giving. There are tax benefits, but I would make any kind of a deal where tax deductions are the only benefit. This is common enough these days. If you are unable to pay for the mortgage, it benefits you and the bank to get into a short sale arrangement. They bank gets probably more money than if they have to foreclose (and they save money on legal fees) and you can get rid of the obligation. You will do a deed in lieu or the short sale depending on how the market it and what the house can be sold for. You and the bank will have to work it out. This will ruin for a credit for a while, and you will not likely qualify to get a new mortgage for at least a few years. You can stop paying your mortgage, tell the bank and they will foreclose. This is going to ruin your credit for a long time as well as disqualify you from mortgages in the near future. Don't do this. If you are planning a foreclosure, take the time to contact your bank and arrange a short sale or a deed in lieu. There isn't really any excuse to go into foreclosure if you are having problems. Talk to the bank and work out a deal.\",\n \"A bank isn't going to offer to lend you money on a property you don't own. You first need to finish the process of probate and get a clear title. Then it's your house and a bank with lend you money based on a combination of your income and the home's value.\",\n \"Used car dealers will sometimes deliberately issue high-interest-rate subprime loans to folks who have poor credit. But taking that kind of risk on a mortgage, when you aren't also taking profit out of the sale, really isn't of interest to anyone who cares about making a profit. There might be a nonprofit our there which does so, but I don't know of one. Fix your credit before trying to borrow.\",\n \"The thing with your last option is that the cash-out mortgage is treated differently than purchase mortgage, with regards to taxes. Specifically, tax deduction is limited to $100K mortgage instead of $1M (or a bit higher even). Other than that - you've covered your options, and its up to you to decide what to do.\",\n \"I am a real estate agent. I know you are in Canada, but will let you know that in the US, agents are not to supposed to offer this kind of advice. They can refer you to a bank or mortgage broker, but should not be giving this type of financial advice. That said, it's a HELOC, it would be rare for your bank to be willing to just add to your mortgage at the current low rate. Still, ask the bank holding your loan. Is the second home to rent out or a vacation/summer home for you to live in?\",\n \"The crucial question not addressed by other answers is your ability to repay the debt. Borrowing is always about leverage, and leverage is always about risk. In the home improvement loan case, default comes with dire consequences-- to extinguish the debt you might have to sell your home. With a stable job, reliable income, and sufficient cash flow (and, of course, comfort that the project will yield benefits you're happy to pay for), then the clear answer is, go ahead and borrow. But if you work in a highly cyclical industry, have very little cash saved, or for whatever other reason are uncertain about your future ability to pay, then don't borrow. Save until you are more comfortable you can handle the loan. That doesn't necessarily mean save ALL the money; just save enough that you are highly confident in your ability to pay whatever you borrow.\",\n \"I can probably rent the house out for about $1,600. If sell now I can get 180k at the most. My mortgage will be $1,800 with tax and insurance. If I use the 180k to pay off the house, I can refinance the loan for a lower interest rate too. I think I know what I want to do but just need a second opinion. Thanks btw\",\n \"If an entity or individual has full rights to the land and land improvements, they can hold, transfer, delegate, or dispose of them on their terms. The only exception may be eminent domain. If the sovereignty meets the public necessity or public purpose tests they can assume or change the rights to your property in exchange for compensation. As others have said writing your own mortgage falls under the category of seller financing. A seller can write a mortgage with the help of a loan servicing company. Some loan service companies report to credit agencies, to help with buyer refinancing at a later point. Other forms of seller financing: Leasing Land contracts mineral contracts and more... Additionally, the seller can finance the minority of the property, called a junior mortgage. For example, the Bank finances 79% of the value, the seller finances 11%, and the buyer's 10% down payment covers the rest. If the buyer defaults, the superior mortgage (bank's) has collection priority. More commonly, the seller can option for a wrap-around mortgage or an 'all-inclusive mortgage'. The seller holds or refinances the existing mortgage and provides a junior mortgage in exchange for a secured promissory note and an all-inclusive trust deed. If the buyer defaults, the seller has foreclosure rights. It is not uncommon for entities or people to use financing strategies other than the traditional mortgage if they are unable to exclude the gain on sale. Check out section 1031 exchanges. In almost all cases I would tell people not to make decisions based on tax consequences alone, if your financial objective/goal for seller financing sounds like a 1031 exchange, take exception and carefully consider the tax consequences.\",\n \"You might also want to talk directly to a bank. If your credit report is clean, they may have some discretion in making the loan. Note - the 'normal' fully qualified loan has two thresholds, 28% (of monthly income) for housing costs, 36% for all debt servicing. A personal, disclosed loan from a friend/family which is not secured against the house, would count as part of the other debt, as would a credit card. While I don't recommend using a credit card for this purpose, the debt fits in that 28-36 gap. As Kevin points out below, not all paths are equally advisable. Nor are rules of thumb always true. Not having the OP's full details, income, assets, price of house, etc, this is just a list of things to consider. The use of a 401(k) loan in the US can be a great idea for some, bad mistake for others. This format doesn't make it easy to go into great detail, and I'm sure the 401(k) loan issue has been asked and answered in other questions. With respect to Kevin, if he wrote 'usually', I'd agree, but never say 'never.'\",\n \"In general you do not want to show a taxable gain on rental properties if you can avoid it. One of the more beneficial advantages of owning cash flowing rental properties, is that the income is tax deferred because of the depreciation. I say deferred, because depreciation affects the cost basis of your property. Also since you are considering financing, it sounds like you don't need the cash flow currently. You usually can get better returns by financing and buying more rental properties, especially with investment mortgages at historical lows (Win via inflation over time)\",\n \"I am; I bought the house as a preforeclosure (short sell) at 120000; 100% financed with a USDA loan and lived there for about 5 years before my wife and I took a job in Birmingham. With a 30 yr fixed rate... 119000 is about as low as I can go before I would have to come out of pocket at closing to get the lien released... and the problem is there's nothing left in my pockets..\",\n \"You put 20% down and already owe the 80% or $80k, so you don't have the ability to borrow $100k or even $20k for that matter. As LittleAdv stated, the banks have really tightened their lending criteria. Borrowing out more than 80% carries a high premium if you can get it at all. In your example, you want the property to increase in value by at least 10% to borrow $10K.\",\n \"If you're in the US, you have some no down payment options, but you still need some closing costs money, that can potentially be negotiated with the seller. There are fha loans which have very low down payment options, 80/20 loans which are 100% coverage, hud assistance on fha to get a 100% loan. Your 401k can be leveraged into the loan as 35% collateral paying 7% interest on a traditional no recourse loan. These options are available with a work history and if you're not taking on more debt than you can pay with 30% salary. Finding an angel investor will be harder than working with the bank, they have much less room for risk. It's easier to find a current landlord and asking about a rent to own, though, this will be more expensive than a mortgage. To be honest though, most people are in a rush to be house poor, living on the edge of affordability. I don't know your situation, but I do know that rushing into things can be very expensive in the long run.\",\n \"\\\"Let me summarize your question for you: \\\"\\\"I do not have the down payment that the lender requires for a mortgage. How can I still acquire the mortgage?\\\"\\\" Short answer: Find another lender or find more cash. Don't overly complicate the scenario. The correct answer is that the lender is free to do what they want. They deem it too risky to lend you $1.1M against this $1.8M property, unless they have $700k up front. You want their money, so you must accept their terms. If other lenders have the same outlook, consider that you cannot afford this house. Find a cheaper house.\\\"\",\n \"If it is a separate unit from the rest of the property, you can use that portion as an investment property. the part, or unit, you are living in is your primary residence. The remainder is your investment. You are eligible to not pay capital gains on the portion you live in After two years. As always consult a tax accountant For advice... Also, if this is less then 4 unit, you may he able to finance the sale of the home with an FHA loan.\",\n \"As the other answers suggest, there are a number of ways of going about it and the correct one will be dependent on your situation (amount of equity in your current house, cashflow primarily, amount of time between purchase and sale). If you have a fair amount of equity (for example, $50K mortgage remaining on a house valued at $300K), I'll propose an option that's similar to bridge financing: Place an offer on your new house. Use some of your equity as part of the down payment (eg, $130K). Use some more of your equity as a cash buffer to allow you pay two mortgages in between the purchase and the sale (eg, $30K). The way this would be executed is that your existing mortgage would be discharged and replaced with larger mortgage. The proceeds of that mortgage would be split between the down payment and cash as you desire. Between the closing of your purchase and the closing of your sale, you'll be paying two mortgages and you'll be responsible for two properties. Not fun, but your cash buffer is there to sustain you through this. When the sale of your new home closes, you'll be breaking the mortgage on that house. When you get the proceeds of the sale, it would be a good time to use any lump sum/prepayment privileges you have on the mortgage of the new house. You'll be paying legal fees for each transaction and penalties for each mortgage you break. However, the interest rates will be lower than bridge financing. For this reason, this approach will likely be cheaper than bridge financing only if the time between the closing of the two deals is fairly long (eg, at least 6 months), and the penalties for breaking mortgages are reasonable (eg, 3 months interest). You would need the help of a good mortgage broker and a good lawyer, but you would also have to do your own due diligence - remember that brokers receive a commission for each mortgage they sell. If you won't have any problems selling your current house quickly, bridge financing is likely a better deal. If you need to hold on to it for a while because you need to fix things up or it will be harder to sell, you can consider this approach.\",\n \"Since you are leaving the country, get it sold by a real estate agent. If you choose to lower the price and get it done quickly, or if you choose to wait for a fair value, the key here is to get many independent referrals (like a dozen) so you agent is trustworthy. I don't think you need to sign over power of attorney as fax machines are pretty reliable these days. I won't matter if you live 50 miles or 5000 miles away. Renting it is not a great option because you can't easily follow up from another country. Don't sell it to the rock bottom places. Either you don't need the money and you can afford to you wait, or you need the money and it would be best to wait.\",\n \"\\\"If you mortgage after the fact you will usually pay an extra .25% higher on the interest rate because a \\\"\\\"cash out\\\"\\\" refinance is treated as riskier than a new home purchase mortgage. You might save enough on the purchase price of the home with a cash offer to make that higher interest rate worth it, but in most cases, if you are planning to hold the loan for a long time, it's best to get that mortgage at the time of purchase. You might be able to get the same deal with an offer that says you will pay cash if there are any problems getting the loan approved.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"There are basically two ways to get value out of an appreciating asset such as a home: (a) Sell it and take the profit. In the case of a home, you presumably still have to live somewhere, so unless you buy a cheaper home to replace it, this doesn't get you anywhere. If you can get another house that is just as nice and in just as nice a location -- whatever you consider \\\"\\\"nice\\\"\\\" to be -- than this sounds like a winning option. If it means moving to a less desirable home, then you are getting the cash but losing the nice home. You'll have to decide if it's worth it. (b) Use it as collateral for a loan. In this case, that means a second mortgage, home equity loan, or a home equity line of credit. But this can be dangerous. House prices are very volatile these days. If the value of the house falls, you could be stuck with debts greater than your assets. In my humble opinion, you should be very careful about doing this. Borrowing against your house to send the kids to college or pay for your spouse's life-saving operation may be reasonable. Borrowing against your house to go on a fancy vacation is almost surely a bad idea. The vacation will be over within a couple of weeks, but you could be paying off the debt for decades.\\\"\",\n \"If it is your primary residence and you lived there continuously and for more than 2 years out of the last 5 - then you can exclude the gain under the IRC Sec. 121. In this case, you'll pay no taxes on your gain. If the property has been a rental or you haven't lived there long enough, the rules become more complicated but you may still be able to exclude some portion of the gain, even all of it, depends on the situation. So it doesn't look like 1031 exchange is good for you here, you don't want to carry excluded gain - you want to recognize it and get the tax benefit. However, refinancing after purchase with cash-out money affects the deductability of the loan interest. You can only deduct interest on money used to buy, not cash-out portion. I believe there's a period (60 days IIRC) during which you can do the cash-out refinance and still count it as purchase money, but check with a licensed tax advier (EA/CPA licensed in your State).\",\n \"Are you interested in refurbishing your rented home here in Singapore? If you are struggling with financial difficulties, you can apply for a renovation loan offered by banks. Most banks in Singapore offer renovation loans and home loans only to those who own a property. It is very hard to find a renovation loan for a rented home. **Home loans for renovation** You can take a home loan for your rented property and top up your home loan to finance your renovation project. If you already have a home loan, all you need to do is ask your bank representative to add extra financing to your [home loan](https://www.bankbazaar.sg/home-loan.html) for renovation purpose. Applying for a home loan for a rented property is simple. You can use an online loan calculator and compare home loans provided for a rented property. According to your repayment capacity and financial requirements, you can choose a home loan and use it for renovation. Make sure you have a good credit score while applying so that your home loan gets approved easily. **Personal loans for renovation** If you are not able to find too many home loans or renovation loans for rented property, you need not worry. Have you considered taking a personal loan to make awesome home improvement measures? That’s right; you can apply for a personal loan and use the funds to renovate your abode. The best thing about a personal loan is that a lender does not enquire about the purpose for your loan application. So, you can use your personal loan for any of your needs. *Eligibility criteria for personal loans* The general criteria to be qualified for a personal loan in Singapore are: The applicant should be 21 to 65 years old. The applicant should be a Singaporean or a permanent resident or a foreigner. The minimum income requirement for a Singaporean or PR is generally S$20,000 p.a. and S$40,000 p.a. for a foreigner. **When are personal loans ideal for renovation?** There are a few situations when a personal loan is the best option for renovating your rented property: Many banks give personal loans with attractive promotions such as interest-free loan for a certain period. You can take this loan and even repay the full amount before the zero-interest period expires. This will help you save efficiently on your renovation project. The minimum income required to secure a home loan is generally higher than the income requirement for a personal loan. Hence, a personal loan is a better option. A home loan generally gives a higher sum of money than a personal loan. This high amount is suitable for a construction project but will be excessive for renovation work. Therefore, it makes more sense to apply for a personal loan to give the perfect makeover to the kitchenette in your home. The approval process for a home loan is typically very lengthy. Personal loan applications get approved within 24 hours by most banks in Singapore. So now you can apply for a personal loan without any tension and remodel your balcony to have a party at home sweet home! Personal loan rates are generally lower than home loan rates. You can refurbish your living space by paying your loan at an interest rate not more than 4%. Now, you would have got a fair idea about how to finance your remodelling work. Always remember to enquire about every loan’s terms and conditions. Never sign any loan contract without being absolutely clear about the loan’s features.\",\n \"Talk to your parents, and find out if you are reducing the debt or not. Find buyers, sell the place now and get out the deal. Of course you will have to wait to get a good price on it. Short term you haven't lost that much, but long term you will. Take your 25%, and use it as a down payment on a regular bank mortgage. Lesson learned move on.\",\n \"I would agree with the other answers about it being a bad idea to invest in stocks in the short term. However, do consider also long-term repairs. For example, you should be prepared to a repair happening in 20 years in addition to repairs happening in a couple of months. So, if it is at all possible for you to save a bit more, put 2% of the construction cost of a typical new house (just a house, not the land the house is standing on) aside every year into a long-term repair fund and invest it into stocks. I would recommend a low-cost index fund or passive ETF instead of manually picking stocks. When you have a long-term repair that requires large amounts of money but will be good for decades to come, you will take some money out of the long-term repair fund. Where I live, houses cost about 4000 EUR per square meter, but most of that is the land and building permit cost. The actual construction cost is about 2500 EUR per square meter. So, I would put away 50 EUR per square meter every year. So, for example, for a relatively small 50 square meter apartment, that would mean 2500 EUR per year. There are quite many repairs that are long-term repairs. For example, in apartment buildings, plumbing needs to be redone every 40 years or so. Given such a long time period, it makes sense to invest the money into stocks. So, my recommendation would be to have two repair funds: short-term repairs and long-term repairs. Only the long-term repair fund should be invested into stocks.\",\n \"You have the 2 properties, and even though the value of property B is less than the amount you owe on it hopefully you have some equity in propery A. So if you do have enough equity in property A, why don't you just go to the one lender and get both property A and B refinanced under the same mortgage. This way hopefully the combined equity in both properties would be enough to cover the full amount of the loan, and you have the opportunity to refinance at favourable rate and terms. Sounds like you are in the USA with an interest rate of 3.25%, I am in Australia and my mortgage rates are currently between 6.3% to 6.6%.\",\n \"\\\"You can definitely do it. But: Refinancing would make more sense to you, you can refinance at no cost and get rates below 4%, so you'll be saving 1% a year, without paying anything extra. If you pay the fees you'll get even lower rates, but then you need to check whether its worth it. I've just refinanced to a 15 years fixed mortgage at no cost a couple of months ago, and got 3.875% rate (in California), so its definitely worth looking into, don't just dismiss it. This will limit your flexibility though, because paying 30yrs loan \\\"\\\"as if\\\"\\\" is much more flexible than committing on 15yes loan - you can always go back to your original payments if you want to spread it out a bit more. You can add a HELOC once you've accumulated some equity to back you up, that's what I did.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["A typical HELOC will have about $300 in fees to open it. From there, it's up to you how much or how long to use it. I'd shop around to find the bank that offers the right product for you."],"string":"[\n \"A typical HELOC will have about $300 in fees to open it. From there, it's up to you how much or how long to use it. I'd shop around to find the bank that offers the right product for you.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":158,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"701"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"What are the ins/outs of writing-off part of one's rent for working at home?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["288537","339488","389446"],"string":"[\n \"288537\",\n \"339488\",\n \"389446\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["356884","410128","456234","531442","124507","231990","380165","5587","248761","245122","520386","344955","272940","15270","220063","177074","288537","544381","339488","349672","443859","375357","493255","295509","55200","87113","63919","2528","418480","474057","378465","459119","397920","482165","302022","350839","398536","552356","324911","409566","140977","103405","389446","264659","18539","377621","436505","406723","541809","221281","116934","257616","417981","97719","446984","581265","376392","257303","338348","320579","55261","82199","130631","156444","552043","146388","327263","421301","12729","141738","201954","571711","263259","331981","299002","442142","551934","34810","205217","364938","593976","480512","272709","75005","86134","30319","75920","476173","338439","26790","540395","60652","337706","280538","236122","338545","330269","22710","322906","434846"],"string":"[\n \"356884\",\n \"410128\",\n \"456234\",\n \"531442\",\n \"124507\",\n \"231990\",\n \"380165\",\n \"5587\",\n \"248761\",\n \"245122\",\n \"520386\",\n \"344955\",\n \"272940\",\n \"15270\",\n \"220063\",\n \"177074\",\n \"288537\",\n \"544381\",\n \"339488\",\n \"349672\",\n \"443859\",\n \"375357\",\n \"493255\",\n \"295509\",\n \"55200\",\n \"87113\",\n \"63919\",\n \"2528\",\n \"418480\",\n \"474057\",\n \"378465\",\n \"459119\",\n \"397920\",\n \"482165\",\n \"302022\",\n \"350839\",\n \"398536\",\n \"552356\",\n \"324911\",\n \"409566\",\n \"140977\",\n \"103405\",\n \"389446\",\n \"264659\",\n \"18539\",\n \"377621\",\n \"436505\",\n \"406723\",\n \"541809\",\n \"221281\",\n \"116934\",\n \"257616\",\n \"417981\",\n \"97719\",\n \"446984\",\n \"581265\",\n \"376392\",\n \"257303\",\n \"338348\",\n \"320579\",\n \"55261\",\n \"82199\",\n \"130631\",\n \"156444\",\n \"552043\",\n \"146388\",\n \"327263\",\n \"421301\",\n \"12729\",\n \"141738\",\n \"201954\",\n \"571711\",\n \"263259\",\n \"331981\",\n \"299002\",\n \"442142\",\n \"551934\",\n \"34810\",\n \"205217\",\n \"364938\",\n \"593976\",\n \"480512\",\n \"272709\",\n \"75005\",\n \"86134\",\n \"30319\",\n \"75920\",\n \"476173\",\n \"338439\",\n \"26790\",\n \"540395\",\n \"60652\",\n \"337706\",\n \"280538\",\n \"236122\",\n \"338545\",\n \"330269\",\n \"22710\",\n \"322906\",\n \"434846\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["If the UK is similar to Australia then you would not claim a virtual rent for the business portion but instead could claim a portion of the house expenses such as electricity use, property taxes, and yes a portion of the mortgage, and any repairs or renovations done to the work areas of the house. However, you should keep in mind that if you sell the place you may have to pay CGT on the portion you were claiming for business use.","In Canada I think you'd do it as a % of square footage. For example: Then you can count 20% of the cost of the of renting the apartment as a business expense. I expect that conventions (i.e. that what's accepted rather than challenged by the tax authorities) may vary from country to country.","As someone who used to be an IT contractor in the UK and used to work from home, my advice is to talk to your accountant in detail. It's been a few years, but IIRC you can write off some small stuff like proportional heating costs etc, but in my case it was so minuscule that it wasn't worth the effort. You're likely better off to just leave it. Talk to your accountant :). ","\"According to this post on TurboTax forums, you could deduct it as an \"\"Unreimbursed Employee\"\" expense. This would seem consistent with the IRS Guidelines on such deductions: An expense is ordinary if it is common and accepted in your trade, business, or profession. An expense is necessary if it is appropriate and helpful to your business. An expense does not have to be required to be considered necessary. Office rent is not listed explicitly among the examples of deductible unreimbursed employee expenses, but this doesn't mean it's not allowed. Of course you should check with a tax professional if you want to be sure.\"","The general rule is: Generally, in order to claim a business deduction for your home, you must use part of your home exclusively and regularly: Exclusively seems to be the toughest standard and I do not know exactly how strict the IRS's interpretation is. Working in your living room where you regularly watch TV and have people over on the weekends would seem to fail that test. A separate room with your computer in it would pass it. If it was your only computer and you regularly played online games with it, that would seem to be a grey area. The IRA booklet covering this area is here http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p587.pdf I know people that have rented rooms in other places or made use of rental offices for this purpose.","\"If you are a telecommuter and in good terms with your employer, then all you need is contact your employer and explain your situation. Ask them for a short letter that indicates: \"\"1. they require you to work from a privately rented office (or from a home office for those who prefer working from home), 2. this is one of the terms of your employment, and, 3. they will not reimburse you for this expense.\"\" With this letter in your hand, you satisify both the \"\"convenience of employer\"\" test AND the deduction of the rent for your private office as a unreimbursed employee expense. The IRS cannot expect your employer to open an office branch in your city just for your sake, nor can they expect you to commute to your employer's city for work, which is an impossiblity considering the distance. Additionally, the IRS cannot \"\"force\"\" telecommuters to work from home. The key is to get a letter from your employer. You'd be surprised how easily they are willing to write such letter for you.\"","You can do it, provided that the bedroom is ONLY set up as an office. That is, no bed, TV or other stuff. You can stretch it a bit, considering a TV is also a monitor, a couch is also a visitor couch. Whatever route you choose you have to be able to justify what everything is doing there in case of a visit from the authorities. I am (was) in exactly the same situation for two years and had no problem deducting ~30% of the housing costs. That is, the usage of bathroom and utilities is calculated as proportional to the surface area given to the office. It might make more sense to move into a larger apartment just so you can have one designated office room. Edit: the above applies in Germany, YMMV, IANAL, etc. EU is pretty consistent though in regulations and as far as I know the above aplies in most EU countries.","Source on GOV.UK You may be able to get tax back for some of the bills you have to pay because you have to work at home on a regular basis. You can only claim for things to do with your work, eg business telephone calls or the extra cost of gas and electricity for your work area. You can’t claim for things that you use for both private and business use, eg rent or broadband access. You don’t need to provide records for claims of up to £4 per week (£18 per month). For claims over £4 per week you’ll need to provide evidence of what you’ve spent. Claims up to £2,500 You must claim using a Self Assessment tax return if you already fill one in. If you don’t already fill in a Self Assessment tax return, and your allowable expenses are under £2,500 for the tax year, fill in form P87 and send it to the address on the form. If you’ve made a successful claim in a previous tax year and your expenses are less than £1,000 (or £2,500 for professional fees and subscriptions), you may be able to make your claim by phone. Claims over £2,500 You must claim using a Self Assessment tax return.","You can claim a deduction only if all of your business is conducted from the home, i.e. your home is your principal place of business - not just if you work from home sometimes. The CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) has pretty strict guidelines listed here, but once you're sure you qualify for a deduction, the next step would be to determine what portion of your home qualifies. You cannot attempt to deduct your entire mortgage simply because you run your business out of your home. The portion of your mortgage and other related & allowable home expense deductions has to be pro-rated to be equal to or less than the portion of your home you use for business. Simply put, if your business is operated out of a 120 sq-ft self-contained space, and your home's total square-footage is 2400 sq-ft, you can deduct 5% of your expenses (120/2,400 = 0.05). Hope this helps!","Talk to a tax professional. The IRS really doesn't like the deduction, and it's a concept (like independent contractors) that is often not done properly. You need to, at a minimum, have records, including timestamped photographs, proving that: Remember, documentation is key, and must be filed and accessible for a number of years. Poor record keeping will cost you dearly, and the cost of keeping those records is something that you need to weigh against the benefit.","Your best approach is to assess rent levels in your local area for offices of a similar size. You need to take into account all the usuals - amenities, parking, etc, just as if your home-office was provided by a third-party. Get your $/sq ft and work out the monthly amount. With this figure, you need to then work out what % of it you can charge. If the space is used exclusively for the business, charge 100%. If it's used about half the time, charge 50%, etc. I would strongly advise you to do two things - 1. make sure your accountant and your attorney help you get this squared away. 2. document everything about how you arrived at the cost. Nothing fancy, but dates, realtors, addresses, $/sq foot. A simple table will do. By doing these two things, if the IRS should come around to chat, you should be covered.","There are other answers here about how much you can deduct for a home office. What seems unique is the question of whether you can deduct it for both your LLC and for your employment. Unless your LLC owns the home, you cannot deduct the depreciation directly. Instead you have to charge your LLC rent for the time that you are using the space for the LLC. That rent must be declared as income on your personal tax return, and you can then offset some of it with the time you spend in that space working for your employer and depreciation for time it is being rented to your LLC. Using a strategy this complex may save you a few bucks on your return, but this is definitely an area where a tax professional is worth the expense making sure you get it right.","\"You are pushing your luck, but not because you're not in the US, because it is likely that you're not qualified. From what you said, I doubt you can take it (I'm not a professional though, get a professional opinion). You say \"\"dedicated space\"\". It has to be an exclusive room. You cannot deduct 10 sq. ft. from your living room because your computer that is used wholly for your business is there. It has to be a room that is used exclusively for your business, and for your business only. I.e.: nothing not related to the business is there, and when you're there the only thing you do is working on your business. Your office doesn't have to be in the US necessarily, to the best of my knowledge. Your office must be in your home. If you take primary residence exclusion as part of your FEI, then I doubt you can deduct as well.\"","Your freelance income will not qualify you for the work-from-home deductions, for that you would need a T2200 form signed by your employer. But, you are allowed to be self employed as a sole-proprietorship while still being an employee of another company. If you take that route, you'll be able to write-off even more expenses than those you linked to. Things like a portion of your internet bill can be claimed, for example. But note that these deductions would only apply to offset the self-employment income, so if you're not earning very much from the freelance work, it might not be worth all the hassle. Filing taxes when self-employed is definitely more complicated, and many people will get professional tax preparation help - at least for the first time.","\"If you are talking about a home office, you don't \"\"charge\"\" the business anything. If the area is used exclusively as an office you pro-rate by square footage just the actual expenses. TurboTax recent published an article \"\"Can I Take the Home Office Deduction?\"\" which is a must read if you don't understand the process. (Note: I authored said article.)\"","\"If you use \"\"a room or other separately identifiable space\"\" within your apartment exclusively for your business, then you might be able to recoup a fraction of your rent for that. Check the rules for home office at the IRS and adopt a consistent and well-documented approach. (I would pay your full rent out of your personal account, and then do an \"\"expense report\"\" for the portion that's legitimately business related, but that's not a unique approach.) Other than that, I agree with the answer by litteadv - You cannot reduce your tax by the full amount of your rent just by having the S Corp pay, and trying to do so is probably playing with fire. Generally speaking, don't comingle business and personal expenses like that.\"","Be ruthlessly meticulous about the IRS regulations for deducting a home office. If it's allowed, it's allowed.","\"Can she claim deductions for her driving to and from work? Considering most people use their cars mostly to commute to/from work, there must be limits to what you can consider \"\"claimable\"\" and what you can't, otherwise everyone would claim back 80% of their mileage. No, she can't. But if she's driving from one work site to another, that's deductible whether or not either of the work sites is her home office. Can she claim deductions for her home office? There's a specific set of IRS tests you have to meet. If she meets them, she can. If you're self-employed, reasonably need an office, and have a place in your house dedicated to that purpose, you will likely meet all the tests. Can I claim deductions for my home office, even though I have an official work place that is not in my home? It's very hard to do so. The use of your home office has to benefit your employer, not just you. Can we claim deductions for our home internet service? If the business or home office uses them, they should be a deductible home office expense in some percentage. Usually for generic utilities that benefit the whole house, you deduct at the same percentage as the home office is of the entire house. But you can use other fractions if more appropriate. For example, if you have lots of computers in the home office, you can deduct more of the electricity if you can justify the ratio you use. Run through the rules at the IRS web page.\"","Tax regulations vary from country to country - some permitting more deductions, some less - but here are a few guidelines. As regards the home-office: As regards the deductions: Think of it like this: in order to have space for a home-office you needed a bigger home. That leads to increased rates, heating, insurance and so on. Many tax regulators recognise that these are genuine expenses. The alternative is to rent a separate office and incur greater expenses, leading to increased deductions and less overall tax paid (which won't finance the deficit). The usual test for deductions is: was the expense legitimately incurred in the pursuit of revenue? The flexibility permitted will vary by tax authority but you can frequently deduct more than you expected.","The answer is simple. You can generally claim a deduction for an expense if that expense was used to derive an income. Of course social policy sometimes gets in the way and allows for deductions where they usually wouldn't be allowed. Your rent is not tax deductible because this expense is not used to derive your income. If however you were working from your home, example - you had a home based business, and you dedicated a part of your home for your work, say an office, then part of your rent may then become tax deductible.","On form 8829, line 20 you can list utilities paid for the home office. You have two choices: 1) You can list the entire amount under column (b) as an indirect expense. You will then get a deduction for the fraction of the amount based on what fraction of your home is an office. This makes sense if the service equally benefits your entire home. 2) You can compute the portion of the expense reasonably attributable to the business/office and list that amount under column (a). This entire amount will be deducted. Which option you choose depends on how well you think you can allocate the expense between your office and the rest of your home. For example, I have had to do this with electricity, but I specifically measured the electricity used by my office. If you think you can defend allocating a larger portion to the office, use option 2. If you would have paid the same amount even if you didn't have an office, it's hard to justify allocating more of the expense to the office than its portion of the home. If you opted for a more expensive service or otherwise incurred additional costs, it makes sense to allocate a higher fraction to the office and to calculate that yourself.","As DJClayworth said, be very careful with this one! The property is a residence, not a business location. Given that, it is almost a certainty that the IRS is not going to let you claim 100% of the expenses for the home as a business expense, even if nobody's actually living there. You may get away with doing this for a period of time and not run into zoning or other issues such as those DJ mentioned, but it's like begging for trouble. You run the very real risk of being audited if you try to do what you're proposing, and rest assured, whatever you saved in taxes will disappear like smoke in the wind under an audit. That being said, there's no reason you can't call a tax service and ask a simple question, because in answering it they're going to hope to gain your business. It'd be well worth the phone call before you land yourself in any hot water with the IRS. I can tell you that I'd rather have a double root canal with no anesthetic than go through an audit, even when I didn't do anything wrong! (grin) Good luck!","Yes, all the house footage is treated the same. The use of home is a (suspected) audit trigger, so do consult with a tax professional if you want to take this deduction. From the statute (IRC Sec. 280A): The term dwelling unit includes a house, apartment, condominium, mobile home, boat, or similar property, and all structures or other property appurtenant to such dwelling unit.","This answer is assuming you're in the US, which apparently you're not. I doubt that the rules in the EU are significantly different, but I don't know for sure. In case of an IRS control, is it ok to say that I regularly connect remotely to work from home although in the work contract it says I must work at client's office? No. Are there any other ways I can prove that this deduction is valid? No. You can't prove something is valid when its not. You can only deduct home office expense if it is used exclusively for your business, and your bedroom obviously is not.","As I understand it... Generally housing can't be considered a business expense unless taken at your employer's explicit direction, for the good of the business rather than the employee. Temporary assignment far enough from you home office that commuting or occasional hotel nights are impractical, maybe. In other words, if they wouldn't be (at least theoretically) willing to let you put it on an expense account, you probably can't claim it here.","It's the same result either way. Say the bills are $600, and you are reimbursed $400. You'd be able to write off $400 as part of the utilities that are common expenses, but then claim the $400 as income. I'd stick with that, and have contemporaneous records supporting all cash flow. You also can take 2/3 of any other maintenance costs that most homeowners can't. Like snow removal, lawn care, etc.","\"I'm not a tax professional, but as I understand it, you are not expected to commute from San Francisco to Boston. :) If your employer has not provided you with an external office, then yes, you have very likely met the \"\"convenience of the employer\"\" test. However, to take the home office deduction, there are many requirements that have to be met. You can read more at the Nolo article Can You Deduct Your Home Office When You're an Employee? (Thanks, keshlam) The home office deduction has many nuances and is enough of an IRS red flag that you would be well-advised to talk to an accountant about it. You need to be able to show that it is exclusively and necessarily used for your job. Another thing to remember: as an employee, the home office deduction, if you take it, will be deducted on Schedule A, line 21 (unreimbursed employee expenses), among other Miscellaneous Deductions. Deductions in this section need to exceed 2% of your adjusted gross income before you can start to deduct. So it will not be worth it to pursue the deduction if your income is too high, or your housing expenses are too low, or your office is too small compared to the rest of your house, or you don't itemize deductions.\"","This is essentially a reimbursement of your expense. Since you can deduct the expense, the fact that the reimbursement is taxable doesn't affect you much. You deduct your home office expenses on your annual tax return using form 8829. See the IRS site for more details. If you're asking about the UK tax, there may be some other considerations, but from the US tax perspective it is (nearly) a wash.","\"Yes, you may deduct the cost of building the \"\"noise cancellation system\"\" :) sorry couldn't resist. But seriously, yes you can deduct it ONCE (unless you have more cost maintaining it) and its on line 19 (Repairs and maintenance) of IRS Form 8829.\"","You will need to look at the 27.5 year depreciation table from the IRS. It tells you how you will be able to write off the first year. It depends on which month you had the unit ready to rent. Note that that it might be a different month from when you moved, or when the first tenant moved in. Your list is pretty good. You can also claim some travel expenses or mileage related to the unit. Also keep track of any other expenses such as switching the water bill to the new renter, or postage. If you use Turbo tax, not the least expensive version, it can be a big help to get started and to remember how much to depreciate each year.","If it's a rental, you will write off the losses via Schedule E. You should read this document and its instructions to understand this fully. You will also take depreciation on the value of the building, not the land, over 27.5 years. If you don't understand this, search here, there are discussions that cover this. If it's not a rental, but your home or second home, you take the interest and real estate tax off you tax via Schedule A, if you itemize. (I see the tag 'rental' but leave this line for sake of a complete answer.)","\"In the UK it all comes down to what HMRC will allow you to charge without taxing you on the \"\"rent profit\"\" and not hitting capital gain tax when you sell the house, it may not all count as your \"\"main home\"\" if some is rented out. (http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/ is a good place to ask this type of questions in the uk)\"","I heard that a C-Corp being a one person shop (no other employees but the owner) can pay for the full amount 100% of personal rent if the residence is being used as a home office. Sure. Especially if you don't mind being audited. Technically, it doesn't matter how the money gets where it goes as long as the income tax filings accurately describe the tax situation. But the IRS hates it when you make personal expenses from a business account, even if you've paid the required personal income tax (because their computers simply aren't smart enough to keep up with that level of chaos). Also, on a non-tax level, commingling of business and personal funds can reduce the effectiveness of your company's liability protection and you could more easily become personally liable if the company goes bankrupt. From what I understand the 30% would be the expense, and the 70% profit distribution. I recommend you just pay yourself and pay the rent from your personal account and claim the allowed deductions properly like everyone else. Why & when it would make sense to do this? Are there any tax benefits? Never, because, no. You would still have to pay personal income tax on your 70% share of the rent (the 30% you may be able to get deductions for but the rules are quite complicated and you should never just estimate). The only way to get money out of a corporation without paying personal income tax is by having a qualified dividend. That's quite complicated - your accounting has to be clear that the money being issued as a qualified dividend came from an economic profit, not from a paper profit resulting from the fact that you worked hard without paying yourself market value.","It depends on the structure of your business. Are you a sole proprietor filing Schedule C on your 1040, or an S-corp, or part of a partnership? The treatment of a home office will differ depending on business entity.","No, you cannot write off time, period. You should price the time spent into your product. I, occasionally, work on side projects of my own and forgo the possibility of earning direct income for that time. Income not earned is income not taxed, so there's nothing to deduct.","A computer is a special case because the IRS thinks that you might be using it for personal applications. You may need to keep a log, or be able to state that you also have another computer for non-business use. That said, if your schedule C shows a small profit then you don't need to itemize expenses, just state the total.","The short answer is no you can only deduct actual expenses. The long answer is that it would be impossible for the IRS to determine the value of your time and it would open the tax system to an enormous amount of fraud (think of being able to make up time spent or writing off time spent volunteering at a soup kitchen or any other charity). Now you can write off expenses you have involved in doing the work, equipment and supplies used to do the work along with any wages you paid an employee or contractor to do said work.","\"I disagree with BrenBran, I don't think this is qualified as unreimbursed employee expense. For it to qualify, it has to be ordinary and necessary, and specifically - necessary for your employer. This is not the case for you, as there's no such necessity. From employer's perspective, you can work from your home just as well. In fact, the expense is your personal, as it is your choice, not \"\"unreimbursed employee expense\"\" since your employer didn't even ask you to do it. You should clarify this with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in New York).\"","\"Suppose that I work from home, but do not qualify for a business use of home deduction. As I understand it, this means I cannot deduct trips from home to another work location (e.g., going to a client's home or office to do work there). I do not think this is true. You cannot deduct trips to your main business location, i.e.: you cannot deduct trips to your office or client's location if this is your main client and you routinely work on-site. However, if you only visit your clients on occasion for specific events while doing your routine work at home - you can definitely deduct those trips. The deduction of the home usage itself has nothing to do with it. However, there's a different reason they refer to pub 587. Your home must qualify as principal place of business (even if it doesn't qualify for deduction). The qualifications of \"\"principal place of business\"\" are described in pub 587. \"\"if for some personal reason you do not go directly from one location to the other, you cannot deduct more than the amount it would have cost you to go directly from the first location to the second.\"\" What is not clear to me is what exactly is deductible if there are significant time gaps (within a single day) between trips to different clients. You got it right. What this quote means is that if you have client A and client B, and you drive from A to B - you can only deduct the travel between A and B, nothing else. I.e.: if you have 2 hours to kill and you take a trip to the mall - you cannot deduct the mileage attributable to that trip. You only deduct the actual distance between A and B as it would be had you driven from A to B directly. The example you cite re first client being considered as the place of business is for the case where your home doesn't qualify as principal place of business. In this case you start counting miles from your first client, and only for direct trips from client to client. If you only have 1 client in that day, tough luck, nothing to deduct. Also, it's not clear whether stopoffs between clients would really be \"\"personal reasons\"\", since the appointment times are often set by the client, so it's not as if the delay between A and B was just because I felt like it; there was never the option of going directly from A to B. That's what is called \"\"facts and circumstances\"\". You can argue that you had enough time between meetings to go back to your home office to continue working. The IRS agent auditing you (and you're likely to get audited) will consider that. Maybe will accept it. Maybe not. If I had a gap like that described above, I could save on my taxes by going to the park or a hamburger stand instead of going home between A and B But then you wouldn't be at home, so why would it be \"\"principal place of business\"\" if you're not there? Boom, lost deduction for the trip to the first client. I suggest you talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). You're dealing with deductions that are considered \"\"red flags\"\" for the IRS. I.e.: many people believe that these deductions (business use of your home/car) trigger audits. To substantiate business use of your car you need to keep very good track of your travels (literally travel log, they sell them at Staples), and make sure to distinguish between personal travel and business travel, keep proofs that the meetings took place (although keeping a log is a requirement, it can be backdated/faked, so if audited - the IRS will want to see more than your own documentation). A good tax adviser will educate you on all these rules, and also clarify the complexities you were asking about here. I'm not a tax adviser, so don't rely on this answer when you're preparing your tax return or responding to the IRS audit. In your edit you ask this: Specifically, what I'm wondering is whether it is possible for a home to qualify as a \"\"principal place of business\"\" for purposes of deducting car expenses but not for the home office deduction. The answer is yes. Deductibility is determined by exclusivity of use, among other things. But the fact that you manage your business from your kitchen doesn't make your kitchen any less of a principal place of business. It is non-deductible because you also cook your dinners there, but it is still, nonetheless, your principal place of business. The Pub 587 which I linked to has these qualifications: Your home office will qualify as your principal place of business if you meet the following requirements. You use it exclusively and regularly for administrative or management activities of your trade or business. You have no other fixed location where you conduct substantial administrative or management activities of your trade or business. As you see, exclusivity of the usage of your home area is not a requirement here. The \"\"exclusively and regularly\"\" in the quote refers to your business not using any other location, and managing it from home regularly. I.e.: if you manage your business a day in a year - that's not enough for it to be considered principal. If you manage your business from your office and your home - you cannot consider home as principal.\"","Very simple. If it wasn't rented, it's deductible as a schedule A home mortgage interest. If it was rented, you go into Schedule E land, still a deduction along with any/every expense incurred.","Yes, legitimate, documented, expenses are written off against that income.","Only if your work on the side is making you at least £60,000 profit a year. The overheads are just not worth it if you make less. Working as a sole trader, you can still claim for expenses incurred in the course of your business. You can also claim a percentage of your computer costs, even though you may use the computer for gaming. This is not unreasonable as the computer is necessary for your work. The Inland Revenue accept the fact that some assets are part work-related. In your case, as a web and mobile phone developer, I expect the percentage to be at least half, if not a lot more. If you need to travel in the course of your work you can claim a percentage for your car. You can include other small expenses such as telephone, stationery, electricity etc but don't go overboard. The important point to remember is that you must be able to defend the expenses claimed as work-related, so long as you can do this there is no problem. Remember to keep good records of all your expenses. This is on-going throughout the year and is much more work than filling out your tax return. The software on the IR self-assessment site is excellent, so it's conceivable that you may not need an accountant if you are prepared to do your own tax return. However, if you feel unsure employ an accountant initially and take it from there.","Before starting to do this, make sure that you are squeaky clean in all aspects of your tax preparation and are prepared to back up any claims that you make with documentation. Home office deductions are a huge red flag that often trigger audits. Follow mbhunter's advice and be incredibly meticulous about following the rules and keeping records.","It will come down the percentage of time you use a specific area in your home. For each business you will be asked to first designate a percentage of your home you use for that business, then the percentage of time you use it. The space for both businesses might be the same, but the percentage of use would not. You could not claim 100% for both businesses. The combined petcentage of use could not exceed 100%.","Here are the general guidelines on what you should report and pay - but the overall rule is that if it's not a business-related cost then you can't claim it. In your example, a client meeting may warrant a claim for 'entertaining clients' which could be claimed as a business cost - but buying yourself a coffee to get out of the house isn't a business cost.","Your home doesn't belong to the partnership, it belongs to you. So you can (if qualified) deduct home office usage as a business expense on your individual tax return. Same goes to your partner. Similarly any other unreimbursed expense.","The short answer is yes you probably can take the deduction for a home office because the space is used exclusively and you are working there for the convenience of your employer if you don't have a desk at your employers office. The long answer is that it may not be worth it to take the home office deduction as an employee. You're deduction is subject to a 2% AGI floor. You can only deduct a percentage of your rent or the depreciation on your home. A quick and dirty example if you make $75k/year, rent a 1200 sqft 2 bedroom apartment for $1000/month and use one bedroom (120 sqft) regularly and exclusively for your employer. You can deduct 10% (120sqft/1200sqft) of the $12000 ($1000*12 months (assumes your situation didn't change)) in rent or $1200. However because you are an employee you are subject to the 2% AGI floor so you can deduct $1200-$1500 (75000*.02 (salary * 2% floor)) = -300 so in order to deduct the first dollar you need an additional $300 worth of deductible expenses. Depending on your situation it may or may not be worth it to take the home office deduction even if you qualify for it.","Do I get a write off for paying student loans? Maybe. See https://www.irs.gov/publications/p970/ch04.html Generally, personal interest you pay, other than certain mortgage interest, isn't deductible on your tax return. However, if your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) is less than $80,000 ($160,000 if filing a joint return) there is a special deduction allowed for paying interest on a student loan (also known as an education loan) used for higher education. For most taxpayers, MAGI is the adjusted gross income as figured on their federal income tax return before subtracting any deduction for student loan interest. This deduction can reduce the amount of your income subject to tax by up to $2,500. Read the whole document to be sure, but that's the basics. You'll have to fill out a 1040 or 1040A to claim a student loan deduction. It won't be on the 1040EZ. You do not have to itemize though. What kinds of write-offs and credits are available for someone who is single and lives in an apartment with two roommates? As a practical matter, in 2016 you'll get the standard deduction for someone who is single ($6300) and the personal exemption ($4050). It's extremely unlikely that you'll be able to deduct more by itemizing. Most people who itemize are taking a mortgage interest deduction. Major medical bills are another possibility, but they have to be more than 10% of your adjusted gross income (it's one of the lines on your tax return). Assuming you rent and are reasonably healthy, you are unlikely to have enough to itemize. The most likely additional deduction would be the one for an IRA (Individual Retirement Account). Although you might be better off doing a Roth anyway (no tax deduction). If you are self-employed or making more than $100,000 a year, there are additional issues. But most people aren't. If you filled out a W-4 and will get a W-2 back, you aren't self-employed. Hopefully you have a rough idea of your annual income. The first $9275 over your deductions will pay 10%. After that, up to $37,650 you pay 15%. The 2016 link above has a link (PDF) to the full table if you need more than that. Note that that is the first $48,000 in income with your $10,350 in deductions.","\"No, your business cannot deduct your non-business expenses. You can only deduct from your business income those reasonable expenses you paid in order to earn income for the business. Moreover, for there to be a tax benefit, your business generally has to have income (but I expect there are exceptions; HST input tax credits come to mind.) The employment income from your full-time job wouldn't count as business income for your corporation. The corporation has nothing to do with that income – it's earned personally, by you. With respect to restaurant bills: These fall under a category known as \"\"meals & entertainment\"\". Even if the expense can be considered reasonable and business-related (e.g. meeting customers or vendors) the Canada Revenue Agency decided that a business can only deduct half of those kinds of expenses for tax purposes. With respect to gasoline bills: You would need to keep a mileage and expense log. Only the portion of your automobile expenses that relate to the business can be deducted. Driving to and from your full-time job doesn't count. Of course, I'm not a tax professional. If you're going to have a corporation or side-business, you ought to consult with a tax professional. (A point on terminology: A business doesn't write off eligible business expenses — it deducts them from business income. Write off is an accounting term meaning to reduce the value of an asset to zero. e.g. If you damaged your car beyond repair, one could say \"\"the car is a write-off.\"\")\"","I've actually had the same problem several years running, and it's solved by filing my corporate taxes, then taking those schedules, and applying them to my 1040, along with a Schedule C You'll want to work with an accountant on this, but basically you're going to take the total set of business expenses as 1 chunk, then write them off your income (as one chunk). I always recommend an accountant for this, but that's the general idea that I've used, and for the last 10 years, it's worked great.","Yes, you can deduct from your taxable profits (almost) any expenses incurred in the course of your business. See here for HMRC's detailed advice on the subject. The fact that you have salaried PAYE employment as well makes no difference.","There is no tax code I know that would grant you such a privilege. And it just isn't practicable. In your examples, you always sold your product and were thus able, in retrospect, to give a value to your work. What if you don't sell your product? What if in one case your worked hour is reimbursed with one price, with the next product at another (i.e. difference in margin)? No, it won't work like that. And by the way, I think you might have got some definitions upside down. What you want is a salary that your own company pays out to yourself and you can deduct from other profits. But as long as you can't afford to pay yourself a salary, and you don't have access to investors who are willing to front you the money, the time invested is your personal investment and cannot be deducted anywhere - though it might pay off nicely in the long run. That's the risk entrepreneurs take.","\"While the question is very localized, I'll answer about the general principle. My main question is with how far away it is (over 1000 miles), how do I quantify the travel expenses? Generally, \"\"necessary and ordinary\"\" expenses are deductible. This is true for business and also true for rentals. But what is necessary and what is ordinary? Is it ordinary that a landlord will manage the property 1000 miles away by himself on a daily basis? Is it ordinary for people to drive 1000 miles every week? I'd say \"\"no\"\" to both. I'd say it would be cheaper for you to hire a local property manager, thus the travel expense would not be necessary. I would say it would be cheaper to fly (although I don't know if its true to the specific situation of the OP, but as I said - its too localized to deal with) rather than drive from Texas to Colorado. If the OP thinks that driving a thousand miles is indeed ordinary and necessary he'll have to justify it to the IRS examiner, as I'm sure it will be examined. 2 trips to the property a year will be a nearly 100% write-off (2000 miles, hotels, etc). From what I understood (and that is what I've been told by my CPA), IRS generally allows 1 (one) trip per year per property. If there's an exceptional situation - be prepared to justify it. Also, keep all the receipts (like gas, hotel, etc.... If you claim mileage but in reality you took a flight - you'll get hit hard by the IRS when audited). Also while I'm up there am I allowed to mix business with pleasure? You cannot deduct personal (\"\"pleasure\"\") expenses, at all. If the trip is mainly business, but you go out at the evening instead of staying at the hotel - that's fine. But if the trip is \"\"business\"\" trip where you spend a couple of hours at your property and then go around having fun for two days - the whole trip may be disallowed. If there's a reasonable portion dedicated to your business/rental, and the rest is pleasure - you'll have to split some of the costs and only deduct the portion attributed to the business activities. You'll have to analyze your specific situation, and see where it falls. Don't stretch the limits too much, it will cost you more on the long run after all the audits and penalties. Can I also write off all travel involved in the purchase of the property? Although, again, the \"\"necessary and ordinary\"\" justification of such a trip is arguable, lets assume it is necessary and ordinary and generally justified. It is reasonable to expect you to go and see the property with your own eyes before the closing (IMHO, of course, I'm not an authority). Such an expense can be either business or investment expense. If its a business expense - its deductible on schedule C. If its an investment expense (if you do buy the property), its added to the cost of the property (capitalized). I'm not a tax adviser or a tax professional, and this is not a tax advice. This answer was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding any tax related penalties that may be imposed on you or any other person under the Internal Revenue Code. You should seek a professional consultation with a CPA/Attorney(tax) licensed in your State(s) or a Federally licensed Enrolled Agent (EA).\"","\"Disclaimer: This should go without saying, but this answer is definitely an opinion. (I'm pretty sure my current accountant would agree with this answer, and I'm also pretty sure that one of my past accountants would disagree.) When I started my own small business over 10 years ago I asked this very same question for pretty much every purchase I made that would be used by both the business and me personally. I was young(er) and naive then and I just assumed everything was deductible until my accountant could prove otherwise. At some point you need to come up with some rules of thumb to help make sense of it, or else you'll drive yourself and your accountant bonkers. Here is one of the rules I like to use in this scenario: If you never would have made the purchase for personal use, and if you must purchase it for business use, and if using it for personal use does not increase the expense to the business, it can be fully deducted by the business even if you sometimes use it personally too. Here are some example implementations of this rule: Note about partial expenses: I didn't mention partial deductions above because I don't feel it applies when the criteria of my \"\"rule of thumb\"\" is met. Note that the IRS states: Personal versus Business Expenses Generally, you cannot deduct personal, living, or family expenses. However, if you have an expense for something that is used partly for business and partly for personal purposes, divide the total cost between the business and personal parts. You can deduct the business part. At first read that makes it sound like some of my examples above would need to be split into partial calulations, however, I think the key distinction is that you would never have made the purchase for personal use, and that the cost to the business does not increase because of allowing personal use. Partial deductions come into play when you have a shared car, or office, or something where the business cost is increased due to shared use. In general, I try to avoid anything that would be a partial expense, though I do allow my business to reimburse me for mileage when I lend it my personal car for business use.\"","The relevant IRS publication is pub 463. Note that there are various conditions and exceptions, but it all starts with business necessity. Is it necessary for you to work from the UK? If you're working from the UK because you wanted to take a vacation, but still have to work, and would do the same work without being in the UK - then you cannot deduct travel expenses. It sounds to me like this is the case here.","\"In the US tax system, you cannot \"\"write-off\"\" capital assets. You have to depreciate them, with very specific exceptions. So while you may be purchasing $4500 of equipment, your deduction may be significantly less. For example, computers are depreciated over the period of 5 years, so if you bought a $1000 computer - you write off $200/year until it is completely depreciated, not $1000 at once. There are exceptions however, for example - IRC Sec. 179 is one of them. But you should talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about whether it is applicable to the specific expense you want to \"\"write off\"\" and to what extent. Also, keep in mind that State laws may not conform to the Federal IRC. While you may be able to use Sec. 179 or other exceptions and deduct your expenses on your Federal return, you may end up with a whole different set of deductions on your State return. And last but not least: equipment that you depreciated or otherwise \"\"wrote off\"\" that is later sold - is income to you, since depreciation/deduction reduces basis. Ah, and keep in mind - the IRS frowns upon Schedule C business that consistently show losses. If you have losses for more than 3 in the last 5 years - your business may be classified as \"\"hobby\"\", and deductions may be disallowed. But the bottom line is that yes, it is possible to end up with 0 tax liability with business income offset by business deductions. However, not for prolonged periods of time (not for years consistently, but first year may fly). Again - you should talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). It is well worth the money. Do not rely on answers on free Internet forums as a tax advice - it is not.\"","http://www.irs.gov/publications/p936/ar02.html#en_US_2010_publink1000229891 If you still own it, you get to deduct all of it. In my taxes I did online with TaxAct, it asked if I lived there or not and it just mattered which form it filed for me. With having tenants it was a 'business' form and I assume it would be a standard schedule A for personal. Either way the deductions are still mine to take.","\"You will need to see a tax expert. Your edited question includes the line For the short term, we will be \"\"renting\"\" it to my wife's grandmother at a deep discount. According to the instructions for schedule E If you rented out a dwelling unit that you also used for personal purposes during the year, you may not be able to deduct all the expenses for the rental part. “Dwelling unit” (unit) means a house, apartment, condominium, or similar property. For each property listed on line 1a, report the number of days in the year each property was rented at fair rental value and the number of days of personal use. A day of personal use is any day, or part of a day, that the unit was used by: I have no idea how this will work for Schedule C.\"","Nice try. No. If you were in the music industry, you might have a case. Depending on the exact job, certain things related to music would be a business expense. I don't see how this would pass an audit as it really is unrelated to the work you do.","\"I think you may have a significant misunderstanding here. You have been renting your property out for two years, now. There is no special \"\"roommate\"\" clause in the tax code; roommates are renters, and the rent they pay is rental income. (If they were roommates in a property you both rented from a third party, that would be different.) See publication 527, chapter 4 for more details on the subject (search on \"\"Renting Part of Property\"\"). You should be: You may also consider \"\"Not renting for profit\"\" section, which may be closer to what you're actually thinking - of changing from \"\"Renting not for profit\"\" to \"\"Renting for profit\"\". Not rented for profit means you can report on your 1040 as opposed to filing Schedule E, but it does mean you have to actually not make a profit (and remember, some of the money that goes to paying the mortgage is not deductible on this side of things since it's your property and you'll get that money back, presumably, when you sell it). If that is what you're asking about, it sounds like it's just a matter of money. Are you going to start making money? Or, are you going to start making enough significant upgrades/etc. to justify the tax deduction? You should consider the actual, specific numbers carefully, probably with the help of a CPA who is familiar with this sort of situation, and then make the decision that gives you the best outcome (keeping in mind that there may be long-term impacts of switching from not-for-profit to for-profit rental treatment).\"","\"Yes and no. You can not claim the maid service cleaning your \"\"home\"\" but you can cleaning your \"\"office\"\" or your office's facilities. For example, If you have a mother-in-law suite in the back that you converted to an office, AND you have a maid service cleaning just that, THEN you should be able to claim the expense. Another example would be if you have a room in your house set aside as an office (careful here) AND your maid services charges $20 per room, you should be able to claim that $20. Another example; if you have a maid service that charges you $100 to clean your house, AND you have a dedicated office in that house, THEN you may be claim a portion of your expenses as a business expense. HOWEVER!!!! This can be very subject to your situation. For example, your much more likely to meet the criteria if you have clients in your office. Much less likely if your the only person using the office. Also you need to be aware that what the IRS allows you to call an office is not as clear cut as it seems. Your best bet is to ask a tax consultant.\"","\"No, you capitalize all that and deduct as depreciation from the royalties. What it means is that you cannot deduct the expense when it is incurred, but only when you started receiving income that the expense was used to derive. This is similar to capitalizing building improvements which can only be deducted when you start getting rent, or capitalizing software development expenses which can only be deducted once you start selling/licensing the developed software. In the case of book writing - you capitalize the expenses and deduct them once you start receiving royalties. The period over which you deduct (the \"\"depreciation schedule\"\") depends on the type of the expense and the type of the income, so you better get a guidance from a licensed tax accountant (EA or CPA licensed in your State).\"","\"In the US you are not required to have a corporation to use business expenses to offset your income. The technical term you need is \"\"deducting business expenses\"\", and in matters of taxes it's usually best to go straight to the horse's mouth: the IRS's explanations Deducting Business Expenses Business expenses are the cost of carrying on a trade or business. These expenses are usually deductible if the business operates to make a profit. What Can I Deduct? Cost of Goods Sold, Capital Expenses, Personal versus Business Expenses, Business Use of Your Home, Business Use of Your Car, Other Types of Business Expenses None of this requires any special incorporation or tax arrangements, and are a normal part of operating a business. However, there is a bit of a problem with your scenario. You said you \"\"invested\"\" into a business, but you mentioned buying specific things for the business which is not generally how one accounts for investment. If you are not an owner/operator of the business, then the scenario is not so straight-forward, as you can't simply claim someone else's business expenses as your own because you invested in it. Investments are taxed differently than expenses, and based upon your word choices I'm concerned that you could be getting yourself into a bit of a pickle. I would strongly advise you to speak with a professional, such as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), to go over your current arrangement and advise you on how you should be structuring your ongoing investment into this shared business. If you are investing you should be receiving equity to reflect your ownership (or stock in the company, etc), and investments of this sort generally cannot be deducted as an expense on your taxes - it's just an investment, the same as buying stock or CDs. If you are just buying things for someone else's benefit, it's possible that this could be looked upon as a personal gift, and you may be in a precarious legal position as well (where the money is, indeed, just a gift). And gifts of this sort aren't deductible, either. Depending on how this is all structured, it's possible that you should both consider a different form of legal organization, such as a formal corporation or at least an official business partnership. A CPA and an appropriate business attorney should be able to advise you for a nominal (few hundred dollars, at most) fee. If a new legal structure is advisable, you can potentially do the work yourself for a few hundred dollars, or pay to have it done (especially if the situation is more complex) for a few hundred to a few thousand. That's a lot less than you'd be on the hook for if this business is being accounted for improperly, or if either of your tax returns are being reported improperly!\"","\"It's pretty easy. In the Interview Setup for Ufile, check the box for \"\"Self-employment business income\"\". Then during the process of filling everything out, you'll get a Self-Employment screen. It'll ask for the name of your business, but just put your own name since you don't have one. For the 6-digit classification code, click the ? button and look through the list for the industry that best matches the one for whom you wrote the technical report. Or you can go with 711500: Independent artists, writers and performers. It doesn't really matter that much so don't worry if it's a poor match. It will also ask you for your income and expenses. I don't know exactly what costs you might have incurred to write your report, but you can likely claim a very tiny amount of \"\"home office\"\" expenses. Costs like rent (or mortgage interest + property tax), utilities, and home insurance can be claimed, but they have to be pro-rated for the time you were actually doing the work, and are based on the amount of space you used for the work. For example, if you paid $1000 rent and $200 utilities for the month in which the work was done, and it took you 20 of the 31 days in that month to actually do the work, and you used a room that makes up about 10% of the square footage of your home, then you can claim: $1200 * 20/31 * 0.1 = $77.42 for your home office expenses. If you also used that room for non-business purposes during that time, then you reduce it even further. Say, if the room was also used for playing video games 50% of the time, then you'd only claim $38.71\"","First, you can look up the property tax of the building you are in for an exact number. Go to you town's tax office or look at Zillow. You need to claim the rent as income, but will take all expenses as well as depreciation on half the building. The numbers may well work in your favor, especially as a resident landlord. I still own a rental in the next state, but it's 2 hour away, so I'm paying pros to do the simplest things. On site, you can handle all maintenance and save that way. If the cash flow looks like it's better than what you have right now, it might be time to buy. Without seeing the numbers I can't point out what you might be missing.","You've got two options. Deduct the business portion of the depreciation and actual expenses for operating the car. Use the IRS standard mileage rate of $.575/mile in 2015. Multiply your business miles by the rate to calculate your deduction. Assuming you're a sole proprietor you'll include a Schedule C to your return and claim the deduction on that form.","First of all, Dilip's answer explains well how the business deductions generally work. For most (big) expenses you depreciate it. However, in some cases you need to capitalize it, which is another accounting method. When you capitalize your expense, it becomes part of the basis of the product you're creating. Since you're an engineer, this might be relevant for you. Talk to your tax adviser. How exactly you deduct/depreciate/capitalize things, and what expense goes which way depends greatly on the laws and jurisdictions. Even in the US, different states have different laws, and the IRS and State laws don't have to conform (unfortunately). For example, the limitations on Sec. 179 deduction in 2010-2011 were 20 times higher on Federal level than in the State of California. This could have lead to cases where you fully deducted your expense on your Federal tax return, but need to continue and depreciate it on your State return (or vice versa). Good tax adviser is crucial to avoid or manage these cases.","\"Worksheets/ Documentation: (From my experience filing my business deductions through several tax preparers.) Keep all your calculations, but only submit the calculations and worksheets requested by the tax form. Most travel deductions are just a category total. If the IRS wants more info, it will ask for it. Information from the book Home Business Tax Deductions (from Nolo) (2012): Traveling with kids: In chapter 9 (\"\"Leaving Town: Business Travel\"\"), in the section \"\"Taking People With You\"\", it specifically discusses your situation. Paraphrasing, it says that you can deduct the amount any eligible expenses would have cost you if you were traveling without your kids. So, you can deduct the cost the smaller hotel room that you and your wife would have normally rented if you were alone. How your side trips affect your business deductions: According to the book, since you spent 50% or more of your time on business activities while traveling in the U.S.: Deducting meals shared with your kids: You can deduct meals as either entertainment or travel expenses. I would recommend you buy one of Nolo's books on deductions, as it goes into much more detail than I do here.\"","No, you can't claim personal expenses as business expenses. What is the alternative to paying someone to do your chores? Letting the chores go undone. How does it affect your business if your household chores go undone? It doesn't; it only affects your personal life--that's why they are personal expenses.","\"About deducting mortgage interest: No, you can not deduct it unless it is qualified mortgage interest. \"\"Qualified mortgage interest is interest and points you pay on a loan secured by your main home or a second home.\"\" (Tax Topic 505). According to the IRS, \"\"if you rent out the residence, you must use it for more than 14 days or more than 10% of the number of days you rent it out, whichever is longer.\"\" Regarding being taxed on income received from the property, if you claim the foreign tax credit you will not be double taxed. According to the IRS, \"\"The foreign tax credit intends to reduce the double tax burden that would otherwise arise when foreign source income is taxed by both the United States and the foreign country from which the income is derived.\"\" (from IRS Topic 856 - Foreign Tax Credit) About property taxes: From my understanding, these cannot be claimed for the foreign tax credit but can be deducted as business expenses. There are various exceptions and stipulations based on your circumstance, so you need to read the official publications and get professional tax advice. Here's an excerpt from Publication 856 - Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals: \"\"In most cases, only foreign income taxes qualify for the foreign tax credit. Other taxes, such as foreign real and personal property taxes, do not qualify. But you may be able to deduct these other taxes even if you claim the foreign tax credit for foreign income taxes. In most cases, you can deduct these other taxes only if they are expenses incurred in a trade or business or in the production of income. However, you can deduct foreign real property taxes that are not trade or business expenses as an itemized deduction on Schedule A (Form 1040).\"\" Note and disclaimer: Sources: IRS Tax Topic 505 Interest Expense, IRS Real Estate (Taxes, Mortgage Interest, Points, Other Property Expenses) , IRS Topic 514 Foreign Tax Credit , and Publication 856 Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals\"","If it's a legitimate cost of doing business, it's as deductible as any other cost of doing business. (Reminder: be careful about the distinctions between employee and contractor; the IRS gets annoyed if you don't handle this correctly.)","I'm not an expert, but here's my $0.02. Deductions for business expenses are subject to the 2% rule. In other words, you can only deduct that which exceeds 2% of your AGI (Adjusted Gross Income). For example, say you have an AGI of $50,000, and you buy a laptop that costs $800. You won't get a write-off from that, because 2% of $50,000 is $1,000, and you can only deduct business-related expenses in excess of that $1,000. If you have an AGI of $50,000 and buy a $2,000 laptop, you can deduct a maximum of $1,000 ($2,000 minus 2% of $50,000 is $2,000 - $1,000 = $1,000). Additionally, you can write off the laptop only to the extent that you use it for business. So in other words, if you have an AGI of $50,000 and buy that $2,000 laptop, but only use it 50% for business, you can only write off $500. Theoretically, they can ask for verification of the business use of your laptop. A log or a diary would be what I would provide, but I'm not an IRS agent.","I looked at Publication 463 (2014), Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses for examples. I thought this was the mot relevant. No regular place of work. If you have no regular place of work but ordinarily work in the metropolitan area where you live, you can deduct daily transportation costs between home and a temporary work site outside that metropolitan area. Generally, a metropolitan area includes the area within the city limits and the suburbs that are considered part of that metropolitan area. You cannot deduct daily transportation costs between your home and temporary work sites within your metropolitan area. These are nondeductible commuting expenses. This only deals with transportation to and from the temporary work site. Transportation expenses do not include expenses you have while traveling away from home overnight. Those expenses are travel expenses discussed in chapter 1 . However, if you use your car while traveling away from home overnight, use the rules in this chapter to figure your car expense deduction. See Car Expenses , later. You will also have to consider the cost of tolls of the use of a trailer if those apply.","Keep this rather corny acronym in mind. Business expenses must be CORN: As other posters have already pointed out, certain expenses that are capital items (computers, furniture, etc.) must be depreciated over several years, but you have a certain amount of capital items that you can write off in the current tax year.","IRS Publication 463 is a great resource to help you understand what you can and can't deduct. It's not a yes/no question, it depends on the exact company use, other use, and contemporaneous record keeping.","I suggest to start charging slightly more than needed to cover expenses. All you need is to show profit. It doesn't have to be significant - a couple of hundred of dollars of consistent yearly profit should suffice to show a profitable business. Then you can deduct on Schedule C all the related expenses. The caveat is that the profit (after the deduction of the expenses will be a bit smaller) will be subject to not only income tax but also the self-employment tax. But at least you'll pay tax on profit that is not entirely phantom. I remember suggesting you getting a professional consultation on this matter a while ago. You should really do that - talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state, it may be well worth the $100-200 fee they'll charge for the consultation (if at all...).","The basis of the home is the cost of land and material. That's it. Your time isn't added to basis. No different than if you spend 1000 hours in a soup kitchen. You deduct miles for your car and expenses you can document but you can't deduct your time. Over 2 years, you could have a gain up to $500K per married couple and pay no tax.","\"I'm going to look just at purchase price. Essentially, you can't always claim the whole of the purchase price (or 95% your case) in the year (the accounting period) of purchase, but you get a percentage of the value of the car each year, called writing down allowance, which is a capital allowance. It is similar to depreciation, but based on HRMC's own formula. In fact, it seems you probably can claim 95% of the purchase price, because the value is less than £1000. The logic is a bit involved, but I hope you can understand it. You could also claim simplified expenses instead, which is just based on a rate per mile, but you can't claim both. Note, by year I mean whatever your account period is. This could be the normal financial year, but you would probably have a better idea about this. See The HMRC webpage on this for more details. The big idea is that you record the value of any assets you are claiming writing down allowance on in one of a number of pools, that attract the same rate of writing down allowance, so you don't need to record the value of each asset separately. They are similar to accounts in accounting, so they have an opening balance, and closing balance. If you use an asset for personal use, it needs a pool to itself. HRMC call that a single asset pool. So, to start with, look at the Business Cars section, and look at the Rates for Cars section, to determine the rate you can claim. Each one links to a further article, which gives more detail if you need it. Your car is almost certainly in the special rate category. Special rate is 8% a year, main rate is 18%, and First year allowance is essentially 100%. Then, you look at the Work out what you can claim article. That talks you through the steps. I'll go through your example. You would have a pool for your car, which would end the account period before you bought the vehicle at zero (step 1). You then add the value of the car in the period you bought it (Step 2). You would reduce the value of the pool if you dispose of it in the same year (Step 3). Because the car is worth less than £1,000 (see the section on \"\"If you have £1,000 or less in your pool\"\"), you would normally be able to claim the whole value of the pool (the value of the car) in the first accounting period, and reduce the value of the pool to zero. As you use the car for personal use, you only claim 95% of the value, but still reduce the pool to zero. See the section on \"\"Items you use outside your business\"\". This £1000 is adjusted if your accounting period lasts more or less than 12 months. Once the pool is down to zero that it you don't need to think about it any more for tax purposes, apart from if you are claiming other motoring expenses, or if you sell it. It gets more complicated if the car is more expensive. I'll go through an example for a car worth £2,000. Then, after Step 3, on the year of purchase, you would reduce the value of the pool by 8%, and claim 95% of the reduction. This would be a 160 reduction, and 95%*160 = 152 claim, leaving the value of 1860 in the pool. You then follow the same steps for the next year, start with 1840 in the pool, reduce the value by 8%, then claim 95% of the reduction. This continues until you sell or dispose of the car (Step 3), or the value of the pool is 1000 or less, then you claim all of it in that year. Selling the car, or disposing of the car is discussed in the Capital allowances when you sell an asset article. The basic idea is that if you have already reduced the value of the pool to zero, the price you sell the car for is added you your profits for that year (See \"\"If you originally claimed 100% of the item\"\"), if you still have anything in the pool, you reduce the value of the pool by the sale value, and if it reduces to below zero (to -£200, say), you add that amount (£200, in this case), to your profits. If the value is above zero, you keep applying writing down allowances. In your case, that seems to just means if you sell the car in the same year you buy it, you claim the difference (or 95% of it) as writing down allowance, and if you do it later, you claim the purchase price in the year of purchase, and add 95% of the sale price to your profits in the year you sell it. I'm a bit unclear about starting \"\"to use it outside your business\"\", which doesn't seem to apply if you use it outside the business to start with. You can claim simplified expenses for vehicles, if you are a sole trader or partner, but not if you claim capital allowances (such as writing down allowances) on them, or you include a separate expense in your accounts for motoring expenses. It's a flat rate of 45p a mile for the first 10,000 miles, and 25p per mile after that, for cars, and 24p a mile for motorcycles. See the HRMC page on Simplifed Mileage expenses for details. For any vehicle you decide to either claim capital allowances claim running costs separately, or claim simplified mileage expenses, and \"\"Once you use the flat rates for a vehicle, you must continue to do so as long as you use that vehicle for your business.you have to stick with that decision for that vehicle\"\". In your case, it seems you can claim 95% of the purchase price in the accounting period you buy it, and if you sell it you add 95% of the sale price to your profits in that accounting period. It gets more complicated if you have a car worth more than £1000, adjusted for the length of the accounting period. Also, if you change how you use it, consult the page on selling selling an asset, as you may have disposed of it. You can also use simplified mileage expenses, but then you can't claim capital allowances, or claim running costs separately for that car. I hope that makes sense, please comment if not, and I'll try to adjust the explanation.\"","As noted above but with sources An improvement materially adds to the value of your home, considerably prolongs its useful life, or adapts it to new uses. You must add the cost of any improvements to the basis of your home. You cannot deduct these costs. Source Page 11, Adjusted Basis, Improvements Second, A repair keeps your home in an ordinary, efficient operating condition. It does not add to the value of your home or prolong its life. Repairs include repainting your home inside or outside, fixing your gutters or floors, fixing leaks or plastering, and replacing broken window panes. You cannot deduct repair costs and generally cannot add them to the basis of your home. Source Page 12, Adjusted Basis, Repairs versus improvements Generally, an expense for repairing or maintaining your rental property may be deducted if you are not required to capitalize the expense. You must capitalize any expense you pay to improve your rental property. An expense is for an improvement if it results in a betterment to your property, restores your property, or adapts your property to a new or different use. Source Page 5, Repairs and Improvements Good Luck,","It looks like you can. Take a look at these articles: http://www.googobits.com/articles/1747-taking-an-itemized-deduction-for-job-expenses.html http://www.bankrate.com/finance/money-guides/business-expenses-that-benefit-you.aspx http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tax_tips/tax_planning/employment.html But of course, go to the source: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p529/ar02.html#en_US_publink100026912 From publication 529: You can deduct certain expenses as miscellaneous itemized deductions on Schedule A (Form 1040 or Form 1040NR). You can claim the amount of expenses that is more than 2% of your adjusted gross income. You figure your deduction on Schedule A by subtracting 2% of your adjusted gross income from the total amount of these expenses. Your adjusted gross income is the amount on Form 1040, line 38, or Form 1040NR, line 36. I hope that helps. Happy deducting!","And he has to pay for it every home repair and every month the property sets empty. His loss each month is not $250, but probably closer to $500. In generally you need to clear at least $200 ABOVE PTI (principle, taxes and interest) to cover repair and the like to property. From your post, it sounds like your dad was forced into the land-lord business by the recession. Unless he plans to hold the property until its rental value has increased by $500 a month, he should consider selling it and writing-off the loss. Losing money bit by bit on a house isn't a tax write-off event. Selling a property for less than you bought it for generally is. FYI, I got the $500/month loss by assuming that repairs/emptiness/etc will cost you about $200 a month, and added $50 for your dad's time managing the property.","IRS Publication 529 is the go-to document. Without being a tax professional, I'd say if the dues and subscriptions help you in the running of your business, then they're deductible. You're on your own if you take my advice (or don't). ;)","Most items used in business have to be depreciated; you get to deduct a small fraction of the cost each year depending on the lifetime of the item as per IRS rules. That is, you cannot assume a one-year life for an electronic item even if it will be obsolete in three months. Some items can be expensed; you get to deduct the entire cost in the first year but then if you don't stay in business, e.g. you get a job paying wages and are no longer self-employed, you have to recapture this and pay taxes on the amount recaptured in the later year. With respect to consumer-type electronics such as an iPad or laptop, it helps to have a separate item for personal use that you can show in case of an audit.","If you and your wife are owners, your tickets might be a business expense against the rental income. 'Might' as in the IRS will be happy to audit you, seeing the kids went as well and prorating the expense as say 25% was really business, the rest, family vacation. If this $4000 write off is the make or break for this deal, don't do it.","Not authoritative, but according to TurboTax: If your new cell phone acts as both your business and personal phone, you are only allowed to deduct the portion used for business from your taxable income. It’s important for you to hang on to your itemized phone bill and receipts to ensure that you’re deducting the right amounts and to keep records of your deduction. Since the usage you're describing sounds like a very small amount of the overall usage, it will probably be difficult to justify a business expense deduction.","\"You are \"\"pool[ing] the sales from both houses as downpayment on the new house.\"\" But they are going to pay you rent. Your question as it stands, just opens more questions. What, exactly is the ownership of the new house? If your's (and your wife's) was the money a gift? Ignoring the gift, if that's what it is, and if the in-law suite is 25% of the house value, you have a rental. You claim 25% of the expenses, including property tax and mortgage interest, along with 25% of the utilities, unless their part has its own meters. That's a start, if you add details, I may edit my answer. (Not to be pedantic, but whose parents are they. They can't be \"\"our in-laws,\"\" can they?)\"","Yes, use a separate Form 8829 for each home used for business during the year. The top of 8829 includes that exact instruction.","Yes, you can. That the books were purchased from abroad is irrelevant: you incurred an expense in the course of earning your income. If the books are expensive (>$300 per set iirc) you will need to deprecate them over a reasonable life time rather than claiming the entire amount up front. It doesn't matter whether what you got was a VAT Invoice; as long as you have some reasonable documentation of the expense you're ok.","Bartering is a tricky discussion. Yes, it definitely applies when you are self-employed and do a job that you would charge anyone else for, but what if you are helping a friend in your spare time? If you receive something in exchange, the value of the item you received would be your income, but what if you don't receive anything in exchange? If the company bought a computer that they loan to you to do occasional work for them, there's no reason you couldn't take the computer home and have that company retain ownership of the property. They could still expense the depreciation of the computer without giving it to you. If it were a car though, you would have to count mileage for personal use as income. What if you exchange occasional tech support for the use of an empty desk and Internet connection? As long as they aren't renting desks for money to others, there's probably no additional marginal cost to them if they allow you to use the space, so the fair market value question breaks down.","If I sell it for $50 can I write off the $50 loss. Only if you can establish that it is a normal part of your business and that you did not get $50 worth of use out of it. That's the technical, legal argument. As a practical matter, it's unlikely that they'll ding you for selling something after using it, as they won't know. If they did catch you, you would be in trouble. You can't deduct loss due to personal use. The larger problem is that if you sell one TV for a $50 loss, they aren't going to believe that you are in the business of selling TVs. If you sell a larger amount for a loss, then they still are unlikely to believe that you are in business. If you sell a large amount for an overall gain, they are unlikely to notice that you took a loss on one TV. They could only notice that if they were already auditing you, as that wouldn't be visible in your tax forms.","Alright, IRS Publication 463: Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses Business and personal use. If you use your car for both business and personal purposes, you must divide your expenses between business and personal use. You can divide your expense based on the miles driven for each purpose. Example. You are a sales representative for a clothing firm and drive your car 20,000 miles during the year: 12,000 miles for business and 8,000 miles for personal use. You can claim only 60% (12,000 ÷ 20,000) of the cost of operating your car as a business expense Obviously nothing helpful in the code. So I would use option 1, weight the maintenance-related mileage by the proportion of business use. Although if you use your car for business a lot (and perhaps have a spouse with a car), an argument could be made for 3. So I would consider my odds of being audited (even lower this year due to IRS budget cuts) and choose 1 or 3. And of course never throw anything away until you're room temperature.","\"I have done several days of additional research on this and found out that it appears I can deduct the cost of the books against a single year's royalty income by claiming a Section 179 deduction. The steps are as follows: (1) Write the maximum amount of property you can claim under section 179 on line 1 of Form 4562. (2) Add up the total cost of section 179 property you began using during the tax year, including books, and record the amount on line 2. (3) Write the limit of your deductions on line 3. (4) Subtract the amount on line 2 from the amount on line 3 and record it on line 4. If line 3 is larger than line 2, simply write \"\"0\"\" on line 4, then subtract the amount on line 4 from the amount on line 1 and record on line 5. Step 5 (5) Describe the property and books on line 6 and record the cost of each in section b. Write the amount of the expense you are claiming for each item in section c of line 6. You can claim the entire cost of the books. (6) Add the amount in line 6 c to any amounts on line 7 and write the total on line 8. Write either the amount on line 8 or the amount on 5 on line 9, depending on which is smaller. (7) Write the amount of your Schedule C income on line 11, unless it is greater than $500,000. On line 12, write the amount of your deduction, which is the total of line 9 plus any carry-over you may have had from the previous year. (8) Record the amount of your deduction for section 179 books and property on line 13 of your Schedule C, not line 22. Include form 4562 when you hand in your tax return. source: \"\"How to Deduct Books for Self-Employed\"\" by Emily Weller\"","In most cases the rent paid by the company would be include as part of your salary for tax purposes, so your income would still be seen as $5000 per month.","In some circumstances losses from self-employment can be offset against total income and/or capital gains. If this applies to you may be able to claim back some of the tax taken by PAYE from your day job. You can also to some extent carry the loss backwards into previous tax years or forward into the next one if you can't use it fully this year. HMRC have some information available on the current rules: When you can claim losses You can claim: But You can’t claim:","The answer on the Canadian Government's website is pretty clear: Most employees cannot claim employment expenses. You cannot deduct the cost of travel to and from work, or other expenses, such as most tools and clothing. However, that is most likely related to a personal vehicle. There is a deduction related to Public Transportation: You can claim cost of monthly public transit passes or passes of longer duration such as an annual pass for travel within Canada on public transit for 2016. The second sleeping residence is hard to justify as the individual is choosing to work in this town and this individual is choosing to spent the night there - it is not currently a work requirement. As always, please consult a certified tax professional in your country for any final determinations on personal (and corporate) tax laws and filings.","Assuming your country is the United States there is. See schedule C line 9 and the corresponding instructions. There are many rules associated with this, in some cases the entire purchase can be written off but typically if the truck is only used for business. Most people write off partial usage in the form of credits for mileage. You are best to consult with a CPA once your business earns a profit. Good luck.","Ah, I did some more research and apparently Rental Income is considered Passive Income, and as such the IRS does not allow a net loss to exist, but you can carry the loss over into the next year. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc425.html Generally, losses from passive activities that exceed the income from passive activities are disallowed for the current year. You can carry forward disallowed passive losses to the next taxable year. A similar rule applies to credits from passive activities. So in the event in a loss on my rental business activity, I simply pay no tax on it, and deduct the remainder in income in 2017 from taxes. I don't make any changes to my Consulting income at all.","How is it a write off? I write off my mortgage interest, it reduces my taxable income, but has no impact on my EBIT. If I paid workers more, my EBIT would go down and, due to this, my taxable income would go down. One is independent of my earnings, the other is a function of it. The former is a write off, the latter isn't, right?","Yes. You must register for GST as well, if you will be making over the threshold (currently $60,000). That's probably a bonus for you, as your home office expenses will mostly include GST, but your income will most likely be zero-rated. Check with an accountant or with the IRD directly. Just be certain to put aside enough money from each payment to cover income tax, GST and ACC. You will get a very large bill in your second year of business.","\"When I have a question about my income taxes, the first place I look is generally the Giant Book of Income Tax Information, Publication 17 (officially called \"\"Your Federal Income Tax\"\"). This looks to be covered in Chapter 26 on \"\"Car Expenses and Other Employee Business Expenses\"\". It's possible that there's something in there that applies to you if you need to temporarily commute to a place that isn't your normal workplace for a legitimate business reason or other business-related travel. But for your normal commute from your home to your normal workplace it has this to say: Commuting expenses. You cannot deduct the costs of taking a bus, trolley, subway, or taxi, or of driving a car between your home and your main or regular place of work. These costs are personal commuting expenses. You cannot deduct commuting expenses no matter how far your home is from your regular place of work. You cannot deduct commuting expenses even if you work during the commuting trip.\""],"string":"[\n \"If the UK is similar to Australia then you would not claim a virtual rent for the business portion but instead could claim a portion of the house expenses such as electricity use, property taxes, and yes a portion of the mortgage, and any repairs or renovations done to the work areas of the house. However, you should keep in mind that if you sell the place you may have to pay CGT on the portion you were claiming for business use.\",\n \"In Canada I think you'd do it as a % of square footage. For example: Then you can count 20% of the cost of the of renting the apartment as a business expense. I expect that conventions (i.e. that what's accepted rather than challenged by the tax authorities) may vary from country to country.\",\n \"As someone who used to be an IT contractor in the UK and used to work from home, my advice is to talk to your accountant in detail. It's been a few years, but IIRC you can write off some small stuff like proportional heating costs etc, but in my case it was so minuscule that it wasn't worth the effort. You're likely better off to just leave it. Talk to your accountant :). \",\n \"\\\"According to this post on TurboTax forums, you could deduct it as an \\\"\\\"Unreimbursed Employee\\\"\\\" expense. This would seem consistent with the IRS Guidelines on such deductions: An expense is ordinary if it is common and accepted in your trade, business, or profession. An expense is necessary if it is appropriate and helpful to your business. An expense does not have to be required to be considered necessary. Office rent is not listed explicitly among the examples of deductible unreimbursed employee expenses, but this doesn't mean it's not allowed. Of course you should check with a tax professional if you want to be sure.\\\"\",\n \"The general rule is: Generally, in order to claim a business deduction for your home, you must use part of your home exclusively and regularly: Exclusively seems to be the toughest standard and I do not know exactly how strict the IRS's interpretation is. Working in your living room where you regularly watch TV and have people over on the weekends would seem to fail that test. A separate room with your computer in it would pass it. If it was your only computer and you regularly played online games with it, that would seem to be a grey area. The IRA booklet covering this area is here http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p587.pdf I know people that have rented rooms in other places or made use of rental offices for this purpose.\",\n \"\\\"If you are a telecommuter and in good terms with your employer, then all you need is contact your employer and explain your situation. Ask them for a short letter that indicates: \\\"\\\"1. they require you to work from a privately rented office (or from a home office for those who prefer working from home), 2. this is one of the terms of your employment, and, 3. they will not reimburse you for this expense.\\\"\\\" With this letter in your hand, you satisify both the \\\"\\\"convenience of employer\\\"\\\" test AND the deduction of the rent for your private office as a unreimbursed employee expense. The IRS cannot expect your employer to open an office branch in your city just for your sake, nor can they expect you to commute to your employer's city for work, which is an impossiblity considering the distance. Additionally, the IRS cannot \\\"\\\"force\\\"\\\" telecommuters to work from home. The key is to get a letter from your employer. You'd be surprised how easily they are willing to write such letter for you.\\\"\",\n \"You can do it, provided that the bedroom is ONLY set up as an office. That is, no bed, TV or other stuff. You can stretch it a bit, considering a TV is also a monitor, a couch is also a visitor couch. Whatever route you choose you have to be able to justify what everything is doing there in case of a visit from the authorities. I am (was) in exactly the same situation for two years and had no problem deducting ~30% of the housing costs. That is, the usage of bathroom and utilities is calculated as proportional to the surface area given to the office. It might make more sense to move into a larger apartment just so you can have one designated office room. Edit: the above applies in Germany, YMMV, IANAL, etc. EU is pretty consistent though in regulations and as far as I know the above aplies in most EU countries.\",\n \"Source on GOV.UK You may be able to get tax back for some of the bills you have to pay because you have to work at home on a regular basis. You can only claim for things to do with your work, eg business telephone calls or the extra cost of gas and electricity for your work area. You can’t claim for things that you use for both private and business use, eg rent or broadband access. You don’t need to provide records for claims of up to £4 per week (£18 per month). For claims over £4 per week you’ll need to provide evidence of what you’ve spent. Claims up to £2,500 You must claim using a Self Assessment tax return if you already fill one in. If you don’t already fill in a Self Assessment tax return, and your allowable expenses are under £2,500 for the tax year, fill in form P87 and send it to the address on the form. If you’ve made a successful claim in a previous tax year and your expenses are less than £1,000 (or £2,500 for professional fees and subscriptions), you may be able to make your claim by phone. Claims over £2,500 You must claim using a Self Assessment tax return.\",\n \"You can claim a deduction only if all of your business is conducted from the home, i.e. your home is your principal place of business - not just if you work from home sometimes. The CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) has pretty strict guidelines listed here, but once you're sure you qualify for a deduction, the next step would be to determine what portion of your home qualifies. You cannot attempt to deduct your entire mortgage simply because you run your business out of your home. The portion of your mortgage and other related & allowable home expense deductions has to be pro-rated to be equal to or less than the portion of your home you use for business. Simply put, if your business is operated out of a 120 sq-ft self-contained space, and your home's total square-footage is 2400 sq-ft, you can deduct 5% of your expenses (120/2,400 = 0.05). Hope this helps!\",\n \"Talk to a tax professional. The IRS really doesn't like the deduction, and it's a concept (like independent contractors) that is often not done properly. You need to, at a minimum, have records, including timestamped photographs, proving that: Remember, documentation is key, and must be filed and accessible for a number of years. Poor record keeping will cost you dearly, and the cost of keeping those records is something that you need to weigh against the benefit.\",\n \"Your best approach is to assess rent levels in your local area for offices of a similar size. You need to take into account all the usuals - amenities, parking, etc, just as if your home-office was provided by a third-party. Get your $/sq ft and work out the monthly amount. With this figure, you need to then work out what % of it you can charge. If the space is used exclusively for the business, charge 100%. If it's used about half the time, charge 50%, etc. I would strongly advise you to do two things - 1. make sure your accountant and your attorney help you get this squared away. 2. document everything about how you arrived at the cost. Nothing fancy, but dates, realtors, addresses, $/sq foot. A simple table will do. By doing these two things, if the IRS should come around to chat, you should be covered.\",\n \"There are other answers here about how much you can deduct for a home office. What seems unique is the question of whether you can deduct it for both your LLC and for your employment. Unless your LLC owns the home, you cannot deduct the depreciation directly. Instead you have to charge your LLC rent for the time that you are using the space for the LLC. That rent must be declared as income on your personal tax return, and you can then offset some of it with the time you spend in that space working for your employer and depreciation for time it is being rented to your LLC. Using a strategy this complex may save you a few bucks on your return, but this is definitely an area where a tax professional is worth the expense making sure you get it right.\",\n \"\\\"You are pushing your luck, but not because you're not in the US, because it is likely that you're not qualified. From what you said, I doubt you can take it (I'm not a professional though, get a professional opinion). You say \\\"\\\"dedicated space\\\"\\\". It has to be an exclusive room. You cannot deduct 10 sq. ft. from your living room because your computer that is used wholly for your business is there. It has to be a room that is used exclusively for your business, and for your business only. I.e.: nothing not related to the business is there, and when you're there the only thing you do is working on your business. Your office doesn't have to be in the US necessarily, to the best of my knowledge. Your office must be in your home. If you take primary residence exclusion as part of your FEI, then I doubt you can deduct as well.\\\"\",\n \"Your freelance income will not qualify you for the work-from-home deductions, for that you would need a T2200 form signed by your employer. But, you are allowed to be self employed as a sole-proprietorship while still being an employee of another company. If you take that route, you'll be able to write-off even more expenses than those you linked to. Things like a portion of your internet bill can be claimed, for example. But note that these deductions would only apply to offset the self-employment income, so if you're not earning very much from the freelance work, it might not be worth all the hassle. Filing taxes when self-employed is definitely more complicated, and many people will get professional tax preparation help - at least for the first time.\",\n \"\\\"If you are talking about a home office, you don't \\\"\\\"charge\\\"\\\" the business anything. If the area is used exclusively as an office you pro-rate by square footage just the actual expenses. TurboTax recent published an article \\\"\\\"Can I Take the Home Office Deduction?\\\"\\\" which is a must read if you don't understand the process. (Note: I authored said article.)\\\"\",\n \"\\\"If you use \\\"\\\"a room or other separately identifiable space\\\"\\\" within your apartment exclusively for your business, then you might be able to recoup a fraction of your rent for that. Check the rules for home office at the IRS and adopt a consistent and well-documented approach. (I would pay your full rent out of your personal account, and then do an \\\"\\\"expense report\\\"\\\" for the portion that's legitimately business related, but that's not a unique approach.) Other than that, I agree with the answer by litteadv - You cannot reduce your tax by the full amount of your rent just by having the S Corp pay, and trying to do so is probably playing with fire. Generally speaking, don't comingle business and personal expenses like that.\\\"\",\n \"Be ruthlessly meticulous about the IRS regulations for deducting a home office. If it's allowed, it's allowed.\",\n \"\\\"Can she claim deductions for her driving to and from work? Considering most people use their cars mostly to commute to/from work, there must be limits to what you can consider \\\"\\\"claimable\\\"\\\" and what you can't, otherwise everyone would claim back 80% of their mileage. No, she can't. But if she's driving from one work site to another, that's deductible whether or not either of the work sites is her home office. Can she claim deductions for her home office? There's a specific set of IRS tests you have to meet. If she meets them, she can. If you're self-employed, reasonably need an office, and have a place in your house dedicated to that purpose, you will likely meet all the tests. Can I claim deductions for my home office, even though I have an official work place that is not in my home? It's very hard to do so. The use of your home office has to benefit your employer, not just you. Can we claim deductions for our home internet service? If the business or home office uses them, they should be a deductible home office expense in some percentage. Usually for generic utilities that benefit the whole house, you deduct at the same percentage as the home office is of the entire house. But you can use other fractions if more appropriate. For example, if you have lots of computers in the home office, you can deduct more of the electricity if you can justify the ratio you use. Run through the rules at the IRS web page.\\\"\",\n \"Tax regulations vary from country to country - some permitting more deductions, some less - but here are a few guidelines. As regards the home-office: As regards the deductions: Think of it like this: in order to have space for a home-office you needed a bigger home. That leads to increased rates, heating, insurance and so on. Many tax regulators recognise that these are genuine expenses. The alternative is to rent a separate office and incur greater expenses, leading to increased deductions and less overall tax paid (which won't finance the deficit). The usual test for deductions is: was the expense legitimately incurred in the pursuit of revenue? The flexibility permitted will vary by tax authority but you can frequently deduct more than you expected.\",\n \"The answer is simple. You can generally claim a deduction for an expense if that expense was used to derive an income. Of course social policy sometimes gets in the way and allows for deductions where they usually wouldn't be allowed. Your rent is not tax deductible because this expense is not used to derive your income. If however you were working from your home, example - you had a home based business, and you dedicated a part of your home for your work, say an office, then part of your rent may then become tax deductible.\",\n \"On form 8829, line 20 you can list utilities paid for the home office. You have two choices: 1) You can list the entire amount under column (b) as an indirect expense. You will then get a deduction for the fraction of the amount based on what fraction of your home is an office. This makes sense if the service equally benefits your entire home. 2) You can compute the portion of the expense reasonably attributable to the business/office and list that amount under column (a). This entire amount will be deducted. Which option you choose depends on how well you think you can allocate the expense between your office and the rest of your home. For example, I have had to do this with electricity, but I specifically measured the electricity used by my office. If you think you can defend allocating a larger portion to the office, use option 2. If you would have paid the same amount even if you didn't have an office, it's hard to justify allocating more of the expense to the office than its portion of the home. If you opted for a more expensive service or otherwise incurred additional costs, it makes sense to allocate a higher fraction to the office and to calculate that yourself.\",\n \"As DJClayworth said, be very careful with this one! The property is a residence, not a business location. Given that, it is almost a certainty that the IRS is not going to let you claim 100% of the expenses for the home as a business expense, even if nobody's actually living there. You may get away with doing this for a period of time and not run into zoning or other issues such as those DJ mentioned, but it's like begging for trouble. You run the very real risk of being audited if you try to do what you're proposing, and rest assured, whatever you saved in taxes will disappear like smoke in the wind under an audit. That being said, there's no reason you can't call a tax service and ask a simple question, because in answering it they're going to hope to gain your business. It'd be well worth the phone call before you land yourself in any hot water with the IRS. I can tell you that I'd rather have a double root canal with no anesthetic than go through an audit, even when I didn't do anything wrong! (grin) Good luck!\",\n \"Yes, all the house footage is treated the same. The use of home is a (suspected) audit trigger, so do consult with a tax professional if you want to take this deduction. From the statute (IRC Sec. 280A): The term dwelling unit includes a house, apartment, condominium, mobile home, boat, or similar property, and all structures or other property appurtenant to such dwelling unit.\",\n \"This answer is assuming you're in the US, which apparently you're not. I doubt that the rules in the EU are significantly different, but I don't know for sure. In case of an IRS control, is it ok to say that I regularly connect remotely to work from home although in the work contract it says I must work at client's office? No. Are there any other ways I can prove that this deduction is valid? No. You can't prove something is valid when its not. You can only deduct home office expense if it is used exclusively for your business, and your bedroom obviously is not.\",\n \"As I understand it... Generally housing can't be considered a business expense unless taken at your employer's explicit direction, for the good of the business rather than the employee. Temporary assignment far enough from you home office that commuting or occasional hotel nights are impractical, maybe. In other words, if they wouldn't be (at least theoretically) willing to let you put it on an expense account, you probably can't claim it here.\",\n \"It's the same result either way. Say the bills are $600, and you are reimbursed $400. You'd be able to write off $400 as part of the utilities that are common expenses, but then claim the $400 as income. I'd stick with that, and have contemporaneous records supporting all cash flow. You also can take 2/3 of any other maintenance costs that most homeowners can't. Like snow removal, lawn care, etc.\",\n \"\\\"I'm not a tax professional, but as I understand it, you are not expected to commute from San Francisco to Boston. :) If your employer has not provided you with an external office, then yes, you have very likely met the \\\"\\\"convenience of the employer\\\"\\\" test. However, to take the home office deduction, there are many requirements that have to be met. You can read more at the Nolo article Can You Deduct Your Home Office When You're an Employee? (Thanks, keshlam) The home office deduction has many nuances and is enough of an IRS red flag that you would be well-advised to talk to an accountant about it. You need to be able to show that it is exclusively and necessarily used for your job. Another thing to remember: as an employee, the home office deduction, if you take it, will be deducted on Schedule A, line 21 (unreimbursed employee expenses), among other Miscellaneous Deductions. Deductions in this section need to exceed 2% of your adjusted gross income before you can start to deduct. So it will not be worth it to pursue the deduction if your income is too high, or your housing expenses are too low, or your office is too small compared to the rest of your house, or you don't itemize deductions.\\\"\",\n \"This is essentially a reimbursement of your expense. Since you can deduct the expense, the fact that the reimbursement is taxable doesn't affect you much. You deduct your home office expenses on your annual tax return using form 8829. See the IRS site for more details. If you're asking about the UK tax, there may be some other considerations, but from the US tax perspective it is (nearly) a wash.\",\n \"\\\"Yes, you may deduct the cost of building the \\\"\\\"noise cancellation system\\\"\\\" :) sorry couldn't resist. But seriously, yes you can deduct it ONCE (unless you have more cost maintaining it) and its on line 19 (Repairs and maintenance) of IRS Form 8829.\\\"\",\n \"You will need to look at the 27.5 year depreciation table from the IRS. It tells you how you will be able to write off the first year. It depends on which month you had the unit ready to rent. Note that that it might be a different month from when you moved, or when the first tenant moved in. Your list is pretty good. You can also claim some travel expenses or mileage related to the unit. Also keep track of any other expenses such as switching the water bill to the new renter, or postage. If you use Turbo tax, not the least expensive version, it can be a big help to get started and to remember how much to depreciate each year.\",\n \"If it's a rental, you will write off the losses via Schedule E. You should read this document and its instructions to understand this fully. You will also take depreciation on the value of the building, not the land, over 27.5 years. If you don't understand this, search here, there are discussions that cover this. If it's not a rental, but your home or second home, you take the interest and real estate tax off you tax via Schedule A, if you itemize. (I see the tag 'rental' but leave this line for sake of a complete answer.)\",\n \"\\\"In the UK it all comes down to what HMRC will allow you to charge without taxing you on the \\\"\\\"rent profit\\\"\\\" and not hitting capital gain tax when you sell the house, it may not all count as your \\\"\\\"main home\\\"\\\" if some is rented out. (http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/ is a good place to ask this type of questions in the uk)\\\"\",\n \"I heard that a C-Corp being a one person shop (no other employees but the owner) can pay for the full amount 100% of personal rent if the residence is being used as a home office. Sure. Especially if you don't mind being audited. Technically, it doesn't matter how the money gets where it goes as long as the income tax filings accurately describe the tax situation. But the IRS hates it when you make personal expenses from a business account, even if you've paid the required personal income tax (because their computers simply aren't smart enough to keep up with that level of chaos). Also, on a non-tax level, commingling of business and personal funds can reduce the effectiveness of your company's liability protection and you could more easily become personally liable if the company goes bankrupt. From what I understand the 30% would be the expense, and the 70% profit distribution. I recommend you just pay yourself and pay the rent from your personal account and claim the allowed deductions properly like everyone else. Why & when it would make sense to do this? Are there any tax benefits? Never, because, no. You would still have to pay personal income tax on your 70% share of the rent (the 30% you may be able to get deductions for but the rules are quite complicated and you should never just estimate). The only way to get money out of a corporation without paying personal income tax is by having a qualified dividend. That's quite complicated - your accounting has to be clear that the money being issued as a qualified dividend came from an economic profit, not from a paper profit resulting from the fact that you worked hard without paying yourself market value.\",\n \"It depends on the structure of your business. Are you a sole proprietor filing Schedule C on your 1040, or an S-corp, or part of a partnership? The treatment of a home office will differ depending on business entity.\",\n \"No, you cannot write off time, period. You should price the time spent into your product. I, occasionally, work on side projects of my own and forgo the possibility of earning direct income for that time. Income not earned is income not taxed, so there's nothing to deduct.\",\n \"A computer is a special case because the IRS thinks that you might be using it for personal applications. You may need to keep a log, or be able to state that you also have another computer for non-business use. That said, if your schedule C shows a small profit then you don't need to itemize expenses, just state the total.\",\n \"The short answer is no you can only deduct actual expenses. The long answer is that it would be impossible for the IRS to determine the value of your time and it would open the tax system to an enormous amount of fraud (think of being able to make up time spent or writing off time spent volunteering at a soup kitchen or any other charity). Now you can write off expenses you have involved in doing the work, equipment and supplies used to do the work along with any wages you paid an employee or contractor to do said work.\",\n \"\\\"I disagree with BrenBran, I don't think this is qualified as unreimbursed employee expense. For it to qualify, it has to be ordinary and necessary, and specifically - necessary for your employer. This is not the case for you, as there's no such necessity. From employer's perspective, you can work from your home just as well. In fact, the expense is your personal, as it is your choice, not \\\"\\\"unreimbursed employee expense\\\"\\\" since your employer didn't even ask you to do it. You should clarify this with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in New York).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Suppose that I work from home, but do not qualify for a business use of home deduction. As I understand it, this means I cannot deduct trips from home to another work location (e.g., going to a client's home or office to do work there). I do not think this is true. You cannot deduct trips to your main business location, i.e.: you cannot deduct trips to your office or client's location if this is your main client and you routinely work on-site. However, if you only visit your clients on occasion for specific events while doing your routine work at home - you can definitely deduct those trips. The deduction of the home usage itself has nothing to do with it. However, there's a different reason they refer to pub 587. Your home must qualify as principal place of business (even if it doesn't qualify for deduction). The qualifications of \\\"\\\"principal place of business\\\"\\\" are described in pub 587. \\\"\\\"if for some personal reason you do not go directly from one location to the other, you cannot deduct more than the amount it would have cost you to go directly from the first location to the second.\\\"\\\" What is not clear to me is what exactly is deductible if there are significant time gaps (within a single day) between trips to different clients. You got it right. What this quote means is that if you have client A and client B, and you drive from A to B - you can only deduct the travel between A and B, nothing else. I.e.: if you have 2 hours to kill and you take a trip to the mall - you cannot deduct the mileage attributable to that trip. You only deduct the actual distance between A and B as it would be had you driven from A to B directly. The example you cite re first client being considered as the place of business is for the case where your home doesn't qualify as principal place of business. In this case you start counting miles from your first client, and only for direct trips from client to client. If you only have 1 client in that day, tough luck, nothing to deduct. Also, it's not clear whether stopoffs between clients would really be \\\"\\\"personal reasons\\\"\\\", since the appointment times are often set by the client, so it's not as if the delay between A and B was just because I felt like it; there was never the option of going directly from A to B. That's what is called \\\"\\\"facts and circumstances\\\"\\\". You can argue that you had enough time between meetings to go back to your home office to continue working. The IRS agent auditing you (and you're likely to get audited) will consider that. Maybe will accept it. Maybe not. If I had a gap like that described above, I could save on my taxes by going to the park or a hamburger stand instead of going home between A and B But then you wouldn't be at home, so why would it be \\\"\\\"principal place of business\\\"\\\" if you're not there? Boom, lost deduction for the trip to the first client. I suggest you talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). You're dealing with deductions that are considered \\\"\\\"red flags\\\"\\\" for the IRS. I.e.: many people believe that these deductions (business use of your home/car) trigger audits. To substantiate business use of your car you need to keep very good track of your travels (literally travel log, they sell them at Staples), and make sure to distinguish between personal travel and business travel, keep proofs that the meetings took place (although keeping a log is a requirement, it can be backdated/faked, so if audited - the IRS will want to see more than your own documentation). A good tax adviser will educate you on all these rules, and also clarify the complexities you were asking about here. I'm not a tax adviser, so don't rely on this answer when you're preparing your tax return or responding to the IRS audit. In your edit you ask this: Specifically, what I'm wondering is whether it is possible for a home to qualify as a \\\"\\\"principal place of business\\\"\\\" for purposes of deducting car expenses but not for the home office deduction. The answer is yes. Deductibility is determined by exclusivity of use, among other things. But the fact that you manage your business from your kitchen doesn't make your kitchen any less of a principal place of business. It is non-deductible because you also cook your dinners there, but it is still, nonetheless, your principal place of business. The Pub 587 which I linked to has these qualifications: Your home office will qualify as your principal place of business if you meet the following requirements. You use it exclusively and regularly for administrative or management activities of your trade or business. You have no other fixed location where you conduct substantial administrative or management activities of your trade or business. As you see, exclusivity of the usage of your home area is not a requirement here. The \\\"\\\"exclusively and regularly\\\"\\\" in the quote refers to your business not using any other location, and managing it from home regularly. I.e.: if you manage your business a day in a year - that's not enough for it to be considered principal. If you manage your business from your office and your home - you cannot consider home as principal.\\\"\",\n \"Very simple. If it wasn't rented, it's deductible as a schedule A home mortgage interest. If it was rented, you go into Schedule E land, still a deduction along with any/every expense incurred.\",\n \"Yes, legitimate, documented, expenses are written off against that income.\",\n \"Only if your work on the side is making you at least £60,000 profit a year. The overheads are just not worth it if you make less. Working as a sole trader, you can still claim for expenses incurred in the course of your business. You can also claim a percentage of your computer costs, even though you may use the computer for gaming. This is not unreasonable as the computer is necessary for your work. The Inland Revenue accept the fact that some assets are part work-related. In your case, as a web and mobile phone developer, I expect the percentage to be at least half, if not a lot more. If you need to travel in the course of your work you can claim a percentage for your car. You can include other small expenses such as telephone, stationery, electricity etc but don't go overboard. The important point to remember is that you must be able to defend the expenses claimed as work-related, so long as you can do this there is no problem. Remember to keep good records of all your expenses. This is on-going throughout the year and is much more work than filling out your tax return. The software on the IR self-assessment site is excellent, so it's conceivable that you may not need an accountant if you are prepared to do your own tax return. However, if you feel unsure employ an accountant initially and take it from there.\",\n \"Before starting to do this, make sure that you are squeaky clean in all aspects of your tax preparation and are prepared to back up any claims that you make with documentation. Home office deductions are a huge red flag that often trigger audits. Follow mbhunter's advice and be incredibly meticulous about following the rules and keeping records.\",\n \"It will come down the percentage of time you use a specific area in your home. For each business you will be asked to first designate a percentage of your home you use for that business, then the percentage of time you use it. The space for both businesses might be the same, but the percentage of use would not. You could not claim 100% for both businesses. The combined petcentage of use could not exceed 100%.\",\n \"Here are the general guidelines on what you should report and pay - but the overall rule is that if it's not a business-related cost then you can't claim it. In your example, a client meeting may warrant a claim for 'entertaining clients' which could be claimed as a business cost - but buying yourself a coffee to get out of the house isn't a business cost.\",\n \"Your home doesn't belong to the partnership, it belongs to you. So you can (if qualified) deduct home office usage as a business expense on your individual tax return. Same goes to your partner. Similarly any other unreimbursed expense.\",\n \"The short answer is yes you probably can take the deduction for a home office because the space is used exclusively and you are working there for the convenience of your employer if you don't have a desk at your employers office. The long answer is that it may not be worth it to take the home office deduction as an employee. You're deduction is subject to a 2% AGI floor. You can only deduct a percentage of your rent or the depreciation on your home. A quick and dirty example if you make $75k/year, rent a 1200 sqft 2 bedroom apartment for $1000/month and use one bedroom (120 sqft) regularly and exclusively for your employer. You can deduct 10% (120sqft/1200sqft) of the $12000 ($1000*12 months (assumes your situation didn't change)) in rent or $1200. However because you are an employee you are subject to the 2% AGI floor so you can deduct $1200-$1500 (75000*.02 (salary * 2% floor)) = -300 so in order to deduct the first dollar you need an additional $300 worth of deductible expenses. Depending on your situation it may or may not be worth it to take the home office deduction even if you qualify for it.\",\n \"Do I get a write off for paying student loans? Maybe. See https://www.irs.gov/publications/p970/ch04.html Generally, personal interest you pay, other than certain mortgage interest, isn't deductible on your tax return. However, if your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) is less than $80,000 ($160,000 if filing a joint return) there is a special deduction allowed for paying interest on a student loan (also known as an education loan) used for higher education. For most taxpayers, MAGI is the adjusted gross income as figured on their federal income tax return before subtracting any deduction for student loan interest. This deduction can reduce the amount of your income subject to tax by up to $2,500. Read the whole document to be sure, but that's the basics. You'll have to fill out a 1040 or 1040A to claim a student loan deduction. It won't be on the 1040EZ. You do not have to itemize though. What kinds of write-offs and credits are available for someone who is single and lives in an apartment with two roommates? As a practical matter, in 2016 you'll get the standard deduction for someone who is single ($6300) and the personal exemption ($4050). It's extremely unlikely that you'll be able to deduct more by itemizing. Most people who itemize are taking a mortgage interest deduction. Major medical bills are another possibility, but they have to be more than 10% of your adjusted gross income (it's one of the lines on your tax return). Assuming you rent and are reasonably healthy, you are unlikely to have enough to itemize. The most likely additional deduction would be the one for an IRA (Individual Retirement Account). Although you might be better off doing a Roth anyway (no tax deduction). If you are self-employed or making more than $100,000 a year, there are additional issues. But most people aren't. If you filled out a W-4 and will get a W-2 back, you aren't self-employed. Hopefully you have a rough idea of your annual income. The first $9275 over your deductions will pay 10%. After that, up to $37,650 you pay 15%. The 2016 link above has a link (PDF) to the full table if you need more than that. Note that that is the first $48,000 in income with your $10,350 in deductions.\",\n \"\\\"No, your business cannot deduct your non-business expenses. You can only deduct from your business income those reasonable expenses you paid in order to earn income for the business. Moreover, for there to be a tax benefit, your business generally has to have income (but I expect there are exceptions; HST input tax credits come to mind.) The employment income from your full-time job wouldn't count as business income for your corporation. The corporation has nothing to do with that income – it's earned personally, by you. With respect to restaurant bills: These fall under a category known as \\\"\\\"meals & entertainment\\\"\\\". Even if the expense can be considered reasonable and business-related (e.g. meeting customers or vendors) the Canada Revenue Agency decided that a business can only deduct half of those kinds of expenses for tax purposes. With respect to gasoline bills: You would need to keep a mileage and expense log. Only the portion of your automobile expenses that relate to the business can be deducted. Driving to and from your full-time job doesn't count. Of course, I'm not a tax professional. If you're going to have a corporation or side-business, you ought to consult with a tax professional. (A point on terminology: A business doesn't write off eligible business expenses — it deducts them from business income. Write off is an accounting term meaning to reduce the value of an asset to zero. e.g. If you damaged your car beyond repair, one could say \\\"\\\"the car is a write-off.\\\"\\\")\\\"\",\n \"I've actually had the same problem several years running, and it's solved by filing my corporate taxes, then taking those schedules, and applying them to my 1040, along with a Schedule C You'll want to work with an accountant on this, but basically you're going to take the total set of business expenses as 1 chunk, then write them off your income (as one chunk). I always recommend an accountant for this, but that's the general idea that I've used, and for the last 10 years, it's worked great.\",\n \"Yes, you can deduct from your taxable profits (almost) any expenses incurred in the course of your business. See here for HMRC's detailed advice on the subject. The fact that you have salaried PAYE employment as well makes no difference.\",\n \"There is no tax code I know that would grant you such a privilege. And it just isn't practicable. In your examples, you always sold your product and were thus able, in retrospect, to give a value to your work. What if you don't sell your product? What if in one case your worked hour is reimbursed with one price, with the next product at another (i.e. difference in margin)? No, it won't work like that. And by the way, I think you might have got some definitions upside down. What you want is a salary that your own company pays out to yourself and you can deduct from other profits. But as long as you can't afford to pay yourself a salary, and you don't have access to investors who are willing to front you the money, the time invested is your personal investment and cannot be deducted anywhere - though it might pay off nicely in the long run. That's the risk entrepreneurs take.\",\n \"\\\"While the question is very localized, I'll answer about the general principle. My main question is with how far away it is (over 1000 miles), how do I quantify the travel expenses? Generally, \\\"\\\"necessary and ordinary\\\"\\\" expenses are deductible. This is true for business and also true for rentals. But what is necessary and what is ordinary? Is it ordinary that a landlord will manage the property 1000 miles away by himself on a daily basis? Is it ordinary for people to drive 1000 miles every week? I'd say \\\"\\\"no\\\"\\\" to both. I'd say it would be cheaper for you to hire a local property manager, thus the travel expense would not be necessary. I would say it would be cheaper to fly (although I don't know if its true to the specific situation of the OP, but as I said - its too localized to deal with) rather than drive from Texas to Colorado. If the OP thinks that driving a thousand miles is indeed ordinary and necessary he'll have to justify it to the IRS examiner, as I'm sure it will be examined. 2 trips to the property a year will be a nearly 100% write-off (2000 miles, hotels, etc). From what I understood (and that is what I've been told by my CPA), IRS generally allows 1 (one) trip per year per property. If there's an exceptional situation - be prepared to justify it. Also, keep all the receipts (like gas, hotel, etc.... If you claim mileage but in reality you took a flight - you'll get hit hard by the IRS when audited). Also while I'm up there am I allowed to mix business with pleasure? You cannot deduct personal (\\\"\\\"pleasure\\\"\\\") expenses, at all. If the trip is mainly business, but you go out at the evening instead of staying at the hotel - that's fine. But if the trip is \\\"\\\"business\\\"\\\" trip where you spend a couple of hours at your property and then go around having fun for two days - the whole trip may be disallowed. If there's a reasonable portion dedicated to your business/rental, and the rest is pleasure - you'll have to split some of the costs and only deduct the portion attributed to the business activities. You'll have to analyze your specific situation, and see where it falls. Don't stretch the limits too much, it will cost you more on the long run after all the audits and penalties. Can I also write off all travel involved in the purchase of the property? Although, again, the \\\"\\\"necessary and ordinary\\\"\\\" justification of such a trip is arguable, lets assume it is necessary and ordinary and generally justified. It is reasonable to expect you to go and see the property with your own eyes before the closing (IMHO, of course, I'm not an authority). Such an expense can be either business or investment expense. If its a business expense - its deductible on schedule C. If its an investment expense (if you do buy the property), its added to the cost of the property (capitalized). I'm not a tax adviser or a tax professional, and this is not a tax advice. This answer was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding any tax related penalties that may be imposed on you or any other person under the Internal Revenue Code. You should seek a professional consultation with a CPA/Attorney(tax) licensed in your State(s) or a Federally licensed Enrolled Agent (EA).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Disclaimer: This should go without saying, but this answer is definitely an opinion. (I'm pretty sure my current accountant would agree with this answer, and I'm also pretty sure that one of my past accountants would disagree.) When I started my own small business over 10 years ago I asked this very same question for pretty much every purchase I made that would be used by both the business and me personally. I was young(er) and naive then and I just assumed everything was deductible until my accountant could prove otherwise. At some point you need to come up with some rules of thumb to help make sense of it, or else you'll drive yourself and your accountant bonkers. Here is one of the rules I like to use in this scenario: If you never would have made the purchase for personal use, and if you must purchase it for business use, and if using it for personal use does not increase the expense to the business, it can be fully deducted by the business even if you sometimes use it personally too. Here are some example implementations of this rule: Note about partial expenses: I didn't mention partial deductions above because I don't feel it applies when the criteria of my \\\"\\\"rule of thumb\\\"\\\" is met. Note that the IRS states: Personal versus Business Expenses Generally, you cannot deduct personal, living, or family expenses. However, if you have an expense for something that is used partly for business and partly for personal purposes, divide the total cost between the business and personal parts. You can deduct the business part. At first read that makes it sound like some of my examples above would need to be split into partial calulations, however, I think the key distinction is that you would never have made the purchase for personal use, and that the cost to the business does not increase because of allowing personal use. Partial deductions come into play when you have a shared car, or office, or something where the business cost is increased due to shared use. In general, I try to avoid anything that would be a partial expense, though I do allow my business to reimburse me for mileage when I lend it my personal car for business use.\\\"\",\n \"The relevant IRS publication is pub 463. Note that there are various conditions and exceptions, but it all starts with business necessity. Is it necessary for you to work from the UK? If you're working from the UK because you wanted to take a vacation, but still have to work, and would do the same work without being in the UK - then you cannot deduct travel expenses. It sounds to me like this is the case here.\",\n \"\\\"In the US tax system, you cannot \\\"\\\"write-off\\\"\\\" capital assets. You have to depreciate them, with very specific exceptions. So while you may be purchasing $4500 of equipment, your deduction may be significantly less. For example, computers are depreciated over the period of 5 years, so if you bought a $1000 computer - you write off $200/year until it is completely depreciated, not $1000 at once. There are exceptions however, for example - IRC Sec. 179 is one of them. But you should talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about whether it is applicable to the specific expense you want to \\\"\\\"write off\\\"\\\" and to what extent. Also, keep in mind that State laws may not conform to the Federal IRC. While you may be able to use Sec. 179 or other exceptions and deduct your expenses on your Federal return, you may end up with a whole different set of deductions on your State return. And last but not least: equipment that you depreciated or otherwise \\\"\\\"wrote off\\\"\\\" that is later sold - is income to you, since depreciation/deduction reduces basis. Ah, and keep in mind - the IRS frowns upon Schedule C business that consistently show losses. If you have losses for more than 3 in the last 5 years - your business may be classified as \\\"\\\"hobby\\\"\\\", and deductions may be disallowed. But the bottom line is that yes, it is possible to end up with 0 tax liability with business income offset by business deductions. However, not for prolonged periods of time (not for years consistently, but first year may fly). Again - you should talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). It is well worth the money. Do not rely on answers on free Internet forums as a tax advice - it is not.\\\"\",\n \"http://www.irs.gov/publications/p936/ar02.html#en_US_2010_publink1000229891 If you still own it, you get to deduct all of it. In my taxes I did online with TaxAct, it asked if I lived there or not and it just mattered which form it filed for me. With having tenants it was a 'business' form and I assume it would be a standard schedule A for personal. Either way the deductions are still mine to take.\",\n \"\\\"You will need to see a tax expert. Your edited question includes the line For the short term, we will be \\\"\\\"renting\\\"\\\" it to my wife's grandmother at a deep discount. According to the instructions for schedule E If you rented out a dwelling unit that you also used for personal purposes during the year, you may not be able to deduct all the expenses for the rental part. “Dwelling unit” (unit) means a house, apartment, condominium, or similar property. For each property listed on line 1a, report the number of days in the year each property was rented at fair rental value and the number of days of personal use. A day of personal use is any day, or part of a day, that the unit was used by: I have no idea how this will work for Schedule C.\\\"\",\n \"Nice try. No. If you were in the music industry, you might have a case. Depending on the exact job, certain things related to music would be a business expense. I don't see how this would pass an audit as it really is unrelated to the work you do.\",\n \"\\\"I think you may have a significant misunderstanding here. You have been renting your property out for two years, now. There is no special \\\"\\\"roommate\\\"\\\" clause in the tax code; roommates are renters, and the rent they pay is rental income. (If they were roommates in a property you both rented from a third party, that would be different.) See publication 527, chapter 4 for more details on the subject (search on \\\"\\\"Renting Part of Property\\\"\\\"). You should be: You may also consider \\\"\\\"Not renting for profit\\\"\\\" section, which may be closer to what you're actually thinking - of changing from \\\"\\\"Renting not for profit\\\"\\\" to \\\"\\\"Renting for profit\\\"\\\". Not rented for profit means you can report on your 1040 as opposed to filing Schedule E, but it does mean you have to actually not make a profit (and remember, some of the money that goes to paying the mortgage is not deductible on this side of things since it's your property and you'll get that money back, presumably, when you sell it). If that is what you're asking about, it sounds like it's just a matter of money. Are you going to start making money? Or, are you going to start making enough significant upgrades/etc. to justify the tax deduction? You should consider the actual, specific numbers carefully, probably with the help of a CPA who is familiar with this sort of situation, and then make the decision that gives you the best outcome (keeping in mind that there may be long-term impacts of switching from not-for-profit to for-profit rental treatment).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Yes and no. You can not claim the maid service cleaning your \\\"\\\"home\\\"\\\" but you can cleaning your \\\"\\\"office\\\"\\\" or your office's facilities. For example, If you have a mother-in-law suite in the back that you converted to an office, AND you have a maid service cleaning just that, THEN you should be able to claim the expense. Another example would be if you have a room in your house set aside as an office (careful here) AND your maid services charges $20 per room, you should be able to claim that $20. Another example; if you have a maid service that charges you $100 to clean your house, AND you have a dedicated office in that house, THEN you may be claim a portion of your expenses as a business expense. HOWEVER!!!! This can be very subject to your situation. For example, your much more likely to meet the criteria if you have clients in your office. Much less likely if your the only person using the office. Also you need to be aware that what the IRS allows you to call an office is not as clear cut as it seems. Your best bet is to ask a tax consultant.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"No, you capitalize all that and deduct as depreciation from the royalties. What it means is that you cannot deduct the expense when it is incurred, but only when you started receiving income that the expense was used to derive. This is similar to capitalizing building improvements which can only be deducted when you start getting rent, or capitalizing software development expenses which can only be deducted once you start selling/licensing the developed software. In the case of book writing - you capitalize the expenses and deduct them once you start receiving royalties. The period over which you deduct (the \\\"\\\"depreciation schedule\\\"\\\") depends on the type of the expense and the type of the income, so you better get a guidance from a licensed tax accountant (EA or CPA licensed in your State).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"In the US you are not required to have a corporation to use business expenses to offset your income. The technical term you need is \\\"\\\"deducting business expenses\\\"\\\", and in matters of taxes it's usually best to go straight to the horse's mouth: the IRS's explanations Deducting Business Expenses Business expenses are the cost of carrying on a trade or business. These expenses are usually deductible if the business operates to make a profit. What Can I Deduct? Cost of Goods Sold, Capital Expenses, Personal versus Business Expenses, Business Use of Your Home, Business Use of Your Car, Other Types of Business Expenses None of this requires any special incorporation or tax arrangements, and are a normal part of operating a business. However, there is a bit of a problem with your scenario. You said you \\\"\\\"invested\\\"\\\" into a business, but you mentioned buying specific things for the business which is not generally how one accounts for investment. If you are not an owner/operator of the business, then the scenario is not so straight-forward, as you can't simply claim someone else's business expenses as your own because you invested in it. Investments are taxed differently than expenses, and based upon your word choices I'm concerned that you could be getting yourself into a bit of a pickle. I would strongly advise you to speak with a professional, such as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), to go over your current arrangement and advise you on how you should be structuring your ongoing investment into this shared business. If you are investing you should be receiving equity to reflect your ownership (or stock in the company, etc), and investments of this sort generally cannot be deducted as an expense on your taxes - it's just an investment, the same as buying stock or CDs. If you are just buying things for someone else's benefit, it's possible that this could be looked upon as a personal gift, and you may be in a precarious legal position as well (where the money is, indeed, just a gift). And gifts of this sort aren't deductible, either. Depending on how this is all structured, it's possible that you should both consider a different form of legal organization, such as a formal corporation or at least an official business partnership. A CPA and an appropriate business attorney should be able to advise you for a nominal (few hundred dollars, at most) fee. If a new legal structure is advisable, you can potentially do the work yourself for a few hundred dollars, or pay to have it done (especially if the situation is more complex) for a few hundred to a few thousand. That's a lot less than you'd be on the hook for if this business is being accounted for improperly, or if either of your tax returns are being reported improperly!\\\"\",\n \"\\\"It's pretty easy. In the Interview Setup for Ufile, check the box for \\\"\\\"Self-employment business income\\\"\\\". Then during the process of filling everything out, you'll get a Self-Employment screen. It'll ask for the name of your business, but just put your own name since you don't have one. For the 6-digit classification code, click the ? button and look through the list for the industry that best matches the one for whom you wrote the technical report. Or you can go with 711500: Independent artists, writers and performers. It doesn't really matter that much so don't worry if it's a poor match. It will also ask you for your income and expenses. I don't know exactly what costs you might have incurred to write your report, but you can likely claim a very tiny amount of \\\"\\\"home office\\\"\\\" expenses. Costs like rent (or mortgage interest + property tax), utilities, and home insurance can be claimed, but they have to be pro-rated for the time you were actually doing the work, and are based on the amount of space you used for the work. For example, if you paid $1000 rent and $200 utilities for the month in which the work was done, and it took you 20 of the 31 days in that month to actually do the work, and you used a room that makes up about 10% of the square footage of your home, then you can claim: $1200 * 20/31 * 0.1 = $77.42 for your home office expenses. If you also used that room for non-business purposes during that time, then you reduce it even further. Say, if the room was also used for playing video games 50% of the time, then you'd only claim $38.71\\\"\",\n \"First, you can look up the property tax of the building you are in for an exact number. Go to you town's tax office or look at Zillow. You need to claim the rent as income, but will take all expenses as well as depreciation on half the building. The numbers may well work in your favor, especially as a resident landlord. I still own a rental in the next state, but it's 2 hour away, so I'm paying pros to do the simplest things. On site, you can handle all maintenance and save that way. If the cash flow looks like it's better than what you have right now, it might be time to buy. Without seeing the numbers I can't point out what you might be missing.\",\n \"You've got two options. Deduct the business portion of the depreciation and actual expenses for operating the car. Use the IRS standard mileage rate of $.575/mile in 2015. Multiply your business miles by the rate to calculate your deduction. Assuming you're a sole proprietor you'll include a Schedule C to your return and claim the deduction on that form.\",\n \"First of all, Dilip's answer explains well how the business deductions generally work. For most (big) expenses you depreciate it. However, in some cases you need to capitalize it, which is another accounting method. When you capitalize your expense, it becomes part of the basis of the product you're creating. Since you're an engineer, this might be relevant for you. Talk to your tax adviser. How exactly you deduct/depreciate/capitalize things, and what expense goes which way depends greatly on the laws and jurisdictions. Even in the US, different states have different laws, and the IRS and State laws don't have to conform (unfortunately). For example, the limitations on Sec. 179 deduction in 2010-2011 were 20 times higher on Federal level than in the State of California. This could have lead to cases where you fully deducted your expense on your Federal tax return, but need to continue and depreciate it on your State return (or vice versa). Good tax adviser is crucial to avoid or manage these cases.\",\n \"\\\"Worksheets/ Documentation: (From my experience filing my business deductions through several tax preparers.) Keep all your calculations, but only submit the calculations and worksheets requested by the tax form. Most travel deductions are just a category total. If the IRS wants more info, it will ask for it. Information from the book Home Business Tax Deductions (from Nolo) (2012): Traveling with kids: In chapter 9 (\\\"\\\"Leaving Town: Business Travel\\\"\\\"), in the section \\\"\\\"Taking People With You\\\"\\\", it specifically discusses your situation. Paraphrasing, it says that you can deduct the amount any eligible expenses would have cost you if you were traveling without your kids. So, you can deduct the cost the smaller hotel room that you and your wife would have normally rented if you were alone. How your side trips affect your business deductions: According to the book, since you spent 50% or more of your time on business activities while traveling in the U.S.: Deducting meals shared with your kids: You can deduct meals as either entertainment or travel expenses. I would recommend you buy one of Nolo's books on deductions, as it goes into much more detail than I do here.\\\"\",\n \"No, you can't claim personal expenses as business expenses. What is the alternative to paying someone to do your chores? Letting the chores go undone. How does it affect your business if your household chores go undone? It doesn't; it only affects your personal life--that's why they are personal expenses.\",\n \"\\\"About deducting mortgage interest: No, you can not deduct it unless it is qualified mortgage interest. \\\"\\\"Qualified mortgage interest is interest and points you pay on a loan secured by your main home or a second home.\\\"\\\" (Tax Topic 505). According to the IRS, \\\"\\\"if you rent out the residence, you must use it for more than 14 days or more than 10% of the number of days you rent it out, whichever is longer.\\\"\\\" Regarding being taxed on income received from the property, if you claim the foreign tax credit you will not be double taxed. According to the IRS, \\\"\\\"The foreign tax credit intends to reduce the double tax burden that would otherwise arise when foreign source income is taxed by both the United States and the foreign country from which the income is derived.\\\"\\\" (from IRS Topic 856 - Foreign Tax Credit) About property taxes: From my understanding, these cannot be claimed for the foreign tax credit but can be deducted as business expenses. There are various exceptions and stipulations based on your circumstance, so you need to read the official publications and get professional tax advice. Here's an excerpt from Publication 856 - Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals: \\\"\\\"In most cases, only foreign income taxes qualify for the foreign tax credit. Other taxes, such as foreign real and personal property taxes, do not qualify. But you may be able to deduct these other taxes even if you claim the foreign tax credit for foreign income taxes. In most cases, you can deduct these other taxes only if they are expenses incurred in a trade or business or in the production of income. However, you can deduct foreign real property taxes that are not trade or business expenses as an itemized deduction on Schedule A (Form 1040).\\\"\\\" Note and disclaimer: Sources: IRS Tax Topic 505 Interest Expense, IRS Real Estate (Taxes, Mortgage Interest, Points, Other Property Expenses) , IRS Topic 514 Foreign Tax Credit , and Publication 856 Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals\\\"\",\n \"If it's a legitimate cost of doing business, it's as deductible as any other cost of doing business. (Reminder: be careful about the distinctions between employee and contractor; the IRS gets annoyed if you don't handle this correctly.)\",\n \"I'm not an expert, but here's my $0.02. Deductions for business expenses are subject to the 2% rule. In other words, you can only deduct that which exceeds 2% of your AGI (Adjusted Gross Income). For example, say you have an AGI of $50,000, and you buy a laptop that costs $800. You won't get a write-off from that, because 2% of $50,000 is $1,000, and you can only deduct business-related expenses in excess of that $1,000. If you have an AGI of $50,000 and buy a $2,000 laptop, you can deduct a maximum of $1,000 ($2,000 minus 2% of $50,000 is $2,000 - $1,000 = $1,000). Additionally, you can write off the laptop only to the extent that you use it for business. So in other words, if you have an AGI of $50,000 and buy that $2,000 laptop, but only use it 50% for business, you can only write off $500. Theoretically, they can ask for verification of the business use of your laptop. A log or a diary would be what I would provide, but I'm not an IRS agent.\",\n \"I looked at Publication 463 (2014), Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses for examples. I thought this was the mot relevant. No regular place of work. If you have no regular place of work but ordinarily work in the metropolitan area where you live, you can deduct daily transportation costs between home and a temporary work site outside that metropolitan area. Generally, a metropolitan area includes the area within the city limits and the suburbs that are considered part of that metropolitan area. You cannot deduct daily transportation costs between your home and temporary work sites within your metropolitan area. These are nondeductible commuting expenses. This only deals with transportation to and from the temporary work site. Transportation expenses do not include expenses you have while traveling away from home overnight. Those expenses are travel expenses discussed in chapter 1 . However, if you use your car while traveling away from home overnight, use the rules in this chapter to figure your car expense deduction. See Car Expenses , later. You will also have to consider the cost of tolls of the use of a trailer if those apply.\",\n \"Keep this rather corny acronym in mind. Business expenses must be CORN: As other posters have already pointed out, certain expenses that are capital items (computers, furniture, etc.) must be depreciated over several years, but you have a certain amount of capital items that you can write off in the current tax year.\",\n \"IRS Publication 463 is a great resource to help you understand what you can and can't deduct. It's not a yes/no question, it depends on the exact company use, other use, and contemporaneous record keeping.\",\n \"I suggest to start charging slightly more than needed to cover expenses. All you need is to show profit. It doesn't have to be significant - a couple of hundred of dollars of consistent yearly profit should suffice to show a profitable business. Then you can deduct on Schedule C all the related expenses. The caveat is that the profit (after the deduction of the expenses will be a bit smaller) will be subject to not only income tax but also the self-employment tax. But at least you'll pay tax on profit that is not entirely phantom. I remember suggesting you getting a professional consultation on this matter a while ago. You should really do that - talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state, it may be well worth the $100-200 fee they'll charge for the consultation (if at all...).\",\n \"The basis of the home is the cost of land and material. That's it. Your time isn't added to basis. No different than if you spend 1000 hours in a soup kitchen. You deduct miles for your car and expenses you can document but you can't deduct your time. Over 2 years, you could have a gain up to $500K per married couple and pay no tax.\",\n \"\\\"I'm going to look just at purchase price. Essentially, you can't always claim the whole of the purchase price (or 95% your case) in the year (the accounting period) of purchase, but you get a percentage of the value of the car each year, called writing down allowance, which is a capital allowance. It is similar to depreciation, but based on HRMC's own formula. In fact, it seems you probably can claim 95% of the purchase price, because the value is less than £1000. The logic is a bit involved, but I hope you can understand it. You could also claim simplified expenses instead, which is just based on a rate per mile, but you can't claim both. Note, by year I mean whatever your account period is. This could be the normal financial year, but you would probably have a better idea about this. See The HMRC webpage on this for more details. The big idea is that you record the value of any assets you are claiming writing down allowance on in one of a number of pools, that attract the same rate of writing down allowance, so you don't need to record the value of each asset separately. They are similar to accounts in accounting, so they have an opening balance, and closing balance. If you use an asset for personal use, it needs a pool to itself. HRMC call that a single asset pool. So, to start with, look at the Business Cars section, and look at the Rates for Cars section, to determine the rate you can claim. Each one links to a further article, which gives more detail if you need it. Your car is almost certainly in the special rate category. Special rate is 8% a year, main rate is 18%, and First year allowance is essentially 100%. Then, you look at the Work out what you can claim article. That talks you through the steps. I'll go through your example. You would have a pool for your car, which would end the account period before you bought the vehicle at zero (step 1). You then add the value of the car in the period you bought it (Step 2). You would reduce the value of the pool if you dispose of it in the same year (Step 3). Because the car is worth less than £1,000 (see the section on \\\"\\\"If you have £1,000 or less in your pool\\\"\\\"), you would normally be able to claim the whole value of the pool (the value of the car) in the first accounting period, and reduce the value of the pool to zero. As you use the car for personal use, you only claim 95% of the value, but still reduce the pool to zero. See the section on \\\"\\\"Items you use outside your business\\\"\\\". This £1000 is adjusted if your accounting period lasts more or less than 12 months. Once the pool is down to zero that it you don't need to think about it any more for tax purposes, apart from if you are claiming other motoring expenses, or if you sell it. It gets more complicated if the car is more expensive. I'll go through an example for a car worth £2,000. Then, after Step 3, on the year of purchase, you would reduce the value of the pool by 8%, and claim 95% of the reduction. This would be a 160 reduction, and 95%*160 = 152 claim, leaving the value of 1860 in the pool. You then follow the same steps for the next year, start with 1840 in the pool, reduce the value by 8%, then claim 95% of the reduction. This continues until you sell or dispose of the car (Step 3), or the value of the pool is 1000 or less, then you claim all of it in that year. Selling the car, or disposing of the car is discussed in the Capital allowances when you sell an asset article. The basic idea is that if you have already reduced the value of the pool to zero, the price you sell the car for is added you your profits for that year (See \\\"\\\"If you originally claimed 100% of the item\\\"\\\"), if you still have anything in the pool, you reduce the value of the pool by the sale value, and if it reduces to below zero (to -£200, say), you add that amount (£200, in this case), to your profits. If the value is above zero, you keep applying writing down allowances. In your case, that seems to just means if you sell the car in the same year you buy it, you claim the difference (or 95% of it) as writing down allowance, and if you do it later, you claim the purchase price in the year of purchase, and add 95% of the sale price to your profits in the year you sell it. I'm a bit unclear about starting \\\"\\\"to use it outside your business\\\"\\\", which doesn't seem to apply if you use it outside the business to start with. You can claim simplified expenses for vehicles, if you are a sole trader or partner, but not if you claim capital allowances (such as writing down allowances) on them, or you include a separate expense in your accounts for motoring expenses. It's a flat rate of 45p a mile for the first 10,000 miles, and 25p per mile after that, for cars, and 24p a mile for motorcycles. See the HRMC page on Simplifed Mileage expenses for details. For any vehicle you decide to either claim capital allowances claim running costs separately, or claim simplified mileage expenses, and \\\"\\\"Once you use the flat rates for a vehicle, you must continue to do so as long as you use that vehicle for your business.you have to stick with that decision for that vehicle\\\"\\\". In your case, it seems you can claim 95% of the purchase price in the accounting period you buy it, and if you sell it you add 95% of the sale price to your profits in that accounting period. It gets more complicated if you have a car worth more than £1000, adjusted for the length of the accounting period. Also, if you change how you use it, consult the page on selling selling an asset, as you may have disposed of it. You can also use simplified mileage expenses, but then you can't claim capital allowances, or claim running costs separately for that car. I hope that makes sense, please comment if not, and I'll try to adjust the explanation.\\\"\",\n \"As noted above but with sources An improvement materially adds to the value of your home, considerably prolongs its useful life, or adapts it to new uses. You must add the cost of any improvements to the basis of your home. You cannot deduct these costs. Source Page 11, Adjusted Basis, Improvements Second, A repair keeps your home in an ordinary, efficient operating condition. It does not add to the value of your home or prolong its life. Repairs include repainting your home inside or outside, fixing your gutters or floors, fixing leaks or plastering, and replacing broken window panes. You cannot deduct repair costs and generally cannot add them to the basis of your home. Source Page 12, Adjusted Basis, Repairs versus improvements Generally, an expense for repairing or maintaining your rental property may be deducted if you are not required to capitalize the expense. You must capitalize any expense you pay to improve your rental property. An expense is for an improvement if it results in a betterment to your property, restores your property, or adapts your property to a new or different use. Source Page 5, Repairs and Improvements Good Luck,\",\n \"It looks like you can. Take a look at these articles: http://www.googobits.com/articles/1747-taking-an-itemized-deduction-for-job-expenses.html http://www.bankrate.com/finance/money-guides/business-expenses-that-benefit-you.aspx http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tax_tips/tax_planning/employment.html But of course, go to the source: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p529/ar02.html#en_US_publink100026912 From publication 529: You can deduct certain expenses as miscellaneous itemized deductions on Schedule A (Form 1040 or Form 1040NR). You can claim the amount of expenses that is more than 2% of your adjusted gross income. You figure your deduction on Schedule A by subtracting 2% of your adjusted gross income from the total amount of these expenses. Your adjusted gross income is the amount on Form 1040, line 38, or Form 1040NR, line 36. I hope that helps. Happy deducting!\",\n \"And he has to pay for it every home repair and every month the property sets empty. His loss each month is not $250, but probably closer to $500. In generally you need to clear at least $200 ABOVE PTI (principle, taxes and interest) to cover repair and the like to property. From your post, it sounds like your dad was forced into the land-lord business by the recession. Unless he plans to hold the property until its rental value has increased by $500 a month, he should consider selling it and writing-off the loss. Losing money bit by bit on a house isn't a tax write-off event. Selling a property for less than you bought it for generally is. FYI, I got the $500/month loss by assuming that repairs/emptiness/etc will cost you about $200 a month, and added $50 for your dad's time managing the property.\",\n \"IRS Publication 529 is the go-to document. Without being a tax professional, I'd say if the dues and subscriptions help you in the running of your business, then they're deductible. You're on your own if you take my advice (or don't). ;)\",\n \"Most items used in business have to be depreciated; you get to deduct a small fraction of the cost each year depending on the lifetime of the item as per IRS rules. That is, you cannot assume a one-year life for an electronic item even if it will be obsolete in three months. Some items can be expensed; you get to deduct the entire cost in the first year but then if you don't stay in business, e.g. you get a job paying wages and are no longer self-employed, you have to recapture this and pay taxes on the amount recaptured in the later year. With respect to consumer-type electronics such as an iPad or laptop, it helps to have a separate item for personal use that you can show in case of an audit.\",\n \"If you and your wife are owners, your tickets might be a business expense against the rental income. 'Might' as in the IRS will be happy to audit you, seeing the kids went as well and prorating the expense as say 25% was really business, the rest, family vacation. If this $4000 write off is the make or break for this deal, don't do it.\",\n \"Not authoritative, but according to TurboTax: If your new cell phone acts as both your business and personal phone, you are only allowed to deduct the portion used for business from your taxable income. It’s important for you to hang on to your itemized phone bill and receipts to ensure that you’re deducting the right amounts and to keep records of your deduction. Since the usage you're describing sounds like a very small amount of the overall usage, it will probably be difficult to justify a business expense deduction.\",\n \"\\\"You are \\\"\\\"pool[ing] the sales from both houses as downpayment on the new house.\\\"\\\" But they are going to pay you rent. Your question as it stands, just opens more questions. What, exactly is the ownership of the new house? If your's (and your wife's) was the money a gift? Ignoring the gift, if that's what it is, and if the in-law suite is 25% of the house value, you have a rental. You claim 25% of the expenses, including property tax and mortgage interest, along with 25% of the utilities, unless their part has its own meters. That's a start, if you add details, I may edit my answer. (Not to be pedantic, but whose parents are they. They can't be \\\"\\\"our in-laws,\\\"\\\" can they?)\\\"\",\n \"Yes, use a separate Form 8829 for each home used for business during the year. The top of 8829 includes that exact instruction.\",\n \"Yes, you can. That the books were purchased from abroad is irrelevant: you incurred an expense in the course of earning your income. If the books are expensive (>$300 per set iirc) you will need to deprecate them over a reasonable life time rather than claiming the entire amount up front. It doesn't matter whether what you got was a VAT Invoice; as long as you have some reasonable documentation of the expense you're ok.\",\n \"Bartering is a tricky discussion. Yes, it definitely applies when you are self-employed and do a job that you would charge anyone else for, but what if you are helping a friend in your spare time? If you receive something in exchange, the value of the item you received would be your income, but what if you don't receive anything in exchange? If the company bought a computer that they loan to you to do occasional work for them, there's no reason you couldn't take the computer home and have that company retain ownership of the property. They could still expense the depreciation of the computer without giving it to you. If it were a car though, you would have to count mileage for personal use as income. What if you exchange occasional tech support for the use of an empty desk and Internet connection? As long as they aren't renting desks for money to others, there's probably no additional marginal cost to them if they allow you to use the space, so the fair market value question breaks down.\",\n \"If I sell it for $50 can I write off the $50 loss. Only if you can establish that it is a normal part of your business and that you did not get $50 worth of use out of it. That's the technical, legal argument. As a practical matter, it's unlikely that they'll ding you for selling something after using it, as they won't know. If they did catch you, you would be in trouble. You can't deduct loss due to personal use. The larger problem is that if you sell one TV for a $50 loss, they aren't going to believe that you are in the business of selling TVs. If you sell a larger amount for a loss, then they still are unlikely to believe that you are in business. If you sell a large amount for an overall gain, they are unlikely to notice that you took a loss on one TV. They could only notice that if they were already auditing you, as that wouldn't be visible in your tax forms.\",\n \"Alright, IRS Publication 463: Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses Business and personal use. If you use your car for both business and personal purposes, you must divide your expenses between business and personal use. You can divide your expense based on the miles driven for each purpose. Example. You are a sales representative for a clothing firm and drive your car 20,000 miles during the year: 12,000 miles for business and 8,000 miles for personal use. You can claim only 60% (12,000 ÷ 20,000) of the cost of operating your car as a business expense Obviously nothing helpful in the code. So I would use option 1, weight the maintenance-related mileage by the proportion of business use. Although if you use your car for business a lot (and perhaps have a spouse with a car), an argument could be made for 3. So I would consider my odds of being audited (even lower this year due to IRS budget cuts) and choose 1 or 3. And of course never throw anything away until you're room temperature.\",\n \"\\\"I have done several days of additional research on this and found out that it appears I can deduct the cost of the books against a single year's royalty income by claiming a Section 179 deduction. The steps are as follows: (1) Write the maximum amount of property you can claim under section 179 on line 1 of Form 4562. (2) Add up the total cost of section 179 property you began using during the tax year, including books, and record the amount on line 2. (3) Write the limit of your deductions on line 3. (4) Subtract the amount on line 2 from the amount on line 3 and record it on line 4. If line 3 is larger than line 2, simply write \\\"\\\"0\\\"\\\" on line 4, then subtract the amount on line 4 from the amount on line 1 and record on line 5. Step 5 (5) Describe the property and books on line 6 and record the cost of each in section b. Write the amount of the expense you are claiming for each item in section c of line 6. You can claim the entire cost of the books. (6) Add the amount in line 6 c to any amounts on line 7 and write the total on line 8. Write either the amount on line 8 or the amount on 5 on line 9, depending on which is smaller. (7) Write the amount of your Schedule C income on line 11, unless it is greater than $500,000. On line 12, write the amount of your deduction, which is the total of line 9 plus any carry-over you may have had from the previous year. (8) Record the amount of your deduction for section 179 books and property on line 13 of your Schedule C, not line 22. Include form 4562 when you hand in your tax return. source: \\\"\\\"How to Deduct Books for Self-Employed\\\"\\\" by Emily Weller\\\"\",\n \"In most cases the rent paid by the company would be include as part of your salary for tax purposes, so your income would still be seen as $5000 per month.\",\n \"In some circumstances losses from self-employment can be offset against total income and/or capital gains. If this applies to you may be able to claim back some of the tax taken by PAYE from your day job. You can also to some extent carry the loss backwards into previous tax years or forward into the next one if you can't use it fully this year. HMRC have some information available on the current rules: When you can claim losses You can claim: But You can’t claim:\",\n \"The answer on the Canadian Government's website is pretty clear: Most employees cannot claim employment expenses. You cannot deduct the cost of travel to and from work, or other expenses, such as most tools and clothing. However, that is most likely related to a personal vehicle. There is a deduction related to Public Transportation: You can claim cost of monthly public transit passes or passes of longer duration such as an annual pass for travel within Canada on public transit for 2016. The second sleeping residence is hard to justify as the individual is choosing to work in this town and this individual is choosing to spent the night there - it is not currently a work requirement. As always, please consult a certified tax professional in your country for any final determinations on personal (and corporate) tax laws and filings.\",\n \"Assuming your country is the United States there is. See schedule C line 9 and the corresponding instructions. There are many rules associated with this, in some cases the entire purchase can be written off but typically if the truck is only used for business. Most people write off partial usage in the form of credits for mileage. You are best to consult with a CPA once your business earns a profit. Good luck.\",\n \"Ah, I did some more research and apparently Rental Income is considered Passive Income, and as such the IRS does not allow a net loss to exist, but you can carry the loss over into the next year. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc425.html Generally, losses from passive activities that exceed the income from passive activities are disallowed for the current year. You can carry forward disallowed passive losses to the next taxable year. A similar rule applies to credits from passive activities. So in the event in a loss on my rental business activity, I simply pay no tax on it, and deduct the remainder in income in 2017 from taxes. I don't make any changes to my Consulting income at all.\",\n \"How is it a write off? I write off my mortgage interest, it reduces my taxable income, but has no impact on my EBIT. If I paid workers more, my EBIT would go down and, due to this, my taxable income would go down. One is independent of my earnings, the other is a function of it. The former is a write off, the latter isn't, right?\",\n \"Yes. You must register for GST as well, if you will be making over the threshold (currently $60,000). That's probably a bonus for you, as your home office expenses will mostly include GST, but your income will most likely be zero-rated. Check with an accountant or with the IRD directly. Just be certain to put aside enough money from each payment to cover income tax, GST and ACC. You will get a very large bill in your second year of business.\",\n \"\\\"When I have a question about my income taxes, the first place I look is generally the Giant Book of Income Tax Information, Publication 17 (officially called \\\"\\\"Your Federal Income Tax\\\"\\\"). This looks to be covered in Chapter 26 on \\\"\\\"Car Expenses and Other Employee Business Expenses\\\"\\\". It's possible that there's something in there that applies to you if you need to temporarily commute to a place that isn't your normal workplace for a legitimate business reason or other business-related travel. But for your normal commute from your home to your normal workplace it has this to say: Commuting expenses. You cannot deduct the costs of taking a bus, trolley, subway, or taxi, or of driving a car between your home and your main or regular place of work. These costs are personal commuting expenses. You cannot deduct commuting expenses no matter how far your home is from your regular place of work. You cannot deduct commuting expenses even if you work during the commuting trip.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Be ruthlessly meticulous about the IRS regulations for deducting a home office. If it's allowed, it's allowed.","Tax regulations vary from country to country - some permitting more deductions, some less - but here are a few guidelines. As regards the home-office: As regards the deductions: Think of it like this: in order to have space for a home-office you needed a bigger home. That leads to increased rates, heating, insurance and so on. Many tax regulators recognise that these are genuine expenses. The alternative is to rent a separate office and incur greater expenses, leading to increased deductions and less overall tax paid (which won't finance the deficit). The usual test for deductions is: was the expense legitimately incurred in the pursuit of revenue? The flexibility permitted will vary by tax authority but you can frequently deduct more than you expected.","Before starting to do this, make sure that you are squeaky clean in all aspects of your tax preparation and are prepared to back up any claims that you make with documentation. Home office deductions are a huge red flag that often trigger audits. Follow mbhunter's advice and be incredibly meticulous about following the rules and keeping records."],"string":"[\n \"Be ruthlessly meticulous about the IRS regulations for deducting a home office. If it's allowed, it's allowed.\",\n \"Tax regulations vary from country to country - some permitting more deductions, some less - but here are a few guidelines. As regards the home-office: As regards the deductions: Think of it like this: in order to have space for a home-office you needed a bigger home. That leads to increased rates, heating, insurance and so on. Many tax regulators recognise that these are genuine expenses. The alternative is to rent a separate office and incur greater expenses, leading to increased deductions and less overall tax paid (which won't finance the deficit). The usual test for deductions is: was the expense legitimately incurred in the pursuit of revenue? The flexibility permitted will vary by tax authority but you can frequently deduct more than you expected.\",\n \"Before starting to do this, make sure that you are squeaky clean in all aspects of your tax preparation and are prepared to back up any claims that you make with documentation. Home office deductions are a huge red flag that often trigger audits. Follow mbhunter's advice and be incredibly meticulous about following the rules and keeping records.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":159,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"2551"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"How to find cheaper alternatives to a traditional home telephone line?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["413832","450742","143100"],"string":"[\n \"413832\",\n \"450742\",\n \"143100\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["143100","450742","413832","112904","267318","376923","209584","482638","522613","563122","333113","378396","486098","80211","482974","272295","38066","229249","562286","230419","535533","166208","186355","418546","495574","490869","6212","296661","379413","540205","374950","286786","157644","582490","44518","327526","120171","23873","118340","2562","368813","597243","77774","498288","96562","51919","137675","188571","510485","218144","550360","333440","108461","238747","296725","40527","14765","561344","524125","328375","96666","412142","506027","117976","361383","182443","209269","184924","250135","418888","191925","443879","55969","250326","346610","68367","124142","505580","592436","401960","290325","116474","269380","52720","177714","303293","53031","161894","273172","508555","511942","151903","46274","269724","443859","448592","581422","375658","162587","555506"],"string":"[\n \"143100\",\n \"450742\",\n \"413832\",\n \"112904\",\n \"267318\",\n \"376923\",\n \"209584\",\n \"482638\",\n \"522613\",\n \"563122\",\n \"333113\",\n \"378396\",\n \"486098\",\n \"80211\",\n \"482974\",\n \"272295\",\n \"38066\",\n \"229249\",\n \"562286\",\n \"230419\",\n \"535533\",\n \"166208\",\n \"186355\",\n \"418546\",\n \"495574\",\n \"490869\",\n \"6212\",\n \"296661\",\n \"379413\",\n \"540205\",\n \"374950\",\n \"286786\",\n \"157644\",\n \"582490\",\n \"44518\",\n \"327526\",\n \"120171\",\n \"23873\",\n \"118340\",\n \"2562\",\n \"368813\",\n \"597243\",\n \"77774\",\n \"498288\",\n \"96562\",\n \"51919\",\n \"137675\",\n \"188571\",\n \"510485\",\n \"218144\",\n \"550360\",\n \"333440\",\n \"108461\",\n \"238747\",\n \"296725\",\n \"40527\",\n \"14765\",\n \"561344\",\n \"524125\",\n \"328375\",\n \"96666\",\n \"412142\",\n \"506027\",\n \"117976\",\n \"361383\",\n \"182443\",\n \"209269\",\n \"184924\",\n \"250135\",\n \"418888\",\n \"191925\",\n \"443879\",\n \"55969\",\n \"250326\",\n \"346610\",\n \"68367\",\n \"124142\",\n \"505580\",\n \"592436\",\n \"401960\",\n \"290325\",\n \"116474\",\n \"269380\",\n \"52720\",\n \"177714\",\n \"303293\",\n \"53031\",\n \"161894\",\n \"273172\",\n \"508555\",\n \"511942\",\n \"151903\",\n \"46274\",\n \"269724\",\n \"443859\",\n \"448592\",\n \"581422\",\n \"375658\",\n \"162587\",\n \"555506\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Try to use VOIP service provider or web enabled conference calling services in your home phone. Now a days communication technologies have seen a boost as well as integration of different formats and platforms which easily reduces phone bills of a user. Service such as UberConference, Skype, Webinar etc enables audio/video as well as web conferencing feature for their user. Service tiers such as free plans, basic plans and business plans allow user to use these conference calling services per their need. Have a look at any such service and use it as an alternative of your home phone line.","\"How low you can reduce your costs does depend on your calling pattern. How many minutes per month you call locally; call long distance; call internationally; and how many minutes you receive calls for. If all these figures are low, you can be better off with a pay-per-minute service, if any of the outbound figures are high then you could consider a flat-rate \"\"unlimited\"\" service. So that's the first step, determine your needs: don't pay for what you don't need. For example, I barely use a \"\"landline\"\" voip phone any more. But it is still useful for incoming calls, and for 911 service. So I use a prepaid pay-per-minute VOIP company, that has a flat rate (< $2/mo) for the incoming number, an add-on fee for the 911 service (80c/mo), and per-minute costs for outgoing calls (1c/min or less to US, Canada, western Europe). I use my own Obitalk box (under $50 to buy). There is a bit of setup and learning needed, but the end result means my \"\"landline\"\" bill is usually under $4/mo (no other taxes or fees). Companies in this BYOD (bring your own device) space in the US/Canada include (in alphabetic order), Anveo, Callcentric, Callwithus, Futurenine, Localphone, Voip.ms and many others. A good discussion forum to learn more about them is the VOIP forum at DSLreports (although it can be a bit technical). There is also a reviews section at that site. If your usage is higher (you make lots of calls to a variety of numbers), most of these companies, and others, have flat-rate bundles, probably similar to what you have now. Comparing them depends on your usage pattern, so again that's the first thing to consider, then you know what to shop for. If you need features like voicemail or voicemail transcription, be sure to look at whether you need an expensive bundle with it in, or whether you're better off paying for that seperately. If your outbound calls are to a limited number of numbers, such as relatives far away or internationally, consider getting a similar VOIP system for those relatives. Most VOIP companies have free \"\"on network\"\" calls between their customers, regardless of the country they are in. So your most common, and most lengthy calls, could be free. The Obitalk boxes (ATA's: analog telephone adapters) have an advantage here, if you install them in yours and relatives houses. As well as allowing you to use any of the \"\"bring your own device\"\" VOIP companies like those listed above, they have their own Obitalk network allowing free calls between their boxes, and also to/from their iOS and Android apps. There are other ATA's from other companies (Cisco have well-known models), and other ways to make free calls between them, so Obitalk isn't the only option. I mentioned above I pay for the incoming number. Not every supplier has incoming numbers available in every area, you need to check this. Some can port-in (transfer in) your existing number, if you are attached to it, but not all can, so again check. You can also get incoming numbers in other areas or countries, that ring on your home line (without forwarding costs). This means you can have a number near a cluster of relatives, who can call you with a local call. Doesn't directly save you money (each number has a monthly fee) but could save you having to call them back!\"","Cheapest is one thing. You can absolutely shop in the market and find the lowest possible price. I can think of three places to shop, each with an up and downside. I would think that what you really mean is the best price for the service. Just like shopping for a car you have to decide what you need vs what is nice to have. Decide what features you need. Do you need long distance? Do you need caller id? Do you need to call technophobic friends and family? Find out what you have available to you through associations. Often schools, work or a club you belong to have deals for service discounts. Look at your insurance plan or AAA membership for the crazy discounts. Decide what kinds of service will meet your needs. Buy the cheapest service. DO NOT ENTER A CONTRACT. Even if the price is slightly lower. At least not at first. If you try out your service and love it, enter the contract if and only if the total price measured over length of the contract is less. With cell phones especially, it is absolutely possible to save money buying month to month vs a 2 year contract. Even when you buy equipment for full price up front. Ask for the bare minimum service from your local phone company. Because phone companies are often regulated monopolies, they might have a bare minimum level of service they are required to offer by the municipality. They probably don't advertise it or push it, but it might exist if you call and ask. You basically get a dial tone. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/local-local-toll-and-long-distance-calling Price is dictated by a government board, so you don't have to worry about shopping for deals Not the cheapest possible solution This is popular plan the youth oriented market, but more and more people of all demographics are using their cellphones only. There are downsides (911, etc) and shopping for the best cell phone plan can be a full time job, but it does offer a way to save money by simply not having home phone service. Might be possible to score organizational discounts through work or groups you belong to Cellphones require batteries, and can go dead (not good for emergencies) Voice over Internet Protocol uses your existing Internet connection. You can buy a cheap regular phone and plug it into the VOIP box and use it like any other phone. VOIP can either be very inexpensive for all the features you get, or just plain inexpensive. There are providers who sell a monthly service, yearly service or no service plan at all. (You buy a device and get service as long as you own the device.) Taxes to the government are always due, so nothing is ever free. Sometimes the provider is just computer software, so a minimalist would like that. Emergency services are more reliable than cellular (if you follow extra steps to set them up) Can be confusing to buy. Some require contracts, some special devices, some require a bit of technical know how to setup. Be sure to evaluate the total cost of ownership when comparing prices","seriously...I'm the only one that is recommending VoIP.ms? It costs a buck a month to keep your number and you can get DIDs (numbers) from other countries that point to the same phone. You'll need a ATA though to hook up your normal phone to the internet...I use the Cisco PAP2T-NA and it works wonders with good QoS on the router. Bonus: This also allows you to do long distance phone calls on your smart phone if you have 3g/wifi internet access....pretty awesome stuff. Extra Bonus: if you switch family members onto voip.ms too then you can phone them for free. I have quite a few around the world and most of my long distance has been completely cut out of my bills. Monthly bills are ~3-5 bucks a month based on usage. I challenge anyone else to beat that! Edit: just realized Verizon is cell service only -- DOH! Can you tell I'm not from the states? :P Leaving this post here because it could help someone in a better choice for their wired phone service non-the-less. Long distance thing is also a plus for your smart phone ;)","This is more of a general answer about your situation than a specific answer to your question. You might consider getting a SIP telephone number based in the US, or an even easier to use IP based phone number. That way you can use it through your Internet connection and make eaiser calls to US companies that you still have a business relationship with.","C) None of the above. I mostly use Lync/Skype/Facebook/Whatsapp for making calls on the road. Wifi is ubiquitous these days, Project Fi and T-Mobile let you freely roam data outside the USA and I believe most European carriers are similar","voip service providers We provide TaTa voiz, New voiz, 24 dialer and itel mobile dialer. All are good working in UAE, Oman, Saudi Arabia and others countries.If you need good quality dialer with good quality sound, you may contact with us for reseller panel or calling card. MASUM salestalkdialer@gmail.com, mobiledialer@yahoo.com +8801711062213, 8801673706969 Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook","For alternative financing, pursue a line of credit or a Home Equity Line of Credit. (From the comments of @ChrisInEdmonton and @littleadv on the original question)","Nowadays telephones can do so much more than just make calls. Using a VOIP business phone provides you with many additional systems features not available in ordinary phones. Here are five features of phones that every business needs.","Internet Phone Hello dear, You can make call with voip dialer by using internet phone. i have good quality Mobile dialer. Just install dialer software and give login and password then make call.,We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–700/750/1200/1350 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 1500 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213","low rate voip i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available.zonefone, 1legcall, fonefamily,cool dialer, trivigo dialer, talk dialer, new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, web dialer, kwickcannect dialer, klaamclear dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer. Reseller available. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ MASUM SARKER Contact email:- salestalkdialer@gmail.com, mobiledialer@yahoo.com Contact phone:- +8801711062213,01673706969","My wife just got a Moto G off Amazon for [$80](http://www.amazon.com/Moto-Boost-Mobile-Prepaid-Phone/dp/B00HPP3VW2/) and is using it on Ting, which means if she keeps her mobile data usage down the phone should cost us about $10 - $15 a month. It is an amazingly good phone for that price.","SIP Trunking & PRI Business Voice Solutions - SIP Trunking is the ideal way to use your existing IP PBX equipment to take advantage of the latest Voice over IP technologies and benefits. It's easy to simply your network by using data lines to pass voice and data traffic while still using your existing Cisco, Avaya, NEC or Mitel equipment.","voip voice Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile dialer. Just install dialer software and give login and password then make call.,We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–700/750/1200/1350 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 1500 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213","New technologies continue to emerge rapidly to make things easier for us at homes and offices. But not all of them are appreciated by the users and most of them are discontinued after not receiving the anticipated feedback. However, one technology that emerged as a boon for businesses is of the VoIP or the Voice over Internet Protocol system.","Get high quality telephone systems from a company that has always been committed to providing innovative technology and communication solutions to enterprises of all sizes. You'll get all the essential tools that you need in today’s fast paced business environment.","telephone voip call Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile and pc dialer.We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–800 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 800/1450 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213","Cheap Voip calls Hello everybody, i have good quality Mobile and pc dialer.We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us.Looking for Reseller. Dialer download link : You can use all dialer in one account India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–700/750/1200/1350 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 1500 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213 Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook","ip to ip voip i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available.zonefone, 1legcall, fonefamily,cool dialer, trivigo dialer, talk dialer, new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, web dialer, kwickcannect dialer, klaamclear dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer. Reseller available. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ MASUM SARKER Contact email:- salestalkdialer@gmail.com, mobiledialer@yahoo.com Contact phone:- +8801711062213,01673706969","I typically only purchase $10-$20 for each of our phones yearly as we do not use them very much. The first year, I purchased $100 for each, but after that, any amount will continue service for a year and you keep/roll over any unused minutes. Can't beat $$20-$60 per year for two phones...I just wish their coverage was much better in rural areas. I wish Verizon offered the same deal as their coverage is superior in Ohio.","DirecTV... Time Warner.... Netflix... 2 iPhones (= 2*Data plan).... $280 a month on pure luxuries. >10% of your net income. Of course, you may be needing at least some of this, no-one wants to come home and stare at bare walls. But if you have Netflix - maybe you don't need DirecTV? Or the other way around? And maybe DSL internet will be cheaper than cable? Maybe prepaid $1/day AT&T GoPhone or similar plan would be better than paying $151 for two iPhones?","Voip for mobile Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile dialer. Just install dialer software and give login and password then make call.,We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–800 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 800/1450 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213","Voip Business Become a reseller or card seller i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available.zonefone, 1legcall, fonefamily,cool dialer, trivigo dialer, talk dialer, new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, web dialer, kwickcannect dialer, klaamclear dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ For more countries call rate please contact with us. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213, 8801673706969","Reseller i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available.zonefone, 1legcall, fonefamily,cool dialer, trivigo dialer, talk dialer, new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, web dialer, kwickcannect dialer, klaamclear dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ For more countries call rate please contact with us. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213","Can't have a mobile workforce when you're tied to your desk because of your phone. Also why have a phone meeting when you can use Skype. The company I work for has plans to get rid of landlines as well. I still have one but the only calls I get are unsolicited sales calls.","voip calls Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile and pc dialer.We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–800 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 800/1450 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213","The best office and business telephone systems offered by this company come with features such as telephony, instant messaging, video conferencing and data sharing, into a single robust IP platform. The services are really affordable and customer services are simply unmatched.","Voip Business Become a reseller or card seller i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available.zonefone, 1legcall, fonefamily,cool dialer, trivigo dialer, talk dialer, new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, web dialer, kwickcannect dialer, klaamclear dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ MASUM SARKER Contact email:- salestalkdialer@gmail.com, mobiledialer@yahoo.com Contact phone:- +8801711062213,01673706969","Voip call Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile and pc dialer.We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–800 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 800/1450 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213 Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook","I found this page at CNN Money, that lists 5 viable alternatives to Paypal, namely: I would suggest looking for unbiased sources like CNN rather than searching for alternatives and happening upon the merchant's sites themselves. Hope this helps!","I feel like this change is the first of many that are going to continue to happen in the business world because there is a younger wiser generation arising that appreciate the power of technology and will get rid of these things that are not as efficient or old fashioned such as the landline.","Mobile Voip Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile dialer. Just install dialer software and give login and password then make call.,We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–700/750/1200/1350 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 1500 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213","voip reseller Voip Business Become a reseller or card seller i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available.zonefone, 1legcall, fonefamily,cool dialer, trivigo dialer, talk dialer, new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, web dialer, kwickcannect dialer, klaamclear dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ For more countries call rate please contact with us. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213, 8801673706969","voip voip i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available., we sell new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, itel mobile dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer., if you need reseller panel or calling card, you may contact with us. we believe quality service with long time relationship business. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ MASUM SARKER Contact email:- salestalkdialer@gmail.com, mobiledialer@yahoo.com Contact phone:- +8801711062213,01673706969","Google Adwords, they really push local. Set up a simple Wordpress blog and set up calls as conversions. It should get you customers for just a few bucks per click. Word of warning, Adwords can be costly if you don't know what you are doing. Message me if you wanna know more.","There are certain companies that will let you pay a flat fee per month instead of billing you for consumption. You should call your providers and ask them if they have such an option available; this way budgeting will be easy. :)","voip calls Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile and pc dialer.We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–700/750/1200/1350mins Pakistan Mobile—- 1500 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213","Voip Reseller Become a reseller or card seller i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available.zonefone, 1legcall, fonefamily,cool dialer, trivigo dialer, talk dialer, new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, web dialer, kwickcannect dialer, klaamclear dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ For more countries call rate please contact with us. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 8801711062213, 8801673706969","This is an alternative solution and it will depend where you live as to how you will have to make it work. I am in the UK and there are a number of ways that I can use to access my money from anywhere in the world without high transaction fees. Internet banking takes care of everything else.","Well, the article requires a login, so the only input I have is that the floor for cell phone plans is about $25 per month. There's no reason to price a product way below competition unless you don't care about revenue","This seems like a great thread to direct me somewhere my girlfriend and I can discover what it would take to quit our 2 room (TV, DVR/Cable box) setup and with cheaper services that give us what we want. Instead of outlining the problem, I am wondering if there is a better subreddit than /business.","I have and I was close to going that route but I live in a relatively rural area and the only viable antenna would need to be powered and roof mounted. This is something I would be willing to do as it's still cheaper than having cable/satellite but even with this I won't get many of the games I want (we would still not have clear reception for some major channels). I found that basically, without ESPN I cannot get the majority of the games we want to watch. That's what it boiled down to. No ESPN. I was all set to get an Apple TV (or similar device), a powered antenna, a VPN so I could catch the European soccer I like but I couldn't find a way to get ESPN and that eliminates too many of the games we like to watch.","This is a remarkable limit that most business telephones are outfitted with. It fills in the head or colleague. Already, just huge associations may make sense of how to keep running with this limit subsequently of its high cost.","Voip for mobile Voip mobile Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile dialer. Just install dialer software and give login and password then make call.,We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–800 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 800/1450 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 8801711062213, 8801673706969","your plan to implement business VoIP phones in your office can look very easy, but the fact is miles away from this. Therefore, in this post, you’ll get a brief glossary of some major terms that we will have to use on a daily basis.","\"FTA: \"\"Verizon would give up its television and Internet landline business known as FiOS, which has been a cable alternative for 14 million U.S. homes.\"\" Somebody explain to me !!! WTF does it mean? Are they going to give FiOS over to Comcast?\"","In Chicago, for HD and dvr, typical price for phone/internet/tv bundle is about 100-120 a month. My parents pay double that because they make no effort to look for the deals. But that's for several hundred channels, not sure whether programming is comparable in France.","How many cable providers can you choose at your house? We can choose from exactly one. We could get DSL at 1/3 the speed. High speed internet is pretty much a monopoly in this country, and is able to charge monopoly prices.","Depending what country you are from, there may be better alternatives to transfer money internationally. Opening a bank account is complicated, costs money, and international bank transfers are remarkably expensive.","\"You can get a \"\"drive-by\"\" appraisal or an assessment from a local real estate agent. This obviously will give you a less precise and not as reliable information as a full appraisal, but will be significantly cheaper.\"","[Craig Morganson](http://www.craigmorgansonreports.com/) agrees that it might be beneficial to look around your property and do an evaluation. Do you drink a great deal of bottled water? Those plastic bottles are an environment killer. Contemplate instead putting in a purification unit on your own faucet – these are very inexpensive.","Last I checked, all business expenses in regards to * Office Supplies * Stationary * Phone service * Marketing are all tax deductible....so how does cutting those costs save money when you'll get that money back via the corporate tax code?","Your best bet would be to find an independent Property and Casualty Insurance agent and buy through him/her. Insurance agents make a commission, yes - BUT - the cost to consumer is THE SAME whether you buy through an agent or through directly through the company. Any P&C agent would be happy to run your numbers for you and tell you what the cheapest deal is. Just make sure you find someone who writes for several different large insurers. Obviously, some P&C Insurance agents are slick salesy types, which can get annoying, but if you find someone nice, he or she can help you out at no cost to you (they are paid by the insurance company they place the business with). If you are straightforward with the agent about exactly what your needs, they can get you quotes quickly and save you a lot of time and hassle.","If you are using T-mobile you don't have to put $100 in each year to keep your minutes for a year. Once you spend $100 you get a year with any additional minutes you buy. Buying them $100 at a time is the cheapest way - but when you renew you can renew with only $50 or $30 and you have a year to use them from the last time you bought. I did this this year - only put $50 on each phone because we don't use $100 worth in a year.","That all depends on you. The cheaper places are certainly going to cost less, but when it comes to comparing value that is a subjective decision that only you can make. Maybe the more expensive one has an easier to user website, friendlier customer service, or something else you value enough to pay more for trades.","Most people use SMS or internet messaging similar to WhatsApp - but WhatsApp is not popular in the US. People use Apple, Google or Facebook services. Since SMS will not work for them in a foreign country, they can only use their internet messaging. Apple people use iMessage. Many other people use Facebook Messenger or Twitter Direct Messages (DMs). It is very important to have a Facebook account for people to link to you (when they write about their trip) - so Messenger should be easy to setup. Google, Facebook, and twitter can run on a cheaper android phone. But many tourists probably have Apple iPhones. iMessages can only be sent from Apple devices. If you have access to an older iPhone (iPhone 4S) - it should be able to still send iMessages. Email is used by everyone, but younger tourists may not like it, and it may be hard for you to check. Google can give you email and messenger for free.","Transferwise is a new peer-to-peer service that's setup to lower fees for international money transfers: https://transferwise.com","I've used OFX quite a lot for international transfers. They are much faster than a normal international transfer from your bank. Instead it ends up being a local transfer on either end which just works a heck of a lot quicker. They also claim lower exchange rates. In the past we have compared and sometimes found them lower and sometimes found them a little higher. Their fees certainly are lower though. Only thing is I think there was a lag setting up the account initially (they need to contact you by phone), so if you're in a hurry this may be problematic. And yes, you will need internet banking to do this. Since the question is specifically about how to do this in the cheapest way possible, I think the answer is to use internet banking.","Options: (personally I did the first and it is working well).","US Alarm Companies helps consumers compare services and features from the best home security companies in the industry. This allows you to customize your home alarm system while saving time and money. An alarm system will secure your home, reduce the risk of a break in, and protect your family and property. Listed below are a few good tips that will help you pick the best security system for your home. Consider your home security needs when it comes to purchasing a new security system for your home. If you take a look around your home, you will see that you have many things of value. Computers, TV's, gaming systems, DVD's, jewelry, and priceless personal possessions are all something of value. And while we may not all have expensive family heirlooms to protect, we all have something valuable we would miss if a burglar should make off with it. Imagine your home being burglarized and all of these things were stolen. It would probably be very expensive to replace all the things that were taken, if the items are even replaceable at all. Determine your budget for a new home security system. A good home security system will cost money. You do not need to spend a small fortune to get one, but you will need to spend a little bit of money. By doing your research and comparing home security companies, you can get a rough idea about how much a home security system for your home will run. By knowing this, you will feel secure speaking to any alarm company representative when going over your security system options. Many reputable home security companies will offer to come out to your home and give you a free estimate for a new security system for your home, so its a good idea to get quotes from several companies. Go over all your options with your home security sales representative. Do you want a hardwired or wireless home security system? Do you have an active phone line or will you be using cellular communication as a way for your security system to be monitored? How long is the contract? What happens if you move? These are all questions to ask upfront and based on the answers you receive, should be enough to help you make your choice for a new home security company. Make your final decision. Now that you have narrowed down your choices, it is time to make your final decision on which company and security system you will go with. Always remember that cheaper is not always better. It is always a good idea to use a company you feel the most secure with and who you feel can provide the best security for your home. Sometimes that means paying a little more money for the peace of mind. However, this is the security of your family you are dealing with, you can't really put a price on that.","You could look into refinancing with a bank or credit union. But to weed out options quickly, use a service like LendingTree, which can vet multiple options for you a whole lot more quickly than you could probably do yourself. (I don't work for, or get any benefit from LendingTree.) Whatever you do, try to do all the applying within a short span of time, as to not negatively affect your credit score (read here) by creating extraneous inquiries. Then again, if your credit sucks, you might not qualify for a re-fi. If you are turned down, make your payments on time for six months or so, and try again.","One thing I would look into is getting a fixed rate home equity loan for a short term. Not a line of credit, but a home equity loan. The main benefit is they typically offer no closing costs. You can get a very low rate provided you move the loan into first position (replace your current mortgage). I know someone who got a 7 year fixed Home Equity Loan, from Regions Bank, for 2.62% no closing costs.","\"My dad uses CenturyLink for internet (DSL, only option available in the \"\"sticks\"\") and uses another company for television. I pointed out that he is paying CenturyLink over $75 a month for DSL, when it should be $12.99. I mentioned they are charging for the entire package. He insisted he never ordered any of it, but I just chalked it up to a mistake and got it sorted out by calling them. Maybe he really never ordered it ... Ugh.\"","You can save around hundred dollars per month, mostly the teens are attracted by this method. If you are a frequent shopper and want to get the recent updates about the coupons available then you can sign up with the website and they will send you the email subscriptions.","Consider trying a broker that offers free trading. Robinhood is one such broker.","\"If the amount is large, \"\"wire transfer\"\" is usually the cheapest option. Mane banks have online option for it.\"","Switch to a different product. For $500, you'd be surprised what you could buy wholesale. Potential options: -Find something appropriate to wholesale to your peers on Alibaba -Start a T-shirt company with graphics relevant to your school, area, or pop-culture microcosm. Edgy inside references with clean graphics being ideal. Shopify is $25 a month + Print on demand t-shirt company (about $7 profit per shirt) + Fiverr for inexpensive graphics --> you could launch a local T-shirt brand for less than $100.","Here's one option: Telephone is a lower-tech yet relatively more secure means for transmitting your payment information when a secure web site isn't available. And yet another option: You could send them an encrypted email, but this would require tools (e.g. GPG), setup (public keys), and expertise on their end which they are unlikely to already have. However, ChrisInEdmonton raised a good point in his comment. How can you consider them to be a reputable seller when they don't take basic precautions to protect customers' payment information online? The seller may with good faith charge your card the correct amount and deliver the goods that you expect, but how will they protect your credit card information once in their hands? Would you trust their internal systems if they can't even set up an HTTPS web site?","> unlimited data plans on your phone This may work in some countries; in the US, oligopolic wireless carriers are doing their level best to ensure it doesn't become the norm, because they collectively see it as a threat to their business models. They may still lose; tho I consider it unlikely, as the best scenario for that would require increasing the number of players in the wireless market. Some sort of open-access rule for infrastructure built by companies granted spectrum licenses would be a good start, but seems unlikely given how much more sway corporations have over the state than consumers.","There is no need of the conventional advertising methods, which include cost of– Land, capital, work, and businessperson to enhance the promotion of your product. You can start with blog promotion, web-based social networking, and email advertising of your services with lesser investment.","Several things to do: Change your bank. $2 for a check? Why?? When shopping for a new bank: ask for a free checking account. College students can get free checking in almost any bank. At least the first box of checks will be free, which will give you enough checks for the next several years (I'm still not half done with the box I got from WaMu 5 years ago). Check out your neighborhood credit union. Most of them have free checking and free checks for students as well. If still no luck - check online check printing services, they'll send you a box for less than $25, that's for sure. Walmart for example (1 box - $7). Also, you can use banks' bill-pay service for any check you write, if you know the address of the person, the amount and the sum a couple of days ahead of time. That should cover rent, and probably most of your other checks.","Many business owners simply cannot afford to procure office space. An obvious solution to this problem may be what is referred to as a virtual office. A virtual office offers many of the benefits of an actual office without an expensive lease. A virtual office can be especially appealing to small startup businesses which simply haven't grown large enough yet to start looking for commercial office space.","for one thing, marketing. e.g. there are some ads that runs on radio 5-10x a day every day over networks reaching many tens of millions every day. if you're working a website site as your pitch, the big marketer crushes you with massive exposure, 800 phone numbers, live 24 hour service...etc","We moved and decided to drop cable a few years ago. I haven't really missed it at all. I also don't pirate anything. I imagine people willing to pirate have absolutely no problem dropping cable TV. The *only* thing I miss is my hometown sports. I can't always get them over the air. The thing is that it is a redundant system. It is a less appealing information delivery system. Why would I pay for internet service and a worse, time restricted service? It is one of the reasons I think that Netflix's move to original content is smart. I pay a small price for quality content that just uses the best information delivery system I have. Honestly, I suspect that phone service (even mobile) is going to head in that direction too.","You can find great deals and the forums are full of other information. I also have found when I need to find a deal on something, you can ask or find others on the forums for help. http://slickdeals.net/","They still got away with pocketing the cash and I got uhh DSL (shitty limited range technology) and other crummy something or other long distance options! Fuck MA BELL. Name any phone company, it's still MA BELL. Smaller competitive with someone else company my ass. They're letting it merge back together too. I still love the day our towns Main Street was being torn up to be repaved. During this little adventure they severed some fiber optic cables. It took out the cell phone network (and ONLY that network). I'll leave that there for someone to attempt to figure out.","Here are some ways my family saves money on our home insurance: Here are a couple of good articles on the subject: Finally - make sure you get adequate coverage! Make sure you consider your real insurance needs, and not just the cost of the insurance. If the worst happens, you'll want good coverage with a good company.","In planning to buy a house, and sort out how to handle the costs of some initial renovations, I've been considering using Lowes and Home Depot credit cards (hopefully this will count differently than the typical credit cards I think you're referring to): http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ContentView?pn=Credit_Center&langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053 http://www.lowes.com/cd_Credit+Card+Accounts+from+Lowes_781778798_ You should definitely read the fine print first, as the interest rates can shoot up after the first 6 months if you don't pay the balance in full on some of them. Also, Lowes has a project card that gives you the 6 month no interest (only a minimum payment), and you don't have to pay off the full balance at the end. This one even has more reasonable rates, so this could be a good way to go.","There are a lot of cheap or low-cost packages that are quite lucrative but you can be sure that these are not at all private servers but are rented out to several customers so basically you are now paying for the stuff you could have obtained for free on the internet.","The only real competition I see in the US market is in the pre-paid service providers. But they are just piggybacking off the networks of the larger carriers. To have an actual functioning market they would have to be some legal framework that requires all carriers to share their networks at some reasonable fee rate and then put value added on top of that. That is pretty much how the POTS worked. We recognized that as a nation it is plainly ridiculous to compete on who can hang the most wires. We lost that lesson and now we're letting carriers compete almost purely on who can erect the most towers. AT&T and Verizon are essentially the same company offering the same service. The entire basis of their competition is who can get the most right of way access to install the most towers. it's crazy.","Have you considered social lending (for example: Lending Club)?","Call centre solution providers will efficiently serve customers, while keeping overheads low. They can efficiently manage not just the regular inbound calls, but also make the outbound calls to promote your products and services which further lead your trade to the path of success.","If commuting is a big budget item, then can you: A side job is one way to make extra money, but I'd suggest a home business. If your wife substitute teaches, I bet she writes fairly well, and in any case you can. Write a personal finance blog or just a site with articles. Focus on surviving and thriving with child(ren) in a one-income Christian household in the suburbs of Philadelphia. Or if you have a hobby that stokes your furnace, write about that. Heck, do both. The content just stays there and gets traffic day after day that you can monetize. My main suggestion would be to start this now because it's not overnight money. But in the long run it can turn into a nice, fairly passive income. The big advantage of this is that mommy gets to stay home with the kids and build up a decent business. The cost is $10/year for the domain (per domain) and maybe $10/month for hosting. Or, if some other legitimate work-at-home business presents itself, go with that. I suggest blogging because it's what I know, but everyone's an expert in something unique.","There is a number of cheaper online options that you could use. TranferWise was already mentioned here. Other options i know are Paysera or TransferGo. They state that international transfers are processed on the next day and they are substantially cheaper than those of banks. Currency exchange rate is usually not bad.","You may want to look at services like https://transferwise.com/. For transferring money abroad they may be cheaper than you own bank. Here is a list of similar services: https://www.icomparefx.com/transferwise-competitors/. Which one is the cheapest depends on the amount of money you want to transfer. You would still need an account at a german bank or a trustworthy friend with a german account.","There are a number of ways and it all depends on your concentration and range of skills (or skills you're willing to develop). As for involving your wife ... things that can be done locally for neighbours is always a good idea. The most important thing is not to spend too much time or cash on anything that will take a long time to pay off. That excludes writing your own iPhone apps, for example, which would take long hours of development and much marketing (and luck) to be successful. Good luck and congrats.","Alternative: buy a recent-model used car in good condition. Or buy an older car in good condition. Let someone else pay the heavy depreciation that happens the moment you drive a new car off the dealer's lot.","What sort of items? That being said, I am cheap and not brand loyal...I buy what's on sale. I have never seen 'everyday items' cheaper than the grocery store or Aldi or Costco (places where I most of my shopping when not shopping online).","Of course not, even if it got me closer to work, I've moved 30+ times in my life and I'm fucking done with it. I'm just saying, there are conceivably options, it isn't a total monopoly, even if you have to do an unreasonable amount of work to get around it. From an investing standpoint, there are competitors, even if there aren't real options for customers.","\"You got anything else? And you're right... There are more than 3. But that doesn't mean shit when you can't access them. Who owns the lines that allow other providers to work by allowing them to rent/buy space? Oh that's right att, Comcast, time warner and charter. So even then if its \"\"allowed\"\" competition is it really competition?\"","Want to know why your cable bill is so high? Blame the four letter sports network. About $20 of your non tax/fee cable charges go straight to those assholes and then by way to the three letter professional sports outfits and by way of them your local bling wearing pro athlete who promptly blow it. Ditch the coaxial.","\"Even without the $2 fee, I'm jumping ship and switching to Virgin Mobile. Here's my breakdown: Verizon 400 minutes + 100 texts (IIRC), no data, $45 before fees Virgin 300 minutes + unlimited 3G data & text: $35 with purchase of $200+ smartphone. (and virgin uses Sprint for 3G) I'll be informing Verizon that their separate fee hike of $0.15 which, to my knowledge, is still in the works, is what's known legally as a \"\"material averse effect\"\" and allows me to opt out of the contract without paying a cancellation fee.\"","I've always wondered why nobody has tried to use the broadcast spectrum for internet connectivity. Or at least tried to lobby for repurposing some of the spectrum for that purpose. I had always assumed there was some kind of technical limitation that kept it from being considered. Seems like a much better use of our broadcast spectrum than our antiquated TV networks. Especially after the Fairness Doctrine was rescinded.","Um you said yourself that it goes down on 7pm on a Friday and costs you hours and hours of problems. The cost of a T1 is like $300. I'm going to guess it would pay for itself. My advice - learn basic math.","On form 8829, line 20 you can list utilities paid for the home office. You have two choices: 1) You can list the entire amount under column (b) as an indirect expense. You will then get a deduction for the fraction of the amount based on what fraction of your home is an office. This makes sense if the service equally benefits your entire home. 2) You can compute the portion of the expense reasonably attributable to the business/office and list that amount under column (a). This entire amount will be deducted. Which option you choose depends on how well you think you can allocate the expense between your office and the rest of your home. For example, I have had to do this with electricity, but I specifically measured the electricity used by my office. If you think you can defend allocating a larger portion to the office, use option 2. If you would have paid the same amount even if you didn't have an office, it's hard to justify allocating more of the expense to the office than its portion of the home. If you opted for a more expensive service or otherwise incurred additional costs, it makes sense to allocate a higher fraction to the office and to calculate that yourself.","Aha, perhaps...also, perhaps someone like Louis with a product such as this, to the (reasonably) technically literate while pushed through a next-generation service that isn't rapacious when it comes to something as simple as digitally moving money...perhaps it's time. Shake our fists to the heavens, and all.","What does cheap mean? Compared to what? A standard international wire transfer cost about 40 $. Is that 'cheap' for you? Alternatively, a mailed paper check takes 5-7 days mailing plus 7-10 days processing, but is free, that's as cheap as it gets.","Cant tell if sarcasm but between two employees where one has a cellphone and one dosnt (or only intermittently) who are you going to rely on. That being said it's cheap as fuck to afford a basic ass cellphone.","Google Maps and Craig’s List are easy wins and free. I would offer free inspections and estimates. What about getting into one of those new mover mailings. That is when most people will be updating their fixtures.","I can't provide a list, but when I took out my Stocks and Shares, I extensively researched for a good, cheap, flexible option and I went with FoolShareDealing. I've found them to be good, and their online trading system works well. I hope that's still the case."],"string":"[\n \"Try to use VOIP service provider or web enabled conference calling services in your home phone. Now a days communication technologies have seen a boost as well as integration of different formats and platforms which easily reduces phone bills of a user. Service such as UberConference, Skype, Webinar etc enables audio/video as well as web conferencing feature for their user. Service tiers such as free plans, basic plans and business plans allow user to use these conference calling services per their need. Have a look at any such service and use it as an alternative of your home phone line.\",\n \"\\\"How low you can reduce your costs does depend on your calling pattern. How many minutes per month you call locally; call long distance; call internationally; and how many minutes you receive calls for. If all these figures are low, you can be better off with a pay-per-minute service, if any of the outbound figures are high then you could consider a flat-rate \\\"\\\"unlimited\\\"\\\" service. So that's the first step, determine your needs: don't pay for what you don't need. For example, I barely use a \\\"\\\"landline\\\"\\\" voip phone any more. But it is still useful for incoming calls, and for 911 service. So I use a prepaid pay-per-minute VOIP company, that has a flat rate (< $2/mo) for the incoming number, an add-on fee for the 911 service (80c/mo), and per-minute costs for outgoing calls (1c/min or less to US, Canada, western Europe). I use my own Obitalk box (under $50 to buy). There is a bit of setup and learning needed, but the end result means my \\\"\\\"landline\\\"\\\" bill is usually under $4/mo (no other taxes or fees). Companies in this BYOD (bring your own device) space in the US/Canada include (in alphabetic order), Anveo, Callcentric, Callwithus, Futurenine, Localphone, Voip.ms and many others. A good discussion forum to learn more about them is the VOIP forum at DSLreports (although it can be a bit technical). There is also a reviews section at that site. If your usage is higher (you make lots of calls to a variety of numbers), most of these companies, and others, have flat-rate bundles, probably similar to what you have now. Comparing them depends on your usage pattern, so again that's the first thing to consider, then you know what to shop for. If you need features like voicemail or voicemail transcription, be sure to look at whether you need an expensive bundle with it in, or whether you're better off paying for that seperately. If your outbound calls are to a limited number of numbers, such as relatives far away or internationally, consider getting a similar VOIP system for those relatives. Most VOIP companies have free \\\"\\\"on network\\\"\\\" calls between their customers, regardless of the country they are in. So your most common, and most lengthy calls, could be free. The Obitalk boxes (ATA's: analog telephone adapters) have an advantage here, if you install them in yours and relatives houses. As well as allowing you to use any of the \\\"\\\"bring your own device\\\"\\\" VOIP companies like those listed above, they have their own Obitalk network allowing free calls between their boxes, and also to/from their iOS and Android apps. There are other ATA's from other companies (Cisco have well-known models), and other ways to make free calls between them, so Obitalk isn't the only option. I mentioned above I pay for the incoming number. Not every supplier has incoming numbers available in every area, you need to check this. Some can port-in (transfer in) your existing number, if you are attached to it, but not all can, so again check. You can also get incoming numbers in other areas or countries, that ring on your home line (without forwarding costs). This means you can have a number near a cluster of relatives, who can call you with a local call. Doesn't directly save you money (each number has a monthly fee) but could save you having to call them back!\\\"\",\n \"Cheapest is one thing. You can absolutely shop in the market and find the lowest possible price. I can think of three places to shop, each with an up and downside. I would think that what you really mean is the best price for the service. Just like shopping for a car you have to decide what you need vs what is nice to have. Decide what features you need. Do you need long distance? Do you need caller id? Do you need to call technophobic friends and family? Find out what you have available to you through associations. Often schools, work or a club you belong to have deals for service discounts. Look at your insurance plan or AAA membership for the crazy discounts. Decide what kinds of service will meet your needs. Buy the cheapest service. DO NOT ENTER A CONTRACT. Even if the price is slightly lower. At least not at first. If you try out your service and love it, enter the contract if and only if the total price measured over length of the contract is less. With cell phones especially, it is absolutely possible to save money buying month to month vs a 2 year contract. Even when you buy equipment for full price up front. Ask for the bare minimum service from your local phone company. Because phone companies are often regulated monopolies, they might have a bare minimum level of service they are required to offer by the municipality. They probably don't advertise it or push it, but it might exist if you call and ask. You basically get a dial tone. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/local-local-toll-and-long-distance-calling Price is dictated by a government board, so you don't have to worry about shopping for deals Not the cheapest possible solution This is popular plan the youth oriented market, but more and more people of all demographics are using their cellphones only. There are downsides (911, etc) and shopping for the best cell phone plan can be a full time job, but it does offer a way to save money by simply not having home phone service. Might be possible to score organizational discounts through work or groups you belong to Cellphones require batteries, and can go dead (not good for emergencies) Voice over Internet Protocol uses your existing Internet connection. You can buy a cheap regular phone and plug it into the VOIP box and use it like any other phone. VOIP can either be very inexpensive for all the features you get, or just plain inexpensive. There are providers who sell a monthly service, yearly service or no service plan at all. (You buy a device and get service as long as you own the device.) Taxes to the government are always due, so nothing is ever free. Sometimes the provider is just computer software, so a minimalist would like that. Emergency services are more reliable than cellular (if you follow extra steps to set them up) Can be confusing to buy. Some require contracts, some special devices, some require a bit of technical know how to setup. Be sure to evaluate the total cost of ownership when comparing prices\",\n \"seriously...I'm the only one that is recommending VoIP.ms? It costs a buck a month to keep your number and you can get DIDs (numbers) from other countries that point to the same phone. You'll need a ATA though to hook up your normal phone to the internet...I use the Cisco PAP2T-NA and it works wonders with good QoS on the router. Bonus: This also allows you to do long distance phone calls on your smart phone if you have 3g/wifi internet access....pretty awesome stuff. Extra Bonus: if you switch family members onto voip.ms too then you can phone them for free. I have quite a few around the world and most of my long distance has been completely cut out of my bills. Monthly bills are ~3-5 bucks a month based on usage. I challenge anyone else to beat that! Edit: just realized Verizon is cell service only -- DOH! Can you tell I'm not from the states? :P Leaving this post here because it could help someone in a better choice for their wired phone service non-the-less. Long distance thing is also a plus for your smart phone ;)\",\n \"This is more of a general answer about your situation than a specific answer to your question. You might consider getting a SIP telephone number based in the US, or an even easier to use IP based phone number. That way you can use it through your Internet connection and make eaiser calls to US companies that you still have a business relationship with.\",\n \"C) None of the above. I mostly use Lync/Skype/Facebook/Whatsapp for making calls on the road. Wifi is ubiquitous these days, Project Fi and T-Mobile let you freely roam data outside the USA and I believe most European carriers are similar\",\n \"voip service providers We provide TaTa voiz, New voiz, 24 dialer and itel mobile dialer. All are good working in UAE, Oman, Saudi Arabia and others countries.If you need good quality dialer with good quality sound, you may contact with us for reseller panel or calling card. MASUM salestalkdialer@gmail.com, mobiledialer@yahoo.com +8801711062213, 8801673706969 Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook\",\n \"For alternative financing, pursue a line of credit or a Home Equity Line of Credit. (From the comments of @ChrisInEdmonton and @littleadv on the original question)\",\n \"Nowadays telephones can do so much more than just make calls. Using a VOIP business phone provides you with many additional systems features not available in ordinary phones. Here are five features of phones that every business needs.\",\n \"Internet Phone Hello dear, You can make call with voip dialer by using internet phone. i have good quality Mobile dialer. Just install dialer software and give login and password then make call.,We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–700/750/1200/1350 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 1500 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213\",\n \"low rate voip i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available.zonefone, 1legcall, fonefamily,cool dialer, trivigo dialer, talk dialer, new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, web dialer, kwickcannect dialer, klaamclear dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer. Reseller available. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ MASUM SARKER Contact email:- salestalkdialer@gmail.com, mobiledialer@yahoo.com Contact phone:- +8801711062213,01673706969\",\n \"My wife just got a Moto G off Amazon for [$80](http://www.amazon.com/Moto-Boost-Mobile-Prepaid-Phone/dp/B00HPP3VW2/) and is using it on Ting, which means if she keeps her mobile data usage down the phone should cost us about $10 - $15 a month. It is an amazingly good phone for that price.\",\n \"SIP Trunking & PRI Business Voice Solutions - SIP Trunking is the ideal way to use your existing IP PBX equipment to take advantage of the latest Voice over IP technologies and benefits. It's easy to simply your network by using data lines to pass voice and data traffic while still using your existing Cisco, Avaya, NEC or Mitel equipment.\",\n \"voip voice Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile dialer. Just install dialer software and give login and password then make call.,We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–700/750/1200/1350 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 1500 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213\",\n \"New technologies continue to emerge rapidly to make things easier for us at homes and offices. But not all of them are appreciated by the users and most of them are discontinued after not receiving the anticipated feedback. However, one technology that emerged as a boon for businesses is of the VoIP or the Voice over Internet Protocol system.\",\n \"Get high quality telephone systems from a company that has always been committed to providing innovative technology and communication solutions to enterprises of all sizes. You'll get all the essential tools that you need in today’s fast paced business environment.\",\n \"telephone voip call Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile and pc dialer.We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–800 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 800/1450 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213\",\n \"Cheap Voip calls Hello everybody, i have good quality Mobile and pc dialer.We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us.Looking for Reseller. Dialer download link : You can use all dialer in one account India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–700/750/1200/1350 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 1500 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213 Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook\",\n \"ip to ip voip i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available.zonefone, 1legcall, fonefamily,cool dialer, trivigo dialer, talk dialer, new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, web dialer, kwickcannect dialer, klaamclear dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer. Reseller available. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ MASUM SARKER Contact email:- salestalkdialer@gmail.com, mobiledialer@yahoo.com Contact phone:- +8801711062213,01673706969\",\n \"I typically only purchase $10-$20 for each of our phones yearly as we do not use them very much. The first year, I purchased $100 for each, but after that, any amount will continue service for a year and you keep/roll over any unused minutes. Can't beat $$20-$60 per year for two phones...I just wish their coverage was much better in rural areas. I wish Verizon offered the same deal as their coverage is superior in Ohio.\",\n \"DirecTV... Time Warner.... Netflix... 2 iPhones (= 2*Data plan).... $280 a month on pure luxuries. >10% of your net income. Of course, you may be needing at least some of this, no-one wants to come home and stare at bare walls. But if you have Netflix - maybe you don't need DirecTV? Or the other way around? And maybe DSL internet will be cheaper than cable? Maybe prepaid $1/day AT&T GoPhone or similar plan would be better than paying $151 for two iPhones?\",\n \"Voip for mobile Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile dialer. Just install dialer software and give login and password then make call.,We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–800 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 800/1450 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213\",\n \"Voip Business Become a reseller or card seller i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available.zonefone, 1legcall, fonefamily,cool dialer, trivigo dialer, talk dialer, new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, web dialer, kwickcannect dialer, klaamclear dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ For more countries call rate please contact with us. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213, 8801673706969\",\n \"Reseller i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available.zonefone, 1legcall, fonefamily,cool dialer, trivigo dialer, talk dialer, new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, web dialer, kwickcannect dialer, klaamclear dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ For more countries call rate please contact with us. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213\",\n \"Can't have a mobile workforce when you're tied to your desk because of your phone. Also why have a phone meeting when you can use Skype. The company I work for has plans to get rid of landlines as well. I still have one but the only calls I get are unsolicited sales calls.\",\n \"voip calls Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile and pc dialer.We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–800 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 800/1450 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213\",\n \"The best office and business telephone systems offered by this company come with features such as telephony, instant messaging, video conferencing and data sharing, into a single robust IP platform. The services are really affordable and customer services are simply unmatched.\",\n \"Voip Business Become a reseller or card seller i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available.zonefone, 1legcall, fonefamily,cool dialer, trivigo dialer, talk dialer, new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, web dialer, kwickcannect dialer, klaamclear dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ MASUM SARKER Contact email:- salestalkdialer@gmail.com, mobiledialer@yahoo.com Contact phone:- +8801711062213,01673706969\",\n \"Voip call Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile and pc dialer.We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–800 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 800/1450 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213 Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook\",\n \"I found this page at CNN Money, that lists 5 viable alternatives to Paypal, namely: I would suggest looking for unbiased sources like CNN rather than searching for alternatives and happening upon the merchant's sites themselves. Hope this helps!\",\n \"I feel like this change is the first of many that are going to continue to happen in the business world because there is a younger wiser generation arising that appreciate the power of technology and will get rid of these things that are not as efficient or old fashioned such as the landline.\",\n \"Mobile Voip Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile dialer. Just install dialer software and give login and password then make call.,We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–700/750/1200/1350 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 1500 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213\",\n \"voip reseller Voip Business Become a reseller or card seller i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available.zonefone, 1legcall, fonefamily,cool dialer, trivigo dialer, talk dialer, new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, web dialer, kwickcannect dialer, klaamclear dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ For more countries call rate please contact with us. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213, 8801673706969\",\n \"voip voip i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available., we sell new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, itel mobile dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer., if you need reseller panel or calling card, you may contact with us. we believe quality service with long time relationship business. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ MASUM SARKER Contact email:- salestalkdialer@gmail.com, mobiledialer@yahoo.com Contact phone:- +8801711062213,01673706969\",\n \"Google Adwords, they really push local. Set up a simple Wordpress blog and set up calls as conversions. It should get you customers for just a few bucks per click. Word of warning, Adwords can be costly if you don't know what you are doing. Message me if you wanna know more.\",\n \"There are certain companies that will let you pay a flat fee per month instead of billing you for consumption. You should call your providers and ask them if they have such an option available; this way budgeting will be easy. :)\",\n \"voip calls Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile and pc dialer.We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–700/750/1200/1350mins Pakistan Mobile—- 1500 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213\",\n \"Voip Reseller Become a reseller or card seller i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available.zonefone, 1legcall, fonefamily,cool dialer, trivigo dialer, talk dialer, new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, web dialer, kwickcannect dialer, klaamclear dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ For more countries call rate please contact with us. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 8801711062213, 8801673706969\",\n \"This is an alternative solution and it will depend where you live as to how you will have to make it work. I am in the UK and there are a number of ways that I can use to access my money from anywhere in the world without high transaction fees. Internet banking takes care of everything else.\",\n \"Well, the article requires a login, so the only input I have is that the floor for cell phone plans is about $25 per month. There's no reason to price a product way below competition unless you don't care about revenue\",\n \"This seems like a great thread to direct me somewhere my girlfriend and I can discover what it would take to quit our 2 room (TV, DVR/Cable box) setup and with cheaper services that give us what we want. Instead of outlining the problem, I am wondering if there is a better subreddit than /business.\",\n \"I have and I was close to going that route but I live in a relatively rural area and the only viable antenna would need to be powered and roof mounted. This is something I would be willing to do as it's still cheaper than having cable/satellite but even with this I won't get many of the games I want (we would still not have clear reception for some major channels). I found that basically, without ESPN I cannot get the majority of the games we want to watch. That's what it boiled down to. No ESPN. I was all set to get an Apple TV (or similar device), a powered antenna, a VPN so I could catch the European soccer I like but I couldn't find a way to get ESPN and that eliminates too many of the games we like to watch.\",\n \"This is a remarkable limit that most business telephones are outfitted with. It fills in the head or colleague. Already, just huge associations may make sense of how to keep running with this limit subsequently of its high cost.\",\n \"Voip for mobile Voip mobile Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile dialer. Just install dialer software and give login and password then make call.,We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–800 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 800/1450 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 8801711062213, 8801673706969\",\n \"your plan to implement business VoIP phones in your office can look very easy, but the fact is miles away from this. Therefore, in this post, you’ll get a brief glossary of some major terms that we will have to use on a daily basis.\",\n \"\\\"FTA: \\\"\\\"Verizon would give up its television and Internet landline business known as FiOS, which has been a cable alternative for 14 million U.S. homes.\\\"\\\" Somebody explain to me !!! WTF does it mean? Are they going to give FiOS over to Comcast?\\\"\",\n \"In Chicago, for HD and dvr, typical price for phone/internet/tv bundle is about 100-120 a month. My parents pay double that because they make no effort to look for the deals. But that's for several hundred channels, not sure whether programming is comparable in France.\",\n \"How many cable providers can you choose at your house? We can choose from exactly one. We could get DSL at 1/3 the speed. High speed internet is pretty much a monopoly in this country, and is able to charge monopoly prices.\",\n \"Depending what country you are from, there may be better alternatives to transfer money internationally. Opening a bank account is complicated, costs money, and international bank transfers are remarkably expensive.\",\n \"\\\"You can get a \\\"\\\"drive-by\\\"\\\" appraisal or an assessment from a local real estate agent. This obviously will give you a less precise and not as reliable information as a full appraisal, but will be significantly cheaper.\\\"\",\n \"[Craig Morganson](http://www.craigmorgansonreports.com/) agrees that it might be beneficial to look around your property and do an evaluation. Do you drink a great deal of bottled water? Those plastic bottles are an environment killer. Contemplate instead putting in a purification unit on your own faucet – these are very inexpensive.\",\n \"Last I checked, all business expenses in regards to * Office Supplies * Stationary * Phone service * Marketing are all tax deductible....so how does cutting those costs save money when you'll get that money back via the corporate tax code?\",\n \"Your best bet would be to find an independent Property and Casualty Insurance agent and buy through him/her. Insurance agents make a commission, yes - BUT - the cost to consumer is THE SAME whether you buy through an agent or through directly through the company. Any P&C agent would be happy to run your numbers for you and tell you what the cheapest deal is. Just make sure you find someone who writes for several different large insurers. Obviously, some P&C Insurance agents are slick salesy types, which can get annoying, but if you find someone nice, he or she can help you out at no cost to you (they are paid by the insurance company they place the business with). If you are straightforward with the agent about exactly what your needs, they can get you quotes quickly and save you a lot of time and hassle.\",\n \"If you are using T-mobile you don't have to put $100 in each year to keep your minutes for a year. Once you spend $100 you get a year with any additional minutes you buy. Buying them $100 at a time is the cheapest way - but when you renew you can renew with only $50 or $30 and you have a year to use them from the last time you bought. I did this this year - only put $50 on each phone because we don't use $100 worth in a year.\",\n \"That all depends on you. The cheaper places are certainly going to cost less, but when it comes to comparing value that is a subjective decision that only you can make. Maybe the more expensive one has an easier to user website, friendlier customer service, or something else you value enough to pay more for trades.\",\n \"Most people use SMS or internet messaging similar to WhatsApp - but WhatsApp is not popular in the US. People use Apple, Google or Facebook services. Since SMS will not work for them in a foreign country, they can only use their internet messaging. Apple people use iMessage. Many other people use Facebook Messenger or Twitter Direct Messages (DMs). It is very important to have a Facebook account for people to link to you (when they write about their trip) - so Messenger should be easy to setup. Google, Facebook, and twitter can run on a cheaper android phone. But many tourists probably have Apple iPhones. iMessages can only be sent from Apple devices. If you have access to an older iPhone (iPhone 4S) - it should be able to still send iMessages. Email is used by everyone, but younger tourists may not like it, and it may be hard for you to check. Google can give you email and messenger for free.\",\n \"Transferwise is a new peer-to-peer service that's setup to lower fees for international money transfers: https://transferwise.com\",\n \"I've used OFX quite a lot for international transfers. They are much faster than a normal international transfer from your bank. Instead it ends up being a local transfer on either end which just works a heck of a lot quicker. They also claim lower exchange rates. In the past we have compared and sometimes found them lower and sometimes found them a little higher. Their fees certainly are lower though. Only thing is I think there was a lag setting up the account initially (they need to contact you by phone), so if you're in a hurry this may be problematic. And yes, you will need internet banking to do this. Since the question is specifically about how to do this in the cheapest way possible, I think the answer is to use internet banking.\",\n \"Options: (personally I did the first and it is working well).\",\n \"US Alarm Companies helps consumers compare services and features from the best home security companies in the industry. This allows you to customize your home alarm system while saving time and money. An alarm system will secure your home, reduce the risk of a break in, and protect your family and property. Listed below are a few good tips that will help you pick the best security system for your home. Consider your home security needs when it comes to purchasing a new security system for your home. If you take a look around your home, you will see that you have many things of value. Computers, TV's, gaming systems, DVD's, jewelry, and priceless personal possessions are all something of value. And while we may not all have expensive family heirlooms to protect, we all have something valuable we would miss if a burglar should make off with it. Imagine your home being burglarized and all of these things were stolen. It would probably be very expensive to replace all the things that were taken, if the items are even replaceable at all. Determine your budget for a new home security system. A good home security system will cost money. You do not need to spend a small fortune to get one, but you will need to spend a little bit of money. By doing your research and comparing home security companies, you can get a rough idea about how much a home security system for your home will run. By knowing this, you will feel secure speaking to any alarm company representative when going over your security system options. Many reputable home security companies will offer to come out to your home and give you a free estimate for a new security system for your home, so its a good idea to get quotes from several companies. Go over all your options with your home security sales representative. Do you want a hardwired or wireless home security system? Do you have an active phone line or will you be using cellular communication as a way for your security system to be monitored? How long is the contract? What happens if you move? These are all questions to ask upfront and based on the answers you receive, should be enough to help you make your choice for a new home security company. Make your final decision. Now that you have narrowed down your choices, it is time to make your final decision on which company and security system you will go with. Always remember that cheaper is not always better. It is always a good idea to use a company you feel the most secure with and who you feel can provide the best security for your home. Sometimes that means paying a little more money for the peace of mind. However, this is the security of your family you are dealing with, you can't really put a price on that.\",\n \"You could look into refinancing with a bank or credit union. But to weed out options quickly, use a service like LendingTree, which can vet multiple options for you a whole lot more quickly than you could probably do yourself. (I don't work for, or get any benefit from LendingTree.) Whatever you do, try to do all the applying within a short span of time, as to not negatively affect your credit score (read here) by creating extraneous inquiries. Then again, if your credit sucks, you might not qualify for a re-fi. If you are turned down, make your payments on time for six months or so, and try again.\",\n \"One thing I would look into is getting a fixed rate home equity loan for a short term. Not a line of credit, but a home equity loan. The main benefit is they typically offer no closing costs. You can get a very low rate provided you move the loan into first position (replace your current mortgage). I know someone who got a 7 year fixed Home Equity Loan, from Regions Bank, for 2.62% no closing costs.\",\n \"\\\"My dad uses CenturyLink for internet (DSL, only option available in the \\\"\\\"sticks\\\"\\\") and uses another company for television. I pointed out that he is paying CenturyLink over $75 a month for DSL, when it should be $12.99. I mentioned they are charging for the entire package. He insisted he never ordered any of it, but I just chalked it up to a mistake and got it sorted out by calling them. Maybe he really never ordered it ... Ugh.\\\"\",\n \"You can save around hundred dollars per month, mostly the teens are attracted by this method. If you are a frequent shopper and want to get the recent updates about the coupons available then you can sign up with the website and they will send you the email subscriptions.\",\n \"Consider trying a broker that offers free trading. Robinhood is one such broker.\",\n \"\\\"If the amount is large, \\\"\\\"wire transfer\\\"\\\" is usually the cheapest option. Mane banks have online option for it.\\\"\",\n \"Switch to a different product. For $500, you'd be surprised what you could buy wholesale. Potential options: -Find something appropriate to wholesale to your peers on Alibaba -Start a T-shirt company with graphics relevant to your school, area, or pop-culture microcosm. Edgy inside references with clean graphics being ideal. Shopify is $25 a month + Print on demand t-shirt company (about $7 profit per shirt) + Fiverr for inexpensive graphics --> you could launch a local T-shirt brand for less than $100.\",\n \"Here's one option: Telephone is a lower-tech yet relatively more secure means for transmitting your payment information when a secure web site isn't available. And yet another option: You could send them an encrypted email, but this would require tools (e.g. GPG), setup (public keys), and expertise on their end which they are unlikely to already have. However, ChrisInEdmonton raised a good point in his comment. How can you consider them to be a reputable seller when they don't take basic precautions to protect customers' payment information online? The seller may with good faith charge your card the correct amount and deliver the goods that you expect, but how will they protect your credit card information once in their hands? Would you trust their internal systems if they can't even set up an HTTPS web site?\",\n \"> unlimited data plans on your phone This may work in some countries; in the US, oligopolic wireless carriers are doing their level best to ensure it doesn't become the norm, because they collectively see it as a threat to their business models. They may still lose; tho I consider it unlikely, as the best scenario for that would require increasing the number of players in the wireless market. Some sort of open-access rule for infrastructure built by companies granted spectrum licenses would be a good start, but seems unlikely given how much more sway corporations have over the state than consumers.\",\n \"There is no need of the conventional advertising methods, which include cost of– Land, capital, work, and businessperson to enhance the promotion of your product. You can start with blog promotion, web-based social networking, and email advertising of your services with lesser investment.\",\n \"Several things to do: Change your bank. $2 for a check? Why?? When shopping for a new bank: ask for a free checking account. College students can get free checking in almost any bank. At least the first box of checks will be free, which will give you enough checks for the next several years (I'm still not half done with the box I got from WaMu 5 years ago). Check out your neighborhood credit union. Most of them have free checking and free checks for students as well. If still no luck - check online check printing services, they'll send you a box for less than $25, that's for sure. Walmart for example (1 box - $7). Also, you can use banks' bill-pay service for any check you write, if you know the address of the person, the amount and the sum a couple of days ahead of time. That should cover rent, and probably most of your other checks.\",\n \"Many business owners simply cannot afford to procure office space. An obvious solution to this problem may be what is referred to as a virtual office. A virtual office offers many of the benefits of an actual office without an expensive lease. A virtual office can be especially appealing to small startup businesses which simply haven't grown large enough yet to start looking for commercial office space.\",\n \"for one thing, marketing. e.g. there are some ads that runs on radio 5-10x a day every day over networks reaching many tens of millions every day. if you're working a website site as your pitch, the big marketer crushes you with massive exposure, 800 phone numbers, live 24 hour service...etc\",\n \"We moved and decided to drop cable a few years ago. I haven't really missed it at all. I also don't pirate anything. I imagine people willing to pirate have absolutely no problem dropping cable TV. The *only* thing I miss is my hometown sports. I can't always get them over the air. The thing is that it is a redundant system. It is a less appealing information delivery system. Why would I pay for internet service and a worse, time restricted service? It is one of the reasons I think that Netflix's move to original content is smart. I pay a small price for quality content that just uses the best information delivery system I have. Honestly, I suspect that phone service (even mobile) is going to head in that direction too.\",\n \"You can find great deals and the forums are full of other information. I also have found when I need to find a deal on something, you can ask or find others on the forums for help. http://slickdeals.net/\",\n \"They still got away with pocketing the cash and I got uhh DSL (shitty limited range technology) and other crummy something or other long distance options! Fuck MA BELL. Name any phone company, it's still MA BELL. Smaller competitive with someone else company my ass. They're letting it merge back together too. I still love the day our towns Main Street was being torn up to be repaved. During this little adventure they severed some fiber optic cables. It took out the cell phone network (and ONLY that network). I'll leave that there for someone to attempt to figure out.\",\n \"Here are some ways my family saves money on our home insurance: Here are a couple of good articles on the subject: Finally - make sure you get adequate coverage! Make sure you consider your real insurance needs, and not just the cost of the insurance. If the worst happens, you'll want good coverage with a good company.\",\n \"In planning to buy a house, and sort out how to handle the costs of some initial renovations, I've been considering using Lowes and Home Depot credit cards (hopefully this will count differently than the typical credit cards I think you're referring to): http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ContentView?pn=Credit_Center&langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053 http://www.lowes.com/cd_Credit+Card+Accounts+from+Lowes_781778798_ You should definitely read the fine print first, as the interest rates can shoot up after the first 6 months if you don't pay the balance in full on some of them. Also, Lowes has a project card that gives you the 6 month no interest (only a minimum payment), and you don't have to pay off the full balance at the end. This one even has more reasonable rates, so this could be a good way to go.\",\n \"There are a lot of cheap or low-cost packages that are quite lucrative but you can be sure that these are not at all private servers but are rented out to several customers so basically you are now paying for the stuff you could have obtained for free on the internet.\",\n \"The only real competition I see in the US market is in the pre-paid service providers. But they are just piggybacking off the networks of the larger carriers. To have an actual functioning market they would have to be some legal framework that requires all carriers to share their networks at some reasonable fee rate and then put value added on top of that. That is pretty much how the POTS worked. We recognized that as a nation it is plainly ridiculous to compete on who can hang the most wires. We lost that lesson and now we're letting carriers compete almost purely on who can erect the most towers. AT&T and Verizon are essentially the same company offering the same service. The entire basis of their competition is who can get the most right of way access to install the most towers. it's crazy.\",\n \"Have you considered social lending (for example: Lending Club)?\",\n \"Call centre solution providers will efficiently serve customers, while keeping overheads low. They can efficiently manage not just the regular inbound calls, but also make the outbound calls to promote your products and services which further lead your trade to the path of success.\",\n \"If commuting is a big budget item, then can you: A side job is one way to make extra money, but I'd suggest a home business. If your wife substitute teaches, I bet she writes fairly well, and in any case you can. Write a personal finance blog or just a site with articles. Focus on surviving and thriving with child(ren) in a one-income Christian household in the suburbs of Philadelphia. Or if you have a hobby that stokes your furnace, write about that. Heck, do both. The content just stays there and gets traffic day after day that you can monetize. My main suggestion would be to start this now because it's not overnight money. But in the long run it can turn into a nice, fairly passive income. The big advantage of this is that mommy gets to stay home with the kids and build up a decent business. The cost is $10/year for the domain (per domain) and maybe $10/month for hosting. Or, if some other legitimate work-at-home business presents itself, go with that. I suggest blogging because it's what I know, but everyone's an expert in something unique.\",\n \"There is a number of cheaper online options that you could use. TranferWise was already mentioned here. Other options i know are Paysera or TransferGo. They state that international transfers are processed on the next day and they are substantially cheaper than those of banks. Currency exchange rate is usually not bad.\",\n \"You may want to look at services like https://transferwise.com/. For transferring money abroad they may be cheaper than you own bank. Here is a list of similar services: https://www.icomparefx.com/transferwise-competitors/. Which one is the cheapest depends on the amount of money you want to transfer. You would still need an account at a german bank or a trustworthy friend with a german account.\",\n \"There are a number of ways and it all depends on your concentration and range of skills (or skills you're willing to develop). As for involving your wife ... things that can be done locally for neighbours is always a good idea. The most important thing is not to spend too much time or cash on anything that will take a long time to pay off. That excludes writing your own iPhone apps, for example, which would take long hours of development and much marketing (and luck) to be successful. Good luck and congrats.\",\n \"Alternative: buy a recent-model used car in good condition. Or buy an older car in good condition. Let someone else pay the heavy depreciation that happens the moment you drive a new car off the dealer's lot.\",\n \"What sort of items? That being said, I am cheap and not brand loyal...I buy what's on sale. I have never seen 'everyday items' cheaper than the grocery store or Aldi or Costco (places where I most of my shopping when not shopping online).\",\n \"Of course not, even if it got me closer to work, I've moved 30+ times in my life and I'm fucking done with it. I'm just saying, there are conceivably options, it isn't a total monopoly, even if you have to do an unreasonable amount of work to get around it. From an investing standpoint, there are competitors, even if there aren't real options for customers.\",\n \"\\\"You got anything else? And you're right... There are more than 3. But that doesn't mean shit when you can't access them. Who owns the lines that allow other providers to work by allowing them to rent/buy space? Oh that's right att, Comcast, time warner and charter. So even then if its \\\"\\\"allowed\\\"\\\" competition is it really competition?\\\"\",\n \"Want to know why your cable bill is so high? Blame the four letter sports network. About $20 of your non tax/fee cable charges go straight to those assholes and then by way to the three letter professional sports outfits and by way of them your local bling wearing pro athlete who promptly blow it. Ditch the coaxial.\",\n \"\\\"Even without the $2 fee, I'm jumping ship and switching to Virgin Mobile. Here's my breakdown: Verizon 400 minutes + 100 texts (IIRC), no data, $45 before fees Virgin 300 minutes + unlimited 3G data & text: $35 with purchase of $200+ smartphone. (and virgin uses Sprint for 3G) I'll be informing Verizon that their separate fee hike of $0.15 which, to my knowledge, is still in the works, is what's known legally as a \\\"\\\"material averse effect\\\"\\\" and allows me to opt out of the contract without paying a cancellation fee.\\\"\",\n \"I've always wondered why nobody has tried to use the broadcast spectrum for internet connectivity. Or at least tried to lobby for repurposing some of the spectrum for that purpose. I had always assumed there was some kind of technical limitation that kept it from being considered. Seems like a much better use of our broadcast spectrum than our antiquated TV networks. Especially after the Fairness Doctrine was rescinded.\",\n \"Um you said yourself that it goes down on 7pm on a Friday and costs you hours and hours of problems. The cost of a T1 is like $300. I'm going to guess it would pay for itself. My advice - learn basic math.\",\n \"On form 8829, line 20 you can list utilities paid for the home office. You have two choices: 1) You can list the entire amount under column (b) as an indirect expense. You will then get a deduction for the fraction of the amount based on what fraction of your home is an office. This makes sense if the service equally benefits your entire home. 2) You can compute the portion of the expense reasonably attributable to the business/office and list that amount under column (a). This entire amount will be deducted. Which option you choose depends on how well you think you can allocate the expense between your office and the rest of your home. For example, I have had to do this with electricity, but I specifically measured the electricity used by my office. If you think you can defend allocating a larger portion to the office, use option 2. If you would have paid the same amount even if you didn't have an office, it's hard to justify allocating more of the expense to the office than its portion of the home. If you opted for a more expensive service or otherwise incurred additional costs, it makes sense to allocate a higher fraction to the office and to calculate that yourself.\",\n \"Aha, perhaps...also, perhaps someone like Louis with a product such as this, to the (reasonably) technically literate while pushed through a next-generation service that isn't rapacious when it comes to something as simple as digitally moving money...perhaps it's time. Shake our fists to the heavens, and all.\",\n \"What does cheap mean? Compared to what? A standard international wire transfer cost about 40 $. Is that 'cheap' for you? Alternatively, a mailed paper check takes 5-7 days mailing plus 7-10 days processing, but is free, that's as cheap as it gets.\",\n \"Cant tell if sarcasm but between two employees where one has a cellphone and one dosnt (or only intermittently) who are you going to rely on. That being said it's cheap as fuck to afford a basic ass cellphone.\",\n \"Google Maps and Craig’s List are easy wins and free. I would offer free inspections and estimates. What about getting into one of those new mover mailings. That is when most people will be updating their fixtures.\",\n \"I can't provide a list, but when I took out my Stocks and Shares, I extensively researched for a good, cheap, flexible option and I went with FoolShareDealing. I've found them to be good, and their online trading system works well. I hope that's still the case.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Cheapest is one thing. You can absolutely shop in the market and find the lowest possible price. I can think of three places to shop, each with an up and downside. I would think that what you really mean is the best price for the service. Just like shopping for a car you have to decide what you need vs what is nice to have. Decide what features you need. Do you need long distance? Do you need caller id? Do you need to call technophobic friends and family? Find out what you have available to you through associations. Often schools, work or a club you belong to have deals for service discounts. Look at your insurance plan or AAA membership for the crazy discounts. Decide what kinds of service will meet your needs. Buy the cheapest service. DO NOT ENTER A CONTRACT. Even if the price is slightly lower. At least not at first. If you try out your service and love it, enter the contract if and only if the total price measured over length of the contract is less. With cell phones especially, it is absolutely possible to save money buying month to month vs a 2 year contract. Even when you buy equipment for full price up front. Ask for the bare minimum service from your local phone company. Because phone companies are often regulated monopolies, they might have a bare minimum level of service they are required to offer by the municipality. They probably don't advertise it or push it, but it might exist if you call and ask. You basically get a dial tone. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/local-local-toll-and-long-distance-calling Price is dictated by a government board, so you don't have to worry about shopping for deals Not the cheapest possible solution This is popular plan the youth oriented market, but more and more people of all demographics are using their cellphones only. There are downsides (911, etc) and shopping for the best cell phone plan can be a full time job, but it does offer a way to save money by simply not having home phone service. Might be possible to score organizational discounts through work or groups you belong to Cellphones require batteries, and can go dead (not good for emergencies) Voice over Internet Protocol uses your existing Internet connection. You can buy a cheap regular phone and plug it into the VOIP box and use it like any other phone. VOIP can either be very inexpensive for all the features you get, or just plain inexpensive. There are providers who sell a monthly service, yearly service or no service plan at all. (You buy a device and get service as long as you own the device.) Taxes to the government are always due, so nothing is ever free. Sometimes the provider is just computer software, so a minimalist would like that. Emergency services are more reliable than cellular (if you follow extra steps to set them up) Can be confusing to buy. Some require contracts, some special devices, some require a bit of technical know how to setup. Be sure to evaluate the total cost of ownership when comparing prices","\"How low you can reduce your costs does depend on your calling pattern. How many minutes per month you call locally; call long distance; call internationally; and how many minutes you receive calls for. If all these figures are low, you can be better off with a pay-per-minute service, if any of the outbound figures are high then you could consider a flat-rate \"\"unlimited\"\" service. So that's the first step, determine your needs: don't pay for what you don't need. For example, I barely use a \"\"landline\"\" voip phone any more. But it is still useful for incoming calls, and for 911 service. So I use a prepaid pay-per-minute VOIP company, that has a flat rate (< $2/mo) for the incoming number, an add-on fee for the 911 service (80c/mo), and per-minute costs for outgoing calls (1c/min or less to US, Canada, western Europe). I use my own Obitalk box (under $50 to buy). There is a bit of setup and learning needed, but the end result means my \"\"landline\"\" bill is usually under $4/mo (no other taxes or fees). Companies in this BYOD (bring your own device) space in the US/Canada include (in alphabetic order), Anveo, Callcentric, Callwithus, Futurenine, Localphone, Voip.ms and many others. A good discussion forum to learn more about them is the VOIP forum at DSLreports (although it can be a bit technical). There is also a reviews section at that site. If your usage is higher (you make lots of calls to a variety of numbers), most of these companies, and others, have flat-rate bundles, probably similar to what you have now. Comparing them depends on your usage pattern, so again that's the first thing to consider, then you know what to shop for. If you need features like voicemail or voicemail transcription, be sure to look at whether you need an expensive bundle with it in, or whether you're better off paying for that seperately. If your outbound calls are to a limited number of numbers, such as relatives far away or internationally, consider getting a similar VOIP system for those relatives. Most VOIP companies have free \"\"on network\"\" calls between their customers, regardless of the country they are in. So your most common, and most lengthy calls, could be free. The Obitalk boxes (ATA's: analog telephone adapters) have an advantage here, if you install them in yours and relatives houses. As well as allowing you to use any of the \"\"bring your own device\"\" VOIP companies like those listed above, they have their own Obitalk network allowing free calls between their boxes, and also to/from their iOS and Android apps. There are other ATA's from other companies (Cisco have well-known models), and other ways to make free calls between them, so Obitalk isn't the only option. I mentioned above I pay for the incoming number. Not every supplier has incoming numbers available in every area, you need to check this. Some can port-in (transfer in) your existing number, if you are attached to it, but not all can, so again check. You can also get incoming numbers in other areas or countries, that ring on your home line (without forwarding costs). This means you can have a number near a cluster of relatives, who can call you with a local call. Doesn't directly save you money (each number has a monthly fee) but could save you having to call them back!\"","Try to use VOIP service provider or web enabled conference calling services in your home phone. Now a days communication technologies have seen a boost as well as integration of different formats and platforms which easily reduces phone bills of a user. Service such as UberConference, Skype, Webinar etc enables audio/video as well as web conferencing feature for their user. Service tiers such as free plans, basic plans and business plans allow user to use these conference calling services per their need. Have a look at any such service and use it as an alternative of your home phone line."],"string":"[\n \"Cheapest is one thing. You can absolutely shop in the market and find the lowest possible price. I can think of three places to shop, each with an up and downside. I would think that what you really mean is the best price for the service. Just like shopping for a car you have to decide what you need vs what is nice to have. Decide what features you need. Do you need long distance? Do you need caller id? Do you need to call technophobic friends and family? Find out what you have available to you through associations. Often schools, work or a club you belong to have deals for service discounts. Look at your insurance plan or AAA membership for the crazy discounts. Decide what kinds of service will meet your needs. Buy the cheapest service. DO NOT ENTER A CONTRACT. Even if the price is slightly lower. At least not at first. If you try out your service and love it, enter the contract if and only if the total price measured over length of the contract is less. With cell phones especially, it is absolutely possible to save money buying month to month vs a 2 year contract. Even when you buy equipment for full price up front. Ask for the bare minimum service from your local phone company. Because phone companies are often regulated monopolies, they might have a bare minimum level of service they are required to offer by the municipality. They probably don't advertise it or push it, but it might exist if you call and ask. You basically get a dial tone. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/local-local-toll-and-long-distance-calling Price is dictated by a government board, so you don't have to worry about shopping for deals Not the cheapest possible solution This is popular plan the youth oriented market, but more and more people of all demographics are using their cellphones only. There are downsides (911, etc) and shopping for the best cell phone plan can be a full time job, but it does offer a way to save money by simply not having home phone service. Might be possible to score organizational discounts through work or groups you belong to Cellphones require batteries, and can go dead (not good for emergencies) Voice over Internet Protocol uses your existing Internet connection. You can buy a cheap regular phone and plug it into the VOIP box and use it like any other phone. VOIP can either be very inexpensive for all the features you get, or just plain inexpensive. There are providers who sell a monthly service, yearly service or no service plan at all. (You buy a device and get service as long as you own the device.) Taxes to the government are always due, so nothing is ever free. Sometimes the provider is just computer software, so a minimalist would like that. Emergency services are more reliable than cellular (if you follow extra steps to set them up) Can be confusing to buy. Some require contracts, some special devices, some require a bit of technical know how to setup. Be sure to evaluate the total cost of ownership when comparing prices\",\n \"\\\"How low you can reduce your costs does depend on your calling pattern. How many minutes per month you call locally; call long distance; call internationally; and how many minutes you receive calls for. If all these figures are low, you can be better off with a pay-per-minute service, if any of the outbound figures are high then you could consider a flat-rate \\\"\\\"unlimited\\\"\\\" service. So that's the first step, determine your needs: don't pay for what you don't need. For example, I barely use a \\\"\\\"landline\\\"\\\" voip phone any more. But it is still useful for incoming calls, and for 911 service. So I use a prepaid pay-per-minute VOIP company, that has a flat rate (< $2/mo) for the incoming number, an add-on fee for the 911 service (80c/mo), and per-minute costs for outgoing calls (1c/min or less to US, Canada, western Europe). I use my own Obitalk box (under $50 to buy). There is a bit of setup and learning needed, but the end result means my \\\"\\\"landline\\\"\\\" bill is usually under $4/mo (no other taxes or fees). Companies in this BYOD (bring your own device) space in the US/Canada include (in alphabetic order), Anveo, Callcentric, Callwithus, Futurenine, Localphone, Voip.ms and many others. A good discussion forum to learn more about them is the VOIP forum at DSLreports (although it can be a bit technical). There is also a reviews section at that site. If your usage is higher (you make lots of calls to a variety of numbers), most of these companies, and others, have flat-rate bundles, probably similar to what you have now. Comparing them depends on your usage pattern, so again that's the first thing to consider, then you know what to shop for. If you need features like voicemail or voicemail transcription, be sure to look at whether you need an expensive bundle with it in, or whether you're better off paying for that seperately. If your outbound calls are to a limited number of numbers, such as relatives far away or internationally, consider getting a similar VOIP system for those relatives. Most VOIP companies have free \\\"\\\"on network\\\"\\\" calls between their customers, regardless of the country they are in. So your most common, and most lengthy calls, could be free. The Obitalk boxes (ATA's: analog telephone adapters) have an advantage here, if you install them in yours and relatives houses. As well as allowing you to use any of the \\\"\\\"bring your own device\\\"\\\" VOIP companies like those listed above, they have their own Obitalk network allowing free calls between their boxes, and also to/from their iOS and Android apps. There are other ATA's from other companies (Cisco have well-known models), and other ways to make free calls between them, so Obitalk isn't the only option. I mentioned above I pay for the incoming number. Not every supplier has incoming numbers available in every area, you need to check this. Some can port-in (transfer in) your existing number, if you are attached to it, but not all can, so again check. You can also get incoming numbers in other areas or countries, that ring on your home line (without forwarding costs). This means you can have a number near a cluster of relatives, who can call you with a local call. Doesn't directly save you money (each number has a monthly fee) but could save you having to call them back!\\\"\",\n \"Try to use VOIP service provider or web enabled conference calling services in your home phone. Now a days communication technologies have seen a boost as well as integration of different formats and platforms which easily reduces phone bills of a user. Service such as UberConference, Skype, Webinar etc enables audio/video as well as web conferencing feature for their user. Service tiers such as free plans, basic plans and business plans allow user to use these conference calling services per their need. Have a look at any such service and use it as an alternative of your home phone line.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":160,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"7705"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Why would I pick a specific ETF over an equivalent Mutual Fund?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["539263","195191","377429"],"string":"[\n \"539263\",\n \"195191\",\n \"377429\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["312015","473658","153112","500486","364735","358997","539263","200212","106863","480315","370244","536120","138383","96926","161019","87722","270992","288679","479420","49168","454224","268289","524612","172374","143238","332278","237133","377429","408524","195191","153660","159471","99568","17208","200360","518735","550319","560783","362579","451598","580802","130188","387277","472663","314008","498645","324697","340143","254230","20504","138658","107462","87238","217002","201714","183910","585405","523810","504301","367960","466845","516880","89205","392465","590010","119819","526346","215410","97836","65587","122679","454610","551155","473150","7814","435951","322725","437875","225964","78626","576008","336218","41625","460347","228686","230997","286227","341544","372233","536282","287537","311798","588836","386173","170863","196721","409995","474745","7208","419985"],"string":"[\n \"312015\",\n \"473658\",\n \"153112\",\n \"500486\",\n \"364735\",\n \"358997\",\n \"539263\",\n \"200212\",\n \"106863\",\n \"480315\",\n \"370244\",\n \"536120\",\n \"138383\",\n \"96926\",\n \"161019\",\n \"87722\",\n \"270992\",\n \"288679\",\n \"479420\",\n \"49168\",\n \"454224\",\n \"268289\",\n \"524612\",\n \"172374\",\n \"143238\",\n \"332278\",\n \"237133\",\n \"377429\",\n \"408524\",\n \"195191\",\n \"153660\",\n \"159471\",\n \"99568\",\n \"17208\",\n \"200360\",\n \"518735\",\n \"550319\",\n \"560783\",\n \"362579\",\n \"451598\",\n \"580802\",\n \"130188\",\n \"387277\",\n \"472663\",\n \"314008\",\n \"498645\",\n \"324697\",\n \"340143\",\n \"254230\",\n \"20504\",\n \"138658\",\n \"107462\",\n \"87238\",\n \"217002\",\n \"201714\",\n \"183910\",\n \"585405\",\n \"523810\",\n \"504301\",\n \"367960\",\n \"466845\",\n \"516880\",\n \"89205\",\n \"392465\",\n \"590010\",\n \"119819\",\n \"526346\",\n \"215410\",\n \"97836\",\n \"65587\",\n \"122679\",\n \"454610\",\n \"551155\",\n \"473150\",\n \"7814\",\n \"435951\",\n \"322725\",\n \"437875\",\n \"225964\",\n \"78626\",\n \"576008\",\n \"336218\",\n \"41625\",\n \"460347\",\n \"228686\",\n \"230997\",\n \"286227\",\n \"341544\",\n \"372233\",\n \"536282\",\n \"287537\",\n \"311798\",\n \"588836\",\n \"386173\",\n \"170863\",\n \"196721\",\n \"409995\",\n \"474745\",\n \"7208\",\n \"419985\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["I see a couple of reasons why you could consider choosing a mutual fund over an ETF In some cases index mutual funds can be a cheaper alternative to ETFs. In the UK where I am based, Fidelity is offering a management fee of 0.07% on its FTSE All shares tracker. Last time I checked, no ETF was beating that There are quite a few cost you have to foot when dealing ETFs In some cases, when dealing for relatively small amounts (e.g. a monthly investment plan) you can get a better deal, if your broker has negotiated discounts for you with a fund provider. My broker asks £12.5 when dealing in shares (£1.5 for the regular investment plan) whereas he asks £0 when dealing in funds and I get a 100% discount on the initial charge of the fund. As a conclusion, I would suggest you look at the all-in costs over total investment period you are considering for the exact amount you are planning to invest. Despite all the hype, ETFs are not always the cheapest alternative.","ETFs offer the flexibility of stocks while retaining many of the benefits of mutual funds. Since an ETF is an actual fund, it has the diversification of its potentially many underlying securities. You can find ETFs with stocks at various market caps and style categories. You can have bond or mixed ETFs. You can even get ETFs with equal or fundamental weighting. In short, all the variety benefits of mutual funds. ETFs are typically much less expensive than mutual funds both in terms of management fees (expense ratio) and taxable gains. Most of them are not actively managed; instead they follow an index and therefore have a low turnover. A mutual fund may actively trade and, if not balanced with a loss, will generate capital gains that you pay taxes on. An ETF will produce gains only when shifting to keep inline with the index or you yourself sell. As a reminder: while expense ratio always matters, capital gains and dividends don't matter if the ETF or mutual fund is in a tax-advantaged account. ETFs have no load fees. Instead, because you trade it like a stock, you will pay a commission. Commissions are straight, up-front and perfectly clear. Much easier to understand than the various ways funds might charge you. There are no account minimums to entry with ETFs, but you will need to buy complete shares. Only a few places allow partial shares. It is generally harder to dollar-cost average into an ETF with regular automated investments. Also, like trading stocks, you can do those fancy things like selling short, buying on margin, options, etc. And you can pay attention to the price fluctuations throughout the day if you really want to. Things to make you pause: if you buy (no-load) mutual funds through the parent company, you'll get them at no commission. Many brokerages have No Transaction Fee (NTF) agreements with companies so that you can buy many funds for free. Still look out for that expense ratio though (which is probably paying for that NTF advantage). As sort of a middle ground: index funds can have very low expense ratios, track the same index as an ETF, can be tax-efficient or tax-managed, free to purchase, easy to dollar-cost average and easier to automate/understand. Further reading:","The ETF is likely better in this case. The ETF will generally generate less capital gains taxes along the way. In order to pay off investors who leave a mutual fund, the manager will have to sell the fund's assets. This creates a capital gain, which must be distributed to shareholders at the end of the year. The mutual fund holder is essentially taxed on this turnover. The ETF does not have to sell any stock when an investor sells his shares because the investor sells the shares himself on the open market. This will result in a capital gain for the specific person exiting his position, but it does not create a taxable event for anyone else holding the ETF shares.","First, it's not always the case that ETFs have lower expenses than the equivalent mutual funds. For example, in the Vanguard family of funds the expense ratio for the ETF version is the same as it is for the Admiral share class in the mutual fund version. With that in mind, the main advantages of a mutual fund over an equivalent ETF are: From a long-term investor's point of view, the main disadvantage of mutual funds relative to ETFs is the minimum account sizes. Especially if the fund has multiple share classes (i.e., where better classes get lower expense ratios), you might have to have quite a lot of money invested in the fund in order to get the same expense ratio as the ETF. There are some other differences that matter to more active investors (e.g., intraday trading, options, etc.), but for a passive investor the ones above are the major ones. Apart from those mutual funds and ETFs are pretty similar. Personally, I prefer mutual funds because I'm at a point where the fund minimums aren't really an issue, and I don't want to deal with the more fiddly aspects of ETFs. For investors just starting out the lower minimum investment for an ETF is a big win, as long as you can get commission-free trades (which is what I've assumed above.)","I think that assuming that you're not looking to trade the fund, an index Mutual Fund is a better overall value than an ETF. The cost difference is negligible, and the ability to dollar-cost average future contributions with no transaction costs. You also have to be careful with ETFs; the spreads are wide on a low-volume fund and some ETFs are going more exotic things that can burn a novice investor. Track two similar funds (say Vanguard Total Stock Market: VTSMX and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF: VTI), you'll see that they track similarly. If you are a more sophisticated investor, ETFs give you the ability to use options to hedge against declines in value without having to incur capital gains from the sale of the fund. (ie. 20 years from now, can use puts to make up for short-term losses instead of selling shares to avoid losses) For most retail investors, I think you really need to justify using ETFs versus mutual funds. If anything, the limitations of mutual funds (no intra-day trading, no options, etc) discourage speculative behavior that is ultimately not in your best interest. EDIT: Since this answer was written, many brokers have begun offering a suite of ETFs with no transaction fees. That may push the cost equation over to support Index ETFs over Index Mutual Funds, particularly if it's a big ETF with narrow spreads..","What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value). Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss. These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction). As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though.","There are times when investing in an ETF is more convenient than a mutual fund. When you invest in a mutual fund, you often have an account directly with the mutual fund company, or you have an account with a mutual fund broker. Mutual funds often have either a front end or back end load, which essentially gives you a penalty for jumping in and out of funds. ETFs are traded exactly like stocks, so there is inherently no load when buying or selling. If you have a brokerage account and you want to move funds from a stock to a mutual fund, an ETF might be more convenient. With some accounts, an ETF allows you to invest in a fund that you would not be able to invest in otherwise. For example, you might have a 401k account through your employer. You might want to invest in a Vanguard mutual fund, but Vanguard funds are not available with your 401k. If you have access to a brokerage account inside your 401k, you can invest in the Vanguard fund through the associated ETF. Another reason that you might choose an ETF over a mutual fund is if you want to try to short the fund.","http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/104/stupid.htm would have some data though a bit old about open-end funds vs an ETF that would be one point. Secondly, do you know that the Math on your ETF will always work out to whole numbers of shares or do you plan on using brokers that would allow fractional shares easily? This is a factor as $3,000 of an open-end fund will automatically go into fractional shares that isn't necessarily the case of an ETF where you have to specify a number of shares when you purchase as well as consider are you doing a market or limit order? These are a couple of things to keep in mind here. Lastly, what if the broker you use charges account maintenance fees for your account? In buying the mutual fund from the fund company directly, there may be a lower likelihood of having such fees. I don't know of any way to buy shares in the ETF directly without using a broker.","The main difference between a mutual fund and an ETF are how they are bought and sold (from the investors perspective). An ETF is transacted on the open market. This means you normally can't buy partial shares with your initial investment. Having to transact on the open market also means you pay a market price. The market price is always a little bit different from the Net Asset Value (NAV) of the fund. During market hours, the ETF will trade at a premium/discount to the NAV calculated on the previous day. Morningstar's fund analysis will show a graph of the premium/discount to NAV for an ETF. With a mutual fund on the other hand, your investment goes to a fund company, which then grants you shares while under the hood buying the underlying investments. You pay the NAV price and are allowed to buy partial shares. Usually an ETF has a lower expense ratio, but if that's equal and any initial fees/commissions are equal, I would prefer the mutual fund in order to buy partial shares (so your initial investment will be fully invested) and so you don't have to worry about paying premium to NAV","\"ETFs purchases are subject to a bid/ask spread, which is the difference between the highest available purchase offer (\"\"bid\"\") and the lowest available sell offer (\"\"ask\"\"). You can read more about this concept here. This cost doesn't exist for mutual funds, which are priced once per day, and buyers and sellers all use the same price for transactions that day. ETFs allow you to trade any time that the market is open. If you're investing for the long term (which means you're not trying to time your buy/sell orders to a particular time of day), and the pricing is otherwise equal between the ETF and the mutual fund (which they are in the case of Vanguard's ETFs and Admiral Shares mutual funds), I would go with the mutual fund because it eliminates any cost associated with bid/ask spread.\"","Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive.","Where are you planning on buying this ETF? I'm guessing it's directly through Vanguard? If so, that's likely your first reason - the majority of brokerage accounts charge a commission per trade for ETFs (and equities) but not for mutual funds. Another reason is that people who work in the financial industry (brokerages, mutual fund companies, etc) have to request permission for every trade before placing an order. This applies to equities and ETFs but does not apply to mutual funds. It's common for a request to be denied (if the brokerage has inside information due to other business lines they'll block trading, if a mutual fund company is trading the same security they'll block trading, etc) without an explanation. This can happen for months. For these folks it's typically easier to use mutual funds. So, if someone can open an account with Vanguard and doesn't work in the financial industry then I agree with your premise. The Vanguard Admiral shares have a much lower expense, typically very close to their ETFs. Source: worked for a brokerage and mutual fund company","Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund. An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments. The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios. Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities. Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs. Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund. For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment). Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER). Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number. For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral). See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page. Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF. Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds. Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free. Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs. Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general.","The mutual fund will price at day's end, while the ETF trades during the day, like a stock. If you decide at 10am, that some event will occur during the day that will send the market up, the ETF is preferable. Aside from that, the expenses are identical, a low .14%. No real difference especially in a Roth.","Your tax efficient reasoning is solid for where you want to distribute your assets. ETFs are often more tax efficient than their equivalent mutual funds but the exact differences would depend on the comparison between the fund and ETF you were considering. The one exception to this rule is Vanguard funds and ETFs which have the exact same tax-efficiency because ETFs are a share class of the corresponding mutual fund.","In my opinion, if you are doing long-term investing, this is a non-issue. The difference of hours in being able to trade an ETF during the day vs. only being able to trade a traditional mutual fund at day-end is irrelevant if you are holding the investment for a long time. If you are engaging in day trading, market timing, or other advanced/controversial trading practices, then I suppose it could make a difference. For the way I invest (index funds, long-term, set-it-and-forget-it), ETFs have no advantage over traditional mutual funds.","The main difference between an ETF and a Mutual Fund is Management. An ETF will track a specific index with NO manager input. A Mutual Fund has a manager that is trying to choose securities for its fund based on the mandate of the fund. Liquidity ETFs trade like a stock, so you can buy at 10am and sell at 11 if you wish. Mutual Funds (most) are valued at the end of each business day, so no intraday trading. Also ETFs are similar to stocks in that you need a buyer/seller for the ETF that you want/have. Whereas a mutual fund's units are sold back to itself. I do not know of many if any liquity issues with an ETF, but you could be stuck holding it if you can not find a buyer (usually the market maker). Mutual Funds can be closed to trading, however it is rare. Tax treatment Both come down to the underlying holdings in the fund or ETF. However, more often in Mutual Funds you could be stuck paying someone else's taxes, not true with an ETF. For example, you buy an Equity Mutual Fund 5 years ago, you sell the fund yourself today for little to no gain. I buy the fund a month ago and the fund manager sells a bunch of the stocks they bought for it 10 years ago for a hefty gain. I have a tax liability, you do not even though it is possible that neither of us have any gains in our pocket. It can even go one step further and 6 months from now I could be down money on paper and still have a tax liability. Expenses A Mutual Fund has an MER or Management Expense Ratio, you pay it no matter what. If the fund has a positive return of 12.5% in any given year and it has an MER of 2.5%, then you are up 10%. However if the fund loses 7.5% with the same MER, you are down 10%. An ETF has a much smaller management fee (typically 0.10-0.95%) but you will have trading costs associated with any trades. Risks involved in these as well as any investment are many and likely too long to go into here. However in general, if you have a Canadian Stock ETF it will have similar risks to a Canadian Equity Mutual Fund. I hope this helps.","ETFs are both liquid (benefits active traders) and a simple way for people to invest in funds even if they don't have the minimum balance needed to invest in a mutual fund (EDIT: in which purchases are resolved at the end of the trading day). One big difference between ETFs and mutual funds is that you must buy ETFs in whole units, whereas you can add $100 to a mutual fund and the fund will determine -- usually to 4 decimal places -- how many shares you've purchased.","Mutual funds buy (and sell) shares in companies in accordance with the policies set forth in their prospectus, not according to the individual needs of an investor, that is, when you invest money in (or withdraw money from) a mutual fund, the manager buys or sells whatever shares that, in the manager's judgement, will be the most appropriate ones (consistent with the investment policies). Thus, a large-cap mutual fund manager will not buy the latest hot small-cap stock that will likely be hugely profitable; he/she must choose only between various large capitalization companies. Some exchange-traded funds are fixed baskets of stocks. Suppose you will not invest in a company X as a matter of principle. Unless a mutual fund prospectus says that it will not invest in X, you may well end up having an investment in X at some time because the fund manager bought shares in X. With such an ETF, you know what is in the basket, and if the basket does not include stock in X now, it will not own stock in X at a later date. Some exchange-traded funds are constructed based on some index and track the index as a matter of policy. Thus, you will not be investing in X unless X becomes part of the index because Standard or Poor or Russell or somebody changed their minds, and the ETF buys X in order to track the index. Finally, some ETFs are exactly like general mutual funds except that you can buy or sell ETF shares at any time at the price at the instant that your order is executed whereas with mutual funds, the price of the mutual fund shares that you have bought or sold is the NAV of the mutual fund shares for that day, which is established based on the closing prices at the end of the trading day of the stocks, bonds etc that the fund owns. So, you might end up owning stock in X at any time based on what the fund manager thinks about X.","The creation mechanism for ETF's ensures that the value of the underlying stocks do not diverge significantly from the Fund's value. Authorized participants have a strong incentive to arbitrage any pricing differences and create/redeem blocks of stock/etf until the prices are back inline. Contrary to what was stated in a previous answer, this mechanism lowers the cost of management of ETF's when compared to mutual funds that must access the market on a regular basis when any investors enter/exit the fund. The ETF only needs to create/redeem in a wholesale basis, this allows them to operate with management fees that are much lower than those of a mutual fund. Expenses Due to the passive nature of indexed strategies, the internal expenses of most ETFs are considerably lower than those of many mutual funds. Of the more than 900 available ETFs listed on Morningstar in 2010, those with the lowest expense ratios charged about .10%, while those with the highest expenses ran about 1.25%. By comparison, the lowest fund fees range from .01% to more than 10% per year for other funds. (For more on mutual fund feeds, read Stop Paying High Fees.)","A mutual fund has several classes of shares that are charged different fees. Some shares are sold through brokers and carry a sales charge (called load) that compensates the broker in lieu of a fee that the broker would charge the client for the service. Vanguard does not have sales charge on its funds and you don't need to go through a broker to buy its shares; you can buy directly from them. Admiral shares of Vanguard funds are charged lower annual expenses than regular shares (yes, all mutual funds charge expenses for fund adninistration that reduce the return that you get, and Vanguard has some of the lowest expense ratios) but Admiral shares are available only for large investments, typically $50K or so. If you have invested in a Vanguard mutual fund, your shares can be set to automatically convert to Admiral shares when the investment reaches the right level. A mutual fund manager can buy and sell stocks to achieve the objectives of the fund, so what stockes you are invested in as a share holder in a mutual fund will typically be unknown to you on a day-to-day basis. On the other hand, Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are fixed baskets of stocks, and you can buy shares in the ETF. These shares are bought and sold through a broker (so you pay a transaction fee each time) but expenses are lower since there is no manager to buy and sell stocks: the basket is fixed. Many ETFs follow specific market indexes (e.g. S&P 500). Another difference between ETFs and mutual funds is that you can buy and sell ETFs at any time of the day just as if you could if you held stocks. With mutual funds, any buy and sell requests made during the day are processed at the end of the day and the value of the shares that you buy or sell is determined by the closing price of the stocks held by the mutual fund. With ETFs, you are getting the intra-day price at the time the buy or sell order is executed by your broker.","\"One reason is that it is not possible (at Vanguard and at many other brokerages) to auto-invest into ETFs. Because the ETF trades like a stock, you typically must buy a whole number of shares. This makes it difficult to do auto-investing where you invest, say, a fixed dollar amount each month. If you're investing $100 and the ETF trades for $30 a share, you must either buy 3 shares and leave $10 unspent, or buy 4 and spend $20 more than you planned. This makes auto-investing with dollar amounts difficult. (It would be cool if there were brokerages that handled this for you, for instance by accumulating \"\"leftover\"\" cash until an additional whole share could be purchased, but I don't know of any.) A difference of 0.12% in the expense ratios is real, but small. It may be outweighed by the psychological gains of being able to adopt a \"\"hands-off\"\" auto-investing plan. With ETFs, you generally must remember to \"\"manually\"\" buy the shares yourself every so often. For many average investors, the advantage of being able to invest without having to think about it at all is worth a small increase in expense ratio. The 0.12% savings don't do you any good if you never remember to buy shares until the market is already up.\"","ETFs are a type of investment, not a specific choice. In other words, there are good ETFs and bad. What you see is the general statement that ETFs are preferable to most mutual funds, if only for the fact that they are low cost. An index ETF such as SPY (which reflects the S&P 500 index) has a .09% annual expense, vs a mutual fund which average a full percent or more. sheegaon isn't wrong, I just have a different spin to offer you. Given a long term return of say even 8% (note - this question is not a debate of the long term return, and I purposely chose a low number compared to the long term average, closer to 10%) and the current CD rate of <1%, a 1% hit for the commission on the buy side doesn't bother me. The sell won't occur for a long time, and $8 on a $10K sale is no big deal. I'd not expect you to save $1K/yr in cash/CDs for the years it would take to make that $8 fee look tiny. Not when over time the growth will overshaddow this. One day you will be in a position where the swings in the market will produce the random increase or decrease to your net worth in the $10s of thousands. Do you know why you won't lose a night's sleep over this? Because when you invested your first $1K, and started to pay attention to the market, you saw how some days had swings of 3 or 4%, and you built up an immunity to the day to day noise. You stayed invested and as you gained wealth, you stuck to the right rebalancing each year, so a market crash which took others down by 30%, only impacted you by 15-20, and you were ready for the next move to the upside. And you also saw that since mutual funds with their 1% fees never beat the index over time, you were happy to say you lagged the S&P by .09%, or 1% over 11 year's time vs those whose funds had some great years, but lost it all in the bad years. And by the way, right until you are in the 25% bracket, Roth is the way to go. When you are at 25%, that's the time to use pre-tax accounts to get just below the cuttoff. Last, welcome to SE. Edit - see sheegaon's answer below. I agree, I missed the cost of the bid/ask spread. Going with the lowest cost (index) funds may make better sense for you. To clarify, Sheehan points out that ETFs trade like a stock, a commission, and a bid/ask, both add to transaction cost. So, agreeing this is the case, an indexed-based mutual fund can provide the best of possible options. Reflecting the S&P (for example) less a small anual expense, .1% or less.","If you just want to track an index, then ETFs are, generally speaking, the better way.","\"There are a few reasons why an index mutual fund may be preferable to an ETF: I looked at the iShare S&P 500 ETF and it has an expense ratio of 0.07%. The Vanguard Admiral S&P 500 index has an expense ratio of 0.05% and the Investor Shares have an expense ratio of 0.17%, do I don't necessarily agree with your statement \"\"admiral class Vanguard shares don't beat the iShares ETF\"\".\"","One of the often cited advantages of ETFs is that they have a higher liquidity and that they can be traded at any time during the trading hours. On the other hand they are often proposed as a simple way to invest private funds for people that do not want to always keep an eye on the market, hence the intraday trading is mostly irrelevant for them. I am pretty sure that this is a subjective idea. The fact is you may buy GOOG, AAPL, F or whatever you wish(ETF as well, such as QQQ, SPY etc.) and keep them for a long time. In both cases, if you do not want to keep an on the market it is ok. Because, if you keep them it is called investment(the idea is collecting dividends etc.), if you are day trading then is it called speculation, because you main goal is to earn by buying and selling, of course you may loose as well. So, you do not care about dividends or owning some percent of the company. As, ETFs are derived instruments, their volatility depends on the volatility of the related shares. I'm wondering whether there are secondary effects that make the liquidity argument interesting for private investors, despite not using it themselves. What would these effects be and how do they impact when compared, for example, to mutual funds? Liquidity(ability to turn cash) could create high volatility which means high risk and high reward. From this point of view mutual funds are more safe. Because, money managers know how to diversify the total portfolio and manage income under any market conditions.","\"If your intention is to purchase ETFs on a regular basis (like $x per month), then ETFs may not make sense. You may have to pay a fixed transaction cost like you were buying a stock for each purchase. In a similar no load mutual fund, there are more likely to be no transaction costs (depending on how it is bought). The above paragraph is not very definitive, and is really dependent upon how you would purchase either ETFs or Mutual funds. For example if you have a Fidelity brokerage account, they may let you buy certain ETFs commission free. Okay then either ETFs make great sense. It would not make sense to buy ones that they charge $35 per transaction if you have regular transactions that are smallish. The last two questions seem to be asking if you should buy MF or buy stocks directly. For most people the later is a losing proposition. They do not have the time or ability to buy stocks directly, effectively. Even if they did they may not have the capital to make enough of a difference when one considers all the cost involved. However, if that kind of thing interests you, perhaps you should dabble. Start out small and look at the higher costs of doing so as part of the \"\"cost of doing business\"\".\"","In the case of VFIAX versus VOO, if you're a buy-and-hold investor, you're probably better off with the mutual fund because you can buy fractional shares. However, in general the expense ratio for ETFs will be lower than equivalent mutual funds (even passive index funds). They are the same in this case because the mutual fund is Admiral Class, which has a $10,000 minimum investment that not all people may be able to meet. Additionally, ETFs are useful when you don't have an account with the mutual fund company (i.e. Vanguard), and buying the mutual fund would incur heavy transaction fees.","Index Funds & ETFs, if they are tracking the same index, will be the same in an ideal world. The difference would be because of the following factors: Expense ratio: i.e. the expense the funds charge. This varies and hence it would lead to a difference in performance. Tracking error: this means that there is a small percentage of error between the actual index composition and the fund composition. This is due to various reasons. Effectively this would result in the difference between values. Demand / Supply: with ETFs, the fund is traded on stock exchanges like a stock. If the general feeling is that the index is rising, it could lead to an increase in the price of the ETF. Index funds on the other hand would remain the same for the day and are less liquid. This results in a price increase / decrease depending on the market. The above explains the reason for the difference. Regarding which one to buy, one would need to consider other factors like: a) How easy is it to buy ETFs? Do you already hold Demat A/C & access to brokers to help you conduct the transaction or do you need to open an additional account at some cost. b) Normally funds do not need any account, but are you OK with less liquidity as it would take more time to redeem funds.","Something to consider is how do you want to handle fractional shares. Most open-end funds can easily go to fractional shares to that if you want to invest $500 in a fund each month, it is a relatively easy transaction where some shares will be fractional and handled easily. An ETF may not always work that way unless you go through something like Sharebuilder that would allow the fractional shares as if the ETF is trading at $150/share, you could buy 3 shares but still have $50 that you want to invest but can't as stocks trade in whole share numbers usually. This is without adding brokerage commissions. Depending on the broker, re-investing dividends may or may not be that simple as fractional shares could be a problem since those 3 shares aren't likely to have enough of a dividend to equal another share being bought with the proceeds. If you want the flexibility of stop and limit orders then the ETF may make more sense while the open-end fund is simply to invest whole dollar amounts that then lead to fractional shares. Don't forget to factor in minimums and other stuff as VFIAX may have a bit of a minimum to it as well as possible fees that could be annoying as I remember VFINX having some account maintenance fees that were a bit irksome back in the day that may still be around in some cases so be sure to read the fine print on things.","\"For a non-ETF mutual fund, you can only buy shares of the mutual fund from the mutual fund itself (at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day) and can only shares back to the mutual fund (again at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day). There is no open market in the sense that you cannot put in a bid to buy, say, 100 shares of VFINX at $217 per share through a brokerage, and if there is a seller willing to sell 100 shares of VFINX to you at $217, then the sale is consummated and you are now the proud owner of 100 shares of VFINX. The only buyer or seller of VFINX is the mutual find itself, and you tell it that you \"\"want to buy 100 shares of VFINX and please take the money out of my checking account\"\". If this order is entered before the markets close at 4 pm, the mutual fund determines its share price as of the end of the day, opens a new account for you and puts 100 shares of VFINX in it (or adds 100 shares of VFINX to your already existing pile of shares) and takes the purchase price out of your checking account via an ACH transfer. Similarly for redeeming/selling shares of VFINX that you own (and these are held in an account at the mutual fund itself, not by your brokerage): you tell the mutual fund to that you \"\"wish to redeem 100 shares and please send the proceeds to my bank account\"\" and the mutual fund does this at the end of the day, and the money appears in your bank account via ACH transfer two or three days later. Generally, these transactions do not need to be for round lots of multiples of 100 shares for efficiency; most mutual fund will gladly sell you fractional shares down to a thousandth of a share. In contrast, shares of an exchange-traded fund (ETF) are just like stock shares in that they can be bought and sold on the open market and your broker will charge you fees for buying and selling them. Selling fractional shares on the open market is generally not possible, and trading in round lots is less expensive. Also, trades occur at all times of the stock exchange day, not just at the end of the day as with non-ETF funds, and the price can fluctuate during the day too. Many non-ETF mutual funds have an ETF equivalent: VOO is the symbol for Vanguard's S&P 500 Index ETF while VFINX is the non-ETF version of the same index fund. Read more about the differences between ETFs and mutual funds, for example, here.\"","Why don't you look at the actual funds and etfs in question rather than seeking a general conclusion about all pairs of funds and etfs? For example, Vanguard's total stock market index fund (VTSAX) and ETF (VTI). Comparing the two on yahoo finance I find no difference over the last 5 years visually. For a different pair of funds you may find something very slightly different. In many cases the index fund and ETF will not have the same benchmark and fees so comparisons get a little more cloudy. I recall a while ago there was an article that was pointing out that at the time emerging market ETF's had higher fees than corresponding index funds. For this reason I think you should examine your question on a case-by-case basis. Index fund and ETF returns are all publicly available so you don't have to guess.","\"The majority (about 80%) of mutual funds are underperforming their underlying indexes. This is why ETFs have seen massive capital inflows compared to equity funds, which have seen significant withdrawals in the last years. I would definitively recommend going with an ETF. In addition to pure index based ETFs that (almost) track broad market indexes like the S&P 500 there are quite a few more \"\"quant\"\" oriented ETFs that even outperformed the S&P. I am long the S&P trough iShares ETFs and have dividend paying ETFs and some quant ETFS on top (Invesco Powershares) in my portfolio.\"","See my comment for some discussion of why one might choose an identical fund over an ETF. As to why someone would choose the higher cost fund in this instance ... The Admiral Shares version of the fund (VFIAX) has the same expense ratio as the ETF but has a minimum investment of $10K. Some investors may want to eventually own the Admiral Shares fund but do not yet have $10K. If they begin with the Investor Shares now and then convert to Admiral later, that conversion will be a non-taxable event. If, however, they start with ETF shares now and then sell them later to buy the fund, that sale will be a taxable event. Vanguard ETFs are only commission-free to Vanguard clients using Vanguard Brokerage Services. Some investors using other brokers may face all sorts of penalties for purchasing third-party ETFs. Some retirement plan participants (either at Vanguard or another broker) may not even be allowed to purchase ETFs.","\"If anything, the price of an ETF is more tightly coupled to the underlying holdings or assets than a mutual fund, because of the independent creation/destruction mechanism. With a mutual fund, the price is generally set once at the end of each day, and the mutual fund manager has to deal with investments and redemptions at that price. By the time they get to buying or selling the underlying assets, the market may have moved or they may even move the market with those transactions. With an ETF, investment and redemption is handled by independent \"\"authorized participants\"\". They can create new units of the ETF by buying up the underlying assets and delivering them to the ETF manager, and vice versa they can cancel units by requesting the underlying assets from the ETF manager. ETFs trade intraday (i.e. at any time during trading hours) and any time the price diverges too far from the underlying assets, one of the authorized participants has an incentive to make a small profit by creating or destroying units of the ETF, also intraday.\"","There is little difference between buying shares in your broker's index fund and shares of their corresponding ETF. In many cases the money invested in an ETF gets essentially stuffed right into the index fund (I believe Vanguard does this, for example). In either case you will be paying a little bit of tax. In the ETF case it will be on the dividends that are paid out. In the index fund case it will additionally be on the capital gains that have been realized within the fund, which are very few for an index fund. Not a ton in either case. The more important tax consideration is between purchase and sale, which is the same in either case. I'd say stick it wherever the lowest fees are.","This depends on a lot actually - with the overall being your goals and how much you like risk. Question: What are your fees/commissions for selling? $8.95/trade will wipe out some gains on those trades. (.69% if all are sold with $8.95 commission - not including the commission payed when purchased that should be factored into the cost basis) Also, I would recommend doing commission free ETFs. You can get the same affect as a mutual fund without the fees associated with paying someone to invest in ETFs and stocks. On another note: Your portfolio looks rather risky. Although everyone has their own risk preference so this might be yours but if you are thinking about a mutual fund instead of individual stocks you probably are risk averse. I would suggest consulting with an adviser on how to set up for the future. Financial advice is free flowing from your local barber, dentist, and of course StackExchange but I would look towards a professional. Disclaimer: These are my thoughts and opinions only ;) Feel free to add comments below.","Mutual funds don't do what ETFs do because, according to how the fund was built in their contract, they can't. That is not how they are built and the people that invested in them expect them to act in a certain way. That is ok, though. Many people still invest in mutual funds partially because of their history but there are some advantages to mutual funds over etfs. Mainly mutual funds must mark-to-market at the end of day while etf values can drift from the asset value especially in crisis. As long enough people invest in mutual funds the funds make enough money on their fees they don't need to change. Maybe mutual funds will go extinct as etfs do have significant advantages, but it likely won't happen soon.","Cost. If an investor wanted to diversify his portfolio by investing in the companies that make up the S&P 500, the per-share and commission costs to individually place trades for each and every one of those companies would be prohibitive. I can buy one share of an exchange-traded fund that tracks the S&P 500 for less than the purchase price of a single share in some of the companies that make up the index.","The simple answer is that whatever strategy is implemented with e-series, could be implemented at a lower cost with ETFs.","You cannot do a 1031 exchange with stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or ETFs. There really isn't much difference between an ETF and its equivalent index mutual fund. Both will have minimal capital gains distributions. I would not recommend selling an index mutual fund and taking a short-term capital gain just to buy the equivalent ETF.","ETFs trade on specific exchanges. If your broker deals with those exchanges, you should have access to the ETF. If your broker does not deal with that exchange, then you will not have access through that broker. This is different than, say, mutual funds, which don't trade on the exchanges are proprietary to certain brokerages or financial institutions.","ETFs are just like any other mutual fund; they hold a mix of assets described by their prospectus. If that mix fits your needs for diversification and the costs of buying/selling/holding are low, it's as worth considering as a traditional fund with the same mix. A bond fund will hold a mixture of bonds. Whether that mix is sufficiently diversified for you, or whether you want a different fund or a mix of funds, is a judgement call. I want my money to take care of itself for the most part, so most of the bond portion is in a low-fee Total Bond Market Index fund (which tries to match the performance of bonds in general). That could as easily be an ETF, but happens not to be.","\"An Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) is a special type of mutual fund that is traded on the stock exchange like a stock. To invest, you buy it through a stock broker, just as you would if you were buying an individual stock. When looking at a mutual fund based in the U.S., the easiest way to tell whether or not it is an ETF is by looking at the ticker symbol. Traditional mutual funds have ticker symbols that end in \"\"X\"\", and ETFs have ticker symbols that do not end in \"\"X\"\". The JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund, with ticker symbol JFAMX, is a traditional mutual fund, not an ETF. JPMorgan does have ETFs; the JPMorgan Diversified Return Emerging Markets Equity ETF, with ticker symbol JPEM, is an example. This ETF invests in similar stocks as JFAMX; however, because it is an index-based fund instead of an actively managed fund, it has lower fees. If you aren't sure about the ticker symbol, the advertising/prospectus of any ETF should clearly state that it is an ETF. (In the example of JPEM above, they put \"\"ETF\"\" right in the fund name.) If you don't see ETF mentioned, it is most likely a traditional mutual fund. Another way to tell is by looking at the \"\"investment minimums\"\" of the fund. JFAMX has a minimum initial investment of $1000. ETFs, however, do not have an investment minimum listed; because it is traded like a stock, you simply buy whole shares at whatever the current share price is. So if you look at the \"\"Fees and Investment Minimums\"\" section of the JPEM page, you'll see the fees listed, but not any investment minimums.\"","\"I'm assuming the question is about how to compare two ETFs that track the same index. I'd look at (for ETFs -- ignoring index funds): So, for example you might compare SPY vs IVV: SPY has about 100x the volume. Sure, IVV has 2M shares trading, so it is liquid \"\"enough\"\". But the bigger volume on SPY might matter to you if you use options: open interest is as much as 1000x more on SPY. Even if you have no interest in options, the spreads on SPY are probably going to be slightly smaller. They both have 0.09% expense ratios. When I looked on 2010-9-6, SPY was trading at a slight discount, IVV was at a slight premium. Looking for any sort of trend is left as an exercise to the reader... Grab the prospectus for each to examine the rules they set for fund makeup. Both come from well-known issuers and have a decent history. (Rather than crazy Uncle Ed's pawn shop, or the Central Bank of Stilumunistan.) So unless you find something in the SPY prospectus that makes you queasy, the higher volume and equal expense ratios would seem to suggest it over IVV. The fact that it is at a (tiny) discount right now is a (tiny) bonus.\"","\"Bonds might not be simple, but in general there are only a few variables that need to be understood: bid, coupon (interest) rate, maturity, and yield. Bond tables clearly lay those out, and if you're talking about government bonds a lot of things (like convertibles) don't apply (although default is still a concern). This might be overly simplistic, but I view ETF's primarily as an easy way to bring somewhat esoteric instruments (like grain futures) into the easily available markets of Nasdaq and the NYSE. That they got \"\"enhanced\"\" with leveraged funds and the such is interesting, but perhaps not the original intent of the instrument. Complicating your situation a bit more is the fee that gets tacked onto the ETF. Even Vanguard government bond funds hang out north of 0.1%. That's not huge, but it's not particularly appealing either considering that (unlike rounding up live cattle futures), it's not that much work to buy US government bonds, so the expense might not seem worth it to someone who's comfortable purchasing the securities directly. I'd be interested to see someone else's view on this, but in general I'd say that if you know what you want and know how to buy it, the government bond ETF becomes a lot less relevant as the liquidity offered (including the actual \"\"ease of transacting\"\") seem to to be the biggest factors in favor. From Investopedia's description: The bond ETF is an exciting new addition to the bond market, offering an excellent alternative to self-directed investors who, looking for ease of trading and increased price transparency, want to practice indexing or active bond trading. However, bond ETFs are suitable for particular strategies. If, for instance, you are looking to create a specific income stream, bond ETFs may not be for you. Be sure to compare your alternatives before investing.\"","One of the key things to look for is trading volume. I think the price spread will be better on high volume ETFs, which means you'll be able to sell for more when the time comes. Check Google or Yahoo finance for those stats.","Cheaper would refer to the fees of a fund rather than the share price, IMO. Are 2 quarters worth more or less than 10 nickels? This is another way to express your question though most open-end funds bought directly from the fund family or through fund supermarkets would do fractional shares that may be better than going through ETFs though there can be some brokers like Sharebuilder that used to do fractional shares though not necessarily having the best execution as I recall.","The issue with trading stocks vs. mutual funds (or ETFs) is all about risk. You trade Microsoft you now have a Stock Risk in your portfolio. It drops 5% you are down 5%. Instead if you want to buy Tech and you buy QQQ if MSFT fell 5% the QQQs would not be as impacted to the downside. So if you want to trade a mutual fund, but you want to be able to put in stop sell orders trade ETFs instead. Considering mutual funds it is better to say Invest vs. Trade. Since all fund families have different rules and once you sell (if you sell it early) you will pay a fee and will not be able to invest in that same fund for x number of days (30, 60...)","that's just it, though - they are splitting up the 1%! and in most cases, especially vanguard, they are splitting up far less. ETFs don't have 12b-1 fees. explaining why you're experiencing different returns for ETFs will almost certainly involve something other than their expense. again, this is especially true for vanguard. they have the cheapest ETFs around (though i think schwab beats them on a few now). i can only guess at the full compensation structure. betterment likely earns money on cash reserves and securities hypothecation (i guess?). they also charge a small fee from what i understand. finance is very slim these days. i guess i'm wondering what your ultimate question is. if it's the inter corporate compensation structure, above is my best guess. if it's about performance, then we need to compare the ETFs you are looking at. if it's about the fees on funds, i think we covered that! as an advisor, it's my experience that very specific inquiries about fees have a deeper concern. people hear a lot about being overcharged so cost is a very standard place for clients to initially look when trying to compare performance of portfolios or securities.","- ETFs make money through management fees. You can look it up: they all skim off a little bit of its profit, normally <1%. - It's all about cheap diversification. People generally don't have the capital to invest individually in each equity to mimic an ETF's portfolio. - Yes, but you need a lot of money. For example: You can't just invest $1 in GOOG if you want to buy a tech sector ETF.","So, why or why should I not invest in the cheaper index fund? They are both same, one is not cheaper than other. You get something that is worth $1000. To give a simple illustration; There is an item for $100, Vanguard creates 10 Units out of this so price per unit is $10. Schwab creates 25 units out of this, so the per unit price is $4. Now if you are looking at investing $20; with Vanguard you would get 2 units, with Schwab you would get 5 units. This does not mean one is cheaper than other. Both are at the same value of $20. The Factors you need to consider are; Related question What differentiates index funds and ETFs?","what reason would I have in buying an ETF? Apart from the efforts, the real reason is the ticket size. One can't buy shares in fraction. To truly reflect the index in equal weight, the amount to invest will be in multiples of millions [depending on the Index and the stock composition] This related question should help you understand why it is difficult even for large fund house to exactly mimic the index. Why do passive ETFs require so much trading (and incur costs)?","Market cap probably isn't as big of an issue as the bid/ask spread and the liquidity, although they tend to be related. The spread is likely to be wider on lesser traded ETF funds we are talking about pennies, likely not an issue unless you are trading in and out frequently. The expense ratios will also tend to be slightly higher again not a huge issue but it might be a consideration. You are unlikely to make up the cost of paying the commission to buy into a larger ETF any time soon though.","Ohhhh. Well thank you for that info. I know I could've Googled it all and while I'm a sticker for doing your own research, it's nice to hear it from someone in the know. Gotta pass on knowledge to those who don't know. Is it cheap to buy an ETF?","The problem there is that there's a tax due on that dividend. So, if you wish, you can buy the ETF and specify to reinvest dividends, but you'll have to pay a bit of tax on them, and keep track of your basis, if the account isn't a retirement account.","Sure, but as a retail client you'd be incurring transaction fees on entry and exit. Do you have the necessary tools to manage all the corporate actions, too? And index rebalances? ETF managers add value by taking away the monstrous web of clerical work associated with managing a portfolio of, at times, hundreds of different names. With this comes the value of institutional brokerage commissions, data licenses, etc. I think if you were to work out the actual brokerage cost, as well as the time you'd have to spend doing it yourself, you'd find that just buying the ETF is far cheaper. Also a bit of a rabbit hole, but how would you (with traditional retail client tools) even coordinate the simultaneous purchase of all 500 components of something like SPY? I would guess that, on average, you're going to have significantly worse slippage to the index than a typical ETF provider. Add that into your calculation too.","Why is that? With all the successful investors (including myself on a not-infrequent basis) going for individual companies directly, wouldn't it make more sense to suggest that new investors learn how to analyse companies and then make their best guess after taking into account those factors? I have a different perspective here than the other answers. I recently started investing in a Roth IRA for retirement. I do not have interest in micromanaging individual company research (I don't find this enjoyable at all) but I know I want to save for retirement. Could I learn all the details? Probably, as an engineer/software person I suspect I could. But I really don't want to. But here's the thing: For anyone else in a similar situation to me, the net return on investing into a mutual fund type arrangement (even if it returns only 4%) is still likely considerably higher than the return on trying to invest in stocks (which likely results in $0 invested, and a return of 0%). I suspect the overwhelming majority of people in the world are more similar to me than you - in that they have minimal interest in spending hours managing their money. For us, mutual funds or ETFs are perfect for this.","What decision are you trying to make? Are you interested day trading stocks to make it rich? Or are you looking at your investment options and trying to decide between an actively managed mutual fund and an ETF? If the former, then precise statistics are hard to come by, but I believe that 99% of day traders would do better investing in an ETF. If the latter, then there are lots of studies that show that most actively managed funds do worse than index funds, so with most actively managed funds you are paying higher fees for worse performance. Here is a quote from the Bogleheads Guide to Investing: Index funds outperform approximately 80 percent of all actively managed funds over long periods of time. They do so for one simple reason: rock-bottom costs. In a random market, we don't know what future returns will be. However, we do know that an investor who keeps his or her costs low will earn a higher return than one who does not. That's the indexer's edge. Many people believe that your best option for investing is a diverse portfolio of ETFs, like this. This is what I do.","\"I think you are asking about actively managed funds vs. indexes and possibly also vs. diversified funds like target date funds. This is also related to the question of mutual fund vs. ETF. First, a fund can be either actively managed or it can attempt to track an index. An actively managed fund has a fund manager who tries to find the best stocks to invest in within some constraints, like \"\"this fund invests in large cap US companies\"\". An index fund tries to match as closely as possible the performance of an index like the S&P 500. A fund may also try to offer a portfolio that is suitable for someone to put their entire account into. For example, a target date fund is a fund that may invest in a mix of stocks, bonds and foreign stock in a proportion that would be appropriate to someone expecting to retire in a certain year. These are not what people tend to think of as the canonical examples of mutual funds, even though they share the same legal structure and investment mechanisms. Secondly, a fund can either be a traditional mutual fund or it can be an exchange traded fund (ETF). To invest in a traditional mutual fund, you send money to the fund, and they give you a number of shares equal to what that money would have bought of the net asset value (NAV) of the fund at the end of trading on the day they receive your deposit, possibly minus a sales charge. To invest in an ETF, you buy shares of the ETF on the stock market like any other stock. Under the covers, an ETF does have something similar to the mechanism of depositing money to get shares, but only big traders can use that, and it's not used for investing, but only for people who are making a market in the stock (if lots of people are buying VTI, Big Dealer Co will get 100,000 shares from Vanguard so that they can sell them on the market the next day). Historically and traditionally, ETFs are associated with an indexing strategy, while if not specifically mentioned, people assume that traditional mutual funds are actively managed. Many ETFs, notably all the Vanguard ETFs, are actually just a different way to hold the same underlying fund. The best way to understand this is to read the prospectus for a mutual fund and an ETF. It's all there in reasonably plain English.\"","There are a few ETFs that fall into the money market category: SHV, BIL, PVI and MINT. What normally looks like an insignificant expense ratio looks pretty big when compared to the small yields offered by these funds. The same holds for the spread and transaction fees. For that reason, I'm not sure if the fund route is worth it.","There are many technical answers above , but the short story to me is that very few active fund managers consistently beat the market. Look at the results of actively managed funds. Depending on whose analysis you read, you will find out that somewhere between 80-90% of fund managers in a given year do not beat passive index funds. So go figure how you will do compared to a mutual fund manager who has way more experience than you likely have. So, that in itself is moderately interesting, but if you look at same-manager performance over several consecutive years it is rare to find anyone that goes beats the market for more than a few years in a row. There are exceptions, but go pick one of these guys/gals - good luck. Getting in and out of the market is a loser. This is because there is no way to see market spikes and down turns. There are many behavioral studies that have been done that show people do the wrong thing: they sell after losses have occurred and they buy after the market has gone up. Missing an up spike and not being in before the spike is as devastating as missing a down turn and not getting out in time. There is another down side, if you are trading in a personal account, rather than a tax deferred account, going in and out of stocks has tax complications. In short, a broad based equity index will, over time, beat about anything out there and it will do it in a tax efficient manner. Exchange traded funds (ETFs) are a wonderful way to obtain diversification immediately at very low cost.","The market doesn't really need to adjust for fees on ETF funds that are often less than 1/10th of a percent. The loss of the return is more than made up for by the diversification. How does the market adjust for trading fees? It doesn't have to, it's just a cost of doing business. If one broker or platform offers better fee structures, people will naturally migrate toward the lower fees.","\"Your question is one of semantics. ETFs and mutual funds have many things in common and provide essentially the same service to investors with minimal differences. It's reasonably correct to say \"\"An ETF is a mutual fund that...\"\" and then follow up with some stuff that is not true of a typical mutual fund. You could do the same with, for example, a hedge fund. \"\"A hedge fund is a mutual fund that doesn't comply with most SEC regulations and thus is limited to accredited investors.\"\" As a matter of practice, when people say \"\"mutual fund\"\" they are talking about traditional mutual funds and pretty much never including ETFs. So is an ETF a mutual fund as the word is commonly used? No.\"","What JoeTaxpayer means is that you can sell one ETF and buy another that will perform substantially the same during the 30 day wash sale period without being considered substantially the same from a wash sale perspective more easily than you could with an individual stock. For example, you could sell an S&P 500 index ETF and then temporarily buy a DJIA index ETF. As these track different indexes, they are not considered to be substantially the same for wash sale purposes, but for a short term investing period, their performance should still be substantially the same.","\"You seem to be assuming that ETFs must all work like the more traditional closed-end funds, where the market price per share tends—based on supply and demand—to significantly deviate from the underlying net asset value per share. The assumption is simplistic. What are traditionally referred to as closed-end funds (CEFs), where unit creation and redemption are very tightly controlled, have been around for a long time, and yes, they do often trade at a premium or discount to NAV because the quantity is inflexible. Yet, what is generally meant when the label \"\"ETF\"\" is used (despite CEFs also being both \"\"exchange-traded\"\" and \"\"funds\"\") are those securities which are not just exchange-traded, and funds, but also typically have two specific characteristics: (a) that they are based on some published index, and (b) that a mechanism exists for shares to be created or redeemed by large market participants. These characteristics facilitate efficient pricing through arbitrage. Essentially, when large market participants notice the price of an ETF diverging from the value of the shares held by the fund, new units of the ETF can get created or redeemed in bulk. The divergence quickly narrows as these participants buy or sell ETF units to capture the difference. So, the persistent premium (sometimes dear) or discount (sometimes deep) one can easily witness in the CEF universe tend not to occur with the typical ETF. Much of the time, prices for ETFs will tend to be very close to their net asset value. However, it isn't always the case, so proceed with some caution anyway. Both CEF and ETF providers generally publish information about their funds online. You will want to find out what is the underlying Net Asset Value (NAV) per share, and then you can determine if the market price trades at a premium or a discount to NAV. Assuming little difference in an ETF's price vs. its NAV, the more interesting question to ask about an ETF then becomes whether the NAV itself is a bargain, or not. That means you'll need to be more concerned with what stocks are in the index the fund tracks, and whether those stocks are a bargain, or not, at their current prices. i.e. The ETF is a basket, so look at each thing in the basket. Of course, most people buy ETFs because they don't want to do this kind of analysis and are happy with market average returns. Even so, sector-based ETFs are often used by traders to buy (or sell) entire sectors that may be undervalued (or overvalued).\"","One thing to be aware of when choosing mutual funds and index ETFs is the total fees and costs. The TD Ameritrade site almost certainly had links that would let you see the total fees (as an annual percentage) for each of the funds. Within a category, the lowest fees percentage is best, since that is directly subtracted from your performance. As an aside, your allocation seems overly conservative to me for someone that is 25 years old. You will likely work for 40 or so years and the average stock market cycle is about 7 years. So you will likely see 5 or so complete cycles. Worrying about stability of principal too young will really cut into your returns. My daughter is your age and I have advised her to be 100% in equities and then to start dialing that back in about 25 years or so.","One thing I would add to @littleadv (buy an ETF instead of doing your own) answer would be ensure that the dividend yield matches. Expense ratios aren't the only thing that eat you with mutual funds: the managers can hold on to a large percentage of the dividends that the stocks normally pay (for instance, if by holding onto the same stocks, you would normally receive 3% a year in dividends, but by having a mutual fund, you only receive .75%, that's an additional cost to you). If you tried to match the DJIA on your own, you would have an advantage of receiving the dividend yields on the stocks paying dividends. The downsides: distributing your investments to match and the costs of actual purchases.","Most ETFs are index funds, meaning you get built in diversification so that any one stock going down won't hurt the overall performance much. You can also get essentially the same index funds by directly purchasing them from the mutual fund company. To buy an ETF you need a brokerage account and have to pay a transaction fee. Buying only $1000 at a time the broker transaction fee will eat too much of your money. You want to keep such fees way down below 0.1%. Pay attention to transaction fees and fund expense ratios. Or buy an equivalent index fund directly from the mutual fund company. This generally costs nothing in transaction fees if you have at least the minimum account value built up. If you buy every month or two you are dollar cost averaging, no matter what kind of account you are using. Keep doing that, even if the market values are going down. (Especially if the market values are going down!) If you can keep doing this then forget about certificates of deposit. At current rates you cannot build wealth with CDs.","Some index funds offer lower expense ratios to those who invest large amounts of money. For example, Vanguard offers Admiral Shares of many of its mutual funds (including several index funds) to individuals who invest more than $50K or $100K, and these Shares have lower expense ratios than the Investor shares in the fund. There are Institutional Shares designed for investments by pension plans, 401k plans of large companies etc which have even lower expenses than Admiral Shares. Individuals working for large companies sometimes get access to Institutional Shares through their 401k plans. Thus, there is something to gained by investing in just one index fund (for a particular index) that offers lower expense ratios for large investments instead of diversifying into several index funds all tracking the same index. Of course, this advantage might be offset by failure to track the index closely, but this tracking should be monitored not on a daily basis but over much longer periods of time to test whether your favorite fund is perennially trailing the index by far more than its competitors with larger expense ratios. Remember that the Net Asset Value (NAV) published by each mutual fund after the markets close already take into account the expense ratio.","For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.","\"I wonder if ETF's are further removed from the actual underlying holdings or assets giving value to the fund, as compared to regular mutual funds. Not exactly removed. But slightly different. Whenever a Fund want to launch an ETF, it would buy the underlying shares; create units. Lets say it purchased 10 of A, 20 of B and 25 of C. And created 100 units for price x. As part of listing, the ETF company will keep the purchased shares of A,B,C with a custodian. Only then it is allowed to sell the 100 units into the market. Once created, units are bought or sold like regular stock. In case the demand is huge, more units are created and the underlying shares kept with custodian. So, for instance, would VTI and Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares be equally anchored to the underlying shares of the companies within the index? Yes they are. Are they both connected? Yes to an extent. The way Vanguard is managing this is given a Index [Investment Objective]; it is further splitting the common set of assets into different class. Read more at Share Class. The Portfolio & Management gives out the assets per share class. So Vanguard Total Stock Market Index is a common pool that has VTI ETF, Admiral and Investor Share and possibly Institutional share. Is VTI more of a \"\"derivative\"\"? No it is not a derivative. It is a Mutual Fund.\"","I believe that kind of micro-tuning for every participant would make the operating costs of the fund intolerable. A better approach, if this is important to you, would be to find a fund or funds designed for people who share your criteria. If the goals and criteria aren't mutual, a mutual fund -- traditional or ETF -- is probably not the right tool.","Price, whether related to a stock or ETF, has little to do with anything. The fund or company has a total value and the value is distributed among the number of units or shares. Vanguard's S&P ETF has a unit price of $196 and Schwab's S&P mutual fund has a unit price of $35, it's essentially just a matter of the fund's total assets divided by number of units outstanding. Vanguard's VOO has assets of about $250 billion and Schwab's SWPPX has assets of about $25 billion. Additionally, Apple has a share price of $100, Google has a share price of $800, that doesn't mean Google is more valuable than Apple. Apple's market capitalization is about $630 billion while Google's is about $560 billion. Or on the extreme a single share of Berkshire's Class A stock is $216,000, and Berkshire's market cap is just $360 billion. It's all just a matter of value divided by shares/units.","\"If you are a \"\"small\"\" investor (namely, not an accredited investor), then the transaction costs (commissions) for purchasing the stocks while attempting to duplicate DJIA will defeat any benefit. My personal preference is to purchase mutual funds rather than ETFs.\"","M Attia, the advantages of the TD e-series are that they are a low cost way to index your portfolio as well it gives you to opportunity to invest small amounts at a time. With ETF's, purchasing small amounts at a time would simply get too expensive.","In the past 10 years there have been mutual funds that would act as a single bucket of stocks and bonds. A good example is Fidelity's Four In One. The trade off was a management fee for the fund in exchange for having to manage the portfolio itself and pay separate commissions and fees. These days though it is very simple and pretty cheap to put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs that would represent a balanced portfolio. Whats even more interesting is that large online brokerage houses are starting to offer commission free trading of a number of ETFs, as long as they are not day traded and are held for a period similar to NTF mutual funds. I think you could easily put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs to trade on Fidelity or TD Ameritrade commission free, and one that would represent a nice diversified portfolio. The main advantage is that you are not giving money to the fund manager but rather paying the minimal cost of investing in an index ETF. Overall this can save you an extra .5-1% annually on your portfolio, just in fees. Here are links to commission free ETF trading on Fidelity and TD Ameritrade.","An index fund is inherently diversified across its index -- no one stock will either make or break the results. In that case it's a matter of picking the index(es) you want to put the money into. ETFs do permit smaller initial purchases, which would let you do a reasonable mix of sectors. (That seems to be the one advantage of ETFs over traditional funds...?)","One advantage not pointed out yet is that closed-end funds typically trade on stock exchanges, whereas mutual funds do not. This makes closed-end funds more accessible to some investors. I'm a Canadian, and this particular distinction matters to me. With my regular brokerage account, I can buy U.S. closed-end funds that trade on a stock exchange, but I cannot buy U.S. mutual funds, at least not without the added difficulty of somehow opening a brokerage account outside of my country.","The expense ratio reduces the return of the ETF; your scenario of paying 100.0015 is that of a load. Most (all?) ETFs can be bought without paying a load (sales charge as a percent of amount invested), and some ETFs can be bought without paying a brokerage fee (fixed or variable charge for a buy transaction just like buying any other stock through the brokerage) because the brokerage has waived it. Your broker might charge fees for both buying and selling shares in an ETF, but in any case, this is quite separate from the expense ratio.","Buying the right shares gives higher return. Buying the wrong ones gives worse return, possibly negative. The usual recommendation, even if you have a pro advising you, is to diversify most of your investments to reduce the risk, even though that may reduce the possible gain. A mutual fund is diversification-in-a-can. It requires little to no active maintenance. Yes, you pay a management fee, but you aren't paying per-transaction fees every time you adjust your holdings, and the management costs can be quite reasonable if you pick the right funds; minimal in the case of computer-managed (index) funds. If you actively enjoy playing with stocks and bonds and are willing/able to accept your failures and less-than-great choices as part of the game, and if you can convince yourself that you will do better this way, go for it. For those of us who just want to deposit out money, watch it grow, and maybe rebalance once a year if that, index funds are a perfectly good choice. I spend at least 8 hours a day working for my money; the rest of the time, I want my money to work for me. Risk and reward tend to be proportional to each other; when they aren't, market prices tend to move to correct that. You need to decide how much risk you're comfortable with, and how much time and effort and money you're willing to spend managing that risk. Personally, I am perfectly happy with the better-than-market-rate-of-return I'm getting, and I don't have any conviction that I could do better if I was more involved. Your milage will vary. If folks didn't disagree, there wouldn't be a market.","Just sticking to equities: If you are investing directly in a share/stock, depending on various factors, you may have picked up a winner or to your dismay a loser. Say you just have Rs 10,000/- to invest, which stock would you buy? If you don't know, then it’s better to buy a Mutual Fund. Now if you say you would buy a few of everything, then even to purchase say Rs 5000/- worth of each stock in the NIFTY Index [50 companies] you would require at least an investment of 250,000/-. When you are investing directly you always have to buy in whole numbers, i.e. you can't buy 1/2 share or 1.6 share of some stock. The way Mutual funds work is they take 10,000 from 250 people and invest in all the stocks. There are fund managers who's job is to pick good stocks, however even they cannot predict winners all the time. Normally a few of the picks become great winners, most are average, and a few are losers; this means that overall your returns are average VS if you had picked the winning stock. The essential difference between you investing on your own and via mutual funds are: It is good to begin with a Mutual Fund, and once you start understanding the stocks better you can invest directly into the equities. The same logic holds true for Debt as well.","\"Oddly enough, in the USA, there are enough cost and tax savings between buy-and-hold of a static portfolio and buying into a fund that a few brokerages have sprung up around the concept, such as FolioFN, to make it easier for small investors to manage numerous small holdings via fractional shares and no commission window trades. A static buy-and-hold portfolio of stocks can be had for a few dollars per trade. Buying into a fund involves various annual and one time fees that are quoted as percentages of the investment. Even 1-2% can be a lot, especially if it is every year. Typically, a US mutual fund must send out a 1099 tax form to each investor, stating that investors share of the dividends and capital gains for each year. The true impact of this is not obvious until you get a tax bill for gains that you did not enjoy, which can happen when you buy into a fund late in the year that has realized capital gains. What fund investors sometimes fail to appreciate is that they are taxed both on their own holding period of fund shares and the fund's capital gains distributions determined by the fund's holding period of its investments. For example, if ABC tech fund bought Google stock several years ago for $100/share, and sold it for $500/share in the same year you bought into the ABC fund, then you will receive a \"\"capital gains distribution\"\" on your 1099 that will include some dollar amount, which is considered your share of that long-term profit for tax purposes. The amount is not customized for your holding period, capital gains are distributed pro-rata among all current fund shareholders as of the ex-distribution date. Morningstar tracks this as Potential Capital Gains Exposure and so there is a way to check this possibility before investing. Funds who have unsold losers in their portfolio are also affected by these same rules, have been called \"\"free rides\"\" because those funds, if they find some winners, will have losers that they can sell simultaneously with the winners to remain tax neutral. See \"\"On the Lookout for Tax Traps and Free Riders\"\", Morningstar, pdf In contrast, buying-and-holding a portfolio does not attract any capital gains taxes until the stocks in the portfolio are sold at a profit. A fund often is actively managed. That is, experts will alter the portfolio from time to time or advise the fund to buy or sell particular investments. Note however, that even the experts are required to tell you that \"\"past performance is no guarantee of future results.\"\"\"","As has been pointed out, one isn't cheaper than the other. One may have a lower price per share than the other, but that's not the same thing. Let's pretend that the total market valuation of all the stocks within the index was $10,000,000. (Look, I said let's pretend.) You want to invest $1,000. For the time being, let's also pretend that your purchasing 0.01% of all the stock won't affect prices anywhere. One company splits the index into 10,000 parts worth $1,000 each. The other splits the same index into 10,000,000 parts worth $1 each. Both track the underlying index perfectly. If you invest $1,000 with the first company, you get one part; if you invest $1,000 with the second, you get 1,000 parts. Ignoring spreads, transaction fees and the like, immediately after the purchase, both are worth exactly $1,000 to you. Now, suppose the index goes up 2%. The first company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly one) are now worth $1,020 each, and the second company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly 1,000) are worth $1.02 each. In each case, you now have index shares valued at $1,020 for a 2% increase ($1,020 / $1,000 = 1.02 = 102% of your original investment). As you can see, there is no reason to look at the price per share unless you have to buy in terms of whole shares, which is common in the stock market but not necessarily common at all in mutual funds. Because in this case, both funds track the same underlying index, there is no real reason to purchase one rather than the other because you believe they will perform differently. In an ideal world, the two will perform exactly equally. The way to compare the price of mutual funds is to look at the expense ratio. The lower the expense ratio is, the cheaper the fund is, and the less of your money is being eroded every day in fees. Unless you have some very good reason to do differently, that is how you should compare the price of any investment vehicles that track the same underlying commodity (in this case, the S&P 500).","Excellent summary. I'd add a minor point that it's cheaper to setup and run a hedge fund. The legal fees associated with starting a 40 Act mutual fund are about $750,000. A hedge fund cane be setup for about $80,000. It's also cheaper to keep the hedge fund going as the reporting requirements are much less. source: Have setup hedge funds and mutual funds. edit: A word and source. Edi","\"Back in the olden days, if you wanted to buy the S&P, you had to have a lot of money so you can buy the shares. Then somebody had the bright idea of making a fund that just buys the S&P, and then sells small pieces of it to investor without huge mountains of capital. Enter the ETFs. The guy running the ETF, of course, doesn't do it for free. He skims a little bit of money off the top. This is the \"\"fee\"\". The major S&P ETFs all have tiny fees, in the percents of a percent. If you're buying the index, you're probably looking at gains (or losses) to the tune of 5, 10, 20% - unless you're doing something really silly, you wouldn't even notice the fee. As often happens, when one guy starts doing something and making money, there will immediately be copycats. So now we have competing ETFs all providing the same service. You are technically a competitor as well, since you could compete with all these funds by just buying a basket of shares yourself, thereby running your own private fund for yourself. The reason this stuff even started was that people said, \"\"well why bother with mutual funds when they charge such huge fees and still don't beat the index anyway\"\", so the index ETFs are supposed to be a low cost alternative to mutual funds. Thus one thing ETFs compete on is fees: You can see how VOO has lower fees than SPY and IVV, in keeping with Vanguard's philosophy of minimal management (and management fees). Incidentally, if you buy the shares directly, you wouldn't charge yourself fees, but you would have to pay commissions on each stock and it would destroy you - another benefit of the ETFs. Moreover, these ETFs claim they track the index, but of course there is no real way to peg an asset to another. So they ensure tracking by keeping a carefully curated portfolio. Of course nobody is perfect, and there's tracking error. You can in theory compare the ETFs in this respect and buy the one with the least tracking error. However they all basically track very closely, again the error is fractions of the percent, if it is a legitimate concern in your books then you're not doing index investing right. The actual prices of each fund may vary, but the price hardly matters - the key metric is does it go up 20% when the index goes up 20%? And they all do. So what do you compare them on? Well, typically companies offer people perks to attract them to their own product. If you are a Fidelity customer, and you buy IVV, they will waive your commission if you hold it for a month. I believe Vanguard will also sell VOO for free. But for instance Fidelity will take commission from VOO trades and vice versa. So, this would be your main factor. Though, then again, you can just make an account on Robinhood and they're all commission free. A second factor is reliability of the operator. Frankly, I doubt any of these operators are at all untrustworthy, and you'd be buying your own broker's ETF anyway, and presumably you already went with the most trustworthy broker. Besides that, like I said, there's trivial matters like fees and tracking error, but you might as well just flip a coin. It doesn't really matter.\"","diversifying; but isn't that what mutual funds already do? They diversify and reduce stock-specific risk by moving from individual stocks to many stocks, but you can diversify even further by selecting different fund types (e.g. large-cal, small-cap, fixed- income (bond) funds, international, etc.). Your target-date fund probably includes a few different types already, and will automatically reallocate to less risky investments as you get close to the target date. I would look at the fees of different types of funds, and compare them to the historical returns of those funds. You can also use things like morningstar and other ratings as guides, but they are generally very large buckets and may not be much help distinguishing between individual funds. So to answer the question, yes you can diversify further - and probably get better returns (and lower fees) that a target-date fund. The question is - is it worth your time and effort to do so? You're obviously comfortable investing for the long-term, so you might get some benefit by spending a little time looking for different funds to increase your diversification. Note that ETFs don't really diversify any differently than mutual funds, they are just a different mechanism to invest in funds, and allow different trading strategies (trading during the day, derivatives, selling short, etc.).","Index funds, like IBB, generally lack active management, which equates to lower expenses. This is simply because the target index, the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index in the case of IBB, is composed of known quantities. This means there won't be stock pickers or analysts constantly swapping holdings, increasing the turnover rate of the portfolio and increasing capital gains; costs that are offset by higher expense ratios in more actively managed funds.","Equal-weight ETFs remove the large cap bias found in most popular indexes. What results behaves very much like a small-cap or mid-cap index. Observe RSP vs IJR over a 5 year period: IJR (iShares S&P SmallCap 600 ETF) vs RSP (Rydex S&P Equal Weight ETF) I'm not sure if equal-weighting is worth the reduced efficiency. Mid-cap and small-cap funds have lower expenses (%0.20 for IJR vs %0.40 for RSP) and appear to do better over the long run. We don't know if that pattern will continue, but expense is one of the strongest long-term predictors of performance.","ETrade allows this without fees (when investing into one of the No-Load/No-Fees funds from their list). The Sharebuilder plan is better when investing into ETF's or stocks, not for mutual funds, their choice (of no-fees funds) is rather limited on Sharebuilder.","You do realize that the fund will have management expenses that are likely already factored into the NAV and that when you sell, the NAV will not yet be known, right? There are often fees to run a mutual fund that may be taken as part of managing the fund that are already factored into the Net Asset Value(NAV) of the shares that would be my caution as well as possible fee changes as Dilip Sarwate notes in a comment. Expense ratios are standard for mutual funds, yes. Individual stocks that represent corporations not structured as a mutual fund don't declare a ratio of how much are their costs, e.g. Apple or Google may well invest in numerous other companies but the costs of making those investments won't be well detailed though these companies do have non-investment operations of course. Don't forget to read the fund's prospectus as sometimes a fund will have other fees like account maintenance fees that may be taken out of distributions as well as being aware of how taxes will be handled as you don't specify what kind of account these purchases are being done using.","The same reason a company would offer coupons. I'd guess they're just doing it as a way to entice people to do their investing with them. Since it is any ETF I doubt they are being compensated by the ETF companies, as is sometimes the case (iShares does this with Fidelity, for example). And they still get the commission on the sale.","Fair enough. I would imagine the ETF could get a better option pricing if that were the case, plus liquidity and counterpart risk concerns but your point is well taken. Serves me right to shoot my mouth off on something I do not do (short). Speaking of which, do you do a lot of shorting? Cover positions or speculation?","It isn't just ETFs, you have normal mutual funds in India which invest internationally. This could be convenient if you don't already have a depository account and a stockbroker. Here's a list of such funds, along with some performance data: Value Research - Equity: International: Long-term Performance. However, you should also be aware that in India, domestic equity and equity fund investing is tax-free in the long-term (longer than one year), but this exemption doesn't apply to international investments. Ref: Invest Around the World.","\"There are several reasons. One, mutual funds provide instant diversification. To build a diverse portfolio \"\"manually\"\" (by buying individual shares) requires a lot of time and effort. If your portfolio is not diverse, then it is wrong to say \"\"buying shares gives higher return\"\"; in many cases diversification will increase your returns. Two, mutual funds reduce transactions costs. If you buy individual shares, you pay transactions costs every time you buy or sell. If you buy and sell the shares of many companies, you must perform many transactions and thus incur heavy fees. With mutual funds, a single transaction gets you access to many companies. In addition, it is often possible to buy mutual funds without paying transactions costs at all (although you will still pay fund expenses). Three (sort of a combination of the previous two) it is just easier. Many people can easily buy mutual funds with no cost and little effort through their bank. It is also simple to set up auto-investment plans so that you automatically save money over time. All of these things are much more complicated if you try to buy many individual shares. Four, if you buy the right kinds of funds (low-cost index funds), it is probably more lucrative than buying individual shares. The odds that, through carefully selected stock-buying, you will earn more than the market average are small. Even professional stock-pickers consistently underperform broad market indexes. In short, it is not true that \"\"buying shares gives higher return\"\", and even if it were, the convenience and diversification of mutual funds would still be good reasons to use them.\"","As these all seem to be US Equity, just getting one broad based US Equity index might offer similar diversification at lower cost. Over 5 years, 20 basis points in fees will only make about 1% difference. However, for longer periods (retirement saving), it is worth it to aim for the lowest fees. For further diversification, you might want to consider other asset classes, such as foreign equity, fixed income, etc.","The ETF price quoted on the stock exchange is in principle not referenced to NAV. The fund administrator will calculate and publish the NAV net of all fees, but the ETF price you see is determined by the market just like for any other security. Having said that, the market will not normally deviate greatly from the NAV of the fund, so you can safely assume that ETF quoted price is net of relevant fees.","Investopedia laid out the general information of tax treatment on the ETF fund structures as well as their underlying asset classes: http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0213/how-tax-treatments-of-etfs-work.aspx","Some other suggestions: Index-tracking mutual funds. These have the same exposure as ETFs, but may have different costs; for example, my investment manager (in the UK) charges a transaction fee on ETFs, but not funds, but caps platform fees on ETFs and not funds! Target date funds. If you are saving for a particular date (often retirement, but could also be buying a house, kids going to college, mid-life crisis motorbike purchase, a luxury cruise to see an eclipse, etc), these will automatically rebalance the investment from risk-tolerant (ie equities) to risk-averse (ie fixed income) as the date approaches. You can get reasonably low fees from Vanguard, and i imagine others. Income funds/ETFs, focusing on stocks which are expected to pay a good dividend. The idea is that a consistent dividend helps smooth out volatility in prices, giving you a more consistent return. Historically, that worked pretty well, but given fees and the current low yields, it might not be smart right now. That said Vanguard Equity Income costs 0.17%, and i think yields 2.73%, which isn't bad.","There's really no right or wrong answer here because you'll be fine either way. If you've investing amounts in the low 5 figures you're likely just getting started, and if your asset allocation is not optimal it's not that big a deal because you have a long time horizon to adjust it, and the expense ratio differences here won't add up to that much. A third option is Vanguard ETFs, which have the expense ratio of Admiral Shares but have lower minimums (i.e. the cost of a single share, typically on the order of $100). However, they are a bit more advanced than mutual funds in that they trade on the market and require you to place orders rather than just specifying the amount you want to buy. A downside here is you might end up with a small amount of cash that you can't invest, since you can initially only buy whole numbers of ETFs shares. So what I'd recommend is buying roughly the correct number of ETFs shares you want except for your largest allocation, then use the rest of your cash on Admiral Shares of that (if possible). For example, let's say you have $15k to invest and you want to be 2/3 U.S. stock, 1/6 international stock, and 1/6 U.S. bond. I would buy as many shares of VXUS (international stock ETF) and BND (U.S. bond ETF) as you can get for $2500 each, then whatever is left over (~$10k) put into VTSAX (U.S. stock Admiral Shares mutual fund)."],"string":"[\n \"I see a couple of reasons why you could consider choosing a mutual fund over an ETF In some cases index mutual funds can be a cheaper alternative to ETFs. In the UK where I am based, Fidelity is offering a management fee of 0.07% on its FTSE All shares tracker. Last time I checked, no ETF was beating that There are quite a few cost you have to foot when dealing ETFs In some cases, when dealing for relatively small amounts (e.g. a monthly investment plan) you can get a better deal, if your broker has negotiated discounts for you with a fund provider. My broker asks £12.5 when dealing in shares (£1.5 for the regular investment plan) whereas he asks £0 when dealing in funds and I get a 100% discount on the initial charge of the fund. As a conclusion, I would suggest you look at the all-in costs over total investment period you are considering for the exact amount you are planning to invest. Despite all the hype, ETFs are not always the cheapest alternative.\",\n \"ETFs offer the flexibility of stocks while retaining many of the benefits of mutual funds. Since an ETF is an actual fund, it has the diversification of its potentially many underlying securities. You can find ETFs with stocks at various market caps and style categories. You can have bond or mixed ETFs. You can even get ETFs with equal or fundamental weighting. In short, all the variety benefits of mutual funds. ETFs are typically much less expensive than mutual funds both in terms of management fees (expense ratio) and taxable gains. Most of them are not actively managed; instead they follow an index and therefore have a low turnover. A mutual fund may actively trade and, if not balanced with a loss, will generate capital gains that you pay taxes on. An ETF will produce gains only when shifting to keep inline with the index or you yourself sell. As a reminder: while expense ratio always matters, capital gains and dividends don't matter if the ETF or mutual fund is in a tax-advantaged account. ETFs have no load fees. Instead, because you trade it like a stock, you will pay a commission. Commissions are straight, up-front and perfectly clear. Much easier to understand than the various ways funds might charge you. There are no account minimums to entry with ETFs, but you will need to buy complete shares. Only a few places allow partial shares. It is generally harder to dollar-cost average into an ETF with regular automated investments. Also, like trading stocks, you can do those fancy things like selling short, buying on margin, options, etc. And you can pay attention to the price fluctuations throughout the day if you really want to. Things to make you pause: if you buy (no-load) mutual funds through the parent company, you'll get them at no commission. Many brokerages have No Transaction Fee (NTF) agreements with companies so that you can buy many funds for free. Still look out for that expense ratio though (which is probably paying for that NTF advantage). As sort of a middle ground: index funds can have very low expense ratios, track the same index as an ETF, can be tax-efficient or tax-managed, free to purchase, easy to dollar-cost average and easier to automate/understand. Further reading:\",\n \"The ETF is likely better in this case. The ETF will generally generate less capital gains taxes along the way. In order to pay off investors who leave a mutual fund, the manager will have to sell the fund's assets. This creates a capital gain, which must be distributed to shareholders at the end of the year. The mutual fund holder is essentially taxed on this turnover. The ETF does not have to sell any stock when an investor sells his shares because the investor sells the shares himself on the open market. This will result in a capital gain for the specific person exiting his position, but it does not create a taxable event for anyone else holding the ETF shares.\",\n \"First, it's not always the case that ETFs have lower expenses than the equivalent mutual funds. For example, in the Vanguard family of funds the expense ratio for the ETF version is the same as it is for the Admiral share class in the mutual fund version. With that in mind, the main advantages of a mutual fund over an equivalent ETF are: From a long-term investor's point of view, the main disadvantage of mutual funds relative to ETFs is the minimum account sizes. Especially if the fund has multiple share classes (i.e., where better classes get lower expense ratios), you might have to have quite a lot of money invested in the fund in order to get the same expense ratio as the ETF. There are some other differences that matter to more active investors (e.g., intraday trading, options, etc.), but for a passive investor the ones above are the major ones. Apart from those mutual funds and ETFs are pretty similar. Personally, I prefer mutual funds because I'm at a point where the fund minimums aren't really an issue, and I don't want to deal with the more fiddly aspects of ETFs. For investors just starting out the lower minimum investment for an ETF is a big win, as long as you can get commission-free trades (which is what I've assumed above.)\",\n \"I think that assuming that you're not looking to trade the fund, an index Mutual Fund is a better overall value than an ETF. The cost difference is negligible, and the ability to dollar-cost average future contributions with no transaction costs. You also have to be careful with ETFs; the spreads are wide on a low-volume fund and some ETFs are going more exotic things that can burn a novice investor. Track two similar funds (say Vanguard Total Stock Market: VTSMX and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF: VTI), you'll see that they track similarly. If you are a more sophisticated investor, ETFs give you the ability to use options to hedge against declines in value without having to incur capital gains from the sale of the fund. (ie. 20 years from now, can use puts to make up for short-term losses instead of selling shares to avoid losses) For most retail investors, I think you really need to justify using ETFs versus mutual funds. If anything, the limitations of mutual funds (no intra-day trading, no options, etc) discourage speculative behavior that is ultimately not in your best interest. EDIT: Since this answer was written, many brokers have begun offering a suite of ETFs with no transaction fees. That may push the cost equation over to support Index ETFs over Index Mutual Funds, particularly if it's a big ETF with narrow spreads..\",\n \"What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value). Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss. These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction). As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though.\",\n \"There are times when investing in an ETF is more convenient than a mutual fund. When you invest in a mutual fund, you often have an account directly with the mutual fund company, or you have an account with a mutual fund broker. Mutual funds often have either a front end or back end load, which essentially gives you a penalty for jumping in and out of funds. ETFs are traded exactly like stocks, so there is inherently no load when buying or selling. If you have a brokerage account and you want to move funds from a stock to a mutual fund, an ETF might be more convenient. With some accounts, an ETF allows you to invest in a fund that you would not be able to invest in otherwise. For example, you might have a 401k account through your employer. You might want to invest in a Vanguard mutual fund, but Vanguard funds are not available with your 401k. If you have access to a brokerage account inside your 401k, you can invest in the Vanguard fund through the associated ETF. Another reason that you might choose an ETF over a mutual fund is if you want to try to short the fund.\",\n \"http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/104/stupid.htm would have some data though a bit old about open-end funds vs an ETF that would be one point. Secondly, do you know that the Math on your ETF will always work out to whole numbers of shares or do you plan on using brokers that would allow fractional shares easily? This is a factor as $3,000 of an open-end fund will automatically go into fractional shares that isn't necessarily the case of an ETF where you have to specify a number of shares when you purchase as well as consider are you doing a market or limit order? These are a couple of things to keep in mind here. Lastly, what if the broker you use charges account maintenance fees for your account? In buying the mutual fund from the fund company directly, there may be a lower likelihood of having such fees. I don't know of any way to buy shares in the ETF directly without using a broker.\",\n \"The main difference between a mutual fund and an ETF are how they are bought and sold (from the investors perspective). An ETF is transacted on the open market. This means you normally can't buy partial shares with your initial investment. Having to transact on the open market also means you pay a market price. The market price is always a little bit different from the Net Asset Value (NAV) of the fund. During market hours, the ETF will trade at a premium/discount to the NAV calculated on the previous day. Morningstar's fund analysis will show a graph of the premium/discount to NAV for an ETF. With a mutual fund on the other hand, your investment goes to a fund company, which then grants you shares while under the hood buying the underlying investments. You pay the NAV price and are allowed to buy partial shares. Usually an ETF has a lower expense ratio, but if that's equal and any initial fees/commissions are equal, I would prefer the mutual fund in order to buy partial shares (so your initial investment will be fully invested) and so you don't have to worry about paying premium to NAV\",\n \"\\\"ETFs purchases are subject to a bid/ask spread, which is the difference between the highest available purchase offer (\\\"\\\"bid\\\"\\\") and the lowest available sell offer (\\\"\\\"ask\\\"\\\"). You can read more about this concept here. This cost doesn't exist for mutual funds, which are priced once per day, and buyers and sellers all use the same price for transactions that day. ETFs allow you to trade any time that the market is open. If you're investing for the long term (which means you're not trying to time your buy/sell orders to a particular time of day), and the pricing is otherwise equal between the ETF and the mutual fund (which they are in the case of Vanguard's ETFs and Admiral Shares mutual funds), I would go with the mutual fund because it eliminates any cost associated with bid/ask spread.\\\"\",\n \"Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive.\",\n \"Where are you planning on buying this ETF? I'm guessing it's directly through Vanguard? If so, that's likely your first reason - the majority of brokerage accounts charge a commission per trade for ETFs (and equities) but not for mutual funds. Another reason is that people who work in the financial industry (brokerages, mutual fund companies, etc) have to request permission for every trade before placing an order. This applies to equities and ETFs but does not apply to mutual funds. It's common for a request to be denied (if the brokerage has inside information due to other business lines they'll block trading, if a mutual fund company is trading the same security they'll block trading, etc) without an explanation. This can happen for months. For these folks it's typically easier to use mutual funds. So, if someone can open an account with Vanguard and doesn't work in the financial industry then I agree with your premise. The Vanguard Admiral shares have a much lower expense, typically very close to their ETFs. Source: worked for a brokerage and mutual fund company\",\n \"Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund. An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments. The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios. Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities. Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs. Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund. For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment). Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER). Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number. For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral). See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page. Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF. Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds. Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free. Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs. Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general.\",\n \"The mutual fund will price at day's end, while the ETF trades during the day, like a stock. If you decide at 10am, that some event will occur during the day that will send the market up, the ETF is preferable. Aside from that, the expenses are identical, a low .14%. No real difference especially in a Roth.\",\n \"Your tax efficient reasoning is solid for where you want to distribute your assets. ETFs are often more tax efficient than their equivalent mutual funds but the exact differences would depend on the comparison between the fund and ETF you were considering. The one exception to this rule is Vanguard funds and ETFs which have the exact same tax-efficiency because ETFs are a share class of the corresponding mutual fund.\",\n \"In my opinion, if you are doing long-term investing, this is a non-issue. The difference of hours in being able to trade an ETF during the day vs. only being able to trade a traditional mutual fund at day-end is irrelevant if you are holding the investment for a long time. If you are engaging in day trading, market timing, or other advanced/controversial trading practices, then I suppose it could make a difference. For the way I invest (index funds, long-term, set-it-and-forget-it), ETFs have no advantage over traditional mutual funds.\",\n \"The main difference between an ETF and a Mutual Fund is Management. An ETF will track a specific index with NO manager input. A Mutual Fund has a manager that is trying to choose securities for its fund based on the mandate of the fund. Liquidity ETFs trade like a stock, so you can buy at 10am and sell at 11 if you wish. Mutual Funds (most) are valued at the end of each business day, so no intraday trading. Also ETFs are similar to stocks in that you need a buyer/seller for the ETF that you want/have. Whereas a mutual fund's units are sold back to itself. I do not know of many if any liquity issues with an ETF, but you could be stuck holding it if you can not find a buyer (usually the market maker). Mutual Funds can be closed to trading, however it is rare. Tax treatment Both come down to the underlying holdings in the fund or ETF. However, more often in Mutual Funds you could be stuck paying someone else's taxes, not true with an ETF. For example, you buy an Equity Mutual Fund 5 years ago, you sell the fund yourself today for little to no gain. I buy the fund a month ago and the fund manager sells a bunch of the stocks they bought for it 10 years ago for a hefty gain. I have a tax liability, you do not even though it is possible that neither of us have any gains in our pocket. It can even go one step further and 6 months from now I could be down money on paper and still have a tax liability. Expenses A Mutual Fund has an MER or Management Expense Ratio, you pay it no matter what. If the fund has a positive return of 12.5% in any given year and it has an MER of 2.5%, then you are up 10%. However if the fund loses 7.5% with the same MER, you are down 10%. An ETF has a much smaller management fee (typically 0.10-0.95%) but you will have trading costs associated with any trades. Risks involved in these as well as any investment are many and likely too long to go into here. However in general, if you have a Canadian Stock ETF it will have similar risks to a Canadian Equity Mutual Fund. I hope this helps.\",\n \"ETFs are both liquid (benefits active traders) and a simple way for people to invest in funds even if they don't have the minimum balance needed to invest in a mutual fund (EDIT: in which purchases are resolved at the end of the trading day). One big difference between ETFs and mutual funds is that you must buy ETFs in whole units, whereas you can add $100 to a mutual fund and the fund will determine -- usually to 4 decimal places -- how many shares you've purchased.\",\n \"Mutual funds buy (and sell) shares in companies in accordance with the policies set forth in their prospectus, not according to the individual needs of an investor, that is, when you invest money in (or withdraw money from) a mutual fund, the manager buys or sells whatever shares that, in the manager's judgement, will be the most appropriate ones (consistent with the investment policies). Thus, a large-cap mutual fund manager will not buy the latest hot small-cap stock that will likely be hugely profitable; he/she must choose only between various large capitalization companies. Some exchange-traded funds are fixed baskets of stocks. Suppose you will not invest in a company X as a matter of principle. Unless a mutual fund prospectus says that it will not invest in X, you may well end up having an investment in X at some time because the fund manager bought shares in X. With such an ETF, you know what is in the basket, and if the basket does not include stock in X now, it will not own stock in X at a later date. Some exchange-traded funds are constructed based on some index and track the index as a matter of policy. Thus, you will not be investing in X unless X becomes part of the index because Standard or Poor or Russell or somebody changed their minds, and the ETF buys X in order to track the index. Finally, some ETFs are exactly like general mutual funds except that you can buy or sell ETF shares at any time at the price at the instant that your order is executed whereas with mutual funds, the price of the mutual fund shares that you have bought or sold is the NAV of the mutual fund shares for that day, which is established based on the closing prices at the end of the trading day of the stocks, bonds etc that the fund owns. So, you might end up owning stock in X at any time based on what the fund manager thinks about X.\",\n \"The creation mechanism for ETF's ensures that the value of the underlying stocks do not diverge significantly from the Fund's value. Authorized participants have a strong incentive to arbitrage any pricing differences and create/redeem blocks of stock/etf until the prices are back inline. Contrary to what was stated in a previous answer, this mechanism lowers the cost of management of ETF's when compared to mutual funds that must access the market on a regular basis when any investors enter/exit the fund. The ETF only needs to create/redeem in a wholesale basis, this allows them to operate with management fees that are much lower than those of a mutual fund. Expenses Due to the passive nature of indexed strategies, the internal expenses of most ETFs are considerably lower than those of many mutual funds. Of the more than 900 available ETFs listed on Morningstar in 2010, those with the lowest expense ratios charged about .10%, while those with the highest expenses ran about 1.25%. By comparison, the lowest fund fees range from .01% to more than 10% per year for other funds. (For more on mutual fund feeds, read Stop Paying High Fees.)\",\n \"A mutual fund has several classes of shares that are charged different fees. Some shares are sold through brokers and carry a sales charge (called load) that compensates the broker in lieu of a fee that the broker would charge the client for the service. Vanguard does not have sales charge on its funds and you don't need to go through a broker to buy its shares; you can buy directly from them. Admiral shares of Vanguard funds are charged lower annual expenses than regular shares (yes, all mutual funds charge expenses for fund adninistration that reduce the return that you get, and Vanguard has some of the lowest expense ratios) but Admiral shares are available only for large investments, typically $50K or so. If you have invested in a Vanguard mutual fund, your shares can be set to automatically convert to Admiral shares when the investment reaches the right level. A mutual fund manager can buy and sell stocks to achieve the objectives of the fund, so what stockes you are invested in as a share holder in a mutual fund will typically be unknown to you on a day-to-day basis. On the other hand, Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are fixed baskets of stocks, and you can buy shares in the ETF. These shares are bought and sold through a broker (so you pay a transaction fee each time) but expenses are lower since there is no manager to buy and sell stocks: the basket is fixed. Many ETFs follow specific market indexes (e.g. S&P 500). Another difference between ETFs and mutual funds is that you can buy and sell ETFs at any time of the day just as if you could if you held stocks. With mutual funds, any buy and sell requests made during the day are processed at the end of the day and the value of the shares that you buy or sell is determined by the closing price of the stocks held by the mutual fund. With ETFs, you are getting the intra-day price at the time the buy or sell order is executed by your broker.\",\n \"\\\"One reason is that it is not possible (at Vanguard and at many other brokerages) to auto-invest into ETFs. Because the ETF trades like a stock, you typically must buy a whole number of shares. This makes it difficult to do auto-investing where you invest, say, a fixed dollar amount each month. If you're investing $100 and the ETF trades for $30 a share, you must either buy 3 shares and leave $10 unspent, or buy 4 and spend $20 more than you planned. This makes auto-investing with dollar amounts difficult. (It would be cool if there were brokerages that handled this for you, for instance by accumulating \\\"\\\"leftover\\\"\\\" cash until an additional whole share could be purchased, but I don't know of any.) A difference of 0.12% in the expense ratios is real, but small. It may be outweighed by the psychological gains of being able to adopt a \\\"\\\"hands-off\\\"\\\" auto-investing plan. With ETFs, you generally must remember to \\\"\\\"manually\\\"\\\" buy the shares yourself every so often. For many average investors, the advantage of being able to invest without having to think about it at all is worth a small increase in expense ratio. The 0.12% savings don't do you any good if you never remember to buy shares until the market is already up.\\\"\",\n \"ETFs are a type of investment, not a specific choice. In other words, there are good ETFs and bad. What you see is the general statement that ETFs are preferable to most mutual funds, if only for the fact that they are low cost. An index ETF such as SPY (which reflects the S&P 500 index) has a .09% annual expense, vs a mutual fund which average a full percent or more. sheegaon isn't wrong, I just have a different spin to offer you. Given a long term return of say even 8% (note - this question is not a debate of the long term return, and I purposely chose a low number compared to the long term average, closer to 10%) and the current CD rate of <1%, a 1% hit for the commission on the buy side doesn't bother me. The sell won't occur for a long time, and $8 on a $10K sale is no big deal. I'd not expect you to save $1K/yr in cash/CDs for the years it would take to make that $8 fee look tiny. Not when over time the growth will overshaddow this. One day you will be in a position where the swings in the market will produce the random increase or decrease to your net worth in the $10s of thousands. Do you know why you won't lose a night's sleep over this? Because when you invested your first $1K, and started to pay attention to the market, you saw how some days had swings of 3 or 4%, and you built up an immunity to the day to day noise. You stayed invested and as you gained wealth, you stuck to the right rebalancing each year, so a market crash which took others down by 30%, only impacted you by 15-20, and you were ready for the next move to the upside. And you also saw that since mutual funds with their 1% fees never beat the index over time, you were happy to say you lagged the S&P by .09%, or 1% over 11 year's time vs those whose funds had some great years, but lost it all in the bad years. And by the way, right until you are in the 25% bracket, Roth is the way to go. When you are at 25%, that's the time to use pre-tax accounts to get just below the cuttoff. Last, welcome to SE. Edit - see sheegaon's answer below. I agree, I missed the cost of the bid/ask spread. Going with the lowest cost (index) funds may make better sense for you. To clarify, Sheehan points out that ETFs trade like a stock, a commission, and a bid/ask, both add to transaction cost. So, agreeing this is the case, an indexed-based mutual fund can provide the best of possible options. Reflecting the S&P (for example) less a small anual expense, .1% or less.\",\n \"If you just want to track an index, then ETFs are, generally speaking, the better way.\",\n \"\\\"There are a few reasons why an index mutual fund may be preferable to an ETF: I looked at the iShare S&P 500 ETF and it has an expense ratio of 0.07%. The Vanguard Admiral S&P 500 index has an expense ratio of 0.05% and the Investor Shares have an expense ratio of 0.17%, do I don't necessarily agree with your statement \\\"\\\"admiral class Vanguard shares don't beat the iShares ETF\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"One of the often cited advantages of ETFs is that they have a higher liquidity and that they can be traded at any time during the trading hours. On the other hand they are often proposed as a simple way to invest private funds for people that do not want to always keep an eye on the market, hence the intraday trading is mostly irrelevant for them. I am pretty sure that this is a subjective idea. The fact is you may buy GOOG, AAPL, F or whatever you wish(ETF as well, such as QQQ, SPY etc.) and keep them for a long time. In both cases, if you do not want to keep an on the market it is ok. Because, if you keep them it is called investment(the idea is collecting dividends etc.), if you are day trading then is it called speculation, because you main goal is to earn by buying and selling, of course you may loose as well. So, you do not care about dividends or owning some percent of the company. As, ETFs are derived instruments, their volatility depends on the volatility of the related shares. I'm wondering whether there are secondary effects that make the liquidity argument interesting for private investors, despite not using it themselves. What would these effects be and how do they impact when compared, for example, to mutual funds? Liquidity(ability to turn cash) could create high volatility which means high risk and high reward. From this point of view mutual funds are more safe. Because, money managers know how to diversify the total portfolio and manage income under any market conditions.\",\n \"\\\"If your intention is to purchase ETFs on a regular basis (like $x per month), then ETFs may not make sense. You may have to pay a fixed transaction cost like you were buying a stock for each purchase. In a similar no load mutual fund, there are more likely to be no transaction costs (depending on how it is bought). The above paragraph is not very definitive, and is really dependent upon how you would purchase either ETFs or Mutual funds. For example if you have a Fidelity brokerage account, they may let you buy certain ETFs commission free. Okay then either ETFs make great sense. It would not make sense to buy ones that they charge $35 per transaction if you have regular transactions that are smallish. The last two questions seem to be asking if you should buy MF or buy stocks directly. For most people the later is a losing proposition. They do not have the time or ability to buy stocks directly, effectively. Even if they did they may not have the capital to make enough of a difference when one considers all the cost involved. However, if that kind of thing interests you, perhaps you should dabble. Start out small and look at the higher costs of doing so as part of the \\\"\\\"cost of doing business\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"In the case of VFIAX versus VOO, if you're a buy-and-hold investor, you're probably better off with the mutual fund because you can buy fractional shares. However, in general the expense ratio for ETFs will be lower than equivalent mutual funds (even passive index funds). They are the same in this case because the mutual fund is Admiral Class, which has a $10,000 minimum investment that not all people may be able to meet. Additionally, ETFs are useful when you don't have an account with the mutual fund company (i.e. Vanguard), and buying the mutual fund would incur heavy transaction fees.\",\n \"Index Funds & ETFs, if they are tracking the same index, will be the same in an ideal world. The difference would be because of the following factors: Expense ratio: i.e. the expense the funds charge. This varies and hence it would lead to a difference in performance. Tracking error: this means that there is a small percentage of error between the actual index composition and the fund composition. This is due to various reasons. Effectively this would result in the difference between values. Demand / Supply: with ETFs, the fund is traded on stock exchanges like a stock. If the general feeling is that the index is rising, it could lead to an increase in the price of the ETF. Index funds on the other hand would remain the same for the day and are less liquid. This results in a price increase / decrease depending on the market. The above explains the reason for the difference. Regarding which one to buy, one would need to consider other factors like: a) How easy is it to buy ETFs? Do you already hold Demat A/C & access to brokers to help you conduct the transaction or do you need to open an additional account at some cost. b) Normally funds do not need any account, but are you OK with less liquidity as it would take more time to redeem funds.\",\n \"Something to consider is how do you want to handle fractional shares. Most open-end funds can easily go to fractional shares to that if you want to invest $500 in a fund each month, it is a relatively easy transaction where some shares will be fractional and handled easily. An ETF may not always work that way unless you go through something like Sharebuilder that would allow the fractional shares as if the ETF is trading at $150/share, you could buy 3 shares but still have $50 that you want to invest but can't as stocks trade in whole share numbers usually. This is without adding brokerage commissions. Depending on the broker, re-investing dividends may or may not be that simple as fractional shares could be a problem since those 3 shares aren't likely to have enough of a dividend to equal another share being bought with the proceeds. If you want the flexibility of stop and limit orders then the ETF may make more sense while the open-end fund is simply to invest whole dollar amounts that then lead to fractional shares. Don't forget to factor in minimums and other stuff as VFIAX may have a bit of a minimum to it as well as possible fees that could be annoying as I remember VFINX having some account maintenance fees that were a bit irksome back in the day that may still be around in some cases so be sure to read the fine print on things.\",\n \"\\\"For a non-ETF mutual fund, you can only buy shares of the mutual fund from the mutual fund itself (at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day) and can only shares back to the mutual fund (again at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day). There is no open market in the sense that you cannot put in a bid to buy, say, 100 shares of VFINX at $217 per share through a brokerage, and if there is a seller willing to sell 100 shares of VFINX to you at $217, then the sale is consummated and you are now the proud owner of 100 shares of VFINX. The only buyer or seller of VFINX is the mutual find itself, and you tell it that you \\\"\\\"want to buy 100 shares of VFINX and please take the money out of my checking account\\\"\\\". If this order is entered before the markets close at 4 pm, the mutual fund determines its share price as of the end of the day, opens a new account for you and puts 100 shares of VFINX in it (or adds 100 shares of VFINX to your already existing pile of shares) and takes the purchase price out of your checking account via an ACH transfer. Similarly for redeeming/selling shares of VFINX that you own (and these are held in an account at the mutual fund itself, not by your brokerage): you tell the mutual fund to that you \\\"\\\"wish to redeem 100 shares and please send the proceeds to my bank account\\\"\\\" and the mutual fund does this at the end of the day, and the money appears in your bank account via ACH transfer two or three days later. Generally, these transactions do not need to be for round lots of multiples of 100 shares for efficiency; most mutual fund will gladly sell you fractional shares down to a thousandth of a share. In contrast, shares of an exchange-traded fund (ETF) are just like stock shares in that they can be bought and sold on the open market and your broker will charge you fees for buying and selling them. Selling fractional shares on the open market is generally not possible, and trading in round lots is less expensive. Also, trades occur at all times of the stock exchange day, not just at the end of the day as with non-ETF funds, and the price can fluctuate during the day too. Many non-ETF mutual funds have an ETF equivalent: VOO is the symbol for Vanguard's S&P 500 Index ETF while VFINX is the non-ETF version of the same index fund. Read more about the differences between ETFs and mutual funds, for example, here.\\\"\",\n \"Why don't you look at the actual funds and etfs in question rather than seeking a general conclusion about all pairs of funds and etfs? For example, Vanguard's total stock market index fund (VTSAX) and ETF (VTI). Comparing the two on yahoo finance I find no difference over the last 5 years visually. For a different pair of funds you may find something very slightly different. In many cases the index fund and ETF will not have the same benchmark and fees so comparisons get a little more cloudy. I recall a while ago there was an article that was pointing out that at the time emerging market ETF's had higher fees than corresponding index funds. For this reason I think you should examine your question on a case-by-case basis. Index fund and ETF returns are all publicly available so you don't have to guess.\",\n \"\\\"The majority (about 80%) of mutual funds are underperforming their underlying indexes. This is why ETFs have seen massive capital inflows compared to equity funds, which have seen significant withdrawals in the last years. I would definitively recommend going with an ETF. In addition to pure index based ETFs that (almost) track broad market indexes like the S&P 500 there are quite a few more \\\"\\\"quant\\\"\\\" oriented ETFs that even outperformed the S&P. I am long the S&P trough iShares ETFs and have dividend paying ETFs and some quant ETFS on top (Invesco Powershares) in my portfolio.\\\"\",\n \"See my comment for some discussion of why one might choose an identical fund over an ETF. As to why someone would choose the higher cost fund in this instance ... The Admiral Shares version of the fund (VFIAX) has the same expense ratio as the ETF but has a minimum investment of $10K. Some investors may want to eventually own the Admiral Shares fund but do not yet have $10K. If they begin with the Investor Shares now and then convert to Admiral later, that conversion will be a non-taxable event. If, however, they start with ETF shares now and then sell them later to buy the fund, that sale will be a taxable event. Vanguard ETFs are only commission-free to Vanguard clients using Vanguard Brokerage Services. Some investors using other brokers may face all sorts of penalties for purchasing third-party ETFs. Some retirement plan participants (either at Vanguard or another broker) may not even be allowed to purchase ETFs.\",\n \"\\\"If anything, the price of an ETF is more tightly coupled to the underlying holdings or assets than a mutual fund, because of the independent creation/destruction mechanism. With a mutual fund, the price is generally set once at the end of each day, and the mutual fund manager has to deal with investments and redemptions at that price. By the time they get to buying or selling the underlying assets, the market may have moved or they may even move the market with those transactions. With an ETF, investment and redemption is handled by independent \\\"\\\"authorized participants\\\"\\\". They can create new units of the ETF by buying up the underlying assets and delivering them to the ETF manager, and vice versa they can cancel units by requesting the underlying assets from the ETF manager. ETFs trade intraday (i.e. at any time during trading hours) and any time the price diverges too far from the underlying assets, one of the authorized participants has an incentive to make a small profit by creating or destroying units of the ETF, also intraday.\\\"\",\n \"There is little difference between buying shares in your broker's index fund and shares of their corresponding ETF. In many cases the money invested in an ETF gets essentially stuffed right into the index fund (I believe Vanguard does this, for example). In either case you will be paying a little bit of tax. In the ETF case it will be on the dividends that are paid out. In the index fund case it will additionally be on the capital gains that have been realized within the fund, which are very few for an index fund. Not a ton in either case. The more important tax consideration is between purchase and sale, which is the same in either case. I'd say stick it wherever the lowest fees are.\",\n \"This depends on a lot actually - with the overall being your goals and how much you like risk. Question: What are your fees/commissions for selling? $8.95/trade will wipe out some gains on those trades. (.69% if all are sold with $8.95 commission - not including the commission payed when purchased that should be factored into the cost basis) Also, I would recommend doing commission free ETFs. You can get the same affect as a mutual fund without the fees associated with paying someone to invest in ETFs and stocks. On another note: Your portfolio looks rather risky. Although everyone has their own risk preference so this might be yours but if you are thinking about a mutual fund instead of individual stocks you probably are risk averse. I would suggest consulting with an adviser on how to set up for the future. Financial advice is free flowing from your local barber, dentist, and of course StackExchange but I would look towards a professional. Disclaimer: These are my thoughts and opinions only ;) Feel free to add comments below.\",\n \"Mutual funds don't do what ETFs do because, according to how the fund was built in their contract, they can't. That is not how they are built and the people that invested in them expect them to act in a certain way. That is ok, though. Many people still invest in mutual funds partially because of their history but there are some advantages to mutual funds over etfs. Mainly mutual funds must mark-to-market at the end of day while etf values can drift from the asset value especially in crisis. As long enough people invest in mutual funds the funds make enough money on their fees they don't need to change. Maybe mutual funds will go extinct as etfs do have significant advantages, but it likely won't happen soon.\",\n \"Cost. If an investor wanted to diversify his portfolio by investing in the companies that make up the S&P 500, the per-share and commission costs to individually place trades for each and every one of those companies would be prohibitive. I can buy one share of an exchange-traded fund that tracks the S&P 500 for less than the purchase price of a single share in some of the companies that make up the index.\",\n \"The simple answer is that whatever strategy is implemented with e-series, could be implemented at a lower cost with ETFs.\",\n \"You cannot do a 1031 exchange with stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or ETFs. There really isn't much difference between an ETF and its equivalent index mutual fund. Both will have minimal capital gains distributions. I would not recommend selling an index mutual fund and taking a short-term capital gain just to buy the equivalent ETF.\",\n \"ETFs trade on specific exchanges. If your broker deals with those exchanges, you should have access to the ETF. If your broker does not deal with that exchange, then you will not have access through that broker. This is different than, say, mutual funds, which don't trade on the exchanges are proprietary to certain brokerages or financial institutions.\",\n \"ETFs are just like any other mutual fund; they hold a mix of assets described by their prospectus. If that mix fits your needs for diversification and the costs of buying/selling/holding are low, it's as worth considering as a traditional fund with the same mix. A bond fund will hold a mixture of bonds. Whether that mix is sufficiently diversified for you, or whether you want a different fund or a mix of funds, is a judgement call. I want my money to take care of itself for the most part, so most of the bond portion is in a low-fee Total Bond Market Index fund (which tries to match the performance of bonds in general). That could as easily be an ETF, but happens not to be.\",\n \"\\\"An Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) is a special type of mutual fund that is traded on the stock exchange like a stock. To invest, you buy it through a stock broker, just as you would if you were buying an individual stock. When looking at a mutual fund based in the U.S., the easiest way to tell whether or not it is an ETF is by looking at the ticker symbol. Traditional mutual funds have ticker symbols that end in \\\"\\\"X\\\"\\\", and ETFs have ticker symbols that do not end in \\\"\\\"X\\\"\\\". The JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund, with ticker symbol JFAMX, is a traditional mutual fund, not an ETF. JPMorgan does have ETFs; the JPMorgan Diversified Return Emerging Markets Equity ETF, with ticker symbol JPEM, is an example. This ETF invests in similar stocks as JFAMX; however, because it is an index-based fund instead of an actively managed fund, it has lower fees. If you aren't sure about the ticker symbol, the advertising/prospectus of any ETF should clearly state that it is an ETF. (In the example of JPEM above, they put \\\"\\\"ETF\\\"\\\" right in the fund name.) If you don't see ETF mentioned, it is most likely a traditional mutual fund. Another way to tell is by looking at the \\\"\\\"investment minimums\\\"\\\" of the fund. JFAMX has a minimum initial investment of $1000. ETFs, however, do not have an investment minimum listed; because it is traded like a stock, you simply buy whole shares at whatever the current share price is. So if you look at the \\\"\\\"Fees and Investment Minimums\\\"\\\" section of the JPEM page, you'll see the fees listed, but not any investment minimums.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I'm assuming the question is about how to compare two ETFs that track the same index. I'd look at (for ETFs -- ignoring index funds): So, for example you might compare SPY vs IVV: SPY has about 100x the volume. Sure, IVV has 2M shares trading, so it is liquid \\\"\\\"enough\\\"\\\". But the bigger volume on SPY might matter to you if you use options: open interest is as much as 1000x more on SPY. Even if you have no interest in options, the spreads on SPY are probably going to be slightly smaller. They both have 0.09% expense ratios. When I looked on 2010-9-6, SPY was trading at a slight discount, IVV was at a slight premium. Looking for any sort of trend is left as an exercise to the reader... Grab the prospectus for each to examine the rules they set for fund makeup. Both come from well-known issuers and have a decent history. (Rather than crazy Uncle Ed's pawn shop, or the Central Bank of Stilumunistan.) So unless you find something in the SPY prospectus that makes you queasy, the higher volume and equal expense ratios would seem to suggest it over IVV. The fact that it is at a (tiny) discount right now is a (tiny) bonus.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Bonds might not be simple, but in general there are only a few variables that need to be understood: bid, coupon (interest) rate, maturity, and yield. Bond tables clearly lay those out, and if you're talking about government bonds a lot of things (like convertibles) don't apply (although default is still a concern). This might be overly simplistic, but I view ETF's primarily as an easy way to bring somewhat esoteric instruments (like grain futures) into the easily available markets of Nasdaq and the NYSE. That they got \\\"\\\"enhanced\\\"\\\" with leveraged funds and the such is interesting, but perhaps not the original intent of the instrument. Complicating your situation a bit more is the fee that gets tacked onto the ETF. Even Vanguard government bond funds hang out north of 0.1%. That's not huge, but it's not particularly appealing either considering that (unlike rounding up live cattle futures), it's not that much work to buy US government bonds, so the expense might not seem worth it to someone who's comfortable purchasing the securities directly. I'd be interested to see someone else's view on this, but in general I'd say that if you know what you want and know how to buy it, the government bond ETF becomes a lot less relevant as the liquidity offered (including the actual \\\"\\\"ease of transacting\\\"\\\") seem to to be the biggest factors in favor. From Investopedia's description: The bond ETF is an exciting new addition to the bond market, offering an excellent alternative to self-directed investors who, looking for ease of trading and increased price transparency, want to practice indexing or active bond trading. However, bond ETFs are suitable for particular strategies. If, for instance, you are looking to create a specific income stream, bond ETFs may not be for you. Be sure to compare your alternatives before investing.\\\"\",\n \"One of the key things to look for is trading volume. I think the price spread will be better on high volume ETFs, which means you'll be able to sell for more when the time comes. Check Google or Yahoo finance for those stats.\",\n \"Cheaper would refer to the fees of a fund rather than the share price, IMO. Are 2 quarters worth more or less than 10 nickels? This is another way to express your question though most open-end funds bought directly from the fund family or through fund supermarkets would do fractional shares that may be better than going through ETFs though there can be some brokers like Sharebuilder that used to do fractional shares though not necessarily having the best execution as I recall.\",\n \"The issue with trading stocks vs. mutual funds (or ETFs) is all about risk. You trade Microsoft you now have a Stock Risk in your portfolio. It drops 5% you are down 5%. Instead if you want to buy Tech and you buy QQQ if MSFT fell 5% the QQQs would not be as impacted to the downside. So if you want to trade a mutual fund, but you want to be able to put in stop sell orders trade ETFs instead. Considering mutual funds it is better to say Invest vs. Trade. Since all fund families have different rules and once you sell (if you sell it early) you will pay a fee and will not be able to invest in that same fund for x number of days (30, 60...)\",\n \"that's just it, though - they are splitting up the 1%! and in most cases, especially vanguard, they are splitting up far less. ETFs don't have 12b-1 fees. explaining why you're experiencing different returns for ETFs will almost certainly involve something other than their expense. again, this is especially true for vanguard. they have the cheapest ETFs around (though i think schwab beats them on a few now). i can only guess at the full compensation structure. betterment likely earns money on cash reserves and securities hypothecation (i guess?). they also charge a small fee from what i understand. finance is very slim these days. i guess i'm wondering what your ultimate question is. if it's the inter corporate compensation structure, above is my best guess. if it's about performance, then we need to compare the ETFs you are looking at. if it's about the fees on funds, i think we covered that! as an advisor, it's my experience that very specific inquiries about fees have a deeper concern. people hear a lot about being overcharged so cost is a very standard place for clients to initially look when trying to compare performance of portfolios or securities.\",\n \"- ETFs make money through management fees. You can look it up: they all skim off a little bit of its profit, normally <1%. - It's all about cheap diversification. People generally don't have the capital to invest individually in each equity to mimic an ETF's portfolio. - Yes, but you need a lot of money. For example: You can't just invest $1 in GOOG if you want to buy a tech sector ETF.\",\n \"So, why or why should I not invest in the cheaper index fund? They are both same, one is not cheaper than other. You get something that is worth $1000. To give a simple illustration; There is an item for $100, Vanguard creates 10 Units out of this so price per unit is $10. Schwab creates 25 units out of this, so the per unit price is $4. Now if you are looking at investing $20; with Vanguard you would get 2 units, with Schwab you would get 5 units. This does not mean one is cheaper than other. Both are at the same value of $20. The Factors you need to consider are; Related question What differentiates index funds and ETFs?\",\n \"what reason would I have in buying an ETF? Apart from the efforts, the real reason is the ticket size. One can't buy shares in fraction. To truly reflect the index in equal weight, the amount to invest will be in multiples of millions [depending on the Index and the stock composition] This related question should help you understand why it is difficult even for large fund house to exactly mimic the index. Why do passive ETFs require so much trading (and incur costs)?\",\n \"Market cap probably isn't as big of an issue as the bid/ask spread and the liquidity, although they tend to be related. The spread is likely to be wider on lesser traded ETF funds we are talking about pennies, likely not an issue unless you are trading in and out frequently. The expense ratios will also tend to be slightly higher again not a huge issue but it might be a consideration. You are unlikely to make up the cost of paying the commission to buy into a larger ETF any time soon though.\",\n \"Ohhhh. Well thank you for that info. I know I could've Googled it all and while I'm a sticker for doing your own research, it's nice to hear it from someone in the know. Gotta pass on knowledge to those who don't know. Is it cheap to buy an ETF?\",\n \"The problem there is that there's a tax due on that dividend. So, if you wish, you can buy the ETF and specify to reinvest dividends, but you'll have to pay a bit of tax on them, and keep track of your basis, if the account isn't a retirement account.\",\n \"Sure, but as a retail client you'd be incurring transaction fees on entry and exit. Do you have the necessary tools to manage all the corporate actions, too? And index rebalances? ETF managers add value by taking away the monstrous web of clerical work associated with managing a portfolio of, at times, hundreds of different names. With this comes the value of institutional brokerage commissions, data licenses, etc. I think if you were to work out the actual brokerage cost, as well as the time you'd have to spend doing it yourself, you'd find that just buying the ETF is far cheaper. Also a bit of a rabbit hole, but how would you (with traditional retail client tools) even coordinate the simultaneous purchase of all 500 components of something like SPY? I would guess that, on average, you're going to have significantly worse slippage to the index than a typical ETF provider. Add that into your calculation too.\",\n \"Why is that? With all the successful investors (including myself on a not-infrequent basis) going for individual companies directly, wouldn't it make more sense to suggest that new investors learn how to analyse companies and then make their best guess after taking into account those factors? I have a different perspective here than the other answers. I recently started investing in a Roth IRA for retirement. I do not have interest in micromanaging individual company research (I don't find this enjoyable at all) but I know I want to save for retirement. Could I learn all the details? Probably, as an engineer/software person I suspect I could. But I really don't want to. But here's the thing: For anyone else in a similar situation to me, the net return on investing into a mutual fund type arrangement (even if it returns only 4%) is still likely considerably higher than the return on trying to invest in stocks (which likely results in $0 invested, and a return of 0%). I suspect the overwhelming majority of people in the world are more similar to me than you - in that they have minimal interest in spending hours managing their money. For us, mutual funds or ETFs are perfect for this.\",\n \"What decision are you trying to make? Are you interested day trading stocks to make it rich? Or are you looking at your investment options and trying to decide between an actively managed mutual fund and an ETF? If the former, then precise statistics are hard to come by, but I believe that 99% of day traders would do better investing in an ETF. If the latter, then there are lots of studies that show that most actively managed funds do worse than index funds, so with most actively managed funds you are paying higher fees for worse performance. Here is a quote from the Bogleheads Guide to Investing: Index funds outperform approximately 80 percent of all actively managed funds over long periods of time. They do so for one simple reason: rock-bottom costs. In a random market, we don't know what future returns will be. However, we do know that an investor who keeps his or her costs low will earn a higher return than one who does not. That's the indexer's edge. Many people believe that your best option for investing is a diverse portfolio of ETFs, like this. This is what I do.\",\n \"\\\"I think you are asking about actively managed funds vs. indexes and possibly also vs. diversified funds like target date funds. This is also related to the question of mutual fund vs. ETF. First, a fund can be either actively managed or it can attempt to track an index. An actively managed fund has a fund manager who tries to find the best stocks to invest in within some constraints, like \\\"\\\"this fund invests in large cap US companies\\\"\\\". An index fund tries to match as closely as possible the performance of an index like the S&P 500. A fund may also try to offer a portfolio that is suitable for someone to put their entire account into. For example, a target date fund is a fund that may invest in a mix of stocks, bonds and foreign stock in a proportion that would be appropriate to someone expecting to retire in a certain year. These are not what people tend to think of as the canonical examples of mutual funds, even though they share the same legal structure and investment mechanisms. Secondly, a fund can either be a traditional mutual fund or it can be an exchange traded fund (ETF). To invest in a traditional mutual fund, you send money to the fund, and they give you a number of shares equal to what that money would have bought of the net asset value (NAV) of the fund at the end of trading on the day they receive your deposit, possibly minus a sales charge. To invest in an ETF, you buy shares of the ETF on the stock market like any other stock. Under the covers, an ETF does have something similar to the mechanism of depositing money to get shares, but only big traders can use that, and it's not used for investing, but only for people who are making a market in the stock (if lots of people are buying VTI, Big Dealer Co will get 100,000 shares from Vanguard so that they can sell them on the market the next day). Historically and traditionally, ETFs are associated with an indexing strategy, while if not specifically mentioned, people assume that traditional mutual funds are actively managed. Many ETFs, notably all the Vanguard ETFs, are actually just a different way to hold the same underlying fund. The best way to understand this is to read the prospectus for a mutual fund and an ETF. It's all there in reasonably plain English.\\\"\",\n \"There are a few ETFs that fall into the money market category: SHV, BIL, PVI and MINT. What normally looks like an insignificant expense ratio looks pretty big when compared to the small yields offered by these funds. The same holds for the spread and transaction fees. For that reason, I'm not sure if the fund route is worth it.\",\n \"There are many technical answers above , but the short story to me is that very few active fund managers consistently beat the market. Look at the results of actively managed funds. Depending on whose analysis you read, you will find out that somewhere between 80-90% of fund managers in a given year do not beat passive index funds. So go figure how you will do compared to a mutual fund manager who has way more experience than you likely have. So, that in itself is moderately interesting, but if you look at same-manager performance over several consecutive years it is rare to find anyone that goes beats the market for more than a few years in a row. There are exceptions, but go pick one of these guys/gals - good luck. Getting in and out of the market is a loser. This is because there is no way to see market spikes and down turns. There are many behavioral studies that have been done that show people do the wrong thing: they sell after losses have occurred and they buy after the market has gone up. Missing an up spike and not being in before the spike is as devastating as missing a down turn and not getting out in time. There is another down side, if you are trading in a personal account, rather than a tax deferred account, going in and out of stocks has tax complications. In short, a broad based equity index will, over time, beat about anything out there and it will do it in a tax efficient manner. Exchange traded funds (ETFs) are a wonderful way to obtain diversification immediately at very low cost.\",\n \"The market doesn't really need to adjust for fees on ETF funds that are often less than 1/10th of a percent. The loss of the return is more than made up for by the diversification. How does the market adjust for trading fees? It doesn't have to, it's just a cost of doing business. If one broker or platform offers better fee structures, people will naturally migrate toward the lower fees.\",\n \"\\\"Your question is one of semantics. ETFs and mutual funds have many things in common and provide essentially the same service to investors with minimal differences. It's reasonably correct to say \\\"\\\"An ETF is a mutual fund that...\\\"\\\" and then follow up with some stuff that is not true of a typical mutual fund. You could do the same with, for example, a hedge fund. \\\"\\\"A hedge fund is a mutual fund that doesn't comply with most SEC regulations and thus is limited to accredited investors.\\\"\\\" As a matter of practice, when people say \\\"\\\"mutual fund\\\"\\\" they are talking about traditional mutual funds and pretty much never including ETFs. So is an ETF a mutual fund as the word is commonly used? No.\\\"\",\n \"What JoeTaxpayer means is that you can sell one ETF and buy another that will perform substantially the same during the 30 day wash sale period without being considered substantially the same from a wash sale perspective more easily than you could with an individual stock. For example, you could sell an S&P 500 index ETF and then temporarily buy a DJIA index ETF. As these track different indexes, they are not considered to be substantially the same for wash sale purposes, but for a short term investing period, their performance should still be substantially the same.\",\n \"\\\"You seem to be assuming that ETFs must all work like the more traditional closed-end funds, where the market price per share tends—based on supply and demand—to significantly deviate from the underlying net asset value per share. The assumption is simplistic. What are traditionally referred to as closed-end funds (CEFs), where unit creation and redemption are very tightly controlled, have been around for a long time, and yes, they do often trade at a premium or discount to NAV because the quantity is inflexible. Yet, what is generally meant when the label \\\"\\\"ETF\\\"\\\" is used (despite CEFs also being both \\\"\\\"exchange-traded\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"funds\\\"\\\") are those securities which are not just exchange-traded, and funds, but also typically have two specific characteristics: (a) that they are based on some published index, and (b) that a mechanism exists for shares to be created or redeemed by large market participants. These characteristics facilitate efficient pricing through arbitrage. Essentially, when large market participants notice the price of an ETF diverging from the value of the shares held by the fund, new units of the ETF can get created or redeemed in bulk. The divergence quickly narrows as these participants buy or sell ETF units to capture the difference. So, the persistent premium (sometimes dear) or discount (sometimes deep) one can easily witness in the CEF universe tend not to occur with the typical ETF. Much of the time, prices for ETFs will tend to be very close to their net asset value. However, it isn't always the case, so proceed with some caution anyway. Both CEF and ETF providers generally publish information about their funds online. You will want to find out what is the underlying Net Asset Value (NAV) per share, and then you can determine if the market price trades at a premium or a discount to NAV. Assuming little difference in an ETF's price vs. its NAV, the more interesting question to ask about an ETF then becomes whether the NAV itself is a bargain, or not. That means you'll need to be more concerned with what stocks are in the index the fund tracks, and whether those stocks are a bargain, or not, at their current prices. i.e. The ETF is a basket, so look at each thing in the basket. Of course, most people buy ETFs because they don't want to do this kind of analysis and are happy with market average returns. Even so, sector-based ETFs are often used by traders to buy (or sell) entire sectors that may be undervalued (or overvalued).\\\"\",\n \"One thing to be aware of when choosing mutual funds and index ETFs is the total fees and costs. The TD Ameritrade site almost certainly had links that would let you see the total fees (as an annual percentage) for each of the funds. Within a category, the lowest fees percentage is best, since that is directly subtracted from your performance. As an aside, your allocation seems overly conservative to me for someone that is 25 years old. You will likely work for 40 or so years and the average stock market cycle is about 7 years. So you will likely see 5 or so complete cycles. Worrying about stability of principal too young will really cut into your returns. My daughter is your age and I have advised her to be 100% in equities and then to start dialing that back in about 25 years or so.\",\n \"One thing I would add to @littleadv (buy an ETF instead of doing your own) answer would be ensure that the dividend yield matches. Expense ratios aren't the only thing that eat you with mutual funds: the managers can hold on to a large percentage of the dividends that the stocks normally pay (for instance, if by holding onto the same stocks, you would normally receive 3% a year in dividends, but by having a mutual fund, you only receive .75%, that's an additional cost to you). If you tried to match the DJIA on your own, you would have an advantage of receiving the dividend yields on the stocks paying dividends. The downsides: distributing your investments to match and the costs of actual purchases.\",\n \"Most ETFs are index funds, meaning you get built in diversification so that any one stock going down won't hurt the overall performance much. You can also get essentially the same index funds by directly purchasing them from the mutual fund company. To buy an ETF you need a brokerage account and have to pay a transaction fee. Buying only $1000 at a time the broker transaction fee will eat too much of your money. You want to keep such fees way down below 0.1%. Pay attention to transaction fees and fund expense ratios. Or buy an equivalent index fund directly from the mutual fund company. This generally costs nothing in transaction fees if you have at least the minimum account value built up. If you buy every month or two you are dollar cost averaging, no matter what kind of account you are using. Keep doing that, even if the market values are going down. (Especially if the market values are going down!) If you can keep doing this then forget about certificates of deposit. At current rates you cannot build wealth with CDs.\",\n \"Some index funds offer lower expense ratios to those who invest large amounts of money. For example, Vanguard offers Admiral Shares of many of its mutual funds (including several index funds) to individuals who invest more than $50K or $100K, and these Shares have lower expense ratios than the Investor shares in the fund. There are Institutional Shares designed for investments by pension plans, 401k plans of large companies etc which have even lower expenses than Admiral Shares. Individuals working for large companies sometimes get access to Institutional Shares through their 401k plans. Thus, there is something to gained by investing in just one index fund (for a particular index) that offers lower expense ratios for large investments instead of diversifying into several index funds all tracking the same index. Of course, this advantage might be offset by failure to track the index closely, but this tracking should be monitored not on a daily basis but over much longer periods of time to test whether your favorite fund is perennially trailing the index by far more than its competitors with larger expense ratios. Remember that the Net Asset Value (NAV) published by each mutual fund after the markets close already take into account the expense ratio.\",\n \"For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.\",\n \"\\\"I wonder if ETF's are further removed from the actual underlying holdings or assets giving value to the fund, as compared to regular mutual funds. Not exactly removed. But slightly different. Whenever a Fund want to launch an ETF, it would buy the underlying shares; create units. Lets say it purchased 10 of A, 20 of B and 25 of C. And created 100 units for price x. As part of listing, the ETF company will keep the purchased shares of A,B,C with a custodian. Only then it is allowed to sell the 100 units into the market. Once created, units are bought or sold like regular stock. In case the demand is huge, more units are created and the underlying shares kept with custodian. So, for instance, would VTI and Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares be equally anchored to the underlying shares of the companies within the index? Yes they are. Are they both connected? Yes to an extent. The way Vanguard is managing this is given a Index [Investment Objective]; it is further splitting the common set of assets into different class. Read more at Share Class. The Portfolio & Management gives out the assets per share class. So Vanguard Total Stock Market Index is a common pool that has VTI ETF, Admiral and Investor Share and possibly Institutional share. Is VTI more of a \\\"\\\"derivative\\\"\\\"? No it is not a derivative. It is a Mutual Fund.\\\"\",\n \"I believe that kind of micro-tuning for every participant would make the operating costs of the fund intolerable. A better approach, if this is important to you, would be to find a fund or funds designed for people who share your criteria. If the goals and criteria aren't mutual, a mutual fund -- traditional or ETF -- is probably not the right tool.\",\n \"Price, whether related to a stock or ETF, has little to do with anything. The fund or company has a total value and the value is distributed among the number of units or shares. Vanguard's S&P ETF has a unit price of $196 and Schwab's S&P mutual fund has a unit price of $35, it's essentially just a matter of the fund's total assets divided by number of units outstanding. Vanguard's VOO has assets of about $250 billion and Schwab's SWPPX has assets of about $25 billion. Additionally, Apple has a share price of $100, Google has a share price of $800, that doesn't mean Google is more valuable than Apple. Apple's market capitalization is about $630 billion while Google's is about $560 billion. Or on the extreme a single share of Berkshire's Class A stock is $216,000, and Berkshire's market cap is just $360 billion. It's all just a matter of value divided by shares/units.\",\n \"\\\"If you are a \\\"\\\"small\\\"\\\" investor (namely, not an accredited investor), then the transaction costs (commissions) for purchasing the stocks while attempting to duplicate DJIA will defeat any benefit. My personal preference is to purchase mutual funds rather than ETFs.\\\"\",\n \"M Attia, the advantages of the TD e-series are that they are a low cost way to index your portfolio as well it gives you to opportunity to invest small amounts at a time. With ETF's, purchasing small amounts at a time would simply get too expensive.\",\n \"In the past 10 years there have been mutual funds that would act as a single bucket of stocks and bonds. A good example is Fidelity's Four In One. The trade off was a management fee for the fund in exchange for having to manage the portfolio itself and pay separate commissions and fees. These days though it is very simple and pretty cheap to put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs that would represent a balanced portfolio. Whats even more interesting is that large online brokerage houses are starting to offer commission free trading of a number of ETFs, as long as they are not day traded and are held for a period similar to NTF mutual funds. I think you could easily put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs to trade on Fidelity or TD Ameritrade commission free, and one that would represent a nice diversified portfolio. The main advantage is that you are not giving money to the fund manager but rather paying the minimal cost of investing in an index ETF. Overall this can save you an extra .5-1% annually on your portfolio, just in fees. Here are links to commission free ETF trading on Fidelity and TD Ameritrade.\",\n \"An index fund is inherently diversified across its index -- no one stock will either make or break the results. In that case it's a matter of picking the index(es) you want to put the money into. ETFs do permit smaller initial purchases, which would let you do a reasonable mix of sectors. (That seems to be the one advantage of ETFs over traditional funds...?)\",\n \"One advantage not pointed out yet is that closed-end funds typically trade on stock exchanges, whereas mutual funds do not. This makes closed-end funds more accessible to some investors. I'm a Canadian, and this particular distinction matters to me. With my regular brokerage account, I can buy U.S. closed-end funds that trade on a stock exchange, but I cannot buy U.S. mutual funds, at least not without the added difficulty of somehow opening a brokerage account outside of my country.\",\n \"The expense ratio reduces the return of the ETF; your scenario of paying 100.0015 is that of a load. Most (all?) ETFs can be bought without paying a load (sales charge as a percent of amount invested), and some ETFs can be bought without paying a brokerage fee (fixed or variable charge for a buy transaction just like buying any other stock through the brokerage) because the brokerage has waived it. Your broker might charge fees for both buying and selling shares in an ETF, but in any case, this is quite separate from the expense ratio.\",\n \"Buying the right shares gives higher return. Buying the wrong ones gives worse return, possibly negative. The usual recommendation, even if you have a pro advising you, is to diversify most of your investments to reduce the risk, even though that may reduce the possible gain. A mutual fund is diversification-in-a-can. It requires little to no active maintenance. Yes, you pay a management fee, but you aren't paying per-transaction fees every time you adjust your holdings, and the management costs can be quite reasonable if you pick the right funds; minimal in the case of computer-managed (index) funds. If you actively enjoy playing with stocks and bonds and are willing/able to accept your failures and less-than-great choices as part of the game, and if you can convince yourself that you will do better this way, go for it. For those of us who just want to deposit out money, watch it grow, and maybe rebalance once a year if that, index funds are a perfectly good choice. I spend at least 8 hours a day working for my money; the rest of the time, I want my money to work for me. Risk and reward tend to be proportional to each other; when they aren't, market prices tend to move to correct that. You need to decide how much risk you're comfortable with, and how much time and effort and money you're willing to spend managing that risk. Personally, I am perfectly happy with the better-than-market-rate-of-return I'm getting, and I don't have any conviction that I could do better if I was more involved. Your milage will vary. If folks didn't disagree, there wouldn't be a market.\",\n \"Just sticking to equities: If you are investing directly in a share/stock, depending on various factors, you may have picked up a winner or to your dismay a loser. Say you just have Rs 10,000/- to invest, which stock would you buy? If you don't know, then it’s better to buy a Mutual Fund. Now if you say you would buy a few of everything, then even to purchase say Rs 5000/- worth of each stock in the NIFTY Index [50 companies] you would require at least an investment of 250,000/-. When you are investing directly you always have to buy in whole numbers, i.e. you can't buy 1/2 share or 1.6 share of some stock. The way Mutual funds work is they take 10,000 from 250 people and invest in all the stocks. There are fund managers who's job is to pick good stocks, however even they cannot predict winners all the time. Normally a few of the picks become great winners, most are average, and a few are losers; this means that overall your returns are average VS if you had picked the winning stock. The essential difference between you investing on your own and via mutual funds are: It is good to begin with a Mutual Fund, and once you start understanding the stocks better you can invest directly into the equities. The same logic holds true for Debt as well.\",\n \"\\\"Oddly enough, in the USA, there are enough cost and tax savings between buy-and-hold of a static portfolio and buying into a fund that a few brokerages have sprung up around the concept, such as FolioFN, to make it easier for small investors to manage numerous small holdings via fractional shares and no commission window trades. A static buy-and-hold portfolio of stocks can be had for a few dollars per trade. Buying into a fund involves various annual and one time fees that are quoted as percentages of the investment. Even 1-2% can be a lot, especially if it is every year. Typically, a US mutual fund must send out a 1099 tax form to each investor, stating that investors share of the dividends and capital gains for each year. The true impact of this is not obvious until you get a tax bill for gains that you did not enjoy, which can happen when you buy into a fund late in the year that has realized capital gains. What fund investors sometimes fail to appreciate is that they are taxed both on their own holding period of fund shares and the fund's capital gains distributions determined by the fund's holding period of its investments. For example, if ABC tech fund bought Google stock several years ago for $100/share, and sold it for $500/share in the same year you bought into the ABC fund, then you will receive a \\\"\\\"capital gains distribution\\\"\\\" on your 1099 that will include some dollar amount, which is considered your share of that long-term profit for tax purposes. The amount is not customized for your holding period, capital gains are distributed pro-rata among all current fund shareholders as of the ex-distribution date. Morningstar tracks this as Potential Capital Gains Exposure and so there is a way to check this possibility before investing. Funds who have unsold losers in their portfolio are also affected by these same rules, have been called \\\"\\\"free rides\\\"\\\" because those funds, if they find some winners, will have losers that they can sell simultaneously with the winners to remain tax neutral. See \\\"\\\"On the Lookout for Tax Traps and Free Riders\\\"\\\", Morningstar, pdf In contrast, buying-and-holding a portfolio does not attract any capital gains taxes until the stocks in the portfolio are sold at a profit. A fund often is actively managed. That is, experts will alter the portfolio from time to time or advise the fund to buy or sell particular investments. Note however, that even the experts are required to tell you that \\\"\\\"past performance is no guarantee of future results.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"As has been pointed out, one isn't cheaper than the other. One may have a lower price per share than the other, but that's not the same thing. Let's pretend that the total market valuation of all the stocks within the index was $10,000,000. (Look, I said let's pretend.) You want to invest $1,000. For the time being, let's also pretend that your purchasing 0.01% of all the stock won't affect prices anywhere. One company splits the index into 10,000 parts worth $1,000 each. The other splits the same index into 10,000,000 parts worth $1 each. Both track the underlying index perfectly. If you invest $1,000 with the first company, you get one part; if you invest $1,000 with the second, you get 1,000 parts. Ignoring spreads, transaction fees and the like, immediately after the purchase, both are worth exactly $1,000 to you. Now, suppose the index goes up 2%. The first company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly one) are now worth $1,020 each, and the second company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly 1,000) are worth $1.02 each. In each case, you now have index shares valued at $1,020 for a 2% increase ($1,020 / $1,000 = 1.02 = 102% of your original investment). As you can see, there is no reason to look at the price per share unless you have to buy in terms of whole shares, which is common in the stock market but not necessarily common at all in mutual funds. Because in this case, both funds track the same underlying index, there is no real reason to purchase one rather than the other because you believe they will perform differently. In an ideal world, the two will perform exactly equally. The way to compare the price of mutual funds is to look at the expense ratio. The lower the expense ratio is, the cheaper the fund is, and the less of your money is being eroded every day in fees. Unless you have some very good reason to do differently, that is how you should compare the price of any investment vehicles that track the same underlying commodity (in this case, the S&P 500).\",\n \"Excellent summary. I'd add a minor point that it's cheaper to setup and run a hedge fund. The legal fees associated with starting a 40 Act mutual fund are about $750,000. A hedge fund cane be setup for about $80,000. It's also cheaper to keep the hedge fund going as the reporting requirements are much less. source: Have setup hedge funds and mutual funds. edit: A word and source. Edi\",\n \"\\\"Back in the olden days, if you wanted to buy the S&P, you had to have a lot of money so you can buy the shares. Then somebody had the bright idea of making a fund that just buys the S&P, and then sells small pieces of it to investor without huge mountains of capital. Enter the ETFs. The guy running the ETF, of course, doesn't do it for free. He skims a little bit of money off the top. This is the \\\"\\\"fee\\\"\\\". The major S&P ETFs all have tiny fees, in the percents of a percent. If you're buying the index, you're probably looking at gains (or losses) to the tune of 5, 10, 20% - unless you're doing something really silly, you wouldn't even notice the fee. As often happens, when one guy starts doing something and making money, there will immediately be copycats. So now we have competing ETFs all providing the same service. You are technically a competitor as well, since you could compete with all these funds by just buying a basket of shares yourself, thereby running your own private fund for yourself. The reason this stuff even started was that people said, \\\"\\\"well why bother with mutual funds when they charge such huge fees and still don't beat the index anyway\\\"\\\", so the index ETFs are supposed to be a low cost alternative to mutual funds. Thus one thing ETFs compete on is fees: You can see how VOO has lower fees than SPY and IVV, in keeping with Vanguard's philosophy of minimal management (and management fees). Incidentally, if you buy the shares directly, you wouldn't charge yourself fees, but you would have to pay commissions on each stock and it would destroy you - another benefit of the ETFs. Moreover, these ETFs claim they track the index, but of course there is no real way to peg an asset to another. So they ensure tracking by keeping a carefully curated portfolio. Of course nobody is perfect, and there's tracking error. You can in theory compare the ETFs in this respect and buy the one with the least tracking error. However they all basically track very closely, again the error is fractions of the percent, if it is a legitimate concern in your books then you're not doing index investing right. The actual prices of each fund may vary, but the price hardly matters - the key metric is does it go up 20% when the index goes up 20%? And they all do. So what do you compare them on? Well, typically companies offer people perks to attract them to their own product. If you are a Fidelity customer, and you buy IVV, they will waive your commission if you hold it for a month. I believe Vanguard will also sell VOO for free. But for instance Fidelity will take commission from VOO trades and vice versa. So, this would be your main factor. Though, then again, you can just make an account on Robinhood and they're all commission free. A second factor is reliability of the operator. Frankly, I doubt any of these operators are at all untrustworthy, and you'd be buying your own broker's ETF anyway, and presumably you already went with the most trustworthy broker. Besides that, like I said, there's trivial matters like fees and tracking error, but you might as well just flip a coin. It doesn't really matter.\\\"\",\n \"diversifying; but isn't that what mutual funds already do? They diversify and reduce stock-specific risk by moving from individual stocks to many stocks, but you can diversify even further by selecting different fund types (e.g. large-cal, small-cap, fixed- income (bond) funds, international, etc.). Your target-date fund probably includes a few different types already, and will automatically reallocate to less risky investments as you get close to the target date. I would look at the fees of different types of funds, and compare them to the historical returns of those funds. You can also use things like morningstar and other ratings as guides, but they are generally very large buckets and may not be much help distinguishing between individual funds. So to answer the question, yes you can diversify further - and probably get better returns (and lower fees) that a target-date fund. The question is - is it worth your time and effort to do so? You're obviously comfortable investing for the long-term, so you might get some benefit by spending a little time looking for different funds to increase your diversification. Note that ETFs don't really diversify any differently than mutual funds, they are just a different mechanism to invest in funds, and allow different trading strategies (trading during the day, derivatives, selling short, etc.).\",\n \"Index funds, like IBB, generally lack active management, which equates to lower expenses. This is simply because the target index, the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index in the case of IBB, is composed of known quantities. This means there won't be stock pickers or analysts constantly swapping holdings, increasing the turnover rate of the portfolio and increasing capital gains; costs that are offset by higher expense ratios in more actively managed funds.\",\n \"Equal-weight ETFs remove the large cap bias found in most popular indexes. What results behaves very much like a small-cap or mid-cap index. Observe RSP vs IJR over a 5 year period: IJR (iShares S&P SmallCap 600 ETF) vs RSP (Rydex S&P Equal Weight ETF) I'm not sure if equal-weighting is worth the reduced efficiency. Mid-cap and small-cap funds have lower expenses (%0.20 for IJR vs %0.40 for RSP) and appear to do better over the long run. We don't know if that pattern will continue, but expense is one of the strongest long-term predictors of performance.\",\n \"ETrade allows this without fees (when investing into one of the No-Load/No-Fees funds from their list). The Sharebuilder plan is better when investing into ETF's or stocks, not for mutual funds, their choice (of no-fees funds) is rather limited on Sharebuilder.\",\n \"You do realize that the fund will have management expenses that are likely already factored into the NAV and that when you sell, the NAV will not yet be known, right? There are often fees to run a mutual fund that may be taken as part of managing the fund that are already factored into the Net Asset Value(NAV) of the shares that would be my caution as well as possible fee changes as Dilip Sarwate notes in a comment. Expense ratios are standard for mutual funds, yes. Individual stocks that represent corporations not structured as a mutual fund don't declare a ratio of how much are their costs, e.g. Apple or Google may well invest in numerous other companies but the costs of making those investments won't be well detailed though these companies do have non-investment operations of course. Don't forget to read the fund's prospectus as sometimes a fund will have other fees like account maintenance fees that may be taken out of distributions as well as being aware of how taxes will be handled as you don't specify what kind of account these purchases are being done using.\",\n \"The same reason a company would offer coupons. I'd guess they're just doing it as a way to entice people to do their investing with them. Since it is any ETF I doubt they are being compensated by the ETF companies, as is sometimes the case (iShares does this with Fidelity, for example). And they still get the commission on the sale.\",\n \"Fair enough. I would imagine the ETF could get a better option pricing if that were the case, plus liquidity and counterpart risk concerns but your point is well taken. Serves me right to shoot my mouth off on something I do not do (short). Speaking of which, do you do a lot of shorting? Cover positions or speculation?\",\n \"It isn't just ETFs, you have normal mutual funds in India which invest internationally. This could be convenient if you don't already have a depository account and a stockbroker. Here's a list of such funds, along with some performance data: Value Research - Equity: International: Long-term Performance. However, you should also be aware that in India, domestic equity and equity fund investing is tax-free in the long-term (longer than one year), but this exemption doesn't apply to international investments. Ref: Invest Around the World.\",\n \"\\\"There are several reasons. One, mutual funds provide instant diversification. To build a diverse portfolio \\\"\\\"manually\\\"\\\" (by buying individual shares) requires a lot of time and effort. If your portfolio is not diverse, then it is wrong to say \\\"\\\"buying shares gives higher return\\\"\\\"; in many cases diversification will increase your returns. Two, mutual funds reduce transactions costs. If you buy individual shares, you pay transactions costs every time you buy or sell. If you buy and sell the shares of many companies, you must perform many transactions and thus incur heavy fees. With mutual funds, a single transaction gets you access to many companies. In addition, it is often possible to buy mutual funds without paying transactions costs at all (although you will still pay fund expenses). Three (sort of a combination of the previous two) it is just easier. Many people can easily buy mutual funds with no cost and little effort through their bank. It is also simple to set up auto-investment plans so that you automatically save money over time. All of these things are much more complicated if you try to buy many individual shares. Four, if you buy the right kinds of funds (low-cost index funds), it is probably more lucrative than buying individual shares. The odds that, through carefully selected stock-buying, you will earn more than the market average are small. Even professional stock-pickers consistently underperform broad market indexes. In short, it is not true that \\\"\\\"buying shares gives higher return\\\"\\\", and even if it were, the convenience and diversification of mutual funds would still be good reasons to use them.\\\"\",\n \"As these all seem to be US Equity, just getting one broad based US Equity index might offer similar diversification at lower cost. Over 5 years, 20 basis points in fees will only make about 1% difference. However, for longer periods (retirement saving), it is worth it to aim for the lowest fees. For further diversification, you might want to consider other asset classes, such as foreign equity, fixed income, etc.\",\n \"The ETF price quoted on the stock exchange is in principle not referenced to NAV. The fund administrator will calculate and publish the NAV net of all fees, but the ETF price you see is determined by the market just like for any other security. Having said that, the market will not normally deviate greatly from the NAV of the fund, so you can safely assume that ETF quoted price is net of relevant fees.\",\n \"Investopedia laid out the general information of tax treatment on the ETF fund structures as well as their underlying asset classes: http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0213/how-tax-treatments-of-etfs-work.aspx\",\n \"Some other suggestions: Index-tracking mutual funds. These have the same exposure as ETFs, but may have different costs; for example, my investment manager (in the UK) charges a transaction fee on ETFs, but not funds, but caps platform fees on ETFs and not funds! Target date funds. If you are saving for a particular date (often retirement, but could also be buying a house, kids going to college, mid-life crisis motorbike purchase, a luxury cruise to see an eclipse, etc), these will automatically rebalance the investment from risk-tolerant (ie equities) to risk-averse (ie fixed income) as the date approaches. You can get reasonably low fees from Vanguard, and i imagine others. Income funds/ETFs, focusing on stocks which are expected to pay a good dividend. The idea is that a consistent dividend helps smooth out volatility in prices, giving you a more consistent return. Historically, that worked pretty well, but given fees and the current low yields, it might not be smart right now. That said Vanguard Equity Income costs 0.17%, and i think yields 2.73%, which isn't bad.\",\n \"There's really no right or wrong answer here because you'll be fine either way. If you've investing amounts in the low 5 figures you're likely just getting started, and if your asset allocation is not optimal it's not that big a deal because you have a long time horizon to adjust it, and the expense ratio differences here won't add up to that much. A third option is Vanguard ETFs, which have the expense ratio of Admiral Shares but have lower minimums (i.e. the cost of a single share, typically on the order of $100). However, they are a bit more advanced than mutual funds in that they trade on the market and require you to place orders rather than just specifying the amount you want to buy. A downside here is you might end up with a small amount of cash that you can't invest, since you can initially only buy whole numbers of ETFs shares. So what I'd recommend is buying roughly the correct number of ETFs shares you want except for your largest allocation, then use the rest of your cash on Admiral Shares of that (if possible). For example, let's say you have $15k to invest and you want to be 2/3 U.S. stock, 1/6 international stock, and 1/6 U.S. bond. I would buy as many shares of VXUS (international stock ETF) and BND (U.S. bond ETF) as you can get for $2500 each, then whatever is left over (~$10k) put into VTSAX (U.S. stock Admiral Shares mutual fund).\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["There are times when investing in an ETF is more convenient than a mutual fund. When you invest in a mutual fund, you often have an account directly with the mutual fund company, or you have an account with a mutual fund broker. Mutual funds often have either a front end or back end load, which essentially gives you a penalty for jumping in and out of funds. ETFs are traded exactly like stocks, so there is inherently no load when buying or selling. If you have a brokerage account and you want to move funds from a stock to a mutual fund, an ETF might be more convenient. With some accounts, an ETF allows you to invest in a fund that you would not be able to invest in otherwise. For example, you might have a 401k account through your employer. You might want to invest in a Vanguard mutual fund, but Vanguard funds are not available with your 401k. If you have access to a brokerage account inside your 401k, you can invest in the Vanguard fund through the associated ETF. Another reason that you might choose an ETF over a mutual fund is if you want to try to short the fund.","Something to consider is how do you want to handle fractional shares. Most open-end funds can easily go to fractional shares to that if you want to invest $500 in a fund each month, it is a relatively easy transaction where some shares will be fractional and handled easily. An ETF may not always work that way unless you go through something like Sharebuilder that would allow the fractional shares as if the ETF is trading at $150/share, you could buy 3 shares but still have $50 that you want to invest but can't as stocks trade in whole share numbers usually. This is without adding brokerage commissions. Depending on the broker, re-investing dividends may or may not be that simple as fractional shares could be a problem since those 3 shares aren't likely to have enough of a dividend to equal another share being bought with the proceeds. If you want the flexibility of stop and limit orders then the ETF may make more sense while the open-end fund is simply to invest whole dollar amounts that then lead to fractional shares. Don't forget to factor in minimums and other stuff as VFIAX may have a bit of a minimum to it as well as possible fees that could be annoying as I remember VFINX having some account maintenance fees that were a bit irksome back in the day that may still be around in some cases so be sure to read the fine print on things.","In the case of VFIAX versus VOO, if you're a buy-and-hold investor, you're probably better off with the mutual fund because you can buy fractional shares. However, in general the expense ratio for ETFs will be lower than equivalent mutual funds (even passive index funds). They are the same in this case because the mutual fund is Admiral Class, which has a $10,000 minimum investment that not all people may be able to meet. Additionally, ETFs are useful when you don't have an account with the mutual fund company (i.e. Vanguard), and buying the mutual fund would incur heavy transaction fees."],"string":"[\n \"There are times when investing in an ETF is more convenient than a mutual fund. When you invest in a mutual fund, you often have an account directly with the mutual fund company, or you have an account with a mutual fund broker. Mutual funds often have either a front end or back end load, which essentially gives you a penalty for jumping in and out of funds. ETFs are traded exactly like stocks, so there is inherently no load when buying or selling. If you have a brokerage account and you want to move funds from a stock to a mutual fund, an ETF might be more convenient. With some accounts, an ETF allows you to invest in a fund that you would not be able to invest in otherwise. For example, you might have a 401k account through your employer. You might want to invest in a Vanguard mutual fund, but Vanguard funds are not available with your 401k. If you have access to a brokerage account inside your 401k, you can invest in the Vanguard fund through the associated ETF. Another reason that you might choose an ETF over a mutual fund is if you want to try to short the fund.\",\n \"Something to consider is how do you want to handle fractional shares. Most open-end funds can easily go to fractional shares to that if you want to invest $500 in a fund each month, it is a relatively easy transaction where some shares will be fractional and handled easily. An ETF may not always work that way unless you go through something like Sharebuilder that would allow the fractional shares as if the ETF is trading at $150/share, you could buy 3 shares but still have $50 that you want to invest but can't as stocks trade in whole share numbers usually. This is without adding brokerage commissions. Depending on the broker, re-investing dividends may or may not be that simple as fractional shares could be a problem since those 3 shares aren't likely to have enough of a dividend to equal another share being bought with the proceeds. If you want the flexibility of stop and limit orders then the ETF may make more sense while the open-end fund is simply to invest whole dollar amounts that then lead to fractional shares. Don't forget to factor in minimums and other stuff as VFIAX may have a bit of a minimum to it as well as possible fees that could be annoying as I remember VFINX having some account maintenance fees that were a bit irksome back in the day that may still be around in some cases so be sure to read the fine print on things.\",\n \"In the case of VFIAX versus VOO, if you're a buy-and-hold investor, you're probably better off with the mutual fund because you can buy fractional shares. However, in general the expense ratio for ETFs will be lower than equivalent mutual funds (even passive index funds). They are the same in this case because the mutual fund is Admiral Class, which has a $10,000 minimum investment that not all people may be able to meet. Additionally, ETFs are useful when you don't have an account with the mutual fund company (i.e. Vanguard), and buying the mutual fund would incur heavy transaction fees.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":161,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"1322"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Is this follow-up after a car crash a potential scam?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["399418","114231","115552","64138"],"string":"[\n \"399418\",\n \"114231\",\n \"115552\",\n \"64138\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["153640","567031","588026","524723","13325","269917","370334","252758","41094","185616","298365","508896","114231","219119","73821","374049","9737","378432","567973","408027","204735","409761","41469","220138","58664","160611","50368","198269","349932","545789","156581","574604","452846","467737","424274","364316","193065","362721","310845","5049","49082","367944","234247","137078","145322","9471","523792","400950","253317","592785","228858","381899","478514","2702","26492","254759","125288","564156","322428","463351","237607","405591","574948","224098","97582","205804","104221","442625","335376","64758","538217","594206","139314","335435","20912","315796","264822","52128","25613","426944","504776","220853","115552","543607","399418","405231","456783","501690","251644","580479","65418","40870","151514","502909","44085","271116","501038","212810","567201","214518"],"string":"[\n \"153640\",\n \"567031\",\n \"588026\",\n \"524723\",\n \"13325\",\n \"269917\",\n \"370334\",\n \"252758\",\n \"41094\",\n \"185616\",\n \"298365\",\n \"508896\",\n \"114231\",\n \"219119\",\n \"73821\",\n \"374049\",\n \"9737\",\n \"378432\",\n \"567973\",\n \"408027\",\n \"204735\",\n \"409761\",\n \"41469\",\n \"220138\",\n \"58664\",\n \"160611\",\n \"50368\",\n \"198269\",\n \"349932\",\n \"545789\",\n \"156581\",\n \"574604\",\n \"452846\",\n \"467737\",\n \"424274\",\n \"364316\",\n \"193065\",\n \"362721\",\n \"310845\",\n \"5049\",\n \"49082\",\n \"367944\",\n \"234247\",\n \"137078\",\n \"145322\",\n \"9471\",\n \"523792\",\n \"400950\",\n \"253317\",\n \"592785\",\n \"228858\",\n \"381899\",\n \"478514\",\n \"2702\",\n \"26492\",\n \"254759\",\n \"125288\",\n \"564156\",\n \"322428\",\n \"463351\",\n \"237607\",\n \"405591\",\n \"574948\",\n \"224098\",\n \"97582\",\n \"205804\",\n \"104221\",\n \"442625\",\n \"335376\",\n \"64758\",\n \"538217\",\n \"594206\",\n \"139314\",\n \"335435\",\n \"20912\",\n \"315796\",\n \"264822\",\n \"52128\",\n \"25613\",\n \"426944\",\n \"504776\",\n \"220853\",\n \"115552\",\n \"543607\",\n \"399418\",\n \"405231\",\n \"456783\",\n \"501690\",\n \"251644\",\n \"580479\",\n \"65418\",\n \"40870\",\n \"151514\",\n \"502909\",\n \"44085\",\n \"271116\",\n \"501038\",\n \"212810\",\n \"567201\",\n \"214518\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["This is a scam. Do not give them any money. A quick search on this site will yield many examples of this scam.","This is a scam. Delete the email and don't talk to the person or keep any contact.","It's marketing or SCAM tentative. Please check with extreme attention before clicking any link present in the communication.","Yes it is a scam. There is no money. They are after your personal details so that they can get your money.","I can't imagine any scenario under which this wouldn't be a scam, and frankly I'm a bit surprised to be talking about it once again. Any time someone you don't know and who doesn't know you wants to give you money for no good reason and asks you to provide personal information and bank info, there should be enough alarms going off for a five-alarm fire. Worse still this guy wants you to send half the money back to him. One simple question: WHY??? For what reason would they want you to send anything back? Why not just send you the money he wants you to have and keep the rest for himself? For heaven's sake, don't fall for this. Stay away from the whole mess and save yourself a bunch of grief.","\"This is totally a scam. I didn't read the whole thing. Didn't need to after I read \"\"abandoned sum of 22.5 million\"\" which implied part of it was yours to take after you do something for them.. Logically speaking.. No stranger would disclose this to you.\"","It may be a scam. But it also may be a company trying to find a person with the same or similar name. They may have followed a trail to her old address, and still not have the correct person. They bought number of old debts at a large discount, and are trying to track down any money they can find. It is best to ignore it, especially if they know it isn't their debt. If they start providing more proof then get interested. If they keep contacting them tell them there is no business relationship and they should stop.","You can't blame companies like 'Legal Claimant Services' for making a profit by providing this service. That is capitalism and it is the way of the world. It is just like any other business you can do yourself - from making dinner to cutting your own grass. If you choose to do it yourself, you save money but you also do the work. When I got my letter telling me about a claim, I automatically went online to do some research. That's how I found this site and information that led me to validate the claim. I then chose to follow a few simple instructions and keep all of the claim instead of giving away 30%.","100% scam. This is classic of mixing real (Exxon) with fiction. This gives credibility to story. Don't give any thing, there is no damage yet. If you take the bait, there are multiple ways to get money from you.","This is very possibly a scam. The way the scam works is that the scammers send you a letter and demand you call the telephone number. But the telephone number belongs to the scammers, not the bank. When you call the number, they will 'authenticate' you by asking you a bunch of questions. They will then have enough information to call the bank and pretend to be you, and transfer out all of your money. What you need to do is to find the telephone number for your bank without making use of this letter. For example, look at a previous bank statement, or find the telephone number on the bank's website. Call that number and discuss this letter. If you have already called the number in the letter and if you have the slightest reason to believe it is not valid, stop reading. This is an emergency. Immediately call a legitimate number at the bank. Explain the situation and note that you believe your information has been compromised. Why are you still reading? Do it now.","It is absolutely a scam. Anyone who tells you they can give you a large amount of money for free is trying to scam you. Additional warning signs include:","Pretty much any financial transaction where they start by calling you on the phone is a scam. They aren't doing it for your benefit and the caller is on commission.","\"You have to realize that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to do things \"\"unofficially\"\" by not reporting the accident (to insurance companies and/or police), but you want to do it \"\"officially\"\" in that you want to have legal recourse if they try to hit you up for more money. The only way to have it both ways is to trust the other person. From a financial perspective, ultimately you need to decide if the monetary cost of your raised insurance premiums, etc., outweighs the cost of whatever money the other party in the accident will try to squeeze out of you (factoring in the likelihood that they will do so). You also would need to factor in the likelihood that, rather than trying to scam you, they'll pursue legal action against you. In short, from a purely monetary perspective, if the legitimate cost of repairs is $700 and the cost to you of doing it by the book via insurance is $2000, you should be willing to be scammed for up to $1300, because you'll still come out ahead. Of course, there are psychological considerations, like whether someone unscrupulous enough to scam you will stop at $1300. But those numbers are the baseline for whatever outcome calculations you want to do. On the more qualitative side of things, it is possible they're trying to scam you, but also possible they're just trying to hustle you into doing everything quickly without thinking about it. They may not be trying to gouge you monetarily, they just want to pressure you so they get their money. I agree with other answerers here that the ideal way would be for them to send you an actual bill after repairs are complete. However, you could ask them to send you a written copy of the repair shop estimate, along with a written letter in which they state that they will consider payment of that amount to resolve the issue and won't pursue you further. The legal strength of that is dubious, but at least you have some documentation that you didn't just try to stiff them. If they won't give you some form of written documentation, I would read that as a red flag, bite the bullet, and contact your insurance company.\"","If they are a debt collector, they must follow the requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In particular, they must provide you with verification of the debt at your written request. If they won't give you a way to do this, they are in violation of the law, and you should contact proper authorities. If they are not a debt collection agency, it does sound like a scam, in which case you should also contact the appropriate law enforcement agency.","\"Ask yourself one question - \"\"Why me?\"\" Say I had no friends or family (that I liked). I have money and I'm dying. There are a half dozen charities I'd write checks to. Under what circumstances would I ever contact a stranger to try to give my money away? That answers why this is a scam.\"","This is definitely a scam. I had a friend sign up for a very similar offer and what they did was send a fake check and then asked to transfer the same amount to them. So now you just send them a couple grand and you're holding a fake check.","100% scam. Run away. If you have already given the bank account, inform the bank and close the account. Else just close the new account opened. Do not contact the scammer or reply back.... Just ignore ... Don't read any of scammer email, they are very convincing in why it's right and why it's not a scam.","Definitely sounds like scam. Odds are are high that the page he gave you the link to is a fake and this app is pure identity theft. Run away, unless you are interested enough to do the work to check with the company and confirm this is legitimate. Nobody contacts strangers with this kind of story without it being a scam. The fact that this one sounds shady is an attempt to keep you from questioning it too closely. Think about it: if it was at all legitimate, couldn't he find a friend of a friend? If it sounds too good to be true, it ain't true. Never download software unless you know exactly where it is coming from. It could be anything from ransomware, to something that first steals all you financial info, then uss you mail account to send a similar pitch to all your friends, to a botnet that uses your machine to attack other machines.","Yes, it’s a scam. Best case you will end up with nothing, worst case you wil end up losing money and facing criminal charges for fraud and/or money laundering. Do not contact him again or respond to further contact. Forward his details to your local law enforcement if you have provided any of your personal information to him already.","The sting here is definitely in the tail, the PS that says We are starting to call you from the same day when we get your details. The initial email doesn't ask for details, it asks for commitment. Once committed, you will be more relaxed about providing details. This makes me think that this is more serious than a simple financial scam. This is an effort to steal your identity, and that could be much more serious than the one-off loss of a few thousand dollars. Here's why: 1. The scammer could get numerous credit cards and store cards in your name, run up thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in charges, and leave you stuck with explaining what happened. I know someone who went from being a multi-millionaire to a pauper in a few months when his identity was stolen - and he is no fool. 2. It will take you years to clear your name. Meanwhile, your credit is shot, and you might have trouble getting a job, renting an apartment, or simply getting a cellphone contract. 3. Once you've repaired your credit, the scammer can just go through his old files and do it all over again. 4. Cloaked in your identity, and therefore being seen as you, the scammer can pull any number of scams, for which you will eventually be blamed. Then as well as dealing with credit bureaus, you will be dealing with another, more serious bureau: the FBI.","This is almost surely a scam. Among other things:","\"Any time someone starts asking you to provide personal information, such as a birth date, it could very well be a scam. This is especially true if it's someone you don't even know. Be very careful about getting involved in such situations. There is always some kind of almost believable story to what the scammers tell you, and unless you're willing to look deeper into it then it's easy to get pulled in. On top of that, you have to ask yourself, \"\"why did they pick me for this?\"\", because that's the real question. You have no idea what else the software they're asking you to download might do that you wouldn't know about, but offering to pay you something is a good way for them to get you to bypass your own security by installing it yourself. If the offer sounds too good to be true or too easy, you have to question it, and in such cases, your best bet is to stay away from it altogether.\"","\"Let me guess, it's a fairly large amount of money, a few thousand at least. This is a scam. This is a variation on the many fake check scams out there. You deposit the check and you think it \"\"cleared\"\" your bank, but it didn't clear. A clever fake check can take a couple weeks to bounce and the bank will demand the money back. Any money you wire back to the fraudster in the meantime will be lost forever.\"","\"Some additional information for the people who may read this question in the future : The situation is weird, to say the least. I'm going to assume 2 things : Now, look at these classic its-a-scam red flags : In these conditions, it is not safe to give even the smallest shred of information to such people. I'd advise you to ignore this person (best option), or to offer to get them in touch with an official (most scammers will run away at this point) or threaten to report them (not recommended, the scammer may take insult and try to \"\"get back at you\"\"). Hope this post helps and nobody gets scammed! EDIT: Thank you for the amazing welcome! If I'd have known I'd get such a huge response, I'd have written a better answer ;) (I hope I'm not breaking any rules by this edit)\"","Yes. It is a scam. The story makes no sense. They just want your info to steal your money. regarding requests to know how it works: the scammer is requesting: username, password, routing number, checking account number, and security question/answers. they now have access to your bank account. they will have access until you are able to shut it down. Once they have your password, they can change it to whatever they want. it can be used to launder money, steal money from other accounts you have, proof of identity...","Just FYI for the benefit of future users. Haven't been paid yet nor have I paid but some interesting facts. I decided to sign the contract with the person who approached me. The contract seemed harmless whereby I only transfer money once I retrieve the funds. Thanks to your comments here I also understood that I must make sure the funds really cleared in my account and can never be cancelled before I transfer anything. He gave me the information of the check that matched my previous employer and made sense as it was a check issues just after I had left my job and the state. I did not used the contact details he provided me, but rather found the direct contact details of the go to person in my last institution and contacted them. I still haven't been able to reclaim the funds, but that is due to internal problems between the state comptroller and my institution. Will come back to update if I am ever successful, but the bottom line is that it is probably not a scam. I am waiting for the final resolution of the case before I post the name of the company which approached me (if it is at all OK per the discussion board rules)","This sounds like a scam. C.f. Craigslist for normal warning signs of an on-line scam","Call your bank and inquire if they send out the kinds of notices like the one you received. Don't call the number in the message, because if it is a scam, you're calling the scammers themselves, more than likely. Be very cautious about this situation, and if your bank is local then it might not hurt to pay a visit to a local branch to talk to someone in person. Print out the message(s) you receive to show them and let their fraud division look into it.","This is very similar to what was asked in this question: Scam or real? This is a real winner of a scam, because it always finds someone gullible enough to fall for it. No stranger sends you money just to be a nice guy. This version of the scam is one I've seen on job-hunting sites. They'll promise you a job, and then they say they'll send you a check for equipment and supplies, but you need to send most of the money back to them. As long as they find victims, they'll continue to find more refined techniques to stay ahead of the authorities, and it'll change just enough that people won't recognize it for what it is. AVOID THIS AT ALL COSTS!! I hope this helps. Good luck!","\"How can I say this more clearly? SCAM, SCAM, SCAM! This is another one of the oldest scams out there, where you've won a prize or an inheritance has come in, and all you have to do is pay the taxes on it to claim it. Don't be a sucker! Ask yourself why the government couldn't (and wouldn't) just take the taxes due out of the funds they have and give the rest to the person they belong to? Wouldn't that be the smartest and easiest thing to do? As an example, let's say that you have $1,000 that belongs to me, and I owe you $100. Would you tell me to pay you the $100 and then you'll give me the $1,000 or would you take the $100 I owe you out of the $1,000 and give me the remaining $900? The fact this is someone you know from the internet and they want your \"\"help\"\" to claim their money should tell you how much of a scam this is. Stop talking to this person, and don't tell them anything personal about you. They are scam artists, and whatever you tell them could be used to steal your identity or take your money. Be careful, my friend!\"","In the very unlikely event that it is not a scam, there would be a distinct probability that it is someone trying to launder money. You don't want to get caught up with drug dealers or ISIS terrorists, so forget it. There is also the possibility that your post is a scam, looking for people who would believe such nonsense. I wonder if people who reply are going to get phished.","This is a scam. There is no soldier, no money ... This is a story to gain sympathy and make one part with Bank account and other details so that the scammer can make away with your money.","You should probably talk to a lawyer experienced in such matters, it is really hard to tell from what you described whether there is a problem or not. Are they trying to put majority of blame on me so that they can increase my premium or are they acting the right way? Both may be true. They are acting in their own best interests, not yours. They're trying to minimize their exposure. Had the other guy had insurance they would be much more susceptible to shift the blame, but since he doesn't - it is unlikely that they'll recover their money. So it is not in their best interests to accept your claim. Whether they're right or not - you answered yourself. A person backing out is usually responsible and the burden of proof that you aren't is on you. Does the insurance have something to gain from assigning more fault on me? Of course. Less money to shell out, more premiums to get. That said, they are willing to admit that some of the blame is on the other driver, which means that they're not entirely dismissing your claims. In general, I'm just trying to make sure I'm not being cheated monetarily by the insurance company in any way. Sue them.","You're not missing anything. Consumer protection in the US is very basic and limited, if at all. So if someone claims you owe them something, it would be really hard for you to prove otherwise unless you actually drag them to court. Especially if there actually was a relationship, and there probably is some paperwork to substantiate the claim. I suggest talking to a consumer issues attorney.","If this 'scam' has a name, address and/or phone number, I forward it to the FBI anonymously. That is my advice. You may also wish to consult a lawyer.","So while these companies are not a scam, 30% feels pretty darn high. How about you negotiate a much lower rate? 10% or 15%? Here is why: You will spend time and effort (which technically isn't free) to find the money. I bet you can find it if you look hard enough. But you could also just collect it and give this company a cut for their expertise. However if 30% bugs you (and it would bug me) then consider their reality. They spent money to find the funds and contact you. HOWEVER, that is a sunk cost. It is already spent. You can find it on your own and they get zip. Or you negotiate a lower percentage, they get enough to cover their costs and make some profit and you save a ton of time. Since they took the time to explain themselves here, they are either scammers trying to bully you into compliance, or they are legit. It is field that people might look down on, but it isn't criminal. I would look for the money if it were me, but I feel I have enough free time that it would be worth it.","This just happened to me to! At target. I have no idea if its a scam but that is the same thing i am thinking. They Lady who told me about it didn't tell me anything about her business. Just to go to the link....which isn't working. Idk its feels pretty shady. She did everything you said above.","Yes, it is a scam. Think about it: Why would a stranger offer to give you money? Why would she need you to pay her own employees? She wouldn't. It is a scam. You have more to lose than just the $25 that is in the account. Just as has happened to your dad before, you will be receiving money that is not real, but paying real money out somewhere else. One more thing: If your dad has fallen for these scams so many times that he can't get a bank account anymore, why are you still taking financial advice from him?","Yes this is a scam. Stay as far away as possible. Don't talk or send any messages. The more you talk, she would convince you that this is not a scam. Armed Forces have a very good way of taking care of their people. They don't need to do something like this.","Yes, it is a scam. There is no doubt about it. Never give your bank password to anyone, especially strangers. You will lose your money if you fall for this.","I have prepared a report on scam's like this. I'd be happy to deliver a copy of the report to your home. Just give me your address and mail me the keys to your house and I'll drop by and leave it in your home. Oh, and tell me a time when you won't be home, so I won't bother you when I come by. It might also be helpful if you tell me if you have any cash, jewelry, or other valuables in the house and where you keep them, so I can give you advice on security measures. :-)","\"It doesn't matter if the terms are a \"\"fair deal\"\" or are \"\"too good to be true\"\" — either way, it's definitely a scam. They are \"\"phishing\"\" for your personal information, including your banking information, and have no intention of giving you a loan. How can I tell? Simple: all such offers like this everywhere are scams. There is no economic situation other than being a scammer to do this. Why would an individual put out their money to strangers at such a high risk for even a much, much higher purported return? They wouldn't.\"","It's got every sign of a scam. Signatures are needed on contracts, so you should only place them on below one. Free money sounds too good to be true. Money evading banks is a typical sign of money laundering; why are they trying to avoid paper trails? The normal way to gift money is to just hand it over or pay it to a bank account. If anything, you sign a tax declaration, but you would send that to the taxman yourself.","\"Here's what's going to happen: At the last minute, he's going to \"\"discover\"\" that for some reason first you must send him $10,000. He'll tell you not to worry, as he's still going to send you $40,000... now $50,000. In fact, he's going to tell you that he'll send you $60,000 and tell you to keep the $10,000 as a \"\"finders fee\"\". Then you will send him, $10,000 and he will walk away with your $10,000. You'll never hear from him again. This is a very common scam. The best way to avoid it is not to tell him you won't do it for IRS reasons. The best thing to do is to stop accepting email from him and (optionally) report him to law enforcement.\"","\"If an offer \"\"is only valid right now\"\" and \"\"if you don't act immediately, it will expire\"\" that is almost always a scam.\"","Definitely a scam. Don't call him or do anything. Stay calm, there is no damage done yet. I met someone online three weeks ago. ... Left his wallet, debit card, credit cards, drivers license, etc. in the room In the entire world its only you he can bank upon ... someone whom hes met online just few weeks ago; there are no relatives, friends !!! why would the hotel manager Fed-Ex or UPS the items to my home address ... and not to his own address? Upon receipt, the engineer will give me his password to the Bank of America account so he can access his account Why doesn't he have internet? I am supposed to call him in the next hour or so and let him know if I will be doing this tomorrow. Don't call. Don't reply. The $150 is just a starter bait to see if one is gullible enough to take it and then there is more and more by different ways.","for full disclosure I'm an Independent Contractor and work with Jeff Richman. @ Neil: Question 1: How legitimate is this? If you were never contacted by the company you would never know about the money. Period, end of story. Not trying to be rude but that is the bottom line truth. Look up asset recovery businesses. They are in every city almost. They work for individuals, governments and businesses. Very legitimate business. Question 2: Since this doesn't seem to be the case, how does this company know that I potentially have unclaimed assets to claim? I understand your concern and the best analogy I can think of to explain this is: A company's copier breaks down. A copy machine repair man is called. He shows up and opens the copier and studies it intensely and closes it back up. He takes a hammer out of his bag and hits the copier on the side in two different places, twice. The copier starts working. He charges the company owner a $1000.00. The company owner is glad to pay it because without the knowledge of the repair man, his business is not making money. This is the same: The professionals at Keane have specific knowledge about how to, where to and who to ask for these lists. Granted, it's not your business we're talking about here but without them, you get nothing. 2 professionals have advised you to move forward; your brother's accountant and lawyer. Take the money. It costs you nothing. If they want money from you up front or want you to pay for stuff, run.","Yes. It is a scam, and here is how it will work. They will deposit a phony check into the account which will appear to clear. You will send money to Africa from the account. The check will take a while to bounce, but it will bounce. They will take it back out of your account (and may try to prosecute you for a fake check). At best, your account balance will go negative and you will owe the money back to the bank that you sent. The people you sent the money to will vanish.","My first thought is: email? Are you sure it is legitimate? Verify everything. Assuming it is legitimate:","This is a variation of a very common scam. The principle of the scam is this: I give you a check for a huge amount of money which you pay in your account. Then I ask you to pay some money from your account into a third account. Two months later the bank detects that my check was forged / stolen / cancelled / whatever and takes the huge amount of money away from your account. But you paid the money from your account, and that money is gone from your account and irrevocably ended up in my account.","\"Short answer: Yes this is a scam. I see three different possibilities how they get you. I will rank them from \"\"best\"\" to worst Scammer A sends 100$ to you. You then follow his instructions and send back 50$ through WU (this is untraceable). He then contacts his bank and tells them he never intended to send that 100$ to you, then bank will then reverse that transaction and give him back his money, leaving you 50$ short. Scammer A hacks or scams innocent person B and either sends B:s money to you or tricks person B to do it. When person B reports this to the police it will look like you were behind the whole thing. The transaction will be reversed leaving you 50$ short and with unwanted police attention (see this article for an extreme example: https://www.wired.com/2015/10/online-dating-made-woman-pawn-global-crime-plot/) The nice person A wants to send money to a criminal syndicate or terrorist organization but don't want to be associated with it. Leaving you 50$ up (hurray) and possibly on a bunch of terrorist watch lists (ouch!). The extra info you provide wouldn't be necessary for any of these scams but I guess it could be nice to have for some regular identity theft. This is by no means an exhaustive list of all that the scammers could do. It's just a short list to show you how dangerous it would be to play along. To state the obvious, don't walk from this person, RUN!\"","Of course it is a scam. They don't need your password to give you money. Even giving them the rest is enough information for them to try and withdraw money from your bank by automatic transfer.","\"I believe no-one who's in a legal line of business would tell you to default voluntarily on your obligations. Once you get an offer that's too good to be true, and for which you have to do something that is either illegal or very damaging to you - it is probably a scam. Also, if someone requires you to send any money without a prior written agreement - its probably a scam as well, especially in such a delicate matter as finances. Your friend now should also be worried about identity theft as he voluntary gave tons of personal information to these people. Bottom line - if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Your friend had all the warning signs other than a huge neon light saying \"\"Scam\"\" pointing at these people, and he still went through it. For real debt consolidation companies, research well: online reviews, BBB ratings and reviews, time in business, etc. If you can't find any - don't deal with them. Also, if you get promises for debtors to out of the blue give up on some of their money - its a sign of a scam. Why would debtors reduce the debt by 60%? He's paying, he can pay, he is not on the way to bankruptcy (or is he?)? Why did he do it to begin with?\"","Ben Miller offers you sounds advice. However, if it comes down to it I would reach out to a lawyer to negotiate this for you. If what you are presenting is true then you could easily sue them for the damages incurred. I have been in a similar situation and unfortunately using the lawyers is what was required to get the solution resolved. Based on my previous experience a simple letter from a local lawyer office would get this dropped pretty quick and should cost you around $150. Best of luck!","\"I have no personal knowledge of this company; I've only looked over what I found on the web. Overall, my judgement is that Pension Benefit Information, Inc. of San Rafael, CA is likely legitimate and aboutmyletter.com is one of two sites run by them (the other being pbinfo.com). These two sites are registered to Pension Benefit Information, Inc. (aboutmyletter uses Network Solutions privacy service but gives the company name; pbinfo uses their name and San Rafael address.) They are in the BBB. The president (of the 8 employee Co.), Susan McDonald, has testified (PDF on .gov site) before Congress about business uses of SSNs. They made a (very schlocky) video, which has an interview with McDonald after several canned, generic, \"\"impressive\"\" introductions. I found the interview convincing of a person actually running a small, real business of this type. A short version is on their site, long version here. There are some queries about their legitimacy online (like this one), but I found nothing negative on them, and one somewhat positive. One article talks about the suspicions they run into when contacting participants, and has some advice. Also, scammers are unlikely to pay the U.S. Postal Service money to send paper letters. So what are the dangers? Money or identity. So don't pay them any fees (now or later), especially since it looks like their clients (retirement funds) pay on the other side. As for identity information: What's in the letter? Don't they show that they already know a bunch about you? Old employer? Maybe the last four digits of your SSN? Your address (if this is not the forwarded-by-IRS type of contact letter). Other things, maybe? What information would you be giving up if you did respond to them fully? You could try contacting your old company directly (mentioning PBI, Inc,), although on their website PBI says you'll have to go through them. (They probably get paid for each successful contact, and deserve it.) Still, responding through mail or telephone to PBI seems like the reasonable thing to do.\"","He said he would need my first and last name and my online banking information not my date of birth, SSN, Address, Bank Address, Routing number, or checking account number This is a scam. No one needs online Banking User name and password. If you have already given this info, close your account and disable internet banking. not my date of birth, SSN, Address, Giving your date of birth and SSN is also dangerous. So my question for you is it a scam or could he really be wanting to put money into my account? Oh yeah and also he said they'll send it through my account I'll send half BACK through money gram or western union. There is no legit reason for doing this. This is 100% scam, one would only loose money. Just walk away before any damage can be done","No. A company cannot bill you for services you did not request nor receive. If they could, imagine how many people would just randomly get bills in their mail. Ignore them. They don't have a contract or agreement with you and can't do anything other than make noise. If they get aggressive or don't stop requesting money, hire an attorney and it will be taken care of.","It could be that your friend is being scammed into recruiting you as another victim. So it is vaguely possible that this isn't malicious on their part. However, it is a scam if they are asking for your credit card info without a completely clear and good reason it's necessary. Which they have failed to do. That is reason enough to assume it's a scam, illegal, or both. Run. And seriously consider whether these are really people you can trust on anything, never mind money. At best they're gullible.","\"I agree that you shouldn't give up trying to get your money back, but I strongly feel that this is not sufficient. If they are trying to victimize you, they are trying to victimize others. Taking care of getting your own money back should be your top concern, but contacting any Attorneys General and District Attorneys that have jurisdiction should also be a priority to help others--past, present, and future--that might be caught in this scam. Contact them, contact the police, contact the BBB, contact the local media. Shine a light and make the cockroaches pack up and get out of town. \"\"We got you... you have no recourse\"\" should always be met with the response, \"\"I will shut you down.\"\"\"","I ended up getting a letter in the mail a while later from Florida Treasure Hunt, and I did end up getting something from it. This brings up a very interesting find: Florida Treasure Hunt must first sell the listings to third-party companies to see if they can get your business. That's the only explanation I have for what happened.","\"A friend since July online and big business talks and trust/money forwards. Usually a question \"\"is this a scam or legitimate?\"\" is hard to answer since obviously scams are modelled after legitimate stories (or they'd easily fail). If there were bookmakers for \"\"scam or legitimate\"\", this one would easily gather odds of 10000:1. The only plausible reason for this to be legitimate would be to defraud the scam-or-legitimate bookmakers. At any rate, Exxon is a large company and has to obey labor laws. They cannot set up operations in a manner where their workers may not have access to their salary for prolonged times without easy remedy. Drop communications immediately, don't open them, don't read them. They hook you with emotional investment. They will redouble efforts if it appears you are slipping out of their reach. Explanations will become more plausible, more pressing, more emotionally charged. You are a big promising fish and they won't let you swim off without a serious struggle to rehook you. Hand your communication so far to law enforcement. That may help with not having to figure this out on your own.\"","\"In general, if you think something even MIGHT be a scam, the answer is\"\"yes\"\".\"","This sounds like a shady trick. I would consult with a consumer debt lawyer in your area. Most county bar associations in the US have a referral service, where they recommend a local lawyer and there is a reduced fee for the initial visit. I think the statute of limitations is 10 years in most cases, but it depends on where you live. From these bare details,I think they don;t have much of a case. Go see a lawyer and don't let them harrass you.","You're most definitely being scammed. You're being asked all the information required to steal your identity and take over your bank account. And Austria is land-locked, it has no west coast (or any coast, for that matter).","Yes, this is a scam. Tell your dad not to pay any money. There will likely be a large deposit in his account, but if he withdraws the money from his account, the bank will come after him looking for the money when the transfer to his account is reversed.","Here at Personal Injury Claims Scotland, we can help you claim compensation if you have been involved in an accident while driving. We will help you in the entire process so you can secure maximum compensation. We will also assist in the inspection of your vehicle’s damages to determine its eligibility for replacement. Visit our website at personal-injury-claims-scotland.co.uk for more details.","I think in such situations a good rule of thumb may be - if you are asked to pay significant sums of money upfront before anything is done, stop and ask yourself, what would you do if they don't do what they promised? They know who you are, but usually most you know is a company name and phone number. Both can disappear in a minute and what are you left with? If they said they'd pay off the debt and issue the new loan - fine, let them do it and then you pay them. If they insist on having money upfront without delivering anything - unless it's a very big and known and established company you probably better off not doing it. Either it's a scam or in the minuscule chance they are legit you still risking too much - you're giving money and not getting anything in return.","\"This is not only a scam but it is potentially fraud that may get you in trouble. This \"\"friend\"\" of yours will wire you some money in which you do not know where this money is really from. It's obvious from other answers that his story is fictitious. Thus it is likely that this money was stolen through another scam/hack in which now he wants to wash this money through your bank account. If it turns out that is was stolen, any money you withdrawal for your \"\"cut\"\", will have to be returned and your account will be frozen.\"","\"You're being scammed. I'd be willing to bet this 'celebrity' friend is a fake account on Instagram with 20k followers that befriends lonely neckbeards then tries to scam them. Save your money. Even if this is a legitimate long term friend whom you trust, you should put a lot more thought into \"\"investing\"\" money (that you don't have) into her brothers drug shop.\"","\"You should NEVER have to pay a fee to find out what has happened to a transaction in progress. You might sometimes have to pay for duplicate copies of a statement or similar, but not just to find out what is going on. It sounds like you are being scammed - your \"\"friend\"\" tells you they have transferred you money (but they have not done anything in reality), then they give you a \"\"customer care number\"\" to call and try to get you to pay them money in order to find out what has happened to the (non-existent) transaction. If you think this is plausibly what is happening - for example, if you google the company who is supposedly doing the transfer and find that they do not exist, or that the number you have been given is not really their customer care line - then you should cease all contact with your \"\"friend\"\" and pass all communications to your local law enforcement.\"","I would keep the letter in a file for follow-up, and I would do what you are already planning to do and wait to see what shows up on the credit report. If this does reflect an identity theft attempt, chances are that others will follow, so vigilance is key here. If there is a hard credit check, then you can dispute that on your credit report. If there is not a hard credit check, there is nothing further this credit card company can do to help you anyway.","Just browsed their website. Not a single name of anybody involved. Their application process isn't safe(No https usage while transferring private information). And considering they contacted you rather than you contacting them, I will be very wary about how they got my details. And they are located in Indonesia. And a simple google takes me to a BOILER SCAM thread. So all in all you have been scammed. Try asking for your money back, but may not be that helpful. Next time before giving your money to somebody, do some due diligence. These type of scams aren't new and are very common.","\"The lady said there wasn't any warning signs, uh hello they sent you $2850 and asked you to then make deposits. I would of just kept it if somebody sent me a \"\"check\"\". That's way to trusting for a new survey job.\"","Another reason to think it's a scam: fake paypal email notifications are a thing. I've seen one that was quite convincing (but it wasn't mine to properly analyse or report), so the intial payment may be a fake from another account belonging to the scammer, and you've just transferred money to the scammer. The fake email can include links to log in to a fake paypal website, which can be quite convincing as the mark will give the login details which can be used to scrape data. Links not going to where they say is the giveaway here.","This seems very suspicious, as if it were fraud, and not a legitimate collector. Garnishing wages takes a court order. A court would require a bit more proof than a name. Names can easily be common, I know sets of first cousins named after the common grandparent, 4 pairs in my extended family, along with 2 triples. The court would certainly look for a social security number match. Your own credit history will show no activity in that state. A legitimate debt collector would handle this very differently.","I wouldn't lose any sleep on it until it actually happens. I believe generally the agreement of the merchant with the credit card company says they must submit to the company's arbitration. If they come back to you, I would definitely get in touch with Visa to complain. Here's some great advice on dealing with unscrupulous debt collection, the main points being It's actually you that should be threatening to sue them if the repairs were incompetent or dangerous!","Oh my God. Turn. Back. Now. This is literally a textbook scam. I know you want to believe this is true. Its not. Even if it was true it would still be a high, high risk investment that would then be compounded by the fact that you would be doing it with 100% debt.","\"Scammers know you're not stupid enough to fall for this. So when you balk, he'll understand and offer to send you a check. When he sends you a check, he'll say cash it, keep $XXX for yourself, then forward him the rest for some other expense (or even possibly send it to someone else). Know in advance that that's a scam, too. When his fake check bounces you'll already be out the money and he'll be long gone. \"\"If it's too good to be true, it probably is\"\"\"","So, you think forcing people to buy their auto insurance doesn't provide any money? It sounds like the customer didn't even know they were paying for it. Or, are you saying that this minor scam is nothing in the grand scheme of things, and that we should expect their scams to pay out at least a few billion?","No, we did not apply for the loan. So, this is why we thought it was a bit strange a company just sending you a real check for $30K. It does not say anywhere in big red letters that it is a loan. Probably something in very small letters on a back of a paper. This is really horrible. Especially,if your customers do pay you by check and small business relies on online statement to determine who paid what. I can easily imagine a small outfit that just takes all the checks to the bank, cash them, and then use online statement to update their books. I do not see how it is helpful to businesses to receive pre-approved credit that is so poorly marked. Especially in the age of electronic transfers!!! I am trying to understand why I feel so offended by this, and I guess it all comes down to disgust: I refuse to believe that any serious company would use these sort of tactics and instead of us spending more time developing a better product, we have to put more time and effort into ensuring we do not fall victim to this.","I agree with you: it sounds like a scam. Those terms are too good to be true. Online, it is too easy to pretend to be someone you are not. When choosing a bank to work with, you need to be confident of its legitimacy. Make sure you have heard of it someplace other than their own website and can trust it. In this case, this isn't even a bank; it is just an individual stranger. I can't see how this could possibly be legitimate. With the information that they are asking for, they could potentially impersonate you and steal your money. I would stay away from this.","Reading stuff like this makes me want to go into the debt collection business. Just send letters to random people demanding money. Sounds like an easy way to make a living. What's your name and address? Just kidding. If they are sending stuff to a Virginia PO Box, close the box with no forwarding address and consider it case closed. If they are targetting you personally in New Hampshire, the best thing to do is to sue proactively before it goes to collection. New Hampshire has strict anti-debt-collection laws. Basically, what you do is go to small claims court and fill out a one-page form. Sue them for $2000, $3000 or whatever is convenient. Do not hire a lawyer. You can do this in 2 hours of your own time. Your grounds are: (1) Violation of the creditor of NH FDCA laws. According to the laws the creditor has to put all kinds of specific stuff in their threat letters. Since they are not doing this, they have violated NH FDCA. Read the FDCA so you know which specific items they are violating. (2) Extortion. Since you do not owe them any money, demanding money from you is extortion which is both criminally and civilly actionable. You sue them for mental anguish due to extortion. The validity of your claims is irrelevant. You just need to get them in court. There are two possibilities: (A) They fail to show up. In this case you win and they owe you $3000 or whatever. Not only that if they later try to collect from you send a copy of the judgement to the credit bureau or collector or whatever and that is proof you owe them no money. (B) They hire some stooge local lawyer who appears. Accept the court's offer for arbitration. When you go into arbitration with the lawyer tell him you will drop the lawsuit if they send you a check for $500 and a hand-written guarantee from him that you will never hear from his client again. Either way, you come out ahead. By the way, it is absolutely guaranteed that the enemy lawyer will accept your offer in (B) above because the SEO company is already paying him $5000 to show up to answer your lawsuit, and the lawyer does not want to hang around all morning in court waiting for the case to be heard. If he can get out of there in half an hour for only $500 he will do it. -------------------------------UPDATE If all you are getting is calls and the caller refuses to identify themself, then it is definitely an illegal scam. It is illegal in New Hampshire to make collection calls and refuse to full identify who is calling. The phone company has methods for dealing with illegal calls. First you have to file a police report. Then you call Verizon Security at 1-800-518-5507 (or whatever your phone company is). They will trace the call and identify the caller. They you can make a criminal complaint in their jurisdiction unless the call is from Pakistan or something.","You wouldn't pay what the quote says, you would pay what the bill says. If the car is used as a taxi then either it's done illegally and not your problem, or they have proper insurance. One reason to go through your insurance is that they know how to handle all these things for you. If you have only their phone number: You owe them money, so they will contact you.","This may not apply in your particular situation, but I think it's important to mention: When a debt collector doesn't act like a debt collector, it may be because they aren't actually a debt collector. It's certainly strange that someone called you to collect money from you, and when you asked for a simple document, they not only got off the phone quickly but they also told you the debt would be cancelled. That just doesn't make sense: Why would they cancel the debt? Why wouldn't they send you the document? My initial impression is that you were possibly being scammed. The scam can take on many forms: Whenever you are called by a debt collector (or someone pretending to be one), it's a good idea to verify their identity first. More info here.","\"Do not give them any money until you have a signed contract that releases your liability completely. It's imperative that this contract be drafted correctly. The contract needs proper consideration (money in exchange for release of liability), among other things. In other words, talk to a lawyer if you want to go this route. If you just cut them a check, there's nothing stopping them from taking your money and making an insurance claim anyway, or taking your money and then suing for \"\"whiplash\"\" or some other fake injury. The best way is just to go through insurance. It might cost a bit more, but you're covered in case they sue.\"","Absolutely anyone who wants to put money into a stranger's account is a guaranteed scammer and most likely from Nigeria in reality. I know you probably felt like it was your lucky day but in fact it could have been your unluckiest day had you not asked on here, so good on you man. Whenever you're not sure about something just ask, that's what the internet is for, someone's always willing to help.","\"This is obviously a spam mail. Your mortgage is a public record, and mortgage brokers and insurance agents were, are and will be soliciting your business, as long as they feel they have a chance of getting it. Nothing that that particular company offers is unique to them, nothing they can offer you cannot be done by anyone else. It is my personal belief that we should not do business with spammers, and that is why I suggest you to remember the company name and never deal with them. However, it is up to you if you want to follow that advice or not. What they're offering is called refinance. Any bank, credit union or mortgage broker does that. The rates are more or less the same everywhere, but the closing fees and application fees is where the small brokers are making their money. Big banks get their money from also servicing the loans, so they're more flexible on fees. All of them can do \"\"streamline\"\" refinance if your mortgage is eligible. None if it isn't. Note that the ones who service your current mortgage might not be the ones who own it, thus \"\"renegotiating the rate\"\" is most likely not an option (FHA backed loans are sold to Fannie and Freddie, the original lenders continue servicing them - but don't own them). Refinancing - is a more likely option, and in this case the lender will not care about your rate on the old mortgage.\"","\"It is a scam. Not only will it get your personal information, which could allow him to impersonate you (like, using your identity as the generous lender on a future scam), in order to fulfill the loan, a \"\"small payment\"\" for some documents will be needed. And next another for a certificate necessary for lending, and so on. Their goal is to get your money, not lending you any. Aganju hit the nail: how would such person ensure that you will pay back, when he knows absolutely nothing about you? That would have been the #1 priority for someone that decided to invest using such unbelievable schema.\"","That sounds pretty fishy to me. I'm an IT professional - I can determine more about him if I have full access to the email headers. Just give me your email and your password so I can log in and check the email he's using to contact you.","It used to be Nigerian royalty, now it's Ghanaian porn stars. Great. This is a bog-standard 419 scam. It's probably the most lucrative single swindle in the world. It's always hard to get people to believe they have been tricked, but don't let your dad participate.","Unprintable, yes, it's a scam. Nobody will ever have any legitimate reason to run money through your account. Period.","\"OK, reading between the lines here it looks like the services offered by your company are of an \"\"adult\"\" (possibly illegal?) nature and that this individual has actually paid you in full for the services rendered up to this point. The wrinkle here is that you say that you've been offered large cash \"\"gifts\"\" in return for unspecified future favours, but that your client hasn't provided a real Paypal account to do so. When you pressed him on it, he sent a fake email and invented a \"\"financial adviser\"\" to fob you off, then hasn't contacted you since. It's pretty clear that he hasn't got any intention of making these payments to you. What you're now proposing to do is to use his known banking details to collect money to cover those verbal promises. In pretty much every part of the world, that's a crime. Without a written agreement to use that payment method for those promises, he could easily call the police and have you arrested for theft of funds. The further wrinkle is that his actions (claiming to have made payment via paypal, forged email headers, etc) strongly suggest that this individual is involved in cyber-crime and may well have used a fake bank account to pay for your initial services. The bottom line here is that you need real legal advice, from an actual lawyer.\"","You can't cash the check silly. How can you go off on a rant when you can't even tell the difference between a real check and a promotional tool. If you don't want to call in an get info throw it away....simple. This thread made me laugh. Thanks for that. Good day.","This is why you don't get to excited and accept the first offer. Did they tell you that it was just sales and your main job would be cold calling people? If they lied to you, chances are she is lying to you about helping you to land a real job. Honestly, unpaid internships sounds like a scam. Maybe its the trend now, with the shitty economy, but I never did any kind of internship that was unpaid, and the only ones who offered unpaid were some shady places.","Don't take the car back! The dealership wants you to take it back to try and earn more money. Simply stated, the dealerships hate paid up front cash deals. They make money on the financing. So to call back and try to up their fee is them realizing their not making a large enough profit. Say thank you and move on. The deal is done!!","Absolute scam. Any time anyone asks you to open a bank account so they can send you money and then you have to send some portion of it back to them, it's a guarantee that it's a scam. What happens is that your dad will deposit the check and transfer it to this woman, then the check will bounce (or turn out to be fake altogether) and your dad will be on the hook for the money to the bank. These schemes are dependent on the fact that people want hope and believe in quick, easy money, and it works as long as the con artists are able to get the 'mark' (the person who deposits the check and sends them the money) to send the money before the check (always drawn on some obscure foreign bank) has a chance to clear. This is another variation of a long-running type of bank scam, and if you get involved, you'll regret it. I hope you can keep your dad from getting involved, because it will create a financial mess and affect his credit as well. The basic premise of this scam is this: In the interests of providing good customer service, most banks will make some or all of a deposit available right away, even though the check hasn't cleared. The scammer has you withdraw the money (either a cashier's check, have you send a wire transfer, etc) immediately and send it to them. Eventually the check is returned because it is The bank charges the check back against your account, often imposing pretty substantial penalties and fees, so you as the account holder are left without the money you sent the scammer and all of the fees. This is the easy version of events. You could end up in legal trouble, depending on the nature of the scam and what they determine your involvement to be. It will certainly badly affect your banking history (ChexSystems tracks how we all treat bank accounts, much like the credit agencies do with our credit), so you may have trouble opening bank accounts. So there are many consequences to this to think about, and it's why you JUST SAY NO!! Don't walk away from this -- RUN!!!","You encountered a quite common scam: You are supposed to perform a job, they send you a check for too much money, and you are supposed to pay them some money back. Ten weeks later the check bounces and your money is gone. That's these people's job. They do this all day long. The success rate isn't very high, so they are busy doing this all day. These scammers might have your name and address, but if that is all there is, they can get names and addresses of 100s of people by using the phone book, and they don't. I wouldn't say that it is impossible to turn your name and address into money, but it is hard work. So it is quie unlikely to happen.","Of course, it is a scam. Regardless of how the scam might work, you already know that the person on the other end is lying, and you also know that people in trouble don't contact perfect strangers out of the blue by e-mail for help, nor do they call up random phone numbers looking for help. Scammers prey on the gullibility, greed, and sometimes generosity of the victims. As to how this scam works, the money that the scammer would be depositing into your father's account is not real. However, it will take the bank a few days to figure that out. In the mean time, your father will be sending out real money back to the scammer. When the bank figures out what is going on, they will want your father to pay back this money.","\"A bona-fide company never needs your credit card details, certainly not your 3-digit-on-back-of-card #, to issue a refund. On an older charge, they might have to work with their merchant provider. But they should be able to do it within the credit card handling system, and in fact are required to. Asking for details via email doesn't pass the \"\"sniff test\"\" either. To get a credit card merchant account, a company needs to go through a security assessment process called PCI-DSS. Security gets drummed into you pretty good. Of course they could be using one of the dumbed-down services like Square, but those services make refunds ridiculously easy. How did you come to be corresponding on this email address? Did they initially contact you? Did you find it on a third party website? Some of those are fraudulent and many others, like Yelp, it's very easy to insert false contact information for a business. Consumer forums, even moreso. You might take another swing at finding a proper contact for the company. Stop asking for a cheque. That also circumvents the credit card system. And obviously a scammer won't send a check... at least not one you'd want! If all else fails: call your bank and tell them you want to do a chargeback on that transaction. This is where the bank intervenes to reverse the charge. It's rather straightforward (especially if the merchant has agreed in principle to a refund) but requires some paperwork or e-paperwork. Don't chargeback lightly. Don't use it casually or out of laziness or unwillingness to speak with the merchant, e.g. to cancel an order. The bank charges the merchant a $20 or larger investigation fee, separate from the refund. Each chargeback is also a \"\"strike\"\"; too many \"\"strikes\"\" and the merchant is barred from taking credit cards. It's serious business. As a merchant, I would never send a cheque to an angry customer. Because if I did, they'd cash the cheque and still do a chargeback, so then I'd be out the money twice, plus the investigation fee to boot.\"","\"It is likely a scam. In fact the whole mystery shopping \"\"job\"\" may be a scam. There is a Snopes page about cashier's check scams, as well as a US government page which specifically mentions mystery shopping as a scam angle. As for how the scam works, from the occ.gov site I just linked: However, cashier’s checks lately have become an attractive vehicle for fraud when used for payments to consumers. Although, the amount of a cashier’s check quickly becomes \"\"available\"\" for withdrawal by the consumer after the consumer deposits the check, these funds do not belong to the consumer if the check proves to be fraudulent. It may take weeks to discover that a cashier’s check is fraudulent. In the meantime, the consumer may have irrevocably wired the funds to a scam artist or otherwise used the funds—only to find out later, when the fraud is detected—that the consumer owes the bank the full amount of the cashier’s check that had been deposited. It is somewhat unusual in that, from what you say, there has been no attempt thus far to get money back. However, your sister-in-law may have received that info separately, or received it as part of her mystery shopping job but didn't mention it to you with regard to this check. Typically the scam involves telling the recipient to transfer money to a third party (e.g., by buying goods as a mystery shopper, or via wire transfer to \"\"reimburse\"\" someone associated with a sham operation). By the time the cashier's check is revealed as fraudulent, the victim has already transferred away his/her own real money. It's probably worth taking the check to your or her bank and asking them about it. They may have more info. Also, banks usually want to know about scams like this because, in the long run, they accumulate data on them and share that with law enforcement and can eventually catch some of the scammers. Edit: Just to help anyone who may be reading this later. The letter you added confirms it is absolutely a scam. My boss was once contacted via a scam operation very similar to this. The huge red flag (in addition to others already mentioned) is that you are being \"\"given\"\" a check for over $2000, of which only $25 is purportedly for actual mystery shopping and $285 is payment for you, the mystery shopper. The whole rest of the $2000+ amount is for you to wire to \"\"another Mystery/Secret Shopper in order for them to complete their assignment\"\". They are giving you $2000 to give to someone else who is supposedly another one of their own employees/contractors. Ask yourself what sane business would conduct their operations in this way. If you work at a law office, or a hamburger stand, or a school, or anything you like, does your boss ever say \"\"Here is your paycheck for $5000. I know you only earned $1000, but I'm just going to give you the whole $5000, and you're supposed to use $4000 of it to pay your coworker Joe his wages.\"\" No. There is no reason to do that except that the \"\"other mystery shopper\"\" is actually the scammer.\""],"string":"[\n \"This is a scam. Do not give them any money. A quick search on this site will yield many examples of this scam.\",\n \"This is a scam. Delete the email and don't talk to the person or keep any contact.\",\n \"It's marketing or SCAM tentative. Please check with extreme attention before clicking any link present in the communication.\",\n \"Yes it is a scam. There is no money. They are after your personal details so that they can get your money.\",\n \"I can't imagine any scenario under which this wouldn't be a scam, and frankly I'm a bit surprised to be talking about it once again. Any time someone you don't know and who doesn't know you wants to give you money for no good reason and asks you to provide personal information and bank info, there should be enough alarms going off for a five-alarm fire. Worse still this guy wants you to send half the money back to him. One simple question: WHY??? For what reason would they want you to send anything back? Why not just send you the money he wants you to have and keep the rest for himself? For heaven's sake, don't fall for this. Stay away from the whole mess and save yourself a bunch of grief.\",\n \"\\\"This is totally a scam. I didn't read the whole thing. Didn't need to after I read \\\"\\\"abandoned sum of 22.5 million\\\"\\\" which implied part of it was yours to take after you do something for them.. Logically speaking.. No stranger would disclose this to you.\\\"\",\n \"It may be a scam. But it also may be a company trying to find a person with the same or similar name. They may have followed a trail to her old address, and still not have the correct person. They bought number of old debts at a large discount, and are trying to track down any money they can find. It is best to ignore it, especially if they know it isn't their debt. If they start providing more proof then get interested. If they keep contacting them tell them there is no business relationship and they should stop.\",\n \"You can't blame companies like 'Legal Claimant Services' for making a profit by providing this service. That is capitalism and it is the way of the world. It is just like any other business you can do yourself - from making dinner to cutting your own grass. If you choose to do it yourself, you save money but you also do the work. When I got my letter telling me about a claim, I automatically went online to do some research. That's how I found this site and information that led me to validate the claim. I then chose to follow a few simple instructions and keep all of the claim instead of giving away 30%.\",\n \"100% scam. This is classic of mixing real (Exxon) with fiction. This gives credibility to story. Don't give any thing, there is no damage yet. If you take the bait, there are multiple ways to get money from you.\",\n \"This is very possibly a scam. The way the scam works is that the scammers send you a letter and demand you call the telephone number. But the telephone number belongs to the scammers, not the bank. When you call the number, they will 'authenticate' you by asking you a bunch of questions. They will then have enough information to call the bank and pretend to be you, and transfer out all of your money. What you need to do is to find the telephone number for your bank without making use of this letter. For example, look at a previous bank statement, or find the telephone number on the bank's website. Call that number and discuss this letter. If you have already called the number in the letter and if you have the slightest reason to believe it is not valid, stop reading. This is an emergency. Immediately call a legitimate number at the bank. Explain the situation and note that you believe your information has been compromised. Why are you still reading? Do it now.\",\n \"It is absolutely a scam. Anyone who tells you they can give you a large amount of money for free is trying to scam you. Additional warning signs include:\",\n \"Pretty much any financial transaction where they start by calling you on the phone is a scam. They aren't doing it for your benefit and the caller is on commission.\",\n \"\\\"You have to realize that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to do things \\\"\\\"unofficially\\\"\\\" by not reporting the accident (to insurance companies and/or police), but you want to do it \\\"\\\"officially\\\"\\\" in that you want to have legal recourse if they try to hit you up for more money. The only way to have it both ways is to trust the other person. From a financial perspective, ultimately you need to decide if the monetary cost of your raised insurance premiums, etc., outweighs the cost of whatever money the other party in the accident will try to squeeze out of you (factoring in the likelihood that they will do so). You also would need to factor in the likelihood that, rather than trying to scam you, they'll pursue legal action against you. In short, from a purely monetary perspective, if the legitimate cost of repairs is $700 and the cost to you of doing it by the book via insurance is $2000, you should be willing to be scammed for up to $1300, because you'll still come out ahead. Of course, there are psychological considerations, like whether someone unscrupulous enough to scam you will stop at $1300. But those numbers are the baseline for whatever outcome calculations you want to do. On the more qualitative side of things, it is possible they're trying to scam you, but also possible they're just trying to hustle you into doing everything quickly without thinking about it. They may not be trying to gouge you monetarily, they just want to pressure you so they get their money. I agree with other answerers here that the ideal way would be for them to send you an actual bill after repairs are complete. However, you could ask them to send you a written copy of the repair shop estimate, along with a written letter in which they state that they will consider payment of that amount to resolve the issue and won't pursue you further. The legal strength of that is dubious, but at least you have some documentation that you didn't just try to stiff them. If they won't give you some form of written documentation, I would read that as a red flag, bite the bullet, and contact your insurance company.\\\"\",\n \"If they are a debt collector, they must follow the requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In particular, they must provide you with verification of the debt at your written request. If they won't give you a way to do this, they are in violation of the law, and you should contact proper authorities. If they are not a debt collection agency, it does sound like a scam, in which case you should also contact the appropriate law enforcement agency.\",\n \"\\\"Ask yourself one question - \\\"\\\"Why me?\\\"\\\" Say I had no friends or family (that I liked). I have money and I'm dying. There are a half dozen charities I'd write checks to. Under what circumstances would I ever contact a stranger to try to give my money away? That answers why this is a scam.\\\"\",\n \"This is definitely a scam. I had a friend sign up for a very similar offer and what they did was send a fake check and then asked to transfer the same amount to them. So now you just send them a couple grand and you're holding a fake check.\",\n \"100% scam. Run away. If you have already given the bank account, inform the bank and close the account. Else just close the new account opened. Do not contact the scammer or reply back.... Just ignore ... Don't read any of scammer email, they are very convincing in why it's right and why it's not a scam.\",\n \"Definitely sounds like scam. Odds are are high that the page he gave you the link to is a fake and this app is pure identity theft. Run away, unless you are interested enough to do the work to check with the company and confirm this is legitimate. Nobody contacts strangers with this kind of story without it being a scam. The fact that this one sounds shady is an attempt to keep you from questioning it too closely. Think about it: if it was at all legitimate, couldn't he find a friend of a friend? If it sounds too good to be true, it ain't true. Never download software unless you know exactly where it is coming from. It could be anything from ransomware, to something that first steals all you financial info, then uss you mail account to send a similar pitch to all your friends, to a botnet that uses your machine to attack other machines.\",\n \"Yes, it’s a scam. Best case you will end up with nothing, worst case you wil end up losing money and facing criminal charges for fraud and/or money laundering. Do not contact him again or respond to further contact. Forward his details to your local law enforcement if you have provided any of your personal information to him already.\",\n \"The sting here is definitely in the tail, the PS that says We are starting to call you from the same day when we get your details. The initial email doesn't ask for details, it asks for commitment. Once committed, you will be more relaxed about providing details. This makes me think that this is more serious than a simple financial scam. This is an effort to steal your identity, and that could be much more serious than the one-off loss of a few thousand dollars. Here's why: 1. The scammer could get numerous credit cards and store cards in your name, run up thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in charges, and leave you stuck with explaining what happened. I know someone who went from being a multi-millionaire to a pauper in a few months when his identity was stolen - and he is no fool. 2. It will take you years to clear your name. Meanwhile, your credit is shot, and you might have trouble getting a job, renting an apartment, or simply getting a cellphone contract. 3. Once you've repaired your credit, the scammer can just go through his old files and do it all over again. 4. Cloaked in your identity, and therefore being seen as you, the scammer can pull any number of scams, for which you will eventually be blamed. Then as well as dealing with credit bureaus, you will be dealing with another, more serious bureau: the FBI.\",\n \"This is almost surely a scam. Among other things:\",\n \"\\\"Any time someone starts asking you to provide personal information, such as a birth date, it could very well be a scam. This is especially true if it's someone you don't even know. Be very careful about getting involved in such situations. There is always some kind of almost believable story to what the scammers tell you, and unless you're willing to look deeper into it then it's easy to get pulled in. On top of that, you have to ask yourself, \\\"\\\"why did they pick me for this?\\\"\\\", because that's the real question. You have no idea what else the software they're asking you to download might do that you wouldn't know about, but offering to pay you something is a good way for them to get you to bypass your own security by installing it yourself. If the offer sounds too good to be true or too easy, you have to question it, and in such cases, your best bet is to stay away from it altogether.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Let me guess, it's a fairly large amount of money, a few thousand at least. This is a scam. This is a variation on the many fake check scams out there. You deposit the check and you think it \\\"\\\"cleared\\\"\\\" your bank, but it didn't clear. A clever fake check can take a couple weeks to bounce and the bank will demand the money back. Any money you wire back to the fraudster in the meantime will be lost forever.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Some additional information for the people who may read this question in the future : The situation is weird, to say the least. I'm going to assume 2 things : Now, look at these classic its-a-scam red flags : In these conditions, it is not safe to give even the smallest shred of information to such people. I'd advise you to ignore this person (best option), or to offer to get them in touch with an official (most scammers will run away at this point) or threaten to report them (not recommended, the scammer may take insult and try to \\\"\\\"get back at you\\\"\\\"). Hope this post helps and nobody gets scammed! EDIT: Thank you for the amazing welcome! If I'd have known I'd get such a huge response, I'd have written a better answer ;) (I hope I'm not breaking any rules by this edit)\\\"\",\n \"Yes. It is a scam. The story makes no sense. They just want your info to steal your money. regarding requests to know how it works: the scammer is requesting: username, password, routing number, checking account number, and security question/answers. they now have access to your bank account. they will have access until you are able to shut it down. Once they have your password, they can change it to whatever they want. it can be used to launder money, steal money from other accounts you have, proof of identity...\",\n \"Just FYI for the benefit of future users. Haven't been paid yet nor have I paid but some interesting facts. I decided to sign the contract with the person who approached me. The contract seemed harmless whereby I only transfer money once I retrieve the funds. Thanks to your comments here I also understood that I must make sure the funds really cleared in my account and can never be cancelled before I transfer anything. He gave me the information of the check that matched my previous employer and made sense as it was a check issues just after I had left my job and the state. I did not used the contact details he provided me, but rather found the direct contact details of the go to person in my last institution and contacted them. I still haven't been able to reclaim the funds, but that is due to internal problems between the state comptroller and my institution. Will come back to update if I am ever successful, but the bottom line is that it is probably not a scam. I am waiting for the final resolution of the case before I post the name of the company which approached me (if it is at all OK per the discussion board rules)\",\n \"This sounds like a scam. C.f. Craigslist for normal warning signs of an on-line scam\",\n \"Call your bank and inquire if they send out the kinds of notices like the one you received. Don't call the number in the message, because if it is a scam, you're calling the scammers themselves, more than likely. Be very cautious about this situation, and if your bank is local then it might not hurt to pay a visit to a local branch to talk to someone in person. Print out the message(s) you receive to show them and let their fraud division look into it.\",\n \"This is very similar to what was asked in this question: Scam or real? This is a real winner of a scam, because it always finds someone gullible enough to fall for it. No stranger sends you money just to be a nice guy. This version of the scam is one I've seen on job-hunting sites. They'll promise you a job, and then they say they'll send you a check for equipment and supplies, but you need to send most of the money back to them. As long as they find victims, they'll continue to find more refined techniques to stay ahead of the authorities, and it'll change just enough that people won't recognize it for what it is. AVOID THIS AT ALL COSTS!! I hope this helps. Good luck!\",\n \"\\\"How can I say this more clearly? SCAM, SCAM, SCAM! This is another one of the oldest scams out there, where you've won a prize or an inheritance has come in, and all you have to do is pay the taxes on it to claim it. Don't be a sucker! Ask yourself why the government couldn't (and wouldn't) just take the taxes due out of the funds they have and give the rest to the person they belong to? Wouldn't that be the smartest and easiest thing to do? As an example, let's say that you have $1,000 that belongs to me, and I owe you $100. Would you tell me to pay you the $100 and then you'll give me the $1,000 or would you take the $100 I owe you out of the $1,000 and give me the remaining $900? The fact this is someone you know from the internet and they want your \\\"\\\"help\\\"\\\" to claim their money should tell you how much of a scam this is. Stop talking to this person, and don't tell them anything personal about you. They are scam artists, and whatever you tell them could be used to steal your identity or take your money. Be careful, my friend!\\\"\",\n \"In the very unlikely event that it is not a scam, there would be a distinct probability that it is someone trying to launder money. You don't want to get caught up with drug dealers or ISIS terrorists, so forget it. There is also the possibility that your post is a scam, looking for people who would believe such nonsense. I wonder if people who reply are going to get phished.\",\n \"This is a scam. There is no soldier, no money ... This is a story to gain sympathy and make one part with Bank account and other details so that the scammer can make away with your money.\",\n \"You should probably talk to a lawyer experienced in such matters, it is really hard to tell from what you described whether there is a problem or not. Are they trying to put majority of blame on me so that they can increase my premium or are they acting the right way? Both may be true. They are acting in their own best interests, not yours. They're trying to minimize their exposure. Had the other guy had insurance they would be much more susceptible to shift the blame, but since he doesn't - it is unlikely that they'll recover their money. So it is not in their best interests to accept your claim. Whether they're right or not - you answered yourself. A person backing out is usually responsible and the burden of proof that you aren't is on you. Does the insurance have something to gain from assigning more fault on me? Of course. Less money to shell out, more premiums to get. That said, they are willing to admit that some of the blame is on the other driver, which means that they're not entirely dismissing your claims. In general, I'm just trying to make sure I'm not being cheated monetarily by the insurance company in any way. Sue them.\",\n \"You're not missing anything. Consumer protection in the US is very basic and limited, if at all. So if someone claims you owe them something, it would be really hard for you to prove otherwise unless you actually drag them to court. Especially if there actually was a relationship, and there probably is some paperwork to substantiate the claim. I suggest talking to a consumer issues attorney.\",\n \"If this 'scam' has a name, address and/or phone number, I forward it to the FBI anonymously. That is my advice. You may also wish to consult a lawyer.\",\n \"So while these companies are not a scam, 30% feels pretty darn high. How about you negotiate a much lower rate? 10% or 15%? Here is why: You will spend time and effort (which technically isn't free) to find the money. I bet you can find it if you look hard enough. But you could also just collect it and give this company a cut for their expertise. However if 30% bugs you (and it would bug me) then consider their reality. They spent money to find the funds and contact you. HOWEVER, that is a sunk cost. It is already spent. You can find it on your own and they get zip. Or you negotiate a lower percentage, they get enough to cover their costs and make some profit and you save a ton of time. Since they took the time to explain themselves here, they are either scammers trying to bully you into compliance, or they are legit. It is field that people might look down on, but it isn't criminal. I would look for the money if it were me, but I feel I have enough free time that it would be worth it.\",\n \"This just happened to me to! At target. I have no idea if its a scam but that is the same thing i am thinking. They Lady who told me about it didn't tell me anything about her business. Just to go to the link....which isn't working. Idk its feels pretty shady. She did everything you said above.\",\n \"Yes, it is a scam. Think about it: Why would a stranger offer to give you money? Why would she need you to pay her own employees? She wouldn't. It is a scam. You have more to lose than just the $25 that is in the account. Just as has happened to your dad before, you will be receiving money that is not real, but paying real money out somewhere else. One more thing: If your dad has fallen for these scams so many times that he can't get a bank account anymore, why are you still taking financial advice from him?\",\n \"Yes this is a scam. Stay as far away as possible. Don't talk or send any messages. The more you talk, she would convince you that this is not a scam. Armed Forces have a very good way of taking care of their people. They don't need to do something like this.\",\n \"Yes, it is a scam. There is no doubt about it. Never give your bank password to anyone, especially strangers. You will lose your money if you fall for this.\",\n \"I have prepared a report on scam's like this. I'd be happy to deliver a copy of the report to your home. Just give me your address and mail me the keys to your house and I'll drop by and leave it in your home. Oh, and tell me a time when you won't be home, so I won't bother you when I come by. It might also be helpful if you tell me if you have any cash, jewelry, or other valuables in the house and where you keep them, so I can give you advice on security measures. :-)\",\n \"\\\"It doesn't matter if the terms are a \\\"\\\"fair deal\\\"\\\" or are \\\"\\\"too good to be true\\\"\\\" — either way, it's definitely a scam. They are \\\"\\\"phishing\\\"\\\" for your personal information, including your banking information, and have no intention of giving you a loan. How can I tell? Simple: all such offers like this everywhere are scams. There is no economic situation other than being a scammer to do this. Why would an individual put out their money to strangers at such a high risk for even a much, much higher purported return? They wouldn't.\\\"\",\n \"It's got every sign of a scam. Signatures are needed on contracts, so you should only place them on below one. Free money sounds too good to be true. Money evading banks is a typical sign of money laundering; why are they trying to avoid paper trails? The normal way to gift money is to just hand it over or pay it to a bank account. If anything, you sign a tax declaration, but you would send that to the taxman yourself.\",\n \"\\\"Here's what's going to happen: At the last minute, he's going to \\\"\\\"discover\\\"\\\" that for some reason first you must send him $10,000. He'll tell you not to worry, as he's still going to send you $40,000... now $50,000. In fact, he's going to tell you that he'll send you $60,000 and tell you to keep the $10,000 as a \\\"\\\"finders fee\\\"\\\". Then you will send him, $10,000 and he will walk away with your $10,000. You'll never hear from him again. This is a very common scam. The best way to avoid it is not to tell him you won't do it for IRS reasons. The best thing to do is to stop accepting email from him and (optionally) report him to law enforcement.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"If an offer \\\"\\\"is only valid right now\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"if you don't act immediately, it will expire\\\"\\\" that is almost always a scam.\\\"\",\n \"Definitely a scam. Don't call him or do anything. Stay calm, there is no damage done yet. I met someone online three weeks ago. ... Left his wallet, debit card, credit cards, drivers license, etc. in the room In the entire world its only you he can bank upon ... someone whom hes met online just few weeks ago; there are no relatives, friends !!! why would the hotel manager Fed-Ex or UPS the items to my home address ... and not to his own address? Upon receipt, the engineer will give me his password to the Bank of America account so he can access his account Why doesn't he have internet? I am supposed to call him in the next hour or so and let him know if I will be doing this tomorrow. Don't call. Don't reply. The $150 is just a starter bait to see if one is gullible enough to take it and then there is more and more by different ways.\",\n \"for full disclosure I'm an Independent Contractor and work with Jeff Richman. @ Neil: Question 1: How legitimate is this? If you were never contacted by the company you would never know about the money. Period, end of story. Not trying to be rude but that is the bottom line truth. Look up asset recovery businesses. They are in every city almost. They work for individuals, governments and businesses. Very legitimate business. Question 2: Since this doesn't seem to be the case, how does this company know that I potentially have unclaimed assets to claim? I understand your concern and the best analogy I can think of to explain this is: A company's copier breaks down. A copy machine repair man is called. He shows up and opens the copier and studies it intensely and closes it back up. He takes a hammer out of his bag and hits the copier on the side in two different places, twice. The copier starts working. He charges the company owner a $1000.00. The company owner is glad to pay it because without the knowledge of the repair man, his business is not making money. This is the same: The professionals at Keane have specific knowledge about how to, where to and who to ask for these lists. Granted, it's not your business we're talking about here but without them, you get nothing. 2 professionals have advised you to move forward; your brother's accountant and lawyer. Take the money. It costs you nothing. If they want money from you up front or want you to pay for stuff, run.\",\n \"Yes. It is a scam, and here is how it will work. They will deposit a phony check into the account which will appear to clear. You will send money to Africa from the account. The check will take a while to bounce, but it will bounce. They will take it back out of your account (and may try to prosecute you for a fake check). At best, your account balance will go negative and you will owe the money back to the bank that you sent. The people you sent the money to will vanish.\",\n \"My first thought is: email? Are you sure it is legitimate? Verify everything. Assuming it is legitimate:\",\n \"This is a variation of a very common scam. The principle of the scam is this: I give you a check for a huge amount of money which you pay in your account. Then I ask you to pay some money from your account into a third account. Two months later the bank detects that my check was forged / stolen / cancelled / whatever and takes the huge amount of money away from your account. But you paid the money from your account, and that money is gone from your account and irrevocably ended up in my account.\",\n \"\\\"Short answer: Yes this is a scam. I see three different possibilities how they get you. I will rank them from \\\"\\\"best\\\"\\\" to worst Scammer A sends 100$ to you. You then follow his instructions and send back 50$ through WU (this is untraceable). He then contacts his bank and tells them he never intended to send that 100$ to you, then bank will then reverse that transaction and give him back his money, leaving you 50$ short. Scammer A hacks or scams innocent person B and either sends B:s money to you or tricks person B to do it. When person B reports this to the police it will look like you were behind the whole thing. The transaction will be reversed leaving you 50$ short and with unwanted police attention (see this article for an extreme example: https://www.wired.com/2015/10/online-dating-made-woman-pawn-global-crime-plot/) The nice person A wants to send money to a criminal syndicate or terrorist organization but don't want to be associated with it. Leaving you 50$ up (hurray) and possibly on a bunch of terrorist watch lists (ouch!). The extra info you provide wouldn't be necessary for any of these scams but I guess it could be nice to have for some regular identity theft. This is by no means an exhaustive list of all that the scammers could do. It's just a short list to show you how dangerous it would be to play along. To state the obvious, don't walk from this person, RUN!\\\"\",\n \"Of course it is a scam. They don't need your password to give you money. Even giving them the rest is enough information for them to try and withdraw money from your bank by automatic transfer.\",\n \"\\\"I believe no-one who's in a legal line of business would tell you to default voluntarily on your obligations. Once you get an offer that's too good to be true, and for which you have to do something that is either illegal or very damaging to you - it is probably a scam. Also, if someone requires you to send any money without a prior written agreement - its probably a scam as well, especially in such a delicate matter as finances. Your friend now should also be worried about identity theft as he voluntary gave tons of personal information to these people. Bottom line - if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Your friend had all the warning signs other than a huge neon light saying \\\"\\\"Scam\\\"\\\" pointing at these people, and he still went through it. For real debt consolidation companies, research well: online reviews, BBB ratings and reviews, time in business, etc. If you can't find any - don't deal with them. Also, if you get promises for debtors to out of the blue give up on some of their money - its a sign of a scam. Why would debtors reduce the debt by 60%? He's paying, he can pay, he is not on the way to bankruptcy (or is he?)? Why did he do it to begin with?\\\"\",\n \"Ben Miller offers you sounds advice. However, if it comes down to it I would reach out to a lawyer to negotiate this for you. If what you are presenting is true then you could easily sue them for the damages incurred. I have been in a similar situation and unfortunately using the lawyers is what was required to get the solution resolved. Based on my previous experience a simple letter from a local lawyer office would get this dropped pretty quick and should cost you around $150. Best of luck!\",\n \"\\\"I have no personal knowledge of this company; I've only looked over what I found on the web. Overall, my judgement is that Pension Benefit Information, Inc. of San Rafael, CA is likely legitimate and aboutmyletter.com is one of two sites run by them (the other being pbinfo.com). These two sites are registered to Pension Benefit Information, Inc. (aboutmyletter uses Network Solutions privacy service but gives the company name; pbinfo uses their name and San Rafael address.) They are in the BBB. The president (of the 8 employee Co.), Susan McDonald, has testified (PDF on .gov site) before Congress about business uses of SSNs. They made a (very schlocky) video, which has an interview with McDonald after several canned, generic, \\\"\\\"impressive\\\"\\\" introductions. I found the interview convincing of a person actually running a small, real business of this type. A short version is on their site, long version here. There are some queries about their legitimacy online (like this one), but I found nothing negative on them, and one somewhat positive. One article talks about the suspicions they run into when contacting participants, and has some advice. Also, scammers are unlikely to pay the U.S. Postal Service money to send paper letters. So what are the dangers? Money or identity. So don't pay them any fees (now or later), especially since it looks like their clients (retirement funds) pay on the other side. As for identity information: What's in the letter? Don't they show that they already know a bunch about you? Old employer? Maybe the last four digits of your SSN? Your address (if this is not the forwarded-by-IRS type of contact letter). Other things, maybe? What information would you be giving up if you did respond to them fully? You could try contacting your old company directly (mentioning PBI, Inc,), although on their website PBI says you'll have to go through them. (They probably get paid for each successful contact, and deserve it.) Still, responding through mail or telephone to PBI seems like the reasonable thing to do.\\\"\",\n \"He said he would need my first and last name and my online banking information not my date of birth, SSN, Address, Bank Address, Routing number, or checking account number This is a scam. No one needs online Banking User name and password. If you have already given this info, close your account and disable internet banking. not my date of birth, SSN, Address, Giving your date of birth and SSN is also dangerous. So my question for you is it a scam or could he really be wanting to put money into my account? Oh yeah and also he said they'll send it through my account I'll send half BACK through money gram or western union. There is no legit reason for doing this. This is 100% scam, one would only loose money. Just walk away before any damage can be done\",\n \"No. A company cannot bill you for services you did not request nor receive. If they could, imagine how many people would just randomly get bills in their mail. Ignore them. They don't have a contract or agreement with you and can't do anything other than make noise. If they get aggressive or don't stop requesting money, hire an attorney and it will be taken care of.\",\n \"It could be that your friend is being scammed into recruiting you as another victim. So it is vaguely possible that this isn't malicious on their part. However, it is a scam if they are asking for your credit card info without a completely clear and good reason it's necessary. Which they have failed to do. That is reason enough to assume it's a scam, illegal, or both. Run. And seriously consider whether these are really people you can trust on anything, never mind money. At best they're gullible.\",\n \"\\\"I agree that you shouldn't give up trying to get your money back, but I strongly feel that this is not sufficient. If they are trying to victimize you, they are trying to victimize others. Taking care of getting your own money back should be your top concern, but contacting any Attorneys General and District Attorneys that have jurisdiction should also be a priority to help others--past, present, and future--that might be caught in this scam. Contact them, contact the police, contact the BBB, contact the local media. Shine a light and make the cockroaches pack up and get out of town. \\\"\\\"We got you... you have no recourse\\\"\\\" should always be met with the response, \\\"\\\"I will shut you down.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"I ended up getting a letter in the mail a while later from Florida Treasure Hunt, and I did end up getting something from it. This brings up a very interesting find: Florida Treasure Hunt must first sell the listings to third-party companies to see if they can get your business. That's the only explanation I have for what happened.\",\n \"\\\"A friend since July online and big business talks and trust/money forwards. Usually a question \\\"\\\"is this a scam or legitimate?\\\"\\\" is hard to answer since obviously scams are modelled after legitimate stories (or they'd easily fail). If there were bookmakers for \\\"\\\"scam or legitimate\\\"\\\", this one would easily gather odds of 10000:1. The only plausible reason for this to be legitimate would be to defraud the scam-or-legitimate bookmakers. At any rate, Exxon is a large company and has to obey labor laws. They cannot set up operations in a manner where their workers may not have access to their salary for prolonged times without easy remedy. Drop communications immediately, don't open them, don't read them. They hook you with emotional investment. They will redouble efforts if it appears you are slipping out of their reach. Explanations will become more plausible, more pressing, more emotionally charged. You are a big promising fish and they won't let you swim off without a serious struggle to rehook you. Hand your communication so far to law enforcement. That may help with not having to figure this out on your own.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"In general, if you think something even MIGHT be a scam, the answer is\\\"\\\"yes\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"This sounds like a shady trick. I would consult with a consumer debt lawyer in your area. Most county bar associations in the US have a referral service, where they recommend a local lawyer and there is a reduced fee for the initial visit. I think the statute of limitations is 10 years in most cases, but it depends on where you live. From these bare details,I think they don;t have much of a case. Go see a lawyer and don't let them harrass you.\",\n \"You're most definitely being scammed. You're being asked all the information required to steal your identity and take over your bank account. And Austria is land-locked, it has no west coast (or any coast, for that matter).\",\n \"Yes, this is a scam. Tell your dad not to pay any money. There will likely be a large deposit in his account, but if he withdraws the money from his account, the bank will come after him looking for the money when the transfer to his account is reversed.\",\n \"Here at Personal Injury Claims Scotland, we can help you claim compensation if you have been involved in an accident while driving. We will help you in the entire process so you can secure maximum compensation. We will also assist in the inspection of your vehicle’s damages to determine its eligibility for replacement. Visit our website at personal-injury-claims-scotland.co.uk for more details.\",\n \"I think in such situations a good rule of thumb may be - if you are asked to pay significant sums of money upfront before anything is done, stop and ask yourself, what would you do if they don't do what they promised? They know who you are, but usually most you know is a company name and phone number. Both can disappear in a minute and what are you left with? If they said they'd pay off the debt and issue the new loan - fine, let them do it and then you pay them. If they insist on having money upfront without delivering anything - unless it's a very big and known and established company you probably better off not doing it. Either it's a scam or in the minuscule chance they are legit you still risking too much - you're giving money and not getting anything in return.\",\n \"\\\"This is not only a scam but it is potentially fraud that may get you in trouble. This \\\"\\\"friend\\\"\\\" of yours will wire you some money in which you do not know where this money is really from. It's obvious from other answers that his story is fictitious. Thus it is likely that this money was stolen through another scam/hack in which now he wants to wash this money through your bank account. If it turns out that is was stolen, any money you withdrawal for your \\\"\\\"cut\\\"\\\", will have to be returned and your account will be frozen.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You're being scammed. I'd be willing to bet this 'celebrity' friend is a fake account on Instagram with 20k followers that befriends lonely neckbeards then tries to scam them. Save your money. Even if this is a legitimate long term friend whom you trust, you should put a lot more thought into \\\"\\\"investing\\\"\\\" money (that you don't have) into her brothers drug shop.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You should NEVER have to pay a fee to find out what has happened to a transaction in progress. You might sometimes have to pay for duplicate copies of a statement or similar, but not just to find out what is going on. It sounds like you are being scammed - your \\\"\\\"friend\\\"\\\" tells you they have transferred you money (but they have not done anything in reality), then they give you a \\\"\\\"customer care number\\\"\\\" to call and try to get you to pay them money in order to find out what has happened to the (non-existent) transaction. If you think this is plausibly what is happening - for example, if you google the company who is supposedly doing the transfer and find that they do not exist, or that the number you have been given is not really their customer care line - then you should cease all contact with your \\\"\\\"friend\\\"\\\" and pass all communications to your local law enforcement.\\\"\",\n \"I would keep the letter in a file for follow-up, and I would do what you are already planning to do and wait to see what shows up on the credit report. If this does reflect an identity theft attempt, chances are that others will follow, so vigilance is key here. If there is a hard credit check, then you can dispute that on your credit report. If there is not a hard credit check, there is nothing further this credit card company can do to help you anyway.\",\n \"Just browsed their website. Not a single name of anybody involved. Their application process isn't safe(No https usage while transferring private information). And considering they contacted you rather than you contacting them, I will be very wary about how they got my details. And they are located in Indonesia. And a simple google takes me to a BOILER SCAM thread. So all in all you have been scammed. Try asking for your money back, but may not be that helpful. Next time before giving your money to somebody, do some due diligence. These type of scams aren't new and are very common.\",\n \"\\\"The lady said there wasn't any warning signs, uh hello they sent you $2850 and asked you to then make deposits. I would of just kept it if somebody sent me a \\\"\\\"check\\\"\\\". That's way to trusting for a new survey job.\\\"\",\n \"Another reason to think it's a scam: fake paypal email notifications are a thing. I've seen one that was quite convincing (but it wasn't mine to properly analyse or report), so the intial payment may be a fake from another account belonging to the scammer, and you've just transferred money to the scammer. The fake email can include links to log in to a fake paypal website, which can be quite convincing as the mark will give the login details which can be used to scrape data. Links not going to where they say is the giveaway here.\",\n \"This seems very suspicious, as if it were fraud, and not a legitimate collector. Garnishing wages takes a court order. A court would require a bit more proof than a name. Names can easily be common, I know sets of first cousins named after the common grandparent, 4 pairs in my extended family, along with 2 triples. The court would certainly look for a social security number match. Your own credit history will show no activity in that state. A legitimate debt collector would handle this very differently.\",\n \"I wouldn't lose any sleep on it until it actually happens. I believe generally the agreement of the merchant with the credit card company says they must submit to the company's arbitration. If they come back to you, I would definitely get in touch with Visa to complain. Here's some great advice on dealing with unscrupulous debt collection, the main points being It's actually you that should be threatening to sue them if the repairs were incompetent or dangerous!\",\n \"Oh my God. Turn. Back. Now. This is literally a textbook scam. I know you want to believe this is true. Its not. Even if it was true it would still be a high, high risk investment that would then be compounded by the fact that you would be doing it with 100% debt.\",\n \"\\\"Scammers know you're not stupid enough to fall for this. So when you balk, he'll understand and offer to send you a check. When he sends you a check, he'll say cash it, keep $XXX for yourself, then forward him the rest for some other expense (or even possibly send it to someone else). Know in advance that that's a scam, too. When his fake check bounces you'll already be out the money and he'll be long gone. \\\"\\\"If it's too good to be true, it probably is\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"So, you think forcing people to buy their auto insurance doesn't provide any money? It sounds like the customer didn't even know they were paying for it. Or, are you saying that this minor scam is nothing in the grand scheme of things, and that we should expect their scams to pay out at least a few billion?\",\n \"No, we did not apply for the loan. So, this is why we thought it was a bit strange a company just sending you a real check for $30K. It does not say anywhere in big red letters that it is a loan. Probably something in very small letters on a back of a paper. This is really horrible. Especially,if your customers do pay you by check and small business relies on online statement to determine who paid what. I can easily imagine a small outfit that just takes all the checks to the bank, cash them, and then use online statement to update their books. I do not see how it is helpful to businesses to receive pre-approved credit that is so poorly marked. Especially in the age of electronic transfers!!! I am trying to understand why I feel so offended by this, and I guess it all comes down to disgust: I refuse to believe that any serious company would use these sort of tactics and instead of us spending more time developing a better product, we have to put more time and effort into ensuring we do not fall victim to this.\",\n \"I agree with you: it sounds like a scam. Those terms are too good to be true. Online, it is too easy to pretend to be someone you are not. When choosing a bank to work with, you need to be confident of its legitimacy. Make sure you have heard of it someplace other than their own website and can trust it. In this case, this isn't even a bank; it is just an individual stranger. I can't see how this could possibly be legitimate. With the information that they are asking for, they could potentially impersonate you and steal your money. I would stay away from this.\",\n \"Reading stuff like this makes me want to go into the debt collection business. Just send letters to random people demanding money. Sounds like an easy way to make a living. What's your name and address? Just kidding. If they are sending stuff to a Virginia PO Box, close the box with no forwarding address and consider it case closed. If they are targetting you personally in New Hampshire, the best thing to do is to sue proactively before it goes to collection. New Hampshire has strict anti-debt-collection laws. Basically, what you do is go to small claims court and fill out a one-page form. Sue them for $2000, $3000 or whatever is convenient. Do not hire a lawyer. You can do this in 2 hours of your own time. Your grounds are: (1) Violation of the creditor of NH FDCA laws. According to the laws the creditor has to put all kinds of specific stuff in their threat letters. Since they are not doing this, they have violated NH FDCA. Read the FDCA so you know which specific items they are violating. (2) Extortion. Since you do not owe them any money, demanding money from you is extortion which is both criminally and civilly actionable. You sue them for mental anguish due to extortion. The validity of your claims is irrelevant. You just need to get them in court. There are two possibilities: (A) They fail to show up. In this case you win and they owe you $3000 or whatever. Not only that if they later try to collect from you send a copy of the judgement to the credit bureau or collector or whatever and that is proof you owe them no money. (B) They hire some stooge local lawyer who appears. Accept the court's offer for arbitration. When you go into arbitration with the lawyer tell him you will drop the lawsuit if they send you a check for $500 and a hand-written guarantee from him that you will never hear from his client again. Either way, you come out ahead. By the way, it is absolutely guaranteed that the enemy lawyer will accept your offer in (B) above because the SEO company is already paying him $5000 to show up to answer your lawsuit, and the lawyer does not want to hang around all morning in court waiting for the case to be heard. If he can get out of there in half an hour for only $500 he will do it. -------------------------------UPDATE If all you are getting is calls and the caller refuses to identify themself, then it is definitely an illegal scam. It is illegal in New Hampshire to make collection calls and refuse to full identify who is calling. The phone company has methods for dealing with illegal calls. First you have to file a police report. Then you call Verizon Security at 1-800-518-5507 (or whatever your phone company is). They will trace the call and identify the caller. They you can make a criminal complaint in their jurisdiction unless the call is from Pakistan or something.\",\n \"You wouldn't pay what the quote says, you would pay what the bill says. If the car is used as a taxi then either it's done illegally and not your problem, or they have proper insurance. One reason to go through your insurance is that they know how to handle all these things for you. If you have only their phone number: You owe them money, so they will contact you.\",\n \"This may not apply in your particular situation, but I think it's important to mention: When a debt collector doesn't act like a debt collector, it may be because they aren't actually a debt collector. It's certainly strange that someone called you to collect money from you, and when you asked for a simple document, they not only got off the phone quickly but they also told you the debt would be cancelled. That just doesn't make sense: Why would they cancel the debt? Why wouldn't they send you the document? My initial impression is that you were possibly being scammed. The scam can take on many forms: Whenever you are called by a debt collector (or someone pretending to be one), it's a good idea to verify their identity first. More info here.\",\n \"\\\"Do not give them any money until you have a signed contract that releases your liability completely. It's imperative that this contract be drafted correctly. The contract needs proper consideration (money in exchange for release of liability), among other things. In other words, talk to a lawyer if you want to go this route. If you just cut them a check, there's nothing stopping them from taking your money and making an insurance claim anyway, or taking your money and then suing for \\\"\\\"whiplash\\\"\\\" or some other fake injury. The best way is just to go through insurance. It might cost a bit more, but you're covered in case they sue.\\\"\",\n \"Absolutely anyone who wants to put money into a stranger's account is a guaranteed scammer and most likely from Nigeria in reality. I know you probably felt like it was your lucky day but in fact it could have been your unluckiest day had you not asked on here, so good on you man. Whenever you're not sure about something just ask, that's what the internet is for, someone's always willing to help.\",\n \"\\\"This is obviously a spam mail. Your mortgage is a public record, and mortgage brokers and insurance agents were, are and will be soliciting your business, as long as they feel they have a chance of getting it. Nothing that that particular company offers is unique to them, nothing they can offer you cannot be done by anyone else. It is my personal belief that we should not do business with spammers, and that is why I suggest you to remember the company name and never deal with them. However, it is up to you if you want to follow that advice or not. What they're offering is called refinance. Any bank, credit union or mortgage broker does that. The rates are more or less the same everywhere, but the closing fees and application fees is where the small brokers are making their money. Big banks get their money from also servicing the loans, so they're more flexible on fees. All of them can do \\\"\\\"streamline\\\"\\\" refinance if your mortgage is eligible. None if it isn't. Note that the ones who service your current mortgage might not be the ones who own it, thus \\\"\\\"renegotiating the rate\\\"\\\" is most likely not an option (FHA backed loans are sold to Fannie and Freddie, the original lenders continue servicing them - but don't own them). Refinancing - is a more likely option, and in this case the lender will not care about your rate on the old mortgage.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"It is a scam. Not only will it get your personal information, which could allow him to impersonate you (like, using your identity as the generous lender on a future scam), in order to fulfill the loan, a \\\"\\\"small payment\\\"\\\" for some documents will be needed. And next another for a certificate necessary for lending, and so on. Their goal is to get your money, not lending you any. Aganju hit the nail: how would such person ensure that you will pay back, when he knows absolutely nothing about you? That would have been the #1 priority for someone that decided to invest using such unbelievable schema.\\\"\",\n \"That sounds pretty fishy to me. I'm an IT professional - I can determine more about him if I have full access to the email headers. Just give me your email and your password so I can log in and check the email he's using to contact you.\",\n \"It used to be Nigerian royalty, now it's Ghanaian porn stars. Great. This is a bog-standard 419 scam. It's probably the most lucrative single swindle in the world. It's always hard to get people to believe they have been tricked, but don't let your dad participate.\",\n \"Unprintable, yes, it's a scam. Nobody will ever have any legitimate reason to run money through your account. Period.\",\n \"\\\"OK, reading between the lines here it looks like the services offered by your company are of an \\\"\\\"adult\\\"\\\" (possibly illegal?) nature and that this individual has actually paid you in full for the services rendered up to this point. The wrinkle here is that you say that you've been offered large cash \\\"\\\"gifts\\\"\\\" in return for unspecified future favours, but that your client hasn't provided a real Paypal account to do so. When you pressed him on it, he sent a fake email and invented a \\\"\\\"financial adviser\\\"\\\" to fob you off, then hasn't contacted you since. It's pretty clear that he hasn't got any intention of making these payments to you. What you're now proposing to do is to use his known banking details to collect money to cover those verbal promises. In pretty much every part of the world, that's a crime. Without a written agreement to use that payment method for those promises, he could easily call the police and have you arrested for theft of funds. The further wrinkle is that his actions (claiming to have made payment via paypal, forged email headers, etc) strongly suggest that this individual is involved in cyber-crime and may well have used a fake bank account to pay for your initial services. The bottom line here is that you need real legal advice, from an actual lawyer.\\\"\",\n \"You can't cash the check silly. How can you go off on a rant when you can't even tell the difference between a real check and a promotional tool. If you don't want to call in an get info throw it away....simple. This thread made me laugh. Thanks for that. Good day.\",\n \"This is why you don't get to excited and accept the first offer. Did they tell you that it was just sales and your main job would be cold calling people? If they lied to you, chances are she is lying to you about helping you to land a real job. Honestly, unpaid internships sounds like a scam. Maybe its the trend now, with the shitty economy, but I never did any kind of internship that was unpaid, and the only ones who offered unpaid were some shady places.\",\n \"Don't take the car back! The dealership wants you to take it back to try and earn more money. Simply stated, the dealerships hate paid up front cash deals. They make money on the financing. So to call back and try to up their fee is them realizing their not making a large enough profit. Say thank you and move on. The deal is done!!\",\n \"Absolute scam. Any time anyone asks you to open a bank account so they can send you money and then you have to send some portion of it back to them, it's a guarantee that it's a scam. What happens is that your dad will deposit the check and transfer it to this woman, then the check will bounce (or turn out to be fake altogether) and your dad will be on the hook for the money to the bank. These schemes are dependent on the fact that people want hope and believe in quick, easy money, and it works as long as the con artists are able to get the 'mark' (the person who deposits the check and sends them the money) to send the money before the check (always drawn on some obscure foreign bank) has a chance to clear. This is another variation of a long-running type of bank scam, and if you get involved, you'll regret it. I hope you can keep your dad from getting involved, because it will create a financial mess and affect his credit as well. The basic premise of this scam is this: In the interests of providing good customer service, most banks will make some or all of a deposit available right away, even though the check hasn't cleared. The scammer has you withdraw the money (either a cashier's check, have you send a wire transfer, etc) immediately and send it to them. Eventually the check is returned because it is The bank charges the check back against your account, often imposing pretty substantial penalties and fees, so you as the account holder are left without the money you sent the scammer and all of the fees. This is the easy version of events. You could end up in legal trouble, depending on the nature of the scam and what they determine your involvement to be. It will certainly badly affect your banking history (ChexSystems tracks how we all treat bank accounts, much like the credit agencies do with our credit), so you may have trouble opening bank accounts. So there are many consequences to this to think about, and it's why you JUST SAY NO!! Don't walk away from this -- RUN!!!\",\n \"You encountered a quite common scam: You are supposed to perform a job, they send you a check for too much money, and you are supposed to pay them some money back. Ten weeks later the check bounces and your money is gone. That's these people's job. They do this all day long. The success rate isn't very high, so they are busy doing this all day. These scammers might have your name and address, but if that is all there is, they can get names and addresses of 100s of people by using the phone book, and they don't. I wouldn't say that it is impossible to turn your name and address into money, but it is hard work. So it is quie unlikely to happen.\",\n \"Of course, it is a scam. Regardless of how the scam might work, you already know that the person on the other end is lying, and you also know that people in trouble don't contact perfect strangers out of the blue by e-mail for help, nor do they call up random phone numbers looking for help. Scammers prey on the gullibility, greed, and sometimes generosity of the victims. As to how this scam works, the money that the scammer would be depositing into your father's account is not real. However, it will take the bank a few days to figure that out. In the mean time, your father will be sending out real money back to the scammer. When the bank figures out what is going on, they will want your father to pay back this money.\",\n \"\\\"A bona-fide company never needs your credit card details, certainly not your 3-digit-on-back-of-card #, to issue a refund. On an older charge, they might have to work with their merchant provider. But they should be able to do it within the credit card handling system, and in fact are required to. Asking for details via email doesn't pass the \\\"\\\"sniff test\\\"\\\" either. To get a credit card merchant account, a company needs to go through a security assessment process called PCI-DSS. Security gets drummed into you pretty good. Of course they could be using one of the dumbed-down services like Square, but those services make refunds ridiculously easy. How did you come to be corresponding on this email address? Did they initially contact you? Did you find it on a third party website? Some of those are fraudulent and many others, like Yelp, it's very easy to insert false contact information for a business. Consumer forums, even moreso. You might take another swing at finding a proper contact for the company. Stop asking for a cheque. That also circumvents the credit card system. And obviously a scammer won't send a check... at least not one you'd want! If all else fails: call your bank and tell them you want to do a chargeback on that transaction. This is where the bank intervenes to reverse the charge. It's rather straightforward (especially if the merchant has agreed in principle to a refund) but requires some paperwork or e-paperwork. Don't chargeback lightly. Don't use it casually or out of laziness or unwillingness to speak with the merchant, e.g. to cancel an order. The bank charges the merchant a $20 or larger investigation fee, separate from the refund. Each chargeback is also a \\\"\\\"strike\\\"\\\"; too many \\\"\\\"strikes\\\"\\\" and the merchant is barred from taking credit cards. It's serious business. As a merchant, I would never send a cheque to an angry customer. Because if I did, they'd cash the cheque and still do a chargeback, so then I'd be out the money twice, plus the investigation fee to boot.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"It is likely a scam. In fact the whole mystery shopping \\\"\\\"job\\\"\\\" may be a scam. There is a Snopes page about cashier's check scams, as well as a US government page which specifically mentions mystery shopping as a scam angle. As for how the scam works, from the occ.gov site I just linked: However, cashier’s checks lately have become an attractive vehicle for fraud when used for payments to consumers. Although, the amount of a cashier’s check quickly becomes \\\"\\\"available\\\"\\\" for withdrawal by the consumer after the consumer deposits the check, these funds do not belong to the consumer if the check proves to be fraudulent. It may take weeks to discover that a cashier’s check is fraudulent. In the meantime, the consumer may have irrevocably wired the funds to a scam artist or otherwise used the funds—only to find out later, when the fraud is detected—that the consumer owes the bank the full amount of the cashier’s check that had been deposited. It is somewhat unusual in that, from what you say, there has been no attempt thus far to get money back. However, your sister-in-law may have received that info separately, or received it as part of her mystery shopping job but didn't mention it to you with regard to this check. Typically the scam involves telling the recipient to transfer money to a third party (e.g., by buying goods as a mystery shopper, or via wire transfer to \\\"\\\"reimburse\\\"\\\" someone associated with a sham operation). By the time the cashier's check is revealed as fraudulent, the victim has already transferred away his/her own real money. It's probably worth taking the check to your or her bank and asking them about it. They may have more info. Also, banks usually want to know about scams like this because, in the long run, they accumulate data on them and share that with law enforcement and can eventually catch some of the scammers. Edit: Just to help anyone who may be reading this later. The letter you added confirms it is absolutely a scam. My boss was once contacted via a scam operation very similar to this. The huge red flag (in addition to others already mentioned) is that you are being \\\"\\\"given\\\"\\\" a check for over $2000, of which only $25 is purportedly for actual mystery shopping and $285 is payment for you, the mystery shopper. The whole rest of the $2000+ amount is for you to wire to \\\"\\\"another Mystery/Secret Shopper in order for them to complete their assignment\\\"\\\". They are giving you $2000 to give to someone else who is supposedly another one of their own employees/contractors. Ask yourself what sane business would conduct their operations in this way. If you work at a law office, or a hamburger stand, or a school, or anything you like, does your boss ever say \\\"\\\"Here is your paycheck for $5000. I know you only earned $1000, but I'm just going to give you the whole $5000, and you're supposed to use $4000 of it to pay your coworker Joe his wages.\\\"\\\" No. There is no reason to do that except that the \\\"\\\"other mystery shopper\\\"\\\" is actually the scammer.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"Do not give them any money until you have a signed contract that releases your liability completely. It's imperative that this contract be drafted correctly. The contract needs proper consideration (money in exchange for release of liability), among other things. In other words, talk to a lawyer if you want to go this route. If you just cut them a check, there's nothing stopping them from taking your money and making an insurance claim anyway, or taking your money and then suing for \"\"whiplash\"\" or some other fake injury. The best way is just to go through insurance. It might cost a bit more, but you're covered in case they sue.\"","\"You have to realize that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to do things \"\"unofficially\"\" by not reporting the accident (to insurance companies and/or police), but you want to do it \"\"officially\"\" in that you want to have legal recourse if they try to hit you up for more money. The only way to have it both ways is to trust the other person. From a financial perspective, ultimately you need to decide if the monetary cost of your raised insurance premiums, etc., outweighs the cost of whatever money the other party in the accident will try to squeeze out of you (factoring in the likelihood that they will do so). You also would need to factor in the likelihood that, rather than trying to scam you, they'll pursue legal action against you. In short, from a purely monetary perspective, if the legitimate cost of repairs is $700 and the cost to you of doing it by the book via insurance is $2000, you should be willing to be scammed for up to $1300, because you'll still come out ahead. Of course, there are psychological considerations, like whether someone unscrupulous enough to scam you will stop at $1300. But those numbers are the baseline for whatever outcome calculations you want to do. On the more qualitative side of things, it is possible they're trying to scam you, but also possible they're just trying to hustle you into doing everything quickly without thinking about it. They may not be trying to gouge you monetarily, they just want to pressure you so they get their money. I agree with other answerers here that the ideal way would be for them to send you an actual bill after repairs are complete. However, you could ask them to send you a written copy of the repair shop estimate, along with a written letter in which they state that they will consider payment of that amount to resolve the issue and won't pursue you further. The legal strength of that is dubious, but at least you have some documentation that you didn't just try to stiff them. If they won't give you some form of written documentation, I would read that as a red flag, bite the bullet, and contact your insurance company.\"","You wouldn't pay what the quote says, you would pay what the bill says. If the car is used as a taxi then either it's done illegally and not your problem, or they have proper insurance. One reason to go through your insurance is that they know how to handle all these things for you. If you have only their phone number: You owe them money, so they will contact you.","\"I would write them a check or give them cash money. There are payment receipt forms available online, you can print one of have them fill it out and sign it. Just google \"\"private party receipt\"\". Money transfer (via bank account or Paypal) is also an option, but in my opinion it's more convenient to meet up and handle it in person. If you want, you can have them meet you at a notary public's office (your local bank branch should have one) and have the receipt notarized. I don't think it's a scam, but make sure you are paying the right person.\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"Do not give them any money until you have a signed contract that releases your liability completely. It's imperative that this contract be drafted correctly. The contract needs proper consideration (money in exchange for release of liability), among other things. In other words, talk to a lawyer if you want to go this route. If you just cut them a check, there's nothing stopping them from taking your money and making an insurance claim anyway, or taking your money and then suing for \\\"\\\"whiplash\\\"\\\" or some other fake injury. The best way is just to go through insurance. It might cost a bit more, but you're covered in case they sue.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You have to realize that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to do things \\\"\\\"unofficially\\\"\\\" by not reporting the accident (to insurance companies and/or police), but you want to do it \\\"\\\"officially\\\"\\\" in that you want to have legal recourse if they try to hit you up for more money. The only way to have it both ways is to trust the other person. From a financial perspective, ultimately you need to decide if the monetary cost of your raised insurance premiums, etc., outweighs the cost of whatever money the other party in the accident will try to squeeze out of you (factoring in the likelihood that they will do so). You also would need to factor in the likelihood that, rather than trying to scam you, they'll pursue legal action against you. In short, from a purely monetary perspective, if the legitimate cost of repairs is $700 and the cost to you of doing it by the book via insurance is $2000, you should be willing to be scammed for up to $1300, because you'll still come out ahead. Of course, there are psychological considerations, like whether someone unscrupulous enough to scam you will stop at $1300. But those numbers are the baseline for whatever outcome calculations you want to do. On the more qualitative side of things, it is possible they're trying to scam you, but also possible they're just trying to hustle you into doing everything quickly without thinking about it. They may not be trying to gouge you monetarily, they just want to pressure you so they get their money. I agree with other answerers here that the ideal way would be for them to send you an actual bill after repairs are complete. However, you could ask them to send you a written copy of the repair shop estimate, along with a written letter in which they state that they will consider payment of that amount to resolve the issue and won't pursue you further. The legal strength of that is dubious, but at least you have some documentation that you didn't just try to stiff them. If they won't give you some form of written documentation, I would read that as a red flag, bite the bullet, and contact your insurance company.\\\"\",\n \"You wouldn't pay what the quote says, you would pay what the bill says. If the car is used as a taxi then either it's done illegally and not your problem, or they have proper insurance. One reason to go through your insurance is that they know how to handle all these things for you. If you have only their phone number: You owe them money, so they will contact you.\",\n \"\\\"I would write them a check or give them cash money. There are payment receipt forms available online, you can print one of have them fill it out and sign it. Just google \\\"\\\"private party receipt\\\"\\\". Money transfer (via bank account or Paypal) is also an option, but in my opinion it's more convenient to meet up and handle it in person. If you want, you can have them meet you at a notary public's office (your local bank branch should have one) and have the receipt notarized. I don't think it's a scam, but make sure you are paying the right person.\\\"\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":162,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"6907"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Nominal value of shares"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["251604"],"string":"[\n \"251604\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["421992","297032","400738","303112","599414","140481","93354","98654","30464","91870","506236","69506","275392","427859","480515","488055","151132","86757","535697","533779","64237","174583","251604","468188","13908","34882","418610","271029","246295","152003","495066","336742","374602","111827","306149","10171","323244","566553","472537","480119","535043","249320","65401","33157","345129","124205","390725","378906","95806","480964","131788","414940","471123","386398","307095","37558","22169","143261","102375","208331","499269","465542","555915","178296","199206","370212","407551","215486","271243","15650","177093","568944","283168","178","577381","399043","113800","460230","213535","374372","331108","196173","478772","504243","364420","509939","99947","532171","474467","320472","433827","114834","73950","29306","251715","21786","192600","501032","46117","110635"],"string":"[\n \"421992\",\n \"297032\",\n \"400738\",\n \"303112\",\n \"599414\",\n \"140481\",\n \"93354\",\n \"98654\",\n \"30464\",\n \"91870\",\n \"506236\",\n \"69506\",\n \"275392\",\n \"427859\",\n \"480515\",\n \"488055\",\n \"151132\",\n \"86757\",\n \"535697\",\n \"533779\",\n \"64237\",\n \"174583\",\n \"251604\",\n \"468188\",\n \"13908\",\n \"34882\",\n \"418610\",\n \"271029\",\n \"246295\",\n \"152003\",\n \"495066\",\n \"336742\",\n \"374602\",\n \"111827\",\n \"306149\",\n \"10171\",\n \"323244\",\n \"566553\",\n \"472537\",\n \"480119\",\n \"535043\",\n \"249320\",\n \"65401\",\n \"33157\",\n \"345129\",\n \"124205\",\n \"390725\",\n \"378906\",\n \"95806\",\n \"480964\",\n \"131788\",\n \"414940\",\n \"471123\",\n \"386398\",\n \"307095\",\n \"37558\",\n \"22169\",\n \"143261\",\n \"102375\",\n \"208331\",\n \"499269\",\n \"465542\",\n \"555915\",\n \"178296\",\n \"199206\",\n \"370212\",\n \"407551\",\n \"215486\",\n \"271243\",\n \"15650\",\n \"177093\",\n \"568944\",\n \"283168\",\n \"178\",\n \"577381\",\n \"399043\",\n \"113800\",\n \"460230\",\n \"213535\",\n \"374372\",\n \"331108\",\n \"196173\",\n \"478772\",\n \"504243\",\n \"364420\",\n \"509939\",\n \"99947\",\n \"532171\",\n \"474467\",\n \"320472\",\n \"433827\",\n \"114834\",\n \"73950\",\n \"29306\",\n \"251715\",\n \"21786\",\n \"192600\",\n \"501032\",\n \"46117\",\n \"110635\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["I was thinking that the value of the stock is the value of the stock...the actual number of shares really doesn't matter, but I'm not sure. You're correct. Share price is meaningless. Google is $700 per share, Apple is $100 per share, that doesn't say anything about either company and/or whether or not one is a better investment over the other. You should not evaluate an investment decision on price of a share. Look at the books decide if the company is worth owning, then decide if it's worth owning at it's current price.","authorized 100,000,000 shares They cannot issue shares more than that so 102M isn't possible. Common stock - $.01 par value, authorized 100,000,000 shares, issued 51,970,721 and 51,575,743 shares If you look at the right 2 columns it become clear what it means. You missed the $ symbol and on the top (In thousands, except share amounts) ouststanding share 51,970,721 -> 520 On Sept 30, 2014 outstanding shares * 0.01 and rounded off to arrive at 520. ouststanding share 51,575,743 -> 516 On June 30, 2014 outstanding shares * 0.01 and rounded off to arrive at 516.","Capital surplus is used to account for that amount which a firm raises in excess of the par value (nominal value) of the shares (common stock).. Investopedia has a much simpler answer. Somebody has tried to be smart on wikipedia and have done the calculations without much explanation. The portion of the surplus of a business arising from sources other than earnings : all surplus other than earned surplus usually including amounts received from sale or exchange of capital stock in excess of par or stated value, profits on resale of treasury stock, donations to capital by stockholders or others, or increment arising from revaluation of fixed or other assets The number of shares a company wants to issue is decided and agreed with the regulators. They decide the par value and then decide how much premium will be charged, extra money above the par value. Take out any RHP of an issue and you find all these details. Par Value = 1 Issue price(Price at which investors buy) = 10 Premium = 9 For a single share the capital surplus is 9, multiply it by the number of shares issued and you have the total capital surplus.","\"The answer to your question has to do with the an explanation of \"\"shares authorized, issued and outstanding.\"\" Companies, in their Articles of Incorporation, specify a maximum number of shares they are authorized to issue. For example purposes let's assume Facebook is authorized to issue 100 shares. Let's pretend they have actually issued 75 shares, but only 50 are outstanding (aka Float, i.e. freely trading stock in the market) and stock options total 25 shares. So if someone owns 1 share, what percentage of Facebook do they own? You might think 1/100, or 1%; you might think 1/75, or 1.3%; or you might think 1/50, or 2%. 2% is the answer, but only on a NON-diluted basis. So today someone who owns 1 share owns 2% of Facebook. Tomorrow Facebook announces they just issued 15 shares to Whatsapp to buy the company. Now there are 65 shares outstanding and 90 issued. Now someone who owns 1 share of Facebook own only 1/65, or 1.5% (down from 2%)! P.S. \"\"Valuation\"\" can be thought of as the price of the stock at the time of the purchase announcement.\"","Shareholders are the equity holders. They mean the same thing. A simplified formula for the total value of a company is the value of its equity, plus the value of its debt, less its cash (for reasons I won't get into). There are usually other things to add or subtract, but that's the basic formula.","Fully paid up Shares issued in which no more money is required to be paid to the company by shareholders on the value of the shares. When a company issues shares upon incorporation or through an issuance, either initial or secondary, shareholders are required to pay a set amount for those shares. Once the company has received the full amount from shareholders, the shares become fully paid shares. authorised share capital The number of stock units that a publicly traded company can issue as stated in its articles of incorporation, or as agreed upon by shareholder vote. Authorized share capital is often not fully used by management in order to leave room for future issuance of additional stock in case the company needs to raise capital quickly. Another reason to keep shares in the company treasury is to retain a controlling interest in the company. If so, why not just give the existing shareholders the $500 million, (and do a stock split if desired)? Stock splits, bonus issues doesn't generate any capital for the firm, which it required.","\"Market cap is the current value of a company's equity and is defined as the current share price multiplied by the number of shares. Please check also \"\"enterprise value\"\" for another definition of a company`s total value (enterprise value = market cap adjusted for net nebt). Regarding the second part of your question: Issuing new shares usually does not affect market cap in a significant way because the newly issued shares often result in lower share prices and dilution of the existing share holders shares.\"","outstanding shares are the shares(regular shares) that are still tradable in the market, where the firm in question is listed. The term is primarily used to distinguish from shares held in treasury(treasury stock), which have been bought back(buybacks) from the market and aren't currently tradable in the market. Wikipedia is a bit more clearer and mentions the diluted outstanding shares(used for convertible bonds, warrants, etc) which is used to calculated diluted EPS.","\"What benefit do I get from buying a share The value of any financial asset is its ability to generate cash in the future, and thus the \"\"value\"\" of a share is heavily influenced by the dividends it pays and the equity value. The equity value can be calculated different ways. Two common ways are to just take \"\"book\"\" value, meaning assets - liabilities, or you can look at the projected free cash flows of the company discounted back to the present time. Voting rights don't typically influence a share price except in hostile takeover scenarios (meaning someone buys up a lot of shares to have more influence in company decisions)\"","I haven't seen any of the other answers address this point – shares are (a form of) ownership of a company and thus they are an entitlement to the proceeds of the company, including proceeds from liquidation. Imagine an (extreme, contrived) example whereby you own shares in a company that is explicitly intended to only exist for a finite and definite period, say to serve as the producers of a one-time event. Consider a possible sequence of major events in this company's life: So why would the shares of this hypothetical company be worth anything? Because the company itself is worth something, or rather the stuff that the company owns is worth something, even (or in my example, especially) in the event of its dissolution or liquidation. Besides just the stuff that a company owns, why else would owning a portion of a company be a good idea, i.e. why would I pay for such a privilege? Buying shares of a company is a good idea if you believe (and are correct) that a company will make larger profits or capture more value (e.g. buy and control more valuable stuff) than other people believe. If your beliefs don't significantly differ from others then (ideally) the price of the companies stock should reflect all of the future value that everyone expects it to have, tho that value is discounted based on time preference, i.e. how much more valuable a given amount of money or a given thing of value is today versus some time in the future. Some notes on time preference: But apart from whether you should buy shares in a specific company, owning shares can still be valuable. Not only are shares a claim on a company's current assets (in the event of liquidation) but they are also claims on all future assets of the company. So if a company is growing then the value of shares now should reflect the (discounted) future value of the company, not just the value of its assets today. If shares in a company pays dividends then the company gives you money for owning shares. You already understand why that's worth something. It's basically equivalent to an annuity, tho dividends are much more likely to stop or change whereas the whole point of an annuity is that it's a (sometimes) fixed amount paid at fixed intervals, i.e. reliable and dependable. As CQM points out in their answer, part of the value of stock shares, to those that own them, and especially to those considering buying them, is the expectation or belief that they can sell those shares for a greater price than what they paid for them – irrespective of the 'true value' of the stock shares. But even in a world where everyone (magically) had the same knowledge always, a significant component of a stock's value is independent of its value as a source of trading profit. As Jesse Barnum points out in their answer, part of the value of stocks that don't pay dividends relative to stocks that do is due to the (potential) differences in tax liabilities incurred between dividends and long-term capital gains. This however, is not the primary source of value of a stock share.","You can find this in the annual report. Preferred value is not the same as common value.","Try to find the P/E ratio of the Company and then Multiply it with last E.P.S, this calculation gives the Fundamental Value of the share, anything higher than this Value is not acceptable and Vice versa.","Theoretically, when a company issues more shares, it does not affect the value of your shares. The reason is that when a company issues and sells more shares, the proceeds from the sale of those shares goes back into the company. Using your example, you have 10 out of 100 shares of the company, for a 10% stake. Let's say that the shares are valued at $1,000 each, meaning that the market value of the company is $100,000, and your stake is worth $10,000. Now the company issues 100 more shares at $1,000 each. The company receives $100,000 from new investors, and now the company is worth $200,000. Your stake is now only 5% of the company, but it is still worth $10,000. The authorized share capital is the amount of shares that a company has already planned on selling. When you buy stock in a company, you can look up how many shares exist, so you know what your percent stake in the company is. When a company wants to sell more shares, this is called an increase of authorized share capital. In order to do this, the company generally needs the approval of a majority of the existing shareholders.","\"I think it's easiest to illustrate it with an example... if you've already read any of the definitions out there, then you know what it means, but just don't understand what it means. So, we have an ice cream shop. We started it as partners, and now you and I each own 50% of the company. It's doing so well that we decide to take it public. That means that we will be giving up some of our ownership in return for a chance to own a smaller portion of a bigger thing. With the money that we raise from selling stocks, we're going to open up two more stores. So, without getting into too much of the nitty gritty accounting that would turn this into a valuation question, let's say we are going to put 30% of the company up for sale with these stocks, leaving you and me with 35% each. We file with the SEC saying we're splitting up the company ownership with 100,000 shares, and so you and I each have 35,000 shares and we sell 30,000 to investors. Then, and this depends on the state in the US where you're registering your publicly traded corporation, those shares must be assigned a par value that a shareholder can redeem the shares at. Many corporations will use $1 or 10 cents or something nominal. And we go and find investors who will actually pay us $5 per share for our ice cream shop business. We receive $150,000 in new capital. But when we record that in our accounting, $5 in total capital per share was contributed by investors to the business and is recorded as shareholder's equity. $1 per share (totalling $30,000) goes towards actual shares outstanding, and $4 per share (totalling $120,000) goes towards capital surplus. These amounts will not change unless we issue new stocks. The share prices on the open market can fluctuate, but we rarely would adjust these. Edit: I couldn't see the table before. DumbCoder has already pointed out the equation Capital Surplus = [(Stock Par Value) + (Premium Per Share)] * (Number of Shares) Based on my example, it's easy to deduce what happened in the case you've given in the table. In 2009 your company XYZ had outstanding Common Stock issued for $4,652. That's probably (a) in thousands, and (b) at a par value of $1 per share. On those assumptions we can say that the company has 4,652,000 shares outstanding for Year End 2009. Then, if we guess that's the outstanding shares, we can also calculate the implicit average premium per share: 90,946,000 ÷ 4,652,000 == $19.52. Note that this is the average premium per share, because we don't know when the different stocks were issued at, and it may be that the premiums that investors paid were different. Frankly, we don't care. So clearly since \"\"Common Stock\"\" in 2010 is up to $9,303 it means that the company released more stock. Someone else can chime in on whether that means it was specifically a stock split or some other mechanism... it doesn't matter. For understanding this you just need to know that the company put more stock into the marketplace... 9,303 - 4,652 == 4,651(,000) more shares to be exact. With the mechanics of rounding to the thousands, I would guess this was a stock split. Now. What you can also see is that the Capital Surplus also increased. 232,801 - 90,946 == 141,855. The 4,651,000 shares were issued into the market at an average premium of 141,855 ÷ 4,651 == $30.50. So investors probably paid (or were given by the company) an average of $31.50 at this split. Then, in 2011 the company had another small adjustment to its shares outstanding. (The Common Stock went up). And there was a corresponding increase in its Capital Surplus. Without details around the actual stock volumes, it's hard to get more exact. You're also only giving us a portion of the Balance Sheet for your company, so it's hard to go into too much more detail. Hopefully this answers your question though.\"","\"One of two things is true: You own less than 5% of the total shares outstanding. Your transaction will have little to no effect on the market. For most purposes you can use the current market price to value the position. You own more than 5% of the total shares outstanding. You are probably restricted on when, where, and why you can sell the shares because you are considered part owner of the company. Regardless, how to estimate (not really \"\"calculate,\"\" since some of the inputs to the formula are assumptions a.k.a. guesses) the value depends on exactly what you plan to with the result.\"","1 lot is 100 shares on London stock exchange","\"First, keep in mind that there are generally 2 ways to buy a corporation's shares: You can buy a share directly from the corporation. This does not happen often; it usually happens at the Initial Public Offering [the first time the company becomes \"\"public\"\" where anyone with access to the stock exchange can become a part-owner], plus maybe a few more times during the corporations existence. In this case, the corporation is offering new ownership in exchange for a price set the corporation (or a broker hired by the corporation). The price used for a public offering is the highest amount that the company believes it can get - this is a very complicated field, and involves many different methods of evaluating what the company should be worth. If the company sets the price too low, then they have missed out on possible value which would be earned by the previous, private shareholders (they would have gotten the same share % of a corporation which would now have more cash to spend, because of increased money paid by new shareholders). If the company sets the price too high, then the share subscription might only be partially filled, so there might not be enough cash to do what the company wanted. You can buy a share from another shareholder. This is more common - when you see the company's share price on the stock exchange, it is this type of transaction - buying out other current shareholders. The price here is simply set based on what current owners are willing to sell at. The \"\"Bid Price\"\" listed by an exchange is the current highest bid that a purchaser is offering for a single share. The \"\"Ask Price\"\" is the current lowest offer that a seller is offering to sell a single share they currently own. When the bid price = the ask price, a share transaction happens, and the most recent stock price changes.\"","It would be 0.22 * Rs 5 per share, i.e. Rs 1.1 per share. For 1000 share it would be Rs 1.1 * 1000, i.e. 1100","It means a 3% return on the value of the stock. If a stock has a $10 share price, the dividend would be $0.30. Normally though, the dividends are announced as a fixed amount per share, because the share price fluctuates. If a percentage were announced, then the final cost would not be known as the share priced could change radically before the dividend date.","Stock splits are typically done to increase the liquidity of stock merely by converting every stock of the company into multiple stocks of lower face value. For example, if the initial face value of the stock was $10 and the stock got split 10:1, the new face value of the stock would be $1 each. This has a proportional effect on the market value of the stock also. If the stock was trading at $50, after the split the stock should ideally adjust to $5. This is to ensure that despite the stock split, the market capitalization of the company should remain the same. Number of Shares * Stock Price = Market Capitalization = CONSTANT","All shares of the same class are considered equal. Each class of shares may have a different preference in order of repayment. After all company liabilities have been paid off [including bank debt, wages owing, taxes outstanding, etc etc.], the remaining cash value in a company is distributed to the shareholders. In general, there are 2 types of shares: Preferred shares, and Common shares. Preferred shares generally have 3 characteristics: (1) they get a stated dividend rate every year, sometimes regardless of company performance; (2) they get paid out first on liquidation; and (3) they can only receive their stated value on liquidation - that is, $1M of preferred shares will be redeemed for at most $1M on liquidation, assuming the corporation has at least that much cash left. Common Shares generally have 4 characteristics: (1) their dividends are not guaranteed (or may be based on a calculation relative to company performance), (2) they can vote for members of the Board of Directors who ultimately hire the CEO and make similar high level business decisions; (3) they get paid last on liquidation; and (4) they get all value remaining in the company once everyone else has been paid. So it is not the order of share subscription that matters, it is the class. Once you know how much each class gets, based on the terms listed in that share subscription, you simply divide the total class payout by number of shares, and pay that much for each share a person holds. For companies organized other-than as corporations, ie: partnerships, the calculation of who-gets-what will be both simpler and more complex. Simpler in that, generally speaking, a partnership interest cannot be of a different 'class', like shares can, meaning all partners are equal relative to the size of their partnership interest. More complex in that, if the initiation of the company was done in an informal way, it could easily become a legal fight as to who contributed what to the company.","Let's say the company has a million shares valued at $10 each, so market caps is $10 million dollar = $10 per share. Actual value of the company is unknown, but should be close to that $10 million if the shares are not overvalued or undervalued. If they issue 100,000 more shares at $10 each, the buyers pay a million dollar. Which goes into the bank account of the company. Which is now worth a million dollar more than before. Again, we don't know what it is worth, but the market caps should go up to $11 million dollar. And since you have now 1,100,000 shares, it's still $10 per share. If the shares are sold below or above $10, then the share price should go down or up a bit. Worst case, if the company needs money, can't get a loan, and sells 200,000 shares for $5 each to raise a million dollars, there will be suspicion that the company is in trouble, and that will affect the share price negatively. And of course the share price should have dropped anyway because the new value is $11,000,000 for $1,200,000 shares or $9.17 per share.","They are 2 different class of shares belonging to the same company. Class A shares [par value of 0.01] have 100 voting rights per share. Class B shares [par value of 0.0002] have one voting rights. Both are listed separately with different ISN and trade at slightly different values. The Class A at higher value than Class B which looks right as it has more voting power.","What I know about small companies and companies who are not listed on the stock markets is this: If a small company has shares issued to different people either within an organization or outside the value of the shares is generally decided by the individual who wants to sell the share and the buyer who wants to buy it. Suppose my company issued 10 shares to you for your help in the organization. Now you need money and you want to sell it. You can offer it at any price you want to to the buyer. If the buyer accepts your offer thats the price you get. So the price of the share is determined by the price a buyer is willing to buy it at from you. Remember the Face value of the shares remains the same no matter what price you sell it for. Now annual profit distribution is again something called dividends. Suppose my company has 100 shares in total out of which I have given you 10. This means you are a 10% owner of the company and you will be entitled to 10% of the net profit the company makes. Now at the end of the year suppose my company makes a 12,000 USD net profit. Now a panel called board of directors which is appointed by share holders will decide on how much profit to keep within the company for future business and how much to distribute about share holders. Suppose they decide to keep 2000 and distribute 10,000 out of total profit. Since you own 10% shares of the company you get 1000. The softwares you are talking are accounting softwares. You can do everything with those softwares. After-all a company is only about profit and loss statements.","\"The \"\"par value\"\" is a technicality that you can ignore in this case, and it has nothing directly to do with the merger. When a company issues stock, it puts a \"\"par value\"\" on the shares. If it later issues more shares, they cannot be issued at less than par value. The rest of the notice seems to be as you said: If you hold until the merger takes effect, they are going to give you $25/share and your shares will be gone. As always, you can try to sell on the open market before that time instead, although you can bet that not too many people are going to want to give you more than $25/share at this point.\"","Open Google finance and divide the Market Capitalization by the total price. That will give you the total number of shares outstanding. Now see the number of shares you could buy for $1000(40 shares of $25 each or 10 shares of 100 shares each). Now divide the number of shares you own, by the number of shares outstanding in the company and multiply it by 100(i.e (Shares you own/shares Outstanding) * 100). That will give you the percentage or stake of the company you own(With $1000, don't expect it to be a very large number). Now ask your self the question, Is it worth it if I can buy x % of this company for $1000? If the answer is yes, go ahead and buy it. To answer your question in short, NO! it does not matter whether you buy 10 shares for $100 or 40 shares for $25. Cheers","Market cap is basically the amount of money that it would cost to buy all of the shares of public stock in a company. Or share cost * number of outstanding shares. It is a measure of how much a company is worth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_capitalization","None of the above. The fair value is a term used to describe an analytical result of projecting the company's future dividends and profits into a present value. Such estimates are published by the likes of Morningstar, S&P and Value Line. It is quite common for a stock to trade well above or below such estimated fair values.","all other things being equal if you have two stocks, both with a P/E of 2, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase? What this really boils down to is the number of shares a company has outstanding. Given the same earnings & P/E, a company with fewer shares will have a higher EPS than a company with more shares. Knowing that, I don't think the number of shares has much if anything to do with the quality of a company. It's similar to the arguments I hear often from people new to investing where they think that a company with a share price of $100/share must be better than a company with a share price of $30/share simply because the share price is higher.","As you can see at https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AAAPL the number of apple shares at this very moment is 5.25B, so if you have 1 share you own 1 / 5.25B of the company.","\"Market Capitalization is the value the market attributes to the company shares calculated by multiplying the current trading price of these shares by the total amount of shares outstanding. So a company with 100 shares trading at $10 has a market cap of $1000. It is technically not the same as the value of a company (in the sense of how much someone would need to pay to acquire the company), Enterprise value is what you want to determine the net value of a company which is calculated as the market capitalization + company debt (as the acquirer has to take on this debt) - company cash (as the acquirer can pocket this for itself). The exact boundary for when a company belongs to a certain \"\"cap\"\" is up for debate. For a \"\"large cap\"\" a market capitalization of $10 billion+ is usually considered the cutoff (with $100+ billion behemoths being called \"\"mega caps\"\"). Anything between $10 billion and ~$1 billion is considered \"\"mid cap\"\", from ~$1billion to ~$200 million it's called a \"\"small cap\"\" and below $200 million is \"\"nano cap\"\". Worth noting that these boundaries change quite dramatically over time as the overall average market capitalization increases as companies grow, for example in the 80s a company with a market cap of $1 billion would be considered \"\"large cap\"\". The market \"\"determines\"\" what the market cap of company should be based (usually but certainly not always!) on the historical and expected profit a company makes, for a simple example let's say that our $1000 market cap company makes $100 a year, this means that this company's earnings per share is $1. If the company grows to make $200 a year you can reasonably expect the share price to rise from $10 to ~$20 with the corresponding increase in market cap. (this is all extremely simplified of course).\"","Hi I have a question about net worth value of rich people on those forbes lists. For example most of those rich people have high net worth because they are shareholders. Do they take into account that if they want to sell all their assets then actually they would receive much less in cash (as the stock price would drastically drop) or is it just the nominal net worth (i.e. the value of all their at the current price)","This depends. Quite a few stock exchanges / country report total capitalisation in terms of free float. I.E total shares that can be traded, ignoring the promoters shares. The market cap reported by company takes all shares.","You are correct in thinking actual number of shares do not matter, the value is the value. However there are cases where share price does play a role. Berkshire Hathaway for example has not split because Warren Buffet believes it has cut down on the liquidity of the stock, as well as attracting investors with an eye for the longer term. There have also been things written on the psychology of a share price. For example, some people are attracted to shares that split, because it reflects a company is growing.","Fully Paid up Partly Paid up: A company may issue stock to you which is only partly paid up, for example, a company may issue a stock of face value 10 to you and ask you to pay 5 now and other 5 will be adjusted later by some other mechanism. This stock shall be partly paid up. Usually, these stocks are issued in different circumstances, for example as part payment for debentures, preference shares or other capital structuring. On the other hand for a fully paid up share no more money needs to be paid by you or no other adjustments need to be made. So, above, the company is issuing you with stocks for which you will need to pay no further money, they are fully paid for. Authorized Capital: Authorized capital of a company is the amount of money a company can raise by selling stock (not debt, equity). This number is registered when the company is incorporated, subsequently, this number can be revised upward by applying to the registrar of companies. Now, this means that at max. the company is authorized to raise this much capital and no more. However, a company may raise less than this, which is called Issued Capital. In your case, the company is raising its authorized capital by applying to the registrar of companies, though in this case they are looking at their full authorized capital to be issued capital, it was not necessary to do so. Increase of Authorized capital: The main benefit is that the company can get more money in form of equity and utilize the same, perhaps, for expansion of business etc., that is the primary benefit. Bonus Share: Usually, companies keep some surplus as reserve, this money comes out of the profit the company makes and is essentially money of the shareholders. This reserve surplus is maintained for situations, when the money may be required for exigencies. However, this surplus grows over a few years and the company usually the company plans for an expansion of business. However, this money cannot be just taken, as it belongs to the shareholder, so shareholders are issued extra equity in proportion to their current holding and this surplus is capitalized i.e. used as part of the company's equity capital. Bonus declaration does not add t o the value of the company and the share prices fall in proportion (but not quite) to the bonus.","\"To add to @keshlam's answer slightly a stock's price is made up of several components: the only one of these that is known even remotely accurately at any time is the book value on the day that the accounts are prepared. Even completed cashflows after the books have been prepared contain some slight unknowns as they may be reversed if stock is returned, for example, or reduced by unforeseen costs. Future cashflows are based on (amongst other things) how many sales you expect to make in the future for all time. Exercise for the reader: how many iPhone 22s will apple sell in 2029? Even known future cashflows have some risk attached to them; customers may not pay for goods, a supplier may go into liquidation and so need to change its invoicing strategy etc.. Estimating the risk on future cashflows is highly subjective and depends greatly on what the analyst expects the exact economic state of the world will be in the future. Investors have the choice of investing in a risk free instrument (this is usually taken as being modelled by the 10 year US treasury bond) that is guaranteed to give them a return. To invest in anything riskier than the risk free instrument they must be paid a premium over the risk free return that they would get from that. The risk premium is related to how likely they think it is that they will not receive a return higher than that rate. Calculation of that premium is highly subjective; if I know the management of the company well I will be inclined to think that the investment is far less risky (or perhaps riskier...) than someone who does not, for example. Since none of the factors that go into a share price are accurately measurable and many are subjective there is no \"\"right\"\" share price at any time, let alone at time of IPO. Each investor will estimate these values differently and so value the shares differently and their trading, based on their ever changing estimates, will move the share price to an indeterminable level. In comments to @keshlam's answer you ask if there is enough information to work out the share price if a company buys out the company before IPO. Dividing the price that this other company paid by the relative ownership structure of the firm would give you an idea of what that company thought that the company was worth at that moment in time and can be used as a surrogate for market price but it will not and cannot accurately represent the market price as other investors will value the firm differently by estimating the criteria above differently and so will move the share price based on their valuation.\"","A share is more than something that yields dividends, it is part ownership of the company and all of its assets. If the company were to be liquidated immediately the shareholders would get (a proportion of) the net value (assets - liabilities) of the company because they own it. If a firm is doing well then its assets are increasing (i.e. more cash assets from profits) therefore the value of the underlying company has risen and the intrinsic value of the shares has also increased. The price will not reflect the current value of the firms assets and liabilities because it will also include the net present value of expected future flows. Working out the expected future flows is a science on par with palmistry and reading chicken entrails so don't expect to work out why a company is trading at a price so much higher than current assets - liabilities (or so much lower in companies that are expected to fail). This speculation is in addition to price speculation that you mention in the question.","The other answer has some good points, to which I'll add this: I believe you're only considering a company's Initial Public Offering (IPO), when shares are first offered to the public. An IPO is the way most companies get a public listing on the stock market. However, companies often go to market again and again to issue/sell more shares, after their IPO. These secondary offerings don't make as many headlines as an IPO, but they are typical-enough occurrences in markets. When a company goes back to the market to raise additional funds (perhaps to fund expansion), the value of the company's existing shares that are being traded is a good indicator of what they may expect to get for a secondary offering of shares. A company about to raise money desires a higher share price, because that will permit them to issue less shares for the amount of money they need. If the share price drops, they would need to issue more shares for the same amount of money – and dilute existing owners' share of the overall equity further. Also, consider corporate acquisitions: When one company wants to buy another, instead of the transaction being entirely in cash (maybe they don't have that much in the bank!), there's often an equity component, which involves swapping shares of the company being acquired for new shares in the acquiring company or merged company. In that case, the values of the shares in the public marketplace also matter, to provide relative valuations for the companies, etc.","The price of a share has two components: Bid: The highest price that someone who wants to buy shares is willing to pay for them. Ask: The lowest price that someone who has a share is willing to sell it for. The ask is always higher than the bid, since if they were equal the buyer and seller would have a deal, make a transaction, and that repeats until they are not equal. For stock with high volume, there is usually a very small difference between the bid and ask, but a stock with lower volume could have a major difference. When you say that the share price is $100, that could mean different things. You could be talking about the price that the shares sold for in the most recent transaction (and that might not even be between the current bid and ask), or you could be talking about any of the bid, the ask, or some value in between them. If you have shares that you are interested in selling, then the bid is what you could immediately sell a share for. If you sell a share for $100, that means someone was willing to pay you $100 for it. If after buying it, they still want to buy more for $100 each, or someone else does, then the bid is still $100, and you haven't changed the price. If no one else is willing to pay more than $90 for a share, then the price would drop to $90 next time a transaction takes place and thats what you would be able to immediately sell the next share for.","As a start-up, the initial shares can be given at various price points. So essentially they can give someone a larger percentage based on the same amount earlier, and lesser percentage to someone else for the same amount. As its a start-up the valuations can be very tricy and what matters is that whether you believe the percentage you got for the amount is right or not. It is very important to note that when you have been given an ownership in the company, how that is designated. Is it in absolute number of shares or is it in terms of percentage based on the existing shares. For example you maybe given 100 shares, without any qualification. Or you maybe given a 5% stake in the paid-up capital, that translates to 100 shares. It is always better to hold the shares in % of the total shares. Also read the contract, any dilution should require your approval. Normally start-ups once the valuation starts to go up, start creating more shares and sell these to private equity or create more shares and give it as a bonus to promoters. Hence in both cases your holding will keep getting diluted. There is a related quesiton If a startup can always issue new shares, what value is there to stocks/options?","A private company say has 100 shares with single owner Mr X, now it needs say 10,000/- to run the company, if they can get a price of say 1000 per share, then they just need to issue 10 additional shares, so now the total shares is 110 [100 older plus 10]. So now the owner's share in the company is around 91%. However if they can get a price of only Rs 200 per share, they need to create 50 more shares. So now the total shares is 150 [100 older plus 50]. So now Mr X's equity in his own company is down to 66%. While this may still be OK, if it continues and goes below 50%, there is chances that he [Original owner] will be thrown out","While there are many very good and detailed answers to this question, there is one key term from finance that none of them used and that is Net Present Value. While this is a term generally associate with debt and assets, it also can be applied to the valuation models of a company's share price. The price of the share of a stock in a company represents the Net Present Value of all future cash flows of that company divided by the total number of shares outstanding. This is also the reason behind why the payment of dividends will cause the share price valuation to be less than its valuation if the company did not pay a dividend. That/those future outflows are factored into the NPV calculation, actually performed or implied, and results in a current valuation that is less than it would have been had that capital been retained. Unlike with a fixed income security, or even a variable rate debenture, it is difficult to predict what the future cashflows of a company will be, and how investors chose to value things as intangible as brand recognition, market penetration, and executive competence are often far more subjective that using 10 year libor rates to plug into a present value calculation for a floating rate bond of similar tenor. Opinion enters into the calculus and this is why you end up having a greater degree of price variance than you see in the fixed income markets. You have had situations where companies such as Amazon.com, Google, and Facebook had highly valued shares before they they ever posted a profit. That is because the analysis of the value of their intellectual properties or business models would, overtime provide a future value that was equivalent to their stock price at that time.","I stock is only worth what someone will pay for it. If you want to sell it you will get market price which is the bid.","\"I am a tax lawyer and ALL the RESPONSES ABOVE are 1/2 Correct but also 1/2 Wrong and in tax law this means 100% WRONG (BECAUSE ANY PART INCORRECT UNDER TAX LAW will get YOU A HUGE PENALY and/or PRISON TIME by way of the IRS! So in ESSENCE ALL the above answers are WRONG! Let me enlighten you to the correct answer in 5 parts, as people that do not practice tax law may understand (but you still probably will not understand, if you are NOT a Lawyer). 1) All public companies are corporations (shown by Ltd.), 2) only Shareholders of Public companies (ie, traded on the NYSE stock market) are never liable for debts of a bankrupt company, due to the concept of limited liability. 2) now Banks may ask a sole proprietorship (who wants to incorp. for example) to give collateral, such as owners stocks/bonds or his/her house, but then of course the loanee can tell the Bank No Thanks and find a lender that may charge higher interest rates but lend money to his company with little to NO collateral. 3) Of course not all companies are publicly traded and these are called private companies. 4)\"\"limited liability\"\" has nothing to do directly with subsequent shareholders (the above answer is inaccurate!), it RELATES rather to INITIAL OWNERS INVESTMENT in their company, limiting the amount of owner loss if the company goes bankrupt. 5) Share Face-value is usually never related to this as shares are sold at market value in real life instances (above or below face-value), or the most money Investments Banks or owners can fetch for the shares they sell (not what the stock's face-value is set at upon issuance). Never forget, stocks are sold in our Capitalistic System to whomever pays the most, as it is that Buyer who gets to purchase the stock!\"","Market Capitalization is the equity value of a company. It measures the total value of the shares available for trade in public markets if they were immediately sold at the last traded market price. Some people think it is a measure of a company's net worth, but it can be a misleading for a number of reasons. Share price will be biased toward recent earnings and the Earnings Per Share (EPS) metric. The most recent market price only reflects the lowest price one market participant is willing to sell for and the highest price another market participant is willing to buy for, though in a liquid market it does generally reflect the current consensus. In an imperfect market (for example with a large institutional purchase or sale) prices can diverge widely from the consensus price and when multiplied by outstanding shares, can show a very distorted market capitalization. It is also a misleading number when comparing two companies' market capitalization because while some companies raise the money they need by selling shares on the markets, others might prefer debt financing from private lenders or sell bonds on the market, or some other capital structure. Some companies sell preferred shares or non-voting shares along with the traditional shares that exist. All of these factors have to be considered when valuing a company. Large-cap companies tend to have lower but more stable growth than small cap companies which are still expanding into new markets because of their smaller size.","Is the stock's price at any given moment the price at which all shares could be sold to new investors? No. For the simple fact that the current bid/offer always have sizes associated. What you should be looking at is the consolidated price to buy/sell X shares (10bn doesn't really work as not everyone is willing to sell/buy). If you look at the spread of the consolidated price at your quantity level, you'd notice it would be in stark contrast to the spread of the best bid/offer but (by definition) that would be the price to buy or sell X shares to new investors. Edit Calculation of the consolidated price of X shares: You go through the order book and calculate the size-weighted average price until you covered X. Example: So the consolidated price for 3000 shares would be $39.80, the consolidated price for 2000 shares would be $39.90.","Simply put, 100% stock dividend is 1:1 or 1 for 1 bonus share, as explained above, if you held 100 shares after 1:1 bonus you would have 200 shares (100 original, another 100 as bonus). The impact on the stock price is that the price becomes 1/2 the price of the stock before bonus (supply has doubled). 1:1 bonus is nor exactly like a 2:1 / 2 for 1 stock split, in a split the face value if the share would also go down. In effect, any bonus share is not of any fundamental value to the shareholder, as the companies usually capitalize reserves from previous year/years this way as the value of the company does not change fundamentally. In effect the company is taking your money and giving you shares instead.","Short answer: No, it only matters if you want to use covered calls strategies. The price of a share is not important. Some companies make stock splits from time to time so that the price of their shares is more affordable to small investors. It is a decision of the company's board to keep the price high or low. More important is the capitalization for these shares. If you have lots of money to invest, the best is to divide and invest a fixed pourcentage of your portfolio in each company you choose. The only difference is if you eventually decide to use covered call strategies. To have a buy write on Google will cost you a lot of money and you will only be able to sell 1 option for every 100 shares. Bottom line: the price is not important, capitalization and estimated earnings are. Hope this answers your question.","Remember that shares represent votes at the shareholders' meeting. If share price drops too far below the value of that percentage of the company, the company gets bought out and taken over. This tends to set a minimum share price derived from the company's current value. The share price may rise above that baseline if people expect it to be worth more in the future, or drop s bit below if people expect awful news. That's why investment is called speculation. If the price asked is too high to be justified by current guesses, nobody buys. That sets the upper limit at any given time. Since some of this is guesswork, the market is not completely rational. Prices can drop after good news if they'd been inflated by the expectation of better news, for example. In general, businesses which don't crash tend to grow. Hence the market as a whole generally trends upward if viewed on a long timescale. But there's a lot of noise on that curve; short term or single stocks are much harder to predict.","You can ask for 305rs, but as long as shares are available at lower prices you won't sell. Only when your ask becomes the lowest available price will someone buy from you. See many past questions about how buyers and sellers are matched by the market.","Let's say that you bought a share of Apple for $10. When (if ever) their stock sold for $10, it was a very small company with a very small net worth; that is, the excess of assets over liabilities. Your $10 share was perhaps a 1/10,000,000th share of a tiny company. Over the years, Apple has developed both software and hardware that have real value to the world. No-one knew they needed a smartphone and, particularly, an iPhone, until Apple showed it to us. The same is true of iPads, iPods, Apple watches, etc. Because of the sales of products and services, Apple is now a huge company with a huge net worth. Obviously, your 1/10,000,000th share of the company is now worth a lot more. Perhaps it is worth $399. Maybe you think Apples good days are behind it. After all, it is harder to grow a huge company 15% a year than it is a small company. So maybe you will go into the marketplace and offer to sell your 1/10,000,000th share of Apple. If someone offers you $399, would you take it? The value of stocks in the market is not a Ponzi scheme, although it is a bit speculative. You might have a different conclusion and different research about the future value of Apple than I do. Your research might lead you to believe the stock is worth $399. Mine might suggest it's worth $375. Then I wouldn't buy. The value of stocks in the market is based on the present and estimated future value of living, breathing companies that are growing, shrinking and steady. The value of each company changes all the time. So, then, does the price of the stock. Real value is created in the stock market when real value is created in the underlying company.","NAV is how much is the stuff of the company worth divided by the number of shares. This total is also called book value. The market cap is share price times number of shares. For Amazon today people are willing to pay 290 a share for a company with a NAV of 22 a share. If of nav and price were equal the P/B (price to book ratio) would be 1, but for Amazon it is 13. Why? Because investors believe Amazon is worth a lot more than a money losing company with a NAV of 22.","\"Market caps is just the share price, multiplied by the number of shares. It doesn't represent any value (if people decide to pay more or less for the shares, the market cap goes up or down). It does represent what people think the company is worth. NAV sounds very much like book value. It basically says \"\"how much cash would we end up with if we sold everything the company owns, paid back all the debt, and closed down the business? \"\" Since closing down the business is rarely a good idea, this underestimates the value of the business enormously. Take a hairdresser who owns nothing but a pair of scissors, but has a huge number of repeat customers, charges $200 for a haircut, and makes tons of money every year. The business has a huge value, but NAV = price of one pair of used scissors.\"","$38 was the IPO price. This was price per share for those investors who bought directly from the underwriters (Morgan Stanley, etc.) $42.06 was the first secondary market price, the price at which two private parties first exchanged the shares on an exchange, in this case NASDAQ.","If that company issues another 100 shares, shouldn't 10 of those new 100 shares be mine? Those 100 shares are an asset of the company, and you own 10% of them. When investors buy those new shares, you again own a share of the proceeds, just as you own a share of all the company's assets. A company only issues new share to raise money - it is a borrowing from investors, and in that way can be seen as an alternative to taking on loans. Both share issuing and a loan bring new capital and debt into a company. The difference is that shares don't need to be repaid.","\"Market cap is speculative value, M = P * W, where W is stock (or other way of owning) percentage of ownership, P - price of percentage of ownership. This could include \"\"outside of exchange\"\" deals. Some funds could buy ownership percentage directly via partial ownership deal. That ownership is not stock, but fixed-type which has value too. Stock market cap is speculative value, M2 = Q * D, where D is free stocks available freely, Q - price of stock, in other words Quote number (not price of ownership). Many stock types do NOT provide actual percentage of ownership, being just another type of bond with non-fixed coupon and non-fixed price. Though such stocks do not add to company's capitalization after sold to markets, it adds to market capitalization at the moment of selling via initial price.\"","In India, the amount of dividend you get is based on the face value of the stock. If the stock's face value is Rs. 10 and the company announced a dividend of 20%, you will receive Rs.2 per share.To see whether you qualify to receive a dividend, see the ex-dividend date of the company. If you purchased shares before that date, you will receive the dividend, else you will not","It seems like you want to compare the company's values not necessarily the stock price. Why not get the total outstanding shares and the stock price, generate the market cap. Then you could compare changes to market cap rather than just share price.","Specifically I was wondering, how can the founder determine an appropriate valuation and distribution of shares; ie- the amount of equity to make available for public vs how much to reserve for him/herself. This is an art more than science. If markets believe it to be worth x; one will get. This is not a direct correlation of the revenue a start up makes. It is more an estimated revenue it would make in some point in time in future. There are investment firms that can size up the opportunity and advise; however it is based on their experience and may not always be true reflection of value.","It is known as the range or the price spread of the stock. You can read more about it here http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/range.asp","Aside of the other (mostly valid) answers, share price is the most common method of valuating the company. Here is a bogus example that will help you understand the general point: Now, suppose that Company A wants to borrow $20 Million from a bank... Not a chance. Company B? Not a problem. Same situation when trying to raise new funds for the market or when trying to sell the company or to acquire another","Initially, Each company has 10k shares. Company B has $500k money and possibly other assets. Every company has stated purpose. It can't randomly buy shares in some other firm. Company A issued 5k new shares, which gives it $500k money. Listed companies can't make private placements without regulatory approvals. They have to put this in open market via Public issue or rights issue. Company B does the same thing, issuing 5k shares for $500k money. Company A bought those 5k shares using the $500k it just got There is no logical reason for shareholder of Company B to raise 5K from Company A for the said consideration. This would have to increase.","You haven't mentioned how much debt your example company has. Rarely does a company not carry any kind of debt (credit facilities, outstanding bonds or debentures, accounts payable, etc.) Might it owe, for instance, $1B in outstanding loans or bonds? Looking at debt too is critically important if you want to conduct the kind of analysis you're talking about. Consider that the fundamental accounting equation says: or, But in your example you're assuming the assets and equity ought to be equal, discounting the possibility of debt. Debt changes everything. You need to look at the value of the net assets of the company (i.e. subtracting the debt), not just the value of its assets alone. Shareholders are residual claimants on the assets of the company, i.e. after all debt claims have been satisfied. This means the government (taxes owed), the bank (loans to repay), and bondholders are due their payback before determining what is leftover for the shareholders.","Well, if one share cost $100 and the company needs to raise $10000, then the company will issue 100 shares for that price. Right? However, say there's 100 shares out there now, then each share holder owns 1/100th of the company. Now the company will remain the same, but it's shared between 200 shareholders after the issuing of new shares. That means each share holder now owns 1/200th of the company. And hence only gets 1/200th of their earnings etc.","It's still the purchase price or the price at which the shares are purchased or granted. This Investopedia article describes how the price is used for tax purposes: The amount that must be declared [for tax purposes] is determined by subtracting the original purchase or exercise price of the stock (which may be zero) from the fair market value of the stock as of the date that the stock becomes fully vested. Restricted stock awards are similar to stock options. The employer promises to grant the employee a certain number of shares upon the completion of the vesting schedule. The price at which the shares are purchased (or granted, if the price is zero) is the exercise price.","Nothing. Stockbrokers set up nominee accounts, in which they hold shares on behalf of individual investors. Investors are still the legal owners of the shares but their names do not appear on the company’s share register. Nominee accounts are ring-fenced from brokers’ other activities so they are financially secure.","\"Also note that a share of voting stock is a vote at the stockholder's meeting, whether it's dividend or non-dividend. That has value to the company and major stockholders in terms of protecting their own interests, and has value to anyone considering a takeover of the company or who otherwise wants to drive the company's policy. Similarly, if the company is bought out, the share will generally be replaced by shares in whatever the new owning company is. So it really does represent \"\"a slice of the company\"\" in several vary practical ways, and thus has fairly well-defined intrinsic value linked to the company's perceived value. If its price drops too low the company becomes more vulnerable to hostile takeover, which means the company itself will often be motivated to buy back shares to protect itself from that threat. One of the questions always asked when making an investment is whether you're looking for growth (are you hoping its intrinsic value will increase) or income (are you hoping it will pay you a premium for owning it). Non-dividend stocks are a pure growth bet. Dividend-paying stocks are typically a mixture of growth and income, at various trade-off points. What's right for you depends on your goals, timeframe, risk tolerance, and what else is already in your portfolio.\"","Dividend prices are per share, so the amount that you get for a dividend is determined by the number of shares that you own and the amount of the dividend per share. That's all. People like to look at dividend yield because it lets them compare different investments; that's done by dividing the dividend by the value of the stock, however determined. That's the percentage that the question mentions. A dividend of $1 per share when the share price is $10 gives a 10% dividend yield. A dividend of $2 per share when the share price is $40 gives a 5% dividend yield. If you're choosing an investment, the dividend yield gives you more information than the amount of the dividend.","\"Have the stock certificate in with a letter from the previous owner of the company from what I can tell in the letter these stocks were distributed from the owner himself stating \"\"after evaluation we have determined that your investment in this company is worth 10,000 shares at $1.00 a piece\"\" as well as I believe these shares were also acquired when the company was going through name changes or their company was bought\"","The intrinsic value of a company is based on their profits year on year along with their expect future growth. A company may be posting losses, but if the market determines there's any chance they will turn a profit one day, or be a takeover target, it assigns value to those shares. In normal times, you'll observe a certain P/E range. Price to earning ratio is a simple way to say the I will pay X$ for a dollar's worth of earnings. A company that's in a flat market and not growing may command a P/E of only 10. Another company that's expanding their products and increasing market share may see a 20 P/E. Both P/Es are right for the type of company involved.","\"Share price is based on demand. Assuming the same amount of shares are made available for trade then stocks with a higher demand will have a higher price. So say a company has 1000 shares in total and that company needs to raise $100. They decide to sell 100 shares for $1 to raise their $100. If there is demand for 100 shares for at least $1 then they achieve their goal. But if the market decides the shares in this company are only worth 50 cents then the company only raises $50. So where do they get the other $50 they needed? Well one option is to sell another 100 shares. The dilution comes about because in the first scenario the company retains ownership of 900 or 90% of the equity. In the second scenario it retains ownership of only 800 shares or 80% of the equity. The benefit to the company and shareholders of a higher price is basically just math. Any multiple of shares times a higher price means there is more value to owning those shares. Therefore they can sell fewer shares to raise the same amount. A lot of starts up offer employees shares as part of their remuneration package because cash flow is typically tight when starting a new business. So if you're trying to attract the best and brightest it's easier to offer them shares if they are worth more than those of company with a similar opportunity down the road. Share price can also act as something of a credit score. In that a higher share price \"\"may\"\" reflect a more credit worthy company and therefore \"\"may\"\" make it easier for that company to obtain credit. All else being equal, it also makes it more expensive for a competitor to take over a company the higher the share price. So it can offer some defensive and offensive advantages. All ceteris paribus of course.\"","A share of stock is a small fraction of the ownership of the company. If you expect the company to eventually be of interest to someone who wants to engineer a merger or takeover, it's worth whatever someone is willing to pay to help make that happen or keep it from happening. Which means it will almost always track the company's value to some degree, because the company itself will buy back shares when it can if they get too cheap, to protect itself from takeover. It may also start paying dividends at a later date. You may also value being able to vote on the company's actions. Including whether it should offer a dividend or reinvest that money in the company. Basically, you would want to own that share -- or not -- for the same reasons you would want to own a piece of that business. Because that's exactly what it is.","There are a few reason why share prices increase or decrease, the foremost is expectation of the investors that the company/economy will do well/not well, that is expectation of profit/intrinsic value growth over some time frame (1-4 qtrs.)there is also demand & supply mismatch over (usually) short time. If you really see, the actual 'value' of a company is it's net-worth (cash+asset+stock in trade+brand value+other intangibles+other incomes)/no of shares outstanding, which (in a way) is the book value, then all shares should trade at their book value, the actual number but it does not, the expectation of investors that a share would be purchased by another investor at a higher price because the outlook of the company over a long time is good.","\"At any given moment, one can tally the numbers used for NAV. It's math, and little more. The Market Cap, which as you understand is a result of share value. Share value (stock price) is what the market will pay today for the shares. It's not only based on NAV today, but on future expectations. And expectations aren't the same for each of us. Which is why there are always sellers for the buyers of a stock, and vice-versa. From your question, we agree that NAV can be measured, it's the result of adding up things that are all known. (For now, let's ignore things such as \"\"goodwill.\"\") Rarely is a stock price simply equal to the NAV divided by the number of shares. Often, it's quite higher. The simplest way to look at it is that the stock price not only reflects the NAV, but investors' expectations looking into the future. If you look for two companies with identical NAV per share but quite different share prices, you'll see that the companies differ in that one might be a high growth company, the other, a solid one but with a market that's not in such a growth mode.\"","This is a question of how does someone value a business. Typically, it is some function of how much the company owns, how much the company owes, how risky is the company's business, and how much the company makes in profit. For example if a company (or investment) make $100/year, every year no matter what, how much would you pay for that? If you pay $1,000 you'll make 10% each year on your investment. Is that a good enough return? If you think the risk of the company requires a 20% payoff, you shouldn't pay more than $500 for the company.","Par value of common stock is essentially a historical artifact; it is a price at which the company will redeem shares directly. If common stock has any par value at all, it is always so low that no one would ever redeem, preferring to sell in the market at a better price. Par is obviously much more relevant to debt securities than equities. So you do need a strike price. ljwobker's letter is a typical one, in that companies often make the strike price for granted options a formula based on the market price of the stock at the time of the grant, say 100% of market or 110% of market. But you will obviously need to find out what strike your company is offering.","\"See Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK-A) (The Class A shares) and it will all be clear to you. IMHO, the quote for the B shares is mistaken, it used earning of A shares, but price of B. strange. Excellent question, welcome to SE. Berkshire Hathaway is a stock that currently trades for nearly US$140,000. This makes it difficult for individual investors to buy or sell these shares. The CEO Warren Buffet chose to reinvest any profits which means no dividends, and never to split the shares, which meant no little liquidity. There was great pressure on him to find a way to make investing in Berkshire Hathaway more accessible. In June '96, the B shares were issued which represented 1/30 of a share of the Class A stock. As even these \"\"Baby Berks\"\" rose in price to pass US$4500 per share, the stock split 50 to 1, and now trade in the US$90's. So, the current ratio is 1500 to 1. The class B shares have 1/10,000 the voting rights of the A. An A share may be swapped for 1500 B shares on request, but not vice-versa.\"","Market capitalization is one way to represent the value of the company. So if a company has 10 million shares, which are each worth $100, then the company's market capitalization is 1 billion. Large cap companies tend to be larger and more stable. Small cap companies are smaller, which indicates higher volatility. So if you want more aggressive investments then you may want to invest in small cap companies while if you lean on the side of caution then big cap companies may be your friend.","\"This is typically referred to as the \"\"market value\"\" of your holdings--it is the revenue you would generate if you sold your holdings at that moment (less any transaction costs, of course)\"","Because it's a good indicator of how much their asset worth. In oversimplified example, wouldn't you care how much your house, car, laptop worth? Over the course of your life you might need to buy a bigger house, sell your car etc. to cope with your financial goal / situation. It's similar in company's case but with much more complexity.","Adding a couple more assumptions, I'd compute about $18.23 would be that pay out in 2018. This is computed by taking the Current Portfolio's Holdings par values and dividing by the outstanding shares(92987/5100 for those wanting specific figures used). Now, for those assumptions: Something to keep in mind is that bonds can valued higher than their face value if the coupon is higher than other issues given the same risk. If you have 2 bonds maturing in 3 years of the same face value and same risk categories though one is paying 5% and the other is paying 10% then it may be that the 5% sells at a discount to bring the yield up some while the other sells at a premium to bring the yield down. Thus, you could have bonds worth more before they mature that will eventually lose this capital appreciation.","Suppose I purchase $10,000 worth of a particular share today. If the person(s) I am purchasing the shares from paid $9,000 for those shares, then I replacing their $9,000 investment with my $10,000 investment. This is a net inflow of $1,000 into the market. Similarly, if the person(s) I am purchasing the shares from paid $11,000 for those shares, then their $11,000 investment is being replace by my $10,000 investment. This is a net outflow of $1,000 out of the market. The aggregate of all such inflows and outflows in the net inflow/outflow into the market over a given period of time. (Here we are ignoring the effects of new share issues.)","Yes, that's what it means. Also, it tells you that the share price went up by $0.39 yesterday, which was an increase of 1.43% from the previous day's price, and that the total value of all of Microsoft's shares is $232.18 billion (from which we can deduce that there are a bit less than 10 billion Microsoft shares in total).","There are books on the subject of valuing stocks. P/E ratio has nothing directly to do with the value of a company. It may be an indication that the stock is undervalued or overvalued, but does not indicate the value itself. The direct value of company is what it would fetch if it was liquidated. For example, if you bought a dry cleaner and sold all of the equipment and receivables, how much would you get? To value a living company, you can treat it like a bond. For example, assume the company generates $1 million in profit every year and has a liquidation value of $2 million. Given the risk profile of the business, let's say we would like to make 8% on average per year, then the value of the business is approximately $1/0.08 + $2 = $14.5 million to us. To someone who expects to make more or less the value might be different. If the company has growth potential, you can adjust this figure by estimating the estimated income at different percentage chances of growth and decline, a growth curve so to speak. The value is then the net area under this curve. Of course, if you do this for NYSE and most NASDAQ stocks you will find that they have a capitalization way over these amounts. That is because they are being used as a store of wealth. People are buying the stocks just as a way to store money, not necessarily make a profit. It's kind of like buying land. Even though the land may never give you a penny of profit, you know you can always sell it and get your money back. Because of this, it is difficult to value high-profile equities. You are dealing with human psychology, not pennies and dollars.","Assuming you are saying that the company issues 20,000 additional shares of its own stock and sells them for $8 each: The money from the sale is not income and not part of earnings. It is capital and appears on the balance sheet as part of shareholder's equity. With no other transactions, yes, the total of shares outstanding is increased by 20,000 to 100,000.","Shareholder's Equity consists of two main things: The initial capitalization of the company (when the shares were first sold, plus extra share issues) and retained earnings, which is the amount of money the company has made over and above capitalization, which has not been re-distributed back to shareholders. So yes, it is the firm's total equity financing-- the initial capitalization is the equity that was put into the company when it was founded plus subsequent increases in equity due to share issues, and retained earnings is the increase in equity that has occurred since then which has not yet been re-distributed to shareholders (though it belongs to them, as the residual claimants). Both accounts are credited when they increase, because they represent an increase in cash, that is debited, so in order to make credits = debits they must be credits. (It doesn't mean that the company has that much cash on hand, as the cash will likely be re-invested). Shareholder's Equity is neither an asset nor a liability: it is used to purchase assets and to reduce liabilities, and is simply a measure of assets minus liabilities that is necessary to make the accounting equation balance: Since the book value of stocks doesn't change that often (because it represents the price the company sold it for, not the current value on the stock market, and would therefore only change when there were new share issues), almost all changes in total assets or in total liabilities are reflected in Retained Earnings.","I have been asking myself a similar question about the financial statements of Weyerhaeuser. In response to Dheer's comment, whilst treasury shares are treated as a negative, it is issued shares less treasury shares (the negative) which gives the outstanding shares. So the original query remains unanswered. I've searched several sources and all state that outstanding shares will never be greater than issued shares. I've realized that the shares referred to are those authorized followed by those issued and outstanding (current year and prior year respectively) i.e. the shares that are both issued and outstanding as they must be issued in order to be outstanding This is supported in the example of Weyerhaeuser as there was a large increase in shares during Q1 2016 as a result of their merger with Plum Creek. Shares issued and outstanding are 510 million and 759 million respectively.","\"An important thing that many people fail to realize is that the number of shares outstanding in a stock, times the current market price of those shares, does not represent anything related to the total value of those shares. If a company has one million shares outstanding and its total value is $10 million, then the real worth of each share is $10. If few people feels like buying or selling, but a few people think the company is worth $50 million and offer $50/share, that could raise the market price to $50/share, but it wouldn't mean that the company became worth five times as much; it would merely mean the stock was overpriced. If, after the price went to $50/share, all the owners of the stock put in stop-loss orders at $45. Note that the real $10/share \"\"real value\"\" of their stock would never have changed. If the people who thought the stock was worth $50 decided to get out of the market, and nobody else was willing to offer more than $10, that would instantly drop the price to $10. The fact that a million shares of stock have stop-loss orders at $45 wouldn't magically generate buyers for those stocks at that price. Indeed, unchecked stop-loss orders would have the reverse effect, since many people who would have been willing if not eager to buy the stock if it had been available for less than $10/share would instead be trying to sell it below that price. It's too bad people think that the number of shares outstanding times the current market price represents some kind of \"\"meaningful quantity\"\". If the present cash value of all future payouts associated with a share of stock is $10, then someone who buys a share of stock for less than that makes money off the seller; someone who pays more loses money to the seller. Many people think they can lose money to the seller and still come out okay if the price goes higher, but what that really means is that they're hoping to find a bigger sucker--a game where it's guaranteed that some people will have losses they don't recoup.\"","You only got 75 shares, so your basis is the fair market value of the stock as of the grant date times the number of shares you got: $20*75. Functionally, it's the same thing as if your employer did this: As such, the basis in that stock is $1,500 ($20*75). The other 25 shares aren't yours and weren't ever yours, so they aren't part of your basis (for net issuance; if they were sell to cover, then the end result would be pretty similar, but there'd be another transaction involved, but we won't go there). To put it another way, suppose your employer paid you a $2000 bonus, leaving you with a $1500 check after tax withholding. Being a prudent person and not wishing to blow your bonus on luxury goods, you invest that $1500 in a well-researched investment. You wouldn't doubt that your cost basis in that investment at $1500.","\"In the case of an \"\"initial public offering\"\", the brokers underwriting the share issue will look at the current earnings being generated by the company and compare these to those of other competitor companies already listed in the stock market. For example, if a new telephone company is undertaking an initial public offering, then the share price of those telephone companies which are already traded on the stock market will serve as a reference for how much investors will be willing to pay for the new company's shares. If investors are willing to pay 15 times earnings for telecom shares, then this will be the benchmark used in determining the new share price. In addition, comparative growth prospects will be taken into account. Finally, the underwriter will want to see a successful sale, so they will tend to \"\"slightly under price\"\" the new shares in order to make them attractive. None of this is an exact science and we often see shares trading at a large premium to the initial offer price during the first few days of trading. More often that not, prices then settle down to something closer to the offer price. The initial price spike is usually the result of high demand for the shares by investors who believe that past examples of a price spike will repeat with this initial public offering. There will also usually be high demand for the new shares from funds that specialise in shares of the type being issued. In the case of a \"\"rights issue\"\", where an existing publicly traded company wishes to raise capital by issuing new shares, the company will price the new shares at a significant discount to the current market price. The new shares will be initially offered to existing shares holders and the discounted price is intended to encourage the existing shareholders to exercise their \"\"rights\"\" since the new shares may have the effect of diluting the value of their shares. Any shares which are not purchased by existing share holder will then be offered for sale in the market.\"","\"Each company has X shares valued at $Y/share. When deals like \"\"Dragon's Den\"\" in Canada and Britain or \"\"Shark Tank\"\" in the US are done, this is where the company is issuing shares valued at $z total to the investor so that the company has the funds to do whatever it was that they came to the show to get funding to do, though some deals may be loans or royalties instead of equity in the company. The total value of the shares may include intangible assets of course but part of the point is that the company is doing an \"\"equity financing\"\" where the company continues to operate. The shareholders of the company have their stake which may be rewarded when the company is acquired or starts paying dividends but that is a call for the management of the company to make. While there is a cash infusion into the company, usually there is more being done as the Dragon or Shark can also bring contacts and expertise to the company to help it grow. If the investor provides the entrepreneur with introductions or offers suggestions on corporate strategy this is more than just buying shares in the company. If you look at the updates that exist on \"\"Dragon's Den\"\" or \"\"Shark Tank\"\" at least in North America I've seen, you will see how there are more than a few non-monetary contributions that the Dragon or Shark can provide.\"","\"I agree with the answer by @Michael that this number doesn't exist. It's hard to see what use it would have and it would be difficult to track. I'm writing a separate answer because I also disagree with the premise of your question: Individual shares of stock have never to my knowledge had such a number. Your comment about numbers on stock certificates identifies the certificate document, which will generally represent multiple shares of stock. That number no more identifies a single share of stock than the serial number on a $10 bill identifies any one of the ten dollars it represents. Even at the \"\"collective\"\" unit of $10, when the bill is eventually replaced with a new one, the new bill has a new number. No continuity.\"","\"A non-trading stock or non-marketable security or unlisted security is one that does not trade continually on an exchange. For tax purposes, this can mean a whole new ball of wax which I would prefer the experts address with an edit to this answer or a new answer. For financial accounting purposes, this is when, say, one owns shares in an unlisted corporation and should be treated very carefully less one delude oneself. For trading stock, the value can be known immediately by checking any valid data provider's price and marking to market. For non-trading stock, the value has to be \"\"marked to model\"\". This can get one into Enron sized trouble. In this case, it's best to either leave the value of the stock at the purchase price and recognize gains upon sale, use a price from another honest transaction by third parties which are most likely difficult to attain, or to use some shorthand measure like applying the market P/E. Be wary of strangely high figures for value from the purchase price by using a market average, and don't throw away the shares just yet if a strangely low one arises. This method can lead to strange results.\"","No - there are additional factors involved. Note that the shares on issue of a company can change for various reasons (such as conversion/redemption of convertible securities, vesting of restricted employee shares, conversion of employee options, employee stock purchase programs, share placements, buybacks, mergers, rights issues etc.) so it is always worthwhile checking SEC announcements for the company if you want an exact figure. There may also be multiple classes of shares and preferred securities that have different levels of dividends present. For PFG, they filed a 10Q on 22 April 2015 and noted they had 294,385,885 shares outstanding of their common stock. They also noted for the three months ended March 31 2014 that dividends were paid to both common stockholders and preferred stockholders and that there were Series A preferred stock (3 million) and Series B preferred stock (10 million), plus a statement: In February 2015, our Board of Directors authorized a share repurchase program of up to $150.0 million of our outstanding common stock. Shares repurchased under these programs are accounted for as treasury stock, carried at cost and reflected as a reduction to stockholders’ equity. Therefore the exact amount of dividend paid out will not be known until the next quarterly report which will state the exact amount of dividend paid out to common and preferred shareholders for the quarter.","Market Capitalization is the product of the current share price (the last time someone sold a share of the stock, how much?) times the number of outstanding shares of stock, summed up over all of the stock categories. Assuming the efficient market hypothesis and a liquid market, this gives the current total value of the companies' assets (both tangible and intangible). Both the EMH and perfect liquidity may not hold at all times. Beyond those theoretical problems, in practice, someone trying to buy or sell the company at that price is going to be in for a surprise; the fact that someone wants to sell that many stocks, or buy that many stocks, will move the price of the company stock.","The value of a share depends on the value of the company, which involves a lot more than the value of its assets -- it requires making decisions about what you think will happen to the company in the future. That's inherently not something that can be reduced to a single formula, at least not unless you can figure out how to represent your guesses and your confidence in them in the formula ... and even if you could do all that it would only say what you think the stock is worth; others will be using different numbers and legitimately get different results. Disagreement over value is what the stock market is all about, I'm afraid.","Stock A last traded at $100. Stock A has 1 million shares outstanding. No seller is willing to sell Stock A for less than $110 a share. One buyer is willing to buy 1 share for $110. The order executes. The buyer pays the seller $110. Stock A's new price is $110. An $110 investment increased the market cap by $10 million. Neat trick (for all who own Stock A).","From Wikipedia - To calculate the value of the S&P 500 Index, the sum of the adjusted market capitalization of all 500 stocks is divided by a factor, usually referred to as the Divisor. For example, if the total adjusted market cap of the 500 component stocks is US$13 trillion and the Divisor is set at 8.933 billion, then the S&P 500 Index value would be 1,455.28. From a strictly mathematical perspective, the divisor is not canceling out the units, and the S&P index is dollar denominated even though it's never quoted that way. A case in point is that the S&P is often said to have a P/E, and especially an E, the earnings attributed to one 'unit' of S&P. And if you buy a mutual fund sporting a low expense ratio, you can invest exactly that much money (the current S&P index value) and see the dividends accrue to your account, less the fee.","The missing information is at the end of the first line: the price is from NASDAQ (most specifically Nasdaq Global Select), which is a stock exchange in the USA, so the price is in US Dollars.","Since I'm missing the shortest and simplest answer, I'll add it: A car also doesn't offer dividends, yet it's still worth money. A $100 bill doesn't offer dividends, yet people are willing to offer services, or goods, or other currencies, to own that $100 bill. It's the same with a stock. If other people are willing to buy it off you for a price X, it's worth at least close to price X to you. In theory the price X depends on the value of the assets of the company, including unknown values like expected future profits or losses. Speaking from experience as a trader, in practice it's very often really just price X because others pay price X."],"string":"[\n \"I was thinking that the value of the stock is the value of the stock...the actual number of shares really doesn't matter, but I'm not sure. You're correct. Share price is meaningless. Google is $700 per share, Apple is $100 per share, that doesn't say anything about either company and/or whether or not one is a better investment over the other. You should not evaluate an investment decision on price of a share. Look at the books decide if the company is worth owning, then decide if it's worth owning at it's current price.\",\n \"authorized 100,000,000 shares They cannot issue shares more than that so 102M isn't possible. Common stock - $.01 par value, authorized 100,000,000 shares, issued 51,970,721 and 51,575,743 shares If you look at the right 2 columns it become clear what it means. You missed the $ symbol and on the top (In thousands, except share amounts) ouststanding share 51,970,721 -> 520 On Sept 30, 2014 outstanding shares * 0.01 and rounded off to arrive at 520. ouststanding share 51,575,743 -> 516 On June 30, 2014 outstanding shares * 0.01 and rounded off to arrive at 516.\",\n \"Capital surplus is used to account for that amount which a firm raises in excess of the par value (nominal value) of the shares (common stock).. Investopedia has a much simpler answer. Somebody has tried to be smart on wikipedia and have done the calculations without much explanation. The portion of the surplus of a business arising from sources other than earnings : all surplus other than earned surplus usually including amounts received from sale or exchange of capital stock in excess of par or stated value, profits on resale of treasury stock, donations to capital by stockholders or others, or increment arising from revaluation of fixed or other assets The number of shares a company wants to issue is decided and agreed with the regulators. They decide the par value and then decide how much premium will be charged, extra money above the par value. Take out any RHP of an issue and you find all these details. Par Value = 1 Issue price(Price at which investors buy) = 10 Premium = 9 For a single share the capital surplus is 9, multiply it by the number of shares issued and you have the total capital surplus.\",\n \"\\\"The answer to your question has to do with the an explanation of \\\"\\\"shares authorized, issued and outstanding.\\\"\\\" Companies, in their Articles of Incorporation, specify a maximum number of shares they are authorized to issue. For example purposes let's assume Facebook is authorized to issue 100 shares. Let's pretend they have actually issued 75 shares, but only 50 are outstanding (aka Float, i.e. freely trading stock in the market) and stock options total 25 shares. So if someone owns 1 share, what percentage of Facebook do they own? You might think 1/100, or 1%; you might think 1/75, or 1.3%; or you might think 1/50, or 2%. 2% is the answer, but only on a NON-diluted basis. So today someone who owns 1 share owns 2% of Facebook. Tomorrow Facebook announces they just issued 15 shares to Whatsapp to buy the company. Now there are 65 shares outstanding and 90 issued. Now someone who owns 1 share of Facebook own only 1/65, or 1.5% (down from 2%)! P.S. \\\"\\\"Valuation\\\"\\\" can be thought of as the price of the stock at the time of the purchase announcement.\\\"\",\n \"Shareholders are the equity holders. They mean the same thing. A simplified formula for the total value of a company is the value of its equity, plus the value of its debt, less its cash (for reasons I won't get into). There are usually other things to add or subtract, but that's the basic formula.\",\n \"Fully paid up Shares issued in which no more money is required to be paid to the company by shareholders on the value of the shares. When a company issues shares upon incorporation or through an issuance, either initial or secondary, shareholders are required to pay a set amount for those shares. Once the company has received the full amount from shareholders, the shares become fully paid shares. authorised share capital The number of stock units that a publicly traded company can issue as stated in its articles of incorporation, or as agreed upon by shareholder vote. Authorized share capital is often not fully used by management in order to leave room for future issuance of additional stock in case the company needs to raise capital quickly. Another reason to keep shares in the company treasury is to retain a controlling interest in the company. If so, why not just give the existing shareholders the $500 million, (and do a stock split if desired)? Stock splits, bonus issues doesn't generate any capital for the firm, which it required.\",\n \"\\\"Market cap is the current value of a company's equity and is defined as the current share price multiplied by the number of shares. Please check also \\\"\\\"enterprise value\\\"\\\" for another definition of a company`s total value (enterprise value = market cap adjusted for net nebt). Regarding the second part of your question: Issuing new shares usually does not affect market cap in a significant way because the newly issued shares often result in lower share prices and dilution of the existing share holders shares.\\\"\",\n \"outstanding shares are the shares(regular shares) that are still tradable in the market, where the firm in question is listed. The term is primarily used to distinguish from shares held in treasury(treasury stock), which have been bought back(buybacks) from the market and aren't currently tradable in the market. Wikipedia is a bit more clearer and mentions the diluted outstanding shares(used for convertible bonds, warrants, etc) which is used to calculated diluted EPS.\",\n \"\\\"What benefit do I get from buying a share The value of any financial asset is its ability to generate cash in the future, and thus the \\\"\\\"value\\\"\\\" of a share is heavily influenced by the dividends it pays and the equity value. The equity value can be calculated different ways. Two common ways are to just take \\\"\\\"book\\\"\\\" value, meaning assets - liabilities, or you can look at the projected free cash flows of the company discounted back to the present time. Voting rights don't typically influence a share price except in hostile takeover scenarios (meaning someone buys up a lot of shares to have more influence in company decisions)\\\"\",\n \"I haven't seen any of the other answers address this point – shares are (a form of) ownership of a company and thus they are an entitlement to the proceeds of the company, including proceeds from liquidation. Imagine an (extreme, contrived) example whereby you own shares in a company that is explicitly intended to only exist for a finite and definite period, say to serve as the producers of a one-time event. Consider a possible sequence of major events in this company's life: So why would the shares of this hypothetical company be worth anything? Because the company itself is worth something, or rather the stuff that the company owns is worth something, even (or in my example, especially) in the event of its dissolution or liquidation. Besides just the stuff that a company owns, why else would owning a portion of a company be a good idea, i.e. why would I pay for such a privilege? Buying shares of a company is a good idea if you believe (and are correct) that a company will make larger profits or capture more value (e.g. buy and control more valuable stuff) than other people believe. If your beliefs don't significantly differ from others then (ideally) the price of the companies stock should reflect all of the future value that everyone expects it to have, tho that value is discounted based on time preference, i.e. how much more valuable a given amount of money or a given thing of value is today versus some time in the future. Some notes on time preference: But apart from whether you should buy shares in a specific company, owning shares can still be valuable. Not only are shares a claim on a company's current assets (in the event of liquidation) but they are also claims on all future assets of the company. So if a company is growing then the value of shares now should reflect the (discounted) future value of the company, not just the value of its assets today. If shares in a company pays dividends then the company gives you money for owning shares. You already understand why that's worth something. It's basically equivalent to an annuity, tho dividends are much more likely to stop or change whereas the whole point of an annuity is that it's a (sometimes) fixed amount paid at fixed intervals, i.e. reliable and dependable. As CQM points out in their answer, part of the value of stock shares, to those that own them, and especially to those considering buying them, is the expectation or belief that they can sell those shares for a greater price than what they paid for them – irrespective of the 'true value' of the stock shares. But even in a world where everyone (magically) had the same knowledge always, a significant component of a stock's value is independent of its value as a source of trading profit. As Jesse Barnum points out in their answer, part of the value of stocks that don't pay dividends relative to stocks that do is due to the (potential) differences in tax liabilities incurred between dividends and long-term capital gains. This however, is not the primary source of value of a stock share.\",\n \"You can find this in the annual report. Preferred value is not the same as common value.\",\n \"Try to find the P/E ratio of the Company and then Multiply it with last E.P.S, this calculation gives the Fundamental Value of the share, anything higher than this Value is not acceptable and Vice versa.\",\n \"Theoretically, when a company issues more shares, it does not affect the value of your shares. The reason is that when a company issues and sells more shares, the proceeds from the sale of those shares goes back into the company. Using your example, you have 10 out of 100 shares of the company, for a 10% stake. Let's say that the shares are valued at $1,000 each, meaning that the market value of the company is $100,000, and your stake is worth $10,000. Now the company issues 100 more shares at $1,000 each. The company receives $100,000 from new investors, and now the company is worth $200,000. Your stake is now only 5% of the company, but it is still worth $10,000. The authorized share capital is the amount of shares that a company has already planned on selling. When you buy stock in a company, you can look up how many shares exist, so you know what your percent stake in the company is. When a company wants to sell more shares, this is called an increase of authorized share capital. In order to do this, the company generally needs the approval of a majority of the existing shareholders.\",\n \"\\\"I think it's easiest to illustrate it with an example... if you've already read any of the definitions out there, then you know what it means, but just don't understand what it means. So, we have an ice cream shop. We started it as partners, and now you and I each own 50% of the company. It's doing so well that we decide to take it public. That means that we will be giving up some of our ownership in return for a chance to own a smaller portion of a bigger thing. With the money that we raise from selling stocks, we're going to open up two more stores. So, without getting into too much of the nitty gritty accounting that would turn this into a valuation question, let's say we are going to put 30% of the company up for sale with these stocks, leaving you and me with 35% each. We file with the SEC saying we're splitting up the company ownership with 100,000 shares, and so you and I each have 35,000 shares and we sell 30,000 to investors. Then, and this depends on the state in the US where you're registering your publicly traded corporation, those shares must be assigned a par value that a shareholder can redeem the shares at. Many corporations will use $1 or 10 cents or something nominal. And we go and find investors who will actually pay us $5 per share for our ice cream shop business. We receive $150,000 in new capital. But when we record that in our accounting, $5 in total capital per share was contributed by investors to the business and is recorded as shareholder's equity. $1 per share (totalling $30,000) goes towards actual shares outstanding, and $4 per share (totalling $120,000) goes towards capital surplus. These amounts will not change unless we issue new stocks. The share prices on the open market can fluctuate, but we rarely would adjust these. Edit: I couldn't see the table before. DumbCoder has already pointed out the equation Capital Surplus = [(Stock Par Value) + (Premium Per Share)] * (Number of Shares) Based on my example, it's easy to deduce what happened in the case you've given in the table. In 2009 your company XYZ had outstanding Common Stock issued for $4,652. That's probably (a) in thousands, and (b) at a par value of $1 per share. On those assumptions we can say that the company has 4,652,000 shares outstanding for Year End 2009. Then, if we guess that's the outstanding shares, we can also calculate the implicit average premium per share: 90,946,000 ÷ 4,652,000 == $19.52. Note that this is the average premium per share, because we don't know when the different stocks were issued at, and it may be that the premiums that investors paid were different. Frankly, we don't care. So clearly since \\\"\\\"Common Stock\\\"\\\" in 2010 is up to $9,303 it means that the company released more stock. Someone else can chime in on whether that means it was specifically a stock split or some other mechanism... it doesn't matter. For understanding this you just need to know that the company put more stock into the marketplace... 9,303 - 4,652 == 4,651(,000) more shares to be exact. With the mechanics of rounding to the thousands, I would guess this was a stock split. Now. What you can also see is that the Capital Surplus also increased. 232,801 - 90,946 == 141,855. The 4,651,000 shares were issued into the market at an average premium of 141,855 ÷ 4,651 == $30.50. So investors probably paid (or were given by the company) an average of $31.50 at this split. Then, in 2011 the company had another small adjustment to its shares outstanding. (The Common Stock went up). And there was a corresponding increase in its Capital Surplus. Without details around the actual stock volumes, it's hard to get more exact. You're also only giving us a portion of the Balance Sheet for your company, so it's hard to go into too much more detail. Hopefully this answers your question though.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"One of two things is true: You own less than 5% of the total shares outstanding. Your transaction will have little to no effect on the market. For most purposes you can use the current market price to value the position. You own more than 5% of the total shares outstanding. You are probably restricted on when, where, and why you can sell the shares because you are considered part owner of the company. Regardless, how to estimate (not really \\\"\\\"calculate,\\\"\\\" since some of the inputs to the formula are assumptions a.k.a. guesses) the value depends on exactly what you plan to with the result.\\\"\",\n \"1 lot is 100 shares on London stock exchange\",\n \"\\\"First, keep in mind that there are generally 2 ways to buy a corporation's shares: You can buy a share directly from the corporation. This does not happen often; it usually happens at the Initial Public Offering [the first time the company becomes \\\"\\\"public\\\"\\\" where anyone with access to the stock exchange can become a part-owner], plus maybe a few more times during the corporations existence. In this case, the corporation is offering new ownership in exchange for a price set the corporation (or a broker hired by the corporation). The price used for a public offering is the highest amount that the company believes it can get - this is a very complicated field, and involves many different methods of evaluating what the company should be worth. If the company sets the price too low, then they have missed out on possible value which would be earned by the previous, private shareholders (they would have gotten the same share % of a corporation which would now have more cash to spend, because of increased money paid by new shareholders). If the company sets the price too high, then the share subscription might only be partially filled, so there might not be enough cash to do what the company wanted. You can buy a share from another shareholder. This is more common - when you see the company's share price on the stock exchange, it is this type of transaction - buying out other current shareholders. The price here is simply set based on what current owners are willing to sell at. The \\\"\\\"Bid Price\\\"\\\" listed by an exchange is the current highest bid that a purchaser is offering for a single share. The \\\"\\\"Ask Price\\\"\\\" is the current lowest offer that a seller is offering to sell a single share they currently own. When the bid price = the ask price, a share transaction happens, and the most recent stock price changes.\\\"\",\n \"It would be 0.22 * Rs 5 per share, i.e. Rs 1.1 per share. For 1000 share it would be Rs 1.1 * 1000, i.e. 1100\",\n \"It means a 3% return on the value of the stock. If a stock has a $10 share price, the dividend would be $0.30. Normally though, the dividends are announced as a fixed amount per share, because the share price fluctuates. If a percentage were announced, then the final cost would not be known as the share priced could change radically before the dividend date.\",\n \"Stock splits are typically done to increase the liquidity of stock merely by converting every stock of the company into multiple stocks of lower face value. For example, if the initial face value of the stock was $10 and the stock got split 10:1, the new face value of the stock would be $1 each. This has a proportional effect on the market value of the stock also. If the stock was trading at $50, after the split the stock should ideally adjust to $5. This is to ensure that despite the stock split, the market capitalization of the company should remain the same. Number of Shares * Stock Price = Market Capitalization = CONSTANT\",\n \"All shares of the same class are considered equal. Each class of shares may have a different preference in order of repayment. After all company liabilities have been paid off [including bank debt, wages owing, taxes outstanding, etc etc.], the remaining cash value in a company is distributed to the shareholders. In general, there are 2 types of shares: Preferred shares, and Common shares. Preferred shares generally have 3 characteristics: (1) they get a stated dividend rate every year, sometimes regardless of company performance; (2) they get paid out first on liquidation; and (3) they can only receive their stated value on liquidation - that is, $1M of preferred shares will be redeemed for at most $1M on liquidation, assuming the corporation has at least that much cash left. Common Shares generally have 4 characteristics: (1) their dividends are not guaranteed (or may be based on a calculation relative to company performance), (2) they can vote for members of the Board of Directors who ultimately hire the CEO and make similar high level business decisions; (3) they get paid last on liquidation; and (4) they get all value remaining in the company once everyone else has been paid. So it is not the order of share subscription that matters, it is the class. Once you know how much each class gets, based on the terms listed in that share subscription, you simply divide the total class payout by number of shares, and pay that much for each share a person holds. For companies organized other-than as corporations, ie: partnerships, the calculation of who-gets-what will be both simpler and more complex. Simpler in that, generally speaking, a partnership interest cannot be of a different 'class', like shares can, meaning all partners are equal relative to the size of their partnership interest. More complex in that, if the initiation of the company was done in an informal way, it could easily become a legal fight as to who contributed what to the company.\",\n \"Let's say the company has a million shares valued at $10 each, so market caps is $10 million dollar = $10 per share. Actual value of the company is unknown, but should be close to that $10 million if the shares are not overvalued or undervalued. If they issue 100,000 more shares at $10 each, the buyers pay a million dollar. Which goes into the bank account of the company. Which is now worth a million dollar more than before. Again, we don't know what it is worth, but the market caps should go up to $11 million dollar. And since you have now 1,100,000 shares, it's still $10 per share. If the shares are sold below or above $10, then the share price should go down or up a bit. Worst case, if the company needs money, can't get a loan, and sells 200,000 shares for $5 each to raise a million dollars, there will be suspicion that the company is in trouble, and that will affect the share price negatively. And of course the share price should have dropped anyway because the new value is $11,000,000 for $1,200,000 shares or $9.17 per share.\",\n \"They are 2 different class of shares belonging to the same company. Class A shares [par value of 0.01] have 100 voting rights per share. Class B shares [par value of 0.0002] have one voting rights. Both are listed separately with different ISN and trade at slightly different values. The Class A at higher value than Class B which looks right as it has more voting power.\",\n \"What I know about small companies and companies who are not listed on the stock markets is this: If a small company has shares issued to different people either within an organization or outside the value of the shares is generally decided by the individual who wants to sell the share and the buyer who wants to buy it. Suppose my company issued 10 shares to you for your help in the organization. Now you need money and you want to sell it. You can offer it at any price you want to to the buyer. If the buyer accepts your offer thats the price you get. So the price of the share is determined by the price a buyer is willing to buy it at from you. Remember the Face value of the shares remains the same no matter what price you sell it for. Now annual profit distribution is again something called dividends. Suppose my company has 100 shares in total out of which I have given you 10. This means you are a 10% owner of the company and you will be entitled to 10% of the net profit the company makes. Now at the end of the year suppose my company makes a 12,000 USD net profit. Now a panel called board of directors which is appointed by share holders will decide on how much profit to keep within the company for future business and how much to distribute about share holders. Suppose they decide to keep 2000 and distribute 10,000 out of total profit. Since you own 10% shares of the company you get 1000. The softwares you are talking are accounting softwares. You can do everything with those softwares. After-all a company is only about profit and loss statements.\",\n \"\\\"The \\\"\\\"par value\\\"\\\" is a technicality that you can ignore in this case, and it has nothing directly to do with the merger. When a company issues stock, it puts a \\\"\\\"par value\\\"\\\" on the shares. If it later issues more shares, they cannot be issued at less than par value. The rest of the notice seems to be as you said: If you hold until the merger takes effect, they are going to give you $25/share and your shares will be gone. As always, you can try to sell on the open market before that time instead, although you can bet that not too many people are going to want to give you more than $25/share at this point.\\\"\",\n \"Open Google finance and divide the Market Capitalization by the total price. That will give you the total number of shares outstanding. Now see the number of shares you could buy for $1000(40 shares of $25 each or 10 shares of 100 shares each). Now divide the number of shares you own, by the number of shares outstanding in the company and multiply it by 100(i.e (Shares you own/shares Outstanding) * 100). That will give you the percentage or stake of the company you own(With $1000, don't expect it to be a very large number). Now ask your self the question, Is it worth it if I can buy x % of this company for $1000? If the answer is yes, go ahead and buy it. To answer your question in short, NO! it does not matter whether you buy 10 shares for $100 or 40 shares for $25. Cheers\",\n \"Market cap is basically the amount of money that it would cost to buy all of the shares of public stock in a company. Or share cost * number of outstanding shares. It is a measure of how much a company is worth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_capitalization\",\n \"None of the above. The fair value is a term used to describe an analytical result of projecting the company's future dividends and profits into a present value. Such estimates are published by the likes of Morningstar, S&P and Value Line. It is quite common for a stock to trade well above or below such estimated fair values.\",\n \"all other things being equal if you have two stocks, both with a P/E of 2, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase? What this really boils down to is the number of shares a company has outstanding. Given the same earnings & P/E, a company with fewer shares will have a higher EPS than a company with more shares. Knowing that, I don't think the number of shares has much if anything to do with the quality of a company. It's similar to the arguments I hear often from people new to investing where they think that a company with a share price of $100/share must be better than a company with a share price of $30/share simply because the share price is higher.\",\n \"As you can see at https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AAAPL the number of apple shares at this very moment is 5.25B, so if you have 1 share you own 1 / 5.25B of the company.\",\n \"\\\"Market Capitalization is the value the market attributes to the company shares calculated by multiplying the current trading price of these shares by the total amount of shares outstanding. So a company with 100 shares trading at $10 has a market cap of $1000. It is technically not the same as the value of a company (in the sense of how much someone would need to pay to acquire the company), Enterprise value is what you want to determine the net value of a company which is calculated as the market capitalization + company debt (as the acquirer has to take on this debt) - company cash (as the acquirer can pocket this for itself). The exact boundary for when a company belongs to a certain \\\"\\\"cap\\\"\\\" is up for debate. For a \\\"\\\"large cap\\\"\\\" a market capitalization of $10 billion+ is usually considered the cutoff (with $100+ billion behemoths being called \\\"\\\"mega caps\\\"\\\"). Anything between $10 billion and ~$1 billion is considered \\\"\\\"mid cap\\\"\\\", from ~$1billion to ~$200 million it's called a \\\"\\\"small cap\\\"\\\" and below $200 million is \\\"\\\"nano cap\\\"\\\". Worth noting that these boundaries change quite dramatically over time as the overall average market capitalization increases as companies grow, for example in the 80s a company with a market cap of $1 billion would be considered \\\"\\\"large cap\\\"\\\". The market \\\"\\\"determines\\\"\\\" what the market cap of company should be based (usually but certainly not always!) on the historical and expected profit a company makes, for a simple example let's say that our $1000 market cap company makes $100 a year, this means that this company's earnings per share is $1. If the company grows to make $200 a year you can reasonably expect the share price to rise from $10 to ~$20 with the corresponding increase in market cap. (this is all extremely simplified of course).\\\"\",\n \"Hi I have a question about net worth value of rich people on those forbes lists. For example most of those rich people have high net worth because they are shareholders. Do they take into account that if they want to sell all their assets then actually they would receive much less in cash (as the stock price would drastically drop) or is it just the nominal net worth (i.e. the value of all their at the current price)\",\n \"This depends. Quite a few stock exchanges / country report total capitalisation in terms of free float. I.E total shares that can be traded, ignoring the promoters shares. The market cap reported by company takes all shares.\",\n \"You are correct in thinking actual number of shares do not matter, the value is the value. However there are cases where share price does play a role. Berkshire Hathaway for example has not split because Warren Buffet believes it has cut down on the liquidity of the stock, as well as attracting investors with an eye for the longer term. There have also been things written on the psychology of a share price. For example, some people are attracted to shares that split, because it reflects a company is growing.\",\n \"Fully Paid up Partly Paid up: A company may issue stock to you which is only partly paid up, for example, a company may issue a stock of face value 10 to you and ask you to pay 5 now and other 5 will be adjusted later by some other mechanism. This stock shall be partly paid up. Usually, these stocks are issued in different circumstances, for example as part payment for debentures, preference shares or other capital structuring. On the other hand for a fully paid up share no more money needs to be paid by you or no other adjustments need to be made. So, above, the company is issuing you with stocks for which you will need to pay no further money, they are fully paid for. Authorized Capital: Authorized capital of a company is the amount of money a company can raise by selling stock (not debt, equity). This number is registered when the company is incorporated, subsequently, this number can be revised upward by applying to the registrar of companies. Now, this means that at max. the company is authorized to raise this much capital and no more. However, a company may raise less than this, which is called Issued Capital. In your case, the company is raising its authorized capital by applying to the registrar of companies, though in this case they are looking at their full authorized capital to be issued capital, it was not necessary to do so. Increase of Authorized capital: The main benefit is that the company can get more money in form of equity and utilize the same, perhaps, for expansion of business etc., that is the primary benefit. Bonus Share: Usually, companies keep some surplus as reserve, this money comes out of the profit the company makes and is essentially money of the shareholders. This reserve surplus is maintained for situations, when the money may be required for exigencies. However, this surplus grows over a few years and the company usually the company plans for an expansion of business. However, this money cannot be just taken, as it belongs to the shareholder, so shareholders are issued extra equity in proportion to their current holding and this surplus is capitalized i.e. used as part of the company's equity capital. Bonus declaration does not add t o the value of the company and the share prices fall in proportion (but not quite) to the bonus.\",\n \"\\\"To add to @keshlam's answer slightly a stock's price is made up of several components: the only one of these that is known even remotely accurately at any time is the book value on the day that the accounts are prepared. Even completed cashflows after the books have been prepared contain some slight unknowns as they may be reversed if stock is returned, for example, or reduced by unforeseen costs. Future cashflows are based on (amongst other things) how many sales you expect to make in the future for all time. Exercise for the reader: how many iPhone 22s will apple sell in 2029? Even known future cashflows have some risk attached to them; customers may not pay for goods, a supplier may go into liquidation and so need to change its invoicing strategy etc.. Estimating the risk on future cashflows is highly subjective and depends greatly on what the analyst expects the exact economic state of the world will be in the future. Investors have the choice of investing in a risk free instrument (this is usually taken as being modelled by the 10 year US treasury bond) that is guaranteed to give them a return. To invest in anything riskier than the risk free instrument they must be paid a premium over the risk free return that they would get from that. The risk premium is related to how likely they think it is that they will not receive a return higher than that rate. Calculation of that premium is highly subjective; if I know the management of the company well I will be inclined to think that the investment is far less risky (or perhaps riskier...) than someone who does not, for example. Since none of the factors that go into a share price are accurately measurable and many are subjective there is no \\\"\\\"right\\\"\\\" share price at any time, let alone at time of IPO. Each investor will estimate these values differently and so value the shares differently and their trading, based on their ever changing estimates, will move the share price to an indeterminable level. In comments to @keshlam's answer you ask if there is enough information to work out the share price if a company buys out the company before IPO. Dividing the price that this other company paid by the relative ownership structure of the firm would give you an idea of what that company thought that the company was worth at that moment in time and can be used as a surrogate for market price but it will not and cannot accurately represent the market price as other investors will value the firm differently by estimating the criteria above differently and so will move the share price based on their valuation.\\\"\",\n \"A share is more than something that yields dividends, it is part ownership of the company and all of its assets. If the company were to be liquidated immediately the shareholders would get (a proportion of) the net value (assets - liabilities) of the company because they own it. If a firm is doing well then its assets are increasing (i.e. more cash assets from profits) therefore the value of the underlying company has risen and the intrinsic value of the shares has also increased. The price will not reflect the current value of the firms assets and liabilities because it will also include the net present value of expected future flows. Working out the expected future flows is a science on par with palmistry and reading chicken entrails so don't expect to work out why a company is trading at a price so much higher than current assets - liabilities (or so much lower in companies that are expected to fail). This speculation is in addition to price speculation that you mention in the question.\",\n \"The other answer has some good points, to which I'll add this: I believe you're only considering a company's Initial Public Offering (IPO), when shares are first offered to the public. An IPO is the way most companies get a public listing on the stock market. However, companies often go to market again and again to issue/sell more shares, after their IPO. These secondary offerings don't make as many headlines as an IPO, but they are typical-enough occurrences in markets. When a company goes back to the market to raise additional funds (perhaps to fund expansion), the value of the company's existing shares that are being traded is a good indicator of what they may expect to get for a secondary offering of shares. A company about to raise money desires a higher share price, because that will permit them to issue less shares for the amount of money they need. If the share price drops, they would need to issue more shares for the same amount of money – and dilute existing owners' share of the overall equity further. Also, consider corporate acquisitions: When one company wants to buy another, instead of the transaction being entirely in cash (maybe they don't have that much in the bank!), there's often an equity component, which involves swapping shares of the company being acquired for new shares in the acquiring company or merged company. In that case, the values of the shares in the public marketplace also matter, to provide relative valuations for the companies, etc.\",\n \"The price of a share has two components: Bid: The highest price that someone who wants to buy shares is willing to pay for them. Ask: The lowest price that someone who has a share is willing to sell it for. The ask is always higher than the bid, since if they were equal the buyer and seller would have a deal, make a transaction, and that repeats until they are not equal. For stock with high volume, there is usually a very small difference between the bid and ask, but a stock with lower volume could have a major difference. When you say that the share price is $100, that could mean different things. You could be talking about the price that the shares sold for in the most recent transaction (and that might not even be between the current bid and ask), or you could be talking about any of the bid, the ask, or some value in between them. If you have shares that you are interested in selling, then the bid is what you could immediately sell a share for. If you sell a share for $100, that means someone was willing to pay you $100 for it. If after buying it, they still want to buy more for $100 each, or someone else does, then the bid is still $100, and you haven't changed the price. If no one else is willing to pay more than $90 for a share, then the price would drop to $90 next time a transaction takes place and thats what you would be able to immediately sell the next share for.\",\n \"As a start-up, the initial shares can be given at various price points. So essentially they can give someone a larger percentage based on the same amount earlier, and lesser percentage to someone else for the same amount. As its a start-up the valuations can be very tricy and what matters is that whether you believe the percentage you got for the amount is right or not. It is very important to note that when you have been given an ownership in the company, how that is designated. Is it in absolute number of shares or is it in terms of percentage based on the existing shares. For example you maybe given 100 shares, without any qualification. Or you maybe given a 5% stake in the paid-up capital, that translates to 100 shares. It is always better to hold the shares in % of the total shares. Also read the contract, any dilution should require your approval. Normally start-ups once the valuation starts to go up, start creating more shares and sell these to private equity or create more shares and give it as a bonus to promoters. Hence in both cases your holding will keep getting diluted. There is a related quesiton If a startup can always issue new shares, what value is there to stocks/options?\",\n \"A private company say has 100 shares with single owner Mr X, now it needs say 10,000/- to run the company, if they can get a price of say 1000 per share, then they just need to issue 10 additional shares, so now the total shares is 110 [100 older plus 10]. So now the owner's share in the company is around 91%. However if they can get a price of only Rs 200 per share, they need to create 50 more shares. So now the total shares is 150 [100 older plus 50]. So now Mr X's equity in his own company is down to 66%. While this may still be OK, if it continues and goes below 50%, there is chances that he [Original owner] will be thrown out\",\n \"While there are many very good and detailed answers to this question, there is one key term from finance that none of them used and that is Net Present Value. While this is a term generally associate with debt and assets, it also can be applied to the valuation models of a company's share price. The price of the share of a stock in a company represents the Net Present Value of all future cash flows of that company divided by the total number of shares outstanding. This is also the reason behind why the payment of dividends will cause the share price valuation to be less than its valuation if the company did not pay a dividend. That/those future outflows are factored into the NPV calculation, actually performed or implied, and results in a current valuation that is less than it would have been had that capital been retained. Unlike with a fixed income security, or even a variable rate debenture, it is difficult to predict what the future cashflows of a company will be, and how investors chose to value things as intangible as brand recognition, market penetration, and executive competence are often far more subjective that using 10 year libor rates to plug into a present value calculation for a floating rate bond of similar tenor. Opinion enters into the calculus and this is why you end up having a greater degree of price variance than you see in the fixed income markets. You have had situations where companies such as Amazon.com, Google, and Facebook had highly valued shares before they they ever posted a profit. That is because the analysis of the value of their intellectual properties or business models would, overtime provide a future value that was equivalent to their stock price at that time.\",\n \"I stock is only worth what someone will pay for it. If you want to sell it you will get market price which is the bid.\",\n \"\\\"I am a tax lawyer and ALL the RESPONSES ABOVE are 1/2 Correct but also 1/2 Wrong and in tax law this means 100% WRONG (BECAUSE ANY PART INCORRECT UNDER TAX LAW will get YOU A HUGE PENALY and/or PRISON TIME by way of the IRS! So in ESSENCE ALL the above answers are WRONG! Let me enlighten you to the correct answer in 5 parts, as people that do not practice tax law may understand (but you still probably will not understand, if you are NOT a Lawyer). 1) All public companies are corporations (shown by Ltd.), 2) only Shareholders of Public companies (ie, traded on the NYSE stock market) are never liable for debts of a bankrupt company, due to the concept of limited liability. 2) now Banks may ask a sole proprietorship (who wants to incorp. for example) to give collateral, such as owners stocks/bonds or his/her house, but then of course the loanee can tell the Bank No Thanks and find a lender that may charge higher interest rates but lend money to his company with little to NO collateral. 3) Of course not all companies are publicly traded and these are called private companies. 4)\\\"\\\"limited liability\\\"\\\" has nothing to do directly with subsequent shareholders (the above answer is inaccurate!), it RELATES rather to INITIAL OWNERS INVESTMENT in their company, limiting the amount of owner loss if the company goes bankrupt. 5) Share Face-value is usually never related to this as shares are sold at market value in real life instances (above or below face-value), or the most money Investments Banks or owners can fetch for the shares they sell (not what the stock's face-value is set at upon issuance). Never forget, stocks are sold in our Capitalistic System to whomever pays the most, as it is that Buyer who gets to purchase the stock!\\\"\",\n \"Market Capitalization is the equity value of a company. It measures the total value of the shares available for trade in public markets if they were immediately sold at the last traded market price. Some people think it is a measure of a company's net worth, but it can be a misleading for a number of reasons. Share price will be biased toward recent earnings and the Earnings Per Share (EPS) metric. The most recent market price only reflects the lowest price one market participant is willing to sell for and the highest price another market participant is willing to buy for, though in a liquid market it does generally reflect the current consensus. In an imperfect market (for example with a large institutional purchase or sale) prices can diverge widely from the consensus price and when multiplied by outstanding shares, can show a very distorted market capitalization. It is also a misleading number when comparing two companies' market capitalization because while some companies raise the money they need by selling shares on the markets, others might prefer debt financing from private lenders or sell bonds on the market, or some other capital structure. Some companies sell preferred shares or non-voting shares along with the traditional shares that exist. All of these factors have to be considered when valuing a company. Large-cap companies tend to have lower but more stable growth than small cap companies which are still expanding into new markets because of their smaller size.\",\n \"Is the stock's price at any given moment the price at which all shares could be sold to new investors? No. For the simple fact that the current bid/offer always have sizes associated. What you should be looking at is the consolidated price to buy/sell X shares (10bn doesn't really work as not everyone is willing to sell/buy). If you look at the spread of the consolidated price at your quantity level, you'd notice it would be in stark contrast to the spread of the best bid/offer but (by definition) that would be the price to buy or sell X shares to new investors. Edit Calculation of the consolidated price of X shares: You go through the order book and calculate the size-weighted average price until you covered X. Example: So the consolidated price for 3000 shares would be $39.80, the consolidated price for 2000 shares would be $39.90.\",\n \"Simply put, 100% stock dividend is 1:1 or 1 for 1 bonus share, as explained above, if you held 100 shares after 1:1 bonus you would have 200 shares (100 original, another 100 as bonus). The impact on the stock price is that the price becomes 1/2 the price of the stock before bonus (supply has doubled). 1:1 bonus is nor exactly like a 2:1 / 2 for 1 stock split, in a split the face value if the share would also go down. In effect, any bonus share is not of any fundamental value to the shareholder, as the companies usually capitalize reserves from previous year/years this way as the value of the company does not change fundamentally. In effect the company is taking your money and giving you shares instead.\",\n \"Short answer: No, it only matters if you want to use covered calls strategies. The price of a share is not important. Some companies make stock splits from time to time so that the price of their shares is more affordable to small investors. It is a decision of the company's board to keep the price high or low. More important is the capitalization for these shares. If you have lots of money to invest, the best is to divide and invest a fixed pourcentage of your portfolio in each company you choose. The only difference is if you eventually decide to use covered call strategies. To have a buy write on Google will cost you a lot of money and you will only be able to sell 1 option for every 100 shares. Bottom line: the price is not important, capitalization and estimated earnings are. Hope this answers your question.\",\n \"Remember that shares represent votes at the shareholders' meeting. If share price drops too far below the value of that percentage of the company, the company gets bought out and taken over. This tends to set a minimum share price derived from the company's current value. The share price may rise above that baseline if people expect it to be worth more in the future, or drop s bit below if people expect awful news. That's why investment is called speculation. If the price asked is too high to be justified by current guesses, nobody buys. That sets the upper limit at any given time. Since some of this is guesswork, the market is not completely rational. Prices can drop after good news if they'd been inflated by the expectation of better news, for example. In general, businesses which don't crash tend to grow. Hence the market as a whole generally trends upward if viewed on a long timescale. But there's a lot of noise on that curve; short term or single stocks are much harder to predict.\",\n \"You can ask for 305rs, but as long as shares are available at lower prices you won't sell. Only when your ask becomes the lowest available price will someone buy from you. See many past questions about how buyers and sellers are matched by the market.\",\n \"Let's say that you bought a share of Apple for $10. When (if ever) their stock sold for $10, it was a very small company with a very small net worth; that is, the excess of assets over liabilities. Your $10 share was perhaps a 1/10,000,000th share of a tiny company. Over the years, Apple has developed both software and hardware that have real value to the world. No-one knew they needed a smartphone and, particularly, an iPhone, until Apple showed it to us. The same is true of iPads, iPods, Apple watches, etc. Because of the sales of products and services, Apple is now a huge company with a huge net worth. Obviously, your 1/10,000,000th share of the company is now worth a lot more. Perhaps it is worth $399. Maybe you think Apples good days are behind it. After all, it is harder to grow a huge company 15% a year than it is a small company. So maybe you will go into the marketplace and offer to sell your 1/10,000,000th share of Apple. If someone offers you $399, would you take it? The value of stocks in the market is not a Ponzi scheme, although it is a bit speculative. You might have a different conclusion and different research about the future value of Apple than I do. Your research might lead you to believe the stock is worth $399. Mine might suggest it's worth $375. Then I wouldn't buy. The value of stocks in the market is based on the present and estimated future value of living, breathing companies that are growing, shrinking and steady. The value of each company changes all the time. So, then, does the price of the stock. Real value is created in the stock market when real value is created in the underlying company.\",\n \"NAV is how much is the stuff of the company worth divided by the number of shares. This total is also called book value. The market cap is share price times number of shares. For Amazon today people are willing to pay 290 a share for a company with a NAV of 22 a share. If of nav and price were equal the P/B (price to book ratio) would be 1, but for Amazon it is 13. Why? Because investors believe Amazon is worth a lot more than a money losing company with a NAV of 22.\",\n \"\\\"Market caps is just the share price, multiplied by the number of shares. It doesn't represent any value (if people decide to pay more or less for the shares, the market cap goes up or down). It does represent what people think the company is worth. NAV sounds very much like book value. It basically says \\\"\\\"how much cash would we end up with if we sold everything the company owns, paid back all the debt, and closed down the business? \\\"\\\" Since closing down the business is rarely a good idea, this underestimates the value of the business enormously. Take a hairdresser who owns nothing but a pair of scissors, but has a huge number of repeat customers, charges $200 for a haircut, and makes tons of money every year. The business has a huge value, but NAV = price of one pair of used scissors.\\\"\",\n \"$38 was the IPO price. This was price per share for those investors who bought directly from the underwriters (Morgan Stanley, etc.) $42.06 was the first secondary market price, the price at which two private parties first exchanged the shares on an exchange, in this case NASDAQ.\",\n \"If that company issues another 100 shares, shouldn't 10 of those new 100 shares be mine? Those 100 shares are an asset of the company, and you own 10% of them. When investors buy those new shares, you again own a share of the proceeds, just as you own a share of all the company's assets. A company only issues new share to raise money - it is a borrowing from investors, and in that way can be seen as an alternative to taking on loans. Both share issuing and a loan bring new capital and debt into a company. The difference is that shares don't need to be repaid.\",\n \"\\\"Market cap is speculative value, M = P * W, where W is stock (or other way of owning) percentage of ownership, P - price of percentage of ownership. This could include \\\"\\\"outside of exchange\\\"\\\" deals. Some funds could buy ownership percentage directly via partial ownership deal. That ownership is not stock, but fixed-type which has value too. Stock market cap is speculative value, M2 = Q * D, where D is free stocks available freely, Q - price of stock, in other words Quote number (not price of ownership). Many stock types do NOT provide actual percentage of ownership, being just another type of bond with non-fixed coupon and non-fixed price. Though such stocks do not add to company's capitalization after sold to markets, it adds to market capitalization at the moment of selling via initial price.\\\"\",\n \"In India, the amount of dividend you get is based on the face value of the stock. If the stock's face value is Rs. 10 and the company announced a dividend of 20%, you will receive Rs.2 per share.To see whether you qualify to receive a dividend, see the ex-dividend date of the company. If you purchased shares before that date, you will receive the dividend, else you will not\",\n \"It seems like you want to compare the company's values not necessarily the stock price. Why not get the total outstanding shares and the stock price, generate the market cap. Then you could compare changes to market cap rather than just share price.\",\n \"Specifically I was wondering, how can the founder determine an appropriate valuation and distribution of shares; ie- the amount of equity to make available for public vs how much to reserve for him/herself. This is an art more than science. If markets believe it to be worth x; one will get. This is not a direct correlation of the revenue a start up makes. It is more an estimated revenue it would make in some point in time in future. There are investment firms that can size up the opportunity and advise; however it is based on their experience and may not always be true reflection of value.\",\n \"It is known as the range or the price spread of the stock. You can read more about it here http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/range.asp\",\n \"Aside of the other (mostly valid) answers, share price is the most common method of valuating the company. Here is a bogus example that will help you understand the general point: Now, suppose that Company A wants to borrow $20 Million from a bank... Not a chance. Company B? Not a problem. Same situation when trying to raise new funds for the market or when trying to sell the company or to acquire another\",\n \"Initially, Each company has 10k shares. Company B has $500k money and possibly other assets. Every company has stated purpose. It can't randomly buy shares in some other firm. Company A issued 5k new shares, which gives it $500k money. Listed companies can't make private placements without regulatory approvals. They have to put this in open market via Public issue or rights issue. Company B does the same thing, issuing 5k shares for $500k money. Company A bought those 5k shares using the $500k it just got There is no logical reason for shareholder of Company B to raise 5K from Company A for the said consideration. This would have to increase.\",\n \"You haven't mentioned how much debt your example company has. Rarely does a company not carry any kind of debt (credit facilities, outstanding bonds or debentures, accounts payable, etc.) Might it owe, for instance, $1B in outstanding loans or bonds? Looking at debt too is critically important if you want to conduct the kind of analysis you're talking about. Consider that the fundamental accounting equation says: or, But in your example you're assuming the assets and equity ought to be equal, discounting the possibility of debt. Debt changes everything. You need to look at the value of the net assets of the company (i.e. subtracting the debt), not just the value of its assets alone. Shareholders are residual claimants on the assets of the company, i.e. after all debt claims have been satisfied. This means the government (taxes owed), the bank (loans to repay), and bondholders are due their payback before determining what is leftover for the shareholders.\",\n \"Well, if one share cost $100 and the company needs to raise $10000, then the company will issue 100 shares for that price. Right? However, say there's 100 shares out there now, then each share holder owns 1/100th of the company. Now the company will remain the same, but it's shared between 200 shareholders after the issuing of new shares. That means each share holder now owns 1/200th of the company. And hence only gets 1/200th of their earnings etc.\",\n \"It's still the purchase price or the price at which the shares are purchased or granted. This Investopedia article describes how the price is used for tax purposes: The amount that must be declared [for tax purposes] is determined by subtracting the original purchase or exercise price of the stock (which may be zero) from the fair market value of the stock as of the date that the stock becomes fully vested. Restricted stock awards are similar to stock options. The employer promises to grant the employee a certain number of shares upon the completion of the vesting schedule. The price at which the shares are purchased (or granted, if the price is zero) is the exercise price.\",\n \"Nothing. Stockbrokers set up nominee accounts, in which they hold shares on behalf of individual investors. Investors are still the legal owners of the shares but their names do not appear on the company’s share register. Nominee accounts are ring-fenced from brokers’ other activities so they are financially secure.\",\n \"\\\"Also note that a share of voting stock is a vote at the stockholder's meeting, whether it's dividend or non-dividend. That has value to the company and major stockholders in terms of protecting their own interests, and has value to anyone considering a takeover of the company or who otherwise wants to drive the company's policy. Similarly, if the company is bought out, the share will generally be replaced by shares in whatever the new owning company is. So it really does represent \\\"\\\"a slice of the company\\\"\\\" in several vary practical ways, and thus has fairly well-defined intrinsic value linked to the company's perceived value. If its price drops too low the company becomes more vulnerable to hostile takeover, which means the company itself will often be motivated to buy back shares to protect itself from that threat. One of the questions always asked when making an investment is whether you're looking for growth (are you hoping its intrinsic value will increase) or income (are you hoping it will pay you a premium for owning it). Non-dividend stocks are a pure growth bet. Dividend-paying stocks are typically a mixture of growth and income, at various trade-off points. What's right for you depends on your goals, timeframe, risk tolerance, and what else is already in your portfolio.\\\"\",\n \"Dividend prices are per share, so the amount that you get for a dividend is determined by the number of shares that you own and the amount of the dividend per share. That's all. People like to look at dividend yield because it lets them compare different investments; that's done by dividing the dividend by the value of the stock, however determined. That's the percentage that the question mentions. A dividend of $1 per share when the share price is $10 gives a 10% dividend yield. A dividend of $2 per share when the share price is $40 gives a 5% dividend yield. If you're choosing an investment, the dividend yield gives you more information than the amount of the dividend.\",\n \"\\\"Have the stock certificate in with a letter from the previous owner of the company from what I can tell in the letter these stocks were distributed from the owner himself stating \\\"\\\"after evaluation we have determined that your investment in this company is worth 10,000 shares at $1.00 a piece\\\"\\\" as well as I believe these shares were also acquired when the company was going through name changes or their company was bought\\\"\",\n \"The intrinsic value of a company is based on their profits year on year along with their expect future growth. A company may be posting losses, but if the market determines there's any chance they will turn a profit one day, or be a takeover target, it assigns value to those shares. In normal times, you'll observe a certain P/E range. Price to earning ratio is a simple way to say the I will pay X$ for a dollar's worth of earnings. A company that's in a flat market and not growing may command a P/E of only 10. Another company that's expanding their products and increasing market share may see a 20 P/E. Both P/Es are right for the type of company involved.\",\n \"\\\"Share price is based on demand. Assuming the same amount of shares are made available for trade then stocks with a higher demand will have a higher price. So say a company has 1000 shares in total and that company needs to raise $100. They decide to sell 100 shares for $1 to raise their $100. If there is demand for 100 shares for at least $1 then they achieve their goal. But if the market decides the shares in this company are only worth 50 cents then the company only raises $50. So where do they get the other $50 they needed? Well one option is to sell another 100 shares. The dilution comes about because in the first scenario the company retains ownership of 900 or 90% of the equity. In the second scenario it retains ownership of only 800 shares or 80% of the equity. The benefit to the company and shareholders of a higher price is basically just math. Any multiple of shares times a higher price means there is more value to owning those shares. Therefore they can sell fewer shares to raise the same amount. A lot of starts up offer employees shares as part of their remuneration package because cash flow is typically tight when starting a new business. So if you're trying to attract the best and brightest it's easier to offer them shares if they are worth more than those of company with a similar opportunity down the road. Share price can also act as something of a credit score. In that a higher share price \\\"\\\"may\\\"\\\" reflect a more credit worthy company and therefore \\\"\\\"may\\\"\\\" make it easier for that company to obtain credit. All else being equal, it also makes it more expensive for a competitor to take over a company the higher the share price. So it can offer some defensive and offensive advantages. All ceteris paribus of course.\\\"\",\n \"A share of stock is a small fraction of the ownership of the company. If you expect the company to eventually be of interest to someone who wants to engineer a merger or takeover, it's worth whatever someone is willing to pay to help make that happen or keep it from happening. Which means it will almost always track the company's value to some degree, because the company itself will buy back shares when it can if they get too cheap, to protect itself from takeover. It may also start paying dividends at a later date. You may also value being able to vote on the company's actions. Including whether it should offer a dividend or reinvest that money in the company. Basically, you would want to own that share -- or not -- for the same reasons you would want to own a piece of that business. Because that's exactly what it is.\",\n \"There are a few reason why share prices increase or decrease, the foremost is expectation of the investors that the company/economy will do well/not well, that is expectation of profit/intrinsic value growth over some time frame (1-4 qtrs.)there is also demand & supply mismatch over (usually) short time. If you really see, the actual 'value' of a company is it's net-worth (cash+asset+stock in trade+brand value+other intangibles+other incomes)/no of shares outstanding, which (in a way) is the book value, then all shares should trade at their book value, the actual number but it does not, the expectation of investors that a share would be purchased by another investor at a higher price because the outlook of the company over a long time is good.\",\n \"\\\"At any given moment, one can tally the numbers used for NAV. It's math, and little more. The Market Cap, which as you understand is a result of share value. Share value (stock price) is what the market will pay today for the shares. It's not only based on NAV today, but on future expectations. And expectations aren't the same for each of us. Which is why there are always sellers for the buyers of a stock, and vice-versa. From your question, we agree that NAV can be measured, it's the result of adding up things that are all known. (For now, let's ignore things such as \\\"\\\"goodwill.\\\"\\\") Rarely is a stock price simply equal to the NAV divided by the number of shares. Often, it's quite higher. The simplest way to look at it is that the stock price not only reflects the NAV, but investors' expectations looking into the future. If you look for two companies with identical NAV per share but quite different share prices, you'll see that the companies differ in that one might be a high growth company, the other, a solid one but with a market that's not in such a growth mode.\\\"\",\n \"This is a question of how does someone value a business. Typically, it is some function of how much the company owns, how much the company owes, how risky is the company's business, and how much the company makes in profit. For example if a company (or investment) make $100/year, every year no matter what, how much would you pay for that? If you pay $1,000 you'll make 10% each year on your investment. Is that a good enough return? If you think the risk of the company requires a 20% payoff, you shouldn't pay more than $500 for the company.\",\n \"Par value of common stock is essentially a historical artifact; it is a price at which the company will redeem shares directly. If common stock has any par value at all, it is always so low that no one would ever redeem, preferring to sell in the market at a better price. Par is obviously much more relevant to debt securities than equities. So you do need a strike price. ljwobker's letter is a typical one, in that companies often make the strike price for granted options a formula based on the market price of the stock at the time of the grant, say 100% of market or 110% of market. But you will obviously need to find out what strike your company is offering.\",\n \"\\\"See Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK-A) (The Class A shares) and it will all be clear to you. IMHO, the quote for the B shares is mistaken, it used earning of A shares, but price of B. strange. Excellent question, welcome to SE. Berkshire Hathaway is a stock that currently trades for nearly US$140,000. This makes it difficult for individual investors to buy or sell these shares. The CEO Warren Buffet chose to reinvest any profits which means no dividends, and never to split the shares, which meant no little liquidity. There was great pressure on him to find a way to make investing in Berkshire Hathaway more accessible. In June '96, the B shares were issued which represented 1/30 of a share of the Class A stock. As even these \\\"\\\"Baby Berks\\\"\\\" rose in price to pass US$4500 per share, the stock split 50 to 1, and now trade in the US$90's. So, the current ratio is 1500 to 1. The class B shares have 1/10,000 the voting rights of the A. An A share may be swapped for 1500 B shares on request, but not vice-versa.\\\"\",\n \"Market capitalization is one way to represent the value of the company. So if a company has 10 million shares, which are each worth $100, then the company's market capitalization is 1 billion. Large cap companies tend to be larger and more stable. Small cap companies are smaller, which indicates higher volatility. So if you want more aggressive investments then you may want to invest in small cap companies while if you lean on the side of caution then big cap companies may be your friend.\",\n \"\\\"This is typically referred to as the \\\"\\\"market value\\\"\\\" of your holdings--it is the revenue you would generate if you sold your holdings at that moment (less any transaction costs, of course)\\\"\",\n \"Because it's a good indicator of how much their asset worth. In oversimplified example, wouldn't you care how much your house, car, laptop worth? Over the course of your life you might need to buy a bigger house, sell your car etc. to cope with your financial goal / situation. It's similar in company's case but with much more complexity.\",\n \"Adding a couple more assumptions, I'd compute about $18.23 would be that pay out in 2018. This is computed by taking the Current Portfolio's Holdings par values and dividing by the outstanding shares(92987/5100 for those wanting specific figures used). Now, for those assumptions: Something to keep in mind is that bonds can valued higher than their face value if the coupon is higher than other issues given the same risk. If you have 2 bonds maturing in 3 years of the same face value and same risk categories though one is paying 5% and the other is paying 10% then it may be that the 5% sells at a discount to bring the yield up some while the other sells at a premium to bring the yield down. Thus, you could have bonds worth more before they mature that will eventually lose this capital appreciation.\",\n \"Suppose I purchase $10,000 worth of a particular share today. If the person(s) I am purchasing the shares from paid $9,000 for those shares, then I replacing their $9,000 investment with my $10,000 investment. This is a net inflow of $1,000 into the market. Similarly, if the person(s) I am purchasing the shares from paid $11,000 for those shares, then their $11,000 investment is being replace by my $10,000 investment. This is a net outflow of $1,000 out of the market. The aggregate of all such inflows and outflows in the net inflow/outflow into the market over a given period of time. (Here we are ignoring the effects of new share issues.)\",\n \"Yes, that's what it means. Also, it tells you that the share price went up by $0.39 yesterday, which was an increase of 1.43% from the previous day's price, and that the total value of all of Microsoft's shares is $232.18 billion (from which we can deduce that there are a bit less than 10 billion Microsoft shares in total).\",\n \"There are books on the subject of valuing stocks. P/E ratio has nothing directly to do with the value of a company. It may be an indication that the stock is undervalued or overvalued, but does not indicate the value itself. The direct value of company is what it would fetch if it was liquidated. For example, if you bought a dry cleaner and sold all of the equipment and receivables, how much would you get? To value a living company, you can treat it like a bond. For example, assume the company generates $1 million in profit every year and has a liquidation value of $2 million. Given the risk profile of the business, let's say we would like to make 8% on average per year, then the value of the business is approximately $1/0.08 + $2 = $14.5 million to us. To someone who expects to make more or less the value might be different. If the company has growth potential, you can adjust this figure by estimating the estimated income at different percentage chances of growth and decline, a growth curve so to speak. The value is then the net area under this curve. Of course, if you do this for NYSE and most NASDAQ stocks you will find that they have a capitalization way over these amounts. That is because they are being used as a store of wealth. People are buying the stocks just as a way to store money, not necessarily make a profit. It's kind of like buying land. Even though the land may never give you a penny of profit, you know you can always sell it and get your money back. Because of this, it is difficult to value high-profile equities. You are dealing with human psychology, not pennies and dollars.\",\n \"Assuming you are saying that the company issues 20,000 additional shares of its own stock and sells them for $8 each: The money from the sale is not income and not part of earnings. It is capital and appears on the balance sheet as part of shareholder's equity. With no other transactions, yes, the total of shares outstanding is increased by 20,000 to 100,000.\",\n \"Shareholder's Equity consists of two main things: The initial capitalization of the company (when the shares were first sold, plus extra share issues) and retained earnings, which is the amount of money the company has made over and above capitalization, which has not been re-distributed back to shareholders. So yes, it is the firm's total equity financing-- the initial capitalization is the equity that was put into the company when it was founded plus subsequent increases in equity due to share issues, and retained earnings is the increase in equity that has occurred since then which has not yet been re-distributed to shareholders (though it belongs to them, as the residual claimants). Both accounts are credited when they increase, because they represent an increase in cash, that is debited, so in order to make credits = debits they must be credits. (It doesn't mean that the company has that much cash on hand, as the cash will likely be re-invested). Shareholder's Equity is neither an asset nor a liability: it is used to purchase assets and to reduce liabilities, and is simply a measure of assets minus liabilities that is necessary to make the accounting equation balance: Since the book value of stocks doesn't change that often (because it represents the price the company sold it for, not the current value on the stock market, and would therefore only change when there were new share issues), almost all changes in total assets or in total liabilities are reflected in Retained Earnings.\",\n \"I have been asking myself a similar question about the financial statements of Weyerhaeuser. In response to Dheer's comment, whilst treasury shares are treated as a negative, it is issued shares less treasury shares (the negative) which gives the outstanding shares. So the original query remains unanswered. I've searched several sources and all state that outstanding shares will never be greater than issued shares. I've realized that the shares referred to are those authorized followed by those issued and outstanding (current year and prior year respectively) i.e. the shares that are both issued and outstanding as they must be issued in order to be outstanding This is supported in the example of Weyerhaeuser as there was a large increase in shares during Q1 2016 as a result of their merger with Plum Creek. Shares issued and outstanding are 510 million and 759 million respectively.\",\n \"\\\"An important thing that many people fail to realize is that the number of shares outstanding in a stock, times the current market price of those shares, does not represent anything related to the total value of those shares. If a company has one million shares outstanding and its total value is $10 million, then the real worth of each share is $10. If few people feels like buying or selling, but a few people think the company is worth $50 million and offer $50/share, that could raise the market price to $50/share, but it wouldn't mean that the company became worth five times as much; it would merely mean the stock was overpriced. If, after the price went to $50/share, all the owners of the stock put in stop-loss orders at $45. Note that the real $10/share \\\"\\\"real value\\\"\\\" of their stock would never have changed. If the people who thought the stock was worth $50 decided to get out of the market, and nobody else was willing to offer more than $10, that would instantly drop the price to $10. The fact that a million shares of stock have stop-loss orders at $45 wouldn't magically generate buyers for those stocks at that price. Indeed, unchecked stop-loss orders would have the reverse effect, since many people who would have been willing if not eager to buy the stock if it had been available for less than $10/share would instead be trying to sell it below that price. It's too bad people think that the number of shares outstanding times the current market price represents some kind of \\\"\\\"meaningful quantity\\\"\\\". If the present cash value of all future payouts associated with a share of stock is $10, then someone who buys a share of stock for less than that makes money off the seller; someone who pays more loses money to the seller. Many people think they can lose money to the seller and still come out okay if the price goes higher, but what that really means is that they're hoping to find a bigger sucker--a game where it's guaranteed that some people will have losses they don't recoup.\\\"\",\n \"You only got 75 shares, so your basis is the fair market value of the stock as of the grant date times the number of shares you got: $20*75. Functionally, it's the same thing as if your employer did this: As such, the basis in that stock is $1,500 ($20*75). The other 25 shares aren't yours and weren't ever yours, so they aren't part of your basis (for net issuance; if they were sell to cover, then the end result would be pretty similar, but there'd be another transaction involved, but we won't go there). To put it another way, suppose your employer paid you a $2000 bonus, leaving you with a $1500 check after tax withholding. Being a prudent person and not wishing to blow your bonus on luxury goods, you invest that $1500 in a well-researched investment. You wouldn't doubt that your cost basis in that investment at $1500.\",\n \"\\\"In the case of an \\\"\\\"initial public offering\\\"\\\", the brokers underwriting the share issue will look at the current earnings being generated by the company and compare these to those of other competitor companies already listed in the stock market. For example, if a new telephone company is undertaking an initial public offering, then the share price of those telephone companies which are already traded on the stock market will serve as a reference for how much investors will be willing to pay for the new company's shares. If investors are willing to pay 15 times earnings for telecom shares, then this will be the benchmark used in determining the new share price. In addition, comparative growth prospects will be taken into account. Finally, the underwriter will want to see a successful sale, so they will tend to \\\"\\\"slightly under price\\\"\\\" the new shares in order to make them attractive. None of this is an exact science and we often see shares trading at a large premium to the initial offer price during the first few days of trading. More often that not, prices then settle down to something closer to the offer price. The initial price spike is usually the result of high demand for the shares by investors who believe that past examples of a price spike will repeat with this initial public offering. There will also usually be high demand for the new shares from funds that specialise in shares of the type being issued. In the case of a \\\"\\\"rights issue\\\"\\\", where an existing publicly traded company wishes to raise capital by issuing new shares, the company will price the new shares at a significant discount to the current market price. The new shares will be initially offered to existing shares holders and the discounted price is intended to encourage the existing shareholders to exercise their \\\"\\\"rights\\\"\\\" since the new shares may have the effect of diluting the value of their shares. Any shares which are not purchased by existing share holder will then be offered for sale in the market.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Each company has X shares valued at $Y/share. When deals like \\\"\\\"Dragon's Den\\\"\\\" in Canada and Britain or \\\"\\\"Shark Tank\\\"\\\" in the US are done, this is where the company is issuing shares valued at $z total to the investor so that the company has the funds to do whatever it was that they came to the show to get funding to do, though some deals may be loans or royalties instead of equity in the company. The total value of the shares may include intangible assets of course but part of the point is that the company is doing an \\\"\\\"equity financing\\\"\\\" where the company continues to operate. The shareholders of the company have their stake which may be rewarded when the company is acquired or starts paying dividends but that is a call for the management of the company to make. While there is a cash infusion into the company, usually there is more being done as the Dragon or Shark can also bring contacts and expertise to the company to help it grow. If the investor provides the entrepreneur with introductions or offers suggestions on corporate strategy this is more than just buying shares in the company. If you look at the updates that exist on \\\"\\\"Dragon's Den\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"Shark Tank\\\"\\\" at least in North America I've seen, you will see how there are more than a few non-monetary contributions that the Dragon or Shark can provide.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I agree with the answer by @Michael that this number doesn't exist. It's hard to see what use it would have and it would be difficult to track. I'm writing a separate answer because I also disagree with the premise of your question: Individual shares of stock have never to my knowledge had such a number. Your comment about numbers on stock certificates identifies the certificate document, which will generally represent multiple shares of stock. That number no more identifies a single share of stock than the serial number on a $10 bill identifies any one of the ten dollars it represents. Even at the \\\"\\\"collective\\\"\\\" unit of $10, when the bill is eventually replaced with a new one, the new bill has a new number. No continuity.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"A non-trading stock or non-marketable security or unlisted security is one that does not trade continually on an exchange. For tax purposes, this can mean a whole new ball of wax which I would prefer the experts address with an edit to this answer or a new answer. For financial accounting purposes, this is when, say, one owns shares in an unlisted corporation and should be treated very carefully less one delude oneself. For trading stock, the value can be known immediately by checking any valid data provider's price and marking to market. For non-trading stock, the value has to be \\\"\\\"marked to model\\\"\\\". This can get one into Enron sized trouble. In this case, it's best to either leave the value of the stock at the purchase price and recognize gains upon sale, use a price from another honest transaction by third parties which are most likely difficult to attain, or to use some shorthand measure like applying the market P/E. Be wary of strangely high figures for value from the purchase price by using a market average, and don't throw away the shares just yet if a strangely low one arises. This method can lead to strange results.\\\"\",\n \"No - there are additional factors involved. Note that the shares on issue of a company can change for various reasons (such as conversion/redemption of convertible securities, vesting of restricted employee shares, conversion of employee options, employee stock purchase programs, share placements, buybacks, mergers, rights issues etc.) so it is always worthwhile checking SEC announcements for the company if you want an exact figure. There may also be multiple classes of shares and preferred securities that have different levels of dividends present. For PFG, they filed a 10Q on 22 April 2015 and noted they had 294,385,885 shares outstanding of their common stock. They also noted for the three months ended March 31 2014 that dividends were paid to both common stockholders and preferred stockholders and that there were Series A preferred stock (3 million) and Series B preferred stock (10 million), plus a statement: In February 2015, our Board of Directors authorized a share repurchase program of up to $150.0 million of our outstanding common stock. Shares repurchased under these programs are accounted for as treasury stock, carried at cost and reflected as a reduction to stockholders’ equity. Therefore the exact amount of dividend paid out will not be known until the next quarterly report which will state the exact amount of dividend paid out to common and preferred shareholders for the quarter.\",\n \"Market Capitalization is the product of the current share price (the last time someone sold a share of the stock, how much?) times the number of outstanding shares of stock, summed up over all of the stock categories. Assuming the efficient market hypothesis and a liquid market, this gives the current total value of the companies' assets (both tangible and intangible). Both the EMH and perfect liquidity may not hold at all times. Beyond those theoretical problems, in practice, someone trying to buy or sell the company at that price is going to be in for a surprise; the fact that someone wants to sell that many stocks, or buy that many stocks, will move the price of the company stock.\",\n \"The value of a share depends on the value of the company, which involves a lot more than the value of its assets -- it requires making decisions about what you think will happen to the company in the future. That's inherently not something that can be reduced to a single formula, at least not unless you can figure out how to represent your guesses and your confidence in them in the formula ... and even if you could do all that it would only say what you think the stock is worth; others will be using different numbers and legitimately get different results. Disagreement over value is what the stock market is all about, I'm afraid.\",\n \"Stock A last traded at $100. Stock A has 1 million shares outstanding. No seller is willing to sell Stock A for less than $110 a share. One buyer is willing to buy 1 share for $110. The order executes. The buyer pays the seller $110. Stock A's new price is $110. An $110 investment increased the market cap by $10 million. Neat trick (for all who own Stock A).\",\n \"From Wikipedia - To calculate the value of the S&P 500 Index, the sum of the adjusted market capitalization of all 500 stocks is divided by a factor, usually referred to as the Divisor. For example, if the total adjusted market cap of the 500 component stocks is US$13 trillion and the Divisor is set at 8.933 billion, then the S&P 500 Index value would be 1,455.28. From a strictly mathematical perspective, the divisor is not canceling out the units, and the S&P index is dollar denominated even though it's never quoted that way. A case in point is that the S&P is often said to have a P/E, and especially an E, the earnings attributed to one 'unit' of S&P. And if you buy a mutual fund sporting a low expense ratio, you can invest exactly that much money (the current S&P index value) and see the dividends accrue to your account, less the fee.\",\n \"The missing information is at the end of the first line: the price is from NASDAQ (most specifically Nasdaq Global Select), which is a stock exchange in the USA, so the price is in US Dollars.\",\n \"Since I'm missing the shortest and simplest answer, I'll add it: A car also doesn't offer dividends, yet it's still worth money. A $100 bill doesn't offer dividends, yet people are willing to offer services, or goods, or other currencies, to own that $100 bill. It's the same with a stock. If other people are willing to buy it off you for a price X, it's worth at least close to price X to you. In theory the price X depends on the value of the assets of the company, including unknown values like expected future profits or losses. Speaking from experience as a trader, in practice it's very often really just price X because others pay price X.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["They are 2 different class of shares belonging to the same company. Class A shares [par value of 0.01] have 100 voting rights per share. Class B shares [par value of 0.0002] have one voting rights. Both are listed separately with different ISN and trade at slightly different values. The Class A at higher value than Class B which looks right as it has more voting power."],"string":"[\n \"They are 2 different class of shares belonging to the same company. Class A shares [par value of 0.01] have 100 voting rights per share. Class B shares [par value of 0.0002] have one voting rights. Both are listed separately with different ISN and trade at slightly different values. The Class A at higher value than Class B which looks right as it has more voting power.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":163,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"3682"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Short selling - lender's motivation"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["356161","329662"],"string":"[\n \"356161\",\n \"329662\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["247313","348445","434788","187568","181673","405206","255978","329662","13240","188531","188152","68853","251711","226496","356161","35500","122050","320450","588743","118039","564611","259706","307155","107045","274835","553110","308809","193502","461062","336847","549040","356726","563744","75686","499877","501984","17426","125659","412223","471730","489254","283982","172783","330041","366484","330900","7743","459494","599925","458907","439295","9082","501739","233379","588836","67107","12542","370161","67154","537153","523729","440805","49794","558921","172338","464132","172761","591694","13631","409350","281533","94117","428786","386537","344076","239998","92267","140371","513942","356388","219762","479593","581423","177137","385220","312154","63301","84891","568299","327814","409432","79764","255319","314478","273644","179893","551485","384015","323731","487329"],"string":"[\n \"247313\",\n \"348445\",\n \"434788\",\n \"187568\",\n \"181673\",\n \"405206\",\n \"255978\",\n \"329662\",\n \"13240\",\n \"188531\",\n \"188152\",\n \"68853\",\n \"251711\",\n \"226496\",\n \"356161\",\n \"35500\",\n \"122050\",\n \"320450\",\n \"588743\",\n \"118039\",\n \"564611\",\n \"259706\",\n \"307155\",\n \"107045\",\n \"274835\",\n \"553110\",\n \"308809\",\n \"193502\",\n \"461062\",\n \"336847\",\n \"549040\",\n \"356726\",\n \"563744\",\n \"75686\",\n \"499877\",\n \"501984\",\n \"17426\",\n \"125659\",\n \"412223\",\n \"471730\",\n \"489254\",\n \"283982\",\n \"172783\",\n \"330041\",\n \"366484\",\n \"330900\",\n \"7743\",\n \"459494\",\n \"599925\",\n \"458907\",\n \"439295\",\n \"9082\",\n \"501739\",\n \"233379\",\n \"588836\",\n \"67107\",\n \"12542\",\n \"370161\",\n \"67154\",\n \"537153\",\n \"523729\",\n \"440805\",\n \"49794\",\n \"558921\",\n \"172338\",\n \"464132\",\n \"172761\",\n \"591694\",\n \"13631\",\n \"409350\",\n \"281533\",\n \"94117\",\n \"428786\",\n \"386537\",\n \"344076\",\n \"239998\",\n \"92267\",\n \"140371\",\n \"513942\",\n \"356388\",\n \"219762\",\n \"479593\",\n \"581423\",\n \"177137\",\n \"385220\",\n \"312154\",\n \"63301\",\n \"84891\",\n \"568299\",\n \"327814\",\n \"409432\",\n \"79764\",\n \"255319\",\n \"314478\",\n \"273644\",\n \"179893\",\n \"551485\",\n \"384015\",\n \"323731\",\n \"487329\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"There are two primary reasons shares are sold short: (1) to speculate that a stock's price will decline and (2) to hedge some other related financial exposure. The first is acknowledged by the question. The second reason may be done for taxes (shorting \"\"against the box\"\" was once permitted for tax purposes), for arbitrage positions such as merger arbitrage and situations when an outright sale of stock is not permitted, such as owning restricted stock such as employer-granted shares. Why would a shareholder lend the investor the shares? The investor loaning his stock out to short-sellers earns interest on those shares that the borrower pays. It is not unusual for the annualized cost of borrowing stock to be double digits when there is high demand for heavily shorted shares. This benefit is however not available to all investors.\"","In short (pun intended), the shareholder lending the shares does not believe that the shares will fall, even though the potential investor does. The shareholder believes that the shares will rise. Because the two individuals believe that a different outcome will occur, they are able to make a trade. By using the available data in the market, they have arrived at a particular conclusion of the fair price for the trade, but each individual wants to be on the other side of it. Consider a simpler form of your question: Why would a shareholder agree to sell his/her shares? Why don't they just wait to sell, when the price is higher? After all, that is why the buyer wants to purchase the shares. On review, I realize I've only stated here why the original shareholder wouldn't simply sell and rebuy the share themselves (because they have a different view of the market). As to why they would actually allow the trade to occur - Zak (and other answers) point out that the shares being lent are compensated for by an initial fee on the transaction + the chance for interest during the period that the shares are owed for.","Not really. The lender is not buying the stock back at a lower price. Remember, he already owns it, so he need not buy it again. The person losing is the one from whom the short seller buys back the stock, provided that person bought the stock at higher price. So if B borrowed from A(lender) and sold it to C, and later B purchased it back from C at a lower price, then B made profit, C made loss and A made nothing .","Nobody is going to short sell stocks through a lender that forces people to buy in as soon as it is getting good for them.","Why would a shareholder lend the investor the shares? Some brokers like IB will pay you to lend your shares: http://ibkb.interactivebrokers.com/node/1838 If you buy shares on margin, you don't have much of a choice. Your broker is allowed to lend your shares to short-sellers.","Michael gave a good answer describing the transaction but I wanted to follow up on your questions about the lender. First, the lender does charge interest on the borrowed securities. The amount of interest can vary based on a number of factors, such as who is borrowing, how much are they borrowing, and what stock are they trying to borrow. Occasionally when you are trying to short a stock you will get an error that it is hard to borrow. This could be for a few reasons, such as there are already a large amount of people who have shorted your broker's shares, or your broker never acquired the shares to begin with (which usually only happens on very small stocks). In both cases the broker/lender doesnt have enough shares and may be unwilling to get more. In that way they are discriminating on what they lend. If a company is about to go bankrupt and a lender doesnt have any more shares to lend out, it is unlikely they will purchase more as they stand to lose a lot and gain very little. It might seem like lending is a risky business but think of it as occurring over decades and not months. General Motors had been around for 100 years before it went bankrupt, so any lender who had owned and been lending out GM shares for a fraction of that time likely still profited. Also this is all very simplified. JoeTaxpayer alluded to this in the comments but in actuality who is lending stock or even who owns stock is much more complicated and probably doesnt need to be explained here. I just wanted to show in this over-simplified explanation that lending is not as risky as it may first seem.","Short sellers have to pay interest on the borrowings to the shareholders. Although many times brokers don't pass on these earnings to the shareholders, this is the exchange.","\"As the other answer said, the person who owns the lent stock does not benefit directly. They may benefit indirectly in that brokers can use the short lending profits to reduce their fees or in that they have the option to short other stocks at the same terms. Follow-up question: what prevents the broker lending the shares for a very short time (less than a day), pocketing the interest and returning the lenders their shares without much change in share price (because borrowing period was very short). What prevents them from doing that many times a day ? Lack of market. Short selling for short periods of time isn't so common as to allow for \"\"many\"\" times a day. Some day traders may do it occasionally, but I don't know that it would be a reliable business model to supply them. If there are enough people interested in shorting the stock, they will probably want to hold onto it long enough for the anticipated movement to happen. There are transaction costs here. Both fees for trading at all and the extra charges for short sale borrowing and interest. Most stocks do not move down by large enough amounts \"\"many\"\" times a day. Their fluctuations are smaller. If the stock doesn't move enough to cover the transaction fees, then that seller lost money overall. Over time, sellers like that will stop trading, as they will lose all their money. All that said, there are no legal blocks to loaning the stock out many times, just practical ones. If a stock was varying wildly for some bizarre reason, it could happen.\"","Because they receive compensation (generally interest + dividends) for loaning out the shares. I own an asset X. Somebody else wants to borrow asset X for some time period. I agree to loan them asset X in return for some form of compensation (generally a rate of interest plus, in this specific case, any dividend payments). The reasons why I own asset X, and why they want to borrow asset X are irrelevant to the transaction. The only relevant points are the amount of compensation and the risk that they might default on the loan. This applies equally well to shares as to money or any other kind of loan-able asset.","\"Concerning the general problem of short selling and the need to borrow shares to complete the transaction : Selling short is a cash transaction. Unlike a futures contract, where a short seller is entering into a legal agreement to sell something in the future, in the case of short selling a share the buyer of the share is taking immediate delivery and is therefore entitled to all of the benefits and rights that come with share ownership. In particular, the buyer of the shares is entitled to any dividends payable and, where applicable, to vote on motions at AGMs. If the short seller has not borrowed the shares to sell, then buyer of non-existent shares will have none of the rights associated with ownership. The cash market is based on the idea of matching buyers and sellers. It does not accommodate people making promises. Consider that to allow short sellers to sell shares they have not borrowed opens up the possibility of the aggregate market selling more shares than actually exist. This would lead to all sorts of problematic consequences such as heavily distorting the price of the underlying share. If everyone is selling shares they have not borrowed willy-nilly, then it will drive the price of the share down, much to the disadvantage of existing share holders. In this case, short sellers who have sold shares they have not already borrowed would be paying out more in dividends to the buyers than the total dividends being paid out by the underlying company. There are instruments that allow for short selling of unowned shares on a futures basis. One example is a CFD = Contract for Difference. In the case of CFDs, sellers are obliged to pay dividends to buyers as well as other costs related to financing. EDIT Regarding your comment, note that borrowing shares is not a market transaction. Your account does not show you buying a share and then selling it. It simply shows you selling a share short. The borrowing is the result of an agreement between yourself and the lender and this agreement is off market. You do not actually pay the lender for the shares, but you do pay financing costs for the borrowing so long as you maintain your short position. EDIT I realise that I have not actually read your question correctly. You are not actually talking about \"\"naked\"\" short selling. You are talking about selling shares you already own in a hope of maintaining both a long and short position (gross). The problem with this approach is that you must deliver the shares to the buyer. Otherwise, ask yourself what shares is the buyer actually buying if you want the bought shares to remain in your account. If you are not going to deliver your long position shares, then you will need to borrow the shares you are selling short for the reasons I have outlined above.\"","hmmm. I think it's because in both cases, you must pay for it up front, before the positions are closed out. You own nothing except the right to buy the stock re: the call, and the obligation to buy the stock re: the short. You buy a call, but must borrow the stock, for which you must put some margin collateral and there is a cost to borrow. You pay for that, of course. I wouldn't call it lending though.","They will make money from brokerage as usual and also from the interest they charge you for lending you the money for you to buy your shares on margin. In other words you will be paying interest on the $30,000 you borrowed from your broker. Also, as per Chris's comment, if you are shorting securities through your margin account, your broker would charge you a fee for lending you the securities to short.","For the lenders to sell their positions they need buyers on the other side. For a large brokerage that means they should always be able to find another lender. For many contracts the client may have no idea they are a lender as lending is part of their agreement with the broker","It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either. Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check. Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated. So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if:","\"Oftentimes, the lender (the owner of the security) is not explicitly involved in the lending transaction. Let's say the broker is holding a long-term position of 1MM shares from Client A. It is common for Client A's agreement with Broker A to include a clause that allows the broker to lend out the 1MM shares for its own profit (\"\"rehypothecation\"\"). Client A may be compensated for this in some form (e.g. baked into their financing rates), but they do not receive any compensation that is directly tied to lending activities. You also have securities lending agents that lend securities for an explicit fee. For example, the borrower's broker may not have sufficient inventory, in which case they would need to find a third-party lending agent. This happens both on-demand as well as for a fixed-terms (typically a large basket of securities). SLB (securities lending and borrowing) is a business in its own right. I'm not sure I follow your follow-up question but oftentimes there is no restriction that prevents the broker from lending out shares \"\"for a very short time\"\". Unless there is a transaction-based fee though, the number of times you lend shares does not affect \"\"pocketing the interest\"\" since interest accrues as a function of time.\"","In finance, short selling (also known as shorting or going short) is the practice of selling assets, usually securities, that have been borrowed from a third party (usually a broker) with the intention of buying identical assets back at a later date to return to the lender. Remember your broker has to borrow it from somewhere, other clients or if they hold those specific stocks themselves. So if it isn't possible for them to lend you those stocks, they wouldn't. High P/E stocks would find more sellers than buyers, and if the broker has to deliver them, it would be a nightmare for him to deliver all those stocks, which he had lent you(others) back to whom he had borrowed from, as well as to people who had gone long(buy) when you went short(sell). And if every body is selling there is going to be a dearth of stocks to be borrowed from as everybody around is selling instead of buying.","In this example, Client A has to buy shares to return them to Client B for his sale (closing Client A's short position). Client B then sells the shares. The end result is there are no shares within the brokerage clientele anymore, so Client A can't borrow them anymore. The broker is just an intermediary, they wouldn't go out and acquire securities on their own for the benefit of a client wanting to short it, as they would be taking on the risk of the opposite position. This would be in addition to the risk they already take on when allowing people to short sell -- which is that Client A won't have the money to buy the shares it owes to Client B, in which case the broker has to make Client B whole.","You can't make money on the way down if it was your money that bought the shares when the market was up. When you sell short, borrowing lets you tap into the value without paying for it. That way, when the price (hopefully) drops you profit from the difference. In your example, if you hadn't paid the £20 in the first place, then you would actually be up £5. But since you started with £20, you still show loss. As others said, borrowing is the definition of selling short. It is also simply the only way the math works. Of course, there is a large risk you must assume to enjoy benefiting from something you do not own!","Typically, as an individual, you can't just decide you want to lend out some securities. There is a lot of legalities that must take place in order to engage in such a transaction. It's a regulated industry and the contractual obligations that exist between borrower and seller are taken care of ahead of time by the broker with their client, prior to any actual transaction taking place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_lending I say typically, becuase I'm guessing that if you are a large enough client and own a substantial block of shares (I really mean a lot) you may be in the unique position of being able to lend out. I'm not sure what the logistics of this would look like, but I think the brokerage house would approach you and negotiate a borrowing rate. In that situation, you may negotiate lending to the the brokerage house and not necessarily directly to the borrower.","why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Because if you sell shares out of your own portfolio, by definition, you are not selling short at all. If you sell something you own (and deliver it) - then there is no short involved. A short is defined as a net negative position - i.e. you sell shares you do not have. Selling shares you own is selling shares you own - no short involved. You must borrow the shares for a short because in the stock market, you must DELIVER. You can not deliver shares you do not own. The stock market does not work on promises - the person who bought the shares expects ownership of them with all rights that gives them. So you borrow them to deliver them, then return them when you buy them back.","The point of short-selling as a separate instrument is that you can you do it when you can't sell the underlying asset... usually because you don't actually own any of it and in fact believe that it will go down. Shorting allows you to profit from a falling price. Another (non-speculative) possibility is that you don't have the underlying asset right now (and thus can't sell it) but will get it at a certain point in the future, e.g. because it's bonds that you've used to guarantee a loan... or grain that's still growing on your fields.","\"A simple way to ask the question might be to say \"\"why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Why is borrowing someone else's shares necessary to make the concept a viable one? Why isn't it just the inverse of 'going long'?\"\" A simple way to think about it is this: to make money by trading something, you must buy it for less than you sell it for. This applies to stocks like anything else. If you believe the price will go up, then you can buy them first and sell them later for a higher price. But if you believe the price will go down, the only way to buy low and sell high is to sell first and buy later. If you buy the stock and it goes down, any sale you make will lose you money. I'm still not sure I fully understand the point of your example, but one thing to note is that in both cases (i.e., whether you buy the share back at the end or not), you lost money. You say that you \"\"made $5 on the share price dropping\"\", but that isn't true at all: you can see in your example that your final account balance is negative in both cases. You paid $20 for the shares but only got $15 back; you lost $5 (or, in the other version of your example, paid $20 and got back $5 plus the depreciated shares). If you had bought the shares for $20 and sold them for, say, $25, then your account would end up with a positive $5 balance; that is what a gain would look like. But you can't achieve that if you buy the shares for $20 and later sell them for less. At a guess, you seem to be confusing the concept of making a profit with the concept of cutting your losses. It is true that if you buy the shares for $20 and sell them for $15, you lose only $5, whereas if you buy them for $20 and sell for $10, you lose the larger amount of $10. But those are both losses. Selling \"\"early\"\" as the price goes down doesn't make you any money; it just stops you from losing more money than you would if you sold later.\"","This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.","Rich's answer captures the basic essence of short selling with example. I'd like to add these additional points: You typically need a specially-privileged brokerage account to perform short selling. If you didn't request short selling when you opened your account, odds are good you don't have it, and that's good because it's not something most people should ever consider doing. Short selling is an advanced trading strategy. Be sure you truly grok selling short before doing it. Consider that when buying stock (a.k.a. going long or taking a long position, in contrast to short) then your potential loss as a buyer is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero) and your potential gain unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're lucky!) Whereas, with short selling, it's reversed: Your loss can be unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're unlucky!) and your potential gain is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero.) The proceeds you receive from a short sale – and then some – need to stay in your account to offset the short position. Brokers require this. Typically, margin equivalent to 150% the market value of the shares sold short must be maintained in the account while the short position is open. The owner of the borrowed shares is still expecting his dividends, if any. You are responsible for covering the cost of those dividends out of your own pocket. To close or cover your short position, you initiate a buy to cover. This is simply a buy order with the intention that it will close out your matching short position. You may be forced to cover your short position before you want to and when it is to your disadvantage! Even if you have sufficient margin available to cover your short, there are cases when lenders need their shares back. If too many short sellers are forced to close out positions at the same time, they push up demand for the stock, increasing price and deepening their losses. When this happens, it's called a short squeeze. In the eyes of the public who mostly go long buying stock, short sellers are often reviled. However, some people and many short sellers believe they are providing balance to the market and preventing it sometimes from getting ahead of itself. [Disambiguation: A short sale in the stock market is not related to the real estate concept of a short sale, which is when a property owner sells his property for less than he owes the bank.] Additional references:","In terms of pricing the asset, this functions in exactly the same way as a regular sell, so bids will have to be hit to fill the trade. When shorting an equity, currency is not borrowed; the equity is, so the value of per share liability is equal to it's last traded price or the ask if the equity is illiquid. Thus when opening a short position, the asks offer nothing to the process except competition for your order getting filled. Part of managing the trade is the interest rate risk. If the asks are as illiquid as detailed in the question, it may be difficult even to locate the shares for borrowing. As a general rule, only illiquid equities or those in free fall may be temporarily unable for shorting. Interactive Brokers posts their securities financing availabilities and could be used as a proxy guide for your broker.","\"There are situations where you can be forced to cover a position, particular when \"\"Reg SHO\"\" (\"\"regulation sho\"\") is activated. Reg SHO is intended to make naked short sellers cover their position, it is to prevent abusive failure to delivers, where someone goes short without borrowing someone else's shares. Naked shorting isn't a violation of federal securities laws but it becomes an accounting problem when multiple people have claims to the same underlying assets. (I've seen companies that had 120% of their shares sold short, too funny, FWIW the market was correct as the company was worth nothing.) You can be naked short without knowing it. So there can be times when you will be forced to cover. Other people being forced to cover can result in a short squeeze. A risk. The other downside is that you have to pay interest on your borrowings. You also have to pay the dividends to the owner of the shares, if applicable. In shorter time frames these are negligible, but in longer time frames, such as closer to a year or longer, these really add up. Let alone the costs of the market going in the opposite direction, and the commissions.\"","Problems with shorting 1. The price could become even more insanely high. 2. The stock you borrowed could be recalled leaving you sitting on a loss. 3. High borrowing costs. 4. Potentially limited loss potential e.g. when a takeover is announced, or when the company has a windfall, or fraudulently announces phony good news. Shorting could still be useful as a niche 10% of your portfolio; the risk is limited that way. Also high short interest tend to make me look a bit harder before buying.","\"My take on this is that with any short-selling contract you are engaging in, at a specified time in the future you will need to transfer ownership of the item(s) you sold to the buyer. Whether you own the item(s) or in your case you will buy your friend's used car in the meantime (or dig enough gold out of the ground - in the case of hedging a commodity exposure) is a matter of \"\"trust\"\". Hence there is normally some form of margin or credit-line involved to cover for you failing to deliver on expiry.\"","\"For the same reason that people bet on different teams. Some think the Tigers will win, others thing the Yankees will win. They wager $5 on it. One of them wins, the other loses. In a short, one person bets that the stock goes down, the other bets that the stock goes up (or hold). You're basically saying \"\"I think this stock is going to hold it's value or go up. If I thought it would go down, like you do, I would sell it myself right now. Instead, I'll let you have it for a while because when I get it back I think I'll come out on top.\"\"\"","our mortgage has been sold to a secondary market player. There are multiple ways in which the deal is struck. At times the risk of default is with Original FI [with recourse], at times it is with secondary FI [without recourse]. The rate can be discounted. So the Original FI collects the EMI as per 3.75 and pays to the secondary FI at 3.25. Or it can also be one time fixed amount. How could this possibly be financially beneficial for the original loan holder? As indicated, there are multiple ways the Original FI makes money, either one time or over the period, depending on how the deal is struck. Are they truly making enough money from the mortgage fees and first payment's interest to to warrant their need to clear up their credit line for new mortgages? Are mortgages always sold for less than the remaining principal? No broadly speaking the mortgage fees cover the cost for initiating the loan. There may be a very small amount banks may make. This is incidental. The actual money is made in the interest that is collected every month. If a Bank as say 5 loans for 100K each. It is very reputed brand and 10 people need 100K loans. Then it makes sense for the First FI to give loan to 5 people for 100K each, and sell this at profit to secondary FI. Take the 100K * 5 and give it off to new 5 people. Effectively making more money on the original 500K the bank had.","\"I know some derivative markets work like this, so maybe similar with futures. A futures contract commits two parties to a buy/sell of the underlying securities, but with a futures contract you also create leverage because generally the margin you post on your futures contract is not sufficient to pay for the collateral in the underlying contract. The person buying the future is essentially \"\"borrowing\"\" money while the person selling the future is essentially \"\"lending\"\" money. The future you enter into is generally a short term contract, so a perfectly hedged lender of funds should expect to receive something that approaches the fed funds rate in the US. Today that would be essentially nothing.\"","You just disclosed that you are new investor to the stock market. I'd advise that you first understand investing a bit better, as most will advise that investors need to be above a certain level before picking individual stocks. That said, most stocks trade in high enough volume and have low enough short interest that they don't fall under the category you seek. You want to first ask your broker if they have such a process, not all do. If so, they would need to provide you with the stocks that fall into this odd situation, specifically, the shares that have traders seeking to short the stock, but the stock is unavailable. Even then, the broker may have requirements that you don't fall into, minimum history with broker, minimum size account, etc. Worse, they are not likely to offer this for 100 shares, but may have a 1000 or higher share requirement. Are you willing to buy some obscure $50/sh priced stock to lend out at 1%/mo? The guy trying to short it is far smarter than both you and I, at least regarding this particular stock. This strategy is more appropriate for the 7 figure net worth investor. If any reader has actual experience with this, I'm happy to hear it. This response is from my recollection of two articles I read about 3 years ago, coincidence they both were published within weeks of each other.","> It's like they only care about personal short term gain and care little about being in the game for the long term. That's pretty much it. If they can't be lending (and making interest), they aren't winning. It's funny that the banks know as well as anyone that the worst place to leave money is in a bank.","Are there any other losses that can be expected beyond the above? The lender may have to invest some money into the house in order to get it in shape to sell. Also, while the lender possesses the house they are liable to the property taxes and possibly utilities. are there any statutes or pressures to motivate the financial institution to get fair price when the property is sold? The lender is motivated to at least break even when selling the property in order to limit losses on their investment. This means they are very motivated to seek a higher price, but they're also motivated to sell the property quickly in order to limit their losses due to property taxes. Usually the lender takes a loss of the investment if foreclosure occurs; only 10 percent to 20 percent of auctioned foreclosed houses did yield a surplus. When the lender sells the foreclosed property using a realtor, they're motivated to sell it as quickly as possible so long as they break even. In this case there is little motivation to sell the property for a surplus. If the property is being sold via auction, then time is not a factor and the lender will just sell to the highest bidder.","\"The reason for selling a stock \"\"short\"\", is for when you believe the stock value will decrease in the near future. Here is an example: Today Exxon-Mobile stock is selling for $100 / share. You are expecting the price to decrease, so you want to short the stock, which means your broker (i.e. eTrade, etc) allows you to borrow shares without paying money, and those shares are transferred into your account, and then you sell them and receive money for the sale. But you didn't actually own those shares, you only borrowed them, so you need to return the shares to your broker sometime in the future. Let's say you borrow 10 shares @ $100, and you sell them at the market price of $100, you receive $1,000 in your account. But you owe your broker 10 shares, which you need to return sometime in the future. A few days later, the share price has decreased to $80. Now you can buy 10 shares from the market at a total cost of $800. You get 10 shares, and return those shares to your broker. Since you originally took in $1,000, and you just paid out $800, you keep a resulting profit of $200\"","To short a stock you actually borrow shares and sell them. The shorter gets the money from selling immediately, and pays interest for the share he borrows until he covers the short. The amount of interest varies depending on the stock. It's typically under 1% a year for large cap stocks, but can be 20% or more for small, illiquid, or heavily shorted stocks. In this scam only a few people own the shares that are lent to shorters, so they essentially have a monopoly and can set really high borrow costs. The shorter probably assumes that a pump-and-dump will crash quickly, so wouldn't mind paying a high borrow cost.","\"If the owner of the stock wants it back, they \"\"call\"\" it back. There are no guarantees of how long you can keep it for your short, or the cost involved to hold it. Usually, everyone knows about a particular set-up (e.g. a warrant or convertible bond mispricing) that is attractive for arbitrage. This causes the associated stock to be in high demand thus expensive to borrow for shorting, or impossible to find for any price at all.\"","\"Lending of shares happens in the background. Those who have lent them out are not aware that they have been lent out, nor when they are returned. The borrowers have to pay any dividends to the lenders and in the end the borrowers get their stock back. If you read the fine print on the account agreement for a margin account, you will see that you have given the brokerage the permission to silently loan your stocks out. Since the lending has no financial impact on your portfolio, there's no particular reason to know and no particular protection required. Actually, brokers typically don't bother going through the work of finding an actual stock to borrow. As long as lots of their customers have stocks to lend and not that many people have sold short, they just assume there is no problem and keep track of how many are long and short without designating which stocks are borrowed from whom. When a stock becomes hard to borrow because of liquidity issues or because many people are shorting it, the brokerage will actually start locating individual shares to borrow, which is a more time-consuming and costly procedure. Usually this involves the short seller actually talking to the broker on the phone rather than just clicking \"\"sell.\"\"\"","A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.","Brokers have the right to charge interest on any stock that they lend you. Since you borrowed the TSLA to short it, the owner of those shares can charge you interest until you return them. If you are not getting charged interest on some shares that you have borrowed to short, consider it generosity on the part of the lender.","I don't actually have any of this stock. Apparently, it's quite common strategy This is called naked short selling. It's not illegal per se, but there can be some major penalties so you should call your broker and ask them these questions. Intentionally naked short selling is not looked upon favorably. They'll probably try to recommend you a safer shorting system by which:","\"He sold at 25 cents per pound and then as the price rises, the cash he has will buy less and less which could trigger a margin call as you are missing the \"\"short\"\" part of his position which is rather important here. From Investopedia: A margin account also allows your brokerage firm to liquidate your position if the likelihood that you will return what you've borrowed diminishes. This is part of the agreement that is signed when the margin account is created. From the broker's perspective, this increases the likelihood that you will return the shares before losses become too large and you become unable to return the shares. If you sold at 25 cents per pound and the price goes up, at some point you may be forced to buy to cover the position as brokers don't like to lose their money. As another example of a short going bad, \"\"Devastated\"\" Trader Crushed By Soaring Biotech, Starts Online Begging Campaign To Fund $106,000 Margin Call notes in part: However where this story gets abusrdly entertaining, or woefully tragic, depending on one's perspective, is that one trader, Joe Campbell, was on the wrong side of last night's massive surge. As the RutRho blog, which noticed it first explains, a \"\"dummy\"\" E-trader, Joe Campbell, decided to go $35,000 short KBIO \"\"and now owes $ETFC a wonderful $106K.\"\"\"","Lending of securities is done by institutional investors and mutual funds. The costs of dealing with thousands of individual investors, small share blocks and the various screw-ups and drama associated with each individual are too high. Like many exotic financial transactions, if you have to ask about it, you're probably not qualified to do it.","\"First, you are not exactly \"\"giving\"\" the brokerage $2000. That money is the margin requirement to protect them in the case the stock price rises. If you short 200 shares as in your example and they are holding $6000 from you then they are protected in the event of the stock price increasing to $30/share. Sometime before it gets there the brokerage will require you to deposit more money or they will cover your position by repurchasing the shares for your account. The way you make money on the short sale is if the stock price declines. It is a buy low sell high idea but in reverse. If you believe that prices are going to drop then you could sell now when it is high and buy back later when it is lower. In your example, you are selling 200 shares at $20 and later, buying those at $19. Thus, your profit is $200, not counting any interest or fees you have paid. It's a bit confusing because you are selling something you'll buy in the future. Selling short is usually considered quite risky as your gain is limited to the amount that you sold at initially (if I sell at $20/share the most I can make is if the stock declines to $0). Your potential to lose is unlimited in theory. There is no limit to how high the stock could go in theory so I could end up buying it back at an infinitely high price. Neither of these extremes are likely but they do show the limits of your potential gain and loss. I used $20/share for simplicity assuming you are shorting with a market order vs a limit order. If you are shorting it would be better for you to sell at 20 instead of 19 anyway. If someone says I would like to give you $20 for that item you are selling you aren't likely to tell them \"\"no, I'd really only like $19 for it\"\"\"","For every seller, there's a buyer. Buyers may have any reason for wanting to buy (bargain shopping, foolish belief in a crazy business, etc). The party (brokerage, market maker, individual) owning the stock at the time the company goes out of business is the loser . But in a general panic, not every company is going to go out of business. So the party owning those stocks can expect to recover some, or all, of the value at some point in the future. Brokerages all reserve the right to limit margin trading (required for short selling), and during a panic would likely not allow you to short a stock they feel is a high risk for them.","\"You sold $10,000 worth of stock so that money is essentially yours. However, you sold this stock without actually owning any which means that you, through your broker, are currently borrowing shares amounting to (at the time of your sale) $10,000 from someone who actually owns this stock. You will be paying this person interest for the privilege of borrowing their shares, the exact amount charged varies wildly and depends on factors such as short interest in the stock (loads of people want to go short = shareholders can charge high interest) etc. If I remember correctly hovering over the \"\"position\"\" column in your portfolio in the IB Workstation should give you information about the interest rate charged. You will have to buy back these shares from the lender at some point which is why the $10k isn't just \"\"free money.\"\" If the stock has gone up in price in the meantime you are going to be paying more than the $10k you got for the same amount of shares and vice versa.\"","\"So, yes, you may be having the inevitable epiphany where you realize that options can synthetically replicate the same risk profile of owning stock outright. Allowing you to manipulate risk and circumvent margin requirement differences amongst asset classes. Naked short puts are analogous to a covered call, but may have different (lesser) margin requirements. This allows you to increase your risk, and the broker has to account for that. The broker's clientele might not understand all the risks associated with that much leverage and so may simply consider it risky \"\"for your protection\"\"\"","\"Below is just a little information on short selling from my small unique book \"\"The small stock trader\"\": Short selling is an advanced stock trading tool with unique risks and rewards. It is primarily a short-term trading strategy of a technical nature, mostly done by small stock traders, market makers, and hedge funds. Most small stock traders mainly use short selling as a short-term speculation tool when they feel the stock price is a bit overvalued. Most long-term short positions are taken by fundamental-oriented long/short equity hedge funds that have identified some major weaknesses in the company. There a few things you should consider before shorting stocks: Despite all the mystique and blame surrounding short selling, especially during bear markets, I personally think regular short selling, not naked short selling, has a more positive impact on the stock market, as: Lastly, small stock traders should not expect to make significant profits by short selling, as even most of the great stock traders (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen,) have hardly made significant money from their shorts. it is safe to say that odds are stacked against short sellers. Over the last century or so, Western large caps have returned an annual average of between 8 and 10 percent while the returns of small caps have been slightly higher. I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of \"\"The small stock trader\"\")\"","Investopedia has a good explanation of the term shorting which is what this is. In the simplest of terms, someone is borrowing the bond and selling it with the intent to replace the security and any dividends or coupons in the end. The idea is that if a bond is overvalued, one may be able to buy it back later for a cheaper price and pocket the difference. There are various rules about this including margin requirements to maintain since there is the risk of the security going up in price enough that someone may be forced into a buy to cover in the form of a margin call. If one can sell the bond at $960 now and then buy it back later for $952.38 then one could pocket the difference. Part of what you aren't seeing is what are other bonds doing in terms of their prices over time here. The key point here is that brokers may lend out securities and accrue interest on loaned securities for another point here.","\"If you can't find anyone to lend you the shares, then you can't short. You can attempt to raise the interest rate at which you will borrow at, in order to entice others to lend you their shares. In practice, broadcasting this information is pretty convoluted. If there aren't any stocks for you to buy back, then you have to buy back at a higher price. As in, place a limit buy order higher and higher until someone decides to sell to you. This affects your profit. Regarding the public ledger: This functions different in different markets. United States stock markets have an evolving body of regulations to alleviate the exact concerns you detailed, but Canada's or Dubai's stock markets would have different provisions. You make the assumption that it is an efficient process, but it is not and it is indeed ripe for abuse. In US stocks, the public ledger has a 3 business day delay between showing change of ownership. Many times brokers and clearing firms and other market participants allow a customer to go short with fake shares, with the idea that they will find real shares within the 3 business day time period to cover the position. During the time period that there is no real shares hitting the market, this is called a \"\"naked short\"\". The only legal system that attempts to deter this practice is the \"\"fail to deliver\"\" (FTD) list. If someone fails to deliver, that means there is a short position active with fake shares for which no real shares have been borrowed against. Too many FTD's allow for a short selling restriction to be placed, meaning nobody else can be short, and existing short sellers may be forced to cover.\"","Are mortgages always sold for less than the remaining principal? No, they're almost always sold for more than that. The buyer will take a loss if the homeowner pays off the loan immediately, but that's very unlikely. The buyer is hoping that the owner will payoff the loan as scheduled and they'll make a tidy profit from the interest charged. The originator now makes their profit immediately and has their capital back so they can make more loans.","This is a gross simplification as there are a few different ways to do this. The principle overall is the same though. To short a stock, you borrow X shares from a third party and sell them at the current price. You now owe the lender X shares but have the proceeds from the sale. If the share price falls you can buy back those shares at the new lower price, return them to the lender and pocket the difference. The risk comes when the share price goes the other way, you now owe the lender the new value of the shares, so have to find some way to cover the difference. This happened a while back when Porsche made a fortune buying shares in Volkswagen from short sellers, and the price unexpectedly rose.","In a lot of cases, the bank has already made their money. Shortly after you get your mortgage is sold to investors though the bank is still servicing it for a fee. Therefore, if you refinance, they get to sell it again.","\"Selling short is simply by definition the selling, then later re-buying of stock you don't initially own. Say you tally your entire portfolio balance: the quantity of each stock you own, and your cash assets. Let's call this your \"\"initial position\"\". We define \"\"profit\"\" as any increase in assets, relative to this initial position. If you know a particular stock will go down, you can realize a profit by selling some of that stock, waiting for the price to go down, then buying it back. In the end you will have returned to your initial position, except you will have more cash. If you sell 10 shares of a stock valued at £1.50, then buy them back at £1.00, you will make a £5.00 profit while having otherwise returned to your previous position. If you do the same, but you initially owned 1000 shares, sold just 10 of those, then bought 10 back, that's still a profit of £5.00. Selling short is doing the same thing, but with an initial and ending balance of 0 shares. If you initially own 0 shares, sell 10, then buy 10 back, you return to your initial position (0 shares) plus a profit of £5.00. (And in practice you must also pay a borrowing fee to do this.) The advantage of selling short is it can be done with any stock, not just those currently owned.\"","Fair enough. I would imagine the ETF could get a better option pricing if that were the case, plus liquidity and counterpart risk concerns but your point is well taken. Serves me right to shoot my mouth off on something I do not do (short). Speaking of which, do you do a lot of shorting? Cover positions or speculation?","\"You didn't win in case B. Borrowing shares and then selling them is known as \"\"selling short\"\". You received $2000 when you sold short 100 shares at $20. You spent $1000 to buy them back at $10, so you come out $1000 ahead on that deal. But at the same time, the 100 shares you already owned have declined in value from $20 to $10, so you are down $1000 on that deal. So you've simply broken even, and you are still out the interest and transaction fees. In effect, a short sale allows you to sell shares you don't own. But if you do already own them, then the effect is the same as if you just sold your own shares. This makes it easier to see that this is just a complicated and expensive way of accomplishing nothing at all.\"","Short selling can be a good strategy to hedge, but you have almost unlimited downside. If a stock price skyrockets, you may be forced to cover your short by the brokerage before you want to or put up more capital. A smarter strategy to hedge, that limits your potential downside is to buy puts if you think the market is going down. Your downside is limited to the total amount that you purchased the put for and no more. Another way to hedge is to SELL calls that are covered because you own the shares the calls refer to. You might do this if you thought your stock was going to go down but you didn't want to sell your shares right now. That way the only downside if the price goes up is you give up your shares at a predetermined price and you miss out on the upside, but your downside is now diminished by the premium you were paid for the option. (You'd still lose money if the shares went down since you still own them, but you got paid the option premium so that helps offset that).","I agree with Mark. I was quite confuse about the short position at first but then I did a lot of learning and found out that as long as you have enough cash to cover your margin requirement you do not pay any interest since you do not have a debit on your margin balance. This is not true for a long position though, supposed you have 5k cash and 5k margin balance, if you buy 10K worth of stocks then you will need to pay interest on the 5k of the margin balance since it is a debit. Since shorting is done at a credit basis, you actually get interest from the transaction but you still may need to pay the borrowing fees for the stocks so they could simply balance each other out. I have shorted stocks twice through two different companies and neither time I noticed any interest charges. But make sure you have enough cash to cover your margin requirement, because once your margin balance is used to covered your position then interest would accrual. Learn.","The only reason to lend the money in this scenario is cashflow. But considering you buy a $15000 car, your lifestyle is not super luxurious, so $15000 spare cash is enough.","You will be charged a stock borrow fee, which is inversely related to the relative supply of the stock you are shorting. IB claims to pay a rebate on the short proceeds, which would offset part or all of that fee, but it doesn't appear relevant in your case because: It is a bit strange to me that IB would not require you to keep the cash in your account, as they need the cash to collateralize the stock borrow with the lending institution. In fact, per Regulation T, the short position requires an initial margin of 150%, which includes the short proceeds. As described by Investopedia: In the first table of Figure 1, a short sale is initiated for 1,000 shares at a price of $50. The proceeds of the short sale are $50,000, and this amount is deposited into the short sale margin account. Along with the proceeds of the sale, an additional 50% margin amount of $25,000 must be deposited in the account, bringing the total margin requirement to $75,000. At this time, the proceeds of the short sale must remain in the account; they cannot be removed or used to purchase other securities. Here is a good answer to your question from The Street: Even though you might see a balance in your brokerage account after shorting a stock, you're actually looking at a false credit, according to one big brokerage firm. That money is acting as collateral for the short position. So, you won't have use of these funds for investment purposes and won't earn interest on it. And there are indeed costs associated with shorting a stock. The broker has to find stock to loan to you. That might come out of a broker's own inventory or might be borrowed from another stock lender.","But by closing the short position the broker would still be purchasing shares from the market no? Or at least, someone would be purchasing the shares to close the short position. So, why doesn't the broker just let Client A keep their short position open and buy shares in the market so that Client B can sell them...I know it sounds a bit ridic, but not much more so to me than letting Client A borrow the shares to begin with!","\"Who are the losers going to be? If you can tell me for certain which firms will do worst in a bear market and can time it so that this information is not already priced into the market then you can make money. If not don't try. In a bull market stocks tend to act \"\"normally\"\" with established patterns such as correlations acting as expected and stocks more or less pricing to their fundamentals. In a bear market fear tends to overrule all of those things. You get large drops on relatively minor bad news and modest rallies on even the best news which results in stocks being undervalued against their fundamentals. In the crash itself it is quite easy to make money shorting. In an environment where stocks are undervalued, such as a bear market, you run the risk that your short, no matter how sure you are that the stock will fall, is seen as being undervalued and will rise. In fact your selling of a \"\"losing\"\" stock might cause it to hit levels where value investors already have limits set. This could bring a LOT of buyers into the market. Due to the fact that correlations break down creating portfolios with the correct risk level, which is what funds are required to do not only by their contracts but also by law to an extent, is extremely difficult. Risk management (keeping all kinds to within certain bounds) is one of the most difficult parts of a manager's job and is even difficult in abnormal market conditions. In the long run (definitions may vary) stock prices in general go up (for those companies who aren't bankrupted at least) so shorting in a bear market is not a long term strategy either and will not produce long term returns on capital. In addition to this risk you run the risk that your counterparty (such as Lehman brothers?) will file for bankruptcy and you won't be able to cover the position before the lender wants you to repay their stock to them landing you in even more problems.\"","I'm just began playing in the stock market. I assume you mean that you're not using real money, but rather you have an account with a stock simulator like the one Investopedia offers. I am hopeful that's the case due to the high level of risk involved in short selling like you're describing. Here is another post about short selling that expands a bit on that point. To learn much more about the ins and outs of short selling I will point again to Investopedia. I swear I don't work for them, but they do have a great short selling tutorial. When you short sell a stock you are borrowing the stock from your broker. (The broker typically uses stock held by one or more of his clients to cover the loan.) Since it's basically a loan you pay interest. Of course the longer you hold it the more interest you pay. Also, as Joe mentioned there are scenarios in which you may be forced to buy the stock (at a higher price than you sold it). This tends to happen when the stock price is going against the short sell (i.e. you lose money). Finally, did anyone mention that the potential losses in a short sell are infinite?","Answers here are correct but I'll offer an extremely (overly) simple explanation that should help you in understanding the more detailed answers. When most people own stock they do so through a broker. Unless you jump through some hoops, the broker keeps the shares in the name of the brokerage. This is called holding the stock in street name. When you sell short through a brokerage, the broker is letting you borrow a certain number of shares owned by someone else and sell them for cash now. At some point, you need to repay this loan with the same number of shares you borrowed. Ideally, you want the stock to drop to $0. The reason you might be forced to purchase the stock is that the actual owner(s) of the stock want to sell. If the broker has too many people wanting to sell, you will need to repay some of all of the loan (in shares) i.e. purchasing shares at the current market price.","The problem with short would be that even if the stock eventually falls, it might raise a lot in the meantime, and unless you have enough collateral, you may not survive till it happens. To sell shares short, you first need to borrow them (as naked short is currently prohibited in US, as far as I know). Now, to borrow you need some collateral, which is supposed to be worth more that the asset you are borrowing, and usually substantially more, otherwise the risk for the creditor is too high. Suppose you borrowed 10K worth of shares, and gave 15K collateral (numbers are totally imaginary of course). Suppose the shares rose so that total cost is now 14K. At this moment, you will probably be demanded to either raise more collateral or close the position if you can not, thus generating you a 4K loss. Little use it would be to you if next day it fell to 1K - you already lost your money! As Keynes once said, Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. See also another answer which enumerates other issues with short selling. As noted by @MichaelPryor, options may be a safer way to do it. Or a short ETF like PSQ - lists of those are easy to find online.","ELI5 - you sell something that you don't own with the expectation that it will go down, and then you buy it back when it goes down in order to lock in profit. You are charged fees to borrow the stock from someone else who currently owns it, and you also run the risk of the market going against you by going up.","\"Banks make money on load origination fees. The \"\"points\"\" you pay or closing costs are the primary benefit to the banks. A vast majority of the time risks associated with the mortgage are sold to another party. FYI, the same is true with investment banks. In general, the transaction costs (which are ignored by modern finance theory) are the main thing running the incentives for the industry.\"","\"The correct answer to this question is: the person who the short sells the stock to. Here's why this is the case. Say we have A, who owns the stock and lends it to B, who then sells it short to C. After this the price drops and B buys the stock back from D and returns it to A. The outcome for A is neutral. Typically stock that is sold short must be held in a margin account; the broker can borrow the shares from A, collect interest from B, and A has no idea this is going on, because the shares are held in a street name (the brokerage's name) and not A. If A decides during this period to sell, the transaction will occur immediately, and the brokerage must shuffle things around so the shares can be delivered. If this is going to be difficult then the cost for borrowing shares becomes very high. The outcome for B is obviously a profit: they sold high first and bought (back) low afterwards. This leaves either C or D as having lost this money. Why isn't it D? One way of looking at this is that the profit to B comes from the difference in the price from selling to C and buying from D. D is sitting on the low end, and thus is not paying out the profit. D bought low, compared to C and this did not lose any money, so C is the only remaining choice. Another way of looking at it is that C actually \"\"lost\"\" all the money when purchasing the stock. After all, all the money went directly from C to B. In return, C got some stock with the hope that in the future C could sell it for more than was paid for it. But C literally gave the money to B, so how could anybody else \"\"pay\"\" the loss? Another way of looking at it is that C buys a stock which then decreases in value. C is thus now sitting on a loss. The fact that it is currently only a paper loss makes this less obvious; if the stock were to recover to the price C bought at, one might conclude that C did not lose the money to B. However, in this same scenario, D also makes money that C could have made had C bought at D's price, proving that C really did lose the money to B. The final way of seeing that the answer is C is to consider what happens when somebody sells a stock which they already hold but the price goes up; who did they lose out on the gain to? The person again is; who bought their stock. The person would buys the stock is always the person who the gain goes to when the price appreciates, or the loss comes out of if the price falls.\"","The answer provide by @mbhunter is correct, however there are contexts, shorting in spot market and carrying the position over settlement usually does not entail payment of dividend to the broker, one of the reason being post ex-date the price of the share downward adjusts to the extent of the dividend, so practically if you have shorted at 100 and post ex-date (assuming a dividend of 2 and no movement of the stock price), the price would slide to 98, the party who longed the stock @ 100 now is sitting on a price of 98 and received a dividend of 2 which equates to 100. The above is also contextual to the law of the country governing the exchange and the security exchange board regulations.","Shorting is the term used when someone borrows a stock and sells it at the current price to then buy it back later at hopefully a lower price. There are rules about this as noted in the link that begins this answer as there are risks to selling a stock you don't own of course. If you look up various large companies you may find that there are millions of shares sold short throughout the market as someone does have the shares and they will need to be put back eventually.","\"You are likely making an assumption that the \"\"Short call\"\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \"\"write\"\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\"","This can be best explained with an example. Bob thinks the price of a stock that Alice has is going to go down by the end of the week, so he borrows a share at $25 from Alice. The current price of the shares are $25 per share. Bob immediately sells the shares to Charlie for $25, it is fair, it is the current market price. A week goes by, and the price does fall to $20. Bob buys a share from David at $20. This is fair, it is the current market value. Then Bob gives the share back to Alice to settle what he borrowed from her, one share. Now, in reality, there is interest charged be Alice on the borrowed value, but to keep it simple, we'll say she was a friend and it was a zero interest loan. So then Bob was able to sell something he didn't own for $25 and return it spending $20 to buy it, settling his loan and making $5 in the transaction. It is the selling to Charlie and buying from David (or even Charlie later, if he decided to dump the shares), without having invested any of your own money that earns the profit.","How so? If i sell short, then i make a profit only if the price goes down so i can buy back at a lower price. Yes, but if the price is going up then you would go long instead. Shorting a stock (or any other asset) allows you to profit when the price is going down. Going long allows you to profit when the price is going up. In the opposite cases, you lose money. In order to make a profit in either of those situations, you have to accurately assess which way the price will trade over the period of time you are dealing with. If you make the wrong judgment, then you lose money because you'll either sell for a lower price than you bought (if you went long), or have to buy back at a higher price than you sold for (if you went short). In either case, unless the trader can live with making a short-term loss and recouperating it later, one needs a good stop-loss strategy.","\"You at least have some understanding of the pitfalls of shorting. You might not be able to borrow stock. You might not be able to buy it back when the time comes. You're moves are monitored, so you can't \"\"run away\"\" because the rules are enforced. (You don't want to find out how, personally.) \"\"Shorting\"\" is a tough, risky business. To answer your implicit question, if you have to ask about it on a public forum like this, you're not good enough to do it.\"","The original owner of the shares can pledge their shares to be short, and they earn interest from lending their shares. The conditions of this arrangement are detailed in standard agreements all market participants sign with their broker, or clearinghouse, or with the exchange, or with the self regulatory agency. Stocks within the same class are identical, despite someone's sentiment to an old share certificate that their grandparents gave them, and as such can be sold and returned to the beneficial owner multiple times with no difference. That is how it is supposed to work anyway, as naked shorting involves selling fictional shares that have no beneficial owner. So there are market inefficiencies in this practice, but the agreements between market participants are sound and answers your question about how.","Owning a stock via a fund and selling it short simultaneously should have the same net financial effect as not owning the stock. This should work both for your personal finances as well as the impact of (not) owning the shares has on the stock's price. To use an extreme example, suppose there are 4 million outstanding shares of Evil Oil Company. Suppose a group of concerned index fund investors owns 25% of the stock and sells short the same amount. They've borrowed someone else's 25% of the company and sold it to a third party. It should have the same effect as selling their own shares of the company, which they can't otherwise do. Now when 25% of the company's stock becomes available for purchase at market price, what happens to the stock? It falls, of course. Regarding how it affects your own finances, suppose the stock price rises and the investors have to return the shares to the lender. They buy 1 million shares at market price, pushing the stock price up, give them back, and then sell another million shares short, subsequently pushing the stock price back down. If enough people do this to effect the share price of a stock or asset class, the managers at the companies might be forced into behaving in a way that satisfies the investors. In your case, perhaps the company could issue a press release and fire the employee that tried to extort money from your wife's estate in order to win your investment business back. Okay, well maybe that's a stretch.","The 'normal' series of events when trading a stock is to buy it, time passes, then you sell it. If you believe the stock will drop in price, you can reverse the order, selling shares, waiting for the price drop, then buying them back. During that time you own say, -100 shares, and are 'short' those shares.","To expand on the comment made by @NateEldredge, you're looking to take a short position. A short position essentially functions as follows: Here's the rub: you have unlimited loss potential. Maybe you borrow a share and sell it at $10. Maybe in a month you still haven't closed the position and now the share is trading at $1,000. The share lender comes calling for their share and you have to close the position at $1,000 for a loss of $990. Now what if it was $1,000,000 per share, etc. To avoid this unlimited loss risk, you can instead buy a put option contract. In this situation you buy a contract that will expire at some point in the future for the right to sell a share of stock for $x. You get to put that share on to someone else. If the underlying stock price were to instead rise above the put's exercise price, the put will expire worthless — but your loss is limited to the premium paid to acquire the put option contract. There are all sorts of advanced options trades sometimes including taking a short or long position in a security. It's generally not advisable to undertake these sorts of trades until you're very comfortable with the mechanics of the contracts. It's definitely not advisable to take an unhedged short position, either by borrowing someone else's share(s) to sell or selling an option (when you sell the option you take the risk), because of the unlimited loss potential described above.","\"The broker will charge borrowing fees and sometimes a charge called \"\"hard-to-borrow fee\"\". Other than that you will earn interest on the cash you get from selling the stocks, but you will have to pay dividends. This is because someone else (the party you sold the stocks off to) will now get the dividends and the party who lent you the stocks will miss out on these, that's why you have to remunerate them. The type of account you need is entirely up to your broker (and besides, it depends on what a 'normal' account for you is, you should at least mention your country or your broker).\"","\"Derivatives derive their value from underlying assets. This is expressed by the obligation of at least one counterparty to trade with the other counterparty in the future. These can take on as many combinations as one can dream up as it is a matter of contract. For futures, where two parties are obligated to trade at a specific price at a specific date in the future (one buyer, one seller), if you \"\"short\"\" a future, you have entered into a contract to sell the underlying at the time specified. If the price of the future moves against you (goes up), you will have to sell at a loss. The bigger the move, the greater the loss. You go ahead and pay this as well as a little extra to be sure that you satisfy what you owe due to the future. This satisfaction is called margin. If there weren't margin, people could take huge losses on their derivative bets, not pay, and disrupt the markets. Making sure that the money that will trade is already there makes the markets run smoothly. It's the same for shorting stocks where you borrow the stock, sell it, and wait. You have to leave the money with the broker as well as deposit a little extra to be sure you can make good if the market moves to a large degree against you.\"","In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-). In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.","I can see that building credit is a valid reason. I would also suggest another scenario, when you have locked up money in long-term savings, with a substantial penalty for early withdrawal. If you suddenly needed money then you might save money by borrowing against the long-term deposit rather than pay the penalties. This is especially true if you needed the money only for a short time.","\"Point of order: \"\"What goes up must come down\"\" refers to gravity of terrestrial objects below escape velocity and should not be generalized beyond its intent. It's not true that stocks MUST come down just because they have gone up. For example, we would not expecting the price of oil to come down to 1999 levels, right? Prices, including those of stocks, are not necessarily cyclical. Anyway, short selling isn't necessarily a bad idea. In some sense, it is insurance if you have a lot of assets (like maybe your human capital) that will take a dive when the market goes down. Short selling would have lost a lot of money in your case as the stock market between 2011 (when you wrote the question) and 2014 (when I wrote this answer) performed very well. On average the long side stock market should make money over long periods of time as compensation for risk and the short side should lose money, so it's not a good way to make money if you don't have an informational advantage. Like all insurance, it protects you against certain calamities, but on average it costs you money.\"","I've read this claim many times in the news: banks are making less profit from the lending business when interest rates are historically low. The issue with most loans is they can be satisfied at any time. When you have falling interest rates it means most of the banks loans are refinanced from nice high rates to current market low interest rates which can significantly reduce the expected return on past loans. The bank gets the money back when it wants it the least because it can only re-lend the money at the current market (lower) interest rates. When interest rates are increasing refinance and early repayment activity reduces significantly. It's important to look at the loan from the point of view of the bank, a bank must first issue out the entire principal amount. On a 60 month loan the lender has not received payments sufficient to satisfy the principal until around 50th or 55th month depending on the interest rate. If the bank receives payment of the outstanding amount on month 30 the expected return on that loan is reduced significantly. Consider a $10,000, 60 month loan at 5% apr. The bank is expected to receive $11,322 in total for interest income of $1,322. If the loan is repaid on month 30, the total interest is about $972. That's a 26% reduction of expected interest income, and the money received can only be re-lent for yet a lower interest rate. Add to this the tricky accounting of holding a loan, which is really a discounted bond, which is an asset, on the books and profitability of lending while interest rates are falling gets really funky. And this doesn't even examine default risk/cost.","\"Being \"\"long\"\" - expecting the price to go up to make a profit - is a two step process: 1) buy 2) sell Being \"\"short\"\" - expecting the price to go down to make a profit - is a 5 step process: 1) borrow someone else's asset 2) sell their asset on the open market to somebody else a third party 3) pocket the proceeds of the sell for your own account 4) buy an identical asset for a cheaper price 5) return this identical asset to the person that let you borrow their asset if this is successful you keep the difference between 3) and 4)\"","One of my university professors suggested doing this systematically to get access to shareholder meetings where there is typically a nice dinner involved. As long as the stock price + commission is less than the price of a nice restaurant it's actually not a bad idea.","You are the one lending yourself the shares to sell;you purchase the stock at market price and sell at the strike price of the option to the put seller when you exercise the option.","\"Many investors don't invest for the short term and so a stock \"\"nose-diving\"\" in the short run will not affect their long term strategy so they will simply hold on to it until it recovers. Additionally funds that track an index have to hold on to the constituents of that index no matter what happens to its value over the period (within trading limits). Both of these kinds of investors will be able to lend stock in a company out and not trigger a forced buy-in on a short term change. If the underlying long-term health of the company changes or it is removed from indices it is likely that this will change, however. Employee stock plans and other investors who are linked directly to the company or who have a vested interest in the company other than in a financial way will also be unwilling (or unable) to sell on a down turn in the company. They will similarly be able to lend their stock in the short term.\"","If you already own shares in a company and sell some, you won't be short selling these shares if sold from the same brokerage account, because your existing shares with that broker need to be sold first before you are able to short sell any. If you own a portfolio of shares however, you may be able to short sell an index to hedge your current portfolio. Also, if you have your existing shares in a company but don't want to sell your existing shares, for example you don't want to crystallise a capital gain, you can always hedge you current shares by short selling them through a different broker. Some other hedging options possibly available to you include: buying put options over the shares, writing cover call options, or short selling some other derivatives like CFDs (if your country allows them).","First utilize a security screener to identify the security profiles you are looking to identify for identifying your target securities for shorting. Most online brokers have stock screeners that you can utilize. At this point you may want to look at your target list of securities to find out those that are eligible for shorting. The SHO thresold list is also a good place to look for securities that are hard to borrow to eliminate potential target securities. http://regsho.finra.org/regsho-Index.html Also your broker can let you know the stocks that are available for borrowing. You can then take your target securities and then you can look at the corporate filings on the SEC's Edgar site to look for the key words you are looking for. I would suggest that you utilize XBRL so you can electronically run your key word searched in an automated manner. I would further suggest that you can run the key word XBRL daily for issuer filings of your target list of securities. Additional word searches you may want to consider are those that could indicate a dilution of the companies stock such as the issuance of convertible debt. Also the below link detailing real short interest may be helpful. Clearing firms are required to report short interest every two weeks. http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/short-interest.aspx","Also keep in mind that most REITs have high dividend yields. If you short, you are responsible for payment of the dividend to the party you are borrowing the shares from. This can add costs to your position over time. Short REITS for a long time period is not necessarily an optimal strategy.","Yes in order for you to short a stock, some one has to be willing to lend it to you to short, the more people that want to short this stock, the higher the borrowing rate is to short it. in some instances such as groupon so many people are shorting it that there are practically no shares left to short and if you do end up getting some it would be at a very high borrowing cost.","Yes, you would. You owe it to the person you borrowed the shares from. (source)","\"And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position. When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here. In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them. If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from. Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest). Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy. Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800. In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question). It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement. Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money. If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a \"\"margin call\"\" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses. And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin). When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go. There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position. You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs.\"","\"In finance, form is function, and while a reason for a trade could be anything, but since the result of a trade is a change in value, it could be presumed that one seeks to receive a change in value. Stock company There may have been more esoteric examples, but currently, possession of a company (total ownership of its' assets actually) is delineated by percentage or a glorified \"\"banknote\"\" frequently called a \"\"share\"\". Percentage companies are usually sole proprietorship and partnerships, but partnerships can now trade in \"\"units\"\". Share companies are usually corporations. With shares, a company can be divided into almost totally indistinguishable units. This allows for more flexible ownership, so individuals can trade them without having to change the company contract. Considering the ease of trade, it could be assumed that common stock contract provisions were formulated to provide for such an ease. Motivation to trade This could be anything, but it seems those with the largest ownership of common stock have lots of wealth, so it could be assumed that people at least want to own stocks to own wealth. Shorting might be a little harder to reason, but I personally assume that the motivation to trade is still to increase wealth. Social benefit of the stock market Assuming that ownership in a company is socially valuable and that the total value of ownership is proportional to the social value provided, the social benefit of a stock market is that it provided the means to scale ownership through convenience, speed, and reliability.\"","For Canada No distinction is made in the regulation between “naked” or “covered” short sales. However, the practice of “naked” short selling, while not specifically enumerated or proscribed as such, may violate other provisions of securities legislation or self-regulatory organization rules where the transaction fails to settle. Specifically, section 126.1 of the Securities Act prohibits activities that result or contribute “to a misleading appearance of trading activity in, or an artificial price for, a security or derivative of a security” or that perpetrate a fraud on any person or company. Part 3 of National Instrument 23-101 Trading Rules contains similar prohibitions against manipulation and fraud, although a person or company that complies with similar requirements established by a recognized exchange, quotation and trade reporting system or regulation services provider is exempt from their application. Under section 127(1) of the Securities Act, the OSC also has a “public interest jurisdiction” to make a wide range of orders that, in its opinion, are in the public interest in light of the purposes of the Securities Act (notwithstanding that the subject activity is not specifically proscribed by legislation). The TSX Rule Book also imposes certain obligations on its “participating organizations” in connection with trades that fail to settle (see, for example, Rule 5-301 Buy-Ins). In other words, shares must be located by the broker before they can be sold short. A share may not be locatable because there are none available in the broker's inventory, that it cannot lend more than what it has on the books for trade. A share may not be available because the interest rate that brokers are charging to borrow the share is considered too high by that broker, usually if it doesn't pass on borrowing costs to the customer. There could be other reasons as well. If one broker doesn't have inventory, another might. I recommend checking in on IB's list. If they can't get it, my guess would be that no one can since IB passes on the cost to finance short sales.","This is very much possible and happens quite a lot. In the US, for example, promotional offers by credit card companies where you pay no interest on the balance for a certain period are a very common thing. The lender gains a new customer on such a loan, and usually earns money from the spending via the merchant fees (specifically for credit cards, at least). The pro is obviously free money. The con is that this is usually for a short period of time (longest I've seen was 15 months) after which if you're not careful, high interest rates will be charged. In some cases, interest will be charged retroactively for the whole period if you don't pay off the balance or miss the minimum payment due.","http://www.investopedia.com/university/shortselling/shortselling1.asp 'Therein lies the major risk of short selling, the fear of infinite losses. While the maximum loss for a long investor is the amount invested in a security, the maximum loss for a short seller is theoretically infinite, since there is no upper limit to a stock’s price appreciation. This risk is compounded by the fact that during a short squeeze or buy-in...' Never have shorted a stock. Too intimidated by that!","If you are planning this as a tax avoidance scheme, well it is not. The gains will be taxable in your hands and not in the Banks hands. Banks simply don't cash out the stock at the same price, there will be quite a bit of both Lawyers and others ... so in the end you will end up paying more. The link indicates that one would pay back the loan via one's own earnings. So if you have a stock worth USD 100, you can pledge this to a Bank and get a max loan of USD 50 [there are regulations that govern the max you can get against 100]. You want to buy something worth USD 50. Option1: Sell half the stock, get USD 50, pay the captial gains tax on USD 50. Option2: Pledge the USD 100 stock to bank, get a loan of USD 50. As you have not sold anything, there is no tax. Over a period pay the USD 50 loan via your own earnings. A high valued customer may be able to get away with a very low rate of intrest and very long repayment period. The tax implication to your legal hier would be from the time the stock come to his/her hands to the time she sold. So if the price increase to 150 by the time Mark dies, and its sold at 160 later, the gain is only of USD 10. So rather than paying 30% or whatever the applicable tax rate, it would be wise to pay an interest of few percentages.","Well, if the short seller has to pay the dividend out of their pocket, what happens to the dividend the company paid out ?? Sounds like there are 2 divdends floating around, the short's, and the company's, but only 1 share of stock."],"string":"[\n \"\\\"There are two primary reasons shares are sold short: (1) to speculate that a stock's price will decline and (2) to hedge some other related financial exposure. The first is acknowledged by the question. The second reason may be done for taxes (shorting \\\"\\\"against the box\\\"\\\" was once permitted for tax purposes), for arbitrage positions such as merger arbitrage and situations when an outright sale of stock is not permitted, such as owning restricted stock such as employer-granted shares. Why would a shareholder lend the investor the shares? The investor loaning his stock out to short-sellers earns interest on those shares that the borrower pays. It is not unusual for the annualized cost of borrowing stock to be double digits when there is high demand for heavily shorted shares. This benefit is however not available to all investors.\\\"\",\n \"In short (pun intended), the shareholder lending the shares does not believe that the shares will fall, even though the potential investor does. The shareholder believes that the shares will rise. Because the two individuals believe that a different outcome will occur, they are able to make a trade. By using the available data in the market, they have arrived at a particular conclusion of the fair price for the trade, but each individual wants to be on the other side of it. Consider a simpler form of your question: Why would a shareholder agree to sell his/her shares? Why don't they just wait to sell, when the price is higher? After all, that is why the buyer wants to purchase the shares. On review, I realize I've only stated here why the original shareholder wouldn't simply sell and rebuy the share themselves (because they have a different view of the market). As to why they would actually allow the trade to occur - Zak (and other answers) point out that the shares being lent are compensated for by an initial fee on the transaction + the chance for interest during the period that the shares are owed for.\",\n \"Not really. The lender is not buying the stock back at a lower price. Remember, he already owns it, so he need not buy it again. The person losing is the one from whom the short seller buys back the stock, provided that person bought the stock at higher price. So if B borrowed from A(lender) and sold it to C, and later B purchased it back from C at a lower price, then B made profit, C made loss and A made nothing .\",\n \"Nobody is going to short sell stocks through a lender that forces people to buy in as soon as it is getting good for them.\",\n \"Why would a shareholder lend the investor the shares? Some brokers like IB will pay you to lend your shares: http://ibkb.interactivebrokers.com/node/1838 If you buy shares on margin, you don't have much of a choice. Your broker is allowed to lend your shares to short-sellers.\",\n \"Michael gave a good answer describing the transaction but I wanted to follow up on your questions about the lender. First, the lender does charge interest on the borrowed securities. The amount of interest can vary based on a number of factors, such as who is borrowing, how much are they borrowing, and what stock are they trying to borrow. Occasionally when you are trying to short a stock you will get an error that it is hard to borrow. This could be for a few reasons, such as there are already a large amount of people who have shorted your broker's shares, or your broker never acquired the shares to begin with (which usually only happens on very small stocks). In both cases the broker/lender doesnt have enough shares and may be unwilling to get more. In that way they are discriminating on what they lend. If a company is about to go bankrupt and a lender doesnt have any more shares to lend out, it is unlikely they will purchase more as they stand to lose a lot and gain very little. It might seem like lending is a risky business but think of it as occurring over decades and not months. General Motors had been around for 100 years before it went bankrupt, so any lender who had owned and been lending out GM shares for a fraction of that time likely still profited. Also this is all very simplified. JoeTaxpayer alluded to this in the comments but in actuality who is lending stock or even who owns stock is much more complicated and probably doesnt need to be explained here. I just wanted to show in this over-simplified explanation that lending is not as risky as it may first seem.\",\n \"Short sellers have to pay interest on the borrowings to the shareholders. Although many times brokers don't pass on these earnings to the shareholders, this is the exchange.\",\n \"\\\"As the other answer said, the person who owns the lent stock does not benefit directly. They may benefit indirectly in that brokers can use the short lending profits to reduce their fees or in that they have the option to short other stocks at the same terms. Follow-up question: what prevents the broker lending the shares for a very short time (less than a day), pocketing the interest and returning the lenders their shares without much change in share price (because borrowing period was very short). What prevents them from doing that many times a day ? Lack of market. Short selling for short periods of time isn't so common as to allow for \\\"\\\"many\\\"\\\" times a day. Some day traders may do it occasionally, but I don't know that it would be a reliable business model to supply them. If there are enough people interested in shorting the stock, they will probably want to hold onto it long enough for the anticipated movement to happen. There are transaction costs here. Both fees for trading at all and the extra charges for short sale borrowing and interest. Most stocks do not move down by large enough amounts \\\"\\\"many\\\"\\\" times a day. Their fluctuations are smaller. If the stock doesn't move enough to cover the transaction fees, then that seller lost money overall. Over time, sellers like that will stop trading, as they will lose all their money. All that said, there are no legal blocks to loaning the stock out many times, just practical ones. If a stock was varying wildly for some bizarre reason, it could happen.\\\"\",\n \"Because they receive compensation (generally interest + dividends) for loaning out the shares. I own an asset X. Somebody else wants to borrow asset X for some time period. I agree to loan them asset X in return for some form of compensation (generally a rate of interest plus, in this specific case, any dividend payments). The reasons why I own asset X, and why they want to borrow asset X are irrelevant to the transaction. The only relevant points are the amount of compensation and the risk that they might default on the loan. This applies equally well to shares as to money or any other kind of loan-able asset.\",\n \"\\\"Concerning the general problem of short selling and the need to borrow shares to complete the transaction : Selling short is a cash transaction. Unlike a futures contract, where a short seller is entering into a legal agreement to sell something in the future, in the case of short selling a share the buyer of the share is taking immediate delivery and is therefore entitled to all of the benefits and rights that come with share ownership. In particular, the buyer of the shares is entitled to any dividends payable and, where applicable, to vote on motions at AGMs. If the short seller has not borrowed the shares to sell, then buyer of non-existent shares will have none of the rights associated with ownership. The cash market is based on the idea of matching buyers and sellers. It does not accommodate people making promises. Consider that to allow short sellers to sell shares they have not borrowed opens up the possibility of the aggregate market selling more shares than actually exist. This would lead to all sorts of problematic consequences such as heavily distorting the price of the underlying share. If everyone is selling shares they have not borrowed willy-nilly, then it will drive the price of the share down, much to the disadvantage of existing share holders. In this case, short sellers who have sold shares they have not already borrowed would be paying out more in dividends to the buyers than the total dividends being paid out by the underlying company. There are instruments that allow for short selling of unowned shares on a futures basis. One example is a CFD = Contract for Difference. In the case of CFDs, sellers are obliged to pay dividends to buyers as well as other costs related to financing. EDIT Regarding your comment, note that borrowing shares is not a market transaction. Your account does not show you buying a share and then selling it. It simply shows you selling a share short. The borrowing is the result of an agreement between yourself and the lender and this agreement is off market. You do not actually pay the lender for the shares, but you do pay financing costs for the borrowing so long as you maintain your short position. EDIT I realise that I have not actually read your question correctly. You are not actually talking about \\\"\\\"naked\\\"\\\" short selling. You are talking about selling shares you already own in a hope of maintaining both a long and short position (gross). The problem with this approach is that you must deliver the shares to the buyer. Otherwise, ask yourself what shares is the buyer actually buying if you want the bought shares to remain in your account. If you are not going to deliver your long position shares, then you will need to borrow the shares you are selling short for the reasons I have outlined above.\\\"\",\n \"hmmm. I think it's because in both cases, you must pay for it up front, before the positions are closed out. You own nothing except the right to buy the stock re: the call, and the obligation to buy the stock re: the short. You buy a call, but must borrow the stock, for which you must put some margin collateral and there is a cost to borrow. You pay for that, of course. I wouldn't call it lending though.\",\n \"They will make money from brokerage as usual and also from the interest they charge you for lending you the money for you to buy your shares on margin. In other words you will be paying interest on the $30,000 you borrowed from your broker. Also, as per Chris's comment, if you are shorting securities through your margin account, your broker would charge you a fee for lending you the securities to short.\",\n \"For the lenders to sell their positions they need buyers on the other side. For a large brokerage that means they should always be able to find another lender. For many contracts the client may have no idea they are a lender as lending is part of their agreement with the broker\",\n \"It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either. Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check. Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated. So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if:\",\n \"\\\"Oftentimes, the lender (the owner of the security) is not explicitly involved in the lending transaction. Let's say the broker is holding a long-term position of 1MM shares from Client A. It is common for Client A's agreement with Broker A to include a clause that allows the broker to lend out the 1MM shares for its own profit (\\\"\\\"rehypothecation\\\"\\\"). Client A may be compensated for this in some form (e.g. baked into their financing rates), but they do not receive any compensation that is directly tied to lending activities. You also have securities lending agents that lend securities for an explicit fee. For example, the borrower's broker may not have sufficient inventory, in which case they would need to find a third-party lending agent. This happens both on-demand as well as for a fixed-terms (typically a large basket of securities). SLB (securities lending and borrowing) is a business in its own right. I'm not sure I follow your follow-up question but oftentimes there is no restriction that prevents the broker from lending out shares \\\"\\\"for a very short time\\\"\\\". Unless there is a transaction-based fee though, the number of times you lend shares does not affect \\\"\\\"pocketing the interest\\\"\\\" since interest accrues as a function of time.\\\"\",\n \"In finance, short selling (also known as shorting or going short) is the practice of selling assets, usually securities, that have been borrowed from a third party (usually a broker) with the intention of buying identical assets back at a later date to return to the lender. Remember your broker has to borrow it from somewhere, other clients or if they hold those specific stocks themselves. So if it isn't possible for them to lend you those stocks, they wouldn't. High P/E stocks would find more sellers than buyers, and if the broker has to deliver them, it would be a nightmare for him to deliver all those stocks, which he had lent you(others) back to whom he had borrowed from, as well as to people who had gone long(buy) when you went short(sell). And if every body is selling there is going to be a dearth of stocks to be borrowed from as everybody around is selling instead of buying.\",\n \"In this example, Client A has to buy shares to return them to Client B for his sale (closing Client A's short position). Client B then sells the shares. The end result is there are no shares within the brokerage clientele anymore, so Client A can't borrow them anymore. The broker is just an intermediary, they wouldn't go out and acquire securities on their own for the benefit of a client wanting to short it, as they would be taking on the risk of the opposite position. This would be in addition to the risk they already take on when allowing people to short sell -- which is that Client A won't have the money to buy the shares it owes to Client B, in which case the broker has to make Client B whole.\",\n \"You can't make money on the way down if it was your money that bought the shares when the market was up. When you sell short, borrowing lets you tap into the value without paying for it. That way, when the price (hopefully) drops you profit from the difference. In your example, if you hadn't paid the £20 in the first place, then you would actually be up £5. But since you started with £20, you still show loss. As others said, borrowing is the definition of selling short. It is also simply the only way the math works. Of course, there is a large risk you must assume to enjoy benefiting from something you do not own!\",\n \"Typically, as an individual, you can't just decide you want to lend out some securities. There is a lot of legalities that must take place in order to engage in such a transaction. It's a regulated industry and the contractual obligations that exist between borrower and seller are taken care of ahead of time by the broker with their client, prior to any actual transaction taking place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_lending I say typically, becuase I'm guessing that if you are a large enough client and own a substantial block of shares (I really mean a lot) you may be in the unique position of being able to lend out. I'm not sure what the logistics of this would look like, but I think the brokerage house would approach you and negotiate a borrowing rate. In that situation, you may negotiate lending to the the brokerage house and not necessarily directly to the borrower.\",\n \"why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Because if you sell shares out of your own portfolio, by definition, you are not selling short at all. If you sell something you own (and deliver it) - then there is no short involved. A short is defined as a net negative position - i.e. you sell shares you do not have. Selling shares you own is selling shares you own - no short involved. You must borrow the shares for a short because in the stock market, you must DELIVER. You can not deliver shares you do not own. The stock market does not work on promises - the person who bought the shares expects ownership of them with all rights that gives them. So you borrow them to deliver them, then return them when you buy them back.\",\n \"The point of short-selling as a separate instrument is that you can you do it when you can't sell the underlying asset... usually because you don't actually own any of it and in fact believe that it will go down. Shorting allows you to profit from a falling price. Another (non-speculative) possibility is that you don't have the underlying asset right now (and thus can't sell it) but will get it at a certain point in the future, e.g. because it's bonds that you've used to guarantee a loan... or grain that's still growing on your fields.\",\n \"\\\"A simple way to ask the question might be to say \\\"\\\"why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Why is borrowing someone else's shares necessary to make the concept a viable one? Why isn't it just the inverse of 'going long'?\\\"\\\" A simple way to think about it is this: to make money by trading something, you must buy it for less than you sell it for. This applies to stocks like anything else. If you believe the price will go up, then you can buy them first and sell them later for a higher price. But if you believe the price will go down, the only way to buy low and sell high is to sell first and buy later. If you buy the stock and it goes down, any sale you make will lose you money. I'm still not sure I fully understand the point of your example, but one thing to note is that in both cases (i.e., whether you buy the share back at the end or not), you lost money. You say that you \\\"\\\"made $5 on the share price dropping\\\"\\\", but that isn't true at all: you can see in your example that your final account balance is negative in both cases. You paid $20 for the shares but only got $15 back; you lost $5 (or, in the other version of your example, paid $20 and got back $5 plus the depreciated shares). If you had bought the shares for $20 and sold them for, say, $25, then your account would end up with a positive $5 balance; that is what a gain would look like. But you can't achieve that if you buy the shares for $20 and later sell them for less. At a guess, you seem to be confusing the concept of making a profit with the concept of cutting your losses. It is true that if you buy the shares for $20 and sell them for $15, you lose only $5, whereas if you buy them for $20 and sell for $10, you lose the larger amount of $10. But those are both losses. Selling \\\"\\\"early\\\"\\\" as the price goes down doesn't make you any money; it just stops you from losing more money than you would if you sold later.\\\"\",\n \"This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.\",\n \"Rich's answer captures the basic essence of short selling with example. I'd like to add these additional points: You typically need a specially-privileged brokerage account to perform short selling. If you didn't request short selling when you opened your account, odds are good you don't have it, and that's good because it's not something most people should ever consider doing. Short selling is an advanced trading strategy. Be sure you truly grok selling short before doing it. Consider that when buying stock (a.k.a. going long or taking a long position, in contrast to short) then your potential loss as a buyer is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero) and your potential gain unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're lucky!) Whereas, with short selling, it's reversed: Your loss can be unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're unlucky!) and your potential gain is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero.) The proceeds you receive from a short sale – and then some – need to stay in your account to offset the short position. Brokers require this. Typically, margin equivalent to 150% the market value of the shares sold short must be maintained in the account while the short position is open. The owner of the borrowed shares is still expecting his dividends, if any. You are responsible for covering the cost of those dividends out of your own pocket. To close or cover your short position, you initiate a buy to cover. This is simply a buy order with the intention that it will close out your matching short position. You may be forced to cover your short position before you want to and when it is to your disadvantage! Even if you have sufficient margin available to cover your short, there are cases when lenders need their shares back. If too many short sellers are forced to close out positions at the same time, they push up demand for the stock, increasing price and deepening their losses. When this happens, it's called a short squeeze. In the eyes of the public who mostly go long buying stock, short sellers are often reviled. However, some people and many short sellers believe they are providing balance to the market and preventing it sometimes from getting ahead of itself. [Disambiguation: A short sale in the stock market is not related to the real estate concept of a short sale, which is when a property owner sells his property for less than he owes the bank.] Additional references:\",\n \"In terms of pricing the asset, this functions in exactly the same way as a regular sell, so bids will have to be hit to fill the trade. When shorting an equity, currency is not borrowed; the equity is, so the value of per share liability is equal to it's last traded price or the ask if the equity is illiquid. Thus when opening a short position, the asks offer nothing to the process except competition for your order getting filled. Part of managing the trade is the interest rate risk. If the asks are as illiquid as detailed in the question, it may be difficult even to locate the shares for borrowing. As a general rule, only illiquid equities or those in free fall may be temporarily unable for shorting. Interactive Brokers posts their securities financing availabilities and could be used as a proxy guide for your broker.\",\n \"\\\"There are situations where you can be forced to cover a position, particular when \\\"\\\"Reg SHO\\\"\\\" (\\\"\\\"regulation sho\\\"\\\") is activated. Reg SHO is intended to make naked short sellers cover their position, it is to prevent abusive failure to delivers, where someone goes short without borrowing someone else's shares. Naked shorting isn't a violation of federal securities laws but it becomes an accounting problem when multiple people have claims to the same underlying assets. (I've seen companies that had 120% of their shares sold short, too funny, FWIW the market was correct as the company was worth nothing.) You can be naked short without knowing it. So there can be times when you will be forced to cover. Other people being forced to cover can result in a short squeeze. A risk. The other downside is that you have to pay interest on your borrowings. You also have to pay the dividends to the owner of the shares, if applicable. In shorter time frames these are negligible, but in longer time frames, such as closer to a year or longer, these really add up. Let alone the costs of the market going in the opposite direction, and the commissions.\\\"\",\n \"Problems with shorting 1. The price could become even more insanely high. 2. The stock you borrowed could be recalled leaving you sitting on a loss. 3. High borrowing costs. 4. Potentially limited loss potential e.g. when a takeover is announced, or when the company has a windfall, or fraudulently announces phony good news. Shorting could still be useful as a niche 10% of your portfolio; the risk is limited that way. Also high short interest tend to make me look a bit harder before buying.\",\n \"\\\"My take on this is that with any short-selling contract you are engaging in, at a specified time in the future you will need to transfer ownership of the item(s) you sold to the buyer. Whether you own the item(s) or in your case you will buy your friend's used car in the meantime (or dig enough gold out of the ground - in the case of hedging a commodity exposure) is a matter of \\\"\\\"trust\\\"\\\". Hence there is normally some form of margin or credit-line involved to cover for you failing to deliver on expiry.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"For the same reason that people bet on different teams. Some think the Tigers will win, others thing the Yankees will win. They wager $5 on it. One of them wins, the other loses. In a short, one person bets that the stock goes down, the other bets that the stock goes up (or hold). You're basically saying \\\"\\\"I think this stock is going to hold it's value or go up. If I thought it would go down, like you do, I would sell it myself right now. Instead, I'll let you have it for a while because when I get it back I think I'll come out on top.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"our mortgage has been sold to a secondary market player. There are multiple ways in which the deal is struck. At times the risk of default is with Original FI [with recourse], at times it is with secondary FI [without recourse]. The rate can be discounted. So the Original FI collects the EMI as per 3.75 and pays to the secondary FI at 3.25. Or it can also be one time fixed amount. How could this possibly be financially beneficial for the original loan holder? As indicated, there are multiple ways the Original FI makes money, either one time or over the period, depending on how the deal is struck. Are they truly making enough money from the mortgage fees and first payment's interest to to warrant their need to clear up their credit line for new mortgages? Are mortgages always sold for less than the remaining principal? No broadly speaking the mortgage fees cover the cost for initiating the loan. There may be a very small amount banks may make. This is incidental. The actual money is made in the interest that is collected every month. If a Bank as say 5 loans for 100K each. It is very reputed brand and 10 people need 100K loans. Then it makes sense for the First FI to give loan to 5 people for 100K each, and sell this at profit to secondary FI. Take the 100K * 5 and give it off to new 5 people. Effectively making more money on the original 500K the bank had.\",\n \"\\\"I know some derivative markets work like this, so maybe similar with futures. A futures contract commits two parties to a buy/sell of the underlying securities, but with a futures contract you also create leverage because generally the margin you post on your futures contract is not sufficient to pay for the collateral in the underlying contract. The person buying the future is essentially \\\"\\\"borrowing\\\"\\\" money while the person selling the future is essentially \\\"\\\"lending\\\"\\\" money. The future you enter into is generally a short term contract, so a perfectly hedged lender of funds should expect to receive something that approaches the fed funds rate in the US. Today that would be essentially nothing.\\\"\",\n \"You just disclosed that you are new investor to the stock market. I'd advise that you first understand investing a bit better, as most will advise that investors need to be above a certain level before picking individual stocks. That said, most stocks trade in high enough volume and have low enough short interest that they don't fall under the category you seek. You want to first ask your broker if they have such a process, not all do. If so, they would need to provide you with the stocks that fall into this odd situation, specifically, the shares that have traders seeking to short the stock, but the stock is unavailable. Even then, the broker may have requirements that you don't fall into, minimum history with broker, minimum size account, etc. Worse, they are not likely to offer this for 100 shares, but may have a 1000 or higher share requirement. Are you willing to buy some obscure $50/sh priced stock to lend out at 1%/mo? The guy trying to short it is far smarter than both you and I, at least regarding this particular stock. This strategy is more appropriate for the 7 figure net worth investor. If any reader has actual experience with this, I'm happy to hear it. This response is from my recollection of two articles I read about 3 years ago, coincidence they both were published within weeks of each other.\",\n \"> It's like they only care about personal short term gain and care little about being in the game for the long term. That's pretty much it. If they can't be lending (and making interest), they aren't winning. It's funny that the banks know as well as anyone that the worst place to leave money is in a bank.\",\n \"Are there any other losses that can be expected beyond the above? The lender may have to invest some money into the house in order to get it in shape to sell. Also, while the lender possesses the house they are liable to the property taxes and possibly utilities. are there any statutes or pressures to motivate the financial institution to get fair price when the property is sold? The lender is motivated to at least break even when selling the property in order to limit losses on their investment. This means they are very motivated to seek a higher price, but they're also motivated to sell the property quickly in order to limit their losses due to property taxes. Usually the lender takes a loss of the investment if foreclosure occurs; only 10 percent to 20 percent of auctioned foreclosed houses did yield a surplus. When the lender sells the foreclosed property using a realtor, they're motivated to sell it as quickly as possible so long as they break even. In this case there is little motivation to sell the property for a surplus. If the property is being sold via auction, then time is not a factor and the lender will just sell to the highest bidder.\",\n \"\\\"The reason for selling a stock \\\"\\\"short\\\"\\\", is for when you believe the stock value will decrease in the near future. Here is an example: Today Exxon-Mobile stock is selling for $100 / share. You are expecting the price to decrease, so you want to short the stock, which means your broker (i.e. eTrade, etc) allows you to borrow shares without paying money, and those shares are transferred into your account, and then you sell them and receive money for the sale. But you didn't actually own those shares, you only borrowed them, so you need to return the shares to your broker sometime in the future. Let's say you borrow 10 shares @ $100, and you sell them at the market price of $100, you receive $1,000 in your account. But you owe your broker 10 shares, which you need to return sometime in the future. A few days later, the share price has decreased to $80. Now you can buy 10 shares from the market at a total cost of $800. You get 10 shares, and return those shares to your broker. Since you originally took in $1,000, and you just paid out $800, you keep a resulting profit of $200\\\"\",\n \"To short a stock you actually borrow shares and sell them. The shorter gets the money from selling immediately, and pays interest for the share he borrows until he covers the short. The amount of interest varies depending on the stock. It's typically under 1% a year for large cap stocks, but can be 20% or more for small, illiquid, or heavily shorted stocks. In this scam only a few people own the shares that are lent to shorters, so they essentially have a monopoly and can set really high borrow costs. The shorter probably assumes that a pump-and-dump will crash quickly, so wouldn't mind paying a high borrow cost.\",\n \"\\\"If the owner of the stock wants it back, they \\\"\\\"call\\\"\\\" it back. There are no guarantees of how long you can keep it for your short, or the cost involved to hold it. Usually, everyone knows about a particular set-up (e.g. a warrant or convertible bond mispricing) that is attractive for arbitrage. This causes the associated stock to be in high demand thus expensive to borrow for shorting, or impossible to find for any price at all.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Lending of shares happens in the background. Those who have lent them out are not aware that they have been lent out, nor when they are returned. The borrowers have to pay any dividends to the lenders and in the end the borrowers get their stock back. If you read the fine print on the account agreement for a margin account, you will see that you have given the brokerage the permission to silently loan your stocks out. Since the lending has no financial impact on your portfolio, there's no particular reason to know and no particular protection required. Actually, brokers typically don't bother going through the work of finding an actual stock to borrow. As long as lots of their customers have stocks to lend and not that many people have sold short, they just assume there is no problem and keep track of how many are long and short without designating which stocks are borrowed from whom. When a stock becomes hard to borrow because of liquidity issues or because many people are shorting it, the brokerage will actually start locating individual shares to borrow, which is a more time-consuming and costly procedure. Usually this involves the short seller actually talking to the broker on the phone rather than just clicking \\\"\\\"sell.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.\",\n \"Brokers have the right to charge interest on any stock that they lend you. Since you borrowed the TSLA to short it, the owner of those shares can charge you interest until you return them. If you are not getting charged interest on some shares that you have borrowed to short, consider it generosity on the part of the lender.\",\n \"I don't actually have any of this stock. Apparently, it's quite common strategy This is called naked short selling. It's not illegal per se, but there can be some major penalties so you should call your broker and ask them these questions. Intentionally naked short selling is not looked upon favorably. They'll probably try to recommend you a safer shorting system by which:\",\n \"\\\"He sold at 25 cents per pound and then as the price rises, the cash he has will buy less and less which could trigger a margin call as you are missing the \\\"\\\"short\\\"\\\" part of his position which is rather important here. From Investopedia: A margin account also allows your brokerage firm to liquidate your position if the likelihood that you will return what you've borrowed diminishes. This is part of the agreement that is signed when the margin account is created. From the broker's perspective, this increases the likelihood that you will return the shares before losses become too large and you become unable to return the shares. If you sold at 25 cents per pound and the price goes up, at some point you may be forced to buy to cover the position as brokers don't like to lose their money. As another example of a short going bad, \\\"\\\"Devastated\\\"\\\" Trader Crushed By Soaring Biotech, Starts Online Begging Campaign To Fund $106,000 Margin Call notes in part: However where this story gets abusrdly entertaining, or woefully tragic, depending on one's perspective, is that one trader, Joe Campbell, was on the wrong side of last night's massive surge. As the RutRho blog, which noticed it first explains, a \\\"\\\"dummy\\\"\\\" E-trader, Joe Campbell, decided to go $35,000 short KBIO \\\"\\\"and now owes $ETFC a wonderful $106K.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"Lending of securities is done by institutional investors and mutual funds. The costs of dealing with thousands of individual investors, small share blocks and the various screw-ups and drama associated with each individual are too high. Like many exotic financial transactions, if you have to ask about it, you're probably not qualified to do it.\",\n \"\\\"First, you are not exactly \\\"\\\"giving\\\"\\\" the brokerage $2000. That money is the margin requirement to protect them in the case the stock price rises. If you short 200 shares as in your example and they are holding $6000 from you then they are protected in the event of the stock price increasing to $30/share. Sometime before it gets there the brokerage will require you to deposit more money or they will cover your position by repurchasing the shares for your account. The way you make money on the short sale is if the stock price declines. It is a buy low sell high idea but in reverse. If you believe that prices are going to drop then you could sell now when it is high and buy back later when it is lower. In your example, you are selling 200 shares at $20 and later, buying those at $19. Thus, your profit is $200, not counting any interest or fees you have paid. It's a bit confusing because you are selling something you'll buy in the future. Selling short is usually considered quite risky as your gain is limited to the amount that you sold at initially (if I sell at $20/share the most I can make is if the stock declines to $0). Your potential to lose is unlimited in theory. There is no limit to how high the stock could go in theory so I could end up buying it back at an infinitely high price. Neither of these extremes are likely but they do show the limits of your potential gain and loss. I used $20/share for simplicity assuming you are shorting with a market order vs a limit order. If you are shorting it would be better for you to sell at 20 instead of 19 anyway. If someone says I would like to give you $20 for that item you are selling you aren't likely to tell them \\\"\\\"no, I'd really only like $19 for it\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"For every seller, there's a buyer. Buyers may have any reason for wanting to buy (bargain shopping, foolish belief in a crazy business, etc). The party (brokerage, market maker, individual) owning the stock at the time the company goes out of business is the loser . But in a general panic, not every company is going to go out of business. So the party owning those stocks can expect to recover some, or all, of the value at some point in the future. Brokerages all reserve the right to limit margin trading (required for short selling), and during a panic would likely not allow you to short a stock they feel is a high risk for them.\",\n \"\\\"You sold $10,000 worth of stock so that money is essentially yours. However, you sold this stock without actually owning any which means that you, through your broker, are currently borrowing shares amounting to (at the time of your sale) $10,000 from someone who actually owns this stock. You will be paying this person interest for the privilege of borrowing their shares, the exact amount charged varies wildly and depends on factors such as short interest in the stock (loads of people want to go short = shareholders can charge high interest) etc. If I remember correctly hovering over the \\\"\\\"position\\\"\\\" column in your portfolio in the IB Workstation should give you information about the interest rate charged. You will have to buy back these shares from the lender at some point which is why the $10k isn't just \\\"\\\"free money.\\\"\\\" If the stock has gone up in price in the meantime you are going to be paying more than the $10k you got for the same amount of shares and vice versa.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"So, yes, you may be having the inevitable epiphany where you realize that options can synthetically replicate the same risk profile of owning stock outright. Allowing you to manipulate risk and circumvent margin requirement differences amongst asset classes. Naked short puts are analogous to a covered call, but may have different (lesser) margin requirements. This allows you to increase your risk, and the broker has to account for that. The broker's clientele might not understand all the risks associated with that much leverage and so may simply consider it risky \\\"\\\"for your protection\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Below is just a little information on short selling from my small unique book \\\"\\\"The small stock trader\\\"\\\": Short selling is an advanced stock trading tool with unique risks and rewards. It is primarily a short-term trading strategy of a technical nature, mostly done by small stock traders, market makers, and hedge funds. Most small stock traders mainly use short selling as a short-term speculation tool when they feel the stock price is a bit overvalued. Most long-term short positions are taken by fundamental-oriented long/short equity hedge funds that have identified some major weaknesses in the company. There a few things you should consider before shorting stocks: Despite all the mystique and blame surrounding short selling, especially during bear markets, I personally think regular short selling, not naked short selling, has a more positive impact on the stock market, as: Lastly, small stock traders should not expect to make significant profits by short selling, as even most of the great stock traders (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen,) have hardly made significant money from their shorts. it is safe to say that odds are stacked against short sellers. Over the last century or so, Western large caps have returned an annual average of between 8 and 10 percent while the returns of small caps have been slightly higher. I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of \\\"\\\"The small stock trader\\\"\\\")\\\"\",\n \"Investopedia has a good explanation of the term shorting which is what this is. In the simplest of terms, someone is borrowing the bond and selling it with the intent to replace the security and any dividends or coupons in the end. The idea is that if a bond is overvalued, one may be able to buy it back later for a cheaper price and pocket the difference. There are various rules about this including margin requirements to maintain since there is the risk of the security going up in price enough that someone may be forced into a buy to cover in the form of a margin call. If one can sell the bond at $960 now and then buy it back later for $952.38 then one could pocket the difference. Part of what you aren't seeing is what are other bonds doing in terms of their prices over time here. The key point here is that brokers may lend out securities and accrue interest on loaned securities for another point here.\",\n \"\\\"If you can't find anyone to lend you the shares, then you can't short. You can attempt to raise the interest rate at which you will borrow at, in order to entice others to lend you their shares. In practice, broadcasting this information is pretty convoluted. If there aren't any stocks for you to buy back, then you have to buy back at a higher price. As in, place a limit buy order higher and higher until someone decides to sell to you. This affects your profit. Regarding the public ledger: This functions different in different markets. United States stock markets have an evolving body of regulations to alleviate the exact concerns you detailed, but Canada's or Dubai's stock markets would have different provisions. You make the assumption that it is an efficient process, but it is not and it is indeed ripe for abuse. In US stocks, the public ledger has a 3 business day delay between showing change of ownership. Many times brokers and clearing firms and other market participants allow a customer to go short with fake shares, with the idea that they will find real shares within the 3 business day time period to cover the position. During the time period that there is no real shares hitting the market, this is called a \\\"\\\"naked short\\\"\\\". The only legal system that attempts to deter this practice is the \\\"\\\"fail to deliver\\\"\\\" (FTD) list. If someone fails to deliver, that means there is a short position active with fake shares for which no real shares have been borrowed against. Too many FTD's allow for a short selling restriction to be placed, meaning nobody else can be short, and existing short sellers may be forced to cover.\\\"\",\n \"Are mortgages always sold for less than the remaining principal? No, they're almost always sold for more than that. The buyer will take a loss if the homeowner pays off the loan immediately, but that's very unlikely. The buyer is hoping that the owner will payoff the loan as scheduled and they'll make a tidy profit from the interest charged. The originator now makes their profit immediately and has their capital back so they can make more loans.\",\n \"This is a gross simplification as there are a few different ways to do this. The principle overall is the same though. To short a stock, you borrow X shares from a third party and sell them at the current price. You now owe the lender X shares but have the proceeds from the sale. If the share price falls you can buy back those shares at the new lower price, return them to the lender and pocket the difference. The risk comes when the share price goes the other way, you now owe the lender the new value of the shares, so have to find some way to cover the difference. This happened a while back when Porsche made a fortune buying shares in Volkswagen from short sellers, and the price unexpectedly rose.\",\n \"In a lot of cases, the bank has already made their money. Shortly after you get your mortgage is sold to investors though the bank is still servicing it for a fee. Therefore, if you refinance, they get to sell it again.\",\n \"\\\"Selling short is simply by definition the selling, then later re-buying of stock you don't initially own. Say you tally your entire portfolio balance: the quantity of each stock you own, and your cash assets. Let's call this your \\\"\\\"initial position\\\"\\\". We define \\\"\\\"profit\\\"\\\" as any increase in assets, relative to this initial position. If you know a particular stock will go down, you can realize a profit by selling some of that stock, waiting for the price to go down, then buying it back. In the end you will have returned to your initial position, except you will have more cash. If you sell 10 shares of a stock valued at £1.50, then buy them back at £1.00, you will make a £5.00 profit while having otherwise returned to your previous position. If you do the same, but you initially owned 1000 shares, sold just 10 of those, then bought 10 back, that's still a profit of £5.00. Selling short is doing the same thing, but with an initial and ending balance of 0 shares. If you initially own 0 shares, sell 10, then buy 10 back, you return to your initial position (0 shares) plus a profit of £5.00. (And in practice you must also pay a borrowing fee to do this.) The advantage of selling short is it can be done with any stock, not just those currently owned.\\\"\",\n \"Fair enough. I would imagine the ETF could get a better option pricing if that were the case, plus liquidity and counterpart risk concerns but your point is well taken. Serves me right to shoot my mouth off on something I do not do (short). Speaking of which, do you do a lot of shorting? Cover positions or speculation?\",\n \"\\\"You didn't win in case B. Borrowing shares and then selling them is known as \\\"\\\"selling short\\\"\\\". You received $2000 when you sold short 100 shares at $20. You spent $1000 to buy them back at $10, so you come out $1000 ahead on that deal. But at the same time, the 100 shares you already owned have declined in value from $20 to $10, so you are down $1000 on that deal. So you've simply broken even, and you are still out the interest and transaction fees. In effect, a short sale allows you to sell shares you don't own. But if you do already own them, then the effect is the same as if you just sold your own shares. This makes it easier to see that this is just a complicated and expensive way of accomplishing nothing at all.\\\"\",\n \"Short selling can be a good strategy to hedge, but you have almost unlimited downside. If a stock price skyrockets, you may be forced to cover your short by the brokerage before you want to or put up more capital. A smarter strategy to hedge, that limits your potential downside is to buy puts if you think the market is going down. Your downside is limited to the total amount that you purchased the put for and no more. Another way to hedge is to SELL calls that are covered because you own the shares the calls refer to. You might do this if you thought your stock was going to go down but you didn't want to sell your shares right now. That way the only downside if the price goes up is you give up your shares at a predetermined price and you miss out on the upside, but your downside is now diminished by the premium you were paid for the option. (You'd still lose money if the shares went down since you still own them, but you got paid the option premium so that helps offset that).\",\n \"I agree with Mark. I was quite confuse about the short position at first but then I did a lot of learning and found out that as long as you have enough cash to cover your margin requirement you do not pay any interest since you do not have a debit on your margin balance. This is not true for a long position though, supposed you have 5k cash and 5k margin balance, if you buy 10K worth of stocks then you will need to pay interest on the 5k of the margin balance since it is a debit. Since shorting is done at a credit basis, you actually get interest from the transaction but you still may need to pay the borrowing fees for the stocks so they could simply balance each other out. I have shorted stocks twice through two different companies and neither time I noticed any interest charges. But make sure you have enough cash to cover your margin requirement, because once your margin balance is used to covered your position then interest would accrual. Learn.\",\n \"The only reason to lend the money in this scenario is cashflow. But considering you buy a $15000 car, your lifestyle is not super luxurious, so $15000 spare cash is enough.\",\n \"You will be charged a stock borrow fee, which is inversely related to the relative supply of the stock you are shorting. IB claims to pay a rebate on the short proceeds, which would offset part or all of that fee, but it doesn't appear relevant in your case because: It is a bit strange to me that IB would not require you to keep the cash in your account, as they need the cash to collateralize the stock borrow with the lending institution. In fact, per Regulation T, the short position requires an initial margin of 150%, which includes the short proceeds. As described by Investopedia: In the first table of Figure 1, a short sale is initiated for 1,000 shares at a price of $50. The proceeds of the short sale are $50,000, and this amount is deposited into the short sale margin account. Along with the proceeds of the sale, an additional 50% margin amount of $25,000 must be deposited in the account, bringing the total margin requirement to $75,000. At this time, the proceeds of the short sale must remain in the account; they cannot be removed or used to purchase other securities. Here is a good answer to your question from The Street: Even though you might see a balance in your brokerage account after shorting a stock, you're actually looking at a false credit, according to one big brokerage firm. That money is acting as collateral for the short position. So, you won't have use of these funds for investment purposes and won't earn interest on it. And there are indeed costs associated with shorting a stock. The broker has to find stock to loan to you. That might come out of a broker's own inventory or might be borrowed from another stock lender.\",\n \"But by closing the short position the broker would still be purchasing shares from the market no? Or at least, someone would be purchasing the shares to close the short position. So, why doesn't the broker just let Client A keep their short position open and buy shares in the market so that Client B can sell them...I know it sounds a bit ridic, but not much more so to me than letting Client A borrow the shares to begin with!\",\n \"\\\"Who are the losers going to be? If you can tell me for certain which firms will do worst in a bear market and can time it so that this information is not already priced into the market then you can make money. If not don't try. In a bull market stocks tend to act \\\"\\\"normally\\\"\\\" with established patterns such as correlations acting as expected and stocks more or less pricing to their fundamentals. In a bear market fear tends to overrule all of those things. You get large drops on relatively minor bad news and modest rallies on even the best news which results in stocks being undervalued against their fundamentals. In the crash itself it is quite easy to make money shorting. In an environment where stocks are undervalued, such as a bear market, you run the risk that your short, no matter how sure you are that the stock will fall, is seen as being undervalued and will rise. In fact your selling of a \\\"\\\"losing\\\"\\\" stock might cause it to hit levels where value investors already have limits set. This could bring a LOT of buyers into the market. Due to the fact that correlations break down creating portfolios with the correct risk level, which is what funds are required to do not only by their contracts but also by law to an extent, is extremely difficult. Risk management (keeping all kinds to within certain bounds) is one of the most difficult parts of a manager's job and is even difficult in abnormal market conditions. In the long run (definitions may vary) stock prices in general go up (for those companies who aren't bankrupted at least) so shorting in a bear market is not a long term strategy either and will not produce long term returns on capital. In addition to this risk you run the risk that your counterparty (such as Lehman brothers?) will file for bankruptcy and you won't be able to cover the position before the lender wants you to repay their stock to them landing you in even more problems.\\\"\",\n \"I'm just began playing in the stock market. I assume you mean that you're not using real money, but rather you have an account with a stock simulator like the one Investopedia offers. I am hopeful that's the case due to the high level of risk involved in short selling like you're describing. Here is another post about short selling that expands a bit on that point. To learn much more about the ins and outs of short selling I will point again to Investopedia. I swear I don't work for them, but they do have a great short selling tutorial. When you short sell a stock you are borrowing the stock from your broker. (The broker typically uses stock held by one or more of his clients to cover the loan.) Since it's basically a loan you pay interest. Of course the longer you hold it the more interest you pay. Also, as Joe mentioned there are scenarios in which you may be forced to buy the stock (at a higher price than you sold it). This tends to happen when the stock price is going against the short sell (i.e. you lose money). Finally, did anyone mention that the potential losses in a short sell are infinite?\",\n \"Answers here are correct but I'll offer an extremely (overly) simple explanation that should help you in understanding the more detailed answers. When most people own stock they do so through a broker. Unless you jump through some hoops, the broker keeps the shares in the name of the brokerage. This is called holding the stock in street name. When you sell short through a brokerage, the broker is letting you borrow a certain number of shares owned by someone else and sell them for cash now. At some point, you need to repay this loan with the same number of shares you borrowed. Ideally, you want the stock to drop to $0. The reason you might be forced to purchase the stock is that the actual owner(s) of the stock want to sell. If the broker has too many people wanting to sell, you will need to repay some of all of the loan (in shares) i.e. purchasing shares at the current market price.\",\n \"The problem with short would be that even if the stock eventually falls, it might raise a lot in the meantime, and unless you have enough collateral, you may not survive till it happens. To sell shares short, you first need to borrow them (as naked short is currently prohibited in US, as far as I know). Now, to borrow you need some collateral, which is supposed to be worth more that the asset you are borrowing, and usually substantially more, otherwise the risk for the creditor is too high. Suppose you borrowed 10K worth of shares, and gave 15K collateral (numbers are totally imaginary of course). Suppose the shares rose so that total cost is now 14K. At this moment, you will probably be demanded to either raise more collateral or close the position if you can not, thus generating you a 4K loss. Little use it would be to you if next day it fell to 1K - you already lost your money! As Keynes once said, Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. See also another answer which enumerates other issues with short selling. As noted by @MichaelPryor, options may be a safer way to do it. Or a short ETF like PSQ - lists of those are easy to find online.\",\n \"ELI5 - you sell something that you don't own with the expectation that it will go down, and then you buy it back when it goes down in order to lock in profit. You are charged fees to borrow the stock from someone else who currently owns it, and you also run the risk of the market going against you by going up.\",\n \"\\\"Banks make money on load origination fees. The \\\"\\\"points\\\"\\\" you pay or closing costs are the primary benefit to the banks. A vast majority of the time risks associated with the mortgage are sold to another party. FYI, the same is true with investment banks. In general, the transaction costs (which are ignored by modern finance theory) are the main thing running the incentives for the industry.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The correct answer to this question is: the person who the short sells the stock to. Here's why this is the case. Say we have A, who owns the stock and lends it to B, who then sells it short to C. After this the price drops and B buys the stock back from D and returns it to A. The outcome for A is neutral. Typically stock that is sold short must be held in a margin account; the broker can borrow the shares from A, collect interest from B, and A has no idea this is going on, because the shares are held in a street name (the brokerage's name) and not A. If A decides during this period to sell, the transaction will occur immediately, and the brokerage must shuffle things around so the shares can be delivered. If this is going to be difficult then the cost for borrowing shares becomes very high. The outcome for B is obviously a profit: they sold high first and bought (back) low afterwards. This leaves either C or D as having lost this money. Why isn't it D? One way of looking at this is that the profit to B comes from the difference in the price from selling to C and buying from D. D is sitting on the low end, and thus is not paying out the profit. D bought low, compared to C and this did not lose any money, so C is the only remaining choice. Another way of looking at it is that C actually \\\"\\\"lost\\\"\\\" all the money when purchasing the stock. After all, all the money went directly from C to B. In return, C got some stock with the hope that in the future C could sell it for more than was paid for it. But C literally gave the money to B, so how could anybody else \\\"\\\"pay\\\"\\\" the loss? Another way of looking at it is that C buys a stock which then decreases in value. C is thus now sitting on a loss. The fact that it is currently only a paper loss makes this less obvious; if the stock were to recover to the price C bought at, one might conclude that C did not lose the money to B. However, in this same scenario, D also makes money that C could have made had C bought at D's price, proving that C really did lose the money to B. The final way of seeing that the answer is C is to consider what happens when somebody sells a stock which they already hold but the price goes up; who did they lose out on the gain to? The person again is; who bought their stock. The person would buys the stock is always the person who the gain goes to when the price appreciates, or the loss comes out of if the price falls.\\\"\",\n \"The answer provide by @mbhunter is correct, however there are contexts, shorting in spot market and carrying the position over settlement usually does not entail payment of dividend to the broker, one of the reason being post ex-date the price of the share downward adjusts to the extent of the dividend, so practically if you have shorted at 100 and post ex-date (assuming a dividend of 2 and no movement of the stock price), the price would slide to 98, the party who longed the stock @ 100 now is sitting on a price of 98 and received a dividend of 2 which equates to 100. The above is also contextual to the law of the country governing the exchange and the security exchange board regulations.\",\n \"Shorting is the term used when someone borrows a stock and sells it at the current price to then buy it back later at hopefully a lower price. There are rules about this as noted in the link that begins this answer as there are risks to selling a stock you don't own of course. If you look up various large companies you may find that there are millions of shares sold short throughout the market as someone does have the shares and they will need to be put back eventually.\",\n \"\\\"You are likely making an assumption that the \\\"\\\"Short call\\\"\\\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \\\"\\\"write\\\"\\\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\\\"\",\n \"This can be best explained with an example. Bob thinks the price of a stock that Alice has is going to go down by the end of the week, so he borrows a share at $25 from Alice. The current price of the shares are $25 per share. Bob immediately sells the shares to Charlie for $25, it is fair, it is the current market price. A week goes by, and the price does fall to $20. Bob buys a share from David at $20. This is fair, it is the current market value. Then Bob gives the share back to Alice to settle what he borrowed from her, one share. Now, in reality, there is interest charged be Alice on the borrowed value, but to keep it simple, we'll say she was a friend and it was a zero interest loan. So then Bob was able to sell something he didn't own for $25 and return it spending $20 to buy it, settling his loan and making $5 in the transaction. It is the selling to Charlie and buying from David (or even Charlie later, if he decided to dump the shares), without having invested any of your own money that earns the profit.\",\n \"How so? If i sell short, then i make a profit only if the price goes down so i can buy back at a lower price. Yes, but if the price is going up then you would go long instead. Shorting a stock (or any other asset) allows you to profit when the price is going down. Going long allows you to profit when the price is going up. In the opposite cases, you lose money. In order to make a profit in either of those situations, you have to accurately assess which way the price will trade over the period of time you are dealing with. If you make the wrong judgment, then you lose money because you'll either sell for a lower price than you bought (if you went long), or have to buy back at a higher price than you sold for (if you went short). In either case, unless the trader can live with making a short-term loss and recouperating it later, one needs a good stop-loss strategy.\",\n \"\\\"You at least have some understanding of the pitfalls of shorting. You might not be able to borrow stock. You might not be able to buy it back when the time comes. You're moves are monitored, so you can't \\\"\\\"run away\\\"\\\" because the rules are enforced. (You don't want to find out how, personally.) \\\"\\\"Shorting\\\"\\\" is a tough, risky business. To answer your implicit question, if you have to ask about it on a public forum like this, you're not good enough to do it.\\\"\",\n \"The original owner of the shares can pledge their shares to be short, and they earn interest from lending their shares. The conditions of this arrangement are detailed in standard agreements all market participants sign with their broker, or clearinghouse, or with the exchange, or with the self regulatory agency. Stocks within the same class are identical, despite someone's sentiment to an old share certificate that their grandparents gave them, and as such can be sold and returned to the beneficial owner multiple times with no difference. That is how it is supposed to work anyway, as naked shorting involves selling fictional shares that have no beneficial owner. So there are market inefficiencies in this practice, but the agreements between market participants are sound and answers your question about how.\",\n \"Owning a stock via a fund and selling it short simultaneously should have the same net financial effect as not owning the stock. This should work both for your personal finances as well as the impact of (not) owning the shares has on the stock's price. To use an extreme example, suppose there are 4 million outstanding shares of Evil Oil Company. Suppose a group of concerned index fund investors owns 25% of the stock and sells short the same amount. They've borrowed someone else's 25% of the company and sold it to a third party. It should have the same effect as selling their own shares of the company, which they can't otherwise do. Now when 25% of the company's stock becomes available for purchase at market price, what happens to the stock? It falls, of course. Regarding how it affects your own finances, suppose the stock price rises and the investors have to return the shares to the lender. They buy 1 million shares at market price, pushing the stock price up, give them back, and then sell another million shares short, subsequently pushing the stock price back down. If enough people do this to effect the share price of a stock or asset class, the managers at the companies might be forced into behaving in a way that satisfies the investors. In your case, perhaps the company could issue a press release and fire the employee that tried to extort money from your wife's estate in order to win your investment business back. Okay, well maybe that's a stretch.\",\n \"The 'normal' series of events when trading a stock is to buy it, time passes, then you sell it. If you believe the stock will drop in price, you can reverse the order, selling shares, waiting for the price drop, then buying them back. During that time you own say, -100 shares, and are 'short' those shares.\",\n \"To expand on the comment made by @NateEldredge, you're looking to take a short position. A short position essentially functions as follows: Here's the rub: you have unlimited loss potential. Maybe you borrow a share and sell it at $10. Maybe in a month you still haven't closed the position and now the share is trading at $1,000. The share lender comes calling for their share and you have to close the position at $1,000 for a loss of $990. Now what if it was $1,000,000 per share, etc. To avoid this unlimited loss risk, you can instead buy a put option contract. In this situation you buy a contract that will expire at some point in the future for the right to sell a share of stock for $x. You get to put that share on to someone else. If the underlying stock price were to instead rise above the put's exercise price, the put will expire worthless — but your loss is limited to the premium paid to acquire the put option contract. There are all sorts of advanced options trades sometimes including taking a short or long position in a security. It's generally not advisable to undertake these sorts of trades until you're very comfortable with the mechanics of the contracts. It's definitely not advisable to take an unhedged short position, either by borrowing someone else's share(s) to sell or selling an option (when you sell the option you take the risk), because of the unlimited loss potential described above.\",\n \"\\\"The broker will charge borrowing fees and sometimes a charge called \\\"\\\"hard-to-borrow fee\\\"\\\". Other than that you will earn interest on the cash you get from selling the stocks, but you will have to pay dividends. This is because someone else (the party you sold the stocks off to) will now get the dividends and the party who lent you the stocks will miss out on these, that's why you have to remunerate them. The type of account you need is entirely up to your broker (and besides, it depends on what a 'normal' account for you is, you should at least mention your country or your broker).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Derivatives derive their value from underlying assets. This is expressed by the obligation of at least one counterparty to trade with the other counterparty in the future. These can take on as many combinations as one can dream up as it is a matter of contract. For futures, where two parties are obligated to trade at a specific price at a specific date in the future (one buyer, one seller), if you \\\"\\\"short\\\"\\\" a future, you have entered into a contract to sell the underlying at the time specified. If the price of the future moves against you (goes up), you will have to sell at a loss. The bigger the move, the greater the loss. You go ahead and pay this as well as a little extra to be sure that you satisfy what you owe due to the future. This satisfaction is called margin. If there weren't margin, people could take huge losses on their derivative bets, not pay, and disrupt the markets. Making sure that the money that will trade is already there makes the markets run smoothly. It's the same for shorting stocks where you borrow the stock, sell it, and wait. You have to leave the money with the broker as well as deposit a little extra to be sure you can make good if the market moves to a large degree against you.\\\"\",\n \"In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-). In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.\",\n \"I can see that building credit is a valid reason. I would also suggest another scenario, when you have locked up money in long-term savings, with a substantial penalty for early withdrawal. If you suddenly needed money then you might save money by borrowing against the long-term deposit rather than pay the penalties. This is especially true if you needed the money only for a short time.\",\n \"\\\"Point of order: \\\"\\\"What goes up must come down\\\"\\\" refers to gravity of terrestrial objects below escape velocity and should not be generalized beyond its intent. It's not true that stocks MUST come down just because they have gone up. For example, we would not expecting the price of oil to come down to 1999 levels, right? Prices, including those of stocks, are not necessarily cyclical. Anyway, short selling isn't necessarily a bad idea. In some sense, it is insurance if you have a lot of assets (like maybe your human capital) that will take a dive when the market goes down. Short selling would have lost a lot of money in your case as the stock market between 2011 (when you wrote the question) and 2014 (when I wrote this answer) performed very well. On average the long side stock market should make money over long periods of time as compensation for risk and the short side should lose money, so it's not a good way to make money if you don't have an informational advantage. Like all insurance, it protects you against certain calamities, but on average it costs you money.\\\"\",\n \"I've read this claim many times in the news: banks are making less profit from the lending business when interest rates are historically low. The issue with most loans is they can be satisfied at any time. When you have falling interest rates it means most of the banks loans are refinanced from nice high rates to current market low interest rates which can significantly reduce the expected return on past loans. The bank gets the money back when it wants it the least because it can only re-lend the money at the current market (lower) interest rates. When interest rates are increasing refinance and early repayment activity reduces significantly. It's important to look at the loan from the point of view of the bank, a bank must first issue out the entire principal amount. On a 60 month loan the lender has not received payments sufficient to satisfy the principal until around 50th or 55th month depending on the interest rate. If the bank receives payment of the outstanding amount on month 30 the expected return on that loan is reduced significantly. Consider a $10,000, 60 month loan at 5% apr. The bank is expected to receive $11,322 in total for interest income of $1,322. If the loan is repaid on month 30, the total interest is about $972. That's a 26% reduction of expected interest income, and the money received can only be re-lent for yet a lower interest rate. Add to this the tricky accounting of holding a loan, which is really a discounted bond, which is an asset, on the books and profitability of lending while interest rates are falling gets really funky. And this doesn't even examine default risk/cost.\",\n \"\\\"Being \\\"\\\"long\\\"\\\" - expecting the price to go up to make a profit - is a two step process: 1) buy 2) sell Being \\\"\\\"short\\\"\\\" - expecting the price to go down to make a profit - is a 5 step process: 1) borrow someone else's asset 2) sell their asset on the open market to somebody else a third party 3) pocket the proceeds of the sell for your own account 4) buy an identical asset for a cheaper price 5) return this identical asset to the person that let you borrow their asset if this is successful you keep the difference between 3) and 4)\\\"\",\n \"One of my university professors suggested doing this systematically to get access to shareholder meetings where there is typically a nice dinner involved. As long as the stock price + commission is less than the price of a nice restaurant it's actually not a bad idea.\",\n \"You are the one lending yourself the shares to sell;you purchase the stock at market price and sell at the strike price of the option to the put seller when you exercise the option.\",\n \"\\\"Many investors don't invest for the short term and so a stock \\\"\\\"nose-diving\\\"\\\" in the short run will not affect their long term strategy so they will simply hold on to it until it recovers. Additionally funds that track an index have to hold on to the constituents of that index no matter what happens to its value over the period (within trading limits). Both of these kinds of investors will be able to lend stock in a company out and not trigger a forced buy-in on a short term change. If the underlying long-term health of the company changes or it is removed from indices it is likely that this will change, however. Employee stock plans and other investors who are linked directly to the company or who have a vested interest in the company other than in a financial way will also be unwilling (or unable) to sell on a down turn in the company. They will similarly be able to lend their stock in the short term.\\\"\",\n \"If you already own shares in a company and sell some, you won't be short selling these shares if sold from the same brokerage account, because your existing shares with that broker need to be sold first before you are able to short sell any. If you own a portfolio of shares however, you may be able to short sell an index to hedge your current portfolio. Also, if you have your existing shares in a company but don't want to sell your existing shares, for example you don't want to crystallise a capital gain, you can always hedge you current shares by short selling them through a different broker. Some other hedging options possibly available to you include: buying put options over the shares, writing cover call options, or short selling some other derivatives like CFDs (if your country allows them).\",\n \"First utilize a security screener to identify the security profiles you are looking to identify for identifying your target securities for shorting. Most online brokers have stock screeners that you can utilize. At this point you may want to look at your target list of securities to find out those that are eligible for shorting. The SHO thresold list is also a good place to look for securities that are hard to borrow to eliminate potential target securities. http://regsho.finra.org/regsho-Index.html Also your broker can let you know the stocks that are available for borrowing. You can then take your target securities and then you can look at the corporate filings on the SEC's Edgar site to look for the key words you are looking for. I would suggest that you utilize XBRL so you can electronically run your key word searched in an automated manner. I would further suggest that you can run the key word XBRL daily for issuer filings of your target list of securities. Additional word searches you may want to consider are those that could indicate a dilution of the companies stock such as the issuance of convertible debt. Also the below link detailing real short interest may be helpful. Clearing firms are required to report short interest every two weeks. http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/short-interest.aspx\",\n \"Also keep in mind that most REITs have high dividend yields. If you short, you are responsible for payment of the dividend to the party you are borrowing the shares from. This can add costs to your position over time. Short REITS for a long time period is not necessarily an optimal strategy.\",\n \"Yes in order for you to short a stock, some one has to be willing to lend it to you to short, the more people that want to short this stock, the higher the borrowing rate is to short it. in some instances such as groupon so many people are shorting it that there are practically no shares left to short and if you do end up getting some it would be at a very high borrowing cost.\",\n \"Yes, you would. You owe it to the person you borrowed the shares from. (source)\",\n \"\\\"And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position. When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here. In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them. If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from. Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest). Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy. Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800. In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question). It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement. Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money. If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a \\\"\\\"margin call\\\"\\\" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses. And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin). When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go. There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position. You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"In finance, form is function, and while a reason for a trade could be anything, but since the result of a trade is a change in value, it could be presumed that one seeks to receive a change in value. Stock company There may have been more esoteric examples, but currently, possession of a company (total ownership of its' assets actually) is delineated by percentage or a glorified \\\"\\\"banknote\\\"\\\" frequently called a \\\"\\\"share\\\"\\\". Percentage companies are usually sole proprietorship and partnerships, but partnerships can now trade in \\\"\\\"units\\\"\\\". Share companies are usually corporations. With shares, a company can be divided into almost totally indistinguishable units. This allows for more flexible ownership, so individuals can trade them without having to change the company contract. Considering the ease of trade, it could be assumed that common stock contract provisions were formulated to provide for such an ease. Motivation to trade This could be anything, but it seems those with the largest ownership of common stock have lots of wealth, so it could be assumed that people at least want to own stocks to own wealth. Shorting might be a little harder to reason, but I personally assume that the motivation to trade is still to increase wealth. Social benefit of the stock market Assuming that ownership in a company is socially valuable and that the total value of ownership is proportional to the social value provided, the social benefit of a stock market is that it provided the means to scale ownership through convenience, speed, and reliability.\\\"\",\n \"For Canada No distinction is made in the regulation between “naked” or “covered” short sales. However, the practice of “naked” short selling, while not specifically enumerated or proscribed as such, may violate other provisions of securities legislation or self-regulatory organization rules where the transaction fails to settle. Specifically, section 126.1 of the Securities Act prohibits activities that result or contribute “to a misleading appearance of trading activity in, or an artificial price for, a security or derivative of a security” or that perpetrate a fraud on any person or company. Part 3 of National Instrument 23-101 Trading Rules contains similar prohibitions against manipulation and fraud, although a person or company that complies with similar requirements established by a recognized exchange, quotation and trade reporting system or regulation services provider is exempt from their application. Under section 127(1) of the Securities Act, the OSC also has a “public interest jurisdiction” to make a wide range of orders that, in its opinion, are in the public interest in light of the purposes of the Securities Act (notwithstanding that the subject activity is not specifically proscribed by legislation). The TSX Rule Book also imposes certain obligations on its “participating organizations” in connection with trades that fail to settle (see, for example, Rule 5-301 Buy-Ins). In other words, shares must be located by the broker before they can be sold short. A share may not be locatable because there are none available in the broker's inventory, that it cannot lend more than what it has on the books for trade. A share may not be available because the interest rate that brokers are charging to borrow the share is considered too high by that broker, usually if it doesn't pass on borrowing costs to the customer. There could be other reasons as well. If one broker doesn't have inventory, another might. I recommend checking in on IB's list. If they can't get it, my guess would be that no one can since IB passes on the cost to finance short sales.\",\n \"This is very much possible and happens quite a lot. In the US, for example, promotional offers by credit card companies where you pay no interest on the balance for a certain period are a very common thing. The lender gains a new customer on such a loan, and usually earns money from the spending via the merchant fees (specifically for credit cards, at least). The pro is obviously free money. The con is that this is usually for a short period of time (longest I've seen was 15 months) after which if you're not careful, high interest rates will be charged. In some cases, interest will be charged retroactively for the whole period if you don't pay off the balance or miss the minimum payment due.\",\n \"http://www.investopedia.com/university/shortselling/shortselling1.asp 'Therein lies the major risk of short selling, the fear of infinite losses. While the maximum loss for a long investor is the amount invested in a security, the maximum loss for a short seller is theoretically infinite, since there is no upper limit to a stock’s price appreciation. This risk is compounded by the fact that during a short squeeze or buy-in...' Never have shorted a stock. Too intimidated by that!\",\n \"If you are planning this as a tax avoidance scheme, well it is not. The gains will be taxable in your hands and not in the Banks hands. Banks simply don't cash out the stock at the same price, there will be quite a bit of both Lawyers and others ... so in the end you will end up paying more. The link indicates that one would pay back the loan via one's own earnings. So if you have a stock worth USD 100, you can pledge this to a Bank and get a max loan of USD 50 [there are regulations that govern the max you can get against 100]. You want to buy something worth USD 50. Option1: Sell half the stock, get USD 50, pay the captial gains tax on USD 50. Option2: Pledge the USD 100 stock to bank, get a loan of USD 50. As you have not sold anything, there is no tax. Over a period pay the USD 50 loan via your own earnings. A high valued customer may be able to get away with a very low rate of intrest and very long repayment period. The tax implication to your legal hier would be from the time the stock come to his/her hands to the time she sold. So if the price increase to 150 by the time Mark dies, and its sold at 160 later, the gain is only of USD 10. So rather than paying 30% or whatever the applicable tax rate, it would be wise to pay an interest of few percentages.\",\n \"Well, if the short seller has to pay the dividend out of their pocket, what happens to the dividend the company paid out ?? Sounds like there are 2 divdends floating around, the short's, and the company's, but only 1 share of stock.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"Oftentimes, the lender (the owner of the security) is not explicitly involved in the lending transaction. Let's say the broker is holding a long-term position of 1MM shares from Client A. It is common for Client A's agreement with Broker A to include a clause that allows the broker to lend out the 1MM shares for its own profit (\"\"rehypothecation\"\"). Client A may be compensated for this in some form (e.g. baked into their financing rates), but they do not receive any compensation that is directly tied to lending activities. You also have securities lending agents that lend securities for an explicit fee. For example, the borrower's broker may not have sufficient inventory, in which case they would need to find a third-party lending agent. This happens both on-demand as well as for a fixed-terms (typically a large basket of securities). SLB (securities lending and borrowing) is a business in its own right. I'm not sure I follow your follow-up question but oftentimes there is no restriction that prevents the broker from lending out shares \"\"for a very short time\"\". Unless there is a transaction-based fee though, the number of times you lend shares does not affect \"\"pocketing the interest\"\" since interest accrues as a function of time.\"","\"As the other answer said, the person who owns the lent stock does not benefit directly. They may benefit indirectly in that brokers can use the short lending profits to reduce their fees or in that they have the option to short other stocks at the same terms. Follow-up question: what prevents the broker lending the shares for a very short time (less than a day), pocketing the interest and returning the lenders their shares without much change in share price (because borrowing period was very short). What prevents them from doing that many times a day ? Lack of market. Short selling for short periods of time isn't so common as to allow for \"\"many\"\" times a day. Some day traders may do it occasionally, but I don't know that it would be a reliable business model to supply them. If there are enough people interested in shorting the stock, they will probably want to hold onto it long enough for the anticipated movement to happen. There are transaction costs here. Both fees for trading at all and the extra charges for short sale borrowing and interest. Most stocks do not move down by large enough amounts \"\"many\"\" times a day. Their fluctuations are smaller. If the stock doesn't move enough to cover the transaction fees, then that seller lost money overall. Over time, sellers like that will stop trading, as they will lose all their money. All that said, there are no legal blocks to loaning the stock out many times, just practical ones. If a stock was varying wildly for some bizarre reason, it could happen.\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"Oftentimes, the lender (the owner of the security) is not explicitly involved in the lending transaction. Let's say the broker is holding a long-term position of 1MM shares from Client A. It is common for Client A's agreement with Broker A to include a clause that allows the broker to lend out the 1MM shares for its own profit (\\\"\\\"rehypothecation\\\"\\\"). Client A may be compensated for this in some form (e.g. baked into their financing rates), but they do not receive any compensation that is directly tied to lending activities. You also have securities lending agents that lend securities for an explicit fee. For example, the borrower's broker may not have sufficient inventory, in which case they would need to find a third-party lending agent. This happens both on-demand as well as for a fixed-terms (typically a large basket of securities). SLB (securities lending and borrowing) is a business in its own right. I'm not sure I follow your follow-up question but oftentimes there is no restriction that prevents the broker from lending out shares \\\"\\\"for a very short time\\\"\\\". Unless there is a transaction-based fee though, the number of times you lend shares does not affect \\\"\\\"pocketing the interest\\\"\\\" since interest accrues as a function of time.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"As the other answer said, the person who owns the lent stock does not benefit directly. They may benefit indirectly in that brokers can use the short lending profits to reduce their fees or in that they have the option to short other stocks at the same terms. Follow-up question: what prevents the broker lending the shares for a very short time (less than a day), pocketing the interest and returning the lenders their shares without much change in share price (because borrowing period was very short). What prevents them from doing that many times a day ? Lack of market. Short selling for short periods of time isn't so common as to allow for \\\"\\\"many\\\"\\\" times a day. Some day traders may do it occasionally, but I don't know that it would be a reliable business model to supply them. If there are enough people interested in shorting the stock, they will probably want to hold onto it long enough for the anticipated movement to happen. There are transaction costs here. Both fees for trading at all and the extra charges for short sale borrowing and interest. Most stocks do not move down by large enough amounts \\\"\\\"many\\\"\\\" times a day. Their fluctuations are smaller. If the stock doesn't move enough to cover the transaction fees, then that seller lost money overall. Over time, sellers like that will stop trading, as they will lose all their money. All that said, there are no legal blocks to loaning the stock out many times, just practical ones. If a stock was varying wildly for some bizarre reason, it could happen.\\\"\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":164,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"9115"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Why does the calculation for percentage profit vary based on whether a position is short vs. long?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["158520","207325","422467"],"string":"[\n \"158520\",\n \"207325\",\n \"422467\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["245082","422467","158520","314478","419897","385220","209359","207325","428786","320450","99131","331850","307155","35102","266900","428746","226496","331606","233379","544857","259706","13631","591079","370161","82294","157347","56422","499877","240215","412223","292609","188152","273789","232880","517873","188531","9082","356819","75715","118039","330041","434788","283982","94117","379759","109561","92267","255978","224069","388754","349974","22916","383287","242849","461062","190928","67107","126146","278729","94062","298284","316497","598295","154665","356388","330900","219927","182272","294522","459494","410822","592665","222320","107045","27401","6701","247902","587187","238474","173745","31863","281533","553253","444405","553110","438547","251190","32290","450760","295511","571016","525094","394961","537153","384015","163670","61853","482238","168639","374905"],"string":"[\n \"245082\",\n \"422467\",\n \"158520\",\n \"314478\",\n \"419897\",\n \"385220\",\n \"209359\",\n \"207325\",\n \"428786\",\n \"320450\",\n \"99131\",\n \"331850\",\n \"307155\",\n \"35102\",\n \"266900\",\n \"428746\",\n \"226496\",\n \"331606\",\n \"233379\",\n \"544857\",\n \"259706\",\n \"13631\",\n \"591079\",\n \"370161\",\n \"82294\",\n \"157347\",\n \"56422\",\n \"499877\",\n \"240215\",\n \"412223\",\n \"292609\",\n \"188152\",\n \"273789\",\n \"232880\",\n \"517873\",\n \"188531\",\n \"9082\",\n \"356819\",\n \"75715\",\n \"118039\",\n \"330041\",\n \"434788\",\n \"283982\",\n \"94117\",\n \"379759\",\n \"109561\",\n \"92267\",\n \"255978\",\n \"224069\",\n \"388754\",\n \"349974\",\n \"22916\",\n \"383287\",\n \"242849\",\n \"461062\",\n \"190928\",\n \"67107\",\n \"126146\",\n \"278729\",\n \"94062\",\n \"298284\",\n \"316497\",\n \"598295\",\n \"154665\",\n \"356388\",\n \"330900\",\n \"219927\",\n \"182272\",\n \"294522\",\n \"459494\",\n \"410822\",\n \"592665\",\n \"222320\",\n \"107045\",\n \"27401\",\n \"6701\",\n \"247902\",\n \"587187\",\n \"238474\",\n \"173745\",\n \"31863\",\n \"281533\",\n \"553253\",\n \"444405\",\n \"553110\",\n \"438547\",\n \"251190\",\n \"32290\",\n \"450760\",\n \"295511\",\n \"571016\",\n \"525094\",\n \"394961\",\n \"537153\",\n \"384015\",\n \"163670\",\n \"61853\",\n \"482238\",\n \"168639\",\n \"374905\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["There is no difference. When dealing with short positions, talking about percentages become very tricky since they no longer add up to 100%. What does the 50% in your example mean? Unless there's some base amount (like total amount of the portfolio, then the percentages are meaningless. What matters when dealing with long and short positions is the net total - meaning if you are long 100 shares on one stock trade and short 50 shares on another, then you are net long 50 shares.","The problem with rate of return calculation on short positions is, that the commonly used approach assumes an initial investment creating a cash outflow. If we want to apply this approach to short selling, we should look at the trade from another perspective. We buy money and pay for this money with stock. Our investment to buy 50$ in your example is 1 share. When closing the short position, we effectively sell back our money (50$) and receive 2 shares. Our profit on this position is obviously 1 share. Setting this in relation to our investment of 1 share yields a performance of 100% in reality, we do not sell back the entire cash but only the amount needed to get back our investment of 1 share. This is actually comparable to a purchase of stock which we only partially close to get back our invested cash amount and keep the remaining shares as our profit","There are different perspectives from which to calculate the gain, but the way I think it should be done is with respect to the risk you've assumed in the original position, which the simplistic calculation doesn't factor in. There's a good explanation about calculating the return from a short sale at Investopedia. Here's the part that I consider most relevant: [...] When calculating the return of a short sale, you need to compare the amount the trader gets to keep to the initial amount of the liability. Had the trade in our example turned against you, you (as the short seller) would owe not only the initial proceeds amount but also the excess amount, and this would come out of your pocket. [...] Refer to the source link for the full explanation. Update: As you can see from the other answers and comments, it is a more complex a Q&A than it may first appear. I subsequently found this interesting paper which discusses the difficulty of rate of return with respect to short sales and other atypical trades: Excerpt: [...] The problem causing this almost uniform omission of a percentage return on short sales, options (especially writing), and futures, it may be speculated, is that the nigh-well universal and conventional definition of rate of return involving an initial cash outflow followed by a later cash inflow does not appear to fit these investment situations. None of the investment finance texts nor general finance texts, undergraduate or graduate, have formally or explicitly shown how to resolve this predicament or how to justify the calculations they actually use. [...]","\"And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position. When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here. In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them. If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from. Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest). Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy. Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800. In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question). It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement. Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money. If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a \"\"margin call\"\" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses. And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin). When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go. There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position. You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs.\"","If you mean the percentages of long/short positions within a mutual fund or ETF, then it's a percentage of the total value of the fund portfolio. In that case, positions of 50% in X, -50% in Y are not the same as 100% in X, -100% in Y. If the long and short positions are both for the same asset, then, as D Stanley mentions, all that matters is the net position. If you're equally long and short X, then the net position is always 0%.","\"Being \"\"long\"\" - expecting the price to go up to make a profit - is a two step process: 1) buy 2) sell Being \"\"short\"\" - expecting the price to go down to make a profit - is a 5 step process: 1) borrow someone else's asset 2) sell their asset on the open market to somebody else a third party 3) pocket the proceeds of the sell for your own account 4) buy an identical asset for a cheaper price 5) return this identical asset to the person that let you borrow their asset if this is successful you keep the difference between 3) and 4)\"","When you short a stock, you can lose an unlimited amount of money if the trade goes against you. If the shorted stock gaps up overnight you can lose more money than you have in your account. The best case is you make 100% if the stock goes to zero. And then you have margin fees on top of that. With long positions, it's the other way around. Your max loss is 100% and your gains are potentially unlimited.","Simple math: 50-25=25, hence decline from 50 to 25 is a 50% decline (you lose half), while an advance from 25 to 50 is 100% gain (you gain 100%, double your 25 to 50). Their point is that if you have more upswings than downswings - you'll gain more on long positions during upswings than on short positions during downswings on average. Again - simple math.","How so? If i sell short, then i make a profit only if the price goes down so i can buy back at a lower price. Yes, but if the price is going up then you would go long instead. Shorting a stock (or any other asset) allows you to profit when the price is going down. Going long allows you to profit when the price is going up. In the opposite cases, you lose money. In order to make a profit in either of those situations, you have to accurately assess which way the price will trade over the period of time you are dealing with. If you make the wrong judgment, then you lose money because you'll either sell for a lower price than you bought (if you went long), or have to buy back at a higher price than you sold for (if you went short). In either case, unless the trader can live with making a short-term loss and recouperating it later, one needs a good stop-loss strategy.","You can't make money on the way down if it was your money that bought the shares when the market was up. When you sell short, borrowing lets you tap into the value without paying for it. That way, when the price (hopefully) drops you profit from the difference. In your example, if you hadn't paid the £20 in the first place, then you would actually be up £5. But since you started with £20, you still show loss. As others said, borrowing is the definition of selling short. It is also simply the only way the math works. Of course, there is a large risk you must assume to enjoy benefiting from something you do not own!","\"When portfolio positions are reported in percentages, those percentages are relative to the portfolio's base equity. When you start out, that is equal to the cash you have in a portfolio. Later it's the net equity of the portfolio (i.e., how much money you could withdraw if you were to exit all your positions). If you put $5,000 into your account and are long and short 50%, then you are long $2,500 and short $2,500. If it's 100% and -100%, then long and short $5,000. \"\"Leverage\"\" is often computed gross (as if all positions were long). So if you have 100% and -100%, then your broker may say you are \"\"levered 2 to 1.\"\" That is, your gross exposure is twice as large as your underlying base equity.\"","In order to compare the two, you need to compare your entire portfolio, which is not just how much money you have, but how much stock. In both scenarios, you start with (at least, but let's assume) £20 and 0 stock. In your scenario, you buy 10 shares, leaving you with £0 and 10 shares. You then sell it at £1.50/share to cut your losses, leaving you with £15 and 0 shares. That concludes the first transaction with a net loss of £5. In a second transaction, you then buy 10 shares again at £1/share, leaving you with £5 and 10 shares. You are still down £15 from the start, but you also still have 10 shares. Any further profit or loss depends on what you can get for those 10 shares in the future. In a short sale, you borrow 10 shares and sell them, leaving you with £40 (your initial £20 plus what you just made on the short sale) and -10 shares of stock. At the end of the contract, you must buy 10 shares to return them; you are able to do so at £1.50/share, leaving you with £25 and 0 shares. At this point, your exposure to the stock is complete, and you have a net gain of £5.","This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.","\"The margin rules are also more complicated. A simple buy on a non-margin account will never run into margin rules and you can just wait out any dips if you have confidence the stock will recover. A \"\"simple\"\" short sell might get you a call from your broker that you have a margin call, and you can't wait it out without putting more money in. Personally I have trouble keeping the short sale margin rules straight in my head, at least compared to a long sale. I got in way over my head shorting AMZN once, and lost a lot of money because I thought it was overvalued at the time, but it just kept going up and I wanted it to go down. I've never gotten stuck like that on a long position.\"","\"The margin money you put up to fund a short position ($6000 in the example given) is simply a \"\"good faith\"\" deposit that is required by the broker in order to show that you are acting in good faith and fully intend to meet any potential losses that may occur. This margin is normally called initial margin. It is not an accounting item, meaning it is not debited from you cash account. Rather, the broker simply segregates these funds so that you may not use them to fund other trading. When you settle your position these funds are released from segregation. In addition, there is a second type of margin, called variation margin, which must be maintained while holding a short position. The variation margin is simply the running profit or loss being incurred on the short position. In you example, if you sold 200 shares at $20 and the price went to $21, then your variation margin would be a debit of $200, while if the price went to $19, the variation margin would be a credit of $200. The variation margin will be netted with the initial margin to give the total margin requirement ($6000 in this example). Margin requirements are computed at the close of business on each trading day. If you are showing a loss of $200 on the variation margin, then you will be required to put up an additional $200 of margin money in order to maintain the $6000 margin requirement - ($6000 - $200 = $5800, so you must add $200 to maintain $6000). If you are showing a profit of $200, then $200 will be released from segregation - ($6000 + $200 = $6200, so $200 will be release from segregation leaving $6000 as required). When you settle your short position by buying back the shares, the margin monies will be release from segregation and the ledger postings to you cash account will be made according to whether you have made a profit or a loss. So if you made a loss of $200 on the trade, then your account will be debited for $200 plus any applicable commissions. If you made a profit of $200 on the trade then your account will be credited with $200 and debited with any applicable commissions.\"","My instinct says that there should be no difference. Your instincts are right. Your understanding of math is not so much. You sold $100K at the current price of 7500000RUB, but ended up buying at 3500000, you earned 3500000RUB. That's 100% in USD (50% in RUB). You bought 7500000RUB for the current price of $100K, but sold later for $200K. You earned $100K (100% in USD), which at that time was equal 3500000RUB. You earned 3500000RUB. That's 50% in RUB. So, as your instincts were saying - no difference. The reason percentages are different is because you're coming from different angles. For the first case your currency is RUB, for the second case your currency is USD, and in both cases you earned 100%. If you use the same currency for your calculations, percentages change, but the bottom line - is the same.","It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either. Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check. Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated. So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if:","\"When margin is calculated as the equity percentage of an account, the point at which a broker will forcibly liquidate is typically called \"\"maintenance margin\"\". In the US, this is 25% for equities. To calculate the price at which this will occur, the initial and maintenance margin must be known. The formula for a long with margin is: and for a short where P_m is the maintenance margin price, P_i is the initial margin price, m_i is the initial margin rate, and m_m is the maintenance margin rate. At an initial margin of 50% and a maintenance margin of 25%, a long equity may fall by 1/3 before forced liquidation, a short one may rise by 50%. This calculation can become very complex with different asset classes with differing maintenance margins because the margin debt is applied to all securities collectively.\"","\"Selling short is simply by definition the selling, then later re-buying of stock you don't initially own. Say you tally your entire portfolio balance: the quantity of each stock you own, and your cash assets. Let's call this your \"\"initial position\"\". We define \"\"profit\"\" as any increase in assets, relative to this initial position. If you know a particular stock will go down, you can realize a profit by selling some of that stock, waiting for the price to go down, then buying it back. In the end you will have returned to your initial position, except you will have more cash. If you sell 10 shares of a stock valued at £1.50, then buy them back at £1.00, you will make a £5.00 profit while having otherwise returned to your previous position. If you do the same, but you initially owned 1000 shares, sold just 10 of those, then bought 10 back, that's still a profit of £5.00. Selling short is doing the same thing, but with an initial and ending balance of 0 shares. If you initially own 0 shares, sell 10, then buy 10 back, you return to your initial position (0 shares) plus a profit of £5.00. (And in practice you must also pay a borrowing fee to do this.) The advantage of selling short is it can be done with any stock, not just those currently owned.\"","You have got it wrong. The profit or loss for smaller investor or big investor is same in percentage terms.","\"A simple way to ask the question might be to say \"\"why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Why is borrowing someone else's shares necessary to make the concept a viable one? Why isn't it just the inverse of 'going long'?\"\" A simple way to think about it is this: to make money by trading something, you must buy it for less than you sell it for. This applies to stocks like anything else. If you believe the price will go up, then you can buy them first and sell them later for a higher price. But if you believe the price will go down, the only way to buy low and sell high is to sell first and buy later. If you buy the stock and it goes down, any sale you make will lose you money. I'm still not sure I fully understand the point of your example, but one thing to note is that in both cases (i.e., whether you buy the share back at the end or not), you lost money. You say that you \"\"made $5 on the share price dropping\"\", but that isn't true at all: you can see in your example that your final account balance is negative in both cases. You paid $20 for the shares but only got $15 back; you lost $5 (or, in the other version of your example, paid $20 and got back $5 plus the depreciated shares). If you had bought the shares for $20 and sold them for, say, $25, then your account would end up with a positive $5 balance; that is what a gain would look like. But you can't achieve that if you buy the shares for $20 and later sell them for less. At a guess, you seem to be confusing the concept of making a profit with the concept of cutting your losses. It is true that if you buy the shares for $20 and sell them for $15, you lose only $5, whereas if you buy them for $20 and sell for $10, you lose the larger amount of $10. But those are both losses. Selling \"\"early\"\" as the price goes down doesn't make you any money; it just stops you from losing more money than you would if you sold later.\"","The answer provide by @mbhunter is correct, however there are contexts, shorting in spot market and carrying the position over settlement usually does not entail payment of dividend to the broker, one of the reason being post ex-date the price of the share downward adjusts to the extent of the dividend, so practically if you have shorted at 100 and post ex-date (assuming a dividend of 2 and no movement of the stock price), the price would slide to 98, the party who longed the stock @ 100 now is sitting on a price of 98 and received a dividend of 2 which equates to 100. The above is also contextual to the law of the country governing the exchange and the security exchange board regulations.","Is it just -34*4.58= -$155.72 for CCC and -11*0.41= -$4.51 for DDD? Yes it needs to be recorded as negative because at some point in time, the investor will have to spend money to buy these shares [cover the short sell and return the borrowed shares]. Whether the investor made profit or loss will not be reflected as you are only reflecting the current share inventory.","I agree with Mark. I was quite confuse about the short position at first but then I did a lot of learning and found out that as long as you have enough cash to cover your margin requirement you do not pay any interest since you do not have a debit on your margin balance. This is not true for a long position though, supposed you have 5k cash and 5k margin balance, if you buy 10K worth of stocks then you will need to pay interest on the 5k of the margin balance since it is a debit. Since shorting is done at a credit basis, you actually get interest from the transaction but you still may need to pay the borrowing fees for the stocks so they could simply balance each other out. I have shorted stocks twice through two different companies and neither time I noticed any interest charges. But make sure you have enough cash to cover your margin requirement, because once your margin balance is used to covered your position then interest would accrual. Learn.","Variance of a single asset is defined as follows: σ2 = Σi(Xi - μ)2 where Xi's represent all the possible final market values of your asset and μ represents the mean of all such market values. The portfolio's variance is defined as σp2 = Σiwi2σi2 where, σp is the portfolio's variance, and wi stands for the weight of the ith asset. Now, if you include the borrowing in your portfolio, that would classify as technically shorting at the borrowing rate. Thus, this weight would (by the virtue of being negative) increase all other weights. Moreover, the variance of this is likely to be zero (assuming fixed borrowing rates). Thus, weights of risky assets rise and the investor's portfolio's variance will go up. Also see, CML at wikipedia.","The product type and transaction direction are not linked. When you short sell a stock, you are still dealing with shares of an equity security. When you take delivery of a bond, you are buying that bond and holding a long position even though it's a debt security.","Longing the short ETF will give you better returns than shorting the long etf. The reason is that as the price gets the smaller the absolute price change gets a lot smaller. So you would rather have upward price exposure than downward. A good case is SPXU and UPRO","\"The reason for selling a stock \"\"short\"\", is for when you believe the stock value will decrease in the near future. Here is an example: Today Exxon-Mobile stock is selling for $100 / share. You are expecting the price to decrease, so you want to short the stock, which means your broker (i.e. eTrade, etc) allows you to borrow shares without paying money, and those shares are transferred into your account, and then you sell them and receive money for the sale. But you didn't actually own those shares, you only borrowed them, so you need to return the shares to your broker sometime in the future. Let's say you borrow 10 shares @ $100, and you sell them at the market price of $100, you receive $1,000 in your account. But you owe your broker 10 shares, which you need to return sometime in the future. A few days later, the share price has decreased to $80. Now you can buy 10 shares from the market at a total cost of $800. You get 10 shares, and return those shares to your broker. Since you originally took in $1,000, and you just paid out $800, you keep a resulting profit of $200\"","\"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or \"\"going short.\"\" When you use money to buy shares, it is called \"\"going long.\"\" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything. Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share. You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000. You are both long and short in the stock for $2000. At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds. You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share. Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000. However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares. Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest. Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share. Your long shares have lost $1000 in value. However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares. However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything. Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time. However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame. The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting. Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time. You are only attempting to hedge your bets. And it doesn't work. A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position. And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future. This, however, doesn't really change things much. Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term. Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess. And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain. You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop. You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon. Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short. However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position. And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up. You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain.\"","A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.","The risk of the particular share moving up or down is same for both. however in terms of mitigating the risk, Investor A is conservative on upside, ie will exit if he gets 10%, while is ready to take unlimited downside ... his belief is that things will not go worse .. While Investor B is wants to make at least 10% less than peak value and in general is less risk averse as he will sell his position the moment the price hits 10% less than max [peak value] So it more like how do you mitigate a risk, as to which one is wise depends on your belief and the loss appetite","hmmm. I think it's because in both cases, you must pay for it up front, before the positions are closed out. You own nothing except the right to buy the stock re: the call, and the obligation to buy the stock re: the short. You buy a call, but must borrow the stock, for which you must put some margin collateral and there is a cost to borrow. You pay for that, of course. I wouldn't call it lending though.","I'm not entirely sure about some of the details in your question, since I think you meant to use $10,000 as the value of the futures contract and $3 as the value of the underlying stock. Those numbers would make more sense. That being said, I can give you a simple example of how to calculate the profit and loss from a leveraged futures contract. For the sake of simplicity, I'll use a well-known futures contract: the E-mini S&P500 contract. Each E-mini is worth $50 times the value of the S&P 500 index and has a tick size of 0.25, so the minimum price change is 0.25 * $50 = $12.50. Here's an example. Say the current value of the S&P500 is 1,600; the value of each contract is therefore $50 * 1,600 = $80,000. You purchase one contract on margin, with an initial margin requirement1 of 5%, or $4,000. If the S&P 500 index rises to 1,610, the value of your futures contract increases to $50 * 1,610 = $80,500. Once you return the 80,000 - 4,000 = $76,000 that you borrowed as leverage, your profit is 80,500 - 76,000 = $4,500. Since you used $4,000 of your own funds as an initial margin, your profit, excluding commissions is 4,500 - 4,000 = $500, which is a 500/4000 = 12.5% return. If the index dropped to 1,580, the value of your futures contract decreases to $50 * 1,580 = $79,000. After you return the $76,000 in leverage, you're left with $3,000, or a net loss of (3,000 - 4000)/(4000) = -25%. The math illustrates why using leverage increases your risk, but also increases your potential for return. Consider the first scenario, in which the index increases to 1,610. If you had forgone using margin and spent $80,000 of your own funds, your profit would be (80,500 - 80,000) / 80000 = .625%. This is smaller than your leveraged profit by a factor of 20, the inverse of the margin requirement (.625% / .05 = 12.5%). In this case, the use of leverage dramatically increased your rate of return. However, in the case of a decrease, you spent $80,000, but gained $79,000, for a loss of only 1.25%. This is 20 times smaller in magnitude than your negative return when using leverage. By forgoing leverage, you've decreased your opportunity for upside, but also decreased your downside risk. 1) For futures contracts, the margin requirements are set by the exchange, which is CME group, in the case of the E-mini. The 5% in my example is higher than the actual margin requirement, which is currently $3,850 USD per contract, but it keeps the numbers simple. Also note that CME group refers to the initial margin as the performance bond instead.","A long put - you have a small initial cost (the option premium) but profit as the stock goes down. You have no additional risk if the shock rises, even a lot. Short a stock - you gain if the stock drops, but have unlimited risk if it rises, the call mitigates this, by capping that rising stock risk. The profit/loss graph looks similar to the long put when you hold both the short position and the long call. You might consider producing a graph or spreadsheet to compare positions. You can easily sketch put, call, long stock, short stock, and study how combinations of positions can synthetically look like other positions. Often, when a stock has no shares to short, the synthetic short can help you put your stock position in place.","You sold a call, and have a risk if the stock rises. You bought a put and gain when the stock drops. You, sir, have a synthetic short position. It's Case 3 from your linked example: Suppose you own Long Stock and the company is going to report earnings but you’re going on vacation. How can you hedge your position without selling your stock? You can short the stock synthetically with options! Short Stock = Short Call + Long Put They conclude with the net zero remark, because the premise was an existing long position. A long plus this synthetic short results in a neutral set of positions (and the author's ability to go on vacation not concerned about any movement in the stock.)","\"Concerning the general problem of short selling and the need to borrow shares to complete the transaction : Selling short is a cash transaction. Unlike a futures contract, where a short seller is entering into a legal agreement to sell something in the future, in the case of short selling a share the buyer of the share is taking immediate delivery and is therefore entitled to all of the benefits and rights that come with share ownership. In particular, the buyer of the shares is entitled to any dividends payable and, where applicable, to vote on motions at AGMs. If the short seller has not borrowed the shares to sell, then buyer of non-existent shares will have none of the rights associated with ownership. The cash market is based on the idea of matching buyers and sellers. It does not accommodate people making promises. Consider that to allow short sellers to sell shares they have not borrowed opens up the possibility of the aggregate market selling more shares than actually exist. This would lead to all sorts of problematic consequences such as heavily distorting the price of the underlying share. If everyone is selling shares they have not borrowed willy-nilly, then it will drive the price of the share down, much to the disadvantage of existing share holders. In this case, short sellers who have sold shares they have not already borrowed would be paying out more in dividends to the buyers than the total dividends being paid out by the underlying company. There are instruments that allow for short selling of unowned shares on a futures basis. One example is a CFD = Contract for Difference. In the case of CFDs, sellers are obliged to pay dividends to buyers as well as other costs related to financing. EDIT Regarding your comment, note that borrowing shares is not a market transaction. Your account does not show you buying a share and then selling it. It simply shows you selling a share short. The borrowing is the result of an agreement between yourself and the lender and this agreement is off market. You do not actually pay the lender for the shares, but you do pay financing costs for the borrowing so long as you maintain your short position. EDIT I realise that I have not actually read your question correctly. You are not actually talking about \"\"naked\"\" short selling. You are talking about selling shares you already own in a hope of maintaining both a long and short position (gross). The problem with this approach is that you must deliver the shares to the buyer. Otherwise, ask yourself what shares is the buyer actually buying if you want the bought shares to remain in your account. If you are not going to deliver your long position shares, then you will need to borrow the shares you are selling short for the reasons I have outlined above.\"","This is a gross simplification as there are a few different ways to do this. The principle overall is the same though. To short a stock, you borrow X shares from a third party and sell them at the current price. You now owe the lender X shares but have the proceeds from the sale. If the share price falls you can buy back those shares at the new lower price, return them to the lender and pocket the difference. The risk comes when the share price goes the other way, you now owe the lender the new value of the shares, so have to find some way to cover the difference. This happened a while back when Porsche made a fortune buying shares in Volkswagen from short sellers, and the price unexpectedly rose.","Suppose that the ETF is currently at a price of $100. Suppose that the next day it moves up 10% (to a price of $110) and the following day it moves down 5% (to a price of $104.5). Over these two days the ETF has had a net gain of 4.5% from its original price. The inverse ETF reverses the daily gains/losses of the base ETF. Suppose for simplicity that the inverse ETF also starts out at a price of $100. So on the first day it goes down 10% (to $90) and on the second day it goes up 5% (to $94.5). Thus over the two days the inverse ETF has had a net loss of 5.5%. The specific dollar amounts do not matter here. The result is that the ETF winds up at 110%*95% = 104.5% of its original price and the inverse ETF is at 90%*105% = 94.5% of its original price. A similar example is given here. As suggested by your quote, this is due to compounding. A gain of X% followed by a loss of Y% (compounded on the gain) is not in general the same as a loss of X% followed by a gain of Y% (compounded on the loss). Or, more simply put, if something loses 10% of its value and then gains 10% of its new value, it will not return to its original value, because the 10% it gained was 10% of its decreased value, so it's not enough to bring it all the way back up. Likewise if it gains 10% and then loses 10%, it will go slightly below its original value (since it lost 10% of its newly increased value).","I have found a good explanation here: http://www.contracts-for-difference.com/Financing-charge.html Financing is calculated by taking the overall position size, and multiplying it by (LIBOR + say 2%) and then dividing by 365 x the amount of days the position is open. For instance, the interest rate applicable for overnight long positions may be 6% or 0.06. To calculate how much it would cost you to hold a long position for X number of days you would need to make this 'pro rata' meaning that you would need to divide the 0.06 by 365 and multiply it by X days and then multiply this by the trade size. So for example, for a trade size of $20,000, held for 30 days, the interest cost would be about $98.6. It is important to note that due to financing, long positions held for extended periods can reduce returns.","why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Because if you sell shares out of your own portfolio, by definition, you are not selling short at all. If you sell something you own (and deliver it) - then there is no short involved. A short is defined as a net negative position - i.e. you sell shares you do not have. Selling shares you own is selling shares you own - no short involved. You must borrow the shares for a short because in the stock market, you must DELIVER. You can not deliver shares you do not own. The stock market does not work on promises - the person who bought the shares expects ownership of them with all rights that gives them. So you borrow them to deliver them, then return them when you buy them back.","\"First, you are not exactly \"\"giving\"\" the brokerage $2000. That money is the margin requirement to protect them in the case the stock price rises. If you short 200 shares as in your example and they are holding $6000 from you then they are protected in the event of the stock price increasing to $30/share. Sometime before it gets there the brokerage will require you to deposit more money or they will cover your position by repurchasing the shares for your account. The way you make money on the short sale is if the stock price declines. It is a buy low sell high idea but in reverse. If you believe that prices are going to drop then you could sell now when it is high and buy back later when it is lower. In your example, you are selling 200 shares at $20 and later, buying those at $19. Thus, your profit is $200, not counting any interest or fees you have paid. It's a bit confusing because you are selling something you'll buy in the future. Selling short is usually considered quite risky as your gain is limited to the amount that you sold at initially (if I sell at $20/share the most I can make is if the stock declines to $0). Your potential to lose is unlimited in theory. There is no limit to how high the stock could go in theory so I could end up buying it back at an infinitely high price. Neither of these extremes are likely but they do show the limits of your potential gain and loss. I used $20/share for simplicity assuming you are shorting with a market order vs a limit order. If you are shorting it would be better for you to sell at 20 instead of 19 anyway. If someone says I would like to give you $20 for that item you are selling you aren't likely to tell them \"\"no, I'd really only like $19 for it\"\"\"","Not really. The lender is not buying the stock back at a lower price. Remember, he already owns it, so he need not buy it again. The person losing is the one from whom the short seller buys back the stock, provided that person bought the stock at higher price. So if B borrowed from A(lender) and sold it to C, and later B purchased it back from C at a lower price, then B made profit, C made loss and A made nothing .","\"He sold at 25 cents per pound and then as the price rises, the cash he has will buy less and less which could trigger a margin call as you are missing the \"\"short\"\" part of his position which is rather important here. From Investopedia: A margin account also allows your brokerage firm to liquidate your position if the likelihood that you will return what you've borrowed diminishes. This is part of the agreement that is signed when the margin account is created. From the broker's perspective, this increases the likelihood that you will return the shares before losses become too large and you become unable to return the shares. If you sold at 25 cents per pound and the price goes up, at some point you may be forced to buy to cover the position as brokers don't like to lose their money. As another example of a short going bad, \"\"Devastated\"\" Trader Crushed By Soaring Biotech, Starts Online Begging Campaign To Fund $106,000 Margin Call notes in part: However where this story gets abusrdly entertaining, or woefully tragic, depending on one's perspective, is that one trader, Joe Campbell, was on the wrong side of last night's massive surge. As the RutRho blog, which noticed it first explains, a \"\"dummy\"\" E-trader, Joe Campbell, decided to go $35,000 short KBIO \"\"and now owes $ETFC a wonderful $106K.\"\"\"","This can be best explained with an example. Bob thinks the price of a stock that Alice has is going to go down by the end of the week, so he borrows a share at $25 from Alice. The current price of the shares are $25 per share. Bob immediately sells the shares to Charlie for $25, it is fair, it is the current market price. A week goes by, and the price does fall to $20. Bob buys a share from David at $20. This is fair, it is the current market value. Then Bob gives the share back to Alice to settle what he borrowed from her, one share. Now, in reality, there is interest charged be Alice on the borrowed value, but to keep it simple, we'll say she was a friend and it was a zero interest loan. So then Bob was able to sell something he didn't own for $25 and return it spending $20 to buy it, settling his loan and making $5 in the transaction. It is the selling to Charlie and buying from David (or even Charlie later, if he decided to dump the shares), without having invested any of your own money that earns the profit.","It depends to some extent on how you interpret the situation, so I think this is the general idea. Say you purchase one share at $50, and soon after, the price moves up, say, to $55. You now have an unrealized profit of $5. Now, you can either sell and realize that profit, or hold on to the position, expecting a further price appreciation. In either case, you will consider the price change from this traded price, which is $55, and not the price you actually bought at. Hence, if the price fell to $52 in the next trade, you have a loss of $3 on your previous profit of $5. This (even though your net P&L is calculated from the initial purchase price of $50), allows you to think in terms of your positions at the latest known prices. This is similar to a Markov process, in the sense that it doesn't matter which route the stock price (and your position's P&L) took to get to the current point; your decision should be based on the current/latest price level.","The initial position is worth 40000. You post 50% margin, so you deposited 20000 and borrowed 20000. 6% of 20000 is 1200.","The 'normal' series of events when trading a stock is to buy it, time passes, then you sell it. If you believe the stock will drop in price, you can reverse the order, selling shares, waiting for the price drop, then buying them back. During that time you own say, -100 shares, and are 'short' those shares.","Short sellers have to pay interest on the borrowings to the shareholders. Although many times brokers don't pass on these earnings to the shareholders, this is the exchange.","\"You need to interpret \"\"security\"\" appropriately in Wikipedia's definition. You should think of it as saying: to be long in a put, means the holder of the position owns the put and will profit if the price of the put goes up And what makes the price of the put go up? -- the price of the underlying stock going down.\"","\"The question you are asking concerns the exercise of a short option position. The other replies do not appear to address this situation. Suppose that Apple is trading at $96 and you sell a put option with a strike price of $95 for some future delivery date - say August 2016. The option contract is for 100 shares and you sell the contract for a premium of $3.20. When you sell the option your account will be credited with the premium and debited with the broker commission. The premium you receive will be $320 = 100 x $3.20. The commission you pay will depend on you broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple drops to $90 and your option is exercised, either on expiry or prior to expiry. Then you would be obliged to take delivery of 100 Apple shares at the contracted option strike price of $95 costing you $9,500 plus broker commission. If you immediately sell the Apple shares you have purchased under your contract obligations, then assuming you sell the shares at the current market price of $90 you would realise a loss of $500 ( = 100x($95-$90) )plus commission. Since you received a premium of $320 when you sold the put option, your net loss would be $500-$320 = $180 plus any commissions paid to your broker. Now let's look at the case of selling a call option. Again assume that the price of Apple is $96 and you sell a call option for 100 shares with a strike price of $97 for a premium of $3.60. The premium you receive would be $360 = 100 x $3.60. You would also be debited for commission by your broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple shares rises to $101 and your option is exercised. Then you would be obliged to deliver 100 Apple shares to the party exercising the option at the contracted strike price of $97. If you did not own the shares to effect delivery, then you would need to purchase those shares in the market at the current market price of $101, and then sell them to the party exercising the option at the strike price of $97. This would realise an immediate loss of $400 = 100 x ($101-$97) plus any commission payable. If you did own the shares, then you would simply deliver them and possibly pay some commission or a delivery fee to your broker. Since you received $360 when you sold the option, your net loss would be $40 = $400-$360 plus any commission and fees payable to the broker. It is important to understand that in addition to these accounting items, short option positions carry with them a \"\"margin\"\" requirement. You will need to maintain a margin deposit to show \"\"good faith\"\" so long as the short option position is open. If the option you have sold moves against you, then you will be called upon to put up extra margin to cover any potential losses.\"","\"It will be helpful to establish some definitions: Long \"\"Long\"\" is financial slang for \"\"to have possession of an asset\"\", legally, and \"\"to debit an asset\"\", financially. Short \"\"Short\"\" is financial slang for \"\"to be liable for an asset\"\", legally, and \"\"to credit an asset\"\", financially. Option \"\"Option\"\" is financial slang for \"\"to have the right but not obligation to force the liable to perform action\"\", legally. Without limits and when taken to absurdity, this can mean slavery. For equities, this means \"\"to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy/sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\" for a call/put, respectively. By the above, a call option is \"\"the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\". By the definition of \"\"long\"\" above, a call option is actually not long the underlying. By the definitions above and with a narrower scope applied to equities & indexes, to be \"\"long\"\" the call means \"\"to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\" while to be \"\"short\"\" the call means \"\"to have the obligation to be forced to sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\". So, to be \"\"long\"\" a call means to simply own the call.\"","On expiry, with the underlying share price at $46, we have : You ask : How come they substract 600-100. Why ? Because you have sold the $45 call to open you position, you must now buy it back to close your position. This will cost you $100, so you are debited for $100 and this debit is being represented as a negative (subtracted); i.e., -$100 Because you have purchased the $40 call to open your position, you must now sell it to close your position. Upon selling this option you will receive $600, so you are credited with $600 and this credit is represented as a positive (added) ; i.e., +$600. Therefore, upon settlement, closing your position will get you $600-$100 = $500. This is the first point you are questioning. (However, you should also note that this is the value of the spread at settlement and it does not include the costs of opening the spread position, which are given as $200, so you net profit is $500-$200 = $300.) You then comment : I know I am selling 45 Call that means : As a writer: I want stock price to go down or stay at strike. As a buyer: I want stock price to go up. Here, note that for every penny that the underlying share price rises above $45, the money you will pay to buy back your short $45 call option will be offset by the money you will receive by selling the long $40 call option. Your $40 call option is covering the losses on your short $45 call option. No matter how high the underlying price settles above $45, you will receive the same $500 net credit on settlement. For example, if the underlying price settles at $50, then you will receive a credit of $1000 for selling your $40 call, but you will incur a debit of $500 against for buying back your short $45 call. The net being $500 = $1000-$500. This point is made in response to your comments posted under Dr. Jones answer.","The original post's $16 has two errors: Here is the first scenario: . Tax Liability($) on Net . Cash # of Price Paper Realized Value Time: ($) Shares ($/sh) Profits Profits ($) 1. Start with: 100 - n/a - - 100 2. After buy 10@10$/sh: - 10 10 - - 100 3. Before selling: - 10 12 (5) - 115 4. After sell 10@12$/sh: 120 - n/a - (5) 115 5. After buy 12@10$/sh: - 12 10 - (5) 115 6. Before selling: - 12 12 (6) (5) 133 7. After sell 12@12$/sh: 144 - n/a - (11) 133 8. After buy 14@10$/sh: 4 14 10 - (11) 133 9. Before selling: 4 14 12 (7) (11) 154 10.After sell 14@12$/sh: 172 - n/a - (18) 154 At this point, assuming that all of the transactions occurred in the same fiscal year, and the realized profits were subject to a 25% short-term capital gains tax, you would owe $18 in taxes. Yes, this is 25% of $172 - $100.","Simple math. Take the sale proceeds (after trade expenses) and divide by cost. Subtract 1, and this is your return. For example, buy at 80, sell at 100, 100/80 = 1.25, your return is 25%. To annualize this return, multiply by 365 over the days you were in that stock. If the above stock were held for 3 months, you would have an annualized return of 100%. There's an alternative way to annualize, in the same example above take the days invested and dive into 365, here you get 4. I suggested that 25% x 4 = 100%. Others will ask why I don't say 1.25^4 = 2.44 so the return is 144%/yr. (in other words, compound the return, 1.25x1.25x...) A single day trade, noon to noon the next day returning just 1%, would multiply to 365% over a year, ignoring the fact there are about 250 trading days. But 1.01^365 is 37.78 or a 3678% return. For long periods, the compounding makes sense of course, the 8%/yr I hope to see should double my money in 9 years, not 12, but taking the short term trades and compounding creates odd results of little value.","\"For the same reason that people bet on different teams. Some think the Tigers will win, others thing the Yankees will win. They wager $5 on it. One of them wins, the other loses. In a short, one person bets that the stock goes down, the other bets that the stock goes up (or hold). You're basically saying \"\"I think this stock is going to hold it's value or go up. If I thought it would go down, like you do, I would sell it myself right now. Instead, I'll let you have it for a while because when I get it back I think I'll come out on top.\"\"\"","\"All margin is marked to market. Option longs do not post margin because long margin trading is forbidden. Equity longs must post margin if cash is borrowed to fund the purchase. Shorts of all kinds must post margin, and the rates are generally the same: a few standard deviations away from the mean daily change of the underlying. A currency futures trader, because of the involatility of most major monies, can get away with a few percentage points. Commodities can get to around 10%. Single equities are frequently around 20%, while indices can get back down to 10%. A future is a special case because both sides are technically short and long at the same time. The easiest example to perceive is a currency future. Which one is the buyer and which is the seller? Both and neither. Contracts may be denominated for one side as the seller and the other the buyer, but contractually, legally, and effectively, both are liable to the other, and both must take delivery. For non-currency assets, it only appears as if the cash seller is the buyer because cash is not considered an asset in the same way all other assets are, but the \"\"long\"\" is obligated to sell cash and buy the \"\"asset\"\".\"","\"You didn't win in case B. Borrowing shares and then selling them is known as \"\"selling short\"\". You received $2000 when you sold short 100 shares at $20. You spent $1000 to buy them back at $10, so you come out $1000 ahead on that deal. But at the same time, the 100 shares you already owned have declined in value from $20 to $10, so you are down $1000 on that deal. So you've simply broken even, and you are still out the interest and transaction fees. In effect, a short sale allows you to sell shares you don't own. But if you do already own them, then the effect is the same as if you just sold your own shares. This makes it easier to see that this is just a complicated and expensive way of accomplishing nothing at all.\"","See http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/04/30/why-the-sec-should-look-at-levered-etfs/?dlvrit=60132, http://symmetricinfo.org/2011/04/are-investors-in-levered-short-treasury-etfs-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen-pt1/, and the articles linked from it: The issue with holding a levered ETF past 1 day is that investors expose themselves to path dependency in the underlying.... The reason for the difference in payouts comes from the fact that the manager of the levered ETF promises you a multiple of the daily returns of the underlying. To be able to promise you these daily returns, the ETF manager has to buy/sell some of the underlying every day to position himself to have a constant leverage ratio the next day. The short video below explains this process in detail for a 2x long ETF, but the same result holds for a 2x short ETF: the manager has to buy more of the underlying on a day when the underlying increases in value and sell more of the underlying when the underlying goes down in value .","It's not quite identical, due to fees, stock rights, and reporting & tax obligations. But the primary difference is that a person could have voting rights in a company while maintaining zero economic exposure to the company, sometimes known as empty voting. As an abstract matter, it's identical in that you reduce your financial exposure whether you sell your stock or short it. So the essence of your question is fundamentally true. But the details make it different. Of course there are fee differences in how your broker will handle it, and also margin requirements for shorting. Somebody playing games with overlapping features of ownership, sales, and purchases, may have tax and reporting obligations for straddles, wash sales, and related issues. A straight sale is generally less complicated for tax reporting purposes, and a loss is more likely to be respected than someone playing games with sales and purchases. But the empty voting issue is an important difference. You could buy stock with rights such as voting, engage in other behavior such as forwards, shorts, or options to negate your economic exposure to the stock, while maintaining the right to vote. Of course in some cases this may have to be disclosed or may be covered by contract, and most people engaging in stock trades are unlikely to have meaningful voting power in a public company. But the principle is still there. As explained in the article by Henry Hu and Bernie Black: Hedge funds have been especially creative in decoupling voting rights from economic ownership. Sometimes they hold more votes than economic ownership - a pattern we call empty voting. In an extreme situation, a vote holder can have a negative economic interest and, thus, an incentive to vote in ways that reduce the company's share price. Sometimes investors hold more economic ownership than votes, though often with morphable voting rights - the de facto ability to acquire the votes if needed. We call this situation hidden (morphable) ownership because the economic ownership and (de facto) voting ownership are often not disclosed.","200% margin for a short sale is outrageous. You should only need to put up 150% margin, of which 50% is your money, and the 100% is the proceeds. With $100 of your money, you should be able to buy $100 of GOOG and short $100 of PNQI.","When you short a stock and the stock goes ex-div. you have to pay out an amount equal to the dividend. So in your example, GG would short the stock at $10.00, buy back at $9.00 and be charged $1.00 for the dividend. Net effect $0.00.","\"When trading Forex each currency is traded relative to another. So when shorting a currency you must go long another currency vs the currency you are shorting, it seems a little odd and can be a bit confusing, but here is the explanation that Wikipedia provides: An example of this is as follows: Let us say a trader wants to trade with the US dollar and the Indian rupee currencies. Assume that the current market rate is USD 1 to Rs.50 and the trader borrows Rs.100. With this, he buys USD 2. If the next day, the conversion rate becomes USD 1 to Rs.51, then the trader sells his USD 2 and gets Rs.102. He returns Rs.100 and keeps the Rs.2 profit (minus fees). So in this example the trader is shorting the rupee vs the dollar. Does this article add up all other currency crosses to get the 'net' figure? So they don't care what it is depreciating against? This data is called the Commitment of Traders (COT) which is issued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) In the WSJ article it is actually referring to Forex Futures. In an another article from CountingPips it explains a bit clearer as to how a news organization comes up with these type of numbers. according to the CFTC COT data and calculations by Reuters which calculates the dollar positions against the euro, British pound, Japanese yen, Australian dollar, Canadian dollar and the Swiss franc. So this article is not talking about futures but it does tell us they got data from the COT and in addition Reuters added additional calculations from adding up \"\"X\"\" currency positions. No subscription needed: Speculators Pile Up Largest Net Dollar Long Position Since June 2010 - CFTC Here is some additional reading on the topic if you're interested: CFTC Commitment of the Traders Data – COT Report FOREX : What Is It And How Does It Work? Futures vs. Forex Options Forex - Wiki\"","Apart from making money from the price difference, some stocks also give dividends, or bonus issues. For long term investors whom are looking for steady income, they may be more interested with the dividend pay-out instead of the capital-appreciation.","Opened Long - is when you open a long position. Long means that you buy to open the position, so you are trying to profit as the price rises. So if you were closing a long position you would sell it. Closed Short - is when you close out a short position. Short means that you sell to open and buy back to close. With a short position you are trying to profit as the price falls. Scaled Out - means you get out of a position in increments as the price climbs (for long positions). Scaled In - means you set a target price and then invest in increments as the stock falls below that price (for long positions).","\"Derivatives derive their value from underlying assets. This is expressed by the obligation of at least one counterparty to trade with the other counterparty in the future. These can take on as many combinations as one can dream up as it is a matter of contract. For futures, where two parties are obligated to trade at a specific price at a specific date in the future (one buyer, one seller), if you \"\"short\"\" a future, you have entered into a contract to sell the underlying at the time specified. If the price of the future moves against you (goes up), you will have to sell at a loss. The bigger the move, the greater the loss. You go ahead and pay this as well as a little extra to be sure that you satisfy what you owe due to the future. This satisfaction is called margin. If there weren't margin, people could take huge losses on their derivative bets, not pay, and disrupt the markets. Making sure that the money that will trade is already there makes the markets run smoothly. It's the same for shorting stocks where you borrow the stock, sell it, and wait. You have to leave the money with the broker as well as deposit a little extra to be sure you can make good if the market moves to a large degree against you.\"","\"You sold $10,000 worth of stock so that money is essentially yours. However, you sold this stock without actually owning any which means that you, through your broker, are currently borrowing shares amounting to (at the time of your sale) $10,000 from someone who actually owns this stock. You will be paying this person interest for the privilege of borrowing their shares, the exact amount charged varies wildly and depends on factors such as short interest in the stock (loads of people want to go short = shareholders can charge high interest) etc. If I remember correctly hovering over the \"\"position\"\" column in your portfolio in the IB Workstation should give you information about the interest rate charged. You will have to buy back these shares from the lender at some point which is why the $10k isn't just \"\"free money.\"\" If the stock has gone up in price in the meantime you are going to be paying more than the $10k you got for the same amount of shares and vice versa.\"","You have only sold 200 shares for $4.75 from those bought for $3.15. So your profit on those 200 shares is $1.60 per share or $320 or 51%. From that you have 110 shares left that cost you $3.15 and 277 shares that cost you $3.54. So the total cost of your remaining shares is $1,327.08 (110 x $3.15 + 277 x $3.54). So your remaining shares have a average cost of $3.429 per share ($1,327.08/387). We don't know what the current share price is as you haven't provided it, nor do we know what the company is, so lets say that the current price is $5 (or that you sell the remaining 387 shares for $5 per share). Then the profit on these 387 shares would be $1.571 per share or $607.92 or 46%. Your total profit would then be $320 + $ 607.92 = $927.92 or 47% (note that this profit neglects any brokerage or other fees, as you have not provided any). Edit due to new info. provided in question With the current share price at $6.06 then the profit on these 387 shares would be $2.631 per share or $1018.20 or 77%. Your total profit would then be $320 + $1018.20 = $1338.20 or 75% (note that this profit neglects any brokerage or other fees, as you have not provided any).","Here's a simple example for a put, from both sides. Assume XYZ stock trades at $200 right now. Let's say John writes a $190 out of the money put on XYZ stock and sells this put to Abby for the premium, which is say $5. Assume the strike date, or date of settlement, is 6 months from now. Thus Abby is long one put option and John is short one put option (the writer of the option is short the option). On settlement date, let's assume two different scenarios: (1) If the price of the stock decreases by $50, then the put that Abby bought is 'in the money'. Abby's profit can be calculated as being strike price 190 - current stock price 150 - premium paid 5 = $35 So not including any transaction fees, that is a $35 dollar return on a $5 investment. (2) If the price of the stock increases by $50, then the put that Abby bought is worthless and her loss was 100%, or her entire $5 premium. For John, he made $5 in 6 months (in reality you need collateral and good credit to be able to write sizable option positions).","It this a real situation or is it a made up example? Because for a stock that has a last traded priced of $5 or $6 and volume traded over $4M (i.e. it seems to be quite liquid), it is hardly likely that the difference from bid to ask would be as large as $1 (maybe for a stock that has volume of 4 to 5 thousand, but not for one having volume of 4 to 5 million). In regards to your question, if you were short selling the order would go in exactly the same as if you were selling a stock you owned. So your order would be on the ask side and would need to be matched up with a price on the bid side for there to be a trade.","\"Below is just a little information on short selling from my small unique book \"\"The small stock trader\"\": Short selling is an advanced stock trading tool with unique risks and rewards. It is primarily a short-term trading strategy of a technical nature, mostly done by small stock traders, market makers, and hedge funds. Most small stock traders mainly use short selling as a short-term speculation tool when they feel the stock price is a bit overvalued. Most long-term short positions are taken by fundamental-oriented long/short equity hedge funds that have identified some major weaknesses in the company. There a few things you should consider before shorting stocks: Despite all the mystique and blame surrounding short selling, especially during bear markets, I personally think regular short selling, not naked short selling, has a more positive impact on the stock market, as: Lastly, small stock traders should not expect to make significant profits by short selling, as even most of the great stock traders (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen,) have hardly made significant money from their shorts. it is safe to say that odds are stacked against short sellers. Over the last century or so, Western large caps have returned an annual average of between 8 and 10 percent while the returns of small caps have been slightly higher. I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of \"\"The small stock trader\"\")\"","I think you are mixing up the likelihood of making a profit with the amount of profit. The likelyhood of profit will be the same, because if you buy $100 worth of shares and the price moves up you will make a profit. If you instead bought $1000 worth of the same shares at the same price and the price moved up you would once again make a profit. In fact if you don't include commissions and other fees, and you buy and sell at the same prices, you percentage profit would be the same. For example, if you bought at $10 and sold at $12, you percentage gain of 20% would be the same no matter how many shares you bought (not including commissions). So if you bought $100 worth your gain would have been 20% or $20 and if you bought $1000 worth your gain would have been 20% or $200. However, if you include commissions, say $10 in and $10 out, your net profit on $100 would have been $0 (0%) and your net profit on $1000 would have been $180 (18%).","The paragraph before on page 115 states: Scaling corresponds to having a weight in the long and short legs that is different from one and varies over time, but the strategy is still self-financing. Meaning that the long and short positions are no longer equal due to weighting one side more highly than the other. The weighting of one side (either long or short) is the number between 0.2 and 2 that you mention.","\"In the USA there are two ways this situation can be treated. First, if your short position was held less than 45 days. You have to (when preparing the taxes) add the amount of dividend back to the purchase price of the stock. That's called adjusting the basis. Example: short at $10, covered at $8, but during this time stock paid a $1 dividend. It is beneficial for you to add that $1 back to $8 so your stock purchase basis is $9 and your profit is also $1. Inside software (depending what you use) there are options to click on \"\"adjust the basis\"\" or if not, than do it manually specifically for those shares and add a note for tax reviewer. Second option is to have that \"\"dividednd payment in lieu paid\"\" deducted as investment expence. But that option is only available if you hold the shorts for more than 45 days and itemize your deductions. Hope that helps!\"","Rich's answer captures the basic essence of short selling with example. I'd like to add these additional points: You typically need a specially-privileged brokerage account to perform short selling. If you didn't request short selling when you opened your account, odds are good you don't have it, and that's good because it's not something most people should ever consider doing. Short selling is an advanced trading strategy. Be sure you truly grok selling short before doing it. Consider that when buying stock (a.k.a. going long or taking a long position, in contrast to short) then your potential loss as a buyer is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero) and your potential gain unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're lucky!) Whereas, with short selling, it's reversed: Your loss can be unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're unlucky!) and your potential gain is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero.) The proceeds you receive from a short sale – and then some – need to stay in your account to offset the short position. Brokers require this. Typically, margin equivalent to 150% the market value of the shares sold short must be maintained in the account while the short position is open. The owner of the borrowed shares is still expecting his dividends, if any. You are responsible for covering the cost of those dividends out of your own pocket. To close or cover your short position, you initiate a buy to cover. This is simply a buy order with the intention that it will close out your matching short position. You may be forced to cover your short position before you want to and when it is to your disadvantage! Even if you have sufficient margin available to cover your short, there are cases when lenders need their shares back. If too many short sellers are forced to close out positions at the same time, they push up demand for the stock, increasing price and deepening their losses. When this happens, it's called a short squeeze. In the eyes of the public who mostly go long buying stock, short sellers are often reviled. However, some people and many short sellers believe they are providing balance to the market and preventing it sometimes from getting ahead of itself. [Disambiguation: A short sale in the stock market is not related to the real estate concept of a short sale, which is when a property owner sells his property for less than he owes the bank.] Additional references:","\"With stocks, you can buy or sell. If you sell first, that's called 'shorting.' As in \"\"I think linkedin is too high, I'm going to short it.\"\" With options, the terminology is different, the normal process is to buy to open/sell to close, but if you were shorting the option itself, you would first sell to open, i.e you are selling a position to start it, effectively selling it short. Eventually, you may close it out, by buying to close. Options trading is not for the amateur. If you plan to trade, study first and be very cautious.\"","Don't know the name but it means you're long with conviction :P Unlimited gains, maximum loss of 95$ + (8-6) = 97$. Basically You are long @ 107 - -2 from 105 to 95. You would have to be ULTRA bullish to initiate this strategy.","If you buy puts, there are no guaranteed proceeds though. If you short against the box, you've got immediate proceeds with a nice capital loss if it doesn't work out. Conversely, you could write a covered call, take the contract proceeds, and write off the long position losses. Nobody ever factors tax consequences into the equation here.","In Australia we have a 50% capital gain discount if you hold the asset for more than 12 months, whether it is in shares, property or other assets. The main reason is to encourage people to invest long-term instead of speculating or trading. The government sees speculation or short term trading as more risky than long term investing for the everyday mum and dad investor, so rewards people it sees taking the lower risk long term view. In my opinion, long term investing, short term trading and speculation can all be risky for someone who is unedutated in the financial markets, and the first rule of investing should be to consider the asset itself and not the tax implications.","If it helps you to think about it, long is equivalent to betting for the upside and short is equivalent to betting for the downside. If you are long on options, then you expect the value of such options to increase. If you are long an option, then you own the option. If you are short an option, then generally you sold the option. Someone who is short a call (sometimes called the writer or occasionally the issuer) has sold a call option to someone who is now long a call. Buying a call option that will increase in value is itself a form of investment, just as it's investment to buy stock or other instruments hoping they will appreciate in value. An option's value will rise or fall with the underlying, so being long an option is a way to be long in the underlying. Someone can be long in a stock by buying the stock, or long in a call by buying call options in the stock. The long call generally requires less initial investment than buying the underlying, and lets the option-holder avoid the asset downside during the option term. The risk is that the asset may not appreciate to the point that the call option will pay off. In the conceptual sense, a share of stock is a particular right to the profits and assets of a corporation, both in form of dividends and in liquidation. An option is a particular right to the the share of stock. It's just a further way to formalize and subdivide the various property rights that exist in a corporation. If you can buy a piece of paper with particular rights to corporate profits and assets, then you can buy another piece of paper with particular rights to the former piece of paper.","Let's consider that transaction cost is 0(zero) for calculation. In the scenario you have stated, maximum profit that could be made is 55$, however risk is unlimited. Hedging can also be used to limit your losses, let's consider this scenario. Stock ABC trading @ 100$, I'll buy the stock ABC @ 100$ and buy a put option of ABC @ strike price 90$ for a premium of 5$ with an expiration date of 1 month. Possible outcomes I end up in a loss in 3 out of 4 scenarios, however my loss is limited to 15$, whereas profit is unlimited.","Profit = Sale price - Basis Basis = Purchase price - any depreciation taken, including expensing it.","\"You are likely making an assumption that the \"\"Short call\"\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \"\"write\"\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\"","E.g. I buy 1 stock unit for $100.00 and sell it later for $150.00 => income taxes arise. Correct. You pay tax on your gains, i.e.: the different between net proceeds and gross costs (proceeds sans fees, acquisition costs including fees). I buy 1 stock unit for $150.00 and sell it later for $100.00 => no income taxes here. Not correct. The loss is deductible from other capital gains, and if no other capital gains - from your income (up to $3000 a year, until exhausted). Also, there are two different tax rate sets for capital gains: short term (holding up to 1 year) and long term (more than that). Short term capital gains tax matches ordinary income brackets, whereas long term capital gains tax brackets are much lower.","Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.","\"There are situations where you can be forced to cover a position, particular when \"\"Reg SHO\"\" (\"\"regulation sho\"\") is activated. Reg SHO is intended to make naked short sellers cover their position, it is to prevent abusive failure to delivers, where someone goes short without borrowing someone else's shares. Naked shorting isn't a violation of federal securities laws but it becomes an accounting problem when multiple people have claims to the same underlying assets. (I've seen companies that had 120% of their shares sold short, too funny, FWIW the market was correct as the company was worth nothing.) You can be naked short without knowing it. So there can be times when you will be forced to cover. Other people being forced to cover can result in a short squeeze. A risk. The other downside is that you have to pay interest on your borrowings. You also have to pay the dividends to the owner of the shares, if applicable. In shorter time frames these are negligible, but in longer time frames, such as closer to a year or longer, these really add up. Let alone the costs of the market going in the opposite direction, and the commissions.\"","There are many ways to calculate the return, and every way will give you a different results in terms of a percentage-value. One way to always get something meaningful - count the cash. You had 977 (+ 31) and in the end you have 1.370, which means you have earned 363 dollars. But what is your return in terms of percentage? One way to look at it, is by pretending that it is a fund in which you invest 1 dollar. What is the fund worth in the beginning and in the end? The tricky part in your example is, you injected new capital into the equation. Initially you invested 977 dollars which later, in the second period became worth 1.473. You then sold off 200 shares for 950 dollars. Remember your portfolio is still worth 1.473, split between 950 in cash and 523 in Shares. So far so good - still easy to calculate return (1.473 / 977 -1 = 50.8% return). Now you buy share for 981 dollars, but you only had 950 in cash? We now need to consider 2 scenarios. Either you (or someone else) injected 31 dollars into the fund - or you actually had the 31 dollars in the fund to begin with. If you already had the cash in the fund to begin with, your initial investment is 1.008 and not 977 (977 in shares and 31 in cash). In the end the value of the fund is 1.370, which means your return is 1.370 / 1.007 = 36%. Consider if the 31 dollars was paid in to the fund by someone other than you. You will then need to recalculate how much you each own of the fund. Just before the injection, the fund was worth 950 in cash and 387 in stock (310 - 200 = 110 x 3.54) = 1.339 dollars - then 31 dollars are injected, bringing the value of the fund up to 1.370. The ownership of the fund is split with 1.339 / 1.370 = 97.8% of the value for the old capital and 2.2% for the new capital. If the value of the fund was to change from here, you could calculate the return for each investor individually by applying their share of the funds value respective to their investment. Because the value of the fund has not changed since the last period (bullet 3), the return on the original investment is (977 / 1.339 - 1 = 37.2%) and the return on the new capital is (31 / 31 = 0%). If you (and not someone else) injected the 31 dollar into the fund, you will need to calculate the weight of each share of capital in each period and get the average return for each period to get to a total return. In this specific case you will still get 37.2% return - but it gets even more comlex for each time you inject new capital.","Think of it this way: C + (-P) = forward contract. Work it out from there. Anyways, this stack is meant for professionals, not students, I think.","Depends on the stock involved, but for the most part brokerages allow you gain entry at 50%, meaning you can short twice the cash on hand you have. Going forward, you need to maintain 30%, so on a $10,000 short, you'd have to maintain $3000 in your account. Example, an account with $5000 cash - You can short $10,000 securities. Let say 100 shares of xyz at $100 per share. After trade settles, you won't receive a margin call until your balance falls to $3000, probably right around the time xyz rises to $120 per share. Riskier stocks will have higher margin maintenance requirements - leveraged vehicles like FAS/FAZ (triple leveraged) require 90% margin (3x30%) if they are allowed to be 'shorted' at all.","\"I know its not legal to have open long and short position on specific security (on two stock exchanges - NSE/BSE) There is nothing illegal about it. There are prescribed ways on how this is addressed. In Cash Segment / Intra Day trades: One can short sell a security. If by end of day he does not buy the security; it goes into Auction. The said security is purchased on your behalf. Any profit or loss arising out of this is charged to you. Similarly one can buy a security; if one does not pay the amount by end of day; it would go into auction and sold. Any profit or loss arising out of this is charged to you. If you short sell a security on one exchange; you have to buy it on same exchange. If you buy on other exchange; it will not be adjusted against this short position. Also is it legal to have long position on stock and short its derivative (future/option)? There are no restrictions. Edit: @yety Party A shorts 10 shares of HDFC today in Intra-Day Cash Segment purchased by Party B. Rather than buying back 10 shares or allowing it to go into auction... Party A borrows 10 HDFC Shares from \"\"X\"\" via SLB for a period of say 6 months [1 month to 1 year]. This is recorded as Party A obligation to \"\"X\"\". These 10 borrowed shares are transferred to Party B. So Party \"\"X\"\" doesn't have any HDFC shares at this point in time. However in exchange, Party X receives fees for borrowing from Party A. If there is dividend, are declared, Company pays Party B. However SLB recovers identical amount from Party A and pays Party X. If there is 1:1 split, now party A owes Party X 20 HDFC Shares. On maturity [after 6 months], Party A has to buy these from market and given back the borrowed shares to Party X. If there are some other corporate actions, i.e. mergers / amalgamations ... the obligation of Party A to Party X is closed immediately and position settled. Of course there are provisions whereby party A can pay back the shares earlier or party X can ask for shares earlier and there are rules/trades/mechanisms to facilitate this.\"","When you buy a stock, the worst case scenario is that it drops to 0. Therefore, the most you can lose when buying a stock is 100% of your investment. When you short a stock, however, there's no limit on how high the stock can go. If you short a stock at 10, and it goes up to 30, then you've lost 200% on your investment. Therefore shorting stocks is riskier than buying stocks, since you can lose more than 100% of your investment when shorting. because the price might go up, but it will never be as big of a change as a regular price drop i suppose... That is not true. Stocks can sometimes go up significantly (50-100% or more) in a very short amount of time on a positive news release (such as an earnings or a buyout announcement). A famous example occurred in 2008, when Volkswagen stock quintupled (went up 400%) in less than 2 days on some corporate news: Porsche, for some reason, wants to control Volkswagen, and by building up its stake has driven up the price. Hedge funds, figuring the share price would fall as soon as Porsche got control and stopped buying, sold a lot of VW shares short. Then last weekend, Porsche disclosed that it owned 42.6 percent of the stock and had acquired options for another 31.5 percent. It said it wanted to go to 75 percent. The result: instant short-squeeze. The German state of Lower Saxony owns a 20 percent stake in VW, which it said it would not sell. That left precious few shares available for anyone else. The shorts scrambled to cover, and the price leaped from about €200, or about $265, to above €1,000.","Your strategy of longing company(a) and shorting company(b) is flawed as the prices of company(a) and company(b) can both increase and though you are right , you will lose money due to the shorting strategy. You should not engage in pair trading , which is normally used for arbitrage purposes You should just buy company(a) since you believed its a better company compared to company(b) , its as simple as that","\"RoR for options you bought is fairly easy: (Current Value-Initial Cost)/Initial Cost gives you the actual return. If you want the rate of return, you need to annualize that number: You divide the return you got above by the number of days the investment was in place, and then multiply that number by the number of days in a year. (365 if you're using calendar days, about 255 if you're using trading days.) RoR for options you sold is much more complex: The problem is that RoR is basically calculating the size of your return relative to the capital it tied up to earn it. That's simple when you bought something; the capital tied up is the money you put up. It's more complex on a position like a short option, where the specific transaction in question generates cash when it's put on. The correct way to deal with this is to A) Bundle your strategy (options, stock and collateral) into one RoR where appropriate, and B) include any needed collateral to support the short option in the calculation. So, if you sell a \"\"cash-secured\"\" put, where you have to post the money that you'd need to take delivery of the shares if they were put to you, the initial cost is the total amount you'd need to put the trade on: in this case, it's the cash amount, less the premium you collected for selling the put. That's just one example. But the approach holds more broadly: if you're using covered calls, your original cost is the cost of the stock less the premium generated by the sale of the call.\"","\"at $8.50: total profit = $120.00 *basis of stock, not paid in cash, so not included in \"\"total paid\"\" at $8.50: total profit = $75.00\"","You will be charged a stock borrow fee, which is inversely related to the relative supply of the stock you are shorting. IB claims to pay a rebate on the short proceeds, which would offset part or all of that fee, but it doesn't appear relevant in your case because: It is a bit strange to me that IB would not require you to keep the cash in your account, as they need the cash to collateralize the stock borrow with the lending institution. In fact, per Regulation T, the short position requires an initial margin of 150%, which includes the short proceeds. As described by Investopedia: In the first table of Figure 1, a short sale is initiated for 1,000 shares at a price of $50. The proceeds of the short sale are $50,000, and this amount is deposited into the short sale margin account. Along with the proceeds of the sale, an additional 50% margin amount of $25,000 must be deposited in the account, bringing the total margin requirement to $75,000. At this time, the proceeds of the short sale must remain in the account; they cannot be removed or used to purchase other securities. Here is a good answer to your question from The Street: Even though you might see a balance in your brokerage account after shorting a stock, you're actually looking at a false credit, according to one big brokerage firm. That money is acting as collateral for the short position. So, you won't have use of these funds for investment purposes and won't earn interest on it. And there are indeed costs associated with shorting a stock. The broker has to find stock to loan to you. That might come out of a broker's own inventory or might be borrowed from another stock lender.","http://www.investopedia.com/university/shortselling/shortselling1.asp 'Therein lies the major risk of short selling, the fear of infinite losses. While the maximum loss for a long investor is the amount invested in a security, the maximum loss for a short seller is theoretically infinite, since there is no upper limit to a stock’s price appreciation. This risk is compounded by the fact that during a short squeeze or buy-in...' Never have shorted a stock. Too intimidated by that!","\"Long here does not mean you wish for the underlying stock to increase in value, in fact, as the chart shows, just the opposite is true. \"\"Long means you bought the derivative, and you own the option. The guy that sold it to you is at your mercy, he is short the put, and it's your decision to put the stock to him should it fall in value. The value of the put itself rises with the falling stock price, you are long the put and want the put, itself, to rise in value.\"","\"But what happen if the stock price went high and then go down near expiry date? When you hold a short (sold) call option position that has an underlying price that is increasing, what will happen (in general) is that your net margin requirements will increase day by day. Thus, you will be required to put up more money as margin to finance your position. Margin money is simply a \"\"good faith\"\" deposit held by your broker. It is not money that is debited as cash from the accounting ledger of your trading account, but is held by your broker to cover any potential losses that may arise when you finally settle you position. Conversely, when the underlying share price is decreasing, the net margin requirements will tend to decrease day by day. (Net margin is the net of \"\"Initial Margin\"\" and \"\"Variation Margin\"\".) As the expiry date approaches, the \"\"time value\"\" component of the option price will be decreasing.\"","You don't mention any specific numbers, so I'll answer in generalities. Say I buy a call option today, and I short the underlying stock with the delta. The value will be the value of the option you bought less the value of the stock you are short. (your premium is not included in the value since it's a sunk cost, but is reflected in your profit/loss) So, say I go out and adjust my portfolio, so I am still delta short in the underlying. It's still the value of your options, less the value of the underlying you are short. What is my PnL over this period? The end value of your portfolio less what you paid for that value, namely the money you received shorting the underlyings less the premium you paid for the option.","Contrary to what other people said I believe that even without leverage you can lose more that you invest when you short a FX. Why? because the amount it can go down is alwasy limited to zero but it can, potentially, go up without limit. See This question for a mored detailed information.","\"Suddenly its not just comparing the current price to the price of the contract, or is it? Sure it is. Suppose you bought 100 option contracts (each for 100 shares) and paid a $1 per share premium ($10,000 total). Now those options are trading for $1.50 per share. You have an unrealized $0.50 gain per share, or $5,000. The $10,000 in options you bought are now worth $15,000. It holds whether they were bought to open or close a position, or whether they are puts or calls. The only difference is whether you bought or sold the options (the arithmetic is just reversed for selling an option). But lets say we have an Option, where the payoff is max(St-K, c0) where ct is the market price. What do you do then? Your current, unrealized P&L is different than the payoff. The payoff only happens at maturity. The current P&L is based on current market prices, just like stock. Option prices all have a \"\"time premium\"\" making them worth more than their payoff (intrinsic) value prior to maturity.\""],"string":"[\n \"There is no difference. When dealing with short positions, talking about percentages become very tricky since they no longer add up to 100%. What does the 50% in your example mean? Unless there's some base amount (like total amount of the portfolio, then the percentages are meaningless. What matters when dealing with long and short positions is the net total - meaning if you are long 100 shares on one stock trade and short 50 shares on another, then you are net long 50 shares.\",\n \"The problem with rate of return calculation on short positions is, that the commonly used approach assumes an initial investment creating a cash outflow. If we want to apply this approach to short selling, we should look at the trade from another perspective. We buy money and pay for this money with stock. Our investment to buy 50$ in your example is 1 share. When closing the short position, we effectively sell back our money (50$) and receive 2 shares. Our profit on this position is obviously 1 share. Setting this in relation to our investment of 1 share yields a performance of 100% in reality, we do not sell back the entire cash but only the amount needed to get back our investment of 1 share. This is actually comparable to a purchase of stock which we only partially close to get back our invested cash amount and keep the remaining shares as our profit\",\n \"There are different perspectives from which to calculate the gain, but the way I think it should be done is with respect to the risk you've assumed in the original position, which the simplistic calculation doesn't factor in. There's a good explanation about calculating the return from a short sale at Investopedia. Here's the part that I consider most relevant: [...] When calculating the return of a short sale, you need to compare the amount the trader gets to keep to the initial amount of the liability. Had the trade in our example turned against you, you (as the short seller) would owe not only the initial proceeds amount but also the excess amount, and this would come out of your pocket. [...] Refer to the source link for the full explanation. Update: As you can see from the other answers and comments, it is a more complex a Q&A than it may first appear. I subsequently found this interesting paper which discusses the difficulty of rate of return with respect to short sales and other atypical trades: Excerpt: [...] The problem causing this almost uniform omission of a percentage return on short sales, options (especially writing), and futures, it may be speculated, is that the nigh-well universal and conventional definition of rate of return involving an initial cash outflow followed by a later cash inflow does not appear to fit these investment situations. None of the investment finance texts nor general finance texts, undergraduate or graduate, have formally or explicitly shown how to resolve this predicament or how to justify the calculations they actually use. [...]\",\n \"\\\"And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position. When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here. In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them. If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from. Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest). Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy. Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800. In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question). It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement. Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money. If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a \\\"\\\"margin call\\\"\\\" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses. And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin). When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go. There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position. You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs.\\\"\",\n \"If you mean the percentages of long/short positions within a mutual fund or ETF, then it's a percentage of the total value of the fund portfolio. In that case, positions of 50% in X, -50% in Y are not the same as 100% in X, -100% in Y. If the long and short positions are both for the same asset, then, as D Stanley mentions, all that matters is the net position. If you're equally long and short X, then the net position is always 0%.\",\n \"\\\"Being \\\"\\\"long\\\"\\\" - expecting the price to go up to make a profit - is a two step process: 1) buy 2) sell Being \\\"\\\"short\\\"\\\" - expecting the price to go down to make a profit - is a 5 step process: 1) borrow someone else's asset 2) sell their asset on the open market to somebody else a third party 3) pocket the proceeds of the sell for your own account 4) buy an identical asset for a cheaper price 5) return this identical asset to the person that let you borrow their asset if this is successful you keep the difference between 3) and 4)\\\"\",\n \"When you short a stock, you can lose an unlimited amount of money if the trade goes against you. If the shorted stock gaps up overnight you can lose more money than you have in your account. The best case is you make 100% if the stock goes to zero. And then you have margin fees on top of that. With long positions, it's the other way around. Your max loss is 100% and your gains are potentially unlimited.\",\n \"Simple math: 50-25=25, hence decline from 50 to 25 is a 50% decline (you lose half), while an advance from 25 to 50 is 100% gain (you gain 100%, double your 25 to 50). Their point is that if you have more upswings than downswings - you'll gain more on long positions during upswings than on short positions during downswings on average. Again - simple math.\",\n \"How so? If i sell short, then i make a profit only if the price goes down so i can buy back at a lower price. Yes, but if the price is going up then you would go long instead. Shorting a stock (or any other asset) allows you to profit when the price is going down. Going long allows you to profit when the price is going up. In the opposite cases, you lose money. In order to make a profit in either of those situations, you have to accurately assess which way the price will trade over the period of time you are dealing with. If you make the wrong judgment, then you lose money because you'll either sell for a lower price than you bought (if you went long), or have to buy back at a higher price than you sold for (if you went short). In either case, unless the trader can live with making a short-term loss and recouperating it later, one needs a good stop-loss strategy.\",\n \"You can't make money on the way down if it was your money that bought the shares when the market was up. When you sell short, borrowing lets you tap into the value without paying for it. That way, when the price (hopefully) drops you profit from the difference. In your example, if you hadn't paid the £20 in the first place, then you would actually be up £5. But since you started with £20, you still show loss. As others said, borrowing is the definition of selling short. It is also simply the only way the math works. Of course, there is a large risk you must assume to enjoy benefiting from something you do not own!\",\n \"\\\"When portfolio positions are reported in percentages, those percentages are relative to the portfolio's base equity. When you start out, that is equal to the cash you have in a portfolio. Later it's the net equity of the portfolio (i.e., how much money you could withdraw if you were to exit all your positions). If you put $5,000 into your account and are long and short 50%, then you are long $2,500 and short $2,500. If it's 100% and -100%, then long and short $5,000. \\\"\\\"Leverage\\\"\\\" is often computed gross (as if all positions were long). So if you have 100% and -100%, then your broker may say you are \\\"\\\"levered 2 to 1.\\\"\\\" That is, your gross exposure is twice as large as your underlying base equity.\\\"\",\n \"In order to compare the two, you need to compare your entire portfolio, which is not just how much money you have, but how much stock. In both scenarios, you start with (at least, but let's assume) £20 and 0 stock. In your scenario, you buy 10 shares, leaving you with £0 and 10 shares. You then sell it at £1.50/share to cut your losses, leaving you with £15 and 0 shares. That concludes the first transaction with a net loss of £5. In a second transaction, you then buy 10 shares again at £1/share, leaving you with £5 and 10 shares. You are still down £15 from the start, but you also still have 10 shares. Any further profit or loss depends on what you can get for those 10 shares in the future. In a short sale, you borrow 10 shares and sell them, leaving you with £40 (your initial £20 plus what you just made on the short sale) and -10 shares of stock. At the end of the contract, you must buy 10 shares to return them; you are able to do so at £1.50/share, leaving you with £25 and 0 shares. At this point, your exposure to the stock is complete, and you have a net gain of £5.\",\n \"This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.\",\n \"\\\"The margin rules are also more complicated. A simple buy on a non-margin account will never run into margin rules and you can just wait out any dips if you have confidence the stock will recover. A \\\"\\\"simple\\\"\\\" short sell might get you a call from your broker that you have a margin call, and you can't wait it out without putting more money in. Personally I have trouble keeping the short sale margin rules straight in my head, at least compared to a long sale. I got in way over my head shorting AMZN once, and lost a lot of money because I thought it was overvalued at the time, but it just kept going up and I wanted it to go down. I've never gotten stuck like that on a long position.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The margin money you put up to fund a short position ($6000 in the example given) is simply a \\\"\\\"good faith\\\"\\\" deposit that is required by the broker in order to show that you are acting in good faith and fully intend to meet any potential losses that may occur. This margin is normally called initial margin. It is not an accounting item, meaning it is not debited from you cash account. Rather, the broker simply segregates these funds so that you may not use them to fund other trading. When you settle your position these funds are released from segregation. In addition, there is a second type of margin, called variation margin, which must be maintained while holding a short position. The variation margin is simply the running profit or loss being incurred on the short position. In you example, if you sold 200 shares at $20 and the price went to $21, then your variation margin would be a debit of $200, while if the price went to $19, the variation margin would be a credit of $200. The variation margin will be netted with the initial margin to give the total margin requirement ($6000 in this example). Margin requirements are computed at the close of business on each trading day. If you are showing a loss of $200 on the variation margin, then you will be required to put up an additional $200 of margin money in order to maintain the $6000 margin requirement - ($6000 - $200 = $5800, so you must add $200 to maintain $6000). If you are showing a profit of $200, then $200 will be released from segregation - ($6000 + $200 = $6200, so $200 will be release from segregation leaving $6000 as required). When you settle your short position by buying back the shares, the margin monies will be release from segregation and the ledger postings to you cash account will be made according to whether you have made a profit or a loss. So if you made a loss of $200 on the trade, then your account will be debited for $200 plus any applicable commissions. If you made a profit of $200 on the trade then your account will be credited with $200 and debited with any applicable commissions.\\\"\",\n \"My instinct says that there should be no difference. Your instincts are right. Your understanding of math is not so much. You sold $100K at the current price of 7500000RUB, but ended up buying at 3500000, you earned 3500000RUB. That's 100% in USD (50% in RUB). You bought 7500000RUB for the current price of $100K, but sold later for $200K. You earned $100K (100% in USD), which at that time was equal 3500000RUB. You earned 3500000RUB. That's 50% in RUB. So, as your instincts were saying - no difference. The reason percentages are different is because you're coming from different angles. For the first case your currency is RUB, for the second case your currency is USD, and in both cases you earned 100%. If you use the same currency for your calculations, percentages change, but the bottom line - is the same.\",\n \"It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either. Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check. Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated. So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if:\",\n \"\\\"When margin is calculated as the equity percentage of an account, the point at which a broker will forcibly liquidate is typically called \\\"\\\"maintenance margin\\\"\\\". In the US, this is 25% for equities. To calculate the price at which this will occur, the initial and maintenance margin must be known. The formula for a long with margin is: and for a short where P_m is the maintenance margin price, P_i is the initial margin price, m_i is the initial margin rate, and m_m is the maintenance margin rate. At an initial margin of 50% and a maintenance margin of 25%, a long equity may fall by 1/3 before forced liquidation, a short one may rise by 50%. This calculation can become very complex with different asset classes with differing maintenance margins because the margin debt is applied to all securities collectively.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Selling short is simply by definition the selling, then later re-buying of stock you don't initially own. Say you tally your entire portfolio balance: the quantity of each stock you own, and your cash assets. Let's call this your \\\"\\\"initial position\\\"\\\". We define \\\"\\\"profit\\\"\\\" as any increase in assets, relative to this initial position. If you know a particular stock will go down, you can realize a profit by selling some of that stock, waiting for the price to go down, then buying it back. In the end you will have returned to your initial position, except you will have more cash. If you sell 10 shares of a stock valued at £1.50, then buy them back at £1.00, you will make a £5.00 profit while having otherwise returned to your previous position. If you do the same, but you initially owned 1000 shares, sold just 10 of those, then bought 10 back, that's still a profit of £5.00. Selling short is doing the same thing, but with an initial and ending balance of 0 shares. If you initially own 0 shares, sell 10, then buy 10 back, you return to your initial position (0 shares) plus a profit of £5.00. (And in practice you must also pay a borrowing fee to do this.) The advantage of selling short is it can be done with any stock, not just those currently owned.\\\"\",\n \"You have got it wrong. The profit or loss for smaller investor or big investor is same in percentage terms.\",\n \"\\\"A simple way to ask the question might be to say \\\"\\\"why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Why is borrowing someone else's shares necessary to make the concept a viable one? Why isn't it just the inverse of 'going long'?\\\"\\\" A simple way to think about it is this: to make money by trading something, you must buy it for less than you sell it for. This applies to stocks like anything else. If you believe the price will go up, then you can buy them first and sell them later for a higher price. But if you believe the price will go down, the only way to buy low and sell high is to sell first and buy later. If you buy the stock and it goes down, any sale you make will lose you money. I'm still not sure I fully understand the point of your example, but one thing to note is that in both cases (i.e., whether you buy the share back at the end or not), you lost money. You say that you \\\"\\\"made $5 on the share price dropping\\\"\\\", but that isn't true at all: you can see in your example that your final account balance is negative in both cases. You paid $20 for the shares but only got $15 back; you lost $5 (or, in the other version of your example, paid $20 and got back $5 plus the depreciated shares). If you had bought the shares for $20 and sold them for, say, $25, then your account would end up with a positive $5 balance; that is what a gain would look like. But you can't achieve that if you buy the shares for $20 and later sell them for less. At a guess, you seem to be confusing the concept of making a profit with the concept of cutting your losses. It is true that if you buy the shares for $20 and sell them for $15, you lose only $5, whereas if you buy them for $20 and sell for $10, you lose the larger amount of $10. But those are both losses. Selling \\\"\\\"early\\\"\\\" as the price goes down doesn't make you any money; it just stops you from losing more money than you would if you sold later.\\\"\",\n \"The answer provide by @mbhunter is correct, however there are contexts, shorting in spot market and carrying the position over settlement usually does not entail payment of dividend to the broker, one of the reason being post ex-date the price of the share downward adjusts to the extent of the dividend, so practically if you have shorted at 100 and post ex-date (assuming a dividend of 2 and no movement of the stock price), the price would slide to 98, the party who longed the stock @ 100 now is sitting on a price of 98 and received a dividend of 2 which equates to 100. The above is also contextual to the law of the country governing the exchange and the security exchange board regulations.\",\n \"Is it just -34*4.58= -$155.72 for CCC and -11*0.41= -$4.51 for DDD? Yes it needs to be recorded as negative because at some point in time, the investor will have to spend money to buy these shares [cover the short sell and return the borrowed shares]. Whether the investor made profit or loss will not be reflected as you are only reflecting the current share inventory.\",\n \"I agree with Mark. I was quite confuse about the short position at first but then I did a lot of learning and found out that as long as you have enough cash to cover your margin requirement you do not pay any interest since you do not have a debit on your margin balance. This is not true for a long position though, supposed you have 5k cash and 5k margin balance, if you buy 10K worth of stocks then you will need to pay interest on the 5k of the margin balance since it is a debit. Since shorting is done at a credit basis, you actually get interest from the transaction but you still may need to pay the borrowing fees for the stocks so they could simply balance each other out. I have shorted stocks twice through two different companies and neither time I noticed any interest charges. But make sure you have enough cash to cover your margin requirement, because once your margin balance is used to covered your position then interest would accrual. Learn.\",\n \"Variance of a single asset is defined as follows: σ2 = Σi(Xi - μ)2 where Xi's represent all the possible final market values of your asset and μ represents the mean of all such market values. The portfolio's variance is defined as σp2 = Σiwi2σi2 where, σp is the portfolio's variance, and wi stands for the weight of the ith asset. Now, if you include the borrowing in your portfolio, that would classify as technically shorting at the borrowing rate. Thus, this weight would (by the virtue of being negative) increase all other weights. Moreover, the variance of this is likely to be zero (assuming fixed borrowing rates). Thus, weights of risky assets rise and the investor's portfolio's variance will go up. Also see, CML at wikipedia.\",\n \"The product type and transaction direction are not linked. When you short sell a stock, you are still dealing with shares of an equity security. When you take delivery of a bond, you are buying that bond and holding a long position even though it's a debt security.\",\n \"Longing the short ETF will give you better returns than shorting the long etf. The reason is that as the price gets the smaller the absolute price change gets a lot smaller. So you would rather have upward price exposure than downward. A good case is SPXU and UPRO\",\n \"\\\"The reason for selling a stock \\\"\\\"short\\\"\\\", is for when you believe the stock value will decrease in the near future. Here is an example: Today Exxon-Mobile stock is selling for $100 / share. You are expecting the price to decrease, so you want to short the stock, which means your broker (i.e. eTrade, etc) allows you to borrow shares without paying money, and those shares are transferred into your account, and then you sell them and receive money for the sale. But you didn't actually own those shares, you only borrowed them, so you need to return the shares to your broker sometime in the future. Let's say you borrow 10 shares @ $100, and you sell them at the market price of $100, you receive $1,000 in your account. But you owe your broker 10 shares, which you need to return sometime in the future. A few days later, the share price has decreased to $80. Now you can buy 10 shares from the market at a total cost of $800. You get 10 shares, and return those shares to your broker. Since you originally took in $1,000, and you just paid out $800, you keep a resulting profit of $200\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or \\\"\\\"going short.\\\"\\\" When you use money to buy shares, it is called \\\"\\\"going long.\\\"\\\" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything. Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share. You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000. You are both long and short in the stock for $2000. At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds. You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share. Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000. However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares. Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest. Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share. Your long shares have lost $1000 in value. However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares. However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything. Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time. However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame. The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting. Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time. You are only attempting to hedge your bets. And it doesn't work. A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position. And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future. This, however, doesn't really change things much. Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term. Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess. And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain. You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop. You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon. Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short. However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position. And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up. You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain.\\\"\",\n \"A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.\",\n \"The risk of the particular share moving up or down is same for both. however in terms of mitigating the risk, Investor A is conservative on upside, ie will exit if he gets 10%, while is ready to take unlimited downside ... his belief is that things will not go worse .. While Investor B is wants to make at least 10% less than peak value and in general is less risk averse as he will sell his position the moment the price hits 10% less than max [peak value] So it more like how do you mitigate a risk, as to which one is wise depends on your belief and the loss appetite\",\n \"hmmm. I think it's because in both cases, you must pay for it up front, before the positions are closed out. You own nothing except the right to buy the stock re: the call, and the obligation to buy the stock re: the short. You buy a call, but must borrow the stock, for which you must put some margin collateral and there is a cost to borrow. You pay for that, of course. I wouldn't call it lending though.\",\n \"I'm not entirely sure about some of the details in your question, since I think you meant to use $10,000 as the value of the futures contract and $3 as the value of the underlying stock. Those numbers would make more sense. That being said, I can give you a simple example of how to calculate the profit and loss from a leveraged futures contract. For the sake of simplicity, I'll use a well-known futures contract: the E-mini S&P500 contract. Each E-mini is worth $50 times the value of the S&P 500 index and has a tick size of 0.25, so the minimum price change is 0.25 * $50 = $12.50. Here's an example. Say the current value of the S&P500 is 1,600; the value of each contract is therefore $50 * 1,600 = $80,000. You purchase one contract on margin, with an initial margin requirement1 of 5%, or $4,000. If the S&P 500 index rises to 1,610, the value of your futures contract increases to $50 * 1,610 = $80,500. Once you return the 80,000 - 4,000 = $76,000 that you borrowed as leverage, your profit is 80,500 - 76,000 = $4,500. Since you used $4,000 of your own funds as an initial margin, your profit, excluding commissions is 4,500 - 4,000 = $500, which is a 500/4000 = 12.5% return. If the index dropped to 1,580, the value of your futures contract decreases to $50 * 1,580 = $79,000. After you return the $76,000 in leverage, you're left with $3,000, or a net loss of (3,000 - 4000)/(4000) = -25%. The math illustrates why using leverage increases your risk, but also increases your potential for return. Consider the first scenario, in which the index increases to 1,610. If you had forgone using margin and spent $80,000 of your own funds, your profit would be (80,500 - 80,000) / 80000 = .625%. This is smaller than your leveraged profit by a factor of 20, the inverse of the margin requirement (.625% / .05 = 12.5%). In this case, the use of leverage dramatically increased your rate of return. However, in the case of a decrease, you spent $80,000, but gained $79,000, for a loss of only 1.25%. This is 20 times smaller in magnitude than your negative return when using leverage. By forgoing leverage, you've decreased your opportunity for upside, but also decreased your downside risk. 1) For futures contracts, the margin requirements are set by the exchange, which is CME group, in the case of the E-mini. The 5% in my example is higher than the actual margin requirement, which is currently $3,850 USD per contract, but it keeps the numbers simple. Also note that CME group refers to the initial margin as the performance bond instead.\",\n \"A long put - you have a small initial cost (the option premium) but profit as the stock goes down. You have no additional risk if the shock rises, even a lot. Short a stock - you gain if the stock drops, but have unlimited risk if it rises, the call mitigates this, by capping that rising stock risk. The profit/loss graph looks similar to the long put when you hold both the short position and the long call. You might consider producing a graph or spreadsheet to compare positions. You can easily sketch put, call, long stock, short stock, and study how combinations of positions can synthetically look like other positions. Often, when a stock has no shares to short, the synthetic short can help you put your stock position in place.\",\n \"You sold a call, and have a risk if the stock rises. You bought a put and gain when the stock drops. You, sir, have a synthetic short position. It's Case 3 from your linked example: Suppose you own Long Stock and the company is going to report earnings but you’re going on vacation. How can you hedge your position without selling your stock? You can short the stock synthetically with options! Short Stock = Short Call + Long Put They conclude with the net zero remark, because the premise was an existing long position. A long plus this synthetic short results in a neutral set of positions (and the author's ability to go on vacation not concerned about any movement in the stock.)\",\n \"\\\"Concerning the general problem of short selling and the need to borrow shares to complete the transaction : Selling short is a cash transaction. Unlike a futures contract, where a short seller is entering into a legal agreement to sell something in the future, in the case of short selling a share the buyer of the share is taking immediate delivery and is therefore entitled to all of the benefits and rights that come with share ownership. In particular, the buyer of the shares is entitled to any dividends payable and, where applicable, to vote on motions at AGMs. If the short seller has not borrowed the shares to sell, then buyer of non-existent shares will have none of the rights associated with ownership. The cash market is based on the idea of matching buyers and sellers. It does not accommodate people making promises. Consider that to allow short sellers to sell shares they have not borrowed opens up the possibility of the aggregate market selling more shares than actually exist. This would lead to all sorts of problematic consequences such as heavily distorting the price of the underlying share. If everyone is selling shares they have not borrowed willy-nilly, then it will drive the price of the share down, much to the disadvantage of existing share holders. In this case, short sellers who have sold shares they have not already borrowed would be paying out more in dividends to the buyers than the total dividends being paid out by the underlying company. There are instruments that allow for short selling of unowned shares on a futures basis. One example is a CFD = Contract for Difference. In the case of CFDs, sellers are obliged to pay dividends to buyers as well as other costs related to financing. EDIT Regarding your comment, note that borrowing shares is not a market transaction. Your account does not show you buying a share and then selling it. It simply shows you selling a share short. The borrowing is the result of an agreement between yourself and the lender and this agreement is off market. You do not actually pay the lender for the shares, but you do pay financing costs for the borrowing so long as you maintain your short position. EDIT I realise that I have not actually read your question correctly. You are not actually talking about \\\"\\\"naked\\\"\\\" short selling. You are talking about selling shares you already own in a hope of maintaining both a long and short position (gross). The problem with this approach is that you must deliver the shares to the buyer. Otherwise, ask yourself what shares is the buyer actually buying if you want the bought shares to remain in your account. If you are not going to deliver your long position shares, then you will need to borrow the shares you are selling short for the reasons I have outlined above.\\\"\",\n \"This is a gross simplification as there are a few different ways to do this. The principle overall is the same though. To short a stock, you borrow X shares from a third party and sell them at the current price. You now owe the lender X shares but have the proceeds from the sale. If the share price falls you can buy back those shares at the new lower price, return them to the lender and pocket the difference. The risk comes when the share price goes the other way, you now owe the lender the new value of the shares, so have to find some way to cover the difference. This happened a while back when Porsche made a fortune buying shares in Volkswagen from short sellers, and the price unexpectedly rose.\",\n \"Suppose that the ETF is currently at a price of $100. Suppose that the next day it moves up 10% (to a price of $110) and the following day it moves down 5% (to a price of $104.5). Over these two days the ETF has had a net gain of 4.5% from its original price. The inverse ETF reverses the daily gains/losses of the base ETF. Suppose for simplicity that the inverse ETF also starts out at a price of $100. So on the first day it goes down 10% (to $90) and on the second day it goes up 5% (to $94.5). Thus over the two days the inverse ETF has had a net loss of 5.5%. The specific dollar amounts do not matter here. The result is that the ETF winds up at 110%*95% = 104.5% of its original price and the inverse ETF is at 90%*105% = 94.5% of its original price. A similar example is given here. As suggested by your quote, this is due to compounding. A gain of X% followed by a loss of Y% (compounded on the gain) is not in general the same as a loss of X% followed by a gain of Y% (compounded on the loss). Or, more simply put, if something loses 10% of its value and then gains 10% of its new value, it will not return to its original value, because the 10% it gained was 10% of its decreased value, so it's not enough to bring it all the way back up. Likewise if it gains 10% and then loses 10%, it will go slightly below its original value (since it lost 10% of its newly increased value).\",\n \"I have found a good explanation here: http://www.contracts-for-difference.com/Financing-charge.html Financing is calculated by taking the overall position size, and multiplying it by (LIBOR + say 2%) and then dividing by 365 x the amount of days the position is open. For instance, the interest rate applicable for overnight long positions may be 6% or 0.06. To calculate how much it would cost you to hold a long position for X number of days you would need to make this 'pro rata' meaning that you would need to divide the 0.06 by 365 and multiply it by X days and then multiply this by the trade size. So for example, for a trade size of $20,000, held for 30 days, the interest cost would be about $98.6. It is important to note that due to financing, long positions held for extended periods can reduce returns.\",\n \"why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Because if you sell shares out of your own portfolio, by definition, you are not selling short at all. If you sell something you own (and deliver it) - then there is no short involved. A short is defined as a net negative position - i.e. you sell shares you do not have. Selling shares you own is selling shares you own - no short involved. You must borrow the shares for a short because in the stock market, you must DELIVER. You can not deliver shares you do not own. The stock market does not work on promises - the person who bought the shares expects ownership of them with all rights that gives them. So you borrow them to deliver them, then return them when you buy them back.\",\n \"\\\"First, you are not exactly \\\"\\\"giving\\\"\\\" the brokerage $2000. That money is the margin requirement to protect them in the case the stock price rises. If you short 200 shares as in your example and they are holding $6000 from you then they are protected in the event of the stock price increasing to $30/share. Sometime before it gets there the brokerage will require you to deposit more money or they will cover your position by repurchasing the shares for your account. The way you make money on the short sale is if the stock price declines. It is a buy low sell high idea but in reverse. If you believe that prices are going to drop then you could sell now when it is high and buy back later when it is lower. In your example, you are selling 200 shares at $20 and later, buying those at $19. Thus, your profit is $200, not counting any interest or fees you have paid. It's a bit confusing because you are selling something you'll buy in the future. Selling short is usually considered quite risky as your gain is limited to the amount that you sold at initially (if I sell at $20/share the most I can make is if the stock declines to $0). Your potential to lose is unlimited in theory. There is no limit to how high the stock could go in theory so I could end up buying it back at an infinitely high price. Neither of these extremes are likely but they do show the limits of your potential gain and loss. I used $20/share for simplicity assuming you are shorting with a market order vs a limit order. If you are shorting it would be better for you to sell at 20 instead of 19 anyway. If someone says I would like to give you $20 for that item you are selling you aren't likely to tell them \\\"\\\"no, I'd really only like $19 for it\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"Not really. The lender is not buying the stock back at a lower price. Remember, he already owns it, so he need not buy it again. The person losing is the one from whom the short seller buys back the stock, provided that person bought the stock at higher price. So if B borrowed from A(lender) and sold it to C, and later B purchased it back from C at a lower price, then B made profit, C made loss and A made nothing .\",\n \"\\\"He sold at 25 cents per pound and then as the price rises, the cash he has will buy less and less which could trigger a margin call as you are missing the \\\"\\\"short\\\"\\\" part of his position which is rather important here. From Investopedia: A margin account also allows your brokerage firm to liquidate your position if the likelihood that you will return what you've borrowed diminishes. This is part of the agreement that is signed when the margin account is created. From the broker's perspective, this increases the likelihood that you will return the shares before losses become too large and you become unable to return the shares. If you sold at 25 cents per pound and the price goes up, at some point you may be forced to buy to cover the position as brokers don't like to lose their money. As another example of a short going bad, \\\"\\\"Devastated\\\"\\\" Trader Crushed By Soaring Biotech, Starts Online Begging Campaign To Fund $106,000 Margin Call notes in part: However where this story gets abusrdly entertaining, or woefully tragic, depending on one's perspective, is that one trader, Joe Campbell, was on the wrong side of last night's massive surge. As the RutRho blog, which noticed it first explains, a \\\"\\\"dummy\\\"\\\" E-trader, Joe Campbell, decided to go $35,000 short KBIO \\\"\\\"and now owes $ETFC a wonderful $106K.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"This can be best explained with an example. Bob thinks the price of a stock that Alice has is going to go down by the end of the week, so he borrows a share at $25 from Alice. The current price of the shares are $25 per share. Bob immediately sells the shares to Charlie for $25, it is fair, it is the current market price. A week goes by, and the price does fall to $20. Bob buys a share from David at $20. This is fair, it is the current market value. Then Bob gives the share back to Alice to settle what he borrowed from her, one share. Now, in reality, there is interest charged be Alice on the borrowed value, but to keep it simple, we'll say she was a friend and it was a zero interest loan. So then Bob was able to sell something he didn't own for $25 and return it spending $20 to buy it, settling his loan and making $5 in the transaction. It is the selling to Charlie and buying from David (or even Charlie later, if he decided to dump the shares), without having invested any of your own money that earns the profit.\",\n \"It depends to some extent on how you interpret the situation, so I think this is the general idea. Say you purchase one share at $50, and soon after, the price moves up, say, to $55. You now have an unrealized profit of $5. Now, you can either sell and realize that profit, or hold on to the position, expecting a further price appreciation. In either case, you will consider the price change from this traded price, which is $55, and not the price you actually bought at. Hence, if the price fell to $52 in the next trade, you have a loss of $3 on your previous profit of $5. This (even though your net P&L is calculated from the initial purchase price of $50), allows you to think in terms of your positions at the latest known prices. This is similar to a Markov process, in the sense that it doesn't matter which route the stock price (and your position's P&L) took to get to the current point; your decision should be based on the current/latest price level.\",\n \"The initial position is worth 40000. You post 50% margin, so you deposited 20000 and borrowed 20000. 6% of 20000 is 1200.\",\n \"The 'normal' series of events when trading a stock is to buy it, time passes, then you sell it. If you believe the stock will drop in price, you can reverse the order, selling shares, waiting for the price drop, then buying them back. During that time you own say, -100 shares, and are 'short' those shares.\",\n \"Short sellers have to pay interest on the borrowings to the shareholders. Although many times brokers don't pass on these earnings to the shareholders, this is the exchange.\",\n \"\\\"You need to interpret \\\"\\\"security\\\"\\\" appropriately in Wikipedia's definition. You should think of it as saying: to be long in a put, means the holder of the position owns the put and will profit if the price of the put goes up And what makes the price of the put go up? -- the price of the underlying stock going down.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The question you are asking concerns the exercise of a short option position. The other replies do not appear to address this situation. Suppose that Apple is trading at $96 and you sell a put option with a strike price of $95 for some future delivery date - say August 2016. The option contract is for 100 shares and you sell the contract for a premium of $3.20. When you sell the option your account will be credited with the premium and debited with the broker commission. The premium you receive will be $320 = 100 x $3.20. The commission you pay will depend on you broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple drops to $90 and your option is exercised, either on expiry or prior to expiry. Then you would be obliged to take delivery of 100 Apple shares at the contracted option strike price of $95 costing you $9,500 plus broker commission. If you immediately sell the Apple shares you have purchased under your contract obligations, then assuming you sell the shares at the current market price of $90 you would realise a loss of $500 ( = 100x($95-$90) )plus commission. Since you received a premium of $320 when you sold the put option, your net loss would be $500-$320 = $180 plus any commissions paid to your broker. Now let's look at the case of selling a call option. Again assume that the price of Apple is $96 and you sell a call option for 100 shares with a strike price of $97 for a premium of $3.60. The premium you receive would be $360 = 100 x $3.60. You would also be debited for commission by your broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple shares rises to $101 and your option is exercised. Then you would be obliged to deliver 100 Apple shares to the party exercising the option at the contracted strike price of $97. If you did not own the shares to effect delivery, then you would need to purchase those shares in the market at the current market price of $101, and then sell them to the party exercising the option at the strike price of $97. This would realise an immediate loss of $400 = 100 x ($101-$97) plus any commission payable. If you did own the shares, then you would simply deliver them and possibly pay some commission or a delivery fee to your broker. Since you received $360 when you sold the option, your net loss would be $40 = $400-$360 plus any commission and fees payable to the broker. It is important to understand that in addition to these accounting items, short option positions carry with them a \\\"\\\"margin\\\"\\\" requirement. You will need to maintain a margin deposit to show \\\"\\\"good faith\\\"\\\" so long as the short option position is open. If the option you have sold moves against you, then you will be called upon to put up extra margin to cover any potential losses.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"It will be helpful to establish some definitions: Long \\\"\\\"Long\\\"\\\" is financial slang for \\\"\\\"to have possession of an asset\\\"\\\", legally, and \\\"\\\"to debit an asset\\\"\\\", financially. Short \\\"\\\"Short\\\"\\\" is financial slang for \\\"\\\"to be liable for an asset\\\"\\\", legally, and \\\"\\\"to credit an asset\\\"\\\", financially. Option \\\"\\\"Option\\\"\\\" is financial slang for \\\"\\\"to have the right but not obligation to force the liable to perform action\\\"\\\", legally. Without limits and when taken to absurdity, this can mean slavery. For equities, this means \\\"\\\"to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy/sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\\\"\\\" for a call/put, respectively. By the above, a call option is \\\"\\\"the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\\\"\\\". By the definition of \\\"\\\"long\\\"\\\" above, a call option is actually not long the underlying. By the definitions above and with a narrower scope applied to equities & indexes, to be \\\"\\\"long\\\"\\\" the call means \\\"\\\"to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\\\"\\\" while to be \\\"\\\"short\\\"\\\" the call means \\\"\\\"to have the obligation to be forced to sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\\\"\\\". So, to be \\\"\\\"long\\\"\\\" a call means to simply own the call.\\\"\",\n \"On expiry, with the underlying share price at $46, we have : You ask : How come they substract 600-100. Why ? Because you have sold the $45 call to open you position, you must now buy it back to close your position. This will cost you $100, so you are debited for $100 and this debit is being represented as a negative (subtracted); i.e., -$100 Because you have purchased the $40 call to open your position, you must now sell it to close your position. Upon selling this option you will receive $600, so you are credited with $600 and this credit is represented as a positive (added) ; i.e., +$600. Therefore, upon settlement, closing your position will get you $600-$100 = $500. This is the first point you are questioning. (However, you should also note that this is the value of the spread at settlement and it does not include the costs of opening the spread position, which are given as $200, so you net profit is $500-$200 = $300.) You then comment : I know I am selling 45 Call that means : As a writer: I want stock price to go down or stay at strike. As a buyer: I want stock price to go up. Here, note that for every penny that the underlying share price rises above $45, the money you will pay to buy back your short $45 call option will be offset by the money you will receive by selling the long $40 call option. Your $40 call option is covering the losses on your short $45 call option. No matter how high the underlying price settles above $45, you will receive the same $500 net credit on settlement. For example, if the underlying price settles at $50, then you will receive a credit of $1000 for selling your $40 call, but you will incur a debit of $500 against for buying back your short $45 call. The net being $500 = $1000-$500. This point is made in response to your comments posted under Dr. Jones answer.\",\n \"The original post's $16 has two errors: Here is the first scenario: . Tax Liability($) on Net . Cash # of Price Paper Realized Value Time: ($) Shares ($/sh) Profits Profits ($) 1. Start with: 100 - n/a - - 100 2. After buy 10@10$/sh: - 10 10 - - 100 3. Before selling: - 10 12 (5) - 115 4. After sell 10@12$/sh: 120 - n/a - (5) 115 5. After buy 12@10$/sh: - 12 10 - (5) 115 6. Before selling: - 12 12 (6) (5) 133 7. After sell 12@12$/sh: 144 - n/a - (11) 133 8. After buy 14@10$/sh: 4 14 10 - (11) 133 9. Before selling: 4 14 12 (7) (11) 154 10.After sell 14@12$/sh: 172 - n/a - (18) 154 At this point, assuming that all of the transactions occurred in the same fiscal year, and the realized profits were subject to a 25% short-term capital gains tax, you would owe $18 in taxes. Yes, this is 25% of $172 - $100.\",\n \"Simple math. Take the sale proceeds (after trade expenses) and divide by cost. Subtract 1, and this is your return. For example, buy at 80, sell at 100, 100/80 = 1.25, your return is 25%. To annualize this return, multiply by 365 over the days you were in that stock. If the above stock were held for 3 months, you would have an annualized return of 100%. There's an alternative way to annualize, in the same example above take the days invested and dive into 365, here you get 4. I suggested that 25% x 4 = 100%. Others will ask why I don't say 1.25^4 = 2.44 so the return is 144%/yr. (in other words, compound the return, 1.25x1.25x...) A single day trade, noon to noon the next day returning just 1%, would multiply to 365% over a year, ignoring the fact there are about 250 trading days. But 1.01^365 is 37.78 or a 3678% return. For long periods, the compounding makes sense of course, the 8%/yr I hope to see should double my money in 9 years, not 12, but taking the short term trades and compounding creates odd results of little value.\",\n \"\\\"For the same reason that people bet on different teams. Some think the Tigers will win, others thing the Yankees will win. They wager $5 on it. One of them wins, the other loses. In a short, one person bets that the stock goes down, the other bets that the stock goes up (or hold). You're basically saying \\\"\\\"I think this stock is going to hold it's value or go up. If I thought it would go down, like you do, I would sell it myself right now. Instead, I'll let you have it for a while because when I get it back I think I'll come out on top.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"\\\"All margin is marked to market. Option longs do not post margin because long margin trading is forbidden. Equity longs must post margin if cash is borrowed to fund the purchase. Shorts of all kinds must post margin, and the rates are generally the same: a few standard deviations away from the mean daily change of the underlying. A currency futures trader, because of the involatility of most major monies, can get away with a few percentage points. Commodities can get to around 10%. Single equities are frequently around 20%, while indices can get back down to 10%. A future is a special case because both sides are technically short and long at the same time. The easiest example to perceive is a currency future. Which one is the buyer and which is the seller? Both and neither. Contracts may be denominated for one side as the seller and the other the buyer, but contractually, legally, and effectively, both are liable to the other, and both must take delivery. For non-currency assets, it only appears as if the cash seller is the buyer because cash is not considered an asset in the same way all other assets are, but the \\\"\\\"long\\\"\\\" is obligated to sell cash and buy the \\\"\\\"asset\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You didn't win in case B. Borrowing shares and then selling them is known as \\\"\\\"selling short\\\"\\\". You received $2000 when you sold short 100 shares at $20. You spent $1000 to buy them back at $10, so you come out $1000 ahead on that deal. But at the same time, the 100 shares you already owned have declined in value from $20 to $10, so you are down $1000 on that deal. So you've simply broken even, and you are still out the interest and transaction fees. In effect, a short sale allows you to sell shares you don't own. But if you do already own them, then the effect is the same as if you just sold your own shares. This makes it easier to see that this is just a complicated and expensive way of accomplishing nothing at all.\\\"\",\n \"See http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/04/30/why-the-sec-should-look-at-levered-etfs/?dlvrit=60132, http://symmetricinfo.org/2011/04/are-investors-in-levered-short-treasury-etfs-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen-pt1/, and the articles linked from it: The issue with holding a levered ETF past 1 day is that investors expose themselves to path dependency in the underlying.... The reason for the difference in payouts comes from the fact that the manager of the levered ETF promises you a multiple of the daily returns of the underlying. To be able to promise you these daily returns, the ETF manager has to buy/sell some of the underlying every day to position himself to have a constant leverage ratio the next day. The short video below explains this process in detail for a 2x long ETF, but the same result holds for a 2x short ETF: the manager has to buy more of the underlying on a day when the underlying increases in value and sell more of the underlying when the underlying goes down in value .\",\n \"It's not quite identical, due to fees, stock rights, and reporting & tax obligations. But the primary difference is that a person could have voting rights in a company while maintaining zero economic exposure to the company, sometimes known as empty voting. As an abstract matter, it's identical in that you reduce your financial exposure whether you sell your stock or short it. So the essence of your question is fundamentally true. But the details make it different. Of course there are fee differences in how your broker will handle it, and also margin requirements for shorting. Somebody playing games with overlapping features of ownership, sales, and purchases, may have tax and reporting obligations for straddles, wash sales, and related issues. A straight sale is generally less complicated for tax reporting purposes, and a loss is more likely to be respected than someone playing games with sales and purchases. But the empty voting issue is an important difference. You could buy stock with rights such as voting, engage in other behavior such as forwards, shorts, or options to negate your economic exposure to the stock, while maintaining the right to vote. Of course in some cases this may have to be disclosed or may be covered by contract, and most people engaging in stock trades are unlikely to have meaningful voting power in a public company. But the principle is still there. As explained in the article by Henry Hu and Bernie Black: Hedge funds have been especially creative in decoupling voting rights from economic ownership. Sometimes they hold more votes than economic ownership - a pattern we call empty voting. In an extreme situation, a vote holder can have a negative economic interest and, thus, an incentive to vote in ways that reduce the company's share price. Sometimes investors hold more economic ownership than votes, though often with morphable voting rights - the de facto ability to acquire the votes if needed. We call this situation hidden (morphable) ownership because the economic ownership and (de facto) voting ownership are often not disclosed.\",\n \"200% margin for a short sale is outrageous. You should only need to put up 150% margin, of which 50% is your money, and the 100% is the proceeds. With $100 of your money, you should be able to buy $100 of GOOG and short $100 of PNQI.\",\n \"When you short a stock and the stock goes ex-div. you have to pay out an amount equal to the dividend. So in your example, GG would short the stock at $10.00, buy back at $9.00 and be charged $1.00 for the dividend. Net effect $0.00.\",\n \"\\\"When trading Forex each currency is traded relative to another. So when shorting a currency you must go long another currency vs the currency you are shorting, it seems a little odd and can be a bit confusing, but here is the explanation that Wikipedia provides: An example of this is as follows: Let us say a trader wants to trade with the US dollar and the Indian rupee currencies. Assume that the current market rate is USD 1 to Rs.50 and the trader borrows Rs.100. With this, he buys USD 2. If the next day, the conversion rate becomes USD 1 to Rs.51, then the trader sells his USD 2 and gets Rs.102. He returns Rs.100 and keeps the Rs.2 profit (minus fees). So in this example the trader is shorting the rupee vs the dollar. Does this article add up all other currency crosses to get the 'net' figure? So they don't care what it is depreciating against? This data is called the Commitment of Traders (COT) which is issued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) In the WSJ article it is actually referring to Forex Futures. In an another article from CountingPips it explains a bit clearer as to how a news organization comes up with these type of numbers. according to the CFTC COT data and calculations by Reuters which calculates the dollar positions against the euro, British pound, Japanese yen, Australian dollar, Canadian dollar and the Swiss franc. So this article is not talking about futures but it does tell us they got data from the COT and in addition Reuters added additional calculations from adding up \\\"\\\"X\\\"\\\" currency positions. No subscription needed: Speculators Pile Up Largest Net Dollar Long Position Since June 2010 - CFTC Here is some additional reading on the topic if you're interested: CFTC Commitment of the Traders Data – COT Report FOREX : What Is It And How Does It Work? Futures vs. Forex Options Forex - Wiki\\\"\",\n \"Apart from making money from the price difference, some stocks also give dividends, or bonus issues. For long term investors whom are looking for steady income, they may be more interested with the dividend pay-out instead of the capital-appreciation.\",\n \"Opened Long - is when you open a long position. Long means that you buy to open the position, so you are trying to profit as the price rises. So if you were closing a long position you would sell it. Closed Short - is when you close out a short position. Short means that you sell to open and buy back to close. With a short position you are trying to profit as the price falls. Scaled Out - means you get out of a position in increments as the price climbs (for long positions). Scaled In - means you set a target price and then invest in increments as the stock falls below that price (for long positions).\",\n \"\\\"Derivatives derive their value from underlying assets. This is expressed by the obligation of at least one counterparty to trade with the other counterparty in the future. These can take on as many combinations as one can dream up as it is a matter of contract. For futures, where two parties are obligated to trade at a specific price at a specific date in the future (one buyer, one seller), if you \\\"\\\"short\\\"\\\" a future, you have entered into a contract to sell the underlying at the time specified. If the price of the future moves against you (goes up), you will have to sell at a loss. The bigger the move, the greater the loss. You go ahead and pay this as well as a little extra to be sure that you satisfy what you owe due to the future. This satisfaction is called margin. If there weren't margin, people could take huge losses on their derivative bets, not pay, and disrupt the markets. Making sure that the money that will trade is already there makes the markets run smoothly. It's the same for shorting stocks where you borrow the stock, sell it, and wait. You have to leave the money with the broker as well as deposit a little extra to be sure you can make good if the market moves to a large degree against you.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You sold $10,000 worth of stock so that money is essentially yours. However, you sold this stock without actually owning any which means that you, through your broker, are currently borrowing shares amounting to (at the time of your sale) $10,000 from someone who actually owns this stock. You will be paying this person interest for the privilege of borrowing their shares, the exact amount charged varies wildly and depends on factors such as short interest in the stock (loads of people want to go short = shareholders can charge high interest) etc. If I remember correctly hovering over the \\\"\\\"position\\\"\\\" column in your portfolio in the IB Workstation should give you information about the interest rate charged. You will have to buy back these shares from the lender at some point which is why the $10k isn't just \\\"\\\"free money.\\\"\\\" If the stock has gone up in price in the meantime you are going to be paying more than the $10k you got for the same amount of shares and vice versa.\\\"\",\n \"You have only sold 200 shares for $4.75 from those bought for $3.15. So your profit on those 200 shares is $1.60 per share or $320 or 51%. From that you have 110 shares left that cost you $3.15 and 277 shares that cost you $3.54. So the total cost of your remaining shares is $1,327.08 (110 x $3.15 + 277 x $3.54). So your remaining shares have a average cost of $3.429 per share ($1,327.08/387). We don't know what the current share price is as you haven't provided it, nor do we know what the company is, so lets say that the current price is $5 (or that you sell the remaining 387 shares for $5 per share). Then the profit on these 387 shares would be $1.571 per share or $607.92 or 46%. Your total profit would then be $320 + $ 607.92 = $927.92 or 47% (note that this profit neglects any brokerage or other fees, as you have not provided any). Edit due to new info. provided in question With the current share price at $6.06 then the profit on these 387 shares would be $2.631 per share or $1018.20 or 77%. Your total profit would then be $320 + $1018.20 = $1338.20 or 75% (note that this profit neglects any brokerage or other fees, as you have not provided any).\",\n \"Here's a simple example for a put, from both sides. Assume XYZ stock trades at $200 right now. Let's say John writes a $190 out of the money put on XYZ stock and sells this put to Abby for the premium, which is say $5. Assume the strike date, or date of settlement, is 6 months from now. Thus Abby is long one put option and John is short one put option (the writer of the option is short the option). On settlement date, let's assume two different scenarios: (1) If the price of the stock decreases by $50, then the put that Abby bought is 'in the money'. Abby's profit can be calculated as being strike price 190 - current stock price 150 - premium paid 5 = $35 So not including any transaction fees, that is a $35 dollar return on a $5 investment. (2) If the price of the stock increases by $50, then the put that Abby bought is worthless and her loss was 100%, or her entire $5 premium. For John, he made $5 in 6 months (in reality you need collateral and good credit to be able to write sizable option positions).\",\n \"It this a real situation or is it a made up example? Because for a stock that has a last traded priced of $5 or $6 and volume traded over $4M (i.e. it seems to be quite liquid), it is hardly likely that the difference from bid to ask would be as large as $1 (maybe for a stock that has volume of 4 to 5 thousand, but not for one having volume of 4 to 5 million). In regards to your question, if you were short selling the order would go in exactly the same as if you were selling a stock you owned. So your order would be on the ask side and would need to be matched up with a price on the bid side for there to be a trade.\",\n \"\\\"Below is just a little information on short selling from my small unique book \\\"\\\"The small stock trader\\\"\\\": Short selling is an advanced stock trading tool with unique risks and rewards. It is primarily a short-term trading strategy of a technical nature, mostly done by small stock traders, market makers, and hedge funds. Most small stock traders mainly use short selling as a short-term speculation tool when they feel the stock price is a bit overvalued. Most long-term short positions are taken by fundamental-oriented long/short equity hedge funds that have identified some major weaknesses in the company. There a few things you should consider before shorting stocks: Despite all the mystique and blame surrounding short selling, especially during bear markets, I personally think regular short selling, not naked short selling, has a more positive impact on the stock market, as: Lastly, small stock traders should not expect to make significant profits by short selling, as even most of the great stock traders (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen,) have hardly made significant money from their shorts. it is safe to say that odds are stacked against short sellers. Over the last century or so, Western large caps have returned an annual average of between 8 and 10 percent while the returns of small caps have been slightly higher. I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of \\\"\\\"The small stock trader\\\"\\\")\\\"\",\n \"I think you are mixing up the likelihood of making a profit with the amount of profit. The likelyhood of profit will be the same, because if you buy $100 worth of shares and the price moves up you will make a profit. If you instead bought $1000 worth of the same shares at the same price and the price moved up you would once again make a profit. In fact if you don't include commissions and other fees, and you buy and sell at the same prices, you percentage profit would be the same. For example, if you bought at $10 and sold at $12, you percentage gain of 20% would be the same no matter how many shares you bought (not including commissions). So if you bought $100 worth your gain would have been 20% or $20 and if you bought $1000 worth your gain would have been 20% or $200. However, if you include commissions, say $10 in and $10 out, your net profit on $100 would have been $0 (0%) and your net profit on $1000 would have been $180 (18%).\",\n \"The paragraph before on page 115 states: Scaling corresponds to having a weight in the long and short legs that is different from one and varies over time, but the strategy is still self-financing. Meaning that the long and short positions are no longer equal due to weighting one side more highly than the other. The weighting of one side (either long or short) is the number between 0.2 and 2 that you mention.\",\n \"\\\"In the USA there are two ways this situation can be treated. First, if your short position was held less than 45 days. You have to (when preparing the taxes) add the amount of dividend back to the purchase price of the stock. That's called adjusting the basis. Example: short at $10, covered at $8, but during this time stock paid a $1 dividend. It is beneficial for you to add that $1 back to $8 so your stock purchase basis is $9 and your profit is also $1. Inside software (depending what you use) there are options to click on \\\"\\\"adjust the basis\\\"\\\" or if not, than do it manually specifically for those shares and add a note for tax reviewer. Second option is to have that \\\"\\\"dividednd payment in lieu paid\\\"\\\" deducted as investment expence. But that option is only available if you hold the shorts for more than 45 days and itemize your deductions. Hope that helps!\\\"\",\n \"Rich's answer captures the basic essence of short selling with example. I'd like to add these additional points: You typically need a specially-privileged brokerage account to perform short selling. If you didn't request short selling when you opened your account, odds are good you don't have it, and that's good because it's not something most people should ever consider doing. Short selling is an advanced trading strategy. Be sure you truly grok selling short before doing it. Consider that when buying stock (a.k.a. going long or taking a long position, in contrast to short) then your potential loss as a buyer is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero) and your potential gain unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're lucky!) Whereas, with short selling, it's reversed: Your loss can be unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're unlucky!) and your potential gain is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero.) The proceeds you receive from a short sale – and then some – need to stay in your account to offset the short position. Brokers require this. Typically, margin equivalent to 150% the market value of the shares sold short must be maintained in the account while the short position is open. The owner of the borrowed shares is still expecting his dividends, if any. You are responsible for covering the cost of those dividends out of your own pocket. To close or cover your short position, you initiate a buy to cover. This is simply a buy order with the intention that it will close out your matching short position. You may be forced to cover your short position before you want to and when it is to your disadvantage! Even if you have sufficient margin available to cover your short, there are cases when lenders need their shares back. If too many short sellers are forced to close out positions at the same time, they push up demand for the stock, increasing price and deepening their losses. When this happens, it's called a short squeeze. In the eyes of the public who mostly go long buying stock, short sellers are often reviled. However, some people and many short sellers believe they are providing balance to the market and preventing it sometimes from getting ahead of itself. [Disambiguation: A short sale in the stock market is not related to the real estate concept of a short sale, which is when a property owner sells his property for less than he owes the bank.] Additional references:\",\n \"\\\"With stocks, you can buy or sell. If you sell first, that's called 'shorting.' As in \\\"\\\"I think linkedin is too high, I'm going to short it.\\\"\\\" With options, the terminology is different, the normal process is to buy to open/sell to close, but if you were shorting the option itself, you would first sell to open, i.e you are selling a position to start it, effectively selling it short. Eventually, you may close it out, by buying to close. Options trading is not for the amateur. If you plan to trade, study first and be very cautious.\\\"\",\n \"Don't know the name but it means you're long with conviction :P Unlimited gains, maximum loss of 95$ + (8-6) = 97$. Basically You are long @ 107 - -2 from 105 to 95. You would have to be ULTRA bullish to initiate this strategy.\",\n \"If you buy puts, there are no guaranteed proceeds though. If you short against the box, you've got immediate proceeds with a nice capital loss if it doesn't work out. Conversely, you could write a covered call, take the contract proceeds, and write off the long position losses. Nobody ever factors tax consequences into the equation here.\",\n \"In Australia we have a 50% capital gain discount if you hold the asset for more than 12 months, whether it is in shares, property or other assets. The main reason is to encourage people to invest long-term instead of speculating or trading. The government sees speculation or short term trading as more risky than long term investing for the everyday mum and dad investor, so rewards people it sees taking the lower risk long term view. In my opinion, long term investing, short term trading and speculation can all be risky for someone who is unedutated in the financial markets, and the first rule of investing should be to consider the asset itself and not the tax implications.\",\n \"If it helps you to think about it, long is equivalent to betting for the upside and short is equivalent to betting for the downside. If you are long on options, then you expect the value of such options to increase. If you are long an option, then you own the option. If you are short an option, then generally you sold the option. Someone who is short a call (sometimes called the writer or occasionally the issuer) has sold a call option to someone who is now long a call. Buying a call option that will increase in value is itself a form of investment, just as it's investment to buy stock or other instruments hoping they will appreciate in value. An option's value will rise or fall with the underlying, so being long an option is a way to be long in the underlying. Someone can be long in a stock by buying the stock, or long in a call by buying call options in the stock. The long call generally requires less initial investment than buying the underlying, and lets the option-holder avoid the asset downside during the option term. The risk is that the asset may not appreciate to the point that the call option will pay off. In the conceptual sense, a share of stock is a particular right to the profits and assets of a corporation, both in form of dividends and in liquidation. An option is a particular right to the the share of stock. It's just a further way to formalize and subdivide the various property rights that exist in a corporation. If you can buy a piece of paper with particular rights to corporate profits and assets, then you can buy another piece of paper with particular rights to the former piece of paper.\",\n \"Let's consider that transaction cost is 0(zero) for calculation. In the scenario you have stated, maximum profit that could be made is 55$, however risk is unlimited. Hedging can also be used to limit your losses, let's consider this scenario. Stock ABC trading @ 100$, I'll buy the stock ABC @ 100$ and buy a put option of ABC @ strike price 90$ for a premium of 5$ with an expiration date of 1 month. Possible outcomes I end up in a loss in 3 out of 4 scenarios, however my loss is limited to 15$, whereas profit is unlimited.\",\n \"Profit = Sale price - Basis Basis = Purchase price - any depreciation taken, including expensing it.\",\n \"\\\"You are likely making an assumption that the \\\"\\\"Short call\\\"\\\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \\\"\\\"write\\\"\\\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\\\"\",\n \"E.g. I buy 1 stock unit for $100.00 and sell it later for $150.00 => income taxes arise. Correct. You pay tax on your gains, i.e.: the different between net proceeds and gross costs (proceeds sans fees, acquisition costs including fees). I buy 1 stock unit for $150.00 and sell it later for $100.00 => no income taxes here. Not correct. The loss is deductible from other capital gains, and if no other capital gains - from your income (up to $3000 a year, until exhausted). Also, there are two different tax rate sets for capital gains: short term (holding up to 1 year) and long term (more than that). Short term capital gains tax matches ordinary income brackets, whereas long term capital gains tax brackets are much lower.\",\n \"Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.\",\n \"\\\"There are situations where you can be forced to cover a position, particular when \\\"\\\"Reg SHO\\\"\\\" (\\\"\\\"regulation sho\\\"\\\") is activated. Reg SHO is intended to make naked short sellers cover their position, it is to prevent abusive failure to delivers, where someone goes short without borrowing someone else's shares. Naked shorting isn't a violation of federal securities laws but it becomes an accounting problem when multiple people have claims to the same underlying assets. (I've seen companies that had 120% of their shares sold short, too funny, FWIW the market was correct as the company was worth nothing.) You can be naked short without knowing it. So there can be times when you will be forced to cover. Other people being forced to cover can result in a short squeeze. A risk. The other downside is that you have to pay interest on your borrowings. You also have to pay the dividends to the owner of the shares, if applicable. In shorter time frames these are negligible, but in longer time frames, such as closer to a year or longer, these really add up. Let alone the costs of the market going in the opposite direction, and the commissions.\\\"\",\n \"There are many ways to calculate the return, and every way will give you a different results in terms of a percentage-value. One way to always get something meaningful - count the cash. You had 977 (+ 31) and in the end you have 1.370, which means you have earned 363 dollars. But what is your return in terms of percentage? One way to look at it, is by pretending that it is a fund in which you invest 1 dollar. What is the fund worth in the beginning and in the end? The tricky part in your example is, you injected new capital into the equation. Initially you invested 977 dollars which later, in the second period became worth 1.473. You then sold off 200 shares for 950 dollars. Remember your portfolio is still worth 1.473, split between 950 in cash and 523 in Shares. So far so good - still easy to calculate return (1.473 / 977 -1 = 50.8% return). Now you buy share for 981 dollars, but you only had 950 in cash? We now need to consider 2 scenarios. Either you (or someone else) injected 31 dollars into the fund - or you actually had the 31 dollars in the fund to begin with. If you already had the cash in the fund to begin with, your initial investment is 1.008 and not 977 (977 in shares and 31 in cash). In the end the value of the fund is 1.370, which means your return is 1.370 / 1.007 = 36%. Consider if the 31 dollars was paid in to the fund by someone other than you. You will then need to recalculate how much you each own of the fund. Just before the injection, the fund was worth 950 in cash and 387 in stock (310 - 200 = 110 x 3.54) = 1.339 dollars - then 31 dollars are injected, bringing the value of the fund up to 1.370. The ownership of the fund is split with 1.339 / 1.370 = 97.8% of the value for the old capital and 2.2% for the new capital. If the value of the fund was to change from here, you could calculate the return for each investor individually by applying their share of the funds value respective to their investment. Because the value of the fund has not changed since the last period (bullet 3), the return on the original investment is (977 / 1.339 - 1 = 37.2%) and the return on the new capital is (31 / 31 = 0%). If you (and not someone else) injected the 31 dollar into the fund, you will need to calculate the weight of each share of capital in each period and get the average return for each period to get to a total return. In this specific case you will still get 37.2% return - but it gets even more comlex for each time you inject new capital.\",\n \"Think of it this way: C + (-P) = forward contract. Work it out from there. Anyways, this stack is meant for professionals, not students, I think.\",\n \"Depends on the stock involved, but for the most part brokerages allow you gain entry at 50%, meaning you can short twice the cash on hand you have. Going forward, you need to maintain 30%, so on a $10,000 short, you'd have to maintain $3000 in your account. Example, an account with $5000 cash - You can short $10,000 securities. Let say 100 shares of xyz at $100 per share. After trade settles, you won't receive a margin call until your balance falls to $3000, probably right around the time xyz rises to $120 per share. Riskier stocks will have higher margin maintenance requirements - leveraged vehicles like FAS/FAZ (triple leveraged) require 90% margin (3x30%) if they are allowed to be 'shorted' at all.\",\n \"\\\"I know its not legal to have open long and short position on specific security (on two stock exchanges - NSE/BSE) There is nothing illegal about it. There are prescribed ways on how this is addressed. In Cash Segment / Intra Day trades: One can short sell a security. If by end of day he does not buy the security; it goes into Auction. The said security is purchased on your behalf. Any profit or loss arising out of this is charged to you. Similarly one can buy a security; if one does not pay the amount by end of day; it would go into auction and sold. Any profit or loss arising out of this is charged to you. If you short sell a security on one exchange; you have to buy it on same exchange. If you buy on other exchange; it will not be adjusted against this short position. Also is it legal to have long position on stock and short its derivative (future/option)? There are no restrictions. Edit: @yety Party A shorts 10 shares of HDFC today in Intra-Day Cash Segment purchased by Party B. Rather than buying back 10 shares or allowing it to go into auction... Party A borrows 10 HDFC Shares from \\\"\\\"X\\\"\\\" via SLB for a period of say 6 months [1 month to 1 year]. This is recorded as Party A obligation to \\\"\\\"X\\\"\\\". These 10 borrowed shares are transferred to Party B. So Party \\\"\\\"X\\\"\\\" doesn't have any HDFC shares at this point in time. However in exchange, Party X receives fees for borrowing from Party A. If there is dividend, are declared, Company pays Party B. However SLB recovers identical amount from Party A and pays Party X. If there is 1:1 split, now party A owes Party X 20 HDFC Shares. On maturity [after 6 months], Party A has to buy these from market and given back the borrowed shares to Party X. If there are some other corporate actions, i.e. mergers / amalgamations ... the obligation of Party A to Party X is closed immediately and position settled. Of course there are provisions whereby party A can pay back the shares earlier or party X can ask for shares earlier and there are rules/trades/mechanisms to facilitate this.\\\"\",\n \"When you buy a stock, the worst case scenario is that it drops to 0. Therefore, the most you can lose when buying a stock is 100% of your investment. When you short a stock, however, there's no limit on how high the stock can go. If you short a stock at 10, and it goes up to 30, then you've lost 200% on your investment. Therefore shorting stocks is riskier than buying stocks, since you can lose more than 100% of your investment when shorting. because the price might go up, but it will never be as big of a change as a regular price drop i suppose... That is not true. Stocks can sometimes go up significantly (50-100% or more) in a very short amount of time on a positive news release (such as an earnings or a buyout announcement). A famous example occurred in 2008, when Volkswagen stock quintupled (went up 400%) in less than 2 days on some corporate news: Porsche, for some reason, wants to control Volkswagen, and by building up its stake has driven up the price. Hedge funds, figuring the share price would fall as soon as Porsche got control and stopped buying, sold a lot of VW shares short. Then last weekend, Porsche disclosed that it owned 42.6 percent of the stock and had acquired options for another 31.5 percent. It said it wanted to go to 75 percent. The result: instant short-squeeze. The German state of Lower Saxony owns a 20 percent stake in VW, which it said it would not sell. That left precious few shares available for anyone else. The shorts scrambled to cover, and the price leaped from about €200, or about $265, to above €1,000.\",\n \"Your strategy of longing company(a) and shorting company(b) is flawed as the prices of company(a) and company(b) can both increase and though you are right , you will lose money due to the shorting strategy. You should not engage in pair trading , which is normally used for arbitrage purposes You should just buy company(a) since you believed its a better company compared to company(b) , its as simple as that\",\n \"\\\"RoR for options you bought is fairly easy: (Current Value-Initial Cost)/Initial Cost gives you the actual return. If you want the rate of return, you need to annualize that number: You divide the return you got above by the number of days the investment was in place, and then multiply that number by the number of days in a year. (365 if you're using calendar days, about 255 if you're using trading days.) RoR for options you sold is much more complex: The problem is that RoR is basically calculating the size of your return relative to the capital it tied up to earn it. That's simple when you bought something; the capital tied up is the money you put up. It's more complex on a position like a short option, where the specific transaction in question generates cash when it's put on. The correct way to deal with this is to A) Bundle your strategy (options, stock and collateral) into one RoR where appropriate, and B) include any needed collateral to support the short option in the calculation. So, if you sell a \\\"\\\"cash-secured\\\"\\\" put, where you have to post the money that you'd need to take delivery of the shares if they were put to you, the initial cost is the total amount you'd need to put the trade on: in this case, it's the cash amount, less the premium you collected for selling the put. That's just one example. But the approach holds more broadly: if you're using covered calls, your original cost is the cost of the stock less the premium generated by the sale of the call.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"at $8.50: total profit = $120.00 *basis of stock, not paid in cash, so not included in \\\"\\\"total paid\\\"\\\" at $8.50: total profit = $75.00\\\"\",\n \"You will be charged a stock borrow fee, which is inversely related to the relative supply of the stock you are shorting. IB claims to pay a rebate on the short proceeds, which would offset part or all of that fee, but it doesn't appear relevant in your case because: It is a bit strange to me that IB would not require you to keep the cash in your account, as they need the cash to collateralize the stock borrow with the lending institution. In fact, per Regulation T, the short position requires an initial margin of 150%, which includes the short proceeds. As described by Investopedia: In the first table of Figure 1, a short sale is initiated for 1,000 shares at a price of $50. The proceeds of the short sale are $50,000, and this amount is deposited into the short sale margin account. Along with the proceeds of the sale, an additional 50% margin amount of $25,000 must be deposited in the account, bringing the total margin requirement to $75,000. At this time, the proceeds of the short sale must remain in the account; they cannot be removed or used to purchase other securities. Here is a good answer to your question from The Street: Even though you might see a balance in your brokerage account after shorting a stock, you're actually looking at a false credit, according to one big brokerage firm. That money is acting as collateral for the short position. So, you won't have use of these funds for investment purposes and won't earn interest on it. And there are indeed costs associated with shorting a stock. The broker has to find stock to loan to you. That might come out of a broker's own inventory or might be borrowed from another stock lender.\",\n \"http://www.investopedia.com/university/shortselling/shortselling1.asp 'Therein lies the major risk of short selling, the fear of infinite losses. While the maximum loss for a long investor is the amount invested in a security, the maximum loss for a short seller is theoretically infinite, since there is no upper limit to a stock’s price appreciation. This risk is compounded by the fact that during a short squeeze or buy-in...' Never have shorted a stock. Too intimidated by that!\",\n \"\\\"Long here does not mean you wish for the underlying stock to increase in value, in fact, as the chart shows, just the opposite is true. \\\"\\\"Long means you bought the derivative, and you own the option. The guy that sold it to you is at your mercy, he is short the put, and it's your decision to put the stock to him should it fall in value. The value of the put itself rises with the falling stock price, you are long the put and want the put, itself, to rise in value.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"But what happen if the stock price went high and then go down near expiry date? When you hold a short (sold) call option position that has an underlying price that is increasing, what will happen (in general) is that your net margin requirements will increase day by day. Thus, you will be required to put up more money as margin to finance your position. Margin money is simply a \\\"\\\"good faith\\\"\\\" deposit held by your broker. It is not money that is debited as cash from the accounting ledger of your trading account, but is held by your broker to cover any potential losses that may arise when you finally settle you position. Conversely, when the underlying share price is decreasing, the net margin requirements will tend to decrease day by day. (Net margin is the net of \\\"\\\"Initial Margin\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"Variation Margin\\\"\\\".) As the expiry date approaches, the \\\"\\\"time value\\\"\\\" component of the option price will be decreasing.\\\"\",\n \"You don't mention any specific numbers, so I'll answer in generalities. Say I buy a call option today, and I short the underlying stock with the delta. The value will be the value of the option you bought less the value of the stock you are short. (your premium is not included in the value since it's a sunk cost, but is reflected in your profit/loss) So, say I go out and adjust my portfolio, so I am still delta short in the underlying. It's still the value of your options, less the value of the underlying you are short. What is my PnL over this period? The end value of your portfolio less what you paid for that value, namely the money you received shorting the underlyings less the premium you paid for the option.\",\n \"Contrary to what other people said I believe that even without leverage you can lose more that you invest when you short a FX. Why? because the amount it can go down is alwasy limited to zero but it can, potentially, go up without limit. See This question for a mored detailed information.\",\n \"\\\"Suddenly its not just comparing the current price to the price of the contract, or is it? Sure it is. Suppose you bought 100 option contracts (each for 100 shares) and paid a $1 per share premium ($10,000 total). Now those options are trading for $1.50 per share. You have an unrealized $0.50 gain per share, or $5,000. The $10,000 in options you bought are now worth $15,000. It holds whether they were bought to open or close a position, or whether they are puts or calls. The only difference is whether you bought or sold the options (the arithmetic is just reversed for selling an option). But lets say we have an Option, where the payoff is max(St-K, c0) where ct is the market price. What do you do then? Your current, unrealized P&L is different than the payoff. The payoff only happens at maturity. The current P&L is based on current market prices, just like stock. Option prices all have a \\\"\\\"time premium\\\"\\\" making them worth more than their payoff (intrinsic) value prior to maturity.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["There are different perspectives from which to calculate the gain, but the way I think it should be done is with respect to the risk you've assumed in the original position, which the simplistic calculation doesn't factor in. There's a good explanation about calculating the return from a short sale at Investopedia. Here's the part that I consider most relevant: [...] When calculating the return of a short sale, you need to compare the amount the trader gets to keep to the initial amount of the liability. Had the trade in our example turned against you, you (as the short seller) would owe not only the initial proceeds amount but also the excess amount, and this would come out of your pocket. [...] Refer to the source link for the full explanation. Update: As you can see from the other answers and comments, it is a more complex a Q&A than it may first appear. I subsequently found this interesting paper which discusses the difficulty of rate of return with respect to short sales and other atypical trades: Excerpt: [...] The problem causing this almost uniform omission of a percentage return on short sales, options (especially writing), and futures, it may be speculated, is that the nigh-well universal and conventional definition of rate of return involving an initial cash outflow followed by a later cash inflow does not appear to fit these investment situations. None of the investment finance texts nor general finance texts, undergraduate or graduate, have formally or explicitly shown how to resolve this predicament or how to justify the calculations they actually use. [...]","Simple math: 50-25=25, hence decline from 50 to 25 is a 50% decline (you lose half), while an advance from 25 to 50 is 100% gain (you gain 100%, double your 25 to 50). Their point is that if you have more upswings than downswings - you'll gain more on long positions during upswings than on short positions during downswings on average. Again - simple math.","The problem with rate of return calculation on short positions is, that the commonly used approach assumes an initial investment creating a cash outflow. If we want to apply this approach to short selling, we should look at the trade from another perspective. We buy money and pay for this money with stock. Our investment to buy 50$ in your example is 1 share. When closing the short position, we effectively sell back our money (50$) and receive 2 shares. Our profit on this position is obviously 1 share. Setting this in relation to our investment of 1 share yields a performance of 100% in reality, we do not sell back the entire cash but only the amount needed to get back our investment of 1 share. This is actually comparable to a purchase of stock which we only partially close to get back our invested cash amount and keep the remaining shares as our profit"],"string":"[\n \"There are different perspectives from which to calculate the gain, but the way I think it should be done is with respect to the risk you've assumed in the original position, which the simplistic calculation doesn't factor in. There's a good explanation about calculating the return from a short sale at Investopedia. Here's the part that I consider most relevant: [...] When calculating the return of a short sale, you need to compare the amount the trader gets to keep to the initial amount of the liability. Had the trade in our example turned against you, you (as the short seller) would owe not only the initial proceeds amount but also the excess amount, and this would come out of your pocket. [...] Refer to the source link for the full explanation. Update: As you can see from the other answers and comments, it is a more complex a Q&A than it may first appear. I subsequently found this interesting paper which discusses the difficulty of rate of return with respect to short sales and other atypical trades: Excerpt: [...] The problem causing this almost uniform omission of a percentage return on short sales, options (especially writing), and futures, it may be speculated, is that the nigh-well universal and conventional definition of rate of return involving an initial cash outflow followed by a later cash inflow does not appear to fit these investment situations. None of the investment finance texts nor general finance texts, undergraduate or graduate, have formally or explicitly shown how to resolve this predicament or how to justify the calculations they actually use. [...]\",\n \"Simple math: 50-25=25, hence decline from 50 to 25 is a 50% decline (you lose half), while an advance from 25 to 50 is 100% gain (you gain 100%, double your 25 to 50). Their point is that if you have more upswings than downswings - you'll gain more on long positions during upswings than on short positions during downswings on average. Again - simple math.\",\n \"The problem with rate of return calculation on short positions is, that the commonly used approach assumes an initial investment creating a cash outflow. If we want to apply this approach to short selling, we should look at the trade from another perspective. We buy money and pay for this money with stock. Our investment to buy 50$ in your example is 1 share. When closing the short position, we effectively sell back our money (50$) and receive 2 shares. Our profit on this position is obviously 1 share. Setting this in relation to our investment of 1 share yields a performance of 100% in reality, we do not sell back the entire cash but only the amount needed to get back our investment of 1 share. This is actually comparable to a purchase of stock which we only partially close to get back our invested cash amount and keep the remaining shares as our profit\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":165,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"6278"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"What is the best way to help my dad consolidate his credit card debt at a lower rate?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["138511","63698"],"string":"[\n \"138511\",\n \"63698\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["63698","423569","209849","138511","36826","571246","481898","441836","145937","333391","113822","58071","120837","430911","361698","289982","10790","201982","508510","19479","364567","200268","257483","559523","509883","300660","515815","60996","205715","45457","40312","69938","497672","2519","355605","108514","274690","508952","545991","21174","321136","233892","346024","350980","231105","83411","241070","221605","205420","19793","439003","466707","344244","329817","319915","127185","268849","340520","394298","96666","534158","156873","220710","991","592325","481822","394467","398090","555280","20610","28191","395379","598428","364361","423816","37310","553756","588197","406340","271525","194563","21325","249643","179808","70444","30623","563030","273095","284827","55084","547835","412142","578885","372993","517361","348726","423503","537716","414674","157923"],"string":"[\n \"63698\",\n \"423569\",\n \"209849\",\n \"138511\",\n \"36826\",\n \"571246\",\n \"481898\",\n \"441836\",\n \"145937\",\n \"333391\",\n \"113822\",\n \"58071\",\n \"120837\",\n \"430911\",\n \"361698\",\n \"289982\",\n \"10790\",\n \"201982\",\n \"508510\",\n \"19479\",\n \"364567\",\n \"200268\",\n \"257483\",\n \"559523\",\n \"509883\",\n \"300660\",\n \"515815\",\n \"60996\",\n \"205715\",\n \"45457\",\n \"40312\",\n \"69938\",\n \"497672\",\n \"2519\",\n \"355605\",\n \"108514\",\n \"274690\",\n \"508952\",\n \"545991\",\n \"21174\",\n \"321136\",\n \"233892\",\n \"346024\",\n \"350980\",\n \"231105\",\n \"83411\",\n \"241070\",\n \"221605\",\n \"205420\",\n \"19793\",\n \"439003\",\n \"466707\",\n \"344244\",\n \"329817\",\n \"319915\",\n \"127185\",\n \"268849\",\n \"340520\",\n \"394298\",\n \"96666\",\n \"534158\",\n \"156873\",\n \"220710\",\n \"991\",\n \"592325\",\n \"481822\",\n \"394467\",\n \"398090\",\n \"555280\",\n \"20610\",\n \"28191\",\n \"395379\",\n \"598428\",\n \"364361\",\n \"423816\",\n \"37310\",\n \"553756\",\n \"588197\",\n \"406340\",\n \"271525\",\n \"194563\",\n \"21325\",\n \"249643\",\n \"179808\",\n \"70444\",\n \"30623\",\n \"563030\",\n \"273095\",\n \"284827\",\n \"55084\",\n \"547835\",\n \"412142\",\n \"578885\",\n \"372993\",\n \"517361\",\n \"348726\",\n \"423503\",\n \"537716\",\n \"414674\",\n \"157923\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["I agree with you that you need to consolidate this debt using a loan. It may be hard to find a bank or credit organization that will give you an unsecured personal loan for that much money. I know of one, called Lending Club (Disclaimer - I'm an investor on this platform. Not trying to advertise, it's just the only place I know of off the top of my head) that facilitates loans like this, but instead of a bank financing the loan, the loan is split up accross hundreds of investors who each contribute a small amount (such as $25). They have rates anywhere between 5-30%, based on your credit profile(s), and I believe they have some loan amounts that go up to the area that you're discussing. Regarding buying the house - The best thing you can do when trying to buy a house is to save up a 20% downpayment, if at all possible. Below this amount, you may be asked to pay for 'PMI' - Private Mortgage Insurance. This is a charge that doesn't go away for quite a while (until you've paid them 20% of the appraised value of the home), where you pay a premium because you didn't have the 20% downpayment for the house. I would suggest you try to eliminate your credit card debt as soon as possible, and would recommend the same for your father. Getting your utilization down and reconsolidating the large debts with a loan will help to reduce interest charges and get you a reasonable, fixed payment. Whether you decide to pay off your own balances using your savings account is up to you; if it were me, personally, I'd do so immediately rather than trying to pay it off over time. But if you lose money to taxes by withdrawing the money from your 'tax free savings account', it may not be a beneficial situation. Treat debt, especially credit card debt, like an emergency at all times, and you'll find yourself in a better place as a result. Credit card debt and balances are and should be temporary, and their rates and fees are structured that way. If, for any reason, you expect that a credit card's balance will remain for an extended period of time, you may want to consider whether it would be advantageous for you to consolidate the debt into a loan, instead.","I wouldn't worry about his credit score. The hit from a credit inquiry is not that big and it's absolutely worth it in the long run. I suggest you sign him up for a free budgeting app (just google budgeting app) that will help him not only take control of his spending but also help him with his loans. Transferring debt comes with a few caveats: His credit score is bad so I don't know if he'll be able to get 0% loan, but even if he gets 6% - 8% that will save him money; just don't forget about the transfer fee. If he has checking/savings account it's worth talking to that bank first - they might be able to give him a better deal for being their customer. Also if he tells them his story and credit score they might be able to give him an idea what they can offer him without doing a credit check. Another option is to become a member of a local credit union - they have great rates on loans / credit cards. Credit card or personal loan doesn't matter much, whatever he can get. With his credit score I doubt he'll be able to get a good rate at Chase or one of the other big credit card companies. Good luck.","Consolidation makes sense, if your friend has his act together and isn't going to run up more debt. Finding a lender will be tough. I'd suggest trying local credit unions, making sure first that there has been NO late or missed payments for 6-9 months. You need to talk to a human at a local lender who will give you informal guidance about what you need to approve, so you don't end up getting lots of declinations. If its more than $10k, it will be hard to get a loan like this from anyone. In that case, you need to focus on the smallest debts first, because your friend's cash flow is going to be pinched by making payments to multiple creditors. It's critical to pay all creditors on time for at least the minimum amount due. The problem is, once you start paying things down, the creditors will start ratcheting down credit limits. When that happens, you're at greater risk for getting nabbed with fees and higher minimum payments, which may be considered a universal default by other lenders. There isn't alot of detail here, but depending on income and the amount of debt, your friend should be prepared to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.","Are you doing the right thing? Yes, paying back some of the expense of college is a great way to show your gratitude. Could your sister also pitch in a little to help pay the debt down? Will you get approved for a $30,000 unsecured loan? You don't mention your credit rating but that will have an effect obviously. You might consider visiting a credit union with your father and co-signing a loan since it is his debt that you are assuming. You might still want to write a loan for your dad to sign even if he isn't co-signed on a loan. This could protect you in case of his death if there are other assets to divide. If you are not approved for a loan, you could also simply join your dad in paying down the highest-rate cards first and have a loan agreement for him to pay back that money if/when it is possible. You've mentioned that you have no collateral. There aren't many options for loans with no collateral. Your dad's bank or a credit union might consider a debt consolidation loan with you as a co-signer. That's why I mentioned going to a credit union. Talking to a loan officer at a local financial institution will make it easier to get approved. If they see that you are taking responsible steps to pay off the debt, that reduces your credit risk. If you do get a debt consolidation loan, they will probably ask your dad to close some credit card accounts.","\"Your companies are declining to lower your rates because you are describing it as being kind. When I was in a similar situation, I called each one, starting with the highest rate, and said this: For the last little while things have been tight and my balances have crept up on all my cards. Now I'm about to start a fairly dramatic paydown. I'm going to be doing highest-rate fastest, which is you. Are you able to lower my rate so that you can continue to collect it? Some said no. Some said \"\"ask again when you've paid more than the minimum three months in a row.\"\" Most said yes, and sometimes by a dramatic amount. It made a real difference to getting things under control. I agree with the other answers that $50 extra on each card is just not as fulfilling as putting all the extra to a single card. If you must still use a card (to put gas in your car, buy groceries etc) getting one card to zero will return you to not paying interest even when you use it, so you might want to start with your lowest balance and then go to highest-rate once you have one clear one you can use. (If your balances are all so high that it will take a year or more to get one to zero, then maybe not. But if one is low drive it down first.) As for the consolidation loan, for some people it's the key to saving interest and getting the debt behind them. For others it's a chance to catch their breath and run up even more debt. Most people cannot predict in advance which they will be or which others will be. Be aware that it is a risk. You can vow that you will never again cover payroll with a cash advance from the company credit card (or your personal one) but when push comes to shove, you just might anyway.\"","To confirm: you say you have credit card debt of $18,000 with min. repayment of $466.06, plus on top of this you are also paying off a car loan and another personal loan. From my calculations if your monthly interest on your credit card is $237, the interest on your credit card should be about 15.8% p.a. Is this correct? Balance Transfer If you did a balance transfer of your $18,000 to a new credit card with 0% for 14 months and keep your repayments the same ($466) you would have saved yourself a bit over $3020 in interest over those 14 months. Your credit card balance after 14 months would be about $11,471 (instead of $14,476 with your current situation). If your interest after the 14 months went back to 15.8% you would be able to pay the remaining $11,471 in 2.5 more years (keeping repayments at $466), saving 10 months off your repayments and a total of $4,781 in interest over 3 years and 8 months. The main emphasis here is that you are able to keep your repayments at least the same so you are able to pay off the debt quicker, and that your interest rate on the new credit card after the 14 months interest free is not more than your current interest rate of 15.8%. Things you should be careful about if you take this path: Debt Consolidation In regards to a Debt Consolidation for your personal loan and credit card (and possibly your car loan) into a single lower interest rate loan can be a good idea, but there are some pitfalls you should consider. Manly, if you are taking out a loan with a lower interest rate but a longer term to pay it off, you may end up paying less in monthly repayments but will end up paying more interest in the long run. If you do take this course of action try to keep your term to no longer than your current debt's terms, and try to keep your repayments as high as possible to pay the debt off as soon as possible and reduce any interest you have to pay. As you already have you credit card and personal loan with CBA talk to them to see what kind of deal they can give you. Again be wary of the fine print and read the PDS of any products you are thinking of getting. Refer to ASIC - Money Smart website for more valuable information you should consider before taking out any debt consolidation. Other Action You Can Take If you are finding that the repayments are really getting out of hand and no one will help you with any debt consolidation or reducing your interest rates on your debts, as a last resort you can apply for a Part 9 debt agreement. But be very careful as this is an alternative to bankruptcy, and like bankruptcy a debt agreement will appear on your credit file for seven years and your name will be listed on the National Personal Insolvency Index forever. Further Assistance and Help If you have trouble reading any PDS, or want further information or help regarding any issues I have raised or any other part of your financial situation you can contact Centrelink's Financial Information Service. They provide a free and confidential service that provides education and information on financial and lifestyle issues to all Australians.","\"The best way I know of to get the interest rate lowered is to call the credit card company and simply ask. Typically if a credit card company thinks you will leave them for another company they will be willing to work with you. There is also the option of transfering some of the higher interest debt to one of the lower interest credit cards. It sounds like you have your friend on the right track by focusing all extra money on the credit card with the highest interest rate. Then after that one is paid off send all extra to the next highest one and so on. The classic \"\"snowball\"\" effect.\"","You should also look outside the box. There are non profit credit relief organizations that will give you free credit counseling. Don't pay for it though. There are some organizations that are shady in offering counseling but they wreck your credit by asking you to stop making your payments. Some of the legitimate organizations out there have ties to credit unions and banks that can offer you some loans to consolidate your debt at rates lower than those you mentioned in your questions. You should probably also approach a credit union directly and discuss debt consolidation loan options. Even if you can only knock out the debts with the highest interest rate, that's a good first step.","\"The bottom line is that this just does not work, and as such you should not do it. Here is a question that you really need to think about: How will you handle non-payments? How will you handle it when they talk about purchases they made or vacations they went on when they have been short for the last three months? Yes, it will happen. The majority of people who engage in debt consolidation, which you are proposing, end up with the consolidated debt and more consumer debt. One cannot borrow themselves out of debt. Carrying credit card debt is a sign of poor money management and improper spending behavior. That behavior will not change if you \"\"bail them out\"\" with the consolidation. They need to find a way to work their way out of this situation by budgeting, living a more austere lifestyle, and earning more. Encouraging them to do so will serve them far better then your generous attempts to reduce the pain of their own making. In the end it is always a parent's desire to help their children. If you can afford to give, then it is well within your right to do so. It is also within your right to qualify that giving with behavioral conditions. However, if you cannot afford to give, it is best not to loan.\"","You are on the right path. Especially for the fact that you are paying the highest rate card with highest priority. As long as your credit score will not stop you from getting the credit union loan, this is a great idea. It will turn the highest rate card(s) into something more reasonable and let you continue to attack principal instead of mostly paying interest.","\"Typically you can use credit card balance transfers to consolidate some, or all, of your other loan balances in one place. The interest rate might be lower. Some prefer to make one payment rather than multiple payments. There is typically a fee that is imposed by the card that is originating or creating the loan. This would be the credit card you are transferring the balances. That fee is typically in the 3% to 5% range. While tempting and attractive on the surface, this plan typically leads to a worse situation then you are now. It's a \"\"tough pill to swallow\"\", but your problem is that you spend too much money. Transferring money will not change this problem, it is your behavior that has to change in order to not accumulate more debt. It has to change further if you want to get rid of the debt in a timely fashion. You would be far better served to forget about this transfer and get your life into control. Spend a lot less, earn more. Pay off the cards you have now and cut them up. Make a goal to be done in a year and figure out how to earn enough money to make that happen. BTW I am a reformed over-spender that now owes nothing. Yep my house, cars, and rental property are all paid for. You can get there too.\"","Why not just get a consolidated loan for 15K, and then $20K zero transfer? The Loan will have a payoff on the amount borrowed, probably a fixed payment which would be more than double the payment as if it were only $15K to start. That make sense? If you are approved for both pieces of this, it should help, what is going to be the rate on the loan? The process you are starting has 3 aspects - cut spending, reduce interest, minimize payment obligations. If you do anything to earn more, even a few hours a week it will add up. I would not reduce any credit lines. In a perfect world, you will have a buffer of money to cover any expense. Until then, available access to money is important, but of course to be used either for emergencies or when cash is there to pay the bill in full when it comes in.","The debt on Credit Cards is pretty high. Its in the range of 30-40% APR. There could also be a case very high personal loan for medical or other personal emergencies at a rate in excess of 15%. The debt consolidation would offer this at a very low APR There are institutions that offer debt consolidation services that would consolidate all your debt into a single loan at a lower rate of interest. They would also negotiate with all your lenders to waive charges and accrued interests to the max extent. The benefit to the institution offering this service is that they have a larger loan on books and hence the servicing cost is less. Most of the time the debt consolidation is offered with some asset as the guarantee for the new loan. By doing this the advantages are: Of course if you are looking for the balance transfer on cards to new one, then its same and in fact may at times be more expensive.","A good resource for this type of help is the National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC). They provide free and low-cost credit counselors who can... Most importantly, avoid those for-profit debt consolidation companies. They are ripoffs.","Short-term, getting a balance transfer will help. It'll reduce the interest you pay. You can also reduce the interest you pay on your cars if you are able to consolidate your debt into a personal loan. To your question about debt consolidation companies, as far as I know, that's all they do. However, long-term, there's only two ways to stay on top of debt: increase your income, or reduce your spending. Basically, if you can't or won't get a raise or a job that pays more (or a second job), you need to cut back on your spending. You might need to do something radical, like move somewhere with cheaper rent (as long as increased travel costs doesn't offset the saving). But you'll be much better off in the long run if you step back and take a look at your situation now, and make adjustments accordingly.","\"In addition to dpassage's excellent advice on dealing with your debt in the most efficient manner, you may also want to consider Consumer Credit Counseling Services (CCCS). These are non-profit agencies (free or low-cost) that can work with you and your creditors to come up with payment plans and sometimes negotiate lower interest rates to help you get out from under the debt. You should definitely avoid for-profit \"\"debt consolidation\"\" companies, but the National Foundation for Credit Counseling can refer you to non-profit services in your area.\"","\"I've done exactly what you are describing and it was a great move for me. A few years back I had two credit cards. One had a $6000 balance and a fairly high interest rate that I was making steady payments to (including interest). The other was actually tied to a HELOC (home equity line of credit) whose interest rate was fixed to \"\"prime\"\", which was very low at the time, I think my effective rate on the card was around 3%. So, I pulled out one of the \"\"cash advance checks\"\" from the HELOC account and paid off the $6000 balance. Then I started making my monthly payments against the balance on the HELOC, and paid it off a bit more quickly and with less overall money spent because I was paying way less interest. Another, similar, tactic is to find a card that doesn't charge fees for balance transfers and that has a 0% interest rate for the first 12 months on transferred balances. I am pretty sure they are out there. Open an account on that card, transfer the balance to it, and pay it down within 12 months. And, try not to use the card for anything else if you can help it.\"","Take the consolidation loan and pay it off. Don't close the card. Opening a new account will have no bearing on your mortgage a year or two down the road. Keep paying on time -- that will make a big difference! JohnFX's suggestion to open a new card and do a transfer is a great idea if you have good credit. Just read the fine print -- most cards charge a 3-5% transfer fee and some cards accrue interest if you don't pay within the promotional period.","If you hadn't done it already cut up the cards. Don't close the accounts because it could hurt your credit score even more. Switching some or all of the CC debt onto low rate cards, or a debt consolidation loan is a way that some people use to reduce their credit card payments. The biggest risk is that you become less aggressive with the loan payback. If you were planning on paying $800 in minimum payments,plus $200 extra each month; then still pay $1000 with the new loan and remaining credit cards. Another risk is that you start overusing the credit card again, because you have available credit on the card that was paid off with the loan. The third risk, which you haven't proposed, occurs when people switch unsecured credit card dept, to a secured 2nd mortgage debt. This then puts the family home at risk.","You can take a out loan against your 401k, which means you won't be penalized for the withdrawal. You will have to pay that amount back though, but it can help since the interest will be lower than a lot of credit card rates. You could refinance your home if you can get a reasonable interest rate. You could also get a 0% APR balance transfer credit card and transfer the balance and pay it off that way. There are a lot of options. I would contact a Credit Counselor and explore further options. The main objective is to get you out of debt, not put you more in debt - whether that is refinancing your mortgage, cashing in an annuity, etc.","Obviously the best way to consolidate the real-estate loans is with a real-estate loan. Mortgages, being secured loans, provide much better interest rates. Also, interest can be deducted to some extent (depending on how the proceeds are used, but up to $100K of the mortgage can have deductible interest just for using the primary residence as a collateral). Last but not least, in many states mortgages on primary residence are non-recourse (again, may depend on the money use). That may prove useful if in the future your mother runs into troubles repaying it. So yes, your instincts are correct. How to convince your mother - that's between you and her.","\"In the sole interest of improving your credit score, the thing you should focus on is lowering your overall utilization. The best thing you could do for this would be to get a loan to reconsolidate your credit card debts into a single, long term loan. The impact of this is that your credit card utilization, assuming the loan covers 100% of your balances, will suddenly drop to 0%, as you'll no longer have a balance on the cards. Additionally, at this point, with a consolidation loan, you'll be building loan history by making steady, fixed payments on the loan. The loan will also, ideally, have a significantly lower interest rate than the cards, and thus will save you money that you'd otherwise be spending on interest. A lot of others here will feed you some additonal, irrelevant advice - \"\"Pay off X credit card first!\"\"; Ideally, you need to eliminate this debt. But to directly address the question of how you could improve your credit score, based on your utilization, I believe the best option would be for you to reconsolidate your credit card debt into a single loan, to reduce your utilization on the cards.\"","\"First of all, congratulations on admitting your problem and on your determination to be debt-free. Recognizing your mistakes is a huge first step, and getting rid of your debt is a very worthwhile goal. When considering debt consolidation, there are really only two reasons to do so: Reason #1: To lower your monthly payment. If you are having trouble coming up with enough money to meet your monthly obligations, debt consolidation can lower your monthly payment by extending the time frame of the debt. The problem with this one is that it doesn't help you get out of debt faster. It actually makes it longer before you are out of debt and will increase the total amount of interest that you will pay to the banks before you are done. So I would not recommend debt consolidation for this reason unless you are truly struggling with your cashflow because your minimum monthly payments are too high. In your situation, it does not sound like you need to consolidate for this reason. Reason #2: To lower your interest rate. If your debt is at a very high rate, debt consolidation can lower your interest rate, which can reduce the time it will take to eliminate your debt. The consolidation loan you are considering is at a high interest rate on its own: 13.89%. Now, it is true that some of your debt is higher than that, but it looks like the majority of your debt is less than that rate. It doesn't sound to me that you will save a significant amount of money by consolidating in this loan. If you can obtain a better consolidation loan in the future, it might be worth considering. From your question, it looks like your reasoning for the consolidation loan is to close the credit card accounts as quickly as possible. I agree that you need to quit using the cards, but this can also be accomplished by destroying the cards. The consolidation loan is not needed for this. You also mentioned that you are considering adding $3,000 to your debt. I have to say that it doesn't make sense at all to me to add to your debt (especially at 13.89%) when your goal is to eliminate your debt. To answer your question explicitly, yes, the \"\"cash buffer\"\" from the loan is a very bad idea. Here is what I recommend: (This is based on this answer, but customized for you.) Cut up/destroy your credit cards. Today. You've already recognized that they are a problem for you. Cash, checks, and debit cards are what you need to use from now on. Start working from a monthly budget, assigning a job for every dollar that you have. This will allow you to decide what to spend your money on, rather than arriving at the end of the month with no idea where your money was lost. Budgeting software can make this task easier. (See this question for more information. Your first goal should be to put a small amount of money in a savings account, perhaps $1000 - $1500 total. This is the start of your emergency fund. This money will ensure that if something unexpected and urgent comes up, you won't be so cash poor that you need to borrow money again. Note: this money should only be touched in an actual emergency, and if spent, should be replenished as soon as possible. At the rate you are talking about, it should take you less than a month to do this. After you've got your small emergency fund in place, attack the debt as quickly and aggressively as possible. The order that you pay off your debts is not significant. (The optimal method is up for debate.) At the rate you suggested ($2,000 - 2,500 per month), you can be completely debt free in maybe 18 months. As you pay off those credit cards, completely close the accounts. Ignore the conventional wisdom that tells you to leave the unused credit card accounts open to try to preserve a few points on your credit score. Just close them. After you are completely debt free, take the money that you were throwing at your debt, and use it to build up your emergency fund until it is 3-6 months' worth of your expenses. That way, you'll be able to handle a small crisis without borrowing anything. If you need more help/motivation on becoming debt free and budgeting, I recommend the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey.\"","Get a loan at a decent interest rate and use that to pay off all of the credit cards. Then pay into that loan and leave the credit cards alone. Cancel them and don't use them. Credit card debt is possibly the worst kind of debt. So expensive. It's not designed for long term borrowing. It's designed to be paid off completely every month. Get a single loan and consolidate all your debt into it. It will have a lower interest rate and cost you a lot less in the long term.","It doesn't really make sense to cure indebtedness with more debt. This is why your friend is having trouble finding someone to loan him money. If he can't borrow at a lower rate then he should probably focus on paying down some of his debt.","Go where your money is treated best. If you can lower your APR, great. It should help a little bit with getting a mortgage if you can reduce your payment. Your debt-to-income ratio would go down.","As someone with a lot of student loan debt, I can relate - the first thing you should do is read the promissory note on your current loans - there might be information there you can use. For govt loans (stafford, etc) made after July 1, 2006 the interest rate is going to be fixed and even a federal direct consolidation is not going to lower the rates themselves. If anything, consolidation will just increase the repayment period, which means you'll end up paying more in the long run. Most private Loans usually offer variable interest rates, which today are quite low. But unless your financial situation is very comfortable and stable, consolidating out of federally guaranteed loans into private loans might not be the best path. You might lose options like deferment, forbearance, and maybe even things like a death benefit (if you die, your loans die with you). related - if you have a co-signer you don't get that death benefit! But refinancing into a variable rate private loan is going to push a lot of risk to you in terms of interest rate inflation, etc. Most financial professionals will agree that interest rates can only go up in the long run. Keep in mind, student loans are completely unsecured - meaning lenders are taking a fairly large risk in loaning money (and probably why the fed govt has to guarantee most of them). I've heard of people borrowing against their home equity to pay down student loan debt - but I can't think of a reason you'd want to substitute secured for unsecured debt and possibly lose the loan interest tax deduction. The bottom line is you're unlikely to find an alternative lending source at a lower interest rate for an unsecured student loan. Another option may be the income based repayment plan. If you qualify, it caps student loan monthly payments at 15% of your discretionary income (discretionary is your income minus whatever the poverty threshold income amount is). And if that 15% doesn't even cover the interest on the loans, the govt picks up the tab for the difference (for up to 3 years). You have to re-qualify every year by sending in all sorts of documentation, but if you somehow stay on IBR for 25 years, your loans are then forgiven. Obviously the downside here is that you are probably paying little to no principal, but if you do the math and determine that your IBR payment would be next to nothing, and your current situation is barely paying interest-only... well, maybe IBR isn't a bad thing for a couple of years (or 25 if you think you will never have a larger income). Personally, I went through all these options as well and decided that my best option was to just earn more money... a 2nd job or side project here and there helps me pay down the debt faster, and with less risk, than moving to private variable rate loans.","\"I don't recommend balance transfers. Like many credit card things, they distract you with shiny (\"\"0 percent interest!\"\") and ream you on a 'balance transfer fee'. If you have a decent credit score and working relationship, talk to banks about opening what's called a 'signature loan,' and use that to shift the debt to a lower rate. A local credit union advertises rates 'as low as' 9.75 percent. Which is itself a shiny that you may not qualify for. The really low loans rates you see are secured loans; if you don't pay, they can take the collateral.\"","\"From the comments, it sounds like you have a technical background. So I'm going to suggest you think of this as a technical problem: it's an optimization problem, where the variable you're trying to optimize for is total interest paid over the lifetime of the loans. Step 1 is making sure you're using the credit available to you most efficiently. If there's room in the credit limit for card #1 to move more of your debt there, then definitely move your balances from the higher-interest cards. However, be careful; some cards will have different interest rates for balance transfers or cash advances. And definitely don't move any principal from Card #3 until the 0% interest rate expires. Pursuing a bank loan as part of step 1 is valid as well. You could start with the bank you use for your checking account today. Credit unions can be a good source of lower-interest loans as well. Ensure that you fully understand the terms and interest rates, particularly if they change. Just be careful about applying for them; too many rejections can affect your credit rating negatively. You also mention in the comments that you're paying \"\"her\"\" mortgage. I don't know how the ownership is set up there, but either refinancing or taking out a home equity loan can be a way to consolidate debt. The interest rate on a home loan will almost assuredly be less than on your higher rate cards, especially taking the tax deduction into account. Step 2 is paying down the debt efficiently. The rule here is simple: Pay the minimum payment on all cards except for the one with the highest interest rate; any money you have above the minimum payments should go into paying down the principal on that one. In your case, that's Card #2. Good luck!\"","You need to pay off the entire balance of 7450 as soon as possible. This should be your primary financial goal at this point above anything else. A basic structure that you can follow is this: Is the £1500 balance with the 39.9% interest rate the obvious starting point here? Yes, that is fine. But all the cards and overdraft debts need to be treated with the same urgency! What are the prospects for improving my credit score in say the next 6-12 months enough to get a 0% balance transfer or loan for consolidation? This should not be a primary concern of yours if you want to move on with your financial life. Debt consolidation will not help you achieve the goals you have described (home ownership, financial stability). If you follow the advice here, by the time you get to the point of being eligible, you may not see enough savings in interest to make it worth the hassle. Focus on the hard stuff and pay off the balances. Is that realistic, or am I looking at a longer term struggle? You are looking at a significant struggle. If it was easy you would not be asking this question! The length of time will be determined by your choices: how aggressively you will cut your lifestyle, take on extra jobs, and place additional payments on your debt. By being that extreme, you will actually start to see progress, which will be encouraging. If you go in half-committed, your progress will show as much and it will be demotivating. Much of your success will hinge on your mental and emotional toughness to push through the hard work of delaying pleasure and paying off these balances. That is just my personal experience, so you can take it or leave it. :) The credit score will take care of itself if you follow this method, so don't worry about it. Good Luck!","I would personally look at consolidating your debt at a lower interest rate by refinancing your mortgage. I would leave any retirement funds alone unless it was absolutely necessary to touch it with no other avenues available. However, once you have consolidated your debt into the mortgage I would pay more than the minimum amount so that you don't take too long to pay it off. I would put about 50% of the freed-up cash flow back into the repayments, that way you will be paying more debt off quicker and you will have additional cash flow to help your monthly budget. Another good point would be to go through your monthly budget to see if there is any expenses you could reduce or eliminate.","If your credit is good, you should immediately attempt to refinance your high rate credit cards by transferring the balance to credit cards with lower interest rates.You might want to check at your local credit union, credit unions can offer great rates. Use the $4000 to pay off whatever is left on the high rate cards. If your credit is bad, I suggest you call your credit card company and try to negotiate with them. If they consider you a risk they might settle your account for fraction of what you own if you can send payment immediately. Don't tell them you have money, just tell them your are trying to get your finances under control and see what they can offer you. This will damage your credit score but will get you out of depth much sooner and save you money in the long term. Also keep in mind that if they do settle, they'll close your account. That way, you leverage the $4000 and use it as a tool to get concessions from the bank.","Depending on your credit score you might be able to balance transfer to a lower rate. Credit is still cheap, with a good credit score you should be able to get ~ 6%, maybe even lower if you go through a credit union. Given you return is 13% (!!) I would not divert money from that.","\"The first thing I'd do is to find out your credit (FICO) score. If you have a good one, try to get another card with a lower rate. Then call up the lender, point to your good score, and your alternatives. If you have a bad score, do nothing. \"\"Let sleeping dogs lie.\"\"\"","\"My answer is similar to Ben Miller's, but let me make some slightly different points: There is one excellent reason to get a consolidation loan: You can often get a lower interest rate. If you are presently paying 19% on a credit card and you can roll that into a personal loan at 13.89%, you'll be saving over 5%, which can add up. I would definitely not consolidate a loan at 12.99% into a loan at 13.89%. Then you're just adding 1% to your interest rate. What's the benefit in this? Another good reasons for a consolidation loan is psychological. A consolidation loan with fixed payments forces you to pay that amount every month. You say you have trouble with credit cards. It's very easy to say to yourself, \"\"Oh, just this month I'm going to pay just the minimum so I can use my cash for this other Very Important Thing that I need to buy.\"\" And then next month you find something else that you just absolutely have to buy. And again the next month, and the next, and your determination to seriously pay down your debt keeps getting pushed off. If you have a fixed monthly payment, you can't. You're committed. Also, if you have many credit cards, juggling payments on all of them can get complex and confusing. It's easy to lose track of how much you owe and to budget for payments. At worst, when there are many bills to pay you may forget one. (Personally I now have 3 bank cards, an airline card, and 2 store cards, and managing them is getting out of hand. I have good reasons for having so many cards: the airline card and the store cards give me special discounts. But it's confusing to keep track of.) As to adding $3,000 to the consolidation loan: Very, very bad idea. You are basically saying, \"\"I have to start seriously paying down my debt ... tomorrow. Today I need a some extra cash so I'm going to borrow just a little bit more, but I'm going to get started paying it off next month.\"\" This is a trap, and the sort of trap that leads people into spiraling debt. Start paying off debt NOW, not at some vague time in the future that never seems to come.\"","Before we were married my wife financed a car at a terrible rate. I think it was around 20%. When trying to refinance it the remaining loan was much larger than the value of the car, so no one was interested in refinancing. I was able to do a balance transfer to a credit card around 10%. This did take on a bit of risk, which almost came up when the car was totaled in an accident. Fortunately the remaining balance was now less than the value of the car, otherwise I would have been stuck with a credit card payment and no vehicle.","Some things you should consider: Balance Transfer Debt Consolidation If you get approved for the Citibank 2 year interest free credit card on balance transfers, you will need another loan of $18K to consolidate your other debt. If you cannot get approval for the credit card you may need to get consolidation loan approval for your full $35K of debt. This approval again will depend on your income and your ability to make repayments. As it sounds like you don't have any assets, you may have to get an unsecured loan which comes with higher interest rates. Remember a consolidation loan is only worthwhile if you can get an interest rate lower than your current interest rates and if you pay as much as possible to reduce the term of the loan and the total interest you end up paying. You haven't given the interest rate for the consolidation loan, but lets assume you could get one at 12% p.a. over a 3 year period. For a loan of $18K you would have to pay $138 per week. Together with the $163.50 per week you would have to pay the credit card balance transfer, your total repayments per week for the first 2 years would be $301.50, then $138 per week for the 3rd year. This option sounds affordable, but without knowing what your income and current expenses are it is hard for others to determine for sure. If you had to get a consolidated loan for the full $35K at say 12% p.a. then your weekly repayments would be $268.30 over a 3 year period. This looks to be achievable too. Being Disciplined As you said you will need to be very disciplined in order to get out of this debt. You will need to set up a proper budget and watch every dollar you spend. You will need to restrict any spending on credit cards and getting any new personal loans. You say you will keep a small credit limit to pay for ongoing online payments for courses. Make sure you uses a 55 day interest free credit card (preferably with no annual fee) for this and pay the full amount due every month, so you don't end up paying any more interest on this card. In case of death would my debts pass on to my next of kin or family? If your debts are unsecured (which personal loans and credit cards are), then no your next of kin or family will not have to pay your debts if you die. When you die any money or assets (which would be sold) in your estate will first be used to pay off any of your debts. If there is not enough money or assets in your estate then your remaining debts may not need to be paid. Other people are only responsible for paying your debts after you die if: Bankruptcy An alternative to Bankruptcy is a Part 9 debt agreement, as I mentioned in my answer to your previous question. In this case you will still need to pay off at least part of the debt but will not be charged any further interest on the debt. This is not as severe as Bankruptcy, but as I mentioned before, should not be taken lightly. Like bankruptcy, a debt agreement will appear on your credit file for seven years and your name will be listed on the National Personal Insolvency Index forever. Bankruptcy or a Debt Agreement should only be used as a last resort if you are unable to undertake any other option. And remember, even if you do take this course of action, you will still need to be disciplined now and into the future, so you don't end up in a similar situation again.","I am super sorry about your divorce and nod to you for taking care of your kids and spouse. This may sound super snarky, although not my intention, but you have an income problem. Despite making almost double the national average, you are supporting two households, and live in a high cost of living area. (BTW been there, done that and also in IT.) The best way to avoid paying CC interest is to pay them off, and cut them up. Some might poo-poo the idea as you can earn some $ by getting CC rebates, but you are not in that mode right now. Consolidations, and balance transfers are a losing game as you can probably feel the November deadline looming. If I was you, I would get a second job, even if it was something like pumping gas. Making an extra $500/month increases your balance reduction by 650%. Sell stuff. Recently an older version of Visual Studio, that was sitting unused on my shelf, went for $400 on Ebay. The best way to solve this problem is through sweat equity. There are no easy answers. It sucks, but putting your big boy pants on and being prepared to work 20 hours of the day is the easiest way out of this. If you do this you will learn a lesson about CC utilization that most don't learn.","\"Congratulations on recognizing your problem and getting serious about paying down your debt. That's the first step. If you have a loan with 80% interest, yes, get that paid off as quickly as possible. Much better to be paying even the outrageous 20% on a credit card than the astounding 80%. As others have noted, if you can get a consolidation loan or refinance that 80% to something more realistic, do it and do it as soon as possible. Heck, if you have the credit limit, use the credit card to off the 80% loan. 20% on a credit card is better than 80%. Of course you may not have enough credit limit to do that. Cash-back rewards are nice if you are paying off the credit card balance each month. But in your case, you're not. 25% with a 2% cash back reward means you're still paying 23% the first month and 25% every month after that. That's worse than 20%. Remember you pay the interest on your balance every month that you don't pay it off, while a cash-back is a one-time thing. So if you're not going to pay off the balance, AT BEST a cash back reward could be effectively subtracted from the interest rate. 20% with a 2% cashback is effectively somewhere between 18% and 20%. If you're comparing 20% with 2% cashback to 19%, could be complicated to figure out which is better. But it's clearly worse than anything more than 20%. Besides that, you don't say what your total debt is in relation to your income. If you have a lot of debt, I'd say first thing is to figure out what you can do to cut your expenses. Lots of things that people call \"\"fixed expenses\"\" aren't really fixed at all, they just take some effort to cut. Like if you have a big expensive house and you're paying a large mortgage, you can (probably) cut that by selling the place and moving to a cheaper house. (I say \"\"probably\"\" because the housing market may make it impossible to sell for enough to improve your situation.) If you have large heating bills, you can turn the thermostat down and get used to wearing a sweater around the house. Etc. Final note: I've talked to a fair number of people with debt problems, and I often hear them say, \"\"Yes, I really need to cut my spending and start paying off these debts. And I intend to ... right after I buy this one last thing that I really really want.\"\" But of course after that there's one more vital purchase, and then another, etc. Avoid falling into this trap.\"","Dude- my background is in banking specifically dealing with these scenarios. Take my advice-look for a balance transfer offer-credit card at 0%. Your cost of capital is your good credit, this is your leverage. Why pay 4.74% when you can pay 0%. Find a credit card company with a balance transfer option for 0%. Pay no interest, and own the car outright. Places to start; check the mail, or check your bank, or check local credit unions. Some credit unions are very relaxed for membership, and ask if they have zero percent balance transfers. Good Luck!","I would take a closer look at each provider. I have one credit-card provider who when there is a large portion of credit available, they frequently offer promotions on balance transfers so you fill that credit, sometimes it can be 0% for xx months, or a very low % until paid off in full. If this is the case clear that card fully and balance transfer the remainder to get an even lower interest to make the repayments eaier to clear.","If you are now in a better position to pay your debts, the wise move for your long-term credit is to consolidate any high-interest debt that remains and pay it off as quickly as possible. This may not be possible depending on your situation, but one way to get such consolidation loans is to have a parent with good credit cosign as guarantor on the consolidation loan. The only way your credit will recover is if you establish a good history of payments over the next seven years. Frankly I wouldn't cosign a loan with a family member who made the same decisions you have made, because I wouldn't want to put my own credit at risk, but I might loan the money directly, which would ease the pain for that family member, but it wouldn't help their credit going forward. This may not be a popular opinion, but without any details, it's hard for me to agree that any of your creditors are being greedy when they threaten a judgment. They loaned you the money in good faith, and now you are attempting to negotiate a change of terms. Are they greedy because the interest rates are too high? Maybe you were a bad risk when they loaned the money and the rates reflected the risk of losing some portion of the money. The fact that you are trying to discharge some portion of that debt vindicates any high rates charged.","While C/C's have 0% interest this a good mechanism to manage debt. But they expect you will pile up a large debt and at then of the interest free period you will get hammered. So plan your exit strategy. Plan to pay off the 0% cards at the end of the int free period and pay the other cards down. Alternatively, What you could do is pay off the other cards now by drawing down on the 0% card if its possible. Then.all your debt is at 0% int. Also you are consolidating your debt into 1 account. When the int free period is over move the debt into a single personal loan if you don't plan on paying it all off immrdiatley In the meantime put you savings into an interest bearing account to maximize the value of your savings.","If it were me, I'd be debt free today, Monday, at latest. 100K-(53K+31.2K) = 15.8K would be my bank balance by this afternoon. I am not sure why you would count 6K of your daughter's money as yours to use. Either it is her money, or yours, not both. If you still want debt, which I think is silly, you might try to refi your home with a home equity loan. That loan would be in first position, at a fixed rate, and for a fixed term. Regions bank did some thing like this for a person with excellent credit and plenty of equity. They got a 7 year loan at 2.6% when the prevailing interest rate on a 15 year was about a point higher.","You should check the details of those balance transfers - they typically have a 3 to 5 % 'one-time fee', which means you pay nearly a year's interest right away. And then every time you transfer the total on again. Also, this fee gets added to the credit card total, and it is possibly considered paid last (after you paid off the completed transferred balance), so it cost interest for the whole time (and that interest is different, maybe 19.99 % or worse). It is probably a better idea to refinance for 5 years at <3%, and they pay off as fast as possible.","\"Plus one to Alexandre for pointing out this is possible. It is also possible to run with scissors, and I would recommend neither. Your money problems are very small and doing something so dramatic to solve them will probably put you in a worse financial decision. Why would you put your home, at risk, to pay off such a small amount (less than 5K)? The \"\"one payment\"\" or consolidation mantra, for a person like you, will often lead a person into reoccurring the same debt and having the consolidation loan. You don't need one payment you need no payments. First off stop borrowing. Second increase your income by working more or selling stuff. You might want to clean some houses, baby sit, or mow some lawns instead of the traditional job. Third decrease your spending. Let your loved ones know it will be a lean Christmas this year. Cut cable as you won't have time to watch TV anyway. If you do all that could you find $1000 per month? I bet you could find more. Doing all that and you will be done in 5 months and still own your home outright. You are a great candidate to pay off your bills by the snowball method, or smallest to largest. While it may not be, on paper, the most mathematically efficient it helps people with motivation and hope. It sounds like you could use that. List your bills smallest to largest and pay off the smallest first while paying minimums on the rest. You can do it!\"","I'll add a little to the already great advice here. It certainly sounds like you are in need of consolidation here. Having 11 different cards vying for your attention sounds like a nightmare to manage. I also concur that it is a bad idea to cash out your retirement accounts to deal with this. I know it's frustrating to have the debt hanging over your head (I have student loans I'm personally working on) but getting a loan to consolidate that level of noise sounds like a much smarter move that can help greatly if you have high interest cards (most likely the case here). Since you mentioned that you are not interested in selling the house, have you considered a home equity loan to consolidate this? Best of luck to you.","Sometimes there are credit cards that offer a (promotional) 0% APR on transfers with no transfer fees. It can be a good option to move the money to one of these if you're disciplined enough to keep hacking away at the debt before the APR jumps.","Keep paying down the bills. Attack them by balance (lowest first) or by interest rate (highest first). Talk to a local chapter of the National Foundation for Credit Counseling to see if they have any ideas. Perhaps you are a candidate for bankruptcy or some other drastic measure if you have a steady living situation and steady employment. (I wouldn't know, but honestly if your score can't get much worse so there isn't much to lose) You are doing the best you can and because you care enough, you will do great and adjust going forward. As a dad myself, don't worry about paying for your kids school or showering them with entertainment. Of course they need some, but time with you and knowing you are always there and stable will mean much more than buying their books. The best gift you can give your kid is a future where they don't have to support you, which is sadly more common than we sometimes think.","Sounds like you are drowning in debt. Why not just stop paying? It will ruin your credit, but eventually you might be able to settle for much less than you owe and a reasonable interest rate. You will then have a long road to recover you credit, but IMHO this road is much longer and stressful. Hey, you are paying a high interest rate because you are EXPECTED to default. If you were expected to pay back your rates would be lower!","If your parents can afford to shell out $1,250 a month for 5 years, they would pretty much have the debt paid off, provided the credit card companies don't start playing games with rates. If that payment is too high, maybe you could kick in $5k every few months to knock the principal down. If they think the business can keep puttering along without losing more money, that may be the way to go. Five years is long enough that the business or property may have recovered some value. Another option, depending on the value of the home, could be a reverse mortgage. I don't know how the economy has affected those programs, but that might be a good option to get the debt cleared away. My grandfather was in a similar position back in the 70's. He owned taverns in NYC that catered to an industrial clientele... the place was booming in the 60s and my grandfather and his brother owned 4 locations at one point. But the death of his brother, post-Vietnam malaise, suburban exodus and shutting of industry really hurt the business, and he ended up selling out his last tavern in 1979 -- which was a dark hour in NYC history and real estate values. A few years later, that building sold for a tremendous amount of money... I believe 10x more. I don't know whether there was a way for his business to survive for another 5-7 years, as I was too young to remember. But I do remember my grandfather (and my father to this day) being melancholy about the whole affair. It's hard to have to work part-time in your 60's and be constantly reminded that your family business -- and to some degree a part of your life -- ended in failure. The stress of keeping things afloat when you're broke is tough. But there's also a mental reward from getting through a tough situation on your own. Good luck!","Strictly from a fastest payback standpoint, the rule is to make all minimum payments and send any extra funds to the highest interest loan next. This will result in the lowest interest paid each year. The decision to consolidate depends on the impact it will have to both your payment and overall payoff schedule. It sounds like your priority might need to be cash flow and not overall savings. e.g. taking a 4% loan that has a high payment, but stretching it over more time can lower the payment, even at a bit higher rate. You just need to be aware of the cost and decide based on what you can live with. I hope you are in a good field that would see improvements to your income over these next few years.","I am sure everyone is different, but it has helped me a great deal. I have had several card balances go up and the interest on those per month was more than $200 in just interest combined. I transferred the balances over to 0% for 15 months – with a fee, so the upfront cost was about $300. However, over the next 15 months at 0% I'm saving over $200 each month. Now I have the money to pay everything off at 14 months. I will not be paying any interest after that, and I cut up all of my cards so I won't rack up the bills with interest on them anymore. Now, if I can't buy it with a debit card or cash, I don't get it. My cards went up so high after remodeling a home so they were justified. It wasn't because I didn't pay attention to what I could afford. My brother, on the other hand, has trouble using credit cards properly and this doesn't work for him.","Not sure if this is possible... It is possible! It is called a balance transfer card and most of the major credit card companies offer them. It is possible to save a significant amount on interest during the grace period. However... Is this a viable option? Not really. Any card will charge you an upfront fee of 3% to 5% of the balance you are transferring. This really only buys you some time in case you are about to fall behind on payments. For many people it's just a way to shuffle around debt, digging themselves a little deeper into consumer debt with each transfer.","\"There's a cliche, \"\"out of the frying pan and into the fire\"\". I've never had the occasion to use it till now. I understand some people find they have a dozen cards and struggle to keep organized. An extra percent or two seems worth the feeling of just one payment to make. In your case, 3 checks (or online payments) per month shouldn't push you to a bad decision. Twice the interest? No thanks. Just make the minimum payments on the two lower rate cards, and pay all you can to the highest rate. Do all you can to cut expenses. The only way out of this is to change your habits avoiding what got you here in the first place.\"","My concern is that just moving the balance will make you feel like you've accomplished something, when you really haven't. Sure you'll save on interest but that just reduces the rate at which you're bleeding and doesn't heal the wound. It's entirely likely that you'll feel freed by the reduced balance on the original card, ignore the transferred balance since you aren't paying any interest on it, and soon you'll have two cards that are maxed out. I would instead look at getting your expenses under control. Make sure you have the start of an emergency fund - 1-2k depending on your family situation. If you are single start with 1k; if you have kids bump it up to 2k or maybe a little more just to avoid charging any expenses. Get on a written budget, and don't spend any money in the next month that is not accounted for. Then you can figure out how much you can afford to put towards the credit card. That will also tell you how much interest you're going to pay. The only way I would recommend the balance transfer is if the interest savings (after the balance transfer fee) reduced the time it takes to pay off the card by two or more months (since one month isn't going to make a big difference interest-wise), and you immediately cancelled the original card, and cut up both cards (including the new one), making payments by mail or online. Other than that, the interest saved after the balance transfer fee probably isn't worth the risk of being in a worse situation on the other side.","Look for offers for 0% (or low) APR on balance transfers. It is more likely to get a promotional APR on balance transfer, than to lower the APR you already have. Of course, try to pay off the balance as long as you're in the period of the promotion, because otherwise you'll end up paying the high rate again. If you cannot get such an offer (low credit etc) - then just try to pay off ASAP and start rebuilding your credit, not much workarounds there. BTW: When you consider the balance transfer promotions - look at 3 things: The promotion period - when it ends, so that you'd know how much time you have to pay it off. The balance transfer fee - usually the balance transfer itself is not free, and you pay 3-5% on the transfer. If you have 0% APR for 12 months, it makes it effectively 5% APR (for the 5% fee), if the period is lesser - the APR is higher. Take that into the account. The APR after the promotion, in case you can't pay off in that time frame.","\"Better suggestion: Refinance into a lower rate mortgage. In the US right now you could cut that rate substantially with very little effort, unless you are a bad credit risk. Also: Not all mortgages permit use as a \"\"line of credit\"\" without additional fees, in addition to credit card transfer fees. (There is often a different kind of house loan, at a higher interest rate, if you really need that flexibility.) So this idea may not even be possible, or those fees may kill it, even before considering costs and risks on the credit card side. Generally, gimmicks don't work.\"","This can mean a few things to me. Some of which has been mentioned already. It can mean one (or all) of the following to me: You take out a new credit card and transfer ALL other credit balances to it. (Only good if you destroy the others, this is a 0% offer, AND you plan on paying this card off furiously.) You do the loan thing mentioned earlier. You go to a credit consolidation service who will handle your paying your payments and you send them one payment each month. (Highly discourage using them. A majority of them are shady, and won't get do what they say they will do. Check Better Business Bureau if you find yourself considering them as an option.) In the first two cases, you are just reducing the number of hands reaching into your bank account. But keep in mind, doing this is not the same as paying off debt. You can't borrow your way out. You can do this as part of your plan, but do so CAREFULLY.","You could look into refinancing with a bank or credit union. But to weed out options quickly, use a service like LendingTree, which can vet multiple options for you a whole lot more quickly than you could probably do yourself. (I don't work for, or get any benefit from LendingTree.) Whatever you do, try to do all the applying within a short span of time, as to not negatively affect your credit score (read here) by creating extraneous inquiries. Then again, if your credit sucks, you might not qualify for a re-fi. If you are turned down, make your payments on time for six months or so, and try again.","2% is a very low interest rate; you can do much better by investing your new found money on a 2 year CD, or short term bonds. You could pay the 0% card according to the terms as well. Therefore, considering the low rates of your cards, you should check into some safe investments with guaranteed return rates.","\"With the scenario that you laid out (ie. 5% and 10% loans), it makes no sense at all. The problem is, when you're in trouble the rates are never 5% or 10%. Getting behind on credit cards sucks and is really hard to recover from. The problem with multiple accounts is that as the banks tack on fees and raise your interest rate to the default rate (usually 30%) when you give them any excuse (late payment, over the limit, etc). The banks will also cut your credit lines as you make payments, making it more likely that you will bump over the limit and be back in \"\"default\"\" status. One payment, even at a slightly higher rate is preferable when you're deep in the hole because you can actually pay enough to hit principal. If you have assets like a house, you'll get a much better rate as well. In a scenario where you're paying 22-25% interest, your minimum payment will be $150-200 a month, and that is mostly interest and penalty. \"\"One big loan\"\" will usually result in a smaller payment, and you don't end up in a situation where the banks are jockeying for position so they get paid first. The danger of consolidation is that you'll stop triggering defaults and keep making your payments, so your credit score will improve. Then the vultures will start circling and offering you more credit cards. EDIT: Mea Culpa. I wrote this based on experiences of close friends whom I've helped out over the years, not realizing how the law changed in 2009. Back around 2004, a single late payment would trigger universal default on most cards, jacking all rates up to 30% and slashing credit lines, resulting in over the limit and other fees. Credit card banks generally apply payments (in order, to interest on penalties, penalties, interest on principal, principal) in a way that makes it very difficult to pay down principal for people deep in debt. They would also offer \"\"payment plans\"\" to entice you to pay Bank B vs. Bank A, which would trigger overlimit fees from Bank A. Another change is that minimum payments were generally 2% of statement balance, which often didn't cover the monthly finance charge. The new law changed that, resulting in a payment of 1% of balance + accrued interest. Under the old regime, consolidation made it less likely that various circumstances would trigger default, and gave the struggling debtor one throat to choke. With the new rules, there are definitely a smaller number of scenarios where consolidation actually makes sense.\"","\"Sometimes you need to do more than ask to have your rating reduced. You need to make it in their best interest (no pun intended) to do it. Find the lowest rate card and then tell the others you want to transfer your balance to that card and close the account (don't do it, it is an empty threat). I guarantee they will transfer you to a retention agent who will give you a better deal. From their perspective your current offer is getting 19% interest instead of 22%, why would they do that without some motivation? With the approach described above their options are get 19% interest instead of 0% interest. It is all about negotiation and the \"\"Retention agents\"\" have the most leverage to do so.\"","\"The question asked in your last paragraph (what's the downside) is answered simply; if you take out a loan and close the cards, that's a ding on your score because your leverage ratio on this portion of your credit jumps to 100% or more, and because you'll be reducing the average age of your lines of credit (one line of credit a few days old versus five lines of credit several years old each). If you take out the loan and don't close the accounts, it's one more line of credit, increasing your total credit, lowering your leverage, but making institutions more reluctant to give you any more credit until they see what you'll do with what you have. In either case, assuming you can get the loan at less than the average rate of the cards (that's actually not a guarantee; a lot of lenders will want APRs in the 20s or 30s even for a title loan or other collateralized loan), then your cost of capital will also go down. That gives you more of a gap of discretionary income that you can better use to \"\"snowball\"\" all this debt as you are planning. Another thing to keep in mind is that the minimum payment changes as the balance does. The minimum payment covers monthly interest at least, and therefore varies based on your interest rate (usually variable) and your balance (which will hopefully be decreasing). A constant payment over the current minimum, much like a more traditional amortization, would be preferable.\"","\"Several student loans are backed by government guarantee and this will allow you to get attractive rates. This may require them to consolidate the three classes of loans separately. Many commercial banks offer consolidation services, one example is Wachovia discussed at https://www.wellsfargo.com/student/private-loan-consolidation/ Other methods of \"\"consolidation\"\" are of course anything that pays off the original loan. If available, using a parent's home equity line of credit to pay of the loans and then paying back the parents can save money. An additional benefit of HELOC-style loans is that they are very flexible in their payment terms. For example you may pay $25 per year to keep the account open and then only be required to make interest payments. Links: https://origin.bankrate.com/finance/college-finance/faqs-on-student-loan-consolidation-1.aspx\"","I used to do this all the time but it's more difficult now. Just a general warning that this probably isn't a good idea unless you're very responsible with your money because it's easy to get yourself in a bad position if you're not careful. You can get a new credit card that does balance transfers and request balance transfer checks from them. Then just use one of those balance transfer checks to mail a payment to the loan you want to transfer. Make sure your don't use the entire credit line as the credit card will have the balance transfer fee put on it as well. You used to be able to find credit cards with 0% balance transfer fee but I haven't seen one of those in ages. Chase Slate is the lowest I've seen recently at 2%. Alternately, if you have a lot of expenses every month then it's easy to find a credit card where all purchases are 0% interest for a year or more and use that to pay every possible expense for a few months and use the money you'd normally use to pay for those expenses to pay off the original loan. If you're regular monthly expenses are high enough you can pay off the original loan quickly and then pay on the credit card with no interest as normal. The banks are looking to hook you so make sure you pay them off before the zero percent runs out or make sure you know what happens after it does. Normally the rate sky rockets. Also, don't use that card for anything else. Credit card companies always put payments towards the lowest interest rate first so if you charge something that doesn't qualify for 0% then it will collect interest until you've paid off the entire 0% balance which will likely take a while and cost you a lot of money. If you have to pay a balance transfer fee then figure out if it's less then you would have paid if you continued paying interest on the original loan. Good luck. I hope it works out for you.","\"The best thing to do is to completely pay off one credit card, then apply the left over to the highest interest card. After that, ALL of your expenses that can be put on a credit card, should be put on the one that you just paid off. At the end of the month, pay off a different credit card and the highest interest, and move all your purchasing to that card. Keep going around the circle until you are able to pay them all off. Doing this will be good for your credit score as the debt on the cards will now be \"\"new\"\". If you're really desperate to increase your credit score (e.g. refinancing a house) you can use balance transfers to temporarily make it appear that you have zero debt but it will cost you some money, typically balance transfers cost something like $35 + 2%.\"","\"A few points Yes, as a rule, it is better to pay down high interest accounts first, as this will yield lower cost in the long run. Credit card balance transfers usually come at a cost (typically something like \"\"3% or $50, whichever is higher\"\"). So instead of transferring the debt, maybe try purchasing items with your card instead of cash, and using the cash to pay down the debt. This has the added benefit of giving you points or cash back on the card (typically you won't get these for a balance transfer). Caveat: Only do this if you are very disciplined! It is very easy to run up high CC balances and forget to save the cash. You should leave a bit of unused credit line on your credit cards in case of emergencies. I'm doubting you can use your high interest loans in the same way.\"","\"It's not a bad strategy. I'd rather owe money at 4% interest than at 6-7%. However, there is something to consider. Consolidating debt into a new loan can backfire. When you have money borrowed at 7%, you want to get that paid off as quickly as possible. Once you have that converted to 4%, if you think, \"\"Now I can take my time paying off this debt,\"\" then you aren't really better off. In fact, if you take too long paying off the new loan, you might end up paying more interest than if you had kept the high interest loan and paid it as soon as possible. Don't lose your drive to get out of debt after you refinance. As far as how the student loans affect your debt-to-income ratio, I'm not sure; however, if they do count (I think they do), your ratio will not really be going up by taking out the new loan, since you are using the money to pay other debt. Make sure the new lender knows this, so they take that into consideration when making their decision. Overall, I like your strategy: pay off what you can right away (the car loan and the highest interest student loans) and reduce the interest on the rest. Just make sure that you continue to pay down that debt as quick as you can.\"","Without knowing your credit situation or your full budget it's a little difficult, but i'd go with the snowball method for now: It may seem like not a big deal to have this kind of debt but you really should be looking at it as if your walking around with your hair on fire. It's a HUGE emergency. Debt, especially looming CC debt with high rates, can make things worse (think water on grease fire) really quickly so the faster you get rid of it the better. Good luck!","\"Without knowing what the balances are, I associate \"\"uncomfortable\"\" with high, as in tens of thousands. What I would do: is 1) cut up the cards and stop using them, and 2) have some balance transfer offers in hand the next time you call to negotiate with the companies. Essentially, you will have to convince them that they will have to explain one of two things to their boss: why they lowered your rate or why you left. They can collect less interest from you or no interest from you. It's up to them. If they don't offer you something that's in the ballpark of your balance transfer offer, then bid them goodbye and complete the balance transfer. As far as paying them off, the top two modes of repayment are lowest balance first (aka snowball) or high interest rate first. Both methods are similar in that you pay minimums on all but the method's focus point. Whether it is lowest balance or highest interest rate, you pay ALL of your extra money on the lowest balance or the highest interest debt until it is gone and then you move onto the next one in the list. For what it's worth, I prefer the lowest balance method, you see progress faster.\"","I've kind of been there myself. I stretched my finances for the deposit on a house, and lived off my credit card for a few months to build up what I was short on the deposit. Add some unexpected car repairs, and I ended up with £10k on the card. The problem I had then was that interest on the card ran at around 20%, and although I could meet the interest payments I couldn't clear the £10k. I simply went and talked to my bank. In the UK there are some clear rules about banks giving customers a chance to restructure their debts. That's the BANK doing it, not some shady loan-shark. We went through my finances and established that in principle it was repayable. So I got a 2-year unsecured loan at around 5%, cleared the card, and spent the next 2 years paying off a loan that I could afford. My credit score is still aces. Forget the loan-sharks. Talk to your bank. If they're crap, talk to another bank. If no bank is going to help you, consider bankrupcy as per advice above. Debt restructuring companies are ALWAYS a con, no exceptions.","\"Paypal forbids using their credit card service to \"\"give yourself a cash advance or help others to do so\"\". For small ammounts you may get away with it but pushing $10K through a PayPal account is going to raise red flags. In the USA it seems that some cards allow balance transfers from other types of loan while others are restricted to credit cards only. So that is a possibility. Another option can be to find a card with a good deal on purchases. Then move your regular purchases to the card and use the money you would normally have spent on purchases to pay off the other loan. Remember credit cards can be either a very cheap way to borrow or a very expensive way. Which one they are depends on how good you are at negotiating the traps they set up for you. If you do use a credit card deal make sure you Is it overall a viable option? That depends on the details which are not specified in your hypothetical scenario incluing the persons credit rating , what the interest is like on the existing loan and what the expected time to repay the debt is.\"","If you want to work within that constraint, then I sincerely suggest you find a credit councilor. It may take you a while to dig out of debt, but with a little help from someone that knows the ropes, you can do it! Remember, even though you want to pay back those debts, many times the sky-rocketing interest rates work against you. Most of the good councilors know how to work the system to get these rates reduced, and sometimes even get the interest you've already accumulated reduced.","Gaining traction is your first priority. WARNING: as @JosephZambrano explains in his answer the tax penalty for withdrawing from a 401(k) can easily exceed the APR of the credit card making it a very bad strategy. Consult in-depth with a financial advisor to see before taking that path. As @JoeTaxpayer has noted a loan is another alternative. The 401k is no good to you if you can't have shelter or comfort in the mean time. The idea is to look at all the money as a single thing and balance it together. There is no credit and retirement, just a single target that you can hit by moving the good money to clear the bad. Consolidating the credit card debt somehow would be very wise if you can. Assuming it is 30% APR shrinking that quickly is the first priority. You may be able to justify a hardship withdrawal to finance the reduction/consolidation of the credit card. It may be worth considering negotiating a closure arrangement with a reduced principal. Credit card companies can be quite open to this as it gets their money back. You may also be able to negotiate a lower interest rate. You may be able to negotiate a non-credit-affecting debt consolidation with a debt consolidator. They want to make money and a 25K loan to a person with sound credit is a pretty good bet. Moving, buying a house, or any of that may just relocate the problem. You may be able to withdraw $25K from your 401k under hardship, pay the credit card, and come up with a payment plan for the medical debt. It's a retirement setback for sure, but retirement is an illusion with that credit card shark eating all of your hard-earned money. You gotta slay that beast quick. Again, be sure to fully analyze whether the penalty on the 401(k) withdrawal exceeds the APR of the credit card.","The U.S. Department of Ed offers Loan consolidation that you may want to take a look at: https://loanconsolidation.ed.gov/AppEntry/apply-online/appindex.jsp Going through a Government Agency as opposed to a private lender might reduce the burden (co-signers, collateral) you need to pass to get the loan.","Repairing your credit takes time. Companies that offer to do it for you (for money) generally succeed mostly at getting money from you. Nonprofit agencies will help you with advice and encouragement and will not want money from you. They may be able to help you apply for a consolidation loan, but to be honest that is rarely the best first step. Over time, you need to The last step may happen months or years after the first two.","I think you've made a perfectly valid suggestion, and, if your son is struggling somewhat financially now, one that may be very welcome. If you agree to forgive the debt at this time in lieu of a similar amount forgone in future inheritance, it will eliminate the never ending interest-only payments, free up $200+ a month for you son on a tight budget, and improve your own credit score once you pay off the credit line. It's also, in my opinion, a good idea to be open about this in advance with your other children heirs so that everyone will understand what is expected during the eventual probate. My paternal grandfather was the recipient of a great deal of financial largess from his wealthy mother during her life, and it was fully understood by him, her, and his siblings, that in exchange he would not share in her estate when she passed. He didn't, there were no problems, and he and his siblings stayed close for the rest of their lives.","\"Tough spot. I'm guessing the credit cards are a personal line of credit in their name and not the company's (the fact that the business can be liquidated separately from your parents means they did at least set up an LLC or similar business entity). Using personal debt to save a company that could have just been dissolved at little cost to their personal credit and finances was, indeed, a very bad move. The best possible end to this scenario for you and your parents would be if your parents could get the debt transferred to the LLC before dissolving it. At this point, with the company in such a long-standing negative situation, I would doubt that any creditor would give the business a loan (which was probably why your parents threw their own good money after bad with personal CCs). They might, in the right circumstances, be able to convince a judge to effectively transfer the debt to the corporate entity before liquidating it. That puts the debt where it should have been in the first place, and the CC companies will have to get in line. That means, in turn, that the card issuers will fight any such motion or decision tooth and nail, as long as there's any other option that gives them more hope of recovering their money. Your parents' only prayer for this to happen is if the CCs were used for the sole purpose of business expenses. If they were living off the CCs as well as using them to pay business debts, a judge, best-case, would only relieve the debts directly related to keeping the business afloat, and they'd be on the hook for what they had been living on. Bankruptcy is definitely an option. They will \"\"re-affirm\"\" their commitment to paying the mortgage and any other debts they can, and under a Chapter 13 the judge will then remand negotiations over what total portion of each card's balance is paid, over what time, and at what rate, to a mediator. Chapter 13 bankruptcy is the less damaging form to your parent's credit; they are at least attempting to make good on the debt. A Chapter 7 would wipe it away completely, but your parents would have to prove that they cannot pay the debt, by any means, and have no hope of ever paying the debt by any means. If they have any retirement savings, anything in their name for grandchildren's college funds, etc, the judge and CC issuers will point to it like a bird dog. Apart from that, their house is safe due to Florida's \"\"homestead\"\" laws, but furniture, appliances, clothing, jewelry, cars and other vehicles, pretty much anything of value that your parents cannot defend as being necessary for life, health, or the performance of whatever jobs they end up taking to dig themselves out of this, are all subject to seizure and auction. They may end up just selling the house anyway because it's too big for what they have left (or will ever have again). I do not, under any circumstance, recommend you putting your own finances at risk in this. You may gift money to help, or provide them a place to live while they get back on their feet, but do not \"\"give till it hurts\"\" for this. It sounds heartless, but if you remove your safety net to save your parents, then what happens if you need it? Your parents aren't going to be able to bail you out, and as a contractor, if you're effectively \"\"doing business as\"\" Reverend Gonzo Contracting, you don't have the debt shield your parents had. It looks like housing's faltering again due to the news that the Fed's going to start backing off; you could need that money to weather a \"\"double-dip\"\" in the housing sector over the next few months, and you may need it soon.\"","\"First, pay off the highest interest first. If you have 80%, pay it first. Paying off a card/loan with a lower rate, but a lower payment or a lower balance can help your mental capacity by having fewer things to pay. But, this should be a decision where things are similar, such as 20-25%, not 20-80%. What about any actual loans? Any loans with a fixed payment and a fixed amount? If you must continue to use CC while paying them off, use the one with the lowest interest rate. Call all of your debtors and ask for reduction in interest rate. This is not the option to take first... This is a strategic possibility and will cause credit score issues... If you are considering bankruptcy or not paying back some, then you have even more negotiation power. Consider calling them all and telling them that you only have a little bit of money and would like to negotiate a settlement with them. \"\"I have only a limited amount of money, and lots of debt. I will pay back whomever gives me the best deal.\"\" See what they say. They may not negotiate until you stop paying them for a few months... It is not uncommon to get them to reduce interest (even to 0%) and/or take a reduction in the amount due - up to 25 cents on the dollar. To do this, you might need to pay the amount all at once, so look into loans from sources like retirement, home equity, life insurance, family... Also, cut out all expenses. Cut them hard; cut until it hurts. Cut out the cell phone (get a pre-paid plan and/or budget $10-20/month), cut out all things like alcohol, tobacco, firearms, lottery, tattoos, cable tv, steak, eating out. Some people would suggest that you consider pets and finding them a new home. No games, no trips, no movies, no new clothes... Cut out soft drinks, candy, and junk food. Take precautions to stay healthy - don't wear shoes in the house, brush your teeth, take a multi vitamin, get exercise, eat healthy (this is not expensive, organic stuff, just regular groceries). Consider other ways to save, like moving in with family or friends. Having family or friends live with you and pay rent. Analyze costs like daycare vs. job income. Apply for assistance - there are lots of levels, and some don't rely on others, such as daycare. Consider making more money - new job, 2nd job, overtime, new career. Consider commute - walk, bike, take the bus. Work 4/10's. Telework. Make a list of every expense and prioritize them. Only keep things which are really necessary. Good Luck.\"","\"Here's what my wife and I did. First, we stopped using credit cards and got rid of all other expenses that we absolutely didn't need. A few examples: cable TV, home phone, high end internet - all shut off. We changed our cell phone plan to a cheap one and stopped going out to restaurants or bars. We also got rid of the cars that had payments on them and replaced them with ones we paid cash for. Probably the most painful thing for me was selling a 2 year old 'vette and replacing it with a 5 year old random 4 door. Some people might tell you don't do this because older cars need repairs. Fact is, nearly all cars are going to need repairs. It's just a matter of whether you are also making payments on it when they need them and if you can discipline yourself enough to save up a bit to cover those. After doing all this the only payments we had to make were for the house (plus electric/gas/water) and the debt we had accumulated. I'd say that if you have the option to move back into your parent's house then do it. Yes, it will suck for a while but you'll be able to pay everything off so much faster. Just make sure to help around the house. Ignore the guys saying that this tanks your score and will make getting a house difficult. Although they are right that it will drop your score the fact is that you aren't in any position to make large purchases anyway and won't be for quite some time, so it really doesn't matter. Your number one goal is to dig yourself out of this hole, not engage in activity that will keep you in it. Next, if you are only working part time then you need to do one of two things. Either get a full time job or go find a second part time one. The preference is obviously on the first, which you should be able to do in your spare time. If, for some reason, you don't have the tech skills necessary to do this then go find any part time job you can. It took us about 3 years to finally pay everything (except the house) off - we owed a lot. During that time everything we bought was paid for in cash with the vast majority of our money going to pay off those accounts. Once the final account was paid off, I did go ahead and get a credit card. I made very minor purchases on it - mostly just gas - and paid it off a few days before it was due each month. Every 4 months they increased my limit. After around 18 months of using that one card my credit score was back in the 700+ range and with no debt other than the mortgage. *note: I echo what others have said about \"\"Credit Repair\"\" companies. Anything they can do, you can too. It's a matter of cutting costs, living within your means and paying the bills. If the interest rates are killing you, then try to get a consolidation loan. If you can't do that then negotiate settlements with them, just get everything in writing prior to making a payment on it if you go this route. BTW, make sure you actually can't pay them before attempting to settle.\"","A couple of thoughts from someone who's kind of been there... Is the business viable at all? A lot of people do miss the jumping-off point where the should stop throwing good money after bad and just pull the plug on the business. If the business is not that viable, then selling it might not be an option. If the business is still viable (and I'd get advice from a good accountant on this) then I'd be tempted to try and pull through to until I'd get a good offer for the business. Don't just try to sell it for any price because times are bad if it's self-sustaining and hopefully makes a little profit. I does sound like their business is on the up again and if that's a trend and not a fluke, IMHO pouring more energy into (not money) would be the way to go. Don't make the mistake of buying high and selling low, so to speak. I'm also a little confused re their house - do they own it or do they still owe money on it? If they owe money on it, how are they making their payments? If they close the business, do they have enough income to make the payments still? Before they find another job, even if it's just a part-time job? As to paying off their debts or at least helping with paying them off, I'd only do that if I was in a financial position to gift them the money; anything else is going to wreak havoc with the family dynamics (including co-signing debt for them) and everybody will wish they didn't go there. Ask me how I know. Re debt consolidation, I don't think it's going to do much for them, apart from costing them more money for something they could do themselves. Bankruptcy - well, are they bankrupt or are they looking for the get-out-of-debt-free card? Sorry to be so blunt, but if they're so deep in the hole that they truly have no chance whatsoever to pay off their debt ever, then they're bankrupt. From what you're saying they're able to make the minimum payments they're not really what I'd consider bankrupt... Are your parents on a budget? As duffbeer703 said, depending on how much money the business is making they should be able to pay off the debt within a reasonable amount of time (which again doesn't make them bankrupt).","In a perfect the world, the most ideal solution would be to find a way to pay back all of your debt so that your credit will not be affected any further. Unfortunately, it does not work this way most of the time. Debt settlement is where you work with a creditor to settle your a credit card debt for less than the full amount owed. This could be a very viable solution for you instead of filing for bankruptcy. However, there are many scams out there when it applies to debt settlement so you must tread carefully. Debt settlement can only occur when you're behind on your payments. If you are currently paying off your payments successfully, the creditor has no obligation to settle when they think you should be able to pay it fully back.","Debt consolidation is basically getting all your debt into one loan. This is possibly more convenient, and lets you close the other accounts (in the case of credit cards, preventing you from incurring any more debt). Ideally, your consolidated debt will have a better interest rate, so it saves you money as well. If you're defaulting on your debt already, you're likely combining this process with some negotiation with your existing creditors.","Here is what I would do (my wife has done this and it worked great). Pay off one card. Pay down the other card then find a new card that offers a 0% period on balance transfers. They generally have between a 1%-5% fee with 3% being pretty typical. You will get probably 18-24 months of no interest. At the end of that period, provided it isn't paid off, just open another card and do another balance transfer. After you are done paying everything off get a card that offers cash back bonus and pay for everything using that card, pay the card off at the end of the month.","From my understanding by paying your bills more than 5 days late will not lead you into bankruptcy or stop you from getting a new loan in the future, however it may mean that lenders offer you credit at a higher interest rate. This of course would not help you as you are already struggling with your finances. However, no matter how bad you think things might be for you financially, there are always things you can do to improve your situation. Set a Budget The first thing you must do is to set a budget. List down all sources of income you receive each month, including any allowances. Then list all your sources of expenses and spending. List all your bills such as rent, telephone, electricity, car maintenance, credit card and other loans. Keep a diary for a month for all your discretionary spending - including coffees, lunches, and other odd bits and ends. You can also talk with your existing lenders and come to some agreement on reducing you interest rates on your debts and the repayments. But remember any reduction in repayments may increase your repayment period and the total interest you have to pay in the long term. If you need help setting up your budget here are some links to resources you can download to help you get started: Once you set up your budget you want your total income to be more than your total expenses. If it isn't you will be getting further and further behind each month. Some things you can do are to increase your income - get a job/second job, sell some unwanted items, or start a small home business. Some things you can do to reduce your expenses - make coffees and lunches at home before going out and buying these, pay off higher interest debts first, consolidate all your debts into a lower interest rate loan, reduce discretionary spending to an absolute minimum, cancel all unnecessary services, etc. Debt Consolidation In regards to a Debt Consolidation for your existing personal loans and credit cards into a single lower interest rate loan can be a good idea, but there are some pitfalls you should consider. Manly, if you are taking out a loan with a lower interest rate but a longer term to pay it off, you may end up paying less in monthly repayments but will end up paying more interest in the long run. If you do take this course of action try to keep your term to no longer than your current debt's terms, and try to keep your repayments as high as possible to pay the debt off as soon as possible and reduce any interest you have to pay. Again be wary of the fine print and read the PDS of any products you are thinking of getting. Refer to ASIC - Money Smart website for more valuable information you should consider before taking out any debt consolidation. Assistance improving your skills and getting a higher paid job If you are finding it hard to get a job, especially one that pays a bit more, look into your options of doing a course and improving your skills. There is plenty of assistance available for those wanting to improve their skills in order to improve their chances of getting a better job. Check out Centrelink's website for more information on Payments for students and trainees. Other Action You Can Take If you are finding that the repayments are really getting out of hand and no one will help you with any debt consolidation or reducing your interest rates on your debts, as a last resort you can apply for a Part 9 debt agreement. But be very careful as this is an alternative to bankruptcy, and like bankruptcy a debt agreement will appear on your credit file for seven years and your name will be listed on the National Personal Insolvency Index forever. Further Assistance and Help If you have trouble reading any PDS, or want further information or help regarding any issues I have raised or any other part of your financial situation you can contact Centrelink's Financial Information Service. They provide a free and confidential service that provides education and information on financial and lifestyle issues to all Australians. Learn how to manage your money so you can get out of your debt and can lead a much more comfortable and less stressful life into the future.","Why not just get another credit card and transfer the balance? Many of them will give you special perks like x months of no interest for doing so. Also, once you call to actually cancel the card you will see for sure whether they really have any power to negotiate rates. From their perspective 15% APR is more than 0%APR which is what they'd get if they lose your business.","I'm going to suggest a slightly different approach. Most answers seem to suggest paying off the lower rate card to clear it. Some answers / comments also talk about emergency funds. One risk of paying off a card is that the card issuer may choose to reduce your credit limit if they see you as high risk, to prevent you re-spending the money. If you don't trust yourself with the card then this could be a good thing (and remember you're always free to ask for a limit decrease). But if you want access to emergency funds, then I would suggest paying half onto each card. That way if one card cuts you off, you have a chance of still having access to the other in an emergency.","Does your company offer matching on 401(k) deposits? Are you depositing at least to the match? If not, that should be priority one. Kill the card, never pay that kind of interest. Ever. Why are you paying 5%? The 30 year rate is 4% right now, and even if you pay some closing costs, you'll recoup the money quickly. In general, borrowing to invest is a losing game. I agree, get rid of the HELOC as well. If you refine to 15 years, you can get 3.5%, and in 16 years won't regret the decision.","I wouldn't advocate it, but one reason to pay a lower interest rate is if you have $990 on a $1000 limit credit card with 6% interest and $5000 on a $15k limit card at 10% interest. Having $500 to pay in a month and putting it on the lower interest would free up a greater percentage of credit on that card and could potentially help your credit rating I believe. I think having $1000 on 10 different credit cards w/ $15k limit reflects better than $10k on one $15k card, regardless of interest rates. Personally I think that's dumb b/c having the extra credit available is an opportunity to get into trouble a lot easier.","For those who are looking to improve credit for the sake of being able to obtain future credit on better terms, I think a rewards credit card is the best way to do that. I recommend that you only use as many cards as you need to gain the best rewards. I have one card that gives 6% back on grocery purchases, and I have another card that gives 4% back on [petrol] and 2% back on dining out. Both of those cards give only 1% back on all other purchases, so I use a third card that gives 1.5% back across the board for my other purchases. I pay all of the cards in full each month. If there was a card that didn't give me an advantage in making my purchases, I wouldn't own it. I'm generally frugal, so I know that there is no psychological disadvantage to paying with a card. You have to consider your own spending discipline when deciding whether paying with cards is an advantage for you. In the end, you should only use debt when you can pay low interest rates (or as in the case of the cards above, no interest at all). In the case of the low interest debt, it should be allowing you to make an investment that will pay you more by having it sooner than the cost of interest. You might need a car to get to work, but you probably don't need a new car. Borrow as little as you can and repay your loans as quickly as you can. Debt can be a tool for your advantage, but only if used wisely. Don't be lured in by the temptation of something new and shiny now that you can pay for later.","One thing I would look into is getting a fixed rate home equity loan for a short term. Not a line of credit, but a home equity loan. The main benefit is they typically offer no closing costs. You can get a very low rate provided you move the loan into first position (replace your current mortgage). I know someone who got a 7 year fixed Home Equity Loan, from Regions Bank, for 2.62% no closing costs.","The key word you are looking for is that you want to refinance the loan at a lower rate. Tell banks that and ask what they can offer you.","\"I had to apply for an American Express card, which was also rejected. Then I had searched for a Marbles Credit Card Stop applying for credit cards/loans. Doing so is just making your credit rating worse. Credit agencies will downgrade your credit rating if they see lots of signs of credit checking. It's a sign you're desperately looking for credit, which you are...! 44.9% APR This is very expensive credit. You can get personal loans on the high street for 3-4%. 44.9% is really bad value. You're simply going to make the situation worse. Am I taking off a loan from website as amingos loans to help me build up my credit rating Again this is 44% interest! You also need a guarantor. So you're not only going to get yourself in trouble but a family member too: don't do this! This will only help your credit rating if you pay it back successfully, which given your situation seems like a risk. Contact the Money Advice Service or the National Debt Line. Explain your situation in detail to them. They are a government-backed service designed for people in your situation. They will offer practical advice and can even help negotiate with your creditors, etc. Here's some general advice about getting out of debt from Money Saving Expert Traditional debt help says 'never borrow your way out of a debt problem'. But this ignores the varying cost of different debts. The MoneySaving approach is: \"\"Never borrow more to get out of a debt problem.\"\"\"","I see some merit in the other answers, which are all based on the snowball method. However, I would like to present an alternative approach which would be the optimal way in case you have perfect self-control. (Given your amount of debt, most likely you currently do not have perfect self-control, but we will come to that.) The first step is to think about what the minimum amount of emergency funds are that you need and to compare this number with your credit card limit. If your limits are such that your credit cards can still cover potential emergency expenses, use all of the 4000$ to repay the debt on the loan with the higher interest rate. Some answer wrote that Others may disagree as it is more efficient to pay down the 26%er. However, if you pay it all of within the year the difference only comes to $260. This is bad advice because you will probably not pay back the loan within one year. Where would you miraculously obtain 20 000$ for that? Thus, paying back the higher interest loan will save you more money than just 260$. Next, follow @Chris 's advice and refinance your debt under a lower rate. This is much more impactful than choosing the right loan to repay. Make sure to consult with different banks to get the best rate. Reducing your interest rate has utmost priority! From your accumulated debt we can probably infer that you do not have perfect self-control and will be able to minimize your spending/maximize your debt repayments. Thus, you need to incentivize yourself to follow such behavior. A powerful way to do this is to have a family member or very close friend monitor your purchase and saving behavior. If you cannot control yourself, someone else must. It should rather be a a person you trust than the banks you owe money.","\"A drop in credit score of 300 is pretty significant, right? You describe the cause of this as \"\"unfortunate circumstances\"\". Lets say you observe a mother giving a small child a ball to play with in the median of a busy interstate. Once the inevitable happens, would you also describe that as \"\"unfortunate circumstances\"\"? Because really it is the same thing. You overextended yourself and did not consider risk in the decision to borrow money. This may sound harsh, but you have proven that you cannot handle credit. So your solution is to borrow more? That makes no sense. The best thing you can do for your credit score is to reduce, then eliminate all debt.\"","I can't help you with consolidation, but I'd suggest automating as much of the payments as possible. If not, you might take a look at any of the numerous online banks that have online bill pay, and open an account with them. (E.g. ING Direct, Ally, etc.) You can set up the online account to pull from your current checking/savings account, and then make payments from that online account to your loans. When you have that set up, if there is some extra payment you want to make, you can set up an automatic additional periodic payment to get rid of one lender at a time until everything is paid off.","Others have covered the usual vehicles for getting money out of a property. There's another category of home loan called a hard money loan. It would take a lot of inquiries to find a hard money loan given your needs, but chances are its doable. The terms can be onerous, and hard money lenders don't mess around when it comes to foreclosing after a few missed payments. It's an off-the-radar industry and the private lenders and specialized trustees operate together with strike-force precision. Trustees normally should be trust-able by borrower and lender, but in the case I describe below, one man owned the small company that lent, and the small company that acted as trustee. Borrower beware. Yet, if your credit score and income are dismal, but your home equity is great, hard money is the only way to borrow against your home. In making hard money loans, lenders don't consider your credit score or income, just how much equity is in the property. I daresay they hope you'll default. They don't always hang onto the loans. If you look like a payer instead of someone they can foreclose on, they might sell the loan to someone who wants a stable monthly income. You don't know a thing about that person. A Cautionary Tale: *Check out HankandHelen.blogspot.com for a currently-unfolding saga, in which an elderly couple's grandson convinced them to let him take title to their house, borrow against it, invest the proceeds, and share the profits. It didn't work that way. He went through hard-money lenders. He borrowed $360,000 and then $65,000. Those were mysteriously paid off (total mystery at this point), and he borrowed $47,000. About a year later, he lost the house by defaulting the $47,000 loan. He was only about $2000 behind in payments when the trustee issued a notice of default, followed by a notice of sale. The trustee put the place up for auction, which didn't require a court order: that's the way it is in California and many western states, and a few others. The hard money lender bought the loan at auction for $83,000, and a home worth about $800,000 no longer belonged to the grandson. A fundraiser brought in about $120,000 and the couple bought a mobile home in a mobile home park. The acre of land and swimming pool they used to own will be for sale soon, or possibly demolished for a mansion to be built. (House in the area go for about $2.5M when improved with very large, new houses.)* I poke around PropertyShark.com when I see a house bought cheaply at a foreclosure auction. Quite often the (former) borrower had inherited the house, treated it like a piggy bank, defaulted, and boom--no more house. It never makes sense to put a house at risk for a small amount like $5000. If you can't pay those credit card bills, the lenders can hound you and maybe get a court order to extract something from your checking account every month, but they can't take your belongings. When you sign a deed of trust or mortgage, you're giving a third party the right to kick you out of your home and take possession of it. You don't have any say in the matter. You might go to court, and say whatever you feel like saying, but if you owe many payments and can't pay them immediately, you're very likely to be out of luck. Someone mentioned paying off credit card balances with the highest interest rates first. That's done by throwing whatever cash you have at them while paying the minimum on the lower-rate balances. That's financially sound, but there's a technique that turns out to be more motivating for some, which is attacking the lowest balance first. It leads to the quickest reduction in the number payments you're required to make every month, and quickly lets you add the money you were applying to the smallest balance to the payment you make on the next-smallest balance. (Close each card as you pay it off if you don't want to accumulate debt again.) P.S. I don't know what your home's feed is, so I didn't address that. If it's some kind of rental income, every lender I have encountered credits 75% of the current monthly rent toward your gross income. They assume there will be vacancies and other costs.","Pay it all off now before you change your mind. Having an emergency fund is important but that assumes you'll have the discipline to leave it alone. Obviously, you don't or you wouldn't have amassed $36k in cc debt. Regardless of the rates, your icome or any other factor, that's just way too much and a pretty good indication that you've got problems managing money. Pay them off now while you still can!","First of all a big thumbs up for Ben's answer. A few small things you can do to help you on your way. Hopefully you are not more in debt that 6 months of salary in debt because that is a really tough road. first thing you need to do is get some professional help. The National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC) offers free or low-cost debt counseling to help you through the process. Visit them at NFCC.org or call 1-800-388-2227 to find a local affiliate office near you. You might want to only use cash for a while. If not and you have a credit card with no balance always use that card because it will be interest free. Remember if you use credit cards as a payment system and not credit, you actually get free interest. If you roll even a penny over into the next statement you are paying interest day one of each purchase. Pay credit cards with highest interest rate first an pay minimums to others This one I like the best. As you get money pay your credit card. You interest is being compounded daily. Pay your cards when you have money, not when they are due. Have a mindset that reminds how much something is really going to cost you If you plan on taking 3 years to get out of debt and you buy something for $100 that is really costs you $156.08 Three years of compound 16% interest. 5b. Conversely if you sell something for $100 on eBay that is like selling something for $156.08."],"string":"[\n \"I agree with you that you need to consolidate this debt using a loan. It may be hard to find a bank or credit organization that will give you an unsecured personal loan for that much money. I know of one, called Lending Club (Disclaimer - I'm an investor on this platform. Not trying to advertise, it's just the only place I know of off the top of my head) that facilitates loans like this, but instead of a bank financing the loan, the loan is split up accross hundreds of investors who each contribute a small amount (such as $25). They have rates anywhere between 5-30%, based on your credit profile(s), and I believe they have some loan amounts that go up to the area that you're discussing. Regarding buying the house - The best thing you can do when trying to buy a house is to save up a 20% downpayment, if at all possible. Below this amount, you may be asked to pay for 'PMI' - Private Mortgage Insurance. This is a charge that doesn't go away for quite a while (until you've paid them 20% of the appraised value of the home), where you pay a premium because you didn't have the 20% downpayment for the house. I would suggest you try to eliminate your credit card debt as soon as possible, and would recommend the same for your father. Getting your utilization down and reconsolidating the large debts with a loan will help to reduce interest charges and get you a reasonable, fixed payment. Whether you decide to pay off your own balances using your savings account is up to you; if it were me, personally, I'd do so immediately rather than trying to pay it off over time. But if you lose money to taxes by withdrawing the money from your 'tax free savings account', it may not be a beneficial situation. Treat debt, especially credit card debt, like an emergency at all times, and you'll find yourself in a better place as a result. Credit card debt and balances are and should be temporary, and their rates and fees are structured that way. If, for any reason, you expect that a credit card's balance will remain for an extended period of time, you may want to consider whether it would be advantageous for you to consolidate the debt into a loan, instead.\",\n \"I wouldn't worry about his credit score. The hit from a credit inquiry is not that big and it's absolutely worth it in the long run. I suggest you sign him up for a free budgeting app (just google budgeting app) that will help him not only take control of his spending but also help him with his loans. Transferring debt comes with a few caveats: His credit score is bad so I don't know if he'll be able to get 0% loan, but even if he gets 6% - 8% that will save him money; just don't forget about the transfer fee. If he has checking/savings account it's worth talking to that bank first - they might be able to give him a better deal for being their customer. Also if he tells them his story and credit score they might be able to give him an idea what they can offer him without doing a credit check. Another option is to become a member of a local credit union - they have great rates on loans / credit cards. Credit card or personal loan doesn't matter much, whatever he can get. With his credit score I doubt he'll be able to get a good rate at Chase or one of the other big credit card companies. Good luck.\",\n \"Consolidation makes sense, if your friend has his act together and isn't going to run up more debt. Finding a lender will be tough. I'd suggest trying local credit unions, making sure first that there has been NO late or missed payments for 6-9 months. You need to talk to a human at a local lender who will give you informal guidance about what you need to approve, so you don't end up getting lots of declinations. If its more than $10k, it will be hard to get a loan like this from anyone. In that case, you need to focus on the smallest debts first, because your friend's cash flow is going to be pinched by making payments to multiple creditors. It's critical to pay all creditors on time for at least the minimum amount due. The problem is, once you start paying things down, the creditors will start ratcheting down credit limits. When that happens, you're at greater risk for getting nabbed with fees and higher minimum payments, which may be considered a universal default by other lenders. There isn't alot of detail here, but depending on income and the amount of debt, your friend should be prepared to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.\",\n \"Are you doing the right thing? Yes, paying back some of the expense of college is a great way to show your gratitude. Could your sister also pitch in a little to help pay the debt down? Will you get approved for a $30,000 unsecured loan? You don't mention your credit rating but that will have an effect obviously. You might consider visiting a credit union with your father and co-signing a loan since it is his debt that you are assuming. You might still want to write a loan for your dad to sign even if he isn't co-signed on a loan. This could protect you in case of his death if there are other assets to divide. If you are not approved for a loan, you could also simply join your dad in paying down the highest-rate cards first and have a loan agreement for him to pay back that money if/when it is possible. You've mentioned that you have no collateral. There aren't many options for loans with no collateral. Your dad's bank or a credit union might consider a debt consolidation loan with you as a co-signer. That's why I mentioned going to a credit union. Talking to a loan officer at a local financial institution will make it easier to get approved. If they see that you are taking responsible steps to pay off the debt, that reduces your credit risk. If you do get a debt consolidation loan, they will probably ask your dad to close some credit card accounts.\",\n \"\\\"Your companies are declining to lower your rates because you are describing it as being kind. When I was in a similar situation, I called each one, starting with the highest rate, and said this: For the last little while things have been tight and my balances have crept up on all my cards. Now I'm about to start a fairly dramatic paydown. I'm going to be doing highest-rate fastest, which is you. Are you able to lower my rate so that you can continue to collect it? Some said no. Some said \\\"\\\"ask again when you've paid more than the minimum three months in a row.\\\"\\\" Most said yes, and sometimes by a dramatic amount. It made a real difference to getting things under control. I agree with the other answers that $50 extra on each card is just not as fulfilling as putting all the extra to a single card. If you must still use a card (to put gas in your car, buy groceries etc) getting one card to zero will return you to not paying interest even when you use it, so you might want to start with your lowest balance and then go to highest-rate once you have one clear one you can use. (If your balances are all so high that it will take a year or more to get one to zero, then maybe not. But if one is low drive it down first.) As for the consolidation loan, for some people it's the key to saving interest and getting the debt behind them. For others it's a chance to catch their breath and run up even more debt. Most people cannot predict in advance which they will be or which others will be. Be aware that it is a risk. You can vow that you will never again cover payroll with a cash advance from the company credit card (or your personal one) but when push comes to shove, you just might anyway.\\\"\",\n \"To confirm: you say you have credit card debt of $18,000 with min. repayment of $466.06, plus on top of this you are also paying off a car loan and another personal loan. From my calculations if your monthly interest on your credit card is $237, the interest on your credit card should be about 15.8% p.a. Is this correct? Balance Transfer If you did a balance transfer of your $18,000 to a new credit card with 0% for 14 months and keep your repayments the same ($466) you would have saved yourself a bit over $3020 in interest over those 14 months. Your credit card balance after 14 months would be about $11,471 (instead of $14,476 with your current situation). If your interest after the 14 months went back to 15.8% you would be able to pay the remaining $11,471 in 2.5 more years (keeping repayments at $466), saving 10 months off your repayments and a total of $4,781 in interest over 3 years and 8 months. The main emphasis here is that you are able to keep your repayments at least the same so you are able to pay off the debt quicker, and that your interest rate on the new credit card after the 14 months interest free is not more than your current interest rate of 15.8%. Things you should be careful about if you take this path: Debt Consolidation In regards to a Debt Consolidation for your personal loan and credit card (and possibly your car loan) into a single lower interest rate loan can be a good idea, but there are some pitfalls you should consider. Manly, if you are taking out a loan with a lower interest rate but a longer term to pay it off, you may end up paying less in monthly repayments but will end up paying more interest in the long run. If you do take this course of action try to keep your term to no longer than your current debt's terms, and try to keep your repayments as high as possible to pay the debt off as soon as possible and reduce any interest you have to pay. As you already have you credit card and personal loan with CBA talk to them to see what kind of deal they can give you. Again be wary of the fine print and read the PDS of any products you are thinking of getting. Refer to ASIC - Money Smart website for more valuable information you should consider before taking out any debt consolidation. Other Action You Can Take If you are finding that the repayments are really getting out of hand and no one will help you with any debt consolidation or reducing your interest rates on your debts, as a last resort you can apply for a Part 9 debt agreement. But be very careful as this is an alternative to bankruptcy, and like bankruptcy a debt agreement will appear on your credit file for seven years and your name will be listed on the National Personal Insolvency Index forever. Further Assistance and Help If you have trouble reading any PDS, or want further information or help regarding any issues I have raised or any other part of your financial situation you can contact Centrelink's Financial Information Service. They provide a free and confidential service that provides education and information on financial and lifestyle issues to all Australians.\",\n \"\\\"The best way I know of to get the interest rate lowered is to call the credit card company and simply ask. Typically if a credit card company thinks you will leave them for another company they will be willing to work with you. There is also the option of transfering some of the higher interest debt to one of the lower interest credit cards. It sounds like you have your friend on the right track by focusing all extra money on the credit card with the highest interest rate. Then after that one is paid off send all extra to the next highest one and so on. The classic \\\"\\\"snowball\\\"\\\" effect.\\\"\",\n \"You should also look outside the box. There are non profit credit relief organizations that will give you free credit counseling. Don't pay for it though. There are some organizations that are shady in offering counseling but they wreck your credit by asking you to stop making your payments. Some of the legitimate organizations out there have ties to credit unions and banks that can offer you some loans to consolidate your debt at rates lower than those you mentioned in your questions. You should probably also approach a credit union directly and discuss debt consolidation loan options. Even if you can only knock out the debts with the highest interest rate, that's a good first step.\",\n \"\\\"The bottom line is that this just does not work, and as such you should not do it. Here is a question that you really need to think about: How will you handle non-payments? How will you handle it when they talk about purchases they made or vacations they went on when they have been short for the last three months? Yes, it will happen. The majority of people who engage in debt consolidation, which you are proposing, end up with the consolidated debt and more consumer debt. One cannot borrow themselves out of debt. Carrying credit card debt is a sign of poor money management and improper spending behavior. That behavior will not change if you \\\"\\\"bail them out\\\"\\\" with the consolidation. They need to find a way to work their way out of this situation by budgeting, living a more austere lifestyle, and earning more. Encouraging them to do so will serve them far better then your generous attempts to reduce the pain of their own making. In the end it is always a parent's desire to help their children. If you can afford to give, then it is well within your right to do so. It is also within your right to qualify that giving with behavioral conditions. However, if you cannot afford to give, it is best not to loan.\\\"\",\n \"You are on the right path. Especially for the fact that you are paying the highest rate card with highest priority. As long as your credit score will not stop you from getting the credit union loan, this is a great idea. It will turn the highest rate card(s) into something more reasonable and let you continue to attack principal instead of mostly paying interest.\",\n \"\\\"Typically you can use credit card balance transfers to consolidate some, or all, of your other loan balances in one place. The interest rate might be lower. Some prefer to make one payment rather than multiple payments. There is typically a fee that is imposed by the card that is originating or creating the loan. This would be the credit card you are transferring the balances. That fee is typically in the 3% to 5% range. While tempting and attractive on the surface, this plan typically leads to a worse situation then you are now. It's a \\\"\\\"tough pill to swallow\\\"\\\", but your problem is that you spend too much money. Transferring money will not change this problem, it is your behavior that has to change in order to not accumulate more debt. It has to change further if you want to get rid of the debt in a timely fashion. You would be far better served to forget about this transfer and get your life into control. Spend a lot less, earn more. Pay off the cards you have now and cut them up. Make a goal to be done in a year and figure out how to earn enough money to make that happen. BTW I am a reformed over-spender that now owes nothing. Yep my house, cars, and rental property are all paid for. You can get there too.\\\"\",\n \"Why not just get a consolidated loan for 15K, and then $20K zero transfer? The Loan will have a payoff on the amount borrowed, probably a fixed payment which would be more than double the payment as if it were only $15K to start. That make sense? If you are approved for both pieces of this, it should help, what is going to be the rate on the loan? The process you are starting has 3 aspects - cut spending, reduce interest, minimize payment obligations. If you do anything to earn more, even a few hours a week it will add up. I would not reduce any credit lines. In a perfect world, you will have a buffer of money to cover any expense. Until then, available access to money is important, but of course to be used either for emergencies or when cash is there to pay the bill in full when it comes in.\",\n \"The debt on Credit Cards is pretty high. Its in the range of 30-40% APR. There could also be a case very high personal loan for medical or other personal emergencies at a rate in excess of 15%. The debt consolidation would offer this at a very low APR There are institutions that offer debt consolidation services that would consolidate all your debt into a single loan at a lower rate of interest. They would also negotiate with all your lenders to waive charges and accrued interests to the max extent. The benefit to the institution offering this service is that they have a larger loan on books and hence the servicing cost is less. Most of the time the debt consolidation is offered with some asset as the guarantee for the new loan. By doing this the advantages are: Of course if you are looking for the balance transfer on cards to new one, then its same and in fact may at times be more expensive.\",\n \"A good resource for this type of help is the National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC). They provide free and low-cost credit counselors who can... Most importantly, avoid those for-profit debt consolidation companies. They are ripoffs.\",\n \"Short-term, getting a balance transfer will help. It'll reduce the interest you pay. You can also reduce the interest you pay on your cars if you are able to consolidate your debt into a personal loan. To your question about debt consolidation companies, as far as I know, that's all they do. However, long-term, there's only two ways to stay on top of debt: increase your income, or reduce your spending. Basically, if you can't or won't get a raise or a job that pays more (or a second job), you need to cut back on your spending. You might need to do something radical, like move somewhere with cheaper rent (as long as increased travel costs doesn't offset the saving). But you'll be much better off in the long run if you step back and take a look at your situation now, and make adjustments accordingly.\",\n \"\\\"In addition to dpassage's excellent advice on dealing with your debt in the most efficient manner, you may also want to consider Consumer Credit Counseling Services (CCCS). These are non-profit agencies (free or low-cost) that can work with you and your creditors to come up with payment plans and sometimes negotiate lower interest rates to help you get out from under the debt. You should definitely avoid for-profit \\\"\\\"debt consolidation\\\"\\\" companies, but the National Foundation for Credit Counseling can refer you to non-profit services in your area.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I've done exactly what you are describing and it was a great move for me. A few years back I had two credit cards. One had a $6000 balance and a fairly high interest rate that I was making steady payments to (including interest). The other was actually tied to a HELOC (home equity line of credit) whose interest rate was fixed to \\\"\\\"prime\\\"\\\", which was very low at the time, I think my effective rate on the card was around 3%. So, I pulled out one of the \\\"\\\"cash advance checks\\\"\\\" from the HELOC account and paid off the $6000 balance. Then I started making my monthly payments against the balance on the HELOC, and paid it off a bit more quickly and with less overall money spent because I was paying way less interest. Another, similar, tactic is to find a card that doesn't charge fees for balance transfers and that has a 0% interest rate for the first 12 months on transferred balances. I am pretty sure they are out there. Open an account on that card, transfer the balance to it, and pay it down within 12 months. And, try not to use the card for anything else if you can help it.\\\"\",\n \"Take the consolidation loan and pay it off. Don't close the card. Opening a new account will have no bearing on your mortgage a year or two down the road. Keep paying on time -- that will make a big difference! JohnFX's suggestion to open a new card and do a transfer is a great idea if you have good credit. Just read the fine print -- most cards charge a 3-5% transfer fee and some cards accrue interest if you don't pay within the promotional period.\",\n \"If you hadn't done it already cut up the cards. Don't close the accounts because it could hurt your credit score even more. Switching some or all of the CC debt onto low rate cards, or a debt consolidation loan is a way that some people use to reduce their credit card payments. The biggest risk is that you become less aggressive with the loan payback. If you were planning on paying $800 in minimum payments,plus $200 extra each month; then still pay $1000 with the new loan and remaining credit cards. Another risk is that you start overusing the credit card again, because you have available credit on the card that was paid off with the loan. The third risk, which you haven't proposed, occurs when people switch unsecured credit card dept, to a secured 2nd mortgage debt. This then puts the family home at risk.\",\n \"You can take a out loan against your 401k, which means you won't be penalized for the withdrawal. You will have to pay that amount back though, but it can help since the interest will be lower than a lot of credit card rates. You could refinance your home if you can get a reasonable interest rate. You could also get a 0% APR balance transfer credit card and transfer the balance and pay it off that way. There are a lot of options. I would contact a Credit Counselor and explore further options. The main objective is to get you out of debt, not put you more in debt - whether that is refinancing your mortgage, cashing in an annuity, etc.\",\n \"Obviously the best way to consolidate the real-estate loans is with a real-estate loan. Mortgages, being secured loans, provide much better interest rates. Also, interest can be deducted to some extent (depending on how the proceeds are used, but up to $100K of the mortgage can have deductible interest just for using the primary residence as a collateral). Last but not least, in many states mortgages on primary residence are non-recourse (again, may depend on the money use). That may prove useful if in the future your mother runs into troubles repaying it. So yes, your instincts are correct. How to convince your mother - that's between you and her.\",\n \"\\\"In the sole interest of improving your credit score, the thing you should focus on is lowering your overall utilization. The best thing you could do for this would be to get a loan to reconsolidate your credit card debts into a single, long term loan. The impact of this is that your credit card utilization, assuming the loan covers 100% of your balances, will suddenly drop to 0%, as you'll no longer have a balance on the cards. Additionally, at this point, with a consolidation loan, you'll be building loan history by making steady, fixed payments on the loan. The loan will also, ideally, have a significantly lower interest rate than the cards, and thus will save you money that you'd otherwise be spending on interest. A lot of others here will feed you some additonal, irrelevant advice - \\\"\\\"Pay off X credit card first!\\\"\\\"; Ideally, you need to eliminate this debt. But to directly address the question of how you could improve your credit score, based on your utilization, I believe the best option would be for you to reconsolidate your credit card debt into a single loan, to reduce your utilization on the cards.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"First of all, congratulations on admitting your problem and on your determination to be debt-free. Recognizing your mistakes is a huge first step, and getting rid of your debt is a very worthwhile goal. When considering debt consolidation, there are really only two reasons to do so: Reason #1: To lower your monthly payment. If you are having trouble coming up with enough money to meet your monthly obligations, debt consolidation can lower your monthly payment by extending the time frame of the debt. The problem with this one is that it doesn't help you get out of debt faster. It actually makes it longer before you are out of debt and will increase the total amount of interest that you will pay to the banks before you are done. So I would not recommend debt consolidation for this reason unless you are truly struggling with your cashflow because your minimum monthly payments are too high. In your situation, it does not sound like you need to consolidate for this reason. Reason #2: To lower your interest rate. If your debt is at a very high rate, debt consolidation can lower your interest rate, which can reduce the time it will take to eliminate your debt. The consolidation loan you are considering is at a high interest rate on its own: 13.89%. Now, it is true that some of your debt is higher than that, but it looks like the majority of your debt is less than that rate. It doesn't sound to me that you will save a significant amount of money by consolidating in this loan. If you can obtain a better consolidation loan in the future, it might be worth considering. From your question, it looks like your reasoning for the consolidation loan is to close the credit card accounts as quickly as possible. I agree that you need to quit using the cards, but this can also be accomplished by destroying the cards. The consolidation loan is not needed for this. You also mentioned that you are considering adding $3,000 to your debt. I have to say that it doesn't make sense at all to me to add to your debt (especially at 13.89%) when your goal is to eliminate your debt. To answer your question explicitly, yes, the \\\"\\\"cash buffer\\\"\\\" from the loan is a very bad idea. Here is what I recommend: (This is based on this answer, but customized for you.) Cut up/destroy your credit cards. Today. You've already recognized that they are a problem for you. Cash, checks, and debit cards are what you need to use from now on. Start working from a monthly budget, assigning a job for every dollar that you have. This will allow you to decide what to spend your money on, rather than arriving at the end of the month with no idea where your money was lost. Budgeting software can make this task easier. (See this question for more information. Your first goal should be to put a small amount of money in a savings account, perhaps $1000 - $1500 total. This is the start of your emergency fund. This money will ensure that if something unexpected and urgent comes up, you won't be so cash poor that you need to borrow money again. Note: this money should only be touched in an actual emergency, and if spent, should be replenished as soon as possible. At the rate you are talking about, it should take you less than a month to do this. After you've got your small emergency fund in place, attack the debt as quickly and aggressively as possible. The order that you pay off your debts is not significant. (The optimal method is up for debate.) At the rate you suggested ($2,000 - 2,500 per month), you can be completely debt free in maybe 18 months. As you pay off those credit cards, completely close the accounts. Ignore the conventional wisdom that tells you to leave the unused credit card accounts open to try to preserve a few points on your credit score. Just close them. After you are completely debt free, take the money that you were throwing at your debt, and use it to build up your emergency fund until it is 3-6 months' worth of your expenses. That way, you'll be able to handle a small crisis without borrowing anything. If you need more help/motivation on becoming debt free and budgeting, I recommend the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey.\\\"\",\n \"Get a loan at a decent interest rate and use that to pay off all of the credit cards. Then pay into that loan and leave the credit cards alone. Cancel them and don't use them. Credit card debt is possibly the worst kind of debt. So expensive. It's not designed for long term borrowing. It's designed to be paid off completely every month. Get a single loan and consolidate all your debt into it. It will have a lower interest rate and cost you a lot less in the long term.\",\n \"It doesn't really make sense to cure indebtedness with more debt. This is why your friend is having trouble finding someone to loan him money. If he can't borrow at a lower rate then he should probably focus on paying down some of his debt.\",\n \"Go where your money is treated best. If you can lower your APR, great. It should help a little bit with getting a mortgage if you can reduce your payment. Your debt-to-income ratio would go down.\",\n \"As someone with a lot of student loan debt, I can relate - the first thing you should do is read the promissory note on your current loans - there might be information there you can use. For govt loans (stafford, etc) made after July 1, 2006 the interest rate is going to be fixed and even a federal direct consolidation is not going to lower the rates themselves. If anything, consolidation will just increase the repayment period, which means you'll end up paying more in the long run. Most private Loans usually offer variable interest rates, which today are quite low. But unless your financial situation is very comfortable and stable, consolidating out of federally guaranteed loans into private loans might not be the best path. You might lose options like deferment, forbearance, and maybe even things like a death benefit (if you die, your loans die with you). related - if you have a co-signer you don't get that death benefit! But refinancing into a variable rate private loan is going to push a lot of risk to you in terms of interest rate inflation, etc. Most financial professionals will agree that interest rates can only go up in the long run. Keep in mind, student loans are completely unsecured - meaning lenders are taking a fairly large risk in loaning money (and probably why the fed govt has to guarantee most of them). I've heard of people borrowing against their home equity to pay down student loan debt - but I can't think of a reason you'd want to substitute secured for unsecured debt and possibly lose the loan interest tax deduction. The bottom line is you're unlikely to find an alternative lending source at a lower interest rate for an unsecured student loan. Another option may be the income based repayment plan. If you qualify, it caps student loan monthly payments at 15% of your discretionary income (discretionary is your income minus whatever the poverty threshold income amount is). And if that 15% doesn't even cover the interest on the loans, the govt picks up the tab for the difference (for up to 3 years). You have to re-qualify every year by sending in all sorts of documentation, but if you somehow stay on IBR for 25 years, your loans are then forgiven. Obviously the downside here is that you are probably paying little to no principal, but if you do the math and determine that your IBR payment would be next to nothing, and your current situation is barely paying interest-only... well, maybe IBR isn't a bad thing for a couple of years (or 25 if you think you will never have a larger income). Personally, I went through all these options as well and decided that my best option was to just earn more money... a 2nd job or side project here and there helps me pay down the debt faster, and with less risk, than moving to private variable rate loans.\",\n \"\\\"I don't recommend balance transfers. Like many credit card things, they distract you with shiny (\\\"\\\"0 percent interest!\\\"\\\") and ream you on a 'balance transfer fee'. If you have a decent credit score and working relationship, talk to banks about opening what's called a 'signature loan,' and use that to shift the debt to a lower rate. A local credit union advertises rates 'as low as' 9.75 percent. Which is itself a shiny that you may not qualify for. The really low loans rates you see are secured loans; if you don't pay, they can take the collateral.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"From the comments, it sounds like you have a technical background. So I'm going to suggest you think of this as a technical problem: it's an optimization problem, where the variable you're trying to optimize for is total interest paid over the lifetime of the loans. Step 1 is making sure you're using the credit available to you most efficiently. If there's room in the credit limit for card #1 to move more of your debt there, then definitely move your balances from the higher-interest cards. However, be careful; some cards will have different interest rates for balance transfers or cash advances. And definitely don't move any principal from Card #3 until the 0% interest rate expires. Pursuing a bank loan as part of step 1 is valid as well. You could start with the bank you use for your checking account today. Credit unions can be a good source of lower-interest loans as well. Ensure that you fully understand the terms and interest rates, particularly if they change. Just be careful about applying for them; too many rejections can affect your credit rating negatively. You also mention in the comments that you're paying \\\"\\\"her\\\"\\\" mortgage. I don't know how the ownership is set up there, but either refinancing or taking out a home equity loan can be a way to consolidate debt. The interest rate on a home loan will almost assuredly be less than on your higher rate cards, especially taking the tax deduction into account. Step 2 is paying down the debt efficiently. The rule here is simple: Pay the minimum payment on all cards except for the one with the highest interest rate; any money you have above the minimum payments should go into paying down the principal on that one. In your case, that's Card #2. Good luck!\\\"\",\n \"You need to pay off the entire balance of 7450 as soon as possible. This should be your primary financial goal at this point above anything else. A basic structure that you can follow is this: Is the £1500 balance with the 39.9% interest rate the obvious starting point here? Yes, that is fine. But all the cards and overdraft debts need to be treated with the same urgency! What are the prospects for improving my credit score in say the next 6-12 months enough to get a 0% balance transfer or loan for consolidation? This should not be a primary concern of yours if you want to move on with your financial life. Debt consolidation will not help you achieve the goals you have described (home ownership, financial stability). If you follow the advice here, by the time you get to the point of being eligible, you may not see enough savings in interest to make it worth the hassle. Focus on the hard stuff and pay off the balances. Is that realistic, or am I looking at a longer term struggle? You are looking at a significant struggle. If it was easy you would not be asking this question! The length of time will be determined by your choices: how aggressively you will cut your lifestyle, take on extra jobs, and place additional payments on your debt. By being that extreme, you will actually start to see progress, which will be encouraging. If you go in half-committed, your progress will show as much and it will be demotivating. Much of your success will hinge on your mental and emotional toughness to push through the hard work of delaying pleasure and paying off these balances. That is just my personal experience, so you can take it or leave it. :) The credit score will take care of itself if you follow this method, so don't worry about it. Good Luck!\",\n \"I would personally look at consolidating your debt at a lower interest rate by refinancing your mortgage. I would leave any retirement funds alone unless it was absolutely necessary to touch it with no other avenues available. However, once you have consolidated your debt into the mortgage I would pay more than the minimum amount so that you don't take too long to pay it off. I would put about 50% of the freed-up cash flow back into the repayments, that way you will be paying more debt off quicker and you will have additional cash flow to help your monthly budget. Another good point would be to go through your monthly budget to see if there is any expenses you could reduce or eliminate.\",\n \"If your credit is good, you should immediately attempt to refinance your high rate credit cards by transferring the balance to credit cards with lower interest rates.You might want to check at your local credit union, credit unions can offer great rates. Use the $4000 to pay off whatever is left on the high rate cards. If your credit is bad, I suggest you call your credit card company and try to negotiate with them. If they consider you a risk they might settle your account for fraction of what you own if you can send payment immediately. Don't tell them you have money, just tell them your are trying to get your finances under control and see what they can offer you. This will damage your credit score but will get you out of depth much sooner and save you money in the long term. Also keep in mind that if they do settle, they'll close your account. That way, you leverage the $4000 and use it as a tool to get concessions from the bank.\",\n \"Depending on your credit score you might be able to balance transfer to a lower rate. Credit is still cheap, with a good credit score you should be able to get ~ 6%, maybe even lower if you go through a credit union. Given you return is 13% (!!) I would not divert money from that.\",\n \"\\\"The first thing I'd do is to find out your credit (FICO) score. If you have a good one, try to get another card with a lower rate. Then call up the lender, point to your good score, and your alternatives. If you have a bad score, do nothing. \\\"\\\"Let sleeping dogs lie.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"\\\"My answer is similar to Ben Miller's, but let me make some slightly different points: There is one excellent reason to get a consolidation loan: You can often get a lower interest rate. If you are presently paying 19% on a credit card and you can roll that into a personal loan at 13.89%, you'll be saving over 5%, which can add up. I would definitely not consolidate a loan at 12.99% into a loan at 13.89%. Then you're just adding 1% to your interest rate. What's the benefit in this? Another good reasons for a consolidation loan is psychological. A consolidation loan with fixed payments forces you to pay that amount every month. You say you have trouble with credit cards. It's very easy to say to yourself, \\\"\\\"Oh, just this month I'm going to pay just the minimum so I can use my cash for this other Very Important Thing that I need to buy.\\\"\\\" And then next month you find something else that you just absolutely have to buy. And again the next month, and the next, and your determination to seriously pay down your debt keeps getting pushed off. If you have a fixed monthly payment, you can't. You're committed. Also, if you have many credit cards, juggling payments on all of them can get complex and confusing. It's easy to lose track of how much you owe and to budget for payments. At worst, when there are many bills to pay you may forget one. (Personally I now have 3 bank cards, an airline card, and 2 store cards, and managing them is getting out of hand. I have good reasons for having so many cards: the airline card and the store cards give me special discounts. But it's confusing to keep track of.) As to adding $3,000 to the consolidation loan: Very, very bad idea. You are basically saying, \\\"\\\"I have to start seriously paying down my debt ... tomorrow. Today I need a some extra cash so I'm going to borrow just a little bit more, but I'm going to get started paying it off next month.\\\"\\\" This is a trap, and the sort of trap that leads people into spiraling debt. Start paying off debt NOW, not at some vague time in the future that never seems to come.\\\"\",\n \"Before we were married my wife financed a car at a terrible rate. I think it was around 20%. When trying to refinance it the remaining loan was much larger than the value of the car, so no one was interested in refinancing. I was able to do a balance transfer to a credit card around 10%. This did take on a bit of risk, which almost came up when the car was totaled in an accident. Fortunately the remaining balance was now less than the value of the car, otherwise I would have been stuck with a credit card payment and no vehicle.\",\n \"Some things you should consider: Balance Transfer Debt Consolidation If you get approved for the Citibank 2 year interest free credit card on balance transfers, you will need another loan of $18K to consolidate your other debt. If you cannot get approval for the credit card you may need to get consolidation loan approval for your full $35K of debt. This approval again will depend on your income and your ability to make repayments. As it sounds like you don't have any assets, you may have to get an unsecured loan which comes with higher interest rates. Remember a consolidation loan is only worthwhile if you can get an interest rate lower than your current interest rates and if you pay as much as possible to reduce the term of the loan and the total interest you end up paying. You haven't given the interest rate for the consolidation loan, but lets assume you could get one at 12% p.a. over a 3 year period. For a loan of $18K you would have to pay $138 per week. Together with the $163.50 per week you would have to pay the credit card balance transfer, your total repayments per week for the first 2 years would be $301.50, then $138 per week for the 3rd year. This option sounds affordable, but without knowing what your income and current expenses are it is hard for others to determine for sure. If you had to get a consolidated loan for the full $35K at say 12% p.a. then your weekly repayments would be $268.30 over a 3 year period. This looks to be achievable too. Being Disciplined As you said you will need to be very disciplined in order to get out of this debt. You will need to set up a proper budget and watch every dollar you spend. You will need to restrict any spending on credit cards and getting any new personal loans. You say you will keep a small credit limit to pay for ongoing online payments for courses. Make sure you uses a 55 day interest free credit card (preferably with no annual fee) for this and pay the full amount due every month, so you don't end up paying any more interest on this card. In case of death would my debts pass on to my next of kin or family? If your debts are unsecured (which personal loans and credit cards are), then no your next of kin or family will not have to pay your debts if you die. When you die any money or assets (which would be sold) in your estate will first be used to pay off any of your debts. If there is not enough money or assets in your estate then your remaining debts may not need to be paid. Other people are only responsible for paying your debts after you die if: Bankruptcy An alternative to Bankruptcy is a Part 9 debt agreement, as I mentioned in my answer to your previous question. In this case you will still need to pay off at least part of the debt but will not be charged any further interest on the debt. This is not as severe as Bankruptcy, but as I mentioned before, should not be taken lightly. Like bankruptcy, a debt agreement will appear on your credit file for seven years and your name will be listed on the National Personal Insolvency Index forever. Bankruptcy or a Debt Agreement should only be used as a last resort if you are unable to undertake any other option. And remember, even if you do take this course of action, you will still need to be disciplined now and into the future, so you don't end up in a similar situation again.\",\n \"I am super sorry about your divorce and nod to you for taking care of your kids and spouse. This may sound super snarky, although not my intention, but you have an income problem. Despite making almost double the national average, you are supporting two households, and live in a high cost of living area. (BTW been there, done that and also in IT.) The best way to avoid paying CC interest is to pay them off, and cut them up. Some might poo-poo the idea as you can earn some $ by getting CC rebates, but you are not in that mode right now. Consolidations, and balance transfers are a losing game as you can probably feel the November deadline looming. If I was you, I would get a second job, even if it was something like pumping gas. Making an extra $500/month increases your balance reduction by 650%. Sell stuff. Recently an older version of Visual Studio, that was sitting unused on my shelf, went for $400 on Ebay. The best way to solve this problem is through sweat equity. There are no easy answers. It sucks, but putting your big boy pants on and being prepared to work 20 hours of the day is the easiest way out of this. If you do this you will learn a lesson about CC utilization that most don't learn.\",\n \"\\\"Congratulations on recognizing your problem and getting serious about paying down your debt. That's the first step. If you have a loan with 80% interest, yes, get that paid off as quickly as possible. Much better to be paying even the outrageous 20% on a credit card than the astounding 80%. As others have noted, if you can get a consolidation loan or refinance that 80% to something more realistic, do it and do it as soon as possible. Heck, if you have the credit limit, use the credit card to off the 80% loan. 20% on a credit card is better than 80%. Of course you may not have enough credit limit to do that. Cash-back rewards are nice if you are paying off the credit card balance each month. But in your case, you're not. 25% with a 2% cash back reward means you're still paying 23% the first month and 25% every month after that. That's worse than 20%. Remember you pay the interest on your balance every month that you don't pay it off, while a cash-back is a one-time thing. So if you're not going to pay off the balance, AT BEST a cash back reward could be effectively subtracted from the interest rate. 20% with a 2% cashback is effectively somewhere between 18% and 20%. If you're comparing 20% with 2% cashback to 19%, could be complicated to figure out which is better. But it's clearly worse than anything more than 20%. Besides that, you don't say what your total debt is in relation to your income. If you have a lot of debt, I'd say first thing is to figure out what you can do to cut your expenses. Lots of things that people call \\\"\\\"fixed expenses\\\"\\\" aren't really fixed at all, they just take some effort to cut. Like if you have a big expensive house and you're paying a large mortgage, you can (probably) cut that by selling the place and moving to a cheaper house. (I say \\\"\\\"probably\\\"\\\" because the housing market may make it impossible to sell for enough to improve your situation.) If you have large heating bills, you can turn the thermostat down and get used to wearing a sweater around the house. Etc. Final note: I've talked to a fair number of people with debt problems, and I often hear them say, \\\"\\\"Yes, I really need to cut my spending and start paying off these debts. And I intend to ... right after I buy this one last thing that I really really want.\\\"\\\" But of course after that there's one more vital purchase, and then another, etc. Avoid falling into this trap.\\\"\",\n \"Dude- my background is in banking specifically dealing with these scenarios. Take my advice-look for a balance transfer offer-credit card at 0%. Your cost of capital is your good credit, this is your leverage. Why pay 4.74% when you can pay 0%. Find a credit card company with a balance transfer option for 0%. Pay no interest, and own the car outright. Places to start; check the mail, or check your bank, or check local credit unions. Some credit unions are very relaxed for membership, and ask if they have zero percent balance transfers. Good Luck!\",\n \"I would take a closer look at each provider. I have one credit-card provider who when there is a large portion of credit available, they frequently offer promotions on balance transfers so you fill that credit, sometimes it can be 0% for xx months, or a very low % until paid off in full. If this is the case clear that card fully and balance transfer the remainder to get an even lower interest to make the repayments eaier to clear.\",\n \"If you are now in a better position to pay your debts, the wise move for your long-term credit is to consolidate any high-interest debt that remains and pay it off as quickly as possible. This may not be possible depending on your situation, but one way to get such consolidation loans is to have a parent with good credit cosign as guarantor on the consolidation loan. The only way your credit will recover is if you establish a good history of payments over the next seven years. Frankly I wouldn't cosign a loan with a family member who made the same decisions you have made, because I wouldn't want to put my own credit at risk, but I might loan the money directly, which would ease the pain for that family member, but it wouldn't help their credit going forward. This may not be a popular opinion, but without any details, it's hard for me to agree that any of your creditors are being greedy when they threaten a judgment. They loaned you the money in good faith, and now you are attempting to negotiate a change of terms. Are they greedy because the interest rates are too high? Maybe you were a bad risk when they loaned the money and the rates reflected the risk of losing some portion of the money. The fact that you are trying to discharge some portion of that debt vindicates any high rates charged.\",\n \"While C/C's have 0% interest this a good mechanism to manage debt. But they expect you will pile up a large debt and at then of the interest free period you will get hammered. So plan your exit strategy. Plan to pay off the 0% cards at the end of the int free period and pay the other cards down. Alternatively, What you could do is pay off the other cards now by drawing down on the 0% card if its possible. Then.all your debt is at 0% int. Also you are consolidating your debt into 1 account. When the int free period is over move the debt into a single personal loan if you don't plan on paying it all off immrdiatley In the meantime put you savings into an interest bearing account to maximize the value of your savings.\",\n \"If it were me, I'd be debt free today, Monday, at latest. 100K-(53K+31.2K) = 15.8K would be my bank balance by this afternoon. I am not sure why you would count 6K of your daughter's money as yours to use. Either it is her money, or yours, not both. If you still want debt, which I think is silly, you might try to refi your home with a home equity loan. That loan would be in first position, at a fixed rate, and for a fixed term. Regions bank did some thing like this for a person with excellent credit and plenty of equity. They got a 7 year loan at 2.6% when the prevailing interest rate on a 15 year was about a point higher.\",\n \"You should check the details of those balance transfers - they typically have a 3 to 5 % 'one-time fee', which means you pay nearly a year's interest right away. And then every time you transfer the total on again. Also, this fee gets added to the credit card total, and it is possibly considered paid last (after you paid off the completed transferred balance), so it cost interest for the whole time (and that interest is different, maybe 19.99 % or worse). It is probably a better idea to refinance for 5 years at <3%, and they pay off as fast as possible.\",\n \"\\\"Plus one to Alexandre for pointing out this is possible. It is also possible to run with scissors, and I would recommend neither. Your money problems are very small and doing something so dramatic to solve them will probably put you in a worse financial decision. Why would you put your home, at risk, to pay off such a small amount (less than 5K)? The \\\"\\\"one payment\\\"\\\" or consolidation mantra, for a person like you, will often lead a person into reoccurring the same debt and having the consolidation loan. You don't need one payment you need no payments. First off stop borrowing. Second increase your income by working more or selling stuff. You might want to clean some houses, baby sit, or mow some lawns instead of the traditional job. Third decrease your spending. Let your loved ones know it will be a lean Christmas this year. Cut cable as you won't have time to watch TV anyway. If you do all that could you find $1000 per month? I bet you could find more. Doing all that and you will be done in 5 months and still own your home outright. You are a great candidate to pay off your bills by the snowball method, or smallest to largest. While it may not be, on paper, the most mathematically efficient it helps people with motivation and hope. It sounds like you could use that. List your bills smallest to largest and pay off the smallest first while paying minimums on the rest. You can do it!\\\"\",\n \"I'll add a little to the already great advice here. It certainly sounds like you are in need of consolidation here. Having 11 different cards vying for your attention sounds like a nightmare to manage. I also concur that it is a bad idea to cash out your retirement accounts to deal with this. I know it's frustrating to have the debt hanging over your head (I have student loans I'm personally working on) but getting a loan to consolidate that level of noise sounds like a much smarter move that can help greatly if you have high interest cards (most likely the case here). Since you mentioned that you are not interested in selling the house, have you considered a home equity loan to consolidate this? Best of luck to you.\",\n \"Sometimes there are credit cards that offer a (promotional) 0% APR on transfers with no transfer fees. It can be a good option to move the money to one of these if you're disciplined enough to keep hacking away at the debt before the APR jumps.\",\n \"Keep paying down the bills. Attack them by balance (lowest first) or by interest rate (highest first). Talk to a local chapter of the National Foundation for Credit Counseling to see if they have any ideas. Perhaps you are a candidate for bankruptcy or some other drastic measure if you have a steady living situation and steady employment. (I wouldn't know, but honestly if your score can't get much worse so there isn't much to lose) You are doing the best you can and because you care enough, you will do great and adjust going forward. As a dad myself, don't worry about paying for your kids school or showering them with entertainment. Of course they need some, but time with you and knowing you are always there and stable will mean much more than buying their books. The best gift you can give your kid is a future where they don't have to support you, which is sadly more common than we sometimes think.\",\n \"Sounds like you are drowning in debt. Why not just stop paying? It will ruin your credit, but eventually you might be able to settle for much less than you owe and a reasonable interest rate. You will then have a long road to recover you credit, but IMHO this road is much longer and stressful. Hey, you are paying a high interest rate because you are EXPECTED to default. If you were expected to pay back your rates would be lower!\",\n \"If your parents can afford to shell out $1,250 a month for 5 years, they would pretty much have the debt paid off, provided the credit card companies don't start playing games with rates. If that payment is too high, maybe you could kick in $5k every few months to knock the principal down. If they think the business can keep puttering along without losing more money, that may be the way to go. Five years is long enough that the business or property may have recovered some value. Another option, depending on the value of the home, could be a reverse mortgage. I don't know how the economy has affected those programs, but that might be a good option to get the debt cleared away. My grandfather was in a similar position back in the 70's. He owned taverns in NYC that catered to an industrial clientele... the place was booming in the 60s and my grandfather and his brother owned 4 locations at one point. But the death of his brother, post-Vietnam malaise, suburban exodus and shutting of industry really hurt the business, and he ended up selling out his last tavern in 1979 -- which was a dark hour in NYC history and real estate values. A few years later, that building sold for a tremendous amount of money... I believe 10x more. I don't know whether there was a way for his business to survive for another 5-7 years, as I was too young to remember. But I do remember my grandfather (and my father to this day) being melancholy about the whole affair. It's hard to have to work part-time in your 60's and be constantly reminded that your family business -- and to some degree a part of your life -- ended in failure. The stress of keeping things afloat when you're broke is tough. But there's also a mental reward from getting through a tough situation on your own. Good luck!\",\n \"Strictly from a fastest payback standpoint, the rule is to make all minimum payments and send any extra funds to the highest interest loan next. This will result in the lowest interest paid each year. The decision to consolidate depends on the impact it will have to both your payment and overall payoff schedule. It sounds like your priority might need to be cash flow and not overall savings. e.g. taking a 4% loan that has a high payment, but stretching it over more time can lower the payment, even at a bit higher rate. You just need to be aware of the cost and decide based on what you can live with. I hope you are in a good field that would see improvements to your income over these next few years.\",\n \"I am sure everyone is different, but it has helped me a great deal. I have had several card balances go up and the interest on those per month was more than $200 in just interest combined. I transferred the balances over to 0% for 15 months – with a fee, so the upfront cost was about $300. However, over the next 15 months at 0% I'm saving over $200 each month. Now I have the money to pay everything off at 14 months. I will not be paying any interest after that, and I cut up all of my cards so I won't rack up the bills with interest on them anymore. Now, if I can't buy it with a debit card or cash, I don't get it. My cards went up so high after remodeling a home so they were justified. It wasn't because I didn't pay attention to what I could afford. My brother, on the other hand, has trouble using credit cards properly and this doesn't work for him.\",\n \"Not sure if this is possible... It is possible! It is called a balance transfer card and most of the major credit card companies offer them. It is possible to save a significant amount on interest during the grace period. However... Is this a viable option? Not really. Any card will charge you an upfront fee of 3% to 5% of the balance you are transferring. This really only buys you some time in case you are about to fall behind on payments. For many people it's just a way to shuffle around debt, digging themselves a little deeper into consumer debt with each transfer.\",\n \"\\\"There's a cliche, \\\"\\\"out of the frying pan and into the fire\\\"\\\". I've never had the occasion to use it till now. I understand some people find they have a dozen cards and struggle to keep organized. An extra percent or two seems worth the feeling of just one payment to make. In your case, 3 checks (or online payments) per month shouldn't push you to a bad decision. Twice the interest? No thanks. Just make the minimum payments on the two lower rate cards, and pay all you can to the highest rate. Do all you can to cut expenses. The only way out of this is to change your habits avoiding what got you here in the first place.\\\"\",\n \"My concern is that just moving the balance will make you feel like you've accomplished something, when you really haven't. Sure you'll save on interest but that just reduces the rate at which you're bleeding and doesn't heal the wound. It's entirely likely that you'll feel freed by the reduced balance on the original card, ignore the transferred balance since you aren't paying any interest on it, and soon you'll have two cards that are maxed out. I would instead look at getting your expenses under control. Make sure you have the start of an emergency fund - 1-2k depending on your family situation. If you are single start with 1k; if you have kids bump it up to 2k or maybe a little more just to avoid charging any expenses. Get on a written budget, and don't spend any money in the next month that is not accounted for. Then you can figure out how much you can afford to put towards the credit card. That will also tell you how much interest you're going to pay. The only way I would recommend the balance transfer is if the interest savings (after the balance transfer fee) reduced the time it takes to pay off the card by two or more months (since one month isn't going to make a big difference interest-wise), and you immediately cancelled the original card, and cut up both cards (including the new one), making payments by mail or online. Other than that, the interest saved after the balance transfer fee probably isn't worth the risk of being in a worse situation on the other side.\",\n \"Look for offers for 0% (or low) APR on balance transfers. It is more likely to get a promotional APR on balance transfer, than to lower the APR you already have. Of course, try to pay off the balance as long as you're in the period of the promotion, because otherwise you'll end up paying the high rate again. If you cannot get such an offer (low credit etc) - then just try to pay off ASAP and start rebuilding your credit, not much workarounds there. BTW: When you consider the balance transfer promotions - look at 3 things: The promotion period - when it ends, so that you'd know how much time you have to pay it off. The balance transfer fee - usually the balance transfer itself is not free, and you pay 3-5% on the transfer. If you have 0% APR for 12 months, it makes it effectively 5% APR (for the 5% fee), if the period is lesser - the APR is higher. Take that into the account. The APR after the promotion, in case you can't pay off in that time frame.\",\n \"\\\"Better suggestion: Refinance into a lower rate mortgage. In the US right now you could cut that rate substantially with very little effort, unless you are a bad credit risk. Also: Not all mortgages permit use as a \\\"\\\"line of credit\\\"\\\" without additional fees, in addition to credit card transfer fees. (There is often a different kind of house loan, at a higher interest rate, if you really need that flexibility.) So this idea may not even be possible, or those fees may kill it, even before considering costs and risks on the credit card side. Generally, gimmicks don't work.\\\"\",\n \"This can mean a few things to me. Some of which has been mentioned already. It can mean one (or all) of the following to me: You take out a new credit card and transfer ALL other credit balances to it. (Only good if you destroy the others, this is a 0% offer, AND you plan on paying this card off furiously.) You do the loan thing mentioned earlier. You go to a credit consolidation service who will handle your paying your payments and you send them one payment each month. (Highly discourage using them. A majority of them are shady, and won't get do what they say they will do. Check Better Business Bureau if you find yourself considering them as an option.) In the first two cases, you are just reducing the number of hands reaching into your bank account. But keep in mind, doing this is not the same as paying off debt. You can't borrow your way out. You can do this as part of your plan, but do so CAREFULLY.\",\n \"You could look into refinancing with a bank or credit union. But to weed out options quickly, use a service like LendingTree, which can vet multiple options for you a whole lot more quickly than you could probably do yourself. (I don't work for, or get any benefit from LendingTree.) Whatever you do, try to do all the applying within a short span of time, as to not negatively affect your credit score (read here) by creating extraneous inquiries. Then again, if your credit sucks, you might not qualify for a re-fi. If you are turned down, make your payments on time for six months or so, and try again.\",\n \"2% is a very low interest rate; you can do much better by investing your new found money on a 2 year CD, or short term bonds. You could pay the 0% card according to the terms as well. Therefore, considering the low rates of your cards, you should check into some safe investments with guaranteed return rates.\",\n \"\\\"With the scenario that you laid out (ie. 5% and 10% loans), it makes no sense at all. The problem is, when you're in trouble the rates are never 5% or 10%. Getting behind on credit cards sucks and is really hard to recover from. The problem with multiple accounts is that as the banks tack on fees and raise your interest rate to the default rate (usually 30%) when you give them any excuse (late payment, over the limit, etc). The banks will also cut your credit lines as you make payments, making it more likely that you will bump over the limit and be back in \\\"\\\"default\\\"\\\" status. One payment, even at a slightly higher rate is preferable when you're deep in the hole because you can actually pay enough to hit principal. If you have assets like a house, you'll get a much better rate as well. In a scenario where you're paying 22-25% interest, your minimum payment will be $150-200 a month, and that is mostly interest and penalty. \\\"\\\"One big loan\\\"\\\" will usually result in a smaller payment, and you don't end up in a situation where the banks are jockeying for position so they get paid first. The danger of consolidation is that you'll stop triggering defaults and keep making your payments, so your credit score will improve. Then the vultures will start circling and offering you more credit cards. EDIT: Mea Culpa. I wrote this based on experiences of close friends whom I've helped out over the years, not realizing how the law changed in 2009. Back around 2004, a single late payment would trigger universal default on most cards, jacking all rates up to 30% and slashing credit lines, resulting in over the limit and other fees. Credit card banks generally apply payments (in order, to interest on penalties, penalties, interest on principal, principal) in a way that makes it very difficult to pay down principal for people deep in debt. They would also offer \\\"\\\"payment plans\\\"\\\" to entice you to pay Bank B vs. Bank A, which would trigger overlimit fees from Bank A. Another change is that minimum payments were generally 2% of statement balance, which often didn't cover the monthly finance charge. The new law changed that, resulting in a payment of 1% of balance + accrued interest. Under the old regime, consolidation made it less likely that various circumstances would trigger default, and gave the struggling debtor one throat to choke. With the new rules, there are definitely a smaller number of scenarios where consolidation actually makes sense.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Sometimes you need to do more than ask to have your rating reduced. You need to make it in their best interest (no pun intended) to do it. Find the lowest rate card and then tell the others you want to transfer your balance to that card and close the account (don't do it, it is an empty threat). I guarantee they will transfer you to a retention agent who will give you a better deal. From their perspective your current offer is getting 19% interest instead of 22%, why would they do that without some motivation? With the approach described above their options are get 19% interest instead of 0% interest. It is all about negotiation and the \\\"\\\"Retention agents\\\"\\\" have the most leverage to do so.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The question asked in your last paragraph (what's the downside) is answered simply; if you take out a loan and close the cards, that's a ding on your score because your leverage ratio on this portion of your credit jumps to 100% or more, and because you'll be reducing the average age of your lines of credit (one line of credit a few days old versus five lines of credit several years old each). If you take out the loan and don't close the accounts, it's one more line of credit, increasing your total credit, lowering your leverage, but making institutions more reluctant to give you any more credit until they see what you'll do with what you have. In either case, assuming you can get the loan at less than the average rate of the cards (that's actually not a guarantee; a lot of lenders will want APRs in the 20s or 30s even for a title loan or other collateralized loan), then your cost of capital will also go down. That gives you more of a gap of discretionary income that you can better use to \\\"\\\"snowball\\\"\\\" all this debt as you are planning. Another thing to keep in mind is that the minimum payment changes as the balance does. The minimum payment covers monthly interest at least, and therefore varies based on your interest rate (usually variable) and your balance (which will hopefully be decreasing). A constant payment over the current minimum, much like a more traditional amortization, would be preferable.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Several student loans are backed by government guarantee and this will allow you to get attractive rates. This may require them to consolidate the three classes of loans separately. Many commercial banks offer consolidation services, one example is Wachovia discussed at https://www.wellsfargo.com/student/private-loan-consolidation/ Other methods of \\\"\\\"consolidation\\\"\\\" are of course anything that pays off the original loan. If available, using a parent's home equity line of credit to pay of the loans and then paying back the parents can save money. An additional benefit of HELOC-style loans is that they are very flexible in their payment terms. For example you may pay $25 per year to keep the account open and then only be required to make interest payments. Links: https://origin.bankrate.com/finance/college-finance/faqs-on-student-loan-consolidation-1.aspx\\\"\",\n \"I used to do this all the time but it's more difficult now. Just a general warning that this probably isn't a good idea unless you're very responsible with your money because it's easy to get yourself in a bad position if you're not careful. You can get a new credit card that does balance transfers and request balance transfer checks from them. Then just use one of those balance transfer checks to mail a payment to the loan you want to transfer. Make sure your don't use the entire credit line as the credit card will have the balance transfer fee put on it as well. You used to be able to find credit cards with 0% balance transfer fee but I haven't seen one of those in ages. Chase Slate is the lowest I've seen recently at 2%. Alternately, if you have a lot of expenses every month then it's easy to find a credit card where all purchases are 0% interest for a year or more and use that to pay every possible expense for a few months and use the money you'd normally use to pay for those expenses to pay off the original loan. If you're regular monthly expenses are high enough you can pay off the original loan quickly and then pay on the credit card with no interest as normal. The banks are looking to hook you so make sure you pay them off before the zero percent runs out or make sure you know what happens after it does. Normally the rate sky rockets. Also, don't use that card for anything else. Credit card companies always put payments towards the lowest interest rate first so if you charge something that doesn't qualify for 0% then it will collect interest until you've paid off the entire 0% balance which will likely take a while and cost you a lot of money. If you have to pay a balance transfer fee then figure out if it's less then you would have paid if you continued paying interest on the original loan. Good luck. I hope it works out for you.\",\n \"\\\"The best thing to do is to completely pay off one credit card, then apply the left over to the highest interest card. After that, ALL of your expenses that can be put on a credit card, should be put on the one that you just paid off. At the end of the month, pay off a different credit card and the highest interest, and move all your purchasing to that card. Keep going around the circle until you are able to pay them all off. Doing this will be good for your credit score as the debt on the cards will now be \\\"\\\"new\\\"\\\". If you're really desperate to increase your credit score (e.g. refinancing a house) you can use balance transfers to temporarily make it appear that you have zero debt but it will cost you some money, typically balance transfers cost something like $35 + 2%.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"A few points Yes, as a rule, it is better to pay down high interest accounts first, as this will yield lower cost in the long run. Credit card balance transfers usually come at a cost (typically something like \\\"\\\"3% or $50, whichever is higher\\\"\\\"). So instead of transferring the debt, maybe try purchasing items with your card instead of cash, and using the cash to pay down the debt. This has the added benefit of giving you points or cash back on the card (typically you won't get these for a balance transfer). Caveat: Only do this if you are very disciplined! It is very easy to run up high CC balances and forget to save the cash. You should leave a bit of unused credit line on your credit cards in case of emergencies. I'm doubting you can use your high interest loans in the same way.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"It's not a bad strategy. I'd rather owe money at 4% interest than at 6-7%. However, there is something to consider. Consolidating debt into a new loan can backfire. When you have money borrowed at 7%, you want to get that paid off as quickly as possible. Once you have that converted to 4%, if you think, \\\"\\\"Now I can take my time paying off this debt,\\\"\\\" then you aren't really better off. In fact, if you take too long paying off the new loan, you might end up paying more interest than if you had kept the high interest loan and paid it as soon as possible. Don't lose your drive to get out of debt after you refinance. As far as how the student loans affect your debt-to-income ratio, I'm not sure; however, if they do count (I think they do), your ratio will not really be going up by taking out the new loan, since you are using the money to pay other debt. Make sure the new lender knows this, so they take that into consideration when making their decision. Overall, I like your strategy: pay off what you can right away (the car loan and the highest interest student loans) and reduce the interest on the rest. Just make sure that you continue to pay down that debt as quick as you can.\\\"\",\n \"Without knowing your credit situation or your full budget it's a little difficult, but i'd go with the snowball method for now: It may seem like not a big deal to have this kind of debt but you really should be looking at it as if your walking around with your hair on fire. It's a HUGE emergency. Debt, especially looming CC debt with high rates, can make things worse (think water on grease fire) really quickly so the faster you get rid of it the better. Good luck!\",\n \"\\\"Without knowing what the balances are, I associate \\\"\\\"uncomfortable\\\"\\\" with high, as in tens of thousands. What I would do: is 1) cut up the cards and stop using them, and 2) have some balance transfer offers in hand the next time you call to negotiate with the companies. Essentially, you will have to convince them that they will have to explain one of two things to their boss: why they lowered your rate or why you left. They can collect less interest from you or no interest from you. It's up to them. If they don't offer you something that's in the ballpark of your balance transfer offer, then bid them goodbye and complete the balance transfer. As far as paying them off, the top two modes of repayment are lowest balance first (aka snowball) or high interest rate first. Both methods are similar in that you pay minimums on all but the method's focus point. Whether it is lowest balance or highest interest rate, you pay ALL of your extra money on the lowest balance or the highest interest debt until it is gone and then you move onto the next one in the list. For what it's worth, I prefer the lowest balance method, you see progress faster.\\\"\",\n \"I've kind of been there myself. I stretched my finances for the deposit on a house, and lived off my credit card for a few months to build up what I was short on the deposit. Add some unexpected car repairs, and I ended up with £10k on the card. The problem I had then was that interest on the card ran at around 20%, and although I could meet the interest payments I couldn't clear the £10k. I simply went and talked to my bank. In the UK there are some clear rules about banks giving customers a chance to restructure their debts. That's the BANK doing it, not some shady loan-shark. We went through my finances and established that in principle it was repayable. So I got a 2-year unsecured loan at around 5%, cleared the card, and spent the next 2 years paying off a loan that I could afford. My credit score is still aces. Forget the loan-sharks. Talk to your bank. If they're crap, talk to another bank. If no bank is going to help you, consider bankrupcy as per advice above. Debt restructuring companies are ALWAYS a con, no exceptions.\",\n \"\\\"Paypal forbids using their credit card service to \\\"\\\"give yourself a cash advance or help others to do so\\\"\\\". For small ammounts you may get away with it but pushing $10K through a PayPal account is going to raise red flags. In the USA it seems that some cards allow balance transfers from other types of loan while others are restricted to credit cards only. So that is a possibility. Another option can be to find a card with a good deal on purchases. Then move your regular purchases to the card and use the money you would normally have spent on purchases to pay off the other loan. Remember credit cards can be either a very cheap way to borrow or a very expensive way. Which one they are depends on how good you are at negotiating the traps they set up for you. If you do use a credit card deal make sure you Is it overall a viable option? That depends on the details which are not specified in your hypothetical scenario incluing the persons credit rating , what the interest is like on the existing loan and what the expected time to repay the debt is.\\\"\",\n \"If you want to work within that constraint, then I sincerely suggest you find a credit councilor. It may take you a while to dig out of debt, but with a little help from someone that knows the ropes, you can do it! Remember, even though you want to pay back those debts, many times the sky-rocketing interest rates work against you. Most of the good councilors know how to work the system to get these rates reduced, and sometimes even get the interest you've already accumulated reduced.\",\n \"Gaining traction is your first priority. WARNING: as @JosephZambrano explains in his answer the tax penalty for withdrawing from a 401(k) can easily exceed the APR of the credit card making it a very bad strategy. Consult in-depth with a financial advisor to see before taking that path. As @JoeTaxpayer has noted a loan is another alternative. The 401k is no good to you if you can't have shelter or comfort in the mean time. The idea is to look at all the money as a single thing and balance it together. There is no credit and retirement, just a single target that you can hit by moving the good money to clear the bad. Consolidating the credit card debt somehow would be very wise if you can. Assuming it is 30% APR shrinking that quickly is the first priority. You may be able to justify a hardship withdrawal to finance the reduction/consolidation of the credit card. It may be worth considering negotiating a closure arrangement with a reduced principal. Credit card companies can be quite open to this as it gets their money back. You may also be able to negotiate a lower interest rate. You may be able to negotiate a non-credit-affecting debt consolidation with a debt consolidator. They want to make money and a 25K loan to a person with sound credit is a pretty good bet. Moving, buying a house, or any of that may just relocate the problem. You may be able to withdraw $25K from your 401k under hardship, pay the credit card, and come up with a payment plan for the medical debt. It's a retirement setback for sure, but retirement is an illusion with that credit card shark eating all of your hard-earned money. You gotta slay that beast quick. Again, be sure to fully analyze whether the penalty on the 401(k) withdrawal exceeds the APR of the credit card.\",\n \"The U.S. Department of Ed offers Loan consolidation that you may want to take a look at: https://loanconsolidation.ed.gov/AppEntry/apply-online/appindex.jsp Going through a Government Agency as opposed to a private lender might reduce the burden (co-signers, collateral) you need to pass to get the loan.\",\n \"Repairing your credit takes time. Companies that offer to do it for you (for money) generally succeed mostly at getting money from you. Nonprofit agencies will help you with advice and encouragement and will not want money from you. They may be able to help you apply for a consolidation loan, but to be honest that is rarely the best first step. Over time, you need to The last step may happen months or years after the first two.\",\n \"I think you've made a perfectly valid suggestion, and, if your son is struggling somewhat financially now, one that may be very welcome. If you agree to forgive the debt at this time in lieu of a similar amount forgone in future inheritance, it will eliminate the never ending interest-only payments, free up $200+ a month for you son on a tight budget, and improve your own credit score once you pay off the credit line. It's also, in my opinion, a good idea to be open about this in advance with your other children heirs so that everyone will understand what is expected during the eventual probate. My paternal grandfather was the recipient of a great deal of financial largess from his wealthy mother during her life, and it was fully understood by him, her, and his siblings, that in exchange he would not share in her estate when she passed. He didn't, there were no problems, and he and his siblings stayed close for the rest of their lives.\",\n \"\\\"Tough spot. I'm guessing the credit cards are a personal line of credit in their name and not the company's (the fact that the business can be liquidated separately from your parents means they did at least set up an LLC or similar business entity). Using personal debt to save a company that could have just been dissolved at little cost to their personal credit and finances was, indeed, a very bad move. The best possible end to this scenario for you and your parents would be if your parents could get the debt transferred to the LLC before dissolving it. At this point, with the company in such a long-standing negative situation, I would doubt that any creditor would give the business a loan (which was probably why your parents threw their own good money after bad with personal CCs). They might, in the right circumstances, be able to convince a judge to effectively transfer the debt to the corporate entity before liquidating it. That puts the debt where it should have been in the first place, and the CC companies will have to get in line. That means, in turn, that the card issuers will fight any such motion or decision tooth and nail, as long as there's any other option that gives them more hope of recovering their money. Your parents' only prayer for this to happen is if the CCs were used for the sole purpose of business expenses. If they were living off the CCs as well as using them to pay business debts, a judge, best-case, would only relieve the debts directly related to keeping the business afloat, and they'd be on the hook for what they had been living on. Bankruptcy is definitely an option. They will \\\"\\\"re-affirm\\\"\\\" their commitment to paying the mortgage and any other debts they can, and under a Chapter 13 the judge will then remand negotiations over what total portion of each card's balance is paid, over what time, and at what rate, to a mediator. Chapter 13 bankruptcy is the less damaging form to your parent's credit; they are at least attempting to make good on the debt. A Chapter 7 would wipe it away completely, but your parents would have to prove that they cannot pay the debt, by any means, and have no hope of ever paying the debt by any means. If they have any retirement savings, anything in their name for grandchildren's college funds, etc, the judge and CC issuers will point to it like a bird dog. Apart from that, their house is safe due to Florida's \\\"\\\"homestead\\\"\\\" laws, but furniture, appliances, clothing, jewelry, cars and other vehicles, pretty much anything of value that your parents cannot defend as being necessary for life, health, or the performance of whatever jobs they end up taking to dig themselves out of this, are all subject to seizure and auction. They may end up just selling the house anyway because it's too big for what they have left (or will ever have again). I do not, under any circumstance, recommend you putting your own finances at risk in this. You may gift money to help, or provide them a place to live while they get back on their feet, but do not \\\"\\\"give till it hurts\\\"\\\" for this. It sounds heartless, but if you remove your safety net to save your parents, then what happens if you need it? Your parents aren't going to be able to bail you out, and as a contractor, if you're effectively \\\"\\\"doing business as\\\"\\\" Reverend Gonzo Contracting, you don't have the debt shield your parents had. It looks like housing's faltering again due to the news that the Fed's going to start backing off; you could need that money to weather a \\\"\\\"double-dip\\\"\\\" in the housing sector over the next few months, and you may need it soon.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"First, pay off the highest interest first. If you have 80%, pay it first. Paying off a card/loan with a lower rate, but a lower payment or a lower balance can help your mental capacity by having fewer things to pay. But, this should be a decision where things are similar, such as 20-25%, not 20-80%. What about any actual loans? Any loans with a fixed payment and a fixed amount? If you must continue to use CC while paying them off, use the one with the lowest interest rate. Call all of your debtors and ask for reduction in interest rate. This is not the option to take first... This is a strategic possibility and will cause credit score issues... If you are considering bankruptcy or not paying back some, then you have even more negotiation power. Consider calling them all and telling them that you only have a little bit of money and would like to negotiate a settlement with them. \\\"\\\"I have only a limited amount of money, and lots of debt. I will pay back whomever gives me the best deal.\\\"\\\" See what they say. They may not negotiate until you stop paying them for a few months... It is not uncommon to get them to reduce interest (even to 0%) and/or take a reduction in the amount due - up to 25 cents on the dollar. To do this, you might need to pay the amount all at once, so look into loans from sources like retirement, home equity, life insurance, family... Also, cut out all expenses. Cut them hard; cut until it hurts. Cut out the cell phone (get a pre-paid plan and/or budget $10-20/month), cut out all things like alcohol, tobacco, firearms, lottery, tattoos, cable tv, steak, eating out. Some people would suggest that you consider pets and finding them a new home. No games, no trips, no movies, no new clothes... Cut out soft drinks, candy, and junk food. Take precautions to stay healthy - don't wear shoes in the house, brush your teeth, take a multi vitamin, get exercise, eat healthy (this is not expensive, organic stuff, just regular groceries). Consider other ways to save, like moving in with family or friends. Having family or friends live with you and pay rent. Analyze costs like daycare vs. job income. Apply for assistance - there are lots of levels, and some don't rely on others, such as daycare. Consider making more money - new job, 2nd job, overtime, new career. Consider commute - walk, bike, take the bus. Work 4/10's. Telework. Make a list of every expense and prioritize them. Only keep things which are really necessary. Good Luck.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Here's what my wife and I did. First, we stopped using credit cards and got rid of all other expenses that we absolutely didn't need. A few examples: cable TV, home phone, high end internet - all shut off. We changed our cell phone plan to a cheap one and stopped going out to restaurants or bars. We also got rid of the cars that had payments on them and replaced them with ones we paid cash for. Probably the most painful thing for me was selling a 2 year old 'vette and replacing it with a 5 year old random 4 door. Some people might tell you don't do this because older cars need repairs. Fact is, nearly all cars are going to need repairs. It's just a matter of whether you are also making payments on it when they need them and if you can discipline yourself enough to save up a bit to cover those. After doing all this the only payments we had to make were for the house (plus electric/gas/water) and the debt we had accumulated. I'd say that if you have the option to move back into your parent's house then do it. Yes, it will suck for a while but you'll be able to pay everything off so much faster. Just make sure to help around the house. Ignore the guys saying that this tanks your score and will make getting a house difficult. Although they are right that it will drop your score the fact is that you aren't in any position to make large purchases anyway and won't be for quite some time, so it really doesn't matter. Your number one goal is to dig yourself out of this hole, not engage in activity that will keep you in it. Next, if you are only working part time then you need to do one of two things. Either get a full time job or go find a second part time one. The preference is obviously on the first, which you should be able to do in your spare time. If, for some reason, you don't have the tech skills necessary to do this then go find any part time job you can. It took us about 3 years to finally pay everything (except the house) off - we owed a lot. During that time everything we bought was paid for in cash with the vast majority of our money going to pay off those accounts. Once the final account was paid off, I did go ahead and get a credit card. I made very minor purchases on it - mostly just gas - and paid it off a few days before it was due each month. Every 4 months they increased my limit. After around 18 months of using that one card my credit score was back in the 700+ range and with no debt other than the mortgage. *note: I echo what others have said about \\\"\\\"Credit Repair\\\"\\\" companies. Anything they can do, you can too. It's a matter of cutting costs, living within your means and paying the bills. If the interest rates are killing you, then try to get a consolidation loan. If you can't do that then negotiate settlements with them, just get everything in writing prior to making a payment on it if you go this route. BTW, make sure you actually can't pay them before attempting to settle.\\\"\",\n \"A couple of thoughts from someone who's kind of been there... Is the business viable at all? A lot of people do miss the jumping-off point where the should stop throwing good money after bad and just pull the plug on the business. If the business is not that viable, then selling it might not be an option. If the business is still viable (and I'd get advice from a good accountant on this) then I'd be tempted to try and pull through to until I'd get a good offer for the business. Don't just try to sell it for any price because times are bad if it's self-sustaining and hopefully makes a little profit. I does sound like their business is on the up again and if that's a trend and not a fluke, IMHO pouring more energy into (not money) would be the way to go. Don't make the mistake of buying high and selling low, so to speak. I'm also a little confused re their house - do they own it or do they still owe money on it? If they owe money on it, how are they making their payments? If they close the business, do they have enough income to make the payments still? Before they find another job, even if it's just a part-time job? As to paying off their debts or at least helping with paying them off, I'd only do that if I was in a financial position to gift them the money; anything else is going to wreak havoc with the family dynamics (including co-signing debt for them) and everybody will wish they didn't go there. Ask me how I know. Re debt consolidation, I don't think it's going to do much for them, apart from costing them more money for something they could do themselves. Bankruptcy - well, are they bankrupt or are they looking for the get-out-of-debt-free card? Sorry to be so blunt, but if they're so deep in the hole that they truly have no chance whatsoever to pay off their debt ever, then they're bankrupt. From what you're saying they're able to make the minimum payments they're not really what I'd consider bankrupt... Are your parents on a budget? As duffbeer703 said, depending on how much money the business is making they should be able to pay off the debt within a reasonable amount of time (which again doesn't make them bankrupt).\",\n \"In a perfect the world, the most ideal solution would be to find a way to pay back all of your debt so that your credit will not be affected any further. Unfortunately, it does not work this way most of the time. Debt settlement is where you work with a creditor to settle your a credit card debt for less than the full amount owed. This could be a very viable solution for you instead of filing for bankruptcy. However, there are many scams out there when it applies to debt settlement so you must tread carefully. Debt settlement can only occur when you're behind on your payments. If you are currently paying off your payments successfully, the creditor has no obligation to settle when they think you should be able to pay it fully back.\",\n \"Debt consolidation is basically getting all your debt into one loan. This is possibly more convenient, and lets you close the other accounts (in the case of credit cards, preventing you from incurring any more debt). Ideally, your consolidated debt will have a better interest rate, so it saves you money as well. If you're defaulting on your debt already, you're likely combining this process with some negotiation with your existing creditors.\",\n \"Here is what I would do (my wife has done this and it worked great). Pay off one card. Pay down the other card then find a new card that offers a 0% period on balance transfers. They generally have between a 1%-5% fee with 3% being pretty typical. You will get probably 18-24 months of no interest. At the end of that period, provided it isn't paid off, just open another card and do another balance transfer. After you are done paying everything off get a card that offers cash back bonus and pay for everything using that card, pay the card off at the end of the month.\",\n \"From my understanding by paying your bills more than 5 days late will not lead you into bankruptcy or stop you from getting a new loan in the future, however it may mean that lenders offer you credit at a higher interest rate. This of course would not help you as you are already struggling with your finances. However, no matter how bad you think things might be for you financially, there are always things you can do to improve your situation. Set a Budget The first thing you must do is to set a budget. List down all sources of income you receive each month, including any allowances. Then list all your sources of expenses and spending. List all your bills such as rent, telephone, electricity, car maintenance, credit card and other loans. Keep a diary for a month for all your discretionary spending - including coffees, lunches, and other odd bits and ends. You can also talk with your existing lenders and come to some agreement on reducing you interest rates on your debts and the repayments. But remember any reduction in repayments may increase your repayment period and the total interest you have to pay in the long term. If you need help setting up your budget here are some links to resources you can download to help you get started: Once you set up your budget you want your total income to be more than your total expenses. If it isn't you will be getting further and further behind each month. Some things you can do are to increase your income - get a job/second job, sell some unwanted items, or start a small home business. Some things you can do to reduce your expenses - make coffees and lunches at home before going out and buying these, pay off higher interest debts first, consolidate all your debts into a lower interest rate loan, reduce discretionary spending to an absolute minimum, cancel all unnecessary services, etc. Debt Consolidation In regards to a Debt Consolidation for your existing personal loans and credit cards into a single lower interest rate loan can be a good idea, but there are some pitfalls you should consider. Manly, if you are taking out a loan with a lower interest rate but a longer term to pay it off, you may end up paying less in monthly repayments but will end up paying more interest in the long run. If you do take this course of action try to keep your term to no longer than your current debt's terms, and try to keep your repayments as high as possible to pay the debt off as soon as possible and reduce any interest you have to pay. Again be wary of the fine print and read the PDS of any products you are thinking of getting. Refer to ASIC - Money Smart website for more valuable information you should consider before taking out any debt consolidation. Assistance improving your skills and getting a higher paid job If you are finding it hard to get a job, especially one that pays a bit more, look into your options of doing a course and improving your skills. There is plenty of assistance available for those wanting to improve their skills in order to improve their chances of getting a better job. Check out Centrelink's website for more information on Payments for students and trainees. Other Action You Can Take If you are finding that the repayments are really getting out of hand and no one will help you with any debt consolidation or reducing your interest rates on your debts, as a last resort you can apply for a Part 9 debt agreement. But be very careful as this is an alternative to bankruptcy, and like bankruptcy a debt agreement will appear on your credit file for seven years and your name will be listed on the National Personal Insolvency Index forever. Further Assistance and Help If you have trouble reading any PDS, or want further information or help regarding any issues I have raised or any other part of your financial situation you can contact Centrelink's Financial Information Service. They provide a free and confidential service that provides education and information on financial and lifestyle issues to all Australians. Learn how to manage your money so you can get out of your debt and can lead a much more comfortable and less stressful life into the future.\",\n \"Why not just get another credit card and transfer the balance? Many of them will give you special perks like x months of no interest for doing so. Also, once you call to actually cancel the card you will see for sure whether they really have any power to negotiate rates. From their perspective 15% APR is more than 0%APR which is what they'd get if they lose your business.\",\n \"I'm going to suggest a slightly different approach. Most answers seem to suggest paying off the lower rate card to clear it. Some answers / comments also talk about emergency funds. One risk of paying off a card is that the card issuer may choose to reduce your credit limit if they see you as high risk, to prevent you re-spending the money. If you don't trust yourself with the card then this could be a good thing (and remember you're always free to ask for a limit decrease). But if you want access to emergency funds, then I would suggest paying half onto each card. That way if one card cuts you off, you have a chance of still having access to the other in an emergency.\",\n \"Does your company offer matching on 401(k) deposits? Are you depositing at least to the match? If not, that should be priority one. Kill the card, never pay that kind of interest. Ever. Why are you paying 5%? The 30 year rate is 4% right now, and even if you pay some closing costs, you'll recoup the money quickly. In general, borrowing to invest is a losing game. I agree, get rid of the HELOC as well. If you refine to 15 years, you can get 3.5%, and in 16 years won't regret the decision.\",\n \"I wouldn't advocate it, but one reason to pay a lower interest rate is if you have $990 on a $1000 limit credit card with 6% interest and $5000 on a $15k limit card at 10% interest. Having $500 to pay in a month and putting it on the lower interest would free up a greater percentage of credit on that card and could potentially help your credit rating I believe. I think having $1000 on 10 different credit cards w/ $15k limit reflects better than $10k on one $15k card, regardless of interest rates. Personally I think that's dumb b/c having the extra credit available is an opportunity to get into trouble a lot easier.\",\n \"For those who are looking to improve credit for the sake of being able to obtain future credit on better terms, I think a rewards credit card is the best way to do that. I recommend that you only use as many cards as you need to gain the best rewards. I have one card that gives 6% back on grocery purchases, and I have another card that gives 4% back on [petrol] and 2% back on dining out. Both of those cards give only 1% back on all other purchases, so I use a third card that gives 1.5% back across the board for my other purchases. I pay all of the cards in full each month. If there was a card that didn't give me an advantage in making my purchases, I wouldn't own it. I'm generally frugal, so I know that there is no psychological disadvantage to paying with a card. You have to consider your own spending discipline when deciding whether paying with cards is an advantage for you. In the end, you should only use debt when you can pay low interest rates (or as in the case of the cards above, no interest at all). In the case of the low interest debt, it should be allowing you to make an investment that will pay you more by having it sooner than the cost of interest. You might need a car to get to work, but you probably don't need a new car. Borrow as little as you can and repay your loans as quickly as you can. Debt can be a tool for your advantage, but only if used wisely. Don't be lured in by the temptation of something new and shiny now that you can pay for later.\",\n \"One thing I would look into is getting a fixed rate home equity loan for a short term. Not a line of credit, but a home equity loan. The main benefit is they typically offer no closing costs. You can get a very low rate provided you move the loan into first position (replace your current mortgage). I know someone who got a 7 year fixed Home Equity Loan, from Regions Bank, for 2.62% no closing costs.\",\n \"The key word you are looking for is that you want to refinance the loan at a lower rate. Tell banks that and ask what they can offer you.\",\n \"\\\"I had to apply for an American Express card, which was also rejected. Then I had searched for a Marbles Credit Card Stop applying for credit cards/loans. Doing so is just making your credit rating worse. Credit agencies will downgrade your credit rating if they see lots of signs of credit checking. It's a sign you're desperately looking for credit, which you are...! 44.9% APR This is very expensive credit. You can get personal loans on the high street for 3-4%. 44.9% is really bad value. You're simply going to make the situation worse. Am I taking off a loan from website as amingos loans to help me build up my credit rating Again this is 44% interest! You also need a guarantor. So you're not only going to get yourself in trouble but a family member too: don't do this! This will only help your credit rating if you pay it back successfully, which given your situation seems like a risk. Contact the Money Advice Service or the National Debt Line. Explain your situation in detail to them. They are a government-backed service designed for people in your situation. They will offer practical advice and can even help negotiate with your creditors, etc. Here's some general advice about getting out of debt from Money Saving Expert Traditional debt help says 'never borrow your way out of a debt problem'. But this ignores the varying cost of different debts. The MoneySaving approach is: \\\"\\\"Never borrow more to get out of a debt problem.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"I see some merit in the other answers, which are all based on the snowball method. However, I would like to present an alternative approach which would be the optimal way in case you have perfect self-control. (Given your amount of debt, most likely you currently do not have perfect self-control, but we will come to that.) The first step is to think about what the minimum amount of emergency funds are that you need and to compare this number with your credit card limit. If your limits are such that your credit cards can still cover potential emergency expenses, use all of the 4000$ to repay the debt on the loan with the higher interest rate. Some answer wrote that Others may disagree as it is more efficient to pay down the 26%er. However, if you pay it all of within the year the difference only comes to $260. This is bad advice because you will probably not pay back the loan within one year. Where would you miraculously obtain 20 000$ for that? Thus, paying back the higher interest loan will save you more money than just 260$. Next, follow @Chris 's advice and refinance your debt under a lower rate. This is much more impactful than choosing the right loan to repay. Make sure to consult with different banks to get the best rate. Reducing your interest rate has utmost priority! From your accumulated debt we can probably infer that you do not have perfect self-control and will be able to minimize your spending/maximize your debt repayments. Thus, you need to incentivize yourself to follow such behavior. A powerful way to do this is to have a family member or very close friend monitor your purchase and saving behavior. If you cannot control yourself, someone else must. It should rather be a a person you trust than the banks you owe money.\",\n \"\\\"A drop in credit score of 300 is pretty significant, right? You describe the cause of this as \\\"\\\"unfortunate circumstances\\\"\\\". Lets say you observe a mother giving a small child a ball to play with in the median of a busy interstate. Once the inevitable happens, would you also describe that as \\\"\\\"unfortunate circumstances\\\"\\\"? Because really it is the same thing. You overextended yourself and did not consider risk in the decision to borrow money. This may sound harsh, but you have proven that you cannot handle credit. So your solution is to borrow more? That makes no sense. The best thing you can do for your credit score is to reduce, then eliminate all debt.\\\"\",\n \"I can't help you with consolidation, but I'd suggest automating as much of the payments as possible. If not, you might take a look at any of the numerous online banks that have online bill pay, and open an account with them. (E.g. ING Direct, Ally, etc.) You can set up the online account to pull from your current checking/savings account, and then make payments from that online account to your loans. When you have that set up, if there is some extra payment you want to make, you can set up an automatic additional periodic payment to get rid of one lender at a time until everything is paid off.\",\n \"Others have covered the usual vehicles for getting money out of a property. There's another category of home loan called a hard money loan. It would take a lot of inquiries to find a hard money loan given your needs, but chances are its doable. The terms can be onerous, and hard money lenders don't mess around when it comes to foreclosing after a few missed payments. It's an off-the-radar industry and the private lenders and specialized trustees operate together with strike-force precision. Trustees normally should be trust-able by borrower and lender, but in the case I describe below, one man owned the small company that lent, and the small company that acted as trustee. Borrower beware. Yet, if your credit score and income are dismal, but your home equity is great, hard money is the only way to borrow against your home. In making hard money loans, lenders don't consider your credit score or income, just how much equity is in the property. I daresay they hope you'll default. They don't always hang onto the loans. If you look like a payer instead of someone they can foreclose on, they might sell the loan to someone who wants a stable monthly income. You don't know a thing about that person. A Cautionary Tale: *Check out HankandHelen.blogspot.com for a currently-unfolding saga, in which an elderly couple's grandson convinced them to let him take title to their house, borrow against it, invest the proceeds, and share the profits. It didn't work that way. He went through hard-money lenders. He borrowed $360,000 and then $65,000. Those were mysteriously paid off (total mystery at this point), and he borrowed $47,000. About a year later, he lost the house by defaulting the $47,000 loan. He was only about $2000 behind in payments when the trustee issued a notice of default, followed by a notice of sale. The trustee put the place up for auction, which didn't require a court order: that's the way it is in California and many western states, and a few others. The hard money lender bought the loan at auction for $83,000, and a home worth about $800,000 no longer belonged to the grandson. A fundraiser brought in about $120,000 and the couple bought a mobile home in a mobile home park. The acre of land and swimming pool they used to own will be for sale soon, or possibly demolished for a mansion to be built. (House in the area go for about $2.5M when improved with very large, new houses.)* I poke around PropertyShark.com when I see a house bought cheaply at a foreclosure auction. Quite often the (former) borrower had inherited the house, treated it like a piggy bank, defaulted, and boom--no more house. It never makes sense to put a house at risk for a small amount like $5000. If you can't pay those credit card bills, the lenders can hound you and maybe get a court order to extract something from your checking account every month, but they can't take your belongings. When you sign a deed of trust or mortgage, you're giving a third party the right to kick you out of your home and take possession of it. You don't have any say in the matter. You might go to court, and say whatever you feel like saying, but if you owe many payments and can't pay them immediately, you're very likely to be out of luck. Someone mentioned paying off credit card balances with the highest interest rates first. That's done by throwing whatever cash you have at them while paying the minimum on the lower-rate balances. That's financially sound, but there's a technique that turns out to be more motivating for some, which is attacking the lowest balance first. It leads to the quickest reduction in the number payments you're required to make every month, and quickly lets you add the money you were applying to the smallest balance to the payment you make on the next-smallest balance. (Close each card as you pay it off if you don't want to accumulate debt again.) P.S. I don't know what your home's feed is, so I didn't address that. If it's some kind of rental income, every lender I have encountered credits 75% of the current monthly rent toward your gross income. They assume there will be vacancies and other costs.\",\n \"Pay it all off now before you change your mind. Having an emergency fund is important but that assumes you'll have the discipline to leave it alone. Obviously, you don't or you wouldn't have amassed $36k in cc debt. Regardless of the rates, your icome or any other factor, that's just way too much and a pretty good indication that you've got problems managing money. Pay them off now while you still can!\",\n \"First of all a big thumbs up for Ben's answer. A few small things you can do to help you on your way. Hopefully you are not more in debt that 6 months of salary in debt because that is a really tough road. first thing you need to do is get some professional help. The National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC) offers free or low-cost debt counseling to help you through the process. Visit them at NFCC.org or call 1-800-388-2227 to find a local affiliate office near you. You might want to only use cash for a while. If not and you have a credit card with no balance always use that card because it will be interest free. Remember if you use credit cards as a payment system and not credit, you actually get free interest. If you roll even a penny over into the next statement you are paying interest day one of each purchase. Pay credit cards with highest interest rate first an pay minimums to others This one I like the best. As you get money pay your credit card. You interest is being compounded daily. Pay your cards when you have money, not when they are due. Have a mindset that reminds how much something is really going to cost you If you plan on taking 3 years to get out of debt and you buy something for $100 that is really costs you $156.08 Three years of compound 16% interest. 5b. Conversely if you sell something for $100 on eBay that is like selling something for $156.08.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Are you doing the right thing? Yes, paying back some of the expense of college is a great way to show your gratitude. Could your sister also pitch in a little to help pay the debt down? Will you get approved for a $30,000 unsecured loan? You don't mention your credit rating but that will have an effect obviously. You might consider visiting a credit union with your father and co-signing a loan since it is his debt that you are assuming. You might still want to write a loan for your dad to sign even if he isn't co-signed on a loan. This could protect you in case of his death if there are other assets to divide. If you are not approved for a loan, you could also simply join your dad in paying down the highest-rate cards first and have a loan agreement for him to pay back that money if/when it is possible. You've mentioned that you have no collateral. There aren't many options for loans with no collateral. Your dad's bank or a credit union might consider a debt consolidation loan with you as a co-signer. That's why I mentioned going to a credit union. Talking to a loan officer at a local financial institution will make it easier to get approved. If they see that you are taking responsible steps to pay off the debt, that reduces your credit risk. If you do get a debt consolidation loan, they will probably ask your dad to close some credit card accounts.","I agree with you that you need to consolidate this debt using a loan. It may be hard to find a bank or credit organization that will give you an unsecured personal loan for that much money. I know of one, called Lending Club (Disclaimer - I'm an investor on this platform. Not trying to advertise, it's just the only place I know of off the top of my head) that facilitates loans like this, but instead of a bank financing the loan, the loan is split up accross hundreds of investors who each contribute a small amount (such as $25). They have rates anywhere between 5-30%, based on your credit profile(s), and I believe they have some loan amounts that go up to the area that you're discussing. Regarding buying the house - The best thing you can do when trying to buy a house is to save up a 20% downpayment, if at all possible. Below this amount, you may be asked to pay for 'PMI' - Private Mortgage Insurance. This is a charge that doesn't go away for quite a while (until you've paid them 20% of the appraised value of the home), where you pay a premium because you didn't have the 20% downpayment for the house. I would suggest you try to eliminate your credit card debt as soon as possible, and would recommend the same for your father. Getting your utilization down and reconsolidating the large debts with a loan will help to reduce interest charges and get you a reasonable, fixed payment. Whether you decide to pay off your own balances using your savings account is up to you; if it were me, personally, I'd do so immediately rather than trying to pay it off over time. But if you lose money to taxes by withdrawing the money from your 'tax free savings account', it may not be a beneficial situation. Treat debt, especially credit card debt, like an emergency at all times, and you'll find yourself in a better place as a result. Credit card debt and balances are and should be temporary, and their rates and fees are structured that way. If, for any reason, you expect that a credit card's balance will remain for an extended period of time, you may want to consider whether it would be advantageous for you to consolidate the debt into a loan, instead."],"string":"[\n \"Are you doing the right thing? Yes, paying back some of the expense of college is a great way to show your gratitude. Could your sister also pitch in a little to help pay the debt down? Will you get approved for a $30,000 unsecured loan? You don't mention your credit rating but that will have an effect obviously. You might consider visiting a credit union with your father and co-signing a loan since it is his debt that you are assuming. You might still want to write a loan for your dad to sign even if he isn't co-signed on a loan. This could protect you in case of his death if there are other assets to divide. If you are not approved for a loan, you could also simply join your dad in paying down the highest-rate cards first and have a loan agreement for him to pay back that money if/when it is possible. You've mentioned that you have no collateral. There aren't many options for loans with no collateral. Your dad's bank or a credit union might consider a debt consolidation loan with you as a co-signer. That's why I mentioned going to a credit union. Talking to a loan officer at a local financial institution will make it easier to get approved. If they see that you are taking responsible steps to pay off the debt, that reduces your credit risk. If you do get a debt consolidation loan, they will probably ask your dad to close some credit card accounts.\",\n \"I agree with you that you need to consolidate this debt using a loan. It may be hard to find a bank or credit organization that will give you an unsecured personal loan for that much money. I know of one, called Lending Club (Disclaimer - I'm an investor on this platform. Not trying to advertise, it's just the only place I know of off the top of my head) that facilitates loans like this, but instead of a bank financing the loan, the loan is split up accross hundreds of investors who each contribute a small amount (such as $25). They have rates anywhere between 5-30%, based on your credit profile(s), and I believe they have some loan amounts that go up to the area that you're discussing. Regarding buying the house - The best thing you can do when trying to buy a house is to save up a 20% downpayment, if at all possible. Below this amount, you may be asked to pay for 'PMI' - Private Mortgage Insurance. This is a charge that doesn't go away for quite a while (until you've paid them 20% of the appraised value of the home), where you pay a premium because you didn't have the 20% downpayment for the house. I would suggest you try to eliminate your credit card debt as soon as possible, and would recommend the same for your father. Getting your utilization down and reconsolidating the large debts with a loan will help to reduce interest charges and get you a reasonable, fixed payment. Whether you decide to pay off your own balances using your savings account is up to you; if it were me, personally, I'd do so immediately rather than trying to pay it off over time. But if you lose money to taxes by withdrawing the money from your 'tax free savings account', it may not be a beneficial situation. Treat debt, especially credit card debt, like an emergency at all times, and you'll find yourself in a better place as a result. Credit card debt and balances are and should be temporary, and their rates and fees are structured that way. If, for any reason, you expect that a credit card's balance will remain for an extended period of time, you may want to consider whether it would be advantageous for you to consolidate the debt into a loan, instead.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":166,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"8"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"How to deposit a cheque issued to an associate in my business into my business account?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["566392","65404"],"string":"[\n \"566392\",\n \"65404\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["65404","188893","536686","564553","309023","521540","261856","184697","264075","268026","213331","316359","489199","466317","193830","388147","216200","406109","590102","301833","508754","346537","197862","133833","507287","278653","165397","377521","91707","389953","138934","317569","318108","590837","29372","556021","1066","270339","36917","528661","508960","116030","342212","439540","289844","473017","212713","566392","66991","176383","42032","529879","272807","32092","299578","81530","308938","480238","25397","266840","3336","501230","596549","45078","400230","561764","248624","48840","526817","15473","489093","576362","331384","460577","596427","188167","591416","152027","334902","171242","302893","356035","391420","355686","221061","570960","287899","187790","413229","251700","80538","357738","309928","514687","168667","196997","333616","94957","494666","100764"],"string":"[\n \"65404\",\n \"188893\",\n \"536686\",\n \"564553\",\n \"309023\",\n \"521540\",\n \"261856\",\n \"184697\",\n \"264075\",\n \"268026\",\n \"213331\",\n \"316359\",\n \"489199\",\n \"466317\",\n \"193830\",\n \"388147\",\n \"216200\",\n \"406109\",\n \"590102\",\n \"301833\",\n \"508754\",\n \"346537\",\n \"197862\",\n \"133833\",\n \"507287\",\n \"278653\",\n \"165397\",\n \"377521\",\n \"91707\",\n \"389953\",\n \"138934\",\n \"317569\",\n \"318108\",\n \"590837\",\n \"29372\",\n \"556021\",\n \"1066\",\n \"270339\",\n \"36917\",\n \"528661\",\n \"508960\",\n \"116030\",\n \"342212\",\n \"439540\",\n \"289844\",\n \"473017\",\n \"212713\",\n \"566392\",\n \"66991\",\n \"176383\",\n \"42032\",\n \"529879\",\n \"272807\",\n \"32092\",\n \"299578\",\n \"81530\",\n \"308938\",\n \"480238\",\n \"25397\",\n \"266840\",\n \"3336\",\n \"501230\",\n \"596549\",\n \"45078\",\n \"400230\",\n \"561764\",\n \"248624\",\n \"48840\",\n \"526817\",\n \"15473\",\n \"489093\",\n \"576362\",\n \"331384\",\n \"460577\",\n \"596427\",\n \"188167\",\n \"591416\",\n \"152027\",\n \"334902\",\n \"171242\",\n \"302893\",\n \"356035\",\n \"391420\",\n \"355686\",\n \"221061\",\n \"570960\",\n \"287899\",\n \"187790\",\n \"413229\",\n \"251700\",\n \"80538\",\n \"357738\",\n \"309928\",\n \"514687\",\n \"168667\",\n \"196997\",\n \"333616\",\n \"94957\",\n \"494666\",\n \"100764\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Just have the associate sign the back and then deposit it. It's called a third party cheque and is perfectly legal. I wouldn't be surprised if it has a longer hold period and, as always, you don't get the money if the cheque doesn't clear. Now, you may have problems if it's a large amount or you're not very well known at the bank. In that case you can have the associate go to the bank and endorse it in front of the teller with some ID. You don't even technically have to be there. Anybody can deposit money to your account if they have the account number. He could also just deposit it in his account and write a cheque to the business.","Assuming it's your business, endorse the check as yourself and your DBA name, payable to your personal account","\"If your son endorses the check or better still, endorses it with \"\"for deposit only\"\" and places the account number in the endorsement, it's likely the bank will accept it for deposit. In this manner, you are not putting it in your account, you are putting it in his. I have a family member perform this action occasionally with zero complications and she does not have an account at the same bank.\"","\"If the cheque is not crossed, then your friend can write \"\"payable to [your name]\"\" above his signature when he endorses it. If it is crossed, you'll have to deposit it into his account. Given that one can deposit cheques at ATMs, this shouldn't require his presence. Just make sure he endorses it before you leave! It also might take a few more days to clear.\"","\"Depending on how the check was made out, you may be able to file a DBA (\"\"doing business as\"\"), which would give you the business name locally. Then open an account under that name and deposit the check. Or simply go back to the customer and say \"\"hey, I don't have yhe company bak account open yet; could I exchange this check for one made out to me personally?\"\" That's how I've been handling hobby income under a company name. (I really do ned to file that DBA!)\"","If the check is made out to him, he will have to endorse it. Which means that at some point he will have to physically have the check in his hands. At which point, he could probably just deposit it himself. If there's some problem getting the check to him for him to sign it, you could call the bank and ask if they'll accept it for deposit to his account without a signature. I understand some banks will do this. I would be very surprised if they would let you deposit a check made out to your son to your account. They'd have no way of knowing if your son was agreeable to this or if you were stealing his money. Traditionally, the person the check was made out to could endorse it, give the check to someone else, and then the second person could endorse it and deposit it to their (the second person's) account. That is, the endorsement would have your son's signature, and below that, your signature. But I understand some banks won't accept this any more, so you'd be best to check before trying it.","Banks has to complete KYC. In case you want to open a bank account, most will ask for proof of address. I also feel it is difficult for bank to encash a cheque payable to a business in your account. Opening a bank account in the name of your business or alternatively obtaining a cheque payable to your personal name seems the only alternatives to me.","You can simply deposit the check into your joint account. You should be able do that even without his signature. Then you can transfer the money out of that account and into yours.","How would I go about this so that I can start using this money? You would open the LLC. The checks were not written out to you, they were written out to the LLC. Only the LLC can endorse them.","\"If you sign the check \"\"For Deposit Only\"\", the bank will put it in your account. You may need to set up a \"\"payable name\"\" on the account matching your DBA alias. However, having counted offerings for a church on several occasions, I know that banks simply have no choice but to be lax about the \"\"Pay to the Order Of\"\" line on checks. Say the church's \"\"legal name\"\" for which the operating funds account was opened is \"\"Saint Barnabas Episcopal Church of Red Bluff\"\". You'll get offering checks made out to \"\"Saint Barnabas\"\", \"\"Saint B's\"\", \"\"Episcopal Church of Red Bluff\"\", \"\"Red Bluff Episcopal\"\", \"\"Youth Group Fund\"\", \"\"Pastor Frank\"\", etc. The bank will take em all; just gotta stamp em with the endorsement for the church. Sometimes the money will be \"\"earmarked\"\" based on the payable line; any attempt to pay the pastor directly will go into his \"\"discretionary fund\"\", and anything payable to a specific subgroup of the church will go into their asset account line, but really all the cash goes directly to the same bank account anyway. For-profit operations are similar; an apartment complex may get checks payable to the apartment name, the management company name, even the landlord. I expect that your freelance work will be no different.\"","\"Your friend probably cannot deposit the check to your U.S. bank account. U.S. banks that I've worked with will not accept a deposit from someone who is not an owner of the account. I don't know why not. If some stranger wants to make unauthorized deposits to my account, why should I object? But that's the common rule. You could endorse the check, your friend could then deposit it to his own account or cash it, and then transfer the money to you in a variety of ways. But I think it would be easier to just deposit the check in your account wherever it is you live. Most banks have no problem with depositing a foreign check. There may be a fairly long delay before you can get access to the money while the check clears through the system. I don't know exactly what you mean by a \"\"prize check\"\", but assuming that this is taxable income, yes, I assume the U.S. government would want their hard-earned share of your money. These days you can pay U.S. taxes on-line if you have a credit card. If you have not already paid U.S. taxes for the year, you should make an \"\"estimated payment\"\". i.e. you can't wait until April 15 of the next year, you have to pay most or all of the taxes you will owe in the calendar year you earned it.\"","In my experience, you don't need to endorse a check with a signature to deposit it into your account. You do if you are exchanging the check for cash. Businesses usually have a stamp with their account number on them. Once stamped, those checks are only able to be deposited into that account. Individuals can do the same. I have had issues depositing insurance and government checks in the past that had both my and my wife's name on them. Both of us had to endorse the check to be able to deposit them. I think this was some kind of fraud prevention scheme, so that later one of us couldn't claim they didn't know anything about the check.","\"It's possible to cash cheques by post. When I did this, it involved filling out a \"\"paying-in slip\"\" (I had a book of these provided by the bank) and posting the cheque together with the slip to an address provided by the bank. You could also bring the paying-in slip and the cheque to a branch and deposit them there, and it wasn't necessary that you were the account holder, just that the details on the slip matched the account you were paying into. I Googled \"\"paying-in slip\"\" and found the instructions for HSBC as an example: Paying-In Slips. It explicitly mentions that you don't need to be the account holder to do this, and moreover there are even blank slips in the branch, which you just need to fill in with the correct account details. I think the procedure is much the same for other banks, but presumably you could check the relevant bank's website for specific guidance.\"","buy a cashiers check with the cash (a CRT will be nec if over 10 K) and deposit the cashiers check","You can sign over the check, of course. However, you'll probably need to deal with 1099 issued to you personally instead of the corporation later on. You'll have to add it to your tax return as income and negative income on the same line (line 21 of your 1040) and attach a statement explaining that the income was erroneously reported to you and will be reported on the corp form 1120. Another option is to return the check to the payer and ask them to reissue in the correct name. Next time, make sure to provide the properly filled W9 to your payers with the details of the corporation, not your own details.","\"You can try writing on the back of the check, in the signature area, \"\"For deposit only to account xxxxxxxxx\"\", leaving room for the signature. This may or may not be legally binding, but it states your intnt and is in a form the bank will recognize.\"","No you do not insure the cheque. A cheque is just standardized form that instructs a bank to transfer money. It is no more important than an ordinary letter. A cheque carries no commercial value, especially when it has a designated recipient. No mail insurance will cover the financial loss as a result of bank fraud. It is a kind of indirect loss. Just tell her to write your account number at the back of the paper, walk into your bank's branch and tell the teller to deposit it. There is no need of mailing.","\"Anyone can walk into a bank, say \"\"Hi, I'm a messenger, I have an endorsed check and a filled out deposit slip for Joe Blow who has an account here, please deposit this check for him, as he is incapacitated. Straight deposit.\"\" They'll fiddle on their computer, to see if they can identify the deposit account definitively, and if they can, and the check looks legit, \"\"thanks for taking care of our customer sir.\"\" Of course, getting a balance or cashback is out of the question since you are not authenticated as the customer. I have done the same with balance transfer paperwork, in that case the bank knew the customer and the balance transfer was his usual. If the friend does not have an account there, then s/he should maybe open an account at an \"\"online bank\"\" that allows deposit by snapping photos on a phone, or phone up a branch, describe her/his situation and see if they have any options. Alternately, s/he could get a PayPal account. Or get one of those \"\"credit card swipe on your phone\"\" deals like Square or PayPal Here, which have fees very close to nil, normally cards are swiped but you can hand-enter the numbers. Those are fairly easy to get even if you have troubles with creditworthiness. S/he would need to return the check to the payer and ask the payer to pay her/him one of those ways. The payer may not be able to, e.g. if they are a large corporation. A last possibility is if the check is from a large corporation with whom s/he continues to do business with. For instance, the electric company cashiers out your account after you terminate service at your old location. But then you provision service at a new location and get a new bill, you can send their check right back to them and say \"\"Please apply this to my new account\"\". If s/he is unable to get any of those because of more serious problems like being in the country illegally, then, lawful behavior has its privileges, sorry. There are lots of unbanked people, and they pay through the nose for banking services at those ghastly check-cashing places, at least in America. I don't have a good answer for how to get a check cashed in that situation.\"","When a business asks me to make out a cheque to a person rather than the business name, I take that as a red flag. Frankly it usually means that the person doesn't want the money going through their business account for some reason - probably tax evasion. I'm not saying you are doing that, but it is a frequent issue. If the company makes the cheque out to a person they may run the risk of being party to fraud. Worse still they only have your word for it that you actually own the company, and aren't ripping off your employer by pocketing their payment. Even worse, when the company is audited and finds that cheque, the person who wrote it will have to justify and document why they made it out to you or risk being charged with embezzlement. It's very much in their interests to make the cheque out to the company they did business with. Given that, you should really have an account in the name of your business. It's going to make your life much simpler in the long run.","\"If the cheque is crossed (as almost all are these days), it can only be paid into an account in the name of the person it was written out to: it cannot be paid into another's account, nor can it be \"\"cashed\"\"1 – see the rules on \"\"Crossed\"\" cheques. Note: that while the recipient of the cheque cannot (legally) alter this state of afairs, the writer of a cheque that was printed pre-crossed can – at least technically – cancel the crossing (see above link). Probably the best the OP can do is pay in the cheque on the friend's behalf (as described in Ben Millwood's answer) and then either lend the friend some money until they are mobile and can get some cash to repay the OP (or have the friend write one of their own cheques which the OP can pay into their bank account). 1 As mentioned in the last section of the rules on crossed cheques, the only exception is that designated \"\"Cheque cashing shops\"\" have special arrangements to deposit cheques which they have cashed (after deducting a fee). However, they would (should?) require proof of identity (of the original payee) and so are unlikely to be of any help (and probably not worth the cost for £35). Having said that, I've never used one, so have no idea how strict they are in practice.\"","\"I have checked with Bank of America, and they say the ONLY way to cash (or deposit, or otherwise get access to the funds represented by a check made out to my business) is to open a business account. They tell me this is a Federal regulation, and every bank will say the same thing. To do this, I need a state-issued \"\"dba\"\" certificate (from the county clerk's office) as well as an Employer ID Number (EIN) issued by the IRS. AND their CHEAPEST business banking account costs $15 / month. I think I can go to the bank that the check is drawn upon, and they will cash it, assuming I have documentation showing that I am the sole proprietor. But I'm not sure.... What a racket!!\"","Deposit check and send a personal check (resulting in tax and IRS reporting issues) That's a bad idea, unless maybe the check you're receiving is a certified bank draft. Suppose the insurance company are crooks and the check is fraudulent. It could take weeks or months for some investigation to catch up to that, long after your own personal check was cashed by the pharmacy. The bank will then put you on hook for the 20 grand by reversing the check, even though the funds had been deposited into your account. Do not put yourself into the position of a money handler; you don't have the cash base, insurance, government protection and whatever else that a bank has. And, of course, you're being a free money handler if you do that. (You're not even compensated for postage, time and whatnot). If you're handling money between two parties, you should collect a percentage, or else refuse. That percentage has to be in proportion to the risk, since cashing a check for someone carries a risk similar to (and is effectively a form of) making a loan.","Avoid talking to a person: Just use an automated system, such as an ATM or a cellphone app. Automated systems will ONLY scan for the RTN # and Account number at the bottom of the check (the funny looking blocky numbers). The automated system will not care who the check is made out to, or who is present, so long as you have an account to credit the money into, and the account number on the check can get the money debited properly.","\"In absence of complete information, I can only speculate that your phrases We both endorsed the cheque, and especially since the name on the cheque doesn't seem to be the name of the person I spoke with. mean that the check was payable to Jane Doe but was endorsed by someone you know as Wade Roe using language such as \"\"Pay to the order of user6344\"\" and then you endorsed it as something like \"\"For deposit only to Acct# 1234567890\"\" and gave it to the bank teller with a deposit slip for Acct# 1234567890. Presumably Wade Roe did not accompany you to the bank and the bank teller did not notice that the check was not endorsed to you by Jane Doe, or she did go with you to the bank but the teller did not check her ID when she endorsed the check. In any case, you, as a customer of the bank, are definitely on the hook in the sense that you in effect guaranteed the validity of Wade Roe's endorsement of the check payable to Jane Doe. You presented the check to the bank as a legitimate check that you were legitimately entitled to deposit in your account. In effect, if fraud was committed, you committed the fraud by depositing a bum check. As all the other answers have said, you need to go down to the bank and talk to a bank officer, preferably the manager, right away. Don't go to a teller (even though in many banks, the tellers have job titles like assistant vice-president.\"","I'm going to give the checkmark to Joe, but I wanted to convey my personal experience. I bank with TD in New Jersey and was informed by the teller that I simply needed to endorse the check myself and indicate Parent of Minor. I cannot attest if other banks will accept this, but it at least works for TD and my situation in particular.","Quick get a Social Security Number for the child. You will need it before you file your taxes early next year. If you don't have a SSN for your child you will not be able to claim them as a dependent. If you applied for one already, many do so at the hospital, then wait for it to arrive. The next step is to open a savings account with the child's SSN. Then have your parent write the check in the child's name and deposit it into the account. If it is written in the child's name already then you don't need a new check from them. If the check is large, you may run into problems if you take a check in the name of a minor and try and deposit it into your account. The bank would have no idea that the person is related to you.","\"The best reason for endorsing a check is in case it is lost. If the back is blank, a crooked finder could simply write \"\"pay to the order of \"\" on it and deposit it in his own account. You do not need a signature for the endorsement. The safest way to endorse a check is to write \"\"FOR DEPOSIT ONLY\"\" followed by an account number, in which case the signature is not needed. most businesses make up rubber stamps with this and stamp it the minute they receive a check. That way it has no value to anyone else. Depositing checks is increasingly going the way of the dodo. Many businesses today use check truncation - the business scans the check in, sends the digital image to the bank, and stores the check. I was surprised that Chase already has an applet for iPhones that you can use to deposit a check by taking a picture of it!\"","I'd consider this offer. Keep in mind, any time you write a check, there's the information he's asking for. If it makes you feel comfortable, use the small balance account, or set up a 4th one you'll use for these incoming deposits only.","All banks in the US that I have ever worked with will allow you to deposit checks if: In your case, you have 3 options:","I have seen this happen with IRS checks, the bank told me that the IRS imposes the requirement. Otherwise, though, I have frequently deposited checks made out to my wife into a joint checking account without her signature, they have never cared one bit.","When I moved banks. I had my old bank cut a cashier's check. It isn't a check you write. They write it and give it to you. I then took the cashier's check to my new bank to deposit it.","Why do they have to endorse every check every time they want to deposit it? They told you why. They said it was because it was made out to one person and there were others on the account that could withdraw money from the acct., so endorsing it acknowledged that the payee still wanted to deposit the money, knowing others could take the $ out The reason they insist on it may have something to do with their responsibility in case of elder abuse. They are worried that you may be using your parents' money without their knowledge, and if it ends up being true and they didn't enforce the requirement - they may also be liable. I have a joint account with my spouse, and they do not let us deposit checks written to both of us unless we both endorse. This is similar, and stems from the same concern. So here's the unusual situation In case of a death of a joint account holder - the whole account is frozen until the estate is executed. You cannot deposit a check of a deceased person to such an account.","In general, deposits into an NRE account must be the proceeds of remittances from outside India. If you send your friend a cheque, denominated in Indian Rupees, drawn on your NRE account (which is an account held in a bank in India), that cheque will most likely be refused by your friend's bank for deposit into your friend's NRE account. Your friend could deposit it into an NRO account, though, but that deposit would likely draw the attention of the income tax people.","\"It is not allowed to pay refunds to anyone other than the taxpayer. This is due to various tax return fraud schemes that were running around. Banks are required to enforce this. If the direct deposit is denied, a check will be issued. In her name, obviously. What she does with it when she gets it is her business - but I believe that tax refund checks may not be just \"\"endorsed\"\", the bank will likely want to see her when you deposit it to your account, even if it is endorsed. For the same reason.\"","\"Lets say you owed me $123.00 an wanted to mail me a check. I would then take the check from my mailbox an either take it to my bank, or scan it and deposit it via their electronic interface. Prior to you mailing it you would have no idea which bank I would use, or what my account number is. In fact I could have multiple bank accounts, so I could decide which one to deposit it into depending on what I wanted to do with the money, or which bank paid the most interest, or by coin flip. Now once the check is deposited my bank would then \"\"stamp\"\" the check with their name, their routing number, the date, an my account number. Eventually an image of the canceled check would then end up back at your bank. Which they would either send to you, or make available to you via their banking website. You don't mail it to my bank. You mail it to my home, or my business, or wherever I tell you to mail it. Some business give you the address of another location, where either a 3rd party processes all their checks, or a central location where all the money for multiple branches are processed. If you do owe a company they will generally ask that in the memo section in the lower left corner that you include your customer number. This is to make sure that if they have multiple Juans the money is accounted correctly. In all my dealings will paying bills and mailing checks I have never been asked to send a check directly to the bank. If they want you to do exactly as you describe, they should provide you with a form or other instructions.\"","Yes, you can do this. I do this for my own single-member LLC, but I usually do it online instead of writing a check. Your only legal obligation is to pay quarterly estimated tax payments to the IRS. I'm assuming you are not otherwise doing anything shady. For example, that you have funds in your business account to pay any expenses that will be due soon or that you are trying to somehow pull a fast one on someone else...","\"There's nothing you can do. If he has indeed deposited the check, it would appear on your account fairly quickly - I've never seen it taking more than 2-3 business days. However, a check is a debt instrument, and you cannot close the account until it clears, or until the \"\"unclaimed property\"\" laws of your state kick in. If he claims that he deposited the check, ask it in writing and have your bank (or the bank where it was deposited) investigate why it takes so long to clear. If he's not willing to give it to you in writing - he's likely not deposited it. Whatever the reason may be, even just to cause you nuisance. Lesson learned. Next time - cashier's check with a signed receipt. Re closing the LLC: if you're the only two partners - you can just withdraw yourself from the LLC, take out your share, and drop it on him leaving him the only partner. Check with your local attorney for details.\"","If it's always the same person, you could open a joint account. Then fees are avoided altogether. How fast the funds are available depends on what you deposit. Cash is immediate.","It all depends on the trust level you have in them handling it correctly. If they never deposit it, it doesn't matter what happens to the check, they could frame it and hang it on the wall. The risk is that someone someday deposits it (incorrectly double-charging you), and you need to do what think is appropriate to avoid this risk. If your trust in them is too small, only sending it back to you makes sure that you physically control the check.","The legal department at the Bank left me a message telling me that the bank check was paid & the recipient got the funds. Call up the bank and find out who the recipient was. Generally it can only be cashed by the person whose name is on it - the original business partner to whom it was intended. It is unlikely to be cashed by the attorney, unless he misrepresented the facts to the bank and got the funds. My question is how could he have cashed it without the original bank check? The other possibility is your mom lost this check, went to the bank and requested them to cancel this and reissue a fresh banker's check and give it to the business partner - in which case the check you had was worthless. You would need to work with the bank and ask them for details. However without the details of the original bank check that you found, it would be difficult for the bank to help you.","\"I would contact the security/fraud departments at your bank and see if you can get in contact (via your bank) with the bank that the check is drawn on. By my reading of your question, it sounds like the person you are dealing with fraudulently endorsed a third party check, which you subsequently endorsed for deposit. Explain this situation to your bank. As far as the other person goes, tell her \"\"I'm in contact with the frauds department at my bank, as the validity of the check is in question, and I'm not giving you a cent until the matter is resolved.\"\" Depositing a bad check is a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions, so it's essential to bring this to the attention of the bank and authorities asap.\"","if the deposit earned interest, you could be liable for taxes on the interest earned. If it ended up in a checking account, then you will not be liable for any taxes since checking accounts do not earn interest anyway. Your bank may inquire about where these transfers are coming from and question the legality of it.","I've been a landlord and also a tenant. I have been able to deposit money in an account, where I have the account number, and/or a deposit slip. In a foreign bank you can deposit by a machine if in the bank or someone is there for you and knows the account number. With regards to cashing a check in another country, it is up to the bank and the time is at least 14 to 21 business days, with a fee is added. As of a winning check, since its in your name, if you are in another country sign the check, for deposit only with a deposit slip and send it to your out of country bank by FedEx - you will have a tracking number, where as regular mail it might get there in 3 months. I hope by now you came to your solution.","\"In general, a lack of endorsement (meaning nothing written by the receiver on the back of the check) is equivalent to it being endorsed \"\"as deposit only\"\" to a bank that the depositor has an account with. (See Uniform Commercial Code §4-205.) That is, the bank that receives a deposit without any endorsement promises to the banks that process the check along the line all the way back to your bank, that they properly deposited the money into the account of the entity that the check was made out to. With checks being processed with more and more automation, it's getting fairly common for there to be little writing needed on the check itself, as the digital copy gets submitted to the banking system for clearing. If you're concerned about there being some sort of fraud, that perhaps the entity that you're sending money to isn't the ones that should be getting it, or that they're not actually getting the money, or something like that, that's really an entirely different concern. I would expect that if you were saying that you paid something, and the payee said that you hadn't, that you would dispute the transaction with your bank. They should be able to follow the electronic trail to where the money went, but I suspect they only do so as part of an investigation (and possibly only in an investigation that involved law enforcement of some type). If you're just curious about what bank account number your deposit went into, then it just looks like you're the one trying to commit some sort of fraud (even if you're just being curious), and they don't have much incentive to try to help you out there.\"","\"A check is simply an order to the bank to pay money to someone. The payor's signature on the front of the check is all that's needed to make that order binding. If you read the check carefully, you'll see that it says \"\"Pay to the order of ...\"\"; that's the payor's instruction to the bank, and as payee you can make a further order, to pay the money to someone else, in which case you'd have to endorse the check to make your order binding. But nobody does that any more; instead, people always just deposit checks into their accounts. When you deposit a check, the payor's signature is all that's needed to tell the payor's bank that it should pay the money. If your bank insists on a signature as well, that's just to pretend that they're paying attention in case it turns out that you stole the check. In reality, banks don't pay attention to signatures, nor to the name of the payee. I once put the wrong check into an envelope, and the phone company got a check for something over $700 on a bill of less than $50, payable to some completely different company; they deposited it and gave me a credit for the balance; none of the banks in the transition chain questioned it.\"","The person writing the check has already signed and endorsed it. The depositer's signature is not to confirm the check's validity, but to demonstrate that the check was depisited to the correct Fred Smith's account, and permit charges to be brought if, eg, Fred Bonzo Smith tries to steal Fred Gnorph Smith's check.","This varies by jurisdiction somewhat but speaking as a Canadian, a small business owner, and accountant (unregistered but some courses and accounting for multiple businesses) this is the answer if you were in Canada. In Canada the cheque cashing limit is 6 months. Therefor any bank will refuse to cash this cheque. It would be totally morally and legally acceptable to ask for a replacement cheque from your employer. In Canada they would generally have no problem issuing a replacement; in other jurisdictions with differing time limits they might want to cancel the original cheque first.","Have the check reissued to the proper payee.","Deposit it into your Brazilian bank account. They'll charge you collection fee (shouldn't be high, its a cashier's check equivalent), and the currency exchange rate may not be the best ever, but that's the price to pay for the service. Another option would be to cash the check at check cashing places, but that would most likely require you being in the US (I don't know if any check-cashing store in Brazil would cash a US check).","Checks are awesome things in that, even if it gets lost the money doesn't change hands until the check is cashed. I would highly recommend NOT signing a check over and putting it in the mail though. Essentially putting your signature on it is saying yes, pay to whomever. Theoretically acceptable, rarely a good idea. Call the insurance company and have them cancel current check to reissue to the correct people. Don't forget to write VOID (in huge letters) on the check before throwing away and/or tearing it up.","\"There are at least a couple problems: Your friend may not manage money well and so may not have enough money in the account. Check bounces. They get charged a fee. You get charged a fee. You have to chase after the friend to get the fee paid. The friend was cheap about the regular fees and doesn't want to pay this much higher fee. Your \"\"friend\"\" may really be a crook. The check is no good. Perhaps it's written under a false identity such that you are attempting to cash a stolen/forged check. You cash it. They take the money and disappear. You get charged with participating in the crime, go to jail, and now have a criminal record (worst case). My quick thought is that if you don't know the person well enough to know the home address, you don't know the person well enough to cash checks. In general, I would view this the same as a loan. When loaning to a friend, you should never loan more than you are willing to lose. Note that an actual loan would be safer. If you loan $50 to a friend, at worst you're out $50. If you deposit a fraudulent check, you did something illegal. You will have to be convincing when you tell your story to the police. If they don't believe you, they could charge you. A couple bad breaks and you could go to jail.\"","It would be better to use a bank account and have the refund deposited directly to it. But you said you never had a bank account, so that may be a problem. Another option is to have the refund check mailed to you, and you deposit it in your local bank, converting to your home currency (or not, depending on local laws). Generally, for another person to cash a check made out to you - you need to endorse it first. Physically, on the back of the check. That means you have to see the check. Specifically with tax refund checks there's much more scrutiny since there's a lot of fraud going on with regards to tax refunds. Thus, I doubt a bank would allow a third party cash a check made out to you, without you actually being present there.","While you can print that on the check, it isn't considered legally binding. If you are concerned about a check not being deposited in a timely manner, consider purchasing a cashier's check instead. This doesn't solve the problem per se, but it transfers responsibility of tracking that check from you to the bank.","I am not sure about your country but I think each country must be having some fixed time frame for reversal of the transaction (Which must be less than a month), please inquire if that time limit has passed or not ? If it hasn't best will be to wait for some more time before informing them. Once the reversal time limit has passed no one (Except government agencies with court orders) can withdraw money from your bank account without your written consent even if they have deposited it themselves. World would have been a strange place if this restriction was not there. Since you want to close the account you can approach your previous boss (or executive from HR/Account department) and tell them your intention. After that either you can transfer money online to their account or give them a cheque which they can deposit in their account. This way things will end faster and you will be freed from this extra account. If above process takes time another solution will be to transfer the money to your another (permanent) account and give them a cheque from this account. Here also you can use online transfers or by sending them a cheque through courier. Whichever mode you choose to pay the money back make sure you have some documented proof that may be helpful in future.","Traveller check require one signature at top when the check are purchased. Matching signature at bottom when you want to encash. So if there is no signature, you would need to get her signature, or as suggested mail it to her and get a regular check.","\"Anytime you do work without any payment until the work is complete, you are effectively extending credit to the party receiving your service. How much credit you are willing to extend will vary greatly, depending on the amount and the trustworthiness of the party. For example, if you are charging $50 for something, you probably won't bother to collect money upfront, whereas if you are charging $5,000 you probably would collect some upfront. But if the party you are working for is a large financially sound company, the number may be even much higher than $5K as you can trust you will be paid. Obviously there are many factors that go into how much credit you are willing to extend to your customer. (This is why credit reports exist for banks to determine how much credit to extend to you.) As for the specific case you are asking about, which may be classified as a decent amount of work for a small business, I would default to having a written scope of work, a place in the document for both parties to sign, and specify 50% upfront payment and 50% payment at completion. When you receive the signed document and the upfront payment (and possibly even after the check clears), you begin work. I would call this my \"\"default contract\"\" and adjust according to your needs depending on the size of the job and the trustworthiness of the customer. As for your question about how to deposit the check, that depends on what type of entity you are. If you are a sole proprietor you should ask for the checks to be made out to you. If you are a business then the checks should be made out to your business name. You don't need \"\"in trust\"\" or anything similar because your customer, after paying the upfront fee, must trust that you will do the work you promise to do, just like you have to trust that after completing the work you will receive the final payment. This is the reason the default is 50% before and after. Both parties are risking (roughly) the same amount. Tip: having done the \"\"default\"\" contract many times in my career, both as a sole proprietor and a business owner, I can assure you there is a big difference between a potential customer agreeing to something in advance, and actually writing a check. The upfront payment definitely helps weed out those that were never going to end up paying you, even if their intentions were good. Tip 2: be as specific as possible as to what the scope of work will include. If you don't, particularly with software, they'll be adding feature after feature and expecting it to be \"\"included\"\".\"","\"You should have separate files for each of the two businesses. The business that transfers money out should \"\"write check\"\" in its QB file. The business that receives money should \"\"make deposit\"\" in its QB file. (In QB you \"\"write check\"\" even when you make the payment by some other means like ACH.) Neither business should have the bank accounts of the other explicitly represented. On each side, you will also need to classify the payment as having originated from / gone to some other account - To know what's correct there, we'd need to know why your transferring the money in the first place and how you otherwise have your books established. I think that's probably beyond the scope of what's on-topic / feasible here. Money into your business from your personal account is probably owner's equity, unless you have something else going on. For example, on the S Corp you should be paying yourself a salary. If you overpay by accident, then you might write a check back to the company from your personal account to correct the mistake. That's not equity - It's probably a \"\"negative expense\"\" in some other account that tracks the salary payments.\"","They can go to an ATM and deposit it in to their account. The ATM does not care to read the name, and the bank does not care to verify anything if the check goes through (meaning the bank it is drawn on pays). So if nobody complains, that's it, he has your money. You would need to go to the check-writer's bank and ask for help, or look at the check-writer's cancelled check copy if you get to it. That bank can find out where it was deposited to, and then you have to go after the guy and get your money back - if it is still recoverable! - if it is a poor sod and he already blew your 5 grand, you can sue his pants off, but there are no 5 grand in them anywhere. So bad luck for you. Technically, the bank is not supposed to accept the check if the name doesn't match. At the counter, that might get a question, but as said above, there are deposit ATMs, and he could also just endorse the check to himself and sign the endorsement with some illegible scrawling, and claim that this is your signature - how would Joe the teller know? Either way, he gets the check in his account, and then he can take it out and blow it. It is legally clearly theft or fraud, and probably a federal crime, but if the guy is bankrupt, that doesn't help you much. Depending on that bank's fine-print, they might or might not cover your loss, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Better don't lose a check.","As it is a cheque I don't think you can deposit online. It seems that most the banks here charge a flat fee. Bank of Queensland charges $45 plus whatever the FX rate and fees are at the time. I think most of the banks have a clearance period of up to 28 days from when you deposit the cheque to when the funds clear and you could use them. If you want a cheaper and quicker option maybe try to have the USD funds sent electronically to the Australian bank account you choose.","The easiest options appear to be to open an account with one of the large multinational banks like Citi. They have options such as opening two separate checking accounts, one in each currency, and Citi in particular has an international account that appears to make mutli-currency personal banking easier. All of the options have minimum balance requirements or fees for conversion, but if you need quick access this seems to be the best bet. Even if this is a one-time event and you don't need the account, a bank like Citi may be able to help you cash the check and get access to the funds quicker than a national or local bank. http://www.citibank.com/ipb-global/homepage/newsite/content/english/multi_cap_bank_depo.htm Alternatively if you know anyone with a US bank account you can deposit it with them and take the cash withdrawal from their account, assuming they agree, the check isn't too large, etc.","\"Yes, kinda. Talk to local banks about a business account, and tell them you want to enable certain employees to make deposits but not withdrawals. They don't need to know you're all the same person. For instance I have a PayPal account for business. These allow you to create \"\"sub accounts\"\" for your employees with a variety of access privileges. Of course I control the master account, but I also set up a \"\"sub account\"\" for myself. That is the account I use every day.\"","How? Basically all banks nowadays allow online deposits from a smartphone - you take a picture from the front and back of the check, and submit it, and that's it. You still have the paper check, and it looks pristine, but it is deposited (and the paper is worthless).","You actually don't have to open a business account with your bank, you can have a personal account with the bank and have your business funds go into it, whether it be from cheques or from Eftpos\\Credit Card Facilities. You just have to get your customers to make the cheque out under your name (the same name used for your bank account). If you are trading as a sole trader and you trade under a name other than your own name, then officially you are supposed to register that name with Fair Trading in your state. However, if you are trading using another name and it is not registered, Fair Trading will only become aware of it if someone (usually one of your customers) makes a compliant about you, and they will then ask you to either stop using that name as your trading name or have it registered (if not already registered by someone else).","You probably can't deposit the check directly, but there are mechanisms in place to get your money through other means. In the US, all states and territories have an unclaimed property registry. Before you contact the company that wrote the check, you should check that registry in your state. You will have to provide proof that you are the intended recipient, having the original check in your possession should make that considerably easier.","\"IANAL, but. As you note, when you open a new account, they give you temporary checks that are usually blank in the upper left. I've used such checks and the bank has honored them. Therefore, I conclude that there must not be any legal requirement for anything to appear there, nor does the bank require it. Businesses are often reluctant to accept such temporary checks, for the obvious reason that anyone could go to the bank, open an account with $10, write checks for thousands of dollars, and disappear. At least if they've waited long enough to get the permanent checks in, there's some reason to believe that they plan to stick around. In any case, it's not clear what you are trying to accomplish. You want to hand-write either your business name or your personal name depending on whether the check is for personal or business purposes? I don't see what that gains. You could always use a personal check for business purposes. If you're afraid someone will say, \"\"Hey, that doesn't look very professional, what kind of fly-by-night company is this that uses personal checks?\"\", surely a hand-written company name would look even less professional. Why not just open a business account and have your personal checks printed with your personal name and your business checks with your business name? I don't know where you live, but I have a business account on which I pay zero fees. The only cost is getting checks printed. There's the small hassle of having to make one trip to the bank to open the account. Well, the biggest hassle I have is that the bank won't let me transfer money between my personal and business accounts over the Internet, so I have to either go to the bank to move money back and forth, or I have to write a check from one account to the other and deposit through an ATM.\"","Publication 17 Your Income Tax top of page 14 If the direct deposit cannot be done, the IRS will send a check instead. When your girlfriend gets the check, she can endorse it over to you for deposit into your account.","\"Depending on where you are, you may be able to get away with filing a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" document with your local government, and then having the bank call the county seat to verify this. There is generally a fee for processing/recording/filing the DBA form, of course. But it's useful for more purposes than just this one. (I still need to file a DBA for my hobby work-for-pay, for exactly this reason.)\"","You don't have much choice other than to open an account in your business name, then do a money transfer, as @DJClayworth says. You will not without providing your name and street address and possibly other information that you may consider to be of a private nature. This is due to laws about fraud, money laundering and consumer protection. I'm not saying that's what you have in mind! But without accountability of the sort provided by names and street addresses, banks would be facilitating crimes of many sorts, which is why regulatory agencies enforce disclosure requirements.","You mentioned depositing the check and then sending a personal check. Be sure to account for time, since any deposit over $10,000 the money will be made available in increments, so it may take 10-14 days to get the full amount in your account before you could send a personal check. I would not recommend this option regardless, but if you do, just a heads up.","I don't see any reason to worry about a check being deposited via cell phone. There isn't anything you can write on a check to make it physical deposit only or similar. If you really want to keep your check from being read electronically you could always smudge the numbers but you run the risk of the bank not cashing it and possibly getting a return check fee.","What you've described is the norm in Australia, where it's rare for anyone under sixty to use cheques. Assuming they're transferring the funds using internet banking, I would have the following suggestions: You make it clear that the the funds must reach your account by the due date for rent. It is their (the tenant's) responsibility to allow for the normal transfer delay from their account to yours. This will save unpleasant arguments later if the rent is late. If you're not comfortable with your tenant knowing your banking details, set up another account specifically for receiving rental income payments and paying your costs associated with the property. This may have the added benefit of simplifying things at tax time. Another alternative, which I think others have mentioned, is to use an escrow service like PayPal, but be aware that these kinds of services will usually charge a small percentage when you withdraw your funds.","Before answering specific question, you are liable to pay tax as per your bracket on the income generated. I work with my partner and currently we transfer all earning on my personal bank account. Can this create any issue for me? If you are paying your partner from your account, you would need to maintain proper paperwork to show the portion of money transferred is not income to you. Alternatively create a join Current Account. Move funds there and then move it to your respective accounts. Which sort off account should be talk and by whose name? Can be any account [Savings/Current]. If you are doing more withdrawls open Current else open Savings. It does not matter on whos name the account is. Paperwork to show income matters from tax point of view. What should we take care while transfering money from freelance site to bank? Nothing specific Is there any other alternative to bank? There is paypal etc. However ultimately it flows into a Bank Account. What are other things to be kept in mind? Keep proper record of actual income of each of you, along with expenses. There are certain expenses you can claim from income, for example laptop, internet, mobile phone etc. Consult a CA he will be able to guide and it does not cost much.","I agree with Joe, having the money deposited to the US bank account may land you in trouble. Technically, a US business paying a foreigner must withhold 30% of the payment, unless a tax treaty says otherwise. The US business should do that based on your W8-BEN/W8-ECI form that you should have given to the business before being paid. I'm guessing, that by paying to your US bank account, you (and your American counterpart) are trying to avoid this withholding. That may cause trouble for both of you. I would suggest you talking to a professional (EA/CPA licensed in the State where the business is located) and having the situation resolved ASAP. You may not be liable for the US taxes at all, but because of incorrectly reporting the income/expense - you and the US business may end up paying way more than the $0 you otherwise would have, in penalties.","Once you've made a good-faith effort to straighten the situation out you've done all you can do. Cash the check.","I'll assume you are asking about a check for some kind of work or service that you provided them, that they hired your company to do. No large business will do that. In their records they have a contract with your company to provide services. If they write you a personal check it won't match with the contract, and when the auditors see that they will scream blue murder. Whoever wrote the check will have to prove that you are legitimately the same thing as the company (that doesn't mean taking your word for it). They may also have to show they weren't conspiring with you to commit tax fraud ( that wasn't your intention of course, was it?) .","\"Do not use a shared bank account. One of you can cash/deposit the check in your personal account and then either pay the others in the group cash or write them a check. You open yourself up to many, many problems sharing a bank account and/or money. Treat it like a business as far as income goes, but I would not recommend any type of formal business, LLC, partnership, sole proprietorship, etc. For federal taxes, you just keep track of how much \"\"you\"\" personally are paid and report that at the end of the year as income, most likely on a 1040EZ 1040SE, along with any other income you have.\"","\"No functional difference. Only impression/convenience. \"\"Business checks\"\" are checks in larger format (8\"\" instead of the regular 5\"\" checks), they can be from your personal account just as well. I didn't have any problem using the small \"\"individual\"\"-standard checks for my company (I actually did get them for free from Wells Fargo, but that was a gesture, not by policy).\"","It seems that you're complicating things quite a bit. Why would you not create a business entity, open one or more bank accounts for it, and then have the money wired into those accounts? If you plan on being a company then set up the appropriate structure for it. In the U.S., you can form an S-corporation or an LLC and choose pass-through taxation so that all you pay is income tax on what you receive from the business as personal income. The business itself would not have tax liability in such a case. Co-mingling your personal banking with that of your business could create real tax headaches for you if you aren't careful, so it's not worth the trouble or risk.","There is no reason for you to open a firm. However, it will help you, if you operate separate bank account for business and personal purposes. You can run your business as proprietorship business. Your inward remittance is your income. You can deduct payment made to your colleagues as salary. You should pay them by way of cheques or bank transfer only. You are also entitled to deduct other business expenses provided you keep proper receipt of the same such as broadband connection charges, depreciation on equipment and more importantly, rent on your house. If your total receipt from such income exceeds INR 60,00,000 you will need to withhold tax on payment made to your colleagues as also subject to audit of your accounts. If you want to grow your business, suggest you should take an Import / Export Code in your own name. You can put any further question in this regard.","Some banks give you an indemnity form that will allow them to clear the payment available in a different name. This is usually in case the name on the cheque is slightly misspelled. For example, color (American) could be spelt as colour (British). In India for example, names can often be spelt in multiple ways. the indeminity form is common place.","If you can provide evidence that you are the person who opened the account (which may be as simple as providing your signature, since this isn't really different from asking for a bank check or inter-bank transfer or ATM-network transfer), there should be no problem. Contact your bank and ask them what information they need to provide.","Okay, I went through a similar situation when my mother died in March of this year. The estate still needs to go into probate. Especially if there was a will. And when you do this, your husband will be named as the executor. Then what he will need to do is produce both of their death certificates to the bank, have the account closed, and open an estate account with both of their names on it. Their debts & anything like this should be paid from this account as well. Then what you can do is endorse the check as the executor and deposit it into this account. After all debts are paid, the money can be disbursed to the beneficiaries (your husband). Basically, as long as they didn't have any huge debts to pay, he will see the money again. It just may be a couple of months. And you will have to pay some filing fees.","You friend would only be able to deposit this in NRO account. You may have to explain the source of money. If you declare it as gift, then you would need to pay gift tax. What you are doing is converting USD to INR outside the normal banking network and this maybe in volition of FEMA [Foreign Exchange Management Act].","\"This is not a mistake. This is done for \"\"Out of Network\"\" providers, and mainly when the patient is an Anthem member, be it Blue Shield or Blue Cross. Even though an \"\"Assignment of Benefits\"\" is completed by the patient, and all fields on the claim from (CMS1500 or UB04) are completed assigning the benefits to the provider, Anthem has placed in their policy that the Assignment of Benefits the patient signs is null and void. No other carrier that I have come across conducts business in this manner. Is it smart? Absolutely not! They have now consumed their member's time in trying to figure out which provider the check is actually for, the member now is responsible for forwarding the payment, or the patient spends the check thinking Anthem made a mistake on their monthly premium at some point (odds are slim) and is now in debt thousands of dollars because they don't check with Anthem. It creates a huge mess for providers, not only have we chased Anthem for payment, but now we have to chase the patient and 50% of the time, never see the payment in our office. It creates more phone calls to Anthem, but what do they care, they are paying pennies on the dollar for their representatives in the Philippines to read from a script. Anthem is the second largest insurance carrier in the US. Their profit was over 800 million dollars within 3 months. The way they see it, we issued payment, so stop calling us. It's amazing how they can accept a CMS1500, but not follow the guidelines associated with it. Your best bet, and what we suggest to patients, either deposit the check and write your a personal check or endorse and forward. I personally would deposit the check and write a personal check for tracking purposes; however, keep in mind that in the future, you may depend on your bank statements for proof of income (e.g. Social Security) and imagine the work having to explain, and prove, a $20,000 deposit and withdraw within the same month.\"","\"Generally, ACH transfers are not considered direct deposits. However, you can pay for this service to various providers, and they will do the transfer so that it would be marked as a direct deposit. For example, Wells Fargo allows doing it using their \"\"DirectPay\"\" system. I happen to have a WF business account (free with conditions) where this service is available, but there are plenty of providers. It does cost money (for WF - $10 monthly fee + $0.50 for a transfer to non-WF account), but it may be worth it for you if the benefit is large enough.\"","That's a sensible plan. No there's no reason for the IRS to see this arrangement as suspicious, particularly because the deposits will be from paychecks; you have a record of where all the money came from. Conversely, multiple cash deposits might be considered suspicious. It can only affect your credit if you have credit lines associated with the account (like an overdraft line of credit). Interest earned could increase your tax liability by a tiny amount, but in the current interest rate environment, that's not much of a worry.","\"I would suggest opening a bank account that you use to accept deposits only, and then get a system set up where it automatically transfers the money over to your main account. If not instantly it could transfer the money hourly or daily. Of course you would have to pay a premium for this \"\"peace of mind\"\" ;)\"","Contractors regularly deposit checks like this; if the income is legitimate don't worry. Report it to the IRS as income whether or not the customer issues you a 1099. With deposits like this you should be making quarterly payments to the IRS for your projected income.","You should have a separate business account. Mixing business and personal funds is a bad practice. Shop around, you should be able to find a bank that will let you open a free checking account, especially if you are going to have minimal activity (e.g. less than 20 of checks per month) and perhaps maintain a small balance (e.g. $100 or $500).","I suspect @SpehroPefhany is correct and that your bank will cash a check from the US Department of the Treasury. Especially since they're the same ones who guarantee the U.S. Dollar. They may hold the funds until the check clears, but I think you'll have good luck going through your bank. Of course, fees and exchange rate are a factor. Consider browsing the IRS and US Treasury Department websites for suggestions/FAQs. I suggest you line up a way to cash it, and make sure there's enough left after fees and exchange rate and postage to get the check that the whole process is worth it, all before you ask it to be shipped to you. If there's no way to do it through your bank, through a money exchange business (those at the airport come to mind) or through your government (postal bank?), and the check is enough that you're willing to go through some trouble, then you should look into assigning power of attorney for this purpose. I don't know if it is possible, but it might be worth looking into. Look for US based banks in your area.","\"If you forgot to put the name on the \"\"pay to the order of\"\" line then anybody who gets their hands on the check can add their name to the check and deposit it at their bank into their account. If it goes to the correct person they will have an easy time making sure that the check is made out correctly. They don't have to worry about that picky teller who doesn't know what to do with a check made out to Billy Smith and a drivers license for Xavier William Smith. On the other hand... a criminal will also be able to make sure it is processed exactly the way they want it. If I made it out to a small business or a person I would let them know. You might not have a choice but to wait and see what happens if it was sent to a large business, the payment processing center could be a long way from where you will be calling.\"","No fees: Write a check. Deposit it into the other bank.","For an individual its not automatic. One needs to ask the Bank, return the check. For Corporate Customer depending on how big the relationship is, many a times this is given as a service and there is an automatic return","If you have an SSN and foreign passport - it's all you need to open account, so just open it and order a checkbook. It will take some time before they will issue it but most probably they'll give you some checks to use till that very moment. So basically you should: Also I strongly suggest you to open two accounts - one would be for you and one for rent exclusively. The thing is that check could be cashed any time and it's pretty annoying exercise to keep that in mind.","If you don't have a bank account then open one and use the check as your opening deposit. You'll need to obtain a Social Security card as well (you didn't indicate you have one or not, so I'll assume you don't), but they're free and quick to apply for. I assume you're from Washington state, so there should be no problem with you opening an account in Washington, no matter where the check is from. Because of the amount of the check, the bank will probably only let yo have a part of the amount for a few days until it clears, but federal banking rules require quick clearance of out-of-state checks (I think it's 48 hours now), so you'd have access to at least half of the money right away and the rest in a few days.","The insurance company issued the check. I'd contact the insurance company to have the current check voided and a new one issued to the pharmacy.","You can make a capital contribution, not a loan. It's not a taxable event, no interest, and you can take a distribution later when the business has the money to pay you back. So yes, transfer the money. If you use software like Quickbooks, make use of unique accounts for tracking the contribution","\"Its a classic sign of fraud. The fraud is on you. You cashed the check not given to you, and not endorsed by the person its given to, so even if the check is legit you're still in trouble. There are many variations of this scheme, but the common thing is that the \"\"innocent\"\" third party is given a check to cash, and gives its own check or cash in return. The check ends up being forged, stolen, or otherwise invalid, but the cash/check the third party gave is long gone. Usually its cash, because its untraceable. You should wait at least a couple of weeks to make sure the check doesn't bounce. You might want to contact the check owner to verify its legit, and suggest to return the money, if it is not. You might also want to consult with an attorney. Bear in mind, that it might be reported to the authorities as a money laundering scheme (which it very well might be), and you'll have some explaining to do in this case, even if the check is legit.\"","Your main concern seems to be to be accused of something called 'smurfing' or structuring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring Depositing money amounts (cash or checks) under the 10k limit to circumvent the reporting requirement. People have been investigated for depositing under the limit, e.g. small business owners. If you're always above 10k you should be fine, as your deposits are reported and shouldn't raise IRS or FBI suspicions.","\"You don't specify which country you are in, so my answers are more from a best practice view than a legal view.. I don't intend on using it for personal use, but I mean it's just as possible. This is a dangerous proposition.. You shouldn't co-mingle business expenses with personal expenses. If there is a chance this will happen, then stop, make it so that it won't happen. The big danger is in being able to have traceability between what you are doing for the business, and what you are doing for yourself. If you are using this as a \"\"staging\"\" account for investments, etc., are those investments for yourself? Or for the business? Is tax treatment on capital gains and/or dividends the same for personal and business in your jurisdiction? If you buy a widget, is the widget an expense against business income? Or is it an out of pocket expense for personal consumption? The former reduces your taxable income, the latter does not. I don't see the benefit of a real business account because those have features specific to maybe corporations, LLC, and etc. -- nothing beneficial to a sole proprietor who has no reports/employees. The real benefit is that there is a clear delineation between business income/expenses and personal income/expenses. This account can also accept money and hold it from business transactions/sales, and possibly transfer some to the personal account if there's no need for reinvesting said amount/percentage. What you are looking for is a commonly called a current account, because it is used for current expenses. If you are moving money out of the account to your personal account, that speaks to paying yourself, which has other implications as well. The safest/cleanest way to do this is to: While this may sound like overkill, it is the only way to guarantee that income/expenses are allocated to the correct entity (i.e. you, or your business). From a Canadian standpoint:\""],"string":"[\n \"Just have the associate sign the back and then deposit it. It's called a third party cheque and is perfectly legal. I wouldn't be surprised if it has a longer hold period and, as always, you don't get the money if the cheque doesn't clear. Now, you may have problems if it's a large amount or you're not very well known at the bank. In that case you can have the associate go to the bank and endorse it in front of the teller with some ID. You don't even technically have to be there. Anybody can deposit money to your account if they have the account number. He could also just deposit it in his account and write a cheque to the business.\",\n \"Assuming it's your business, endorse the check as yourself and your DBA name, payable to your personal account\",\n \"\\\"If your son endorses the check or better still, endorses it with \\\"\\\"for deposit only\\\"\\\" and places the account number in the endorsement, it's likely the bank will accept it for deposit. In this manner, you are not putting it in your account, you are putting it in his. I have a family member perform this action occasionally with zero complications and she does not have an account at the same bank.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"If the cheque is not crossed, then your friend can write \\\"\\\"payable to [your name]\\\"\\\" above his signature when he endorses it. If it is crossed, you'll have to deposit it into his account. Given that one can deposit cheques at ATMs, this shouldn't require his presence. Just make sure he endorses it before you leave! It also might take a few more days to clear.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Depending on how the check was made out, you may be able to file a DBA (\\\"\\\"doing business as\\\"\\\"), which would give you the business name locally. Then open an account under that name and deposit the check. Or simply go back to the customer and say \\\"\\\"hey, I don't have yhe company bak account open yet; could I exchange this check for one made out to me personally?\\\"\\\" That's how I've been handling hobby income under a company name. (I really do ned to file that DBA!)\\\"\",\n \"If the check is made out to him, he will have to endorse it. Which means that at some point he will have to physically have the check in his hands. At which point, he could probably just deposit it himself. If there's some problem getting the check to him for him to sign it, you could call the bank and ask if they'll accept it for deposit to his account without a signature. I understand some banks will do this. I would be very surprised if they would let you deposit a check made out to your son to your account. They'd have no way of knowing if your son was agreeable to this or if you were stealing his money. Traditionally, the person the check was made out to could endorse it, give the check to someone else, and then the second person could endorse it and deposit it to their (the second person's) account. That is, the endorsement would have your son's signature, and below that, your signature. But I understand some banks won't accept this any more, so you'd be best to check before trying it.\",\n \"Banks has to complete KYC. In case you want to open a bank account, most will ask for proof of address. I also feel it is difficult for bank to encash a cheque payable to a business in your account. Opening a bank account in the name of your business or alternatively obtaining a cheque payable to your personal name seems the only alternatives to me.\",\n \"You can simply deposit the check into your joint account. You should be able do that even without his signature. Then you can transfer the money out of that account and into yours.\",\n \"How would I go about this so that I can start using this money? You would open the LLC. The checks were not written out to you, they were written out to the LLC. Only the LLC can endorse them.\",\n \"\\\"If you sign the check \\\"\\\"For Deposit Only\\\"\\\", the bank will put it in your account. You may need to set up a \\\"\\\"payable name\\\"\\\" on the account matching your DBA alias. However, having counted offerings for a church on several occasions, I know that banks simply have no choice but to be lax about the \\\"\\\"Pay to the Order Of\\\"\\\" line on checks. Say the church's \\\"\\\"legal name\\\"\\\" for which the operating funds account was opened is \\\"\\\"Saint Barnabas Episcopal Church of Red Bluff\\\"\\\". You'll get offering checks made out to \\\"\\\"Saint Barnabas\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"Saint B's\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"Episcopal Church of Red Bluff\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"Red Bluff Episcopal\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"Youth Group Fund\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"Pastor Frank\\\"\\\", etc. The bank will take em all; just gotta stamp em with the endorsement for the church. Sometimes the money will be \\\"\\\"earmarked\\\"\\\" based on the payable line; any attempt to pay the pastor directly will go into his \\\"\\\"discretionary fund\\\"\\\", and anything payable to a specific subgroup of the church will go into their asset account line, but really all the cash goes directly to the same bank account anyway. For-profit operations are similar; an apartment complex may get checks payable to the apartment name, the management company name, even the landlord. I expect that your freelance work will be no different.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Your friend probably cannot deposit the check to your U.S. bank account. U.S. banks that I've worked with will not accept a deposit from someone who is not an owner of the account. I don't know why not. If some stranger wants to make unauthorized deposits to my account, why should I object? But that's the common rule. You could endorse the check, your friend could then deposit it to his own account or cash it, and then transfer the money to you in a variety of ways. But I think it would be easier to just deposit the check in your account wherever it is you live. Most banks have no problem with depositing a foreign check. There may be a fairly long delay before you can get access to the money while the check clears through the system. I don't know exactly what you mean by a \\\"\\\"prize check\\\"\\\", but assuming that this is taxable income, yes, I assume the U.S. government would want their hard-earned share of your money. These days you can pay U.S. taxes on-line if you have a credit card. If you have not already paid U.S. taxes for the year, you should make an \\\"\\\"estimated payment\\\"\\\". i.e. you can't wait until April 15 of the next year, you have to pay most or all of the taxes you will owe in the calendar year you earned it.\\\"\",\n \"In my experience, you don't need to endorse a check with a signature to deposit it into your account. You do if you are exchanging the check for cash. Businesses usually have a stamp with their account number on them. Once stamped, those checks are only able to be deposited into that account. Individuals can do the same. I have had issues depositing insurance and government checks in the past that had both my and my wife's name on them. Both of us had to endorse the check to be able to deposit them. I think this was some kind of fraud prevention scheme, so that later one of us couldn't claim they didn't know anything about the check.\",\n \"\\\"It's possible to cash cheques by post. When I did this, it involved filling out a \\\"\\\"paying-in slip\\\"\\\" (I had a book of these provided by the bank) and posting the cheque together with the slip to an address provided by the bank. You could also bring the paying-in slip and the cheque to a branch and deposit them there, and it wasn't necessary that you were the account holder, just that the details on the slip matched the account you were paying into. I Googled \\\"\\\"paying-in slip\\\"\\\" and found the instructions for HSBC as an example: Paying-In Slips. It explicitly mentions that you don't need to be the account holder to do this, and moreover there are even blank slips in the branch, which you just need to fill in with the correct account details. I think the procedure is much the same for other banks, but presumably you could check the relevant bank's website for specific guidance.\\\"\",\n \"buy a cashiers check with the cash (a CRT will be nec if over 10 K) and deposit the cashiers check\",\n \"You can sign over the check, of course. However, you'll probably need to deal with 1099 issued to you personally instead of the corporation later on. You'll have to add it to your tax return as income and negative income on the same line (line 21 of your 1040) and attach a statement explaining that the income was erroneously reported to you and will be reported on the corp form 1120. Another option is to return the check to the payer and ask them to reissue in the correct name. Next time, make sure to provide the properly filled W9 to your payers with the details of the corporation, not your own details.\",\n \"\\\"You can try writing on the back of the check, in the signature area, \\\"\\\"For deposit only to account xxxxxxxxx\\\"\\\", leaving room for the signature. This may or may not be legally binding, but it states your intnt and is in a form the bank will recognize.\\\"\",\n \"No you do not insure the cheque. A cheque is just standardized form that instructs a bank to transfer money. It is no more important than an ordinary letter. A cheque carries no commercial value, especially when it has a designated recipient. No mail insurance will cover the financial loss as a result of bank fraud. It is a kind of indirect loss. Just tell her to write your account number at the back of the paper, walk into your bank's branch and tell the teller to deposit it. There is no need of mailing.\",\n \"\\\"Anyone can walk into a bank, say \\\"\\\"Hi, I'm a messenger, I have an endorsed check and a filled out deposit slip for Joe Blow who has an account here, please deposit this check for him, as he is incapacitated. Straight deposit.\\\"\\\" They'll fiddle on their computer, to see if they can identify the deposit account definitively, and if they can, and the check looks legit, \\\"\\\"thanks for taking care of our customer sir.\\\"\\\" Of course, getting a balance or cashback is out of the question since you are not authenticated as the customer. I have done the same with balance transfer paperwork, in that case the bank knew the customer and the balance transfer was his usual. If the friend does not have an account there, then s/he should maybe open an account at an \\\"\\\"online bank\\\"\\\" that allows deposit by snapping photos on a phone, or phone up a branch, describe her/his situation and see if they have any options. Alternately, s/he could get a PayPal account. Or get one of those \\\"\\\"credit card swipe on your phone\\\"\\\" deals like Square or PayPal Here, which have fees very close to nil, normally cards are swiped but you can hand-enter the numbers. Those are fairly easy to get even if you have troubles with creditworthiness. S/he would need to return the check to the payer and ask the payer to pay her/him one of those ways. The payer may not be able to, e.g. if they are a large corporation. A last possibility is if the check is from a large corporation with whom s/he continues to do business with. For instance, the electric company cashiers out your account after you terminate service at your old location. But then you provision service at a new location and get a new bill, you can send their check right back to them and say \\\"\\\"Please apply this to my new account\\\"\\\". If s/he is unable to get any of those because of more serious problems like being in the country illegally, then, lawful behavior has its privileges, sorry. There are lots of unbanked people, and they pay through the nose for banking services at those ghastly check-cashing places, at least in America. I don't have a good answer for how to get a check cashed in that situation.\\\"\",\n \"When a business asks me to make out a cheque to a person rather than the business name, I take that as a red flag. Frankly it usually means that the person doesn't want the money going through their business account for some reason - probably tax evasion. I'm not saying you are doing that, but it is a frequent issue. If the company makes the cheque out to a person they may run the risk of being party to fraud. Worse still they only have your word for it that you actually own the company, and aren't ripping off your employer by pocketing their payment. Even worse, when the company is audited and finds that cheque, the person who wrote it will have to justify and document why they made it out to you or risk being charged with embezzlement. It's very much in their interests to make the cheque out to the company they did business with. Given that, you should really have an account in the name of your business. It's going to make your life much simpler in the long run.\",\n \"\\\"If the cheque is crossed (as almost all are these days), it can only be paid into an account in the name of the person it was written out to: it cannot be paid into another's account, nor can it be \\\"\\\"cashed\\\"\\\"1 – see the rules on \\\"\\\"Crossed\\\"\\\" cheques. Note: that while the recipient of the cheque cannot (legally) alter this state of afairs, the writer of a cheque that was printed pre-crossed can – at least technically – cancel the crossing (see above link). Probably the best the OP can do is pay in the cheque on the friend's behalf (as described in Ben Millwood's answer) and then either lend the friend some money until they are mobile and can get some cash to repay the OP (or have the friend write one of their own cheques which the OP can pay into their bank account). 1 As mentioned in the last section of the rules on crossed cheques, the only exception is that designated \\\"\\\"Cheque cashing shops\\\"\\\" have special arrangements to deposit cheques which they have cashed (after deducting a fee). However, they would (should?) require proof of identity (of the original payee) and so are unlikely to be of any help (and probably not worth the cost for £35). Having said that, I've never used one, so have no idea how strict they are in practice.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I have checked with Bank of America, and they say the ONLY way to cash (or deposit, or otherwise get access to the funds represented by a check made out to my business) is to open a business account. They tell me this is a Federal regulation, and every bank will say the same thing. To do this, I need a state-issued \\\"\\\"dba\\\"\\\" certificate (from the county clerk's office) as well as an Employer ID Number (EIN) issued by the IRS. AND their CHEAPEST business banking account costs $15 / month. I think I can go to the bank that the check is drawn upon, and they will cash it, assuming I have documentation showing that I am the sole proprietor. But I'm not sure.... What a racket!!\\\"\",\n \"Deposit check and send a personal check (resulting in tax and IRS reporting issues) That's a bad idea, unless maybe the check you're receiving is a certified bank draft. Suppose the insurance company are crooks and the check is fraudulent. It could take weeks or months for some investigation to catch up to that, long after your own personal check was cashed by the pharmacy. The bank will then put you on hook for the 20 grand by reversing the check, even though the funds had been deposited into your account. Do not put yourself into the position of a money handler; you don't have the cash base, insurance, government protection and whatever else that a bank has. And, of course, you're being a free money handler if you do that. (You're not even compensated for postage, time and whatnot). If you're handling money between two parties, you should collect a percentage, or else refuse. That percentage has to be in proportion to the risk, since cashing a check for someone carries a risk similar to (and is effectively a form of) making a loan.\",\n \"Avoid talking to a person: Just use an automated system, such as an ATM or a cellphone app. Automated systems will ONLY scan for the RTN # and Account number at the bottom of the check (the funny looking blocky numbers). The automated system will not care who the check is made out to, or who is present, so long as you have an account to credit the money into, and the account number on the check can get the money debited properly.\",\n \"\\\"In absence of complete information, I can only speculate that your phrases We both endorsed the cheque, and especially since the name on the cheque doesn't seem to be the name of the person I spoke with. mean that the check was payable to Jane Doe but was endorsed by someone you know as Wade Roe using language such as \\\"\\\"Pay to the order of user6344\\\"\\\" and then you endorsed it as something like \\\"\\\"For deposit only to Acct# 1234567890\\\"\\\" and gave it to the bank teller with a deposit slip for Acct# 1234567890. Presumably Wade Roe did not accompany you to the bank and the bank teller did not notice that the check was not endorsed to you by Jane Doe, or she did go with you to the bank but the teller did not check her ID when she endorsed the check. In any case, you, as a customer of the bank, are definitely on the hook in the sense that you in effect guaranteed the validity of Wade Roe's endorsement of the check payable to Jane Doe. You presented the check to the bank as a legitimate check that you were legitimately entitled to deposit in your account. In effect, if fraud was committed, you committed the fraud by depositing a bum check. As all the other answers have said, you need to go down to the bank and talk to a bank officer, preferably the manager, right away. Don't go to a teller (even though in many banks, the tellers have job titles like assistant vice-president.\\\"\",\n \"I'm going to give the checkmark to Joe, but I wanted to convey my personal experience. I bank with TD in New Jersey and was informed by the teller that I simply needed to endorse the check myself and indicate Parent of Minor. I cannot attest if other banks will accept this, but it at least works for TD and my situation in particular.\",\n \"Quick get a Social Security Number for the child. You will need it before you file your taxes early next year. If you don't have a SSN for your child you will not be able to claim them as a dependent. If you applied for one already, many do so at the hospital, then wait for it to arrive. The next step is to open a savings account with the child's SSN. Then have your parent write the check in the child's name and deposit it into the account. If it is written in the child's name already then you don't need a new check from them. If the check is large, you may run into problems if you take a check in the name of a minor and try and deposit it into your account. The bank would have no idea that the person is related to you.\",\n \"\\\"The best reason for endorsing a check is in case it is lost. If the back is blank, a crooked finder could simply write \\\"\\\"pay to the order of \\\"\\\" on it and deposit it in his own account. You do not need a signature for the endorsement. The safest way to endorse a check is to write \\\"\\\"FOR DEPOSIT ONLY\\\"\\\" followed by an account number, in which case the signature is not needed. most businesses make up rubber stamps with this and stamp it the minute they receive a check. That way it has no value to anyone else. Depositing checks is increasingly going the way of the dodo. Many businesses today use check truncation - the business scans the check in, sends the digital image to the bank, and stores the check. I was surprised that Chase already has an applet for iPhones that you can use to deposit a check by taking a picture of it!\\\"\",\n \"I'd consider this offer. Keep in mind, any time you write a check, there's the information he's asking for. If it makes you feel comfortable, use the small balance account, or set up a 4th one you'll use for these incoming deposits only.\",\n \"All banks in the US that I have ever worked with will allow you to deposit checks if: In your case, you have 3 options:\",\n \"I have seen this happen with IRS checks, the bank told me that the IRS imposes the requirement. Otherwise, though, I have frequently deposited checks made out to my wife into a joint checking account without her signature, they have never cared one bit.\",\n \"When I moved banks. I had my old bank cut a cashier's check. It isn't a check you write. They write it and give it to you. I then took the cashier's check to my new bank to deposit it.\",\n \"Why do they have to endorse every check every time they want to deposit it? They told you why. They said it was because it was made out to one person and there were others on the account that could withdraw money from the acct., so endorsing it acknowledged that the payee still wanted to deposit the money, knowing others could take the $ out The reason they insist on it may have something to do with their responsibility in case of elder abuse. They are worried that you may be using your parents' money without their knowledge, and if it ends up being true and they didn't enforce the requirement - they may also be liable. I have a joint account with my spouse, and they do not let us deposit checks written to both of us unless we both endorse. This is similar, and stems from the same concern. So here's the unusual situation In case of a death of a joint account holder - the whole account is frozen until the estate is executed. You cannot deposit a check of a deceased person to such an account.\",\n \"In general, deposits into an NRE account must be the proceeds of remittances from outside India. If you send your friend a cheque, denominated in Indian Rupees, drawn on your NRE account (which is an account held in a bank in India), that cheque will most likely be refused by your friend's bank for deposit into your friend's NRE account. Your friend could deposit it into an NRO account, though, but that deposit would likely draw the attention of the income tax people.\",\n \"\\\"It is not allowed to pay refunds to anyone other than the taxpayer. This is due to various tax return fraud schemes that were running around. Banks are required to enforce this. If the direct deposit is denied, a check will be issued. In her name, obviously. What she does with it when she gets it is her business - but I believe that tax refund checks may not be just \\\"\\\"endorsed\\\"\\\", the bank will likely want to see her when you deposit it to your account, even if it is endorsed. For the same reason.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Lets say you owed me $123.00 an wanted to mail me a check. I would then take the check from my mailbox an either take it to my bank, or scan it and deposit it via their electronic interface. Prior to you mailing it you would have no idea which bank I would use, or what my account number is. In fact I could have multiple bank accounts, so I could decide which one to deposit it into depending on what I wanted to do with the money, or which bank paid the most interest, or by coin flip. Now once the check is deposited my bank would then \\\"\\\"stamp\\\"\\\" the check with their name, their routing number, the date, an my account number. Eventually an image of the canceled check would then end up back at your bank. Which they would either send to you, or make available to you via their banking website. You don't mail it to my bank. You mail it to my home, or my business, or wherever I tell you to mail it. Some business give you the address of another location, where either a 3rd party processes all their checks, or a central location where all the money for multiple branches are processed. If you do owe a company they will generally ask that in the memo section in the lower left corner that you include your customer number. This is to make sure that if they have multiple Juans the money is accounted correctly. In all my dealings will paying bills and mailing checks I have never been asked to send a check directly to the bank. If they want you to do exactly as you describe, they should provide you with a form or other instructions.\\\"\",\n \"Yes, you can do this. I do this for my own single-member LLC, but I usually do it online instead of writing a check. Your only legal obligation is to pay quarterly estimated tax payments to the IRS. I'm assuming you are not otherwise doing anything shady. For example, that you have funds in your business account to pay any expenses that will be due soon or that you are trying to somehow pull a fast one on someone else...\",\n \"\\\"There's nothing you can do. If he has indeed deposited the check, it would appear on your account fairly quickly - I've never seen it taking more than 2-3 business days. However, a check is a debt instrument, and you cannot close the account until it clears, or until the \\\"\\\"unclaimed property\\\"\\\" laws of your state kick in. If he claims that he deposited the check, ask it in writing and have your bank (or the bank where it was deposited) investigate why it takes so long to clear. If he's not willing to give it to you in writing - he's likely not deposited it. Whatever the reason may be, even just to cause you nuisance. Lesson learned. Next time - cashier's check with a signed receipt. Re closing the LLC: if you're the only two partners - you can just withdraw yourself from the LLC, take out your share, and drop it on him leaving him the only partner. Check with your local attorney for details.\\\"\",\n \"If it's always the same person, you could open a joint account. Then fees are avoided altogether. How fast the funds are available depends on what you deposit. Cash is immediate.\",\n \"It all depends on the trust level you have in them handling it correctly. If they never deposit it, it doesn't matter what happens to the check, they could frame it and hang it on the wall. The risk is that someone someday deposits it (incorrectly double-charging you), and you need to do what think is appropriate to avoid this risk. If your trust in them is too small, only sending it back to you makes sure that you physically control the check.\",\n \"The legal department at the Bank left me a message telling me that the bank check was paid & the recipient got the funds. Call up the bank and find out who the recipient was. Generally it can only be cashed by the person whose name is on it - the original business partner to whom it was intended. It is unlikely to be cashed by the attorney, unless he misrepresented the facts to the bank and got the funds. My question is how could he have cashed it without the original bank check? The other possibility is your mom lost this check, went to the bank and requested them to cancel this and reissue a fresh banker's check and give it to the business partner - in which case the check you had was worthless. You would need to work with the bank and ask them for details. However without the details of the original bank check that you found, it would be difficult for the bank to help you.\",\n \"\\\"I would contact the security/fraud departments at your bank and see if you can get in contact (via your bank) with the bank that the check is drawn on. By my reading of your question, it sounds like the person you are dealing with fraudulently endorsed a third party check, which you subsequently endorsed for deposit. Explain this situation to your bank. As far as the other person goes, tell her \\\"\\\"I'm in contact with the frauds department at my bank, as the validity of the check is in question, and I'm not giving you a cent until the matter is resolved.\\\"\\\" Depositing a bad check is a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions, so it's essential to bring this to the attention of the bank and authorities asap.\\\"\",\n \"if the deposit earned interest, you could be liable for taxes on the interest earned. If it ended up in a checking account, then you will not be liable for any taxes since checking accounts do not earn interest anyway. Your bank may inquire about where these transfers are coming from and question the legality of it.\",\n \"I've been a landlord and also a tenant. I have been able to deposit money in an account, where I have the account number, and/or a deposit slip. In a foreign bank you can deposit by a machine if in the bank or someone is there for you and knows the account number. With regards to cashing a check in another country, it is up to the bank and the time is at least 14 to 21 business days, with a fee is added. As of a winning check, since its in your name, if you are in another country sign the check, for deposit only with a deposit slip and send it to your out of country bank by FedEx - you will have a tracking number, where as regular mail it might get there in 3 months. I hope by now you came to your solution.\",\n \"\\\"In general, a lack of endorsement (meaning nothing written by the receiver on the back of the check) is equivalent to it being endorsed \\\"\\\"as deposit only\\\"\\\" to a bank that the depositor has an account with. (See Uniform Commercial Code §4-205.) That is, the bank that receives a deposit without any endorsement promises to the banks that process the check along the line all the way back to your bank, that they properly deposited the money into the account of the entity that the check was made out to. With checks being processed with more and more automation, it's getting fairly common for there to be little writing needed on the check itself, as the digital copy gets submitted to the banking system for clearing. If you're concerned about there being some sort of fraud, that perhaps the entity that you're sending money to isn't the ones that should be getting it, or that they're not actually getting the money, or something like that, that's really an entirely different concern. I would expect that if you were saying that you paid something, and the payee said that you hadn't, that you would dispute the transaction with your bank. They should be able to follow the electronic trail to where the money went, but I suspect they only do so as part of an investigation (and possibly only in an investigation that involved law enforcement of some type). If you're just curious about what bank account number your deposit went into, then it just looks like you're the one trying to commit some sort of fraud (even if you're just being curious), and they don't have much incentive to try to help you out there.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"A check is simply an order to the bank to pay money to someone. The payor's signature on the front of the check is all that's needed to make that order binding. If you read the check carefully, you'll see that it says \\\"\\\"Pay to the order of ...\\\"\\\"; that's the payor's instruction to the bank, and as payee you can make a further order, to pay the money to someone else, in which case you'd have to endorse the check to make your order binding. But nobody does that any more; instead, people always just deposit checks into their accounts. When you deposit a check, the payor's signature is all that's needed to tell the payor's bank that it should pay the money. If your bank insists on a signature as well, that's just to pretend that they're paying attention in case it turns out that you stole the check. In reality, banks don't pay attention to signatures, nor to the name of the payee. I once put the wrong check into an envelope, and the phone company got a check for something over $700 on a bill of less than $50, payable to some completely different company; they deposited it and gave me a credit for the balance; none of the banks in the transition chain questioned it.\\\"\",\n \"The person writing the check has already signed and endorsed it. The depositer's signature is not to confirm the check's validity, but to demonstrate that the check was depisited to the correct Fred Smith's account, and permit charges to be brought if, eg, Fred Bonzo Smith tries to steal Fred Gnorph Smith's check.\",\n \"This varies by jurisdiction somewhat but speaking as a Canadian, a small business owner, and accountant (unregistered but some courses and accounting for multiple businesses) this is the answer if you were in Canada. In Canada the cheque cashing limit is 6 months. Therefor any bank will refuse to cash this cheque. It would be totally morally and legally acceptable to ask for a replacement cheque from your employer. In Canada they would generally have no problem issuing a replacement; in other jurisdictions with differing time limits they might want to cancel the original cheque first.\",\n \"Have the check reissued to the proper payee.\",\n \"Deposit it into your Brazilian bank account. They'll charge you collection fee (shouldn't be high, its a cashier's check equivalent), and the currency exchange rate may not be the best ever, but that's the price to pay for the service. Another option would be to cash the check at check cashing places, but that would most likely require you being in the US (I don't know if any check-cashing store in Brazil would cash a US check).\",\n \"Checks are awesome things in that, even if it gets lost the money doesn't change hands until the check is cashed. I would highly recommend NOT signing a check over and putting it in the mail though. Essentially putting your signature on it is saying yes, pay to whomever. Theoretically acceptable, rarely a good idea. Call the insurance company and have them cancel current check to reissue to the correct people. Don't forget to write VOID (in huge letters) on the check before throwing away and/or tearing it up.\",\n \"\\\"There are at least a couple problems: Your friend may not manage money well and so may not have enough money in the account. Check bounces. They get charged a fee. You get charged a fee. You have to chase after the friend to get the fee paid. The friend was cheap about the regular fees and doesn't want to pay this much higher fee. Your \\\"\\\"friend\\\"\\\" may really be a crook. The check is no good. Perhaps it's written under a false identity such that you are attempting to cash a stolen/forged check. You cash it. They take the money and disappear. You get charged with participating in the crime, go to jail, and now have a criminal record (worst case). My quick thought is that if you don't know the person well enough to know the home address, you don't know the person well enough to cash checks. In general, I would view this the same as a loan. When loaning to a friend, you should never loan more than you are willing to lose. Note that an actual loan would be safer. If you loan $50 to a friend, at worst you're out $50. If you deposit a fraudulent check, you did something illegal. You will have to be convincing when you tell your story to the police. If they don't believe you, they could charge you. A couple bad breaks and you could go to jail.\\\"\",\n \"It would be better to use a bank account and have the refund deposited directly to it. But you said you never had a bank account, so that may be a problem. Another option is to have the refund check mailed to you, and you deposit it in your local bank, converting to your home currency (or not, depending on local laws). Generally, for another person to cash a check made out to you - you need to endorse it first. Physically, on the back of the check. That means you have to see the check. Specifically with tax refund checks there's much more scrutiny since there's a lot of fraud going on with regards to tax refunds. Thus, I doubt a bank would allow a third party cash a check made out to you, without you actually being present there.\",\n \"While you can print that on the check, it isn't considered legally binding. If you are concerned about a check not being deposited in a timely manner, consider purchasing a cashier's check instead. This doesn't solve the problem per se, but it transfers responsibility of tracking that check from you to the bank.\",\n \"I am not sure about your country but I think each country must be having some fixed time frame for reversal of the transaction (Which must be less than a month), please inquire if that time limit has passed or not ? If it hasn't best will be to wait for some more time before informing them. Once the reversal time limit has passed no one (Except government agencies with court orders) can withdraw money from your bank account without your written consent even if they have deposited it themselves. World would have been a strange place if this restriction was not there. Since you want to close the account you can approach your previous boss (or executive from HR/Account department) and tell them your intention. After that either you can transfer money online to their account or give them a cheque which they can deposit in their account. This way things will end faster and you will be freed from this extra account. If above process takes time another solution will be to transfer the money to your another (permanent) account and give them a cheque from this account. Here also you can use online transfers or by sending them a cheque through courier. Whichever mode you choose to pay the money back make sure you have some documented proof that may be helpful in future.\",\n \"Traveller check require one signature at top when the check are purchased. Matching signature at bottom when you want to encash. So if there is no signature, you would need to get her signature, or as suggested mail it to her and get a regular check.\",\n \"\\\"Anytime you do work without any payment until the work is complete, you are effectively extending credit to the party receiving your service. How much credit you are willing to extend will vary greatly, depending on the amount and the trustworthiness of the party. For example, if you are charging $50 for something, you probably won't bother to collect money upfront, whereas if you are charging $5,000 you probably would collect some upfront. But if the party you are working for is a large financially sound company, the number may be even much higher than $5K as you can trust you will be paid. Obviously there are many factors that go into how much credit you are willing to extend to your customer. (This is why credit reports exist for banks to determine how much credit to extend to you.) As for the specific case you are asking about, which may be classified as a decent amount of work for a small business, I would default to having a written scope of work, a place in the document for both parties to sign, and specify 50% upfront payment and 50% payment at completion. When you receive the signed document and the upfront payment (and possibly even after the check clears), you begin work. I would call this my \\\"\\\"default contract\\\"\\\" and adjust according to your needs depending on the size of the job and the trustworthiness of the customer. As for your question about how to deposit the check, that depends on what type of entity you are. If you are a sole proprietor you should ask for the checks to be made out to you. If you are a business then the checks should be made out to your business name. You don't need \\\"\\\"in trust\\\"\\\" or anything similar because your customer, after paying the upfront fee, must trust that you will do the work you promise to do, just like you have to trust that after completing the work you will receive the final payment. This is the reason the default is 50% before and after. Both parties are risking (roughly) the same amount. Tip: having done the \\\"\\\"default\\\"\\\" contract many times in my career, both as a sole proprietor and a business owner, I can assure you there is a big difference between a potential customer agreeing to something in advance, and actually writing a check. The upfront payment definitely helps weed out those that were never going to end up paying you, even if their intentions were good. Tip 2: be as specific as possible as to what the scope of work will include. If you don't, particularly with software, they'll be adding feature after feature and expecting it to be \\\"\\\"included\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You should have separate files for each of the two businesses. The business that transfers money out should \\\"\\\"write check\\\"\\\" in its QB file. The business that receives money should \\\"\\\"make deposit\\\"\\\" in its QB file. (In QB you \\\"\\\"write check\\\"\\\" even when you make the payment by some other means like ACH.) Neither business should have the bank accounts of the other explicitly represented. On each side, you will also need to classify the payment as having originated from / gone to some other account - To know what's correct there, we'd need to know why your transferring the money in the first place and how you otherwise have your books established. I think that's probably beyond the scope of what's on-topic / feasible here. Money into your business from your personal account is probably owner's equity, unless you have something else going on. For example, on the S Corp you should be paying yourself a salary. If you overpay by accident, then you might write a check back to the company from your personal account to correct the mistake. That's not equity - It's probably a \\\"\\\"negative expense\\\"\\\" in some other account that tracks the salary payments.\\\"\",\n \"They can go to an ATM and deposit it in to their account. The ATM does not care to read the name, and the bank does not care to verify anything if the check goes through (meaning the bank it is drawn on pays). So if nobody complains, that's it, he has your money. You would need to go to the check-writer's bank and ask for help, or look at the check-writer's cancelled check copy if you get to it. That bank can find out where it was deposited to, and then you have to go after the guy and get your money back - if it is still recoverable! - if it is a poor sod and he already blew your 5 grand, you can sue his pants off, but there are no 5 grand in them anywhere. So bad luck for you. Technically, the bank is not supposed to accept the check if the name doesn't match. At the counter, that might get a question, but as said above, there are deposit ATMs, and he could also just endorse the check to himself and sign the endorsement with some illegible scrawling, and claim that this is your signature - how would Joe the teller know? Either way, he gets the check in his account, and then he can take it out and blow it. It is legally clearly theft or fraud, and probably a federal crime, but if the guy is bankrupt, that doesn't help you much. Depending on that bank's fine-print, they might or might not cover your loss, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Better don't lose a check.\",\n \"As it is a cheque I don't think you can deposit online. It seems that most the banks here charge a flat fee. Bank of Queensland charges $45 plus whatever the FX rate and fees are at the time. I think most of the banks have a clearance period of up to 28 days from when you deposit the cheque to when the funds clear and you could use them. If you want a cheaper and quicker option maybe try to have the USD funds sent electronically to the Australian bank account you choose.\",\n \"The easiest options appear to be to open an account with one of the large multinational banks like Citi. They have options such as opening two separate checking accounts, one in each currency, and Citi in particular has an international account that appears to make mutli-currency personal banking easier. All of the options have minimum balance requirements or fees for conversion, but if you need quick access this seems to be the best bet. Even if this is a one-time event and you don't need the account, a bank like Citi may be able to help you cash the check and get access to the funds quicker than a national or local bank. http://www.citibank.com/ipb-global/homepage/newsite/content/english/multi_cap_bank_depo.htm Alternatively if you know anyone with a US bank account you can deposit it with them and take the cash withdrawal from their account, assuming they agree, the check isn't too large, etc.\",\n \"\\\"Yes, kinda. Talk to local banks about a business account, and tell them you want to enable certain employees to make deposits but not withdrawals. They don't need to know you're all the same person. For instance I have a PayPal account for business. These allow you to create \\\"\\\"sub accounts\\\"\\\" for your employees with a variety of access privileges. Of course I control the master account, but I also set up a \\\"\\\"sub account\\\"\\\" for myself. That is the account I use every day.\\\"\",\n \"How? Basically all banks nowadays allow online deposits from a smartphone - you take a picture from the front and back of the check, and submit it, and that's it. You still have the paper check, and it looks pristine, but it is deposited (and the paper is worthless).\",\n \"You actually don't have to open a business account with your bank, you can have a personal account with the bank and have your business funds go into it, whether it be from cheques or from Eftpos\\\\Credit Card Facilities. You just have to get your customers to make the cheque out under your name (the same name used for your bank account). If you are trading as a sole trader and you trade under a name other than your own name, then officially you are supposed to register that name with Fair Trading in your state. However, if you are trading using another name and it is not registered, Fair Trading will only become aware of it if someone (usually one of your customers) makes a compliant about you, and they will then ask you to either stop using that name as your trading name or have it registered (if not already registered by someone else).\",\n \"You probably can't deposit the check directly, but there are mechanisms in place to get your money through other means. In the US, all states and territories have an unclaimed property registry. Before you contact the company that wrote the check, you should check that registry in your state. You will have to provide proof that you are the intended recipient, having the original check in your possession should make that considerably easier.\",\n \"\\\"IANAL, but. As you note, when you open a new account, they give you temporary checks that are usually blank in the upper left. I've used such checks and the bank has honored them. Therefore, I conclude that there must not be any legal requirement for anything to appear there, nor does the bank require it. Businesses are often reluctant to accept such temporary checks, for the obvious reason that anyone could go to the bank, open an account with $10, write checks for thousands of dollars, and disappear. At least if they've waited long enough to get the permanent checks in, there's some reason to believe that they plan to stick around. In any case, it's not clear what you are trying to accomplish. You want to hand-write either your business name or your personal name depending on whether the check is for personal or business purposes? I don't see what that gains. You could always use a personal check for business purposes. If you're afraid someone will say, \\\"\\\"Hey, that doesn't look very professional, what kind of fly-by-night company is this that uses personal checks?\\\"\\\", surely a hand-written company name would look even less professional. Why not just open a business account and have your personal checks printed with your personal name and your business checks with your business name? I don't know where you live, but I have a business account on which I pay zero fees. The only cost is getting checks printed. There's the small hassle of having to make one trip to the bank to open the account. Well, the biggest hassle I have is that the bank won't let me transfer money between my personal and business accounts over the Internet, so I have to either go to the bank to move money back and forth, or I have to write a check from one account to the other and deposit through an ATM.\\\"\",\n \"Publication 17 Your Income Tax top of page 14 If the direct deposit cannot be done, the IRS will send a check instead. When your girlfriend gets the check, she can endorse it over to you for deposit into your account.\",\n \"\\\"Depending on where you are, you may be able to get away with filing a \\\"\\\"Doing Business As\\\"\\\" document with your local government, and then having the bank call the county seat to verify this. There is generally a fee for processing/recording/filing the DBA form, of course. But it's useful for more purposes than just this one. (I still need to file a DBA for my hobby work-for-pay, for exactly this reason.)\\\"\",\n \"You don't have much choice other than to open an account in your business name, then do a money transfer, as @DJClayworth says. You will not without providing your name and street address and possibly other information that you may consider to be of a private nature. This is due to laws about fraud, money laundering and consumer protection. I'm not saying that's what you have in mind! But without accountability of the sort provided by names and street addresses, banks would be facilitating crimes of many sorts, which is why regulatory agencies enforce disclosure requirements.\",\n \"You mentioned depositing the check and then sending a personal check. Be sure to account for time, since any deposit over $10,000 the money will be made available in increments, so it may take 10-14 days to get the full amount in your account before you could send a personal check. I would not recommend this option regardless, but if you do, just a heads up.\",\n \"I don't see any reason to worry about a check being deposited via cell phone. There isn't anything you can write on a check to make it physical deposit only or similar. If you really want to keep your check from being read electronically you could always smudge the numbers but you run the risk of the bank not cashing it and possibly getting a return check fee.\",\n \"What you've described is the norm in Australia, where it's rare for anyone under sixty to use cheques. Assuming they're transferring the funds using internet banking, I would have the following suggestions: You make it clear that the the funds must reach your account by the due date for rent. It is their (the tenant's) responsibility to allow for the normal transfer delay from their account to yours. This will save unpleasant arguments later if the rent is late. If you're not comfortable with your tenant knowing your banking details, set up another account specifically for receiving rental income payments and paying your costs associated with the property. This may have the added benefit of simplifying things at tax time. Another alternative, which I think others have mentioned, is to use an escrow service like PayPal, but be aware that these kinds of services will usually charge a small percentage when you withdraw your funds.\",\n \"Before answering specific question, you are liable to pay tax as per your bracket on the income generated. I work with my partner and currently we transfer all earning on my personal bank account. Can this create any issue for me? If you are paying your partner from your account, you would need to maintain proper paperwork to show the portion of money transferred is not income to you. Alternatively create a join Current Account. Move funds there and then move it to your respective accounts. Which sort off account should be talk and by whose name? Can be any account [Savings/Current]. If you are doing more withdrawls open Current else open Savings. It does not matter on whos name the account is. Paperwork to show income matters from tax point of view. What should we take care while transfering money from freelance site to bank? Nothing specific Is there any other alternative to bank? There is paypal etc. However ultimately it flows into a Bank Account. What are other things to be kept in mind? Keep proper record of actual income of each of you, along with expenses. There are certain expenses you can claim from income, for example laptop, internet, mobile phone etc. Consult a CA he will be able to guide and it does not cost much.\",\n \"I agree with Joe, having the money deposited to the US bank account may land you in trouble. Technically, a US business paying a foreigner must withhold 30% of the payment, unless a tax treaty says otherwise. The US business should do that based on your W8-BEN/W8-ECI form that you should have given to the business before being paid. I'm guessing, that by paying to your US bank account, you (and your American counterpart) are trying to avoid this withholding. That may cause trouble for both of you. I would suggest you talking to a professional (EA/CPA licensed in the State where the business is located) and having the situation resolved ASAP. You may not be liable for the US taxes at all, but because of incorrectly reporting the income/expense - you and the US business may end up paying way more than the $0 you otherwise would have, in penalties.\",\n \"Once you've made a good-faith effort to straighten the situation out you've done all you can do. Cash the check.\",\n \"I'll assume you are asking about a check for some kind of work or service that you provided them, that they hired your company to do. No large business will do that. In their records they have a contract with your company to provide services. If they write you a personal check it won't match with the contract, and when the auditors see that they will scream blue murder. Whoever wrote the check will have to prove that you are legitimately the same thing as the company (that doesn't mean taking your word for it). They may also have to show they weren't conspiring with you to commit tax fraud ( that wasn't your intention of course, was it?) .\",\n \"\\\"Do not use a shared bank account. One of you can cash/deposit the check in your personal account and then either pay the others in the group cash or write them a check. You open yourself up to many, many problems sharing a bank account and/or money. Treat it like a business as far as income goes, but I would not recommend any type of formal business, LLC, partnership, sole proprietorship, etc. For federal taxes, you just keep track of how much \\\"\\\"you\\\"\\\" personally are paid and report that at the end of the year as income, most likely on a 1040EZ 1040SE, along with any other income you have.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"No functional difference. Only impression/convenience. \\\"\\\"Business checks\\\"\\\" are checks in larger format (8\\\"\\\" instead of the regular 5\\\"\\\" checks), they can be from your personal account just as well. I didn't have any problem using the small \\\"\\\"individual\\\"\\\"-standard checks for my company (I actually did get them for free from Wells Fargo, but that was a gesture, not by policy).\\\"\",\n \"It seems that you're complicating things quite a bit. Why would you not create a business entity, open one or more bank accounts for it, and then have the money wired into those accounts? If you plan on being a company then set up the appropriate structure for it. In the U.S., you can form an S-corporation or an LLC and choose pass-through taxation so that all you pay is income tax on what you receive from the business as personal income. The business itself would not have tax liability in such a case. Co-mingling your personal banking with that of your business could create real tax headaches for you if you aren't careful, so it's not worth the trouble or risk.\",\n \"There is no reason for you to open a firm. However, it will help you, if you operate separate bank account for business and personal purposes. You can run your business as proprietorship business. Your inward remittance is your income. You can deduct payment made to your colleagues as salary. You should pay them by way of cheques or bank transfer only. You are also entitled to deduct other business expenses provided you keep proper receipt of the same such as broadband connection charges, depreciation on equipment and more importantly, rent on your house. If your total receipt from such income exceeds INR 60,00,000 you will need to withhold tax on payment made to your colleagues as also subject to audit of your accounts. If you want to grow your business, suggest you should take an Import / Export Code in your own name. You can put any further question in this regard.\",\n \"Some banks give you an indemnity form that will allow them to clear the payment available in a different name. This is usually in case the name on the cheque is slightly misspelled. For example, color (American) could be spelt as colour (British). In India for example, names can often be spelt in multiple ways. the indeminity form is common place.\",\n \"If you can provide evidence that you are the person who opened the account (which may be as simple as providing your signature, since this isn't really different from asking for a bank check or inter-bank transfer or ATM-network transfer), there should be no problem. Contact your bank and ask them what information they need to provide.\",\n \"Okay, I went through a similar situation when my mother died in March of this year. The estate still needs to go into probate. Especially if there was a will. And when you do this, your husband will be named as the executor. Then what he will need to do is produce both of their death certificates to the bank, have the account closed, and open an estate account with both of their names on it. Their debts & anything like this should be paid from this account as well. Then what you can do is endorse the check as the executor and deposit it into this account. After all debts are paid, the money can be disbursed to the beneficiaries (your husband). Basically, as long as they didn't have any huge debts to pay, he will see the money again. It just may be a couple of months. And you will have to pay some filing fees.\",\n \"You friend would only be able to deposit this in NRO account. You may have to explain the source of money. If you declare it as gift, then you would need to pay gift tax. What you are doing is converting USD to INR outside the normal banking network and this maybe in volition of FEMA [Foreign Exchange Management Act].\",\n \"\\\"This is not a mistake. This is done for \\\"\\\"Out of Network\\\"\\\" providers, and mainly when the patient is an Anthem member, be it Blue Shield or Blue Cross. Even though an \\\"\\\"Assignment of Benefits\\\"\\\" is completed by the patient, and all fields on the claim from (CMS1500 or UB04) are completed assigning the benefits to the provider, Anthem has placed in their policy that the Assignment of Benefits the patient signs is null and void. No other carrier that I have come across conducts business in this manner. Is it smart? Absolutely not! They have now consumed their member's time in trying to figure out which provider the check is actually for, the member now is responsible for forwarding the payment, or the patient spends the check thinking Anthem made a mistake on their monthly premium at some point (odds are slim) and is now in debt thousands of dollars because they don't check with Anthem. It creates a huge mess for providers, not only have we chased Anthem for payment, but now we have to chase the patient and 50% of the time, never see the payment in our office. It creates more phone calls to Anthem, but what do they care, they are paying pennies on the dollar for their representatives in the Philippines to read from a script. Anthem is the second largest insurance carrier in the US. Their profit was over 800 million dollars within 3 months. The way they see it, we issued payment, so stop calling us. It's amazing how they can accept a CMS1500, but not follow the guidelines associated with it. Your best bet, and what we suggest to patients, either deposit the check and write your a personal check or endorse and forward. I personally would deposit the check and write a personal check for tracking purposes; however, keep in mind that in the future, you may depend on your bank statements for proof of income (e.g. Social Security) and imagine the work having to explain, and prove, a $20,000 deposit and withdraw within the same month.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Generally, ACH transfers are not considered direct deposits. However, you can pay for this service to various providers, and they will do the transfer so that it would be marked as a direct deposit. For example, Wells Fargo allows doing it using their \\\"\\\"DirectPay\\\"\\\" system. I happen to have a WF business account (free with conditions) where this service is available, but there are plenty of providers. It does cost money (for WF - $10 monthly fee + $0.50 for a transfer to non-WF account), but it may be worth it for you if the benefit is large enough.\\\"\",\n \"That's a sensible plan. No there's no reason for the IRS to see this arrangement as suspicious, particularly because the deposits will be from paychecks; you have a record of where all the money came from. Conversely, multiple cash deposits might be considered suspicious. It can only affect your credit if you have credit lines associated with the account (like an overdraft line of credit). Interest earned could increase your tax liability by a tiny amount, but in the current interest rate environment, that's not much of a worry.\",\n \"\\\"I would suggest opening a bank account that you use to accept deposits only, and then get a system set up where it automatically transfers the money over to your main account. If not instantly it could transfer the money hourly or daily. Of course you would have to pay a premium for this \\\"\\\"peace of mind\\\"\\\" ;)\\\"\",\n \"Contractors regularly deposit checks like this; if the income is legitimate don't worry. Report it to the IRS as income whether or not the customer issues you a 1099. With deposits like this you should be making quarterly payments to the IRS for your projected income.\",\n \"You should have a separate business account. Mixing business and personal funds is a bad practice. Shop around, you should be able to find a bank that will let you open a free checking account, especially if you are going to have minimal activity (e.g. less than 20 of checks per month) and perhaps maintain a small balance (e.g. $100 or $500).\",\n \"I suspect @SpehroPefhany is correct and that your bank will cash a check from the US Department of the Treasury. Especially since they're the same ones who guarantee the U.S. Dollar. They may hold the funds until the check clears, but I think you'll have good luck going through your bank. Of course, fees and exchange rate are a factor. Consider browsing the IRS and US Treasury Department websites for suggestions/FAQs. I suggest you line up a way to cash it, and make sure there's enough left after fees and exchange rate and postage to get the check that the whole process is worth it, all before you ask it to be shipped to you. If there's no way to do it through your bank, through a money exchange business (those at the airport come to mind) or through your government (postal bank?), and the check is enough that you're willing to go through some trouble, then you should look into assigning power of attorney for this purpose. I don't know if it is possible, but it might be worth looking into. Look for US based banks in your area.\",\n \"\\\"If you forgot to put the name on the \\\"\\\"pay to the order of\\\"\\\" line then anybody who gets their hands on the check can add their name to the check and deposit it at their bank into their account. If it goes to the correct person they will have an easy time making sure that the check is made out correctly. They don't have to worry about that picky teller who doesn't know what to do with a check made out to Billy Smith and a drivers license for Xavier William Smith. On the other hand... a criminal will also be able to make sure it is processed exactly the way they want it. If I made it out to a small business or a person I would let them know. You might not have a choice but to wait and see what happens if it was sent to a large business, the payment processing center could be a long way from where you will be calling.\\\"\",\n \"No fees: Write a check. Deposit it into the other bank.\",\n \"For an individual its not automatic. One needs to ask the Bank, return the check. For Corporate Customer depending on how big the relationship is, many a times this is given as a service and there is an automatic return\",\n \"If you have an SSN and foreign passport - it's all you need to open account, so just open it and order a checkbook. It will take some time before they will issue it but most probably they'll give you some checks to use till that very moment. So basically you should: Also I strongly suggest you to open two accounts - one would be for you and one for rent exclusively. The thing is that check could be cashed any time and it's pretty annoying exercise to keep that in mind.\",\n \"If you don't have a bank account then open one and use the check as your opening deposit. You'll need to obtain a Social Security card as well (you didn't indicate you have one or not, so I'll assume you don't), but they're free and quick to apply for. I assume you're from Washington state, so there should be no problem with you opening an account in Washington, no matter where the check is from. Because of the amount of the check, the bank will probably only let yo have a part of the amount for a few days until it clears, but federal banking rules require quick clearance of out-of-state checks (I think it's 48 hours now), so you'd have access to at least half of the money right away and the rest in a few days.\",\n \"The insurance company issued the check. I'd contact the insurance company to have the current check voided and a new one issued to the pharmacy.\",\n \"You can make a capital contribution, not a loan. It's not a taxable event, no interest, and you can take a distribution later when the business has the money to pay you back. So yes, transfer the money. If you use software like Quickbooks, make use of unique accounts for tracking the contribution\",\n \"\\\"Its a classic sign of fraud. The fraud is on you. You cashed the check not given to you, and not endorsed by the person its given to, so even if the check is legit you're still in trouble. There are many variations of this scheme, but the common thing is that the \\\"\\\"innocent\\\"\\\" third party is given a check to cash, and gives its own check or cash in return. The check ends up being forged, stolen, or otherwise invalid, but the cash/check the third party gave is long gone. Usually its cash, because its untraceable. You should wait at least a couple of weeks to make sure the check doesn't bounce. You might want to contact the check owner to verify its legit, and suggest to return the money, if it is not. You might also want to consult with an attorney. Bear in mind, that it might be reported to the authorities as a money laundering scheme (which it very well might be), and you'll have some explaining to do in this case, even if the check is legit.\\\"\",\n \"Your main concern seems to be to be accused of something called 'smurfing' or structuring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring Depositing money amounts (cash or checks) under the 10k limit to circumvent the reporting requirement. People have been investigated for depositing under the limit, e.g. small business owners. If you're always above 10k you should be fine, as your deposits are reported and shouldn't raise IRS or FBI suspicions.\",\n \"\\\"You don't specify which country you are in, so my answers are more from a best practice view than a legal view.. I don't intend on using it for personal use, but I mean it's just as possible. This is a dangerous proposition.. You shouldn't co-mingle business expenses with personal expenses. If there is a chance this will happen, then stop, make it so that it won't happen. The big danger is in being able to have traceability between what you are doing for the business, and what you are doing for yourself. If you are using this as a \\\"\\\"staging\\\"\\\" account for investments, etc., are those investments for yourself? Or for the business? Is tax treatment on capital gains and/or dividends the same for personal and business in your jurisdiction? If you buy a widget, is the widget an expense against business income? Or is it an out of pocket expense for personal consumption? The former reduces your taxable income, the latter does not. I don't see the benefit of a real business account because those have features specific to maybe corporations, LLC, and etc. -- nothing beneficial to a sole proprietor who has no reports/employees. The real benefit is that there is a clear delineation between business income/expenses and personal income/expenses. This account can also accept money and hold it from business transactions/sales, and possibly transfer some to the personal account if there's no need for reinvesting said amount/percentage. What you are looking for is a commonly called a current account, because it is used for current expenses. If you are moving money out of the account to your personal account, that speaks to paying yourself, which has other implications as well. The safest/cleanest way to do this is to: While this may sound like overkill, it is the only way to guarantee that income/expenses are allocated to the correct entity (i.e. you, or your business). From a Canadian standpoint:\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Have the check reissued to the proper payee.","Just have the associate sign the back and then deposit it. It's called a third party cheque and is perfectly legal. I wouldn't be surprised if it has a longer hold period and, as always, you don't get the money if the cheque doesn't clear. Now, you may have problems if it's a large amount or you're not very well known at the bank. In that case you can have the associate go to the bank and endorse it in front of the teller with some ID. You don't even technically have to be there. Anybody can deposit money to your account if they have the account number. He could also just deposit it in his account and write a cheque to the business."],"string":"[\n \"Have the check reissued to the proper payee.\",\n \"Just have the associate sign the back and then deposit it. It's called a third party cheque and is perfectly legal. I wouldn't be surprised if it has a longer hold period and, as always, you don't get the money if the cheque doesn't clear. Now, you may have problems if it's a large amount or you're not very well known at the bank. In that case you can have the associate go to the bank and endorse it in front of the teller with some ID. You don't even technically have to be there. Anybody can deposit money to your account if they have the account number. He could also just deposit it in his account and write a cheque to the business.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":167,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"6891"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"What is the theory behind Rick Van Ness's risk calculation in the video about diversification?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["277217","463837","474351"],"string":"[\n \"277217\",\n \"463837\",\n \"474351\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["474351","238702","365189","463837","370777","43683","277217","419038","134542","486643","471817","180855","218728","508540","372381","331008","351352","259084","82294","514141","483123","390380","594755","296567","483588","31954","344783","499008","153989","500863","425452","186575","26335","188461","473936","393833","310032","477646","570787","297100","87915","279072","430398","391861","186928","220327","441450","239296","289","252574","144261","463943","217437","502495","329565","139368","445582","332937","378403","309387","403916","192541","36534","424717","172136","283074","229364","549188","81304","306815","492506","141596","117491","222076","527786","569283","459970","460301","37034","312942","320401","1565","152788","254493","451348","199237","207368","565181","72446","110078","335981","134610","395437","397846","111431","492346","450949","284591","460308","499301"],"string":"[\n \"474351\",\n \"238702\",\n \"365189\",\n \"463837\",\n \"370777\",\n \"43683\",\n \"277217\",\n \"419038\",\n \"134542\",\n \"486643\",\n \"471817\",\n \"180855\",\n \"218728\",\n \"508540\",\n \"372381\",\n \"331008\",\n \"351352\",\n \"259084\",\n \"82294\",\n \"514141\",\n \"483123\",\n \"390380\",\n \"594755\",\n \"296567\",\n \"483588\",\n \"31954\",\n \"344783\",\n \"499008\",\n \"153989\",\n \"500863\",\n \"425452\",\n \"186575\",\n \"26335\",\n \"188461\",\n \"473936\",\n \"393833\",\n \"310032\",\n \"477646\",\n \"570787\",\n \"297100\",\n \"87915\",\n \"279072\",\n \"430398\",\n \"391861\",\n \"186928\",\n \"220327\",\n \"441450\",\n \"239296\",\n \"289\",\n \"252574\",\n \"144261\",\n \"463943\",\n \"217437\",\n \"502495\",\n \"329565\",\n \"139368\",\n \"445582\",\n \"332937\",\n \"378403\",\n \"309387\",\n \"403916\",\n \"192541\",\n \"36534\",\n \"424717\",\n \"172136\",\n \"283074\",\n \"229364\",\n \"549188\",\n \"81304\",\n \"306815\",\n \"492506\",\n \"141596\",\n \"117491\",\n \"222076\",\n \"527786\",\n \"569283\",\n \"459970\",\n \"460301\",\n \"37034\",\n \"312942\",\n \"320401\",\n \"1565\",\n \"152788\",\n \"254493\",\n \"451348\",\n \"199237\",\n \"207368\",\n \"565181\",\n \"72446\",\n \"110078\",\n \"335981\",\n \"134610\",\n \"395437\",\n \"397846\",\n \"111431\",\n \"492346\",\n \"450949\",\n \"284591\",\n \"460308\",\n \"499301\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \"\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\"\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\"","\"Years ago I wrote an article Risk, Reward, Coin Flipping which explains from a 'game theory' perspective how diversifying works to minimize standard deviation in one's returns. It's long and tedious, not easy to summarize, but it holds up well, I'm pleased with how the analogy does its job. Update - the above is too \"\"link-only\"\", written over 5 years ago. The article I wrote offers a mathematical approach via an understandable example of coin flipping. With just 2 options, a 'head' is a 10% loss, while a 'tail' is a 30% gain. This actually represents the market fairly well as it results in a 10% average gain and 28% standard deviation for just 2 flips. The article shows how by 'diversifying', choosing to make multiple smaller bets, the average 10% stays the same, but the standard deviation is brought down dramatically, 7.6% when we use a sample experiment with 7 coins.\"","At its simplest level it's an application of basic statistics/probability: Suppose you have n independent and identically distributed assets with the return on asset i denoted R_i which has mean m and variance s^2 (same for all assets). You can easily weaken these assumptions but I make them to simplify the exposition [Square brackets show a numerical example with n=20, m=8%, s=2%] if you invest in one of these assets you expect to get a return of m [8%] with standard deviation s [2%] (so you expect with probability 95% (approx) to get a return between m-2*s and m+2*s. [between 4% and 12%] Now suppose you split your money equally among the n-assets. Your return is now R = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i your expected return is E(R) = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n E(R_i) = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n m = m [8%] the variance of your return is Var(R) = Var( (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i ) = (1/n^2)\\Sum{i=1}^n Var(R_i) = n * s^2 / n^2) = s^2/n So, the standard deviation is SD(R) = Sqrt(V(R)) = s/Sqrt(n) [2%/Sqrt(20) = 0.44%] Now, with 95% probability we get a return between E(R)-2*SD(R) and E(R)+2*SD(R) [between 7.12% and 8.88%]. This interval is smaller than when we invested in the single asset, so in effect with this portfolio we are achieving the same return m [8%] but with lower variance (risk) [0.44% instead of 2%]. This is the result of diversification. You can assume the assets are not independent (and most book expositions of this topic do indeed do that). In that case the calculation is modified because the variance of the portfolio now depends on the correlation between returns, as does the reduction in variance caused by the diversification. If assets are negatively correlated the result of the diversification will be more reduction in risk and vice versa. You can also assume the assets are not identically distributed and the above analysis does not change too much. You might look for some references on CAPM (Capital Asset Pricing Model) or portfolio theory but broadly these are based on what I have described above - finding the portfolio with minimum variance for a given return by investing proportionally in treasury bonds and risky assets.","\"John Bensin's answer covers the math, but I like the plain-English examples of the theory from William Bernstein's fine book, The Intelligent Asset Allocator. At the author's web site, you can find the complete chapter 1 and chapter 2, though not chapter 3, which is the one with the \"\"multiple coin toss\"\" portfolio example I want to highlight. I'll summarize Bernstein's multiple coin toss example here with some excerpts from the book. (Another top user, @JoeTaxpayer, has also written about the coin flip on his blog, also mentioning Bernstein's book.) Bernstein begins Chapter 1 by describing an offer from a fictitious \"\"Uncle Fred\"\": Imagine that you work for your rich but eccentric Uncle Fred. [...] he decides to let you in on the company pension plan. [...] you must pick ahead of time one of two investment choices for the duration of your employment: Certificates of deposit with a 3% annualized rate of return, or, A most peculiar option: At the end of each year Uncle Fred flips a coin. Heads you receive a 30% investment return for that year, tails a minus 10% (loss) for the year. This will be hereafter referred to as \"\"Uncle Fred’s coin toss,\"\" or simply, the \"\"coin toss.\"\" In effect, choosing option 2 results in a higher expected return than option 1, but it is certainly riskier, having a high standard deviation and being especially prone to a series of bad tosses. Chapters 1 and 2 continue to expand on the idea of risk, and take a look at various assets/markets over time. Chapter 3 then begins by introducing the multiple coin toss example: Time passes. You have spent several more years in the employ of your Uncle Fred, and have truly grown to dread the annual coin-toss sessions. [...] He makes you another offer. At the end of each year, he will divide your pension account into two equal parts and conduct a separate coin toss for each half [...] there are four possible outcomes [...]: [...] Being handy with numbers, you calculate that your annualized return for this two-coin-toss sequence is 9.08%, which is nearly a full percentage point higher than your previous expected return of 8.17% with only one coin toss. Even more amazingly, you realize that your risk has been reduced — with the addition of two returns at the mean of 10%, your calculated standard deviation is now only 14.14%, as opposed to 20% for the single coin toss. [...] Dividing your portfolio between assets with uncorrelated results increases return while decreasing risk. [...] If the second coin toss were perfectly inversely correlated with the first and always gave the opposite result [hence, outcomes 1 and 4 above never occurring], then our return would always be 10%. In this case, we would have a 10% annualized long-term return with zero risk! I hope that summarizes the example well. Of course, in the real world, one of the tricks to building a good portfolio is finding assets that aren't well-correlated, and if you're interested in more on the subject I suggest you check out his books (including The Four Pillars of Investing) and read more about Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT).\"","if I have a asset A with expected return of 100% and risk(measured by standard deviation) 1%, and asset B with expected return of 1% and risk 100%, would it be rational to put asset B into the portfolio ? No, because Modern Portfolio Theory would say that if there is another asset (B2) with the same (or higher) return but less risk (which you already have in asset A), you should invest in that. If those are the only two assets you can choose from, you would invest completely in Asset A. The point of diversification is that, so long as two assets aren't perfectly positively correlated (meaning that if one moves up the other always moves up), then losses in one asset will sometimes be offset by gains in another, reducing the overall risk.","If you have 100% of your money in one security that is inherently more risky than splitting your money 50/50 between two securities, regardless of the purported riskiness of the two securities. The calculations people use to justify their particular breed of diversification may carry some assumptions related risk/reward calculations. But these particular justifications don't change the fact that spreading your money across different assets protects your money from value variances of the individual assets. Splitting your $100 between Apple and Microsoft stock is probably less valuable (less well diversified) than splitting your money between Apple and Whole Foods stock but either way you're carrying less risk than putting all $100 in to Apple stock regardless of the assumed rates of return for any of these companies stock specifically. Edit: I'm sure the downvotes are because I didn't make a big deal about correlation and measuring correlation and standard deviations of returns and detailed portfolio theory. Measuring efficacy and justifying your particular allocations (that generally uses data from the past to project the future) is all well and good. Fact of the matter is, if you have 100% of your money in stock that's more stock risk than 25% in cash, 25% in bonds and 50% in stock would be because now you're in different asset classes. You can measure to your hearts delight the effects of splitting your money between different specific companies, or different industries, or different market capitalizations, or different countries or different fund managers or different whatever-metrics and doing any of those things will reduce your exposure to those specific allocations. It may be worth pointing out that currently the hot recommendation is a plain vanilla market tracking S&P 500 index fund (that just buys some of each of the 500 largest US companies without any consideration given to risk correlation) over standard deviation calculating actively managed funds. If you ask me that speaks volumes of the true efficacy of hyper analyzing the purported correlations of various securities.","\"He's calculating portfolio variance. The general formula for the variance of a portfolio composed of two securities looks like this: where w_a and w_b are the weights of each stock in the portfolio and the sigmas represent the standard deviation/risk of each asset or portfolio. In the case of perfect positive or negative correlation, applying some algebra to the formula relating covariance to the correlation coefficient (rho, the Greek letter that looks like \"\"p\"\"): tells us that the covariance we need in the original formula is simply the product of the standard deviations and the correlation coefficient (-1 in this case). Combining that result with our original formula yields this calculation: Technically we've calculated the portfolio's variance and not it's standard deviation/risk, but since the square root of 0 is still 0, that doesn't matter. The Wikipedia article on Modern Portfolio Theory has a section that describes the mathematical methods I used above. The entire article is worth a read, however.\"","\"JoeTaxpayer's answer is dead on... but let me give my own two cents with a little bit of math. Otherwise, I personally find that people talking about diversified portfolios tends to be full of buzzwords. Let's say that Buffett's investments are $10 million. He would like to earn ≥7% this year, or $700,000. He can invest that money in coca-cola//underwear, which might return: Or he can invest in \"\"genius moves\"\" that will make headlines: (like buying huge stakes in Goldman Sachs), which might return: And he makes plays for the long haul based on the expected value of the investments. So if he splits it 50/50... ($5 million/ $5 million), then his expected value is 822,250: By diversifying, he does reduce the expected value of the portfolio... (He is not giving $10 M the chance to turn into $1.5 million or $2 million for him!). The expected value of that shock-and-awe portfolio with all $10 million invested in it is $1.2M. By taking less risk... for less reward... his expected return is lower. But his risk is lower too. Scale this example back up into the $100 million or billion range that Buffett invests in and that extra margin makes the difference. In the context of your original article, the lower-risk 'cake and underwear' investments let Buffett go big on the things that will make 20%+ returns on billions of dollars, without completely destroying his investment capital when things take a turn for the worse.\"","\"When you invest in a single index/security, you are completely exposed to the risk of that security. Diversification means spreading the investments so the losses on one side can be compensated by the gains on the other side. What you are talking about is one thing called \"\"risk apettite\"\", more formally known as Risk Tolerance: Risk tolerance is the degree of variability in investment returns that an investor is willing to withstand. (emphasis added) This means that you are willing to accept some losses in order to get a potential bigger return. Fidelity has this graph: As you can see in the table above, the higher the risk tolerance, the bigger the difference between the best and worst values. That is the variability. The right-most pie can be one example of an agressive diversified portfolio. But this does not mean you should go and buy exactly that security compostion. High-risk means playing with fire. Unless you are a professional stuntman, playing with fire usually leaves people burnt. In a financial context this usually means the money is gone. Recommended Reading: Investopedia; Risk and Diversification: The Risk-Reward Tradeoff Investopedia; How to construct a High Risk portfolio Fidelity: Guide to Diversification KPMG: Understanding and articulating Risk Appetite (pdf)\"","Dummy example to explain this. Suppose your portfolio contained just two securities; a thirty year US government bond and a Tesla stock. Both of those position are currently valued at $1mm. The Tesla position however is very volatile with its daily volatility being about 5% (based on the standard deviation of its daily return) whole there bond's daily volatility is 1%. Then the Tesla position is 5/6 of your risk while being only 1/2 of the portfolio. Now if in month the Tesla stock tanks to half is values then. Then it's risk is half as much as before and so it's total contribution to risk has gone down.","\"The standard measure of risk is the variance of the asset. The return on investment of the asset is understood as a random variable with a particular distribution. One can make inferences about the underlying distribution using historical data. As you say, this is what the quants do. There are other, more sophisticated measures of risk that allow for such things as skewed distributions and Markov switching. If you are interested in learning more, I suggest starting with the foundations of Modern Portfolio Theory: \"\"Portfolio Selection\"\" by Harry Markowitz and \"\"Capital Asset Prices\"\" by William Sharpe.\"","Diversifying your portfolio between asset A and asset B only reduces the portfolio risk if asset A and asset B are not correlated. If they have either a low correlation or a negative correlation to each other, then you benefit from combining them in a portfolio in terms of risk reduction. The standard deviation of returns will be lower in a portfolio of low or uncorrelated assets. If on the other hand you combine two correlated assets into a portfolio you are doubling down on the same assumption, which means you are not reducing your risk. You are also wasting capital because now you have allocated capital to 2 separate trades / investments yet they have shown a high tendency of moving together. Here is an article that discusses this further: Why Diversify your Stock Portfolio","The other example I'd offer is the case for diversification. If one buys 10 well chosen stocks, i.e. stocks spread across different industries so their correlation to one another is low, they will have lower risk than each of the 10 folk who own one of those stocks per person. Same stocks, but lower risk when combined.","\"Diversification is extremely important and the one true \"\"Free Lunch\"\" of investing, meaning it can provide both greater returns and less risk than a portfolio that is not diversified. The reason people say otherwise is because they are talking about \"\"true\"\" portfolio diversification, which cannot be achieved by simply spreading money across stocks. To truly diversify a portfolio it must be diversified across multiple, unrelated \"\"Return Drivers.\"\" I describe this throughout my best-selling book and am pleased to provide complimentary links to the following two chapters, where I discuss the lack of diversification from spreading money solely across stocks (including correlation tables), as well as the benefits of true portfolio diversification: Jackass Investing - Myth #8: Trading is Gambling – Investing is Safer Jackass Investing - Myth #20: There is No Free Lunch\"","\"You're talking about modern portfolio theory. The wiki article goes into the math. Here's the gist: Modern portfolio theory (MPT) is a theory of finance that attempts to maximize portfolio expected return for a given amount of portfolio risk, or equivalently minimize risk for a given level of expected return, by carefully choosing the proportions of various assets. At the most basic level, you either a) pick a level of risk (standard deviation of your whole portfolio) that you're ok with and find the maximum return you can achieve while not exceeding your risk level, or b) pick a level of expected return that you want and minimize risk (again, the standard deviation of your portfolio). You don't maximize both moments at once. The techniques behind actually solving them in all but the most trivial cases (portfolios of two or three assets are trivial cases) are basically quadratic programming because to be realistic, you might have a portfolio that a) doesn't allow short sales for all instruments, and/or b) has some securities that can't be held in fractional amounts (like ETF's or bonds). Then there isn't a closed form solution and you need computational techniques like mixed integer quadratic programming Plenty of firms and people use these techniques, even in their most basic form. Also your terms are a bit strange: It has correlation table p11, p12, ... pij, pnn for i and j running from 1 to n This is usually called the covariance matrix. I want to maximize 2 variables. Namely the expected return and the additive inverse of the standard deviation of the mixed investments. Like I said above you don't maximize two moments (return and inverse of risk). I realize that you're trying to minimize risk by maximizing \"\"negative risk\"\" so to speak but since risk and return are inherently a tradeoff you can't achieve the best of both worlds. Maybe I should point out that although the above sounds nice, and, theoretically, it's sound, as one of the comments points out, it's harder to apply in practice. For example it's easy to calculate a covariance matrix between the returns of two or more assets, but in the simplest case of modern portfolio theory, the assumption is that those covariances don't change over your time horizon. Also coming up with a realistic measure of your level of risk can be tricky. For example you may be ok with a standard deviation of 20% in the positive direction but only be ok with a standard deviation of 5% in the negative direction. Basically in your head, the distribution of returns you want probably has negative skewness: because on the whole you want more positive returns than negative returns. Like I said this can get complicated because then you start minimizing other forms of risk like value at risk, for example, and then modern portfolio theory doesn't necessarily give you closed form solutions anymore. Any actively managed fund that applies this in practice (since obviously a completely passive fund will just replicate the index and not try to minimize risk or anything like that) will probably be using something like the above, or at least something that's more complicated than the basic undergrad portfolio optimization that I talked about above. We'll quickly get beyond what I know at this rate, so maybe I should stop there.\"","\"I would like to first point out that there is nothing special about a self-managed investment portfolio as compared to one managed by someone else. With some exceptions, you can put together exactly the same investment portfolio yourself as a professional investor could put together for you. Not uncommonly, too, at a lower cost (and remember that cost is among the, if not the, best indicator(s) of how your investment portfolio will perform over time). Diversification is the concept of not \"\"putting all your eggs in one basket\"\". The idea here is that there are things that happen together because they have a common cause, and by spreading your investments in ways such that not all of your investments have the same underlying risks, you reduce your overall risk. The technical term for risk is generally volatility, meaning how much (in this case the price of) something fluctuates over a given period of time. A stock that falls 30% one month and then climbs 40% the next month is more volatile than one that falls 3% the first month and climbs 4% the second month. The former is riskier because if for some reason you need to sell when it is down, you lose a larger portion of your original investment with the former stock than with the latter. Diversification, thus, is reducing commonality between your investments, generally but not necessarily in an attempt to reduce the risk of all investments moving in the same direction by the same amount at the same time. You can diversify in various ways: Do you see where I am going with this? A well-diversed portfolio will tend to have a mix of equity in your own country and a variety of other countries, spread out over different types of equity (company stock, corporate bonds, government bonds, ...), in different sectors of the economy, in countries with differing growth patterns. It may contain uncommon classes of investments such as precious metals. A poorly diversified portfolio will likely be restricted to either some particular geographical area, type of equity or investment, focus on some particular sector of the economy (such as medicine or vehicle manufacturers), or so on. The poorly diversified portfolio can do better in the short term, if you time it just right and happen to pick exactly the right thing to buy or sell. This is incredibly hard to do, as you are basically working against everyone who gets paid to do that kind of work full time, plus computer-algorithm-based trading which is programmed to look for any exploitable patterns. It is virtually impossible to do for any real length of time. Thus, the well-diversified portfolio tends to do better over time.\"","it's kind of like a circular loop: i think he would suggest identifying strategies/portfolio managers who have demonstrated outperformance in a persistent manner. Thing is, that's also really hard to do. I think empirically, MPT suffers when the market does. By diversifying, you'll only be down less. He's suggesting shooting for absolute returns -- no matter what the market does, he wants to see positive gains. (a lot) easier said than done","Diversification is used by many to hopefully reduce the risk when bad investments are made. Diversification does not help you make more profits but instead averages down your profits. There is no way one can tell whether a stock or portfolio of stocks will go up or down once they are purchased. In order to try to provide some protection against total loss of the portfolio, a lazy so called long term investor will use diversification as a way of risk management. But the best outcome for them will be an averaging down of their profits. A better method is to let the market tell you when your purchased investment is a bad one and get out of that investment early and thus limiting your losses, whilst letting your good investments (as determined by the market) run and make larger profits.","Variance of a single asset is defined as follows: σ2 = Σi(Xi - μ)2 where Xi's represent all the possible final market values of your asset and μ represents the mean of all such market values. The portfolio's variance is defined as σp2 = Σiwi2σi2 where, σp is the portfolio's variance, and wi stands for the weight of the ith asset. Now, if you include the borrowing in your portfolio, that would classify as technically shorting at the borrowing rate. Thus, this weight would (by the virtue of being negative) increase all other weights. Moreover, the variance of this is likely to be zero (assuming fixed borrowing rates). Thus, weights of risky assets rise and the investor's portfolio's variance will go up. Also see, CML at wikipedia.","Quick and dirty paper but pretty interesting.. I'm not in Portfolio Management but I probably would have ended up at the modal number as well. I don't know the subject deeply enough to answer my own question, but is the bias always toward underestimation of variance? Or is that a complex of the way the problem was set up? Another question I have for those in investment management; Would this impact asset allocation?","\"The question is: how do you quantify investment risk? As Michael S says, one approach is to treat investment returns as a random variable. Bill Goetzmann (Yale finance professor) told me that if you accept that markets are efficient or that the price of an asset reflects it's underlying value, then changes in price represent changes in value, so standard deviation naturally becomes the appropriate measure for riskiness of an asset. Essentially, the more volatile an asset, the riskier it is. There is another school of thought that comes from Ben Graham and Warren Buffett, which says that volatility is not inherently risky. Rather, risk should be defined as the permanent loss of capital, so the riskiness of an asset is the probability of a permanent loss of capital invested. This is easy to do in casino games, based on basic probability such as roulette or slots. But what has been done with the various kinds of investment risks? My point is saying that certain bonds are \"\"low risk\"\" isn't good enough; I'd like some numbers--or at least a range of numbers--and therefore one could calculate expected payoff (in the statistics sense). Or can it not be done--and if not, why not? Investing is more art than science. In theory, a Triple-A bond rating means the asset is riskless or nearly riskless, but we saw that this was obviously wrong since several of the AAA mortgage backed securities (MBS) went under prior to the recent US recession. More recently, the current threat of default suggests that bond ratings are not entirely accurate, since US Treasuries are considered riskless assets. Investors often use bond ratings to evaluate investments - a bond is considered investment grade if it's BBB- or higher. To adequately price bonds and evaluate risk, there are too many factors to simply refer to a chart because things like the issuer, credit quality, liquidity risk, systematic risk, and unsystematic risk all play a factor. Another factor you have to consider is the overall portfolio. Markowitz showed that adding a riskier asset can actually lower the overall risk of a portfolio because of diversification. This is all under the assumption that risk = variance, which I think is bunk. I'm aware that Wall Street is nothing like roulette, but then again there must be some math and heavy economics behind calculating risk for individual investors. This is, after all, what \"\"quants\"\" are paid to do, in part. Is it all voodoo? I suspect some of it is, but not all of it. Quants are often involved in high frequency trading as well, but that's another note. There are complicated risk management products, such as the Aladdin system by BlackRock, which incorporate modern portfolio theory (Markowitz, Fama, Sharpe, Samuelson, etc) and financial formulas to manage risk. Crouhy's Risk Management covers some of the concepts applied. I also tend to think that when people point to the last x number of years of stock market performance, that is of less value than they expect. Even going back to 1900 provides \"\"only\"\" 110 years of data, and in my view, complex systems need more data than those 40,500 data points. 10,000 years' worth of data, ok, but not 110. Any books or articles that address these issues, or your own informed views, would be helfpul. I fully agree with you here. A lot of work is done in the Santa Fe Institute to study \"\"complex adaptive systems,\"\" and we don't have any big, clear theory as of yet. Conventional risk management is based on the ideas of modern portfolio theory, but a lot of that is seen to be wrong. Behavioral finance is introducing new ideas on how investors behave and why the old models are wrong, which is why I cannot suggest you study risk management and risk models because I and many skilled investors consider them to be largely wrong. There are many good books on investing, the best of which is Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor. Although not a book on risk solely, it provides a different viewpoint on how to invest and covers how to protect investments via a \"\"Margin of Safety.\"\" Lastly, I'd recommend Against the Gods by Peter Bernstein, which covers the history of risk and risk analysis. It's not solely a finance book but rather a fascinating historical view of risk, and it helps but many things in context. Hope it helps!\"","The funny thing is - this is total bullshit, the major assumption underlying VAR along with many other financial products is that your assets have a certain correlation to oneanother, and you calculate your risk hedges on this assumption. VAR is a terrible way of managing firmwide risk, and always will be, because it doesn't protect you from a deleveraging environment, when all asset values fall and former inverse correlations don't protect you anymore.","Risk in finance is defined as standard deviation of returns. This is a measure of size of your returns, both negative and positive. Since the mean return is positive (at least for the stock market and fixed income), if you double the standard deviation your mean return also doubles along with it. In this way you are compensated by the market for taking on more risk.","\"While it's definitely possible (and likely?) that a diversified portfolio generates higher returns than the S&P 500, that's not the main reason why you diversify. Diversification reduces risk. Modern portfolio theory suggests that you should maximize return while reducing risk, instead of blindly chasing the highest returns. Think about it this way--say the average return is 11% for large cap US stocks (the S&P 500), and it's 10% for a diversified portfolio (say, 6-8 asset classes). The large cap only portfolio has a 10% chance of losing 30% in a given year, while the diversified portfolio has a 1% chance of losing 30% in a year. For the vast majority of investors, it's worth the 1% annual gap in expected return to greatly reduce their risk exposure. Of course, I just made those numbers up. Read what finance professors have written for the \"\"data and proof\"\". But modern portfolio theory is believed by a lot of investors and other finance experts. There are a ton of studies (and therefore data) on MPT--including many that contradict it.\"","That's exactly what immunofort is saying, and it lines up with established financial theory (well, some of it). The general argument is that stocks are priced according to what risks they're exposed to. Several (although not all) of the major financial economics theories propose (and find empirical evidence for this) that the market as whole is a risk factor, so individual stocks would be priced in part based on how correlated they are with the market. Strictly speaking, the risk free rate is purely theoretical and can't be directly observed, but the US T-bill yield is usually considered to be a pretty good proxy for it.","\"I think Swenson's insight was that the traditional recommendation of 60% stocks plus 40% bonds has two serious flaws: 1) You are exposed to way too much risk by having a portfolio that is so strongly tied to US equities (especially in the way it has historically been recommend). 2) You have too little reward by investing so much of your portfolio in bonds. If you can mix a decent number of asset classes that all have equity-like returns, and those asset classes have a low correlation with each other, then you can achieve equity-like returns without the equity-like risk. This improvement can be explicitly measured in the Sharpe ratio of you portfolio. (The Vanguard Risk Factor looks pretty squishy and lame to me.) The book the \"\"The Ivy Portfolio\"\" does a great job at covering the Swenson model and explains how to reasonably replicate it yourself using low fee ETFs.\"","\"There are some good answers about the benefits of diversification, but I'm going to go into what is going on mathematically with what you are attempting. I was always under the assumption that as long as two securities are less than perfectly correlated (i.e. 1), that the standard deviation/risk would be less than if I had put 100% into either of the securities. While there does exist a minimum variance portfolio that is a combination of the two with lower vol than 100% of either individually, this portfolio is not necessarily the portfolio with highest utility under your metric. Your metric includes returns not just volatility/variance so the different returns bias the result away from the min-vol portfolio. Using the utility function: E[x] - .5*A*sig^2 results in the highest utility of 100% VTSAX. So here the Sharpe ratio (risk adjusted return) of the U.S. portfolio is so much higher than the international portfolio over the period tracked that the loss of returns from adding more international stocks outweigh the lower risk that you would get from both just adding the lower vol international stocks and the diversification effects from having a correlation less than one. The key point in the above is \"\"over the period tracked\"\". When you do this type of analysis you implicitly assume that the returns/risk observed in the past will be similar to the returns/risk in the future. Certainly, if you had invested 100% in the U.S. recently you would have done better than investing in a mix of US/Intl. However, while the risk and correlations of assets can be (somewhat) stable over time relative returns can vary wildly! This uncertainty of future returns is why most people use a diversified portfolio of assets. What is the exact right amount is a very hard question though.\"","\"Wow, this analysis really surprised me. Very complete and useful, but i think my teacher request was easier. He just said: \"\"Try to build a diversified portfolio. Then try to add a commodity (like silver or gold) and understand how the risk vary introducing an asset like this.\"\" So, i'm basically making a stocks portfolio and i'm calculating its expected return and risk. (for example 40%FB, 10%JNJ, 20%GS, 10%F and 20%MCD) then i'm adding GLD (so now i have something like 20%FB, 10%JNJ, 10%GS, 10%F and 20%MCD 30%GLD) and i'm actually making an excel spreadsheet where i calculate all the: -Expected returns -St Deviation -Covariance At the end i compare the returns and the risks on the 2 different portfolios.\"","\"Diversification tends to protect you from big losses. But it also tends to \"\"protect\"\" you from big gains. In any industry, some companies provide good products and services and prosper while others have problems and fail. (Or maybe the winners are just lucky or they paid off the right politicians, whatever, not the point here.) If you put all your money in one stock and they do well, you could make a bundle. But if you pick a loser, you could lose your entire investment. If you buy a little stock in each of many companies, then some will go up and some will go down, and your returns will be an average of how everyone in the industry is doing. Suppose I offered to bet you a large sum of money that if I roll a die, it will come up 6. You might be reluctant to take that bet, because you can't predict what number will come up on one roll of a die. But suppose I offered to bet you a large sum of money that a die will come up 6, 100 times in a row. You might well take that bet, because the chance that it will turn up 6 time after time after time is very low. You reduce risk by spreading your bets. Anyone who's bought stock has surely had times when he said, \"\"Oh man! If only I'd bought X ten years ago I'd be a millionaire now!\"\" But quite a few have also said, \"\"If only I'd sold X ten years ago I wouldn't have lost all this money!\"\" I recently bought a stock a stock that within a few months rose to 10 times what I paid for it ... and then a few months later the company went bankrupt and the stock was worth nothing. I knew the company was on a roller coaster when I bought the stock, I was gambling that they'd pull through and I'd make money. I guessed wrong. Fortunately I gambled an amount that I was willing to lose.\"","Modern portfolio theory has a strong theoretical background and its conclusions on the risk/return trade-off have a lot of good supporting evidence. However, the conclusions it draws need to be used very carefully when thinking about retirement investing. If you were really just trying to just pick the one investment that you would guess would make you the most money in the future then yes, given no other information, the riskiest asset would be the best one. However, for most people the goal retirement investing is to be as sure as possible to retire comfortably. If you were to just invest in a single, very risky asset you may have the highest expected return, but the risk involved would mean there might be a good chance you money may not be there when you need it. Instead, a broad diversified basket of riskier and safer assets leaning more toward the riskier investments when younger and the safer assets when you get closer to retirement tends to be a better fit with most people's retirement goals. This tends to give (on average) more return when you are young and can better deal with the risk, but dials back the risk later in life when your investment portfolio is a majority of your wealth and you can least afford any major swings. This combines the lessons of MPT (diversity, risk/return trade-off) in a clearer way with common goals of retirement. Caveat: Your retirement goals and risk-tolerance may be very different from other peoples'. It is often good to talk to (fee-only) financial planner.","\"In theory, the idea is that diversified assets will perform differently in different circumstances, spreading your risk around. Whether that still functions in practice is a decent question, as the \"\"truth\"\" of most probability based arguments for diversification rely on the different assets being at least somewhat uncorrelated. This article suggests that might not be true. Specifically: The correlations we note among industry sectors are profoundly and dysfunctionally high. and Gold and silver traders have gotten too used to the negative correlation trade with stocks. This is, in fact, an unusual relationship for precious metals tostocks. The correlation should actually be zero.\"","You're missing the concept of systemic risk, which is the risk of the entire market or an entire asset class. Diversification is about achieving a balance between risk and return that's appropriate for you. Your investment in Vanguard's fund, although diversified between many public companies, is still restricted to one asset class in one country. Yes, you lower your risk by investing in all of these companies, but you don't erase it entirely. Clearly, there is still risk, despite your diversification. You may decide that you want other investments or a different asset allocation that reduce the overall risk of your portfolio. Over the long run, you may earn a high level of return, but never forget that there is still risk involved. bonds seem pretty worthless, at least until I retire According to your profile, you're about my age. Our cohort will probably begin retiring sometime around 2050 or later, and no one knows what the bond market will look like over the next 40 years. We may have forecasts for the next few years, but not for almost four decades. Writing off an entire asset class for almost four decades doesn't seem like a good idea. Also, bonds are like equity, and all other asset classes, in that there are different levels of risk within the asset class too. When calculating the overall risk/return profile of my portfolio, I certainly don't consider Treasuries as the same risk level as corporate bonds or high-yield (or junk) bonds from abroad. Depending on your risk preferences, you may find that an asset allocation that includes US and/or international bonds/fixed-income, international equities, real-estate, and cash (to make rebalancing your asset allocation easier) reduces your risk to levels you're willing to tolerate, while still allowing you to achieve returns during periods where one asset class, e.g. equities, is losing value or performing below your expectations.","\"Modern portfolio theory dramatically underestimates the risk of the recommended assets. This is because so few underlying assets are in the recommended part of the curve. As investors identify such assets, large amounts of money are invested in them. This temporarily reduces measured risk, and temporarily increases measured return. Sooner or later, \"\"the trade\"\" becomes \"\"crowded\"\". Eventually, large amounts of money try to \"\"exit the trade\"\" (into cash or the next discovered asset). And so the measurable risk suddenly rises, and the measured return drops. In other words, modern portfolio theory causes bubbles, and causes those bubbles to pop. Some other strategies to consider:\"","What you're looking for is expected value. Let's say you invest $1000 in option A, and later discover that you are going to lose 20%. So the expected value of option A is $800. If option B has a 50% chance of losing 50%, and a 50% of gaining 20%, then your expected value is $650 ($650 = $1000 * (50% * 50% + 50% * 20%)). $800 > $650, so you should stay with option A. In the real world, you usually don't know the exact odds and percentages, so substitute in your best guesses. This may lead to suboptimal results, but only if your estimations are wrong; the formula itself is ideal.","Ditto Bill and I upvoted his answer. But let me add a bit. If everyone knew exactly what the risk was for every investment, then prices would be bid up or down until every stock (or bond or derivative or whatever) was valued at exactly risk times potential profit. (Or more precisely, integral of risk times potential profit.) If company A was 100% guaranteed to make $1 million profit this year, while company B had 50% change to make a $2 million profit and 50% to make $0, and every investor in the world knew that, then I'd expect the total price of all shares of the two stocks to stabilize at the same value. The catch to that, though, is that no one really knows the risk. The risk isn't like, we're going to roll a die and if it comes up even the company makes $1 million and if it comes up odd the company makes $0, so we could calculate the exact probability. The risk comes from lack of information. Will consumers want to buy this new product? How many? What are they willing to pay? How capable is the new CEO? Etc. It's very hard to calculate probabilities on these things. How can you precisely calculate the probability that unforeseen events will occur? So in real life prices are muddled. The risk/reward ratio should be roughly sort of approximately linear, but that's about the most one can say.","\"The formula you are looking for is pretty complicated. It's given here: http://itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda3661.htm You might prefer to let somebody else do the grunt work for you. This page will calculate the probability for you: http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/normal.aspx. In your case, you'd enter mean=.114, standard deviation=.132, and \"\"standard score\"\"= ... oh, you didn't say what you're paying on your debt. Let's say it's 6%, i.e. .06. Note that this page will give you the probability that the actual number will be less than or equal to the \"\"standard score\"\". Enter all that and click the magic button and the probability that the investment will produce less than 6% is ... .34124, or 34%. The handy rule of thumb is that the probability is about 68% that the actual number will be within 1 standard deviation of the mean, 95% that it will be within 2 standard deviations, and 99.7% that it will be within 3. Which isn't exactly what you want because you don't want \"\"within\"\" but \"\"less than\"\". But you could get that by just adding half the difference from 100% for each of the above, i.e. instead of 68-95-99.7 it would be 84-98-99.9. Oh, I missed that in a follow-up comment you say you are paying 4% on a mortgage which you are adjusting to 3% because of tax implications. Probability based on mean and SD you gave of getting less than 3% is 26%. I didn't read the article you cite. I assume the standard deviation given is for the rate of return for one year. If you stretch that over many years, the SD goes down, as many factors tend to even out. So while the probability that money in a given, say, mutual fund will grow by less than 3% in one year is fairly high -- the 25 - 35% we're talking here sounds plausible to me -- the probability that it will grow by an average of less than 3% over a period of 10 or 15 or 20 years is much less. Further Thought There is, of course, no provably-true formula for what makes a reasonable risk. Suppose I offered you an investment that had a 99% chance of showing a $5,000 profit and a 1% chance of a $495,000 loss. Would you take it? I wouldn't. Even though the chance of a loss is small, if it happened, I'd lose everything I have. Is it worth that risk for the modest potential profit? I'd say no. Of course to someone who has a billion dollars, this might be a very reasonable risk. If it fails, oh well, that could really cut in to what he can spend on lunch tomorrow.\"","I use two measures to define investment risk: What's the longest period of time over which this investment has had negative returns? What's the worst-case fall in the value of this investment (peak to trough)? I find that the former works best for long-term investments, like retirement. As a concrete example, I have most of my retirement money in equity, since the Sensex has had zero returns over as long as a decade. Since my investment time-frame is longer, equity is risk-free, by this measure. For short-term investments, like money put aside to buy a car next year, the second measure works better. For this purpose, I might choose a debt fund that isn't the safest, and has had a worst-case 8% loss over the past decade. I can afford that loss, putting in more money from my pocket to buy the car, if needed. So, I might choose this fund for this purpose, taking a slight risk to earn higher return. In any case, how much money I need for a car can only be a rough guess, so having 8% less than originally planned may turn out to be enough. Or it may turn out that the entire amount originally planned for is insufficient, in which case a further 8% shortfall may not be a big deal. These two measures I've defined are simple to explain and understand, unlike academic stuff like beta, standard deviation, information ratio or other mumbo-jumbo. And they are simple to apply to a practical problem, as I've illustrated with the two examples above. On the other hand, if someone tells me that the standard deviation of a mutual fund is 15%, I'll have no idea what that means, or how to apply that to my financial situation. All this suffers from the problem of being limited to historical data, and the future may not be like the past. But that affects any risk statistic, and you can't do better unless you have a time machine.","\"Diversification is spreading your investments around so that one point of risk doesn't sink your whole portfolio. The effect of having a diversified portfolio is that you've always got something that's going up (though, the corollary is that you've also always got something going down... winning overall comes by picking investments worth investing in (not to state the obvious or anything :-) )) It's worth looking at the different types of risk you can mitigate with diversification: Company risk This is the risk that the company you bought actually sucks. For instance, you thought gold was going to go up, and so you bought a gold miner. Say there are only two -- ABC and XYZ. You buy XYZ. Then the CEO reveals their gold mine is played out, and the stock goes splat. You're wiped out. But gold does go up, and ABC does gangbusters, especially now they've got no competition. If you'd bought both XYZ and ABC, you would have diversified your company risk, and you would have been much better off. Say you invested $10K, $5K in each. XYZ goes to zero, and you lose that $5K. ABC goes up 120%, and is now worth $11K. So despite XYZ bankrupting, you're up 10% on your overall position. Sector risk You can categorize stocks by what \"\"sector\"\" they're in. We've already talked about one: gold miners. But there are many more, like utilities, bio-tech, transportation, banks, etc. Stocks in a sector will tend to move together, so you can be right about the company, but if the sector is out of favor, it's going to have a hard time going up. Lets extend the above example. What if you were wrong about gold going up? Then XYZ would still be bankrupt, and ABC would be making less money so they went down as well; say, 20%. At that point, you've only got $4K left. But say that besides gold, you also thought that banks were cheap. So, you split your investment between the gold miners and a couple of banks -- lets call them LMN and OP -- for $2500 each in XYZ, ABC, LMN, and OP. Say you were wrong about gold, but right about banks; LMN goes up 15%, and OP goes up 40%. At that point, your portfolio looks like this: XYZ start $2500 -100% end $0 ABC start $2500 +120% end $5500 LMN start $2500 +15% end $2875 OP start $2500 +40% end $3500 For a portfolio total of: $11,875, or a total gain of 18.75%. See how that works? Region/Country/Currency risk So, now what if everything's been going up in the USA, and everything seems so overpriced? Well, odds are, some area of the world is not over-bought. Like Brazil or England. So, you can buy some Brazilian or English companies, and diversify away from the USA. That way, if the market tanks here, those foreign companies aren't caught in it, and could still go up. This is the same idea as the sector risk, except it's location based, instead of business type based. There is an additional twist to this -- currencies. The Brits use the pound, and the Brazilians use the real. Most small investors don't think about this much, but the value of currencies, including our dollar, fluctuates. If the dollar has been strong, and the pound weak (as it has been, lately), then what happens if that changes? Say you own a British bank, and the dollar weakens and the pound strengthens. Even if that bank doesn't move at all, you would still make a gain. Example: You buy British bank BBB for 40 pounds a share, when each pound costs $1.20. Say after a while, BBB is still 40 pounds/share, but the dollar weakened and the pound strengthened, such that each pound is now worth $1.50. You could sell BBB, and because of the currency exchange once you've got it converted back to dollars you'd have a 25% gain. Market cap risk Sometimes big companies do well, sometimes it's small companies. The small caps are riskier but higher returning. When you think about it, small and mid cap stocks have much more \"\"room to run\"\" than large caps do. It's much easier to double a company worth $1 billion than it is to double a company worth $100 billion. Investment types Stocks aren't the only thing you can invest in. There's also bonds, convertible bonds, CDs, preferred stocks, options and futures. It can get pretty complicated, especially the last two. But each of these investment behaves differently; and again the idea is to have something going up all the time. The classical mix is stocks and bonds. The idea here is that when times are good, the stocks go up; when times are bad, the bonds go up (because they're safer, so more people want them), but mostly they're there to providing steady income and help keep your portfolio from cratering along with the stocks. Currently, this may not work out so well; stocks and bonds have been moving in sync for several years, and with interest rates so low they don't provide much income. So what does this mean to you? I'm going make some assumptions here based on your post. You said single index, self-managed, and don't lower overall risk (and return). I'm going to assume you're a small investor, young, you invest in ETFs, and the single index is the S&P 500 index ETF -- SPY. S&P 500 is, roughly, the 500 biggest companies in the USA. Further, it's weighted -- how much of each stock is in the index -- such that the bigger the company is, the bigger a percentage of the index it is. If slickcharts is right, the top 5 companies combined are already 11% of the index! (Apple, Microsoft, Exxon, Amazon, and Johnson & Johnson). The smallest, News Corp, is a measly 0.008% of the index. In other words, if all you're invested in is SPY, you're invested in a handfull of giant american companies, and a little bit of other stuff besides. To diversify: Company risk and sector risk aren't really relevant to you, since you want broad market ETFs; they've already got that covered. The first thing I would do is add some smaller companies -- get some ETFs for mid cap, and small cap value (not small cap growth; it sucks for structural reasons). Examples are IWR for mid-cap and VBR for small-cap value. After you've done that, and are comfortable with what you have, it may be time to branch out internationally. You can get ETFs for regions (such as the EU - check out IEV), or countries (like Japan - see EWJ). But you'd probably want to start with one that's \"\"all major countries that aren't the USA\"\" - check out EFA. In any case, don't go too crazy with it. As index investing goes, the S&P 500 is not a bad way to go. Feed in anything else a little bit at a time, and take the time to really understand what it is you're investing in. So for example, using the ETFs I mentioned, add in 10% each IWR and VBR. Then after you're comfortable, maybe add 10% EFA, and raise IWR to 20%. What the ultimate percentages are, of course, is something you have to decide for yourself. Or, you could just chuck it all and buy a single Target Date Retirement fund from, say, Vanguard or T. Rowe Price and just not worry about it.\"","Basically, diversifying narrows the spread of possible results, raising the center of the returns bell-curve by reducing the likelihood of extreme results at either the high or low end. It's largely a matter of basic statistics. Bet double-or-nothing on a single coin flip, and those are the only possible results, and your odds of a disaster (losing most or all of the money) are 50%. Bet half of it on each of two coin flips, and your odds of losing are reduced to 25% at the cost of reducing your odds of winning to 25%, with 50% odds that you retain your money and can try the game again. Three coins divides the space further; the extremes are reduced to 12.5% each, with the middle being most likely. If that was all there was, this would be a zero-sum game and pure gambling. But the stock market is actually positive-sum, since companies are delivering part of their profits to their stockholder owners. This moves the center of the bell curve up a bit from break-even, historically to about +8%. This is why index funds produce a profit with very little active decision; they treat the variation as mostly random (which seems to work statistically) and just try to capture average results of a (hopefully) slightly above-average bucket of stocks and/or bonds. This approach is boring. It will never double your money overnight. On the other hand, it will never wipe you out overnight. If you have patience and are willing to let compound interest work for you, and trust that most market swings regress to the mean in the long run, it quietly builds your savings while not driving you crazy worrying about it. If all you are looking for is better return than the banks, and you have a reasonable amount of time before you need to pull the funds out, it's one of the more reliably predictable risk/reward trade-off points. You may want to refine this by biasing the mix of what you're holding. The simplest adjustment is how much you keep in each of several major investment categories. Large cap stocks, small cap stocks, bonds, and real estate (in the form of REITs) each have different baseline risk/return curves, and move in different ways in response to news, so maintaining a selected ratio between these buckets and adding the resulting curves together is one simple way to make fairly predictable adjustments to the width (and centerline) of the total bell curve. If you think you can do better than this, go for it. But index funds have been outperforming professionally managed funds (after the management fees are accounted for), and unless you are interested in spending a lot of time researching and playing with your money the odds of your doing much better aren't great unless you're willing to risk doing much worse. For me, boring is good. I want my savings to work for me rather than the other way around, and I don't consider the market at all interesting as a game. Others will feel differently.","\"There are a couple of reasons to diversify your assets. First, since we cannot predict which of our investments will perform best, we want to \"\"cast our net\"\" broadly enough to have something invested in what's going to be performing well. Second, diversification isn't intended to provide the highest returns, but rather it is used to soften the effects of market volatility. By softening the downsides and lowering the overall volatility among our assets, returns are more consistent. If a model does not address future downside risk it is only telling you part of the story. (Past performance does not guarantee... you get the picture)\"","\"Typically investing in only two securities is not a good idea when trying to spread risk. Even though you are in the VTI which is spread out over a large amount of securites it should in theory reduce portfolio beta to zero, or in this case as close to it as possible. The VTI however has a beta of 1.03 as of close today in New York. This means that the VTI moves roughly in exact tandem as \"\"the market\"\" usually benched against the S&P 500, so this means that the VTI is slightly more volatile than that index. In theory beta can be 0, this would be akin to investing in T-bills which are 'assumed' to be the risk free rate. So in theory it is possible to reduce the risk in your portfolio and apply a more capital protective model. I hope this helps you a bit.\"","If you are diversifying just for diversification purposes then all you are doing is averaging down your returns. You shouldn't just buy two securities because you think it is safer than putting all your money into one. A better method is to use money management and position sizing to limit your risk and exposure in any one security. You should know what your maximum risk is before you buy any security and know when it is time to get out of it. There are better ways to manage your risk. Don't put all your eggs in the one basket - yes, but don't diversify just for diversification purposes.","Exactly. Regardless of just the volatility, to weight an asset or two with a majority of your portfolio is poor investment strategy. Ron is a smart guy and obviously understands the benefits of diversification. As others have suggested, I think he is doing it more to make a statement. When he retires, I hope it doesn't come back to bite him.","Asset Allocation serves many purposes, not just mitigating risk via a diversification of asset classes, but also allowing you to take a level of risk that is appropriate for a given investor at a given time by how much is allocated to which asset classes. A younger investor with a longer timeframe, may wish to take a lot more risk, investing heavily in equities, and perhaps managed funds that are of the 'aggressive growth' variety, seeking better than market returns. Someone a little older may wish to pull back a bit, especially after a bull market has brought them substantial gains, and begin to 'take money off the table' perhaps by starting to establish some fixed income positions, or pulling back to slightly less risky index, 'value' or 'balanced' funds. An investor who is near or in retirement will generally want even less risk, going to a much more balanced approach with half or more of their investments in fixed income, and the remainder often in income producing 'blue chip' type stocks, or 'income funds'. This allows them to protect a good amount of their wealth from potential loss at a time when they have to be able to depend on it for a majority of their income. An institution such as Yale has very different concerns, and may always be in a more aggressive 'long term' mode since 'retirement' is not a factor for them. They are willing to invest mostly in very aggressive ways, using diversification to protect them from one of those choices 'tanking' but still overall taking a pretty high level of risk, much more so than might be appropriate for an individual who will generally need to seek safety and to preserve gains as they get older. For example look at the PDF that @JLDugger linked, and observe the overall risk level that Yale is taking, and in addition observe the large allocations they make to things like private equity with a 27%+ risk level compared to their very small amount of fixed income with a 10% risk level. Yale has a very long time horizon and invests in a way that is atypical of the needs and concerns of an individual investor. They also have as you pointed out, the economy of scale (with something like #17B in assets?) to afford to hire proven experts, and their own internal PHD level experts to watch over the whole thing, all of which very few individual investors have. For either class of investor, diversification, is a means to mitigate risk by not having all your eggs in one basket. Via having multiple different investments (such as picking multiple individual stocks, or aggressive funds with different approaches, or just an index fund to get multiple stocks) you are protected from being wiped out as might happen if a single choice might fail. For example imagine what would have happened if you had in 2005 put all your money into a single stock with a company that had been showing record profits such as Lehman Brothers, and left it there until 2008 when the stock tanked. or even faster collapses such as Enron, etc that all 'looked great' up until shortly after they failed utterly. Being allocated across multiple asset classes provides some diversification all on it's own, but you can also be diversified within a class. Yale uses the diversification across several asset classes to have lower risk than being invested in a single asset class such as private equity. But their allocation places much more of their funds in high risk classes and much less of their funds in the lowest risk classes such as fixed income.","The relationship is not linear, and depends on a lot of factors. The term you're looking for is efficient frontier, the optimal rate of return for a given level of risk. The goal is to be on the efficient frontier, meaning that for the given level of risk, you're receiving the greatest possible rate of return (reward). http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/efficientfrontier.asp","\"Beta is the correct answer. It is THE measure of the risk relationship of a stock with the broad market. R squared is incorrect unless you mean something very odd by \"\"co-efficiency.\"\" A stock that goes up each time the market goes down has very low co-efficiency (negative risk as you have defined it) but very high R squared. A stock that goes the same direction as the market but twice as far (with a lot of noise) has a very low R squared but contains a lot of market risk. A stock that always goes in the same direction as the market but only a 100th as far is very safe but has a very high R squared. You can calculate beta using \"\"slope\"\" in excel or doing a regression, but the easiest thing is just to look up the beta in yahoo finance or elsewhere. You don't need to calculate it for yourself normally.\"","Other answers here explain very well the intent of your question. However, a word should be said about why people make different choices at all. So to directly answer your question, yes there is a theory but it does not say inaction is worse/better and instead explains why different people make different choices and how this information can be used to construct optimal portfolios for a specific individual. And that theory is called the Risk Aversion Theory. You can visit the following URLs to discover more about this theory:","\"The fundamental flaw here is conflating net worth with utility, at least failing to recognize that there's a nonlinear relationship between the two. In the extreme example imagine taking a bet that will either make you twice as rich or completely broke. Your expected return is zero, but it would be pretty dumb to take it since being flat broke could ruin your life while being twice as rich may only improve it marginally. In more realistic cases most of your income is tied up in fixed costs, which magnifies relatively small perturbations to your net worth. Losing something essential (like your house or car), even if it's only 20% of your net worth, renders you effectively broke until you scrape together enough cash to get another one. That situation robs you of much more utility than you'd gain from a 20% increase in net worth. In either case, avoiding the risk is completely rational as long as you believe in nonlinear utility as a function of net worth, it's not just an issue of humans being \"\"risk averse\"\".\"","\"So you're basically saying that average market fluctuations have an affect on individual stocks, because individual stocks are often priced in relation to the growth of the market as a whole? Also, what kinds of investments would be considered \"\"risk free\"\" in this nomenclature?\"","\"I think you're confusing risk analysis (that is what you quoted as \"\"Taleb Distribution\"\") with arguments against taking risks altogether. You need to understand that not taking a risk - is by itself a risk. You can lose money by not investing it, because of the very same Taleb Distribution: an unpredictable catastrophic event. Take an example of keeping cash in your house and not investing it anywhere. In the 1998 default of the Russian Federation, people lost money by not investing it. Why? Because had they invested the money - they would have the investments/properties, but since they only had cash - it became worthless overnight. There's no argument for or against investing on its own. The arguments are always related to the investment goals and the risk analysis. You're looking for something that doesn't exist.\"","\"Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Not exactly. Indexes give the best long term performance when compared to actively managing investments directly in the underlying stocks. That is, if you compare an S&P500 index to trying to pick stocks that are part of it, you're more likely to succeed with blindly following the index than trying to actively beat it. That said, no-one promises that investing in S&P500 is better than investing in DJIA, for example. These are two different indexes tracking different stocks and areas. So when advisers say \"\"diversify\"\" they don't mean it that you should diversify between different stocks that build up the S&P500 index. They mean that you should diversify your investments in different areas. Some in S&P500, some in DJIA, some in international indexes, some in bond indexes, etc. Still, investing in various indexes will likely yield better results than actively managing the investments trying to beat those indexes, but you should not invest in only one, and that is the meaning of diversification. In the comments you asked \"\"why diversify at all?\"\", and that is entirely a different question from your original \"\"what diversification is?\"\". You diversify to reduce the risk of loss from one side, and widen the net for gains from another. The thing is that any single investment can eventually fail, regardless of how it performed before. You can see that the S&P500 index lost 50% of its value twice within ten years, whereas before it was doubling itself every several years. Many people who were only invested in that index (or what's underlying to it) lost a lot of money. But consider you've diversified, and in the last 20 years you've invested in a blend of indexes that include the S&P500, but also other investments like S&P BSE SENSEX mentioned by Victor below. You would reduce your risk of loss on the American market by increasing your gains on the Indian market. Add to the mix soaring Chinese Real Estate market during the time of the collapse of the US real-estate, gains on the dollar losing its value by investing in other currencies (Canadian dollar, for example), etc. There are many risks, and by diversifying you mitigate them, and also have a chance to create other potential gains. Now, another question is why invest in indexes. That has been answered before on this site. It is my opinion that some methods of investing are just gambling by trying to catch the wave and they will almost always fail, and rarely will individual stock picking beat the market. Of course, after the fact its easy to be smart and pick the winning stocks. But the problem is to be able to predict those charts ahead of time.\"","\"A kid can lose everything he owns in a crap shoot and live. But a senior citizen might not afford medical treatment if interest rates turn and their bonds underperform. In modern portfolio theory, risk/\"\"aggression\"\" is measured by beta and you get more return by increasing risk. Risk-adjusted return is measured by the Sharpe ratio and the efficient frontier shows how much return you get for each level of risk. For simplicity, we will assume that choosing beta is the only investment choice you make. You are buying a house tomorrow all cash, you should set aside that much in liquid assets today. (Return = who cares, Beta = 0) Your kids go to college in 5 years, so you invest funds now with a 5 year investment horizon to produce, with a reasonable level of certainty, the needed cash then. (Beta = low) You wish to leave money in your estate. Invest for the highest return with a horizon of your lifetime. (Return = maximum, Beta = who cares) In other words, you set risk based on how important your expenses are now or later. And your portfolio is a weighted average. On paper, let's say you have sold yourself into indentured servitude. In return you have received a paid-up-front annuity which pays dividends and increases annually. For someone in their twenties: This adds up to a present value of $1 million. When young, the value of lifetime remaining wages is high. It is also low risk, you will probably find a job eventually in any market condition. If your portfolio is significantly smaller than $1 million this means that the low risk of future wages pulls down your beta, and therefore: Youth invest aggressively with available funds because they compensate large, low-risk future earnings to meet their desired risk appetite.\"","\"no way -- he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game. He doesn't like the idea of a \"\"lesser bad\"\" way to invest (MPT). If you do decide to get involved in investing, then it's about absolute performance, not relative. He believes that the whole relative performance thing -- beating some arbitrary benchmark -- is just an artificial construct.\"","Diversification is a good method of risk management. Different types of investments do better in different situations and economic climates. Invest all your money at the wrong time in a single product and you could lose everything. You could also technically make a great deal of money, but actions such as these are the actions of speculators, not investors. Spreading your investments appropriately lets you maximize your growth opportunities while limiting your risk.","VaR does not capture overall risk, it allows you to say a statement, based on our model, K% of the time, losses will not exceed X. The problem is, 1. How accurate is the statement out of sample? 2. What is the marginal value of this number? Are the choices I make better or worse? 3. Even with a 99.999% confidence level what is the cost to the organization if a decision is made when the model is wrong? Personally when running multiple strategies, you always need to factor in model risk in your asset allocation/trading, i.e. either shut down or reduce exposure when assumptions are violated or run something else, for example when correlations between strategies increases, it is logical to downsize exposure to those strategies as the risk factor to equity has increased. 1. in the grand context of a bank/financial institution, if the VaR is wrong we can bankrupt or negative, so we may want to diversify revenue streams by avoiding that risk, for example correlations increase across asset classes. 2. Sizing is a key problem for banks, as the question is does model error across various platforms (FI, EQ, FICC, Transactions etc), happen at the same time?","Diversifying is the first advice given to beginner in order to avoid big loss. For example in 2014 the company Theranos was really appealing before it fail in 2016. So a beginner could have invest ALL his money and lose it. But if he has deverified he wouldn't lost everything. As an investor goes from beginner to experience some still Diversify and other concentrate. Mostly it depends how much confident you are about an investement. If you have 20 years of experience, now everything about the company and you are sure there will be profit you can concentrate. If you are not 100% sure there will be a profit, it is better to Diversify. Diversifying can also be profitating when you loose money: because you will pay tax when you earn money, if you diversify you can choose to loose money in some stock (usually in december) and in this way cut your taxes.","So I'm confused - reading dhando investor - he says Odds of receiving a $1 in 2009 and 30+ percent intrestest from 2002-2009 is -> 50% Odds of getting .19 back ( a loss of .11) -> 45% Odds of a loss of .24 is 2% Odds of a total loss is 3% He states Kelly criterion suggests 86% betting how!!!!! Bought the converts at .30 cents please explain no idea how he did this.","\"In addition to individual stocks, your entire portfolio will also have a beta. It would be equal to the weighted sum of the individual asset betas So a beta portfolio of 1 would have approximate risk equal to a market index. You would use this to construct a risk level that you were comfortable with, given the expected return of the individual assets. You are also interested in obtaining a high level of \"\"alpha\"\" which means that your portfolio is earning more than what would be expected, given it's level of risk.\"","if I have a asset A with expected return of 100% and risk(measured by standard deviation) 1%, and asset B with expected return of 1% and risk 100%, would it be rational to put asset B into the portfolio ? In the capital asset pricing model (CAPM), investors are rational and have access to perfect information. Asset A sounds like an excellent investment, B like a lousy one -- B is probably very far from the efficient frontier. Investors know this, so A's market capitalization will be high, B's low. According to the CAPM, you should then do the same rational thing everyone else is doing, which is to buy a lot of A and very little of B (each in proportion to its market capitalization). Of course the CAPM is just a model, and like any model it is only as good as its assumptions. However, I think this particular application of the model gives a pretty reasonable common-sense answer to the question.","The risk-reward relation depends on what you are changing. In the most cases people ask about, it is not linear but I will give examples of both. Nonlinear case 1: As you diversify your portfolio, the firm-specific risks of various stocks cancel each other out without necessarily affecting the expected return of the portfolio. Reduction in risk without any loss in returns--very nonlinear. Nonlinear case 2: If you are changing the weights in your portfolio to move along the efficient frontier, then you the risk-reward relation is a hyperbola, which is nonlinear. Nonlinear case 3: If you are changing the weights in your portfolio to move away from the efficient frontier, then you increase risk without adding a fully compensatory amount of return. There could be many paths along the risk-reward plane, but generally it will not be linear in the sense that it will not be on the same line as your initial, efficient, portfolio and your savings account. Linear case 1: The most common sense in which we think of the risk-reward relation being linear is when the thing you are changing is the size of your investment. If you take money out of savings to put in your fully diversified portfolio without changing the relative weights, your expected returns will increase linearly. Linear case 2: If you believe the CAPM, then the expected return of an asset stock is linearly proportional to the market risk of the firm. If you could change the market risk of a single asset without changing anything else, then you would linearly change its expected return. The general rule about the risk/reward relation is this: If you are changing the size of your investment, the relation is linear. If you are changing its composition, the relation is nonlinear","\"Another approach would be more personalized, which is to measure the risk of missing your goals, rather than measuring the risk of an investment in some abstract sense. Financial planners do this for example with Monte Carlo simulation software (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method). They would put in a goal such as not running out of money before you die, with assumptions such as the longest you might live and how much you'll withdraw every year. You'd also assume an asset allocation. The Monte Carlo simulation then generates random market movements over the time period, considering historical behavior of your asset allocation, and each run of the simulation would either succeed (you are able to support yourself until death) or fail (you run out of money). The risk measure is the percentage of simulation runs that fail. You can do this to plan saving for retirement in addition to planning withdrawals; then your goal would be to have X amount of money in real after-inflation dollars, perhaps, and success is if you end up with it, and failure is if you don't. The great thing about this risk measure is that it's relevant and personal; \"\"10% chance of being impoverished at age 85,\"\" \"\"20% chance of having to work an extra decade because you don't have enough at 65,\"\" these kinds of answers. Which is a lot easier to act on than \"\"the variance is 10\"\" or \"\"the beta is 1.5\"\" - would you rather know your plan has a 90% chance of success, or know that you have a variance of 10? Both numbers are probably just guesses, but at least the \"\"chance of success\"\" measure is actionable and relevant. Some tangential thoughts FWIW:\"","What I do not get is why does the author choose to buy an ITM put. If the goal was to not lose more than 5.6%, he could have chosen a out of money put where the strike is ~6% OTM. The reason why he is buying a ITM put instead of a put 5-6% below the ATM price, is because he wants to only lose 5-6% after all fee's. A put at 5-6% below ATM is not free, so it will not actually provide a 6% cushion, more likely 10%-15% maximum loss after it's cost is accounted for. You cannot rely on the strike alone to determine the level of protection you are buying. Real world example. SPY DEC 2017 195 strike put, costs $2150, it's about 6% OTM, but it costs roughly 10% of SPY $207, at best it would protect 85% of your net worth. Strike - Costs = Protection Did he choose an ITM put because he does not want to pay any time premium? Does he not lose in wide bid-ask spreads what he gains by not paying time premium? Nope, you were just misunderstanding how he calculated his protection. He wanted to protect 5-6% after the cost of the hedge. He 'needed' to select an ITM put because time premiums are so high that an OTM put wouldn't suffice.","\"Generally investing in index-tracking funds in the long term poses relatively low risk (compared to \"\"short term investment\"\", aka speculation). No-one says differently. However, it is a higher risk than money-market/savings/bonds. The reason for that is that the return is not guaranteed and loss is not limited. Here volatility plays part, as well as general market conditions (although the volatility risk also affects bonds at some level as well). While long term trend may be upwards, short term trend may be significantly different. Take as an example year 2008 for S&P500. If, by any chance, you needed to liquidate your investment in November 2008 after investing in November 1998 - you might have ended up with 0 gain (or even loss). Had you waited just another year (or liquidated a year earlier) - the result would be significantly different. That's the volatility risk. You don't invest indefinitely, even when you invest long term. At some point you'll have to liquidate your investment. Higher volatility means that there's a higher chance of downward spike just at that point of time killing your gains, even if the general trend over the period around that point of time was upward (as it was for S&P500, for example, for the period 1998-2014, with the significant downward spikes in 2003 and 2008). If you invest in major indexes, these kinds of risks are hard to avoid (as they're all tied together). So you need to diversify between different kinds of investments (bonds vs stocks, as the books \"\"parrot\"\"), and/or different markets (not only US, but also foreign).\"","\"Specifically, what does my broker mean when they say an asset or investment strategy is high risk? In this context, it is a statement based on past events and probability. It is based on how confident s/he is that the investment will perform to certain benchmarks. This is a math question, primarily (with some opinion mixed in, granted). This is where the Sharpe ratio and others fit well. How am I supposed to answer a question like \"\"rate your risk tolerance from low to high\"\"? This is the hard question, as you have seen. In this context, risk tolerance is derived from your current position and future plans (goals). This is a planning, goal setting, and strategy question, primarily (with some math mixed in, granted). How vulnerable is your current position and future plans to an under-performing investment? If you answer \"\"very\"\", then you choose investments that have a lower probability of under-performing. The Sharpe ratio has little to do with answering this question. It is a tool to find investments that better match your answer to this question.\"","\"It's interesting that you use so many different risk measures. Here's what I'd like to know more in detail: 1) About the use of VaR. I've heard (from a friend, may be unreliable) that some investment managers like Neuberger Berman doesn't use VaR for assessing risk and maintaining capital adequacy requirements. Rather, some firms only rely on tracking error, beta, standard deviation, etc. Why do you think is this so? Isn't VaR supposed to be a widely accepted risk measure. 2) The whole \"\"Expected Shortfall vs. VaR\"\" debate. I've read some papers comparing Expected Shortfall and VaR. Mainly, they criticize VaR for not being able to consider the 1% probability left where losses can (probably) skyrocket to infinity. If I need to choose between the two, which do you think is better and why?\"","In answer to your last formulation, no. In a perfectly efficient market, different investors still have different risk tolerances (or utility functions). They're maximizing expected utility, not expected value. The portfolios that maximize expected utility for different risk preferences are different, and thus generally have different expected values. (Look up mean-variance utility for a simple-ish example.) Suppose you have log utility for money, u(x) = log(x), and your choice is to invest all of your money in either the risk-free bond or in the risky bond. In the risky bond, you have a positive probability of losing everything, achieving utility u(0) = -\\infty. Your expected utility after purchase of the risky bond is: Pr(default)*u(default) + (1-Pr(default))*u(nominalValue). Since u(default)= -\\infty, your expected utility is also negative infinity, and you would never make this investment. Instead you would purchase the risk-free bond. But another person might have linear utility, u(x) = x, and he would be indifferent between the risk-free and risky bonds at the prices you mention above and might therefore purchase some. (In fact you probably would have bid up the price of the risk-free bond, so that the other investor strictly prefers the risky one.) So two different investors' portfolios will have different expected returns, in general, because of their different risk preferences. Risk-averse investors get lower expected value. This should be very intuitive from portfolio theory in general: stocks have higher expected returns, but more variance. Risk-tolerant people can accept more stocks and more variance, risk-averse people purchase less stocks and more bonds. The more general question about risk premia requires an equilibrium price analysis, which requires assumptions about the distribution of risk preferences among other things. Maybe John Cochrane's book would help with that---I don't know anything about financial economics. I would think that in the setup above, if you have positive quantities of these two investor types, the risk-free bond will become more expensive, so that the risky one offers a higher expected return. This is the general thing that happens in portfolio theory. Anyway. I'm not a financial economist or anything. Here's a standard introduction to expected utility theory: http://web.stanford.edu/~jdlevin/Econ%20202/Uncertainty.pdf","Dollar-Cost averaging will allow you to reduce your risk while the stock prices falls provided: You must invest a fixed amount $X on a fixed time scale (i.e. every Y days). By doing this you will be able to take advantage of the lowering price by obtaining more shares per period as the price falls. But at the same time, if it starts to rise, you will already have your pig in the race. Example: Suppose you wanted to invest $300 in a company. We will do so over 3 periods. As the price falls, your average dollar cost will as well. But since you don't know where the bottom is, you cannot wait until the bottom. By trying to guess the bottom and dumping all of your investment at once you expose yourself to a higher level of risk.","\"If you read Joel Greenblatt's The Little Book That Beats the Market, he says: Owning two stocks eliminates 46% of the non market risk of owning just one stock. This risk is reduced by 72% with 4 stocks, by 81% with 8 stocks, by 93% with 16 stocks, by 96% with 32 stocks, and by 99% with 500 stocks. Conclusion: After purchasing 6-8 stocks, benefits of adding stocks to decrease risk are small. Overall market risk won't be eliminated merely by adding more stocks. And that's just specific stocks. So you're very right that allocating a 1% share to a specific type of fund is not going to offset your other funds by much. You are correct that you can emulate the lifecycle fund by simply buying all the underlying funds, but there are two caveats: Generally, these funds are supposed to be cheaper than buying the separate funds individually. Check over your math and make sure everything is in order. Call the fund manager and tell him about your findings and see what they have to say. If you are going to emulate the lifecycle fund, be sure to stay on top of rebalancing. One advantage of buying the actual fund is that the portfolio distributions are managed for you, so if you're going to buy separate ETFs, make sure you're rebalancing. As for whether you need all those funds, my answer is a definite no. Consider Mark Cuban's blog post Wall Street's new lie to Main Street - Asset Allocation. Although there are some highly questionable points in the article, one portion is indisputably clear: Let me translate this all for you. “I want you to invest 5pct in cash and the rest in 10 different funds about which you know absolutely nothing. I want you to make this investment knowing that even if there were 128 hours in a day and you had a year long vacation, you could not possibly begin to understand all of these products. In fact, I don’t understand them either, but because I know it sounds good and everyone is making the same kind of recommendations, we all can pretend we are smart and going to make a lot of money. Until we don’t\"\" Standard theory says that you want to invest in low-cost funds (like those provided by Vanguard), and you want to have enough variety to protect against risk. Although I can't give a specific allocation recommendation because I don't know your personal circumstances, you should ideally have some in US Equities, US Fixed Income, International Equities, Commodities, of varying sizes to have adequate diversification \"\"as defined by theory.\"\" You can either do your own research to establish a distribution, or speak to an investment advisor to get help on what your target allocation should be.\"","You can look the Vanguard funds up on their website and view a risk factor provided by Vanguard on a scale of 1 to 5. Short term bond funds tend to get their lowest risk factor, long term bond funds and blended investments go up to about 3, some stock mutual funds are 4 and some are 5. Note that in 2008 Swenson himself had slightly different target percentages out here that break out the international stocks into emerging versus developed markets. So the average risk of this portfolio is 3.65 out of 5. My guess would be that a typical twenty-something who expects to retire no earlier than 60 could take more risk, but I don't know your personal goals or circumstances. If you are looking to maximize return for a level of risk, look into Modern Portfolio Theory and the work of economist Harry Markowitz, who did extensive work on the topic of maximizing the return given a set risk tolerance. More info on my question here. This question provides some great book resources for learning as well. You can also check out a great comparison and contrast of different portfolio allocations here.","Yes, more leverage increases the variance of your individual portfolio (variance of your personal net worth). The simple way to think about it is that if you only own only 50% of your risky assets, then you can own twice as many risky assets. That means they will move around twice as much (in absolute terms). Expected returns and risk (if risk is variance) both go up. If you lend rather than borrow, then you might have only half your net worth in risky assets, and then your expected returns and variation in returns will go down. Note, the practice of using leverage differs from portfolio theory in a couple important ways.","\"Taking examples from this loosely Googled page: http://www.fundlibrary.com/features/columns/page.asp?id=14406 If you find, or calculate, the standard deviation (volatility) of the returns from your various investment classes you will find they range from low-risk (low volatility), such as Cash, to high-risk (high volatility), such as Strategic Growth. The risk rating (volatility) is a good indicator of how reactive to market conditions your investment is likely to be. As you can see below, from mid-2010 to mid-2011 the High Risk index performed really well, but it was also most reactive when the market subsequently turned down. The medium risk indices performed the best over the chart period, 2010 to 2013, but it could have turned out different. Generally, you choose your investment according to your \"\"risk appetite\"\" - how much you're willing to risk. You might play safe with, say, 30% cash, 60% medium risk, 10% high risk. (Then again, are you paying someone to manage cash, which you might be able to do for free in a bank?) Assuming, for a moment, European (3.) and Intnl Equity Tracker (9.) had the same medium risk profile, then holding 50% & 50% would also add some currency diversification, which is usually advisable. However, the main choice is down to risk appetite. To address your specific question: \"\"my main interest for now is between Stockmarket Growth and Strategic Growth\"\", first thing to do is check their volatilities. For a further level of sophistication you can check how they are correlated against each other. If they are inversely correlated, i.e. one goes up when the other goes down, then holding some of each could be a good diversification. FYI: An Introduction to Investment Theory The historical returns are important too, but the investment classes your pension fund is offering will probably be reasonably aligned on a risk-return basis. You should check though. I.e. do they line up on a plot of 3 year Return vs Volatility? e.g. the line through SA Cash - SA Bonds - Vol Target 20 - SA Equity. Source\"","\"In my opinion the risk is about the lost opportunity cost. You can find a lot of articles about it on the net. In big shortcut opportunity cost takes place each time you have to choose between two or more options and the tradeoff effect have its price. It is defined as value of best alternative solution. Quite good definition from wikipedia is as follows: In microeconomic theory, the opportunity cost of a choice is the value of the best alternative forgone, in a situation in which a choice needs to be made between several mutually exclusive alternatives given limited resources. Assuming the best choice is made, it is the \"\"cost\"\" incurred by not enjoying the benefit that would be had by taking the second best choice available Note that opportunity cost is not the sum of the available alternatives when those alternatives are, in turn, mutually exclusive to each other – it is the value of the next best use. As you probalby think, this situation often happens in financial world, where investors always seek best from their point of view way to invest capital.\"","Someone entering a casino with $15 could employ a very simple strategy and have a better-than-90% chance of walking out with $16. Unfortunately, the person would have a non-trivial chance (about one in 14) of walking out with $0. If after losing $15 the person withdrew $240 from the bank and tried to win $16, the person would have a better-than-90% chance of succeeding and ending up ahead (holding the original $15, plus the additional $240, plus $1) but would have at that point about a one in 14 chance from that point of losing the $240 along with the original $15. Measured from the starting point, you'd have about a 199 out of 200 chance of gaining $1, and a one out of 200 chance of losing $240. Market-timing bets are like that. You can arrange things so you have a significant chance of making a small profit, but at the risk of a large downside. If you haven't firmly decided exactly how much downside you are willing to accept, it's very easy to simultaneously believe you don't have much money at risk, but that you'll be able to win back anything you lose. The only way you can hope to win back anything you lose is by bringing a lot more money to the table, which will of course greatly increase your downside risk. The probability of making money for the person willing to accept $15 of downside risk to earn $1 is about 93%. The probability of making money for the person willing to accept $255 worth of risk is about 99.5%. It's easy to see that there are ways of playing which have a 99.5% chance of winning, and that there are ways of playing that only have a 15:1 downside risk. Unfortunately, the ways of playing that have the smaller risk don't have anything near a 99.9% chance of winning, and those that have a better chance of winning have a much larger downside risk.","They made an analysis of my readiness to assume a risk and found out that I am willing to take only small risks. I would agree with this analysis. You really should rethink this part. At your age, you have no rational reason whatsoever to be risk-averse! Especially since any reasonably diversified fund already eliminates actual risk (of complete loss) almost completely. Going into bonds and real estate does not reduce risk at all; it reduces volatility - and you're giving up a lot of money merely to avoid seeing your investments go down temporarily(!)","There are a few flaws in your reasoning: I know my portfolio will always keep going up, No, it won't. You'll have periods of losses. You are starting your investing in a bull market. Do NOT be fooled into believing that your successes now will continue indefinitely. The more risky your portfolio, the bigger the losses. The upside of a risky portfolio is that the gains generally outweigh the losses, but there will be periods of losses. I honestly don't believe that it's possible for me to end up losing in the long term, regardless of risk. I think you vastly underestimate the risk of your strategy and/or the consequences of that risk. There's nothing wrong with investing in risky assets, since over time you'll get higher-than-average returns, but unless you diversify you are exposing yourself to catastrophic losses as well.","Information is useless in this case. IR is useful when you are trying to replicate the risk exposures of an index and beat it. I.E.If I am a tech fund, I would compare myself to the tech S&P. IR is useless in this case as it is just the ratio of excess returns over the benchmark to vol. From a trading sense he needs a rate of wins to losses, so a sharpe like construct of R/SemiDeviation. Essentially his avg return divided by negative volatility. Going further on that is omega which introduces a threshold as in trading you care more about the equity curve so MAXDD is probably more relevant.","I think to answer this question it is best for you to learn more about why people diversify through asset allocation. Look at related questions involving Asset Allocation here. I've asked a couple questions about asset allocation - I think you'll find the top rated answer on this post useful.","I'v actually heard of this before, the idea is that you gamble across the spread. Most of these have a place in a risky asset class in portfolios. Think of it as the little bit of crack you do on the side of your vanilla life.","I implemented this in MatLab about 10 years back. You just calculate your conditional variance of the required assets (x_i), use matrix multiplication on the correlation matrix (rho_i_j) from the same asset (this could be a point of research but unless you are using extreme conditions on the VaR it makes little difference) then apply a standard Markiowitz optimisation approach. You can then just use simple Sharpe ratio (marginal return over conditional risk) at every point on the efficient frontier. Then choose the maximum Sharpe ratio point.","Diversified is relative. Alfred has all his money in Apple. He's done very well over the last 10 years, but I think most investors would say that he's taking an incredible risk by putting everything on one stock. Betty has stock in Apple, Microsoft, and Google. Compared to Alfred, she is diversified. Charlie looks at Betty and realizes that she is only investing in one particular industry. All the companies in an individual industry can have a downturn together, so he invests everything in an S&P 500 index fund. David looks at Charlie and notes that he's got everything in large, high-capitalization companies. Small-cap stocks are often where the growth happens, so he invests in a total stock market fund. Evelyn realizes that David has all his money tied up in one country, the United States. What about the rest of the world? She invests in a global fund. Frank really likes Evelyn's broad approach to equities, but he knows that some portion of fixed-income assets (e.g. cash deposits, bonds) can reduce portfolio volatility—and may even enhance returns through periodic rebalancing. He does what Evelyn does, but also allocates some percentage of his portfolio to fixed income, and intends to maintain his target allocations. Being diversified enough depends on your individual goals and investing philosophy. There are some who would say that it is wrong to put all of your money in one fund, no matter what it is. Others would say that a sufficiently broad index fund is inherently diversified as-is.","The point im trying to make is that VaR is useless as a risk metric and it should not be a necessary part of any risk management arsenal as it does little to answer the question that losses will be limited to X K% of the time and it instils a sense of false security.","Yes, it's a risk. To put it in perspective, If we look at the data for S&P returns since 1871, we get a CAGR of 10.72%. But, that comes with a SDev (Standard deviation) of 18.67%. This results in 53 of the 146 years returning less than 4%. Now if we repeat the exercise over rolling 8 year periods, the CAGR drops to 9.22%, but the SDev drops to 5.74%. This results in just 31 of the 139 periods returning less than 4%. On the flip side, 26 periods had an 8 year return of over 15% CAGR. From the anti-DS article you linked, I see that you like a good analogy. For me, the returns of the S&P over the long term are like going to Vegas, and finding that after you run the math of their craps (dice rolling game) you find the expected return is 10%. You can still lose on a given roll. But over a series of a larger number of rolls, you're far ahead. To D Stanley - I agree that returns are not quite normal, but they are not so far off. Of the 139 rolling returns, we'd expect about 68% or 95 results to be 1 SDev away. We get 88 returns +/-1SDev. 2 SDevs? We'd expect only 5% to lie outside this range, and in fact, I only get one result on the low side and 4 on the high side, 5 results vs the 7 total we'd expect. The results are a bit better (more profitable) than the Normal Bell Curve fit would suggest.","Mostly, when an equity's price rises, its statistical and implied volatilities fall and vice versa. The reason why is a mathematical phenomenon mixed with the reality that a unceasingly falling asset price will soon not exist, skewing the results with survivorship bias. Since volatility is standard deviation of price indexes, a security that changes in price by the same amount every day will have lower volatility, so a rising price will have lower implied volatility because its mostly experiencing positive daily price change while a recently falling price will have higher volatility because factored together with the positive price changes, the negative price changes will widen the standard deviation of the securities price index. Quantitatively, any change, in or out of one's favor, is a risk because change is uncertain, and any uncertainty is a risk. This quantitative interpretation while valid runs almost totally counter to the value opinion, that a lower price relative to value is a lower risk than a higher price relative to value, but both have their place in time. Over long time periods, it's best to use the value interpretation, quantitative for shorter. Using the opposite has hastily destroyed many a fund manager.","Risk and return always go hand by hand.* Risk is a measure of expected return volatility. The best investment at this stage is a good, easy to understand but thorough book on finance. *Applies to efficient markets only.","\"The question \"\"do they?\"\" is a fair one, but the answer, \"\"we can only observe the past, and that's what they did,\"\" may not be so satisfying to you. It's safe to say that any longer term view of any market will show far less volatility than a short one. It only takes a glance at the return of the 2000's 2009 27.11 2008 -37.22 2007 5.46 2006 15.74 2005 4.79 2004 10.82 2003 28.72 2002 -22.27 2001 -11.98 2000 -9.11 (for the S&P) to see that in an awful decade containing -37% and -22% that the full decade was \"\"only\"\" down 9% in total or just less than 1% per year compounded. I'm not predicting any particular returns forward, just noting this is how the math works. DCA performs well through such a decade, better than in a rising one. You are offered the opportunity to buy into a market selling below the long term trend. Added note in response to Enno's answer below - On rereading the linked article, I see where the author cites Zvi Bodie who clearly made a logical error. He concludes that since a 20 month S&P put costs triple what a 2.3 mo put costs, that there's more risk the market falls over the longer period, not less. American options can be sold or exercised at any time. If a 2 year option were cheaper than a 2 month option, no one would buy the shorter term. It's pretty simple that the Options Pricing Models take time into account and their value, put or call, increases along with the time till expiration. On a lighter note, when I take the S&P data for 1871-2012 (I know, no S&P back then, but it's Schiller's data) I get average 40 year returns of 44X, similar to the author's conclusion, $1K growing to $44K. But, the Standard deviation is 28. So the high end of +1 STDEV is $72K, not the author's $166K. Although, the low end 44-28=16 comes close to his $14K figure. $16K is a 7.18% long term return which today doesn't look bad. When the article was written, the author was looking at a 6% short term risk free rate.\"","\"This is basically what financial advisers have been saying for years...that you should invest in higher risk securities when you are young and lower risk securities when you get older. However, despite the fact that this is taken as truth by so many financial professionals, financial economists have been unable to formulate a coherent theory that supports it. By changing the preferences of their theoretical investors, they can get solutions like putting all your investments in a super safe asset until you get to a minimum survival level for retirement and then investing aggressively and many other solutions. But for none of the typically assumed preferences does investing aggressively when young and becoming more conservative as you near retirement seem to be the solution. I'm not saying there can be no such preferences, but the difficulty in finding them makes me think maybe this idea is not actually correct. Couple of problems with your intuition that you should think about: It's not clear that things \"\"average out\"\" over time. If you lose a bunch of money in some asset, there's no reason to think that by holding that asset for a while you will make back what you lost--prices are not cyclical. Moreover, doesn't your intuition implicitly suggest that you should transition out of risky securities as you get older...perhaps after having lost money? You can invest in safe assets (or even better, the tangency portfolio from your graph) and then lever up if you do want higher risk/return. You don't need to change your allocation to risky assets (and it is suboptimal to do so--you want to move along the CAL, not the curve). The riskiness of your portfolio should generally coincide (negatively) with your risk-aversion. When you are older and more certain about your life expectancy and your assets, are you exposed to more or less risks? In many cases, less risks. This means you would choose a more risky portfolio (because you are more sure you will have enough to live on until death even if your portfolio takes a dive). Your actual portfolio consists both of your investments and your human capital (the present value of your time and skills). When you are young, the value of this capital changes significantly with market performance so you already have background risk. Buying risky securities adds to that risk. When you are old, your human capital is worth little, so your overall portfolio becomes less risky. You might want to compensate by increasing the risk of your investments. EDIT: Note that this point may depend on how risky your human capital is (how likely it is that your wage or job prospects will change with the economy). Overall the answer to your question is not definitively known, but there is theoretical evidence that investing in risky securities when young isn't optimal. Having said that, most people do seem to invest in riskier securities when young and safer when they are older. I suspect this is because with life experience people become less optimistic as they get older, not because it is optimal to do so. But I can't be sure.\"","\"There is no simple answer to that, because no one knows exactly what the probability distribution of S&P 500 returns is. Here is a sketch of one possible way to proceed. Don't forget step 4! The problem is that the stock market is full of surprises, so this kind of \"\"backtesting\"\" can only reliably tell you about what already happened, not what will happen in the future. People argue about how much you can learn from this kind of analysis. However, it is at the least a clearly defined and objective process. I wouldn't advise investing your whole nest egg in anything based just on this, but I do think that it is relevant information.\"","I am voting you up because this is a legitimate question with a correct possible answer. Yes, you shouldn't buy penny stocks, yes you shouldn't speculate, yes people will be jealous that you have money to burn. Your question: how to maximize expected return. There are several definitions of return and the correct one will determine the correct answer. For your situation, $1,000 sounds like disposable income and that you have the human capital to make more income in the future with your productive years. So we will not assume you want to take this money and reinvest the remains until you are dead. This rules out #2. It sounds like you are the sole beneficiary of this fund and that your value proposition is regardless of asset class and competition to other investment opportunities. In other words, you are committed to blowing this $1,000 and would not consider instead putting the money towards paying down credit card debt or other valuable uses. This rules out #3. You are left with #1, expected value. Now there is already evidence that penny stocks are a losing proposition. In fact, some people have been successful in setting up honeypot email accounts and waiting for penny stock spam... then shorting those stocks. So to maximize expected return, invest 0% of your bankroll. But that's boring, let's ignore it. As you have correctly identified, the transaction costs are significant, $14 in tolls on crossing the bridge both ways on a $1,000 investment already exceeds the 5-year US bond rate. Diversification will affect the correlation and overall risk (Kelly Criterion) of your portfolio -- but it has no effect on your expected return. In summary, diversification has zero effect on your expected return and is not justified by the cost.","It's important to distinguish between speculation and investing. Buying something because you hope to make money on market fluctuations is speculation. Buying something and expecting to make money because your money is providing actual economic value is investing. If Person A buys 100 shares of a stock with the intent of selling them in a few hours, and Person B buys 100 shares of the same stock with the intent of holding on to it for a year, then obviously at that point they both have the same risk. The difference comes over the course of the year. First, Person B is going to be making money from the economic value the company provides over the whole year, while the only way Person A can make money is from market fluctuation (the economic value the company provides over the course of an hour is unlikely to be significant). Person B is exposed to the risk of buying the stock, but that's counterbalanced by the profit from holding the stock for a year, while Person A just has the risk. Second, if Person A is buying a new stock every hour, then they're going to have thousands of transactions. So even though Person B assumed just as much risk as Person A for that one transaction, Person A has more total risk.","If you buy stock in established companies, it is vey unlikely that they will lose all their value. Spreading your money across multiple stocks -- diversifying -- reduces that risk because it is extremely unlikely that they all lose all their value at once. Spreading them across multiple industries and adding bonds to the mix increases diversification. Of course the trade-off is that if one of the stocks skyrockets you don't benefit as much as if you had been lucky enough to put all your money in that one stock. You need to decide for yourself how much risk you are willing to tolerate in exchange for the chance of gains. Other answers on this site have dealt with this in more detail.","\"For a retail investor who isn't a Physics or Math major, the \"\"Beta\"\" of the stock is probably the best way to quantify risk. Examples: A Beta of 1 means that a stock moves in line with the market. Over 1 means that you would expect the stock to move up or down faster than the market as a whole. Under 1 means that you would expect the stock to move slower than the market as a whole.\"","\"You're an idiot. There is no such thing as \"\"statistical heresy\"\". Picking any given stretch of time will create an assumption. The last year has had historically crazy low volatility, but if they were using a one year sample in mid-2009 it would be the most incredibly conservative VaR in history. On the other hand, using historical volatility from the past 50 years would make no sense either: does the stock market in 1985 look anything like today's? What about the liquidity of pretty much any derivatives market? There is no \"\"right\"\" way to measure VaR; any way you do it involves assumptions and tweaks that are entirely subjective. Also, VaR can be over a variety of confidence intervals. 99% or 95% are standard, with 95% being more common because that's two standard deviations in a normal distribution. And hey! That's what they used.\"","I am also confused by what he says. The DJIA has not been at 900 for decades. However a $36 dividend is 4% per unit if you get $9 per unit per quarter. 2/3 of 4% is 6%,so that is inside his 7.5% to 5.5%. How much you have in dividend paying stocks vs. Bonds most often is a function of your age. For example, I have heard the advice of subtracting your age in years from 110 and that would be the percent you hold in dividend paying stocks. At age 30 you would have 80% in stocks. At age 60 you would be 50% in stocks. There are retirement funds that do this for you. But the 'bottom line' all depends on your risk tolerance. I have a large tolerance for risk. So even though I am currently retired I only have 10% of my money in a 'safe' investment (ticker=PGF). It pays 5.5% per year. The rest is in a leveraged junk bond fund (PHK) that pays 15.5% per year.","As others have said, this opinion is predicated on an assumption that early in your life you have no need to actually USE the money, so you are able to take advantage of compounding interest (because the money is going to be there for many many years) and you are far more tolerant of loss (because you can simply wait for the markets to recover). This is absolutely true of a pension pot, which is locked away for a great many years. But it is absolutely NOT true of general investments. Someone in the mid-20s to mid-30s is very likely to want to spend that money on, say, buying a house. In which case losing 10% of your deposit 3 months before you start looking for a house could potentially be a disaster. Liekwise, in your mid-40s if your child's school/college fund goes up in smoke that's a big deal. It is a very commonly espoused theory, but I think it is also fundamentally flawed in many scenarios.","\"This article is written by an idiot!! Risk ≠ failure, risk = possibility of failure Reward (return) should be commensurate with risk and this is why long-shot propositions should be worthwhile. An example of this could be something like the following; an investment with a 95% chance of success should return about 5% on the investment (1 in 20 risk of loss, 1/20th return on investment for taking the risk) while a long-shot investment with a 5% chance of success should be paying a 2000% return (1 in 20 will succeed but they will pay 20 times the investment if they do). An investment with a 0% chance of return (that you are suckered into due to \"\"opacity\"\") is not an investment, it is being robbed and it should be illegal. WTF is opacity? Lying?\"","\"This chart concerns an option contract, not a stock. The method of analysis is to assume that the price of an option contract is normally distributed around some mean which is presumably the current price of the underlying asset. As the date of expiration of the contract gets closer the variation around the mean in the possible end price for the contract will decrease. Undoubtedly the publisher has measured typical deviations from the mean as a function of time until expiration from historical data. Based on this data, the program that computes the probability has the following inputs: (1) the mean (current asset price) (2) the time until expiration (3) the expected standard deviation based on (2) With this information the probability distribution that you see is generated (the green hump). This is a \"\"normal\"\" or Gaussian distribution. For a normal distribution the probability of a particular event is equal to the area under the curve to the right of the value line (in the example above the value chosen is 122.49). This area can be computed with the formula: This formula is called the probability density for x, where x is the value (122.49 in the example above). Tau (T) is the reciprocal of the variance (which can be computed from the standard deviation). Mu (μ) is the mean. The main assumption such a calculation makes is that the price of the asset will not change between now and the time of expiration. Obviously that is not true in most cases because the prices of stocks and bonds constantly fluctuate. A secondary assumption is that the distribution of the option price around the mean will a normal (or Gaussian) distribution. This is obviously a crude assumption and common sense would suggest it is not the most accurate distribution. In fact, various studies have shown that the Burr Distribution is actually a more accurate model for the distribution of option contract prices.\"","\"Standard deviation from Wikipedia : In statistics and probability theory, the standard deviation (represented by the Greek letter sigma, σ) shows how much variation or dispersion from the average exists.1 A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean (also called expected value); a high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a large range of values. In the case of stock returns, a lower value would indicate less volatility while a higher value would mean more volatility, which could be interpreted as high much change does the stock's price go through over time. Mean would be interpreted as if all the figures had to be the same, what would they be? So if a stock returns 10% each year for 3 years in a row, then 10% would be the mean or average return. Now, it is worth noting that there are more than a few calculations that may be done to derive a mean. First, there is the straight forward sum and division by the number of elements idea. For example, if the returns by year were 0%, 10%, and 20% then one may take the sum of 30% and divide by 3 to get a simple mean of 10%. However, some people would rather look at a Compound Annual Growth Rate which in this case would mean multiplying the returns together so 1*(1+.1)*(1+.2)=1.1*1.2=1.32 or 32% since there is some compounding here. Now, instead of dividing a cubic root is taken to get approximately 9.7% average annual return that is a bit lower yet if you compound it over 3 years it will get up to 32% as 10% compounded over 3 years would be 33.1% as (1.1)^3=1.331. Sharpe Ratio from Investopedia: A ratio developed by Nobel laureate William F. Sharpe to measure risk-adjusted performance. The Sharpe ratio is calculated by subtracting the risk-free rate - such as that of the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond - from the rate of return for a portfolio and dividing the result by the standard deviation of the portfolio returns. Thus, this is a way to think about given the volatility how much better did the portfolio do than the 10 year bond. R-squared, Alpha and Beta: These are all around the idea of \"\"linear regression\"\" modelling. The idea is to take some standard like say the \"\"S & P 500\"\" in the case of US stocks and see how well does the portfolio follow this and what if one were to use a linear model are the multipliers and addition components to it. R-squared can be thought of it as a measure as to how good is the fit on a scale of 0 to 1. An S & P 500 index fund may well have an R-squared of 1.00 or 0.99 to the index as it will track it extremely closely while other investments may not follow that well at all. Part of modern portfolio theory would be to have asset classes that move independently of each other and thus would have a lower R-squared so that the movement of the index doesn't indicate how an investment will do. Now, as for alpha and beta, do you remember the formula for a line in slope-intercept form, where y is the portfolio's return and x is the index's return: y=mx+b In this situation m is beta which is the multiple of the return, and b is the alpha or how much additional return one gets without the multiple. Going back to an index fund example, m will be near 1 and b will be near 0 and there isn't anything being done and so the portfolio's return computed based on the index's return is simply y=x. Other mutual funds may try to have a high alpha as this is seen as the risk-free return as there isn't the ups and downs of the market here. Other mutual funds may go for a high beta so that there is volatility for investors to handle.\"","What is the importance or benefit of the assumption that high-risk is preferable for younger people/investors instead of older people? Law of averages most high risk investments [stocks for examples, including Mutual funds]. Take any stock market [some have data for nearly 100 years] on a 15 year or 30 years horizon, the year on year growth is around 15 to 18 percentage. Again depends on which country, market etc ... Equally important every stock market in the same 15 year of 30 year time, if you take specific 3 year window, it would have lost 50% or more value. As one cannot predict for future, someone who is 55 years, if he catches wrong cycle, he will lose 50%. A young person even if he catches the cycle and loses 50%, he can sit tight as it will on 30 years average wipe out that loss.","Finance noob here. Am I reading the article right that he's saying MPT bad, active management good? If so, what is that saying about how I should manage my portfolio (assuming I am only dedicating a few hours a month)? >he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game So what do I do then? Are there specific strategies? Also, could you suggest a good explanation of why MPT is bad?","This paper makes the rounds every so often and I HATE IT VERY MUCH. No one has EVER EVER EVER estimated standard deviation by taking an average of abs deviations, because that would be stupid, further, realized vol is a very different beast than implied vol. AND FURTHER, the models are fitted to the data, rather than fighting the tape and fitting the data to the models. Most people working with these instruments are trying to figure out the prices of unknown derivatives based on known derivatives - the models just help interpret findings and estimate what's necessary to hedge a position."],"string":"[\n \"\\\"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \\\"\\\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\\\"\\\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Years ago I wrote an article Risk, Reward, Coin Flipping which explains from a 'game theory' perspective how diversifying works to minimize standard deviation in one's returns. It's long and tedious, not easy to summarize, but it holds up well, I'm pleased with how the analogy does its job. Update - the above is too \\\"\\\"link-only\\\"\\\", written over 5 years ago. The article I wrote offers a mathematical approach via an understandable example of coin flipping. With just 2 options, a 'head' is a 10% loss, while a 'tail' is a 30% gain. This actually represents the market fairly well as it results in a 10% average gain and 28% standard deviation for just 2 flips. The article shows how by 'diversifying', choosing to make multiple smaller bets, the average 10% stays the same, but the standard deviation is brought down dramatically, 7.6% when we use a sample experiment with 7 coins.\\\"\",\n \"At its simplest level it's an application of basic statistics/probability: Suppose you have n independent and identically distributed assets with the return on asset i denoted R_i which has mean m and variance s^2 (same for all assets). You can easily weaken these assumptions but I make them to simplify the exposition [Square brackets show a numerical example with n=20, m=8%, s=2%] if you invest in one of these assets you expect to get a return of m [8%] with standard deviation s [2%] (so you expect with probability 95% (approx) to get a return between m-2*s and m+2*s. [between 4% and 12%] Now suppose you split your money equally among the n-assets. Your return is now R = (1/n)\\\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i your expected return is E(R) = (1/n)\\\\Sum{i=1}^n E(R_i) = (1/n)\\\\Sum{i=1}^n m = m [8%] the variance of your return is Var(R) = Var( (1/n)\\\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i ) = (1/n^2)\\\\Sum{i=1}^n Var(R_i) = n * s^2 / n^2) = s^2/n So, the standard deviation is SD(R) = Sqrt(V(R)) = s/Sqrt(n) [2%/Sqrt(20) = 0.44%] Now, with 95% probability we get a return between E(R)-2*SD(R) and E(R)+2*SD(R) [between 7.12% and 8.88%]. This interval is smaller than when we invested in the single asset, so in effect with this portfolio we are achieving the same return m [8%] but with lower variance (risk) [0.44% instead of 2%]. This is the result of diversification. You can assume the assets are not independent (and most book expositions of this topic do indeed do that). In that case the calculation is modified because the variance of the portfolio now depends on the correlation between returns, as does the reduction in variance caused by the diversification. If assets are negatively correlated the result of the diversification will be more reduction in risk and vice versa. You can also assume the assets are not identically distributed and the above analysis does not change too much. You might look for some references on CAPM (Capital Asset Pricing Model) or portfolio theory but broadly these are based on what I have described above - finding the portfolio with minimum variance for a given return by investing proportionally in treasury bonds and risky assets.\",\n \"\\\"John Bensin's answer covers the math, but I like the plain-English examples of the theory from William Bernstein's fine book, The Intelligent Asset Allocator. At the author's web site, you can find the complete chapter 1 and chapter 2, though not chapter 3, which is the one with the \\\"\\\"multiple coin toss\\\"\\\" portfolio example I want to highlight. I'll summarize Bernstein's multiple coin toss example here with some excerpts from the book. (Another top user, @JoeTaxpayer, has also written about the coin flip on his blog, also mentioning Bernstein's book.) Bernstein begins Chapter 1 by describing an offer from a fictitious \\\"\\\"Uncle Fred\\\"\\\": Imagine that you work for your rich but eccentric Uncle Fred. [...] he decides to let you in on the company pension plan. [...] you must pick ahead of time one of two investment choices for the duration of your employment: Certificates of deposit with a 3% annualized rate of return, or, A most peculiar option: At the end of each year Uncle Fred flips a coin. Heads you receive a 30% investment return for that year, tails a minus 10% (loss) for the year. This will be hereafter referred to as \\\"\\\"Uncle Fred’s coin toss,\\\"\\\" or simply, the \\\"\\\"coin toss.\\\"\\\" In effect, choosing option 2 results in a higher expected return than option 1, but it is certainly riskier, having a high standard deviation and being especially prone to a series of bad tosses. Chapters 1 and 2 continue to expand on the idea of risk, and take a look at various assets/markets over time. Chapter 3 then begins by introducing the multiple coin toss example: Time passes. You have spent several more years in the employ of your Uncle Fred, and have truly grown to dread the annual coin-toss sessions. [...] He makes you another offer. At the end of each year, he will divide your pension account into two equal parts and conduct a separate coin toss for each half [...] there are four possible outcomes [...]: [...] Being handy with numbers, you calculate that your annualized return for this two-coin-toss sequence is 9.08%, which is nearly a full percentage point higher than your previous expected return of 8.17% with only one coin toss. Even more amazingly, you realize that your risk has been reduced — with the addition of two returns at the mean of 10%, your calculated standard deviation is now only 14.14%, as opposed to 20% for the single coin toss. [...] Dividing your portfolio between assets with uncorrelated results increases return while decreasing risk. [...] If the second coin toss were perfectly inversely correlated with the first and always gave the opposite result [hence, outcomes 1 and 4 above never occurring], then our return would always be 10%. In this case, we would have a 10% annualized long-term return with zero risk! I hope that summarizes the example well. Of course, in the real world, one of the tricks to building a good portfolio is finding assets that aren't well-correlated, and if you're interested in more on the subject I suggest you check out his books (including The Four Pillars of Investing) and read more about Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT).\\\"\",\n \"if I have a asset A with expected return of 100% and risk(measured by standard deviation) 1%, and asset B with expected return of 1% and risk 100%, would it be rational to put asset B into the portfolio ? No, because Modern Portfolio Theory would say that if there is another asset (B2) with the same (or higher) return but less risk (which you already have in asset A), you should invest in that. If those are the only two assets you can choose from, you would invest completely in Asset A. The point of diversification is that, so long as two assets aren't perfectly positively correlated (meaning that if one moves up the other always moves up), then losses in one asset will sometimes be offset by gains in another, reducing the overall risk.\",\n \"If you have 100% of your money in one security that is inherently more risky than splitting your money 50/50 between two securities, regardless of the purported riskiness of the two securities. The calculations people use to justify their particular breed of diversification may carry some assumptions related risk/reward calculations. But these particular justifications don't change the fact that spreading your money across different assets protects your money from value variances of the individual assets. Splitting your $100 between Apple and Microsoft stock is probably less valuable (less well diversified) than splitting your money between Apple and Whole Foods stock but either way you're carrying less risk than putting all $100 in to Apple stock regardless of the assumed rates of return for any of these companies stock specifically. Edit: I'm sure the downvotes are because I didn't make a big deal about correlation and measuring correlation and standard deviations of returns and detailed portfolio theory. Measuring efficacy and justifying your particular allocations (that generally uses data from the past to project the future) is all well and good. Fact of the matter is, if you have 100% of your money in stock that's more stock risk than 25% in cash, 25% in bonds and 50% in stock would be because now you're in different asset classes. You can measure to your hearts delight the effects of splitting your money between different specific companies, or different industries, or different market capitalizations, or different countries or different fund managers or different whatever-metrics and doing any of those things will reduce your exposure to those specific allocations. It may be worth pointing out that currently the hot recommendation is a plain vanilla market tracking S&P 500 index fund (that just buys some of each of the 500 largest US companies without any consideration given to risk correlation) over standard deviation calculating actively managed funds. If you ask me that speaks volumes of the true efficacy of hyper analyzing the purported correlations of various securities.\",\n \"\\\"He's calculating portfolio variance. The general formula for the variance of a portfolio composed of two securities looks like this: where w_a and w_b are the weights of each stock in the portfolio and the sigmas represent the standard deviation/risk of each asset or portfolio. In the case of perfect positive or negative correlation, applying some algebra to the formula relating covariance to the correlation coefficient (rho, the Greek letter that looks like \\\"\\\"p\\\"\\\"): tells us that the covariance we need in the original formula is simply the product of the standard deviations and the correlation coefficient (-1 in this case). Combining that result with our original formula yields this calculation: Technically we've calculated the portfolio's variance and not it's standard deviation/risk, but since the square root of 0 is still 0, that doesn't matter. The Wikipedia article on Modern Portfolio Theory has a section that describes the mathematical methods I used above. The entire article is worth a read, however.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"JoeTaxpayer's answer is dead on... but let me give my own two cents with a little bit of math. Otherwise, I personally find that people talking about diversified portfolios tends to be full of buzzwords. Let's say that Buffett's investments are $10 million. He would like to earn ≥7% this year, or $700,000. He can invest that money in coca-cola//underwear, which might return: Or he can invest in \\\"\\\"genius moves\\\"\\\" that will make headlines: (like buying huge stakes in Goldman Sachs), which might return: And he makes plays for the long haul based on the expected value of the investments. So if he splits it 50/50... ($5 million/ $5 million), then his expected value is 822,250: By diversifying, he does reduce the expected value of the portfolio... (He is not giving $10 M the chance to turn into $1.5 million or $2 million for him!). The expected value of that shock-and-awe portfolio with all $10 million invested in it is $1.2M. By taking less risk... for less reward... his expected return is lower. But his risk is lower too. Scale this example back up into the $100 million or billion range that Buffett invests in and that extra margin makes the difference. In the context of your original article, the lower-risk 'cake and underwear' investments let Buffett go big on the things that will make 20%+ returns on billions of dollars, without completely destroying his investment capital when things take a turn for the worse.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"When you invest in a single index/security, you are completely exposed to the risk of that security. Diversification means spreading the investments so the losses on one side can be compensated by the gains on the other side. What you are talking about is one thing called \\\"\\\"risk apettite\\\"\\\", more formally known as Risk Tolerance: Risk tolerance is the degree of variability in investment returns that an investor is willing to withstand. (emphasis added) This means that you are willing to accept some losses in order to get a potential bigger return. Fidelity has this graph: As you can see in the table above, the higher the risk tolerance, the bigger the difference between the best and worst values. That is the variability. The right-most pie can be one example of an agressive diversified portfolio. But this does not mean you should go and buy exactly that security compostion. High-risk means playing with fire. Unless you are a professional stuntman, playing with fire usually leaves people burnt. In a financial context this usually means the money is gone. Recommended Reading: Investopedia; Risk and Diversification: The Risk-Reward Tradeoff Investopedia; How to construct a High Risk portfolio Fidelity: Guide to Diversification KPMG: Understanding and articulating Risk Appetite (pdf)\\\"\",\n \"Dummy example to explain this. Suppose your portfolio contained just two securities; a thirty year US government bond and a Tesla stock. Both of those position are currently valued at $1mm. The Tesla position however is very volatile with its daily volatility being about 5% (based on the standard deviation of its daily return) whole there bond's daily volatility is 1%. Then the Tesla position is 5/6 of your risk while being only 1/2 of the portfolio. Now if in month the Tesla stock tanks to half is values then. Then it's risk is half as much as before and so it's total contribution to risk has gone down.\",\n \"\\\"The standard measure of risk is the variance of the asset. The return on investment of the asset is understood as a random variable with a particular distribution. One can make inferences about the underlying distribution using historical data. As you say, this is what the quants do. There are other, more sophisticated measures of risk that allow for such things as skewed distributions and Markov switching. If you are interested in learning more, I suggest starting with the foundations of Modern Portfolio Theory: \\\"\\\"Portfolio Selection\\\"\\\" by Harry Markowitz and \\\"\\\"Capital Asset Prices\\\"\\\" by William Sharpe.\\\"\",\n \"Diversifying your portfolio between asset A and asset B only reduces the portfolio risk if asset A and asset B are not correlated. If they have either a low correlation or a negative correlation to each other, then you benefit from combining them in a portfolio in terms of risk reduction. The standard deviation of returns will be lower in a portfolio of low or uncorrelated assets. If on the other hand you combine two correlated assets into a portfolio you are doubling down on the same assumption, which means you are not reducing your risk. You are also wasting capital because now you have allocated capital to 2 separate trades / investments yet they have shown a high tendency of moving together. Here is an article that discusses this further: Why Diversify your Stock Portfolio\",\n \"The other example I'd offer is the case for diversification. If one buys 10 well chosen stocks, i.e. stocks spread across different industries so their correlation to one another is low, they will have lower risk than each of the 10 folk who own one of those stocks per person. Same stocks, but lower risk when combined.\",\n \"\\\"Diversification is extremely important and the one true \\\"\\\"Free Lunch\\\"\\\" of investing, meaning it can provide both greater returns and less risk than a portfolio that is not diversified. The reason people say otherwise is because they are talking about \\\"\\\"true\\\"\\\" portfolio diversification, which cannot be achieved by simply spreading money across stocks. To truly diversify a portfolio it must be diversified across multiple, unrelated \\\"\\\"Return Drivers.\\\"\\\" I describe this throughout my best-selling book and am pleased to provide complimentary links to the following two chapters, where I discuss the lack of diversification from spreading money solely across stocks (including correlation tables), as well as the benefits of true portfolio diversification: Jackass Investing - Myth #8: Trading is Gambling – Investing is Safer Jackass Investing - Myth #20: There is No Free Lunch\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You're talking about modern portfolio theory. The wiki article goes into the math. Here's the gist: Modern portfolio theory (MPT) is a theory of finance that attempts to maximize portfolio expected return for a given amount of portfolio risk, or equivalently minimize risk for a given level of expected return, by carefully choosing the proportions of various assets. At the most basic level, you either a) pick a level of risk (standard deviation of your whole portfolio) that you're ok with and find the maximum return you can achieve while not exceeding your risk level, or b) pick a level of expected return that you want and minimize risk (again, the standard deviation of your portfolio). You don't maximize both moments at once. The techniques behind actually solving them in all but the most trivial cases (portfolios of two or three assets are trivial cases) are basically quadratic programming because to be realistic, you might have a portfolio that a) doesn't allow short sales for all instruments, and/or b) has some securities that can't be held in fractional amounts (like ETF's or bonds). Then there isn't a closed form solution and you need computational techniques like mixed integer quadratic programming Plenty of firms and people use these techniques, even in their most basic form. Also your terms are a bit strange: It has correlation table p11, p12, ... pij, pnn for i and j running from 1 to n This is usually called the covariance matrix. I want to maximize 2 variables. Namely the expected return and the additive inverse of the standard deviation of the mixed investments. Like I said above you don't maximize two moments (return and inverse of risk). I realize that you're trying to minimize risk by maximizing \\\"\\\"negative risk\\\"\\\" so to speak but since risk and return are inherently a tradeoff you can't achieve the best of both worlds. Maybe I should point out that although the above sounds nice, and, theoretically, it's sound, as one of the comments points out, it's harder to apply in practice. For example it's easy to calculate a covariance matrix between the returns of two or more assets, but in the simplest case of modern portfolio theory, the assumption is that those covariances don't change over your time horizon. Also coming up with a realistic measure of your level of risk can be tricky. For example you may be ok with a standard deviation of 20% in the positive direction but only be ok with a standard deviation of 5% in the negative direction. Basically in your head, the distribution of returns you want probably has negative skewness: because on the whole you want more positive returns than negative returns. Like I said this can get complicated because then you start minimizing other forms of risk like value at risk, for example, and then modern portfolio theory doesn't necessarily give you closed form solutions anymore. Any actively managed fund that applies this in practice (since obviously a completely passive fund will just replicate the index and not try to minimize risk or anything like that) will probably be using something like the above, or at least something that's more complicated than the basic undergrad portfolio optimization that I talked about above. We'll quickly get beyond what I know at this rate, so maybe I should stop there.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I would like to first point out that there is nothing special about a self-managed investment portfolio as compared to one managed by someone else. With some exceptions, you can put together exactly the same investment portfolio yourself as a professional investor could put together for you. Not uncommonly, too, at a lower cost (and remember that cost is among the, if not the, best indicator(s) of how your investment portfolio will perform over time). Diversification is the concept of not \\\"\\\"putting all your eggs in one basket\\\"\\\". The idea here is that there are things that happen together because they have a common cause, and by spreading your investments in ways such that not all of your investments have the same underlying risks, you reduce your overall risk. The technical term for risk is generally volatility, meaning how much (in this case the price of) something fluctuates over a given period of time. A stock that falls 30% one month and then climbs 40% the next month is more volatile than one that falls 3% the first month and climbs 4% the second month. The former is riskier because if for some reason you need to sell when it is down, you lose a larger portion of your original investment with the former stock than with the latter. Diversification, thus, is reducing commonality between your investments, generally but not necessarily in an attempt to reduce the risk of all investments moving in the same direction by the same amount at the same time. You can diversify in various ways: Do you see where I am going with this? A well-diversed portfolio will tend to have a mix of equity in your own country and a variety of other countries, spread out over different types of equity (company stock, corporate bonds, government bonds, ...), in different sectors of the economy, in countries with differing growth patterns. It may contain uncommon classes of investments such as precious metals. A poorly diversified portfolio will likely be restricted to either some particular geographical area, type of equity or investment, focus on some particular sector of the economy (such as medicine or vehicle manufacturers), or so on. The poorly diversified portfolio can do better in the short term, if you time it just right and happen to pick exactly the right thing to buy or sell. This is incredibly hard to do, as you are basically working against everyone who gets paid to do that kind of work full time, plus computer-algorithm-based trading which is programmed to look for any exploitable patterns. It is virtually impossible to do for any real length of time. Thus, the well-diversified portfolio tends to do better over time.\\\"\",\n \"it's kind of like a circular loop: i think he would suggest identifying strategies/portfolio managers who have demonstrated outperformance in a persistent manner. Thing is, that's also really hard to do. I think empirically, MPT suffers when the market does. By diversifying, you'll only be down less. He's suggesting shooting for absolute returns -- no matter what the market does, he wants to see positive gains. (a lot) easier said than done\",\n \"Diversification is used by many to hopefully reduce the risk when bad investments are made. Diversification does not help you make more profits but instead averages down your profits. There is no way one can tell whether a stock or portfolio of stocks will go up or down once they are purchased. In order to try to provide some protection against total loss of the portfolio, a lazy so called long term investor will use diversification as a way of risk management. But the best outcome for them will be an averaging down of their profits. A better method is to let the market tell you when your purchased investment is a bad one and get out of that investment early and thus limiting your losses, whilst letting your good investments (as determined by the market) run and make larger profits.\",\n \"Variance of a single asset is defined as follows: σ2 = Σi(Xi - μ)2 where Xi's represent all the possible final market values of your asset and μ represents the mean of all such market values. The portfolio's variance is defined as σp2 = Σiwi2σi2 where, σp is the portfolio's variance, and wi stands for the weight of the ith asset. Now, if you include the borrowing in your portfolio, that would classify as technically shorting at the borrowing rate. Thus, this weight would (by the virtue of being negative) increase all other weights. Moreover, the variance of this is likely to be zero (assuming fixed borrowing rates). Thus, weights of risky assets rise and the investor's portfolio's variance will go up. Also see, CML at wikipedia.\",\n \"Quick and dirty paper but pretty interesting.. I'm not in Portfolio Management but I probably would have ended up at the modal number as well. I don't know the subject deeply enough to answer my own question, but is the bias always toward underestimation of variance? Or is that a complex of the way the problem was set up? Another question I have for those in investment management; Would this impact asset allocation?\",\n \"\\\"The question is: how do you quantify investment risk? As Michael S says, one approach is to treat investment returns as a random variable. Bill Goetzmann (Yale finance professor) told me that if you accept that markets are efficient or that the price of an asset reflects it's underlying value, then changes in price represent changes in value, so standard deviation naturally becomes the appropriate measure for riskiness of an asset. Essentially, the more volatile an asset, the riskier it is. There is another school of thought that comes from Ben Graham and Warren Buffett, which says that volatility is not inherently risky. Rather, risk should be defined as the permanent loss of capital, so the riskiness of an asset is the probability of a permanent loss of capital invested. This is easy to do in casino games, based on basic probability such as roulette or slots. But what has been done with the various kinds of investment risks? My point is saying that certain bonds are \\\"\\\"low risk\\\"\\\" isn't good enough; I'd like some numbers--or at least a range of numbers--and therefore one could calculate expected payoff (in the statistics sense). Or can it not be done--and if not, why not? Investing is more art than science. In theory, a Triple-A bond rating means the asset is riskless or nearly riskless, but we saw that this was obviously wrong since several of the AAA mortgage backed securities (MBS) went under prior to the recent US recession. More recently, the current threat of default suggests that bond ratings are not entirely accurate, since US Treasuries are considered riskless assets. Investors often use bond ratings to evaluate investments - a bond is considered investment grade if it's BBB- or higher. To adequately price bonds and evaluate risk, there are too many factors to simply refer to a chart because things like the issuer, credit quality, liquidity risk, systematic risk, and unsystematic risk all play a factor. Another factor you have to consider is the overall portfolio. Markowitz showed that adding a riskier asset can actually lower the overall risk of a portfolio because of diversification. This is all under the assumption that risk = variance, which I think is bunk. I'm aware that Wall Street is nothing like roulette, but then again there must be some math and heavy economics behind calculating risk for individual investors. This is, after all, what \\\"\\\"quants\\\"\\\" are paid to do, in part. Is it all voodoo? I suspect some of it is, but not all of it. Quants are often involved in high frequency trading as well, but that's another note. There are complicated risk management products, such as the Aladdin system by BlackRock, which incorporate modern portfolio theory (Markowitz, Fama, Sharpe, Samuelson, etc) and financial formulas to manage risk. Crouhy's Risk Management covers some of the concepts applied. I also tend to think that when people point to the last x number of years of stock market performance, that is of less value than they expect. Even going back to 1900 provides \\\"\\\"only\\\"\\\" 110 years of data, and in my view, complex systems need more data than those 40,500 data points. 10,000 years' worth of data, ok, but not 110. Any books or articles that address these issues, or your own informed views, would be helfpul. I fully agree with you here. A lot of work is done in the Santa Fe Institute to study \\\"\\\"complex adaptive systems,\\\"\\\" and we don't have any big, clear theory as of yet. Conventional risk management is based on the ideas of modern portfolio theory, but a lot of that is seen to be wrong. Behavioral finance is introducing new ideas on how investors behave and why the old models are wrong, which is why I cannot suggest you study risk management and risk models because I and many skilled investors consider them to be largely wrong. There are many good books on investing, the best of which is Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor. Although not a book on risk solely, it provides a different viewpoint on how to invest and covers how to protect investments via a \\\"\\\"Margin of Safety.\\\"\\\" Lastly, I'd recommend Against the Gods by Peter Bernstein, which covers the history of risk and risk analysis. It's not solely a finance book but rather a fascinating historical view of risk, and it helps but many things in context. Hope it helps!\\\"\",\n \"The funny thing is - this is total bullshit, the major assumption underlying VAR along with many other financial products is that your assets have a certain correlation to oneanother, and you calculate your risk hedges on this assumption. VAR is a terrible way of managing firmwide risk, and always will be, because it doesn't protect you from a deleveraging environment, when all asset values fall and former inverse correlations don't protect you anymore.\",\n \"Risk in finance is defined as standard deviation of returns. This is a measure of size of your returns, both negative and positive. Since the mean return is positive (at least for the stock market and fixed income), if you double the standard deviation your mean return also doubles along with it. In this way you are compensated by the market for taking on more risk.\",\n \"\\\"While it's definitely possible (and likely?) that a diversified portfolio generates higher returns than the S&P 500, that's not the main reason why you diversify. Diversification reduces risk. Modern portfolio theory suggests that you should maximize return while reducing risk, instead of blindly chasing the highest returns. Think about it this way--say the average return is 11% for large cap US stocks (the S&P 500), and it's 10% for a diversified portfolio (say, 6-8 asset classes). The large cap only portfolio has a 10% chance of losing 30% in a given year, while the diversified portfolio has a 1% chance of losing 30% in a year. For the vast majority of investors, it's worth the 1% annual gap in expected return to greatly reduce their risk exposure. Of course, I just made those numbers up. Read what finance professors have written for the \\\"\\\"data and proof\\\"\\\". But modern portfolio theory is believed by a lot of investors and other finance experts. There are a ton of studies (and therefore data) on MPT--including many that contradict it.\\\"\",\n \"That's exactly what immunofort is saying, and it lines up with established financial theory (well, some of it). The general argument is that stocks are priced according to what risks they're exposed to. Several (although not all) of the major financial economics theories propose (and find empirical evidence for this) that the market as whole is a risk factor, so individual stocks would be priced in part based on how correlated they are with the market. Strictly speaking, the risk free rate is purely theoretical and can't be directly observed, but the US T-bill yield is usually considered to be a pretty good proxy for it.\",\n \"\\\"I think Swenson's insight was that the traditional recommendation of 60% stocks plus 40% bonds has two serious flaws: 1) You are exposed to way too much risk by having a portfolio that is so strongly tied to US equities (especially in the way it has historically been recommend). 2) You have too little reward by investing so much of your portfolio in bonds. If you can mix a decent number of asset classes that all have equity-like returns, and those asset classes have a low correlation with each other, then you can achieve equity-like returns without the equity-like risk. This improvement can be explicitly measured in the Sharpe ratio of you portfolio. (The Vanguard Risk Factor looks pretty squishy and lame to me.) The book the \\\"\\\"The Ivy Portfolio\\\"\\\" does a great job at covering the Swenson model and explains how to reasonably replicate it yourself using low fee ETFs.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"There are some good answers about the benefits of diversification, but I'm going to go into what is going on mathematically with what you are attempting. I was always under the assumption that as long as two securities are less than perfectly correlated (i.e. 1), that the standard deviation/risk would be less than if I had put 100% into either of the securities. While there does exist a minimum variance portfolio that is a combination of the two with lower vol than 100% of either individually, this portfolio is not necessarily the portfolio with highest utility under your metric. Your metric includes returns not just volatility/variance so the different returns bias the result away from the min-vol portfolio. Using the utility function: E[x] - .5*A*sig^2 results in the highest utility of 100% VTSAX. So here the Sharpe ratio (risk adjusted return) of the U.S. portfolio is so much higher than the international portfolio over the period tracked that the loss of returns from adding more international stocks outweigh the lower risk that you would get from both just adding the lower vol international stocks and the diversification effects from having a correlation less than one. The key point in the above is \\\"\\\"over the period tracked\\\"\\\". When you do this type of analysis you implicitly assume that the returns/risk observed in the past will be similar to the returns/risk in the future. Certainly, if you had invested 100% in the U.S. recently you would have done better than investing in a mix of US/Intl. However, while the risk and correlations of assets can be (somewhat) stable over time relative returns can vary wildly! This uncertainty of future returns is why most people use a diversified portfolio of assets. What is the exact right amount is a very hard question though.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Wow, this analysis really surprised me. Very complete and useful, but i think my teacher request was easier. He just said: \\\"\\\"Try to build a diversified portfolio. Then try to add a commodity (like silver or gold) and understand how the risk vary introducing an asset like this.\\\"\\\" So, i'm basically making a stocks portfolio and i'm calculating its expected return and risk. (for example 40%FB, 10%JNJ, 20%GS, 10%F and 20%MCD) then i'm adding GLD (so now i have something like 20%FB, 10%JNJ, 10%GS, 10%F and 20%MCD 30%GLD) and i'm actually making an excel spreadsheet where i calculate all the: -Expected returns -St Deviation -Covariance At the end i compare the returns and the risks on the 2 different portfolios.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Diversification tends to protect you from big losses. But it also tends to \\\"\\\"protect\\\"\\\" you from big gains. In any industry, some companies provide good products and services and prosper while others have problems and fail. (Or maybe the winners are just lucky or they paid off the right politicians, whatever, not the point here.) If you put all your money in one stock and they do well, you could make a bundle. But if you pick a loser, you could lose your entire investment. If you buy a little stock in each of many companies, then some will go up and some will go down, and your returns will be an average of how everyone in the industry is doing. Suppose I offered to bet you a large sum of money that if I roll a die, it will come up 6. You might be reluctant to take that bet, because you can't predict what number will come up on one roll of a die. But suppose I offered to bet you a large sum of money that a die will come up 6, 100 times in a row. You might well take that bet, because the chance that it will turn up 6 time after time after time is very low. You reduce risk by spreading your bets. Anyone who's bought stock has surely had times when he said, \\\"\\\"Oh man! If only I'd bought X ten years ago I'd be a millionaire now!\\\"\\\" But quite a few have also said, \\\"\\\"If only I'd sold X ten years ago I wouldn't have lost all this money!\\\"\\\" I recently bought a stock a stock that within a few months rose to 10 times what I paid for it ... and then a few months later the company went bankrupt and the stock was worth nothing. I knew the company was on a roller coaster when I bought the stock, I was gambling that they'd pull through and I'd make money. I guessed wrong. Fortunately I gambled an amount that I was willing to lose.\\\"\",\n \"Modern portfolio theory has a strong theoretical background and its conclusions on the risk/return trade-off have a lot of good supporting evidence. However, the conclusions it draws need to be used very carefully when thinking about retirement investing. If you were really just trying to just pick the one investment that you would guess would make you the most money in the future then yes, given no other information, the riskiest asset would be the best one. However, for most people the goal retirement investing is to be as sure as possible to retire comfortably. If you were to just invest in a single, very risky asset you may have the highest expected return, but the risk involved would mean there might be a good chance you money may not be there when you need it. Instead, a broad diversified basket of riskier and safer assets leaning more toward the riskier investments when younger and the safer assets when you get closer to retirement tends to be a better fit with most people's retirement goals. This tends to give (on average) more return when you are young and can better deal with the risk, but dials back the risk later in life when your investment portfolio is a majority of your wealth and you can least afford any major swings. This combines the lessons of MPT (diversity, risk/return trade-off) in a clearer way with common goals of retirement. Caveat: Your retirement goals and risk-tolerance may be very different from other peoples'. It is often good to talk to (fee-only) financial planner.\",\n \"\\\"In theory, the idea is that diversified assets will perform differently in different circumstances, spreading your risk around. Whether that still functions in practice is a decent question, as the \\\"\\\"truth\\\"\\\" of most probability based arguments for diversification rely on the different assets being at least somewhat uncorrelated. This article suggests that might not be true. Specifically: The correlations we note among industry sectors are profoundly and dysfunctionally high. and Gold and silver traders have gotten too used to the negative correlation trade with stocks. This is, in fact, an unusual relationship for precious metals tostocks. The correlation should actually be zero.\\\"\",\n \"You're missing the concept of systemic risk, which is the risk of the entire market or an entire asset class. Diversification is about achieving a balance between risk and return that's appropriate for you. Your investment in Vanguard's fund, although diversified between many public companies, is still restricted to one asset class in one country. Yes, you lower your risk by investing in all of these companies, but you don't erase it entirely. Clearly, there is still risk, despite your diversification. You may decide that you want other investments or a different asset allocation that reduce the overall risk of your portfolio. Over the long run, you may earn a high level of return, but never forget that there is still risk involved. bonds seem pretty worthless, at least until I retire According to your profile, you're about my age. Our cohort will probably begin retiring sometime around 2050 or later, and no one knows what the bond market will look like over the next 40 years. We may have forecasts for the next few years, but not for almost four decades. Writing off an entire asset class for almost four decades doesn't seem like a good idea. Also, bonds are like equity, and all other asset classes, in that there are different levels of risk within the asset class too. When calculating the overall risk/return profile of my portfolio, I certainly don't consider Treasuries as the same risk level as corporate bonds or high-yield (or junk) bonds from abroad. Depending on your risk preferences, you may find that an asset allocation that includes US and/or international bonds/fixed-income, international equities, real-estate, and cash (to make rebalancing your asset allocation easier) reduces your risk to levels you're willing to tolerate, while still allowing you to achieve returns during periods where one asset class, e.g. equities, is losing value or performing below your expectations.\",\n \"\\\"Modern portfolio theory dramatically underestimates the risk of the recommended assets. This is because so few underlying assets are in the recommended part of the curve. As investors identify such assets, large amounts of money are invested in them. This temporarily reduces measured risk, and temporarily increases measured return. Sooner or later, \\\"\\\"the trade\\\"\\\" becomes \\\"\\\"crowded\\\"\\\". Eventually, large amounts of money try to \\\"\\\"exit the trade\\\"\\\" (into cash or the next discovered asset). And so the measurable risk suddenly rises, and the measured return drops. In other words, modern portfolio theory causes bubbles, and causes those bubbles to pop. Some other strategies to consider:\\\"\",\n \"What you're looking for is expected value. Let's say you invest $1000 in option A, and later discover that you are going to lose 20%. So the expected value of option A is $800. If option B has a 50% chance of losing 50%, and a 50% of gaining 20%, then your expected value is $650 ($650 = $1000 * (50% * 50% + 50% * 20%)). $800 > $650, so you should stay with option A. In the real world, you usually don't know the exact odds and percentages, so substitute in your best guesses. This may lead to suboptimal results, but only if your estimations are wrong; the formula itself is ideal.\",\n \"Ditto Bill and I upvoted his answer. But let me add a bit. If everyone knew exactly what the risk was for every investment, then prices would be bid up or down until every stock (or bond or derivative or whatever) was valued at exactly risk times potential profit. (Or more precisely, integral of risk times potential profit.) If company A was 100% guaranteed to make $1 million profit this year, while company B had 50% change to make a $2 million profit and 50% to make $0, and every investor in the world knew that, then I'd expect the total price of all shares of the two stocks to stabilize at the same value. The catch to that, though, is that no one really knows the risk. The risk isn't like, we're going to roll a die and if it comes up even the company makes $1 million and if it comes up odd the company makes $0, so we could calculate the exact probability. The risk comes from lack of information. Will consumers want to buy this new product? How many? What are they willing to pay? How capable is the new CEO? Etc. It's very hard to calculate probabilities on these things. How can you precisely calculate the probability that unforeseen events will occur? So in real life prices are muddled. The risk/reward ratio should be roughly sort of approximately linear, but that's about the most one can say.\",\n \"\\\"The formula you are looking for is pretty complicated. It's given here: http://itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda3661.htm You might prefer to let somebody else do the grunt work for you. This page will calculate the probability for you: http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/normal.aspx. In your case, you'd enter mean=.114, standard deviation=.132, and \\\"\\\"standard score\\\"\\\"= ... oh, you didn't say what you're paying on your debt. Let's say it's 6%, i.e. .06. Note that this page will give you the probability that the actual number will be less than or equal to the \\\"\\\"standard score\\\"\\\". Enter all that and click the magic button and the probability that the investment will produce less than 6% is ... .34124, or 34%. The handy rule of thumb is that the probability is about 68% that the actual number will be within 1 standard deviation of the mean, 95% that it will be within 2 standard deviations, and 99.7% that it will be within 3. Which isn't exactly what you want because you don't want \\\"\\\"within\\\"\\\" but \\\"\\\"less than\\\"\\\". But you could get that by just adding half the difference from 100% for each of the above, i.e. instead of 68-95-99.7 it would be 84-98-99.9. Oh, I missed that in a follow-up comment you say you are paying 4% on a mortgage which you are adjusting to 3% because of tax implications. Probability based on mean and SD you gave of getting less than 3% is 26%. I didn't read the article you cite. I assume the standard deviation given is for the rate of return for one year. If you stretch that over many years, the SD goes down, as many factors tend to even out. So while the probability that money in a given, say, mutual fund will grow by less than 3% in one year is fairly high -- the 25 - 35% we're talking here sounds plausible to me -- the probability that it will grow by an average of less than 3% over a period of 10 or 15 or 20 years is much less. Further Thought There is, of course, no provably-true formula for what makes a reasonable risk. Suppose I offered you an investment that had a 99% chance of showing a $5,000 profit and a 1% chance of a $495,000 loss. Would you take it? I wouldn't. Even though the chance of a loss is small, if it happened, I'd lose everything I have. Is it worth that risk for the modest potential profit? I'd say no. Of course to someone who has a billion dollars, this might be a very reasonable risk. If it fails, oh well, that could really cut in to what he can spend on lunch tomorrow.\\\"\",\n \"I use two measures to define investment risk: What's the longest period of time over which this investment has had negative returns? What's the worst-case fall in the value of this investment (peak to trough)? I find that the former works best for long-term investments, like retirement. As a concrete example, I have most of my retirement money in equity, since the Sensex has had zero returns over as long as a decade. Since my investment time-frame is longer, equity is risk-free, by this measure. For short-term investments, like money put aside to buy a car next year, the second measure works better. For this purpose, I might choose a debt fund that isn't the safest, and has had a worst-case 8% loss over the past decade. I can afford that loss, putting in more money from my pocket to buy the car, if needed. So, I might choose this fund for this purpose, taking a slight risk to earn higher return. In any case, how much money I need for a car can only be a rough guess, so having 8% less than originally planned may turn out to be enough. Or it may turn out that the entire amount originally planned for is insufficient, in which case a further 8% shortfall may not be a big deal. These two measures I've defined are simple to explain and understand, unlike academic stuff like beta, standard deviation, information ratio or other mumbo-jumbo. And they are simple to apply to a practical problem, as I've illustrated with the two examples above. On the other hand, if someone tells me that the standard deviation of a mutual fund is 15%, I'll have no idea what that means, or how to apply that to my financial situation. All this suffers from the problem of being limited to historical data, and the future may not be like the past. But that affects any risk statistic, and you can't do better unless you have a time machine.\",\n \"\\\"Diversification is spreading your investments around so that one point of risk doesn't sink your whole portfolio. The effect of having a diversified portfolio is that you've always got something that's going up (though, the corollary is that you've also always got something going down... winning overall comes by picking investments worth investing in (not to state the obvious or anything :-) )) It's worth looking at the different types of risk you can mitigate with diversification: Company risk This is the risk that the company you bought actually sucks. For instance, you thought gold was going to go up, and so you bought a gold miner. Say there are only two -- ABC and XYZ. You buy XYZ. Then the CEO reveals their gold mine is played out, and the stock goes splat. You're wiped out. But gold does go up, and ABC does gangbusters, especially now they've got no competition. If you'd bought both XYZ and ABC, you would have diversified your company risk, and you would have been much better off. Say you invested $10K, $5K in each. XYZ goes to zero, and you lose that $5K. ABC goes up 120%, and is now worth $11K. So despite XYZ bankrupting, you're up 10% on your overall position. Sector risk You can categorize stocks by what \\\"\\\"sector\\\"\\\" they're in. We've already talked about one: gold miners. But there are many more, like utilities, bio-tech, transportation, banks, etc. Stocks in a sector will tend to move together, so you can be right about the company, but if the sector is out of favor, it's going to have a hard time going up. Lets extend the above example. What if you were wrong about gold going up? Then XYZ would still be bankrupt, and ABC would be making less money so they went down as well; say, 20%. At that point, you've only got $4K left. But say that besides gold, you also thought that banks were cheap. So, you split your investment between the gold miners and a couple of banks -- lets call them LMN and OP -- for $2500 each in XYZ, ABC, LMN, and OP. Say you were wrong about gold, but right about banks; LMN goes up 15%, and OP goes up 40%. At that point, your portfolio looks like this: XYZ start $2500 -100% end $0 ABC start $2500 +120% end $5500 LMN start $2500 +15% end $2875 OP start $2500 +40% end $3500 For a portfolio total of: $11,875, or a total gain of 18.75%. See how that works? Region/Country/Currency risk So, now what if everything's been going up in the USA, and everything seems so overpriced? Well, odds are, some area of the world is not over-bought. Like Brazil or England. So, you can buy some Brazilian or English companies, and diversify away from the USA. That way, if the market tanks here, those foreign companies aren't caught in it, and could still go up. This is the same idea as the sector risk, except it's location based, instead of business type based. There is an additional twist to this -- currencies. The Brits use the pound, and the Brazilians use the real. Most small investors don't think about this much, but the value of currencies, including our dollar, fluctuates. If the dollar has been strong, and the pound weak (as it has been, lately), then what happens if that changes? Say you own a British bank, and the dollar weakens and the pound strengthens. Even if that bank doesn't move at all, you would still make a gain. Example: You buy British bank BBB for 40 pounds a share, when each pound costs $1.20. Say after a while, BBB is still 40 pounds/share, but the dollar weakened and the pound strengthened, such that each pound is now worth $1.50. You could sell BBB, and because of the currency exchange once you've got it converted back to dollars you'd have a 25% gain. Market cap risk Sometimes big companies do well, sometimes it's small companies. The small caps are riskier but higher returning. When you think about it, small and mid cap stocks have much more \\\"\\\"room to run\\\"\\\" than large caps do. It's much easier to double a company worth $1 billion than it is to double a company worth $100 billion. Investment types Stocks aren't the only thing you can invest in. There's also bonds, convertible bonds, CDs, preferred stocks, options and futures. It can get pretty complicated, especially the last two. But each of these investment behaves differently; and again the idea is to have something going up all the time. The classical mix is stocks and bonds. The idea here is that when times are good, the stocks go up; when times are bad, the bonds go up (because they're safer, so more people want them), but mostly they're there to providing steady income and help keep your portfolio from cratering along with the stocks. Currently, this may not work out so well; stocks and bonds have been moving in sync for several years, and with interest rates so low they don't provide much income. So what does this mean to you? I'm going make some assumptions here based on your post. You said single index, self-managed, and don't lower overall risk (and return). I'm going to assume you're a small investor, young, you invest in ETFs, and the single index is the S&P 500 index ETF -- SPY. S&P 500 is, roughly, the 500 biggest companies in the USA. Further, it's weighted -- how much of each stock is in the index -- such that the bigger the company is, the bigger a percentage of the index it is. If slickcharts is right, the top 5 companies combined are already 11% of the index! (Apple, Microsoft, Exxon, Amazon, and Johnson & Johnson). The smallest, News Corp, is a measly 0.008% of the index. In other words, if all you're invested in is SPY, you're invested in a handfull of giant american companies, and a little bit of other stuff besides. To diversify: Company risk and sector risk aren't really relevant to you, since you want broad market ETFs; they've already got that covered. The first thing I would do is add some smaller companies -- get some ETFs for mid cap, and small cap value (not small cap growth; it sucks for structural reasons). Examples are IWR for mid-cap and VBR for small-cap value. After you've done that, and are comfortable with what you have, it may be time to branch out internationally. You can get ETFs for regions (such as the EU - check out IEV), or countries (like Japan - see EWJ). But you'd probably want to start with one that's \\\"\\\"all major countries that aren't the USA\\\"\\\" - check out EFA. In any case, don't go too crazy with it. As index investing goes, the S&P 500 is not a bad way to go. Feed in anything else a little bit at a time, and take the time to really understand what it is you're investing in. So for example, using the ETFs I mentioned, add in 10% each IWR and VBR. Then after you're comfortable, maybe add 10% EFA, and raise IWR to 20%. What the ultimate percentages are, of course, is something you have to decide for yourself. Or, you could just chuck it all and buy a single Target Date Retirement fund from, say, Vanguard or T. Rowe Price and just not worry about it.\\\"\",\n \"Basically, diversifying narrows the spread of possible results, raising the center of the returns bell-curve by reducing the likelihood of extreme results at either the high or low end. It's largely a matter of basic statistics. Bet double-or-nothing on a single coin flip, and those are the only possible results, and your odds of a disaster (losing most or all of the money) are 50%. Bet half of it on each of two coin flips, and your odds of losing are reduced to 25% at the cost of reducing your odds of winning to 25%, with 50% odds that you retain your money and can try the game again. Three coins divides the space further; the extremes are reduced to 12.5% each, with the middle being most likely. If that was all there was, this would be a zero-sum game and pure gambling. But the stock market is actually positive-sum, since companies are delivering part of their profits to their stockholder owners. This moves the center of the bell curve up a bit from break-even, historically to about +8%. This is why index funds produce a profit with very little active decision; they treat the variation as mostly random (which seems to work statistically) and just try to capture average results of a (hopefully) slightly above-average bucket of stocks and/or bonds. This approach is boring. It will never double your money overnight. On the other hand, it will never wipe you out overnight. If you have patience and are willing to let compound interest work for you, and trust that most market swings regress to the mean in the long run, it quietly builds your savings while not driving you crazy worrying about it. If all you are looking for is better return than the banks, and you have a reasonable amount of time before you need to pull the funds out, it's one of the more reliably predictable risk/reward trade-off points. You may want to refine this by biasing the mix of what you're holding. The simplest adjustment is how much you keep in each of several major investment categories. Large cap stocks, small cap stocks, bonds, and real estate (in the form of REITs) each have different baseline risk/return curves, and move in different ways in response to news, so maintaining a selected ratio between these buckets and adding the resulting curves together is one simple way to make fairly predictable adjustments to the width (and centerline) of the total bell curve. If you think you can do better than this, go for it. But index funds have been outperforming professionally managed funds (after the management fees are accounted for), and unless you are interested in spending a lot of time researching and playing with your money the odds of your doing much better aren't great unless you're willing to risk doing much worse. For me, boring is good. I want my savings to work for me rather than the other way around, and I don't consider the market at all interesting as a game. Others will feel differently.\",\n \"\\\"There are a couple of reasons to diversify your assets. First, since we cannot predict which of our investments will perform best, we want to \\\"\\\"cast our net\\\"\\\" broadly enough to have something invested in what's going to be performing well. Second, diversification isn't intended to provide the highest returns, but rather it is used to soften the effects of market volatility. By softening the downsides and lowering the overall volatility among our assets, returns are more consistent. If a model does not address future downside risk it is only telling you part of the story. (Past performance does not guarantee... you get the picture)\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Typically investing in only two securities is not a good idea when trying to spread risk. Even though you are in the VTI which is spread out over a large amount of securites it should in theory reduce portfolio beta to zero, or in this case as close to it as possible. The VTI however has a beta of 1.03 as of close today in New York. This means that the VTI moves roughly in exact tandem as \\\"\\\"the market\\\"\\\" usually benched against the S&P 500, so this means that the VTI is slightly more volatile than that index. In theory beta can be 0, this would be akin to investing in T-bills which are 'assumed' to be the risk free rate. So in theory it is possible to reduce the risk in your portfolio and apply a more capital protective model. I hope this helps you a bit.\\\"\",\n \"If you are diversifying just for diversification purposes then all you are doing is averaging down your returns. You shouldn't just buy two securities because you think it is safer than putting all your money into one. A better method is to use money management and position sizing to limit your risk and exposure in any one security. You should know what your maximum risk is before you buy any security and know when it is time to get out of it. There are better ways to manage your risk. Don't put all your eggs in the one basket - yes, but don't diversify just for diversification purposes.\",\n \"Exactly. Regardless of just the volatility, to weight an asset or two with a majority of your portfolio is poor investment strategy. Ron is a smart guy and obviously understands the benefits of diversification. As others have suggested, I think he is doing it more to make a statement. When he retires, I hope it doesn't come back to bite him.\",\n \"Asset Allocation serves many purposes, not just mitigating risk via a diversification of asset classes, but also allowing you to take a level of risk that is appropriate for a given investor at a given time by how much is allocated to which asset classes. A younger investor with a longer timeframe, may wish to take a lot more risk, investing heavily in equities, and perhaps managed funds that are of the 'aggressive growth' variety, seeking better than market returns. Someone a little older may wish to pull back a bit, especially after a bull market has brought them substantial gains, and begin to 'take money off the table' perhaps by starting to establish some fixed income positions, or pulling back to slightly less risky index, 'value' or 'balanced' funds. An investor who is near or in retirement will generally want even less risk, going to a much more balanced approach with half or more of their investments in fixed income, and the remainder often in income producing 'blue chip' type stocks, or 'income funds'. This allows them to protect a good amount of their wealth from potential loss at a time when they have to be able to depend on it for a majority of their income. An institution such as Yale has very different concerns, and may always be in a more aggressive 'long term' mode since 'retirement' is not a factor for them. They are willing to invest mostly in very aggressive ways, using diversification to protect them from one of those choices 'tanking' but still overall taking a pretty high level of risk, much more so than might be appropriate for an individual who will generally need to seek safety and to preserve gains as they get older. For example look at the PDF that @JLDugger linked, and observe the overall risk level that Yale is taking, and in addition observe the large allocations they make to things like private equity with a 27%+ risk level compared to their very small amount of fixed income with a 10% risk level. Yale has a very long time horizon and invests in a way that is atypical of the needs and concerns of an individual investor. They also have as you pointed out, the economy of scale (with something like #17B in assets?) to afford to hire proven experts, and their own internal PHD level experts to watch over the whole thing, all of which very few individual investors have. For either class of investor, diversification, is a means to mitigate risk by not having all your eggs in one basket. Via having multiple different investments (such as picking multiple individual stocks, or aggressive funds with different approaches, or just an index fund to get multiple stocks) you are protected from being wiped out as might happen if a single choice might fail. For example imagine what would have happened if you had in 2005 put all your money into a single stock with a company that had been showing record profits such as Lehman Brothers, and left it there until 2008 when the stock tanked. or even faster collapses such as Enron, etc that all 'looked great' up until shortly after they failed utterly. Being allocated across multiple asset classes provides some diversification all on it's own, but you can also be diversified within a class. Yale uses the diversification across several asset classes to have lower risk than being invested in a single asset class such as private equity. But their allocation places much more of their funds in high risk classes and much less of their funds in the lowest risk classes such as fixed income.\",\n \"The relationship is not linear, and depends on a lot of factors. The term you're looking for is efficient frontier, the optimal rate of return for a given level of risk. The goal is to be on the efficient frontier, meaning that for the given level of risk, you're receiving the greatest possible rate of return (reward). http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/efficientfrontier.asp\",\n \"\\\"Beta is the correct answer. It is THE measure of the risk relationship of a stock with the broad market. R squared is incorrect unless you mean something very odd by \\\"\\\"co-efficiency.\\\"\\\" A stock that goes up each time the market goes down has very low co-efficiency (negative risk as you have defined it) but very high R squared. A stock that goes the same direction as the market but twice as far (with a lot of noise) has a very low R squared but contains a lot of market risk. A stock that always goes in the same direction as the market but only a 100th as far is very safe but has a very high R squared. You can calculate beta using \\\"\\\"slope\\\"\\\" in excel or doing a regression, but the easiest thing is just to look up the beta in yahoo finance or elsewhere. You don't need to calculate it for yourself normally.\\\"\",\n \"Other answers here explain very well the intent of your question. However, a word should be said about why people make different choices at all. So to directly answer your question, yes there is a theory but it does not say inaction is worse/better and instead explains why different people make different choices and how this information can be used to construct optimal portfolios for a specific individual. And that theory is called the Risk Aversion Theory. You can visit the following URLs to discover more about this theory:\",\n \"\\\"The fundamental flaw here is conflating net worth with utility, at least failing to recognize that there's a nonlinear relationship between the two. In the extreme example imagine taking a bet that will either make you twice as rich or completely broke. Your expected return is zero, but it would be pretty dumb to take it since being flat broke could ruin your life while being twice as rich may only improve it marginally. In more realistic cases most of your income is tied up in fixed costs, which magnifies relatively small perturbations to your net worth. Losing something essential (like your house or car), even if it's only 20% of your net worth, renders you effectively broke until you scrape together enough cash to get another one. That situation robs you of much more utility than you'd gain from a 20% increase in net worth. In either case, avoiding the risk is completely rational as long as you believe in nonlinear utility as a function of net worth, it's not just an issue of humans being \\\"\\\"risk averse\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"\\\"So you're basically saying that average market fluctuations have an affect on individual stocks, because individual stocks are often priced in relation to the growth of the market as a whole? Also, what kinds of investments would be considered \\\"\\\"risk free\\\"\\\" in this nomenclature?\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I think you're confusing risk analysis (that is what you quoted as \\\"\\\"Taleb Distribution\\\"\\\") with arguments against taking risks altogether. You need to understand that not taking a risk - is by itself a risk. You can lose money by not investing it, because of the very same Taleb Distribution: an unpredictable catastrophic event. Take an example of keeping cash in your house and not investing it anywhere. In the 1998 default of the Russian Federation, people lost money by not investing it. Why? Because had they invested the money - they would have the investments/properties, but since they only had cash - it became worthless overnight. There's no argument for or against investing on its own. The arguments are always related to the investment goals and the risk analysis. You're looking for something that doesn't exist.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Not exactly. Indexes give the best long term performance when compared to actively managing investments directly in the underlying stocks. That is, if you compare an S&P500 index to trying to pick stocks that are part of it, you're more likely to succeed with blindly following the index than trying to actively beat it. That said, no-one promises that investing in S&P500 is better than investing in DJIA, for example. These are two different indexes tracking different stocks and areas. So when advisers say \\\"\\\"diversify\\\"\\\" they don't mean it that you should diversify between different stocks that build up the S&P500 index. They mean that you should diversify your investments in different areas. Some in S&P500, some in DJIA, some in international indexes, some in bond indexes, etc. Still, investing in various indexes will likely yield better results than actively managing the investments trying to beat those indexes, but you should not invest in only one, and that is the meaning of diversification. In the comments you asked \\\"\\\"why diversify at all?\\\"\\\", and that is entirely a different question from your original \\\"\\\"what diversification is?\\\"\\\". You diversify to reduce the risk of loss from one side, and widen the net for gains from another. The thing is that any single investment can eventually fail, regardless of how it performed before. You can see that the S&P500 index lost 50% of its value twice within ten years, whereas before it was doubling itself every several years. Many people who were only invested in that index (or what's underlying to it) lost a lot of money. But consider you've diversified, and in the last 20 years you've invested in a blend of indexes that include the S&P500, but also other investments like S&P BSE SENSEX mentioned by Victor below. You would reduce your risk of loss on the American market by increasing your gains on the Indian market. Add to the mix soaring Chinese Real Estate market during the time of the collapse of the US real-estate, gains on the dollar losing its value by investing in other currencies (Canadian dollar, for example), etc. There are many risks, and by diversifying you mitigate them, and also have a chance to create other potential gains. Now, another question is why invest in indexes. That has been answered before on this site. It is my opinion that some methods of investing are just gambling by trying to catch the wave and they will almost always fail, and rarely will individual stock picking beat the market. Of course, after the fact its easy to be smart and pick the winning stocks. But the problem is to be able to predict those charts ahead of time.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"A kid can lose everything he owns in a crap shoot and live. But a senior citizen might not afford medical treatment if interest rates turn and their bonds underperform. In modern portfolio theory, risk/\\\"\\\"aggression\\\"\\\" is measured by beta and you get more return by increasing risk. Risk-adjusted return is measured by the Sharpe ratio and the efficient frontier shows how much return you get for each level of risk. For simplicity, we will assume that choosing beta is the only investment choice you make. You are buying a house tomorrow all cash, you should set aside that much in liquid assets today. (Return = who cares, Beta = 0) Your kids go to college in 5 years, so you invest funds now with a 5 year investment horizon to produce, with a reasonable level of certainty, the needed cash then. (Beta = low) You wish to leave money in your estate. Invest for the highest return with a horizon of your lifetime. (Return = maximum, Beta = who cares) In other words, you set risk based on how important your expenses are now or later. And your portfolio is a weighted average. On paper, let's say you have sold yourself into indentured servitude. In return you have received a paid-up-front annuity which pays dividends and increases annually. For someone in their twenties: This adds up to a present value of $1 million. When young, the value of lifetime remaining wages is high. It is also low risk, you will probably find a job eventually in any market condition. If your portfolio is significantly smaller than $1 million this means that the low risk of future wages pulls down your beta, and therefore: Youth invest aggressively with available funds because they compensate large, low-risk future earnings to meet their desired risk appetite.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"no way -- he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game. He doesn't like the idea of a \\\"\\\"lesser bad\\\"\\\" way to invest (MPT). If you do decide to get involved in investing, then it's about absolute performance, not relative. He believes that the whole relative performance thing -- beating some arbitrary benchmark -- is just an artificial construct.\\\"\",\n \"Diversification is a good method of risk management. Different types of investments do better in different situations and economic climates. Invest all your money at the wrong time in a single product and you could lose everything. You could also technically make a great deal of money, but actions such as these are the actions of speculators, not investors. Spreading your investments appropriately lets you maximize your growth opportunities while limiting your risk.\",\n \"VaR does not capture overall risk, it allows you to say a statement, based on our model, K% of the time, losses will not exceed X. The problem is, 1. How accurate is the statement out of sample? 2. What is the marginal value of this number? Are the choices I make better or worse? 3. Even with a 99.999% confidence level what is the cost to the organization if a decision is made when the model is wrong? Personally when running multiple strategies, you always need to factor in model risk in your asset allocation/trading, i.e. either shut down or reduce exposure when assumptions are violated or run something else, for example when correlations between strategies increases, it is logical to downsize exposure to those strategies as the risk factor to equity has increased. 1. in the grand context of a bank/financial institution, if the VaR is wrong we can bankrupt or negative, so we may want to diversify revenue streams by avoiding that risk, for example correlations increase across asset classes. 2. Sizing is a key problem for banks, as the question is does model error across various platforms (FI, EQ, FICC, Transactions etc), happen at the same time?\",\n \"Diversifying is the first advice given to beginner in order to avoid big loss. For example in 2014 the company Theranos was really appealing before it fail in 2016. So a beginner could have invest ALL his money and lose it. But if he has deverified he wouldn't lost everything. As an investor goes from beginner to experience some still Diversify and other concentrate. Mostly it depends how much confident you are about an investement. If you have 20 years of experience, now everything about the company and you are sure there will be profit you can concentrate. If you are not 100% sure there will be a profit, it is better to Diversify. Diversifying can also be profitating when you loose money: because you will pay tax when you earn money, if you diversify you can choose to loose money in some stock (usually in december) and in this way cut your taxes.\",\n \"So I'm confused - reading dhando investor - he says Odds of receiving a $1 in 2009 and 30+ percent intrestest from 2002-2009 is -> 50% Odds of getting .19 back ( a loss of .11) -> 45% Odds of a loss of .24 is 2% Odds of a total loss is 3% He states Kelly criterion suggests 86% betting how!!!!! Bought the converts at .30 cents please explain no idea how he did this.\",\n \"\\\"In addition to individual stocks, your entire portfolio will also have a beta. It would be equal to the weighted sum of the individual asset betas So a beta portfolio of 1 would have approximate risk equal to a market index. You would use this to construct a risk level that you were comfortable with, given the expected return of the individual assets. You are also interested in obtaining a high level of \\\"\\\"alpha\\\"\\\" which means that your portfolio is earning more than what would be expected, given it's level of risk.\\\"\",\n \"if I have a asset A with expected return of 100% and risk(measured by standard deviation) 1%, and asset B with expected return of 1% and risk 100%, would it be rational to put asset B into the portfolio ? In the capital asset pricing model (CAPM), investors are rational and have access to perfect information. Asset A sounds like an excellent investment, B like a lousy one -- B is probably very far from the efficient frontier. Investors know this, so A's market capitalization will be high, B's low. According to the CAPM, you should then do the same rational thing everyone else is doing, which is to buy a lot of A and very little of B (each in proportion to its market capitalization). Of course the CAPM is just a model, and like any model it is only as good as its assumptions. However, I think this particular application of the model gives a pretty reasonable common-sense answer to the question.\",\n \"The risk-reward relation depends on what you are changing. In the most cases people ask about, it is not linear but I will give examples of both. Nonlinear case 1: As you diversify your portfolio, the firm-specific risks of various stocks cancel each other out without necessarily affecting the expected return of the portfolio. Reduction in risk without any loss in returns--very nonlinear. Nonlinear case 2: If you are changing the weights in your portfolio to move along the efficient frontier, then you the risk-reward relation is a hyperbola, which is nonlinear. Nonlinear case 3: If you are changing the weights in your portfolio to move away from the efficient frontier, then you increase risk without adding a fully compensatory amount of return. There could be many paths along the risk-reward plane, but generally it will not be linear in the sense that it will not be on the same line as your initial, efficient, portfolio and your savings account. Linear case 1: The most common sense in which we think of the risk-reward relation being linear is when the thing you are changing is the size of your investment. If you take money out of savings to put in your fully diversified portfolio without changing the relative weights, your expected returns will increase linearly. Linear case 2: If you believe the CAPM, then the expected return of an asset stock is linearly proportional to the market risk of the firm. If you could change the market risk of a single asset without changing anything else, then you would linearly change its expected return. The general rule about the risk/reward relation is this: If you are changing the size of your investment, the relation is linear. If you are changing its composition, the relation is nonlinear\",\n \"\\\"Another approach would be more personalized, which is to measure the risk of missing your goals, rather than measuring the risk of an investment in some abstract sense. Financial planners do this for example with Monte Carlo simulation software (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method). They would put in a goal such as not running out of money before you die, with assumptions such as the longest you might live and how much you'll withdraw every year. You'd also assume an asset allocation. The Monte Carlo simulation then generates random market movements over the time period, considering historical behavior of your asset allocation, and each run of the simulation would either succeed (you are able to support yourself until death) or fail (you run out of money). The risk measure is the percentage of simulation runs that fail. You can do this to plan saving for retirement in addition to planning withdrawals; then your goal would be to have X amount of money in real after-inflation dollars, perhaps, and success is if you end up with it, and failure is if you don't. The great thing about this risk measure is that it's relevant and personal; \\\"\\\"10% chance of being impoverished at age 85,\\\"\\\" \\\"\\\"20% chance of having to work an extra decade because you don't have enough at 65,\\\"\\\" these kinds of answers. Which is a lot easier to act on than \\\"\\\"the variance is 10\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"the beta is 1.5\\\"\\\" - would you rather know your plan has a 90% chance of success, or know that you have a variance of 10? Both numbers are probably just guesses, but at least the \\\"\\\"chance of success\\\"\\\" measure is actionable and relevant. Some tangential thoughts FWIW:\\\"\",\n \"What I do not get is why does the author choose to buy an ITM put. If the goal was to not lose more than 5.6%, he could have chosen a out of money put where the strike is ~6% OTM. The reason why he is buying a ITM put instead of a put 5-6% below the ATM price, is because he wants to only lose 5-6% after all fee's. A put at 5-6% below ATM is not free, so it will not actually provide a 6% cushion, more likely 10%-15% maximum loss after it's cost is accounted for. You cannot rely on the strike alone to determine the level of protection you are buying. Real world example. SPY DEC 2017 195 strike put, costs $2150, it's about 6% OTM, but it costs roughly 10% of SPY $207, at best it would protect 85% of your net worth. Strike - Costs = Protection Did he choose an ITM put because he does not want to pay any time premium? Does he not lose in wide bid-ask spreads what he gains by not paying time premium? Nope, you were just misunderstanding how he calculated his protection. He wanted to protect 5-6% after the cost of the hedge. He 'needed' to select an ITM put because time premiums are so high that an OTM put wouldn't suffice.\",\n \"\\\"Generally investing in index-tracking funds in the long term poses relatively low risk (compared to \\\"\\\"short term investment\\\"\\\", aka speculation). No-one says differently. However, it is a higher risk than money-market/savings/bonds. The reason for that is that the return is not guaranteed and loss is not limited. Here volatility plays part, as well as general market conditions (although the volatility risk also affects bonds at some level as well). While long term trend may be upwards, short term trend may be significantly different. Take as an example year 2008 for S&P500. If, by any chance, you needed to liquidate your investment in November 2008 after investing in November 1998 - you might have ended up with 0 gain (or even loss). Had you waited just another year (or liquidated a year earlier) - the result would be significantly different. That's the volatility risk. You don't invest indefinitely, even when you invest long term. At some point you'll have to liquidate your investment. Higher volatility means that there's a higher chance of downward spike just at that point of time killing your gains, even if the general trend over the period around that point of time was upward (as it was for S&P500, for example, for the period 1998-2014, with the significant downward spikes in 2003 and 2008). If you invest in major indexes, these kinds of risks are hard to avoid (as they're all tied together). So you need to diversify between different kinds of investments (bonds vs stocks, as the books \\\"\\\"parrot\\\"\\\"), and/or different markets (not only US, but also foreign).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Specifically, what does my broker mean when they say an asset or investment strategy is high risk? In this context, it is a statement based on past events and probability. It is based on how confident s/he is that the investment will perform to certain benchmarks. This is a math question, primarily (with some opinion mixed in, granted). This is where the Sharpe ratio and others fit well. How am I supposed to answer a question like \\\"\\\"rate your risk tolerance from low to high\\\"\\\"? This is the hard question, as you have seen. In this context, risk tolerance is derived from your current position and future plans (goals). This is a planning, goal setting, and strategy question, primarily (with some math mixed in, granted). How vulnerable is your current position and future plans to an under-performing investment? If you answer \\\"\\\"very\\\"\\\", then you choose investments that have a lower probability of under-performing. The Sharpe ratio has little to do with answering this question. It is a tool to find investments that better match your answer to this question.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"It's interesting that you use so many different risk measures. Here's what I'd like to know more in detail: 1) About the use of VaR. I've heard (from a friend, may be unreliable) that some investment managers like Neuberger Berman doesn't use VaR for assessing risk and maintaining capital adequacy requirements. Rather, some firms only rely on tracking error, beta, standard deviation, etc. Why do you think is this so? Isn't VaR supposed to be a widely accepted risk measure. 2) The whole \\\"\\\"Expected Shortfall vs. VaR\\\"\\\" debate. I've read some papers comparing Expected Shortfall and VaR. Mainly, they criticize VaR for not being able to consider the 1% probability left where losses can (probably) skyrocket to infinity. If I need to choose between the two, which do you think is better and why?\\\"\",\n \"In answer to your last formulation, no. In a perfectly efficient market, different investors still have different risk tolerances (or utility functions). They're maximizing expected utility, not expected value. The portfolios that maximize expected utility for different risk preferences are different, and thus generally have different expected values. (Look up mean-variance utility for a simple-ish example.) Suppose you have log utility for money, u(x) = log(x), and your choice is to invest all of your money in either the risk-free bond or in the risky bond. In the risky bond, you have a positive probability of losing everything, achieving utility u(0) = -\\\\infty. Your expected utility after purchase of the risky bond is: Pr(default)*u(default) + (1-Pr(default))*u(nominalValue). Since u(default)= -\\\\infty, your expected utility is also negative infinity, and you would never make this investment. Instead you would purchase the risk-free bond. But another person might have linear utility, u(x) = x, and he would be indifferent between the risk-free and risky bonds at the prices you mention above and might therefore purchase some. (In fact you probably would have bid up the price of the risk-free bond, so that the other investor strictly prefers the risky one.) So two different investors' portfolios will have different expected returns, in general, because of their different risk preferences. Risk-averse investors get lower expected value. This should be very intuitive from portfolio theory in general: stocks have higher expected returns, but more variance. Risk-tolerant people can accept more stocks and more variance, risk-averse people purchase less stocks and more bonds. The more general question about risk premia requires an equilibrium price analysis, which requires assumptions about the distribution of risk preferences among other things. Maybe John Cochrane's book would help with that---I don't know anything about financial economics. I would think that in the setup above, if you have positive quantities of these two investor types, the risk-free bond will become more expensive, so that the risky one offers a higher expected return. This is the general thing that happens in portfolio theory. Anyway. I'm not a financial economist or anything. Here's a standard introduction to expected utility theory: http://web.stanford.edu/~jdlevin/Econ%20202/Uncertainty.pdf\",\n \"Dollar-Cost averaging will allow you to reduce your risk while the stock prices falls provided: You must invest a fixed amount $X on a fixed time scale (i.e. every Y days). By doing this you will be able to take advantage of the lowering price by obtaining more shares per period as the price falls. But at the same time, if it starts to rise, you will already have your pig in the race. Example: Suppose you wanted to invest $300 in a company. We will do so over 3 periods. As the price falls, your average dollar cost will as well. But since you don't know where the bottom is, you cannot wait until the bottom. By trying to guess the bottom and dumping all of your investment at once you expose yourself to a higher level of risk.\",\n \"\\\"If you read Joel Greenblatt's The Little Book That Beats the Market, he says: Owning two stocks eliminates 46% of the non market risk of owning just one stock. This risk is reduced by 72% with 4 stocks, by 81% with 8 stocks, by 93% with 16 stocks, by 96% with 32 stocks, and by 99% with 500 stocks. Conclusion: After purchasing 6-8 stocks, benefits of adding stocks to decrease risk are small. Overall market risk won't be eliminated merely by adding more stocks. And that's just specific stocks. So you're very right that allocating a 1% share to a specific type of fund is not going to offset your other funds by much. You are correct that you can emulate the lifecycle fund by simply buying all the underlying funds, but there are two caveats: Generally, these funds are supposed to be cheaper than buying the separate funds individually. Check over your math and make sure everything is in order. Call the fund manager and tell him about your findings and see what they have to say. If you are going to emulate the lifecycle fund, be sure to stay on top of rebalancing. One advantage of buying the actual fund is that the portfolio distributions are managed for you, so if you're going to buy separate ETFs, make sure you're rebalancing. As for whether you need all those funds, my answer is a definite no. Consider Mark Cuban's blog post Wall Street's new lie to Main Street - Asset Allocation. Although there are some highly questionable points in the article, one portion is indisputably clear: Let me translate this all for you. “I want you to invest 5pct in cash and the rest in 10 different funds about which you know absolutely nothing. I want you to make this investment knowing that even if there were 128 hours in a day and you had a year long vacation, you could not possibly begin to understand all of these products. In fact, I don’t understand them either, but because I know it sounds good and everyone is making the same kind of recommendations, we all can pretend we are smart and going to make a lot of money. Until we don’t\\\"\\\" Standard theory says that you want to invest in low-cost funds (like those provided by Vanguard), and you want to have enough variety to protect against risk. Although I can't give a specific allocation recommendation because I don't know your personal circumstances, you should ideally have some in US Equities, US Fixed Income, International Equities, Commodities, of varying sizes to have adequate diversification \\\"\\\"as defined by theory.\\\"\\\" You can either do your own research to establish a distribution, or speak to an investment advisor to get help on what your target allocation should be.\\\"\",\n \"You can look the Vanguard funds up on their website and view a risk factor provided by Vanguard on a scale of 1 to 5. Short term bond funds tend to get their lowest risk factor, long term bond funds and blended investments go up to about 3, some stock mutual funds are 4 and some are 5. Note that in 2008 Swenson himself had slightly different target percentages out here that break out the international stocks into emerging versus developed markets. So the average risk of this portfolio is 3.65 out of 5. My guess would be that a typical twenty-something who expects to retire no earlier than 60 could take more risk, but I don't know your personal goals or circumstances. If you are looking to maximize return for a level of risk, look into Modern Portfolio Theory and the work of economist Harry Markowitz, who did extensive work on the topic of maximizing the return given a set risk tolerance. More info on my question here. This question provides some great book resources for learning as well. You can also check out a great comparison and contrast of different portfolio allocations here.\",\n \"Yes, more leverage increases the variance of your individual portfolio (variance of your personal net worth). The simple way to think about it is that if you only own only 50% of your risky assets, then you can own twice as many risky assets. That means they will move around twice as much (in absolute terms). Expected returns and risk (if risk is variance) both go up. If you lend rather than borrow, then you might have only half your net worth in risky assets, and then your expected returns and variation in returns will go down. Note, the practice of using leverage differs from portfolio theory in a couple important ways.\",\n \"\\\"Taking examples from this loosely Googled page: http://www.fundlibrary.com/features/columns/page.asp?id=14406 If you find, or calculate, the standard deviation (volatility) of the returns from your various investment classes you will find they range from low-risk (low volatility), such as Cash, to high-risk (high volatility), such as Strategic Growth. The risk rating (volatility) is a good indicator of how reactive to market conditions your investment is likely to be. As you can see below, from mid-2010 to mid-2011 the High Risk index performed really well, but it was also most reactive when the market subsequently turned down. The medium risk indices performed the best over the chart period, 2010 to 2013, but it could have turned out different. Generally, you choose your investment according to your \\\"\\\"risk appetite\\\"\\\" - how much you're willing to risk. You might play safe with, say, 30% cash, 60% medium risk, 10% high risk. (Then again, are you paying someone to manage cash, which you might be able to do for free in a bank?) Assuming, for a moment, European (3.) and Intnl Equity Tracker (9.) had the same medium risk profile, then holding 50% & 50% would also add some currency diversification, which is usually advisable. However, the main choice is down to risk appetite. To address your specific question: \\\"\\\"my main interest for now is between Stockmarket Growth and Strategic Growth\\\"\\\", first thing to do is check their volatilities. For a further level of sophistication you can check how they are correlated against each other. If they are inversely correlated, i.e. one goes up when the other goes down, then holding some of each could be a good diversification. FYI: An Introduction to Investment Theory The historical returns are important too, but the investment classes your pension fund is offering will probably be reasonably aligned on a risk-return basis. You should check though. I.e. do they line up on a plot of 3 year Return vs Volatility? e.g. the line through SA Cash - SA Bonds - Vol Target 20 - SA Equity. Source\\\"\",\n \"\\\"In my opinion the risk is about the lost opportunity cost. You can find a lot of articles about it on the net. In big shortcut opportunity cost takes place each time you have to choose between two or more options and the tradeoff effect have its price. It is defined as value of best alternative solution. Quite good definition from wikipedia is as follows: In microeconomic theory, the opportunity cost of a choice is the value of the best alternative forgone, in a situation in which a choice needs to be made between several mutually exclusive alternatives given limited resources. Assuming the best choice is made, it is the \\\"\\\"cost\\\"\\\" incurred by not enjoying the benefit that would be had by taking the second best choice available Note that opportunity cost is not the sum of the available alternatives when those alternatives are, in turn, mutually exclusive to each other – it is the value of the next best use. As you probalby think, this situation often happens in financial world, where investors always seek best from their point of view way to invest capital.\\\"\",\n \"Someone entering a casino with $15 could employ a very simple strategy and have a better-than-90% chance of walking out with $16. Unfortunately, the person would have a non-trivial chance (about one in 14) of walking out with $0. If after losing $15 the person withdrew $240 from the bank and tried to win $16, the person would have a better-than-90% chance of succeeding and ending up ahead (holding the original $15, plus the additional $240, plus $1) but would have at that point about a one in 14 chance from that point of losing the $240 along with the original $15. Measured from the starting point, you'd have about a 199 out of 200 chance of gaining $1, and a one out of 200 chance of losing $240. Market-timing bets are like that. You can arrange things so you have a significant chance of making a small profit, but at the risk of a large downside. If you haven't firmly decided exactly how much downside you are willing to accept, it's very easy to simultaneously believe you don't have much money at risk, but that you'll be able to win back anything you lose. The only way you can hope to win back anything you lose is by bringing a lot more money to the table, which will of course greatly increase your downside risk. The probability of making money for the person willing to accept $15 of downside risk to earn $1 is about 93%. The probability of making money for the person willing to accept $255 worth of risk is about 99.5%. It's easy to see that there are ways of playing which have a 99.5% chance of winning, and that there are ways of playing that only have a 15:1 downside risk. Unfortunately, the ways of playing that have the smaller risk don't have anything near a 99.9% chance of winning, and those that have a better chance of winning have a much larger downside risk.\",\n \"They made an analysis of my readiness to assume a risk and found out that I am willing to take only small risks. I would agree with this analysis. You really should rethink this part. At your age, you have no rational reason whatsoever to be risk-averse! Especially since any reasonably diversified fund already eliminates actual risk (of complete loss) almost completely. Going into bonds and real estate does not reduce risk at all; it reduces volatility - and you're giving up a lot of money merely to avoid seeing your investments go down temporarily(!)\",\n \"There are a few flaws in your reasoning: I know my portfolio will always keep going up, No, it won't. You'll have periods of losses. You are starting your investing in a bull market. Do NOT be fooled into believing that your successes now will continue indefinitely. The more risky your portfolio, the bigger the losses. The upside of a risky portfolio is that the gains generally outweigh the losses, but there will be periods of losses. I honestly don't believe that it's possible for me to end up losing in the long term, regardless of risk. I think you vastly underestimate the risk of your strategy and/or the consequences of that risk. There's nothing wrong with investing in risky assets, since over time you'll get higher-than-average returns, but unless you diversify you are exposing yourself to catastrophic losses as well.\",\n \"Information is useless in this case. IR is useful when you are trying to replicate the risk exposures of an index and beat it. I.E.If I am a tech fund, I would compare myself to the tech S&P. IR is useless in this case as it is just the ratio of excess returns over the benchmark to vol. From a trading sense he needs a rate of wins to losses, so a sharpe like construct of R/SemiDeviation. Essentially his avg return divided by negative volatility. Going further on that is omega which introduces a threshold as in trading you care more about the equity curve so MAXDD is probably more relevant.\",\n \"I think to answer this question it is best for you to learn more about why people diversify through asset allocation. Look at related questions involving Asset Allocation here. I've asked a couple questions about asset allocation - I think you'll find the top rated answer on this post useful.\",\n \"I'v actually heard of this before, the idea is that you gamble across the spread. Most of these have a place in a risky asset class in portfolios. Think of it as the little bit of crack you do on the side of your vanilla life.\",\n \"I implemented this in MatLab about 10 years back. You just calculate your conditional variance of the required assets (x_i), use matrix multiplication on the correlation matrix (rho_i_j) from the same asset (this could be a point of research but unless you are using extreme conditions on the VaR it makes little difference) then apply a standard Markiowitz optimisation approach. You can then just use simple Sharpe ratio (marginal return over conditional risk) at every point on the efficient frontier. Then choose the maximum Sharpe ratio point.\",\n \"Diversified is relative. Alfred has all his money in Apple. He's done very well over the last 10 years, but I think most investors would say that he's taking an incredible risk by putting everything on one stock. Betty has stock in Apple, Microsoft, and Google. Compared to Alfred, she is diversified. Charlie looks at Betty and realizes that she is only investing in one particular industry. All the companies in an individual industry can have a downturn together, so he invests everything in an S&P 500 index fund. David looks at Charlie and notes that he's got everything in large, high-capitalization companies. Small-cap stocks are often where the growth happens, so he invests in a total stock market fund. Evelyn realizes that David has all his money tied up in one country, the United States. What about the rest of the world? She invests in a global fund. Frank really likes Evelyn's broad approach to equities, but he knows that some portion of fixed-income assets (e.g. cash deposits, bonds) can reduce portfolio volatility—and may even enhance returns through periodic rebalancing. He does what Evelyn does, but also allocates some percentage of his portfolio to fixed income, and intends to maintain his target allocations. Being diversified enough depends on your individual goals and investing philosophy. There are some who would say that it is wrong to put all of your money in one fund, no matter what it is. Others would say that a sufficiently broad index fund is inherently diversified as-is.\",\n \"The point im trying to make is that VaR is useless as a risk metric and it should not be a necessary part of any risk management arsenal as it does little to answer the question that losses will be limited to X K% of the time and it instils a sense of false security.\",\n \"Yes, it's a risk. To put it in perspective, If we look at the data for S&P returns since 1871, we get a CAGR of 10.72%. But, that comes with a SDev (Standard deviation) of 18.67%. This results in 53 of the 146 years returning less than 4%. Now if we repeat the exercise over rolling 8 year periods, the CAGR drops to 9.22%, but the SDev drops to 5.74%. This results in just 31 of the 139 periods returning less than 4%. On the flip side, 26 periods had an 8 year return of over 15% CAGR. From the anti-DS article you linked, I see that you like a good analogy. For me, the returns of the S&P over the long term are like going to Vegas, and finding that after you run the math of their craps (dice rolling game) you find the expected return is 10%. You can still lose on a given roll. But over a series of a larger number of rolls, you're far ahead. To D Stanley - I agree that returns are not quite normal, but they are not so far off. Of the 139 rolling returns, we'd expect about 68% or 95 results to be 1 SDev away. We get 88 returns +/-1SDev. 2 SDevs? We'd expect only 5% to lie outside this range, and in fact, I only get one result on the low side and 4 on the high side, 5 results vs the 7 total we'd expect. The results are a bit better (more profitable) than the Normal Bell Curve fit would suggest.\",\n \"Mostly, when an equity's price rises, its statistical and implied volatilities fall and vice versa. The reason why is a mathematical phenomenon mixed with the reality that a unceasingly falling asset price will soon not exist, skewing the results with survivorship bias. Since volatility is standard deviation of price indexes, a security that changes in price by the same amount every day will have lower volatility, so a rising price will have lower implied volatility because its mostly experiencing positive daily price change while a recently falling price will have higher volatility because factored together with the positive price changes, the negative price changes will widen the standard deviation of the securities price index. Quantitatively, any change, in or out of one's favor, is a risk because change is uncertain, and any uncertainty is a risk. This quantitative interpretation while valid runs almost totally counter to the value opinion, that a lower price relative to value is a lower risk than a higher price relative to value, but both have their place in time. Over long time periods, it's best to use the value interpretation, quantitative for shorter. Using the opposite has hastily destroyed many a fund manager.\",\n \"Risk and return always go hand by hand.* Risk is a measure of expected return volatility. The best investment at this stage is a good, easy to understand but thorough book on finance. *Applies to efficient markets only.\",\n \"\\\"The question \\\"\\\"do they?\\\"\\\" is a fair one, but the answer, \\\"\\\"we can only observe the past, and that's what they did,\\\"\\\" may not be so satisfying to you. It's safe to say that any longer term view of any market will show far less volatility than a short one. It only takes a glance at the return of the 2000's 2009 27.11 2008 -37.22 2007 5.46 2006 15.74 2005 4.79 2004 10.82 2003 28.72 2002 -22.27 2001 -11.98 2000 -9.11 (for the S&P) to see that in an awful decade containing -37% and -22% that the full decade was \\\"\\\"only\\\"\\\" down 9% in total or just less than 1% per year compounded. I'm not predicting any particular returns forward, just noting this is how the math works. DCA performs well through such a decade, better than in a rising one. You are offered the opportunity to buy into a market selling below the long term trend. Added note in response to Enno's answer below - On rereading the linked article, I see where the author cites Zvi Bodie who clearly made a logical error. He concludes that since a 20 month S&P put costs triple what a 2.3 mo put costs, that there's more risk the market falls over the longer period, not less. American options can be sold or exercised at any time. If a 2 year option were cheaper than a 2 month option, no one would buy the shorter term. It's pretty simple that the Options Pricing Models take time into account and their value, put or call, increases along with the time till expiration. On a lighter note, when I take the S&P data for 1871-2012 (I know, no S&P back then, but it's Schiller's data) I get average 40 year returns of 44X, similar to the author's conclusion, $1K growing to $44K. But, the Standard deviation is 28. So the high end of +1 STDEV is $72K, not the author's $166K. Although, the low end 44-28=16 comes close to his $14K figure. $16K is a 7.18% long term return which today doesn't look bad. When the article was written, the author was looking at a 6% short term risk free rate.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"This is basically what financial advisers have been saying for years...that you should invest in higher risk securities when you are young and lower risk securities when you get older. However, despite the fact that this is taken as truth by so many financial professionals, financial economists have been unable to formulate a coherent theory that supports it. By changing the preferences of their theoretical investors, they can get solutions like putting all your investments in a super safe asset until you get to a minimum survival level for retirement and then investing aggressively and many other solutions. But for none of the typically assumed preferences does investing aggressively when young and becoming more conservative as you near retirement seem to be the solution. I'm not saying there can be no such preferences, but the difficulty in finding them makes me think maybe this idea is not actually correct. Couple of problems with your intuition that you should think about: It's not clear that things \\\"\\\"average out\\\"\\\" over time. If you lose a bunch of money in some asset, there's no reason to think that by holding that asset for a while you will make back what you lost--prices are not cyclical. Moreover, doesn't your intuition implicitly suggest that you should transition out of risky securities as you get older...perhaps after having lost money? You can invest in safe assets (or even better, the tangency portfolio from your graph) and then lever up if you do want higher risk/return. You don't need to change your allocation to risky assets (and it is suboptimal to do so--you want to move along the CAL, not the curve). The riskiness of your portfolio should generally coincide (negatively) with your risk-aversion. When you are older and more certain about your life expectancy and your assets, are you exposed to more or less risks? In many cases, less risks. This means you would choose a more risky portfolio (because you are more sure you will have enough to live on until death even if your portfolio takes a dive). Your actual portfolio consists both of your investments and your human capital (the present value of your time and skills). When you are young, the value of this capital changes significantly with market performance so you already have background risk. Buying risky securities adds to that risk. When you are old, your human capital is worth little, so your overall portfolio becomes less risky. You might want to compensate by increasing the risk of your investments. EDIT: Note that this point may depend on how risky your human capital is (how likely it is that your wage or job prospects will change with the economy). Overall the answer to your question is not definitively known, but there is theoretical evidence that investing in risky securities when young isn't optimal. Having said that, most people do seem to invest in riskier securities when young and safer when they are older. I suspect this is because with life experience people become less optimistic as they get older, not because it is optimal to do so. But I can't be sure.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"There is no simple answer to that, because no one knows exactly what the probability distribution of S&P 500 returns is. Here is a sketch of one possible way to proceed. Don't forget step 4! The problem is that the stock market is full of surprises, so this kind of \\\"\\\"backtesting\\\"\\\" can only reliably tell you about what already happened, not what will happen in the future. People argue about how much you can learn from this kind of analysis. However, it is at the least a clearly defined and objective process. I wouldn't advise investing your whole nest egg in anything based just on this, but I do think that it is relevant information.\\\"\",\n \"I am voting you up because this is a legitimate question with a correct possible answer. Yes, you shouldn't buy penny stocks, yes you shouldn't speculate, yes people will be jealous that you have money to burn. Your question: how to maximize expected return. There are several definitions of return and the correct one will determine the correct answer. For your situation, $1,000 sounds like disposable income and that you have the human capital to make more income in the future with your productive years. So we will not assume you want to take this money and reinvest the remains until you are dead. This rules out #2. It sounds like you are the sole beneficiary of this fund and that your value proposition is regardless of asset class and competition to other investment opportunities. In other words, you are committed to blowing this $1,000 and would not consider instead putting the money towards paying down credit card debt or other valuable uses. This rules out #3. You are left with #1, expected value. Now there is already evidence that penny stocks are a losing proposition. In fact, some people have been successful in setting up honeypot email accounts and waiting for penny stock spam... then shorting those stocks. So to maximize expected return, invest 0% of your bankroll. But that's boring, let's ignore it. As you have correctly identified, the transaction costs are significant, $14 in tolls on crossing the bridge both ways on a $1,000 investment already exceeds the 5-year US bond rate. Diversification will affect the correlation and overall risk (Kelly Criterion) of your portfolio -- but it has no effect on your expected return. In summary, diversification has zero effect on your expected return and is not justified by the cost.\",\n \"It's important to distinguish between speculation and investing. Buying something because you hope to make money on market fluctuations is speculation. Buying something and expecting to make money because your money is providing actual economic value is investing. If Person A buys 100 shares of a stock with the intent of selling them in a few hours, and Person B buys 100 shares of the same stock with the intent of holding on to it for a year, then obviously at that point they both have the same risk. The difference comes over the course of the year. First, Person B is going to be making money from the economic value the company provides over the whole year, while the only way Person A can make money is from market fluctuation (the economic value the company provides over the course of an hour is unlikely to be significant). Person B is exposed to the risk of buying the stock, but that's counterbalanced by the profit from holding the stock for a year, while Person A just has the risk. Second, if Person A is buying a new stock every hour, then they're going to have thousands of transactions. So even though Person B assumed just as much risk as Person A for that one transaction, Person A has more total risk.\",\n \"If you buy stock in established companies, it is vey unlikely that they will lose all their value. Spreading your money across multiple stocks -- diversifying -- reduces that risk because it is extremely unlikely that they all lose all their value at once. Spreading them across multiple industries and adding bonds to the mix increases diversification. Of course the trade-off is that if one of the stocks skyrockets you don't benefit as much as if you had been lucky enough to put all your money in that one stock. You need to decide for yourself how much risk you are willing to tolerate in exchange for the chance of gains. Other answers on this site have dealt with this in more detail.\",\n \"\\\"For a retail investor who isn't a Physics or Math major, the \\\"\\\"Beta\\\"\\\" of the stock is probably the best way to quantify risk. Examples: A Beta of 1 means that a stock moves in line with the market. Over 1 means that you would expect the stock to move up or down faster than the market as a whole. Under 1 means that you would expect the stock to move slower than the market as a whole.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You're an idiot. There is no such thing as \\\"\\\"statistical heresy\\\"\\\". Picking any given stretch of time will create an assumption. The last year has had historically crazy low volatility, but if they were using a one year sample in mid-2009 it would be the most incredibly conservative VaR in history. On the other hand, using historical volatility from the past 50 years would make no sense either: does the stock market in 1985 look anything like today's? What about the liquidity of pretty much any derivatives market? There is no \\\"\\\"right\\\"\\\" way to measure VaR; any way you do it involves assumptions and tweaks that are entirely subjective. Also, VaR can be over a variety of confidence intervals. 99% or 95% are standard, with 95% being more common because that's two standard deviations in a normal distribution. And hey! That's what they used.\\\"\",\n \"I am also confused by what he says. The DJIA has not been at 900 for decades. However a $36 dividend is 4% per unit if you get $9 per unit per quarter. 2/3 of 4% is 6%,so that is inside his 7.5% to 5.5%. How much you have in dividend paying stocks vs. Bonds most often is a function of your age. For example, I have heard the advice of subtracting your age in years from 110 and that would be the percent you hold in dividend paying stocks. At age 30 you would have 80% in stocks. At age 60 you would be 50% in stocks. There are retirement funds that do this for you. But the 'bottom line' all depends on your risk tolerance. I have a large tolerance for risk. So even though I am currently retired I only have 10% of my money in a 'safe' investment (ticker=PGF). It pays 5.5% per year. The rest is in a leveraged junk bond fund (PHK) that pays 15.5% per year.\",\n \"As others have said, this opinion is predicated on an assumption that early in your life you have no need to actually USE the money, so you are able to take advantage of compounding interest (because the money is going to be there for many many years) and you are far more tolerant of loss (because you can simply wait for the markets to recover). This is absolutely true of a pension pot, which is locked away for a great many years. But it is absolutely NOT true of general investments. Someone in the mid-20s to mid-30s is very likely to want to spend that money on, say, buying a house. In which case losing 10% of your deposit 3 months before you start looking for a house could potentially be a disaster. Liekwise, in your mid-40s if your child's school/college fund goes up in smoke that's a big deal. It is a very commonly espoused theory, but I think it is also fundamentally flawed in many scenarios.\",\n \"\\\"This article is written by an idiot!! Risk ≠ failure, risk = possibility of failure Reward (return) should be commensurate with risk and this is why long-shot propositions should be worthwhile. An example of this could be something like the following; an investment with a 95% chance of success should return about 5% on the investment (1 in 20 risk of loss, 1/20th return on investment for taking the risk) while a long-shot investment with a 5% chance of success should be paying a 2000% return (1 in 20 will succeed but they will pay 20 times the investment if they do). An investment with a 0% chance of return (that you are suckered into due to \\\"\\\"opacity\\\"\\\") is not an investment, it is being robbed and it should be illegal. WTF is opacity? Lying?\\\"\",\n \"\\\"This chart concerns an option contract, not a stock. The method of analysis is to assume that the price of an option contract is normally distributed around some mean which is presumably the current price of the underlying asset. As the date of expiration of the contract gets closer the variation around the mean in the possible end price for the contract will decrease. Undoubtedly the publisher has measured typical deviations from the mean as a function of time until expiration from historical data. Based on this data, the program that computes the probability has the following inputs: (1) the mean (current asset price) (2) the time until expiration (3) the expected standard deviation based on (2) With this information the probability distribution that you see is generated (the green hump). This is a \\\"\\\"normal\\\"\\\" or Gaussian distribution. For a normal distribution the probability of a particular event is equal to the area under the curve to the right of the value line (in the example above the value chosen is 122.49). This area can be computed with the formula: This formula is called the probability density for x, where x is the value (122.49 in the example above). Tau (T) is the reciprocal of the variance (which can be computed from the standard deviation). Mu (μ) is the mean. The main assumption such a calculation makes is that the price of the asset will not change between now and the time of expiration. Obviously that is not true in most cases because the prices of stocks and bonds constantly fluctuate. A secondary assumption is that the distribution of the option price around the mean will a normal (or Gaussian) distribution. This is obviously a crude assumption and common sense would suggest it is not the most accurate distribution. In fact, various studies have shown that the Burr Distribution is actually a more accurate model for the distribution of option contract prices.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Standard deviation from Wikipedia : In statistics and probability theory, the standard deviation (represented by the Greek letter sigma, σ) shows how much variation or dispersion from the average exists.1 A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean (also called expected value); a high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a large range of values. In the case of stock returns, a lower value would indicate less volatility while a higher value would mean more volatility, which could be interpreted as high much change does the stock's price go through over time. Mean would be interpreted as if all the figures had to be the same, what would they be? So if a stock returns 10% each year for 3 years in a row, then 10% would be the mean or average return. Now, it is worth noting that there are more than a few calculations that may be done to derive a mean. First, there is the straight forward sum and division by the number of elements idea. For example, if the returns by year were 0%, 10%, and 20% then one may take the sum of 30% and divide by 3 to get a simple mean of 10%. However, some people would rather look at a Compound Annual Growth Rate which in this case would mean multiplying the returns together so 1*(1+.1)*(1+.2)=1.1*1.2=1.32 or 32% since there is some compounding here. Now, instead of dividing a cubic root is taken to get approximately 9.7% average annual return that is a bit lower yet if you compound it over 3 years it will get up to 32% as 10% compounded over 3 years would be 33.1% as (1.1)^3=1.331. Sharpe Ratio from Investopedia: A ratio developed by Nobel laureate William F. Sharpe to measure risk-adjusted performance. The Sharpe ratio is calculated by subtracting the risk-free rate - such as that of the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond - from the rate of return for a portfolio and dividing the result by the standard deviation of the portfolio returns. Thus, this is a way to think about given the volatility how much better did the portfolio do than the 10 year bond. R-squared, Alpha and Beta: These are all around the idea of \\\"\\\"linear regression\\\"\\\" modelling. The idea is to take some standard like say the \\\"\\\"S & P 500\\\"\\\" in the case of US stocks and see how well does the portfolio follow this and what if one were to use a linear model are the multipliers and addition components to it. R-squared can be thought of it as a measure as to how good is the fit on a scale of 0 to 1. An S & P 500 index fund may well have an R-squared of 1.00 or 0.99 to the index as it will track it extremely closely while other investments may not follow that well at all. Part of modern portfolio theory would be to have asset classes that move independently of each other and thus would have a lower R-squared so that the movement of the index doesn't indicate how an investment will do. Now, as for alpha and beta, do you remember the formula for a line in slope-intercept form, where y is the portfolio's return and x is the index's return: y=mx+b In this situation m is beta which is the multiple of the return, and b is the alpha or how much additional return one gets without the multiple. Going back to an index fund example, m will be near 1 and b will be near 0 and there isn't anything being done and so the portfolio's return computed based on the index's return is simply y=x. Other mutual funds may try to have a high alpha as this is seen as the risk-free return as there isn't the ups and downs of the market here. Other mutual funds may go for a high beta so that there is volatility for investors to handle.\\\"\",\n \"What is the importance or benefit of the assumption that high-risk is preferable for younger people/investors instead of older people? Law of averages most high risk investments [stocks for examples, including Mutual funds]. Take any stock market [some have data for nearly 100 years] on a 15 year or 30 years horizon, the year on year growth is around 15 to 18 percentage. Again depends on which country, market etc ... Equally important every stock market in the same 15 year of 30 year time, if you take specific 3 year window, it would have lost 50% or more value. As one cannot predict for future, someone who is 55 years, if he catches wrong cycle, he will lose 50%. A young person even if he catches the cycle and loses 50%, he can sit tight as it will on 30 years average wipe out that loss.\",\n \"Finance noob here. Am I reading the article right that he's saying MPT bad, active management good? If so, what is that saying about how I should manage my portfolio (assuming I am only dedicating a few hours a month)? >he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game So what do I do then? Are there specific strategies? Also, could you suggest a good explanation of why MPT is bad?\",\n \"This paper makes the rounds every so often and I HATE IT VERY MUCH. No one has EVER EVER EVER estimated standard deviation by taking an average of abs deviations, because that would be stupid, further, realized vol is a very different beast than implied vol. AND FURTHER, the models are fitted to the data, rather than fighting the tape and fitting the data to the models. Most people working with these instruments are trying to figure out the prices of unknown derivatives based on known derivatives - the models just help interpret findings and estimate what's necessary to hedge a position.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"He's calculating portfolio variance. The general formula for the variance of a portfolio composed of two securities looks like this: where w_a and w_b are the weights of each stock in the portfolio and the sigmas represent the standard deviation/risk of each asset or portfolio. In the case of perfect positive or negative correlation, applying some algebra to the formula relating covariance to the correlation coefficient (rho, the Greek letter that looks like \"\"p\"\"): tells us that the covariance we need in the original formula is simply the product of the standard deviations and the correlation coefficient (-1 in this case). Combining that result with our original formula yields this calculation: Technically we've calculated the portfolio's variance and not it's standard deviation/risk, but since the square root of 0 is still 0, that doesn't matter. The Wikipedia article on Modern Portfolio Theory has a section that describes the mathematical methods I used above. The entire article is worth a read, however.\"","\"John Bensin's answer covers the math, but I like the plain-English examples of the theory from William Bernstein's fine book, The Intelligent Asset Allocator. At the author's web site, you can find the complete chapter 1 and chapter 2, though not chapter 3, which is the one with the \"\"multiple coin toss\"\" portfolio example I want to highlight. I'll summarize Bernstein's multiple coin toss example here with some excerpts from the book. (Another top user, @JoeTaxpayer, has also written about the coin flip on his blog, also mentioning Bernstein's book.) Bernstein begins Chapter 1 by describing an offer from a fictitious \"\"Uncle Fred\"\": Imagine that you work for your rich but eccentric Uncle Fred. [...] he decides to let you in on the company pension plan. [...] you must pick ahead of time one of two investment choices for the duration of your employment: Certificates of deposit with a 3% annualized rate of return, or, A most peculiar option: At the end of each year Uncle Fred flips a coin. Heads you receive a 30% investment return for that year, tails a minus 10% (loss) for the year. This will be hereafter referred to as \"\"Uncle Fred’s coin toss,\"\" or simply, the \"\"coin toss.\"\" In effect, choosing option 2 results in a higher expected return than option 1, but it is certainly riskier, having a high standard deviation and being especially prone to a series of bad tosses. Chapters 1 and 2 continue to expand on the idea of risk, and take a look at various assets/markets over time. Chapter 3 then begins by introducing the multiple coin toss example: Time passes. You have spent several more years in the employ of your Uncle Fred, and have truly grown to dread the annual coin-toss sessions. [...] He makes you another offer. At the end of each year, he will divide your pension account into two equal parts and conduct a separate coin toss for each half [...] there are four possible outcomes [...]: [...] Being handy with numbers, you calculate that your annualized return for this two-coin-toss sequence is 9.08%, which is nearly a full percentage point higher than your previous expected return of 8.17% with only one coin toss. Even more amazingly, you realize that your risk has been reduced — with the addition of two returns at the mean of 10%, your calculated standard deviation is now only 14.14%, as opposed to 20% for the single coin toss. [...] Dividing your portfolio between assets with uncorrelated results increases return while decreasing risk. [...] If the second coin toss were perfectly inversely correlated with the first and always gave the opposite result [hence, outcomes 1 and 4 above never occurring], then our return would always be 10%. In this case, we would have a 10% annualized long-term return with zero risk! I hope that summarizes the example well. Of course, in the real world, one of the tricks to building a good portfolio is finding assets that aren't well-correlated, and if you're interested in more on the subject I suggest you check out his books (including The Four Pillars of Investing) and read more about Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT).\"","\"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \"\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\"\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"He's calculating portfolio variance. The general formula for the variance of a portfolio composed of two securities looks like this: where w_a and w_b are the weights of each stock in the portfolio and the sigmas represent the standard deviation/risk of each asset or portfolio. In the case of perfect positive or negative correlation, applying some algebra to the formula relating covariance to the correlation coefficient (rho, the Greek letter that looks like \\\"\\\"p\\\"\\\"): tells us that the covariance we need in the original formula is simply the product of the standard deviations and the correlation coefficient (-1 in this case). Combining that result with our original formula yields this calculation: Technically we've calculated the portfolio's variance and not it's standard deviation/risk, but since the square root of 0 is still 0, that doesn't matter. The Wikipedia article on Modern Portfolio Theory has a section that describes the mathematical methods I used above. The entire article is worth a read, however.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"John Bensin's answer covers the math, but I like the plain-English examples of the theory from William Bernstein's fine book, The Intelligent Asset Allocator. At the author's web site, you can find the complete chapter 1 and chapter 2, though not chapter 3, which is the one with the \\\"\\\"multiple coin toss\\\"\\\" portfolio example I want to highlight. I'll summarize Bernstein's multiple coin toss example here with some excerpts from the book. (Another top user, @JoeTaxpayer, has also written about the coin flip on his blog, also mentioning Bernstein's book.) Bernstein begins Chapter 1 by describing an offer from a fictitious \\\"\\\"Uncle Fred\\\"\\\": Imagine that you work for your rich but eccentric Uncle Fred. [...] he decides to let you in on the company pension plan. [...] you must pick ahead of time one of two investment choices for the duration of your employment: Certificates of deposit with a 3% annualized rate of return, or, A most peculiar option: At the end of each year Uncle Fred flips a coin. Heads you receive a 30% investment return for that year, tails a minus 10% (loss) for the year. This will be hereafter referred to as \\\"\\\"Uncle Fred’s coin toss,\\\"\\\" or simply, the \\\"\\\"coin toss.\\\"\\\" In effect, choosing option 2 results in a higher expected return than option 1, but it is certainly riskier, having a high standard deviation and being especially prone to a series of bad tosses. Chapters 1 and 2 continue to expand on the idea of risk, and take a look at various assets/markets over time. Chapter 3 then begins by introducing the multiple coin toss example: Time passes. You have spent several more years in the employ of your Uncle Fred, and have truly grown to dread the annual coin-toss sessions. [...] He makes you another offer. At the end of each year, he will divide your pension account into two equal parts and conduct a separate coin toss for each half [...] there are four possible outcomes [...]: [...] Being handy with numbers, you calculate that your annualized return for this two-coin-toss sequence is 9.08%, which is nearly a full percentage point higher than your previous expected return of 8.17% with only one coin toss. Even more amazingly, you realize that your risk has been reduced — with the addition of two returns at the mean of 10%, your calculated standard deviation is now only 14.14%, as opposed to 20% for the single coin toss. [...] Dividing your portfolio between assets with uncorrelated results increases return while decreasing risk. [...] If the second coin toss were perfectly inversely correlated with the first and always gave the opposite result [hence, outcomes 1 and 4 above never occurring], then our return would always be 10%. In this case, we would have a 10% annualized long-term return with zero risk! I hope that summarizes the example well. Of course, in the real world, one of the tricks to building a good portfolio is finding assets that aren't well-correlated, and if you're interested in more on the subject I suggest you check out his books (including The Four Pillars of Investing) and read more about Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \\\"\\\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\\\"\\\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\\\"\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":168,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"10034"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Tax implications of holding EWU (or other such UK ETFs) as a US citizen?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["480749","181942"],"string":"[\n \"480749\",\n \"181942\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["181942","528880","389581","392313","9158","565296","459953","447197","506368","65702","480749","430868","437907","197478","141585","85926","115333","44955","51777","273209","326559","123047","129852","495417","158185","474745","263312","586010","237785","381884","439502","514977","198532","161041","5347","410543","510599","493160","106024","417208","303287","566028","104128","309923","583635","533929","72135","458635","343708","120082","534391","188816","43508","66039","386941","180500","434252","111274","284805","259602","183910","161019","368938","481488","102287","372744","185999","332626","552138","403948","108890","340661","328699","586455","160899","454563","465135","407185","350317","149305","168841","551809","1011","182374","385310","244303","511528","575899","265404","308208","495827","108081","46092","183477","397449","331384","86621","386173","332314","180146"],"string":"[\n \"181942\",\n \"528880\",\n \"389581\",\n \"392313\",\n \"9158\",\n \"565296\",\n \"459953\",\n \"447197\",\n \"506368\",\n \"65702\",\n \"480749\",\n \"430868\",\n \"437907\",\n \"197478\",\n \"141585\",\n \"85926\",\n \"115333\",\n \"44955\",\n \"51777\",\n \"273209\",\n \"326559\",\n \"123047\",\n \"129852\",\n \"495417\",\n \"158185\",\n \"474745\",\n \"263312\",\n \"586010\",\n \"237785\",\n \"381884\",\n \"439502\",\n \"514977\",\n \"198532\",\n \"161041\",\n \"5347\",\n \"410543\",\n \"510599\",\n \"493160\",\n \"106024\",\n \"417208\",\n \"303287\",\n \"566028\",\n \"104128\",\n \"309923\",\n \"583635\",\n \"533929\",\n \"72135\",\n \"458635\",\n \"343708\",\n \"120082\",\n \"534391\",\n \"188816\",\n \"43508\",\n \"66039\",\n \"386941\",\n \"180500\",\n \"434252\",\n \"111274\",\n \"284805\",\n \"259602\",\n \"183910\",\n \"161019\",\n \"368938\",\n \"481488\",\n \"102287\",\n \"372744\",\n \"185999\",\n \"332626\",\n \"552138\",\n \"403948\",\n \"108890\",\n \"340661\",\n \"328699\",\n \"586455\",\n \"160899\",\n \"454563\",\n \"465135\",\n \"407185\",\n \"350317\",\n \"149305\",\n \"168841\",\n \"551809\",\n \"1011\",\n \"182374\",\n \"385310\",\n \"244303\",\n \"511528\",\n \"575899\",\n \"265404\",\n \"308208\",\n \"495827\",\n \"108081\",\n \"46092\",\n \"183477\",\n \"397449\",\n \"331384\",\n \"86621\",\n \"386173\",\n \"332314\",\n \"180146\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["My understanding is that EWU (and EWUS) are both traded on US stock markets (NYSE & BATS), and as such these are not classified as PFIC. However, they do contain PFICs, so iShares takes the responsibility of handling the PFICs they contain and make adjustments in December. This contains the information about the adjustments made in 2016. https://www.ishares.com/us/literature/tax-information/pfic-2016.pdf On page 106 of the statement of the summary information they describe how they handle paying the necessary tax as an expense of the fund. https://www.ishares.com/us/library/stream-document?stream=reg&product=WEBXGBP&shareClass=NA&documentId=925898~926077~926112~1180071~1242912&iframeUrlOverride=%2Fus%2Fliterature%2Fsai%2Fsai-ishares-trust-8-31.pdf (I'm not a tax professional)","Here're some findings upon researches: Two main things to watch out for: Estate tax and the 30% tax withholding. These 2 could be get around by investing in Luxembourg or Ireland domiciled ETF. For instance there's no tax withholding on Ireland domiciled ETF dividend, and the estate tax is not as high. (source: BogleHead forums) Some Vanguard ETF offered in UK stock market: https://www.vanguard.co.uk/uk/mvc/investments/etf#docstab. Do note that the returns of S&P 500 ETF (VUSA) are adjusted after the 30% tax withholding! Due to VUSA's higher TER (0.09%), VOO should remain a superior choice. The FTSE Emerging Markets and All-World ETFs though, are better than their US-counterparts, for non-US residents. Non-US residents are able to claim back partials of the withhold tax, by filing the US tax form 1040NR. In 2013, non-US resident can claim back at least $3,900. Kindly correct me if anything is inaccurate.","I'm not a professional, but my understanding is that US funds are not considered PFICs regardless of the fact that they are held in a foreign brokerage account. In addition, be aware that foreign stocks are not considered PFICs (although foreign ETFs may be).","non-resident aliens to the US do not pay capital gains on US products. You pay tax in your home country if you have done a taxable event in your country. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/nonusresidenttax.asp#axzz1mQDut9Ru but if you hold dividends, you are subject to US dividend tax. The UK-US treaty should touch on that though.","I believe that tax will be withheld (at 30%?) on dividends paid to non-residents. You can claim it back if your country has a tax treaty with the USA, but you will need to file. You probably also need to file a W-series withholding form (eg a W9-BEN). Interesting question. I would like to hear a more definitive answer.","You have left out the most important piece of information: are you an American citizen? If you are, then PFIC rules mean you need to be very careful not to invest in any foreign index funds/ETFs. That means it will probably be easiest for you to just leave the money in the US and continue to invest it there. If you do not have US citizenship, and have never had a green card, then you will qualify for non-resident alien status after you've been gone for 3 years. Once that happens, you won't owe US capital gains tax (though you will owe it in AUS). You will owe 30% tax on dividends, though. Much more at Investopedia.","As far as I read in many articles, all earnings (capital gains and dividends) from Canadian stocks will be always tax-free. Right? There's no withholding tax, ie. a $100 dividend means you get $100. There's no withholding for capital gains in shares for anybody. You will still have to pay taxes on the amounts, but that's only due at tax time and it could be very minor (or even a refund) for eligible Canadian dividends. That's because the company has already paid tax on those dividends. In contrast, holding U.S. or any foreign stock that yields dividends in a TFSA will pay 15% withholding tax and it is not recoverable. Correct, but the 15% is a special rate for regular shares and you need to fill out a W8-BEN. Your broker will probably make sure you have every few years. But if you hold the same stock in a non-registered account, this 15% withholding tax can be used as a foreign tax credit? Is this true or not or what are the considerations? That's true but reduces your Canadian tax payable, it's not refundable, so you have to have some tax to subtract it from. Another consideration is foreign dividends are included 100% in income no mater what the character is. That means you pay tax at your highest rate always if not held in a tax sheltered account. Canadian dividends that are in a non-registered account will pay taxes, I presume and I don't know how much, but the amount can be used also as a tax credit or are unrecoverable? What happens in order to take into account taxes paid by the company is, I read also that if you don't want to pay withholding taxes from foreign > dividends you can hold your stock in a RRSP or RRIF? You don't have any withholding taxes from US entities to what they consider Canadian retirement accounts. So TFSAs and RESPs aren't covered. Note that it has to be a US fund like SPY or VTI that trades in the US, and the account has to be RRSP/RRIF. You can't buy a Canadian listed ETF that holds US stocks and get the same treatment. This is also only for the US, not foreign like Europe or Asia. Also something like VT (total world) in the US will have withholding taxes from foreign (Europe & Asia mostly) before the money gets to the US. You can't get that back. Just an honourable mention for the UK, there's no withholding taxes for anybody, and I hear it's on sale. But at some point, if I withdraw the money, who do I need to pay taxes, > U.S. or Canada? Canada.","See my answer here What is the dividend tax rate for UK stock The only tax from US stocks you'd need to worry about would be dividend withholding tax of 30%. If you contact your ISA provider they should be able to provide you with a W8-BEN form so that you can have this rate reduced to 15%. Just because there's a tax treaty does not mean you will automatically be charged 15% - you must provide a W8-BEN form and renew it when it expires. That last 15% is unfortunately unavoidable. If you were paying any UK taxes you could claim that 15% as a discount against your UK dividend tax liability, but as your US stock would be wrapped in an ISA there's no UK tax to pay which means no tax to reclaim from the tax treaty. Other than DWT though, you will pay absolutely no tax on US stocks held in an ISA to either the US or UK government.","I believe I have to pay taxes in US since it is a US broker. No, not at all. The fact that the broker is a US broker has nothing to do with your tax liabilities. You should update the banks and the broker with your change of status submitting form W8-BEN to them. Consult a tax professional proficient with Indo-US tax treaty as to what you should put in part II. The broker might withhold some of your income and remit it as taxes to the IRS based on what you put in W8-BEN and the type of income, but you can have it refunded (if it exceeds your liability) by submitting a tax return (form 1040-NR). You do have to pay tax in India, based on the Indian tax law, for your profits in the US. Consult with an Indian tax accountant on that. If I'm not mistaken, there are also currency transfer restrictions in India that you should be aware of.","\"Securities and ETFs are also subjected to Estate Tax. Some ways: Draft a \"\"Transfer on Death\"\" instruction to the broker, that triggers a transfer to an account in the beneficiary's name, in most cases avoiding probate. If the broker does not support it, find another broker. Give your brokerage and bank password/token to your beneficiary. Have him transfer out holdings within hours of death. Create a Trust, that survives even after death of an individual. P.S. ETF is treated as Stock (a company that owns other companies), regardless of the nature of the holdings. P.S.2 Above suggestions are only applicable to nonresident alien of the US.\"","You will not be able to continue filing with TurboTax if you invest in foreign funds. Form 8261 which is required to report PFIC investments is not included. Read the form instructions carefully - if you don't feel shocked and scared, you didn't understand what it says. The bottom line is that the American Congress doesn't want you do what you want to do and will punish you dearly.","If the brokerage account holds US assets, such as the stock of US companies, then it may be taxable under some conditions. The rules are complex and depend on the nationality of the individuals, because the results may be affected by tax treaties between the United States and whatever country the person is from.","The dividend tax credit is not applicable to foreign dividend income, so you would be taxed fully on every dollar of that income. When you sell a stock, there will be a capital gain or capital loss depending on if it gained or lost value, after accounting for the Adjusted Cost Base. You only pay income tax on half of the amount earned through capital gains, and if you have losses, you can use them to offset other investments that had capital gains (or carry forward to offset gains in the future). The dividends from US stocks are subject to a 15% withholding tax that gets paid to the IRS automatically when the dividends are issued. If the stocks are held in an RRSP, they are exempt from the withholding tax. If held in a non-registered account, you can be reimbursed for the tax by claiming the foreign tax credit that you linked to. If held in a TFSA or RESP, the withholding tax cannot be recovered. Also, if you are not directly holding the stocks, and instead buy a mutual fund or ETF that directly holds the stocks, then the RRSP exemption no longer applies, but the foreign tax credit is still claimable for a non-registered account. If the mutual fund or ETF does not directly hold stocks, and instead holds one or more ETFs, there is no way to recover the withholding tax in any type of account.","If you are a US citizen, you need to very carefully research the US tax implications of investing in foreign stocks before you do so. The US tax rules have been set up in general to make this very unattractive.","A quick update for people finding this thread through Google. With the help of a few awesome Bogleheads, I compiled all the relevant research done into two Wiki articles: This includes comparing US to Irish domiciled ETFs, how to calculate tax withholding leakage and estate tax concerns. Hope you find this useful.","From the UK-USA tax treaty.... ARTICLE 1 General Scope 1. Except as specifically provided herein, this Convention is applicable only to persons who are residents of one or both of the Contracting States. 2. This Convention shall not restrict in any manner any benefit now or hereafter accorded: a) by the laws of either Contracting State; or b) by any other agreement between the Contracting States... I'm not an expert but to me that sounds like the tax free advantage of an UK ISA would be respected by the IRS From the UK-USA tax treaty.... ARTICLE 7 7. Where under any provision of this Convention income or gains arising in one of the Contracting States are relieved from tax in that Contracting State and, under the law in force in the other Contracting State, a person, in respect of the said income or gains, is subject to tax by reference to the amount thereof which is remitted to or received in that other Contracting State and not by reference to the full amount thereof, then the relief to be allowed under this Convention in the first-mentioned Contracting State shall apply only to so much of the income or gains as is taxed in the other Contracting State. This is very difficult to comprehend but suggets also that tax free status is upheld in the uSa","With the W8-Ben filed, tax will be withheld at a lower rate. (I would expect 10%). Tax treaty treatment will mean that this witholding will reduce your UK tax even if this payment is not taxable there. This is only effective if you actually pay tax. This is how it works for lotteries and dividends as well.","Transferring money you own from one place to another pretty much never has tax implications. It might have other implications, including requirement to report it. Being a US citizen has tax implications, including the requirement to file US tax forms for the rest of eternity.","The UK has historically aggressive financial law, inherited from Dutch friendship, influence, and acquisitions by conquest. The law is so open that nearly anyone can invest through the UK without much difficulty, and citizens have nearly no restrictions on where to invest. A UK citizen can either open an account in the US with paperwork hassles or at home with access to all world markets and less paperwork. Here is the UK version of my broker, Interactive Brokers. Their costs are the lowest, but you will be charged a minimum fee if you do not trade enough, and their minimum opening balance can be prohibitively high for some. If you do buy US products, be sure to file your W-8BEN.","There is a fourth option - pay those taxes. Depending on the amounts, it might be the easiest way - if you make 34.49 in interest, and pay 6 $ in taxes on it, and be done, that might not be worth any other effort. If the expected taxable amount is significant, moving (most of it) to index funds or other simply switching existing investments to ‘reinvest’ instead of ‘pay out in cash’ would be the best approach. Again, some smaller amounts in savings or checkings accounts are probably not worth any effort. Transferring the money to the US doesn’t save you taxes, as any interest would still be taxable. You have a risk to lose on the conversion back and forth (and a potential to gain - the exchange rate could go either way!), so if you are sure you go back, it’s not a good idea to move the money.","The link provided by DumbCoder (below) is only relevant to UK resident investors and does not apply if you live in Malaysia. I noticed that in a much older question you asked a similar question about taxes on US stocks, so I'll try and answer both situations here. The answer is almost the same for any country you decide to invest in. As a foreign investor, the country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The rate of DWT that will be withheld is unique to each country. The UK does not have any withholding tax so you will always receive the full dividend on UK stocks. The withholding tax rate for the US is 30%. Other countries vary. For most countries that do charge a withholding tax, it is possible to have this reduced to 15% if there is a double taxation treaty in place between the two countries and all of the following are true: Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).","I would not expect any problems. Your interest will have tax deducted at 20% which I don't think you would be entitled to reclaim because you don't get a personal allowance if you aren't resident in the UK, and unless you have a huge amount of UK earnings you would not be legally liable to any higher rates of tax so there would be no issues there. If you were liable to more tax you would be obliged to inform the Inland Revenue.","\"If you haven't been a US resident (not citizen, different rules apply) at the time you sold the stock in Europe but it was inside the same tax year that you moved to the US, you might want to have a look at the \"\"Dual Status\"\" part in IRS publication 519.\"","I am a US citizen by birth only. I left the US aged 6 weeks old and have never lived there. I am also a UK citizen but TD Waterhouse have just followed their policy and asked me to close my account under FATCA. It is a complete nightmare for dual nationals who have little or no US connection. IG.com seem to allow me to transfer my holdings so long as I steer clear of US investments. Furious with the US and would love to renounce citizenship but will have to pay $2500 or thereabouts to follow the US process. So much for Land of the Free!","The answer to your question doesn't depend on who you trade with but what country you live in. If you live outside of the US, you will have to pay tax on dividends... sometimes. This depends on the tax treaty that your country has with the US. Canada, Australia, UK and a few other countries have favorable tax treaties with the US that allow you to not be double taxed. You must look into the tax treaty that your home country has with the US to answer the question. Each country is different.","Investopedia laid out the general information of tax treatment on the ETF fund structures as well as their underlying asset classes: http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0213/how-tax-treatments-of-etfs-work.aspx","\"The shares are \"\"imputed income\"\" / payment in kind. You worked in the UK, but are you a \"\"US Person\"\"? If not, you should go back to payroll with this query as this income is taxable in the UK. It is important you find out on what basis they were issued. The company will have answers. Where they aquired at a discount to fair market value ? Where they purchased with a salary deduction as part of a scheme ? Where they acquired by conversion of employee stock options ? If you sell the shares, or are paid dividends, then there will be tax withheld.\"","The money that you put into the ETF is not tax-exempt in the usual sense of the word. It is your money and you don't owe any taxes on it any more unless Congress (or the state that you reside in) imposes a wealth tax at some time in the future. What you will owe taxes on are any dividends or capital gains that the ETF distributes to you each year (even if you have opted to automatically re-invest those amounts into the ETF), and the capital gains when you sell shares of the ETF.","As you have indicated, the 1042-S reflects no income or withholding. As such, you are not required to file a US tax return unless you have other income from the US. Gains on stocks are not reported until realized upon sale. FYI, your activity does not fit the requirements of being engaged in a trade or business activity. While the definition is documented in several places of the Code, I have attached Publication 519 which most accurately represents the application to your situation as you have described it. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p519/ch04.html#en_US_2016_publink1000222308","IANAL, I am married to someone in your situation. As a US citizen age 26 who has not had any contact with the IRS, you should most definitely be worried... As a US citizen, you are (and always have been) required to file a US tax return and pay any tax on all income, no matter where earned, and no matter where you reside. There are often (but not always) agreements between governments to reduce double taxation. The US rule as to whether a particular type of income is taxable will prevail. As a US citizen with financial accounts (chequing, saving, investment, etc.) above a minimum balance, abroad, you are required to report information, including the amounts in the account, to the US government annually (Look up FBAR). Failure to file these forms carries harsh penalties. A recent law (FATCA) requires foreign financial institutions to report information on their US citizen clients to the US, irrespective of any local banking privacy laws. It's possible that your application triggered these reporting requirements. You will not be allowed to renounce your US citizenship until you have paid all past US taxes and penalties. Good new: you are eligible in ten years or so to run for President. Don't believe any of this, or that nothing has been missed; you must consult with a local tax expert specializing in US/UK tax laws.","Citizenship matter for US reporting, but not for Canadian taxes. If you are an American resident then you need only worry about US taxes and rules. s","Not knowing the US laws at all, you should worry more about having the best stock portfolio and less about taxes. My 0,02€","Since you're a US citizen, submitting W8-BEN was wrong. If you read the form carefully, when you signed it you certified that you are not a US citizen, which is a lie and you knew it. W9 and W8 are mutually exclusive. You're either a US person for tax purposes or you're not, you cannot be both. As a US citizen - you are a US person for tax purposes, whether you have any other citizenship or not, and whether you live in (or have ever been to) the US or not. You do need to file tax returns just like any other US citizen. If you have an aggregate of $10K or more on your bank accounts outside of the US at any given day - you need to file FBAR. FATCA forms may also be applicable, depending on your balances. From foreign banks' perspective you're a US person, with regard to their FATCA obligations. Whether or not you'll be punished is hard to tell. Whether or not you could be punished is easy to tell: you could. You knowingly broke the law by certifying that you're not a US citizen when you were. That is in addition to un-filed tax returns, FBAR, etc etc. The fact that you were born outside of the US and have never lived there is technically irrelevant. Not knowing the law is not a reasonable cause for breaking it. Get a US-licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in the US) to help you sort it out.","ETF is essentially a stock, from accounting perspective. Treat it as just another stock in the portfolio.","If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.","As a relatively recent nonimmigrant visa holder (O1), I was able to open an ETrade brokerage account without problems. I have full tax residence in the USA so have an SSN, and a credit history so it was no problem. Later, as a greencard holder, I opened IRA accounts with them, too. Again, there were no issues as I had all the information that the IRS paperwork required at hand.","A) a tax treaty probably covers this for the avoidance of double taxation. Tax treaties can be very cryptic and have little precedence clarifying them http://www.irs.gov/businesses/international/article/0,,id=169552,00.html B) I'm going to say NO since the source of your income is going to be US based. But the UK tax laws might also have specific verbage for resident source income. sorry it is an inconclusive answer, but should be some factors to consider and point you in the right direction.","\"That's a tricky question and you should consult a tax professional that specializes on taxation of non-resident aliens and foreign expats. You should also consider the provisions of the tax treaty, if your country has one with the US. I would suggest you not to seek a \"\"free advice\"\" on internet forums, as the costs of making a mistake may be hefty. Generally, sales of stocks is not considered trade or business effectively connected to the US if that's your only activity. However, being this ESPP stock may make it connected to providing personal services, which makes it effectively connected. I'm assuming that since you're filing 1040NR, taxes were withheld by the broker, which means the broker considered this effectively connected income.\"","As the funds are Gift received from your parents, and your tax residency is US, as per US gift tax, there is no tax due from you for these funds.","\"I'll add a bit to Paul's excellent write up. Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (form 2555): notice the earned there. It doesn't exclude capital gains, interest, dividends, and basically everything that is not salary. You pay US taxes on it from the first cent. Foreign tax credit - foreign tax credit (form 1116) doesn't reduce your US tax dollar for dollar (even though it may appear that it does from the generic explanations). By using this form you may end up accumulating unused credit while still paying double taxes at the same time. Happened to me. Thank Congress for the logical and reasonable US tax laws. New FATCA form 8938: as opposed to FBAR (that goes to the FinCEN in the Treasury), this one goes to the IRS. it contains very similar info, but the threshold requirements are different. You may have to file FBAR, but not these, or you may have to file both. Being an American citizen, some European banks will refuse to provide services to you. Again, thank Congress for FATCA. It requires foreign banks to enforce US tax regulations on US citizens, and banks that won't will get penalized in the US. Many banks refuse to provide services to Americans because of that because what IRS requires is illegal in most countries. Some countries (like UK and some other EU countries) have signed treaties with the US to resolve this, but many haven't. Currency conversion - as I commented to Paul, you convert the amounts when you receive them, which may have your fixed EUR salary be converted to different dollar amounts every time. You need to make sure you do it right. Pensions, savings, investments - if you're doing these in non-US instruments prepare to be penalized. US taxes foreign investments much more aggressively than domestic. If you're investing in indexes/mutual funds, or you're a principle in a corporation, or you create a pension account - you'll get hit by additional reporting requirements and tax. Tax treaties - the US has tax treaties with many EU countries, and equalization treaties with some. The tax treaties affect the standard tax treatment by the US and some of the \"\"generic\"\" info you got here may not apply because of a tax treaty, and some other rules may apply. Equalization treaties work similarly with regards to the Social Security. Bottom line, and I know Paul disagrees with me on this - talk with a US-licensed adviser in the country you're going to. It is very important for your tax adviser to know the relevant treaty (and not read it the first time when you call him), and to understand each and every financial instrument in your country. Missing piece of paper in your tax return can cost you thousands of dollars in penalties (not exaggerating, not filing form 3520 triggers a $10000 penalty, even if there's no tax) and additional taxes.\"","Where you earn your money makes no difference to the IRS. Citizen/permanent resident means you pay income tax. To make matters worse given your situation it's virtually certain you have unreported foreign bank accounts--something that's also an important issue.","As other people have said they should register with a broker in the country they reside in that can deal in US stocks, then fill out a W8-BEN form. I have personally done this as I am from the Uk, it's not a very complicated process. I would assume that most US brokers don't allow foreign customers due to the person having to pay tax where they reside and the US brokers don't want to have to keep approximately 200 different tax codes in track.","Short answer: it's complicated. The UK govt pages on foreign income are probably your best starting point: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/LeavingOrComingIntoTheUK/DG_10027480 As you can see, it depends on your precise residence status here. (There is a tax treaty between the UK and the US so you wouldn't be double taxed on the income either way. But there might still be reporting obligations).","Selling one fund and buying another will incur capital gains tax on the sale for the amount of the gain. I'm not aware of any sort of exemption available due to you moving out of the country. However, long-term capital gains for low-tax-bracket taxpayers is 0%. As long as your total income including the gains fits within the 15% regular tax bracket, you don't pay any long-term capital gains. Options for you that I see to avoid taxes are: Note that even if you do sell it all, it's only the amount of gains that would take your income over the 15% normal tax bracket that would be taxed at the long-term rate of 15%, which may not end up being that much of a tax hit. It may be worth calculating just how bad it would be based on your actual income. Also note that all I'm saying here is for US federal income taxes. The state you most recently lived in may still charge taxes if you're still considered a resident there in some fashion, and I don't know if your new home's government may try to take a cut as well.","Good question - I know you can keep the ISA in the UK and it won't lose its tax free status but you're not able to contribute it while you're not a UK resident. Not that its tax free status buys you that much if you're a non-resident as you could apply to receive tax gross on pretty much any savings account anyway. Given that the idea of tax-free saving outside a retirement account doesn't really exist here in the US I would assume that you will have to declare the interest as income and, if you don't pay any other taxes in the UK that would cover the amount you'd have to pay on your ISA under the foreign tax credit, you'd end up giving the IRS their pound of flesh. As I mentioned in an answer to a previous question, you really need to talk to an US accountant/CPA, preferably one that is familiar with UK taxation law as well.","I can't find anything specifically about holding international real estate as a US taxpayer, but the act of transferring the money to (I presume) an account of yours in Italy, and any other associated accounts, will trigger requirements for reporting under FBAR and FACTA. Even with this, it is primarily a reporting requirement. I do not believe you will incur any additional taxes unless you do rent out the property (or allow someone not a reported dependent to make use of the property). Note that if you do not report and should, the penalties are quite steep, so please do comply. NOTE: I am not a tax expert, nor a lawyer, nor an accountant, nor an agent of the IRS. Please consult one or all of these before making any decisions.","Yes, you do. Since you've been a green card holder since the beginning of the year - your whole worldwide income for the whole year is taxable in the US. You can take credit for the taxes paid in the UK (use form 1116) to reduce your US tax liability.","\"This page from the CRA website details the types of investments you can hold in a TFSA. You can hold individual shares, including ETFs, traded on any \"\"designated stock exchange\"\" in addition to the other types of investment you have listed. Here is a list of designated stock exchanges provided by the Department of Finance. As you can see, it includes pretty well every major stock exchange in the developed world. If your bank's TFSA only offers \"\"mutual funds, GICs and saving deposits\"\" then you need to open a TFSA with a different bank or a stock broking company with an execution only service that offers TFSA accounts. Almost all of the big banks will do this. I use Scotia iTrade, HSBC Invest Direct, and TD, though my TFSA's are all with HSBC currently. You will simply provide them with details of your bank account in order to facilitate money transfers/TFSA contributions. Since purchasing foreign shares involves changing your Canadian dollars into a foreign currency, one thing to watch out for when purchasing foreign shares is the potential for high foreign exchange spreads. They can be excessive in proportion to the investment being made. My experience is that HSBC offers by far the best spreads on FX, but you need to exchange a minimum of $10,000 in order to obtain a decent spread (typically between 0.25% and 0.5%). You may also wish to note that you can buy unhedged ETFs for the US and European markets on the Toronto exchange. This means you are paying next to nothing on the spread, though you obviously are still carrying the currency risk. For example, an unhedged S&P500 trades under the code ZSP (BMO unhedged) or XUS (iShares unhedged). In addition, it is important to consider that commissions for trades on foreign markets may be much higher than those on a Canadian exchange. This is not always the case. HSBC charge me a flat rate of $6.88 for both Toronto and New York trades, but for London they would charge up to 0.5% depending on the size of the trade. Some foreign exchanges carry additional trading costs. For example, London has a 0.5% stamp duty on purchases. EDIT One final thing worth mentioning is that, in my experience, holding US securities means that you will be required to register with the US tax authorities and with those US exchanges upon which you are trading. This just means fill out a number of different forms which will be provided by your stock broker. Exchange registrations can be done electronically, however US tax authority registration must be submitted in writing. Dividends you receive will be net of US withholding taxes. I am not aware of any capital gains reporting requirements to US authorities.\"","\"The US withholding tax applies to stocks/ETFs purchased on the NYSE and other US-based exchanges. If you buy Cenovus on the TSE then you will not be charged this tax. Your last sentence seems like you might be misunderstanding this tax though. If the tax applied, it would not cost you 15% on all your profits, it only applies to dividend yields. So if it pays you a 5% dividend, the tax costs you 0.75%. However, if you buy at $21.19 and sell at $26, then your capital gain is not subject to withholding taxes. It is however, subject to Canadian income tax (at 50% of the gain amount) when it's not sheltered in a TFSA or other registered account. The tax on the gains could easily amount to 16% of your profits, which is a much more significant cost. Therefore, having to pay a 0.75% withholding cost certainly does not \"\"defeat the purpose of the TFSA\"\" which is to shelter from Canadian income tax!\"","ML is a brokerage firm. Tell them to sell. If you can't or don't know how to do it on-line - call them and do it over the phone. Your citizenship might come in effect when tax are withheld, you need to fill form W8-BEN if you haven't done so yet. If US taxes are withheld, you can file 1040NR to request refund, or get it credited against your local tax liabilities.","Does my prior answer here to a slightly different question help at all? Are there capital gains taxes or dividend taxes if I invest in the U.S. stock market from outside of the country?","I'll start with the bottom line. Below the line I'll address the specific issues. Becoming a US tax resident is a very serious decision, that has significant consequences for any non-American with >$0 in assets. When it involves cross-border business interests, it becomes even more significant. Especially if Switzerland is involved. The US has driven at least one iconic Swiss financial institution out of business for sheltering US tax residents from the IRS/FinCEN. So in a nutshell, you need to learn and be afraid of the following abbreviations: and many more. The best thing for you would be to find a good US tax adviser (there are several large US tax firms in the UK handling the US expats there, go to one of those) and get a proper assessment of all your risks and get a proper advice. You can get burnt really hard if you don't prepare and plan properly. Now here's that bottom line. Q) Will I have to submit the accounts for the Swiss Business even though Im not on the payroll - and the business makes hardly any profit each year. I can of course get our accounts each year - BUT - they will be in Swiss German! That's actually not a trivial question. Depending on the ownership structure and your legal status within the company, all the company's bank accounts may be reportable on FBAR (see link above). You may also be required to file form 5471. Q) Will I need to have this translated!? Is there any format/procedure to this!? Will it have to be translated by my Swiss accountants? - and if so - which parts of the documentation need to be translated!? All US forms are in English. If you're required to provide supporting documentation (during audit, or if the form instructions require it with filing) - you'll need to translate it, and have the translation certified. Depending on what you need, your accountant will guide you. I was told that if I sell the business (and property) after I aquire a greencard - that I will be liable to 15% tax of the profit I'd made. Q) Is this correct!? No. You will be liable to pay income tax. The rate of the tax depends on the kind of property and the period you held it for. It may be 15%, it may be 39%. Depends on a lot of factors. It may also be 0%, in some cases. I also understand that any tax paid (on selling) in Switzerland will be deducted from the 15%!? May be. May be not. What you're talking about is called Foreign Tax Credit. The rules for calculating the credit are not exactly trivial, and from my personal experience - you can most definitely end up being paying tax in both the US and Switzerland without the ability to utilize the credit in full. Again, talk to your tax adviser ahead of time to plan things in the most optimal way for you. I will effectively have ALL the paperwork for this - as we'll need to do the same in Switzerland. But again, it will be in Swiss German. Q) Would this be a problem if its presented in Swiss German!? Of course. If you need to present it (again, most likely only in case of audit), you'll have to have a translation. Translating stuff is not a problem, usually costs $5-$20 per page, depending on complexity. Unless a lot of money involved, I doubt you'll need to translate more than balance sheet/bank statement. I know this is a very unique set of questions, so if you can shed any light on the matter, it would be greatly appreciated. Not unique at all. You're not the first and not the last to emigrate to the US. However, you need to understand that the issue is very complex. Taxes are complex everywhere, but especially so in the US. I suggest you not do anything before talking to a US-licensed CPA/EA whose practice is to work with the EU/UK expats to the US or US expats to the UK/EU.","\"The examples you provide in the question are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the brokerage is or where is the company you own stocks in. For a fairly standard case of an non-resident alien international student living full time in the US - your capital gains are US sourced. Let me quote the following text a couple of paragraphs down the line you quoted on the same page: Gain or loss from the sale or exchange of personal property generally has its source in the United States if the alien has a tax home in the United States. The key factor in determining if an individual is a U.S. resident for purposes of the sourcing of capital gains is whether the alien's \"\"tax home\"\" has shifted to the United States. If an alien does not have a tax home in the United States, then the alien’s U.S. source capital gains would be treated as foreign-source and thus nontaxable. In general, under the \"\"tax home\"\" rules, a person who is away (or who intends to be away) from his tax home for longer than 1 year has shifted tax homes to his new location upon his arrival in that new location. See Chapter 1 of Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses I'll assume you've read this and just want an explanation on what it means. What it means is that if you move to the US for a significant period of time (expected length of 1 year or more), your tax home is assumed to have shifted to the US and the capital gains are sourced to the US from the start of your move. For example: you are a foreign diplomat, and your 4-year assignment started in May. Year-end - you're not US tax resident (diplomats exempt), but you've stayed in the US for more than 183 days, and since your assignment is longer than 1 year - your tax home is now in the US. You'll pay the 30% flat tax. Another example: You're a foreign airline pilot, coming to the US every other day flying the airline aircraft. You end up staying in the US 184 days, but your tax home hasn't shifted, nor you're a US tax resident - you don't pay the flat tax. Keep in mind, that tax treaties may alter the situation since in many cases they also cover the capital gains situation for non-residents.\"","The US will let you keep as much money as you want to within its borders regardless of your citizenship. You'll owe capital gains tax in the US unless you're subject to a tax treaty (which you would probably make as an election in the year of the transaction). I don't know if India has any rules about how it governs its citizens' foreign assets, but the US requires citizens to file a form annually declaring foreign accounts over $10,000. You may be subject to additional Indian taxes if India taxes global income like the US does.","To answer my own question, at least to the extent of my understanding. Here the IRS says that all income for a foreign person from a US-based company is taxable with 30%. Here the IRS says that this tax should be withhold at source by whomever pays you. In case there is a tax treaty with the country, the tax can even be waived in the US. Of course, if you don't declare it in your home country, the US bank could probably give information requested by the home country authorities. For the other two cases (when there's no US party involved) I can't find anything on the IRS website, which kind of make sense. If I am using an account in the US just to receive and send money shouldn't imply any tax. Thanks to @litteadv for pointing me into the right direction.","Is this money taxable in US? From what you described you're likely to have been a US tax resident. As such, you're taxed on your worldwide income. Foreign tax deferral schemes are not considered qualified under the US law (unless a treaty says otherwise), so you're liable for taxes on them now. Get a new tax adviser.","You could use HBB and other similar funds that exchange distributions for capital gains. There's HXT and HXS which is Canada and US equity markets. The swap fee + mer is a little more than some funds except for HXT which is very cheap. There's a risk for long term holders that this may eventually get banned and you're forced to sell with a gain at the wrong time, but this won't matter much if you're planning on selling in a few years. You have to pay the capital gains tax eventually. Note, the tax on distributions is really a long term drag on performance and won't make a big difference in the short term.","My understanding is that the only tax implication is that any interest income earned on foreign accounts is still taxable in the US if held by a US citizen. If the total across foreign accounts totals more than $10,000 you'll have to report those accounts to the Treasury via FinCEN Form 114, this doesn't create any additional tax obligations, it's just a regulatory measure to stop people from hiding money overseas and not paying tax on those earnings. If the US account is only in your husband's name, and the Australian account is only in your name, there may not be any reporting requirement to the Treasury. Money transferred between spouses is not subjected to gift-tax.","\"Others have given a lot of advice about how to invest, but as a former expat I wanted to throw this in: US citizens living and investing overseas can VERY easily run afoul of the IRS. Laws and regulations designed to prevent offshore tax havens can also make it very difficult for expats to do effective investing and estate planning. Among other things, watch out for: US citizens owe US income tax on world income regardless of where they live or earn money FBAR reporting requirements affect foreign accounts valued over $10k The IRS penalizes (often heavily) certain types of financial accounts. Tax-sheltered accounts (for education, retirement, etc.) are in the crosshairs, and anything the IRS deems a \"\"foreign-controlled trust\"\" is especially bad. Heavy taxes on investment not purchased from a US stock exchange Some US states will demand income taxes from former residents (including expats) who cannot prove residency in a different US state. I believe California is neutral in that regard, at least. I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant nor a financial advisor, so please take the above only as a starting point so you know what sorts of questions to ask the relevant experts.\"","I can't give you a specific answer because I'm not a tax accountant, so you should seek advice from a tax professional with experience relevant to your situation. This could be a complicated situation. That being said, one place you could start is the Canada Revenue Agency's statement on investment income, which contains this paragraph: Interest, foreign interest and dividend income, foreign income, foreign non-business income, and certain other income are all amounts you report on your return. They are usually shown on the following slips: T5, T3, T5013, T5013A To avoid double taxation, Canada and the US almost certainly have a foreign tax treaty that ensures you are only taxed in your country of residence. I'm assuming you're a resident of Canada. Also, this page states that: If you received foreign interest or dividend income, you have to report it in Canadian dollars. Use the Bank of Canada exchange rate that was in effect on the day you received the income. If you received the income at different times during the year, use the average annual exchange rate. You should consult a tax professional. I'm not a tax professional, let alone one who specializes in the Canadian tax system. A professional is the only one you should trust to answer your question with 100% accuracy.","The problem there is that there's a tax due on that dividend. So, if you wish, you can buy the ETF and specify to reinvest dividends, but you'll have to pay a bit of tax on them, and keep track of your basis, if the account isn't a retirement account.","Your tax efficient reasoning is solid for where you want to distribute your assets. ETFs are often more tax efficient than their equivalent mutual funds but the exact differences would depend on the comparison between the fund and ETF you were considering. The one exception to this rule is Vanguard funds and ETFs which have the exact same tax-efficiency because ETFs are a share class of the corresponding mutual fund.","\"Answers: 1: No, Sections 1291-1298 of the IRC were passed in the Reagan adminstration. 2: Not only can a foreign company like a chocolate company fall afoul of the definition of PFIC because of the \"\"asset test\"\", which you cite, but it can also be called a PFIC because of the \"\"income test\"\". For example, I have shares in a development-stage Canadian biotech which is considered a PFIC because it has no income at all, except for a minor amount of bank interest on its working capital. This company is by no means \"\"passive\"\" (it has run 31 clinical trials in over 1100 human research subjects, burning $250M of investor's money in the process) nor is it an \"\"investment company\"\", but the stupid IRS considers it to be a \"\"passive foreign investment company\"\"! The IRS looks at it and sees only the bank account, and assumes it is a foreign shell corporation set up to shield the bank interest from them. 3: Yes, a foreign mutual fund is EXACTLY what congress intended to be a PFIC when passed IRC 1291-1298. (Biotechs, candy factories, ect got nailed as innocent bystanders.) Note that if you hold a US mutual fund then every year you'll get a form 1099 in the mail. The 1099 will report your share of the mutual fund's own income and capital gains, which you must report on your taxes. (You can also have capital gains from selling your shares of the mutual fund, but that's a different thing.) Now suppose that there was no PFIC law. Then the US investors in the mutual fund would do better if the mutual fund were in a foreign country, for two reasons: a) The fund would no longer distribute 1099's. That means the shareholders wouldn't have to pay tax every year on their proportions of the fund's own income/gains. The money that would have sooner gone to the IRS can sit around for years earning interest. b) The fund could return profits to shareholders exclusively through capital gains rather than dividends, thus ensuring that all of the investors' income on the fund would be taxed at <15%-20% rather than up to 39%. The fund could do this by returning cash to shareholders exclusively through buybacks. However, the US mutual fund industry doesn't want to move the industry to Canada, and it only takes a few newspaper articles about a foreign loophole to make congress spring to action. 4) It depends. If you have a PEDIGREED QEF election in place (as I do for my biotech shares) then form 8621 takes a few minutes by hand. However, this requires both the company and the investor to fully cooperate with congress's vision for PFICs. The company cooperates by providing a so-called \"\"PFIC annual information sheet\"\", which replaces the 1099 form for a US mutual fund. The investor cooperates by having a \"\"QEF election\"\" in place for EACH AND EVERY TAX YEAR in which he held the stock and by reporting the numbers from the PFIC annual information sheet on his return. (Note that the QEF election persists once made, until revoked. There are subtleties here that I am glossing over, since \"\"deemed sale\"\" elections and other means may be used to modify a share's holding period to come into compliance.) Note that there is software coming out to handle PFICs, and that the software makers will already run their software to make your form 8621 for $75 or so. I should also warn you that the blogs of tax accountants and tax lawyers all contradict each other on the basic issue of whether you can take capital losses on PFICs for which you have no form 8621 elections. (See section 2.3 of my notes http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr for commentary on this mess.) I do not know if the software people will tell you which elections are best made on form 8621, though, or advise you if it's time to simply dump your investment. The professional software is at 8621.com, and the individual 8621 preparation is at http://expattaxtools.com/?page_id=242. BTW, in case you're interested, I wrote up a very careful analysis of how to deal with the PFIC situation for the small biotech I invested in in certain cases. It is posted http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr. (For tax reasons it was quite fortunate that the share price dipped to near an all-time low on Jan 1, 2015, making the (next) 2015 tax year ripe for a so-called \"\"deemed sale\"\" election. This was only possible because the company provides the necessary \"\"PFIC annual information statements\"\", which your chocolate factory may or may not do.)\"","My concern is if I need to report and pay extra taxes for the part of the company that will be under my name Yes, d'uh. Of course. It's actually quite complicated when it comes to foreign companies owned by US people, and you'll need a good tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) who's fluent in that area. Citizenship has nothing to do with this, from tax perspective there's no difference between a green card holder and a citizen (except that green card holder cannot claim non-resident exemptions and certain tax treaties' exemptions).","\"I'm assuming that by saying \"\"I'm a US resident now\"\" you're referring to the residency determination for tax purposes. Should I file a return in the US even though there is no income here ? Yes. US taxes its residents for tax purposes (which is not the same as residents for immigration or other purposes) on worldwide income. If yes, do I get credits for the taxes I paid in India. What form would I need to submit for the same ? I am assuming this form has to be issued by IT Dept in India or the employer in India ? The IRS doesn't require you to submit your Indian tax return with your US tax return, however they may ask for it later if your US tax return comes under examination. Generally, you claim foreign tax credits using form 1116 attached to your tax return. Specifically for India there may also be some clause in the Indo-US tax treaty that might be relevant to you. Treaty claims are made using form 8833 attached to your tax return, and I suggest having a professional (EA/CPA licensed in your State) prepare such a return. Although no stock transactions were done last year, should I still declare the value of total stocks I own ? If so what is an approx. tax rate or the maximum tax rate. Yes, this is done using form 8938 attached to your tax return and also form 114 (FBAR) filed separately with FinCEN. Pay attention: the forms are very similar with regard to the information you provide on them, but they go to different agencies and have different filing requirements and penalties for non-compliance. As to tax rates - that depends on the types of stocks and how you decide to treat them. Generally, the tax rate for PFIC is very high, so that if any of your stocks are classified as PFIC - you'd better talk to a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about how to deal with them. Non-PFIC stocks are dealt with the same as if they were in the US, unless you match certain criteria described in the instructions to form 5471 (then a different set of rules apply, talk to a licensed tax adviser). I will be transferring most of my stock to my father this year, will this need to be declared ? Yes, using form 709. Gift tax may be due. Talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). I have an apartment in India this year, will this need to be declared or only when I sell the same later on ? If there's no income from it - then no (assuming you own it directly in your own name, for indirect ownership - yes, you do), but when you sell you will have to declare the sale and pay tax on the gains. Again, treaty may come into play, talk to a tax adviser. Also, be aware of Section 121 exclusion which may make it more beneficial for you to sell earlier.\"","If you want to prove the actual tax liability you have in the US - you have to file a tax return. If the Romanian government believes you that the withholding is your actual tax - fine, but that would be a lie. Withholding is not a tax. The American payers must withhold from foreigners enough to have transferred more than the actual tax the foreigners would have paid. The standard withholding is 30%, but the actual tax on dividends varies. In case the tax treaty limits the tax on dividends - the withholding is usually up to the maximum of the tax allowed by the treaty. But allowed doesn't mean that would be the actual tax. In many cases it is not. So if you want to claim the US tax paid as a credit towards your Romanian tax - you'll need to file a tax return in the US, calculate the actual tax liability and that would be the amount of credit you can claim. The difference between that amount and the amount withheld by the payer will be refunded to you by the IRS. You don't have to file a US tax return, that is true. But the withholding is not the tax, the actual tax liability may have been less, and the Romanian tax authority may deny your credit, in whole or in part, based on the fact that you haven't filed a US tax return and as such have no proof of your actual tax paid. You had some experience with the UK tax treaty, and you think all the treaties are the same. That may be a reasonable line of thought, but it is incorrect. Treaties are not the same. More importantly, even if the treaty is the same - the tax law is not. While in the UK the tax on dividends may be flat and from the first pound - in the US it is neither flat nor from the first dollar. Thus, while in the UK you may have been used to paying tax at source and that's it - in the US it doesn't work that way at all.","You're not physically present in the US, you're not a US citizen, you're not a green card holder, and you don't have a business that is registered in the US - US laws do not apply to you. You're not in any way under the US jurisdiction. Effectively connected income is income effectively connected to your business in the US. You're not in the US, so there's nothing to effectively connect your income to. Quote from the link: You usually are considered to be engaged in a U.S. trade or business when you perform personal services in the United States. You ask: If I form an LLC or C corp am I liable for this withholding tax? If you form a legal entity in a US jurisdiction - then that entity becomes subjected to that jurisdiction. If you're physically present in the US - then ECI may become an issue, and you also may become a resident based on the length of your stay.","\"The IRS taxes worldwide income of its citizens and green card holders. Generally, for those Americans genuinely living/working overseas the IRS takes the somewhat reasonable position of being in \"\"2nd place\"\" tax-wise. That is, you are expected to pay taxes in the country you are living in, and these taxes can reduce the tax you would have owed in the USA. Unfortunately, all of this has to be documented and tax returns are still required every year. Your European friends may find this quite surprising as I've heard, for instance, that France will not tax you if you go live and work in Germany. A foreign company operating in a foreign country under foreign law is not typically required to give you a W-2, 1099, or any of the forms you are used to. Indeed, you should be paying taxes in the place where you live and work, which is probably somewhat different than the USA. Keep all these records as they may be useful for your USA taxes as well. You are required to total up what you were paid in Euros and convert them to US$. This will go on the income section of a 1040. You should be paying taxes in the EU country where you live. You can also total those up and convert to US$. This may be useful for a foreign tax credit. If you are living in the EU long term, like over 330 days/year or you have your home and family there, then you might qualify for a very large exemption from your income for US tax purposes, called the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion. This is explained in IRS Publication 54. The purpose of this is primarily to avoid double taxation. FBAR is a serious thing. In past years, the FBAR form went to a Financial Crimes unit in Detroit, not the regular IRS address. Also, getting an extension to file taxes does not extend the deadline for the FBAR. Some rich people have paid multi-million dollar fines over FBAR and not paying taxes on foreign accounts. I've heard you can get a $10,000 FBAR penalty for inadvertent, non-willful violations so be sure to send those in and it goes up from there to $250k or half the value of the account, whichever is more. You also need to know about whether you need to do FATCA reporting with your 1040. There are indeed, a lot of obnoxious things you need to know about that came into existence over the years and are still on the law books -- because of the perpetual 'arms race' between the government and would be cheaters, non-payers and their advisors. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p54/ http://americansabroad.org/\"","\"The country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The US withholding tax rate on dividends is 30%, although this can be reduced to 15% if there as a tax treaty in place between the US and your country of residence. Malaysia does have a double taxation agreement with the US (see here: http://www.mida.gov.my/env3/index.php?page=double-taxation-agreement) but it is flagged as a \"\"limited\"\" agreement. You'd need to find the full text of the agreement to see whether a reduced rate of dividend withholding tax would be available in the Malaysia/US treaty. See my other answer for more details on withholding taxes and how to partially reclaim under a double tax treaty: What is the dividend tax rate for UK stock Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).\"","If you hold this money in USD and spend it in the US as USD, then there is no tax liability or reporting requirement at all. You are not subject to any tax on foreign exchange gains and losses because you have not performed any foreign exchange. CRA says a foreign exchange gain or loss happens when the fx transaction occurs—not as the currency’s value fluctuates while on deposit - and since you are never performing an fx transaction, no such issues will arise. The CRA is not interested in how you spend your money, only the money that you earn. The only possible tax liability that would arise in the circumstances that you describe would be the tax liability arising from interest earned while the cash in on deposit. If this interest exceeds the threshold of reportability, then your bank will issue you with a T-slip to be included in your tax return.","There is a tax treaty between Canada and the US that recognizes RRSPs as retirement accounts. You won't be taxed on the gains in your RRSP like you would be if it was in a TFSA. So you don't really have to do anything (except fill out a form for the IRS every year). The problem that usually arises is if you want to buy something else. I don't know of any Canadian brokerage that will sell products to a US resident. It's a question of where they're licensed. However the SEC has issued an exemption so you can try to argue with your broker to get a trade done. Link to SEC order With such a small amount in the account you may be paying fees or have it invested in funds with higher fees. You will have to do the math on whether or not you should just withdraw the money and invest in cheaper funds and accounts in the US. When you withdraw the money Canada will withhold a flat rate of 25% or in some circumstances 15%. For more info go to Serbinski (a cross border tax specialist).","Unless you started a bank or other kind of a financial institution (brokerage, merchant processor, etc etc), the page you linked to is irrelevant. That said, there's enough in the US tax code for you to reconsider your decision of not living in the US, or at least of being a shareholder of a foreign company. Your compliance costs are going to go through the roof. If you haven't broken any US tax laws yet (which is very unlikely), you may renounce your citizenship and save yourself a lot of money and trouble. But in the more likely case of you already being a criminal with regards the US tax law, you should probably get a proper tax advice from a US-licensed CPA/EA who's also proficient in the Japanese-American tax treaty and expats' compliance issues resolution.","\"The London Stock Exchange offers a wealth of exchange traded products whose variety matches those offered in the US. Here is a link to a list of exchange traded products listed on the LSE. The link will take you to the list of Vanguard offerings. To view those offered by other managers, click on the letter choices at the top of the page. For example, to view the iShares offerings, click on \"\"I\"\". In the case of Vanguard, the LSE listed S&P500 ETF is traded under the code VUSA. Similarly, the Vanguard All World ETF trades under the code VWRL. You will need to be patient viewing iShares offerings since there are over ten pages of them, and their description is given by the abbreviation \"\"ISH name\"\". Almost all of these funds are traded in GBP. Some offer both currency hedged and currency unhedged versions. Obviously, with the unhedged version you are taking on additional currency risk, so if you wish to avoid currency risk then choose a currency hedged version. Vanguard does not appear to offer currency hedged products in London while iShares does. Here is a list of iShares currency hedged products. As you can see, the S&P500 currency hedged trades under the code IGUS while the unhedged version trades under the code IUSA. The effects of BREXIT on UK markets and currency are a matter of opinion and difficult to quantify currently. The doom and gloom warnings of some do not appear to have materialised, however the potential for near-term volatility remains so longs as the exit agreement is not formalised. In the long-term, I personally believe that BREXIT will, on balance, be a positive for the UK, but that is just my opinion.\"","I don't think so in your case. Unless the account generates so much interest income that it became reportable (I don't know the exact limit, but I think it's in the hundreds if not thousands of dollars, you might get a 1099 form if it generates over $10 of interest income, but you don't have to file taxes if your overall income is too low anyways). The US does not typically tax assets, only income. There are some states (Florida is the only one I can think of) that has odd tax treatment of intangible assets, but I doubt that would apply in your case. If this were a large enough amount, usually over $10,000, it might trigger some reporting requirements (possibly by your home country).","As far as the RRSP goes, see my answer in self directed RRSP for a non resident Don't forget to file your FBAR and form 8938, if applicable. -Jon","If you are tax-resident in the US, then you must report income from sources within and without the United States. Your foreign income generally must be reported to the IRS. You will generally be eligible for a credit for foreign income taxes paid, via Form 1116. The question of the stock transfer is more complicated, but revolves around the beneficial owner. If the stocks are yours but held by your brother, it is possible that you are the beneficial owner and you will have to report any income. There is no tax for bringing the money into the US. As a US tax resident, you are already subject to income tax on the gain from the sale in India. However, if the investment is held by a separate entity in India, which is not a US domestic entity or tax resident, then there is a separate analysis. Paying a dividend to you of the sale proceeds (or part of the proceeds) would be taxable. Your sale of the entity containing the investments would be taxable. There are look-through provisions if the entity is insufficiently foreign (de facto US, such as a Subpart-F CFC). There are ways to structure that transaction that are not taxable, such as making it a bona fide loan (which is enforceable and you must pay back on reasonable terms). But if you are holding property directly, not through a foreign separate entity, then the sale triggers US tax; the transfer into the US is not meaningful for your taxes, except for reporting foreign accounts. Please review Publication 519 for general information on taxation of resident aliens.","\"After more searching for how the US might treat such an attempt to \"\"rollover\"\" the funds, I found this: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/am2008009.pdf So, it seems it is impossible to do without US tax consequences.\"","\"Mutual funds don't pay taxes themselves, they distribute any dividends or capital gains to the shareholders. Thus, if you hold a mutual fund in a tax-advantaged account like a 401k or IRA then the distribution isn't a taxable event while in a regular taxable account you would have to pay taxes on the distributions. From Forbes: There can be foreign companies on US stock exchanges that would still work the same way. Unilever for example is an Anglo-Dutch multinational listed on the NYSE as \"\"UN.\"\"\"","Generally, ETFs and mutual funds don't pay taxes (although there are some cases where they do, and some countries where it is a common case). What happens is, the fund reports the portion of the gain attributed to each investor, and the investor pays the tax. In the US, this is reported to you on 1099-DIV as capital gains distribution, and can be either short term (as in the scenario you described), long term, or a mix of both. It doesn't mean you actually get a distribution, though, but if you don't - it reduces your basis.","\"Appreciation of a Capital Asset is a Capital Gain. In the United States, Capital Gains get favorable tax treatment after being held for 12 months. From the IRS newsroom: Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2009, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. The IRS defines a Capital Asset as \"\"most property you own\"\" with a list of exclusions found in Schedule D Instructions. None of the exclusions listed relate to Bond ETFs.\"","Vanguard has just recently started listing its funds in London but it doesn't look like the High Dividend Yield ETF is available yet. You'll need to either get a broker who can trade on the U.S. markets (there might be tax and exchange rate complications), or wait until Vanguard lists this stock on the London exchange.","Any large stockbroker will offer trading in US securities. As a foreign national you will be required to register with the US tax authorities (IRS) by completing and filing a W-8BEN form and pay US withholding taxes on any dividend income you receive. US dividends are paid net of withholding taxes, so you do not need to file a US tax return. Capital gains are not subject to US taxes. Also, each year you are holding US securities, you will receive a form from the IRS which you are required to complete and return. You will also be required to complete and file forms for each of the exchanges you wish to received market price data from. Trading will be restricted to US trading hours, which I believe is 6 hours ahead of Denmark for the New York markets. You will simply submit an order to the desired market using your broker's online trading software or your broker's telephone dealing service. You can expect to pay significantly higher commissions for trading US securities when compared to domestic securities. You will also face potentially large foreign exchange fees when exchaning your funds from EUR to USD. All in all, you will probably be better off using your local market to trade US index or sector ETFs.","\"You will be filing the exact same form you've been filing until now (I hope...) which is called form 1040. Attached to it, you'll add a \"\"Schedule C\"\" form and \"\"Schedule SE\"\" form. Keep in mind the potential effect of the tax and totalization treaties the US has with the UK which may affect your filings. I suggest you talk to a licensed EA/CPA who works with expats in the UK and is familiar with all the issues. There are several prominent offices you can find by Googling.\"","If you're a non resident then you owe no capital gains tax to Canada. Most banks won't let you make trades if you're a non-resident. They may not have your correct address on file so they don't realize this. This is not tax law but just OSC (or equivalent) regulations. You do have to fill out paperwork for withholding tax on OAS/CPP payments. This is something you probably already do but here's a link . It's complicated and depends on the country you live in. Of course you may owe tax in Thailand, I don't know their laws.","Let me restate question for clarity. Facts: Question: Are there any taxes for this transaction? Answer: (Added improvements provided by Eric) Generally No. Generally, it is not considered income until you sell and the sale price is greater than the purchase price. But with currency differences, there is an additional complication, section 988 rules apply. It could result in ordinary income or loss.","\"I made an investing mistake many (eight?) years ago. Specifically, I invested a very large sum of money in a certain triple leveraged ETF (the asset has not yet been sold, but the value has decreased to maybe one 8th or 5th of the original amount). I thought the risk involved was the volatility--I didn't realize that due to the nature of the asset the value would be constantly decreasing towards zero! Anyhow, my question is what to do next? I would advise you to sell it ASAP. You didn't mention what ETF it is, but chances are you will continue to lose money. The complicating factor is that I have since moved out of the United States and am living abroad (i.e. Japan). I am permanent resident of my host country, I have a steady salary that is paid by a company incorporated in my host country, and pay taxes to the host government. I file a tax return to the U.S. Government each year, but all my income is excluded so I do not pay any taxes. In this way, I do not think that I can write anything off on my U.S. tax return. Also, I have absolutely no idea if I would be able to write off any losses on my Japanese tax return (I've entrusted all the family tax issues to my wife). Would this be possible? I can't answer this question but you seem to be looking for information on \"\"cross-border tax harvesting\"\". If Google doesn't yield useful results, I'd suggest you talk to an accountant who is familiar with the relevant tax codes. Are there any other available options (that would not involve having to tell my wife about the loss, which would be inevitable if I were to go the tax write-off route in Japan)? This is off topic but you should probably have an honest conversation with your wife regardless. If I continue to hold onto this asset the value will decrease lower and lower. Any suggestions as to what to do? See above: close your position ASAP For more information on the pitfalls of leveraged ETFs (FINRA) What happens if I hold longer than one trading day? While there may be trading and hedging strategies that justify holding these investments longer than a day, buy-and-hold investors with an intermediate or long-term time horizon should carefully consider whether these ETFs are appropriate for their portfolio. As discussed above, because leveraged and inverse ETFs reset each day, their performance can quickly diverge from the performance of the underlying index or benchmark. In other words, it is possible that you could suffer significant losses even if the long-term performance of the index showed a gain.\"","You're asking whether the shares you sold while being a US tax resident are taxable in the US. The answer is yes, they are. How you acquired them or what were the circumstances of the sale is irrelevant. When you acquired them is relevant to the determination of the tax treatment - short or long term capital gains. You report this transaction on your Schedule D, follow the instructions. Make sure you can substantiate the cost basis properly based on how much you paid for the shares you sold (the taxable income recognized to you at vest).","Found a great article (with bibliography) that covers taxation on investment activity by non resident aliens - even covers the special 15% tax on dividends for Canadian residents. It's (dividend tax rate) generally 30% for other NRAs (your 2nd question). And it confirmed my suspicion that there are no capital gains taxes for NRAs. (1st Q) Source: http://invest-faq.com/articles/tax-non-us-nat.html","What I ended up doing was finding where each ticker of Novo was registered (what exchange), then individually looking up the foreign taxation rules of the containing country. Luckily, most companies only have a few tickers so this wasn't too hard in the end.","So your accountant certainly knows much more than I do about Israeli tax law and its interactions with US tax law, which is zero. I'm going to look at this problem from the investment perspective which I hope to convince you is the most important place to start. Then you can adjust for interactions between the Isreali and US tax codes. Even if the tax breaks are exceptional, it would be hard to recommend buying real estate as an investment in the 7-10 year time frame. Especially if this real estate is in the US. Open/Closing fees, mortgage fees, risk of property devaluation, bad-renters, acts of god, insurance costs and tax complications make short to medium term investments in real estate a particularly risky way to invest. Buying a local apartment and renting is somewhat more reasonable as you don't have to worry about the currency conversion and you can do a lot more research in your local environment and keep a closer eye on the property, it is still this a pretty concentrated risk. Saving and investing using tax-advantaged accounts is generally considered a great way to build toward a down payment in the medium term. A mixture of mostly local bonds with some local and foreign stocks and more and more cash as it gets close to purchase time is generally what is recommended when saving for a home. This mixture is relatively safe and will tend to grow steadily without the concentrated risk of a real estate investment. PFIC rules are complicated and certainly worth taking some time to understand, but owning real estate especially in a foreign country seems much more complicated and certainly riskier. There may be some rule that makes investing in REITs much better than normal stocks in these particular accounts though I would be surprised if that were the case. It is generally not true for people under just he US tax code. So while option (1) may not be the absolute best from a tax perspective it would certainly be my guess as the most likely to succeed.","\"Its not for US citizens - its for US residents. If the US considers you as a tax resident - you'll be treated the same as a US citizen, regardless of your immigration status. The question is very unclear, since it is not mentioned whether your US sourced income \"\"from the Internet\"\" is sales in the US, sales on-line, services you provide, investments, or what else. All these are treated differently. For some kinds of US-sourced income you should have paid taxes in the US already, regardless of where you physically reside. For others - not. In any case, if you become US tax resident, you'll be taxed on your worldwide income, not only the $10K deposited in the US bank account. ALL of your income, everywhere in the world, must be declared to the US government and will be taxed. You should seek professional advice, before you move to the US, in order to understand your responsibilities, liabilities and rights. I suggest looking for a EA/CPA licensed in California and experienced with taxation of foreigners (look for someone in the SF or LA metropolitan areas). Keep in mind that there may be a tax treaty between the US and your home country that may affect your Federal (but not California) taxes.\"","I don't think the location of the funds is any of your concern. You're buying a CDI, which is: Australian financial instruments The US has no jurisdiction over you, being you an Australian, so unless you own a US-based asset (i.e.: a real-estate in the US, or a US brokerage account), US tax laws shouldn't matter to you.","I see no reason why a US ID would be mandatory anywhere in the UK. I'm sure they have their own tax IDs in the UK. However, if the gallery requires US persons to submit US W-9 - then yes, you're covered under that requirement.","\"I would suggest to get an authoritative response from a CPA. In any case it would be for your own benefit to have at least the first couple of years of tax returns prepared by a professional. However, from my own personal experience, in your situation the income should not be regarded as \"\"US income\"\" but rather income in your home country. Thus it should not appear on the US tax forms because you were not resident when you had it, it was given to you by your employer (which is X(Europe), not X(USA)), and you should have paid local taxes in your home country on it.\"","You can keep your Mutual Funds. You have to communicate your new status to fund house. The SIP can continue. Please note you have to convert the savings account to NRO account. Most banks would keep the account number same, else you have to revise SIP debit to new NRO account. From a tax point of view, it would be similar to resident status. Right now short term gains are taxed. There are quite a few other things you may need to do. Although dated, this is a good article. PS: Once you become resident alien in US for tax purposes, you are liable for taxes on global income.","I agree with Joe, having the money deposited to the US bank account may land you in trouble. Technically, a US business paying a foreigner must withhold 30% of the payment, unless a tax treaty says otherwise. The US business should do that based on your W8-BEN/W8-ECI form that you should have given to the business before being paid. I'm guessing, that by paying to your US bank account, you (and your American counterpart) are trying to avoid this withholding. That may cause trouble for both of you. I would suggest you talking to a professional (EA/CPA licensed in the State where the business is located) and having the situation resolved ASAP. You may not be liable for the US taxes at all, but because of incorrectly reporting the income/expense - you and the US business may end up paying way more than the $0 you otherwise would have, in penalties.","Residents of Canada must pay Canadian income tax on their worldwide income (source: Wikipedia). However, there is a tax treaty between the U.S. and Canada; I haven't read it, but my guess is that it will allow you to claim a tax credit in Canada for the capital gains tax you have paid to the U.S.","It isn't just ETFs, you have normal mutual funds in India which invest internationally. This could be convenient if you don't already have a depository account and a stockbroker. Here's a list of such funds, along with some performance data: Value Research - Equity: International: Long-term Performance. However, you should also be aware that in India, domestic equity and equity fund investing is tax-free in the long-term (longer than one year), but this exemption doesn't apply to international investments. Ref: Invest Around the World.","If you have income in the US, you will owe US income tax on it, unless there is a treaty with your country that says otherwise.","As long as the relative in the UK is not a US citizen and isn't considered domiciled in the US, there will be no estate taxes imposed by the US. You can see a much lengthier explanation on this subject here. The summary is that as a US citizen or resident, you can't circumvent estate taxes by moving yourself or your money abroad, but a relative who genuinely doesn't have US ties (other than inheritors located in the US) will be covered through applicable tax treaties (the UK does have an applicable tax treaty and applicable estate taxes as Ganesh points out)."],"string":"[\n \"My understanding is that EWU (and EWUS) are both traded on US stock markets (NYSE & BATS), and as such these are not classified as PFIC. However, they do contain PFICs, so iShares takes the responsibility of handling the PFICs they contain and make adjustments in December. This contains the information about the adjustments made in 2016. https://www.ishares.com/us/literature/tax-information/pfic-2016.pdf On page 106 of the statement of the summary information they describe how they handle paying the necessary tax as an expense of the fund. https://www.ishares.com/us/library/stream-document?stream=reg&product=WEBXGBP&shareClass=NA&documentId=925898~926077~926112~1180071~1242912&iframeUrlOverride=%2Fus%2Fliterature%2Fsai%2Fsai-ishares-trust-8-31.pdf (I'm not a tax professional)\",\n \"Here're some findings upon researches: Two main things to watch out for: Estate tax and the 30% tax withholding. These 2 could be get around by investing in Luxembourg or Ireland domiciled ETF. For instance there's no tax withholding on Ireland domiciled ETF dividend, and the estate tax is not as high. (source: BogleHead forums) Some Vanguard ETF offered in UK stock market: https://www.vanguard.co.uk/uk/mvc/investments/etf#docstab. Do note that the returns of S&P 500 ETF (VUSA) are adjusted after the 30% tax withholding! Due to VUSA's higher TER (0.09%), VOO should remain a superior choice. The FTSE Emerging Markets and All-World ETFs though, are better than their US-counterparts, for non-US residents. Non-US residents are able to claim back partials of the withhold tax, by filing the US tax form 1040NR. In 2013, non-US resident can claim back at least $3,900. Kindly correct me if anything is inaccurate.\",\n \"I'm not a professional, but my understanding is that US funds are not considered PFICs regardless of the fact that they are held in a foreign brokerage account. In addition, be aware that foreign stocks are not considered PFICs (although foreign ETFs may be).\",\n \"non-resident aliens to the US do not pay capital gains on US products. You pay tax in your home country if you have done a taxable event in your country. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/nonusresidenttax.asp#axzz1mQDut9Ru but if you hold dividends, you are subject to US dividend tax. The UK-US treaty should touch on that though.\",\n \"I believe that tax will be withheld (at 30%?) on dividends paid to non-residents. You can claim it back if your country has a tax treaty with the USA, but you will need to file. You probably also need to file a W-series withholding form (eg a W9-BEN). Interesting question. I would like to hear a more definitive answer.\",\n \"You have left out the most important piece of information: are you an American citizen? If you are, then PFIC rules mean you need to be very careful not to invest in any foreign index funds/ETFs. That means it will probably be easiest for you to just leave the money in the US and continue to invest it there. If you do not have US citizenship, and have never had a green card, then you will qualify for non-resident alien status after you've been gone for 3 years. Once that happens, you won't owe US capital gains tax (though you will owe it in AUS). You will owe 30% tax on dividends, though. Much more at Investopedia.\",\n \"As far as I read in many articles, all earnings (capital gains and dividends) from Canadian stocks will be always tax-free. Right? There's no withholding tax, ie. a $100 dividend means you get $100. There's no withholding for capital gains in shares for anybody. You will still have to pay taxes on the amounts, but that's only due at tax time and it could be very minor (or even a refund) for eligible Canadian dividends. That's because the company has already paid tax on those dividends. In contrast, holding U.S. or any foreign stock that yields dividends in a TFSA will pay 15% withholding tax and it is not recoverable. Correct, but the 15% is a special rate for regular shares and you need to fill out a W8-BEN. Your broker will probably make sure you have every few years. But if you hold the same stock in a non-registered account, this 15% withholding tax can be used as a foreign tax credit? Is this true or not or what are the considerations? That's true but reduces your Canadian tax payable, it's not refundable, so you have to have some tax to subtract it from. Another consideration is foreign dividends are included 100% in income no mater what the character is. That means you pay tax at your highest rate always if not held in a tax sheltered account. Canadian dividends that are in a non-registered account will pay taxes, I presume and I don't know how much, but the amount can be used also as a tax credit or are unrecoverable? What happens in order to take into account taxes paid by the company is, I read also that if you don't want to pay withholding taxes from foreign > dividends you can hold your stock in a RRSP or RRIF? You don't have any withholding taxes from US entities to what they consider Canadian retirement accounts. So TFSAs and RESPs aren't covered. Note that it has to be a US fund like SPY or VTI that trades in the US, and the account has to be RRSP/RRIF. You can't buy a Canadian listed ETF that holds US stocks and get the same treatment. This is also only for the US, not foreign like Europe or Asia. Also something like VT (total world) in the US will have withholding taxes from foreign (Europe & Asia mostly) before the money gets to the US. You can't get that back. Just an honourable mention for the UK, there's no withholding taxes for anybody, and I hear it's on sale. But at some point, if I withdraw the money, who do I need to pay taxes, > U.S. or Canada? Canada.\",\n \"See my answer here What is the dividend tax rate for UK stock The only tax from US stocks you'd need to worry about would be dividend withholding tax of 30%. If you contact your ISA provider they should be able to provide you with a W8-BEN form so that you can have this rate reduced to 15%. Just because there's a tax treaty does not mean you will automatically be charged 15% - you must provide a W8-BEN form and renew it when it expires. That last 15% is unfortunately unavoidable. If you were paying any UK taxes you could claim that 15% as a discount against your UK dividend tax liability, but as your US stock would be wrapped in an ISA there's no UK tax to pay which means no tax to reclaim from the tax treaty. Other than DWT though, you will pay absolutely no tax on US stocks held in an ISA to either the US or UK government.\",\n \"I believe I have to pay taxes in US since it is a US broker. No, not at all. The fact that the broker is a US broker has nothing to do with your tax liabilities. You should update the banks and the broker with your change of status submitting form W8-BEN to them. Consult a tax professional proficient with Indo-US tax treaty as to what you should put in part II. The broker might withhold some of your income and remit it as taxes to the IRS based on what you put in W8-BEN and the type of income, but you can have it refunded (if it exceeds your liability) by submitting a tax return (form 1040-NR). You do have to pay tax in India, based on the Indian tax law, for your profits in the US. Consult with an Indian tax accountant on that. If I'm not mistaken, there are also currency transfer restrictions in India that you should be aware of.\",\n \"\\\"Securities and ETFs are also subjected to Estate Tax. Some ways: Draft a \\\"\\\"Transfer on Death\\\"\\\" instruction to the broker, that triggers a transfer to an account in the beneficiary's name, in most cases avoiding probate. If the broker does not support it, find another broker. Give your brokerage and bank password/token to your beneficiary. Have him transfer out holdings within hours of death. Create a Trust, that survives even after death of an individual. P.S. ETF is treated as Stock (a company that owns other companies), regardless of the nature of the holdings. P.S.2 Above suggestions are only applicable to nonresident alien of the US.\\\"\",\n \"You will not be able to continue filing with TurboTax if you invest in foreign funds. Form 8261 which is required to report PFIC investments is not included. Read the form instructions carefully - if you don't feel shocked and scared, you didn't understand what it says. The bottom line is that the American Congress doesn't want you do what you want to do and will punish you dearly.\",\n \"If the brokerage account holds US assets, such as the stock of US companies, then it may be taxable under some conditions. The rules are complex and depend on the nationality of the individuals, because the results may be affected by tax treaties between the United States and whatever country the person is from.\",\n \"The dividend tax credit is not applicable to foreign dividend income, so you would be taxed fully on every dollar of that income. When you sell a stock, there will be a capital gain or capital loss depending on if it gained or lost value, after accounting for the Adjusted Cost Base. You only pay income tax on half of the amount earned through capital gains, and if you have losses, you can use them to offset other investments that had capital gains (or carry forward to offset gains in the future). The dividends from US stocks are subject to a 15% withholding tax that gets paid to the IRS automatically when the dividends are issued. If the stocks are held in an RRSP, they are exempt from the withholding tax. If held in a non-registered account, you can be reimbursed for the tax by claiming the foreign tax credit that you linked to. If held in a TFSA or RESP, the withholding tax cannot be recovered. Also, if you are not directly holding the stocks, and instead buy a mutual fund or ETF that directly holds the stocks, then the RRSP exemption no longer applies, but the foreign tax credit is still claimable for a non-registered account. If the mutual fund or ETF does not directly hold stocks, and instead holds one or more ETFs, there is no way to recover the withholding tax in any type of account.\",\n \"If you are a US citizen, you need to very carefully research the US tax implications of investing in foreign stocks before you do so. The US tax rules have been set up in general to make this very unattractive.\",\n \"A quick update for people finding this thread through Google. With the help of a few awesome Bogleheads, I compiled all the relevant research done into two Wiki articles: This includes comparing US to Irish domiciled ETFs, how to calculate tax withholding leakage and estate tax concerns. Hope you find this useful.\",\n \"From the UK-USA tax treaty.... ARTICLE 1 General Scope 1. Except as specifically provided herein, this Convention is applicable only to persons who are residents of one or both of the Contracting States. 2. This Convention shall not restrict in any manner any benefit now or hereafter accorded: a) by the laws of either Contracting State; or b) by any other agreement between the Contracting States... I'm not an expert but to me that sounds like the tax free advantage of an UK ISA would be respected by the IRS From the UK-USA tax treaty.... ARTICLE 7 7. Where under any provision of this Convention income or gains arising in one of the Contracting States are relieved from tax in that Contracting State and, under the law in force in the other Contracting State, a person, in respect of the said income or gains, is subject to tax by reference to the amount thereof which is remitted to or received in that other Contracting State and not by reference to the full amount thereof, then the relief to be allowed under this Convention in the first-mentioned Contracting State shall apply only to so much of the income or gains as is taxed in the other Contracting State. This is very difficult to comprehend but suggets also that tax free status is upheld in the uSa\",\n \"With the W8-Ben filed, tax will be withheld at a lower rate. (I would expect 10%). Tax treaty treatment will mean that this witholding will reduce your UK tax even if this payment is not taxable there. This is only effective if you actually pay tax. This is how it works for lotteries and dividends as well.\",\n \"Transferring money you own from one place to another pretty much never has tax implications. It might have other implications, including requirement to report it. Being a US citizen has tax implications, including the requirement to file US tax forms for the rest of eternity.\",\n \"The UK has historically aggressive financial law, inherited from Dutch friendship, influence, and acquisitions by conquest. The law is so open that nearly anyone can invest through the UK without much difficulty, and citizens have nearly no restrictions on where to invest. A UK citizen can either open an account in the US with paperwork hassles or at home with access to all world markets and less paperwork. Here is the UK version of my broker, Interactive Brokers. Their costs are the lowest, but you will be charged a minimum fee if you do not trade enough, and their minimum opening balance can be prohibitively high for some. If you do buy US products, be sure to file your W-8BEN.\",\n \"There is a fourth option - pay those taxes. Depending on the amounts, it might be the easiest way - if you make 34.49 in interest, and pay 6 $ in taxes on it, and be done, that might not be worth any other effort. If the expected taxable amount is significant, moving (most of it) to index funds or other simply switching existing investments to ‘reinvest’ instead of ‘pay out in cash’ would be the best approach. Again, some smaller amounts in savings or checkings accounts are probably not worth any effort. Transferring the money to the US doesn’t save you taxes, as any interest would still be taxable. You have a risk to lose on the conversion back and forth (and a potential to gain - the exchange rate could go either way!), so if you are sure you go back, it’s not a good idea to move the money.\",\n \"The link provided by DumbCoder (below) is only relevant to UK resident investors and does not apply if you live in Malaysia. I noticed that in a much older question you asked a similar question about taxes on US stocks, so I'll try and answer both situations here. The answer is almost the same for any country you decide to invest in. As a foreign investor, the country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The rate of DWT that will be withheld is unique to each country. The UK does not have any withholding tax so you will always receive the full dividend on UK stocks. The withholding tax rate for the US is 30%. Other countries vary. For most countries that do charge a withholding tax, it is possible to have this reduced to 15% if there is a double taxation treaty in place between the two countries and all of the following are true: Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).\",\n \"I would not expect any problems. Your interest will have tax deducted at 20% which I don't think you would be entitled to reclaim because you don't get a personal allowance if you aren't resident in the UK, and unless you have a huge amount of UK earnings you would not be legally liable to any higher rates of tax so there would be no issues there. If you were liable to more tax you would be obliged to inform the Inland Revenue.\",\n \"\\\"If you haven't been a US resident (not citizen, different rules apply) at the time you sold the stock in Europe but it was inside the same tax year that you moved to the US, you might want to have a look at the \\\"\\\"Dual Status\\\"\\\" part in IRS publication 519.\\\"\",\n \"I am a US citizen by birth only. I left the US aged 6 weeks old and have never lived there. I am also a UK citizen but TD Waterhouse have just followed their policy and asked me to close my account under FATCA. It is a complete nightmare for dual nationals who have little or no US connection. IG.com seem to allow me to transfer my holdings so long as I steer clear of US investments. Furious with the US and would love to renounce citizenship but will have to pay $2500 or thereabouts to follow the US process. So much for Land of the Free!\",\n \"The answer to your question doesn't depend on who you trade with but what country you live in. If you live outside of the US, you will have to pay tax on dividends... sometimes. This depends on the tax treaty that your country has with the US. Canada, Australia, UK and a few other countries have favorable tax treaties with the US that allow you to not be double taxed. You must look into the tax treaty that your home country has with the US to answer the question. Each country is different.\",\n \"Investopedia laid out the general information of tax treatment on the ETF fund structures as well as their underlying asset classes: http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0213/how-tax-treatments-of-etfs-work.aspx\",\n \"\\\"The shares are \\\"\\\"imputed income\\\"\\\" / payment in kind. You worked in the UK, but are you a \\\"\\\"US Person\\\"\\\"? If not, you should go back to payroll with this query as this income is taxable in the UK. It is important you find out on what basis they were issued. The company will have answers. Where they aquired at a discount to fair market value ? Where they purchased with a salary deduction as part of a scheme ? Where they acquired by conversion of employee stock options ? If you sell the shares, or are paid dividends, then there will be tax withheld.\\\"\",\n \"The money that you put into the ETF is not tax-exempt in the usual sense of the word. It is your money and you don't owe any taxes on it any more unless Congress (or the state that you reside in) imposes a wealth tax at some time in the future. What you will owe taxes on are any dividends or capital gains that the ETF distributes to you each year (even if you have opted to automatically re-invest those amounts into the ETF), and the capital gains when you sell shares of the ETF.\",\n \"As you have indicated, the 1042-S reflects no income or withholding. As such, you are not required to file a US tax return unless you have other income from the US. Gains on stocks are not reported until realized upon sale. FYI, your activity does not fit the requirements of being engaged in a trade or business activity. While the definition is documented in several places of the Code, I have attached Publication 519 which most accurately represents the application to your situation as you have described it. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p519/ch04.html#en_US_2016_publink1000222308\",\n \"IANAL, I am married to someone in your situation. As a US citizen age 26 who has not had any contact with the IRS, you should most definitely be worried... As a US citizen, you are (and always have been) required to file a US tax return and pay any tax on all income, no matter where earned, and no matter where you reside. There are often (but not always) agreements between governments to reduce double taxation. The US rule as to whether a particular type of income is taxable will prevail. As a US citizen with financial accounts (chequing, saving, investment, etc.) above a minimum balance, abroad, you are required to report information, including the amounts in the account, to the US government annually (Look up FBAR). Failure to file these forms carries harsh penalties. A recent law (FATCA) requires foreign financial institutions to report information on their US citizen clients to the US, irrespective of any local banking privacy laws. It's possible that your application triggered these reporting requirements. You will not be allowed to renounce your US citizenship until you have paid all past US taxes and penalties. Good new: you are eligible in ten years or so to run for President. Don't believe any of this, or that nothing has been missed; you must consult with a local tax expert specializing in US/UK tax laws.\",\n \"Citizenship matter for US reporting, but not for Canadian taxes. If you are an American resident then you need only worry about US taxes and rules. s\",\n \"Not knowing the US laws at all, you should worry more about having the best stock portfolio and less about taxes. My 0,02€\",\n \"Since you're a US citizen, submitting W8-BEN was wrong. If you read the form carefully, when you signed it you certified that you are not a US citizen, which is a lie and you knew it. W9 and W8 are mutually exclusive. You're either a US person for tax purposes or you're not, you cannot be both. As a US citizen - you are a US person for tax purposes, whether you have any other citizenship or not, and whether you live in (or have ever been to) the US or not. You do need to file tax returns just like any other US citizen. If you have an aggregate of $10K or more on your bank accounts outside of the US at any given day - you need to file FBAR. FATCA forms may also be applicable, depending on your balances. From foreign banks' perspective you're a US person, with regard to their FATCA obligations. Whether or not you'll be punished is hard to tell. Whether or not you could be punished is easy to tell: you could. You knowingly broke the law by certifying that you're not a US citizen when you were. That is in addition to un-filed tax returns, FBAR, etc etc. The fact that you were born outside of the US and have never lived there is technically irrelevant. Not knowing the law is not a reasonable cause for breaking it. Get a US-licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in the US) to help you sort it out.\",\n \"ETF is essentially a stock, from accounting perspective. Treat it as just another stock in the portfolio.\",\n \"If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.\",\n \"As a relatively recent nonimmigrant visa holder (O1), I was able to open an ETrade brokerage account without problems. I have full tax residence in the USA so have an SSN, and a credit history so it was no problem. Later, as a greencard holder, I opened IRA accounts with them, too. Again, there were no issues as I had all the information that the IRS paperwork required at hand.\",\n \"A) a tax treaty probably covers this for the avoidance of double taxation. Tax treaties can be very cryptic and have little precedence clarifying them http://www.irs.gov/businesses/international/article/0,,id=169552,00.html B) I'm going to say NO since the source of your income is going to be US based. But the UK tax laws might also have specific verbage for resident source income. sorry it is an inconclusive answer, but should be some factors to consider and point you in the right direction.\",\n \"\\\"That's a tricky question and you should consult a tax professional that specializes on taxation of non-resident aliens and foreign expats. You should also consider the provisions of the tax treaty, if your country has one with the US. I would suggest you not to seek a \\\"\\\"free advice\\\"\\\" on internet forums, as the costs of making a mistake may be hefty. Generally, sales of stocks is not considered trade or business effectively connected to the US if that's your only activity. However, being this ESPP stock may make it connected to providing personal services, which makes it effectively connected. I'm assuming that since you're filing 1040NR, taxes were withheld by the broker, which means the broker considered this effectively connected income.\\\"\",\n \"As the funds are Gift received from your parents, and your tax residency is US, as per US gift tax, there is no tax due from you for these funds.\",\n \"\\\"I'll add a bit to Paul's excellent write up. Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (form 2555): notice the earned there. It doesn't exclude capital gains, interest, dividends, and basically everything that is not salary. You pay US taxes on it from the first cent. Foreign tax credit - foreign tax credit (form 1116) doesn't reduce your US tax dollar for dollar (even though it may appear that it does from the generic explanations). By using this form you may end up accumulating unused credit while still paying double taxes at the same time. Happened to me. Thank Congress for the logical and reasonable US tax laws. New FATCA form 8938: as opposed to FBAR (that goes to the FinCEN in the Treasury), this one goes to the IRS. it contains very similar info, but the threshold requirements are different. You may have to file FBAR, but not these, or you may have to file both. Being an American citizen, some European banks will refuse to provide services to you. Again, thank Congress for FATCA. It requires foreign banks to enforce US tax regulations on US citizens, and banks that won't will get penalized in the US. Many banks refuse to provide services to Americans because of that because what IRS requires is illegal in most countries. Some countries (like UK and some other EU countries) have signed treaties with the US to resolve this, but many haven't. Currency conversion - as I commented to Paul, you convert the amounts when you receive them, which may have your fixed EUR salary be converted to different dollar amounts every time. You need to make sure you do it right. Pensions, savings, investments - if you're doing these in non-US instruments prepare to be penalized. US taxes foreign investments much more aggressively than domestic. If you're investing in indexes/mutual funds, or you're a principle in a corporation, or you create a pension account - you'll get hit by additional reporting requirements and tax. Tax treaties - the US has tax treaties with many EU countries, and equalization treaties with some. The tax treaties affect the standard tax treatment by the US and some of the \\\"\\\"generic\\\"\\\" info you got here may not apply because of a tax treaty, and some other rules may apply. Equalization treaties work similarly with regards to the Social Security. Bottom line, and I know Paul disagrees with me on this - talk with a US-licensed adviser in the country you're going to. It is very important for your tax adviser to know the relevant treaty (and not read it the first time when you call him), and to understand each and every financial instrument in your country. Missing piece of paper in your tax return can cost you thousands of dollars in penalties (not exaggerating, not filing form 3520 triggers a $10000 penalty, even if there's no tax) and additional taxes.\\\"\",\n \"Where you earn your money makes no difference to the IRS. Citizen/permanent resident means you pay income tax. To make matters worse given your situation it's virtually certain you have unreported foreign bank accounts--something that's also an important issue.\",\n \"As other people have said they should register with a broker in the country they reside in that can deal in US stocks, then fill out a W8-BEN form. I have personally done this as I am from the Uk, it's not a very complicated process. I would assume that most US brokers don't allow foreign customers due to the person having to pay tax where they reside and the US brokers don't want to have to keep approximately 200 different tax codes in track.\",\n \"Short answer: it's complicated. The UK govt pages on foreign income are probably your best starting point: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/LeavingOrComingIntoTheUK/DG_10027480 As you can see, it depends on your precise residence status here. (There is a tax treaty between the UK and the US so you wouldn't be double taxed on the income either way. But there might still be reporting obligations).\",\n \"Selling one fund and buying another will incur capital gains tax on the sale for the amount of the gain. I'm not aware of any sort of exemption available due to you moving out of the country. However, long-term capital gains for low-tax-bracket taxpayers is 0%. As long as your total income including the gains fits within the 15% regular tax bracket, you don't pay any long-term capital gains. Options for you that I see to avoid taxes are: Note that even if you do sell it all, it's only the amount of gains that would take your income over the 15% normal tax bracket that would be taxed at the long-term rate of 15%, which may not end up being that much of a tax hit. It may be worth calculating just how bad it would be based on your actual income. Also note that all I'm saying here is for US federal income taxes. The state you most recently lived in may still charge taxes if you're still considered a resident there in some fashion, and I don't know if your new home's government may try to take a cut as well.\",\n \"Good question - I know you can keep the ISA in the UK and it won't lose its tax free status but you're not able to contribute it while you're not a UK resident. Not that its tax free status buys you that much if you're a non-resident as you could apply to receive tax gross on pretty much any savings account anyway. Given that the idea of tax-free saving outside a retirement account doesn't really exist here in the US I would assume that you will have to declare the interest as income and, if you don't pay any other taxes in the UK that would cover the amount you'd have to pay on your ISA under the foreign tax credit, you'd end up giving the IRS their pound of flesh. As I mentioned in an answer to a previous question, you really need to talk to an US accountant/CPA, preferably one that is familiar with UK taxation law as well.\",\n \"I can't find anything specifically about holding international real estate as a US taxpayer, but the act of transferring the money to (I presume) an account of yours in Italy, and any other associated accounts, will trigger requirements for reporting under FBAR and FACTA. Even with this, it is primarily a reporting requirement. I do not believe you will incur any additional taxes unless you do rent out the property (or allow someone not a reported dependent to make use of the property). Note that if you do not report and should, the penalties are quite steep, so please do comply. NOTE: I am not a tax expert, nor a lawyer, nor an accountant, nor an agent of the IRS. Please consult one or all of these before making any decisions.\",\n \"Yes, you do. Since you've been a green card holder since the beginning of the year - your whole worldwide income for the whole year is taxable in the US. You can take credit for the taxes paid in the UK (use form 1116) to reduce your US tax liability.\",\n \"\\\"This page from the CRA website details the types of investments you can hold in a TFSA. You can hold individual shares, including ETFs, traded on any \\\"\\\"designated stock exchange\\\"\\\" in addition to the other types of investment you have listed. Here is a list of designated stock exchanges provided by the Department of Finance. As you can see, it includes pretty well every major stock exchange in the developed world. If your bank's TFSA only offers \\\"\\\"mutual funds, GICs and saving deposits\\\"\\\" then you need to open a TFSA with a different bank or a stock broking company with an execution only service that offers TFSA accounts. Almost all of the big banks will do this. I use Scotia iTrade, HSBC Invest Direct, and TD, though my TFSA's are all with HSBC currently. You will simply provide them with details of your bank account in order to facilitate money transfers/TFSA contributions. Since purchasing foreign shares involves changing your Canadian dollars into a foreign currency, one thing to watch out for when purchasing foreign shares is the potential for high foreign exchange spreads. They can be excessive in proportion to the investment being made. My experience is that HSBC offers by far the best spreads on FX, but you need to exchange a minimum of $10,000 in order to obtain a decent spread (typically between 0.25% and 0.5%). You may also wish to note that you can buy unhedged ETFs for the US and European markets on the Toronto exchange. This means you are paying next to nothing on the spread, though you obviously are still carrying the currency risk. For example, an unhedged S&P500 trades under the code ZSP (BMO unhedged) or XUS (iShares unhedged). In addition, it is important to consider that commissions for trades on foreign markets may be much higher than those on a Canadian exchange. This is not always the case. HSBC charge me a flat rate of $6.88 for both Toronto and New York trades, but for London they would charge up to 0.5% depending on the size of the trade. Some foreign exchanges carry additional trading costs. For example, London has a 0.5% stamp duty on purchases. EDIT One final thing worth mentioning is that, in my experience, holding US securities means that you will be required to register with the US tax authorities and with those US exchanges upon which you are trading. This just means fill out a number of different forms which will be provided by your stock broker. Exchange registrations can be done electronically, however US tax authority registration must be submitted in writing. Dividends you receive will be net of US withholding taxes. I am not aware of any capital gains reporting requirements to US authorities.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The US withholding tax applies to stocks/ETFs purchased on the NYSE and other US-based exchanges. If you buy Cenovus on the TSE then you will not be charged this tax. Your last sentence seems like you might be misunderstanding this tax though. If the tax applied, it would not cost you 15% on all your profits, it only applies to dividend yields. So if it pays you a 5% dividend, the tax costs you 0.75%. However, if you buy at $21.19 and sell at $26, then your capital gain is not subject to withholding taxes. It is however, subject to Canadian income tax (at 50% of the gain amount) when it's not sheltered in a TFSA or other registered account. The tax on the gains could easily amount to 16% of your profits, which is a much more significant cost. Therefore, having to pay a 0.75% withholding cost certainly does not \\\"\\\"defeat the purpose of the TFSA\\\"\\\" which is to shelter from Canadian income tax!\\\"\",\n \"ML is a brokerage firm. Tell them to sell. If you can't or don't know how to do it on-line - call them and do it over the phone. Your citizenship might come in effect when tax are withheld, you need to fill form W8-BEN if you haven't done so yet. If US taxes are withheld, you can file 1040NR to request refund, or get it credited against your local tax liabilities.\",\n \"Does my prior answer here to a slightly different question help at all? Are there capital gains taxes or dividend taxes if I invest in the U.S. stock market from outside of the country?\",\n \"I'll start with the bottom line. Below the line I'll address the specific issues. Becoming a US tax resident is a very serious decision, that has significant consequences for any non-American with >$0 in assets. When it involves cross-border business interests, it becomes even more significant. Especially if Switzerland is involved. The US has driven at least one iconic Swiss financial institution out of business for sheltering US tax residents from the IRS/FinCEN. So in a nutshell, you need to learn and be afraid of the following abbreviations: and many more. The best thing for you would be to find a good US tax adviser (there are several large US tax firms in the UK handling the US expats there, go to one of those) and get a proper assessment of all your risks and get a proper advice. You can get burnt really hard if you don't prepare and plan properly. Now here's that bottom line. Q) Will I have to submit the accounts for the Swiss Business even though Im not on the payroll - and the business makes hardly any profit each year. I can of course get our accounts each year - BUT - they will be in Swiss German! That's actually not a trivial question. Depending on the ownership structure and your legal status within the company, all the company's bank accounts may be reportable on FBAR (see link above). You may also be required to file form 5471. Q) Will I need to have this translated!? Is there any format/procedure to this!? Will it have to be translated by my Swiss accountants? - and if so - which parts of the documentation need to be translated!? All US forms are in English. If you're required to provide supporting documentation (during audit, or if the form instructions require it with filing) - you'll need to translate it, and have the translation certified. Depending on what you need, your accountant will guide you. I was told that if I sell the business (and property) after I aquire a greencard - that I will be liable to 15% tax of the profit I'd made. Q) Is this correct!? No. You will be liable to pay income tax. The rate of the tax depends on the kind of property and the period you held it for. It may be 15%, it may be 39%. Depends on a lot of factors. It may also be 0%, in some cases. I also understand that any tax paid (on selling) in Switzerland will be deducted from the 15%!? May be. May be not. What you're talking about is called Foreign Tax Credit. The rules for calculating the credit are not exactly trivial, and from my personal experience - you can most definitely end up being paying tax in both the US and Switzerland without the ability to utilize the credit in full. Again, talk to your tax adviser ahead of time to plan things in the most optimal way for you. I will effectively have ALL the paperwork for this - as we'll need to do the same in Switzerland. But again, it will be in Swiss German. Q) Would this be a problem if its presented in Swiss German!? Of course. If you need to present it (again, most likely only in case of audit), you'll have to have a translation. Translating stuff is not a problem, usually costs $5-$20 per page, depending on complexity. Unless a lot of money involved, I doubt you'll need to translate more than balance sheet/bank statement. I know this is a very unique set of questions, so if you can shed any light on the matter, it would be greatly appreciated. Not unique at all. You're not the first and not the last to emigrate to the US. However, you need to understand that the issue is very complex. Taxes are complex everywhere, but especially so in the US. I suggest you not do anything before talking to a US-licensed CPA/EA whose practice is to work with the EU/UK expats to the US or US expats to the UK/EU.\",\n \"\\\"The examples you provide in the question are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the brokerage is or where is the company you own stocks in. For a fairly standard case of an non-resident alien international student living full time in the US - your capital gains are US sourced. Let me quote the following text a couple of paragraphs down the line you quoted on the same page: Gain or loss from the sale or exchange of personal property generally has its source in the United States if the alien has a tax home in the United States. The key factor in determining if an individual is a U.S. resident for purposes of the sourcing of capital gains is whether the alien's \\\"\\\"tax home\\\"\\\" has shifted to the United States. If an alien does not have a tax home in the United States, then the alien’s U.S. source capital gains would be treated as foreign-source and thus nontaxable. In general, under the \\\"\\\"tax home\\\"\\\" rules, a person who is away (or who intends to be away) from his tax home for longer than 1 year has shifted tax homes to his new location upon his arrival in that new location. See Chapter 1 of Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses I'll assume you've read this and just want an explanation on what it means. What it means is that if you move to the US for a significant period of time (expected length of 1 year or more), your tax home is assumed to have shifted to the US and the capital gains are sourced to the US from the start of your move. For example: you are a foreign diplomat, and your 4-year assignment started in May. Year-end - you're not US tax resident (diplomats exempt), but you've stayed in the US for more than 183 days, and since your assignment is longer than 1 year - your tax home is now in the US. You'll pay the 30% flat tax. Another example: You're a foreign airline pilot, coming to the US every other day flying the airline aircraft. You end up staying in the US 184 days, but your tax home hasn't shifted, nor you're a US tax resident - you don't pay the flat tax. Keep in mind, that tax treaties may alter the situation since in many cases they also cover the capital gains situation for non-residents.\\\"\",\n \"The US will let you keep as much money as you want to within its borders regardless of your citizenship. You'll owe capital gains tax in the US unless you're subject to a tax treaty (which you would probably make as an election in the year of the transaction). I don't know if India has any rules about how it governs its citizens' foreign assets, but the US requires citizens to file a form annually declaring foreign accounts over $10,000. You may be subject to additional Indian taxes if India taxes global income like the US does.\",\n \"To answer my own question, at least to the extent of my understanding. Here the IRS says that all income for a foreign person from a US-based company is taxable with 30%. Here the IRS says that this tax should be withhold at source by whomever pays you. In case there is a tax treaty with the country, the tax can even be waived in the US. Of course, if you don't declare it in your home country, the US bank could probably give information requested by the home country authorities. For the other two cases (when there's no US party involved) I can't find anything on the IRS website, which kind of make sense. If I am using an account in the US just to receive and send money shouldn't imply any tax. Thanks to @litteadv for pointing me into the right direction.\",\n \"Is this money taxable in US? From what you described you're likely to have been a US tax resident. As such, you're taxed on your worldwide income. Foreign tax deferral schemes are not considered qualified under the US law (unless a treaty says otherwise), so you're liable for taxes on them now. Get a new tax adviser.\",\n \"You could use HBB and other similar funds that exchange distributions for capital gains. There's HXT and HXS which is Canada and US equity markets. The swap fee + mer is a little more than some funds except for HXT which is very cheap. There's a risk for long term holders that this may eventually get banned and you're forced to sell with a gain at the wrong time, but this won't matter much if you're planning on selling in a few years. You have to pay the capital gains tax eventually. Note, the tax on distributions is really a long term drag on performance and won't make a big difference in the short term.\",\n \"My understanding is that the only tax implication is that any interest income earned on foreign accounts is still taxable in the US if held by a US citizen. If the total across foreign accounts totals more than $10,000 you'll have to report those accounts to the Treasury via FinCEN Form 114, this doesn't create any additional tax obligations, it's just a regulatory measure to stop people from hiding money overseas and not paying tax on those earnings. If the US account is only in your husband's name, and the Australian account is only in your name, there may not be any reporting requirement to the Treasury. Money transferred between spouses is not subjected to gift-tax.\",\n \"\\\"Others have given a lot of advice about how to invest, but as a former expat I wanted to throw this in: US citizens living and investing overseas can VERY easily run afoul of the IRS. Laws and regulations designed to prevent offshore tax havens can also make it very difficult for expats to do effective investing and estate planning. Among other things, watch out for: US citizens owe US income tax on world income regardless of where they live or earn money FBAR reporting requirements affect foreign accounts valued over $10k The IRS penalizes (often heavily) certain types of financial accounts. Tax-sheltered accounts (for education, retirement, etc.) are in the crosshairs, and anything the IRS deems a \\\"\\\"foreign-controlled trust\\\"\\\" is especially bad. Heavy taxes on investment not purchased from a US stock exchange Some US states will demand income taxes from former residents (including expats) who cannot prove residency in a different US state. I believe California is neutral in that regard, at least. I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant nor a financial advisor, so please take the above only as a starting point so you know what sorts of questions to ask the relevant experts.\\\"\",\n \"I can't give you a specific answer because I'm not a tax accountant, so you should seek advice from a tax professional with experience relevant to your situation. This could be a complicated situation. That being said, one place you could start is the Canada Revenue Agency's statement on investment income, which contains this paragraph: Interest, foreign interest and dividend income, foreign income, foreign non-business income, and certain other income are all amounts you report on your return. They are usually shown on the following slips: T5, T3, T5013, T5013A To avoid double taxation, Canada and the US almost certainly have a foreign tax treaty that ensures you are only taxed in your country of residence. I'm assuming you're a resident of Canada. Also, this page states that: If you received foreign interest or dividend income, you have to report it in Canadian dollars. Use the Bank of Canada exchange rate that was in effect on the day you received the income. If you received the income at different times during the year, use the average annual exchange rate. You should consult a tax professional. I'm not a tax professional, let alone one who specializes in the Canadian tax system. A professional is the only one you should trust to answer your question with 100% accuracy.\",\n \"The problem there is that there's a tax due on that dividend. So, if you wish, you can buy the ETF and specify to reinvest dividends, but you'll have to pay a bit of tax on them, and keep track of your basis, if the account isn't a retirement account.\",\n \"Your tax efficient reasoning is solid for where you want to distribute your assets. ETFs are often more tax efficient than their equivalent mutual funds but the exact differences would depend on the comparison between the fund and ETF you were considering. The one exception to this rule is Vanguard funds and ETFs which have the exact same tax-efficiency because ETFs are a share class of the corresponding mutual fund.\",\n \"\\\"Answers: 1: No, Sections 1291-1298 of the IRC were passed in the Reagan adminstration. 2: Not only can a foreign company like a chocolate company fall afoul of the definition of PFIC because of the \\\"\\\"asset test\\\"\\\", which you cite, but it can also be called a PFIC because of the \\\"\\\"income test\\\"\\\". For example, I have shares in a development-stage Canadian biotech which is considered a PFIC because it has no income at all, except for a minor amount of bank interest on its working capital. This company is by no means \\\"\\\"passive\\\"\\\" (it has run 31 clinical trials in over 1100 human research subjects, burning $250M of investor's money in the process) nor is it an \\\"\\\"investment company\\\"\\\", but the stupid IRS considers it to be a \\\"\\\"passive foreign investment company\\\"\\\"! The IRS looks at it and sees only the bank account, and assumes it is a foreign shell corporation set up to shield the bank interest from them. 3: Yes, a foreign mutual fund is EXACTLY what congress intended to be a PFIC when passed IRC 1291-1298. (Biotechs, candy factories, ect got nailed as innocent bystanders.) Note that if you hold a US mutual fund then every year you'll get a form 1099 in the mail. The 1099 will report your share of the mutual fund's own income and capital gains, which you must report on your taxes. (You can also have capital gains from selling your shares of the mutual fund, but that's a different thing.) Now suppose that there was no PFIC law. Then the US investors in the mutual fund would do better if the mutual fund were in a foreign country, for two reasons: a) The fund would no longer distribute 1099's. That means the shareholders wouldn't have to pay tax every year on their proportions of the fund's own income/gains. The money that would have sooner gone to the IRS can sit around for years earning interest. b) The fund could return profits to shareholders exclusively through capital gains rather than dividends, thus ensuring that all of the investors' income on the fund would be taxed at <15%-20% rather than up to 39%. The fund could do this by returning cash to shareholders exclusively through buybacks. However, the US mutual fund industry doesn't want to move the industry to Canada, and it only takes a few newspaper articles about a foreign loophole to make congress spring to action. 4) It depends. If you have a PEDIGREED QEF election in place (as I do for my biotech shares) then form 8621 takes a few minutes by hand. However, this requires both the company and the investor to fully cooperate with congress's vision for PFICs. The company cooperates by providing a so-called \\\"\\\"PFIC annual information sheet\\\"\\\", which replaces the 1099 form for a US mutual fund. The investor cooperates by having a \\\"\\\"QEF election\\\"\\\" in place for EACH AND EVERY TAX YEAR in which he held the stock and by reporting the numbers from the PFIC annual information sheet on his return. (Note that the QEF election persists once made, until revoked. There are subtleties here that I am glossing over, since \\\"\\\"deemed sale\\\"\\\" elections and other means may be used to modify a share's holding period to come into compliance.) Note that there is software coming out to handle PFICs, and that the software makers will already run their software to make your form 8621 for $75 or so. I should also warn you that the blogs of tax accountants and tax lawyers all contradict each other on the basic issue of whether you can take capital losses on PFICs for which you have no form 8621 elections. (See section 2.3 of my notes http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr for commentary on this mess.) I do not know if the software people will tell you which elections are best made on form 8621, though, or advise you if it's time to simply dump your investment. The professional software is at 8621.com, and the individual 8621 preparation is at http://expattaxtools.com/?page_id=242. BTW, in case you're interested, I wrote up a very careful analysis of how to deal with the PFIC situation for the small biotech I invested in in certain cases. It is posted http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr. (For tax reasons it was quite fortunate that the share price dipped to near an all-time low on Jan 1, 2015, making the (next) 2015 tax year ripe for a so-called \\\"\\\"deemed sale\\\"\\\" election. This was only possible because the company provides the necessary \\\"\\\"PFIC annual information statements\\\"\\\", which your chocolate factory may or may not do.)\\\"\",\n \"My concern is if I need to report and pay extra taxes for the part of the company that will be under my name Yes, d'uh. Of course. It's actually quite complicated when it comes to foreign companies owned by US people, and you'll need a good tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) who's fluent in that area. Citizenship has nothing to do with this, from tax perspective there's no difference between a green card holder and a citizen (except that green card holder cannot claim non-resident exemptions and certain tax treaties' exemptions).\",\n \"\\\"I'm assuming that by saying \\\"\\\"I'm a US resident now\\\"\\\" you're referring to the residency determination for tax purposes. Should I file a return in the US even though there is no income here ? Yes. US taxes its residents for tax purposes (which is not the same as residents for immigration or other purposes) on worldwide income. If yes, do I get credits for the taxes I paid in India. What form would I need to submit for the same ? I am assuming this form has to be issued by IT Dept in India or the employer in India ? The IRS doesn't require you to submit your Indian tax return with your US tax return, however they may ask for it later if your US tax return comes under examination. Generally, you claim foreign tax credits using form 1116 attached to your tax return. Specifically for India there may also be some clause in the Indo-US tax treaty that might be relevant to you. Treaty claims are made using form 8833 attached to your tax return, and I suggest having a professional (EA/CPA licensed in your State) prepare such a return. Although no stock transactions were done last year, should I still declare the value of total stocks I own ? If so what is an approx. tax rate or the maximum tax rate. Yes, this is done using form 8938 attached to your tax return and also form 114 (FBAR) filed separately with FinCEN. Pay attention: the forms are very similar with regard to the information you provide on them, but they go to different agencies and have different filing requirements and penalties for non-compliance. As to tax rates - that depends on the types of stocks and how you decide to treat them. Generally, the tax rate for PFIC is very high, so that if any of your stocks are classified as PFIC - you'd better talk to a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about how to deal with them. Non-PFIC stocks are dealt with the same as if they were in the US, unless you match certain criteria described in the instructions to form 5471 (then a different set of rules apply, talk to a licensed tax adviser). I will be transferring most of my stock to my father this year, will this need to be declared ? Yes, using form 709. Gift tax may be due. Talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). I have an apartment in India this year, will this need to be declared or only when I sell the same later on ? If there's no income from it - then no (assuming you own it directly in your own name, for indirect ownership - yes, you do), but when you sell you will have to declare the sale and pay tax on the gains. Again, treaty may come into play, talk to a tax adviser. Also, be aware of Section 121 exclusion which may make it more beneficial for you to sell earlier.\\\"\",\n \"If you want to prove the actual tax liability you have in the US - you have to file a tax return. If the Romanian government believes you that the withholding is your actual tax - fine, but that would be a lie. Withholding is not a tax. The American payers must withhold from foreigners enough to have transferred more than the actual tax the foreigners would have paid. The standard withholding is 30%, but the actual tax on dividends varies. In case the tax treaty limits the tax on dividends - the withholding is usually up to the maximum of the tax allowed by the treaty. But allowed doesn't mean that would be the actual tax. In many cases it is not. So if you want to claim the US tax paid as a credit towards your Romanian tax - you'll need to file a tax return in the US, calculate the actual tax liability and that would be the amount of credit you can claim. The difference between that amount and the amount withheld by the payer will be refunded to you by the IRS. You don't have to file a US tax return, that is true. But the withholding is not the tax, the actual tax liability may have been less, and the Romanian tax authority may deny your credit, in whole or in part, based on the fact that you haven't filed a US tax return and as such have no proof of your actual tax paid. You had some experience with the UK tax treaty, and you think all the treaties are the same. That may be a reasonable line of thought, but it is incorrect. Treaties are not the same. More importantly, even if the treaty is the same - the tax law is not. While in the UK the tax on dividends may be flat and from the first pound - in the US it is neither flat nor from the first dollar. Thus, while in the UK you may have been used to paying tax at source and that's it - in the US it doesn't work that way at all.\",\n \"You're not physically present in the US, you're not a US citizen, you're not a green card holder, and you don't have a business that is registered in the US - US laws do not apply to you. You're not in any way under the US jurisdiction. Effectively connected income is income effectively connected to your business in the US. You're not in the US, so there's nothing to effectively connect your income to. Quote from the link: You usually are considered to be engaged in a U.S. trade or business when you perform personal services in the United States. You ask: If I form an LLC or C corp am I liable for this withholding tax? If you form a legal entity in a US jurisdiction - then that entity becomes subjected to that jurisdiction. If you're physically present in the US - then ECI may become an issue, and you also may become a resident based on the length of your stay.\",\n \"\\\"The IRS taxes worldwide income of its citizens and green card holders. Generally, for those Americans genuinely living/working overseas the IRS takes the somewhat reasonable position of being in \\\"\\\"2nd place\\\"\\\" tax-wise. That is, you are expected to pay taxes in the country you are living in, and these taxes can reduce the tax you would have owed in the USA. Unfortunately, all of this has to be documented and tax returns are still required every year. Your European friends may find this quite surprising as I've heard, for instance, that France will not tax you if you go live and work in Germany. A foreign company operating in a foreign country under foreign law is not typically required to give you a W-2, 1099, or any of the forms you are used to. Indeed, you should be paying taxes in the place where you live and work, which is probably somewhat different than the USA. Keep all these records as they may be useful for your USA taxes as well. You are required to total up what you were paid in Euros and convert them to US$. This will go on the income section of a 1040. You should be paying taxes in the EU country where you live. You can also total those up and convert to US$. This may be useful for a foreign tax credit. If you are living in the EU long term, like over 330 days/year or you have your home and family there, then you might qualify for a very large exemption from your income for US tax purposes, called the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion. This is explained in IRS Publication 54. The purpose of this is primarily to avoid double taxation. FBAR is a serious thing. In past years, the FBAR form went to a Financial Crimes unit in Detroit, not the regular IRS address. Also, getting an extension to file taxes does not extend the deadline for the FBAR. Some rich people have paid multi-million dollar fines over FBAR and not paying taxes on foreign accounts. I've heard you can get a $10,000 FBAR penalty for inadvertent, non-willful violations so be sure to send those in and it goes up from there to $250k or half the value of the account, whichever is more. You also need to know about whether you need to do FATCA reporting with your 1040. There are indeed, a lot of obnoxious things you need to know about that came into existence over the years and are still on the law books -- because of the perpetual 'arms race' between the government and would be cheaters, non-payers and their advisors. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p54/ http://americansabroad.org/\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The US withholding tax rate on dividends is 30%, although this can be reduced to 15% if there as a tax treaty in place between the US and your country of residence. Malaysia does have a double taxation agreement with the US (see here: http://www.mida.gov.my/env3/index.php?page=double-taxation-agreement) but it is flagged as a \\\"\\\"limited\\\"\\\" agreement. You'd need to find the full text of the agreement to see whether a reduced rate of dividend withholding tax would be available in the Malaysia/US treaty. See my other answer for more details on withholding taxes and how to partially reclaim under a double tax treaty: What is the dividend tax rate for UK stock Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).\\\"\",\n \"If you hold this money in USD and spend it in the US as USD, then there is no tax liability or reporting requirement at all. You are not subject to any tax on foreign exchange gains and losses because you have not performed any foreign exchange. CRA says a foreign exchange gain or loss happens when the fx transaction occurs—not as the currency’s value fluctuates while on deposit - and since you are never performing an fx transaction, no such issues will arise. The CRA is not interested in how you spend your money, only the money that you earn. The only possible tax liability that would arise in the circumstances that you describe would be the tax liability arising from interest earned while the cash in on deposit. If this interest exceeds the threshold of reportability, then your bank will issue you with a T-slip to be included in your tax return.\",\n \"There is a tax treaty between Canada and the US that recognizes RRSPs as retirement accounts. You won't be taxed on the gains in your RRSP like you would be if it was in a TFSA. So you don't really have to do anything (except fill out a form for the IRS every year). The problem that usually arises is if you want to buy something else. I don't know of any Canadian brokerage that will sell products to a US resident. It's a question of where they're licensed. However the SEC has issued an exemption so you can try to argue with your broker to get a trade done. Link to SEC order With such a small amount in the account you may be paying fees or have it invested in funds with higher fees. You will have to do the math on whether or not you should just withdraw the money and invest in cheaper funds and accounts in the US. When you withdraw the money Canada will withhold a flat rate of 25% or in some circumstances 15%. For more info go to Serbinski (a cross border tax specialist).\",\n \"Unless you started a bank or other kind of a financial institution (brokerage, merchant processor, etc etc), the page you linked to is irrelevant. That said, there's enough in the US tax code for you to reconsider your decision of not living in the US, or at least of being a shareholder of a foreign company. Your compliance costs are going to go through the roof. If you haven't broken any US tax laws yet (which is very unlikely), you may renounce your citizenship and save yourself a lot of money and trouble. But in the more likely case of you already being a criminal with regards the US tax law, you should probably get a proper tax advice from a US-licensed CPA/EA who's also proficient in the Japanese-American tax treaty and expats' compliance issues resolution.\",\n \"\\\"The London Stock Exchange offers a wealth of exchange traded products whose variety matches those offered in the US. Here is a link to a list of exchange traded products listed on the LSE. The link will take you to the list of Vanguard offerings. To view those offered by other managers, click on the letter choices at the top of the page. For example, to view the iShares offerings, click on \\\"\\\"I\\\"\\\". In the case of Vanguard, the LSE listed S&P500 ETF is traded under the code VUSA. Similarly, the Vanguard All World ETF trades under the code VWRL. You will need to be patient viewing iShares offerings since there are over ten pages of them, and their description is given by the abbreviation \\\"\\\"ISH name\\\"\\\". Almost all of these funds are traded in GBP. Some offer both currency hedged and currency unhedged versions. Obviously, with the unhedged version you are taking on additional currency risk, so if you wish to avoid currency risk then choose a currency hedged version. Vanguard does not appear to offer currency hedged products in London while iShares does. Here is a list of iShares currency hedged products. As you can see, the S&P500 currency hedged trades under the code IGUS while the unhedged version trades under the code IUSA. The effects of BREXIT on UK markets and currency are a matter of opinion and difficult to quantify currently. The doom and gloom warnings of some do not appear to have materialised, however the potential for near-term volatility remains so longs as the exit agreement is not formalised. In the long-term, I personally believe that BREXIT will, on balance, be a positive for the UK, but that is just my opinion.\\\"\",\n \"I don't think so in your case. Unless the account generates so much interest income that it became reportable (I don't know the exact limit, but I think it's in the hundreds if not thousands of dollars, you might get a 1099 form if it generates over $10 of interest income, but you don't have to file taxes if your overall income is too low anyways). The US does not typically tax assets, only income. There are some states (Florida is the only one I can think of) that has odd tax treatment of intangible assets, but I doubt that would apply in your case. If this were a large enough amount, usually over $10,000, it might trigger some reporting requirements (possibly by your home country).\",\n \"As far as the RRSP goes, see my answer in self directed RRSP for a non resident Don't forget to file your FBAR and form 8938, if applicable. -Jon\",\n \"If you are tax-resident in the US, then you must report income from sources within and without the United States. Your foreign income generally must be reported to the IRS. You will generally be eligible for a credit for foreign income taxes paid, via Form 1116. The question of the stock transfer is more complicated, but revolves around the beneficial owner. If the stocks are yours but held by your brother, it is possible that you are the beneficial owner and you will have to report any income. There is no tax for bringing the money into the US. As a US tax resident, you are already subject to income tax on the gain from the sale in India. However, if the investment is held by a separate entity in India, which is not a US domestic entity or tax resident, then there is a separate analysis. Paying a dividend to you of the sale proceeds (or part of the proceeds) would be taxable. Your sale of the entity containing the investments would be taxable. There are look-through provisions if the entity is insufficiently foreign (de facto US, such as a Subpart-F CFC). There are ways to structure that transaction that are not taxable, such as making it a bona fide loan (which is enforceable and you must pay back on reasonable terms). But if you are holding property directly, not through a foreign separate entity, then the sale triggers US tax; the transfer into the US is not meaningful for your taxes, except for reporting foreign accounts. Please review Publication 519 for general information on taxation of resident aliens.\",\n \"\\\"After more searching for how the US might treat such an attempt to \\\"\\\"rollover\\\"\\\" the funds, I found this: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/am2008009.pdf So, it seems it is impossible to do without US tax consequences.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Mutual funds don't pay taxes themselves, they distribute any dividends or capital gains to the shareholders. Thus, if you hold a mutual fund in a tax-advantaged account like a 401k or IRA then the distribution isn't a taxable event while in a regular taxable account you would have to pay taxes on the distributions. From Forbes: There can be foreign companies on US stock exchanges that would still work the same way. Unilever for example is an Anglo-Dutch multinational listed on the NYSE as \\\"\\\"UN.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"Generally, ETFs and mutual funds don't pay taxes (although there are some cases where they do, and some countries where it is a common case). What happens is, the fund reports the portion of the gain attributed to each investor, and the investor pays the tax. In the US, this is reported to you on 1099-DIV as capital gains distribution, and can be either short term (as in the scenario you described), long term, or a mix of both. It doesn't mean you actually get a distribution, though, but if you don't - it reduces your basis.\",\n \"\\\"Appreciation of a Capital Asset is a Capital Gain. In the United States, Capital Gains get favorable tax treatment after being held for 12 months. From the IRS newsroom: Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2009, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. The IRS defines a Capital Asset as \\\"\\\"most property you own\\\"\\\" with a list of exclusions found in Schedule D Instructions. None of the exclusions listed relate to Bond ETFs.\\\"\",\n \"Vanguard has just recently started listing its funds in London but it doesn't look like the High Dividend Yield ETF is available yet. You'll need to either get a broker who can trade on the U.S. markets (there might be tax and exchange rate complications), or wait until Vanguard lists this stock on the London exchange.\",\n \"Any large stockbroker will offer trading in US securities. As a foreign national you will be required to register with the US tax authorities (IRS) by completing and filing a W-8BEN form and pay US withholding taxes on any dividend income you receive. US dividends are paid net of withholding taxes, so you do not need to file a US tax return. Capital gains are not subject to US taxes. Also, each year you are holding US securities, you will receive a form from the IRS which you are required to complete and return. You will also be required to complete and file forms for each of the exchanges you wish to received market price data from. Trading will be restricted to US trading hours, which I believe is 6 hours ahead of Denmark for the New York markets. You will simply submit an order to the desired market using your broker's online trading software or your broker's telephone dealing service. You can expect to pay significantly higher commissions for trading US securities when compared to domestic securities. You will also face potentially large foreign exchange fees when exchaning your funds from EUR to USD. All in all, you will probably be better off using your local market to trade US index or sector ETFs.\",\n \"\\\"You will be filing the exact same form you've been filing until now (I hope...) which is called form 1040. Attached to it, you'll add a \\\"\\\"Schedule C\\\"\\\" form and \\\"\\\"Schedule SE\\\"\\\" form. Keep in mind the potential effect of the tax and totalization treaties the US has with the UK which may affect your filings. I suggest you talk to a licensed EA/CPA who works with expats in the UK and is familiar with all the issues. There are several prominent offices you can find by Googling.\\\"\",\n \"If you're a non resident then you owe no capital gains tax to Canada. Most banks won't let you make trades if you're a non-resident. They may not have your correct address on file so they don't realize this. This is not tax law but just OSC (or equivalent) regulations. You do have to fill out paperwork for withholding tax on OAS/CPP payments. This is something you probably already do but here's a link . It's complicated and depends on the country you live in. Of course you may owe tax in Thailand, I don't know their laws.\",\n \"Let me restate question for clarity. Facts: Question: Are there any taxes for this transaction? Answer: (Added improvements provided by Eric) Generally No. Generally, it is not considered income until you sell and the sale price is greater than the purchase price. But with currency differences, there is an additional complication, section 988 rules apply. It could result in ordinary income or loss.\",\n \"\\\"I made an investing mistake many (eight?) years ago. Specifically, I invested a very large sum of money in a certain triple leveraged ETF (the asset has not yet been sold, but the value has decreased to maybe one 8th or 5th of the original amount). I thought the risk involved was the volatility--I didn't realize that due to the nature of the asset the value would be constantly decreasing towards zero! Anyhow, my question is what to do next? I would advise you to sell it ASAP. You didn't mention what ETF it is, but chances are you will continue to lose money. The complicating factor is that I have since moved out of the United States and am living abroad (i.e. Japan). I am permanent resident of my host country, I have a steady salary that is paid by a company incorporated in my host country, and pay taxes to the host government. I file a tax return to the U.S. Government each year, but all my income is excluded so I do not pay any taxes. In this way, I do not think that I can write anything off on my U.S. tax return. Also, I have absolutely no idea if I would be able to write off any losses on my Japanese tax return (I've entrusted all the family tax issues to my wife). Would this be possible? I can't answer this question but you seem to be looking for information on \\\"\\\"cross-border tax harvesting\\\"\\\". If Google doesn't yield useful results, I'd suggest you talk to an accountant who is familiar with the relevant tax codes. Are there any other available options (that would not involve having to tell my wife about the loss, which would be inevitable if I were to go the tax write-off route in Japan)? This is off topic but you should probably have an honest conversation with your wife regardless. If I continue to hold onto this asset the value will decrease lower and lower. Any suggestions as to what to do? See above: close your position ASAP For more information on the pitfalls of leveraged ETFs (FINRA) What happens if I hold longer than one trading day? While there may be trading and hedging strategies that justify holding these investments longer than a day, buy-and-hold investors with an intermediate or long-term time horizon should carefully consider whether these ETFs are appropriate for their portfolio. As discussed above, because leveraged and inverse ETFs reset each day, their performance can quickly diverge from the performance of the underlying index or benchmark. In other words, it is possible that you could suffer significant losses even if the long-term performance of the index showed a gain.\\\"\",\n \"You're asking whether the shares you sold while being a US tax resident are taxable in the US. The answer is yes, they are. How you acquired them or what were the circumstances of the sale is irrelevant. When you acquired them is relevant to the determination of the tax treatment - short or long term capital gains. You report this transaction on your Schedule D, follow the instructions. Make sure you can substantiate the cost basis properly based on how much you paid for the shares you sold (the taxable income recognized to you at vest).\",\n \"Found a great article (with bibliography) that covers taxation on investment activity by non resident aliens - even covers the special 15% tax on dividends for Canadian residents. It's (dividend tax rate) generally 30% for other NRAs (your 2nd question). And it confirmed my suspicion that there are no capital gains taxes for NRAs. (1st Q) Source: http://invest-faq.com/articles/tax-non-us-nat.html\",\n \"What I ended up doing was finding where each ticker of Novo was registered (what exchange), then individually looking up the foreign taxation rules of the containing country. Luckily, most companies only have a few tickers so this wasn't too hard in the end.\",\n \"So your accountant certainly knows much more than I do about Israeli tax law and its interactions with US tax law, which is zero. I'm going to look at this problem from the investment perspective which I hope to convince you is the most important place to start. Then you can adjust for interactions between the Isreali and US tax codes. Even if the tax breaks are exceptional, it would be hard to recommend buying real estate as an investment in the 7-10 year time frame. Especially if this real estate is in the US. Open/Closing fees, mortgage fees, risk of property devaluation, bad-renters, acts of god, insurance costs and tax complications make short to medium term investments in real estate a particularly risky way to invest. Buying a local apartment and renting is somewhat more reasonable as you don't have to worry about the currency conversion and you can do a lot more research in your local environment and keep a closer eye on the property, it is still this a pretty concentrated risk. Saving and investing using tax-advantaged accounts is generally considered a great way to build toward a down payment in the medium term. A mixture of mostly local bonds with some local and foreign stocks and more and more cash as it gets close to purchase time is generally what is recommended when saving for a home. This mixture is relatively safe and will tend to grow steadily without the concentrated risk of a real estate investment. PFIC rules are complicated and certainly worth taking some time to understand, but owning real estate especially in a foreign country seems much more complicated and certainly riskier. There may be some rule that makes investing in REITs much better than normal stocks in these particular accounts though I would be surprised if that were the case. It is generally not true for people under just he US tax code. So while option (1) may not be the absolute best from a tax perspective it would certainly be my guess as the most likely to succeed.\",\n \"\\\"Its not for US citizens - its for US residents. If the US considers you as a tax resident - you'll be treated the same as a US citizen, regardless of your immigration status. The question is very unclear, since it is not mentioned whether your US sourced income \\\"\\\"from the Internet\\\"\\\" is sales in the US, sales on-line, services you provide, investments, or what else. All these are treated differently. For some kinds of US-sourced income you should have paid taxes in the US already, regardless of where you physically reside. For others - not. In any case, if you become US tax resident, you'll be taxed on your worldwide income, not only the $10K deposited in the US bank account. ALL of your income, everywhere in the world, must be declared to the US government and will be taxed. You should seek professional advice, before you move to the US, in order to understand your responsibilities, liabilities and rights. I suggest looking for a EA/CPA licensed in California and experienced with taxation of foreigners (look for someone in the SF or LA metropolitan areas). Keep in mind that there may be a tax treaty between the US and your home country that may affect your Federal (but not California) taxes.\\\"\",\n \"I don't think the location of the funds is any of your concern. You're buying a CDI, which is: Australian financial instruments The US has no jurisdiction over you, being you an Australian, so unless you own a US-based asset (i.e.: a real-estate in the US, or a US brokerage account), US tax laws shouldn't matter to you.\",\n \"I see no reason why a US ID would be mandatory anywhere in the UK. I'm sure they have their own tax IDs in the UK. However, if the gallery requires US persons to submit US W-9 - then yes, you're covered under that requirement.\",\n \"\\\"I would suggest to get an authoritative response from a CPA. In any case it would be for your own benefit to have at least the first couple of years of tax returns prepared by a professional. However, from my own personal experience, in your situation the income should not be regarded as \\\"\\\"US income\\\"\\\" but rather income in your home country. Thus it should not appear on the US tax forms because you were not resident when you had it, it was given to you by your employer (which is X(Europe), not X(USA)), and you should have paid local taxes in your home country on it.\\\"\",\n \"You can keep your Mutual Funds. You have to communicate your new status to fund house. The SIP can continue. Please note you have to convert the savings account to NRO account. Most banks would keep the account number same, else you have to revise SIP debit to new NRO account. From a tax point of view, it would be similar to resident status. Right now short term gains are taxed. There are quite a few other things you may need to do. Although dated, this is a good article. PS: Once you become resident alien in US for tax purposes, you are liable for taxes on global income.\",\n \"I agree with Joe, having the money deposited to the US bank account may land you in trouble. Technically, a US business paying a foreigner must withhold 30% of the payment, unless a tax treaty says otherwise. The US business should do that based on your W8-BEN/W8-ECI form that you should have given to the business before being paid. I'm guessing, that by paying to your US bank account, you (and your American counterpart) are trying to avoid this withholding. That may cause trouble for both of you. I would suggest you talking to a professional (EA/CPA licensed in the State where the business is located) and having the situation resolved ASAP. You may not be liable for the US taxes at all, but because of incorrectly reporting the income/expense - you and the US business may end up paying way more than the $0 you otherwise would have, in penalties.\",\n \"Residents of Canada must pay Canadian income tax on their worldwide income (source: Wikipedia). However, there is a tax treaty between the U.S. and Canada; I haven't read it, but my guess is that it will allow you to claim a tax credit in Canada for the capital gains tax you have paid to the U.S.\",\n \"It isn't just ETFs, you have normal mutual funds in India which invest internationally. This could be convenient if you don't already have a depository account and a stockbroker. Here's a list of such funds, along with some performance data: Value Research - Equity: International: Long-term Performance. However, you should also be aware that in India, domestic equity and equity fund investing is tax-free in the long-term (longer than one year), but this exemption doesn't apply to international investments. Ref: Invest Around the World.\",\n \"If you have income in the US, you will owe US income tax on it, unless there is a treaty with your country that says otherwise.\",\n \"As long as the relative in the UK is not a US citizen and isn't considered domiciled in the US, there will be no estate taxes imposed by the US. You can see a much lengthier explanation on this subject here. The summary is that as a US citizen or resident, you can't circumvent estate taxes by moving yourself or your money abroad, but a relative who genuinely doesn't have US ties (other than inheritors located in the US) will be covered through applicable tax treaties (the UK does have an applicable tax treaty and applicable estate taxes as Ganesh points out).\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["You will not be able to continue filing with TurboTax if you invest in foreign funds. Form 8261 which is required to report PFIC investments is not included. Read the form instructions carefully - if you don't feel shocked and scared, you didn't understand what it says. The bottom line is that the American Congress doesn't want you do what you want to do and will punish you dearly.","My understanding is that EWU (and EWUS) are both traded on US stock markets (NYSE & BATS), and as such these are not classified as PFIC. However, they do contain PFICs, so iShares takes the responsibility of handling the PFICs they contain and make adjustments in December. This contains the information about the adjustments made in 2016. https://www.ishares.com/us/literature/tax-information/pfic-2016.pdf On page 106 of the statement of the summary information they describe how they handle paying the necessary tax as an expense of the fund. https://www.ishares.com/us/library/stream-document?stream=reg&product=WEBXGBP&shareClass=NA&documentId=925898~926077~926112~1180071~1242912&iframeUrlOverride=%2Fus%2Fliterature%2Fsai%2Fsai-ishares-trust-8-31.pdf (I'm not a tax professional)"],"string":"[\n \"You will not be able to continue filing with TurboTax if you invest in foreign funds. Form 8261 which is required to report PFIC investments is not included. Read the form instructions carefully - if you don't feel shocked and scared, you didn't understand what it says. The bottom line is that the American Congress doesn't want you do what you want to do and will punish you dearly.\",\n \"My understanding is that EWU (and EWUS) are both traded on US stock markets (NYSE & BATS), and as such these are not classified as PFIC. However, they do contain PFICs, so iShares takes the responsibility of handling the PFICs they contain and make adjustments in December. This contains the information about the adjustments made in 2016. https://www.ishares.com/us/literature/tax-information/pfic-2016.pdf On page 106 of the statement of the summary information they describe how they handle paying the necessary tax as an expense of the fund. https://www.ishares.com/us/library/stream-document?stream=reg&product=WEBXGBP&shareClass=NA&documentId=925898~926077~926112~1180071~1242912&iframeUrlOverride=%2Fus%2Fliterature%2Fsai%2Fsai-ishares-trust-8-31.pdf (I'm not a tax professional)\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":169,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"5064"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"How much should a graduate student attempt to save?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["2003","192811"],"string":"[\n \"2003\",\n \"192811\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["2003","192811","553288","45353","37601","157219","430014","332749","421455","479769","353369","440628","35680","109061","156097","319760","599075","423745","321619","60793","433986","489480","598562","347849","295637","206223","329767","235653","492215","85977","18194","141032","404121","123013","415432","321397","287991","55841","148976","29517","198328","379948","325098","590623","345403","256055","522655","471173","34884","401248","580122","81554","476078","70730","413266","492174","45773","480402","213435","438932","574678","153341","123256","544066","7831","332938","396537","474896","59327","167438","555794","270877","244408","426906","316515","505082","349738","468879","20304","512699","328076","70558","421535","228855","551423","280776","446506","571044","439899","143467","137708","486402","151300","203380","12133","468010","147745","569628","153231","474714"],"string":"[\n \"2003\",\n \"192811\",\n \"553288\",\n \"45353\",\n \"37601\",\n \"157219\",\n \"430014\",\n \"332749\",\n \"421455\",\n \"479769\",\n \"353369\",\n \"440628\",\n \"35680\",\n \"109061\",\n \"156097\",\n \"319760\",\n \"599075\",\n \"423745\",\n \"321619\",\n \"60793\",\n \"433986\",\n \"489480\",\n \"598562\",\n \"347849\",\n \"295637\",\n \"206223\",\n \"329767\",\n \"235653\",\n \"492215\",\n \"85977\",\n \"18194\",\n \"141032\",\n \"404121\",\n \"123013\",\n \"415432\",\n \"321397\",\n \"287991\",\n \"55841\",\n \"148976\",\n \"29517\",\n \"198328\",\n \"379948\",\n \"325098\",\n \"590623\",\n \"345403\",\n \"256055\",\n \"522655\",\n \"471173\",\n \"34884\",\n \"401248\",\n \"580122\",\n \"81554\",\n \"476078\",\n \"70730\",\n \"413266\",\n \"492174\",\n \"45773\",\n \"480402\",\n \"213435\",\n \"438932\",\n \"574678\",\n \"153341\",\n \"123256\",\n \"544066\",\n \"7831\",\n \"332938\",\n \"396537\",\n \"474896\",\n \"59327\",\n \"167438\",\n \"555794\",\n \"270877\",\n \"244408\",\n \"426906\",\n \"316515\",\n \"505082\",\n \"349738\",\n \"468879\",\n \"20304\",\n \"512699\",\n \"328076\",\n \"70558\",\n \"421535\",\n \"228855\",\n \"551423\",\n \"280776\",\n \"446506\",\n \"571044\",\n \"439899\",\n \"143467\",\n \"137708\",\n \"486402\",\n \"151300\",\n \"203380\",\n \"12133\",\n \"468010\",\n \"147745\",\n \"569628\",\n \"153231\",\n \"474714\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"While I haven't experienced being \"\"grad student poor\"\" myself (I went to grad school at night and worked full-time), I would shoot for 10-20% per month ($150-$300). This depends of course on how much you currently have in savings. If it isn't much, you might want to attempt a higher savings percentage (30-40%). If you can move to a less-expensive place, do that as soon as you can. It's your largest expense; any place you can spend less on than $900 creates instance savings without having to sacrifice what you categorize as living expenses.\"","\"First, don't save anything in a tax sheltered vehicle. You will be paying so little tax that there will be essentially no benefit to making the contributions, and you'll pay tax when they come out. Tax free compounding for 40 years is terrific, but start that after you're earning more than a stipend. Second, most people recommend having a month's expenses readily available for emergencies. For you, that would be $1500. If you put $100 a month aside, it will take over a year to have your emergency fund. It's easy to argue that you should pick a higher pace, so as to have your emergency money in place sooner. However, the \"\"emergencies\"\" usually cited are things like home repair, car repair, needing to replace your car, and so on. Since you are renting your home and don't have a car, these emergencies aren't going to happen to you. Ask yourself, if your home was destroyed, and you had to replace all your clothes and possessions (including furniture), how much would you need? (Keep in mind any insurance you have.) The only emergency expense I can't guess about is health costs, because I live in Canada. I would be tempted to tell you to get a credit card with a $2000 limit and consider that your emergency fund, just because grad student living is so tight to the bone (been there, and 25 years ago I had $1200 a month, so it must be harder for you now.) If you do manage to save up $1500, and you've really been pinching to do that (walking instead of taking the bus, staying on campus hungry instead of popping out to buy food) let up on yourself when you hit the target. Delaying your graduation by a few months because you're not mentally sharp due to hunger or tiredness will be a far bigger economic hit than not having saved $200 a month for 2 or 3 years. The former is 3-6 months of your new salary, the latter 5-7K. You know what you're likely to earn when you graduate, right?\"","Are you working? Does your employer offer a 401(k) and if so, is there any match? Saving should be taught to kids at the same time they are old enough to get an allowance. There are many numbers tossed around, but 10% is a start for any new saver. If a college graduate can start by saving even 15%, better still. If you find that the 10% is too much, just start with what you can spare, and work to build that up over time, perhaps by splitting any future raises, half going toward savings, half to spending. Good luck. Edit - my 12 yr old made good money this summer baby sitting. I'm opening a Roth IRA for her. A 10 yr head start on her retirement savings. Edit (Jan-2013) - she's 14 now, 3 deposits to the Roth total $6000, and she's planning to up the number this year. Her goal is to have $50K saved in her Roth by the time she graduates college. Edit, by request (July-2017) 18, and off to college next month. Just under $24K, all invested in an S&P low cost index. We are planning to continue deposits of $4-$5K/yr, so the $50K is still a good goal.","You should plan 1-3 months for an emergency fund. Saving 6 months of expenses is recommended by many, but you have a lot of goals to accomplish, and youth is impatient. Early in your life, you have a lot of building (saving) that you need to do. You can find a good car for under $5000. It might take some effort, and you might not get quite the car you want, but if you save for 5-6 months you should have a decent car. My son is a college student and bought a sedan earlier this year for about $4000. Onto the house thing. As you said, at $11,000*2=$22,000 expenses yearly, plus about $10,000 saved, you are making low 30's. Using a common rule of thumb of 25% for housing, you really cannot afford more than about $600-700/month for housing -- you probably want to wait on that first house for awhile. Down payments really should be about 20%, and depending upon the area of the country, a modest house might be $120,000 or $520,000. Even on a $120,000, the 20% down payment would be $24,000. As you have student loans ($20,000), you should put together a plan to pay them off, perhaps allocating half your savings amount to paying down the student loans and half to saving? As you are young, you should have strong salary gains in the first few years, and once you are closer to $40,000/year, you might find the numbers working better for housing. My worry is that you are spending $22,000 out of about $32,000 for living expenses. That you are saving is great, and you are putting aside a good amount. But, you want to target saving 30-40%, if you can.","Secondly, should we pay off his student loans before investing? The subsidized loans won't be gaining any interest until he graduates so I was wondering if we should just pay off the unsubsidized loans and keep the subsidized ones for the next two years? From a purely financial standpoint, if the interest you gain on your savings is higher than the interest of the debt, then no. Otherwise, yes. If we were to keep 5,000 in savings and pay of the 3,000 of unsubsidized loans as I described above, that would leave us with about 15,000 dollars that is just lying around in my savings account. How should I invest this? Would you recommend high risk or low risk investments? I'm not from the US so take my answer with caution, but to me $15,000 seems a minimum safety net. Then again, it depends very much on any external help you can get in case of an emergency.","\"Read \"\"Stop Acting Rich\"\" by Dr Thomas Stanley. I'm concerned that even before you've earned your first paycheck you want a flashy car. $4800/yr on $63K/yr income is just about half what I'd recommend to someone who starts working. 10% is the minimum, if and only if, the employer matches 5, for a total 15% saved. Do it in a pretax account and when you go back to grad school convert to Roth.\"","\"My basic rule I tell everyone who will listen is to always live like you're a college student - if you could make it on $20k a year, when you get your first \"\"real\"\" job at $40k (eg), put all the rest into savings to start (401(k), IRA, etc). Gradually increase your lifestyle expenses after you hit major savings goals (3+ month emergency fund, house down payment, etc). Any time you get a raise, start by socking it all into your employer's 401(k) or similar. And repeat the above advice.\"","I'd suggest you keep putting money in your savings account and start investing after you land that first big job. As another answer mentioned, unless you're fortunate enough to have all of your tuition and living expenses paid for, an emergency fund is an invaluable tool for a college student. And the bigger the better. Your laptop gets stolen or your car's air conditioner (or heater) dies -- both of these things happened to me in college -- and it would have been a much bigger deal for me if I didn't have some money tucked away.","\"The policy you quoted suggests you deposit 6% minimum. That $6,000 will cost you $4,500 due to the tax effect, yet after the match, you'll have $9,000 in the account. Taxable on withdrawal, but a great boost to the account. The question of where is less clear. There must be more than the 2 choices you mention. Most plans have 'too many' choices. This segues into my focus on expenses. A few years back, PBS Frontline aired a program titled The Retirement Gamble, in which fund expenses were discussed, with a focus on how an extra 1% in expenses will wipe out an extra 1/3 of your wealth in a 40 year period. Very simple to illustrate this - go to a calculator and enter .99 raised to the power of 40. .669 is the result. My 401(k) has an expense of .02% (that's 1/50 of 1%) .9998 raised to the same 40 gives .992, in other words, a cost of .8% over the full 40 years. My wife and I are just retired, and will have less in expenses for the rest of our lives than the average account cost for just 1 year. In your situation, the knee-jerk reaction is to tell you to maximize the 401(k) deposit at the current (2016) $18,000. That might be appropriate, but I'd suggest you look at the expense of the S&P index (sometime called Large Cap Fund, but see the prospectus) and if it's costing much more than .75%/yr, I'd go with an IRA (Roth, if you can't deduct the traditional IRA). Much of the value of the 401(k) beyond the match is the tax differential, i.e. depositing while in the 25% bracket, but withdrawing the funds at retirement, hopefully at 15%. It doesn't take long for the extra expense and the \"\"holy cow, my 401(k) just turned decades of dividends and long term cap gains into ordinary income\"\" effect to take over. Understand this now, not 30 years hence. Last - to answer your question, 'how much'? I often recommend what may seem a cliche \"\"continue to live like a student.\"\" Half the country lives on $54K or less. There's certainly a wide gray area, but in general, a person starting out will choose one of 2 paths, living just at, or even above his means, or living way below, and saving, say, 30-40% off the top. Even 30% doesn't hit the extreme saver level. If you do this, you'll find that if/when you get married, buy a house, have kids, etc. you'll still be able to save a reasonable percent of your income toward retirement. In response to your comment, what counts as retirement savings? There's a concept used as part of the budgeting process known as the envelope system. For those who have an income where there's little discretionary money left over each month, the method of putting money aside into small buckets is a great idea. In your case, say you take me up on the 30-40% challenge. 15% of it goes to a hard and fast retirement account. The rest, to savings, according to the general order of emergency fund, 6-12 months expenses, to cover a job loss, another fund for random expenses, such as new transmission (I've never needed one, but I hear they are expensive), and then the bucket towards house down payment. Keep in mind, I have no idea where you live or what a reasonable house would cost. Regardless, a 20-25% downpayment on even a $250K house is $60K. That will take some time to save up. If the housing in your area is more, bump it accordingly. If the savings starts to grow beyond any short term needs, it gets invested towards the long term, and is treated as \"\"retirement\"\" money. There is no such thing as Saving too much. When I turned 50 and was let go from a 30 year job, I wasn't unhappy that I saved too much and could call it quits that day. Had I been saving just right, I'd have been 10 years shy of my target.\"","I recommend you consider a Roth IRA. Invest it as others here suggest, safely, CDs, money market,etc. You can put in $5000/yr. When you spend, use this last, there is no penalty to withdraw the deposits. But if you make it through grad school without needing it, you'll have great start on your retirement savings.","Determine how much you are going to save first. Then determine where you can spend your money. If you're living with your parents, try to build an emergency fund of six months income. The simplest way is to put half of your income in the emergency fund for a year. Try to save at least 10% of your income for retirement. The earlier you start this, the longer you'll have to let the magic of compounding work on it. If your employer offers a 401k with a match, do that first. If not, consider an IRA. You probably want to do a Roth now (because you probably pay little in taxes so the deduction from a standard IRA won't help you). After the year, you'll have an emergency fund. Work out how much money you'll need for rent, utilities, and groceries when you're on your own. Invest that in some way. Pay off student loans if you have any. Buy a car that you can keep a long time if you need one. Go to night school. Put any excess money in a savings account or mutual fund. This is money for doing things related to housing. Perhaps you'll need to buy a washer/dryer. Or pay a down payment on a mortgage eventually. Saving this money now does two things: first, it gives you savings for when you need it; second, it keeps you from getting used to spending your entire paycheck. If you are used to only having $200 of spending cash out of each check, you will fit your spending into that. If you are used to spending $800 every two weeks, it will be hard to cut your spending to make room for rent, etc.","To make this more general: should you save for retirement or for education? The answer is simple: save for your education first. A PriceWaterhouseCoopers report on behalf Universities UK in 2006 and another by the Washington-based College Board in 2007 indicate that graduates of higher education can earn anywhere from $400,000 to $1 million more, after tax and education loans are paid, than do those who start work with only a high-school qualification. [From my blog...] Over your lifetime your higher education will earn you far more than any other income and investments you forego while attaining that education. Make those sacrifices now to reap greater rewards later.","Yes, you should be saving for retirement. There are a million ideas out there on how much is a reasonable amount, but I think most advisor would say at least 6 to 10% of your income, which in your case is around $15,000 per year. You give amounts in dollars. Are you in the U.S.? If so, there are at least two very good reasons to put money into a 401k or IRA rather than ordinary savings or investments: (a) Often your employer will make matching contributions. 50% up to 6% of your salary is pretty common, i.e. if you put in 6% they put in 3%. If either of your employers has such a plan, that's an instant 50% profit on your investment. (b) Any profits on money invested in an IRA or 401k are tax free. (Effectively, the mechanics differ depending on the type of account.) So if you put $100,000 into an IRA today and left it there until you retire 30 years later, it would likely earn something like $600,000 over that time (assuming 7% per year growth). So you'd pay takes on your initial $100,000 but none on the $600,000. With your income you are likely in a high tax bracket, that would make a huge difference. If you're saying that you just can't find a way to put money away for retirement, may I suggest that you cut back on your spending. I understand that the average American family makes about $45,000 per year and somehow manages to live on that. If you were to put 10% of your income toward retirement, then you would be living on the remaining $171,000, which is still almost 4 times what the average family has. Yeah, I make more than $45,000 a year too and there are times when I think, How could anyone possibly live on that? But then I think about what I spend my money on. Did I really need to buy two new computer printers the last couple of months? I certainly could do my own cleaning rather than hiring a cleaning lady to come in twice a month. Etc. A tough decision to make can be paying off debt versus putting money into an investment account. If the likely return on investment is less than the interest rate on the loan, you should certainly concentrate on paying off the loan. But if the reverse is true, then you need to decide between likely returns and risk.","In addition to what others have said, I think it is important to consider that government retirement assistance (whatever it is called in each instance) is basically a promise that can be revoked. I talked to a retired friend of mine just yesterday and we got onto that subject; she mentioned that when she was young, the promise was for 90% of one's pay, paid by the government after retiring. It is very different today. Yes, you can gamble that you won't need the saved money, and thus decide not to save anything. What then if you do end up needing the money you did not set aside, but rather spent? You are just now graduating college, and assuming of course that you get a decently-paying job, are likely going to have loads more money than you are used to. If you make an agreement with yourself to set aside even just 10-15% of the difference in income right from the start, that is going to grow into a pretty sizable nest egg by the time you approach retirement age. Then, you will have the option of continuing to work (maybe part-time) or quitting in a way you would not have had otherwise. Now I'm going to pull numbers out of thin air, but suppose that you currently have $1000/month net, before expenses, and can get a job that pays $1800/month net starting out. 10-15% of the difference means you'll be saving around $100/month for retirement. In 35 years, assuming no return on investment (pessimistic, but works if returns match inflation) and no pay rises, that will still be over $40K. That's somewhere on the order of $150/month added to your retirement income for 25 years. Multiply with whatever inflation rate you think is likely if you prefer nominal values. It becomes even more noticable if you save a significant fraction of the additional pay; if you save 1/3 of the additional money (note that you still effectively get a 50% raise compared to what you have been living on before), that gives you a net income of $1500/month instead of $1800 ($500/month more rather than $800/month more) which grows into about $110K in 35 years assuming no return on investment. Nearly $400 per month for 25 years. $100 per week is hardly chump change in retirement, and it is still quite realistic for most people to save 30% of the money they did not have before.","Congrats on making it this far debt free. It is rare, but nice to be in the situation that you are in. The important thing here is that you want to remain debt free. That's really what the emergency fund is all about: it keeps you from needing to go into debt should something unexpected happen. You've got 1.5 months worth of expenses saved up, and that's great. If you don't have a family or other responsibilities, that might be enough, but think about this: how are you paying for school, and what would happen if those funds stopped coming in? If you are paying for school out of your own income, what happens if you lose your job? If someone else, perhaps your parents, is paying for school, what happens if they are suddenly no longer able to do so? While you have extra cash, you want to be saving it up for situations like this. If I were you, I would build up that emergency fund until it got to the point where it could pay all your expenses and tuition until graduation. Hopefully, you won't need to touch it, but it will be there if you need it. Since you need to be able to access your money quickly, it is generally recommended to park this money in a savings account, where it is very safe. Mutual funds are a great way to invest, but they are not safe in the short term. Don't stress out about not being able to start retirement investing just yet. Making sure you can finish school debt free is the best investment you can make right now. After you graduate and land a job, you can start investing aggressively.","Great question and great of you to be paying attention to this. Right now having the ability to save $2K per year might seem very out of reach. However with the right career path and by paying attention to personal finance saving 2K per month will become possible sooner than you may think. As a student you are already investing in your future, by building your greatest wealth building tool: your income. Right now concentrate on that. If you have extra money throw it in a boring old savings account and don't touch it other than emergencies. An emergency is defined as something that will preclude you from completing your education. It is not paying for the latest xbox game/skateboard/once in a lifetime trip. An important precursor to investing is having an emergency fund that sits in a boring old savings account earning almost nothing. Think of it as an insurance policy that prevents you from liquidating your investments in case of and emergency. Emergencies often come during economic downturns. If you have to liquidate your investment to cover these times then you will lock in negative returns. Once you are done with school, moved into a place of your own, and have your first job you will have a nice start on your emergency fund. Then you can start investing. Doing it in the right order you will be amazed how quickly your savings can accumulate. I'd be shooting for that 2 million by the time you are 40, not 65.","I don't have a reference, but I think it depends on when you entered the workforce: If you finished school at age 24, your primary goals are to pay down expensive debt and to save up enough for a down payment. So essentially not much. Maybe $5k to $10k at the most. On the other hand if you entered the workforce at age 20, with no debts and no significant expenses, it should have been easy to sock away 20% of your income for 6 years, so $40k to $50k would be reasonable. The difference is that the first person's income earning potential should be higher, so eventually they'd be able to make up the difference and pass them.","Save enough to build an emergency cushion of 4-6 months total expenses. After that, invest everything you can in areas where you are well researched and have carefully formed your own opinion on the subject. Those who save do not reach financial freedom, those who learn to invest and make their money work for them do. Invest in learning how to invest.","This is assuming that you are now making some amount X per month which is more than the income you used to have as a student. (Otherwise, the question seems rather moot.) All figures should be net amounts (after taxes). First, figure out what the difference in your cost of living is. That is, housing, electricity, utilities, the basics that you need to have to have a place in which to live. I'm not considering food costs here unless they were subsidized while you were studying. Basically, you want to figure out how much you now have to spend extra per month for basic sustenance. Then, figure out how much more you are now making, compared to when you were a student. Subtract the sustenance extra from this to get your net pay increase. After that is when it gets trickier. Basically, you want to set aside or invest as much of the pay increase as possible, but you probably have other expenses now that you didn't before and which you cannot really do that much about. This mights be particular types of clothes, commute fares (car keepup, gas, bus pass, ...), or something entirely different. Anyway, decide on a savings goal, as a percentage of your net pay increase compared to when you were a student. This might be 5%, 10% or (if you are really ambitious) 50% or more. Whichever number you pick, make sure it's reasonable giving your living expenses, and keep in mind that anything is better than nothing. Find a financial institution that offers a high-interest savings account, preferably one with free withdrawals, and sign up for one. Each and every time you get paid, figure out how much to save based on the percentage you determined (if your regular case is that you get the same payment each time, you can simply set up an automated bank transfer), put that in the savings account and, for the moment, forget about that money. Try your best to live only on the remainder, but if you realize that you set aside too much, don't be afraid to tap into the savings account. Adjust your future deposits accordingly and try to find a good balance. At the end of each month, deposit whatever remains in your regular account into your savings account, and if that is a sizable amount of money, consider raising your savings goal a little. The ultimate goal should be that you don't need to tap into your savings except for truly exceptional situations, but still keep enough money outside of the savings account to cater to some of your wants. Yes, bank interest rates these days are often pretty dismal, and you will probably be lucky to find a savings account that (especially after taxes) will even keep up with inflation. But to start with, what you should be focusing on is not to make money in terms of real value appreciation, but simply figuring out how much money you really need to sustain a working life for yourself and then walking that walk. Eventually (this may take anywhere from a couple of months to a year or more), you should have settled pretty well on an amount that you feel comfortable with setting aside each month and just letting be. By that time, you should have a decently sized nest egg already, which will help you get over rough spots, and can start thinking about other forms of investing some of what you are setting aside. Whenever you get a net pay raise of any kind (gross pay raise, lower taxes, bonus, whichever), increase your savings goal by a portion of that raise. Maybe give yourself 60% of the raise and bank the remaining 40%. That way, you are (hopefully!) always increasing the amount of money that you are setting aside, while also reaping some benefits right away. One major upside of this approach is that, if you lose your job, not only will you have that nest egg, you will also be used to living on less. So you will have more money in the bank and less monthly expenses, which puts you in a significantly better position than if you had only one of those, let alone neither.","Save a little if you want but pay most of your way through college if you can. Debt sucks bad and I try to avoid as little as possible. I'm willing to bet that any money you invested while in school would be trumped by a only a few hours of overtime once you're out of college and making money (assuming you've chosen a path that is valuable today and through most of your future). I worked full time and attended school full time when I was in college..those 3-4 hour nights of sleep were worth it not that I see people paying $1k/month for the next 10 years on loans... assuming you can handle it.","Daniel, first of all, I'm jealous of your predicament. That said, I think you've gotten some good advice already, so I won't repeat what's been said. But I will throw out a few ideas that haven't come up. My first thought is that you may be underestimating upcoming expenses. It sounds like your current expenses are low, and that's great! I'm impressed that you're living below your means, and looking for the best way to use your extra cash. But you may not be thinking of a few things. You have a girlfriend, and maybe your relationship isn't such that you are planning a wedding quite yet. But, regardless of whether your current girlfriend is your future life partner or not, if you think marriage may be in your future at all, you'll save yourself a lot of stress if you've got some savings for a wedding in place before you're ready to commit. Next, what are you driving? If it's a good car that you expect to last you another 10 years, you're probably ok right now. But if you may need to replace your vehicle in the next few years, start saving now and you may be able to buy it outright. (I expect your interest rate on financing a car would be higher than your current student loan rates, so I would save for a car before paying down loans with such beautiful rates.) A house has already been discussed, and there was also mention of additional education, and both of those require a solid financial plan that begins far in advance. In summary, I think you need a lot more than $5K in savings. Sure, have some fun, and take advantage of opportunities to travel, etc, as they come along, but if you're able to bump your savings by $500 to $1000/month, I think you'll really be glad you did. When it comes time for a new car, or you find you're ready to settle down, it will be nice to have somewhere to draw from, and if there's only $5K in your savings, you may come to regret choices you made when you were 22.","You will find lots of rules of thumb but there is no universal truth to how much you should save. There are factors you DO need to consider though: you should start as early as possible to set money aside for retirement. You should then use a retirement calculator to at least get an understanding of the amount you need to set aside each month to achieve the desired retirement income; your default should be not to spend money and only spend money when you must. Leisure, travel and eating out should come last after you have saved up; you should have funds for different terms. For example, my wife and I have an emergency fund for unexpected expenses or losses in income. The rule of thumb here generally is to have 3-6 months of salary saved up. A longer term fund should be created for larger expenses like buying a car or preparing the cashdown on a property. Finally, the retirement fund which should cover your needs after you have retired.","\"Debt cripples you, it weighs you down and keeps you from living your life the way you want. Debt prevents you from accomplishing your goals, limits your ability to \"\"Do\"\" what you want, \"\"Have\"\" what you want, and \"\"Be\"\" who you want to be, it constricts your opportunities, and constrains your charity. As you said, Graduated in May from school. Student loans are coming due here in January. Bought a new car recently. The added monthly expenses have me concerned that I am budgeting my money correctly. Awesome! Congratulations. You need to develop a plan to repay the student loans. Buying a (new) car before you have planned you budget may have been premature. I currently am spending around 45-50% of my monthly (net)income to cover all my expenses and living. The left over is pretty discretionary, but things like eating dinner outside the house and expenses that are abnormal would come out of this. My question is what percentage is a safe amount to be committing to expenses on a monthly basis? Great! Plan 40-50% for essentials, and decide to spend under 20-30% for lifestyle. Be frugal here and you could allocate 30-40% for financial priorities. Budget - create a budget divided into three broad categories, control your spending and your life. Goals - a Goal is a dream with a plan. Organize your goals into specific items with timelines, and steps to progress to your goals. You should have three classes of goals, what you want to \"\"Have\"\", what you want to \"\"Do\"\", and who you want to \"\"Be\"\"; Ask yourself, what is important to you. Then establish a timeline to achieve each goal. You should place specific goals or steps into three time blocks, Near (under 3-6 months), medium (under 12 months), and Long (under 24 months). It is ok to have longer term plans, but establish steps to get to those goals, and place those steps under one of these three timeframes. Example, Good advice I have heard includes keeping housing costs under 25%, keeping vehicle costs under 10%, and paying off debt quickly. Some advise 10-20% for financial priorities, but I prefer 30-40%. If you put 10% toward retirement (for now), save 10-20%, and pay 10-20% toward debt, you should make good progress on your student loans.\"","First thing to do right now, is to see if there's somewhere equally liquid, equally risk free you can park your cash for higher rate of return. You can do this now, and decide how much to move into less liquid investments on your own pace. When I was in grad school, I opened a Roth IRA. These are fantastic things for young people who want to keep their options open. You can withdraw the contributions without penalty any time. The earnings are tax free on retirement, or for qualified withdrawls after five years. Down payments on a first home qualify for example. As do medical expenses. Or you can leave it for retirement, and you'll not pay any taxes on it. So Roth is pretty flexible, but what might that investment look like? It in depends on your time horizon; five years is pretty short so you probably don't want to be too stock market weighted. Just recognize that safe short term investments are very poorly rewarded right now. However, you can only contribute earnings in the year they are made, up to a 5000 annual maximum. And the deadline for 2010 is gone. So you'll have to move this into an IRA over a number of years, and have the earnings to back it. So in the meanwhile, the obvious advice to pay down your credit card bills & save for emergencies applies. It's also worth looking at health and dental insurance, as college students are among the least likely to have decent insurance. Also keep a good chunk on hand in liquid accounts like savings or checking for emergencies and general poor planning. You don't want to pay bank fees like I once did because I mis-timed a money transfer. It's also great for negotiating when you can pay in cash up front; my car insurance for example, will charge you more for monthly payments than for every six months. Or putting a huge chunk down on a car will pretty much guarantee the best available dealer financing.","Saving some money for the future is a good idea. But how much to save is a tough question. I retired with a small fraction of what the experts said I would need. Three years later, I can confidently say I did not even need what I had saved.","Most financial guru's recommend between three and six months of savings, modified by how likely you think it is you'll lose your job. Note that the months here are months of expenses not income. Dave Ramsey on the other hands recommends saving only $1000 until you've paid all debts (except your home). This strategy only makes sense if you're paying off debt very aggressively. Since you have many relatively small debts, you would benefit greatly from the debt snowball (recent research shows it's more effective in practice than paying off high interest first). As you quickly pay off the smaller loans you reduce the amount you must pay each month, reducing your risk (your emergency fund now goes that much farther), and enabling you to put more on the next debt. In your particular case the debt snowball would be: etc. Again, this is good because it quickly reduces your monthly required debt payments.","Figure you need as much cash in the bank to pay all of your bills for the amount of time it would take you to find a new job if yours went away. Also .. congratulations on your situation .. good work.","You are looking for r/personalfinance. But it'd probably be best to put your excess monies in a savings account, not worrying about 401k/retirement contributions until you get a full time job, post college. Don't listen to the pussies that will tell you to invest it in a vagaurd account or your 401k. The money is more important to you as an emergency fund you can access immediately. At most you'll see a 4-5% return on your meager savings, amounting to less than $100/year.","My graduate stipend was wage income so I could make Roth IRA contributions. Don't lose the year; you can withdraw nominal contributions if needed. What you choose is less important than making the contribution.","Chances are since college is your next likely step I would recommend saving up for it. Start building an emergency fund. Recommended $1,000 minimum. To start building your credit rating (when 18) get a low interest low limit credit. Pay off the balance every month. Starting to build your credit rating now can save you hundreds of thousands when buying a house over the course of paying it off. ie. cheaper interest rate. As for investing, the sooner you can get started the better. Acquire preferred/stocks/bonds/REITs/ETFs/etc that pay you to own them (they pay you dividends monthly/quarterly/etc). Stick with solid stocks that have a history of consistently increasing their dividends over time and that are solid companies. I personally follow the work/advice of Derek Foster. He's not a professional but he retired at 34. His first book (Stop working - Here's how you can) is great and recommend it to anyone who is looking to get started. Also check out Ramit Sethi's blog I Will Teach You to be Rich. He focuses on big wins which save you a lot over the long term. He's also got some great advice for students as well. Best of luck!","Get a decent job while at university - it will make all the difference. And calculate your budget and don't spend more than your budget allows Worked for me. That was the time when I had the greatest disposable income - all gone downhill since :-)","\"Fool's 13 steps to invest is a good starting point. Specifically, IFF all your credit cards are paid, and you made sure you've got no outstanding liabilities (that also accrues interest), stock indexes might be a good place for 5-10 years timeframes. For grad school, I'd probably look into cash ISA (or local equivalent thereof) -the rate of return is going to be lower, but having it in a separate account at least makes it mentally \"\"out of sight - out of mind\"\", so you can make sure the money's there WHEN you need it.\"","I saved all the money I made working part time in high school and paid for my first year of college, it was a big relief and really helped me. $15,000 is not that much now that I'm done with school.","On paper the whole 6 months living costs sounds (and is) great, but in real life there are a lot of things that you need to consider. For example, my first car was constantly falling apart and was an SUV that got 16MPG. I have to travel for work (about 300 miles per week) so getting a sedan that averages close to 40MPG saves me more in gas and maintenance than the monthly payment for the new car costs. When our apartment lease was up, the new monthly rent would have been $1685 per month, we got a 30 year mortgage with a monthly payment of $1372. So buying a house actually let us put aside more each month. We have just under 3 months of living expenses set aside (1 month in liquid assets, 2 months in a brokerage account) and I worry about it. I wish we had a better buffer, but in our case the house and car made more sense as an early investment compared to just squirreling away all our savings. Also, do you have any debt? Paying off debt (student loans, credit card debt, etc.) should often take top priority. Have some rainy day funds, of course, but pay down debts, and then create a personal financial plan for what works best in your situation. That would be my suggestion.","On average, you should be saving at least 10-15% of your income in order to be financially secure when you retire. Different people will tell you different things, but really this can be split between short term savings (cash), long term savings (401ks, IRAs, stocks & bonds), and paying down debt. That $5k is a good start on an emergency fund, but you probably want a little more. As justkt said, 6 months' worth is what you want to aim for. Put this in a Money Market account, where you'll earn a little more interest but won't be penalized from withdrawing it when its needed (you may have to live off it, after all). Beyond that, I would split things up; if possible, have payroll deductions going to a broker (sharebuilder is a good one to start with if you can't spare much change), as well as an IRA at a bank. Set up a separate checking account just for rent and utilities, put a month's worth of cash in there, and have another payroll deduction that covers your living expenses + maybe 5% put in there automatically. Then, set up automatic bill payments, so you don't even have to think about it. Check it once a month to make sure there aren't any surprises. Pay off your credit cards every month. These are, by far, the most expensive forms of credit that most people have. You shouldn't be financing large purchases with them (you'll get better rates by taking a personal loan from a bank). Set specific goals for savings, and set up automatic payroll deductions to work towards them. Especially for buying a house; most responsible lenders will ask for 20% down. In today's market, that means you need to write a check for $40k or $50k. While it's tempting to finance up to 100% of the property value, it's also risky considering how volatile markets can be. You don't want to end up owing more on the property than it's worth two years down the road. If you find yourself at the end of the month with an extra $50 or so, consider your savings goals or your current debt instead of blowing it on a toy. Especially if you have long term debt (high balance credit cards, vehicle or property loans), applying that money directly to principal can save you months (or years) paying it back, and hundreds or thousands of dollars of interest (all depending on the details of the loan, of course). Above all, have fun with it :) Think of your personal net worth as you do your Gamer score on the XBox, and look for ways to maximize it with a minimum of effort or investment on your part! Investing in yourself and your future can be incredibly rewarding emotionally :)","Why not just hold that cash until you graduate from college? Why? Because it's a safety net - make sure you don't have any sudden expenses (medical, school bills, car bills, etc). Then after school you're going to need some cash for job moving, relocation, clothes, downpayment on apartment, utilities, etc. If all that cash is tied up into a 401 or IRA then you can't touch it and if something happens you'll be tempted to take a loan out. Ack! You'll have plenty of time since you're just starting to save for retirement. Keep this cash as a beginning emergency fund and hang on cause as soon as you get out of school things really move fast. :)","I have about $1K in savings, and have been told that you should get into investment and saving for retirement early. I make around $200 per week, which about $150 goes into savings. That's $10k per year. The general rule of thumb is that you should have six months income as an emergency fund. So your savings should be around $5k. Build that first. Some argue that the standard should be six months of living expenses rather than income. Personally, I think that this example is exactly why it is income rather than living expenses. Six months of living expenses in this case would only be $1250, which won't pay for much. And note that living expenses can only be calculated after the fact. If your estimate of $50 a week is overly optimistic, you might not notice for months (until some large living expense pops up). Another problem with using living expenses as the measure is that if you hold down your living expenses to maximize your savings, this helps both measures. Then you hit your savings target, and your living expenses increase. So you need more savings. By contrast, if your income increases but your living expenses do not, you still need more savings but you can also save more money. Doesn't really change the basic analysis though. Either way you have an emergency savings target that you should hit before starting your retirement savings. If you save $150 per week, then you should have around $4k in savings at the beginning of next year. That's still low for an emergency fund by the income standard. So you probably shouldn't invest next year. With a living expenses standard, you could have $6250 in savings by April 15th (deadline for an IRA contribution that appears in the previous tax year). That's $5000 more than the $1250 emergency fund, so you could afford an IRA (probably a Roth) that year. If you save $7500 next year and start with $4k in savings (under the income standard for emergency savings), that would leave you with $11,500. Take $5500 of that and invest in an IRA, probably a Roth. After that, you could make a $100 deposit per week for the next year. Or just wait until the end. If you invested in an IRA the previous year because you decided use the living expenses standard, you would only have $6500 at the end of the year. If you wait until you have $6750, you could max out your IRA contribution. At that point, your excess income for each year would be larger than the maximum IRA contribution, so you could max it out until your circumstances change. If you don't actually save $3k this year and $7500 next year, don't sweat it. A college education is enough of an investment at your age. Do that first, then emergency savings, then retirement. That will flip around once you get a better paying, long term job. Then you should include retirement savings as an expected cost. So you'd pay the minimum required for your education loans and other required living expenses, then dedicate an amount for retirement savings, then build your emergency savings, then pay off your education loans (above the minimum payment). This is where it can pay to use the more aggressive living expenses standard, as that allows you to pay off your education loans faster. I would invest retirement savings in a nice, diversified index fund (or two since maintaining the correct stock/bond mix of 70%-75% stocks is less risky than investing in just bonds much less just stocks). Investing in individual stocks is something you should do with excess money that you can afford to lose. Secure your retirement first. Then stock investments are gravy if they pan out. If they don't, you're still all right. But if they do, you can make bigger decisions, e.g. buying a house. Realize that buying individual stocks is about more than just buying an app. You have to both check the fundamentals (which the app can help you do) and find other reasons to buy a stock. If you rely on an app, then you're essentially joining everyone else using that app. You'll make the same profit as everyone else, which won't be much because you all share the profit opportunities with the app's system. If you want to use someone else's system, stick with mutual funds. The app system is actually more dangerous in the long term. Early in the app's life cycle, its system can produce positive returns because a small number of people are sharing the benefits of that system. As more people adopt it though, the total possible returns stay the same. At some point, users saturate the app. All the possible returns are realized. Then users are competing with each other for returns. The per user returns will shrink as usage grows. If you have your own system, then you are competing with fewer people for the returns from it. Share the fundamental analysis, but pick your stocks based on other criteria. Fundamental analysis will tell you if a stock is overvalued. The other criteria will tell you which undervalued stock to buy.","\"I posted a comment in another answer and it seems to be approved by others, so I have converted this into an answer. If you're talking about young adults who just graduated college and worked through it. I would recommend you tell them to keep the same budget as what they were living on before they got a full-time job. This way, as far as their spending habits go, nothing changes since they only have a $500 budget (random figure) and everything else goes into savings and investments. If as a student you made $500/month and you suddenly get $2000/month, that's a lot of money you get to blow on drinks. Now, if you put $500 in savings (until 6-12 month of living expenses), $500 in investments for the long run and $500 in vacation funds or \"\"big expenses\"\" funds (Ideally with a cap and dump the extra in investments). That's $18,000/yr you are saving. At this stage in your life, you have not gotten used to spending that extra $18,000/yr. Don't touch the side money except for the vacation fund when you want to treat yourself. Your friends will call you cheap, but that's not your problem. Take that head start and build that down payment on your dream house. The way I set it up, is (in this case) I have automatics every day after my paychecks come in for the set amounts. I never see it, but I need to make sure I have the money in there. Note: Numbers are there for the sake of simplicity. Adjust accordingly. PS: This is anecdotal evidence that has worked for me. Parents taught me this philosophy and it has worked wonders for me. This is the extent of my financial wisdom.\"","I think JohnFx's answer is pretty much the right thing to do. I'd just like to suggest that the budget doesn't have to be fixed. It sounds like you aren't completely sure what an acceptable lifestyle costs for you, and it might feel like a budget locks you into a spending pattern that could end up being unfulfilling, or keep you in debt longer than necessary. To reduce that risk, you could start with a very easy level of contributions, then every month see if you can spend $10-$50 less without sacrificing in the lifestyle department. And eventually if you feel like you're missing out, you can stick with the previous month's budget. You might avoid depriving yourself by starting with something easy, but I think if you make an effort to save money, you'll more likely be surprised how much you can improve your lifestyle while spending less. I like a lot of the advice on Mr. Money Mustache and Early Retirement Extreme, and I'd recommend the introductory sections of both blogs if you ever hit a block at some level of contribution. And one minor (highly situational) comment: You mentioned having less to save if you contribute more, but if you have high interest loans, paying them down early can be (pretty much) a guaranteed very high ROI. So while you might want to prioritize an emergency fund and maybe an employer match first, most saving will probably be less useful than extra contributions.","The bare minimum should be 6-months of expenses. Ideally, it should be at least 1 year. My personal preference is 2+ years, but one thing at a time. Figure out your necessary expenses: food, shelter, transportation and necessary extras. An example of a necessity, beyond the basics, for me is a decent internet connection. Telephone costs is another good example. (Meanwhile, electricity and such bills should be included in the figure for shelter.) You may want to include some allowance for clothing as well; especially for the 2+ year plan.","Your first problem is looking at these as monthly expenses rather than looking longer-term at how to remove the expenses. You have a $600/month loan, but what is the interest rate? If you paid that loan more aggressively it would free up 10% of your income, but you can't pay the loan aggressively if you don't have an emergency fund. You need enough cash-flow to take care of emergencies so you don't incur more debt on less advantageous terms. The way you describe the problem, it appears that you don't know where all of the money is going, so the first step is to track all of your expenses and formulate a budget. The budget is a plan on how to spend the money for next month. At least 10% should be money you are saving for a short-term emergency fund. Another 10% should be money you are saving for retirement. Until you have 6 months of expenses saved for your emergency fund, you need to skip luxuries like taxi rides and maybe you need to reduce the amount you send home. 22% is a large amount and unless your parents are using that money to become independent (so that they won't rely on your contributions forever) it will only prevent you from becoming wealthy enough to really help them later. Only you can determine what can be cut from your monthly expenses--but if you want to save--spending less is required.","You have great intentions, and a great future. As far as investing goes, you're a bit early. Unless your parents or other benefactor is going to pay every dime of your expenses, you'll have costs you need to address. $1000 is the start of a nice emergency fund, but not yet enough to consider investing for the long term. If you continue to work, it's not tough to burn through $200/wk especially when you are in college and have more financial responsibility.","I would definitely recommend putting some of this in an IRA. You can't put all $30K in an IRA immediately though, as the contribution limit is $5500/year for 2014, but until April 15 you can still contribute $5500 for 2013 as well. At your income level I would absolutely recommend a Roth IRA, as your income will very likely be higher in retirement, given that your income will almost certainly rise after you get your Ph.D. Your suggested asset allocation (70% stocks, 30% bonds) sounds appropriate; if anything you might want to go even higher on stocks assuming you won't mind seeing the value drop significantly. If you don't want to put a lot of energy into investment choices, I suggest a target retirement date fund. As far as I am aware, Vanguard offers the lowest expenses for these types of funds, e.g. this 2050 fund.","I think this varies considerably depending on your situation. I've heard people say 6 month's living expenses, and I know Suze Orman recommended bumping that to 8 months in our current economy. My husband and I have no children, lots of student loan debts, but we pay off our credit cards in full each month and are working to save up for a house. We've talked through a few different what-if scenarios. If one of us were to lose our job, we have savings to cover the difference between our reduced income and paying the bills for 6 or 8 months while the other person regained employment. If both of us were to lose our jobs simultaneously, our savings wouldn't hold us over for more than 3 or 4 months, but if that were to happen, we would likely take advantage of the opportunity to relocate closer to our families, and possibly even move in to my parent's house for a short time. With no children and no mortgage, our commitments are few, so I don't feel the need to have a very large emergency cash fund, especially with student loans to pay off. Think through a few scenarios for your life and see what you would need. Take into consideration expenses to break a rental lease, cell phone contract, or other commitments. Then, start saving toward your goal. Also see answers to a similar question here.","\"Congratulations. The first savings goal should be an emergency fund. Think of this not as an investment, but as insurance against life's woes. They happen and having this kind of money earmarked allows one to invest without needing to withdraw at an inopportune time. This should go into a \"\"high interest\"\" savings account or money market account. Figure three to six months of expenses. The next goal should be retirement savings. In the US this is typically done through 401K or if your company does not offer one, either a ROTH IRA or Traditional IRA. The goal should be about 15% of your income. You should favor a 401k match over just about anything else, and then a ROTH over that. The key to transforming from a broke college student into a person with a real job, and disposable income, is a budget. Otherwise you might just end up as a broke person with a real job (not fun). Part of your budget should include savings, spending, and giving. All three areas are the key to building wealth. Once you have all of those taking care of the real fun begins. That is you have an emergency fund, you are putting 15% to retirement, you are spending some on yourself, and giving to a charity of your choice. Then you can dream some with any money left over (after expenses of course). Do you want to retire early? Invest more for retirement. Looking to buy a home or own a bunch of rental property? Start educating yourself and invest for that. Are you passionate about a certain charity? Give more and save some money to take time off in order to volunteer for that charity. All that and more can be yours. Budgeting is a key concept, and the younger you start the easier it gets. While the financiers will disagree with me, you cannot really invest if you are borrowing money. Keep debt to zero or just on a primary residence. I can tell you from personal experience that I did not started building wealth until I made a firm commitment to being out of debt. Buy cars for cash and never pay credit card interest. Pay off student loans as soon as possible. For some reason the idea of giving to charity invokes rancor. A cursory study of millionaires will indicate some surprising facts: most of them are self made, most of them behave differently than pop culture, and among other things most of them are generous givers. Building wealth is about behavior. Giving to charity is part of that behavior. Its my own theory that giving does almost no good for the recipient, but a great amount of good for the giver. This may seem difficult to believe, but I ask that you try it.\"","\"I'd first put it in CDs or other short term account. Get through school first, then see where you land. If you have income that allows you to start a Roth IRA, I'd go for that, but keep it safe in case you actually need it back soon. After school, if you don't land a decent job fast, this money might be needed to live on. How long will it last if you take a few months to find work? If you do find a good job, moving, and setting up an apartment has a cost. Once you're there, I'd refer you to the many \"\"getting started\"\" Q&As on this site.\"","Keep 3-6 months (or more if you need to, for me the number is 9 months) worth of expenses in an emergency fund. Put the rest against the student loan. The length of time depends on your situation. I have family, and work in IT. Changing jobs takes me longer, because ... reasons. Having less than 6-9 months of buffer means that I have to rush and possibly take a position that is not a good fit, or get behind on payments. So, set aside your emergency fund, add to it if you need to. Once it is fully funded, take the money you were using to fund the emergency fund and budget that to clearing student loans. Also, don't start new credit cards, and be sure to never carry a balance on them. I know it seems like a lot, but keep in mind that yours is small, and you'll likely be able to knock it out in a very short time. Edit (after OP listed expenses): Taking into account the expenses you listed, it looks like you have about 2000 per month in expenses (if you're in emergency fund mode, luxuries can wait, and you can tighten the belt on food, so go with the lower end of your estimate.) Lets say you have 600 a month to work with. My suggestion would be bring savings up to $6000. That will take you two months. Then pay 850 a month to student loans. You'll be paid off in a year, and still have 6000 for emergencies. Once you're done, you will have 850 a month to save and invest. With patience, persistence and care, you can start a nest egg that will allow you to remain financially independent. Search around for FIRE (financial independence, retire early) and other strategies for retirement savings and investing. Be sure to save for retirement. The worst inheritance to leave your loved ones would be to become financially dependent upon them in your later years. And watch out for credit, it's a trap.","Congrats on your first real job! Save as much as your can while keeping yourself (relatively) comfortable. As to where to put your hard earned money, first establish why you want to save the money in the first place. Money is a mean to acquire the things we want or need in your life or the lives of others. Once your goals are set, then follow this order:","My opinion is that 50% savings is the number to shoot for, and I strive toward that number as often as possible. 10% - savings for retirement 10% - savings for short term emergency fund 25% - payment on mortgage principal 5% - savings for planned big purchases I overpay the principal so that 25% of my income goes to principal payments, and I separately account for the mortgage interest/home owners insurance as another expense in my budget. Because of this aggressive payment schedule, the house I bought 2 years ago will be payed in full in another 9 years. I own another property outright that I paid down in the same fashion and I collect rent on it as a supplement to my income. I started with a small townhouse that I could easily afford, but now I have a much larger home that I can still easily afford. The emergency fund doesn't need to be more than 6 months of expenses, which is 3 months of income if your expenses are only 50% of your income. I keep 6 months of expenses liquid and another 12 in a low risk investment. Once you have your emergency fund funded, you can add that percentage to a different category (say 15% to retirement and 10% to planned big purchases), or you can over-fund it. I have had a few catastrophes that have depleted that fund, so I like having the extra 12 months of income available. I set the last 5% aside for wants that are not regular expenses. If I want a car, I save 5% of my income until I can pay cash for it. I have an infinite number of these wants, so I prioritize them and buy them in order when the cash becomes available. The reason I use percentages is to keep me focused when my income increases. Instead of spending all the additional money that I could afford to spend each time I get a raise. I instead only increase my expenses to the 50% mark. It was much harder to save 50% when I got my first job out of college, but now I live quite comfortably on that percentage and I could take a large hit to my income before I would need to make significant changes to my lifestyle.","\"Spend less. As @jldugger said, shop around for textbooks. Make sure to look for used books: you can sometimes save a lot of money there. Be smart about food money. I could go to our on-campus grill and get a sandwich and a salad for lunch. If I packed both with toppings, the salad could be a 2nd meal for the same day. If you have the option, get a meal plan that is just 1 meal a day, and eat a lot that meal. Don't do the starbucks \"\"pay several dollars for a coffee each day\"\" thing. Small-ish regular expenses add up quickly. Quit smoking (if applicable). Ditch your car if possible. Some colleges are in cities with good public transportation or are small enough that a bike will do. Cars are very expensive. Try to find free activities to do in your free time. Usually college towns are great places to find free fun. Pick-up sports, student concerts/art shows, playing board/card/video games. Make sure to track how you're spending money to look for areas where you could be spending less. There are plenty of tools available to help with this. Some on-campus jobs involve sitting around and occasionally doing something: IE working the checkout desk at the library. A job like this (if you can find one) can effectively pay you for doing our homework. One other very important college-related financial tip is to not take out more loans than you can afford. I've heard a good rule of thumb is not take our more loans than you expect to earn your first year after graduating. Look up average starting salaries for the career you realistically expect to have after you graduate. If you would need to borrow much more than that to get your degree, rethink your plans. Being a slave to a bank for years is a crappy way to spend your life.\"","You need to protect from two types of disasters. You need to set a goal. In 5 years I will have X months of emergency funds. Then start building it. You can also make sure that any found money (birthday check from your grandmother or bonus check at work) goes into building the fund. While is seems a waste to pay all that interest for the student loans, you may decide that having an emergency fund is more important. Note: don't mix the two types of emergency funds. It is less confusing to have two sub accounts, because it avoids the double counting of the funds.","Heck no, don't spend more! I saved a ton of money when I got my first real job. You won't always be able to do this. Save a bundle while you can.","I encourage using it as a buffer. After h.s. I had a thousand or so dollars saved up in my savings account. After college it was maybe 5 thousand and it's remained roughly like that ever since. I figure any modest emergency or spending splurge may cost, at most, a couple thousand bucks. I'm talking about a new couch, a car accident, hospital bill, vacation to wherever, etc. It's nice to have an idea of a buffer. Financial advisors say to have a buffer of about 3 months of salary. This is in case of unemployment and such. It was smart for me. I wouldn't try to spend money to make money at this point. It's not enough money to try to see a significant gain unless you're lucky. I tried Sharebuilder a while ago with $200 to see what stocks were like. They gave you several free trades to see how you liked it. At first I was shuffling stuff a little too much and once the fees start kicking in it's 7 bucks here, 7 bucks there- eventually I realized you have to invest enough to offset the transfer fees and the fact that you have your money tied up in something going up and down all the time. But yeah. Start with a buffer and scale it up as your lifestyle changes. Anything beyond your buffer is spending money, investing money, fun money.","With $800/month extra? Do both. (I am ethnocentric enough to assume you live in the same country as me) First, figure out what your emergency fund should look like. Put this money in a high yield checking or savings account. Add to it monthly until you reach your goal. It should be 3 to 6 months of your total monthly expenses. It will be a lot more than $2k I suspect. You will earn bubkis in interest, but the point of the emergency fund is a highly liquid asset for emergencies so you can choose cheaper car insurance and not buy warranties on stuff. With your $800/month, split it up this way: $416/month into a Roth IRA account at Vanguard (or Schwab or Fidelity) in the Star Fund (or similar low cost, diversified fund). The star is $1000 to open, pretty diversified. $416 is a lazy number that comes close to the $5000 annual limit for a Roth IRA in the US. Contribute like clockwork, directly from your paycheck if you can. This will make it easy to do and get you the benefit of dollar cost averaging. $200 or $300 into your savings account until you reach your emergency fund goal. $85 - $100. Live a little. Speculate in stocks with your vanguard account. Or rent fancy cars. Or taken a vacation or go party. If you are saving $800/month in your early 20 be proud of yourself, but have a little fun too so you can let off steam. It isn't much but you know you can play with it. Once you reach your emergency fund, save up for your future house or car or plane tickets to Paris. Ask another question for how to save up for these kinds of goals.","For a more philosophical way to approach this, consider money saved as the opposite of money owed: This philosophy works for things which you may be able to borrow for (computer, car, house), but also for things you can't borrow for (retirement, giving to your kids, etc.). As others have mentioned, the 10% suggestion is for retirement, but the actual number depends on your lifestyle. As you can see in this chart, saving 10% of your income means you'll need to work for 51.4 years.","Does your employer offer direct deposit? Can you deposit to more than one account? Personally, I have my pay split up like this via direct deposit: From an early age I found that separating my expenses from my spending money kept me inside my spending limits and kept my savings on track. In fact, checking account 1 and 2 are at two different banks. Get yourself a credit card to start establishing some credit. Make a payment plan for the student loan, but before focusing completely on repaying it start to establish an emergency fund.","Assuming the amount of your car payment and student loan aren't crazy you should be fine. I would suggest starting with a baseline budget listing your monthly income and expenses. Be sure to include miscellaneous expenses like car maintenance, insurance, food, clothes, etc (the common things that sometimes get overlooked in a budget). After all of your necessary expenses (fluff like entertainment doesn't count), if your employer has a 401k with a match I would contribute to that up to the match amount. Next I would save an emergency fund to cover unforseen events such as car repairs, etc. $1000 is not an uncommon amount to see people suggest for this. Next I would knock out your car loan then student loan as fast as possible. This will free up some cash flow which gives you more freedom to do what you want. At this point you save more so you don't have to finance the next car or have a down payment for a home or whatever. Building your savings to be 3-6 months of income is a good idea, this covers things like being laid off or other larger unexpected events. After you get to that point how you handle your budget is pretty open.","Your attitude is great, but be careful to temper your (awesome) ambition with a dose of reality. Saving is investing is great, the earlier the better, and seeing retirement at a young age with smooth lots of life's troubles; saving is smart and we all know it. But as a college junior, be honest with yourself. Don't you want to screw around and play with some of that money? Your first time with real income, don't you want to blow it on a big TV, vacation, or computer? Budget out those items with realistic costs. See the pros and cons of spending that money keeping in mind the opportunity cost. For example, when I was in college, getting a new laptop for $2000 (!) was easily more important to me than retirement. I don't regret that. I do regret buying my new truck too soon and borrowing money to do it. These are judgment calls. Here is the classic recipe: Adjust the numbers or businesses to your personal preferences. I threw out suggestions so you can research them and get an idea of what to compare. And most importantly of all. DO NOT GET INTO CREDIT CARD DEBT. Use credit if you wish, but do not carry a balance.","\"The power of compounding interest and returns is an amazing thing. Start educating yourself about investing, and do it -- there are great Q&As on this site, numerous books (I recommend \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\", tools for small investors (like Sharebuilder.com) and other resources out there to get you started. Your portfolio doesn't need to include every dime you have either. But you do need to develop the discipline to save money -- even if that savings is $20 while you're in school. How you split between cash/deposit account savings and other investment vehicles is a decision that needs to make sense to you.\"","Budget. Figure out how much money you need to keep for your own spending purposes, then figure out from that how much you can afford to move to longer term savings for youeself and/or the kid. Try it for a while, see if it works, adjust how much you can afford to save, repeat. (Actually, you want to further reduce the savings a bit until the emergency fund comes up to a level you feel comfortable at, then increase them to acceptable targets.) It's OK if you miss or reduce some deposits to the savings plans while you get the emergency fund up to a level you're comfortable at. If you don't feel you're saving enough after making these adjustments, you need to economize somewhere so you have more money to save, or make more money, or recalibrate your expectations. You can't get a gallon out of a quart container.","I'm not a 'rule of thumb' guy, but here, I'd suggest that if you can set aside 10% of your income each year for college, that would be great. That turns out to be $900/mo. In 15 years, if you saw an 8% CAGR, you'd have $311K which happens to be in your range of expenses. And you'd still have time to go as the baby won't graduate for 22(?) years. (Yup, 10% is a good rule of thumb for your income and 3 kids) Now, on the other hand, I'd research what grants you'd be able to get if you came up short. If instead of saving a dime, you funded your own retirement and the spouse's IRA if she's not working, and time the mortgage to pay it off in 15 years from now, the lack of liquid funds actually runs in your favor. But, I'm not an expect on this, just second guessing my own fully funded college account for my daughter.","As long as you have a emergency fund, I'd stop 401k contributions immediately and use that money to fund school (as much as you can). Student loans are dangerous - they're very difficult to discharge in a bankruptcy, and eat into your savings for a long time. It may even be better to defer school for a year while the debt gets paid off and you can get an emergency fund built up.","Put it in the bank and earn the meager interest rate. By far your most important investment is finishing your education and as such this money might be needed to do so. If you don't need the money during your education you will undoubtedly need it for a new apartment/furnishings/moving expenses.","Since you already have established a set of expenses, most importantly your rent. Blair Hodgson DuQuesnay said, “You don’t want to spend more than one-third of your take-home pay on your housing, whether that’s rent or a mortgage. With almost everything else, you can work from there.” She also recommends that your static bills — housing, utilities, and other fixed expenses that recur monthly — don’t take up more than 50% of your budget. If you can keep them even lower than 50%, like, say 40% or 35%, you’ll have even more spending money for everything from food to clothing to savings. So basically, it is time to start to be worried if you are exceeding half of your budget on your expenses. Forbes has an excellent article on how new grads can plan to budget their money.","I'd suggest waiting until a bit after you are married. To Eagle1's point, even $23,000 is not a huge sum of money. You didn't make any mention of a desire to buy a home, but if that becomes part of the plan, I'd want every cent of liquidity I can get. I wrote Student Loans and Your First Mortgage to explain why your buying power for the house is lowered by paying that loan. In your case, $5000 is 20% of $25000. For a good 20% down purchase, I'd want those funds available. You also don't mention retirement accounts. Depending on the home purchase timing, I'd start to think about putting aside at least the $5500 per year IRA/Roth IRA maximum.","\"I take it you have nearly zero expenses, since you don't mention any savings and with your income you wouldn't have much left over for investing. At your level of income, any actual investing is either going to unwisely reduce your cash available should you need it (such as investment in mutual funds, which often have minimum investment periods of 2-6 months or more to avoid fees), or cost you a high percentage of your income in commissions (stock trading). So, I wouldn't recommend investing at all — yet. I find Dave Ramsey's baby steps to be very good general money management advice. Here is how I would adapt the first three steps to your income and stage in life. Beyond this, Dave recommends saving for retirement, college (for kids) and paying off your house early. These things are a little beyond your stage in life, but it would be good to start thinking about them. For you, I recommend following DJClayworth's advice to \"\"invest in yourself\"\". Specifically, plan to get through college debt-free. Put away money so that you have a head start once you do have living expenses — save for a car, save money for rent, etc. so that you don't have to live month to month as most people do starting out. So, what this boils down to: Put away every cent you have, in a savings account.\"","In general, the better advice I've heard is to spend only on things that matter to you and scrimp on the rest. It's an easy way to budget without having to stick to a strict set of rules. Otherwise keep 3-6 months of living expenses in liquid accounts (money market, savings) and invest the rest.","On the one hand, it's a great idea to open a Roth IRA now, once you've got the cash to contribute. It's a tax designation sounds like it would fit your meager earnings this year. The main reason to open one now rather than later is that some types of withdrawls require the account be aged 5 years. But you can also withdraw the amount you've contributed tax free any time. Student loans right now are pricey, so if you're carrying a balance at say 6.8 percent fixed you should pay that down ASAP. Beyond that, I'd keep the rest liquid for now. Having that kind of liquid cash is extremely reassuring, and many of the biggest returns on investment are going to be in your personal life. More fuel efficient vehicles, energy efficient appliances, computer backups, chest freezers and bulk meat purchases, etc. One example I see every six months is car insurance: I can pay for six months in full or I can pay a smaller monthly bill plus a small fee. That fee is well above current market rates. You see this everywhere; people searching for lower minimum payments rather than lower total costs. Save your money up and be the smart buyer. It's too damn expensive to be broke.","Every $1,000 you use to pay off a 26% interest rate card saves you $260 / year. Every $1,000 you use to pay off a 23% interest rate card saves you $230 / year. Every $1,000 you put in a savings account earning ~0.5% interest earns you $5 / year. Having cash on hand is good in case of emergencies, but typically if your debt is on high interest credit cards, you should consider paying off as much of it as possible. In your case you may want to keep only some small amount (maybe $500, maybe $1000, maybe $100) in cash for emergencies. Paying off your high interest debt should be a top priority for you. You may want to look on this site for help with budgeting, also. Typically, being in debt to credit card companies is a sign of living beyond your means. It costs you a lot of money in the long run.","Congrats! That's a solid accomplishment for someone who is not even in college yet. I graduated college 3 years ago and I wish I was able to save more in college than I did. The rule of thumb with saving: the earlier the better. My personal portfolio for retirement is comprised of four areas: Roth IRA contributions, 401k contributions, HSA contributions, Stock Market One of the greatest things about the college I attended was its co-op program. I had 3 internships - each were full time positions for 6 months. I strongly recommend, if its available, finding an internship for whatever major you are looking into. It will not only convince you that the career path you chose is what you want to do, but there are added benefits specifically in regards to retirement and savings. In all three of my co-ops I was able to apply 8% of my paycheck to my company's 401k plan. They also had matching available. As a result, my 401k had a pretty substantial savings amount by the time I graduated college. To circle back to your question, I would recommend investing the money into a Roth IRA or the stock market. I personally have yet to invest a significant amount of money in the stock market. Instead, I have been maxing out my retirement for the last three years. That means I'm adding 18k to my 401k, 5.5k to my Roth, and adding ~3k to my HSA (there are limits to each of these and you can find them online). Compounded interest is amazing (I'm just going to leave this here... https://www.moneyunder30.com/power-of-compound-interest).","\"Two things to consider: When it comes to advice, don't be \"\"Penny wise and Pound foolish\"\". It is an ongoing debate whether active management vs passive indexes are a better choice, and I am sure others can give good arguments for both sides. I look at it as you are paying for advice. If your adviser will teach you about investing and serve your interests, having his advise will probably prevent you from making some dumb mistakes. A few mistakes (such as jumping in/out of markets based on fear/speculation) can eliminate any savings in fees. However, if you feel confident that you have the resources and can make good decisions, why pay for advise you don't need? EDIT In this case, my opinion is that you don't need a complex plan at this time. The money you would spend on financial advise would not be the best use of the funds. That said, to your main question, I would delay making any long-term decisions with these funds until you know you are done with your education and on an established career path. This period of your life can be very volatile, and you may find yourself halfway through college and wanting to change majors or start a different path. Give yourself the option to do that by deferring long-term investment decisions until you have more stability. For that reason, I would avoid focusing on retirement savings. As others point out, you are limited in how much you can contribute per year. If you want to start, ROTH is your best bet, but if you put it in don't pull it out. That is a bad habit to get into. Personal finance is as much about developing habits as it is doing math... A low-turnover index fund may be appropriate, but you don't want to end up where you want to buy a house or start a business and your investment has just lost 10%... I would keep at least half in a liquid, safe account until after graduation. Any debt you incur because you tied up this money will eliminate any investment gains (if any). Good Luck! EDITED to clarify retirement savings\"","First, don't borrow any more money. You're probably bankrupt right now at that income level. 2k/month is poverty level income, especially in some of the higher cost of living areas of California. At $2k per month of income, and $1300 of rent and utilities, you've only got 700 a month for food. The student loans are probably in deferment while your husband is in school. If so, keep them that way and deal with them when he lands a career track goal after grad school. The car loan is more than you can afford. Seriously consider selling the car to get rid of the note. Then use the cash flow that was going to the car loan to pay off the 'other' debt. A car is usually a luxury, but if it is necessary, be sure it is one that doesn't include a loan. Budget all of your income (consider using YNAB or something like it). Include a budget item to build an emergency fund. Live within your means and look for ways to supplement your income. With three of your own, you'd probably make an excellent baby sitter. As for the inheritance, find a low risk, liquid investment, such as 12 month CDs or savings bonds. Something that you can liquidate without penalty if an emergency arises. Save the money for if you get into a situation where there is no other way out. Hopefully you can have your emergency fund built up so that you don't need to draw on the inheritance. Set a date, grad school + landing + 90 days. If you reach that date and haven't had to use the inheritance, and you have a good emergency fund, put the inheritance in a retirement fund and forget about it. Why retirement fund and not a college fund for the kids? The best gift you can give them is to remain financially independent throughout your life. If you get to the point where you are fully funding your tax advantaged retirement savings, and you are ready to start wealth-building, that is the time to take part of that cash flow and set it aside for college funds.","I think that Dave Ramsey has a good approach to emergency funds. Save $1,000 that is immediately accessible in an emergency, pay off your debts, then build a 3-6 month fund. Two years is great, but takes a really long time to build up.","Try reading about budgeting. Make a list of all income coming in and all expenses going out. Eliminate any unnecessary expenses and try to increase income, which could include a part-time second job. Try to always put a portion of the income away as savings - try 10%, but if this is too hard to start with try saving at least 5% of the income.","\"Whatever you do, you need to be saving a lot more to have a good chance at retirement at a reasonable age. With a combined salary of $150,000, I'd recommend: In total, that's $47,000/year in tax advantaged accounts, plus whatever you put into taxable accounts. Your $150,000 yearly income, less $90,000/year in savings is still an income of $60,000. People live comfortably and raise families on a lot less. Consider how fortunate you are. You could retire in 10 years, if you wanted, by increasing your savings and decreasing your expenses. Seriously, I'm speaking from first-hand experience. If you stay on your present course (saving $2,000/mo), at a 7% real return, you'll need about 37 years to accumulate $3,800,000 (in today's dollars), which is enough to: Even if those student loans are forgiven, that only knocks off about 2 years. If you are in your late 30s now, there's a decent chance you'll be dead before you retire. As for buying a house or not, this depends a lot on your personal circumstance and how the rental market in your city compares. In your decision, don't forget to consider: Renting is not necessarily throwing money away any more than buying a house is. If you take out a mortgage, you'll be \"\"throwing away\"\" a lot of money anyway. Look for a \"\"loan amortization calculator\"\" to see how much goes to interest versus principal. For a $500,000 loan at a 3.5% rate, you will be paying approximately $1400 per month in interest versus only $800 towards the principal. When you deduct insurance, taxes, maintenance, etc from that $800, you may find you are still throwing away most of your monthly payment on interest and expenses you wouldn't have if you rented. The money you do \"\"save\"\", after interest and expenses, isn't really saved. Housing markets go up and down, but on average, over the long term, they go up just enough to keep up with inflation, meaning a 0% real return. If renting means less cash out of pocket per month, you can put that extra cash towards investments that yield a much higher return. Sure, you may need to continue making rental payments in perpetuity, but you can save enough extra money to pay for the rental in investment income. Again, it depends considerably on how the housing and rental markets compare where you live. Popular cities (San Francisco, New York, Paris, etc.) tend to favor renting. Unpopular cities (Detroit, St. Louis) and rural areas tend to favor buying. Further reading: Mr. Money Mustache: Rent vs. Buy: If You Have to Ask, You Should Probably Rent\"","Debt will ruin any plans. I guess that the interest on the credit cards is about $450 a month or about $5,500 per year and the school loans is about $6,000 a year. Get a an Excel spread sheet going and start tracking your expensed. Learn to make a amortization spread sheet for all debts, and any future debts that you are thinking about. If you want a family soon plan on one income for a period of time. If you buy a house plan on paying it off while you are working. Then the house payment becomes spendable money during retirement. A cheaper house can be upgraded in the right neighborhood with an excellent appreciation in value. Money put into excellent collectibles and kept for 20 years or more is private and off the radar income no taxes when sold. STUDY STUDY LEARN LEARN","I would focus entirely on the emergency fund first and get it built up as fast as you can. Once that is in place, you've got a cushion that will keep you from going into debt in an emergency. Depending on your monthly expenses, $2000 seems low for that. I'd aim for 3-6 months worth of expenses. Note that this is $800 less than your monthly income because of your savings. Once you have your emergency fund in place, then follow a formula like @MrChrister's to invest for retirement and save for future major purchases (car, house, vacation, etc).","\"As someone who has a very similar debt amount and environment (new grad, nice new paying job, want a car, etc), I'd like to share something with you. Life has unexpected costs. Luckily I didn't buy that new car the first few months out of college like I had planned to; I'm glad that I didn't because, as a fledgling \"\"adult\"\", despite having lived on my own while in college while working part-to-full time there are some things you just don't realize until it either happens or it happens to someone else. Here are some of those things: I could go on but I won't. $95K is good money and I would definitely recommend spending it a bit to enjoy yourself. But I would honestly tell you that taking your monthly expenses, adding a few hundred on top of that and then multiplying that sum by 3 would be a smart savings amount before picking up a car loan. Maybe that's an excessive savings but I've seen way too many people burn out over their cost-of-living and their failure to adjust appropriately when shit hits the fan. So instead of having to deal with the stab at your pride when having to lower the cost/quality of living that you'll probably grow accustomed to at a $95K salary, just prepare for the worst. Oh, and did I mention... A NEW JOB IS NOT A SECURE JOB Consider yourself to likely be the first asset dropped from the company if even the tiniest thing goes wrong. I know way too many people who were fresh hires at Intel, Boeing, and a few other big tech companies that pay around what you make and, despite being bad asses in college, they were dropped like a bad habit when their employers hit rough patches. To those even more experienced than me, please feel free to add to the list. I'd personally love to know them myself.\"","To be honest, all that they might be able to tell you is to keep saving. Your income seems like it will vary week to week thanks to commission (and I'm still very curious how at 18 you found a job making $96,000 a year at minimum). Right now because you have no savings, start stacking that up. You're going to want an emergency fund on the side as well. Even though now you may still live with parents, you still may run into issues where you'll need money on hand. It's much better to dig into an emergency fund than get a loan. Plus, when moving out, you won't be living paycheck to paycheck. Best rule of thumb for this is to keep an emergency fund of roughly 3-6 months of expenses. Right now because you're so young with so little money, there isn't a large reason to really open up an IRA or any sort of investment account. Unless you're actually guaranteed $2,000 a week, then things are different.","The definitive answer is: It Depends. What are your goals? First and foremost, you need to have at least 3 months expenses in cash or equivalent. (i.e. an investment that you can withdraw from quickly, and without penalty). The good news is that you don't have to come up with it instantly. Set a time frame - one year - for creating this safety net, and pay towards that goal. This is the single most important piece of financial advice you will receive. Now determine what you need to do. For example, you may need a car. Compare interest rates on your student loan and the car loan. Put your cash towards whichever is higher. If you don't need a car or other big ticket item, then you may consider sticking your surplus into the student loans. 50k at $1650 a month will be paid down in about 3 years, which might be a bit long to live the monastic lifestyle. I'd look at paying down the smallest loan first (assuming relatively similar rates), and freeing up that payment for yourself. So if you can pay off 1650 a month, and free up $100 of that in six months, then you can reward yourself with half that surplus, and apply the other half to the next loan. (This is different than some would suggest because you're talking about entering severe spartan mode, which is not sustainable.) Remember that life happens. You'll meet someone. You'll have an accident, your brother will get sick and you'll give him some money to help out. You've got to be prepared for these events, and for these reasons, I don't recommend living that close to the edge. Remember, you're not in default, and you do have the option of continuing to pay the minimum for a long time.","The 10K in savings and money market is equal to about 1.5 months of income for emergency funds. You should add additional funds to this account over the next few years to let that increase to 3 to 6 months of monthly expenses. This money should be kept secure so that it will be there when you need it. Growth is not the primary function for this account. Investment at this stage should be for retirement. This means take advantage of 401K matching if it is available. You will have to determine if Roth or regular makes the most sense for you. In general the lower your current tax bracket the more sense Roth makes for you. If you want an IRA again decide which type. Also remember that you have until the tax deadline to make a contribution so you can decide to use a refund to fund the IRA. IRAs and 401Ks are just account types with some rules attached. They can be invested in everything from CD's to individual stocks depending on how aggressive you want to be.","This is all very basic and general advice, that works for most, but not all. You are unique with your own special needs and desires. Good luck! P.S.: not exactly related to your question, but when you get more familiar with investing and utilizing your money, find more ways to save more. For example, change phone plan, cut the cable, home made food in bulk, etc.","There is no absolute answer to this as it depends on your particular situation, but some tips: As to investing versus saving, you need to do some of both: Be careful about stockpiling too much in bank accounts. Inflation will eat that money up over time to the tune of 3-4%/year. You are young and have a longer investment horizon for retirement, take advantage of that and accept a little more risk while you can.","Calculate a weekly budget for yourself for all incidentals (i.e. shopping, movies, eating out, etc...) and take that amount out in cash each week. For example, if your budget is $75 then try to spend only that $75 on all the extra stuff you do doing the week. It'll make you hyper-conscious of where your money is going and how fast. You'll be surprised at how quickly little things like grabbing coffee in the morning can chip away at your funds.","\"In my opinion, you should pay off the student loans as soon as possible, before you start saving for the house downpayment. $26k is a big number, but you have a great salary. (Nice!) Up until now, you have been a poor college student, accustomed to a relatively low standard of living. Your $800 per month plan would have you pay off the loan in 3 years, but I would challenge you to pay off this entire student loan in 1 year or less. A monthly loan payment of $2226 will pay off your loan in 12 months. After that is done, if you take the same amount you had been paying toward your student loans and save it for your condo, in less than two years you'll have a 10% down payment saved ($50k). The whole thing will take less than three years. There are three reasons why I recommend paying off the loan first before saving for the condo: one is practical and two are philosophical. Practical: You will save money on interest. Paying off the loan in 1 year vs. 3 years will save you $1343. You won't find a short-term safe investment that will beat 5% in interest. Philosophical: The loan is something current and concrete that you can focus on. Your condo is a dream at this point, and there is lots of time to change your mind. If the $2k+ per month amount is at all a sacrifice for you, then in a few months, you might be tempted to say to yourself, \"\"This month I really want a vacation, so I'll just skip this month of saving.\"\" For the loan, however, if you establish a concrete goal of 12 months to pay off the loan, it will hopefully help motivate you to allocate this money and stick to your plan. Philosophical: Getting used to borrowing money, making payments to a bank, and paying interest is not a great way to live. It is better, in my opinion, to eliminate your debt as fast as possible and start getting accustomed to saving cash for what you want. Clean up your debt, and resolve not to borrow any more money except for a reasonably-sized mortgage on your home.\"","\"According to your numbers, you just stated that you spend approximately $1500 in discretionary expenditures per month, yet are unable to save. I fully realize that living in a big city is usually expensive, but on your (presumably after-tax) salary, I think you can easily save a substantial portion of your income. As others have already noted, enforcing saving of a significant portion of your discretionary income is the most obvious step. It's easy to say, but I suspect that if you are like most people who have difficulty saving, the psychological impact of quitting your previous spending habits \"\"cold turkey\"\" is likely to be very harsh, all the more so if you have an active social life. You may find yourself becoming depressed or resentful at \"\"having\"\" to save. You may lose motivation to work as hard because you might think that you're putting away all this money for the distant future, whereas you are young now and want to enjoy life while you can. It is in this context, then, that I looked at your other financial obligations. Paying $1300/month to your parents is a lot. It's over 20% of your after-tax salary. You do not specify the reasons for doing this other than a vague sense of familial duty, but my recommendation is to see if this could be reduced somewhat. If you can bring it down to $1000/month, that $300 would go into your savings, and you would psychologically feel a lot better about putting, say, $600 of your own discretionary income into savings as well. Now you have, all told, about $1000/month of savings without severely curtailing your extra expenditures. But I would start with that $1500/month of luxury spending first. And yes, you do need to view it as luxury spending. The proper frame of mind is to compare your financial situation to someone who is truly unable to save because their entire income is spent on actual necessities: food and shelter; their effective tax rate is 0% because they earn too little; and they usually find themselves in debt because they cannot make ends meet. Now look back at that $1500/month. Can you honestly say that you cannot afford to cut that spending?\"","If you are still paying off debt, then you should have about $1000 in savings and put all you can towards non-mortgage debt. If you don't have any debt besides your mortgage, then add up all of your monthly expenses including food, gas, utilities and keep 3-6 months in liquid savings. Whether you keep 3 or 6 months depends on how safe your income is. If you have a steady safe job, you might be safe with 3 months. But, if your employer is cutting back or you are in a commission based job or self employed - then lean more towards 6 months expenses. Congrats on your new home!","If you have no immediate need for the money you can apply the Rule of 72 to that money. Ask your parent's financial advisor to invest the money. Based on the rate of return your money will double like clockwork. At 8% interest your money will double every 9 years. 45 years from now that initial investment will have doubled 5 times. That adds up pretty fast. Time is your best friend when investing at your age. Odds are you'll want to be saving for a college education though. Graduating debt free is by far the best plan.","First pay off all existing debt. Then set up at least 6 month emergency fund. Freelancing exposes you to way more risks than employment. Then buy GIC's to cover and match the maturity of your expected education fees. Only 'play' with what is left. Don't over think it. Buy a low-cost (less than 0.5%) passive large-index mutual fund covering either the S&P or TSX.","\"Many years ago I heard a multi-level marketing pitch that pointed out how many doctors don't get out of debt until they are well into their 50's. The selling point was that you can get rich quick, as rich as a doctor, with nothing more then a bit of elbow grease. Of course the pitch failed to mention that most doctors, buy the things doctors buy, when they get that first big job. The big house, expensive cars nerf the income that they receive and they are probably stuck with years of student loan payments. I assume that you are one of the \"\"lucky\"\" ones that have graduated college with a well paying job. By lucky I mean you concentrated on obtaining a skill for which the marketplace has a need. Why not continue to live like a college student for a few more months and pay off all of your student loans ASAP? Get rid of them like you were purging the phone number of that high maintenance girl you dated during a short time of insanity.\"","First of all, make sure you have an emergency fund. Ideally this should be at least 6 months of living expenses in an easily accessible place. Do you have any credit card debt, school debt, or other debt? Work towards becoming debt free, especially of higher interest debt and debt on things that are only depreciating (cars, for example). If you have extra income, consider putting it towards debt. If you currently have access to a 403b, you should begin investing immediately. If not, look into a Roth IRA. The community has provided suggestions for good places to get one. With a Roth IRA you take post-tax income money and invest it into this retirement account and when you reach retirement age you get it and all the interest as tax-free income. You can't withdraw the principal until retirement age. You should put up to the legal limit into a retirement account - if you can't do this at first work towards this goal. After an emergency fund, becoming debt free, and fully funding your retirement, save for goals such as a house or other things you are working towards. The exact order of doing these things might vary, but in general you need the emergency fund first.","Here's what I'd do. Show these figures to your bank, and ask if they can offer you some type of account with a small overdraft, say up to $2000. Typically this won't pay the same kind of interest as your savings account, but it doesn't matter. If such an account is available, then yes, dump most of your savings into the student loan, and keep a few hundred in your new account. The overdraft on this account is your emergency fund. This means that in the more likely scenario (no emergencies) you're saving yourself 6% interest on something like $4000 to $4500. In the case of an emergency, you're still covered; but you'll be paying a larger amount of interest. Let's say you have an emergency cost and need to dip into the overdraft for $1000. If the interest is 15%, then you've cost yourself an extra 9% on that $1000 over leaving that debt in the student loan. This seems to me like a really good gamble - more likely to gain 6% of $4000, less likely to lose 9% of $1000. If your bank won't give you a low-interest account with a small overdraft, then use your credit card as your emergency fund. The same kind of logic applies; but since credit card interest rates are typically higher than overdraft interest rates, you'll want to keep slightly more in your savings account. About $1200 to $1500 feels right to me; and move the remaining $3500 to $3800 to your student loan. So yes, pay off the student loan. That 6% interest really is worth having, even if you'd be taking a small gamble. Edit - Alexander Kosubek has suggested that I should compare this to matched retirement plans. The 100% gain in a matched retirement plan isn't 100% per annum; it's 100% divided across the length of time you have to wait until you can get your hands on that money. Suppose the money is accessible when you turn 60 - a matched plan is a good deal if you're in your 50's, but not so good if you're in your 20's. The 100% matching is equivalent to 6% interest per annum compounded over slightly under 12 years. So if you're less than 12 years away from retiring, go for the matched plan. Otherwise, pay off your student loan first.","The title question suggests an answer - Balance. There are countless stories of misers who saved their money but led miserable lives. Keep in mind, you are looking at debt while still earning an income lower than you'll see after you get your PHD. Don't add more debt while working towards the PHD, but don't think that this is the time to aggressively pay it off, either. I'd look at it this way - when you get a full time job, money itself will be cheaper, it will cost you fewer hours to earn the same number of Euros. When I was in college, the US minimum wage was just over $3/hr, but I had an engineering degree and back then, a starting salary of over $20/hr. While still in school, my time was precious, and the $10,000 I borrowed (for spending money) was 3300 hours that I didn't need to work, but it was paid back with just 500 work-hours. Your question also goes to the future, a home purchase. There are 2 approaches. First pay off the student loan, then save for the down payment. For many anti-debt people, this is ideal. But, if your goal is to be in the house sooner, save now for the down payment and only pay the minimum on the loan. Once you are in the house, you can decide to pay the student loan faster, but 1.5%? I'd just pay the mortgage faster. I don't know the cost of housing where you will choose to live, but in general, I'd suggest finding the house that you can afford on a 15 year mortgage, but take out a 30. This will give you flexibility in your budget. Life happens, and it's tough to plan for every possible outcome. I'd prefer to have room in the budget for the first years in the house, and for potential marriage and the kids that may follow. It's far easier to pay extra on loans than to get lower payments when you realize the budget is too tight. Happy to update/edit to address any comments you may have.","My god man, where do you live that is too expensive to live on your own and 7K isn't enough for emergency cash? Anyway, with your age and income I would be more worried about a long-term sustainable lifestyle. In other words, a job that nets you more than $26K/year. Someday you may want to have a wife and kids and that income sure as hell wont pay for their college. That was life advice, now for financial: I've always been a believer that if someone is not a savvy investor, their priorities before investments should be paying off debt. If you had a lot of capital or knew your way around investment vehicles and applicable returns then I would be telling you something different. But in your case, pay off that car first giving yourself more money to invest in the long-run.","In addition to the advice already given (particularly getting rid of high-interest debt), I would add the following:","Start as soon as you can and make your saving routine. Start with whatever you feel comfortable with and be consistent. Increase that amount with raises, income gains, and whenever you want.","First pay yourself. When you get salary, send some parts of that (for example 10%) to your saving account. Step by step you'll save nice money ;)","\"You are doing Great! But you might want to read a couple of books and do some studying on budgeting and personal finance - education yourself now and you will avoid pain in the future. I learned a lot from reading Dave Ramsey's Total Money Makeover, and I have found some great advice from the simple budgeting guidelines on LearnVest. Budget in these three categories with these percentages, You may find that your \"\"essentials\"\" lower than 50%, because you are sharing room and utilities. You want to put as much into \"\"financial\"\" as you can for the first 1-2 years, to reduce (or eliminate) your student loan debt. Many folks will recommend you save six months (salary/expenses) for emergencies and unexpected situations. But understand that you are in debt now, and you have a unique opportunity to pay off your debt before your living expenses creep up (as they so often do). Since you are a contractor, put aside 2 months expenses (twice what I would normally advise), and then attack paying off your debts with passion. Since you have a mix of student loans, focus on paying them off by picking one at a time, paying the minimum against the others while you pay off the one you picked, then proceed to the next. Dave Ramsey advises a Debt Snowball, paying the smallest one first (psychological advantage, early wins), while others advise paying the highest interest off first. Since you have over $2400/month available to pay down debt, you could plan on reducing your student loan debt substantially in a year. But avoid accumulating other debt along the way. Save for larger purchases. Your bedroom purchase may have been premature, but you needed some basics. But check your contract. Since many 0% furniture loan deals retroactively charge interest if you don't pay them off in full - you might want to make regular payments, and pay the debt off a month early (avoid any 'gotcha's). You might want to open a retirement account - many folks recommend a Roth account for folks your age - it is after tax, but you don't pay tax when you withdraw money. Roth is better when you have lots of deductions (think mortgage, kids). But some retirement account would be great to get started. Open a credit union account (if you can), that will make getting a credit card or personal loan (installment) easier. You want to build a credit file, but you don't want credit card debt (seems contradictory), so opening 2 credit cards over the next year will help your credit. You want a good credit mix (student loans, revolving, installment, and mortgage - wait on that one).\"","The plan doesn't make sense. Don't invest your money. Just keep it in your bank account. $5000 is not a lot, especially since you don't have a steady income stream. You only have $1000 to your name, you can't afford to gamble $4000. You will need it for things like food, books, rent, student loans, traveling, etc. If you don't get a job right after you graduate, you will be very happy to have some money in the bank. Or what if you get a dream job, but you need a car? Or you get a job at a suit & tie business and need to get a new wardrobe? Or your computer dies and you need a new one? You find a great apartment but need $2500 first, last & security? That money can help you out much more NOW when you're starting out, then it will when you're ready to retire in your 60's.","while not stated, if you have any debt at all, use the $3000 to pay it off. That's the best investment in the short term. No risk and guaranteed reward. College can invite all sorts of unexpected expenses and opportunities, so stay liquid, protect working capital."],"string":"[\n \"\\\"While I haven't experienced being \\\"\\\"grad student poor\\\"\\\" myself (I went to grad school at night and worked full-time), I would shoot for 10-20% per month ($150-$300). This depends of course on how much you currently have in savings. If it isn't much, you might want to attempt a higher savings percentage (30-40%). If you can move to a less-expensive place, do that as soon as you can. It's your largest expense; any place you can spend less on than $900 creates instance savings without having to sacrifice what you categorize as living expenses.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"First, don't save anything in a tax sheltered vehicle. You will be paying so little tax that there will be essentially no benefit to making the contributions, and you'll pay tax when they come out. Tax free compounding for 40 years is terrific, but start that after you're earning more than a stipend. Second, most people recommend having a month's expenses readily available for emergencies. For you, that would be $1500. If you put $100 a month aside, it will take over a year to have your emergency fund. It's easy to argue that you should pick a higher pace, so as to have your emergency money in place sooner. However, the \\\"\\\"emergencies\\\"\\\" usually cited are things like home repair, car repair, needing to replace your car, and so on. Since you are renting your home and don't have a car, these emergencies aren't going to happen to you. Ask yourself, if your home was destroyed, and you had to replace all your clothes and possessions (including furniture), how much would you need? (Keep in mind any insurance you have.) The only emergency expense I can't guess about is health costs, because I live in Canada. I would be tempted to tell you to get a credit card with a $2000 limit and consider that your emergency fund, just because grad student living is so tight to the bone (been there, and 25 years ago I had $1200 a month, so it must be harder for you now.) If you do manage to save up $1500, and you've really been pinching to do that (walking instead of taking the bus, staying on campus hungry instead of popping out to buy food) let up on yourself when you hit the target. Delaying your graduation by a few months because you're not mentally sharp due to hunger or tiredness will be a far bigger economic hit than not having saved $200 a month for 2 or 3 years. The former is 3-6 months of your new salary, the latter 5-7K. You know what you're likely to earn when you graduate, right?\\\"\",\n \"Are you working? Does your employer offer a 401(k) and if so, is there any match? Saving should be taught to kids at the same time they are old enough to get an allowance. There are many numbers tossed around, but 10% is a start for any new saver. If a college graduate can start by saving even 15%, better still. If you find that the 10% is too much, just start with what you can spare, and work to build that up over time, perhaps by splitting any future raises, half going toward savings, half to spending. Good luck. Edit - my 12 yr old made good money this summer baby sitting. I'm opening a Roth IRA for her. A 10 yr head start on her retirement savings. Edit (Jan-2013) - she's 14 now, 3 deposits to the Roth total $6000, and she's planning to up the number this year. Her goal is to have $50K saved in her Roth by the time she graduates college. Edit, by request (July-2017) 18, and off to college next month. Just under $24K, all invested in an S&P low cost index. We are planning to continue deposits of $4-$5K/yr, so the $50K is still a good goal.\",\n \"You should plan 1-3 months for an emergency fund. Saving 6 months of expenses is recommended by many, but you have a lot of goals to accomplish, and youth is impatient. Early in your life, you have a lot of building (saving) that you need to do. You can find a good car for under $5000. It might take some effort, and you might not get quite the car you want, but if you save for 5-6 months you should have a decent car. My son is a college student and bought a sedan earlier this year for about $4000. Onto the house thing. As you said, at $11,000*2=$22,000 expenses yearly, plus about $10,000 saved, you are making low 30's. Using a common rule of thumb of 25% for housing, you really cannot afford more than about $600-700/month for housing -- you probably want to wait on that first house for awhile. Down payments really should be about 20%, and depending upon the area of the country, a modest house might be $120,000 or $520,000. Even on a $120,000, the 20% down payment would be $24,000. As you have student loans ($20,000), you should put together a plan to pay them off, perhaps allocating half your savings amount to paying down the student loans and half to saving? As you are young, you should have strong salary gains in the first few years, and once you are closer to $40,000/year, you might find the numbers working better for housing. My worry is that you are spending $22,000 out of about $32,000 for living expenses. That you are saving is great, and you are putting aside a good amount. But, you want to target saving 30-40%, if you can.\",\n \"Secondly, should we pay off his student loans before investing? The subsidized loans won't be gaining any interest until he graduates so I was wondering if we should just pay off the unsubsidized loans and keep the subsidized ones for the next two years? From a purely financial standpoint, if the interest you gain on your savings is higher than the interest of the debt, then no. Otherwise, yes. If we were to keep 5,000 in savings and pay of the 3,000 of unsubsidized loans as I described above, that would leave us with about 15,000 dollars that is just lying around in my savings account. How should I invest this? Would you recommend high risk or low risk investments? I'm not from the US so take my answer with caution, but to me $15,000 seems a minimum safety net. Then again, it depends very much on any external help you can get in case of an emergency.\",\n \"\\\"Read \\\"\\\"Stop Acting Rich\\\"\\\" by Dr Thomas Stanley. I'm concerned that even before you've earned your first paycheck you want a flashy car. $4800/yr on $63K/yr income is just about half what I'd recommend to someone who starts working. 10% is the minimum, if and only if, the employer matches 5, for a total 15% saved. Do it in a pretax account and when you go back to grad school convert to Roth.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"My basic rule I tell everyone who will listen is to always live like you're a college student - if you could make it on $20k a year, when you get your first \\\"\\\"real\\\"\\\" job at $40k (eg), put all the rest into savings to start (401(k), IRA, etc). Gradually increase your lifestyle expenses after you hit major savings goals (3+ month emergency fund, house down payment, etc). Any time you get a raise, start by socking it all into your employer's 401(k) or similar. And repeat the above advice.\\\"\",\n \"I'd suggest you keep putting money in your savings account and start investing after you land that first big job. As another answer mentioned, unless you're fortunate enough to have all of your tuition and living expenses paid for, an emergency fund is an invaluable tool for a college student. And the bigger the better. Your laptop gets stolen or your car's air conditioner (or heater) dies -- both of these things happened to me in college -- and it would have been a much bigger deal for me if I didn't have some money tucked away.\",\n \"\\\"The policy you quoted suggests you deposit 6% minimum. That $6,000 will cost you $4,500 due to the tax effect, yet after the match, you'll have $9,000 in the account. Taxable on withdrawal, but a great boost to the account. The question of where is less clear. There must be more than the 2 choices you mention. Most plans have 'too many' choices. This segues into my focus on expenses. A few years back, PBS Frontline aired a program titled The Retirement Gamble, in which fund expenses were discussed, with a focus on how an extra 1% in expenses will wipe out an extra 1/3 of your wealth in a 40 year period. Very simple to illustrate this - go to a calculator and enter .99 raised to the power of 40. .669 is the result. My 401(k) has an expense of .02% (that's 1/50 of 1%) .9998 raised to the same 40 gives .992, in other words, a cost of .8% over the full 40 years. My wife and I are just retired, and will have less in expenses for the rest of our lives than the average account cost for just 1 year. In your situation, the knee-jerk reaction is to tell you to maximize the 401(k) deposit at the current (2016) $18,000. That might be appropriate, but I'd suggest you look at the expense of the S&P index (sometime called Large Cap Fund, but see the prospectus) and if it's costing much more than .75%/yr, I'd go with an IRA (Roth, if you can't deduct the traditional IRA). Much of the value of the 401(k) beyond the match is the tax differential, i.e. depositing while in the 25% bracket, but withdrawing the funds at retirement, hopefully at 15%. It doesn't take long for the extra expense and the \\\"\\\"holy cow, my 401(k) just turned decades of dividends and long term cap gains into ordinary income\\\"\\\" effect to take over. Understand this now, not 30 years hence. Last - to answer your question, 'how much'? I often recommend what may seem a cliche \\\"\\\"continue to live like a student.\\\"\\\" Half the country lives on $54K or less. There's certainly a wide gray area, but in general, a person starting out will choose one of 2 paths, living just at, or even above his means, or living way below, and saving, say, 30-40% off the top. Even 30% doesn't hit the extreme saver level. If you do this, you'll find that if/when you get married, buy a house, have kids, etc. you'll still be able to save a reasonable percent of your income toward retirement. In response to your comment, what counts as retirement savings? There's a concept used as part of the budgeting process known as the envelope system. For those who have an income where there's little discretionary money left over each month, the method of putting money aside into small buckets is a great idea. In your case, say you take me up on the 30-40% challenge. 15% of it goes to a hard and fast retirement account. The rest, to savings, according to the general order of emergency fund, 6-12 months expenses, to cover a job loss, another fund for random expenses, such as new transmission (I've never needed one, but I hear they are expensive), and then the bucket towards house down payment. Keep in mind, I have no idea where you live or what a reasonable house would cost. Regardless, a 20-25% downpayment on even a $250K house is $60K. That will take some time to save up. If the housing in your area is more, bump it accordingly. If the savings starts to grow beyond any short term needs, it gets invested towards the long term, and is treated as \\\"\\\"retirement\\\"\\\" money. There is no such thing as Saving too much. When I turned 50 and was let go from a 30 year job, I wasn't unhappy that I saved too much and could call it quits that day. Had I been saving just right, I'd have been 10 years shy of my target.\\\"\",\n \"I recommend you consider a Roth IRA. Invest it as others here suggest, safely, CDs, money market,etc. You can put in $5000/yr. When you spend, use this last, there is no penalty to withdraw the deposits. But if you make it through grad school without needing it, you'll have great start on your retirement savings.\",\n \"Determine how much you are going to save first. Then determine where you can spend your money. If you're living with your parents, try to build an emergency fund of six months income. The simplest way is to put half of your income in the emergency fund for a year. Try to save at least 10% of your income for retirement. The earlier you start this, the longer you'll have to let the magic of compounding work on it. If your employer offers a 401k with a match, do that first. If not, consider an IRA. You probably want to do a Roth now (because you probably pay little in taxes so the deduction from a standard IRA won't help you). After the year, you'll have an emergency fund. Work out how much money you'll need for rent, utilities, and groceries when you're on your own. Invest that in some way. Pay off student loans if you have any. Buy a car that you can keep a long time if you need one. Go to night school. Put any excess money in a savings account or mutual fund. This is money for doing things related to housing. Perhaps you'll need to buy a washer/dryer. Or pay a down payment on a mortgage eventually. Saving this money now does two things: first, it gives you savings for when you need it; second, it keeps you from getting used to spending your entire paycheck. If you are used to only having $200 of spending cash out of each check, you will fit your spending into that. If you are used to spending $800 every two weeks, it will be hard to cut your spending to make room for rent, etc.\",\n \"To make this more general: should you save for retirement or for education? The answer is simple: save for your education first. A PriceWaterhouseCoopers report on behalf Universities UK in 2006 and another by the Washington-based College Board in 2007 indicate that graduates of higher education can earn anywhere from $400,000 to $1 million more, after tax and education loans are paid, than do those who start work with only a high-school qualification. [From my blog...] Over your lifetime your higher education will earn you far more than any other income and investments you forego while attaining that education. Make those sacrifices now to reap greater rewards later.\",\n \"Yes, you should be saving for retirement. There are a million ideas out there on how much is a reasonable amount, but I think most advisor would say at least 6 to 10% of your income, which in your case is around $15,000 per year. You give amounts in dollars. Are you in the U.S.? If so, there are at least two very good reasons to put money into a 401k or IRA rather than ordinary savings or investments: (a) Often your employer will make matching contributions. 50% up to 6% of your salary is pretty common, i.e. if you put in 6% they put in 3%. If either of your employers has such a plan, that's an instant 50% profit on your investment. (b) Any profits on money invested in an IRA or 401k are tax free. (Effectively, the mechanics differ depending on the type of account.) So if you put $100,000 into an IRA today and left it there until you retire 30 years later, it would likely earn something like $600,000 over that time (assuming 7% per year growth). So you'd pay takes on your initial $100,000 but none on the $600,000. With your income you are likely in a high tax bracket, that would make a huge difference. If you're saying that you just can't find a way to put money away for retirement, may I suggest that you cut back on your spending. I understand that the average American family makes about $45,000 per year and somehow manages to live on that. If you were to put 10% of your income toward retirement, then you would be living on the remaining $171,000, which is still almost 4 times what the average family has. Yeah, I make more than $45,000 a year too and there are times when I think, How could anyone possibly live on that? But then I think about what I spend my money on. Did I really need to buy two new computer printers the last couple of months? I certainly could do my own cleaning rather than hiring a cleaning lady to come in twice a month. Etc. A tough decision to make can be paying off debt versus putting money into an investment account. If the likely return on investment is less than the interest rate on the loan, you should certainly concentrate on paying off the loan. But if the reverse is true, then you need to decide between likely returns and risk.\",\n \"In addition to what others have said, I think it is important to consider that government retirement assistance (whatever it is called in each instance) is basically a promise that can be revoked. I talked to a retired friend of mine just yesterday and we got onto that subject; she mentioned that when she was young, the promise was for 90% of one's pay, paid by the government after retiring. It is very different today. Yes, you can gamble that you won't need the saved money, and thus decide not to save anything. What then if you do end up needing the money you did not set aside, but rather spent? You are just now graduating college, and assuming of course that you get a decently-paying job, are likely going to have loads more money than you are used to. If you make an agreement with yourself to set aside even just 10-15% of the difference in income right from the start, that is going to grow into a pretty sizable nest egg by the time you approach retirement age. Then, you will have the option of continuing to work (maybe part-time) or quitting in a way you would not have had otherwise. Now I'm going to pull numbers out of thin air, but suppose that you currently have $1000/month net, before expenses, and can get a job that pays $1800/month net starting out. 10-15% of the difference means you'll be saving around $100/month for retirement. In 35 years, assuming no return on investment (pessimistic, but works if returns match inflation) and no pay rises, that will still be over $40K. That's somewhere on the order of $150/month added to your retirement income for 25 years. Multiply with whatever inflation rate you think is likely if you prefer nominal values. It becomes even more noticable if you save a significant fraction of the additional pay; if you save 1/3 of the additional money (note that you still effectively get a 50% raise compared to what you have been living on before), that gives you a net income of $1500/month instead of $1800 ($500/month more rather than $800/month more) which grows into about $110K in 35 years assuming no return on investment. Nearly $400 per month for 25 years. $100 per week is hardly chump change in retirement, and it is still quite realistic for most people to save 30% of the money they did not have before.\",\n \"Congrats on making it this far debt free. It is rare, but nice to be in the situation that you are in. The important thing here is that you want to remain debt free. That's really what the emergency fund is all about: it keeps you from needing to go into debt should something unexpected happen. You've got 1.5 months worth of expenses saved up, and that's great. If you don't have a family or other responsibilities, that might be enough, but think about this: how are you paying for school, and what would happen if those funds stopped coming in? If you are paying for school out of your own income, what happens if you lose your job? If someone else, perhaps your parents, is paying for school, what happens if they are suddenly no longer able to do so? While you have extra cash, you want to be saving it up for situations like this. If I were you, I would build up that emergency fund until it got to the point where it could pay all your expenses and tuition until graduation. Hopefully, you won't need to touch it, but it will be there if you need it. Since you need to be able to access your money quickly, it is generally recommended to park this money in a savings account, where it is very safe. Mutual funds are a great way to invest, but they are not safe in the short term. Don't stress out about not being able to start retirement investing just yet. Making sure you can finish school debt free is the best investment you can make right now. After you graduate and land a job, you can start investing aggressively.\",\n \"Great question and great of you to be paying attention to this. Right now having the ability to save $2K per year might seem very out of reach. However with the right career path and by paying attention to personal finance saving 2K per month will become possible sooner than you may think. As a student you are already investing in your future, by building your greatest wealth building tool: your income. Right now concentrate on that. If you have extra money throw it in a boring old savings account and don't touch it other than emergencies. An emergency is defined as something that will preclude you from completing your education. It is not paying for the latest xbox game/skateboard/once in a lifetime trip. An important precursor to investing is having an emergency fund that sits in a boring old savings account earning almost nothing. Think of it as an insurance policy that prevents you from liquidating your investments in case of and emergency. Emergencies often come during economic downturns. If you have to liquidate your investment to cover these times then you will lock in negative returns. Once you are done with school, moved into a place of your own, and have your first job you will have a nice start on your emergency fund. Then you can start investing. Doing it in the right order you will be amazed how quickly your savings can accumulate. I'd be shooting for that 2 million by the time you are 40, not 65.\",\n \"I don't have a reference, but I think it depends on when you entered the workforce: If you finished school at age 24, your primary goals are to pay down expensive debt and to save up enough for a down payment. So essentially not much. Maybe $5k to $10k at the most. On the other hand if you entered the workforce at age 20, with no debts and no significant expenses, it should have been easy to sock away 20% of your income for 6 years, so $40k to $50k would be reasonable. The difference is that the first person's income earning potential should be higher, so eventually they'd be able to make up the difference and pass them.\",\n \"Save enough to build an emergency cushion of 4-6 months total expenses. After that, invest everything you can in areas where you are well researched and have carefully formed your own opinion on the subject. Those who save do not reach financial freedom, those who learn to invest and make their money work for them do. Invest in learning how to invest.\",\n \"This is assuming that you are now making some amount X per month which is more than the income you used to have as a student. (Otherwise, the question seems rather moot.) All figures should be net amounts (after taxes). First, figure out what the difference in your cost of living is. That is, housing, electricity, utilities, the basics that you need to have to have a place in which to live. I'm not considering food costs here unless they were subsidized while you were studying. Basically, you want to figure out how much you now have to spend extra per month for basic sustenance. Then, figure out how much more you are now making, compared to when you were a student. Subtract the sustenance extra from this to get your net pay increase. After that is when it gets trickier. Basically, you want to set aside or invest as much of the pay increase as possible, but you probably have other expenses now that you didn't before and which you cannot really do that much about. This mights be particular types of clothes, commute fares (car keepup, gas, bus pass, ...), or something entirely different. Anyway, decide on a savings goal, as a percentage of your net pay increase compared to when you were a student. This might be 5%, 10% or (if you are really ambitious) 50% or more. Whichever number you pick, make sure it's reasonable giving your living expenses, and keep in mind that anything is better than nothing. Find a financial institution that offers a high-interest savings account, preferably one with free withdrawals, and sign up for one. Each and every time you get paid, figure out how much to save based on the percentage you determined (if your regular case is that you get the same payment each time, you can simply set up an automated bank transfer), put that in the savings account and, for the moment, forget about that money. Try your best to live only on the remainder, but if you realize that you set aside too much, don't be afraid to tap into the savings account. Adjust your future deposits accordingly and try to find a good balance. At the end of each month, deposit whatever remains in your regular account into your savings account, and if that is a sizable amount of money, consider raising your savings goal a little. The ultimate goal should be that you don't need to tap into your savings except for truly exceptional situations, but still keep enough money outside of the savings account to cater to some of your wants. Yes, bank interest rates these days are often pretty dismal, and you will probably be lucky to find a savings account that (especially after taxes) will even keep up with inflation. But to start with, what you should be focusing on is not to make money in terms of real value appreciation, but simply figuring out how much money you really need to sustain a working life for yourself and then walking that walk. Eventually (this may take anywhere from a couple of months to a year or more), you should have settled pretty well on an amount that you feel comfortable with setting aside each month and just letting be. By that time, you should have a decently sized nest egg already, which will help you get over rough spots, and can start thinking about other forms of investing some of what you are setting aside. Whenever you get a net pay raise of any kind (gross pay raise, lower taxes, bonus, whichever), increase your savings goal by a portion of that raise. Maybe give yourself 60% of the raise and bank the remaining 40%. That way, you are (hopefully!) always increasing the amount of money that you are setting aside, while also reaping some benefits right away. One major upside of this approach is that, if you lose your job, not only will you have that nest egg, you will also be used to living on less. So you will have more money in the bank and less monthly expenses, which puts you in a significantly better position than if you had only one of those, let alone neither.\",\n \"Save a little if you want but pay most of your way through college if you can. Debt sucks bad and I try to avoid as little as possible. I'm willing to bet that any money you invested while in school would be trumped by a only a few hours of overtime once you're out of college and making money (assuming you've chosen a path that is valuable today and through most of your future). I worked full time and attended school full time when I was in college..those 3-4 hour nights of sleep were worth it not that I see people paying $1k/month for the next 10 years on loans... assuming you can handle it.\",\n \"Daniel, first of all, I'm jealous of your predicament. That said, I think you've gotten some good advice already, so I won't repeat what's been said. But I will throw out a few ideas that haven't come up. My first thought is that you may be underestimating upcoming expenses. It sounds like your current expenses are low, and that's great! I'm impressed that you're living below your means, and looking for the best way to use your extra cash. But you may not be thinking of a few things. You have a girlfriend, and maybe your relationship isn't such that you are planning a wedding quite yet. But, regardless of whether your current girlfriend is your future life partner or not, if you think marriage may be in your future at all, you'll save yourself a lot of stress if you've got some savings for a wedding in place before you're ready to commit. Next, what are you driving? If it's a good car that you expect to last you another 10 years, you're probably ok right now. But if you may need to replace your vehicle in the next few years, start saving now and you may be able to buy it outright. (I expect your interest rate on financing a car would be higher than your current student loan rates, so I would save for a car before paying down loans with such beautiful rates.) A house has already been discussed, and there was also mention of additional education, and both of those require a solid financial plan that begins far in advance. In summary, I think you need a lot more than $5K in savings. Sure, have some fun, and take advantage of opportunities to travel, etc, as they come along, but if you're able to bump your savings by $500 to $1000/month, I think you'll really be glad you did. When it comes time for a new car, or you find you're ready to settle down, it will be nice to have somewhere to draw from, and if there's only $5K in your savings, you may come to regret choices you made when you were 22.\",\n \"You will find lots of rules of thumb but there is no universal truth to how much you should save. There are factors you DO need to consider though: you should start as early as possible to set money aside for retirement. You should then use a retirement calculator to at least get an understanding of the amount you need to set aside each month to achieve the desired retirement income; your default should be not to spend money and only spend money when you must. Leisure, travel and eating out should come last after you have saved up; you should have funds for different terms. For example, my wife and I have an emergency fund for unexpected expenses or losses in income. The rule of thumb here generally is to have 3-6 months of salary saved up. A longer term fund should be created for larger expenses like buying a car or preparing the cashdown on a property. Finally, the retirement fund which should cover your needs after you have retired.\",\n \"\\\"Debt cripples you, it weighs you down and keeps you from living your life the way you want. Debt prevents you from accomplishing your goals, limits your ability to \\\"\\\"Do\\\"\\\" what you want, \\\"\\\"Have\\\"\\\" what you want, and \\\"\\\"Be\\\"\\\" who you want to be, it constricts your opportunities, and constrains your charity. As you said, Graduated in May from school. Student loans are coming due here in January. Bought a new car recently. The added monthly expenses have me concerned that I am budgeting my money correctly. Awesome! Congratulations. You need to develop a plan to repay the student loans. Buying a (new) car before you have planned you budget may have been premature. I currently am spending around 45-50% of my monthly (net)income to cover all my expenses and living. The left over is pretty discretionary, but things like eating dinner outside the house and expenses that are abnormal would come out of this. My question is what percentage is a safe amount to be committing to expenses on a monthly basis? Great! Plan 40-50% for essentials, and decide to spend under 20-30% for lifestyle. Be frugal here and you could allocate 30-40% for financial priorities. Budget - create a budget divided into three broad categories, control your spending and your life. Goals - a Goal is a dream with a plan. Organize your goals into specific items with timelines, and steps to progress to your goals. You should have three classes of goals, what you want to \\\"\\\"Have\\\"\\\", what you want to \\\"\\\"Do\\\"\\\", and who you want to \\\"\\\"Be\\\"\\\"; Ask yourself, what is important to you. Then establish a timeline to achieve each goal. You should place specific goals or steps into three time blocks, Near (under 3-6 months), medium (under 12 months), and Long (under 24 months). It is ok to have longer term plans, but establish steps to get to those goals, and place those steps under one of these three timeframes. Example, Good advice I have heard includes keeping housing costs under 25%, keeping vehicle costs under 10%, and paying off debt quickly. Some advise 10-20% for financial priorities, but I prefer 30-40%. If you put 10% toward retirement (for now), save 10-20%, and pay 10-20% toward debt, you should make good progress on your student loans.\\\"\",\n \"First thing to do right now, is to see if there's somewhere equally liquid, equally risk free you can park your cash for higher rate of return. You can do this now, and decide how much to move into less liquid investments on your own pace. When I was in grad school, I opened a Roth IRA. These are fantastic things for young people who want to keep their options open. You can withdraw the contributions without penalty any time. The earnings are tax free on retirement, or for qualified withdrawls after five years. Down payments on a first home qualify for example. As do medical expenses. Or you can leave it for retirement, and you'll not pay any taxes on it. So Roth is pretty flexible, but what might that investment look like? It in depends on your time horizon; five years is pretty short so you probably don't want to be too stock market weighted. Just recognize that safe short term investments are very poorly rewarded right now. However, you can only contribute earnings in the year they are made, up to a 5000 annual maximum. And the deadline for 2010 is gone. So you'll have to move this into an IRA over a number of years, and have the earnings to back it. So in the meanwhile, the obvious advice to pay down your credit card bills & save for emergencies applies. It's also worth looking at health and dental insurance, as college students are among the least likely to have decent insurance. Also keep a good chunk on hand in liquid accounts like savings or checking for emergencies and general poor planning. You don't want to pay bank fees like I once did because I mis-timed a money transfer. It's also great for negotiating when you can pay in cash up front; my car insurance for example, will charge you more for monthly payments than for every six months. Or putting a huge chunk down on a car will pretty much guarantee the best available dealer financing.\",\n \"Saving some money for the future is a good idea. But how much to save is a tough question. I retired with a small fraction of what the experts said I would need. Three years later, I can confidently say I did not even need what I had saved.\",\n \"Most financial guru's recommend between three and six months of savings, modified by how likely you think it is you'll lose your job. Note that the months here are months of expenses not income. Dave Ramsey on the other hands recommends saving only $1000 until you've paid all debts (except your home). This strategy only makes sense if you're paying off debt very aggressively. Since you have many relatively small debts, you would benefit greatly from the debt snowball (recent research shows it's more effective in practice than paying off high interest first). As you quickly pay off the smaller loans you reduce the amount you must pay each month, reducing your risk (your emergency fund now goes that much farther), and enabling you to put more on the next debt. In your particular case the debt snowball would be: etc. Again, this is good because it quickly reduces your monthly required debt payments.\",\n \"Figure you need as much cash in the bank to pay all of your bills for the amount of time it would take you to find a new job if yours went away. Also .. congratulations on your situation .. good work.\",\n \"You are looking for r/personalfinance. But it'd probably be best to put your excess monies in a savings account, not worrying about 401k/retirement contributions until you get a full time job, post college. Don't listen to the pussies that will tell you to invest it in a vagaurd account or your 401k. The money is more important to you as an emergency fund you can access immediately. At most you'll see a 4-5% return on your meager savings, amounting to less than $100/year.\",\n \"My graduate stipend was wage income so I could make Roth IRA contributions. Don't lose the year; you can withdraw nominal contributions if needed. What you choose is less important than making the contribution.\",\n \"Chances are since college is your next likely step I would recommend saving up for it. Start building an emergency fund. Recommended $1,000 minimum. To start building your credit rating (when 18) get a low interest low limit credit. Pay off the balance every month. Starting to build your credit rating now can save you hundreds of thousands when buying a house over the course of paying it off. ie. cheaper interest rate. As for investing, the sooner you can get started the better. Acquire preferred/stocks/bonds/REITs/ETFs/etc that pay you to own them (they pay you dividends monthly/quarterly/etc). Stick with solid stocks that have a history of consistently increasing their dividends over time and that are solid companies. I personally follow the work/advice of Derek Foster. He's not a professional but he retired at 34. His first book (Stop working - Here's how you can) is great and recommend it to anyone who is looking to get started. Also check out Ramit Sethi's blog I Will Teach You to be Rich. He focuses on big wins which save you a lot over the long term. He's also got some great advice for students as well. Best of luck!\",\n \"Get a decent job while at university - it will make all the difference. And calculate your budget and don't spend more than your budget allows Worked for me. That was the time when I had the greatest disposable income - all gone downhill since :-)\",\n \"\\\"Fool's 13 steps to invest is a good starting point. Specifically, IFF all your credit cards are paid, and you made sure you've got no outstanding liabilities (that also accrues interest), stock indexes might be a good place for 5-10 years timeframes. For grad school, I'd probably look into cash ISA (or local equivalent thereof) -the rate of return is going to be lower, but having it in a separate account at least makes it mentally \\\"\\\"out of sight - out of mind\\\"\\\", so you can make sure the money's there WHEN you need it.\\\"\",\n \"I saved all the money I made working part time in high school and paid for my first year of college, it was a big relief and really helped me. $15,000 is not that much now that I'm done with school.\",\n \"On paper the whole 6 months living costs sounds (and is) great, but in real life there are a lot of things that you need to consider. For example, my first car was constantly falling apart and was an SUV that got 16MPG. I have to travel for work (about 300 miles per week) so getting a sedan that averages close to 40MPG saves me more in gas and maintenance than the monthly payment for the new car costs. When our apartment lease was up, the new monthly rent would have been $1685 per month, we got a 30 year mortgage with a monthly payment of $1372. So buying a house actually let us put aside more each month. We have just under 3 months of living expenses set aside (1 month in liquid assets, 2 months in a brokerage account) and I worry about it. I wish we had a better buffer, but in our case the house and car made more sense as an early investment compared to just squirreling away all our savings. Also, do you have any debt? Paying off debt (student loans, credit card debt, etc.) should often take top priority. Have some rainy day funds, of course, but pay down debts, and then create a personal financial plan for what works best in your situation. That would be my suggestion.\",\n \"On average, you should be saving at least 10-15% of your income in order to be financially secure when you retire. Different people will tell you different things, but really this can be split between short term savings (cash), long term savings (401ks, IRAs, stocks & bonds), and paying down debt. That $5k is a good start on an emergency fund, but you probably want a little more. As justkt said, 6 months' worth is what you want to aim for. Put this in a Money Market account, where you'll earn a little more interest but won't be penalized from withdrawing it when its needed (you may have to live off it, after all). Beyond that, I would split things up; if possible, have payroll deductions going to a broker (sharebuilder is a good one to start with if you can't spare much change), as well as an IRA at a bank. Set up a separate checking account just for rent and utilities, put a month's worth of cash in there, and have another payroll deduction that covers your living expenses + maybe 5% put in there automatically. Then, set up automatic bill payments, so you don't even have to think about it. Check it once a month to make sure there aren't any surprises. Pay off your credit cards every month. These are, by far, the most expensive forms of credit that most people have. You shouldn't be financing large purchases with them (you'll get better rates by taking a personal loan from a bank). Set specific goals for savings, and set up automatic payroll deductions to work towards them. Especially for buying a house; most responsible lenders will ask for 20% down. In today's market, that means you need to write a check for $40k or $50k. While it's tempting to finance up to 100% of the property value, it's also risky considering how volatile markets can be. You don't want to end up owing more on the property than it's worth two years down the road. If you find yourself at the end of the month with an extra $50 or so, consider your savings goals or your current debt instead of blowing it on a toy. Especially if you have long term debt (high balance credit cards, vehicle or property loans), applying that money directly to principal can save you months (or years) paying it back, and hundreds or thousands of dollars of interest (all depending on the details of the loan, of course). Above all, have fun with it :) Think of your personal net worth as you do your Gamer score on the XBox, and look for ways to maximize it with a minimum of effort or investment on your part! Investing in yourself and your future can be incredibly rewarding emotionally :)\",\n \"Why not just hold that cash until you graduate from college? Why? Because it's a safety net - make sure you don't have any sudden expenses (medical, school bills, car bills, etc). Then after school you're going to need some cash for job moving, relocation, clothes, downpayment on apartment, utilities, etc. If all that cash is tied up into a 401 or IRA then you can't touch it and if something happens you'll be tempted to take a loan out. Ack! You'll have plenty of time since you're just starting to save for retirement. Keep this cash as a beginning emergency fund and hang on cause as soon as you get out of school things really move fast. :)\",\n \"I have about $1K in savings, and have been told that you should get into investment and saving for retirement early. I make around $200 per week, which about $150 goes into savings. That's $10k per year. The general rule of thumb is that you should have six months income as an emergency fund. So your savings should be around $5k. Build that first. Some argue that the standard should be six months of living expenses rather than income. Personally, I think that this example is exactly why it is income rather than living expenses. Six months of living expenses in this case would only be $1250, which won't pay for much. And note that living expenses can only be calculated after the fact. If your estimate of $50 a week is overly optimistic, you might not notice for months (until some large living expense pops up). Another problem with using living expenses as the measure is that if you hold down your living expenses to maximize your savings, this helps both measures. Then you hit your savings target, and your living expenses increase. So you need more savings. By contrast, if your income increases but your living expenses do not, you still need more savings but you can also save more money. Doesn't really change the basic analysis though. Either way you have an emergency savings target that you should hit before starting your retirement savings. If you save $150 per week, then you should have around $4k in savings at the beginning of next year. That's still low for an emergency fund by the income standard. So you probably shouldn't invest next year. With a living expenses standard, you could have $6250 in savings by April 15th (deadline for an IRA contribution that appears in the previous tax year). That's $5000 more than the $1250 emergency fund, so you could afford an IRA (probably a Roth) that year. If you save $7500 next year and start with $4k in savings (under the income standard for emergency savings), that would leave you with $11,500. Take $5500 of that and invest in an IRA, probably a Roth. After that, you could make a $100 deposit per week for the next year. Or just wait until the end. If you invested in an IRA the previous year because you decided use the living expenses standard, you would only have $6500 at the end of the year. If you wait until you have $6750, you could max out your IRA contribution. At that point, your excess income for each year would be larger than the maximum IRA contribution, so you could max it out until your circumstances change. If you don't actually save $3k this year and $7500 next year, don't sweat it. A college education is enough of an investment at your age. Do that first, then emergency savings, then retirement. That will flip around once you get a better paying, long term job. Then you should include retirement savings as an expected cost. So you'd pay the minimum required for your education loans and other required living expenses, then dedicate an amount for retirement savings, then build your emergency savings, then pay off your education loans (above the minimum payment). This is where it can pay to use the more aggressive living expenses standard, as that allows you to pay off your education loans faster. I would invest retirement savings in a nice, diversified index fund (or two since maintaining the correct stock/bond mix of 70%-75% stocks is less risky than investing in just bonds much less just stocks). Investing in individual stocks is something you should do with excess money that you can afford to lose. Secure your retirement first. Then stock investments are gravy if they pan out. If they don't, you're still all right. But if they do, you can make bigger decisions, e.g. buying a house. Realize that buying individual stocks is about more than just buying an app. You have to both check the fundamentals (which the app can help you do) and find other reasons to buy a stock. If you rely on an app, then you're essentially joining everyone else using that app. You'll make the same profit as everyone else, which won't be much because you all share the profit opportunities with the app's system. If you want to use someone else's system, stick with mutual funds. The app system is actually more dangerous in the long term. Early in the app's life cycle, its system can produce positive returns because a small number of people are sharing the benefits of that system. As more people adopt it though, the total possible returns stay the same. At some point, users saturate the app. All the possible returns are realized. Then users are competing with each other for returns. The per user returns will shrink as usage grows. If you have your own system, then you are competing with fewer people for the returns from it. Share the fundamental analysis, but pick your stocks based on other criteria. Fundamental analysis will tell you if a stock is overvalued. The other criteria will tell you which undervalued stock to buy.\",\n \"\\\"I posted a comment in another answer and it seems to be approved by others, so I have converted this into an answer. If you're talking about young adults who just graduated college and worked through it. I would recommend you tell them to keep the same budget as what they were living on before they got a full-time job. This way, as far as their spending habits go, nothing changes since they only have a $500 budget (random figure) and everything else goes into savings and investments. If as a student you made $500/month and you suddenly get $2000/month, that's a lot of money you get to blow on drinks. Now, if you put $500 in savings (until 6-12 month of living expenses), $500 in investments for the long run and $500 in vacation funds or \\\"\\\"big expenses\\\"\\\" funds (Ideally with a cap and dump the extra in investments). That's $18,000/yr you are saving. At this stage in your life, you have not gotten used to spending that extra $18,000/yr. Don't touch the side money except for the vacation fund when you want to treat yourself. Your friends will call you cheap, but that's not your problem. Take that head start and build that down payment on your dream house. The way I set it up, is (in this case) I have automatics every day after my paychecks come in for the set amounts. I never see it, but I need to make sure I have the money in there. Note: Numbers are there for the sake of simplicity. Adjust accordingly. PS: This is anecdotal evidence that has worked for me. Parents taught me this philosophy and it has worked wonders for me. This is the extent of my financial wisdom.\\\"\",\n \"I think JohnFx's answer is pretty much the right thing to do. I'd just like to suggest that the budget doesn't have to be fixed. It sounds like you aren't completely sure what an acceptable lifestyle costs for you, and it might feel like a budget locks you into a spending pattern that could end up being unfulfilling, or keep you in debt longer than necessary. To reduce that risk, you could start with a very easy level of contributions, then every month see if you can spend $10-$50 less without sacrificing in the lifestyle department. And eventually if you feel like you're missing out, you can stick with the previous month's budget. You might avoid depriving yourself by starting with something easy, but I think if you make an effort to save money, you'll more likely be surprised how much you can improve your lifestyle while spending less. I like a lot of the advice on Mr. Money Mustache and Early Retirement Extreme, and I'd recommend the introductory sections of both blogs if you ever hit a block at some level of contribution. And one minor (highly situational) comment: You mentioned having less to save if you contribute more, but if you have high interest loans, paying them down early can be (pretty much) a guaranteed very high ROI. So while you might want to prioritize an emergency fund and maybe an employer match first, most saving will probably be less useful than extra contributions.\",\n \"The bare minimum should be 6-months of expenses. Ideally, it should be at least 1 year. My personal preference is 2+ years, but one thing at a time. Figure out your necessary expenses: food, shelter, transportation and necessary extras. An example of a necessity, beyond the basics, for me is a decent internet connection. Telephone costs is another good example. (Meanwhile, electricity and such bills should be included in the figure for shelter.) You may want to include some allowance for clothing as well; especially for the 2+ year plan.\",\n \"Your first problem is looking at these as monthly expenses rather than looking longer-term at how to remove the expenses. You have a $600/month loan, but what is the interest rate? If you paid that loan more aggressively it would free up 10% of your income, but you can't pay the loan aggressively if you don't have an emergency fund. You need enough cash-flow to take care of emergencies so you don't incur more debt on less advantageous terms. The way you describe the problem, it appears that you don't know where all of the money is going, so the first step is to track all of your expenses and formulate a budget. The budget is a plan on how to spend the money for next month. At least 10% should be money you are saving for a short-term emergency fund. Another 10% should be money you are saving for retirement. Until you have 6 months of expenses saved for your emergency fund, you need to skip luxuries like taxi rides and maybe you need to reduce the amount you send home. 22% is a large amount and unless your parents are using that money to become independent (so that they won't rely on your contributions forever) it will only prevent you from becoming wealthy enough to really help them later. Only you can determine what can be cut from your monthly expenses--but if you want to save--spending less is required.\",\n \"You have great intentions, and a great future. As far as investing goes, you're a bit early. Unless your parents or other benefactor is going to pay every dime of your expenses, you'll have costs you need to address. $1000 is the start of a nice emergency fund, but not yet enough to consider investing for the long term. If you continue to work, it's not tough to burn through $200/wk especially when you are in college and have more financial responsibility.\",\n \"I would definitely recommend putting some of this in an IRA. You can't put all $30K in an IRA immediately though, as the contribution limit is $5500/year for 2014, but until April 15 you can still contribute $5500 for 2013 as well. At your income level I would absolutely recommend a Roth IRA, as your income will very likely be higher in retirement, given that your income will almost certainly rise after you get your Ph.D. Your suggested asset allocation (70% stocks, 30% bonds) sounds appropriate; if anything you might want to go even higher on stocks assuming you won't mind seeing the value drop significantly. If you don't want to put a lot of energy into investment choices, I suggest a target retirement date fund. As far as I am aware, Vanguard offers the lowest expenses for these types of funds, e.g. this 2050 fund.\",\n \"I think this varies considerably depending on your situation. I've heard people say 6 month's living expenses, and I know Suze Orman recommended bumping that to 8 months in our current economy. My husband and I have no children, lots of student loan debts, but we pay off our credit cards in full each month and are working to save up for a house. We've talked through a few different what-if scenarios. If one of us were to lose our job, we have savings to cover the difference between our reduced income and paying the bills for 6 or 8 months while the other person regained employment. If both of us were to lose our jobs simultaneously, our savings wouldn't hold us over for more than 3 or 4 months, but if that were to happen, we would likely take advantage of the opportunity to relocate closer to our families, and possibly even move in to my parent's house for a short time. With no children and no mortgage, our commitments are few, so I don't feel the need to have a very large emergency cash fund, especially with student loans to pay off. Think through a few scenarios for your life and see what you would need. Take into consideration expenses to break a rental lease, cell phone contract, or other commitments. Then, start saving toward your goal. Also see answers to a similar question here.\",\n \"\\\"Congratulations. The first savings goal should be an emergency fund. Think of this not as an investment, but as insurance against life's woes. They happen and having this kind of money earmarked allows one to invest without needing to withdraw at an inopportune time. This should go into a \\\"\\\"high interest\\\"\\\" savings account or money market account. Figure three to six months of expenses. The next goal should be retirement savings. In the US this is typically done through 401K or if your company does not offer one, either a ROTH IRA or Traditional IRA. The goal should be about 15% of your income. You should favor a 401k match over just about anything else, and then a ROTH over that. The key to transforming from a broke college student into a person with a real job, and disposable income, is a budget. Otherwise you might just end up as a broke person with a real job (not fun). Part of your budget should include savings, spending, and giving. All three areas are the key to building wealth. Once you have all of those taking care of the real fun begins. That is you have an emergency fund, you are putting 15% to retirement, you are spending some on yourself, and giving to a charity of your choice. Then you can dream some with any money left over (after expenses of course). Do you want to retire early? Invest more for retirement. Looking to buy a home or own a bunch of rental property? Start educating yourself and invest for that. Are you passionate about a certain charity? Give more and save some money to take time off in order to volunteer for that charity. All that and more can be yours. Budgeting is a key concept, and the younger you start the easier it gets. While the financiers will disagree with me, you cannot really invest if you are borrowing money. Keep debt to zero or just on a primary residence. I can tell you from personal experience that I did not started building wealth until I made a firm commitment to being out of debt. Buy cars for cash and never pay credit card interest. Pay off student loans as soon as possible. For some reason the idea of giving to charity invokes rancor. A cursory study of millionaires will indicate some surprising facts: most of them are self made, most of them behave differently than pop culture, and among other things most of them are generous givers. Building wealth is about behavior. Giving to charity is part of that behavior. Its my own theory that giving does almost no good for the recipient, but a great amount of good for the giver. This may seem difficult to believe, but I ask that you try it.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I'd first put it in CDs or other short term account. Get through school first, then see where you land. If you have income that allows you to start a Roth IRA, I'd go for that, but keep it safe in case you actually need it back soon. After school, if you don't land a decent job fast, this money might be needed to live on. How long will it last if you take a few months to find work? If you do find a good job, moving, and setting up an apartment has a cost. Once you're there, I'd refer you to the many \\\"\\\"getting started\\\"\\\" Q&As on this site.\\\"\",\n \"Keep 3-6 months (or more if you need to, for me the number is 9 months) worth of expenses in an emergency fund. Put the rest against the student loan. The length of time depends on your situation. I have family, and work in IT. Changing jobs takes me longer, because ... reasons. Having less than 6-9 months of buffer means that I have to rush and possibly take a position that is not a good fit, or get behind on payments. So, set aside your emergency fund, add to it if you need to. Once it is fully funded, take the money you were using to fund the emergency fund and budget that to clearing student loans. Also, don't start new credit cards, and be sure to never carry a balance on them. I know it seems like a lot, but keep in mind that yours is small, and you'll likely be able to knock it out in a very short time. Edit (after OP listed expenses): Taking into account the expenses you listed, it looks like you have about 2000 per month in expenses (if you're in emergency fund mode, luxuries can wait, and you can tighten the belt on food, so go with the lower end of your estimate.) Lets say you have 600 a month to work with. My suggestion would be bring savings up to $6000. That will take you two months. Then pay 850 a month to student loans. You'll be paid off in a year, and still have 6000 for emergencies. Once you're done, you will have 850 a month to save and invest. With patience, persistence and care, you can start a nest egg that will allow you to remain financially independent. Search around for FIRE (financial independence, retire early) and other strategies for retirement savings and investing. Be sure to save for retirement. The worst inheritance to leave your loved ones would be to become financially dependent upon them in your later years. And watch out for credit, it's a trap.\",\n \"Congrats on your first real job! Save as much as your can while keeping yourself (relatively) comfortable. As to where to put your hard earned money, first establish why you want to save the money in the first place. Money is a mean to acquire the things we want or need in your life or the lives of others. Once your goals are set, then follow this order:\",\n \"My opinion is that 50% savings is the number to shoot for, and I strive toward that number as often as possible. 10% - savings for retirement 10% - savings for short term emergency fund 25% - payment on mortgage principal 5% - savings for planned big purchases I overpay the principal so that 25% of my income goes to principal payments, and I separately account for the mortgage interest/home owners insurance as another expense in my budget. Because of this aggressive payment schedule, the house I bought 2 years ago will be payed in full in another 9 years. I own another property outright that I paid down in the same fashion and I collect rent on it as a supplement to my income. I started with a small townhouse that I could easily afford, but now I have a much larger home that I can still easily afford. The emergency fund doesn't need to be more than 6 months of expenses, which is 3 months of income if your expenses are only 50% of your income. I keep 6 months of expenses liquid and another 12 in a low risk investment. Once you have your emergency fund funded, you can add that percentage to a different category (say 15% to retirement and 10% to planned big purchases), or you can over-fund it. I have had a few catastrophes that have depleted that fund, so I like having the extra 12 months of income available. I set the last 5% aside for wants that are not regular expenses. If I want a car, I save 5% of my income until I can pay cash for it. I have an infinite number of these wants, so I prioritize them and buy them in order when the cash becomes available. The reason I use percentages is to keep me focused when my income increases. Instead of spending all the additional money that I could afford to spend each time I get a raise. I instead only increase my expenses to the 50% mark. It was much harder to save 50% when I got my first job out of college, but now I live quite comfortably on that percentage and I could take a large hit to my income before I would need to make significant changes to my lifestyle.\",\n \"\\\"Spend less. As @jldugger said, shop around for textbooks. Make sure to look for used books: you can sometimes save a lot of money there. Be smart about food money. I could go to our on-campus grill and get a sandwich and a salad for lunch. If I packed both with toppings, the salad could be a 2nd meal for the same day. If you have the option, get a meal plan that is just 1 meal a day, and eat a lot that meal. Don't do the starbucks \\\"\\\"pay several dollars for a coffee each day\\\"\\\" thing. Small-ish regular expenses add up quickly. Quit smoking (if applicable). Ditch your car if possible. Some colleges are in cities with good public transportation or are small enough that a bike will do. Cars are very expensive. Try to find free activities to do in your free time. Usually college towns are great places to find free fun. Pick-up sports, student concerts/art shows, playing board/card/video games. Make sure to track how you're spending money to look for areas where you could be spending less. There are plenty of tools available to help with this. Some on-campus jobs involve sitting around and occasionally doing something: IE working the checkout desk at the library. A job like this (if you can find one) can effectively pay you for doing our homework. One other very important college-related financial tip is to not take out more loans than you can afford. I've heard a good rule of thumb is not take our more loans than you expect to earn your first year after graduating. Look up average starting salaries for the career you realistically expect to have after you graduate. If you would need to borrow much more than that to get your degree, rethink your plans. Being a slave to a bank for years is a crappy way to spend your life.\\\"\",\n \"You need to protect from two types of disasters. You need to set a goal. In 5 years I will have X months of emergency funds. Then start building it. You can also make sure that any found money (birthday check from your grandmother or bonus check at work) goes into building the fund. While is seems a waste to pay all that interest for the student loans, you may decide that having an emergency fund is more important. Note: don't mix the two types of emergency funds. It is less confusing to have two sub accounts, because it avoids the double counting of the funds.\",\n \"Heck no, don't spend more! I saved a ton of money when I got my first real job. You won't always be able to do this. Save a bundle while you can.\",\n \"I encourage using it as a buffer. After h.s. I had a thousand or so dollars saved up in my savings account. After college it was maybe 5 thousand and it's remained roughly like that ever since. I figure any modest emergency or spending splurge may cost, at most, a couple thousand bucks. I'm talking about a new couch, a car accident, hospital bill, vacation to wherever, etc. It's nice to have an idea of a buffer. Financial advisors say to have a buffer of about 3 months of salary. This is in case of unemployment and such. It was smart for me. I wouldn't try to spend money to make money at this point. It's not enough money to try to see a significant gain unless you're lucky. I tried Sharebuilder a while ago with $200 to see what stocks were like. They gave you several free trades to see how you liked it. At first I was shuffling stuff a little too much and once the fees start kicking in it's 7 bucks here, 7 bucks there- eventually I realized you have to invest enough to offset the transfer fees and the fact that you have your money tied up in something going up and down all the time. But yeah. Start with a buffer and scale it up as your lifestyle changes. Anything beyond your buffer is spending money, investing money, fun money.\",\n \"With $800/month extra? Do both. (I am ethnocentric enough to assume you live in the same country as me) First, figure out what your emergency fund should look like. Put this money in a high yield checking or savings account. Add to it monthly until you reach your goal. It should be 3 to 6 months of your total monthly expenses. It will be a lot more than $2k I suspect. You will earn bubkis in interest, but the point of the emergency fund is a highly liquid asset for emergencies so you can choose cheaper car insurance and not buy warranties on stuff. With your $800/month, split it up this way: $416/month into a Roth IRA account at Vanguard (or Schwab or Fidelity) in the Star Fund (or similar low cost, diversified fund). The star is $1000 to open, pretty diversified. $416 is a lazy number that comes close to the $5000 annual limit for a Roth IRA in the US. Contribute like clockwork, directly from your paycheck if you can. This will make it easy to do and get you the benefit of dollar cost averaging. $200 or $300 into your savings account until you reach your emergency fund goal. $85 - $100. Live a little. Speculate in stocks with your vanguard account. Or rent fancy cars. Or taken a vacation or go party. If you are saving $800/month in your early 20 be proud of yourself, but have a little fun too so you can let off steam. It isn't much but you know you can play with it. Once you reach your emergency fund, save up for your future house or car or plane tickets to Paris. Ask another question for how to save up for these kinds of goals.\",\n \"For a more philosophical way to approach this, consider money saved as the opposite of money owed: This philosophy works for things which you may be able to borrow for (computer, car, house), but also for things you can't borrow for (retirement, giving to your kids, etc.). As others have mentioned, the 10% suggestion is for retirement, but the actual number depends on your lifestyle. As you can see in this chart, saving 10% of your income means you'll need to work for 51.4 years.\",\n \"Does your employer offer direct deposit? Can you deposit to more than one account? Personally, I have my pay split up like this via direct deposit: From an early age I found that separating my expenses from my spending money kept me inside my spending limits and kept my savings on track. In fact, checking account 1 and 2 are at two different banks. Get yourself a credit card to start establishing some credit. Make a payment plan for the student loan, but before focusing completely on repaying it start to establish an emergency fund.\",\n \"Assuming the amount of your car payment and student loan aren't crazy you should be fine. I would suggest starting with a baseline budget listing your monthly income and expenses. Be sure to include miscellaneous expenses like car maintenance, insurance, food, clothes, etc (the common things that sometimes get overlooked in a budget). After all of your necessary expenses (fluff like entertainment doesn't count), if your employer has a 401k with a match I would contribute to that up to the match amount. Next I would save an emergency fund to cover unforseen events such as car repairs, etc. $1000 is not an uncommon amount to see people suggest for this. Next I would knock out your car loan then student loan as fast as possible. This will free up some cash flow which gives you more freedom to do what you want. At this point you save more so you don't have to finance the next car or have a down payment for a home or whatever. Building your savings to be 3-6 months of income is a good idea, this covers things like being laid off or other larger unexpected events. After you get to that point how you handle your budget is pretty open.\",\n \"Your attitude is great, but be careful to temper your (awesome) ambition with a dose of reality. Saving is investing is great, the earlier the better, and seeing retirement at a young age with smooth lots of life's troubles; saving is smart and we all know it. But as a college junior, be honest with yourself. Don't you want to screw around and play with some of that money? Your first time with real income, don't you want to blow it on a big TV, vacation, or computer? Budget out those items with realistic costs. See the pros and cons of spending that money keeping in mind the opportunity cost. For example, when I was in college, getting a new laptop for $2000 (!) was easily more important to me than retirement. I don't regret that. I do regret buying my new truck too soon and borrowing money to do it. These are judgment calls. Here is the classic recipe: Adjust the numbers or businesses to your personal preferences. I threw out suggestions so you can research them and get an idea of what to compare. And most importantly of all. DO NOT GET INTO CREDIT CARD DEBT. Use credit if you wish, but do not carry a balance.\",\n \"\\\"The power of compounding interest and returns is an amazing thing. Start educating yourself about investing, and do it -- there are great Q&As on this site, numerous books (I recommend \\\"\\\"The Intelligent Investor\\\"\\\", tools for small investors (like Sharebuilder.com) and other resources out there to get you started. Your portfolio doesn't need to include every dime you have either. But you do need to develop the discipline to save money -- even if that savings is $20 while you're in school. How you split between cash/deposit account savings and other investment vehicles is a decision that needs to make sense to you.\\\"\",\n \"Budget. Figure out how much money you need to keep for your own spending purposes, then figure out from that how much you can afford to move to longer term savings for youeself and/or the kid. Try it for a while, see if it works, adjust how much you can afford to save, repeat. (Actually, you want to further reduce the savings a bit until the emergency fund comes up to a level you feel comfortable at, then increase them to acceptable targets.) It's OK if you miss or reduce some deposits to the savings plans while you get the emergency fund up to a level you're comfortable at. If you don't feel you're saving enough after making these adjustments, you need to economize somewhere so you have more money to save, or make more money, or recalibrate your expectations. You can't get a gallon out of a quart container.\",\n \"I'm not a 'rule of thumb' guy, but here, I'd suggest that if you can set aside 10% of your income each year for college, that would be great. That turns out to be $900/mo. In 15 years, if you saw an 8% CAGR, you'd have $311K which happens to be in your range of expenses. And you'd still have time to go as the baby won't graduate for 22(?) years. (Yup, 10% is a good rule of thumb for your income and 3 kids) Now, on the other hand, I'd research what grants you'd be able to get if you came up short. If instead of saving a dime, you funded your own retirement and the spouse's IRA if she's not working, and time the mortgage to pay it off in 15 years from now, the lack of liquid funds actually runs in your favor. But, I'm not an expect on this, just second guessing my own fully funded college account for my daughter.\",\n \"As long as you have a emergency fund, I'd stop 401k contributions immediately and use that money to fund school (as much as you can). Student loans are dangerous - they're very difficult to discharge in a bankruptcy, and eat into your savings for a long time. It may even be better to defer school for a year while the debt gets paid off and you can get an emergency fund built up.\",\n \"Put it in the bank and earn the meager interest rate. By far your most important investment is finishing your education and as such this money might be needed to do so. If you don't need the money during your education you will undoubtedly need it for a new apartment/furnishings/moving expenses.\",\n \"Since you already have established a set of expenses, most importantly your rent. Blair Hodgson DuQuesnay said, “You don’t want to spend more than one-third of your take-home pay on your housing, whether that’s rent or a mortgage. With almost everything else, you can work from there.” She also recommends that your static bills — housing, utilities, and other fixed expenses that recur monthly — don’t take up more than 50% of your budget. If you can keep them even lower than 50%, like, say 40% or 35%, you’ll have even more spending money for everything from food to clothing to savings. So basically, it is time to start to be worried if you are exceeding half of your budget on your expenses. Forbes has an excellent article on how new grads can plan to budget their money.\",\n \"I'd suggest waiting until a bit after you are married. To Eagle1's point, even $23,000 is not a huge sum of money. You didn't make any mention of a desire to buy a home, but if that becomes part of the plan, I'd want every cent of liquidity I can get. I wrote Student Loans and Your First Mortgage to explain why your buying power for the house is lowered by paying that loan. In your case, $5000 is 20% of $25000. For a good 20% down purchase, I'd want those funds available. You also don't mention retirement accounts. Depending on the home purchase timing, I'd start to think about putting aside at least the $5500 per year IRA/Roth IRA maximum.\",\n \"\\\"I take it you have nearly zero expenses, since you don't mention any savings and with your income you wouldn't have much left over for investing. At your level of income, any actual investing is either going to unwisely reduce your cash available should you need it (such as investment in mutual funds, which often have minimum investment periods of 2-6 months or more to avoid fees), or cost you a high percentage of your income in commissions (stock trading). So, I wouldn't recommend investing at all — yet. I find Dave Ramsey's baby steps to be very good general money management advice. Here is how I would adapt the first three steps to your income and stage in life. Beyond this, Dave recommends saving for retirement, college (for kids) and paying off your house early. These things are a little beyond your stage in life, but it would be good to start thinking about them. For you, I recommend following DJClayworth's advice to \\\"\\\"invest in yourself\\\"\\\". Specifically, plan to get through college debt-free. Put away money so that you have a head start once you do have living expenses — save for a car, save money for rent, etc. so that you don't have to live month to month as most people do starting out. So, what this boils down to: Put away every cent you have, in a savings account.\\\"\",\n \"In general, the better advice I've heard is to spend only on things that matter to you and scrimp on the rest. It's an easy way to budget without having to stick to a strict set of rules. Otherwise keep 3-6 months of living expenses in liquid accounts (money market, savings) and invest the rest.\",\n \"On the one hand, it's a great idea to open a Roth IRA now, once you've got the cash to contribute. It's a tax designation sounds like it would fit your meager earnings this year. The main reason to open one now rather than later is that some types of withdrawls require the account be aged 5 years. But you can also withdraw the amount you've contributed tax free any time. Student loans right now are pricey, so if you're carrying a balance at say 6.8 percent fixed you should pay that down ASAP. Beyond that, I'd keep the rest liquid for now. Having that kind of liquid cash is extremely reassuring, and many of the biggest returns on investment are going to be in your personal life. More fuel efficient vehicles, energy efficient appliances, computer backups, chest freezers and bulk meat purchases, etc. One example I see every six months is car insurance: I can pay for six months in full or I can pay a smaller monthly bill plus a small fee. That fee is well above current market rates. You see this everywhere; people searching for lower minimum payments rather than lower total costs. Save your money up and be the smart buyer. It's too damn expensive to be broke.\",\n \"Every $1,000 you use to pay off a 26% interest rate card saves you $260 / year. Every $1,000 you use to pay off a 23% interest rate card saves you $230 / year. Every $1,000 you put in a savings account earning ~0.5% interest earns you $5 / year. Having cash on hand is good in case of emergencies, but typically if your debt is on high interest credit cards, you should consider paying off as much of it as possible. In your case you may want to keep only some small amount (maybe $500, maybe $1000, maybe $100) in cash for emergencies. Paying off your high interest debt should be a top priority for you. You may want to look on this site for help with budgeting, also. Typically, being in debt to credit card companies is a sign of living beyond your means. It costs you a lot of money in the long run.\",\n \"Congrats! That's a solid accomplishment for someone who is not even in college yet. I graduated college 3 years ago and I wish I was able to save more in college than I did. The rule of thumb with saving: the earlier the better. My personal portfolio for retirement is comprised of four areas: Roth IRA contributions, 401k contributions, HSA contributions, Stock Market One of the greatest things about the college I attended was its co-op program. I had 3 internships - each were full time positions for 6 months. I strongly recommend, if its available, finding an internship for whatever major you are looking into. It will not only convince you that the career path you chose is what you want to do, but there are added benefits specifically in regards to retirement and savings. In all three of my co-ops I was able to apply 8% of my paycheck to my company's 401k plan. They also had matching available. As a result, my 401k had a pretty substantial savings amount by the time I graduated college. To circle back to your question, I would recommend investing the money into a Roth IRA or the stock market. I personally have yet to invest a significant amount of money in the stock market. Instead, I have been maxing out my retirement for the last three years. That means I'm adding 18k to my 401k, 5.5k to my Roth, and adding ~3k to my HSA (there are limits to each of these and you can find them online). Compounded interest is amazing (I'm just going to leave this here... https://www.moneyunder30.com/power-of-compound-interest).\",\n \"\\\"Two things to consider: When it comes to advice, don't be \\\"\\\"Penny wise and Pound foolish\\\"\\\". It is an ongoing debate whether active management vs passive indexes are a better choice, and I am sure others can give good arguments for both sides. I look at it as you are paying for advice. If your adviser will teach you about investing and serve your interests, having his advise will probably prevent you from making some dumb mistakes. A few mistakes (such as jumping in/out of markets based on fear/speculation) can eliminate any savings in fees. However, if you feel confident that you have the resources and can make good decisions, why pay for advise you don't need? EDIT In this case, my opinion is that you don't need a complex plan at this time. The money you would spend on financial advise would not be the best use of the funds. That said, to your main question, I would delay making any long-term decisions with these funds until you know you are done with your education and on an established career path. This period of your life can be very volatile, and you may find yourself halfway through college and wanting to change majors or start a different path. Give yourself the option to do that by deferring long-term investment decisions until you have more stability. For that reason, I would avoid focusing on retirement savings. As others point out, you are limited in how much you can contribute per year. If you want to start, ROTH is your best bet, but if you put it in don't pull it out. That is a bad habit to get into. Personal finance is as much about developing habits as it is doing math... A low-turnover index fund may be appropriate, but you don't want to end up where you want to buy a house or start a business and your investment has just lost 10%... I would keep at least half in a liquid, safe account until after graduation. Any debt you incur because you tied up this money will eliminate any investment gains (if any). Good Luck! EDITED to clarify retirement savings\\\"\",\n \"First, don't borrow any more money. You're probably bankrupt right now at that income level. 2k/month is poverty level income, especially in some of the higher cost of living areas of California. At $2k per month of income, and $1300 of rent and utilities, you've only got 700 a month for food. The student loans are probably in deferment while your husband is in school. If so, keep them that way and deal with them when he lands a career track goal after grad school. The car loan is more than you can afford. Seriously consider selling the car to get rid of the note. Then use the cash flow that was going to the car loan to pay off the 'other' debt. A car is usually a luxury, but if it is necessary, be sure it is one that doesn't include a loan. Budget all of your income (consider using YNAB or something like it). Include a budget item to build an emergency fund. Live within your means and look for ways to supplement your income. With three of your own, you'd probably make an excellent baby sitter. As for the inheritance, find a low risk, liquid investment, such as 12 month CDs or savings bonds. Something that you can liquidate without penalty if an emergency arises. Save the money for if you get into a situation where there is no other way out. Hopefully you can have your emergency fund built up so that you don't need to draw on the inheritance. Set a date, grad school + landing + 90 days. If you reach that date and haven't had to use the inheritance, and you have a good emergency fund, put the inheritance in a retirement fund and forget about it. Why retirement fund and not a college fund for the kids? The best gift you can give them is to remain financially independent throughout your life. If you get to the point where you are fully funding your tax advantaged retirement savings, and you are ready to start wealth-building, that is the time to take part of that cash flow and set it aside for college funds.\",\n \"I think that Dave Ramsey has a good approach to emergency funds. Save $1,000 that is immediately accessible in an emergency, pay off your debts, then build a 3-6 month fund. Two years is great, but takes a really long time to build up.\",\n \"Try reading about budgeting. Make a list of all income coming in and all expenses going out. Eliminate any unnecessary expenses and try to increase income, which could include a part-time second job. Try to always put a portion of the income away as savings - try 10%, but if this is too hard to start with try saving at least 5% of the income.\",\n \"\\\"Whatever you do, you need to be saving a lot more to have a good chance at retirement at a reasonable age. With a combined salary of $150,000, I'd recommend: In total, that's $47,000/year in tax advantaged accounts, plus whatever you put into taxable accounts. Your $150,000 yearly income, less $90,000/year in savings is still an income of $60,000. People live comfortably and raise families on a lot less. Consider how fortunate you are. You could retire in 10 years, if you wanted, by increasing your savings and decreasing your expenses. Seriously, I'm speaking from first-hand experience. If you stay on your present course (saving $2,000/mo), at a 7% real return, you'll need about 37 years to accumulate $3,800,000 (in today's dollars), which is enough to: Even if those student loans are forgiven, that only knocks off about 2 years. If you are in your late 30s now, there's a decent chance you'll be dead before you retire. As for buying a house or not, this depends a lot on your personal circumstance and how the rental market in your city compares. In your decision, don't forget to consider: Renting is not necessarily throwing money away any more than buying a house is. If you take out a mortgage, you'll be \\\"\\\"throwing away\\\"\\\" a lot of money anyway. Look for a \\\"\\\"loan amortization calculator\\\"\\\" to see how much goes to interest versus principal. For a $500,000 loan at a 3.5% rate, you will be paying approximately $1400 per month in interest versus only $800 towards the principal. When you deduct insurance, taxes, maintenance, etc from that $800, you may find you are still throwing away most of your monthly payment on interest and expenses you wouldn't have if you rented. The money you do \\\"\\\"save\\\"\\\", after interest and expenses, isn't really saved. Housing markets go up and down, but on average, over the long term, they go up just enough to keep up with inflation, meaning a 0% real return. If renting means less cash out of pocket per month, you can put that extra cash towards investments that yield a much higher return. Sure, you may need to continue making rental payments in perpetuity, but you can save enough extra money to pay for the rental in investment income. Again, it depends considerably on how the housing and rental markets compare where you live. Popular cities (San Francisco, New York, Paris, etc.) tend to favor renting. Unpopular cities (Detroit, St. Louis) and rural areas tend to favor buying. Further reading: Mr. Money Mustache: Rent vs. Buy: If You Have to Ask, You Should Probably Rent\\\"\",\n \"Debt will ruin any plans. I guess that the interest on the credit cards is about $450 a month or about $5,500 per year and the school loans is about $6,000 a year. Get a an Excel spread sheet going and start tracking your expensed. Learn to make a amortization spread sheet for all debts, and any future debts that you are thinking about. If you want a family soon plan on one income for a period of time. If you buy a house plan on paying it off while you are working. Then the house payment becomes spendable money during retirement. A cheaper house can be upgraded in the right neighborhood with an excellent appreciation in value. Money put into excellent collectibles and kept for 20 years or more is private and off the radar income no taxes when sold. STUDY STUDY LEARN LEARN\",\n \"I would focus entirely on the emergency fund first and get it built up as fast as you can. Once that is in place, you've got a cushion that will keep you from going into debt in an emergency. Depending on your monthly expenses, $2000 seems low for that. I'd aim for 3-6 months worth of expenses. Note that this is $800 less than your monthly income because of your savings. Once you have your emergency fund in place, then follow a formula like @MrChrister's to invest for retirement and save for future major purchases (car, house, vacation, etc).\",\n \"\\\"As someone who has a very similar debt amount and environment (new grad, nice new paying job, want a car, etc), I'd like to share something with you. Life has unexpected costs. Luckily I didn't buy that new car the first few months out of college like I had planned to; I'm glad that I didn't because, as a fledgling \\\"\\\"adult\\\"\\\", despite having lived on my own while in college while working part-to-full time there are some things you just don't realize until it either happens or it happens to someone else. Here are some of those things: I could go on but I won't. $95K is good money and I would definitely recommend spending it a bit to enjoy yourself. But I would honestly tell you that taking your monthly expenses, adding a few hundred on top of that and then multiplying that sum by 3 would be a smart savings amount before picking up a car loan. Maybe that's an excessive savings but I've seen way too many people burn out over their cost-of-living and their failure to adjust appropriately when shit hits the fan. So instead of having to deal with the stab at your pride when having to lower the cost/quality of living that you'll probably grow accustomed to at a $95K salary, just prepare for the worst. Oh, and did I mention... A NEW JOB IS NOT A SECURE JOB Consider yourself to likely be the first asset dropped from the company if even the tiniest thing goes wrong. I know way too many people who were fresh hires at Intel, Boeing, and a few other big tech companies that pay around what you make and, despite being bad asses in college, they were dropped like a bad habit when their employers hit rough patches. To those even more experienced than me, please feel free to add to the list. I'd personally love to know them myself.\\\"\",\n \"To be honest, all that they might be able to tell you is to keep saving. Your income seems like it will vary week to week thanks to commission (and I'm still very curious how at 18 you found a job making $96,000 a year at minimum). Right now because you have no savings, start stacking that up. You're going to want an emergency fund on the side as well. Even though now you may still live with parents, you still may run into issues where you'll need money on hand. It's much better to dig into an emergency fund than get a loan. Plus, when moving out, you won't be living paycheck to paycheck. Best rule of thumb for this is to keep an emergency fund of roughly 3-6 months of expenses. Right now because you're so young with so little money, there isn't a large reason to really open up an IRA or any sort of investment account. Unless you're actually guaranteed $2,000 a week, then things are different.\",\n \"The definitive answer is: It Depends. What are your goals? First and foremost, you need to have at least 3 months expenses in cash or equivalent. (i.e. an investment that you can withdraw from quickly, and without penalty). The good news is that you don't have to come up with it instantly. Set a time frame - one year - for creating this safety net, and pay towards that goal. This is the single most important piece of financial advice you will receive. Now determine what you need to do. For example, you may need a car. Compare interest rates on your student loan and the car loan. Put your cash towards whichever is higher. If you don't need a car or other big ticket item, then you may consider sticking your surplus into the student loans. 50k at $1650 a month will be paid down in about 3 years, which might be a bit long to live the monastic lifestyle. I'd look at paying down the smallest loan first (assuming relatively similar rates), and freeing up that payment for yourself. So if you can pay off 1650 a month, and free up $100 of that in six months, then you can reward yourself with half that surplus, and apply the other half to the next loan. (This is different than some would suggest because you're talking about entering severe spartan mode, which is not sustainable.) Remember that life happens. You'll meet someone. You'll have an accident, your brother will get sick and you'll give him some money to help out. You've got to be prepared for these events, and for these reasons, I don't recommend living that close to the edge. Remember, you're not in default, and you do have the option of continuing to pay the minimum for a long time.\",\n \"The 10K in savings and money market is equal to about 1.5 months of income for emergency funds. You should add additional funds to this account over the next few years to let that increase to 3 to 6 months of monthly expenses. This money should be kept secure so that it will be there when you need it. Growth is not the primary function for this account. Investment at this stage should be for retirement. This means take advantage of 401K matching if it is available. You will have to determine if Roth or regular makes the most sense for you. In general the lower your current tax bracket the more sense Roth makes for you. If you want an IRA again decide which type. Also remember that you have until the tax deadline to make a contribution so you can decide to use a refund to fund the IRA. IRAs and 401Ks are just account types with some rules attached. They can be invested in everything from CD's to individual stocks depending on how aggressive you want to be.\",\n \"This is all very basic and general advice, that works for most, but not all. You are unique with your own special needs and desires. Good luck! P.S.: not exactly related to your question, but when you get more familiar with investing and utilizing your money, find more ways to save more. For example, change phone plan, cut the cable, home made food in bulk, etc.\",\n \"There is no absolute answer to this as it depends on your particular situation, but some tips: As to investing versus saving, you need to do some of both: Be careful about stockpiling too much in bank accounts. Inflation will eat that money up over time to the tune of 3-4%/year. You are young and have a longer investment horizon for retirement, take advantage of that and accept a little more risk while you can.\",\n \"Calculate a weekly budget for yourself for all incidentals (i.e. shopping, movies, eating out, etc...) and take that amount out in cash each week. For example, if your budget is $75 then try to spend only that $75 on all the extra stuff you do doing the week. It'll make you hyper-conscious of where your money is going and how fast. You'll be surprised at how quickly little things like grabbing coffee in the morning can chip away at your funds.\",\n \"\\\"In my opinion, you should pay off the student loans as soon as possible, before you start saving for the house downpayment. $26k is a big number, but you have a great salary. (Nice!) Up until now, you have been a poor college student, accustomed to a relatively low standard of living. Your $800 per month plan would have you pay off the loan in 3 years, but I would challenge you to pay off this entire student loan in 1 year or less. A monthly loan payment of $2226 will pay off your loan in 12 months. After that is done, if you take the same amount you had been paying toward your student loans and save it for your condo, in less than two years you'll have a 10% down payment saved ($50k). The whole thing will take less than three years. There are three reasons why I recommend paying off the loan first before saving for the condo: one is practical and two are philosophical. Practical: You will save money on interest. Paying off the loan in 1 year vs. 3 years will save you $1343. You won't find a short-term safe investment that will beat 5% in interest. Philosophical: The loan is something current and concrete that you can focus on. Your condo is a dream at this point, and there is lots of time to change your mind. If the $2k+ per month amount is at all a sacrifice for you, then in a few months, you might be tempted to say to yourself, \\\"\\\"This month I really want a vacation, so I'll just skip this month of saving.\\\"\\\" For the loan, however, if you establish a concrete goal of 12 months to pay off the loan, it will hopefully help motivate you to allocate this money and stick to your plan. Philosophical: Getting used to borrowing money, making payments to a bank, and paying interest is not a great way to live. It is better, in my opinion, to eliminate your debt as fast as possible and start getting accustomed to saving cash for what you want. Clean up your debt, and resolve not to borrow any more money except for a reasonably-sized mortgage on your home.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"According to your numbers, you just stated that you spend approximately $1500 in discretionary expenditures per month, yet are unable to save. I fully realize that living in a big city is usually expensive, but on your (presumably after-tax) salary, I think you can easily save a substantial portion of your income. As others have already noted, enforcing saving of a significant portion of your discretionary income is the most obvious step. It's easy to say, but I suspect that if you are like most people who have difficulty saving, the psychological impact of quitting your previous spending habits \\\"\\\"cold turkey\\\"\\\" is likely to be very harsh, all the more so if you have an active social life. You may find yourself becoming depressed or resentful at \\\"\\\"having\\\"\\\" to save. You may lose motivation to work as hard because you might think that you're putting away all this money for the distant future, whereas you are young now and want to enjoy life while you can. It is in this context, then, that I looked at your other financial obligations. Paying $1300/month to your parents is a lot. It's over 20% of your after-tax salary. You do not specify the reasons for doing this other than a vague sense of familial duty, but my recommendation is to see if this could be reduced somewhat. If you can bring it down to $1000/month, that $300 would go into your savings, and you would psychologically feel a lot better about putting, say, $600 of your own discretionary income into savings as well. Now you have, all told, about $1000/month of savings without severely curtailing your extra expenditures. But I would start with that $1500/month of luxury spending first. And yes, you do need to view it as luxury spending. The proper frame of mind is to compare your financial situation to someone who is truly unable to save because their entire income is spent on actual necessities: food and shelter; their effective tax rate is 0% because they earn too little; and they usually find themselves in debt because they cannot make ends meet. Now look back at that $1500/month. Can you honestly say that you cannot afford to cut that spending?\\\"\",\n \"If you are still paying off debt, then you should have about $1000 in savings and put all you can towards non-mortgage debt. If you don't have any debt besides your mortgage, then add up all of your monthly expenses including food, gas, utilities and keep 3-6 months in liquid savings. Whether you keep 3 or 6 months depends on how safe your income is. If you have a steady safe job, you might be safe with 3 months. But, if your employer is cutting back or you are in a commission based job or self employed - then lean more towards 6 months expenses. Congrats on your new home!\",\n \"If you have no immediate need for the money you can apply the Rule of 72 to that money. Ask your parent's financial advisor to invest the money. Based on the rate of return your money will double like clockwork. At 8% interest your money will double every 9 years. 45 years from now that initial investment will have doubled 5 times. That adds up pretty fast. Time is your best friend when investing at your age. Odds are you'll want to be saving for a college education though. Graduating debt free is by far the best plan.\",\n \"First pay off all existing debt. Then set up at least 6 month emergency fund. Freelancing exposes you to way more risks than employment. Then buy GIC's to cover and match the maturity of your expected education fees. Only 'play' with what is left. Don't over think it. Buy a low-cost (less than 0.5%) passive large-index mutual fund covering either the S&P or TSX.\",\n \"\\\"Many years ago I heard a multi-level marketing pitch that pointed out how many doctors don't get out of debt until they are well into their 50's. The selling point was that you can get rich quick, as rich as a doctor, with nothing more then a bit of elbow grease. Of course the pitch failed to mention that most doctors, buy the things doctors buy, when they get that first big job. The big house, expensive cars nerf the income that they receive and they are probably stuck with years of student loan payments. I assume that you are one of the \\\"\\\"lucky\\\"\\\" ones that have graduated college with a well paying job. By lucky I mean you concentrated on obtaining a skill for which the marketplace has a need. Why not continue to live like a college student for a few more months and pay off all of your student loans ASAP? Get rid of them like you were purging the phone number of that high maintenance girl you dated during a short time of insanity.\\\"\",\n \"First of all, make sure you have an emergency fund. Ideally this should be at least 6 months of living expenses in an easily accessible place. Do you have any credit card debt, school debt, or other debt? Work towards becoming debt free, especially of higher interest debt and debt on things that are only depreciating (cars, for example). If you have extra income, consider putting it towards debt. If you currently have access to a 403b, you should begin investing immediately. If not, look into a Roth IRA. The community has provided suggestions for good places to get one. With a Roth IRA you take post-tax income money and invest it into this retirement account and when you reach retirement age you get it and all the interest as tax-free income. You can't withdraw the principal until retirement age. You should put up to the legal limit into a retirement account - if you can't do this at first work towards this goal. After an emergency fund, becoming debt free, and fully funding your retirement, save for goals such as a house or other things you are working towards. The exact order of doing these things might vary, but in general you need the emergency fund first.\",\n \"Here's what I'd do. Show these figures to your bank, and ask if they can offer you some type of account with a small overdraft, say up to $2000. Typically this won't pay the same kind of interest as your savings account, but it doesn't matter. If such an account is available, then yes, dump most of your savings into the student loan, and keep a few hundred in your new account. The overdraft on this account is your emergency fund. This means that in the more likely scenario (no emergencies) you're saving yourself 6% interest on something like $4000 to $4500. In the case of an emergency, you're still covered; but you'll be paying a larger amount of interest. Let's say you have an emergency cost and need to dip into the overdraft for $1000. If the interest is 15%, then you've cost yourself an extra 9% on that $1000 over leaving that debt in the student loan. This seems to me like a really good gamble - more likely to gain 6% of $4000, less likely to lose 9% of $1000. If your bank won't give you a low-interest account with a small overdraft, then use your credit card as your emergency fund. The same kind of logic applies; but since credit card interest rates are typically higher than overdraft interest rates, you'll want to keep slightly more in your savings account. About $1200 to $1500 feels right to me; and move the remaining $3500 to $3800 to your student loan. So yes, pay off the student loan. That 6% interest really is worth having, even if you'd be taking a small gamble. Edit - Alexander Kosubek has suggested that I should compare this to matched retirement plans. The 100% gain in a matched retirement plan isn't 100% per annum; it's 100% divided across the length of time you have to wait until you can get your hands on that money. Suppose the money is accessible when you turn 60 - a matched plan is a good deal if you're in your 50's, but not so good if you're in your 20's. The 100% matching is equivalent to 6% interest per annum compounded over slightly under 12 years. So if you're less than 12 years away from retiring, go for the matched plan. Otherwise, pay off your student loan first.\",\n \"The title question suggests an answer - Balance. There are countless stories of misers who saved their money but led miserable lives. Keep in mind, you are looking at debt while still earning an income lower than you'll see after you get your PHD. Don't add more debt while working towards the PHD, but don't think that this is the time to aggressively pay it off, either. I'd look at it this way - when you get a full time job, money itself will be cheaper, it will cost you fewer hours to earn the same number of Euros. When I was in college, the US minimum wage was just over $3/hr, but I had an engineering degree and back then, a starting salary of over $20/hr. While still in school, my time was precious, and the $10,000 I borrowed (for spending money) was 3300 hours that I didn't need to work, but it was paid back with just 500 work-hours. Your question also goes to the future, a home purchase. There are 2 approaches. First pay off the student loan, then save for the down payment. For many anti-debt people, this is ideal. But, if your goal is to be in the house sooner, save now for the down payment and only pay the minimum on the loan. Once you are in the house, you can decide to pay the student loan faster, but 1.5%? I'd just pay the mortgage faster. I don't know the cost of housing where you will choose to live, but in general, I'd suggest finding the house that you can afford on a 15 year mortgage, but take out a 30. This will give you flexibility in your budget. Life happens, and it's tough to plan for every possible outcome. I'd prefer to have room in the budget for the first years in the house, and for potential marriage and the kids that may follow. It's far easier to pay extra on loans than to get lower payments when you realize the budget is too tight. Happy to update/edit to address any comments you may have.\",\n \"My god man, where do you live that is too expensive to live on your own and 7K isn't enough for emergency cash? Anyway, with your age and income I would be more worried about a long-term sustainable lifestyle. In other words, a job that nets you more than $26K/year. Someday you may want to have a wife and kids and that income sure as hell wont pay for their college. That was life advice, now for financial: I've always been a believer that if someone is not a savvy investor, their priorities before investments should be paying off debt. If you had a lot of capital or knew your way around investment vehicles and applicable returns then I would be telling you something different. But in your case, pay off that car first giving yourself more money to invest in the long-run.\",\n \"In addition to the advice already given (particularly getting rid of high-interest debt), I would add the following:\",\n \"Start as soon as you can and make your saving routine. Start with whatever you feel comfortable with and be consistent. Increase that amount with raises, income gains, and whenever you want.\",\n \"First pay yourself. When you get salary, send some parts of that (for example 10%) to your saving account. Step by step you'll save nice money ;)\",\n \"\\\"You are doing Great! But you might want to read a couple of books and do some studying on budgeting and personal finance - education yourself now and you will avoid pain in the future. I learned a lot from reading Dave Ramsey's Total Money Makeover, and I have found some great advice from the simple budgeting guidelines on LearnVest. Budget in these three categories with these percentages, You may find that your \\\"\\\"essentials\\\"\\\" lower than 50%, because you are sharing room and utilities. You want to put as much into \\\"\\\"financial\\\"\\\" as you can for the first 1-2 years, to reduce (or eliminate) your student loan debt. Many folks will recommend you save six months (salary/expenses) for emergencies and unexpected situations. But understand that you are in debt now, and you have a unique opportunity to pay off your debt before your living expenses creep up (as they so often do). Since you are a contractor, put aside 2 months expenses (twice what I would normally advise), and then attack paying off your debts with passion. Since you have a mix of student loans, focus on paying them off by picking one at a time, paying the minimum against the others while you pay off the one you picked, then proceed to the next. Dave Ramsey advises a Debt Snowball, paying the smallest one first (psychological advantage, early wins), while others advise paying the highest interest off first. Since you have over $2400/month available to pay down debt, you could plan on reducing your student loan debt substantially in a year. But avoid accumulating other debt along the way. Save for larger purchases. Your bedroom purchase may have been premature, but you needed some basics. But check your contract. Since many 0% furniture loan deals retroactively charge interest if you don't pay them off in full - you might want to make regular payments, and pay the debt off a month early (avoid any 'gotcha's). You might want to open a retirement account - many folks recommend a Roth account for folks your age - it is after tax, but you don't pay tax when you withdraw money. Roth is better when you have lots of deductions (think mortgage, kids). But some retirement account would be great to get started. Open a credit union account (if you can), that will make getting a credit card or personal loan (installment) easier. You want to build a credit file, but you don't want credit card debt (seems contradictory), so opening 2 credit cards over the next year will help your credit. You want a good credit mix (student loans, revolving, installment, and mortgage - wait on that one).\\\"\",\n \"The plan doesn't make sense. Don't invest your money. Just keep it in your bank account. $5000 is not a lot, especially since you don't have a steady income stream. You only have $1000 to your name, you can't afford to gamble $4000. You will need it for things like food, books, rent, student loans, traveling, etc. If you don't get a job right after you graduate, you will be very happy to have some money in the bank. Or what if you get a dream job, but you need a car? Or you get a job at a suit & tie business and need to get a new wardrobe? Or your computer dies and you need a new one? You find a great apartment but need $2500 first, last & security? That money can help you out much more NOW when you're starting out, then it will when you're ready to retire in your 60's.\",\n \"while not stated, if you have any debt at all, use the $3000 to pay it off. That's the best investment in the short term. No risk and guaranteed reward. College can invite all sorts of unexpected expenses and opportunities, so stay liquid, protect working capital.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"While I haven't experienced being \"\"grad student poor\"\" myself (I went to grad school at night and worked full-time), I would shoot for 10-20% per month ($150-$300). This depends of course on how much you currently have in savings. If it isn't much, you might want to attempt a higher savings percentage (30-40%). If you can move to a less-expensive place, do that as soon as you can. It's your largest expense; any place you can spend less on than $900 creates instance savings without having to sacrifice what you categorize as living expenses.\"","\"First, don't save anything in a tax sheltered vehicle. You will be paying so little tax that there will be essentially no benefit to making the contributions, and you'll pay tax when they come out. Tax free compounding for 40 years is terrific, but start that after you're earning more than a stipend. Second, most people recommend having a month's expenses readily available for emergencies. For you, that would be $1500. If you put $100 a month aside, it will take over a year to have your emergency fund. It's easy to argue that you should pick a higher pace, so as to have your emergency money in place sooner. However, the \"\"emergencies\"\" usually cited are things like home repair, car repair, needing to replace your car, and so on. Since you are renting your home and don't have a car, these emergencies aren't going to happen to you. Ask yourself, if your home was destroyed, and you had to replace all your clothes and possessions (including furniture), how much would you need? (Keep in mind any insurance you have.) The only emergency expense I can't guess about is health costs, because I live in Canada. I would be tempted to tell you to get a credit card with a $2000 limit and consider that your emergency fund, just because grad student living is so tight to the bone (been there, and 25 years ago I had $1200 a month, so it must be harder for you now.) If you do manage to save up $1500, and you've really been pinching to do that (walking instead of taking the bus, staying on campus hungry instead of popping out to buy food) let up on yourself when you hit the target. Delaying your graduation by a few months because you're not mentally sharp due to hunger or tiredness will be a far bigger economic hit than not having saved $200 a month for 2 or 3 years. The former is 3-6 months of your new salary, the latter 5-7K. You know what you're likely to earn when you graduate, right?\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"While I haven't experienced being \\\"\\\"grad student poor\\\"\\\" myself (I went to grad school at night and worked full-time), I would shoot for 10-20% per month ($150-$300). This depends of course on how much you currently have in savings. If it isn't much, you might want to attempt a higher savings percentage (30-40%). If you can move to a less-expensive place, do that as soon as you can. It's your largest expense; any place you can spend less on than $900 creates instance savings without having to sacrifice what you categorize as living expenses.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"First, don't save anything in a tax sheltered vehicle. You will be paying so little tax that there will be essentially no benefit to making the contributions, and you'll pay tax when they come out. Tax free compounding for 40 years is terrific, but start that after you're earning more than a stipend. Second, most people recommend having a month's expenses readily available for emergencies. For you, that would be $1500. If you put $100 a month aside, it will take over a year to have your emergency fund. It's easy to argue that you should pick a higher pace, so as to have your emergency money in place sooner. However, the \\\"\\\"emergencies\\\"\\\" usually cited are things like home repair, car repair, needing to replace your car, and so on. Since you are renting your home and don't have a car, these emergencies aren't going to happen to you. Ask yourself, if your home was destroyed, and you had to replace all your clothes and possessions (including furniture), how much would you need? (Keep in mind any insurance you have.) The only emergency expense I can't guess about is health costs, because I live in Canada. I would be tempted to tell you to get a credit card with a $2000 limit and consider that your emergency fund, just because grad student living is so tight to the bone (been there, and 25 years ago I had $1200 a month, so it must be harder for you now.) If you do manage to save up $1500, and you've really been pinching to do that (walking instead of taking the bus, staying on campus hungry instead of popping out to buy food) let up on yourself when you hit the target. Delaying your graduation by a few months because you're not mentally sharp due to hunger or tiredness will be a far bigger economic hit than not having saved $200 a month for 2 or 3 years. The former is 3-6 months of your new salary, the latter 5-7K. You know what you're likely to earn when you graduate, right?\\\"\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":170,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"2486"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Is working on a W2 basis, with benefits paid to me, a good idea?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["487791"],"string":"[\n \"487791\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["487791","32072","382908","373949","234436","332124","37725","324878","24323","77245","584218","68524","316074","157157","359465","247472","194899","376631","68516","149198","58937","62882","199037","406789","171576","490223","265397","532932","60238","572774","402115","165645","417295","251564","122987","232544","184022","394871","113960","222049","527620","54064","257443","80994","377056","175889","300418","36608","74958","6595","597053","510409","238622","60290","18647","431317","396255","462255","292331","16767","586026","589970","348927","299819","352640","23097","272851","361954","400927","301533","569135","32005","516576","267776","431840","366282","14286","179359","386567","595133","87102","292230","312765","42999","436701","246453","86260","135798","338582","67061","326329","245451","233423","464661","258252","250766","484658","437194","283836","597199"],"string":"[\n \"487791\",\n \"32072\",\n \"382908\",\n \"373949\",\n \"234436\",\n \"332124\",\n \"37725\",\n \"324878\",\n \"24323\",\n \"77245\",\n \"584218\",\n \"68524\",\n \"316074\",\n \"157157\",\n \"359465\",\n \"247472\",\n \"194899\",\n \"376631\",\n \"68516\",\n \"149198\",\n \"58937\",\n \"62882\",\n \"199037\",\n \"406789\",\n \"171576\",\n \"490223\",\n \"265397\",\n \"532932\",\n \"60238\",\n \"572774\",\n \"402115\",\n \"165645\",\n \"417295\",\n \"251564\",\n \"122987\",\n \"232544\",\n \"184022\",\n \"394871\",\n \"113960\",\n \"222049\",\n \"527620\",\n \"54064\",\n \"257443\",\n \"80994\",\n \"377056\",\n \"175889\",\n \"300418\",\n \"36608\",\n \"74958\",\n \"6595\",\n \"597053\",\n \"510409\",\n \"238622\",\n \"60290\",\n \"18647\",\n \"431317\",\n \"396255\",\n \"462255\",\n \"292331\",\n \"16767\",\n \"586026\",\n \"589970\",\n \"348927\",\n \"299819\",\n \"352640\",\n \"23097\",\n \"272851\",\n \"361954\",\n \"400927\",\n \"301533\",\n \"569135\",\n \"32005\",\n \"516576\",\n \"267776\",\n \"431840\",\n \"366282\",\n \"14286\",\n \"179359\",\n \"386567\",\n \"595133\",\n \"87102\",\n \"292230\",\n \"312765\",\n \"42999\",\n \"436701\",\n \"246453\",\n \"86260\",\n \"135798\",\n \"338582\",\n \"67061\",\n \"326329\",\n \"245451\",\n \"233423\",\n \"464661\",\n \"258252\",\n \"250766\",\n \"484658\",\n \"437194\",\n \"283836\",\n \"597199\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["It's hard to answer without knowing all of the details (i.e. what was your salary for each of the options), but I think you probably made a good choice. 1099: Would have required you to pay self-employment tax, but also would have allowed you to deduct business expenses. W2 with benefits: Likely would have been beneficial if you needed healthcare (since group plans can be cheaper than individual plans, and healthcare payments aren't taxed), but if you don't use the healthcare, that would have been a waste. W2, no benefits: Assuming your salary here falls between the 1099 and the W2 with benefits, it seems like a good compromise for your situation.","I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer without knowing all about your situation, but some things to consider: If you are on a 1099, you have to pay self-employment tax, while on a W-2 you do not. That is, social security tax is 12.4% of your income. If you're a 1099, you pay the full 12.4%. If you're W-2, you pay 6.2% and the employer pays 6.2%. So if they offer you the same nominal rate of pay, you're 6.2% better off with the W-2. What sort of insurance could you get privately and what would it cost you? I have no idea what the going rates for insurance are in California. If you're all in generally good health, you might want to consider a high-deductible policy. Then if no one gets seriously sick you've saved a bunch of money on premiums. If someone does get sick you might still pay less paying the deductible than you would have paid on higher premiums. I won't go into further details as that's getting off into another question. Even if the benefits are poor, if there are any benefits at all it can be better than nothing. The only advantage I see to going with a 1099 is that if you are legally an independent contractor, then all your business expenses are deductible, while if you are an employee, there are sharp limits on deducting employee business expenses. Maybe others can think of other advantages. If there is some reason to go the 1099 route, I understand that setting up an LLC is not that hard. I've never done it, but I briefly looked into it once and it appeared to basically be a matter of filling out a form and paying a modest fee.","Can I work on 1099 from my own company instead of on W2? The reason is on W2 I can't deduct my commute, Health Insurance and some other expenses while on 1099 I think I can able do that. Since I am going to client place to work not at my own office, I am not sure whether I should able to do that or not. If you have LLC, unless you elected to tax it as a corporation, you need neither 1099 nor W2. For tax purposes the LLC is disregarded. So it is, from tax perspective, a sole proprietorship (or partnership, if multiple members). Being a W2 employee of your own LLC is a bad idea. For all these above expenses, which can I use company's debit/credit card or I need to use only my personal debit/credit card? It would be better to always use a business account for business purposes. Doesn't matter much for tax per se, but will make your life easier in case of an audit or a legal dispute (limited liability protection may depend on it). If I work on 1099, I guess I need to file some reasonable taxes on quarterly basis instead of filing at year end. If so, how do I pay my tax on quarterly basis to IRS? I mean which forms should I file and how to pay tax? Unless you're a W2 employee, you need to do quarterly estimate payments using form 1040-ES. If you are a W2 employee (even for a different job, and even if it is not you, but your spouse with whom you're filing jointly) - you can adjust your/spouse's withholding using form W4 to cover the additional tax liability. This is, IMHO, a better way than paying estimates. There are numerous questions on this, search the site or ask another one for details.","Health insurance varies wildly per state and per plan and per provider - but check them out to have a baseline to know what it should cost if you did it yourself. Don't forget vacation time, too: many contract/comp-only jobs have no vacation time - how much is that 10 or 15 days a year worth to you? It effectively means you're getting paid for 2080 hours, but working 2000 (with the 2 week number). Is the comp-only offer allowing overtime, and will they approve it? Is the benefits-included job salaried? If it's truly likely you'll be working more than a normal 40 hour week on a routine basis (see if you can talk to other folks that work there), an offer that will pay overtime is likely going to be better than one that wouldn't .. but perhaps not in your setting if it also loses the PTO.","Another thing to consider, however, is the deductibility of business expenses. Let's assume that the employer can legitimately hire you as a 1099 contractor. (Would you be able to telecommute? Would you have a high degree of control over when you worked and when you didn't? These factors also affect whether you're a true independent 1099 contractor or not.) As a legit 1099 contractor, you're able to deduct certain business expenses directly from your income. (You can find a list of the rules at irs.gov.) As a W2 employee, by contrast, can deduct only business expenses that exceed 2% of the your AGI (adjusted gross income). So, you also have to consider your personal circumstances in making the calculus and comparing whether a legitimate 1099 contractor job is or is not good for you. It's not just a comparison of what they'd pay W2 employees versus what they'd pay 1099 contractors.","In your situation, it sounds like the only added benefit would be insurance continuance. For employees who can't access short-term disability it is a critical protection against losing their job. I just want to emphasize that given that you are in a pretty decent employment situation.","\"Your comment to James is telling and can help us lead you in the right direction: My work and lifestyle will be the same either way, as I said. This is all about how it goes \"\"on the books.\"\" [emphasis mine] As an independent consultant myself, when I hear something like \"\"the work will be the same either way\"\", I think: \"\"Here thar be dragons!\"\". Let me explain: If you go the independent contractor route, then you better act like one. The IRS (and the CRA, for Canadians) doesn't take lightly to people claiming to be independent contractors when they operate in fact like employees. Since you're not going to be behaving any different whether you are an employee or a contractor, (and assuming you'll be acting more like an employee, i.e. exclusive, etc.), then the IRS may later make a determination that you are in fact an employee, even if you choose to go \"\"on the books\"\" as an independent contractor. If that happens, then you may find yourself retroactively denied many tax benefits you'd have claimed; and owe penalties and interest too. Furthermore, your employer may be liable for additional withholding taxes, benefits, etc. after such a finding. So for those reasons, you should consider being an employee. You will avoid the potential headache I outlined above, as well as the additional paperwork etc. of being a contractor. If on the other hand you had said you wanted to maintain some flexibility to moonlight with other clients, build your own product on the side, choose what projects you work on (or don't), maybe hire subcontractors, etc. then I'd have supported the independent contractor idea. But, just on the basis of the tax characteristics only I'd say forget about it. On the financial side, I can tell you that I wouldn't have become a consultant if not for the ability to make more money in gross terms (i.e. before tax and expenses.) That is: your top line revenues ought to be higher in order to be able to offset many of the additional expenses you'd incur as an independent. IMHO, the tax benefits alone wouldn't make up for the difference. One final thing to look at is Form SS-8 mentioned at the IRS link below. If you're not sure what status to choose, the IRS can actually help you. But be prepared to wait... and wait... :-/ Additional Resources:\"",">However, you would have to pay income taxes on that wage and could end up with less money overall to spend on healthcare. That's not truth tho. You can open IRA and 401k and now you have more money to put into them that won't get tax and it help you save for the retirement.","\"The personal checks may be due to their bank not issuing the company checks yet and there may also not be a payroll system in place at this time. So far as the W2's are concerned you should probably ask the owner if they plan on distributing them to the employees. If the owner has no interest in making you proper \"\"on the books employees\"\" let them know that they should probably be paying you in cash so that if the IRS comes you wont be tied to it. Obviously working in cash (off the books) has its drawbacks (no rights or protections) and benefits (no taxes).\"","Careful. I would personally need a LOT more than $5 more per hour to go from W-2 employment to 1099 employment. It boils down to two reasons: (1) employers pay a huge amount of taxes on behalf of their employees, and (2) you would have to pay all of your own withholding up front. Your current proposal from them doesn't account for that. There are also risks that you face as a 1099. On the first item, your employer currently pays 6.2% of your Social Security tax. You pay the other 6.2%. If you go to 1099 status, you will be self-employed as an independent contractor and have to pay the full 12.4% out of your increased 1099 wages. On the second item, your employer also does your withholding out of your paychecks based on what you tell them on a form W-4. If you're disciplined enough to pay this out yourself in estimated taxes every time you get a paycheck, great. Many people aren't and just see a much bigger paycheck with no taxes out of it, and end up with a large tax bill at the end of the year. Overall, there are some other considerations like healthcare and other benefits. These will not be available to you as a 1099 employee. You can also be terminated spontaneously, unless you have a specific contract length with the company. As I see it, not including any benefits you would receive, you're looking at LESS money in your pocket at $50/hr as a contractor than at your $48/hr. Your pay net social security deductions is: $48 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 99,840 * .938 = 93,649.92. As a 1099 @ $50/hr you would net $50 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 104,000 * .876 = 91,104. Then there are the rest of taxes, etc to figure out your real take-home pay. I'm not a tax advisor, but I would be very careful to get the whole picture figured out before jumping. I would ask for a lot more with the added risk you would take as an independent, too.","To be honest I don't know how any of this work in the US so my answer will be of very limited value to yourself, I suspect, but when it comes to the UK if you're going to get the same pay gross either way than being independent makes very little sense. Running your own business is hassle, is generally more risky (although possibly not in your case) and costs money. Some of the most obvious costs are the added NI, probably the need for an accountant, at around £1200 p/a for basic accountancy service, you are obliged by law to have liability insurance and you probably want professional indemnity insurance, this will be around £600 p/a minmum, and so on and so forth. On top of that, oficially anyway, as a contractor, you really shouldn't be getting any benefits from the client, and so health insurance, company car, even parking are all meant to be arranged by, and paid by, your company, and can't (or rather - shouldn't) be charged to the client. So - I would say - if you're seriously thinking about setting up a consultancy company, and this client is first of many - set up a company, but take into account the sums you need to earn. If you're really thinking about employment - be an employee.","The tax savings of being 1099 can be significant. It depends on your salary, and what you can deduct. You may want to consult with an accountant. The social security tax, for the self employed, is 12.4% of profit not on revenue. If you can write off more than half of the income as expenses then you could be paying less than a w-2 employee. Also you might make a higher salary as a 1099, it is rare the offer the same compensation for a W-2 as a 1099 as the former has higher expenses for the employer. It is hard to know without actual numbers, actual expected expense deductions and so forth. Which is why I would suggest consulting with an accountant. You may want to talk to one in the state where he will be working rather than where you live now.","\"I've been in a similar situation before. While contracting, sometimes the recruiting agency would allow me to choose between being a W2 employee or invoicing them via Corp-2-Corp. I already had a company set up (S-Corp) but the considerations are similar. Typically the C2C rate was higher than the W2 rate, to account for the extra 7.65% FICA taxes and insurance. But there were a few times where the rate offered was identical, and I still choose C2C because it enabled me to deduct many of my business expenses that I wouldn't have otherwise been able to deduct. In my case the deductions turned out to be greater than the FICA savings. Your case is slightly different than mine though in that I already had the company set up so my company related costs were \"\"sunk\"\" as far as my decision was concerned. For you though, the yearly costs associated with running the business must be factored in. For example, suppose the following: Due to these expenses you need to make up $3413 in tax deductions due to the LLC. If your effective tax rate on the extra income is 30%, then your break even point is approximately $8K in deductions (.3*(x+3413)=3413 => x = $7963) So with those made up numbers, if you have at least $8K in legitimate additional business expenses then it would make sense to form an LLC. Otherwise you'd be better off as a W2. Other considerations:\"","\"It completely depends on what type of work you intend to do. Are you intending to run/setup your own business? Or stay with your current employer, but work from home instead of going to the office? If thats the case, then yes it is a good idea, since you will save on commuting costs amongst other things If you are asking about working from home under one of those \"\"work from home piecework\"\" schemes, I would be wary. Many of them require you do an insane amount of piecework, for literally peanuts, so it might not be worth the effort (since you could earn 2, 3x as much in a supermarket shift of the same duration)\"","As others have said, it depends entirely on what benefits are provided, and how much of the cost of those benefits is paid by the employer and how much is paid by the employee, and compare that to what it would cost to obtain the necessary/equivalent coverage without employer assistance. In my case, my employer pays more than $10,000 per year toward the cost of medical, dental, vision, disability, and life insurance for myself and my family. That's almost 20% of the average total household income in my state, so it is not an insignificant amount at all.","Do you get time and half on the overtime? If you give that up you're going to take a decent hit on overall income. You'll also decrease income because benefit costs are likely to be double or more. I've been in retail customer service. It rough. Just try to get through it, make the best of things and move on to something else with more overall benefits.","\"You can do either a 1099 or a W-2. There is no limitations to the number of W-2s one can have in reporting taxes. Problems occur, with the IRS, when one \"\"forgets\"\" to report income. Even if one holds only one job at a time, people typically have more than one W-2 if they change jobs within the year. The W-2 is the simplest way to go and you may want to consider doing this if you do not intend to work this side business into significant income. However, a 1099 gig is preferred by many in some situations. For things like travel expenses, you will probably receive the income from these on a 1099, but you can deduct them from your income using a Schedule C. Along these lines you may be able to deduct a wide variety of other things like travel to and from the client's location, equipment such as computers and office supplies, and maybe a portion of your home internet bill. Also this opens up different retirement contributions schemes such as a simplified employee pension. This does come with some drawbacks, however. First your life is more complicated as things need to be documented to become actual business expenses. You are much more likely to be audited by the IRS. Your taxes become more complicated and it is probably necessary to employee a CPA to do them. If you do this for primary full time work you will have to buy your own benefits. Most telling you will have to pay both sides of social security taxes on most profits. (Keep in mind that a good account can help you transfer profits to dividends which will allow you to be taxed at 15% and avoid social security taxes.) So it really comes down to what you see this side gig expanding into and your goals. If you want to make this a real business, then go 1099, if you are just doing this for a fes months and a few thousand dollars, go W-2.\"","When I worked for myself it was bad because But Ultimately I gave up my business and went to work for a school teaching, and through a series of other jobs ended up in a very stable reliable trustworthy job. When I was younger the variable paycheck didn't outweigh the freedom. Now that I am a dad I only think about having insurance and a secure job. The other option to consider is having a regular job, and then doing a little side work for yourself. You get all the benefits of both (and all the detractions)","You have to consider that taxes that you pay on the premiums is money definitely paid, while benefits being tax free won't save you a thing if you never receive the benefits.","To answer your question directly, this is a taxable benefit that they are providing for you in lieu of higher wages. It is taxable to the employee as income and through payroll taxes. It is taxable to the employer for their half of the payroll taxes.","In general What does this mean? Assume 10 holidays and 2 weeks of vacation. So you will report to the office for 240 days (48 weeks * 5 days a week). If you are a w2 they will pay you for 260 days (52 weeks * 5 days a week). At $48 per hour you will be paid: 260*8*48 or $99,840. As a 1099 you will be paid 240*8*50 or 96,000. But you still have to cover insurance, the extra part of social security, and your retirement through an IRA. A rule of thumb I have seen with government contracting is that If the employee thinks that they make X,000 per year the company has to bill X/hour to pay for wages, benefits, overhead and profit. If the employee thinks they make x/hour the company has to bill at 2X/hour. When does a small spread make sense: The insurance is covered by another source, your spouse; or government/military retirement program. Still $2 per hour won't cover the 6.2% for social security. Let alone the other benefits. The IRS has a checklist to make sure that a 1099 is really a 1099, not just a way for the employer to shift the costs onto the individual.","It's difficult to quantify the intangible benefits, so I would recommend that you begin by quantifying the financials and then determine whether the difference between the pay of the two jobs justifies the value of the intangible benefits to you. Some Explainations You are making $55,000 per year, but your employer is also paying for a number of benefits that do not come free as a contractor. Begin by writing down everything they are providing you that you would like to continue to have. This may include: You also need to account for the FICA tax that you need to pay completely as a part time employee (normally a company pays half of it for you). This usually amounts to 7.8% of your income. Quantification Start by researching the cost for providing each item in the list above to yourself. For health insurance get quotes from providers. For bonuses average your yearly bonuses for your work history with the company. Items like stock options you need to make your best guess on. Calculations Now lets call your original salary S. Add up all of the costs of the list items mentioned above and call them B. This formula will tell you your real current annual compensation (RAC): Now you want to break your part time job into hours per year, not hours per month, as months have differing numbers of working days. Assuming no vacations that is 52 weeks per year multiplied by 20 hours, or 1040 hours (780 if working 15 hours per week). So to earn the same at the new job as the old you would need to earn an hourly wage of: The full equation for 20 hours per week works out to be: Assumptions DO NOT TAKE THIS SECTION AS REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR SITUATION; ONLY A BALLPARK ESTIMATE You must do the math yourself. I recommend a little spreadsheet to simplify things and play what-if scenarios. However, we can ballpark your situation and show how the math works with a few assumptions. When I got quoted for health insurance for myself and my partner it was $700 per month, or $8400 per year. If we assume the same for you, then add 3% 401k matching that we'll assume you're taking advantage of ($1650), the equation becomes: Other Considerations Keep in mind that there are other considerations that could offset these calculations. Variable hours are a big risk, as is your status as a 'temporary' employee. Though on the flip side you don't need to pay taxes out of each check, allowing you to invest that money throughout the year until taxes are due. Also, if you are considered a private contractor you can write off many expenses that you cannot as a full time employee.","Do some math. Figure out the net (after tax) money you'd have if you left it taxable, then look at the difference. In effect, you'd pay $X (the tax now) for $Y benefit (the tax on the full benefit not paid). The math works similar to you buying a small policy on your own.","\"Littleadv is incorrect because receiving a 1099 means she will be taxed self-employment tax on top of federal income taxes. Your employer will automatically withhold 7.65% of payroll taxes as they pay you each paycheck and then they'll automatically pay the other half of your payroll tax (an additional 7.65%) to bring it to a total of 15.3%. In other words, because your wife is technically self employed, she will owe both sides of payroll tax which is 15.3% of $38k = $5,800 on TOP of your federal income tax (which is the only thing the W-4 is instructing them about what amount to withhold). The huge advantage to a 1099, however, is that she's essentially self-employed which means ALL of the things she needs to run her business are deductible expenses. This includes her car, computer, home office, supplies, sometimes phone, gas, maintenance, travel expenses, sometimes entertainment, etc - which can easily bring her \"\"income\"\" down from $38k to lets say $23k, reducing both her federal income tax AND self-employment tax to apply to $15k less (saving lets say 50% of $15k = $7.5k with federal and self employment because your income is so high). She is actually supposed to pay quarterly taxes to make up for all of this. The easy way to do this is each quarter plug YOUR total salary + bonus and the tax YOU have paid so far (check your paystubs) into TurboTax along with her income so far and all of her expenses. This will give you how much tax you can expect to have left to owe so far--this would be your first quarter. When you calculate your other quarters, do it the exact same way and just subtract what you've already paid so far that year from your total tax liability.\"","\"It's a tough question, because there is society and individual to consider, and the society's effects on the individual. Currently, employers don't have to provide insurance, they do it to compete in the employee marketplace. Employers have an advantage over employees in that regard, because they can procure insurance at a lower cost that employees can, and they get tax breaks for doing so. Employers providing health insurance get a more stable relationship with their employees, because employees always hold great value in having an employee who provides good benefits. The company I work for provides good benefits, but suppose tomorrow they told me \"\"Hey Mutatron, we're not providing benefits anymore, but we'll bump your salary to what your benefits are worth, plus enough to compensate for the tax break we get.\"\" So now, everything is equal to what it was before, but I have to go out and find my own insurance, which is a hassle, but presumably because of the PPACA I can get a good value and carry this insurance with me wherever I go, and never have to mess with changing every time I change jobs. But suppose all the employers do this, so now there are no employer-provided health plans, and ten or twenty years down the line they've all just taken advantage so that wages haven't kept up and they've essentially pocketed the difference, or passed it on to their customers. Now people have less money to buy health insurance, and those near the bottom will now have to rely on the government to assist with providing health insurance. This is the way it works now with the minimum wage. A recent report found that WalMart employees rely on welfare to the tune of [$2.66 billion a year](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/10/1141724/-Walmart-fuels-inequality-epidemic-taking-advantage-of-our-safety-net), while the company makes $15 billion in profit. So 18% of Walmart's profits are an indirect subsidy from the US taxpayer, which comes to about $48 per US citizen, or about $208 a year for the top 50% of wage earners. Even so, I think I'd prefer to get my whole compensation package in one shot, all else being equal. That last part is important, though, I would need to get all the breaks my employer gets for providing myself with health insurance.\"","While the OP disses the health insurance coverage offered through his wife's employer as a complete rip-off, one advantage of such coverage is that, if set up right (by the employer), the premiums can be paid for through pre-tax dollars instead of post-tax dollars. On the other hand, Health insurance premiums cannot be deducted on Schedule C by self-employed persons. So the self-employed person has to pay both the employer's share as well as the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes on that money. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Line 29 of Form 1040 but only for those months during which the Schedule C filer is neither covered nor eligible to be covered by a subsidized health insurance plan maintained by an employer of the self-employed person (whose self-employment might be a sideline) or the self-employed person's spouse. In other words, just having the plan coverage available through the wife's employment, even though one disdains taking it, is sufficient to make a Line 29 deduction impermissible. So, AGI is increased. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Schedule A but only to the extent that they (together with other medical costs) exceed 10% of AGI. For many people in good health, this means no deduction there either. Thus, when comparing the premiums of health insurance policies, one should pay some attention to the tax issues too. Health insurance through a spouse's employment might not be that bad a deal after all.","\"Get some professional accounting help. You're going to have to pay for everything out of the fee you charge: taxes, retirement, health care, etc. You'll be required to pay quarterly. I don't think you should base your fee on what \"\"this\"\" company will pay as a full-time employee, but what you can expect in your area. They're saving a lot of money not going through an established employment firm and essentially, making you create your own. There are costs to setting up and maintaining a company. They have less risk hiring you because there are no unemployment consequences for letting you go. Once you're hired, they'll probably put you on salary, so you can forget about making more money if you work over 40 hrs. IMHO - there have to be better jobs in your area than this one.\"","Unless the amounts involved are very small, it is MUCH better to incorporate. First, incorporation gives you limited liability for your acts as an employee. As an individual, you have unlimited liability. Second, incorporating allows you to deduct (for tax purposes) the costs of doing business, including all of your health insurance, most transportation, and some meals. The exception to the rule is if the amounts you are earning are so small that they don't cover the cost of incorporating, accounting fees, etc. (a few hundred, or at most a few thousand dollars).","I've been in the workforce for a little over 20 years. This sounds like one of the situations that starts out as a nice little bonus, but ends with me holding the bag and wishing I never would've gotten involved.","I'd still take the lower total pay with higher hourly pay, because I'm saving myself time. It ultimately represents an increase in efficiency for my time, or an increase in my ROI of time, which most business people would agree is a good thing. I can supplement my income with side jobs or a side business, with the extra time I have. What's really key is what happens to overall employment. If it gets low enough to where workers can find 2nd jobs, then it may truly leave some low wage workers worse off, and the entire demographic worse off as a whole.","\"I would definitely keep working because Social Security pays out for people with permanent disabilities, but it's dependant on working and paying into to Soc Security for a period of time. Here's a link to the info. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10029.html#part2 If your 401k has an employer match,then the no brainer answer is \"\"YES!', otherwise you are just leaving money on the table. Even if there isn't, I think they are good vehicles for saving money while deferring interest.\"","Yes, you've summarized it well. You may be able to depreciate your computer, expense some software licenses and may be home office if you qualify, but at this scale of earning - it will probably not cover for the loss of the money you need to pay for the additional SE tax (the employer part of the FICA taxes for W2 employees) and benefits (subsidized health insurance, bonuses you get from your employer, insurances, etc). Don't forget the additional expense of business licenses, liability insurances etc. While relatively small amounts and deductible - still money out of your pocket. That said... Good luck earning $96K on ODesk.","If the $882 is reported on W2 as your income then it is added to your taxable income on W2 and is taxed as salary. Your basis then becomes $5882. If it is not reported on your W2 - you need to add it yourself. Its salary income. If its not properly reported on W2 it may have some issues with FICA, so I suggest talking to your salary department to verify it is. In any case, this is not short term capital gain. Your broker may or may not be aware of the reporting on W2, and if they report the basis as $5000 on your 1099, when you fill your tax form you can add a statement that it is ESPP reported on W2 and change the basis to correct one. H&R Block and TurboTax both support that (you need to chose the correct type of investment there).","question #2 - yes, 25% of your 1099 income. Good idea. It adds up quickly and is a good way to reduce taxable income.","The idea is that paying your employees more confers benefits that are worth the cost. Paying employees more than they produce for you is (almost) always not a good idea. However, if paying higher wages has advantages, those advantages persist or are enhanced by other companies not paying higher wages.","\"I agree that you should have received both a 1099 and a W2 from your employer. They may be reluctant to do that because some people believe that could trigger an IRS audit. The reason is that independent contractor vs employee is supposed to be defined by your job function, not by your choice. If you were a contractor and then switched to be an employee without changing your job description, then the IRS could claim that you should have always been an employee the entire time, and so should every one of the other contractors that work for that company with a similar job function. It's a hornet's nest that the employer may not want to poke. But that's not your problem; what should you do about it? When you say \"\"he added my Federal and FICA W/H together\"\", do you mean that total appears in box 4 of your 1099? If so, it sounds like the employer is expecting you to re-pay the employer portion of FICA. Can you ask them if they actually paid it? If they did, then I don't see them having a choice but to issue a W2, since the IRS would be expecting one. If they didn't pay your FICA, then the amount this will cost you is 7.65% of what would have been your W2 wages. IMHO it would be reasonable for you to request that they send you a check for that extra amount. Note: even though that amount will be less than $600 and you won't receive a 1099 in 2017 for it, legally you'll still have to pay tax on that amount so I think a good estimate would be to call it 10% instead. Depending on your personality and your relationship with the employer, if they choose not to \"\"make you whole\"\", you could threaten to fill out form SS-8. Additional Info: (Thank you Bobson for bringing this up.) The situation you find yourself in is similar to the concept of \"\"Contract-to-Hire\"\". You start off as a contractor, and later convert to an employee. In order to avoid issuing a 1099 and W2 to the same person in a single tax year, companies typically utilize one of the following strategies: Your particular situation is closest to situation 2, but the reverse. Instead of retroactively calling you a W2 employee the entire time, your employer is cheating and attempting to classify you as a 1099 contractor the entire time. This is frowned upon by the IRS, as well as the employee since as you discovered it costs you more money in the form of employer FICA. From your description it sounds like your employer was trying to do you a favor and didn't quite follow through with it. What they should have done was never switch you to W2 in the first place (if you really should have been a contractor), or they should have done the conversion properly without stringing you along.\"","Financial benefit? No. No matter whether you are paid based on a salary or by the hour, the frequency of your pay check has no effect since at the end of the year you will have received the exact same amount of money. Psychological benefit? Well, from the many answers and comments on this page that seem to think there is a difference, then apparently there is a large psychological difference. Whether that is a benefit or not, I guess, depends on your personality.","In general that's illegal. If you're a W2 employee, you don't miraculously become a 1099 contractor just because they pay you more. If your job doesn't change - then your status doesn't change just because they give you a raise. They can be sued (by you, and by the IRS) for that. Other issues have already been raised by other respondents, just wanted to point out this legal perspective.","\"It depends on when you're setting the goal. 1) When you have finished the year and you are filling out tax forms, your goal is to get as large of a refund as possible. 2) When the year begins afresh and you are earning money and paying taxes, your goal should be roughly to pay exactly the amount of tax owed so that at the end of the year you don't have any refund or tax owed - it's the same as getting your tax refund right away rather than waiting until after you file taxes. So you want your W4 set up appropriately (assuming you're talking about the US). I think (1) is obvious. For (2), imagine you start the year with the goal to get the largest possible tax refund at the end. Well that's simple - fill out the W4 and on line 6 (\"\"Additional amount, if any, you want withheld from each paycheck\"\") tell them to withhold everything. Then at the end of the year you'll get a huge refund. Of course in the meantime, you've made an interest-free loan to the government, and you've probably had to take out a high-interest rate loan from your bank or credit card. Obviously this is bad. An argument could be made that it would be even better to slightly underpay your taxes (but not enough to owe a penalty). Ignoring human weakness, this is correct. If you have the discipline to set that money aside in a safe place, that's okay. If this would cause you to spend that money (or even save less of your other money), then this is a bad idea. So I'd really want to highlight some of this depends on your own financial discipline - is it better for you to have the money right away so that you can make good choices with how to use it now, or is it better for you to put the money somewhere out of reach so that you won't spend it on impulse purchases? (and recognize that there are ways to put it out of reach and earn interest on it rather than spending it - one good choice for you would be a Roth IRA)\"","Your recruiter is likely trying to avoid having to pay the employer's side of employment taxes, and may even be trying to avoid having to file a 1099 for you by treating your relationship as a vendor/service provider that he is purchasing services from, which would make your pay just a business expense. It's definitely in his best interest for you to do it this way. Whether it's in your best interest is up to you. You should consult a licensed legal/tax professional to help you determine whether this is a good arrangement for you. (Most of the time, when someone starts playing tax avoidance games, they eventually get stung by it.) The next big question: If you already know this guy is a snake, why are you still working with him? If you don't trust him, why would you take legal/tax advice from him? He might land you a high-paying job. But he also might cause you years of headaches if his tax advice turns out to be flawed.","you wouldn't have to pay income taxes on the portion for health insurance. think of high deductible health plans - the employer puts the deductible into a healthcare savings account which is tax free as long as it's for medical care. right now you can also deduct the portion of your overall expenses that are medical over a portion of your income. 2 issues with your idea, though - 1. right now, there are people who can't get health insurance except through an employer. send them out into the marketplace and they will get turned down. obamacare is supposed to fix this, but if Romney is elected, it will continue. 2. healthcare inflation rises much higher than regular inflation, so if your benefits were included as part of wages and you had to buy it on your own, you would face a continually decreasing amount of money over time to purchase healthcare - a spiral. this is the issue that many have with the voucher system the republicans are proposing for medicare - the voucher will rise at inflation, while healthcare rises much higher than inflation - right now I think it's a difference of 1% versus 8-9% off the top of my head. also, for many industries, it's in the best interest of the company to have a healthy workforce.","The answer is simple. If your employer is offering you a discount, that is free money. You always take free money, always.","I assume the OP is the US and that he is, like most people, a cash-basis tax payer and not an accrual basis tax payer. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying was reported as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms but the corresponding income tax was not withheld. If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion, then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Nor is the company entitled to withhold tax on this income for 2010 and 2011 at this time; the tax on that income has already been paid by the OP directly to the IRS and the company has nothing to do with the matter anymore. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying was NOT reported as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms. If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion, then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Should the OP have declared the value of the rental of the unit as additional income from his employer that was not reported on the W-2 form, and paid taxes on that money? Possibly, but it would be reasonable to argue that the OP did nothing wrong other than not checking his W-2 form carefully: he simply assumed the income numbers included the value of the rental and copied whatever the company-issued W-2 form said onto his 1040 form. At least as of now, there is no reason for the IRS to question his 2010 and 2011 returns because the numbers reported to the IRS on Copy A of the W-2 forms match the numbers reported by the OP on his tax returns. My guess is that the company discovered that it had not actually declared the value of the rental payments on the OP's W-2 forms for 2010 and 2011 and now wants to include this amount as income on subsequent W-2 forms. Now, reporting a lump-sum benefit of $38K (but no actual cash) would have caused a huge amount of income tax to need to be withheld, and the OP's next couple of paychecks might well have had zero take-home pay as all the money was going towards this tax withholding. Instead, the company is saying that it will report the $38K as income in 78 equal installments (weekly paychecks over 18 months?) and withhold $150 as the tax due on each installment. If it does not already do so, it will likely also include the value of the current rent as a benefit and withhold tax on that too. So the OP's take-home pay will reduce by $150 (at least) and maybe more if the current rental payments also start appearing on the paychecks and tax is withheld from them too. I will not express an opinion on the legality of the company withholding an additional $150 as tax from the OP's paycheck, but will suggest that the solution proposed by the company (have the money appear as taxable benefits over a 78-week period, have tax withheld, and declare the income on your 2012, 2013 and 2014 returns) is far more beneficial to the OP than the company declaring to the IRS that it made a mistake on the 2010 and 2011 W-2's issued to the OP, and that the actual income paid was higher. Not only will the OP have to file amended returns for 2010 and 2011 but the company will need to amend its tax returns too. In summary, the OP needs to know that He will have to pay taxes on the value of the waived rental payments for 2010 and 2011. The company's mistake in not declaring this as income to the OP for 2010 and 2011 does not absolve him of the responsibility for paying the taxes What the company is proposing is a very reasonable solution to the problem of recovering from the mistake. The alternative, as @mhoran_psprep points out, is to amend your 2010 and 2011 federal and state tax returns to declare the value of the rental during those years as additional income, and pay taxes (and possibly penalties) on the additional amount due. This takes the company completely out of the picture, but does require a lot more work and a lot more cash now rather than in the future.","Your question begins with a misunderstanding. When you prepare your tax return (Form 1040/1040A/1040EZ) you always try to minimize your total tax bill. When you fill out form W4 you trying to estimate how much tax will be shown on next years tax return. The penalty for having too much tax withheld is not having the use of the money until you get a tax refund. At the moment interest rates are very low and your economic loss is the temporary loss of access to the money. One exception would be if you are carrying credit card debt. In that case you are, in effect, paying 20-30% interest to borrow money you lending to the US Treasury for 0% interest. The penalty for having too little tax withheld is having to make a large payment with your tax return. If your pre-payments aren't at least as much as your total income tax from last year there may also be modest underpayment penalty based on the difference between your pre-payments and your total income tax from last year or this year whichever is less. A large underpayment will trigger a different larger underpayemnt penalty. The W4 combined with the withholding rates tends to over-withhold income tax for most, but not all, taxpayers. Most people don't have enough savings to pay a large tax due, which leads to more penalties and an even larger bill. Over-witholding protects the overall tax system from the consequences of those events. People tend to be very unhappy, not quietly. On balance your greatest economic benefit depends on whether or not you have high interest debt. If you do, then accurate and even slightly under-withholding will probably work to your advantage as long as you can pay next 4/15. If not, avoiding the chance of having any unexpected balance due next year may be more important.","\"Yes, there is a financial benefit, if and only if you can live on 24/26th of your salary. Thus, bi-weekly is 12/13 lower than a bi-monthly income. However, you now get a so-called \"\"extra\"\" paycheck twice a year. (We typically get them in March and October.) You can either spend those extra paychecks on \"\"hookers and blow\"\" or spend them wisely on things like accelerated debt repayment, home/car down payment, property taxes, etc, etc. HOWEVER... none of this really matters, since you don't control whether or not you're paid bi-weekly or semi-monthly.\"","They are already indirectly paying these expenses. They should be built into your rates. The amount per job or per hour needs to cover what would have been your salary, plus the what would have been sick, vacation, holidays, health insurance, life insurance, disability, education, overhead for office expenses, cost of accountants...and all taxes. In many companies the general rule of thumb is that they need to charge a customer 2x the employees salary to cover all this plus make a profit. If this is a side job some of these benefits will come from your main job. Some self employed get some of these benefits from their spouse. The company has said we give you money for the work you perform, but you need to cover everything else including paying all taxes. Depending on where you live you might have to send money in more often then once a year. They are also telling you that they will be reporting the money they give you to the government so they can claim it as a business expense. So you better make sure you report it as income.","If the employer provides housing to the employee, the employer has to identify whether it is taxable or not. If it is - the amounts would be added to the taxable income on your W2. All the withholding and FICA tax calculations will be performed based on that taxable income. If the employer fails to do that, and you get audited, you can be left on the hook for the unpaid taxes on the unreported income. In some cases, employee housing is a non-taxable fringe benefit, in others it is taxable. Your tax adviser will help identify which case applies to you. After you added in a comment that you're trying to see if you should be asking your boss to pay your personal expenses vs. giving you a raise - as I said in the comments, your personal expenses are not deductible neither for you nor for anyone else. If your boss pays your rent instead of a raise - its taxable income for you.","I would not assume they would pay for any benefits. You will be responsible for paying entirely for health insurance and social security and Medicare. This move is most likely not in your best interests. At a minimum, I would charge double your current hourly rate and would charge for all hours worked including time and half for overtime. 3 times is actually probably a better choice if you want to cover holidays (which they will not pay you for), vacation time, etc. I know when I did project bids, we always priced at 2-3 times the salary we paid the employees.","In addition to taking into account your deductions, as mentioned by @bstpierre, you also need to account for vacation, and other time off such as sick days. You also need to estimate what percentage of the year you expect to be working and pro-rate your salary accordingly. For example it is not uncommon to use 40 weeks out of the year which is about 77% of the time. Also check to see if you would be eligible for unemployment for the times you are not working. I suspect not. But in any case, you might want to use worst case scenario figures to see if it is worth it, especially in this economy.","A 401k is pretty good, but it's not magic. Personally, I'd consider a 30k salary with a 401k and a 2k employer match less valuable than a 36k salary, let alone a 48k salary. If worried about retirement savings simply set up that IRA and put in the full 5.5k allowance.","Yes. W4 determines how much your employer will withhold from your wages. Leaving everything at default would mean that your salary is your only taxable income, and you only take default deductions. Your employee will calculate your tax withholding based on that. But, if your salary is >200k, I assume that you have other income (investment/capital gains, interest on your bank account), which you will have to pay taxes on. You're probably going to have some deductible expenses (business/partnership expenses, mortgage interest, donations, college funds etc) as well. So it is very likely, unless you're really not smart about money, that you have more to do with your taxes than just the employers' withholding.","No, even businesses pay taxes quarterly. So if you formed Nathan, LLC, or otherwise became self employed, you'd still have to file quarterly estimates and make tax payments. This would cause taxes to be a much more high touch part of your life. However, you should ensure that you're claiming the proper exemptions etc to avoid excessive withholding.","Since you worked as an RA, the university should send you a W2 form. The taxable wages line in that form would be the sum of both the direct salary and employer paid benefits that are taxable. As such you should not need to do anything than enter the numbers that they provide you.","\"I think Feral Oink said it well here when someone asked if they should negotiate for additional benefits in lieu of a portion of salary. \"\"You never want to take a lower salary, especially not in exchange for something that is conditional e.g. benefits. Your salary is the only thing that is guaranteed as a condition of employment. Other things can be changed by the employer at a future point in time.\"\" Does it make sense to take a lower salary so I can still contribute to a Roth IRA?\"","One possibility that I use: I set up an LLC and get paid through that entity. Then I set up a payroll service through Bank of America and set up direct deposit so that it is free. I pay myself at 70% of my hourly rate based on the number of hours I work, and the payroll service does all the calculations for me and sets up the payments to the IRS. Typically money is left over in my business account. When tax time rolls around, I have a W2 from my LLC and a 1099 from the company I work for. I put the W2 into my personal income, and for the business I enter the revenue on the 1099 and the payroll expenses from paying myself; the left over in the business account is taxed as ordinary income. Maybe it's overkill, but setting up the LLC makes it possible to (a) set up a solo 401(k) and put up to $51k away tax-free, and (b) I can write off business expenses more easily.","\"No, there aren't only 2 choices as I have a good job. In this case though, there are two options, either continue to have the \"\"bad jobs\"\" that this rich guys company is providing or he shuts down the company and there are no jobs at all. It's not a loaded question. I'd rather have a bad employer than no employer at all.\"","Interesting. What is your view of this idea: institute a bonus program which allocates to each employee scrip proportionate to the number of dependents (plus 1 for themselves, of course); this scrip would be valid for one year and to earn it one needs meet some basic work requirements and can be used to purchase whatever goods and services the workers prefer. (This is only a rough description of what I have in mind. Feel free to ask questions for more details. I feel we have much to learn from each other on this topic.)","I'm not business-savvy, but that seems like a very good idea. My wife works for a not-for-profit company, yet the CEO still makes $8,000,000 a year, *not* counting bonuses. I think in a for-profit, the CEO could easily afford to pay more employees to fill the gap made by decreasing the free labor he's used to.","I'm an independent tech contractor in Canada. The single payer health care makes it so much easier to be a contractor or to create a startup. I have to wonder if the lack of healthcare in the US is the result of businesses trying to retain white collar workers that would otherwise go independent. In this environment, it's little surprise that I prefer getting those big cheques over getting benefits. Usually the benefit packages are little more than dental, many of which only provide partial coverage.",">Better for you and for me, yes, but not for the disadvantaged without benefactors. That's the situation I was in. That wasn't exactly my point. I'm all for helping people, and social security does help people, and I am very happy it helped you - I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that what you got from social security is not as good as what you would have got from a $500,000 - $1,000,000 term life insurance policy. For people in there 20s, in good health, that kind of policy should be $20-$40/month, which could easily be bought with the money we otherwise spend on social security. (Now... whether parents would actually be responsible enough to buy term life insurance and put money towards retirement if we didn't have social security is a WHOOOOOOOOOLE nother discussion.) That's all I'm saying - I'd rather buy term life and invest for my own retirement because me and my family will come out ahead of where social security will put us. I'm really not a financial wizard, and I have to believe that this type of plan would work well for everyone else, too.","Forms 1099 and W2 are mutually exclusive. Employers file both, not the employees. 1099 is filed for contractors, W2 is filed for employees. These terms are defined in the tax code, and you may very well be employee, even though your employer pays you as a contractor and issues 1099. You may complain to the IRS if this is the case, and have them explain the difference to the employer (at the employer's expense, through fines and penalties). Employers usually do this to avoid providing benefits (and by the way also avoid paying payroll taxes). If you're working as a contractor, lets check your follow-up questions: where do i pay my taxes on my hourly that means does the IRS have a payment center for the tax i pay. If you're an independent contractor (1099), you're supposed to pay your own taxes on a quarterly basis using the form 1040-ES. Check this page for more information on your quarterly payments and follow the links. If you're a salaried employee elsewhere (i.e.: receive W2, from a different employer), then instead of doing the quarterly estimates you can adjust your salary withholding at that other place of work to cover for your additional income. To do that you submit an updated form W4 there, check with the payroll department on details. Is this a hobby tax No such thing, hobby income is taxed as ordinary income. The difference is that hobby cannot be at loss, while regular business activity can. If you're a contractor, it is likely that you're not working at loss, so it is irrelevant. what tax do i pay the city? does this require a sole proprietor license? This really depends on your local laws and the type of work you're doing and where you're doing it. Most likely, if you're working from your employer's office, you don't need any business license from the city (unless you have to be licensed to do the job). If you're working from home, you might need a license, check with the local government. These are very general answers to very general questions. You should seek a proper advice from a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for your specific case.","\"If you're really a part-time worker, then there are some simple considerations.... The remote working environment, choice of own hours, and non-guarantee of work availability point to your \"\"part-time\"\" situation being more like a consultancy, and that would normally double or triple the gross hourly rate. But if they're already offering or paying you a low hourly figure, they are unlikely to give you consultant rates.\"","The main advantage and disadvantage I can see in a scenario like this are - how savvy and good an investor are you? It's a good way to create below-market average returns if you're not that good at investing and returns way above market average if you are...","How old are you? With $15k, I assume late twenties. Do you still use your credit cards? or is this just past accumulated debt? (paying them off will do you no good if you just run them back up again.) Does your employer match you contributions? How much? Are you fully vested in their contributions? In general, it is not a good idea, but under the right circumstances it isn't a bad idea.","I am surprised no one has mentioned the two biggest things (in my opinion). Or I should say, the two biggest things to me. First, 1099 have to file quarterly self employment taxes. I do not know for certain but I have heard that often times you will end up paying more this way then even a W-2 employees. Second, an LLC allows you to deduct business expenses off the top prior to determining what you pay in taxes as pass-through income. With 1099 you pay the same taxes regardless of your business expenses unless they are specifically allowed as a 1099 contractor (which most are not I believe). So what you should really do is figure out the expense you incur as a result of doing your business and check with an accountant to see if those expenses would be deductible in an LLC and if it offsets a decent amount of your income to see if it would be worth it. But I have read a lot of books and listened to a lot of interviews about wealthy people and most deal in companies not contracts. Most would open a new business and add clients rather than dealing in 1099 contracts. Just my two cents... Good luck and much prosperity.","\"It's correct. Be sure of your personal opportunity cost and not that you're letting the tax tail wag the dog just to score \"\"tax free\"\". Your upside is $3,700 (single) or $7,000 (married) in taxes saved until you're out of the 0% zone. Is that worth not receiving an income? Even if your savings are such that you don't need to work for income for a fiscal year, how would this affect the rest of your career and lifetime total earning prospects? Now, maybe: Otherwise, I'd hope you have solid contacts in your network who won't be fazed by a resume gap and be delighted to have a position open for you in 2019 (and won't give you the \"\"mother returning to the workforce\"\" treatment in salary negotiations).\"","No, absolutely not. Income tax rates are marginal. The tax bracket's higher tax rate only applies to extra dollars over the threshold, not to dollars below it. The normal income tax does not have any cliffs where one extra dollar of income will cost more than one dollar in extra taxes. Moreover, you are ignoring the personal exemption and standard deduction. A gross salary of $72,000 is not the same as taxable income of $72,000. The deduction will generally be $12,200 and the exemptions will be $3,900 for you, your spouse, and any kids. So married-filing-jointly with the standard deduction will get an automatic $20,000 off of adjusted gross income when counting taxable income. So the appropriate taxable income is actually going to be more like $52,000. Note that getting your compensation package reshuffled may result in different tax treatment. But simply taking a smaller salary (rather than taking some compensation as stock options, health insurance, or fringe benefits), is not a money-saving move. Never do it.","Everyone pays their personal income tax with funds from their employer; some of it through withholding, and the rest through the balance due at the time of filing. All that is happening here is that the company is calculating your personal tax return for you, and fiddling retroactively with the gross salary to yield a specific after-tax salary. One problem is that there is a lot of information I put in my return to earn deductions, that I would not care to tell my employer. The system would also appear to be contrary to public policy. Governments create tax deductions to give a larger income to those with socially acceptable expenses: health care, dependents, etc. The system you describe would give employees with such deductions a lower gross salary.","Better for you and for me, yes, but not for the disadvantaged without benefactors. That's the situation I was in. I just wish social security wasn't spent on the elderly, when they have so little left to contribute to our society and economy, in terms of new business, growth, and constructing the future.","Very good point. However, I would say stability. Say I could just continue doing this one the side of my regular job, couldn't I do both? Edit: I don't know why I keep getting down voted... I'm literally just asking valid questions.","When you do your tax return, your total income from the year from all sources is added up. So you will need to include your employment income as well as your contractor income. Any tax taken off at source through PAYE will then be deducted from how there is to pay. So whether you pay the tax or your employer pays it, it should end up the same, although the timing will differ. There will be differences in National Insurance treatment, and you don't necessarily have a free option to choose which happens - the nature of your relationship may mean you have to be classed as either employed or self-employed under HMRC rules.","I had a similar decision to make. I got offered a modest salary near Philly, or a better salary plus a nice bonus in New York. I chose New York. I'm loving it so far but who knows what will happen. I'm actually saving a lot of money as I automatically have it deduct from my paycheck and disperse into several savings accounts. I guess it's different for everyone and you have to consider your situation before applying a blanket advice","\"I feel that getting money sooner than later is always advantageous. If I offered you the choice between getting: Which option would you take? I would take the last option. And for the same reason, from a purely-numbers point of view, I would argue that getting paid biweekly is preferable (assuming the the annual salary is pro-rated fairly, and barring any compulsive spending habits). Your calculations suggest to me that they are trying to answer the question, \"\"Looking at a single year or month (or some other fixed amount of time) in a vacuum, is there any financial benefit to being paid bi-weekly over monthly?\"\". The analysis seems to be focusing on comparing the two pay schedules on a month-by-month basis, noting when one is paid bi-weekly, some months you get paid more times than the other. However, one could also compare the two pay schedules on a fortnight-by-fortnight basis, and note that when one is paid monthly, many fortnights you don't get paid at all, and some you get paid a lot. Or one could compare the two pay schedules on an hour-by-hour basis, too. But in the long run, the money adds up to be the same amount. I prefer getting it as soon as I can.\"","On what basis are you not employee? You should probably get some tax/legal advice, but generally J1 internship is by definition employment. You should also check the tax treaty between the US and Ireland, if there's one, and check what it says about training related income. You may find a pleasant surprise there. Most universities have support for international students/visiting scholars, check the international students' office at your school.","I would go with option B. That is safer, as it would leave you with more options, in case of an unexpected job loss or an emergency.","\"I think there's a sub~~ject~~ for this financialcareers or something. I'll just say, as your career goes on, every \"\"next\"\" place you interview for will ask what your last salary was and partly base their offer on that. So taking a job like this that bumps you up considerably pays off for every other job you get down the road.\"","\"My answer has nothing to do with tax brackets or mathematics (I'm taking advantage of the leeway your question allowed), but rather it has to do with career goals and promotion. Large companies often have large \"\"Policies & Procedures\"\" booklets to go with them. One policy that sometimes exists which would make it a bad idea to accept a raise is: Employee cannot be given more than one salary increase in a 12-month period This means that if you accept a standard-of-living or merit increase of say, 2% or 3% in April, and then you apply for a job that would otherwise warrant a pay grade increase, you may be forced to wait until the following year to get bumped to the proper pay grade. Of course, this totally depends on the company, but it would be advisable to check your company's H.R. policy on that, if you're considering a move (even a lateral one) in the future.\"","\"It seems that you think you are freelancing, and they think you are an employee. What's bad for you, the tax office will also think you are an employee if they withhold tax for you. Alternatively, they think you are stupid, and they keep the money, but are actually not paying it to the tax office at all, in which case you will have a bad surprise when you do your tax returns. First, I'd ask them for proof that they are indeed paying these taxes into some account related to you. I'd then ask a tax adviser for some serious advice. If they are acting out of incompetence and not out of malice, then you should be mostly fine, but your work there will count as employment. Heaven knows why they treat you as an employee. Check your contract with them; whether it is between you and them or your company and them. It maybe that they never hired a contractor and believe that they have to pay employment tax. They don't. If your company sends them a bill, then they need to pay that bill, 100% of it, and that's it. Taxes are fully your business and your responsibility. As \"\"quid\"\" said, if they say they are withholding tax, then at the very least there must be a paystub that proves they have actually been paying these taxes. If they withhold taxes, and there is no paystub, then this looks like a criminal attempt to cheat you. If they have actually paid taxes properly into your account, then they are merely creating a mess that can hopefully be fixed. But it is probably complicated enough that you need a tax advisor, even if you had none before, since instead of paying to your company, they paid some money to the company, and some to you personally.\"","Here in Germany there is a special case. I am studying (and working a little on the side) and still receiving child benefits from the state which is like 190€/m. Because I am getting this I don't have to pay tuition which is 1k/y. If my side income would get over the boundary (which is like 9k/y) I would lose those benefits (~3.3k) and would have to pay insurance myself (I dont know how much that would be. 50-100/m I guess.) So getting a raise from 8k to 10k sounds nice as it is a 25% raise, but it actually means getting less.","I had better healthcare when I had a full time job and the company provided it until ACA came around and the company changed the majority of full time positions to part time. Now I have two part time jobs and ACA healthcare with a high premium and insanely high deductible. Is that supposed to be good?","If you are in the US and a regular employee, this will have to show up on your year-end W2 form as income. If it doesn't, there is some funky accounting business going and you should probably consult a professional for advice.","No. Even if you don't need the additional salary income now, you might be able to contribute the incremental amount over the Roth max to either of the other two types of IRAs, or maybe even something else. You never want to take a lower salary, especially not in exchange for something that is conditional e.g. benefits. Your salary is the only thing that is guaranteed as a condition of employment. Other things can be changed by the employer at a future point in time. If you have two different job offers and the salaries are different, that is a separate scenario. You should make the decision based on overall comparison, not just using Roth limit contribution criteria.",">But suppose all the employers do this, so now there are no employer-provided health plans, Which means the insurance bought by employees must get a whole lot cheaper, I guess, as there would be direct competition and lots of shopping around. >, and ten or twenty years down the line they've all just taken advantage so that wages haven't kept up So the employers suddenly don't need to compete on the employee marketplace? I mean in times with high unemployment not, but this is orthogonal to this - in times with high unemployment they don't need to compete with benefits either, I guess? Although in reality I agree with you, let me offer a different but supporting perspective: it is much easier to haggle a salary than to haggle anything else. I've always lived in European countries with different amounts of government-mandated paid holidays and I have never ever heard of a person who succesfully haggled a week of extra holiday in his package, or a VIP-level additional private health insurance above the basic social-security-paid one (the one that gets people more comfortable hospital rooms and better hospital food etc. - if people buy it here, they always buy it privately, not by the employer), or really anything but money. The only extra I ever heard about is the private usage of a company car, and even that is rare, and that has more to do with easier accounting than anything else. Sometimes people get lunch tickets, but that is usually because they are tax-free. I don't know why, but it seems to be the general law: either the government mandates some non-monetary benefit, or the employer decides to provide it because of competition, but people privately can pretty much never haggle for it, not even when they are badly needed. Strange. A possible explanation: business are used to buying stuff with a simple monetary price. As a buyer, you have no other responsibilities than to pay. For example a programming company will not demand that the client gives them a detailed specification, they will gladly write one, for a price. So if anyone comes and tries to sell something, and wants anything else but money, it gets weird. And I figure it is the same for employees.","After reading OP Mark's question and the various answers carefully and also looking over some old pay stubs of mine, I am beginning to wonder if he is mis-reading his pay stub or slip of paper attached to the reimbursement check for the item(s) he purchases. Pay stubs (whether paper documents attached to checks or things received in one's company mailbox or available for downloading from a company web site while the money is deposited electronically into the employee's checking account) vary from company to company, but a reasonably well-designed stub would likely have categories such as Taxable gross income for the pay period: This is the amount from which payroll taxes (Federal and State income tax, Social Security and Medicare tax) are deducted as well as other post-tax deductions such as money going to purchase of US Savings Bonds, contributions to United Way via payroll deduction, contribution to Roth 401k etc. Employer-paid group life insurance premiums are taxable income too for any portion of the policy that exceeds $50K. In some cases, these appear as a lump sum on the last pay stub for the year. Nontaxable gross income for the pay period: This would be sum total of the amounts contributed to nonRoth 401k plans, employee's share of group health-care insurance premiums for employee and/or employee's family, money deposited into FSA accounts, etc. Net pay: This is the amount of the attached check or money sent via ACH to the employee's bank account. Year-to-date amounts: These just tell the employee what has been earned/paid/withheld to date in the various categories. Now, OP Mark said My company does not tax the reimbursement but they do add it to my running gross earnings total for the year. So, the question is whether the amount of the reimbursement is included in the Year-to-date amount of Taxable Income. If YTD Taxable Income does not include the reimbursement amount, then the the OP's question and the answers and comments are moot; unless the company has really-messed-up (Pat. Pending) payroll software that does weird things, the amount on the W2 form will be whatever is shown as YTD Taxable Income on the last pay stub of the year, and, as @DJClayworth noted cogently, it is what will appear on the W2 form that really matters. In summary, it is good that OP Mark is taking the time to investigate the matter of the reimbursements appearing in Total Gross Income, but if the amounts are not appearing in the YTD Taxable Income, his Payroll Office may just reassure him that they have good software and that what the YTD Taxable Income says on the last pay stub is what will be appearing on his W2 form. I am fairly confident that this is what will be the resolution of the matter because if the amount of the reimbursement was included in Taxable Income during that pay period and no tax was withheld, then the employer has a problem with Social Security and Medicare tax underwithholding, and nonpayment of this tax plus the employer's share to the US Treasury in timely fashion. The IRS takes an extremely dim view of such shenanigans and most employers are unlikely to take the risk.","Unless you make those investments inside a tax-deferred account, you will have to pay income-taxes on that money this year. Because you made that money through your own business, you will also have payroll taxes due on that money this year.","\"J - Approaching the answer from the W4 perspective (for calculation purposes) may be more trouble that it's worth. I'd strongly suggest you use tax software, whether it's the 2016 SW or a current year one, on line, to get an estimate of your total tax bill for the year. You can then look at your current run rate of tax paid in to see if you are on track. If you have a large shortfall, you can easily adjust your withholdings. If you are on track to get a large refund, make the adjustment so next year will track better. Note, a withholding allowance is equal to a personal exemption. Some think that \"\"4\"\" means 4 people in the house, but it actually means \"\"don't tax 4 x $4050\"\" as I have $16200 in combined people or tax deductions.\"","In your situation I would get out my spreadsheet, estimate what I would be making and how that compares to my current market wage, and go from there. At the end of the day it is your decision, hope I have helped you by asking questions. Goodluck mate!","\"It depends on how big the dilution is. Could be a good trade. Do the math yourself, many times nobody else has as all the employees think they are going to get rich because \"\"options\"\" :)\"","Checkout the worksheet on page 20 of Pub 535. Also the text starting in the last half of the third column of page 18 onward. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p535.pdf The fact that you get a W-2 is irrelevant as far as I can see. Your self-employment business has to meet some criteria (such as being profitable) and the plan needs to be provided through your own business (although if you're sole proprietor filing on Schedule C, it looks like having it in your own name does the trick). Check the publication for all of the rules. There is this exception that would prevent many people with full-time jobs on W-2 from taking the deduction: Other coverage. You cannot take the deduction for any month you were eligible to participate in any employer (including your spouse's) subsidized health plan at any time during that month, even if you did not actually participate. In addition, if you were eligible for any month or part of a month to participate in any subsidized health plan maintained by the employer of either your dependent or your child who was under age 27 at the end of 2014, do not use amounts paid for coverage for that month to figure the deduction. (Pages 20-21). Sounds like in your case, though, this doesn't apply. (Although your original question doesn't mention a spouse, which might be relevant to the rule if you have one and he/she works.) The publication should help. If still in doubt, you'll probably need a CPA or other professional to assess your individual situation.","You'd be moving from 33.5K of taxable income + 16.5K of untaxable income, to 65K of taxable income (worst case). So the question is whether the net from the extra 31.5K of taxable income is more than the 16.5K, and since marginal tax rates in the relevant brackets are no more than 32% according to the table you posted (22% federal and 10% provincial), it's definitely a win to move jobs. More precisely, the marginal tax rate is 25% on the first 8044 (41544-33500) and 32% on the rest, making for total extra tax of about 9.5K and thus net income (beyond the 33.5K baseline) of 22K. Compared to the 16.5K this leaves you 5.5K up. If you end up at the 70K end, you're another 3.4K up beyond that.","In the US we have social security taxes, where for a full time employee the company pays half and the employee pays half. When you work as a business, what we call 1099 for the form that the wages are reported on, then the contractor pays the full amount of social security tax. There are times when a contractor can negotiate a higher rate because the company does not have to pay that tax. However, most of the time the company just prefers to negotiate the rate based on your value. If you are a 60K year guy, then that is what they will pay you. From the company's perspective it does not matter what your tax rate is, only the value you can bring to the company. If you can add about 180K to the bottom line, then they will be happy to pay you 60K, and you should be happy to get it. Here in the US a contractor can expect to make about 7.5% more of an equivalent employee because of the social security tax savings to the company. However, not all companies are willing to provide that in compensation. Some companies see the legal and administrative costs of employees as normal, and the same costs with contractors as extra so they don't perceive a cost savings. There are other things that would preclude employers from giving the bump although it is logical to do so. First you will really have to feel out your employer for the attitude on the subject. Then I would make a logical case if they are open to providing extra compensation in return for tax savings. If I am an employee at 60K, you would also have to pay the government 18K. How about you pay me 75K as a contractor instead? That would be a great deal for all in the US.","Many countries have employers report their employees' salaries and withhold some money for income tax purposes (it's called “pay as you earn”, “withholding taxes” or taxing “at the source”). Often the system is designed in such a way that most people actually pay too much and can get money back at the end of the year. In that case, the salary you receive can certainly be considered a “net salary”. Depending on the tax system, individuals might need to file a separate tax returns to report any other income (investments, rents, whatever) or benefit from tax incentives but it can also be optional. If you live in such a country and your situation is simple enough that there are no applicable deductibles, you might simply choose to forgo it and let your employer take care of everything.","Not correct. First - when you say they don't tax the reimbursement, they are classifying it in a way that makes it taxable to you (just not withholding tax at that time). In effect, they are under-withholding, if these reimbursement are high enough, you'll have not just a tax bill, but penalties for not paying enough all year. My reimbursements do not produce any kind of pay stub, they are a direct deposit, and are not added to my income, not as they occur, nor at year end on W2. Have you asked them why they handle it this way? It's wrong, and it's costing you.","\"I agree. Job offered benefits were implemented to entice people to work for their company when the demand for good workers was higher than the supply. Now people expect benefits and the govt has also took it upon itself to mandate employers provide medical benefits. One way around this is to higher part time workers to keep costs down. So basically the governments \"\"good intentions\"\" of helping the masses will actually cause more harm directly to the people it was supposed to help.\"","\"Exactly. I'll \"\"retire\"\" from teaching in two years and will be given the chance to take half of my retirement in one lump sum payment and take home $1,000 a month, or take nothing and bring home 2,000 a month. The other thing to remember is the 30% tax payment that next April. That's tough. This looks like a no-brainer because in just seven years, I'd eclipse the cash out. However, I might do it because I'll take the money and possibly pay off a rental home. With a rental, I'll be able to raise the rent if inflation kicks in. Of course, if deflation continues, that might be a bad move. The thing is, I'll be able to decide.\"","The benefits and taxes thing, in my opinion is the biggie. Most people don't realize that the cost to the company for a full-time employee with benefits can be 2x or even 3x the amount they see in their paycheck. Health plans are extremely expensive. Even if you are having money taken from your check for health insurance, it is often just a fraction of the total cost, and the employer is subsidizing the rest. More expensive benefits that contractors don't typically get are 401K matches and paid vacation days. When contractors call in sick or don't work because it is a national holiday, they don't get paid for that day. Also, see that line on your paycheck deducting for Social security and Medicare? That is only half of the tax. The employer pays an equal amount that is not shown on that statement. Also, they pay taxes that go towards unemployment benefits , and may be required to pay higher taxes if they churn through a lot of full-time employees. You can usually let contractors go with relative impunity . For the unemployment tax reasons, not paying for people's days off or benefits, a lot less paperwork, and less risk to the business associated with committing to full-time employees all provide value to the company. Thus companies are willing to pay more because they are getting more. Think of it like a cell phone-contract. If you commit to a three year contract it can be a pain/expensive to get out of the deal early, but you will probably get a better rate in exchange for the risk being shifted to your end of the deal.","It depends on where you are in life, and where you want to be at some point in the future, and the taxes, expenses and income at those points in your life. You don't get a mortgage to save on taxes, or keep a mortgage to save on taxes. But if somebody said they want to have the house paid off before they retire, that sounds to me like a great plan. They do need to balance it with saving for retirement, emergency fund, and college costs for themselves or their children. Without having the whole picture it is impossible to say doing X is always a good idea.","\"Assuming the numbers work out roughly the same (and you can frankly whip up a spreadsheet to prove that out), a defined benefit scheme that pays out an amount equal to an annuitized return from a 401(k) is better. The reason is not monetary - it is that the same return is being had at less risk. Put another way, if your defined benefit was guaranteed to be $100/month, and your 401(k) had a contribution that eventually gets to a lump sum that, if annuitized for the same life expectancy gave you $100/month, the DB is better because there is less chance that you won't see the money. Or, put even simpler, which is more likely? That New York goes Bankrupt and is relieved of all pension obligations, or, the stock market underperforms expectations. Neither can be ruled out, but assuming even the same benefit, lower risk is better. Now, the complication in your scenario is that your new job pays better. As such, it is possible that you might be able to accumulate more savings in your 401(k) than you might in the DB scheme. Then again, even with the opportunity to do so, there is no guarantee that you will. As such, even modelling it out really isn't going to dismiss the key variables. As such, can I suggest a different approach? Which job is going to make you happier now? Part of that may be money, part of that may be what you are actually doing. But you should focus on that question. The marginal consideration of retirement is really moot - in theory, an IRA contribution can be made that would equalize your 401(k), negating it from the equation. Grant you, there is very slightly different tax treatment, and the phaseout limits differ, but at the salary ranges you are looking at, you could, in theory, make decisions that would have the same retirement outcome in any event. The real question is then not, \"\"What is the effect in 20 years?\"\" but rather, which makes you happier now?\"","\"I agree to some degree, but I've gotten very jaded over the past 25 years. You could have the best boss in the world, be working on a fantastic project, have a solid career path, and they'll still throw you out like yesterday's trash if anyone says \"\"recession\"\" So my philosophy is more tactical (month to month) than strategic (build a career). And it's rooted in this: >I believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work Except that I've come to believe in a fair hour's pay for a fair hour's work, because on salary it seems that a \"\"fair day's work\"\" is never less than eight hours but frequently more. Put in twelve hours on a project in crunch time? Here's your standard eight hours pay. Work Saturday on something that saves the company fifteen million dollars? Here are two vouchers for dinner at the Outback Steakhouse and we'll see you Monday morning.\"","Self employment is typically harder to qualify with than W2 income. In general the bank is going to want 2 years of tax returns. You will be asked to sign a 4506-T that allows the bank to get the records directly from the IRS. Self employment income will be averaged across the 2 years, I don't think a 20% drop in profits is large enough to cause concern but it might. I would plan on being able borrow against the lowest year just in case. If you get a W2 job you will be able to count the income immediately assuming it is not a temporary position. The bank will ask for the offer letter. If you have decent credit and 20% down, you should be able to get a mortgage either way. A W2 is typically less paperwork and you would get to claim your current income assuming that is higher than your past income."],"string":"[\n \"It's hard to answer without knowing all of the details (i.e. what was your salary for each of the options), but I think you probably made a good choice. 1099: Would have required you to pay self-employment tax, but also would have allowed you to deduct business expenses. W2 with benefits: Likely would have been beneficial if you needed healthcare (since group plans can be cheaper than individual plans, and healthcare payments aren't taxed), but if you don't use the healthcare, that would have been a waste. W2, no benefits: Assuming your salary here falls between the 1099 and the W2 with benefits, it seems like a good compromise for your situation.\",\n \"I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer without knowing all about your situation, but some things to consider: If you are on a 1099, you have to pay self-employment tax, while on a W-2 you do not. That is, social security tax is 12.4% of your income. If you're a 1099, you pay the full 12.4%. If you're W-2, you pay 6.2% and the employer pays 6.2%. So if they offer you the same nominal rate of pay, you're 6.2% better off with the W-2. What sort of insurance could you get privately and what would it cost you? I have no idea what the going rates for insurance are in California. If you're all in generally good health, you might want to consider a high-deductible policy. Then if no one gets seriously sick you've saved a bunch of money on premiums. If someone does get sick you might still pay less paying the deductible than you would have paid on higher premiums. I won't go into further details as that's getting off into another question. Even if the benefits are poor, if there are any benefits at all it can be better than nothing. The only advantage I see to going with a 1099 is that if you are legally an independent contractor, then all your business expenses are deductible, while if you are an employee, there are sharp limits on deducting employee business expenses. Maybe others can think of other advantages. If there is some reason to go the 1099 route, I understand that setting up an LLC is not that hard. I've never done it, but I briefly looked into it once and it appeared to basically be a matter of filling out a form and paying a modest fee.\",\n \"Can I work on 1099 from my own company instead of on W2? The reason is on W2 I can't deduct my commute, Health Insurance and some other expenses while on 1099 I think I can able do that. Since I am going to client place to work not at my own office, I am not sure whether I should able to do that or not. If you have LLC, unless you elected to tax it as a corporation, you need neither 1099 nor W2. For tax purposes the LLC is disregarded. So it is, from tax perspective, a sole proprietorship (or partnership, if multiple members). Being a W2 employee of your own LLC is a bad idea. For all these above expenses, which can I use company's debit/credit card or I need to use only my personal debit/credit card? It would be better to always use a business account for business purposes. Doesn't matter much for tax per se, but will make your life easier in case of an audit or a legal dispute (limited liability protection may depend on it). If I work on 1099, I guess I need to file some reasonable taxes on quarterly basis instead of filing at year end. If so, how do I pay my tax on quarterly basis to IRS? I mean which forms should I file and how to pay tax? Unless you're a W2 employee, you need to do quarterly estimate payments using form 1040-ES. If you are a W2 employee (even for a different job, and even if it is not you, but your spouse with whom you're filing jointly) - you can adjust your/spouse's withholding using form W4 to cover the additional tax liability. This is, IMHO, a better way than paying estimates. There are numerous questions on this, search the site or ask another one for details.\",\n \"Health insurance varies wildly per state and per plan and per provider - but check them out to have a baseline to know what it should cost if you did it yourself. Don't forget vacation time, too: many contract/comp-only jobs have no vacation time - how much is that 10 or 15 days a year worth to you? It effectively means you're getting paid for 2080 hours, but working 2000 (with the 2 week number). Is the comp-only offer allowing overtime, and will they approve it? Is the benefits-included job salaried? If it's truly likely you'll be working more than a normal 40 hour week on a routine basis (see if you can talk to other folks that work there), an offer that will pay overtime is likely going to be better than one that wouldn't .. but perhaps not in your setting if it also loses the PTO.\",\n \"Another thing to consider, however, is the deductibility of business expenses. Let's assume that the employer can legitimately hire you as a 1099 contractor. (Would you be able to telecommute? Would you have a high degree of control over when you worked and when you didn't? These factors also affect whether you're a true independent 1099 contractor or not.) As a legit 1099 contractor, you're able to deduct certain business expenses directly from your income. (You can find a list of the rules at irs.gov.) As a W2 employee, by contrast, can deduct only business expenses that exceed 2% of the your AGI (adjusted gross income). So, you also have to consider your personal circumstances in making the calculus and comparing whether a legitimate 1099 contractor job is or is not good for you. It's not just a comparison of what they'd pay W2 employees versus what they'd pay 1099 contractors.\",\n \"In your situation, it sounds like the only added benefit would be insurance continuance. For employees who can't access short-term disability it is a critical protection against losing their job. I just want to emphasize that given that you are in a pretty decent employment situation.\",\n \"\\\"Your comment to James is telling and can help us lead you in the right direction: My work and lifestyle will be the same either way, as I said. This is all about how it goes \\\"\\\"on the books.\\\"\\\" [emphasis mine] As an independent consultant myself, when I hear something like \\\"\\\"the work will be the same either way\\\"\\\", I think: \\\"\\\"Here thar be dragons!\\\"\\\". Let me explain: If you go the independent contractor route, then you better act like one. The IRS (and the CRA, for Canadians) doesn't take lightly to people claiming to be independent contractors when they operate in fact like employees. Since you're not going to be behaving any different whether you are an employee or a contractor, (and assuming you'll be acting more like an employee, i.e. exclusive, etc.), then the IRS may later make a determination that you are in fact an employee, even if you choose to go \\\"\\\"on the books\\\"\\\" as an independent contractor. If that happens, then you may find yourself retroactively denied many tax benefits you'd have claimed; and owe penalties and interest too. Furthermore, your employer may be liable for additional withholding taxes, benefits, etc. after such a finding. So for those reasons, you should consider being an employee. You will avoid the potential headache I outlined above, as well as the additional paperwork etc. of being a contractor. If on the other hand you had said you wanted to maintain some flexibility to moonlight with other clients, build your own product on the side, choose what projects you work on (or don't), maybe hire subcontractors, etc. then I'd have supported the independent contractor idea. But, just on the basis of the tax characteristics only I'd say forget about it. On the financial side, I can tell you that I wouldn't have become a consultant if not for the ability to make more money in gross terms (i.e. before tax and expenses.) That is: your top line revenues ought to be higher in order to be able to offset many of the additional expenses you'd incur as an independent. IMHO, the tax benefits alone wouldn't make up for the difference. One final thing to look at is Form SS-8 mentioned at the IRS link below. If you're not sure what status to choose, the IRS can actually help you. But be prepared to wait... and wait... :-/ Additional Resources:\\\"\",\n \">However, you would have to pay income taxes on that wage and could end up with less money overall to spend on healthcare. That's not truth tho. You can open IRA and 401k and now you have more money to put into them that won't get tax and it help you save for the retirement.\",\n \"\\\"The personal checks may be due to their bank not issuing the company checks yet and there may also not be a payroll system in place at this time. So far as the W2's are concerned you should probably ask the owner if they plan on distributing them to the employees. If the owner has no interest in making you proper \\\"\\\"on the books employees\\\"\\\" let them know that they should probably be paying you in cash so that if the IRS comes you wont be tied to it. Obviously working in cash (off the books) has its drawbacks (no rights or protections) and benefits (no taxes).\\\"\",\n \"Careful. I would personally need a LOT more than $5 more per hour to go from W-2 employment to 1099 employment. It boils down to two reasons: (1) employers pay a huge amount of taxes on behalf of their employees, and (2) you would have to pay all of your own withholding up front. Your current proposal from them doesn't account for that. There are also risks that you face as a 1099. On the first item, your employer currently pays 6.2% of your Social Security tax. You pay the other 6.2%. If you go to 1099 status, you will be self-employed as an independent contractor and have to pay the full 12.4% out of your increased 1099 wages. On the second item, your employer also does your withholding out of your paychecks based on what you tell them on a form W-4. If you're disciplined enough to pay this out yourself in estimated taxes every time you get a paycheck, great. Many people aren't and just see a much bigger paycheck with no taxes out of it, and end up with a large tax bill at the end of the year. Overall, there are some other considerations like healthcare and other benefits. These will not be available to you as a 1099 employee. You can also be terminated spontaneously, unless you have a specific contract length with the company. As I see it, not including any benefits you would receive, you're looking at LESS money in your pocket at $50/hr as a contractor than at your $48/hr. Your pay net social security deductions is: $48 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 99,840 * .938 = 93,649.92. As a 1099 @ $50/hr you would net $50 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 104,000 * .876 = 91,104. Then there are the rest of taxes, etc to figure out your real take-home pay. I'm not a tax advisor, but I would be very careful to get the whole picture figured out before jumping. I would ask for a lot more with the added risk you would take as an independent, too.\",\n \"To be honest I don't know how any of this work in the US so my answer will be of very limited value to yourself, I suspect, but when it comes to the UK if you're going to get the same pay gross either way than being independent makes very little sense. Running your own business is hassle, is generally more risky (although possibly not in your case) and costs money. Some of the most obvious costs are the added NI, probably the need for an accountant, at around £1200 p/a for basic accountancy service, you are obliged by law to have liability insurance and you probably want professional indemnity insurance, this will be around £600 p/a minmum, and so on and so forth. On top of that, oficially anyway, as a contractor, you really shouldn't be getting any benefits from the client, and so health insurance, company car, even parking are all meant to be arranged by, and paid by, your company, and can't (or rather - shouldn't) be charged to the client. So - I would say - if you're seriously thinking about setting up a consultancy company, and this client is first of many - set up a company, but take into account the sums you need to earn. If you're really thinking about employment - be an employee.\",\n \"The tax savings of being 1099 can be significant. It depends on your salary, and what you can deduct. You may want to consult with an accountant. The social security tax, for the self employed, is 12.4% of profit not on revenue. If you can write off more than half of the income as expenses then you could be paying less than a w-2 employee. Also you might make a higher salary as a 1099, it is rare the offer the same compensation for a W-2 as a 1099 as the former has higher expenses for the employer. It is hard to know without actual numbers, actual expected expense deductions and so forth. Which is why I would suggest consulting with an accountant. You may want to talk to one in the state where he will be working rather than where you live now.\",\n \"\\\"I've been in a similar situation before. While contracting, sometimes the recruiting agency would allow me to choose between being a W2 employee or invoicing them via Corp-2-Corp. I already had a company set up (S-Corp) but the considerations are similar. Typically the C2C rate was higher than the W2 rate, to account for the extra 7.65% FICA taxes and insurance. But there were a few times where the rate offered was identical, and I still choose C2C because it enabled me to deduct many of my business expenses that I wouldn't have otherwise been able to deduct. In my case the deductions turned out to be greater than the FICA savings. Your case is slightly different than mine though in that I already had the company set up so my company related costs were \\\"\\\"sunk\\\"\\\" as far as my decision was concerned. For you though, the yearly costs associated with running the business must be factored in. For example, suppose the following: Due to these expenses you need to make up $3413 in tax deductions due to the LLC. If your effective tax rate on the extra income is 30%, then your break even point is approximately $8K in deductions (.3*(x+3413)=3413 => x = $7963) So with those made up numbers, if you have at least $8K in legitimate additional business expenses then it would make sense to form an LLC. Otherwise you'd be better off as a W2. Other considerations:\\\"\",\n \"\\\"It completely depends on what type of work you intend to do. Are you intending to run/setup your own business? Or stay with your current employer, but work from home instead of going to the office? If thats the case, then yes it is a good idea, since you will save on commuting costs amongst other things If you are asking about working from home under one of those \\\"\\\"work from home piecework\\\"\\\" schemes, I would be wary. Many of them require you do an insane amount of piecework, for literally peanuts, so it might not be worth the effort (since you could earn 2, 3x as much in a supermarket shift of the same duration)\\\"\",\n \"As others have said, it depends entirely on what benefits are provided, and how much of the cost of those benefits is paid by the employer and how much is paid by the employee, and compare that to what it would cost to obtain the necessary/equivalent coverage without employer assistance. In my case, my employer pays more than $10,000 per year toward the cost of medical, dental, vision, disability, and life insurance for myself and my family. That's almost 20% of the average total household income in my state, so it is not an insignificant amount at all.\",\n \"Do you get time and half on the overtime? If you give that up you're going to take a decent hit on overall income. You'll also decrease income because benefit costs are likely to be double or more. I've been in retail customer service. It rough. Just try to get through it, make the best of things and move on to something else with more overall benefits.\",\n \"\\\"You can do either a 1099 or a W-2. There is no limitations to the number of W-2s one can have in reporting taxes. Problems occur, with the IRS, when one \\\"\\\"forgets\\\"\\\" to report income. Even if one holds only one job at a time, people typically have more than one W-2 if they change jobs within the year. The W-2 is the simplest way to go and you may want to consider doing this if you do not intend to work this side business into significant income. However, a 1099 gig is preferred by many in some situations. For things like travel expenses, you will probably receive the income from these on a 1099, but you can deduct them from your income using a Schedule C. Along these lines you may be able to deduct a wide variety of other things like travel to and from the client's location, equipment such as computers and office supplies, and maybe a portion of your home internet bill. Also this opens up different retirement contributions schemes such as a simplified employee pension. This does come with some drawbacks, however. First your life is more complicated as things need to be documented to become actual business expenses. You are much more likely to be audited by the IRS. Your taxes become more complicated and it is probably necessary to employee a CPA to do them. If you do this for primary full time work you will have to buy your own benefits. Most telling you will have to pay both sides of social security taxes on most profits. (Keep in mind that a good account can help you transfer profits to dividends which will allow you to be taxed at 15% and avoid social security taxes.) So it really comes down to what you see this side gig expanding into and your goals. If you want to make this a real business, then go 1099, if you are just doing this for a fes months and a few thousand dollars, go W-2.\\\"\",\n \"When I worked for myself it was bad because But Ultimately I gave up my business and went to work for a school teaching, and through a series of other jobs ended up in a very stable reliable trustworthy job. When I was younger the variable paycheck didn't outweigh the freedom. Now that I am a dad I only think about having insurance and a secure job. The other option to consider is having a regular job, and then doing a little side work for yourself. You get all the benefits of both (and all the detractions)\",\n \"You have to consider that taxes that you pay on the premiums is money definitely paid, while benefits being tax free won't save you a thing if you never receive the benefits.\",\n \"To answer your question directly, this is a taxable benefit that they are providing for you in lieu of higher wages. It is taxable to the employee as income and through payroll taxes. It is taxable to the employer for their half of the payroll taxes.\",\n \"In general What does this mean? Assume 10 holidays and 2 weeks of vacation. So you will report to the office for 240 days (48 weeks * 5 days a week). If you are a w2 they will pay you for 260 days (52 weeks * 5 days a week). At $48 per hour you will be paid: 260*8*48 or $99,840. As a 1099 you will be paid 240*8*50 or 96,000. But you still have to cover insurance, the extra part of social security, and your retirement through an IRA. A rule of thumb I have seen with government contracting is that If the employee thinks that they make X,000 per year the company has to bill X/hour to pay for wages, benefits, overhead and profit. If the employee thinks they make x/hour the company has to bill at 2X/hour. When does a small spread make sense: The insurance is covered by another source, your spouse; or government/military retirement program. Still $2 per hour won't cover the 6.2% for social security. Let alone the other benefits. The IRS has a checklist to make sure that a 1099 is really a 1099, not just a way for the employer to shift the costs onto the individual.\",\n \"It's difficult to quantify the intangible benefits, so I would recommend that you begin by quantifying the financials and then determine whether the difference between the pay of the two jobs justifies the value of the intangible benefits to you. Some Explainations You are making $55,000 per year, but your employer is also paying for a number of benefits that do not come free as a contractor. Begin by writing down everything they are providing you that you would like to continue to have. This may include: You also need to account for the FICA tax that you need to pay completely as a part time employee (normally a company pays half of it for you). This usually amounts to 7.8% of your income. Quantification Start by researching the cost for providing each item in the list above to yourself. For health insurance get quotes from providers. For bonuses average your yearly bonuses for your work history with the company. Items like stock options you need to make your best guess on. Calculations Now lets call your original salary S. Add up all of the costs of the list items mentioned above and call them B. This formula will tell you your real current annual compensation (RAC): Now you want to break your part time job into hours per year, not hours per month, as months have differing numbers of working days. Assuming no vacations that is 52 weeks per year multiplied by 20 hours, or 1040 hours (780 if working 15 hours per week). So to earn the same at the new job as the old you would need to earn an hourly wage of: The full equation for 20 hours per week works out to be: Assumptions DO NOT TAKE THIS SECTION AS REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR SITUATION; ONLY A BALLPARK ESTIMATE You must do the math yourself. I recommend a little spreadsheet to simplify things and play what-if scenarios. However, we can ballpark your situation and show how the math works with a few assumptions. When I got quoted for health insurance for myself and my partner it was $700 per month, or $8400 per year. If we assume the same for you, then add 3% 401k matching that we'll assume you're taking advantage of ($1650), the equation becomes: Other Considerations Keep in mind that there are other considerations that could offset these calculations. Variable hours are a big risk, as is your status as a 'temporary' employee. Though on the flip side you don't need to pay taxes out of each check, allowing you to invest that money throughout the year until taxes are due. Also, if you are considered a private contractor you can write off many expenses that you cannot as a full time employee.\",\n \"Do some math. Figure out the net (after tax) money you'd have if you left it taxable, then look at the difference. In effect, you'd pay $X (the tax now) for $Y benefit (the tax on the full benefit not paid). The math works similar to you buying a small policy on your own.\",\n \"\\\"Littleadv is incorrect because receiving a 1099 means she will be taxed self-employment tax on top of federal income taxes. Your employer will automatically withhold 7.65% of payroll taxes as they pay you each paycheck and then they'll automatically pay the other half of your payroll tax (an additional 7.65%) to bring it to a total of 15.3%. In other words, because your wife is technically self employed, she will owe both sides of payroll tax which is 15.3% of $38k = $5,800 on TOP of your federal income tax (which is the only thing the W-4 is instructing them about what amount to withhold). The huge advantage to a 1099, however, is that she's essentially self-employed which means ALL of the things she needs to run her business are deductible expenses. This includes her car, computer, home office, supplies, sometimes phone, gas, maintenance, travel expenses, sometimes entertainment, etc - which can easily bring her \\\"\\\"income\\\"\\\" down from $38k to lets say $23k, reducing both her federal income tax AND self-employment tax to apply to $15k less (saving lets say 50% of $15k = $7.5k with federal and self employment because your income is so high). She is actually supposed to pay quarterly taxes to make up for all of this. The easy way to do this is each quarter plug YOUR total salary + bonus and the tax YOU have paid so far (check your paystubs) into TurboTax along with her income so far and all of her expenses. This will give you how much tax you can expect to have left to owe so far--this would be your first quarter. When you calculate your other quarters, do it the exact same way and just subtract what you've already paid so far that year from your total tax liability.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"It's a tough question, because there is society and individual to consider, and the society's effects on the individual. Currently, employers don't have to provide insurance, they do it to compete in the employee marketplace. Employers have an advantage over employees in that regard, because they can procure insurance at a lower cost that employees can, and they get tax breaks for doing so. Employers providing health insurance get a more stable relationship with their employees, because employees always hold great value in having an employee who provides good benefits. The company I work for provides good benefits, but suppose tomorrow they told me \\\"\\\"Hey Mutatron, we're not providing benefits anymore, but we'll bump your salary to what your benefits are worth, plus enough to compensate for the tax break we get.\\\"\\\" So now, everything is equal to what it was before, but I have to go out and find my own insurance, which is a hassle, but presumably because of the PPACA I can get a good value and carry this insurance with me wherever I go, and never have to mess with changing every time I change jobs. But suppose all the employers do this, so now there are no employer-provided health plans, and ten or twenty years down the line they've all just taken advantage so that wages haven't kept up and they've essentially pocketed the difference, or passed it on to their customers. Now people have less money to buy health insurance, and those near the bottom will now have to rely on the government to assist with providing health insurance. This is the way it works now with the minimum wage. A recent report found that WalMart employees rely on welfare to the tune of [$2.66 billion a year](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/10/1141724/-Walmart-fuels-inequality-epidemic-taking-advantage-of-our-safety-net), while the company makes $15 billion in profit. So 18% of Walmart's profits are an indirect subsidy from the US taxpayer, which comes to about $48 per US citizen, or about $208 a year for the top 50% of wage earners. Even so, I think I'd prefer to get my whole compensation package in one shot, all else being equal. That last part is important, though, I would need to get all the breaks my employer gets for providing myself with health insurance.\\\"\",\n \"While the OP disses the health insurance coverage offered through his wife's employer as a complete rip-off, one advantage of such coverage is that, if set up right (by the employer), the premiums can be paid for through pre-tax dollars instead of post-tax dollars. On the other hand, Health insurance premiums cannot be deducted on Schedule C by self-employed persons. So the self-employed person has to pay both the employer's share as well as the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes on that money. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Line 29 of Form 1040 but only for those months during which the Schedule C filer is neither covered nor eligible to be covered by a subsidized health insurance plan maintained by an employer of the self-employed person (whose self-employment might be a sideline) or the self-employed person's spouse. In other words, just having the plan coverage available through the wife's employment, even though one disdains taking it, is sufficient to make a Line 29 deduction impermissible. So, AGI is increased. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Schedule A but only to the extent that they (together with other medical costs) exceed 10% of AGI. For many people in good health, this means no deduction there either. Thus, when comparing the premiums of health insurance policies, one should pay some attention to the tax issues too. Health insurance through a spouse's employment might not be that bad a deal after all.\",\n \"\\\"Get some professional accounting help. You're going to have to pay for everything out of the fee you charge: taxes, retirement, health care, etc. You'll be required to pay quarterly. I don't think you should base your fee on what \\\"\\\"this\\\"\\\" company will pay as a full-time employee, but what you can expect in your area. They're saving a lot of money not going through an established employment firm and essentially, making you create your own. There are costs to setting up and maintaining a company. They have less risk hiring you because there are no unemployment consequences for letting you go. Once you're hired, they'll probably put you on salary, so you can forget about making more money if you work over 40 hrs. IMHO - there have to be better jobs in your area than this one.\\\"\",\n \"Unless the amounts involved are very small, it is MUCH better to incorporate. First, incorporation gives you limited liability for your acts as an employee. As an individual, you have unlimited liability. Second, incorporating allows you to deduct (for tax purposes) the costs of doing business, including all of your health insurance, most transportation, and some meals. The exception to the rule is if the amounts you are earning are so small that they don't cover the cost of incorporating, accounting fees, etc. (a few hundred, or at most a few thousand dollars).\",\n \"I've been in the workforce for a little over 20 years. This sounds like one of the situations that starts out as a nice little bonus, but ends with me holding the bag and wishing I never would've gotten involved.\",\n \"I'd still take the lower total pay with higher hourly pay, because I'm saving myself time. It ultimately represents an increase in efficiency for my time, or an increase in my ROI of time, which most business people would agree is a good thing. I can supplement my income with side jobs or a side business, with the extra time I have. What's really key is what happens to overall employment. If it gets low enough to where workers can find 2nd jobs, then it may truly leave some low wage workers worse off, and the entire demographic worse off as a whole.\",\n \"\\\"I would definitely keep working because Social Security pays out for people with permanent disabilities, but it's dependant on working and paying into to Soc Security for a period of time. Here's a link to the info. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10029.html#part2 If your 401k has an employer match,then the no brainer answer is \\\"\\\"YES!', otherwise you are just leaving money on the table. Even if there isn't, I think they are good vehicles for saving money while deferring interest.\\\"\",\n \"Yes, you've summarized it well. You may be able to depreciate your computer, expense some software licenses and may be home office if you qualify, but at this scale of earning - it will probably not cover for the loss of the money you need to pay for the additional SE tax (the employer part of the FICA taxes for W2 employees) and benefits (subsidized health insurance, bonuses you get from your employer, insurances, etc). Don't forget the additional expense of business licenses, liability insurances etc. While relatively small amounts and deductible - still money out of your pocket. That said... Good luck earning $96K on ODesk.\",\n \"If the $882 is reported on W2 as your income then it is added to your taxable income on W2 and is taxed as salary. Your basis then becomes $5882. If it is not reported on your W2 - you need to add it yourself. Its salary income. If its not properly reported on W2 it may have some issues with FICA, so I suggest talking to your salary department to verify it is. In any case, this is not short term capital gain. Your broker may or may not be aware of the reporting on W2, and if they report the basis as $5000 on your 1099, when you fill your tax form you can add a statement that it is ESPP reported on W2 and change the basis to correct one. H&R Block and TurboTax both support that (you need to chose the correct type of investment there).\",\n \"question #2 - yes, 25% of your 1099 income. Good idea. It adds up quickly and is a good way to reduce taxable income.\",\n \"The idea is that paying your employees more confers benefits that are worth the cost. Paying employees more than they produce for you is (almost) always not a good idea. However, if paying higher wages has advantages, those advantages persist or are enhanced by other companies not paying higher wages.\",\n \"\\\"I agree that you should have received both a 1099 and a W2 from your employer. They may be reluctant to do that because some people believe that could trigger an IRS audit. The reason is that independent contractor vs employee is supposed to be defined by your job function, not by your choice. If you were a contractor and then switched to be an employee without changing your job description, then the IRS could claim that you should have always been an employee the entire time, and so should every one of the other contractors that work for that company with a similar job function. It's a hornet's nest that the employer may not want to poke. But that's not your problem; what should you do about it? When you say \\\"\\\"he added my Federal and FICA W/H together\\\"\\\", do you mean that total appears in box 4 of your 1099? If so, it sounds like the employer is expecting you to re-pay the employer portion of FICA. Can you ask them if they actually paid it? If they did, then I don't see them having a choice but to issue a W2, since the IRS would be expecting one. If they didn't pay your FICA, then the amount this will cost you is 7.65% of what would have been your W2 wages. IMHO it would be reasonable for you to request that they send you a check for that extra amount. Note: even though that amount will be less than $600 and you won't receive a 1099 in 2017 for it, legally you'll still have to pay tax on that amount so I think a good estimate would be to call it 10% instead. Depending on your personality and your relationship with the employer, if they choose not to \\\"\\\"make you whole\\\"\\\", you could threaten to fill out form SS-8. Additional Info: (Thank you Bobson for bringing this up.) The situation you find yourself in is similar to the concept of \\\"\\\"Contract-to-Hire\\\"\\\". You start off as a contractor, and later convert to an employee. In order to avoid issuing a 1099 and W2 to the same person in a single tax year, companies typically utilize one of the following strategies: Your particular situation is closest to situation 2, but the reverse. Instead of retroactively calling you a W2 employee the entire time, your employer is cheating and attempting to classify you as a 1099 contractor the entire time. This is frowned upon by the IRS, as well as the employee since as you discovered it costs you more money in the form of employer FICA. From your description it sounds like your employer was trying to do you a favor and didn't quite follow through with it. What they should have done was never switch you to W2 in the first place (if you really should have been a contractor), or they should have done the conversion properly without stringing you along.\\\"\",\n \"Financial benefit? No. No matter whether you are paid based on a salary or by the hour, the frequency of your pay check has no effect since at the end of the year you will have received the exact same amount of money. Psychological benefit? Well, from the many answers and comments on this page that seem to think there is a difference, then apparently there is a large psychological difference. Whether that is a benefit or not, I guess, depends on your personality.\",\n \"In general that's illegal. If you're a W2 employee, you don't miraculously become a 1099 contractor just because they pay you more. If your job doesn't change - then your status doesn't change just because they give you a raise. They can be sued (by you, and by the IRS) for that. Other issues have already been raised by other respondents, just wanted to point out this legal perspective.\",\n \"\\\"It depends on when you're setting the goal. 1) When you have finished the year and you are filling out tax forms, your goal is to get as large of a refund as possible. 2) When the year begins afresh and you are earning money and paying taxes, your goal should be roughly to pay exactly the amount of tax owed so that at the end of the year you don't have any refund or tax owed - it's the same as getting your tax refund right away rather than waiting until after you file taxes. So you want your W4 set up appropriately (assuming you're talking about the US). I think (1) is obvious. For (2), imagine you start the year with the goal to get the largest possible tax refund at the end. Well that's simple - fill out the W4 and on line 6 (\\\"\\\"Additional amount, if any, you want withheld from each paycheck\\\"\\\") tell them to withhold everything. Then at the end of the year you'll get a huge refund. Of course in the meantime, you've made an interest-free loan to the government, and you've probably had to take out a high-interest rate loan from your bank or credit card. Obviously this is bad. An argument could be made that it would be even better to slightly underpay your taxes (but not enough to owe a penalty). Ignoring human weakness, this is correct. If you have the discipline to set that money aside in a safe place, that's okay. If this would cause you to spend that money (or even save less of your other money), then this is a bad idea. So I'd really want to highlight some of this depends on your own financial discipline - is it better for you to have the money right away so that you can make good choices with how to use it now, or is it better for you to put the money somewhere out of reach so that you won't spend it on impulse purchases? (and recognize that there are ways to put it out of reach and earn interest on it rather than spending it - one good choice for you would be a Roth IRA)\\\"\",\n \"Your recruiter is likely trying to avoid having to pay the employer's side of employment taxes, and may even be trying to avoid having to file a 1099 for you by treating your relationship as a vendor/service provider that he is purchasing services from, which would make your pay just a business expense. It's definitely in his best interest for you to do it this way. Whether it's in your best interest is up to you. You should consult a licensed legal/tax professional to help you determine whether this is a good arrangement for you. (Most of the time, when someone starts playing tax avoidance games, they eventually get stung by it.) The next big question: If you already know this guy is a snake, why are you still working with him? If you don't trust him, why would you take legal/tax advice from him? He might land you a high-paying job. But he also might cause you years of headaches if his tax advice turns out to be flawed.\",\n \"you wouldn't have to pay income taxes on the portion for health insurance. think of high deductible health plans - the employer puts the deductible into a healthcare savings account which is tax free as long as it's for medical care. right now you can also deduct the portion of your overall expenses that are medical over a portion of your income. 2 issues with your idea, though - 1. right now, there are people who can't get health insurance except through an employer. send them out into the marketplace and they will get turned down. obamacare is supposed to fix this, but if Romney is elected, it will continue. 2. healthcare inflation rises much higher than regular inflation, so if your benefits were included as part of wages and you had to buy it on your own, you would face a continually decreasing amount of money over time to purchase healthcare - a spiral. this is the issue that many have with the voucher system the republicans are proposing for medicare - the voucher will rise at inflation, while healthcare rises much higher than inflation - right now I think it's a difference of 1% versus 8-9% off the top of my head. also, for many industries, it's in the best interest of the company to have a healthy workforce.\",\n \"The answer is simple. If your employer is offering you a discount, that is free money. You always take free money, always.\",\n \"I assume the OP is the US and that he is, like most people, a cash-basis tax payer and not an accrual basis tax payer. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying was reported as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms but the corresponding income tax was not withheld. If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion, then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Nor is the company entitled to withhold tax on this income for 2010 and 2011 at this time; the tax on that income has already been paid by the OP directly to the IRS and the company has nothing to do with the matter anymore. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying was NOT reported as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms. If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion, then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Should the OP have declared the value of the rental of the unit as additional income from his employer that was not reported on the W-2 form, and paid taxes on that money? Possibly, but it would be reasonable to argue that the OP did nothing wrong other than not checking his W-2 form carefully: he simply assumed the income numbers included the value of the rental and copied whatever the company-issued W-2 form said onto his 1040 form. At least as of now, there is no reason for the IRS to question his 2010 and 2011 returns because the numbers reported to the IRS on Copy A of the W-2 forms match the numbers reported by the OP on his tax returns. My guess is that the company discovered that it had not actually declared the value of the rental payments on the OP's W-2 forms for 2010 and 2011 and now wants to include this amount as income on subsequent W-2 forms. Now, reporting a lump-sum benefit of $38K (but no actual cash) would have caused a huge amount of income tax to need to be withheld, and the OP's next couple of paychecks might well have had zero take-home pay as all the money was going towards this tax withholding. Instead, the company is saying that it will report the $38K as income in 78 equal installments (weekly paychecks over 18 months?) and withhold $150 as the tax due on each installment. If it does not already do so, it will likely also include the value of the current rent as a benefit and withhold tax on that too. So the OP's take-home pay will reduce by $150 (at least) and maybe more if the current rental payments also start appearing on the paychecks and tax is withheld from them too. I will not express an opinion on the legality of the company withholding an additional $150 as tax from the OP's paycheck, but will suggest that the solution proposed by the company (have the money appear as taxable benefits over a 78-week period, have tax withheld, and declare the income on your 2012, 2013 and 2014 returns) is far more beneficial to the OP than the company declaring to the IRS that it made a mistake on the 2010 and 2011 W-2's issued to the OP, and that the actual income paid was higher. Not only will the OP have to file amended returns for 2010 and 2011 but the company will need to amend its tax returns too. In summary, the OP needs to know that He will have to pay taxes on the value of the waived rental payments for 2010 and 2011. The company's mistake in not declaring this as income to the OP for 2010 and 2011 does not absolve him of the responsibility for paying the taxes What the company is proposing is a very reasonable solution to the problem of recovering from the mistake. The alternative, as @mhoran_psprep points out, is to amend your 2010 and 2011 federal and state tax returns to declare the value of the rental during those years as additional income, and pay taxes (and possibly penalties) on the additional amount due. This takes the company completely out of the picture, but does require a lot more work and a lot more cash now rather than in the future.\",\n \"Your question begins with a misunderstanding. When you prepare your tax return (Form 1040/1040A/1040EZ) you always try to minimize your total tax bill. When you fill out form W4 you trying to estimate how much tax will be shown on next years tax return. The penalty for having too much tax withheld is not having the use of the money until you get a tax refund. At the moment interest rates are very low and your economic loss is the temporary loss of access to the money. One exception would be if you are carrying credit card debt. In that case you are, in effect, paying 20-30% interest to borrow money you lending to the US Treasury for 0% interest. The penalty for having too little tax withheld is having to make a large payment with your tax return. If your pre-payments aren't at least as much as your total income tax from last year there may also be modest underpayment penalty based on the difference between your pre-payments and your total income tax from last year or this year whichever is less. A large underpayment will trigger a different larger underpayemnt penalty. The W4 combined with the withholding rates tends to over-withhold income tax for most, but not all, taxpayers. Most people don't have enough savings to pay a large tax due, which leads to more penalties and an even larger bill. Over-witholding protects the overall tax system from the consequences of those events. People tend to be very unhappy, not quietly. On balance your greatest economic benefit depends on whether or not you have high interest debt. If you do, then accurate and even slightly under-withholding will probably work to your advantage as long as you can pay next 4/15. If not, avoiding the chance of having any unexpected balance due next year may be more important.\",\n \"\\\"Yes, there is a financial benefit, if and only if you can live on 24/26th of your salary. Thus, bi-weekly is 12/13 lower than a bi-monthly income. However, you now get a so-called \\\"\\\"extra\\\"\\\" paycheck twice a year. (We typically get them in March and October.) You can either spend those extra paychecks on \\\"\\\"hookers and blow\\\"\\\" or spend them wisely on things like accelerated debt repayment, home/car down payment, property taxes, etc, etc. HOWEVER... none of this really matters, since you don't control whether or not you're paid bi-weekly or semi-monthly.\\\"\",\n \"They are already indirectly paying these expenses. They should be built into your rates. The amount per job or per hour needs to cover what would have been your salary, plus the what would have been sick, vacation, holidays, health insurance, life insurance, disability, education, overhead for office expenses, cost of accountants...and all taxes. In many companies the general rule of thumb is that they need to charge a customer 2x the employees salary to cover all this plus make a profit. If this is a side job some of these benefits will come from your main job. Some self employed get some of these benefits from their spouse. The company has said we give you money for the work you perform, but you need to cover everything else including paying all taxes. Depending on where you live you might have to send money in more often then once a year. They are also telling you that they will be reporting the money they give you to the government so they can claim it as a business expense. So you better make sure you report it as income.\",\n \"If the employer provides housing to the employee, the employer has to identify whether it is taxable or not. If it is - the amounts would be added to the taxable income on your W2. All the withholding and FICA tax calculations will be performed based on that taxable income. If the employer fails to do that, and you get audited, you can be left on the hook for the unpaid taxes on the unreported income. In some cases, employee housing is a non-taxable fringe benefit, in others it is taxable. Your tax adviser will help identify which case applies to you. After you added in a comment that you're trying to see if you should be asking your boss to pay your personal expenses vs. giving you a raise - as I said in the comments, your personal expenses are not deductible neither for you nor for anyone else. If your boss pays your rent instead of a raise - its taxable income for you.\",\n \"I would not assume they would pay for any benefits. You will be responsible for paying entirely for health insurance and social security and Medicare. This move is most likely not in your best interests. At a minimum, I would charge double your current hourly rate and would charge for all hours worked including time and half for overtime. 3 times is actually probably a better choice if you want to cover holidays (which they will not pay you for), vacation time, etc. I know when I did project bids, we always priced at 2-3 times the salary we paid the employees.\",\n \"In addition to taking into account your deductions, as mentioned by @bstpierre, you also need to account for vacation, and other time off such as sick days. You also need to estimate what percentage of the year you expect to be working and pro-rate your salary accordingly. For example it is not uncommon to use 40 weeks out of the year which is about 77% of the time. Also check to see if you would be eligible for unemployment for the times you are not working. I suspect not. But in any case, you might want to use worst case scenario figures to see if it is worth it, especially in this economy.\",\n \"A 401k is pretty good, but it's not magic. Personally, I'd consider a 30k salary with a 401k and a 2k employer match less valuable than a 36k salary, let alone a 48k salary. If worried about retirement savings simply set up that IRA and put in the full 5.5k allowance.\",\n \"Yes. W4 determines how much your employer will withhold from your wages. Leaving everything at default would mean that your salary is your only taxable income, and you only take default deductions. Your employee will calculate your tax withholding based on that. But, if your salary is >200k, I assume that you have other income (investment/capital gains, interest on your bank account), which you will have to pay taxes on. You're probably going to have some deductible expenses (business/partnership expenses, mortgage interest, donations, college funds etc) as well. So it is very likely, unless you're really not smart about money, that you have more to do with your taxes than just the employers' withholding.\",\n \"No, even businesses pay taxes quarterly. So if you formed Nathan, LLC, or otherwise became self employed, you'd still have to file quarterly estimates and make tax payments. This would cause taxes to be a much more high touch part of your life. However, you should ensure that you're claiming the proper exemptions etc to avoid excessive withholding.\",\n \"Since you worked as an RA, the university should send you a W2 form. The taxable wages line in that form would be the sum of both the direct salary and employer paid benefits that are taxable. As such you should not need to do anything than enter the numbers that they provide you.\",\n \"\\\"I think Feral Oink said it well here when someone asked if they should negotiate for additional benefits in lieu of a portion of salary. \\\"\\\"You never want to take a lower salary, especially not in exchange for something that is conditional e.g. benefits. Your salary is the only thing that is guaranteed as a condition of employment. Other things can be changed by the employer at a future point in time.\\\"\\\" Does it make sense to take a lower salary so I can still contribute to a Roth IRA?\\\"\",\n \"One possibility that I use: I set up an LLC and get paid through that entity. Then I set up a payroll service through Bank of America and set up direct deposit so that it is free. I pay myself at 70% of my hourly rate based on the number of hours I work, and the payroll service does all the calculations for me and sets up the payments to the IRS. Typically money is left over in my business account. When tax time rolls around, I have a W2 from my LLC and a 1099 from the company I work for. I put the W2 into my personal income, and for the business I enter the revenue on the 1099 and the payroll expenses from paying myself; the left over in the business account is taxed as ordinary income. Maybe it's overkill, but setting up the LLC makes it possible to (a) set up a solo 401(k) and put up to $51k away tax-free, and (b) I can write off business expenses more easily.\",\n \"\\\"No, there aren't only 2 choices as I have a good job. In this case though, there are two options, either continue to have the \\\"\\\"bad jobs\\\"\\\" that this rich guys company is providing or he shuts down the company and there are no jobs at all. It's not a loaded question. I'd rather have a bad employer than no employer at all.\\\"\",\n \"Interesting. What is your view of this idea: institute a bonus program which allocates to each employee scrip proportionate to the number of dependents (plus 1 for themselves, of course); this scrip would be valid for one year and to earn it one needs meet some basic work requirements and can be used to purchase whatever goods and services the workers prefer. (This is only a rough description of what I have in mind. Feel free to ask questions for more details. I feel we have much to learn from each other on this topic.)\",\n \"I'm not business-savvy, but that seems like a very good idea. My wife works for a not-for-profit company, yet the CEO still makes $8,000,000 a year, *not* counting bonuses. I think in a for-profit, the CEO could easily afford to pay more employees to fill the gap made by decreasing the free labor he's used to.\",\n \"I'm an independent tech contractor in Canada. The single payer health care makes it so much easier to be a contractor or to create a startup. I have to wonder if the lack of healthcare in the US is the result of businesses trying to retain white collar workers that would otherwise go independent. In this environment, it's little surprise that I prefer getting those big cheques over getting benefits. Usually the benefit packages are little more than dental, many of which only provide partial coverage.\",\n \">Better for you and for me, yes, but not for the disadvantaged without benefactors. That's the situation I was in. That wasn't exactly my point. I'm all for helping people, and social security does help people, and I am very happy it helped you - I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that what you got from social security is not as good as what you would have got from a $500,000 - $1,000,000 term life insurance policy. For people in there 20s, in good health, that kind of policy should be $20-$40/month, which could easily be bought with the money we otherwise spend on social security. (Now... whether parents would actually be responsible enough to buy term life insurance and put money towards retirement if we didn't have social security is a WHOOOOOOOOOLE nother discussion.) That's all I'm saying - I'd rather buy term life and invest for my own retirement because me and my family will come out ahead of where social security will put us. I'm really not a financial wizard, and I have to believe that this type of plan would work well for everyone else, too.\",\n \"Forms 1099 and W2 are mutually exclusive. Employers file both, not the employees. 1099 is filed for contractors, W2 is filed for employees. These terms are defined in the tax code, and you may very well be employee, even though your employer pays you as a contractor and issues 1099. You may complain to the IRS if this is the case, and have them explain the difference to the employer (at the employer's expense, through fines and penalties). Employers usually do this to avoid providing benefits (and by the way also avoid paying payroll taxes). If you're working as a contractor, lets check your follow-up questions: where do i pay my taxes on my hourly that means does the IRS have a payment center for the tax i pay. If you're an independent contractor (1099), you're supposed to pay your own taxes on a quarterly basis using the form 1040-ES. Check this page for more information on your quarterly payments and follow the links. If you're a salaried employee elsewhere (i.e.: receive W2, from a different employer), then instead of doing the quarterly estimates you can adjust your salary withholding at that other place of work to cover for your additional income. To do that you submit an updated form W4 there, check with the payroll department on details. Is this a hobby tax No such thing, hobby income is taxed as ordinary income. The difference is that hobby cannot be at loss, while regular business activity can. If you're a contractor, it is likely that you're not working at loss, so it is irrelevant. what tax do i pay the city? does this require a sole proprietor license? This really depends on your local laws and the type of work you're doing and where you're doing it. Most likely, if you're working from your employer's office, you don't need any business license from the city (unless you have to be licensed to do the job). If you're working from home, you might need a license, check with the local government. These are very general answers to very general questions. You should seek a proper advice from a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for your specific case.\",\n \"\\\"If you're really a part-time worker, then there are some simple considerations.... The remote working environment, choice of own hours, and non-guarantee of work availability point to your \\\"\\\"part-time\\\"\\\" situation being more like a consultancy, and that would normally double or triple the gross hourly rate. But if they're already offering or paying you a low hourly figure, they are unlikely to give you consultant rates.\\\"\",\n \"The main advantage and disadvantage I can see in a scenario like this are - how savvy and good an investor are you? It's a good way to create below-market average returns if you're not that good at investing and returns way above market average if you are...\",\n \"How old are you? With $15k, I assume late twenties. Do you still use your credit cards? or is this just past accumulated debt? (paying them off will do you no good if you just run them back up again.) Does your employer match you contributions? How much? Are you fully vested in their contributions? In general, it is not a good idea, but under the right circumstances it isn't a bad idea.\",\n \"I am surprised no one has mentioned the two biggest things (in my opinion). Or I should say, the two biggest things to me. First, 1099 have to file quarterly self employment taxes. I do not know for certain but I have heard that often times you will end up paying more this way then even a W-2 employees. Second, an LLC allows you to deduct business expenses off the top prior to determining what you pay in taxes as pass-through income. With 1099 you pay the same taxes regardless of your business expenses unless they are specifically allowed as a 1099 contractor (which most are not I believe). So what you should really do is figure out the expense you incur as a result of doing your business and check with an accountant to see if those expenses would be deductible in an LLC and if it offsets a decent amount of your income to see if it would be worth it. But I have read a lot of books and listened to a lot of interviews about wealthy people and most deal in companies not contracts. Most would open a new business and add clients rather than dealing in 1099 contracts. Just my two cents... Good luck and much prosperity.\",\n \"\\\"It's correct. Be sure of your personal opportunity cost and not that you're letting the tax tail wag the dog just to score \\\"\\\"tax free\\\"\\\". Your upside is $3,700 (single) or $7,000 (married) in taxes saved until you're out of the 0% zone. Is that worth not receiving an income? Even if your savings are such that you don't need to work for income for a fiscal year, how would this affect the rest of your career and lifetime total earning prospects? Now, maybe: Otherwise, I'd hope you have solid contacts in your network who won't be fazed by a resume gap and be delighted to have a position open for you in 2019 (and won't give you the \\\"\\\"mother returning to the workforce\\\"\\\" treatment in salary negotiations).\\\"\",\n \"No, absolutely not. Income tax rates are marginal. The tax bracket's higher tax rate only applies to extra dollars over the threshold, not to dollars below it. The normal income tax does not have any cliffs where one extra dollar of income will cost more than one dollar in extra taxes. Moreover, you are ignoring the personal exemption and standard deduction. A gross salary of $72,000 is not the same as taxable income of $72,000. The deduction will generally be $12,200 and the exemptions will be $3,900 for you, your spouse, and any kids. So married-filing-jointly with the standard deduction will get an automatic $20,000 off of adjusted gross income when counting taxable income. So the appropriate taxable income is actually going to be more like $52,000. Note that getting your compensation package reshuffled may result in different tax treatment. But simply taking a smaller salary (rather than taking some compensation as stock options, health insurance, or fringe benefits), is not a money-saving move. Never do it.\",\n \"Everyone pays their personal income tax with funds from their employer; some of it through withholding, and the rest through the balance due at the time of filing. All that is happening here is that the company is calculating your personal tax return for you, and fiddling retroactively with the gross salary to yield a specific after-tax salary. One problem is that there is a lot of information I put in my return to earn deductions, that I would not care to tell my employer. The system would also appear to be contrary to public policy. Governments create tax deductions to give a larger income to those with socially acceptable expenses: health care, dependents, etc. The system you describe would give employees with such deductions a lower gross salary.\",\n \"Better for you and for me, yes, but not for the disadvantaged without benefactors. That's the situation I was in. I just wish social security wasn't spent on the elderly, when they have so little left to contribute to our society and economy, in terms of new business, growth, and constructing the future.\",\n \"Very good point. However, I would say stability. Say I could just continue doing this one the side of my regular job, couldn't I do both? Edit: I don't know why I keep getting down voted... I'm literally just asking valid questions.\",\n \"When you do your tax return, your total income from the year from all sources is added up. So you will need to include your employment income as well as your contractor income. Any tax taken off at source through PAYE will then be deducted from how there is to pay. So whether you pay the tax or your employer pays it, it should end up the same, although the timing will differ. There will be differences in National Insurance treatment, and you don't necessarily have a free option to choose which happens - the nature of your relationship may mean you have to be classed as either employed or self-employed under HMRC rules.\",\n \"I had a similar decision to make. I got offered a modest salary near Philly, or a better salary plus a nice bonus in New York. I chose New York. I'm loving it so far but who knows what will happen. I'm actually saving a lot of money as I automatically have it deduct from my paycheck and disperse into several savings accounts. I guess it's different for everyone and you have to consider your situation before applying a blanket advice\",\n \"\\\"I feel that getting money sooner than later is always advantageous. If I offered you the choice between getting: Which option would you take? I would take the last option. And for the same reason, from a purely-numbers point of view, I would argue that getting paid biweekly is preferable (assuming the the annual salary is pro-rated fairly, and barring any compulsive spending habits). Your calculations suggest to me that they are trying to answer the question, \\\"\\\"Looking at a single year or month (or some other fixed amount of time) in a vacuum, is there any financial benefit to being paid bi-weekly over monthly?\\\"\\\". The analysis seems to be focusing on comparing the two pay schedules on a month-by-month basis, noting when one is paid bi-weekly, some months you get paid more times than the other. However, one could also compare the two pay schedules on a fortnight-by-fortnight basis, and note that when one is paid monthly, many fortnights you don't get paid at all, and some you get paid a lot. Or one could compare the two pay schedules on an hour-by-hour basis, too. But in the long run, the money adds up to be the same amount. I prefer getting it as soon as I can.\\\"\",\n \"On what basis are you not employee? You should probably get some tax/legal advice, but generally J1 internship is by definition employment. You should also check the tax treaty between the US and Ireland, if there's one, and check what it says about training related income. You may find a pleasant surprise there. Most universities have support for international students/visiting scholars, check the international students' office at your school.\",\n \"I would go with option B. That is safer, as it would leave you with more options, in case of an unexpected job loss or an emergency.\",\n \"\\\"I think there's a sub~~ject~~ for this financialcareers or something. I'll just say, as your career goes on, every \\\"\\\"next\\\"\\\" place you interview for will ask what your last salary was and partly base their offer on that. So taking a job like this that bumps you up considerably pays off for every other job you get down the road.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"My answer has nothing to do with tax brackets or mathematics (I'm taking advantage of the leeway your question allowed), but rather it has to do with career goals and promotion. Large companies often have large \\\"\\\"Policies & Procedures\\\"\\\" booklets to go with them. One policy that sometimes exists which would make it a bad idea to accept a raise is: Employee cannot be given more than one salary increase in a 12-month period This means that if you accept a standard-of-living or merit increase of say, 2% or 3% in April, and then you apply for a job that would otherwise warrant a pay grade increase, you may be forced to wait until the following year to get bumped to the proper pay grade. Of course, this totally depends on the company, but it would be advisable to check your company's H.R. policy on that, if you're considering a move (even a lateral one) in the future.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"It seems that you think you are freelancing, and they think you are an employee. What's bad for you, the tax office will also think you are an employee if they withhold tax for you. Alternatively, they think you are stupid, and they keep the money, but are actually not paying it to the tax office at all, in which case you will have a bad surprise when you do your tax returns. First, I'd ask them for proof that they are indeed paying these taxes into some account related to you. I'd then ask a tax adviser for some serious advice. If they are acting out of incompetence and not out of malice, then you should be mostly fine, but your work there will count as employment. Heaven knows why they treat you as an employee. Check your contract with them; whether it is between you and them or your company and them. It maybe that they never hired a contractor and believe that they have to pay employment tax. They don't. If your company sends them a bill, then they need to pay that bill, 100% of it, and that's it. Taxes are fully your business and your responsibility. As \\\"\\\"quid\\\"\\\" said, if they say they are withholding tax, then at the very least there must be a paystub that proves they have actually been paying these taxes. If they withhold taxes, and there is no paystub, then this looks like a criminal attempt to cheat you. If they have actually paid taxes properly into your account, then they are merely creating a mess that can hopefully be fixed. But it is probably complicated enough that you need a tax advisor, even if you had none before, since instead of paying to your company, they paid some money to the company, and some to you personally.\\\"\",\n \"Here in Germany there is a special case. I am studying (and working a little on the side) and still receiving child benefits from the state which is like 190€/m. Because I am getting this I don't have to pay tuition which is 1k/y. If my side income would get over the boundary (which is like 9k/y) I would lose those benefits (~3.3k) and would have to pay insurance myself (I dont know how much that would be. 50-100/m I guess.) So getting a raise from 8k to 10k sounds nice as it is a 25% raise, but it actually means getting less.\",\n \"I had better healthcare when I had a full time job and the company provided it until ACA came around and the company changed the majority of full time positions to part time. Now I have two part time jobs and ACA healthcare with a high premium and insanely high deductible. Is that supposed to be good?\",\n \"If you are in the US and a regular employee, this will have to show up on your year-end W2 form as income. If it doesn't, there is some funky accounting business going and you should probably consult a professional for advice.\",\n \"No. Even if you don't need the additional salary income now, you might be able to contribute the incremental amount over the Roth max to either of the other two types of IRAs, or maybe even something else. You never want to take a lower salary, especially not in exchange for something that is conditional e.g. benefits. Your salary is the only thing that is guaranteed as a condition of employment. Other things can be changed by the employer at a future point in time. If you have two different job offers and the salaries are different, that is a separate scenario. You should make the decision based on overall comparison, not just using Roth limit contribution criteria.\",\n \">But suppose all the employers do this, so now there are no employer-provided health plans, Which means the insurance bought by employees must get a whole lot cheaper, I guess, as there would be direct competition and lots of shopping around. >, and ten or twenty years down the line they've all just taken advantage so that wages haven't kept up So the employers suddenly don't need to compete on the employee marketplace? I mean in times with high unemployment not, but this is orthogonal to this - in times with high unemployment they don't need to compete with benefits either, I guess? Although in reality I agree with you, let me offer a different but supporting perspective: it is much easier to haggle a salary than to haggle anything else. I've always lived in European countries with different amounts of government-mandated paid holidays and I have never ever heard of a person who succesfully haggled a week of extra holiday in his package, or a VIP-level additional private health insurance above the basic social-security-paid one (the one that gets people more comfortable hospital rooms and better hospital food etc. - if people buy it here, they always buy it privately, not by the employer), or really anything but money. The only extra I ever heard about is the private usage of a company car, and even that is rare, and that has more to do with easier accounting than anything else. Sometimes people get lunch tickets, but that is usually because they are tax-free. I don't know why, but it seems to be the general law: either the government mandates some non-monetary benefit, or the employer decides to provide it because of competition, but people privately can pretty much never haggle for it, not even when they are badly needed. Strange. A possible explanation: business are used to buying stuff with a simple monetary price. As a buyer, you have no other responsibilities than to pay. For example a programming company will not demand that the client gives them a detailed specification, they will gladly write one, for a price. So if anyone comes and tries to sell something, and wants anything else but money, it gets weird. And I figure it is the same for employees.\",\n \"After reading OP Mark's question and the various answers carefully and also looking over some old pay stubs of mine, I am beginning to wonder if he is mis-reading his pay stub or slip of paper attached to the reimbursement check for the item(s) he purchases. Pay stubs (whether paper documents attached to checks or things received in one's company mailbox or available for downloading from a company web site while the money is deposited electronically into the employee's checking account) vary from company to company, but a reasonably well-designed stub would likely have categories such as Taxable gross income for the pay period: This is the amount from which payroll taxes (Federal and State income tax, Social Security and Medicare tax) are deducted as well as other post-tax deductions such as money going to purchase of US Savings Bonds, contributions to United Way via payroll deduction, contribution to Roth 401k etc. Employer-paid group life insurance premiums are taxable income too for any portion of the policy that exceeds $50K. In some cases, these appear as a lump sum on the last pay stub for the year. Nontaxable gross income for the pay period: This would be sum total of the amounts contributed to nonRoth 401k plans, employee's share of group health-care insurance premiums for employee and/or employee's family, money deposited into FSA accounts, etc. Net pay: This is the amount of the attached check or money sent via ACH to the employee's bank account. Year-to-date amounts: These just tell the employee what has been earned/paid/withheld to date in the various categories. Now, OP Mark said My company does not tax the reimbursement but they do add it to my running gross earnings total for the year. So, the question is whether the amount of the reimbursement is included in the Year-to-date amount of Taxable Income. If YTD Taxable Income does not include the reimbursement amount, then the the OP's question and the answers and comments are moot; unless the company has really-messed-up (Pat. Pending) payroll software that does weird things, the amount on the W2 form will be whatever is shown as YTD Taxable Income on the last pay stub of the year, and, as @DJClayworth noted cogently, it is what will appear on the W2 form that really matters. In summary, it is good that OP Mark is taking the time to investigate the matter of the reimbursements appearing in Total Gross Income, but if the amounts are not appearing in the YTD Taxable Income, his Payroll Office may just reassure him that they have good software and that what the YTD Taxable Income says on the last pay stub is what will be appearing on his W2 form. I am fairly confident that this is what will be the resolution of the matter because if the amount of the reimbursement was included in Taxable Income during that pay period and no tax was withheld, then the employer has a problem with Social Security and Medicare tax underwithholding, and nonpayment of this tax plus the employer's share to the US Treasury in timely fashion. The IRS takes an extremely dim view of such shenanigans and most employers are unlikely to take the risk.\",\n \"Unless you make those investments inside a tax-deferred account, you will have to pay income-taxes on that money this year. Because you made that money through your own business, you will also have payroll taxes due on that money this year.\",\n \"\\\"J - Approaching the answer from the W4 perspective (for calculation purposes) may be more trouble that it's worth. I'd strongly suggest you use tax software, whether it's the 2016 SW or a current year one, on line, to get an estimate of your total tax bill for the year. You can then look at your current run rate of tax paid in to see if you are on track. If you have a large shortfall, you can easily adjust your withholdings. If you are on track to get a large refund, make the adjustment so next year will track better. Note, a withholding allowance is equal to a personal exemption. Some think that \\\"\\\"4\\\"\\\" means 4 people in the house, but it actually means \\\"\\\"don't tax 4 x $4050\\\"\\\" as I have $16200 in combined people or tax deductions.\\\"\",\n \"In your situation I would get out my spreadsheet, estimate what I would be making and how that compares to my current market wage, and go from there. At the end of the day it is your decision, hope I have helped you by asking questions. Goodluck mate!\",\n \"\\\"It depends on how big the dilution is. Could be a good trade. Do the math yourself, many times nobody else has as all the employees think they are going to get rich because \\\"\\\"options\\\"\\\" :)\\\"\",\n \"Checkout the worksheet on page 20 of Pub 535. Also the text starting in the last half of the third column of page 18 onward. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p535.pdf The fact that you get a W-2 is irrelevant as far as I can see. Your self-employment business has to meet some criteria (such as being profitable) and the plan needs to be provided through your own business (although if you're sole proprietor filing on Schedule C, it looks like having it in your own name does the trick). Check the publication for all of the rules. There is this exception that would prevent many people with full-time jobs on W-2 from taking the deduction: Other coverage. You cannot take the deduction for any month you were eligible to participate in any employer (including your spouse's) subsidized health plan at any time during that month, even if you did not actually participate. In addition, if you were eligible for any month or part of a month to participate in any subsidized health plan maintained by the employer of either your dependent or your child who was under age 27 at the end of 2014, do not use amounts paid for coverage for that month to figure the deduction. (Pages 20-21). Sounds like in your case, though, this doesn't apply. (Although your original question doesn't mention a spouse, which might be relevant to the rule if you have one and he/she works.) The publication should help. If still in doubt, you'll probably need a CPA or other professional to assess your individual situation.\",\n \"You'd be moving from 33.5K of taxable income + 16.5K of untaxable income, to 65K of taxable income (worst case). So the question is whether the net from the extra 31.5K of taxable income is more than the 16.5K, and since marginal tax rates in the relevant brackets are no more than 32% according to the table you posted (22% federal and 10% provincial), it's definitely a win to move jobs. More precisely, the marginal tax rate is 25% on the first 8044 (41544-33500) and 32% on the rest, making for total extra tax of about 9.5K and thus net income (beyond the 33.5K baseline) of 22K. Compared to the 16.5K this leaves you 5.5K up. If you end up at the 70K end, you're another 3.4K up beyond that.\",\n \"In the US we have social security taxes, where for a full time employee the company pays half and the employee pays half. When you work as a business, what we call 1099 for the form that the wages are reported on, then the contractor pays the full amount of social security tax. There are times when a contractor can negotiate a higher rate because the company does not have to pay that tax. However, most of the time the company just prefers to negotiate the rate based on your value. If you are a 60K year guy, then that is what they will pay you. From the company's perspective it does not matter what your tax rate is, only the value you can bring to the company. If you can add about 180K to the bottom line, then they will be happy to pay you 60K, and you should be happy to get it. Here in the US a contractor can expect to make about 7.5% more of an equivalent employee because of the social security tax savings to the company. However, not all companies are willing to provide that in compensation. Some companies see the legal and administrative costs of employees as normal, and the same costs with contractors as extra so they don't perceive a cost savings. There are other things that would preclude employers from giving the bump although it is logical to do so. First you will really have to feel out your employer for the attitude on the subject. Then I would make a logical case if they are open to providing extra compensation in return for tax savings. If I am an employee at 60K, you would also have to pay the government 18K. How about you pay me 75K as a contractor instead? That would be a great deal for all in the US.\",\n \"Many countries have employers report their employees' salaries and withhold some money for income tax purposes (it's called “pay as you earn”, “withholding taxes” or taxing “at the source”). Often the system is designed in such a way that most people actually pay too much and can get money back at the end of the year. In that case, the salary you receive can certainly be considered a “net salary”. Depending on the tax system, individuals might need to file a separate tax returns to report any other income (investments, rents, whatever) or benefit from tax incentives but it can also be optional. If you live in such a country and your situation is simple enough that there are no applicable deductibles, you might simply choose to forgo it and let your employer take care of everything.\",\n \"Not correct. First - when you say they don't tax the reimbursement, they are classifying it in a way that makes it taxable to you (just not withholding tax at that time). In effect, they are under-withholding, if these reimbursement are high enough, you'll have not just a tax bill, but penalties for not paying enough all year. My reimbursements do not produce any kind of pay stub, they are a direct deposit, and are not added to my income, not as they occur, nor at year end on W2. Have you asked them why they handle it this way? It's wrong, and it's costing you.\",\n \"\\\"I agree. Job offered benefits were implemented to entice people to work for their company when the demand for good workers was higher than the supply. Now people expect benefits and the govt has also took it upon itself to mandate employers provide medical benefits. One way around this is to higher part time workers to keep costs down. So basically the governments \\\"\\\"good intentions\\\"\\\" of helping the masses will actually cause more harm directly to the people it was supposed to help.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Exactly. I'll \\\"\\\"retire\\\"\\\" from teaching in two years and will be given the chance to take half of my retirement in one lump sum payment and take home $1,000 a month, or take nothing and bring home 2,000 a month. The other thing to remember is the 30% tax payment that next April. That's tough. This looks like a no-brainer because in just seven years, I'd eclipse the cash out. However, I might do it because I'll take the money and possibly pay off a rental home. With a rental, I'll be able to raise the rent if inflation kicks in. Of course, if deflation continues, that might be a bad move. The thing is, I'll be able to decide.\\\"\",\n \"The benefits and taxes thing, in my opinion is the biggie. Most people don't realize that the cost to the company for a full-time employee with benefits can be 2x or even 3x the amount they see in their paycheck. Health plans are extremely expensive. Even if you are having money taken from your check for health insurance, it is often just a fraction of the total cost, and the employer is subsidizing the rest. More expensive benefits that contractors don't typically get are 401K matches and paid vacation days. When contractors call in sick or don't work because it is a national holiday, they don't get paid for that day. Also, see that line on your paycheck deducting for Social security and Medicare? That is only half of the tax. The employer pays an equal amount that is not shown on that statement. Also, they pay taxes that go towards unemployment benefits , and may be required to pay higher taxes if they churn through a lot of full-time employees. You can usually let contractors go with relative impunity . For the unemployment tax reasons, not paying for people's days off or benefits, a lot less paperwork, and less risk to the business associated with committing to full-time employees all provide value to the company. Thus companies are willing to pay more because they are getting more. Think of it like a cell phone-contract. If you commit to a three year contract it can be a pain/expensive to get out of the deal early, but you will probably get a better rate in exchange for the risk being shifted to your end of the deal.\",\n \"It depends on where you are in life, and where you want to be at some point in the future, and the taxes, expenses and income at those points in your life. You don't get a mortgage to save on taxes, or keep a mortgage to save on taxes. But if somebody said they want to have the house paid off before they retire, that sounds to me like a great plan. They do need to balance it with saving for retirement, emergency fund, and college costs for themselves or their children. Without having the whole picture it is impossible to say doing X is always a good idea.\",\n \"\\\"Assuming the numbers work out roughly the same (and you can frankly whip up a spreadsheet to prove that out), a defined benefit scheme that pays out an amount equal to an annuitized return from a 401(k) is better. The reason is not monetary - it is that the same return is being had at less risk. Put another way, if your defined benefit was guaranteed to be $100/month, and your 401(k) had a contribution that eventually gets to a lump sum that, if annuitized for the same life expectancy gave you $100/month, the DB is better because there is less chance that you won't see the money. Or, put even simpler, which is more likely? That New York goes Bankrupt and is relieved of all pension obligations, or, the stock market underperforms expectations. Neither can be ruled out, but assuming even the same benefit, lower risk is better. Now, the complication in your scenario is that your new job pays better. As such, it is possible that you might be able to accumulate more savings in your 401(k) than you might in the DB scheme. Then again, even with the opportunity to do so, there is no guarantee that you will. As such, even modelling it out really isn't going to dismiss the key variables. As such, can I suggest a different approach? Which job is going to make you happier now? Part of that may be money, part of that may be what you are actually doing. But you should focus on that question. The marginal consideration of retirement is really moot - in theory, an IRA contribution can be made that would equalize your 401(k), negating it from the equation. Grant you, there is very slightly different tax treatment, and the phaseout limits differ, but at the salary ranges you are looking at, you could, in theory, make decisions that would have the same retirement outcome in any event. The real question is then not, \\\"\\\"What is the effect in 20 years?\\\"\\\" but rather, which makes you happier now?\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I agree to some degree, but I've gotten very jaded over the past 25 years. You could have the best boss in the world, be working on a fantastic project, have a solid career path, and they'll still throw you out like yesterday's trash if anyone says \\\"\\\"recession\\\"\\\" So my philosophy is more tactical (month to month) than strategic (build a career). And it's rooted in this: >I believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work Except that I've come to believe in a fair hour's pay for a fair hour's work, because on salary it seems that a \\\"\\\"fair day's work\\\"\\\" is never less than eight hours but frequently more. Put in twelve hours on a project in crunch time? Here's your standard eight hours pay. Work Saturday on something that saves the company fifteen million dollars? Here are two vouchers for dinner at the Outback Steakhouse and we'll see you Monday morning.\\\"\",\n \"Self employment is typically harder to qualify with than W2 income. In general the bank is going to want 2 years of tax returns. You will be asked to sign a 4506-T that allows the bank to get the records directly from the IRS. Self employment income will be averaged across the 2 years, I don't think a 20% drop in profits is large enough to cause concern but it might. I would plan on being able borrow against the lowest year just in case. If you get a W2 job you will be able to count the income immediately assuming it is not a temporary position. The bank will ask for the offer letter. If you have decent credit and 20% down, you should be able to get a mortgage either way. A W2 is typically less paperwork and you would get to claim your current income assuming that is higher than your past income.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["It's hard to answer without knowing all of the details (i.e. what was your salary for each of the options), but I think you probably made a good choice. 1099: Would have required you to pay self-employment tax, but also would have allowed you to deduct business expenses. W2 with benefits: Likely would have been beneficial if you needed healthcare (since group plans can be cheaper than individual plans, and healthcare payments aren't taxed), but if you don't use the healthcare, that would have been a waste. W2, no benefits: Assuming your salary here falls between the 1099 and the W2 with benefits, it seems like a good compromise for your situation."],"string":"[\n \"It's hard to answer without knowing all of the details (i.e. what was your salary for each of the options), but I think you probably made a good choice. 1099: Would have required you to pay self-employment tax, but also would have allowed you to deduct business expenses. W2 with benefits: Likely would have been beneficial if you needed healthcare (since group plans can be cheaper than individual plans, and healthcare payments aren't taxed), but if you don't use the healthcare, that would have been a waste. W2, no benefits: Assuming your salary here falls between the 1099 and the W2 with benefits, it seems like a good compromise for your situation.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":171,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"6420"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Does the bid/ask concept exist in dealer markets?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["565568","127452"],"string":"[\n \"565568\",\n \"127452\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["565568","127452","580364","585552","558566","316838","151391","284235","208070","394244","501748","184051","164008","413041","528494","163333","505244","78053","382067","177926","351011","79766","137984","137175","112714","543927","49782","146125","87065","186392","447562","213938","122323","519291","175831","179258","507357","402482","169062","69197","118389","373862","554207","183419","508144","459052","294867","7561","396844","92109","251100","294295","417365","294522","53041","280172","322798","281844","28604","43432","412223","434596","579244","307155","58565","494727","43219","129806","448476","298551","19196","379759","124205","95010","503075","506617","131403","66210","442048","201361","280168","535525","224672","212685","35340","228983","224725","557770","571116","560558","353396","427747","110162","502607","525231","584295","498885","310636","21376","105343"],"string":"[\n \"565568\",\n \"127452\",\n \"580364\",\n \"585552\",\n \"558566\",\n \"316838\",\n \"151391\",\n \"284235\",\n \"208070\",\n \"394244\",\n \"501748\",\n \"184051\",\n \"164008\",\n \"413041\",\n \"528494\",\n \"163333\",\n \"505244\",\n \"78053\",\n \"382067\",\n \"177926\",\n \"351011\",\n \"79766\",\n \"137984\",\n \"137175\",\n \"112714\",\n \"543927\",\n \"49782\",\n \"146125\",\n \"87065\",\n \"186392\",\n \"447562\",\n \"213938\",\n \"122323\",\n \"519291\",\n \"175831\",\n \"179258\",\n \"507357\",\n \"402482\",\n \"169062\",\n \"69197\",\n \"118389\",\n \"373862\",\n \"554207\",\n \"183419\",\n \"508144\",\n \"459052\",\n \"294867\",\n \"7561\",\n \"396844\",\n \"92109\",\n \"251100\",\n \"294295\",\n \"417365\",\n \"294522\",\n \"53041\",\n \"280172\",\n \"322798\",\n \"281844\",\n \"28604\",\n \"43432\",\n \"412223\",\n \"434596\",\n \"579244\",\n \"307155\",\n \"58565\",\n \"494727\",\n \"43219\",\n \"129806\",\n \"448476\",\n \"298551\",\n \"19196\",\n \"379759\",\n \"124205\",\n \"95010\",\n \"503075\",\n \"506617\",\n \"131403\",\n \"66210\",\n \"442048\",\n \"201361\",\n \"280168\",\n \"535525\",\n \"224672\",\n \"212685\",\n \"35340\",\n \"228983\",\n \"224725\",\n \"557770\",\n \"571116\",\n \"560558\",\n \"353396\",\n \"427747\",\n \"110162\",\n \"502607\",\n \"525231\",\n \"584295\",\n \"498885\",\n \"310636\",\n \"21376\",\n \"105343\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"The Auction Market is where investors such you and me, as well as Market Makers, buy and sell securities. The Auction Markets operate with the familiar bid-ask pricing that you see on financial pages such as Google and Yahoo. The Market Makers are institutions that are there to provide liquidity so that investors can easily buy and sell shares at a \"\"fair\"\" price. Market Makers need to have on hand a suitable supply of shares to meet investor demands. When Market Makers feel the need to either increase or decrease their supply of a particular security quickly, they turn to the Dealer Market. In order to participate in a Dealer Market, you must be designated a Market Maker. As noted already, Market Makers are dedicated to providing liquidity for the Auction Market in certain securities and therefore require that they have on hand a suitable supply of those securities which they support. For example, if a Market Maker for Apple shares is low on their supply of Apple shares, then will go the Dealer Market to purchase more Apple shares. Conversely, if they are holding what they feel are too many Apple shares, they will go to the Dealer Market to sell Apple shares. The Dealer Market does operate on a bid-ask basis, contrary to your stated understanding. The bid-ask prices quoted on the Dealer Market are more or less identical to those on the Auction Market, except the quote sizes will be generally much larger. This is the case because otherwise, why would a Market Maker offer to sell shares to another Market Maker at a price well below what they could themselves sell them for in the Auction Market. (And similarly with buy orders.) If Market Makers are generally holding low quantities of a particular security, this will drive up the price in both the Dealer Market and the Auction Market. Similarly, if Market Makers are generally holding too much of a particular security, this may drive down prices on both the Auction Market and the Dealer Market.\"","\"Why would there not be a bid and ask? Dealers make their money in the spread between what they buy it from one entity for and what they sell it to another entity for. This doesn't mean they have to do it auction-style, but they'll still have a different buy price from a sell price, hence \"\"bid\"\" and \"\"ask\"\".\"","\"This is a misconception. One of the explanations is that if you buy at the ask price and want to sell it right away, you can only sell at the bid price. This is incorrect. There are no two separate bid and ask prices. The price you buy (your \"\"bid\"\") is the same price someone else sells (their \"\"sell\"\"). The same goes when you sell - the price you sell at is the price someone else buys. There's no spread with stocks. Emphasized it on purpose, because many people (especially those who gamble on stock exchange without knowing what they're doing) don't understand how the stock market works. On the stock exchange, the transaction price is the match between the bid price and the ask price. Thus, on any given transaction, bid always equals ask. There's no spread. There is spread with commodities (if you buy it directly, especially), contracts, mutual funds and other kinds of brokered transactions that go through a third party. The difference (spread) is that third party's fee for assuming part of the risk in the transaction, and is indeed added to your cost (indirectly, in the way you described). These transactions don't go directly between a seller and a buyer. For example, there's no buyer when you redeem some of your mutual fund - the fund pays you money. So the fund assumes certain risk, which is why there's a spread in the prices to invest and to redeem. Similarly with commodities: when you buy a gold bar - you buy it from a dealer, who needs to keep a stock. Thus, the dealer will not buy from you at the same price: there's a premium on sale and a discount on buy, which is a spread, to compensate the dealer for the risk of keeping a stock.\"","\"When I first started working in finance I was given a rule of thumb to decide which price you will get in the market: \"\"You will always get the worst price for your deal, so when buying you get the higher ask price and when selling you get the lower bid price.\"\" I like to think of it in terms of the market as a participant who always buys at the lowest price they can (i.e. buys from you) and sells at the highest price they can. If that weren't true there would be an arbitrage opportunity and free money never exists for long.\"","Yes, but also note each exchange have rules that states various conditions when the market maker can enlarge the bid-ask (e.g. for situations such as freely falling markets, etc.) and when the market makers need to give a normal bid-ask. In normal markets, the bid-asks are usually within exchange dictated bounds. MM's price spread can be larger than bid-ask spread only when there are multiple market makers and different market makers are providing different bid-asks. As long as the MM under question gives bid and ask within exchange's rules, it can be fine. These are usually rare situations. One advice: please carefully check the time-stamps. I have seen many occasions when tick data time-stamps between different vendors are mismatched in databases whereas in real life it isn't. MM's profits not just from spreads, but also from short term mean-reversion (fading). If a large order comes in suddenly, the MM increases the prices in one direction, takes the opposite side, and once the order is done, the prices comes down and the MM off-loads his imbalance at lower prices, etc.","\"The answer posted by Kirill Fuchs is incorrect according to my series 65 text book and practice question answers. The everyday investor buys at the ask and sells at the bid but the market maker does the opposite. THE MARKET MAKER \"\"BUYS AT THE BID AND SELLS AT THE ASK\"\", he makes a profit form the spread. I have posted a quiz question and the answer created by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). To fill a customer buy order for 800 WXYZ shares, your firm requests a quote from a market maker. The response is \"\"bid 15, ask 15.25.\"\" If the order is placed, the market maker must sell: A) 800 shares at $15.25 per share. B) 800 shares at $15 per share. C) 100 shares at $15.25 per share. D) 800 shares at no more than $15 per share. Your answer, sell 800 shares at $15.25 per share., was correct!. A market maker is responsible for honoring a firm quote. If no size is requested by the inquiring trader, a quote is firm for 100 shares. In this example, the trader requested an 800-share quote, so the market maker is responsible for selling 8 round lots of 100 shares at the ask price of $15.25 per share.\"","Your assets are marked to market. If you buy at X, and the market is bidding at 99.9% * X then you've already lost 0.1%. This is a market value oriented way of looking at costs. You could always value your assets with mark to model, and maybe you do, but no one else will. Just because you think the stock is worth 2*X doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees, evidenced by the bid. You surely won't get any margin loans based upon mark to model. Your bankers won't be convinced of the valuation of your assets based upon mark to model. By strictly a market value oriented way of valuing assets, there is a bid/ask cost. more clarification Relative to littleadv, this is actually a good exposition between the differences between cash and accrual accounting. littleadv is focusing completely on the cash cost of the asset at the time of transaction and saying that there is no bid/ask cost. Through the lens of cash accounting, that is 100% correct. However, if one uses accrual accounting marking assets to market (as we all do with marketable assets like stocks, bonds, options, etc), there may be a bid/ask cost. At the time of transaction, the bids used to trade (one's own) are exhausted. According to exchange rules that are now practically uniform: the highest bid is given priority, and if two bids are bidding the exact same highest price then the oldest bid is given priority; therefore the oldest highest bid has been exhausted and removed at trade. At the time of transaction, the value of the asset cannot be one's own bid but the highest oldest bid leftover. If that highest oldest bid is lower than the price paid (even with liquid stocks this is usually the case) then one has accrued a bid/ask cost.","\"EVERYONE buys at the ask price and sells at the bid price (no matter who you are). There are a few important things you need to understand. Example: EVE bid: 16.00 EVE ask: 16.25 So if your selling EVE at \"\"market price\"\" you are entering an ask equal to the highest bid ($16.00). If you buy EVE at \"\"market price\"\" you are entering a bid equal to the lowest ask price ($16.25). Its key to understand this rule: \"\"An order executes ONLY when both bid and ask meet. (bid = ask).\"\" So a market maker puts in a bid when he wants to buy but the trade only executes when an ASK price meets his BID price. When you see a quote for a stock it is the price of the last trade. So it is possible to have a quote higher or lower then both the bid and the ask.\"","I think your confusion has arisen because in every transaction there is a buyer and a seller, so the market maker buys you're selling, and when you're buying the market maker is selling. Meaning they do in fact buy at the ask price and sell at the bid price (as the quote said).","Bid and ask prices are the reigning highest buy price and lowest sell price in the market which doesn't mean one must only buy/sell at thise prices. That said one can buy/sell at whatever price they so wish although doing it at any other price than the bid/ask is usually harder as other market participants will gravitate to the reigning bid/ask price. So in theory you can buy at ask and sell at bid, whether or not your order will be filled is another matter altogether.","To add a bit to Daniel Anderson's great answer, if you want to 'peek' at what a the set of bid and ask spreads looks like, the otc market page could be interesting (NOTE: I'm NOT recommending that you trade Over The Counter. Many of these stocks are amusingly scary): http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/ACBFF/quote You can see market makers essentially offering to buy or sell blocks of stock at a variety of prices.","The point is that the bid and ask prices dictate what you can buy and sell at (at market, at least), and the difference between the two, or spread, contributes implicitly to your gains or losses. For example, say your $1 stock actually had a bid of $0.90 and an ask of $1.10; i.e. say that $1 was the last price. You would have to buy the stock at the ask price of $1.10, but now you can only sell that stock at the bid price of $0.90. Thus, you would need to make at least that $0.20 spread before you can make a profit.","The everyday investor buys at the ask and sells at the bid but the market maker does the opposite This is misleading; it has nothing to do with being either an investor or a market maker. It is dependent on the type of order that is submitted. When a market trades at the ask, this means that a buy market order has interacted with a sell limit order at the limit price. When a market trades at the bid, this means that a sell market order has interacted with a buy limit order at the limit price. An ordinary investor can do exactly the same as a market maker and submit limit orders. Furthermore, they can sit on both sides of the bid and ask exactly as a market maker does. In the days before high frequency trading this was quite common (an example being Daytek, whose traders were notorious for stepping in front of the designated market maker's bid/ask on the Island ECN). An order executes ONLY when both bid and ask meet. (bid = ask) This is completely incorrect. A transaction occurs when an active (marketable) order is matched with a passive (limit book) order. If the passive order is a sell limit then the trade has occurred at the ask, and if it is a buy limit the trade has occurred at the bid. The active orders are not bids and asks. The only exception to this would be if the bid and ask have become crossed. When a seller steps in, he does so with an ask that's lower than the stock's current ask Almost correct; he does so with an order that's lower than the stock's current ask. If it's a marketable order it will fill the front queued best bid, and if it's a limit order his becomes the new ask price. A trade does not need to occur at this price for it to become the ask. This is wrong, market makers are the opposite party to you so the prices are the other way around for them. This is wrong. There is no distinction between the market maker and yourself or any other member of the public (beside the fact that designated market makers on some exchanges are obliged to post both a bid and ask at all times). You can open an account with any broker and do exactly the same as a market maker does (although with nothing like the speed that a high frequency market-making firm can, hence likely making you uncompetitive in this arena). The prices a market maker sees and the types of orders that they are able to use to realize them are exactly the same as for any other trader.","Market Makers are essentially just there to process the buys and sells of traders, so just like you and I buy and sell at the ask and bid prices they do to. They are just completing the process of making our orders a reality. Market makers are just representative of brokers, meaning that when you place your order at ask or bid, you are placing that particular brokers order at ask or bid. People often say that certain brokers have too many shares and claim that they are games when really that just means that there happen to be a lot of people using a particular broker all at once, or more troubling, perhaps even company execs using a broker, to sell a large amount of shares.","1. Rebate 2. Bid-Ask spread 3. Tactically increasing/decreasing inventory based on their view of the market 4. Picking off idiot traders (OTC markets, basically not passing orders on to the market when the counterparty has a low performance history).","Yes for every order there is a buyer and seller. But overall there are multiple buyers and multiple sellers. So every trade is at a different price and this price is agreed by both buyer and seller. Related question will help you understand this better. How do exchanges match limit orders?","\"- In a quote driven market, must every investor trade with a market maker? In other words, two parties that are both not market makers cannot trade between themselves directly? In a way yes, all trades go through a market maker but those trades can be orders put in place by a \"\"person\"\" IE: you, or me. - Does a quote driven market only display the \"\"best\"\" bid and ask prices proposed by the market makers? In other words, only the highest bid price among all the market makers is displayed, and other lower bid prices by other market makers are not? Similarly, only the lowest ask price over all market makers is displayed, and other higher ask prices by other market makers are not? No, you can see other lower bid and higher ask prices. - In a order-driven market, is it meaningful to talk about \"\"the current stock price\"\", which is the price of last transaction? Well that's kind of an opinion. Information is information so it won't be bad to know it. Personally I would say the bid and ask price is more important. However in the real world these prices are changing constantly and quickly so realistically it is easier to keep track of the quote price and most likely the bid/ask spread is small and the quote will fall in between. The less liquid a security is the more important the bid/ask is. -- This goes for all market types. - For a specific asset, will there be several transactions happened at the same time but with different prices? Today with electronic markets, trades can happen so quickly it's difficult to say. In the US stock market trades happen one at a time but there is no set time limit between each trade. So within 1 second you can have a trade be $50 or $50.04. However it will only go to $50.04 when the lower ask prices have been exhausted. - Does an order driven market have market makers? By definition, no. - What are some examples of quote driven and order driven financial markets, in which investors are commonly trading stocks and derivatives, especially in U.S.? Quote driven market: Bond market, Forex. Order driven market: NYSE comes from an order driven market but now would be better classified as a \"\"hybird market\"\" Conclusion: If you are asking in order to better understand today's stock markets then these old definitions of Quote market or Order market may not work. The big markets in the real world are neither. (IE: Nasdaq, NYSE...) The NYSE and Nasdaq are better classified as a \"\"hybird market\"\" as they use more then a single tactic from both market types to insure market liquidity, and transparency. Markets these days are strongly electronic, fast, and fairly liquid in most cases. Here are some resources to better understand these markets: An Introduction To Securities Markets The NYSE And Nasdaq: How They Work Understanding Order Execution\"","\"Joke warning: These days, it seems that rogue trading programs are the big market makers (this concludes the joke) Historically, exchange members were market makers. One or more members guaranteed a market in a particular stock, and would buy whatever you wanted to sell (or vice-versa). In a balanced market -- one where there were an equal number of buyers and sellers -- the spread was indeed profit for them. To make this work, market makers need an enormous amount of liquidity (ability to hold an inventory of stocks) to deal with temporary imbalances. And a day like October 29, 1929, can make that liquidity evaporate. I say \"\"historically,\"\" because I don't think that any stock market works this way today (I was discussing this very topic with a colleague last week, went to Wikipedia to look at the structure of the NYSE, and saw no mention of exchange members as market makers -- in fact, it appears that the NYSE is no longer a member-based exchange). Instead, today most (all?) trading happens on \"\"electronic crossing networks,\"\" where the spread is simply the difference between the highest bid and lowest ask. In a liquid stock, there will be hundreds if not thousands of orders clustered around the \"\"current\"\" price, usually diverging by fractions of a cent. In an illiquid stock, there may be a spread, but eventually one bid will move up or one ask will move down (or new bids will come in). You could claim that an entity with a large block of stock to move takes the role of market maker, but it doesn't have the same meaning as an exchange market maker. Since there's no entity between the bidder and asker, there's no profit in the spread, just a fee taken by the ECN. Edit: I think you have a misconception of what the \"\"spread\"\" is. It's simply the difference between the highest bid and the lowest offer. At the instant a trade takes place, the spread is 0: the highest bid equals the lowest offer, and the bidder and seller exchange shares for money. As soon as that trade is completed, the spread re-appears. The only way that a trade happens is if buyer and seller agree on price. The traditional market maker is simply an entity that has the ability to buy or sell an effectively unlimited number of shares. However, if the market maker sets a price and there are no buyers, then no trade takes place. And if there's another entity willing to sell shares below the market maker's price, then the buyers will go to that entity unless the market's rules forbid it.\"","Depends on when you are seeing these bids & asks-- off hours, many market makers pull their bid & ask prices entirely. In a lightly traded stock there may just be no market except during the regular trading day.","In the stock market many participants enter orders that are not necessarily set at the current market price of the stock (i.e. they are not market orders, they are limit orders). They can be lower than the market price (if they want to buy) or they can be higher than the market price (if they want to sell). The set of orders at each point of time for a security is called the order book. The lowest selling price of the order book is the offer or ask, the higher buying price is the bid. The more liquid is a security, the more orders will be in the order book, and the narrower will be the bid-ask spread. The depth of the order book is the number of units that the order book can absorb in any direction (buy or sell). As an example: imagine I want to buy 100 units at the lowest offer, but the size of the lowest offer is only 50 units, and there is not any further order, that means the stock has little depth.","While volume per trade is higher at the open and to a lesser extent at the close, the overall volume is actually lower, on average. Bid ask spreads are widest at the open and to a lesser extent at the close. Generally, bid ask spreads are inversely proportional to overall volumes. Why this is the case hasn't been sufficiently clearly answered by academia yet, but some theories are that","\"As an aside, on most securities with a spread of the minimum tick, there would be no bid ask spread if so-called \"\"locked markets\"\", where the price of the best bid on one exchange is equal to the price of the best ask on another, were permitted. It is currently forbidden for a security to have posted orders having the same price for both bid and ask even though they're on different exchanges. Option spreads would narrow as well as a result.\"","\"We're in agreement, I just want retail investors to understand that in most of these types of discussions, the unspoken reality is the retail sector trading the market is *over*. This includes the mutual funds you mentioned, and even most index funds (most are so narrowly focused they lose their relevance for the retail investor). In the retail investment markets I'm familiar with, there are market makers of some sort or another for specified ranges. I'm perfectly fine with no market makers; but retail investors should be told the naked truth as well, and not sold a bunch of come-ons. What upsets me is seeing that just as computers really start to make an orderly market possible (you are right, the classic NYSE specialist structure was outrageously corrupt), regulators turned a blind eye to implementing better controls for retail investors. The financial services industry has to come to terms whether they want AUM from retail or not, and having heard messaging much like yours from other professionals, I've concluded that the industry does *not* want the constraints with accepting those funds, but neither do they want to disabuse retail investors of how tilted the game is against them. Luring them in with deceptively suggestive marketing and then taking money from those naturally ill-prepared for the rigors of the setting is like beating up the Downs' Syndrome kid on the short bus and boasting about it back on the campus about how clever and strong one is. If there was as stringent truth in marketing in financial services as cigarettes, like \"\"this service makes their profit by encouraging the churning of trades\"\", there would be a lot of kvetching from so-called \"\"pros\"\" as well. If all retail financial services were described like \"\"dead cold cow meat\"\" describes \"\"steak\"\", a lot of retail investors would be better off. As it stands today, you'd have to squint mighty hard to see the faintly-inscribed \"\"caveat emptor\"\" on financial services offerings to the retail sector. Note that depending upon the market setting, the definition of retail differs. I'm surprised the herd hasn't been spooked more by the MF Global disaster, for example, and yet there are some surprisingly large accounts detrimentally affected by that incident, which in a conventional equities setting would be considered \"\"pros\"\".\"","If you are buying your order will be placed in Bid list. If you are selling your order will be placed in the Ask list. The highest Bid price will be placed at the top of the Bid list and the lowest Ask price will be placed at the top of the Ask list. When a Bid and Ask price are matched a transaction will take place and it will the last traded price. If you are looking to buy at a lower price, say $155.01, your Bid price will be placed 3rd in the Bid list, and unless the Ask prices fall to that level, your order will remain in the list until it trades, it expires or you cancel it. If prices don't fall to you Bid price you will not get a trade. If you wanted your trade to go through you could either place a limit buy order closer to the lowest Ask price (however this is still not a certainty), or to be certain place a market buy order which will trade at the lowest Ask price.","\"Market makers (shortened MM) in an exchange are generally required to list both a bid and ask price to allow both buyers and sellers to trade and keep the market moving. However, a more general idea of a MM may includes companies off an exchange (say large banks acting as broker/dealers in an over-the-counter market) are not required to give a simultaneous bid/ask, but often will on request. So, it might depend on where you are getting this data but likely the bid/ask was quoted simultaneously. An exchange, like the NASDAQ for instance, may have multiple MMs for a given market. The \"\"market\"\" spread will be from the highest bid to the lowest ask over all the MMs. The highest bid and lowest ask may come from different MMs and any particular MM often will have a larger spread. The size of the spread gives a rough idea of how much a MM is trying to make off of a \"\"round trip\"\" trade (buying than immediately selling to someone else or selling than immediately buying from someone else). Of course, immediate round-trip trades are not always possible and there are many other complications. However, half the spread is a rough indicator of how much they hope to make off of a single trade.\"","3) Isn't strictly true, as off market swaps do trade quite regularly. For example, if the company has a bad credit rating, an off market swap is often executed to cover the credit costs (and essentially the cost of the bank's capital Under BASEL III.) Hence a bank shouldn't trade at mid.","I can often get the option at [a] price [between bid and ask] The keyword you use here is quite relevant: often. More realistically, it's going to be sometimes. And that's just how supply and demand should work. The ask is where you know you can buy right away. If you don't wanna buy at ask, you can try and put a higer bid but you can only hope someone will take it before the price moves. If prices are moving up fast, you will have missed a chance if you gambled mid-spread. Having said that, the larger the spread is, the more you should work with limits mid-spread. You don't want to just take ask or bid with illiquid options. Make a calculation of the true value of the option (i.e. using the Black Scholes Model), then set your bid around there. Of course, if not only the option but also the underlying is illiquid, this all gets even more difficult.","The best ask is the lowest ask, and the best bid is the highest bid. If the ask was lower than the bid then they crossed, and that would be a crossed market and quickly resolved. So the bid will almost always be cheaper than the ask. A heuristic is that a bid is the revenue of the stock at any given time while the ask is the cost, so the market will only ever offer a profit to itself not to the liquidity seeker. If examining the book vertically, all orders are usually sorted descending. Since the best ask is the lowest ask, it is on the bottom of the asks, and vice versa for the best bid. The best bid & best ask will be those closest since that's the narrowest spread and price-time priority will promise that a bid that crosses the asks will hit the lowest ask, the best possible price for the bidder and vice versa for an ask that crosses the best bid.","The Bid price is simply the highest buy price currently being offered and the Ask price simply the lowest sell price being offered. The list of Bid and Ask prices is called the market depth. When the Bid and Ask prices match then a sale goes through. When looking to sell you would generally look at both the Bid and Ask prices. As a seller you want to be matched with the Bid price to get a sale, but you also need to check the current list of Ask prices. If the price you want to sell at is too high you will be placed down the Ask price list, and unless the price moves up to match your sell price you will not end up selling. On the other-hand, if your price to sell is too low and in fact much lower than the current lowest sell price you may get a quick sale but maybe at a lower price than you could have gotten. Similarly, when looking to buy, you would generally also look at both the Bid and Ask prices. As a buyer you want to be matched with the Ask price to get a sale, but you also need to check the current list of Bid prices. If the price you want to buy at is too low you will be placed down the Bid price list, and unless the price moves down to match your buy price you will no end up buying. On the other-hand, if your price to buy is too high and in fact much higher than the current highest buy price you may get a quick purchase but maybe at a higher price than you could have gotten. So, whether buying or selling, it is important to look at and consider both the Bid and Ask prices in the market depth.","This is too lengthy for a comment. The following quoted passages are excerpted from this Money SE post. Before electronic trading and HFTs specifically, trading was thin and onerous. No. The NYSE and AMEX were deep, liquid and transparent for nearly 75 years prior to high frequency trading (HFT), in 2000 or so. The same is true for NASDAQ, but not for as many years, as NASDAQ is newer, being an electronic market. The point is that it existed, and thrived, prior to HFT. The NASDAQ can be active and functional, WITH or WITHOUT high frequency trading. This is not historically true, nor is it true now: Without a bid or ask at any given time, there could be no trade... Market makers, also known as specialists, were responsible for hitting the bid and taking the offer on whatever security they covered. They had a responsibility assigned to them by the exchange. Yes, it was lucrative! There was risk, and they were rewarded for bearing it. There is a trade-off though. Specialists provided greater stability on a systemic level, although other market participants paid for that cost. Prior to HFT, traders who were not market makers were often bounded by, boxed in, by the toll paid to market makers. Market makers had different, much higher capital and solvency requirements than other traders. Most specialists/market makers had seats, or shared a seat on the NYSE or AMEX. Remember that market makers/specialists are specific to stock markets, whereas HFT is not. If this is true, then we are in trouble: HFTs have supplanted the traditional market maker Why? Because trading volume is LOWER now than it was in the 1990's! EDIT In the comments, I noticed that OP was asking about the difference between I suggest reading this very accurate, well-written answer to a related question, The spread goes to the market maker, is the market maker the exchange? That explains the difference between","\"Realize this is almost a year old, but I just wanted to comment on something in Dynas' answer above... \"\"Whenever you trade always think about what the other guys is thinking. Sometimes we forget their is someone else on the other side of my trade that thinks essentially the exact opposite of me. Its a zero sum game.\"\" From a market maker's perspective, their primary goal is not necessarily to make money by you being wrong, it is to make money on the bid-offer spread and hedging their book (and potentially interalize). That being said, the market maker would likely be quoting one side of the market away from top of the book if they don't want to take exposure in that direction (i.e. their bid will be lower than the highest bid available or their offer higher than the lowest offer available). This isn't really going to change anything if you're trading on an exchange, but important to consider if you can only see the prices your broker/dealer provides to you and they are your counterparty in the trade.\"","\"The difficulty is that you are thinking of a day as a natural unit of time. For some securities the inventory decisions are less than a minute, for others, it can be months. You could ask a similar question of \"\"why would a dealer hold cash?\"\" They are profit maximizing firms and, subject to a chosen risk level, will accept deals that are sufficiently profitable. Consider a stock that averages 1,000 shares per day, but for which there is an order for 10,000 shares. At a sufficient discount, the dealer would be crazy not to carry the order. You are also assuming all orders are idiosyncratic. Dividend reinvestment plans (DRIP) trigger planned purchases on a fixed day, usually by averaging them over a period such as 10 days. The dealer slowly accumulates a position leading up to the date whenever it appears a good discount is available and fills the DRIP orders out of their own account. The dealer tries to be careful not to disturb the market leading up to the date and allows the volume request to shift prices upward and then fills them.\"","The equation you show is correct, you've simply pointed out that you understand that you buy at the 'ask' price, and later sell at the 'bid.' There is no bid/ask on the S&P, as you can't trade it directly. You have a few alternatives, however - you can trade SPY, the (most well known) S&P ETF whose price reflects 1/10 the value or VOO (Vanguard's offering) as well as others. Each of these ETFs gives you a bid/ask during market hours. They trade like a stock, have shares that are reasonably priced, and are optionable. To trade the index itself, you need to trade the futures. S&P 500 Futures and Options is the CME Group's brief info guide on standard and mini contracts. Welcome to SE.","Yes, but it must be remembered that these conditions only last for instants, and that's why only HFTs can take advantage of this. During 2/28/14's selloff from the invasion of Ukraine, many times, there were moments where there was overwhelming liquidity on the bid relative to the ask, but the price continued to drop.","yes you are right as per my understanding while doing trade you must consider fol (specially for starters like me) The volume of the stock you are trading in should be high enough to keep you secure for quick in and out Whenever the bid volume is more than the ask volume the prices will move up and vice versa. to give an example if a stock is at 100 points and there are fol bids: The transaction will occur when either the bidder agrees to pay the ask price (case 1. he pays 101 . his bid offer will disappear and the next best ask will be 102. and the current price will be 101 which was the last transaction.) or when the person giving ask price agrees to deal at best bid which was 99 in which case the share will go down.","In the world of stock exchanges, the result depends on the market state of the traded stock. There are two possibilities, (a) a trade occurs or (b) no trade occurs. During the so-called auction phase, bid and ask prices may overlap, actually they usually do. During an open market, when bid and ask match, trades occur.","Many of the Bitcoin exchanges mimic stock exchanges, though they're much more rudimentary offering only simple buy/sell/cancel orders. It's fairly normal for retail stock brokerage accounts to allow other sorts of more complex orders, where once a certain criteria is met, (the price falls below some $ threshold, or has a movement greater than some %) then your order is executed. The space between the current buy order and the current sell order is the bid/ask spread, it's not really about timing. Person X will buy at $100, person Y will sell at $102. If both had a price set at $101, they would just transact. Both parties think they can do a little bit better than the current offer. The width of the bid/ask spread is not universal by any means. The current highest buy order and the current lowest sell order, are both the current price. The current quoted market price is generally the price of the last transaction, whether it's buy or sell.","You can always trade at bid or ask price (depending if you are selling or buying). Market price is the price the last transaction was executed at so you may not be able to get that. If your order is large then you may not even be able to get bid/ask but should look at the depth of the order book (ie what prices are other market participants asking for and what is the size of their order). Usually only fast traders will trade at bid/ask, those who believe the price move is imminent. If you are a long term trader you can often get better than bid or ask by placing a limit order and waiting until a market participant takes your offer.","\"It's good to ask this question, because this is one of the fundamental dichotomies in market microstructure. At any time T for each product on a (typical) exchange there are two well-defined prices: At time T there is literally no person in the market who wants to sell below the ask, so all the people who are waiting to buy at the bid (or below) could very well be waiting there forever. There's simply no guarantee that any seller will ever want to part with their product for a lesser price than they think it's worth. So if you want to buy the product at time T you have a tough choice to make: you get in line at the bid price, where there's no guarantee that your request will ever be filled, and you might never get your hands on the product you decide that owning the product right now is more valuable to you than (ask - bid) * quantity, so you tell the exchange that you're willing to buy at the ask price, and the exchange matches you with whichever seller is first in line Now, if you're in the market for the long term, the above choice is completely immaterial to you. Who cares if you pay $10.00 * 1000 shares or $10.01 * 1000 shares when you plan to sell 30 years from now at $200 (or $200.01)? But if you're a day trader or anyone else with a very short time horizon, then this choice is extremely important: if the price is about to go up several cents and you got in line at the bid (and never got filled) then you missed out on some profit if you \"\"cross the spread\"\" to buy at the ask and then the price doesn't go up (or worse, goes down), you're screwed. In order to get out of the position you'll have to cross the spread again and sell at at most the bid, meaning you've now paid the spread twice (plus transaction fees and regulatory fees) for nothing. (All of the above also applies in reverse for selling at the ask versus selling at the bid, but most people like to learn in terms of buying rather than selling.)\"","Quote driven markets are the predecessors to the modern securities market. Before electronic trading and HFTs specifically, trading was thin and onerous. Today, the average investor can open up a web page, type in a security, and buy at the narrowest spread permitted by regulators with anyone else who wants to take the other side. Before the lines between market maker and speculator became blurred to indistinction, a market maker was one who was contractually obligated to an exchange to provide a bid and ask for a given security on said exchange even though at heart a market maker is still simply a trader despite the obligation. A market maker would simultaneously buy a large amount of securities privately and short the same amount to have no directional bias, exposure to the direction of the security, and commence to making the market. The market maker would estimate its cost basis for the security based upon those initial trades and provide a bid and ask appropriate for the given level of volume. If volumes were high, the spread would be low and vice versa. Market makers who survived crashes and spikes would forgo the potential profit in always providing a steady price and spread, ie increased volume otherwise known as revenue, to maintain no directional bias. In other words, if there were suddenly many buyers and no sellers, hitting the market maker's ask, the MM would raise the ask rapidly in proportion to the increased exposure while leaving the bid somewhere below the cost basis. Eventually, a seller would arise and hit the MM's bid, bringing the market maker's inventory back into balance, and narrowing the spread that particular MM could provide since a responsible MM's ask could rise very high very quickly if a lack of its volume relative to its inventory made inventory too costly. This was temporarily extremely costly to the trader if there were few market makers on the security the trader was trading or already exposed to. Market makers prefer to profit from the spread, bidding below some predetermined price, based upon the cost basis of the market maker's inventory, while asking above that same predetermined cost basis. Traders profit from taking exposure to a security's direction or lack thereof in the case of some options traders. Because of electronic trading, liquidity rebates offered by exchanges not only to contractually obligated official market makers but also to any trader who posts a limit order that another trader hits, and algorithms that become better by the day, market making HFTs have supplanted the traditional market maker, and there are many HFTs where there previously were few official market makers. This speed and diversification of risk across many many algorithmically market making HFTs have kept spreads to the minimum on large equities and have reduced the same for the smallest equities on major exchanges. Orders and quotes are essentially identical. Both are double sided auction markets with impermenant bids and asks. The difference lies in that non-market makers, specialists, etc. orders are not shown to the rest of the market, providing an informational advantage to MMs and an informational disadvantage to the trader. Before electronic trading, this construct was of no consequence since trader orders were infrequent. With the prevalence of HFTs, the informational disadvantage has become more costly, so order driven markets now prevail with much lower spreads and accelerated volumes even though market share for the major exchanges has dropped rapidly and hyperaccelerated number of trades even though the size of individual trades have fallen. The worst aspect of the quote driven market was that traders could not directly trade with each other, so all trades had to go between a market maker, specialist, etc. While this may seem to have increased cost to a trader who could only trade with another trader by being arbitraged by a MM et al, paying more than what another trader was willing to sell, these costs were dwarfed by the potential absence of those market makers. Without a bid or ask at any given time, there could be no trade, so the costs were momentarily infinite. In essence, a quote driven market protects market makers from the competition of traders. While necessary in the days where paper receipts were carted from brokerage to brokerage, and the trader did not dedicate itself to round the clock trading, it has no place in a computerized market. It is more costly to the trader to use such a market, explaining quote driven markets' rapid exit.","One broker told me that I have to simply read the ask size and the bid size, seeing what the market makers are offering. This implies that my order would have to match that price exactly, which is unfortunate because options contract spreads can be WIDE. Also, if my planned position size is larger than the best bid/best ask, then I should break up the order, which is also unfortunate because most brokers charge a lot for options orders.","Sounds to me like you're describing just how it should work. Ask is at 30, Bid is at 20; you offer a new bid at 25. Either: Depending on liquidity, one or the other may be more likely. This Investorplace article on the subject describes what you're seeing, and recommends the strategy you're describing precisely. Instead of a market order, take advantage of the fact that the options world truly is a marketplace — one where you can possibly get a better price just by asking. How does that work? If you use a limit order (instead of a market order) when opening a position, you can tell your broker how much you are willing to pay to enter a trade. For example, if you enter a limit price of $1.15, you can see whether the market-maker will bite. You will be surprised at how many times you will get your price (i.e., $1.15) instead of the ask price of $1.30. If your order at $1.15 is not filled after a few minutes, you can modify your order and pay the ask price by entering a market order or limit order at the ask price (that is, you can tell your broker to pay no more than $1.30).","When there is a difference between the two ... no trading occurs. Let's look at an example: Investor A, B, C, and D all buy/sell shares of company X. Investor A wants to sell 10 shares at $20 a share (Ask price $20 x10). Investor B wants to buy 15 shares at $10 a share (Bid price $10 x15). Since the bid price and ask price are different, no sale is made. Next Investor C comes along and wants to sell 5 shares at $14 (Ask price $14 x5). Still no sale. Investor D comes along and wants to buy 5 shares for $14 each. So a sale is finally made. At this point, the stock quote moves to $14. The ask price is $20 x10 and the bid price is $10 x15. No further trading will occur until another investor is willing to buy at $20 or sell at $10. Another discussion of this topic is shown on this post.","\"Both prices are quotes on a single share of stock. The bid price is what buyers are willing to pay for it. The ask price is what sellers are willing to take for it. If you are selling a stock, you are going to get the bid price, if you are buying a stock you are going to get the ask price. The difference (or \"\"spread\"\") goes to the broker/specialist that handles the transaction.\"","Theoretically, it's a question of rate of return. If a desired or acceptable rate of return for market makers' capital is X, and X is determined by the product of margin & turnover then higher turnover means lower margin for a constant X. Margin, in the case of trading, is the bid/ask spread, and turnover, in the case of trading, is volume. Empirically, it has been noted in the last markets still offering such wide-varying evidence, equity options: http://faculty.baruch.cuny.edu/lwu/890/mayhew_jf2002.pdf","If you are looking to go long (buy) you would use bid prices as this is what you will be matched against for your order to be executed and a trade to go through. If you are looking to go short (sell) you would use the ask prices as this is what you will be matched against for your order to be executed and a trade go through. In your analysis you could use either this convention or the midpoint of the two prices. As FX is very liquid the bid and ask prices would be quite close to each other, so the easiest way to do your analysis is to use the convention I listed above.","You don't see Buying and Selling. You see Bid and Ask. Best Bid--Highest Price someone is willing to pay to buy a stock. Best Ask - Lowest price someone is willing to accept to sell a stock. As for your second question, if you can look up Accumulation/Distribution Algorithm and Iceberg Order, you will get basic idea.","The role of the market maker is to make sure there is a bid and ask on a particular stock. That's it. The market maker ensures that there is a price at which you can buy and a price at which you can sell immediately, but these are not necessarily the best prices. The majority of trades do not involve market makers and occur between two third parties. Whoever said a market order trades with the market maker is thinking of the way stock markets were years ago, not the way they are now. Market orders are supposed to execute immediately and at one time trading with the market makers was the method for executing immediately. If you issue a market order today, it executes with the best available limit order(s) on the other wide of the trade. This may or may not involve a party that identifies as a market maker.","It depends on the sequence in which the order [bid and ask] were placed. Please read the below question to understand how the order are matched. How do exchanges match limit orders?","When a stock is ask for 15.2 and bid for 14.5, and the last market price was 14.5, what does it mean? It means that the seller wants to sell for a higher price than the last sale while the buyer does not want to buy for more than the last sale price. Or what if the last price is 15.2? The seller is offering to sell for the last sale price, but the buyer wants to buy for less.","In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.","I frequently do this on NADEX, selling out-of-the-money binary calls. NADEX is highly illiquid, and the bid/ask is almost always from the market maker. Out-of-the-money binary calls lose value quickly (NADEX daily options exist for only ~21 hours). If I place an above-ask order, it either gets filled quickly (within a few minutes) due to a spike in the underlying, or not at all. I compensate by changing my price hourly. As Joe notes, one of Black-Scholes inputs is volatility, but price determines (implied) volatility, so this is circular. In other words, you can treat the bid/ask prices as bid/ask volatilities. This isn't as far-fetched as it seems: http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/fx/volatility-quoting-fx-options.html","\"First, as @littleadv mentions, and as I've pointed out before, anyone who participates in a market using limit orders (which, by the way, should be every non-professional investor) is by definition a market maker. So, I will assume that your question pertains both to official market makers and to \"\"retail investors\"\" using limit orders. When you remark that there are such \"\"tight spreads\"\" in \"\"liquid assets\"\", what you are really saying is \"\"wow, look at all the market makers in these products!\"\" That's the benefit of electronic trading and algorithmic traders -- millions of participants each with their own opinion of the value of a financial instrument, trying to find people who have very specifically opposing opinions of the value of that same instrument. This is called price discovery, and is the entire point of financial markets. So, you ask why are there all these market makers present to create such tight spreads in assets like SPY? Answer: Because they can make money in these markets: Imagine (towards a contradiction) that market makers thought they couldn't make money by offering tight spreads in SPY, and so SPY had a wider spread than it actually does. For example, say the highest bid for SPY was $99.98 and the lowest ask was $100.01. Now imagine that a market maker with perfect knowledge of the future came along knowing that he would be able to sell SPY for $100.01 in 5 minutes. Then he would load up as many buy orders as he could for $100.00 or lower. (He wouldn't bid $100.01 or higher because those trades would not be profitable according to his information -- at least not 5 minutes from now.) So the spread had previously been $0.03 and then suddenly it was $0.01, all because a market maker with better information came along and realized he could make money by creating a tighter market! Now, nobody has perfect knowledge of the future, which is why markets are never infinitely tight or infinitely liquid. Each market maker has to weigh possible profits against the probability that those profits will actually turn into losses. But if one market maker decides not to participate in a particular instrument, there's bound to be another market maker who will happily take his place. So the very fact that there are so many market participants with resting buy/sell orders for SPY right now is proof that there are market makers able to make money doing so. If they could not make money, they wouldn't be there, and the spread would be wider. 10-15 years ago, before electronic trading and algorithmic trading, the number of market participants was far lower, and the spreads were far wider, meaning retail investors like you and me had a much harder time making money. The only people making money were the institutional investors, the brokers, and the exchanges. Now that all these new millions of players are present in the market, retail investors like you and me get to participate and make money too.\"","It this a real situation or is it a made up example? Because for a stock that has a last traded priced of $5 or $6 and volume traded over $4M (i.e. it seems to be quite liquid), it is hardly likely that the difference from bid to ask would be as large as $1 (maybe for a stock that has volume of 4 to 5 thousand, but not for one having volume of 4 to 5 million). In regards to your question, if you were short selling the order would go in exactly the same as if you were selling a stock you owned. So your order would be on the ask side and would need to be matched up with a price on the bid side for there to be a trade.","\"A \"\"market maker\"\" is someone that is contractually bound, by the exchange, to provide both bid and ask prices for a given volume (e.g. 5000 shares). A single market maker usually covers many stocks, and a single stock is usually covered by many market makers. The NYSE has \"\"specialists\"\" that are market makers that also performed a few other roles in the management of trading for a stock, and usually a single issue on the NYSE is covered by only one market maker. Market makers are often middlemen between brokers (ignoring stuff like dark pools, and the fact that brokers will often trade stocks internally among their own clients before going to the exchange). Historically, the market makers gave up buy/sell discretion in exchange for being the \"\"go-to guys\"\" for anyone wanting to trade in that stock. When you told your broker to buy a stock for you, he didn't hook you up with another retail investor; he went to the market maker. Market makers would also sometimes find investors willing to step in when more liquidity was needed for a security. They were like other floor traders; they hung out on the exchange floors and interacted with traders to buy and sell stocks. Traders came to them when they wanted to buy one of the specialist's issues. There was no public order book; just ticker tape and a quote. It was up to the market maker to maintain that order book. Since they are effectively forbidden from being one-sided traders in a security, their profit comes from the bid-ask spread. Being the counter-party to almost every trade, they'd make profit from always selling above where they were buying. (Except when the price moved quickly -- the downside to this arrangement.) \"\"The spread goes to the market maker\"\" is just stating that the profit implicit in the spread gets consumed by the market maker. With the switch to ECNs, the role of the market maker has changed. For example, ForEx trading firms tend to act as market makers to their customers. On ECNs, the invisible, anonymous guy at the other end of most trades is often a market maker, still performing his traditional role. Yet brokers can interact directly with each other now, rather than relying on the market maker's book. With modern online investing and public order books, retail investors might even be trading directly with each other. Market makers are still out there; in part, they perform a service sold by an Exchange to the companies that choose to be listed on that exchange. That service has changed to helping tamp volatility during normal high-volatility periods (such as at open and close).\"","The same as when you are buying a car. If a dealer quotes 10k and you quote 8k. 8k is the buy price and 10k is the sell price. Somebody might quote 8.5k and another dealer might quote 9.5k. The the new price that you see on your screen is 8.5k(Best buy price) and 9.5k(Best sell price). When the buyer and seller agree to an amount, the car(In your case stock) is traded.","\"I think for this a picture is worth a thousand words. This is a \"\"depth chart\"\" that I pulled from google images, specifically because it doesn't name any security. On the left you have all of the \"\"bids\"\" to buy this security, on the right you have the \"\"asks\"\" to sell the security. In the middle you have the bid/ask spread, this is the space between the highest bid and the lowest ask. As you can see you are free to place you order to the market to buy for 232, and someone else is free to place their order to the market to sell for 234. When the bid and the ask match there's a transaction for the maximum number of available shares. Alternatively, someone can place a market order to buy or sell and they'll just take the current market price. Retail investors don't really get access to this kind of chart from their brokers because for the most part the information isn't terribly relevant at the retail level.\"","When you place a bid between the bid/ask spread, that means you are raising the bid (or lowering the ask, if you are selling). The NBBO (national best bid and offer) is now changed because of your action, and yes, certain kinds of orders may be set to react to that (a higher bid or lower ask triggering them), also many algorithms (that haven't already queued an order simply waiting for a trigger, like in a stop limit) read the bid and ask and are programmed to then place an order at that point.","\"The current stock price you're referring to is actually the price of the last trade. It is a historical price – but during market hours, that's usually mere seconds ago for very liquid stocks. Whereas, the bid and ask are the best potential prices that buyers and sellers are willing to transact at: the bid for the buying side, and the ask for the selling side. But, think of the bid and ask prices you see as \"\"tip of the iceberg\"\" prices. That is: The \"\"Bid: 13.20 x200\"\" is an indication that there are potential buyers bidding $13.20 for up to 200 shares. Their bids are the highest currently bid; and there are others in line behind with lower bid prices. So the \"\"bid\"\" you're seeing is actually the best bid price at that moment. If you entered a \"\"market\"\" order to sell more than 200 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a lower price. The \"\"Ask: 13.27 x1,000\"\" is an indication that there are potential sellers asking $13.27 for up to 1000 shares. Their ask prices are the lowest currently asked; and there are others in line behind with higher ask prices. So the \"\"ask\"\" you're seeing is the best asking price at that moment. If you entered a \"\"market\"\" order to buy more than 1000 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a higher price. A transaction takes place when either a potential buyer is willing to pay the asking price, or a potential seller is willing to accept the bid price, or else they meet in the middle if both buyers and sellers change their orders. Note: There are primarily two kinds of stock exchanges. The one I just described is a typical order-driven matched bargain market, and perhaps the kind you're referring to. The other kind is a quote-driven over-the-counter market where there is a market-maker, as JohnFx already mentioned. In those cases, the spread between the bid & ask goes to the market maker as compensation for making a market in a stock. For a liquid stock that is easy for the market maker to turn around and buy/sell to somebody else, the spread is small (narrow). For illiquid stocks that are harder to deal in, the spread is larger (wide) to compensate the market-maker having to potentially carry the stock in inventory for some period of time, during which there's a risk to him if it moves in the wrong direction. Finally ... if you wanted to buy 1000 shares, you could enter a market order, in which case as described above you'll pay $13.27. If you wanted to buy your shares at no more than $13.22 instead, i.e. the so-called \"\"current\"\" price, then you would enter a limit order for 1000 shares at $13.22. And more to the point, your order would become the new highest-bid price (until somebody else accepts your bid for their shares.) Of course, there's no guarantee that with a limit order that you will get filled; your order could expire at the end of the day if nobody accepts your bid.\"","\"People in this case, are large institutional investors. The \"\"bid ask\"\" spread is for \"\"small traders\"\" like yourself. It is put out by the so-called specialists (or \"\"market makers\"\") and is typically good for hundreds or thousands of shares at a time. Normally, 2 points on a 50 stock is a wide spread, and the market maker will make quite a bit of money on it trading with people like yourself. It's different if a large institution, say Fidelity, wants to sell, say 1 million shares of the stock. Depending on market conditions, it may have trouble finding buyers willing to buy in those amounts anywhere near 50. To \"\"move\"\" such a large block of stock, they may have to put the equivalent of K-Mart's old \"\"Blue Light Special\"\" on, several points below.\"","A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.","In general stock markets are very similar to that, however, you can also put in limit orders to say that you will only buy or sell at a given price. These sit in the market for a specified length of time and will be executed when an order arrives that matches the price (or better). Traders who set limit orders are called liquidity (or price) makers as they provide liquidity (i.e. volume to be traded) to be filled later. If there is no counterparty (i.e. buyer to your seller) in the market, a market maker; a large bank or brokerage who is licensed and regulated to do so, will fill your order at some price. That price is based on how much volume (i.e. trading) there is in that stock on average. This is called average daily volume (ADV) and is calculated over varying periods of time; we use ADV30 which is the 30 day average. You can always sell stocks for whatever price you like privately but a market order does not allow you to set your price (you are a price taker) therefore that kind of order will always fill at a market price. As mentioned above limit orders will not fill until the price is hit but will stay on book as long as they aren't filled, expired or cancelled.","Traditionally, dealers and broker-dealers were in contact with the actual producers of a product or issuers of a security, selling it at the exchange on their behalf. Consumers would traditionally be on the buy side, of course. These days, anyone can enter the market on either side. Even if you don't hold the security or product, you could sell it, and take on the risk of having to stock up on it by the delivery date in exchange for cash or other securities. On the other side, if you can't hold the product or security you could still buy it, taking on the risk of having to dispose of it somehow by delivery in exchange for cash or other securities. In either case you (the sell-side) take on risk and provide products/securities/cash. This is most commonly known as market making. Modern literature coins the terms liquidity taker (buy-side) and liquidity provider (sell-side). Even more accurately, risk management literature would use the terms risk-taker (sell-side) and risk spreader or risk reducer (buy side). This is quite illustrative in modern abstract markets. Take a market that allows for no offsetting or hedging because the product in question is abstract or theoretical, e.g. weather trading, volatility trading, inflation trading, etc. There's always one party trying to eliminate dependence on or correlation to the product (the risk reducer, buy-side) and the counterparty taking on their risk (sell-side).","This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.","I think you're over complicating it! There is the market maker in the pure sense as what chilldontkill said - a bookie, a middleman. They are just the brokers in between the buyers and sellers, and they simply make profit off of the spread differential. But market maker is also used to refer to large, high volume buyers and sellers that can influence the price because they control a larger % of volume. These only really exist on low volume products, and they slowly ween out the larger the volume. On higher volume products, I like to refer to them as institutions - that is, well informed, large pockets - whether is be central banks, clearing houses, hedge funds, boutique firms. These are the people who are generally in the know and they often bet against eachother.hope this helps ...","\"Re: A trader when buying needs to buy at the ask price and when selling needs to sell at the bid price. So how can a trade happen 'in between' the bid and ask? Saying the trade can happen \"\"in between\"\" the bid & ask is simplistic. There is a time dimension to the market. It's more accurate to say that an order can be placed \"\"in between\"\" the current best bid & ask (observed at time T=0), thus establishing a new level for one or the other of those quoted prices (observed at time T>0). If you enter a market order to buy (or sell), then yes, you'll generally be accepting the current best ask (or best bid) with your order, because that's what a market order says to do: Accept the current best market price being offered for your kind of transaction. Of course, prices may move much faster than your observation of the price and the time it takes to process your order – you're far from being the only participant. Market orders aside, you are free to name your own price above or below the current best bid & ask, respectively. ... then one could say that you are placing an order \"\"in between\"\" the bid and ask at the time your order is placed. However – and this is key – you are also moving one or the other of those quoted prices in the process of placing your above-bid buy order or your below-ask sell order. Then, only if somebody else in the market chooses to accept your new ask (or bid) does your intended transaction take place. And that transaction takes place at the new ask (or bid) price, not the old one that was current when you entered your order. Read more about bid & ask prices at this other question: (p.s. FWIW, I don't necessarily agree with the assertion from the article you quoted, i.e.: \"\"By looking for trades that take place in between the bid and ask, you can tell when a strong trend is about to come to an end.\"\" I would say: Maybe, perhaps, but maybe not.)\"","\"I mean, it's only a difference of an order of magnitude, really. Until you consider the following: 1) Only a fraction of the $800B Muni bonds market is new issue. 2) True spreads on Muni bonds are hard enough to calculate as is because they're all OTC. 3)The author quotes that the particular bid was for an 87K/year return on a notional of $300M. That's a spread of a whopping 3 basis points that the bank took extra over \"\"true value\"\". 4) Intraday vol for almost any financial instrument is more than 3 basis points. 5) So that's what he's making this big deal over? THREE basis points? I don't even know the length of my penis to within three basis points, and I challenge you to find anyone who could name the yield on the 10Y Treasury within 3 basis points.\"","Actually the insertion part is interesting because they actually aren't middlemen just faster buyer's and sellers on the open market. They just buy what one person is selling and sell it to someone else who is at the same time looking to buy. So I guess the issue is the 'same time' isn't the same for all parties concerned. On the other hand both buyer and seller can set limits on the bounds of the price and only transact when someone meets their terms. If you are willing to accept 'whatever the market will bear' then it seems like you should be OK with getting it.","\"Yes we lose some client business to algos - specifically the DMA (direct market access) side of things. I haven't seen much HFT impact on what I do. I see the movement towards algos/automated trading and DMA over the next 5-10 years, and block traders like me going extinct eventually. But this all assumes liquidity, which is not there in the product I trade. So you still need a dealer who knows where the blocks \"\"live\"\". You want to buy 5% of that issue? okay good-luck trying to do that in the market. No algo will help you do that without moving the market against you.\"","\"Assuming that no one else has hit the ask, and the asks are still there, yes, you will fill $54.55 as long as you didn't exhaust that ask. Actually, there is no \"\"current price at which the stock is exchanging hands\"\"; in reality, it is \"\"the last price traded\"\". The somebody who negotiated prices between buyers & sellers is the exchange through their handling of bids & asks. The real negotiation comes between bids & asks, and if they meet or cross, a trade occurs. It's not that both bid & ask should be $54.55, it's that they were. To answer the title, the reasons why the bid and ask (even their midpoint) move away from the last price are largely unknown, but at least for the market makers, if their sell inventory is going away (people are buying heavily and they're running out of inventory) they will start to hike up their asks a lot and their bids a little because market makers try to stay market neutral, having no opinion on whether an asset will rise or fall, so with stocks, that means having a balanced inventory of longs & shorts. They want to (sometimes have to depending on the exchange) accommodate the buying pressure, but they don't want to lose money, so they simply raise the ask and then raise the bid as people hit their asks since their average cost basis has risen. In fact (yahoo finance is great about showing this), there's rarely 1 bid and 1 ask. Take a look at BAC's limit book: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ecn?s=BAC+Order+Book You can see that there are many bids and many asks. If one ask is exhausted, the next in line is now the highest. The market maker who just sold at X will certainly step over the highest bid to bid at X*0.9 to get an 11% return on investment.\"","The principle of demand-supply law will not work if spoofing (or layering, fake order) is implemented. However, spoofing stocks is an illegal criminal practice monitored by SEC. In stock market, aggressive buyer are willing to pay for a higher ask price pushing the price higher even if ask size is considerably larger than bid size, especially when high growth potential with time is expected. Larger bids may attract more buyers, further perpetuating a price increase (positive pile-on effect). Aggressive sellers are willing to accept a lower bid price pushing the price lower even if ask size is considerably smaller than bid size, when a negative situation is expected. Larger asks may attract more sellers, further perpetuating a price fall (negative pile-on effect). Moreover, seller and buyers considers not only price but also size of shares in their decision-making process, along with marker order and/or limit order. Unlike limit order, market order is not recorded in bid/ask size. Market order, but not limit order, immediately affects the price direction. Thus, ask/bid sizes alone do not give enough information on price direction. If stocks are being sold continuously at the bid price, this could be the beginning of a downward trend; if stocks are being sold continuously at the ask price, this could be the beginning of a upward trend. This is because ask price is always higher than bid price. In all the cases, both buyers and sellers hope to make a profit in a long-term and short-term view","It depends to some extent on how you interpret the situation, so I think this is the general idea. Say you purchase one share at $50, and soon after, the price moves up, say, to $55. You now have an unrealized profit of $5. Now, you can either sell and realize that profit, or hold on to the position, expecting a further price appreciation. In either case, you will consider the price change from this traded price, which is $55, and not the price you actually bought at. Hence, if the price fell to $52 in the next trade, you have a loss of $3 on your previous profit of $5. This (even though your net P&L is calculated from the initial purchase price of $50), allows you to think in terms of your positions at the latest known prices. This is similar to a Markov process, in the sense that it doesn't matter which route the stock price (and your position's P&L) took to get to the current point; your decision should be based on the current/latest price level.","Is the stock's price at any given moment the price at which all shares could be sold to new investors? No. For the simple fact that the current bid/offer always have sizes associated. What you should be looking at is the consolidated price to buy/sell X shares (10bn doesn't really work as not everyone is willing to sell/buy). If you look at the spread of the consolidated price at your quantity level, you'd notice it would be in stark contrast to the spread of the best bid/offer but (by definition) that would be the price to buy or sell X shares to new investors. Edit Calculation of the consolidated price of X shares: You go through the order book and calculate the size-weighted average price until you covered X. Example: So the consolidated price for 3000 shares would be $39.80, the consolidated price for 2000 shares would be $39.90.","There are usually so many different options around for the same stock that some are rarely traded. Especially if the price has moved since the option was issued, nobody might be interested in that particular option at that price anymore. So the asking price might be something that someone asked for ages ago and that is much higher than anyone would reasonably pay today. With a bid of $20 and an ask of $30, nobody is trading, but the value of that option is somewhere between $20 and $30. If the value is below $25, someone will notice your $25 bid and sell.","To add to @Victor 's answer; if you are entering a market order, and not a limit order (where you set the price you want to buy or sell at), then the Ask price is what you can expect to pay to purchase shares of stock in a long position and the Bid price is what you can expect to receive when you sell stock you own in a long position.","You seem to be confused - try answering these: 1. Whom do the traders work for? 2. What are the traders trading and how do they acquire those vehicles? 3. How does a company make money and how does that money get deployed? Google will be crucial for these, but will answer your questions. If you choose to get in finance, remember the golden rule: if you have a question, Google it first.","All day. We make markets are pretty much anything. We just don't price anything. If we can go in house that's what we'll do if not we'll go external. We so see decent flow, but nothing like capital markets sees. You guys hiring? :)","\"Mathematically it's arbitrary - you could just as easily use the bid or the midpoint as the denominator, so long as you're consistent when comparing securities. So there's not a fundamental reason to use the ask. The best argument I can come up with is that most analysis is done from the buy side, so looking at liquidity costs (meaning how much does the value drop instantaneously purely because of the bid-ask spread) when you buy a security would be more relevant by using the ask (purchase price) as the basis. Meaning, if a stock has a bid-ask range of $95-$100, if you buy the stock at $100 (the ask), you immediately \"\"lose\"\" 5% (5/100) of its value since you can only sell it for $95.\"","All the time. For high volume stocks, it may be tough to see exactly what's going on, e.g. the bid/ask may be moving faster than your connection to the broker can show you. What I've observed is with options. The volume on some options is measured in the 10's or 100's of contracts in a day. I'll see a case where it's $1.80/$2.00 bid/ask, and by offering $1.90 will often see a fill at that price. Since I may be the only trade on that option in the 15 minute period and note that the stock wasn't moving more than a penny during that time, I know that it was my order that managed to fill between the bid/ask.","\"I assume that mutual funds are being discussed here. As Bryce says, open-ended funds are bought from the mutual fund company and redeemed from the fund company. Except in very rare circumstances, they exist only as bits in the fund company's computers and not as share certificates (whether paper or electronic) that can be delivered from the selling broker to the buying broker on a stock exchange. Effectively, the fund company is the sole market maker: if you want to buy, ask the fund company at what price it will sell them to you (and it will tell you the answer only after 4 pm that day when a sale at that price is no longer possible unless you committed to buy, say, 100 shares and authorized the fund company to withdraw the correct amount from your bank account or other liquid asset after the price was known). Ditto if you want to sell: the mutual fund company will tell you what price it will give you only after 4 pm that day and you cannot sell at that price unless you had committed to accept whatever the company was going to give you for your shares (or had said \"\"Send me $1000 and sell as many shares of mine as are needed to give me proceeds of $1000 cash.\"\")\"","This question is impossible answer for all markets but there are 2 more possibilities in my experience:","No, it's not even remotely accurate in the current sense. Both markets have counterparties directly executing against one another, and both have auctions. The auction mechanics are different (with NYSE's Specialist/DMM model) but during normal market hours there isn't much difference.","\"For every buyer there is a seller. That rule refers to actual (historical) trades. It doesn't apply to \"\"wannabees.\"\" Suppose there are buyers for 2,000 shares and sellers for only 1,000 at a given price, P. Some of those buyers will raise their \"\"bid\"\" (the indication of the price they are willing to pay) above P so that the sellers of the 1000 shares will fill their orders first (\"\"sold to the highest bidder\"\"). The ones that don't do this will (probably) not get their orders filled. Suppose there are more sellers than buyers. Then some sellers will lower their \"\"offer\"\" price to attract buyers (and some sellers probably won't). At a low enough price, there will likely be a \"\"match\"\" between the total number of shares on sale, and shares on purchase orders.\"","At any point of time, buyer wants to purchase a stock at lesser price and seller wants to sell the stock at a higher price. Let's consider this scenario Company XYZ is trading at 100$, as stated above buyer wants to purchase at lower price and seller at higher price, this information will be available in Market depth, let's consider there are 5 buyers and 5 sellers, below are the details of their orders Buyers List Sellers List Highest order in buyers list will contain the bid price and bid quantity, Lowest order in Sellers list will contain the offer price and offer quantity. Now, if I want to buy 50 Stocks of company XYZ, need to place an order first, it can be either limit or Market. Limit Order : In this order, I will mention the price(buy price) at which I wish to buy, if there is any seller selling the stock less than or equal to price I have mentioned, then the order will be executed else it will be added to buyers list Market Order : In this order, I will not mention the price, if I wish to purchase 50 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 101. if I wish to purchase 200 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 2 transactions, since entire request cannot be accommodated in single order Usually the volume(Ask Volume and Offer Volume) being displayed are all Limit orders and not Market orders, Market orders are executed immediately. This is just an example, However several transactions are executed within a second, hence we will get to know the exact value only after the order is completed(executed)","Investopedia has a section in their article about currency trading that states: The FX market does not have commissions. Unlike exchange-based markets, FX is a principals-only market. FX firms are dealers, not brokers. This is a critical distinction that all investors must understand. Unlike brokers, dealers assume market risk by serving as a counterparty to the investor's trade. They do not charge commission; instead, they make their money through the bid-ask spread. Principals-only means that the only parties to a transaction are agents who actively bear risk by taking one side of the transaction. There are forex brokers who charge what's called a commission, based on the spread. Investopedia has another article about the commission structure in the forex market that states: There are three forms of commission used by brokers in forex. Some firms offer a fixed spread, others offer a variable spread and still others charge a commission based on a percentage of the spread. So yes, there are forex brokers who charge a commission, but this paragraph is saying mostly the same thing as the first paragraph. The brokers make their money through the bid-ask spread; how they do so varies, and sometimes they call this charge a commission, sometimes they don't. All of the information above differs from the stock markets, however, in which The broker takes the order to an exchange and attempts to execute it as per the customer's instructions. For providing this service, the broker is paid a commission when the customer buys and sells the tradable instrument. The broker isn't taking a side in the trade, so he's not making money on the spread. He's performing the service of taking the order to an exchange an attempting to execute it, and for that, he charges a commission.","\"In a sense, yes. There's a view in Yahoo Finance that looks like this For this particular stock, a market order for 3000 shares (not even $4000, this is a reasonably small figure) will move the stock past $1.34, more than a 3% move. Say, on the Ask side there are 100,000 shares, all with $10 ask. It would take a lot of orders to purchase all these shares, so for a while, the price may stay right at $10, or a bit lower if there are those willing to sell lower. But, say that side showed $10 1000, $10.25 500, $10.50 1000. Now, the volume is so low that if I decided I wanted shares at any price, my order, a market order will actually drive the market price right up to $10.50 if I buy 2500 shares \"\"market\"\". You see, however, even though I'm a small trader, I drove the price up. But now that the price is $10.50 when I go to sell all 2500 at $10.50, there are no bids to pay that much, so the price the next trade will occur at isn't known yet. There may be bids at $10, with asking (me) at $10.50. No trades will happen until a seller takes the $10 bid or other buyers and sellers come in.\"","\"At least for liquid markets, the downside of being a market maker is what we call \"\"negative selection\"\". Specifically, if you're both bid and offered in a market, trying to collect your spread, then as the market goes up, you'll tend to sell the whole way up, and vice versa. So if you're not smart about it, you can end up losing a lot of money. Being a good market maker, then, involves either being able to smarter about when to be aggressively bid and offered and when to pull back, or being able to hedge them quickly before they really hurt you. The first probably would require more sophisticated algorithms, while the second requires good speed and execution strategies.\"","As another answer started, this information comes straight from an exchange and generally costs a fortune . . . However things change: IEX, a new exchange, recently opened and they are offering real time bid/ask data for free. Here's the API description: https://www.iextrading.com/developer/ This data should be good for active securities, but for securities less actively traded the numbers might be stale.","\"The risk of market orders depends heavily on the size of the market and the exchange. On big exchange and a security which is traded in hue numbers you're likely that there are enough participants to give you a \"\"fair\"\" price. Doing a market order on a security which is hardly dealed you might make a bad deal. In Germany Tradegate Exchange and the sister company the bank Tradegate AG are known to play a bit dirty: Their market is open longer than Frankfurt (Xetra) and has way lower liquidity. So it can happen that not all sell or buy orders can be processes on the Exchange and open orders are kept. Then Tradegate AG steps in with a new offer to full-fill these trades selling high or buying low. There is a German article going in details on wiwo.de either German or via Google Translate\"","As others have stated, the current price is simply the last price at which the security traded. For any given tick, however, there are many bid-ask prices because securities can trade on multiple exchanges and between many agents on a single exchange. This is true for both types of exchanges that Chris mentioned in his answer. Chris' answer is pretty thorough in explaining how the two types of exchanges work, so I'll just add some minor details. In exchanges like NASDAQ, there are multiple market makers for most relatively liquid securities, which theoretically introduces competition between them and therefore lowers the bid-ask spreads that traders face. Although this results in the market makers earning less compensation for their risk, they hope to make up the difference by making the market for highly liquid securities. This could also result in your order filling, in pieces, at several different prices if your brokerage firm fills it through multiple market makers. Of course, if you place your order on an exchange where an electronic system fills it (the other type of exchange that Chris mentioned), this could happen anyway. In short, if you place a market order for 1000 shares, it could be filled at several different prices, depending on volume, multiple bid-ask prices, etc. If you place a sizable order, your broker may fill it in pieces regardless to prevent you from moving the market. This is rarely a problem for small-time investors trading securities with high volumes, but for investors with higher capital like institutional investors, mutual funds, etc. who place large orders relative to the average volume, this could conceivably be a burden, both in the price difference across time as the order is placed and the increased bookkeeping it demands. This is tangentially related, so I'll add it anyway. In cases like the one described above, all-or-none (AON) orders are one solution; these are orders that instruct the broker to only execute the order if it can be filled in a single transaction. Most brokers offer these, but there are some caveats that apply to them specifically. (I haven't been able to find some of this information, so some of this is from memory). All-or-none orders are only an option if the order is for more than a certain numbers of shares. I think the minimum size is 300 or 400 shares. Your order won't be placed until your broker places all other orders ahead of it that don't have special conditions attached to them. I believe all-or-none orders are day orders, which means that if there wasn't enough supply to fill the order during the day, the order is cancelled at market close. AON orders only apply to limit orders. If you want to replicate the behavior of a market order with AON characteristics, you can try setting a limit buy/sell order a few cents above/below the current market price.","\"Say we have stock XYZ that costs $50 this second. It doesn't cost XYZ this second. The market price only reflects the last price at which the security traded. It doesn't mean that if you'll get that price when you place an order. The price you get if/when your order is filled is determined by the bid/ask spreads. Why would people sell below the current price, and not within the range of the bid/ask? Someone may be willing to sell at an ask price of $47 simply because that's the best price they think they can sell the security for. Keep in mind that the \"\"someone\"\" may be a computer that determined that $47 is a reasonable ask price. Remember that bid/ask spreads aren't fixed, and there can be multiple bid/ask prices in a market at any given time. Your buy order was filled because at the time, someone else in the market was willing to sell you the security for the same price as your bid price. Your respective buy/sell orders were matched based on their price (and volume, conditional orders, etc). These questions may be helpful to you as well: Can someone explain a stock's \"\"bid\"\" vs. \"\"ask\"\" price relative to \"\"current\"\" price? Bids and asks in case of market order Can a trade happen \"\"in between\"\" the bid and ask price? Also, you say you're a day trader. If that's so, I strongly recommend getting a better grasp on the basics of market mechanics before committing any more capital. Trading without understanding how markets work at the most fundamental levels is a recipe for disaster.\"","Market price simply depends on your order side. If you are placing a buy order the market price is the lowest ask, if you are placing a sell order the market price is the highest bid. If your order is larger than the volume then you'd need to also consider the next lowest ask or next highest bid until you've fulfilled your order volume.","\"The price of the last trade... Is the price of the last trade. It indicates what one particular buyer and seller agreed upon. There is absolutely no requirement that one of them didn't offer too much or demand too little, so this is nearly meaningless as an indication of what anyone else will be willing to offer or demand. An average of trades across a sufficiently large number of transactions might indicate a rough consensus about the value of a stock, but transactions will be clustered around that average and the average itself moves over time. Either you offer to sell or buy at a particular price, wait for that price, and risk the transaction not taking place at all if nobody agrees, or you do a spot transaction and get the best price at that nanosecond (which may not be the best in the next nanosecond). Or you tell the broker what the limits are that you consider acceptable, trading these risks off against each other. Pick the one which comes closest to your intent and ignore the fact that others may be getting a slightly different price. That's just the way the market works. \"\"If his price is lower, why didn't you buy it there?\"\" \"\"He's out of stock.\"\" \"\"Well, come back when I'm out of stock and I'll be unable to sell it to you for an even better price!\"\"\"","No, Mark is right, if you place a market order there will always be someone to buy or sell at the market price. Only if you place a limit order on the price can it not sell or be bought. Just research on your computer and you will find your answer. You must be specify about open order or limit order when asking.","\"There are two distinct questions that may be of interest to you. Both questions are relevant for funds that need to buy or sell large orders that you are talking about. The answer depends on your order type and the current market state such as the level 2 order book. Suppose there are no iceberg or hidden orders and the order book (image courtesy of this question) currently is: An unlimited (\"\"at market\"\") buy order for 12,000 shares gets filled immediately: it gets 1,100 shares at 180.03 (1,100@180.03), 9,700 at 180.04 and 1,200 at 180.05. After this order, the lowest ask price becomes 180.05 and the highest bid is obviously still 180.02 (because the previous order was a 'market order'). A limited buy order for 12,000 shares with a price limit of 180.04 gets the first two fills just like the market order: 1,100 shares at 180.03 and 9,700 at 180.04. However, the remainder of the order will establish a new bid price level for 1,200 shares at 180.04. It is possible to enter an unlimited buy order that exhausts the book. However, such a trade would often be considered a mis-trade and either (i) be cancelled by the broker, (ii) be cancelled or undone by the exchange, or (iii) hit the maximum price move a stock is allowed per day (\"\"limit up\"\"). Funds and banks often have to buy or sell large quantities, just like you have described. However they usually do not punch through order book levels as I described before. Instead they would spread out the order over time and buy a smaller quantity several times throughout the day. Simple algorithms attempt to get a price close to the time-weighted average price (TWAP) or volume-weighted average price (VWAP) and would buy a smaller amount every N minutes. Despite splitting the order into smaller pieces the price usually moves against the trader for many reasons. There are many models to estimate the market impact of an order before executing it and many brokers have their own model, for example Deutsche Bank. There is considerable research on \"\"market impact\"\" if you are interested. I understand the general principal that when significant buy orders comes in relative to the sell orders price goes up and when a significant sell order comes in relative to buy orders it goes down. I consider this statement wrong or at least misleading. First, stocks can jump in price without or with very little volume. Consider a company that releases a negative earnings surprise over night. On the next day the stock may open 20% lower without any orders having matched for any price in between. The price moved because the perception of the stocks value changed, not because of buy or sell pressure. Second, buy and sell pressure have an effect on the price because of the underlying reason, and not necessarily/only because of the mechanics of the market. Assume you were prepared to sell HyperNanoTech stock, but suddenly there's a lot of buzz and your colleagues are talking about buying it. Would you still sell it for the same price? I wouldn't. I would try to find out how much they are prepared to buy it for. In other words, buy pressure can be the consequence of successful marketing of the stock and the marketing buzz is what changes the price.\"","There are two terms that are related, but separate here: Broker and Market Maker. The former is who goes and finds a buyer/seller to buy/sell shares from/to you. The latter (Market Maker) is a company which will agree to partner with you to complete the sale at a set price (typically the market price, often by definition as the market maker often is the one who determines the market price in a relatively low volumne listing). A market maker will have as you say a 'pool' of relatively common stock (and even relatively uncommon, up to a point) for this purpose. A broker can be a market maker (or work for one), also, in which case he would sell you directly the shares from the market maker reservoir. This may be a bad idea for you - the broker (while obligated to act in your interest, in theory) may push you towards stocks that the brokerage acts as a market maker for.","Thank you for replying. I'm not sure I totally follow though, aren't you totally at mercy of the liquidity in the stock? I guess I'm havinga hard time visualizing the value a human can add as opposed to say vwapping it or something. I can accept that you're right, just having a difficult time picturing it","You can*, if the market is open, in a normal trading phase (no auction phase), works, and there is an existing bid or offer on the product you want to trade, at the time the market learns of your order. Keep in mind there are 2 prices: bid and offer. If the current bid and current offer were the same, it would immediately result in a trade, and thus the bid and offer are no longer the same. Market Makers are paid / given lower fees in order to maintain buy and sell prices (called quotes) at most times. These conditions are usually all true, but commonly fail for these reasons: Most markets have an order type of market order that says buy/sell at any price. There are still sanity checks put in place on the price, with the exact rules for valid prices depending on the stock, so unless it's a penny stock you won't suddenly pay ten times a stock's value. *The amount you can buy sell is limited by the quantity that exists on the bid and offer. If there is a bid or offer, the quantity is always at least 1.","But what about the following scenario which is my paraphrasing of a Nanex article (I'm hoping you can help clarify this for me). 1. I observe a 1,000 lot @$10 advertised for Sell on a lit exchange. 2. I try to lift the 1,000 by placing a limit order @10. 3. My order goes through some kind of order routing process. First, 3 orders get executed on a dark pool. Let's say I got a 50 lot filled (so available offer reduces to 950). 4. My order hits a lit exchange. I get a partial fill for 100 (offer shrinks to 850); but the offered size shrinks instead to 500. Or 0. 5. Now, in order to execute my trade, I will have to take a higher price than the original advertised liquidity. My question (maybe you can answer this) is why did my original order size of 1,000 appear in smaller blocks? Is this because the order routing algorithm breaks up the size? Or is it that market makers only post offers in small block sizes (e.g. 100) So even if the order book looked like: 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 All the way to 1,000 total -- as soon as the first 100 shares were lifted, the MM can immediately cancel the remainder of the advertised liquidity -- in practical terms making it impossible to execute large orders at an advertised price.","\"This is a complicated subject, because professional traders don't rely on brokers for stock quotes. They have access to market data using Level II terminals, which show them all of the prices (buy and sell) for a given stock. Every publicly traded stock (at least in the U.S.) relies on firms called \"\"market makers\"\". Market makers are the ones who ultimately actually buy and sell the shares of companies, making their money on the difference between what they bought the stock at and what they can sell it for. Sometimes those margins can be in hundreds of a cent per share, but if you trade enough shares...well, it adds up. The most widely traded stocks (Apple, Microsoft, BP, etc) may have hundreds of market makers who are willing to handle share trades. Each market maker sets their own price on what they'll pay (the \"\"bid\"\") to buy someone's stock who wants to sell and what they'll sell (the \"\"ask\"\") that share for to someone who wants to buy it. When a market maker wants to be competitive, he may price his bid/ask pretty aggressively, because automated trading systems are designed to seek out the best bid/ask prices for their trade executions. As such, you might get a huge chunk of market makers in a popular stock to all set their prices almost identically to one another. Other market makers who aren't as enthusiastic will set less competitive prices, so they don't get much (maybe no) business. In any case, what you see when you pull up a stock quote is called the \"\"best bid/ask\"\" price. In other words, you're seeing the highest price a market maker will pay to buy that stock, and the lowest price that a market maker will sell that stock. You may get a best bid from one market maker and a best ask from a different one. In any case, consumers must be given best bid/ask prices. Market makers actually control the prices of shares. They can see what's out there in terms of what people want to buy or sell, and they modify their prices accordingly. If they see a bunch of sell orders coming into the system, they'll start dropping prices, and if people are in a buying mood then they'll raise prices. Market makers can actually ignore requests for trades (whether buy or sell) if they choose to, and sometimes they do, which is why a limit order (a request to buy/sell a stock at a specific price, regardless of its current actual price) that someone places may go unfilled and die at the end of the trading session. No market maker is willing to fill the order. Nowadays, these systems are largely automated, so they operate according to complex rules defined by their owners. Very few trades actually involve human intervention, because people can't digest the information at a fast enough pace to keep up with automated platforms. So that's the basics of how share prices work. I hope this answered your question without being too confusing! Good luck!\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"The Auction Market is where investors such you and me, as well as Market Makers, buy and sell securities. The Auction Markets operate with the familiar bid-ask pricing that you see on financial pages such as Google and Yahoo. The Market Makers are institutions that are there to provide liquidity so that investors can easily buy and sell shares at a \\\"\\\"fair\\\"\\\" price. Market Makers need to have on hand a suitable supply of shares to meet investor demands. When Market Makers feel the need to either increase or decrease their supply of a particular security quickly, they turn to the Dealer Market. In order to participate in a Dealer Market, you must be designated a Market Maker. As noted already, Market Makers are dedicated to providing liquidity for the Auction Market in certain securities and therefore require that they have on hand a suitable supply of those securities which they support. For example, if a Market Maker for Apple shares is low on their supply of Apple shares, then will go the Dealer Market to purchase more Apple shares. Conversely, if they are holding what they feel are too many Apple shares, they will go to the Dealer Market to sell Apple shares. The Dealer Market does operate on a bid-ask basis, contrary to your stated understanding. The bid-ask prices quoted on the Dealer Market are more or less identical to those on the Auction Market, except the quote sizes will be generally much larger. This is the case because otherwise, why would a Market Maker offer to sell shares to another Market Maker at a price well below what they could themselves sell them for in the Auction Market. (And similarly with buy orders.) If Market Makers are generally holding low quantities of a particular security, this will drive up the price in both the Dealer Market and the Auction Market. Similarly, if Market Makers are generally holding too much of a particular security, this may drive down prices on both the Auction Market and the Dealer Market.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Why would there not be a bid and ask? Dealers make their money in the spread between what they buy it from one entity for and what they sell it to another entity for. This doesn't mean they have to do it auction-style, but they'll still have a different buy price from a sell price, hence \\\"\\\"bid\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"ask\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"\\\"This is a misconception. One of the explanations is that if you buy at the ask price and want to sell it right away, you can only sell at the bid price. This is incorrect. There are no two separate bid and ask prices. The price you buy (your \\\"\\\"bid\\\"\\\") is the same price someone else sells (their \\\"\\\"sell\\\"\\\"). The same goes when you sell - the price you sell at is the price someone else buys. There's no spread with stocks. Emphasized it on purpose, because many people (especially those who gamble on stock exchange without knowing what they're doing) don't understand how the stock market works. On the stock exchange, the transaction price is the match between the bid price and the ask price. Thus, on any given transaction, bid always equals ask. There's no spread. There is spread with commodities (if you buy it directly, especially), contracts, mutual funds and other kinds of brokered transactions that go through a third party. The difference (spread) is that third party's fee for assuming part of the risk in the transaction, and is indeed added to your cost (indirectly, in the way you described). These transactions don't go directly between a seller and a buyer. For example, there's no buyer when you redeem some of your mutual fund - the fund pays you money. So the fund assumes certain risk, which is why there's a spread in the prices to invest and to redeem. Similarly with commodities: when you buy a gold bar - you buy it from a dealer, who needs to keep a stock. Thus, the dealer will not buy from you at the same price: there's a premium on sale and a discount on buy, which is a spread, to compensate the dealer for the risk of keeping a stock.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"When I first started working in finance I was given a rule of thumb to decide which price you will get in the market: \\\"\\\"You will always get the worst price for your deal, so when buying you get the higher ask price and when selling you get the lower bid price.\\\"\\\" I like to think of it in terms of the market as a participant who always buys at the lowest price they can (i.e. buys from you) and sells at the highest price they can. If that weren't true there would be an arbitrage opportunity and free money never exists for long.\\\"\",\n \"Yes, but also note each exchange have rules that states various conditions when the market maker can enlarge the bid-ask (e.g. for situations such as freely falling markets, etc.) and when the market makers need to give a normal bid-ask. In normal markets, the bid-asks are usually within exchange dictated bounds. MM's price spread can be larger than bid-ask spread only when there are multiple market makers and different market makers are providing different bid-asks. As long as the MM under question gives bid and ask within exchange's rules, it can be fine. These are usually rare situations. One advice: please carefully check the time-stamps. I have seen many occasions when tick data time-stamps between different vendors are mismatched in databases whereas in real life it isn't. MM's profits not just from spreads, but also from short term mean-reversion (fading). If a large order comes in suddenly, the MM increases the prices in one direction, takes the opposite side, and once the order is done, the prices comes down and the MM off-loads his imbalance at lower prices, etc.\",\n \"\\\"The answer posted by Kirill Fuchs is incorrect according to my series 65 text book and practice question answers. The everyday investor buys at the ask and sells at the bid but the market maker does the opposite. THE MARKET MAKER \\\"\\\"BUYS AT THE BID AND SELLS AT THE ASK\\\"\\\", he makes a profit form the spread. I have posted a quiz question and the answer created by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). To fill a customer buy order for 800 WXYZ shares, your firm requests a quote from a market maker. The response is \\\"\\\"bid 15, ask 15.25.\\\"\\\" If the order is placed, the market maker must sell: A) 800 shares at $15.25 per share. B) 800 shares at $15 per share. C) 100 shares at $15.25 per share. D) 800 shares at no more than $15 per share. Your answer, sell 800 shares at $15.25 per share., was correct!. A market maker is responsible for honoring a firm quote. If no size is requested by the inquiring trader, a quote is firm for 100 shares. In this example, the trader requested an 800-share quote, so the market maker is responsible for selling 8 round lots of 100 shares at the ask price of $15.25 per share.\\\"\",\n \"Your assets are marked to market. If you buy at X, and the market is bidding at 99.9% * X then you've already lost 0.1%. This is a market value oriented way of looking at costs. You could always value your assets with mark to model, and maybe you do, but no one else will. Just because you think the stock is worth 2*X doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees, evidenced by the bid. You surely won't get any margin loans based upon mark to model. Your bankers won't be convinced of the valuation of your assets based upon mark to model. By strictly a market value oriented way of valuing assets, there is a bid/ask cost. more clarification Relative to littleadv, this is actually a good exposition between the differences between cash and accrual accounting. littleadv is focusing completely on the cash cost of the asset at the time of transaction and saying that there is no bid/ask cost. Through the lens of cash accounting, that is 100% correct. However, if one uses accrual accounting marking assets to market (as we all do with marketable assets like stocks, bonds, options, etc), there may be a bid/ask cost. At the time of transaction, the bids used to trade (one's own) are exhausted. According to exchange rules that are now practically uniform: the highest bid is given priority, and if two bids are bidding the exact same highest price then the oldest bid is given priority; therefore the oldest highest bid has been exhausted and removed at trade. At the time of transaction, the value of the asset cannot be one's own bid but the highest oldest bid leftover. If that highest oldest bid is lower than the price paid (even with liquid stocks this is usually the case) then one has accrued a bid/ask cost.\",\n \"\\\"EVERYONE buys at the ask price and sells at the bid price (no matter who you are). There are a few important things you need to understand. Example: EVE bid: 16.00 EVE ask: 16.25 So if your selling EVE at \\\"\\\"market price\\\"\\\" you are entering an ask equal to the highest bid ($16.00). If you buy EVE at \\\"\\\"market price\\\"\\\" you are entering a bid equal to the lowest ask price ($16.25). Its key to understand this rule: \\\"\\\"An order executes ONLY when both bid and ask meet. (bid = ask).\\\"\\\" So a market maker puts in a bid when he wants to buy but the trade only executes when an ASK price meets his BID price. When you see a quote for a stock it is the price of the last trade. So it is possible to have a quote higher or lower then both the bid and the ask.\\\"\",\n \"I think your confusion has arisen because in every transaction there is a buyer and a seller, so the market maker buys you're selling, and when you're buying the market maker is selling. Meaning they do in fact buy at the ask price and sell at the bid price (as the quote said).\",\n \"Bid and ask prices are the reigning highest buy price and lowest sell price in the market which doesn't mean one must only buy/sell at thise prices. That said one can buy/sell at whatever price they so wish although doing it at any other price than the bid/ask is usually harder as other market participants will gravitate to the reigning bid/ask price. So in theory you can buy at ask and sell at bid, whether or not your order will be filled is another matter altogether.\",\n \"To add a bit to Daniel Anderson's great answer, if you want to 'peek' at what a the set of bid and ask spreads looks like, the otc market page could be interesting (NOTE: I'm NOT recommending that you trade Over The Counter. Many of these stocks are amusingly scary): http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/ACBFF/quote You can see market makers essentially offering to buy or sell blocks of stock at a variety of prices.\",\n \"The point is that the bid and ask prices dictate what you can buy and sell at (at market, at least), and the difference between the two, or spread, contributes implicitly to your gains or losses. For example, say your $1 stock actually had a bid of $0.90 and an ask of $1.10; i.e. say that $1 was the last price. You would have to buy the stock at the ask price of $1.10, but now you can only sell that stock at the bid price of $0.90. Thus, you would need to make at least that $0.20 spread before you can make a profit.\",\n \"The everyday investor buys at the ask and sells at the bid but the market maker does the opposite This is misleading; it has nothing to do with being either an investor or a market maker. It is dependent on the type of order that is submitted. When a market trades at the ask, this means that a buy market order has interacted with a sell limit order at the limit price. When a market trades at the bid, this means that a sell market order has interacted with a buy limit order at the limit price. An ordinary investor can do exactly the same as a market maker and submit limit orders. Furthermore, they can sit on both sides of the bid and ask exactly as a market maker does. In the days before high frequency trading this was quite common (an example being Daytek, whose traders were notorious for stepping in front of the designated market maker's bid/ask on the Island ECN). An order executes ONLY when both bid and ask meet. (bid = ask) This is completely incorrect. A transaction occurs when an active (marketable) order is matched with a passive (limit book) order. If the passive order is a sell limit then the trade has occurred at the ask, and if it is a buy limit the trade has occurred at the bid. The active orders are not bids and asks. The only exception to this would be if the bid and ask have become crossed. When a seller steps in, he does so with an ask that's lower than the stock's current ask Almost correct; he does so with an order that's lower than the stock's current ask. If it's a marketable order it will fill the front queued best bid, and if it's a limit order his becomes the new ask price. A trade does not need to occur at this price for it to become the ask. This is wrong, market makers are the opposite party to you so the prices are the other way around for them. This is wrong. There is no distinction between the market maker and yourself or any other member of the public (beside the fact that designated market makers on some exchanges are obliged to post both a bid and ask at all times). You can open an account with any broker and do exactly the same as a market maker does (although with nothing like the speed that a high frequency market-making firm can, hence likely making you uncompetitive in this arena). The prices a market maker sees and the types of orders that they are able to use to realize them are exactly the same as for any other trader.\",\n \"Market Makers are essentially just there to process the buys and sells of traders, so just like you and I buy and sell at the ask and bid prices they do to. They are just completing the process of making our orders a reality. Market makers are just representative of brokers, meaning that when you place your order at ask or bid, you are placing that particular brokers order at ask or bid. People often say that certain brokers have too many shares and claim that they are games when really that just means that there happen to be a lot of people using a particular broker all at once, or more troubling, perhaps even company execs using a broker, to sell a large amount of shares.\",\n \"1. Rebate 2. Bid-Ask spread 3. Tactically increasing/decreasing inventory based on their view of the market 4. Picking off idiot traders (OTC markets, basically not passing orders on to the market when the counterparty has a low performance history).\",\n \"Yes for every order there is a buyer and seller. But overall there are multiple buyers and multiple sellers. So every trade is at a different price and this price is agreed by both buyer and seller. Related question will help you understand this better. How do exchanges match limit orders?\",\n \"\\\"- In a quote driven market, must every investor trade with a market maker? In other words, two parties that are both not market makers cannot trade between themselves directly? In a way yes, all trades go through a market maker but those trades can be orders put in place by a \\\"\\\"person\\\"\\\" IE: you, or me. - Does a quote driven market only display the \\\"\\\"best\\\"\\\" bid and ask prices proposed by the market makers? In other words, only the highest bid price among all the market makers is displayed, and other lower bid prices by other market makers are not? Similarly, only the lowest ask price over all market makers is displayed, and other higher ask prices by other market makers are not? No, you can see other lower bid and higher ask prices. - In a order-driven market, is it meaningful to talk about \\\"\\\"the current stock price\\\"\\\", which is the price of last transaction? Well that's kind of an opinion. Information is information so it won't be bad to know it. Personally I would say the bid and ask price is more important. However in the real world these prices are changing constantly and quickly so realistically it is easier to keep track of the quote price and most likely the bid/ask spread is small and the quote will fall in between. The less liquid a security is the more important the bid/ask is. -- This goes for all market types. - For a specific asset, will there be several transactions happened at the same time but with different prices? Today with electronic markets, trades can happen so quickly it's difficult to say. In the US stock market trades happen one at a time but there is no set time limit between each trade. So within 1 second you can have a trade be $50 or $50.04. However it will only go to $50.04 when the lower ask prices have been exhausted. - Does an order driven market have market makers? By definition, no. - What are some examples of quote driven and order driven financial markets, in which investors are commonly trading stocks and derivatives, especially in U.S.? Quote driven market: Bond market, Forex. Order driven market: NYSE comes from an order driven market but now would be better classified as a \\\"\\\"hybird market\\\"\\\" Conclusion: If you are asking in order to better understand today's stock markets then these old definitions of Quote market or Order market may not work. The big markets in the real world are neither. (IE: Nasdaq, NYSE...) The NYSE and Nasdaq are better classified as a \\\"\\\"hybird market\\\"\\\" as they use more then a single tactic from both market types to insure market liquidity, and transparency. Markets these days are strongly electronic, fast, and fairly liquid in most cases. Here are some resources to better understand these markets: An Introduction To Securities Markets The NYSE And Nasdaq: How They Work Understanding Order Execution\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Joke warning: These days, it seems that rogue trading programs are the big market makers (this concludes the joke) Historically, exchange members were market makers. One or more members guaranteed a market in a particular stock, and would buy whatever you wanted to sell (or vice-versa). In a balanced market -- one where there were an equal number of buyers and sellers -- the spread was indeed profit for them. To make this work, market makers need an enormous amount of liquidity (ability to hold an inventory of stocks) to deal with temporary imbalances. And a day like October 29, 1929, can make that liquidity evaporate. I say \\\"\\\"historically,\\\"\\\" because I don't think that any stock market works this way today (I was discussing this very topic with a colleague last week, went to Wikipedia to look at the structure of the NYSE, and saw no mention of exchange members as market makers -- in fact, it appears that the NYSE is no longer a member-based exchange). Instead, today most (all?) trading happens on \\\"\\\"electronic crossing networks,\\\"\\\" where the spread is simply the difference between the highest bid and lowest ask. In a liquid stock, there will be hundreds if not thousands of orders clustered around the \\\"\\\"current\\\"\\\" price, usually diverging by fractions of a cent. In an illiquid stock, there may be a spread, but eventually one bid will move up or one ask will move down (or new bids will come in). You could claim that an entity with a large block of stock to move takes the role of market maker, but it doesn't have the same meaning as an exchange market maker. Since there's no entity between the bidder and asker, there's no profit in the spread, just a fee taken by the ECN. Edit: I think you have a misconception of what the \\\"\\\"spread\\\"\\\" is. It's simply the difference between the highest bid and the lowest offer. At the instant a trade takes place, the spread is 0: the highest bid equals the lowest offer, and the bidder and seller exchange shares for money. As soon as that trade is completed, the spread re-appears. The only way that a trade happens is if buyer and seller agree on price. The traditional market maker is simply an entity that has the ability to buy or sell an effectively unlimited number of shares. However, if the market maker sets a price and there are no buyers, then no trade takes place. And if there's another entity willing to sell shares below the market maker's price, then the buyers will go to that entity unless the market's rules forbid it.\\\"\",\n \"Depends on when you are seeing these bids & asks-- off hours, many market makers pull their bid & ask prices entirely. In a lightly traded stock there may just be no market except during the regular trading day.\",\n \"In the stock market many participants enter orders that are not necessarily set at the current market price of the stock (i.e. they are not market orders, they are limit orders). They can be lower than the market price (if they want to buy) or they can be higher than the market price (if they want to sell). The set of orders at each point of time for a security is called the order book. The lowest selling price of the order book is the offer or ask, the higher buying price is the bid. The more liquid is a security, the more orders will be in the order book, and the narrower will be the bid-ask spread. The depth of the order book is the number of units that the order book can absorb in any direction (buy or sell). As an example: imagine I want to buy 100 units at the lowest offer, but the size of the lowest offer is only 50 units, and there is not any further order, that means the stock has little depth.\",\n \"While volume per trade is higher at the open and to a lesser extent at the close, the overall volume is actually lower, on average. Bid ask spreads are widest at the open and to a lesser extent at the close. Generally, bid ask spreads are inversely proportional to overall volumes. Why this is the case hasn't been sufficiently clearly answered by academia yet, but some theories are that\",\n \"\\\"As an aside, on most securities with a spread of the minimum tick, there would be no bid ask spread if so-called \\\"\\\"locked markets\\\"\\\", where the price of the best bid on one exchange is equal to the price of the best ask on another, were permitted. It is currently forbidden for a security to have posted orders having the same price for both bid and ask even though they're on different exchanges. Option spreads would narrow as well as a result.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"We're in agreement, I just want retail investors to understand that in most of these types of discussions, the unspoken reality is the retail sector trading the market is *over*. This includes the mutual funds you mentioned, and even most index funds (most are so narrowly focused they lose their relevance for the retail investor). In the retail investment markets I'm familiar with, there are market makers of some sort or another for specified ranges. I'm perfectly fine with no market makers; but retail investors should be told the naked truth as well, and not sold a bunch of come-ons. What upsets me is seeing that just as computers really start to make an orderly market possible (you are right, the classic NYSE specialist structure was outrageously corrupt), regulators turned a blind eye to implementing better controls for retail investors. The financial services industry has to come to terms whether they want AUM from retail or not, and having heard messaging much like yours from other professionals, I've concluded that the industry does *not* want the constraints with accepting those funds, but neither do they want to disabuse retail investors of how tilted the game is against them. Luring them in with deceptively suggestive marketing and then taking money from those naturally ill-prepared for the rigors of the setting is like beating up the Downs' Syndrome kid on the short bus and boasting about it back on the campus about how clever and strong one is. If there was as stringent truth in marketing in financial services as cigarettes, like \\\"\\\"this service makes their profit by encouraging the churning of trades\\\"\\\", there would be a lot of kvetching from so-called \\\"\\\"pros\\\"\\\" as well. If all retail financial services were described like \\\"\\\"dead cold cow meat\\\"\\\" describes \\\"\\\"steak\\\"\\\", a lot of retail investors would be better off. As it stands today, you'd have to squint mighty hard to see the faintly-inscribed \\\"\\\"caveat emptor\\\"\\\" on financial services offerings to the retail sector. Note that depending upon the market setting, the definition of retail differs. I'm surprised the herd hasn't been spooked more by the MF Global disaster, for example, and yet there are some surprisingly large accounts detrimentally affected by that incident, which in a conventional equities setting would be considered \\\"\\\"pros\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"If you are buying your order will be placed in Bid list. If you are selling your order will be placed in the Ask list. The highest Bid price will be placed at the top of the Bid list and the lowest Ask price will be placed at the top of the Ask list. When a Bid and Ask price are matched a transaction will take place and it will the last traded price. If you are looking to buy at a lower price, say $155.01, your Bid price will be placed 3rd in the Bid list, and unless the Ask prices fall to that level, your order will remain in the list until it trades, it expires or you cancel it. If prices don't fall to you Bid price you will not get a trade. If you wanted your trade to go through you could either place a limit buy order closer to the lowest Ask price (however this is still not a certainty), or to be certain place a market buy order which will trade at the lowest Ask price.\",\n \"\\\"Market makers (shortened MM) in an exchange are generally required to list both a bid and ask price to allow both buyers and sellers to trade and keep the market moving. However, a more general idea of a MM may includes companies off an exchange (say large banks acting as broker/dealers in an over-the-counter market) are not required to give a simultaneous bid/ask, but often will on request. So, it might depend on where you are getting this data but likely the bid/ask was quoted simultaneously. An exchange, like the NASDAQ for instance, may have multiple MMs for a given market. The \\\"\\\"market\\\"\\\" spread will be from the highest bid to the lowest ask over all the MMs. The highest bid and lowest ask may come from different MMs and any particular MM often will have a larger spread. The size of the spread gives a rough idea of how much a MM is trying to make off of a \\\"\\\"round trip\\\"\\\" trade (buying than immediately selling to someone else or selling than immediately buying from someone else). Of course, immediate round-trip trades are not always possible and there are many other complications. However, half the spread is a rough indicator of how much they hope to make off of a single trade.\\\"\",\n \"3) Isn't strictly true, as off market swaps do trade quite regularly. For example, if the company has a bad credit rating, an off market swap is often executed to cover the credit costs (and essentially the cost of the bank's capital Under BASEL III.) Hence a bank shouldn't trade at mid.\",\n \"I can often get the option at [a] price [between bid and ask] The keyword you use here is quite relevant: often. More realistically, it's going to be sometimes. And that's just how supply and demand should work. The ask is where you know you can buy right away. If you don't wanna buy at ask, you can try and put a higer bid but you can only hope someone will take it before the price moves. If prices are moving up fast, you will have missed a chance if you gambled mid-spread. Having said that, the larger the spread is, the more you should work with limits mid-spread. You don't want to just take ask or bid with illiquid options. Make a calculation of the true value of the option (i.e. using the Black Scholes Model), then set your bid around there. Of course, if not only the option but also the underlying is illiquid, this all gets even more difficult.\",\n \"The best ask is the lowest ask, and the best bid is the highest bid. If the ask was lower than the bid then they crossed, and that would be a crossed market and quickly resolved. So the bid will almost always be cheaper than the ask. A heuristic is that a bid is the revenue of the stock at any given time while the ask is the cost, so the market will only ever offer a profit to itself not to the liquidity seeker. If examining the book vertically, all orders are usually sorted descending. Since the best ask is the lowest ask, it is on the bottom of the asks, and vice versa for the best bid. The best bid & best ask will be those closest since that's the narrowest spread and price-time priority will promise that a bid that crosses the asks will hit the lowest ask, the best possible price for the bidder and vice versa for an ask that crosses the best bid.\",\n \"The Bid price is simply the highest buy price currently being offered and the Ask price simply the lowest sell price being offered. The list of Bid and Ask prices is called the market depth. When the Bid and Ask prices match then a sale goes through. When looking to sell you would generally look at both the Bid and Ask prices. As a seller you want to be matched with the Bid price to get a sale, but you also need to check the current list of Ask prices. If the price you want to sell at is too high you will be placed down the Ask price list, and unless the price moves up to match your sell price you will not end up selling. On the other-hand, if your price to sell is too low and in fact much lower than the current lowest sell price you may get a quick sale but maybe at a lower price than you could have gotten. Similarly, when looking to buy, you would generally also look at both the Bid and Ask prices. As a buyer you want to be matched with the Ask price to get a sale, but you also need to check the current list of Bid prices. If the price you want to buy at is too low you will be placed down the Bid price list, and unless the price moves down to match your buy price you will no end up buying. On the other-hand, if your price to buy is too high and in fact much higher than the current highest buy price you may get a quick purchase but maybe at a higher price than you could have gotten. So, whether buying or selling, it is important to look at and consider both the Bid and Ask prices in the market depth.\",\n \"This is too lengthy for a comment. The following quoted passages are excerpted from this Money SE post. Before electronic trading and HFTs specifically, trading was thin and onerous. No. The NYSE and AMEX were deep, liquid and transparent for nearly 75 years prior to high frequency trading (HFT), in 2000 or so. The same is true for NASDAQ, but not for as many years, as NASDAQ is newer, being an electronic market. The point is that it existed, and thrived, prior to HFT. The NASDAQ can be active and functional, WITH or WITHOUT high frequency trading. This is not historically true, nor is it true now: Without a bid or ask at any given time, there could be no trade... Market makers, also known as specialists, were responsible for hitting the bid and taking the offer on whatever security they covered. They had a responsibility assigned to them by the exchange. Yes, it was lucrative! There was risk, and they were rewarded for bearing it. There is a trade-off though. Specialists provided greater stability on a systemic level, although other market participants paid for that cost. Prior to HFT, traders who were not market makers were often bounded by, boxed in, by the toll paid to market makers. Market makers had different, much higher capital and solvency requirements than other traders. Most specialists/market makers had seats, or shared a seat on the NYSE or AMEX. Remember that market makers/specialists are specific to stock markets, whereas HFT is not. If this is true, then we are in trouble: HFTs have supplanted the traditional market maker Why? Because trading volume is LOWER now than it was in the 1990's! EDIT In the comments, I noticed that OP was asking about the difference between I suggest reading this very accurate, well-written answer to a related question, The spread goes to the market maker, is the market maker the exchange? That explains the difference between\",\n \"\\\"Realize this is almost a year old, but I just wanted to comment on something in Dynas' answer above... \\\"\\\"Whenever you trade always think about what the other guys is thinking. Sometimes we forget their is someone else on the other side of my trade that thinks essentially the exact opposite of me. Its a zero sum game.\\\"\\\" From a market maker's perspective, their primary goal is not necessarily to make money by you being wrong, it is to make money on the bid-offer spread and hedging their book (and potentially interalize). That being said, the market maker would likely be quoting one side of the market away from top of the book if they don't want to take exposure in that direction (i.e. their bid will be lower than the highest bid available or their offer higher than the lowest offer available). This isn't really going to change anything if you're trading on an exchange, but important to consider if you can only see the prices your broker/dealer provides to you and they are your counterparty in the trade.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The difficulty is that you are thinking of a day as a natural unit of time. For some securities the inventory decisions are less than a minute, for others, it can be months. You could ask a similar question of \\\"\\\"why would a dealer hold cash?\\\"\\\" They are profit maximizing firms and, subject to a chosen risk level, will accept deals that are sufficiently profitable. Consider a stock that averages 1,000 shares per day, but for which there is an order for 10,000 shares. At a sufficient discount, the dealer would be crazy not to carry the order. You are also assuming all orders are idiosyncratic. Dividend reinvestment plans (DRIP) trigger planned purchases on a fixed day, usually by averaging them over a period such as 10 days. The dealer slowly accumulates a position leading up to the date whenever it appears a good discount is available and fills the DRIP orders out of their own account. The dealer tries to be careful not to disturb the market leading up to the date and allows the volume request to shift prices upward and then fills them.\\\"\",\n \"The equation you show is correct, you've simply pointed out that you understand that you buy at the 'ask' price, and later sell at the 'bid.' There is no bid/ask on the S&P, as you can't trade it directly. You have a few alternatives, however - you can trade SPY, the (most well known) S&P ETF whose price reflects 1/10 the value or VOO (Vanguard's offering) as well as others. Each of these ETFs gives you a bid/ask during market hours. They trade like a stock, have shares that are reasonably priced, and are optionable. To trade the index itself, you need to trade the futures. S&P 500 Futures and Options is the CME Group's brief info guide on standard and mini contracts. Welcome to SE.\",\n \"Yes, but it must be remembered that these conditions only last for instants, and that's why only HFTs can take advantage of this. During 2/28/14's selloff from the invasion of Ukraine, many times, there were moments where there was overwhelming liquidity on the bid relative to the ask, but the price continued to drop.\",\n \"yes you are right as per my understanding while doing trade you must consider fol (specially for starters like me) The volume of the stock you are trading in should be high enough to keep you secure for quick in and out Whenever the bid volume is more than the ask volume the prices will move up and vice versa. to give an example if a stock is at 100 points and there are fol bids: The transaction will occur when either the bidder agrees to pay the ask price (case 1. he pays 101 . his bid offer will disappear and the next best ask will be 102. and the current price will be 101 which was the last transaction.) or when the person giving ask price agrees to deal at best bid which was 99 in which case the share will go down.\",\n \"In the world of stock exchanges, the result depends on the market state of the traded stock. There are two possibilities, (a) a trade occurs or (b) no trade occurs. During the so-called auction phase, bid and ask prices may overlap, actually they usually do. During an open market, when bid and ask match, trades occur.\",\n \"Many of the Bitcoin exchanges mimic stock exchanges, though they're much more rudimentary offering only simple buy/sell/cancel orders. It's fairly normal for retail stock brokerage accounts to allow other sorts of more complex orders, where once a certain criteria is met, (the price falls below some $ threshold, or has a movement greater than some %) then your order is executed. The space between the current buy order and the current sell order is the bid/ask spread, it's not really about timing. Person X will buy at $100, person Y will sell at $102. If both had a price set at $101, they would just transact. Both parties think they can do a little bit better than the current offer. The width of the bid/ask spread is not universal by any means. The current highest buy order and the current lowest sell order, are both the current price. The current quoted market price is generally the price of the last transaction, whether it's buy or sell.\",\n \"You can always trade at bid or ask price (depending if you are selling or buying). Market price is the price the last transaction was executed at so you may not be able to get that. If your order is large then you may not even be able to get bid/ask but should look at the depth of the order book (ie what prices are other market participants asking for and what is the size of their order). Usually only fast traders will trade at bid/ask, those who believe the price move is imminent. If you are a long term trader you can often get better than bid or ask by placing a limit order and waiting until a market participant takes your offer.\",\n \"\\\"It's good to ask this question, because this is one of the fundamental dichotomies in market microstructure. At any time T for each product on a (typical) exchange there are two well-defined prices: At time T there is literally no person in the market who wants to sell below the ask, so all the people who are waiting to buy at the bid (or below) could very well be waiting there forever. There's simply no guarantee that any seller will ever want to part with their product for a lesser price than they think it's worth. So if you want to buy the product at time T you have a tough choice to make: you get in line at the bid price, where there's no guarantee that your request will ever be filled, and you might never get your hands on the product you decide that owning the product right now is more valuable to you than (ask - bid) * quantity, so you tell the exchange that you're willing to buy at the ask price, and the exchange matches you with whichever seller is first in line Now, if you're in the market for the long term, the above choice is completely immaterial to you. Who cares if you pay $10.00 * 1000 shares or $10.01 * 1000 shares when you plan to sell 30 years from now at $200 (or $200.01)? But if you're a day trader or anyone else with a very short time horizon, then this choice is extremely important: if the price is about to go up several cents and you got in line at the bid (and never got filled) then you missed out on some profit if you \\\"\\\"cross the spread\\\"\\\" to buy at the ask and then the price doesn't go up (or worse, goes down), you're screwed. In order to get out of the position you'll have to cross the spread again and sell at at most the bid, meaning you've now paid the spread twice (plus transaction fees and regulatory fees) for nothing. (All of the above also applies in reverse for selling at the ask versus selling at the bid, but most people like to learn in terms of buying rather than selling.)\\\"\",\n \"Quote driven markets are the predecessors to the modern securities market. Before electronic trading and HFTs specifically, trading was thin and onerous. Today, the average investor can open up a web page, type in a security, and buy at the narrowest spread permitted by regulators with anyone else who wants to take the other side. Before the lines between market maker and speculator became blurred to indistinction, a market maker was one who was contractually obligated to an exchange to provide a bid and ask for a given security on said exchange even though at heart a market maker is still simply a trader despite the obligation. A market maker would simultaneously buy a large amount of securities privately and short the same amount to have no directional bias, exposure to the direction of the security, and commence to making the market. The market maker would estimate its cost basis for the security based upon those initial trades and provide a bid and ask appropriate for the given level of volume. If volumes were high, the spread would be low and vice versa. Market makers who survived crashes and spikes would forgo the potential profit in always providing a steady price and spread, ie increased volume otherwise known as revenue, to maintain no directional bias. In other words, if there were suddenly many buyers and no sellers, hitting the market maker's ask, the MM would raise the ask rapidly in proportion to the increased exposure while leaving the bid somewhere below the cost basis. Eventually, a seller would arise and hit the MM's bid, bringing the market maker's inventory back into balance, and narrowing the spread that particular MM could provide since a responsible MM's ask could rise very high very quickly if a lack of its volume relative to its inventory made inventory too costly. This was temporarily extremely costly to the trader if there were few market makers on the security the trader was trading or already exposed to. Market makers prefer to profit from the spread, bidding below some predetermined price, based upon the cost basis of the market maker's inventory, while asking above that same predetermined cost basis. Traders profit from taking exposure to a security's direction or lack thereof in the case of some options traders. Because of electronic trading, liquidity rebates offered by exchanges not only to contractually obligated official market makers but also to any trader who posts a limit order that another trader hits, and algorithms that become better by the day, market making HFTs have supplanted the traditional market maker, and there are many HFTs where there previously were few official market makers. This speed and diversification of risk across many many algorithmically market making HFTs have kept spreads to the minimum on large equities and have reduced the same for the smallest equities on major exchanges. Orders and quotes are essentially identical. Both are double sided auction markets with impermenant bids and asks. The difference lies in that non-market makers, specialists, etc. orders are not shown to the rest of the market, providing an informational advantage to MMs and an informational disadvantage to the trader. Before electronic trading, this construct was of no consequence since trader orders were infrequent. With the prevalence of HFTs, the informational disadvantage has become more costly, so order driven markets now prevail with much lower spreads and accelerated volumes even though market share for the major exchanges has dropped rapidly and hyperaccelerated number of trades even though the size of individual trades have fallen. The worst aspect of the quote driven market was that traders could not directly trade with each other, so all trades had to go between a market maker, specialist, etc. While this may seem to have increased cost to a trader who could only trade with another trader by being arbitraged by a MM et al, paying more than what another trader was willing to sell, these costs were dwarfed by the potential absence of those market makers. Without a bid or ask at any given time, there could be no trade, so the costs were momentarily infinite. In essence, a quote driven market protects market makers from the competition of traders. While necessary in the days where paper receipts were carted from brokerage to brokerage, and the trader did not dedicate itself to round the clock trading, it has no place in a computerized market. It is more costly to the trader to use such a market, explaining quote driven markets' rapid exit.\",\n \"One broker told me that I have to simply read the ask size and the bid size, seeing what the market makers are offering. This implies that my order would have to match that price exactly, which is unfortunate because options contract spreads can be WIDE. Also, if my planned position size is larger than the best bid/best ask, then I should break up the order, which is also unfortunate because most brokers charge a lot for options orders.\",\n \"Sounds to me like you're describing just how it should work. Ask is at 30, Bid is at 20; you offer a new bid at 25. Either: Depending on liquidity, one or the other may be more likely. This Investorplace article on the subject describes what you're seeing, and recommends the strategy you're describing precisely. Instead of a market order, take advantage of the fact that the options world truly is a marketplace — one where you can possibly get a better price just by asking. How does that work? If you use a limit order (instead of a market order) when opening a position, you can tell your broker how much you are willing to pay to enter a trade. For example, if you enter a limit price of $1.15, you can see whether the market-maker will bite. You will be surprised at how many times you will get your price (i.e., $1.15) instead of the ask price of $1.30. If your order at $1.15 is not filled after a few minutes, you can modify your order and pay the ask price by entering a market order or limit order at the ask price (that is, you can tell your broker to pay no more than $1.30).\",\n \"When there is a difference between the two ... no trading occurs. Let's look at an example: Investor A, B, C, and D all buy/sell shares of company X. Investor A wants to sell 10 shares at $20 a share (Ask price $20 x10). Investor B wants to buy 15 shares at $10 a share (Bid price $10 x15). Since the bid price and ask price are different, no sale is made. Next Investor C comes along and wants to sell 5 shares at $14 (Ask price $14 x5). Still no sale. Investor D comes along and wants to buy 5 shares for $14 each. So a sale is finally made. At this point, the stock quote moves to $14. The ask price is $20 x10 and the bid price is $10 x15. No further trading will occur until another investor is willing to buy at $20 or sell at $10. Another discussion of this topic is shown on this post.\",\n \"\\\"Both prices are quotes on a single share of stock. The bid price is what buyers are willing to pay for it. The ask price is what sellers are willing to take for it. If you are selling a stock, you are going to get the bid price, if you are buying a stock you are going to get the ask price. The difference (or \\\"\\\"spread\\\"\\\") goes to the broker/specialist that handles the transaction.\\\"\",\n \"Theoretically, it's a question of rate of return. If a desired or acceptable rate of return for market makers' capital is X, and X is determined by the product of margin & turnover then higher turnover means lower margin for a constant X. Margin, in the case of trading, is the bid/ask spread, and turnover, in the case of trading, is volume. Empirically, it has been noted in the last markets still offering such wide-varying evidence, equity options: http://faculty.baruch.cuny.edu/lwu/890/mayhew_jf2002.pdf\",\n \"If you are looking to go long (buy) you would use bid prices as this is what you will be matched against for your order to be executed and a trade to go through. If you are looking to go short (sell) you would use the ask prices as this is what you will be matched against for your order to be executed and a trade go through. In your analysis you could use either this convention or the midpoint of the two prices. As FX is very liquid the bid and ask prices would be quite close to each other, so the easiest way to do your analysis is to use the convention I listed above.\",\n \"You don't see Buying and Selling. You see Bid and Ask. Best Bid--Highest Price someone is willing to pay to buy a stock. Best Ask - Lowest price someone is willing to accept to sell a stock. As for your second question, if you can look up Accumulation/Distribution Algorithm and Iceberg Order, you will get basic idea.\",\n \"The role of the market maker is to make sure there is a bid and ask on a particular stock. That's it. The market maker ensures that there is a price at which you can buy and a price at which you can sell immediately, but these are not necessarily the best prices. The majority of trades do not involve market makers and occur between two third parties. Whoever said a market order trades with the market maker is thinking of the way stock markets were years ago, not the way they are now. Market orders are supposed to execute immediately and at one time trading with the market makers was the method for executing immediately. If you issue a market order today, it executes with the best available limit order(s) on the other wide of the trade. This may or may not involve a party that identifies as a market maker.\",\n \"It depends on the sequence in which the order [bid and ask] were placed. Please read the below question to understand how the order are matched. How do exchanges match limit orders?\",\n \"When a stock is ask for 15.2 and bid for 14.5, and the last market price was 14.5, what does it mean? It means that the seller wants to sell for a higher price than the last sale while the buyer does not want to buy for more than the last sale price. Or what if the last price is 15.2? The seller is offering to sell for the last sale price, but the buyer wants to buy for less.\",\n \"In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.\",\n \"I frequently do this on NADEX, selling out-of-the-money binary calls. NADEX is highly illiquid, and the bid/ask is almost always from the market maker. Out-of-the-money binary calls lose value quickly (NADEX daily options exist for only ~21 hours). If I place an above-ask order, it either gets filled quickly (within a few minutes) due to a spike in the underlying, or not at all. I compensate by changing my price hourly. As Joe notes, one of Black-Scholes inputs is volatility, but price determines (implied) volatility, so this is circular. In other words, you can treat the bid/ask prices as bid/ask volatilities. This isn't as far-fetched as it seems: http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/fx/volatility-quoting-fx-options.html\",\n \"\\\"First, as @littleadv mentions, and as I've pointed out before, anyone who participates in a market using limit orders (which, by the way, should be every non-professional investor) is by definition a market maker. So, I will assume that your question pertains both to official market makers and to \\\"\\\"retail investors\\\"\\\" using limit orders. When you remark that there are such \\\"\\\"tight spreads\\\"\\\" in \\\"\\\"liquid assets\\\"\\\", what you are really saying is \\\"\\\"wow, look at all the market makers in these products!\\\"\\\" That's the benefit of electronic trading and algorithmic traders -- millions of participants each with their own opinion of the value of a financial instrument, trying to find people who have very specifically opposing opinions of the value of that same instrument. This is called price discovery, and is the entire point of financial markets. So, you ask why are there all these market makers present to create such tight spreads in assets like SPY? Answer: Because they can make money in these markets: Imagine (towards a contradiction) that market makers thought they couldn't make money by offering tight spreads in SPY, and so SPY had a wider spread than it actually does. For example, say the highest bid for SPY was $99.98 and the lowest ask was $100.01. Now imagine that a market maker with perfect knowledge of the future came along knowing that he would be able to sell SPY for $100.01 in 5 minutes. Then he would load up as many buy orders as he could for $100.00 or lower. (He wouldn't bid $100.01 or higher because those trades would not be profitable according to his information -- at least not 5 minutes from now.) So the spread had previously been $0.03 and then suddenly it was $0.01, all because a market maker with better information came along and realized he could make money by creating a tighter market! Now, nobody has perfect knowledge of the future, which is why markets are never infinitely tight or infinitely liquid. Each market maker has to weigh possible profits against the probability that those profits will actually turn into losses. But if one market maker decides not to participate in a particular instrument, there's bound to be another market maker who will happily take his place. So the very fact that there are so many market participants with resting buy/sell orders for SPY right now is proof that there are market makers able to make money doing so. If they could not make money, they wouldn't be there, and the spread would be wider. 10-15 years ago, before electronic trading and algorithmic trading, the number of market participants was far lower, and the spreads were far wider, meaning retail investors like you and me had a much harder time making money. The only people making money were the institutional investors, the brokers, and the exchanges. Now that all these new millions of players are present in the market, retail investors like you and me get to participate and make money too.\\\"\",\n \"It this a real situation or is it a made up example? Because for a stock that has a last traded priced of $5 or $6 and volume traded over $4M (i.e. it seems to be quite liquid), it is hardly likely that the difference from bid to ask would be as large as $1 (maybe for a stock that has volume of 4 to 5 thousand, but not for one having volume of 4 to 5 million). In regards to your question, if you were short selling the order would go in exactly the same as if you were selling a stock you owned. So your order would be on the ask side and would need to be matched up with a price on the bid side for there to be a trade.\",\n \"\\\"A \\\"\\\"market maker\\\"\\\" is someone that is contractually bound, by the exchange, to provide both bid and ask prices for a given volume (e.g. 5000 shares). A single market maker usually covers many stocks, and a single stock is usually covered by many market makers. The NYSE has \\\"\\\"specialists\\\"\\\" that are market makers that also performed a few other roles in the management of trading for a stock, and usually a single issue on the NYSE is covered by only one market maker. Market makers are often middlemen between brokers (ignoring stuff like dark pools, and the fact that brokers will often trade stocks internally among their own clients before going to the exchange). Historically, the market makers gave up buy/sell discretion in exchange for being the \\\"\\\"go-to guys\\\"\\\" for anyone wanting to trade in that stock. When you told your broker to buy a stock for you, he didn't hook you up with another retail investor; he went to the market maker. Market makers would also sometimes find investors willing to step in when more liquidity was needed for a security. They were like other floor traders; they hung out on the exchange floors and interacted with traders to buy and sell stocks. Traders came to them when they wanted to buy one of the specialist's issues. There was no public order book; just ticker tape and a quote. It was up to the market maker to maintain that order book. Since they are effectively forbidden from being one-sided traders in a security, their profit comes from the bid-ask spread. Being the counter-party to almost every trade, they'd make profit from always selling above where they were buying. (Except when the price moved quickly -- the downside to this arrangement.) \\\"\\\"The spread goes to the market maker\\\"\\\" is just stating that the profit implicit in the spread gets consumed by the market maker. With the switch to ECNs, the role of the market maker has changed. For example, ForEx trading firms tend to act as market makers to their customers. On ECNs, the invisible, anonymous guy at the other end of most trades is often a market maker, still performing his traditional role. Yet brokers can interact directly with each other now, rather than relying on the market maker's book. With modern online investing and public order books, retail investors might even be trading directly with each other. Market makers are still out there; in part, they perform a service sold by an Exchange to the companies that choose to be listed on that exchange. That service has changed to helping tamp volatility during normal high-volatility periods (such as at open and close).\\\"\",\n \"The same as when you are buying a car. If a dealer quotes 10k and you quote 8k. 8k is the buy price and 10k is the sell price. Somebody might quote 8.5k and another dealer might quote 9.5k. The the new price that you see on your screen is 8.5k(Best buy price) and 9.5k(Best sell price). When the buyer and seller agree to an amount, the car(In your case stock) is traded.\",\n \"\\\"I think for this a picture is worth a thousand words. This is a \\\"\\\"depth chart\\\"\\\" that I pulled from google images, specifically because it doesn't name any security. On the left you have all of the \\\"\\\"bids\\\"\\\" to buy this security, on the right you have the \\\"\\\"asks\\\"\\\" to sell the security. In the middle you have the bid/ask spread, this is the space between the highest bid and the lowest ask. As you can see you are free to place you order to the market to buy for 232, and someone else is free to place their order to the market to sell for 234. When the bid and the ask match there's a transaction for the maximum number of available shares. Alternatively, someone can place a market order to buy or sell and they'll just take the current market price. Retail investors don't really get access to this kind of chart from their brokers because for the most part the information isn't terribly relevant at the retail level.\\\"\",\n \"When you place a bid between the bid/ask spread, that means you are raising the bid (or lowering the ask, if you are selling). The NBBO (national best bid and offer) is now changed because of your action, and yes, certain kinds of orders may be set to react to that (a higher bid or lower ask triggering them), also many algorithms (that haven't already queued an order simply waiting for a trigger, like in a stop limit) read the bid and ask and are programmed to then place an order at that point.\",\n \"\\\"The current stock price you're referring to is actually the price of the last trade. It is a historical price – but during market hours, that's usually mere seconds ago for very liquid stocks. Whereas, the bid and ask are the best potential prices that buyers and sellers are willing to transact at: the bid for the buying side, and the ask for the selling side. But, think of the bid and ask prices you see as \\\"\\\"tip of the iceberg\\\"\\\" prices. That is: The \\\"\\\"Bid: 13.20 x200\\\"\\\" is an indication that there are potential buyers bidding $13.20 for up to 200 shares. Their bids are the highest currently bid; and there are others in line behind with lower bid prices. So the \\\"\\\"bid\\\"\\\" you're seeing is actually the best bid price at that moment. If you entered a \\\"\\\"market\\\"\\\" order to sell more than 200 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a lower price. The \\\"\\\"Ask: 13.27 x1,000\\\"\\\" is an indication that there are potential sellers asking $13.27 for up to 1000 shares. Their ask prices are the lowest currently asked; and there are others in line behind with higher ask prices. So the \\\"\\\"ask\\\"\\\" you're seeing is the best asking price at that moment. If you entered a \\\"\\\"market\\\"\\\" order to buy more than 1000 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a higher price. A transaction takes place when either a potential buyer is willing to pay the asking price, or a potential seller is willing to accept the bid price, or else they meet in the middle if both buyers and sellers change their orders. Note: There are primarily two kinds of stock exchanges. The one I just described is a typical order-driven matched bargain market, and perhaps the kind you're referring to. The other kind is a quote-driven over-the-counter market where there is a market-maker, as JohnFx already mentioned. In those cases, the spread between the bid & ask goes to the market maker as compensation for making a market in a stock. For a liquid stock that is easy for the market maker to turn around and buy/sell to somebody else, the spread is small (narrow). For illiquid stocks that are harder to deal in, the spread is larger (wide) to compensate the market-maker having to potentially carry the stock in inventory for some period of time, during which there's a risk to him if it moves in the wrong direction. Finally ... if you wanted to buy 1000 shares, you could enter a market order, in which case as described above you'll pay $13.27. If you wanted to buy your shares at no more than $13.22 instead, i.e. the so-called \\\"\\\"current\\\"\\\" price, then you would enter a limit order for 1000 shares at $13.22. And more to the point, your order would become the new highest-bid price (until somebody else accepts your bid for their shares.) Of course, there's no guarantee that with a limit order that you will get filled; your order could expire at the end of the day if nobody accepts your bid.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"People in this case, are large institutional investors. The \\\"\\\"bid ask\\\"\\\" spread is for \\\"\\\"small traders\\\"\\\" like yourself. It is put out by the so-called specialists (or \\\"\\\"market makers\\\"\\\") and is typically good for hundreds or thousands of shares at a time. Normally, 2 points on a 50 stock is a wide spread, and the market maker will make quite a bit of money on it trading with people like yourself. It's different if a large institution, say Fidelity, wants to sell, say 1 million shares of the stock. Depending on market conditions, it may have trouble finding buyers willing to buy in those amounts anywhere near 50. To \\\"\\\"move\\\"\\\" such a large block of stock, they may have to put the equivalent of K-Mart's old \\\"\\\"Blue Light Special\\\"\\\" on, several points below.\\\"\",\n \"A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.\",\n \"In general stock markets are very similar to that, however, you can also put in limit orders to say that you will only buy or sell at a given price. These sit in the market for a specified length of time and will be executed when an order arrives that matches the price (or better). Traders who set limit orders are called liquidity (or price) makers as they provide liquidity (i.e. volume to be traded) to be filled later. If there is no counterparty (i.e. buyer to your seller) in the market, a market maker; a large bank or brokerage who is licensed and regulated to do so, will fill your order at some price. That price is based on how much volume (i.e. trading) there is in that stock on average. This is called average daily volume (ADV) and is calculated over varying periods of time; we use ADV30 which is the 30 day average. You can always sell stocks for whatever price you like privately but a market order does not allow you to set your price (you are a price taker) therefore that kind of order will always fill at a market price. As mentioned above limit orders will not fill until the price is hit but will stay on book as long as they aren't filled, expired or cancelled.\",\n \"Traditionally, dealers and broker-dealers were in contact with the actual producers of a product or issuers of a security, selling it at the exchange on their behalf. Consumers would traditionally be on the buy side, of course. These days, anyone can enter the market on either side. Even if you don't hold the security or product, you could sell it, and take on the risk of having to stock up on it by the delivery date in exchange for cash or other securities. On the other side, if you can't hold the product or security you could still buy it, taking on the risk of having to dispose of it somehow by delivery in exchange for cash or other securities. In either case you (the sell-side) take on risk and provide products/securities/cash. This is most commonly known as market making. Modern literature coins the terms liquidity taker (buy-side) and liquidity provider (sell-side). Even more accurately, risk management literature would use the terms risk-taker (sell-side) and risk spreader or risk reducer (buy side). This is quite illustrative in modern abstract markets. Take a market that allows for no offsetting or hedging because the product in question is abstract or theoretical, e.g. weather trading, volatility trading, inflation trading, etc. There's always one party trying to eliminate dependence on or correlation to the product (the risk reducer, buy-side) and the counterparty taking on their risk (sell-side).\",\n \"This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.\",\n \"I think you're over complicating it! There is the market maker in the pure sense as what chilldontkill said - a bookie, a middleman. They are just the brokers in between the buyers and sellers, and they simply make profit off of the spread differential. But market maker is also used to refer to large, high volume buyers and sellers that can influence the price because they control a larger % of volume. These only really exist on low volume products, and they slowly ween out the larger the volume. On higher volume products, I like to refer to them as institutions - that is, well informed, large pockets - whether is be central banks, clearing houses, hedge funds, boutique firms. These are the people who are generally in the know and they often bet against eachother.hope this helps ...\",\n \"\\\"Re: A trader when buying needs to buy at the ask price and when selling needs to sell at the bid price. So how can a trade happen 'in between' the bid and ask? Saying the trade can happen \\\"\\\"in between\\\"\\\" the bid & ask is simplistic. There is a time dimension to the market. It's more accurate to say that an order can be placed \\\"\\\"in between\\\"\\\" the current best bid & ask (observed at time T=0), thus establishing a new level for one or the other of those quoted prices (observed at time T>0). If you enter a market order to buy (or sell), then yes, you'll generally be accepting the current best ask (or best bid) with your order, because that's what a market order says to do: Accept the current best market price being offered for your kind of transaction. Of course, prices may move much faster than your observation of the price and the time it takes to process your order – you're far from being the only participant. Market orders aside, you are free to name your own price above or below the current best bid & ask, respectively. ... then one could say that you are placing an order \\\"\\\"in between\\\"\\\" the bid and ask at the time your order is placed. However – and this is key – you are also moving one or the other of those quoted prices in the process of placing your above-bid buy order or your below-ask sell order. Then, only if somebody else in the market chooses to accept your new ask (or bid) does your intended transaction take place. And that transaction takes place at the new ask (or bid) price, not the old one that was current when you entered your order. Read more about bid & ask prices at this other question: (p.s. FWIW, I don't necessarily agree with the assertion from the article you quoted, i.e.: \\\"\\\"By looking for trades that take place in between the bid and ask, you can tell when a strong trend is about to come to an end.\\\"\\\" I would say: Maybe, perhaps, but maybe not.)\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I mean, it's only a difference of an order of magnitude, really. Until you consider the following: 1) Only a fraction of the $800B Muni bonds market is new issue. 2) True spreads on Muni bonds are hard enough to calculate as is because they're all OTC. 3)The author quotes that the particular bid was for an 87K/year return on a notional of $300M. That's a spread of a whopping 3 basis points that the bank took extra over \\\"\\\"true value\\\"\\\". 4) Intraday vol for almost any financial instrument is more than 3 basis points. 5) So that's what he's making this big deal over? THREE basis points? I don't even know the length of my penis to within three basis points, and I challenge you to find anyone who could name the yield on the 10Y Treasury within 3 basis points.\\\"\",\n \"Actually the insertion part is interesting because they actually aren't middlemen just faster buyer's and sellers on the open market. They just buy what one person is selling and sell it to someone else who is at the same time looking to buy. So I guess the issue is the 'same time' isn't the same for all parties concerned. On the other hand both buyer and seller can set limits on the bounds of the price and only transact when someone meets their terms. If you are willing to accept 'whatever the market will bear' then it seems like you should be OK with getting it.\",\n \"\\\"Yes we lose some client business to algos - specifically the DMA (direct market access) side of things. I haven't seen much HFT impact on what I do. I see the movement towards algos/automated trading and DMA over the next 5-10 years, and block traders like me going extinct eventually. But this all assumes liquidity, which is not there in the product I trade. So you still need a dealer who knows where the blocks \\\"\\\"live\\\"\\\". You want to buy 5% of that issue? okay good-luck trying to do that in the market. No algo will help you do that without moving the market against you.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Assuming that no one else has hit the ask, and the asks are still there, yes, you will fill $54.55 as long as you didn't exhaust that ask. Actually, there is no \\\"\\\"current price at which the stock is exchanging hands\\\"\\\"; in reality, it is \\\"\\\"the last price traded\\\"\\\". The somebody who negotiated prices between buyers & sellers is the exchange through their handling of bids & asks. The real negotiation comes between bids & asks, and if they meet or cross, a trade occurs. It's not that both bid & ask should be $54.55, it's that they were. To answer the title, the reasons why the bid and ask (even their midpoint) move away from the last price are largely unknown, but at least for the market makers, if their sell inventory is going away (people are buying heavily and they're running out of inventory) they will start to hike up their asks a lot and their bids a little because market makers try to stay market neutral, having no opinion on whether an asset will rise or fall, so with stocks, that means having a balanced inventory of longs & shorts. They want to (sometimes have to depending on the exchange) accommodate the buying pressure, but they don't want to lose money, so they simply raise the ask and then raise the bid as people hit their asks since their average cost basis has risen. In fact (yahoo finance is great about showing this), there's rarely 1 bid and 1 ask. Take a look at BAC's limit book: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ecn?s=BAC+Order+Book You can see that there are many bids and many asks. If one ask is exhausted, the next in line is now the highest. The market maker who just sold at X will certainly step over the highest bid to bid at X*0.9 to get an 11% return on investment.\\\"\",\n \"The principle of demand-supply law will not work if spoofing (or layering, fake order) is implemented. However, spoofing stocks is an illegal criminal practice monitored by SEC. In stock market, aggressive buyer are willing to pay for a higher ask price pushing the price higher even if ask size is considerably larger than bid size, especially when high growth potential with time is expected. Larger bids may attract more buyers, further perpetuating a price increase (positive pile-on effect). Aggressive sellers are willing to accept a lower bid price pushing the price lower even if ask size is considerably smaller than bid size, when a negative situation is expected. Larger asks may attract more sellers, further perpetuating a price fall (negative pile-on effect). Moreover, seller and buyers considers not only price but also size of shares in their decision-making process, along with marker order and/or limit order. Unlike limit order, market order is not recorded in bid/ask size. Market order, but not limit order, immediately affects the price direction. Thus, ask/bid sizes alone do not give enough information on price direction. If stocks are being sold continuously at the bid price, this could be the beginning of a downward trend; if stocks are being sold continuously at the ask price, this could be the beginning of a upward trend. This is because ask price is always higher than bid price. In all the cases, both buyers and sellers hope to make a profit in a long-term and short-term view\",\n \"It depends to some extent on how you interpret the situation, so I think this is the general idea. Say you purchase one share at $50, and soon after, the price moves up, say, to $55. You now have an unrealized profit of $5. Now, you can either sell and realize that profit, or hold on to the position, expecting a further price appreciation. In either case, you will consider the price change from this traded price, which is $55, and not the price you actually bought at. Hence, if the price fell to $52 in the next trade, you have a loss of $3 on your previous profit of $5. This (even though your net P&L is calculated from the initial purchase price of $50), allows you to think in terms of your positions at the latest known prices. This is similar to a Markov process, in the sense that it doesn't matter which route the stock price (and your position's P&L) took to get to the current point; your decision should be based on the current/latest price level.\",\n \"Is the stock's price at any given moment the price at which all shares could be sold to new investors? No. For the simple fact that the current bid/offer always have sizes associated. What you should be looking at is the consolidated price to buy/sell X shares (10bn doesn't really work as not everyone is willing to sell/buy). If you look at the spread of the consolidated price at your quantity level, you'd notice it would be in stark contrast to the spread of the best bid/offer but (by definition) that would be the price to buy or sell X shares to new investors. Edit Calculation of the consolidated price of X shares: You go through the order book and calculate the size-weighted average price until you covered X. Example: So the consolidated price for 3000 shares would be $39.80, the consolidated price for 2000 shares would be $39.90.\",\n \"There are usually so many different options around for the same stock that some are rarely traded. Especially if the price has moved since the option was issued, nobody might be interested in that particular option at that price anymore. So the asking price might be something that someone asked for ages ago and that is much higher than anyone would reasonably pay today. With a bid of $20 and an ask of $30, nobody is trading, but the value of that option is somewhere between $20 and $30. If the value is below $25, someone will notice your $25 bid and sell.\",\n \"To add to @Victor 's answer; if you are entering a market order, and not a limit order (where you set the price you want to buy or sell at), then the Ask price is what you can expect to pay to purchase shares of stock in a long position and the Bid price is what you can expect to receive when you sell stock you own in a long position.\",\n \"You seem to be confused - try answering these: 1. Whom do the traders work for? 2. What are the traders trading and how do they acquire those vehicles? 3. How does a company make money and how does that money get deployed? Google will be crucial for these, but will answer your questions. If you choose to get in finance, remember the golden rule: if you have a question, Google it first.\",\n \"All day. We make markets are pretty much anything. We just don't price anything. If we can go in house that's what we'll do if not we'll go external. We so see decent flow, but nothing like capital markets sees. You guys hiring? :)\",\n \"\\\"Mathematically it's arbitrary - you could just as easily use the bid or the midpoint as the denominator, so long as you're consistent when comparing securities. So there's not a fundamental reason to use the ask. The best argument I can come up with is that most analysis is done from the buy side, so looking at liquidity costs (meaning how much does the value drop instantaneously purely because of the bid-ask spread) when you buy a security would be more relevant by using the ask (purchase price) as the basis. Meaning, if a stock has a bid-ask range of $95-$100, if you buy the stock at $100 (the ask), you immediately \\\"\\\"lose\\\"\\\" 5% (5/100) of its value since you can only sell it for $95.\\\"\",\n \"All the time. For high volume stocks, it may be tough to see exactly what's going on, e.g. the bid/ask may be moving faster than your connection to the broker can show you. What I've observed is with options. The volume on some options is measured in the 10's or 100's of contracts in a day. I'll see a case where it's $1.80/$2.00 bid/ask, and by offering $1.90 will often see a fill at that price. Since I may be the only trade on that option in the 15 minute period and note that the stock wasn't moving more than a penny during that time, I know that it was my order that managed to fill between the bid/ask.\",\n \"\\\"I assume that mutual funds are being discussed here. As Bryce says, open-ended funds are bought from the mutual fund company and redeemed from the fund company. Except in very rare circumstances, they exist only as bits in the fund company's computers and not as share certificates (whether paper or electronic) that can be delivered from the selling broker to the buying broker on a stock exchange. Effectively, the fund company is the sole market maker: if you want to buy, ask the fund company at what price it will sell them to you (and it will tell you the answer only after 4 pm that day when a sale at that price is no longer possible unless you committed to buy, say, 100 shares and authorized the fund company to withdraw the correct amount from your bank account or other liquid asset after the price was known). Ditto if you want to sell: the mutual fund company will tell you what price it will give you only after 4 pm that day and you cannot sell at that price unless you had committed to accept whatever the company was going to give you for your shares (or had said \\\"\\\"Send me $1000 and sell as many shares of mine as are needed to give me proceeds of $1000 cash.\\\"\\\")\\\"\",\n \"This question is impossible answer for all markets but there are 2 more possibilities in my experience:\",\n \"No, it's not even remotely accurate in the current sense. Both markets have counterparties directly executing against one another, and both have auctions. The auction mechanics are different (with NYSE's Specialist/DMM model) but during normal market hours there isn't much difference.\",\n \"\\\"For every buyer there is a seller. That rule refers to actual (historical) trades. It doesn't apply to \\\"\\\"wannabees.\\\"\\\" Suppose there are buyers for 2,000 shares and sellers for only 1,000 at a given price, P. Some of those buyers will raise their \\\"\\\"bid\\\"\\\" (the indication of the price they are willing to pay) above P so that the sellers of the 1000 shares will fill their orders first (\\\"\\\"sold to the highest bidder\\\"\\\"). The ones that don't do this will (probably) not get their orders filled. Suppose there are more sellers than buyers. Then some sellers will lower their \\\"\\\"offer\\\"\\\" price to attract buyers (and some sellers probably won't). At a low enough price, there will likely be a \\\"\\\"match\\\"\\\" between the total number of shares on sale, and shares on purchase orders.\\\"\",\n \"At any point of time, buyer wants to purchase a stock at lesser price and seller wants to sell the stock at a higher price. Let's consider this scenario Company XYZ is trading at 100$, as stated above buyer wants to purchase at lower price and seller at higher price, this information will be available in Market depth, let's consider there are 5 buyers and 5 sellers, below are the details of their orders Buyers List Sellers List Highest order in buyers list will contain the bid price and bid quantity, Lowest order in Sellers list will contain the offer price and offer quantity. Now, if I want to buy 50 Stocks of company XYZ, need to place an order first, it can be either limit or Market. Limit Order : In this order, I will mention the price(buy price) at which I wish to buy, if there is any seller selling the stock less than or equal to price I have mentioned, then the order will be executed else it will be added to buyers list Market Order : In this order, I will not mention the price, if I wish to purchase 50 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 101. if I wish to purchase 200 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 2 transactions, since entire request cannot be accommodated in single order Usually the volume(Ask Volume and Offer Volume) being displayed are all Limit orders and not Market orders, Market orders are executed immediately. This is just an example, However several transactions are executed within a second, hence we will get to know the exact value only after the order is completed(executed)\",\n \"Investopedia has a section in their article about currency trading that states: The FX market does not have commissions. Unlike exchange-based markets, FX is a principals-only market. FX firms are dealers, not brokers. This is a critical distinction that all investors must understand. Unlike brokers, dealers assume market risk by serving as a counterparty to the investor's trade. They do not charge commission; instead, they make their money through the bid-ask spread. Principals-only means that the only parties to a transaction are agents who actively bear risk by taking one side of the transaction. There are forex brokers who charge what's called a commission, based on the spread. Investopedia has another article about the commission structure in the forex market that states: There are three forms of commission used by brokers in forex. Some firms offer a fixed spread, others offer a variable spread and still others charge a commission based on a percentage of the spread. So yes, there are forex brokers who charge a commission, but this paragraph is saying mostly the same thing as the first paragraph. The brokers make their money through the bid-ask spread; how they do so varies, and sometimes they call this charge a commission, sometimes they don't. All of the information above differs from the stock markets, however, in which The broker takes the order to an exchange and attempts to execute it as per the customer's instructions. For providing this service, the broker is paid a commission when the customer buys and sells the tradable instrument. The broker isn't taking a side in the trade, so he's not making money on the spread. He's performing the service of taking the order to an exchange an attempting to execute it, and for that, he charges a commission.\",\n \"\\\"In a sense, yes. There's a view in Yahoo Finance that looks like this For this particular stock, a market order for 3000 shares (not even $4000, this is a reasonably small figure) will move the stock past $1.34, more than a 3% move. Say, on the Ask side there are 100,000 shares, all with $10 ask. It would take a lot of orders to purchase all these shares, so for a while, the price may stay right at $10, or a bit lower if there are those willing to sell lower. But, say that side showed $10 1000, $10.25 500, $10.50 1000. Now, the volume is so low that if I decided I wanted shares at any price, my order, a market order will actually drive the market price right up to $10.50 if I buy 2500 shares \\\"\\\"market\\\"\\\". You see, however, even though I'm a small trader, I drove the price up. But now that the price is $10.50 when I go to sell all 2500 at $10.50, there are no bids to pay that much, so the price the next trade will occur at isn't known yet. There may be bids at $10, with asking (me) at $10.50. No trades will happen until a seller takes the $10 bid or other buyers and sellers come in.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"At least for liquid markets, the downside of being a market maker is what we call \\\"\\\"negative selection\\\"\\\". Specifically, if you're both bid and offered in a market, trying to collect your spread, then as the market goes up, you'll tend to sell the whole way up, and vice versa. So if you're not smart about it, you can end up losing a lot of money. Being a good market maker, then, involves either being able to smarter about when to be aggressively bid and offered and when to pull back, or being able to hedge them quickly before they really hurt you. The first probably would require more sophisticated algorithms, while the second requires good speed and execution strategies.\\\"\",\n \"As another answer started, this information comes straight from an exchange and generally costs a fortune . . . However things change: IEX, a new exchange, recently opened and they are offering real time bid/ask data for free. Here's the API description: https://www.iextrading.com/developer/ This data should be good for active securities, but for securities less actively traded the numbers might be stale.\",\n \"\\\"The risk of market orders depends heavily on the size of the market and the exchange. On big exchange and a security which is traded in hue numbers you're likely that there are enough participants to give you a \\\"\\\"fair\\\"\\\" price. Doing a market order on a security which is hardly dealed you might make a bad deal. In Germany Tradegate Exchange and the sister company the bank Tradegate AG are known to play a bit dirty: Their market is open longer than Frankfurt (Xetra) and has way lower liquidity. So it can happen that not all sell or buy orders can be processes on the Exchange and open orders are kept. Then Tradegate AG steps in with a new offer to full-fill these trades selling high or buying low. There is a German article going in details on wiwo.de either German or via Google Translate\\\"\",\n \"As others have stated, the current price is simply the last price at which the security traded. For any given tick, however, there are many bid-ask prices because securities can trade on multiple exchanges and between many agents on a single exchange. This is true for both types of exchanges that Chris mentioned in his answer. Chris' answer is pretty thorough in explaining how the two types of exchanges work, so I'll just add some minor details. In exchanges like NASDAQ, there are multiple market makers for most relatively liquid securities, which theoretically introduces competition between them and therefore lowers the bid-ask spreads that traders face. Although this results in the market makers earning less compensation for their risk, they hope to make up the difference by making the market for highly liquid securities. This could also result in your order filling, in pieces, at several different prices if your brokerage firm fills it through multiple market makers. Of course, if you place your order on an exchange where an electronic system fills it (the other type of exchange that Chris mentioned), this could happen anyway. In short, if you place a market order for 1000 shares, it could be filled at several different prices, depending on volume, multiple bid-ask prices, etc. If you place a sizable order, your broker may fill it in pieces regardless to prevent you from moving the market. This is rarely a problem for small-time investors trading securities with high volumes, but for investors with higher capital like institutional investors, mutual funds, etc. who place large orders relative to the average volume, this could conceivably be a burden, both in the price difference across time as the order is placed and the increased bookkeeping it demands. This is tangentially related, so I'll add it anyway. In cases like the one described above, all-or-none (AON) orders are one solution; these are orders that instruct the broker to only execute the order if it can be filled in a single transaction. Most brokers offer these, but there are some caveats that apply to them specifically. (I haven't been able to find some of this information, so some of this is from memory). All-or-none orders are only an option if the order is for more than a certain numbers of shares. I think the minimum size is 300 or 400 shares. Your order won't be placed until your broker places all other orders ahead of it that don't have special conditions attached to them. I believe all-or-none orders are day orders, which means that if there wasn't enough supply to fill the order during the day, the order is cancelled at market close. AON orders only apply to limit orders. If you want to replicate the behavior of a market order with AON characteristics, you can try setting a limit buy/sell order a few cents above/below the current market price.\",\n \"\\\"Say we have stock XYZ that costs $50 this second. It doesn't cost XYZ this second. The market price only reflects the last price at which the security traded. It doesn't mean that if you'll get that price when you place an order. The price you get if/when your order is filled is determined by the bid/ask spreads. Why would people sell below the current price, and not within the range of the bid/ask? Someone may be willing to sell at an ask price of $47 simply because that's the best price they think they can sell the security for. Keep in mind that the \\\"\\\"someone\\\"\\\" may be a computer that determined that $47 is a reasonable ask price. Remember that bid/ask spreads aren't fixed, and there can be multiple bid/ask prices in a market at any given time. Your buy order was filled because at the time, someone else in the market was willing to sell you the security for the same price as your bid price. Your respective buy/sell orders were matched based on their price (and volume, conditional orders, etc). These questions may be helpful to you as well: Can someone explain a stock's \\\"\\\"bid\\\"\\\" vs. \\\"\\\"ask\\\"\\\" price relative to \\\"\\\"current\\\"\\\" price? Bids and asks in case of market order Can a trade happen \\\"\\\"in between\\\"\\\" the bid and ask price? Also, you say you're a day trader. If that's so, I strongly recommend getting a better grasp on the basics of market mechanics before committing any more capital. Trading without understanding how markets work at the most fundamental levels is a recipe for disaster.\\\"\",\n \"Market price simply depends on your order side. If you are placing a buy order the market price is the lowest ask, if you are placing a sell order the market price is the highest bid. If your order is larger than the volume then you'd need to also consider the next lowest ask or next highest bid until you've fulfilled your order volume.\",\n \"\\\"The price of the last trade... Is the price of the last trade. It indicates what one particular buyer and seller agreed upon. There is absolutely no requirement that one of them didn't offer too much or demand too little, so this is nearly meaningless as an indication of what anyone else will be willing to offer or demand. An average of trades across a sufficiently large number of transactions might indicate a rough consensus about the value of a stock, but transactions will be clustered around that average and the average itself moves over time. Either you offer to sell or buy at a particular price, wait for that price, and risk the transaction not taking place at all if nobody agrees, or you do a spot transaction and get the best price at that nanosecond (which may not be the best in the next nanosecond). Or you tell the broker what the limits are that you consider acceptable, trading these risks off against each other. Pick the one which comes closest to your intent and ignore the fact that others may be getting a slightly different price. That's just the way the market works. \\\"\\\"If his price is lower, why didn't you buy it there?\\\"\\\" \\\"\\\"He's out of stock.\\\"\\\" \\\"\\\"Well, come back when I'm out of stock and I'll be unable to sell it to you for an even better price!\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"No, Mark is right, if you place a market order there will always be someone to buy or sell at the market price. Only if you place a limit order on the price can it not sell or be bought. Just research on your computer and you will find your answer. You must be specify about open order or limit order when asking.\",\n \"\\\"There are two distinct questions that may be of interest to you. Both questions are relevant for funds that need to buy or sell large orders that you are talking about. The answer depends on your order type and the current market state such as the level 2 order book. Suppose there are no iceberg or hidden orders and the order book (image courtesy of this question) currently is: An unlimited (\\\"\\\"at market\\\"\\\") buy order for 12,000 shares gets filled immediately: it gets 1,100 shares at 180.03 (1,100@180.03), 9,700 at 180.04 and 1,200 at 180.05. After this order, the lowest ask price becomes 180.05 and the highest bid is obviously still 180.02 (because the previous order was a 'market order'). A limited buy order for 12,000 shares with a price limit of 180.04 gets the first two fills just like the market order: 1,100 shares at 180.03 and 9,700 at 180.04. However, the remainder of the order will establish a new bid price level for 1,200 shares at 180.04. It is possible to enter an unlimited buy order that exhausts the book. However, such a trade would often be considered a mis-trade and either (i) be cancelled by the broker, (ii) be cancelled or undone by the exchange, or (iii) hit the maximum price move a stock is allowed per day (\\\"\\\"limit up\\\"\\\"). Funds and banks often have to buy or sell large quantities, just like you have described. However they usually do not punch through order book levels as I described before. Instead they would spread out the order over time and buy a smaller quantity several times throughout the day. Simple algorithms attempt to get a price close to the time-weighted average price (TWAP) or volume-weighted average price (VWAP) and would buy a smaller amount every N minutes. Despite splitting the order into smaller pieces the price usually moves against the trader for many reasons. There are many models to estimate the market impact of an order before executing it and many brokers have their own model, for example Deutsche Bank. There is considerable research on \\\"\\\"market impact\\\"\\\" if you are interested. I understand the general principal that when significant buy orders comes in relative to the sell orders price goes up and when a significant sell order comes in relative to buy orders it goes down. I consider this statement wrong or at least misleading. First, stocks can jump in price without or with very little volume. Consider a company that releases a negative earnings surprise over night. On the next day the stock may open 20% lower without any orders having matched for any price in between. The price moved because the perception of the stocks value changed, not because of buy or sell pressure. Second, buy and sell pressure have an effect on the price because of the underlying reason, and not necessarily/only because of the mechanics of the market. Assume you were prepared to sell HyperNanoTech stock, but suddenly there's a lot of buzz and your colleagues are talking about buying it. Would you still sell it for the same price? I wouldn't. I would try to find out how much they are prepared to buy it for. In other words, buy pressure can be the consequence of successful marketing of the stock and the marketing buzz is what changes the price.\\\"\",\n \"There are two terms that are related, but separate here: Broker and Market Maker. The former is who goes and finds a buyer/seller to buy/sell shares from/to you. The latter (Market Maker) is a company which will agree to partner with you to complete the sale at a set price (typically the market price, often by definition as the market maker often is the one who determines the market price in a relatively low volumne listing). A market maker will have as you say a 'pool' of relatively common stock (and even relatively uncommon, up to a point) for this purpose. A broker can be a market maker (or work for one), also, in which case he would sell you directly the shares from the market maker reservoir. This may be a bad idea for you - the broker (while obligated to act in your interest, in theory) may push you towards stocks that the brokerage acts as a market maker for.\",\n \"Thank you for replying. I'm not sure I totally follow though, aren't you totally at mercy of the liquidity in the stock? I guess I'm havinga hard time visualizing the value a human can add as opposed to say vwapping it or something. I can accept that you're right, just having a difficult time picturing it\",\n \"You can*, if the market is open, in a normal trading phase (no auction phase), works, and there is an existing bid or offer on the product you want to trade, at the time the market learns of your order. Keep in mind there are 2 prices: bid and offer. If the current bid and current offer were the same, it would immediately result in a trade, and thus the bid and offer are no longer the same. Market Makers are paid / given lower fees in order to maintain buy and sell prices (called quotes) at most times. These conditions are usually all true, but commonly fail for these reasons: Most markets have an order type of market order that says buy/sell at any price. There are still sanity checks put in place on the price, with the exact rules for valid prices depending on the stock, so unless it's a penny stock you won't suddenly pay ten times a stock's value. *The amount you can buy sell is limited by the quantity that exists on the bid and offer. If there is a bid or offer, the quantity is always at least 1.\",\n \"But what about the following scenario which is my paraphrasing of a Nanex article (I'm hoping you can help clarify this for me). 1. I observe a 1,000 lot @$10 advertised for Sell on a lit exchange. 2. I try to lift the 1,000 by placing a limit order @10. 3. My order goes through some kind of order routing process. First, 3 orders get executed on a dark pool. Let's say I got a 50 lot filled (so available offer reduces to 950). 4. My order hits a lit exchange. I get a partial fill for 100 (offer shrinks to 850); but the offered size shrinks instead to 500. Or 0. 5. Now, in order to execute my trade, I will have to take a higher price than the original advertised liquidity. My question (maybe you can answer this) is why did my original order size of 1,000 appear in smaller blocks? Is this because the order routing algorithm breaks up the size? Or is it that market makers only post offers in small block sizes (e.g. 100) So even if the order book looked like: 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 All the way to 1,000 total -- as soon as the first 100 shares were lifted, the MM can immediately cancel the remainder of the advertised liquidity -- in practical terms making it impossible to execute large orders at an advertised price.\",\n \"\\\"This is a complicated subject, because professional traders don't rely on brokers for stock quotes. They have access to market data using Level II terminals, which show them all of the prices (buy and sell) for a given stock. Every publicly traded stock (at least in the U.S.) relies on firms called \\\"\\\"market makers\\\"\\\". Market makers are the ones who ultimately actually buy and sell the shares of companies, making their money on the difference between what they bought the stock at and what they can sell it for. Sometimes those margins can be in hundreds of a cent per share, but if you trade enough shares...well, it adds up. The most widely traded stocks (Apple, Microsoft, BP, etc) may have hundreds of market makers who are willing to handle share trades. Each market maker sets their own price on what they'll pay (the \\\"\\\"bid\\\"\\\") to buy someone's stock who wants to sell and what they'll sell (the \\\"\\\"ask\\\"\\\") that share for to someone who wants to buy it. When a market maker wants to be competitive, he may price his bid/ask pretty aggressively, because automated trading systems are designed to seek out the best bid/ask prices for their trade executions. As such, you might get a huge chunk of market makers in a popular stock to all set their prices almost identically to one another. Other market makers who aren't as enthusiastic will set less competitive prices, so they don't get much (maybe no) business. In any case, what you see when you pull up a stock quote is called the \\\"\\\"best bid/ask\\\"\\\" price. In other words, you're seeing the highest price a market maker will pay to buy that stock, and the lowest price that a market maker will sell that stock. You may get a best bid from one market maker and a best ask from a different one. In any case, consumers must be given best bid/ask prices. Market makers actually control the prices of shares. They can see what's out there in terms of what people want to buy or sell, and they modify their prices accordingly. If they see a bunch of sell orders coming into the system, they'll start dropping prices, and if people are in a buying mood then they'll raise prices. Market makers can actually ignore requests for trades (whether buy or sell) if they choose to, and sometimes they do, which is why a limit order (a request to buy/sell a stock at a specific price, regardless of its current actual price) that someone places may go unfilled and die at the end of the trading session. No market maker is willing to fill the order. Nowadays, these systems are largely automated, so they operate according to complex rules defined by their owners. Very few trades actually involve human intervention, because people can't digest the information at a fast enough pace to keep up with automated platforms. So that's the basics of how share prices work. I hope this answered your question without being too confusing! Good luck!\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"The Auction Market is where investors such you and me, as well as Market Makers, buy and sell securities. The Auction Markets operate with the familiar bid-ask pricing that you see on financial pages such as Google and Yahoo. The Market Makers are institutions that are there to provide liquidity so that investors can easily buy and sell shares at a \"\"fair\"\" price. Market Makers need to have on hand a suitable supply of shares to meet investor demands. When Market Makers feel the need to either increase or decrease their supply of a particular security quickly, they turn to the Dealer Market. In order to participate in a Dealer Market, you must be designated a Market Maker. As noted already, Market Makers are dedicated to providing liquidity for the Auction Market in certain securities and therefore require that they have on hand a suitable supply of those securities which they support. For example, if a Market Maker for Apple shares is low on their supply of Apple shares, then will go the Dealer Market to purchase more Apple shares. Conversely, if they are holding what they feel are too many Apple shares, they will go to the Dealer Market to sell Apple shares. The Dealer Market does operate on a bid-ask basis, contrary to your stated understanding. The bid-ask prices quoted on the Dealer Market are more or less identical to those on the Auction Market, except the quote sizes will be generally much larger. This is the case because otherwise, why would a Market Maker offer to sell shares to another Market Maker at a price well below what they could themselves sell them for in the Auction Market. (And similarly with buy orders.) If Market Makers are generally holding low quantities of a particular security, this will drive up the price in both the Dealer Market and the Auction Market. Similarly, if Market Makers are generally holding too much of a particular security, this may drive down prices on both the Auction Market and the Dealer Market.\"","\"Why would there not be a bid and ask? Dealers make their money in the spread between what they buy it from one entity for and what they sell it to another entity for. This doesn't mean they have to do it auction-style, but they'll still have a different buy price from a sell price, hence \"\"bid\"\" and \"\"ask\"\".\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"The Auction Market is where investors such you and me, as well as Market Makers, buy and sell securities. The Auction Markets operate with the familiar bid-ask pricing that you see on financial pages such as Google and Yahoo. The Market Makers are institutions that are there to provide liquidity so that investors can easily buy and sell shares at a \\\"\\\"fair\\\"\\\" price. Market Makers need to have on hand a suitable supply of shares to meet investor demands. When Market Makers feel the need to either increase or decrease their supply of a particular security quickly, they turn to the Dealer Market. In order to participate in a Dealer Market, you must be designated a Market Maker. As noted already, Market Makers are dedicated to providing liquidity for the Auction Market in certain securities and therefore require that they have on hand a suitable supply of those securities which they support. For example, if a Market Maker for Apple shares is low on their supply of Apple shares, then will go the Dealer Market to purchase more Apple shares. Conversely, if they are holding what they feel are too many Apple shares, they will go to the Dealer Market to sell Apple shares. The Dealer Market does operate on a bid-ask basis, contrary to your stated understanding. The bid-ask prices quoted on the Dealer Market are more or less identical to those on the Auction Market, except the quote sizes will be generally much larger. This is the case because otherwise, why would a Market Maker offer to sell shares to another Market Maker at a price well below what they could themselves sell them for in the Auction Market. (And similarly with buy orders.) If Market Makers are generally holding low quantities of a particular security, this will drive up the price in both the Dealer Market and the Auction Market. Similarly, if Market Makers are generally holding too much of a particular security, this may drive down prices on both the Auction Market and the Dealer Market.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Why would there not be a bid and ask? Dealers make their money in the spread between what they buy it from one entity for and what they sell it to another entity for. This doesn't mean they have to do it auction-style, but they'll still have a different buy price from a sell price, hence \\\"\\\"bid\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"ask\\\"\\\".\\\"\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":172,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"853"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"What will my taxes be as self employed?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["260795","147080"],"string":"[\n \"260795\",\n \"147080\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["569645","147080","136804","582864","211485","413694","450808","456788","349926","152298","156832","68486","247473","260795","487728","212786","252843","477476","585121","302049","446117","449116","85672","599876","599835","304479","459740","82628","249322","557603","223170","149516","360925","419015","90348","463881","584160","533808","406789","88477","125696","406561","536849","395726","449816","134494","1235","299579","89611","438801","308113","175951","15676","159162","137225","118615","68524","223042","208216","388713","281500","418630","436701","525053","496064","510409","165645","388704","272248","1011","87720","558832","562957","33287","208989","251564","397152","182989","257168","555732","175889","318110","549870","498834","18001","118603","491028","561273","81599","590775","72984","303078","595765","292769","445298","377547","107817","93638","18570","314342"],"string":"[\n \"569645\",\n \"147080\",\n \"136804\",\n \"582864\",\n \"211485\",\n \"413694\",\n \"450808\",\n \"456788\",\n \"349926\",\n \"152298\",\n \"156832\",\n \"68486\",\n \"247473\",\n \"260795\",\n \"487728\",\n \"212786\",\n \"252843\",\n \"477476\",\n \"585121\",\n \"302049\",\n \"446117\",\n \"449116\",\n \"85672\",\n \"599876\",\n \"599835\",\n \"304479\",\n \"459740\",\n \"82628\",\n \"249322\",\n \"557603\",\n \"223170\",\n \"149516\",\n \"360925\",\n \"419015\",\n \"90348\",\n \"463881\",\n \"584160\",\n \"533808\",\n \"406789\",\n \"88477\",\n \"125696\",\n \"406561\",\n \"536849\",\n \"395726\",\n \"449816\",\n \"134494\",\n \"1235\",\n \"299579\",\n \"89611\",\n \"438801\",\n \"308113\",\n \"175951\",\n \"15676\",\n \"159162\",\n \"137225\",\n \"118615\",\n \"68524\",\n \"223042\",\n \"208216\",\n \"388713\",\n \"281500\",\n \"418630\",\n \"436701\",\n \"525053\",\n \"496064\",\n \"510409\",\n \"165645\",\n \"388704\",\n \"272248\",\n \"1011\",\n \"87720\",\n \"558832\",\n \"562957\",\n \"33287\",\n \"208989\",\n \"251564\",\n \"397152\",\n \"182989\",\n \"257168\",\n \"555732\",\n \"175889\",\n \"318110\",\n \"549870\",\n \"498834\",\n \"18001\",\n \"118603\",\n \"491028\",\n \"561273\",\n \"81599\",\n \"590775\",\n \"72984\",\n \"303078\",\n \"595765\",\n \"292769\",\n \"445298\",\n \"377547\",\n \"107817\",\n \"93638\",\n \"18570\",\n \"314342\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["I agree with your strategy of using a conservative estimate to overpay taxes and get a refund next year. As a self-employed individual you are responsible for paying self-employment tax (which means paying Social Security and Medicare tax for yourself as both: employee and an employer.) Current Social Security Rate is 6.2% and Medicare is 1.45%, so your Self-employment tax is 15.3% (7.65%X2) Assuming you are single, your effective tax rate will be over 10% (portion of your income under $ 9,075), but less than 15% ($9,075-$36,900), so to adopt a conservative approach, let's use the 15% number. Given Self-employment and Federal Income tax rate estimates, very conservative approach, your estimated tax can be 30% (Self-employment tax plus income tax) Should you expect much higher compensation, you might move to the 25% tax bracket and adjust this amount to 40%.","The amount of the income taxes you will owe depends upon how much income you have, after valid business expenses, also it will depend upon your filing status as well as the ownership form of your business and what state you live in. That said, you will need to be sure to make the Federal 1040ES quarterly prepayments of your tax on time or there will be penalties. You also must remember that you will be needing to file a schedule SE with your 1040. That is for the social security taxes you owe, which is in addition to your income taxes. With an employer/employee situation, the FICA withhoding you have seen on your paycheck are matched by the same payment by your employer. Now that you are self-employed you are responcible for your share and the employer share as well; in this situation it is known as self-employment tax. the amount of it will be the same as your share of FICA and half of the employer's share of FICA taxes. If you are married and your wife also is working self-employed, then she will have to files herown schedule SE along with yours. meaning that you will pay based on your business income and she will pay baed on hers. your 1040Es quarterly prepayment must cover your income tax and your combined (yours and hers) Self Employment taxes. Many people will debate on the final results of the results of schedule SE vrs an employee's and an employer's payments combined. If one were to provides a ball park percentage that would likely apply to you final total addition to your tax libility as a result of needing schedule SE would tend to fluctuate depending upon your total tax situation; many would debate it. It has been this way since, I first studied and use this schedule decades ago. For this reason it is best for you to review these PDF documents, Form 1040 Schedule SE Instructions and Form 1040 Schedule SE. As for your state income taxes, it will depend on the laws of the state you are based in.","Technically you owe 'self-employment' taxes not FICA taxes because they are imposed under a different law, SECA. However, since SE taxes are by design exactly the same rates as combining the two halves of FICA (employer and employee) it is quite reasonable to treat them as equivalent. SE taxes (and income tax also) are based on your net self-employment income, after deducting business expenses (but not non-business items like your home mortgage, dependent exemptions, etc which factor only into income tax). You owe SE Medicare tax 2.9% on all your SE net income (unless it is under $400) adjusted down by 7.65% to compensate for the fact that the employer half of FICA is excluded from gross income before the employee half is computed. You owe SE Social Security tax 12.4% on your adjusted SE net income unless and until the total income subject to FICA+SECA, i.e. your W-2 wages plus your adjusted SE net income, exceeds a cap that varies with inflation and is $127,200 for 2017. OTOH if FICA+SECA income exceeds $200k single or $250k joint you owe Additional Medicare tax 0.9% on the excess; if your W-2 income (alone) exceeds this limit your employer should withhold for it. However the Additional Medicare tax is part of 'Obamacare' (PPACA) which the new President and Republican majorities have said they will 'repeal and replace'; whether any such replacement will affect this for TY 2017 is at best uncertain at this point. Yes SE taxes are added to income tax on your 1040 with schedule SE attached (and schedule C/CEZ, E, F as applicable to your business) (virtually so if you file electronically) and paid together. You are supposed to pay at least 90% during the year by having withholding increased on your W-2 job, or by making 'quarterly' estimated payments (IRS quarters are not exactly quarters, but close), or any combination. But if this is your first year (which you don't say, but someone who had gone through this before probably wouldn't ask) you may get away with not paying during the year as normally required; specifically, if your W-2 withholding is not enough to cover your increased taxes for this year (because of the additional income and SE taxes) but it is enough to cover your tax for the previous year and your AGI that year wasn't over $150k, then there is a 'safe harbor' and you won't owe any form-2210 penalty -- although you must keep enough money on hand to pay the tax by April 15. But for your second year and onwards, your previous year now includes SE amounts and this doesn't help. Similar/related:","\"There are a couple of things that are missing from your estimate. In addition to your standard deduction, you also have a personal exemption of $4050. So \"\"D\"\" in your calculation should be $6300 + $4050 = $10,350. As a self-employed individual, you need to pay both the employee and employer side of the Social Security and Medicare taxes. Instead of 6.2% + 1.45%, you need to pay (6.2% + 1.45%) * 2 = 15.3% self-employment tax. In addition, there are some problems with your calculation. Q1i (Quarter 1 estimated income) should be your adjusted annual income divided by 4, not 3 (A/4). Likewise, you should estimate your quarterly tax by estimating your income for the whole year, then dividing by 4. So Aft (Annual estimated federal tax) should be: Quarterly estimated federal tax would be: Qft = Aft / 4 Annual estimated self-employment tax is: Ase = 15.3% * A with the quarterly self-employment tax being one-fourth of that: Qse = Ase / 4 Self employment tax gets added on to your federal income tax. So when you send in your quarterly payment using Form 1040-ES, you should send in Qft + Qse. The Form 1040-ES instructions (PDF) comes with the \"\"2016 Estimated Tax Worksheet\"\" that walks you through these calculations.\"","\"Being self-employed, your \"\"profit\"\" is calculated as all the bills you send out, minus all business-related cost that you have (you will need a receipt for everything, and there are different rules for things that last for long time, long tools, machinery). You can file your taxes yourself - the HRS website will tell you how to, and you can do it online. It's close to the same as your normal online tax return. Only thing is that you must keep receipts for all the cost that you claim. Your tax: Assuming your gross salary is £25,000 and your profits are about £10,000, you will be paying 8% for national insurance, and 20% income tax. If you go above £43,000 or thereabouts, you pay 40% income tax on any income above that threshold, instead of 20%, but your national insurance payments stop.\"","\"The \"\"hire a pro\"\" is quite correct, if you are truly making this kind of money. That said, I believe in a certain amount of self-education so you don't follow a pro's advice blindly. First, I wrote an article that discussed Marginal Tax Rates, and it's worth understanding. It simply means that as your income rises past certain thresholds, the tax rate also will change a bit. You are on track to be in the top rate, 33%. Next, Solo 401(k). You didn't ask about retirement accounts, but the combined situations of making this sum of money and just setting it aside, leads me to suggest this. Since you are both employer and employee, the Solo 401(k) limit is a combined $66,500. Seems like a lot, but if you are really on track to make $500K this year, that's just over 10% saved. Then, whatever the pro recommends for your status, you'll still have some kind of Social Security obligation, as both employer and employee, so that's another 15% or so for the first $110K. Last, some of the answers seemed to imply that you'll settle in April. Not quite. You are required to pay your tax through the year and if you wait until April to pay the tax along with your return, you will have a very unpleasant tax bill. (I mean it will have penalties for underpayment through the year.) This is to be avoided. I offer this because often a pro will have a specialty and not go outside that focus. It's possible to find the guy that knows everything about setting you up as an LLC or Sole Proprietorship, yet doesn't have the 401(k) conversation. Good luck, please let us know here how the Pro discussion goes for you.\"","\"One way to do these sorts of calculations is to use the spreadsheet version of IRS form 1040 available here. This is provided by a private individual and is not an official IRS tool, but in practice it is usually accurate enough for these purposes. You may have to spend some time figuring out where to enter the info. However, if you enter your self-employment income on Schedule C, this spreadsheet will calculate the self-employment tax as well as the income tax. An advantage is that it is the full 1040, so you can also select the standard deduction and the number of exemptions you are entitled to, enter ordinary W-2 income, even capital gains, etc. Of course you can also make use of other tax software to do this, but in my experience the \"\"Excel 1040\"\" is more convenient, as most websites and tax-prep software tend to be structured in a linear fashion and are more cumbersome to update in an ad-hoc way for purposes like tax estimation. You can do whatever works for you, but I would recommend taking a look at the Excel 1040. It is a surprisingly useful tool.\"","You will most likely pay around 30%, between standard income tax and payroll taxes. That is a good place to start. If you live in a state/city with income taxes, add that to the mix.","If it's just you working, I'd use a ballpark figure of 35% owed - it may be a little high or low, but it's a safe margin to keep set aside for paying your liabilities at the end of the year.","As a CPA I can say, without a doubt, you do not owe any federal income tax. However, assuming all of you income was from your business and therefore subject to self-employment tax and you had no healthcare coverage, you would owe: $2,523 in Self-Employment Tax 645 in Healthcare Penalty $3,168 Total Amount You Should Owe. Assuming you have given us the right numbers, $3,300 sounds too high.","\"Your question does not say this explicitly, but I assume that you were once a W-2 employee. Each paycheck a certain amount was withheld from your check to pay income, social security, and medicare taxes. Just because you did not receive that amount of money earned does not mean it was immediately sent to the IRS. While I am not all that savvy on payroll procedures, I recall an article that indicated some companies only send in withheld taxes every quarter, much like you are doing now. They get a short term interest free loan. For example taxes withheld by a w-2 employee in the later months of the year may not be provided to the IRS until 15 January of the next year. You are correct in assuming that if you make 100K as a W-2 you will probably pay less in taxes than someone who is 100K self employed with 5K in expenses. However there are many factors. Provided you properly fill out a 1040ES, and pay the correct amount of quarterly payments, you will almost never owe taxes. In fact my experience has been the forms will probably allow you to receive a refund. Tax laws can change and one thing the form did not include last year was the .9% Medicare surcharge for high income earners catching some by surprise. As far as what you pay into is indicative of the games the politicians play. It all just goes into a big old bucket of money, and more is spent by congress than what is in the bucket. The notion of a \"\"social security lockbox\"\" is pure politics/fantasy as well as the notion of medicare and social security taxes. The latter were created to make the actual income tax rate more palatable. I'd recommend getting your taxes done as early as possible come 1 January 2017. While you may not have all the needed info, you could firm up an estimate by 15 Jan and modify the amount for your last estimated payment. Complete the taxes when all stuff comes in and even if you owe an amount you have time to save for anything additional. Keep in mind, between 1 Jan 17 and 15 Apr 17 you will earn and presumably save money to use towards taxes. You can always \"\"rob\"\" from that money to pay any owed tax for 2016 and make it up later. All that is to say you will be golden because you are showing concern and planning. When you hear horror stories of IRS dealings it is most often that people spent the money that should have been sent to the IRS.\"","Congratulations on starting your own business. Invest in a tax software package right away; I can't recommend a specific one but there is enough information out there to point you in the right direction: share with us which one you ended up using and why (maybe a separate question?) You do need to make your FICA taxes but you can write off the SE part of it. Keep all your filings as a PDF, a printout and a softcopy in the native format of the tax software package: it really helps the next tax season. When you begin your business, most of the expenses are going to be straightforward (it was for me) and while I had the option of doing it by hand, I used software to do it myself. At the beginning, it might actually seem harder to use the tax software package, but it will pay off in the end. Build relationships with a few tax advisors and attorneys: you will need to buy liability insurance soon if you are in any kind of serious (non hobby) business and accounting for these are no trivial tasks. If you have not filed yet, I recommend you do this: File an extension, overpay your estimated taxes (you can always collect a refund later) and file your return once you have had a CPA look over it. Do not skimp on a CPA: it's just the cost of running your business and you don't want to waste your time reading the IRS manuals when you could be growing your own business. Best of luck and come back to tell us what you did!","I can only address this part of it: For instance with a 10k net income, 9293 is the limit for 401k from employee. How is this calculated? I believe this limit is total for all sources too, which I'm confused about. How it's calculated is that when you are self-employed you also pay the employer portion of the FICA taxes. This comes off above the line and is not considered income. The 401k contribution limit takes this into account.","Whether you're self-employed or not, knowing exactly how much tax you will pay is not always an easy task. Various actions you can take (e.g., charitable donations, IRA contributions, selling stocks) may increase or reduce your tax liability. One tool I've found useful for estimating federal taxes is the Excel 1040 spreadsheet. This is a spreadsheet version of the income tax return form. It is not official and is not created by the IRS, but is maintained as a labor of love by a private individual. In practice, however, it is pretty much an accurate implementation of the tax calculation algorithms encoded in the tax forms and instructions. The nice thing about it is that it's a spreadsheet. You can plug numbers into various slots in the spreadsheet and see how they affect your federal tax liability. (You may also owe state taxes depending on what state you live in.) Of course, the estimates you get by doing this are only (at most) as accurate as your estimates of the various numbers you plug in. Still, I think it's a free and useful way to get a ballpark estimate of your tax liability based on numbers that you can more easily estimate (e.g., how much money you expect to earn).","I strongly recommend that you talk to an accountant right away because you could save some money by making a tax payment by January 15, 2014. You will receive Forms 1099-MISC from the various entities with whom you are doing business as a contractor detailing how much money they paid you. A copy will go to the IRS also. You file a Schedule C with your Form 1040 in which you detail how much you received on the 1099-MISC forms as well as any other income that your contracting business received (e.g. amounts less than $600 for which a 1099-MISc does not need to be issued, or tips, say, if you are a taxi-driver running your own cab), and you can deduct various expenses that you incurred in generating this income, including tools, books, (or gasoline!) etc that you bought for doing the job. You will need to file a Schedule SE that will compute how much you owe in Social Security and Medicare taxes on the net income on Schedule C. You will pay at twice the rate that employees pay because you get to pay not only the employee's share but also the employer's share. At least, you will not have to pay income tax on the employer's share. Your net income on Schedule C will transfer onto Form 1040 where you will compute how much income tax you owe, and then add on the Social Security tax etc to compute a final amount of tax to be paid. You will have to pay a penalty for not making tax payments every quarter during 2013, plus interest on the tax paid late. Send the IRS a check for the total. If you talk to an accountant right away, he/she will likely be able to come up with a rough estimate of what you might owe, and sending in that amount by January 15 will save some money. The accountant can also help you set up for the 2014 tax year during which you could make quarterly payments of estimated tax for 2014 and avoid the penalties and interest referred to above.","\"Yes, that's right; in the end, tax is charged on the total of your income in a tax year. PAYE on employment income is just a way of making incremental payments throughout the year. Note that tax rates are marginal rates applying to bands of salary, not the entire salary. But as your employment salary would be already over the 40% threshold (£45,000 for 2017/8), the entire \"\"extra\"\" from self-employment would indeed be taxed at 40%. Note that you'll also owe National Insurance contributions. In general if your employed income is over the higher-rate tax threshold, it should be 2% Class 4 NICs on the self-employment income. However, due to various complications in the way the system works, you might be initially charged more than that and and explicitly claim the excess back from HMRC. It might also be less if your earnings are below or only slightly above the \"\"Lower Profits Limit\"\". You still get to keep 58%, only you can decide whether that is worth your time or not.\"","FICA taxes are separate from federal and state income taxes. As a sole proprietor you owe all of those. Additionally, there is a difference with FICA when you are employed vs. self employed. Typically FICA taxes are actually split between the employer and the employee, so you pay half, they pay half. But when you're self employed, you pay both halves. This is what is commonly referred to as the self employment tax. If you are both employed and self employed as I am, your employer pays their portion of FICA on the income you earn there, and you pay both halves on the income you earn in your business. Edit: As @JoeTaxpayer added in his comment, you can specify an extra amount to be withheld from your pay when you fill out your W-4 form. This is separate from the calculation of how much to withhold based on dependents and such; see line 6 on the linked form. This could allow you to avoid making quarterly estimated payments for your self-employment income. I think this is much easier when your side income is predictable. Personally, I find it easier to come up with a percentage I must keep aside from my side income (for me this is about 35%), and then I immediately set that aside when I get paid. I make my quarterly estimated payments out of that money set aside. My side income can vary quite a bit though; if I could predict it better I would probably do the extra withholding. Yes, you need to pay taxes for FICA and federal income tax. I can't say exactly how much you should withhold though. If you have predictable deductions and such, it could be lower than you expect. I'm not a tax professional, and when it comes doing business taxes I go to someone who is. You don't have to do that, but I'm not comfortable offering any detailed advice on how you should proceed there. I mentioned what I do personally as an illustration of how I handle withholding, but I can't say that that's what someone else should do.","Welcome to the wonderful but oft confusing world of self-employment. Your regular job will withhold income for you and give you a W2, which tells you and the government how much is withheld. At the end of the year uber will give you and the government a 1099-misc, which will tell you how much they paid you, but nothing will be withheld, which means you will owe the government some taxes. When it comes to taxes, you will file a 1040 (the big one, not a 1040EZ nor 1040A). In addition you will file a schedule C (self-employed income), where you will report the gross paid to you, deduct your expenses, and come up with your profit, which will be taxable. That profit goes into a line in the 1040. You need to file schedule SE. This says how much self-employment tax you will pay on your 1099 income, and it will be more than you expect. Self employment tax is SS/Medicare. There's a line for this on the 1040 as well. You can also deduct half of your self-employment tax on the 1040, there's a line for it. Now, you can pay quarterly taxes on your 1099 income by filing 1040-ES. That avoids a penalty (which usually isn't that large) for not withholding enough. As an alternative, you can have your regular W2 job withhold extra. As long as you don't owe a bunch at tax time, you won't be a fined. When you are self-employed your taxes aren't as simple. Sorry. You can either spend some time becoming an expert by studying the instructions for the 1040, pay for the expensive version of tax programs, or hire someone to do it for you. Self-employed taxes are painful, but take advantage of the upsides as well. You can start a solo 401(k) or SEP IRA, for example. Make sure you are careful to deduct every relevant business expense and keep good records in case you get audited.","\"Being self employed just means you fill out some more forms in your annual self assessment for your \"\"profit\"\" from being self employed. Profit = all the money you receive, minus any tax deductible cost that you spent for making that money (and all the cost must be documented, which means you have a folder with all the receipts and keep it safe). You pay normal income tax on all the profit, which means it is just added to your taxable income. What you do with the profit is up to you; you don't pay yourself a salary, just take the money (make sure you leave enough to pay your taxes).\"","\"I assume your employer does standard withholding? Then what you need to do is figure what bracket that puts you in after you've done all your normal deductions. Let's say it's 25%. Then multiply your freelance income after business expenses, and that's your estimated tax, approximately. (Unless the income causes you to jump a bracket.) To that you have to add approximately 12-13% Social Security/Medicare for income between the $90K and $118,500. Filling out Form 1040SSE will give you a better estimate. But there is a \"\"safe harbor\"\" provision, in that if what you pay in estimated tax (and withholding) this year is at least as much as you owed last year, there's no penalty. I've always done mine this way, dividing last year's tax by 4, since my income is quite variable, and I've never been able to make sense of the worksheets on the 1040-ES.\"","\"From the IRS page on Estimated Taxes (emphasis added): Taxes must be paid as you earn or receive income during the year, either through withholding or estimated tax payments. If the amount of income tax withheld from your salary or pension is not enough, or if you receive income such as interest, dividends, alimony, self-employment income, capital gains, prizes and awards, you may have to make estimated tax payments. If you are in business for yourself, you generally need to make estimated tax payments. Estimated tax is used to pay not only income tax, but other taxes such as self-employment tax and alternative minimum tax. I think that is crystal clear that you're paying income tax as well as self-employment tax. To expand a bit, you seem to be confusing self-employment tax and estimated tax, which are not only two different things, but two different kinds of things. One is a tax, and the other is just a means of paying your taxes. \"\"Self-employment tax\"\" refers to the Social Security and Medicare taxes that you must pay on your self-employment income. This is an actual tax that you owe. If you receive a W-2, half of it is \"\"invisibly\"\" paid by your employer, and half of it is paid by you in the form of visible deductions on your pay stub. If you're self-employed, you have to pay all of it explicitly. \"\"Estimated tax\"\" does not refer to any actual tax levied on anyone. A more pedantically correct phrasing would be \"\"estimated tax payment\"\". Estimated taxes are just payments that you make to the IRS to pay tax you expect to owe. Whether you have to make such payments depends on how much tax you owe and whether you've paid it by other means. You may need to pay estimated tax even if you're not self-employed, although this would be unusual. (It could happen, for instance, if you realized large capital gains over the year.) You also may be self-employed but not need to pay estimated tax (if, for instance, you also have a W-2 job and you reduce your withholding allowances to have extra tax withheld). That said, if you earn significant income from self-employment, you'll likely have to make estimated tax payments. These are prepayments of the income tax and Social Security/Medicare taxes you accrue based on your self-employment income. As Pete B. mentioned in his answer, a possible reason that your estiamtes are low is because some taxes have already been withheld from the paychecks you received so far during the year (while you were an employee). These represent tax payments you've already made; you don't need to pay that money a second time, but you may need to make estimated tax payments for your income going forward.\"","\"You would put your earnings (and expenses, don't forget) on Schedule C, and then do a Schedule SE for self-employment tax. http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98846,00.html 1040ES isn't used to compute taxes, it's used to pay taxes. Generally you are supposed to pay taxes as you go, rather than when you file. There are exceptions where you won't be penalized for paying when you file, \"\"most taxpayers will avoid this penalty if they owe less than $1,000 in tax after subtracting their withholdings and credits, or if they paid at least 90% of the tax for the current year, or 100% of the tax shown on the return for the prior year, whichever is smaller\"\" from http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc306.html i.e. there's a safe harbor as long as you pay as much as you owed the year before. If you owe a lot at the end of the year a second time in a row, then you get penalized.\"","I'm also self employed. Your circumstances may be different, but my accountant told me there was no reason to pay more than 100% of last years' taxes. (Even if this years' earnings are higher.) So I divide last year by 4 and make the quarterlies. As an aside, I accidentally underpaid last year (mis-estimated), and the penalty was much smaller than I expected.","You are in business for yourself. You file Schedule C with your income tax return, and can deduct the business expenses and the cost of goods sold from the gross receipts of your business. If you have inventory (things bought but not yet sold by the end of the year of purchase), then there are other calculations that need to be done. You will have to pay income tax as well as Social Security and Medicare taxes (both the employee's share and the employer's share) on the net profits from this business activity.","For 2014/15 it looks something like this: To make it a bit clearer, let's also plot the difference in net income for self-employment and a single person company compared to employment: Self-employment is slightly worse between £5885 and about £10,500 because Class 2 NI kicks in before the employed person starts paying any tax. After that, self-employment is better because you pay 9% Class 4 NI rather than 12% Class 1 NI. Once higher rate tax kicks in, the saving stops growing. The single-person company is most tax-efficient at all points, ignoring any accountancy costs it incurs. Strange things happen between £100k and about £135k because the withdrawal of the personal allowance kicks in at a different point when receiving dividends. We can also plot the percentage of income paid as tax for each case: The strange kink for self-employment below £10k is caused by Class 2 NI again. Employment and self-employment both gradually tend towards paying 47%, reaching 46.5% for £2m gross income. The company tends towards 44.44%, reaching 43.6% for £2m gross income.","You may be able to find the answers to your question on the IRS web site: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98263,00.html Specifically, using this form to estimate taxes for salary: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120w.pdf and this form to estimate taxes for dividends: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf","\"There's one factor the previous posters apparently missed here: You say \"\"self-employment tax\"\"--in other words, at least some of that $16k is from self employment. In a normal employment situation the FICA tax is taken out of your paycheck, it's normally spot on and generally doesn't show up on your tax return. However, for the self-employed it's another matter. You pay the whole 15.3% from the first dollar and this does show up on your tax return. If it's all self employment money you would have about $2.5k in tax from this.\"","\"An unmarried person with a total U.S.-sourced earned income under $ 37,000 during the year 2016 is likely to owe: If the original poster is not an \"\"independent contractor\"\", and is not \"\"billing corp-to-corp\"\" then: In summary: References:\"","I am a registered S-corp but for alot of industries that threshold is too low (I'm in housing) >Do you have any insight on average *effective* rates paid by SE owners? > >As a counterpoint to your (very valid) links, filing as S-corp allows for taxes on distributions to be exempt from payroll tax and taxed at much lower rates. Also, being SE allows for various deductions not possible for wage earners. There's probably other examples not immediately coming to mind. > >Also, SE taxes equal taxes otherwise paid by employer + employee. It's just that those employer taxes don't appear on the employee's paystub so not everyone realizes this. The article I posted also doesn't take into account state taxes, do example non deductible B&O, end user Sales tax or impact fees... That Employees don't pay or often even know about, yet some of us small business owners are also employees, so we get double taxed...","\"Employers withhold at rates specified in Circular E issued by the IR. You can request that additional money be withheld (not an issue here) or you can have reduced withholding by claiming additional allowances on a W-4 (i.e., more than just for you and spouse and dependents) if you believe that this will result in withholding that will more closely match the tax due. (Note added in edit):Page 2 of the W-4 form has worksheets that can be used to figure out how many additional allowances to request. Also, I wonder if your withholding will be 37% or final tax bill be 26% of your adjusted gross income. The tax brackets are the tax on marginal income. If you are in the 28% tax bracket, you owe 28 cents in tax for each additional dollar of income, not 28 cents in tax for every dollar of income. Your overall tax might well be less than 20% of your income. As a specific example, in 2011 a married taxpayer filing jointly would be in the (highest) 35% tax bracket if the taxable income was $379,150 or more (marginal tax rate of 35% is applicable to every dollar more than $379,150) but the tax on $379,150 itself works out to be $102,574 or 27.05% of the taxable income. So if you do expect to be earning around $350K or more in salary between now and December 31 to hit that 26% that you expect you will owe, you might want to consider paying a tax accountant for advice on how to fill out your W-4 form for your new employer rather than relying on an Internet forum such as this for free advice. Note added in edit: Your comment \"\"... it is a cocktail of ... federal taxes, state taxes, local taxes, health care ...\"\" on the earlier version of my answer does raise the question of whether you want your employer to withhold 26% instead of 37% and have the money go to meet all these obligations or just 26% towards your Federal income tax liability only. The Federal W-4 form affects only how much money is withheld from your paycheck and sent to the US Treasury. Some of the money that each of your employers withholds (Social Security and Medicare taxes) is not affected by what you put down on the W-4 form. Now, if you hold two jobs and the total income shown on your W-2s is larger than the SS limit, you will have had too much Social Security taxes withheld, and the excess will be a credit towards your Federal income tax liability. You have self-employment income too on which you owe Social Security and Medicare taxes and you are making estimated tax payments. The excess Social Security tax payment can count towards this too (as well as income tax on your Schedule C income). Thus, if your new employer is withholding too much, you might be able to skip making the fourth quarterly payment of estimated tax or make a reduced payment (there is no requirement that the four installments must be equal). In short, there are lots of ramifications that you need to take into account before deciding that 26% is the right number. Instead of filling out a W-4 all by yourself right away, I strongly recommend reading up a lot on income taxes, or play with a tax preparation program (last year's version will do a pretty good job of at least getting you in the right ballpark), or consult with a tax accountant.\"","Since your YouTube income is considered self-employment income and because you probably already made more than $400 in net income (after deducting expenses from the $4000 you've received so far), you will have to pay self-employment tax and file a return. This is according to the IRS's Publication 17 (2016), Your Federal Income Tax, so assumes the same rules for 2016 will remain in effect for 2017: You are self-employed if you: Carry on a trade or business as a sole proprietor, Are an independent contractor, Are a member of a partnership, or Are in business for yourself in any other way. Self-employment can include work in addition to your regular full-time business activities, such as certain part-time work you do at home or in addition to your regular job. You must file a return if your gross income is at least as much as the filing requirement amount for your filing status and age (shown in Table 1-1). Also, you must file Form 1040 and Schedule SE (Form 1040), Self-Employment Tax, if: Your net earnings from self-employment (excluding church employee income) were $400 or more, or You had church employee income of $108.28 or more. (See Table 1-3.) Use Schedule SE (Form 1040) to figure your self-employment tax. Self-employment tax is comparable to the social security and Medicare tax withheld from an employee's wages. For more information about this tax, see Pub. 334, Tax Guide for Small Business. I'd also note that your predicted income is getting close to the level where you would need to pay Estimated Taxes, which for self-employed people work like the withholding taxes employers remove their employees paychecks and pay to the government. If you end up owing more than $1000 when you file your return you could be assessed penalties for not paying the Estimated Taxes. There is a grace period if you had to pay no taxes in the previous year (2016 in this case), that could let you escape those penalties.","\"So the main reason that you aren't getting answers is that the question is not really answerable on this site without putting a lot of details about the expenses of your company online. Even then you will need someone who specializes in Canadian taxes to go through those details to be sure. Most of those people feel like they should be paid a decent amount per hour to go through the details. That being said, I dealt with a similar question for my contract work company by just taking a couple weekends and calculating the taxes myself on estimated numbers. It was time consuming but not really that hard. I thought I might have to buy software, but all I needed was a small calculator. Along the way I learned a few details that helped me lower my overall tax exposure. I found that Neil was generally correct that you are \"\"taxed on profits\"\" but it is worth doing the taxes yourself because the details can really matter.\"","With your income so high, your marginal tax rate should be pretty easy to determine. You are very likely in the 33% tax bracket (married filing jointly income range of $231,450 to $413,350), so your wife's additional income will effectively be taxed at 33% plus 15% for self-employment taxes. Rounding to 50% means you need to withhold $19,000 over the year (or slightly less depending on what business expenses you can deduct). You could use a similar calculation for CA state taxes. You can either just add this gross additional amount to your withholdings, or make an estimated tax payment every quarter. Any difference will be made up when you file your 2017 taxes. So long as you withhold 100% of your total tax liability from last year, you should not have any underpayment penalties.","> Then there’s taxes, and not just federal. There will be state, local, real estate, school, tolls, export, import, duties and those hard-to-understand fees on your cable bill Of those, the only thing I don't pay are export, import and duties. Which, if you're going in to business for yourself you'd probably know about these already.","You will be liable to pay the tax For the 2017 year of assessment (1 March 2016 - 28 February 2017) if you earned less than R75 000 you will not have to pay any tax The annual budget speach is this week and the new tax rates will be released but most likely that R75 000 will increase to R78 000+- so if you earn less than that tax would not even be applicable on you, Should you earn in a tax year more than R75 000 then would be able to do your own tax return and payments via E-Filling on SARS's website : http://www.sarsefiling.co.za/ But if you earn less than R350 000 then you don't have to submit a tax return, but there is nothing that stops you from submitting one if you feel that you want to. You can use https://www.taxtim.com/za/ to help you with other questions you might have. You can potentially bring down your tax-able income by showing a loss in capital value of your equipment that you purchased that is now worth less than it was when you initially purchased it, but these are all things you should discuss with a tax practitioner, I am not entirely sure how you will show a loss in capital value as a sole-proprietor, that is what you will be since you are not a company.","\"Does your spouse work? That's one factor that can put your income into a higher bracket. The one difference to note is you will pay 2x the social security portion, so even though not \"\"federal\"\" tax, its right off the top nearly 13%. I'm not familiar with your states tax. It's really worth dropping the $75 on a copy of the software and running your own exact numbers.\"",">This means that you may be able to make about $120,000 per year, which isn’t bad. Except you’ll have expenses, like rent, transportation, repairs, supplies, computers and whatever else. Your expenses will probably run a few thousand a month, so let’s assume **after expenses you’re netting about $80,000**. Then there’s taxes, and not just federal. There will be state, local, real estate, school, tolls, export, import, duties and those hard-to-understand fees on your cable bill. So lop about 30 percent off that $80K and you’re down to a net living of $56,000. $80,000 net income before taxes is quite good for a self employed individual. I don't really see what the problem is. His bit about taxes after that is completely irrelevant because you'll be paying federal and fica no matter what, plus state and real estate taxes if they apply to you.","\"There are way too many details missing to be able to give you an accurate answer, and it would be too localized in terms of time & location anyway -- the rules change every year, and your local taxes make the answer useless to other people. Instead, here's how to figure out the answer for yourself. Use a tax estimate calculator to get a ballpark figure. (And keep in mind that these only provide estimates, because there are still a lot of variables that are only considered when you're actually filling out your real tax return.) There are a number of calculators if you search for something like \"\"tax estimator calculator\"\", some are more sophisticated than others. (Fair warning: I used several of these and they told me a range of $2k - $25k worth of taxes owed for a situation like yours.) Here's an estimator from TurboTax -- it's handy because it lets you enter business income. When I plug in $140K ($70 * 40 hours * 50 weeks) for business income in 2010, married filing jointly, no spouse income, and 4 dependents, I get $30K owed in federal taxes. (That doesn't include local taxes, any itemized deductions you might be eligible for, IRA deductions, etc. You may also be able to claim some expenses as business deductions that will reduce your taxable business income.) So you'd net $110K after taxes, or about $55/hour ($110k / 50 / 40). Of course, you could get an answer from the calculator, and Congress could change the rules midway through the year -- you might come out better or worse, depending on the nature of the rule changes... that's why I stress that it's an estimate. If you take the job, don't forget to make estimated tax payments! Edit: (some additional info) If you plan on doing this on an ongoing basis (i.e. you are going into business as a contractor for this line of work), there are some tax shelters that you can take advantage of. Most of these won't be worth doing if you are only going to be doing contract work for a short period of time (1-2 years). These may or may not all be applicable to you. And do your research into these areas before diving in, I'm just scratching the surface in the notes below.\"","\"Littleadv is incorrect because receiving a 1099 means she will be taxed self-employment tax on top of federal income taxes. Your employer will automatically withhold 7.65% of payroll taxes as they pay you each paycheck and then they'll automatically pay the other half of your payroll tax (an additional 7.65%) to bring it to a total of 15.3%. In other words, because your wife is technically self employed, she will owe both sides of payroll tax which is 15.3% of $38k = $5,800 on TOP of your federal income tax (which is the only thing the W-4 is instructing them about what amount to withhold). The huge advantage to a 1099, however, is that she's essentially self-employed which means ALL of the things she needs to run her business are deductible expenses. This includes her car, computer, home office, supplies, sometimes phone, gas, maintenance, travel expenses, sometimes entertainment, etc - which can easily bring her \"\"income\"\" down from $38k to lets say $23k, reducing both her federal income tax AND self-employment tax to apply to $15k less (saving lets say 50% of $15k = $7.5k with federal and self employment because your income is so high). She is actually supposed to pay quarterly taxes to make up for all of this. The easy way to do this is each quarter plug YOUR total salary + bonus and the tax YOU have paid so far (check your paystubs) into TurboTax along with her income so far and all of her expenses. This will give you how much tax you can expect to have left to owe so far--this would be your first quarter. When you calculate your other quarters, do it the exact same way and just subtract what you've already paid so far that year from your total tax liability.\"","This is wrong. It should be or Now, to get back to self-employment tax. Self-employment tax is weird. It's a business tax. From the IRS perspective, any self-employed person is a business. So, take your income X and divide by 1.0765 (6.2% Social Security and 1.45% Medicare). This gives your personal income. Now, to calculate the tax that you have to pay, multiply that by .153 (since you have to pay both the worker and employer shares of the tax). So new calculation or they actually let you do which is better for you (smaller). And your other calculations change apace. And like I said, you can simplify Q1se to and your payment would be Now, to get to the second quarter. Like I said, I'd calculate the income through the second quarter. So recalculate A based on your new numbers and use that to calculate Q2i. or Note that this includes income from both the first and second quarters. We'll reduce to just the second quarter later. This also has you paying for all of June even though you may not have been paid when you make the withholding payment. That's what they want you to do. But we aren't done yet. Your actual payment should be or Because Q2ft and Q2se are what you owe for the year so far. Q1ft + Q1se is what you've already paid. So you subtract those from what you need to pay in the second quarter. In future quarters, this would be All that said, don't stress about it. As a practical matter, so long as you don't owe $1000 or more when you file your actual tax return, they aren't going to care. So just make sure that your total payments match by the payment you make January 15th. I'm not going to try to calculate for the state. For one thing, I don't know if your state uses Q1i or Q1pi as its base. Different states may have different rules on that. If you can't figure it out, just use Q1i, as that's the bigger one. Fix it when you file your annual return. The difference in withholding is going to be relatively small anyway, less than 1% of your income.","FICA/SE taxes are not 30%. They are at most ~15%, including the employer portion. Employer also pays FUTA tax, and has additional payroll expenses (like fees and worker compensation insurance). The employee's FICA portion is limited up to a certain level of earnings (110100 this year, IIRC). Above it you only pay medicare taxes, not social security. S-Corp earnings are not taxed at 15%, these are not dividends. They're taxed at your ordinary income rate. You don't pay SE taxes on it, that's the only difference. I hope you're talking about tax treatment decision, because there are entirely different factors to keep in mind when you're organizing a business and making a decision between being it a LLC or a corporation. I believe you should pay some money to get a real advice that would apply to you, from a EA/CPA who would be doing the number-crunching (hopefully correctly). I'm a tax practitioner, and this answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.","\"The limit on SEP IRA is 25%, not 20%. If you're self-employed (filing on Schedule C), then it's taken on net earning, which in your example would be 25% of $90,000. (https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-for-self-employed-people) JoeTaxpayer is correct as regards the 401(k) limits. The elective deferrals are per person - That's a cap in sum across multiple plans and across both traditional and Roth if you have those. In general, it's actually across other retirement plan types too - See below. If you're self-employed and set-up a 401(k) for your own business, the elective deferral is still aggregated with any other 401(k) plans in which you participate that year, but you can still make the employer contribution on your own plan. This IRS page is current a pretty good one on this topic: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans Key quotes that are relevant: The business owner wears two hats in a 401(k) plan: employee and employer. Contributions can be made to the plan in both capacities. The owner can contribute both: •Elective deferrals up to 100% of compensation (“earned income” in the case of a self-employed individual) up to the annual contribution limit: ◦$18,000 in 2015 and 2016, or $24,000 in 2015 and 2016 if age 50 or over; plus •Employer nonelective contributions up to: ◦25% of compensation as defined by the plan, or ◦for self-employed individuals, see discussion below It continues with this example: The amount you can defer (including pre-tax and Roth contributions) to all your plans (not including 457(b) plans) is $18,000 in 2015 and 2016. Although a plan's terms may place lower limits on contributions, the total amount allowed under the tax law doesn’t depend on how many plans you belong to or who sponsors those plans. EXAMPLE Ben, age 51, earned $50,000 in W-2 wages from his S Corporation in 2015. He deferred $18,000 in regular elective deferrals plus $6,000 in catch-up contributions to the 401(k) plan. His business contributed 25% of his compensation to the plan, $12,500. Total contributions to the plan for 2015 were $36,500. This is the maximum that can be contributed to the plan for Ben for 2015. A business owner who is also employed by a second company and participating in its 401(k) plan should bear in mind that his limits on elective deferrals are by person, not by plan. He must consider the limit for all elective deferrals he makes during a year. Notice in the example that Ben contributed more that than his elective limit in total (his was $24,000 in the example because he was old enough for the $6,000 catch-up in addition to the $18,000 that applies to everyone else). He did this by declaring an employer contribution of $12,500, which was limited by his compensation but not by any of his elective contributions. Beyond the 401(k), keep in mind that elective contributions are capped across different types of retirement plans as well, so if you have a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k), your total contributions across those plans are also capped. That's also mentioned in the example. Now to the extent that you're considering different types of plans, that's a whole question in itself - One that might be worth consulting a dedicated tax advisor. A few things to consider (not extensive list): As for payroll / self-employment tax: Looks like you will end up paying Medicare, including the new \"\"Additional Medicare\"\" tax that came with the ACA, but not SS: If you have wages, as well as self-employment earnings, the tax on your wages is paid first. But this rule only applies if your total earnings are more than $118,500. For example, if you will have $30,000 in wages and $40,000 in selfemployment income in 2016, you will pay the appropriate Social Security taxes on both your wages and business earnings. In 2016, however, if your wages are $78,000, and you have $40,700 in net earnings from a business, you don’t pay dual Social Security taxes on earnings more than $118,500. Your employer will withhold 7.65 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your $78,000 in earnings. You must pay 15.3 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your first $40,500 in self-employment earnings and 2.9 percent in Medicare tax on the remaining $200 in net earnings. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10022.pdf Other good IRS resources:\"","\"I've done various side work over the years -- computer consulting, writing, and I briefly had a video game company -- so I've gone through most of this. Disclaimer: I have never been audited, which may mean that everything I put on my tax forms looked plausible to the IRS and so is probably at least generally right, but it also means that the IRS has never put their stamp of approval on my tax forms. So that said ... 1: You do not need to form an LLC to be able to claim business expenses. Whether you have any expenses or not, you will have to complete a schedule C. On this form are places for expenses in various categories. Note that the categories are the most common type of expenses, there's an \"\"other\"\" space if you have something different. If you have any property that is used both for the business and also for personal use, you must calculate a business use percentage. For example if you bought a new printer and 60% of the time you use it for the business and 40% of the time you use it for personal stuff, then 60% of the cost is tax deductible. In general the IRS expects you to calculate the percentage based on amount of time used for business versus personal, though you are allowed to use other allocation formulas. Like for a printer I think you'd get away with number of pages printed for each. But if the business use is not 100%, you must keep records to justify the percentage. You can't just say, \"\"Oh, I think business use must have been about 3/4 of the time.\"\" You have to have a log where you write down every time you use it and whether it was business or personal. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of business use of cars and computers, because these are things that are readily used for personal purposes. If you own a copper mine and you buy a mine-boring machine, odds are you aren't going to take that home to dig shafts in your backyard. But a computer can easily be used to play video games or send emails to friends and relatives and lots of things that have nothing to do with a business. So if you're going to claim a computer or a car, be prepared to justify it. You can claim office use of your home if you have one or more rooms or designated parts of a room that are used \"\"regularly and exclusively\"\" for business purposes. That is, if you turn the family room into an office, you can claim home office expenses. But if, like me, you sit on the couch to work but at other times you sit on the couch to watch TV, then the space is not used \"\"exclusively\"\" for business purposes. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of home office deductions. I've never tried to claim it. It's legal, just make sure you have all your ducks in a row if you claim it. Skip 2 for the moment. 3: Yes, you must pay taxes on your business income. If you have not created an LLC or a corporation, then your business income is added to your wage income to calculate your taxes. That is, if you made, say, $50,000 salary working for somebody else and $10,000 on your side business, then your total income is $60,000 and that's what you pay taxes on. The total amount you pay in income taxes will be the same regardless of whether 90% came from salary and 10% from the side business or the other way around. The rates are the same, it's just one total number. If the withholding on your regular paycheck is not enough to cover the total taxes that you will have to pay, then you are required by law to pay estimated taxes quarterly to make up the difference. If you don't, you will be required to pay penalties, so you don't want to skip on this. Basically you are supposed to be withholding from yourself and sending this in to the government. It's POSSIBLE that this won't be an issue. If you're used to getting a big refund, and the refund is more than what the tax on your side business will come to, then you might end up still getting a refund, just a smaller one. But you don't want to guess about this. Get the tax forms and figure out the numbers. I think -- and please don't rely on this, check on it -- that the law says that you don't pay a penalty if the total tax that was withheld from your paycheck plus the amount you paid in estimated payments is more than the tax you owed last year. So like lets say that this year -- just to make up some numbers -- your employer withheld $4,000 from your paychecks. At the end of the year you did your taxes and they came to $3,000, so you got a $1,000 refund. This year your employer again withholds $4,000 and you paid $0 in estimated payments. Your total tax on your salary plus your side business comes to $4,500. You owe $500, but you won't have to pay a penalty, because the $4,000 withheld is more than the $3,000 that you owed last year. But if next year you again don't make estimated payment, so you again have $4,000 withheld plus $0 estimated and then you owe $5,000 in taxes, you will have to pay a penalty, because your withholding was less than what you owed last year. To you had paid $500 in estimated payments, you'd be okay. You'd still owe $500, but you wouldn't owe a penalty, because your total payments were more than the previous year's liability. Clear as mud? Don't forget that you probably will also owe state income tax. If you have a local income tax, you'll owe that too. Scott-McP mentioned self-employment tax. You'll owe that, too. Note that self-employment tax is different from income tax. Self employment tax is just social security tax on self-employed people. You're probably used to seeing the 7-whatever-percent it is these days withheld from your paycheck. That's really only half your social security tax, the other half is not shown on your pay stub because it is not subtracted from your salary. If you're self-employed, you have to pay both halves, or about 15%. You file a form SE with your income taxes to declare it. 4: If you pay your quarterly estimated taxes, well the point of \"\"estimated\"\" taxes is that it's supposed to be close to the amount that you will actually owe next April 15. So if you get it at least close, then you shouldn't owe a lot of money in April. (I usually try to arrange my taxes so that I get a modest refund -- don't loan the government a lot of money, but don't owe anything April 15 either.) Once you take care of any business expenses and taxes, what you do with the rest of the money is up to you, right? Though if you're unsure of how to spend it, let me know and I'll send you the address of my kids' colleges and you can donate it to their tuition fund. I think this would be a very worthy and productive use of your money. :-) Back to #2. I just recently acquired a financial advisor. I can't say what a good process for finding one is. This guy is someone who goes to my church and who hijacked me after Bible study one day to make his sales pitch. But I did talk to him about his fees, and what he told me was this: If I have enough money in an investment account, then he gets a commission from the investment company for bringing the business to them, and that's the total compensation he gets from me. That commission comes out of the management fees they charge, and those management fees are in the same ballpark as the fees I was paying for private investment accounts, so basically he is not costing me anything. He's getting his money from the kickbacks. He said that if I had not had enough accumulated assets, he would have had to charge me an hourly fee. I didn't ask how much that was. Whew, hadn't meant to write such a long answer!\"","Do you have a regular job, where you work for somebody else and they pay you a salary? If so, they should be deducting estimated taxes from your paychecks and sending them in to the government. How much they deduct depends on your salary and what you put down on your W-4. Assuming you filled that out accurately, they will withhold an amount that should closely match the taxes you would owe if you took the standard deduction, have no income besides this job, and no unusual deductions. If that's the case, come next April 15 you will probably get a small refund. If you own a small business or are an independent contractor, then you have to estimate the taxes you will owe and make quarterly payments. If you're worried that the amount they're withholding doesn't sound right, then as GradeEhBacon says, get a copy of last year's tax forms (or this year's if they're out by now) -- paper or electronic -- fill them out by estimating what your total income will be for the year, etc, and see what the tax comes out to be.","Yes, you do. Depending on your country's laws and regulations, since you're not an employee but a self employed, you're likely to be required to file some kind of a tax return with your country's tax authority, and pay the income taxes on the money you earn. You'll have to tell us more about the situation, at least let us know what country you're in, for more information.","\"Yep. You're single, you're possibly still a dependent on your parent's taxes (in lieu of rent), and you're finally bringing home bacon instead of bacon bits. Welcome to the working world. Let's say your gross salary is the U.S. median of $50,000. With bi-weekly checks (26 a year; common practice) you're getting $1923.08 per paycheck. In the 2013 \"\"Percentage Method\"\" tax tables, here's how your federal withholding is calculated as a single person paid biweekly: Federal taxes are computed piecewise; the amount up to A is taxed at X%, then the amount between A and B is taxed at Y%, so if you make $C, between A and B, the tax is (A*X) + (C-A)*Y. The amount A*X is included in the \"\"base amount\"\" for ease of calculation. Back to our example; let's say you're getting $1923.08 gross wages per check. That puts you in the 25% marginal bracket. You pay the sum of all lesser brackets (which is the \"\"base amount\"\" of the 25% bracket), plus the 25% marginal rate on every dollar that falls within the bracket. That's 191.95 + (1923.08 - 1479) * .25 = 191.95 + (444.08 * .25) = 191.95 + 111.02 = $302.97 per paycheck. The \"\"effective\"\" tax rate on the total amount, as if you were being charged a flat tax, is 15.75%, and this is just for the federal income tax. Add to this MA state income taxes (5.25% flat tax), FICA (aka Medicare; 1.45% flat) and SECA (aka Social Security; 6.2% up to a \"\"wage base\"\" that $50k doesn't even approach), and your effective tax rate on each dollar you earn is 15.75% + 5.25% + 1.45% + 6.2% = 28.65%. This doesn't include any state unemployment taxes that may be withheld separately, but as the rate I come up with is pretty darn close to what you've figured (meaning I slightly overestimated your gross income and thus your effective tax rate), my bet is that SUTA's either employer-paid in MA, or it's just part of MA state income tax. It gets better, at least at the federal level: The amount of your state income taxes is tax-deductible at the federal level if you itemize your deductions. That may not be a factor for you as you'd have to come up with more than $6,100 of other tax-deductible expenses to make itemizing the better option than taking the standard deduction (big-ticket items are mortgage expenses other than principal payments, hospital stays such as for childbirth or major accident, and state and local taxes such as sales, property and income). If you can claim yourself as a dependent (meaning your parents can't), then $150 of each check ($3,900 of your annual salary) is no longer taxed for federal withholding, lowering the amount of money taxed at the 25% marginal rate. You effectively save $37.50 biweekly ($975 annually) in taxes. Get married and file jointly, and your spouse, her personal exemption, and an extra standard deduction amount (if you don't itemize) go on your taxes. The tax rates for married couples filing jointly are also lower; they're currently calculated (or were in 2012) to be the same as if two equal earners were to file separately, so if your spouse doesn't work, your taxes on the single income are calculated at the rates you'd get if you earned half as much. It doesn't work out to half the taxes, but it is a significant \"\"marriage advantage\"\". Have kids, and each one is another little $3,900 tax write-off. It's nowhere near the cost of having or raising the child, but it helps, and having kids isn't about the money. Owning a home, making charitable deductions, having medical expenses, etc are a toss-up. The magic number in 2013 is $12,200 for a married couple, $6,100 for a single person. If your mortgage interest, insurance premiums, property taxes, medical expenditures, charitable donations, any contributions from your take-home pay to a tax-deferred savings account (typically these accounts are paid into by your employer as a \"\"pre-tax deduction\"\" and never show up as taxable income, but you could just as easily move money from your take-home pay into tax-deferred savings) and any other tax-deductible payments add up to more than 12 large, then itemize. If not, take your standard deduction. As a single taxpayer just starting out in life, you probably don't have any of these types of expenditures, certainly not enough to give up the SD. I did the math on my own taxes in 2012, and was surprised at how little the government actually gets of my paycheck when all's said and done. Remember back in the summer of 2012 when everyone was mad at Romney for making millions and only paying an effective income tax rate of 14%, which was compared to the middle class's marginal rate of 25-28%? Well, my family of 3, living on a little more than the median income from one earner (me), taking the married standard deduction, three personal exemptions, and a little extra for student loan interest, paid an effective federal income tax rate of something like 3.5%. Of course, the FICA and SS taxes don't allow any deductions (not even for retirement savings), so add in the 4.2% SS (in 2012) and 1.45% FICA and the full federal gimme was more like 9-10%.\"","From my blog's discussion on 2017 tax rates. This is the final set of numbers. So, if you currently have, say $120K taxable income, every dollar above that starts getting taxed at 25%, until $153K, then 28%. In other words, forecast your taxes based on the day job, but then the 1099 goes on top of that.","Your tax return will be due on April 18th of 2017 for the amounts made in 2016. Based on the figures that you have provided, assuming you are 18, and assuming you are a single taxpayer your total tax will be around $2600.00 ($2611.25 to be exact, without additional credits or deductions to AGI accounted for). The $1,234 in fed. inc. tax that you have already paid is considered to be a prepaid by the government. If at year-end you have provided more than you have made the government will refund you the excess (federal tax return).","In the USA, you probably owe Self Employment Tax. The cutoff for tax on this is 400$. You will need to file a tax return and cover the medicaid expenses as if you were both the employer and employee. In addition, if he earns income from self-employment, he may owe Self-Employment Tax, which means paying both the employee’s and employer's share of Social Security and Medicaid taxes. The trigger for Self Employment Tax has been $400 since 1990, but the IRS may change that in the future. Also see the IRS website. So yes, you need to file your taxes. How much you will pay is determined by exactly how much your income is. If you don't file, you probably won't be audited, however you are breaking the law and should be aware of the consequences.","Your taxable income is your total income from however many sources of income you have. If you are in employment and doing self-employed job at the same time, your taxable income will be a combination of both incomes. For example if in employment you make £10000 and self employed you make another £10000 - your total income is £20000 and this is your taxable income. And even if your self-employed job does not bring you more than personal allowance, how would HMRC know that without you filling-in tax return?","Havoc P's answer is good (+1). Also don't forget the other aspects of business income: state filing fees, county/city filing fees, business licenses, etc. Are there any taxes you have to collect from your customers? If you expect to make more this year, then you should make estimated quarterly tax payments. The first one for 2011 is due around the same time as your federal income tax filing.","Unfortunately, the tax system in the U.S. is probably more complicated than it looks to you right now. First, you need to understand that there will be taxes withheld from your paycheck, but the amount that they withhold is simply a guess. You might pay too much or too little tax during the year. After the year is over, you'll send in a tax return form that calculates the correct tax amount. If you have paid too little over the year, you'll have to send in the rest, but if you've paid too much, you'll get a refund. There are complicated formulas on how much tax the employer withholds from your paycheck, but in general, if you don't have extra income elsewhere that you need to pay tax on, you'll probably be close to breaking even at tax time. When you get your paycheck, the first thing that will be taken off is FICA, also called Social Security, Medicare, or the Payroll tax. This is a fixed 7.65% that is taken off the gross salary. It is not refundable and is not affected by any allowances or deductions, and does not come in to play at all on your tax return form. There are optional employee benefits that you might need to pay a portion of if you are going to take advantage of them, such as health insurance or retirement savings. Some of these deductions are paid with before-tax money, and some are paid with after tax money. The employer will calculate how much money they are supposed to withhold for federal and state taxes (yes, California has an income tax), and the rest is yours. At tax time, the employer will give you a form W-2, which shows you the amount of your gross income after all the before-tax deductions are taken out (which is what you use to calculate your tax). The form also shows you how much tax you have paid during the year. Form 1040 is the tax return that you use to calculate your correct tax for the year. You start with the gross income amount from the W-2, and the first thing you do is add in any income that you didn't get a W-2 for (such as interest or investment income) and subtract any deductions that you might have that are not taxable, but were not paid through your paycheck (such as moving expenses, student loan interest, tuition, etc.) The result is called your adjusted gross income. Next, you take off the deductions not covered in the above section (property tax, home mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc.). You can either take the standard deduction ($6,300 if you are single), or if you have more deductions in this category than that, you can itemize your deductions and declare the correct amount. After that, you subtract more for exemptions. You can claim yourself as an exemption unless you are considered a dependent of someone else and they are claiming you as a dependent. If you claim yourself, you take off another $4,000 from your income. What you are left with is your taxable income for the year. This is the amount you would use to calculate your tax based on the bracket table you found. California has an income tax, and just like the federal tax, some state taxes will be deducted from your paycheck, and you'll need to fill out a state tax return form after the year is over to calculate the correct state tax and either request a refund or pay the remainder of the tax. I don't have any experience with the California income tax, but there are details on the rates on this page from the State of California.","You will need to register as self-employed aka sole trader (that's the whole point: pay taxes on income that you're not getting as wages from an employer, who would arrange PAYE/NI contributions), or set up a limited company (in the last case you would have the option of either getting paid as wages or as dividends — which one is better is a complex issue which varies from year to year). You'll find lots of advice on the HMRC website.","Do you have any insight on average *effective* rates paid by SE owners? As a counterpoint to your (very valid) links, filing as S-corp allows for taxes on distributions to be exempt from payroll tax and taxed at much lower rates. Also, being SE allows for various deductions not possible for wage earners. There's probably other examples not immediately coming to mind. Also, SE taxes equal taxes otherwise paid by employer + employee. It's just that those employer taxes don't appear on the employee's paystub so not everyone realizes this.","I've had zero taxable income for the past 2 years and yet the calculations say I owe the government $250 for each year for the Self Employment tax. How can they charge a non-zero tax on my income when my taxable income is zero? That is theft. That demands reform.","Every bill you write counts as income (if the bill doesn't get paid, you would count that as an expense). In cases where you don't write bills, I think the payment you receive would count as income, but you might check that on the HMRC website. So to record your income, you can basically record the payments that you receive. Anything you pay out for your business is an expense. You keep a receipt for every expense - if you don't have a receipt, you can't count it as an expense, so keeping all the receipts is very, very important. An exception are investments, for example buying a computer that should last multiple years; there you can count a percentage of the investment as expense every year. All income, minus all expenses, is your profit. You pay tax and National Insurance contributions according to your profit. You can do whatever you like with the profit. Notice that I didn't mention any salary. Self employed means you have no salary, you have profits and do with them whatever you like. On the other hand, you pay taxes on these profits almost exactly as if they were income. If you have this blog but are also employed, you'll add the profits to your normal income statement.","The tax savings of being 1099 can be significant. It depends on your salary, and what you can deduct. You may want to consult with an accountant. The social security tax, for the self employed, is 12.4% of profit not on revenue. If you can write off more than half of the income as expenses then you could be paying less than a w-2 employee. Also you might make a higher salary as a 1099, it is rare the offer the same compensation for a W-2 as a 1099 as the former has higher expenses for the employer. It is hard to know without actual numbers, actual expected expense deductions and so forth. Which is why I would suggest consulting with an accountant. You may want to talk to one in the state where he will be working rather than where you live now.","The key for you this year (2015) be aggressive in paying the taxes quarterly so that you do not have to do the quarterly filings or pay penalties for owing too much in taxes in future years. The tax system has a safe harbor provision. If you have withheld or sent via the estimated quarterly taxes an amount equal to 100% of the previous years taxes then you are safe. That means that if you end to the IRS in 2015 an amount equal to 100% of your 2014 taxes then in April 2016 you can avoid the penalties. You should note that the required percentage is 110% for high income individual. Because you can never be sure about your side income, use your ability to adjust your W-4 to cover your taxes. You will know early in 2016 how much you need to cover via withholding, so make the adjustments. Yes the risk is what you over pay, but that may be what you need to do to avoid the quarterly filing requirements. From IRS PUB 17: If you owe additional tax for 2014, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2015. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2015 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2015, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2015 tax return, or 100% of the tax shown on your 2014 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2014 tax return must cover all 12 months. and Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty.","\"Hearing somewhere is a level or two worse than \"\"my friend told me.\"\" You need to do some planning to forecast your full year income and tax bill. In general, you should be filing a quarterly form and tax payment. You'll still reconcile the year with an April filing, but if you are looking to save up to pay a huge bill next year, you are looking at the potential of a penalty for under-withholding. The instructions and payment coupons are available at the IRS site. At this point I'm required to offer the following advice - If you are making enough money that this even concerns you, you should consider starting to save for the future. A Solo-401(k) or IRA, or both. Read more on these two accounts and ask separate questions, if you'd like.\"","As a new (very!) small business, the IRS has lots of advice and information for you. Start at https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed and be sure you have several pots of coffee or other appropriate aid against somnolence. By default a single-member LLC is 'disregarded' for tax purposes (at least for Federal, and generally states follow Federal although I don't know Mass. specifically), although it does have other effects. If you go this route you simply include the business income and expenses on Schedule C as part of your individual return on 1040, and the net SE income is included along with your other income (if any) in computing your tax. TurboTax or similar software should handle this for you, although you may need a premium version that costs a little more. You can 'elect' to have the LLC taxed as a corporation by filing form 8832, see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/limited-liability-company-llc . In principle you are supposed to do this when the entity is 'formed', but in practice AIUI if you do it by the end of the year they won't care at all, and if you do it after the end of the year but before or with your first affected return you qualify for automatic 'relief'. However, deciding how to divide the business income/profits into 'reasonable pay' to yourself versus 'dividends' is more complicated, and filling out corporation tax returns in addition to your individual return (which is still required) is more work, in addition to the work and cost of filing and reporting the LLC itself to your state of choice. Unless/until you make something like $50k-100k a year this probably isn't worth it. 1099 Reporting. Stripe qualifies as a 'payment network' and under a recent law payment networks must annually report to IRS (and copy to you) on form 1099-K if your account exceeds certain thresholds; see https://support.stripe.com/questions/will-i-receive-a-1099-k-and-what-do-i-do-with-it . Note you are still legally required to report and pay tax on your SE income even if you aren't covered by 1099-K (or other) reporting. Self-employment tax. As a self-employed person (if the LLC is disregarded) you have to pay 'SE' tax that is effectively equivalent to the 'FICA' taxes that would be paid by your employer and you as an employee combined. This is 12.4% for Social Security unless/until your total earned income exceeds a cap (for 2017 $127,200, adjusted yearly for inflation), and 2.9% for Medicare with no limit (plus 'Additional Medicare' tax if you exceed a higher threshold and it isn't 'repealed and replaced'). If the LLC elects corporation status it has to pay you reasonable wages for your services, and withhold+pay FICA on those wages like any other employer. Estimated payments. You are required to pay most of your individual income tax, and SE tax if applicable, during the year (generally 90% of your tax or your tax minus $1,000 whichever is less). Most wage-earners don't notice this because it happens automatically through payroll withholding, but as self-employed you are responsible for making sufficient and timely estimated payments, and will owe a penalty if you don't. However, since this is your first year you may have a 'safe harbor'; if you also have income from an employer (reported on W-2, with withholding) and that withholding is sufficent to pay last year's tax, then you are exempt from the 'underpayment' penalty for this year. If you elect corporation status then the corporation (which is really just you) must always make timely payments of withheld amounts, according to one of several different schedules that may apply depending on the amounts; I believe it also must make estimated payments for its own liability, if any, but I'm not familiar with that part.","The tax is depended upon state where you are registered and the salary paid. More here If you employ contract you need not pay tax.","\"Most states that have income tax base their taxes on the income reported on your federal return, with some state-specific adjustments. So answering your last question first: Yes, if it matters for federal, it will matter for state (in most cases). For estimating the tax liability, I would not use the effective rate but rather use the rate for your highest tax bracket and apply that to your estimated hobby income, assuming that you primary job income won't be wildly higher or lower than last year. As @keshlam noted in a comment, this income is coming on top of whatever else you earn, so it will be taxed at your top rate. Finally, I'd check again whether this is really \"\"hobby\"\" income or if it is \"\"self-employment\"\" income. Self-employment income will be subject to self-employment tax, which comes on top of the regular income tax.\"","Unless you make those investments inside a tax-deferred account, you will have to pay income-taxes on that money this year. Because you made that money through your own business, you will also have payroll taxes due on that money this year.","If you want to predict the, the easiest solution is to get hold of a copy of last year's tax forms and fill them in with estimated numbers. Odds are that none of the more complicated deductions will apply to you this first time around, so I'd suggest just using the federal 1040EZ, and your state's equivalent, for this purpose. If it turns out that you can claim anything more than the standard deduction, that would reduce your taxes, so this is leaning toward the safe side.","If this will be your sole income for the year, going self-employed is the best way to do this: So, here's how to go at it: Total cash in: £2000 Total Tax paid: £0 Admin overhead: approx 3 hours. Legit: 100% :) Edit: Can you tell me that in my case what are the required fields on the invoice? If you're non-VAT registered, there are no legal requirements as to what information you need to put on the invoice -it literally can be a couple of numbers on a napkin, and still be legit. With that said, to make a professional appearance, my invoices are usually structured as follows: Left side: ( Sidenote: why client-specific incremental numbering? Why, so they can't make educated guesses to the number of clients I have at any given time :) ) Right side: Center table: And so far, none of my clients missed any fields, so this should have everything they need to :) Hope this helps, but keep in mind, all of the above is synthetic sugar on the top -ultimately, the relationship you share with your Clients is the thing you will (or will not) get paid for! Edit#2: The voices in my head just pointed out, that I've totally omitted National Insurance contributions in the above. However, and I quote HMRC: If your profits are expected to be less than £5,315 you may not have to pay Class 2 National Insurance contributions. Hence, this won't change the numbers above, either -just make sure to point this out during your registration in the office.","No, even businesses pay taxes quarterly. So if you formed Nathan, LLC, or otherwise became self employed, you'd still have to file quarterly estimates and make tax payments. This would cause taxes to be a much more high touch part of your life. However, you should ensure that you're claiming the proper exemptions etc to avoid excessive withholding.","Yes, you've summarized it well. You may be able to depreciate your computer, expense some software licenses and may be home office if you qualify, but at this scale of earning - it will probably not cover for the loss of the money you need to pay for the additional SE tax (the employer part of the FICA taxes for W2 employees) and benefits (subsidized health insurance, bonuses you get from your employer, insurances, etc). Don't forget the additional expense of business licenses, liability insurances etc. While relatively small amounts and deductible - still money out of your pocket. That said... Good luck earning $96K on ODesk.","\"Generally if you're a sole S-Corp employee - it is hard to explain how the S-Corp earned more money than your work is worth. So it is reasonable that all the S-Corp profits would be pouring into your salary. Especially when the amounts are below the FICA SS limits when separating salary and distributions are a clear sign of FICA tax evasion. So while it is hard to say if you're going to be subject to audit, my bet is that if you are - the IRS will claim that you underpaid yourself. One of the more recent cases dealing with this issue is Watson v Commissioner. In this case, Watson (through his S-Corp which he solely owned) received distributions from a company in the amounts of ~400K. He drew 24K as salary, and the rest as distributions. The IRS forced re-characterizing distributions into salary up to 93K (the then-SS portion of the FICA limit), and the courts affirmed. Worth noting, that Watson didn't do all the work himself, and that was the reason that some of the income was allowed to be considered distribution. That wouldn't hold in a case where the sole shareholder was the only revenue producer, and that is exactly my point. I feel that it is important to add another paragraph about Nolo, newspaper articles, and charlatans on the Internet. YOU CANNOT RELY ON THEM. You cannot defend your position against IRS by saying \"\"But the article on Nolo said I can not pay SE taxes on my earnings!\"\", you cannot say \"\"Some guy called littleadv lost an argument with some other guy called Ben Miller because Ben Miller was saying what everyone wants to hear\"\", and you can definitely not say \"\"But I don't want to pay taxes!\"\". There's law, there are legal precedents. When some guy on the Internet tells you exactly what you want to hear - beware. Many times when it is too good to be true - it is in fact not true. Many these articles are written by people who are interested in clients/business. By the time you get to them - you're already in deep trouble and will pay them to fix it. They don't care that their own \"\"advice\"\" got you into that trouble, because it is always written in generic enough terms that they can say \"\"Oh, but it doesn't apply to your specific situation\"\". That's the main problem with these free advice - they are worth exactly what you paid for them. When you actually pay your CPA/Attorney - they'll have to take responsibility over their advice. Then suddenly they become cautious. Suddenly they start mentioning precedents and rulings telling you to not do things. Or not, and try and play the audit roulette, but these types are long gone when you get caught.\"","\"I have done similar software work. You do not need an LLC to write off business expenses. The income and expenses go on Schedule C of your tax return. It is easy to write off even small expenses such as travel - if you keep records. The income should be reported to you on a 1099 form, filled out by your client, not yourself. For a financial advisor you should find one you can visit with personally and who operates as a \"\"fee-only\"\" advisor. That means they will not try to sell you something that they get a commission on. You might pay a few $hundred per visit. There are taxes that you have to pay (around 15%) due to self-employment income. These taxes are due 4 times a year and paid with an \"\"estimated tax\"\" form. See the IRS web site, and in particular schedule SE. Get yourself educated about this fast and make the estimated tax payments on time so you won't run into penalties at the end of the year.\"","\"You will be filing the exact same form you've been filing until now (I hope...) which is called form 1040. Attached to it, you'll add a \"\"Schedule C\"\" form and \"\"Schedule SE\"\" form. Keep in mind the potential effect of the tax and totalization treaties the US has with the UK which may affect your filings. I suggest you talk to a licensed EA/CPA who works with expats in the UK and is familiar with all the issues. There are several prominent offices you can find by Googling.\"","\"Chris, Joe's table helps. but think this way: there are two ways you can pay the taxes for your side-gig: either you can send a check quarterly to the Feds, OR, you can overwithhold at your real job to cover taxes at your sidegig. I'd do this in \"\"arrears\"\" -- after you get your first paycheck from sidegig, then adjust your real job's withholding. Except (and Joe neglected this), you're still responsible for Social Security / Medicare Tax from your sidegig. I suspect your income at real-job is high enough that you stop paying Social Security Tax, so at least at this time of year you won't be subject to 15.4% Social Security Tax. However, that's NOT true for the 2.9% Medicare Tax. Remember that because you're an independent contractor being payed without withholding, YOU are responsible not only for the Medicare (and Social Security) taxes you'd be responsible for if a regular employee, but you're also responsible for what your employer's share as well.\"","I would say you can file your taxes on your own, but you will probably want the advice of an accountant if you need any supplies or tools for the side business that might be tax deductible. IIRC you don't have to tell your current employer for tax reasons (just check that your contract doesn't state you can't have a side job or business), but I believe you'll have to tell HMRC. At the end of the year you'll have to file a tax return and at that point in time you'll have to pay the tax on the additional earnings. These will be taxed at your highest tax rate and you might end up in a higher tax bracket, too. I'd put about 40% away for tax, that will put you on the safe side in case you end up in the high tax bracket; if not, you'll have a bit of money going spare after paying your taxes.","If you qualify for the safe harbor, you are not required to pay additional quarterly taxes. Of course, you're still welcome to do so if you're sure you'll owe them; however, you will not be penalized. If your income is over $150k (joint) or $75k (single), your safe harbor is: Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty. Generally, if you're under that level, the following reasons suggest you will not owe the tax (from the IRS publication 505): The total of your withholding and timely estimated tax payments was at least as much as your 2013 tax. (See Special rules for certain individuals for higher income taxpayers and farmers and fishermen.) The tax balance due on your 2014 return is no more than 10% of your total 2014 tax, and you paid all required estimated tax payments on time. Your total tax for 2014 (defined later) minus your withholding is less than $1,000. You did not have a tax liability for 2013. You did not have any withholding taxes and your current year tax (less any household employment taxes) is less than $1,000. If you paid one-fourth of your last year's taxes (or of 110% of your last-year's taxes) in estimated taxes for each quarter prior to this one, you should be fine as far as penalties go, and can simply add the excess you know you will owe to the next check.","As Victor says, you pay tax on net profit. If this is a significant source of income for you, you should file quarterly estimated tax payments or you're going to get hit with a penalty at the end of the year.","\"It's not possible to determine whether you can \"\"expect a refund\"\" or whether you are claiming the right number of exemptions from the information given. If your wife were not working and you did not do independent contracting, then the answer would be much simpler. However, in this case, we must also factor in how much your contracting brings in (since you must pay income tax on that, as well as Medicare and, probably, Social Security), whether you are filing jointly or separately, and your wife's income from her business. There are also other factors such as whether you'll be claiming certain child care expenses, and certain tax credits which may phase out depending on your income. If you can accurately estimate your total household income for the year, and separate that into income from wages, contracting, and your wife's business, as well as your expenses for things like state and local income and property taxes, then you can make a very reasonable estimate about your total tax burden (including the self-employment taxes on your non-wage income) and then determine whether you are having enough tax withheld from your paycheck. Some people may find that they should have additional tax withheld to compensate for these expenses (see IRS W-4 Line #6).\"","question #2 - yes, 25% of your 1099 income. Good idea. It adds up quickly and is a good way to reduce taxable income.","To be confident in your solution, and get the best solution for you, consult a local accountant, preferably one who is specialized in taxes for businesses. Or muddle through the code and figure it out for yourself. The primary advantage in consulting with an accountant is that you can ask them to point out ways you can restructure your expenses, debts and income in order to minimize your tax burden. They can help you run the numbers for the various options and choose the one that is right, numerically.","Since you say 1099, I'll assume it's in the US. :) Think of your consulting operation as a small business. Businesses are only taxed on their profits, not their revenues. So you should only be paying tax on the $700 in the example you gave. Note, though, that you need to be sure the IRS thinks you're a small business. Having a separate bank account for the business, filing for a business license with your local city/state, etc are all things that help make the case that you're running a business. Of course, the costs of doing all those things are business expenses, and thus things you can deduct from that $1000 in revenue at tax time.","\"A tax return is a document you sign and file with the government to self-report your tax obligations. A tax refund is the payment you receive from the government if your payments into the tax system exceeded your obligations. As others have mentioned, if an extra $2K in income generated $5K in taxes, chances are your return was prepared incorrectly. The selection of an appropriate entity type for your business depends a lot on what you expect to see over the next several years in terms of income and expenses, and the extent to which you want or need to pay for fringe benefits or make pretax retirement contributions from your business income. There are four basic flavors of entity which are available to you: Sole proprietorship. This is the simplest option in terms of tax reporting and paperwork required for ongoing operations. Your net (gross minus expenses) income is added to your wage income and you'll pay tax on the total. If your wage income is less than approximately $100K, you'll also owe self-employment tax of approximately 15% in addition to income tax on your business income. If your business runs at a loss, you can deduct the loss from your other income in calculating your taxable income, though you won't be able to run at a loss indefinitely. You are liable for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of all of your personal assets. Partnership. You will need at least two participants (humans or entities) to form a partnership. Individual items of income and expense are identified on a partnership tax return, and each partner's proportionate share is then reported on the individual partners' tax returns. General partners (who actively participate in the business) also must pay self-employment tax on their earnings below approximately $100K. Each general partner is responsible for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of their personal assets. A general partnership can be created informally or with an oral agreement although that's not a good idea. Corporation. Business entities can be taxed as \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" corporations. Either way, the corporation is created by filing articles of incorporation with a state government (doesn't have to be the state where you live) and corporations are typically required to file yearly entity statements with the state where they were formed as well as all states where they do business. Shareholders are only liable for the debts and obligations of the corporation to the extent of their investment in the corporation. An \"\"S\"\" corporation files an information-only return similar to a partnership which reports items of income and expense, but those items are actually taken into account on the individual tax returns of the shareholders. If an \"\"S\"\" corporation runs at a loss, the losses are deductible against the shareholders' other income. A \"\"C\"\" corporation files a tax return more similar to an individual's. A C corporation calculates and pays its own tax at the corporate level. Payments from the C corporation to individuals are typically taxable as wages (from a tax point of view, it's the same as having a second job) or as dividends, depending on how and why the payments are made. (If they're in exchange for effort and work, they're probably wages - if they're payments of business profits to the business owners, they're probably dividends.) If a C corporation runs at a loss, the loss is not deductible against the shareholders' other income. Fringe benefits such as health insurance for business owners are not deductible as business expenses on the business returns for S corps, partnerships, or sole proprietorships. C corporations can deduct expenses for providing fringe benefits. LLCs don't have a predefined tax treatment - the members or managers of the LLC choose, when the LLC is formed, if they would like to be taxed as a partnership, an S corporation, or as a C corporation. If an LLC is owned by a single person, it can be considered a \"\"disregarded entity\"\" and treated for tax purposes as a sole proprietorship. This option is not available if the LLC has multiple owners. The asset protection provided by the use of an entity depends quite a bit on the source of the claim. If a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on a contract signed on behalf of the entity, then they likely will not be able to \"\"pierce the veil\"\" and collect the entity's debts from the individual owners. On the other hand, if a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on negligence or another tort-like action (such as sexual harassment), then it's very likely that the individual(s) involved will also be sued as individuals, which takes away a lot of the effectiveness of the purported asset protection. The entity-based asset protection is also often unavailable even for contract claims because sophisticated creditors (like banks and landlords) will often insist the the business owners sign a personal guarantee putting their own assets at risk in the event that the business fails to honor its obligations. There's no particular type of entity which will allow you to entirely avoid tax. Most tax planning revolves around characterizing income and expense items in the most favorable ways possible, or around controlling the timing of the appearance of those items on the tax return.\"","\"My number one piece of advice is to see a tax professional who can guide you through the process, especially if you're new to the process. Second, keep detailed records. That being said, I found two articles, [1] and [2] that give some relevant details that you might find helpful. The articles state that: Many artists end up with a combination of income types: income from regular wages and income from self-employment. Income from wages involves a regular paycheck with all appropriate taxes, social security, and Medicare withheld. Income from self-employment may be in the form of cash, check, or goods, with no withholding of any kind. They provide a breakdown for expenses and deductions based on the type of income you receive. If you get a regular paycheck: If you've got a gig lasting more than a few weeks, chances are you will get paid regular wages with all taxes withheld. At the end of the year, your employer will issue you a form W-2. If this regular paycheck is for entertainment-related work (and not just for waiting tables to keep the rent paid), you will deduct related expenses on a Schedule A, under \"\"Unreimbursed Employee business expenses,\"\" or on Form 2106, which will give you a total to carry to the schedule A. The type of expenses that go here are: If you are considered an independent contractor (I presume this includes the value of goods, based on the first quoted paragraph above): Independent contractors get paid by cash or check with no withholding of any kind. This means that you are responsible for all of the Social Security and Medicare normally paid or withheld by your employer; this is called Self-Employment Tax. In order to take your deductions, you will need to complete a Schedule C, which breaks down expenses into even more detail. In addition to the items listed above, you will probably have items in the following categories: Ideally, you should receive a 1099 MISC from whatever employer(s) paid you as an independent contractor. Keep in mind that some states have a non-resident entertainers' tax, which is A state tax levied against performers whose legal residence is outside of the state where the performance is given. The tax requires that a certain percentage of any gross earnings from the performance be withheld for the state. Seriously, keep all of your receipts, pay stubs, W2's, 1099 forms, contracts written on the backs of napkins, etc. and go see a tax professional.\"","They are already indirectly paying these expenses. They should be built into your rates. The amount per job or per hour needs to cover what would have been your salary, plus the what would have been sick, vacation, holidays, health insurance, life insurance, disability, education, overhead for office expenses, cost of accountants...and all taxes. In many companies the general rule of thumb is that they need to charge a customer 2x the employees salary to cover all this plus make a profit. If this is a side job some of these benefits will come from your main job. Some self employed get some of these benefits from their spouse. The company has said we give you money for the work you perform, but you need to cover everything else including paying all taxes. Depending on where you live you might have to send money in more often then once a year. They are also telling you that they will be reporting the money they give you to the government so they can claim it as a business expense. So you better make sure you report it as income.","For income tax, you can expect to pay (see here for the rates): For class 4 NICs, it should be (see here for the rates): So expected take-home is £36667. You can avoid the income tax - but not the NICs - by putting money into a pension. For example you might put £7525 in to eliminate the entire 40% part of the bill, which would only cost you £4515 from your take-home pay because it would reduce the tax bill by the £3010.","\"You are on the right track, for tax purposes its all ordinary income at the end of 2016. If the free lance \"\"employer\"\" will withhold fed,state and local tax, then that takes care of your estimated tax. If they can't or won't, you will need to make those estimates and make payments quarterly for the fed and state tax at your projected tax liability. Or, you can bump up withholding by your day job employer and cover your expected tax liability at year end without making estimated tax payments.\"","\"I've been highly compensated for a while now, and I have never used a tax professional. My past complications include the year that my company was bought by a VC firm and my stock options and stock held were bought out to the tune of 5x my salary. And now I have two kids in college, with scholarships, and paying the remainder out of 529 accounts. Usually, I don't even use tax software. My typical method is to use the online software -- like turbotax online -- and let it figure out where I am. Then I use the \"\"Free File Fillable forms\"\" online to actually complete the process. Search for \"\"Free File Fillable Forms\"\" -- it's not the same as using turbotax or TaxAct for free. My suggestion to you: download the PDF form of 1040EZ and 1040A from the IRS. Print the EZ, and fill it out. This will give you a better feel for what exactly is going on. With your income, I don't think you can file the EZ, but it's a good way to get your feet wet. The way income taxes work here in the US: According to the IRS, the Personal Exemption this year is worth $4,050, and the Standard Deduction $6,300, assuming you're single. Lets assume that your salary will be in fact 75,000, and you don't pay for any benefits, but you do make a 401k contribution of 15% of your salary. Then your W-2 at the end of the year should tell you to put 63,750 in a particular box on your 1040 form. (63,750 is 85% of 75,000). Lets then assume 63,750 is your AGI after other additions and subtractions. 63,750 - 4,050 - 6,300 == 53,400. The federal Tax system is graduated, meaning there are different ranges (brackets) with different percentages. The term tax people use for taxable income of 53,400 is \"\"marginal tax rate\"\"...so the last dollar they tax at 25%. Other dollars less. According to the IRS, if you're single, then on 53,400, you pay \"\"$6,897.50 plus 25% of the amount over $50,400\"\" Or 6897.50 + 750, or 7647.50. Note this is only Federal Income Tax. You will also be paying Social Security and Medicare payroll Tax. And I'm guessing you'll also be paying colorado state income tax. Each state has its own forms and methods for figuring out the taxes and stuff. By the way, when you start, you'll fill out a \"\"W-4\"\" form to \"\"help\"\" you figure out how much to withhold from every paycheck. (I find the W-4 is not helpful at all). Your company will withhold from your paycheck some mysterious amount, and the process of filling out your 1040A or 1040EZ or whatever will be, likely, to get the over-withheld amount back.\"","You are wildly over-estimating your taxes. First, remember that your business expenses reduce your gross income. Second, remember that taxes are progressive, so your flat 35% only applies if you're already making a high salary that pushed you into the higher brackets of US and CA. I think the deeper problems are: 1) you are expecting a super early start-up (with no finished product) to pay you the same as a steady job, including health insurance, and 2) you are expecting Kickstarter to independently fund the venture. The best source of funding is yourself. If you believe in this venture and in your game design abilities, then pay for most of the costs out of your own savings. Cut your expenses to the extent you can. You may want to wander over to startups.SE to get more perspective and ideas on your business plan.","The only way you can save taxes is by starting a limited company, not paying yourself any salary, so you pay 20% corporation taxes, you can take I think £5000 a year dividends tax free, and leave the rest in the company account, and don't touch it until you make less money.","\"One option is to look at the IRS Witholding Calculator - As George Marian notes, this is by no means a perfect way to \"\"estimate\"\" how much you'll owe. Other key questions for you to answer: There's no silver bullet here. The best you can do is to understand the key inputs into how your taxes are calculated, and then identify the most important tax deductions that you might take. Then pray that you haven't missed some nuance and use a tax program early in January to check your assumptions so you're not completely surprised when April rolls around. A final suggestion: do your own taxes using a website like TurboTax. Take the time to \"\"itemize\"\" your tax deductions just to learn what is tax deductible. You can figure out how the big parts of tax law works by just looking at what you could deduct in the future.\"","13 or 30, the only real difference is that as a minor, you are claimed as a dependent on your parent's return, so you don't have you own exemption. But you do have a standard deduction of $6300 when it comes to earned income. Yes, you'll pay taxes, federal, state, and tax for social security. There's nothing wrong with paying taxes. In fact, I hope you have to pay a small fortune in tax! That would mean you've made a large fortune, and after taxes, still got to keep a good chunk of it. If your income is minimal, you'll actually pay very little in taxes, not enough to even think about wanting to give away what you can sell.","Seek professional advice as duffbeer703 has suggested already. Very important! Consider incorporating. If your income will fluctuate year to year, you can keep profit in the corporation, taxed in its hands at the Canadian small business rate, since such corporate income below $500,000 would likely qualify for the small business deduction. You could pay retained earnings to yourself as dividends over more than one year in order to lessen the personal tax burden. If you don't incorporate, all your profits in the year they are earned are taxed at personal income tax rates, and with our progressive income tax system, taking the tax hit all in one year can be expensive. However, if this project is a one-off and you're not likely to continue working like this, you might not want the overhead of a corporation. Taxes aside, there are also legal issues to consider vis-a-vis incorporating, or not. A professional can help you make this decision. Yes, you can claim deductions for reasonable business expenses, whether or not you are incorporated. No, you can't do free work on the side and claim it as donations. It's nice to volunteer, but you wouldn't get a charitable tax credit for your time, only for money or goods donated. Consider opening an RRSP so you can start saving for retirement and get a tax deduction for any contributions you make. This is but one strategy to reduce your tax. There are others. For instance, if you are a student, you perhaps have some unused tuition credits that you could claim in your first year with higher income. Oh, and seek professional advice! ;-)","In Australia, any income you earn is taxable despite where it came from. Using your example your taxable income is $70,000. Keep in mind that with a business even as a sole trader any business expenses that contribute to the earning of your business income is deductible, reducing the final amount of tax you'll have to pay. The ATO website has lots of good information and examples to look at including tax rates. If your total income is pushing into a higher tax bracket over 30c tax per $1 earned, it may be worth looking at shifting your business to operate under a company structure that just has a fixed tax rate around 30c per $1. That said, for me, I don't want the paperwork overhead of a company yet so I'm running my side business as a sole trader too. I'd rather do that and keep it easy for now while my business gets profitable that waste time on admin structures for tax reasons even if in the shortterm it may mean slightly higher tax. In the end, you only pay tax on profit (income minus expenses) as opposed to raw/gross income. For more info there are good books in the bookshops or local library (to read free) on starting a business on the side while still working. They discuss these issues too.","What you need to do is register as a sole trader. This will automatically register you for self assessment so you don't have to do that separately. For a simple business like you describe that's it. Completing your self assessment will take care of all your income tax and national insurance obligations (although as mentioned in your previous question there shouldn't be any NI to pay if you're only making £600 or so a year).","\"After doing a little research, I was actually surprised to find many internet resources on this topic (including sites from Intuit) gave entirely incorrect information. The information that follows is quoted directly from IRS Publication 929, rules for dependents First, I will assume that you are not living on your own, and are claimed as a \"\"dependent\"\" on someone else's tax return (such as a parent or guardian). If you were an \"\"emancipated minor\"\", that would be a completely different question and I will ignore this less-common case. So, how much money can you make, as a minor who is someone else's dependent? Well, the most commonly quoted number is $6,300 - but despite this numbers popularity, this is not true. This is how much you can earn in wages from regular employment without filing your own tax return, but this does not apply to your scenario. Selling your products online as an independent game developer would generally be considered self-employment income, and according to the IRS: A dependent must also file a tax return if he or she: Had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified church-controlled organization that is exempt from employer social security and Medicare taxes, or Had net earnings from self-employment of at least $400. So, your first $400 in earnings triggers absolutely no requirement to file a tax return - blast away, and good luck! After that, you do not necessarily owe much in taxes, however you will need to file a tax return even if you owe $0, as this was self-employment income. If you had, for instance, a job at a grocery store, you could earn up to $6,300 without filing a return, because the store would be informing the IRS about your employment anyway - as well as deducting Medicare and Social Security payments, etc. How much tax will you pay as your income grows beyond $400? Based upon the IRS pages for Self-Employment Tax and Family Businesses, while you will not likely have to pay income tax until you make $6,300 in a year, you will still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes after the first $400. Roughly this should be right about 16% of your income, so if you make $6000 you'll owe just under $1000 (and be keeping the other $5000). If your income grows even more, you may want to learn about business expense deductions. This would allow you to pay for things like advertisement, software, a new computer for development purposes, etc, and deduct the expenses out of your income so you pay less in taxes. But don't worry - having such things to wonder about would mean you were raking in thousands of dollars, and that's an awfully good problem to have as a young entrepreneur! So, should you keep your games free or try to make some money? Well, first of all realize that $400 can be a lot harder to make when you are first starting in business than it probably sounds. Second, don't be afraid of making too much money! Tax filing software - even totally free versions - make filing taxes much, much easier, and at your income level you would still be keeping the vast majority of the money you earn even without taking advantage of special business deductions. I'd recommend you not be a afraid of trying to make some money! I'd bet money it will help you learn a lot about game development, business, and finances, and will be a really valuable experience for you - whether you make money or not. Having made so much money you have to pay taxes is not something to be afraid of - it's just something adults like to complain about :) Good luck on your adventures, and you can always come back and ask questions about how to file taxes, what to do with any new found wealth, etc!\"","When you take the self employed health care deduction on on Line 29 of form 1040 for 2010 it also will lower your self employment tax. See line 3 of Schedule SE. You report your net earnings from self employment less line 29 from 1040.","\"As ApplePie discusses, \"\"tax bracket\"\" without any modifiers refers to a single jurisdiction's marginal tax rate. In your case, this is either your California's \"\"tax bracket\"\" or your Federal \"\"tax bracket\"\" (not including marginal Social Security and Medicare taxes). But if someone says \"\"combined state and federal tax bracket\"\", they probably mean the combination of your state and federal income tax brackets (again, lot including sales taxes, business and occupational taxes, social security taxes, and medicare taxes). The math to combine the state and federal marginal tax rates is a bit tricky, because most people can deduct either their state and local income taxes, or their state and local general sales taxes when computing their income for federal income tax purposes. (The federal \"\"alternative minimum tax\"\" restricts this deduction for some people.) For a single person earning $ 100,000 of salaries and wages in California, whose state income taxes are close to their standard deduction, the calculations for the combined marginal income tax rate look something like this: As mentioned above, this understates the tax bite on marginal \"\"earned income\"\". To find the true marginal rate, we need to add in Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, sales taxes, and business & occupation taxes. The Social Security and Medicare taxes are sometimes called \"\"self employment taxes\"\". This math omits unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance, because those taxes are typically capped well below $ 100,000 per year of income. This math also omits B & O taxes, because this question is California specific. If an employer wishes to increase an employee's pay by $ 1,076.50, the first $ 76.50 will go to the employer's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes. The remaining $ 1,000.00 will be subject to the combined marginal income tax rate discussed above, plus will have $ 76.50 go to the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes. The employee might buy some extra things with some of their extra money, and pay sales tax on them. In 2016, a 9 % sales tax rate was common in California's largest cities. The IRS estimated that (for a single person with no dependents making $ 100,000 per year who did not buy a boat, RV, motor vehicle, or major home construction), about 9 % of their marginal gross income was subject to sales tax.\"","\"AFAIK, there are two kinds of taxes your web freelancing income may be subject to in Quebec: On the income taxes: The net income you realize from your web freelancing activities would be considered taxable income. Assuming you are not operating as an incorporated business, you would need to declare the freelancing income on both your federal and provincial tax returns. You should be able to deduct certain costs related to your business – for instance, if you paid for software, hosting, domain name registration, etc. That is, only the profit from your business would be subject to income tax. With income and expenses arising from self-employment, you may want to use a professional to file your taxes. On the sales taxes: You may also need to charge federal GST and provincial QST (Quebec Sales Tax) on your services: You must enroll and charge GST and QST once you exceed the \"\"small supplier\"\" revenue threshold of $30,000 measured over four consecutive quarters. (You can still choose to enroll for GST/QST before you reach that amount, but over that amount enrollment becomes mandatory. Some businesses enroll before the threshold is reached so they can claim input tax credits for tax paid on expenses, but then there's more paperwork – one reason to perhaps avoid enrolling until necessary.) In Quebec, the Ministère du Revenu du Québec administers both GST (on behalf of the federal government) as well as provincial QST. Be sure to also check out their informative booklet, Should I Register with Revenu Quebec? (PDF). See also General Information Concerning the QST and the GST/HST (PDF).\"","\"As a minor you certainly can pay tax, the government wants its cut from you just like everyone else :-) However you do get the personal allowance like everyone else, so you won't have to pay income tax until your net income reaches £10,800 (that's the figure for the tax year from April 2015 to April 2016, it'll probably change in future years). Once you're 16, you will also have to pay national insurance, which is basically another tax, at a lower threshold. The current rates are £2.80/week if you are making £5,965 a year or more, and also 9% on any income above £8,060 (up to £42,385). Your \"\"net income\"\" or \"\"profits\"\" are the income you receive minus the expenses you have to support that income. Note that the expenses must be entirely for the \"\"business\"\", they can't be for personal things. The most important thing to do immediately is to start keeping accurate records. Keep a list of the income you receive and also the expenses you pay for hardware etc. Make sure you keep receipts (perhaps just electronic ones) for the expenses so you can prove they existed later. Keep track of that net income as the year goes on and if it starts collecting at the rate you'd have to pay tax and national insurance, then make sure you also put aside enough money to pay for those when the bill comes. There's some good general advice on the Government's website here: https://www.gov.uk/working-for-yourself/what-you-need-to-do In short, as well as keeping records, you should register with the tax office, HMRC, as a \"\"sole trader\"\". This should be something that anyone can do whatever their age, but it's worth calling them up as soon as you can to check and find out if there are any other issues. They'll probably want you to send in tax returns containing the details of your income and expenses. If you're making enough money it may be worth paying an accountant to do this for you.\"","You should look into an LLC. Its a fairly simple process, and the income simply flows through to your individual return. It will allow you to deduct supplies and other expenses from that income. It should also protect you if someone sues you for doing shoddy work (even if the work was fine), although you would need to consult a lawyer to be sure. For last year, it sounds like your taxes were done wrong. There are very, very few ways that you can end up adding more income and earning less after taxes. I'm tempted to say none, but our tax laws are so complex that I'm sure you can do it somehow.","You need to clarify with Bob what your agreement is. If you and Bob are working together on these jobs as partners, you should get a written partnership agreement done by a lawyer who works with software industry entity formation. You can legally be considered a partnership if you are operating a business together, even if there is nothing in writing. The partnership will have its own tax return, and you each will be allocated 50% of the profits/losses (if that's what you agree to). This amount will be reported on your own individual 1040 as self-employment income. Since you have now lost all the expense deductions you would have taken on your Schedule C, and any home office deduction, it's a good idea to put language in the partnership agreement stating that the partnership will reimburse partners for their out-of-pocket expenses. If Bob is just hiring you as a contractor, you give him your SSN, and he issues you a 1099, like any other client. This should be a situation where you invoice him for the amount you are charging. Same thing with Joe - figure out if you're hiring him as an independent contractor, or if you have a partnership. Either way, you will owe income and self-employment tax on your profits. In the case of a partnership, the amount will be on the K-1 from the partnership return. For an independent contractor who's operating as a sole proprietor, you report the income you invoiced for and received, and deduct your expenses, including independent contractors that you hired, on your Schedule C. Talk to your tax guy about quarterly estimated payments. If you don't have a tax guy, go get one. Find somebody people in your city working in your industry recommend. A good tax person will save you more money than they cost. IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.","Don't overthink it. As an employee, whether of your own corporation or of someone else, you get a salary and there are deductions taken out. As the owner of a business you get (hopefully) business profits as well. And, in general, you often have other sources of income from investments, etc. Your estimated tax payments are based on the difference between what was withheld from your salary and what you will owe, based on salary, business income, and other sources. So, in essence, you just add up all the income you expect, estimate what the tax bill will be, and subtract what's been withheld. That's your estimated tax payment.","\"Many individual states, counties, and cities have their own income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc., you will need to consult your state and local government websites for information about additional taxes that apply based on your locale. Wages, Salaries, Tips, Cash bonuses and other taxable employee pay, Strike benefits, Long-term disability, Earnings from self employment Earned income is subject to payroll taxes such as: Earned income is also subject to income taxes which are progressively higher depending on the amount earned minus tax credits, exemptions, and/or deductions depending on how you file. There are 7 tax rates that get progressively larger as your income rises but only applies to the income in each bracket. 10% for the first 18,650 (2017) through 39.6% for any income above 470,700. The full list of rates is in the above linked article about payroll taxes. Earned income is required for contributions to an IRA. You cannot contribute more to an IRA than you have earned in a given year. Interest, Ordinary Dividends, Short-term Capital Gains, Retirement income (pensions, distributions from tax deferred accounts, social security), Unemployment benefits, Worker's Compensation, Alimony/Child support, Income earned while in prison, Non-taxable military pay, most rental income, and S-Corp passthrough income Ordinary income is taxed the same as earned income with the exception that social security taxes do not apply. This is the \"\"pure taxable income\"\" referred to in the other linked question. Dividends paid by US Corporations and qualified foreign corporations to stock-holders (that are held for a certain period of time before the dividend is paid) are taxed at the Long-term Capital Gains rate explained below. Ordinary dividends like the interest earned in your bank account are included with ordinary income. Stocks, Bonds, Real estate, Carried interest -- Held for more than a year Income from assets that increase in value while being held for over a year. Long term capital gains justified by the idea that they encourage people to hold stock and make long term investments rather than buying and then quickly reselling for a short-term profit. The lower tax rates also reflect the fact that many of these assets are already taxed as they are appreciating in value. Real-estate is usually taxed through local property taxes. Equity in US corporations realized by rising stock prices and dividends that are returned to stock holders reflect earnings from a corporation that are already taxed at the 35% Corporate tax rate. Taxing Capital gains as ordinary income would be a second tax on those same profits. Another problem with Long-term capital gains tax is that a big portion of the gains for assets held for multiple decades are not real gains. Inflation increases the price of assets held for longer periods, but you are still taxed on the full gain even if it would be a loss when inflation is calculated. Capital gains are also taxed differently depending on your income level. If you are in the 10% or 15% brackets then Long-term capital gains are assessed at 0%. If you are in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% brackets, they are assessed at 15%. Only those in the 39.6% bracket pay 20%. Capital assets sold at a profit held for less than a year Income from buying and selling any assets such as real-estate, stock, bonds, etc., that you hold for less than a year before selling. After adding up all gains and losses during the year, the net gain is taxed as ordinary income. Collectibles held for more than a year are not considered capital assets and are still taxed at ordinary income rates.\""],"string":"[\n \"I agree with your strategy of using a conservative estimate to overpay taxes and get a refund next year. As a self-employed individual you are responsible for paying self-employment tax (which means paying Social Security and Medicare tax for yourself as both: employee and an employer.) Current Social Security Rate is 6.2% and Medicare is 1.45%, so your Self-employment tax is 15.3% (7.65%X2) Assuming you are single, your effective tax rate will be over 10% (portion of your income under $ 9,075), but less than 15% ($9,075-$36,900), so to adopt a conservative approach, let's use the 15% number. Given Self-employment and Federal Income tax rate estimates, very conservative approach, your estimated tax can be 30% (Self-employment tax plus income tax) Should you expect much higher compensation, you might move to the 25% tax bracket and adjust this amount to 40%.\",\n \"The amount of the income taxes you will owe depends upon how much income you have, after valid business expenses, also it will depend upon your filing status as well as the ownership form of your business and what state you live in. That said, you will need to be sure to make the Federal 1040ES quarterly prepayments of your tax on time or there will be penalties. You also must remember that you will be needing to file a schedule SE with your 1040. That is for the social security taxes you owe, which is in addition to your income taxes. With an employer/employee situation, the FICA withhoding you have seen on your paycheck are matched by the same payment by your employer. Now that you are self-employed you are responcible for your share and the employer share as well; in this situation it is known as self-employment tax. the amount of it will be the same as your share of FICA and half of the employer's share of FICA taxes. If you are married and your wife also is working self-employed, then she will have to files herown schedule SE along with yours. meaning that you will pay based on your business income and she will pay baed on hers. your 1040Es quarterly prepayment must cover your income tax and your combined (yours and hers) Self Employment taxes. Many people will debate on the final results of the results of schedule SE vrs an employee's and an employer's payments combined. If one were to provides a ball park percentage that would likely apply to you final total addition to your tax libility as a result of needing schedule SE would tend to fluctuate depending upon your total tax situation; many would debate it. It has been this way since, I first studied and use this schedule decades ago. For this reason it is best for you to review these PDF documents, Form 1040 Schedule SE Instructions and Form 1040 Schedule SE. As for your state income taxes, it will depend on the laws of the state you are based in.\",\n \"Technically you owe 'self-employment' taxes not FICA taxes because they are imposed under a different law, SECA. However, since SE taxes are by design exactly the same rates as combining the two halves of FICA (employer and employee) it is quite reasonable to treat them as equivalent. SE taxes (and income tax also) are based on your net self-employment income, after deducting business expenses (but not non-business items like your home mortgage, dependent exemptions, etc which factor only into income tax). You owe SE Medicare tax 2.9% on all your SE net income (unless it is under $400) adjusted down by 7.65% to compensate for the fact that the employer half of FICA is excluded from gross income before the employee half is computed. You owe SE Social Security tax 12.4% on your adjusted SE net income unless and until the total income subject to FICA+SECA, i.e. your W-2 wages plus your adjusted SE net income, exceeds a cap that varies with inflation and is $127,200 for 2017. OTOH if FICA+SECA income exceeds $200k single or $250k joint you owe Additional Medicare tax 0.9% on the excess; if your W-2 income (alone) exceeds this limit your employer should withhold for it. However the Additional Medicare tax is part of 'Obamacare' (PPACA) which the new President and Republican majorities have said they will 'repeal and replace'; whether any such replacement will affect this for TY 2017 is at best uncertain at this point. Yes SE taxes are added to income tax on your 1040 with schedule SE attached (and schedule C/CEZ, E, F as applicable to your business) (virtually so if you file electronically) and paid together. You are supposed to pay at least 90% during the year by having withholding increased on your W-2 job, or by making 'quarterly' estimated payments (IRS quarters are not exactly quarters, but close), or any combination. But if this is your first year (which you don't say, but someone who had gone through this before probably wouldn't ask) you may get away with not paying during the year as normally required; specifically, if your W-2 withholding is not enough to cover your increased taxes for this year (because of the additional income and SE taxes) but it is enough to cover your tax for the previous year and your AGI that year wasn't over $150k, then there is a 'safe harbor' and you won't owe any form-2210 penalty -- although you must keep enough money on hand to pay the tax by April 15. But for your second year and onwards, your previous year now includes SE amounts and this doesn't help. Similar/related:\",\n \"\\\"There are a couple of things that are missing from your estimate. In addition to your standard deduction, you also have a personal exemption of $4050. So \\\"\\\"D\\\"\\\" in your calculation should be $6300 + $4050 = $10,350. As a self-employed individual, you need to pay both the employee and employer side of the Social Security and Medicare taxes. Instead of 6.2% + 1.45%, you need to pay (6.2% + 1.45%) * 2 = 15.3% self-employment tax. In addition, there are some problems with your calculation. Q1i (Quarter 1 estimated income) should be your adjusted annual income divided by 4, not 3 (A/4). Likewise, you should estimate your quarterly tax by estimating your income for the whole year, then dividing by 4. So Aft (Annual estimated federal tax) should be: Quarterly estimated federal tax would be: Qft = Aft / 4 Annual estimated self-employment tax is: Ase = 15.3% * A with the quarterly self-employment tax being one-fourth of that: Qse = Ase / 4 Self employment tax gets added on to your federal income tax. So when you send in your quarterly payment using Form 1040-ES, you should send in Qft + Qse. The Form 1040-ES instructions (PDF) comes with the \\\"\\\"2016 Estimated Tax Worksheet\\\"\\\" that walks you through these calculations.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Being self-employed, your \\\"\\\"profit\\\"\\\" is calculated as all the bills you send out, minus all business-related cost that you have (you will need a receipt for everything, and there are different rules for things that last for long time, long tools, machinery). You can file your taxes yourself - the HRS website will tell you how to, and you can do it online. It's close to the same as your normal online tax return. Only thing is that you must keep receipts for all the cost that you claim. Your tax: Assuming your gross salary is £25,000 and your profits are about £10,000, you will be paying 8% for national insurance, and 20% income tax. If you go above £43,000 or thereabouts, you pay 40% income tax on any income above that threshold, instead of 20%, but your national insurance payments stop.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The \\\"\\\"hire a pro\\\"\\\" is quite correct, if you are truly making this kind of money. That said, I believe in a certain amount of self-education so you don't follow a pro's advice blindly. First, I wrote an article that discussed Marginal Tax Rates, and it's worth understanding. It simply means that as your income rises past certain thresholds, the tax rate also will change a bit. You are on track to be in the top rate, 33%. Next, Solo 401(k). You didn't ask about retirement accounts, but the combined situations of making this sum of money and just setting it aside, leads me to suggest this. Since you are both employer and employee, the Solo 401(k) limit is a combined $66,500. Seems like a lot, but if you are really on track to make $500K this year, that's just over 10% saved. Then, whatever the pro recommends for your status, you'll still have some kind of Social Security obligation, as both employer and employee, so that's another 15% or so for the first $110K. Last, some of the answers seemed to imply that you'll settle in April. Not quite. You are required to pay your tax through the year and if you wait until April to pay the tax along with your return, you will have a very unpleasant tax bill. (I mean it will have penalties for underpayment through the year.) This is to be avoided. I offer this because often a pro will have a specialty and not go outside that focus. It's possible to find the guy that knows everything about setting you up as an LLC or Sole Proprietorship, yet doesn't have the 401(k) conversation. Good luck, please let us know here how the Pro discussion goes for you.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"One way to do these sorts of calculations is to use the spreadsheet version of IRS form 1040 available here. This is provided by a private individual and is not an official IRS tool, but in practice it is usually accurate enough for these purposes. You may have to spend some time figuring out where to enter the info. However, if you enter your self-employment income on Schedule C, this spreadsheet will calculate the self-employment tax as well as the income tax. An advantage is that it is the full 1040, so you can also select the standard deduction and the number of exemptions you are entitled to, enter ordinary W-2 income, even capital gains, etc. Of course you can also make use of other tax software to do this, but in my experience the \\\"\\\"Excel 1040\\\"\\\" is more convenient, as most websites and tax-prep software tend to be structured in a linear fashion and are more cumbersome to update in an ad-hoc way for purposes like tax estimation. You can do whatever works for you, but I would recommend taking a look at the Excel 1040. It is a surprisingly useful tool.\\\"\",\n \"You will most likely pay around 30%, between standard income tax and payroll taxes. That is a good place to start. If you live in a state/city with income taxes, add that to the mix.\",\n \"If it's just you working, I'd use a ballpark figure of 35% owed - it may be a little high or low, but it's a safe margin to keep set aside for paying your liabilities at the end of the year.\",\n \"As a CPA I can say, without a doubt, you do not owe any federal income tax. However, assuming all of you income was from your business and therefore subject to self-employment tax and you had no healthcare coverage, you would owe: $2,523 in Self-Employment Tax 645 in Healthcare Penalty $3,168 Total Amount You Should Owe. Assuming you have given us the right numbers, $3,300 sounds too high.\",\n \"\\\"Your question does not say this explicitly, but I assume that you were once a W-2 employee. Each paycheck a certain amount was withheld from your check to pay income, social security, and medicare taxes. Just because you did not receive that amount of money earned does not mean it was immediately sent to the IRS. While I am not all that savvy on payroll procedures, I recall an article that indicated some companies only send in withheld taxes every quarter, much like you are doing now. They get a short term interest free loan. For example taxes withheld by a w-2 employee in the later months of the year may not be provided to the IRS until 15 January of the next year. You are correct in assuming that if you make 100K as a W-2 you will probably pay less in taxes than someone who is 100K self employed with 5K in expenses. However there are many factors. Provided you properly fill out a 1040ES, and pay the correct amount of quarterly payments, you will almost never owe taxes. In fact my experience has been the forms will probably allow you to receive a refund. Tax laws can change and one thing the form did not include last year was the .9% Medicare surcharge for high income earners catching some by surprise. As far as what you pay into is indicative of the games the politicians play. It all just goes into a big old bucket of money, and more is spent by congress than what is in the bucket. The notion of a \\\"\\\"social security lockbox\\\"\\\" is pure politics/fantasy as well as the notion of medicare and social security taxes. The latter were created to make the actual income tax rate more palatable. I'd recommend getting your taxes done as early as possible come 1 January 2017. While you may not have all the needed info, you could firm up an estimate by 15 Jan and modify the amount for your last estimated payment. Complete the taxes when all stuff comes in and even if you owe an amount you have time to save for anything additional. Keep in mind, between 1 Jan 17 and 15 Apr 17 you will earn and presumably save money to use towards taxes. You can always \\\"\\\"rob\\\"\\\" from that money to pay any owed tax for 2016 and make it up later. All that is to say you will be golden because you are showing concern and planning. When you hear horror stories of IRS dealings it is most often that people spent the money that should have been sent to the IRS.\\\"\",\n \"Congratulations on starting your own business. Invest in a tax software package right away; I can't recommend a specific one but there is enough information out there to point you in the right direction: share with us which one you ended up using and why (maybe a separate question?) You do need to make your FICA taxes but you can write off the SE part of it. Keep all your filings as a PDF, a printout and a softcopy in the native format of the tax software package: it really helps the next tax season. When you begin your business, most of the expenses are going to be straightforward (it was for me) and while I had the option of doing it by hand, I used software to do it myself. At the beginning, it might actually seem harder to use the tax software package, but it will pay off in the end. Build relationships with a few tax advisors and attorneys: you will need to buy liability insurance soon if you are in any kind of serious (non hobby) business and accounting for these are no trivial tasks. If you have not filed yet, I recommend you do this: File an extension, overpay your estimated taxes (you can always collect a refund later) and file your return once you have had a CPA look over it. Do not skimp on a CPA: it's just the cost of running your business and you don't want to waste your time reading the IRS manuals when you could be growing your own business. Best of luck and come back to tell us what you did!\",\n \"I can only address this part of it: For instance with a 10k net income, 9293 is the limit for 401k from employee. How is this calculated? I believe this limit is total for all sources too, which I'm confused about. How it's calculated is that when you are self-employed you also pay the employer portion of the FICA taxes. This comes off above the line and is not considered income. The 401k contribution limit takes this into account.\",\n \"Whether you're self-employed or not, knowing exactly how much tax you will pay is not always an easy task. Various actions you can take (e.g., charitable donations, IRA contributions, selling stocks) may increase or reduce your tax liability. One tool I've found useful for estimating federal taxes is the Excel 1040 spreadsheet. This is a spreadsheet version of the income tax return form. It is not official and is not created by the IRS, but is maintained as a labor of love by a private individual. In practice, however, it is pretty much an accurate implementation of the tax calculation algorithms encoded in the tax forms and instructions. The nice thing about it is that it's a spreadsheet. You can plug numbers into various slots in the spreadsheet and see how they affect your federal tax liability. (You may also owe state taxes depending on what state you live in.) Of course, the estimates you get by doing this are only (at most) as accurate as your estimates of the various numbers you plug in. Still, I think it's a free and useful way to get a ballpark estimate of your tax liability based on numbers that you can more easily estimate (e.g., how much money you expect to earn).\",\n \"I strongly recommend that you talk to an accountant right away because you could save some money by making a tax payment by January 15, 2014. You will receive Forms 1099-MISC from the various entities with whom you are doing business as a contractor detailing how much money they paid you. A copy will go to the IRS also. You file a Schedule C with your Form 1040 in which you detail how much you received on the 1099-MISC forms as well as any other income that your contracting business received (e.g. amounts less than $600 for which a 1099-MISc does not need to be issued, or tips, say, if you are a taxi-driver running your own cab), and you can deduct various expenses that you incurred in generating this income, including tools, books, (or gasoline!) etc that you bought for doing the job. You will need to file a Schedule SE that will compute how much you owe in Social Security and Medicare taxes on the net income on Schedule C. You will pay at twice the rate that employees pay because you get to pay not only the employee's share but also the employer's share. At least, you will not have to pay income tax on the employer's share. Your net income on Schedule C will transfer onto Form 1040 where you will compute how much income tax you owe, and then add on the Social Security tax etc to compute a final amount of tax to be paid. You will have to pay a penalty for not making tax payments every quarter during 2013, plus interest on the tax paid late. Send the IRS a check for the total. If you talk to an accountant right away, he/she will likely be able to come up with a rough estimate of what you might owe, and sending in that amount by January 15 will save some money. The accountant can also help you set up for the 2014 tax year during which you could make quarterly payments of estimated tax for 2014 and avoid the penalties and interest referred to above.\",\n \"\\\"Yes, that's right; in the end, tax is charged on the total of your income in a tax year. PAYE on employment income is just a way of making incremental payments throughout the year. Note that tax rates are marginal rates applying to bands of salary, not the entire salary. But as your employment salary would be already over the 40% threshold (£45,000 for 2017/8), the entire \\\"\\\"extra\\\"\\\" from self-employment would indeed be taxed at 40%. Note that you'll also owe National Insurance contributions. In general if your employed income is over the higher-rate tax threshold, it should be 2% Class 4 NICs on the self-employment income. However, due to various complications in the way the system works, you might be initially charged more than that and and explicitly claim the excess back from HMRC. It might also be less if your earnings are below or only slightly above the \\\"\\\"Lower Profits Limit\\\"\\\". You still get to keep 58%, only you can decide whether that is worth your time or not.\\\"\",\n \"FICA taxes are separate from federal and state income taxes. As a sole proprietor you owe all of those. Additionally, there is a difference with FICA when you are employed vs. self employed. Typically FICA taxes are actually split between the employer and the employee, so you pay half, they pay half. But when you're self employed, you pay both halves. This is what is commonly referred to as the self employment tax. If you are both employed and self employed as I am, your employer pays their portion of FICA on the income you earn there, and you pay both halves on the income you earn in your business. Edit: As @JoeTaxpayer added in his comment, you can specify an extra amount to be withheld from your pay when you fill out your W-4 form. This is separate from the calculation of how much to withhold based on dependents and such; see line 6 on the linked form. This could allow you to avoid making quarterly estimated payments for your self-employment income. I think this is much easier when your side income is predictable. Personally, I find it easier to come up with a percentage I must keep aside from my side income (for me this is about 35%), and then I immediately set that aside when I get paid. I make my quarterly estimated payments out of that money set aside. My side income can vary quite a bit though; if I could predict it better I would probably do the extra withholding. Yes, you need to pay taxes for FICA and federal income tax. I can't say exactly how much you should withhold though. If you have predictable deductions and such, it could be lower than you expect. I'm not a tax professional, and when it comes doing business taxes I go to someone who is. You don't have to do that, but I'm not comfortable offering any detailed advice on how you should proceed there. I mentioned what I do personally as an illustration of how I handle withholding, but I can't say that that's what someone else should do.\",\n \"Welcome to the wonderful but oft confusing world of self-employment. Your regular job will withhold income for you and give you a W2, which tells you and the government how much is withheld. At the end of the year uber will give you and the government a 1099-misc, which will tell you how much they paid you, but nothing will be withheld, which means you will owe the government some taxes. When it comes to taxes, you will file a 1040 (the big one, not a 1040EZ nor 1040A). In addition you will file a schedule C (self-employed income), where you will report the gross paid to you, deduct your expenses, and come up with your profit, which will be taxable. That profit goes into a line in the 1040. You need to file schedule SE. This says how much self-employment tax you will pay on your 1099 income, and it will be more than you expect. Self employment tax is SS/Medicare. There's a line for this on the 1040 as well. You can also deduct half of your self-employment tax on the 1040, there's a line for it. Now, you can pay quarterly taxes on your 1099 income by filing 1040-ES. That avoids a penalty (which usually isn't that large) for not withholding enough. As an alternative, you can have your regular W2 job withhold extra. As long as you don't owe a bunch at tax time, you won't be a fined. When you are self-employed your taxes aren't as simple. Sorry. You can either spend some time becoming an expert by studying the instructions for the 1040, pay for the expensive version of tax programs, or hire someone to do it for you. Self-employed taxes are painful, but take advantage of the upsides as well. You can start a solo 401(k) or SEP IRA, for example. Make sure you are careful to deduct every relevant business expense and keep good records in case you get audited.\",\n \"\\\"Being self employed just means you fill out some more forms in your annual self assessment for your \\\"\\\"profit\\\"\\\" from being self employed. Profit = all the money you receive, minus any tax deductible cost that you spent for making that money (and all the cost must be documented, which means you have a folder with all the receipts and keep it safe). You pay normal income tax on all the profit, which means it is just added to your taxable income. What you do with the profit is up to you; you don't pay yourself a salary, just take the money (make sure you leave enough to pay your taxes).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I assume your employer does standard withholding? Then what you need to do is figure what bracket that puts you in after you've done all your normal deductions. Let's say it's 25%. Then multiply your freelance income after business expenses, and that's your estimated tax, approximately. (Unless the income causes you to jump a bracket.) To that you have to add approximately 12-13% Social Security/Medicare for income between the $90K and $118,500. Filling out Form 1040SSE will give you a better estimate. But there is a \\\"\\\"safe harbor\\\"\\\" provision, in that if what you pay in estimated tax (and withholding) this year is at least as much as you owed last year, there's no penalty. I've always done mine this way, dividing last year's tax by 4, since my income is quite variable, and I've never been able to make sense of the worksheets on the 1040-ES.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"From the IRS page on Estimated Taxes (emphasis added): Taxes must be paid as you earn or receive income during the year, either through withholding or estimated tax payments. If the amount of income tax withheld from your salary or pension is not enough, or if you receive income such as interest, dividends, alimony, self-employment income, capital gains, prizes and awards, you may have to make estimated tax payments. If you are in business for yourself, you generally need to make estimated tax payments. Estimated tax is used to pay not only income tax, but other taxes such as self-employment tax and alternative minimum tax. I think that is crystal clear that you're paying income tax as well as self-employment tax. To expand a bit, you seem to be confusing self-employment tax and estimated tax, which are not only two different things, but two different kinds of things. One is a tax, and the other is just a means of paying your taxes. \\\"\\\"Self-employment tax\\\"\\\" refers to the Social Security and Medicare taxes that you must pay on your self-employment income. This is an actual tax that you owe. If you receive a W-2, half of it is \\\"\\\"invisibly\\\"\\\" paid by your employer, and half of it is paid by you in the form of visible deductions on your pay stub. If you're self-employed, you have to pay all of it explicitly. \\\"\\\"Estimated tax\\\"\\\" does not refer to any actual tax levied on anyone. A more pedantically correct phrasing would be \\\"\\\"estimated tax payment\\\"\\\". Estimated taxes are just payments that you make to the IRS to pay tax you expect to owe. Whether you have to make such payments depends on how much tax you owe and whether you've paid it by other means. You may need to pay estimated tax even if you're not self-employed, although this would be unusual. (It could happen, for instance, if you realized large capital gains over the year.) You also may be self-employed but not need to pay estimated tax (if, for instance, you also have a W-2 job and you reduce your withholding allowances to have extra tax withheld). That said, if you earn significant income from self-employment, you'll likely have to make estimated tax payments. These are prepayments of the income tax and Social Security/Medicare taxes you accrue based on your self-employment income. As Pete B. mentioned in his answer, a possible reason that your estiamtes are low is because some taxes have already been withheld from the paychecks you received so far during the year (while you were an employee). These represent tax payments you've already made; you don't need to pay that money a second time, but you may need to make estimated tax payments for your income going forward.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You would put your earnings (and expenses, don't forget) on Schedule C, and then do a Schedule SE for self-employment tax. http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98846,00.html 1040ES isn't used to compute taxes, it's used to pay taxes. Generally you are supposed to pay taxes as you go, rather than when you file. There are exceptions where you won't be penalized for paying when you file, \\\"\\\"most taxpayers will avoid this penalty if they owe less than $1,000 in tax after subtracting their withholdings and credits, or if they paid at least 90% of the tax for the current year, or 100% of the tax shown on the return for the prior year, whichever is smaller\\\"\\\" from http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc306.html i.e. there's a safe harbor as long as you pay as much as you owed the year before. If you owe a lot at the end of the year a second time in a row, then you get penalized.\\\"\",\n \"I'm also self employed. Your circumstances may be different, but my accountant told me there was no reason to pay more than 100% of last years' taxes. (Even if this years' earnings are higher.) So I divide last year by 4 and make the quarterlies. As an aside, I accidentally underpaid last year (mis-estimated), and the penalty was much smaller than I expected.\",\n \"You are in business for yourself. You file Schedule C with your income tax return, and can deduct the business expenses and the cost of goods sold from the gross receipts of your business. If you have inventory (things bought but not yet sold by the end of the year of purchase), then there are other calculations that need to be done. You will have to pay income tax as well as Social Security and Medicare taxes (both the employee's share and the employer's share) on the net profits from this business activity.\",\n \"For 2014/15 it looks something like this: To make it a bit clearer, let's also plot the difference in net income for self-employment and a single person company compared to employment: Self-employment is slightly worse between £5885 and about £10,500 because Class 2 NI kicks in before the employed person starts paying any tax. After that, self-employment is better because you pay 9% Class 4 NI rather than 12% Class 1 NI. Once higher rate tax kicks in, the saving stops growing. The single-person company is most tax-efficient at all points, ignoring any accountancy costs it incurs. Strange things happen between £100k and about £135k because the withdrawal of the personal allowance kicks in at a different point when receiving dividends. We can also plot the percentage of income paid as tax for each case: The strange kink for self-employment below £10k is caused by Class 2 NI again. Employment and self-employment both gradually tend towards paying 47%, reaching 46.5% for £2m gross income. The company tends towards 44.44%, reaching 43.6% for £2m gross income.\",\n \"You may be able to find the answers to your question on the IRS web site: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98263,00.html Specifically, using this form to estimate taxes for salary: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120w.pdf and this form to estimate taxes for dividends: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf\",\n \"\\\"There's one factor the previous posters apparently missed here: You say \\\"\\\"self-employment tax\\\"\\\"--in other words, at least some of that $16k is from self employment. In a normal employment situation the FICA tax is taken out of your paycheck, it's normally spot on and generally doesn't show up on your tax return. However, for the self-employed it's another matter. You pay the whole 15.3% from the first dollar and this does show up on your tax return. If it's all self employment money you would have about $2.5k in tax from this.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"An unmarried person with a total U.S.-sourced earned income under $ 37,000 during the year 2016 is likely to owe: If the original poster is not an \\\"\\\"independent contractor\\\"\\\", and is not \\\"\\\"billing corp-to-corp\\\"\\\" then: In summary: References:\\\"\",\n \"I am a registered S-corp but for alot of industries that threshold is too low (I'm in housing) >Do you have any insight on average *effective* rates paid by SE owners? > >As a counterpoint to your (very valid) links, filing as S-corp allows for taxes on distributions to be exempt from payroll tax and taxed at much lower rates. Also, being SE allows for various deductions not possible for wage earners. There's probably other examples not immediately coming to mind. > >Also, SE taxes equal taxes otherwise paid by employer + employee. It's just that those employer taxes don't appear on the employee's paystub so not everyone realizes this. The article I posted also doesn't take into account state taxes, do example non deductible B&O, end user Sales tax or impact fees... That Employees don't pay or often even know about, yet some of us small business owners are also employees, so we get double taxed...\",\n \"\\\"Employers withhold at rates specified in Circular E issued by the IR. You can request that additional money be withheld (not an issue here) or you can have reduced withholding by claiming additional allowances on a W-4 (i.e., more than just for you and spouse and dependents) if you believe that this will result in withholding that will more closely match the tax due. (Note added in edit):Page 2 of the W-4 form has worksheets that can be used to figure out how many additional allowances to request. Also, I wonder if your withholding will be 37% or final tax bill be 26% of your adjusted gross income. The tax brackets are the tax on marginal income. If you are in the 28% tax bracket, you owe 28 cents in tax for each additional dollar of income, not 28 cents in tax for every dollar of income. Your overall tax might well be less than 20% of your income. As a specific example, in 2011 a married taxpayer filing jointly would be in the (highest) 35% tax bracket if the taxable income was $379,150 or more (marginal tax rate of 35% is applicable to every dollar more than $379,150) but the tax on $379,150 itself works out to be $102,574 or 27.05% of the taxable income. So if you do expect to be earning around $350K or more in salary between now and December 31 to hit that 26% that you expect you will owe, you might want to consider paying a tax accountant for advice on how to fill out your W-4 form for your new employer rather than relying on an Internet forum such as this for free advice. Note added in edit: Your comment \\\"\\\"... it is a cocktail of ... federal taxes, state taxes, local taxes, health care ...\\\"\\\" on the earlier version of my answer does raise the question of whether you want your employer to withhold 26% instead of 37% and have the money go to meet all these obligations or just 26% towards your Federal income tax liability only. The Federal W-4 form affects only how much money is withheld from your paycheck and sent to the US Treasury. Some of the money that each of your employers withholds (Social Security and Medicare taxes) is not affected by what you put down on the W-4 form. Now, if you hold two jobs and the total income shown on your W-2s is larger than the SS limit, you will have had too much Social Security taxes withheld, and the excess will be a credit towards your Federal income tax liability. You have self-employment income too on which you owe Social Security and Medicare taxes and you are making estimated tax payments. The excess Social Security tax payment can count towards this too (as well as income tax on your Schedule C income). Thus, if your new employer is withholding too much, you might be able to skip making the fourth quarterly payment of estimated tax or make a reduced payment (there is no requirement that the four installments must be equal). In short, there are lots of ramifications that you need to take into account before deciding that 26% is the right number. Instead of filling out a W-4 all by yourself right away, I strongly recommend reading up a lot on income taxes, or play with a tax preparation program (last year's version will do a pretty good job of at least getting you in the right ballpark), or consult with a tax accountant.\\\"\",\n \"Since your YouTube income is considered self-employment income and because you probably already made more than $400 in net income (after deducting expenses from the $4000 you've received so far), you will have to pay self-employment tax and file a return. This is according to the IRS's Publication 17 (2016), Your Federal Income Tax, so assumes the same rules for 2016 will remain in effect for 2017: You are self-employed if you: Carry on a trade or business as a sole proprietor, Are an independent contractor, Are a member of a partnership, or Are in business for yourself in any other way. Self-employment can include work in addition to your regular full-time business activities, such as certain part-time work you do at home or in addition to your regular job. You must file a return if your gross income is at least as much as the filing requirement amount for your filing status and age (shown in Table 1-1). Also, you must file Form 1040 and Schedule SE (Form 1040), Self-Employment Tax, if: Your net earnings from self-employment (excluding church employee income) were $400 or more, or You had church employee income of $108.28 or more. (See Table 1-3.) Use Schedule SE (Form 1040) to figure your self-employment tax. Self-employment tax is comparable to the social security and Medicare tax withheld from an employee's wages. For more information about this tax, see Pub. 334, Tax Guide for Small Business. I'd also note that your predicted income is getting close to the level where you would need to pay Estimated Taxes, which for self-employed people work like the withholding taxes employers remove their employees paychecks and pay to the government. If you end up owing more than $1000 when you file your return you could be assessed penalties for not paying the Estimated Taxes. There is a grace period if you had to pay no taxes in the previous year (2016 in this case), that could let you escape those penalties.\",\n \"\\\"So the main reason that you aren't getting answers is that the question is not really answerable on this site without putting a lot of details about the expenses of your company online. Even then you will need someone who specializes in Canadian taxes to go through those details to be sure. Most of those people feel like they should be paid a decent amount per hour to go through the details. That being said, I dealt with a similar question for my contract work company by just taking a couple weekends and calculating the taxes myself on estimated numbers. It was time consuming but not really that hard. I thought I might have to buy software, but all I needed was a small calculator. Along the way I learned a few details that helped me lower my overall tax exposure. I found that Neil was generally correct that you are \\\"\\\"taxed on profits\\\"\\\" but it is worth doing the taxes yourself because the details can really matter.\\\"\",\n \"With your income so high, your marginal tax rate should be pretty easy to determine. You are very likely in the 33% tax bracket (married filing jointly income range of $231,450 to $413,350), so your wife's additional income will effectively be taxed at 33% plus 15% for self-employment taxes. Rounding to 50% means you need to withhold $19,000 over the year (or slightly less depending on what business expenses you can deduct). You could use a similar calculation for CA state taxes. You can either just add this gross additional amount to your withholdings, or make an estimated tax payment every quarter. Any difference will be made up when you file your 2017 taxes. So long as you withhold 100% of your total tax liability from last year, you should not have any underpayment penalties.\",\n \"> Then there’s taxes, and not just federal. There will be state, local, real estate, school, tolls, export, import, duties and those hard-to-understand fees on your cable bill Of those, the only thing I don't pay are export, import and duties. Which, if you're going in to business for yourself you'd probably know about these already.\",\n \"You will be liable to pay the tax For the 2017 year of assessment (1 March 2016 - 28 February 2017) if you earned less than R75 000 you will not have to pay any tax The annual budget speach is this week and the new tax rates will be released but most likely that R75 000 will increase to R78 000+- so if you earn less than that tax would not even be applicable on you, Should you earn in a tax year more than R75 000 then would be able to do your own tax return and payments via E-Filling on SARS's website : http://www.sarsefiling.co.za/ But if you earn less than R350 000 then you don't have to submit a tax return, but there is nothing that stops you from submitting one if you feel that you want to. You can use https://www.taxtim.com/za/ to help you with other questions you might have. You can potentially bring down your tax-able income by showing a loss in capital value of your equipment that you purchased that is now worth less than it was when you initially purchased it, but these are all things you should discuss with a tax practitioner, I am not entirely sure how you will show a loss in capital value as a sole-proprietor, that is what you will be since you are not a company.\",\n \"\\\"Does your spouse work? That's one factor that can put your income into a higher bracket. The one difference to note is you will pay 2x the social security portion, so even though not \\\"\\\"federal\\\"\\\" tax, its right off the top nearly 13%. I'm not familiar with your states tax. It's really worth dropping the $75 on a copy of the software and running your own exact numbers.\\\"\",\n \">This means that you may be able to make about $120,000 per year, which isn’t bad. Except you’ll have expenses, like rent, transportation, repairs, supplies, computers and whatever else. Your expenses will probably run a few thousand a month, so let’s assume **after expenses you’re netting about $80,000**. Then there’s taxes, and not just federal. There will be state, local, real estate, school, tolls, export, import, duties and those hard-to-understand fees on your cable bill. So lop about 30 percent off that $80K and you’re down to a net living of $56,000. $80,000 net income before taxes is quite good for a self employed individual. I don't really see what the problem is. His bit about taxes after that is completely irrelevant because you'll be paying federal and fica no matter what, plus state and real estate taxes if they apply to you.\",\n \"\\\"There are way too many details missing to be able to give you an accurate answer, and it would be too localized in terms of time & location anyway -- the rules change every year, and your local taxes make the answer useless to other people. Instead, here's how to figure out the answer for yourself. Use a tax estimate calculator to get a ballpark figure. (And keep in mind that these only provide estimates, because there are still a lot of variables that are only considered when you're actually filling out your real tax return.) There are a number of calculators if you search for something like \\\"\\\"tax estimator calculator\\\"\\\", some are more sophisticated than others. (Fair warning: I used several of these and they told me a range of $2k - $25k worth of taxes owed for a situation like yours.) Here's an estimator from TurboTax -- it's handy because it lets you enter business income. When I plug in $140K ($70 * 40 hours * 50 weeks) for business income in 2010, married filing jointly, no spouse income, and 4 dependents, I get $30K owed in federal taxes. (That doesn't include local taxes, any itemized deductions you might be eligible for, IRA deductions, etc. You may also be able to claim some expenses as business deductions that will reduce your taxable business income.) So you'd net $110K after taxes, or about $55/hour ($110k / 50 / 40). Of course, you could get an answer from the calculator, and Congress could change the rules midway through the year -- you might come out better or worse, depending on the nature of the rule changes... that's why I stress that it's an estimate. If you take the job, don't forget to make estimated tax payments! Edit: (some additional info) If you plan on doing this on an ongoing basis (i.e. you are going into business as a contractor for this line of work), there are some tax shelters that you can take advantage of. Most of these won't be worth doing if you are only going to be doing contract work for a short period of time (1-2 years). These may or may not all be applicable to you. And do your research into these areas before diving in, I'm just scratching the surface in the notes below.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Littleadv is incorrect because receiving a 1099 means she will be taxed self-employment tax on top of federal income taxes. Your employer will automatically withhold 7.65% of payroll taxes as they pay you each paycheck and then they'll automatically pay the other half of your payroll tax (an additional 7.65%) to bring it to a total of 15.3%. In other words, because your wife is technically self employed, she will owe both sides of payroll tax which is 15.3% of $38k = $5,800 on TOP of your federal income tax (which is the only thing the W-4 is instructing them about what amount to withhold). The huge advantage to a 1099, however, is that she's essentially self-employed which means ALL of the things she needs to run her business are deductible expenses. This includes her car, computer, home office, supplies, sometimes phone, gas, maintenance, travel expenses, sometimes entertainment, etc - which can easily bring her \\\"\\\"income\\\"\\\" down from $38k to lets say $23k, reducing both her federal income tax AND self-employment tax to apply to $15k less (saving lets say 50% of $15k = $7.5k with federal and self employment because your income is so high). She is actually supposed to pay quarterly taxes to make up for all of this. The easy way to do this is each quarter plug YOUR total salary + bonus and the tax YOU have paid so far (check your paystubs) into TurboTax along with her income so far and all of her expenses. This will give you how much tax you can expect to have left to owe so far--this would be your first quarter. When you calculate your other quarters, do it the exact same way and just subtract what you've already paid so far that year from your total tax liability.\\\"\",\n \"This is wrong. It should be or Now, to get back to self-employment tax. Self-employment tax is weird. It's a business tax. From the IRS perspective, any self-employed person is a business. So, take your income X and divide by 1.0765 (6.2% Social Security and 1.45% Medicare). This gives your personal income. Now, to calculate the tax that you have to pay, multiply that by .153 (since you have to pay both the worker and employer shares of the tax). So new calculation or they actually let you do which is better for you (smaller). And your other calculations change apace. And like I said, you can simplify Q1se to and your payment would be Now, to get to the second quarter. Like I said, I'd calculate the income through the second quarter. So recalculate A based on your new numbers and use that to calculate Q2i. or Note that this includes income from both the first and second quarters. We'll reduce to just the second quarter later. This also has you paying for all of June even though you may not have been paid when you make the withholding payment. That's what they want you to do. But we aren't done yet. Your actual payment should be or Because Q2ft and Q2se are what you owe for the year so far. Q1ft + Q1se is what you've already paid. So you subtract those from what you need to pay in the second quarter. In future quarters, this would be All that said, don't stress about it. As a practical matter, so long as you don't owe $1000 or more when you file your actual tax return, they aren't going to care. So just make sure that your total payments match by the payment you make January 15th. I'm not going to try to calculate for the state. For one thing, I don't know if your state uses Q1i or Q1pi as its base. Different states may have different rules on that. If you can't figure it out, just use Q1i, as that's the bigger one. Fix it when you file your annual return. The difference in withholding is going to be relatively small anyway, less than 1% of your income.\",\n \"FICA/SE taxes are not 30%. They are at most ~15%, including the employer portion. Employer also pays FUTA tax, and has additional payroll expenses (like fees and worker compensation insurance). The employee's FICA portion is limited up to a certain level of earnings (110100 this year, IIRC). Above it you only pay medicare taxes, not social security. S-Corp earnings are not taxed at 15%, these are not dividends. They're taxed at your ordinary income rate. You don't pay SE taxes on it, that's the only difference. I hope you're talking about tax treatment decision, because there are entirely different factors to keep in mind when you're organizing a business and making a decision between being it a LLC or a corporation. I believe you should pay some money to get a real advice that would apply to you, from a EA/CPA who would be doing the number-crunching (hopefully correctly). I'm a tax practitioner, and this answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.\",\n \"\\\"The limit on SEP IRA is 25%, not 20%. If you're self-employed (filing on Schedule C), then it's taken on net earning, which in your example would be 25% of $90,000. (https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-for-self-employed-people) JoeTaxpayer is correct as regards the 401(k) limits. The elective deferrals are per person - That's a cap in sum across multiple plans and across both traditional and Roth if you have those. In general, it's actually across other retirement plan types too - See below. If you're self-employed and set-up a 401(k) for your own business, the elective deferral is still aggregated with any other 401(k) plans in which you participate that year, but you can still make the employer contribution on your own plan. This IRS page is current a pretty good one on this topic: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans Key quotes that are relevant: The business owner wears two hats in a 401(k) plan: employee and employer. Contributions can be made to the plan in both capacities. The owner can contribute both: •Elective deferrals up to 100% of compensation (“earned income” in the case of a self-employed individual) up to the annual contribution limit: ◦$18,000 in 2015 and 2016, or $24,000 in 2015 and 2016 if age 50 or over; plus •Employer nonelective contributions up to: ◦25% of compensation as defined by the plan, or ◦for self-employed individuals, see discussion below It continues with this example: The amount you can defer (including pre-tax and Roth contributions) to all your plans (not including 457(b) plans) is $18,000 in 2015 and 2016. Although a plan's terms may place lower limits on contributions, the total amount allowed under the tax law doesn’t depend on how many plans you belong to or who sponsors those plans. EXAMPLE Ben, age 51, earned $50,000 in W-2 wages from his S Corporation in 2015. He deferred $18,000 in regular elective deferrals plus $6,000 in catch-up contributions to the 401(k) plan. His business contributed 25% of his compensation to the plan, $12,500. Total contributions to the plan for 2015 were $36,500. This is the maximum that can be contributed to the plan for Ben for 2015. A business owner who is also employed by a second company and participating in its 401(k) plan should bear in mind that his limits on elective deferrals are by person, not by plan. He must consider the limit for all elective deferrals he makes during a year. Notice in the example that Ben contributed more that than his elective limit in total (his was $24,000 in the example because he was old enough for the $6,000 catch-up in addition to the $18,000 that applies to everyone else). He did this by declaring an employer contribution of $12,500, which was limited by his compensation but not by any of his elective contributions. Beyond the 401(k), keep in mind that elective contributions are capped across different types of retirement plans as well, so if you have a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k), your total contributions across those plans are also capped. That's also mentioned in the example. Now to the extent that you're considering different types of plans, that's a whole question in itself - One that might be worth consulting a dedicated tax advisor. A few things to consider (not extensive list): As for payroll / self-employment tax: Looks like you will end up paying Medicare, including the new \\\"\\\"Additional Medicare\\\"\\\" tax that came with the ACA, but not SS: If you have wages, as well as self-employment earnings, the tax on your wages is paid first. But this rule only applies if your total earnings are more than $118,500. For example, if you will have $30,000 in wages and $40,000 in selfemployment income in 2016, you will pay the appropriate Social Security taxes on both your wages and business earnings. In 2016, however, if your wages are $78,000, and you have $40,700 in net earnings from a business, you don’t pay dual Social Security taxes on earnings more than $118,500. Your employer will withhold 7.65 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your $78,000 in earnings. You must pay 15.3 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your first $40,500 in self-employment earnings and 2.9 percent in Medicare tax on the remaining $200 in net earnings. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10022.pdf Other good IRS resources:\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I've done various side work over the years -- computer consulting, writing, and I briefly had a video game company -- so I've gone through most of this. Disclaimer: I have never been audited, which may mean that everything I put on my tax forms looked plausible to the IRS and so is probably at least generally right, but it also means that the IRS has never put their stamp of approval on my tax forms. So that said ... 1: You do not need to form an LLC to be able to claim business expenses. Whether you have any expenses or not, you will have to complete a schedule C. On this form are places for expenses in various categories. Note that the categories are the most common type of expenses, there's an \\\"\\\"other\\\"\\\" space if you have something different. If you have any property that is used both for the business and also for personal use, you must calculate a business use percentage. For example if you bought a new printer and 60% of the time you use it for the business and 40% of the time you use it for personal stuff, then 60% of the cost is tax deductible. In general the IRS expects you to calculate the percentage based on amount of time used for business versus personal, though you are allowed to use other allocation formulas. Like for a printer I think you'd get away with number of pages printed for each. But if the business use is not 100%, you must keep records to justify the percentage. You can't just say, \\\"\\\"Oh, I think business use must have been about 3/4 of the time.\\\"\\\" You have to have a log where you write down every time you use it and whether it was business or personal. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of business use of cars and computers, because these are things that are readily used for personal purposes. If you own a copper mine and you buy a mine-boring machine, odds are you aren't going to take that home to dig shafts in your backyard. But a computer can easily be used to play video games or send emails to friends and relatives and lots of things that have nothing to do with a business. So if you're going to claim a computer or a car, be prepared to justify it. You can claim office use of your home if you have one or more rooms or designated parts of a room that are used \\\"\\\"regularly and exclusively\\\"\\\" for business purposes. That is, if you turn the family room into an office, you can claim home office expenses. But if, like me, you sit on the couch to work but at other times you sit on the couch to watch TV, then the space is not used \\\"\\\"exclusively\\\"\\\" for business purposes. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of home office deductions. I've never tried to claim it. It's legal, just make sure you have all your ducks in a row if you claim it. Skip 2 for the moment. 3: Yes, you must pay taxes on your business income. If you have not created an LLC or a corporation, then your business income is added to your wage income to calculate your taxes. That is, if you made, say, $50,000 salary working for somebody else and $10,000 on your side business, then your total income is $60,000 and that's what you pay taxes on. The total amount you pay in income taxes will be the same regardless of whether 90% came from salary and 10% from the side business or the other way around. The rates are the same, it's just one total number. If the withholding on your regular paycheck is not enough to cover the total taxes that you will have to pay, then you are required by law to pay estimated taxes quarterly to make up the difference. If you don't, you will be required to pay penalties, so you don't want to skip on this. Basically you are supposed to be withholding from yourself and sending this in to the government. It's POSSIBLE that this won't be an issue. If you're used to getting a big refund, and the refund is more than what the tax on your side business will come to, then you might end up still getting a refund, just a smaller one. But you don't want to guess about this. Get the tax forms and figure out the numbers. I think -- and please don't rely on this, check on it -- that the law says that you don't pay a penalty if the total tax that was withheld from your paycheck plus the amount you paid in estimated payments is more than the tax you owed last year. So like lets say that this year -- just to make up some numbers -- your employer withheld $4,000 from your paychecks. At the end of the year you did your taxes and they came to $3,000, so you got a $1,000 refund. This year your employer again withholds $4,000 and you paid $0 in estimated payments. Your total tax on your salary plus your side business comes to $4,500. You owe $500, but you won't have to pay a penalty, because the $4,000 withheld is more than the $3,000 that you owed last year. But if next year you again don't make estimated payment, so you again have $4,000 withheld plus $0 estimated and then you owe $5,000 in taxes, you will have to pay a penalty, because your withholding was less than what you owed last year. To you had paid $500 in estimated payments, you'd be okay. You'd still owe $500, but you wouldn't owe a penalty, because your total payments were more than the previous year's liability. Clear as mud? Don't forget that you probably will also owe state income tax. If you have a local income tax, you'll owe that too. Scott-McP mentioned self-employment tax. You'll owe that, too. Note that self-employment tax is different from income tax. Self employment tax is just social security tax on self-employed people. You're probably used to seeing the 7-whatever-percent it is these days withheld from your paycheck. That's really only half your social security tax, the other half is not shown on your pay stub because it is not subtracted from your salary. If you're self-employed, you have to pay both halves, or about 15%. You file a form SE with your income taxes to declare it. 4: If you pay your quarterly estimated taxes, well the point of \\\"\\\"estimated\\\"\\\" taxes is that it's supposed to be close to the amount that you will actually owe next April 15. So if you get it at least close, then you shouldn't owe a lot of money in April. (I usually try to arrange my taxes so that I get a modest refund -- don't loan the government a lot of money, but don't owe anything April 15 either.) Once you take care of any business expenses and taxes, what you do with the rest of the money is up to you, right? Though if you're unsure of how to spend it, let me know and I'll send you the address of my kids' colleges and you can donate it to their tuition fund. I think this would be a very worthy and productive use of your money. :-) Back to #2. I just recently acquired a financial advisor. I can't say what a good process for finding one is. This guy is someone who goes to my church and who hijacked me after Bible study one day to make his sales pitch. But I did talk to him about his fees, and what he told me was this: If I have enough money in an investment account, then he gets a commission from the investment company for bringing the business to them, and that's the total compensation he gets from me. That commission comes out of the management fees they charge, and those management fees are in the same ballpark as the fees I was paying for private investment accounts, so basically he is not costing me anything. He's getting his money from the kickbacks. He said that if I had not had enough accumulated assets, he would have had to charge me an hourly fee. I didn't ask how much that was. Whew, hadn't meant to write such a long answer!\\\"\",\n \"Do you have a regular job, where you work for somebody else and they pay you a salary? If so, they should be deducting estimated taxes from your paychecks and sending them in to the government. How much they deduct depends on your salary and what you put down on your W-4. Assuming you filled that out accurately, they will withhold an amount that should closely match the taxes you would owe if you took the standard deduction, have no income besides this job, and no unusual deductions. If that's the case, come next April 15 you will probably get a small refund. If you own a small business or are an independent contractor, then you have to estimate the taxes you will owe and make quarterly payments. If you're worried that the amount they're withholding doesn't sound right, then as GradeEhBacon says, get a copy of last year's tax forms (or this year's if they're out by now) -- paper or electronic -- fill them out by estimating what your total income will be for the year, etc, and see what the tax comes out to be.\",\n \"Yes, you do. Depending on your country's laws and regulations, since you're not an employee but a self employed, you're likely to be required to file some kind of a tax return with your country's tax authority, and pay the income taxes on the money you earn. You'll have to tell us more about the situation, at least let us know what country you're in, for more information.\",\n \"\\\"Yep. You're single, you're possibly still a dependent on your parent's taxes (in lieu of rent), and you're finally bringing home bacon instead of bacon bits. Welcome to the working world. Let's say your gross salary is the U.S. median of $50,000. With bi-weekly checks (26 a year; common practice) you're getting $1923.08 per paycheck. In the 2013 \\\"\\\"Percentage Method\\\"\\\" tax tables, here's how your federal withholding is calculated as a single person paid biweekly: Federal taxes are computed piecewise; the amount up to A is taxed at X%, then the amount between A and B is taxed at Y%, so if you make $C, between A and B, the tax is (A*X) + (C-A)*Y. The amount A*X is included in the \\\"\\\"base amount\\\"\\\" for ease of calculation. Back to our example; let's say you're getting $1923.08 gross wages per check. That puts you in the 25% marginal bracket. You pay the sum of all lesser brackets (which is the \\\"\\\"base amount\\\"\\\" of the 25% bracket), plus the 25% marginal rate on every dollar that falls within the bracket. That's 191.95 + (1923.08 - 1479) * .25 = 191.95 + (444.08 * .25) = 191.95 + 111.02 = $302.97 per paycheck. The \\\"\\\"effective\\\"\\\" tax rate on the total amount, as if you were being charged a flat tax, is 15.75%, and this is just for the federal income tax. Add to this MA state income taxes (5.25% flat tax), FICA (aka Medicare; 1.45% flat) and SECA (aka Social Security; 6.2% up to a \\\"\\\"wage base\\\"\\\" that $50k doesn't even approach), and your effective tax rate on each dollar you earn is 15.75% + 5.25% + 1.45% + 6.2% = 28.65%. This doesn't include any state unemployment taxes that may be withheld separately, but as the rate I come up with is pretty darn close to what you've figured (meaning I slightly overestimated your gross income and thus your effective tax rate), my bet is that SUTA's either employer-paid in MA, or it's just part of MA state income tax. It gets better, at least at the federal level: The amount of your state income taxes is tax-deductible at the federal level if you itemize your deductions. That may not be a factor for you as you'd have to come up with more than $6,100 of other tax-deductible expenses to make itemizing the better option than taking the standard deduction (big-ticket items are mortgage expenses other than principal payments, hospital stays such as for childbirth or major accident, and state and local taxes such as sales, property and income). If you can claim yourself as a dependent (meaning your parents can't), then $150 of each check ($3,900 of your annual salary) is no longer taxed for federal withholding, lowering the amount of money taxed at the 25% marginal rate. You effectively save $37.50 biweekly ($975 annually) in taxes. Get married and file jointly, and your spouse, her personal exemption, and an extra standard deduction amount (if you don't itemize) go on your taxes. The tax rates for married couples filing jointly are also lower; they're currently calculated (or were in 2012) to be the same as if two equal earners were to file separately, so if your spouse doesn't work, your taxes on the single income are calculated at the rates you'd get if you earned half as much. It doesn't work out to half the taxes, but it is a significant \\\"\\\"marriage advantage\\\"\\\". Have kids, and each one is another little $3,900 tax write-off. It's nowhere near the cost of having or raising the child, but it helps, and having kids isn't about the money. Owning a home, making charitable deductions, having medical expenses, etc are a toss-up. The magic number in 2013 is $12,200 for a married couple, $6,100 for a single person. If your mortgage interest, insurance premiums, property taxes, medical expenditures, charitable donations, any contributions from your take-home pay to a tax-deferred savings account (typically these accounts are paid into by your employer as a \\\"\\\"pre-tax deduction\\\"\\\" and never show up as taxable income, but you could just as easily move money from your take-home pay into tax-deferred savings) and any other tax-deductible payments add up to more than 12 large, then itemize. If not, take your standard deduction. As a single taxpayer just starting out in life, you probably don't have any of these types of expenditures, certainly not enough to give up the SD. I did the math on my own taxes in 2012, and was surprised at how little the government actually gets of my paycheck when all's said and done. Remember back in the summer of 2012 when everyone was mad at Romney for making millions and only paying an effective income tax rate of 14%, which was compared to the middle class's marginal rate of 25-28%? Well, my family of 3, living on a little more than the median income from one earner (me), taking the married standard deduction, three personal exemptions, and a little extra for student loan interest, paid an effective federal income tax rate of something like 3.5%. Of course, the FICA and SS taxes don't allow any deductions (not even for retirement savings), so add in the 4.2% SS (in 2012) and 1.45% FICA and the full federal gimme was more like 9-10%.\\\"\",\n \"From my blog's discussion on 2017 tax rates. This is the final set of numbers. So, if you currently have, say $120K taxable income, every dollar above that starts getting taxed at 25%, until $153K, then 28%. In other words, forecast your taxes based on the day job, but then the 1099 goes on top of that.\",\n \"Your tax return will be due on April 18th of 2017 for the amounts made in 2016. Based on the figures that you have provided, assuming you are 18, and assuming you are a single taxpayer your total tax will be around $2600.00 ($2611.25 to be exact, without additional credits or deductions to AGI accounted for). The $1,234 in fed. inc. tax that you have already paid is considered to be a prepaid by the government. If at year-end you have provided more than you have made the government will refund you the excess (federal tax return).\",\n \"In the USA, you probably owe Self Employment Tax. The cutoff for tax on this is 400$. You will need to file a tax return and cover the medicaid expenses as if you were both the employer and employee. In addition, if he earns income from self-employment, he may owe Self-Employment Tax, which means paying both the employee’s and employer's share of Social Security and Medicaid taxes. The trigger for Self Employment Tax has been $400 since 1990, but the IRS may change that in the future. Also see the IRS website. So yes, you need to file your taxes. How much you will pay is determined by exactly how much your income is. If you don't file, you probably won't be audited, however you are breaking the law and should be aware of the consequences.\",\n \"Your taxable income is your total income from however many sources of income you have. If you are in employment and doing self-employed job at the same time, your taxable income will be a combination of both incomes. For example if in employment you make £10000 and self employed you make another £10000 - your total income is £20000 and this is your taxable income. And even if your self-employed job does not bring you more than personal allowance, how would HMRC know that without you filling-in tax return?\",\n \"Havoc P's answer is good (+1). Also don't forget the other aspects of business income: state filing fees, county/city filing fees, business licenses, etc. Are there any taxes you have to collect from your customers? If you expect to make more this year, then you should make estimated quarterly tax payments. The first one for 2011 is due around the same time as your federal income tax filing.\",\n \"Unfortunately, the tax system in the U.S. is probably more complicated than it looks to you right now. First, you need to understand that there will be taxes withheld from your paycheck, but the amount that they withhold is simply a guess. You might pay too much or too little tax during the year. After the year is over, you'll send in a tax return form that calculates the correct tax amount. If you have paid too little over the year, you'll have to send in the rest, but if you've paid too much, you'll get a refund. There are complicated formulas on how much tax the employer withholds from your paycheck, but in general, if you don't have extra income elsewhere that you need to pay tax on, you'll probably be close to breaking even at tax time. When you get your paycheck, the first thing that will be taken off is FICA, also called Social Security, Medicare, or the Payroll tax. This is a fixed 7.65% that is taken off the gross salary. It is not refundable and is not affected by any allowances or deductions, and does not come in to play at all on your tax return form. There are optional employee benefits that you might need to pay a portion of if you are going to take advantage of them, such as health insurance or retirement savings. Some of these deductions are paid with before-tax money, and some are paid with after tax money. The employer will calculate how much money they are supposed to withhold for federal and state taxes (yes, California has an income tax), and the rest is yours. At tax time, the employer will give you a form W-2, which shows you the amount of your gross income after all the before-tax deductions are taken out (which is what you use to calculate your tax). The form also shows you how much tax you have paid during the year. Form 1040 is the tax return that you use to calculate your correct tax for the year. You start with the gross income amount from the W-2, and the first thing you do is add in any income that you didn't get a W-2 for (such as interest or investment income) and subtract any deductions that you might have that are not taxable, but were not paid through your paycheck (such as moving expenses, student loan interest, tuition, etc.) The result is called your adjusted gross income. Next, you take off the deductions not covered in the above section (property tax, home mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc.). You can either take the standard deduction ($6,300 if you are single), or if you have more deductions in this category than that, you can itemize your deductions and declare the correct amount. After that, you subtract more for exemptions. You can claim yourself as an exemption unless you are considered a dependent of someone else and they are claiming you as a dependent. If you claim yourself, you take off another $4,000 from your income. What you are left with is your taxable income for the year. This is the amount you would use to calculate your tax based on the bracket table you found. California has an income tax, and just like the federal tax, some state taxes will be deducted from your paycheck, and you'll need to fill out a state tax return form after the year is over to calculate the correct state tax and either request a refund or pay the remainder of the tax. I don't have any experience with the California income tax, but there are details on the rates on this page from the State of California.\",\n \"You will need to register as self-employed aka sole trader (that's the whole point: pay taxes on income that you're not getting as wages from an employer, who would arrange PAYE/NI contributions), or set up a limited company (in the last case you would have the option of either getting paid as wages or as dividends — which one is better is a complex issue which varies from year to year). You'll find lots of advice on the HMRC website.\",\n \"Do you have any insight on average *effective* rates paid by SE owners? As a counterpoint to your (very valid) links, filing as S-corp allows for taxes on distributions to be exempt from payroll tax and taxed at much lower rates. Also, being SE allows for various deductions not possible for wage earners. There's probably other examples not immediately coming to mind. Also, SE taxes equal taxes otherwise paid by employer + employee. It's just that those employer taxes don't appear on the employee's paystub so not everyone realizes this.\",\n \"I've had zero taxable income for the past 2 years and yet the calculations say I owe the government $250 for each year for the Self Employment tax. How can they charge a non-zero tax on my income when my taxable income is zero? That is theft. That demands reform.\",\n \"Every bill you write counts as income (if the bill doesn't get paid, you would count that as an expense). In cases where you don't write bills, I think the payment you receive would count as income, but you might check that on the HMRC website. So to record your income, you can basically record the payments that you receive. Anything you pay out for your business is an expense. You keep a receipt for every expense - if you don't have a receipt, you can't count it as an expense, so keeping all the receipts is very, very important. An exception are investments, for example buying a computer that should last multiple years; there you can count a percentage of the investment as expense every year. All income, minus all expenses, is your profit. You pay tax and National Insurance contributions according to your profit. You can do whatever you like with the profit. Notice that I didn't mention any salary. Self employed means you have no salary, you have profits and do with them whatever you like. On the other hand, you pay taxes on these profits almost exactly as if they were income. If you have this blog but are also employed, you'll add the profits to your normal income statement.\",\n \"The tax savings of being 1099 can be significant. It depends on your salary, and what you can deduct. You may want to consult with an accountant. The social security tax, for the self employed, is 12.4% of profit not on revenue. If you can write off more than half of the income as expenses then you could be paying less than a w-2 employee. Also you might make a higher salary as a 1099, it is rare the offer the same compensation for a W-2 as a 1099 as the former has higher expenses for the employer. It is hard to know without actual numbers, actual expected expense deductions and so forth. Which is why I would suggest consulting with an accountant. You may want to talk to one in the state where he will be working rather than where you live now.\",\n \"The key for you this year (2015) be aggressive in paying the taxes quarterly so that you do not have to do the quarterly filings or pay penalties for owing too much in taxes in future years. The tax system has a safe harbor provision. If you have withheld or sent via the estimated quarterly taxes an amount equal to 100% of the previous years taxes then you are safe. That means that if you end to the IRS in 2015 an amount equal to 100% of your 2014 taxes then in April 2016 you can avoid the penalties. You should note that the required percentage is 110% for high income individual. Because you can never be sure about your side income, use your ability to adjust your W-4 to cover your taxes. You will know early in 2016 how much you need to cover via withholding, so make the adjustments. Yes the risk is what you over pay, but that may be what you need to do to avoid the quarterly filing requirements. From IRS PUB 17: If you owe additional tax for 2014, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2015. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2015 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2015, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2015 tax return, or 100% of the tax shown on your 2014 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2014 tax return must cover all 12 months. and Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty.\",\n \"\\\"Hearing somewhere is a level or two worse than \\\"\\\"my friend told me.\\\"\\\" You need to do some planning to forecast your full year income and tax bill. In general, you should be filing a quarterly form and tax payment. You'll still reconcile the year with an April filing, but if you are looking to save up to pay a huge bill next year, you are looking at the potential of a penalty for under-withholding. The instructions and payment coupons are available at the IRS site. At this point I'm required to offer the following advice - If you are making enough money that this even concerns you, you should consider starting to save for the future. A Solo-401(k) or IRA, or both. Read more on these two accounts and ask separate questions, if you'd like.\\\"\",\n \"As a new (very!) small business, the IRS has lots of advice and information for you. Start at https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed and be sure you have several pots of coffee or other appropriate aid against somnolence. By default a single-member LLC is 'disregarded' for tax purposes (at least for Federal, and generally states follow Federal although I don't know Mass. specifically), although it does have other effects. If you go this route you simply include the business income and expenses on Schedule C as part of your individual return on 1040, and the net SE income is included along with your other income (if any) in computing your tax. TurboTax or similar software should handle this for you, although you may need a premium version that costs a little more. You can 'elect' to have the LLC taxed as a corporation by filing form 8832, see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/limited-liability-company-llc . In principle you are supposed to do this when the entity is 'formed', but in practice AIUI if you do it by the end of the year they won't care at all, and if you do it after the end of the year but before or with your first affected return you qualify for automatic 'relief'. However, deciding how to divide the business income/profits into 'reasonable pay' to yourself versus 'dividends' is more complicated, and filling out corporation tax returns in addition to your individual return (which is still required) is more work, in addition to the work and cost of filing and reporting the LLC itself to your state of choice. Unless/until you make something like $50k-100k a year this probably isn't worth it. 1099 Reporting. Stripe qualifies as a 'payment network' and under a recent law payment networks must annually report to IRS (and copy to you) on form 1099-K if your account exceeds certain thresholds; see https://support.stripe.com/questions/will-i-receive-a-1099-k-and-what-do-i-do-with-it . Note you are still legally required to report and pay tax on your SE income even if you aren't covered by 1099-K (or other) reporting. Self-employment tax. As a self-employed person (if the LLC is disregarded) you have to pay 'SE' tax that is effectively equivalent to the 'FICA' taxes that would be paid by your employer and you as an employee combined. This is 12.4% for Social Security unless/until your total earned income exceeds a cap (for 2017 $127,200, adjusted yearly for inflation), and 2.9% for Medicare with no limit (plus 'Additional Medicare' tax if you exceed a higher threshold and it isn't 'repealed and replaced'). If the LLC elects corporation status it has to pay you reasonable wages for your services, and withhold+pay FICA on those wages like any other employer. Estimated payments. You are required to pay most of your individual income tax, and SE tax if applicable, during the year (generally 90% of your tax or your tax minus $1,000 whichever is less). Most wage-earners don't notice this because it happens automatically through payroll withholding, but as self-employed you are responsible for making sufficient and timely estimated payments, and will owe a penalty if you don't. However, since this is your first year you may have a 'safe harbor'; if you also have income from an employer (reported on W-2, with withholding) and that withholding is sufficent to pay last year's tax, then you are exempt from the 'underpayment' penalty for this year. If you elect corporation status then the corporation (which is really just you) must always make timely payments of withheld amounts, according to one of several different schedules that may apply depending on the amounts; I believe it also must make estimated payments for its own liability, if any, but I'm not familiar with that part.\",\n \"The tax is depended upon state where you are registered and the salary paid. More here If you employ contract you need not pay tax.\",\n \"\\\"Most states that have income tax base their taxes on the income reported on your federal return, with some state-specific adjustments. So answering your last question first: Yes, if it matters for federal, it will matter for state (in most cases). For estimating the tax liability, I would not use the effective rate but rather use the rate for your highest tax bracket and apply that to your estimated hobby income, assuming that you primary job income won't be wildly higher or lower than last year. As @keshlam noted in a comment, this income is coming on top of whatever else you earn, so it will be taxed at your top rate. Finally, I'd check again whether this is really \\\"\\\"hobby\\\"\\\" income or if it is \\\"\\\"self-employment\\\"\\\" income. Self-employment income will be subject to self-employment tax, which comes on top of the regular income tax.\\\"\",\n \"Unless you make those investments inside a tax-deferred account, you will have to pay income-taxes on that money this year. Because you made that money through your own business, you will also have payroll taxes due on that money this year.\",\n \"If you want to predict the, the easiest solution is to get hold of a copy of last year's tax forms and fill them in with estimated numbers. Odds are that none of the more complicated deductions will apply to you this first time around, so I'd suggest just using the federal 1040EZ, and your state's equivalent, for this purpose. If it turns out that you can claim anything more than the standard deduction, that would reduce your taxes, so this is leaning toward the safe side.\",\n \"If this will be your sole income for the year, going self-employed is the best way to do this: So, here's how to go at it: Total cash in: £2000 Total Tax paid: £0 Admin overhead: approx 3 hours. Legit: 100% :) Edit: Can you tell me that in my case what are the required fields on the invoice? If you're non-VAT registered, there are no legal requirements as to what information you need to put on the invoice -it literally can be a couple of numbers on a napkin, and still be legit. With that said, to make a professional appearance, my invoices are usually structured as follows: Left side: ( Sidenote: why client-specific incremental numbering? Why, so they can't make educated guesses to the number of clients I have at any given time :) ) Right side: Center table: And so far, none of my clients missed any fields, so this should have everything they need to :) Hope this helps, but keep in mind, all of the above is synthetic sugar on the top -ultimately, the relationship you share with your Clients is the thing you will (or will not) get paid for! Edit#2: The voices in my head just pointed out, that I've totally omitted National Insurance contributions in the above. However, and I quote HMRC: If your profits are expected to be less than £5,315 you may not have to pay Class 2 National Insurance contributions. Hence, this won't change the numbers above, either -just make sure to point this out during your registration in the office.\",\n \"No, even businesses pay taxes quarterly. So if you formed Nathan, LLC, or otherwise became self employed, you'd still have to file quarterly estimates and make tax payments. This would cause taxes to be a much more high touch part of your life. However, you should ensure that you're claiming the proper exemptions etc to avoid excessive withholding.\",\n \"Yes, you've summarized it well. You may be able to depreciate your computer, expense some software licenses and may be home office if you qualify, but at this scale of earning - it will probably not cover for the loss of the money you need to pay for the additional SE tax (the employer part of the FICA taxes for W2 employees) and benefits (subsidized health insurance, bonuses you get from your employer, insurances, etc). Don't forget the additional expense of business licenses, liability insurances etc. While relatively small amounts and deductible - still money out of your pocket. That said... Good luck earning $96K on ODesk.\",\n \"\\\"Generally if you're a sole S-Corp employee - it is hard to explain how the S-Corp earned more money than your work is worth. So it is reasonable that all the S-Corp profits would be pouring into your salary. Especially when the amounts are below the FICA SS limits when separating salary and distributions are a clear sign of FICA tax evasion. So while it is hard to say if you're going to be subject to audit, my bet is that if you are - the IRS will claim that you underpaid yourself. One of the more recent cases dealing with this issue is Watson v Commissioner. In this case, Watson (through his S-Corp which he solely owned) received distributions from a company in the amounts of ~400K. He drew 24K as salary, and the rest as distributions. The IRS forced re-characterizing distributions into salary up to 93K (the then-SS portion of the FICA limit), and the courts affirmed. Worth noting, that Watson didn't do all the work himself, and that was the reason that some of the income was allowed to be considered distribution. That wouldn't hold in a case where the sole shareholder was the only revenue producer, and that is exactly my point. I feel that it is important to add another paragraph about Nolo, newspaper articles, and charlatans on the Internet. YOU CANNOT RELY ON THEM. You cannot defend your position against IRS by saying \\\"\\\"But the article on Nolo said I can not pay SE taxes on my earnings!\\\"\\\", you cannot say \\\"\\\"Some guy called littleadv lost an argument with some other guy called Ben Miller because Ben Miller was saying what everyone wants to hear\\\"\\\", and you can definitely not say \\\"\\\"But I don't want to pay taxes!\\\"\\\". There's law, there are legal precedents. When some guy on the Internet tells you exactly what you want to hear - beware. Many times when it is too good to be true - it is in fact not true. Many these articles are written by people who are interested in clients/business. By the time you get to them - you're already in deep trouble and will pay them to fix it. They don't care that their own \\\"\\\"advice\\\"\\\" got you into that trouble, because it is always written in generic enough terms that they can say \\\"\\\"Oh, but it doesn't apply to your specific situation\\\"\\\". That's the main problem with these free advice - they are worth exactly what you paid for them. When you actually pay your CPA/Attorney - they'll have to take responsibility over their advice. Then suddenly they become cautious. Suddenly they start mentioning precedents and rulings telling you to not do things. Or not, and try and play the audit roulette, but these types are long gone when you get caught.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I have done similar software work. You do not need an LLC to write off business expenses. The income and expenses go on Schedule C of your tax return. It is easy to write off even small expenses such as travel - if you keep records. The income should be reported to you on a 1099 form, filled out by your client, not yourself. For a financial advisor you should find one you can visit with personally and who operates as a \\\"\\\"fee-only\\\"\\\" advisor. That means they will not try to sell you something that they get a commission on. You might pay a few $hundred per visit. There are taxes that you have to pay (around 15%) due to self-employment income. These taxes are due 4 times a year and paid with an \\\"\\\"estimated tax\\\"\\\" form. See the IRS web site, and in particular schedule SE. Get yourself educated about this fast and make the estimated tax payments on time so you won't run into penalties at the end of the year.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You will be filing the exact same form you've been filing until now (I hope...) which is called form 1040. Attached to it, you'll add a \\\"\\\"Schedule C\\\"\\\" form and \\\"\\\"Schedule SE\\\"\\\" form. Keep in mind the potential effect of the tax and totalization treaties the US has with the UK which may affect your filings. I suggest you talk to a licensed EA/CPA who works with expats in the UK and is familiar with all the issues. There are several prominent offices you can find by Googling.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Chris, Joe's table helps. but think this way: there are two ways you can pay the taxes for your side-gig: either you can send a check quarterly to the Feds, OR, you can overwithhold at your real job to cover taxes at your sidegig. I'd do this in \\\"\\\"arrears\\\"\\\" -- after you get your first paycheck from sidegig, then adjust your real job's withholding. Except (and Joe neglected this), you're still responsible for Social Security / Medicare Tax from your sidegig. I suspect your income at real-job is high enough that you stop paying Social Security Tax, so at least at this time of year you won't be subject to 15.4% Social Security Tax. However, that's NOT true for the 2.9% Medicare Tax. Remember that because you're an independent contractor being payed without withholding, YOU are responsible not only for the Medicare (and Social Security) taxes you'd be responsible for if a regular employee, but you're also responsible for what your employer's share as well.\\\"\",\n \"I would say you can file your taxes on your own, but you will probably want the advice of an accountant if you need any supplies or tools for the side business that might be tax deductible. IIRC you don't have to tell your current employer for tax reasons (just check that your contract doesn't state you can't have a side job or business), but I believe you'll have to tell HMRC. At the end of the year you'll have to file a tax return and at that point in time you'll have to pay the tax on the additional earnings. These will be taxed at your highest tax rate and you might end up in a higher tax bracket, too. I'd put about 40% away for tax, that will put you on the safe side in case you end up in the high tax bracket; if not, you'll have a bit of money going spare after paying your taxes.\",\n \"If you qualify for the safe harbor, you are not required to pay additional quarterly taxes. Of course, you're still welcome to do so if you're sure you'll owe them; however, you will not be penalized. If your income is over $150k (joint) or $75k (single), your safe harbor is: Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty. Generally, if you're under that level, the following reasons suggest you will not owe the tax (from the IRS publication 505): The total of your withholding and timely estimated tax payments was at least as much as your 2013 tax. (See Special rules for certain individuals for higher income taxpayers and farmers and fishermen.) The tax balance due on your 2014 return is no more than 10% of your total 2014 tax, and you paid all required estimated tax payments on time. Your total tax for 2014 (defined later) minus your withholding is less than $1,000. You did not have a tax liability for 2013. You did not have any withholding taxes and your current year tax (less any household employment taxes) is less than $1,000. If you paid one-fourth of your last year's taxes (or of 110% of your last-year's taxes) in estimated taxes for each quarter prior to this one, you should be fine as far as penalties go, and can simply add the excess you know you will owe to the next check.\",\n \"As Victor says, you pay tax on net profit. If this is a significant source of income for you, you should file quarterly estimated tax payments or you're going to get hit with a penalty at the end of the year.\",\n \"\\\"It's not possible to determine whether you can \\\"\\\"expect a refund\\\"\\\" or whether you are claiming the right number of exemptions from the information given. If your wife were not working and you did not do independent contracting, then the answer would be much simpler. However, in this case, we must also factor in how much your contracting brings in (since you must pay income tax on that, as well as Medicare and, probably, Social Security), whether you are filing jointly or separately, and your wife's income from her business. There are also other factors such as whether you'll be claiming certain child care expenses, and certain tax credits which may phase out depending on your income. If you can accurately estimate your total household income for the year, and separate that into income from wages, contracting, and your wife's business, as well as your expenses for things like state and local income and property taxes, then you can make a very reasonable estimate about your total tax burden (including the self-employment taxes on your non-wage income) and then determine whether you are having enough tax withheld from your paycheck. Some people may find that they should have additional tax withheld to compensate for these expenses (see IRS W-4 Line #6).\\\"\",\n \"question #2 - yes, 25% of your 1099 income. Good idea. It adds up quickly and is a good way to reduce taxable income.\",\n \"To be confident in your solution, and get the best solution for you, consult a local accountant, preferably one who is specialized in taxes for businesses. Or muddle through the code and figure it out for yourself. The primary advantage in consulting with an accountant is that you can ask them to point out ways you can restructure your expenses, debts and income in order to minimize your tax burden. They can help you run the numbers for the various options and choose the one that is right, numerically.\",\n \"Since you say 1099, I'll assume it's in the US. :) Think of your consulting operation as a small business. Businesses are only taxed on their profits, not their revenues. So you should only be paying tax on the $700 in the example you gave. Note, though, that you need to be sure the IRS thinks you're a small business. Having a separate bank account for the business, filing for a business license with your local city/state, etc are all things that help make the case that you're running a business. Of course, the costs of doing all those things are business expenses, and thus things you can deduct from that $1000 in revenue at tax time.\",\n \"\\\"A tax return is a document you sign and file with the government to self-report your tax obligations. A tax refund is the payment you receive from the government if your payments into the tax system exceeded your obligations. As others have mentioned, if an extra $2K in income generated $5K in taxes, chances are your return was prepared incorrectly. The selection of an appropriate entity type for your business depends a lot on what you expect to see over the next several years in terms of income and expenses, and the extent to which you want or need to pay for fringe benefits or make pretax retirement contributions from your business income. There are four basic flavors of entity which are available to you: Sole proprietorship. This is the simplest option in terms of tax reporting and paperwork required for ongoing operations. Your net (gross minus expenses) income is added to your wage income and you'll pay tax on the total. If your wage income is less than approximately $100K, you'll also owe self-employment tax of approximately 15% in addition to income tax on your business income. If your business runs at a loss, you can deduct the loss from your other income in calculating your taxable income, though you won't be able to run at a loss indefinitely. You are liable for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of all of your personal assets. Partnership. You will need at least two participants (humans or entities) to form a partnership. Individual items of income and expense are identified on a partnership tax return, and each partner's proportionate share is then reported on the individual partners' tax returns. General partners (who actively participate in the business) also must pay self-employment tax on their earnings below approximately $100K. Each general partner is responsible for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of their personal assets. A general partnership can be created informally or with an oral agreement although that's not a good idea. Corporation. Business entities can be taxed as \\\"\\\"S\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"C\\\"\\\" corporations. Either way, the corporation is created by filing articles of incorporation with a state government (doesn't have to be the state where you live) and corporations are typically required to file yearly entity statements with the state where they were formed as well as all states where they do business. Shareholders are only liable for the debts and obligations of the corporation to the extent of their investment in the corporation. An \\\"\\\"S\\\"\\\" corporation files an information-only return similar to a partnership which reports items of income and expense, but those items are actually taken into account on the individual tax returns of the shareholders. If an \\\"\\\"S\\\"\\\" corporation runs at a loss, the losses are deductible against the shareholders' other income. A \\\"\\\"C\\\"\\\" corporation files a tax return more similar to an individual's. A C corporation calculates and pays its own tax at the corporate level. Payments from the C corporation to individuals are typically taxable as wages (from a tax point of view, it's the same as having a second job) or as dividends, depending on how and why the payments are made. (If they're in exchange for effort and work, they're probably wages - if they're payments of business profits to the business owners, they're probably dividends.) If a C corporation runs at a loss, the loss is not deductible against the shareholders' other income. Fringe benefits such as health insurance for business owners are not deductible as business expenses on the business returns for S corps, partnerships, or sole proprietorships. C corporations can deduct expenses for providing fringe benefits. LLCs don't have a predefined tax treatment - the members or managers of the LLC choose, when the LLC is formed, if they would like to be taxed as a partnership, an S corporation, or as a C corporation. If an LLC is owned by a single person, it can be considered a \\\"\\\"disregarded entity\\\"\\\" and treated for tax purposes as a sole proprietorship. This option is not available if the LLC has multiple owners. The asset protection provided by the use of an entity depends quite a bit on the source of the claim. If a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on a contract signed on behalf of the entity, then they likely will not be able to \\\"\\\"pierce the veil\\\"\\\" and collect the entity's debts from the individual owners. On the other hand, if a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on negligence or another tort-like action (such as sexual harassment), then it's very likely that the individual(s) involved will also be sued as individuals, which takes away a lot of the effectiveness of the purported asset protection. The entity-based asset protection is also often unavailable even for contract claims because sophisticated creditors (like banks and landlords) will often insist the the business owners sign a personal guarantee putting their own assets at risk in the event that the business fails to honor its obligations. There's no particular type of entity which will allow you to entirely avoid tax. Most tax planning revolves around characterizing income and expense items in the most favorable ways possible, or around controlling the timing of the appearance of those items on the tax return.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"My number one piece of advice is to see a tax professional who can guide you through the process, especially if you're new to the process. Second, keep detailed records. That being said, I found two articles, [1] and [2] that give some relevant details that you might find helpful. The articles state that: Many artists end up with a combination of income types: income from regular wages and income from self-employment. Income from wages involves a regular paycheck with all appropriate taxes, social security, and Medicare withheld. Income from self-employment may be in the form of cash, check, or goods, with no withholding of any kind. They provide a breakdown for expenses and deductions based on the type of income you receive. If you get a regular paycheck: If you've got a gig lasting more than a few weeks, chances are you will get paid regular wages with all taxes withheld. At the end of the year, your employer will issue you a form W-2. If this regular paycheck is for entertainment-related work (and not just for waiting tables to keep the rent paid), you will deduct related expenses on a Schedule A, under \\\"\\\"Unreimbursed Employee business expenses,\\\"\\\" or on Form 2106, which will give you a total to carry to the schedule A. The type of expenses that go here are: If you are considered an independent contractor (I presume this includes the value of goods, based on the first quoted paragraph above): Independent contractors get paid by cash or check with no withholding of any kind. This means that you are responsible for all of the Social Security and Medicare normally paid or withheld by your employer; this is called Self-Employment Tax. In order to take your deductions, you will need to complete a Schedule C, which breaks down expenses into even more detail. In addition to the items listed above, you will probably have items in the following categories: Ideally, you should receive a 1099 MISC from whatever employer(s) paid you as an independent contractor. Keep in mind that some states have a non-resident entertainers' tax, which is A state tax levied against performers whose legal residence is outside of the state where the performance is given. The tax requires that a certain percentage of any gross earnings from the performance be withheld for the state. Seriously, keep all of your receipts, pay stubs, W2's, 1099 forms, contracts written on the backs of napkins, etc. and go see a tax professional.\\\"\",\n \"They are already indirectly paying these expenses. They should be built into your rates. The amount per job or per hour needs to cover what would have been your salary, plus the what would have been sick, vacation, holidays, health insurance, life insurance, disability, education, overhead for office expenses, cost of accountants...and all taxes. In many companies the general rule of thumb is that they need to charge a customer 2x the employees salary to cover all this plus make a profit. If this is a side job some of these benefits will come from your main job. Some self employed get some of these benefits from their spouse. The company has said we give you money for the work you perform, but you need to cover everything else including paying all taxes. Depending on where you live you might have to send money in more often then once a year. They are also telling you that they will be reporting the money they give you to the government so they can claim it as a business expense. So you better make sure you report it as income.\",\n \"For income tax, you can expect to pay (see here for the rates): For class 4 NICs, it should be (see here for the rates): So expected take-home is £36667. You can avoid the income tax - but not the NICs - by putting money into a pension. For example you might put £7525 in to eliminate the entire 40% part of the bill, which would only cost you £4515 from your take-home pay because it would reduce the tax bill by the £3010.\",\n \"\\\"You are on the right track, for tax purposes its all ordinary income at the end of 2016. If the free lance \\\"\\\"employer\\\"\\\" will withhold fed,state and local tax, then that takes care of your estimated tax. If they can't or won't, you will need to make those estimates and make payments quarterly for the fed and state tax at your projected tax liability. Or, you can bump up withholding by your day job employer and cover your expected tax liability at year end without making estimated tax payments.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I've been highly compensated for a while now, and I have never used a tax professional. My past complications include the year that my company was bought by a VC firm and my stock options and stock held were bought out to the tune of 5x my salary. And now I have two kids in college, with scholarships, and paying the remainder out of 529 accounts. Usually, I don't even use tax software. My typical method is to use the online software -- like turbotax online -- and let it figure out where I am. Then I use the \\\"\\\"Free File Fillable forms\\\"\\\" online to actually complete the process. Search for \\\"\\\"Free File Fillable Forms\\\"\\\" -- it's not the same as using turbotax or TaxAct for free. My suggestion to you: download the PDF form of 1040EZ and 1040A from the IRS. Print the EZ, and fill it out. This will give you a better feel for what exactly is going on. With your income, I don't think you can file the EZ, but it's a good way to get your feet wet. The way income taxes work here in the US: According to the IRS, the Personal Exemption this year is worth $4,050, and the Standard Deduction $6,300, assuming you're single. Lets assume that your salary will be in fact 75,000, and you don't pay for any benefits, but you do make a 401k contribution of 15% of your salary. Then your W-2 at the end of the year should tell you to put 63,750 in a particular box on your 1040 form. (63,750 is 85% of 75,000). Lets then assume 63,750 is your AGI after other additions and subtractions. 63,750 - 4,050 - 6,300 == 53,400. The federal Tax system is graduated, meaning there are different ranges (brackets) with different percentages. The term tax people use for taxable income of 53,400 is \\\"\\\"marginal tax rate\\\"\\\"...so the last dollar they tax at 25%. Other dollars less. According to the IRS, if you're single, then on 53,400, you pay \\\"\\\"$6,897.50 plus 25% of the amount over $50,400\\\"\\\" Or 6897.50 + 750, or 7647.50. Note this is only Federal Income Tax. You will also be paying Social Security and Medicare payroll Tax. And I'm guessing you'll also be paying colorado state income tax. Each state has its own forms and methods for figuring out the taxes and stuff. By the way, when you start, you'll fill out a \\\"\\\"W-4\\\"\\\" form to \\\"\\\"help\\\"\\\" you figure out how much to withhold from every paycheck. (I find the W-4 is not helpful at all). Your company will withhold from your paycheck some mysterious amount, and the process of filling out your 1040A or 1040EZ or whatever will be, likely, to get the over-withheld amount back.\\\"\",\n \"You are wildly over-estimating your taxes. First, remember that your business expenses reduce your gross income. Second, remember that taxes are progressive, so your flat 35% only applies if you're already making a high salary that pushed you into the higher brackets of US and CA. I think the deeper problems are: 1) you are expecting a super early start-up (with no finished product) to pay you the same as a steady job, including health insurance, and 2) you are expecting Kickstarter to independently fund the venture. The best source of funding is yourself. If you believe in this venture and in your game design abilities, then pay for most of the costs out of your own savings. Cut your expenses to the extent you can. You may want to wander over to startups.SE to get more perspective and ideas on your business plan.\",\n \"The only way you can save taxes is by starting a limited company, not paying yourself any salary, so you pay 20% corporation taxes, you can take I think £5000 a year dividends tax free, and leave the rest in the company account, and don't touch it until you make less money.\",\n \"\\\"One option is to look at the IRS Witholding Calculator - As George Marian notes, this is by no means a perfect way to \\\"\\\"estimate\\\"\\\" how much you'll owe. Other key questions for you to answer: There's no silver bullet here. The best you can do is to understand the key inputs into how your taxes are calculated, and then identify the most important tax deductions that you might take. Then pray that you haven't missed some nuance and use a tax program early in January to check your assumptions so you're not completely surprised when April rolls around. A final suggestion: do your own taxes using a website like TurboTax. Take the time to \\\"\\\"itemize\\\"\\\" your tax deductions just to learn what is tax deductible. You can figure out how the big parts of tax law works by just looking at what you could deduct in the future.\\\"\",\n \"13 or 30, the only real difference is that as a minor, you are claimed as a dependent on your parent's return, so you don't have you own exemption. But you do have a standard deduction of $6300 when it comes to earned income. Yes, you'll pay taxes, federal, state, and tax for social security. There's nothing wrong with paying taxes. In fact, I hope you have to pay a small fortune in tax! That would mean you've made a large fortune, and after taxes, still got to keep a good chunk of it. If your income is minimal, you'll actually pay very little in taxes, not enough to even think about wanting to give away what you can sell.\",\n \"Seek professional advice as duffbeer703 has suggested already. Very important! Consider incorporating. If your income will fluctuate year to year, you can keep profit in the corporation, taxed in its hands at the Canadian small business rate, since such corporate income below $500,000 would likely qualify for the small business deduction. You could pay retained earnings to yourself as dividends over more than one year in order to lessen the personal tax burden. If you don't incorporate, all your profits in the year they are earned are taxed at personal income tax rates, and with our progressive income tax system, taking the tax hit all in one year can be expensive. However, if this project is a one-off and you're not likely to continue working like this, you might not want the overhead of a corporation. Taxes aside, there are also legal issues to consider vis-a-vis incorporating, or not. A professional can help you make this decision. Yes, you can claim deductions for reasonable business expenses, whether or not you are incorporated. No, you can't do free work on the side and claim it as donations. It's nice to volunteer, but you wouldn't get a charitable tax credit for your time, only for money or goods donated. Consider opening an RRSP so you can start saving for retirement and get a tax deduction for any contributions you make. This is but one strategy to reduce your tax. There are others. For instance, if you are a student, you perhaps have some unused tuition credits that you could claim in your first year with higher income. Oh, and seek professional advice! ;-)\",\n \"In Australia, any income you earn is taxable despite where it came from. Using your example your taxable income is $70,000. Keep in mind that with a business even as a sole trader any business expenses that contribute to the earning of your business income is deductible, reducing the final amount of tax you'll have to pay. The ATO website has lots of good information and examples to look at including tax rates. If your total income is pushing into a higher tax bracket over 30c tax per $1 earned, it may be worth looking at shifting your business to operate under a company structure that just has a fixed tax rate around 30c per $1. That said, for me, I don't want the paperwork overhead of a company yet so I'm running my side business as a sole trader too. I'd rather do that and keep it easy for now while my business gets profitable that waste time on admin structures for tax reasons even if in the shortterm it may mean slightly higher tax. In the end, you only pay tax on profit (income minus expenses) as opposed to raw/gross income. For more info there are good books in the bookshops or local library (to read free) on starting a business on the side while still working. They discuss these issues too.\",\n \"What you need to do is register as a sole trader. This will automatically register you for self assessment so you don't have to do that separately. For a simple business like you describe that's it. Completing your self assessment will take care of all your income tax and national insurance obligations (although as mentioned in your previous question there shouldn't be any NI to pay if you're only making £600 or so a year).\",\n \"\\\"After doing a little research, I was actually surprised to find many internet resources on this topic (including sites from Intuit) gave entirely incorrect information. The information that follows is quoted directly from IRS Publication 929, rules for dependents First, I will assume that you are not living on your own, and are claimed as a \\\"\\\"dependent\\\"\\\" on someone else's tax return (such as a parent or guardian). If you were an \\\"\\\"emancipated minor\\\"\\\", that would be a completely different question and I will ignore this less-common case. So, how much money can you make, as a minor who is someone else's dependent? Well, the most commonly quoted number is $6,300 - but despite this numbers popularity, this is not true. This is how much you can earn in wages from regular employment without filing your own tax return, but this does not apply to your scenario. Selling your products online as an independent game developer would generally be considered self-employment income, and according to the IRS: A dependent must also file a tax return if he or she: Had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified church-controlled organization that is exempt from employer social security and Medicare taxes, or Had net earnings from self-employment of at least $400. So, your first $400 in earnings triggers absolutely no requirement to file a tax return - blast away, and good luck! After that, you do not necessarily owe much in taxes, however you will need to file a tax return even if you owe $0, as this was self-employment income. If you had, for instance, a job at a grocery store, you could earn up to $6,300 without filing a return, because the store would be informing the IRS about your employment anyway - as well as deducting Medicare and Social Security payments, etc. How much tax will you pay as your income grows beyond $400? Based upon the IRS pages for Self-Employment Tax and Family Businesses, while you will not likely have to pay income tax until you make $6,300 in a year, you will still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes after the first $400. Roughly this should be right about 16% of your income, so if you make $6000 you'll owe just under $1000 (and be keeping the other $5000). If your income grows even more, you may want to learn about business expense deductions. This would allow you to pay for things like advertisement, software, a new computer for development purposes, etc, and deduct the expenses out of your income so you pay less in taxes. But don't worry - having such things to wonder about would mean you were raking in thousands of dollars, and that's an awfully good problem to have as a young entrepreneur! So, should you keep your games free or try to make some money? Well, first of all realize that $400 can be a lot harder to make when you are first starting in business than it probably sounds. Second, don't be afraid of making too much money! Tax filing software - even totally free versions - make filing taxes much, much easier, and at your income level you would still be keeping the vast majority of the money you earn even without taking advantage of special business deductions. I'd recommend you not be a afraid of trying to make some money! I'd bet money it will help you learn a lot about game development, business, and finances, and will be a really valuable experience for you - whether you make money or not. Having made so much money you have to pay taxes is not something to be afraid of - it's just something adults like to complain about :) Good luck on your adventures, and you can always come back and ask questions about how to file taxes, what to do with any new found wealth, etc!\\\"\",\n \"When you take the self employed health care deduction on on Line 29 of form 1040 for 2010 it also will lower your self employment tax. See line 3 of Schedule SE. You report your net earnings from self employment less line 29 from 1040.\",\n \"\\\"As ApplePie discusses, \\\"\\\"tax bracket\\\"\\\" without any modifiers refers to a single jurisdiction's marginal tax rate. In your case, this is either your California's \\\"\\\"tax bracket\\\"\\\" or your Federal \\\"\\\"tax bracket\\\"\\\" (not including marginal Social Security and Medicare taxes). But if someone says \\\"\\\"combined state and federal tax bracket\\\"\\\", they probably mean the combination of your state and federal income tax brackets (again, lot including sales taxes, business and occupational taxes, social security taxes, and medicare taxes). The math to combine the state and federal marginal tax rates is a bit tricky, because most people can deduct either their state and local income taxes, or their state and local general sales taxes when computing their income for federal income tax purposes. (The federal \\\"\\\"alternative minimum tax\\\"\\\" restricts this deduction for some people.) For a single person earning $ 100,000 of salaries and wages in California, whose state income taxes are close to their standard deduction, the calculations for the combined marginal income tax rate look something like this: As mentioned above, this understates the tax bite on marginal \\\"\\\"earned income\\\"\\\". To find the true marginal rate, we need to add in Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, sales taxes, and business & occupation taxes. The Social Security and Medicare taxes are sometimes called \\\"\\\"self employment taxes\\\"\\\". This math omits unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance, because those taxes are typically capped well below $ 100,000 per year of income. This math also omits B & O taxes, because this question is California specific. If an employer wishes to increase an employee's pay by $ 1,076.50, the first $ 76.50 will go to the employer's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes. The remaining $ 1,000.00 will be subject to the combined marginal income tax rate discussed above, plus will have $ 76.50 go to the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes. The employee might buy some extra things with some of their extra money, and pay sales tax on them. In 2016, a 9 % sales tax rate was common in California's largest cities. The IRS estimated that (for a single person with no dependents making $ 100,000 per year who did not buy a boat, RV, motor vehicle, or major home construction), about 9 % of their marginal gross income was subject to sales tax.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"AFAIK, there are two kinds of taxes your web freelancing income may be subject to in Quebec: On the income taxes: The net income you realize from your web freelancing activities would be considered taxable income. Assuming you are not operating as an incorporated business, you would need to declare the freelancing income on both your federal and provincial tax returns. You should be able to deduct certain costs related to your business – for instance, if you paid for software, hosting, domain name registration, etc. That is, only the profit from your business would be subject to income tax. With income and expenses arising from self-employment, you may want to use a professional to file your taxes. On the sales taxes: You may also need to charge federal GST and provincial QST (Quebec Sales Tax) on your services: You must enroll and charge GST and QST once you exceed the \\\"\\\"small supplier\\\"\\\" revenue threshold of $30,000 measured over four consecutive quarters. (You can still choose to enroll for GST/QST before you reach that amount, but over that amount enrollment becomes mandatory. Some businesses enroll before the threshold is reached so they can claim input tax credits for tax paid on expenses, but then there's more paperwork – one reason to perhaps avoid enrolling until necessary.) In Quebec, the Ministère du Revenu du Québec administers both GST (on behalf of the federal government) as well as provincial QST. Be sure to also check out their informative booklet, Should I Register with Revenu Quebec? (PDF). See also General Information Concerning the QST and the GST/HST (PDF).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"As a minor you certainly can pay tax, the government wants its cut from you just like everyone else :-) However you do get the personal allowance like everyone else, so you won't have to pay income tax until your net income reaches £10,800 (that's the figure for the tax year from April 2015 to April 2016, it'll probably change in future years). Once you're 16, you will also have to pay national insurance, which is basically another tax, at a lower threshold. The current rates are £2.80/week if you are making £5,965 a year or more, and also 9% on any income above £8,060 (up to £42,385). Your \\\"\\\"net income\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"profits\\\"\\\" are the income you receive minus the expenses you have to support that income. Note that the expenses must be entirely for the \\\"\\\"business\\\"\\\", they can't be for personal things. The most important thing to do immediately is to start keeping accurate records. Keep a list of the income you receive and also the expenses you pay for hardware etc. Make sure you keep receipts (perhaps just electronic ones) for the expenses so you can prove they existed later. Keep track of that net income as the year goes on and if it starts collecting at the rate you'd have to pay tax and national insurance, then make sure you also put aside enough money to pay for those when the bill comes. There's some good general advice on the Government's website here: https://www.gov.uk/working-for-yourself/what-you-need-to-do In short, as well as keeping records, you should register with the tax office, HMRC, as a \\\"\\\"sole trader\\\"\\\". This should be something that anyone can do whatever their age, but it's worth calling them up as soon as you can to check and find out if there are any other issues. They'll probably want you to send in tax returns containing the details of your income and expenses. If you're making enough money it may be worth paying an accountant to do this for you.\\\"\",\n \"You should look into an LLC. Its a fairly simple process, and the income simply flows through to your individual return. It will allow you to deduct supplies and other expenses from that income. It should also protect you if someone sues you for doing shoddy work (even if the work was fine), although you would need to consult a lawyer to be sure. For last year, it sounds like your taxes were done wrong. There are very, very few ways that you can end up adding more income and earning less after taxes. I'm tempted to say none, but our tax laws are so complex that I'm sure you can do it somehow.\",\n \"You need to clarify with Bob what your agreement is. If you and Bob are working together on these jobs as partners, you should get a written partnership agreement done by a lawyer who works with software industry entity formation. You can legally be considered a partnership if you are operating a business together, even if there is nothing in writing. The partnership will have its own tax return, and you each will be allocated 50% of the profits/losses (if that's what you agree to). This amount will be reported on your own individual 1040 as self-employment income. Since you have now lost all the expense deductions you would have taken on your Schedule C, and any home office deduction, it's a good idea to put language in the partnership agreement stating that the partnership will reimburse partners for their out-of-pocket expenses. If Bob is just hiring you as a contractor, you give him your SSN, and he issues you a 1099, like any other client. This should be a situation where you invoice him for the amount you are charging. Same thing with Joe - figure out if you're hiring him as an independent contractor, or if you have a partnership. Either way, you will owe income and self-employment tax on your profits. In the case of a partnership, the amount will be on the K-1 from the partnership return. For an independent contractor who's operating as a sole proprietor, you report the income you invoiced for and received, and deduct your expenses, including independent contractors that you hired, on your Schedule C. Talk to your tax guy about quarterly estimated payments. If you don't have a tax guy, go get one. Find somebody people in your city working in your industry recommend. A good tax person will save you more money than they cost. IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.\",\n \"Don't overthink it. As an employee, whether of your own corporation or of someone else, you get a salary and there are deductions taken out. As the owner of a business you get (hopefully) business profits as well. And, in general, you often have other sources of income from investments, etc. Your estimated tax payments are based on the difference between what was withheld from your salary and what you will owe, based on salary, business income, and other sources. So, in essence, you just add up all the income you expect, estimate what the tax bill will be, and subtract what's been withheld. That's your estimated tax payment.\",\n \"\\\"Many individual states, counties, and cities have their own income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc., you will need to consult your state and local government websites for information about additional taxes that apply based on your locale. Wages, Salaries, Tips, Cash bonuses and other taxable employee pay, Strike benefits, Long-term disability, Earnings from self employment Earned income is subject to payroll taxes such as: Earned income is also subject to income taxes which are progressively higher depending on the amount earned minus tax credits, exemptions, and/or deductions depending on how you file. There are 7 tax rates that get progressively larger as your income rises but only applies to the income in each bracket. 10% for the first 18,650 (2017) through 39.6% for any income above 470,700. The full list of rates is in the above linked article about payroll taxes. Earned income is required for contributions to an IRA. You cannot contribute more to an IRA than you have earned in a given year. Interest, Ordinary Dividends, Short-term Capital Gains, Retirement income (pensions, distributions from tax deferred accounts, social security), Unemployment benefits, Worker's Compensation, Alimony/Child support, Income earned while in prison, Non-taxable military pay, most rental income, and S-Corp passthrough income Ordinary income is taxed the same as earned income with the exception that social security taxes do not apply. This is the \\\"\\\"pure taxable income\\\"\\\" referred to in the other linked question. Dividends paid by US Corporations and qualified foreign corporations to stock-holders (that are held for a certain period of time before the dividend is paid) are taxed at the Long-term Capital Gains rate explained below. Ordinary dividends like the interest earned in your bank account are included with ordinary income. Stocks, Bonds, Real estate, Carried interest -- Held for more than a year Income from assets that increase in value while being held for over a year. Long term capital gains justified by the idea that they encourage people to hold stock and make long term investments rather than buying and then quickly reselling for a short-term profit. The lower tax rates also reflect the fact that many of these assets are already taxed as they are appreciating in value. Real-estate is usually taxed through local property taxes. Equity in US corporations realized by rising stock prices and dividends that are returned to stock holders reflect earnings from a corporation that are already taxed at the 35% Corporate tax rate. Taxing Capital gains as ordinary income would be a second tax on those same profits. Another problem with Long-term capital gains tax is that a big portion of the gains for assets held for multiple decades are not real gains. Inflation increases the price of assets held for longer periods, but you are still taxed on the full gain even if it would be a loss when inflation is calculated. Capital gains are also taxed differently depending on your income level. If you are in the 10% or 15% brackets then Long-term capital gains are assessed at 0%. If you are in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% brackets, they are assessed at 15%. Only those in the 39.6% bracket pay 20%. Capital assets sold at a profit held for less than a year Income from buying and selling any assets such as real-estate, stock, bonds, etc., that you hold for less than a year before selling. After adding up all gains and losses during the year, the net gain is taxed as ordinary income. Collectibles held for more than a year are not considered capital assets and are still taxed at ordinary income rates.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Whether you're self-employed or not, knowing exactly how much tax you will pay is not always an easy task. Various actions you can take (e.g., charitable donations, IRA contributions, selling stocks) may increase or reduce your tax liability. One tool I've found useful for estimating federal taxes is the Excel 1040 spreadsheet. This is a spreadsheet version of the income tax return form. It is not official and is not created by the IRS, but is maintained as a labor of love by a private individual. In practice, however, it is pretty much an accurate implementation of the tax calculation algorithms encoded in the tax forms and instructions. The nice thing about it is that it's a spreadsheet. You can plug numbers into various slots in the spreadsheet and see how they affect your federal tax liability. (You may also owe state taxes depending on what state you live in.) Of course, the estimates you get by doing this are only (at most) as accurate as your estimates of the various numbers you plug in. Still, I think it's a free and useful way to get a ballpark estimate of your tax liability based on numbers that you can more easily estimate (e.g., how much money you expect to earn).","The amount of the income taxes you will owe depends upon how much income you have, after valid business expenses, also it will depend upon your filing status as well as the ownership form of your business and what state you live in. That said, you will need to be sure to make the Federal 1040ES quarterly prepayments of your tax on time or there will be penalties. You also must remember that you will be needing to file a schedule SE with your 1040. That is for the social security taxes you owe, which is in addition to your income taxes. With an employer/employee situation, the FICA withhoding you have seen on your paycheck are matched by the same payment by your employer. Now that you are self-employed you are responcible for your share and the employer share as well; in this situation it is known as self-employment tax. the amount of it will be the same as your share of FICA and half of the employer's share of FICA taxes. If you are married and your wife also is working self-employed, then she will have to files herown schedule SE along with yours. meaning that you will pay based on your business income and she will pay baed on hers. your 1040Es quarterly prepayment must cover your income tax and your combined (yours and hers) Self Employment taxes. Many people will debate on the final results of the results of schedule SE vrs an employee's and an employer's payments combined. If one were to provides a ball park percentage that would likely apply to you final total addition to your tax libility as a result of needing schedule SE would tend to fluctuate depending upon your total tax situation; many would debate it. It has been this way since, I first studied and use this schedule decades ago. For this reason it is best for you to review these PDF documents, Form 1040 Schedule SE Instructions and Form 1040 Schedule SE. As for your state income taxes, it will depend on the laws of the state you are based in."],"string":"[\n \"Whether you're self-employed or not, knowing exactly how much tax you will pay is not always an easy task. Various actions you can take (e.g., charitable donations, IRA contributions, selling stocks) may increase or reduce your tax liability. One tool I've found useful for estimating federal taxes is the Excel 1040 spreadsheet. This is a spreadsheet version of the income tax return form. It is not official and is not created by the IRS, but is maintained as a labor of love by a private individual. In practice, however, it is pretty much an accurate implementation of the tax calculation algorithms encoded in the tax forms and instructions. The nice thing about it is that it's a spreadsheet. You can plug numbers into various slots in the spreadsheet and see how they affect your federal tax liability. (You may also owe state taxes depending on what state you live in.) Of course, the estimates you get by doing this are only (at most) as accurate as your estimates of the various numbers you plug in. Still, I think it's a free and useful way to get a ballpark estimate of your tax liability based on numbers that you can more easily estimate (e.g., how much money you expect to earn).\",\n \"The amount of the income taxes you will owe depends upon how much income you have, after valid business expenses, also it will depend upon your filing status as well as the ownership form of your business and what state you live in. That said, you will need to be sure to make the Federal 1040ES quarterly prepayments of your tax on time or there will be penalties. You also must remember that you will be needing to file a schedule SE with your 1040. That is for the social security taxes you owe, which is in addition to your income taxes. With an employer/employee situation, the FICA withhoding you have seen on your paycheck are matched by the same payment by your employer. Now that you are self-employed you are responcible for your share and the employer share as well; in this situation it is known as self-employment tax. the amount of it will be the same as your share of FICA and half of the employer's share of FICA taxes. If you are married and your wife also is working self-employed, then she will have to files herown schedule SE along with yours. meaning that you will pay based on your business income and she will pay baed on hers. your 1040Es quarterly prepayment must cover your income tax and your combined (yours and hers) Self Employment taxes. Many people will debate on the final results of the results of schedule SE vrs an employee's and an employer's payments combined. If one were to provides a ball park percentage that would likely apply to you final total addition to your tax libility as a result of needing schedule SE would tend to fluctuate depending upon your total tax situation; many would debate it. It has been this way since, I first studied and use this schedule decades ago. For this reason it is best for you to review these PDF documents, Form 1040 Schedule SE Instructions and Form 1040 Schedule SE. As for your state income taxes, it will depend on the laws of the state you are based in.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":173,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"2590"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Are non-residents or foreigners permitted to buy or own shares of UK companies?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["296528","209493","589625"],"string":"[\n \"296528\",\n \"209493\",\n \"589625\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["296528","589625","209493","392313","566028","30996","326559","51777","48269","35191","57841","94477","569257","347560","73457","478736","540986","451729","528880","458635","288145","281423","562007","231814","197478","9158","112393","551809","546237","55999","123047","536483","143264","529001","504612","263312","552138","253847","354116","12268","310103","390972","480638","508184","288977","57646","255519","308048","551627","105717","94336","447303","262485","271333","415954","370212","522907","411799","107215","298985","410543","286296","268022","567653","72846","458730","158923","85926","92462","334849","528358","478147","531180","206313","534391","5347","328699","459953","535340","177114","211428","168642","168841","277500","177050","481488","468148","202148","294359","82283","322771","123030","75762","495417","33159","245753","182374","265948","433023","488920"],"string":"[\n \"296528\",\n \"589625\",\n \"209493\",\n \"392313\",\n \"566028\",\n \"30996\",\n \"326559\",\n \"51777\",\n \"48269\",\n \"35191\",\n \"57841\",\n \"94477\",\n \"569257\",\n \"347560\",\n \"73457\",\n \"478736\",\n \"540986\",\n \"451729\",\n \"528880\",\n \"458635\",\n \"288145\",\n \"281423\",\n \"562007\",\n \"231814\",\n \"197478\",\n \"9158\",\n \"112393\",\n \"551809\",\n \"546237\",\n \"55999\",\n \"123047\",\n \"536483\",\n \"143264\",\n \"529001\",\n \"504612\",\n \"263312\",\n \"552138\",\n \"253847\",\n \"354116\",\n \"12268\",\n \"310103\",\n \"390972\",\n \"480638\",\n \"508184\",\n \"288977\",\n \"57646\",\n \"255519\",\n \"308048\",\n \"551627\",\n \"105717\",\n \"94336\",\n \"447303\",\n \"262485\",\n \"271333\",\n \"415954\",\n \"370212\",\n \"522907\",\n \"411799\",\n \"107215\",\n \"298985\",\n \"410543\",\n \"286296\",\n \"268022\",\n \"567653\",\n \"72846\",\n \"458730\",\n \"158923\",\n \"85926\",\n \"92462\",\n \"334849\",\n \"528358\",\n \"478147\",\n \"531180\",\n \"206313\",\n \"534391\",\n \"5347\",\n \"328699\",\n \"459953\",\n \"535340\",\n \"177114\",\n \"211428\",\n \"168642\",\n \"168841\",\n \"277500\",\n \"177050\",\n \"481488\",\n \"468148\",\n \"202148\",\n \"294359\",\n \"82283\",\n \"322771\",\n \"123030\",\n \"75762\",\n \"495417\",\n \"33159\",\n \"245753\",\n \"182374\",\n \"265948\",\n \"433023\",\n \"488920\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Yes it is legal, in fact according to statistics.gov.uk, foreign investors are the largest holders of UK shares (as of 2008). Investors from outside the UK owned 41.5 per cent of shares listed on the London Stock Exchange at the end of 2008, up from 40.0 per cent at end of 2006, according to the latest Office for National Statistics report on share ownership.","Yes, However if you live in the USA a lot of companies will refuse to sent you any report and will not let you take part in “right issues” as they don’t wish to come under USA investment law.","\"It's easy to own many of the larger UK stocks. Companies like British Petroleum, Glaxo, and Royal Dutch Shell, list what they call ADRs (American Depositary Receipts) on the U.S. stock exchanges. That is, they will deposit local shares with Bank of NY Mellon, JP Morgan Chase, or Citicorp (the three banks that do this type of business), and the banks will turn around and issue ADRs equivalent to the number of shares on deposit. This is not true with \"\"small cap\"\" companies. In those cases, a broker like Schwab may occasionally help you, usually not. But you might have difficulty trading U.S. small cap companies as well.\"","non-resident aliens to the US do not pay capital gains on US products. You pay tax in your home country if you have done a taxable event in your country. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/nonusresidenttax.asp#axzz1mQDut9Ru but if you hold dividends, you are subject to US dividend tax. The UK-US treaty should touch on that though.","As other people have said they should register with a broker in the country they reside in that can deal in US stocks, then fill out a W8-BEN form. I have personally done this as I am from the Uk, it's not a very complicated process. I would assume that most US brokers don't allow foreign customers due to the person having to pay tax where they reside and the US brokers don't want to have to keep approximately 200 different tax codes in track.","There are no legal restrictions on doing this. If you're living in the UK, just open an account like any other resident of the UK would.","The link provided by DumbCoder (below) is only relevant to UK resident investors and does not apply if you live in Malaysia. I noticed that in a much older question you asked a similar question about taxes on US stocks, so I'll try and answer both situations here. The answer is almost the same for any country you decide to invest in. As a foreign investor, the country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The rate of DWT that will be withheld is unique to each country. The UK does not have any withholding tax so you will always receive the full dividend on UK stocks. The withholding tax rate for the US is 30%. Other countries vary. For most countries that do charge a withholding tax, it is possible to have this reduced to 15% if there is a double taxation treaty in place between the two countries and all of the following are true: Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).","The UK has historically aggressive financial law, inherited from Dutch friendship, influence, and acquisitions by conquest. The law is so open that nearly anyone can invest through the UK without much difficulty, and citizens have nearly no restrictions on where to invest. A UK citizen can either open an account in the US with paperwork hassles or at home with access to all world markets and less paperwork. Here is the UK version of my broker, Interactive Brokers. Their costs are the lowest, but you will be charged a minimum fee if you do not trade enough, and their minimum opening balance can be prohibitively high for some. If you do buy US products, be sure to file your W-8BEN.","\"Yes and no. There are two primary ways to do this. The first is known as \"\"cross listing\"\". Basically, this means that shares are listed in the home country are the primary shares, but are also traded on secondary markets using mechanisms like ADRs or Globally Registered Shares. Examples of this method include Vodafone and Research in Motion. The second is \"\"dual listing\"\". This is when two corporations that function as a single business are listed in multiple places. Examples of this include Royal Dutch Shell and Unilever. Usually companies choose this method for tax purposes when they merge or acquire an international company. Generally speaking, you can safely buy shares in whichever market makes sense to you.\"","First thing to consider is that getting your hands on an IPO is very difficult unless you have some serious clout. This might help a bit in that department (http://www.sec.gov/answers/ipoelig.htm) However, assuming you accept all that risk and requirements, YES - you can buy stocks of any kind in the US even if you are a foreigner. There are no laws prohibiting investment/buying in the US stock market. What you need is to get an online trading account from a registered brokerage house in the US. Once you are registered, you can buy whatever that is offered.","I'm in the US as well, but some basic things are still the same. You need to trade through a broker, but the need for a full service broker is no longer necessary. You may be able to get by with a web based brokerage that charges less fees. If you are nervous, look for a big name, and avoid a fly by night company. Stick with non-exotic investments. don't do options, or futures or Forex. You may even want to skip shares all together and see if UK offers something akin to an index fund which tracks broad markets (like the whole of the FTSE 100 or the S&P 500) as a whole.","Usually, you can buy ETFs through brokerages. I looked at London to see if there's any familiar brokerage names, and it appears that the address below is to Fidelity Investments Worldwide and their site indicates that you can buy securities. Any brokerage, in theory, should allow you to invest in securities. You could always call and ask if they allow you to invest in ETFs. Some brokerages may also allow you to purchase securities in other countries; for instance, some of the firms in the U.S. allow investors to invest in the ETF HK:2801, which is not a U.S. ETF. Many countries have ETF securities available to local and foreign investors. This site appears to help point people to brokers in London. Also, see this answer on this site (a UK investor who's invested in the U.S. through Barclays).","You can open an account with HSBC and use InvestDirect - their online share trading service - to trade LSE-traded shares. https://investments.hsbc.co.uk/product/9/sharedealing","You can invest upto $200K per year abroad, and yes, you can buy Google as a stock. Consider opening an international account with a broker like interactive brokers (www.interactivebrokers.co.in) which allows you to fund the account from your local Indian account, and then on, buy shares of companies listed abroad.","\"For non Australian residents: Dividends withholding tax rate is 30%. Depending upon your country of residence where there is a tax treaty in place to avoid double taxation, then this can be reduced. Note that only dividends that are unfranked are subject to this (in Australia, if tax has already been paid by the company then they can distribute dividends as \"\"franked\"\" dividends\"\"). For example, if you owned shares in Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), their most recent dividend from Feb 2015 (Paid 2 April 2015) was $1.98 fully franked. No withholding tax is applicable. There is no capital gains tax for non-residents on share transactions. There are other \"\"tax events\"\" that related to large shareholdings in a company (>10%) with property holdings but I'm guessing that is not an issue. https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Tax-return/2014/In-detail/Publications/You-and-your-shares-2013-14/?page=14 https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/International-tax-for-business/Previous-years/Capital-gains-and-foreign-residents/ https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/International-tax-for-business/Previous-years/Capital-gains-and-foreign-residents/?page=13#Foreign_residents_holding_interests_in_Australian_fixed_trusts https://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/services/Tax/regional-tax-centers/asia-pacific-tax-centre/Documents/CountryProfiles/Australia.pdf\"","There are some brokers in the US who would be happy to open an account for non-US residents, allowing you to trade stocks at NYSE and other US Exchanges. Some of them, along with some facts: DriveWealth Has support in Portuguese Website TD Ameritrade Has support in Portuguese Website Interactive Brokers Account opening is not that straightforward Website","Absolutely. It does highly depend on your country, as US brokerages are stricter with or even closed to residents of countries that produce drugs, launder money, finance terror, have traditional difficulty with the US, etc. It also depends on your country's laws. Some countries have currency controls, restrictions on buying foreign/US securities, etc. That said, some brokerages have offices world-wide, so there might be one near you. If your legal situation as described above is fortunate, some brokers will simply allow you to setup online using a procedure not too different from US residents: provide identification, sign tons of documents. You'll have to have a method to deliver your documentation in the ways you'd expect: mail, fax, email. E*Trade is the best starter broker, right now, imo. Just see how far you can go in the sign-up process.","Open an account with a US discount online broker, or with a European broker with access to the US market. I think ETRADE allow non-resident accounts, for instance, amongst others. The brokerage will be about $10, and there is no annual fee. (So you're ~1% down out of the gate, but that's not so much.) Brokers may have a minimum transaction value but very few exchanges care about the number of shares anymore, and there is no per-share fee. As lecrank notes, putting all your savings into a single company is not prudent, but having a flutter with fun money on Apple is harmless. Paul is correct that dividend cheques may be a slight problem for non-residents. Apple don't pay dividends so there's no problem in this specific case. More generally your broker will give you a cash account into which the dividends can go. You may have to deal with US tax which is more of an annoyance than a cost.","Here're some findings upon researches: Two main things to watch out for: Estate tax and the 30% tax withholding. These 2 could be get around by investing in Luxembourg or Ireland domiciled ETF. For instance there's no tax withholding on Ireland domiciled ETF dividend, and the estate tax is not as high. (source: BogleHead forums) Some Vanguard ETF offered in UK stock market: https://www.vanguard.co.uk/uk/mvc/investments/etf#docstab. Do note that the returns of S&P 500 ETF (VUSA) are adjusted after the 30% tax withholding! Due to VUSA's higher TER (0.09%), VOO should remain a superior choice. The FTSE Emerging Markets and All-World ETFs though, are better than their US-counterparts, for non-US residents. Non-US residents are able to claim back partials of the withhold tax, by filing the US tax form 1040NR. In 2013, non-US resident can claim back at least $3,900. Kindly correct me if anything is inaccurate.","\"This page from the CRA website details the types of investments you can hold in a TFSA. You can hold individual shares, including ETFs, traded on any \"\"designated stock exchange\"\" in addition to the other types of investment you have listed. Here is a list of designated stock exchanges provided by the Department of Finance. As you can see, it includes pretty well every major stock exchange in the developed world. If your bank's TFSA only offers \"\"mutual funds, GICs and saving deposits\"\" then you need to open a TFSA with a different bank or a stock broking company with an execution only service that offers TFSA accounts. Almost all of the big banks will do this. I use Scotia iTrade, HSBC Invest Direct, and TD, though my TFSA's are all with HSBC currently. You will simply provide them with details of your bank account in order to facilitate money transfers/TFSA contributions. Since purchasing foreign shares involves changing your Canadian dollars into a foreign currency, one thing to watch out for when purchasing foreign shares is the potential for high foreign exchange spreads. They can be excessive in proportion to the investment being made. My experience is that HSBC offers by far the best spreads on FX, but you need to exchange a minimum of $10,000 in order to obtain a decent spread (typically between 0.25% and 0.5%). You may also wish to note that you can buy unhedged ETFs for the US and European markets on the Toronto exchange. This means you are paying next to nothing on the spread, though you obviously are still carrying the currency risk. For example, an unhedged S&P500 trades under the code ZSP (BMO unhedged) or XUS (iShares unhedged). In addition, it is important to consider that commissions for trades on foreign markets may be much higher than those on a Canadian exchange. This is not always the case. HSBC charge me a flat rate of $6.88 for both Toronto and New York trades, but for London they would charge up to 0.5% depending on the size of the trade. Some foreign exchanges carry additional trading costs. For example, London has a 0.5% stamp duty on purchases. EDIT One final thing worth mentioning is that, in my experience, holding US securities means that you will be required to register with the US tax authorities and with those US exchanges upon which you are trading. This just means fill out a number of different forms which will be provided by your stock broker. Exchange registrations can be done electronically, however US tax authority registration must be submitted in writing. Dividends you receive will be net of US withholding taxes. I am not aware of any capital gains reporting requirements to US authorities.\"","*Disclaimer: I am a tax accountant , but I am not your professional accountant or advocate (unless you have been in my office and signed a contract). This communication is not intended as tax advice, and no tax accountant / client relationship results. *Please consult your own tax accountant for tax advise.** A foreign citizen may form a limited liability company. In contrast, all profit distributions (called dividends) made by a C corporation are subject to double taxation. (Under US tax law, a nonresident alien may own shares in a C corporation, but may not own any shares in an S corporation.) For this reason, many foreign citizens form a limited liability company (LLC) instead of a C corporation A foreign citizen may be a corporate officer and/or director, but may not work/take part in any business decisions in the United States or receive a salary or compensation for services provided in the United States unless the foreign citizen has a work permit (either a green card or a special visa) issued by the United States. Basically, you should be looking at benefiting only from dividends/pass-through income but not salaries or compensations.","\"Take a look at FolioFN - they let you buy small numbers of shares and fractional shares too. There is an annual fee on the order of US$100/year. You can trade with no fees at two \"\"windows\"\" per day, or at any time for a $15 fee. You are better off leaving the stock in broker's name, especially if you live overseas. Otherwise you will receive your dividends in the form of cheques that might be expensive to try to cash. There is also usually a fee charged by the broker to obtain share certificates instead of shares in your account.\"","Transfers of money to the UK for any purpose are not generally taxed, so you can just transfer it here and invest. Once the money is here, you'll be taxed on the business activity like anyone else - the company will have to pay corporation tax, and depending on your own residency you might have to pay income tax on any distributions from the company.","It looks like your best option is to go with an online broker. There are many available. Some of them won't let you open an account online as a foreign national but will allow you to open one through the mail. See more about that http://finance.zacks.com/can-nonus-citizen-trade-us-stocks-9654.html Also keep in mind that you will need to pay taxes on any capital gains made through selling http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p519.pdf","If you are a US citizen, you need to very carefully research the US tax implications of investing in foreign stocks before you do so. The US tax rules have been set up in general to make this very unattractive.","I believe that tax will be withheld (at 30%?) on dividends paid to non-residents. You can claim it back if your country has a tax treaty with the USA, but you will need to file. You probably also need to file a W-series withholding form (eg a W9-BEN). Interesting question. I would like to hear a more definitive answer.","Most UK stock brokers don't require or allow margin trading. A quick web search for 'UK share dealing comparison' shows entries from money.co.uk and moneysupermarket.com who both provide lists of different brokers, e.g. Barclays, Hargraves Lansdown, IG Share Dealing, The Share Centre, TD Direct, Interactive Investor, YouInvest, etc. Some of the UK banks also provide a share dealing service, from quickly looking at their websites, Barclays, HSBC and Halifax all appear to provide share dealing services.","Any large stockbroker will offer trading in US securities. As a foreign national you will be required to register with the US tax authorities (IRS) by completing and filing a W-8BEN form and pay US withholding taxes on any dividend income you receive. US dividends are paid net of withholding taxes, so you do not need to file a US tax return. Capital gains are not subject to US taxes. Also, each year you are holding US securities, you will receive a form from the IRS which you are required to complete and return. You will also be required to complete and file forms for each of the exchanges you wish to received market price data from. Trading will be restricted to US trading hours, which I believe is 6 hours ahead of Denmark for the New York markets. You will simply submit an order to the desired market using your broker's online trading software or your broker's telephone dealing service. You can expect to pay significantly higher commissions for trading US securities when compared to domestic securities. You will also face potentially large foreign exchange fees when exchaning your funds from EUR to USD. All in all, you will probably be better off using your local market to trade US index or sector ETFs.","\"A lot of ISA's allow both shares and funds as well as gilts, Hargreaves Lansdown comes to mind as does the Alliance Trust. Some penalise (charging wise) securities vs UT (unit trusts) funds but in that case just go for a low cost IT (Investment Trust) ISA and hold individual shares as well as pooled investments in the Big IT's. I think you might have to be an \"\"approved investor\"\" to buy gilts.\"","In the UK, this is the very definition of a Public Limited Company. A Limited Company can restrict how its stock is trades and who can buy and sell and when, a Public Limited Company cannot. Most stock exchanges will only allow Public Limited Company stock to be traded. Therefore a company can control who its stock holders are or be traded on a Stock Exchange.","I would not expect any problems. Your interest will have tax deducted at 20% which I don't think you would be entitled to reclaim because you don't get a personal allowance if you aren't resident in the UK, and unless you have a huge amount of UK earnings you would not be legally liable to any higher rates of tax so there would be no issues there. If you were liable to more tax you would be obliged to inform the Inland Revenue.","Normal high street accounts certainly are available to non-residents. I have several, and I haven't been resident in the UK for fourteen years. However you do need to open them before you leave. They need identification. Once you have one open, the same bank should be able to open other accounts by mail. The disadvantage of course is that you will pay tax on your earnings, and while you can claim it back that's an unnecessary piece of work if you don't have other UK earnings. I would take the risk of an offshore account, assuming it's with a big reputable bank - the kind that are going to be bailed out if there is another collapse. An alternative might be a fixed term deposit. You lock up your money for three years, and you get it back plus a single interest payment at the end of three years. You would pay nothing in tax while you were gone, but the whole interest amount would be taxable when you got back.","You don't need a visa to invest in US equity. You don't need a visa to profit from US equity. There may be other legal considerations, but they aren't visa related, hope that helps","It doesn't matter which exchange a share was purchased through (or if it was even purchased on an exchange at all--physical share certificates can be bought and sold outside of any exchange). A share is a share, and any share available for purchase in New York is available to be purchased in London. Buying all of a company's stock is not something that can generally be done through the stock market. The practical way to accomplish buying a company out is to purchase a controlling interest, or enough shares to have enough votes to bind the board to a specific course of action. Then vote to sell all outstanding shares to another company at a particular fixed price per share. Market capitalization is an inaccurate measure of the size of a company in the first place, but if you want to quantify it, you can take the number of outstanding shares (anywhere and everywhere) and multiply them by the price on any of the exchanges that sell it. That will give you the market capitalization in the currency that is used by whatever exchange you chose.","You can apply for Foreign currency accounts. But they aren't saving accounts by any means, but more like current accounts. Taking money out will involve charges. You have to visit the bank website to figure out what all operations can be performed on your account. Barclays and HSBC allow accounts in foreign currency. Other banks also will be providing the same services. Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person Depends on country by country. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Get yourself a trading account and invest in foreign markets i.e. equities, bonds etc. But all in all be ready for the foreign exchange risks involved in denominating assets in multiple currencies.","\"The shares are \"\"imputed income\"\" / payment in kind. You worked in the UK, but are you a \"\"US Person\"\"? If not, you should go back to payroll with this query as this income is taxable in the UK. It is important you find out on what basis they were issued. The company will have answers. Where they aquired at a discount to fair market value ? Where they purchased with a salary deduction as part of a scheme ? Where they acquired by conversion of employee stock options ? If you sell the shares, or are paid dividends, then there will be tax withheld.\"","\"The country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The US withholding tax rate on dividends is 30%, although this can be reduced to 15% if there as a tax treaty in place between the US and your country of residence. Malaysia does have a double taxation agreement with the US (see here: http://www.mida.gov.my/env3/index.php?page=double-taxation-agreement) but it is flagged as a \"\"limited\"\" agreement. You'd need to find the full text of the agreement to see whether a reduced rate of dividend withholding tax would be available in the Malaysia/US treaty. See my other answer for more details on withholding taxes and how to partially reclaim under a double tax treaty: What is the dividend tax rate for UK stock Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).\"","While most all Canadian brokers allow us access to all the US stocks, the reverse is not true. But some US brokers DO allow trading on foreign exchanges. (e.g. Interactive Brokers at which I have an account). You have to look and be prepared to switch brokers. Americans cannot use Canadian brokers (and vice versa). Trading of shares happens where-ever two people get together - hence the pink sheets. These work well for Americans who want to buy-sell foreign stocks using USD without the hassle of FX conversions. You get the same economic exposure as if the actual stock were bought. But the exchanges are barely policed, and liquidity can dry up, and FX moves are not necessarily arbitraged away by 'the market'. You don't have the same safety as ADRs because there is no bank holding any stash of 'actual' stocks to backstop those traded on the pink sheets.","This article might help: https://www.law360.com/articles/733853/good-news-for-foreign-investors-in-us-defense-industry It appears it's the responsibility of the defence contractor to prove it's not under foreign influence or control if they want to keep their security clearance, the loss of which would likely put them out of business as a defence contractor. So if I understand correctly, there's nothing (aside from money) stopping me, a foreigner, from owning a huge chunk of a US defence contractor. They just won't listen if I try to tell them what to do. If I try and force them to do what I say, the US Department of Defence will get angry and I'll lose all the money I invested.","As a permanent resident in the U.S. but not a citizen, I was told by a representative at Scottrade that I am not allowed to open a brokerage account.","\"It's generally not possible to open a business account in the UK remotely. It's even difficult (near impossible) for a non-resident (even if a citizen) to open a business or personal bank account while visiting the UK. A recent report says that it may be possible to open an account via Barclays Offshore in the Isle of Man. This requires a large deposit, and probably lots of paperwork and fees (most offshore locations have stricter \"\"know your customer\"\" rules than major countries). Note that while the Isle of Man is inside the UK banking system (for sort codes, account numbers), it is a separate territory that doesn't have the same deposit guarantees as the UK. There is no legal reason why a UK company has to bank within the UK banking system, although many companies paying the company would expect it or require it, and an account in anything other than sterling would complicate the accounts. It could have an account in your home country. It's not even a legal requirement that the company has an account in its own name at all. Some people use a (separate) personal account for this purpose. There are plenty of reasons why this is a bad idea (for example it's unclear who/what owns the money in the account, and can give the appearance of director's loans), but it's a work-around. Most inbound electronic payments only require a sort code and account number, the account owner name is not checked. The UK does have a much simpler and cheaper company registry than most European countries, but the near-impossibility of opening a bank account for a business in the UK as a non-resident has made it an unsuitable place to register a small international company.\"","\"Shares are for investors. Most of the rich are investors. Unfortunately, the reverse is not true. But if you want to get rich, the first step is to become an investor. (The second is to become a SUCCESSFUL investor. 50 pounds might be too little. Try to start with at least 500 at a time. You can ADD amounts of 50 pounds. There are definitely fees involved. You will \"\"pay for lessons.\"\" But it will be worth it, if you become even a moderately successful investor. As for rules, they'll teach you the rules. Everyone wants your business. People have gotten (modestly) rich, buying shares here and there. One man told me of investing $600 in a company called Limited, and ending up with $12,000 some years later. BRIC is not a \"\"share.\"\" It is an acronym for four countries \"\"of the future.\"\" High risk, high reward here.\"","Other than the possibility of minimal entry price being prohibitively high, there's no reason why you couldn't participate in any global trading whatsoever. Most ETFs, and indeed, stockbrokers allows both accounts opening, and trading via the Internet, without regard to physical location. With that said, I'd strongly advice you to do a proper research, and reality check both on your risk/reward profile, and on the vehicles to invest in. As Fools write, money you'll need in the next 6 months have no place on the stockmarket. Be prepared, that you can indeed loose all of your investment, regardless of the chosen vehicle.","Here's a different take: Look through the lists of companies that offer shareholder perks. Here's one from Hargreaves Lansdown. See if you can find one that you already spend money with with a low required shareholding where the perks would actually be usable. Note that in your case, being curious about the whole thing and based in London, you don't have to rule out the AGM-based perks, unlike me. My reason for this is simple: with 3 out of 4 of the companies we bought shares in directly (all for the perks), we've made several times the dividend in savings on money we would have spent anyway (either with the company in which we bought shares or a direct competitor). This means that you can actually make back the purchase price plus dealing fee quite quickly (probably in 2/4 in our case), and you still have the shares. We've found that pub/restaurant/hotel brands work well if you use them or their equivalents anyway. Caveats: It's more enjoyable than holding a handful of shares in a company you don't care about, and if you want to read the annual reports you can relate this to your own experience, which might interest you given your obvious curiosity.","Depending on your broker, you can buy these stocks directly at the most liquid local exchanges. For instance, if you are US resident and want to to buy German stocks (like RWE) you can trade these stocks over InteractiveBrokers (or other direct brokers in the US). They offer direct access to German Xetra and other local markets.","You can't actually transfer shares directly unless they were obtained as part of an employee share scheme - see the answers to questions 19 and 20 on this page: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/isa/faqs.htm#19 Q. Can I put shares from my employee share scheme into my ISA? A. You can transfer any shares you get from into a stocks and shares component of an ISA without having to pay Capital Gains Tax - provided your ISA manager agrees to take them. The value of the shares at the date of transfer counts towards the annual limit. This means you can transfer up to £11,520 worth of shares in the tax year 2013-14 (assuming that you make no other subscriptions to ISAs, in those years). You must transfer the shares within 90 days from the day they cease to be subject to the Plan, or (for approved SAYE share option schemes) 90 days of the exercise of option date. Your employer should be able to tell you more. Q. Can I put windfall or inherited shares in my ISA? A. No. You can only transfer shares you own into an ISA if they have come from an employee share scheme. Otherwise, the ISA manager must purchase shares on the open market. The situation is the same if you have shares that you have inherited. You are not able to transfer them into an ISA.","There's no limitation on what you can invest in, including trading stocks (as long as trading is not a business activity, like day-trading or investing for others). You just need to make sure you have a tax ID (either ITIN or SSN) and pay taxes on all the gains and dividends. Also, consider your home country tax laws, since you're still tax resident in your home country (most likely).","It is absolutely legal. While studying on a F-1 you would typically be considered a non-resident alien for tax purposes. You can trade stocks, just like any other foreigner having an account with a US- or non-US based brokerage firm. Make sure to account for profit made on dividends/capital gain when doing your US taxes. A software package provided by your university for doing taxes might not be adequate for this.","I think I have a better answer for this since I have been an investor in the stock markets since a decade and most of my money is either made through investing or trading the financial markets. Yes you can start investing with as low as 50 GBP or even less. If you are talking about stocks there is no restriction on the amount of shares you can purchase the price of which can be as low as a penny. I stared investing in stocks when I was 18. With the money saved from my pocket money which was not much. But I made investments on a regular period no matter how less I could but I would make regular investments on a long term. Remember one thing, never trade stock markets always invest in it on a long term. The stock markets will give you the best return on a long term as shown on the graph below and will also save you money on commission the broker charge on every transaction. The brokers to make money for themselves will ask you to trade stocks on short term but stock market were always made to invest on a long term as Warren Buffet rightly says. And if you want to trade try commodities or forex. Forex brokers will offer you accounts with as low as 25 USD with no commissions. The commission here are all inclusive in spreads. Is this true? Can the average Joe become involved? Yes anyone who wants has an interest in the financial markets can get involved. Knowledge is the key not money. Is it worth investing £50 here and there? Or is that a laughable idea? 50 GBP is a lot. I started with a few Indian Rupees. If people laugh let them laugh. Only morons who don't understand the true concept of financial markets laugh. There are fees/rules involved, is it worth the effort if you just want to see? The problem with today's generation of people is that they fear a lot. Unless you crawl you dont walk. Unless you try something you dont learn. The only difference between a successful person and a not successful person is his ability to try, fail/fall, get back on feet, again try untill he succeeds. I know its not instant money, but I'd like to get a few shares here and there, to follow the news and see how companies do. I hear that BRIC (brasil, russia, india and china) is a good share to invest in Brazil India the good thing is share prices are relatively low even the commissions. Mostly ROI (return on investment) on a long term would almost be the same. Can anyone share their experiences? (maybe best for community wiki?) Always up for sharing. Please ask questions no matter how stupid they are. I love people who ask for when I started I asked and people were generous enough to answer and so would I be.","Yes, http://shares.telegraph.co.uk/stockscreener/ has what you're looking for.","\"listed simultaneously in New York, London, and maybe even some Asian markets - is this correct? If the exchanges are not connected, then in primary market the shares are listed. On other exchanges, the \"\"Depository Receipts\"\" are listed. i.e. the Company will keep say 100,000 shares with the primary stock exchange / depository. Based on this it would create new instruments \"\"Depository Receipts\"\". They can be 1:1 or whatever ratio. hypothetically, if I want to buy all of the company's stock Even if it is on one exchange, buying all stocks would trigger various regulatory aspects of Companies Act, or Stock Exchange rules. This is not simple or easy like clicking some buttons and buying everything. That is, let's say that in New York the company has listed 1000 shares, and in London only 10 shares, each worth 10 USD Market capitalization is sum of all outstanding shares into value.\"","For question #1, at least some US-based online brokers do permit direct purchases of stocks on foreign exchanges. Depending on your circumstances, this might be more cost effective than purchasing US-listed ADRs. One such broker is Interactive Brokers, which allows US citizens to directly purchase shares on many different foreign exchanges using their online platform (including in France). For France, I believe their costs are currently 0.1% of the total trade value with a 4€ minimum. I should warn you that the IB platform is not particularly user-friendly, since they market themselves to traders and the learning curve is steep (although accounts are available to individual investors). IB also won't automatically convert currencies for you, so you also need to use their foreign exchange trading interface to acquire the foreign currency used to purchase a foreign stock, which has plusses and minuses. On the plus side, their F/X spread is very competitive, but the interface is, shall we say, not very intuitive. I can't answer question #2 with specific regards to US/France. At least in the case of IB, though, I believe any dividends from a EUR-denominated stock would continue to accumulate in your account in Euros until you decide to convert them to dollars (or you could reinvest in EUR if you so choose).","No you will have no problems. It's been fourteen years since I've lived in the UK and I've had no trouble with my UK bank accounts in that time. They have happily mailed me statements and new cards abroad for all that time, and I've deposited cheques by mailing them to the branch. Online banking takes care of almost everything else. The only thing I wasn't able to do from abroad was open a new account, because of anti money-laundering regulations. Even that may be possible if you presented the right kind of ID when you opened the original account - mine predated the regulations. Most UK banks will also offer 'offshore' banking for non-residents in which interest is not deducted at source.","Yes NRIs are allowed to open a DEMAT account in India from abroad. Investments can be made under the Portfolio Investment NRI Scheme (PINS) either on repatriation or non-repatriation basis. As per,the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India it is mandatory for NRIs to open a trading account with a designated institution authorized by the RBI. They must avail either a Non-Resident Ordinary (NRO) or Non-Resident External (NRE) account to route the various investments.","As an NRI there are certain limitations as well as benefits. Limitation in terms of holding a specified quantity of shares in company, thus the need to open new account, so that Bank can track the holding and inform regulator. Benfits in terms of able to reptriate any amount of funds from trades in this account. In order to ease this, there are 2 Accounts NRO demat account (Non PINS): Essentially this does not automatically allow for reptration of funds [like NRE] but its more like NRO, amount upto USD 1 million per year. NRO Demat account PINS: Here you can buy fresh shares and take the proceeds out of country without any limits. So in short, you would need an NRO Demat NON PINS Account. Transfer your existing shares here. Sell whenever you like. Open a NRO Demat PINS account, if you wish to buy more with status as NRI, if you don't wish you buy, there is no need for this account.","Nothing. Stockbrokers set up nominee accounts, in which they hold shares on behalf of individual investors. Investors are still the legal owners of the shares but their names do not appear on the company’s share register. Nominee accounts are ring-fenced from brokers’ other activities so they are financially secure.","\"Good question! It seems to me that there is no minimum order size for shares trading on the LSE. Please note, I couldn't find an definite answer, but: According to the \"\"International Order Book\"\" document (see: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/traders-and-brokers/rules-regulations/change-and-updates/stock-exchange-notices/2010/n2210_attach1.pdf) from the LSE (page 7): Question 7: Would respondents support a revision of the minimum order size of 50 units? Whilst there was limited support for a low value based minimum order size the majority of respondents requested its complete removal. This was incorporated into the September 2010 quarterly review as per Service Announcement 001/100910 and as from 20 September 2010, the minimum order size in all IOB securities has been 1 unit Even though not all trading on the LSE is performed on this IOB system, it would be very wierd if the international stocks can be traded in any size, while domestic stocks will have an minimum size. Further, consider looking to the times and sales of various stocks (here you can find an example http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/exchange-insight/trade-data.html?page=0&fourWayKey=GB0006731235GBGBXSET1&formName=frmRow&upToRow=-1). Those trades also suggest that there is no minimum order size (for example, I just saw an executed trade with an size of 13). At last, look at the Interactive Brokers (no relationship with) Exchange List at http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/trading/exchanges.php?exch=lse&showcategories=&ib_entity=llc. Here you can click on various stock names, and in the popup window that opens, look for 'size parameters' and the size increment. I could only find stocks with an size increment of 1 (i.e. you can trade anything with a minimum of 1 stock, and more needs to be in steps of 1 stock). Even though I couldn't find official information on the LSE site (like a leaflet for beginners or such), it does seem to me that you can trade any size you want on LSE. Please note that mutual funds and illiquid OTC stocks which don't have an continuous market can have different rules, so double-check with your broker.\"","Selftrade does list them. Not sure if you'll be able to sign up from the US though, particularly given the FATCA issues.","According to this page on their website (http://www.kotaksecurities.com/internationaleq/homepage.htm), Kotak Securities is one big-name Indian broker that offers an international equities account to its Indian customers. Presumably, they should be able to answer all your questions. Since this is a competitive market, one can assume that others like ICICI Direct must also be doing so.","\"Is this amount an adequate starting amount to begin investing with? Yes. You can open an account at a brokerage with this amount. I'm not sure I would invest in individual stocks at this point. Which services should I use to start buying shares? (Currently my bank offers this service but I'm willing to use other sources) I can't make UK-specific recommendations, but I'd compare your bank's fees to those of a discount broker -- as well as the variety and level of service available. I would like to regularly increase the amount invested in shares. Is it worth doing this in say £200 increments? Take a look at the fees associated with each investment. Divide the fee by the increment to see what percent you'll lose to fees/commissions. Keep in mind that you have to gain more than that percentage to start earning a positive return on your investment. If you have access to fee-free automatic mutual fund investments, and you can commit to the £200 amount on a regular basis going forward, then this can be a completely free way of making these incremental investments. See also this answer on dollar cost averaging, and my comment on the other answer on that question for how fees impact returns. When buying shares should I focus on say two or three companies, or diversify more? I would diversify into two or three different index funds. Read up on asset allocation. For example, you might invest 1/3 of your balance into S&P 500 index fund, bond index fund, and MSCI EAFE index fund (but that's just a rough example, and not necessarily good for you). I highly recommend \"\"The Intelligent Asset Allocator\"\" by William Bernstein for excellent info on diversification and asset allocation.\"","As a relatively recent nonimmigrant visa holder (O1), I was able to open an ETrade brokerage account without problems. I have full tax residence in the USA so have an SSN, and a credit history so it was no problem. Later, as a greencard holder, I opened IRA accounts with them, too. Again, there were no issues as I had all the information that the IRS paperwork required at hand.","A stock represents your share of ownership in a corporation. All of these shares indicate towards your part of ownership in a corporation a shareholder, stockholder or a shareowner in a company. In order to get a stock, be sure to secure the assistance of a licensed stockbroker to buy securities on your behalf. Yes, anyone having substantial amount of money to invest can buy/own/use stocks. Holding a stock for less than a year makes it a subject to tax on your regular income for short-term gains. Most of the people find it higher than the capital gains. In addition, your annual income also comes into play.","One risk not mentioned is that foreign stock might be thinly traded on your local stock market, so you will find it harder to buy and sell, and you will be late to the game if there is some sudden change in the share price in the original country.","The answer to this question is given by the fact that many public companies have people who are opposed to the company's aims or practices and who own their stock, often a single share, for the purposes of turning up to shareholder meetings and haranguing directors/asking awkward questions/disrupting proceedings, etc. If public companies could stop these campaigning shareholders from owning stock they would.","Yes, all the shares of a publicly traded company can be purchased. This effectively takes the company private so that it's no longer traded on a stock market. Here are some examples: EDIT: to answer your edited question... the corporation can issue more stock. However that would dilute the value of existing shares. Thus, existing shareholders must vote to allow more shares to be issued. So... in your situation yes, you'd need to wait for someone else to sell.","I assume you are talking about a publicly traded company listed on a major stock exchange and the buyer resides in the US. (Private companies and non-US locations can change the rules really a lot.) The short answer is no, because the company does not own the stock, various investors do. Each investor has to make an individual decision to sell or not sell. But there are complications. If an entity buys more than about 10% of the company they have to file a declaration with the SEC. The limit can be higher if they file an assertion that they are buying it solely for investment and are not seeking control of the company. If they are seeking control of the company then more paperwork must be filed and if they want to buy the whole company they may be required to make a tender offer where they offer to buy any and all shares at a specific price. If the company being bought is a financial institution, then the buyer may have to declare as a bank holding company and more regulations apply. The company can advise shareholders not to take the tender offer, but they cannot forbid it. So the short answer is, below 10% and for investment purposes only, it is cash and carry: Whoever has the cash gets to carry the stock away. Above that various regulations and declarations apply, but the company still does not have the power prevent the purchase in most circumstances.","In theory you can buy shares directly from someone else who owns them. In practise, if the stock is listed on an exchange, they are unlikely to own them directly, they are likely to own them through an intermediary. You will have to pay fees to that intermediary to transfer the shares to your name. There are thousands of small companies owned by the guy who started it and a few other investors. You can buy stock in that kind of company directly from the existing owners, as long as they are willing to sell you some. It's a super-high risk investment strategy, though. This is the kind of deal that happens on Dragons Den.","From the UK-USA tax treaty.... ARTICLE 1 General Scope 1. Except as specifically provided herein, this Convention is applicable only to persons who are residents of one or both of the Contracting States. 2. This Convention shall not restrict in any manner any benefit now or hereafter accorded: a) by the laws of either Contracting State; or b) by any other agreement between the Contracting States... I'm not an expert but to me that sounds like the tax free advantage of an UK ISA would be respected by the IRS From the UK-USA tax treaty.... ARTICLE 7 7. Where under any provision of this Convention income or gains arising in one of the Contracting States are relieved from tax in that Contracting State and, under the law in force in the other Contracting State, a person, in respect of the said income or gains, is subject to tax by reference to the amount thereof which is remitted to or received in that other Contracting State and not by reference to the full amount thereof, then the relief to be allowed under this Convention in the first-mentioned Contracting State shall apply only to so much of the income or gains as is taxed in the other Contracting State. This is very difficult to comprehend but suggets also that tax free status is upheld in the uSa","Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person? I've done it the other way around, opened a bank account in the UK so I have a way to store GBP. Given that Britain is still in the EU you can basically open an account anywhere. German online banks for instance allow you to administrate anything online, should there be cards issued you would need an address in the country. And for opening an account a passport is sufficient, you can identify yourself in a video chat. Now what's the downside? French banks' online services are in French, German banks' services are in German. If that doesn't put you off, I would name such banks in the comments if asked. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Can you clarify that? You should at least be able to buy into any European or American stock through your broker. That should give you an ease of mind being FCA-regulated. However, those are usually GDRs (global depository receipts) and denominated in GBp (pence) so you'd be visually exposed to currency rates, by which I mean that if the stock goes up 1% but the GBP goes up 1% in the same period then your GDR would show a 0% profit on that day; also, and more annoyingly, dividends are distributed in the foreign currency, then exchanged by the issuer of the GDR on that day and booked into your account, so if you want to be in full control of the cashflows you should get a trading account denominated in the currency (and maybe situated in the country) you're planning to invest in. If you're really serious about it, some brokers/banks offer multi-currency trading accounts (again I will name them if asked) where you can trade a wide range of instruments natively (i.e. on the primary exchanges) and you get to manage everything in one interface. Those accounts typically include access to the foreign exchange markets so you can move cash between your accounts freely (well for a surcharge). Also, typically each subaccount is issued its own IBAN.","In a simple statement, no doesn't matter. Checked on my trade portal, everything lines up. Same ISIN, same price(after factoring in FX conversions, if you were thinking about arbitrage those days are long gone). But a unusual phenomenon I have observed is, if you aren't allowed to buy/sell a stock in one market and try to do that in a different market for the same stock you will still not be allowed to do it. Tried it on French stocks as my current provider doesn't allow me to deal in French stocks.","One of us is misreading the other's message. I think FDIC is great. If a Congolese citizen wants to buy the company I work at right now, great. I just make an exception for state owned enterprises, royal families, et cetera.","the demat account that I have in India is not an NRI account. Since I was not sure how long I would be in the US, I never converted my account to NRI account. Is it required to convert my account to NRI account? Yes it is very much required by law. One should not buy or sell shares in the Resident account. One has to close and open a new account NRO Demat account and transfer the shares / units into it. Sell from this account. If you need to buy shares when one is NRI, an Demat PINS account is required to be opened.","You can look into specific market targeted mutual funds or ETF's. For Norway, for example, look at NORW. If you want to purchase specific stocks, then you'd better be ready to trade on local stock exchanges in local currency. ETrade allows trading on some of the international stock exchanges (in Asia they have Hong Kong and Japan, in Europe they have the UK, Germany and France, and in the Americas they have the US and Canada). Some of the companies you're interested in might be trading there.","I would say you should invest in the market that is more convenient for you, bearing in mind that if you buy ADRs you may have some things to keep an eye on depending on certain events as mentioned by duffbeer703. So, if you are investing with an account in the U.S., go with the ADRs as that will avoid some currency conversion hassles and possible exchange rate issues. I am not certain, but I have a feeling that would also make it easier for you to keep the taxman happy.","Does my prior answer here to a slightly different question help at all? Are there capital gains taxes or dividend taxes if I invest in the U.S. stock market from outside of the country?","If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.","\"The London Stock Exchange offers a wealth of exchange traded products whose variety matches those offered in the US. Here is a link to a list of exchange traded products listed on the LSE. The link will take you to the list of Vanguard offerings. To view those offered by other managers, click on the letter choices at the top of the page. For example, to view the iShares offerings, click on \"\"I\"\". In the case of Vanguard, the LSE listed S&P500 ETF is traded under the code VUSA. Similarly, the Vanguard All World ETF trades under the code VWRL. You will need to be patient viewing iShares offerings since there are over ten pages of them, and their description is given by the abbreviation \"\"ISH name\"\". Almost all of these funds are traded in GBP. Some offer both currency hedged and currency unhedged versions. Obviously, with the unhedged version you are taking on additional currency risk, so if you wish to avoid currency risk then choose a currency hedged version. Vanguard does not appear to offer currency hedged products in London while iShares does. Here is a list of iShares currency hedged products. As you can see, the S&P500 currency hedged trades under the code IGUS while the unhedged version trades under the code IUSA. The effects of BREXIT on UK markets and currency are a matter of opinion and difficult to quantify currently. The doom and gloom warnings of some do not appear to have materialised, however the potential for near-term volatility remains so longs as the exit agreement is not formalised. In the long-term, I personally believe that BREXIT will, on balance, be a positive for the UK, but that is just my opinion.\"","As far as I read in many articles, all earnings (capital gains and dividends) from Canadian stocks will be always tax-free. Right? There's no withholding tax, ie. a $100 dividend means you get $100. There's no withholding for capital gains in shares for anybody. You will still have to pay taxes on the amounts, but that's only due at tax time and it could be very minor (or even a refund) for eligible Canadian dividends. That's because the company has already paid tax on those dividends. In contrast, holding U.S. or any foreign stock that yields dividends in a TFSA will pay 15% withholding tax and it is not recoverable. Correct, but the 15% is a special rate for regular shares and you need to fill out a W8-BEN. Your broker will probably make sure you have every few years. But if you hold the same stock in a non-registered account, this 15% withholding tax can be used as a foreign tax credit? Is this true or not or what are the considerations? That's true but reduces your Canadian tax payable, it's not refundable, so you have to have some tax to subtract it from. Another consideration is foreign dividends are included 100% in income no mater what the character is. That means you pay tax at your highest rate always if not held in a tax sheltered account. Canadian dividends that are in a non-registered account will pay taxes, I presume and I don't know how much, but the amount can be used also as a tax credit or are unrecoverable? What happens in order to take into account taxes paid by the company is, I read also that if you don't want to pay withholding taxes from foreign > dividends you can hold your stock in a RRSP or RRIF? You don't have any withholding taxes from US entities to what they consider Canadian retirement accounts. So TFSAs and RESPs aren't covered. Note that it has to be a US fund like SPY or VTI that trades in the US, and the account has to be RRSP/RRIF. You can't buy a Canadian listed ETF that holds US stocks and get the same treatment. This is also only for the US, not foreign like Europe or Asia. Also something like VT (total world) in the US will have withholding taxes from foreign (Europe & Asia mostly) before the money gets to the US. You can't get that back. Just an honourable mention for the UK, there's no withholding taxes for anybody, and I hear it's on sale. But at some point, if I withdraw the money, who do I need to pay taxes, > U.S. or Canada? Canada.","\"As user quid states in his answer, all you need to do is open an account with a stock broker in order to gain access to the world's stock markets. If you are currently banking with one of the six big bank, then they will offer stockbroking services. You can shop around for the best commission rates. If you wish to manage your own investments, then you will open a \"\"self-directed\"\" account. You can shelter your investments from all taxation by opening a TFSA account with your stock broker. Currently, you can add $5,500 per year to your TFSA. Unused allowances from previous years can still be used. Thus, if you have not yet made any TFSA contributions, you can add upto $46,500 to your TFSA and enjoy the benefits of tax free investing. Investing in what you are calling \"\"unmanaged index funds\"\" means investing in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Once you have opened your account you can invest in any ETFs traded on the stock markets accessible through your stock broker. Buying shares on foreign markets may carry higher commission rates, but for the US markets commissions are generally the same as they are for Canadian markets. However, in the case of buying foreign shares you will carry the extra cost and risk of selling Canadian dollars and buying foreign currency. There are also issues to do with foreign withholding taxes when you trade foreign shares directly. In the case of the US, you will also need to register with the US tax authorities. Foreign withholding taxes payable are generally treated as a tax credit with respect to Canadian taxation, so you will not be double taxed. In today's market, for most investors there is generally no need to invest directly in foreign market indices since you can do so indirectly on the Toronto stock market. The large Canadian ETF providers offer a wide range of US, European, Asian, and Global ETFs as well as Canadian ETFs. For example, you can track all of the major US indices by trading in Toronto in Canadian dollars. The S&P500, the Dow Jones, and the NASDAQ100 are offered in both \"\"currency hedged\"\" and \"\"unhedged\"\" forms. In addition, there are ETFs on the total US Market, US Small Caps, US sectors such as banks, and more exotic ETFs such as those offering \"\"covered call\"\" strategies and \"\"put write\"\" strategies. Here is a link to the BMO ETF website. Here is a link to the iShares (Canada) ETF website.\"","\"Although this is an old question, it's worth pointing out that the Google Stock Screener now supports stocks traded on the London Stock Exchange. From the country dropdown on the left, select \"\"United Kingdom\"\" and use the screener as before.\"","When you buy a currency via FX market, really you are just exchanging one country's currency for another. So if it is permitted to hold one currency electronically, surely it must be permitted to hold a different country's currency electronically.","Here is a list of European ETFs you can buy in Europe: iShares Europe and DB x-Trackers. Both offer ETFs for Spanish citizens. Regarding your question in your comment on if you could buy Austrian ETFs as a Spanish citizen: If your broker offers Austrian ETFs you can buy them as well. I do not believe that there would be any legal restrictions. For a good international broker, which would allow you to buy these ETFs I would recommend looking at Interactive Brokers.com","Vanguard has just recently started listing its funds in London but it doesn't look like the High Dividend Yield ETF is available yet. You'll need to either get a broker who can trade on the U.S. markets (there might be tax and exchange rate complications), or wait until Vanguard lists this stock on the London exchange.","You definitely used to be able to (see this BBC article from 2006), and I would imagine that you still can, although I also imagine that it would be more difficult than it used to be, as with all mortgages. EDIT: And here's an article from last year about Chinese banks targeting the UK mortgage market.","\"Life would be nicer had we not needed lawyers. But for some things - you better get a proper legal advice. This is one of these things. Generally, the United States is a union of 50 different sovereign entities, so you're asking more about Texas, less about the US. So you'd better talk to a Texas lawyer. Usually, stock ownership is only registered by the company itself (and sometimes not even that, look up \"\"street name\"\"), and not reported to the government. You may get a paper stock certificate, but many companies no longer issue those. Don't forget to talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser in your home country, as well. You'll be dealing with tax authorities there as well. The difference between \"\"unoted\"\" (never heard of this term before) and \"\"regular\"\" stocks is that the \"\"unoted\"\" are not publicly traded. As such, many things that your broker does (like tax statements, at source withholding, etc) you and your company will have to do on your own. If your company plans on paying dividends, you'll have to have a US tax ID (ITIN or SSN), and the company will have to withhold the US portion of the taxes. Don't forget to talk to a tax adviser about what happens when you sell the stock. Also, since the company is not publicly traded, consider how will you be able to sell it, if at all.\"","My concern is if I need to report and pay extra taxes for the part of the company that will be under my name Yes, d'uh. Of course. It's actually quite complicated when it comes to foreign companies owned by US people, and you'll need a good tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) who's fluent in that area. Citizenship has nothing to do with this, from tax perspective there's no difference between a green card holder and a citizen (except that green card holder cannot claim non-resident exemptions and certain tax treaties' exemptions).","I'll give it a shot, even though you don't seem to be responding to my comment. SIPC insures against fraud or abuse of its members. If you purchased a stock through a SIPC member broker and it was held in trust by a SIPC member, you're covered by its protection. Where you purchased the stock - doesn't matter. There are however things SIPC doesn't cover. That said, SIPC members are SEC-registred brokers, i.e.: brokers operating in the USA. If you're buying on the UK stock exchange - you need to check that you're still operating through a US SIPC member. As I mentioned in the comment - the specific company that you mentioned has different entities for the US operations and the UK operations. Buying through them on LSE is likely to bind you with their UK entity that is not SIPC member. You'll have to check that directly with them.","Why should they? If investors' don't want nonvoting shares, they shouldn't buy them. I don't like the big banks, but it's not like they are fleecing little old ladies here. The people with the first rights to the shares tend to be institutions who know what they are getting.","\"I think you will find it hard to do. There are money laundering regulations which require you to provide proof of address when opening an account. I don't know for certain if they require an UK address, but even if they don't, it's very likely that individual banks etc will require that. I doubt that they will view you as a profitable customer for them, since you would not be using the account as your \"\"main\"\" account. Although having a job isn't a legal requirement, in practice I think it's the only way you can get an account without having been resident in the country for a while. My company employs a significant number of people from abroad and they typically need support from the company to open an account when they first move. One thing you could investigate is opening an account with some international bank with branches both in Hungary and the UK, and asking them to arrange the UK account for you. One example of such a bank is HSBC. However such banks will typically charge you a significant amount for the privilege - for example with HSBC you need a \"\"premier account\"\" to get this kind of service.\"","I'm not aware of any method to own US stocks, but you can trade them as contract for difference, or CFDs as they are commonly known. Since you're hoping to invest around $1000 this might be a better option since you can use leverage.","You can check whether the company whose stock you want to buy is present on an european market. For instance this is the case for Apple at Frankfurt.","Quite a few stock broker in India offer to trade in US markets via tie-up brokers in US. As an Indian citizen, there are limits as to how much FX you can buy, generally very large, should be an issue. The profits will be taxed in US as well as India [you can claim relief under DTAA]","\"The fact that your shares are of a Canadian-listed corporation (as indicated in your comment reply) and that you are located in the United States (as indicated in your bio) is highly relevant to answering the question. The restriction for needing to be a \"\"qualified institutional buyer\"\" (QIB) arises from the parent company not having registered the spin-off company rights [options] or shares (yet?) for sale in the United States. Shares sold in the U.S. must either be registered with the SEC or qualify for some exemption. See SEC Fast Answers - Securities Act Rule 144. Quoting: Selling restricted or control securities in the marketplace can be a complicated process. This is because the sales are so close to the interests of the issuing company that the law might require them to be registered. Under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, all offers and sales of securities must be registered with the SEC or qualify for some exemption from the registration requirements. [...] There are regulations to follow and costs involved in such registration. Perhaps the rights [options] themselves won't ever be registered (as they have a very limited lifetime), while the listed shares might be? You could contact investor relations at the parent company for more detail. (If I guessed the company correctly, there's detail in this press release. Search the text for \"\"United States\"\".)\"","I am a US citizen by birth only. I left the US aged 6 weeks old and have never lived there. I am also a UK citizen but TD Waterhouse have just followed their policy and asked me to close my account under FATCA. It is a complete nightmare for dual nationals who have little or no US connection. IG.com seem to allow me to transfer my holdings so long as I steer clear of US investments. Furious with the US and would love to renounce citizenship but will have to pay $2500 or thereabouts to follow the US process. So much for Land of the Free!","From Wikipedia: If a company with limited liability is sued, then the claimants are suing the company, not its owners or investors. A shareholder in a limited company is not personally liable for any of the debts of the company, other than for the value of their investment in that company. Summarized, no, if you buy stock from the regular stock market like NYSE, you're not personally liable for any debt or fraud that happens.","Yes, You will have to pay the taxes at least initially but you'll most probably get a refund when you will file returns depending upon the amount and tax brackets in the UK.","If you're a non resident then you owe no capital gains tax to Canada. Most banks won't let you make trades if you're a non-resident. They may not have your correct address on file so they don't realize this. This is not tax law but just OSC (or equivalent) regulations. You do have to fill out paperwork for withholding tax on OAS/CPP payments. This is something you probably already do but here's a link . It's complicated and depends on the country you live in. Of course you may owe tax in Thailand, I don't know their laws.","If I bought 1 percent share of company X, Most countries company X, is treated as a separate legal entity than individual. So max loss is what you have invested. However certain types of companies, generally called partnerships are not separate entities and you have to pay back the said loss. However such companies are not traded on stock exchanges. Is there an age requirements to enter the stock market? Depends on country. Generally a minor can hold an account with a guardian.","Saxo Bank offers direct access to Athens Stock Exchange. Interactive Brokers is your next best bet, and as you probably already noticed, they do not have a free platform. They are open to US and non-US citizens. Although they do not currently have direct exposure to individual companies on the Athens Stock Exchange, the various european exchanges they do provide direct market access for will give a lot of exposure. There are a few Greek companies that trade on non-Greek stock exchanges, if you want exposure. There are also Greek ETFs which bundle several companies together or try to replicate Greek company indices.","Even with non-voting shares, you own a portion of the company including all of its assets and its future profits. If the company is sold, goes out of business and liquidates, etc., those with non-voting shares still stand collect their share of the funds generated. There's also the possibility, as one of the comments notes, that a company will pay dividends in the future and distribute its assets to shareholders that way. The example of Google (also mentioned in the comments) is interesting because when they went to voting and non-voting stock, there was some theoretical debate about whether the two types of shares (GOOG and GOOGL) would track each other in value. It turned out that they did not - People did put a premium on voting, so that is worth something. Even without the voting rights, however, Google has massive assets and each share (GOOG and GOOGL) represented ownership of a fraction of those assets and that kept them highly correlated in value. (Google had to pay restitution to some shareholders of the non-voting stock as a result of the deviation in value. I won't get into the details here since it's a bit of tangent, but you could easily find details on the web.)"],"string":"[\n \"Yes it is legal, in fact according to statistics.gov.uk, foreign investors are the largest holders of UK shares (as of 2008). Investors from outside the UK owned 41.5 per cent of shares listed on the London Stock Exchange at the end of 2008, up from 40.0 per cent at end of 2006, according to the latest Office for National Statistics report on share ownership.\",\n \"Yes, However if you live in the USA a lot of companies will refuse to sent you any report and will not let you take part in “right issues” as they don’t wish to come under USA investment law.\",\n \"\\\"It's easy to own many of the larger UK stocks. Companies like British Petroleum, Glaxo, and Royal Dutch Shell, list what they call ADRs (American Depositary Receipts) on the U.S. stock exchanges. That is, they will deposit local shares with Bank of NY Mellon, JP Morgan Chase, or Citicorp (the three banks that do this type of business), and the banks will turn around and issue ADRs equivalent to the number of shares on deposit. This is not true with \\\"\\\"small cap\\\"\\\" companies. In those cases, a broker like Schwab may occasionally help you, usually not. But you might have difficulty trading U.S. small cap companies as well.\\\"\",\n \"non-resident aliens to the US do not pay capital gains on US products. You pay tax in your home country if you have done a taxable event in your country. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/nonusresidenttax.asp#axzz1mQDut9Ru but if you hold dividends, you are subject to US dividend tax. The UK-US treaty should touch on that though.\",\n \"As other people have said they should register with a broker in the country they reside in that can deal in US stocks, then fill out a W8-BEN form. I have personally done this as I am from the Uk, it's not a very complicated process. I would assume that most US brokers don't allow foreign customers due to the person having to pay tax where they reside and the US brokers don't want to have to keep approximately 200 different tax codes in track.\",\n \"There are no legal restrictions on doing this. If you're living in the UK, just open an account like any other resident of the UK would.\",\n \"The link provided by DumbCoder (below) is only relevant to UK resident investors and does not apply if you live in Malaysia. I noticed that in a much older question you asked a similar question about taxes on US stocks, so I'll try and answer both situations here. The answer is almost the same for any country you decide to invest in. As a foreign investor, the country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The rate of DWT that will be withheld is unique to each country. The UK does not have any withholding tax so you will always receive the full dividend on UK stocks. The withholding tax rate for the US is 30%. Other countries vary. For most countries that do charge a withholding tax, it is possible to have this reduced to 15% if there is a double taxation treaty in place between the two countries and all of the following are true: Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).\",\n \"The UK has historically aggressive financial law, inherited from Dutch friendship, influence, and acquisitions by conquest. The law is so open that nearly anyone can invest through the UK without much difficulty, and citizens have nearly no restrictions on where to invest. A UK citizen can either open an account in the US with paperwork hassles or at home with access to all world markets and less paperwork. Here is the UK version of my broker, Interactive Brokers. Their costs are the lowest, but you will be charged a minimum fee if you do not trade enough, and their minimum opening balance can be prohibitively high for some. If you do buy US products, be sure to file your W-8BEN.\",\n \"\\\"Yes and no. There are two primary ways to do this. The first is known as \\\"\\\"cross listing\\\"\\\". Basically, this means that shares are listed in the home country are the primary shares, but are also traded on secondary markets using mechanisms like ADRs or Globally Registered Shares. Examples of this method include Vodafone and Research in Motion. The second is \\\"\\\"dual listing\\\"\\\". This is when two corporations that function as a single business are listed in multiple places. Examples of this include Royal Dutch Shell and Unilever. Usually companies choose this method for tax purposes when they merge or acquire an international company. Generally speaking, you can safely buy shares in whichever market makes sense to you.\\\"\",\n \"First thing to consider is that getting your hands on an IPO is very difficult unless you have some serious clout. This might help a bit in that department (http://www.sec.gov/answers/ipoelig.htm) However, assuming you accept all that risk and requirements, YES - you can buy stocks of any kind in the US even if you are a foreigner. There are no laws prohibiting investment/buying in the US stock market. What you need is to get an online trading account from a registered brokerage house in the US. Once you are registered, you can buy whatever that is offered.\",\n \"I'm in the US as well, but some basic things are still the same. You need to trade through a broker, but the need for a full service broker is no longer necessary. You may be able to get by with a web based brokerage that charges less fees. If you are nervous, look for a big name, and avoid a fly by night company. Stick with non-exotic investments. don't do options, or futures or Forex. You may even want to skip shares all together and see if UK offers something akin to an index fund which tracks broad markets (like the whole of the FTSE 100 or the S&P 500) as a whole.\",\n \"Usually, you can buy ETFs through brokerages. I looked at London to see if there's any familiar brokerage names, and it appears that the address below is to Fidelity Investments Worldwide and their site indicates that you can buy securities. Any brokerage, in theory, should allow you to invest in securities. You could always call and ask if they allow you to invest in ETFs. Some brokerages may also allow you to purchase securities in other countries; for instance, some of the firms in the U.S. allow investors to invest in the ETF HK:2801, which is not a U.S. ETF. Many countries have ETF securities available to local and foreign investors. This site appears to help point people to brokers in London. Also, see this answer on this site (a UK investor who's invested in the U.S. through Barclays).\",\n \"You can open an account with HSBC and use InvestDirect - their online share trading service - to trade LSE-traded shares. https://investments.hsbc.co.uk/product/9/sharedealing\",\n \"You can invest upto $200K per year abroad, and yes, you can buy Google as a stock. Consider opening an international account with a broker like interactive brokers (www.interactivebrokers.co.in) which allows you to fund the account from your local Indian account, and then on, buy shares of companies listed abroad.\",\n \"\\\"For non Australian residents: Dividends withholding tax rate is 30%. Depending upon your country of residence where there is a tax treaty in place to avoid double taxation, then this can be reduced. Note that only dividends that are unfranked are subject to this (in Australia, if tax has already been paid by the company then they can distribute dividends as \\\"\\\"franked\\\"\\\" dividends\\\"\\\"). For example, if you owned shares in Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), their most recent dividend from Feb 2015 (Paid 2 April 2015) was $1.98 fully franked. No withholding tax is applicable. There is no capital gains tax for non-residents on share transactions. There are other \\\"\\\"tax events\\\"\\\" that related to large shareholdings in a company (>10%) with property holdings but I'm guessing that is not an issue. https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Tax-return/2014/In-detail/Publications/You-and-your-shares-2013-14/?page=14 https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/International-tax-for-business/Previous-years/Capital-gains-and-foreign-residents/ https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/International-tax-for-business/Previous-years/Capital-gains-and-foreign-residents/?page=13#Foreign_residents_holding_interests_in_Australian_fixed_trusts https://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/services/Tax/regional-tax-centers/asia-pacific-tax-centre/Documents/CountryProfiles/Australia.pdf\\\"\",\n \"There are some brokers in the US who would be happy to open an account for non-US residents, allowing you to trade stocks at NYSE and other US Exchanges. Some of them, along with some facts: DriveWealth Has support in Portuguese Website TD Ameritrade Has support in Portuguese Website Interactive Brokers Account opening is not that straightforward Website\",\n \"Absolutely. It does highly depend on your country, as US brokerages are stricter with or even closed to residents of countries that produce drugs, launder money, finance terror, have traditional difficulty with the US, etc. It also depends on your country's laws. Some countries have currency controls, restrictions on buying foreign/US securities, etc. That said, some brokerages have offices world-wide, so there might be one near you. If your legal situation as described above is fortunate, some brokers will simply allow you to setup online using a procedure not too different from US residents: provide identification, sign tons of documents. You'll have to have a method to deliver your documentation in the ways you'd expect: mail, fax, email. E*Trade is the best starter broker, right now, imo. Just see how far you can go in the sign-up process.\",\n \"Open an account with a US discount online broker, or with a European broker with access to the US market. I think ETRADE allow non-resident accounts, for instance, amongst others. The brokerage will be about $10, and there is no annual fee. (So you're ~1% down out of the gate, but that's not so much.) Brokers may have a minimum transaction value but very few exchanges care about the number of shares anymore, and there is no per-share fee. As lecrank notes, putting all your savings into a single company is not prudent, but having a flutter with fun money on Apple is harmless. Paul is correct that dividend cheques may be a slight problem for non-residents. Apple don't pay dividends so there's no problem in this specific case. More generally your broker will give you a cash account into which the dividends can go. You may have to deal with US tax which is more of an annoyance than a cost.\",\n \"Here're some findings upon researches: Two main things to watch out for: Estate tax and the 30% tax withholding. These 2 could be get around by investing in Luxembourg or Ireland domiciled ETF. For instance there's no tax withholding on Ireland domiciled ETF dividend, and the estate tax is not as high. (source: BogleHead forums) Some Vanguard ETF offered in UK stock market: https://www.vanguard.co.uk/uk/mvc/investments/etf#docstab. Do note that the returns of S&P 500 ETF (VUSA) are adjusted after the 30% tax withholding! Due to VUSA's higher TER (0.09%), VOO should remain a superior choice. The FTSE Emerging Markets and All-World ETFs though, are better than their US-counterparts, for non-US residents. Non-US residents are able to claim back partials of the withhold tax, by filing the US tax form 1040NR. In 2013, non-US resident can claim back at least $3,900. Kindly correct me if anything is inaccurate.\",\n \"\\\"This page from the CRA website details the types of investments you can hold in a TFSA. You can hold individual shares, including ETFs, traded on any \\\"\\\"designated stock exchange\\\"\\\" in addition to the other types of investment you have listed. Here is a list of designated stock exchanges provided by the Department of Finance. As you can see, it includes pretty well every major stock exchange in the developed world. If your bank's TFSA only offers \\\"\\\"mutual funds, GICs and saving deposits\\\"\\\" then you need to open a TFSA with a different bank or a stock broking company with an execution only service that offers TFSA accounts. Almost all of the big banks will do this. I use Scotia iTrade, HSBC Invest Direct, and TD, though my TFSA's are all with HSBC currently. You will simply provide them with details of your bank account in order to facilitate money transfers/TFSA contributions. Since purchasing foreign shares involves changing your Canadian dollars into a foreign currency, one thing to watch out for when purchasing foreign shares is the potential for high foreign exchange spreads. They can be excessive in proportion to the investment being made. My experience is that HSBC offers by far the best spreads on FX, but you need to exchange a minimum of $10,000 in order to obtain a decent spread (typically between 0.25% and 0.5%). You may also wish to note that you can buy unhedged ETFs for the US and European markets on the Toronto exchange. This means you are paying next to nothing on the spread, though you obviously are still carrying the currency risk. For example, an unhedged S&P500 trades under the code ZSP (BMO unhedged) or XUS (iShares unhedged). In addition, it is important to consider that commissions for trades on foreign markets may be much higher than those on a Canadian exchange. This is not always the case. HSBC charge me a flat rate of $6.88 for both Toronto and New York trades, but for London they would charge up to 0.5% depending on the size of the trade. Some foreign exchanges carry additional trading costs. For example, London has a 0.5% stamp duty on purchases. EDIT One final thing worth mentioning is that, in my experience, holding US securities means that you will be required to register with the US tax authorities and with those US exchanges upon which you are trading. This just means fill out a number of different forms which will be provided by your stock broker. Exchange registrations can be done electronically, however US tax authority registration must be submitted in writing. Dividends you receive will be net of US withholding taxes. I am not aware of any capital gains reporting requirements to US authorities.\\\"\",\n \"*Disclaimer: I am a tax accountant , but I am not your professional accountant or advocate (unless you have been in my office and signed a contract). This communication is not intended as tax advice, and no tax accountant / client relationship results. *Please consult your own tax accountant for tax advise.** A foreign citizen may form a limited liability company. In contrast, all profit distributions (called dividends) made by a C corporation are subject to double taxation. (Under US tax law, a nonresident alien may own shares in a C corporation, but may not own any shares in an S corporation.) For this reason, many foreign citizens form a limited liability company (LLC) instead of a C corporation A foreign citizen may be a corporate officer and/or director, but may not work/take part in any business decisions in the United States or receive a salary or compensation for services provided in the United States unless the foreign citizen has a work permit (either a green card or a special visa) issued by the United States. Basically, you should be looking at benefiting only from dividends/pass-through income but not salaries or compensations.\",\n \"\\\"Take a look at FolioFN - they let you buy small numbers of shares and fractional shares too. There is an annual fee on the order of US$100/year. You can trade with no fees at two \\\"\\\"windows\\\"\\\" per day, or at any time for a $15 fee. You are better off leaving the stock in broker's name, especially if you live overseas. Otherwise you will receive your dividends in the form of cheques that might be expensive to try to cash. There is also usually a fee charged by the broker to obtain share certificates instead of shares in your account.\\\"\",\n \"Transfers of money to the UK for any purpose are not generally taxed, so you can just transfer it here and invest. Once the money is here, you'll be taxed on the business activity like anyone else - the company will have to pay corporation tax, and depending on your own residency you might have to pay income tax on any distributions from the company.\",\n \"It looks like your best option is to go with an online broker. There are many available. Some of them won't let you open an account online as a foreign national but will allow you to open one through the mail. See more about that http://finance.zacks.com/can-nonus-citizen-trade-us-stocks-9654.html Also keep in mind that you will need to pay taxes on any capital gains made through selling http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p519.pdf\",\n \"If you are a US citizen, you need to very carefully research the US tax implications of investing in foreign stocks before you do so. The US tax rules have been set up in general to make this very unattractive.\",\n \"I believe that tax will be withheld (at 30%?) on dividends paid to non-residents. You can claim it back if your country has a tax treaty with the USA, but you will need to file. You probably also need to file a W-series withholding form (eg a W9-BEN). Interesting question. I would like to hear a more definitive answer.\",\n \"Most UK stock brokers don't require or allow margin trading. A quick web search for 'UK share dealing comparison' shows entries from money.co.uk and moneysupermarket.com who both provide lists of different brokers, e.g. Barclays, Hargraves Lansdown, IG Share Dealing, The Share Centre, TD Direct, Interactive Investor, YouInvest, etc. Some of the UK banks also provide a share dealing service, from quickly looking at their websites, Barclays, HSBC and Halifax all appear to provide share dealing services.\",\n \"Any large stockbroker will offer trading in US securities. As a foreign national you will be required to register with the US tax authorities (IRS) by completing and filing a W-8BEN form and pay US withholding taxes on any dividend income you receive. US dividends are paid net of withholding taxes, so you do not need to file a US tax return. Capital gains are not subject to US taxes. Also, each year you are holding US securities, you will receive a form from the IRS which you are required to complete and return. You will also be required to complete and file forms for each of the exchanges you wish to received market price data from. Trading will be restricted to US trading hours, which I believe is 6 hours ahead of Denmark for the New York markets. You will simply submit an order to the desired market using your broker's online trading software or your broker's telephone dealing service. You can expect to pay significantly higher commissions for trading US securities when compared to domestic securities. You will also face potentially large foreign exchange fees when exchaning your funds from EUR to USD. All in all, you will probably be better off using your local market to trade US index or sector ETFs.\",\n \"\\\"A lot of ISA's allow both shares and funds as well as gilts, Hargreaves Lansdown comes to mind as does the Alliance Trust. Some penalise (charging wise) securities vs UT (unit trusts) funds but in that case just go for a low cost IT (Investment Trust) ISA and hold individual shares as well as pooled investments in the Big IT's. I think you might have to be an \\\"\\\"approved investor\\\"\\\" to buy gilts.\\\"\",\n \"In the UK, this is the very definition of a Public Limited Company. A Limited Company can restrict how its stock is trades and who can buy and sell and when, a Public Limited Company cannot. Most stock exchanges will only allow Public Limited Company stock to be traded. Therefore a company can control who its stock holders are or be traded on a Stock Exchange.\",\n \"I would not expect any problems. Your interest will have tax deducted at 20% which I don't think you would be entitled to reclaim because you don't get a personal allowance if you aren't resident in the UK, and unless you have a huge amount of UK earnings you would not be legally liable to any higher rates of tax so there would be no issues there. If you were liable to more tax you would be obliged to inform the Inland Revenue.\",\n \"Normal high street accounts certainly are available to non-residents. I have several, and I haven't been resident in the UK for fourteen years. However you do need to open them before you leave. They need identification. Once you have one open, the same bank should be able to open other accounts by mail. The disadvantage of course is that you will pay tax on your earnings, and while you can claim it back that's an unnecessary piece of work if you don't have other UK earnings. I would take the risk of an offshore account, assuming it's with a big reputable bank - the kind that are going to be bailed out if there is another collapse. An alternative might be a fixed term deposit. You lock up your money for three years, and you get it back plus a single interest payment at the end of three years. You would pay nothing in tax while you were gone, but the whole interest amount would be taxable when you got back.\",\n \"You don't need a visa to invest in US equity. You don't need a visa to profit from US equity. There may be other legal considerations, but they aren't visa related, hope that helps\",\n \"It doesn't matter which exchange a share was purchased through (or if it was even purchased on an exchange at all--physical share certificates can be bought and sold outside of any exchange). A share is a share, and any share available for purchase in New York is available to be purchased in London. Buying all of a company's stock is not something that can generally be done through the stock market. The practical way to accomplish buying a company out is to purchase a controlling interest, or enough shares to have enough votes to bind the board to a specific course of action. Then vote to sell all outstanding shares to another company at a particular fixed price per share. Market capitalization is an inaccurate measure of the size of a company in the first place, but if you want to quantify it, you can take the number of outstanding shares (anywhere and everywhere) and multiply them by the price on any of the exchanges that sell it. That will give you the market capitalization in the currency that is used by whatever exchange you chose.\",\n \"You can apply for Foreign currency accounts. But they aren't saving accounts by any means, but more like current accounts. Taking money out will involve charges. You have to visit the bank website to figure out what all operations can be performed on your account. Barclays and HSBC allow accounts in foreign currency. Other banks also will be providing the same services. Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person Depends on country by country. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Get yourself a trading account and invest in foreign markets i.e. equities, bonds etc. But all in all be ready for the foreign exchange risks involved in denominating assets in multiple currencies.\",\n \"\\\"The shares are \\\"\\\"imputed income\\\"\\\" / payment in kind. You worked in the UK, but are you a \\\"\\\"US Person\\\"\\\"? If not, you should go back to payroll with this query as this income is taxable in the UK. It is important you find out on what basis they were issued. The company will have answers. Where they aquired at a discount to fair market value ? Where they purchased with a salary deduction as part of a scheme ? Where they acquired by conversion of employee stock options ? If you sell the shares, or are paid dividends, then there will be tax withheld.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The US withholding tax rate on dividends is 30%, although this can be reduced to 15% if there as a tax treaty in place between the US and your country of residence. Malaysia does have a double taxation agreement with the US (see here: http://www.mida.gov.my/env3/index.php?page=double-taxation-agreement) but it is flagged as a \\\"\\\"limited\\\"\\\" agreement. You'd need to find the full text of the agreement to see whether a reduced rate of dividend withholding tax would be available in the Malaysia/US treaty. See my other answer for more details on withholding taxes and how to partially reclaim under a double tax treaty: What is the dividend tax rate for UK stock Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).\\\"\",\n \"While most all Canadian brokers allow us access to all the US stocks, the reverse is not true. But some US brokers DO allow trading on foreign exchanges. (e.g. Interactive Brokers at which I have an account). You have to look and be prepared to switch brokers. Americans cannot use Canadian brokers (and vice versa). Trading of shares happens where-ever two people get together - hence the pink sheets. These work well for Americans who want to buy-sell foreign stocks using USD without the hassle of FX conversions. You get the same economic exposure as if the actual stock were bought. But the exchanges are barely policed, and liquidity can dry up, and FX moves are not necessarily arbitraged away by 'the market'. You don't have the same safety as ADRs because there is no bank holding any stash of 'actual' stocks to backstop those traded on the pink sheets.\",\n \"This article might help: https://www.law360.com/articles/733853/good-news-for-foreign-investors-in-us-defense-industry It appears it's the responsibility of the defence contractor to prove it's not under foreign influence or control if they want to keep their security clearance, the loss of which would likely put them out of business as a defence contractor. So if I understand correctly, there's nothing (aside from money) stopping me, a foreigner, from owning a huge chunk of a US defence contractor. They just won't listen if I try to tell them what to do. If I try and force them to do what I say, the US Department of Defence will get angry and I'll lose all the money I invested.\",\n \"As a permanent resident in the U.S. but not a citizen, I was told by a representative at Scottrade that I am not allowed to open a brokerage account.\",\n \"\\\"It's generally not possible to open a business account in the UK remotely. It's even difficult (near impossible) for a non-resident (even if a citizen) to open a business or personal bank account while visiting the UK. A recent report says that it may be possible to open an account via Barclays Offshore in the Isle of Man. This requires a large deposit, and probably lots of paperwork and fees (most offshore locations have stricter \\\"\\\"know your customer\\\"\\\" rules than major countries). Note that while the Isle of Man is inside the UK banking system (for sort codes, account numbers), it is a separate territory that doesn't have the same deposit guarantees as the UK. There is no legal reason why a UK company has to bank within the UK banking system, although many companies paying the company would expect it or require it, and an account in anything other than sterling would complicate the accounts. It could have an account in your home country. It's not even a legal requirement that the company has an account in its own name at all. Some people use a (separate) personal account for this purpose. There are plenty of reasons why this is a bad idea (for example it's unclear who/what owns the money in the account, and can give the appearance of director's loans), but it's a work-around. Most inbound electronic payments only require a sort code and account number, the account owner name is not checked. The UK does have a much simpler and cheaper company registry than most European countries, but the near-impossibility of opening a bank account for a business in the UK as a non-resident has made it an unsuitable place to register a small international company.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Shares are for investors. Most of the rich are investors. Unfortunately, the reverse is not true. But if you want to get rich, the first step is to become an investor. (The second is to become a SUCCESSFUL investor. 50 pounds might be too little. Try to start with at least 500 at a time. You can ADD amounts of 50 pounds. There are definitely fees involved. You will \\\"\\\"pay for lessons.\\\"\\\" But it will be worth it, if you become even a moderately successful investor. As for rules, they'll teach you the rules. Everyone wants your business. People have gotten (modestly) rich, buying shares here and there. One man told me of investing $600 in a company called Limited, and ending up with $12,000 some years later. BRIC is not a \\\"\\\"share.\\\"\\\" It is an acronym for four countries \\\"\\\"of the future.\\\"\\\" High risk, high reward here.\\\"\",\n \"Other than the possibility of minimal entry price being prohibitively high, there's no reason why you couldn't participate in any global trading whatsoever. Most ETFs, and indeed, stockbrokers allows both accounts opening, and trading via the Internet, without regard to physical location. With that said, I'd strongly advice you to do a proper research, and reality check both on your risk/reward profile, and on the vehicles to invest in. As Fools write, money you'll need in the next 6 months have no place on the stockmarket. Be prepared, that you can indeed loose all of your investment, regardless of the chosen vehicle.\",\n \"Here's a different take: Look through the lists of companies that offer shareholder perks. Here's one from Hargreaves Lansdown. See if you can find one that you already spend money with with a low required shareholding where the perks would actually be usable. Note that in your case, being curious about the whole thing and based in London, you don't have to rule out the AGM-based perks, unlike me. My reason for this is simple: with 3 out of 4 of the companies we bought shares in directly (all for the perks), we've made several times the dividend in savings on money we would have spent anyway (either with the company in which we bought shares or a direct competitor). This means that you can actually make back the purchase price plus dealing fee quite quickly (probably in 2/4 in our case), and you still have the shares. We've found that pub/restaurant/hotel brands work well if you use them or their equivalents anyway. Caveats: It's more enjoyable than holding a handful of shares in a company you don't care about, and if you want to read the annual reports you can relate this to your own experience, which might interest you given your obvious curiosity.\",\n \"Depending on your broker, you can buy these stocks directly at the most liquid local exchanges. For instance, if you are US resident and want to to buy German stocks (like RWE) you can trade these stocks over InteractiveBrokers (or other direct brokers in the US). They offer direct access to German Xetra and other local markets.\",\n \"You can't actually transfer shares directly unless they were obtained as part of an employee share scheme - see the answers to questions 19 and 20 on this page: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/isa/faqs.htm#19 Q. Can I put shares from my employee share scheme into my ISA? A. You can transfer any shares you get from into a stocks and shares component of an ISA without having to pay Capital Gains Tax - provided your ISA manager agrees to take them. The value of the shares at the date of transfer counts towards the annual limit. This means you can transfer up to £11,520 worth of shares in the tax year 2013-14 (assuming that you make no other subscriptions to ISAs, in those years). You must transfer the shares within 90 days from the day they cease to be subject to the Plan, or (for approved SAYE share option schemes) 90 days of the exercise of option date. Your employer should be able to tell you more. Q. Can I put windfall or inherited shares in my ISA? A. No. You can only transfer shares you own into an ISA if they have come from an employee share scheme. Otherwise, the ISA manager must purchase shares on the open market. The situation is the same if you have shares that you have inherited. You are not able to transfer them into an ISA.\",\n \"There's no limitation on what you can invest in, including trading stocks (as long as trading is not a business activity, like day-trading or investing for others). You just need to make sure you have a tax ID (either ITIN or SSN) and pay taxes on all the gains and dividends. Also, consider your home country tax laws, since you're still tax resident in your home country (most likely).\",\n \"It is absolutely legal. While studying on a F-1 you would typically be considered a non-resident alien for tax purposes. You can trade stocks, just like any other foreigner having an account with a US- or non-US based brokerage firm. Make sure to account for profit made on dividends/capital gain when doing your US taxes. A software package provided by your university for doing taxes might not be adequate for this.\",\n \"I think I have a better answer for this since I have been an investor in the stock markets since a decade and most of my money is either made through investing or trading the financial markets. Yes you can start investing with as low as 50 GBP or even less. If you are talking about stocks there is no restriction on the amount of shares you can purchase the price of which can be as low as a penny. I stared investing in stocks when I was 18. With the money saved from my pocket money which was not much. But I made investments on a regular period no matter how less I could but I would make regular investments on a long term. Remember one thing, never trade stock markets always invest in it on a long term. The stock markets will give you the best return on a long term as shown on the graph below and will also save you money on commission the broker charge on every transaction. The brokers to make money for themselves will ask you to trade stocks on short term but stock market were always made to invest on a long term as Warren Buffet rightly says. And if you want to trade try commodities or forex. Forex brokers will offer you accounts with as low as 25 USD with no commissions. The commission here are all inclusive in spreads. Is this true? Can the average Joe become involved? Yes anyone who wants has an interest in the financial markets can get involved. Knowledge is the key not money. Is it worth investing £50 here and there? Or is that a laughable idea? 50 GBP is a lot. I started with a few Indian Rupees. If people laugh let them laugh. Only morons who don't understand the true concept of financial markets laugh. There are fees/rules involved, is it worth the effort if you just want to see? The problem with today's generation of people is that they fear a lot. Unless you crawl you dont walk. Unless you try something you dont learn. The only difference between a successful person and a not successful person is his ability to try, fail/fall, get back on feet, again try untill he succeeds. I know its not instant money, but I'd like to get a few shares here and there, to follow the news and see how companies do. I hear that BRIC (brasil, russia, india and china) is a good share to invest in Brazil India the good thing is share prices are relatively low even the commissions. Mostly ROI (return on investment) on a long term would almost be the same. Can anyone share their experiences? (maybe best for community wiki?) Always up for sharing. Please ask questions no matter how stupid they are. I love people who ask for when I started I asked and people were generous enough to answer and so would I be.\",\n \"Yes, http://shares.telegraph.co.uk/stockscreener/ has what you're looking for.\",\n \"\\\"listed simultaneously in New York, London, and maybe even some Asian markets - is this correct? If the exchanges are not connected, then in primary market the shares are listed. On other exchanges, the \\\"\\\"Depository Receipts\\\"\\\" are listed. i.e. the Company will keep say 100,000 shares with the primary stock exchange / depository. Based on this it would create new instruments \\\"\\\"Depository Receipts\\\"\\\". They can be 1:1 or whatever ratio. hypothetically, if I want to buy all of the company's stock Even if it is on one exchange, buying all stocks would trigger various regulatory aspects of Companies Act, or Stock Exchange rules. This is not simple or easy like clicking some buttons and buying everything. That is, let's say that in New York the company has listed 1000 shares, and in London only 10 shares, each worth 10 USD Market capitalization is sum of all outstanding shares into value.\\\"\",\n \"For question #1, at least some US-based online brokers do permit direct purchases of stocks on foreign exchanges. Depending on your circumstances, this might be more cost effective than purchasing US-listed ADRs. One such broker is Interactive Brokers, which allows US citizens to directly purchase shares on many different foreign exchanges using their online platform (including in France). For France, I believe their costs are currently 0.1% of the total trade value with a 4€ minimum. I should warn you that the IB platform is not particularly user-friendly, since they market themselves to traders and the learning curve is steep (although accounts are available to individual investors). IB also won't automatically convert currencies for you, so you also need to use their foreign exchange trading interface to acquire the foreign currency used to purchase a foreign stock, which has plusses and minuses. On the plus side, their F/X spread is very competitive, but the interface is, shall we say, not very intuitive. I can't answer question #2 with specific regards to US/France. At least in the case of IB, though, I believe any dividends from a EUR-denominated stock would continue to accumulate in your account in Euros until you decide to convert them to dollars (or you could reinvest in EUR if you so choose).\",\n \"No you will have no problems. It's been fourteen years since I've lived in the UK and I've had no trouble with my UK bank accounts in that time. They have happily mailed me statements and new cards abroad for all that time, and I've deposited cheques by mailing them to the branch. Online banking takes care of almost everything else. The only thing I wasn't able to do from abroad was open a new account, because of anti money-laundering regulations. Even that may be possible if you presented the right kind of ID when you opened the original account - mine predated the regulations. Most UK banks will also offer 'offshore' banking for non-residents in which interest is not deducted at source.\",\n \"Yes NRIs are allowed to open a DEMAT account in India from abroad. Investments can be made under the Portfolio Investment NRI Scheme (PINS) either on repatriation or non-repatriation basis. As per,the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India it is mandatory for NRIs to open a trading account with a designated institution authorized by the RBI. They must avail either a Non-Resident Ordinary (NRO) or Non-Resident External (NRE) account to route the various investments.\",\n \"As an NRI there are certain limitations as well as benefits. Limitation in terms of holding a specified quantity of shares in company, thus the need to open new account, so that Bank can track the holding and inform regulator. Benfits in terms of able to reptriate any amount of funds from trades in this account. In order to ease this, there are 2 Accounts NRO demat account (Non PINS): Essentially this does not automatically allow for reptration of funds [like NRE] but its more like NRO, amount upto USD 1 million per year. NRO Demat account PINS: Here you can buy fresh shares and take the proceeds out of country without any limits. So in short, you would need an NRO Demat NON PINS Account. Transfer your existing shares here. Sell whenever you like. Open a NRO Demat PINS account, if you wish to buy more with status as NRI, if you don't wish you buy, there is no need for this account.\",\n \"Nothing. Stockbrokers set up nominee accounts, in which they hold shares on behalf of individual investors. Investors are still the legal owners of the shares but their names do not appear on the company’s share register. Nominee accounts are ring-fenced from brokers’ other activities so they are financially secure.\",\n \"\\\"Good question! It seems to me that there is no minimum order size for shares trading on the LSE. Please note, I couldn't find an definite answer, but: According to the \\\"\\\"International Order Book\\\"\\\" document (see: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/traders-and-brokers/rules-regulations/change-and-updates/stock-exchange-notices/2010/n2210_attach1.pdf) from the LSE (page 7): Question 7: Would respondents support a revision of the minimum order size of 50 units? Whilst there was limited support for a low value based minimum order size the majority of respondents requested its complete removal. This was incorporated into the September 2010 quarterly review as per Service Announcement 001/100910 and as from 20 September 2010, the minimum order size in all IOB securities has been 1 unit Even though not all trading on the LSE is performed on this IOB system, it would be very wierd if the international stocks can be traded in any size, while domestic stocks will have an minimum size. Further, consider looking to the times and sales of various stocks (here you can find an example http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/exchange-insight/trade-data.html?page=0&fourWayKey=GB0006731235GBGBXSET1&formName=frmRow&upToRow=-1). Those trades also suggest that there is no minimum order size (for example, I just saw an executed trade with an size of 13). At last, look at the Interactive Brokers (no relationship with) Exchange List at http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/trading/exchanges.php?exch=lse&showcategories=&ib_entity=llc. Here you can click on various stock names, and in the popup window that opens, look for 'size parameters' and the size increment. I could only find stocks with an size increment of 1 (i.e. you can trade anything with a minimum of 1 stock, and more needs to be in steps of 1 stock). Even though I couldn't find official information on the LSE site (like a leaflet for beginners or such), it does seem to me that you can trade any size you want on LSE. Please note that mutual funds and illiquid OTC stocks which don't have an continuous market can have different rules, so double-check with your broker.\\\"\",\n \"Selftrade does list them. Not sure if you'll be able to sign up from the US though, particularly given the FATCA issues.\",\n \"According to this page on their website (http://www.kotaksecurities.com/internationaleq/homepage.htm), Kotak Securities is one big-name Indian broker that offers an international equities account to its Indian customers. Presumably, they should be able to answer all your questions. Since this is a competitive market, one can assume that others like ICICI Direct must also be doing so.\",\n \"\\\"Is this amount an adequate starting amount to begin investing with? Yes. You can open an account at a brokerage with this amount. I'm not sure I would invest in individual stocks at this point. Which services should I use to start buying shares? (Currently my bank offers this service but I'm willing to use other sources) I can't make UK-specific recommendations, but I'd compare your bank's fees to those of a discount broker -- as well as the variety and level of service available. I would like to regularly increase the amount invested in shares. Is it worth doing this in say £200 increments? Take a look at the fees associated with each investment. Divide the fee by the increment to see what percent you'll lose to fees/commissions. Keep in mind that you have to gain more than that percentage to start earning a positive return on your investment. If you have access to fee-free automatic mutual fund investments, and you can commit to the £200 amount on a regular basis going forward, then this can be a completely free way of making these incremental investments. See also this answer on dollar cost averaging, and my comment on the other answer on that question for how fees impact returns. When buying shares should I focus on say two or three companies, or diversify more? I would diversify into two or three different index funds. Read up on asset allocation. For example, you might invest 1/3 of your balance into S&P 500 index fund, bond index fund, and MSCI EAFE index fund (but that's just a rough example, and not necessarily good for you). I highly recommend \\\"\\\"The Intelligent Asset Allocator\\\"\\\" by William Bernstein for excellent info on diversification and asset allocation.\\\"\",\n \"As a relatively recent nonimmigrant visa holder (O1), I was able to open an ETrade brokerage account without problems. I have full tax residence in the USA so have an SSN, and a credit history so it was no problem. Later, as a greencard holder, I opened IRA accounts with them, too. Again, there were no issues as I had all the information that the IRS paperwork required at hand.\",\n \"A stock represents your share of ownership in a corporation. All of these shares indicate towards your part of ownership in a corporation a shareholder, stockholder or a shareowner in a company. In order to get a stock, be sure to secure the assistance of a licensed stockbroker to buy securities on your behalf. Yes, anyone having substantial amount of money to invest can buy/own/use stocks. Holding a stock for less than a year makes it a subject to tax on your regular income for short-term gains. Most of the people find it higher than the capital gains. In addition, your annual income also comes into play.\",\n \"One risk not mentioned is that foreign stock might be thinly traded on your local stock market, so you will find it harder to buy and sell, and you will be late to the game if there is some sudden change in the share price in the original country.\",\n \"The answer to this question is given by the fact that many public companies have people who are opposed to the company's aims or practices and who own their stock, often a single share, for the purposes of turning up to shareholder meetings and haranguing directors/asking awkward questions/disrupting proceedings, etc. If public companies could stop these campaigning shareholders from owning stock they would.\",\n \"Yes, all the shares of a publicly traded company can be purchased. This effectively takes the company private so that it's no longer traded on a stock market. Here are some examples: EDIT: to answer your edited question... the corporation can issue more stock. However that would dilute the value of existing shares. Thus, existing shareholders must vote to allow more shares to be issued. So... in your situation yes, you'd need to wait for someone else to sell.\",\n \"I assume you are talking about a publicly traded company listed on a major stock exchange and the buyer resides in the US. (Private companies and non-US locations can change the rules really a lot.) The short answer is no, because the company does not own the stock, various investors do. Each investor has to make an individual decision to sell or not sell. But there are complications. If an entity buys more than about 10% of the company they have to file a declaration with the SEC. The limit can be higher if they file an assertion that they are buying it solely for investment and are not seeking control of the company. If they are seeking control of the company then more paperwork must be filed and if they want to buy the whole company they may be required to make a tender offer where they offer to buy any and all shares at a specific price. If the company being bought is a financial institution, then the buyer may have to declare as a bank holding company and more regulations apply. The company can advise shareholders not to take the tender offer, but they cannot forbid it. So the short answer is, below 10% and for investment purposes only, it is cash and carry: Whoever has the cash gets to carry the stock away. Above that various regulations and declarations apply, but the company still does not have the power prevent the purchase in most circumstances.\",\n \"In theory you can buy shares directly from someone else who owns them. In practise, if the stock is listed on an exchange, they are unlikely to own them directly, they are likely to own them through an intermediary. You will have to pay fees to that intermediary to transfer the shares to your name. There are thousands of small companies owned by the guy who started it and a few other investors. You can buy stock in that kind of company directly from the existing owners, as long as they are willing to sell you some. It's a super-high risk investment strategy, though. This is the kind of deal that happens on Dragons Den.\",\n \"From the UK-USA tax treaty.... ARTICLE 1 General Scope 1. Except as specifically provided herein, this Convention is applicable only to persons who are residents of one or both of the Contracting States. 2. This Convention shall not restrict in any manner any benefit now or hereafter accorded: a) by the laws of either Contracting State; or b) by any other agreement between the Contracting States... I'm not an expert but to me that sounds like the tax free advantage of an UK ISA would be respected by the IRS From the UK-USA tax treaty.... ARTICLE 7 7. Where under any provision of this Convention income or gains arising in one of the Contracting States are relieved from tax in that Contracting State and, under the law in force in the other Contracting State, a person, in respect of the said income or gains, is subject to tax by reference to the amount thereof which is remitted to or received in that other Contracting State and not by reference to the full amount thereof, then the relief to be allowed under this Convention in the first-mentioned Contracting State shall apply only to so much of the income or gains as is taxed in the other Contracting State. This is very difficult to comprehend but suggets also that tax free status is upheld in the uSa\",\n \"Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person? I've done it the other way around, opened a bank account in the UK so I have a way to store GBP. Given that Britain is still in the EU you can basically open an account anywhere. German online banks for instance allow you to administrate anything online, should there be cards issued you would need an address in the country. And for opening an account a passport is sufficient, you can identify yourself in a video chat. Now what's the downside? French banks' online services are in French, German banks' services are in German. If that doesn't put you off, I would name such banks in the comments if asked. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Can you clarify that? You should at least be able to buy into any European or American stock through your broker. That should give you an ease of mind being FCA-regulated. However, those are usually GDRs (global depository receipts) and denominated in GBp (pence) so you'd be visually exposed to currency rates, by which I mean that if the stock goes up 1% but the GBP goes up 1% in the same period then your GDR would show a 0% profit on that day; also, and more annoyingly, dividends are distributed in the foreign currency, then exchanged by the issuer of the GDR on that day and booked into your account, so if you want to be in full control of the cashflows you should get a trading account denominated in the currency (and maybe situated in the country) you're planning to invest in. If you're really serious about it, some brokers/banks offer multi-currency trading accounts (again I will name them if asked) where you can trade a wide range of instruments natively (i.e. on the primary exchanges) and you get to manage everything in one interface. Those accounts typically include access to the foreign exchange markets so you can move cash between your accounts freely (well for a surcharge). Also, typically each subaccount is issued its own IBAN.\",\n \"In a simple statement, no doesn't matter. Checked on my trade portal, everything lines up. Same ISIN, same price(after factoring in FX conversions, if you were thinking about arbitrage those days are long gone). But a unusual phenomenon I have observed is, if you aren't allowed to buy/sell a stock in one market and try to do that in a different market for the same stock you will still not be allowed to do it. Tried it on French stocks as my current provider doesn't allow me to deal in French stocks.\",\n \"One of us is misreading the other's message. I think FDIC is great. If a Congolese citizen wants to buy the company I work at right now, great. I just make an exception for state owned enterprises, royal families, et cetera.\",\n \"the demat account that I have in India is not an NRI account. Since I was not sure how long I would be in the US, I never converted my account to NRI account. Is it required to convert my account to NRI account? Yes it is very much required by law. One should not buy or sell shares in the Resident account. One has to close and open a new account NRO Demat account and transfer the shares / units into it. Sell from this account. If you need to buy shares when one is NRI, an Demat PINS account is required to be opened.\",\n \"You can look into specific market targeted mutual funds or ETF's. For Norway, for example, look at NORW. If you want to purchase specific stocks, then you'd better be ready to trade on local stock exchanges in local currency. ETrade allows trading on some of the international stock exchanges (in Asia they have Hong Kong and Japan, in Europe they have the UK, Germany and France, and in the Americas they have the US and Canada). Some of the companies you're interested in might be trading there.\",\n \"I would say you should invest in the market that is more convenient for you, bearing in mind that if you buy ADRs you may have some things to keep an eye on depending on certain events as mentioned by duffbeer703. So, if you are investing with an account in the U.S., go with the ADRs as that will avoid some currency conversion hassles and possible exchange rate issues. I am not certain, but I have a feeling that would also make it easier for you to keep the taxman happy.\",\n \"Does my prior answer here to a slightly different question help at all? Are there capital gains taxes or dividend taxes if I invest in the U.S. stock market from outside of the country?\",\n \"If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.\",\n \"\\\"The London Stock Exchange offers a wealth of exchange traded products whose variety matches those offered in the US. Here is a link to a list of exchange traded products listed on the LSE. The link will take you to the list of Vanguard offerings. To view those offered by other managers, click on the letter choices at the top of the page. For example, to view the iShares offerings, click on \\\"\\\"I\\\"\\\". In the case of Vanguard, the LSE listed S&P500 ETF is traded under the code VUSA. Similarly, the Vanguard All World ETF trades under the code VWRL. You will need to be patient viewing iShares offerings since there are over ten pages of them, and their description is given by the abbreviation \\\"\\\"ISH name\\\"\\\". Almost all of these funds are traded in GBP. Some offer both currency hedged and currency unhedged versions. Obviously, with the unhedged version you are taking on additional currency risk, so if you wish to avoid currency risk then choose a currency hedged version. Vanguard does not appear to offer currency hedged products in London while iShares does. Here is a list of iShares currency hedged products. As you can see, the S&P500 currency hedged trades under the code IGUS while the unhedged version trades under the code IUSA. The effects of BREXIT on UK markets and currency are a matter of opinion and difficult to quantify currently. The doom and gloom warnings of some do not appear to have materialised, however the potential for near-term volatility remains so longs as the exit agreement is not formalised. In the long-term, I personally believe that BREXIT will, on balance, be a positive for the UK, but that is just my opinion.\\\"\",\n \"As far as I read in many articles, all earnings (capital gains and dividends) from Canadian stocks will be always tax-free. Right? There's no withholding tax, ie. a $100 dividend means you get $100. There's no withholding for capital gains in shares for anybody. You will still have to pay taxes on the amounts, but that's only due at tax time and it could be very minor (or even a refund) for eligible Canadian dividends. That's because the company has already paid tax on those dividends. In contrast, holding U.S. or any foreign stock that yields dividends in a TFSA will pay 15% withholding tax and it is not recoverable. Correct, but the 15% is a special rate for regular shares and you need to fill out a W8-BEN. Your broker will probably make sure you have every few years. But if you hold the same stock in a non-registered account, this 15% withholding tax can be used as a foreign tax credit? Is this true or not or what are the considerations? That's true but reduces your Canadian tax payable, it's not refundable, so you have to have some tax to subtract it from. Another consideration is foreign dividends are included 100% in income no mater what the character is. That means you pay tax at your highest rate always if not held in a tax sheltered account. Canadian dividends that are in a non-registered account will pay taxes, I presume and I don't know how much, but the amount can be used also as a tax credit or are unrecoverable? What happens in order to take into account taxes paid by the company is, I read also that if you don't want to pay withholding taxes from foreign > dividends you can hold your stock in a RRSP or RRIF? You don't have any withholding taxes from US entities to what they consider Canadian retirement accounts. So TFSAs and RESPs aren't covered. Note that it has to be a US fund like SPY or VTI that trades in the US, and the account has to be RRSP/RRIF. You can't buy a Canadian listed ETF that holds US stocks and get the same treatment. This is also only for the US, not foreign like Europe or Asia. Also something like VT (total world) in the US will have withholding taxes from foreign (Europe & Asia mostly) before the money gets to the US. You can't get that back. Just an honourable mention for the UK, there's no withholding taxes for anybody, and I hear it's on sale. But at some point, if I withdraw the money, who do I need to pay taxes, > U.S. or Canada? Canada.\",\n \"\\\"As user quid states in his answer, all you need to do is open an account with a stock broker in order to gain access to the world's stock markets. If you are currently banking with one of the six big bank, then they will offer stockbroking services. You can shop around for the best commission rates. If you wish to manage your own investments, then you will open a \\\"\\\"self-directed\\\"\\\" account. You can shelter your investments from all taxation by opening a TFSA account with your stock broker. Currently, you can add $5,500 per year to your TFSA. Unused allowances from previous years can still be used. Thus, if you have not yet made any TFSA contributions, you can add upto $46,500 to your TFSA and enjoy the benefits of tax free investing. Investing in what you are calling \\\"\\\"unmanaged index funds\\\"\\\" means investing in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Once you have opened your account you can invest in any ETFs traded on the stock markets accessible through your stock broker. Buying shares on foreign markets may carry higher commission rates, but for the US markets commissions are generally the same as they are for Canadian markets. However, in the case of buying foreign shares you will carry the extra cost and risk of selling Canadian dollars and buying foreign currency. There are also issues to do with foreign withholding taxes when you trade foreign shares directly. In the case of the US, you will also need to register with the US tax authorities. Foreign withholding taxes payable are generally treated as a tax credit with respect to Canadian taxation, so you will not be double taxed. In today's market, for most investors there is generally no need to invest directly in foreign market indices since you can do so indirectly on the Toronto stock market. The large Canadian ETF providers offer a wide range of US, European, Asian, and Global ETFs as well as Canadian ETFs. For example, you can track all of the major US indices by trading in Toronto in Canadian dollars. The S&P500, the Dow Jones, and the NASDAQ100 are offered in both \\\"\\\"currency hedged\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"unhedged\\\"\\\" forms. In addition, there are ETFs on the total US Market, US Small Caps, US sectors such as banks, and more exotic ETFs such as those offering \\\"\\\"covered call\\\"\\\" strategies and \\\"\\\"put write\\\"\\\" strategies. Here is a link to the BMO ETF website. Here is a link to the iShares (Canada) ETF website.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Although this is an old question, it's worth pointing out that the Google Stock Screener now supports stocks traded on the London Stock Exchange. From the country dropdown on the left, select \\\"\\\"United Kingdom\\\"\\\" and use the screener as before.\\\"\",\n \"When you buy a currency via FX market, really you are just exchanging one country's currency for another. So if it is permitted to hold one currency electronically, surely it must be permitted to hold a different country's currency electronically.\",\n \"Here is a list of European ETFs you can buy in Europe: iShares Europe and DB x-Trackers. Both offer ETFs for Spanish citizens. Regarding your question in your comment on if you could buy Austrian ETFs as a Spanish citizen: If your broker offers Austrian ETFs you can buy them as well. I do not believe that there would be any legal restrictions. For a good international broker, which would allow you to buy these ETFs I would recommend looking at Interactive Brokers.com\",\n \"Vanguard has just recently started listing its funds in London but it doesn't look like the High Dividend Yield ETF is available yet. You'll need to either get a broker who can trade on the U.S. markets (there might be tax and exchange rate complications), or wait until Vanguard lists this stock on the London exchange.\",\n \"You definitely used to be able to (see this BBC article from 2006), and I would imagine that you still can, although I also imagine that it would be more difficult than it used to be, as with all mortgages. EDIT: And here's an article from last year about Chinese banks targeting the UK mortgage market.\",\n \"\\\"Life would be nicer had we not needed lawyers. But for some things - you better get a proper legal advice. This is one of these things. Generally, the United States is a union of 50 different sovereign entities, so you're asking more about Texas, less about the US. So you'd better talk to a Texas lawyer. Usually, stock ownership is only registered by the company itself (and sometimes not even that, look up \\\"\\\"street name\\\"\\\"), and not reported to the government. You may get a paper stock certificate, but many companies no longer issue those. Don't forget to talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser in your home country, as well. You'll be dealing with tax authorities there as well. The difference between \\\"\\\"unoted\\\"\\\" (never heard of this term before) and \\\"\\\"regular\\\"\\\" stocks is that the \\\"\\\"unoted\\\"\\\" are not publicly traded. As such, many things that your broker does (like tax statements, at source withholding, etc) you and your company will have to do on your own. If your company plans on paying dividends, you'll have to have a US tax ID (ITIN or SSN), and the company will have to withhold the US portion of the taxes. Don't forget to talk to a tax adviser about what happens when you sell the stock. Also, since the company is not publicly traded, consider how will you be able to sell it, if at all.\\\"\",\n \"My concern is if I need to report and pay extra taxes for the part of the company that will be under my name Yes, d'uh. Of course. It's actually quite complicated when it comes to foreign companies owned by US people, and you'll need a good tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) who's fluent in that area. Citizenship has nothing to do with this, from tax perspective there's no difference between a green card holder and a citizen (except that green card holder cannot claim non-resident exemptions and certain tax treaties' exemptions).\",\n \"I'll give it a shot, even though you don't seem to be responding to my comment. SIPC insures against fraud or abuse of its members. If you purchased a stock through a SIPC member broker and it was held in trust by a SIPC member, you're covered by its protection. Where you purchased the stock - doesn't matter. There are however things SIPC doesn't cover. That said, SIPC members are SEC-registred brokers, i.e.: brokers operating in the USA. If you're buying on the UK stock exchange - you need to check that you're still operating through a US SIPC member. As I mentioned in the comment - the specific company that you mentioned has different entities for the US operations and the UK operations. Buying through them on LSE is likely to bind you with their UK entity that is not SIPC member. You'll have to check that directly with them.\",\n \"Why should they? If investors' don't want nonvoting shares, they shouldn't buy them. I don't like the big banks, but it's not like they are fleecing little old ladies here. The people with the first rights to the shares tend to be institutions who know what they are getting.\",\n \"\\\"I think you will find it hard to do. There are money laundering regulations which require you to provide proof of address when opening an account. I don't know for certain if they require an UK address, but even if they don't, it's very likely that individual banks etc will require that. I doubt that they will view you as a profitable customer for them, since you would not be using the account as your \\\"\\\"main\\\"\\\" account. Although having a job isn't a legal requirement, in practice I think it's the only way you can get an account without having been resident in the country for a while. My company employs a significant number of people from abroad and they typically need support from the company to open an account when they first move. One thing you could investigate is opening an account with some international bank with branches both in Hungary and the UK, and asking them to arrange the UK account for you. One example of such a bank is HSBC. However such banks will typically charge you a significant amount for the privilege - for example with HSBC you need a \\\"\\\"premier account\\\"\\\" to get this kind of service.\\\"\",\n \"I'm not aware of any method to own US stocks, but you can trade them as contract for difference, or CFDs as they are commonly known. Since you're hoping to invest around $1000 this might be a better option since you can use leverage.\",\n \"You can check whether the company whose stock you want to buy is present on an european market. For instance this is the case for Apple at Frankfurt.\",\n \"Quite a few stock broker in India offer to trade in US markets via tie-up brokers in US. As an Indian citizen, there are limits as to how much FX you can buy, generally very large, should be an issue. The profits will be taxed in US as well as India [you can claim relief under DTAA]\",\n \"\\\"The fact that your shares are of a Canadian-listed corporation (as indicated in your comment reply) and that you are located in the United States (as indicated in your bio) is highly relevant to answering the question. The restriction for needing to be a \\\"\\\"qualified institutional buyer\\\"\\\" (QIB) arises from the parent company not having registered the spin-off company rights [options] or shares (yet?) for sale in the United States. Shares sold in the U.S. must either be registered with the SEC or qualify for some exemption. See SEC Fast Answers - Securities Act Rule 144. Quoting: Selling restricted or control securities in the marketplace can be a complicated process. This is because the sales are so close to the interests of the issuing company that the law might require them to be registered. Under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, all offers and sales of securities must be registered with the SEC or qualify for some exemption from the registration requirements. [...] There are regulations to follow and costs involved in such registration. Perhaps the rights [options] themselves won't ever be registered (as they have a very limited lifetime), while the listed shares might be? You could contact investor relations at the parent company for more detail. (If I guessed the company correctly, there's detail in this press release. Search the text for \\\"\\\"United States\\\"\\\".)\\\"\",\n \"I am a US citizen by birth only. I left the US aged 6 weeks old and have never lived there. I am also a UK citizen but TD Waterhouse have just followed their policy and asked me to close my account under FATCA. It is a complete nightmare for dual nationals who have little or no US connection. IG.com seem to allow me to transfer my holdings so long as I steer clear of US investments. Furious with the US and would love to renounce citizenship but will have to pay $2500 or thereabouts to follow the US process. So much for Land of the Free!\",\n \"From Wikipedia: If a company with limited liability is sued, then the claimants are suing the company, not its owners or investors. A shareholder in a limited company is not personally liable for any of the debts of the company, other than for the value of their investment in that company. Summarized, no, if you buy stock from the regular stock market like NYSE, you're not personally liable for any debt or fraud that happens.\",\n \"Yes, You will have to pay the taxes at least initially but you'll most probably get a refund when you will file returns depending upon the amount and tax brackets in the UK.\",\n \"If you're a non resident then you owe no capital gains tax to Canada. Most banks won't let you make trades if you're a non-resident. They may not have your correct address on file so they don't realize this. This is not tax law but just OSC (or equivalent) regulations. You do have to fill out paperwork for withholding tax on OAS/CPP payments. This is something you probably already do but here's a link . It's complicated and depends on the country you live in. Of course you may owe tax in Thailand, I don't know their laws.\",\n \"If I bought 1 percent share of company X, Most countries company X, is treated as a separate legal entity than individual. So max loss is what you have invested. However certain types of companies, generally called partnerships are not separate entities and you have to pay back the said loss. However such companies are not traded on stock exchanges. Is there an age requirements to enter the stock market? Depends on country. Generally a minor can hold an account with a guardian.\",\n \"Saxo Bank offers direct access to Athens Stock Exchange. Interactive Brokers is your next best bet, and as you probably already noticed, they do not have a free platform. They are open to US and non-US citizens. Although they do not currently have direct exposure to individual companies on the Athens Stock Exchange, the various european exchanges they do provide direct market access for will give a lot of exposure. There are a few Greek companies that trade on non-Greek stock exchanges, if you want exposure. There are also Greek ETFs which bundle several companies together or try to replicate Greek company indices.\",\n \"Even with non-voting shares, you own a portion of the company including all of its assets and its future profits. If the company is sold, goes out of business and liquidates, etc., those with non-voting shares still stand collect their share of the funds generated. There's also the possibility, as one of the comments notes, that a company will pay dividends in the future and distribute its assets to shareholders that way. The example of Google (also mentioned in the comments) is interesting because when they went to voting and non-voting stock, there was some theoretical debate about whether the two types of shares (GOOG and GOOGL) would track each other in value. It turned out that they did not - People did put a premium on voting, so that is worth something. Even without the voting rights, however, Google has massive assets and each share (GOOG and GOOGL) represented ownership of a fraction of those assets and that kept them highly correlated in value. (Google had to pay restitution to some shareholders of the non-voting stock as a result of the deviation in value. I won't get into the details here since it's a bit of tangent, but you could easily find details on the web.)\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Yes it is legal, in fact according to statistics.gov.uk, foreign investors are the largest holders of UK shares (as of 2008). Investors from outside the UK owned 41.5 per cent of shares listed on the London Stock Exchange at the end of 2008, up from 40.0 per cent at end of 2006, according to the latest Office for National Statistics report on share ownership.","\"It's easy to own many of the larger UK stocks. Companies like British Petroleum, Glaxo, and Royal Dutch Shell, list what they call ADRs (American Depositary Receipts) on the U.S. stock exchanges. That is, they will deposit local shares with Bank of NY Mellon, JP Morgan Chase, or Citicorp (the three banks that do this type of business), and the banks will turn around and issue ADRs equivalent to the number of shares on deposit. This is not true with \"\"small cap\"\" companies. In those cases, a broker like Schwab may occasionally help you, usually not. But you might have difficulty trading U.S. small cap companies as well.\"","Yes, However if you live in the USA a lot of companies will refuse to sent you any report and will not let you take part in “right issues” as they don’t wish to come under USA investment law."],"string":"[\n \"Yes it is legal, in fact according to statistics.gov.uk, foreign investors are the largest holders of UK shares (as of 2008). Investors from outside the UK owned 41.5 per cent of shares listed on the London Stock Exchange at the end of 2008, up from 40.0 per cent at end of 2006, according to the latest Office for National Statistics report on share ownership.\",\n \"\\\"It's easy to own many of the larger UK stocks. Companies like British Petroleum, Glaxo, and Royal Dutch Shell, list what they call ADRs (American Depositary Receipts) on the U.S. stock exchanges. That is, they will deposit local shares with Bank of NY Mellon, JP Morgan Chase, or Citicorp (the three banks that do this type of business), and the banks will turn around and issue ADRs equivalent to the number of shares on deposit. This is not true with \\\"\\\"small cap\\\"\\\" companies. In those cases, a broker like Schwab may occasionally help you, usually not. But you might have difficulty trading U.S. small cap companies as well.\\\"\",\n \"Yes, However if you live in the USA a lot of companies will refuse to sent you any report and will not let you take part in “right issues” as they don’t wish to come under USA investment law.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":174,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"1676"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"W2 vs 1099 Employee status"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["77245","394871","58937","234436"],"string":"[\n \"77245\",\n \"394871\",\n \"58937\",\n \"234436\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["32072","487791","586026","382908","194899","68524","234436","277812","58937","37725","232544","406789","77245","413879","24323","569135","489898","352640","466213","408434","454584","176777","316074","532932","63144","250766","394871","326329","175889","220022","139501","578196","367026","50310","165645","458231","597199","496309","584218","373949","281500","524788","125696","527776","97852","195640","452896","135688","159162","18647","56718","179398","510409","300418","222049","417295","156832","306688","466678","160313","319331","467781","502283","470898","511696","65407","376631","303287","406656","9085","260603","443014","597053","490997","42999","282770","194955","44152","238622","170933","446889","247473","599835","359465","304479","259924","262691","267776","221938","355513","102995","416117","80350","324878","80994","549870","494583","449544","189879","463881"],"string":"[\n \"32072\",\n \"487791\",\n \"586026\",\n \"382908\",\n \"194899\",\n \"68524\",\n \"234436\",\n \"277812\",\n \"58937\",\n \"37725\",\n \"232544\",\n \"406789\",\n \"77245\",\n \"413879\",\n \"24323\",\n \"569135\",\n \"489898\",\n \"352640\",\n \"466213\",\n \"408434\",\n \"454584\",\n \"176777\",\n \"316074\",\n \"532932\",\n \"63144\",\n \"250766\",\n \"394871\",\n \"326329\",\n \"175889\",\n \"220022\",\n \"139501\",\n \"578196\",\n \"367026\",\n \"50310\",\n \"165645\",\n \"458231\",\n \"597199\",\n \"496309\",\n \"584218\",\n \"373949\",\n \"281500\",\n \"524788\",\n \"125696\",\n \"527776\",\n \"97852\",\n \"195640\",\n \"452896\",\n \"135688\",\n \"159162\",\n \"18647\",\n \"56718\",\n \"179398\",\n \"510409\",\n \"300418\",\n \"222049\",\n \"417295\",\n \"156832\",\n \"306688\",\n \"466678\",\n \"160313\",\n \"319331\",\n \"467781\",\n \"502283\",\n \"470898\",\n \"511696\",\n \"65407\",\n \"376631\",\n \"303287\",\n \"406656\",\n \"9085\",\n \"260603\",\n \"443014\",\n \"597053\",\n \"490997\",\n \"42999\",\n \"282770\",\n \"194955\",\n \"44152\",\n \"238622\",\n \"170933\",\n \"446889\",\n \"247473\",\n \"599835\",\n \"359465\",\n \"304479\",\n \"259924\",\n \"262691\",\n \"267776\",\n \"221938\",\n \"355513\",\n \"102995\",\n \"416117\",\n \"80350\",\n \"324878\",\n \"80994\",\n \"549870\",\n \"494583\",\n \"449544\",\n \"189879\",\n \"463881\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer without knowing all about your situation, but some things to consider: If you are on a 1099, you have to pay self-employment tax, while on a W-2 you do not. That is, social security tax is 12.4% of your income. If you're a 1099, you pay the full 12.4%. If you're W-2, you pay 6.2% and the employer pays 6.2%. So if they offer you the same nominal rate of pay, you're 6.2% better off with the W-2. What sort of insurance could you get privately and what would it cost you? I have no idea what the going rates for insurance are in California. If you're all in generally good health, you might want to consider a high-deductible policy. Then if no one gets seriously sick you've saved a bunch of money on premiums. If someone does get sick you might still pay less paying the deductible than you would have paid on higher premiums. I won't go into further details as that's getting off into another question. Even if the benefits are poor, if there are any benefits at all it can be better than nothing. The only advantage I see to going with a 1099 is that if you are legally an independent contractor, then all your business expenses are deductible, while if you are an employee, there are sharp limits on deducting employee business expenses. Maybe others can think of other advantages. If there is some reason to go the 1099 route, I understand that setting up an LLC is not that hard. I've never done it, but I briefly looked into it once and it appeared to basically be a matter of filling out a form and paying a modest fee.","It's hard to answer without knowing all of the details (i.e. what was your salary for each of the options), but I think you probably made a good choice. 1099: Would have required you to pay self-employment tax, but also would have allowed you to deduct business expenses. W2 with benefits: Likely would have been beneficial if you needed healthcare (since group plans can be cheaper than individual plans, and healthcare payments aren't taxed), but if you don't use the healthcare, that would have been a waste. W2, no benefits: Assuming your salary here falls between the 1099 and the W2 with benefits, it seems like a good compromise for your situation.","Forms 1099 and W2 are mutually exclusive. Employers file both, not the employees. 1099 is filed for contractors, W2 is filed for employees. These terms are defined in the tax code, and you may very well be employee, even though your employer pays you as a contractor and issues 1099. You may complain to the IRS if this is the case, and have them explain the difference to the employer (at the employer's expense, through fines and penalties). Employers usually do this to avoid providing benefits (and by the way also avoid paying payroll taxes). If you're working as a contractor, lets check your follow-up questions: where do i pay my taxes on my hourly that means does the IRS have a payment center for the tax i pay. If you're an independent contractor (1099), you're supposed to pay your own taxes on a quarterly basis using the form 1040-ES. Check this page for more information on your quarterly payments and follow the links. If you're a salaried employee elsewhere (i.e.: receive W2, from a different employer), then instead of doing the quarterly estimates you can adjust your salary withholding at that other place of work to cover for your additional income. To do that you submit an updated form W4 there, check with the payroll department on details. Is this a hobby tax No such thing, hobby income is taxed as ordinary income. The difference is that hobby cannot be at loss, while regular business activity can. If you're a contractor, it is likely that you're not working at loss, so it is irrelevant. what tax do i pay the city? does this require a sole proprietor license? This really depends on your local laws and the type of work you're doing and where you're doing it. Most likely, if you're working from your employer's office, you don't need any business license from the city (unless you have to be licensed to do the job). If you're working from home, you might need a license, check with the local government. These are very general answers to very general questions. You should seek a proper advice from a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for your specific case.","Can I work on 1099 from my own company instead of on W2? The reason is on W2 I can't deduct my commute, Health Insurance and some other expenses while on 1099 I think I can able do that. Since I am going to client place to work not at my own office, I am not sure whether I should able to do that or not. If you have LLC, unless you elected to tax it as a corporation, you need neither 1099 nor W2. For tax purposes the LLC is disregarded. So it is, from tax perspective, a sole proprietorship (or partnership, if multiple members). Being a W2 employee of your own LLC is a bad idea. For all these above expenses, which can I use company's debit/credit card or I need to use only my personal debit/credit card? It would be better to always use a business account for business purposes. Doesn't matter much for tax per se, but will make your life easier in case of an audit or a legal dispute (limited liability protection may depend on it). If I work on 1099, I guess I need to file some reasonable taxes on quarterly basis instead of filing at year end. If so, how do I pay my tax on quarterly basis to IRS? I mean which forms should I file and how to pay tax? Unless you're a W2 employee, you need to do quarterly estimate payments using form 1040-ES. If you are a W2 employee (even for a different job, and even if it is not you, but your spouse with whom you're filing jointly) - you can adjust your/spouse's withholding using form W4 to cover the additional tax liability. This is, IMHO, a better way than paying estimates. There are numerous questions on this, search the site or ask another one for details.","\"You can do either a 1099 or a W-2. There is no limitations to the number of W-2s one can have in reporting taxes. Problems occur, with the IRS, when one \"\"forgets\"\" to report income. Even if one holds only one job at a time, people typically have more than one W-2 if they change jobs within the year. The W-2 is the simplest way to go and you may want to consider doing this if you do not intend to work this side business into significant income. However, a 1099 gig is preferred by many in some situations. For things like travel expenses, you will probably receive the income from these on a 1099, but you can deduct them from your income using a Schedule C. Along these lines you may be able to deduct a wide variety of other things like travel to and from the client's location, equipment such as computers and office supplies, and maybe a portion of your home internet bill. Also this opens up different retirement contributions schemes such as a simplified employee pension. This does come with some drawbacks, however. First your life is more complicated as things need to be documented to become actual business expenses. You are much more likely to be audited by the IRS. Your taxes become more complicated and it is probably necessary to employee a CPA to do them. If you do this for primary full time work you will have to buy your own benefits. Most telling you will have to pay both sides of social security taxes on most profits. (Keep in mind that a good account can help you transfer profits to dividends which will allow you to be taxed at 15% and avoid social security taxes.) So it really comes down to what you see this side gig expanding into and your goals. If you want to make this a real business, then go 1099, if you are just doing this for a fes months and a few thousand dollars, go W-2.\"","The tax savings of being 1099 can be significant. It depends on your salary, and what you can deduct. You may want to consult with an accountant. The social security tax, for the self employed, is 12.4% of profit not on revenue. If you can write off more than half of the income as expenses then you could be paying less than a w-2 employee. Also you might make a higher salary as a 1099, it is rare the offer the same compensation for a W-2 as a 1099 as the former has higher expenses for the employer. It is hard to know without actual numbers, actual expected expense deductions and so forth. Which is why I would suggest consulting with an accountant. You may want to talk to one in the state where he will be working rather than where you live now.","Another thing to consider, however, is the deductibility of business expenses. Let's assume that the employer can legitimately hire you as a 1099 contractor. (Would you be able to telecommute? Would you have a high degree of control over when you worked and when you didn't? These factors also affect whether you're a true independent 1099 contractor or not.) As a legit 1099 contractor, you're able to deduct certain business expenses directly from your income. (You can find a list of the rules at irs.gov.) As a W2 employee, by contrast, can deduct only business expenses that exceed 2% of the your AGI (adjusted gross income). So, you also have to consider your personal circumstances in making the calculus and comparing whether a legitimate 1099 contractor job is or is not good for you. It's not just a comparison of what they'd pay W2 employees versus what they'd pay 1099 contractors.","There are many different types of 1099 forms. Since you are comparing it to a W-2, I'm assuming you are talking about a 1099-MISC form. Independent contractor income If you are a worker earning a salary or wage, your employer reports your annual earnings at year-end on Form W-2. However, if you are an independent contractor or self-employed you will receive a Form 1099-MISC from each client that pays you at least $600 during the tax year. For example, if you are a freelance writer, consultant or artist, you hire yourself out to individuals or companies on a contract basis. The income you receive from each job you take should be reported to you on Form 1099-MISC. When you prepare your tax return, the IRS requires you to report all of this income and pay income tax on it. So even if you receive a 1099-MISC form, you are required to pay taxes on it.","In general What does this mean? Assume 10 holidays and 2 weeks of vacation. So you will report to the office for 240 days (48 weeks * 5 days a week). If you are a w2 they will pay you for 260 days (52 weeks * 5 days a week). At $48 per hour you will be paid: 260*8*48 or $99,840. As a 1099 you will be paid 240*8*50 or 96,000. But you still have to cover insurance, the extra part of social security, and your retirement through an IRA. A rule of thumb I have seen with government contracting is that If the employee thinks that they make X,000 per year the company has to bill X/hour to pay for wages, benefits, overhead and profit. If the employee thinks they make x/hour the company has to bill at 2X/hour. When does a small spread make sense: The insurance is covered by another source, your spouse; or government/military retirement program. Still $2 per hour won't cover the 6.2% for social security. Let alone the other benefits. The IRS has a checklist to make sure that a 1099 is really a 1099, not just a way for the employer to shift the costs onto the individual.","\"Your comment to James is telling and can help us lead you in the right direction: My work and lifestyle will be the same either way, as I said. This is all about how it goes \"\"on the books.\"\" [emphasis mine] As an independent consultant myself, when I hear something like \"\"the work will be the same either way\"\", I think: \"\"Here thar be dragons!\"\". Let me explain: If you go the independent contractor route, then you better act like one. The IRS (and the CRA, for Canadians) doesn't take lightly to people claiming to be independent contractors when they operate in fact like employees. Since you're not going to be behaving any different whether you are an employee or a contractor, (and assuming you'll be acting more like an employee, i.e. exclusive, etc.), then the IRS may later make a determination that you are in fact an employee, even if you choose to go \"\"on the books\"\" as an independent contractor. If that happens, then you may find yourself retroactively denied many tax benefits you'd have claimed; and owe penalties and interest too. Furthermore, your employer may be liable for additional withholding taxes, benefits, etc. after such a finding. So for those reasons, you should consider being an employee. You will avoid the potential headache I outlined above, as well as the additional paperwork etc. of being a contractor. If on the other hand you had said you wanted to maintain some flexibility to moonlight with other clients, build your own product on the side, choose what projects you work on (or don't), maybe hire subcontractors, etc. then I'd have supported the independent contractor idea. But, just on the basis of the tax characteristics only I'd say forget about it. On the financial side, I can tell you that I wouldn't have become a consultant if not for the ability to make more money in gross terms (i.e. before tax and expenses.) That is: your top line revenues ought to be higher in order to be able to offset many of the additional expenses you'd incur as an independent. IMHO, the tax benefits alone wouldn't make up for the difference. One final thing to look at is Form SS-8 mentioned at the IRS link below. If you're not sure what status to choose, the IRS can actually help you. But be prepared to wait... and wait... :-/ Additional Resources:\"","\"I agree that you should have received both a 1099 and a W2 from your employer. They may be reluctant to do that because some people believe that could trigger an IRS audit. The reason is that independent contractor vs employee is supposed to be defined by your job function, not by your choice. If you were a contractor and then switched to be an employee without changing your job description, then the IRS could claim that you should have always been an employee the entire time, and so should every one of the other contractors that work for that company with a similar job function. It's a hornet's nest that the employer may not want to poke. But that's not your problem; what should you do about it? When you say \"\"he added my Federal and FICA W/H together\"\", do you mean that total appears in box 4 of your 1099? If so, it sounds like the employer is expecting you to re-pay the employer portion of FICA. Can you ask them if they actually paid it? If they did, then I don't see them having a choice but to issue a W2, since the IRS would be expecting one. If they didn't pay your FICA, then the amount this will cost you is 7.65% of what would have been your W2 wages. IMHO it would be reasonable for you to request that they send you a check for that extra amount. Note: even though that amount will be less than $600 and you won't receive a 1099 in 2017 for it, legally you'll still have to pay tax on that amount so I think a good estimate would be to call it 10% instead. Depending on your personality and your relationship with the employer, if they choose not to \"\"make you whole\"\", you could threaten to fill out form SS-8. Additional Info: (Thank you Bobson for bringing this up.) The situation you find yourself in is similar to the concept of \"\"Contract-to-Hire\"\". You start off as a contractor, and later convert to an employee. In order to avoid issuing a 1099 and W2 to the same person in a single tax year, companies typically utilize one of the following strategies: Your particular situation is closest to situation 2, but the reverse. Instead of retroactively calling you a W2 employee the entire time, your employer is cheating and attempting to classify you as a 1099 contractor the entire time. This is frowned upon by the IRS, as well as the employee since as you discovered it costs you more money in the form of employer FICA. From your description it sounds like your employer was trying to do you a favor and didn't quite follow through with it. What they should have done was never switch you to W2 in the first place (if you really should have been a contractor), or they should have done the conversion properly without stringing you along.\"","\"Littleadv is incorrect because receiving a 1099 means she will be taxed self-employment tax on top of federal income taxes. Your employer will automatically withhold 7.65% of payroll taxes as they pay you each paycheck and then they'll automatically pay the other half of your payroll tax (an additional 7.65%) to bring it to a total of 15.3%. In other words, because your wife is technically self employed, she will owe both sides of payroll tax which is 15.3% of $38k = $5,800 on TOP of your federal income tax (which is the only thing the W-4 is instructing them about what amount to withhold). The huge advantage to a 1099, however, is that she's essentially self-employed which means ALL of the things she needs to run her business are deductible expenses. This includes her car, computer, home office, supplies, sometimes phone, gas, maintenance, travel expenses, sometimes entertainment, etc - which can easily bring her \"\"income\"\" down from $38k to lets say $23k, reducing both her federal income tax AND self-employment tax to apply to $15k less (saving lets say 50% of $15k = $7.5k with federal and self employment because your income is so high). She is actually supposed to pay quarterly taxes to make up for all of this. The easy way to do this is each quarter plug YOUR total salary + bonus and the tax YOU have paid so far (check your paystubs) into TurboTax along with her income so far and all of her expenses. This will give you how much tax you can expect to have left to owe so far--this would be your first quarter. When you calculate your other quarters, do it the exact same way and just subtract what you've already paid so far that year from your total tax liability.\"","Careful. I would personally need a LOT more than $5 more per hour to go from W-2 employment to 1099 employment. It boils down to two reasons: (1) employers pay a huge amount of taxes on behalf of their employees, and (2) you would have to pay all of your own withholding up front. Your current proposal from them doesn't account for that. There are also risks that you face as a 1099. On the first item, your employer currently pays 6.2% of your Social Security tax. You pay the other 6.2%. If you go to 1099 status, you will be self-employed as an independent contractor and have to pay the full 12.4% out of your increased 1099 wages. On the second item, your employer also does your withholding out of your paychecks based on what you tell them on a form W-4. If you're disciplined enough to pay this out yourself in estimated taxes every time you get a paycheck, great. Many people aren't and just see a much bigger paycheck with no taxes out of it, and end up with a large tax bill at the end of the year. Overall, there are some other considerations like healthcare and other benefits. These will not be available to you as a 1099 employee. You can also be terminated spontaneously, unless you have a specific contract length with the company. As I see it, not including any benefits you would receive, you're looking at LESS money in your pocket at $50/hr as a contractor than at your $48/hr. Your pay net social security deductions is: $48 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 99,840 * .938 = 93,649.92. As a 1099 @ $50/hr you would net $50 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 104,000 * .876 = 91,104. Then there are the rest of taxes, etc to figure out your real take-home pay. I'm not a tax advisor, but I would be very careful to get the whole picture figured out before jumping. I would ask for a lot more with the added risk you would take as an independent, too.","All the existing answers are right and the general theme is: contracting is a different kind of relationship. It's a business-to-business relationship rather than a business-to-employee relationship. This has implications such as: Of course, some contractors are effectively just over-paid employees, and some of the above points don't apply to them, but that's the idea behind bona fide contracting.","\"The personal checks may be due to their bank not issuing the company checks yet and there may also not be a payroll system in place at this time. So far as the W2's are concerned you should probably ask the owner if they plan on distributing them to the employees. If the owner has no interest in making you proper \"\"on the books employees\"\" let them know that they should probably be paying you in cash so that if the IRS comes you wont be tied to it. Obviously working in cash (off the books) has its drawbacks (no rights or protections) and benefits (no taxes).\"","When you do your tax return, your total income from the year from all sources is added up. So you will need to include your employment income as well as your contractor income. Any tax taken off at source through PAYE will then be deducted from how there is to pay. So whether you pay the tax or your employer pays it, it should end up the same, although the timing will differ. There will be differences in National Insurance treatment, and you don't necessarily have a free option to choose which happens - the nature of your relationship may mean you have to be classed as either employed or self-employed under HMRC rules.","\"Whenever you do paid work for a company, you will need to fill out some sort of paperwork so that the company knows how to pay you, and also how to report how much they paid you to the appropriate government agencies. You should not think of this as a \"\"hurdle\"\" and you shouldn't worry that you haven't been employed for a long time. The two most common ways a company pays an individual are via employee wages, or \"\"independent contractor\"\" payments. When you start a relationship with a company, if you are going to become an employee, then you will out a W4 form, and at the end of the year you will receive a W2 form. If you are an independent contractor, (which you would be considered in this case), you will fill out form W9 and at the end of the year you will receive a 1099. This is completely normal and you have nothing to worry about. All it means is that if you make more than a certain amount (typically $600) in a year, you will receive a 1099 in the mail or electronically. The 1099 form basically means that they are reporting that amount to the IRS, and it also helps you file your tax return by showing you all the numbers you need on one form. Please remember that when you are paid as an independent contractor, no taxes are withheld on your behalf, so you may owe some tax on the money you make. It's best to set aside some of your income so you are prepared to pay it come tax time next year.\"","I am surprised no one has mentioned the two biggest things (in my opinion). Or I should say, the two biggest things to me. First, 1099 have to file quarterly self employment taxes. I do not know for certain but I have heard that often times you will end up paying more this way then even a W-2 employees. Second, an LLC allows you to deduct business expenses off the top prior to determining what you pay in taxes as pass-through income. With 1099 you pay the same taxes regardless of your business expenses unless they are specifically allowed as a 1099 contractor (which most are not I believe). So what you should really do is figure out the expense you incur as a result of doing your business and check with an accountant to see if those expenses would be deductible in an LLC and if it offsets a decent amount of your income to see if it would be worth it. But I have read a lot of books and listened to a lot of interviews about wealthy people and most deal in companies not contracts. Most would open a new business and add clients rather than dealing in 1099 contracts. Just my two cents... Good luck and much prosperity.","\"You file taxes as usual. W2 is a form given to you, you don't need to fill it. Similarly, 1099. Both report moneys paid to you by your employers. W2 is for actual employer (the one where you're on the payroll), 1099 is for contractors (where you invoice the entity you provide services to and get paid per contract). You need to look at form 1040 and its instructions as to how exactly to fill it. That would be the annual tax return. It has various schedules (A, B, C, D, E, F, H, etc) which you should familiarize yourself with, and various additional forms that you attach to it. If you're self employed, you're expected to make quarterly estimate payments, but if you're a salaried employee you can instruct your employer to withhold the amounts you expect to owe for taxes from your salary, instead. If you're using a tax preparation software (like TurboTax or TaxAct), it will \"\"interview\"\" you to get all the needed information and provide you with the forms filled accordingly. Alternatively you can pay someone to prepare the tax return for you.\"","You can have multiple W2 forms on the same tax return. If you are using software, it will have the ability for you to enter additional W2 forms. If you are doing it by paper, just follow the instructions and combine the numbers at the correct place and attach both. Similarly you can also have a 1099 with and without a W2. Just remember that with a 1099 you will have to pay the self employment tax ( FICA taxes, both employee and employer) and that no taxes will be withheld. You will want to either adjust the withholding on your main job or file quartely estimated taxes. Travel reimbursement should be the same tax exempt wise. The difference is that with a 1098, you will need to list your business expenses for deduction on the corresponding tax schedule. The value on the 1099 will include travel reimbursement. But then you can deduct your self employment expenses. I believe schedule C is where this occurs.","Having been both I see the pros and cons Employers: I personally hated all the paperwork. Government forms, legal protection, insurance, taxes, payroll, accounting, year ends, bank accounts, inventory tracking, expenses. The best bosses don't worry about the product, they worry about maintaining an environment that is good for the product. Good employees who are happy will make good products that you can sell to customers who are happy with your company. I personally went back to employee because I wanted to go home at night and forget about work. Employers cannot do that.","In addition to the other answers, consultants and contractors face a real risk (though admittedly small) of not getting paid. The more short-term the gigs are, the higher the risk of not getting paid for a particular job. As an employee, there are laws to ensure that you get your paycheck. As a contractor, you're just another creditor. I know a couple of contractors (software engineers) who have had difficulty collecting after a job. (I'm not even sure one ever got paid the full amount.) I also personally witnessed a contractor show up for a job who was then told by the company that they unilaterally decided that they would pay half of their pre-arranged rate.","\"I've been in a similar situation before. While contracting, sometimes the recruiting agency would allow me to choose between being a W2 employee or invoicing them via Corp-2-Corp. I already had a company set up (S-Corp) but the considerations are similar. Typically the C2C rate was higher than the W2 rate, to account for the extra 7.65% FICA taxes and insurance. But there were a few times where the rate offered was identical, and I still choose C2C because it enabled me to deduct many of my business expenses that I wouldn't have otherwise been able to deduct. In my case the deductions turned out to be greater than the FICA savings. Your case is slightly different than mine though in that I already had the company set up so my company related costs were \"\"sunk\"\" as far as my decision was concerned. For you though, the yearly costs associated with running the business must be factored in. For example, suppose the following: Due to these expenses you need to make up $3413 in tax deductions due to the LLC. If your effective tax rate on the extra income is 30%, then your break even point is approximately $8K in deductions (.3*(x+3413)=3413 => x = $7963) So with those made up numbers, if you have at least $8K in legitimate additional business expenses then it would make sense to form an LLC. Otherwise you'd be better off as a W2. Other considerations:\"","Unless the amounts involved are very small, it is MUCH better to incorporate. First, incorporation gives you limited liability for your acts as an employee. As an individual, you have unlimited liability. Second, incorporating allows you to deduct (for tax purposes) the costs of doing business, including all of your health insurance, most transportation, and some meals. The exception to the rule is if the amounts you are earning are so small that they don't cover the cost of incorporating, accounting fees, etc. (a few hundred, or at most a few thousand dollars).","Basically, it will depend on the documents your employer gives you. If your employer gives you a 2015 W-2 then you would claim it as income on your 2015 taxes. If the first W-2 they give you is for 2016, then you claim it on your 2016 taxes.","The benefits and taxes thing, in my opinion is the biggie. Most people don't realize that the cost to the company for a full-time employee with benefits can be 2x or even 3x the amount they see in their paycheck. Health plans are extremely expensive. Even if you are having money taken from your check for health insurance, it is often just a fraction of the total cost, and the employer is subsidizing the rest. More expensive benefits that contractors don't typically get are 401K matches and paid vacation days. When contractors call in sick or don't work because it is a national holiday, they don't get paid for that day. Also, see that line on your paycheck deducting for Social security and Medicare? That is only half of the tax. The employer pays an equal amount that is not shown on that statement. Also, they pay taxes that go towards unemployment benefits , and may be required to pay higher taxes if they churn through a lot of full-time employees. You can usually let contractors go with relative impunity . For the unemployment tax reasons, not paying for people's days off or benefits, a lot less paperwork, and less risk to the business associated with committing to full-time employees all provide value to the company. Thus companies are willing to pay more because they are getting more. Think of it like a cell phone-contract. If you commit to a three year contract it can be a pain/expensive to get out of the deal early, but you will probably get a better rate in exchange for the risk being shifted to your end of the deal.","In general that's illegal. If you're a W2 employee, you don't miraculously become a 1099 contractor just because they pay you more. If your job doesn't change - then your status doesn't change just because they give you a raise. They can be sued (by you, and by the IRS) for that. Other issues have already been raised by other respondents, just wanted to point out this legal perspective.","In the US we have social security taxes, where for a full time employee the company pays half and the employee pays half. When you work as a business, what we call 1099 for the form that the wages are reported on, then the contractor pays the full amount of social security tax. There are times when a contractor can negotiate a higher rate because the company does not have to pay that tax. However, most of the time the company just prefers to negotiate the rate based on your value. If you are a 60K year guy, then that is what they will pay you. From the company's perspective it does not matter what your tax rate is, only the value you can bring to the company. If you can add about 180K to the bottom line, then they will be happy to pay you 60K, and you should be happy to get it. Here in the US a contractor can expect to make about 7.5% more of an equivalent employee because of the social security tax savings to the company. However, not all companies are willing to provide that in compensation. Some companies see the legal and administrative costs of employees as normal, and the same costs with contractors as extra so they don't perceive a cost savings. There are other things that would preclude employers from giving the bump although it is logical to do so. First you will really have to feel out your employer for the attitude on the subject. Then I would make a logical case if they are open to providing extra compensation in return for tax savings. If I am an employee at 60K, you would also have to pay the government 18K. How about you pay me 75K as a contractor instead? That would be a great deal for all in the US.","They are already indirectly paying these expenses. They should be built into your rates. The amount per job or per hour needs to cover what would have been your salary, plus the what would have been sick, vacation, holidays, health insurance, life insurance, disability, education, overhead for office expenses, cost of accountants...and all taxes. In many companies the general rule of thumb is that they need to charge a customer 2x the employees salary to cover all this plus make a profit. If this is a side job some of these benefits will come from your main job. Some self employed get some of these benefits from their spouse. The company has said we give you money for the work you perform, but you need to cover everything else including paying all taxes. Depending on where you live you might have to send money in more often then once a year. They are also telling you that they will be reporting the money they give you to the government so they can claim it as a business expense. So you better make sure you report it as income.","It makes no difference for tax purposes. If you are 1099, you will pay the same amount of taxes as if you formed a corporation and then paid yourself (essentially you are doing this as a 1099 contractor, just not formally). Legally, I don't know the answer. I would assume you have some legal protections by forming an LLC but practically I think this won't make any difference if you get sued.","\"There are a few sites out there that can give you some reasoning behind the request. LegalZoom, for instance. To quote the LZ doc in case the link dies: Employee vs. Independent Contractor If a worker is an employee, the employer is responsible for paying Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, and possibly other costs like workers' compensation insurance for the employee; at the end of the tax year, the employer is responsible for compiling all necessary payroll reports, including W-2 forms. If a worker is an independent contractor, the employer is not responsible for any of the above taxes or payments, and the only added paperwork is the issuing of a 1099 to the independent contractor at the end of the tax year, if he or she has made more than $600 with the employer. As Kent suggested, you should speak with an attorney (really you need one if setting up an LLC). There are a lot of companies out there these days that try to classify people as contractors rather than full-time employees as it gets them out of paying benefits and dealing with taxes. This is being heavily cracked down on, and several \"\"contractor\"\" employees are winning lawsuits to get full-time status. If you are truly acting as a contractor, then setting up an LLC can help with a few items such as taxes and protection on certain business aspects (see comments below regarding this). It's easy and relatively cheap (cost me about $250 with extra legal advice tacked on). If you are reporting directly to a manager with the company, or really working in any way that isn't consistent with the definition of a contractor, then I'd turn down the offer and ask to be made a FT employee. Additional information: https://www.sba.gov/content/hire-contractor-or-employee\"","\"The contract he wants me to sign states I'll receive my monthly stipend (if that is the right word) as a 1099 contractor. The right word is guaranteed payment, which is what \"\"salary\"\" is called when a partner is working for a partnership she's a partner in. Which is exactly the case in your situation. 1099 is not the right form to report this, the partnership (LLC in your case) should be using the Schedule K-1 for that. I suggest you talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser (EA/CPA) who are licensed in your State, before you sign anything.\"","Should I have a W-2 re-issued? A W-2 can be corrected and a new copy will be filed with the IRS if your employer incorrectly reported your income and withholding on a W-2 that they issued. In this case, though the employer didn't withhold those taxes, they should not reissue the W-2 unless they plan to pay your portion of the payroll taxes that were not withheld. (If they paid your share of the taxes, that would increase your gross income.) Who pays for the FICA I should have paid last year? Both you and your employer owe 7.65% each for FICA taxes. By law your employer is required to pay their half and you are required to pay your half. Both you and your employer owe additional taxes because of this mistake. Your other questions assume that your employer will pay your portion of the taxes withheld. You employer could decide to do that, but this also assumes that it was your employer's fault that the mistakes were made. If you transitioned to resident alien but did not inform your employer, how is that your employer's fault?","Source Sole trader If you start working for yourself, you’re classed as a self-employed sole trader - even if you’ve not yet told HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). As a sole trader, you run your own business as an individual. You can keep all your business’s profits after you’ve paid tax on them. You can employ staff. ‘Sole trader’ means you’re responsible for the business, not that you have to work alone.You’re personally responsible for any losses your business makes. Tax responsibilities You must: You’re personally responsible for any losses your business makes. This is one condition which you would need to have a look. If you do some shoddy work and your client wants to recover the losses they can come after your personal money or property. LLPs have the same probelm too. And you pay NI and income tax on all of your profits. If you have a partner then both can take out the profits of a limited company, if both are directors. The tax hit will be less as compared to a single person.","Yes, you've summarized it well. You may be able to depreciate your computer, expense some software licenses and may be home office if you qualify, but at this scale of earning - it will probably not cover for the loss of the money you need to pay for the additional SE tax (the employer part of the FICA taxes for W2 employees) and benefits (subsidized health insurance, bonuses you get from your employer, insurances, etc). Don't forget the additional expense of business licenses, liability insurances etc. While relatively small amounts and deductible - still money out of your pocket. That said... Good luck earning $96K on ODesk.","Instead of SSN, foreign person should get a ITIN from the IRS. Instead of W9 a foreigner should fill W8-BEN. Foreigner might also be required to file 1040NR/NR-EZ tax report, and depending on tax treaties also be liable for US taxes.","Self employment is typically harder to qualify with than W2 income. In general the bank is going to want 2 years of tax returns. You will be asked to sign a 4506-T that allows the bank to get the records directly from the IRS. Self employment income will be averaged across the 2 years, I don't think a 20% drop in profits is large enough to cause concern but it might. I would plan on being able borrow against the lowest year just in case. If you get a W2 job you will be able to count the income immediately assuming it is not a temporary position. The bank will ask for the offer letter. If you have decent credit and 20% down, you should be able to get a mortgage either way. A W2 is typically less paperwork and you would get to claim your current income assuming that is higher than your past income.","Maybe I can explain a little clearer: Your LLC is not a person, and cannot have taxes withheld on its behalf. Therefore, anyone paying your company should not withhold taxes. If they are paying you directly, and withholding taxes, they are treating you as an employee, and will probably issue a W2 instead of a 1099. Put it this way: Your LLC is a separate company providing services to that company. They shouldn't withhold taxes any more than they would when paying their ISP, or power company.","To be honest I don't know how any of this work in the US so my answer will be of very limited value to yourself, I suspect, but when it comes to the UK if you're going to get the same pay gross either way than being independent makes very little sense. Running your own business is hassle, is generally more risky (although possibly not in your case) and costs money. Some of the most obvious costs are the added NI, probably the need for an accountant, at around £1200 p/a for basic accountancy service, you are obliged by law to have liability insurance and you probably want professional indemnity insurance, this will be around £600 p/a minmum, and so on and so forth. On top of that, oficially anyway, as a contractor, you really shouldn't be getting any benefits from the client, and so health insurance, company car, even parking are all meant to be arranged by, and paid by, your company, and can't (or rather - shouldn't) be charged to the client. So - I would say - if you're seriously thinking about setting up a consultancy company, and this client is first of many - set up a company, but take into account the sums you need to earn. If you're really thinking about employment - be an employee.","Health insurance varies wildly per state and per plan and per provider - but check them out to have a baseline to know what it should cost if you did it yourself. Don't forget vacation time, too: many contract/comp-only jobs have no vacation time - how much is that 10 or 15 days a year worth to you? It effectively means you're getting paid for 2080 hours, but working 2000 (with the 2 week number). Is the comp-only offer allowing overtime, and will they approve it? Is the benefits-included job salaried? If it's truly likely you'll be working more than a normal 40 hour week on a routine basis (see if you can talk to other folks that work there), an offer that will pay overtime is likely going to be better than one that wouldn't .. but perhaps not in your setting if it also loses the PTO.","The tax is depended upon state where you are registered and the salary paid. More here If you employ contract you need not pay tax.","\"Linkedlinked, You might want to seriously take another look at the links that Chris provided you. Specifically the ones on the IRS website: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html From the IRS website: Businesses must weigh all these factors when determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Some factors may indicate that the worker is an employee, while other factors indicate that the worker is an independent contractor. There is no “magic” or set number of factors that “makes” the worker an employee or an independent contractor, and no one factor stands alone in making this determination. Also, factors which are relevant in one situation may not be relevant in another. The keys are to look at the entire relationship, consider the degree or extent of the right to direct and control, and finally, to document each of the factors used in coming up with the determination. Perhaps more importantly... pay attention to what happens if you're WRONG: Consequences of Treating an Employee as an Independent Contractor If you classify an employee as an independent contractor and you have no reasonable basis for doing so, you may be held liable for employment taxes for that worker (the relief provisions, discussed below, will not apply). See Internal Revenue Code section 3509 for more information. I would STRONGLY recommend that you and your partners give your accountant a call and discuss the matter. They will be able to help you make the right decision. One of biggest mistakes businesses make in this are is to classify their employees as independent contractors. The IRS (who happens to be hungry for money right now) comes in and says, \"\"Nooooooooo... those are employees.\"\" ...and the COMPANY gets to pay the employment taxes. I actually have person experience with this as I worked for a company this happened to. Every contractor was re-classified as an employee except for two (myself and one other). The key reason in that case was that none of the other contractors had any other clients. While I understand that you have other clients, I would still recommend talking to your accountant for an hour or so... just to be 100% sure. Sincerely, Andrew Smith TaxQueries.com\"","FICA/SE taxes are not 30%. They are at most ~15%, including the employer portion. Employer also pays FUTA tax, and has additional payroll expenses (like fees and worker compensation insurance). The employee's FICA portion is limited up to a certain level of earnings (110100 this year, IIRC). Above it you only pay medicare taxes, not social security. S-Corp earnings are not taxed at 15%, these are not dividends. They're taxed at your ordinary income rate. You don't pay SE taxes on it, that's the only difference. I hope you're talking about tax treatment decision, because there are entirely different factors to keep in mind when you're organizing a business and making a decision between being it a LLC or a corporation. I believe you should pay some money to get a real advice that would apply to you, from a EA/CPA who would be doing the number-crunching (hopefully correctly). I'm a tax practitioner, and this answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.","For tax purposes you will need to file as an employee (T4 slips and tax withheld automatically), but also as an entrepreneur. I had the same situation myself last year. Employee and self-employed is a publication from Revenue Canada that will help you. You need to fill out the statement of business activity form and keep detailed records of all your deductible expenses. Make photocopies and keep them 7 years. May I suggest you take an accountant to file your income tax form. More expensive but makes you less susceptible to receive Revenue Canada inspectors for a check-in. If you can read french, you can use this simple spreadsheet for your expenses. Your accountant will be happy.","Legally, do I have anything to worry about from having an incorrectly filed W-4? What you did wasn't criminal. When you submitted the form it was correct. Unfortunately as your situation changed you didn't adjust the form, that mistake does have consequences. Is there anything within my rights I can do to get the company to take responsibility for their role in this situation, or is it basically my fault? It is basically your fault. The company needs a w-4 for each employee. They will use that W-4 for every paycheck until the government changes the regulation, or your employment ends, or you submit a new form. Topic 753 - Form W-4 – Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate If an employee qualifies, he or she can also use Form W-4 (PDF) to tell you not to deduct any federal income tax from his or her wages. To qualify for this exempt status, the employee must have had no tax liability for the previous year and must expect to have no tax liability for the current year. However, if the employee can be claimed as a dependent on a parent's or another person's tax return, additional limitations may apply; refer to the instructions for Form W-4. A Form W-4 claiming exemption from withholding is valid for only the calendar year in which it is filed with the employer. To continue to be exempt from withholding in the next year, an employee must give you a new Form W-4 claiming exempt status by February 15 of that year. If the employee does not give you a new Form W-4, withhold tax as if he or she is single, with no withholding allowances. However, if you have an earlier Form W-4 (not claiming exempt status) for this employee that is valid, withhold as you did before. (I highlighted the key part) Because you were claiming exempt they should have required you to update that form each year. In your case that may not have applied because of the timing of the events. When do you submit a new form? Anytime your situation changes. Sometimes the change is done to adjust withholding to modify the amount of a refund. Other times failure to update the form can lead to bigger complication: when your marital status changes, or the number of dependents changes. In these situations you could have a significant amount of under-withheld, which could lead to a fine later on. As a side note this is even more true for the state version of a W-4. Having a whole years worth of income tax withholding done for the wrong state will at a minimum require you to file in multiple states, it could also result in a big surprise if the forgotten state has higher tax rate. Will my (now former) employee be responsible for paying their portion of the taxes that were not withheld during the 9 months I was full-time, tax Exempt? For federal and state income taxes they are just a conduit. They take the money from your paycheck, and periodically send it to the IRS and the state capital. Unless you could show that the pay stubs said taxes were being withheld, but the w-2 said otherwise; they have no role in judging the appropriateness of your W-4 with one exception. Finally, and I am not too hopeful on this one, but is there anything I can do to ease this tax burden? I understand that the IRS is owed no matter what. You have one way it might workout. For many taxpayers who have a large increase in pay from one year to the next, they can take advantage of a safe-harbor in the tax law. If they had withheld as much money in 2015 as they paid in 2014, they have reached the safe-harbor. They avoid the penalty for under withholding. Note that 2014 number is not what you paid on tax day or what was refunded, but all your income taxes for the entire year. Because in your case your taxes for the year 2014 were ZERO, that might mean that you automatically reach the safe-harbor for 2015. That makes sense because one of the key requirements of claiming exempt is that you had no liability the year before. It won't save you from paying what you owe but it can help avoid a penalty. Lessons","According to the W9 instructions you are considered a U.S. person if: According to the following section, it looks like a C corporation may be easier then an LLC: All of this information can be found here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw9.pdf Hope this helps!","I'm not sure why you're confusing the two unrelated things. 1040ES is your estimated tax payments. 941 is your corporation's payroll tax report. They have nothing to do with each other. You being the corporation's employee is accidental, and can only help you to avoid 1040ES and use the W2 withholding instead - like any other employee. From the IRS standpoint you're not running a LLC - you're running a corporation, and you're that corporation's employee. While technically you're self-employed, from tax perspective - you're not (to the extent of your corporate salary, at least).","\"If you don't want to get income tax taken out of your check, then get a 1099 job and stop blubbering like a baby. You are not doing your case any help. If fact, I am more positive that \"\"anti-taxers\"\" are out of their gourd.\"","Do you have any insight on average *effective* rates paid by SE owners? As a counterpoint to your (very valid) links, filing as S-corp allows for taxes on distributions to be exempt from payroll tax and taxed at much lower rates. Also, being SE allows for various deductions not possible for wage earners. There's probably other examples not immediately coming to mind. Also, SE taxes equal taxes otherwise paid by employer + employee. It's just that those employer taxes don't appear on the employee's paystub so not everyone realizes this.","One possibility that I use: I set up an LLC and get paid through that entity. Then I set up a payroll service through Bank of America and set up direct deposit so that it is free. I pay myself at 70% of my hourly rate based on the number of hours I work, and the payroll service does all the calculations for me and sets up the payments to the IRS. Typically money is left over in my business account. When tax time rolls around, I have a W2 from my LLC and a 1099 from the company I work for. I put the W2 into my personal income, and for the business I enter the revenue on the 1099 and the payroll expenses from paying myself; the left over in the business account is taxed as ordinary income. Maybe it's overkill, but setting up the LLC makes it possible to (a) set up a solo 401(k) and put up to $51k away tax-free, and (b) I can write off business expenses more easily.","\"You are confusing entirely unrelated things. First the \"\"profit distribution\"\" issue with Bob's S-Corp which is in fact tax evasion and will probably trigger a very nasty audit. Generally, if you're the sole employee of your own S-Corp, and the whole S-Corp income is from your own personal services, as defined by the IRS - there's no profit there. All the net income from such a S-Corp is subject to SE tax, either through payroll or through your K-1. Claiming anything else would be lying and IRS is notorious for going after people doing that. Second - the reclassification issue. The reason employers classify employees as contractors is to avoid payroll taxes (which the IRS gets through Bob's S-Corp, so it doesn't care) and providing benefits (that is Bob's problem, not the IRS). So in the scenario above, the IRS wouldn't care whose employee Bob is since Bob's S-Corp would have to pay all the same payroll taxes. The reclassification is an issue when employees are abused. See examples of Fedex drivers, where they're classified as contractors and are not getting any benefits, spend their own money on the truck and maintenance, etc. The employees are the ones who sued for reclassification, but in this case the IRS would be interested as well since a huge chunk of payroll taxes was not paid (driver's net is after car maintenance and payments, not before as it would be if he was salaried). So in your scenario reclassification is not as much a concern to Bob as his tax evasion scheme claiming earnings from performing personal services as \"\"profits from S-Corp\"\". A precedent to look at, as I mentioned elsewhere, would be the Watson v Commissioner case.\"","You mentioned that the 1099B that reports this sale is for 2014, which means that you got the proceeds in 2014. What I suspect happened was that the employer reported this on the next available paycheck, thus reporting it in the 2015 period. If this ends up being a significant difference for you, I'd argue the employer needs to correct both W2s, since you've actually received the money in 2014. However, if the difference for you is not substantial I'd leave it as is and remember that the employer will not know of your ESPP sales until at least several days later when the report from the broker arrives. If you sell on 12/31, you make it very difficult for the employer to account correctly since the report from the broker arrives in the next year.","No, even businesses pay taxes quarterly. So if you formed Nathan, LLC, or otherwise became self employed, you'd still have to file quarterly estimates and make tax payments. This would cause taxes to be a much more high touch part of your life. However, you should ensure that you're claiming the proper exemptions etc to avoid excessive withholding.","If the employer provides housing to the employee, the employer has to identify whether it is taxable or not. If it is - the amounts would be added to the taxable income on your W2. All the withholding and FICA tax calculations will be performed based on that taxable income. If the employer fails to do that, and you get audited, you can be left on the hook for the unpaid taxes on the unreported income. In some cases, employee housing is a non-taxable fringe benefit, in others it is taxable. Your tax adviser will help identify which case applies to you. After you added in a comment that you're trying to see if you should be asking your boss to pay your personal expenses vs. giving you a raise - as I said in the comments, your personal expenses are not deductible neither for you nor for anyone else. If your boss pays your rent instead of a raise - its taxable income for you.","Your recruiter is likely trying to avoid having to pay the employer's side of employment taxes, and may even be trying to avoid having to file a 1099 for you by treating your relationship as a vendor/service provider that he is purchasing services from, which would make your pay just a business expense. It's definitely in his best interest for you to do it this way. Whether it's in your best interest is up to you. You should consult a licensed legal/tax professional to help you determine whether this is a good arrangement for you. (Most of the time, when someone starts playing tax avoidance games, they eventually get stung by it.) The next big question: If you already know this guy is a snake, why are you still working with him? If you don't trust him, why would you take legal/tax advice from him? He might land you a high-paying job. But he also might cause you years of headaches if his tax advice turns out to be flawed.","If the $882 is reported on W2 as your income then it is added to your taxable income on W2 and is taxed as salary. Your basis then becomes $5882. If it is not reported on your W2 - you need to add it yourself. Its salary income. If its not properly reported on W2 it may have some issues with FICA, so I suggest talking to your salary department to verify it is. In any case, this is not short term capital gain. Your broker may or may not be aware of the reporting on W2, and if they report the basis as $5000 on your 1099, when you fill your tax form you can add a statement that it is ESPP reported on W2 and change the basis to correct one. H&R Block and TurboTax both support that (you need to chose the correct type of investment there).","\"Your question does not say this explicitly, but I assume that you were once a W-2 employee. Each paycheck a certain amount was withheld from your check to pay income, social security, and medicare taxes. Just because you did not receive that amount of money earned does not mean it was immediately sent to the IRS. While I am not all that savvy on payroll procedures, I recall an article that indicated some companies only send in withheld taxes every quarter, much like you are doing now. They get a short term interest free loan. For example taxes withheld by a w-2 employee in the later months of the year may not be provided to the IRS until 15 January of the next year. You are correct in assuming that if you make 100K as a W-2 you will probably pay less in taxes than someone who is 100K self employed with 5K in expenses. However there are many factors. Provided you properly fill out a 1040ES, and pay the correct amount of quarterly payments, you will almost never owe taxes. In fact my experience has been the forms will probably allow you to receive a refund. Tax laws can change and one thing the form did not include last year was the .9% Medicare surcharge for high income earners catching some by surprise. As far as what you pay into is indicative of the games the politicians play. It all just goes into a big old bucket of money, and more is spent by congress than what is in the bucket. The notion of a \"\"social security lockbox\"\" is pure politics/fantasy as well as the notion of medicare and social security taxes. The latter were created to make the actual income tax rate more palatable. I'd recommend getting your taxes done as early as possible come 1 January 2017. While you may not have all the needed info, you could firm up an estimate by 15 Jan and modify the amount for your last estimated payment. Complete the taxes when all stuff comes in and even if you owe an amount you have time to save for anything additional. Keep in mind, between 1 Jan 17 and 15 Apr 17 you will earn and presumably save money to use towards taxes. You can always \"\"rob\"\" from that money to pay any owed tax for 2016 and make it up later. All that is to say you will be golden because you are showing concern and planning. When you hear horror stories of IRS dealings it is most often that people spent the money that should have been sent to the IRS.\"","Note that you're asking about withholding, not about taxing. Withholding doesn't mean this is exactly the tax you'll pay: it means they're withholding a certain amount to make sure you pay taxes on it, but the tax bill at the end of the year is the same regardless of how you choose to do the withholding. Your tax bill may be higher or lower than the withholding amount. As far as tax rate, that will be the same regardless - you're just moving the money from one place to the other. The only difference would be that your tax is based on total shares under the plan - meaning that if you buy 1k shares, for example, at $10, so $1,500 discounted income, if you go the payroll route you get (say) $375 withheld. If you go the share route, you either get $375 worth of stock (so 38 shares) withheld (and then you would lose out on selling that stock, meaning you don't get quite as much out of it at the end) or you would ask them to actually buy rather more shares to make up for it, meaning you'd have a slightly higher total gain. That would involve a slightly higher tax at the end of it, of course. Option 1: Buy and then sell $10000 worth, share-based withholding. Assuming 15% profit, and $10/share at both points, then buy/sell 1000 shares, $1500 in profit to take into account, 38 shares' worth (=$380) withheld. You put in $8500, you get back $9620, net $1120. Option 2: Buy and then sell $13500 worth, share based withholding. Same assumptions. You make about $2000 in pre-tax profit, meaning you owe about $500 in tax withholding. Put in $11475, get back $13000, net $1525. Owe 35% more tax at the end of the year, but you have the full $1500 to spend on whatever you are doing with it. Option 3: Buy and then sell $1000 worth, paycheck withholding. You get the full $10000-$8500 = $1500 up front, but your next paycheck is $375 lighter. Same taxes as Option 1 at the end of the year.","The I-9 form is required because you are working. It is kept by the employer as proof that you have the proper documents to work. If the government was to inspect their records they can be fined if they don't have those document, in fact they have to keep them for several years after your employment is done. A w-4 form is a federal tax form. There also was probably a state version of the form. When you completed the w-4 it is used by your employer to determine how much in taxes need to be withheld. Employers don't know your tax situation. Even though you are on work study, you still could have made enough money over the summer to pay taxes. But if this is your only job, and you will not make enough money to have to pay taxes, you can fill out the form as exempt. That means that last year you didn't make enough money to have to pay taxes, and you don't expect to make enough to have to pay taxes this year. If you are exempt, no federal income tax will be withheld. They might still withhold for social security and medicare. The state w-4 can also be used to be exempt from state taxes. If they withhold any income taxes you have to file one of the 1040 tax forms to get that income tax money back. You will have to do so for the state income tax withholding. A note about social security and medicare. If you have an on campus job, at the campus you attend, during the school year; they don't withhold money for social security and medicare. That law applies to students on work study jobs, and on non-work-study jobs. for single dependents the federal threshold where you must file is: > You must file a return if any of the following apply. Your gross income was more than the larger of— a. $1,000, or b. Your earned income (up to $5,850) plus $350.","First, the SSN isn't an issue. She will need to apply for an ITIN together with tax filing, in order to file taxes as Married Filing Jointly anyway. I think you (or both of you in the joint case) probably qualify for the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, if you've been outside the US for almost the whole year, in which cases both of you should have all of your income excluded anyway, so I'm not sure why you're getting that one is better. As for Self-Employment Tax, I suspect that she doesn't have to pay it in either case, because there is a sentence in your linked page for Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident that says However, you may still be treated as a nonresident alien for the purpose of withholding Social Security and Medicare tax. and since Self-Employment Tax is just Social Security and Medicare tax in another form, she shouldn't have to pay it if treated as resident, if she didn't have to pay it as nonresident. From the law, I believe Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident is described in IRC 6013(g), which says the person is treated as a resident for the purposes of chapters 1 and 24, but self-employment tax is from chapter 2, so I don't think self-employment tax is affected by this election.","TL;DR: The difference is $230. Just for fun, and to illustrate how brackets work, let's look at the differences you could see from changing when you're paid based on the tax bracket information that Ben Miller provided. If you're paid $87,780 each year, then each year you'll pay $17,716 for a total of $35,432: $5,183 + $12,532 (25% of $50,130 (the amount over $37,650)) If you were paid nothing one year and then double salary ($175,560) the next, you'd pay $0 the first year and $42,193 the next: $18,558 + $23,634 (28% of $84,410 (the amount over $91,150)) So the maximum difference you'd see from shifting when you're paid is $6,761 total, $3,380 per year, or about 4% of your average annual salary. In your particular case, you'd either be paying $35,432 total, or $14,948 followed by $20,714 for $35,662 total, a difference of $230 total, $115 per year, less than 1% of average annual salary: $5,183 + $9,765 (25% of $39,060 (the amount $87,780 - $11,070 is over $37,650)) $18,558 + $2,156 (28% of $7,700 (the amount $87,780 + $11,070 is over $91,150))","I would talk to your HMRC tax office they do have guidance on this issue here http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/working/intro/employed-selfemployed.htm","\"They are basically asking for the name of the legal entity that they should write on the check. You, as a person, are a legal entity, and so you can have them pay you directly, by name. This is in effect a \"\"sole proprietorship\"\" arrangement and it is the situation of most independent contractors; you're working for yourself, and you get all the money, but you also have all the responsibility. You can also set up a legal alias, or a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" (DBA) name. The only thing that changes versus using your own name is... well... that you aren't using your own name, to be honest. You pay some trivial fee for the paperwork to the county clerk or other office of record, and you're now not only John Doe, you're \"\"Zolani Enterprises\"\", and your business checks can be written out to that name and the bank (who will want a copy of the DBA paperwork to file when you set the name up as a payable entity on the account) will cash them for you. An LLC, since it was mentioned, is a \"\"Limited Liability Company\"\". It is a legal entity, incorporeal, that is your \"\"avatar\"\" in the business world. It, not you, is the entity that primarily faces anyone else in that world. You become, for legal purposes, an agent of that company, authorized to make decisions on its behalf. You can do all the same things, make all the same money, but if things go pear-shaped, the company is the one liable, not you. Sounds great, right? Well, there's a downside, and that's taxes and the increased complexity thereof. Depending on the exact structure of the company, the IRS will treat the LLC either as a corporation, a partnership, or as a \"\"disregarded entity\"\". Most one-man LLCs are typically \"\"disregarded\"\", meaning that for tax purposes, all the money the company makes is treated as if it were made by you as a sole proprietor, as in the above cases (and with the associated increased FICA and lack of tax deductions that an \"\"employee\"\" would get). Nothing can be \"\"retained\"\" by the company, because as far as the IRS is concerned it doesn't exist, so whether the money from the profits of the company actually made it into your personal checking account or not, it has to be reported by you on the Schedule C. You can elect, if you wish, to have the LLC treated as a corporation; this allows the corporation to retain earnings (and thus to \"\"own\"\" liquid assets like cash, as opposed to only fixed assets like land, cars etc). It also allows you to be an \"\"employee\"\" of your own company, and pay yourself a true \"\"salary\"\", with all the applicable tax rules including pre-tax healthcare, employer-paid FICA, etc. However, the downside here is that some money is subject to double taxation; any monies \"\"retained\"\" by the company, or paid out to members as \"\"dividends\"\", is \"\"profit\"\" of the company for which the company is taxed at the corporate rate. Then, the money from that dividend you receive from the company is taxed again at the capital gains rate on your own 1040 return. This also means that you have to file taxes twice; once for the corporation, once for you as the individual. You can't, of course, have it both ways with an LLC; you can't pay yourself a true \"\"salary\"\" and get the associated tax breaks, then receive leftover profits as a \"\"distribution\"\" and avoid double taxation. It takes multiple \"\"members\"\" (owners) to have the LLC treated like a partnership, and there are specific types of LLCs set up to handle investments, where some of what I've said above doesn't apply. I won't get into that because the question inferred a single-owner situation, but the tax rules in these additional situations are again different.\"","To clarify that legality of this (for those that question it), this is directly from IRS Publication 926 (2014) (for household employees): If you prefer to pay your employee's social security and Medicare taxes from your own funds, do not withhold them from your employee's wages. The social security and Medicare taxes you pay to cover your employee's share must be included in the employee's wages for income tax purposes. However, they are not counted as social security and Medicare wages or as federal unemployment (FUTA) wages. I am sorry this does not answer your question entirely, but it does verify that you can do this. UPDATE: I have finally found a direct answer to your question! I found it here: http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1040sh/ar01.html Form W-2 and Form W-3 If you file one or more Forms W-2, you must also file Form W-3. You must report both cash and noncash wages in box 1, as well as tips and other compensation. The completed Forms W-2 and W-3 in the example (in these instructions) show how the entries are made. For detailed information on preparing these forms, see the General Instructions for Forms W-2 and W-3. Employee's portion of taxes paid by employer. If you paid all of your employee's share of social security and Medicare taxes, without deducting the amounts from the employee's pay, the employee's wages are increased by the amount of that tax for income tax withholding purposes. Follow steps 1 through 3 below. (See the example in these instructions.) Enter the amounts you paid on your employee's behalf in boxes 4 and 6 (do not include your share of these taxes). Add the amounts in boxes 3, 4, and 6. (However, if box 5 is greater than box 3, then add the amounts in boxes 4, 5, and 6.) Enter the total in box 1.","I also reckon the tax situation is a relevant difference. I'd rather take shares over a wage when, you know, I'm not / minimally taxed for capital gains, at a rate way lower than what I should be paying for the equivalent as income tax.","\"While the other answers try to quantify the value of health care the question you ask is about employee vs contractor. The delta between those regarding benefits goes way beyond health care. In fact because almost every full time employee must have health care offered by their employer the option of \"\"you can have X with healthcare, or Y with no healthcare\"\" is no longer an option. I have seen situations in the last few years where employees who had no need for healthcare coverage (retired military) were offered additional vacation days to compensate for their lower cost to the employer. For employee vs contractor what is different isn't just healthcare. It also includes holidays, vacation days, sick days, employer portion of social security, education benefits, and 401k. Insurance benefits include not just healthcare but also dental, vision, short term and long term disability, and life insurance. The rule of thumb to cover all these benefits that are lost when you are a contractor is an amount equal to your income. Of course some of these benefits depend on single vs married and kids or not. But unless the rate they are paying the contractors is approaching twice the rate they are paying employees the contractor will be hard pressed to cover the missing benefits.\"","When I worked for myself it was bad because But Ultimately I gave up my business and went to work for a school teaching, and through a series of other jobs ended up in a very stable reliable trustworthy job. When I was younger the variable paycheck didn't outweigh the freedom. Now that I am a dad I only think about having insurance and a secure job. The other option to consider is having a regular job, and then doing a little side work for yourself. You get all the benefits of both (and all the detractions)","Where you earn your money makes no difference to the IRS. Citizen/permanent resident means you pay income tax. To make matters worse given your situation it's virtually certain you have unreported foreign bank accounts--something that's also an important issue.","\"My late answer is: Be aware of the difference of being a contractor and being an employee. I am not sure of the laws in Canada, but in the United States lots of small companies like to hire people as \"\"contractors\"\" but make them work under rules that fall into employee. The business is trying to avoid paying payroll taxes, which is fine, but make sure you know your rights and responsibilities as a contractor vs employee. You can check with your state's Bureau of Labor and Industry in the US, but I am sure wherever you are from there is a government agency to do the same thing.\"","\"My employer puts \"\"contractor\"\" in your email address if you're a contractor, just so no one mistakenly treats you like a real employee. jsmith.contractor@company.com They get crappy desks not much bigger than 1970s library carrels. Some of them might be making more than I do, but I'd bet 6 months' salary that most of them aren't - a lot of them have that hangdog \"\"should I go for catfood again tonight or treat myself with some nice instant ramen?\"\" look.\"","\"The \"\"independent contractor\"\" vs. \"\"employee\"\" distinction is a red herring to this discussion and not at all important just because someone suggested you use your LLC to do the job. Corp-2-Corp is a very common way to do contracting and having an LLC with business bank accounts provides you with more tax deductions (such as deducting interest on credit lines). Some accounting practices prefer to pay entities by their Tax ID numbers, instead of an individual's social security number. The actual reasoning behind this would be dubious, but the LLC only benefits you and gives you more advantages by having one than not. For example, it is easier for you to hire subcontractors through your LLC to assist with your job, due to the opaqueness of the private entity. Similarly, your LLC can sign Non Disclosure and Intellectual Property agreements, automatically extending the trade secrets to all of its members, as opposed to just you as an individual. By signing whatever agreement with the company that is paying you through your LLC, your LLC will be privy to all of this. Next, assuming you did have subcontractors or other liability inducing assets, the LLC limits the liability you personally have to deal with in a court system, to an extent. But even if you didn't, the facelessness of an LLC can deter potential creditors, for example, your client may just assume you are a cog in a wheel - a random employee of the LLC - as opposed to the sole owner. Having a business account for the LLC keeps all of your expenses in one account statement, making your tax deductions easier. If you had a business credit line, the interest is tax deductible (compared to just having a personal credit card for business purposes). Regarding the time/costs of setting up and managing an LLC, this does vary by jurisdiction. It can negligible, or it can be complex. You also only have to do it once. Hire an attorney to give you a head start on that, if you feel that is necessary. Now back to the \"\"independent contractor\"\" vs. \"\"employee\"\" distinction: It is true that the client will not be paying your social security, but they expect you to charge more hourly than an equivalent actual employee would, solely because you don't get health insurance from them or paid leave or retirement plans or any other perk, and you will receive the entire paycheck without any withheld by the employer. You also get more tax deductions to utilize, although you will now have self employment tax (assuming you are a US citizen), this becomes less and less important the higher over $105,000 you make, as it stops being counted (slightly more complicated than that, but self employment tax is it's own discussion).\"","There are still ways that the default values on the W4 can lead you to get a refund or owe the IRS. If there was a big delta in your paychecks, it can lead to problems. If you make 260,000 and get 26 paychecks that means each check had a gross of 10,000. Your company will withhold the same amount from each check. But If you earned a big bonus then the smaller regular paychecks may not have been withholding enough. When bonus checks are involved the payroll office has to treat them as irregular pay to be able to make it work out. Some companies don't do this, so you may under or over pay during the year. If you changed companies during the year, this can lead to under or over payment. The lower paying company would not know about the higher rate of pay at the other company. so at one you would under pay, and the other you would over pay. There are also social security issues with more than one employer.","Yes. W4 determines how much your employer will withhold from your wages. Leaving everything at default would mean that your salary is your only taxable income, and you only take default deductions. Your employee will calculate your tax withholding based on that. But, if your salary is >200k, I assume that you have other income (investment/capital gains, interest on your bank account), which you will have to pay taxes on. You're probably going to have some deductible expenses (business/partnership expenses, mortgage interest, donations, college funds etc) as well. So it is very likely, unless you're really not smart about money, that you have more to do with your taxes than just the employers' withholding.","Why was I sent both 1042-S and 1099. Which amount is the right amount that has been withheld. Generally, each tax form you get will be about a separate income; for instance, you might get a 1099-DIV for dividends you earned from an investment and then a 1099-B for the profit or loss on selling that investment, in which case you'd report them both to the IRS. In this case, you've also had money withheld as a non-resident alien, which is why you've been issued a 1042-S. So you need to report both amounts to the IRS.","After reading OP Mark's question and the various answers carefully and also looking over some old pay stubs of mine, I am beginning to wonder if he is mis-reading his pay stub or slip of paper attached to the reimbursement check for the item(s) he purchases. Pay stubs (whether paper documents attached to checks or things received in one's company mailbox or available for downloading from a company web site while the money is deposited electronically into the employee's checking account) vary from company to company, but a reasonably well-designed stub would likely have categories such as Taxable gross income for the pay period: This is the amount from which payroll taxes (Federal and State income tax, Social Security and Medicare tax) are deducted as well as other post-tax deductions such as money going to purchase of US Savings Bonds, contributions to United Way via payroll deduction, contribution to Roth 401k etc. Employer-paid group life insurance premiums are taxable income too for any portion of the policy that exceeds $50K. In some cases, these appear as a lump sum on the last pay stub for the year. Nontaxable gross income for the pay period: This would be sum total of the amounts contributed to nonRoth 401k plans, employee's share of group health-care insurance premiums for employee and/or employee's family, money deposited into FSA accounts, etc. Net pay: This is the amount of the attached check or money sent via ACH to the employee's bank account. Year-to-date amounts: These just tell the employee what has been earned/paid/withheld to date in the various categories. Now, OP Mark said My company does not tax the reimbursement but they do add it to my running gross earnings total for the year. So, the question is whether the amount of the reimbursement is included in the Year-to-date amount of Taxable Income. If YTD Taxable Income does not include the reimbursement amount, then the the OP's question and the answers and comments are moot; unless the company has really-messed-up (Pat. Pending) payroll software that does weird things, the amount on the W2 form will be whatever is shown as YTD Taxable Income on the last pay stub of the year, and, as @DJClayworth noted cogently, it is what will appear on the W2 form that really matters. In summary, it is good that OP Mark is taking the time to investigate the matter of the reimbursements appearing in Total Gross Income, but if the amounts are not appearing in the YTD Taxable Income, his Payroll Office may just reassure him that they have good software and that what the YTD Taxable Income says on the last pay stub is what will be appearing on his W2 form. I am fairly confident that this is what will be the resolution of the matter because if the amount of the reimbursement was included in Taxable Income during that pay period and no tax was withheld, then the employer has a problem with Social Security and Medicare tax underwithholding, and nonpayment of this tax plus the employer's share to the US Treasury in timely fashion. The IRS takes an extremely dim view of such shenanigans and most employers are unlikely to take the risk.","If you don't receive a W2, there are 2 scenarios you should consider: If you have reason to believe that scenario 1 is accurate, then you could file your taxes based on the last valid paycheck you received. If you have reason to believe that scenario 2 is accurate, then you need to do some extra math, but fortunately it is straight forward. Simply treat your final paychecks as if the gross amount of your check was equal to the sum of your taxes paid, and the net amount of the check is $0. This way your income will increase by the proper amount, and you will still receive credit for the taxes paid. This should work out cleanly for federal and state taxes, but will likely result in an overpayment of FICA taxes. You can use form 843 to receive a refund of excess FICA taxes. As a side note, I'd recommend spot checking the YTD numbers on your last paychecks against previous paystubs to make sure there wasn't any fuzzy math going on when they realized they were going out of business.","Do not mix personal accounts and corporate accounts. If you're paid as your self person - this money belongs to you, not the corporation. You can contribute it to the corporation, but it is another tax event and you should understand fully the consequences. Talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). If they pay to you personally (1099) - it goes on your Schedule C, and you pay SE taxes on it. If they pay to your corporation, the corporation will pay it to you as salary, and will pay payroll taxes on it. Generally, payroll through corporation will be slightly more expensive than regular schedule C. If you have employees/subcontractors, though, you may earn money which is not from your own performance, in which case S-Corp may be an advantage.","Couple of points about being a consultant in the US: It sounds like the rules for what you can deduct may be more lax in Italy. For example, you can deduct a certain percentage of your home for work but the rules are relatively strict on your use of that space and how much is deductible. Also things like clothes, restaurants, phones, car use, etc must follow IRS guidelines to be deductible. This often means they are used exclusively for work and are required for work. A meal you eat by yourself is not generally deductible, for example. Any expense you would have had anyway if you were not working is generally not deductible. A contractor in the US can organize in various ways, including sole proprietorship, an S-corp, and a C-corp. Each has different tax and regulatory implications. In the simple case of a sole proprietorship, one must pay not only regular income tax but also self-employment tax, which is the part of social security and medicare tax normally paid for by one's employer. Estimated taxes must be paid to the government quarterly and then the actual amount due synced up at the end of the year (with the government sending you the difference or vice versa). Generally speaking contractors may set aside more money pre-tax for retirement and have better investment options. This is because solo 401(k) retirement accounts are cost-effective and flexible and the contractor can set aside the full $18K pre-tax as well as having the company contribute generously (pre-tax) to the retirement account. Contractors can also easily employ spouses and set aside even more. The details of how frequently you are paid as a contractor and how much notice (if any) the company must give you before terminating your relationship are negotiated between you and the company and are generally pretty flexible. You could get paid your whole year salary in a lump sum if you wanted. The company that is paying you will not normally give you any benefits whatsoever...in this way it is the same situation as it is in Italy. By the way the three points you mention in your edit are definitely not true in the US.","Since you worked as an RA, the university should send you a W2 form. The taxable wages line in that form would be the sum of both the direct salary and employer paid benefits that are taxable. As such you should not need to do anything than enter the numbers that they provide you.","\"S-Corp are taxed very different. Unlike LLC where you just add the profit to your income with S-Corp you have to pay yourself a \"\"reasonable\"\" salary (on w-2) which of course is a lot more paperwork. I think the advantage (but don't hold me accountable for this) is if your S-Corp makes a lot more than a reasonable salary, then the rest of the money can be passed through on your personal return at a lower (corp) rate.\"","You pay it this tax year. Whether that's now due to W-2 withholding, or later with your 1040 next year, or with your 1040-ES all depends on your particular situation.","I can only address this part of it: For instance with a 10k net income, 9293 is the limit for 401k from employee. How is this calculated? I believe this limit is total for all sources too, which I'm confused about. How it's calculated is that when you are self-employed you also pay the employer portion of the FICA taxes. This comes off above the line and is not considered income. The 401k contribution limit takes this into account.","For 2014/15 it looks something like this: To make it a bit clearer, let's also plot the difference in net income for self-employment and a single person company compared to employment: Self-employment is slightly worse between £5885 and about £10,500 because Class 2 NI kicks in before the employed person starts paying any tax. After that, self-employment is better because you pay 9% Class 4 NI rather than 12% Class 1 NI. Once higher rate tax kicks in, the saving stops growing. The single-person company is most tax-efficient at all points, ignoring any accountancy costs it incurs. Strange things happen between £100k and about £135k because the withdrawal of the personal allowance kicks in at a different point when receiving dividends. We can also plot the percentage of income paid as tax for each case: The strange kink for self-employment below £10k is caused by Class 2 NI again. Employment and self-employment both gradually tend towards paying 47%, reaching 46.5% for £2m gross income. The company tends towards 44.44%, reaching 43.6% for £2m gross income.","As others have said, it depends entirely on what benefits are provided, and how much of the cost of those benefits is paid by the employer and how much is paid by the employee, and compare that to what it would cost to obtain the necessary/equivalent coverage without employer assistance. In my case, my employer pays more than $10,000 per year toward the cost of medical, dental, vision, disability, and life insurance for myself and my family. That's almost 20% of the average total household income in my state, so it is not an insignificant amount at all.","You may be able to find the answers to your question on the IRS web site: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98263,00.html Specifically, using this form to estimate taxes for salary: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120w.pdf and this form to estimate taxes for dividends: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf","As others have mentioned yes it is taxable. Whether it goes through payroll and has FICA taken out is your issue in terms that you need to report it and you will an extra 7.5% self employment taxes that would normally be covered by your employer. Your employer may have problems but that isn't your issue. Contrary to what other users are saying chances are there won't be any penalties for you. Best case you have already paid 100% of last years tax liability and you can file your normal tax return with no issues. Worst case you need to pay quarterly taxes on that amount in the current quarter. IRS quarters are a little weird but I think you need to pay by Jan 15th for a December payment. You don't have to calculate your entire liability you can just fill out the very short form and attach a check for about what you will owe. There is a form you can fill out to show what quarter you received the money and you paid in it is a bit more complex but will avoid the penalty. For penalties quarterly taxes count in the quarter received where as payroll deductions count as if they were paid in the first quarter of the year. From the IRS The United States income tax is a pay-as-you-go tax, which means that tax must be paid as you earn or receive your income during the year. You can either do this through withholding or by making estimated tax payments. If you do not pay your tax through withholding, or do not pay enough tax that way, you might also have to pay estimated taxes. If you did not pay enough tax throughout the year, either through withholding or by making estimated tax payments, you may have to pay a penalty for underpayment of estimated tax. Generally, most taxpayers will avoid this penalty if they owe less than $1,000 in tax after subtracting their withholdings and credits, or if they paid at least 90% of the tax for the current year, or 100% of the tax shown on the return for the prior year, whichever is smaller.","I would say it's all relative. Take the following two scenarios: If you were facing these options, would you chose #2 just because you pay a lower tax rate, even though you make less money? These numbers are of course fictional, but the point I'm trying to make is that everyone will seek the method that allows them to make the most money. If they have to pay a higher tax rate, so be it. One other thought: daytraders will have higher expenses, which are deductible.","On what basis are you not employee? You should probably get some tax/legal advice, but generally J1 internship is by definition employment. You should also check the tax treaty between the US and Ireland, if there's one, and check what it says about training related income. You may find a pleasant surprise there. Most universities have support for international students/visiting scholars, check the international students' office at your school.","Employer matches (even for Roth 401Ks) are put into traditional 401K accounts and are treated as pre-tax income. Traditional 401K plans are tax deferred accounts, meaning you won't owe any taxes on it this year, but will have to pay taxes on it when you take the money out (likely after retirement). 401K contributions (including the match) are reported to the IRS and are entered in box 12 on the W2 form.","\"I'm no lawyer and no expert, so take my remarks as entertainment only. Also see this question. If you have a U.S. SSN which is eligible for work, they may be able to pay you on 1099 basis with your SSN as a sole proprietor, unless they have some personal reason for avoiding that. So perhaps try asking about that specifically. HR policies can be weird and tricky, maybe a nudge in the right direction will help. Not What You Asked: regardless, I might recommend you register as an LLC and get an EIN (sort of SSN for companies) for a variety of reasons. It's called a \"\"limited liability\"\" company for a reason. You may also have an easier time reaping various business-related rewards, like writing off expenses. If you do so, consider a state with no income tax like Wyoming. (Or, for convenience sake, WA if you live in BC, or maybe NH if you live in Ontario.. etc.)\"","I think I may have figured this out but if someone could double check my reasoning I'd appreciate it. So if my company makes $75000 and I decide to pay myself a $30000 salary, then the quarterly payment break down would be like this: 1040ES: Would pay income tax on non salary dividend ($45000) 941: Would pay income tax, SS, medicare on salary ($30000) (I'm the only person on payroll) So I think this answers my question in that after switching from filing as LLC to S-corp, I won't have to pay as much on 1040ES because some of it will now be covered on payroll.","You are confused about a couple of terms: For example you work for company A: As to the 1098-T: It is likely that you or your parents will use the 1098-T. You don't have to file a copy with the IRS. You and your parents need to determine who should be reporting the educational expenses: you or your parents.","Regarding #1: use the free online version of turbotax and start to play with the numbers for the different options for filing. It can make a difference, based on the imbalance between the couples income. Also filing married but separate can eleiminate some deductions/credits. Regarding #2: when you submit your taxes use the forecasting tool in turbotax to see if you should adjust your withholding. 2012 will be tricky because unless you changed your withholding in early 2011 to account for the change in status, your refund/owe number for 2011 will be unrelated to what will happen in 2012. Make sure you meet the safe harbor requirements, enough withheld to equal the previous years tax. Joe Taxpayer tried to give you a formula regarding exemptions, here is another explanation: Each exemption is worth a percent of $3800. If you are in the 10% bracket that means it is worth $380 per year. If you got a big refund or wrote a big check, adjust accordingly. Regarding #4: getting a match is great. Make sure you leave nothing on the table. Other than that it won't make a difference which one you pick. Look at the funds available, investment types, expenses and go with the one that makes the most sense to maximize. Remember you are not getting interest on the 401Ks you are investing and getting returns. There is no way to know which investment fund will be better in 2012.",">However, you would have to pay income taxes on that wage and could end up with less money overall to spend on healthcare. That's not truth tho. You can open IRA and 401k and now you have more money to put into them that won't get tax and it help you save for the retirement.","Your question begins with a misunderstanding. When you prepare your tax return (Form 1040/1040A/1040EZ) you always try to minimize your total tax bill. When you fill out form W4 you trying to estimate how much tax will be shown on next years tax return. The penalty for having too much tax withheld is not having the use of the money until you get a tax refund. At the moment interest rates are very low and your economic loss is the temporary loss of access to the money. One exception would be if you are carrying credit card debt. In that case you are, in effect, paying 20-30% interest to borrow money you lending to the US Treasury for 0% interest. The penalty for having too little tax withheld is having to make a large payment with your tax return. If your pre-payments aren't at least as much as your total income tax from last year there may also be modest underpayment penalty based on the difference between your pre-payments and your total income tax from last year or this year whichever is less. A large underpayment will trigger a different larger underpayemnt penalty. The W4 combined with the withholding rates tends to over-withhold income tax for most, but not all, taxpayers. Most people don't have enough savings to pay a large tax due, which leads to more penalties and an even larger bill. Over-witholding protects the overall tax system from the consequences of those events. People tend to be very unhappy, not quietly. On balance your greatest economic benefit depends on whether or not you have high interest debt. If you do, then accurate and even slightly under-withholding will probably work to your advantage as long as you can pay next 4/15. If not, avoiding the chance of having any unexpected balance due next year may be more important.","\"You are on the right track, for tax purposes its all ordinary income at the end of 2016. If the free lance \"\"employer\"\" will withhold fed,state and local tax, then that takes care of your estimated tax. If they can't or won't, you will need to make those estimates and make payments quarterly for the fed and state tax at your projected tax liability. Or, you can bump up withholding by your day job employer and cover your expected tax liability at year end without making estimated tax payments.\"","\"The big difference is that you get your money earlier at the start. Suppose you start on a random day with payday on the last day of the month (monthly), or on every 2nd wednesday (biweekly), and it takes 3 days for payroll to \"\"ramp up\"\" (ie, if payday is within 3 days on your start date, your next paycheck is not on the next payday, but on the one after). If we assume every month has 30 days (to keep things simple), it is an average of 4+5+...+33 days until you get your first paycheck with monthly pay, an average of 18.5 days. For weekly it is a bit trickier Assuming you get hired at a random date here, with * being a paydate: time until you get paid: an average of 10.5 days. So you get your first pay an average of 8 days earlier. Later on, that 3 day thing no longer occurs, and now the company holds an average of 6.5 days of your pay \"\"due to you\"\" with biweekly paychecks, and about 14.5 days with weekly paychecks if you have monthly pay. So with monthly pay, on average your bank account has 8 fewer days of your pay in it at all times. This happens when you are first hired, and persists over the length of your employment. Now suppose you save that extra money (on average): Suppose you have an investment at 4% (after inflation). Over 40 years those 8 days of pay invested at 4% grow to 38 days of pay, a free month. What more, if the company has problems making payroll, you'll get a warning (to, say, look for another job) an average of 8 days sooner, and/or have the money in your account. Having someone owe you money is usually worse than having the money in your bank account.\"","If you return the money in the same tax year - it will not appear on your W2 and you will not be taxed on it. Whatever was withheld - you'll get it refunded when you file your annual tax return. If you return it in a different tax year - it becomes a miscellaneous deduction reported on your Schedule A. If the amount is less than $3000 - then this deduction is subject to the 2% AGI threshold, if the amount is more than that - it is not subject to threshold. Bottom line, you're probably going to lose money, unless you're already itemizing and the amount is above $3K. There's also a credit that you can take instead of deduction. See publication 525 for details.","I see several interesting statement in your question. A. my only income is from my Employer B. I also receive employer stock (ESPP, RSU, NSO). However, employer withholds taxes for these stock transactions through my broker (I see them broken down on my W2). C. I have been subject to Alternative Minimum Tax. A implies a simple tax return. B and C tell the opposite story. In fact if B is not done correctly The amount withheld due to payroll may be perfect but the under withholding could be due to the ESPP's, RSUs and NSOs. The AMT can throw everything else out the window. If a person has a very simple tax situation: Income doesn't change a lot from paycheck to paycheck; they take the standard deduction; the number of exemptions equals the number of people in the family. Then the withholding is very close to perfect. The role of the exemptions on the W-4 is to compensate for situations that go above the standard deduction. The role of extra withholding is when the situation requires more withholding due to situations that will bring in extra income or if the AMT is involved.","\"Does your spouse work? That's one factor that can put your income into a higher bracket. The one difference to note is you will pay 2x the social security portion, so even though not \"\"federal\"\" tax, its right off the top nearly 13%. I'm not familiar with your states tax. It's really worth dropping the $75 on a copy of the software and running your own exact numbers.\""],"string":"[\n \"I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer without knowing all about your situation, but some things to consider: If you are on a 1099, you have to pay self-employment tax, while on a W-2 you do not. That is, social security tax is 12.4% of your income. If you're a 1099, you pay the full 12.4%. If you're W-2, you pay 6.2% and the employer pays 6.2%. So if they offer you the same nominal rate of pay, you're 6.2% better off with the W-2. What sort of insurance could you get privately and what would it cost you? I have no idea what the going rates for insurance are in California. If you're all in generally good health, you might want to consider a high-deductible policy. Then if no one gets seriously sick you've saved a bunch of money on premiums. If someone does get sick you might still pay less paying the deductible than you would have paid on higher premiums. I won't go into further details as that's getting off into another question. Even if the benefits are poor, if there are any benefits at all it can be better than nothing. The only advantage I see to going with a 1099 is that if you are legally an independent contractor, then all your business expenses are deductible, while if you are an employee, there are sharp limits on deducting employee business expenses. Maybe others can think of other advantages. If there is some reason to go the 1099 route, I understand that setting up an LLC is not that hard. I've never done it, but I briefly looked into it once and it appeared to basically be a matter of filling out a form and paying a modest fee.\",\n \"It's hard to answer without knowing all of the details (i.e. what was your salary for each of the options), but I think you probably made a good choice. 1099: Would have required you to pay self-employment tax, but also would have allowed you to deduct business expenses. W2 with benefits: Likely would have been beneficial if you needed healthcare (since group plans can be cheaper than individual plans, and healthcare payments aren't taxed), but if you don't use the healthcare, that would have been a waste. W2, no benefits: Assuming your salary here falls between the 1099 and the W2 with benefits, it seems like a good compromise for your situation.\",\n \"Forms 1099 and W2 are mutually exclusive. Employers file both, not the employees. 1099 is filed for contractors, W2 is filed for employees. These terms are defined in the tax code, and you may very well be employee, even though your employer pays you as a contractor and issues 1099. You may complain to the IRS if this is the case, and have them explain the difference to the employer (at the employer's expense, through fines and penalties). Employers usually do this to avoid providing benefits (and by the way also avoid paying payroll taxes). If you're working as a contractor, lets check your follow-up questions: where do i pay my taxes on my hourly that means does the IRS have a payment center for the tax i pay. If you're an independent contractor (1099), you're supposed to pay your own taxes on a quarterly basis using the form 1040-ES. Check this page for more information on your quarterly payments and follow the links. If you're a salaried employee elsewhere (i.e.: receive W2, from a different employer), then instead of doing the quarterly estimates you can adjust your salary withholding at that other place of work to cover for your additional income. To do that you submit an updated form W4 there, check with the payroll department on details. Is this a hobby tax No such thing, hobby income is taxed as ordinary income. The difference is that hobby cannot be at loss, while regular business activity can. If you're a contractor, it is likely that you're not working at loss, so it is irrelevant. what tax do i pay the city? does this require a sole proprietor license? This really depends on your local laws and the type of work you're doing and where you're doing it. Most likely, if you're working from your employer's office, you don't need any business license from the city (unless you have to be licensed to do the job). If you're working from home, you might need a license, check with the local government. These are very general answers to very general questions. You should seek a proper advice from a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for your specific case.\",\n \"Can I work on 1099 from my own company instead of on W2? The reason is on W2 I can't deduct my commute, Health Insurance and some other expenses while on 1099 I think I can able do that. Since I am going to client place to work not at my own office, I am not sure whether I should able to do that or not. If you have LLC, unless you elected to tax it as a corporation, you need neither 1099 nor W2. For tax purposes the LLC is disregarded. So it is, from tax perspective, a sole proprietorship (or partnership, if multiple members). Being a W2 employee of your own LLC is a bad idea. For all these above expenses, which can I use company's debit/credit card or I need to use only my personal debit/credit card? It would be better to always use a business account for business purposes. Doesn't matter much for tax per se, but will make your life easier in case of an audit or a legal dispute (limited liability protection may depend on it). If I work on 1099, I guess I need to file some reasonable taxes on quarterly basis instead of filing at year end. If so, how do I pay my tax on quarterly basis to IRS? I mean which forms should I file and how to pay tax? Unless you're a W2 employee, you need to do quarterly estimate payments using form 1040-ES. If you are a W2 employee (even for a different job, and even if it is not you, but your spouse with whom you're filing jointly) - you can adjust your/spouse's withholding using form W4 to cover the additional tax liability. This is, IMHO, a better way than paying estimates. There are numerous questions on this, search the site or ask another one for details.\",\n \"\\\"You can do either a 1099 or a W-2. There is no limitations to the number of W-2s one can have in reporting taxes. Problems occur, with the IRS, when one \\\"\\\"forgets\\\"\\\" to report income. Even if one holds only one job at a time, people typically have more than one W-2 if they change jobs within the year. The W-2 is the simplest way to go and you may want to consider doing this if you do not intend to work this side business into significant income. However, a 1099 gig is preferred by many in some situations. For things like travel expenses, you will probably receive the income from these on a 1099, but you can deduct them from your income using a Schedule C. Along these lines you may be able to deduct a wide variety of other things like travel to and from the client's location, equipment such as computers and office supplies, and maybe a portion of your home internet bill. Also this opens up different retirement contributions schemes such as a simplified employee pension. This does come with some drawbacks, however. First your life is more complicated as things need to be documented to become actual business expenses. You are much more likely to be audited by the IRS. Your taxes become more complicated and it is probably necessary to employee a CPA to do them. If you do this for primary full time work you will have to buy your own benefits. Most telling you will have to pay both sides of social security taxes on most profits. (Keep in mind that a good account can help you transfer profits to dividends which will allow you to be taxed at 15% and avoid social security taxes.) So it really comes down to what you see this side gig expanding into and your goals. If you want to make this a real business, then go 1099, if you are just doing this for a fes months and a few thousand dollars, go W-2.\\\"\",\n \"The tax savings of being 1099 can be significant. It depends on your salary, and what you can deduct. You may want to consult with an accountant. The social security tax, for the self employed, is 12.4% of profit not on revenue. If you can write off more than half of the income as expenses then you could be paying less than a w-2 employee. Also you might make a higher salary as a 1099, it is rare the offer the same compensation for a W-2 as a 1099 as the former has higher expenses for the employer. It is hard to know without actual numbers, actual expected expense deductions and so forth. Which is why I would suggest consulting with an accountant. You may want to talk to one in the state where he will be working rather than where you live now.\",\n \"Another thing to consider, however, is the deductibility of business expenses. Let's assume that the employer can legitimately hire you as a 1099 contractor. (Would you be able to telecommute? Would you have a high degree of control over when you worked and when you didn't? These factors also affect whether you're a true independent 1099 contractor or not.) As a legit 1099 contractor, you're able to deduct certain business expenses directly from your income. (You can find a list of the rules at irs.gov.) As a W2 employee, by contrast, can deduct only business expenses that exceed 2% of the your AGI (adjusted gross income). So, you also have to consider your personal circumstances in making the calculus and comparing whether a legitimate 1099 contractor job is or is not good for you. It's not just a comparison of what they'd pay W2 employees versus what they'd pay 1099 contractors.\",\n \"There are many different types of 1099 forms. Since you are comparing it to a W-2, I'm assuming you are talking about a 1099-MISC form. Independent contractor income If you are a worker earning a salary or wage, your employer reports your annual earnings at year-end on Form W-2. However, if you are an independent contractor or self-employed you will receive a Form 1099-MISC from each client that pays you at least $600 during the tax year. For example, if you are a freelance writer, consultant or artist, you hire yourself out to individuals or companies on a contract basis. The income you receive from each job you take should be reported to you on Form 1099-MISC. When you prepare your tax return, the IRS requires you to report all of this income and pay income tax on it. So even if you receive a 1099-MISC form, you are required to pay taxes on it.\",\n \"In general What does this mean? Assume 10 holidays and 2 weeks of vacation. So you will report to the office for 240 days (48 weeks * 5 days a week). If you are a w2 they will pay you for 260 days (52 weeks * 5 days a week). At $48 per hour you will be paid: 260*8*48 or $99,840. As a 1099 you will be paid 240*8*50 or 96,000. But you still have to cover insurance, the extra part of social security, and your retirement through an IRA. A rule of thumb I have seen with government contracting is that If the employee thinks that they make X,000 per year the company has to bill X/hour to pay for wages, benefits, overhead and profit. If the employee thinks they make x/hour the company has to bill at 2X/hour. When does a small spread make sense: The insurance is covered by another source, your spouse; or government/military retirement program. Still $2 per hour won't cover the 6.2% for social security. Let alone the other benefits. The IRS has a checklist to make sure that a 1099 is really a 1099, not just a way for the employer to shift the costs onto the individual.\",\n \"\\\"Your comment to James is telling and can help us lead you in the right direction: My work and lifestyle will be the same either way, as I said. This is all about how it goes \\\"\\\"on the books.\\\"\\\" [emphasis mine] As an independent consultant myself, when I hear something like \\\"\\\"the work will be the same either way\\\"\\\", I think: \\\"\\\"Here thar be dragons!\\\"\\\". Let me explain: If you go the independent contractor route, then you better act like one. The IRS (and the CRA, for Canadians) doesn't take lightly to people claiming to be independent contractors when they operate in fact like employees. Since you're not going to be behaving any different whether you are an employee or a contractor, (and assuming you'll be acting more like an employee, i.e. exclusive, etc.), then the IRS may later make a determination that you are in fact an employee, even if you choose to go \\\"\\\"on the books\\\"\\\" as an independent contractor. If that happens, then you may find yourself retroactively denied many tax benefits you'd have claimed; and owe penalties and interest too. Furthermore, your employer may be liable for additional withholding taxes, benefits, etc. after such a finding. So for those reasons, you should consider being an employee. You will avoid the potential headache I outlined above, as well as the additional paperwork etc. of being a contractor. If on the other hand you had said you wanted to maintain some flexibility to moonlight with other clients, build your own product on the side, choose what projects you work on (or don't), maybe hire subcontractors, etc. then I'd have supported the independent contractor idea. But, just on the basis of the tax characteristics only I'd say forget about it. On the financial side, I can tell you that I wouldn't have become a consultant if not for the ability to make more money in gross terms (i.e. before tax and expenses.) That is: your top line revenues ought to be higher in order to be able to offset many of the additional expenses you'd incur as an independent. IMHO, the tax benefits alone wouldn't make up for the difference. One final thing to look at is Form SS-8 mentioned at the IRS link below. If you're not sure what status to choose, the IRS can actually help you. But be prepared to wait... and wait... :-/ Additional Resources:\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I agree that you should have received both a 1099 and a W2 from your employer. They may be reluctant to do that because some people believe that could trigger an IRS audit. The reason is that independent contractor vs employee is supposed to be defined by your job function, not by your choice. If you were a contractor and then switched to be an employee without changing your job description, then the IRS could claim that you should have always been an employee the entire time, and so should every one of the other contractors that work for that company with a similar job function. It's a hornet's nest that the employer may not want to poke. But that's not your problem; what should you do about it? When you say \\\"\\\"he added my Federal and FICA W/H together\\\"\\\", do you mean that total appears in box 4 of your 1099? If so, it sounds like the employer is expecting you to re-pay the employer portion of FICA. Can you ask them if they actually paid it? If they did, then I don't see them having a choice but to issue a W2, since the IRS would be expecting one. If they didn't pay your FICA, then the amount this will cost you is 7.65% of what would have been your W2 wages. IMHO it would be reasonable for you to request that they send you a check for that extra amount. Note: even though that amount will be less than $600 and you won't receive a 1099 in 2017 for it, legally you'll still have to pay tax on that amount so I think a good estimate would be to call it 10% instead. Depending on your personality and your relationship with the employer, if they choose not to \\\"\\\"make you whole\\\"\\\", you could threaten to fill out form SS-8. Additional Info: (Thank you Bobson for bringing this up.) The situation you find yourself in is similar to the concept of \\\"\\\"Contract-to-Hire\\\"\\\". You start off as a contractor, and later convert to an employee. In order to avoid issuing a 1099 and W2 to the same person in a single tax year, companies typically utilize one of the following strategies: Your particular situation is closest to situation 2, but the reverse. Instead of retroactively calling you a W2 employee the entire time, your employer is cheating and attempting to classify you as a 1099 contractor the entire time. This is frowned upon by the IRS, as well as the employee since as you discovered it costs you more money in the form of employer FICA. From your description it sounds like your employer was trying to do you a favor and didn't quite follow through with it. What they should have done was never switch you to W2 in the first place (if you really should have been a contractor), or they should have done the conversion properly without stringing you along.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Littleadv is incorrect because receiving a 1099 means she will be taxed self-employment tax on top of federal income taxes. Your employer will automatically withhold 7.65% of payroll taxes as they pay you each paycheck and then they'll automatically pay the other half of your payroll tax (an additional 7.65%) to bring it to a total of 15.3%. In other words, because your wife is technically self employed, she will owe both sides of payroll tax which is 15.3% of $38k = $5,800 on TOP of your federal income tax (which is the only thing the W-4 is instructing them about what amount to withhold). The huge advantage to a 1099, however, is that she's essentially self-employed which means ALL of the things she needs to run her business are deductible expenses. This includes her car, computer, home office, supplies, sometimes phone, gas, maintenance, travel expenses, sometimes entertainment, etc - which can easily bring her \\\"\\\"income\\\"\\\" down from $38k to lets say $23k, reducing both her federal income tax AND self-employment tax to apply to $15k less (saving lets say 50% of $15k = $7.5k with federal and self employment because your income is so high). She is actually supposed to pay quarterly taxes to make up for all of this. The easy way to do this is each quarter plug YOUR total salary + bonus and the tax YOU have paid so far (check your paystubs) into TurboTax along with her income so far and all of her expenses. This will give you how much tax you can expect to have left to owe so far--this would be your first quarter. When you calculate your other quarters, do it the exact same way and just subtract what you've already paid so far that year from your total tax liability.\\\"\",\n \"Careful. I would personally need a LOT more than $5 more per hour to go from W-2 employment to 1099 employment. It boils down to two reasons: (1) employers pay a huge amount of taxes on behalf of their employees, and (2) you would have to pay all of your own withholding up front. Your current proposal from them doesn't account for that. There are also risks that you face as a 1099. On the first item, your employer currently pays 6.2% of your Social Security tax. You pay the other 6.2%. If you go to 1099 status, you will be self-employed as an independent contractor and have to pay the full 12.4% out of your increased 1099 wages. On the second item, your employer also does your withholding out of your paychecks based on what you tell them on a form W-4. If you're disciplined enough to pay this out yourself in estimated taxes every time you get a paycheck, great. Many people aren't and just see a much bigger paycheck with no taxes out of it, and end up with a large tax bill at the end of the year. Overall, there are some other considerations like healthcare and other benefits. These will not be available to you as a 1099 employee. You can also be terminated spontaneously, unless you have a specific contract length with the company. As I see it, not including any benefits you would receive, you're looking at LESS money in your pocket at $50/hr as a contractor than at your $48/hr. Your pay net social security deductions is: $48 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 99,840 * .938 = 93,649.92. As a 1099 @ $50/hr you would net $50 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 104,000 * .876 = 91,104. Then there are the rest of taxes, etc to figure out your real take-home pay. I'm not a tax advisor, but I would be very careful to get the whole picture figured out before jumping. I would ask for a lot more with the added risk you would take as an independent, too.\",\n \"All the existing answers are right and the general theme is: contracting is a different kind of relationship. It's a business-to-business relationship rather than a business-to-employee relationship. This has implications such as: Of course, some contractors are effectively just over-paid employees, and some of the above points don't apply to them, but that's the idea behind bona fide contracting.\",\n \"\\\"The personal checks may be due to their bank not issuing the company checks yet and there may also not be a payroll system in place at this time. So far as the W2's are concerned you should probably ask the owner if they plan on distributing them to the employees. If the owner has no interest in making you proper \\\"\\\"on the books employees\\\"\\\" let them know that they should probably be paying you in cash so that if the IRS comes you wont be tied to it. Obviously working in cash (off the books) has its drawbacks (no rights or protections) and benefits (no taxes).\\\"\",\n \"When you do your tax return, your total income from the year from all sources is added up. So you will need to include your employment income as well as your contractor income. Any tax taken off at source through PAYE will then be deducted from how there is to pay. So whether you pay the tax or your employer pays it, it should end up the same, although the timing will differ. There will be differences in National Insurance treatment, and you don't necessarily have a free option to choose which happens - the nature of your relationship may mean you have to be classed as either employed or self-employed under HMRC rules.\",\n \"\\\"Whenever you do paid work for a company, you will need to fill out some sort of paperwork so that the company knows how to pay you, and also how to report how much they paid you to the appropriate government agencies. You should not think of this as a \\\"\\\"hurdle\\\"\\\" and you shouldn't worry that you haven't been employed for a long time. The two most common ways a company pays an individual are via employee wages, or \\\"\\\"independent contractor\\\"\\\" payments. When you start a relationship with a company, if you are going to become an employee, then you will out a W4 form, and at the end of the year you will receive a W2 form. If you are an independent contractor, (which you would be considered in this case), you will fill out form W9 and at the end of the year you will receive a 1099. This is completely normal and you have nothing to worry about. All it means is that if you make more than a certain amount (typically $600) in a year, you will receive a 1099 in the mail or electronically. The 1099 form basically means that they are reporting that amount to the IRS, and it also helps you file your tax return by showing you all the numbers you need on one form. Please remember that when you are paid as an independent contractor, no taxes are withheld on your behalf, so you may owe some tax on the money you make. It's best to set aside some of your income so you are prepared to pay it come tax time next year.\\\"\",\n \"I am surprised no one has mentioned the two biggest things (in my opinion). Or I should say, the two biggest things to me. First, 1099 have to file quarterly self employment taxes. I do not know for certain but I have heard that often times you will end up paying more this way then even a W-2 employees. Second, an LLC allows you to deduct business expenses off the top prior to determining what you pay in taxes as pass-through income. With 1099 you pay the same taxes regardless of your business expenses unless they are specifically allowed as a 1099 contractor (which most are not I believe). So what you should really do is figure out the expense you incur as a result of doing your business and check with an accountant to see if those expenses would be deductible in an LLC and if it offsets a decent amount of your income to see if it would be worth it. But I have read a lot of books and listened to a lot of interviews about wealthy people and most deal in companies not contracts. Most would open a new business and add clients rather than dealing in 1099 contracts. Just my two cents... Good luck and much prosperity.\",\n \"\\\"You file taxes as usual. W2 is a form given to you, you don't need to fill it. Similarly, 1099. Both report moneys paid to you by your employers. W2 is for actual employer (the one where you're on the payroll), 1099 is for contractors (where you invoice the entity you provide services to and get paid per contract). You need to look at form 1040 and its instructions as to how exactly to fill it. That would be the annual tax return. It has various schedules (A, B, C, D, E, F, H, etc) which you should familiarize yourself with, and various additional forms that you attach to it. If you're self employed, you're expected to make quarterly estimate payments, but if you're a salaried employee you can instruct your employer to withhold the amounts you expect to owe for taxes from your salary, instead. If you're using a tax preparation software (like TurboTax or TaxAct), it will \\\"\\\"interview\\\"\\\" you to get all the needed information and provide you with the forms filled accordingly. Alternatively you can pay someone to prepare the tax return for you.\\\"\",\n \"You can have multiple W2 forms on the same tax return. If you are using software, it will have the ability for you to enter additional W2 forms. If you are doing it by paper, just follow the instructions and combine the numbers at the correct place and attach both. Similarly you can also have a 1099 with and without a W2. Just remember that with a 1099 you will have to pay the self employment tax ( FICA taxes, both employee and employer) and that no taxes will be withheld. You will want to either adjust the withholding on your main job or file quartely estimated taxes. Travel reimbursement should be the same tax exempt wise. The difference is that with a 1098, you will need to list your business expenses for deduction on the corresponding tax schedule. The value on the 1099 will include travel reimbursement. But then you can deduct your self employment expenses. I believe schedule C is where this occurs.\",\n \"Having been both I see the pros and cons Employers: I personally hated all the paperwork. Government forms, legal protection, insurance, taxes, payroll, accounting, year ends, bank accounts, inventory tracking, expenses. The best bosses don't worry about the product, they worry about maintaining an environment that is good for the product. Good employees who are happy will make good products that you can sell to customers who are happy with your company. I personally went back to employee because I wanted to go home at night and forget about work. Employers cannot do that.\",\n \"In addition to the other answers, consultants and contractors face a real risk (though admittedly small) of not getting paid. The more short-term the gigs are, the higher the risk of not getting paid for a particular job. As an employee, there are laws to ensure that you get your paycheck. As a contractor, you're just another creditor. I know a couple of contractors (software engineers) who have had difficulty collecting after a job. (I'm not even sure one ever got paid the full amount.) I also personally witnessed a contractor show up for a job who was then told by the company that they unilaterally decided that they would pay half of their pre-arranged rate.\",\n \"\\\"I've been in a similar situation before. While contracting, sometimes the recruiting agency would allow me to choose between being a W2 employee or invoicing them via Corp-2-Corp. I already had a company set up (S-Corp) but the considerations are similar. Typically the C2C rate was higher than the W2 rate, to account for the extra 7.65% FICA taxes and insurance. But there were a few times where the rate offered was identical, and I still choose C2C because it enabled me to deduct many of my business expenses that I wouldn't have otherwise been able to deduct. In my case the deductions turned out to be greater than the FICA savings. Your case is slightly different than mine though in that I already had the company set up so my company related costs were \\\"\\\"sunk\\\"\\\" as far as my decision was concerned. For you though, the yearly costs associated with running the business must be factored in. For example, suppose the following: Due to these expenses you need to make up $3413 in tax deductions due to the LLC. If your effective tax rate on the extra income is 30%, then your break even point is approximately $8K in deductions (.3*(x+3413)=3413 => x = $7963) So with those made up numbers, if you have at least $8K in legitimate additional business expenses then it would make sense to form an LLC. Otherwise you'd be better off as a W2. Other considerations:\\\"\",\n \"Unless the amounts involved are very small, it is MUCH better to incorporate. First, incorporation gives you limited liability for your acts as an employee. As an individual, you have unlimited liability. Second, incorporating allows you to deduct (for tax purposes) the costs of doing business, including all of your health insurance, most transportation, and some meals. The exception to the rule is if the amounts you are earning are so small that they don't cover the cost of incorporating, accounting fees, etc. (a few hundred, or at most a few thousand dollars).\",\n \"Basically, it will depend on the documents your employer gives you. If your employer gives you a 2015 W-2 then you would claim it as income on your 2015 taxes. If the first W-2 they give you is for 2016, then you claim it on your 2016 taxes.\",\n \"The benefits and taxes thing, in my opinion is the biggie. Most people don't realize that the cost to the company for a full-time employee with benefits can be 2x or even 3x the amount they see in their paycheck. Health plans are extremely expensive. Even if you are having money taken from your check for health insurance, it is often just a fraction of the total cost, and the employer is subsidizing the rest. More expensive benefits that contractors don't typically get are 401K matches and paid vacation days. When contractors call in sick or don't work because it is a national holiday, they don't get paid for that day. Also, see that line on your paycheck deducting for Social security and Medicare? That is only half of the tax. The employer pays an equal amount that is not shown on that statement. Also, they pay taxes that go towards unemployment benefits , and may be required to pay higher taxes if they churn through a lot of full-time employees. You can usually let contractors go with relative impunity . For the unemployment tax reasons, not paying for people's days off or benefits, a lot less paperwork, and less risk to the business associated with committing to full-time employees all provide value to the company. Thus companies are willing to pay more because they are getting more. Think of it like a cell phone-contract. If you commit to a three year contract it can be a pain/expensive to get out of the deal early, but you will probably get a better rate in exchange for the risk being shifted to your end of the deal.\",\n \"In general that's illegal. If you're a W2 employee, you don't miraculously become a 1099 contractor just because they pay you more. If your job doesn't change - then your status doesn't change just because they give you a raise. They can be sued (by you, and by the IRS) for that. Other issues have already been raised by other respondents, just wanted to point out this legal perspective.\",\n \"In the US we have social security taxes, where for a full time employee the company pays half and the employee pays half. When you work as a business, what we call 1099 for the form that the wages are reported on, then the contractor pays the full amount of social security tax. There are times when a contractor can negotiate a higher rate because the company does not have to pay that tax. However, most of the time the company just prefers to negotiate the rate based on your value. If you are a 60K year guy, then that is what they will pay you. From the company's perspective it does not matter what your tax rate is, only the value you can bring to the company. If you can add about 180K to the bottom line, then they will be happy to pay you 60K, and you should be happy to get it. Here in the US a contractor can expect to make about 7.5% more of an equivalent employee because of the social security tax savings to the company. However, not all companies are willing to provide that in compensation. Some companies see the legal and administrative costs of employees as normal, and the same costs with contractors as extra so they don't perceive a cost savings. There are other things that would preclude employers from giving the bump although it is logical to do so. First you will really have to feel out your employer for the attitude on the subject. Then I would make a logical case if they are open to providing extra compensation in return for tax savings. If I am an employee at 60K, you would also have to pay the government 18K. How about you pay me 75K as a contractor instead? That would be a great deal for all in the US.\",\n \"They are already indirectly paying these expenses. They should be built into your rates. The amount per job or per hour needs to cover what would have been your salary, plus the what would have been sick, vacation, holidays, health insurance, life insurance, disability, education, overhead for office expenses, cost of accountants...and all taxes. In many companies the general rule of thumb is that they need to charge a customer 2x the employees salary to cover all this plus make a profit. If this is a side job some of these benefits will come from your main job. Some self employed get some of these benefits from their spouse. The company has said we give you money for the work you perform, but you need to cover everything else including paying all taxes. Depending on where you live you might have to send money in more often then once a year. They are also telling you that they will be reporting the money they give you to the government so they can claim it as a business expense. So you better make sure you report it as income.\",\n \"It makes no difference for tax purposes. If you are 1099, you will pay the same amount of taxes as if you formed a corporation and then paid yourself (essentially you are doing this as a 1099 contractor, just not formally). Legally, I don't know the answer. I would assume you have some legal protections by forming an LLC but practically I think this won't make any difference if you get sued.\",\n \"\\\"There are a few sites out there that can give you some reasoning behind the request. LegalZoom, for instance. To quote the LZ doc in case the link dies: Employee vs. Independent Contractor If a worker is an employee, the employer is responsible for paying Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, and possibly other costs like workers' compensation insurance for the employee; at the end of the tax year, the employer is responsible for compiling all necessary payroll reports, including W-2 forms. If a worker is an independent contractor, the employer is not responsible for any of the above taxes or payments, and the only added paperwork is the issuing of a 1099 to the independent contractor at the end of the tax year, if he or she has made more than $600 with the employer. As Kent suggested, you should speak with an attorney (really you need one if setting up an LLC). There are a lot of companies out there these days that try to classify people as contractors rather than full-time employees as it gets them out of paying benefits and dealing with taxes. This is being heavily cracked down on, and several \\\"\\\"contractor\\\"\\\" employees are winning lawsuits to get full-time status. If you are truly acting as a contractor, then setting up an LLC can help with a few items such as taxes and protection on certain business aspects (see comments below regarding this). It's easy and relatively cheap (cost me about $250 with extra legal advice tacked on). If you are reporting directly to a manager with the company, or really working in any way that isn't consistent with the definition of a contractor, then I'd turn down the offer and ask to be made a FT employee. Additional information: https://www.sba.gov/content/hire-contractor-or-employee\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The contract he wants me to sign states I'll receive my monthly stipend (if that is the right word) as a 1099 contractor. The right word is guaranteed payment, which is what \\\"\\\"salary\\\"\\\" is called when a partner is working for a partnership she's a partner in. Which is exactly the case in your situation. 1099 is not the right form to report this, the partnership (LLC in your case) should be using the Schedule K-1 for that. I suggest you talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser (EA/CPA) who are licensed in your State, before you sign anything.\\\"\",\n \"Should I have a W-2 re-issued? A W-2 can be corrected and a new copy will be filed with the IRS if your employer incorrectly reported your income and withholding on a W-2 that they issued. In this case, though the employer didn't withhold those taxes, they should not reissue the W-2 unless they plan to pay your portion of the payroll taxes that were not withheld. (If they paid your share of the taxes, that would increase your gross income.) Who pays for the FICA I should have paid last year? Both you and your employer owe 7.65% each for FICA taxes. By law your employer is required to pay their half and you are required to pay your half. Both you and your employer owe additional taxes because of this mistake. Your other questions assume that your employer will pay your portion of the taxes withheld. You employer could decide to do that, but this also assumes that it was your employer's fault that the mistakes were made. If you transitioned to resident alien but did not inform your employer, how is that your employer's fault?\",\n \"Source Sole trader If you start working for yourself, you’re classed as a self-employed sole trader - even if you’ve not yet told HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). As a sole trader, you run your own business as an individual. You can keep all your business’s profits after you’ve paid tax on them. You can employ staff. ‘Sole trader’ means you’re responsible for the business, not that you have to work alone.You’re personally responsible for any losses your business makes. Tax responsibilities You must: You’re personally responsible for any losses your business makes. This is one condition which you would need to have a look. If you do some shoddy work and your client wants to recover the losses they can come after your personal money or property. LLPs have the same probelm too. And you pay NI and income tax on all of your profits. If you have a partner then both can take out the profits of a limited company, if both are directors. The tax hit will be less as compared to a single person.\",\n \"Yes, you've summarized it well. You may be able to depreciate your computer, expense some software licenses and may be home office if you qualify, but at this scale of earning - it will probably not cover for the loss of the money you need to pay for the additional SE tax (the employer part of the FICA taxes for W2 employees) and benefits (subsidized health insurance, bonuses you get from your employer, insurances, etc). Don't forget the additional expense of business licenses, liability insurances etc. While relatively small amounts and deductible - still money out of your pocket. That said... Good luck earning $96K on ODesk.\",\n \"Instead of SSN, foreign person should get a ITIN from the IRS. Instead of W9 a foreigner should fill W8-BEN. Foreigner might also be required to file 1040NR/NR-EZ tax report, and depending on tax treaties also be liable for US taxes.\",\n \"Self employment is typically harder to qualify with than W2 income. In general the bank is going to want 2 years of tax returns. You will be asked to sign a 4506-T that allows the bank to get the records directly from the IRS. Self employment income will be averaged across the 2 years, I don't think a 20% drop in profits is large enough to cause concern but it might. I would plan on being able borrow against the lowest year just in case. If you get a W2 job you will be able to count the income immediately assuming it is not a temporary position. The bank will ask for the offer letter. If you have decent credit and 20% down, you should be able to get a mortgage either way. A W2 is typically less paperwork and you would get to claim your current income assuming that is higher than your past income.\",\n \"Maybe I can explain a little clearer: Your LLC is not a person, and cannot have taxes withheld on its behalf. Therefore, anyone paying your company should not withhold taxes. If they are paying you directly, and withholding taxes, they are treating you as an employee, and will probably issue a W2 instead of a 1099. Put it this way: Your LLC is a separate company providing services to that company. They shouldn't withhold taxes any more than they would when paying their ISP, or power company.\",\n \"To be honest I don't know how any of this work in the US so my answer will be of very limited value to yourself, I suspect, but when it comes to the UK if you're going to get the same pay gross either way than being independent makes very little sense. Running your own business is hassle, is generally more risky (although possibly not in your case) and costs money. Some of the most obvious costs are the added NI, probably the need for an accountant, at around £1200 p/a for basic accountancy service, you are obliged by law to have liability insurance and you probably want professional indemnity insurance, this will be around £600 p/a minmum, and so on and so forth. On top of that, oficially anyway, as a contractor, you really shouldn't be getting any benefits from the client, and so health insurance, company car, even parking are all meant to be arranged by, and paid by, your company, and can't (or rather - shouldn't) be charged to the client. So - I would say - if you're seriously thinking about setting up a consultancy company, and this client is first of many - set up a company, but take into account the sums you need to earn. If you're really thinking about employment - be an employee.\",\n \"Health insurance varies wildly per state and per plan and per provider - but check them out to have a baseline to know what it should cost if you did it yourself. Don't forget vacation time, too: many contract/comp-only jobs have no vacation time - how much is that 10 or 15 days a year worth to you? It effectively means you're getting paid for 2080 hours, but working 2000 (with the 2 week number). Is the comp-only offer allowing overtime, and will they approve it? Is the benefits-included job salaried? If it's truly likely you'll be working more than a normal 40 hour week on a routine basis (see if you can talk to other folks that work there), an offer that will pay overtime is likely going to be better than one that wouldn't .. but perhaps not in your setting if it also loses the PTO.\",\n \"The tax is depended upon state where you are registered and the salary paid. More here If you employ contract you need not pay tax.\",\n \"\\\"Linkedlinked, You might want to seriously take another look at the links that Chris provided you. Specifically the ones on the IRS website: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html From the IRS website: Businesses must weigh all these factors when determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Some factors may indicate that the worker is an employee, while other factors indicate that the worker is an independent contractor. There is no “magic” or set number of factors that “makes” the worker an employee or an independent contractor, and no one factor stands alone in making this determination. Also, factors which are relevant in one situation may not be relevant in another. The keys are to look at the entire relationship, consider the degree or extent of the right to direct and control, and finally, to document each of the factors used in coming up with the determination. Perhaps more importantly... pay attention to what happens if you're WRONG: Consequences of Treating an Employee as an Independent Contractor If you classify an employee as an independent contractor and you have no reasonable basis for doing so, you may be held liable for employment taxes for that worker (the relief provisions, discussed below, will not apply). See Internal Revenue Code section 3509 for more information. I would STRONGLY recommend that you and your partners give your accountant a call and discuss the matter. They will be able to help you make the right decision. One of biggest mistakes businesses make in this are is to classify their employees as independent contractors. The IRS (who happens to be hungry for money right now) comes in and says, \\\"\\\"Nooooooooo... those are employees.\\\"\\\" ...and the COMPANY gets to pay the employment taxes. I actually have person experience with this as I worked for a company this happened to. Every contractor was re-classified as an employee except for two (myself and one other). The key reason in that case was that none of the other contractors had any other clients. While I understand that you have other clients, I would still recommend talking to your accountant for an hour or so... just to be 100% sure. Sincerely, Andrew Smith TaxQueries.com\\\"\",\n \"FICA/SE taxes are not 30%. They are at most ~15%, including the employer portion. Employer also pays FUTA tax, and has additional payroll expenses (like fees and worker compensation insurance). The employee's FICA portion is limited up to a certain level of earnings (110100 this year, IIRC). Above it you only pay medicare taxes, not social security. S-Corp earnings are not taxed at 15%, these are not dividends. They're taxed at your ordinary income rate. You don't pay SE taxes on it, that's the only difference. I hope you're talking about tax treatment decision, because there are entirely different factors to keep in mind when you're organizing a business and making a decision between being it a LLC or a corporation. I believe you should pay some money to get a real advice that would apply to you, from a EA/CPA who would be doing the number-crunching (hopefully correctly). I'm a tax practitioner, and this answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.\",\n \"For tax purposes you will need to file as an employee (T4 slips and tax withheld automatically), but also as an entrepreneur. I had the same situation myself last year. Employee and self-employed is a publication from Revenue Canada that will help you. You need to fill out the statement of business activity form and keep detailed records of all your deductible expenses. Make photocopies and keep them 7 years. May I suggest you take an accountant to file your income tax form. More expensive but makes you less susceptible to receive Revenue Canada inspectors for a check-in. If you can read french, you can use this simple spreadsheet for your expenses. Your accountant will be happy.\",\n \"Legally, do I have anything to worry about from having an incorrectly filed W-4? What you did wasn't criminal. When you submitted the form it was correct. Unfortunately as your situation changed you didn't adjust the form, that mistake does have consequences. Is there anything within my rights I can do to get the company to take responsibility for their role in this situation, or is it basically my fault? It is basically your fault. The company needs a w-4 for each employee. They will use that W-4 for every paycheck until the government changes the regulation, or your employment ends, or you submit a new form. Topic 753 - Form W-4 – Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate If an employee qualifies, he or she can also use Form W-4 (PDF) to tell you not to deduct any federal income tax from his or her wages. To qualify for this exempt status, the employee must have had no tax liability for the previous year and must expect to have no tax liability for the current year. However, if the employee can be claimed as a dependent on a parent's or another person's tax return, additional limitations may apply; refer to the instructions for Form W-4. A Form W-4 claiming exemption from withholding is valid for only the calendar year in which it is filed with the employer. To continue to be exempt from withholding in the next year, an employee must give you a new Form W-4 claiming exempt status by February 15 of that year. If the employee does not give you a new Form W-4, withhold tax as if he or she is single, with no withholding allowances. However, if you have an earlier Form W-4 (not claiming exempt status) for this employee that is valid, withhold as you did before. (I highlighted the key part) Because you were claiming exempt they should have required you to update that form each year. In your case that may not have applied because of the timing of the events. When do you submit a new form? Anytime your situation changes. Sometimes the change is done to adjust withholding to modify the amount of a refund. Other times failure to update the form can lead to bigger complication: when your marital status changes, or the number of dependents changes. In these situations you could have a significant amount of under-withheld, which could lead to a fine later on. As a side note this is even more true for the state version of a W-4. Having a whole years worth of income tax withholding done for the wrong state will at a minimum require you to file in multiple states, it could also result in a big surprise if the forgotten state has higher tax rate. Will my (now former) employee be responsible for paying their portion of the taxes that were not withheld during the 9 months I was full-time, tax Exempt? For federal and state income taxes they are just a conduit. They take the money from your paycheck, and periodically send it to the IRS and the state capital. Unless you could show that the pay stubs said taxes were being withheld, but the w-2 said otherwise; they have no role in judging the appropriateness of your W-4 with one exception. Finally, and I am not too hopeful on this one, but is there anything I can do to ease this tax burden? I understand that the IRS is owed no matter what. You have one way it might workout. For many taxpayers who have a large increase in pay from one year to the next, they can take advantage of a safe-harbor in the tax law. If they had withheld as much money in 2015 as they paid in 2014, they have reached the safe-harbor. They avoid the penalty for under withholding. Note that 2014 number is not what you paid on tax day or what was refunded, but all your income taxes for the entire year. Because in your case your taxes for the year 2014 were ZERO, that might mean that you automatically reach the safe-harbor for 2015. That makes sense because one of the key requirements of claiming exempt is that you had no liability the year before. It won't save you from paying what you owe but it can help avoid a penalty. Lessons\",\n \"According to the W9 instructions you are considered a U.S. person if: According to the following section, it looks like a C corporation may be easier then an LLC: All of this information can be found here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw9.pdf Hope this helps!\",\n \"I'm not sure why you're confusing the two unrelated things. 1040ES is your estimated tax payments. 941 is your corporation's payroll tax report. They have nothing to do with each other. You being the corporation's employee is accidental, and can only help you to avoid 1040ES and use the W2 withholding instead - like any other employee. From the IRS standpoint you're not running a LLC - you're running a corporation, and you're that corporation's employee. While technically you're self-employed, from tax perspective - you're not (to the extent of your corporate salary, at least).\",\n \"\\\"If you don't want to get income tax taken out of your check, then get a 1099 job and stop blubbering like a baby. You are not doing your case any help. If fact, I am more positive that \\\"\\\"anti-taxers\\\"\\\" are out of their gourd.\\\"\",\n \"Do you have any insight on average *effective* rates paid by SE owners? As a counterpoint to your (very valid) links, filing as S-corp allows for taxes on distributions to be exempt from payroll tax and taxed at much lower rates. Also, being SE allows for various deductions not possible for wage earners. There's probably other examples not immediately coming to mind. Also, SE taxes equal taxes otherwise paid by employer + employee. It's just that those employer taxes don't appear on the employee's paystub so not everyone realizes this.\",\n \"One possibility that I use: I set up an LLC and get paid through that entity. Then I set up a payroll service through Bank of America and set up direct deposit so that it is free. I pay myself at 70% of my hourly rate based on the number of hours I work, and the payroll service does all the calculations for me and sets up the payments to the IRS. Typically money is left over in my business account. When tax time rolls around, I have a W2 from my LLC and a 1099 from the company I work for. I put the W2 into my personal income, and for the business I enter the revenue on the 1099 and the payroll expenses from paying myself; the left over in the business account is taxed as ordinary income. Maybe it's overkill, but setting up the LLC makes it possible to (a) set up a solo 401(k) and put up to $51k away tax-free, and (b) I can write off business expenses more easily.\",\n \"\\\"You are confusing entirely unrelated things. First the \\\"\\\"profit distribution\\\"\\\" issue with Bob's S-Corp which is in fact tax evasion and will probably trigger a very nasty audit. Generally, if you're the sole employee of your own S-Corp, and the whole S-Corp income is from your own personal services, as defined by the IRS - there's no profit there. All the net income from such a S-Corp is subject to SE tax, either through payroll or through your K-1. Claiming anything else would be lying and IRS is notorious for going after people doing that. Second - the reclassification issue. The reason employers classify employees as contractors is to avoid payroll taxes (which the IRS gets through Bob's S-Corp, so it doesn't care) and providing benefits (that is Bob's problem, not the IRS). So in the scenario above, the IRS wouldn't care whose employee Bob is since Bob's S-Corp would have to pay all the same payroll taxes. The reclassification is an issue when employees are abused. See examples of Fedex drivers, where they're classified as contractors and are not getting any benefits, spend their own money on the truck and maintenance, etc. The employees are the ones who sued for reclassification, but in this case the IRS would be interested as well since a huge chunk of payroll taxes was not paid (driver's net is after car maintenance and payments, not before as it would be if he was salaried). So in your scenario reclassification is not as much a concern to Bob as his tax evasion scheme claiming earnings from performing personal services as \\\"\\\"profits from S-Corp\\\"\\\". A precedent to look at, as I mentioned elsewhere, would be the Watson v Commissioner case.\\\"\",\n \"You mentioned that the 1099B that reports this sale is for 2014, which means that you got the proceeds in 2014. What I suspect happened was that the employer reported this on the next available paycheck, thus reporting it in the 2015 period. If this ends up being a significant difference for you, I'd argue the employer needs to correct both W2s, since you've actually received the money in 2014. However, if the difference for you is not substantial I'd leave it as is and remember that the employer will not know of your ESPP sales until at least several days later when the report from the broker arrives. If you sell on 12/31, you make it very difficult for the employer to account correctly since the report from the broker arrives in the next year.\",\n \"No, even businesses pay taxes quarterly. So if you formed Nathan, LLC, or otherwise became self employed, you'd still have to file quarterly estimates and make tax payments. This would cause taxes to be a much more high touch part of your life. However, you should ensure that you're claiming the proper exemptions etc to avoid excessive withholding.\",\n \"If the employer provides housing to the employee, the employer has to identify whether it is taxable or not. If it is - the amounts would be added to the taxable income on your W2. All the withholding and FICA tax calculations will be performed based on that taxable income. If the employer fails to do that, and you get audited, you can be left on the hook for the unpaid taxes on the unreported income. In some cases, employee housing is a non-taxable fringe benefit, in others it is taxable. Your tax adviser will help identify which case applies to you. After you added in a comment that you're trying to see if you should be asking your boss to pay your personal expenses vs. giving you a raise - as I said in the comments, your personal expenses are not deductible neither for you nor for anyone else. If your boss pays your rent instead of a raise - its taxable income for you.\",\n \"Your recruiter is likely trying to avoid having to pay the employer's side of employment taxes, and may even be trying to avoid having to file a 1099 for you by treating your relationship as a vendor/service provider that he is purchasing services from, which would make your pay just a business expense. It's definitely in his best interest for you to do it this way. Whether it's in your best interest is up to you. You should consult a licensed legal/tax professional to help you determine whether this is a good arrangement for you. (Most of the time, when someone starts playing tax avoidance games, they eventually get stung by it.) The next big question: If you already know this guy is a snake, why are you still working with him? If you don't trust him, why would you take legal/tax advice from him? He might land you a high-paying job. But he also might cause you years of headaches if his tax advice turns out to be flawed.\",\n \"If the $882 is reported on W2 as your income then it is added to your taxable income on W2 and is taxed as salary. Your basis then becomes $5882. If it is not reported on your W2 - you need to add it yourself. Its salary income. If its not properly reported on W2 it may have some issues with FICA, so I suggest talking to your salary department to verify it is. In any case, this is not short term capital gain. Your broker may or may not be aware of the reporting on W2, and if they report the basis as $5000 on your 1099, when you fill your tax form you can add a statement that it is ESPP reported on W2 and change the basis to correct one. H&R Block and TurboTax both support that (you need to chose the correct type of investment there).\",\n \"\\\"Your question does not say this explicitly, but I assume that you were once a W-2 employee. Each paycheck a certain amount was withheld from your check to pay income, social security, and medicare taxes. Just because you did not receive that amount of money earned does not mean it was immediately sent to the IRS. While I am not all that savvy on payroll procedures, I recall an article that indicated some companies only send in withheld taxes every quarter, much like you are doing now. They get a short term interest free loan. For example taxes withheld by a w-2 employee in the later months of the year may not be provided to the IRS until 15 January of the next year. You are correct in assuming that if you make 100K as a W-2 you will probably pay less in taxes than someone who is 100K self employed with 5K in expenses. However there are many factors. Provided you properly fill out a 1040ES, and pay the correct amount of quarterly payments, you will almost never owe taxes. In fact my experience has been the forms will probably allow you to receive a refund. Tax laws can change and one thing the form did not include last year was the .9% Medicare surcharge for high income earners catching some by surprise. As far as what you pay into is indicative of the games the politicians play. It all just goes into a big old bucket of money, and more is spent by congress than what is in the bucket. The notion of a \\\"\\\"social security lockbox\\\"\\\" is pure politics/fantasy as well as the notion of medicare and social security taxes. The latter were created to make the actual income tax rate more palatable. I'd recommend getting your taxes done as early as possible come 1 January 2017. While you may not have all the needed info, you could firm up an estimate by 15 Jan and modify the amount for your last estimated payment. Complete the taxes when all stuff comes in and even if you owe an amount you have time to save for anything additional. Keep in mind, between 1 Jan 17 and 15 Apr 17 you will earn and presumably save money to use towards taxes. You can always \\\"\\\"rob\\\"\\\" from that money to pay any owed tax for 2016 and make it up later. All that is to say you will be golden because you are showing concern and planning. When you hear horror stories of IRS dealings it is most often that people spent the money that should have been sent to the IRS.\\\"\",\n \"Note that you're asking about withholding, not about taxing. Withholding doesn't mean this is exactly the tax you'll pay: it means they're withholding a certain amount to make sure you pay taxes on it, but the tax bill at the end of the year is the same regardless of how you choose to do the withholding. Your tax bill may be higher or lower than the withholding amount. As far as tax rate, that will be the same regardless - you're just moving the money from one place to the other. The only difference would be that your tax is based on total shares under the plan - meaning that if you buy 1k shares, for example, at $10, so $1,500 discounted income, if you go the payroll route you get (say) $375 withheld. If you go the share route, you either get $375 worth of stock (so 38 shares) withheld (and then you would lose out on selling that stock, meaning you don't get quite as much out of it at the end) or you would ask them to actually buy rather more shares to make up for it, meaning you'd have a slightly higher total gain. That would involve a slightly higher tax at the end of it, of course. Option 1: Buy and then sell $10000 worth, share-based withholding. Assuming 15% profit, and $10/share at both points, then buy/sell 1000 shares, $1500 in profit to take into account, 38 shares' worth (=$380) withheld. You put in $8500, you get back $9620, net $1120. Option 2: Buy and then sell $13500 worth, share based withholding. Same assumptions. You make about $2000 in pre-tax profit, meaning you owe about $500 in tax withholding. Put in $11475, get back $13000, net $1525. Owe 35% more tax at the end of the year, but you have the full $1500 to spend on whatever you are doing with it. Option 3: Buy and then sell $1000 worth, paycheck withholding. You get the full $10000-$8500 = $1500 up front, but your next paycheck is $375 lighter. Same taxes as Option 1 at the end of the year.\",\n \"The I-9 form is required because you are working. It is kept by the employer as proof that you have the proper documents to work. If the government was to inspect their records they can be fined if they don't have those document, in fact they have to keep them for several years after your employment is done. A w-4 form is a federal tax form. There also was probably a state version of the form. When you completed the w-4 it is used by your employer to determine how much in taxes need to be withheld. Employers don't know your tax situation. Even though you are on work study, you still could have made enough money over the summer to pay taxes. But if this is your only job, and you will not make enough money to have to pay taxes, you can fill out the form as exempt. That means that last year you didn't make enough money to have to pay taxes, and you don't expect to make enough to have to pay taxes this year. If you are exempt, no federal income tax will be withheld. They might still withhold for social security and medicare. The state w-4 can also be used to be exempt from state taxes. If they withhold any income taxes you have to file one of the 1040 tax forms to get that income tax money back. You will have to do so for the state income tax withholding. A note about social security and medicare. If you have an on campus job, at the campus you attend, during the school year; they don't withhold money for social security and medicare. That law applies to students on work study jobs, and on non-work-study jobs. for single dependents the federal threshold where you must file is: > You must file a return if any of the following apply. Your gross income was more than the larger of— a. $1,000, or b. Your earned income (up to $5,850) plus $350.\",\n \"First, the SSN isn't an issue. She will need to apply for an ITIN together with tax filing, in order to file taxes as Married Filing Jointly anyway. I think you (or both of you in the joint case) probably qualify for the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, if you've been outside the US for almost the whole year, in which cases both of you should have all of your income excluded anyway, so I'm not sure why you're getting that one is better. As for Self-Employment Tax, I suspect that she doesn't have to pay it in either case, because there is a sentence in your linked page for Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident that says However, you may still be treated as a nonresident alien for the purpose of withholding Social Security and Medicare tax. and since Self-Employment Tax is just Social Security and Medicare tax in another form, she shouldn't have to pay it if treated as resident, if she didn't have to pay it as nonresident. From the law, I believe Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident is described in IRC 6013(g), which says the person is treated as a resident for the purposes of chapters 1 and 24, but self-employment tax is from chapter 2, so I don't think self-employment tax is affected by this election.\",\n \"TL;DR: The difference is $230. Just for fun, and to illustrate how brackets work, let's look at the differences you could see from changing when you're paid based on the tax bracket information that Ben Miller provided. If you're paid $87,780 each year, then each year you'll pay $17,716 for a total of $35,432: $5,183 + $12,532 (25% of $50,130 (the amount over $37,650)) If you were paid nothing one year and then double salary ($175,560) the next, you'd pay $0 the first year and $42,193 the next: $18,558 + $23,634 (28% of $84,410 (the amount over $91,150)) So the maximum difference you'd see from shifting when you're paid is $6,761 total, $3,380 per year, or about 4% of your average annual salary. In your particular case, you'd either be paying $35,432 total, or $14,948 followed by $20,714 for $35,662 total, a difference of $230 total, $115 per year, less than 1% of average annual salary: $5,183 + $9,765 (25% of $39,060 (the amount $87,780 - $11,070 is over $37,650)) $18,558 + $2,156 (28% of $7,700 (the amount $87,780 + $11,070 is over $91,150))\",\n \"I would talk to your HMRC tax office they do have guidance on this issue here http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/working/intro/employed-selfemployed.htm\",\n \"\\\"They are basically asking for the name of the legal entity that they should write on the check. You, as a person, are a legal entity, and so you can have them pay you directly, by name. This is in effect a \\\"\\\"sole proprietorship\\\"\\\" arrangement and it is the situation of most independent contractors; you're working for yourself, and you get all the money, but you also have all the responsibility. You can also set up a legal alias, or a \\\"\\\"Doing Business As\\\"\\\" (DBA) name. The only thing that changes versus using your own name is... well... that you aren't using your own name, to be honest. You pay some trivial fee for the paperwork to the county clerk or other office of record, and you're now not only John Doe, you're \\\"\\\"Zolani Enterprises\\\"\\\", and your business checks can be written out to that name and the bank (who will want a copy of the DBA paperwork to file when you set the name up as a payable entity on the account) will cash them for you. An LLC, since it was mentioned, is a \\\"\\\"Limited Liability Company\\\"\\\". It is a legal entity, incorporeal, that is your \\\"\\\"avatar\\\"\\\" in the business world. It, not you, is the entity that primarily faces anyone else in that world. You become, for legal purposes, an agent of that company, authorized to make decisions on its behalf. You can do all the same things, make all the same money, but if things go pear-shaped, the company is the one liable, not you. Sounds great, right? Well, there's a downside, and that's taxes and the increased complexity thereof. Depending on the exact structure of the company, the IRS will treat the LLC either as a corporation, a partnership, or as a \\\"\\\"disregarded entity\\\"\\\". Most one-man LLCs are typically \\\"\\\"disregarded\\\"\\\", meaning that for tax purposes, all the money the company makes is treated as if it were made by you as a sole proprietor, as in the above cases (and with the associated increased FICA and lack of tax deductions that an \\\"\\\"employee\\\"\\\" would get). Nothing can be \\\"\\\"retained\\\"\\\" by the company, because as far as the IRS is concerned it doesn't exist, so whether the money from the profits of the company actually made it into your personal checking account or not, it has to be reported by you on the Schedule C. You can elect, if you wish, to have the LLC treated as a corporation; this allows the corporation to retain earnings (and thus to \\\"\\\"own\\\"\\\" liquid assets like cash, as opposed to only fixed assets like land, cars etc). It also allows you to be an \\\"\\\"employee\\\"\\\" of your own company, and pay yourself a true \\\"\\\"salary\\\"\\\", with all the applicable tax rules including pre-tax healthcare, employer-paid FICA, etc. However, the downside here is that some money is subject to double taxation; any monies \\\"\\\"retained\\\"\\\" by the company, or paid out to members as \\\"\\\"dividends\\\"\\\", is \\\"\\\"profit\\\"\\\" of the company for which the company is taxed at the corporate rate. Then, the money from that dividend you receive from the company is taxed again at the capital gains rate on your own 1040 return. This also means that you have to file taxes twice; once for the corporation, once for you as the individual. You can't, of course, have it both ways with an LLC; you can't pay yourself a true \\\"\\\"salary\\\"\\\" and get the associated tax breaks, then receive leftover profits as a \\\"\\\"distribution\\\"\\\" and avoid double taxation. It takes multiple \\\"\\\"members\\\"\\\" (owners) to have the LLC treated like a partnership, and there are specific types of LLCs set up to handle investments, where some of what I've said above doesn't apply. I won't get into that because the question inferred a single-owner situation, but the tax rules in these additional situations are again different.\\\"\",\n \"To clarify that legality of this (for those that question it), this is directly from IRS Publication 926 (2014) (for household employees): If you prefer to pay your employee's social security and Medicare taxes from your own funds, do not withhold them from your employee's wages. The social security and Medicare taxes you pay to cover your employee's share must be included in the employee's wages for income tax purposes. However, they are not counted as social security and Medicare wages or as federal unemployment (FUTA) wages. I am sorry this does not answer your question entirely, but it does verify that you can do this. UPDATE: I have finally found a direct answer to your question! I found it here: http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1040sh/ar01.html Form W-2 and Form W-3 If you file one or more Forms W-2, you must also file Form W-3. You must report both cash and noncash wages in box 1, as well as tips and other compensation. The completed Forms W-2 and W-3 in the example (in these instructions) show how the entries are made. For detailed information on preparing these forms, see the General Instructions for Forms W-2 and W-3. Employee's portion of taxes paid by employer. If you paid all of your employee's share of social security and Medicare taxes, without deducting the amounts from the employee's pay, the employee's wages are increased by the amount of that tax for income tax withholding purposes. Follow steps 1 through 3 below. (See the example in these instructions.) Enter the amounts you paid on your employee's behalf in boxes 4 and 6 (do not include your share of these taxes). Add the amounts in boxes 3, 4, and 6. (However, if box 5 is greater than box 3, then add the amounts in boxes 4, 5, and 6.) Enter the total in box 1.\",\n \"I also reckon the tax situation is a relevant difference. I'd rather take shares over a wage when, you know, I'm not / minimally taxed for capital gains, at a rate way lower than what I should be paying for the equivalent as income tax.\",\n \"\\\"While the other answers try to quantify the value of health care the question you ask is about employee vs contractor. The delta between those regarding benefits goes way beyond health care. In fact because almost every full time employee must have health care offered by their employer the option of \\\"\\\"you can have X with healthcare, or Y with no healthcare\\\"\\\" is no longer an option. I have seen situations in the last few years where employees who had no need for healthcare coverage (retired military) were offered additional vacation days to compensate for their lower cost to the employer. For employee vs contractor what is different isn't just healthcare. It also includes holidays, vacation days, sick days, employer portion of social security, education benefits, and 401k. Insurance benefits include not just healthcare but also dental, vision, short term and long term disability, and life insurance. The rule of thumb to cover all these benefits that are lost when you are a contractor is an amount equal to your income. Of course some of these benefits depend on single vs married and kids or not. But unless the rate they are paying the contractors is approaching twice the rate they are paying employees the contractor will be hard pressed to cover the missing benefits.\\\"\",\n \"When I worked for myself it was bad because But Ultimately I gave up my business and went to work for a school teaching, and through a series of other jobs ended up in a very stable reliable trustworthy job. When I was younger the variable paycheck didn't outweigh the freedom. Now that I am a dad I only think about having insurance and a secure job. The other option to consider is having a regular job, and then doing a little side work for yourself. You get all the benefits of both (and all the detractions)\",\n \"Where you earn your money makes no difference to the IRS. Citizen/permanent resident means you pay income tax. To make matters worse given your situation it's virtually certain you have unreported foreign bank accounts--something that's also an important issue.\",\n \"\\\"My late answer is: Be aware of the difference of being a contractor and being an employee. I am not sure of the laws in Canada, but in the United States lots of small companies like to hire people as \\\"\\\"contractors\\\"\\\" but make them work under rules that fall into employee. The business is trying to avoid paying payroll taxes, which is fine, but make sure you know your rights and responsibilities as a contractor vs employee. You can check with your state's Bureau of Labor and Industry in the US, but I am sure wherever you are from there is a government agency to do the same thing.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"My employer puts \\\"\\\"contractor\\\"\\\" in your email address if you're a contractor, just so no one mistakenly treats you like a real employee. jsmith.contractor@company.com They get crappy desks not much bigger than 1970s library carrels. Some of them might be making more than I do, but I'd bet 6 months' salary that most of them aren't - a lot of them have that hangdog \\\"\\\"should I go for catfood again tonight or treat myself with some nice instant ramen?\\\"\\\" look.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The \\\"\\\"independent contractor\\\"\\\" vs. \\\"\\\"employee\\\"\\\" distinction is a red herring to this discussion and not at all important just because someone suggested you use your LLC to do the job. Corp-2-Corp is a very common way to do contracting and having an LLC with business bank accounts provides you with more tax deductions (such as deducting interest on credit lines). Some accounting practices prefer to pay entities by their Tax ID numbers, instead of an individual's social security number. The actual reasoning behind this would be dubious, but the LLC only benefits you and gives you more advantages by having one than not. For example, it is easier for you to hire subcontractors through your LLC to assist with your job, due to the opaqueness of the private entity. Similarly, your LLC can sign Non Disclosure and Intellectual Property agreements, automatically extending the trade secrets to all of its members, as opposed to just you as an individual. By signing whatever agreement with the company that is paying you through your LLC, your LLC will be privy to all of this. Next, assuming you did have subcontractors or other liability inducing assets, the LLC limits the liability you personally have to deal with in a court system, to an extent. But even if you didn't, the facelessness of an LLC can deter potential creditors, for example, your client may just assume you are a cog in a wheel - a random employee of the LLC - as opposed to the sole owner. Having a business account for the LLC keeps all of your expenses in one account statement, making your tax deductions easier. If you had a business credit line, the interest is tax deductible (compared to just having a personal credit card for business purposes). Regarding the time/costs of setting up and managing an LLC, this does vary by jurisdiction. It can negligible, or it can be complex. You also only have to do it once. Hire an attorney to give you a head start on that, if you feel that is necessary. Now back to the \\\"\\\"independent contractor\\\"\\\" vs. \\\"\\\"employee\\\"\\\" distinction: It is true that the client will not be paying your social security, but they expect you to charge more hourly than an equivalent actual employee would, solely because you don't get health insurance from them or paid leave or retirement plans or any other perk, and you will receive the entire paycheck without any withheld by the employer. You also get more tax deductions to utilize, although you will now have self employment tax (assuming you are a US citizen), this becomes less and less important the higher over $105,000 you make, as it stops being counted (slightly more complicated than that, but self employment tax is it's own discussion).\\\"\",\n \"There are still ways that the default values on the W4 can lead you to get a refund or owe the IRS. If there was a big delta in your paychecks, it can lead to problems. If you make 260,000 and get 26 paychecks that means each check had a gross of 10,000. Your company will withhold the same amount from each check. But If you earned a big bonus then the smaller regular paychecks may not have been withholding enough. When bonus checks are involved the payroll office has to treat them as irregular pay to be able to make it work out. Some companies don't do this, so you may under or over pay during the year. If you changed companies during the year, this can lead to under or over payment. The lower paying company would not know about the higher rate of pay at the other company. so at one you would under pay, and the other you would over pay. There are also social security issues with more than one employer.\",\n \"Yes. W4 determines how much your employer will withhold from your wages. Leaving everything at default would mean that your salary is your only taxable income, and you only take default deductions. Your employee will calculate your tax withholding based on that. But, if your salary is >200k, I assume that you have other income (investment/capital gains, interest on your bank account), which you will have to pay taxes on. You're probably going to have some deductible expenses (business/partnership expenses, mortgage interest, donations, college funds etc) as well. So it is very likely, unless you're really not smart about money, that you have more to do with your taxes than just the employers' withholding.\",\n \"Why was I sent both 1042-S and 1099. Which amount is the right amount that has been withheld. Generally, each tax form you get will be about a separate income; for instance, you might get a 1099-DIV for dividends you earned from an investment and then a 1099-B for the profit or loss on selling that investment, in which case you'd report them both to the IRS. In this case, you've also had money withheld as a non-resident alien, which is why you've been issued a 1042-S. So you need to report both amounts to the IRS.\",\n \"After reading OP Mark's question and the various answers carefully and also looking over some old pay stubs of mine, I am beginning to wonder if he is mis-reading his pay stub or slip of paper attached to the reimbursement check for the item(s) he purchases. Pay stubs (whether paper documents attached to checks or things received in one's company mailbox or available for downloading from a company web site while the money is deposited electronically into the employee's checking account) vary from company to company, but a reasonably well-designed stub would likely have categories such as Taxable gross income for the pay period: This is the amount from which payroll taxes (Federal and State income tax, Social Security and Medicare tax) are deducted as well as other post-tax deductions such as money going to purchase of US Savings Bonds, contributions to United Way via payroll deduction, contribution to Roth 401k etc. Employer-paid group life insurance premiums are taxable income too for any portion of the policy that exceeds $50K. In some cases, these appear as a lump sum on the last pay stub for the year. Nontaxable gross income for the pay period: This would be sum total of the amounts contributed to nonRoth 401k plans, employee's share of group health-care insurance premiums for employee and/or employee's family, money deposited into FSA accounts, etc. Net pay: This is the amount of the attached check or money sent via ACH to the employee's bank account. Year-to-date amounts: These just tell the employee what has been earned/paid/withheld to date in the various categories. Now, OP Mark said My company does not tax the reimbursement but they do add it to my running gross earnings total for the year. So, the question is whether the amount of the reimbursement is included in the Year-to-date amount of Taxable Income. If YTD Taxable Income does not include the reimbursement amount, then the the OP's question and the answers and comments are moot; unless the company has really-messed-up (Pat. Pending) payroll software that does weird things, the amount on the W2 form will be whatever is shown as YTD Taxable Income on the last pay stub of the year, and, as @DJClayworth noted cogently, it is what will appear on the W2 form that really matters. In summary, it is good that OP Mark is taking the time to investigate the matter of the reimbursements appearing in Total Gross Income, but if the amounts are not appearing in the YTD Taxable Income, his Payroll Office may just reassure him that they have good software and that what the YTD Taxable Income says on the last pay stub is what will be appearing on his W2 form. I am fairly confident that this is what will be the resolution of the matter because if the amount of the reimbursement was included in Taxable Income during that pay period and no tax was withheld, then the employer has a problem with Social Security and Medicare tax underwithholding, and nonpayment of this tax plus the employer's share to the US Treasury in timely fashion. The IRS takes an extremely dim view of such shenanigans and most employers are unlikely to take the risk.\",\n \"If you don't receive a W2, there are 2 scenarios you should consider: If you have reason to believe that scenario 1 is accurate, then you could file your taxes based on the last valid paycheck you received. If you have reason to believe that scenario 2 is accurate, then you need to do some extra math, but fortunately it is straight forward. Simply treat your final paychecks as if the gross amount of your check was equal to the sum of your taxes paid, and the net amount of the check is $0. This way your income will increase by the proper amount, and you will still receive credit for the taxes paid. This should work out cleanly for federal and state taxes, but will likely result in an overpayment of FICA taxes. You can use form 843 to receive a refund of excess FICA taxes. As a side note, I'd recommend spot checking the YTD numbers on your last paychecks against previous paystubs to make sure there wasn't any fuzzy math going on when they realized they were going out of business.\",\n \"Do not mix personal accounts and corporate accounts. If you're paid as your self person - this money belongs to you, not the corporation. You can contribute it to the corporation, but it is another tax event and you should understand fully the consequences. Talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). If they pay to you personally (1099) - it goes on your Schedule C, and you pay SE taxes on it. If they pay to your corporation, the corporation will pay it to you as salary, and will pay payroll taxes on it. Generally, payroll through corporation will be slightly more expensive than regular schedule C. If you have employees/subcontractors, though, you may earn money which is not from your own performance, in which case S-Corp may be an advantage.\",\n \"Couple of points about being a consultant in the US: It sounds like the rules for what you can deduct may be more lax in Italy. For example, you can deduct a certain percentage of your home for work but the rules are relatively strict on your use of that space and how much is deductible. Also things like clothes, restaurants, phones, car use, etc must follow IRS guidelines to be deductible. This often means they are used exclusively for work and are required for work. A meal you eat by yourself is not generally deductible, for example. Any expense you would have had anyway if you were not working is generally not deductible. A contractor in the US can organize in various ways, including sole proprietorship, an S-corp, and a C-corp. Each has different tax and regulatory implications. In the simple case of a sole proprietorship, one must pay not only regular income tax but also self-employment tax, which is the part of social security and medicare tax normally paid for by one's employer. Estimated taxes must be paid to the government quarterly and then the actual amount due synced up at the end of the year (with the government sending you the difference or vice versa). Generally speaking contractors may set aside more money pre-tax for retirement and have better investment options. This is because solo 401(k) retirement accounts are cost-effective and flexible and the contractor can set aside the full $18K pre-tax as well as having the company contribute generously (pre-tax) to the retirement account. Contractors can also easily employ spouses and set aside even more. The details of how frequently you are paid as a contractor and how much notice (if any) the company must give you before terminating your relationship are negotiated between you and the company and are generally pretty flexible. You could get paid your whole year salary in a lump sum if you wanted. The company that is paying you will not normally give you any benefits whatsoever...in this way it is the same situation as it is in Italy. By the way the three points you mention in your edit are definitely not true in the US.\",\n \"Since you worked as an RA, the university should send you a W2 form. The taxable wages line in that form would be the sum of both the direct salary and employer paid benefits that are taxable. As such you should not need to do anything than enter the numbers that they provide you.\",\n \"\\\"S-Corp are taxed very different. Unlike LLC where you just add the profit to your income with S-Corp you have to pay yourself a \\\"\\\"reasonable\\\"\\\" salary (on w-2) which of course is a lot more paperwork. I think the advantage (but don't hold me accountable for this) is if your S-Corp makes a lot more than a reasonable salary, then the rest of the money can be passed through on your personal return at a lower (corp) rate.\\\"\",\n \"You pay it this tax year. Whether that's now due to W-2 withholding, or later with your 1040 next year, or with your 1040-ES all depends on your particular situation.\",\n \"I can only address this part of it: For instance with a 10k net income, 9293 is the limit for 401k from employee. How is this calculated? I believe this limit is total for all sources too, which I'm confused about. How it's calculated is that when you are self-employed you also pay the employer portion of the FICA taxes. This comes off above the line and is not considered income. The 401k contribution limit takes this into account.\",\n \"For 2014/15 it looks something like this: To make it a bit clearer, let's also plot the difference in net income for self-employment and a single person company compared to employment: Self-employment is slightly worse between £5885 and about £10,500 because Class 2 NI kicks in before the employed person starts paying any tax. After that, self-employment is better because you pay 9% Class 4 NI rather than 12% Class 1 NI. Once higher rate tax kicks in, the saving stops growing. The single-person company is most tax-efficient at all points, ignoring any accountancy costs it incurs. Strange things happen between £100k and about £135k because the withdrawal of the personal allowance kicks in at a different point when receiving dividends. We can also plot the percentage of income paid as tax for each case: The strange kink for self-employment below £10k is caused by Class 2 NI again. Employment and self-employment both gradually tend towards paying 47%, reaching 46.5% for £2m gross income. The company tends towards 44.44%, reaching 43.6% for £2m gross income.\",\n \"As others have said, it depends entirely on what benefits are provided, and how much of the cost of those benefits is paid by the employer and how much is paid by the employee, and compare that to what it would cost to obtain the necessary/equivalent coverage without employer assistance. In my case, my employer pays more than $10,000 per year toward the cost of medical, dental, vision, disability, and life insurance for myself and my family. That's almost 20% of the average total household income in my state, so it is not an insignificant amount at all.\",\n \"You may be able to find the answers to your question on the IRS web site: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98263,00.html Specifically, using this form to estimate taxes for salary: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120w.pdf and this form to estimate taxes for dividends: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf\",\n \"As others have mentioned yes it is taxable. Whether it goes through payroll and has FICA taken out is your issue in terms that you need to report it and you will an extra 7.5% self employment taxes that would normally be covered by your employer. Your employer may have problems but that isn't your issue. Contrary to what other users are saying chances are there won't be any penalties for you. Best case you have already paid 100% of last years tax liability and you can file your normal tax return with no issues. Worst case you need to pay quarterly taxes on that amount in the current quarter. IRS quarters are a little weird but I think you need to pay by Jan 15th for a December payment. You don't have to calculate your entire liability you can just fill out the very short form and attach a check for about what you will owe. There is a form you can fill out to show what quarter you received the money and you paid in it is a bit more complex but will avoid the penalty. For penalties quarterly taxes count in the quarter received where as payroll deductions count as if they were paid in the first quarter of the year. From the IRS The United States income tax is a pay-as-you-go tax, which means that tax must be paid as you earn or receive your income during the year. You can either do this through withholding or by making estimated tax payments. If you do not pay your tax through withholding, or do not pay enough tax that way, you might also have to pay estimated taxes. If you did not pay enough tax throughout the year, either through withholding or by making estimated tax payments, you may have to pay a penalty for underpayment of estimated tax. Generally, most taxpayers will avoid this penalty if they owe less than $1,000 in tax after subtracting their withholdings and credits, or if they paid at least 90% of the tax for the current year, or 100% of the tax shown on the return for the prior year, whichever is smaller.\",\n \"I would say it's all relative. Take the following two scenarios: If you were facing these options, would you chose #2 just because you pay a lower tax rate, even though you make less money? These numbers are of course fictional, but the point I'm trying to make is that everyone will seek the method that allows them to make the most money. If they have to pay a higher tax rate, so be it. One other thought: daytraders will have higher expenses, which are deductible.\",\n \"On what basis are you not employee? You should probably get some tax/legal advice, but generally J1 internship is by definition employment. You should also check the tax treaty between the US and Ireland, if there's one, and check what it says about training related income. You may find a pleasant surprise there. Most universities have support for international students/visiting scholars, check the international students' office at your school.\",\n \"Employer matches (even for Roth 401Ks) are put into traditional 401K accounts and are treated as pre-tax income. Traditional 401K plans are tax deferred accounts, meaning you won't owe any taxes on it this year, but will have to pay taxes on it when you take the money out (likely after retirement). 401K contributions (including the match) are reported to the IRS and are entered in box 12 on the W2 form.\",\n \"\\\"I'm no lawyer and no expert, so take my remarks as entertainment only. Also see this question. If you have a U.S. SSN which is eligible for work, they may be able to pay you on 1099 basis with your SSN as a sole proprietor, unless they have some personal reason for avoiding that. So perhaps try asking about that specifically. HR policies can be weird and tricky, maybe a nudge in the right direction will help. Not What You Asked: regardless, I might recommend you register as an LLC and get an EIN (sort of SSN for companies) for a variety of reasons. It's called a \\\"\\\"limited liability\\\"\\\" company for a reason. You may also have an easier time reaping various business-related rewards, like writing off expenses. If you do so, consider a state with no income tax like Wyoming. (Or, for convenience sake, WA if you live in BC, or maybe NH if you live in Ontario.. etc.)\\\"\",\n \"I think I may have figured this out but if someone could double check my reasoning I'd appreciate it. So if my company makes $75000 and I decide to pay myself a $30000 salary, then the quarterly payment break down would be like this: 1040ES: Would pay income tax on non salary dividend ($45000) 941: Would pay income tax, SS, medicare on salary ($30000) (I'm the only person on payroll) So I think this answers my question in that after switching from filing as LLC to S-corp, I won't have to pay as much on 1040ES because some of it will now be covered on payroll.\",\n \"You are confused about a couple of terms: For example you work for company A: As to the 1098-T: It is likely that you or your parents will use the 1098-T. You don't have to file a copy with the IRS. You and your parents need to determine who should be reporting the educational expenses: you or your parents.\",\n \"Regarding #1: use the free online version of turbotax and start to play with the numbers for the different options for filing. It can make a difference, based on the imbalance between the couples income. Also filing married but separate can eleiminate some deductions/credits. Regarding #2: when you submit your taxes use the forecasting tool in turbotax to see if you should adjust your withholding. 2012 will be tricky because unless you changed your withholding in early 2011 to account for the change in status, your refund/owe number for 2011 will be unrelated to what will happen in 2012. Make sure you meet the safe harbor requirements, enough withheld to equal the previous years tax. Joe Taxpayer tried to give you a formula regarding exemptions, here is another explanation: Each exemption is worth a percent of $3800. If you are in the 10% bracket that means it is worth $380 per year. If you got a big refund or wrote a big check, adjust accordingly. Regarding #4: getting a match is great. Make sure you leave nothing on the table. Other than that it won't make a difference which one you pick. Look at the funds available, investment types, expenses and go with the one that makes the most sense to maximize. Remember you are not getting interest on the 401Ks you are investing and getting returns. There is no way to know which investment fund will be better in 2012.\",\n \">However, you would have to pay income taxes on that wage and could end up with less money overall to spend on healthcare. That's not truth tho. You can open IRA and 401k and now you have more money to put into them that won't get tax and it help you save for the retirement.\",\n \"Your question begins with a misunderstanding. When you prepare your tax return (Form 1040/1040A/1040EZ) you always try to minimize your total tax bill. When you fill out form W4 you trying to estimate how much tax will be shown on next years tax return. The penalty for having too much tax withheld is not having the use of the money until you get a tax refund. At the moment interest rates are very low and your economic loss is the temporary loss of access to the money. One exception would be if you are carrying credit card debt. In that case you are, in effect, paying 20-30% interest to borrow money you lending to the US Treasury for 0% interest. The penalty for having too little tax withheld is having to make a large payment with your tax return. If your pre-payments aren't at least as much as your total income tax from last year there may also be modest underpayment penalty based on the difference between your pre-payments and your total income tax from last year or this year whichever is less. A large underpayment will trigger a different larger underpayemnt penalty. The W4 combined with the withholding rates tends to over-withhold income tax for most, but not all, taxpayers. Most people don't have enough savings to pay a large tax due, which leads to more penalties and an even larger bill. Over-witholding protects the overall tax system from the consequences of those events. People tend to be very unhappy, not quietly. On balance your greatest economic benefit depends on whether or not you have high interest debt. If you do, then accurate and even slightly under-withholding will probably work to your advantage as long as you can pay next 4/15. If not, avoiding the chance of having any unexpected balance due next year may be more important.\",\n \"\\\"You are on the right track, for tax purposes its all ordinary income at the end of 2016. If the free lance \\\"\\\"employer\\\"\\\" will withhold fed,state and local tax, then that takes care of your estimated tax. If they can't or won't, you will need to make those estimates and make payments quarterly for the fed and state tax at your projected tax liability. Or, you can bump up withholding by your day job employer and cover your expected tax liability at year end without making estimated tax payments.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The big difference is that you get your money earlier at the start. Suppose you start on a random day with payday on the last day of the month (monthly), or on every 2nd wednesday (biweekly), and it takes 3 days for payroll to \\\"\\\"ramp up\\\"\\\" (ie, if payday is within 3 days on your start date, your next paycheck is not on the next payday, but on the one after). If we assume every month has 30 days (to keep things simple), it is an average of 4+5+...+33 days until you get your first paycheck with monthly pay, an average of 18.5 days. For weekly it is a bit trickier Assuming you get hired at a random date here, with * being a paydate: time until you get paid: an average of 10.5 days. So you get your first pay an average of 8 days earlier. Later on, that 3 day thing no longer occurs, and now the company holds an average of 6.5 days of your pay \\\"\\\"due to you\\\"\\\" with biweekly paychecks, and about 14.5 days with weekly paychecks if you have monthly pay. So with monthly pay, on average your bank account has 8 fewer days of your pay in it at all times. This happens when you are first hired, and persists over the length of your employment. Now suppose you save that extra money (on average): Suppose you have an investment at 4% (after inflation). Over 40 years those 8 days of pay invested at 4% grow to 38 days of pay, a free month. What more, if the company has problems making payroll, you'll get a warning (to, say, look for another job) an average of 8 days sooner, and/or have the money in your account. Having someone owe you money is usually worse than having the money in your bank account.\\\"\",\n \"If you return the money in the same tax year - it will not appear on your W2 and you will not be taxed on it. Whatever was withheld - you'll get it refunded when you file your annual tax return. If you return it in a different tax year - it becomes a miscellaneous deduction reported on your Schedule A. If the amount is less than $3000 - then this deduction is subject to the 2% AGI threshold, if the amount is more than that - it is not subject to threshold. Bottom line, you're probably going to lose money, unless you're already itemizing and the amount is above $3K. There's also a credit that you can take instead of deduction. See publication 525 for details.\",\n \"I see several interesting statement in your question. A. my only income is from my Employer B. I also receive employer stock (ESPP, RSU, NSO). However, employer withholds taxes for these stock transactions through my broker (I see them broken down on my W2). C. I have been subject to Alternative Minimum Tax. A implies a simple tax return. B and C tell the opposite story. In fact if B is not done correctly The amount withheld due to payroll may be perfect but the under withholding could be due to the ESPP's, RSUs and NSOs. The AMT can throw everything else out the window. If a person has a very simple tax situation: Income doesn't change a lot from paycheck to paycheck; they take the standard deduction; the number of exemptions equals the number of people in the family. Then the withholding is very close to perfect. The role of the exemptions on the W-4 is to compensate for situations that go above the standard deduction. The role of extra withholding is when the situation requires more withholding due to situations that will bring in extra income or if the AMT is involved.\",\n \"\\\"Does your spouse work? That's one factor that can put your income into a higher bracket. The one difference to note is you will pay 2x the social security portion, so even though not \\\"\\\"federal\\\"\\\" tax, its right off the top nearly 13%. I'm not familiar with your states tax. It's really worth dropping the $75 on a copy of the software and running your own exact numbers.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Careful. I would personally need a LOT more than $5 more per hour to go from W-2 employment to 1099 employment. It boils down to two reasons: (1) employers pay a huge amount of taxes on behalf of their employees, and (2) you would have to pay all of your own withholding up front. Your current proposal from them doesn't account for that. There are also risks that you face as a 1099. On the first item, your employer currently pays 6.2% of your Social Security tax. You pay the other 6.2%. If you go to 1099 status, you will be self-employed as an independent contractor and have to pay the full 12.4% out of your increased 1099 wages. On the second item, your employer also does your withholding out of your paychecks based on what you tell them on a form W-4. If you're disciplined enough to pay this out yourself in estimated taxes every time you get a paycheck, great. Many people aren't and just see a much bigger paycheck with no taxes out of it, and end up with a large tax bill at the end of the year. Overall, there are some other considerations like healthcare and other benefits. These will not be available to you as a 1099 employee. You can also be terminated spontaneously, unless you have a specific contract length with the company. As I see it, not including any benefits you would receive, you're looking at LESS money in your pocket at $50/hr as a contractor than at your $48/hr. Your pay net social security deductions is: $48 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 99,840 * .938 = 93,649.92. As a 1099 @ $50/hr you would net $50 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 104,000 * .876 = 91,104. Then there are the rest of taxes, etc to figure out your real take-home pay. I'm not a tax advisor, but I would be very careful to get the whole picture figured out before jumping. I would ask for a lot more with the added risk you would take as an independent, too.","In general that's illegal. If you're a W2 employee, you don't miraculously become a 1099 contractor just because they pay you more. If your job doesn't change - then your status doesn't change just because they give you a raise. They can be sued (by you, and by the IRS) for that. Other issues have already been raised by other respondents, just wanted to point out this legal perspective.","In general What does this mean? Assume 10 holidays and 2 weeks of vacation. So you will report to the office for 240 days (48 weeks * 5 days a week). If you are a w2 they will pay you for 260 days (52 weeks * 5 days a week). At $48 per hour you will be paid: 260*8*48 or $99,840. As a 1099 you will be paid 240*8*50 or 96,000. But you still have to cover insurance, the extra part of social security, and your retirement through an IRA. A rule of thumb I have seen with government contracting is that If the employee thinks that they make X,000 per year the company has to bill X/hour to pay for wages, benefits, overhead and profit. If the employee thinks they make x/hour the company has to bill at 2X/hour. When does a small spread make sense: The insurance is covered by another source, your spouse; or government/military retirement program. Still $2 per hour won't cover the 6.2% for social security. Let alone the other benefits. The IRS has a checklist to make sure that a 1099 is really a 1099, not just a way for the employer to shift the costs onto the individual.","Another thing to consider, however, is the deductibility of business expenses. Let's assume that the employer can legitimately hire you as a 1099 contractor. (Would you be able to telecommute? Would you have a high degree of control over when you worked and when you didn't? These factors also affect whether you're a true independent 1099 contractor or not.) As a legit 1099 contractor, you're able to deduct certain business expenses directly from your income. (You can find a list of the rules at irs.gov.) As a W2 employee, by contrast, can deduct only business expenses that exceed 2% of the your AGI (adjusted gross income). So, you also have to consider your personal circumstances in making the calculus and comparing whether a legitimate 1099 contractor job is or is not good for you. It's not just a comparison of what they'd pay W2 employees versus what they'd pay 1099 contractors."],"string":"[\n \"Careful. I would personally need a LOT more than $5 more per hour to go from W-2 employment to 1099 employment. It boils down to two reasons: (1) employers pay a huge amount of taxes on behalf of their employees, and (2) you would have to pay all of your own withholding up front. Your current proposal from them doesn't account for that. There are also risks that you face as a 1099. On the first item, your employer currently pays 6.2% of your Social Security tax. You pay the other 6.2%. If you go to 1099 status, you will be self-employed as an independent contractor and have to pay the full 12.4% out of your increased 1099 wages. On the second item, your employer also does your withholding out of your paychecks based on what you tell them on a form W-4. If you're disciplined enough to pay this out yourself in estimated taxes every time you get a paycheck, great. Many people aren't and just see a much bigger paycheck with no taxes out of it, and end up with a large tax bill at the end of the year. Overall, there are some other considerations like healthcare and other benefits. These will not be available to you as a 1099 employee. You can also be terminated spontaneously, unless you have a specific contract length with the company. As I see it, not including any benefits you would receive, you're looking at LESS money in your pocket at $50/hr as a contractor than at your $48/hr. Your pay net social security deductions is: $48 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 99,840 * .938 = 93,649.92. As a 1099 @ $50/hr you would net $50 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 104,000 * .876 = 91,104. Then there are the rest of taxes, etc to figure out your real take-home pay. I'm not a tax advisor, but I would be very careful to get the whole picture figured out before jumping. I would ask for a lot more with the added risk you would take as an independent, too.\",\n \"In general that's illegal. If you're a W2 employee, you don't miraculously become a 1099 contractor just because they pay you more. If your job doesn't change - then your status doesn't change just because they give you a raise. They can be sued (by you, and by the IRS) for that. Other issues have already been raised by other respondents, just wanted to point out this legal perspective.\",\n \"In general What does this mean? Assume 10 holidays and 2 weeks of vacation. So you will report to the office for 240 days (48 weeks * 5 days a week). If you are a w2 they will pay you for 260 days (52 weeks * 5 days a week). At $48 per hour you will be paid: 260*8*48 or $99,840. As a 1099 you will be paid 240*8*50 or 96,000. But you still have to cover insurance, the extra part of social security, and your retirement through an IRA. A rule of thumb I have seen with government contracting is that If the employee thinks that they make X,000 per year the company has to bill X/hour to pay for wages, benefits, overhead and profit. If the employee thinks they make x/hour the company has to bill at 2X/hour. When does a small spread make sense: The insurance is covered by another source, your spouse; or government/military retirement program. Still $2 per hour won't cover the 6.2% for social security. Let alone the other benefits. The IRS has a checklist to make sure that a 1099 is really a 1099, not just a way for the employer to shift the costs onto the individual.\",\n \"Another thing to consider, however, is the deductibility of business expenses. Let's assume that the employer can legitimately hire you as a 1099 contractor. (Would you be able to telecommute? Would you have a high degree of control over when you worked and when you didn't? These factors also affect whether you're a true independent 1099 contractor or not.) As a legit 1099 contractor, you're able to deduct certain business expenses directly from your income. (You can find a list of the rules at irs.gov.) As a W2 employee, by contrast, can deduct only business expenses that exceed 2% of the your AGI (adjusted gross income). So, you also have to consider your personal circumstances in making the calculus and comparing whether a legitimate 1099 contractor job is or is not good for you. It's not just a comparison of what they'd pay W2 employees versus what they'd pay 1099 contractors.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":175,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"5683"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"What is the PEG ratio? How is the PEG ratio calculated? How is the PEG ratio useful for stock investing?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["173026","448690"],"string":"[\n \"173026\",\n \"448690\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["173026","593035","448690","131335","192686","70512","308294","71029","226070","416732","223823","571234","5054","583708","472500","562238","232712","466972","149211","533818","215659","403224","94591","548211","134110","597653","96013","194319","69506","451688","435722","132097","278582","415946","226839","384770","553450","112342","265314","172691","349567","446877","457873","91430","546969","176070","287950","433905","77963","508753","30345","87667","368848","521274","4290","278307","45468","10703","257722","245117","457485","292805","241308","197480","434625","82479","44666","171135","404840","536462","554653","288403","380851","543345","504243","480811","170652","11184","102138","566579","8003","123263","477426","62290","278369","491358","4269","60495","434337","187583","249360","403870","532139","450949","42427","452479","225855","220772","590980","573928"],"string":"[\n \"173026\",\n \"593035\",\n \"448690\",\n \"131335\",\n \"192686\",\n \"70512\",\n \"308294\",\n \"71029\",\n \"226070\",\n \"416732\",\n \"223823\",\n \"571234\",\n \"5054\",\n \"583708\",\n \"472500\",\n \"562238\",\n \"232712\",\n \"466972\",\n \"149211\",\n \"533818\",\n \"215659\",\n \"403224\",\n \"94591\",\n \"548211\",\n \"134110\",\n \"597653\",\n \"96013\",\n \"194319\",\n \"69506\",\n \"451688\",\n \"435722\",\n \"132097\",\n \"278582\",\n \"415946\",\n \"226839\",\n \"384770\",\n \"553450\",\n \"112342\",\n \"265314\",\n \"172691\",\n \"349567\",\n \"446877\",\n \"457873\",\n \"91430\",\n \"546969\",\n \"176070\",\n \"287950\",\n \"433905\",\n \"77963\",\n \"508753\",\n \"30345\",\n \"87667\",\n \"368848\",\n \"521274\",\n \"4290\",\n \"278307\",\n \"45468\",\n \"10703\",\n \"257722\",\n \"245117\",\n \"457485\",\n \"292805\",\n \"241308\",\n \"197480\",\n \"434625\",\n \"82479\",\n \"44666\",\n \"171135\",\n \"404840\",\n \"536462\",\n \"554653\",\n \"288403\",\n \"380851\",\n \"543345\",\n \"504243\",\n \"480811\",\n \"170652\",\n \"11184\",\n \"102138\",\n \"566579\",\n \"8003\",\n \"123263\",\n \"477426\",\n \"62290\",\n \"278369\",\n \"491358\",\n \"4269\",\n \"60495\",\n \"434337\",\n \"187583\",\n \"249360\",\n \"403870\",\n \"532139\",\n \"450949\",\n \"42427\",\n \"452479\",\n \"225855\",\n \"220772\",\n \"590980\",\n \"573928\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["PEG is Price/Earnings to Growth. It is calculated as Price/Earnings/Annual EPS Growth. It represents how good a stock is to buy, factoring in growth of earnings, which P/E does not. Obviously when PEG is lower, a stock is more undervalued, which means that it is a better buy, and more likely to go up. Additional References:","P/E can use various estimates in its calculation as one could speculate about future P/E rations and thus could determine a future valuation if one is prepared to say that the P/E should be X for a company. Course it is worth noting that if a company isn't generating positive earnings this can be a less than useful tool, e.g. Amazon in the 1990s lost money every quarter and thus would have had a N/A for a P/E. PEG would use P/E and earnings growth as a way to see if a stock is overvalued based on projected growth. If a company has a high P/E but has a high earnings growth rate then that may prove to be worth it. By using the growth rate, one can get a better idea of the context to that figure. Another way to gain context on P/E would be to look at industry averages that would often be found on Yahoo! Finance and other sites.","PEG is Price to Earnings Growth. I've forgotten how it's calculated, I just remember that a PEG ratio of 1-2 is attractive by Graham & Dodd standards.","PE can be misleading when theres a good risk the company simply goes out of business in a few years. For this reason some people use PEG, which incorporates growth into the equation.","Essentially, yes, Peter Lynch is talking about the PEG Ratio. The Price/Earnings to Growth (PEG) Ratio is where you take the p/e ratio and then divide that by the growth rate (which should include any dividends). A lower number indicates that the stock is undervalued, and could be a good buy. Lynch's metric is the inverse of that: Growth rate divided by the p/e ratio. It is the same idea, but in this case, a higher number indicates a good value for buying. In either case, the idea behind this ratio is that a fairly priced stock will have the p/e ratio equal the growth rate. When your growth rate is larger than your p/e ratio, you are theoretically looking at an undervalued stock.","This is only a rule of thumb. Peter Lynch popularized it; the ratio PE/growth is often called the Lynch Ratio. At best it's a very rough guideline. I could fill up this page with other caveats. I'm not saying that it's wrong, only that it's grossly incomplete. For a 10 second eyeball valuation of growth stocks, it's fine. But that's the extent of its usefulness.","The PE ratio stands for the Price-Earnings ratio. The price-earnings ratio is a straightforward formula: Share Price divided by earnings per share. Earnings per share is calculated by dividing the pre-tax profit for the company by the number of shares in issue. The PE ratio is seen by some as a measure of future growth of a company. As a general rule, the higher the PE, the faster the market believes a company will grow. This question is answered on our DividendMax website: http://www.dividendmax.co.uk/help/investor-glossary/what-is-the-pe-ratio Cheers","See this link...I was also looking an answer to the same questions. This site explains with an example http://www.independent-stock-investing.com/PE-Ratio.html","\"In the long run (how long?) a shares price always reverts to being its proportional amount of the company's residual equity plus the net present value of its expected future cash flows. Or at least that's the theory. In practice PE ratio is used not as a way of measuring what the stock price itself will do but what the fundamental value of holding that share is compared to its price. It is a way of measuring what a company is worth compared to its price and comparing it against other companies to find companies where the underlying value of the company is underrepresented by the price. Comparing PE ratios within the same industry or sector is the most valid use for this (other than comparing previous years of the same company) and the validity of the comparison drops as the structure of the firm you are comparing with gets more different to that of the company. Each industry has its own \"\"typical\"\" average PE ratio and these differ wildly between industries so in a great many cases even comparing PE ratios between similar stocks in different industries isn't valid. Any weird pseudo PE ratio that you create for other instruments will be meaningless. In general the best way to compare investments across multiple instruments is by comparing returns. when comparing stocks to other instruments you may want to use the return on stock price or the return on capital employed (ROCE) depending on whether you want to compare the trading performance or the fundamental performance.\"","Your observation is mostly right, that 1 is a the number around which this varies. You are actually referencing PEG, P/E to Growth ratio, which is a common benchmark to use to evaluate a stock. The article I link to provides more discussion.","PE ratio is the current share price divided by the prior 4 quarters earnings per share. Any stock quote site will report it. You can also compute it yourself. All you need is an income statement and a current stock quote.","P/E ratio is useful but limited as others have said. Another problem is that it doesn't show leverage. Two companies in the same industry could have the same P/E but be differently leveraged. In that case I would buy the company with more equity and less debt as it should be a less risky investment. To compare companies and take leverage/debt into account you could use the EV/EBIT ratio instead. Its slightly more complicated to calculate and isn't presented by as many data sources though. Enterprise Value (EV) can be said to represent the value of the company if someone would buy it today and then pay off all its (interest bearing) debt. EV is essentially calculated like this: (Market Capitalization plus cash & cash equivalents) minus interest-bearing debt. This is then divided by EBIT (Earnings before interest and tax) to get the ratio. One drawback of this ratio though is that it can't be used for financials since their balance sheet pretty much consists of debt and the Enterprise Value therefore doesn't tell us very much. Also, like the P/E ratio it is dependent on fresh numbers. A balance sheet is just a glimpse of the companys financial situation on ONE DAY, and this could (and probably will, although not drastically for bigger companies) change to the next day.","When fundamentals such as P/E make a stock look overpriced, analysts often point to other metrics. The PEG ratio, for example, can be applied to cast growth companies in a better light. Fundamental analysis is highly subjective. For further discussion on the pitfalls of fundamentals, I suggest A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel.","It might seem like the PE ratio is very useful, but it's actually pretty useless as a measure used to make buy or sell decisions, and taken largely on its own, pretty useless becomes utterly and completely useless. Stocks trade at prices based on future expectations and speculation, so that means if traders expect a company to double its profits next year, the share price could easily double (there are reasons it might not increase so much, and there are reasons it could increase even more than that, but that's not the point). The Price is now double, but the Earnings is still the same, so the PE ratio is double, and this doubling is based on something some traders know, or think they know, but other traders might not know or not believe! Once you understand that, what use is a PE ratio really? The PE ratio of a company might be low because it is in a death spiral, with many traders believing it will report lower and lower profits in years to come, and the lower the PE ratio of a given company gets probably, relatively, the more likely it is to go bust! If you buy a stock with a low PE ratio you must do so because you feel you understand the company, understand why the market is viewing it negatively, believe that the negativity is wrong or over done, and believe that it will turn around. Equally a PE ratio might be high, but be an excellent buy still because it has excellent growth prospects and potential even beyond what is priced in already! Lets face it, SOMEONE has been buying at the price that's put that PE ratio where is is, right? They might be wrong of course, or not! Or they might be justified now but circumstances might change before earnings ever reach the current priced in expectation. You'll know next year probably! To answer your actual question... first you should now understand there is no such thing as a stock that is on sale, just stocks that are priced broadly according to the markets consensus on its value in years to come, the closest thing being a stock that is 'over sold' (but one man's 'over sold' is another man's train crash remember)... so what to actually look for? The only way to (on average) make good buy and sell decisions is to know about investing and trading (buy some books, I have 12), understand the businesses you propose to invest in and understand their market(s) (which may also mean understanding national and international economics somewhat).","\"Some companies have a steady, reliable, stream of earnings. In that case, a low P/E ratio is likely to indicate a good stock. Other companies have a \"\"feast or famine\"\" pattern, great earnings one year, no earnings or losses the following year. In that case, it is misleading to use a P/E ratio for a good year, when earnings are high and the ratio is low. Instead, you have to figure out what the company's AVERAGE earnings may be for some years, and assign a P/E ratio to that.\"","The P/E ratio is a measure of historic (the previous financial year) earnings against the current share price. If the P/E is high, this means that the market perceives a big increase in future earnings per share. In other words, the perception is that this is a fast growing company. Higher earnings may also equate to big increases in dividends and rapid expansion. On the other hand, if the P/E is low, then there is a perception that either earnings per share are decreasing or that future growth in earnings is negligible. In other words, low P/E equates to a perception of low future growth and therefore low prospects for future payout increases - possibly even decreases. The market is (rightly) usually willing to pay a premium for fast growing companies.","Let's take a step back. My fictional company 'A' is a solid, old, established company. It's in consumer staples, so people buy the products in good times and bad. It has a dividend of $1/yr. Only knowing this, you have to decide how much you would be willing to pay for one share. You might decide that $20 is fair. Why? Because that's a 5% return on your money, 1/20 = 5%, and given the current rates, you're happy for a 5% dividend. But this company doesn't give out all its earnings as a dividend. It really earns $1.50, so the P/E you are willing to pay is 20/1.5 or 13.3. Many companies offer no dividend, but of course they still might have earnings, and the P/E is one metric that used to judge whether one wishes to buy a stock. A high P/E implies the buyers think the stock will have future growth, and they are wiling to pay more today to hold it. A low P/E might be a sign the company is solid, but not growing, if such a thing is possible.","The price to earnings ratio is a measure of the company's current share price compared to the annual net earnings per share. The other way to think about this is the number of years a company would take to pay back the share price if the earnings stay constant. This ignores factors like inflation and can be used as an indicator of risk. During the internet bubble many companies had P/E above 24 and no possible means of earning back the share prices that were inflated largely due to speculation. Most tools like Google Finance will list the P/E for a particular quote.","Stock price = Earning per share * P/E Ratio. Most of the time you will see in a listing the Stock price and the P/E ration. The calculation of the EPS is left as an exercise for the student Investor.","\"To perhaps better explain the \"\"why\"\" behind this rule of thumb, first think of what it means when the P/E ratio changes. If the P/E ratio increases, then this means the stock has become more expensive (in relative terms)--for example, an increase in the price but no change in the earnings means you are now paying more for each cent of earnings than you previously were; or, a decrease in the earnings but no change in the price means you are now paying the same for less earnings. Keeping this in mind, consider what happens to the PE ratio when earnings increase (grow)-- if the price of the stock remains the same, then the stock has actually become relatively \"\"cheaper\"\", since you are now getting more earnings for the same price. All else equal, we would not expect this to happen--instead, we would expect the price of the stock to increase as well proportionate to the earnings growth. Therefore, a stock whose PE ratio is growing at a rate that is faster than its earnings are growing is becoming more expensive (the price paid per cent of earnings is increasing). Similarly, a stock whose PE ratio is growing at a slower rate than its earnings is becoming cheaper (the price paid per cent of earnings is decreasing). Finally, a stock whose P/E ratio is growing at the same rate as its earnings are growing is retaining the same relative valuation--even though the actual price of the stock may be increasing, you are paying the same amount for each cent of the underlying company's earnings.\"","To calculate you take the Price and divide it by the Earnings, or by the Sales, or by the Free Cash Flow. Most of these calculations are done for you on a lot of finance sites if the data is available. Such sites as Yahoo Finance and Google Finance as well as my personal favorite: Morningstar","generally Forward P/E is computed as current price / forward earnings. The rationale behind this is that buying the stock costs you the current price, and it gives you a claim on the future earnings.","P/E = price per earnings. low P/E (P/E < 4) means stock is undervalued.","\"@jlowin's answer has a very good discussion of the types of PE ratio so I will just answer a very specific question from within your question: And who makes these estimates? Is it the market commentators or the company saying \"\"we'd expected to make this much\"\"? Future earnings estimates are made by professional analysts and analytical teams in the market based on a number of factors. If these analysts are within an investment company the investment company will use a frequently updated value of this estimate as the basis for their PE ratio. Some of these numbers for large or liquid firms may essentially be generated every time they want to look at the PE ratio, possibly many times a day. In my experience they take little notice of what the company says they expect to make as those are numbers that the board wants the market to see. Instead analysts use a mixture of economic data and forecasting, surveys of sentiment towards the company and its industry, and various related current events to build up an ongoing model of the company's finances. How sophisticated the model is is dependent upon how big the analytics team is and how much time resource they can devote to the company. For bigger firms with good investor relations teams and high liquidity or small, fast growing firms this can be a huge undertaking as they can see large rewards in putting the extra work in. The At least one analytics team at a large investment bank that I worked closely with even went as far as sending analysts out onto the streets some days to \"\"get a feeling for\"\" some companies' and industries' growth potential. Each analytics team or analyst only seems to make public its estimates a few times a year in spite of their being calculated internally as an ongoing process. The reason why they do this is simple; this analysis is worth a lot to their trading teams, asset managers and paying clients than the PR of releasing the data. Although these projections are \"\"good at time of release\"\" their value diminishes as time goes on, particularly if the firm launches new initiatives etc.. This is why weighting analyst forecasts based on this time variable makes for a better average. Most private individual investors use an average or time weighted average (on time since release) of these analyst estimates as the basis for their forward PE.\"","So, the price-earnings ratio is price over earnings, easy enough. But obviously earnings are not static. In the case of a growing company, the earnings will be higher in the future. There will be extra earnings, above and beyond what the stock has right now. You should consider the future earnings in your estimate of what the company is worth now. One snag: Those extra earnings are future money. Future-money is an interesting thing, it's actually worth less than present-money- because of things like inflation, but also opportunity cost. So if you bought $100 in money that you'll have 20 years from now, you'd expect to pay less than $100. (The US government can sell you that money. It's called a Series EE Savings Bond and it would cost you $50. I think. Don't quote me on that, though, ask the Treasury.) So you can't compare future money with present-money directly, and you can't just add those dollars to the earnings . You need to compute a discount. That's what discounted cash-flow analysis is about: figuring out the future cash flow, and then discounting the future figuring out what it's worth now. The actual way you use the discount rate in your formula is a little scarier than simple division, though, because it involves discounting each year's earnings (in this case, someone has asserted a discount of 11% a year, and five years of earnings growth of 10%). Wikipedia gives us the formula for the value of the future cash flow: essentially adding all the future cash flows together, and then discounting them by a (compounded) rate. Please forgive me for not filling this formula out; I'm here for theory, not math. :)","The price-earnings ratio is calculated as the market value per share divided by the earnings per share over the past 12 months. In your example, you state that the company earned $0.35 over the past quarter. That is insufficient to calculate the price-earnings ratio, and probably why the PE is just given as 20. So, if you have transcribed the formula correctly, the calculation given the numbers in your example would be: 0.35 * 4 * 20 = $28.00 As to CVRR, I'm not sure your PE is correct. According to Yahoo, the PE for CVRR is 3.92 at the time of writing, not 10.54. Using the formula above, this would lead to: 2.3 * 4 * 3.92 = $36.06 That stock has a 52-week high of $35.98, so $36.06 is not laughably unrealistic. I'm more than a little dubious of the validity of that formula, however, and urge you not to base your investing decisions on it.","\"ycharts.com has \"\"Weighted Average PE Ratio\"\" and a bunch of other metrics that are meant to correspond to well known stock metrics. Other websites will have similar ratios.\"","\"Yes, there are situations where a stock is a bad buy in spite of a low PE. PE ratio tells you the current share price divided by the prior 4 quarters earnings per share. It does not consider: Imagine someone walked up to you and said, \"\"Do you want to buy a piece of my business? I'll sell you 1% of it for $1000. Last year the business earned $25000.\"\" A quick calculation shows a PE of 4 [$1000/($25000 *.01)]. Even though this PE is comparatively low, you wouldn't buy in without a lot more info. What kinds of things might you ask? PE is one tiny component of an informed investment decision.\"","Try to find the P/E ratio of the Company and then Multiply it with last E.P.S, this calculation gives the Fundamental Value of the share, anything higher than this Value is not acceptable and Vice versa.","The idea here is to get an idea of how to value each business and thus normalize how highly prized is each dollar that a company makes. While some companies may make millions and others make billions, how does one put these in proper context? One way is to consider a dollar in earnings for the company. How does a dollar in earnings for Google compare to a dollar for Coca-cola for example? Some companies may be valued much higher than others and this is a way to see that as share price alone can be rather misleading since some companies can have millions of shares outstanding and split the shares to keep the share price in a certain range. Thus the idea isn't that an investor is paying for a dollar of earnings but rather how is that perceived as some companies may not have earnings and yet still be traded as start-ups and other companies may be running at a loss and thus the P/E isn't even meaningful in this case. Assuming everything but the P/E is the same, the lower P/E would represent a greater value in a sense, yes. However, earnings growth rate can account for higher P/Es for some companies as if a company is expected to grow at 40% for a few years it may have a higher P/E than a company growing earnings at 5% for example.","what do you mean exactly? Do you have a future target price and projected future dividend payments and you want the present value (time discounted price) of those? Edit: The DCF formula is difficult to use for stocks because the future price is unknown. It is more applicable to fixed-income instruments like coupon bonds. You could use it but you need to predict / speculate a future price for the stock. You are better off using the standard stock analysis stuff: Learn Stock Basics - How To Read A Stock Table/Quote The P/E ratio and the Dividend yield are the two most important. The good P/E ratio for a mature company would be around 20. For smaller and growing companies, a higher P/E ratio is acceptable. The dividend yield is important because it tells you how much your shares grow even if the stock price stays unchanged for the year. HTH","\"P/E is a useful tool for evaluating the price of a company, but only in comparison to companies in similar industries, especially for industries with well-defined cash flows. For example, if you compared Consolidated Edison (NYSE:ED) to Hawaiian Electric (NYSE:HE), you'll notice that HE has a significantly higher PE. All things being equal, that means that HE may be overpriced in comparison to ED. As an investor, you need to investigate further to determine whether that is true. HE is unique in that it is a utility that also operates a bank, so you need to take that into account. You need to think about what your goal is when you say that you are a \"\"conservative\"\" investor and look at the big picture, not a magic number. If conservative to you means capital preservation, you need to ensure that you are in investments that are diversified and appropriate. Given the interest rate situation in 2011, that means your bonds holding need to be in short-duration, high-quality securities. Equities should be weighted towards large cap, with smaller holdings of international or commodity-associated funds. Consider a target-date or blended fund like one of the Vanguard \"\"Life Strategy\"\" funds.\"","\"Your question asks us to explain why a false statement is true. From the point of view of an investor, a high price to earnings ratio is not necessarily desirable. From the point of view of an investor, a desirable stock is one that is likely to provide future dividends or price increases that more than compensates for the risk of the stock. This information cannot be inferred from the P/E ratio. So what does the P/E ratio tell us? The P/E ratio measures a stock's current price (i.e., the market's belief about its future earnings) divided by its recent past earnings. A high ratio means the market thinks earnings in the future will be higher than they are now and have therefore bid the price up. These can thought of as expensive stocks, and are often called \"\"growth\"\" stocks because their price is driven by the market's belief in future growth. Some individual high P/E stocks do live up to or exceed the market's expectation, but there's no evidence that this happens enough that they are more desirable as a group than low P/E stocks. If anything, the empirical evidence goes the other way.\"","In the equity markets, the P/E is usually somewhere around 15. The P/E can be viewed as the inverse of the rate of a perpetuity. Since the average is 15, and the E/P of that would be 6.7%, r should be 6.7% on average. If your business is growing, the growth rate can be incorporated like so: As you can see, a high g would make the price negative, in essence the seller should actually pay someone to take the business, but in reality, r is determined from the p and an estimated g. For a business of any growth rate, it's best to compare the multiple to the market, so for the average business in the market with your business's growth rate and industry, that P/E would be best applied to your company's income.","Are you implying that Amazon is a better investment than GE because Amazon's P/E is 175 while GE's is only 27? Or that GE is a better investment than Apple because Apple's P/E is just 13. There are a lot of other ratios to consider than P/E. I personally view high P/E numbers as a red flag. One way to think of a P/E ratio is the number of years it's expected for the company to earn its market cap. (Share price divided by annual earnings per share) It will take Amazon 175 years to earn $353 billion. If I was going to buy a dry cleaners, I would not pay the owner 175 years of earnings to take control of it, I'd never see my investment back. To your point. There is so much future growth seemingly built in to today's stock market that even when a company posts higher than expected earnings, the company's stock may take a hit because maybe future prospects are a little less bright than everyone thought yesterday. The point of fundamental analysis is that you want to look at a company's management style and financial strategies. How is it paying its debt? How is it accumulating the debt? How is it's return on assets? How is the return on assets trending? This way when you look at a few companies in the same market segment you may have a better shot at picking the winner over time. The company that piles on new debt for every new project is likely to continue that path in to oblivion, regardless of the P/E ratio. (or some other equally less forward thinking management practice that you uncover in your fundamental analysis efforts). And I'll add... No amount of historical good decision making from a company's management can prepare for a total market downturn, or lack of investor confidence in general. The market is the market; sometimes it's up irrationally, sometimes it's down irrationally.","While on the surface it might not make sense to pay more than one dollar to get just one dollar back, the key thing is that a good company's earnings are recurring each year. So, you wouldn't just be paying for the $1 dollar of earnings per share this year, but for the entire future stream of earnings per share, every year, in perpetuity -- and the earnings may grow over time too (if it remains a good company.) Your stock is a claim on a portion of the company's future. The brighter and/or more certain that future, the more investors are willing to pay for each recurring dollar of earnings. And the P/E ratio tells you, in effect, how many years it might take for your investment to earn back what you paid – assuming earnings remain the same. But you would hope the earnings would grow, too. When a company's earnings are widely expected to grow, the P/E for the stock is often higher than average. Bear in mind you don't actually receive the company's earnings, since management often decides to reinvest all or a portion of it to grow the company. Yet, many companies do pay a portion of earnings out as dividends. Dividends are money in your pocket each year.","One problem is that P/E ratio only looks at the last announced earnings. Let's take your manufacturing plant with a P/E of 12.5. Then they announce a major problem that will hurt future earnings and the price drops in half. Now the P/E is 6.25. It looks great, but since there aren't any new earnings that reflect the problem, it's very misleading.","This is called the gordon growth model (or dividend discount model). This is one way to value a stock, but in practice no one uses it because the assumptions are that companies will return value to investors solely via regular dividends, and that the growth rate and the required rate of return from investors are constants; among other issues.","It is not so useful because you are applying it to large capital. Think about Theory of Investment Value. It says that you must find undervalued stocks with whatever ratios and metrics. Now think about the reality of a company. For example, if you are waiting KO (The Coca-Cola Company) to be undervalued for buying it, it might be a bad idea because KO is already an international well known company and KO sells its product almost everywhere...so there are not too many opportunities for growth. Even if KO ratios and metrics says it's a good time to buy because it's undervalued, people might not invest on it because KO doesn't have the same potential to grow as 10 years ago. The best chance to grow is demographics. You are better off either buying ETFs monthly for many years (10 minimum) OR find small-cap and mid-cap companies that have the potential to grow plus their ratios indicate they might be undervalued. If you want your investment to work remember this: stock price growth is nothing more than You might ask yourself. What is your investment profile? Agressive? Speculative? Income? Dividends? Capital preservation? If you want something not too risky: ETFs. And not waste too much time. If you want to get more returns, you have to take more risks: find small-cap and mid-companies that are worth. I hope I helped you!","Market price of a stock typically trades in a range of Price/Earnings Ratio (P/E ratio). Or in other words, price of a stock = Earnings * P/E ratio Because of this direct proportionality of stock price with earnings, stock prices move in tandem with earnings.","for buying: High PE, low debt, discount = win. a company with high debt (in relation to revenues and cash on hand) will have to pay interest and pay off the debt, stunting their growth. and just like a normal person, will barely be able to pay their bills and keep borrowing and might go bankrupt determining discount is just looking for a technical retracement to a support level or lower. (but if you dont enter at the support level, you most likely missed the best entry)","How you use the metric is super important. Because it subtracts cash, it does not represent 'value'. It represents the ongoing financing that will be necessary if both the equity plus debt is bought by one person, who then pays himself a dividend with that free cash. So if you are Private Equity, this measures your net investment at t=0.5, not the price you pay at t=0. If you are a retail investor, who a) won't be buying the debt, b) won't have any control over things like tax jurisdictions, c) won't be receiving any cash dividend, etc etc .... the metric is pointless.","One thing to keep in mind when calculating P/E on an index is that the E (earnings) can be very close to zero. For example, if you had a stock trading at $100 and the earnings per share was $.01, this would result in a P/E of 10,000, which would dominate the P/E you calculate for the index. Of course negative earnings also skew results. One way to get around this would be to calculate the average price of the index and the earnings per share of the index separately, and then divide the average price of the index by the average earnings per share of the index. Different sources calculate these numbers in different ways. Some throw out negative P/Es (or earnings per share) and some don't. Some calculate the price and earnings per share separate and some don't, etc... You'll need to understand how they are calculating the number in order to compare it to PEs of individual companies.","\"What you need to do is go to yahoo finance and look at different stock's P/E ratios. You'll quickly see that the stocks can be sorted by this number. It would be an interesting exercise to get an idea of why P/E isn't a fixed number, how certain industries cluster around a certain number, but even this isn't precise. But, it will give you an idea as to why your question has no answer. \"\"Annual earnings are $1. What is the share price?\"\" \"\"Question has no answer\"\"\"","\"When you buy a stock, you're really paying for a STREAM of earnings, from now till whenever. The job of an investor is to figure out how large that stream will be in the future. But if the stock price were the same as \"\"earnings\"\" (for one year), it would mean that you would get all future earnings for \"\"free.\"\" That's not likely to happen unless 1) the company is in liquidation,\"\" meaning \"\"no future\"\" and 2) it earned ALL of the money it ever earned in the past year, meaning \"\"no past.\"\" If there are likely to be any earnings in the future, you will have to pay for those future earnings, over and above what was earned in the most recent year.\"","You can create something like that by: You'll have to determine the PE ratio manually from the financial statements. To get the PE ratio for each company, you can try the Edgar database, though I doubt it goes as far back as 1950. This blog has a graph of the DJIA PE ratio from 1929 - 2009.","The simple answer is technically bonds don't have earnings, hence no P/E. What I think the OP is really asking how do I compare stock and bond ETFs. Some mature stocks exhibit very similar characteristics to bonds, so at the margin if you are considering investing between 2 such investments that provide stable income in the form of dividends, you might want to use the dividend/price ratio (D/P) of the stock and compare it to the dividend yield of the bond. If you go down to the basics, both the bond and the stock can be considered the present value of all future expected cashflows. The cash that accrues to the owner of the stock is future dividends and for the bond is the coupon payments. If a company were to pay out 100% of its earnings, then the dividend yield D/P would be conveniently E/P. For a company with P/E of 20 that paid out it's entire earnings, one would expect D/P = 1/20 = 5% This serves as a decent yard stick in the short term ~ 1 year to compare mature stock etfs with stable prospects vs bond funds since the former will have very little expected price growth (think utilities), hence they both compete on the cashflows they throw off to the investor. This comparison stops being useful for stock ETFs with higher growth prospects since expected future cashflows are much more volatile. This comparison is also not valid in the long term since bond ETFs are highly sensitive to the yield curve (interest rate risk) and they can move substantially from where they are now.","\"Yes, there are non-stock analogs to the Price/Earnings ratio. Rental properties have a Price/Rent ratio, which is analogous to stocks' Price/Revenue ratio. With rental properties, the \"\"Cap Rate\"\" is analogous to the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio of a company that has no long-term debt. Bonds have an interest rate. Depending on whether you care about current dividends or potential income, the interest rate is analogous to either a stock's dividend rate or the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio.\"","In order to calculate the ratio you are looking for, just divide total debt by the market capitalization of the stock. Both values can be found on the link you provided. The market capitalization is the market value of equity.","Typically a private company is hit by demand supply issues and cost of inputs. In effect at times the cost of input may go up, it cannot raise the prices, because this will reduce demand. However certain public sectors companies, typically in Oil & Engery segements the services are offered by Public sector companies, and the price they charge is governed by Regulatory authorities. In essence the PG&E, the agreement for price to customers would be calculated as cost of inputs to PG&E, Plus Expenses Plus 11.35% Profit. Thus the regulated price itself governs that the company makes atleast 11.35% profit year on year. Does this mean that the shares are good buy? Just to give an example, say the price was $100 at face value, So essentially by year end logically you would have made 111.35/-. Assuming the company did not pay dividend ... Now lets say you began trading this share, there would be quite a few people who would say I am ready to pay $200 and even if I get 11.35 [on 200] it still means I have got ~6% return. Someone may be ready to pay $400, it still gives ~3% ... So in short the price of the stock would keep changing depending how the market percieves the value that a company would return. If the markets are down or the sentiments are down on energy sectors, the prices would go down. So investing in PG&E is not a sure shot way of making money. For actual returns over the years see the graph at http://www.pgecorp.com/investors/financial_reports/annual_report_proxy_statement/ar_html/2011/index.htm#CS","\"You'll generally get a number close to market cap of a mature company if you divide profits (or more accurately its free cash flow to equity) by the cost of equity which is usually something like ~7%. The value is meant to represent the amount of cash you'd need to generate investment income off it matching the company you're looking at. Imagine it as asking \"\"How much money do I need to put into the bank so that my interest income would match the profits of the company I'm looking at\"\". Except replace the bank with the market and other forms of investments that generate higher returns of course and that value would be lower.\"","This is a note from my broker, CMC Markets, who use Morningstar: Morningstar calculate the P/E Ratio using a weighted average of the most recent earnings and the projected earnings for the next year. This may result in a different P/E Ratio to those based solely on past earnings as reported on some sites and other publications. They show the P/E as being 9.93. So obviously past earnings would usually be used but you would need to check with your source which numbers they are using. Also, as BHP's results just came out yesterday it may take a while for the most recent financial details to be updated.","What you're referring to is the yield. The issue with these sorts of calculations is that the dividend isn't guaranteed until it's declared. It may have paid the quarterly dividend like clockwork for the last decade, that does not guarantee it will pay this quarter. Regarding question number 2. Yield is generally an after the fact calculation. Dividends are paid out of current or retained earnings. If the company becomes hot and the stock price doubles, but earnings are relatively similar, the dividend will not be doubled to maintain the prior yield; the yield will instead be halved because the dividend per share was made more expensive to attain due to the increased share price. As for the calculation, obviously your yield will likely vary from the yield published on services like Google and Yahoo finance. The variation is strictly based on the price you paid for the share. Dividend per share is a declared amount. Assuming a $10 share paying a quarterly dividend of $0.25 your yield is: Now figure that you paid $8.75 for the share. Now the way dividends are allocated to shareholders depends on dates published when the dividend is declared. The day you purchase the share, the day your transaction clears etc are all vital to being paid a particular dividend. Here's a link to the SEC with related information: https://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm I suppose it goes without saying but, historical dividend payments should not be your sole evaluation criteria. Personally, I would be extremely wary of a company paying a 40% dividend ($1 quarterly dividend on a $10 stock), it's very possible that in your example bar corp is a more sound investment. Additionally, this has really nothing to do with P/E (price/earnings) ratios.","But I wish to know why the parameter is dividend/market price rather than just 'dividend'? What 'extra' info you can uncover by looking at dividend/market price that you cannot get from 'dividend'? Consider two stocks A and B. A offers a dividend of $1 per year. B offers a dividend of $2 per year. Let's remove all complications aside and assume that this trend continues. If you were to buy each of these stocks you will get the following amounts over its life (assumed infinity for simplicity): cash flows from A = $1/(0.04) = $25, assuming risk free is 4% per annum cash flows from B = $2/(0.04) = $50, assuming risk free is 4% per annum The price you buy them at is an important factor to consider because let's say if A was trading for $10 and B for $60, then A would look like a profitable nvestment while B won't. Of course, this is a very simplistic view. Dividend rates are not constant and many companies pose a significant risk of going bust but this should help illustrate the general idea behind the D/P ratio. P.S.:- The formula I have used is one for computing the NPV of a perpetuity.","P/E is the number of years it would take for the company to earn its share price. You take share price divided by annual earnings per share. You can take the current reported quarterly earnings per share times 4, you can take the sum of the past four actual quarters earnings per share or you can take some projected earnings per share. It has little to do with a company's actual finances apart from the earnings per share. It doesn't say much about the health of a company's balance sheet, and is definitely not an indicator for bankruptcy. It's mostly a measure of the market's assumptions of the company's ability to grow earnings or maintain it's current earnings growth. A share price of $40 trading for a P/E ratio of 10 means it will take the company 10 years to earn $40 per share, it means there's current annual earnings per share of $4. A different company may also be earning $4 per share but trade at 100 times earnings for a share price of $400. By this measure alone neither company is more or less healthy than the other. One just commands more faith in the future growth from the market. To circle back to your question regarding a negative P/E, a negative P/E ratio means the company is reporting negative earnings (running at a loss). Again, this may or may not indicate an imminent bankruptcy. Increasing balance sheet debt with decreasing revenue and or earnings and or balance sheet assets will be a better way to assess bankruptcy risk.","You could sum the P/E ratio of all the companies in the industry and divide it by the number of companies to find the average P/E ratio of the industry. Average P/E ratio of industry = Sum of P/E ratio of all companies in Industry / Number of companies in industry","A bond fund has a 5% yield. You can take 1/.05 and think of it as a 20 P/E. I wouldn't, because no one else does, really. An individual bond has a coupon yield, and a YTM, yield to maturity. A bond fund or ETF usually won't have a maturity, only a yield.","Hey desquinbnt & pontsone, I had an explanation written up about Share and Bond evaluation and in which, one share evaluation technique utilizes the P/E ratio - hence I explained it. Have a read, if you'd want me to go more in depth, let me know! :) http://letslearnfinance.net/2012/06/09/introduction-to-bonds-and-share-valuation/","\"Here's a link to an online calculator employing the Discounted Cash Flow method: Discounted Cash Flows Calculator. Description: This calculator finds the fair value of a stock investment the theoretically correct way, as the present value of future earnings. You can find company earnings via the box below. [...] They also provide a link to the following relevant article: Investment Valuation: A Little Theory. Excerpt: A company is valuable to stockholders for the same reason that a bond is valuable to bondholders: both are expected to generate cash for years into the future. Company profits are more volatile than bond coupons, but as an investor your task is the same in both cases: make a reasonable prediction about future earnings, and then \"\"discount\"\" them by calculating how much they are worth today. (And then you don't buy unless you can get a purchase price that's less than the sum of these present values, to make sure ownership will be worth the headache.) [...]\"","The dividend yield can be used to compare a stock to other forms of investments that generate income to the investor - such as bonds. I could purchase a stock that pays out a certain dividend yield or purchase a bond that pays out a certain interest. Of course, there are many other variables to consider in addition to yield when making this type of investment decision. The dividend yield can be an important consideration if you are looking to invest in stocks for an income stream in addition to investing in stocks for gain by a rising stock price. The reason to use Dividend/market price is that it changes the dividend from a flat number such as $1 to a percentage of the stock price, which thus allows it to be more directly compared with bonds and such which return a percentage yeild.","\"Check your math... \"\"two stocks, both with a P/E of 2 trading at $40 per share lets say, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase?\"\" If a stock has P/E of 2 and price of $40 it has an EPS of $20. Not $10. Not $5.\"","\"For the S&P and many other indices (but not the DJIA) the index \"\"price\"\" is just a unitless number that is the result of a complicated formula. It's not a dollar value. So when you divide said number by the earnings/share of the sector, you're again getting just a unitless number that is incomparable to standard P-E ratios. In fact, now that I think about, it kinda makes sense that each sector would have a similar value for the number that you're computing, since each sector's index formula is presumably written to make all the index \"\"price\"\"s look similar to consumers.\"","The three places you want to focus on are the income statement, the balance sheet, and cash flow statement. The standard measure for multiple of income is the P/E or price earnings ratio For the balance sheet, the debt to equity or debt to capital (debt+equity) ratio. For cash generation, price to cash flow, or price to free cash flow. (The lower the better, all other things being equal, for all three ratios.)","\"To calculate a sector (or index) P/E ratio you need to sum the market caps of the constituent stocks and divide it by the sum of the total earnings of the constituent stocks (including stocks that have negative earnings). There are no \"\"per share\"\" figures used in the calculation. Beware when you include an individual stock that there may be multiple issues associated with the company that are not in the index.... eg. Berkshire Hathaway BRK.B is in the S&P 500 but BRK.A is not. In contrast, Google has both GOOGL and GOOG included in the S&P 500 index but not its unlisted Class B shares. All such shares need to be included in the market cap and figuring out the different share class ratios can be tricky.\"","\"Here is how I would approach that problem: 1) Find the average ratios of the competitors: 2) Find the earnings and book value per share of Hawaiian 3) Multiply the EPB and BVPS by the average ratios. Note that you get two very different numbers. This illustrates why pricing from ratios is inexact. How you use those answers to estimate a \"\"price\"\" is up to you. You can take the higher of the two, the average, the P/E result since you have more data points, or whatever other method you feel you can justify. There is no \"\"right\"\" answer since no one can accurately predict the future price of any stock.\"","Too calculate these values, information contained in the company's financial statements (income, balance, or cashflow) will be needed along with the price. Google finance does not maintain this information for BME. You will need to find another source for this information or analyze another another symbol's financial section (BAC for example).","\"You could not have two stocks both at $40, both with P/E 2, but one an EPS of $5 and the other $10. EPS = Earnings Per Share P/E = Price per share/Earnings Per Share So, in your example, the stock with EPS of $5 has a P/E of 8, and the stock with an EPS of $10 has a P/E of 4. So no, it's not valid way of looking at things, because your understanding of EPS and P/E is incorrect. Update: Ok, with that fixed, I think I understand your question better. This isn't a valid way of looking at P/E. You nailed one problem yourself at the end of the post: The tricky part is that you have to assume certain values remain constant, I suppose But besides that, it still doesn't work. It seems to make sense in the context of investor psychology: if a stock is \"\"supposed to\"\" trade at a low P/E, like a utility, that it would stay at that low P/E, and thus a $1 worth of EPS increase would result in lower $$ price increase than a stock that was \"\"supposed to\"\" have a high P/E. And that would be true. But let's game it out: Scenario Say you have two stocks, ABC and XYZ. Both have $5 EPS. ABC is a utility, so it has a low P/E of 5, and thus trades at $25/share. XYZ is a high flying tech company, so it has a P/E of 10, thus trading at $50/share. If both companies increase their EPS by $1, to $6, and the P/Es remain the same, that means company ABC rises to $30, and company XYZ rises to $60. Hey! One went up $5, and the other $10, twice as much! That means XYZ was the better investment, right? Nope. You see, shares are not tokens, and you don't get an identical, arbitrary number of them. You make an investment, and that's in dollars. So, say you'd invested $1,000 in each. $1,000 in ABC buys you 40 shares. $1,000 in XYZ buys you 20 shares. Their EPS adds that buck, the shares rise to maintain P/E, and you have: ABC: $6 EPS at P/E 5 = $30/share. Position value = 40 shares x $30/share = $1,200 XYZ: $6 EPS at P/E 10 = $60/share. Position value = 20 shares x $60/share = $1,200 They both make you the exact same 20% profit. It makes sense when you think about it this way: a 20% increase in EPS is going to give you a 20% increase in price if the P/E is to remain constant. It doesn't matter what the dollar amount of the EPS or the share price is.\"","\"You are probably going to hate my answer, but... If there was an easy way to ID stocks like FB that were going to do what FB did, then those stocks wouldn't exist and do that because they would be priced higher at the IPO. The fact is there is always some doubt, no one knows the future, and sometimes value only becomes clear with time. Everyone wants to buy a stock before it rises right? It will only be worth a rise if it makes more profit though, and once it is established as making more profit the price will be already up, because why wouldn't it be? That means to buy a real winner you have to buy before it is completely obvious to everyone that it is going to make more profit in the future, and that means stock prices trade at speculative prices, based on expected future performance, not current or past performance. Now I'm not saying past and future performance has nothing in common, but there is a reason that a thousand financially oriented websites quote a disclaimer like \"\"past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance\"\". Now maybe this is sort of obvious, but looking at your image, excluding things like market capital that you've not restricted, the PE ratio is based on CURRENT price and PAST earnings, the dividend yield is based on PAST publications of what the dividend will be and CURRENT price, the price to book is based on PAST publication of the company balance sheet and CURRENT price, the EPS is based on PAST earnings and the published number of shares, and the ROI and net profit margin in based on published PAST profits and earnings and costs and number of shares. So it must be understood that every criteria chosen is PAST data that analysts have been looking at for a lot longer than you have with a lot more additional information and experience with it. The only information that is even CURRENT is the price. Thus, my ultimate conclusive point is, you can't based your stock picks on criteria like this because it's based on past information and current stock price, and the current stock price is based on the markets opinion of relative future performance. The only way to make a good stock pick is understand the business, understand its market, and possibly understand world economics as it pertains to that market and business. You can use various criteria as an initial filter to find companies and investigate them, but which criteria you use is entirely your preference. You might invest only in profitable companies (ones that make money and probably pay regular dividends), thus excluding something like an oil exploration company, which will just lose money, and lose it, and lose some more, forever... unless it hits the jackpot, in which case you might suddenly find yourself sitting on a huge profit. It's a question of risk and preference. Regarding your concern for false data. Google defines the Return on investment (TTM) (%) as: Trailing twelve month Income after taxes divided by the average (Total Long-Term Debt + Long-Term Liabilities + Shareholders Equity), expressed as a percentage. If you really think they have it wrong you could contact them, but it's probably correct for whatever past data or last annual financial results it's based on.\"","Profit after tax can have multiple interpretations, but a common one is the EPS (Earnings Per Share). This is frequently reported as a TTM number (Trailing Twelve Months), or in the UK as a fiscal year number. Coincidentally, it is relatively easy to find the total amount of dividends paid out in that same time frame. That means calculating div cover is as simple as: EPS divided by total dividend. (EPS / Div). It's relatively easy to build a Google Docs spreadsheet that pulls both values from the cloud using the GOOGLEFINANCE() function. I suspect the same is true of most spreadsheet apps. With a proper setup, you can just fill down along a column of tickers to get the div cover for a number of companies at once.","My reaction to this is that your observation @D.W. is spot on correct: It sounds like long-term market timing: trying to do a better job than the rest of the market at predicting, based upon a simple formula, whether the market is over-priced or under-priced. I read the post by the founder of Valuation Informed Indexing, Rob Bennet. Glance at the comments section. Rob clearly states that he doesn't even use his own strategy, and has not owned, nor traded, any stocks since 1996! As another commenter summarizes it, addressing Rob: This is 2011. You’ve been 100% out of stocks — including indexes — since 1996? That’s 15 years of taking whatever the bond market, CDs or TIPS will yield (often and currently less than 2%)... I’m curious how you defend not following your own program even as you recommend it for others? Rob basically says that stocks haven't shown the right signals for buying since 1996, so he's stuck with bonds, CD's and fixed-income instead. This is a VERY long-term horizon point of view (a bit of sarcasm edges in from me). Answering your more general question, what do I think of this particular Price/ Earnings based ratio as a way to signal asset allocation change i.e. Valuation Informed Investing? I don't like it much.","Other metrics like Price/Book Value or Price/Sales can be used to determine if a company has above average valuations and would be classified as growth or below average valuations and be classified as value. Fama and French's 3 Factor model would be one example that was studied a great deal using an inverse of Price/Book I believe.","Earnings per share is the company profit (or loss), divided by the number of outstanding shares. The number should always be compared to the share price, so for instance if the EPS is $1 and the share price is $10, the EPS is 10% of the share price. This means that if the company keeps up this earning you should expect to make 10% yearly on your investment, long term. The stock price may fluctuate, but if the company keeps on making money you will eventually do so too as investor. If the EPS is low it means that the market expects the earnings to rise in the future, either because the company has a low profit margin that can be vastly improved, or because the business is expected to grow. Especially the last case may be a risky investment as you will lose money if the company doesn't grow fast enough, even if it does make a healthy profit. Note that the listed EPS, like most key figures, is based on the last financial statement. Recent developments could mean that better or worse is generally expected. Also note that the earnings of some companies will fluctuate wildly, for instance companies that produce movies or video games will tend to have a huge income for a quarter or two following a new release, but may be in the negative in some periods. This is fine as long as they turn a profit long term, but you will have to look at data for a longer period in order to determine this.","\"From Wikipedia: Usage Because EV is a capital structure-neutral metric, it is useful when comparing companies with diverse capital structures. Price/earnings ratios, for example, will be significantly more volatile in companies that are highly leveraged. Stock market investors use EV/EBITDA to compare returns between equivalent companies on a risk-adjusted basis. They can then superimpose their own choice of debt levels. In practice, equity investors may have difficulty accurately assessing EV if they do not have access to the market quotations of the company debt. It is not sufficient to substitute the book value of the debt because a) the market interest rates may have changed, and b) the market's perception of the risk of the loan may have changed since the debt was issued. Remember, the point of EV is to neutralize the different risks, and costs of different capital structures. Buyers of controlling interests in a business use EV to compare returns between businesses, as above. They also use the EV valuation (or a debt free cash free valuation) to determine how much to pay for the whole entity (not just the equity). They may want to change the capital structure once in control. Technical considerations Data availability Unlike market capitalization, where both the market price and the outstanding number of shares in issue are readily available and easy to find, it is virtually impossible to calculate an EV without making a number of adjustments to published data, including often subjective estimations of value: In practice, EV calculations rely on reasonable estimates of the market value of these components. For example, in many professional valuations: Avoiding temporal mismatches When using valuation multiples such as EV/EBITDA and EV/EBIT, the numerator should correspond to the denominator. The EV should, therefore, correspond to the market value of the assets that were used to generate the profits in question, excluding assets acquired (and including assets disposed) during a different financial reporting period. This requires restating EV for any mergers and acquisitions (whether paid in cash or equity), significant capital investments or significant changes in working capital occurring after or during the reporting period being examined. Ideally, multiples should be calculated using the market value of the weighted average capital employed of the company during the comparable financial period. When calculating multiples over different time periods (e.g. historic multiples vs forward multiples), EV should be adjusted to reflect the weighted average invested capital of the company in each period. In your question, you stated: The Market Cap is driven by the share price and the share price is determined by buyers and sellers who have access to data on cash and debts and factor that into their decision to buy or sell. Note the first point under \"\"Technical Considerations\"\" there and you will see that the \"\"access to data on cash and debts\"\" isn't quite accurate here so that is worth noting. As for alternatives, there are many other price ratios one could use such as price/earnings, price/book value, price/sales and others depending on how one wants to model the company. The better question is what kind of investing strategy is one wanting to use where there are probably hundreds of strategies at least. Let's take Apple as an example. Back on April 23, 2014 they announced earnings through March 29, 2014 which is nearly a month old when it was announced. Now a month later, one would have to estimate what changes would be made to things there. Thus, getting accurate real-time values isn't realistic. Discounted Cash Flow is another approach one can take of valuing a company in terms of its future earnings computed back to a present day lump sum.\"","I thought it was such a useful suggestion that I went ahead and created them. I'm sure you're not the only one who could derive some benefit from them, I know I will. http://www.investy.com/tools When I have some additional time, I will add the option for grace-periods, but for now I wanted to get them up so you could use the calculations as-is from the article. Enjoy. (Disclosure: I'm the founder of the site they are hosted on and I wrote the code for the calculators)","There are books on the subject of valuing stocks. P/E ratio has nothing directly to do with the value of a company. It may be an indication that the stock is undervalued or overvalued, but does not indicate the value itself. The direct value of company is what it would fetch if it was liquidated. For example, if you bought a dry cleaner and sold all of the equipment and receivables, how much would you get? To value a living company, you can treat it like a bond. For example, assume the company generates $1 million in profit every year and has a liquidation value of $2 million. Given the risk profile of the business, let's say we would like to make 8% on average per year, then the value of the business is approximately $1/0.08 + $2 = $14.5 million to us. To someone who expects to make more or less the value might be different. If the company has growth potential, you can adjust this figure by estimating the estimated income at different percentage chances of growth and decline, a growth curve so to speak. The value is then the net area under this curve. Of course, if you do this for NYSE and most NASDAQ stocks you will find that they have a capitalization way over these amounts. That is because they are being used as a store of wealth. People are buying the stocks just as a way to store money, not necessarily make a profit. It's kind of like buying land. Even though the land may never give you a penny of profit, you know you can always sell it and get your money back. Because of this, it is difficult to value high-profile equities. You are dealing with human psychology, not pennies and dollars.","Knowing the answer to this question is generally not as useful as it may seem. The stock's current price is the consensus of thousands of people who are looking at the many relevant factors (dividend rate, growth prospects, volatility, risk, industry, etc.) that determine its value. A stock's price is the market's valuation of the cash flows it entitles you to in the future. Researching a stock's value means trying to figure out if there is something relevant to these cash flows that the market doesn't know about or has misjudged. Pretty much anything we can list for you here that will affect a stock's price is something the market knows about, so it's not likely to help you know if something is mispriced. Therefore it's not useful to you. If you are not a true expert on how important the relevant factors are and how the market is reacting to them currently (and often even if you are), then you are essentially guessing. How likely are you to catch something that the thousands of other investors have missed and how likely are you to miss something that other investors have understood? I don't view gambling as inherently evil, but you should be clear and honest with yourself about what you are doing if you are trying to outperform the market. As people become knowledgeable about and experienced with finance, they try less and less to be the one to find an undervalued stock in their personal portfolio. Instead they seek to hold a fully diversified portfolio with low transactions costs and build wealth in the long term without wasting time and money on the guessing game. My suggestion for you is to transition as quickly as you can to behave like someone who knows a lot about finance.","\"(Value of shares+Dividends received)/(Initial investment) would be the typical formula though this is more of a percentage where 1 would indicate that you broke even, assuming no inflation to be factored. No, you don't have to estimate the share price based on revenues as I would question how well did anyone estimate what kind of revenues Facebook, Apple, or Google have had and will have. To estimate the value of shares, I'd likely consider what does my investment strategy use as metrics: Is it discounted cash flow, is it based on earnings, is it something else? There are many ways to determine what a stock \"\"should be worth\"\" that depending on what you want to believe there are more than a few ways one could go.\"","\"The Dividend Discount Model is based on the concept that the present value of a stock is the sum of all future dividends, discounted back to the present. Since you said: dividends are expected to grow at a constant rate in perpetuity ... the Gordon Growth Model is a simple variant of the DDM, tailored for a firm in \"\"steady state\"\" mode, with dividends growing at a rate that can be sustained forever. Consider McCormick (MKC), who's last dividend was 31 cents, or $1.24 annualized. The dividend has been growing just a little over 7% annually. Let's use a discount, or hurdle rate of 10%. MKC closed today at $50.32, for what it's worth. The model is extremely sensitive to inputs. As g approaches r, the stock price rises to infinity. If g > r, stock goes negative. Be conservative with 'g' -- it must be sustainable forever. The next step up in complexity is the two-stage DDM, where the company is expected to grow at a higher, unsustainable rate in the early years (stage 1), and then settling down to the terminal rate for stage 2. Stage 1 is the present value of dividends during the high growth period. Stage 2 is the Gordon Model, starting at the end of stage 1, and discounting back to the present. Consider Abbott Labs (ABT). The current annual dividend is $1.92, the current dividend growth rate is 12%, and let's say that continues for ten years (n), after which point the growth rate is 5% in perpetuity. Again, the discount rate is 10%. Stage 1 is calculated as follows: Stage 2 is GGM, using not today's dividend, but the 11th year's dividend, since stage 1 covered the first ten years. 'gn' is the terminal growth, 5% in our case. then... The value of the stock today is 21.22 + 51.50 = 72.72 ABT closed today at $56.72, for what it's worth.\"","\"Probably the most important thing in evaluating a dividend yield is to compare it to ITSELF (in the past). If the dividend yield is higher than it has been in the past, the stock may be cheap. If it is lower, the stock may be expensive. Just about every stock has a \"\"normal\"\" yield for itself. (It's zero for non-dividend paying stocks.) This is based on the stock's perceived quality, growth potential, and other factors. So a utility that normally yields 5% and is now paying 3% is probably expensive (the price in the denominator is too high), while a growth stock that normally yields 2% and is now yielding 3% (e.g. Intel or McDonald'sl), may be cheap.\"","The official source for the Dow Jones P/E is Dow Jones. Unfortunately, the P/E is behind a pay-wall and not included in the free registration. The easiest (but only approximate) solution is to track against an equivalent ETF. Here's a list of popular indexes with an equivalent ETF. Source","Knowing the log return is useful - the log return can help you to work out the annual return over the period it was estimated - and this should be comparable between stocks. One should just be careful with the calculation so that allowance for dividends is made sensibly.","\"If you are looking for numerical metrics I think the following are popular: Price/Earnings (P/E) - You mentioned this very popular one in your question. There are different P/E ratios - forward (essentially an estimate of future earnings by management), trailing, etc.. I think of the P/E as a quick way to grade a company's income statement (i.e: How much does the stock cost verusus the amount of earnings being generated on a per share basis?). Some caution must be taken when looking at the P/E ratio. Earnings can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Revenue can be moved between quarters, assets can be depreciated at different rates, residual value of assets can be adjusted, etc.. Knowing this, the P/E ratio alone doesn't help me determine whether or not a stock is cheap. In general, I think an affordable stock is one whose P/E is under 15. Price/Book - I look at the Price/Book as a quick way to grade a company's balance sheet. The book value of a company is the amount of cash that would be left if everything the company owned was sold and all debts paid (i.e. the company's net worth). The cash is then divided amoung the outstanding shares and the Price/Book can be computed. If a company had a price/book under 1.0 then theoretically you could purchase the stock, the company could be liquidated, and you would end up with more money then what you paid for the stock. This ratio attempts to answer: \"\"How much does the stock cost based on the net worth of the company?\"\" Again, this ratio can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Asset values have to be estimated based on current market values (think about trying to determine how much a company's building is worth) unless, of course, mark-to-market is suspended. This involves some estimating. Again, I don't use this value alone in determing whether or not a stock is cheap. I consider a price/book value under 10 a good number. Cash - I look at growth in the cash balance of a company as a way to grade a company's cash flow statement. Is the cash account growing or not? As they say, \"\"Cash is King\"\". This is one measurement that can not be \"\"massaged\"\" which is why I like it. The P/E and Price/Book can be \"\"tuned\"\" but in the end the company cannot hide a shrinking cash balance. Return Ratios - Return on Equity is a measure of the amount of earnings being generated for a given amount of equity (ROE = earnings/(assets - liabilities)). This attempts to measure how effective the company is at generating earnings with a given amount of equity. There is also Return on Assets which measures earnings returns based on the company's assets. I tend to think an ROE over 15% is a good number. These measurements rely on a company accurately reporting its financial condition. Remember, in the US companies are allowed to falsify accounting reports if approved by the government so be careful. There are others who simply don't follow the rules and report whatever numbers they like without penalty. There are many others. These are just a few of the more popular ones. There are many other considerations to take into account as other posters have pointed out.\"","\"The key to evaluating book value is return on equity (ROE). That's net profit divided by book value. The \"\"value\"\" of book value is measured by the company's ROE (the higher the better). If the stock is selling below book value, the company's assets aren't earning enough to satisfy most investors. Would you buy a CD that was paying, say two percentage points below the going rate for 100 cents on the dollar? Probably not. You might be willing to buy it only by paying 2% less per year, say 98 cents on the dollar for a one year CD. The two cent discount from \"\"book value\"\" is your compensation for a low \"\"interest\"\" rate.\"","There are several camps for stock valuation, and much of it boils down to your investment style. A growth investor will not consider something with a 50x P/E ratio to be overvalued, but a value investor certainly would. I would recommend looking up the Fama-French n-factor model (it was 3-factor, I believe they have released newer papers which introduce other factors), and reading The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham. Graham's methodology is practically canon for many investors, and the methodology focuses on value, while outlining quantitative factors for determining if a stock is under or over valued.","\"Everything you are doing is fine. Here are a few practical notes in performing this analysis: Find all the primary filing information on EDGAR. For NYSE:MEI, you can use https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000065270&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=exclude&count=40 This is the original 10-K. To evaluate earnings growth you need per share earnings for the past three years and 10,11,12 years ago. You do NOT need diluted earnings (because in the long term share dilution comes out anyway, just like \"\"normalized\"\" earnings). The formula is avg(Y_-1+Y_-2+Y_-3) / is avg(Y_-10+Y_-11+Y_-12) Be careful with the pricing rules you are using, the asset one gets complicated. I recommend NOT using the pricing rules #6 and #7 to select the stock. Instead you can use them to set a maximum price for the stock and then you can compare the current price to your maximum price. I am also working to understand these rules and have cited Graham's rules into a checklist and worksheet to find all companies that meet his criteria. Basically my goal is to bottom feed the deals that Warren Buffett is not interested in. If you are interested to invest time into this project, please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vuFmoJDktMYtS64od2HUTV9I351AxvhyjAaC0N3TXrA\"","\"There are two common types of P/E ratio calculations: \"\"trailing\"\" and \"\"forward\"\" (and then there are various mixes of the two). Trailing P/E ratios are calculated as [current price] / [trailing 12-month EPS]. An alternative is the Forward P/E ratio, which is based on an estimate of earnings in the coming 12 months. The estimate used is usually called \"\"consensus\"\" and, to answer your question, is the average estimate of analysts who cover the stock. Any reputable organization will disclose how they calculate their financials. For example, Reuters uses a trailing ratio (indicated by \"\"TTM\"\") on their page for BHP. So, the first reason a PE ratio might not jump on an announcement is it might be forward looking and therefore not very sensitive to the realized earnings. The second reason is that if it is a trailing ratio, some of the annual EPS change is known prior to the annual announcement. For example, on 12/31 a company might report a large drop in annual earnings, but if the bulk of that loss was reported in a previous quarterly report, then the trailing EPS would account partially for it prior to the annual announcement. In this case, I think the first reason is the culprit. The Reuters P/E of nearly 12 is a trailing ratio, so if you see 8 I'd think it must be based on a forward-looking estimate.\"","It's safe to say that for mature companies, with profits that have been steady, and steadily growing, that a multiple of earnings can come into play. It's not identical between companies or even industries, but for consumer staples, for instance, you'll see a clustering around a certain P/E. On the other hand, there are companies like FaceBook, 18 months ago, trading at 20, now at 70 with a 110 P/E. Did the guys valuing the stock simply get it wrong then or is it wrong now? Contrast this with KO (Coca-cola) a 20 P/E and 3.2% dividend, PG (Proctor and Gamble) 21 P/E, 3% dividend. Funny though, a $1M valuation for $50K in profit may be Shark ridiculous, but a $1B valuation on a $50M company with great prospects, i.e. a pipeline of new products in growing markets, is a steal. Disclosure I have no positions in the mentioned stocks.","Imagine a stock where the share price equals the earnings per share. You pay say $100 for a share. In the next year, the company makes $100 per share. They can pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, and you still own the share. Next year, they make $100 per share, pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, plus $100 in your pocket, plus you own the share. Wow. What an incredible investment.","It sounds to me like you may not be defining fundamental investing very well, which is why it may seem like it doesn't matter. Fundamental investing means valuing a stock based on your estimate of its future profitability (and thus cash flows and dividends). One way to do this is to look at the multiples you have described. But multiples are inherently backward-looking so for firms with good growth prospects, they can be very poor estimates of future profitability. When you see a firm with ratios way out of whack with other firms, you can conclude that the market thinks that firm has a lot of future growth possibilities. That's all. It could be that the market is overestimating that growth, but you would need more information in order to conclude that. We call Warren Buffet a fundamental investor because he tends to think the market has made a mistake and overvalued many firms with crazy ratios. That may be in many cases, but it doesn't necessarily mean those investors are not using fundamental analysis to come up with their valuations. Fundamental investing is still very much relevant and is probably the primary determinant of stock prices. It's just that fundamental investing encompasses estimating things like future growth and innovation, which is a lot more than just looking at the ratios you have described.","\"Compounding is just the notion that the current period's growth (or loss) becomes the next period's principal. So, applied to stocks, your beginning value, plus growth (or loss) in value, plus any dividends, becomes the beginning value for the next period. Your value is compounded as you measure the performance of the investment over time. Dividends do not participate in the compounding unless you reinvest them. Compound interest is just the principle of compounding applied to an amount owed, either by you, or to you. You have a balance with which a certain percentage is calculated each period and is added to the balance. The new balance is used to calculate the next period's interest, which again adds to the balance, etc. Obviously, it's better to be on the receiving end of a compound interest calculation than on the paying end. Interest bearing investments, like bonds, pay simple interest. Like stock dividends, you would have to invest the interest in something else in order to get a compounding effect. When using a basic calculator tool for stocks, you would include the expected average annual growth rate plus the expected annual dividend rate as your \"\"interest\"\" rate. For bonds you would use the coupon rate plus the expected rate of return on whatever you put the interest into as the \"\"interest\"\" rate. Factoring in risk, you would just have to pick a different rate for a simple calculator, or use a more complex tool that allows for more variables over time. Believe it or not, this is where you would start seeing all that calculus homework pay off!\"","You could use the Gordon growth model implied expected return: P = D/(r-g) --> r = D/P (forward dividend yield) + g (expected dividend growth). But obviously there is no such thing as a good market return proxy.","Fund performance at NAV (%) for latest quarter, YTD, and average annual total returns for 1, 3, 5, 10 years. P/E ratio (1 yr. forecast), P/B ratio, Beta, Sharpe ratio, Wtd. avg. market cap, fund assets. I guess I would want to calculate all these things based off of the data that I would be working with. I will assume I am working with daily fund values per share over 10+ years.","The upvoted answers fail to note that dividends are the only benefit that investors collectively receive from the companies they invest in. If you purchase a share for $100, and then later sell it for $150, you should note that there is always someone that purchases the same share for $150. So, you get $150 immediately, but somebody else has to pay $150 immediately. So, investors collectively did not receive any money from the transaction. (Yes, share repurchase can be used instead of dividends, but it can be considered really another form of paying dividends.) The fair value of a stock is the discounted value of all future dividends the stock pays. It is so simple! This shows why dividends are important. Somebody might argue that many successful companies like Berkshire Hathaway do not pay dividend. Yes, it is true that they don't pay dividend now but they will eventually have to start paying dividend. If they reinvest potential dividends continuously, they will run out of things to invest in after several hundred years has passed. So, even in this case the value of the stock is still the discounted value of all future dividends. The only difference is that the dividends are not paid now; the companies will start to pay the dividends later when they run out of things to invest in. It is true that in theory a stock could pay an unsustainable amount of dividend that requires financing it with debt. This is obviously not a good solution. If you see a company that pays dividend while at the same time obtaining more cash from taking more debt or from share issues, think twice whether you want to invest in such a company. What you need to do to valuate companies fairly is to estimate the amount of dividend that can sustain the expected growth rate. It is typically about 60% of the earnings, because a part of the earnings needs to be invested in future growth, but the exact figure may vary depending on the company. Furthermore, to valuate a company, you need the expected growth rate of dividends and the discount rate. You simply discount all future dividends, correcting them up by the expected dividend growth rate and correcting them down by the discount rate.","\"Standard deviation from Wikipedia : In statistics and probability theory, the standard deviation (represented by the Greek letter sigma, σ) shows how much variation or dispersion from the average exists.1 A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean (also called expected value); a high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a large range of values. In the case of stock returns, a lower value would indicate less volatility while a higher value would mean more volatility, which could be interpreted as high much change does the stock's price go through over time. Mean would be interpreted as if all the figures had to be the same, what would they be? So if a stock returns 10% each year for 3 years in a row, then 10% would be the mean or average return. Now, it is worth noting that there are more than a few calculations that may be done to derive a mean. First, there is the straight forward sum and division by the number of elements idea. For example, if the returns by year were 0%, 10%, and 20% then one may take the sum of 30% and divide by 3 to get a simple mean of 10%. However, some people would rather look at a Compound Annual Growth Rate which in this case would mean multiplying the returns together so 1*(1+.1)*(1+.2)=1.1*1.2=1.32 or 32% since there is some compounding here. Now, instead of dividing a cubic root is taken to get approximately 9.7% average annual return that is a bit lower yet if you compound it over 3 years it will get up to 32% as 10% compounded over 3 years would be 33.1% as (1.1)^3=1.331. Sharpe Ratio from Investopedia: A ratio developed by Nobel laureate William F. Sharpe to measure risk-adjusted performance. The Sharpe ratio is calculated by subtracting the risk-free rate - such as that of the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond - from the rate of return for a portfolio and dividing the result by the standard deviation of the portfolio returns. Thus, this is a way to think about given the volatility how much better did the portfolio do than the 10 year bond. R-squared, Alpha and Beta: These are all around the idea of \"\"linear regression\"\" modelling. The idea is to take some standard like say the \"\"S & P 500\"\" in the case of US stocks and see how well does the portfolio follow this and what if one were to use a linear model are the multipliers and addition components to it. R-squared can be thought of it as a measure as to how good is the fit on a scale of 0 to 1. An S & P 500 index fund may well have an R-squared of 1.00 or 0.99 to the index as it will track it extremely closely while other investments may not follow that well at all. Part of modern portfolio theory would be to have asset classes that move independently of each other and thus would have a lower R-squared so that the movement of the index doesn't indicate how an investment will do. Now, as for alpha and beta, do you remember the formula for a line in slope-intercept form, where y is the portfolio's return and x is the index's return: y=mx+b In this situation m is beta which is the multiple of the return, and b is the alpha or how much additional return one gets without the multiple. Going back to an index fund example, m will be near 1 and b will be near 0 and there isn't anything being done and so the portfolio's return computed based on the index's return is simply y=x. Other mutual funds may try to have a high alpha as this is seen as the risk-free return as there isn't the ups and downs of the market here. Other mutual funds may go for a high beta so that there is volatility for investors to handle.\"","Sources such as Value Line, or S&P stock reports will show you dividend payout ratios (the American usage. These are the inverse of dividend cover ratios, with dividends being in the numerator, and earnings in the denominator. For instance, if the dividend cover ratio is 2, the dividend payout ratio is 1/2= 50%.","There is no formula for calculating a stock price based on the financials of a company. A stock price is set by the market and always has a component built into it that is based on something outside of the current valuation of a company using its financials. Essentially, the stock price of a company per share is whatever the best price it can get on the open market. If you are looking at how to evaluate if a stock is a good value at the current price, then look at some of the answers, but I wanted to answer this based on the way you phrased the question.","\"The other two folks here are right with the math and such, so I'll just throw some intuition out there for you. The basis for this valuation model is really just tacking the Gordon growth model (which is really just a form of valuing a perpetuity) onto a couple of finite discounted cash flows. So that ending part is the Gordon growth model *at the future point* discounted back to the present. The Gordon growth model uses a \"\"next period\"\" dividend for the very simple reason that it's the next one you'd get if you bought the stock. Is that explanation clear enough, or were some of these points not adequately explained in your class? I'll help a bit more, if I can.\"","\"The following is only an overview and does not contain all of the in-depth reasons why you should look more deeply. When you look at a stock's financials in depth you are looking for warning signs. These may warn of many things but one important thing to look for is ratio and growth rate manipulation. Using several different accounting methods it is possible to make a final report reflect a PE ratio (or any other ratio) that is inconsistent with the realities of the company's position. Earnings manipulation (in the way that Enron in particular manipulated them) is more widespread than you might think as \"\"earnings smoothing\"\" is a common way of keeping earnings in line (or smooth) in a recession or a boom. The reason that PE ratio looks so good could well be because professional investors have avoided the stock as there appear to be \"\"interesting\"\" (but legal) accounting decisions that are of concern. Another issue that you don't consider is growth. earnings may look good in the current reporting period but may have been stagnant or falling when considered over multiple periods. The low price may indicate falling revenues, earnings and market share that you would not be aware of when taking only your criteria into account. Understanding a firm will also give you an insight into how future news might affect the company. If the company has a lot of debt and market interest rates rise or fall how will that effect their debt, if another company brings out a competing product next week how will it effect the company? How will it effect their bottom line? How much do they rely on a single product line? How likely is it that their flagship product will become obsolete? How would that effect the company? Looking deeply into a company's financial statements will allow you to see any issues in their accounting practices and give you a feel for how they are preforming over time, it will also let you look into their cost of capital and investment decisions. Looking deeply into their products, company structure and how news will effect them will give you an understanding of potential issues that could threaten your investment before they occur. When looking for value you shouldn't just look at part of the value of the company; you wouldn't just look at sales of a single T-shirt range at Wallmart when deciding whether to invest in them. It is exactly the same argument for why you should look at the whole of the company's state when choosing to invest rather than a few small metrics.\"","\"When presenting negative P/E values, most brokers and equity analysts show them as \"\"n.m.\"\", which stands for not meaningful. I have never seen a P/E ratio of 0.\"","( t2 / t1 ) - 1 Where t2 is the value today, t1 is the value 12 months ago. Be sure to include dividend payments, if there were any, to t2. That will give you total return over 12 months."],"string":"[\n \"PEG is Price/Earnings to Growth. It is calculated as Price/Earnings/Annual EPS Growth. It represents how good a stock is to buy, factoring in growth of earnings, which P/E does not. Obviously when PEG is lower, a stock is more undervalued, which means that it is a better buy, and more likely to go up. Additional References:\",\n \"P/E can use various estimates in its calculation as one could speculate about future P/E rations and thus could determine a future valuation if one is prepared to say that the P/E should be X for a company. Course it is worth noting that if a company isn't generating positive earnings this can be a less than useful tool, e.g. Amazon in the 1990s lost money every quarter and thus would have had a N/A for a P/E. PEG would use P/E and earnings growth as a way to see if a stock is overvalued based on projected growth. If a company has a high P/E but has a high earnings growth rate then that may prove to be worth it. By using the growth rate, one can get a better idea of the context to that figure. Another way to gain context on P/E would be to look at industry averages that would often be found on Yahoo! Finance and other sites.\",\n \"PEG is Price to Earnings Growth. I've forgotten how it's calculated, I just remember that a PEG ratio of 1-2 is attractive by Graham & Dodd standards.\",\n \"PE can be misleading when theres a good risk the company simply goes out of business in a few years. For this reason some people use PEG, which incorporates growth into the equation.\",\n \"Essentially, yes, Peter Lynch is talking about the PEG Ratio. The Price/Earnings to Growth (PEG) Ratio is where you take the p/e ratio and then divide that by the growth rate (which should include any dividends). A lower number indicates that the stock is undervalued, and could be a good buy. Lynch's metric is the inverse of that: Growth rate divided by the p/e ratio. It is the same idea, but in this case, a higher number indicates a good value for buying. In either case, the idea behind this ratio is that a fairly priced stock will have the p/e ratio equal the growth rate. When your growth rate is larger than your p/e ratio, you are theoretically looking at an undervalued stock.\",\n \"This is only a rule of thumb. Peter Lynch popularized it; the ratio PE/growth is often called the Lynch Ratio. At best it's a very rough guideline. I could fill up this page with other caveats. I'm not saying that it's wrong, only that it's grossly incomplete. For a 10 second eyeball valuation of growth stocks, it's fine. But that's the extent of its usefulness.\",\n \"The PE ratio stands for the Price-Earnings ratio. The price-earnings ratio is a straightforward formula: Share Price divided by earnings per share. Earnings per share is calculated by dividing the pre-tax profit for the company by the number of shares in issue. The PE ratio is seen by some as a measure of future growth of a company. As a general rule, the higher the PE, the faster the market believes a company will grow. This question is answered on our DividendMax website: http://www.dividendmax.co.uk/help/investor-glossary/what-is-the-pe-ratio Cheers\",\n \"See this link...I was also looking an answer to the same questions. This site explains with an example http://www.independent-stock-investing.com/PE-Ratio.html\",\n \"\\\"In the long run (how long?) a shares price always reverts to being its proportional amount of the company's residual equity plus the net present value of its expected future cash flows. Or at least that's the theory. In practice PE ratio is used not as a way of measuring what the stock price itself will do but what the fundamental value of holding that share is compared to its price. It is a way of measuring what a company is worth compared to its price and comparing it against other companies to find companies where the underlying value of the company is underrepresented by the price. Comparing PE ratios within the same industry or sector is the most valid use for this (other than comparing previous years of the same company) and the validity of the comparison drops as the structure of the firm you are comparing with gets more different to that of the company. Each industry has its own \\\"\\\"typical\\\"\\\" average PE ratio and these differ wildly between industries so in a great many cases even comparing PE ratios between similar stocks in different industries isn't valid. Any weird pseudo PE ratio that you create for other instruments will be meaningless. In general the best way to compare investments across multiple instruments is by comparing returns. when comparing stocks to other instruments you may want to use the return on stock price or the return on capital employed (ROCE) depending on whether you want to compare the trading performance or the fundamental performance.\\\"\",\n \"Your observation is mostly right, that 1 is a the number around which this varies. You are actually referencing PEG, P/E to Growth ratio, which is a common benchmark to use to evaluate a stock. The article I link to provides more discussion.\",\n \"PE ratio is the current share price divided by the prior 4 quarters earnings per share. Any stock quote site will report it. You can also compute it yourself. All you need is an income statement and a current stock quote.\",\n \"P/E ratio is useful but limited as others have said. Another problem is that it doesn't show leverage. Two companies in the same industry could have the same P/E but be differently leveraged. In that case I would buy the company with more equity and less debt as it should be a less risky investment. To compare companies and take leverage/debt into account you could use the EV/EBIT ratio instead. Its slightly more complicated to calculate and isn't presented by as many data sources though. Enterprise Value (EV) can be said to represent the value of the company if someone would buy it today and then pay off all its (interest bearing) debt. EV is essentially calculated like this: (Market Capitalization plus cash & cash equivalents) minus interest-bearing debt. This is then divided by EBIT (Earnings before interest and tax) to get the ratio. One drawback of this ratio though is that it can't be used for financials since their balance sheet pretty much consists of debt and the Enterprise Value therefore doesn't tell us very much. Also, like the P/E ratio it is dependent on fresh numbers. A balance sheet is just a glimpse of the companys financial situation on ONE DAY, and this could (and probably will, although not drastically for bigger companies) change to the next day.\",\n \"When fundamentals such as P/E make a stock look overpriced, analysts often point to other metrics. The PEG ratio, for example, can be applied to cast growth companies in a better light. Fundamental analysis is highly subjective. For further discussion on the pitfalls of fundamentals, I suggest A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel.\",\n \"It might seem like the PE ratio is very useful, but it's actually pretty useless as a measure used to make buy or sell decisions, and taken largely on its own, pretty useless becomes utterly and completely useless. Stocks trade at prices based on future expectations and speculation, so that means if traders expect a company to double its profits next year, the share price could easily double (there are reasons it might not increase so much, and there are reasons it could increase even more than that, but that's not the point). The Price is now double, but the Earnings is still the same, so the PE ratio is double, and this doubling is based on something some traders know, or think they know, but other traders might not know or not believe! Once you understand that, what use is a PE ratio really? The PE ratio of a company might be low because it is in a death spiral, with many traders believing it will report lower and lower profits in years to come, and the lower the PE ratio of a given company gets probably, relatively, the more likely it is to go bust! If you buy a stock with a low PE ratio you must do so because you feel you understand the company, understand why the market is viewing it negatively, believe that the negativity is wrong or over done, and believe that it will turn around. Equally a PE ratio might be high, but be an excellent buy still because it has excellent growth prospects and potential even beyond what is priced in already! Lets face it, SOMEONE has been buying at the price that's put that PE ratio where is is, right? They might be wrong of course, or not! Or they might be justified now but circumstances might change before earnings ever reach the current priced in expectation. You'll know next year probably! To answer your actual question... first you should now understand there is no such thing as a stock that is on sale, just stocks that are priced broadly according to the markets consensus on its value in years to come, the closest thing being a stock that is 'over sold' (but one man's 'over sold' is another man's train crash remember)... so what to actually look for? The only way to (on average) make good buy and sell decisions is to know about investing and trading (buy some books, I have 12), understand the businesses you propose to invest in and understand their market(s) (which may also mean understanding national and international economics somewhat).\",\n \"\\\"Some companies have a steady, reliable, stream of earnings. In that case, a low P/E ratio is likely to indicate a good stock. Other companies have a \\\"\\\"feast or famine\\\"\\\" pattern, great earnings one year, no earnings or losses the following year. In that case, it is misleading to use a P/E ratio for a good year, when earnings are high and the ratio is low. Instead, you have to figure out what the company's AVERAGE earnings may be for some years, and assign a P/E ratio to that.\\\"\",\n \"The P/E ratio is a measure of historic (the previous financial year) earnings against the current share price. If the P/E is high, this means that the market perceives a big increase in future earnings per share. In other words, the perception is that this is a fast growing company. Higher earnings may also equate to big increases in dividends and rapid expansion. On the other hand, if the P/E is low, then there is a perception that either earnings per share are decreasing or that future growth in earnings is negligible. In other words, low P/E equates to a perception of low future growth and therefore low prospects for future payout increases - possibly even decreases. The market is (rightly) usually willing to pay a premium for fast growing companies.\",\n \"Let's take a step back. My fictional company 'A' is a solid, old, established company. It's in consumer staples, so people buy the products in good times and bad. It has a dividend of $1/yr. Only knowing this, you have to decide how much you would be willing to pay for one share. You might decide that $20 is fair. Why? Because that's a 5% return on your money, 1/20 = 5%, and given the current rates, you're happy for a 5% dividend. But this company doesn't give out all its earnings as a dividend. It really earns $1.50, so the P/E you are willing to pay is 20/1.5 or 13.3. Many companies offer no dividend, but of course they still might have earnings, and the P/E is one metric that used to judge whether one wishes to buy a stock. A high P/E implies the buyers think the stock will have future growth, and they are wiling to pay more today to hold it. A low P/E might be a sign the company is solid, but not growing, if such a thing is possible.\",\n \"The price to earnings ratio is a measure of the company's current share price compared to the annual net earnings per share. The other way to think about this is the number of years a company would take to pay back the share price if the earnings stay constant. This ignores factors like inflation and can be used as an indicator of risk. During the internet bubble many companies had P/E above 24 and no possible means of earning back the share prices that were inflated largely due to speculation. Most tools like Google Finance will list the P/E for a particular quote.\",\n \"Stock price = Earning per share * P/E Ratio. Most of the time you will see in a listing the Stock price and the P/E ration. The calculation of the EPS is left as an exercise for the student Investor.\",\n \"\\\"To perhaps better explain the \\\"\\\"why\\\"\\\" behind this rule of thumb, first think of what it means when the P/E ratio changes. If the P/E ratio increases, then this means the stock has become more expensive (in relative terms)--for example, an increase in the price but no change in the earnings means you are now paying more for each cent of earnings than you previously were; or, a decrease in the earnings but no change in the price means you are now paying the same for less earnings. Keeping this in mind, consider what happens to the PE ratio when earnings increase (grow)-- if the price of the stock remains the same, then the stock has actually become relatively \\\"\\\"cheaper\\\"\\\", since you are now getting more earnings for the same price. All else equal, we would not expect this to happen--instead, we would expect the price of the stock to increase as well proportionate to the earnings growth. Therefore, a stock whose PE ratio is growing at a rate that is faster than its earnings are growing is becoming more expensive (the price paid per cent of earnings is increasing). Similarly, a stock whose PE ratio is growing at a slower rate than its earnings is becoming cheaper (the price paid per cent of earnings is decreasing). Finally, a stock whose P/E ratio is growing at the same rate as its earnings are growing is retaining the same relative valuation--even though the actual price of the stock may be increasing, you are paying the same amount for each cent of the underlying company's earnings.\\\"\",\n \"To calculate you take the Price and divide it by the Earnings, or by the Sales, or by the Free Cash Flow. Most of these calculations are done for you on a lot of finance sites if the data is available. Such sites as Yahoo Finance and Google Finance as well as my personal favorite: Morningstar\",\n \"generally Forward P/E is computed as current price / forward earnings. The rationale behind this is that buying the stock costs you the current price, and it gives you a claim on the future earnings.\",\n \"P/E = price per earnings. low P/E (P/E < 4) means stock is undervalued.\",\n \"\\\"@jlowin's answer has a very good discussion of the types of PE ratio so I will just answer a very specific question from within your question: And who makes these estimates? Is it the market commentators or the company saying \\\"\\\"we'd expected to make this much\\\"\\\"? Future earnings estimates are made by professional analysts and analytical teams in the market based on a number of factors. If these analysts are within an investment company the investment company will use a frequently updated value of this estimate as the basis for their PE ratio. Some of these numbers for large or liquid firms may essentially be generated every time they want to look at the PE ratio, possibly many times a day. In my experience they take little notice of what the company says they expect to make as those are numbers that the board wants the market to see. Instead analysts use a mixture of economic data and forecasting, surveys of sentiment towards the company and its industry, and various related current events to build up an ongoing model of the company's finances. How sophisticated the model is is dependent upon how big the analytics team is and how much time resource they can devote to the company. For bigger firms with good investor relations teams and high liquidity or small, fast growing firms this can be a huge undertaking as they can see large rewards in putting the extra work in. The At least one analytics team at a large investment bank that I worked closely with even went as far as sending analysts out onto the streets some days to \\\"\\\"get a feeling for\\\"\\\" some companies' and industries' growth potential. Each analytics team or analyst only seems to make public its estimates a few times a year in spite of their being calculated internally as an ongoing process. The reason why they do this is simple; this analysis is worth a lot to their trading teams, asset managers and paying clients than the PR of releasing the data. Although these projections are \\\"\\\"good at time of release\\\"\\\" their value diminishes as time goes on, particularly if the firm launches new initiatives etc.. This is why weighting analyst forecasts based on this time variable makes for a better average. Most private individual investors use an average or time weighted average (on time since release) of these analyst estimates as the basis for their forward PE.\\\"\",\n \"So, the price-earnings ratio is price over earnings, easy enough. But obviously earnings are not static. In the case of a growing company, the earnings will be higher in the future. There will be extra earnings, above and beyond what the stock has right now. You should consider the future earnings in your estimate of what the company is worth now. One snag: Those extra earnings are future money. Future-money is an interesting thing, it's actually worth less than present-money- because of things like inflation, but also opportunity cost. So if you bought $100 in money that you'll have 20 years from now, you'd expect to pay less than $100. (The US government can sell you that money. It's called a Series EE Savings Bond and it would cost you $50. I think. Don't quote me on that, though, ask the Treasury.) So you can't compare future money with present-money directly, and you can't just add those dollars to the earnings . You need to compute a discount. That's what discounted cash-flow analysis is about: figuring out the future cash flow, and then discounting the future figuring out what it's worth now. The actual way you use the discount rate in your formula is a little scarier than simple division, though, because it involves discounting each year's earnings (in this case, someone has asserted a discount of 11% a year, and five years of earnings growth of 10%). Wikipedia gives us the formula for the value of the future cash flow: essentially adding all the future cash flows together, and then discounting them by a (compounded) rate. Please forgive me for not filling this formula out; I'm here for theory, not math. :)\",\n \"The price-earnings ratio is calculated as the market value per share divided by the earnings per share over the past 12 months. In your example, you state that the company earned $0.35 over the past quarter. That is insufficient to calculate the price-earnings ratio, and probably why the PE is just given as 20. So, if you have transcribed the formula correctly, the calculation given the numbers in your example would be: 0.35 * 4 * 20 = $28.00 As to CVRR, I'm not sure your PE is correct. According to Yahoo, the PE for CVRR is 3.92 at the time of writing, not 10.54. Using the formula above, this would lead to: 2.3 * 4 * 3.92 = $36.06 That stock has a 52-week high of $35.98, so $36.06 is not laughably unrealistic. I'm more than a little dubious of the validity of that formula, however, and urge you not to base your investing decisions on it.\",\n \"\\\"ycharts.com has \\\"\\\"Weighted Average PE Ratio\\\"\\\" and a bunch of other metrics that are meant to correspond to well known stock metrics. Other websites will have similar ratios.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Yes, there are situations where a stock is a bad buy in spite of a low PE. PE ratio tells you the current share price divided by the prior 4 quarters earnings per share. It does not consider: Imagine someone walked up to you and said, \\\"\\\"Do you want to buy a piece of my business? I'll sell you 1% of it for $1000. Last year the business earned $25000.\\\"\\\" A quick calculation shows a PE of 4 [$1000/($25000 *.01)]. Even though this PE is comparatively low, you wouldn't buy in without a lot more info. What kinds of things might you ask? PE is one tiny component of an informed investment decision.\\\"\",\n \"Try to find the P/E ratio of the Company and then Multiply it with last E.P.S, this calculation gives the Fundamental Value of the share, anything higher than this Value is not acceptable and Vice versa.\",\n \"The idea here is to get an idea of how to value each business and thus normalize how highly prized is each dollar that a company makes. While some companies may make millions and others make billions, how does one put these in proper context? One way is to consider a dollar in earnings for the company. How does a dollar in earnings for Google compare to a dollar for Coca-cola for example? Some companies may be valued much higher than others and this is a way to see that as share price alone can be rather misleading since some companies can have millions of shares outstanding and split the shares to keep the share price in a certain range. Thus the idea isn't that an investor is paying for a dollar of earnings but rather how is that perceived as some companies may not have earnings and yet still be traded as start-ups and other companies may be running at a loss and thus the P/E isn't even meaningful in this case. Assuming everything but the P/E is the same, the lower P/E would represent a greater value in a sense, yes. However, earnings growth rate can account for higher P/Es for some companies as if a company is expected to grow at 40% for a few years it may have a higher P/E than a company growing earnings at 5% for example.\",\n \"what do you mean exactly? Do you have a future target price and projected future dividend payments and you want the present value (time discounted price) of those? Edit: The DCF formula is difficult to use for stocks because the future price is unknown. It is more applicable to fixed-income instruments like coupon bonds. You could use it but you need to predict / speculate a future price for the stock. You are better off using the standard stock analysis stuff: Learn Stock Basics - How To Read A Stock Table/Quote The P/E ratio and the Dividend yield are the two most important. The good P/E ratio for a mature company would be around 20. For smaller and growing companies, a higher P/E ratio is acceptable. The dividend yield is important because it tells you how much your shares grow even if the stock price stays unchanged for the year. HTH\",\n \"\\\"P/E is a useful tool for evaluating the price of a company, but only in comparison to companies in similar industries, especially for industries with well-defined cash flows. For example, if you compared Consolidated Edison (NYSE:ED) to Hawaiian Electric (NYSE:HE), you'll notice that HE has a significantly higher PE. All things being equal, that means that HE may be overpriced in comparison to ED. As an investor, you need to investigate further to determine whether that is true. HE is unique in that it is a utility that also operates a bank, so you need to take that into account. You need to think about what your goal is when you say that you are a \\\"\\\"conservative\\\"\\\" investor and look at the big picture, not a magic number. If conservative to you means capital preservation, you need to ensure that you are in investments that are diversified and appropriate. Given the interest rate situation in 2011, that means your bonds holding need to be in short-duration, high-quality securities. Equities should be weighted towards large cap, with smaller holdings of international or commodity-associated funds. Consider a target-date or blended fund like one of the Vanguard \\\"\\\"Life Strategy\\\"\\\" funds.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Your question asks us to explain why a false statement is true. From the point of view of an investor, a high price to earnings ratio is not necessarily desirable. From the point of view of an investor, a desirable stock is one that is likely to provide future dividends or price increases that more than compensates for the risk of the stock. This information cannot be inferred from the P/E ratio. So what does the P/E ratio tell us? The P/E ratio measures a stock's current price (i.e., the market's belief about its future earnings) divided by its recent past earnings. A high ratio means the market thinks earnings in the future will be higher than they are now and have therefore bid the price up. These can thought of as expensive stocks, and are often called \\\"\\\"growth\\\"\\\" stocks because their price is driven by the market's belief in future growth. Some individual high P/E stocks do live up to or exceed the market's expectation, but there's no evidence that this happens enough that they are more desirable as a group than low P/E stocks. If anything, the empirical evidence goes the other way.\\\"\",\n \"In the equity markets, the P/E is usually somewhere around 15. The P/E can be viewed as the inverse of the rate of a perpetuity. Since the average is 15, and the E/P of that would be 6.7%, r should be 6.7% on average. If your business is growing, the growth rate can be incorporated like so: As you can see, a high g would make the price negative, in essence the seller should actually pay someone to take the business, but in reality, r is determined from the p and an estimated g. For a business of any growth rate, it's best to compare the multiple to the market, so for the average business in the market with your business's growth rate and industry, that P/E would be best applied to your company's income.\",\n \"Are you implying that Amazon is a better investment than GE because Amazon's P/E is 175 while GE's is only 27? Or that GE is a better investment than Apple because Apple's P/E is just 13. There are a lot of other ratios to consider than P/E. I personally view high P/E numbers as a red flag. One way to think of a P/E ratio is the number of years it's expected for the company to earn its market cap. (Share price divided by annual earnings per share) It will take Amazon 175 years to earn $353 billion. If I was going to buy a dry cleaners, I would not pay the owner 175 years of earnings to take control of it, I'd never see my investment back. To your point. There is so much future growth seemingly built in to today's stock market that even when a company posts higher than expected earnings, the company's stock may take a hit because maybe future prospects are a little less bright than everyone thought yesterday. The point of fundamental analysis is that you want to look at a company's management style and financial strategies. How is it paying its debt? How is it accumulating the debt? How is it's return on assets? How is the return on assets trending? This way when you look at a few companies in the same market segment you may have a better shot at picking the winner over time. The company that piles on new debt for every new project is likely to continue that path in to oblivion, regardless of the P/E ratio. (or some other equally less forward thinking management practice that you uncover in your fundamental analysis efforts). And I'll add... No amount of historical good decision making from a company's management can prepare for a total market downturn, or lack of investor confidence in general. The market is the market; sometimes it's up irrationally, sometimes it's down irrationally.\",\n \"While on the surface it might not make sense to pay more than one dollar to get just one dollar back, the key thing is that a good company's earnings are recurring each year. So, you wouldn't just be paying for the $1 dollar of earnings per share this year, but for the entire future stream of earnings per share, every year, in perpetuity -- and the earnings may grow over time too (if it remains a good company.) Your stock is a claim on a portion of the company's future. The brighter and/or more certain that future, the more investors are willing to pay for each recurring dollar of earnings. And the P/E ratio tells you, in effect, how many years it might take for your investment to earn back what you paid – assuming earnings remain the same. But you would hope the earnings would grow, too. When a company's earnings are widely expected to grow, the P/E for the stock is often higher than average. Bear in mind you don't actually receive the company's earnings, since management often decides to reinvest all or a portion of it to grow the company. Yet, many companies do pay a portion of earnings out as dividends. Dividends are money in your pocket each year.\",\n \"One problem is that P/E ratio only looks at the last announced earnings. Let's take your manufacturing plant with a P/E of 12.5. Then they announce a major problem that will hurt future earnings and the price drops in half. Now the P/E is 6.25. It looks great, but since there aren't any new earnings that reflect the problem, it's very misleading.\",\n \"This is called the gordon growth model (or dividend discount model). This is one way to value a stock, but in practice no one uses it because the assumptions are that companies will return value to investors solely via regular dividends, and that the growth rate and the required rate of return from investors are constants; among other issues.\",\n \"It is not so useful because you are applying it to large capital. Think about Theory of Investment Value. It says that you must find undervalued stocks with whatever ratios and metrics. Now think about the reality of a company. For example, if you are waiting KO (The Coca-Cola Company) to be undervalued for buying it, it might be a bad idea because KO is already an international well known company and KO sells its product almost everywhere...so there are not too many opportunities for growth. Even if KO ratios and metrics says it's a good time to buy because it's undervalued, people might not invest on it because KO doesn't have the same potential to grow as 10 years ago. The best chance to grow is demographics. You are better off either buying ETFs monthly for many years (10 minimum) OR find small-cap and mid-cap companies that have the potential to grow plus their ratios indicate they might be undervalued. If you want your investment to work remember this: stock price growth is nothing more than You might ask yourself. What is your investment profile? Agressive? Speculative? Income? Dividends? Capital preservation? If you want something not too risky: ETFs. And not waste too much time. If you want to get more returns, you have to take more risks: find small-cap and mid-companies that are worth. I hope I helped you!\",\n \"Market price of a stock typically trades in a range of Price/Earnings Ratio (P/E ratio). Or in other words, price of a stock = Earnings * P/E ratio Because of this direct proportionality of stock price with earnings, stock prices move in tandem with earnings.\",\n \"for buying: High PE, low debt, discount = win. a company with high debt (in relation to revenues and cash on hand) will have to pay interest and pay off the debt, stunting their growth. and just like a normal person, will barely be able to pay their bills and keep borrowing and might go bankrupt determining discount is just looking for a technical retracement to a support level or lower. (but if you dont enter at the support level, you most likely missed the best entry)\",\n \"How you use the metric is super important. Because it subtracts cash, it does not represent 'value'. It represents the ongoing financing that will be necessary if both the equity plus debt is bought by one person, who then pays himself a dividend with that free cash. So if you are Private Equity, this measures your net investment at t=0.5, not the price you pay at t=0. If you are a retail investor, who a) won't be buying the debt, b) won't have any control over things like tax jurisdictions, c) won't be receiving any cash dividend, etc etc .... the metric is pointless.\",\n \"One thing to keep in mind when calculating P/E on an index is that the E (earnings) can be very close to zero. For example, if you had a stock trading at $100 and the earnings per share was $.01, this would result in a P/E of 10,000, which would dominate the P/E you calculate for the index. Of course negative earnings also skew results. One way to get around this would be to calculate the average price of the index and the earnings per share of the index separately, and then divide the average price of the index by the average earnings per share of the index. Different sources calculate these numbers in different ways. Some throw out negative P/Es (or earnings per share) and some don't. Some calculate the price and earnings per share separate and some don't, etc... You'll need to understand how they are calculating the number in order to compare it to PEs of individual companies.\",\n \"\\\"What you need to do is go to yahoo finance and look at different stock's P/E ratios. You'll quickly see that the stocks can be sorted by this number. It would be an interesting exercise to get an idea of why P/E isn't a fixed number, how certain industries cluster around a certain number, but even this isn't precise. But, it will give you an idea as to why your question has no answer. \\\"\\\"Annual earnings are $1. What is the share price?\\\"\\\" \\\"\\\"Question has no answer\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"\\\"When you buy a stock, you're really paying for a STREAM of earnings, from now till whenever. The job of an investor is to figure out how large that stream will be in the future. But if the stock price were the same as \\\"\\\"earnings\\\"\\\" (for one year), it would mean that you would get all future earnings for \\\"\\\"free.\\\"\\\" That's not likely to happen unless 1) the company is in liquidation,\\\"\\\" meaning \\\"\\\"no future\\\"\\\" and 2) it earned ALL of the money it ever earned in the past year, meaning \\\"\\\"no past.\\\"\\\" If there are likely to be any earnings in the future, you will have to pay for those future earnings, over and above what was earned in the most recent year.\\\"\",\n \"You can create something like that by: You'll have to determine the PE ratio manually from the financial statements. To get the PE ratio for each company, you can try the Edgar database, though I doubt it goes as far back as 1950. This blog has a graph of the DJIA PE ratio from 1929 - 2009.\",\n \"The simple answer is technically bonds don't have earnings, hence no P/E. What I think the OP is really asking how do I compare stock and bond ETFs. Some mature stocks exhibit very similar characteristics to bonds, so at the margin if you are considering investing between 2 such investments that provide stable income in the form of dividends, you might want to use the dividend/price ratio (D/P) of the stock and compare it to the dividend yield of the bond. If you go down to the basics, both the bond and the stock can be considered the present value of all future expected cashflows. The cash that accrues to the owner of the stock is future dividends and for the bond is the coupon payments. If a company were to pay out 100% of its earnings, then the dividend yield D/P would be conveniently E/P. For a company with P/E of 20 that paid out it's entire earnings, one would expect D/P = 1/20 = 5% This serves as a decent yard stick in the short term ~ 1 year to compare mature stock etfs with stable prospects vs bond funds since the former will have very little expected price growth (think utilities), hence they both compete on the cashflows they throw off to the investor. This comparison stops being useful for stock ETFs with higher growth prospects since expected future cashflows are much more volatile. This comparison is also not valid in the long term since bond ETFs are highly sensitive to the yield curve (interest rate risk) and they can move substantially from where they are now.\",\n \"\\\"Yes, there are non-stock analogs to the Price/Earnings ratio. Rental properties have a Price/Rent ratio, which is analogous to stocks' Price/Revenue ratio. With rental properties, the \\\"\\\"Cap Rate\\\"\\\" is analogous to the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio of a company that has no long-term debt. Bonds have an interest rate. Depending on whether you care about current dividends or potential income, the interest rate is analogous to either a stock's dividend rate or the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio.\\\"\",\n \"In order to calculate the ratio you are looking for, just divide total debt by the market capitalization of the stock. Both values can be found on the link you provided. The market capitalization is the market value of equity.\",\n \"Typically a private company is hit by demand supply issues and cost of inputs. In effect at times the cost of input may go up, it cannot raise the prices, because this will reduce demand. However certain public sectors companies, typically in Oil & Engery segements the services are offered by Public sector companies, and the price they charge is governed by Regulatory authorities. In essence the PG&E, the agreement for price to customers would be calculated as cost of inputs to PG&E, Plus Expenses Plus 11.35% Profit. Thus the regulated price itself governs that the company makes atleast 11.35% profit year on year. Does this mean that the shares are good buy? Just to give an example, say the price was $100 at face value, So essentially by year end logically you would have made 111.35/-. Assuming the company did not pay dividend ... Now lets say you began trading this share, there would be quite a few people who would say I am ready to pay $200 and even if I get 11.35 [on 200] it still means I have got ~6% return. Someone may be ready to pay $400, it still gives ~3% ... So in short the price of the stock would keep changing depending how the market percieves the value that a company would return. If the markets are down or the sentiments are down on energy sectors, the prices would go down. So investing in PG&E is not a sure shot way of making money. For actual returns over the years see the graph at http://www.pgecorp.com/investors/financial_reports/annual_report_proxy_statement/ar_html/2011/index.htm#CS\",\n \"\\\"You'll generally get a number close to market cap of a mature company if you divide profits (or more accurately its free cash flow to equity) by the cost of equity which is usually something like ~7%. The value is meant to represent the amount of cash you'd need to generate investment income off it matching the company you're looking at. Imagine it as asking \\\"\\\"How much money do I need to put into the bank so that my interest income would match the profits of the company I'm looking at\\\"\\\". Except replace the bank with the market and other forms of investments that generate higher returns of course and that value would be lower.\\\"\",\n \"This is a note from my broker, CMC Markets, who use Morningstar: Morningstar calculate the P/E Ratio using a weighted average of the most recent earnings and the projected earnings for the next year. This may result in a different P/E Ratio to those based solely on past earnings as reported on some sites and other publications. They show the P/E as being 9.93. So obviously past earnings would usually be used but you would need to check with your source which numbers they are using. Also, as BHP's results just came out yesterday it may take a while for the most recent financial details to be updated.\",\n \"What you're referring to is the yield. The issue with these sorts of calculations is that the dividend isn't guaranteed until it's declared. It may have paid the quarterly dividend like clockwork for the last decade, that does not guarantee it will pay this quarter. Regarding question number 2. Yield is generally an after the fact calculation. Dividends are paid out of current or retained earnings. If the company becomes hot and the stock price doubles, but earnings are relatively similar, the dividend will not be doubled to maintain the prior yield; the yield will instead be halved because the dividend per share was made more expensive to attain due to the increased share price. As for the calculation, obviously your yield will likely vary from the yield published on services like Google and Yahoo finance. The variation is strictly based on the price you paid for the share. Dividend per share is a declared amount. Assuming a $10 share paying a quarterly dividend of $0.25 your yield is: Now figure that you paid $8.75 for the share. Now the way dividends are allocated to shareholders depends on dates published when the dividend is declared. The day you purchase the share, the day your transaction clears etc are all vital to being paid a particular dividend. Here's a link to the SEC with related information: https://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm I suppose it goes without saying but, historical dividend payments should not be your sole evaluation criteria. Personally, I would be extremely wary of a company paying a 40% dividend ($1 quarterly dividend on a $10 stock), it's very possible that in your example bar corp is a more sound investment. Additionally, this has really nothing to do with P/E (price/earnings) ratios.\",\n \"But I wish to know why the parameter is dividend/market price rather than just 'dividend'? What 'extra' info you can uncover by looking at dividend/market price that you cannot get from 'dividend'? Consider two stocks A and B. A offers a dividend of $1 per year. B offers a dividend of $2 per year. Let's remove all complications aside and assume that this trend continues. If you were to buy each of these stocks you will get the following amounts over its life (assumed infinity for simplicity): cash flows from A = $1/(0.04) = $25, assuming risk free is 4% per annum cash flows from B = $2/(0.04) = $50, assuming risk free is 4% per annum The price you buy them at is an important factor to consider because let's say if A was trading for $10 and B for $60, then A would look like a profitable nvestment while B won't. Of course, this is a very simplistic view. Dividend rates are not constant and many companies pose a significant risk of going bust but this should help illustrate the general idea behind the D/P ratio. P.S.:- The formula I have used is one for computing the NPV of a perpetuity.\",\n \"P/E is the number of years it would take for the company to earn its share price. You take share price divided by annual earnings per share. You can take the current reported quarterly earnings per share times 4, you can take the sum of the past four actual quarters earnings per share or you can take some projected earnings per share. It has little to do with a company's actual finances apart from the earnings per share. It doesn't say much about the health of a company's balance sheet, and is definitely not an indicator for bankruptcy. It's mostly a measure of the market's assumptions of the company's ability to grow earnings or maintain it's current earnings growth. A share price of $40 trading for a P/E ratio of 10 means it will take the company 10 years to earn $40 per share, it means there's current annual earnings per share of $4. A different company may also be earning $4 per share but trade at 100 times earnings for a share price of $400. By this measure alone neither company is more or less healthy than the other. One just commands more faith in the future growth from the market. To circle back to your question regarding a negative P/E, a negative P/E ratio means the company is reporting negative earnings (running at a loss). Again, this may or may not indicate an imminent bankruptcy. Increasing balance sheet debt with decreasing revenue and or earnings and or balance sheet assets will be a better way to assess bankruptcy risk.\",\n \"You could sum the P/E ratio of all the companies in the industry and divide it by the number of companies to find the average P/E ratio of the industry. Average P/E ratio of industry = Sum of P/E ratio of all companies in Industry / Number of companies in industry\",\n \"A bond fund has a 5% yield. You can take 1/.05 and think of it as a 20 P/E. I wouldn't, because no one else does, really. An individual bond has a coupon yield, and a YTM, yield to maturity. A bond fund or ETF usually won't have a maturity, only a yield.\",\n \"Hey desquinbnt & pontsone, I had an explanation written up about Share and Bond evaluation and in which, one share evaluation technique utilizes the P/E ratio - hence I explained it. Have a read, if you'd want me to go more in depth, let me know! :) http://letslearnfinance.net/2012/06/09/introduction-to-bonds-and-share-valuation/\",\n \"\\\"Here's a link to an online calculator employing the Discounted Cash Flow method: Discounted Cash Flows Calculator. Description: This calculator finds the fair value of a stock investment the theoretically correct way, as the present value of future earnings. You can find company earnings via the box below. [...] They also provide a link to the following relevant article: Investment Valuation: A Little Theory. Excerpt: A company is valuable to stockholders for the same reason that a bond is valuable to bondholders: both are expected to generate cash for years into the future. Company profits are more volatile than bond coupons, but as an investor your task is the same in both cases: make a reasonable prediction about future earnings, and then \\\"\\\"discount\\\"\\\" them by calculating how much they are worth today. (And then you don't buy unless you can get a purchase price that's less than the sum of these present values, to make sure ownership will be worth the headache.) [...]\\\"\",\n \"The dividend yield can be used to compare a stock to other forms of investments that generate income to the investor - such as bonds. I could purchase a stock that pays out a certain dividend yield or purchase a bond that pays out a certain interest. Of course, there are many other variables to consider in addition to yield when making this type of investment decision. The dividend yield can be an important consideration if you are looking to invest in stocks for an income stream in addition to investing in stocks for gain by a rising stock price. The reason to use Dividend/market price is that it changes the dividend from a flat number such as $1 to a percentage of the stock price, which thus allows it to be more directly compared with bonds and such which return a percentage yeild.\",\n \"\\\"Check your math... \\\"\\\"two stocks, both with a P/E of 2 trading at $40 per share lets say, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase?\\\"\\\" If a stock has P/E of 2 and price of $40 it has an EPS of $20. Not $10. Not $5.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"For the S&P and many other indices (but not the DJIA) the index \\\"\\\"price\\\"\\\" is just a unitless number that is the result of a complicated formula. It's not a dollar value. So when you divide said number by the earnings/share of the sector, you're again getting just a unitless number that is incomparable to standard P-E ratios. In fact, now that I think about, it kinda makes sense that each sector would have a similar value for the number that you're computing, since each sector's index formula is presumably written to make all the index \\\"\\\"price\\\"\\\"s look similar to consumers.\\\"\",\n \"The three places you want to focus on are the income statement, the balance sheet, and cash flow statement. The standard measure for multiple of income is the P/E or price earnings ratio For the balance sheet, the debt to equity or debt to capital (debt+equity) ratio. For cash generation, price to cash flow, or price to free cash flow. (The lower the better, all other things being equal, for all three ratios.)\",\n \"\\\"To calculate a sector (or index) P/E ratio you need to sum the market caps of the constituent stocks and divide it by the sum of the total earnings of the constituent stocks (including stocks that have negative earnings). There are no \\\"\\\"per share\\\"\\\" figures used in the calculation. Beware when you include an individual stock that there may be multiple issues associated with the company that are not in the index.... eg. Berkshire Hathaway BRK.B is in the S&P 500 but BRK.A is not. In contrast, Google has both GOOGL and GOOG included in the S&P 500 index but not its unlisted Class B shares. All such shares need to be included in the market cap and figuring out the different share class ratios can be tricky.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Here is how I would approach that problem: 1) Find the average ratios of the competitors: 2) Find the earnings and book value per share of Hawaiian 3) Multiply the EPB and BVPS by the average ratios. Note that you get two very different numbers. This illustrates why pricing from ratios is inexact. How you use those answers to estimate a \\\"\\\"price\\\"\\\" is up to you. You can take the higher of the two, the average, the P/E result since you have more data points, or whatever other method you feel you can justify. There is no \\\"\\\"right\\\"\\\" answer since no one can accurately predict the future price of any stock.\\\"\",\n \"Too calculate these values, information contained in the company's financial statements (income, balance, or cashflow) will be needed along with the price. Google finance does not maintain this information for BME. You will need to find another source for this information or analyze another another symbol's financial section (BAC for example).\",\n \"\\\"You could not have two stocks both at $40, both with P/E 2, but one an EPS of $5 and the other $10. EPS = Earnings Per Share P/E = Price per share/Earnings Per Share So, in your example, the stock with EPS of $5 has a P/E of 8, and the stock with an EPS of $10 has a P/E of 4. So no, it's not valid way of looking at things, because your understanding of EPS and P/E is incorrect. Update: Ok, with that fixed, I think I understand your question better. This isn't a valid way of looking at P/E. You nailed one problem yourself at the end of the post: The tricky part is that you have to assume certain values remain constant, I suppose But besides that, it still doesn't work. It seems to make sense in the context of investor psychology: if a stock is \\\"\\\"supposed to\\\"\\\" trade at a low P/E, like a utility, that it would stay at that low P/E, and thus a $1 worth of EPS increase would result in lower $$ price increase than a stock that was \\\"\\\"supposed to\\\"\\\" have a high P/E. And that would be true. But let's game it out: Scenario Say you have two stocks, ABC and XYZ. Both have $5 EPS. ABC is a utility, so it has a low P/E of 5, and thus trades at $25/share. XYZ is a high flying tech company, so it has a P/E of 10, thus trading at $50/share. If both companies increase their EPS by $1, to $6, and the P/Es remain the same, that means company ABC rises to $30, and company XYZ rises to $60. Hey! One went up $5, and the other $10, twice as much! That means XYZ was the better investment, right? Nope. You see, shares are not tokens, and you don't get an identical, arbitrary number of them. You make an investment, and that's in dollars. So, say you'd invested $1,000 in each. $1,000 in ABC buys you 40 shares. $1,000 in XYZ buys you 20 shares. Their EPS adds that buck, the shares rise to maintain P/E, and you have: ABC: $6 EPS at P/E 5 = $30/share. Position value = 40 shares x $30/share = $1,200 XYZ: $6 EPS at P/E 10 = $60/share. Position value = 20 shares x $60/share = $1,200 They both make you the exact same 20% profit. It makes sense when you think about it this way: a 20% increase in EPS is going to give you a 20% increase in price if the P/E is to remain constant. It doesn't matter what the dollar amount of the EPS or the share price is.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You are probably going to hate my answer, but... If there was an easy way to ID stocks like FB that were going to do what FB did, then those stocks wouldn't exist and do that because they would be priced higher at the IPO. The fact is there is always some doubt, no one knows the future, and sometimes value only becomes clear with time. Everyone wants to buy a stock before it rises right? It will only be worth a rise if it makes more profit though, and once it is established as making more profit the price will be already up, because why wouldn't it be? That means to buy a real winner you have to buy before it is completely obvious to everyone that it is going to make more profit in the future, and that means stock prices trade at speculative prices, based on expected future performance, not current or past performance. Now I'm not saying past and future performance has nothing in common, but there is a reason that a thousand financially oriented websites quote a disclaimer like \\\"\\\"past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance\\\"\\\". Now maybe this is sort of obvious, but looking at your image, excluding things like market capital that you've not restricted, the PE ratio is based on CURRENT price and PAST earnings, the dividend yield is based on PAST publications of what the dividend will be and CURRENT price, the price to book is based on PAST publication of the company balance sheet and CURRENT price, the EPS is based on PAST earnings and the published number of shares, and the ROI and net profit margin in based on published PAST profits and earnings and costs and number of shares. So it must be understood that every criteria chosen is PAST data that analysts have been looking at for a lot longer than you have with a lot more additional information and experience with it. The only information that is even CURRENT is the price. Thus, my ultimate conclusive point is, you can't based your stock picks on criteria like this because it's based on past information and current stock price, and the current stock price is based on the markets opinion of relative future performance. The only way to make a good stock pick is understand the business, understand its market, and possibly understand world economics as it pertains to that market and business. You can use various criteria as an initial filter to find companies and investigate them, but which criteria you use is entirely your preference. You might invest only in profitable companies (ones that make money and probably pay regular dividends), thus excluding something like an oil exploration company, which will just lose money, and lose it, and lose some more, forever... unless it hits the jackpot, in which case you might suddenly find yourself sitting on a huge profit. It's a question of risk and preference. Regarding your concern for false data. Google defines the Return on investment (TTM) (%) as: Trailing twelve month Income after taxes divided by the average (Total Long-Term Debt + Long-Term Liabilities + Shareholders Equity), expressed as a percentage. If you really think they have it wrong you could contact them, but it's probably correct for whatever past data or last annual financial results it's based on.\\\"\",\n \"Profit after tax can have multiple interpretations, but a common one is the EPS (Earnings Per Share). This is frequently reported as a TTM number (Trailing Twelve Months), or in the UK as a fiscal year number. Coincidentally, it is relatively easy to find the total amount of dividends paid out in that same time frame. That means calculating div cover is as simple as: EPS divided by total dividend. (EPS / Div). It's relatively easy to build a Google Docs spreadsheet that pulls both values from the cloud using the GOOGLEFINANCE() function. I suspect the same is true of most spreadsheet apps. With a proper setup, you can just fill down along a column of tickers to get the div cover for a number of companies at once.\",\n \"My reaction to this is that your observation @D.W. is spot on correct: It sounds like long-term market timing: trying to do a better job than the rest of the market at predicting, based upon a simple formula, whether the market is over-priced or under-priced. I read the post by the founder of Valuation Informed Indexing, Rob Bennet. Glance at the comments section. Rob clearly states that he doesn't even use his own strategy, and has not owned, nor traded, any stocks since 1996! As another commenter summarizes it, addressing Rob: This is 2011. You’ve been 100% out of stocks — including indexes — since 1996? That’s 15 years of taking whatever the bond market, CDs or TIPS will yield (often and currently less than 2%)... I’m curious how you defend not following your own program even as you recommend it for others? Rob basically says that stocks haven't shown the right signals for buying since 1996, so he's stuck with bonds, CD's and fixed-income instead. This is a VERY long-term horizon point of view (a bit of sarcasm edges in from me). Answering your more general question, what do I think of this particular Price/ Earnings based ratio as a way to signal asset allocation change i.e. Valuation Informed Investing? I don't like it much.\",\n \"Other metrics like Price/Book Value or Price/Sales can be used to determine if a company has above average valuations and would be classified as growth or below average valuations and be classified as value. Fama and French's 3 Factor model would be one example that was studied a great deal using an inverse of Price/Book I believe.\",\n \"Earnings per share is the company profit (or loss), divided by the number of outstanding shares. The number should always be compared to the share price, so for instance if the EPS is $1 and the share price is $10, the EPS is 10% of the share price. This means that if the company keeps up this earning you should expect to make 10% yearly on your investment, long term. The stock price may fluctuate, but if the company keeps on making money you will eventually do so too as investor. If the EPS is low it means that the market expects the earnings to rise in the future, either because the company has a low profit margin that can be vastly improved, or because the business is expected to grow. Especially the last case may be a risky investment as you will lose money if the company doesn't grow fast enough, even if it does make a healthy profit. Note that the listed EPS, like most key figures, is based on the last financial statement. Recent developments could mean that better or worse is generally expected. Also note that the earnings of some companies will fluctuate wildly, for instance companies that produce movies or video games will tend to have a huge income for a quarter or two following a new release, but may be in the negative in some periods. This is fine as long as they turn a profit long term, but you will have to look at data for a longer period in order to determine this.\",\n \"\\\"From Wikipedia: Usage Because EV is a capital structure-neutral metric, it is useful when comparing companies with diverse capital structures. Price/earnings ratios, for example, will be significantly more volatile in companies that are highly leveraged. Stock market investors use EV/EBITDA to compare returns between equivalent companies on a risk-adjusted basis. They can then superimpose their own choice of debt levels. In practice, equity investors may have difficulty accurately assessing EV if they do not have access to the market quotations of the company debt. It is not sufficient to substitute the book value of the debt because a) the market interest rates may have changed, and b) the market's perception of the risk of the loan may have changed since the debt was issued. Remember, the point of EV is to neutralize the different risks, and costs of different capital structures. Buyers of controlling interests in a business use EV to compare returns between businesses, as above. They also use the EV valuation (or a debt free cash free valuation) to determine how much to pay for the whole entity (not just the equity). They may want to change the capital structure once in control. Technical considerations Data availability Unlike market capitalization, where both the market price and the outstanding number of shares in issue are readily available and easy to find, it is virtually impossible to calculate an EV without making a number of adjustments to published data, including often subjective estimations of value: In practice, EV calculations rely on reasonable estimates of the market value of these components. For example, in many professional valuations: Avoiding temporal mismatches When using valuation multiples such as EV/EBITDA and EV/EBIT, the numerator should correspond to the denominator. The EV should, therefore, correspond to the market value of the assets that were used to generate the profits in question, excluding assets acquired (and including assets disposed) during a different financial reporting period. This requires restating EV for any mergers and acquisitions (whether paid in cash or equity), significant capital investments or significant changes in working capital occurring after or during the reporting period being examined. Ideally, multiples should be calculated using the market value of the weighted average capital employed of the company during the comparable financial period. When calculating multiples over different time periods (e.g. historic multiples vs forward multiples), EV should be adjusted to reflect the weighted average invested capital of the company in each period. In your question, you stated: The Market Cap is driven by the share price and the share price is determined by buyers and sellers who have access to data on cash and debts and factor that into their decision to buy or sell. Note the first point under \\\"\\\"Technical Considerations\\\"\\\" there and you will see that the \\\"\\\"access to data on cash and debts\\\"\\\" isn't quite accurate here so that is worth noting. As for alternatives, there are many other price ratios one could use such as price/earnings, price/book value, price/sales and others depending on how one wants to model the company. The better question is what kind of investing strategy is one wanting to use where there are probably hundreds of strategies at least. Let's take Apple as an example. Back on April 23, 2014 they announced earnings through March 29, 2014 which is nearly a month old when it was announced. Now a month later, one would have to estimate what changes would be made to things there. Thus, getting accurate real-time values isn't realistic. Discounted Cash Flow is another approach one can take of valuing a company in terms of its future earnings computed back to a present day lump sum.\\\"\",\n \"I thought it was such a useful suggestion that I went ahead and created them. I'm sure you're not the only one who could derive some benefit from them, I know I will. http://www.investy.com/tools When I have some additional time, I will add the option for grace-periods, but for now I wanted to get them up so you could use the calculations as-is from the article. Enjoy. (Disclosure: I'm the founder of the site they are hosted on and I wrote the code for the calculators)\",\n \"There are books on the subject of valuing stocks. P/E ratio has nothing directly to do with the value of a company. It may be an indication that the stock is undervalued or overvalued, but does not indicate the value itself. The direct value of company is what it would fetch if it was liquidated. For example, if you bought a dry cleaner and sold all of the equipment and receivables, how much would you get? To value a living company, you can treat it like a bond. For example, assume the company generates $1 million in profit every year and has a liquidation value of $2 million. Given the risk profile of the business, let's say we would like to make 8% on average per year, then the value of the business is approximately $1/0.08 + $2 = $14.5 million to us. To someone who expects to make more or less the value might be different. If the company has growth potential, you can adjust this figure by estimating the estimated income at different percentage chances of growth and decline, a growth curve so to speak. The value is then the net area under this curve. Of course, if you do this for NYSE and most NASDAQ stocks you will find that they have a capitalization way over these amounts. That is because they are being used as a store of wealth. People are buying the stocks just as a way to store money, not necessarily make a profit. It's kind of like buying land. Even though the land may never give you a penny of profit, you know you can always sell it and get your money back. Because of this, it is difficult to value high-profile equities. You are dealing with human psychology, not pennies and dollars.\",\n \"Knowing the answer to this question is generally not as useful as it may seem. The stock's current price is the consensus of thousands of people who are looking at the many relevant factors (dividend rate, growth prospects, volatility, risk, industry, etc.) that determine its value. A stock's price is the market's valuation of the cash flows it entitles you to in the future. Researching a stock's value means trying to figure out if there is something relevant to these cash flows that the market doesn't know about or has misjudged. Pretty much anything we can list for you here that will affect a stock's price is something the market knows about, so it's not likely to help you know if something is mispriced. Therefore it's not useful to you. If you are not a true expert on how important the relevant factors are and how the market is reacting to them currently (and often even if you are), then you are essentially guessing. How likely are you to catch something that the thousands of other investors have missed and how likely are you to miss something that other investors have understood? I don't view gambling as inherently evil, but you should be clear and honest with yourself about what you are doing if you are trying to outperform the market. As people become knowledgeable about and experienced with finance, they try less and less to be the one to find an undervalued stock in their personal portfolio. Instead they seek to hold a fully diversified portfolio with low transactions costs and build wealth in the long term without wasting time and money on the guessing game. My suggestion for you is to transition as quickly as you can to behave like someone who knows a lot about finance.\",\n \"\\\"(Value of shares+Dividends received)/(Initial investment) would be the typical formula though this is more of a percentage where 1 would indicate that you broke even, assuming no inflation to be factored. No, you don't have to estimate the share price based on revenues as I would question how well did anyone estimate what kind of revenues Facebook, Apple, or Google have had and will have. To estimate the value of shares, I'd likely consider what does my investment strategy use as metrics: Is it discounted cash flow, is it based on earnings, is it something else? There are many ways to determine what a stock \\\"\\\"should be worth\\\"\\\" that depending on what you want to believe there are more than a few ways one could go.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The Dividend Discount Model is based on the concept that the present value of a stock is the sum of all future dividends, discounted back to the present. Since you said: dividends are expected to grow at a constant rate in perpetuity ... the Gordon Growth Model is a simple variant of the DDM, tailored for a firm in \\\"\\\"steady state\\\"\\\" mode, with dividends growing at a rate that can be sustained forever. Consider McCormick (MKC), who's last dividend was 31 cents, or $1.24 annualized. The dividend has been growing just a little over 7% annually. Let's use a discount, or hurdle rate of 10%. MKC closed today at $50.32, for what it's worth. The model is extremely sensitive to inputs. As g approaches r, the stock price rises to infinity. If g > r, stock goes negative. Be conservative with 'g' -- it must be sustainable forever. The next step up in complexity is the two-stage DDM, where the company is expected to grow at a higher, unsustainable rate in the early years (stage 1), and then settling down to the terminal rate for stage 2. Stage 1 is the present value of dividends during the high growth period. Stage 2 is the Gordon Model, starting at the end of stage 1, and discounting back to the present. Consider Abbott Labs (ABT). The current annual dividend is $1.92, the current dividend growth rate is 12%, and let's say that continues for ten years (n), after which point the growth rate is 5% in perpetuity. Again, the discount rate is 10%. Stage 1 is calculated as follows: Stage 2 is GGM, using not today's dividend, but the 11th year's dividend, since stage 1 covered the first ten years. 'gn' is the terminal growth, 5% in our case. then... The value of the stock today is 21.22 + 51.50 = 72.72 ABT closed today at $56.72, for what it's worth.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Probably the most important thing in evaluating a dividend yield is to compare it to ITSELF (in the past). If the dividend yield is higher than it has been in the past, the stock may be cheap. If it is lower, the stock may be expensive. Just about every stock has a \\\"\\\"normal\\\"\\\" yield for itself. (It's zero for non-dividend paying stocks.) This is based on the stock's perceived quality, growth potential, and other factors. So a utility that normally yields 5% and is now paying 3% is probably expensive (the price in the denominator is too high), while a growth stock that normally yields 2% and is now yielding 3% (e.g. Intel or McDonald'sl), may be cheap.\\\"\",\n \"The official source for the Dow Jones P/E is Dow Jones. Unfortunately, the P/E is behind a pay-wall and not included in the free registration. The easiest (but only approximate) solution is to track against an equivalent ETF. Here's a list of popular indexes with an equivalent ETF. Source\",\n \"Knowing the log return is useful - the log return can help you to work out the annual return over the period it was estimated - and this should be comparable between stocks. One should just be careful with the calculation so that allowance for dividends is made sensibly.\",\n \"\\\"If you are looking for numerical metrics I think the following are popular: Price/Earnings (P/E) - You mentioned this very popular one in your question. There are different P/E ratios - forward (essentially an estimate of future earnings by management), trailing, etc.. I think of the P/E as a quick way to grade a company's income statement (i.e: How much does the stock cost verusus the amount of earnings being generated on a per share basis?). Some caution must be taken when looking at the P/E ratio. Earnings can be \\\"\\\"massaged\\\"\\\" by the company. Revenue can be moved between quarters, assets can be depreciated at different rates, residual value of assets can be adjusted, etc.. Knowing this, the P/E ratio alone doesn't help me determine whether or not a stock is cheap. In general, I think an affordable stock is one whose P/E is under 15. Price/Book - I look at the Price/Book as a quick way to grade a company's balance sheet. The book value of a company is the amount of cash that would be left if everything the company owned was sold and all debts paid (i.e. the company's net worth). The cash is then divided amoung the outstanding shares and the Price/Book can be computed. If a company had a price/book under 1.0 then theoretically you could purchase the stock, the company could be liquidated, and you would end up with more money then what you paid for the stock. This ratio attempts to answer: \\\"\\\"How much does the stock cost based on the net worth of the company?\\\"\\\" Again, this ratio can be \\\"\\\"massaged\\\"\\\" by the company. Asset values have to be estimated based on current market values (think about trying to determine how much a company's building is worth) unless, of course, mark-to-market is suspended. This involves some estimating. Again, I don't use this value alone in determing whether or not a stock is cheap. I consider a price/book value under 10 a good number. Cash - I look at growth in the cash balance of a company as a way to grade a company's cash flow statement. Is the cash account growing or not? As they say, \\\"\\\"Cash is King\\\"\\\". This is one measurement that can not be \\\"\\\"massaged\\\"\\\" which is why I like it. The P/E and Price/Book can be \\\"\\\"tuned\\\"\\\" but in the end the company cannot hide a shrinking cash balance. Return Ratios - Return on Equity is a measure of the amount of earnings being generated for a given amount of equity (ROE = earnings/(assets - liabilities)). This attempts to measure how effective the company is at generating earnings with a given amount of equity. There is also Return on Assets which measures earnings returns based on the company's assets. I tend to think an ROE over 15% is a good number. These measurements rely on a company accurately reporting its financial condition. Remember, in the US companies are allowed to falsify accounting reports if approved by the government so be careful. There are others who simply don't follow the rules and report whatever numbers they like without penalty. There are many others. These are just a few of the more popular ones. There are many other considerations to take into account as other posters have pointed out.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The key to evaluating book value is return on equity (ROE). That's net profit divided by book value. The \\\"\\\"value\\\"\\\" of book value is measured by the company's ROE (the higher the better). If the stock is selling below book value, the company's assets aren't earning enough to satisfy most investors. Would you buy a CD that was paying, say two percentage points below the going rate for 100 cents on the dollar? Probably not. You might be willing to buy it only by paying 2% less per year, say 98 cents on the dollar for a one year CD. The two cent discount from \\\"\\\"book value\\\"\\\" is your compensation for a low \\\"\\\"interest\\\"\\\" rate.\\\"\",\n \"There are several camps for stock valuation, and much of it boils down to your investment style. A growth investor will not consider something with a 50x P/E ratio to be overvalued, but a value investor certainly would. I would recommend looking up the Fama-French n-factor model (it was 3-factor, I believe they have released newer papers which introduce other factors), and reading The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham. Graham's methodology is practically canon for many investors, and the methodology focuses on value, while outlining quantitative factors for determining if a stock is under or over valued.\",\n \"\\\"Everything you are doing is fine. Here are a few practical notes in performing this analysis: Find all the primary filing information on EDGAR. For NYSE:MEI, you can use https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000065270&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=exclude&count=40 This is the original 10-K. To evaluate earnings growth you need per share earnings for the past three years and 10,11,12 years ago. You do NOT need diluted earnings (because in the long term share dilution comes out anyway, just like \\\"\\\"normalized\\\"\\\" earnings). The formula is avg(Y_-1+Y_-2+Y_-3) / is avg(Y_-10+Y_-11+Y_-12) Be careful with the pricing rules you are using, the asset one gets complicated. I recommend NOT using the pricing rules #6 and #7 to select the stock. Instead you can use them to set a maximum price for the stock and then you can compare the current price to your maximum price. I am also working to understand these rules and have cited Graham's rules into a checklist and worksheet to find all companies that meet his criteria. Basically my goal is to bottom feed the deals that Warren Buffett is not interested in. If you are interested to invest time into this project, please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vuFmoJDktMYtS64od2HUTV9I351AxvhyjAaC0N3TXrA\\\"\",\n \"\\\"There are two common types of P/E ratio calculations: \\\"\\\"trailing\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"forward\\\"\\\" (and then there are various mixes of the two). Trailing P/E ratios are calculated as [current price] / [trailing 12-month EPS]. An alternative is the Forward P/E ratio, which is based on an estimate of earnings in the coming 12 months. The estimate used is usually called \\\"\\\"consensus\\\"\\\" and, to answer your question, is the average estimate of analysts who cover the stock. Any reputable organization will disclose how they calculate their financials. For example, Reuters uses a trailing ratio (indicated by \\\"\\\"TTM\\\"\\\") on their page for BHP. So, the first reason a PE ratio might not jump on an announcement is it might be forward looking and therefore not very sensitive to the realized earnings. The second reason is that if it is a trailing ratio, some of the annual EPS change is known prior to the annual announcement. For example, on 12/31 a company might report a large drop in annual earnings, but if the bulk of that loss was reported in a previous quarterly report, then the trailing EPS would account partially for it prior to the annual announcement. In this case, I think the first reason is the culprit. The Reuters P/E of nearly 12 is a trailing ratio, so if you see 8 I'd think it must be based on a forward-looking estimate.\\\"\",\n \"It's safe to say that for mature companies, with profits that have been steady, and steadily growing, that a multiple of earnings can come into play. It's not identical between companies or even industries, but for consumer staples, for instance, you'll see a clustering around a certain P/E. On the other hand, there are companies like FaceBook, 18 months ago, trading at 20, now at 70 with a 110 P/E. Did the guys valuing the stock simply get it wrong then or is it wrong now? Contrast this with KO (Coca-cola) a 20 P/E and 3.2% dividend, PG (Proctor and Gamble) 21 P/E, 3% dividend. Funny though, a $1M valuation for $50K in profit may be Shark ridiculous, but a $1B valuation on a $50M company with great prospects, i.e. a pipeline of new products in growing markets, is a steal. Disclosure I have no positions in the mentioned stocks.\",\n \"Imagine a stock where the share price equals the earnings per share. You pay say $100 for a share. In the next year, the company makes $100 per share. They can pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, and you still own the share. Next year, they make $100 per share, pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, plus $100 in your pocket, plus you own the share. Wow. What an incredible investment.\",\n \"It sounds to me like you may not be defining fundamental investing very well, which is why it may seem like it doesn't matter. Fundamental investing means valuing a stock based on your estimate of its future profitability (and thus cash flows and dividends). One way to do this is to look at the multiples you have described. But multiples are inherently backward-looking so for firms with good growth prospects, they can be very poor estimates of future profitability. When you see a firm with ratios way out of whack with other firms, you can conclude that the market thinks that firm has a lot of future growth possibilities. That's all. It could be that the market is overestimating that growth, but you would need more information in order to conclude that. We call Warren Buffet a fundamental investor because he tends to think the market has made a mistake and overvalued many firms with crazy ratios. That may be in many cases, but it doesn't necessarily mean those investors are not using fundamental analysis to come up with their valuations. Fundamental investing is still very much relevant and is probably the primary determinant of stock prices. It's just that fundamental investing encompasses estimating things like future growth and innovation, which is a lot more than just looking at the ratios you have described.\",\n \"\\\"Compounding is just the notion that the current period's growth (or loss) becomes the next period's principal. So, applied to stocks, your beginning value, plus growth (or loss) in value, plus any dividends, becomes the beginning value for the next period. Your value is compounded as you measure the performance of the investment over time. Dividends do not participate in the compounding unless you reinvest them. Compound interest is just the principle of compounding applied to an amount owed, either by you, or to you. You have a balance with which a certain percentage is calculated each period and is added to the balance. The new balance is used to calculate the next period's interest, which again adds to the balance, etc. Obviously, it's better to be on the receiving end of a compound interest calculation than on the paying end. Interest bearing investments, like bonds, pay simple interest. Like stock dividends, you would have to invest the interest in something else in order to get a compounding effect. When using a basic calculator tool for stocks, you would include the expected average annual growth rate plus the expected annual dividend rate as your \\\"\\\"interest\\\"\\\" rate. For bonds you would use the coupon rate plus the expected rate of return on whatever you put the interest into as the \\\"\\\"interest\\\"\\\" rate. Factoring in risk, you would just have to pick a different rate for a simple calculator, or use a more complex tool that allows for more variables over time. Believe it or not, this is where you would start seeing all that calculus homework pay off!\\\"\",\n \"You could use the Gordon growth model implied expected return: P = D/(r-g) --> r = D/P (forward dividend yield) + g (expected dividend growth). But obviously there is no such thing as a good market return proxy.\",\n \"Fund performance at NAV (%) for latest quarter, YTD, and average annual total returns for 1, 3, 5, 10 years. P/E ratio (1 yr. forecast), P/B ratio, Beta, Sharpe ratio, Wtd. avg. market cap, fund assets. I guess I would want to calculate all these things based off of the data that I would be working with. I will assume I am working with daily fund values per share over 10+ years.\",\n \"The upvoted answers fail to note that dividends are the only benefit that investors collectively receive from the companies they invest in. If you purchase a share for $100, and then later sell it for $150, you should note that there is always someone that purchases the same share for $150. So, you get $150 immediately, but somebody else has to pay $150 immediately. So, investors collectively did not receive any money from the transaction. (Yes, share repurchase can be used instead of dividends, but it can be considered really another form of paying dividends.) The fair value of a stock is the discounted value of all future dividends the stock pays. It is so simple! This shows why dividends are important. Somebody might argue that many successful companies like Berkshire Hathaway do not pay dividend. Yes, it is true that they don't pay dividend now but they will eventually have to start paying dividend. If they reinvest potential dividends continuously, they will run out of things to invest in after several hundred years has passed. So, even in this case the value of the stock is still the discounted value of all future dividends. The only difference is that the dividends are not paid now; the companies will start to pay the dividends later when they run out of things to invest in. It is true that in theory a stock could pay an unsustainable amount of dividend that requires financing it with debt. This is obviously not a good solution. If you see a company that pays dividend while at the same time obtaining more cash from taking more debt or from share issues, think twice whether you want to invest in such a company. What you need to do to valuate companies fairly is to estimate the amount of dividend that can sustain the expected growth rate. It is typically about 60% of the earnings, because a part of the earnings needs to be invested in future growth, but the exact figure may vary depending on the company. Furthermore, to valuate a company, you need the expected growth rate of dividends and the discount rate. You simply discount all future dividends, correcting them up by the expected dividend growth rate and correcting them down by the discount rate.\",\n \"\\\"Standard deviation from Wikipedia : In statistics and probability theory, the standard deviation (represented by the Greek letter sigma, σ) shows how much variation or dispersion from the average exists.1 A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean (also called expected value); a high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a large range of values. In the case of stock returns, a lower value would indicate less volatility while a higher value would mean more volatility, which could be interpreted as high much change does the stock's price go through over time. Mean would be interpreted as if all the figures had to be the same, what would they be? So if a stock returns 10% each year for 3 years in a row, then 10% would be the mean or average return. Now, it is worth noting that there are more than a few calculations that may be done to derive a mean. First, there is the straight forward sum and division by the number of elements idea. For example, if the returns by year were 0%, 10%, and 20% then one may take the sum of 30% and divide by 3 to get a simple mean of 10%. However, some people would rather look at a Compound Annual Growth Rate which in this case would mean multiplying the returns together so 1*(1+.1)*(1+.2)=1.1*1.2=1.32 or 32% since there is some compounding here. Now, instead of dividing a cubic root is taken to get approximately 9.7% average annual return that is a bit lower yet if you compound it over 3 years it will get up to 32% as 10% compounded over 3 years would be 33.1% as (1.1)^3=1.331. Sharpe Ratio from Investopedia: A ratio developed by Nobel laureate William F. Sharpe to measure risk-adjusted performance. The Sharpe ratio is calculated by subtracting the risk-free rate - such as that of the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond - from the rate of return for a portfolio and dividing the result by the standard deviation of the portfolio returns. Thus, this is a way to think about given the volatility how much better did the portfolio do than the 10 year bond. R-squared, Alpha and Beta: These are all around the idea of \\\"\\\"linear regression\\\"\\\" modelling. The idea is to take some standard like say the \\\"\\\"S & P 500\\\"\\\" in the case of US stocks and see how well does the portfolio follow this and what if one were to use a linear model are the multipliers and addition components to it. R-squared can be thought of it as a measure as to how good is the fit on a scale of 0 to 1. An S & P 500 index fund may well have an R-squared of 1.00 or 0.99 to the index as it will track it extremely closely while other investments may not follow that well at all. Part of modern portfolio theory would be to have asset classes that move independently of each other and thus would have a lower R-squared so that the movement of the index doesn't indicate how an investment will do. Now, as for alpha and beta, do you remember the formula for a line in slope-intercept form, where y is the portfolio's return and x is the index's return: y=mx+b In this situation m is beta which is the multiple of the return, and b is the alpha or how much additional return one gets without the multiple. Going back to an index fund example, m will be near 1 and b will be near 0 and there isn't anything being done and so the portfolio's return computed based on the index's return is simply y=x. Other mutual funds may try to have a high alpha as this is seen as the risk-free return as there isn't the ups and downs of the market here. Other mutual funds may go for a high beta so that there is volatility for investors to handle.\\\"\",\n \"Sources such as Value Line, or S&P stock reports will show you dividend payout ratios (the American usage. These are the inverse of dividend cover ratios, with dividends being in the numerator, and earnings in the denominator. For instance, if the dividend cover ratio is 2, the dividend payout ratio is 1/2= 50%.\",\n \"There is no formula for calculating a stock price based on the financials of a company. A stock price is set by the market and always has a component built into it that is based on something outside of the current valuation of a company using its financials. Essentially, the stock price of a company per share is whatever the best price it can get on the open market. If you are looking at how to evaluate if a stock is a good value at the current price, then look at some of the answers, but I wanted to answer this based on the way you phrased the question.\",\n \"\\\"The other two folks here are right with the math and such, so I'll just throw some intuition out there for you. The basis for this valuation model is really just tacking the Gordon growth model (which is really just a form of valuing a perpetuity) onto a couple of finite discounted cash flows. So that ending part is the Gordon growth model *at the future point* discounted back to the present. The Gordon growth model uses a \\\"\\\"next period\\\"\\\" dividend for the very simple reason that it's the next one you'd get if you bought the stock. Is that explanation clear enough, or were some of these points not adequately explained in your class? I'll help a bit more, if I can.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The following is only an overview and does not contain all of the in-depth reasons why you should look more deeply. When you look at a stock's financials in depth you are looking for warning signs. These may warn of many things but one important thing to look for is ratio and growth rate manipulation. Using several different accounting methods it is possible to make a final report reflect a PE ratio (or any other ratio) that is inconsistent with the realities of the company's position. Earnings manipulation (in the way that Enron in particular manipulated them) is more widespread than you might think as \\\"\\\"earnings smoothing\\\"\\\" is a common way of keeping earnings in line (or smooth) in a recession or a boom. The reason that PE ratio looks so good could well be because professional investors have avoided the stock as there appear to be \\\"\\\"interesting\\\"\\\" (but legal) accounting decisions that are of concern. Another issue that you don't consider is growth. earnings may look good in the current reporting period but may have been stagnant or falling when considered over multiple periods. The low price may indicate falling revenues, earnings and market share that you would not be aware of when taking only your criteria into account. Understanding a firm will also give you an insight into how future news might affect the company. If the company has a lot of debt and market interest rates rise or fall how will that effect their debt, if another company brings out a competing product next week how will it effect the company? How will it effect their bottom line? How much do they rely on a single product line? How likely is it that their flagship product will become obsolete? How would that effect the company? Looking deeply into a company's financial statements will allow you to see any issues in their accounting practices and give you a feel for how they are preforming over time, it will also let you look into their cost of capital and investment decisions. Looking deeply into their products, company structure and how news will effect them will give you an understanding of potential issues that could threaten your investment before they occur. When looking for value you shouldn't just look at part of the value of the company; you wouldn't just look at sales of a single T-shirt range at Wallmart when deciding whether to invest in them. It is exactly the same argument for why you should look at the whole of the company's state when choosing to invest rather than a few small metrics.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"When presenting negative P/E values, most brokers and equity analysts show them as \\\"\\\"n.m.\\\"\\\", which stands for not meaningful. I have never seen a P/E ratio of 0.\\\"\",\n \"( t2 / t1 ) - 1 Where t2 is the value today, t1 is the value 12 months ago. Be sure to include dividend payments, if there were any, to t2. That will give you total return over 12 months.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["PEG is Price/Earnings to Growth. It is calculated as Price/Earnings/Annual EPS Growth. It represents how good a stock is to buy, factoring in growth of earnings, which P/E does not. Obviously when PEG is lower, a stock is more undervalued, which means that it is a better buy, and more likely to go up. Additional References:","PEG is Price to Earnings Growth. I've forgotten how it's calculated, I just remember that a PEG ratio of 1-2 is attractive by Graham & Dodd standards."],"string":"[\n \"PEG is Price/Earnings to Growth. It is calculated as Price/Earnings/Annual EPS Growth. It represents how good a stock is to buy, factoring in growth of earnings, which P/E does not. Obviously when PEG is lower, a stock is more undervalued, which means that it is a better buy, and more likely to go up. Additional References:\",\n \"PEG is Price to Earnings Growth. I've forgotten how it's calculated, I just remember that a PEG ratio of 1-2 is attractive by Graham & Dodd standards.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":176,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"9737"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Long(100%)-Short(-100%) investment explanation"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["245082","419897","99131"],"string":"[\n \"245082\",\n \"419897\",\n \"99131\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["99131","240215","419897","385220","6701","461062","245082","242524","238474","314478","499877","163670","92267","9082","207325","209359","517873","224069","428786","571016","307155","467926","422467","140371","266480","349974","464132","94117","336018","516227","232880","259706","182272","233379","107045","320450","331850","67107","330041","450760","88223","412223","195506","581514","330900","350925","580400","356388","229026","316037","104789","118039","384015","389189","82294","419138","592665","220795","283982","145816","56422","499811","180006","94062","103362","118633","263955","49794","188531","358586","27401","24563","430406","368543","431870","193502","407941","356819","173745","292609","226496","281533","158363","187401","573077","521644","546637","553105","22916","32290","565417","12542","387886","440805","139914","154665","168639","21608","215118","427300"],"string":"[\n \"99131\",\n \"240215\",\n \"419897\",\n \"385220\",\n \"6701\",\n \"461062\",\n \"245082\",\n \"242524\",\n \"238474\",\n \"314478\",\n \"499877\",\n \"163670\",\n \"92267\",\n \"9082\",\n \"207325\",\n \"209359\",\n \"517873\",\n \"224069\",\n \"428786\",\n \"571016\",\n \"307155\",\n \"467926\",\n \"422467\",\n \"140371\",\n \"266480\",\n \"349974\",\n \"464132\",\n \"94117\",\n \"336018\",\n \"516227\",\n \"232880\",\n \"259706\",\n \"182272\",\n \"233379\",\n \"107045\",\n \"320450\",\n \"331850\",\n \"67107\",\n \"330041\",\n \"450760\",\n \"88223\",\n \"412223\",\n \"195506\",\n \"581514\",\n \"330900\",\n \"350925\",\n \"580400\",\n \"356388\",\n \"229026\",\n \"316037\",\n \"104789\",\n \"118039\",\n \"384015\",\n \"389189\",\n \"82294\",\n \"419138\",\n \"592665\",\n \"220795\",\n \"283982\",\n \"145816\",\n \"56422\",\n \"499811\",\n \"180006\",\n \"94062\",\n \"103362\",\n \"118633\",\n \"263955\",\n \"49794\",\n \"188531\",\n \"358586\",\n \"27401\",\n \"24563\",\n \"430406\",\n \"368543\",\n \"431870\",\n \"193502\",\n \"407941\",\n \"356819\",\n \"173745\",\n \"292609\",\n \"226496\",\n \"281533\",\n \"158363\",\n \"187401\",\n \"573077\",\n \"521644\",\n \"546637\",\n \"553105\",\n \"22916\",\n \"32290\",\n \"565417\",\n \"12542\",\n \"387886\",\n \"440805\",\n \"139914\",\n \"154665\",\n \"168639\",\n \"21608\",\n \"215118\",\n \"427300\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"When portfolio positions are reported in percentages, those percentages are relative to the portfolio's base equity. When you start out, that is equal to the cash you have in a portfolio. Later it's the net equity of the portfolio (i.e., how much money you could withdraw if you were to exit all your positions). If you put $5,000 into your account and are long and short 50%, then you are long $2,500 and short $2,500. If it's 100% and -100%, then long and short $5,000. \"\"Leverage\"\" is often computed gross (as if all positions were long). So if you have 100% and -100%, then your broker may say you are \"\"levered 2 to 1.\"\" That is, your gross exposure is twice as large as your underlying base equity.\"","\"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or \"\"going short.\"\" When you use money to buy shares, it is called \"\"going long.\"\" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything. Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share. You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000. You are both long and short in the stock for $2000. At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds. You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share. Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000. However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares. Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest. Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share. Your long shares have lost $1000 in value. However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares. However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything. Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time. However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame. The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting. Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time. You are only attempting to hedge your bets. And it doesn't work. A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position. And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future. This, however, doesn't really change things much. Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term. Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess. And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain. You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop. You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon. Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short. However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position. And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up. You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain.\"","If you mean the percentages of long/short positions within a mutual fund or ETF, then it's a percentage of the total value of the fund portfolio. In that case, positions of 50% in X, -50% in Y are not the same as 100% in X, -100% in Y. If the long and short positions are both for the same asset, then, as D Stanley mentions, all that matters is the net position. If you're equally long and short X, then the net position is always 0%.","\"Being \"\"long\"\" - expecting the price to go up to make a profit - is a two step process: 1) buy 2) sell Being \"\"short\"\" - expecting the price to go down to make a profit - is a 5 step process: 1) borrow someone else's asset 2) sell their asset on the open market to somebody else a third party 3) pocket the proceeds of the sell for your own account 4) buy an identical asset for a cheaper price 5) return this identical asset to the person that let you borrow their asset if this is successful you keep the difference between 3) and 4)\"","Don't know the name but it means you're long with conviction :P Unlimited gains, maximum loss of 95$ + (8-6) = 97$. Basically You are long @ 107 - -2 from 105 to 95. You would have to be ULTRA bullish to initiate this strategy.","\"For the same reason that people bet on different teams. Some think the Tigers will win, others thing the Yankees will win. They wager $5 on it. One of them wins, the other loses. In a short, one person bets that the stock goes down, the other bets that the stock goes up (or hold). You're basically saying \"\"I think this stock is going to hold it's value or go up. If I thought it would go down, like you do, I would sell it myself right now. Instead, I'll let you have it for a while because when I get it back I think I'll come out on top.\"\"\"","There is no difference. When dealing with short positions, talking about percentages become very tricky since they no longer add up to 100%. What does the 50% in your example mean? Unless there's some base amount (like total amount of the portfolio, then the percentages are meaningless. What matters when dealing with long and short positions is the net total - meaning if you are long 100 shares on one stock trade and short 50 shares on another, then you are net long 50 shares.","Your original example is a little confusing because just shorting for 1k and buying for 1k is 100% leveraged or an infinitive leverage ratio. (and not allowed) Brokerage houses would require you to invest some capital in the trade. One example might be requiring you to hold $100 in the brokerage. This is where the 10:1 ratio comes from. (1000/10) Thus a return of 4.5% on the 1000k bond and no movement on the short position would net you $45 and voila a 45% return on your $100 investment. A 40 to 1 leverage ratio would mean that you would only have to invest $25 to make this trade. Something that no individual investor are allowed to do, but for some reason some financial firms have been able to.","If it helps you to think about it, long is equivalent to betting for the upside and short is equivalent to betting for the downside. If you are long on options, then you expect the value of such options to increase. If you are long an option, then you own the option. If you are short an option, then generally you sold the option. Someone who is short a call (sometimes called the writer or occasionally the issuer) has sold a call option to someone who is now long a call. Buying a call option that will increase in value is itself a form of investment, just as it's investment to buy stock or other instruments hoping they will appreciate in value. An option's value will rise or fall with the underlying, so being long an option is a way to be long in the underlying. Someone can be long in a stock by buying the stock, or long in a call by buying call options in the stock. The long call generally requires less initial investment than buying the underlying, and lets the option-holder avoid the asset downside during the option term. The risk is that the asset may not appreciate to the point that the call option will pay off. In the conceptual sense, a share of stock is a particular right to the profits and assets of a corporation, both in form of dividends and in liquidation. An option is a particular right to the the share of stock. It's just a further way to formalize and subdivide the various property rights that exist in a corporation. If you can buy a piece of paper with particular rights to corporate profits and assets, then you can buy another piece of paper with particular rights to the former piece of paper.","\"And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position. When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here. In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them. If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from. Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest). Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy. Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800. In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question). It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement. Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money. If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a \"\"margin call\"\" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses. And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin). When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go. There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position. You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs.\"","\"The reason for selling a stock \"\"short\"\", is for when you believe the stock value will decrease in the near future. Here is an example: Today Exxon-Mobile stock is selling for $100 / share. You are expecting the price to decrease, so you want to short the stock, which means your broker (i.e. eTrade, etc) allows you to borrow shares without paying money, and those shares are transferred into your account, and then you sell them and receive money for the sale. But you didn't actually own those shares, you only borrowed them, so you need to return the shares to your broker sometime in the future. Let's say you borrow 10 shares @ $100, and you sell them at the market price of $100, you receive $1,000 in your account. But you owe your broker 10 shares, which you need to return sometime in the future. A few days later, the share price has decreased to $80. Now you can buy 10 shares from the market at a total cost of $800. You get 10 shares, and return those shares to your broker. Since you originally took in $1,000, and you just paid out $800, you keep a resulting profit of $200\"","\"Long here does not mean you wish for the underlying stock to increase in value, in fact, as the chart shows, just the opposite is true. \"\"Long means you bought the derivative, and you own the option. The guy that sold it to you is at your mercy, he is short the put, and it's your decision to put the stock to him should it fall in value. The value of the put itself rises with the falling stock price, you are long the put and want the put, itself, to rise in value.\"","The 'normal' series of events when trading a stock is to buy it, time passes, then you sell it. If you believe the stock will drop in price, you can reverse the order, selling shares, waiting for the price drop, then buying them back. During that time you own say, -100 shares, and are 'short' those shares.","This is a gross simplification as there are a few different ways to do this. The principle overall is the same though. To short a stock, you borrow X shares from a third party and sell them at the current price. You now owe the lender X shares but have the proceeds from the sale. If the share price falls you can buy back those shares at the new lower price, return them to the lender and pocket the difference. The risk comes when the share price goes the other way, you now owe the lender the new value of the shares, so have to find some way to cover the difference. This happened a while back when Porsche made a fortune buying shares in Volkswagen from short sellers, and the price unexpectedly rose.","Simple math: 50-25=25, hence decline from 50 to 25 is a 50% decline (you lose half), while an advance from 25 to 50 is 100% gain (you gain 100%, double your 25 to 50). Their point is that if you have more upswings than downswings - you'll gain more on long positions during upswings than on short positions during downswings on average. Again - simple math.","When you short a stock, you can lose an unlimited amount of money if the trade goes against you. If the shorted stock gaps up overnight you can lose more money than you have in your account. The best case is you make 100% if the stock goes to zero. And then you have margin fees on top of that. With long positions, it's the other way around. Your max loss is 100% and your gains are potentially unlimited.","You sold a call, and have a risk if the stock rises. You bought a put and gain when the stock drops. You, sir, have a synthetic short position. It's Case 3 from your linked example: Suppose you own Long Stock and the company is going to report earnings but you’re going on vacation. How can you hedge your position without selling your stock? You can short the stock synthetically with options! Short Stock = Short Call + Long Put They conclude with the net zero remark, because the premise was an existing long position. A long plus this synthetic short results in a neutral set of positions (and the author's ability to go on vacation not concerned about any movement in the stock.)","\"You need to interpret \"\"security\"\" appropriately in Wikipedia's definition. You should think of it as saying: to be long in a put, means the holder of the position owns the put and will profit if the price of the put goes up And what makes the price of the put go up? -- the price of the underlying stock going down.\"","How so? If i sell short, then i make a profit only if the price goes down so i can buy back at a lower price. Yes, but if the price is going up then you would go long instead. Shorting a stock (or any other asset) allows you to profit when the price is going down. Going long allows you to profit when the price is going up. In the opposite cases, you lose money. In order to make a profit in either of those situations, you have to accurately assess which way the price will trade over the period of time you are dealing with. If you make the wrong judgment, then you lose money because you'll either sell for a lower price than you bought (if you went long), or have to buy back at a higher price than you sold for (if you went short). In either case, unless the trader can live with making a short-term loss and recouperating it later, one needs a good stop-loss strategy.","Your strategy of longing company(a) and shorting company(b) is flawed as the prices of company(a) and company(b) can both increase and though you are right , you will lose money due to the shorting strategy. You should not engage in pair trading , which is normally used for arbitrage purposes You should just buy company(a) since you believed its a better company compared to company(b) , its as simple as that","This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.","\"An important point yet to be mentioned is that, with a standard investment, the most you can lose of your £100 stake is £100 (if the company literally goes bust, say). With shorting on the other hand, your downside is not limited to your initial stake. You could \"\"invest\"\" £100, but end up owing £200, £500, or, well, the sky's the limit. Shorting is dangerous even for experienced investors. For a beginner, it is about the worst possible investment strategy I can think of!\"","The problem with rate of return calculation on short positions is, that the commonly used approach assumes an initial investment creating a cash outflow. If we want to apply this approach to short selling, we should look at the trade from another perspective. We buy money and pay for this money with stock. Our investment to buy 50$ in your example is 1 share. When closing the short position, we effectively sell back our money (50$) and receive 2 shares. Our profit on this position is obviously 1 share. Setting this in relation to our investment of 1 share yields a performance of 100% in reality, we do not sell back the entire cash but only the amount needed to get back our investment of 1 share. This is actually comparable to a purchase of stock which we only partially close to get back our invested cash amount and keep the remaining shares as our profit","To expand on the comment made by @NateEldredge, you're looking to take a short position. A short position essentially functions as follows: Here's the rub: you have unlimited loss potential. Maybe you borrow a share and sell it at $10. Maybe in a month you still haven't closed the position and now the share is trading at $1,000. The share lender comes calling for their share and you have to close the position at $1,000 for a loss of $990. Now what if it was $1,000,000 per share, etc. To avoid this unlimited loss risk, you can instead buy a put option contract. In this situation you buy a contract that will expire at some point in the future for the right to sell a share of stock for $x. You get to put that share on to someone else. If the underlying stock price were to instead rise above the put's exercise price, the put will expire worthless — but your loss is limited to the premium paid to acquire the put option contract. There are all sorts of advanced options trades sometimes including taking a short or long position in a security. It's generally not advisable to undertake these sorts of trades until you're very comfortable with the mechanics of the contracts. It's definitely not advisable to take an unhedged short position, either by borrowing someone else's share(s) to sell or selling an option (when you sell the option you take the risk), because of the unlimited loss potential described above.","We struck a deal. I sold an asset to some body on june 1 . However he says, he would pay me any time on or before august 1st . This puts me in a dilemma. What if price goes down by august 1st and i would have to accept lower payment from him.? If price goes up till august 1st, then obviously i make money since ,even though item is sold,price is yet to be fixed between parties. However i know anytime on or before august 1st, i would get paid the price quoted on that particular day. This price could be high in my favor, or low against me. And, this uncertainty is causing me sleepless nights. i went to futures market exchange. My item (sugar,gold,wheat,shares etc..anything). i short sell a futures which just happens to be equivalent to the quantity of my amount i sold to the acquirer of my item. I shorted at $ 100 , with expiry on august 1st. Now fast orward and august 1st comes. price is $ 120 quoted . lets Get paid from the guy who was supposed to pay on or before august 1st. He pays 120 $. his bad luck, he should have paid us 100 $ on june 1st instead of waiting for august 1st . His judgement of price movement faulted. WE earned 20 $ extra than we expected to earn on june 1st (100$) . However the futures short of 100$ is now 120$ and you must exit your position by purchasing it at back. sell at 100$ and buy at 120$ = loss of 20$ . Thus 20 $ gained from selling item is forwarded to exchange . Thus we had hedged our position on june 1st and exit the hedge by august 1st. i hope this helps","\"It will be helpful to establish some definitions: Long \"\"Long\"\" is financial slang for \"\"to have possession of an asset\"\", legally, and \"\"to debit an asset\"\", financially. Short \"\"Short\"\" is financial slang for \"\"to be liable for an asset\"\", legally, and \"\"to credit an asset\"\", financially. Option \"\"Option\"\" is financial slang for \"\"to have the right but not obligation to force the liable to perform action\"\", legally. Without limits and when taken to absurdity, this can mean slavery. For equities, this means \"\"to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy/sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\" for a call/put, respectively. By the above, a call option is \"\"the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\". By the definition of \"\"long\"\" above, a call option is actually not long the underlying. By the definitions above and with a narrower scope applied to equities & indexes, to be \"\"long\"\" the call means \"\"to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\" while to be \"\"short\"\" the call means \"\"to have the obligation to be forced to sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\". So, to be \"\"long\"\" a call means to simply own the call.\"","ELI5 - you sell something that you don't own with the expectation that it will go down, and then you buy it back when it goes down in order to lock in profit. You are charged fees to borrow the stock from someone else who currently owns it, and you also run the risk of the market going against you by going up.","This can be best explained with an example. Bob thinks the price of a stock that Alice has is going to go down by the end of the week, so he borrows a share at $25 from Alice. The current price of the shares are $25 per share. Bob immediately sells the shares to Charlie for $25, it is fair, it is the current market price. A week goes by, and the price does fall to $20. Bob buys a share from David at $20. This is fair, it is the current market value. Then Bob gives the share back to Alice to settle what he borrowed from her, one share. Now, in reality, there is interest charged be Alice on the borrowed value, but to keep it simple, we'll say she was a friend and it was a zero interest loan. So then Bob was able to sell something he didn't own for $25 and return it spending $20 to buy it, settling his loan and making $5 in the transaction. It is the selling to Charlie and buying from David (or even Charlie later, if he decided to dump the shares), without having invested any of your own money that earns the profit.","\"Learn something new every day... I found this interesting and thought I'd throw my 2c in. Good description (I hope) from Short Selling: What is Short Selling First, let's describe what short selling means when you purchase shares of stock. In purchasing stocks, you buy a piece of ownership in the company. You buy/sell stock to gain/sell ownership of a company. When an investor goes long on an investment, it means that he or she has bought a stock believing its price will rise in the future. Conversely, when an investor goes short, he or she is anticipating a decrease in share price. Short selling is the selling of a stock that the seller doesn't own. More specifically, a short sale is the sale of a security that isn't owned by the seller, but that is promised to be delivered. Still with us? Here's the skinny: when you short sell a stock, your broker will lend it to you. The stock will come from the brokerage's own inventory, from another one of the firm's customers, or from another brokerage firm. The shares are sold and the proceeds are credited to your account. Sooner or later, you must \"\"close\"\" the short by buying back the same number of shares (called covering) and returning them to your broker. If the price drops, you can buy back the stock at the lower price and make a profit on the difference. If the price of the stock rises, you have to buy it back at the higher price, and you lose money. So what happened? The Plan The Reality Lesson I never understood what \"\"Shorting a stock\"\" meant until today. Seems a bit risky for my blood, but I would assume this is an extreme example of what can go wrong. This guy literally chose the wrong time to short a stock that was, in all visible aspects, on the decline. How often does a Large Company or Individual buy stock on the decline... and send that stock soaring? How often does a stock go up 100% in 24 hours? 600%? Another example is recently when Oprah bought 10% of Weight Watchers and caused the stock to soar %105 in 24 hours. You would have rued the day you shorted that stock - on that particular day - if you believed enough to \"\"gamble\"\" on it going down in price.\"","(buy these when you expect the price to go down) You 'lock in' the price you can sell at. If the price goes down below the 'locked-in' price, you buy at the new low price and sell at the higher 'locked-in' price; make money. (buy these when you expect the price to go up) You 'lock in' the price you can buy at. If the price goes up above the 'locked-in' price, you buy at the 'locked-in' price and sell at the new higher price, make money.","A long put - you have a small initial cost (the option premium) but profit as the stock goes down. You have no additional risk if the shock rises, even a lot. Short a stock - you gain if the stock drops, but have unlimited risk if it rises, the call mitigates this, by capping that rising stock risk. The profit/loss graph looks similar to the long put when you hold both the short position and the long call. You might consider producing a graph or spreadsheet to compare positions. You can easily sketch put, call, long stock, short stock, and study how combinations of positions can synthetically look like other positions. Often, when a stock has no shares to short, the synthetic short can help you put your stock position in place.","\"A simple way to ask the question might be to say \"\"why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Why is borrowing someone else's shares necessary to make the concept a viable one? Why isn't it just the inverse of 'going long'?\"\" A simple way to think about it is this: to make money by trading something, you must buy it for less than you sell it for. This applies to stocks like anything else. If you believe the price will go up, then you can buy them first and sell them later for a higher price. But if you believe the price will go down, the only way to buy low and sell high is to sell first and buy later. If you buy the stock and it goes down, any sale you make will lose you money. I'm still not sure I fully understand the point of your example, but one thing to note is that in both cases (i.e., whether you buy the share back at the end or not), you lost money. You say that you \"\"made $5 on the share price dropping\"\", but that isn't true at all: you can see in your example that your final account balance is negative in both cases. You paid $20 for the shares but only got $15 back; you lost $5 (or, in the other version of your example, paid $20 and got back $5 plus the depreciated shares). If you had bought the shares for $20 and sold them for, say, $25, then your account would end up with a positive $5 balance; that is what a gain would look like. But you can't achieve that if you buy the shares for $20 and later sell them for less. At a guess, you seem to be confusing the concept of making a profit with the concept of cutting your losses. It is true that if you buy the shares for $20 and sell them for $15, you lose only $5, whereas if you buy them for $20 and sell for $10, you lose the larger amount of $10. But those are both losses. Selling \"\"early\"\" as the price goes down doesn't make you any money; it just stops you from losing more money than you would if you sold later.\"","Here's a simple example for a put, from both sides. Assume XYZ stock trades at $200 right now. Let's say John writes a $190 out of the money put on XYZ stock and sells this put to Abby for the premium, which is say $5. Assume the strike date, or date of settlement, is 6 months from now. Thus Abby is long one put option and John is short one put option (the writer of the option is short the option). On settlement date, let's assume two different scenarios: (1) If the price of the stock decreases by $50, then the put that Abby bought is 'in the money'. Abby's profit can be calculated as being strike price 190 - current stock price 150 - premium paid 5 = $35 So not including any transaction fees, that is a $35 dollar return on a $5 investment. (2) If the price of the stock increases by $50, then the put that Abby bought is worthless and her loss was 100%, or her entire $5 premium. For John, he made $5 in 6 months (in reality you need collateral and good credit to be able to write sizable option positions).","\"Selling short is simply by definition the selling, then later re-buying of stock you don't initially own. Say you tally your entire portfolio balance: the quantity of each stock you own, and your cash assets. Let's call this your \"\"initial position\"\". We define \"\"profit\"\" as any increase in assets, relative to this initial position. If you know a particular stock will go down, you can realize a profit by selling some of that stock, waiting for the price to go down, then buying it back. In the end you will have returned to your initial position, except you will have more cash. If you sell 10 shares of a stock valued at £1.50, then buy them back at £1.00, you will make a £5.00 profit while having otherwise returned to your previous position. If you do the same, but you initially owned 1000 shares, sold just 10 of those, then bought 10 back, that's still a profit of £5.00. Selling short is doing the same thing, but with an initial and ending balance of 0 shares. If you initially own 0 shares, sell 10, then buy 10 back, you return to your initial position (0 shares) plus a profit of £5.00. (And in practice you must also pay a borrowing fee to do this.) The advantage of selling short is it can be done with any stock, not just those currently owned.\"","Rich's answer captures the basic essence of short selling with example. I'd like to add these additional points: You typically need a specially-privileged brokerage account to perform short selling. If you didn't request short selling when you opened your account, odds are good you don't have it, and that's good because it's not something most people should ever consider doing. Short selling is an advanced trading strategy. Be sure you truly grok selling short before doing it. Consider that when buying stock (a.k.a. going long or taking a long position, in contrast to short) then your potential loss as a buyer is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero) and your potential gain unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're lucky!) Whereas, with short selling, it's reversed: Your loss can be unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're unlucky!) and your potential gain is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero.) The proceeds you receive from a short sale – and then some – need to stay in your account to offset the short position. Brokers require this. Typically, margin equivalent to 150% the market value of the shares sold short must be maintained in the account while the short position is open. The owner of the borrowed shares is still expecting his dividends, if any. You are responsible for covering the cost of those dividends out of your own pocket. To close or cover your short position, you initiate a buy to cover. This is simply a buy order with the intention that it will close out your matching short position. You may be forced to cover your short position before you want to and when it is to your disadvantage! Even if you have sufficient margin available to cover your short, there are cases when lenders need their shares back. If too many short sellers are forced to close out positions at the same time, they push up demand for the stock, increasing price and deepening their losses. When this happens, it's called a short squeeze. In the eyes of the public who mostly go long buying stock, short sellers are often reviled. However, some people and many short sellers believe they are providing balance to the market and preventing it sometimes from getting ahead of itself. [Disambiguation: A short sale in the stock market is not related to the real estate concept of a short sale, which is when a property owner sells his property for less than he owes the bank.] Additional references:","You can't make money on the way down if it was your money that bought the shares when the market was up. When you sell short, borrowing lets you tap into the value without paying for it. That way, when the price (hopefully) drops you profit from the difference. In your example, if you hadn't paid the £20 in the first place, then you would actually be up £5. But since you started with £20, you still show loss. As others said, borrowing is the definition of selling short. It is also simply the only way the math works. Of course, there is a large risk you must assume to enjoy benefiting from something you do not own!","In order to compare the two, you need to compare your entire portfolio, which is not just how much money you have, but how much stock. In both scenarios, you start with (at least, but let's assume) £20 and 0 stock. In your scenario, you buy 10 shares, leaving you with £0 and 10 shares. You then sell it at £1.50/share to cut your losses, leaving you with £15 and 0 shares. That concludes the first transaction with a net loss of £5. In a second transaction, you then buy 10 shares again at £1/share, leaving you with £5 and 10 shares. You are still down £15 from the start, but you also still have 10 shares. Any further profit or loss depends on what you can get for those 10 shares in the future. In a short sale, you borrow 10 shares and sell them, leaving you with £40 (your initial £20 plus what you just made on the short sale) and -10 shares of stock. At the end of the contract, you must buy 10 shares to return them; you are able to do so at £1.50/share, leaving you with £25 and 0 shares. At this point, your exposure to the stock is complete, and you have a net gain of £5.","\"You didn't win in case B. Borrowing shares and then selling them is known as \"\"selling short\"\". You received $2000 when you sold short 100 shares at $20. You spent $1000 to buy them back at $10, so you come out $1000 ahead on that deal. But at the same time, the 100 shares you already owned have declined in value from $20 to $10, so you are down $1000 on that deal. So you've simply broken even, and you are still out the interest and transaction fees. In effect, a short sale allows you to sell shares you don't own. But if you do already own them, then the effect is the same as if you just sold your own shares. This makes it easier to see that this is just a complicated and expensive way of accomplishing nothing at all.\"","\"First, you are not exactly \"\"giving\"\" the brokerage $2000. That money is the margin requirement to protect them in the case the stock price rises. If you short 200 shares as in your example and they are holding $6000 from you then they are protected in the event of the stock price increasing to $30/share. Sometime before it gets there the brokerage will require you to deposit more money or they will cover your position by repurchasing the shares for your account. The way you make money on the short sale is if the stock price declines. It is a buy low sell high idea but in reverse. If you believe that prices are going to drop then you could sell now when it is high and buy back later when it is lower. In your example, you are selling 200 shares at $20 and later, buying those at $19. Thus, your profit is $200, not counting any interest or fees you have paid. It's a bit confusing because you are selling something you'll buy in the future. Selling short is usually considered quite risky as your gain is limited to the amount that you sold at initially (if I sell at $20/share the most I can make is if the stock declines to $0). Your potential to lose is unlimited in theory. There is no limit to how high the stock could go in theory so I could end up buying it back at an infinitely high price. Neither of these extremes are likely but they do show the limits of your potential gain and loss. I used $20/share for simplicity assuming you are shorting with a market order vs a limit order. If you are shorting it would be better for you to sell at 20 instead of 19 anyway. If someone says I would like to give you $20 for that item you are selling you aren't likely to tell them \"\"no, I'd really only like $19 for it\"\"\"","\"I know its not legal to have open long and short position on specific security (on two stock exchanges - NSE/BSE) There is nothing illegal about it. There are prescribed ways on how this is addressed. In Cash Segment / Intra Day trades: One can short sell a security. If by end of day he does not buy the security; it goes into Auction. The said security is purchased on your behalf. Any profit or loss arising out of this is charged to you. Similarly one can buy a security; if one does not pay the amount by end of day; it would go into auction and sold. Any profit or loss arising out of this is charged to you. If you short sell a security on one exchange; you have to buy it on same exchange. If you buy on other exchange; it will not be adjusted against this short position. Also is it legal to have long position on stock and short its derivative (future/option)? There are no restrictions. Edit: @yety Party A shorts 10 shares of HDFC today in Intra-Day Cash Segment purchased by Party B. Rather than buying back 10 shares or allowing it to go into auction... Party A borrows 10 HDFC Shares from \"\"X\"\" via SLB for a period of say 6 months [1 month to 1 year]. This is recorded as Party A obligation to \"\"X\"\". These 10 borrowed shares are transferred to Party B. So Party \"\"X\"\" doesn't have any HDFC shares at this point in time. However in exchange, Party X receives fees for borrowing from Party A. If there is dividend, are declared, Company pays Party B. However SLB recovers identical amount from Party A and pays Party X. If there is 1:1 split, now party A owes Party X 20 HDFC Shares. On maturity [after 6 months], Party A has to buy these from market and given back the borrowed shares to Party X. If there are some other corporate actions, i.e. mergers / amalgamations ... the obligation of Party A to Party X is closed immediately and position settled. Of course there are provisions whereby party A can pay back the shares earlier or party X can ask for shares earlier and there are rules/trades/mechanisms to facilitate this.\"","Correct, long/short strategies should have zero beta with the stock market. But this is intentional, and investors in true *hedged* funds seek this *portable alpha* as a complement to their long-only sleeve in the portfolio. My question is: if for example, you are long low P/E stocks, and a short high P/E stocks what *creates* the alpha? Your portfolio should have zero beta. I believe in the long-run this long/short P/E strategy [generates ~300 basis points of return per year (un-levered)](http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/data_library.html). Is not reasonable to assume if returns from long only investing is driven by beta (and investors use 6% to 12% discount rates in their valuation models), then an an un-levered long/short strategy should always under-perform a long-only strategy in the long-run. The purpose of long/short strategies is not to beat long-only investing, it is to create [portable alpha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_alpha). In fact, at a high level of abstraction, the *average* long/short strategy should not earn a return greater than the risk free rate in the long-run because the strategy has zero beta.","A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.","\"Without going into minor details, an FX transaction works essentially like this. Let's assume you have SEK 100 on your account. If you buy 100 USD/RUB at 1.00, then that transaction creates a positive cash balance on your account of USD 100 and a negative cash balance (an overdraft) of RUB 100. So right after the transaction (assuming there is not transaction cost), the \"\"net equity\"\" of your account is: 100 SEK + 100 USD - 100 RUB = 100 + 100 - 100 = 100 SEK. Let's say that, the day after, the RUB has gone down by 10% and the RUB 100 is now worth SEK 90 only. Your new equity is: 100 SEK + 100 USD - 100 RUB = 100 + 100 - 90 = 110 SEK and you've made 10%(*): congrats! Had you instead bought 100 SEK/RUB, the result would have been the same (assuming the USD/SEK rate constant). In practice the USD/SEK rate would probably not be constant and you would need to also account for: (*) in your example, the USD/RUB has gone up 10% but the RUB has gone down 9.09%, hence the result you find. In my example, the RUB has gone down 10% (i.e. the USD has gone up 11%).\"","In this type of strategy profit is made when the shares go down as your main position is the short trade of the common stock. The convertible instruments will tend to move in about the same direction as the underlying (what it can be converted to) but less violently as they are traded less (lower volatility and lower volume in the market on both sides), however, they are not being used to make a profit so much as to hedge against the stock going up. Since both the bonds and the preference shares are higher on the list to be repaid if the company declares bankruptcy and the bonds pay out a fixed amount of interest as well, both also help protect against problems that may occur with a long position in the common stock. Essentially the plan with this strategy is to earn fixed income on the bonds whilst the stock price drops and then to sell both the bonds and buy the stock back on the market to cover the short position. If the prediction that the stock will fall is wrong then you are still earning fixed income on the debt and are able to convert it into stock at the higher price to cover the short sale eliminating, or reducing, the loss made on the short sale. Effectively the profit here is made on the spread between the price of the bond, accounting for the conversion price, and the price of the stock and that fixed income is less volatile (except usually in the junk market) than stock.","\"You sold $10,000 worth of stock so that money is essentially yours. However, you sold this stock without actually owning any which means that you, through your broker, are currently borrowing shares amounting to (at the time of your sale) $10,000 from someone who actually owns this stock. You will be paying this person interest for the privilege of borrowing their shares, the exact amount charged varies wildly and depends on factors such as short interest in the stock (loads of people want to go short = shareholders can charge high interest) etc. If I remember correctly hovering over the \"\"position\"\" column in your portfolio in the IB Workstation should give you information about the interest rate charged. You will have to buy back these shares from the lender at some point which is why the $10k isn't just \"\"free money.\"\" If the stock has gone up in price in the meantime you are going to be paying more than the $10k you got for the same amount of shares and vice versa.\"","A long straddle using equity would be more akin to buying a triple leveraged ETF and an inverse triple leveraged ETF, only because one side will approach zero while the other can theoretically increase to infinity, in a short time span before time decay hits in. The reason your analogy fails is because the delta is 1.0 on both sides of your trade. At the money options, a necessary requirement for a straddle, have a delta of .5 There is an options strategy that uses in the money calls and puts with a delta closer to 1.0 to create an in the money strangle. I'm not sure if it is more similar to your strategy, an analogous options strategy would be better than yours as it would not share the potential for a margin call.","The Explanation is correct. The Traders buys the 1st call and profits linearly form 40$ onwards. At at 45 the short call kick in and neutralizes any further profit on the first call.","\"Derivatives derive their value from underlying assets. This is expressed by the obligation of at least one counterparty to trade with the other counterparty in the future. These can take on as many combinations as one can dream up as it is a matter of contract. For futures, where two parties are obligated to trade at a specific price at a specific date in the future (one buyer, one seller), if you \"\"short\"\" a future, you have entered into a contract to sell the underlying at the time specified. If the price of the future moves against you (goes up), you will have to sell at a loss. The bigger the move, the greater the loss. You go ahead and pay this as well as a little extra to be sure that you satisfy what you owe due to the future. This satisfaction is called margin. If there weren't margin, people could take huge losses on their derivative bets, not pay, and disrupt the markets. Making sure that the money that will trade is already there makes the markets run smoothly. It's the same for shorting stocks where you borrow the stock, sell it, and wait. You have to leave the money with the broker as well as deposit a little extra to be sure you can make good if the market moves to a large degree against you.\"","\"For sake of simplicity, say the Euro is trading at $1.25. You have leveraged control of $100,000 given the 100x leverage. If you are bullish on the Euro, you are long 80,000 euros. For every 1% it rises, you gain $1000. If it drops by the same 1%, you are wiped out, you lost your $1000. With the contracts I am familiar with, there is a minimum margin, and your account is \"\"marked to market\"\" each night. If your positive balance drops too low, you get the margin call. It's a zero sum game, for every dollar you make, there's a guy on the other side of the trade. Odds are he's doing this full time and is smarter than you.\"","You are long the puts. By exercising them you force the underlying stock to be bought from you at your strike price. Let's say your strike it $100 and the stock is currently $25. Buy 100 shares and exercise 1 (bought/long) put. That gives you $7500 of new money, so do the previous sentence over again in as many 'units' as you can.","\"So, the term \"\"ready market\"\" simply means that a market exists in which there are legitimate buy/sell offers, meaning there are investors willing to own or trade in the security. A \"\"spot market\"\" means that the security/commodity is being delivered immediately, rather at some predetermined date in the future (hence the term \"\"futures market\"\"). So if you buy oil on the spot market, you'd better be prepared to take immediate delivery, where as when you buy a futures contract, the transaction doesn't happen until some later date. The advantage for futures contract sellers is the ability to lock in the price of what they're selling as a hedge against the possibility of a price drop between now and when they can/will deliver the commodity. In other words, a farmer can pre-sell his grain at a set price for some future delivery date so he can know what he's going to get regardless of the price of grain at the time he delivers it. The downside to the farmer is that if grain prices rise higher than what he sold them for as futures contracts then he loses that additional money. That's the advantage to the buyer, who expects the price to rise so he can resell what he bought from the farmer at a profit. When you trade on margin, you're basically borrowing the money to make a trade, whether you're trading long (buying) or short (selling) on a security. It isn't uncommon for traders to pledge securities they already own as collateral for a margin account, and if they are unable to cover a margin call then those securities can be liquidated or confiscated to satisfy the debt. There still may even be a balance due after such a liquidation if the pledged securities don't cover the margin call. Most of the time you pay a fee (or interest rate) on whatever you borrow on margin, just like taking out a bank loan, so if you're going to trade on margin, you have to include those costs in your calculations as to what you need to earn from your investment to make a profit. When I short trade, I'm selling something I don't own in the expectation I can buy it back later at a lower price and keep the difference. For instance, if I think Apple shares are going to take a steep drop at some point soon, I can short them. So imagine I short-sell 1000 shares of AAPL at the current price of $112. That means my brokerage account is credited with the proceeds of the sale ($112,000), and I now owe my broker 1000 shares of AAPL stock. If the stock drops to $100 and I \"\"cover my short\"\" (buy the shares back to repay the 1000 I borrowed) then I pay $100,000 for them and give them to my broker. I keep the difference ($12,000) between what I sold them for and what I paid to buy them back, minus any brokerage fees and fees the broker may charge me for short-selling. In conclusion, a margin trade is using someone else's money to make a trade, whether it's to buy more or to sell short. A short trade is selling shares I don't even own because I think I can make money in the process. I hope this helps.\"","why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Because if you sell shares out of your own portfolio, by definition, you are not selling short at all. If you sell something you own (and deliver it) - then there is no short involved. A short is defined as a net negative position - i.e. you sell shares you do not have. Selling shares you own is selling shares you own - no short involved. You must borrow the shares for a short because in the stock market, you must DELIVER. You can not deliver shares you do not own. The stock market does not work on promises - the person who bought the shares expects ownership of them with all rights that gives them. So you borrow them to deliver them, then return them when you buy them back.","http://www.investopedia.com/university/shortselling/shortselling1.asp 'Therein lies the major risk of short selling, the fear of infinite losses. While the maximum loss for a long investor is the amount invested in a security, the maximum loss for a short seller is theoretically infinite, since there is no upper limit to a stock’s price appreciation. This risk is compounded by the fact that during a short squeeze or buy-in...' Never have shorted a stock. Too intimidated by that!","I'm not sure how detailed of an explanation you're hoping for. Bear ETFs basically just short sell the underlying asset. The more highly levered ETFs will also use a combination of options, futures, and swaps to achieve their target leverage. The inversion isn't perfect though, and their target is usually just to close inverse to the *daily* return of their underlying asset. If you feel like reading, [here is an example.](http://direxioninvestments.onlineprospectus.net/DirexionInvestments//SPXS/index.html?open=Summary%20Prospectus) You can find the investment overview on page 4.","Variance of a single asset is defined as follows: σ2 = Σi(Xi - μ)2 where Xi's represent all the possible final market values of your asset and μ represents the mean of all such market values. The portfolio's variance is defined as σp2 = Σiwi2σi2 where, σp is the portfolio's variance, and wi stands for the weight of the ith asset. Now, if you include the borrowing in your portfolio, that would classify as technically shorting at the borrowing rate. Thus, this weight would (by the virtue of being negative) increase all other weights. Moreover, the variance of this is likely to be zero (assuming fixed borrowing rates). Thus, weights of risky assets rise and the investor's portfolio's variance will go up. Also see, CML at wikipedia.","Leverage is when you borrow in order to invest. Mind you, most people aren't going to just give you money to gamble on the stock market completely unsecured; rather, you deposit (say) $10,000 and buy a stock... and then you have $10k in assets which you can borrow against, so you can buy another $10,000 of that stock. Now if the stock goes up you'll make twice the gain (2x leverage). However, if it goes down, you'll lose twice as much as well. If the value of your stock falls, your line of credit will be reduced as well; in this case, since you used all your credit and are now over your limit, your broker will issue a margin call (they will demand a deposit of additional funds, or they will sell some of your stock at their discretion). This protects you from owing more than you invested, but it's still sometimes possible (for instance, if a company spontaneously goes bankrupt and becomes worthless, and your stock becomes worthless). There are also things like leveraged index funds and commodity funds which aim to return some multiple of the market's earnings. These are designed for intraday trading, though, and usually end up underperforming significantly over the long term. [edit] Mose people who accept borrowed funds should generally accept real cash as well. However, if you're trying to short sell, i.e. borrow shares and sell them (in the hopes you can get them back cheaper later after the stock falls) you will need a margin line of credit to do so as well. [edit 2] clarified margin calls","The paragraph before on page 115 states: Scaling corresponds to having a weight in the long and short legs that is different from one and varies over time, but the strategy is still self-financing. Meaning that the long and short positions are no longer equal due to weighting one side more highly than the other. The weighting of one side (either long or short) is the number between 0.2 and 2 that you mention.","For long periods of time a short ETF's performance will not match the negative of the long ETF, e.g. funding costs and the fact that they 'only' match daily returns will result in a suboptimal performance. If possible use other derivatives like a put on a long gold etf (fgriglesnickerseven)","\"He sold at 25 cents per pound and then as the price rises, the cash he has will buy less and less which could trigger a margin call as you are missing the \"\"short\"\" part of his position which is rather important here. From Investopedia: A margin account also allows your brokerage firm to liquidate your position if the likelihood that you will return what you've borrowed diminishes. This is part of the agreement that is signed when the margin account is created. From the broker's perspective, this increases the likelihood that you will return the shares before losses become too large and you become unable to return the shares. If you sold at 25 cents per pound and the price goes up, at some point you may be forced to buy to cover the position as brokers don't like to lose their money. As another example of a short going bad, \"\"Devastated\"\" Trader Crushed By Soaring Biotech, Starts Online Begging Campaign To Fund $106,000 Margin Call notes in part: However where this story gets abusrdly entertaining, or woefully tragic, depending on one's perspective, is that one trader, Joe Campbell, was on the wrong side of last night's massive surge. As the RutRho blog, which noticed it first explains, a \"\"dummy\"\" E-trader, Joe Campbell, decided to go $35,000 short KBIO \"\"and now owes $ETFC a wonderful $106K.\"\"\"","I will just try to come up with a totally made up example, that should explain the dynamics of the hedge. Consider this (completely made up) relationship between USD, EUR and Gold: Now lets say you are a european wanting to by 20 grams of Gold with EUR. Equally lets say some american by 20 grams of Gold with USD. Their investment will have the following values: See how the europeans return is -15.0% while the american only has a -9.4% return? Now lets consider that the european are aware that his currency may be against him with this investment, so he decides to hedge his currency. He now enters a currency-swap contract with another person who has the opposite view, locking in his EUR/USD at t2 to be the same as at t0. He now goes ahead and buys gold in USD, knowing that he needs to convert it to EUR in the end - but he has fixed his interestrate, so that doesn't worry him. Now let's take a look at the investment: See how the european now suddenly has the same return as the American of -9.4% instead of -15.0% ? It is hard in real life to create a perfect hedge, therefore you will most often see that the are not totally the same, as per Victors answer - but they do come rather close.","Longing the short ETF will give you better returns than shorting the long etf. The reason is that as the price gets the smaller the absolute price change gets a lot smaller. So you would rather have upward price exposure than downward. A good case is SPXU and UPRO","Shorting Stocks: Borrowing the shares to sell now. Then buying them back when the price drops. Risk: If you are wrong the stock can go up. And if there are a lot of people shorting the stock you can get stuck in a short squeeze. That means that so many people need to buy the stock to return the ones they borrowed that the price goes up even further and faster. Also whoever you borrowed the stock from will often make the decision to sell for you. Put options. Risk: Put values don't always drop when the underlying price of the stock drops. This is because when the stock drops volatility goes up. And volatility can raise the value of an option. And you need to check each stock for whether or not these options are available. finviz lists whether a stock is optional & shortable or not. And for shorting you also need to find a broker that owns shares that they are willing to lend out.","Basic arbitrage is the (near-)simultaneous purchasing and selling of things that are convertible. The classic example is the international trading of equities. If someone in London wants to purchase a hundred shares of Shell for 40 GBP ea. and someone in New York wants to sell you a hundred shares of Shell for 61 USD ea., you can buy the shares from the guy in New York, sell them to the guy in London and convert your GBP back in to USD for a profit of $41.60 minus fees. Now, if after you buy the shares in New York, the price in London goes down, you'll be left holding 100 shares of Shell that you don't want. So instead you should borrow 100 shares in London and sell them at the exact same time that you buy the shares in New York, thus keeping your net position at 0. In fact, you should also borrow 4000GBP and convert them to USD at the same time, so that exchange rate changes don't get you.","200% margin for a short sale is outrageous. You should only need to put up 150% margin, of which 50% is your money, and the 100% is the proceeds. With $100 of your money, you should be able to buy $100 of GOOG and short $100 of PNQI.","Levarge in simple terms is how of your own money to how much of borrowed money. So in 2008 Typical leverage ratios were Investment Banks 30:1 means that for every 1 Unit of Banks money [shareholders capital/ long term debts] there was 30 Units of borrowed money [from deposits/for other institutions/etc]. This is a very unstable situation as typically say you lent out 31 to someone else, half way through repayments, the depositors and other lends are asking you 30 back. You are sunk. Now lets say if you lent 31 to some one, but 30 was your moeny and 1 was from deposits/etc. Then you can anytime more easily pay back the 1 to the depositor. In day trading, usually one squares away the position the same day or within a short period. Hence say you want to buy something worth 1000 in the morning and are selling it say the same day. You are expecting the price to by 1005 and a gain 5. Now when you buy via your broker/trader, you may not be required to pay 1000. Normally one just needs to pay a margin money, typically 10% [varies from market to market, country to country]. So in the first case if you put 1000 and get by 5, you made a profit of 0.5%. However if you were to pay only 10 as margin money [rest 990 is assumed loan from your broker]. You sell at 1005, the broker deducts his 990, and you get 15. So technically on 10 you have made 5 more, ie 50% returns. So this is leveraging of 10:1. If say your broker allowed only 5% margin money, then you just need to pay 5 for the 1000 trade, get back 5. You have made a 100% profit, but the leveraging is 20:1. Now lets say at this high leveraging when you are selling you get only 990. So you still owe the broker 5, if you can't pay-up and if lot of other such people can't pay-up, then the broker will also go bankrupt and there is a huge risk. Hence although leveraging helps in quite a few cases, there is always an associated risk when things go wrong badly.","\"There are three ways to do this. So far the answers posted have only mentioned two. The three ways are: Selling short means that you borrow stock from your broker and sell it with the intent of buying it back later to repay the loan. As others have noted, this has unlimited potential losses and limited potential gains. Your profit or loss will go $1:$1 with the movement of the price of the stock. Buying a put option gives you the right to sell the stock at a later date on a price that you choose now. You pay a premium to have this right, and if the stock moves against you, you won't exercise your option and will lose the premium. Options move non-linearly with the price of the stock, especially when the expiration is far in the future. They probably are not for a beginner, although they can be powerful if used properly. The third option is a synthetic short position. You form this by simultaneously buying a put option and selling short a call option, both at the same strike price. This has a risk profile that is very much like the selling the stock short, but you can accomplish it entirely with stock options. Because you're both buying an selling, in theory you might even collect a small net premium when you open. You might ask why you'd do this given that you could just sell the stock short, which certainly seems simpler. One reason is that it is not always possible to sell the stock short. Recall that you have to borrow shares from your broker to sell short. When many people want to short the stock, brokers will run out of shares to loan. The stock is then said to be \"\"hard to borrow,\"\" which effectively prevents further short selling of the stock. In this case the synthetic short is still potentially possible.\"","\"This is basically martingale, which there is a lot of research on. Basically in bets that have positive expected value such as inflation hedged assets this works better over the long term, than bets that have negative expected value such as table games at casinos. But remember, whatever your analysis is: The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. Things that can disrupt your solvency are things such as options expiration, limitations of a company's ability to stay afloat, limitations in a company's ability to stay listed on an exchange, limitations on your borrowings and interest payments, a finite amount of capital you can ever acquire (which means there is a limited amount of times you can double down). Best to get out of the losers and free up capital for the winners. If your \"\"trade\"\" turned into an \"\"investment\"\", ditch it. Don't get married to positions.\"","I'm just began playing in the stock market. I assume you mean that you're not using real money, but rather you have an account with a stock simulator like the one Investopedia offers. I am hopeful that's the case due to the high level of risk involved in short selling like you're describing. Here is another post about short selling that expands a bit on that point. To learn much more about the ins and outs of short selling I will point again to Investopedia. I swear I don't work for them, but they do have a great short selling tutorial. When you short sell a stock you are borrowing the stock from your broker. (The broker typically uses stock held by one or more of his clients to cover the loan.) Since it's basically a loan you pay interest. Of course the longer you hold it the more interest you pay. Also, as Joe mentioned there are scenarios in which you may be forced to buy the stock (at a higher price than you sold it). This tends to happen when the stock price is going against the short sell (i.e. you lose money). Finally, did anyone mention that the potential losses in a short sell are infinite?","\"Concerning the general problem of short selling and the need to borrow shares to complete the transaction : Selling short is a cash transaction. Unlike a futures contract, where a short seller is entering into a legal agreement to sell something in the future, in the case of short selling a share the buyer of the share is taking immediate delivery and is therefore entitled to all of the benefits and rights that come with share ownership. In particular, the buyer of the shares is entitled to any dividends payable and, where applicable, to vote on motions at AGMs. If the short seller has not borrowed the shares to sell, then buyer of non-existent shares will have none of the rights associated with ownership. The cash market is based on the idea of matching buyers and sellers. It does not accommodate people making promises. Consider that to allow short sellers to sell shares they have not borrowed opens up the possibility of the aggregate market selling more shares than actually exist. This would lead to all sorts of problematic consequences such as heavily distorting the price of the underlying share. If everyone is selling shares they have not borrowed willy-nilly, then it will drive the price of the share down, much to the disadvantage of existing share holders. In this case, short sellers who have sold shares they have not already borrowed would be paying out more in dividends to the buyers than the total dividends being paid out by the underlying company. There are instruments that allow for short selling of unowned shares on a futures basis. One example is a CFD = Contract for Difference. In the case of CFDs, sellers are obliged to pay dividends to buyers as well as other costs related to financing. EDIT Regarding your comment, note that borrowing shares is not a market transaction. Your account does not show you buying a share and then selling it. It simply shows you selling a share short. The borrowing is the result of an agreement between yourself and the lender and this agreement is off market. You do not actually pay the lender for the shares, but you do pay financing costs for the borrowing so long as you maintain your short position. EDIT I realise that I have not actually read your question correctly. You are not actually talking about \"\"naked\"\" short selling. You are talking about selling shares you already own in a hope of maintaining both a long and short position (gross). The problem with this approach is that you must deliver the shares to the buyer. Otherwise, ask yourself what shares is the buyer actually buying if you want the bought shares to remain in your account. If you are not going to deliver your long position shares, then you will need to borrow the shares you are selling short for the reasons I have outlined above.\"","\"I saw that an answer hasn't been accepted for this yet: Being bearish is a good hedging strategy. But being hedged is a better hedging strategy. The point being that not everything in investments is so binary (up, and down). A lot of effective hedges can have many more variables than simply \"\"stock go up, stock go down\"\" As such, there are many ways to be bearish and profit from a decline in market values without subjecting yourself to the unlimited risk of short selling. Buying puts against your long equity position is one example. Being long an ETF that is based on short positions is another example.\"","\"With stocks, you can buy or sell. If you sell first, that's called 'shorting.' As in \"\"I think linkedin is too high, I'm going to short it.\"\" With options, the terminology is different, the normal process is to buy to open/sell to close, but if you were shorting the option itself, you would first sell to open, i.e you are selling a position to start it, effectively selling it short. Eventually, you may close it out, by buying to close. Options trading is not for the amateur. If you plan to trade, study first and be very cautious.\"","Purchasing an option to sell the stock is probably the safest bet. This gives you reasonable leverage, and your risk is limited to the cost of the option. Say the stock currently sells for $100 per share. You think it will drop to $80 per share in the next two weeks and the market thinks the price will be stable. Now, consider an option to sell one share of that stock for $95 any time within the next two weeks. The market would consider that option nearly worthless, since in all likelihood, you would lose out by exercising it (since you could just sell the share on the market for a price expected to be higher than that). You might be able to acquire that option for $5. Now, say you're right and within two weeks, the price drops to $80. Now you can purchase a share for $80, exercise the option to sell it for $95, and pocket $15. That would make you a $10 profit on a $5 investment. If you're wrong, you just let the option lapse and are out $5. No problem. In reality, you would buy a number of such options. And you wouldn't actually buy a share and exercise the option, you would just sell the option back to its issuer for $15.","I don't have a direct short position. It is a structured product linked to the performance of Tesla. I basically get a fixed coupon payment every quater and as long as Tesla doesn't move up more than 50% in the next half year I get my initial investment back plus the coupons. If it should move up more than 50% I lose that percentage of my initial investment","\"Writing a put for a stock means you are selling the right to sell you stock. Simply put (er no pun intended), \"\"writing put options\"\" means you are selling somebody else the right (a contract) to sell YOU a specific stock at a specific price before a specific date. I imagine the word \"\"write\"\" to refer to the physical act of creating a contract. The specific price is called the STRIKE and the specific date is the EXPIRATION. By \"\"writing a put\"\", you are agreeing to purchase the stock at a particular price (the STRIKE price) before the expiration. You get paid a fee, the \"\"premium\"\", for agreeing to purchase the stock at the strike price if asked to. If the holder of the contract decides to make you buy the stock at the strike price, you have to do it. If the stock never dips below the strike price, then the holder of the put contract (a contract you wrote), will never exercise their right because they'd lose money. But if the stock drops to zero, you could potentially lose up to your strike price (times the number of shares at stake), if the holder of the contract decides to exercise. Therefore, \"\"writing puts\"\" is a LONG position, meaning you stand to gain if the stock goes up. FYI - \"\"LONG\"\" refers direction (UP!), not duration.\"","A bullish (or 'long') call spread is actually two separate option trades. The A/B notation is, respectively, the strike price of each trade. The first 'leg' of the strategy, corresponding to B, is the sale of a call option at a strike price of B (in this case $165). The proceeds from this sale, after transaction costs, are generally used to offset the cost of the second 'leg'. The second 'leg' of the strategy, corresponding to A, is the purchase of a call option at a strike price of A (in this case $145). Now, the important part: the payoff. You can visualize it as so. This is where it gets a teeny bit math-y. Below, P is the profit of the strategy, K1 is the strike price of the long call, K2 is the strike price of the short call, T1 is the premium paid for the long call option at the time of purchase, T2 is the premium received for the short call at the time of sale, and S is the current price of the stock. For simplicity's sake, we will assume that your position quantity is a single option contract and transaction costs are zero (which they are not). P = (T2 - max(0, S - K2)) + (max(0, S - K1) - T1) Concretely, let's plug in the strikes of the strategy Nathan proposes, and current prices (which I pulled from the screen). You have: P = (1.85 - max(0, 142.50 - 165)) - (max(0, 142.50 - 145)) = -$7.80 If the stock goes to $150, the payoff is -$2.80, which isn't quite break even -- but it may have been at the time he was speaking on TV. If the stock goes to $165, the payoff is $12.20. Please do not neglect the cost of the trades! Trading options can be pretty expensive depending on the broker. Had I done this trade (quantity 1) at many popular brokers, I still would've been net negative PnL even if NFLX went to >= $165.","\"My take on this is that with any short-selling contract you are engaging in, at a specified time in the future you will need to transfer ownership of the item(s) you sold to the buyer. Whether you own the item(s) or in your case you will buy your friend's used car in the meantime (or dig enough gold out of the ground - in the case of hedging a commodity exposure) is a matter of \"\"trust\"\". Hence there is normally some form of margin or credit-line involved to cover for you failing to deliver on expiry.\"","\"There is no opposite of a hedge, except not having a hedge at all. A \"\"hedge\"\" isn't directional. If you are short, you hedge by having something that minimizes your losses if you are wrong. If you are long, you hedge by having something that minimizes your losses if it decreases in value. If you own a house, you hedge by having insurance. There are \"\"hedged bets\"\" and \"\"unhedged bets\"\"\"","Suppose that the ETF is currently at a price of $100. Suppose that the next day it moves up 10% (to a price of $110) and the following day it moves down 5% (to a price of $104.5). Over these two days the ETF has had a net gain of 4.5% from its original price. The inverse ETF reverses the daily gains/losses of the base ETF. Suppose for simplicity that the inverse ETF also starts out at a price of $100. So on the first day it goes down 10% (to $90) and on the second day it goes up 5% (to $94.5). Thus over the two days the inverse ETF has had a net loss of 5.5%. The specific dollar amounts do not matter here. The result is that the ETF winds up at 110%*95% = 104.5% of its original price and the inverse ETF is at 90%*105% = 94.5% of its original price. A similar example is given here. As suggested by your quote, this is due to compounding. A gain of X% followed by a loss of Y% (compounded on the gain) is not in general the same as a loss of X% followed by a gain of Y% (compounded on the loss). Or, more simply put, if something loses 10% of its value and then gains 10% of its new value, it will not return to its original value, because the 10% it gained was 10% of its decreased value, so it's not enough to bring it all the way back up. Likewise if it gains 10% and then loses 10%, it will go slightly below its original value (since it lost 10% of its newly increased value).","Let's consider that transaction cost is 0(zero) for calculation. In the scenario you have stated, maximum profit that could be made is 55$, however risk is unlimited. Hedging can also be used to limit your losses, let's consider this scenario. Stock ABC trading @ 100$, I'll buy the stock ABC @ 100$ and buy a put option of ABC @ strike price 90$ for a premium of 5$ with an expiration date of 1 month. Possible outcomes I end up in a loss in 3 out of 4 scenarios, however my loss is limited to 15$, whereas profit is unlimited.","The risk of the particular share moving up or down is same for both. however in terms of mitigating the risk, Investor A is conservative on upside, ie will exit if he gets 10%, while is ready to take unlimited downside ... his belief is that things will not go worse .. While Investor B is wants to make at least 10% less than peak value and in general is less risk averse as he will sell his position the moment the price hits 10% less than max [peak value] So it more like how do you mitigate a risk, as to which one is wise depends on your belief and the loss appetite","It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either. Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check. Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated. So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if:","\"You are likely making an assumption that the \"\"Short call\"\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \"\"write\"\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\"","Borrow the overpriced bond promising to repay the lender $1000 in one year. Sell the bond immediately for $960. Put $952.38 in the bank where the it will gain enough to be worth $1000 in one year. You have +$7.62 immediate cash flow. In one year repay the bond lender with the $1000 from the bank.","\"This doesn't make sense to me. Writing a covered call gives him a long delta position - the exact opposite of what he wants. And the tax losses won't turn a losing position into a winning one. Is there something I'm missing? Edit: Also, doesn't \"\"shorting against the box\"\" mean he has to have a long position, and short against that? That means you've got zero net delta, which isn't very useful at all...\"","\"Being \"\"Long\"\" something means you own it. Being \"\"Short\"\" something means you have created an obligation that you have sold to someone else. If I am long 100 shares of MSFT, that means that I possess 100 shares of MSFT. If I am short 100 shares of MSFT, that means that my broker let me borrow 100 shares of MSFT, and I chose to sell them. While I am short 100 shares of MSFT, I owe 100 shares of MSFT to my broker whenever he demands them back. Until he demands them back, I owe interest on the value of those 100 shares. You short a stock when you feel it is about to drop in price. The idea there is that if MSFT is at $50 and I short it, I borrow 100 shares from my broker and sell for $5000. If MSFT falls to $48 the next day, I buy back the 100 shares and give them back to my broker. I pocket the difference ($50 - $48 = $2/share x 100 shares = $200), minus interest owed. Call and Put options. People manage the risk of owning a stock or speculate on the future move of a stock by buying and selling calls and puts. Call and Put options have 3 important components. The stock symbol they are actionable against (MSFT in this case), the \"\"strike price\"\" - $52 in this case, and an expiration, June. If you buy a MSFT June $52 Call, you are buying the right to purchase MSFT stock before June options expiration (3rd Saturday of the month). They are priced per share (let's say this one cost $0.10/share), and sold in 100 share blocks called a \"\"contract\"\". If you buy 1 MSFT June $52 call in this scenario, it would cost you 100 shares x $0.10/share = $10. If you own this call and the stock spikes to $56 before June, you may exercise your right to purchase this stock (for $52), then immediately sell the stock (at the current price of $56) for a profit of $4 / share ($400 in this case), minus commissions. This is an overly simplified view of this transaction, as this rarely happens, but I have explained it so you understand the value of the option. Typically the exercise of the option is not used, but the option is sold to another party for an equivalent value. You can also sell a Call. Let's say you own 100 shares of MSFT and you would like to make an extra $0.10 a share because you DON'T think the stock price will be up to $52/share by the end of June. So you go to your online brokerage and sell one contract, and receive the $0.10 premium per share, being $10. If the end of June comes and nobody exercises the option you sold, you get to keep the $10 as pure profit (minus commission)! If they do exercise their option, your broker makes you sell your 100 shares of MSFT to that party for the $52 price. If the stock shot up to $56, you don't get to gain from that price move, as you have already committed to selling it to somebody at the $52 price. Again, this exercise scenario is overly simplified, but you should understand the process. A Put is the opposite of a Call. If you own 100 shares of MSFT, and you fear a fall in price, you may buy a PUT with a strike price at your threshold of pain. You might buy a $48 June MSFT Put because you fear the stock falling before June. If the stock does fall below the $48, you are guaranteed that somebody will buy yours at $48, limiting your loss. You will have paid a premium for this right (maybe $0.52/share for example). If the stock never gets down to $48 at the end of June, your option to sell is then worthless, as who would sell their stock at $48 when the market will pay you more? Owning a Put can be treated like owning insurance on the stock from a loss in stock price. Alternatively, if you think there is no way possible it will get down to $48 before the end of June, you may SELL a $48 MSFT June Put. HOWEVER, if the stock does dip down below $48, somebody will exercise their option and force you to buy their stock for $48. Imagine a scenario that MSFT drops to $30 on some drastically terrible news. While everybody else may buy the stock at $30, you are obligated to buy shares for $48. Not good! When you sold the option, somebody paid you a premium for buying that right from you. Often times you will always keep this premium. Sometimes though, you will have to buy a stock at a steep price compared to market. Now options strategies are combinations of buying and selling calls and puts on the same stock. Example -- I could buy a $52 MSFT June Call, and sell a $55 MSFT June Call. I would pay money for the $52 Call that I am long, and receive money for the $55 Call that I am short. The money I receive from the short $55 Call helps offset the cost of buying the $52 Call. If the stock were to go up, I would enjoy the profit within in $52-$55 range, essentially, maxing out my profit at $3/share - what the long/short call spread cost me. There are dozens of strategies of mixing and matching long and short calls and puts depending on what you expect the stock to do, and what you want to profit or protect yourself from. A derivative is any financial device that is derived from some other factor. Options are one of the most simple types of derivatives. The value of the option is derived from the real stock price. Bingo? That's a derivative. Lotto? That is also a derivative. Power companies buy weather derivatives to hedge their energy requirements. There are people selling derivatives based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Remember those calls and puts on stock prices? There are people that sell calls and puts based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Sounds kind of ridiculous -- but now imagine that you are a solar power company that gets \"\"free\"\" electricity from the sun and they sell that to their customers. On cloudy days, the solar power company is still on the hook to provide energy to their customers, but they must buy it from a more expensive source. If they own the \"\"Sunny Days in Omaha\"\" derivative, they can make money for every cloudy day over the annual average, thus, hedging their obligation for providing more expensive electricity on cloudy days. For that derivative to work, somebody in the derivative market puts a price on what he believes the odds are of too many cloudy days happening, and somebody who wants to protect his interests from an over abundance of cloudy days purchases this derivative. The energy company buying this derivative has a known cost for the cost of the derivative and works this into their business model. Knowing that they will be compensated for any excessive cloudy days allows them to stabilize their pricing and reduce their risk. The person selling the derivative profits if the number of sunny days is higher than average. The people selling these types of derivatives study the weather in order to make their offers appropriately. This particular example is a fictitious one (I don't believe there is a derivative called \"\"Sunny days in Omaha\"\"), but the concept is real, and the derivatives are based on anything from sunny days, to BLS unemployment statistics, to the apartment vacancy rate of NYC, to the cost of a gallon of milk in Maine. For every situation, somebody is looking to protect themselves from something, and somebody else believes they can profit from it. Now these examples are highly simplified, many derivatives are highly technical, comprised of multiple indicators as a part of its risk profile, and extremely difficult to explain. These things might sound ridiculous, but if you ran a lemonade stand in Omaha, that sunny days derivative just might be your best friend...\"","Buying the underlying asset will not completely hedge you, only what lies above 155 dollars (strike + price of option) - you still have the risk of losing everything but 5. You have a maximum earnings-potential of 55 dollars (strike of 150 - investment of 100 + option of 5) but you have a risk of losing 95$ (investment of 100 - option of 5). Say chance of winning everything or losing everything is 50-50, your expected outcome is 0.5 x -95 + 0.5 x 55 = -20$. Is this a great investment? Sure you don't know your odds - otherwise it would be a sure thing. You shouldn't sell the call option if you do not expect prices to go up - but in that case - why not just buy the underlying alone? Speculating in options is a dangerous game with infinite earnings-potential but also infinite loss potential. (Consider selling a call option and not buying the underlying and the price goes from 100 to 1.000.000.000).","Depends on your time scale, but generally, I don't think it would work. What you'd really be betting on in this case is mean-reversal, which does not hold true in the equity universe (atleast not in the long run). If you look at the historical prices of the S&P, you'll notice it increases in terms of absolute dollar value. On the short term, however, if you feel the market has significantly undervalued or overvalued a security, then mean-reversal might be a reasonable bet to make. In that scenario, however, it seems to me that you are really looking for a volatility trade, in which case you might want to consider a straddle position using options. Here, the bet you'd be making is that the price at expiration will be inside a certain band (or outside the band, depending on your position).","Well, arbitrage is a simple mean reversion strategy which states that any two similar commodity with some price difference (usually not much) will converge. So either you can bet on difference in prices in different exchanges or also you can bet on difference in futures value. For example if current price of stock is 14$ and if futures price is 10$. Then you can buy one futures contract and short one stock at the market price. This would lock in a profit of 4$ per share.","On expiry, with the underlying share price at $46, we have : You ask : How come they substract 600-100. Why ? Because you have sold the $45 call to open you position, you must now buy it back to close your position. This will cost you $100, so you are debited for $100 and this debit is being represented as a negative (subtracted); i.e., -$100 Because you have purchased the $40 call to open your position, you must now sell it to close your position. Upon selling this option you will receive $600, so you are credited with $600 and this credit is represented as a positive (added) ; i.e., +$600. Therefore, upon settlement, closing your position will get you $600-$100 = $500. This is the first point you are questioning. (However, you should also note that this is the value of the spread at settlement and it does not include the costs of opening the spread position, which are given as $200, so you net profit is $500-$200 = $300.) You then comment : I know I am selling 45 Call that means : As a writer: I want stock price to go down or stay at strike. As a buyer: I want stock price to go up. Here, note that for every penny that the underlying share price rises above $45, the money you will pay to buy back your short $45 call option will be offset by the money you will receive by selling the long $40 call option. Your $40 call option is covering the losses on your short $45 call option. No matter how high the underlying price settles above $45, you will receive the same $500 net credit on settlement. For example, if the underlying price settles at $50, then you will receive a credit of $1000 for selling your $40 call, but you will incur a debit of $500 against for buying back your short $45 call. The net being $500 = $1000-$500. This point is made in response to your comments posted under Dr. Jones answer.","Depends on the stock involved, but for the most part brokerages allow you gain entry at 50%, meaning you can short twice the cash on hand you have. Going forward, you need to maintain 30%, so on a $10,000 short, you'd have to maintain $3000 in your account. Example, an account with $5000 cash - You can short $10,000 securities. Let say 100 shares of xyz at $100 per share. After trade settles, you won't receive a margin call until your balance falls to $3000, probably right around the time xyz rises to $120 per share. Riskier stocks will have higher margin maintenance requirements - leveraged vehicles like FAS/FAZ (triple leveraged) require 90% margin (3x30%) if they are allowed to be 'shorted' at all.","Let's make a few assumptions: You have several ways of achieving (almost) that, in ascending complexity: Note that each alternative will have a cost which can be small (forwards, futures) or large (CFDs, debit) and the hedge will never be perfect, but you can get close. You will also need to decide whether you hedge the unrealised P&L on the position and at what frequency.","Short selling can be a good strategy to hedge, but you have almost unlimited downside. If a stock price skyrockets, you may be forced to cover your short by the brokerage before you want to or put up more capital. A smarter strategy to hedge, that limits your potential downside is to buy puts if you think the market is going down. Your downside is limited to the total amount that you purchased the put for and no more. Another way to hedge is to SELL calls that are covered because you own the shares the calls refer to. You might do this if you thought your stock was going to go down but you didn't want to sell your shares right now. That way the only downside if the price goes up is you give up your shares at a predetermined price and you miss out on the upside, but your downside is now diminished by the premium you were paid for the option. (You'd still lose money if the shares went down since you still own them, but you got paid the option premium so that helps offset that).","You have stumbled upon a classic trading strategy known as the carry trade. Theoretically you'd expect the exchange rate to move against you enough to make this a bad investment. In reality this doesn't happen (on average). There are even ETFs that automate the process for you (and get better transaction costs and lending/borrowing rates than you ever could): DBV and ICI.","\"Who are the losers going to be? If you can tell me for certain which firms will do worst in a bear market and can time it so that this information is not already priced into the market then you can make money. If not don't try. In a bull market stocks tend to act \"\"normally\"\" with established patterns such as correlations acting as expected and stocks more or less pricing to their fundamentals. In a bear market fear tends to overrule all of those things. You get large drops on relatively minor bad news and modest rallies on even the best news which results in stocks being undervalued against their fundamentals. In the crash itself it is quite easy to make money shorting. In an environment where stocks are undervalued, such as a bear market, you run the risk that your short, no matter how sure you are that the stock will fall, is seen as being undervalued and will rise. In fact your selling of a \"\"losing\"\" stock might cause it to hit levels where value investors already have limits set. This could bring a LOT of buyers into the market. Due to the fact that correlations break down creating portfolios with the correct risk level, which is what funds are required to do not only by their contracts but also by law to an extent, is extremely difficult. Risk management (keeping all kinds to within certain bounds) is one of the most difficult parts of a manager's job and is even difficult in abnormal market conditions. In the long run (definitions may vary) stock prices in general go up (for those companies who aren't bankrupted at least) so shorting in a bear market is not a long term strategy either and will not produce long term returns on capital. In addition to this risk you run the risk that your counterparty (such as Lehman brothers?) will file for bankruptcy and you won't be able to cover the position before the lender wants you to repay their stock to them landing you in even more problems.\"","\"I think what you really want to look into is put options. You can essentially replicate the same thing, without worrying about margin calls. Check out this site http://www.fundamentalfinance.com/options/options-basic-charts.php a quick glance seems to show it to be pretty good. The way you would limit downside risk is to buy a put option, allowing you to sell anytime within the next n months for the current price (assuming american). This will allow you to limit downside risk, however, potential profits do go down due to fees as another answer suggests this could be cost prohibitive. This type of strategy is also known as a \"\"protective put\"\". http://www.optionseducation.org/strategies_advanced_concepts/strategies/protective_put.html If you wanted to be more refined you could use Ak's bands, although you have to be looking for that specific outcome. Also due to complexity, this can become a taxing (in terms of time invested) and risky (if you are wrong) investment. Either way I think you need to study payoff curves a little more.\"","Opened Long - is when you open a long position. Long means that you buy to open the position, so you are trying to profit as the price rises. So if you were closing a long position you would sell it. Closed Short - is when you close out a short position. Short means that you sell to open and buy back to close. With a short position you are trying to profit as the price falls. Scaled Out - means you get out of a position in increments as the price climbs (for long positions). Scaled In - means you set a target price and then invest in increments as the stock falls below that price (for long positions).","Contrary to what other people said I believe that even without leverage you can lose more that you invest when you short a FX. Why? because the amount it can go down is alwasy limited to zero but it can, potentially, go up without limit. See This question for a mored detailed information.","\"Yeah. This shorting the box nonsense is an extremely expensive way to capture downside. If I just drop $1000 on a long-dated out-of-the-money put I have significantly more downside exposure for much much less than the [100 X $160 - (call premium)]. That's like 16 grand dude!!! It does keep you more delta neutral, but still, stupid way to go about it, especially if you are concerned about \"\"cheap\"\".\"","\"Bull means the investor is betting on a rising market. Puts are a type of stock option where the seller of a put option promises to buy 100 shares of stock from the buyer of the put option at a pre-agreed price called the strike price on any day before expiration day. The buyer of the put option does not have to sell (it is optional, thats why it is called buying an option). However, the seller of the put is required to make good on their promise to the buyer. The broker can require the seller of the put option to have a deposit, called margin, to help make sure that they can make good on the promise. Profit... The buyer can profit from the put option if the stock price moves down substantially. The buyer of the put option does not need to own the stock, he can sell the option to someone else. If the buyer of the put option also owns the stock, the put option can be thought of like an insurance policy on the value of the stock. The seller of the put option profits if the stock price stays the same or rises. Basically, the seller comes out best if they can sell put options that no one ends up using by expiration day. A spread is an investment consisting of buying one option and selling another. Let's put bull and put and spread together with an example from Apple. So, if you believed Apple Inc. AAPL (currently 595.32) was going up or staying the same through JAN you could sell the 600 JAN put and buy the 550 put. If the price rises beyond 600, your profit would be the difference in price of the puts. Let's explore this a little deeper (prices from google finance 31 Oct 2012): Worst Case: AAPL drops below 550. The bull put spread investor owes (600-550)x100 shares = $5000 in JAN but received $2,035 for taking this risk. EDIT 2016: The \"\"worst case\"\" was the outcome in this example, the AAPL stock price on options expiry Jan 18, 2013 was about $500/share. Net profit = $2,035 - $5,000 = -$2965 = LOSS of $2965 Best Case: AAPL stays above 600 on expiration day in JAN. Net Profit = $2,035 - 0 = $2035 Break Even: If AAPL drops to 579.65, the value of the 600 JAN AAPL put sold will equal the $2,035 collected and the bull put spread investor will break even. Commissions have been ignored in this example.\"","I think you may be confused on terminology here. Financial leverage is debt that you have taken on, in order to invest. It increases your returns, because it allows you to invest with more money than what you actually own. Example: If a $1,000 mutual fund investment returns $60 [6%], then you could also take on $1,000 of debt at 3% interest, and earn $120 from both mutual fund investments, paying $30 in interest, leaving you with a net $90 [9% of your initial $1,000]. However, if the mutual fund 'takes a nose dive', and loses money, you still need to pay the $30 interest. In this way, using financial leverage actually increases your risk. It may provide higher returns, but you have the risk of losing more than just your initial principle amount. In the example above, imagine if the mutual fund you owned collapsed, and was worth nothing. Now, you would have lost $1,000 from the money you invested in the first place, and you would also still owe $1,000 to the bank. The key take away is that 'no risk' and 'high returns' do not go together. Safe returns right now are hovering around 0% interest rates. If you ever feel you have concocted a mix of options that leaves you with no risk and high returns, check your math again. As an addendum, if instead what you plan on doing is investing, say, 90% of your money in safe(r) money-market type funds, and 10% in the stock market, then this is a good way to reduce your risk. However, it also reduces your returns, as only a small portion of your portfolio will realize the (typically higher) gains of the stock market. Once again, being safer with your investments leads to less return. That is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact investing some part of your portfolio in interest-earning low risk investments is often advised. 99% is basically the same as 100%, however, so you almost don't benefit at all by investing that 1% in the stock market."],"string":"[\n \"\\\"When portfolio positions are reported in percentages, those percentages are relative to the portfolio's base equity. When you start out, that is equal to the cash you have in a portfolio. Later it's the net equity of the portfolio (i.e., how much money you could withdraw if you were to exit all your positions). If you put $5,000 into your account and are long and short 50%, then you are long $2,500 and short $2,500. If it's 100% and -100%, then long and short $5,000. \\\"\\\"Leverage\\\"\\\" is often computed gross (as if all positions were long). So if you have 100% and -100%, then your broker may say you are \\\"\\\"levered 2 to 1.\\\"\\\" That is, your gross exposure is twice as large as your underlying base equity.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or \\\"\\\"going short.\\\"\\\" When you use money to buy shares, it is called \\\"\\\"going long.\\\"\\\" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything. Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share. You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000. You are both long and short in the stock for $2000. At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds. You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share. Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000. However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares. Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest. Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share. Your long shares have lost $1000 in value. However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares. However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything. Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time. However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame. The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting. Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time. You are only attempting to hedge your bets. And it doesn't work. A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position. And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future. This, however, doesn't really change things much. Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term. Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess. And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain. You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop. You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon. Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short. However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position. And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up. You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain.\\\"\",\n \"If you mean the percentages of long/short positions within a mutual fund or ETF, then it's a percentage of the total value of the fund portfolio. In that case, positions of 50% in X, -50% in Y are not the same as 100% in X, -100% in Y. If the long and short positions are both for the same asset, then, as D Stanley mentions, all that matters is the net position. If you're equally long and short X, then the net position is always 0%.\",\n \"\\\"Being \\\"\\\"long\\\"\\\" - expecting the price to go up to make a profit - is a two step process: 1) buy 2) sell Being \\\"\\\"short\\\"\\\" - expecting the price to go down to make a profit - is a 5 step process: 1) borrow someone else's asset 2) sell their asset on the open market to somebody else a third party 3) pocket the proceeds of the sell for your own account 4) buy an identical asset for a cheaper price 5) return this identical asset to the person that let you borrow their asset if this is successful you keep the difference between 3) and 4)\\\"\",\n \"Don't know the name but it means you're long with conviction :P Unlimited gains, maximum loss of 95$ + (8-6) = 97$. Basically You are long @ 107 - -2 from 105 to 95. You would have to be ULTRA bullish to initiate this strategy.\",\n \"\\\"For the same reason that people bet on different teams. Some think the Tigers will win, others thing the Yankees will win. They wager $5 on it. One of them wins, the other loses. In a short, one person bets that the stock goes down, the other bets that the stock goes up (or hold). You're basically saying \\\"\\\"I think this stock is going to hold it's value or go up. If I thought it would go down, like you do, I would sell it myself right now. Instead, I'll let you have it for a while because when I get it back I think I'll come out on top.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"There is no difference. When dealing with short positions, talking about percentages become very tricky since they no longer add up to 100%. What does the 50% in your example mean? Unless there's some base amount (like total amount of the portfolio, then the percentages are meaningless. What matters when dealing with long and short positions is the net total - meaning if you are long 100 shares on one stock trade and short 50 shares on another, then you are net long 50 shares.\",\n \"Your original example is a little confusing because just shorting for 1k and buying for 1k is 100% leveraged or an infinitive leverage ratio. (and not allowed) Brokerage houses would require you to invest some capital in the trade. One example might be requiring you to hold $100 in the brokerage. This is where the 10:1 ratio comes from. (1000/10) Thus a return of 4.5% on the 1000k bond and no movement on the short position would net you $45 and voila a 45% return on your $100 investment. A 40 to 1 leverage ratio would mean that you would only have to invest $25 to make this trade. Something that no individual investor are allowed to do, but for some reason some financial firms have been able to.\",\n \"If it helps you to think about it, long is equivalent to betting for the upside and short is equivalent to betting for the downside. If you are long on options, then you expect the value of such options to increase. If you are long an option, then you own the option. If you are short an option, then generally you sold the option. Someone who is short a call (sometimes called the writer or occasionally the issuer) has sold a call option to someone who is now long a call. Buying a call option that will increase in value is itself a form of investment, just as it's investment to buy stock or other instruments hoping they will appreciate in value. An option's value will rise or fall with the underlying, so being long an option is a way to be long in the underlying. Someone can be long in a stock by buying the stock, or long in a call by buying call options in the stock. The long call generally requires less initial investment than buying the underlying, and lets the option-holder avoid the asset downside during the option term. The risk is that the asset may not appreciate to the point that the call option will pay off. In the conceptual sense, a share of stock is a particular right to the profits and assets of a corporation, both in form of dividends and in liquidation. An option is a particular right to the the share of stock. It's just a further way to formalize and subdivide the various property rights that exist in a corporation. If you can buy a piece of paper with particular rights to corporate profits and assets, then you can buy another piece of paper with particular rights to the former piece of paper.\",\n \"\\\"And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position. When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here. In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them. If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from. Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest). Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy. Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800. In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question). It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement. Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money. If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a \\\"\\\"margin call\\\"\\\" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses. And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin). When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go. There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position. You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The reason for selling a stock \\\"\\\"short\\\"\\\", is for when you believe the stock value will decrease in the near future. Here is an example: Today Exxon-Mobile stock is selling for $100 / share. You are expecting the price to decrease, so you want to short the stock, which means your broker (i.e. eTrade, etc) allows you to borrow shares without paying money, and those shares are transferred into your account, and then you sell them and receive money for the sale. But you didn't actually own those shares, you only borrowed them, so you need to return the shares to your broker sometime in the future. Let's say you borrow 10 shares @ $100, and you sell them at the market price of $100, you receive $1,000 in your account. But you owe your broker 10 shares, which you need to return sometime in the future. A few days later, the share price has decreased to $80. Now you can buy 10 shares from the market at a total cost of $800. You get 10 shares, and return those shares to your broker. Since you originally took in $1,000, and you just paid out $800, you keep a resulting profit of $200\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Long here does not mean you wish for the underlying stock to increase in value, in fact, as the chart shows, just the opposite is true. \\\"\\\"Long means you bought the derivative, and you own the option. The guy that sold it to you is at your mercy, he is short the put, and it's your decision to put the stock to him should it fall in value. The value of the put itself rises with the falling stock price, you are long the put and want the put, itself, to rise in value.\\\"\",\n \"The 'normal' series of events when trading a stock is to buy it, time passes, then you sell it. If you believe the stock will drop in price, you can reverse the order, selling shares, waiting for the price drop, then buying them back. During that time you own say, -100 shares, and are 'short' those shares.\",\n \"This is a gross simplification as there are a few different ways to do this. The principle overall is the same though. To short a stock, you borrow X shares from a third party and sell them at the current price. You now owe the lender X shares but have the proceeds from the sale. If the share price falls you can buy back those shares at the new lower price, return them to the lender and pocket the difference. The risk comes when the share price goes the other way, you now owe the lender the new value of the shares, so have to find some way to cover the difference. This happened a while back when Porsche made a fortune buying shares in Volkswagen from short sellers, and the price unexpectedly rose.\",\n \"Simple math: 50-25=25, hence decline from 50 to 25 is a 50% decline (you lose half), while an advance from 25 to 50 is 100% gain (you gain 100%, double your 25 to 50). Their point is that if you have more upswings than downswings - you'll gain more on long positions during upswings than on short positions during downswings on average. Again - simple math.\",\n \"When you short a stock, you can lose an unlimited amount of money if the trade goes against you. If the shorted stock gaps up overnight you can lose more money than you have in your account. The best case is you make 100% if the stock goes to zero. And then you have margin fees on top of that. With long positions, it's the other way around. Your max loss is 100% and your gains are potentially unlimited.\",\n \"You sold a call, and have a risk if the stock rises. You bought a put and gain when the stock drops. You, sir, have a synthetic short position. It's Case 3 from your linked example: Suppose you own Long Stock and the company is going to report earnings but you’re going on vacation. How can you hedge your position without selling your stock? You can short the stock synthetically with options! Short Stock = Short Call + Long Put They conclude with the net zero remark, because the premise was an existing long position. A long plus this synthetic short results in a neutral set of positions (and the author's ability to go on vacation not concerned about any movement in the stock.)\",\n \"\\\"You need to interpret \\\"\\\"security\\\"\\\" appropriately in Wikipedia's definition. You should think of it as saying: to be long in a put, means the holder of the position owns the put and will profit if the price of the put goes up And what makes the price of the put go up? -- the price of the underlying stock going down.\\\"\",\n \"How so? If i sell short, then i make a profit only if the price goes down so i can buy back at a lower price. Yes, but if the price is going up then you would go long instead. Shorting a stock (or any other asset) allows you to profit when the price is going down. Going long allows you to profit when the price is going up. In the opposite cases, you lose money. In order to make a profit in either of those situations, you have to accurately assess which way the price will trade over the period of time you are dealing with. If you make the wrong judgment, then you lose money because you'll either sell for a lower price than you bought (if you went long), or have to buy back at a higher price than you sold for (if you went short). In either case, unless the trader can live with making a short-term loss and recouperating it later, one needs a good stop-loss strategy.\",\n \"Your strategy of longing company(a) and shorting company(b) is flawed as the prices of company(a) and company(b) can both increase and though you are right , you will lose money due to the shorting strategy. You should not engage in pair trading , which is normally used for arbitrage purposes You should just buy company(a) since you believed its a better company compared to company(b) , its as simple as that\",\n \"This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.\",\n \"\\\"An important point yet to be mentioned is that, with a standard investment, the most you can lose of your £100 stake is £100 (if the company literally goes bust, say). With shorting on the other hand, your downside is not limited to your initial stake. You could \\\"\\\"invest\\\"\\\" £100, but end up owing £200, £500, or, well, the sky's the limit. Shorting is dangerous even for experienced investors. For a beginner, it is about the worst possible investment strategy I can think of!\\\"\",\n \"The problem with rate of return calculation on short positions is, that the commonly used approach assumes an initial investment creating a cash outflow. If we want to apply this approach to short selling, we should look at the trade from another perspective. We buy money and pay for this money with stock. Our investment to buy 50$ in your example is 1 share. When closing the short position, we effectively sell back our money (50$) and receive 2 shares. Our profit on this position is obviously 1 share. Setting this in relation to our investment of 1 share yields a performance of 100% in reality, we do not sell back the entire cash but only the amount needed to get back our investment of 1 share. This is actually comparable to a purchase of stock which we only partially close to get back our invested cash amount and keep the remaining shares as our profit\",\n \"To expand on the comment made by @NateEldredge, you're looking to take a short position. A short position essentially functions as follows: Here's the rub: you have unlimited loss potential. Maybe you borrow a share and sell it at $10. Maybe in a month you still haven't closed the position and now the share is trading at $1,000. The share lender comes calling for their share and you have to close the position at $1,000 for a loss of $990. Now what if it was $1,000,000 per share, etc. To avoid this unlimited loss risk, you can instead buy a put option contract. In this situation you buy a contract that will expire at some point in the future for the right to sell a share of stock for $x. You get to put that share on to someone else. If the underlying stock price were to instead rise above the put's exercise price, the put will expire worthless — but your loss is limited to the premium paid to acquire the put option contract. There are all sorts of advanced options trades sometimes including taking a short or long position in a security. It's generally not advisable to undertake these sorts of trades until you're very comfortable with the mechanics of the contracts. It's definitely not advisable to take an unhedged short position, either by borrowing someone else's share(s) to sell or selling an option (when you sell the option you take the risk), because of the unlimited loss potential described above.\",\n \"We struck a deal. I sold an asset to some body on june 1 . However he says, he would pay me any time on or before august 1st . This puts me in a dilemma. What if price goes down by august 1st and i would have to accept lower payment from him.? If price goes up till august 1st, then obviously i make money since ,even though item is sold,price is yet to be fixed between parties. However i know anytime on or before august 1st, i would get paid the price quoted on that particular day. This price could be high in my favor, or low against me. And, this uncertainty is causing me sleepless nights. i went to futures market exchange. My item (sugar,gold,wheat,shares etc..anything). i short sell a futures which just happens to be equivalent to the quantity of my amount i sold to the acquirer of my item. I shorted at $ 100 , with expiry on august 1st. Now fast orward and august 1st comes. price is $ 120 quoted . lets Get paid from the guy who was supposed to pay on or before august 1st. He pays 120 $. his bad luck, he should have paid us 100 $ on june 1st instead of waiting for august 1st . His judgement of price movement faulted. WE earned 20 $ extra than we expected to earn on june 1st (100$) . However the futures short of 100$ is now 120$ and you must exit your position by purchasing it at back. sell at 100$ and buy at 120$ = loss of 20$ . Thus 20 $ gained from selling item is forwarded to exchange . Thus we had hedged our position on june 1st and exit the hedge by august 1st. i hope this helps\",\n \"\\\"It will be helpful to establish some definitions: Long \\\"\\\"Long\\\"\\\" is financial slang for \\\"\\\"to have possession of an asset\\\"\\\", legally, and \\\"\\\"to debit an asset\\\"\\\", financially. Short \\\"\\\"Short\\\"\\\" is financial slang for \\\"\\\"to be liable for an asset\\\"\\\", legally, and \\\"\\\"to credit an asset\\\"\\\", financially. Option \\\"\\\"Option\\\"\\\" is financial slang for \\\"\\\"to have the right but not obligation to force the liable to perform action\\\"\\\", legally. Without limits and when taken to absurdity, this can mean slavery. For equities, this means \\\"\\\"to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy/sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\\\"\\\" for a call/put, respectively. By the above, a call option is \\\"\\\"the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\\\"\\\". By the definition of \\\"\\\"long\\\"\\\" above, a call option is actually not long the underlying. By the definitions above and with a narrower scope applied to equities & indexes, to be \\\"\\\"long\\\"\\\" the call means \\\"\\\"to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\\\"\\\" while to be \\\"\\\"short\\\"\\\" the call means \\\"\\\"to have the obligation to be forced to sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\\\"\\\". So, to be \\\"\\\"long\\\"\\\" a call means to simply own the call.\\\"\",\n \"ELI5 - you sell something that you don't own with the expectation that it will go down, and then you buy it back when it goes down in order to lock in profit. You are charged fees to borrow the stock from someone else who currently owns it, and you also run the risk of the market going against you by going up.\",\n \"This can be best explained with an example. Bob thinks the price of a stock that Alice has is going to go down by the end of the week, so he borrows a share at $25 from Alice. The current price of the shares are $25 per share. Bob immediately sells the shares to Charlie for $25, it is fair, it is the current market price. A week goes by, and the price does fall to $20. Bob buys a share from David at $20. This is fair, it is the current market value. Then Bob gives the share back to Alice to settle what he borrowed from her, one share. Now, in reality, there is interest charged be Alice on the borrowed value, but to keep it simple, we'll say she was a friend and it was a zero interest loan. So then Bob was able to sell something he didn't own for $25 and return it spending $20 to buy it, settling his loan and making $5 in the transaction. It is the selling to Charlie and buying from David (or even Charlie later, if he decided to dump the shares), without having invested any of your own money that earns the profit.\",\n \"\\\"Learn something new every day... I found this interesting and thought I'd throw my 2c in. Good description (I hope) from Short Selling: What is Short Selling First, let's describe what short selling means when you purchase shares of stock. In purchasing stocks, you buy a piece of ownership in the company. You buy/sell stock to gain/sell ownership of a company. When an investor goes long on an investment, it means that he or she has bought a stock believing its price will rise in the future. Conversely, when an investor goes short, he or she is anticipating a decrease in share price. Short selling is the selling of a stock that the seller doesn't own. More specifically, a short sale is the sale of a security that isn't owned by the seller, but that is promised to be delivered. Still with us? Here's the skinny: when you short sell a stock, your broker will lend it to you. The stock will come from the brokerage's own inventory, from another one of the firm's customers, or from another brokerage firm. The shares are sold and the proceeds are credited to your account. Sooner or later, you must \\\"\\\"close\\\"\\\" the short by buying back the same number of shares (called covering) and returning them to your broker. If the price drops, you can buy back the stock at the lower price and make a profit on the difference. If the price of the stock rises, you have to buy it back at the higher price, and you lose money. So what happened? The Plan The Reality Lesson I never understood what \\\"\\\"Shorting a stock\\\"\\\" meant until today. Seems a bit risky for my blood, but I would assume this is an extreme example of what can go wrong. This guy literally chose the wrong time to short a stock that was, in all visible aspects, on the decline. How often does a Large Company or Individual buy stock on the decline... and send that stock soaring? How often does a stock go up 100% in 24 hours? 600%? Another example is recently when Oprah bought 10% of Weight Watchers and caused the stock to soar %105 in 24 hours. You would have rued the day you shorted that stock - on that particular day - if you believed enough to \\\"\\\"gamble\\\"\\\" on it going down in price.\\\"\",\n \"(buy these when you expect the price to go down) You 'lock in' the price you can sell at. If the price goes down below the 'locked-in' price, you buy at the new low price and sell at the higher 'locked-in' price; make money. (buy these when you expect the price to go up) You 'lock in' the price you can buy at. If the price goes up above the 'locked-in' price, you buy at the 'locked-in' price and sell at the new higher price, make money.\",\n \"A long put - you have a small initial cost (the option premium) but profit as the stock goes down. You have no additional risk if the shock rises, even a lot. Short a stock - you gain if the stock drops, but have unlimited risk if it rises, the call mitigates this, by capping that rising stock risk. The profit/loss graph looks similar to the long put when you hold both the short position and the long call. You might consider producing a graph or spreadsheet to compare positions. You can easily sketch put, call, long stock, short stock, and study how combinations of positions can synthetically look like other positions. Often, when a stock has no shares to short, the synthetic short can help you put your stock position in place.\",\n \"\\\"A simple way to ask the question might be to say \\\"\\\"why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Why is borrowing someone else's shares necessary to make the concept a viable one? Why isn't it just the inverse of 'going long'?\\\"\\\" A simple way to think about it is this: to make money by trading something, you must buy it for less than you sell it for. This applies to stocks like anything else. If you believe the price will go up, then you can buy them first and sell them later for a higher price. But if you believe the price will go down, the only way to buy low and sell high is to sell first and buy later. If you buy the stock and it goes down, any sale you make will lose you money. I'm still not sure I fully understand the point of your example, but one thing to note is that in both cases (i.e., whether you buy the share back at the end or not), you lost money. You say that you \\\"\\\"made $5 on the share price dropping\\\"\\\", but that isn't true at all: you can see in your example that your final account balance is negative in both cases. You paid $20 for the shares but only got $15 back; you lost $5 (or, in the other version of your example, paid $20 and got back $5 plus the depreciated shares). If you had bought the shares for $20 and sold them for, say, $25, then your account would end up with a positive $5 balance; that is what a gain would look like. But you can't achieve that if you buy the shares for $20 and later sell them for less. At a guess, you seem to be confusing the concept of making a profit with the concept of cutting your losses. It is true that if you buy the shares for $20 and sell them for $15, you lose only $5, whereas if you buy them for $20 and sell for $10, you lose the larger amount of $10. But those are both losses. Selling \\\"\\\"early\\\"\\\" as the price goes down doesn't make you any money; it just stops you from losing more money than you would if you sold later.\\\"\",\n \"Here's a simple example for a put, from both sides. Assume XYZ stock trades at $200 right now. Let's say John writes a $190 out of the money put on XYZ stock and sells this put to Abby for the premium, which is say $5. Assume the strike date, or date of settlement, is 6 months from now. Thus Abby is long one put option and John is short one put option (the writer of the option is short the option). On settlement date, let's assume two different scenarios: (1) If the price of the stock decreases by $50, then the put that Abby bought is 'in the money'. Abby's profit can be calculated as being strike price 190 - current stock price 150 - premium paid 5 = $35 So not including any transaction fees, that is a $35 dollar return on a $5 investment. (2) If the price of the stock increases by $50, then the put that Abby bought is worthless and her loss was 100%, or her entire $5 premium. For John, he made $5 in 6 months (in reality you need collateral and good credit to be able to write sizable option positions).\",\n \"\\\"Selling short is simply by definition the selling, then later re-buying of stock you don't initially own. Say you tally your entire portfolio balance: the quantity of each stock you own, and your cash assets. Let's call this your \\\"\\\"initial position\\\"\\\". We define \\\"\\\"profit\\\"\\\" as any increase in assets, relative to this initial position. If you know a particular stock will go down, you can realize a profit by selling some of that stock, waiting for the price to go down, then buying it back. In the end you will have returned to your initial position, except you will have more cash. If you sell 10 shares of a stock valued at £1.50, then buy them back at £1.00, you will make a £5.00 profit while having otherwise returned to your previous position. If you do the same, but you initially owned 1000 shares, sold just 10 of those, then bought 10 back, that's still a profit of £5.00. Selling short is doing the same thing, but with an initial and ending balance of 0 shares. If you initially own 0 shares, sell 10, then buy 10 back, you return to your initial position (0 shares) plus a profit of £5.00. (And in practice you must also pay a borrowing fee to do this.) The advantage of selling short is it can be done with any stock, not just those currently owned.\\\"\",\n \"Rich's answer captures the basic essence of short selling with example. I'd like to add these additional points: You typically need a specially-privileged brokerage account to perform short selling. If you didn't request short selling when you opened your account, odds are good you don't have it, and that's good because it's not something most people should ever consider doing. Short selling is an advanced trading strategy. Be sure you truly grok selling short before doing it. Consider that when buying stock (a.k.a. going long or taking a long position, in contrast to short) then your potential loss as a buyer is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero) and your potential gain unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're lucky!) Whereas, with short selling, it's reversed: Your loss can be unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're unlucky!) and your potential gain is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero.) The proceeds you receive from a short sale – and then some – need to stay in your account to offset the short position. Brokers require this. Typically, margin equivalent to 150% the market value of the shares sold short must be maintained in the account while the short position is open. The owner of the borrowed shares is still expecting his dividends, if any. You are responsible for covering the cost of those dividends out of your own pocket. To close or cover your short position, you initiate a buy to cover. This is simply a buy order with the intention that it will close out your matching short position. You may be forced to cover your short position before you want to and when it is to your disadvantage! Even if you have sufficient margin available to cover your short, there are cases when lenders need their shares back. If too many short sellers are forced to close out positions at the same time, they push up demand for the stock, increasing price and deepening their losses. When this happens, it's called a short squeeze. In the eyes of the public who mostly go long buying stock, short sellers are often reviled. However, some people and many short sellers believe they are providing balance to the market and preventing it sometimes from getting ahead of itself. [Disambiguation: A short sale in the stock market is not related to the real estate concept of a short sale, which is when a property owner sells his property for less than he owes the bank.] Additional references:\",\n \"You can't make money on the way down if it was your money that bought the shares when the market was up. When you sell short, borrowing lets you tap into the value without paying for it. That way, when the price (hopefully) drops you profit from the difference. In your example, if you hadn't paid the £20 in the first place, then you would actually be up £5. But since you started with £20, you still show loss. As others said, borrowing is the definition of selling short. It is also simply the only way the math works. Of course, there is a large risk you must assume to enjoy benefiting from something you do not own!\",\n \"In order to compare the two, you need to compare your entire portfolio, which is not just how much money you have, but how much stock. In both scenarios, you start with (at least, but let's assume) £20 and 0 stock. In your scenario, you buy 10 shares, leaving you with £0 and 10 shares. You then sell it at £1.50/share to cut your losses, leaving you with £15 and 0 shares. That concludes the first transaction with a net loss of £5. In a second transaction, you then buy 10 shares again at £1/share, leaving you with £5 and 10 shares. You are still down £15 from the start, but you also still have 10 shares. Any further profit or loss depends on what you can get for those 10 shares in the future. In a short sale, you borrow 10 shares and sell them, leaving you with £40 (your initial £20 plus what you just made on the short sale) and -10 shares of stock. At the end of the contract, you must buy 10 shares to return them; you are able to do so at £1.50/share, leaving you with £25 and 0 shares. At this point, your exposure to the stock is complete, and you have a net gain of £5.\",\n \"\\\"You didn't win in case B. Borrowing shares and then selling them is known as \\\"\\\"selling short\\\"\\\". You received $2000 when you sold short 100 shares at $20. You spent $1000 to buy them back at $10, so you come out $1000 ahead on that deal. But at the same time, the 100 shares you already owned have declined in value from $20 to $10, so you are down $1000 on that deal. So you've simply broken even, and you are still out the interest and transaction fees. In effect, a short sale allows you to sell shares you don't own. But if you do already own them, then the effect is the same as if you just sold your own shares. This makes it easier to see that this is just a complicated and expensive way of accomplishing nothing at all.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"First, you are not exactly \\\"\\\"giving\\\"\\\" the brokerage $2000. That money is the margin requirement to protect them in the case the stock price rises. If you short 200 shares as in your example and they are holding $6000 from you then they are protected in the event of the stock price increasing to $30/share. Sometime before it gets there the brokerage will require you to deposit more money or they will cover your position by repurchasing the shares for your account. The way you make money on the short sale is if the stock price declines. It is a buy low sell high idea but in reverse. If you believe that prices are going to drop then you could sell now when it is high and buy back later when it is lower. In your example, you are selling 200 shares at $20 and later, buying those at $19. Thus, your profit is $200, not counting any interest or fees you have paid. It's a bit confusing because you are selling something you'll buy in the future. Selling short is usually considered quite risky as your gain is limited to the amount that you sold at initially (if I sell at $20/share the most I can make is if the stock declines to $0). Your potential to lose is unlimited in theory. There is no limit to how high the stock could go in theory so I could end up buying it back at an infinitely high price. Neither of these extremes are likely but they do show the limits of your potential gain and loss. I used $20/share for simplicity assuming you are shorting with a market order vs a limit order. If you are shorting it would be better for you to sell at 20 instead of 19 anyway. If someone says I would like to give you $20 for that item you are selling you aren't likely to tell them \\\"\\\"no, I'd really only like $19 for it\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I know its not legal to have open long and short position on specific security (on two stock exchanges - NSE/BSE) There is nothing illegal about it. There are prescribed ways on how this is addressed. In Cash Segment / Intra Day trades: One can short sell a security. If by end of day he does not buy the security; it goes into Auction. The said security is purchased on your behalf. Any profit or loss arising out of this is charged to you. Similarly one can buy a security; if one does not pay the amount by end of day; it would go into auction and sold. Any profit or loss arising out of this is charged to you. If you short sell a security on one exchange; you have to buy it on same exchange. If you buy on other exchange; it will not be adjusted against this short position. Also is it legal to have long position on stock and short its derivative (future/option)? There are no restrictions. Edit: @yety Party A shorts 10 shares of HDFC today in Intra-Day Cash Segment purchased by Party B. Rather than buying back 10 shares or allowing it to go into auction... Party A borrows 10 HDFC Shares from \\\"\\\"X\\\"\\\" via SLB for a period of say 6 months [1 month to 1 year]. This is recorded as Party A obligation to \\\"\\\"X\\\"\\\". These 10 borrowed shares are transferred to Party B. So Party \\\"\\\"X\\\"\\\" doesn't have any HDFC shares at this point in time. However in exchange, Party X receives fees for borrowing from Party A. If there is dividend, are declared, Company pays Party B. However SLB recovers identical amount from Party A and pays Party X. If there is 1:1 split, now party A owes Party X 20 HDFC Shares. On maturity [after 6 months], Party A has to buy these from market and given back the borrowed shares to Party X. If there are some other corporate actions, i.e. mergers / amalgamations ... the obligation of Party A to Party X is closed immediately and position settled. Of course there are provisions whereby party A can pay back the shares earlier or party X can ask for shares earlier and there are rules/trades/mechanisms to facilitate this.\\\"\",\n \"Correct, long/short strategies should have zero beta with the stock market. But this is intentional, and investors in true *hedged* funds seek this *portable alpha* as a complement to their long-only sleeve in the portfolio. My question is: if for example, you are long low P/E stocks, and a short high P/E stocks what *creates* the alpha? Your portfolio should have zero beta. I believe in the long-run this long/short P/E strategy [generates ~300 basis points of return per year (un-levered)](http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/data_library.html). Is not reasonable to assume if returns from long only investing is driven by beta (and investors use 6% to 12% discount rates in their valuation models), then an an un-levered long/short strategy should always under-perform a long-only strategy in the long-run. The purpose of long/short strategies is not to beat long-only investing, it is to create [portable alpha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_alpha). In fact, at a high level of abstraction, the *average* long/short strategy should not earn a return greater than the risk free rate in the long-run because the strategy has zero beta.\",\n \"A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.\",\n \"\\\"Without going into minor details, an FX transaction works essentially like this. Let's assume you have SEK 100 on your account. If you buy 100 USD/RUB at 1.00, then that transaction creates a positive cash balance on your account of USD 100 and a negative cash balance (an overdraft) of RUB 100. So right after the transaction (assuming there is not transaction cost), the \\\"\\\"net equity\\\"\\\" of your account is: 100 SEK + 100 USD - 100 RUB = 100 + 100 - 100 = 100 SEK. Let's say that, the day after, the RUB has gone down by 10% and the RUB 100 is now worth SEK 90 only. Your new equity is: 100 SEK + 100 USD - 100 RUB = 100 + 100 - 90 = 110 SEK and you've made 10%(*): congrats! Had you instead bought 100 SEK/RUB, the result would have been the same (assuming the USD/SEK rate constant). In practice the USD/SEK rate would probably not be constant and you would need to also account for: (*) in your example, the USD/RUB has gone up 10% but the RUB has gone down 9.09%, hence the result you find. In my example, the RUB has gone down 10% (i.e. the USD has gone up 11%).\\\"\",\n \"In this type of strategy profit is made when the shares go down as your main position is the short trade of the common stock. The convertible instruments will tend to move in about the same direction as the underlying (what it can be converted to) but less violently as they are traded less (lower volatility and lower volume in the market on both sides), however, they are not being used to make a profit so much as to hedge against the stock going up. Since both the bonds and the preference shares are higher on the list to be repaid if the company declares bankruptcy and the bonds pay out a fixed amount of interest as well, both also help protect against problems that may occur with a long position in the common stock. Essentially the plan with this strategy is to earn fixed income on the bonds whilst the stock price drops and then to sell both the bonds and buy the stock back on the market to cover the short position. If the prediction that the stock will fall is wrong then you are still earning fixed income on the debt and are able to convert it into stock at the higher price to cover the short sale eliminating, or reducing, the loss made on the short sale. Effectively the profit here is made on the spread between the price of the bond, accounting for the conversion price, and the price of the stock and that fixed income is less volatile (except usually in the junk market) than stock.\",\n \"\\\"You sold $10,000 worth of stock so that money is essentially yours. However, you sold this stock without actually owning any which means that you, through your broker, are currently borrowing shares amounting to (at the time of your sale) $10,000 from someone who actually owns this stock. You will be paying this person interest for the privilege of borrowing their shares, the exact amount charged varies wildly and depends on factors such as short interest in the stock (loads of people want to go short = shareholders can charge high interest) etc. If I remember correctly hovering over the \\\"\\\"position\\\"\\\" column in your portfolio in the IB Workstation should give you information about the interest rate charged. You will have to buy back these shares from the lender at some point which is why the $10k isn't just \\\"\\\"free money.\\\"\\\" If the stock has gone up in price in the meantime you are going to be paying more than the $10k you got for the same amount of shares and vice versa.\\\"\",\n \"A long straddle using equity would be more akin to buying a triple leveraged ETF and an inverse triple leveraged ETF, only because one side will approach zero while the other can theoretically increase to infinity, in a short time span before time decay hits in. The reason your analogy fails is because the delta is 1.0 on both sides of your trade. At the money options, a necessary requirement for a straddle, have a delta of .5 There is an options strategy that uses in the money calls and puts with a delta closer to 1.0 to create an in the money strangle. I'm not sure if it is more similar to your strategy, an analogous options strategy would be better than yours as it would not share the potential for a margin call.\",\n \"The Explanation is correct. The Traders buys the 1st call and profits linearly form 40$ onwards. At at 45 the short call kick in and neutralizes any further profit on the first call.\",\n \"\\\"Derivatives derive their value from underlying assets. This is expressed by the obligation of at least one counterparty to trade with the other counterparty in the future. These can take on as many combinations as one can dream up as it is a matter of contract. For futures, where two parties are obligated to trade at a specific price at a specific date in the future (one buyer, one seller), if you \\\"\\\"short\\\"\\\" a future, you have entered into a contract to sell the underlying at the time specified. If the price of the future moves against you (goes up), you will have to sell at a loss. The bigger the move, the greater the loss. You go ahead and pay this as well as a little extra to be sure that you satisfy what you owe due to the future. This satisfaction is called margin. If there weren't margin, people could take huge losses on their derivative bets, not pay, and disrupt the markets. Making sure that the money that will trade is already there makes the markets run smoothly. It's the same for shorting stocks where you borrow the stock, sell it, and wait. You have to leave the money with the broker as well as deposit a little extra to be sure you can make good if the market moves to a large degree against you.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"For sake of simplicity, say the Euro is trading at $1.25. You have leveraged control of $100,000 given the 100x leverage. If you are bullish on the Euro, you are long 80,000 euros. For every 1% it rises, you gain $1000. If it drops by the same 1%, you are wiped out, you lost your $1000. With the contracts I am familiar with, there is a minimum margin, and your account is \\\"\\\"marked to market\\\"\\\" each night. If your positive balance drops too low, you get the margin call. It's a zero sum game, for every dollar you make, there's a guy on the other side of the trade. Odds are he's doing this full time and is smarter than you.\\\"\",\n \"You are long the puts. By exercising them you force the underlying stock to be bought from you at your strike price. Let's say your strike it $100 and the stock is currently $25. Buy 100 shares and exercise 1 (bought/long) put. That gives you $7500 of new money, so do the previous sentence over again in as many 'units' as you can.\",\n \"\\\"So, the term \\\"\\\"ready market\\\"\\\" simply means that a market exists in which there are legitimate buy/sell offers, meaning there are investors willing to own or trade in the security. A \\\"\\\"spot market\\\"\\\" means that the security/commodity is being delivered immediately, rather at some predetermined date in the future (hence the term \\\"\\\"futures market\\\"\\\"). So if you buy oil on the spot market, you'd better be prepared to take immediate delivery, where as when you buy a futures contract, the transaction doesn't happen until some later date. The advantage for futures contract sellers is the ability to lock in the price of what they're selling as a hedge against the possibility of a price drop between now and when they can/will deliver the commodity. In other words, a farmer can pre-sell his grain at a set price for some future delivery date so he can know what he's going to get regardless of the price of grain at the time he delivers it. The downside to the farmer is that if grain prices rise higher than what he sold them for as futures contracts then he loses that additional money. That's the advantage to the buyer, who expects the price to rise so he can resell what he bought from the farmer at a profit. When you trade on margin, you're basically borrowing the money to make a trade, whether you're trading long (buying) or short (selling) on a security. It isn't uncommon for traders to pledge securities they already own as collateral for a margin account, and if they are unable to cover a margin call then those securities can be liquidated or confiscated to satisfy the debt. There still may even be a balance due after such a liquidation if the pledged securities don't cover the margin call. Most of the time you pay a fee (or interest rate) on whatever you borrow on margin, just like taking out a bank loan, so if you're going to trade on margin, you have to include those costs in your calculations as to what you need to earn from your investment to make a profit. When I short trade, I'm selling something I don't own in the expectation I can buy it back later at a lower price and keep the difference. For instance, if I think Apple shares are going to take a steep drop at some point soon, I can short them. So imagine I short-sell 1000 shares of AAPL at the current price of $112. That means my brokerage account is credited with the proceeds of the sale ($112,000), and I now owe my broker 1000 shares of AAPL stock. If the stock drops to $100 and I \\\"\\\"cover my short\\\"\\\" (buy the shares back to repay the 1000 I borrowed) then I pay $100,000 for them and give them to my broker. I keep the difference ($12,000) between what I sold them for and what I paid to buy them back, minus any brokerage fees and fees the broker may charge me for short-selling. In conclusion, a margin trade is using someone else's money to make a trade, whether it's to buy more or to sell short. A short trade is selling shares I don't even own because I think I can make money in the process. I hope this helps.\\\"\",\n \"why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Because if you sell shares out of your own portfolio, by definition, you are not selling short at all. If you sell something you own (and deliver it) - then there is no short involved. A short is defined as a net negative position - i.e. you sell shares you do not have. Selling shares you own is selling shares you own - no short involved. You must borrow the shares for a short because in the stock market, you must DELIVER. You can not deliver shares you do not own. The stock market does not work on promises - the person who bought the shares expects ownership of them with all rights that gives them. So you borrow them to deliver them, then return them when you buy them back.\",\n \"http://www.investopedia.com/university/shortselling/shortselling1.asp 'Therein lies the major risk of short selling, the fear of infinite losses. While the maximum loss for a long investor is the amount invested in a security, the maximum loss for a short seller is theoretically infinite, since there is no upper limit to a stock’s price appreciation. This risk is compounded by the fact that during a short squeeze or buy-in...' Never have shorted a stock. Too intimidated by that!\",\n \"I'm not sure how detailed of an explanation you're hoping for. Bear ETFs basically just short sell the underlying asset. The more highly levered ETFs will also use a combination of options, futures, and swaps to achieve their target leverage. The inversion isn't perfect though, and their target is usually just to close inverse to the *daily* return of their underlying asset. If you feel like reading, [here is an example.](http://direxioninvestments.onlineprospectus.net/DirexionInvestments//SPXS/index.html?open=Summary%20Prospectus) You can find the investment overview on page 4.\",\n \"Variance of a single asset is defined as follows: σ2 = Σi(Xi - μ)2 where Xi's represent all the possible final market values of your asset and μ represents the mean of all such market values. The portfolio's variance is defined as σp2 = Σiwi2σi2 where, σp is the portfolio's variance, and wi stands for the weight of the ith asset. Now, if you include the borrowing in your portfolio, that would classify as technically shorting at the borrowing rate. Thus, this weight would (by the virtue of being negative) increase all other weights. Moreover, the variance of this is likely to be zero (assuming fixed borrowing rates). Thus, weights of risky assets rise and the investor's portfolio's variance will go up. Also see, CML at wikipedia.\",\n \"Leverage is when you borrow in order to invest. Mind you, most people aren't going to just give you money to gamble on the stock market completely unsecured; rather, you deposit (say) $10,000 and buy a stock... and then you have $10k in assets which you can borrow against, so you can buy another $10,000 of that stock. Now if the stock goes up you'll make twice the gain (2x leverage). However, if it goes down, you'll lose twice as much as well. If the value of your stock falls, your line of credit will be reduced as well; in this case, since you used all your credit and are now over your limit, your broker will issue a margin call (they will demand a deposit of additional funds, or they will sell some of your stock at their discretion). This protects you from owing more than you invested, but it's still sometimes possible (for instance, if a company spontaneously goes bankrupt and becomes worthless, and your stock becomes worthless). There are also things like leveraged index funds and commodity funds which aim to return some multiple of the market's earnings. These are designed for intraday trading, though, and usually end up underperforming significantly over the long term. [edit] Mose people who accept borrowed funds should generally accept real cash as well. However, if you're trying to short sell, i.e. borrow shares and sell them (in the hopes you can get them back cheaper later after the stock falls) you will need a margin line of credit to do so as well. [edit 2] clarified margin calls\",\n \"The paragraph before on page 115 states: Scaling corresponds to having a weight in the long and short legs that is different from one and varies over time, but the strategy is still self-financing. Meaning that the long and short positions are no longer equal due to weighting one side more highly than the other. The weighting of one side (either long or short) is the number between 0.2 and 2 that you mention.\",\n \"For long periods of time a short ETF's performance will not match the negative of the long ETF, e.g. funding costs and the fact that they 'only' match daily returns will result in a suboptimal performance. If possible use other derivatives like a put on a long gold etf (fgriglesnickerseven)\",\n \"\\\"He sold at 25 cents per pound and then as the price rises, the cash he has will buy less and less which could trigger a margin call as you are missing the \\\"\\\"short\\\"\\\" part of his position which is rather important here. From Investopedia: A margin account also allows your brokerage firm to liquidate your position if the likelihood that you will return what you've borrowed diminishes. This is part of the agreement that is signed when the margin account is created. From the broker's perspective, this increases the likelihood that you will return the shares before losses become too large and you become unable to return the shares. If you sold at 25 cents per pound and the price goes up, at some point you may be forced to buy to cover the position as brokers don't like to lose their money. As another example of a short going bad, \\\"\\\"Devastated\\\"\\\" Trader Crushed By Soaring Biotech, Starts Online Begging Campaign To Fund $106,000 Margin Call notes in part: However where this story gets abusrdly entertaining, or woefully tragic, depending on one's perspective, is that one trader, Joe Campbell, was on the wrong side of last night's massive surge. As the RutRho blog, which noticed it first explains, a \\\"\\\"dummy\\\"\\\" E-trader, Joe Campbell, decided to go $35,000 short KBIO \\\"\\\"and now owes $ETFC a wonderful $106K.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"I will just try to come up with a totally made up example, that should explain the dynamics of the hedge. Consider this (completely made up) relationship between USD, EUR and Gold: Now lets say you are a european wanting to by 20 grams of Gold with EUR. Equally lets say some american by 20 grams of Gold with USD. Their investment will have the following values: See how the europeans return is -15.0% while the american only has a -9.4% return? Now lets consider that the european are aware that his currency may be against him with this investment, so he decides to hedge his currency. He now enters a currency-swap contract with another person who has the opposite view, locking in his EUR/USD at t2 to be the same as at t0. He now goes ahead and buys gold in USD, knowing that he needs to convert it to EUR in the end - but he has fixed his interestrate, so that doesn't worry him. Now let's take a look at the investment: See how the european now suddenly has the same return as the American of -9.4% instead of -15.0% ? It is hard in real life to create a perfect hedge, therefore you will most often see that the are not totally the same, as per Victors answer - but they do come rather close.\",\n \"Longing the short ETF will give you better returns than shorting the long etf. The reason is that as the price gets the smaller the absolute price change gets a lot smaller. So you would rather have upward price exposure than downward. A good case is SPXU and UPRO\",\n \"Shorting Stocks: Borrowing the shares to sell now. Then buying them back when the price drops. Risk: If you are wrong the stock can go up. And if there are a lot of people shorting the stock you can get stuck in a short squeeze. That means that so many people need to buy the stock to return the ones they borrowed that the price goes up even further and faster. Also whoever you borrowed the stock from will often make the decision to sell for you. Put options. Risk: Put values don't always drop when the underlying price of the stock drops. This is because when the stock drops volatility goes up. And volatility can raise the value of an option. And you need to check each stock for whether or not these options are available. finviz lists whether a stock is optional & shortable or not. And for shorting you also need to find a broker that owns shares that they are willing to lend out.\",\n \"Basic arbitrage is the (near-)simultaneous purchasing and selling of things that are convertible. The classic example is the international trading of equities. If someone in London wants to purchase a hundred shares of Shell for 40 GBP ea. and someone in New York wants to sell you a hundred shares of Shell for 61 USD ea., you can buy the shares from the guy in New York, sell them to the guy in London and convert your GBP back in to USD for a profit of $41.60 minus fees. Now, if after you buy the shares in New York, the price in London goes down, you'll be left holding 100 shares of Shell that you don't want. So instead you should borrow 100 shares in London and sell them at the exact same time that you buy the shares in New York, thus keeping your net position at 0. In fact, you should also borrow 4000GBP and convert them to USD at the same time, so that exchange rate changes don't get you.\",\n \"200% margin for a short sale is outrageous. You should only need to put up 150% margin, of which 50% is your money, and the 100% is the proceeds. With $100 of your money, you should be able to buy $100 of GOOG and short $100 of PNQI.\",\n \"Levarge in simple terms is how of your own money to how much of borrowed money. So in 2008 Typical leverage ratios were Investment Banks 30:1 means that for every 1 Unit of Banks money [shareholders capital/ long term debts] there was 30 Units of borrowed money [from deposits/for other institutions/etc]. This is a very unstable situation as typically say you lent out 31 to someone else, half way through repayments, the depositors and other lends are asking you 30 back. You are sunk. Now lets say if you lent 31 to some one, but 30 was your moeny and 1 was from deposits/etc. Then you can anytime more easily pay back the 1 to the depositor. In day trading, usually one squares away the position the same day or within a short period. Hence say you want to buy something worth 1000 in the morning and are selling it say the same day. You are expecting the price to by 1005 and a gain 5. Now when you buy via your broker/trader, you may not be required to pay 1000. Normally one just needs to pay a margin money, typically 10% [varies from market to market, country to country]. So in the first case if you put 1000 and get by 5, you made a profit of 0.5%. However if you were to pay only 10 as margin money [rest 990 is assumed loan from your broker]. You sell at 1005, the broker deducts his 990, and you get 15. So technically on 10 you have made 5 more, ie 50% returns. So this is leveraging of 10:1. If say your broker allowed only 5% margin money, then you just need to pay 5 for the 1000 trade, get back 5. You have made a 100% profit, but the leveraging is 20:1. Now lets say at this high leveraging when you are selling you get only 990. So you still owe the broker 5, if you can't pay-up and if lot of other such people can't pay-up, then the broker will also go bankrupt and there is a huge risk. Hence although leveraging helps in quite a few cases, there is always an associated risk when things go wrong badly.\",\n \"\\\"There are three ways to do this. So far the answers posted have only mentioned two. The three ways are: Selling short means that you borrow stock from your broker and sell it with the intent of buying it back later to repay the loan. As others have noted, this has unlimited potential losses and limited potential gains. Your profit or loss will go $1:$1 with the movement of the price of the stock. Buying a put option gives you the right to sell the stock at a later date on a price that you choose now. You pay a premium to have this right, and if the stock moves against you, you won't exercise your option and will lose the premium. Options move non-linearly with the price of the stock, especially when the expiration is far in the future. They probably are not for a beginner, although they can be powerful if used properly. The third option is a synthetic short position. You form this by simultaneously buying a put option and selling short a call option, both at the same strike price. This has a risk profile that is very much like the selling the stock short, but you can accomplish it entirely with stock options. Because you're both buying an selling, in theory you might even collect a small net premium when you open. You might ask why you'd do this given that you could just sell the stock short, which certainly seems simpler. One reason is that it is not always possible to sell the stock short. Recall that you have to borrow shares from your broker to sell short. When many people want to short the stock, brokers will run out of shares to loan. The stock is then said to be \\\"\\\"hard to borrow,\\\"\\\" which effectively prevents further short selling of the stock. In this case the synthetic short is still potentially possible.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"This is basically martingale, which there is a lot of research on. Basically in bets that have positive expected value such as inflation hedged assets this works better over the long term, than bets that have negative expected value such as table games at casinos. But remember, whatever your analysis is: The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. Things that can disrupt your solvency are things such as options expiration, limitations of a company's ability to stay afloat, limitations in a company's ability to stay listed on an exchange, limitations on your borrowings and interest payments, a finite amount of capital you can ever acquire (which means there is a limited amount of times you can double down). Best to get out of the losers and free up capital for the winners. If your \\\"\\\"trade\\\"\\\" turned into an \\\"\\\"investment\\\"\\\", ditch it. Don't get married to positions.\\\"\",\n \"I'm just began playing in the stock market. I assume you mean that you're not using real money, but rather you have an account with a stock simulator like the one Investopedia offers. I am hopeful that's the case due to the high level of risk involved in short selling like you're describing. Here is another post about short selling that expands a bit on that point. To learn much more about the ins and outs of short selling I will point again to Investopedia. I swear I don't work for them, but they do have a great short selling tutorial. When you short sell a stock you are borrowing the stock from your broker. (The broker typically uses stock held by one or more of his clients to cover the loan.) Since it's basically a loan you pay interest. Of course the longer you hold it the more interest you pay. Also, as Joe mentioned there are scenarios in which you may be forced to buy the stock (at a higher price than you sold it). This tends to happen when the stock price is going against the short sell (i.e. you lose money). Finally, did anyone mention that the potential losses in a short sell are infinite?\",\n \"\\\"Concerning the general problem of short selling and the need to borrow shares to complete the transaction : Selling short is a cash transaction. Unlike a futures contract, where a short seller is entering into a legal agreement to sell something in the future, in the case of short selling a share the buyer of the share is taking immediate delivery and is therefore entitled to all of the benefits and rights that come with share ownership. In particular, the buyer of the shares is entitled to any dividends payable and, where applicable, to vote on motions at AGMs. If the short seller has not borrowed the shares to sell, then buyer of non-existent shares will have none of the rights associated with ownership. The cash market is based on the idea of matching buyers and sellers. It does not accommodate people making promises. Consider that to allow short sellers to sell shares they have not borrowed opens up the possibility of the aggregate market selling more shares than actually exist. This would lead to all sorts of problematic consequences such as heavily distorting the price of the underlying share. If everyone is selling shares they have not borrowed willy-nilly, then it will drive the price of the share down, much to the disadvantage of existing share holders. In this case, short sellers who have sold shares they have not already borrowed would be paying out more in dividends to the buyers than the total dividends being paid out by the underlying company. There are instruments that allow for short selling of unowned shares on a futures basis. One example is a CFD = Contract for Difference. In the case of CFDs, sellers are obliged to pay dividends to buyers as well as other costs related to financing. EDIT Regarding your comment, note that borrowing shares is not a market transaction. Your account does not show you buying a share and then selling it. It simply shows you selling a share short. The borrowing is the result of an agreement between yourself and the lender and this agreement is off market. You do not actually pay the lender for the shares, but you do pay financing costs for the borrowing so long as you maintain your short position. EDIT I realise that I have not actually read your question correctly. You are not actually talking about \\\"\\\"naked\\\"\\\" short selling. You are talking about selling shares you already own in a hope of maintaining both a long and short position (gross). The problem with this approach is that you must deliver the shares to the buyer. Otherwise, ask yourself what shares is the buyer actually buying if you want the bought shares to remain in your account. If you are not going to deliver your long position shares, then you will need to borrow the shares you are selling short for the reasons I have outlined above.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I saw that an answer hasn't been accepted for this yet: Being bearish is a good hedging strategy. But being hedged is a better hedging strategy. The point being that not everything in investments is so binary (up, and down). A lot of effective hedges can have many more variables than simply \\\"\\\"stock go up, stock go down\\\"\\\" As such, there are many ways to be bearish and profit from a decline in market values without subjecting yourself to the unlimited risk of short selling. Buying puts against your long equity position is one example. Being long an ETF that is based on short positions is another example.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"With stocks, you can buy or sell. If you sell first, that's called 'shorting.' As in \\\"\\\"I think linkedin is too high, I'm going to short it.\\\"\\\" With options, the terminology is different, the normal process is to buy to open/sell to close, but if you were shorting the option itself, you would first sell to open, i.e you are selling a position to start it, effectively selling it short. Eventually, you may close it out, by buying to close. Options trading is not for the amateur. If you plan to trade, study first and be very cautious.\\\"\",\n \"Purchasing an option to sell the stock is probably the safest bet. This gives you reasonable leverage, and your risk is limited to the cost of the option. Say the stock currently sells for $100 per share. You think it will drop to $80 per share in the next two weeks and the market thinks the price will be stable. Now, consider an option to sell one share of that stock for $95 any time within the next two weeks. The market would consider that option nearly worthless, since in all likelihood, you would lose out by exercising it (since you could just sell the share on the market for a price expected to be higher than that). You might be able to acquire that option for $5. Now, say you're right and within two weeks, the price drops to $80. Now you can purchase a share for $80, exercise the option to sell it for $95, and pocket $15. That would make you a $10 profit on a $5 investment. If you're wrong, you just let the option lapse and are out $5. No problem. In reality, you would buy a number of such options. And you wouldn't actually buy a share and exercise the option, you would just sell the option back to its issuer for $15.\",\n \"I don't have a direct short position. It is a structured product linked to the performance of Tesla. I basically get a fixed coupon payment every quater and as long as Tesla doesn't move up more than 50% in the next half year I get my initial investment back plus the coupons. If it should move up more than 50% I lose that percentage of my initial investment\",\n \"\\\"Writing a put for a stock means you are selling the right to sell you stock. Simply put (er no pun intended), \\\"\\\"writing put options\\\"\\\" means you are selling somebody else the right (a contract) to sell YOU a specific stock at a specific price before a specific date. I imagine the word \\\"\\\"write\\\"\\\" to refer to the physical act of creating a contract. The specific price is called the STRIKE and the specific date is the EXPIRATION. By \\\"\\\"writing a put\\\"\\\", you are agreeing to purchase the stock at a particular price (the STRIKE price) before the expiration. You get paid a fee, the \\\"\\\"premium\\\"\\\", for agreeing to purchase the stock at the strike price if asked to. If the holder of the contract decides to make you buy the stock at the strike price, you have to do it. If the stock never dips below the strike price, then the holder of the put contract (a contract you wrote), will never exercise their right because they'd lose money. But if the stock drops to zero, you could potentially lose up to your strike price (times the number of shares at stake), if the holder of the contract decides to exercise. Therefore, \\\"\\\"writing puts\\\"\\\" is a LONG position, meaning you stand to gain if the stock goes up. FYI - \\\"\\\"LONG\\\"\\\" refers direction (UP!), not duration.\\\"\",\n \"A bullish (or 'long') call spread is actually two separate option trades. The A/B notation is, respectively, the strike price of each trade. The first 'leg' of the strategy, corresponding to B, is the sale of a call option at a strike price of B (in this case $165). The proceeds from this sale, after transaction costs, are generally used to offset the cost of the second 'leg'. The second 'leg' of the strategy, corresponding to A, is the purchase of a call option at a strike price of A (in this case $145). Now, the important part: the payoff. You can visualize it as so. This is where it gets a teeny bit math-y. Below, P is the profit of the strategy, K1 is the strike price of the long call, K2 is the strike price of the short call, T1 is the premium paid for the long call option at the time of purchase, T2 is the premium received for the short call at the time of sale, and S is the current price of the stock. For simplicity's sake, we will assume that your position quantity is a single option contract and transaction costs are zero (which they are not). P = (T2 - max(0, S - K2)) + (max(0, S - K1) - T1) Concretely, let's plug in the strikes of the strategy Nathan proposes, and current prices (which I pulled from the screen). You have: P = (1.85 - max(0, 142.50 - 165)) - (max(0, 142.50 - 145)) = -$7.80 If the stock goes to $150, the payoff is -$2.80, which isn't quite break even -- but it may have been at the time he was speaking on TV. If the stock goes to $165, the payoff is $12.20. Please do not neglect the cost of the trades! Trading options can be pretty expensive depending on the broker. Had I done this trade (quantity 1) at many popular brokers, I still would've been net negative PnL even if NFLX went to >= $165.\",\n \"\\\"My take on this is that with any short-selling contract you are engaging in, at a specified time in the future you will need to transfer ownership of the item(s) you sold to the buyer. Whether you own the item(s) or in your case you will buy your friend's used car in the meantime (or dig enough gold out of the ground - in the case of hedging a commodity exposure) is a matter of \\\"\\\"trust\\\"\\\". Hence there is normally some form of margin or credit-line involved to cover for you failing to deliver on expiry.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"There is no opposite of a hedge, except not having a hedge at all. A \\\"\\\"hedge\\\"\\\" isn't directional. If you are short, you hedge by having something that minimizes your losses if you are wrong. If you are long, you hedge by having something that minimizes your losses if it decreases in value. If you own a house, you hedge by having insurance. There are \\\"\\\"hedged bets\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"unhedged bets\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"Suppose that the ETF is currently at a price of $100. Suppose that the next day it moves up 10% (to a price of $110) and the following day it moves down 5% (to a price of $104.5). Over these two days the ETF has had a net gain of 4.5% from its original price. The inverse ETF reverses the daily gains/losses of the base ETF. Suppose for simplicity that the inverse ETF also starts out at a price of $100. So on the first day it goes down 10% (to $90) and on the second day it goes up 5% (to $94.5). Thus over the two days the inverse ETF has had a net loss of 5.5%. The specific dollar amounts do not matter here. The result is that the ETF winds up at 110%*95% = 104.5% of its original price and the inverse ETF is at 90%*105% = 94.5% of its original price. A similar example is given here. As suggested by your quote, this is due to compounding. A gain of X% followed by a loss of Y% (compounded on the gain) is not in general the same as a loss of X% followed by a gain of Y% (compounded on the loss). Or, more simply put, if something loses 10% of its value and then gains 10% of its new value, it will not return to its original value, because the 10% it gained was 10% of its decreased value, so it's not enough to bring it all the way back up. Likewise if it gains 10% and then loses 10%, it will go slightly below its original value (since it lost 10% of its newly increased value).\",\n \"Let's consider that transaction cost is 0(zero) for calculation. In the scenario you have stated, maximum profit that could be made is 55$, however risk is unlimited. Hedging can also be used to limit your losses, let's consider this scenario. Stock ABC trading @ 100$, I'll buy the stock ABC @ 100$ and buy a put option of ABC @ strike price 90$ for a premium of 5$ with an expiration date of 1 month. Possible outcomes I end up in a loss in 3 out of 4 scenarios, however my loss is limited to 15$, whereas profit is unlimited.\",\n \"The risk of the particular share moving up or down is same for both. however in terms of mitigating the risk, Investor A is conservative on upside, ie will exit if he gets 10%, while is ready to take unlimited downside ... his belief is that things will not go worse .. While Investor B is wants to make at least 10% less than peak value and in general is less risk averse as he will sell his position the moment the price hits 10% less than max [peak value] So it more like how do you mitigate a risk, as to which one is wise depends on your belief and the loss appetite\",\n \"It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either. Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check. Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated. So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if:\",\n \"\\\"You are likely making an assumption that the \\\"\\\"Short call\\\"\\\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \\\"\\\"write\\\"\\\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\\\"\",\n \"Borrow the overpriced bond promising to repay the lender $1000 in one year. Sell the bond immediately for $960. Put $952.38 in the bank where the it will gain enough to be worth $1000 in one year. You have +$7.62 immediate cash flow. In one year repay the bond lender with the $1000 from the bank.\",\n \"\\\"This doesn't make sense to me. Writing a covered call gives him a long delta position - the exact opposite of what he wants. And the tax losses won't turn a losing position into a winning one. Is there something I'm missing? Edit: Also, doesn't \\\"\\\"shorting against the box\\\"\\\" mean he has to have a long position, and short against that? That means you've got zero net delta, which isn't very useful at all...\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Being \\\"\\\"Long\\\"\\\" something means you own it. Being \\\"\\\"Short\\\"\\\" something means you have created an obligation that you have sold to someone else. If I am long 100 shares of MSFT, that means that I possess 100 shares of MSFT. If I am short 100 shares of MSFT, that means that my broker let me borrow 100 shares of MSFT, and I chose to sell them. While I am short 100 shares of MSFT, I owe 100 shares of MSFT to my broker whenever he demands them back. Until he demands them back, I owe interest on the value of those 100 shares. You short a stock when you feel it is about to drop in price. The idea there is that if MSFT is at $50 and I short it, I borrow 100 shares from my broker and sell for $5000. If MSFT falls to $48 the next day, I buy back the 100 shares and give them back to my broker. I pocket the difference ($50 - $48 = $2/share x 100 shares = $200), minus interest owed. Call and Put options. People manage the risk of owning a stock or speculate on the future move of a stock by buying and selling calls and puts. Call and Put options have 3 important components. The stock symbol they are actionable against (MSFT in this case), the \\\"\\\"strike price\\\"\\\" - $52 in this case, and an expiration, June. If you buy a MSFT June $52 Call, you are buying the right to purchase MSFT stock before June options expiration (3rd Saturday of the month). They are priced per share (let's say this one cost $0.10/share), and sold in 100 share blocks called a \\\"\\\"contract\\\"\\\". If you buy 1 MSFT June $52 call in this scenario, it would cost you 100 shares x $0.10/share = $10. If you own this call and the stock spikes to $56 before June, you may exercise your right to purchase this stock (for $52), then immediately sell the stock (at the current price of $56) for a profit of $4 / share ($400 in this case), minus commissions. This is an overly simplified view of this transaction, as this rarely happens, but I have explained it so you understand the value of the option. Typically the exercise of the option is not used, but the option is sold to another party for an equivalent value. You can also sell a Call. Let's say you own 100 shares of MSFT and you would like to make an extra $0.10 a share because you DON'T think the stock price will be up to $52/share by the end of June. So you go to your online brokerage and sell one contract, and receive the $0.10 premium per share, being $10. If the end of June comes and nobody exercises the option you sold, you get to keep the $10 as pure profit (minus commission)! If they do exercise their option, your broker makes you sell your 100 shares of MSFT to that party for the $52 price. If the stock shot up to $56, you don't get to gain from that price move, as you have already committed to selling it to somebody at the $52 price. Again, this exercise scenario is overly simplified, but you should understand the process. A Put is the opposite of a Call. If you own 100 shares of MSFT, and you fear a fall in price, you may buy a PUT with a strike price at your threshold of pain. You might buy a $48 June MSFT Put because you fear the stock falling before June. If the stock does fall below the $48, you are guaranteed that somebody will buy yours at $48, limiting your loss. You will have paid a premium for this right (maybe $0.52/share for example). If the stock never gets down to $48 at the end of June, your option to sell is then worthless, as who would sell their stock at $48 when the market will pay you more? Owning a Put can be treated like owning insurance on the stock from a loss in stock price. Alternatively, if you think there is no way possible it will get down to $48 before the end of June, you may SELL a $48 MSFT June Put. HOWEVER, if the stock does dip down below $48, somebody will exercise their option and force you to buy their stock for $48. Imagine a scenario that MSFT drops to $30 on some drastically terrible news. While everybody else may buy the stock at $30, you are obligated to buy shares for $48. Not good! When you sold the option, somebody paid you a premium for buying that right from you. Often times you will always keep this premium. Sometimes though, you will have to buy a stock at a steep price compared to market. Now options strategies are combinations of buying and selling calls and puts on the same stock. Example -- I could buy a $52 MSFT June Call, and sell a $55 MSFT June Call. I would pay money for the $52 Call that I am long, and receive money for the $55 Call that I am short. The money I receive from the short $55 Call helps offset the cost of buying the $52 Call. If the stock were to go up, I would enjoy the profit within in $52-$55 range, essentially, maxing out my profit at $3/share - what the long/short call spread cost me. There are dozens of strategies of mixing and matching long and short calls and puts depending on what you expect the stock to do, and what you want to profit or protect yourself from. A derivative is any financial device that is derived from some other factor. Options are one of the most simple types of derivatives. The value of the option is derived from the real stock price. Bingo? That's a derivative. Lotto? That is also a derivative. Power companies buy weather derivatives to hedge their energy requirements. There are people selling derivatives based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Remember those calls and puts on stock prices? There are people that sell calls and puts based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Sounds kind of ridiculous -- but now imagine that you are a solar power company that gets \\\"\\\"free\\\"\\\" electricity from the sun and they sell that to their customers. On cloudy days, the solar power company is still on the hook to provide energy to their customers, but they must buy it from a more expensive source. If they own the \\\"\\\"Sunny Days in Omaha\\\"\\\" derivative, they can make money for every cloudy day over the annual average, thus, hedging their obligation for providing more expensive electricity on cloudy days. For that derivative to work, somebody in the derivative market puts a price on what he believes the odds are of too many cloudy days happening, and somebody who wants to protect his interests from an over abundance of cloudy days purchases this derivative. The energy company buying this derivative has a known cost for the cost of the derivative and works this into their business model. Knowing that they will be compensated for any excessive cloudy days allows them to stabilize their pricing and reduce their risk. The person selling the derivative profits if the number of sunny days is higher than average. The people selling these types of derivatives study the weather in order to make their offers appropriately. This particular example is a fictitious one (I don't believe there is a derivative called \\\"\\\"Sunny days in Omaha\\\"\\\"), but the concept is real, and the derivatives are based on anything from sunny days, to BLS unemployment statistics, to the apartment vacancy rate of NYC, to the cost of a gallon of milk in Maine. For every situation, somebody is looking to protect themselves from something, and somebody else believes they can profit from it. Now these examples are highly simplified, many derivatives are highly technical, comprised of multiple indicators as a part of its risk profile, and extremely difficult to explain. These things might sound ridiculous, but if you ran a lemonade stand in Omaha, that sunny days derivative just might be your best friend...\\\"\",\n \"Buying the underlying asset will not completely hedge you, only what lies above 155 dollars (strike + price of option) - you still have the risk of losing everything but 5. You have a maximum earnings-potential of 55 dollars (strike of 150 - investment of 100 + option of 5) but you have a risk of losing 95$ (investment of 100 - option of 5). Say chance of winning everything or losing everything is 50-50, your expected outcome is 0.5 x -95 + 0.5 x 55 = -20$. Is this a great investment? Sure you don't know your odds - otherwise it would be a sure thing. You shouldn't sell the call option if you do not expect prices to go up - but in that case - why not just buy the underlying alone? Speculating in options is a dangerous game with infinite earnings-potential but also infinite loss potential. (Consider selling a call option and not buying the underlying and the price goes from 100 to 1.000.000.000).\",\n \"Depends on your time scale, but generally, I don't think it would work. What you'd really be betting on in this case is mean-reversal, which does not hold true in the equity universe (atleast not in the long run). If you look at the historical prices of the S&P, you'll notice it increases in terms of absolute dollar value. On the short term, however, if you feel the market has significantly undervalued or overvalued a security, then mean-reversal might be a reasonable bet to make. In that scenario, however, it seems to me that you are really looking for a volatility trade, in which case you might want to consider a straddle position using options. Here, the bet you'd be making is that the price at expiration will be inside a certain band (or outside the band, depending on your position).\",\n \"Well, arbitrage is a simple mean reversion strategy which states that any two similar commodity with some price difference (usually not much) will converge. So either you can bet on difference in prices in different exchanges or also you can bet on difference in futures value. For example if current price of stock is 14$ and if futures price is 10$. Then you can buy one futures contract and short one stock at the market price. This would lock in a profit of 4$ per share.\",\n \"On expiry, with the underlying share price at $46, we have : You ask : How come they substract 600-100. Why ? Because you have sold the $45 call to open you position, you must now buy it back to close your position. This will cost you $100, so you are debited for $100 and this debit is being represented as a negative (subtracted); i.e., -$100 Because you have purchased the $40 call to open your position, you must now sell it to close your position. Upon selling this option you will receive $600, so you are credited with $600 and this credit is represented as a positive (added) ; i.e., +$600. Therefore, upon settlement, closing your position will get you $600-$100 = $500. This is the first point you are questioning. (However, you should also note that this is the value of the spread at settlement and it does not include the costs of opening the spread position, which are given as $200, so you net profit is $500-$200 = $300.) You then comment : I know I am selling 45 Call that means : As a writer: I want stock price to go down or stay at strike. As a buyer: I want stock price to go up. Here, note that for every penny that the underlying share price rises above $45, the money you will pay to buy back your short $45 call option will be offset by the money you will receive by selling the long $40 call option. Your $40 call option is covering the losses on your short $45 call option. No matter how high the underlying price settles above $45, you will receive the same $500 net credit on settlement. For example, if the underlying price settles at $50, then you will receive a credit of $1000 for selling your $40 call, but you will incur a debit of $500 against for buying back your short $45 call. The net being $500 = $1000-$500. This point is made in response to your comments posted under Dr. Jones answer.\",\n \"Depends on the stock involved, but for the most part brokerages allow you gain entry at 50%, meaning you can short twice the cash on hand you have. Going forward, you need to maintain 30%, so on a $10,000 short, you'd have to maintain $3000 in your account. Example, an account with $5000 cash - You can short $10,000 securities. Let say 100 shares of xyz at $100 per share. After trade settles, you won't receive a margin call until your balance falls to $3000, probably right around the time xyz rises to $120 per share. Riskier stocks will have higher margin maintenance requirements - leveraged vehicles like FAS/FAZ (triple leveraged) require 90% margin (3x30%) if they are allowed to be 'shorted' at all.\",\n \"Let's make a few assumptions: You have several ways of achieving (almost) that, in ascending complexity: Note that each alternative will have a cost which can be small (forwards, futures) or large (CFDs, debit) and the hedge will never be perfect, but you can get close. You will also need to decide whether you hedge the unrealised P&L on the position and at what frequency.\",\n \"Short selling can be a good strategy to hedge, but you have almost unlimited downside. If a stock price skyrockets, you may be forced to cover your short by the brokerage before you want to or put up more capital. A smarter strategy to hedge, that limits your potential downside is to buy puts if you think the market is going down. Your downside is limited to the total amount that you purchased the put for and no more. Another way to hedge is to SELL calls that are covered because you own the shares the calls refer to. You might do this if you thought your stock was going to go down but you didn't want to sell your shares right now. That way the only downside if the price goes up is you give up your shares at a predetermined price and you miss out on the upside, but your downside is now diminished by the premium you were paid for the option. (You'd still lose money if the shares went down since you still own them, but you got paid the option premium so that helps offset that).\",\n \"You have stumbled upon a classic trading strategy known as the carry trade. Theoretically you'd expect the exchange rate to move against you enough to make this a bad investment. In reality this doesn't happen (on average). There are even ETFs that automate the process for you (and get better transaction costs and lending/borrowing rates than you ever could): DBV and ICI.\",\n \"\\\"Who are the losers going to be? If you can tell me for certain which firms will do worst in a bear market and can time it so that this information is not already priced into the market then you can make money. If not don't try. In a bull market stocks tend to act \\\"\\\"normally\\\"\\\" with established patterns such as correlations acting as expected and stocks more or less pricing to their fundamentals. In a bear market fear tends to overrule all of those things. You get large drops on relatively minor bad news and modest rallies on even the best news which results in stocks being undervalued against their fundamentals. In the crash itself it is quite easy to make money shorting. In an environment where stocks are undervalued, such as a bear market, you run the risk that your short, no matter how sure you are that the stock will fall, is seen as being undervalued and will rise. In fact your selling of a \\\"\\\"losing\\\"\\\" stock might cause it to hit levels where value investors already have limits set. This could bring a LOT of buyers into the market. Due to the fact that correlations break down creating portfolios with the correct risk level, which is what funds are required to do not only by their contracts but also by law to an extent, is extremely difficult. Risk management (keeping all kinds to within certain bounds) is one of the most difficult parts of a manager's job and is even difficult in abnormal market conditions. In the long run (definitions may vary) stock prices in general go up (for those companies who aren't bankrupted at least) so shorting in a bear market is not a long term strategy either and will not produce long term returns on capital. In addition to this risk you run the risk that your counterparty (such as Lehman brothers?) will file for bankruptcy and you won't be able to cover the position before the lender wants you to repay their stock to them landing you in even more problems.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I think what you really want to look into is put options. You can essentially replicate the same thing, without worrying about margin calls. Check out this site http://www.fundamentalfinance.com/options/options-basic-charts.php a quick glance seems to show it to be pretty good. The way you would limit downside risk is to buy a put option, allowing you to sell anytime within the next n months for the current price (assuming american). This will allow you to limit downside risk, however, potential profits do go down due to fees as another answer suggests this could be cost prohibitive. This type of strategy is also known as a \\\"\\\"protective put\\\"\\\". http://www.optionseducation.org/strategies_advanced_concepts/strategies/protective_put.html If you wanted to be more refined you could use Ak's bands, although you have to be looking for that specific outcome. Also due to complexity, this can become a taxing (in terms of time invested) and risky (if you are wrong) investment. Either way I think you need to study payoff curves a little more.\\\"\",\n \"Opened Long - is when you open a long position. Long means that you buy to open the position, so you are trying to profit as the price rises. So if you were closing a long position you would sell it. Closed Short - is when you close out a short position. Short means that you sell to open and buy back to close. With a short position you are trying to profit as the price falls. Scaled Out - means you get out of a position in increments as the price climbs (for long positions). Scaled In - means you set a target price and then invest in increments as the stock falls below that price (for long positions).\",\n \"Contrary to what other people said I believe that even without leverage you can lose more that you invest when you short a FX. Why? because the amount it can go down is alwasy limited to zero but it can, potentially, go up without limit. See This question for a mored detailed information.\",\n \"\\\"Yeah. This shorting the box nonsense is an extremely expensive way to capture downside. If I just drop $1000 on a long-dated out-of-the-money put I have significantly more downside exposure for much much less than the [100 X $160 - (call premium)]. That's like 16 grand dude!!! It does keep you more delta neutral, but still, stupid way to go about it, especially if you are concerned about \\\"\\\"cheap\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Bull means the investor is betting on a rising market. Puts are a type of stock option where the seller of a put option promises to buy 100 shares of stock from the buyer of the put option at a pre-agreed price called the strike price on any day before expiration day. The buyer of the put option does not have to sell (it is optional, thats why it is called buying an option). However, the seller of the put is required to make good on their promise to the buyer. The broker can require the seller of the put option to have a deposit, called margin, to help make sure that they can make good on the promise. Profit... The buyer can profit from the put option if the stock price moves down substantially. The buyer of the put option does not need to own the stock, he can sell the option to someone else. If the buyer of the put option also owns the stock, the put option can be thought of like an insurance policy on the value of the stock. The seller of the put option profits if the stock price stays the same or rises. Basically, the seller comes out best if they can sell put options that no one ends up using by expiration day. A spread is an investment consisting of buying one option and selling another. Let's put bull and put and spread together with an example from Apple. So, if you believed Apple Inc. AAPL (currently 595.32) was going up or staying the same through JAN you could sell the 600 JAN put and buy the 550 put. If the price rises beyond 600, your profit would be the difference in price of the puts. Let's explore this a little deeper (prices from google finance 31 Oct 2012): Worst Case: AAPL drops below 550. The bull put spread investor owes (600-550)x100 shares = $5000 in JAN but received $2,035 for taking this risk. EDIT 2016: The \\\"\\\"worst case\\\"\\\" was the outcome in this example, the AAPL stock price on options expiry Jan 18, 2013 was about $500/share. Net profit = $2,035 - $5,000 = -$2965 = LOSS of $2965 Best Case: AAPL stays above 600 on expiration day in JAN. Net Profit = $2,035 - 0 = $2035 Break Even: If AAPL drops to 579.65, the value of the 600 JAN AAPL put sold will equal the $2,035 collected and the bull put spread investor will break even. Commissions have been ignored in this example.\\\"\",\n \"I think you may be confused on terminology here. Financial leverage is debt that you have taken on, in order to invest. It increases your returns, because it allows you to invest with more money than what you actually own. Example: If a $1,000 mutual fund investment returns $60 [6%], then you could also take on $1,000 of debt at 3% interest, and earn $120 from both mutual fund investments, paying $30 in interest, leaving you with a net $90 [9% of your initial $1,000]. However, if the mutual fund 'takes a nose dive', and loses money, you still need to pay the $30 interest. In this way, using financial leverage actually increases your risk. It may provide higher returns, but you have the risk of losing more than just your initial principle amount. In the example above, imagine if the mutual fund you owned collapsed, and was worth nothing. Now, you would have lost $1,000 from the money you invested in the first place, and you would also still owe $1,000 to the bank. The key take away is that 'no risk' and 'high returns' do not go together. Safe returns right now are hovering around 0% interest rates. If you ever feel you have concocted a mix of options that leaves you with no risk and high returns, check your math again. As an addendum, if instead what you plan on doing is investing, say, 90% of your money in safe(r) money-market type funds, and 10% in the stock market, then this is a good way to reduce your risk. However, it also reduces your returns, as only a small portion of your portfolio will realize the (typically higher) gains of the stock market. Once again, being safer with your investments leads to less return. That is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact investing some part of your portfolio in interest-earning low risk investments is often advised. 99% is basically the same as 100%, however, so you almost don't benefit at all by investing that 1% in the stock market.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["There is no difference. When dealing with short positions, talking about percentages become very tricky since they no longer add up to 100%. What does the 50% in your example mean? Unless there's some base amount (like total amount of the portfolio, then the percentages are meaningless. What matters when dealing with long and short positions is the net total - meaning if you are long 100 shares on one stock trade and short 50 shares on another, then you are net long 50 shares.","If you mean the percentages of long/short positions within a mutual fund or ETF, then it's a percentage of the total value of the fund portfolio. In that case, positions of 50% in X, -50% in Y are not the same as 100% in X, -100% in Y. If the long and short positions are both for the same asset, then, as D Stanley mentions, all that matters is the net position. If you're equally long and short X, then the net position is always 0%.","\"When portfolio positions are reported in percentages, those percentages are relative to the portfolio's base equity. When you start out, that is equal to the cash you have in a portfolio. Later it's the net equity of the portfolio (i.e., how much money you could withdraw if you were to exit all your positions). If you put $5,000 into your account and are long and short 50%, then you are long $2,500 and short $2,500. If it's 100% and -100%, then long and short $5,000. \"\"Leverage\"\" is often computed gross (as if all positions were long). So if you have 100% and -100%, then your broker may say you are \"\"levered 2 to 1.\"\" That is, your gross exposure is twice as large as your underlying base equity.\""],"string":"[\n \"There is no difference. When dealing with short positions, talking about percentages become very tricky since they no longer add up to 100%. What does the 50% in your example mean? Unless there's some base amount (like total amount of the portfolio, then the percentages are meaningless. What matters when dealing with long and short positions is the net total - meaning if you are long 100 shares on one stock trade and short 50 shares on another, then you are net long 50 shares.\",\n \"If you mean the percentages of long/short positions within a mutual fund or ETF, then it's a percentage of the total value of the fund portfolio. In that case, positions of 50% in X, -50% in Y are not the same as 100% in X, -100% in Y. If the long and short positions are both for the same asset, then, as D Stanley mentions, all that matters is the net position. If you're equally long and short X, then the net position is always 0%.\",\n \"\\\"When portfolio positions are reported in percentages, those percentages are relative to the portfolio's base equity. When you start out, that is equal to the cash you have in a portfolio. Later it's the net equity of the portfolio (i.e., how much money you could withdraw if you were to exit all your positions). If you put $5,000 into your account and are long and short 50%, then you are long $2,500 and short $2,500. If it's 100% and -100%, then long and short $5,000. \\\"\\\"Leverage\\\"\\\" is often computed gross (as if all positions were long). So if you have 100% and -100%, then your broker may say you are \\\"\\\"levered 2 to 1.\\\"\\\" That is, your gross exposure is twice as large as your underlying base equity.\\\"\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":177,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"1230"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"How does Walmart account their expired food"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["191649"],"string":"[\n \"191649\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["191649","423163","131131","118083","25250","153520","226519","567849","135073","513362","380548","66198","183500","434619","209997","444145","207704","539511","440893","53225","348315","59819","351123","107584","327263","414454","216456","142201","140977","176627","4794","119857","470928","185508","33949","366830","120410","478295","33117","37306","8200","482464","212312","272709","570860","19789","15606","479985","62967","26790","378484","481537","107794","259728","465802","242516","546509","130200","202457","178521","69800","574840","489539","174714","276009","468141","480732","109754","481070","499454","30316","176090","428318","17127","78584","268339","282002","399199","299971","362060","261415","475955","424272","193529","256833","82199","517836","319560","211122","287243","271436","499889","565607","246461","106265","387578","263701","591079","152407","331981"],"string":"[\n \"191649\",\n \"423163\",\n \"131131\",\n \"118083\",\n \"25250\",\n \"153520\",\n \"226519\",\n \"567849\",\n \"135073\",\n \"513362\",\n \"380548\",\n \"66198\",\n \"183500\",\n \"434619\",\n \"209997\",\n \"444145\",\n \"207704\",\n \"539511\",\n \"440893\",\n \"53225\",\n \"348315\",\n \"59819\",\n \"351123\",\n \"107584\",\n \"327263\",\n \"414454\",\n \"216456\",\n \"142201\",\n \"140977\",\n \"176627\",\n \"4794\",\n \"119857\",\n \"470928\",\n \"185508\",\n \"33949\",\n \"366830\",\n \"120410\",\n \"478295\",\n \"33117\",\n \"37306\",\n \"8200\",\n \"482464\",\n \"212312\",\n \"272709\",\n \"570860\",\n \"19789\",\n \"15606\",\n \"479985\",\n \"62967\",\n \"26790\",\n \"378484\",\n \"481537\",\n \"107794\",\n \"259728\",\n \"465802\",\n \"242516\",\n \"546509\",\n \"130200\",\n \"202457\",\n \"178521\",\n \"69800\",\n \"574840\",\n \"489539\",\n \"174714\",\n \"276009\",\n \"468141\",\n \"480732\",\n \"109754\",\n \"481070\",\n \"499454\",\n \"30316\",\n \"176090\",\n \"428318\",\n \"17127\",\n \"78584\",\n \"268339\",\n \"282002\",\n \"399199\",\n \"299971\",\n \"362060\",\n \"261415\",\n \"475955\",\n \"424272\",\n \"193529\",\n \"256833\",\n \"82199\",\n \"517836\",\n \"319560\",\n \"211122\",\n \"287243\",\n \"271436\",\n \"499889\",\n \"565607\",\n \"246461\",\n \"106265\",\n \"387578\",\n \"263701\",\n \"591079\",\n \"152407\",\n \"331981\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"Any business, like any household, has items that are wasted. Unlike a household, a business does keep track of all items that are unsellable. Depending on the reason for the item being unsellable they are accounted for differently. Items that can be returned to the manufacturer are done so, and the business is given credit for that item. For the business the time spent processing, stocking and restocking that item, plus any time spent handling a return for that customer is harder to track. If they see the percentage of bad items is too large compared to sales they will want to address this with the manufacturer. Items that are spoiled by the business, which will include spoiled food items, will also be tracked. They will examine their choice of products, their procedures for those products and the quantities produced to try an minimize the spoilage. They don't just throw the items away, they keep track of the exact items and their worth. When they have to dispose of meat that has reached their \"\"sell by\"\" date they will actually scan the items into the computer. In some cases products can be transformed into other products: bread into bread pudding; in other situations they are \"\"reduced for quick sale\"\"; in other cases they are donated to a charity or food kitchen. All of this is also tracked. Of course any losses that the company can't recover by returning items to manufactures or repurposing will be reflected in the price of their items. Stores that can minimize their waste can offer lower prices.\"","Judgement, settlement, insurance proceeds, etc etc. These would probably be recorded as a negative expense in the same category where the original expense was recorded.","A rather good IRS paper on the topic states that a donation of a business' in-kind inventory would be Under IRC 170(e)(1), however, the fair market value must be reduced by the amount of gain that would not be long-term capital gain if the property had been sold by the donor at the property's fair market value (determined at the time of the contribution). Under this rule, deductions for donated inventory are limited to the property's basis (generally its cost), where the fair market value exceeds the basis. There are references to IRC regulations in a narrative context you may find helpful: This paper goes on for 16 pages describing detailed exceptions and the political reasons for the exceptions (most of which are concerned with encouraging the donation of prepared food from restaurants/caterers to hunger charities by guaranteeing a value for something that would otherwise be trashed valueless); and a worked out example of fur coats that had a cost of goods of $200 and a market value of $1000.","\"A simple way to account debt forgiveness of your receivables is to utilize a \"\"Bad Debt\"\" expense account. Take the following two examples: If you are only forgiving a portion of the principle, another popular term used is Principle Reduction as the expense account.\"","This is actually a HUGE source of profits for whole foods. The battered fruit and veggies you don't want or the rotisserie chicken that's been on the warmer 30 minutes longer than you like? Goes right into their prepared foods and cut fruit sections and marked way the fuck up.","Assuming that it's not inventory that is sold in the following year or a depreciable asset, you can deduct it when you make the purchase. The courts have ruled that credit cards balances are considered debt. It's treated the same way as if you went to the bank, got a loan, and used cash or a check to purchase the items. On your accounting books, you would debit the expense account and credit the credit card liability account. This is only for credit cards, which are considered loans. If you use a store charge card, then you cannot deduct it until you pay. Those are considered accounts payable. I'm an IRS agent and a CPA.","I would take each of these items and any others and consider how you would count it as an expense in the other direction. If you have an account for parking expenses or general transportation funds, credit that account for a refund on your parking. If you have an account for expenses on technology purchases, you would credit that account if you sell a piece of equipment as you replace it with an upgrade. If you lost money (perhaps in a jacket) how would you account for the cash that is lost? Whatever account would would subtract from put a credit for cash found.","\"If by \"\"loss on the sale\"\" you mean \"\"an expense\"\", then yes that is fine. Say you sell a $20 game on Steam (30% is very common on markets like Steam, Google Play Store, iTunes Store, etc...), then you would report: Side note: 30% is actually not that bad. For a product I helped bring into a few retail store chains, they are effectively taking closer to 40%, though retail can vary depending on several factors.\"","Once the business is shut down, you'll need to show that the corporation is in bankruptcy and the amounts are unrecoverable. You can then report it as investment loss. I suggest talking to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State), and maybe an attorney, on what the specific technical details are.","Yes, the business can count that as an expense but you will need to count that as income because a computer = money.","I would put it under advertising. Technically the domain name should be amortized over its useful life... you can't really expense it all in the first year, unless it fits within Section 179.","The money is still their money, it never becomes your money. The reason is as follows, The books now look like this: YOU: Asset: Mattress Liability: 600 THEM: Asset: 600 Liability: Mattress Now, in their books, they mistakenly thought the mattress was returned, and therefore they returned the mattress to you. The books now look like this YOU: Asset: Mattress Liability: 600 THEM: Asset: Mattress (incorrect) Liability: 0 As you see, their books are wrong, but yours are still correct. According to your books, you owe them $600, which you paid, but then they paid you back. You still have the liability. Why not just depreciate the mattress by 50% over two years? Then there will be no liability on your books.","Generally prepaid services should be capitalized over the period prepaid. But if it is up to a year - you can just expense them. As to the technicalities - you can contact Intuit support, but you should be able to put it in the same area where you put all your other business expenses. If you're a sole proprietor - that would be Schedule C.","If a business incurs expenses in the process of its trading, generally those expenses are deductible. Disposing of waste is generally held to be a deductible expense.","For the purpose of personal finance, treating $500 as Interest Expense is sufficient. For business accounting, it involves making the $500 a contra-liability and amortizing it as interest expense over the course of life of the loan.","You recognize expense when you sell the hot dog. When you pay for the buns you have inventory, which is an asset. When you sell the hot dog - you have cost of goods sold, which is the expense. Expense principle says that you recognize expense when you use the product. You use the buns when you actually sell the hot dog, not before. The matching principle is also honored because you recognize expense of the buns at the time of recognizing revenue of the hot dog.","Generally, to be able to write off worthless securities, you need to show that they're indeed worthless. It's not necessarily easy, as you need to prove that there's no way they will regain any value in the future. What is usually done, instead, is very simple: you sell them. Many brokers are aware of this problem and will assist by buying these securities from you at a nominal price (E*Trade, for example, for $0.01, ScotTrade for $0.00), and providing a proper trade confirmation. This is a bona fide sale, so if the stock does regain value - it will be a profit for the broker. In this case - you just report it as a sale at loss. Check with your broker if they support such a solution.","If your business pays taxes, it is in your best interest to expense it. Even if you don't pay taxes, setting your capitalization policy low enough to capitalize an office organizer (even a nice one) will give you headaches when your business grows larger.","In an accounting position, a domain name would fall under an intangible asset. Copyrights and patents are intangible, while tangible assets would be buildings or land (also known as property, plant, and equipment). Noting above, you can list it as an expense for personal reasons, but that would be poor classification. Tangible and intangible assets come with expenses such as legal fees and design. In these instances, you would expense the cost, or fee, but add back that value to the tangible or intangible as it would be considered maintenance. Please read here for tax treatment of a domain name. Please read here for what an intangible asset is. Also read here on page 11 for more clarification by IFRS.","One approach would be to create Journal Entries that debit asset accounts that are associated with these items and credit an Open Balance Equity account. The value of these contributions would have to be worked out with an accountant, as it depends on the lesser of the adjusted basis vs. the fair market value, as you then depreciate the amounts over time to take the depreciation as a business expense, and it adjusts your basis in the company (to calculate capital gains/losses when you sell). If there were multiple partners, or your accountant wants it this way, you could then debit open balance equity and credit the owner's contribution to a capital account in your name that represents your basis when you sell. From a pure accounting perspective, if the Open Balance Equity account would zero out, you could just skip it and directly credit the capital accounts, but I prefer the Open Balance Equity as it helps know the percentages of initial equity which may influence partner ownership percentages and identify anyone who needs to contribute more to the partnership.","The £500 are an expense associated with the loan, just like interest. You should have an expense account where you can put such financing expenses (or should create a new one). Again, treat it the same way you'll treat interest charges in future statements.","The CPA's mention of $2,500 is probably referring to the recently increased de minimis safe harbor under the final tangible property regulations (used to be $500) without an applicable financial statement. The IRS will not challenge your choice of expense or capitalization on amounts on or below $2500 if you elect the de minimis safe harbor election on your return. However, you must follow whatever you're doing for your books. (So if you are capitalizing your laptops for book purposes, you would also need to capitalize for tax purposes). Section 179 allows you to expense property that you would have otherwise have had to capitalize and depreciate. Section 179 can be annoying, especially if your LLC is treated as a passthrough, because there are recapture provisions when you dispose of the asset too early. For the tax return preparer, it makes the return preparation much more simple if there are no fixed assets to account for in the first place, which is quite possible if you are expensive all items/invoices less than $2,500.","According to the gnucash guide, losses are recorded as negative transactions against Income:Capital Gains. I've followed this model in the past when dealing with stocks and commodities. If on the other hand, you're talking about an asset which could normally follow a depreciation schedule, you might want to look at the section in the business guide dealing with asset depreciation.","or just input it in my accounting software along with receipts, and then when I'm doing taxes this would go under the investment or loses (is it somewhere along that line)? Yes, this. Generally, for the long term you should have a separate bank account and charge card for your business. I started my business (LLC) by filing online, and paying a fee for a registration, and that makes it a business cost right? Startup cost. There are special rules about this. Talk to your tax adviser. For the amounts in question you could probably expense it, but verify.","First of all, Dilip's answer explains well how the business deductions generally work. For most (big) expenses you depreciate it. However, in some cases you need to capitalize it, which is another accounting method. When you capitalize your expense, it becomes part of the basis of the product you're creating. Since you're an engineer, this might be relevant for you. Talk to your tax adviser. How exactly you deduct/depreciate/capitalize things, and what expense goes which way depends greatly on the laws and jurisdictions. Even in the US, different states have different laws, and the IRS and State laws don't have to conform (unfortunately). For example, the limitations on Sec. 179 deduction in 2010-2011 were 20 times higher on Federal level than in the State of California. This could have lead to cases where you fully deducted your expense on your Federal tax return, but need to continue and depreciate it on your State return (or vice versa). Good tax adviser is crucial to avoid or manage these cases.","\"If it's fully expensed, it has zero basis. Any sale is taxable, 100%. To the ordinary income / cap gain issue raised in comment - It's a cap gain, but I believe, as with real estate, special rates apply. This is where I am out of my area of expertise, and as they say - \"\"Consult a professional.\"\"\"","Assets with zero value, perhaps. Unless you can prove that they have resale value. Good luck with that. In other words, not worth spending time on.","IRS Pub 561 says you have to use fair market value. You cannot simply use a depreciated value. You should attempt to determine what people normally pay for comparable items, and be prepared to defend your determination with evidence in the event of an audit.","Yes, legitimate, documented, expenses are written off against that income.","Expense accounts are closed into equity. Same with revenue. So an increase in an expense means lower equity (lower retained earnings since there is more expense). Ergo, decrease equity and increase a liability. Increase a liability since it was accrued, which is usually used specifically to refer to things that kind of just happen in the background. Aka the firm most likely didn't pay cash for that right then and there so increase a payable.","Yes When exercising a stock option you will be buying the stock at the strike price so you will be putting up your money, if you lose that money you can declare it as a loss like any other transaction. So if the stock is worth $1 and you have 10 options with a strike at $0.50 you will spend $500 when you exercise your options. If you hold those shares and the company is then worth $0 you lost $500. I have not verified my answer so this is solely from my understanding of accounting and finance. Please verify with your accountant to be sure.","I cannot imagine an organizer being worth enough to consider depreciating the expense over a period of time greater than one year. Also, once you write in an organizer, it's pretty much worthless to anyone else. Talk to your accountant if you'd like, but I cannot see how you would classify a fancy organizer as a fixed asset.","\"There is no \"\"standard\"\" way for personal accounting. However, GNUCash default accounts set includes \"\"Expense: Adjustment\"\". It is usually used by the community for reconciliation of unknown small money lost.\"","Additionally, is grocery even a major profit center for Wal-Mart? It wasn't even a major feature of their stores 15+ years ago IIRC. I guess it has decent halo effects today, but I'd be surprised if they wouldn't be fine treating it like a loss leader as well.","Started as pt at a grocery store. Will never get used to throwing all that good meat out. Still has 2 days but there's fresher stock in back. It seems having bold and full shelves is the reason. They throw out food to have that clean magazine photo look of a store.","First, you should probably have a proper consultation with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). In fact you should have had it before you started, but that ship has sailed. You're talking about start-up expenses. You can generally deduct up to $5000 in the year your business starts, and the expenses in excess will be amortized over 180 months (15 years). This is per the IRC Sec. 195. The amortization starts when your business is active (i.e.: you can buy the property, but not actually open the restaurant - you cannot start the depreciation). I have a couple questions about accounting - should all the money I spent be a part of capital spending? Or is it just a part of it? If it qualifies as start-up/organizational expenses - it should be capitalized. If it is spent on capital assets - then it should also be capitalized, but for different reasons and differently. For example, costs of filing paperwork for permits is a start-up expense. Buying a commercial oven is a capital asset purchase which should be depreciated separately, as buying the tables and silverware. If it is a salary expense to your employees - then it is a current expense and shouldn't be capitalized. Our company is LLC if this matters. It matters to how it affects your personal tax return.","If it is more convenient for you - sure, go ahead and create another account. Generally, when you give someone a check - the money is no longer yours. So according to the constructive receipt doctrine, you've paid, whether the check was cashed or not. The QB is reflecting the correct matter of things. It doesn't matter that you're cash-based, the money still laying on your account because you gave someone a check that hasn't been cashed - is not your money and shouldn't be reflected in your books as such.","Walmart has really retarded rules already. If your truck is late 5 mins, you need to wait 24 hours to get de-loaded. And on top of that, they take in the worst produce available. What every other grocery store rejects, they take.","If this was a public corporation (stock) and the investment was made in a non-registered account, then you can claim a capital loss. Capital losses are claimed against capital gains (not income), and can be carried back 3 years or carried forward indefinitely. Here's an article I've written on how to claim capital losses that may help.","\"I used Quicken, so this may or may not be helpful. I have a Cash account that I call \"\"Temporary Assets and Liabilities\"\" where I track money that I am owed (or that I owe in some cases). So if I pay for something that is really not my expense, it is transferred to this account (\"\"transferred\"\" in Quicken terms). The payment is then not treated as an expense and the reimbursement is not treated as income--the two transactions just balance out.\"","Capital is an Asset. Decreasing value of capital is the decreasing value of an asset. When you buy the forex asset * DR Forex Asset * CR Cash When you sell * DR Cash * CR Forex Asset The difference is now accounted for Here is how: Gains (and losses) are modifications to your financial position (Balance sheet). At the end of the period you take your financial performance (Profit and Loss) and put it into your balance sheet under equity. Meaning that afterwards your balance sheet is better or worse off (Because you made more money = more cash or lost it, whatever). You are wanting to make an income account to reflect the forex revaluation so at the end of the period it is reflected in profit then pushed into your balance sheet. Capital gains directly affect your balance sheet because they increase/decrease your cash and your asset in the journal entry itself (When you buy and sell it). If making money this way is actually how you make you make an income it is possible to make an account for it. If you do this you periodically revalue the asset and write off the changes to the revaluation account. You would do something like *DR Asset *CR Forex Revaluation account; depending on the method you take. Businesses mostly do this because if the capital gains are their line of business they will be taxed on it like it is income. For simplicity just account for it when you buy and sell the assets (Because you as an individual will only recognise a profit/loss when you enter and exit). Its easier to think about income and expenses are extensions of equity. Income increases your equity, expenses decrease it. This is how they relate to the accounting formula (Assets = Liabilities + Owners Equity)","I'll give the credit to @Quid in the comments section of the question. You put out $10k, you got back $20k, that's a cash gain of $10k, how the asset was valued between your purchase and sale isn't relevant. From an accounting perspective, the company is the only party that is realizing the loss (as they have sold the asset for 40K less than par). You the buyer, only get to see the initial buy and sale of such capital asset. Example: A company purchases a car for $20,000 and after depreciation it is worth (book valued at) $2,000. It is then sold to a customer for $3,000. Does the customer realize a loss of $1,000? No. Does the company realize a gain of $1,000? Yes. Your bank analogy is flawed in two ways:","Generally speaking, if a business loses money for whatever reason, then that reduces the profits of the business which reduces the tax payable. However if you were holding the assets on a personal basis prior to incorporating the business, the position may become more complicated. For that kind of money some professional advice may be worthwhile.","Most items used in business have to be depreciated; you get to deduct a small fraction of the cost each year depending on the lifetime of the item as per IRS rules. That is, you cannot assume a one-year life for an electronic item even if it will be obsolete in three months. Some items can be expensed; you get to deduct the entire cost in the first year but then if you don't stay in business, e.g. you get a job paying wages and are no longer self-employed, you have to recapture this and pay taxes on the amount recaptured in the later year. With respect to consumer-type electronics such as an iPad or laptop, it helps to have a separate item for personal use that you can show in case of an audit.","Generally loan goes against an asset, in your case though it appear that you don't have any fixed assets related to this loan. So it seems like you got a cash loan (current asset/checking account?) which you spent (expenses). Since you're doing it retroactively, you'll probably just put totals in the expenses without detailing them.","Australian Goods and Services Tax is charged on the sale amount. Whatever internal accounting you do before billing the customer is of no interest to the Australian Tax Office.","You are not the person or entity against whom the crime was committed, so the Casualty Loss (theft) deduction doesn't apply here. You should report this as a Capital Loss, the same way all of the Enron shareholders did in their 2001 tax returns. Your cost basis is whatever you originally paid for the shares. The final value is presumably zero. You can declare a maximum capital loss of $3000, so if your net capital loss for the year is greater than that, you'll have to carry over the remainder to the following years. IRS publication 547 states: Decline in market value of stock. You can't deduct as a theft loss the decline in market value of stock acquired on the open market for investment if the decline is caused by disclosure of accounting fraud or other illegal misconduct by the officers or directors of the corporation that issued the stock. However, you can deduct as a capital loss the loss you sustain when you sell or exchange the stock or the stock becomes completely worthless. You report a capital loss on Schedule D (Form 1040). For more information about stock sales, worthless stock, and capital losses, see chapter 4 of Pub. 550.","Not sure I understand your question. If you're talking about paying off the payable, you decrease the liability and decrease an asset. Aka when you actually pay the wages, decrease cash and decrease wages payable. If you're talking about closing expense accounts, you simply credit the expense to zero and debit retained earnings for the same amount (which will reduce RE since RE is equity and has a normal credit balance). If you're talking about accruing revenue, you simply do the opposite of an expense. If revenue is accrued, then you credit a revenue account (increase it) and increase cash or acc receivable. If you're closing a revenue account, you debit the account to zero and credit Retained Earnings or Income Summary (which eventually gets closed into RE anyways). The sum of these revenues and expenses will leave you either with a debit or credit balance in RE. A credit balance means you have a profit and a debit balance means you have a loss. Other expenses like sales tax and other expenses excluding COGS might also be taken directly from RE or identified at the time of sale and held in its own separate account. But I'm not sure if this will answer your question since I'm not sure what you're asking.","\"Normally these are only generated upon an acquisition. When you acquire a business, all the tangible and intangible assets are market to \"\"fair value\"\", with goodwill as the plug to total to the actual purchase price. So the cash out the door is the purchase price. Then the asset is amortized. In the normal course you wouldn't create the intangible - the sales people salary would just be an expense.\"","If I sell it for $50 can I write off the $50 loss. Only if you can establish that it is a normal part of your business and that you did not get $50 worth of use out of it. That's the technical, legal argument. As a practical matter, it's unlikely that they'll ding you for selling something after using it, as they won't know. If they did catch you, you would be in trouble. You can't deduct loss due to personal use. The larger problem is that if you sell one TV for a $50 loss, they aren't going to believe that you are in the business of selling TVs. If you sell a larger amount for a loss, then they still are unlikely to believe that you are in business. If you sell a large amount for an overall gain, they are unlikely to notice that you took a loss on one TV. They could only notice that if they were already auditing you, as that wouldn't be visible in your tax forms.","To quote the answer you linked to: Perhaps the simplest way to think about this is you can only deduct an expense that you actually incur. In other words, the expense should show up on a bank or CC statement. So, if your business purchased the $1000 gift card for $800, you should see a $800 charge appearing on a business CC or bank statement. You would therefore be able to deduct the $800, but not the full $1000 of items that you purchase with it. Side Notes:","It doesn't go on Schedule E at all, it goes on form 4797. The fridge should have been depreciated, over 5 years. If you sold it after 5 years, all the proceeds are taxable income taxed as depreciation recapture (25% rate) up to the allowable depreciation (your original cost basis), above which it is taxable capital gain. Whether you actually have depreciated it or not, it is really your problem, IRS doesn't care. So if 5 years of ownership passed - just write it all as taxable income on the form 4797. Otherwise, allowable depreciation prorated (and you can still amend forms 3 years back to get at least part of it). The new fridge should also be depreciated over the 5 years of its expected useful life. See form 4562. Talk to a licensed tax professional (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for details.","If a business tool has a limited lifespan, it's value decreases (depreciates) from year to year. The business can capture that loss of value on some things that it couldn't otherwise write off as expenses. A few tools can be either expenses or depreciated, but only one of those can be chosen for that particular object. This is generally not relevant for individual taxpayers, unless you can show that the item is being used for income-producing purposes.","\"$500, this is called \"\"cash basis\"\" accounting. A large company might handle it otherwise, counting shipments/billings as revenue. Not you. Yet.\"","Purchase accounting requires that you mark assets, including PP&E to fair value. So let's say you bought a machine 5 years ago for $1,000 - you might have depreciated it to $250 on your balance sheet but it might actually be worth $900.","Here is how your CEO has to see it. Of course, eventually most revenues are generated by IT systems but technically IT still is an expense only activity unless of course you are selling the software/services offered by it. According to the US GAAP, software development costs are capitalized when a firm develops a software for its own use (e.g., nice shiny UI show bank's VaR, algorithmic trading engines, internal security infrastructure etc.). When the software is developed for sale, all the costs are expensed as incurred until the technical feasibility is established after which the costs are capitalized. The income is realized when licenses to use the software or the services provided by it are sold. According to international standards, the treatment for both the use cases shown above is the same --all the costs are expensed as incurred until the technical feasibility is established after which the costs are capitalized. The income is realized when licenses to use the software or the services provided by it are sold.","Costs for home / small business equipment under US$10,000 don't have to be capitalized. They can be expensed (that is, claimed as an expense all in one year.) Unless this printer is one of those behemoths that collates, folds, staples, and mails medium-sized booklets, it cost less than that. Keep track of your costs. Ask the charity to pay you those costs for the product you generate, and then donate that amount of money back to them. This will be good for the charity because they'll correctly account for the cost of printing.","gross profits 2011 31 billion http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_(WMT)/Data/Gross_Profit/2011/Q1 Net income 16.99 income http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_(WMT)/Data/Net_Income/2011 The simple truth is that companies that post these sort of net profits are basically off loading the cost of their labor onto the taxpayer by paying a non-livable wage. And we let them. Americans need to remember why they unionized a hundred years ago and grow some balls again. Corps are able to do shit like this only because we (the people) let them.","It is likely the policy of the credit card company. If you are running a business, you should factor in theft as part of your mark-up/margin. Every major business accounts for theft within their business practices and accounting. That way they are covered for instances like yours. If you have not been accounting for theft, then I'd highly recommend it. This might be an expensive learning lesson for your family business. Either implement new procedures such as checking ID with credit cards to match the names, or factor in theft/loss of product into your margins. Ideally, do both.","\"I dug up an old article on Motley Fool and one approach they mention is to get the stock certificates and then sell them to a friend: If the company was liquidated, you should receive a 1099-DIV form at year's end showing a liquidating distribution. Treat this as if you sold the stock for the amount of the distribution. The date of \"\"sale\"\" is the date that the distribution took place. Using your original cost basis in the shares, you can now compute your loss. If the company hasn't actually been liquidated, you'll need to make sure it's totally worthless before you claim a loss. If you have worthless stock that's not worth the hassle of selling through your broker, you can sell it to a friend (or cousin, aunt, or uncle) for pennies. (However, you can't sell the stock to a spouse, siblings, parents, grandparents, or lineal descendants.) Here's one way to do it: Send the certificate to your stock-transfer agent. Explain that the shares have been sold, and ask to cancel the old shares and issue a new certificate to the new owner. Some brokerages will offer you a quicker alternative, by buying all of your shares of the stock for a penny. They do it to help out their customers; in addition, over time, some of the shares may actually become worth more than the penny the brokers paid for them. By selling the shares, you have a closed transaction with the stock and can declare a tax loss. Meanwhile, your friend, relative, or broker, for a pittance, has just bought a placemat or birdcage liner.\"","\"I'm no accountant, but I think the way I'd want to approach this kind of thing in Gnucash would be to track it as an Asset, since it is. It sounds like your actual concern is that your tracked asset value isn't reflecting its current \"\"market\"\" value. Presumably because it's risky it's also illiquid, so you're not sure how much value it should have on your books. Your approach suggested here of having it as just as expense gives it a 0 value as an asset, but without tracking that there's something that you own. The two main approaches to tracking an investment in Gnucash are: Of course, both of these approaches do assume that you have some notion of your investment's \"\"current value\"\", which is what you're tracking. As the section on Estimating Valuation of the concepts guide says of valuing illiquid assets, \"\"There is no hard rule on this, and in fact different accountants may prefer to do this differently.\"\" If you really think that the investment isn't worth anything at the moment, then I suppose you should track it at 0, but presumably you think it's worth something or you wouldn't have bought it, right? Even if it's just for your personal records, part of a regular (maybe annual?) review of your investments should include coming up with what you currently value that investment at (perhaps your best guess of what you could sell it for, assuming that you could find a willing buyer), and updating your records accordingly. Of course, if you need a valuation for a bank or for tax purposes or the like, they have more specific rules about how they are tracking what things are worth, but presumably you're trying to track your personal assets for your own reasons to get a handle on what you currently own. So, do that! Take the time to get a handle on the worth of what you currently own. And don't worry about getting the value wrong, just take your best guess, since you can always update it later when you learn new information about what your investment is worth.\"","Are you sure these farmers sell straight to wall mart? There are always companies involved between big farms and grocery stores. They deliver the freshest produce to the higher end grocery stores first because they will pay more for it. If a particular batch is going bad or doesn't pass inspection, the only companies that take it are Walmart and juice companies, speaking from experience (family business). Once a batch has gone bad you lose all value and you don't get paid, no insurance even.","If your mortgage is an interest only one then the full amount of the payment you make should be to an expense account perhaps called mortgage interest. If the mortgage is a repayment mortgage you need to split the amount of the payment between such an expense account called mortgage interest and between a liability account which is the amount of the loan. In practice I have not found it very easy to do all this as the actual amounts vary depending on number of days in the month and then there are occasional charges etc made by the mortgage company so some approximations seem to be needed unless one is to spend hours trying to get it exactly correct...... Steve","\"When you pay the flight, hotel, conference attendance fees of $100: When you repay the credit card debt of $100: When you receive the gross salary of $5000: Your final balance sheet will show: Your final income statement will show: Under this method, your \"\"Salary\"\" account will show the salary net of business expense. The drawback is that the $4900 does not agree with your official documentation. For tax reporting purposes, you report $5000 to the tax agency, and if possible, report the $100 as Unreimbursed Employee Expenses (you weren't officially reimbursed). For more details see IRS Publication 529.\"","It's better to use the accounting equation concept: Asset + Expenses = Capital + Liabilities + Income If you purchase an asset: Suppose you purchased a laptop of $ 500, then its journal will be: If you sell the same Laptop for $ 500, then its entry will be:","To understand the answer we first have to understand what Goodwill is. Goodwill in a companies balance sheet is an intangible asset that represents the extra value because of a strong brand name, good customer relations, good employee relations and any patents or proprietary technology. An article from The Economist explains this very well and actually talks about Time Warner directly - The goodwill, the bad and the ugly When one firm buys another, the target’s goodwill—essentially the premium paid over its book value—is added to the combined entity’s balance-sheet. Goodwill and other intangibles on the books of companies in the S&P 500 are valued at $2.6 trillion, or 10% of their total assets, according to analysts at Goldman Sachs. As the economy deteriorates and more firms trade down towards (or even below) their book value, empire-builders are having to mark down the value of assets they splashed out on in rosier times. A recently announced $25 billion goodwill charge is expected to push Time Warner into an operating loss for 2008, for instance. Michael Moran of Goldman Sachs thinks such hits could amount to $200 billion or more over the cycle. Investors have so far paid little attention to intangibles, but as write-downs proliferate they are likely to become increasingly wary of industries with a high ratio of goodwill to assets, such as health care, consumer goods and telecoms. How bad things get will depend on the beancounters. American firms used to be allowed to amortise goodwill over many years. Since 2002, when an accounting-rule change ended that practice, goodwill has had to be tested every year for impairment. In this stormy environment, with auditors keener than ever to avoid being seen to go easy on clients, companies are being told to mark down assets if there is any doubt about their value. The sanguine point out that this has no effect on cashflow, since such charges are non-cash items. Moreover, some investors take goodwill write-offs with a pinch of salt, preferring to look past such non-recurring costs and accept the higher “normalised” earnings numbers to which managers understandably cling. The largest companies are thus able to survive thumping blows that might otherwise floor them, such as the $99 billion loss that the newly formed but ill-conceived AOL Time Warner, as it then was, reported for 2002. But the impact can be all too real, as write-downs reduce overall book value and increase leverage ratios, a particular concern in these debt-averse times.","That's true, I concede that point. It wasn't the case in my case study, and I don't think it's the case with these gift cards, but I could be wrong, since I'm not an accountant, and I don't even have my Masters in Finance yet.","Expensing a transfer of funds is incorrect. That will affect the Profit/Loss (Income) statement when you transfer it out and back in, which you do not want, at least for the principle. The interest should be recorded as a interest income. The general way to account for transferring money is to credit the originating account, and debit the destination account. This will only affect the balance sheet accounts. For example: Transferring (buying) 10,000 worth of fix term bank deposits Interest is paid: The bank deposit reaches maturity, so the principle is returned, with the final interest payment. The accounts Checking account and Fixed term bank deposit are asset accounts, which show up on the balance sheet. The Interest income is an income account, which will show up in the income statement. This is how a fixed term/CD is usually recorded. In certain cases, where the business must follow an accounting standard, this may very well be insufficient, but this situation will be unlikely if it's a small private sports club. Having said that, double check to make sure what you've stated is indeed correct, and look back into the past entries to see how it was dealt with before, especially since you said this bookkeeping job is temporary. I would strongly advise against changing non-recent entries, even if they are incorrect. For the insurance payments, that would depend on how the damaged assets were accounted for. It's a little hard to say without more detail-- the extent of the damage, how the diminished value was accounted for in the books, the cost of repair materials, etc.","An expired option is a stand-alone event, sold at $X, with a bought at $0 on the expiration date. The way you phrased the question is ambiguous, as 'decrease toward zero' is not quite the same as expiring worthless, you'd need to buy it at the near-zero price to then sell another covered call at a lower strike. Edit - If you entered the covered call sale properly, you find that an in-the-money option results in a sale of the shares at expiration. When entered incorrectly, there are two possibilities, the broker buys the option back at the market close, or you wake up Sunday morning (the options 'paperwork' clears on Saturday after expiration) finding yourself owning a short position, right next to the long. A call, and perhaps a fee, are required to zero it out. As you describe it, there are still two transactions to report, the option at $50 strike that you bought and sold, the other a stock transaction that has a sale price of the strike plus option premium collected.","It depends on whether or not you are referring to realized or unrealized gains. If the asset appreciation is realized, meaning you've sold the asset and actually collected liquidity from it, then Derek_6424246 has provided a good route to follow. However, if the gains are unrealized, meaning only that the current value of the underlying asset(s) have increased or decreased, then you might want to record this under an Income:Unrealized Gains account. One of the main distinctions between the two are whether or not you have a taxable event (realized) or just want to better track your net worth at a given time (unrealized). For example, I generally track my retirement accounts increase in value sans interest, dividends and contributions, as income from an Income:Unrealized Gains account. I can still reconcile it with my statements, and it shows an accurate picture for my net worth, but the money is not liquid nor taxed and is more for informational purposes than anything. And no, I don't create an additional Expense account here to track losses. Just think of Unrealized Gains as an income account where the balance will fluctuate up and down (and potentially even go negative) over time.","You should be recording the reimbursement as a negative expense on the original account the expense was recorded. Let's assume you have a $100 expense and $100 salary. Total $200 paycheck. You will have something like this In the reports, it will show that the expense account will have $0 ($100 + ($100)), while income account will have $100 (salary).","Yes, you can depreciate gifts to your business subject to the special rules in § 1011 and Regulation § 1.1011–1 and 1.167(g)–1. It is dual basis property so when you sell the item your gain/loss basis will be different. Adjusted basis of the donor for gain, FMV on the date received for the loss. Minus any depreciation you add, of course, in both cases.","Interesting. How would they account for it? Monthly? And if so do they modify the cost basis for each lot for the month and then restate? It's hard to imagine they do that. I have a million questions regarding this topic do you know where in the regs it is covered?","The 'standard' thing to do, after double checking your numbers to see if you can find or remember the actual reason for the discrepancy is to use an Income account for 'extra' money and an expense account for 'lost' money. The Imbalance account is meant as a temporary placeholder for monies not yet put into their right account. I personally use Income:Other Income for such found money, and Expenses:Adjustment for lost money.","The income and recurring costs will be shown at the end of each year, however the initial cost is recorded at the time they are incurred meaning at t=0 (Jan 2014) The first net profits/loss of 658500 is recorded at the end of Dec 2014 (t=1) And the remaining four ones at the end of 2015 (t=2) 2016 (t=3) 2017 (t=4) 2018 (t=5) -8000000 658500 658500 658500 658500 6658500 t=0) -8000000 t=1) 658500 t=2) 658500 t=3) 658500 t=4) 658500 t=5) 6658500","Former Walmart associate here. As long as you have a receipt and it hasn't been more than 90 days, they will take back almost anything. I've seen stained baby clothes and totally destroyed sneakers written off so that the customer could have their full refund.","What's the problem with having them write it off? Stop fishing for something negative and accept the fact that they're doing a good thing. They're still a business, not a soup kitchen. Making money isn't evil unless your taking advantage of someone, which is the opposite of what they're doing.","I'm a CPA and former IRS agent and manager. Whether you are a cash or accrual basis taxpayer, you get to deduct the expense when your card is charged. Think of it this way: You are borrowing from the credit card company or bank that issued the credit card. You take that money to make a purchase of a product or service. You now have an expense and a liability to a third party. When you pay off the liability, you do not get to take a deduction. Your deduction is when you pay for the expense. Depending on what you purchased, you may have to capitalize it.","\"I can say that I got X dollars from an account like \"\"Income:Benefits\"\"... but where do I credit that money to? \"\"Expenses:Groceries\"\" Yes doesn't feel right, since I never actually spent that money on food, You did, didn't you? You got food. I'm guessing there's an established convention for this already? Doubt it. Established conventions in accounting are for businesses, and more specifically - public companies. So you can find a GAAP, or IFRS guidelines on how to book benefits (hint: salary expense), but it is not something you may find useful in your own household accounting. Do what is most convenient for you. Since it is a double-booking system - you need to have an account on the other side. Expenses:Groceries doesn't feel right? Add Expenses:Groceries:Benefits or Expenses:Benefits or whatever. When you do your expense and cash-flow reports - you can exclude both the income and the expense benefits accounts if you track them separately, so that they don't affect your tracking of the \"\"real\"\" expenses.\"","I am not an accountant, but I have a light accounting background, despite being primarily an engineer. I also have a tiny schedule C business which has both better and worse years. I am also in the United States and pay US taxes. I assume you are referring to the US Form 1040 tax return, with the attached Schedule C. However little I know about US taxes, I know nothing about foreign taxes. You are a cash-basis taxpayer, so the transactions that happen in each tax year are based on the cash paid and cash received in that year. You were paid last year, you computed your schedule C based on last year's actual transactions, and you paid taxes on that income. You can not recompute last years schedule C based on the warranty claim. You might want to switch to an accrual accounting method, where you can book allowances for warranty claims. It is more complex, and if your business is spotty and low volume, it may be more trouble than it is worth. At this point, you have two months to look for ways to shift expenses into next year or being income into this year, both of which help offset this loss. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on. This article on LegalZoom (link here) discusses how to apply a significant net operating loss (NOL) in this year to the previous two years, and potentially carry it forward to the next two years. This does involve filing amended returns for the prior two years, showing this year's NOL. For this to be relevant, your schedule C loss this year must exceed your other W2 and self-employment income this year, with other tests also applied. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on.","Discrepancies between what the book value is reported as and what they'd fetch if sold on the open market. Legal disputes in court.","\"I'm not an expert, but here is my best hypothesis. On Microsoft's (and most other company's) cash flow statements, they use the so-called \"\"indirect method\"\" of accounting for cash flow from operations. How that works, is they start with net income at the top, and then adjust it with line items for the various non-cash activities that contributed to net income. The key phrase is that these are accounting for the non-cash activities that contribute to net income. If the accounts receivable amount changes from something other than operating activity (e.g., if they have to write off some receivables because they won't be paid), the change didn't contribute to net income in the first place, so doesn't need to be reconciled on the cash flow statement.\"","\"Asset = Equity + (Income - Expense) + Liability Everything could be cancelled out in double entry accounting. By your logic, if the owner contributes capital as asset, Equity is \"\"very similar\"\" to Asset. You will end up cancelling everything, i.e. 0 = 0. You do not understate liability by cancelling them with asset. Say you have $10000 debtors and $10000 creditors. You do not say Net Debtors = $0 on the balance sheet. You are challenging the fundamental concepts of accounting. Certain accounts are contra accounts. For example, Accumulated Depreciation is Contra-Asset. Retained Loss and Unrealized Revaluation Loss is Contra-Equity.\"","If you're repairing an existing appliance - its an expense. If you're replacing an existing appliance with a new one - that's disposing of one capital asset and putting in service another. You depreciate the new one and you dispose of the old one (if not fully depreciated - talk to your tax adviser how to handle the remaining value). The additional costs of the fixes that are not related to the installation of the new appliance are regular maintenance expenses, so you have to get an itemized invoice from the plumber to know what to expense and what to capitalize.","\"You can make a custom category for \"\"Website expenses\"\" under Other Expenses as well. If the domain name only costs a very small amount, like $10, I think expensing it would be reasonable. Mariette IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.\"","\"No, you capitalize all that and deduct as depreciation from the royalties. What it means is that you cannot deduct the expense when it is incurred, but only when you started receiving income that the expense was used to derive. This is similar to capitalizing building improvements which can only be deducted when you start getting rent, or capitalizing software development expenses which can only be deducted once you start selling/licensing the developed software. In the case of book writing - you capitalize the expenses and deduct them once you start receiving royalties. The period over which you deduct (the \"\"depreciation schedule\"\") depends on the type of the expense and the type of the income, so you better get a guidance from a licensed tax accountant (EA or CPA licensed in your State).\"","You can depreciate equipment as a valid expense, even for a sole proprietorship. The concept is simple, but the details are pretty complicated (and probably even more so given the added complexities of agricultural economics). Definitely speak to an accountant who specializes in the field.","If you did not separate out the fridge for depreciation, you just had it part of the house. A 27.5 year depreciation that you can calculate. You might have made or lost some money. You should depreciate the new one stand alone, on the 5 year depreciation schedule @littleadv notes in his answer.","In addition to the expatriation case already mentioned by Ben Miller, traders/investors are required to use mark-to-market accounting on certain investments. These go by Section 1256 contracts due to the part of the law that defines them. Mark-to-market is also required on straddles (combination of a long and and a short position in equities that are expected to vary inversely to each other). Mark-to-market means that you have to treat the positions as if you closed them at their end-of-year market value (even if you still have the position across the new year).","\"When you pay expenses on behalf of someone, you do not Debit your expense accounts. You credit your Bank and debit the Liability. The method that you mentioned (debit expense then credit it back to liability) is an acceptable practice, but the method is only used when you accidentially debited your expense accounts without knowing that it is for someone else (or in the case of split transactions). You need to specify \"\"being expense paid on behalf of someone\"\" when you credit the expense account.\"","Pub 527 my friend. It gets depreciated. Table 1-1 on page 5.","I have no idea what the traditional accounting way of dealing with this might be; but does your accounts package has the concept of subaccounts within a bank account? If so, to me it would make sense that when a cheque is written, you move money in the accounts package from the bank account to a subaccount named 'Cheques Written'; then when it is cashed, move money from that subaccount to the supplier. Then from a reporting perspective, when you want a report that will correspond to your actual bank statement, run a report that includes the subacconut; when you want a report that tells you how much you have available to spend, rune a report that excludes the subaccount.","They always expire sometime, and they are a scam. I recommend you unload any on ebay as soon as you get them. For this one in articular, just ask to see a manager and explain your situation politely. You'll usually get what you want.","In the US, you can only take a tax deduction on expenses to the extent that they offset income. For an S corp or LLC, if the business had no income, there's no deduction to take. If you have a sole proprietorship, these expenses can offset other income. You can also carry-forward net operating losses to future years when you have more income. See the article How to Carry Over Business Expenses","Being a professional auditor and accountant, deduction against expenses are claimed in the year in which expenses has been incurred. It has no relationship with when it is paid. For example, we may buy on credit does not mean that they will be allowed in the period in which it is paid. This is against the fundamental accounting principles.","If you don't track the accrued costs involved, then it means that the valuation of the deal will be somewhat arbitrary, but it still can be made by looking at the value of equivalent or similar goods or services. It's rather similar to accounting treatment of (noncash) gifts, for example. You make up a valuation, and as there are obvious tax reasons to make it as low as possible, the valuation should be justifiable or you risk the wrath of IRS. If you sell the same goods or services for cash, then the value of the barter deal is obvious. If this barter is the only time you're handling this particular type of goods, a wholesale price of similar items (either of your items, or the items that you're receiving in barter) could work.","Truthfully, I don't know, but in actuality, a 4-5 billion dollar loss even isn't the big deal, it's more important that they lost almost 40B of market cap. Now realistically it's relatively oversold in my opinion and they will make it back eventually, but that has more of an impact on them in the here and now. As far as the offset you are asking about, I'm not sure, personally I don't trust any accounting practices of banks, in reality, it's entirely possible that not even the c-suite understands their exact financial position at any given time. The reports of this loss actually came out about a month before they were even able to make an educated guess as to how much their losses would be. In any case, there are much more qualified/knowledgeable people on here that could likely answer your question a bit better.","Is it just -34*4.58= -$155.72 for CCC and -11*0.41= -$4.51 for DDD? Yes it needs to be recorded as negative because at some point in time, the investor will have to spend money to buy these shares [cover the short sell and return the borrowed shares]. Whether the investor made profit or loss will not be reflected as you are only reflecting the current share inventory.","Federal income taxes are indeed expenses, they're just not DEDUCTIBLE expenses on your 1120. Federal Income Tax Expense is usually a subcategory under Taxes. This is one of the items that will be a book-to-tax difference on Schedule M-1. I am presuming you are talking about a C corporation, as an S corporation is not likely to be paying federal taxes itself, but would pass the liability through to the members. If you're paying your personal 1040 taxes out of an S-corporation bank account, that's an owner's draw just like paying any of your personal non-business expenses. I would encourage you to get a tax professional to prepare your corporate tax returns. It's not quite as simple as TurboTax Business makes it out to be. ;) Mariette IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.","Keep this rather corny acronym in mind. Business expenses must be CORN: As other posters have already pointed out, certain expenses that are capital items (computers, furniture, etc.) must be depreciated over several years, but you have a certain amount of capital items that you can write off in the current tax year."],"string":"[\n \"\\\"Any business, like any household, has items that are wasted. Unlike a household, a business does keep track of all items that are unsellable. Depending on the reason for the item being unsellable they are accounted for differently. Items that can be returned to the manufacturer are done so, and the business is given credit for that item. For the business the time spent processing, stocking and restocking that item, plus any time spent handling a return for that customer is harder to track. If they see the percentage of bad items is too large compared to sales they will want to address this with the manufacturer. Items that are spoiled by the business, which will include spoiled food items, will also be tracked. They will examine their choice of products, their procedures for those products and the quantities produced to try an minimize the spoilage. They don't just throw the items away, they keep track of the exact items and their worth. When they have to dispose of meat that has reached their \\\"\\\"sell by\\\"\\\" date they will actually scan the items into the computer. In some cases products can be transformed into other products: bread into bread pudding; in other situations they are \\\"\\\"reduced for quick sale\\\"\\\"; in other cases they are donated to a charity or food kitchen. All of this is also tracked. Of course any losses that the company can't recover by returning items to manufactures or repurposing will be reflected in the price of their items. Stores that can minimize their waste can offer lower prices.\\\"\",\n \"Judgement, settlement, insurance proceeds, etc etc. These would probably be recorded as a negative expense in the same category where the original expense was recorded.\",\n \"A rather good IRS paper on the topic states that a donation of a business' in-kind inventory would be Under IRC 170(e)(1), however, the fair market value must be reduced by the amount of gain that would not be long-term capital gain if the property had been sold by the donor at the property's fair market value (determined at the time of the contribution). Under this rule, deductions for donated inventory are limited to the property's basis (generally its cost), where the fair market value exceeds the basis. There are references to IRC regulations in a narrative context you may find helpful: This paper goes on for 16 pages describing detailed exceptions and the political reasons for the exceptions (most of which are concerned with encouraging the donation of prepared food from restaurants/caterers to hunger charities by guaranteeing a value for something that would otherwise be trashed valueless); and a worked out example of fur coats that had a cost of goods of $200 and a market value of $1000.\",\n \"\\\"A simple way to account debt forgiveness of your receivables is to utilize a \\\"\\\"Bad Debt\\\"\\\" expense account. Take the following two examples: If you are only forgiving a portion of the principle, another popular term used is Principle Reduction as the expense account.\\\"\",\n \"This is actually a HUGE source of profits for whole foods. The battered fruit and veggies you don't want or the rotisserie chicken that's been on the warmer 30 minutes longer than you like? Goes right into their prepared foods and cut fruit sections and marked way the fuck up.\",\n \"Assuming that it's not inventory that is sold in the following year or a depreciable asset, you can deduct it when you make the purchase. The courts have ruled that credit cards balances are considered debt. It's treated the same way as if you went to the bank, got a loan, and used cash or a check to purchase the items. On your accounting books, you would debit the expense account and credit the credit card liability account. This is only for credit cards, which are considered loans. If you use a store charge card, then you cannot deduct it until you pay. Those are considered accounts payable. I'm an IRS agent and a CPA.\",\n \"I would take each of these items and any others and consider how you would count it as an expense in the other direction. If you have an account for parking expenses or general transportation funds, credit that account for a refund on your parking. If you have an account for expenses on technology purchases, you would credit that account if you sell a piece of equipment as you replace it with an upgrade. If you lost money (perhaps in a jacket) how would you account for the cash that is lost? Whatever account would would subtract from put a credit for cash found.\",\n \"\\\"If by \\\"\\\"loss on the sale\\\"\\\" you mean \\\"\\\"an expense\\\"\\\", then yes that is fine. Say you sell a $20 game on Steam (30% is very common on markets like Steam, Google Play Store, iTunes Store, etc...), then you would report: Side note: 30% is actually not that bad. For a product I helped bring into a few retail store chains, they are effectively taking closer to 40%, though retail can vary depending on several factors.\\\"\",\n \"Once the business is shut down, you'll need to show that the corporation is in bankruptcy and the amounts are unrecoverable. You can then report it as investment loss. I suggest talking to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State), and maybe an attorney, on what the specific technical details are.\",\n \"Yes, the business can count that as an expense but you will need to count that as income because a computer = money.\",\n \"I would put it under advertising. Technically the domain name should be amortized over its useful life... you can't really expense it all in the first year, unless it fits within Section 179.\",\n \"The money is still their money, it never becomes your money. The reason is as follows, The books now look like this: YOU: Asset: Mattress Liability: 600 THEM: Asset: 600 Liability: Mattress Now, in their books, they mistakenly thought the mattress was returned, and therefore they returned the mattress to you. The books now look like this YOU: Asset: Mattress Liability: 600 THEM: Asset: Mattress (incorrect) Liability: 0 As you see, their books are wrong, but yours are still correct. According to your books, you owe them $600, which you paid, but then they paid you back. You still have the liability. Why not just depreciate the mattress by 50% over two years? Then there will be no liability on your books.\",\n \"Generally prepaid services should be capitalized over the period prepaid. But if it is up to a year - you can just expense them. As to the technicalities - you can contact Intuit support, but you should be able to put it in the same area where you put all your other business expenses. If you're a sole proprietor - that would be Schedule C.\",\n \"If a business incurs expenses in the process of its trading, generally those expenses are deductible. Disposing of waste is generally held to be a deductible expense.\",\n \"For the purpose of personal finance, treating $500 as Interest Expense is sufficient. For business accounting, it involves making the $500 a contra-liability and amortizing it as interest expense over the course of life of the loan.\",\n \"You recognize expense when you sell the hot dog. When you pay for the buns you have inventory, which is an asset. When you sell the hot dog - you have cost of goods sold, which is the expense. Expense principle says that you recognize expense when you use the product. You use the buns when you actually sell the hot dog, not before. The matching principle is also honored because you recognize expense of the buns at the time of recognizing revenue of the hot dog.\",\n \"Generally, to be able to write off worthless securities, you need to show that they're indeed worthless. It's not necessarily easy, as you need to prove that there's no way they will regain any value in the future. What is usually done, instead, is very simple: you sell them. Many brokers are aware of this problem and will assist by buying these securities from you at a nominal price (E*Trade, for example, for $0.01, ScotTrade for $0.00), and providing a proper trade confirmation. This is a bona fide sale, so if the stock does regain value - it will be a profit for the broker. In this case - you just report it as a sale at loss. Check with your broker if they support such a solution.\",\n \"If your business pays taxes, it is in your best interest to expense it. Even if you don't pay taxes, setting your capitalization policy low enough to capitalize an office organizer (even a nice one) will give you headaches when your business grows larger.\",\n \"In an accounting position, a domain name would fall under an intangible asset. Copyrights and patents are intangible, while tangible assets would be buildings or land (also known as property, plant, and equipment). Noting above, you can list it as an expense for personal reasons, but that would be poor classification. Tangible and intangible assets come with expenses such as legal fees and design. In these instances, you would expense the cost, or fee, but add back that value to the tangible or intangible as it would be considered maintenance. Please read here for tax treatment of a domain name. Please read here for what an intangible asset is. Also read here on page 11 for more clarification by IFRS.\",\n \"One approach would be to create Journal Entries that debit asset accounts that are associated with these items and credit an Open Balance Equity account. The value of these contributions would have to be worked out with an accountant, as it depends on the lesser of the adjusted basis vs. the fair market value, as you then depreciate the amounts over time to take the depreciation as a business expense, and it adjusts your basis in the company (to calculate capital gains/losses when you sell). If there were multiple partners, or your accountant wants it this way, you could then debit open balance equity and credit the owner's contribution to a capital account in your name that represents your basis when you sell. From a pure accounting perspective, if the Open Balance Equity account would zero out, you could just skip it and directly credit the capital accounts, but I prefer the Open Balance Equity as it helps know the percentages of initial equity which may influence partner ownership percentages and identify anyone who needs to contribute more to the partnership.\",\n \"The £500 are an expense associated with the loan, just like interest. You should have an expense account where you can put such financing expenses (or should create a new one). Again, treat it the same way you'll treat interest charges in future statements.\",\n \"The CPA's mention of $2,500 is probably referring to the recently increased de minimis safe harbor under the final tangible property regulations (used to be $500) without an applicable financial statement. The IRS will not challenge your choice of expense or capitalization on amounts on or below $2500 if you elect the de minimis safe harbor election on your return. However, you must follow whatever you're doing for your books. (So if you are capitalizing your laptops for book purposes, you would also need to capitalize for tax purposes). Section 179 allows you to expense property that you would have otherwise have had to capitalize and depreciate. Section 179 can be annoying, especially if your LLC is treated as a passthrough, because there are recapture provisions when you dispose of the asset too early. For the tax return preparer, it makes the return preparation much more simple if there are no fixed assets to account for in the first place, which is quite possible if you are expensive all items/invoices less than $2,500.\",\n \"According to the gnucash guide, losses are recorded as negative transactions against Income:Capital Gains. I've followed this model in the past when dealing with stocks and commodities. If on the other hand, you're talking about an asset which could normally follow a depreciation schedule, you might want to look at the section in the business guide dealing with asset depreciation.\",\n \"or just input it in my accounting software along with receipts, and then when I'm doing taxes this would go under the investment or loses (is it somewhere along that line)? Yes, this. Generally, for the long term you should have a separate bank account and charge card for your business. I started my business (LLC) by filing online, and paying a fee for a registration, and that makes it a business cost right? Startup cost. There are special rules about this. Talk to your tax adviser. For the amounts in question you could probably expense it, but verify.\",\n \"First of all, Dilip's answer explains well how the business deductions generally work. For most (big) expenses you depreciate it. However, in some cases you need to capitalize it, which is another accounting method. When you capitalize your expense, it becomes part of the basis of the product you're creating. Since you're an engineer, this might be relevant for you. Talk to your tax adviser. How exactly you deduct/depreciate/capitalize things, and what expense goes which way depends greatly on the laws and jurisdictions. Even in the US, different states have different laws, and the IRS and State laws don't have to conform (unfortunately). For example, the limitations on Sec. 179 deduction in 2010-2011 were 20 times higher on Federal level than in the State of California. This could have lead to cases where you fully deducted your expense on your Federal tax return, but need to continue and depreciate it on your State return (or vice versa). Good tax adviser is crucial to avoid or manage these cases.\",\n \"\\\"If it's fully expensed, it has zero basis. Any sale is taxable, 100%. To the ordinary income / cap gain issue raised in comment - It's a cap gain, but I believe, as with real estate, special rates apply. This is where I am out of my area of expertise, and as they say - \\\"\\\"Consult a professional.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"Assets with zero value, perhaps. Unless you can prove that they have resale value. Good luck with that. In other words, not worth spending time on.\",\n \"IRS Pub 561 says you have to use fair market value. You cannot simply use a depreciated value. You should attempt to determine what people normally pay for comparable items, and be prepared to defend your determination with evidence in the event of an audit.\",\n \"Yes, legitimate, documented, expenses are written off against that income.\",\n \"Expense accounts are closed into equity. Same with revenue. So an increase in an expense means lower equity (lower retained earnings since there is more expense). Ergo, decrease equity and increase a liability. Increase a liability since it was accrued, which is usually used specifically to refer to things that kind of just happen in the background. Aka the firm most likely didn't pay cash for that right then and there so increase a payable.\",\n \"Yes When exercising a stock option you will be buying the stock at the strike price so you will be putting up your money, if you lose that money you can declare it as a loss like any other transaction. So if the stock is worth $1 and you have 10 options with a strike at $0.50 you will spend $500 when you exercise your options. If you hold those shares and the company is then worth $0 you lost $500. I have not verified my answer so this is solely from my understanding of accounting and finance. Please verify with your accountant to be sure.\",\n \"I cannot imagine an organizer being worth enough to consider depreciating the expense over a period of time greater than one year. Also, once you write in an organizer, it's pretty much worthless to anyone else. Talk to your accountant if you'd like, but I cannot see how you would classify a fancy organizer as a fixed asset.\",\n \"\\\"There is no \\\"\\\"standard\\\"\\\" way for personal accounting. However, GNUCash default accounts set includes \\\"\\\"Expense: Adjustment\\\"\\\". It is usually used by the community for reconciliation of unknown small money lost.\\\"\",\n \"Additionally, is grocery even a major profit center for Wal-Mart? It wasn't even a major feature of their stores 15+ years ago IIRC. I guess it has decent halo effects today, but I'd be surprised if they wouldn't be fine treating it like a loss leader as well.\",\n \"Started as pt at a grocery store. Will never get used to throwing all that good meat out. Still has 2 days but there's fresher stock in back. It seems having bold and full shelves is the reason. They throw out food to have that clean magazine photo look of a store.\",\n \"First, you should probably have a proper consultation with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). In fact you should have had it before you started, but that ship has sailed. You're talking about start-up expenses. You can generally deduct up to $5000 in the year your business starts, and the expenses in excess will be amortized over 180 months (15 years). This is per the IRC Sec. 195. The amortization starts when your business is active (i.e.: you can buy the property, but not actually open the restaurant - you cannot start the depreciation). I have a couple questions about accounting - should all the money I spent be a part of capital spending? Or is it just a part of it? If it qualifies as start-up/organizational expenses - it should be capitalized. If it is spent on capital assets - then it should also be capitalized, but for different reasons and differently. For example, costs of filing paperwork for permits is a start-up expense. Buying a commercial oven is a capital asset purchase which should be depreciated separately, as buying the tables and silverware. If it is a salary expense to your employees - then it is a current expense and shouldn't be capitalized. Our company is LLC if this matters. It matters to how it affects your personal tax return.\",\n \"If it is more convenient for you - sure, go ahead and create another account. Generally, when you give someone a check - the money is no longer yours. So according to the constructive receipt doctrine, you've paid, whether the check was cashed or not. The QB is reflecting the correct matter of things. It doesn't matter that you're cash-based, the money still laying on your account because you gave someone a check that hasn't been cashed - is not your money and shouldn't be reflected in your books as such.\",\n \"Walmart has really retarded rules already. If your truck is late 5 mins, you need to wait 24 hours to get de-loaded. And on top of that, they take in the worst produce available. What every other grocery store rejects, they take.\",\n \"If this was a public corporation (stock) and the investment was made in a non-registered account, then you can claim a capital loss. Capital losses are claimed against capital gains (not income), and can be carried back 3 years or carried forward indefinitely. Here's an article I've written on how to claim capital losses that may help.\",\n \"\\\"I used Quicken, so this may or may not be helpful. I have a Cash account that I call \\\"\\\"Temporary Assets and Liabilities\\\"\\\" where I track money that I am owed (or that I owe in some cases). So if I pay for something that is really not my expense, it is transferred to this account (\\\"\\\"transferred\\\"\\\" in Quicken terms). The payment is then not treated as an expense and the reimbursement is not treated as income--the two transactions just balance out.\\\"\",\n \"Capital is an Asset. Decreasing value of capital is the decreasing value of an asset. When you buy the forex asset * DR Forex Asset * CR Cash When you sell * DR Cash * CR Forex Asset The difference is now accounted for Here is how: Gains (and losses) are modifications to your financial position (Balance sheet). At the end of the period you take your financial performance (Profit and Loss) and put it into your balance sheet under equity. Meaning that afterwards your balance sheet is better or worse off (Because you made more money = more cash or lost it, whatever). You are wanting to make an income account to reflect the forex revaluation so at the end of the period it is reflected in profit then pushed into your balance sheet. Capital gains directly affect your balance sheet because they increase/decrease your cash and your asset in the journal entry itself (When you buy and sell it). If making money this way is actually how you make you make an income it is possible to make an account for it. If you do this you periodically revalue the asset and write off the changes to the revaluation account. You would do something like *DR Asset *CR Forex Revaluation account; depending on the method you take. Businesses mostly do this because if the capital gains are their line of business they will be taxed on it like it is income. For simplicity just account for it when you buy and sell the assets (Because you as an individual will only recognise a profit/loss when you enter and exit). Its easier to think about income and expenses are extensions of equity. Income increases your equity, expenses decrease it. This is how they relate to the accounting formula (Assets = Liabilities + Owners Equity)\",\n \"I'll give the credit to @Quid in the comments section of the question. You put out $10k, you got back $20k, that's a cash gain of $10k, how the asset was valued between your purchase and sale isn't relevant. From an accounting perspective, the company is the only party that is realizing the loss (as they have sold the asset for 40K less than par). You the buyer, only get to see the initial buy and sale of such capital asset. Example: A company purchases a car for $20,000 and after depreciation it is worth (book valued at) $2,000. It is then sold to a customer for $3,000. Does the customer realize a loss of $1,000? No. Does the company realize a gain of $1,000? Yes. Your bank analogy is flawed in two ways:\",\n \"Generally speaking, if a business loses money for whatever reason, then that reduces the profits of the business which reduces the tax payable. However if you were holding the assets on a personal basis prior to incorporating the business, the position may become more complicated. For that kind of money some professional advice may be worthwhile.\",\n \"Most items used in business have to be depreciated; you get to deduct a small fraction of the cost each year depending on the lifetime of the item as per IRS rules. That is, you cannot assume a one-year life for an electronic item even if it will be obsolete in three months. Some items can be expensed; you get to deduct the entire cost in the first year but then if you don't stay in business, e.g. you get a job paying wages and are no longer self-employed, you have to recapture this and pay taxes on the amount recaptured in the later year. With respect to consumer-type electronics such as an iPad or laptop, it helps to have a separate item for personal use that you can show in case of an audit.\",\n \"Generally loan goes against an asset, in your case though it appear that you don't have any fixed assets related to this loan. So it seems like you got a cash loan (current asset/checking account?) which you spent (expenses). Since you're doing it retroactively, you'll probably just put totals in the expenses without detailing them.\",\n \"Australian Goods and Services Tax is charged on the sale amount. Whatever internal accounting you do before billing the customer is of no interest to the Australian Tax Office.\",\n \"You are not the person or entity against whom the crime was committed, so the Casualty Loss (theft) deduction doesn't apply here. You should report this as a Capital Loss, the same way all of the Enron shareholders did in their 2001 tax returns. Your cost basis is whatever you originally paid for the shares. The final value is presumably zero. You can declare a maximum capital loss of $3000, so if your net capital loss for the year is greater than that, you'll have to carry over the remainder to the following years. IRS publication 547 states: Decline in market value of stock. You can't deduct as a theft loss the decline in market value of stock acquired on the open market for investment if the decline is caused by disclosure of accounting fraud or other illegal misconduct by the officers or directors of the corporation that issued the stock. However, you can deduct as a capital loss the loss you sustain when you sell or exchange the stock or the stock becomes completely worthless. You report a capital loss on Schedule D (Form 1040). For more information about stock sales, worthless stock, and capital losses, see chapter 4 of Pub. 550.\",\n \"Not sure I understand your question. If you're talking about paying off the payable, you decrease the liability and decrease an asset. Aka when you actually pay the wages, decrease cash and decrease wages payable. If you're talking about closing expense accounts, you simply credit the expense to zero and debit retained earnings for the same amount (which will reduce RE since RE is equity and has a normal credit balance). If you're talking about accruing revenue, you simply do the opposite of an expense. If revenue is accrued, then you credit a revenue account (increase it) and increase cash or acc receivable. If you're closing a revenue account, you debit the account to zero and credit Retained Earnings or Income Summary (which eventually gets closed into RE anyways). The sum of these revenues and expenses will leave you either with a debit or credit balance in RE. A credit balance means you have a profit and a debit balance means you have a loss. Other expenses like sales tax and other expenses excluding COGS might also be taken directly from RE or identified at the time of sale and held in its own separate account. But I'm not sure if this will answer your question since I'm not sure what you're asking.\",\n \"\\\"Normally these are only generated upon an acquisition. When you acquire a business, all the tangible and intangible assets are market to \\\"\\\"fair value\\\"\\\", with goodwill as the plug to total to the actual purchase price. So the cash out the door is the purchase price. Then the asset is amortized. In the normal course you wouldn't create the intangible - the sales people salary would just be an expense.\\\"\",\n \"If I sell it for $50 can I write off the $50 loss. Only if you can establish that it is a normal part of your business and that you did not get $50 worth of use out of it. That's the technical, legal argument. As a practical matter, it's unlikely that they'll ding you for selling something after using it, as they won't know. If they did catch you, you would be in trouble. You can't deduct loss due to personal use. The larger problem is that if you sell one TV for a $50 loss, they aren't going to believe that you are in the business of selling TVs. If you sell a larger amount for a loss, then they still are unlikely to believe that you are in business. If you sell a large amount for an overall gain, they are unlikely to notice that you took a loss on one TV. They could only notice that if they were already auditing you, as that wouldn't be visible in your tax forms.\",\n \"To quote the answer you linked to: Perhaps the simplest way to think about this is you can only deduct an expense that you actually incur. In other words, the expense should show up on a bank or CC statement. So, if your business purchased the $1000 gift card for $800, you should see a $800 charge appearing on a business CC or bank statement. You would therefore be able to deduct the $800, but not the full $1000 of items that you purchase with it. Side Notes:\",\n \"It doesn't go on Schedule E at all, it goes on form 4797. The fridge should have been depreciated, over 5 years. If you sold it after 5 years, all the proceeds are taxable income taxed as depreciation recapture (25% rate) up to the allowable depreciation (your original cost basis), above which it is taxable capital gain. Whether you actually have depreciated it or not, it is really your problem, IRS doesn't care. So if 5 years of ownership passed - just write it all as taxable income on the form 4797. Otherwise, allowable depreciation prorated (and you can still amend forms 3 years back to get at least part of it). The new fridge should also be depreciated over the 5 years of its expected useful life. See form 4562. Talk to a licensed tax professional (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for details.\",\n \"If a business tool has a limited lifespan, it's value decreases (depreciates) from year to year. The business can capture that loss of value on some things that it couldn't otherwise write off as expenses. A few tools can be either expenses or depreciated, but only one of those can be chosen for that particular object. This is generally not relevant for individual taxpayers, unless you can show that the item is being used for income-producing purposes.\",\n \"\\\"$500, this is called \\\"\\\"cash basis\\\"\\\" accounting. A large company might handle it otherwise, counting shipments/billings as revenue. Not you. Yet.\\\"\",\n \"Purchase accounting requires that you mark assets, including PP&E to fair value. So let's say you bought a machine 5 years ago for $1,000 - you might have depreciated it to $250 on your balance sheet but it might actually be worth $900.\",\n \"Here is how your CEO has to see it. Of course, eventually most revenues are generated by IT systems but technically IT still is an expense only activity unless of course you are selling the software/services offered by it. According to the US GAAP, software development costs are capitalized when a firm develops a software for its own use (e.g., nice shiny UI show bank's VaR, algorithmic trading engines, internal security infrastructure etc.). When the software is developed for sale, all the costs are expensed as incurred until the technical feasibility is established after which the costs are capitalized. The income is realized when licenses to use the software or the services provided by it are sold. According to international standards, the treatment for both the use cases shown above is the same --all the costs are expensed as incurred until the technical feasibility is established after which the costs are capitalized. The income is realized when licenses to use the software or the services provided by it are sold.\",\n \"Costs for home / small business equipment under US$10,000 don't have to be capitalized. They can be expensed (that is, claimed as an expense all in one year.) Unless this printer is one of those behemoths that collates, folds, staples, and mails medium-sized booklets, it cost less than that. Keep track of your costs. Ask the charity to pay you those costs for the product you generate, and then donate that amount of money back to them. This will be good for the charity because they'll correctly account for the cost of printing.\",\n \"gross profits 2011 31 billion http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_(WMT)/Data/Gross_Profit/2011/Q1 Net income 16.99 income http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_(WMT)/Data/Net_Income/2011 The simple truth is that companies that post these sort of net profits are basically off loading the cost of their labor onto the taxpayer by paying a non-livable wage. And we let them. Americans need to remember why they unionized a hundred years ago and grow some balls again. Corps are able to do shit like this only because we (the people) let them.\",\n \"It is likely the policy of the credit card company. If you are running a business, you should factor in theft as part of your mark-up/margin. Every major business accounts for theft within their business practices and accounting. That way they are covered for instances like yours. If you have not been accounting for theft, then I'd highly recommend it. This might be an expensive learning lesson for your family business. Either implement new procedures such as checking ID with credit cards to match the names, or factor in theft/loss of product into your margins. Ideally, do both.\",\n \"\\\"I dug up an old article on Motley Fool and one approach they mention is to get the stock certificates and then sell them to a friend: If the company was liquidated, you should receive a 1099-DIV form at year's end showing a liquidating distribution. Treat this as if you sold the stock for the amount of the distribution. The date of \\\"\\\"sale\\\"\\\" is the date that the distribution took place. Using your original cost basis in the shares, you can now compute your loss. If the company hasn't actually been liquidated, you'll need to make sure it's totally worthless before you claim a loss. If you have worthless stock that's not worth the hassle of selling through your broker, you can sell it to a friend (or cousin, aunt, or uncle) for pennies. (However, you can't sell the stock to a spouse, siblings, parents, grandparents, or lineal descendants.) Here's one way to do it: Send the certificate to your stock-transfer agent. Explain that the shares have been sold, and ask to cancel the old shares and issue a new certificate to the new owner. Some brokerages will offer you a quicker alternative, by buying all of your shares of the stock for a penny. They do it to help out their customers; in addition, over time, some of the shares may actually become worth more than the penny the brokers paid for them. By selling the shares, you have a closed transaction with the stock and can declare a tax loss. Meanwhile, your friend, relative, or broker, for a pittance, has just bought a placemat or birdcage liner.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I'm no accountant, but I think the way I'd want to approach this kind of thing in Gnucash would be to track it as an Asset, since it is. It sounds like your actual concern is that your tracked asset value isn't reflecting its current \\\"\\\"market\\\"\\\" value. Presumably because it's risky it's also illiquid, so you're not sure how much value it should have on your books. Your approach suggested here of having it as just as expense gives it a 0 value as an asset, but without tracking that there's something that you own. The two main approaches to tracking an investment in Gnucash are: Of course, both of these approaches do assume that you have some notion of your investment's \\\"\\\"current value\\\"\\\", which is what you're tracking. As the section on Estimating Valuation of the concepts guide says of valuing illiquid assets, \\\"\\\"There is no hard rule on this, and in fact different accountants may prefer to do this differently.\\\"\\\" If you really think that the investment isn't worth anything at the moment, then I suppose you should track it at 0, but presumably you think it's worth something or you wouldn't have bought it, right? Even if it's just for your personal records, part of a regular (maybe annual?) review of your investments should include coming up with what you currently value that investment at (perhaps your best guess of what you could sell it for, assuming that you could find a willing buyer), and updating your records accordingly. Of course, if you need a valuation for a bank or for tax purposes or the like, they have more specific rules about how they are tracking what things are worth, but presumably you're trying to track your personal assets for your own reasons to get a handle on what you currently own. So, do that! Take the time to get a handle on the worth of what you currently own. And don't worry about getting the value wrong, just take your best guess, since you can always update it later when you learn new information about what your investment is worth.\\\"\",\n \"Are you sure these farmers sell straight to wall mart? There are always companies involved between big farms and grocery stores. They deliver the freshest produce to the higher end grocery stores first because they will pay more for it. If a particular batch is going bad or doesn't pass inspection, the only companies that take it are Walmart and juice companies, speaking from experience (family business). Once a batch has gone bad you lose all value and you don't get paid, no insurance even.\",\n \"If your mortgage is an interest only one then the full amount of the payment you make should be to an expense account perhaps called mortgage interest. If the mortgage is a repayment mortgage you need to split the amount of the payment between such an expense account called mortgage interest and between a liability account which is the amount of the loan. In practice I have not found it very easy to do all this as the actual amounts vary depending on number of days in the month and then there are occasional charges etc made by the mortgage company so some approximations seem to be needed unless one is to spend hours trying to get it exactly correct...... Steve\",\n \"\\\"When you pay the flight, hotel, conference attendance fees of $100: When you repay the credit card debt of $100: When you receive the gross salary of $5000: Your final balance sheet will show: Your final income statement will show: Under this method, your \\\"\\\"Salary\\\"\\\" account will show the salary net of business expense. The drawback is that the $4900 does not agree with your official documentation. For tax reporting purposes, you report $5000 to the tax agency, and if possible, report the $100 as Unreimbursed Employee Expenses (you weren't officially reimbursed). For more details see IRS Publication 529.\\\"\",\n \"It's better to use the accounting equation concept: Asset + Expenses = Capital + Liabilities + Income If you purchase an asset: Suppose you purchased a laptop of $ 500, then its journal will be: If you sell the same Laptop for $ 500, then its entry will be:\",\n \"To understand the answer we first have to understand what Goodwill is. Goodwill in a companies balance sheet is an intangible asset that represents the extra value because of a strong brand name, good customer relations, good employee relations and any patents or proprietary technology. An article from The Economist explains this very well and actually talks about Time Warner directly - The goodwill, the bad and the ugly When one firm buys another, the target’s goodwill—essentially the premium paid over its book value—is added to the combined entity’s balance-sheet. Goodwill and other intangibles on the books of companies in the S&P 500 are valued at $2.6 trillion, or 10% of their total assets, according to analysts at Goldman Sachs. As the economy deteriorates and more firms trade down towards (or even below) their book value, empire-builders are having to mark down the value of assets they splashed out on in rosier times. A recently announced $25 billion goodwill charge is expected to push Time Warner into an operating loss for 2008, for instance. Michael Moran of Goldman Sachs thinks such hits could amount to $200 billion or more over the cycle. Investors have so far paid little attention to intangibles, but as write-downs proliferate they are likely to become increasingly wary of industries with a high ratio of goodwill to assets, such as health care, consumer goods and telecoms. How bad things get will depend on the beancounters. American firms used to be allowed to amortise goodwill over many years. Since 2002, when an accounting-rule change ended that practice, goodwill has had to be tested every year for impairment. In this stormy environment, with auditors keener than ever to avoid being seen to go easy on clients, companies are being told to mark down assets if there is any doubt about their value. The sanguine point out that this has no effect on cashflow, since such charges are non-cash items. Moreover, some investors take goodwill write-offs with a pinch of salt, preferring to look past such non-recurring costs and accept the higher “normalised” earnings numbers to which managers understandably cling. The largest companies are thus able to survive thumping blows that might otherwise floor them, such as the $99 billion loss that the newly formed but ill-conceived AOL Time Warner, as it then was, reported for 2002. But the impact can be all too real, as write-downs reduce overall book value and increase leverage ratios, a particular concern in these debt-averse times.\",\n \"That's true, I concede that point. It wasn't the case in my case study, and I don't think it's the case with these gift cards, but I could be wrong, since I'm not an accountant, and I don't even have my Masters in Finance yet.\",\n \"Expensing a transfer of funds is incorrect. That will affect the Profit/Loss (Income) statement when you transfer it out and back in, which you do not want, at least for the principle. The interest should be recorded as a interest income. The general way to account for transferring money is to credit the originating account, and debit the destination account. This will only affect the balance sheet accounts. For example: Transferring (buying) 10,000 worth of fix term bank deposits Interest is paid: The bank deposit reaches maturity, so the principle is returned, with the final interest payment. The accounts Checking account and Fixed term bank deposit are asset accounts, which show up on the balance sheet. The Interest income is an income account, which will show up in the income statement. This is how a fixed term/CD is usually recorded. In certain cases, where the business must follow an accounting standard, this may very well be insufficient, but this situation will be unlikely if it's a small private sports club. Having said that, double check to make sure what you've stated is indeed correct, and look back into the past entries to see how it was dealt with before, especially since you said this bookkeeping job is temporary. I would strongly advise against changing non-recent entries, even if they are incorrect. For the insurance payments, that would depend on how the damaged assets were accounted for. It's a little hard to say without more detail-- the extent of the damage, how the diminished value was accounted for in the books, the cost of repair materials, etc.\",\n \"An expired option is a stand-alone event, sold at $X, with a bought at $0 on the expiration date. The way you phrased the question is ambiguous, as 'decrease toward zero' is not quite the same as expiring worthless, you'd need to buy it at the near-zero price to then sell another covered call at a lower strike. Edit - If you entered the covered call sale properly, you find that an in-the-money option results in a sale of the shares at expiration. When entered incorrectly, there are two possibilities, the broker buys the option back at the market close, or you wake up Sunday morning (the options 'paperwork' clears on Saturday after expiration) finding yourself owning a short position, right next to the long. A call, and perhaps a fee, are required to zero it out. As you describe it, there are still two transactions to report, the option at $50 strike that you bought and sold, the other a stock transaction that has a sale price of the strike plus option premium collected.\",\n \"It depends on whether or not you are referring to realized or unrealized gains. If the asset appreciation is realized, meaning you've sold the asset and actually collected liquidity from it, then Derek_6424246 has provided a good route to follow. However, if the gains are unrealized, meaning only that the current value of the underlying asset(s) have increased or decreased, then you might want to record this under an Income:Unrealized Gains account. One of the main distinctions between the two are whether or not you have a taxable event (realized) or just want to better track your net worth at a given time (unrealized). For example, I generally track my retirement accounts increase in value sans interest, dividends and contributions, as income from an Income:Unrealized Gains account. I can still reconcile it with my statements, and it shows an accurate picture for my net worth, but the money is not liquid nor taxed and is more for informational purposes than anything. And no, I don't create an additional Expense account here to track losses. Just think of Unrealized Gains as an income account where the balance will fluctuate up and down (and potentially even go negative) over time.\",\n \"You should be recording the reimbursement as a negative expense on the original account the expense was recorded. Let's assume you have a $100 expense and $100 salary. Total $200 paycheck. You will have something like this In the reports, it will show that the expense account will have $0 ($100 + ($100)), while income account will have $100 (salary).\",\n \"Yes, you can depreciate gifts to your business subject to the special rules in § 1011 and Regulation § 1.1011–1 and 1.167(g)–1. It is dual basis property so when you sell the item your gain/loss basis will be different. Adjusted basis of the donor for gain, FMV on the date received for the loss. Minus any depreciation you add, of course, in both cases.\",\n \"Interesting. How would they account for it? Monthly? And if so do they modify the cost basis for each lot for the month and then restate? It's hard to imagine they do that. I have a million questions regarding this topic do you know where in the regs it is covered?\",\n \"The 'standard' thing to do, after double checking your numbers to see if you can find or remember the actual reason for the discrepancy is to use an Income account for 'extra' money and an expense account for 'lost' money. The Imbalance account is meant as a temporary placeholder for monies not yet put into their right account. I personally use Income:Other Income for such found money, and Expenses:Adjustment for lost money.\",\n \"The income and recurring costs will be shown at the end of each year, however the initial cost is recorded at the time they are incurred meaning at t=0 (Jan 2014) The first net profits/loss of 658500 is recorded at the end of Dec 2014 (t=1) And the remaining four ones at the end of 2015 (t=2) 2016 (t=3) 2017 (t=4) 2018 (t=5) -8000000 658500 658500 658500 658500 6658500 t=0) -8000000 t=1) 658500 t=2) 658500 t=3) 658500 t=4) 658500 t=5) 6658500\",\n \"Former Walmart associate here. As long as you have a receipt and it hasn't been more than 90 days, they will take back almost anything. I've seen stained baby clothes and totally destroyed sneakers written off so that the customer could have their full refund.\",\n \"What's the problem with having them write it off? Stop fishing for something negative and accept the fact that they're doing a good thing. They're still a business, not a soup kitchen. Making money isn't evil unless your taking advantage of someone, which is the opposite of what they're doing.\",\n \"I'm a CPA and former IRS agent and manager. Whether you are a cash or accrual basis taxpayer, you get to deduct the expense when your card is charged. Think of it this way: You are borrowing from the credit card company or bank that issued the credit card. You take that money to make a purchase of a product or service. You now have an expense and a liability to a third party. When you pay off the liability, you do not get to take a deduction. Your deduction is when you pay for the expense. Depending on what you purchased, you may have to capitalize it.\",\n \"\\\"I can say that I got X dollars from an account like \\\"\\\"Income:Benefits\\\"\\\"... but where do I credit that money to? \\\"\\\"Expenses:Groceries\\\"\\\" Yes doesn't feel right, since I never actually spent that money on food, You did, didn't you? You got food. I'm guessing there's an established convention for this already? Doubt it. Established conventions in accounting are for businesses, and more specifically - public companies. So you can find a GAAP, or IFRS guidelines on how to book benefits (hint: salary expense), but it is not something you may find useful in your own household accounting. Do what is most convenient for you. Since it is a double-booking system - you need to have an account on the other side. Expenses:Groceries doesn't feel right? Add Expenses:Groceries:Benefits or Expenses:Benefits or whatever. When you do your expense and cash-flow reports - you can exclude both the income and the expense benefits accounts if you track them separately, so that they don't affect your tracking of the \\\"\\\"real\\\"\\\" expenses.\\\"\",\n \"I am not an accountant, but I have a light accounting background, despite being primarily an engineer. I also have a tiny schedule C business which has both better and worse years. I am also in the United States and pay US taxes. I assume you are referring to the US Form 1040 tax return, with the attached Schedule C. However little I know about US taxes, I know nothing about foreign taxes. You are a cash-basis taxpayer, so the transactions that happen in each tax year are based on the cash paid and cash received in that year. You were paid last year, you computed your schedule C based on last year's actual transactions, and you paid taxes on that income. You can not recompute last years schedule C based on the warranty claim. You might want to switch to an accrual accounting method, where you can book allowances for warranty claims. It is more complex, and if your business is spotty and low volume, it may be more trouble than it is worth. At this point, you have two months to look for ways to shift expenses into next year or being income into this year, both of which help offset this loss. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on. This article on LegalZoom (link here) discusses how to apply a significant net operating loss (NOL) in this year to the previous two years, and potentially carry it forward to the next two years. This does involve filing amended returns for the prior two years, showing this year's NOL. For this to be relevant, your schedule C loss this year must exceed your other W2 and self-employment income this year, with other tests also applied. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on.\",\n \"Discrepancies between what the book value is reported as and what they'd fetch if sold on the open market. Legal disputes in court.\",\n \"\\\"I'm not an expert, but here is my best hypothesis. On Microsoft's (and most other company's) cash flow statements, they use the so-called \\\"\\\"indirect method\\\"\\\" of accounting for cash flow from operations. How that works, is they start with net income at the top, and then adjust it with line items for the various non-cash activities that contributed to net income. The key phrase is that these are accounting for the non-cash activities that contribute to net income. If the accounts receivable amount changes from something other than operating activity (e.g., if they have to write off some receivables because they won't be paid), the change didn't contribute to net income in the first place, so doesn't need to be reconciled on the cash flow statement.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Asset = Equity + (Income - Expense) + Liability Everything could be cancelled out in double entry accounting. By your logic, if the owner contributes capital as asset, Equity is \\\"\\\"very similar\\\"\\\" to Asset. You will end up cancelling everything, i.e. 0 = 0. You do not understate liability by cancelling them with asset. Say you have $10000 debtors and $10000 creditors. You do not say Net Debtors = $0 on the balance sheet. You are challenging the fundamental concepts of accounting. Certain accounts are contra accounts. For example, Accumulated Depreciation is Contra-Asset. Retained Loss and Unrealized Revaluation Loss is Contra-Equity.\\\"\",\n \"If you're repairing an existing appliance - its an expense. If you're replacing an existing appliance with a new one - that's disposing of one capital asset and putting in service another. You depreciate the new one and you dispose of the old one (if not fully depreciated - talk to your tax adviser how to handle the remaining value). The additional costs of the fixes that are not related to the installation of the new appliance are regular maintenance expenses, so you have to get an itemized invoice from the plumber to know what to expense and what to capitalize.\",\n \"\\\"You can make a custom category for \\\"\\\"Website expenses\\\"\\\" under Other Expenses as well. If the domain name only costs a very small amount, like $10, I think expensing it would be reasonable. Mariette IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"No, you capitalize all that and deduct as depreciation from the royalties. What it means is that you cannot deduct the expense when it is incurred, but only when you started receiving income that the expense was used to derive. This is similar to capitalizing building improvements which can only be deducted when you start getting rent, or capitalizing software development expenses which can only be deducted once you start selling/licensing the developed software. In the case of book writing - you capitalize the expenses and deduct them once you start receiving royalties. The period over which you deduct (the \\\"\\\"depreciation schedule\\\"\\\") depends on the type of the expense and the type of the income, so you better get a guidance from a licensed tax accountant (EA or CPA licensed in your State).\\\"\",\n \"You can depreciate equipment as a valid expense, even for a sole proprietorship. The concept is simple, but the details are pretty complicated (and probably even more so given the added complexities of agricultural economics). Definitely speak to an accountant who specializes in the field.\",\n \"If you did not separate out the fridge for depreciation, you just had it part of the house. A 27.5 year depreciation that you can calculate. You might have made or lost some money. You should depreciate the new one stand alone, on the 5 year depreciation schedule @littleadv notes in his answer.\",\n \"In addition to the expatriation case already mentioned by Ben Miller, traders/investors are required to use mark-to-market accounting on certain investments. These go by Section 1256 contracts due to the part of the law that defines them. Mark-to-market is also required on straddles (combination of a long and and a short position in equities that are expected to vary inversely to each other). Mark-to-market means that you have to treat the positions as if you closed them at their end-of-year market value (even if you still have the position across the new year).\",\n \"\\\"When you pay expenses on behalf of someone, you do not Debit your expense accounts. You credit your Bank and debit the Liability. The method that you mentioned (debit expense then credit it back to liability) is an acceptable practice, but the method is only used when you accidentially debited your expense accounts without knowing that it is for someone else (or in the case of split transactions). You need to specify \\\"\\\"being expense paid on behalf of someone\\\"\\\" when you credit the expense account.\\\"\",\n \"Pub 527 my friend. It gets depreciated. Table 1-1 on page 5.\",\n \"I have no idea what the traditional accounting way of dealing with this might be; but does your accounts package has the concept of subaccounts within a bank account? If so, to me it would make sense that when a cheque is written, you move money in the accounts package from the bank account to a subaccount named 'Cheques Written'; then when it is cashed, move money from that subaccount to the supplier. Then from a reporting perspective, when you want a report that will correspond to your actual bank statement, run a report that includes the subacconut; when you want a report that tells you how much you have available to spend, rune a report that excludes the subaccount.\",\n \"They always expire sometime, and they are a scam. I recommend you unload any on ebay as soon as you get them. For this one in articular, just ask to see a manager and explain your situation politely. You'll usually get what you want.\",\n \"In the US, you can only take a tax deduction on expenses to the extent that they offset income. For an S corp or LLC, if the business had no income, there's no deduction to take. If you have a sole proprietorship, these expenses can offset other income. You can also carry-forward net operating losses to future years when you have more income. See the article How to Carry Over Business Expenses\",\n \"Being a professional auditor and accountant, deduction against expenses are claimed in the year in which expenses has been incurred. It has no relationship with when it is paid. For example, we may buy on credit does not mean that they will be allowed in the period in which it is paid. This is against the fundamental accounting principles.\",\n \"If you don't track the accrued costs involved, then it means that the valuation of the deal will be somewhat arbitrary, but it still can be made by looking at the value of equivalent or similar goods or services. It's rather similar to accounting treatment of (noncash) gifts, for example. You make up a valuation, and as there are obvious tax reasons to make it as low as possible, the valuation should be justifiable or you risk the wrath of IRS. If you sell the same goods or services for cash, then the value of the barter deal is obvious. If this barter is the only time you're handling this particular type of goods, a wholesale price of similar items (either of your items, or the items that you're receiving in barter) could work.\",\n \"Truthfully, I don't know, but in actuality, a 4-5 billion dollar loss even isn't the big deal, it's more important that they lost almost 40B of market cap. Now realistically it's relatively oversold in my opinion and they will make it back eventually, but that has more of an impact on them in the here and now. As far as the offset you are asking about, I'm not sure, personally I don't trust any accounting practices of banks, in reality, it's entirely possible that not even the c-suite understands their exact financial position at any given time. The reports of this loss actually came out about a month before they were even able to make an educated guess as to how much their losses would be. In any case, there are much more qualified/knowledgeable people on here that could likely answer your question a bit better.\",\n \"Is it just -34*4.58= -$155.72 for CCC and -11*0.41= -$4.51 for DDD? Yes it needs to be recorded as negative because at some point in time, the investor will have to spend money to buy these shares [cover the short sell and return the borrowed shares]. Whether the investor made profit or loss will not be reflected as you are only reflecting the current share inventory.\",\n \"Federal income taxes are indeed expenses, they're just not DEDUCTIBLE expenses on your 1120. Federal Income Tax Expense is usually a subcategory under Taxes. This is one of the items that will be a book-to-tax difference on Schedule M-1. I am presuming you are talking about a C corporation, as an S corporation is not likely to be paying federal taxes itself, but would pass the liability through to the members. If you're paying your personal 1040 taxes out of an S-corporation bank account, that's an owner's draw just like paying any of your personal non-business expenses. I would encourage you to get a tax professional to prepare your corporate tax returns. It's not quite as simple as TurboTax Business makes it out to be. ;) Mariette IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.\",\n \"Keep this rather corny acronym in mind. Business expenses must be CORN: As other posters have already pointed out, certain expenses that are capital items (computers, furniture, etc.) must be depreciated over several years, but you have a certain amount of capital items that you can write off in the current tax year.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"Any business, like any household, has items that are wasted. Unlike a household, a business does keep track of all items that are unsellable. Depending on the reason for the item being unsellable they are accounted for differently. Items that can be returned to the manufacturer are done so, and the business is given credit for that item. For the business the time spent processing, stocking and restocking that item, plus any time spent handling a return for that customer is harder to track. If they see the percentage of bad items is too large compared to sales they will want to address this with the manufacturer. Items that are spoiled by the business, which will include spoiled food items, will also be tracked. They will examine their choice of products, their procedures for those products and the quantities produced to try an minimize the spoilage. They don't just throw the items away, they keep track of the exact items and their worth. When they have to dispose of meat that has reached their \"\"sell by\"\" date they will actually scan the items into the computer. In some cases products can be transformed into other products: bread into bread pudding; in other situations they are \"\"reduced for quick sale\"\"; in other cases they are donated to a charity or food kitchen. All of this is also tracked. Of course any losses that the company can't recover by returning items to manufactures or repurposing will be reflected in the price of their items. Stores that can minimize their waste can offer lower prices.\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"Any business, like any household, has items that are wasted. Unlike a household, a business does keep track of all items that are unsellable. Depending on the reason for the item being unsellable they are accounted for differently. Items that can be returned to the manufacturer are done so, and the business is given credit for that item. For the business the time spent processing, stocking and restocking that item, plus any time spent handling a return for that customer is harder to track. If they see the percentage of bad items is too large compared to sales they will want to address this with the manufacturer. Items that are spoiled by the business, which will include spoiled food items, will also be tracked. They will examine their choice of products, their procedures for those products and the quantities produced to try an minimize the spoilage. They don't just throw the items away, they keep track of the exact items and their worth. When they have to dispose of meat that has reached their \\\"\\\"sell by\\\"\\\" date they will actually scan the items into the computer. In some cases products can be transformed into other products: bread into bread pudding; in other situations they are \\\"\\\"reduced for quick sale\\\"\\\"; in other cases they are donated to a charity or food kitchen. All of this is also tracked. Of course any losses that the company can't recover by returning items to manufactures or repurposing will be reflected in the price of their items. Stores that can minimize their waste can offer lower prices.\\\"\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":178,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"2010"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Paypal website donations without being a charity"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["44256","233877","174034"],"string":"[\n \"44256\",\n \"233877\",\n \"174034\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["174034","571006","413681","233877","44256","196374","424893","316228","517410","348480","369577","350315","439460","453455","416378","496284","257311","24260","559371","143998","566430","421114","445339","179820","158968","90591","233001","111771","4457","28974","364975","204870","44033","186621","280679","518451","35748","148288","583371","465447","47693","585916","289768","151758","152442","427202","438975","326167","304159","507701","267347","466943","326690","540205","346793","36783","400495","161667","244318","315571","316490","262521","300121","70542","452544","596431","432545","96674","346444","124397","501330","551879","124341","511583","21416","385484","395139","446345","191291","589692","343872","54007","392357","83733","114443","313361","401819","426639","480984","328060","321612","243503","245011","122177","129607","320816","446622","396792","397847","264932"],"string":"[\n \"174034\",\n \"571006\",\n \"413681\",\n \"233877\",\n \"44256\",\n \"196374\",\n \"424893\",\n \"316228\",\n \"517410\",\n \"348480\",\n \"369577\",\n \"350315\",\n \"439460\",\n \"453455\",\n \"416378\",\n \"496284\",\n \"257311\",\n \"24260\",\n \"559371\",\n \"143998\",\n \"566430\",\n \"421114\",\n \"445339\",\n \"179820\",\n \"158968\",\n \"90591\",\n \"233001\",\n \"111771\",\n \"4457\",\n \"28974\",\n \"364975\",\n \"204870\",\n \"44033\",\n \"186621\",\n \"280679\",\n \"518451\",\n \"35748\",\n \"148288\",\n \"583371\",\n \"465447\",\n \"47693\",\n \"585916\",\n \"289768\",\n \"151758\",\n \"152442\",\n \"427202\",\n \"438975\",\n \"326167\",\n \"304159\",\n \"507701\",\n \"267347\",\n \"466943\",\n \"326690\",\n \"540205\",\n \"346793\",\n \"36783\",\n \"400495\",\n \"161667\",\n \"244318\",\n \"315571\",\n \"316490\",\n \"262521\",\n \"300121\",\n \"70542\",\n \"452544\",\n \"596431\",\n \"432545\",\n \"96674\",\n \"346444\",\n \"124397\",\n \"501330\",\n \"551879\",\n \"124341\",\n \"511583\",\n \"21416\",\n \"385484\",\n \"395139\",\n \"446345\",\n \"191291\",\n \"589692\",\n \"343872\",\n \"54007\",\n \"392357\",\n \"83733\",\n \"114443\",\n \"313361\",\n \"401819\",\n \"426639\",\n \"480984\",\n \"328060\",\n \"321612\",\n \"243503\",\n \"245011\",\n \"122177\",\n \"129607\",\n \"320816\",\n \"446622\",\n \"396792\",\n \"397847\",\n \"264932\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["An answer from PayPal stated that donations may be turned on only for Business PayPal accounts that are verified for its non-profit status. Such PayPal Business account must be opened in the name of non-profit organization (not a single person) and go through verification process. One must provide the following information: That would mean that one cannot ask for donations as a private person, at least in Croatia, and probably in Europe.","I see two ways you can handle this. Use the gifts for the purpose of creating more free software. This is fundraising, and your cause is writing free software. The language is a little tricky from the PayPal Donate button (emphasis mine): This button is intended for fundraising. If you are not raising money for a cause, please choose another option. Nonprofits must verify their status to withdraw donations they receive. Users that are not verified nonprofits must demonstrate how their donations will be used, once they raise more than $10,000 USD. You don't have to be a nonprofit; they are only requiring existing nonprofits to verify their status. You don't even have to account for the donations if they are below $10,000. Give out your PayPal email address and instruct the gift-givers to simply send you money through their PayPal interface. They can mark it as a gift when they send the money. I think option one is how the various bloggers and other personal users are justifiying their collection of donations, and I think its a valid use of the PayPal Donate button.","You can have a way for people to pay, i.e. some kind of payment gateway. Run as Business: Best create a company and get the funds there. This would be treated as income of the website and would be taxed accordingly. One can deduct expenses for running the website, etc. Run as Charity: Register as one, however the cause should be considered as charitable one by the tax authorities. Only then the donations would be tax free.","Yes, PayPal allows you to add a donate button to your website. You're responsible for any tax record-keeping related to income from the donate button.","Yes, Paypal has such a button you can use, but to be clear, the money you receive is taxable income. Your website is providing 'value' to the readers, and while they may feel they are making a gift to you, it's earned income as far as the IRS is concerned. (This assumes you are in the US, you may wish to add a tag to indicate your country)","\"First to clear a few things up. It is definitely not a gift. The people are sending you money only because you are providing them with a service. And for tax purposes, it is not a \"\"Donation\"\". It has nothing to do with the fact that you are soliciting the donation, as charitable organizations solicit donations all the time. For tax purposes, it is not a \"\"Donation\"\" because you do not have 501(c)(3) non profit status. It is income. The question is then, is it \"\"Business\"\" income, or \"\"Hobby\"\" related income? Firstly, you haven't mentioned, but it's important to consider, how much money are you receiving from this monthly, or how much money do you expect to receive from this annually? If it's a minimal amount, say $50 a month or less, then you probably just want to treat it as a hobby. Mostly because with this level of income, it's not likely to be profitable. In that case, report the income and pay the tax. The tax you will owe will be minimal and will probably be less than the costs involved with setting up and running it as a business anyway. As a Hobby, you won't be able to deduct your expenses (server costs, etc...) unless you itemize your taxes on Schedule A. On the other hand if your income from this will be significantly more than $600/yr, now or in the near future, then you should consider running it as a business. Get it clear in your mind that it's a business, and that you intend it to be profitable. Perhaps it won't be profitable now, or even for a while. What's important at this point is that you intend it to be profitable. The IRS will consider, if it looks like a business, and it acts like a business, then it's probably a business... so make it so. Come up with a name for your business. Register the business with your state and/or county as necessary in your location. Get a bank account for your business. Get a separate Business PayPal account. Keep personal and business expenses (and income) separate. As a business, when you file your taxes, you will be able to file a Schedule C form even if you do not itemize your taxes on Schedule A. On Schedule C, you list and total your (business) income, and your (business) expenses, then you subtract the expenses from the income to calculate your profit (or loss). If your business income is more than your business expenses, you pay tax on the difference (the profit). If your business expenses are more than your business income, then you have a business loss. You would not have to pay any income tax on the business income, and you may be able to be carry the loss over to the next and following years. You may want to have a service do your taxes for you, but at this level, it is certainly something you could do yourself with some minimal consultations with an accountant.\"","\"Donate buttons are meaningless with regards to taxes. This is payment for something you provided, and you cannot claim that you've received a gift. Any money you receive in this way is payment for your software. Remember, for gifts - no consideration should have been provided to the donor. Anything for which a consideration was provided - cannot be a gift. In your case the consideration is the software, and it's value is the amount you were paid. Since every person can decide how much to pay you on his own - any payment is for the software, not a gift. Any money you get is taxable to you, and you cannot claim it as \"\"gifts\"\" without exposing yourself to risks of making fraudulent claims. Consult a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for a qualified tax advice.\"","\"The thing to look at is PayPal's \"\"PayPal.me\"\" service, which is a pretty neat little item. When you sign up for a PayPal.me account (totally free), you create a unique username. So for example, my PayPal.me account name is DanCAnderson. I can give someone the following web link to send me $500: http://paypal.me/DanCAnderson/500 If you click the link above, you'll see what the user sees (my company name is Salt River Networks, Inc.). I gave a live link so you can see the working example of it (no need for anyone to send money! chuckle). I can change the amount by simply changing the value at the end of the URL. When they go to that link, they see a landing page with your name on it and the amount to send to you, then they go through the normal process of paying via PayPal. It's a pretty neat service, and I've used to it bill a few clients for work I've done by emailing that link to them rather than going through the whole PayPal procedure.\"","From PayPal's website: PayPal offers discounted transaction rates for 501(c)(3) charities for most products, and consistently low rates for all other nonprofits. No extra fees for setup, statements, withdrawals or cancellation. 2.2% + $0.30 per transaction and no monthly fee for charities. There is a reduced rate if the donations total more than $100,000 (which they would for Wikipedia), but PayPal doesn't publish those rates. You have to call and ask about them. One forum I read indicates the rate drops to 1.9% + $0.30 per transaction.","\"Yes, you can create a PayPal business account without having formalized a business with government filings and whatnot. At its simplest terms, \"\"having a business\"\" is simply \"\"doing business as\"\" (D/B/A) a trade name. You can use the address of a Private Mail Box such as those provided at the UPS Store. Ask any kid with a lemonade stand or a box of Girl Scout cookies - you only need to engage in government formalities like registering an LLC or getting a tax EIN when you cross certain thresholds of activity, and paying for things is generally not it. Also, some of businesses, for some relationships, will require the business formalities like an EIN, which in turn will require creating a trade name and registering it with the state. For instance if you set up a traditional credit card merchant account, they'll probably want that.\"","If this is something you plan to continue doing it would make sense to create it as it's own business entity and then to get non-profit status eg: 501c3. Otherwise I'm pretty sure you have to think of it as YOU receiving the money as a sole proprietor - and file a couple more tax forms at the end of the year. I think it's a Schedule C. So essentially if you bring in $10,000, then you spend that $10,000 as legit business expenses for your venture your schedule C would show no profit and wouldn't pay taxes on it. BUT, you do have to file that form. Operating this way could have legal implications should something happen and you get sued. Having the proper business entity setup could help in that situation.","Do I report it as income? Is it subject to just the same amount of taxes (~30%) as regular income? Are there any restrictions on how it can be used? It is income. You can deduct the costs of maintaining the web page and producing the software from it (have an accountant do that for you, there are strict rules on how to do that, and you can only deduct up to the income if its a hobby and not a for-profit business), but otherwise it's earned income like any other self employment income. It is reported on your schedule C or on line 21 of your 1040 (miscellaneous income), and you're also liable for self-employment taxes on this income. There are no restrictions, it's your money. Technically, who is the donation even being made to? Me, just because I own the webpage? Yes. This is for the United States, but is there any difference if the donations come from overseas? No, unless you paid foreign taxes on the money (in which case you should fill form 1116 and ask for credit). If you create an official 501(c) organization to which the donations are given, instead of you getting it directly, the tax treatment will be different. But of course, you have to have a real charitable organization for that. To avoid confusion - I'm not a licensed tax professional and this is not a tax advice. If in doubt - talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your State.","\"Technically, this is considered \"\"income\"\" for you, and is actually not considered a \"\"donation\"\" for your donors, but is instead a \"\"gift\"\" (not tax-deductible for your donors). So, you are technically required to report it, and there is a pretty significant audit trail that can be followed to prove you made that money. I don't know if PayPal is required to file 1099s for payments received, but if you've ever received such a document, so has the IRS, and they'll match it to the income you claimed and see a discrepancy, triggering an audit. Depending on the amount that it affects your taxes (it can be significant; if you have a $50k/yr day job, you'd owe the government 25 cents on every dollar donated), they can let it slide, they may simply dock your next return, or they may come after you for interest and penalties or even charge you with criminal tax fraud if they could prove you maliciously attempted to conceal this revenue. Now, if you already itemize using a Schedule A, then you can erase this income by deducting the costs of the server, not to exceed the amount of the donations. The best you can do is offset it; you cannot use this deduction to reduce taxable income from other sources. Also, you must itemize; you can't take your standard deduction, and with a maximum possible deduction of the actual costs of running the server ($1500, IF you receive enough donations to fully pay for it) compared to one person's standard deduction ($5800), you'll want to take the standard deduction if you don't have other significant deductions (medical expenses, mortgage interest/property taxes, etc). If you were charging users a monthly fee for use of the server, then you've basically created a de facto sole proprietorship, and you would still have to count the fees as income, but could then deduct the full cost of running the server. You'd fill out a Schedule C listing the revenue and expenses, and back them up with statements from your ISP/hosting company and from PayPal. Now, this would apply if you were running the server with the primary goal of making a regular profit; Schedule C cannot be used for income from a \"\"hobby\"\", undertaken primarily for enjoyment and where a few bucks in revenue is gravy. Whether you think you can get away with that in your current situation is your prerogative; I don't think you would, given that the donations are solicited and optional, and thus there is no expectation of ever turning a profit on this game server.\"","In the US the best way to solve the problem, IMHO, would be via a trust. Talk to a properly licensed trust/estate attorney and a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). Using intermediary who's not a 501(c) organization may pose income tax issues to that intermediary as providing support to the needy is not a valid business expense. It may also pose gift tax issues, since the aggregate amounts may exceed the statutory exemption limits. Using a (non-revokable) trust you can avoid these issues, but others may come up (such as what to do with the trust income or undistributed moneys). Talk to the advisers about how to avoid them.","\"Can a company say \"\"StackExchange\"\" donate to a non-profit company say $5,000 in agreement that they will spend that on paying a designer for a new website? And most importantly is this donation still tax deductible? A non-profit would have to typically create a bucket for IT Services or Website design. As long as \"\"StackExchange\"\" specify they employ a profession service to get it done, there would be no issue. If \"\"StackExchange\"\" were to specify an individula/company it would be an issue.\"","Most bank bill pay services will work for this purpose. Generally you can pay any person or business that has a valid address. As an added Paypal will no longer take ~3% of the money.","If you are using paypal to sell items online, you need a Premier (or better) account rather than personal. Paypal states: Our fees are the same for Personal, Premier, and Business accounts. [...] If you use your PayPal account to request money from someone, you'll be charged a fee when you receive the payment.","No. PayPal payments are credited to a PayPal account. PayPal doesn't let you pay arbitrary banks or credit cards, that defeats the purpose of PayPal and there are other services which can do that cheaper or with less hassle. You need to find another mutually available and satisfactory option with your client.","\"Can I teach children an invaluable skill for free and provide a website or PayPal link for anyone who appreciates the result of my gift to their child and wishes to gift me money (or maybe they don’t have a child but believe in my revolutionary contribution to the future) as they see fit, up to $10K? Two immediately obvious problems with this strategy: What about when you receive gifts from people who aren't in the US? You have to declare, and pay taxes on, foreign gifts. It seems to me that these may not be gifts because they are given in connection with the service you provided rather than from \"\"detached and disinterested generosity\"\" as required to make the gift tax exempt. (See Commisioner v. Duberstein -- gift given to thank associate for a sales lead did not arise from detached generosity. See Stanton v. United States -- gift given in appreciation of services rendered may or may not be a gift for tax purposes. See also Bogardus v. Commissioner -- gifts inspired by past service can be tax exempt.)\"","PayPal transactions are not taxed in Australia. Income is taxed, and Ad network income is income. Your relative will receive the money, and will have to declare the income so it can be taxed. Your relative will then have to pay the tax. If you are to do this, you should transfer enough money from each payment for your relative to pay the tax; the rest you can move around however you wish.","I suspect that the new VATMOSS rules come in to play here. So you owe VAT for donations from EU countries, providing you are below £81k there would be no UK vat payable though, however then you couldn't recoup the vat you paid out. Note I am not an accountant but I did speak to one this week about a similar issue.","\"Donations, particularly those in the context of you providing a free service (software, libraries, etc.) are a notable grey area in tax code. Simply naming a button \"\"Donate\"\" doesn't necessarily classify the money transfer as a \"\"gift\"\". The IRS can decide that it's money you're being paid to continue your excellent work/service, making it taxable income (unless you're a registered non-profit organization). In the instance of Patreon, and many other crowd-funding services, you're providing a certain level of \"\"service\"\" for each tier of donations (such as early access or something, I'm not sure what you're offering), which means they're receiving consideration for their donations, which most likely makes it fall into taxable income (again, unless you're a registered non-profit organization). State tax law is even more convoluted, and you should consult your tax professional for clarification on your specific situation.\"","If that is what you insist upon, don't use PayPal. This is one of the supposed justifications for the existence of cryptocurrencies","Yes, but PayPal has limits. Depending on your annual transactions you might have a $$ limit each year unless you agree to tie to a bank account. In my case, I set up another checking account to link to, and keep a small amount there. Less than $200.","People put conditions on donations all the time. They donate to the Red Cross for a specific disaster. The donate money to a church for the building fund. They donate money to a hospital to buy a new x-ray machine. They donate money to the scouts for a new dining hall. It is possible to donate money to a non-profit for a specific purpose. If the non-profit doesn't want to accept the money with those strings they can refuse. Generally these specific projects are initiated by the non-profit. But there is no requirement that the idea originate with the non-profit. It is also up to the non-profit and their legal advisers regarding how strictly they view those strings. If you donate money for web design and they don't spend it all, can they pay net years hosting bill with the money, or must they hold it for a few years for when they need a designer again? If the company wants to provide the service, they can structure the project to pay their employees for their time. They pay employees for $100 of labor while deigning the website. The pay and benefits reduce profit thus lowering taxes. Donating money to the non-profit to be given back to the company doesn't seem to be the best way to structure transaction. At best it is a wash. Donating money to a charity and then directing exactly which contractor will perform the service starts to look like money laundering, and most charities will get wary.","\"I know your pain oh, so much. I literally have a 14 gallon rubbermaid container FULL of solicitations I have received. Even worse, for-profit fundraising companies send most of those mailings! They take the money, and deduct their \"\"expenses\"\", rigged to consume almosts all your gift. Some companies have been caught passing as little as 9% to the charity. First let's talk about a few issues. Authentication. Is that outfit really a tax deductible 501c3 charity? Address. Is this their genuine address, or is it the dropbox of a scammer or one of those evil for-profit fundraising companies? Acknowledgement. For gifts over a certain size, you need a thank-you letter from them to show the IRS that you really donated. Will you get it? The limit is $250 (no letter, deduction rejected) but as a practical thing, it helps in an audit to show as many donation letters as possible. Charities cannot issue them retroactively, but can issue you second copies of ones they sent previously. If the charity drops the ball, you lose. Obviously enough, you go to the post office and spend $1 on a money order. This does not authenticate them as a charity. It does not assure it goes to their real address. You can do both these things yourself, by checking their data on the IRS website or on guidestar.org. You don't get an acknowledgement. I mention these because donation websites work much the same way. DAFs require a higher one-time commitment but are much simpler and more efficient after that. If you are planning to give $5000 in a single year, save it up and open a Donor Advised Fund account. A DAF is itself a charity. You donate to the DAF, and take the tax deduction for charitable contributons. Then, you tell the DAF to donate it to other charities on your behalf, or anonymously. Their concept is, you use the DAF as a \"\"buffer\"\" so you can easily make the tax-deductible donation when you need to for tax purposes, then at your leisure research charities and support them. However, I asked my DAF - most people donate and then immediately re-donate the money, leaving the fund at zero balance. My DAF doesn't mind that at all, and they charge zero fees for this. (Its expenses are paid by those of us who leave money sitting around in the DAF. Mine charges 0.6% a year. This money can be invested sort of like in a 401K, and each investment also has an expense ratio, such as 0.18% a year in my chosen index fund.) Websites like \"\"justgive.org\"\" will take any amount of your money and re-donate it to the charity you select. They deduct 3-5% for their expenses (notably paper, stamps, and the 2-3% it costs them to process your credit card).\"","\"The only way to prevent it is to not use PayPal. The terms of usage are draconian, and by using the service you agree to them. I'm sure that when the case gets to a court of law, they will find where it is authorized. Paypal is not a bank, and the money there is basically \"\"entrusted\"\" with the company and is not insured by anyone. They don't need or have to be subject to the regulations on the banking industry, and they're no different than your neighbour carrying money for you to the grocery store when you're sick. Other options are wire transfer, services like Western Union or Moneygram, checks (better certified/cashier's checks), money orders or even cash. You can also charge via credit card, but you can get similar problems there (although it is still safer than PayPal because with credit card - the card owner must initiate the charge back, it doesn't appear on its own because they feel like it).\"","Yes, you can set up a PayPal or a Google Checkout account without a bank account linked to it. Neither PayPal nor Google Checkout requires you to link to a bank account. Both services provide for linking your payment account to a credit card instead.","From WePay (GoFundMe's payment processor) support. I received only gifts and donations. Will I receive a Form 1099-K? As of 2015, the IRS has clarified that WePay is not required to send a Form 1099-K with respect to payments that are made solely as gifts or donations. The purpose of Form 1099-K is to report payments for the provision of goods or services, which may be subject to tax. Gifts and donations typically are not reported as income by recipients, so it is not necessary to send them a Form 1099-K. https://support.wepay.com/hc/en-us/articles/203609483-Tax-Reporting","\"I agree with the rest of the answers -- you're probably better off just using it for some predictable flat-rate recurring monthly service like NetFlix, or making a charitable donation if you're into that sort of thing. But since that wasn't what you asked, I'll try to provide an answer: If you don't mind throwing away money, send money to yourself using PayPal. Here's how: Set up a PayPal Business Account, and use your personal PayPal account to send funds to it by setting up a PayPal subscription. PayPal says \"\"You can have one Consumer account and one Business account.\"\" A PayPal Payments Standard business account has no monthly fee -- only transaction fees. According to PayPal, \"\"in order to set up a repeating payment, [you] would need to create a Subscription or Recurring Payments button from the Merchant Services tab\"\" (in the Business Account). You would then click the link/button to set up the subscription from your personal PayPal account, to make it send money to your Business account on an automatic schedule. You can then, at your own leisure, send the money back to your personal account without paying a second transaction fee, then finally send it back to your bank account. Or, if your bank account is not yet tied to your personal account, you can tie it to the business account instead, and deposit the funds into your bank account. Unfortunately, this step can't be automated. Again, to reiterate, you're much better off just using it for something recurring.\"","I've definitely seen a similar conversation about this, I personally don't buy from eBay (Amazon for me). So I turned to the internet to see what I could find to offer you any additional information (albeit not my personal experience). I first read this article: CodeNerdz Article and was pretty horrified by the scamming that can happen by buyers. Then, this article by another regular user of eBay, Selling on eBay without PayPal : eBay Guides confirmed the trouble people have with PayPal & eBay. Payment Services permitted on eBay: Allpay.net, Canadian Tire Money, cash2india, CertaPay, Checkfree.com, hyperwallet.com, Moneybookers.com, Nochex.com, Ozpay.biz, Paymate.com.au, Propay.com, XOOM Have you looked into any or all of these?","Like Bluetie Grasper have said. Can I create a PayPal account and receive €200 (or a similar amount) without adding a bank account, credit card, or anything but my email address? The answer is No. You can transfer the money to your PayPal account but until you verify it with your personal information with at least a credit card or mostly likely a bank account, PayPal will hold those funds until otherwise. Can I then use that money to buy on Amazon, still without adding anything but my email address? If not, can I buy gift cards and use those on Amazon? Amazon does not accept PayPal.","I think you need to have paypal for eBay selling, just for one reason: people will avoid buying from you if they can't pay by paypal. It decreases significantly your selling.","\"I wouldn't trust \"\"about.com\"\"; they're based on grabbing content from other places and are entirely unreliable. You can use the money transfer on PayPal, or transfer through a bank. I wouldn't give my bank account details to complete strangers, though. But that's me, with my distrust of the human kind.\"","\"Paypal has an account called \"\"micropayments\"\" for those who have a lot of transaction under $10 with \"\"better\"\" commission structure, 5%+5c per transaction (rather than 2.9% + 30c with regular merchant accounts)\"","Jason I think your doing a great thing. Based on what your describing I would look further into a 501(c)(3). Chapter 3 from the IRS Publication 557 offers information. This Wikipedia gives a quick understanding of 501(c)(3) and how to apply. Here is a great article from ehow it has some suggestions for someone who is just starting out. Maybe going through an organization already existing within your community might be a better, perhaps a church or some religious organization.","there is no tax for receiving money from outside of india paypal just take their charges only","I think about as close as you're going to get is to use a personal PayPal account, and set up a reminder to yourself to log in and send the money. (Because, as you said, setting up a recurring payment is a business account thing.) From PayPal's website: Sending money – Personal payments: It's free within the U.S. to send money to family and friends when you use only your PayPal balance or bank account, or a combination of their PayPal balance and bank account. ... Receiving money – Personal payments: It's free to receive money from friends or family in the U.S. when they send the money from the PayPal website using only their PayPal balance or their bank account, or a combination of their PayPal balance and bank account. You can automate the reminder to yourself with any of the gazillion task managers out there: Google Calendar, MS Outlook, Todoist, Remember the Milk, etc.","I would assume that under a certain threshold, HMRC doesn't even want to hear from you, because extracting taxes from you costs them more money than you are going to pay. On the other hand, I cannot find anything written about that subject. I'd suggest to call them at 0300 200 3300 and ask them. Have the annual cost of the server ready, and tell them that you will stop asking for donations if say 6 months of cost is covered. There may be an official threshold that I was unable to find. Obviously if you receive £1000 in donations and spend £100 for the server, they will want tax payment. If its £110 in donations and £100 for the server, they will likely not care. If they tell you to register as self-employed, it's not difficult, just a bit of a pain. In that case you'd have to pay tax on your income (donations) minus cost (cost for the server and any other cost).","\"This page lays down the requirements for an \"\"unincorporated association\"\" to pay tax (i.e. any group that's not a registered entity). You pay tax is you make money from: it looks like you don't do any of those, so you don't need to file for taxes. There is another exemption that you don't have to file if it is likely that you would owe less than a hundred pounds taxes, which would also probably apply to you. There are many thousands of clubs and societies in the UK that don't need to register for tax purposes, so you are far from alone. It is probably worth creating an actual club (\"\"Captain Insanity Server Club\"\") and keeping records of donations and expenses for the server. There isn't any need to legally incorporate or anything like that, though you might try having a separate bank account for it if you can get a free one, so that if the tax authorities ever audit you personally you can show them that the donations you received weren't income to you.\"","A lot of dating sites work on a subscription model. So do websites like O'Reilly's Safari Bookshelf with technical documentation. A lot of sites which do not force you to pay also allow donations of some kind, e.g. reddit's gold system or all those webcomics using Patreon or something similar.","Yes. I have a US based website that accepts payments via PayPal and can confirm we have many customers from India. Here is a list of countries PayPal supports. Note typically there are some additional fees associated with currency conversion.","PayPal is free for buyers, taking their profit from the sellers -- in much the same way that credit cards take a percentage from the seller (though they will also charge you interest if you don't pay off the entire balance every month). As far as I know, there's nothing that keeps a vendor from having a different price for PayPal customers than cash customers... but that would show up in the number displayed by PayPal before you authorize the purchase, so if you're paying attention it shouldn't be possible to sneak it by you. PayPal has several modes of operation. I'm not aware of one where they hold your balance. Normally you either give them your credit card info, or you give them information about (one of your) bank account(s) and authorize them to do electronic funds transfer from and to that account on your behalf. I've always stuck with the credit card approach; I trust PayPal but I don't trust them that far, on principle. If I was going to link them to an account, it would be a small account I'd create for that purpose, NOT my main savings/checking accounts! (Hm. Actually, I do have one account which normally floats around $500 -- it's the one I dump accumulated pocket change into -- and I could use that. If I ever feel a need to do so.) PayPal does reduce the risk of credit card numbers being abused, by reducing how many people you've given the number to. Depending on what kinds of purchases you make, that may be a security advantage. It certainly doesn't hurt. Personally I have no problem with giving my card number directly to a serious business, but on eBay or sites of that sort where I'm dealing with individuals who are complete strangers I do like the isolation that PayPal provides. In other words, eBay is exactly the environment where I DO use PayPal. After all, that's exactly what PayPal was created for.","\"PayPal offers a service called \"\"PayPal Business Payments\"\". Instead of charging a percentage, they charge a flat fee. For US-to-US payments, the fee is fifty cents per transaction. For Canada-to-Canada payments, the fee is five dollars per transaction. You need to use a third-party invoicing service and choose the \"\"PayPal Business Payments\"\" option. FreshBooks or Zoho Invoice might work.\"","\"Lots of webcomic sites now have \"\"tip jar\"\" links, or let supporters send money via services like Patrion. I presume other kinds of sites have developed similar solutions. I'd suggest you go out, wander the web a bit looking for such, then contact the sites' owners to ask how it's been working for them\"","If i am not wrong, any business activities such should be declared on Year End Tax filing. If your friend is going to own that website either it is commercial or nonprofit, he has to declare in the year end taxation.","Goddady.com will gladly accept payment from your personal account. They don't really care, as long as you approve the charge, whose name the account is in. I'm not sure PayPal even check the names on the invoice and the account to match, they just want you to login. However, depending on your local laws, you may be required to have a separate business account. In the US, for example, corporations must have their own accounts. For other entities with limited liability (like LLC or LLP) it is advised to have a separate account to avoid piercing corporate veil. Also, if your business name is not your personal name - clients may want to verify that the checks/transfers are deposited under your business name. In some countries checks written out to X cannot be endorsed by X to be transferred to Y. That may affect your decision as well. You'll have to get a proper legal advice valid in your jurisdiction to know the answer to your question.","\"In the US: In the UK: You can set up a CAF (Charities Aid foundation) Charity Account. This allows you to donate to charities anonymously, while still allowing the recipient to benefit from Gift Aid (where they can reclaim the income tax you'd paid on the donation). You can even use this account to donate to overseas charities if you're donating at least £250. Or you can use a different intermediary such as BT MyDonate or The Big Give or another intermediary. See the Wikipedia article \"\"Comparison of online charity donation services in the United Kingdom\"\". In Canada: If there's a United Way charity in your country, it may have a donor choice program which may be able to forward a designated donation to any other charity in your country. The United Way probably charges a fee for this service. I'm not sure whether or not the United Way would be willing to keep you anonymous, and I'm not sure whether or not the United Way would add you to its mailing list. More details may be available elsewhere online.\"","Visit paypalblows.org to find out more reasons. PayPal wants your bank account info on file before they allow you to take payment. So setup a bank account strictly for this service, and if they give you trouble or suspend your account, simply never use them again and tell others of your experience. I think the only reason why PayPal wants a bank account is so they can dip into it and take chargeback money.","PayPal. Or even Western Union or MoneyGram. Despite their fees, there is a reason those companies are still in business.","Paypal can take exactly the same legal actions against you as any creditor could -- take you to court for wilful nonpayment of debt, sell your debt to a collections agency, or anything else a business would do with a deadbeat customer. But this is a legal question, and as such off topic here.","There is not any fraud involved. Anybody can gift money to another person.","Does the above mean I will not be able to send money to myself or my mother Yes that is right. PayPal will only be used for small trades. The credits into PayPal cannot be used to purchase anything, and will have to be credited back to the linked Bank Account. This is to ensure right reporting and taxes are being paid. You could use alternative Bank channels for getting funds.","I found this page at CNN Money, that lists 5 viable alternatives to Paypal, namely: I would suggest looking for unbiased sources like CNN rather than searching for alternatives and happening upon the merchant's sites themselves. Hope this helps!","While I've never used the service, there's also Amazon Flexible Payments Services (AFPS): (emphasis below is mine) Amazon Flexible Payments ServiceTM (Amazon FPS) is the first payments service designed from the ground up for developers. It is built on top of Amazon’s reliable and scalable payments infrastructure and provides developers with a convenient way to charge Amazon’s tens of millions of customers (with their permission, of course!). Amazon customers can pay using the same login credentials, shipping address and payment information they already have on file with Amazon. [...] Considering Amazon.com is an e-commerce heavyweight, it might be worth a look.","Just create him a regular PayPal account, then so to the Pay Pal prepaid card page, https://www.paypal-prepaid.com, order a card an attach it to his personal paypal account. Unlike student account, you have to do 2 transfers, one into his paypal account, and then to the prepaid card. That is an answer! Unlike those of use with teenagers under 18 who now have their student accounts jacked from them and there really isn't a good option. Not happy with PayPal right now.I am sure there is a government bureaucrat somewhere behind this decision.","In general, all income is taxable, regardless of the source. If you living in the U.S. -- I don't think you said anywhere where you live -- then if you are donating this money to charity, you would have to declare the income, and then declare a deduction for the charitable contribution. At that point the two would cancel out and the net result is that you wouldn't have to pay any tax on the income, but you can't just leave it off your tax return. Well, even if you donated all of it to charity to that you don't have to pay income taxes on it, you would still have to pay social security taxes, and it would still affect your social security benefits when you retire. If you're saying that the organization receiving the money is itself a charity, as opposed to donating the money to some other organization that is a charity, than you usually have to be registered as a charity with the IRS to avoid income taxes. There are still forms to file to report the income, but you wouldn't have to pay taxes. There are some exceptions to the requirement to register, basically if your organization is very small and for certain religious organizations.","This kind of questions keeps repeating itself on this site and the answer is generally it doesn't matter. As you said yourself, there are costs either way, and these costs are comparable. Generally, merchant fees differ tremendously between the different kinds of merchants, and while gas stations and video rentals may pay up to 5% and even more, charitable organizations and community services are usually not considered as high fraud risk operation and are charged much lower fees. Either way, paying employees, managing cash/check deposits or paying merchant fees is part of the charity operational expenses. Together with maintaining offices, postal office boxes, office supplies, postage expenses and formal stationary and envelopes needed for physical donations handling. I would guess that if the charity's majority of donations come on-line as credit card/paypal payments - check handling will be more expensive. So I suggest you take the route you consider majority of donors pay - that would be the cheapest for them to handle. I would guess, credit cards being the most convenient - would be the way to go.","You'll need to check PayPal's terms of service for that first question. I would imagine you could, as my wife and I both have personal PayPal accounts listed at the same address. When you receive money, the senders will only see the (full) name on your account, the amount, and the transaction ID. If you set up a business account, the name on your account will be replaced with the company name. Your mailing address will not be made visible. Yes, PayPal provides an export option of your transaction history. For reference: If your volume greater than $20,000 across 200 or more transactions, then they'll be issuing a 1099-K form, anyway. That depends on the payment method. Bank transfers are instant, where cards require a settlement delay. PayPal provides buyer protection, so I'd be very dutiful in logging all of your work done to provide proof of completion, in case someone disputes a payment. Disputes can take place up to 45 days from the date of the transaction. Chargebacks can take place 120 days or more after the transaction (depends on the card network).","\"One option might be to set up a separate bank account and a separate credit card account, which you would use only for your ebay transactions. I have a friend who does a lot of selling on ebay, and this is exactly what she did. It's reasonable to want to protect your personal finances from any complications that might arise with PayPal and/or ebay. But since you definitely have to provide a bank account and c.c. number (there's no way around this), the best solution might be to set up separate \"\"ebay-only\"\" accounts. And be sure not to link them to any of your personal accounts, for added protection. If you're planning to do a lot of selling, this is probably a good idea anyway just for record-keeping purposes. If you do a lot of selling on ebay, you might consider setting up a \"\"merchant account\"\". There are some limitations on international transactions (currently you can't sell to residents of UK, Australia, or France), and payment processing is a few days slower. But there seem to be fewer fees/risks/etc associated with a merchant account. I don't know much more about it, but here's an article from an ebay seller, including pros and cons of PayPal vs. merchant accounts. http://www.ebay.com/gds/Selling-on-eBay-without-PayPal/10000000021351301/g.html\"","My husband used this device at work in an organization/club that collects dues for fundraisers. The fundraisers are only for the club. So I think that is not business at all. They have no business tax id#, etc? and they use it for personal reasons when collecting money via Cc#'s if this helps you.","Donations need to be with no strings attached. In this case, you make the cash donation, a deduction, and then they pay you, in taxable income. It's a wash. Why not just give them the service for free? Otherwise this is just money going back and forth.","You don't have to create a PayPal account in order to buy from a merchant that uses PayPal for processing their payments. You can use your credit card just like with any other purchase. Creating a PayPal business account is, as you say, mainly for businesses wanting to accept payments, not make them. PayPal doesn't require you, the customer, to have an account just to make a payment to a merchant. We have dozens of customers a day make purchases through us using our PayPal account (we're small), and for them the main attraction to using PayPal to pay us is that PayPal has pretty good security and offers some very good customer protections against fraud. They don't have to create a PayPal account just to pay us, though. When you create a PayPal business account, you link a bank account to it that they verify, then they issue you a PayPal MasterCard, which is a debit card that links to your PayPal account. When you make purchases, if the funds are in your PayPal account (because, for instance, you're using PayPal as your merchant processor) then the payment is deducted from that. If there's no money in your PayPal account then PayPal simply debits the bank account you linked with them, no differently than if you were to use your bank's debit card. In this instance, if you don't plan to use PayPal for merchant processing then there's no real reason to open a business account. It doesn't have any advantages over your bank's debit card and, IMHO, just adds another layer of complexity and paperwork to your accounting for no identifiable benefit. I hope this helps. Good luck!","According to Paypal, they support transactions in Ethiopia: https://www.paypal.com/webapps/mpp/country-worldwide https://developer.paypal.com/docs/classic/api/country_codes/ However those appear to be limited to transferring money out of the country. (link) There is an article here (link) which talks about how to transfer money from paypal back to your bank in Ethiopia. It sounds like you have to set up a US bank account, withdraw the funds to that then somehow transfer the money from their to your bank. NOTE: I have no relationship to any of the sites above, nor do I know if the information is accurate or the trustworthiness of those businesses.","PayPal does charge a premium, both for sending and receiving. Here's how you find their rates:","paypal says it works with CBE but can't seem to link my account with them, but skrill works perfectly just go to www.skrill.com sign up and you can link your bank account with your skrill account, i've had a few transactions so it should work for you too.","According to HMRC's manual BIM42105, you can't deduct expenses of this kind when calculating your profits for corporation tax: No deduction is allowed for expenditure not incurred wholly and exclusively for trade purposes So at the least, the company will have to pay corporation tax on this donation at some point, assuming it ever makes any profits. There's also the risk that HMRC would say that what is really happening is that you are making a personal donation to this person and the company is giving you income to allow you to do it. In that case, you'd be liable to income tax and employees national insurance, and the company liable to employers national insurance. It should then be deductible from corporation tax, though.","I don't see how Paypal can stop you from transferring USD funds from your paypal account to a USD account held with a bank. Just tell them to do the transfer to your account. The issue could be around USD onshore / offshore regulation. Is the US government preventing EU citizens from taking USD income offshore? If that's the case then you need a correspondent bank. So in other words, like using your friend. But what you can do is ask your bank who is their correspondent bank in the US, and whether they have the license required to transfer USD funds offshore. So you shift the regulation issues to your bank, and then you have to accept your bank's exchange rate - which is going to be better than paypal, who charges too much for FX transactions.","What I should have done in the first place was just ask them. From their customer support team: Thanks for writing in and for your interest in Square. It is perfectly acceptable to use Square for personal business, such as a yard sale. You do not need to have a registered business to take advantage of Square and the ability to accept credit cards. Just please note that it is against our Terms of Service to process prepaid cards, gift cards or your own credit card using your own Square account. Additionally, you may not use Square as a money transfer system. For every payment processed through Square, you must provide a legitimate good or service. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns.","You are thinking of something similar to [Patreon](www.patreon.com) then but more automated? I don't quite think automation works for this because you might not want to give every site you visit money, even if you visit it often in a short period of time (e.g. while doing research into cults you might not want to give the WBC money).","\"PayPal has a very generous buyer protection program. That means that the buyer can dispute receiving the goods and get their money back fairly easily (compared to credit cards). For this reason Craigslist and other sites recommend not accepting PayPal payments. I know that many transactions go through them flawlessly. But unless I really trust someone, PayPal would not be an option for me unless it was the money transfer (different rules; not as easy to get the money back). However this may be breaking PayPal Terms of Service so I would read them carefully before I went this route. There have been reports of PayPal putting extended holds on funds and effectively seizing the money by refusing to release the funds. I have never had this happen (though I did have a sale on eBay reversed though the item was never returned) but there are many reports of it on the Internet. As far as the BoA option I would contact them and see what they recommend. I would find out what their policies are on reversing the transfers and on providing your account number. They may have a special deposit-only account number you could provide the buyers. But I would want to learn as much about the system as I could before I started using it. The Internet has turned the old adage of \"\"buyer beware\"\" into \"\"seller beware\"\". There are many schemes that con artists have come up with to defraud unsuspecting sellers. I received several offers from people wanting to pay me with a cashiers check for a few items I recently sold on Craigslist. It is scary how prevalent these fraudsters have become.\"","In the UK there is a significant difference between taking money out of a bank account and out of a credit card account. Banks typically require explicit authorisation before they will transfer money out of a bank account - for example a direct debit agreement. (North American banks are much less strict, and will transfer your money to any reasonably reputable financial organization who asks for it - don't get me started!). However credit cards run very differently. Essentially the onus is on the vendor to get the authorization, which is why you can sign a credit card slip at the corner store, or give your credit card details over the phone, or fill in an online form, and have your credit card account charged. When you signed the credit card agreement you agreed to let people do this. It's also why the credit card company will reverse a transaction if you claim it was unauthorized. So essentially PayPal is like the specialty store you phone up to order something and give your credit card details to - they have just as much authorization to charge your account. Your only protection is that the credit card company will investigate any transactions you claim are fraudulent, and will reimburse you if it is- even if they can't recover the money themselves.","You should check with the Office of Student Affairs (or equivalent) at your University to see if you can accept Credit Cards. Many will only allow you to accept student organization dues paid in cash, check, or money order. Many universities will also provide your organization with basic operating funds, if you request it. Your first point of contact should be your faculty adviser, though. Your best bet would be to just use cash. Learn where the nearest ATMs are. If you are set on using credit cards, set up a PayPal account and just use it to reimburse the person who fronts the money (cover the markup). Everyone will have to have a PayPal account set up, linked to their credit card. You can avoid fees by using a bank account. If you're so inclined, you can set up a Business account and have a PayPal Debit Card, but you'll want to check with your adviser / University by-laws to see if you're allowed. Don't expect any of these to work as website implementations. As you're a University group, you will undoubtedly be meeting in person such that an exchange of cash/check/money order would be trivial In short, you'll need to check into the rules of your University. Credit cards generally carry processing fees, charged to the merchant, which (on its own) carries some tax implications.","No it is not required to create a trade account or a current account. If the payment is via Paypal, as per Indian laws, it would automatically get credited to your savings account in 7 days. You would still need to declare this as income and pay tax accordingly.","The simplest way to handle this would be to buy money orders, make them out to the charities, and leave your name off them. Money orders don't require you to put your name on them, just the name of whoever they're being paid to. You can mail them with no return address as well if you're sure you have the charity's proper mailing address. This way you can still feel good about giving and leave no trace of who you are for anyone to use for future marketing. I hope this helps. Good luck!","\"Open a personal account to link SQUARE with, open a savings account with same bank. Register as \"\"PERSONAL USE\"\", make as many transactions you want for whatever you want $5.00 to $1,000.00 or more, you get paid, square collects a fee. Money is in your \"\"personal account\"\" in 24 hrs, transfer it to your savings acct. 2 years now no issue. I've done the EIN, vendors license, registering business crap, if you work for yourself for private citizens it's none of anyone else's concern.\"","Your actual question has nothing to do with the technical issue of linking a PayPal account to a bank account. It is all about the accounting of the money. That is, what you claim as income and what you can prove to the taxman. Yes, you will need to separate the money. Linking to a business account is probably the way to go. From there, it is about how you keep track of the money and account for it. How you do the accounting is a different question. So: No, it does not automatically become business income just because it goes into a business bank account. You still have to keep track of said income and claim it somewhere on some tax form(s). The point of the separate business account is to avoid the commingling of the the money which may lead to you losing the liability protection of an incorporation. The bank doesn't file your taxes for you.","If I remember correctly my own experience : no you can't. Paypal will block the money even if it's only for online payement.","First off... If you provide good service than you shouldn't worry... Since you are providing a service and your customers send payment to your PayPal, if there is no dispute made within 90 days, the customer cannot dispute further. However if it is disputed within 90 days than you may run into some trouble. But it may be in your favor if PayPal finds no signs of fraud and since it's a service payment, PayPal cannot really track it compared to if your customers paid you for a product which can be disputed up to 180 Days?? I may be wrong on that one. However if it does get disputed and PayPal favors your clients than you have to pay it back one way or another. You may want to ask your customers or put yourself a description of the service and terms in the invoice. It may help resolve future disputes. I know this because I have called PayPal customer service and ask which I suggest you do too.","There is nothing called best; Depending on the amounts there are several options and each will cost some money. If your business is still small customers are individuals try PayPal it will be easy for everyone. The other options are accepting Credit Card, you would need to set-up card gateway on your website etc Simple wire transfer, it will cost more both for your customers and to you.","\"To echo part of stannius' response. If it's taxable, there would be tax on $19,999, just a bit less than on $20,000. Your uncle may have a credential, and members here may not, but still he may be mistaken. Or he could be giving you advice on how to skirt the law. The taxability and the $20,000 threshold are unrelated! Trying to 'avoid' the $20,000 is a completely misplaced effort. Gifts from anyone are not taxable to the recipient. So long as nothing is received in return, it's not taxable income to her. In contrast a blogger with a \"\"tip jar\"\" is soliciting money in exchange for advice, entertainment, etc. that's taxable. Donations to individuals, in the circumstance you describe are not income to her, nor are they deductible to the donor. Edit - a fellow blogger (more than that, she's my tax crush) had an article Cancer survivor gets $19,000 tax bill for GoFundMe donations which may render my answer incorrect. Other article on this story suggest that the IRS is notified, but the nature of the transfer needs to be addressed. In my opinion, you should find a new uncle CPA.\"","Have a great lawyer and a fuck ton of money Not only are financial regulations on online payment processors quite complex, each state and the federal gov have required licenses which cost in total around $5 million upfront and $1-2 million annually.","Regarding the tax implications half of your question ... There seem to be a lot of articles that say there's not yet any established law concerning the tax treatment of crowdsourced funds. Since your objective is gift-giving rather than business purposes, it would seem that the gift tax rules would apply, and gift taxes are charged to the donor not the donee. (But I am not a tax attorney.)","Taxes are the least of your concerns. Your friends need licenses. Although this COULD be avoided entirely with certain craftily worded disclaimers and exemptions and the WAY that money is given to them.","I would be inclined to back the 'tip jar' weblink idea, this is very prolific within the Twitch community, as a method of tipping and thereby supporting content creators. I know that there are numerous tutorials on how to set up 'tip' sites for such usage, so that may point you in the right direction. Also you could turn to crowd-funding opportunities, such as Kickstarter and others, however I am not sure on the ruling of these companies and whether you have to offer the completed project as a reward for backers (it tends to be the done thing). And depending on how serious your friends are in helping you as a fledgeling indie developer, you could investigate in setting yourself up as a limited business. This would allow your supporters to purchase shares in your business, turning them into true stakeholders, but whilst retaining the limited status of the company. However, I must stress, on this point I know very little and may be wrong (I am actually hoping someone else contradicts this so I can learn).","\"If this is truly hobby income (you do not intend to operate as a business and don't have a profit motive) then report the income on Line 21 (\"\"other income\"\") of form 1040. If this is a business, then the income and expenses belong on a Schedule C to form 1040. The distinction is in the treatment of profits and losses - your net profits on a business are subject to self-employment tax, while hobby income is not. Net losses on a business are deductible against other income; net losses on a hobby are miscellaneous itemized deductions in the \"\"2%\"\" box on Schedule A. From a tax point of view, selling apps and accepting donations are different. Arguably, donations are gifts; gifts are not taxable income. The hobby/business and income/gift distinctions are tricky. If the dollar amounts are small, nobody (including the IRS) really cares. If you start making or losing a lot of money, you'll want to get a good tax person lined up who can help you decide how to characterize these items of income and expens, how to put them on your return, and how to defend the return on audit if necessary.\"","\"I'm going to post this as an answer because it's from the GoFundMe website, but ultimately even they say to speak with a tax professional about it. Am I responsible for taxes? (US Only) While this is by no means a guarantee, donations on GoFundMe are simply considered to be \"\"personal gifts\"\" which are not, for the most part, taxed as income in the US. However, there may be particular, case-specific instances where the income is taxable (dependent on amounts received and use of the monies, etc.). We're unable to provide specific tax advice since everyone's situation is different and tax rules can change on a yearly basis. We advise that you maintain adequate records of donations received, and consult with your personal tax adviser. Additionally, WePay will not report the funds you collect as earned income. It is up to you (and a tax professional) to determine whether your proceeds represent taxable income. The person who's listed on the WePay account and ultimately receives the funds may be responsible for taxes. Again, every situation is different, so please consult with a tax professional in your area. https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en-us/articles/204295498-Am-I-responsible-for-taxes-US-Only- And here's a blurb from LibertyTax.com which adds to the confusion, but enforces the \"\"speak with a professional\"\" idea: Crowdfunding services have to report to the IRS campaigns that total at least $20,000 and 200 transactions. Money collected from crowdfunding is considered either income or a gift. This is where things get a little tricky. If money donated is not a gift or investment, it is considered taxable income. Even a gift could be subject to the gift tax, but that tax applies only to the gift giver. Non-Taxable Gifts These are donations made without the expectation of getting something in return. Think of all those Patriots’ fans who gave money to GoFundMe to help defray the cost of quarterback Tom Brady’s NFL fine for Deflategate. Those fans aren’t expecting anything in return – except maybe some satisfaction -- so their donations are considered gifts. Under IRS rules, an individual can give another individual a gift of up to $14,000 without tax implications. So, unless a Brady fan is particularly generous, his or her GoFundMe gift won’t be taxed. Taxable Income Now consider that same Brady fan donating $300 to a Patriots’ business venture. If the fan receives stock or equity in the company in return for the donation, this is considered an investment and is not taxable . However, if the business owner does not offer stock or equity in the company, the money donated could be considered business income and the recipient would need to report it on a tax return. https://www.libertytax.com/tax-lounge/two-tax-rules-to-know-before-you-try-kickstarter-or-gofundme/\"","\"When you say \"\"donate\"\", it usually assumes charitable donation with, in this context, tax benefit. That is not what happens in your scenario. Giving someone money with the requirement of that someone to spend that money at your shop is not donation. It is a grant. You can do that, but you won't be able to deduct this as charitable donation, but the money paid to you back would be taxable income to you. I respectfully disagree with Joe that its a wash. It is not. You give them money that you cannot deduct as an expense (as it is not business expense) or donation (as strings are attached). But you do give them the money, it is no longer yours. When they use the money to pay you back - that same money becomes your taxable income. End result: you provide service, and you're the one paying (taxes) for it. Why would you do that?\"","Why wouldn't one of the existing crowdsourcing systems meet your needs? Yes, they charge a commission, but they have already addressed the issues you raise and specifically they provide the third-party accounting you want.","For people who are good with money (presumably), Kiva.org gives your money to such people who apply for loans through social service organizations in various countries (I believe this is how it's done). The people state what they will use the money for. It can be as simple as 'buying provisions for food truck business' or 'replacing wheels on tractor.' Then they pay the money back and you (who donated x number of dollars) use that repaid money to make another loan.","You could find a relative in another country who has the ability to receive PayPal, and have them transfer the money to you via Western Union or Hawala.","You do actually have some profits (whatever is left from donations). The way it goes is that you report everything on your Schedule C. You will report this: Your gross profits will then flow to Net Profit (line 31) since you had no other expenses (unless you had some other expenses, like paypal fees, which will appear in the relevant category in part II), and from line 31 it will go to your 1040 for the final tax calculation.","\"Income generated from online sales is not considered \"\"passive income\"\", so you need to be authorized to work in the U.S. Those without work authorization can acquire passive income (through investments, lending, competition/contest earnings, etc.) In order to sell products on eBay (the description you've given leads me to believe that this is operated as a business), you need to be authorized to work in the U.S., and register a business. See:\"","If PayPal won't accept the VCC number, then by definition you can't do this. If you want to know whether there's a way to get special permission or bypass that restriction... I'm afraid the right thing to do is ask PayPal. Yes, I know their customer support is awful, but this is a classic customer support question, and they know the internals of their system better than any of us possibly could.","In addition to paypal, Amazon also offers a payment processing service that has micropayment pricing: For Transactions < $10:","Are there any local charities that could fund the work, and thus take Gift-Aided donations for it? Depending on the details, a School PTA or the Parish Church could justify sponsoring some improvements to the local park as part of their remit. You then give donations to them and they claim the Gift Aid and pay for the improvements with the total. Setting up a whole new charity is the other option, but unless the improvements are very expensive, that feels like overkill.","The fees for the services are displayed on the PayPal website at https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_display-fees-outside Is there anything else you were looking for.","\"Paypal linked with my bank account. 1.Can I use my Saving bank account to receive payments from my clients? Or is it necessary to open a current account? Yes you can get funds into your savings account. However it is advisable to keep a seperate account as it would help with your IT Returns. 2.I will be paying a certain % as commission on every sales to a couple of sales guys (who are not my employees but only working on commission). Can I show this as an expense in my IT returns? As you are earning as freelancer, you are eligible for certain deductions like Phone calls, Laptop, other hardware, payments to partners. It is important that you maintain a book of records. An accountant for a small fee of Rs 5 K should be able to help you. In the Returns you have to show Net income after all these deductions, there is no place to enter expenses. 3.Since I will be receiving all the payments in Euros so am I falling under a category of \"\"Exporter of services\"\"? The work you are doing can be Free Lancing. 4.Do I need an Import Export Code (IEC) for smoothly running this small business? You can run this without one as Free lancing. IEC would be when you grow big and are looking for various benefits under tax and pay different taxes and are incorporated as a company.\"","\"Yes, your email address is your \"\"PayPal\"\" account. It's what people use to send you money, and what you use to pay people.\"","\"I linked my bank account (by making a transfer from bank account to Paypal) without linking a card. This should not give Paypal any rights to do anything with my bank account - transfer that I made to link it was exactly the same as any other outgoing transfer from my bank account. On attempting to pay more that resides in my Paypal balance I get To pay for this purchase right now, link a debit or credit card to your PayPal account. message. Paypal is not mentioning it but one may also transfer money to Paypal account form bank to solve this problem. Note, that one may give allow Paypal to access bank account - maybe linking a card will allow this? Paypal encourages linking card but without any description of consequences so I never checked this. It is also possible that Paypal gained access to your bank balance in other way - for example in Poland it just asked for logins and passwords to bank accounts (yes, using \"\"Add money instantly using Trustly\"\" in Poland really requires sharing full login credentials to bank account - what among other things breaks typical bank contract) source for \"\"Paypal attempts phishing\"\": https://niebezpiecznik.pl/post/uwaga-uzytkownicy-paypala-nie-korzystajcie-z-najnowszej-funkcji-tego-serwisu/\""],"string":"[\n \"An answer from PayPal stated that donations may be turned on only for Business PayPal accounts that are verified for its non-profit status. Such PayPal Business account must be opened in the name of non-profit organization (not a single person) and go through verification process. One must provide the following information: That would mean that one cannot ask for donations as a private person, at least in Croatia, and probably in Europe.\",\n \"I see two ways you can handle this. Use the gifts for the purpose of creating more free software. This is fundraising, and your cause is writing free software. The language is a little tricky from the PayPal Donate button (emphasis mine): This button is intended for fundraising. If you are not raising money for a cause, please choose another option. Nonprofits must verify their status to withdraw donations they receive. Users that are not verified nonprofits must demonstrate how their donations will be used, once they raise more than $10,000 USD. You don't have to be a nonprofit; they are only requiring existing nonprofits to verify their status. You don't even have to account for the donations if they are below $10,000. Give out your PayPal email address and instruct the gift-givers to simply send you money through their PayPal interface. They can mark it as a gift when they send the money. I think option one is how the various bloggers and other personal users are justifiying their collection of donations, and I think its a valid use of the PayPal Donate button.\",\n \"You can have a way for people to pay, i.e. some kind of payment gateway. Run as Business: Best create a company and get the funds there. This would be treated as income of the website and would be taxed accordingly. One can deduct expenses for running the website, etc. Run as Charity: Register as one, however the cause should be considered as charitable one by the tax authorities. Only then the donations would be tax free.\",\n \"Yes, PayPal allows you to add a donate button to your website. You're responsible for any tax record-keeping related to income from the donate button.\",\n \"Yes, Paypal has such a button you can use, but to be clear, the money you receive is taxable income. Your website is providing 'value' to the readers, and while they may feel they are making a gift to you, it's earned income as far as the IRS is concerned. (This assumes you are in the US, you may wish to add a tag to indicate your country)\",\n \"\\\"First to clear a few things up. It is definitely not a gift. The people are sending you money only because you are providing them with a service. And for tax purposes, it is not a \\\"\\\"Donation\\\"\\\". It has nothing to do with the fact that you are soliciting the donation, as charitable organizations solicit donations all the time. For tax purposes, it is not a \\\"\\\"Donation\\\"\\\" because you do not have 501(c)(3) non profit status. It is income. The question is then, is it \\\"\\\"Business\\\"\\\" income, or \\\"\\\"Hobby\\\"\\\" related income? Firstly, you haven't mentioned, but it's important to consider, how much money are you receiving from this monthly, or how much money do you expect to receive from this annually? If it's a minimal amount, say $50 a month or less, then you probably just want to treat it as a hobby. Mostly because with this level of income, it's not likely to be profitable. In that case, report the income and pay the tax. The tax you will owe will be minimal and will probably be less than the costs involved with setting up and running it as a business anyway. As a Hobby, you won't be able to deduct your expenses (server costs, etc...) unless you itemize your taxes on Schedule A. On the other hand if your income from this will be significantly more than $600/yr, now or in the near future, then you should consider running it as a business. Get it clear in your mind that it's a business, and that you intend it to be profitable. Perhaps it won't be profitable now, or even for a while. What's important at this point is that you intend it to be profitable. The IRS will consider, if it looks like a business, and it acts like a business, then it's probably a business... so make it so. Come up with a name for your business. Register the business with your state and/or county as necessary in your location. Get a bank account for your business. Get a separate Business PayPal account. Keep personal and business expenses (and income) separate. As a business, when you file your taxes, you will be able to file a Schedule C form even if you do not itemize your taxes on Schedule A. On Schedule C, you list and total your (business) income, and your (business) expenses, then you subtract the expenses from the income to calculate your profit (or loss). If your business income is more than your business expenses, you pay tax on the difference (the profit). If your business expenses are more than your business income, then you have a business loss. You would not have to pay any income tax on the business income, and you may be able to be carry the loss over to the next and following years. You may want to have a service do your taxes for you, but at this level, it is certainly something you could do yourself with some minimal consultations with an accountant.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Donate buttons are meaningless with regards to taxes. This is payment for something you provided, and you cannot claim that you've received a gift. Any money you receive in this way is payment for your software. Remember, for gifts - no consideration should have been provided to the donor. Anything for which a consideration was provided - cannot be a gift. In your case the consideration is the software, and it's value is the amount you were paid. Since every person can decide how much to pay you on his own - any payment is for the software, not a gift. Any money you get is taxable to you, and you cannot claim it as \\\"\\\"gifts\\\"\\\" without exposing yourself to risks of making fraudulent claims. Consult a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for a qualified tax advice.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The thing to look at is PayPal's \\\"\\\"PayPal.me\\\"\\\" service, which is a pretty neat little item. When you sign up for a PayPal.me account (totally free), you create a unique username. So for example, my PayPal.me account name is DanCAnderson. I can give someone the following web link to send me $500: http://paypal.me/DanCAnderson/500 If you click the link above, you'll see what the user sees (my company name is Salt River Networks, Inc.). I gave a live link so you can see the working example of it (no need for anyone to send money! chuckle). I can change the amount by simply changing the value at the end of the URL. When they go to that link, they see a landing page with your name on it and the amount to send to you, then they go through the normal process of paying via PayPal. It's a pretty neat service, and I've used to it bill a few clients for work I've done by emailing that link to them rather than going through the whole PayPal procedure.\\\"\",\n \"From PayPal's website: PayPal offers discounted transaction rates for 501(c)(3) charities for most products, and consistently low rates for all other nonprofits. No extra fees for setup, statements, withdrawals or cancellation. 2.2% + $0.30 per transaction and no monthly fee for charities. There is a reduced rate if the donations total more than $100,000 (which they would for Wikipedia), but PayPal doesn't publish those rates. You have to call and ask about them. One forum I read indicates the rate drops to 1.9% + $0.30 per transaction.\",\n \"\\\"Yes, you can create a PayPal business account without having formalized a business with government filings and whatnot. At its simplest terms, \\\"\\\"having a business\\\"\\\" is simply \\\"\\\"doing business as\\\"\\\" (D/B/A) a trade name. You can use the address of a Private Mail Box such as those provided at the UPS Store. Ask any kid with a lemonade stand or a box of Girl Scout cookies - you only need to engage in government formalities like registering an LLC or getting a tax EIN when you cross certain thresholds of activity, and paying for things is generally not it. Also, some of businesses, for some relationships, will require the business formalities like an EIN, which in turn will require creating a trade name and registering it with the state. For instance if you set up a traditional credit card merchant account, they'll probably want that.\\\"\",\n \"If this is something you plan to continue doing it would make sense to create it as it's own business entity and then to get non-profit status eg: 501c3. Otherwise I'm pretty sure you have to think of it as YOU receiving the money as a sole proprietor - and file a couple more tax forms at the end of the year. I think it's a Schedule C. So essentially if you bring in $10,000, then you spend that $10,000 as legit business expenses for your venture your schedule C would show no profit and wouldn't pay taxes on it. BUT, you do have to file that form. Operating this way could have legal implications should something happen and you get sued. Having the proper business entity setup could help in that situation.\",\n \"Do I report it as income? Is it subject to just the same amount of taxes (~30%) as regular income? Are there any restrictions on how it can be used? It is income. You can deduct the costs of maintaining the web page and producing the software from it (have an accountant do that for you, there are strict rules on how to do that, and you can only deduct up to the income if its a hobby and not a for-profit business), but otherwise it's earned income like any other self employment income. It is reported on your schedule C or on line 21 of your 1040 (miscellaneous income), and you're also liable for self-employment taxes on this income. There are no restrictions, it's your money. Technically, who is the donation even being made to? Me, just because I own the webpage? Yes. This is for the United States, but is there any difference if the donations come from overseas? No, unless you paid foreign taxes on the money (in which case you should fill form 1116 and ask for credit). If you create an official 501(c) organization to which the donations are given, instead of you getting it directly, the tax treatment will be different. But of course, you have to have a real charitable organization for that. To avoid confusion - I'm not a licensed tax professional and this is not a tax advice. If in doubt - talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your State.\",\n \"\\\"Technically, this is considered \\\"\\\"income\\\"\\\" for you, and is actually not considered a \\\"\\\"donation\\\"\\\" for your donors, but is instead a \\\"\\\"gift\\\"\\\" (not tax-deductible for your donors). So, you are technically required to report it, and there is a pretty significant audit trail that can be followed to prove you made that money. I don't know if PayPal is required to file 1099s for payments received, but if you've ever received such a document, so has the IRS, and they'll match it to the income you claimed and see a discrepancy, triggering an audit. Depending on the amount that it affects your taxes (it can be significant; if you have a $50k/yr day job, you'd owe the government 25 cents on every dollar donated), they can let it slide, they may simply dock your next return, or they may come after you for interest and penalties or even charge you with criminal tax fraud if they could prove you maliciously attempted to conceal this revenue. Now, if you already itemize using a Schedule A, then you can erase this income by deducting the costs of the server, not to exceed the amount of the donations. The best you can do is offset it; you cannot use this deduction to reduce taxable income from other sources. Also, you must itemize; you can't take your standard deduction, and with a maximum possible deduction of the actual costs of running the server ($1500, IF you receive enough donations to fully pay for it) compared to one person's standard deduction ($5800), you'll want to take the standard deduction if you don't have other significant deductions (medical expenses, mortgage interest/property taxes, etc). If you were charging users a monthly fee for use of the server, then you've basically created a de facto sole proprietorship, and you would still have to count the fees as income, but could then deduct the full cost of running the server. You'd fill out a Schedule C listing the revenue and expenses, and back them up with statements from your ISP/hosting company and from PayPal. Now, this would apply if you were running the server with the primary goal of making a regular profit; Schedule C cannot be used for income from a \\\"\\\"hobby\\\"\\\", undertaken primarily for enjoyment and where a few bucks in revenue is gravy. Whether you think you can get away with that in your current situation is your prerogative; I don't think you would, given that the donations are solicited and optional, and thus there is no expectation of ever turning a profit on this game server.\\\"\",\n \"In the US the best way to solve the problem, IMHO, would be via a trust. Talk to a properly licensed trust/estate attorney and a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). Using intermediary who's not a 501(c) organization may pose income tax issues to that intermediary as providing support to the needy is not a valid business expense. It may also pose gift tax issues, since the aggregate amounts may exceed the statutory exemption limits. Using a (non-revokable) trust you can avoid these issues, but others may come up (such as what to do with the trust income or undistributed moneys). Talk to the advisers about how to avoid them.\",\n \"\\\"Can a company say \\\"\\\"StackExchange\\\"\\\" donate to a non-profit company say $5,000 in agreement that they will spend that on paying a designer for a new website? And most importantly is this donation still tax deductible? A non-profit would have to typically create a bucket for IT Services or Website design. As long as \\\"\\\"StackExchange\\\"\\\" specify they employ a profession service to get it done, there would be no issue. If \\\"\\\"StackExchange\\\"\\\" were to specify an individula/company it would be an issue.\\\"\",\n \"Most bank bill pay services will work for this purpose. Generally you can pay any person or business that has a valid address. As an added Paypal will no longer take ~3% of the money.\",\n \"If you are using paypal to sell items online, you need a Premier (or better) account rather than personal. Paypal states: Our fees are the same for Personal, Premier, and Business accounts. [...] If you use your PayPal account to request money from someone, you'll be charged a fee when you receive the payment.\",\n \"No. PayPal payments are credited to a PayPal account. PayPal doesn't let you pay arbitrary banks or credit cards, that defeats the purpose of PayPal and there are other services which can do that cheaper or with less hassle. You need to find another mutually available and satisfactory option with your client.\",\n \"\\\"Can I teach children an invaluable skill for free and provide a website or PayPal link for anyone who appreciates the result of my gift to their child and wishes to gift me money (or maybe they don’t have a child but believe in my revolutionary contribution to the future) as they see fit, up to $10K? Two immediately obvious problems with this strategy: What about when you receive gifts from people who aren't in the US? You have to declare, and pay taxes on, foreign gifts. It seems to me that these may not be gifts because they are given in connection with the service you provided rather than from \\\"\\\"detached and disinterested generosity\\\"\\\" as required to make the gift tax exempt. (See Commisioner v. Duberstein -- gift given to thank associate for a sales lead did not arise from detached generosity. See Stanton v. United States -- gift given in appreciation of services rendered may or may not be a gift for tax purposes. See also Bogardus v. Commissioner -- gifts inspired by past service can be tax exempt.)\\\"\",\n \"PayPal transactions are not taxed in Australia. Income is taxed, and Ad network income is income. Your relative will receive the money, and will have to declare the income so it can be taxed. Your relative will then have to pay the tax. If you are to do this, you should transfer enough money from each payment for your relative to pay the tax; the rest you can move around however you wish.\",\n \"I suspect that the new VATMOSS rules come in to play here. So you owe VAT for donations from EU countries, providing you are below £81k there would be no UK vat payable though, however then you couldn't recoup the vat you paid out. Note I am not an accountant but I did speak to one this week about a similar issue.\",\n \"\\\"Donations, particularly those in the context of you providing a free service (software, libraries, etc.) are a notable grey area in tax code. Simply naming a button \\\"\\\"Donate\\\"\\\" doesn't necessarily classify the money transfer as a \\\"\\\"gift\\\"\\\". The IRS can decide that it's money you're being paid to continue your excellent work/service, making it taxable income (unless you're a registered non-profit organization). In the instance of Patreon, and many other crowd-funding services, you're providing a certain level of \\\"\\\"service\\\"\\\" for each tier of donations (such as early access or something, I'm not sure what you're offering), which means they're receiving consideration for their donations, which most likely makes it fall into taxable income (again, unless you're a registered non-profit organization). State tax law is even more convoluted, and you should consult your tax professional for clarification on your specific situation.\\\"\",\n \"If that is what you insist upon, don't use PayPal. This is one of the supposed justifications for the existence of cryptocurrencies\",\n \"Yes, but PayPal has limits. Depending on your annual transactions you might have a $$ limit each year unless you agree to tie to a bank account. In my case, I set up another checking account to link to, and keep a small amount there. Less than $200.\",\n \"People put conditions on donations all the time. They donate to the Red Cross for a specific disaster. The donate money to a church for the building fund. They donate money to a hospital to buy a new x-ray machine. They donate money to the scouts for a new dining hall. It is possible to donate money to a non-profit for a specific purpose. If the non-profit doesn't want to accept the money with those strings they can refuse. Generally these specific projects are initiated by the non-profit. But there is no requirement that the idea originate with the non-profit. It is also up to the non-profit and their legal advisers regarding how strictly they view those strings. If you donate money for web design and they don't spend it all, can they pay net years hosting bill with the money, or must they hold it for a few years for when they need a designer again? If the company wants to provide the service, they can structure the project to pay their employees for their time. They pay employees for $100 of labor while deigning the website. The pay and benefits reduce profit thus lowering taxes. Donating money to the non-profit to be given back to the company doesn't seem to be the best way to structure transaction. At best it is a wash. Donating money to a charity and then directing exactly which contractor will perform the service starts to look like money laundering, and most charities will get wary.\",\n \"\\\"I know your pain oh, so much. I literally have a 14 gallon rubbermaid container FULL of solicitations I have received. Even worse, for-profit fundraising companies send most of those mailings! They take the money, and deduct their \\\"\\\"expenses\\\"\\\", rigged to consume almosts all your gift. Some companies have been caught passing as little as 9% to the charity. First let's talk about a few issues. Authentication. Is that outfit really a tax deductible 501c3 charity? Address. Is this their genuine address, or is it the dropbox of a scammer or one of those evil for-profit fundraising companies? Acknowledgement. For gifts over a certain size, you need a thank-you letter from them to show the IRS that you really donated. Will you get it? The limit is $250 (no letter, deduction rejected) but as a practical thing, it helps in an audit to show as many donation letters as possible. Charities cannot issue them retroactively, but can issue you second copies of ones they sent previously. If the charity drops the ball, you lose. Obviously enough, you go to the post office and spend $1 on a money order. This does not authenticate them as a charity. It does not assure it goes to their real address. You can do both these things yourself, by checking their data on the IRS website or on guidestar.org. You don't get an acknowledgement. I mention these because donation websites work much the same way. DAFs require a higher one-time commitment but are much simpler and more efficient after that. If you are planning to give $5000 in a single year, save it up and open a Donor Advised Fund account. A DAF is itself a charity. You donate to the DAF, and take the tax deduction for charitable contributons. Then, you tell the DAF to donate it to other charities on your behalf, or anonymously. Their concept is, you use the DAF as a \\\"\\\"buffer\\\"\\\" so you can easily make the tax-deductible donation when you need to for tax purposes, then at your leisure research charities and support them. However, I asked my DAF - most people donate and then immediately re-donate the money, leaving the fund at zero balance. My DAF doesn't mind that at all, and they charge zero fees for this. (Its expenses are paid by those of us who leave money sitting around in the DAF. Mine charges 0.6% a year. This money can be invested sort of like in a 401K, and each investment also has an expense ratio, such as 0.18% a year in my chosen index fund.) Websites like \\\"\\\"justgive.org\\\"\\\" will take any amount of your money and re-donate it to the charity you select. They deduct 3-5% for their expenses (notably paper, stamps, and the 2-3% it costs them to process your credit card).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The only way to prevent it is to not use PayPal. The terms of usage are draconian, and by using the service you agree to them. I'm sure that when the case gets to a court of law, they will find where it is authorized. Paypal is not a bank, and the money there is basically \\\"\\\"entrusted\\\"\\\" with the company and is not insured by anyone. They don't need or have to be subject to the regulations on the banking industry, and they're no different than your neighbour carrying money for you to the grocery store when you're sick. Other options are wire transfer, services like Western Union or Moneygram, checks (better certified/cashier's checks), money orders or even cash. You can also charge via credit card, but you can get similar problems there (although it is still safer than PayPal because with credit card - the card owner must initiate the charge back, it doesn't appear on its own because they feel like it).\\\"\",\n \"Yes, you can set up a PayPal or a Google Checkout account without a bank account linked to it. Neither PayPal nor Google Checkout requires you to link to a bank account. Both services provide for linking your payment account to a credit card instead.\",\n \"From WePay (GoFundMe's payment processor) support. I received only gifts and donations. Will I receive a Form 1099-K? As of 2015, the IRS has clarified that WePay is not required to send a Form 1099-K with respect to payments that are made solely as gifts or donations. The purpose of Form 1099-K is to report payments for the provision of goods or services, which may be subject to tax. Gifts and donations typically are not reported as income by recipients, so it is not necessary to send them a Form 1099-K. https://support.wepay.com/hc/en-us/articles/203609483-Tax-Reporting\",\n \"\\\"I agree with the rest of the answers -- you're probably better off just using it for some predictable flat-rate recurring monthly service like NetFlix, or making a charitable donation if you're into that sort of thing. But since that wasn't what you asked, I'll try to provide an answer: If you don't mind throwing away money, send money to yourself using PayPal. Here's how: Set up a PayPal Business Account, and use your personal PayPal account to send funds to it by setting up a PayPal subscription. PayPal says \\\"\\\"You can have one Consumer account and one Business account.\\\"\\\" A PayPal Payments Standard business account has no monthly fee -- only transaction fees. According to PayPal, \\\"\\\"in order to set up a repeating payment, [you] would need to create a Subscription or Recurring Payments button from the Merchant Services tab\\\"\\\" (in the Business Account). You would then click the link/button to set up the subscription from your personal PayPal account, to make it send money to your Business account on an automatic schedule. You can then, at your own leisure, send the money back to your personal account without paying a second transaction fee, then finally send it back to your bank account. Or, if your bank account is not yet tied to your personal account, you can tie it to the business account instead, and deposit the funds into your bank account. Unfortunately, this step can't be automated. Again, to reiterate, you're much better off just using it for something recurring.\\\"\",\n \"I've definitely seen a similar conversation about this, I personally don't buy from eBay (Amazon for me). So I turned to the internet to see what I could find to offer you any additional information (albeit not my personal experience). I first read this article: CodeNerdz Article and was pretty horrified by the scamming that can happen by buyers. Then, this article by another regular user of eBay, Selling on eBay without PayPal : eBay Guides confirmed the trouble people have with PayPal & eBay. Payment Services permitted on eBay: Allpay.net, Canadian Tire Money, cash2india, CertaPay, Checkfree.com, hyperwallet.com, Moneybookers.com, Nochex.com, Ozpay.biz, Paymate.com.au, Propay.com, XOOM Have you looked into any or all of these?\",\n \"Like Bluetie Grasper have said. Can I create a PayPal account and receive €200 (or a similar amount) without adding a bank account, credit card, or anything but my email address? The answer is No. You can transfer the money to your PayPal account but until you verify it with your personal information with at least a credit card or mostly likely a bank account, PayPal will hold those funds until otherwise. Can I then use that money to buy on Amazon, still without adding anything but my email address? If not, can I buy gift cards and use those on Amazon? Amazon does not accept PayPal.\",\n \"I think you need to have paypal for eBay selling, just for one reason: people will avoid buying from you if they can't pay by paypal. It decreases significantly your selling.\",\n \"\\\"I wouldn't trust \\\"\\\"about.com\\\"\\\"; they're based on grabbing content from other places and are entirely unreliable. You can use the money transfer on PayPal, or transfer through a bank. I wouldn't give my bank account details to complete strangers, though. But that's me, with my distrust of the human kind.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Paypal has an account called \\\"\\\"micropayments\\\"\\\" for those who have a lot of transaction under $10 with \\\"\\\"better\\\"\\\" commission structure, 5%+5c per transaction (rather than 2.9% + 30c with regular merchant accounts)\\\"\",\n \"Jason I think your doing a great thing. Based on what your describing I would look further into a 501(c)(3). Chapter 3 from the IRS Publication 557 offers information. This Wikipedia gives a quick understanding of 501(c)(3) and how to apply. Here is a great article from ehow it has some suggestions for someone who is just starting out. Maybe going through an organization already existing within your community might be a better, perhaps a church or some religious organization.\",\n \"there is no tax for receiving money from outside of india paypal just take their charges only\",\n \"I think about as close as you're going to get is to use a personal PayPal account, and set up a reminder to yourself to log in and send the money. (Because, as you said, setting up a recurring payment is a business account thing.) From PayPal's website: Sending money – Personal payments: It's free within the U.S. to send money to family and friends when you use only your PayPal balance or bank account, or a combination of their PayPal balance and bank account. ... Receiving money – Personal payments: It's free to receive money from friends or family in the U.S. when they send the money from the PayPal website using only their PayPal balance or their bank account, or a combination of their PayPal balance and bank account. You can automate the reminder to yourself with any of the gazillion task managers out there: Google Calendar, MS Outlook, Todoist, Remember the Milk, etc.\",\n \"I would assume that under a certain threshold, HMRC doesn't even want to hear from you, because extracting taxes from you costs them more money than you are going to pay. On the other hand, I cannot find anything written about that subject. I'd suggest to call them at 0300 200 3300 and ask them. Have the annual cost of the server ready, and tell them that you will stop asking for donations if say 6 months of cost is covered. There may be an official threshold that I was unable to find. Obviously if you receive £1000 in donations and spend £100 for the server, they will want tax payment. If its £110 in donations and £100 for the server, they will likely not care. If they tell you to register as self-employed, it's not difficult, just a bit of a pain. In that case you'd have to pay tax on your income (donations) minus cost (cost for the server and any other cost).\",\n \"\\\"This page lays down the requirements for an \\\"\\\"unincorporated association\\\"\\\" to pay tax (i.e. any group that's not a registered entity). You pay tax is you make money from: it looks like you don't do any of those, so you don't need to file for taxes. There is another exemption that you don't have to file if it is likely that you would owe less than a hundred pounds taxes, which would also probably apply to you. There are many thousands of clubs and societies in the UK that don't need to register for tax purposes, so you are far from alone. It is probably worth creating an actual club (\\\"\\\"Captain Insanity Server Club\\\"\\\") and keeping records of donations and expenses for the server. There isn't any need to legally incorporate or anything like that, though you might try having a separate bank account for it if you can get a free one, so that if the tax authorities ever audit you personally you can show them that the donations you received weren't income to you.\\\"\",\n \"A lot of dating sites work on a subscription model. So do websites like O'Reilly's Safari Bookshelf with technical documentation. A lot of sites which do not force you to pay also allow donations of some kind, e.g. reddit's gold system or all those webcomics using Patreon or something similar.\",\n \"Yes. I have a US based website that accepts payments via PayPal and can confirm we have many customers from India. Here is a list of countries PayPal supports. Note typically there are some additional fees associated with currency conversion.\",\n \"PayPal is free for buyers, taking their profit from the sellers -- in much the same way that credit cards take a percentage from the seller (though they will also charge you interest if you don't pay off the entire balance every month). As far as I know, there's nothing that keeps a vendor from having a different price for PayPal customers than cash customers... but that would show up in the number displayed by PayPal before you authorize the purchase, so if you're paying attention it shouldn't be possible to sneak it by you. PayPal has several modes of operation. I'm not aware of one where they hold your balance. Normally you either give them your credit card info, or you give them information about (one of your) bank account(s) and authorize them to do electronic funds transfer from and to that account on your behalf. I've always stuck with the credit card approach; I trust PayPal but I don't trust them that far, on principle. If I was going to link them to an account, it would be a small account I'd create for that purpose, NOT my main savings/checking accounts! (Hm. Actually, I do have one account which normally floats around $500 -- it's the one I dump accumulated pocket change into -- and I could use that. If I ever feel a need to do so.) PayPal does reduce the risk of credit card numbers being abused, by reducing how many people you've given the number to. Depending on what kinds of purchases you make, that may be a security advantage. It certainly doesn't hurt. Personally I have no problem with giving my card number directly to a serious business, but on eBay or sites of that sort where I'm dealing with individuals who are complete strangers I do like the isolation that PayPal provides. In other words, eBay is exactly the environment where I DO use PayPal. After all, that's exactly what PayPal was created for.\",\n \"\\\"PayPal offers a service called \\\"\\\"PayPal Business Payments\\\"\\\". Instead of charging a percentage, they charge a flat fee. For US-to-US payments, the fee is fifty cents per transaction. For Canada-to-Canada payments, the fee is five dollars per transaction. You need to use a third-party invoicing service and choose the \\\"\\\"PayPal Business Payments\\\"\\\" option. FreshBooks or Zoho Invoice might work.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Lots of webcomic sites now have \\\"\\\"tip jar\\\"\\\" links, or let supporters send money via services like Patrion. I presume other kinds of sites have developed similar solutions. I'd suggest you go out, wander the web a bit looking for such, then contact the sites' owners to ask how it's been working for them\\\"\",\n \"If i am not wrong, any business activities such should be declared on Year End Tax filing. If your friend is going to own that website either it is commercial or nonprofit, he has to declare in the year end taxation.\",\n \"Goddady.com will gladly accept payment from your personal account. They don't really care, as long as you approve the charge, whose name the account is in. I'm not sure PayPal even check the names on the invoice and the account to match, they just want you to login. However, depending on your local laws, you may be required to have a separate business account. In the US, for example, corporations must have their own accounts. For other entities with limited liability (like LLC or LLP) it is advised to have a separate account to avoid piercing corporate veil. Also, if your business name is not your personal name - clients may want to verify that the checks/transfers are deposited under your business name. In some countries checks written out to X cannot be endorsed by X to be transferred to Y. That may affect your decision as well. You'll have to get a proper legal advice valid in your jurisdiction to know the answer to your question.\",\n \"\\\"In the US: In the UK: You can set up a CAF (Charities Aid foundation) Charity Account. This allows you to donate to charities anonymously, while still allowing the recipient to benefit from Gift Aid (where they can reclaim the income tax you'd paid on the donation). You can even use this account to donate to overseas charities if you're donating at least £250. Or you can use a different intermediary such as BT MyDonate or The Big Give or another intermediary. See the Wikipedia article \\\"\\\"Comparison of online charity donation services in the United Kingdom\\\"\\\". In Canada: If there's a United Way charity in your country, it may have a donor choice program which may be able to forward a designated donation to any other charity in your country. The United Way probably charges a fee for this service. I'm not sure whether or not the United Way would be willing to keep you anonymous, and I'm not sure whether or not the United Way would add you to its mailing list. More details may be available elsewhere online.\\\"\",\n \"Visit paypalblows.org to find out more reasons. PayPal wants your bank account info on file before they allow you to take payment. So setup a bank account strictly for this service, and if they give you trouble or suspend your account, simply never use them again and tell others of your experience. I think the only reason why PayPal wants a bank account is so they can dip into it and take chargeback money.\",\n \"PayPal. Or even Western Union or MoneyGram. Despite their fees, there is a reason those companies are still in business.\",\n \"Paypal can take exactly the same legal actions against you as any creditor could -- take you to court for wilful nonpayment of debt, sell your debt to a collections agency, or anything else a business would do with a deadbeat customer. But this is a legal question, and as such off topic here.\",\n \"There is not any fraud involved. Anybody can gift money to another person.\",\n \"Does the above mean I will not be able to send money to myself or my mother Yes that is right. PayPal will only be used for small trades. The credits into PayPal cannot be used to purchase anything, and will have to be credited back to the linked Bank Account. This is to ensure right reporting and taxes are being paid. You could use alternative Bank channels for getting funds.\",\n \"I found this page at CNN Money, that lists 5 viable alternatives to Paypal, namely: I would suggest looking for unbiased sources like CNN rather than searching for alternatives and happening upon the merchant's sites themselves. Hope this helps!\",\n \"While I've never used the service, there's also Amazon Flexible Payments Services (AFPS): (emphasis below is mine) Amazon Flexible Payments ServiceTM (Amazon FPS) is the first payments service designed from the ground up for developers. It is built on top of Amazon’s reliable and scalable payments infrastructure and provides developers with a convenient way to charge Amazon’s tens of millions of customers (with their permission, of course!). Amazon customers can pay using the same login credentials, shipping address and payment information they already have on file with Amazon. [...] Considering Amazon.com is an e-commerce heavyweight, it might be worth a look.\",\n \"Just create him a regular PayPal account, then so to the Pay Pal prepaid card page, https://www.paypal-prepaid.com, order a card an attach it to his personal paypal account. Unlike student account, you have to do 2 transfers, one into his paypal account, and then to the prepaid card. That is an answer! Unlike those of use with teenagers under 18 who now have their student accounts jacked from them and there really isn't a good option. Not happy with PayPal right now.I am sure there is a government bureaucrat somewhere behind this decision.\",\n \"In general, all income is taxable, regardless of the source. If you living in the U.S. -- I don't think you said anywhere where you live -- then if you are donating this money to charity, you would have to declare the income, and then declare a deduction for the charitable contribution. At that point the two would cancel out and the net result is that you wouldn't have to pay any tax on the income, but you can't just leave it off your tax return. Well, even if you donated all of it to charity to that you don't have to pay income taxes on it, you would still have to pay social security taxes, and it would still affect your social security benefits when you retire. If you're saying that the organization receiving the money is itself a charity, as opposed to donating the money to some other organization that is a charity, than you usually have to be registered as a charity with the IRS to avoid income taxes. There are still forms to file to report the income, but you wouldn't have to pay taxes. There are some exceptions to the requirement to register, basically if your organization is very small and for certain religious organizations.\",\n \"This kind of questions keeps repeating itself on this site and the answer is generally it doesn't matter. As you said yourself, there are costs either way, and these costs are comparable. Generally, merchant fees differ tremendously between the different kinds of merchants, and while gas stations and video rentals may pay up to 5% and even more, charitable organizations and community services are usually not considered as high fraud risk operation and are charged much lower fees. Either way, paying employees, managing cash/check deposits or paying merchant fees is part of the charity operational expenses. Together with maintaining offices, postal office boxes, office supplies, postage expenses and formal stationary and envelopes needed for physical donations handling. I would guess that if the charity's majority of donations come on-line as credit card/paypal payments - check handling will be more expensive. So I suggest you take the route you consider majority of donors pay - that would be the cheapest for them to handle. I would guess, credit cards being the most convenient - would be the way to go.\",\n \"You'll need to check PayPal's terms of service for that first question. I would imagine you could, as my wife and I both have personal PayPal accounts listed at the same address. When you receive money, the senders will only see the (full) name on your account, the amount, and the transaction ID. If you set up a business account, the name on your account will be replaced with the company name. Your mailing address will not be made visible. Yes, PayPal provides an export option of your transaction history. For reference: If your volume greater than $20,000 across 200 or more transactions, then they'll be issuing a 1099-K form, anyway. That depends on the payment method. Bank transfers are instant, where cards require a settlement delay. PayPal provides buyer protection, so I'd be very dutiful in logging all of your work done to provide proof of completion, in case someone disputes a payment. Disputes can take place up to 45 days from the date of the transaction. Chargebacks can take place 120 days or more after the transaction (depends on the card network).\",\n \"\\\"One option might be to set up a separate bank account and a separate credit card account, which you would use only for your ebay transactions. I have a friend who does a lot of selling on ebay, and this is exactly what she did. It's reasonable to want to protect your personal finances from any complications that might arise with PayPal and/or ebay. But since you definitely have to provide a bank account and c.c. number (there's no way around this), the best solution might be to set up separate \\\"\\\"ebay-only\\\"\\\" accounts. And be sure not to link them to any of your personal accounts, for added protection. If you're planning to do a lot of selling, this is probably a good idea anyway just for record-keeping purposes. If you do a lot of selling on ebay, you might consider setting up a \\\"\\\"merchant account\\\"\\\". There are some limitations on international transactions (currently you can't sell to residents of UK, Australia, or France), and payment processing is a few days slower. But there seem to be fewer fees/risks/etc associated with a merchant account. I don't know much more about it, but here's an article from an ebay seller, including pros and cons of PayPal vs. merchant accounts. http://www.ebay.com/gds/Selling-on-eBay-without-PayPal/10000000021351301/g.html\\\"\",\n \"My husband used this device at work in an organization/club that collects dues for fundraisers. The fundraisers are only for the club. So I think that is not business at all. They have no business tax id#, etc? and they use it for personal reasons when collecting money via Cc#'s if this helps you.\",\n \"Donations need to be with no strings attached. In this case, you make the cash donation, a deduction, and then they pay you, in taxable income. It's a wash. Why not just give them the service for free? Otherwise this is just money going back and forth.\",\n \"You don't have to create a PayPal account in order to buy from a merchant that uses PayPal for processing their payments. You can use your credit card just like with any other purchase. Creating a PayPal business account is, as you say, mainly for businesses wanting to accept payments, not make them. PayPal doesn't require you, the customer, to have an account just to make a payment to a merchant. We have dozens of customers a day make purchases through us using our PayPal account (we're small), and for them the main attraction to using PayPal to pay us is that PayPal has pretty good security and offers some very good customer protections against fraud. They don't have to create a PayPal account just to pay us, though. When you create a PayPal business account, you link a bank account to it that they verify, then they issue you a PayPal MasterCard, which is a debit card that links to your PayPal account. When you make purchases, if the funds are in your PayPal account (because, for instance, you're using PayPal as your merchant processor) then the payment is deducted from that. If there's no money in your PayPal account then PayPal simply debits the bank account you linked with them, no differently than if you were to use your bank's debit card. In this instance, if you don't plan to use PayPal for merchant processing then there's no real reason to open a business account. It doesn't have any advantages over your bank's debit card and, IMHO, just adds another layer of complexity and paperwork to your accounting for no identifiable benefit. I hope this helps. Good luck!\",\n \"According to Paypal, they support transactions in Ethiopia: https://www.paypal.com/webapps/mpp/country-worldwide https://developer.paypal.com/docs/classic/api/country_codes/ However those appear to be limited to transferring money out of the country. (link) There is an article here (link) which talks about how to transfer money from paypal back to your bank in Ethiopia. It sounds like you have to set up a US bank account, withdraw the funds to that then somehow transfer the money from their to your bank. NOTE: I have no relationship to any of the sites above, nor do I know if the information is accurate or the trustworthiness of those businesses.\",\n \"PayPal does charge a premium, both for sending and receiving. Here's how you find their rates:\",\n \"paypal says it works with CBE but can't seem to link my account with them, but skrill works perfectly just go to www.skrill.com sign up and you can link your bank account with your skrill account, i've had a few transactions so it should work for you too.\",\n \"According to HMRC's manual BIM42105, you can't deduct expenses of this kind when calculating your profits for corporation tax: No deduction is allowed for expenditure not incurred wholly and exclusively for trade purposes So at the least, the company will have to pay corporation tax on this donation at some point, assuming it ever makes any profits. There's also the risk that HMRC would say that what is really happening is that you are making a personal donation to this person and the company is giving you income to allow you to do it. In that case, you'd be liable to income tax and employees national insurance, and the company liable to employers national insurance. It should then be deductible from corporation tax, though.\",\n \"I don't see how Paypal can stop you from transferring USD funds from your paypal account to a USD account held with a bank. Just tell them to do the transfer to your account. The issue could be around USD onshore / offshore regulation. Is the US government preventing EU citizens from taking USD income offshore? If that's the case then you need a correspondent bank. So in other words, like using your friend. But what you can do is ask your bank who is their correspondent bank in the US, and whether they have the license required to transfer USD funds offshore. So you shift the regulation issues to your bank, and then you have to accept your bank's exchange rate - which is going to be better than paypal, who charges too much for FX transactions.\",\n \"What I should have done in the first place was just ask them. From their customer support team: Thanks for writing in and for your interest in Square. It is perfectly acceptable to use Square for personal business, such as a yard sale. You do not need to have a registered business to take advantage of Square and the ability to accept credit cards. Just please note that it is against our Terms of Service to process prepaid cards, gift cards or your own credit card using your own Square account. Additionally, you may not use Square as a money transfer system. For every payment processed through Square, you must provide a legitimate good or service. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns.\",\n \"You are thinking of something similar to [Patreon](www.patreon.com) then but more automated? I don't quite think automation works for this because you might not want to give every site you visit money, even if you visit it often in a short period of time (e.g. while doing research into cults you might not want to give the WBC money).\",\n \"\\\"PayPal has a very generous buyer protection program. That means that the buyer can dispute receiving the goods and get their money back fairly easily (compared to credit cards). For this reason Craigslist and other sites recommend not accepting PayPal payments. I know that many transactions go through them flawlessly. But unless I really trust someone, PayPal would not be an option for me unless it was the money transfer (different rules; not as easy to get the money back). However this may be breaking PayPal Terms of Service so I would read them carefully before I went this route. There have been reports of PayPal putting extended holds on funds and effectively seizing the money by refusing to release the funds. I have never had this happen (though I did have a sale on eBay reversed though the item was never returned) but there are many reports of it on the Internet. As far as the BoA option I would contact them and see what they recommend. I would find out what their policies are on reversing the transfers and on providing your account number. They may have a special deposit-only account number you could provide the buyers. But I would want to learn as much about the system as I could before I started using it. The Internet has turned the old adage of \\\"\\\"buyer beware\\\"\\\" into \\\"\\\"seller beware\\\"\\\". There are many schemes that con artists have come up with to defraud unsuspecting sellers. I received several offers from people wanting to pay me with a cashiers check for a few items I recently sold on Craigslist. It is scary how prevalent these fraudsters have become.\\\"\",\n \"In the UK there is a significant difference between taking money out of a bank account and out of a credit card account. Banks typically require explicit authorisation before they will transfer money out of a bank account - for example a direct debit agreement. (North American banks are much less strict, and will transfer your money to any reasonably reputable financial organization who asks for it - don't get me started!). However credit cards run very differently. Essentially the onus is on the vendor to get the authorization, which is why you can sign a credit card slip at the corner store, or give your credit card details over the phone, or fill in an online form, and have your credit card account charged. When you signed the credit card agreement you agreed to let people do this. It's also why the credit card company will reverse a transaction if you claim it was unauthorized. So essentially PayPal is like the specialty store you phone up to order something and give your credit card details to - they have just as much authorization to charge your account. Your only protection is that the credit card company will investigate any transactions you claim are fraudulent, and will reimburse you if it is- even if they can't recover the money themselves.\",\n \"You should check with the Office of Student Affairs (or equivalent) at your University to see if you can accept Credit Cards. Many will only allow you to accept student organization dues paid in cash, check, or money order. Many universities will also provide your organization with basic operating funds, if you request it. Your first point of contact should be your faculty adviser, though. Your best bet would be to just use cash. Learn where the nearest ATMs are. If you are set on using credit cards, set up a PayPal account and just use it to reimburse the person who fronts the money (cover the markup). Everyone will have to have a PayPal account set up, linked to their credit card. You can avoid fees by using a bank account. If you're so inclined, you can set up a Business account and have a PayPal Debit Card, but you'll want to check with your adviser / University by-laws to see if you're allowed. Don't expect any of these to work as website implementations. As you're a University group, you will undoubtedly be meeting in person such that an exchange of cash/check/money order would be trivial In short, you'll need to check into the rules of your University. Credit cards generally carry processing fees, charged to the merchant, which (on its own) carries some tax implications.\",\n \"No it is not required to create a trade account or a current account. If the payment is via Paypal, as per Indian laws, it would automatically get credited to your savings account in 7 days. You would still need to declare this as income and pay tax accordingly.\",\n \"The simplest way to handle this would be to buy money orders, make them out to the charities, and leave your name off them. Money orders don't require you to put your name on them, just the name of whoever they're being paid to. You can mail them with no return address as well if you're sure you have the charity's proper mailing address. This way you can still feel good about giving and leave no trace of who you are for anyone to use for future marketing. I hope this helps. Good luck!\",\n \"\\\"Open a personal account to link SQUARE with, open a savings account with same bank. Register as \\\"\\\"PERSONAL USE\\\"\\\", make as many transactions you want for whatever you want $5.00 to $1,000.00 or more, you get paid, square collects a fee. Money is in your \\\"\\\"personal account\\\"\\\" in 24 hrs, transfer it to your savings acct. 2 years now no issue. I've done the EIN, vendors license, registering business crap, if you work for yourself for private citizens it's none of anyone else's concern.\\\"\",\n \"Your actual question has nothing to do with the technical issue of linking a PayPal account to a bank account. It is all about the accounting of the money. That is, what you claim as income and what you can prove to the taxman. Yes, you will need to separate the money. Linking to a business account is probably the way to go. From there, it is about how you keep track of the money and account for it. How you do the accounting is a different question. So: No, it does not automatically become business income just because it goes into a business bank account. You still have to keep track of said income and claim it somewhere on some tax form(s). The point of the separate business account is to avoid the commingling of the the money which may lead to you losing the liability protection of an incorporation. The bank doesn't file your taxes for you.\",\n \"If I remember correctly my own experience : no you can't. Paypal will block the money even if it's only for online payement.\",\n \"First off... If you provide good service than you shouldn't worry... Since you are providing a service and your customers send payment to your PayPal, if there is no dispute made within 90 days, the customer cannot dispute further. However if it is disputed within 90 days than you may run into some trouble. But it may be in your favor if PayPal finds no signs of fraud and since it's a service payment, PayPal cannot really track it compared to if your customers paid you for a product which can be disputed up to 180 Days?? I may be wrong on that one. However if it does get disputed and PayPal favors your clients than you have to pay it back one way or another. You may want to ask your customers or put yourself a description of the service and terms in the invoice. It may help resolve future disputes. I know this because I have called PayPal customer service and ask which I suggest you do too.\",\n \"There is nothing called best; Depending on the amounts there are several options and each will cost some money. If your business is still small customers are individuals try PayPal it will be easy for everyone. The other options are accepting Credit Card, you would need to set-up card gateway on your website etc Simple wire transfer, it will cost more both for your customers and to you.\",\n \"\\\"To echo part of stannius' response. If it's taxable, there would be tax on $19,999, just a bit less than on $20,000. Your uncle may have a credential, and members here may not, but still he may be mistaken. Or he could be giving you advice on how to skirt the law. The taxability and the $20,000 threshold are unrelated! Trying to 'avoid' the $20,000 is a completely misplaced effort. Gifts from anyone are not taxable to the recipient. So long as nothing is received in return, it's not taxable income to her. In contrast a blogger with a \\\"\\\"tip jar\\\"\\\" is soliciting money in exchange for advice, entertainment, etc. that's taxable. Donations to individuals, in the circumstance you describe are not income to her, nor are they deductible to the donor. Edit - a fellow blogger (more than that, she's my tax crush) had an article Cancer survivor gets $19,000 tax bill for GoFundMe donations which may render my answer incorrect. Other article on this story suggest that the IRS is notified, but the nature of the transfer needs to be addressed. In my opinion, you should find a new uncle CPA.\\\"\",\n \"Have a great lawyer and a fuck ton of money Not only are financial regulations on online payment processors quite complex, each state and the federal gov have required licenses which cost in total around $5 million upfront and $1-2 million annually.\",\n \"Regarding the tax implications half of your question ... There seem to be a lot of articles that say there's not yet any established law concerning the tax treatment of crowdsourced funds. Since your objective is gift-giving rather than business purposes, it would seem that the gift tax rules would apply, and gift taxes are charged to the donor not the donee. (But I am not a tax attorney.)\",\n \"Taxes are the least of your concerns. Your friends need licenses. Although this COULD be avoided entirely with certain craftily worded disclaimers and exemptions and the WAY that money is given to them.\",\n \"I would be inclined to back the 'tip jar' weblink idea, this is very prolific within the Twitch community, as a method of tipping and thereby supporting content creators. I know that there are numerous tutorials on how to set up 'tip' sites for such usage, so that may point you in the right direction. Also you could turn to crowd-funding opportunities, such as Kickstarter and others, however I am not sure on the ruling of these companies and whether you have to offer the completed project as a reward for backers (it tends to be the done thing). And depending on how serious your friends are in helping you as a fledgeling indie developer, you could investigate in setting yourself up as a limited business. This would allow your supporters to purchase shares in your business, turning them into true stakeholders, but whilst retaining the limited status of the company. However, I must stress, on this point I know very little and may be wrong (I am actually hoping someone else contradicts this so I can learn).\",\n \"\\\"If this is truly hobby income (you do not intend to operate as a business and don't have a profit motive) then report the income on Line 21 (\\\"\\\"other income\\\"\\\") of form 1040. If this is a business, then the income and expenses belong on a Schedule C to form 1040. The distinction is in the treatment of profits and losses - your net profits on a business are subject to self-employment tax, while hobby income is not. Net losses on a business are deductible against other income; net losses on a hobby are miscellaneous itemized deductions in the \\\"\\\"2%\\\"\\\" box on Schedule A. From a tax point of view, selling apps and accepting donations are different. Arguably, donations are gifts; gifts are not taxable income. The hobby/business and income/gift distinctions are tricky. If the dollar amounts are small, nobody (including the IRS) really cares. If you start making or losing a lot of money, you'll want to get a good tax person lined up who can help you decide how to characterize these items of income and expens, how to put them on your return, and how to defend the return on audit if necessary.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I'm going to post this as an answer because it's from the GoFundMe website, but ultimately even they say to speak with a tax professional about it. Am I responsible for taxes? (US Only) While this is by no means a guarantee, donations on GoFundMe are simply considered to be \\\"\\\"personal gifts\\\"\\\" which are not, for the most part, taxed as income in the US. However, there may be particular, case-specific instances where the income is taxable (dependent on amounts received and use of the monies, etc.). We're unable to provide specific tax advice since everyone's situation is different and tax rules can change on a yearly basis. We advise that you maintain adequate records of donations received, and consult with your personal tax adviser. Additionally, WePay will not report the funds you collect as earned income. It is up to you (and a tax professional) to determine whether your proceeds represent taxable income. The person who's listed on the WePay account and ultimately receives the funds may be responsible for taxes. Again, every situation is different, so please consult with a tax professional in your area. https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en-us/articles/204295498-Am-I-responsible-for-taxes-US-Only- And here's a blurb from LibertyTax.com which adds to the confusion, but enforces the \\\"\\\"speak with a professional\\\"\\\" idea: Crowdfunding services have to report to the IRS campaigns that total at least $20,000 and 200 transactions. Money collected from crowdfunding is considered either income or a gift. This is where things get a little tricky. If money donated is not a gift or investment, it is considered taxable income. Even a gift could be subject to the gift tax, but that tax applies only to the gift giver. Non-Taxable Gifts These are donations made without the expectation of getting something in return. Think of all those Patriots’ fans who gave money to GoFundMe to help defray the cost of quarterback Tom Brady’s NFL fine for Deflategate. Those fans aren’t expecting anything in return – except maybe some satisfaction -- so their donations are considered gifts. Under IRS rules, an individual can give another individual a gift of up to $14,000 without tax implications. So, unless a Brady fan is particularly generous, his or her GoFundMe gift won’t be taxed. Taxable Income Now consider that same Brady fan donating $300 to a Patriots’ business venture. If the fan receives stock or equity in the company in return for the donation, this is considered an investment and is not taxable . However, if the business owner does not offer stock or equity in the company, the money donated could be considered business income and the recipient would need to report it on a tax return. https://www.libertytax.com/tax-lounge/two-tax-rules-to-know-before-you-try-kickstarter-or-gofundme/\\\"\",\n \"\\\"When you say \\\"\\\"donate\\\"\\\", it usually assumes charitable donation with, in this context, tax benefit. That is not what happens in your scenario. Giving someone money with the requirement of that someone to spend that money at your shop is not donation. It is a grant. You can do that, but you won't be able to deduct this as charitable donation, but the money paid to you back would be taxable income to you. I respectfully disagree with Joe that its a wash. It is not. You give them money that you cannot deduct as an expense (as it is not business expense) or donation (as strings are attached). But you do give them the money, it is no longer yours. When they use the money to pay you back - that same money becomes your taxable income. End result: you provide service, and you're the one paying (taxes) for it. Why would you do that?\\\"\",\n \"Why wouldn't one of the existing crowdsourcing systems meet your needs? Yes, they charge a commission, but they have already addressed the issues you raise and specifically they provide the third-party accounting you want.\",\n \"For people who are good with money (presumably), Kiva.org gives your money to such people who apply for loans through social service organizations in various countries (I believe this is how it's done). The people state what they will use the money for. It can be as simple as 'buying provisions for food truck business' or 'replacing wheels on tractor.' Then they pay the money back and you (who donated x number of dollars) use that repaid money to make another loan.\",\n \"You could find a relative in another country who has the ability to receive PayPal, and have them transfer the money to you via Western Union or Hawala.\",\n \"You do actually have some profits (whatever is left from donations). The way it goes is that you report everything on your Schedule C. You will report this: Your gross profits will then flow to Net Profit (line 31) since you had no other expenses (unless you had some other expenses, like paypal fees, which will appear in the relevant category in part II), and from line 31 it will go to your 1040 for the final tax calculation.\",\n \"\\\"Income generated from online sales is not considered \\\"\\\"passive income\\\"\\\", so you need to be authorized to work in the U.S. Those without work authorization can acquire passive income (through investments, lending, competition/contest earnings, etc.) In order to sell products on eBay (the description you've given leads me to believe that this is operated as a business), you need to be authorized to work in the U.S., and register a business. See:\\\"\",\n \"If PayPal won't accept the VCC number, then by definition you can't do this. If you want to know whether there's a way to get special permission or bypass that restriction... I'm afraid the right thing to do is ask PayPal. Yes, I know their customer support is awful, but this is a classic customer support question, and they know the internals of their system better than any of us possibly could.\",\n \"In addition to paypal, Amazon also offers a payment processing service that has micropayment pricing: For Transactions < $10:\",\n \"Are there any local charities that could fund the work, and thus take Gift-Aided donations for it? Depending on the details, a School PTA or the Parish Church could justify sponsoring some improvements to the local park as part of their remit. You then give donations to them and they claim the Gift Aid and pay for the improvements with the total. Setting up a whole new charity is the other option, but unless the improvements are very expensive, that feels like overkill.\",\n \"The fees for the services are displayed on the PayPal website at https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_display-fees-outside Is there anything else you were looking for.\",\n \"\\\"Paypal linked with my bank account. 1.Can I use my Saving bank account to receive payments from my clients? Or is it necessary to open a current account? Yes you can get funds into your savings account. However it is advisable to keep a seperate account as it would help with your IT Returns. 2.I will be paying a certain % as commission on every sales to a couple of sales guys (who are not my employees but only working on commission). Can I show this as an expense in my IT returns? As you are earning as freelancer, you are eligible for certain deductions like Phone calls, Laptop, other hardware, payments to partners. It is important that you maintain a book of records. An accountant for a small fee of Rs 5 K should be able to help you. In the Returns you have to show Net income after all these deductions, there is no place to enter expenses. 3.Since I will be receiving all the payments in Euros so am I falling under a category of \\\"\\\"Exporter of services\\\"\\\"? The work you are doing can be Free Lancing. 4.Do I need an Import Export Code (IEC) for smoothly running this small business? You can run this without one as Free lancing. IEC would be when you grow big and are looking for various benefits under tax and pay different taxes and are incorporated as a company.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Yes, your email address is your \\\"\\\"PayPal\\\"\\\" account. It's what people use to send you money, and what you use to pay people.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I linked my bank account (by making a transfer from bank account to Paypal) without linking a card. This should not give Paypal any rights to do anything with my bank account - transfer that I made to link it was exactly the same as any other outgoing transfer from my bank account. On attempting to pay more that resides in my Paypal balance I get To pay for this purchase right now, link a debit or credit card to your PayPal account. message. Paypal is not mentioning it but one may also transfer money to Paypal account form bank to solve this problem. Note, that one may give allow Paypal to access bank account - maybe linking a card will allow this? Paypal encourages linking card but without any description of consequences so I never checked this. It is also possible that Paypal gained access to your bank balance in other way - for example in Poland it just asked for logins and passwords to bank accounts (yes, using \\\"\\\"Add money instantly using Trustly\\\"\\\" in Poland really requires sharing full login credentials to bank account - what among other things breaks typical bank contract) source for \\\"\\\"Paypal attempts phishing\\\"\\\": https://niebezpiecznik.pl/post/uwaga-uzytkownicy-paypala-nie-korzystajcie-z-najnowszej-funkcji-tego-serwisu/\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Yes, Paypal has such a button you can use, but to be clear, the money you receive is taxable income. Your website is providing 'value' to the readers, and while they may feel they are making a gift to you, it's earned income as far as the IRS is concerned. (This assumes you are in the US, you may wish to add a tag to indicate your country)","Yes, PayPal allows you to add a donate button to your website. You're responsible for any tax record-keeping related to income from the donate button.","An answer from PayPal stated that donations may be turned on only for Business PayPal accounts that are verified for its non-profit status. Such PayPal Business account must be opened in the name of non-profit organization (not a single person) and go through verification process. One must provide the following information: That would mean that one cannot ask for donations as a private person, at least in Croatia, and probably in Europe."],"string":"[\n \"Yes, Paypal has such a button you can use, but to be clear, the money you receive is taxable income. Your website is providing 'value' to the readers, and while they may feel they are making a gift to you, it's earned income as far as the IRS is concerned. (This assumes you are in the US, you may wish to add a tag to indicate your country)\",\n \"Yes, PayPal allows you to add a donate button to your website. You're responsible for any tax record-keeping related to income from the donate button.\",\n \"An answer from PayPal stated that donations may be turned on only for Business PayPal accounts that are verified for its non-profit status. Such PayPal Business account must be opened in the name of non-profit organization (not a single person) and go through verification process. One must provide the following information: That would mean that one cannot ask for donations as a private person, at least in Croatia, and probably in Europe.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":179,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"5790"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"FX losses on non-UK mortgage for UK property - tax deductable?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["134794"],"string":"[\n \"134794\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["141738","11122","325118","391251","369419","202645","24667","30654","409566","378465","166567","345070","116934","212312","385874","168440","134794","446984","484375","330","526499","342411","339295","241136","33117","589416","376392","569210","393629","263202","476173","251385","55901","426960","123047","497642","156381","280538","507107","278781","342903","385310","373966","1666","481601","24308","275543","15330","334154","385139","51497","495467","550468","367930","205217","87386","390435","578970","475410","244303","160416","136850","543887","97348","330269","528838","316230","101543","343766","361514","356884","169245","129695","246461","490888","136932","30403","440219","272940","108273","119437","236254","248761","418999","100280","444369","100387","30406","140977","126007","484596","338539","339488","53814","418480","15606","194308","392313","135073","590390"],"string":"[\n \"141738\",\n \"11122\",\n \"325118\",\n \"391251\",\n \"369419\",\n \"202645\",\n \"24667\",\n \"30654\",\n \"409566\",\n \"378465\",\n \"166567\",\n \"345070\",\n \"116934\",\n \"212312\",\n \"385874\",\n \"168440\",\n \"134794\",\n \"446984\",\n \"484375\",\n \"330\",\n \"526499\",\n \"342411\",\n \"339295\",\n \"241136\",\n \"33117\",\n \"589416\",\n \"376392\",\n \"569210\",\n \"393629\",\n \"263202\",\n \"476173\",\n \"251385\",\n \"55901\",\n \"426960\",\n \"123047\",\n \"497642\",\n \"156381\",\n \"280538\",\n \"507107\",\n \"278781\",\n \"342903\",\n \"385310\",\n \"373966\",\n \"1666\",\n \"481601\",\n \"24308\",\n \"275543\",\n \"15330\",\n \"334154\",\n \"385139\",\n \"51497\",\n \"495467\",\n \"550468\",\n \"367930\",\n \"205217\",\n \"87386\",\n \"390435\",\n \"578970\",\n \"475410\",\n \"244303\",\n \"160416\",\n \"136850\",\n \"543887\",\n \"97348\",\n \"330269\",\n \"528838\",\n \"316230\",\n \"101543\",\n \"343766\",\n \"361514\",\n \"356884\",\n \"169245\",\n \"129695\",\n \"246461\",\n \"490888\",\n \"136932\",\n \"30403\",\n \"440219\",\n \"272940\",\n \"108273\",\n \"119437\",\n \"236254\",\n \"248761\",\n \"418999\",\n \"100280\",\n \"444369\",\n \"100387\",\n \"30406\",\n \"140977\",\n \"126007\",\n \"484596\",\n \"338539\",\n \"339488\",\n \"53814\",\n \"418480\",\n \"15606\",\n \"194308\",\n \"392313\",\n \"135073\",\n \"590390\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"About deducting mortgage interest: No, you can not deduct it unless it is qualified mortgage interest. \"\"Qualified mortgage interest is interest and points you pay on a loan secured by your main home or a second home.\"\" (Tax Topic 505). According to the IRS, \"\"if you rent out the residence, you must use it for more than 14 days or more than 10% of the number of days you rent it out, whichever is longer.\"\" Regarding being taxed on income received from the property, if you claim the foreign tax credit you will not be double taxed. According to the IRS, \"\"The foreign tax credit intends to reduce the double tax burden that would otherwise arise when foreign source income is taxed by both the United States and the foreign country from which the income is derived.\"\" (from IRS Topic 856 - Foreign Tax Credit) About property taxes: From my understanding, these cannot be claimed for the foreign tax credit but can be deducted as business expenses. There are various exceptions and stipulations based on your circumstance, so you need to read the official publications and get professional tax advice. Here's an excerpt from Publication 856 - Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals: \"\"In most cases, only foreign income taxes qualify for the foreign tax credit. Other taxes, such as foreign real and personal property taxes, do not qualify. But you may be able to deduct these other taxes even if you claim the foreign tax credit for foreign income taxes. In most cases, you can deduct these other taxes only if they are expenses incurred in a trade or business or in the production of income. However, you can deduct foreign real property taxes that are not trade or business expenses as an itemized deduction on Schedule A (Form 1040).\"\" Note and disclaimer: Sources: IRS Tax Topic 505 Interest Expense, IRS Real Estate (Taxes, Mortgage Interest, Points, Other Property Expenses) , IRS Topic 514 Foreign Tax Credit , and Publication 856 Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals\"","\"Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer nor a tax-expert This page on the HMRC site lists several pages that appear to be relevant, starting with CG78401 - Foreign currency: delayed remittances and on to CG78408 - Foreign currency: example which seems pertinent to your case [paraphrased]: A property bought in 1983 is sold for a [taxable] gain in one tax-year (1986/87) but the proceeds cannot be released/remitted to the UK until later (1991/92), by which time currency fluctuations have created a second [taxable] gain. The size of the first gain (selling the property) is determined by the exchange rate in effect at the time of the sale but because of local restrictions, this can be deferred. The size of the second gain (currency movement) is determined by the change in exchange-rate between the time of the sale and the time of conversion. In your case, the first \"\"gain\"\" was actually a loss, so I believe you should be able to use this to offset any tax due second gain. This page states that losses can be claimed up to four years after the end of the tax-year in which they were incurred, so you are probably still OK. (The example makes application under TCGA92/S279 to defer the gain made on the original sale [because of the inability to transfer funds], but as I understand it, this is primarily to avoid a tax liability in that year. Since you made a loss on the sale, there wouldn't have been a tax liability, so there would be no need to defer it).\"","\"Mortgage interest in Canada is not generally tax deductible for individuals. (Where did you read otherwise?) As an individual, the only mortgage interest you may be able to deduct is when you borrow the money to purchase an income-producing asset, e.g another property you can rent out, or investments producing dividends or other income. In these cases, the interest you pay on the borrowed funds, i.e. the \"\"carrying costs\"\" for your investments, would be deductible against the income produced by the investments purchased.\"","The loan itself is not tax deductible; unless you took it as part of a mortgage, anyway, it's just a regular loan. Mortgage and Student Loan Interest deductions are special cases explicitly given tax-deductible status; other loans are not deductible (unless part of a business expense or other qualifying reason). If this were a short sale (which you note it was not but included for completeness' sake), and some of your debt was cancelled, that may have tax implications. You cannot take a capital loss on your personal residence, so the loss itself is not deductible.","\"I would say similar rules apply in the US. If you have a net loss from rental property, you certainly can claim that loss against your personal income. There are various rules around this though that make it a bit less clear cut. If you are a \"\"real estate professional\"\", which basicly means you spend at least 750 hours per year working on your rental properties (or related activities), then all losses are deductible against any other ordinary income you have. If you aren't a \"\"real estate professional\"\", then your rental income is considered a \"\"passive activity\"\" and losses you can count against regular income are limited to $25,000 per year (with a carry-forward provision) and begin to phase out entirely if your income is between $100,000 and $150,000. So, the law here is structured to allow most small-time investors to take rental real estate losses against their ordinary income, but the income phase-out provision is designed to prevent the wealthy from using rental property losses to avoid taxation.\"","For stocks, bonds, ETF funds and so on - Taxed only on realised gain and losses are deductible from the gain and not from company's income. Corporate tax is calculated only after all expenses have been deducted. Not the other way around. Real estate expenses can be deducted because of repairs and maintenance. In general all expenses related to the operation of the business can be deducted. But you cannot use expenses as willy nilly, as you assume. You cannot deduct your subscription to Playboy as an expense. Doing it is illegal and if caught, the tours to church will increase exponentially. VAT is only paid if you claim VAT on your invoices. Your situation seems quite complicated. I would suggest, get an accountant pronto. There are nuances in your situation, which an accountant only can understand and help.","You cannot deduct. Even if you could, unless you also hold the mortgage, it's unlikely that you would have sufficient deductions to exceed the standard deduction for a married couple.","Huh. It appears it's only currencies in sterling that are fully exempt. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-gains-manual/cg12602 Government manuals are more detailed than .gov but still not perfect as it's HMRCs interpretation of legislation and has been overturned in the past. There is also another (old) article here about foreign currency transactions. https://www.taxation.co.uk/articles/2010/10/27/21191/currency-gains I have never come across forex capital gains in practice but I've learnt something today! Something to look out for in the UK as well I guess.","Very simple. If it wasn't rented, it's deductible as a schedule A home mortgage interest. If it was rented, you go into Schedule E land, still a deduction along with any/every expense incurred.","If it's a rental, you will write off the losses via Schedule E. You should read this document and its instructions to understand this fully. You will also take depreciation on the value of the building, not the land, over 27.5 years. If you don't understand this, search here, there are discussions that cover this. If it's not a rental, but your home or second home, you take the interest and real estate tax off you tax via Schedule A, if you itemize. (I see the tag 'rental' but leave this line for sake of a complete answer.)","\"The mortgage tax deduction can at most apply to two mortgages. IRS Publication 936 lays this out pretty clearly. There might be other deductions available if you are using the houses as a commercial entity, but that's more \"\"corporate taxes\"\" than \"\"personal taxes\"\". I know there are tax laws for dealing with interest, depreciation, capital expenses that businesses use.\"","I am wondering weather it is worth it (how taxation works in this scenario ect.) or not and legally possible to do so ? Whether it is worth it or not is up to you. There's nothing illegal in this, unless of course there's a legal issue in the foreign country. The US doesn't care. Re taxes - it is a bit trickier. If your lender does not provide you with form 1098, you'll have to report the lender's name, address and SSN/ITIN on your tax return in order to claim a deduction. The IRS will then expect the lender to report that interest as income. This is US-sourced income and is taxed in the US despite the fact that the lender is non-resident. See here for more info. If the lender doesn't report the income and doesn't pay the taxes - your deduction may be denied as well for double-dipping. It is easier if this is an investment. Then the deduction is not going to Schedule A, but rather as an expense to Schedule E. The IRS may still require matching, but you won't need to report the SSN/ITIN - just have the expense properly documented. Obviously, the best when it comes to legal issues, is to talk to an attorney licensed in the State in question. Similarly with tax questions - you should talk to a EA/CPA licensed in that State. I'm neither.","Yes, you can deduct from your taxable profits (almost) any expenses incurred in the course of your business. See here for HMRC's detailed advice on the subject. The fact that you have salaried PAYE employment as well makes no difference.","Generally speaking, if a business loses money for whatever reason, then that reduces the profits of the business which reduces the tax payable. However if you were holding the assets on a personal basis prior to incorporating the business, the position may become more complicated. For that kind of money some professional advice may be worthwhile.","Since you say the money was invested in a corporation that would lead me to believe you mean a stock purchase. Stock losses can be treated as a tax exemption filed as a capital loss. http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/Cutyourtaxes/P33438.asp http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2006-03-10-capital-losses_x.htm Canada has slightly more restrictions on how this can be done. http://www.taxtips.ca/filing/capitallosses.htm","No. And I'll let my good friend and fellow blogger Kay Bell answer in some detail, in her article Deducting private mortgage insurance.","I spoke to HMRC and they said #1 is not allowable but #2 is. They suggested using either their published exchange rates or I could use another source. I suggested the Bank of England spot rates and that was deemed reasonable and allowable.","The relevant IRS publication is pub 463. Note that there are various conditions and exceptions, but it all starts with business necessity. Is it necessary for you to work from the UK? If you're working from the UK because you wanted to take a vacation, but still have to work, and would do the same work without being in the UK - then you cannot deduct travel expenses. It sounds to me like this is the case here.","\"DirectGov has a good overview here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_4017814 and answers to your specific questions here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_10013435 In short, you do need to declare the rental income on your tax return and will need to pay tax on it (and note that only the mortgage interest (not the full repayment) is deductible as an \"\"allowable expense\"\", see the full list of what is deductible here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_10014027 ).\"","\"As long as the losing business is not considered \"\"passive activity\"\" or \"\"hobby\"\", then yes. Passive Activity is an activity where you do not have to actively do anything to generate income. For example - royalties or rentals. Hobby is an activity that doesn't generate profit. Generally, if your business doesn't consistently generate profit (the IRS looks at 3 out of the last 5 years), it may be characterized as hobby. For hobby, loss deduction is limited by the hobby income and the 2% AGI threshold.\"","The rental income is indeed taxable income, but you reduce the taxable portion of it by deducting expenses (including mortgage interest, maintenance, insurance, HOA, real estate tax, and of course depreciation). Due to the depreciation, you may end up breaking even, or having very little taxable income. Note that when you sell the property, your basis is reduced by the depreciation you were allowed to deduct (even if you haven't deducted it for whatever reason), and also the personal residence exclusion might no longer be applicable - i.e.: you'll have to pay capital gains tax. You will not be able to deduct a loss though if you sell now, so it may be better to depreciate it as a rental, rather then sell at a loss that won't affect your taxes. Also, consider the fact that the basis for the depreciation is not the basis you currently have in the property (because you're under water). You have to remember that when calculating the taxes. This is not a tax advice, and you should seek a professional help.","If you buy foreign currency as an investment, then the gains are ordinary income. The gains are realized when you close the position, and whether you buy something else go back to the original form of investment is of no consequence. In case #1 you have $125 income. In case #2 you have $125 income. In case #3 you have $166 loss. You report all these items on your Schedule D. Make sure to calculate the tax correctly, since the tax is not capital gains tax but rather ordinary income at marginal rates. Changes in foreign exchange between a transaction and the conversion of the proceeds to USD are generally not considered as income (i.e.: You sold a property in Mexico, but since the money took a couple of days to clear, the exchange rate changed and you got $2K more/less than you would based on the exchange rate on the day of the transaction - this is not a taxable income/loss). This is covered by the IRC Sec. 988. There are additional rules for contracts on foreign currency, TTM rules, etc. Better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for anything other than trivial.","The interest on a loan secured by a rental property is not deductible at all. The interest on a loan used to buy (or improve) the rental property is deductible, regardless of where you got it from (you can take money from your credit card to buy a rental - it will be deductible). The deductability is per the use of the money, not the source, with the cash-out up to 100K from your primary residence being the notable exception.","To answer some parts of the question which are answerable as-is: Yes, mortgage interest is deductible. So is depreciation. See this question and others. It would be a good idea to put some money away for tax season, just as you should save some money to cover unexpected property expenses. But as @JoeTaxpayer says, this is a good problem to have, assuming you own the property, it's low-maintenance, your tenant is good, and your rent is at market levels.","If this was a public corporation (stock) and the investment was made in a non-registered account, then you can claim a capital loss. Capital losses are claimed against capital gains (not income), and can be carried back 3 years or carried forward indefinitely. Here's an article I've written on how to claim capital losses that may help.","Any deductable expense will reduce your taxable income not your tax payable. Your Example 1 above is correct and gives you 100% deduction. It is like having a business where your sales are $100,000 and your expenses in making the sales is $40,000. The expenses are your tax deductions and reduce your profits on which you pay tax on to $60,000. If your Example 2 was correct then the situation above would change that you would pay say $30,000 tax on $100,000 sales, then apply your deductions (or expenses) of $40,000 so that you would pay no tax at all and in fact get $10,000 back in your return. In this case the government would not be collecting any taxes but paying out returns to everyone. Your Example 2 is absolutly incorrect.","http://www.irs.gov/publications/p936/ar02.html#en_US_2010_publink1000229891 If you still own it, you get to deduct all of it. In my taxes I did online with TaxAct, it asked if I lived there or not and it just mattered which form it filed for me. With having tenants it was a 'business' form and I assume it would be a standard schedule A for personal. Either way the deductions are still mine to take.","if you open spreadbetting accounts and prove to the inland revenue that trading profits are not your main income, you will not be liable for any tax on your gains. Holding a property in the uk which is point of call for any held bank accounts needs to be verifiable though. This is only an issue if accounts are larger than £400k. seems anything smaller doesnt get the sniffer dogs attention at the IR dept.","Should I treat this house as a second home or a rental property on my 2015 taxes? If it was not rented out or available for rent then you could treat it as your second home. But if it was available for rent (i.e.: you started advertising, you hired a property manager, or made any other step towards renting it out), but you just didn't happen to find a tenant yet - then you cannot. So it depends on the facts and circumstances. I've read that if I treat this house as a rental property, then the renovation cost is a capital expenditure that I can claim on my taxes by depreciating it over 28 years. That is correct. 27.5 years, to be exact. I've also read that if I treat this house as a personal second home, then I cannot do that because the renovation costs are considered non-deductible personal expenses. That is not correct. In fact, in both cases the treatment is the same. Renovation costs are added to your basis. In case of rental, you get to depreciate the house. Since renovations are considered part of the house, you get to depreciate them too. In case of a personal use property, you cannot depreciate. But the renovation costs still get added to the basis. These are not expenses. But does mortgage interest get deducted against my total income or only my rental income? If it is a personal use second home - you get to deduct the mortgage interest up to a limit on your Schedule A. Depending on your other deductions, you may or may not have a tax benefit. If it is a rental - the interest is deducted from the rental income only on your Schedule E. However, there's no limit (although some may be deferred if the deduction is more than the income) if you're renting at fair market value. Any guidance would be much appreciated! Here's the guidance: if it is a rental - treat it as a rental. Otherwise - don't.","According to page 107 of the instructions for schedule A for form 1040 : Include taxes (state, local, or foreign) paid on real estate you own that was not used for business. ... If you want to make a business out of her property and be her agent in the management, you might be able to work with an accountant on this, but it won't be a valid personal deduction.","Yes, you can. That the books were purchased from abroad is irrelevant: you incurred an expense in the course of earning your income. If the books are expensive (>$300 per set iirc) you will need to deprecate them over a reasonable life time rather than claiming the entire amount up front. It doesn't matter whether what you got was a VAT Invoice; as long as you have some reasonable documentation of the expense you're ok.","\"If your friend is loaning you KRW which you are then converting to USD, then there are tax implications. This would be a Section 988 transaction so \"\"gains\"\" or \"\"losses\"\" made during repayment (partial or complete) due to fluctuations in exchange rate would be treated as ordinary gains or losses. For example, imagine you borrow 100,000 KRW and, at the time you borrow it, this is worth exactly 100,000 USD. At some future point, you repay 20,000 KRW. If the exchange rate at that point is such that 20,000 KRW is worth 15,000 USD, then the IRS sees that you have \"\"gained\"\" 5,000 USD in ordinary income. This is a particular concern if the loan is a mortgage and you refinance the mortgage at a moment in time with a more \"\"favorable\"\" exchange rate than the exchange rate when you first got the mortgage. See http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/section-988.asp for some additional discussion.\"","Am I eligible for the tax exemption if yes then under which section. Generally Personal loans are not eligible for tax exemption. Only housing loans from qualified institutions are eligible for tax deduction. As per the income tax act; The house should be in your name. The home loans taken from recognised institutions are fully qualified under section 24B and 80C. This means you can claim Interest exemption under 24B and Principal repayment under 80C. The Act also specifies that loan can be taken from friends/relatives for construction of property and will be eligible for Interest exemption under 24B only. The principal will not be eligible for exemption under 80C. Read the FAQ from Income Tax India. There has to be certificate showing how much interest was paid on the said loan. Further there should be records/receipts on how the money was spent. There is difference of opinion amongst CA. It is best you take a professional advise.","\"Since you did not treat the house as a QBU, you have to use USD as your functional currency. To calculate capital gains, you need to calculate the USD value at the time of purchase using the exchange rate at the time of purchase and the USD value at the time of sale using the exchange rate at the time of sale. The capital gain / loss is then the difference between the two. This link describes it in more detail and provides some references: http://www.maximadvisors.com/2013/06/foreign-residence/ That link also discusses additional potential complications if you have a mortgage on the house. This link gives more detail on the court case referenced in the above link: http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs5/93F3d26.html The court cases references Rev. Rul 54-105. This link from the IRS has some details from that (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0303021.pdf): Rev. Rul. 54-105, 1954-1 C.B. 12, states that for purposes of determining gain, the basis and selling price of property acquired by a U.S. citizen living in a foreign country should be expressed in United States dollars at the rates of exchange prevailing as of the dates of purchase and sale of the property, respectively. The text of this implies it is for U.S. citizen is living in a foreign country, but the court case makes it clear that it also applies in your scenario (house purchased while living abroad but now residing in the US): Appellants agree that the 453,374 pounds received for their residence should be translated into U.S. dollars at the $1.82 exchange rate prevailing at the date of sale. They argue, however, that the 343,147 pound adjusted cost basis of the residence, consisting of the 297,500 pound purchase price and the 45,647 pounds paid for capital improvements, likewise should be expressed in U.S. dollar terms as of the date of the sale. Appellants correctly state that, viewed “in the foreign currency in which it was transacted,” the purchase generated a 110,227 pound gain as of the date of the sale, which translates to approximately $200,000 at the $1.82 per pound exchange rate. ... However fair and reasonable their argument may be, it amounts to an untenable attempt to convert their “functional currency” from the U.S. dollar to the pound sterling. ... Under I.R.C. § 985(b)(1), use of a functional currency other than the U.S. dollar is restricted to qualified business units (\"\"QBU\"\"s). ... appellants correctly assert that their residence was purchased “for a pound-denominated value” while they were “living and working in a pound-denominated economy,” ... And since appellants concede that the purchase and sale of their residence was not carried out by a QBU, the district court properly rejected their plea to treat the pound as their functional currency.\"","I would not expect any problems. Your interest will have tax deducted at 20% which I don't think you would be entitled to reclaim because you don't get a personal allowance if you aren't resident in the UK, and unless you have a huge amount of UK earnings you would not be legally liable to any higher rates of tax so there would be no issues there. If you were liable to more tax you would be obliged to inform the Inland Revenue.","You should speak to a good tax adviser. The less documentation you have the more problems IRS are going to cause you. Generally you can deduct business losses (in the year they occurred, which is 2011), but you have to show that that was a valid business, not just a way to reduce your tax bill with personal expenses. Thus lack of documentation reduces your ability to prove that you're entitled to the deduction. The burden of proof is generally on you. You can not deduct it from 2012 taxes, but you can still amend 2011. Keep in mind though that amended returns have higher chance of audit, and a significant business loss on a business that only existed that year is a major red flag which will raise the probability of an audit to very high percentage. Theoretically, if the business was real and just failed - you can definitely deduct this. But practically, lack of documentation may cause too big a problem, and a tax adviser might suggest you giving it up if he doesn't think you have a real chance to convince the IRS. Definitely don't do that without a professional advice. It is worth fighting for, its quite a loss, but don't do it on your own as you will definitely lose.","I can't see how you can deduct your mother's loss. The money was not stolen from you, and you gave money to your mother of your own free will and with full intention of the money to be used by her as she wishes. Moving money from your own account to a joint account allowing the joint holder to use it - is akin to giving the money directly to the joint holder, i.e.: in your case, giving a gift to your mother.","In some circumstances losses from self-employment can be offset against total income and/or capital gains. If this applies to you may be able to claim back some of the tax taken by PAYE from your day job. You can also to some extent carry the loss backwards into previous tax years or forward into the next one if you can't use it fully this year. HMRC have some information available on the current rules: When you can claim losses You can claim: But You can’t claim:","A non-resident alien is only allowed for deductions connected to producing a US-sourced income (See IRC Sec. 873). Thus you can only deduct things that qualify as business expenses, and State taxes on your wages. In addition you can deduct a bunch of stuff explicitly allowed (like tax preparation, charitable contributions, casualty losses, etc) but sales tax is not in that list.","Keep in mind, when talking about other deductions, such as mortgage interest, you need to look at your overall situation and whether the taxpayer is near the standard deduction amount. For some, their interest deduction and property tax are below the standard deduction, and therefore, they'd not itemize.","Here is the technical guidance from the accounting standard FRS 23 (IAS 21) 'The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates' which states: Exchange differences arising on the settlement of monetary items or on translating monetary items at rates different from those at which they were translated on initial recognition during the period or in previous financial statements shall be recognised in profit or loss in the period in which they arise. An example: You agree to sell a product for $100 to a customer at a certain date. You would record the sale of this product on that date at $100, converted at the current FX rate (lets say £1:$1 for ease) in your profit loss account as £100. The customer then pays you several $100 days later, at which point the FX rate has fallen to £0.5:$1 and you only receive £50. You would then have a realised loss of £50 due to exchange differences, and this is charged to your profit and loss account as a cost. Due to double entry bookkeeping the profit/loss on the FX difference is needed to balance the journals of the transaction. I think there is a little confusion as to what constitutes a (realised) profit/loss on exchange difference. In the example in your question, you are not making any loss when you convert the bitcoins to dollars, as there is no difference in the exchange rate between the point you convert them. Therefore you have not made either a profit or a loss. In terms of how this effects your tax position; you only pay tax on your profit and loss account. The example I give above is an instance where an exchange difference is recorded to the P&L. In your example, the value of your cash held is reflected in your balance sheet, as an asset, whatever its value is at the balance sheet date. Unfortunately, the value of the asset can rise/fall, but the only time where you will record a profit/loss on this (and therefore have an impact on tax) is if you sell the asset.","Let me restate question for clarity. Facts: Question: Are there any taxes for this transaction? Answer: (Added improvements provided by Eric) Generally No. Generally, it is not considered income until you sell and the sale price is greater than the purchase price. But with currency differences, there is an additional complication, section 988 rules apply. It could result in ordinary income or loss.","\"The likely reason the mortgage is \"\"tricky to get\"\" is the adviser is probably recommending an interest-only mortgage in which there is no repayment of principle before maturity. That would allow you to deduct the amount of the interest expense from your taxable income. Your investment grows compound tax deferred and the principal invested (the mortgage balance) is completely tax free since it never qualifies as income for tax purposes. Example ideal scenario: Refinance $100,000 on a 5/1 ARM-interest only at 3%. Invest the $100,000 at 6%. Each year you effectively pay taxes on only the gains greater than interest. If you reinvest the profits it looks something like: Net Profit: $12,309 Effective Tax Rate: 13.21%\"","\"http://www.investopedia.com/articles/mortgages-real-estate/08/tax-deductible-mortgage-canada.asp > This strategy is not for everyone. Borrowing against your home is psychologically difficult, and if the investments don't yield expected returns, this strategy could yield negative results. By re-borrowing the equity in your home, you are also removing your \"\"cushion\"\" of safety if the real estate (or investment) markets take a turn for the worse. By creating an income-producing portfolio in an unregistered account, there can also be additional tax consequences - so always consult with a professional financial advisor to determine whether this strategy is for you, and if it is, have it tailor-made to you and your family's personal financial situation.\"","In theory, when you obtained ownership of your USD cash as a Canadian resident [*resident for tax purposes, which is generally a quicker timeline than being resident for immigration purposes], it is considered to have been obtained by you for the CAD equivalent on that date. For example if you immigrated on Dec 31, 2016 and carried $10k USD with you, when the rate was ~1.35, then Canada deems you to have arrived with $13.5k CAD. If you converted that CAD to USD when the rate was 1.39, you would have received 13.9k CAD, [a gain of $400 to show as income on your tax return]. Receiving the foreign inheritances is a little more complex; those items when received may or may not have been taxable on that day. However whether or not they were taxable, you would calculate a further gain as above, if the fx rate gave you more CAD when you ultimately converted it. If the rate went the other way and you lost CAD-value, you may or may not be able to claim a loss. If it was a small loss, I wouldn't bother trying to claim it due to hassle. If it's a large loss, I would be very sure to research thoroughly before claiming, because something like that probably has a high chance of being audited.","\"This article on the landlord website Property118.com shows a simple example, demonstrating that a private landlord with a mortgage could see a huge jump in their effective tax rate (in this case, from 18% to 67% by 2020), while a corporate landlord will see no change at all. There's also a link in that article to a detailed report which is highly critical of the tax changes. The government obviously take a different view! (See here for more worked examples of how the tax changes will be applied). More information can be found on this on various landlord sites. A key phrase to look for is \"\"section 24\"\", referring to the section of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015 which implements the change. Note that this change only applies to private landlords (i.e. those who own a property personally, rather than through a company), and who have a mortgage on the property, and who (after the new calculations) are higher or additional rate taxpayers.\"","This doesn't sound very legal to me. Real estate losses cannot generally be deducted unless you have other real estate income. So the only case when this would work is when that person has bunch of other buildings that do produce income, and he reduces that income, for tax purposes, by deducting the expenses/depreciation/taxes for the buildings that do not. However, depreciation doesn't really reduce taxes, only defers them to the sale. As mhoran_psprep said - all the rest of the expenses will be minimal.","\"Can I claim a 20% of the interest paid over the period of Oct/2015 through Mar/2017 (18 months) when I file for IT returns this year in Mar/2017? Yes you can. Does my name not being the first name affect my eligibility of claiming the relief? No you can claim relief. Joint owners need to file a declaration on the quantum of relief claimed. Both can't claim 100%. Does that mean I my claiming the 20% relief on interest (and the remaining 80% over subsequent years) is in effect moot as my \"\"taxable\"\" income cannot go negative (meaning the govt cannot/will not return some money I have paid as IT in prior years)? If you have no other income on which tax is payable; then Yes it is irrelevant. Does that mean as long as I continue to work in the US (already having become a NRI), have little or no income in India, I cannot claim any future relief regarding the principal or interest? Yes that is right.\"","If you are using the money to invest in a property (even abroad) then you can claim tax exemption. while some people will tell you that the reinvestment should be in India only, it have been ruled that the property can be purchased abroad too..","If you take the statement you quote as stated, it is indeed absurd. Unless you have a really creative tax accountant or live in a country with very unusual tax laws, any tax deduction you get for mortgage interest is going to be less than the interest. You don't come out ahead by getting a $25 deduction if you had a $100 expense to get that deduction. Where there can be some sense behind such a statement is if you consider the alternative to paying cash for a house or making extra payments against a mortgage. If you had $100,000 in cash in a box under your bed, and the choice is between, (a) use that $100,000 to buy a house in cash, or (b) borrow $100,000 at 6% interest and leave that cash in the box under the bed, than clearly (a) is the better choice because it saves you the interest expense. But if the choice is between, (a) buy a house for $100,000 in cash and borrow $100,000 at 6% to buy a car; or (b) borrow $100,000 at 6% interest to buy a house and use the $100,000 cash to buy the car, (b) is the better choice. The home mortgage loan is tax deductible; the car loan is not. As others have pointed out, if instead of using some extra cash to pay down the principle on your mortgage you used that money to invest in the stock market, it is likely that you would get better returns on the investment than what you would have saved in interest on the mortgage -- depending, of course, on how the market is doing and how well you pick stocks. But the key issue there isn't the tax deduction, it's the comparison of the profits from the investment versus the opportunity cost of the money that could have been saved on the mortgage interest. The tax deduction affects that comparison by effectively reducing the interest rate on the mortgage -- your real interest expense is the nominal interest minus the deduction -- but that's not the key point, just another number to plug in to the formula. By the way, given the complexity of U.S. tax law, I would not rule out the possibility that there could be some scenario where you really would save money by having mortgage interest. There are lots of deductions and credits that are phased out or eliminated as your income goes up. Perhaps you could find some set of tax laws that apply to you such that having an additional $1000 in interest expense lets you take a $300 deduction here and a $500 credit there, etc, and they add up to more than $1000. I don't know if that could actually happen, but the rules are complicated enough that, maybe. Any tax accountants here who can come up with such a scenario?","Those choices aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, most discussion of the mortgage interest deduction ignores the fact that for a standard itemizer, much, if not all of this deduction can be lost. For 2011, the std deduction for a single is $5,800. It's not just mortgage interest that's deductible, state income tax, realestate tax, and charitable contributions are among the other deductions. If this house is worth $350K, the property tax is about $5K, and since it's not optional, I'd be inclined to assume that it's the deduction that offsets the std deduction. Most states have an income tax, which tops off the rest. You are welcome to toss this aside as sophistry, but I view it as these other deductions as 'lost' first. I'm married, and our property tax is more than our standard deduction, so when doing the math, the mortgage is fully deductible, as are our contributions. In your case, the numbers may play out differently. No state tax? Great, so it's the property tax and deductions you'd add up first and decide on the value the mortgage deduction brings. Last, I don't have my mortgage for the deduction, I just believe that long term my other investments will exceed, after tax, the cost of that mortgage.","The IRS' primary reference Pub 519 Tax Guide for Aliens -- current year online (current and previous years downloadable in PDF from the Forms&Pubs section of the website) says NO: Students and business apprentices from India. A special rule applies .... You can claim the standard deduction .... Use Worksheet 5-1 to figure your standard deduction. If you are married and your spouse files a return and itemizes deductions, you cannot take the standard deduction. Note the last sentence, which is clearly an exception to the 'India rule', which is already an exception to the general rule that nonresident filers never get the standard deduction. Of course this is the IRS' interpretation of the law (which is defined to include ratified treaties); if you think they are wrong, you could claim the deduction anyway and when they assess the additional tax (and demand payment) take it to US Tax Court -- but I suspect the legal fees will cost you more than the marginal tax on $6300, even under Tax Court's simplified procedures for small cases.","No, if you are taking a loss solely and purely to reduce the tax you have to pay, then it is not a good strategy, in fact it is a very bad strategy, no matter what country you are in. No investment choice should be made solely due to your tax consequeses. If you are paying tax that means you made a profit, if you made a loss just to save some tax then you are loosing money. The whole point of investing is to make money not lose it.","They will include the rental income into the calculation. They don't give you a 100% credit for the income because they have to factor that you might have a gap between tenants. Years ago they only credited me with 66% of the expected monthly income. Example: This expense was then supposed to come from the 10% of my income that was allocated for monthly non-principal mortgage loans, e.g student loan, auto loan, credit card debt...","As noted above but with sources An improvement materially adds to the value of your home, considerably prolongs its useful life, or adapts it to new uses. You must add the cost of any improvements to the basis of your home. You cannot deduct these costs. Source Page 11, Adjusted Basis, Improvements Second, A repair keeps your home in an ordinary, efficient operating condition. It does not add to the value of your home or prolong its life. Repairs include repainting your home inside or outside, fixing your gutters or floors, fixing leaks or plastering, and replacing broken window panes. You cannot deduct repair costs and generally cannot add them to the basis of your home. Source Page 12, Adjusted Basis, Repairs versus improvements Generally, an expense for repairing or maintaining your rental property may be deducted if you are not required to capitalize the expense. You must capitalize any expense you pay to improve your rental property. An expense is for an improvement if it results in a betterment to your property, restores your property, or adapts your property to a new or different use. Source Page 5, Repairs and Improvements Good Luck,","To bring more clarity to the issue, Viriato will be entitle to deduct property tax depending upon whether he is claiming standard deduction (which varies on some factors including filling as married or single) or itemized deduction. If he is claiming, itemized deduction Example 1 is correct. Example 2 suffers from another mistake. He can get refund of only income tax portion of $5000 and not $5000.","If you itemize your deductions then the interest that you pay on your primary residence is tax deductible. Also realestate tax is also deductible. Both go on Schedule A. The car payment is not tax deductible. You will want to be careful about claiming business deduction for home or car. The IRS has very strict rules and if you have any personal use you can disqualify the deduction. For the car you often need to use the mileage reimbursement rates. If you use the car exclusively for work, then a lease may make more sense as you can expense the lease payment whereas with the car you need to follow the depreciation schedule. If you are looking to claim business expense of car or home, it would be a very good idea to get professional tax advice to ensure that you do not run afoul of the IRS.","I found the answer I was looking for. Even though I don't have any capital gains to offset, I can deduct up to $3,000 of that loss against other kinds of income, including salary.","You can always take deduction for foreign tax paid on Schedule A, or calculate foreign tax credit using form 1116. Credit is usually more beneficial, but in some cases you will be better of with a deduction. However, in very specific cases, you can claim the credit directly on your 1040 without using the form 1116. Look at the 1040 instructions for line 47: Exception. You do not have to complete Form 1116 to take this credit if all of the following apply. All of your foreign source gross income was from interest and dividends and all of that income and the foreign tax paid on it were reported to you on Form 1099-INT, Form 1099-DIV, or Schedule K-1 (or substitute statement). The total of your foreign taxes was not more than $300 (not more than $600 if married filing jointly). You held the stock or bonds on which the dividends or interest were paid for at least 16 days and were not obligated to pay these amounts to someone else. You are not filing Form 4563 or excluding income from sources within Puerto Rico. All of your foreign taxes were: Legally owed and not eligible for a refund or reduced tax rate under a tax treaty, and Paid to countries that are recognized by the United States and do not support terrorism. For more details on these requirements, see the Instructions for Form 1116.","\"I made an investing mistake many (eight?) years ago. Specifically, I invested a very large sum of money in a certain triple leveraged ETF (the asset has not yet been sold, but the value has decreased to maybe one 8th or 5th of the original amount). I thought the risk involved was the volatility--I didn't realize that due to the nature of the asset the value would be constantly decreasing towards zero! Anyhow, my question is what to do next? I would advise you to sell it ASAP. You didn't mention what ETF it is, but chances are you will continue to lose money. The complicating factor is that I have since moved out of the United States and am living abroad (i.e. Japan). I am permanent resident of my host country, I have a steady salary that is paid by a company incorporated in my host country, and pay taxes to the host government. I file a tax return to the U.S. Government each year, but all my income is excluded so I do not pay any taxes. In this way, I do not think that I can write anything off on my U.S. tax return. Also, I have absolutely no idea if I would be able to write off any losses on my Japanese tax return (I've entrusted all the family tax issues to my wife). Would this be possible? I can't answer this question but you seem to be looking for information on \"\"cross-border tax harvesting\"\". If Google doesn't yield useful results, I'd suggest you talk to an accountant who is familiar with the relevant tax codes. Are there any other available options (that would not involve having to tell my wife about the loss, which would be inevitable if I were to go the tax write-off route in Japan)? This is off topic but you should probably have an honest conversation with your wife regardless. If I continue to hold onto this asset the value will decrease lower and lower. Any suggestions as to what to do? See above: close your position ASAP For more information on the pitfalls of leveraged ETFs (FINRA) What happens if I hold longer than one trading day? While there may be trading and hedging strategies that justify holding these investments longer than a day, buy-and-hold investors with an intermediate or long-term time horizon should carefully consider whether these ETFs are appropriate for their portfolio. As discussed above, because leveraged and inverse ETFs reset each day, their performance can quickly diverge from the performance of the underlying index or benchmark. In other words, it is possible that you could suffer significant losses even if the long-term performance of the index showed a gain.\"","\"I think this is possible under very special conditions. The important part of the description here is probably retired and rich. The answers so far apply to people with \"\"normal\"\" incomes - both in the sense of \"\"not rich\"\" and in the sense of \"\"earned income.\"\" If you sit at the top tax bracket and get most of your income through things like dividends, then you might be able to win multiple ways with the strategy described. First you get the tax deduction on the mortgage interest, which everyone has properly noted is not by itself a winning game - You spend more than you save. BUT... There are other factors, especially for the rich and those whose income is mostly passive: I'm not motivated enough on the hypothetical situation to come up with a detailed example, but I think it's possible that this could work out. In any case, the current answers using \"\"normal sized\"\" incomes and middle tax brackets don't necessarily give the insight that you might hope if the tax payer really is unusually wealthy and retired.\"","\"Yes, this is a miscellaneous itemized deduction. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p529/ar02.html For this to impact your taxes, you have to be itemizing deductions (have total deductions greater than standard deduction), and the total of all miscellaneous deductions needs to exceed the \"\"2% floor\"\" described in the IRS link above.\"","\"Simple answer YES you can, there are loads here are some links : world first , Baydon Hill , IPF Just googling \"\"foreign currency mortgage\"\", \"\"international mortgage\"\", or \"\"overseas mortgage\"\" gets you loads of starting points. I believe its an established and well used process, and they would be \"\"classified\"\" as a \"\"normal\"\" mortgage. The process even has its own wiki page Incidentally I considered doing it myself. I looked into it briefly, but the cost of fee's seemed to outweigh the possible future benefits of lower interest rates and currency fluctuations.\"","\"While you'd need to pay tax if you realized a capital gain on the sale of your car, you generally can't deduct any loss arising from the sale of \"\"personal use property\"\". Cars are personal use property. Refer to Canada Revenue Agency – Personal-use property losses. Quote: [...] if you have a capital loss, you usually cannot deduct that loss when you calculate your income for the year. In addition, you cannot use the loss to decrease capital gains on other personal-use property. This is because if a property depreciates through personal use, the resulting loss on its disposition is a personal expense. There are some exceptions. Read up at the source links.\"","Ah, I did some more research and apparently Rental Income is considered Passive Income, and as such the IRS does not allow a net loss to exist, but you can carry the loss over into the next year. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc425.html Generally, losses from passive activities that exceed the income from passive activities are disallowed for the current year. You can carry forward disallowed passive losses to the next taxable year. A similar rule applies to credits from passive activities. So in the event in a loss on my rental business activity, I simply pay no tax on it, and deduct the remainder in income in 2017 from taxes. I don't make any changes to my Consulting income at all.","No, you cannot deduct it. There's no business substance in such a trip, it is your vacation, and as such cannot be claimed as an expense against the rental income. You may be able to deduct the coffee you buy for the meeting with the property manager while there, but there's no way you can justify a 7-10 days vacation with your whole family as an expense to maintain the rental property. Since you will only have less than 2 weeks personal use, you won't need to prorate expenses, so you have that at least.","Talk about coincidence, we just recieved letters from our bank saying that our interest only loans will be going up by 0.46% and if we want to keep our lower rate we will need to change early to P&I. Now our Interest only periods end in 6 months to about 16 months anyway. We have decided to change to P&I early and save on our interest expenses. Why? Because the main purpose of investing is to make money not to save on tax. Even if you are on the highest marginal tax rate for every extra dollar of expenses you spend and claim as a deduction you will only get about 50 cents back through tax savings. If you are on the lowest marginal tax rate your tax savings will reduce to less than 20 cents for every extra dollar spent. If you are investing in order to save on tax you may be investing for the wrong reasons. Your primary reason for investing should be to make money, for wealth creation. A good reason to stay with an Interest only loan for an investment property would be if you require the extra cash flow you would receive compared with an I&P loan.","\"No, you can't deduct any of that. What they're talking about is a flexible spending plan, otherwise known as \"\"Use it or lose it\"\" money. You choose to put pre-tax dollars into a restricted fund. This money is not taxed, in fact technically, it's not even income. You can only spend out of that fund to buy parking, tolls, transit tickets, things like that. Any money not used for those purposes in a suitable time period evaporates. Gone, and irrecoverable. You can't even take the loss as a tax deduction! You have to set this account up with your employer. You can't just dig up your old transit and parking receipts and stick those on your Schedule A. Take 3 people. As you can see, Fran is shooting herself in the foot. This is where these plans can go wrong.\"","In the US, mortgage payments are not deductible. What is deductible is the mortgage interest (to a limit). That, as well, is not deductible unconditionally, but rather as part of your itemized deductions on Schedule A of your yearly tax return. So if you're married and have a standard deduction of $12600 a year, live in a state with no state income tax, and your property tax and the mortgage interest are less than your standard deduction - you will not be getting any tax benefit whatsoever. That is, in fact, the case for many, if not majority, of the US mortgage payers. So in order to get a proper estimate, you need to take into account all the aspects of your tax calculations, which are by nature quite personal, and simulate the changes with the mortgage interest deduction. Most tax preparation software will allow you creating multiple files, so you can run the numbers for different scenarios.","Never borrow money to get a tax deduction. Even 18 months interest free is a stupid risk to save a few $ in taxes (we're talking $1K or less in tax savings from what I can tell in your questions).","If the UK is similar to Australia then you would not claim a virtual rent for the business portion but instead could claim a portion of the house expenses such as electricity use, property taxes, and yes a portion of the mortgage, and any repairs or renovations done to the work areas of the house. However, you should keep in mind that if you sell the place you may have to pay CGT on the portion you were claiming for business use.","This loss would be unrealized and, assuming you're a cash-basis tax-payer, you would not be able to take a loss on your 2014 tax return. This is similar to if you held a stock that lost 50% of its value. You wouldn't be able to claim this loss until you finally sold it. The link that User58220 posted may come into play if you converted your UAH back to USD.","If your parents were resident but not domiciled in the UK and were using the Remittance Basis in the year when they got the income or gains from which they're now lending you this money that could trigger UK income tax and or capital gains tax on the money the transfer to the UK whether to an account of their own or directly to your account. If they were non resident or using Arising Basis or it was UK income then this is not an issue.","In the US, you can only take a tax deduction on expenses to the extent that they offset income. For an S corp or LLC, if the business had no income, there's no deduction to take. If you have a sole proprietorship, these expenses can offset other income. You can also carry-forward net operating losses to future years when you have more income. See the article How to Carry Over Business Expenses","\"You need to do a bit more research and as @littleadv often wisely advises, consult a professional, in this case a tax layer or CPA. You are not allowed to just pull money out of a property and write off the interest. From Deducting Mortgage Interest FAQs If you own rental property and borrow against it to buy a home, the interest does not qualify as mortgage interest because the loan is not secured by the home itself. Interest paid on that loan can't be deducted as a rental expense either, because the funds were not used for the rental property. The interest expense is actually considered personal interest, which is no longer deductible. This is not exactly your situation of course, but it illustrates the restriction that will apply to you. Elsewhere in the article, it references how, if used for a business, the interest deduction still will not apply to the rental, but to the business via schedule C. In your case, it's worse, you can never deduct interest used to fund a tax free bond, or to invest in such a tax favored product. Putting the facts aside, I often use the line \"\"don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" Borrowing in order to reduce taxes is rarely a wise move. If you look at the interest on the 90K vs 290K, you'll see you are paying, in effect, 5.12% on the extra 200K, due the higher rate on the entire sum. Elsewhere on this board, there are members who would say that given the choice to invest or pay off a 4% mortgage, paying it off is guaranteed, and the wiser thing to do. I think there's a fine line and might not be so quick to pay that loan off, an after-tax 3% cost of borrowing is barely higher than inflation. But to borrow at over 5% to invest in an annuity product whose terms you didn't disclose, does seem right to me. Borrow to invest in the next property? That's another story.\"","No, if you are a nonresident alien, you cannot deduct sales tax. You can only deduct state income tax. 1040NR Schedule A (which is page 3 of 1040NR) does not contain an option for sales tax, like 1040 Schedule A does. If you are a resident alien, then you can deduct sales tax.","According to the answers to this question, you generally aren't taxed on gains until you sell the asset in question. None of those answered specifically for the U.K., so perhaps someone else will be able to weigh in on that. To apply those ideas to your question, yes your gains and losses are taxable. If you originally traded something worth $100 for the bitcoins, then when you converted back to dollars you received $200, you would have a $100 gain, simply on the foreign exchange trade. That is, this $100 of income is in addition to any income you made from your business (selling goods).","According to the IRS: To deduct a bad debt, you must show that: So if you fulfill the basic requirements, then generally yes, you can deduct them from your taxes. However, as always, please refer to a professional CPA for any final tax determinations.","\"You are pushing your luck, but not because you're not in the US, because it is likely that you're not qualified. From what you said, I doubt you can take it (I'm not a professional though, get a professional opinion). You say \"\"dedicated space\"\". It has to be an exclusive room. You cannot deduct 10 sq. ft. from your living room because your computer that is used wholly for your business is there. It has to be a room that is used exclusively for your business, and for your business only. I.e.: nothing not related to the business is there, and when you're there the only thing you do is working on your business. Your office doesn't have to be in the US necessarily, to the best of my knowledge. Your office must be in your home. If you take primary residence exclusion as part of your FEI, then I doubt you can deduct as well.\"","You must be rich. My condo was $98K. I paid about $2200 in mortgage interest last year. I opted to take the standard deduction instead. I make $80K a year and I cant even benefit from this deduction. It is really frustrating. I'm 30 with no kids and unmarried because I can't afford anything. Maybe when I'm 40 I can think about starting a family. If I'm lucky.","I'm very sorry to hear this. Did you ask the professional to put his advice in writing? At the very least, you can get him reprimanded or even have to make good on what his advice cost you. Professionals like him give bloggers like me a bad rap. In the end, a loss from sale of your home cannot offset any other gains. The gain from your home sale is often not taxable as up to $250k per person (for a couple) is excluded if you lived in the house for two of prior five years. By the way, where, exactly, did you read this? 'Everywhere' is pretty broad. I've been around for some time and never saw this particular incorrect assertion before.","Capital losses from the sale of stocks can be used to offset capital gains from the sale of a house, assuming that house was a rental property the whole time. If it was your principal residence, the capital gains are not taxed. If you used it as both a rental and a principal residence, then it gets more complicated: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/ncm-tx/rtrn/cmpltng/rprtng-ncm/lns101-170/127/rsdnc/menu-eng.html","You can claim a deduction only if all of your business is conducted from the home, i.e. your home is your principal place of business - not just if you work from home sometimes. The CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) has pretty strict guidelines listed here, but once you're sure you qualify for a deduction, the next step would be to determine what portion of your home qualifies. You cannot attempt to deduct your entire mortgage simply because you run your business out of your home. The portion of your mortgage and other related & allowable home expense deductions has to be pro-rated to be equal to or less than the portion of your home you use for business. Simply put, if your business is operated out of a 120 sq-ft self-contained space, and your home's total square-footage is 2400 sq-ft, you can deduct 5% of your expenses (120/2,400 = 0.05). Hope this helps!","Not sure about the UK, but if it were in the US you need to realize the expenses can be claimed as much as the income. After having a mild heart attack when I did my business taxes the first time many years ago, a Small Business Administration adviser pointed it out. You are running the site from a computer? Deductible on an amortization schedule. Do you work from home? Electricity can be deducted. Do you drive at all? Did you pay yourself a wage? Any paperwork, fax communications, bank fees that you had to endure as work expenses? I am not an accountant, but chances are you legally lost quite a bit more than you made in a new web venture. Discuss it with an accountant for the details and more importantly the laws in your country. I could be off my rocker.","The answer is simple. You can generally claim a deduction for an expense if that expense was used to derive an income. Most business expenses are used to derive profits and income, most individual expenses are not. Of course social policy sometimes gets in the way and allows for deductions where they usually wouldn't be allowed. Regarding the interest on a mortgage being deductible whilst the principal isn't, that is because it is the interest which is the annual expense. By the way deductions for mortgage interest in the USA for a house you live in is only allowed due to social policy, as there is no income (rent) being produced here, unlike with an investment property.","An issue with the initial plan was that the house was gifted to you. Therefore you owned it. Now two years later you wanted to get a mortgage. The IRS would look at it as a home equity debt not a home Acquisition debt, and the interest on the first $100,000 of home equity dept is deductible. This is from IRS pub 936 Mortgage treated as used to buy, build, or improve home. A mortgage secured by a qualified home may be treated as home acquisition debt, even if you do not actually use the proceeds to buy, build, or substantially improve the home. This applies in the following situations. You buy your home within 90 days before or after the date you take out the mortgage. The home acquisition debt is limited to the home's cost, plus the cost of any substantial improvements within the limit described below in (2) or (3). (See Example 1 later.) You build or improve your home and take out the mortgage before the work is completed. The home acquisition debt is limited to the amount of the expenses incurred within 24 months before the date of the mortgage. You build or improve your home and take out the mortgage within 90 days after the work is completed. The home acquisition debt is limited to the amount of the expenses incurred within the period beginning 24 months before the work is completed and ending on the date of the mortgage. (See Example 2 later.) Example 1. You bought your main home on June 3 for $175,000. You paid for the home with cash you got from the sale of your old home. On July 15, you took out a mortgage of $150,000 secured by your main home. You used the $150,000 to invest in stocks. You can treat the mortgage as taken out to buy your home because you bought the home within 90 days before you took out the mortgage. The entire mortgage qualifies as home acquisition debt because it was not more than the home's cost. At two years you would be way outside the 90 day limit. The pub also gives example on how calculate the amount of interest you can deduct.","IRS Publication 502: Medical expenses are the costs of diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, and the costs for treatments affecting any part or function of the body. Loan interest and fees do not meet this definition. Your loan interest and fees are a cost of the payment method you chose (a loan), not a cost of medical treatment. The IRS makes clear where loan interest is deductible. Publication 936 discusses home mortgage interest deductions, and Publication 970 specifically discusses student loan interest deductions. Considering Publication 502's definition of a medical expense, combined with the absence of a publication discussing medical expense loan interest deductions, one must conclude that medical loan interest and fees are not deductible.","Lending is not a charitable contribution. Its an investment. If the loan becomes a bad debt - you'll have to show that it had become a bad debt. For example - bankruptcy declaration. You'll have to show an arm's length transaction, for example - real intention to repay (evidenced by payments of principal and interest made). Otherwise if you have an intention for the loan to never be repaid, it is in fact a gift, which is not only not deductible - its taxable. Bottom line - be careful and talk to a EA/CPA to get a proper advice with regards to a specific transaction. Edit to answer your revised question: you're not going to pay taxes if you're not going to have gains. However, if you lose the principal, in addition to the said above you would incur the loss as a personal bad debt, and not business. This is because it is not investment. The difference is in tax treatment: personal bad debt is a short-term capital loss (limited deduction), business is an ordinary loss.","Yes, legitimate, documented, expenses are written off against that income.",">According to the IRS, penalties and fines are only non-deductible when they are paid for actual violations of laws/regulations. That's not quite correct. Section 162(f) says [bolding is mine]: >No deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) for any fine or similar penalty **paid to a government** for the violation of any law. That means they can only claim a deduction on the portion of the fine that isn't paid to the US government. I'm doing a little research to see if I can find out what the dealy-o is.","\"Assuming USA: It is possible to make the interest deductible if you go to the trouble of structuring, and filing, the loan as an actual mortgage on a primary residence. Websearching \"\"intra-family loan\"\" will find several firms which specialize in this. It costs about $700 for all the paperwork and filing fees as of last time I checked, so unless you're going to pay at least three times that in interest over the life of the loan it probably isn't worth considering. (For an additional fee they'll take care of the payment processing, if you'd really rather be hands-off about it.) I have no idea whether the paperwork fees and processing fees can be deducted from the interest as a cost of producing that income. In theory that ought to be true, but I Am Not A Lawyer. Or accountant. Note: one of the interesting factors here is that the IRS sets a minimum interest rate on intra-family loans. It's pretty low (around 0.3%), so in most cases you can say you gifted the difference if you'd prefer to charge less... but that does set a floor on what the IRS will expect the lender to declare, and pay taxes on. There's a lot more that can be said about this, but since I am NOT an expert I'll refer you to those who are. I have no affiliation with any of this except as a customer, once; it seemed pretty painless but I can't claim to know whether they were really handling everything exactly correctly. The website seemed to do a pretty good job of explaining what choices had to be made and their effects, as well as discussing how these can be used to avoid excess gift taxes by spreading the gift over a number of years.\"","\"ASSUMING you're talking about a property in the United States, the answer generally would be \"\"no\"\". You aren't actually paying any of the expenses for the property and yet you want to take the deductions for doing so? That's a rather cheeky move, I'd say! (grin) It probably would lead to some real strife with your brother, since he would have proper claim to those credit on the basis he's the one footing the bills for the property. Before you do anything like what you're talking about, it might be best to speak with him, because both of you are running the very real risk of an audit, and if that happens then I can guarantee the IRS will slap the daylights out of you for it. Your brother, I'm sure, is already claiming all of the deductions he can for what he's putting into the property, and on top of that you want to file for your half. What half are you referring to, when your out-of-pocket is zero? So what you're saying is, you think that between you and your brother you should be able to take a credit of 150% of the actual deductions...Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. I strongly encourage you to talk to a tax professional, but if you get a different answer to this than what I've already given then I'd be stunned. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"","Tax regulations vary from country to country - some permitting more deductions, some less - but here are a few guidelines. As regards the home-office: As regards the deductions: Think of it like this: in order to have space for a home-office you needed a bigger home. That leads to increased rates, heating, insurance and so on. Many tax regulators recognise that these are genuine expenses. The alternative is to rent a separate office and incur greater expenses, leading to increased deductions and less overall tax paid (which won't finance the deficit). The usual test for deductions is: was the expense legitimately incurred in the pursuit of revenue? The flexibility permitted will vary by tax authority but you can frequently deduct more than you expected.","lets sat If I buy a house on company's name, It will declared as expense and will deduct from profit. but I am not sure If I can rent it out as a IT LTD company. that's my questions. Buying a house is not an expense, it is a transfer of assets. The house itself, is an asset. So if you have $100,000 in cash, buy a house for $35,000, your total assets will remain the same ($100,000), but your asset mix will be different (instead of $100,000 in cash, you now have $65,000 in cash, and $35,000 in property). You can expense the costs associated with buying the house (e.g. taxes, interest, legal fees), but the house itself stays on the asset side of your balance sheet. To refine the example above, if you buy the house for $35,000, and pay $5,000 in misc fees related to purchasing the house, your assets are now $95,000 ($60,000 in cash, $35,000 in house): the $5,000 reduction is from the actual fees associated with the purchase. It is these fees that lower your profit. Being not familiar with UK rules, in Canada and the US, and likely the UK, you would then depreciate the house over its useful life. The depreciation expense is deducted from your annual net income. If you rent out the house, what you can do is expense any maintenance fees, taxes, etc., on the house itself. This expense will count as a negative towards the rental income, lowering your effective taxable income from the rental. E.g. rent out a flat at $1,000/month, but your property taxes are $3,500/year, so your net income for tax purposes (i.e. your taxable income in this case) is $12,000-$3,500=$8,500.","\"Yes, you may deduct the cost of building the \"\"noise cancellation system\"\" :) sorry couldn't resist. But seriously, yes you can deduct it ONCE (unless you have more cost maintaining it) and its on line 19 (Repairs and maintenance) of IRS Form 8829.\"","You are not the person or entity against whom the crime was committed, so the Casualty Loss (theft) deduction doesn't apply here. You should report this as a Capital Loss, the same way all of the Enron shareholders did in their 2001 tax returns. Your cost basis is whatever you originally paid for the shares. The final value is presumably zero. You can declare a maximum capital loss of $3000, so if your net capital loss for the year is greater than that, you'll have to carry over the remainder to the following years. IRS publication 547 states: Decline in market value of stock. You can't deduct as a theft loss the decline in market value of stock acquired on the open market for investment if the decline is caused by disclosure of accounting fraud or other illegal misconduct by the officers or directors of the corporation that issued the stock. However, you can deduct as a capital loss the loss you sustain when you sell or exchange the stock or the stock becomes completely worthless. You report a capital loss on Schedule D (Form 1040). For more information about stock sales, worthless stock, and capital losses, see chapter 4 of Pub. 550.","Well, if you were a business, and your food and rent and travel expenses were business expenses, and you paid out less money than you earned, you *would* get a refund. If you can prove that an expense is tax deductible, then that's just what it is. For businesses, a net operating loss is tax deductible.","non-resident aliens to the US do not pay capital gains on US products. You pay tax in your home country if you have done a taxable event in your country. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/nonusresidenttax.asp#axzz1mQDut9Ru but if you hold dividends, you are subject to US dividend tax. The UK-US treaty should touch on that though.","Once the business is shut down, you'll need to show that the corporation is in bankruptcy and the amounts are unrecoverable. You can then report it as investment loss. I suggest talking to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State), and maybe an attorney, on what the specific technical details are.","\"This change doesn't make a ton of sense to me. Interest is an expense. Expenses are deductible. Yes, there are loopholes, but no matter what happens there will be loopholes. Seems like any easy \"\"no\"\" vote. Sometimes it worries me that we have financially incompetent people in power.\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"About deducting mortgage interest: No, you can not deduct it unless it is qualified mortgage interest. \\\"\\\"Qualified mortgage interest is interest and points you pay on a loan secured by your main home or a second home.\\\"\\\" (Tax Topic 505). According to the IRS, \\\"\\\"if you rent out the residence, you must use it for more than 14 days or more than 10% of the number of days you rent it out, whichever is longer.\\\"\\\" Regarding being taxed on income received from the property, if you claim the foreign tax credit you will not be double taxed. According to the IRS, \\\"\\\"The foreign tax credit intends to reduce the double tax burden that would otherwise arise when foreign source income is taxed by both the United States and the foreign country from which the income is derived.\\\"\\\" (from IRS Topic 856 - Foreign Tax Credit) About property taxes: From my understanding, these cannot be claimed for the foreign tax credit but can be deducted as business expenses. There are various exceptions and stipulations based on your circumstance, so you need to read the official publications and get professional tax advice. Here's an excerpt from Publication 856 - Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals: \\\"\\\"In most cases, only foreign income taxes qualify for the foreign tax credit. Other taxes, such as foreign real and personal property taxes, do not qualify. But you may be able to deduct these other taxes even if you claim the foreign tax credit for foreign income taxes. In most cases, you can deduct these other taxes only if they are expenses incurred in a trade or business or in the production of income. However, you can deduct foreign real property taxes that are not trade or business expenses as an itemized deduction on Schedule A (Form 1040).\\\"\\\" Note and disclaimer: Sources: IRS Tax Topic 505 Interest Expense, IRS Real Estate (Taxes, Mortgage Interest, Points, Other Property Expenses) , IRS Topic 514 Foreign Tax Credit , and Publication 856 Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer nor a tax-expert This page on the HMRC site lists several pages that appear to be relevant, starting with CG78401 - Foreign currency: delayed remittances and on to CG78408 - Foreign currency: example which seems pertinent to your case [paraphrased]: A property bought in 1983 is sold for a [taxable] gain in one tax-year (1986/87) but the proceeds cannot be released/remitted to the UK until later (1991/92), by which time currency fluctuations have created a second [taxable] gain. The size of the first gain (selling the property) is determined by the exchange rate in effect at the time of the sale but because of local restrictions, this can be deferred. The size of the second gain (currency movement) is determined by the change in exchange-rate between the time of the sale and the time of conversion. In your case, the first \\\"\\\"gain\\\"\\\" was actually a loss, so I believe you should be able to use this to offset any tax due second gain. This page states that losses can be claimed up to four years after the end of the tax-year in which they were incurred, so you are probably still OK. (The example makes application under TCGA92/S279 to defer the gain made on the original sale [because of the inability to transfer funds], but as I understand it, this is primarily to avoid a tax liability in that year. Since you made a loss on the sale, there wouldn't have been a tax liability, so there would be no need to defer it).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Mortgage interest in Canada is not generally tax deductible for individuals. (Where did you read otherwise?) As an individual, the only mortgage interest you may be able to deduct is when you borrow the money to purchase an income-producing asset, e.g another property you can rent out, or investments producing dividends or other income. In these cases, the interest you pay on the borrowed funds, i.e. the \\\"\\\"carrying costs\\\"\\\" for your investments, would be deductible against the income produced by the investments purchased.\\\"\",\n \"The loan itself is not tax deductible; unless you took it as part of a mortgage, anyway, it's just a regular loan. Mortgage and Student Loan Interest deductions are special cases explicitly given tax-deductible status; other loans are not deductible (unless part of a business expense or other qualifying reason). If this were a short sale (which you note it was not but included for completeness' sake), and some of your debt was cancelled, that may have tax implications. You cannot take a capital loss on your personal residence, so the loss itself is not deductible.\",\n \"\\\"I would say similar rules apply in the US. If you have a net loss from rental property, you certainly can claim that loss against your personal income. There are various rules around this though that make it a bit less clear cut. If you are a \\\"\\\"real estate professional\\\"\\\", which basicly means you spend at least 750 hours per year working on your rental properties (or related activities), then all losses are deductible against any other ordinary income you have. If you aren't a \\\"\\\"real estate professional\\\"\\\", then your rental income is considered a \\\"\\\"passive activity\\\"\\\" and losses you can count against regular income are limited to $25,000 per year (with a carry-forward provision) and begin to phase out entirely if your income is between $100,000 and $150,000. So, the law here is structured to allow most small-time investors to take rental real estate losses against their ordinary income, but the income phase-out provision is designed to prevent the wealthy from using rental property losses to avoid taxation.\\\"\",\n \"For stocks, bonds, ETF funds and so on - Taxed only on realised gain and losses are deductible from the gain and not from company's income. Corporate tax is calculated only after all expenses have been deducted. Not the other way around. Real estate expenses can be deducted because of repairs and maintenance. In general all expenses related to the operation of the business can be deducted. But you cannot use expenses as willy nilly, as you assume. You cannot deduct your subscription to Playboy as an expense. Doing it is illegal and if caught, the tours to church will increase exponentially. VAT is only paid if you claim VAT on your invoices. Your situation seems quite complicated. I would suggest, get an accountant pronto. There are nuances in your situation, which an accountant only can understand and help.\",\n \"You cannot deduct. Even if you could, unless you also hold the mortgage, it's unlikely that you would have sufficient deductions to exceed the standard deduction for a married couple.\",\n \"Huh. It appears it's only currencies in sterling that are fully exempt. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-gains-manual/cg12602 Government manuals are more detailed than .gov but still not perfect as it's HMRCs interpretation of legislation and has been overturned in the past. There is also another (old) article here about foreign currency transactions. https://www.taxation.co.uk/articles/2010/10/27/21191/currency-gains I have never come across forex capital gains in practice but I've learnt something today! Something to look out for in the UK as well I guess.\",\n \"Very simple. If it wasn't rented, it's deductible as a schedule A home mortgage interest. If it was rented, you go into Schedule E land, still a deduction along with any/every expense incurred.\",\n \"If it's a rental, you will write off the losses via Schedule E. You should read this document and its instructions to understand this fully. You will also take depreciation on the value of the building, not the land, over 27.5 years. If you don't understand this, search here, there are discussions that cover this. If it's not a rental, but your home or second home, you take the interest and real estate tax off you tax via Schedule A, if you itemize. (I see the tag 'rental' but leave this line for sake of a complete answer.)\",\n \"\\\"The mortgage tax deduction can at most apply to two mortgages. IRS Publication 936 lays this out pretty clearly. There might be other deductions available if you are using the houses as a commercial entity, but that's more \\\"\\\"corporate taxes\\\"\\\" than \\\"\\\"personal taxes\\\"\\\". I know there are tax laws for dealing with interest, depreciation, capital expenses that businesses use.\\\"\",\n \"I am wondering weather it is worth it (how taxation works in this scenario ect.) or not and legally possible to do so ? Whether it is worth it or not is up to you. There's nothing illegal in this, unless of course there's a legal issue in the foreign country. The US doesn't care. Re taxes - it is a bit trickier. If your lender does not provide you with form 1098, you'll have to report the lender's name, address and SSN/ITIN on your tax return in order to claim a deduction. The IRS will then expect the lender to report that interest as income. This is US-sourced income and is taxed in the US despite the fact that the lender is non-resident. See here for more info. If the lender doesn't report the income and doesn't pay the taxes - your deduction may be denied as well for double-dipping. It is easier if this is an investment. Then the deduction is not going to Schedule A, but rather as an expense to Schedule E. The IRS may still require matching, but you won't need to report the SSN/ITIN - just have the expense properly documented. Obviously, the best when it comes to legal issues, is to talk to an attorney licensed in the State in question. Similarly with tax questions - you should talk to a EA/CPA licensed in that State. I'm neither.\",\n \"Yes, you can deduct from your taxable profits (almost) any expenses incurred in the course of your business. See here for HMRC's detailed advice on the subject. The fact that you have salaried PAYE employment as well makes no difference.\",\n \"Generally speaking, if a business loses money for whatever reason, then that reduces the profits of the business which reduces the tax payable. However if you were holding the assets on a personal basis prior to incorporating the business, the position may become more complicated. For that kind of money some professional advice may be worthwhile.\",\n \"Since you say the money was invested in a corporation that would lead me to believe you mean a stock purchase. Stock losses can be treated as a tax exemption filed as a capital loss. http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/Cutyourtaxes/P33438.asp http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2006-03-10-capital-losses_x.htm Canada has slightly more restrictions on how this can be done. http://www.taxtips.ca/filing/capitallosses.htm\",\n \"No. And I'll let my good friend and fellow blogger Kay Bell answer in some detail, in her article Deducting private mortgage insurance.\",\n \"I spoke to HMRC and they said #1 is not allowable but #2 is. They suggested using either their published exchange rates or I could use another source. I suggested the Bank of England spot rates and that was deemed reasonable and allowable.\",\n \"The relevant IRS publication is pub 463. Note that there are various conditions and exceptions, but it all starts with business necessity. Is it necessary for you to work from the UK? If you're working from the UK because you wanted to take a vacation, but still have to work, and would do the same work without being in the UK - then you cannot deduct travel expenses. It sounds to me like this is the case here.\",\n \"\\\"DirectGov has a good overview here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_4017814 and answers to your specific questions here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_10013435 In short, you do need to declare the rental income on your tax return and will need to pay tax on it (and note that only the mortgage interest (not the full repayment) is deductible as an \\\"\\\"allowable expense\\\"\\\", see the full list of what is deductible here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_10014027 ).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"As long as the losing business is not considered \\\"\\\"passive activity\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"hobby\\\"\\\", then yes. Passive Activity is an activity where you do not have to actively do anything to generate income. For example - royalties or rentals. Hobby is an activity that doesn't generate profit. Generally, if your business doesn't consistently generate profit (the IRS looks at 3 out of the last 5 years), it may be characterized as hobby. For hobby, loss deduction is limited by the hobby income and the 2% AGI threshold.\\\"\",\n \"The rental income is indeed taxable income, but you reduce the taxable portion of it by deducting expenses (including mortgage interest, maintenance, insurance, HOA, real estate tax, and of course depreciation). Due to the depreciation, you may end up breaking even, or having very little taxable income. Note that when you sell the property, your basis is reduced by the depreciation you were allowed to deduct (even if you haven't deducted it for whatever reason), and also the personal residence exclusion might no longer be applicable - i.e.: you'll have to pay capital gains tax. You will not be able to deduct a loss though if you sell now, so it may be better to depreciate it as a rental, rather then sell at a loss that won't affect your taxes. Also, consider the fact that the basis for the depreciation is not the basis you currently have in the property (because you're under water). You have to remember that when calculating the taxes. This is not a tax advice, and you should seek a professional help.\",\n \"If you buy foreign currency as an investment, then the gains are ordinary income. The gains are realized when you close the position, and whether you buy something else go back to the original form of investment is of no consequence. In case #1 you have $125 income. In case #2 you have $125 income. In case #3 you have $166 loss. You report all these items on your Schedule D. Make sure to calculate the tax correctly, since the tax is not capital gains tax but rather ordinary income at marginal rates. Changes in foreign exchange between a transaction and the conversion of the proceeds to USD are generally not considered as income (i.e.: You sold a property in Mexico, but since the money took a couple of days to clear, the exchange rate changed and you got $2K more/less than you would based on the exchange rate on the day of the transaction - this is not a taxable income/loss). This is covered by the IRC Sec. 988. There are additional rules for contracts on foreign currency, TTM rules, etc. Better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for anything other than trivial.\",\n \"The interest on a loan secured by a rental property is not deductible at all. The interest on a loan used to buy (or improve) the rental property is deductible, regardless of where you got it from (you can take money from your credit card to buy a rental - it will be deductible). The deductability is per the use of the money, not the source, with the cash-out up to 100K from your primary residence being the notable exception.\",\n \"To answer some parts of the question which are answerable as-is: Yes, mortgage interest is deductible. So is depreciation. See this question and others. It would be a good idea to put some money away for tax season, just as you should save some money to cover unexpected property expenses. But as @JoeTaxpayer says, this is a good problem to have, assuming you own the property, it's low-maintenance, your tenant is good, and your rent is at market levels.\",\n \"If this was a public corporation (stock) and the investment was made in a non-registered account, then you can claim a capital loss. Capital losses are claimed against capital gains (not income), and can be carried back 3 years or carried forward indefinitely. Here's an article I've written on how to claim capital losses that may help.\",\n \"Any deductable expense will reduce your taxable income not your tax payable. Your Example 1 above is correct and gives you 100% deduction. It is like having a business where your sales are $100,000 and your expenses in making the sales is $40,000. The expenses are your tax deductions and reduce your profits on which you pay tax on to $60,000. If your Example 2 was correct then the situation above would change that you would pay say $30,000 tax on $100,000 sales, then apply your deductions (or expenses) of $40,000 so that you would pay no tax at all and in fact get $10,000 back in your return. In this case the government would not be collecting any taxes but paying out returns to everyone. Your Example 2 is absolutly incorrect.\",\n \"http://www.irs.gov/publications/p936/ar02.html#en_US_2010_publink1000229891 If you still own it, you get to deduct all of it. In my taxes I did online with TaxAct, it asked if I lived there or not and it just mattered which form it filed for me. With having tenants it was a 'business' form and I assume it would be a standard schedule A for personal. Either way the deductions are still mine to take.\",\n \"if you open spreadbetting accounts and prove to the inland revenue that trading profits are not your main income, you will not be liable for any tax on your gains. Holding a property in the uk which is point of call for any held bank accounts needs to be verifiable though. This is only an issue if accounts are larger than £400k. seems anything smaller doesnt get the sniffer dogs attention at the IR dept.\",\n \"Should I treat this house as a second home or a rental property on my 2015 taxes? If it was not rented out or available for rent then you could treat it as your second home. But if it was available for rent (i.e.: you started advertising, you hired a property manager, or made any other step towards renting it out), but you just didn't happen to find a tenant yet - then you cannot. So it depends on the facts and circumstances. I've read that if I treat this house as a rental property, then the renovation cost is a capital expenditure that I can claim on my taxes by depreciating it over 28 years. That is correct. 27.5 years, to be exact. I've also read that if I treat this house as a personal second home, then I cannot do that because the renovation costs are considered non-deductible personal expenses. That is not correct. In fact, in both cases the treatment is the same. Renovation costs are added to your basis. In case of rental, you get to depreciate the house. Since renovations are considered part of the house, you get to depreciate them too. In case of a personal use property, you cannot depreciate. But the renovation costs still get added to the basis. These are not expenses. But does mortgage interest get deducted against my total income or only my rental income? If it is a personal use second home - you get to deduct the mortgage interest up to a limit on your Schedule A. Depending on your other deductions, you may or may not have a tax benefit. If it is a rental - the interest is deducted from the rental income only on your Schedule E. However, there's no limit (although some may be deferred if the deduction is more than the income) if you're renting at fair market value. Any guidance would be much appreciated! Here's the guidance: if it is a rental - treat it as a rental. Otherwise - don't.\",\n \"According to page 107 of the instructions for schedule A for form 1040 : Include taxes (state, local, or foreign) paid on real estate you own that was not used for business. ... If you want to make a business out of her property and be her agent in the management, you might be able to work with an accountant on this, but it won't be a valid personal deduction.\",\n \"Yes, you can. That the books were purchased from abroad is irrelevant: you incurred an expense in the course of earning your income. If the books are expensive (>$300 per set iirc) you will need to deprecate them over a reasonable life time rather than claiming the entire amount up front. It doesn't matter whether what you got was a VAT Invoice; as long as you have some reasonable documentation of the expense you're ok.\",\n \"\\\"If your friend is loaning you KRW which you are then converting to USD, then there are tax implications. This would be a Section 988 transaction so \\\"\\\"gains\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"losses\\\"\\\" made during repayment (partial or complete) due to fluctuations in exchange rate would be treated as ordinary gains or losses. For example, imagine you borrow 100,000 KRW and, at the time you borrow it, this is worth exactly 100,000 USD. At some future point, you repay 20,000 KRW. If the exchange rate at that point is such that 20,000 KRW is worth 15,000 USD, then the IRS sees that you have \\\"\\\"gained\\\"\\\" 5,000 USD in ordinary income. This is a particular concern if the loan is a mortgage and you refinance the mortgage at a moment in time with a more \\\"\\\"favorable\\\"\\\" exchange rate than the exchange rate when you first got the mortgage. See http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/section-988.asp for some additional discussion.\\\"\",\n \"Am I eligible for the tax exemption if yes then under which section. Generally Personal loans are not eligible for tax exemption. Only housing loans from qualified institutions are eligible for tax deduction. As per the income tax act; The house should be in your name. The home loans taken from recognised institutions are fully qualified under section 24B and 80C. This means you can claim Interest exemption under 24B and Principal repayment under 80C. The Act also specifies that loan can be taken from friends/relatives for construction of property and will be eligible for Interest exemption under 24B only. The principal will not be eligible for exemption under 80C. Read the FAQ from Income Tax India. There has to be certificate showing how much interest was paid on the said loan. Further there should be records/receipts on how the money was spent. There is difference of opinion amongst CA. It is best you take a professional advise.\",\n \"\\\"Since you did not treat the house as a QBU, you have to use USD as your functional currency. To calculate capital gains, you need to calculate the USD value at the time of purchase using the exchange rate at the time of purchase and the USD value at the time of sale using the exchange rate at the time of sale. The capital gain / loss is then the difference between the two. This link describes it in more detail and provides some references: http://www.maximadvisors.com/2013/06/foreign-residence/ That link also discusses additional potential complications if you have a mortgage on the house. This link gives more detail on the court case referenced in the above link: http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs5/93F3d26.html The court cases references Rev. Rul 54-105. This link from the IRS has some details from that (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0303021.pdf): Rev. Rul. 54-105, 1954-1 C.B. 12, states that for purposes of determining gain, the basis and selling price of property acquired by a U.S. citizen living in a foreign country should be expressed in United States dollars at the rates of exchange prevailing as of the dates of purchase and sale of the property, respectively. The text of this implies it is for U.S. citizen is living in a foreign country, but the court case makes it clear that it also applies in your scenario (house purchased while living abroad but now residing in the US): Appellants agree that the 453,374 pounds received for their residence should be translated into U.S. dollars at the $1.82 exchange rate prevailing at the date of sale. They argue, however, that the 343,147 pound adjusted cost basis of the residence, consisting of the 297,500 pound purchase price and the 45,647 pounds paid for capital improvements, likewise should be expressed in U.S. dollar terms as of the date of the sale. Appellants correctly state that, viewed “in the foreign currency in which it was transacted,” the purchase generated a 110,227 pound gain as of the date of the sale, which translates to approximately $200,000 at the $1.82 per pound exchange rate. ... However fair and reasonable their argument may be, it amounts to an untenable attempt to convert their “functional currency” from the U.S. dollar to the pound sterling. ... Under I.R.C. § 985(b)(1), use of a functional currency other than the U.S. dollar is restricted to qualified business units (\\\"\\\"QBU\\\"\\\"s). ... appellants correctly assert that their residence was purchased “for a pound-denominated value” while they were “living and working in a pound-denominated economy,” ... And since appellants concede that the purchase and sale of their residence was not carried out by a QBU, the district court properly rejected their plea to treat the pound as their functional currency.\\\"\",\n \"I would not expect any problems. Your interest will have tax deducted at 20% which I don't think you would be entitled to reclaim because you don't get a personal allowance if you aren't resident in the UK, and unless you have a huge amount of UK earnings you would not be legally liable to any higher rates of tax so there would be no issues there. If you were liable to more tax you would be obliged to inform the Inland Revenue.\",\n \"You should speak to a good tax adviser. The less documentation you have the more problems IRS are going to cause you. Generally you can deduct business losses (in the year they occurred, which is 2011), but you have to show that that was a valid business, not just a way to reduce your tax bill with personal expenses. Thus lack of documentation reduces your ability to prove that you're entitled to the deduction. The burden of proof is generally on you. You can not deduct it from 2012 taxes, but you can still amend 2011. Keep in mind though that amended returns have higher chance of audit, and a significant business loss on a business that only existed that year is a major red flag which will raise the probability of an audit to very high percentage. Theoretically, if the business was real and just failed - you can definitely deduct this. But practically, lack of documentation may cause too big a problem, and a tax adviser might suggest you giving it up if he doesn't think you have a real chance to convince the IRS. Definitely don't do that without a professional advice. It is worth fighting for, its quite a loss, but don't do it on your own as you will definitely lose.\",\n \"I can't see how you can deduct your mother's loss. The money was not stolen from you, and you gave money to your mother of your own free will and with full intention of the money to be used by her as she wishes. Moving money from your own account to a joint account allowing the joint holder to use it - is akin to giving the money directly to the joint holder, i.e.: in your case, giving a gift to your mother.\",\n \"In some circumstances losses from self-employment can be offset against total income and/or capital gains. If this applies to you may be able to claim back some of the tax taken by PAYE from your day job. You can also to some extent carry the loss backwards into previous tax years or forward into the next one if you can't use it fully this year. HMRC have some information available on the current rules: When you can claim losses You can claim: But You can’t claim:\",\n \"A non-resident alien is only allowed for deductions connected to producing a US-sourced income (See IRC Sec. 873). Thus you can only deduct things that qualify as business expenses, and State taxes on your wages. In addition you can deduct a bunch of stuff explicitly allowed (like tax preparation, charitable contributions, casualty losses, etc) but sales tax is not in that list.\",\n \"Keep in mind, when talking about other deductions, such as mortgage interest, you need to look at your overall situation and whether the taxpayer is near the standard deduction amount. For some, their interest deduction and property tax are below the standard deduction, and therefore, they'd not itemize.\",\n \"Here is the technical guidance from the accounting standard FRS 23 (IAS 21) 'The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates' which states: Exchange differences arising on the settlement of monetary items or on translating monetary items at rates different from those at which they were translated on initial recognition during the period or in previous financial statements shall be recognised in profit or loss in the period in which they arise. An example: You agree to sell a product for $100 to a customer at a certain date. You would record the sale of this product on that date at $100, converted at the current FX rate (lets say £1:$1 for ease) in your profit loss account as £100. The customer then pays you several $100 days later, at which point the FX rate has fallen to £0.5:$1 and you only receive £50. You would then have a realised loss of £50 due to exchange differences, and this is charged to your profit and loss account as a cost. Due to double entry bookkeeping the profit/loss on the FX difference is needed to balance the journals of the transaction. I think there is a little confusion as to what constitutes a (realised) profit/loss on exchange difference. In the example in your question, you are not making any loss when you convert the bitcoins to dollars, as there is no difference in the exchange rate between the point you convert them. Therefore you have not made either a profit or a loss. In terms of how this effects your tax position; you only pay tax on your profit and loss account. The example I give above is an instance where an exchange difference is recorded to the P&L. In your example, the value of your cash held is reflected in your balance sheet, as an asset, whatever its value is at the balance sheet date. Unfortunately, the value of the asset can rise/fall, but the only time where you will record a profit/loss on this (and therefore have an impact on tax) is if you sell the asset.\",\n \"Let me restate question for clarity. Facts: Question: Are there any taxes for this transaction? Answer: (Added improvements provided by Eric) Generally No. Generally, it is not considered income until you sell and the sale price is greater than the purchase price. But with currency differences, there is an additional complication, section 988 rules apply. It could result in ordinary income or loss.\",\n \"\\\"The likely reason the mortgage is \\\"\\\"tricky to get\\\"\\\" is the adviser is probably recommending an interest-only mortgage in which there is no repayment of principle before maturity. That would allow you to deduct the amount of the interest expense from your taxable income. Your investment grows compound tax deferred and the principal invested (the mortgage balance) is completely tax free since it never qualifies as income for tax purposes. Example ideal scenario: Refinance $100,000 on a 5/1 ARM-interest only at 3%. Invest the $100,000 at 6%. Each year you effectively pay taxes on only the gains greater than interest. If you reinvest the profits it looks something like: Net Profit: $12,309 Effective Tax Rate: 13.21%\\\"\",\n \"\\\"http://www.investopedia.com/articles/mortgages-real-estate/08/tax-deductible-mortgage-canada.asp > This strategy is not for everyone. Borrowing against your home is psychologically difficult, and if the investments don't yield expected returns, this strategy could yield negative results. By re-borrowing the equity in your home, you are also removing your \\\"\\\"cushion\\\"\\\" of safety if the real estate (or investment) markets take a turn for the worse. By creating an income-producing portfolio in an unregistered account, there can also be additional tax consequences - so always consult with a professional financial advisor to determine whether this strategy is for you, and if it is, have it tailor-made to you and your family's personal financial situation.\\\"\",\n \"In theory, when you obtained ownership of your USD cash as a Canadian resident [*resident for tax purposes, which is generally a quicker timeline than being resident for immigration purposes], it is considered to have been obtained by you for the CAD equivalent on that date. For example if you immigrated on Dec 31, 2016 and carried $10k USD with you, when the rate was ~1.35, then Canada deems you to have arrived with $13.5k CAD. If you converted that CAD to USD when the rate was 1.39, you would have received 13.9k CAD, [a gain of $400 to show as income on your tax return]. Receiving the foreign inheritances is a little more complex; those items when received may or may not have been taxable on that day. However whether or not they were taxable, you would calculate a further gain as above, if the fx rate gave you more CAD when you ultimately converted it. If the rate went the other way and you lost CAD-value, you may or may not be able to claim a loss. If it was a small loss, I wouldn't bother trying to claim it due to hassle. If it's a large loss, I would be very sure to research thoroughly before claiming, because something like that probably has a high chance of being audited.\",\n \"\\\"This article on the landlord website Property118.com shows a simple example, demonstrating that a private landlord with a mortgage could see a huge jump in their effective tax rate (in this case, from 18% to 67% by 2020), while a corporate landlord will see no change at all. There's also a link in that article to a detailed report which is highly critical of the tax changes. The government obviously take a different view! (See here for more worked examples of how the tax changes will be applied). More information can be found on this on various landlord sites. A key phrase to look for is \\\"\\\"section 24\\\"\\\", referring to the section of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015 which implements the change. Note that this change only applies to private landlords (i.e. those who own a property personally, rather than through a company), and who have a mortgage on the property, and who (after the new calculations) are higher or additional rate taxpayers.\\\"\",\n \"This doesn't sound very legal to me. Real estate losses cannot generally be deducted unless you have other real estate income. So the only case when this would work is when that person has bunch of other buildings that do produce income, and he reduces that income, for tax purposes, by deducting the expenses/depreciation/taxes for the buildings that do not. However, depreciation doesn't really reduce taxes, only defers them to the sale. As mhoran_psprep said - all the rest of the expenses will be minimal.\",\n \"\\\"Can I claim a 20% of the interest paid over the period of Oct/2015 through Mar/2017 (18 months) when I file for IT returns this year in Mar/2017? Yes you can. Does my name not being the first name affect my eligibility of claiming the relief? No you can claim relief. Joint owners need to file a declaration on the quantum of relief claimed. Both can't claim 100%. Does that mean I my claiming the 20% relief on interest (and the remaining 80% over subsequent years) is in effect moot as my \\\"\\\"taxable\\\"\\\" income cannot go negative (meaning the govt cannot/will not return some money I have paid as IT in prior years)? If you have no other income on which tax is payable; then Yes it is irrelevant. Does that mean as long as I continue to work in the US (already having become a NRI), have little or no income in India, I cannot claim any future relief regarding the principal or interest? Yes that is right.\\\"\",\n \"If you are using the money to invest in a property (even abroad) then you can claim tax exemption. while some people will tell you that the reinvestment should be in India only, it have been ruled that the property can be purchased abroad too..\",\n \"If you take the statement you quote as stated, it is indeed absurd. Unless you have a really creative tax accountant or live in a country with very unusual tax laws, any tax deduction you get for mortgage interest is going to be less than the interest. You don't come out ahead by getting a $25 deduction if you had a $100 expense to get that deduction. Where there can be some sense behind such a statement is if you consider the alternative to paying cash for a house or making extra payments against a mortgage. If you had $100,000 in cash in a box under your bed, and the choice is between, (a) use that $100,000 to buy a house in cash, or (b) borrow $100,000 at 6% interest and leave that cash in the box under the bed, than clearly (a) is the better choice because it saves you the interest expense. But if the choice is between, (a) buy a house for $100,000 in cash and borrow $100,000 at 6% to buy a car; or (b) borrow $100,000 at 6% interest to buy a house and use the $100,000 cash to buy the car, (b) is the better choice. The home mortgage loan is tax deductible; the car loan is not. As others have pointed out, if instead of using some extra cash to pay down the principle on your mortgage you used that money to invest in the stock market, it is likely that you would get better returns on the investment than what you would have saved in interest on the mortgage -- depending, of course, on how the market is doing and how well you pick stocks. But the key issue there isn't the tax deduction, it's the comparison of the profits from the investment versus the opportunity cost of the money that could have been saved on the mortgage interest. The tax deduction affects that comparison by effectively reducing the interest rate on the mortgage -- your real interest expense is the nominal interest minus the deduction -- but that's not the key point, just another number to plug in to the formula. By the way, given the complexity of U.S. tax law, I would not rule out the possibility that there could be some scenario where you really would save money by having mortgage interest. There are lots of deductions and credits that are phased out or eliminated as your income goes up. Perhaps you could find some set of tax laws that apply to you such that having an additional $1000 in interest expense lets you take a $300 deduction here and a $500 credit there, etc, and they add up to more than $1000. I don't know if that could actually happen, but the rules are complicated enough that, maybe. Any tax accountants here who can come up with such a scenario?\",\n \"Those choices aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, most discussion of the mortgage interest deduction ignores the fact that for a standard itemizer, much, if not all of this deduction can be lost. For 2011, the std deduction for a single is $5,800. It's not just mortgage interest that's deductible, state income tax, realestate tax, and charitable contributions are among the other deductions. If this house is worth $350K, the property tax is about $5K, and since it's not optional, I'd be inclined to assume that it's the deduction that offsets the std deduction. Most states have an income tax, which tops off the rest. You are welcome to toss this aside as sophistry, but I view it as these other deductions as 'lost' first. I'm married, and our property tax is more than our standard deduction, so when doing the math, the mortgage is fully deductible, as are our contributions. In your case, the numbers may play out differently. No state tax? Great, so it's the property tax and deductions you'd add up first and decide on the value the mortgage deduction brings. Last, I don't have my mortgage for the deduction, I just believe that long term my other investments will exceed, after tax, the cost of that mortgage.\",\n \"The IRS' primary reference Pub 519 Tax Guide for Aliens -- current year online (current and previous years downloadable in PDF from the Forms&Pubs section of the website) says NO: Students and business apprentices from India. A special rule applies .... You can claim the standard deduction .... Use Worksheet 5-1 to figure your standard deduction. If you are married and your spouse files a return and itemizes deductions, you cannot take the standard deduction. Note the last sentence, which is clearly an exception to the 'India rule', which is already an exception to the general rule that nonresident filers never get the standard deduction. Of course this is the IRS' interpretation of the law (which is defined to include ratified treaties); if you think they are wrong, you could claim the deduction anyway and when they assess the additional tax (and demand payment) take it to US Tax Court -- but I suspect the legal fees will cost you more than the marginal tax on $6300, even under Tax Court's simplified procedures for small cases.\",\n \"No, if you are taking a loss solely and purely to reduce the tax you have to pay, then it is not a good strategy, in fact it is a very bad strategy, no matter what country you are in. No investment choice should be made solely due to your tax consequeses. If you are paying tax that means you made a profit, if you made a loss just to save some tax then you are loosing money. The whole point of investing is to make money not lose it.\",\n \"They will include the rental income into the calculation. They don't give you a 100% credit for the income because they have to factor that you might have a gap between tenants. Years ago they only credited me with 66% of the expected monthly income. Example: This expense was then supposed to come from the 10% of my income that was allocated for monthly non-principal mortgage loans, e.g student loan, auto loan, credit card debt...\",\n \"As noted above but with sources An improvement materially adds to the value of your home, considerably prolongs its useful life, or adapts it to new uses. You must add the cost of any improvements to the basis of your home. You cannot deduct these costs. Source Page 11, Adjusted Basis, Improvements Second, A repair keeps your home in an ordinary, efficient operating condition. It does not add to the value of your home or prolong its life. Repairs include repainting your home inside or outside, fixing your gutters or floors, fixing leaks or plastering, and replacing broken window panes. You cannot deduct repair costs and generally cannot add them to the basis of your home. Source Page 12, Adjusted Basis, Repairs versus improvements Generally, an expense for repairing or maintaining your rental property may be deducted if you are not required to capitalize the expense. You must capitalize any expense you pay to improve your rental property. An expense is for an improvement if it results in a betterment to your property, restores your property, or adapts your property to a new or different use. Source Page 5, Repairs and Improvements Good Luck,\",\n \"To bring more clarity to the issue, Viriato will be entitle to deduct property tax depending upon whether he is claiming standard deduction (which varies on some factors including filling as married or single) or itemized deduction. If he is claiming, itemized deduction Example 1 is correct. Example 2 suffers from another mistake. He can get refund of only income tax portion of $5000 and not $5000.\",\n \"If you itemize your deductions then the interest that you pay on your primary residence is tax deductible. Also realestate tax is also deductible. Both go on Schedule A. The car payment is not tax deductible. You will want to be careful about claiming business deduction for home or car. The IRS has very strict rules and if you have any personal use you can disqualify the deduction. For the car you often need to use the mileage reimbursement rates. If you use the car exclusively for work, then a lease may make more sense as you can expense the lease payment whereas with the car you need to follow the depreciation schedule. If you are looking to claim business expense of car or home, it would be a very good idea to get professional tax advice to ensure that you do not run afoul of the IRS.\",\n \"I found the answer I was looking for. Even though I don't have any capital gains to offset, I can deduct up to $3,000 of that loss against other kinds of income, including salary.\",\n \"You can always take deduction for foreign tax paid on Schedule A, or calculate foreign tax credit using form 1116. Credit is usually more beneficial, but in some cases you will be better of with a deduction. However, in very specific cases, you can claim the credit directly on your 1040 without using the form 1116. Look at the 1040 instructions for line 47: Exception. You do not have to complete Form 1116 to take this credit if all of the following apply. All of your foreign source gross income was from interest and dividends and all of that income and the foreign tax paid on it were reported to you on Form 1099-INT, Form 1099-DIV, or Schedule K-1 (or substitute statement). The total of your foreign taxes was not more than $300 (not more than $600 if married filing jointly). You held the stock or bonds on which the dividends or interest were paid for at least 16 days and were not obligated to pay these amounts to someone else. You are not filing Form 4563 or excluding income from sources within Puerto Rico. All of your foreign taxes were: Legally owed and not eligible for a refund or reduced tax rate under a tax treaty, and Paid to countries that are recognized by the United States and do not support terrorism. For more details on these requirements, see the Instructions for Form 1116.\",\n \"\\\"I made an investing mistake many (eight?) years ago. Specifically, I invested a very large sum of money in a certain triple leveraged ETF (the asset has not yet been sold, but the value has decreased to maybe one 8th or 5th of the original amount). I thought the risk involved was the volatility--I didn't realize that due to the nature of the asset the value would be constantly decreasing towards zero! Anyhow, my question is what to do next? I would advise you to sell it ASAP. You didn't mention what ETF it is, but chances are you will continue to lose money. The complicating factor is that I have since moved out of the United States and am living abroad (i.e. Japan). I am permanent resident of my host country, I have a steady salary that is paid by a company incorporated in my host country, and pay taxes to the host government. I file a tax return to the U.S. Government each year, but all my income is excluded so I do not pay any taxes. In this way, I do not think that I can write anything off on my U.S. tax return. Also, I have absolutely no idea if I would be able to write off any losses on my Japanese tax return (I've entrusted all the family tax issues to my wife). Would this be possible? I can't answer this question but you seem to be looking for information on \\\"\\\"cross-border tax harvesting\\\"\\\". If Google doesn't yield useful results, I'd suggest you talk to an accountant who is familiar with the relevant tax codes. Are there any other available options (that would not involve having to tell my wife about the loss, which would be inevitable if I were to go the tax write-off route in Japan)? This is off topic but you should probably have an honest conversation with your wife regardless. If I continue to hold onto this asset the value will decrease lower and lower. Any suggestions as to what to do? See above: close your position ASAP For more information on the pitfalls of leveraged ETFs (FINRA) What happens if I hold longer than one trading day? While there may be trading and hedging strategies that justify holding these investments longer than a day, buy-and-hold investors with an intermediate or long-term time horizon should carefully consider whether these ETFs are appropriate for their portfolio. As discussed above, because leveraged and inverse ETFs reset each day, their performance can quickly diverge from the performance of the underlying index or benchmark. In other words, it is possible that you could suffer significant losses even if the long-term performance of the index showed a gain.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I think this is possible under very special conditions. The important part of the description here is probably retired and rich. The answers so far apply to people with \\\"\\\"normal\\\"\\\" incomes - both in the sense of \\\"\\\"not rich\\\"\\\" and in the sense of \\\"\\\"earned income.\\\"\\\" If you sit at the top tax bracket and get most of your income through things like dividends, then you might be able to win multiple ways with the strategy described. First you get the tax deduction on the mortgage interest, which everyone has properly noted is not by itself a winning game - You spend more than you save. BUT... There are other factors, especially for the rich and those whose income is mostly passive: I'm not motivated enough on the hypothetical situation to come up with a detailed example, but I think it's possible that this could work out. In any case, the current answers using \\\"\\\"normal sized\\\"\\\" incomes and middle tax brackets don't necessarily give the insight that you might hope if the tax payer really is unusually wealthy and retired.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Yes, this is a miscellaneous itemized deduction. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p529/ar02.html For this to impact your taxes, you have to be itemizing deductions (have total deductions greater than standard deduction), and the total of all miscellaneous deductions needs to exceed the \\\"\\\"2% floor\\\"\\\" described in the IRS link above.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Simple answer YES you can, there are loads here are some links : world first , Baydon Hill , IPF Just googling \\\"\\\"foreign currency mortgage\\\"\\\", \\\"\\\"international mortgage\\\"\\\", or \\\"\\\"overseas mortgage\\\"\\\" gets you loads of starting points. I believe its an established and well used process, and they would be \\\"\\\"classified\\\"\\\" as a \\\"\\\"normal\\\"\\\" mortgage. The process even has its own wiki page Incidentally I considered doing it myself. I looked into it briefly, but the cost of fee's seemed to outweigh the possible future benefits of lower interest rates and currency fluctuations.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"While you'd need to pay tax if you realized a capital gain on the sale of your car, you generally can't deduct any loss arising from the sale of \\\"\\\"personal use property\\\"\\\". Cars are personal use property. Refer to Canada Revenue Agency – Personal-use property losses. Quote: [...] if you have a capital loss, you usually cannot deduct that loss when you calculate your income for the year. In addition, you cannot use the loss to decrease capital gains on other personal-use property. This is because if a property depreciates through personal use, the resulting loss on its disposition is a personal expense. There are some exceptions. Read up at the source links.\\\"\",\n \"Ah, I did some more research and apparently Rental Income is considered Passive Income, and as such the IRS does not allow a net loss to exist, but you can carry the loss over into the next year. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc425.html Generally, losses from passive activities that exceed the income from passive activities are disallowed for the current year. You can carry forward disallowed passive losses to the next taxable year. A similar rule applies to credits from passive activities. So in the event in a loss on my rental business activity, I simply pay no tax on it, and deduct the remainder in income in 2017 from taxes. I don't make any changes to my Consulting income at all.\",\n \"No, you cannot deduct it. There's no business substance in such a trip, it is your vacation, and as such cannot be claimed as an expense against the rental income. You may be able to deduct the coffee you buy for the meeting with the property manager while there, but there's no way you can justify a 7-10 days vacation with your whole family as an expense to maintain the rental property. Since you will only have less than 2 weeks personal use, you won't need to prorate expenses, so you have that at least.\",\n \"Talk about coincidence, we just recieved letters from our bank saying that our interest only loans will be going up by 0.46% and if we want to keep our lower rate we will need to change early to P&I. Now our Interest only periods end in 6 months to about 16 months anyway. We have decided to change to P&I early and save on our interest expenses. Why? Because the main purpose of investing is to make money not to save on tax. Even if you are on the highest marginal tax rate for every extra dollar of expenses you spend and claim as a deduction you will only get about 50 cents back through tax savings. If you are on the lowest marginal tax rate your tax savings will reduce to less than 20 cents for every extra dollar spent. If you are investing in order to save on tax you may be investing for the wrong reasons. Your primary reason for investing should be to make money, for wealth creation. A good reason to stay with an Interest only loan for an investment property would be if you require the extra cash flow you would receive compared with an I&P loan.\",\n \"\\\"No, you can't deduct any of that. What they're talking about is a flexible spending plan, otherwise known as \\\"\\\"Use it or lose it\\\"\\\" money. You choose to put pre-tax dollars into a restricted fund. This money is not taxed, in fact technically, it's not even income. You can only spend out of that fund to buy parking, tolls, transit tickets, things like that. Any money not used for those purposes in a suitable time period evaporates. Gone, and irrecoverable. You can't even take the loss as a tax deduction! You have to set this account up with your employer. You can't just dig up your old transit and parking receipts and stick those on your Schedule A. Take 3 people. As you can see, Fran is shooting herself in the foot. This is where these plans can go wrong.\\\"\",\n \"In the US, mortgage payments are not deductible. What is deductible is the mortgage interest (to a limit). That, as well, is not deductible unconditionally, but rather as part of your itemized deductions on Schedule A of your yearly tax return. So if you're married and have a standard deduction of $12600 a year, live in a state with no state income tax, and your property tax and the mortgage interest are less than your standard deduction - you will not be getting any tax benefit whatsoever. That is, in fact, the case for many, if not majority, of the US mortgage payers. So in order to get a proper estimate, you need to take into account all the aspects of your tax calculations, which are by nature quite personal, and simulate the changes with the mortgage interest deduction. Most tax preparation software will allow you creating multiple files, so you can run the numbers for different scenarios.\",\n \"Never borrow money to get a tax deduction. Even 18 months interest free is a stupid risk to save a few $ in taxes (we're talking $1K or less in tax savings from what I can tell in your questions).\",\n \"If the UK is similar to Australia then you would not claim a virtual rent for the business portion but instead could claim a portion of the house expenses such as electricity use, property taxes, and yes a portion of the mortgage, and any repairs or renovations done to the work areas of the house. However, you should keep in mind that if you sell the place you may have to pay CGT on the portion you were claiming for business use.\",\n \"This loss would be unrealized and, assuming you're a cash-basis tax-payer, you would not be able to take a loss on your 2014 tax return. This is similar to if you held a stock that lost 50% of its value. You wouldn't be able to claim this loss until you finally sold it. The link that User58220 posted may come into play if you converted your UAH back to USD.\",\n \"If your parents were resident but not domiciled in the UK and were using the Remittance Basis in the year when they got the income or gains from which they're now lending you this money that could trigger UK income tax and or capital gains tax on the money the transfer to the UK whether to an account of their own or directly to your account. If they were non resident or using Arising Basis or it was UK income then this is not an issue.\",\n \"In the US, you can only take a tax deduction on expenses to the extent that they offset income. For an S corp or LLC, if the business had no income, there's no deduction to take. If you have a sole proprietorship, these expenses can offset other income. You can also carry-forward net operating losses to future years when you have more income. See the article How to Carry Over Business Expenses\",\n \"\\\"You need to do a bit more research and as @littleadv often wisely advises, consult a professional, in this case a tax layer or CPA. You are not allowed to just pull money out of a property and write off the interest. From Deducting Mortgage Interest FAQs If you own rental property and borrow against it to buy a home, the interest does not qualify as mortgage interest because the loan is not secured by the home itself. Interest paid on that loan can't be deducted as a rental expense either, because the funds were not used for the rental property. The interest expense is actually considered personal interest, which is no longer deductible. This is not exactly your situation of course, but it illustrates the restriction that will apply to you. Elsewhere in the article, it references how, if used for a business, the interest deduction still will not apply to the rental, but to the business via schedule C. In your case, it's worse, you can never deduct interest used to fund a tax free bond, or to invest in such a tax favored product. Putting the facts aside, I often use the line \\\"\\\"don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\\\"\\\" Borrowing in order to reduce taxes is rarely a wise move. If you look at the interest on the 90K vs 290K, you'll see you are paying, in effect, 5.12% on the extra 200K, due the higher rate on the entire sum. Elsewhere on this board, there are members who would say that given the choice to invest or pay off a 4% mortgage, paying it off is guaranteed, and the wiser thing to do. I think there's a fine line and might not be so quick to pay that loan off, an after-tax 3% cost of borrowing is barely higher than inflation. But to borrow at over 5% to invest in an annuity product whose terms you didn't disclose, does seem right to me. Borrow to invest in the next property? That's another story.\\\"\",\n \"No, if you are a nonresident alien, you cannot deduct sales tax. You can only deduct state income tax. 1040NR Schedule A (which is page 3 of 1040NR) does not contain an option for sales tax, like 1040 Schedule A does. If you are a resident alien, then you can deduct sales tax.\",\n \"According to the answers to this question, you generally aren't taxed on gains until you sell the asset in question. None of those answered specifically for the U.K., so perhaps someone else will be able to weigh in on that. To apply those ideas to your question, yes your gains and losses are taxable. If you originally traded something worth $100 for the bitcoins, then when you converted back to dollars you received $200, you would have a $100 gain, simply on the foreign exchange trade. That is, this $100 of income is in addition to any income you made from your business (selling goods).\",\n \"According to the IRS: To deduct a bad debt, you must show that: So if you fulfill the basic requirements, then generally yes, you can deduct them from your taxes. However, as always, please refer to a professional CPA for any final tax determinations.\",\n \"\\\"You are pushing your luck, but not because you're not in the US, because it is likely that you're not qualified. From what you said, I doubt you can take it (I'm not a professional though, get a professional opinion). You say \\\"\\\"dedicated space\\\"\\\". It has to be an exclusive room. You cannot deduct 10 sq. ft. from your living room because your computer that is used wholly for your business is there. It has to be a room that is used exclusively for your business, and for your business only. I.e.: nothing not related to the business is there, and when you're there the only thing you do is working on your business. Your office doesn't have to be in the US necessarily, to the best of my knowledge. Your office must be in your home. If you take primary residence exclusion as part of your FEI, then I doubt you can deduct as well.\\\"\",\n \"You must be rich. My condo was $98K. I paid about $2200 in mortgage interest last year. I opted to take the standard deduction instead. I make $80K a year and I cant even benefit from this deduction. It is really frustrating. I'm 30 with no kids and unmarried because I can't afford anything. Maybe when I'm 40 I can think about starting a family. If I'm lucky.\",\n \"I'm very sorry to hear this. Did you ask the professional to put his advice in writing? At the very least, you can get him reprimanded or even have to make good on what his advice cost you. Professionals like him give bloggers like me a bad rap. In the end, a loss from sale of your home cannot offset any other gains. The gain from your home sale is often not taxable as up to $250k per person (for a couple) is excluded if you lived in the house for two of prior five years. By the way, where, exactly, did you read this? 'Everywhere' is pretty broad. I've been around for some time and never saw this particular incorrect assertion before.\",\n \"Capital losses from the sale of stocks can be used to offset capital gains from the sale of a house, assuming that house was a rental property the whole time. If it was your principal residence, the capital gains are not taxed. If you used it as both a rental and a principal residence, then it gets more complicated: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/ncm-tx/rtrn/cmpltng/rprtng-ncm/lns101-170/127/rsdnc/menu-eng.html\",\n \"You can claim a deduction only if all of your business is conducted from the home, i.e. your home is your principal place of business - not just if you work from home sometimes. The CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) has pretty strict guidelines listed here, but once you're sure you qualify for a deduction, the next step would be to determine what portion of your home qualifies. You cannot attempt to deduct your entire mortgage simply because you run your business out of your home. The portion of your mortgage and other related & allowable home expense deductions has to be pro-rated to be equal to or less than the portion of your home you use for business. Simply put, if your business is operated out of a 120 sq-ft self-contained space, and your home's total square-footage is 2400 sq-ft, you can deduct 5% of your expenses (120/2,400 = 0.05). Hope this helps!\",\n \"Not sure about the UK, but if it were in the US you need to realize the expenses can be claimed as much as the income. After having a mild heart attack when I did my business taxes the first time many years ago, a Small Business Administration adviser pointed it out. You are running the site from a computer? Deductible on an amortization schedule. Do you work from home? Electricity can be deducted. Do you drive at all? Did you pay yourself a wage? Any paperwork, fax communications, bank fees that you had to endure as work expenses? I am not an accountant, but chances are you legally lost quite a bit more than you made in a new web venture. Discuss it with an accountant for the details and more importantly the laws in your country. I could be off my rocker.\",\n \"The answer is simple. You can generally claim a deduction for an expense if that expense was used to derive an income. Most business expenses are used to derive profits and income, most individual expenses are not. Of course social policy sometimes gets in the way and allows for deductions where they usually wouldn't be allowed. Regarding the interest on a mortgage being deductible whilst the principal isn't, that is because it is the interest which is the annual expense. By the way deductions for mortgage interest in the USA for a house you live in is only allowed due to social policy, as there is no income (rent) being produced here, unlike with an investment property.\",\n \"An issue with the initial plan was that the house was gifted to you. Therefore you owned it. Now two years later you wanted to get a mortgage. The IRS would look at it as a home equity debt not a home Acquisition debt, and the interest on the first $100,000 of home equity dept is deductible. This is from IRS pub 936 Mortgage treated as used to buy, build, or improve home. A mortgage secured by a qualified home may be treated as home acquisition debt, even if you do not actually use the proceeds to buy, build, or substantially improve the home. This applies in the following situations. You buy your home within 90 days before or after the date you take out the mortgage. The home acquisition debt is limited to the home's cost, plus the cost of any substantial improvements within the limit described below in (2) or (3). (See Example 1 later.) You build or improve your home and take out the mortgage before the work is completed. The home acquisition debt is limited to the amount of the expenses incurred within 24 months before the date of the mortgage. You build or improve your home and take out the mortgage within 90 days after the work is completed. The home acquisition debt is limited to the amount of the expenses incurred within the period beginning 24 months before the work is completed and ending on the date of the mortgage. (See Example 2 later.) Example 1. You bought your main home on June 3 for $175,000. You paid for the home with cash you got from the sale of your old home. On July 15, you took out a mortgage of $150,000 secured by your main home. You used the $150,000 to invest in stocks. You can treat the mortgage as taken out to buy your home because you bought the home within 90 days before you took out the mortgage. The entire mortgage qualifies as home acquisition debt because it was not more than the home's cost. At two years you would be way outside the 90 day limit. The pub also gives example on how calculate the amount of interest you can deduct.\",\n \"IRS Publication 502: Medical expenses are the costs of diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, and the costs for treatments affecting any part or function of the body. Loan interest and fees do not meet this definition. Your loan interest and fees are a cost of the payment method you chose (a loan), not a cost of medical treatment. The IRS makes clear where loan interest is deductible. Publication 936 discusses home mortgage interest deductions, and Publication 970 specifically discusses student loan interest deductions. Considering Publication 502's definition of a medical expense, combined with the absence of a publication discussing medical expense loan interest deductions, one must conclude that medical loan interest and fees are not deductible.\",\n \"Lending is not a charitable contribution. Its an investment. If the loan becomes a bad debt - you'll have to show that it had become a bad debt. For example - bankruptcy declaration. You'll have to show an arm's length transaction, for example - real intention to repay (evidenced by payments of principal and interest made). Otherwise if you have an intention for the loan to never be repaid, it is in fact a gift, which is not only not deductible - its taxable. Bottom line - be careful and talk to a EA/CPA to get a proper advice with regards to a specific transaction. Edit to answer your revised question: you're not going to pay taxes if you're not going to have gains. However, if you lose the principal, in addition to the said above you would incur the loss as a personal bad debt, and not business. This is because it is not investment. The difference is in tax treatment: personal bad debt is a short-term capital loss (limited deduction), business is an ordinary loss.\",\n \"Yes, legitimate, documented, expenses are written off against that income.\",\n \">According to the IRS, penalties and fines are only non-deductible when they are paid for actual violations of laws/regulations. That's not quite correct. Section 162(f) says [bolding is mine]: >No deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) for any fine or similar penalty **paid to a government** for the violation of any law. That means they can only claim a deduction on the portion of the fine that isn't paid to the US government. I'm doing a little research to see if I can find out what the dealy-o is.\",\n \"\\\"Assuming USA: It is possible to make the interest deductible if you go to the trouble of structuring, and filing, the loan as an actual mortgage on a primary residence. Websearching \\\"\\\"intra-family loan\\\"\\\" will find several firms which specialize in this. It costs about $700 for all the paperwork and filing fees as of last time I checked, so unless you're going to pay at least three times that in interest over the life of the loan it probably isn't worth considering. (For an additional fee they'll take care of the payment processing, if you'd really rather be hands-off about it.) I have no idea whether the paperwork fees and processing fees can be deducted from the interest as a cost of producing that income. In theory that ought to be true, but I Am Not A Lawyer. Or accountant. Note: one of the interesting factors here is that the IRS sets a minimum interest rate on intra-family loans. It's pretty low (around 0.3%), so in most cases you can say you gifted the difference if you'd prefer to charge less... but that does set a floor on what the IRS will expect the lender to declare, and pay taxes on. There's a lot more that can be said about this, but since I am NOT an expert I'll refer you to those who are. I have no affiliation with any of this except as a customer, once; it seemed pretty painless but I can't claim to know whether they were really handling everything exactly correctly. The website seemed to do a pretty good job of explaining what choices had to be made and their effects, as well as discussing how these can be used to avoid excess gift taxes by spreading the gift over a number of years.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"ASSUMING you're talking about a property in the United States, the answer generally would be \\\"\\\"no\\\"\\\". You aren't actually paying any of the expenses for the property and yet you want to take the deductions for doing so? That's a rather cheeky move, I'd say! (grin) It probably would lead to some real strife with your brother, since he would have proper claim to those credit on the basis he's the one footing the bills for the property. Before you do anything like what you're talking about, it might be best to speak with him, because both of you are running the very real risk of an audit, and if that happens then I can guarantee the IRS will slap the daylights out of you for it. Your brother, I'm sure, is already claiming all of the deductions he can for what he's putting into the property, and on top of that you want to file for your half. What half are you referring to, when your out-of-pocket is zero? So what you're saying is, you think that between you and your brother you should be able to take a credit of 150% of the actual deductions...Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. I strongly encourage you to talk to a tax professional, but if you get a different answer to this than what I've already given then I'd be stunned. I hope this helps. Good luck!\\\"\",\n \"Tax regulations vary from country to country - some permitting more deductions, some less - but here are a few guidelines. As regards the home-office: As regards the deductions: Think of it like this: in order to have space for a home-office you needed a bigger home. That leads to increased rates, heating, insurance and so on. Many tax regulators recognise that these are genuine expenses. The alternative is to rent a separate office and incur greater expenses, leading to increased deductions and less overall tax paid (which won't finance the deficit). The usual test for deductions is: was the expense legitimately incurred in the pursuit of revenue? The flexibility permitted will vary by tax authority but you can frequently deduct more than you expected.\",\n \"lets sat If I buy a house on company's name, It will declared as expense and will deduct from profit. but I am not sure If I can rent it out as a IT LTD company. that's my questions. Buying a house is not an expense, it is a transfer of assets. The house itself, is an asset. So if you have $100,000 in cash, buy a house for $35,000, your total assets will remain the same ($100,000), but your asset mix will be different (instead of $100,000 in cash, you now have $65,000 in cash, and $35,000 in property). You can expense the costs associated with buying the house (e.g. taxes, interest, legal fees), but the house itself stays on the asset side of your balance sheet. To refine the example above, if you buy the house for $35,000, and pay $5,000 in misc fees related to purchasing the house, your assets are now $95,000 ($60,000 in cash, $35,000 in house): the $5,000 reduction is from the actual fees associated with the purchase. It is these fees that lower your profit. Being not familiar with UK rules, in Canada and the US, and likely the UK, you would then depreciate the house over its useful life. The depreciation expense is deducted from your annual net income. If you rent out the house, what you can do is expense any maintenance fees, taxes, etc., on the house itself. This expense will count as a negative towards the rental income, lowering your effective taxable income from the rental. E.g. rent out a flat at $1,000/month, but your property taxes are $3,500/year, so your net income for tax purposes (i.e. your taxable income in this case) is $12,000-$3,500=$8,500.\",\n \"\\\"Yes, you may deduct the cost of building the \\\"\\\"noise cancellation system\\\"\\\" :) sorry couldn't resist. But seriously, yes you can deduct it ONCE (unless you have more cost maintaining it) and its on line 19 (Repairs and maintenance) of IRS Form 8829.\\\"\",\n \"You are not the person or entity against whom the crime was committed, so the Casualty Loss (theft) deduction doesn't apply here. You should report this as a Capital Loss, the same way all of the Enron shareholders did in their 2001 tax returns. Your cost basis is whatever you originally paid for the shares. The final value is presumably zero. You can declare a maximum capital loss of $3000, so if your net capital loss for the year is greater than that, you'll have to carry over the remainder to the following years. IRS publication 547 states: Decline in market value of stock. You can't deduct as a theft loss the decline in market value of stock acquired on the open market for investment if the decline is caused by disclosure of accounting fraud or other illegal misconduct by the officers or directors of the corporation that issued the stock. However, you can deduct as a capital loss the loss you sustain when you sell or exchange the stock or the stock becomes completely worthless. You report a capital loss on Schedule D (Form 1040). For more information about stock sales, worthless stock, and capital losses, see chapter 4 of Pub. 550.\",\n \"Well, if you were a business, and your food and rent and travel expenses were business expenses, and you paid out less money than you earned, you *would* get a refund. If you can prove that an expense is tax deductible, then that's just what it is. For businesses, a net operating loss is tax deductible.\",\n \"non-resident aliens to the US do not pay capital gains on US products. You pay tax in your home country if you have done a taxable event in your country. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/nonusresidenttax.asp#axzz1mQDut9Ru but if you hold dividends, you are subject to US dividend tax. The UK-US treaty should touch on that though.\",\n \"Once the business is shut down, you'll need to show that the corporation is in bankruptcy and the amounts are unrecoverable. You can then report it as investment loss. I suggest talking to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State), and maybe an attorney, on what the specific technical details are.\",\n \"\\\"This change doesn't make a ton of sense to me. Interest is an expense. Expenses are deductible. Yes, there are loopholes, but no matter what happens there will be loopholes. Seems like any easy \\\"\\\"no\\\"\\\" vote. Sometimes it worries me that we have financially incompetent people in power.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["I spoke to HMRC and they said #1 is not allowable but #2 is. They suggested using either their published exchange rates or I could use another source. I suggested the Bank of England spot rates and that was deemed reasonable and allowable."],"string":"[\n \"I spoke to HMRC and they said #1 is not allowable but #2 is. They suggested using either their published exchange rates or I could use another source. I suggested the Bank of England spot rates and that was deemed reasonable and allowable.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":180,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"9646"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Do common stocks and preferred stocks have any differences in terms of percentage of the company per unit they represent?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["556191","272784"],"string":"[\n \"556191\",\n \"272784\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["46428","272784","556191","580512","126479","251713","433197","405791","236482","433032","506236","573055","235391","176859","311214","186643","503740","113623","440370","451301","354006","50081","26203","385020","330917","461018","414215","551893","124368","480119","546548","536196","251604","96121","127487","344118","330534","421992","481169","414505","34882","61694","416397","428315","725","275084","407551","539664","460230","544857","63296","370615","303112","158063","64237","524940","91870","43868","503780","373204","249320","108040","275297","399345","143261","595298","286296","352484","535697","403826","378906","246295","142835","245082","137465","515788","258419","419945","187110","37558","467081","215486","259904","598295","464002","497060","285085","211343","400497","213767","463907","576136","560499","307095","342652","445353","29306","350260","275392","185787"],"string":"[\n \"46428\",\n \"272784\",\n \"556191\",\n \"580512\",\n \"126479\",\n \"251713\",\n \"433197\",\n \"405791\",\n \"236482\",\n \"433032\",\n \"506236\",\n \"573055\",\n \"235391\",\n \"176859\",\n \"311214\",\n \"186643\",\n \"503740\",\n \"113623\",\n \"440370\",\n \"451301\",\n \"354006\",\n \"50081\",\n \"26203\",\n \"385020\",\n \"330917\",\n \"461018\",\n \"414215\",\n \"551893\",\n \"124368\",\n \"480119\",\n \"546548\",\n \"536196\",\n \"251604\",\n \"96121\",\n \"127487\",\n \"344118\",\n \"330534\",\n \"421992\",\n \"481169\",\n \"414505\",\n \"34882\",\n \"61694\",\n \"416397\",\n \"428315\",\n \"725\",\n \"275084\",\n \"407551\",\n \"539664\",\n \"460230\",\n \"544857\",\n \"63296\",\n \"370615\",\n \"303112\",\n \"158063\",\n \"64237\",\n \"524940\",\n \"91870\",\n \"43868\",\n \"503780\",\n \"373204\",\n \"249320\",\n \"108040\",\n \"275297\",\n \"399345\",\n \"143261\",\n \"595298\",\n \"286296\",\n \"352484\",\n \"535697\",\n \"403826\",\n \"378906\",\n \"246295\",\n \"142835\",\n \"245082\",\n \"137465\",\n \"515788\",\n \"258419\",\n \"419945\",\n \"187110\",\n \"37558\",\n \"467081\",\n \"215486\",\n \"259904\",\n \"598295\",\n \"464002\",\n \"497060\",\n \"285085\",\n \"211343\",\n \"400497\",\n \"213767\",\n \"463907\",\n \"576136\",\n \"560499\",\n \"307095\",\n \"342652\",\n \"445353\",\n \"29306\",\n \"350260\",\n \"275392\",\n \"185787\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["It is just a different category of stock issued by a company that gives its owners different treatment when it comes to dividend payment and a few other financial transactions. Preferred stock holders get treated with some preference with regard to the company's profits and assets. For example, dividends are typically guaranteed to preferred stock holders whereas the leadership in the company can elect at any time not to pay dividends to common stockholders. In the event the company is liquidated, the preferred stockholders also get to be in line ahead of common stockholders when the assets are distributed.","Preferred stocks are, err... Preferred. The whole point of preferred stocks is that they have some preference over other classes of stocks (there may be more than 2, by the way). It can be more voting rights, more dividends or priority on dividends' distribution (common with VC investments), or priority on liquidations (in bankruptcy, preferred stock holders are ranked higher than common). Many times initial or critical investments are made on preferred terms, and the stocks are converted to common when certain thresholds are met. Obviously all these benefits require a premium on the price.","Typically, preferred shares come with one or both different benefits - a disproportionate share of votes, say 10 votes per share vs the normal 1, or a preferred dividend. The vote preference is great for the owner(s) looking to go public, but not lose control of the company. Say, I am a Walton (of Walmart fame) and when I went public, I sold 80% of the (1000 share total) company. But, in creating the share structure, 20% of shares were assigned 10 votes each. 800 shares now trade with 800 votes, 200 shares have 10 votes each or 2000 votes. So, there are still the 1000 shares but 2800 votes. The 20% of shares now have 2000/2800 or 71% of the total votes. So, my shares are just less than half ownership, but over 78% of votes. Preferred dividend is as simple as that, buy Stock A for ownership, or (same company) Stock A preferred shares which have ownership and $1/yr dividend. Edited to show a bit more math. I use a simple example to call out a total 1000 shares. The percentages would be the same for a million or billion shares if 20% were a 10 vote preferred.","I once bought both preferred and common shares in a bankrupt company. It is true that those preferred shares had less potential for appreciation than the common shares. The reason is because the preferred shares were trading around $50 and had a face value of $1000. This means that if the bankruptcy proceedings ended up finding enough assets to make the preferred shares whole, then the preferred shareholders would be paid $1000 per share and no more than that. So if you bought the preferred shares at $50 and received $1000 per share for them, then you made a 1900% gain. But if the bankruptcy proceedings found enough assets to pay not just the preferred shareholders but also the common shareholders, then the common shareholders had the potential for a greater gain than the preferred shareholders. The common stock was trading around 20 cents at the time, and if enough assets were found to pay $10 per share to the common shareholders, then that would have been a 4900% gain. The preferred shares were capped by their face value, but the common shares had no limit on how high they could go.","\"Preferred dividends and common dividends are completely separate transactions. There's not a single \"\"dividend\"\" payment that is split between preferred and common shares. Dividends on preferred shares are generally MUCH higher than common dividends, and are generally required by the terms of the preferred shares, again unlike common dividends, which are discretionary.\"","A company can issue different kinds of shares. For example, some kinds of shares may get preference in dividends or payment in event of (company) bankruptcy. Preferred shares are an example of this. A company might have several kinds of preferred shares and a 'common stock'. Here is a good explanation. See too the Wikipedia article about preferred stock. Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) is an example of a company that has fourteen different preferred share issues, each with its own listing on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSE) and symbol. TD has one kind of common stock, which is also listed on the TSE. However, TD common equity trades much more actively than the preferred shares. Remember that preferred stock is a different security type than common stock e.g. common has voting rights, preferred does not.","\"Yes and no. There are different classes of shares - Some have voting rights, some *don't*. Some take precedence over others in a bankruptcy. Some get larger dividends. \"\"Common\"\" isn't really a useful description of your stake in the company. You *do* have a \"\"stake\"\" in the company, but not all shares are equal.\"","\"I seem not to be able to comment on the first answer due to reputation, so I'll aim to enhanced the first answer which is generally good but with these caveats: 1) Dividends are not \"\"guaranteed\"\" to preferred shareholders. Rather, preferred shareholders are normally in line ahead (i.e. in preference to or \"\"preferred\"\") of common shareholders in terms of dividend payment. This is an extremely important distinction, because unlike investments that we generally consider \"\"guaranteed\"\" such as CDs (known as GICs in Canada), a company's board can suspend the dividend at anytime for long periods of time without significant repercussions -- whereas a missed payment to a bank or secured bondholder can often push a company into bankruptcy very quickly. 2) Due to point 1), it is extremely important to know the \"\"convenants\"\" or rules sorrounding both the preferred shares you are buying and the other more senior creditors of that issuing company (i.e. taxes (almost always come first), banks loans, leases, bonds etc.). It is also important to know if a particular preferred share has \"\"cumulative\"\" dividends. You generally only want to buy preferred's that have \"\"cumulative\"\" dividends, since that means that anytime the company misses a payment, they must pay those dividends first before any other dividends at the same or lower priority in the future. 3) Unlike a common stock, your upside on a preferred stock is relatively fixed: you get a fixed share of the company's profit and that's it, whereas a common shareholder gets everything that's left over after interest and preferred dividends are paid. So if the company does really well you will theoretically do much better with common stock over time. For the above reasons, it is generally advisable to think of preferred shares as being more similar to really risky bonds in the same company, rather than similar to common stock. Of course, if you are an advanced investor there are a lot more variables in play such as tax considerations and whether the preferred have special options attached to them such conversion into common shares.\"","\"In most cases, the other classes of shares are preferred stock (example, JPM-F). Preferred stock usually pays higher dividends and shareholders get preferential treatment in the event that the company goes under. (Preferred shareholders are behind bondholders in line, but ahead of common stock holders) In other cases, different classes of shares have different voting rights or pricing. Examples include Berkshire Hathaway B shares. In the case of Berkshire Hathaway B shares, the stock has 1/500th of the rights and 1/10,000th of the voting rights of an \"\"A\"\" share. You need to be cautious about investing in anything other than common stock -- make sure that you understand what you are getting into. This is not to say that other share classes are 'bad' -- just that many preferred stocks are thinly traded and are difficult to buy and sell.\"","Classes of shares are not necessarily standardized. Some share classes have preference above others in the event of a liquidation. Some share classes represent a different proportion of ownership interest. Any time you see multiple share classes, you need to research what is different for that specific corporation.","You can find this in the annual report. Preferred value is not the same as common value.","Not quite. Every security issued by the company defines what it gets. If you want to go straight to common stock, the shareholders are in fact owners of the company: after everyone else gets paid, no matter what is left, it belongs to the common shareholders.","\"In a sentence, stocks are a share of equity in the company, while bonds are a share of credit to the company. When you buy one share of stock, you own a (typically infinitesimal) percentage of the company. You are usually entitled to a share of the profits of that company, and/or to participate in the business decisions of that company. A particular type of stock may or may not pay dividends, which is the primary way companies share profits with their stockholders (the other way is simply by increasing the company's share value by being successful and thus desirable to investors). A stock also may or may not allow you to vote on company business; you may hear about companies buying 20% or 30% \"\"interests\"\" in other companies; they own that percentage of the company, and their vote on company matters is given that same weight in the total voting pool. Typically, a company offers two levels of stocks: \"\"Common\"\" stock usually has voting rights attached, and may pay dividends. \"\"Preferred\"\" stock usually gives up the voting rights, but pays a higher dividend percentage (maybe double or triple that of common stock) and may have payment guarantees (if a promised dividend is missed in one quarter and then paid in the next, the preferred stockholders get their dividend for the past and present quarters before the common shareholders see a penny). Governments and non-profits are typically prohibited from selling their equity; if a government sold stock it would basically be taxing everyone and then paying back stockholders, while non-profit organizations have no profits to pay out as dividends. Bonds, on the other hand, are a slice of the company's debt load. Think of bonds as kind of like a corporate credit card. When a company needs a lot of cash, it will sell bonds. A single bond may be worth $10, $100, or $1000, depending on the investor market being targeted. This is the amount the company will pay the bondholder at the end of the term of the bond. These bonds are bought by investors on the open market for less than their face value, and the company uses the cash it raises for whatever purpose it wants, before paying off the bondholders at term's end (usually by paying each bond at face value using money from a new package of bonds, in effect \"\"rolling over\"\" the debt to the next cycle, similar to you carrying a balance on your credit card). The difference between the cost and payoff is the \"\"interest charge\"\" on this slice of the loan, and can be expressed as a percentage of the purchase price over the remaining term of the bond, as its \"\"yield\"\" or \"\"APY\"\". For example, a bond worth $100 that was sold on Jan 1 for $85 and is due to be paid on Dec 31 of the same year has an APY of (15/85*100) = 17.65%. Typically, yields for highly-rated companies are more like 4-6%; a bond that would yield 17% is very risky and indicates a very low bond rating, so-called \"\"junk status\"\".\"","I know this has already been answered and I know its frowned upon to dump a link, however, when it comes to investments it's best to get data from an 'official' source to avoid misinterpretations and personal opinions. The attached pdf is from the S&P and provides detailed, but not overwhelming, information regarding the types of preferreds, the risks & common terminology: http://us.spindices.com/documents/education/practice-essentials-us-preferreds.pdf Page 1: PREFERRED SECURITIES DEFINED Borrowing from two worlds, a preferred security has both equity and fixed income characteristics. As such, the preferred structure offers a flexible approach to structuring a preferred offering for an issuer. Companies have many reasons to issue preferred securities. Financial institutions, for example, need to raise capital. Many times they will use the preferred market because of any required regulatory requirements, in addition to cost considerations. Banks and financial institutions are required to maintain a certain level of Tier 1 capital—which includes common equity and perpetual non-cumulative preferreds—as protection against the bank’s liabilities. Issuing more common equity comes at a cost, including the dilution of existing shares, which a company may not want to bear. Preferred securities are a cheaper alternative approach to raising the capital. Companies often use preferred stock for strategic reasons. Some of these uses include:","To follow up on Quid's comment, the share classes themselves will define what level of dividends are expected. Note that the terms 'common shares' and 'preferred shares' are generally understood terms, but are not as precise as you might believe. There are dozens/hundreds of different characteristics that could be written into share classes in the company's articles of incorporation [as long as those characteristics are legal in corporate law in the company's jurisdiction]. So in answering your question there's a bit of an assumption that things are working 'as usual'. Note that private companies often have odd quirks to their share classes, things like weird small classes of shares that have most of the voting rights, or shares with 'shotgun buyback clauses'. As long as they are legal clauses, they can be used to help control how the business is run between various shareholders with competing interests. Things like parents anticipating future family infighting and trying to prevent familial struggle. You are unlikely to see such weird quirks in public companies, where the company will have additional regulatory requirements and where the public won't want any shock at unexpected share clauses. In your case, you suggested having a non-cumulative preferred share [with no voting rights, but that doesn't impact dividend payment]: There are two salient points left related to payout that the articles of incorporation will need to define for the share classes: (1) What is the redemption value for the shares? [This is usually equal to the cost of subscribing for the shares in the first place; it represents how much the business will need to pay the shareholder in the event of redemption / recall] (2) What is the stated dividend amount? This is usually defined at a rate that's at or a little above a reasonable interest rate at the time the shares are created, but defined as $ / share. For example, the shares could have $1 / share dividend payment, where the shares originally cost $50 each to subscribe [this would reflect a rate of payment of about 2%]. Typically by corporate law, dividends must be paid to preferred shares, to the extent required based on the characteristics of the share class [some preferred shares may not have any required dividends at all], before any dividends can be paid to common shares. So if $10k in dividends is to be paid, and total preferred shares require $15k of non-cumulative dividends each year, then $0 will be paid to the common shares. The following year, $15k of dividends will once again need to be paid to the preferred shares, before any can be paid to the common shares.","In most cases , preferential sharesholders are paid dividends first before common shareholders are paid . In the event of a company bankruptcy , preferential shareholders have the right to be paid first before common shareholders. In exchange for these benefits , preferential shareholders do not have any voting rights. The issuing of preferential shares has no impact on share prices or issuing of bonuses , it is a mere coincidence that the stock price went up","Stocks represent partial ownership of the company. So, if you owned 51% of the stock of the company (and therefore 51% of the company itself), you could decide to liquidate all the assets of the company, and you would be entitled to 51% of the proceeds from that sale. In the example above, it would have to be Common Stock, as preferred stock does not confer ownership. *In a situation where it is not possible to buy 51% or more of the company (for example, it's not for sale), this is not possible, so the value of the stock could be much less.","Stock basically implies your ownership in the company. If you own 1% ownership in a company, the value of your stake becomes equal to 1% of the valuation of the entire company. Dividends are basically disbursal of company's profits to its shareholders. By holding stocks of a company, you become eligible to receiving dividends proportional to your ownership in the company. Dividends though are not guaranteed, as the company may incur losses or the management may decide to use the cash for future growth instead of disbursing it to the shareholders. For example, let's say a company called ABC Inc, is listed on NYSE and has a total of 1 million shares issued. Let's say if you purchase 100 stocks of ABC, your ownership in ABC will become Let's say that the share price at the time of purchase was $10 each. Total Investment = Stock Price * Number of Stocks Purchased = $10 * 100 = $1,000 Now, let's say that the company declares a dividend of $1 per share. Then, Dividend Yield = Dividend/Stock Price = $1/$10 = 10% If one has to draw analogy with other banking products, one can think of stock and dividend as Fixed Deposits (analogous to stock) and the interest earned on the Fixed Deposit (analogous to dividend).","The essential difference b/n ADR and a common share is that ADR do not have Voting rights. Common share has. There are some ADR that would in certain conditions get converted to common stock, but by and large most ADR's would remain ADR's without any voting rights. If you are an individual investor, this difference should not matter as rarely one would hold such a large number of shares to vote on General meeting on various issues. The other difference is that since many countries have regulations on who can buy common shares, for example in India an Non Resident cannot directly buy any share, hence he would buy ADR. Thus ADR would be priced more in the respective market if there is demand. For example Infosys Technologies, an India Company has ADR on NYSE. This is more expensive around 1.5 times the price of the common share available in India (at current exchange rate). Thus if you are able to invest with equal ease in HK (have broker / trading account etc), consider the taxation of the gains in HK as well the tax treatment in US for overseas gains then its recommended that you go for Common Stock in HK. Else it would make sense to buy in US.","\"From Wikipedia - Stock: The stock (also capital stock) of a corporation constitutes the equity stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims such as secured and unsecured debt. Stockholders' equity cannot be withdrawn from the company in a way that is intended to be detrimental to the company's creditors Wikipedia - Dividend: A dividend is a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders, usually as a distribution of profits. When a corporation earns a profit or surplus, it can re-invest it in the business (called retained earnings), and pay a fraction of this reinvestment as a dividend to shareholders. Distribution to shareholders can be in cash (usually a deposit into a bank account) or, if the corporation has a dividend reinvestment plan, the amount can be paid by the issue of further shares or share repurchase. Wikipedia - Bond: In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders. It is a debt security, under which the issuer owes the holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to pay them interest (the coupon) and/or to repay the principal at a later date, termed the maturity date. Interest is usually payable at fixed intervals (semiannual, annual, sometimes monthly). Very often the bond is negotiable, i.e. the ownership of the instrument can be transferred in the secondary market. This means that once the transfer agents at the bank medallion stamp the bond, it is highly liquid on the second market. Thus, stock is about ownership in the company, dividends are the payments those owners receive, which may be additional shares or cash usually, and bonds are about lending money. Stocks are usually bought through brokers on various stock exchanges generally. An exception can be made under \"\"Employee Stock Purchase Plans\"\" and other special cases where an employee may be given stock or options that allow the purchase of shares in the company through various plans. This would apply for Canada and the US where I have experience just as a parting note. This is without getting into Convertible Bond that also exists: In finance, a convertible bond or convertible note or convertible debt (or a convertible debenture if it has a maturity of greater than 10 years) is a type of bond that the holder can convert into a specified number of shares of common stock in the issuing company or cash of equal value. It is a hybrid security with debt- and equity-like features. It originated in the mid-19th century, and was used by early speculators such as Jacob Little and Daniel Drew to counter market cornering. Convertible bonds are most often issued by companies with a low credit rating and high growth potential.\"","\"The difference between TMUSP and TMUS is that the \"\"with P\"\" ticker is for a TMobile Preferred Stock offering. The \"\"without P\"\" ticker is for TMobile common stock. The difference between the apparent percentage yields is due to Yahoo! Stock misreporting the dividend on the preferred stock for the common stock, which has not paid a dividend (thanks Brick for pointing this out!) Preferred stock holders get paid first in the event of liquidation, in most scenarios they get paid first. They sometimes get better returns. They typically lack voting rights, and after a grace period, they may be recalled by the company at a fixed price (set when they were issued). Common stock holders can vote to alter the board of directors, and are the epitome of the typical \"\"I own a trivial fraction of the company\"\" model that most people think of when owning stocks. As the common stock is valued at much less, it appears that the percent yield is much higher, but in reality, it's 0%.\"","What percent of a company are you buying when you purchase stock? The percent of a company represented by a single share can be calculated by percent = 1/number_of_shares*100% Apple comprises 5,250,000,000 shares, so one share makes up about 1.9e-8% of a company, or 0.000000019% of Apple.","First, the stock does represent a share of ownership and if you have a different interpretation I'd like to see proof of that. Secondly, when the IPO or secondary offering happened that put those shares into the market int he first place, the company did receive proceeds from selling those shares. While others may profit afterward, it is worth noting that more than a few companies will have secondary offerings, convertible debt, incentive stock options and restricted stock that may be used down the road that are all dependent upon the current trading share price in terms of how useful these can be used to fund operations, pay executives and so forth. Third, if someone buys up enough shares of the company then they gain control of the company which while you aren't mentioning this case, it is something to note as some individuals buy stock so that they can take over the company which happens. Usually this has more of an overall plan but the idea here is that getting that 50%+1 control of the company's voting shares are an important piece to things here.","True blue preferred shares are considered loose hybrids of credit and equity. They are more senior than common equity in bankruptcy liquidation but pay out a dividend which is not mandatory. Financial institutions issue the bulk of genuine preferred shares because of their need for more flexibility than a bond but not so much that they can afford the cost to shareholders by diluting common equity. Since it is a credit-like security that receives none of the income from operations but merely pays out a potentially unpredictable yet fixed amount of income, it will perform much more like a bond, rising when interest rates fall and vice versa, and since interest rates do not move to the extent of common equity valuations, preferreds' price variances will correspond much more to bonds than common equities. If the company stops paying the preferred dividend or looks to become in financial trouble, the price of the preferred share should be expected to fall. There are more modern preferred however. It has now become popular to fund intermediate startups with convertible preferred shares. Because these are derivatives based upon the common equity, they can be expected to be much more variant.","Shareholders have voting rights, and directors have fiduciary obligations to shareholders. Sure, shareholders have rights to the dividends, but stock confers decisionmaking powers. I'm not really sure what your answer to this is, or how you are differentiating the concept of ownership from this.","stocks represent ownership in a company. their price can go up or down depending on how much profit the company makes (or is expected to make). stocks owners are sometimes paid money by the company if the company has extra cash. these payments are called dividends. bonds represent a debt that a company owes. when you buy a bond, then the company owes that debt to you. typically, the company will pay a small amount of money on a regular basis to the bond owner, then a large lump some at some point in the future. assuming the company does not file bankrupcy, and you keep the bond until it becomes worthless, then you know exactly how much money you will get from buying a bond. because bonds have a fixed payout (assuming no bankrupcy), they tend to have lower average returns. on the other hand, while stocks have a higher average return, some stocks never return any money. in the usa, stocks and bonds can be purchased through a brokerage account. examples are etrade, tradeking, or robinhood.com. before purchasing stocks or bonds, you should probably learn a great deal more about other investment concepts such as: diversification, volatility, interest rates, inflation risk, capital gains taxes, (in the usa: ira's, 401k's, the mortgage interest deduction). at the very least, you will need to decide if you want to buy stocks inside an ira or in a regular brokerage account. you will also probably want to buy a low-expense ration etf (e.g. an index fund etf) unless you feel confident in some other choice.","\"From the Times A Reader Q.&A. on G.M.’s Bankruptcy Q. I own G.M. preferred shares. Should I be looking to sell them, or hold on? I bought them at $25 a share when they were issued in late 2001. — Karen, Manhattan A. When a company files for bankruptcy, its various stock and bondholders essentially get in line. The first investors to be repaid are secured debt holders, then senior bond investors, followed by subordinated debt holders. Preferred shareholders are next, and lastly, holders of common stock. In a bankruptcy, preferred shares are usually worthless, much like shares of common stock. But in the case of G.M., there may be some good — or at least somewhat better — news. Most of G.M.’s preferred shares are actually senior notes or “quarterly interest bonds,” which means you will be treated as a bondholder, according to Marilyn Cohen, president of Envision Capital Management. So you will be able to exchange your preferreds for G.M. stock (bondholders will receive 10 percent of the new company’s stock). It’s not the best deal, but it beats the empty bag true preferred shareholders would have been left holding. Of course this is just one example, and you were hoping to get some larger picture. The article stated \"\"In a bankruptcy, preferred shares are usually worthless, much like shares of common stock\"\" which at least is a bit closer to that, if you accept usually as a statistic.\"","A stock is an ownership interest in a company. There can be multiple classes of shares, but to simplify, assuming only one class of shares, a company issues some number of shares, let's say 1,000,000 shares and you can buy shares of the company. If you own 1,000 shares in this example, you would own one one-thousandth of the company. Public companies have their shares traded on the open market and the price varies as demand for the stock comes and goes relative to people willing to sell their shares. You typically buy stock in a company because you believe the company is going to prosper into the future and thus the value of its stock should rise in the open market. A bond is an indebted interest in a company. A company issues bonds to borrow money at an interest rate specified in the bond issuance and makes periodic payments of principal and interest. You buy bonds in a company to lend the company money at an interest rate specified in the bond because you believe the company will be able to repay the debt per the terms of the bond. The value of a bond as traded on the open exchange varies as the prevailing interest rates vary. If you buy a bond for $1,000 yielding 5% interest and interest rates go up to 10%, the value of your bond in the open market goes down so that the payment terms of 5% on $1,000 matches hypothetical terms of 10% on a lesser principal amount. Whatever lesser principal amount at the new rate would lead to the same payment terms determines the new market value. Alternatively, if interest rates go down, the current value of your bond increases on the open market to make it appear as if it is yielding a lower rate. Regardless of the market value, the company continues to pay interest on the original debt per its terms, so you can always hold onto a bond and get the original promised interest as long as the company does not go bankrupt. So in summary, bonds tend to be a safer investment that offers less potential return. However, this is not always the case, since if interest rates skyrocket, your bond's value will plummet, although you could just hold onto them and get the low rate originally promised.","You can argue that cash dividend is a kind of split as well by this logic. The stock price on ex-dividend gets a hit coincidental with the dividend to be paid, so one can argue that the investor has the same cash value on the day the dividend was paid as if it wouldn't be paid at all. However, for the company to distribute stocks instead of cash may be advantageous if they have low cash reserves but significant amount of treasury stocks, and the stocks are of high liquidity. It is also a way for the company to release treasury stocks without diluting the current shareholders and creating taxable income to the company, that's an important factor to consider. This is in fact the real answer to your question. The main difference between split and stock dividend is that in split, the stock distributions proportions don't change. With stock dividend - they do. While the outstanding share proportions do not change, total proportions do, because of the treasury stocks being distributed. So company has less stocks in its vaults, but everyone else still has the same proportions of ownership. Compare this to split: company's treasury stocks would be split as well, and it would continue essentially sitting on the same proportion of stocks. That shift of treasury stocks to the outside shareholders - this is what makes it a dividend.","As a start-up, the initial shares can be given at various price points. So essentially they can give someone a larger percentage based on the same amount earlier, and lesser percentage to someone else for the same amount. As its a start-up the valuations can be very tricy and what matters is that whether you believe the percentage you got for the amount is right or not. It is very important to note that when you have been given an ownership in the company, how that is designated. Is it in absolute number of shares or is it in terms of percentage based on the existing shares. For example you maybe given 100 shares, without any qualification. Or you maybe given a 5% stake in the paid-up capital, that translates to 100 shares. It is always better to hold the shares in % of the total shares. Also read the contract, any dilution should require your approval. Normally start-ups once the valuation starts to go up, start creating more shares and sell these to private equity or create more shares and give it as a bonus to promoters. Hence in both cases your holding will keep getting diluted. There is a related quesiton If a startup can always issue new shares, what value is there to stocks/options?","\"From The Coca-Cola Company website, section for Investors: Stock History, Issues Year 1919 Original issue -- 600,000 shares 100,000 preferred, par $100 each 500,000 common, without nominal or par value 1926 Eliminated 100,000 preferred in November. This means there were preferred shares issued in 1919. However, all preferred shares were \"\"eliminated\"\" (not sure what that means) as of 1926. There has been no subsequent reissuance of preferred shares of Coca-Cola since then. I think the company is still authorized to issue them, should they choose to do so in the future.\"","Don't ever quantify a stock's preference/performance just based on the dividend it is paying out Volatility defined by movements in the the stock's price, affected by factors embedded in the stock e.g. the corporation, the business it is in, the economy, the management etc etc. Apple wasn't paying dividends but people were still buying into it. Same with Amazon, Berkshire, Google. These companies create value by investing their earnings back into their company and this is reflected in their share prices. Their earnings create more value in this way for the stockholders. The holding structures of these companies also help them in their motives. Supposedly $100 invested in either stocks. For keeping things easy, you invested at the same time in both, single annual dividend and prices more or less remain constant. Company A: $5/share at 20% annual dividend yield. Dividend = $20 Company B: $10/share at 20% annual dividend yield Dividend = $20 You receive the same dividend in both cases. Volatility willn't affect you unless you are trading, or the stock market tanks, or some very bad news comes out of either company or on the economy. Volatility in the long term averages out, except in specific outlier cases e.g. Lehman bankruptcy and the financial crash which are rare but do happen. In general case the %price movements in both stocks would more or less follow the markets (not exactly though) except when relevant news for either corporations come out.","They are 2 different class of shares belonging to the same company. Class A shares [par value of 0.01] have 100 voting rights per share. Class B shares [par value of 0.0002] have one voting rights. Both are listed separately with different ISN and trade at slightly different values. The Class A at higher value than Class B which looks right as it has more voting power.","\"If you mean, If I invest, say, $1000 in a stock that is growing at 5% per year, versus investing $1000 in an account that pays compound interest of 5% per year, how does the amount I have after 5 years compare? Then the answer is, They would be exactly the same. As Kent Anderson says, \"\"compound interest\"\" simply means that as you accumulate interest, that for the next interest cycle, the amount that they pay interest on is based on the previous cycle balance PLUS the interest. For example, suppose you invest $1000 at 5% interest compounded annually. After one year you get 5% of $1000, or $50. You now have $1050. At the end of the second year, you get 5% of $1050 -- not 5% of the original $1000 -- or $52.50, so you now have $1102.50. Etc. Stocks tend to grow in the same way. But here's the big difference: If you get an interest-bearing account, the bank or investment company guarantees the interest rate. Unless they go bankrupt, you WILL get that percentage interest. But there is absolutely no guarantee when you buy stock. It may go up 5% this year, up 4% next year, and down 3% the year after. The company makes no promises about how much growth the stock will show. It may show a loss. It all depends on how well the company does.\"","There is no difference between more shares of a relatively cheaper stock and less shares of a relatively more expensive stock. When you invest in a stock, the percentage increase (or decrease) in the share price results in gains (or losses). This is a fundamental concept of investing. Your question suggests that you would benefit from further research before investing your money. Trading real dollars can be difficult without a strong understanding of the principles involved. Investing your money without a good knowledge base will likely be stressful and could have a discouraging effect if it doesn't go well. Before you open an investment account, read up on investing fundamentals, particularly mutual funds as those can be a great place to start as a new investor. There are many sources of information including books, websites such as http://investor.gov/investing-basics and this website. Don't skip the sections on taxes, as those matter just as much and sometimes more than the simple buying and selling. You might look at tax advantaged accounts, such as 401k's, IRA's, etc. It shouldn't take long but it will be one of the most important things you do as a beginning investor. Everyone has to start here. Understanding the vocabulary and concepts will likely save you time and money throughout your investing life.","\"Baseball cards don't pay dividends. But many profitable companies do just that, and those that don't could, some day. Profits & dividends is where your analogy falls apart. But let's take it further. Consider: If baseball cards could somehow yield a regular stream of income just for owning them, then there might be yet another group of people, call them the Daves. These Daves I know are the kind of people that would like to own baseball cards over the long term just for their income-producing capability. Daves would seek out the cards with the best chance of producing and growing a reliable income stream. They wouldn't necessarily care about being able to flip a card at an inflated price to a Bob, but they might take advantage of inflated prices once in a while. Heck, even some of the Steves would enjoy this income while they waited for the eventual capital gain made by selling to a Bob at a higher price. Plus, the Steves could also sell their cards to Daves, not just Bobs. Daves would be willing to pay more for a card based on its income stream: how reliable it is, how high it is, how fast it grows, and where it is relative to market interest rates. A card with a good income stream might even have more value to a Dave than to a Bob, because a Dave doesn't care as much about the popularity of the player. Addendum regarding your comment: I suppose I'm still struggling with the best way to present my question. I understand that companies differ in this aspect in that they produce value. But if stockholders cannot simply claim a percentage of a company's value equal to their share, then the fact that companies produce value seems irrelevant to the \"\"Bobs\"\". You're right – stockholders can't simply claim their percentage of a company's assets. Rather, shareholders vote in a board of directors. The board of directors can decide whether or not to issue dividends or buy back shares, each of which puts money back in your pocket. A board could even decide to dissolve the company and distribute the net assets (after paying debts and dissolution costs) to the shareholders – but this is seldom done because there's often more profit in remaining a going concern. I think perhaps what you are getting hung up on is the idea that a small shareholder can't command the company to give net assets in exchange for shares. Instead, generally speaking, a company runs somewhat like a democracy – but it's each share that gets a vote, not each shareholder. Since you can't redeem your shares back to the company on demand, there exists a secondary market – the stock market – where somebody else is willing to take over your investment based on what they perceive the value of your shares to be – and that market value is often different from the underlying \"\"book value\"\" per share.\"","For all practical purposes the words mean the same thing. Shares are just stock in a particular company whereas stock can refer to shares over many companies. Investopedia has a good explaination. If you are a financial journalist you might want to make sure you are using the right term at the right time, but otherwise they are synonyms.","I was thinking that the value of the stock is the value of the stock...the actual number of shares really doesn't matter, but I'm not sure. You're correct. Share price is meaningless. Google is $700 per share, Apple is $100 per share, that doesn't say anything about either company and/or whether or not one is a better investment over the other. You should not evaluate an investment decision on price of a share. Look at the books decide if the company is worth owning, then decide if it's worth owning at it's current price.","Firstly a stock split is easy, for example each unit of stock is converted into 10 units. So if you owned 1% of the company before the stock split, you will still own 1% after the stock split, but have 10 times the number of shares. The company does not pay out any money when doing this and there is no effect on tax for the company or the share holder. Now onto stock dividend… When a company make a profit, the company gives some of the profit to the share holders as a dividend; this is normally paid in cash. An investor may then wish to buy more shares in the company using the money from the dividend. However buying shares used to have a large cost in broker charges etc. Therefore some companies allowed share holders to choose to have the dividend paid as shares. The company buys enough of their own shares to cover the payout, only having one set of broker charges and then sends the correct number of shares to each share holder that has opted for a stock dividend. (Along with any cash that was not enough to buy a complete share.) This made since when you had paper shares and admin costs where high for stock brokers. It does not make sense these days. A stock dividend is taxed as if you had been paid the dividend in cash and then brought the stock yourself.","\"The key difference I've found between a stock split and a stock dividend – of the exact same stock and class, as opposed to a spin-off – seems to be from the company's own accounting perspective. There doesn't appear to be any actual transfer of value to the shareholder with either kind of transaction; i.e. in theory, each transaction would be immaterial to the value of your holdings. With respect to the company's accounting, a stock split affects the par value of the shares, whereas a stock dividend reduces the retained earnings account in order to increase paid-in or contributed capital. I found a good online source which explains the history behind this accounting difference: McGraw-Hill - Intermediate Accounting eBook, 6/e - Chapter 18 - Stock Dividends and Splits. Small quote: [...] Besides being based on fallacious reasoning, accounting for stock dividends by artificially reclassifying “earned” capital as “invested” capital conflicts with the reporting objective of reporting shareholders' equity by source. Despite these limitations, this outdated accounting standard still applies. Since neither the corporation nor its shareholders apparently benefits from stock dividends, why do companies declare them?23 Occasionally, a company tries to give shareholders the illusion that they are receiving a real dividend. Another reason is merely to enable the corporation to take advantage of the accepted accounting practice of capitalizing retained earnings. Specifically, a company might wish to reduce an existing balance in retained earnings—otherwise available for cash dividends—so it can reinvest the earned assets represented by that balance without carrying a large balance in retained earnings. [...] There's a lot more on that page, before and after, worth reading. From another book: Google Books - Comparative Income Taxation, a Structural Analysis - page 314 - Stock Dividends. Small quote: The distribution of dividends in the form of stock or \"\"bonus\"\" shares to existing shareholders typically involves a transfer for corporate law purposes of retained earnings into stated capital. It can been [sic] viewed as a deemed distribution of a cash dividend to the shareholders followed by a corresponding contribution to capital or as solely as an event at the corporate level which has no effect on the shareholders whose economic interest in the corporation is unchanged by the receipt of additional shares. The systems have taken varied approaches to the stock dividend problem. The treatment is in part a function of the rules dealing with distributions of stated capital. [emphases above are mine] [... continues w/descriptions of different countries' tax treatments of the kinds of stock dividends. Includes U.S., Sweden, Japan, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, U.K., France, Germany. ...] As far as why a corporation might want to capitalize earnings and reduce the equity otherwise available for dividends, I can only imagine that, ignoring taxes for a moment, that it may have something to do with capital ratios that need to be maintained for financing or regulatory purposes? Yet, I remain curious. If I discover more on this then I'll update my answer. Additional resources:\"","Open Google finance and divide the Market Capitalization by the total price. That will give you the total number of shares outstanding. Now see the number of shares you could buy for $1000(40 shares of $25 each or 10 shares of 100 shares each). Now divide the number of shares you own, by the number of shares outstanding in the company and multiply it by 100(i.e (Shares you own/shares Outstanding) * 100). That will give you the percentage or stake of the company you own(With $1000, don't expect it to be a very large number). Now ask your self the question, Is it worth it if I can buy x % of this company for $1000? If the answer is yes, go ahead and buy it. To answer your question in short, NO! it does not matter whether you buy 10 shares for $100 or 40 shares for $25. Cheers","If I'm buying preferred stock with liquidation preferences, I care what *that class of equity* is worth. I don't give a shit what common is worth. The article takes a pretty banal point - common may not be worth what other classes are worth - and tries to make it into a conspiracy, which is fucking stupid.","Coca Cola doesn't seem to have any preferred shares outstanding. From the annual report, it does say that the number of common shares outstanding was 2,294,316,831 as of February 22, 2011. (cover page, right before the horizontal break) But normally, you can find it either toward the beginning of the document or in the statement of shareholder's equity.","Hart's answer regarding the difference between an index and a stock aside, remember that dividend yield is a passive measure. It takes the announced dividend (which is a $/share amount) and divides it by the current market price. So you can't assume that if you buy a stock that had a dividend yield of 4% for $100 that you're guaranteed 4% of the stock price in dividends. If the price of the stock doubles, you'd still get $4, but the yield would drop to 2%. Or the company could reduce (or even suspend) its dividends, which would reduce the yield if the stock price stayed flat. For an index like the S&P, it's easier to measure dividends on % yield terms rather then $/share terms since you'd have to own shares in every single company to get that amount, but on average the stocks in the S&P 500 pay X% in dividends (which are typically quarterly) - some pay more than that, some less, and some none at all.","Preferred stock is traded on the market, so you can just buy it like any other. The symbol for a preferred stock is the ticker symbol followed by a dash and a letter for each class of preferred stock. Examples: Generally speaking, you should buy Preferred stock with the intention of holding onto it for at least a couple of years. Often preferred shares are lightly traded and have wide spreads that made it difficult to make money in the short term.","How to 'use' your shares: If you own common shares in a company (as opposed to a fund) then you have the right (but not the obligation) to excersize one vote per share on questions put before the shareholders. Usually, this occurs once a year. Usually these questions regard approval of auditors. Sometimes they involve officers such as directors on the board. You will be mailed a form to fill out and mail back in. Preferred shares usually are not voting shares,but common shares always are. By the way, I do not recommend owning shares in companies. I recommend funds instead,either ETFs or mutual funds. Owning shares in companies puts you at risk of a failure of that company. Owning funds spreads that risk around,thus reducing your exposure. There are, really, two purposes for owning shares 1) Owning shares gives you the right to declared dividends 2) Owning shares allows you to sell those shares at some time in the future. (Hopefully at a profit) One obscure thing you can do with owned shares is to 'write' (sell) covered put options. But options are not something that you need to concern yourself with at this point. You may find it useful to sign up for a free daily email from www.investorwords.com.","\"Also note that a share of voting stock is a vote at the stockholder's meeting, whether it's dividend or non-dividend. That has value to the company and major stockholders in terms of protecting their own interests, and has value to anyone considering a takeover of the company or who otherwise wants to drive the company's policy. Similarly, if the company is bought out, the share will generally be replaced by shares in whatever the new owning company is. So it really does represent \"\"a slice of the company\"\" in several vary practical ways, and thus has fairly well-defined intrinsic value linked to the company's perceived value. If its price drops too low the company becomes more vulnerable to hostile takeover, which means the company itself will often be motivated to buy back shares to protect itself from that threat. One of the questions always asked when making an investment is whether you're looking for growth (are you hoping its intrinsic value will increase) or income (are you hoping it will pay you a premium for owning it). Non-dividend stocks are a pure growth bet. Dividend-paying stocks are typically a mixture of growth and income, at various trade-off points. What's right for you depends on your goals, timeframe, risk tolerance, and what else is already in your portfolio.\"","No, I think you are misunderstanding the Math. Stock splits are a way to control relatively where the price per share can be for a company as companies can split or reverse split shares which would be similar to taking dimes and giving 2 nickels for each dime, each is 10 cents but the number of coins has varied. This doesn't create any additional value since it is still 10 cents whether it is 1 dime or 2 nickels. Share repurchase programs though are done to prevent dilution as executives and those with incentive-stock options may get shares in the company that increase the number of outstanding shares that would be something to note.","Market capitalization is one way to represent the value of the company. So if a company has 10 million shares, which are each worth $100, then the company's market capitalization is 1 billion. Large cap companies tend to be larger and more stable. Small cap companies are smaller, which indicates higher volatility. So if you want more aggressive investments then you may want to invest in small cap companies while if you lean on the side of caution then big cap companies may be your friend.","You have got it wrong. The profit or loss for smaller investor or big investor is same in percentage terms.","\"If so, then if company A never pays dividends to its shareholders, then what is the point of owning company A's stock? The stock itself can go up in price. This is not necessarily pure speculation either, the company could just reinvest the profits and grow. Since you own part of a company, your share would also increase in value. The company could also decide to start paying dividend. I think one rule of thumb is that growing companies won't pay out, since they reinvest all profit to grow even more, but very large companies like McDonalds or Microsoft who don't really have much room left to grow will pay dividends more. Surely the right to one vote for company A's Board can't be that valuable. Actually, Google for instance neither pays dividend nor do you get to vote. Basically all you get for your money is partial ownership of the company. This still gives you the right to seize Google assets if you go bankrupt, if there's any asset left once the creditors are done (credit gets priority over equity). What is it that I'm missing? What you are missing is that the entire concept of the dividend is an illusion. There's little qualitative difference between a stock that pays dividend, and a stock that doesn't. If you were going to buy the stock, then hold it forever and collect dividend, you could get the same thing with a dividend-less stock by simply waiting for it to gain say 5% value, then sell 4.76% of your stock and call the cash your dividend. \"\"But wait,\"\" you say, \"\"that's not the same - my net worth has decreased!\"\" Guess what, stocks that do pay dividend usually do drop in value right after the pay out, and they drop by about the relative value of the dividend as well. Likewise, you could take a stock that does pay dividend, and make it look exactly like a non-paying stock by simply taking every dividend you get and buying more of the same stock with it. So from this simplistic point of view, it is irrelevant whether the stock itself pays dividend or not. There is always the same decision of whether to cut the goose or let it lay a few more eggs that every shareholder has to make it. Paying a dividend is essentially providing a different default choice, but makes little difference with regards to your choices. There is however more to it than simple return on investment arithmetic: As I said, the alternative to paying dividend is reinvesting profits back into the enterprise. If the company decided to pay out dividend, that means they think all the best investing is done, and they don't really have a particularly good idea for what to do with the extra money. Conversely, not paying is like management telling the shareholders, \"\"no we're not done, we're still building our business!\"\". So it can be a way of judging whether the company is concentrating on generating profit or growing itself. Needless to say the, the market is wild and unpredictable and not everyone obeys such assumptions. Furthermore, as I said, you can effectively overrule the decision by increasing or decreasing your position, regardless of whether they have decided to pay dividend to begin with. Lastly, there may be some subtle differences with regards to things like how the income is taxed and so on. These don't really have much to do with the market itself, but the bureaucracy tacked onto the market.\"","One big difference: Interest is contracted. They can change the rate in the future but for any given time period you know what you're going to get. Dividends are based on how the company did, there is no agreed-upon amount.","\"The answer to your question has to do with the an explanation of \"\"shares authorized, issued and outstanding.\"\" Companies, in their Articles of Incorporation, specify a maximum number of shares they are authorized to issue. For example purposes let's assume Facebook is authorized to issue 100 shares. Let's pretend they have actually issued 75 shares, but only 50 are outstanding (aka Float, i.e. freely trading stock in the market) and stock options total 25 shares. So if someone owns 1 share, what percentage of Facebook do they own? You might think 1/100, or 1%; you might think 1/75, or 1.3%; or you might think 1/50, or 2%. 2% is the answer, but only on a NON-diluted basis. So today someone who owns 1 share owns 2% of Facebook. Tomorrow Facebook announces they just issued 15 shares to Whatsapp to buy the company. Now there are 65 shares outstanding and 90 issued. Now someone who owns 1 share of Facebook own only 1/65, or 1.5% (down from 2%)! P.S. \"\"Valuation\"\" can be thought of as the price of the stock at the time of the purchase announcement.\"","\"In the Income Statement that you've linked to, look for the line labeled \"\"Net Income\"\". That's followed by a line labeled \"\"Preferred Dividends\"\", which is followed by \"\"Income Available to Common Excl. Extra Items\"\" and \"\"Income Available to Common Incl. Extra Items\"\". Those last two are the ones to look at. The key is that these lines reflect income minus dividends paid to preferred stockholders (of which there are none here), and that's income that's available to ordinary shareholders, i.e., \"\"earnings for the common stock\"\".\"","All shares of the same class are considered equal. Each class of shares may have a different preference in order of repayment. After all company liabilities have been paid off [including bank debt, wages owing, taxes outstanding, etc etc.], the remaining cash value in a company is distributed to the shareholders. In general, there are 2 types of shares: Preferred shares, and Common shares. Preferred shares generally have 3 characteristics: (1) they get a stated dividend rate every year, sometimes regardless of company performance; (2) they get paid out first on liquidation; and (3) they can only receive their stated value on liquidation - that is, $1M of preferred shares will be redeemed for at most $1M on liquidation, assuming the corporation has at least that much cash left. Common Shares generally have 4 characteristics: (1) their dividends are not guaranteed (or may be based on a calculation relative to company performance), (2) they can vote for members of the Board of Directors who ultimately hire the CEO and make similar high level business decisions; (3) they get paid last on liquidation; and (4) they get all value remaining in the company once everyone else has been paid. So it is not the order of share subscription that matters, it is the class. Once you know how much each class gets, based on the terms listed in that share subscription, you simply divide the total class payout by number of shares, and pay that much for each share a person holds. For companies organized other-than as corporations, ie: partnerships, the calculation of who-gets-what will be both simpler and more complex. Simpler in that, generally speaking, a partnership interest cannot be of a different 'class', like shares can, meaning all partners are equal relative to the size of their partnership interest. More complex in that, if the initiation of the company was done in an informal way, it could easily become a legal fight as to who contributed what to the company.","One difference is the bid/ask spread will cost you more in a lower cost stock than a higher cost one. Say you have two highly liquid stocks with tiny spreads: If you wanted to buy say $2,000 of stock: Now imagine these are almost identical ETFs tracking the S&P 500 index and extrapolate this to a trade of $2,000,000 and you can see there's some cost savings in the higher priced stock. As a practical example, recently a popular S&P 500 ETF (Vanguard's VOO) did a reverse split to help investors minimize this oft-missed cost.","I haven't seen any of the other answers address this point – shares are (a form of) ownership of a company and thus they are an entitlement to the proceeds of the company, including proceeds from liquidation. Imagine an (extreme, contrived) example whereby you own shares in a company that is explicitly intended to only exist for a finite and definite period, say to serve as the producers of a one-time event. Consider a possible sequence of major events in this company's life: So why would the shares of this hypothetical company be worth anything? Because the company itself is worth something, or rather the stuff that the company owns is worth something, even (or in my example, especially) in the event of its dissolution or liquidation. Besides just the stuff that a company owns, why else would owning a portion of a company be a good idea, i.e. why would I pay for such a privilege? Buying shares of a company is a good idea if you believe (and are correct) that a company will make larger profits or capture more value (e.g. buy and control more valuable stuff) than other people believe. If your beliefs don't significantly differ from others then (ideally) the price of the companies stock should reflect all of the future value that everyone expects it to have, tho that value is discounted based on time preference, i.e. how much more valuable a given amount of money or a given thing of value is today versus some time in the future. Some notes on time preference: But apart from whether you should buy shares in a specific company, owning shares can still be valuable. Not only are shares a claim on a company's current assets (in the event of liquidation) but they are also claims on all future assets of the company. So if a company is growing then the value of shares now should reflect the (discounted) future value of the company, not just the value of its assets today. If shares in a company pays dividends then the company gives you money for owning shares. You already understand why that's worth something. It's basically equivalent to an annuity, tho dividends are much more likely to stop or change whereas the whole point of an annuity is that it's a (sometimes) fixed amount paid at fixed intervals, i.e. reliable and dependable. As CQM points out in their answer, part of the value of stock shares, to those that own them, and especially to those considering buying them, is the expectation or belief that they can sell those shares for a greater price than what they paid for them – irrespective of the 'true value' of the stock shares. But even in a world where everyone (magically) had the same knowledge always, a significant component of a stock's value is independent of its value as a source of trading profit. As Jesse Barnum points out in their answer, part of the value of stocks that don't pay dividends relative to stocks that do is due to the (potential) differences in tax liabilities incurred between dividends and long-term capital gains. This however, is not the primary source of value of a stock share.","If they all own common stock, no, everyone has to be treated equally. There are also lots of protections against, say, A and B finding one shareholder to vote with them and using their 50.1% to grant themselves special rights. there are a million ways you could do that - issue preferred stock to A, issue options to B, buy a service from A for $10mm, rent a basement from B for $10mm, etc. etc. This stuff has to be prevented otherwise nobody would be willing to be a minority investor.","\"Dividend rate is \"\"dividend per share\"\" over a specified time period, usually a year. So in the first example, if the company paid a $1/share dividend over the year before the stock dividend the shareholder would receive $100, while if it paid the $1/share the year after the stock dividend the shareholder would receive $105. The company could have achieved the same thing by paying total dividends of $1.05/share, which is what the last phrase of the last quoted paragraph is saying. Here's an Investopedia page on dividend rate. Also, what you're calling \"\"payout ratio\"\" is really \"\"dividend yield\"\". \"\"Payout ratio\"\" is how much of the company's net earnings are paid out in dividends. That's all in the US, I could see the terms being used differently outside the US.\"","Unless your brokerage will sell you fractional shares, the most obvious difference (without us knowing the actual identify of the companies) is that with the $260 one, you will have 3 shares plus you will have $220 minus commission left over that you wanted to invest but weren't able to simply because of the mechanics of long division. You could put that $220 into one of the cheaper stocks, but now the multiple commissions will start to eat your returns. My personal opinion is you should go for a low cost index mutual fund or ETF, and wait to pick individual stocks until you have more than $1000 to work with (and even then, probably still go with the low cost index fund)","While there are many very good and detailed answers to this question, there is one key term from finance that none of them used and that is Net Present Value. While this is a term generally associate with debt and assets, it also can be applied to the valuation models of a company's share price. The price of the share of a stock in a company represents the Net Present Value of all future cash flows of that company divided by the total number of shares outstanding. This is also the reason behind why the payment of dividends will cause the share price valuation to be less than its valuation if the company did not pay a dividend. That/those future outflows are factored into the NPV calculation, actually performed or implied, and results in a current valuation that is less than it would have been had that capital been retained. Unlike with a fixed income security, or even a variable rate debenture, it is difficult to predict what the future cashflows of a company will be, and how investors chose to value things as intangible as brand recognition, market penetration, and executive competence are often far more subjective that using 10 year libor rates to plug into a present value calculation for a floating rate bond of similar tenor. Opinion enters into the calculus and this is why you end up having a greater degree of price variance than you see in the fixed income markets. You have had situations where companies such as Amazon.com, Google, and Facebook had highly valued shares before they they ever posted a profit. That is because the analysis of the value of their intellectual properties or business models would, overtime provide a future value that was equivalent to their stock price at that time.","In my mind its not the same. If growth is stock value then this is incorrect because of compound interest in stock price. $100 stock price after one year would be $105 and a dividend would be $2 Next year the stock would be $110.20 (Compound Interest) and would the Dividend really go up in lock step with the stock price? Well probably not, but if it did then maybe you could call it the same. Even if the dollars are the same the growth rate is more variable than the dividends so its valuable to segregate the two. I am open to criticism, my answer is based on my personal experience and would love to hear contrary positions on this.","In the scenario you describe, the first thing I would look at would be liquidity. In other words, how easy is it to buy and sell shares. If the average daily volume of one share is low compared to the average daily volume of the other, then the more actively traded share would be the more attractive. Low volume shares will have larger bid-offer spreads than high volume shares, so if you need to get out of position quickly you will be at risk of being forced to take a lowball offer. Having said that, it is important to understand that high yielding shares have high yields for a reason. Namely, the market does not think much of the company's prospects and that it is likely that a cut in the dividend is coming in the near future. In general, the nominal price of a share is not important. If two companies have equal prospect, then the percentage movement in their share price will be about the same, so the net profit or loss you realise will be about the same.","A stock dividend isn't exactly a split. Example: You have 100 shares of stock worth $5 a share (total value $500). The company wants to distribute a dividend worth 1%. You could expect a check for $5. But If they wanted to do a stock dividend they could send you 0.01 shares for every share you own, in your case you will be given a single share worth $5. Now you own 101 shares. Why a share dividend? It doesn't take cash to give the dividend. It keeps the money invested in the company. Some investors re-invest a cash dividend, some don't. A cash dividend is generally taxable income for the investor; a stock dividend isn't. Some investors prefer one over the other, but it depends on their specific financial picture. Neither a stock dividend, a cash dividend or split changes anything. The split changes the price to meet a goal. The cash dividend lowers the price by sending excess cash to the investors. The stock dividend lowers the price by creating new shares and retaining cash. It company picks the message and the method. depending on their goals and situation. Remember that a company may want to give a dividend because they have a history of doing so, but not have the cash to do so. It is like a split because the number of shares you own will go up, and the price per share will go down. But a split is generally done to bring the price of a share to within a specific range. The company sees a benefit to having a stock mid priced, instead of very high or very low.","It seems like you want to compare the company's values not necessarily the stock price. Why not get the total outstanding shares and the stock price, generate the market cap. Then you could compare changes to market cap rather than just share price.","\"Sure, stocks don't pay interest. I just looked up the word \"\"compound\"\" in a couple of dictionaries and the relevant definition in all of them just mentioned interest and not growth in the value of stock. So it may be technically inaccurate to talk about \"\"compound growth\"\" of a stock. I'll yield to someone more knowledgeable about the technical language of finance to answer that part. But regardless of whether the word strictly applies, the concept certainly does. Suppose you put $1000 into a mutual fund and the fund grows by 10%. You now have $1100. The next year the fund grows by 15%. So you gain 15% of what? Of your original $1000? No, of your present balance, $1100. The effect is the same as compound interest. There is the fundamental difference that interest is normally a fixed rate: you get such-and-such percent a year as spelled out in a contract. But change in the value of a stock depends on many factors, none of them guaranteed.\"","A stock represents your share of ownership in a corporation. All of these shares indicate towards your part of ownership in a corporation a shareholder, stockholder or a shareowner in a company. In order to get a stock, be sure to secure the assistance of a licensed stockbroker to buy securities on your behalf. Yes, anyone having substantial amount of money to invest can buy/own/use stocks. Holding a stock for less than a year makes it a subject to tax on your regular income for short-term gains. Most of the people find it higher than the capital gains. In addition, your annual income also comes into play.","\"In financial theory, there is no reason for a difference in investor return to exist between dividend paying and non-dividend paying stocks, except for tax consequences. This is because in theory, a company can either pay dividends to investors [who can reinvest the funds themselves], or reinvest its capital and earn the same return on that reinvestment [and the shareholder still has the choice to sell a fraction of their holdings, if they prefer to have cash]. That theory may not match reality, because often companies pay or don't pay dividends based on their stage of life. For example, early-stage mining companies often have no free cashflow to pay dividends [they are capital intensive until the mines are operational]. On the other side, longstanding companies may have no projects left that would be a good fit for further investment, and so they pay out dividends instead, effectively allowing the shareholder to decide where to reinvest the money. Therefore, saying \"\"dividend paying\"\"/\"\"growth stock\"\" can be a proxy for talking about the stage of life + risk and return of a company. Saying dividend paying implies \"\"long-standing blue chip company with relatively low capital requirements and a stable business\"\". Likewise \"\"growth stocks\"\" [/ non-dividend paying] implies \"\"new startup company that still needs capital and thus is somewhat unproven, with a chance for good return to match the higher risk\"\". So in theory, dividend payment policy makes no difference. In practice, it makes a difference for two reasons: (1) You will most likely be taxed differently on selling stock vs receiving dividends [Which one is better for you is a specific question relying on your jurisdiction, your current income, and things like what type of stock / how long you hold it]. For example in Canada, if you earn ~ < $40k, your dividends are very likely to have a preferential tax treatment to selling shares for capital gains [but your province and specific other numbers would influence this]. In the United States, I believe capital gains are usually preferential as long as you hold the shares for a long time [but I am not 100% on this without looking it up]. (2) Dividend policy implies differences in the stage of life / risk level of a stock. This implication is not guaranteed, so be sure you are using other considerations to determine whether this is the case. Therefore which dividend policy suits you better depends on your tax position and your risk tolerance.\"","It means a 3% return on the value of the stock. If a stock has a $10 share price, the dividend would be $0.30. Normally though, the dividends are announced as a fixed amount per share, because the share price fluctuates. If a percentage were announced, then the final cost would not be known as the share priced could change radically before the dividend date.","For bonds bought at par (the face value of the bond, like buying a CD for $1000) the payment it makes is the same as yield. You pay $1000 and get say, $40 per year or 4%. If you buy it for more or less than that $1000, say $900, there's some math (not for me, I use a finance calculator) to tell you your return taking the growth to maturity into account, i.e. the extra $100 you get when you get the full $1000 back. Obviously, for bonds, you care about whether the comp[any or municipality will pay you back at all, and then you care about how much you'll make when then do. In that order. For stocks, the picture is abit different as some companies give no dividend but reinvest all profits, think Berkshire Hathaway. On the other hand, many people believe that the dividend is important, and choose to buy stocks that start with a nice yield, a $30 stock with a $1/yr dividend is 3.3% yield. Sounds like not much, but over time you expect the company to grow, increase in value and increase its dividend. 10 years hence you may have a $40 stock and the dividend has risen to $1.33. Now it's 4.4% of the original investment, and you sit on that gain as well.","Short answer: No, it only matters if you want to use covered calls strategies. The price of a share is not important. Some companies make stock splits from time to time so that the price of their shares is more affordable to small investors. It is a decision of the company's board to keep the price high or low. More important is the capitalization for these shares. If you have lots of money to invest, the best is to divide and invest a fixed pourcentage of your portfolio in each company you choose. The only difference is if you eventually decide to use covered call strategies. To have a buy write on Google will cost you a lot of money and you will only be able to sell 1 option for every 100 shares. Bottom line: the price is not important, capitalization and estimated earnings are. Hope this answers your question.","all other things being equal if you have two stocks, both with a P/E of 2, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase? What this really boils down to is the number of shares a company has outstanding. Given the same earnings & P/E, a company with fewer shares will have a higher EPS than a company with more shares. Knowing that, I don't think the number of shares has much if anything to do with the quality of a company. It's similar to the arguments I hear often from people new to investing where they think that a company with a share price of $100/share must be better than a company with a share price of $30/share simply because the share price is higher.","All investors of equal standing get the same proportion of the net assets on bankruptcy but not all shareholders are of equal standing. In general, once all liabilities are covered, bond holders are paid first as that type of investment is company debt, then preferred stock holders are paid out and then common shareholders. This is the reason why preferred stock is usually cheaper - it is less risky as it has a higher claim to assets and therefore commands a lower risk premium. The exact payout schedule is very corporation dependent so needs research on a per firm basis.","There is no difference. When dealing with short positions, talking about percentages become very tricky since they no longer add up to 100%. What does the 50% in your example mean? Unless there's some base amount (like total amount of the portfolio, then the percentages are meaningless. What matters when dealing with long and short positions is the net total - meaning if you are long 100 shares on one stock trade and short 50 shares on another, then you are net long 50 shares.","I'm fairly convinced there is no difference whatsoever between dividend payment and capital appreciation. It only makes financial sense for the stock price to be decreased by the dividend payment so over the course of any specified time interval, without the dividend the stock price would have been that much higher were the dividends not paid. Total return is equal. I think this is like so many things in finance that seem different but actually aren't. If a stock does not pay a dividend, you can synthetically create a dividend by periodically selling shares. Doing this would incur periodic trade commissions, however. That does seem like a loss to the investor. For this reason, I do see some real benefit to a dividend. I'd rather get a check in the mail than I would have to pay a trade commission, which would offset a percentage of the dividend. Does anybody know if there are other hidden fees associated with dividend payments that might offset the trade commissions? One thought I had was fees to the company to establish and maintain a dividend-payment program. Are there significant administrative fees, banking fees, etc. to the company that materially decrease its value? Even if this were the case, I don't know how I'd detect or measure it because there's such a loose association between many corporate financials (e.g. cash on hand) and stock price.","The general difference between high dividend paying stocks and growth stocks is as follows: 1) A high dividend paying stock/company is a company that has reached its maximum growth potential in a market and its real growth (that is after adjustment of inflation) is same (more or less) as the growth of the economy. These companies typically generate a lot of cash (Cash Cow) and has nowhere to really invest the entire thing, so they pay high dividends. Typically Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) ,Power/Utility companies, Textile (in some countries) come into this category. If you invest in these stocks, expect less growth but more dividend; these companies generally come under 'defensive sector' of the market i.e. whose prices do not fall drastically during down turn in a market. 2) Growth stocks on the other hand are the stocks that are operating in a market that is witnessing rapid growth, for example, technology, aerospace etc. These companies have high growth potential but not much accumulated income as the profit is re-invested to support the growth of the company, so no dividend (you will be typically never get any/much dividend from these companies). These companies usually (for some years) grow (or at least has potential to grow) more than the economy and provide real return. Usually these companies are very sensitive to results (good or bad) and their prices are quite volatile. As for your investment strategy, I cannot comment on that as investment is a very subjective matter. Hope this helps","For some very small private companies I know of (and am part of), paper stocks do exist. You can sit at the table with the damn things in your hand and wave them in people's faces. They tell everyone how much of the company you own as a result of the money you ponied up. On the other hand, most stocks are now electronic. Nothing to hold. Just electronic records to review. They still represent how much you own of the company because of some amount of money you have put at risk, but they aren't anywhere near as much fun as the old-fasioned paper proofs. (As MrChrister notes, you can pay a small fee to get paper if you like, even for some big companies. Some of these paper stocks are remarkably elaborate and fine looking, but hardly necessary.) (You can see more info about what stocks are and what sort of stocks exist here: http://www.wikinvest.com/wiki/What_is_a_stock%3F)","If you don't have any voting rights then you don't have much say in the direction of the company. Of course, if the majority of voting rights are held by 1 or 2 people/institutions then you probably don't have much say regardless. That said, 0.1% isn't a whole lot of a voice anyway.","This is a very common misconception. I've been studying equities and credits for a while now, and the simplest way to explain the difference is this: - Credit is about stable cash flows. Your investment in a bond has almost (read: almost) nothing to do with growth rate. It has everything to do with how stable the cash flows are and interest coverage. - Equity is about growth. No wonder companies with highly irregular cash flows (e.g., every single young tech company in the history of tech companies) can have the most in-demand equity while few bond investors would touch them with a ten foot pole.","\"Market cap is speculative value, M = P * W, where W is stock (or other way of owning) percentage of ownership, P - price of percentage of ownership. This could include \"\"outside of exchange\"\" deals. Some funds could buy ownership percentage directly via partial ownership deal. That ownership is not stock, but fixed-type which has value too. Stock market cap is speculative value, M2 = Q * D, where D is free stocks available freely, Q - price of stock, in other words Quote number (not price of ownership). Many stock types do NOT provide actual percentage of ownership, being just another type of bond with non-fixed coupon and non-fixed price. Though such stocks do not add to company's capitalization after sold to markets, it adds to market capitalization at the moment of selling via initial price.\"","\"Different stocks balance dividend versus growth differently. Some have relatively flat value but pay a strong dividend -- utility stocks used to be examples of that model, and bonds are in some sense an extreme version of this. Some, especially startups, pay virtually no dividends and aim for growth in the value of the stock. And you can probably find a stock that hits any point between these. This is the \"\"growth versus income\"\" spectrum you may have heard mentioned. In the past, investors took more of their return on investment as dividends -- conceptually, a share of the company's net profits for the year reflecting the share's status as partial ownership. If you wanted to do so, you could use the dividend to purchase more shares (via a dividend reinvestment plan or not), but that was up to you. These days, with growth having been strongly hyped, many companies have shifted much more to the growth model and dividends are often relatively wimpy. Essentially, this assumes that everyone wants the money reinvested and will take their profit by having that increase the value of their shares. Of course that's partly because some percentage of stockholders have been demanding growth at all costs, not always realistically. To address your specific case: No, you probably aren't buying Microsoft because you like its dividend rate; you're buying it in the hope it continues to grow in stock value. But the dividend is a bit of additional return on your investment. And with other companies the tradeoff will be different. That's one of the things, along with how much you believe in the company, that would affect your decision when buying shares in specific companies. (Personally I mostly ignore the whole issue, since I'm in index funds rather than individual stocks. Picking the fund sets my overall preference in terms of growth versus income; after that it's their problem to maintain that balance.)\"","Dividend prices are per share, so the amount that you get for a dividend is determined by the number of shares that you own and the amount of the dividend per share. That's all. People like to look at dividend yield because it lets them compare different investments; that's done by dividing the dividend by the value of the stock, however determined. That's the percentage that the question mentions. A dividend of $1 per share when the share price is $10 gives a 10% dividend yield. A dividend of $2 per share when the share price is $40 gives a 5% dividend yield. If you're choosing an investment, the dividend yield gives you more information than the amount of the dividend.","If you are looking to re-invest it in the same company, there is really no difference. Please be aware that when a company announces dividend, you are not the only person receiving the dividend. The millions of share holders receive the same amount that you did as dividend, and of course, that money is not falling from the sky. The company pays it from their profits. So the day a dividend is announced, it is adjusted in the price of the share. The only reason why you look for dividend in a company is when you need liquidity. If a company does not pay you dividend, it means that they are usually using the profits to re-invest it in the business which you are anyway going to do with the dividend that you receive. (Unless its some shady company which is only established on paper. Then they might use it to feed their dog:p). To make it simpler lets assume you have Rs.500 and you want to start a company which requires Rs 1000 in capital : - 1.) You issue 5 shares worth Rs 100 each to the public and take Rs 100 for each share. Now you have Rs 1000 to start your company. 2.) You make a profit of Rs 200. 3.) Since you own majority of the shares you get to make the call whether to pay Rs.200 in dividend, or re-invest it in the business. Case 1:- You had issued 10 shares and your profit is Rs 200. You pay Rs. 20 each to every share holder. Since you owned 5 shares, you get 5*20 that is Rs.100 and you distribute the remaining to your 5 shareholders and expect to make the same or higher profit next year. Your share price remains at Rs.100 and you have your profits in cash. Case 2:- You think that this business is awesome and you should put more money into it to make more. You decide not to pay any dividend and invest the entire profit into the business. That way your shareholders do not receive anything from you but they get to share profit in the amazing business that you are doing. In this case your share price is Rs. 120 ((1000+200)/10) and all your profits are re-invested in the business. Now put yourself in the shareholders shoes and see which case suits you more. That is the company you should invest in. Please note: - It is very important to understand the business model of the company before you buy anything! Cheers,","Apart from making money from the price difference, some stocks also give dividends, or bonus issues. For long term investors whom are looking for steady income, they may be more interested with the dividend pay-out instead of the capital-appreciation.","You might be right about that, but your previous posts don't say that. In just the last one you said: >Because buyback decreases shares outstanding it **also decreases the company's total future dividend payouts as well** This is indicating that you believe there is a difference somehow, no?","One reason to prefer a dividend-paying stock is when you don't plan to reinvest the dividends. For example, if you're retired and living off the income from your investments, a dividend-paying stock can give you a relatively stable income.","\"Lots of questions: In general, no. Market Capitalization and Equity represent 2 different things. Equity first, the equity of a firm is the value of the assets (what it owns) less its liabilities (what it owes) and consists (broadly) of two components - share capital (what the firm gets when it sells to investors as part of an IPO or subsequent share issue) and retained earnings (what the firm has as a result of making profits and not paying them out as dividends). This is the theoretical liquidation value of the firm - what it is worth if it stops trading, sells all its assets and pays all its debts. Market Capitalization is the current value of the future cash flow of the firm as perceived by the market - the value today of all the dividends that the firm will pay in the future for as long as it exists. This is the theoretical going concern value of the firm - what it is worth as a functioning business. In general, Market Capitalization is bigger than Equity - if it isn't the firm is worth more as scrap than as an operating business. Um ... no. If you don't have any shares then you are by definition not an owner. Having shares is what makes you an owner. What I think you mean is, is it possible for the owner(s) of a private company to sell all of its shares when it goes public? The answer is yes. It is uncommon for a start-up owner to do this but it is standard practice for \"\"corporate raiders\"\" who buy failing companies, take them private, restructure them and then take them public again - they have done their job and they are not interested in maintaining an ownership stake. Nope. See above and below. Not at all, equity is an accounting construct and market capitalization is about market sentiment. Consider the following hypothetical firm: It has $1m in equity, it makes $4m in profit and will do for the foreseeable future, it pays all of that $4m out as dividends - if we work on a simple ROI of 10% then this firm is worth $40m dollars - way more than its equity.\"","Investopedia has a good definition. Stock dividends are similar to cash dividends; however, instead of cash, a company pays out stock. Stock splits occur when a company perceives that its stock price may be too high. Stock splits are usually done to increase the liquidity of the stock (more shares outstanding) and to make it more affordable for investors to buy regular lots (a regular lot = 100 shares).","Shares often come associated with a set of rights, such as ability to vote in the outcome of the company. Some shares do not have this right, however. With your ability to vote in the outcome of the company, you could help dictate that the company paid dividends at a point in time. Or many other varieties of outcomes. Also, if there were any liquidity events due to demand of the shares, this is typically at a much higher price than the shares are now when the company is private/closely held.","\"The first 3 are the same as owning stock in a company would be measured in shares and would constitute some percentage of the overall shares outstanding. If there are 100 shares in the company in total, then owning 80 shares is owning 80% is the same as owning 80% of the common stock. This would be the typical ownership case though there can also be \"\"Restricted stock\"\" as something to note here. Convertible debt would likely carry interest charges as well as the choice at the end of becoming stock in the company. In this case, until the conversion is done, the stock isn't issued and thus isn't counted. Taking the above example, one could have a note that could be worth 10 shares but until the conversion is done, the debt is still debt. Some convertible debt could carry options or warrants for the underlying stock as there was the Berkshire convertible notes years ago that carried a negative interest rate that was studied in \"\"The Negative Coupon Bond\"\" if you want an example here. Options would have the right but not the obligation to buy the stock where there are \"\"Incentive Stock Options\"\" to research this in more depth. In this case, one could choose to not exercise the option and thus no stock changes hands. This is where some companies will experience dilution of ownership as employees and management may be given options that put more shares out to the public. Issuing debt wouldn't change the ownership and isn't direct ownership unless the company goes through a restructuring where the creditors become the new stock holders in the case of a Chapter 11 situation in the US. Note that this isn't really investing in a small business as much as it is making a loan to the company that will be paid back in cash. If the company runs into problems then the creditor could try to pursue the assets of the company to be repaid.\"","The bonus share also improves the liquidity however there is some difference in treatment. Lets say a company has 100 shares, of $10 ea. The total capital of the compnay is 100*10 = 1000. Assuming the company is doing well, its share is now available in the market for $100 ea. Now lets say the company has made a profit of $1000 and this also gets factored into the price of $100. Lets say the company decides to keep this $1000 kept as Cash Reserve and is not distributed as dividends. In a share split say (1:1), the book value of each share is now reduced to $5, the number of shares increase to 200. The share capital stays at 200*5 = 1000. The market value of shares come down to $50 ea. In a Bonus share issue say (1:1), the funds $1000 are moved from Cash Reserve and transferred to share capital. The book value of each share will remain same as $10, the number of shares increase to 200. The share capital increases to 200*10 = 2000. The market value of shares come down to $50 ea. So essentially from a liquidity point of view both give the same benefit. As to why some companies issue bonus and not a split, this is because of multiple reasons. A split beyond a point cannot be done, ie $10 can be split to $1 ea but it doesn't look good to make it $0.50. The other reason is there is adequate cash reserve and you want to convert this into share holders capital. Having a larger share holders capital improves some of the health ratios for the compnay. At times bouns is used to play upon that one is getting something free.","When you invest in stocks, there are two possible ways to make money: Many people speculate just on the stock price, which would result in a gain (or loss), but only once you have resold the shares. Others don't really care about the stock price. They get dividends every so often, and hopefully, the return will be better than other types of investments. If you're in there for the long run, you do not really care what the price of the stock is. It is often highly volatile, and often completely disconnected from anything, so it's not because today you have a theoretical gain (because the current stock price is higher than your buying price) that you will effectively realise that gain when you sell (need I enumerate the numerous crashes that prevented this from happening?). Returns will often be more spectacular on share resale than on dividends, but it goes both ways (you can lose a lot if you resell at the wrong time). Dividends tend to be a bit more stable, and unless the company goes bankrupt (or a few other unfortunate events), you still hold shares in the company even if the price goes down, and you could still get dividends. And you can still resell the stock on top of that! Of course, not all companies distribute dividends. In that case, you only have the hope of reselling at a higher price (or that the company will distribute dividends in the future). Welcome to the next bubble...","They were issued in 1919 and eliminated in 1926. This means that Coca-Cola redeemed them in 1926 and either converted the preferred's to common stock or paid the preferred investor's back their full par value and took them off the books.","If that company issues another 100 shares, shouldn't 10 of those new 100 shares be mine? Those 100 shares are an asset of the company, and you own 10% of them. When investors buy those new shares, you again own a share of the proceeds, just as you own a share of all the company's assets. A company only issues new share to raise money - it is a borrowing from investors, and in that way can be seen as an alternative to taking on loans. Both share issuing and a loan bring new capital and debt into a company. The difference is that shares don't need to be repaid.","Regardless of whether a stock is owned by a retail investor or an institutional investor, it is subject to the same rules. For example, say that as part of the buyout, 1 share of Company B is equivalent to 0.75 shares of Company A and any fractional shares will be paid out in cash. This rule will apply to both the retail investor who holds 500 shares of Company B, as well as the asset manager or hedge fund holding 5,000,000 shares of Company B.","Your question has already been answered, you divide the amount of shares you own * 100% by the total amount of shares. However, I feel it is somewhat misleading to talk about owning a percentage of the company by owning shares. Strictly speaking, shares do not entitle you to a part of the company but instead give you a proportional amount of votes at shareholder meetings (assuming no funky share classes). What this means is that someone who owns 30% of a company's shares can't just grab 30% of the company's assets (factories, offices and whatever) and say that they are entitled to own this. What they actually own is 30% of the voting rights in this company, this means that they control 30% of all available votes when the company calls a vote on corporate actions, choosing a new director etc. which is how shareholders exert their influence on a company.","No - there are additional factors involved. Note that the shares on issue of a company can change for various reasons (such as conversion/redemption of convertible securities, vesting of restricted employee shares, conversion of employee options, employee stock purchase programs, share placements, buybacks, mergers, rights issues etc.) so it is always worthwhile checking SEC announcements for the company if you want an exact figure. There may also be multiple classes of shares and preferred securities that have different levels of dividends present. For PFG, they filed a 10Q on 22 April 2015 and noted they had 294,385,885 shares outstanding of their common stock. They also noted for the three months ended March 31 2014 that dividends were paid to both common stockholders and preferred stockholders and that there were Series A preferred stock (3 million) and Series B preferred stock (10 million), plus a statement: In February 2015, our Board of Directors authorized a share repurchase program of up to $150.0 million of our outstanding common stock. Shares repurchased under these programs are accounted for as treasury stock, carried at cost and reflected as a reduction to stockholders’ equity. Therefore the exact amount of dividend paid out will not be known until the next quarterly report which will state the exact amount of dividend paid out to common and preferred shareholders for the quarter.","If you have a public company and shareholder A owns 25% and shareholder B owns 25%, and lets say the remaining 50% is owned by various funds/small investors. Say profits are 100mil, and a dividend is payed. Say 50 mil worth is payed out as dividend and 30 mil is kept as retained earnings for future investment. Can the remaining 20 mil be distributed to shareholders A and B, so that they both get 10mil each? Can certain shareholders be favored and get a bigger cut of profits than the dividends pay out is my question basically.","Theoretically, when a company issues more shares, it does not affect the value of your shares. The reason is that when a company issues and sells more shares, the proceeds from the sale of those shares goes back into the company. Using your example, you have 10 out of 100 shares of the company, for a 10% stake. Let's say that the shares are valued at $1,000 each, meaning that the market value of the company is $100,000, and your stake is worth $10,000. Now the company issues 100 more shares at $1,000 each. The company receives $100,000 from new investors, and now the company is worth $200,000. Your stake is now only 5% of the company, but it is still worth $10,000. The authorized share capital is the amount of shares that a company has already planned on selling. When you buy stock in a company, you can look up how many shares exist, so you know what your percent stake in the company is. When a company wants to sell more shares, this is called an increase of authorized share capital. In order to do this, the company generally needs the approval of a majority of the existing shareholders.","\"Thanks for your reply. I think a lot of people are confused when talking about ownership, and I think it is a definitional issue. When a company issues stock (the first time or anytime), what they are doing is \"\"selling\"\" the right to a percentage of the dividend. They are not actually selling parts of the company to you. Everyone thinks this way though, and that has to do with the Chicago School economists who perpetuated their ideas of ownership which is what everyone know thinks is the case. This way of thinking about corporations and ownership is just wrong (not ethically), just erroneous. As I stated before, Lynn Stout of Cornell University explains this really well. I would encourage anyone to read more about it.\""],"string":"[\n \"It is just a different category of stock issued by a company that gives its owners different treatment when it comes to dividend payment and a few other financial transactions. Preferred stock holders get treated with some preference with regard to the company's profits and assets. For example, dividends are typically guaranteed to preferred stock holders whereas the leadership in the company can elect at any time not to pay dividends to common stockholders. In the event the company is liquidated, the preferred stockholders also get to be in line ahead of common stockholders when the assets are distributed.\",\n \"Preferred stocks are, err... Preferred. The whole point of preferred stocks is that they have some preference over other classes of stocks (there may be more than 2, by the way). It can be more voting rights, more dividends or priority on dividends' distribution (common with VC investments), or priority on liquidations (in bankruptcy, preferred stock holders are ranked higher than common). Many times initial or critical investments are made on preferred terms, and the stocks are converted to common when certain thresholds are met. Obviously all these benefits require a premium on the price.\",\n \"Typically, preferred shares come with one or both different benefits - a disproportionate share of votes, say 10 votes per share vs the normal 1, or a preferred dividend. The vote preference is great for the owner(s) looking to go public, but not lose control of the company. Say, I am a Walton (of Walmart fame) and when I went public, I sold 80% of the (1000 share total) company. But, in creating the share structure, 20% of shares were assigned 10 votes each. 800 shares now trade with 800 votes, 200 shares have 10 votes each or 2000 votes. So, there are still the 1000 shares but 2800 votes. The 20% of shares now have 2000/2800 or 71% of the total votes. So, my shares are just less than half ownership, but over 78% of votes. Preferred dividend is as simple as that, buy Stock A for ownership, or (same company) Stock A preferred shares which have ownership and $1/yr dividend. Edited to show a bit more math. I use a simple example to call out a total 1000 shares. The percentages would be the same for a million or billion shares if 20% were a 10 vote preferred.\",\n \"I once bought both preferred and common shares in a bankrupt company. It is true that those preferred shares had less potential for appreciation than the common shares. The reason is because the preferred shares were trading around $50 and had a face value of $1000. This means that if the bankruptcy proceedings ended up finding enough assets to make the preferred shares whole, then the preferred shareholders would be paid $1000 per share and no more than that. So if you bought the preferred shares at $50 and received $1000 per share for them, then you made a 1900% gain. But if the bankruptcy proceedings found enough assets to pay not just the preferred shareholders but also the common shareholders, then the common shareholders had the potential for a greater gain than the preferred shareholders. The common stock was trading around 20 cents at the time, and if enough assets were found to pay $10 per share to the common shareholders, then that would have been a 4900% gain. The preferred shares were capped by their face value, but the common shares had no limit on how high they could go.\",\n \"\\\"Preferred dividends and common dividends are completely separate transactions. There's not a single \\\"\\\"dividend\\\"\\\" payment that is split between preferred and common shares. Dividends on preferred shares are generally MUCH higher than common dividends, and are generally required by the terms of the preferred shares, again unlike common dividends, which are discretionary.\\\"\",\n \"A company can issue different kinds of shares. For example, some kinds of shares may get preference in dividends or payment in event of (company) bankruptcy. Preferred shares are an example of this. A company might have several kinds of preferred shares and a 'common stock'. Here is a good explanation. See too the Wikipedia article about preferred stock. Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) is an example of a company that has fourteen different preferred share issues, each with its own listing on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSE) and symbol. TD has one kind of common stock, which is also listed on the TSE. However, TD common equity trades much more actively than the preferred shares. Remember that preferred stock is a different security type than common stock e.g. common has voting rights, preferred does not.\",\n \"\\\"Yes and no. There are different classes of shares - Some have voting rights, some *don't*. Some take precedence over others in a bankruptcy. Some get larger dividends. \\\"\\\"Common\\\"\\\" isn't really a useful description of your stake in the company. You *do* have a \\\"\\\"stake\\\"\\\" in the company, but not all shares are equal.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I seem not to be able to comment on the first answer due to reputation, so I'll aim to enhanced the first answer which is generally good but with these caveats: 1) Dividends are not \\\"\\\"guaranteed\\\"\\\" to preferred shareholders. Rather, preferred shareholders are normally in line ahead (i.e. in preference to or \\\"\\\"preferred\\\"\\\") of common shareholders in terms of dividend payment. This is an extremely important distinction, because unlike investments that we generally consider \\\"\\\"guaranteed\\\"\\\" such as CDs (known as GICs in Canada), a company's board can suspend the dividend at anytime for long periods of time without significant repercussions -- whereas a missed payment to a bank or secured bondholder can often push a company into bankruptcy very quickly. 2) Due to point 1), it is extremely important to know the \\\"\\\"convenants\\\"\\\" or rules sorrounding both the preferred shares you are buying and the other more senior creditors of that issuing company (i.e. taxes (almost always come first), banks loans, leases, bonds etc.). It is also important to know if a particular preferred share has \\\"\\\"cumulative\\\"\\\" dividends. You generally only want to buy preferred's that have \\\"\\\"cumulative\\\"\\\" dividends, since that means that anytime the company misses a payment, they must pay those dividends first before any other dividends at the same or lower priority in the future. 3) Unlike a common stock, your upside on a preferred stock is relatively fixed: you get a fixed share of the company's profit and that's it, whereas a common shareholder gets everything that's left over after interest and preferred dividends are paid. So if the company does really well you will theoretically do much better with common stock over time. For the above reasons, it is generally advisable to think of preferred shares as being more similar to really risky bonds in the same company, rather than similar to common stock. Of course, if you are an advanced investor there are a lot more variables in play such as tax considerations and whether the preferred have special options attached to them such conversion into common shares.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"In most cases, the other classes of shares are preferred stock (example, JPM-F). Preferred stock usually pays higher dividends and shareholders get preferential treatment in the event that the company goes under. (Preferred shareholders are behind bondholders in line, but ahead of common stock holders) In other cases, different classes of shares have different voting rights or pricing. Examples include Berkshire Hathaway B shares. In the case of Berkshire Hathaway B shares, the stock has 1/500th of the rights and 1/10,000th of the voting rights of an \\\"\\\"A\\\"\\\" share. You need to be cautious about investing in anything other than common stock -- make sure that you understand what you are getting into. This is not to say that other share classes are 'bad' -- just that many preferred stocks are thinly traded and are difficult to buy and sell.\\\"\",\n \"Classes of shares are not necessarily standardized. Some share classes have preference above others in the event of a liquidation. Some share classes represent a different proportion of ownership interest. Any time you see multiple share classes, you need to research what is different for that specific corporation.\",\n \"You can find this in the annual report. Preferred value is not the same as common value.\",\n \"Not quite. Every security issued by the company defines what it gets. If you want to go straight to common stock, the shareholders are in fact owners of the company: after everyone else gets paid, no matter what is left, it belongs to the common shareholders.\",\n \"\\\"In a sentence, stocks are a share of equity in the company, while bonds are a share of credit to the company. When you buy one share of stock, you own a (typically infinitesimal) percentage of the company. You are usually entitled to a share of the profits of that company, and/or to participate in the business decisions of that company. A particular type of stock may or may not pay dividends, which is the primary way companies share profits with their stockholders (the other way is simply by increasing the company's share value by being successful and thus desirable to investors). A stock also may or may not allow you to vote on company business; you may hear about companies buying 20% or 30% \\\"\\\"interests\\\"\\\" in other companies; they own that percentage of the company, and their vote on company matters is given that same weight in the total voting pool. Typically, a company offers two levels of stocks: \\\"\\\"Common\\\"\\\" stock usually has voting rights attached, and may pay dividends. \\\"\\\"Preferred\\\"\\\" stock usually gives up the voting rights, but pays a higher dividend percentage (maybe double or triple that of common stock) and may have payment guarantees (if a promised dividend is missed in one quarter and then paid in the next, the preferred stockholders get their dividend for the past and present quarters before the common shareholders see a penny). Governments and non-profits are typically prohibited from selling their equity; if a government sold stock it would basically be taxing everyone and then paying back stockholders, while non-profit organizations have no profits to pay out as dividends. Bonds, on the other hand, are a slice of the company's debt load. Think of bonds as kind of like a corporate credit card. When a company needs a lot of cash, it will sell bonds. A single bond may be worth $10, $100, or $1000, depending on the investor market being targeted. This is the amount the company will pay the bondholder at the end of the term of the bond. These bonds are bought by investors on the open market for less than their face value, and the company uses the cash it raises for whatever purpose it wants, before paying off the bondholders at term's end (usually by paying each bond at face value using money from a new package of bonds, in effect \\\"\\\"rolling over\\\"\\\" the debt to the next cycle, similar to you carrying a balance on your credit card). The difference between the cost and payoff is the \\\"\\\"interest charge\\\"\\\" on this slice of the loan, and can be expressed as a percentage of the purchase price over the remaining term of the bond, as its \\\"\\\"yield\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"APY\\\"\\\". For example, a bond worth $100 that was sold on Jan 1 for $85 and is due to be paid on Dec 31 of the same year has an APY of (15/85*100) = 17.65%. Typically, yields for highly-rated companies are more like 4-6%; a bond that would yield 17% is very risky and indicates a very low bond rating, so-called \\\"\\\"junk status\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"I know this has already been answered and I know its frowned upon to dump a link, however, when it comes to investments it's best to get data from an 'official' source to avoid misinterpretations and personal opinions. The attached pdf is from the S&P and provides detailed, but not overwhelming, information regarding the types of preferreds, the risks & common terminology: http://us.spindices.com/documents/education/practice-essentials-us-preferreds.pdf Page 1: PREFERRED SECURITIES DEFINED Borrowing from two worlds, a preferred security has both equity and fixed income characteristics. As such, the preferred structure offers a flexible approach to structuring a preferred offering for an issuer. Companies have many reasons to issue preferred securities. Financial institutions, for example, need to raise capital. Many times they will use the preferred market because of any required regulatory requirements, in addition to cost considerations. Banks and financial institutions are required to maintain a certain level of Tier 1 capital—which includes common equity and perpetual non-cumulative preferreds—as protection against the bank’s liabilities. Issuing more common equity comes at a cost, including the dilution of existing shares, which a company may not want to bear. Preferred securities are a cheaper alternative approach to raising the capital. Companies often use preferred stock for strategic reasons. Some of these uses include:\",\n \"To follow up on Quid's comment, the share classes themselves will define what level of dividends are expected. Note that the terms 'common shares' and 'preferred shares' are generally understood terms, but are not as precise as you might believe. There are dozens/hundreds of different characteristics that could be written into share classes in the company's articles of incorporation [as long as those characteristics are legal in corporate law in the company's jurisdiction]. So in answering your question there's a bit of an assumption that things are working 'as usual'. Note that private companies often have odd quirks to their share classes, things like weird small classes of shares that have most of the voting rights, or shares with 'shotgun buyback clauses'. As long as they are legal clauses, they can be used to help control how the business is run between various shareholders with competing interests. Things like parents anticipating future family infighting and trying to prevent familial struggle. You are unlikely to see such weird quirks in public companies, where the company will have additional regulatory requirements and where the public won't want any shock at unexpected share clauses. In your case, you suggested having a non-cumulative preferred share [with no voting rights, but that doesn't impact dividend payment]: There are two salient points left related to payout that the articles of incorporation will need to define for the share classes: (1) What is the redemption value for the shares? [This is usually equal to the cost of subscribing for the shares in the first place; it represents how much the business will need to pay the shareholder in the event of redemption / recall] (2) What is the stated dividend amount? This is usually defined at a rate that's at or a little above a reasonable interest rate at the time the shares are created, but defined as $ / share. For example, the shares could have $1 / share dividend payment, where the shares originally cost $50 each to subscribe [this would reflect a rate of payment of about 2%]. Typically by corporate law, dividends must be paid to preferred shares, to the extent required based on the characteristics of the share class [some preferred shares may not have any required dividends at all], before any dividends can be paid to common shares. So if $10k in dividends is to be paid, and total preferred shares require $15k of non-cumulative dividends each year, then $0 will be paid to the common shares. The following year, $15k of dividends will once again need to be paid to the preferred shares, before any can be paid to the common shares.\",\n \"In most cases , preferential sharesholders are paid dividends first before common shareholders are paid . In the event of a company bankruptcy , preferential shareholders have the right to be paid first before common shareholders. In exchange for these benefits , preferential shareholders do not have any voting rights. The issuing of preferential shares has no impact on share prices or issuing of bonuses , it is a mere coincidence that the stock price went up\",\n \"Stocks represent partial ownership of the company. So, if you owned 51% of the stock of the company (and therefore 51% of the company itself), you could decide to liquidate all the assets of the company, and you would be entitled to 51% of the proceeds from that sale. In the example above, it would have to be Common Stock, as preferred stock does not confer ownership. *In a situation where it is not possible to buy 51% or more of the company (for example, it's not for sale), this is not possible, so the value of the stock could be much less.\",\n \"Stock basically implies your ownership in the company. If you own 1% ownership in a company, the value of your stake becomes equal to 1% of the valuation of the entire company. Dividends are basically disbursal of company's profits to its shareholders. By holding stocks of a company, you become eligible to receiving dividends proportional to your ownership in the company. Dividends though are not guaranteed, as the company may incur losses or the management may decide to use the cash for future growth instead of disbursing it to the shareholders. For example, let's say a company called ABC Inc, is listed on NYSE and has a total of 1 million shares issued. Let's say if you purchase 100 stocks of ABC, your ownership in ABC will become Let's say that the share price at the time of purchase was $10 each. Total Investment = Stock Price * Number of Stocks Purchased = $10 * 100 = $1,000 Now, let's say that the company declares a dividend of $1 per share. Then, Dividend Yield = Dividend/Stock Price = $1/$10 = 10% If one has to draw analogy with other banking products, one can think of stock and dividend as Fixed Deposits (analogous to stock) and the interest earned on the Fixed Deposit (analogous to dividend).\",\n \"The essential difference b/n ADR and a common share is that ADR do not have Voting rights. Common share has. There are some ADR that would in certain conditions get converted to common stock, but by and large most ADR's would remain ADR's without any voting rights. If you are an individual investor, this difference should not matter as rarely one would hold such a large number of shares to vote on General meeting on various issues. The other difference is that since many countries have regulations on who can buy common shares, for example in India an Non Resident cannot directly buy any share, hence he would buy ADR. Thus ADR would be priced more in the respective market if there is demand. For example Infosys Technologies, an India Company has ADR on NYSE. This is more expensive around 1.5 times the price of the common share available in India (at current exchange rate). Thus if you are able to invest with equal ease in HK (have broker / trading account etc), consider the taxation of the gains in HK as well the tax treatment in US for overseas gains then its recommended that you go for Common Stock in HK. Else it would make sense to buy in US.\",\n \"\\\"From Wikipedia - Stock: The stock (also capital stock) of a corporation constitutes the equity stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims such as secured and unsecured debt. Stockholders' equity cannot be withdrawn from the company in a way that is intended to be detrimental to the company's creditors Wikipedia - Dividend: A dividend is a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders, usually as a distribution of profits. When a corporation earns a profit or surplus, it can re-invest it in the business (called retained earnings), and pay a fraction of this reinvestment as a dividend to shareholders. Distribution to shareholders can be in cash (usually a deposit into a bank account) or, if the corporation has a dividend reinvestment plan, the amount can be paid by the issue of further shares or share repurchase. Wikipedia - Bond: In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders. It is a debt security, under which the issuer owes the holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to pay them interest (the coupon) and/or to repay the principal at a later date, termed the maturity date. Interest is usually payable at fixed intervals (semiannual, annual, sometimes monthly). Very often the bond is negotiable, i.e. the ownership of the instrument can be transferred in the secondary market. This means that once the transfer agents at the bank medallion stamp the bond, it is highly liquid on the second market. Thus, stock is about ownership in the company, dividends are the payments those owners receive, which may be additional shares or cash usually, and bonds are about lending money. Stocks are usually bought through brokers on various stock exchanges generally. An exception can be made under \\\"\\\"Employee Stock Purchase Plans\\\"\\\" and other special cases where an employee may be given stock or options that allow the purchase of shares in the company through various plans. This would apply for Canada and the US where I have experience just as a parting note. This is without getting into Convertible Bond that also exists: In finance, a convertible bond or convertible note or convertible debt (or a convertible debenture if it has a maturity of greater than 10 years) is a type of bond that the holder can convert into a specified number of shares of common stock in the issuing company or cash of equal value. It is a hybrid security with debt- and equity-like features. It originated in the mid-19th century, and was used by early speculators such as Jacob Little and Daniel Drew to counter market cornering. Convertible bonds are most often issued by companies with a low credit rating and high growth potential.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The difference between TMUSP and TMUS is that the \\\"\\\"with P\\\"\\\" ticker is for a TMobile Preferred Stock offering. The \\\"\\\"without P\\\"\\\" ticker is for TMobile common stock. The difference between the apparent percentage yields is due to Yahoo! Stock misreporting the dividend on the preferred stock for the common stock, which has not paid a dividend (thanks Brick for pointing this out!) Preferred stock holders get paid first in the event of liquidation, in most scenarios they get paid first. They sometimes get better returns. They typically lack voting rights, and after a grace period, they may be recalled by the company at a fixed price (set when they were issued). Common stock holders can vote to alter the board of directors, and are the epitome of the typical \\\"\\\"I own a trivial fraction of the company\\\"\\\" model that most people think of when owning stocks. As the common stock is valued at much less, it appears that the percent yield is much higher, but in reality, it's 0%.\\\"\",\n \"What percent of a company are you buying when you purchase stock? The percent of a company represented by a single share can be calculated by percent = 1/number_of_shares*100% Apple comprises 5,250,000,000 shares, so one share makes up about 1.9e-8% of a company, or 0.000000019% of Apple.\",\n \"First, the stock does represent a share of ownership and if you have a different interpretation I'd like to see proof of that. Secondly, when the IPO or secondary offering happened that put those shares into the market int he first place, the company did receive proceeds from selling those shares. While others may profit afterward, it is worth noting that more than a few companies will have secondary offerings, convertible debt, incentive stock options and restricted stock that may be used down the road that are all dependent upon the current trading share price in terms of how useful these can be used to fund operations, pay executives and so forth. Third, if someone buys up enough shares of the company then they gain control of the company which while you aren't mentioning this case, it is something to note as some individuals buy stock so that they can take over the company which happens. Usually this has more of an overall plan but the idea here is that getting that 50%+1 control of the company's voting shares are an important piece to things here.\",\n \"True blue preferred shares are considered loose hybrids of credit and equity. They are more senior than common equity in bankruptcy liquidation but pay out a dividend which is not mandatory. Financial institutions issue the bulk of genuine preferred shares because of their need for more flexibility than a bond but not so much that they can afford the cost to shareholders by diluting common equity. Since it is a credit-like security that receives none of the income from operations but merely pays out a potentially unpredictable yet fixed amount of income, it will perform much more like a bond, rising when interest rates fall and vice versa, and since interest rates do not move to the extent of common equity valuations, preferreds' price variances will correspond much more to bonds than common equities. If the company stops paying the preferred dividend or looks to become in financial trouble, the price of the preferred share should be expected to fall. There are more modern preferred however. It has now become popular to fund intermediate startups with convertible preferred shares. Because these are derivatives based upon the common equity, they can be expected to be much more variant.\",\n \"Shareholders have voting rights, and directors have fiduciary obligations to shareholders. Sure, shareholders have rights to the dividends, but stock confers decisionmaking powers. I'm not really sure what your answer to this is, or how you are differentiating the concept of ownership from this.\",\n \"stocks represent ownership in a company. their price can go up or down depending on how much profit the company makes (or is expected to make). stocks owners are sometimes paid money by the company if the company has extra cash. these payments are called dividends. bonds represent a debt that a company owes. when you buy a bond, then the company owes that debt to you. typically, the company will pay a small amount of money on a regular basis to the bond owner, then a large lump some at some point in the future. assuming the company does not file bankrupcy, and you keep the bond until it becomes worthless, then you know exactly how much money you will get from buying a bond. because bonds have a fixed payout (assuming no bankrupcy), they tend to have lower average returns. on the other hand, while stocks have a higher average return, some stocks never return any money. in the usa, stocks and bonds can be purchased through a brokerage account. examples are etrade, tradeking, or robinhood.com. before purchasing stocks or bonds, you should probably learn a great deal more about other investment concepts such as: diversification, volatility, interest rates, inflation risk, capital gains taxes, (in the usa: ira's, 401k's, the mortgage interest deduction). at the very least, you will need to decide if you want to buy stocks inside an ira or in a regular brokerage account. you will also probably want to buy a low-expense ration etf (e.g. an index fund etf) unless you feel confident in some other choice.\",\n \"\\\"From the Times A Reader Q.&A. on G.M.’s Bankruptcy Q. I own G.M. preferred shares. Should I be looking to sell them, or hold on? I bought them at $25 a share when they were issued in late 2001. — Karen, Manhattan A. When a company files for bankruptcy, its various stock and bondholders essentially get in line. The first investors to be repaid are secured debt holders, then senior bond investors, followed by subordinated debt holders. Preferred shareholders are next, and lastly, holders of common stock. In a bankruptcy, preferred shares are usually worthless, much like shares of common stock. But in the case of G.M., there may be some good — or at least somewhat better — news. Most of G.M.’s preferred shares are actually senior notes or “quarterly interest bonds,” which means you will be treated as a bondholder, according to Marilyn Cohen, president of Envision Capital Management. So you will be able to exchange your preferreds for G.M. stock (bondholders will receive 10 percent of the new company’s stock). It’s not the best deal, but it beats the empty bag true preferred shareholders would have been left holding. Of course this is just one example, and you were hoping to get some larger picture. The article stated \\\"\\\"In a bankruptcy, preferred shares are usually worthless, much like shares of common stock\\\"\\\" which at least is a bit closer to that, if you accept usually as a statistic.\\\"\",\n \"A stock is an ownership interest in a company. There can be multiple classes of shares, but to simplify, assuming only one class of shares, a company issues some number of shares, let's say 1,000,000 shares and you can buy shares of the company. If you own 1,000 shares in this example, you would own one one-thousandth of the company. Public companies have their shares traded on the open market and the price varies as demand for the stock comes and goes relative to people willing to sell their shares. You typically buy stock in a company because you believe the company is going to prosper into the future and thus the value of its stock should rise in the open market. A bond is an indebted interest in a company. A company issues bonds to borrow money at an interest rate specified in the bond issuance and makes periodic payments of principal and interest. You buy bonds in a company to lend the company money at an interest rate specified in the bond because you believe the company will be able to repay the debt per the terms of the bond. The value of a bond as traded on the open exchange varies as the prevailing interest rates vary. If you buy a bond for $1,000 yielding 5% interest and interest rates go up to 10%, the value of your bond in the open market goes down so that the payment terms of 5% on $1,000 matches hypothetical terms of 10% on a lesser principal amount. Whatever lesser principal amount at the new rate would lead to the same payment terms determines the new market value. Alternatively, if interest rates go down, the current value of your bond increases on the open market to make it appear as if it is yielding a lower rate. Regardless of the market value, the company continues to pay interest on the original debt per its terms, so you can always hold onto a bond and get the original promised interest as long as the company does not go bankrupt. So in summary, bonds tend to be a safer investment that offers less potential return. However, this is not always the case, since if interest rates skyrocket, your bond's value will plummet, although you could just hold onto them and get the low rate originally promised.\",\n \"You can argue that cash dividend is a kind of split as well by this logic. The stock price on ex-dividend gets a hit coincidental with the dividend to be paid, so one can argue that the investor has the same cash value on the day the dividend was paid as if it wouldn't be paid at all. However, for the company to distribute stocks instead of cash may be advantageous if they have low cash reserves but significant amount of treasury stocks, and the stocks are of high liquidity. It is also a way for the company to release treasury stocks without diluting the current shareholders and creating taxable income to the company, that's an important factor to consider. This is in fact the real answer to your question. The main difference between split and stock dividend is that in split, the stock distributions proportions don't change. With stock dividend - they do. While the outstanding share proportions do not change, total proportions do, because of the treasury stocks being distributed. So company has less stocks in its vaults, but everyone else still has the same proportions of ownership. Compare this to split: company's treasury stocks would be split as well, and it would continue essentially sitting on the same proportion of stocks. That shift of treasury stocks to the outside shareholders - this is what makes it a dividend.\",\n \"As a start-up, the initial shares can be given at various price points. So essentially they can give someone a larger percentage based on the same amount earlier, and lesser percentage to someone else for the same amount. As its a start-up the valuations can be very tricy and what matters is that whether you believe the percentage you got for the amount is right or not. It is very important to note that when you have been given an ownership in the company, how that is designated. Is it in absolute number of shares or is it in terms of percentage based on the existing shares. For example you maybe given 100 shares, without any qualification. Or you maybe given a 5% stake in the paid-up capital, that translates to 100 shares. It is always better to hold the shares in % of the total shares. Also read the contract, any dilution should require your approval. Normally start-ups once the valuation starts to go up, start creating more shares and sell these to private equity or create more shares and give it as a bonus to promoters. Hence in both cases your holding will keep getting diluted. There is a related quesiton If a startup can always issue new shares, what value is there to stocks/options?\",\n \"\\\"From The Coca-Cola Company website, section for Investors: Stock History, Issues Year 1919 Original issue -- 600,000 shares 100,000 preferred, par $100 each 500,000 common, without nominal or par value 1926 Eliminated 100,000 preferred in November. This means there were preferred shares issued in 1919. However, all preferred shares were \\\"\\\"eliminated\\\"\\\" (not sure what that means) as of 1926. There has been no subsequent reissuance of preferred shares of Coca-Cola since then. I think the company is still authorized to issue them, should they choose to do so in the future.\\\"\",\n \"Don't ever quantify a stock's preference/performance just based on the dividend it is paying out Volatility defined by movements in the the stock's price, affected by factors embedded in the stock e.g. the corporation, the business it is in, the economy, the management etc etc. Apple wasn't paying dividends but people were still buying into it. Same with Amazon, Berkshire, Google. These companies create value by investing their earnings back into their company and this is reflected in their share prices. Their earnings create more value in this way for the stockholders. The holding structures of these companies also help them in their motives. Supposedly $100 invested in either stocks. For keeping things easy, you invested at the same time in both, single annual dividend and prices more or less remain constant. Company A: $5/share at 20% annual dividend yield. Dividend = $20 Company B: $10/share at 20% annual dividend yield Dividend = $20 You receive the same dividend in both cases. Volatility willn't affect you unless you are trading, or the stock market tanks, or some very bad news comes out of either company or on the economy. Volatility in the long term averages out, except in specific outlier cases e.g. Lehman bankruptcy and the financial crash which are rare but do happen. In general case the %price movements in both stocks would more or less follow the markets (not exactly though) except when relevant news for either corporations come out.\",\n \"They are 2 different class of shares belonging to the same company. Class A shares [par value of 0.01] have 100 voting rights per share. Class B shares [par value of 0.0002] have one voting rights. Both are listed separately with different ISN and trade at slightly different values. The Class A at higher value than Class B which looks right as it has more voting power.\",\n \"\\\"If you mean, If I invest, say, $1000 in a stock that is growing at 5% per year, versus investing $1000 in an account that pays compound interest of 5% per year, how does the amount I have after 5 years compare? Then the answer is, They would be exactly the same. As Kent Anderson says, \\\"\\\"compound interest\\\"\\\" simply means that as you accumulate interest, that for the next interest cycle, the amount that they pay interest on is based on the previous cycle balance PLUS the interest. For example, suppose you invest $1000 at 5% interest compounded annually. After one year you get 5% of $1000, or $50. You now have $1050. At the end of the second year, you get 5% of $1050 -- not 5% of the original $1000 -- or $52.50, so you now have $1102.50. Etc. Stocks tend to grow in the same way. But here's the big difference: If you get an interest-bearing account, the bank or investment company guarantees the interest rate. Unless they go bankrupt, you WILL get that percentage interest. But there is absolutely no guarantee when you buy stock. It may go up 5% this year, up 4% next year, and down 3% the year after. The company makes no promises about how much growth the stock will show. It may show a loss. It all depends on how well the company does.\\\"\",\n \"There is no difference between more shares of a relatively cheaper stock and less shares of a relatively more expensive stock. When you invest in a stock, the percentage increase (or decrease) in the share price results in gains (or losses). This is a fundamental concept of investing. Your question suggests that you would benefit from further research before investing your money. Trading real dollars can be difficult without a strong understanding of the principles involved. Investing your money without a good knowledge base will likely be stressful and could have a discouraging effect if it doesn't go well. Before you open an investment account, read up on investing fundamentals, particularly mutual funds as those can be a great place to start as a new investor. There are many sources of information including books, websites such as http://investor.gov/investing-basics and this website. Don't skip the sections on taxes, as those matter just as much and sometimes more than the simple buying and selling. You might look at tax advantaged accounts, such as 401k's, IRA's, etc. It shouldn't take long but it will be one of the most important things you do as a beginning investor. Everyone has to start here. Understanding the vocabulary and concepts will likely save you time and money throughout your investing life.\",\n \"\\\"Baseball cards don't pay dividends. But many profitable companies do just that, and those that don't could, some day. Profits & dividends is where your analogy falls apart. But let's take it further. Consider: If baseball cards could somehow yield a regular stream of income just for owning them, then there might be yet another group of people, call them the Daves. These Daves I know are the kind of people that would like to own baseball cards over the long term just for their income-producing capability. Daves would seek out the cards with the best chance of producing and growing a reliable income stream. They wouldn't necessarily care about being able to flip a card at an inflated price to a Bob, but they might take advantage of inflated prices once in a while. Heck, even some of the Steves would enjoy this income while they waited for the eventual capital gain made by selling to a Bob at a higher price. Plus, the Steves could also sell their cards to Daves, not just Bobs. Daves would be willing to pay more for a card based on its income stream: how reliable it is, how high it is, how fast it grows, and where it is relative to market interest rates. A card with a good income stream might even have more value to a Dave than to a Bob, because a Dave doesn't care as much about the popularity of the player. Addendum regarding your comment: I suppose I'm still struggling with the best way to present my question. I understand that companies differ in this aspect in that they produce value. But if stockholders cannot simply claim a percentage of a company's value equal to their share, then the fact that companies produce value seems irrelevant to the \\\"\\\"Bobs\\\"\\\". You're right – stockholders can't simply claim their percentage of a company's assets. Rather, shareholders vote in a board of directors. The board of directors can decide whether or not to issue dividends or buy back shares, each of which puts money back in your pocket. A board could even decide to dissolve the company and distribute the net assets (after paying debts and dissolution costs) to the shareholders – but this is seldom done because there's often more profit in remaining a going concern. I think perhaps what you are getting hung up on is the idea that a small shareholder can't command the company to give net assets in exchange for shares. Instead, generally speaking, a company runs somewhat like a democracy – but it's each share that gets a vote, not each shareholder. Since you can't redeem your shares back to the company on demand, there exists a secondary market – the stock market – where somebody else is willing to take over your investment based on what they perceive the value of your shares to be – and that market value is often different from the underlying \\\"\\\"book value\\\"\\\" per share.\\\"\",\n \"For all practical purposes the words mean the same thing. Shares are just stock in a particular company whereas stock can refer to shares over many companies. Investopedia has a good explaination. If you are a financial journalist you might want to make sure you are using the right term at the right time, but otherwise they are synonyms.\",\n \"I was thinking that the value of the stock is the value of the stock...the actual number of shares really doesn't matter, but I'm not sure. You're correct. Share price is meaningless. Google is $700 per share, Apple is $100 per share, that doesn't say anything about either company and/or whether or not one is a better investment over the other. You should not evaluate an investment decision on price of a share. Look at the books decide if the company is worth owning, then decide if it's worth owning at it's current price.\",\n \"Firstly a stock split is easy, for example each unit of stock is converted into 10 units. So if you owned 1% of the company before the stock split, you will still own 1% after the stock split, but have 10 times the number of shares. The company does not pay out any money when doing this and there is no effect on tax for the company or the share holder. Now onto stock dividend… When a company make a profit, the company gives some of the profit to the share holders as a dividend; this is normally paid in cash. An investor may then wish to buy more shares in the company using the money from the dividend. However buying shares used to have a large cost in broker charges etc. Therefore some companies allowed share holders to choose to have the dividend paid as shares. The company buys enough of their own shares to cover the payout, only having one set of broker charges and then sends the correct number of shares to each share holder that has opted for a stock dividend. (Along with any cash that was not enough to buy a complete share.) This made since when you had paper shares and admin costs where high for stock brokers. It does not make sense these days. A stock dividend is taxed as if you had been paid the dividend in cash and then brought the stock yourself.\",\n \"\\\"The key difference I've found between a stock split and a stock dividend – of the exact same stock and class, as opposed to a spin-off – seems to be from the company's own accounting perspective. There doesn't appear to be any actual transfer of value to the shareholder with either kind of transaction; i.e. in theory, each transaction would be immaterial to the value of your holdings. With respect to the company's accounting, a stock split affects the par value of the shares, whereas a stock dividend reduces the retained earnings account in order to increase paid-in or contributed capital. I found a good online source which explains the history behind this accounting difference: McGraw-Hill - Intermediate Accounting eBook, 6/e - Chapter 18 - Stock Dividends and Splits. Small quote: [...] Besides being based on fallacious reasoning, accounting for stock dividends by artificially reclassifying “earned” capital as “invested” capital conflicts with the reporting objective of reporting shareholders' equity by source. Despite these limitations, this outdated accounting standard still applies. Since neither the corporation nor its shareholders apparently benefits from stock dividends, why do companies declare them?23 Occasionally, a company tries to give shareholders the illusion that they are receiving a real dividend. Another reason is merely to enable the corporation to take advantage of the accepted accounting practice of capitalizing retained earnings. Specifically, a company might wish to reduce an existing balance in retained earnings—otherwise available for cash dividends—so it can reinvest the earned assets represented by that balance without carrying a large balance in retained earnings. [...] There's a lot more on that page, before and after, worth reading. From another book: Google Books - Comparative Income Taxation, a Structural Analysis - page 314 - Stock Dividends. Small quote: The distribution of dividends in the form of stock or \\\"\\\"bonus\\\"\\\" shares to existing shareholders typically involves a transfer for corporate law purposes of retained earnings into stated capital. It can been [sic] viewed as a deemed distribution of a cash dividend to the shareholders followed by a corresponding contribution to capital or as solely as an event at the corporate level which has no effect on the shareholders whose economic interest in the corporation is unchanged by the receipt of additional shares. The systems have taken varied approaches to the stock dividend problem. The treatment is in part a function of the rules dealing with distributions of stated capital. [emphases above are mine] [... continues w/descriptions of different countries' tax treatments of the kinds of stock dividends. Includes U.S., Sweden, Japan, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, U.K., France, Germany. ...] As far as why a corporation might want to capitalize earnings and reduce the equity otherwise available for dividends, I can only imagine that, ignoring taxes for a moment, that it may have something to do with capital ratios that need to be maintained for financing or regulatory purposes? Yet, I remain curious. If I discover more on this then I'll update my answer. Additional resources:\\\"\",\n \"Open Google finance and divide the Market Capitalization by the total price. That will give you the total number of shares outstanding. Now see the number of shares you could buy for $1000(40 shares of $25 each or 10 shares of 100 shares each). Now divide the number of shares you own, by the number of shares outstanding in the company and multiply it by 100(i.e (Shares you own/shares Outstanding) * 100). That will give you the percentage or stake of the company you own(With $1000, don't expect it to be a very large number). Now ask your self the question, Is it worth it if I can buy x % of this company for $1000? If the answer is yes, go ahead and buy it. To answer your question in short, NO! it does not matter whether you buy 10 shares for $100 or 40 shares for $25. Cheers\",\n \"If I'm buying preferred stock with liquidation preferences, I care what *that class of equity* is worth. I don't give a shit what common is worth. The article takes a pretty banal point - common may not be worth what other classes are worth - and tries to make it into a conspiracy, which is fucking stupid.\",\n \"Coca Cola doesn't seem to have any preferred shares outstanding. From the annual report, it does say that the number of common shares outstanding was 2,294,316,831 as of February 22, 2011. (cover page, right before the horizontal break) But normally, you can find it either toward the beginning of the document or in the statement of shareholder's equity.\",\n \"Hart's answer regarding the difference between an index and a stock aside, remember that dividend yield is a passive measure. It takes the announced dividend (which is a $/share amount) and divides it by the current market price. So you can't assume that if you buy a stock that had a dividend yield of 4% for $100 that you're guaranteed 4% of the stock price in dividends. If the price of the stock doubles, you'd still get $4, but the yield would drop to 2%. Or the company could reduce (or even suspend) its dividends, which would reduce the yield if the stock price stayed flat. For an index like the S&P, it's easier to measure dividends on % yield terms rather then $/share terms since you'd have to own shares in every single company to get that amount, but on average the stocks in the S&P 500 pay X% in dividends (which are typically quarterly) - some pay more than that, some less, and some none at all.\",\n \"Preferred stock is traded on the market, so you can just buy it like any other. The symbol for a preferred stock is the ticker symbol followed by a dash and a letter for each class of preferred stock. Examples: Generally speaking, you should buy Preferred stock with the intention of holding onto it for at least a couple of years. Often preferred shares are lightly traded and have wide spreads that made it difficult to make money in the short term.\",\n \"How to 'use' your shares: If you own common shares in a company (as opposed to a fund) then you have the right (but not the obligation) to excersize one vote per share on questions put before the shareholders. Usually, this occurs once a year. Usually these questions regard approval of auditors. Sometimes they involve officers such as directors on the board. You will be mailed a form to fill out and mail back in. Preferred shares usually are not voting shares,but common shares always are. By the way, I do not recommend owning shares in companies. I recommend funds instead,either ETFs or mutual funds. Owning shares in companies puts you at risk of a failure of that company. Owning funds spreads that risk around,thus reducing your exposure. There are, really, two purposes for owning shares 1) Owning shares gives you the right to declared dividends 2) Owning shares allows you to sell those shares at some time in the future. (Hopefully at a profit) One obscure thing you can do with owned shares is to 'write' (sell) covered put options. But options are not something that you need to concern yourself with at this point. You may find it useful to sign up for a free daily email from www.investorwords.com.\",\n \"\\\"Also note that a share of voting stock is a vote at the stockholder's meeting, whether it's dividend or non-dividend. That has value to the company and major stockholders in terms of protecting their own interests, and has value to anyone considering a takeover of the company or who otherwise wants to drive the company's policy. Similarly, if the company is bought out, the share will generally be replaced by shares in whatever the new owning company is. So it really does represent \\\"\\\"a slice of the company\\\"\\\" in several vary practical ways, and thus has fairly well-defined intrinsic value linked to the company's perceived value. If its price drops too low the company becomes more vulnerable to hostile takeover, which means the company itself will often be motivated to buy back shares to protect itself from that threat. One of the questions always asked when making an investment is whether you're looking for growth (are you hoping its intrinsic value will increase) or income (are you hoping it will pay you a premium for owning it). Non-dividend stocks are a pure growth bet. Dividend-paying stocks are typically a mixture of growth and income, at various trade-off points. What's right for you depends on your goals, timeframe, risk tolerance, and what else is already in your portfolio.\\\"\",\n \"No, I think you are misunderstanding the Math. Stock splits are a way to control relatively where the price per share can be for a company as companies can split or reverse split shares which would be similar to taking dimes and giving 2 nickels for each dime, each is 10 cents but the number of coins has varied. This doesn't create any additional value since it is still 10 cents whether it is 1 dime or 2 nickels. Share repurchase programs though are done to prevent dilution as executives and those with incentive-stock options may get shares in the company that increase the number of outstanding shares that would be something to note.\",\n \"Market capitalization is one way to represent the value of the company. So if a company has 10 million shares, which are each worth $100, then the company's market capitalization is 1 billion. Large cap companies tend to be larger and more stable. Small cap companies are smaller, which indicates higher volatility. So if you want more aggressive investments then you may want to invest in small cap companies while if you lean on the side of caution then big cap companies may be your friend.\",\n \"You have got it wrong. The profit or loss for smaller investor or big investor is same in percentage terms.\",\n \"\\\"If so, then if company A never pays dividends to its shareholders, then what is the point of owning company A's stock? The stock itself can go up in price. This is not necessarily pure speculation either, the company could just reinvest the profits and grow. Since you own part of a company, your share would also increase in value. The company could also decide to start paying dividend. I think one rule of thumb is that growing companies won't pay out, since they reinvest all profit to grow even more, but very large companies like McDonalds or Microsoft who don't really have much room left to grow will pay dividends more. Surely the right to one vote for company A's Board can't be that valuable. Actually, Google for instance neither pays dividend nor do you get to vote. Basically all you get for your money is partial ownership of the company. This still gives you the right to seize Google assets if you go bankrupt, if there's any asset left once the creditors are done (credit gets priority over equity). What is it that I'm missing? What you are missing is that the entire concept of the dividend is an illusion. There's little qualitative difference between a stock that pays dividend, and a stock that doesn't. If you were going to buy the stock, then hold it forever and collect dividend, you could get the same thing with a dividend-less stock by simply waiting for it to gain say 5% value, then sell 4.76% of your stock and call the cash your dividend. \\\"\\\"But wait,\\\"\\\" you say, \\\"\\\"that's not the same - my net worth has decreased!\\\"\\\" Guess what, stocks that do pay dividend usually do drop in value right after the pay out, and they drop by about the relative value of the dividend as well. Likewise, you could take a stock that does pay dividend, and make it look exactly like a non-paying stock by simply taking every dividend you get and buying more of the same stock with it. So from this simplistic point of view, it is irrelevant whether the stock itself pays dividend or not. There is always the same decision of whether to cut the goose or let it lay a few more eggs that every shareholder has to make it. Paying a dividend is essentially providing a different default choice, but makes little difference with regards to your choices. There is however more to it than simple return on investment arithmetic: As I said, the alternative to paying dividend is reinvesting profits back into the enterprise. If the company decided to pay out dividend, that means they think all the best investing is done, and they don't really have a particularly good idea for what to do with the extra money. Conversely, not paying is like management telling the shareholders, \\\"\\\"no we're not done, we're still building our business!\\\"\\\". So it can be a way of judging whether the company is concentrating on generating profit or growing itself. Needless to say the, the market is wild and unpredictable and not everyone obeys such assumptions. Furthermore, as I said, you can effectively overrule the decision by increasing or decreasing your position, regardless of whether they have decided to pay dividend to begin with. Lastly, there may be some subtle differences with regards to things like how the income is taxed and so on. These don't really have much to do with the market itself, but the bureaucracy tacked onto the market.\\\"\",\n \"One big difference: Interest is contracted. They can change the rate in the future but for any given time period you know what you're going to get. Dividends are based on how the company did, there is no agreed-upon amount.\",\n \"\\\"The answer to your question has to do with the an explanation of \\\"\\\"shares authorized, issued and outstanding.\\\"\\\" Companies, in their Articles of Incorporation, specify a maximum number of shares they are authorized to issue. For example purposes let's assume Facebook is authorized to issue 100 shares. Let's pretend they have actually issued 75 shares, but only 50 are outstanding (aka Float, i.e. freely trading stock in the market) and stock options total 25 shares. So if someone owns 1 share, what percentage of Facebook do they own? You might think 1/100, or 1%; you might think 1/75, or 1.3%; or you might think 1/50, or 2%. 2% is the answer, but only on a NON-diluted basis. So today someone who owns 1 share owns 2% of Facebook. Tomorrow Facebook announces they just issued 15 shares to Whatsapp to buy the company. Now there are 65 shares outstanding and 90 issued. Now someone who owns 1 share of Facebook own only 1/65, or 1.5% (down from 2%)! P.S. \\\"\\\"Valuation\\\"\\\" can be thought of as the price of the stock at the time of the purchase announcement.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"In the Income Statement that you've linked to, look for the line labeled \\\"\\\"Net Income\\\"\\\". That's followed by a line labeled \\\"\\\"Preferred Dividends\\\"\\\", which is followed by \\\"\\\"Income Available to Common Excl. Extra Items\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"Income Available to Common Incl. Extra Items\\\"\\\". Those last two are the ones to look at. The key is that these lines reflect income minus dividends paid to preferred stockholders (of which there are none here), and that's income that's available to ordinary shareholders, i.e., \\\"\\\"earnings for the common stock\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"All shares of the same class are considered equal. Each class of shares may have a different preference in order of repayment. After all company liabilities have been paid off [including bank debt, wages owing, taxes outstanding, etc etc.], the remaining cash value in a company is distributed to the shareholders. In general, there are 2 types of shares: Preferred shares, and Common shares. Preferred shares generally have 3 characteristics: (1) they get a stated dividend rate every year, sometimes regardless of company performance; (2) they get paid out first on liquidation; and (3) they can only receive their stated value on liquidation - that is, $1M of preferred shares will be redeemed for at most $1M on liquidation, assuming the corporation has at least that much cash left. Common Shares generally have 4 characteristics: (1) their dividends are not guaranteed (or may be based on a calculation relative to company performance), (2) they can vote for members of the Board of Directors who ultimately hire the CEO and make similar high level business decisions; (3) they get paid last on liquidation; and (4) they get all value remaining in the company once everyone else has been paid. So it is not the order of share subscription that matters, it is the class. Once you know how much each class gets, based on the terms listed in that share subscription, you simply divide the total class payout by number of shares, and pay that much for each share a person holds. For companies organized other-than as corporations, ie: partnerships, the calculation of who-gets-what will be both simpler and more complex. Simpler in that, generally speaking, a partnership interest cannot be of a different 'class', like shares can, meaning all partners are equal relative to the size of their partnership interest. More complex in that, if the initiation of the company was done in an informal way, it could easily become a legal fight as to who contributed what to the company.\",\n \"One difference is the bid/ask spread will cost you more in a lower cost stock than a higher cost one. Say you have two highly liquid stocks with tiny spreads: If you wanted to buy say $2,000 of stock: Now imagine these are almost identical ETFs tracking the S&P 500 index and extrapolate this to a trade of $2,000,000 and you can see there's some cost savings in the higher priced stock. As a practical example, recently a popular S&P 500 ETF (Vanguard's VOO) did a reverse split to help investors minimize this oft-missed cost.\",\n \"I haven't seen any of the other answers address this point – shares are (a form of) ownership of a company and thus they are an entitlement to the proceeds of the company, including proceeds from liquidation. Imagine an (extreme, contrived) example whereby you own shares in a company that is explicitly intended to only exist for a finite and definite period, say to serve as the producers of a one-time event. Consider a possible sequence of major events in this company's life: So why would the shares of this hypothetical company be worth anything? Because the company itself is worth something, or rather the stuff that the company owns is worth something, even (or in my example, especially) in the event of its dissolution or liquidation. Besides just the stuff that a company owns, why else would owning a portion of a company be a good idea, i.e. why would I pay for such a privilege? Buying shares of a company is a good idea if you believe (and are correct) that a company will make larger profits or capture more value (e.g. buy and control more valuable stuff) than other people believe. If your beliefs don't significantly differ from others then (ideally) the price of the companies stock should reflect all of the future value that everyone expects it to have, tho that value is discounted based on time preference, i.e. how much more valuable a given amount of money or a given thing of value is today versus some time in the future. Some notes on time preference: But apart from whether you should buy shares in a specific company, owning shares can still be valuable. Not only are shares a claim on a company's current assets (in the event of liquidation) but they are also claims on all future assets of the company. So if a company is growing then the value of shares now should reflect the (discounted) future value of the company, not just the value of its assets today. If shares in a company pays dividends then the company gives you money for owning shares. You already understand why that's worth something. It's basically equivalent to an annuity, tho dividends are much more likely to stop or change whereas the whole point of an annuity is that it's a (sometimes) fixed amount paid at fixed intervals, i.e. reliable and dependable. As CQM points out in their answer, part of the value of stock shares, to those that own them, and especially to those considering buying them, is the expectation or belief that they can sell those shares for a greater price than what they paid for them – irrespective of the 'true value' of the stock shares. But even in a world where everyone (magically) had the same knowledge always, a significant component of a stock's value is independent of its value as a source of trading profit. As Jesse Barnum points out in their answer, part of the value of stocks that don't pay dividends relative to stocks that do is due to the (potential) differences in tax liabilities incurred between dividends and long-term capital gains. This however, is not the primary source of value of a stock share.\",\n \"If they all own common stock, no, everyone has to be treated equally. There are also lots of protections against, say, A and B finding one shareholder to vote with them and using their 50.1% to grant themselves special rights. there are a million ways you could do that - issue preferred stock to A, issue options to B, buy a service from A for $10mm, rent a basement from B for $10mm, etc. etc. This stuff has to be prevented otherwise nobody would be willing to be a minority investor.\",\n \"\\\"Dividend rate is \\\"\\\"dividend per share\\\"\\\" over a specified time period, usually a year. So in the first example, if the company paid a $1/share dividend over the year before the stock dividend the shareholder would receive $100, while if it paid the $1/share the year after the stock dividend the shareholder would receive $105. The company could have achieved the same thing by paying total dividends of $1.05/share, which is what the last phrase of the last quoted paragraph is saying. Here's an Investopedia page on dividend rate. Also, what you're calling \\\"\\\"payout ratio\\\"\\\" is really \\\"\\\"dividend yield\\\"\\\". \\\"\\\"Payout ratio\\\"\\\" is how much of the company's net earnings are paid out in dividends. That's all in the US, I could see the terms being used differently outside the US.\\\"\",\n \"Unless your brokerage will sell you fractional shares, the most obvious difference (without us knowing the actual identify of the companies) is that with the $260 one, you will have 3 shares plus you will have $220 minus commission left over that you wanted to invest but weren't able to simply because of the mechanics of long division. You could put that $220 into one of the cheaper stocks, but now the multiple commissions will start to eat your returns. My personal opinion is you should go for a low cost index mutual fund or ETF, and wait to pick individual stocks until you have more than $1000 to work with (and even then, probably still go with the low cost index fund)\",\n \"While there are many very good and detailed answers to this question, there is one key term from finance that none of them used and that is Net Present Value. While this is a term generally associate with debt and assets, it also can be applied to the valuation models of a company's share price. The price of the share of a stock in a company represents the Net Present Value of all future cash flows of that company divided by the total number of shares outstanding. This is also the reason behind why the payment of dividends will cause the share price valuation to be less than its valuation if the company did not pay a dividend. That/those future outflows are factored into the NPV calculation, actually performed or implied, and results in a current valuation that is less than it would have been had that capital been retained. Unlike with a fixed income security, or even a variable rate debenture, it is difficult to predict what the future cashflows of a company will be, and how investors chose to value things as intangible as brand recognition, market penetration, and executive competence are often far more subjective that using 10 year libor rates to plug into a present value calculation for a floating rate bond of similar tenor. Opinion enters into the calculus and this is why you end up having a greater degree of price variance than you see in the fixed income markets. You have had situations where companies such as Amazon.com, Google, and Facebook had highly valued shares before they they ever posted a profit. That is because the analysis of the value of their intellectual properties or business models would, overtime provide a future value that was equivalent to their stock price at that time.\",\n \"In my mind its not the same. If growth is stock value then this is incorrect because of compound interest in stock price. $100 stock price after one year would be $105 and a dividend would be $2 Next year the stock would be $110.20 (Compound Interest) and would the Dividend really go up in lock step with the stock price? Well probably not, but if it did then maybe you could call it the same. Even if the dollars are the same the growth rate is more variable than the dividends so its valuable to segregate the two. I am open to criticism, my answer is based on my personal experience and would love to hear contrary positions on this.\",\n \"In the scenario you describe, the first thing I would look at would be liquidity. In other words, how easy is it to buy and sell shares. If the average daily volume of one share is low compared to the average daily volume of the other, then the more actively traded share would be the more attractive. Low volume shares will have larger bid-offer spreads than high volume shares, so if you need to get out of position quickly you will be at risk of being forced to take a lowball offer. Having said that, it is important to understand that high yielding shares have high yields for a reason. Namely, the market does not think much of the company's prospects and that it is likely that a cut in the dividend is coming in the near future. In general, the nominal price of a share is not important. If two companies have equal prospect, then the percentage movement in their share price will be about the same, so the net profit or loss you realise will be about the same.\",\n \"A stock dividend isn't exactly a split. Example: You have 100 shares of stock worth $5 a share (total value $500). The company wants to distribute a dividend worth 1%. You could expect a check for $5. But If they wanted to do a stock dividend they could send you 0.01 shares for every share you own, in your case you will be given a single share worth $5. Now you own 101 shares. Why a share dividend? It doesn't take cash to give the dividend. It keeps the money invested in the company. Some investors re-invest a cash dividend, some don't. A cash dividend is generally taxable income for the investor; a stock dividend isn't. Some investors prefer one over the other, but it depends on their specific financial picture. Neither a stock dividend, a cash dividend or split changes anything. The split changes the price to meet a goal. The cash dividend lowers the price by sending excess cash to the investors. The stock dividend lowers the price by creating new shares and retaining cash. It company picks the message and the method. depending on their goals and situation. Remember that a company may want to give a dividend because they have a history of doing so, but not have the cash to do so. It is like a split because the number of shares you own will go up, and the price per share will go down. But a split is generally done to bring the price of a share to within a specific range. The company sees a benefit to having a stock mid priced, instead of very high or very low.\",\n \"It seems like you want to compare the company's values not necessarily the stock price. Why not get the total outstanding shares and the stock price, generate the market cap. Then you could compare changes to market cap rather than just share price.\",\n \"\\\"Sure, stocks don't pay interest. I just looked up the word \\\"\\\"compound\\\"\\\" in a couple of dictionaries and the relevant definition in all of them just mentioned interest and not growth in the value of stock. So it may be technically inaccurate to talk about \\\"\\\"compound growth\\\"\\\" of a stock. I'll yield to someone more knowledgeable about the technical language of finance to answer that part. But regardless of whether the word strictly applies, the concept certainly does. Suppose you put $1000 into a mutual fund and the fund grows by 10%. You now have $1100. The next year the fund grows by 15%. So you gain 15% of what? Of your original $1000? No, of your present balance, $1100. The effect is the same as compound interest. There is the fundamental difference that interest is normally a fixed rate: you get such-and-such percent a year as spelled out in a contract. But change in the value of a stock depends on many factors, none of them guaranteed.\\\"\",\n \"A stock represents your share of ownership in a corporation. All of these shares indicate towards your part of ownership in a corporation a shareholder, stockholder or a shareowner in a company. In order to get a stock, be sure to secure the assistance of a licensed stockbroker to buy securities on your behalf. Yes, anyone having substantial amount of money to invest can buy/own/use stocks. Holding a stock for less than a year makes it a subject to tax on your regular income for short-term gains. Most of the people find it higher than the capital gains. In addition, your annual income also comes into play.\",\n \"\\\"In financial theory, there is no reason for a difference in investor return to exist between dividend paying and non-dividend paying stocks, except for tax consequences. This is because in theory, a company can either pay dividends to investors [who can reinvest the funds themselves], or reinvest its capital and earn the same return on that reinvestment [and the shareholder still has the choice to sell a fraction of their holdings, if they prefer to have cash]. That theory may not match reality, because often companies pay or don't pay dividends based on their stage of life. For example, early-stage mining companies often have no free cashflow to pay dividends [they are capital intensive until the mines are operational]. On the other side, longstanding companies may have no projects left that would be a good fit for further investment, and so they pay out dividends instead, effectively allowing the shareholder to decide where to reinvest the money. Therefore, saying \\\"\\\"dividend paying\\\"\\\"/\\\"\\\"growth stock\\\"\\\" can be a proxy for talking about the stage of life + risk and return of a company. Saying dividend paying implies \\\"\\\"long-standing blue chip company with relatively low capital requirements and a stable business\\\"\\\". Likewise \\\"\\\"growth stocks\\\"\\\" [/ non-dividend paying] implies \\\"\\\"new startup company that still needs capital and thus is somewhat unproven, with a chance for good return to match the higher risk\\\"\\\". So in theory, dividend payment policy makes no difference. In practice, it makes a difference for two reasons: (1) You will most likely be taxed differently on selling stock vs receiving dividends [Which one is better for you is a specific question relying on your jurisdiction, your current income, and things like what type of stock / how long you hold it]. For example in Canada, if you earn ~ < $40k, your dividends are very likely to have a preferential tax treatment to selling shares for capital gains [but your province and specific other numbers would influence this]. In the United States, I believe capital gains are usually preferential as long as you hold the shares for a long time [but I am not 100% on this without looking it up]. (2) Dividend policy implies differences in the stage of life / risk level of a stock. This implication is not guaranteed, so be sure you are using other considerations to determine whether this is the case. Therefore which dividend policy suits you better depends on your tax position and your risk tolerance.\\\"\",\n \"It means a 3% return on the value of the stock. If a stock has a $10 share price, the dividend would be $0.30. Normally though, the dividends are announced as a fixed amount per share, because the share price fluctuates. If a percentage were announced, then the final cost would not be known as the share priced could change radically before the dividend date.\",\n \"For bonds bought at par (the face value of the bond, like buying a CD for $1000) the payment it makes is the same as yield. You pay $1000 and get say, $40 per year or 4%. If you buy it for more or less than that $1000, say $900, there's some math (not for me, I use a finance calculator) to tell you your return taking the growth to maturity into account, i.e. the extra $100 you get when you get the full $1000 back. Obviously, for bonds, you care about whether the comp[any or municipality will pay you back at all, and then you care about how much you'll make when then do. In that order. For stocks, the picture is abit different as some companies give no dividend but reinvest all profits, think Berkshire Hathaway. On the other hand, many people believe that the dividend is important, and choose to buy stocks that start with a nice yield, a $30 stock with a $1/yr dividend is 3.3% yield. Sounds like not much, but over time you expect the company to grow, increase in value and increase its dividend. 10 years hence you may have a $40 stock and the dividend has risen to $1.33. Now it's 4.4% of the original investment, and you sit on that gain as well.\",\n \"Short answer: No, it only matters if you want to use covered calls strategies. The price of a share is not important. Some companies make stock splits from time to time so that the price of their shares is more affordable to small investors. It is a decision of the company's board to keep the price high or low. More important is the capitalization for these shares. If you have lots of money to invest, the best is to divide and invest a fixed pourcentage of your portfolio in each company you choose. The only difference is if you eventually decide to use covered call strategies. To have a buy write on Google will cost you a lot of money and you will only be able to sell 1 option for every 100 shares. Bottom line: the price is not important, capitalization and estimated earnings are. Hope this answers your question.\",\n \"all other things being equal if you have two stocks, both with a P/E of 2, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase? What this really boils down to is the number of shares a company has outstanding. Given the same earnings & P/E, a company with fewer shares will have a higher EPS than a company with more shares. Knowing that, I don't think the number of shares has much if anything to do with the quality of a company. It's similar to the arguments I hear often from people new to investing where they think that a company with a share price of $100/share must be better than a company with a share price of $30/share simply because the share price is higher.\",\n \"All investors of equal standing get the same proportion of the net assets on bankruptcy but not all shareholders are of equal standing. In general, once all liabilities are covered, bond holders are paid first as that type of investment is company debt, then preferred stock holders are paid out and then common shareholders. This is the reason why preferred stock is usually cheaper - it is less risky as it has a higher claim to assets and therefore commands a lower risk premium. The exact payout schedule is very corporation dependent so needs research on a per firm basis.\",\n \"There is no difference. When dealing with short positions, talking about percentages become very tricky since they no longer add up to 100%. What does the 50% in your example mean? Unless there's some base amount (like total amount of the portfolio, then the percentages are meaningless. What matters when dealing with long and short positions is the net total - meaning if you are long 100 shares on one stock trade and short 50 shares on another, then you are net long 50 shares.\",\n \"I'm fairly convinced there is no difference whatsoever between dividend payment and capital appreciation. It only makes financial sense for the stock price to be decreased by the dividend payment so over the course of any specified time interval, without the dividend the stock price would have been that much higher were the dividends not paid. Total return is equal. I think this is like so many things in finance that seem different but actually aren't. If a stock does not pay a dividend, you can synthetically create a dividend by periodically selling shares. Doing this would incur periodic trade commissions, however. That does seem like a loss to the investor. For this reason, I do see some real benefit to a dividend. I'd rather get a check in the mail than I would have to pay a trade commission, which would offset a percentage of the dividend. Does anybody know if there are other hidden fees associated with dividend payments that might offset the trade commissions? One thought I had was fees to the company to establish and maintain a dividend-payment program. Are there significant administrative fees, banking fees, etc. to the company that materially decrease its value? Even if this were the case, I don't know how I'd detect or measure it because there's such a loose association between many corporate financials (e.g. cash on hand) and stock price.\",\n \"The general difference between high dividend paying stocks and growth stocks is as follows: 1) A high dividend paying stock/company is a company that has reached its maximum growth potential in a market and its real growth (that is after adjustment of inflation) is same (more or less) as the growth of the economy. These companies typically generate a lot of cash (Cash Cow) and has nowhere to really invest the entire thing, so they pay high dividends. Typically Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) ,Power/Utility companies, Textile (in some countries) come into this category. If you invest in these stocks, expect less growth but more dividend; these companies generally come under 'defensive sector' of the market i.e. whose prices do not fall drastically during down turn in a market. 2) Growth stocks on the other hand are the stocks that are operating in a market that is witnessing rapid growth, for example, technology, aerospace etc. These companies have high growth potential but not much accumulated income as the profit is re-invested to support the growth of the company, so no dividend (you will be typically never get any/much dividend from these companies). These companies usually (for some years) grow (or at least has potential to grow) more than the economy and provide real return. Usually these companies are very sensitive to results (good or bad) and their prices are quite volatile. As for your investment strategy, I cannot comment on that as investment is a very subjective matter. Hope this helps\",\n \"For some very small private companies I know of (and am part of), paper stocks do exist. You can sit at the table with the damn things in your hand and wave them in people's faces. They tell everyone how much of the company you own as a result of the money you ponied up. On the other hand, most stocks are now electronic. Nothing to hold. Just electronic records to review. They still represent how much you own of the company because of some amount of money you have put at risk, but they aren't anywhere near as much fun as the old-fasioned paper proofs. (As MrChrister notes, you can pay a small fee to get paper if you like, even for some big companies. Some of these paper stocks are remarkably elaborate and fine looking, but hardly necessary.) (You can see more info about what stocks are and what sort of stocks exist here: http://www.wikinvest.com/wiki/What_is_a_stock%3F)\",\n \"If you don't have any voting rights then you don't have much say in the direction of the company. Of course, if the majority of voting rights are held by 1 or 2 people/institutions then you probably don't have much say regardless. That said, 0.1% isn't a whole lot of a voice anyway.\",\n \"This is a very common misconception. I've been studying equities and credits for a while now, and the simplest way to explain the difference is this: - Credit is about stable cash flows. Your investment in a bond has almost (read: almost) nothing to do with growth rate. It has everything to do with how stable the cash flows are and interest coverage. - Equity is about growth. No wonder companies with highly irregular cash flows (e.g., every single young tech company in the history of tech companies) can have the most in-demand equity while few bond investors would touch them with a ten foot pole.\",\n \"\\\"Market cap is speculative value, M = P * W, where W is stock (or other way of owning) percentage of ownership, P - price of percentage of ownership. This could include \\\"\\\"outside of exchange\\\"\\\" deals. Some funds could buy ownership percentage directly via partial ownership deal. That ownership is not stock, but fixed-type which has value too. Stock market cap is speculative value, M2 = Q * D, where D is free stocks available freely, Q - price of stock, in other words Quote number (not price of ownership). Many stock types do NOT provide actual percentage of ownership, being just another type of bond with non-fixed coupon and non-fixed price. Though such stocks do not add to company's capitalization after sold to markets, it adds to market capitalization at the moment of selling via initial price.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Different stocks balance dividend versus growth differently. Some have relatively flat value but pay a strong dividend -- utility stocks used to be examples of that model, and bonds are in some sense an extreme version of this. Some, especially startups, pay virtually no dividends and aim for growth in the value of the stock. And you can probably find a stock that hits any point between these. This is the \\\"\\\"growth versus income\\\"\\\" spectrum you may have heard mentioned. In the past, investors took more of their return on investment as dividends -- conceptually, a share of the company's net profits for the year reflecting the share's status as partial ownership. If you wanted to do so, you could use the dividend to purchase more shares (via a dividend reinvestment plan or not), but that was up to you. These days, with growth having been strongly hyped, many companies have shifted much more to the growth model and dividends are often relatively wimpy. Essentially, this assumes that everyone wants the money reinvested and will take their profit by having that increase the value of their shares. Of course that's partly because some percentage of stockholders have been demanding growth at all costs, not always realistically. To address your specific case: No, you probably aren't buying Microsoft because you like its dividend rate; you're buying it in the hope it continues to grow in stock value. But the dividend is a bit of additional return on your investment. And with other companies the tradeoff will be different. That's one of the things, along with how much you believe in the company, that would affect your decision when buying shares in specific companies. (Personally I mostly ignore the whole issue, since I'm in index funds rather than individual stocks. Picking the fund sets my overall preference in terms of growth versus income; after that it's their problem to maintain that balance.)\\\"\",\n \"Dividend prices are per share, so the amount that you get for a dividend is determined by the number of shares that you own and the amount of the dividend per share. That's all. People like to look at dividend yield because it lets them compare different investments; that's done by dividing the dividend by the value of the stock, however determined. That's the percentage that the question mentions. A dividend of $1 per share when the share price is $10 gives a 10% dividend yield. A dividend of $2 per share when the share price is $40 gives a 5% dividend yield. If you're choosing an investment, the dividend yield gives you more information than the amount of the dividend.\",\n \"If you are looking to re-invest it in the same company, there is really no difference. Please be aware that when a company announces dividend, you are not the only person receiving the dividend. The millions of share holders receive the same amount that you did as dividend, and of course, that money is not falling from the sky. The company pays it from their profits. So the day a dividend is announced, it is adjusted in the price of the share. The only reason why you look for dividend in a company is when you need liquidity. If a company does not pay you dividend, it means that they are usually using the profits to re-invest it in the business which you are anyway going to do with the dividend that you receive. (Unless its some shady company which is only established on paper. Then they might use it to feed their dog:p). To make it simpler lets assume you have Rs.500 and you want to start a company which requires Rs 1000 in capital : - 1.) You issue 5 shares worth Rs 100 each to the public and take Rs 100 for each share. Now you have Rs 1000 to start your company. 2.) You make a profit of Rs 200. 3.) Since you own majority of the shares you get to make the call whether to pay Rs.200 in dividend, or re-invest it in the business. Case 1:- You had issued 10 shares and your profit is Rs 200. You pay Rs. 20 each to every share holder. Since you owned 5 shares, you get 5*20 that is Rs.100 and you distribute the remaining to your 5 shareholders and expect to make the same or higher profit next year. Your share price remains at Rs.100 and you have your profits in cash. Case 2:- You think that this business is awesome and you should put more money into it to make more. You decide not to pay any dividend and invest the entire profit into the business. That way your shareholders do not receive anything from you but they get to share profit in the amazing business that you are doing. In this case your share price is Rs. 120 ((1000+200)/10) and all your profits are re-invested in the business. Now put yourself in the shareholders shoes and see which case suits you more. That is the company you should invest in. Please note: - It is very important to understand the business model of the company before you buy anything! Cheers,\",\n \"Apart from making money from the price difference, some stocks also give dividends, or bonus issues. For long term investors whom are looking for steady income, they may be more interested with the dividend pay-out instead of the capital-appreciation.\",\n \"You might be right about that, but your previous posts don't say that. In just the last one you said: >Because buyback decreases shares outstanding it **also decreases the company's total future dividend payouts as well** This is indicating that you believe there is a difference somehow, no?\",\n \"One reason to prefer a dividend-paying stock is when you don't plan to reinvest the dividends. For example, if you're retired and living off the income from your investments, a dividend-paying stock can give you a relatively stable income.\",\n \"\\\"Lots of questions: In general, no. Market Capitalization and Equity represent 2 different things. Equity first, the equity of a firm is the value of the assets (what it owns) less its liabilities (what it owes) and consists (broadly) of two components - share capital (what the firm gets when it sells to investors as part of an IPO or subsequent share issue) and retained earnings (what the firm has as a result of making profits and not paying them out as dividends). This is the theoretical liquidation value of the firm - what it is worth if it stops trading, sells all its assets and pays all its debts. Market Capitalization is the current value of the future cash flow of the firm as perceived by the market - the value today of all the dividends that the firm will pay in the future for as long as it exists. This is the theoretical going concern value of the firm - what it is worth as a functioning business. In general, Market Capitalization is bigger than Equity - if it isn't the firm is worth more as scrap than as an operating business. Um ... no. If you don't have any shares then you are by definition not an owner. Having shares is what makes you an owner. What I think you mean is, is it possible for the owner(s) of a private company to sell all of its shares when it goes public? The answer is yes. It is uncommon for a start-up owner to do this but it is standard practice for \\\"\\\"corporate raiders\\\"\\\" who buy failing companies, take them private, restructure them and then take them public again - they have done their job and they are not interested in maintaining an ownership stake. Nope. See above and below. Not at all, equity is an accounting construct and market capitalization is about market sentiment. Consider the following hypothetical firm: It has $1m in equity, it makes $4m in profit and will do for the foreseeable future, it pays all of that $4m out as dividends - if we work on a simple ROI of 10% then this firm is worth $40m dollars - way more than its equity.\\\"\",\n \"Investopedia has a good definition. Stock dividends are similar to cash dividends; however, instead of cash, a company pays out stock. Stock splits occur when a company perceives that its stock price may be too high. Stock splits are usually done to increase the liquidity of the stock (more shares outstanding) and to make it more affordable for investors to buy regular lots (a regular lot = 100 shares).\",\n \"Shares often come associated with a set of rights, such as ability to vote in the outcome of the company. Some shares do not have this right, however. With your ability to vote in the outcome of the company, you could help dictate that the company paid dividends at a point in time. Or many other varieties of outcomes. Also, if there were any liquidity events due to demand of the shares, this is typically at a much higher price than the shares are now when the company is private/closely held.\",\n \"\\\"The first 3 are the same as owning stock in a company would be measured in shares and would constitute some percentage of the overall shares outstanding. If there are 100 shares in the company in total, then owning 80 shares is owning 80% is the same as owning 80% of the common stock. This would be the typical ownership case though there can also be \\\"\\\"Restricted stock\\\"\\\" as something to note here. Convertible debt would likely carry interest charges as well as the choice at the end of becoming stock in the company. In this case, until the conversion is done, the stock isn't issued and thus isn't counted. Taking the above example, one could have a note that could be worth 10 shares but until the conversion is done, the debt is still debt. Some convertible debt could carry options or warrants for the underlying stock as there was the Berkshire convertible notes years ago that carried a negative interest rate that was studied in \\\"\\\"The Negative Coupon Bond\\\"\\\" if you want an example here. Options would have the right but not the obligation to buy the stock where there are \\\"\\\"Incentive Stock Options\\\"\\\" to research this in more depth. In this case, one could choose to not exercise the option and thus no stock changes hands. This is where some companies will experience dilution of ownership as employees and management may be given options that put more shares out to the public. Issuing debt wouldn't change the ownership and isn't direct ownership unless the company goes through a restructuring where the creditors become the new stock holders in the case of a Chapter 11 situation in the US. Note that this isn't really investing in a small business as much as it is making a loan to the company that will be paid back in cash. If the company runs into problems then the creditor could try to pursue the assets of the company to be repaid.\\\"\",\n \"The bonus share also improves the liquidity however there is some difference in treatment. Lets say a company has 100 shares, of $10 ea. The total capital of the compnay is 100*10 = 1000. Assuming the company is doing well, its share is now available in the market for $100 ea. Now lets say the company has made a profit of $1000 and this also gets factored into the price of $100. Lets say the company decides to keep this $1000 kept as Cash Reserve and is not distributed as dividends. In a share split say (1:1), the book value of each share is now reduced to $5, the number of shares increase to 200. The share capital stays at 200*5 = 1000. The market value of shares come down to $50 ea. In a Bonus share issue say (1:1), the funds $1000 are moved from Cash Reserve and transferred to share capital. The book value of each share will remain same as $10, the number of shares increase to 200. The share capital increases to 200*10 = 2000. The market value of shares come down to $50 ea. So essentially from a liquidity point of view both give the same benefit. As to why some companies issue bonus and not a split, this is because of multiple reasons. A split beyond a point cannot be done, ie $10 can be split to $1 ea but it doesn't look good to make it $0.50. The other reason is there is adequate cash reserve and you want to convert this into share holders capital. Having a larger share holders capital improves some of the health ratios for the compnay. At times bouns is used to play upon that one is getting something free.\",\n \"When you invest in stocks, there are two possible ways to make money: Many people speculate just on the stock price, which would result in a gain (or loss), but only once you have resold the shares. Others don't really care about the stock price. They get dividends every so often, and hopefully, the return will be better than other types of investments. If you're in there for the long run, you do not really care what the price of the stock is. It is often highly volatile, and often completely disconnected from anything, so it's not because today you have a theoretical gain (because the current stock price is higher than your buying price) that you will effectively realise that gain when you sell (need I enumerate the numerous crashes that prevented this from happening?). Returns will often be more spectacular on share resale than on dividends, but it goes both ways (you can lose a lot if you resell at the wrong time). Dividends tend to be a bit more stable, and unless the company goes bankrupt (or a few other unfortunate events), you still hold shares in the company even if the price goes down, and you could still get dividends. And you can still resell the stock on top of that! Of course, not all companies distribute dividends. In that case, you only have the hope of reselling at a higher price (or that the company will distribute dividends in the future). Welcome to the next bubble...\",\n \"They were issued in 1919 and eliminated in 1926. This means that Coca-Cola redeemed them in 1926 and either converted the preferred's to common stock or paid the preferred investor's back their full par value and took them off the books.\",\n \"If that company issues another 100 shares, shouldn't 10 of those new 100 shares be mine? Those 100 shares are an asset of the company, and you own 10% of them. When investors buy those new shares, you again own a share of the proceeds, just as you own a share of all the company's assets. A company only issues new share to raise money - it is a borrowing from investors, and in that way can be seen as an alternative to taking on loans. Both share issuing and a loan bring new capital and debt into a company. The difference is that shares don't need to be repaid.\",\n \"Regardless of whether a stock is owned by a retail investor or an institutional investor, it is subject to the same rules. For example, say that as part of the buyout, 1 share of Company B is equivalent to 0.75 shares of Company A and any fractional shares will be paid out in cash. This rule will apply to both the retail investor who holds 500 shares of Company B, as well as the asset manager or hedge fund holding 5,000,000 shares of Company B.\",\n \"Your question has already been answered, you divide the amount of shares you own * 100% by the total amount of shares. However, I feel it is somewhat misleading to talk about owning a percentage of the company by owning shares. Strictly speaking, shares do not entitle you to a part of the company but instead give you a proportional amount of votes at shareholder meetings (assuming no funky share classes). What this means is that someone who owns 30% of a company's shares can't just grab 30% of the company's assets (factories, offices and whatever) and say that they are entitled to own this. What they actually own is 30% of the voting rights in this company, this means that they control 30% of all available votes when the company calls a vote on corporate actions, choosing a new director etc. which is how shareholders exert their influence on a company.\",\n \"No - there are additional factors involved. Note that the shares on issue of a company can change for various reasons (such as conversion/redemption of convertible securities, vesting of restricted employee shares, conversion of employee options, employee stock purchase programs, share placements, buybacks, mergers, rights issues etc.) so it is always worthwhile checking SEC announcements for the company if you want an exact figure. There may also be multiple classes of shares and preferred securities that have different levels of dividends present. For PFG, they filed a 10Q on 22 April 2015 and noted they had 294,385,885 shares outstanding of their common stock. They also noted for the three months ended March 31 2014 that dividends were paid to both common stockholders and preferred stockholders and that there were Series A preferred stock (3 million) and Series B preferred stock (10 million), plus a statement: In February 2015, our Board of Directors authorized a share repurchase program of up to $150.0 million of our outstanding common stock. Shares repurchased under these programs are accounted for as treasury stock, carried at cost and reflected as a reduction to stockholders’ equity. Therefore the exact amount of dividend paid out will not be known until the next quarterly report which will state the exact amount of dividend paid out to common and preferred shareholders for the quarter.\",\n \"If you have a public company and shareholder A owns 25% and shareholder B owns 25%, and lets say the remaining 50% is owned by various funds/small investors. Say profits are 100mil, and a dividend is payed. Say 50 mil worth is payed out as dividend and 30 mil is kept as retained earnings for future investment. Can the remaining 20 mil be distributed to shareholders A and B, so that they both get 10mil each? Can certain shareholders be favored and get a bigger cut of profits than the dividends pay out is my question basically.\",\n \"Theoretically, when a company issues more shares, it does not affect the value of your shares. The reason is that when a company issues and sells more shares, the proceeds from the sale of those shares goes back into the company. Using your example, you have 10 out of 100 shares of the company, for a 10% stake. Let's say that the shares are valued at $1,000 each, meaning that the market value of the company is $100,000, and your stake is worth $10,000. Now the company issues 100 more shares at $1,000 each. The company receives $100,000 from new investors, and now the company is worth $200,000. Your stake is now only 5% of the company, but it is still worth $10,000. The authorized share capital is the amount of shares that a company has already planned on selling. When you buy stock in a company, you can look up how many shares exist, so you know what your percent stake in the company is. When a company wants to sell more shares, this is called an increase of authorized share capital. In order to do this, the company generally needs the approval of a majority of the existing shareholders.\",\n \"\\\"Thanks for your reply. I think a lot of people are confused when talking about ownership, and I think it is a definitional issue. When a company issues stock (the first time or anytime), what they are doing is \\\"\\\"selling\\\"\\\" the right to a percentage of the dividend. They are not actually selling parts of the company to you. Everyone thinks this way though, and that has to do with the Chicago School economists who perpetuated their ideas of ownership which is what everyone know thinks is the case. This way of thinking about corporations and ownership is just wrong (not ethically), just erroneous. As I stated before, Lynn Stout of Cornell University explains this really well. I would encourage anyone to read more about it.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Typically, preferred shares come with one or both different benefits - a disproportionate share of votes, say 10 votes per share vs the normal 1, or a preferred dividend. The vote preference is great for the owner(s) looking to go public, but not lose control of the company. Say, I am a Walton (of Walmart fame) and when I went public, I sold 80% of the (1000 share total) company. But, in creating the share structure, 20% of shares were assigned 10 votes each. 800 shares now trade with 800 votes, 200 shares have 10 votes each or 2000 votes. So, there are still the 1000 shares but 2800 votes. The 20% of shares now have 2000/2800 or 71% of the total votes. So, my shares are just less than half ownership, but over 78% of votes. Preferred dividend is as simple as that, buy Stock A for ownership, or (same company) Stock A preferred shares which have ownership and $1/yr dividend. Edited to show a bit more math. I use a simple example to call out a total 1000 shares. The percentages would be the same for a million or billion shares if 20% were a 10 vote preferred.","Preferred stocks are, err... Preferred. The whole point of preferred stocks is that they have some preference over other classes of stocks (there may be more than 2, by the way). It can be more voting rights, more dividends or priority on dividends' distribution (common with VC investments), or priority on liquidations (in bankruptcy, preferred stock holders are ranked higher than common). Many times initial or critical investments are made on preferred terms, and the stocks are converted to common when certain thresholds are met. Obviously all these benefits require a premium on the price."],"string":"[\n \"Typically, preferred shares come with one or both different benefits - a disproportionate share of votes, say 10 votes per share vs the normal 1, or a preferred dividend. The vote preference is great for the owner(s) looking to go public, but not lose control of the company. Say, I am a Walton (of Walmart fame) and when I went public, I sold 80% of the (1000 share total) company. But, in creating the share structure, 20% of shares were assigned 10 votes each. 800 shares now trade with 800 votes, 200 shares have 10 votes each or 2000 votes. So, there are still the 1000 shares but 2800 votes. The 20% of shares now have 2000/2800 or 71% of the total votes. So, my shares are just less than half ownership, but over 78% of votes. Preferred dividend is as simple as that, buy Stock A for ownership, or (same company) Stock A preferred shares which have ownership and $1/yr dividend. Edited to show a bit more math. I use a simple example to call out a total 1000 shares. The percentages would be the same for a million or billion shares if 20% were a 10 vote preferred.\",\n \"Preferred stocks are, err... Preferred. The whole point of preferred stocks is that they have some preference over other classes of stocks (there may be more than 2, by the way). It can be more voting rights, more dividends or priority on dividends' distribution (common with VC investments), or priority on liquidations (in bankruptcy, preferred stock holders are ranked higher than common). Many times initial or critical investments are made on preferred terms, and the stocks are converted to common when certain thresholds are met. Obviously all these benefits require a premium on the price.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":181,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"4433"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"When should you use an actively managed mutual fund in a 401k?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["146181","301580"],"string":"[\n \"146181\",\n \"301580\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["34986","550783","563728","311527","146181","315627","301580","544236","90858","599701","297290","343040","523331","135596","576008","122378","513474","135453","434279","30159","59670","545760","356595","3279","194776","210514","106620","493578","155242","330743","225395","134300","53100","591383","570117","504301","140917","367960","8759","358704","382101","79375","408994","387492","346474","374225","391835","516880","52589","246253","147889","555377","322806","84642","66754","304081","1366","576807","340131","438525","436930","128077","586029","539263","277","39071","346894","61524","546150","536580","57070","81652","233187","506302","281049","589602","266194","576391","477021","429929","181624","301616","228485","315126","389019","462612","551155","67220","525426","90294","219907","331492","584627","234640","477175","568315","288050","47614","505943","332152"],"string":"[\n \"34986\",\n \"550783\",\n \"563728\",\n \"311527\",\n \"146181\",\n \"315627\",\n \"301580\",\n \"544236\",\n \"90858\",\n \"599701\",\n \"297290\",\n \"343040\",\n \"523331\",\n \"135596\",\n \"576008\",\n \"122378\",\n \"513474\",\n \"135453\",\n \"434279\",\n \"30159\",\n \"59670\",\n \"545760\",\n \"356595\",\n \"3279\",\n \"194776\",\n \"210514\",\n \"106620\",\n \"493578\",\n \"155242\",\n \"330743\",\n \"225395\",\n \"134300\",\n \"53100\",\n \"591383\",\n \"570117\",\n \"504301\",\n \"140917\",\n \"367960\",\n \"8759\",\n \"358704\",\n \"382101\",\n \"79375\",\n \"408994\",\n \"387492\",\n \"346474\",\n \"374225\",\n \"391835\",\n \"516880\",\n \"52589\",\n \"246253\",\n \"147889\",\n \"555377\",\n \"322806\",\n \"84642\",\n \"66754\",\n \"304081\",\n \"1366\",\n \"576807\",\n \"340131\",\n \"438525\",\n \"436930\",\n \"128077\",\n \"586029\",\n \"539263\",\n \"277\",\n \"39071\",\n \"346894\",\n \"61524\",\n \"546150\",\n \"536580\",\n \"57070\",\n \"81652\",\n \"233187\",\n \"506302\",\n \"281049\",\n \"589602\",\n \"266194\",\n \"576391\",\n \"477021\",\n \"429929\",\n \"181624\",\n \"301616\",\n \"228485\",\n \"315126\",\n \"389019\",\n \"462612\",\n \"551155\",\n \"67220\",\n \"525426\",\n \"90294\",\n \"219907\",\n \"331492\",\n \"584627\",\n \"234640\",\n \"477175\",\n \"568315\",\n \"288050\",\n \"47614\",\n \"505943\",\n \"332152\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["When you look at managed funds the expense ratios are always high. They have the expense of analyzing the market, deciding where to invest, and then tracking the new investments. The lowest expenses are with the passive investments. What you have noticed is exactly what you expect. Now if you want to invest in active funds that throw off dividends and capital gains, the 401K is the perfect place to do it, because that income will not be immediately taxable. If the money is in a Roth 401K it is even better because that income will never be taxed.","I would stay away from the Actively Managed Funds. Index funds or the asset allocation funds are your best bet since they have the lowest fees. What is your risk tolerance? How old are you? I would suggest reading:","\"Hope springs eternal in the human breast. No actively managed fund has beaten the indices over a long period of time, but over shorter periods, actively managed funds have beaten the indices quite often, sometimes quite spectacularly, and sometimes even for many years in a row. Examples from the past include Fidelity Magellan and Legg Mason Value Trust. So people buy actively managed funds hoping to cash in on such good performance. The difficulty is, of course, that many people don't even think about investing in a fund until it is listed in some \"\"Top Forty Funds of last year\"\" compilation, and for many funds, they have already peaked, and new buyers are often disappointed. Some people who invested earlier plan on getting out of the fund before the fund falls flat on its face, and fewer even succeed in doing so. As to why 401k plans often have high-cost actively managed funds, there are several reasons. A most important one is that there are numerous companies that act as administrators of 401k programs and these companies put together package deals of 401k programs (funds, administrative costs etc), and small employers perforce have to choose from one of these packages. Second, there are various rules that have come into existence since the first days of 401k (and 403b) programs such as the investment choices must include funds of different types, and actively managed funds (large cap, small cap etc) are one of the choices that must be offered. Gone are the days when the only choice was a variable annuity offered by the insurance company administering the 401k program. Finally, program participants also have hopes (cf. opening sentence) and used to demand that the 401k program offer a few actively managed funds, not just index funds.\"","Just find a low cost S&P 500 index fund, and spend your time reading The Great Mutual Fund Trap instead of wasting your time and money picking actively managed funds.","\"For US stocks it's a bit of a gamble. Many actively managed funds underperform the market indexes, but some of them outperform in many years. With an index you will get average results. With an active manager you \"\"might\"\" do better than average. So you can view active management as a higher risk, potentially higher reward investment approach. On the other hand, if you want to diversify some of your investments into international stocks, bonds, junk bonds, and real estate (REITs) active management is highly likely to be better than indexing. For these specialized areas specialized knowledge and research is needed.\"","Note that many funds just track indexes. In that case, you essentially don't have to worry about the fund manager making bad decisions. In general, the statistics are very clear that you want to avoid any actively managed fund. There are many funds that are good all-in-one investments. If you are in Canada, for example, Canadian Couch Potato recommends the Tangerine Investment Funds. The fees are a little high, but if you don't have a huge investment, one of these funds would be a good choice and appropriate for 100% of your investment. If you have a larger investment, to the point that Tangerine's MER scares you a little, you still may well look at a three or four fund (or ETF) portfolio. You may choose to use an actively-managed fund even though you know there's virtually no chance it'll beat a fund that just tracks an index, long-term. In that case, I'd recommend devoting only a small portion of your portfolio to this fund. Many people suggest speculating with no more than 10% of your combined investment. Note that other people are more positive on actively-managed funds.","By definition, actively managed funds will underperform passive index funds as a whole. Or more specifically: The aggregate performance of all actively managed portfolio of publicly-tradable assets will have equal performance to those of passively managed portfolios. Which taken with premise two: Actively managed funds will charge higher fees than passively managed funds Results in: In general, lower-fee investment vehicles (e.g. passive index investments) with broad enough diversification to the desired risk exposure will outperform higher-fee options But don't take my wonkish approach, from a more practical perspective consider:","Basically, no. Selecting an actively managed fund over a low-fee index fund means paying for the opportunity to possibly outperform the index fund. A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel argues that the best general strategy for the average investor is to select the index fund because the fee savings are certain. Assuming a random walk means that any mutual fund may outperform the index in some years, but this is not an indication that it will overall. Unless you have special information about the effectiveness of the bank fund management (it's run by the next Warren Buffett), you are better off in the index fund. And even Warren Buffett suggests you are probably better off in the index fund: This year, regarding Wall Street, Buffett wrote: “When trillions of dollars are managed by Wall Streeters charging high fees, it will usually be the managers who reap outsized profits, not the clients. Both large and small investors should stick with low-cost index funds.”","\"First, consider what causes taxes to apply to a mutual fund, index or actively managed. Dividends and capital gains are generally what will be distributed to shareholders given the nature of a mutual fund since the fund itself doesn't pay taxes. For funds held in IRAs or other tax-advantaged accounts, this isn't a concern and thus people may not have this concern for those situations which can account for a lot of investing situations as people may have 401(k)s and IRAs that hold their investments rather than taxable accounts. Second, there can be tax-managed funds so there can be cases where a fund is managed with taxes in mind that is worth noting here as what is referenced is a \"\"Dummies\"\" link that is making a generalization. For taxable accounts, it may make more sense to have a tax-managed fund rather than an index fund though I'd also argue to be careful of asset allocation as to maintain a purity of style can require selling of stocks that grow too big and thus trigger capital gains,e.g. small-cap and mid-cap funds that can't hold onto the winners as they would become mid-cap and large-cap instead of representing the proper asset class. A FUND THAT PLAYED IT SAFE--AND WAS SORRY would be a Businessweek story from 1998 of an actively managed fund that went mostly to cash and missed the rise of the stock market at that time if you want a specific example of what an actively managed fund can do that an index fund often cannot do. The index fund is to track the index and stay nearly all invested all the time.\"","No I get that. But if you don’t want risk, then buy bonds. Long term an S&P Index has very low risk. On the other hand, actively managed funds have fees that take out a ton of the gain that could be had. I don’t have time to look for the study but I read recently that 97% of actively managed funds were outperformed by S&P Indexes after fees. Now I don’t know about you but I think the risk of not picking a top 3% fund is probably higher than the safe return of index’s.","\"There is a lot of interesting information that can be found in a fund's prospectus. I have found it very helpful to read books on the issue, one I just finished was \"\"The Boglehead's Guide to Investing\"\" which speaks mostly on mutual and index funds. Actively managed funds mean that someone is choosing which stocks to buy and which to sell. If they think a stock will be \"\"hot\"\" then they buy it. Research has shown that people cannot predict the stock market, which is why many people suggest index based funds. An index fund generally tracks a group of companies. Example: an index fund of the S&P 500 will try to mimic the returns that the S&P 500 has. Overall, managed funds are more expensive than index funds because the fund manager must be paid to manage it. Also, there is generally more buying and selling so that also increases the tax amount you would owe. What I am planning on doing is opening a Roth IRA with Vanguard, as their funds have incredibly low fees (0.2% on many). One of the most important things you do before you buy is to figure out your target allocation (% of stocks vs % of bonds). Once you figure that out then you can start narrowing down the funds that you wish to invest in.\"","Statistically speaking active strategies **are** strictly on par with, or worse when you subtract fees, than passive strategies (regardless of how much time or money you spend investigating companies). Actively managed mutual funds are by and large just a racket where one class of rich people soaks another class of rich people plus some of the middle class. So yeah they should go ahead and call it a day. About time IMO.","Current evidence is that, after you subtract their commission and the additional trading costs, actively managed funds average no better than index funds, maybe not as well. You can afford to take more risks at your age, assuming that it will be a long time before you need these funds -- but I would suggest that means putting a high percentage of your investments in small-cap and large-cap stock indexes. I'd suggest 10% in bonds, maybe more, just because maintaining that balance automatically encourages buy-low-sell-high as the market cycles. As you get older and closer to needing a large chunk of the money (for a house, or after retirement), you would move progressively more of that to other categories such as bonds to help safeguard your earnings. Some folks will say this an overly conservative approach. On the other hand, it requires almost zero effort and has netted me an average 10% return (or so claims Quicken) over the past two decades, and that average includes the dot-bomb and the great recession. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance, of course, but the point is that it can work quite well enough.","This might be better suited to r/personalfinance but if you're looking to invest I'd say start with an index fund. The MER's (fees) for most other mutual funds take too heavy a chunk of returns to be worth it in a market where actively managed funds are either underperforming of performing at par with passive funds. Additionally if these are your first investments, make sure you're doing it with investment goals in mind. Is this money you're saving for short, medium, or long term? For medium and long term investing make sure you're doing it through a tax efficient instrument like an IRA or 401k.","Buying the right shares gives higher return. Buying the wrong ones gives worse return, possibly negative. The usual recommendation, even if you have a pro advising you, is to diversify most of your investments to reduce the risk, even though that may reduce the possible gain. A mutual fund is diversification-in-a-can. It requires little to no active maintenance. Yes, you pay a management fee, but you aren't paying per-transaction fees every time you adjust your holdings, and the management costs can be quite reasonable if you pick the right funds; minimal in the case of computer-managed (index) funds. If you actively enjoy playing with stocks and bonds and are willing/able to accept your failures and less-than-great choices as part of the game, and if you can convince yourself that you will do better this way, go for it. For those of us who just want to deposit out money, watch it grow, and maybe rebalance once a year if that, index funds are a perfectly good choice. I spend at least 8 hours a day working for my money; the rest of the time, I want my money to work for me. Risk and reward tend to be proportional to each other; when they aren't, market prices tend to move to correct that. You need to decide how much risk you're comfortable with, and how much time and effort and money you're willing to spend managing that risk. Personally, I am perfectly happy with the better-than-market-rate-of-return I'm getting, and I don't have any conviction that I could do better if I was more involved. Your milage will vary. If folks didn't disagree, there wouldn't be a market.","It all depends on whether you can manage your money or not. Many people are incapable of doing so in a responsible way. Like any service, you get what you pay for -- active management costs money!","\"Most people advocate a passively managed, low fee mutual fund that simply aims to track a given benchmark (say S&P 500). Few funds can beat the S&P consistently, so investors are often better served finding a no load passive fund. First thing I would do is ask your benefits rep why you don't have an option to invest in a Fidelity passive index fund like Spartan 500. Ideally young people would be heavy in equities and slowly divest for less risky stuff as retirement comes closer, and rebalance the portfolio regularly when market swings put you off risk targets. Few people know how to do this and actually do so. So there are mutual funds that do it for you, for a fee. These in are called \"\"lifecycle\"\" funds (The Freedom funds here). I hesitate to recommend them because they're still fairly new. If you take a look at underlying assets, these things generally just reinvest in the broker's other funds, which themselves have expenses & fees. And there's all kinds personal situations that might lead to you place a portion with a different investment.\"","As other posters have pointed out, many other potential factors at play here besides value, but that said, a huge part of my long-term money that I don't want to manage myself is in actively managed EM funds.","\"Here is the \"\"investing for retirement\"\" theoretical background you should have. You should base your investment decisions not simply on the historical return of the fund, but on its potential for future returns and its risk. Past performance does not indicate future results: the past performance is frequently at its best the moment before the bubble pops. While no one knows the specifics of future returns, there are a few types of assets that it's (relatively) safe to make blanket statements about: The future returns of your portfolio will primarily be determined by your asset allocation . The general rules look like: There are a variety of guides out there to help decide your asset allocation and tell you specifically what to do. The other thing that you should consider is the cost of your funds. While it's easy to get lucky enough to make a mutual fund outperform the market in the short term, it's very hard to keep that up for decades on end. Moreover, chasing performance is risky, and expensive. So look at your fund information and locate the expense ratio. If the fund's expense ratio is 1%, that's super-expensive (the stock market's annualized real rate of return is about 4%, so that could be a quarter of your returns). All else being equal, choose the cheap index fund (with an expense ratio closer to 0.1%). Many 401(k) providers only have expensive mutual funds. This is because you're trapped and can't switch to a cheaper fund, so they're free to take lots of your money. If this is the case, deal with it in the short term for the tax benefits, then open a specific type of account called a \"\"rollover IRA\"\" when you change jobs, and move your assets there. Or, if your savings are small enough, just open an IRA (a \"\"traditional IRA\"\" or \"\"Roth IRA\"\") and use those instead. (Or, yell at your HR department, in the event that you think that'll actually accomplish anything.)\"","The expense fees are high, and unfortunate. I would stop short of calling it criminal, however. What you are paying for with your expenses is the management of the holdings in the fund. The managers of the fund are actively, continuously watching the performance of the holdings, buying and selling inside the fund in an attempt to beat the stock market indexes. Whether or not this is worth the expenses is debatable, but it is indeed possible for a managed fund to beat an index. Despite the relatively high expenses of these funds, the 401K is still likely your best investment vehicle for retirement. The money you put in is tax deductible immediately, your account grows tax deferred, and anything that your employer kicks in is free money. Since, in the short term, you have little choice, don't lose a lot of sleep over it. Just pick the best option you have, and occasionally suggest to your employer that you would appreciate different options in the future. If things don't change, and you have the option in the future to rollover into a cheaper IRA, feel free to take it.","\"Lifecycle funds might be a suitable fit for you. Lifecycle funds (aka \"\"target date funds\"\") are a mutual fund that invests your money in other mutual funds based on how much time is left until you need the money-- they follow a \"\"glide-path\"\" of reducing stock holdings in favor of bonds over time to reduce volatility of your final return as you near retirement. The ones I've looked at don't charge a fee of their own for this, but they do direct your portfolio to actively managed funds. That said, the ones I've seen have an \"\"acquired\"\" expense ratio of less than what you're proposing you'd pay a professional. FWIW, my current plan is to invest in a binary portfolio of cheap mutual funds that track S&P500 and AGG and rebalance regularly. This is easy enough that I don't see the point of adding in a 1 percent commission.\"","Fire your fund manager. There are several passive funds that seek to duplicate the S&P 500 Index returns. They have lower management fees, which will make returns lower than S&P, and they have less risk by following a broadly diversified strategy (versus midcap growing stocks). There's also ETFs, but evidence is growing that they're not as safe as hoped. But here's the deal: the S&P has been on a tear lately. It could be overvalued and what looks like a good investment could start falling again. A possible alternative would be one of the Lifetime funds that seek to perform portfolio adjustment with a retirement decade target; they're fairly new which mostly means nobody knows how they screw you over yet. In theory, this decade structure means the brokerage can execute trading cash for stocks, stocks for bonds, and bonds for cash in house.","Whatever you do, don't take your retirement savings to Vegas. Second, you should also consider investment expenses. Your investments profit after the managers pay themselves. Get the lowest expense ratio mutual funds you can. Third, most active managers do not beat the market. Index funds are your friends. They also tend to have the lower expense ratios.","Most mutual funds underperform the stock market. Of those that over-perform, much of the performance can be attributed to dumb luck. Most mutual funds exist to generate fees from you, rather than make you wealthy. In my opinion, if you want to invest in one, choose a no-load index fund, and you will outperform most other funds. Better still get some good financial education and learn to manage your funds/investments yourself.","The S&P top 5 - 401(k) usually comply with the DOL's suggestion to offer at least three distinct investment options with substantially different risk/return objectives. Typically a short term bond fund. Short term is a year or less and it will rarely have a negative year. A large cap fund, often the S&P index. A balanced fund, offering a mix. Last, the company's stock. This is a great way to put all your eggs in one basket, and when the company goes under, you have no job and no savings. My concern about your Microsoft remark is that you might not have the choice to manage you funds with such granularity. Will you get out of the S&P fund because you think this one stock or even one sector of the S&P is overvalued? And buy into what? The bond fund? If you have the skill to choose individual stocks, and the 401(k) doesn't offer a brokerage window (to trade on your own) then just invest your money outside the 401(k). But. If they offer a matching deposit, don't ignore that.","That is such a vague statement, I highly recommend disregarding it entirely, as it is impossible to know what they meant. Their goal is to convince you that index funds are the way to go, but depending on what they consider an 'active trader', they may be supporting their claim with irrelevant data Their definition of 'active trader' could mean any one or more of the following: 1) retail investor 2) day trader 3) mutual fund 4) professional investor 5) fund continuously changing its position 6) hedge fund. I will go through all of these. 1) Most retail traders lose money. There are many reasons for this. Some rely on technical strategies that are largely unproven. Some buy rumors on penny stocks in hopes of making a quick buck. Some follow scammers on twitter who sell newsletters full of bogus stock tips. Some cant get around the psychology of trading, and thus close out losing positions late and winning positions early (or never at all) [I myself use to do this!!]. I am certain 99% of retail traders cant beat the market, because most of them, to be frank, put less effort into deciding what to trade than in deciding what to have for lunch. Even though your pension funds presentation is correct with respect to retail traders, it is largely irrelevant as professionals managing your money should not fall into any of these traps. 2) I call day traders active traders, but its likely not what your pension fund was referring to. Day trading is an entirely different animal to long or medium term investing, and thus I also think the typical performance is irrelevant, as they are not going to manage your money like a day trader anyway. 3,4,5) So the important question becomes, do active funds lose 99% of the time compared to index funds. NO! No no no. According to the WSJ, actively managed funds outperformed passive funds in 2007, 2009, 2013, 2015. 2010 was basically a tie. So 5 out of 9 years. I dont have a calculator on me but I believe that is less than 99%! Whats interesting is that this false belief that index funds are always better has become so pervasive that you can see active funds have huge outflows and passive have huge inflows. It is becoming a crowded trade. I will spare you the proverb about large crowds and small doors. Also, index funds are so heavily weighted towards a handful of stocks, that you end up becoming a stockpicker anyway. The S&P is almost indistinguishable from AAPL. Earlier this year, only 6 stocks were responsible for over 100% of gains in the NASDAQ index. Dont think FB has a good long term business model, or that Gilead and AMZN are a cheap buy? Well too bad if you bought QQQ, because those 3 stocks are your workhorses now. See here 6) That graphic is for mutual funds but your pension fund may have also been including hedge funds in their 99% figure. While many dont beat their own benchmark, its less than 99%. And there are reasons for it. Many have investors that are impatient. Fortress just had to close one of its funds, whose bets may actually pay off years from now, but too many people wanted their money out. Some hedge funds also have rules, eg long only, which can really limit your performance. While important to be aware of this, that placing your money with a hedge fund may not beat a benchmark, that does not automatically mean you should go with an index fund. So when are index funds useful? When you dont want to do any thinking. When you dont want to follow market news, at all. Then they are appropriate.","\"The best predictor of mutual fund performance is low expense ratio, as reported by Morningstar despite the fact that it produces the star ratings you cite. Most of the funds you list are actively managed and thus have high expense ratios. Even if you believe there are mutual fund managers out there that can pick investments intelligently enough to offset the costs versus a passive index fund, do you trust that you will be able to select such a manager? Most people that aren't trying to sell you something will advise that your best bet is to stick with low-cost, passive index funds. I only see one of these in your options, which is FUSVX (Fidelity Spartan 500 Index Fund Fidelity Advantage Class) with an exceptionally low expense ratio of 0.05%. Do you have other investment accounts with more choices, like an IRA? If so you might consider putting a major chunk of your 401(k) money into FUSVX, and use your IRA to balance your overall porfolio with small- and medium-cap domestic stock, international stock, and bond funds. As an aside, I remember seeing a funny comment on this site once that is applicable here, something along the lines of \"\"don't take investment advice from coworkers unless they're Warren Buffett or Bill Gross\"\".\"","\"If you're willing to do a little more work and bookkeeping than just putting money into the 401(k) I would recommend the following. I note that you said you chose some funds based on performance since the expense ratios are all high. I would recommend against chasing performance because active funds will almost always falter; honor the old saw: \"\"past performance is no guarantee of future returns\"\". Assuming the cash in your Ally account is an emergency fund, I would use it to pay off your credit card debt to avoid the interest payments. Use free cash flow in the coming months to bring the emergency fund balance back up to an acceptable level. If the Ally account is not an emergency fund, I would make it one! With no debt and an emergency fund for 3-12 months of living expenses (pick your risk tolerance), then you can concentrate on investing. Your 401(k) options are unfortunately pretty poor. With those choices I would invest this way: Once you fill up your choice of IRA, then you have the tougher decision of where to put any extra money you have to invest (if any). A brokerage account gives you the freedom of investment choices and the ability to easily pull out money in the case of a dire emergency. The 401(k) will give you tax benefits, but high fund expenses. The tax benefits are considerable, so if I were at a job where I plan on moving on in a few years, I'd fund the 401(k) up to the max with the knowledge that I'd roll the 401(k) into a rollover IRA in the (relatively) short term. If I saw myself staying at the employer for a long time (5+ years), I'd probably take the taxable account route since those high fund fees will add up over time. One you start building up a solid base, then I might look into having a small allocation in one of my accounts for \"\"play money\"\" to pick individual stocks, or start making sector bets.\"","You have to look at the market conditions and make decisions based on them. Ideally, you may want to have 30% of your portfolio in bonds. But from a practical point of view, it's probably not so smart to invest in bond funds right at this moment given the interest rate market. Styles of funds tend to go into and out of style. I personally do asset allocation two ways in my 457 plan (like a 401k for government workers): In my IRA, I invest in a portfolio of 5-6 stocks. The approach you take is dependent on what you are able to put into it. I invest about 10 hours a week into investment related research. If you can't do that, you want a strategy that is simpler -- but you still need to be cognizant of market conditions.","There are fund of funds,e.g. life cycle funds or target retirement funds, that could cover a lot of these with an initial investment that one could invest into for a few years and then after building up a balance large enough, then it may make sense to switch to having more control.","\"Yep, most 401k options suck. You'll have access to a couple dozen funds that have been blessed by the organization that manages your account. I recently rolled my 401k over into a self-directed IRA at Fidelity, and I have access to the entire mutual fund market, and can trade stocks/bonds if I wish. As for a practical solution for your situation: the options you've given us are worryingly vague -- hopefully you're able to do research on what positions these funds hold and make your own determination. Quick overview: Energy / Utilities: Doing good right now because they are low-risk, generally high dividends. These will underperform in the short-term as the market recovers. Health Care: riskier, and many firms are facing a sizable patent cliff. I am avoiding this sector. Emerging Markets: I'm also avoiding this due to the volatility and accounting issues, but it's up to you. Most large US companies have \"\"emerging markets\"\" exposure, so not necessary for to invest in a dedicated fund in my unprofessional opinion. Bonds: Avoid. Bonds are at their highest levels in decades. Short-term they might be ok; but medium-term, the only place to go is down. All of this depends on your age, and your own particular investment objectives. Don't listen to me or anyone else without doing your own research.\"","Let me throw in one more variable to consider. Company 401K plans typically have MUCH higher fees than you are likely to get if you shop around on your own as long as you don't go with a high dollar broker. You won't see these fees on your statements typically, which I think is criminal, but they are hidden in the prices of the funds you are buying in the 401K. If you don't believe me, get the quotes for a fund from the 401K company's web-site then look up the same fund on a site like MSMoney. The share prices won't match and you will be angry until you come to terms with it. So if you have a choice of money in a personal retirement account versus a 401K always go with your own account... UNLESS: or","\"That's a lot of manual checking-in to see if everything is performing the way you \"\"want\"\". Not to insult your intelligence, but that is not your job, and doing that on a monthly basis is going to eat a lot of time. Plus, most 401(k) programs have lockout periods wherein changes can't be made without incurring additional fees (related to distributions, etc). And if you're checking that often, you are [likely] losing the benefits of investing in mutual funds to start with. If you have the stomach to handle the risk, go for the high-risk investment vehicles early in your career - you can afford a 30% drop this year if you then make 105%, 15%, or 50% back each of the next 5. If, on the other hand, you're in your mid-career, switch to more conservative management tactics.\"","If they're not matching, and their profit-sharing has nothing to do with how much you invest, then I'd say don't bother with the company 401k at all. If you need to at least have an account open to get the profit sharing, then contribute the bare minimum. Having your retirement account through your company forces you to follow their standards, choose from their funds, use their broker, etc. It also means that when you leave the company, you either have to move your money anyway, or else have an account through a company you don't work for, which I wouldn't feel all that comfortable doing anyway. If you open a retirement account through your bank or a private financial planner, then it's yours, and you can contribute what you want, when you want, and buy the securities that you want. Your account executive is there to service you, not your company.","The benefit of the 401K and IRAs are that reallocating and re balancing are easy. They don't want you to move the funds every day, but you are not locked in to your current allocations. The fact that you mentioned in a comment that you also have a Roth IRA means that you should look at all retirements as a whole. Look at what options you have in the 401K and also what options you have with the IRA. Then determine the overall allocation between bonds, stocks, international, REIT, etc. Then use the mix of funds in the IRA and 401K to meet that goal. Asking if the 401K should be small and mid cap only can't be answered without knowing not just your risk tolerances but the total money in the 401K and IRA. Pick an allocation, map the available funds to that allocation. Rebalance every year. But review the allocation in a few years or after a life event such as: change of job, getting married, having kids, or buying a house.","What decision are you trying to make? Are you interested day trading stocks to make it rich? Or are you looking at your investment options and trying to decide between an actively managed mutual fund and an ETF? If the former, then precise statistics are hard to come by, but I believe that 99% of day traders would do better investing in an ETF. If the latter, then there are lots of studies that show that most actively managed funds do worse than index funds, so with most actively managed funds you are paying higher fees for worse performance. Here is a quote from the Bogleheads Guide to Investing: Index funds outperform approximately 80 percent of all actively managed funds over long periods of time. They do so for one simple reason: rock-bottom costs. In a random market, we don't know what future returns will be. However, we do know that an investor who keeps his or her costs low will earn a higher return than one who does not. That's the indexer's edge. Many people believe that your best option for investing is a diverse portfolio of ETFs, like this. This is what I do.","Does your employer offer a 401(k) match? If so, contribute enough to maximize that--it's free money. After that, contribute to an IRA where you can invest in funds with low expenses. After you max that out, if you still have money left over, max out your 401(k) despite the high expenses for the tax advantages. Remember when you leave the company you can roll over the balance into an IRA and switch to lower-cost investments. Of course this is general advice without knowing your situation. If you're looking to buy a home soon, for example, you might want to keep extra money in a taxable account for a downpayment rather than maxing out your 401(k).","\"I think you are asking about actively managed funds vs. indexes and possibly also vs. diversified funds like target date funds. This is also related to the question of mutual fund vs. ETF. First, a fund can be either actively managed or it can attempt to track an index. An actively managed fund has a fund manager who tries to find the best stocks to invest in within some constraints, like \"\"this fund invests in large cap US companies\"\". An index fund tries to match as closely as possible the performance of an index like the S&P 500. A fund may also try to offer a portfolio that is suitable for someone to put their entire account into. For example, a target date fund is a fund that may invest in a mix of stocks, bonds and foreign stock in a proportion that would be appropriate to someone expecting to retire in a certain year. These are not what people tend to think of as the canonical examples of mutual funds, even though they share the same legal structure and investment mechanisms. Secondly, a fund can either be a traditional mutual fund or it can be an exchange traded fund (ETF). To invest in a traditional mutual fund, you send money to the fund, and they give you a number of shares equal to what that money would have bought of the net asset value (NAV) of the fund at the end of trading on the day they receive your deposit, possibly minus a sales charge. To invest in an ETF, you buy shares of the ETF on the stock market like any other stock. Under the covers, an ETF does have something similar to the mechanism of depositing money to get shares, but only big traders can use that, and it's not used for investing, but only for people who are making a market in the stock (if lots of people are buying VTI, Big Dealer Co will get 100,000 shares from Vanguard so that they can sell them on the market the next day). Historically and traditionally, ETFs are associated with an indexing strategy, while if not specifically mentioned, people assume that traditional mutual funds are actively managed. Many ETFs, notably all the Vanguard ETFs, are actually just a different way to hold the same underlying fund. The best way to understand this is to read the prospectus for a mutual fund and an ETF. It's all there in reasonably plain English.\"","What you may be looking for are multi-manager ETFs; these invest in a basket of diversified funds to get the best out of all of the funds. The problem with multi-manager funds is, of course, that you pay fees twice; once to the fund itself and once to each of the funds in the fund. The low fees on ETFs mean that it is not very profitable to actively maintain one so there are not many around (Googling returns very few). Noting that historic success doesn't guarantee future success and that fees are being applied to fees these funds only really benefit from diversification of manager performance risk. partial source of information and an example of a (non-outperforming) Multi-manager ETF: http://www.etfstrategy.co.uk/advisorshares-sets-date-for-multi-manager-etf-with-charitable-twist-give-53126/","Placing bets on targeted sectors of the market totally makes sense in my opinion. Especially if you've done research, with a non-biased eye, that convinces you those sectors will continue to outperform. However, the funds you've boxed in red all appear to be actively managed funds (I only double-checked on the first.) There is a bit of research showing that very few active managers consistently beat an index over the long term. By buying these funds, especially since you hope to hold for decades, you are placing bets that these managers maintain their edge over an equivalent index. This seems unlikely to be a winning bet the longer you hold the position. Perhaps there are no sector index funds for the sectors or focuses you have? But if there were, and it was my money that I planned to park for the long term, I'd pick the index fund over the active managed fund. Index funds also have an advantage in costs or fees. They can charge substantially less than an actively managed fund does. And fees can be a big drag on total return.","The problem is that short-term trends are really unpredictable. There is nobody who can accurately predict where a fund (or even moreso, a single stock or bond) is going to move in a few hours, or days or even months. The long-term trends of the entire market, however, are (more or less) predictable. There is a definite upward bias when you look at time-scales of 5, 10, 20 years and more. Individual stocks and bonds may crash, and different sectors perform differently from year to year, but the market as a whole has historically always risen over long time scales. Of course, past performance never guarantees future performance. It is possible that everything could crash and never come back, but history shows that this would be incredibly unlikely. Which is the entire basis for strategies based on buying and holding (and periodically rebalancing) a portfolio containing funds that cover all market sectors. Now, regarding your 401(k), you know your time horizon. The laws won't let you withdraw money without penalty until you reach retirement age - this might be 40 years, depending on your current age. So we're definitely talking long term. You shouldn't care about where the market goes over a few months if you won't be using the money until 20 years from now. The most important thing for a 401(k) is to choose funds from those available to you that will be as diverse as possible. The actual allocation strategy is something you will need to work out with a financial advisor, since it will be different for every person. Once you come up with an appropriate allocation strategy, you will want to buy according to those ratios with every paycheck and rebalance your funds to those ratios whenever they start to drift away. And review the ratios with your advisor every few years, to keep them aligned with large-scale trends and changes in your life.","The presence of the 401K option means that your ability to contribute to an IRA will be limited, it doesn't matter if you contribute to the 401K or not. Unless your company allows you to roll over 401K money into an IRA while you are still an employee, your money in the 401K will remain there. Many 401K programs offer not just stock mutual funds, but bond mutual funds, and international funds. Many also have target date funds. You will have to look at the paperwork for the funds to determine if any of them meet your definition of low expense. Because any money you have in those 401K funds is going to remain in the 401K, you still need to look at your options and make the best choice. Very few companies allow employees to invest in individual stocks, but some do. You can ask your employer to research other options for the 401K. The are contracting with a investment company to make the plan. They may be able to switch to a different package from the same company or may need to switch companies. How much it will cost them is unknown. You will have to understand when their current contract is up for renewal. If you feel their current plan is poor, it may be making hiring new employees difficult, or ti may lead to some employees to leave in search of better options. It may also be a factor in the number of employees contributing and how much they contribute.","Unfortunately, that's a call only you can make and whichever route you choose comes with advantages and disadvantages. If you manage your money directly, you may significantly reduce costs (assuming that you don't frequently trade index funds or you use a brokerage like RobinHood) and take advantage of market returns if the indexes perform well. On the other hand, if the market experiences some bad years, a professional might (and this is a huge might) have more self-discipline and prevent a panic sell, or know how to allocate accordingly both before and after a rise or fall (keep in mind, investors often get too greedy for their own good, like they tend to panic at the wrong time). As an example of why this might is important: one family member of mine trusted a professional to do this and they failed; they bought in a rising market and sold in a falling market. To avoid the above example, if you do go with the professional service, the best course of action is to look at their track record; if they're new, you might be better on your own. Since I assume this one or more professionals at the company, testing to see what they've recommended over the years might help you evaluate if they're offering you a good choice. Finally, depending on how much money you have, you could always do what Scott Adams did: he took a portion of his own money and managed it himself and tested how well he did vs. how well his professional team did (if I recall, I believe he came out ahead of his professional team). With two decades left, that may help guide you the rest of the way, even through retirement.","\"There are probably 3-4 questions here. Diversification - A good index, a low cost S&P fund or ETF can serve you very well. If you add an extended market index or just go with \"\"Total market\"\", that might be it for your stock allocation. I've seen people with 5 funds, and it didn't take much analysis to see the overlap was so significant, that the extra 4 funds added little, and 2 of the 5 would have been it. If you diversify by buying more ETFs or funds, be sure to see what they contain. If you can go back in time, buy Apple, Google, Amazon, etc, and don't sell them. Individual stocks are fun to pick, but unless you put in your homework, are tough to succeed at. You need to be right at the buy side, and again to know if, and when, to sell. I bought Apple, for example, long ago, pre-last few splits. But, using responsible a approach, I sold a bit each time it doubled. Has I kept it all through the splits, I'd have $1M+ instead of the current $200K or so of stock. Can you tell which companies now have that kind of potential for the future? The S&P has been just about double digit over 60 years. The average managed fund will lag the S&P over time, many will be combined with other funds or just close. Even with huge survivor bias, managed funds can't beat the index over time, on average. Aside from a small portion of stocks I've picked, I'm happy to get S&P less .02% in my 401(k). In aggregate, people actually do far worse due to horrific timing and some odd thing, called emotions.\"","I'm looking for ways to geared to save for retirement, not general investment. Many mutual fund companies offer a range of target retirement funds for different retirement dates (usually in increments of 5 years). These are funds of funds, that is, a Target 2040 Fund, say, will be invested in five or six different stock and bond mutual funds offered by the same company. Over the years and as the target date approaches closer, the investment mix will change from extra weight given to stock mutual funds towards extra weight being given to bond mutual funds. The disadvantage to these funds is that the Target Fund charges its own expense ratio over and above the expense ratios charged by the mutual funds it invests in: you could do the same investments yourself (or pick your own mix and weighting of various funds) and save the extra expense ratio. However, over the years, as the Target Fund changes its mix, withdrawing money from the stock mutual funds and investing the proceeds into bond mutual funds, you do not have to pay taxes on the profits generated by these transactions except insofar as some part of the profits become distributions from the Target Fund itself. If you were doing the same transactions outside the Target Fund, you would be liable for taxes on the profits when you withdrew money from a stock fund and invested the proceeds into the bond fund.","\"First of all, it's great you're now taking full advantage of your employer match – i.e. free money. Next, on the question of the use of a life cycle / target date fund as a \"\"hedge\"\": Life cycle funds were introduced for hands-off, one-stop-shopping investors who don't like a hassle or don't understand. Such funds are gaining in popularity: employers can use them as a default choice for automatic enrollment, which results in more participation in retirement savings plans than if employees had to opt-in. I think life cycle funds are a good innovation for that reason. But, the added service and convenience typically comes with higher fees. If you are going to be hands-off, make sure you're cost-conscious: Fees can devastate a portfolio's performance. In your case, it sounds like you are willing to do some work for your portfolio. If you are confident that you've chosen a good equity glide path – that is, the initial and final stock/bond allocations and the rebalancing plan to get from one to the other – then you're not going to benefit much by having a life cycle fund in your portfolio duplicating your own effort with inferior components. (I assume you are selecting great low-cost, liquid index funds for your own strategy!) Life cycle are neat, but replicating them isn't rocket science. However, I see a few cases in which life cycle funds may still be useful even if one has made a decision to be more involved in portfolio construction: Similar to your case: You have a company savings plan that you're taking advantage of because of a matching contribution. Chances are your company plan doesn't offer a wide variety of funds. Since a life cycle fund is available, it can be a good choice for that account. But make sure fees aren't out of hand. If much lower-cost equity and bond funds are available, consider them instead. Let's say you had another smaller account that you were unable to consolidate into your main account. (e.g. a Traditional IRA vs. your Roth, and you didn't necessarily want to convert it.) Even if that account had access to a wide variety of funds, it still might not be worth the added hassle or trading costs of owning and rebalancing multiple funds inside the smaller account. There, perhaps, the life cycle fund can help you out, while you use your own strategy in your main account. Finally, let's assume you had a single main account and you buy partially into the idea of a life cycle fund and you find a great one with low fees. Except: you want a bit of something else in your portfolio not provided by the life cycle fund, e.g. some more emerging markets, international, or commodity stock exposure. (Is this one reason you're doing it yourself?) In that case, where the life cycle fund doesn't quite have everything you want, you could still use it for the bulk of the portfolio (e.g. 85-95%) and then select one or two specific additional ETFs to complement it. Just make sure you factor in those additional components into the overall equity weighting and adjust your life cycle fund choice accordingly (e.g. perhaps go more conservative in the life cycle, to compensate.) I hope that helps! Additional References:\"","I could see doing this if the investments were via different environments. The choices in a 401K are limited by the plan, so you might want to put new money into the 401K index fund. At the same time you could have IRA money invested in a similar index. You could even have non-retirement money invested. While you should look at all your investments while evaluating your investment percentages, the 401K (limited options) and the non-retirement account (avoiding taxes) might be harder to move around. Otherwise the only advantage of splitting between funds is avoiding having all your money in a Ponzi scheme.","There are many technical answers above , but the short story to me is that very few active fund managers consistently beat the market. Look at the results of actively managed funds. Depending on whose analysis you read, you will find out that somewhere between 80-90% of fund managers in a given year do not beat passive index funds. So go figure how you will do compared to a mutual fund manager who has way more experience than you likely have. So, that in itself is moderately interesting, but if you look at same-manager performance over several consecutive years it is rare to find anyone that goes beats the market for more than a few years in a row. There are exceptions, but go pick one of these guys/gals - good luck. Getting in and out of the market is a loser. This is because there is no way to see market spikes and down turns. There are many behavioral studies that have been done that show people do the wrong thing: they sell after losses have occurred and they buy after the market has gone up. Missing an up spike and not being in before the spike is as devastating as missing a down turn and not getting out in time. There is another down side, if you are trading in a personal account, rather than a tax deferred account, going in and out of stocks has tax complications. In short, a broad based equity index will, over time, beat about anything out there and it will do it in a tax efficient manner. Exchange traded funds (ETFs) are a wonderful way to obtain diversification immediately at very low cost.","See if any of the funds they offer are index funds, which will generally have MUCH lower fees and which seem to perform as well as any of the actively managed funds in the same categories.","\"An investment portfolio is typically divided into three components: All three of those can be accessed through mutual funds or ETFs. A 401(k) will probably have a small set of mutual funds for you to pick from. Mutual funds may charge you silly expenses if you pick a bad one. Look at the prospectus for the expense ratio. If it's over 1% you're definitely paying too much. If it's over 0.5% you're probably paying too much. If it's less than 0.1% you have a really good deal. US stocks are generally the core holding until you move into retirement (or get close to spending the money on something else if it's not invested for retirement). International stocks are riskier than US stocks, but provide opportunity for diversification and better returns than the US stocks. Bonds, or fixed-income investments, are generally very safe, but have limited opportunities for returns. They tend to do better when stocks are doing poorly. When you've got a while to invest, you should be looking at riskier investments; when you don't, you should be looking for safer investments. A quick (and rough) rule of thumb is that \"\"your age should match the portion of your portfolio in bonds\"\". So if you're 50 years old and approaching retirement in 15 years or so, you should have about 50% in bonds. Roughly. People whose employment and future income is particularly tied to one sector of the market would also do well to avoid investing there, because they already are at risk if it performs badly. For instance, if you work in the technology sector, loading up on tech stocks is extra risky: if there's a big bust, you're not just out of a job, your portfolio is dead as well. More exotic options are available to diversify a portfolio: While many portfolios could benefit from these sorts of holdings, they come with their own advantages and disadvantages and should be researched carefully before taking a significant stake in them.\"","With a match, the 401(k) becomes the priority, up to that match, often ahead of other high interest debt. Without the match, the analysis is more about the cost within the 401(k). The 401(k) is a tax deferred account (let's not go on a tangent to Roth 401(k)) so ideally, you'd be skimming off money at 25% and saving it till you retire, so some of it is taxed at 0, 10, 15%. If the fees in the 401(k) are say 1.5% between the underlying funds and management fee, it doesn't take long to wipe out the potential 10 or 15% you are trying to gain. Yes, there's a risk that cap gain rates go away, but with today's tax law, the long term rate is 15%. So that money put into a long term low cost ETF will have reinvested dividends taxed at 15% and upon sale, a 15% rate on the gains. There are great index ETFs with sub - .1% annual cost. My simple answer is - If the total cost in that 401(k) is .5% or higher, I'd pass. Save the money in an outside account, using IRAs as best you can. (The exact situation needs to be looked at very carefully. In personal finance, there's a lot of 'grey'. For example, a frequent job changer can view the 401(k) as a way of saving pretax, knowing the fee will only last 2 years, and will end with a transfer to the IRA)","An experienced individual wouldn't ask such questions. I don't say this to take a jab at you, but to provide context. The matter is much more complicated than a simple answer to your question could accomplish. The short answer is no, not necessarily; but it depends on the details. Generally, if the employer matches, it's suggested that you take advantage of the match. It's free money. That said, it comes with some strings attached, like a vesting schedule. It's not yours right away, necessarily. Choices are limited in a 401k, but we should still come out ahead with that free money. The investment choices available in a 401k are also a part of the details. If they meet your needs you should certainly consider the 401k even if the employer doesn't match. There is also the matter of one's particular tax situation, which is certainly an involved matter. A 401k can certainly be a part of judicious tax planning. It's a matter of working out the details. Continuing this theme of details and coming back to the employer match: if the employer doesn't mach, I would make sure that I'm maxing out an IRA before considering the 401k. If the employer matched, I would probably contribute to take advantage of that match. However, it quickly becomes complicated here. I'm accustomed to employer matching up to some percentage of pay, which typically works out to be less then the anual contribution limits for a 401k. So, I my plan for such a situation is to contribute up to the employer match in the 401k, then max out an IRA, and then return to the 401k to finish contributing up to its yearly maximum. There is plenty for you to consider in order to come up with a plan of action. While it's certainly complicated, it's accessible to most people. You don't have to be a genius. In fact, eggheads are regularly trounced by the markets.","\"Diversification is the only real free lunch in finance (reduction in risk without any reduction in expected returns), so clearly every good answer to your question will be \"\"yes.\"\" Diversification is good.\"\" Let's talk about many details your question solicits. Many funds are already pretty diversified. If you buy a mutual fund, you are generally already getting a large portion of the gains from diversification. There is a very large difference between the unnecessary risk in your portfolio if you only hold a couple of stocks and if you hold a mutual fund. Should you be diversified across mutual funds as well? It depends on what your funds are. Many funds, such as target-date funds, are intended to be your sole investment. If you have funds covering every major asset class, then there may not be any additional benefit to buying other funds. You probably could not have picked your \"\"favorite fund\"\" early on. As humans, we have cognitive biases that make us think we knew things early on that we did not. I'm sure at some point at the very beginning you had a positive feeling toward that fund. Today you regret not acting on it and putting all your money there. But the number of such feelings is very large and if you acted on all those, you would do a lot of crazy and harmful things. You didn't know early on which fund would do well. You could just as well have had a good feeling about a fund that subsequently did much worse than your diversified portfolio did. The advice you have had about your portfolio probably isn't based on sound finance theory. You say you have always kept your investments in line with your age. This implies that you believe the guidelines given you by your broker or financial advisor are based in finance theory. Generally speaking, they are not. They are rules of thumb that seemed good to someone but are not rigorously proven either in theory or empirics. For example the notion that you should slowly shift your investments from speculative to conservative as you age is not based on sound finance theory. It just seems good to the people who give advice on such things. Nothing particularly wrong with it, I guess, but it's not remotely on par with the general concept of being well-diversified. The latter is extremely well established and verified, both in theory and in practice. Don't confuse the concept of diversification with the specific advice you have received from your advisor. A fund averaging very good returns is not an anomaly--at least going forward it will not be. There are many thousand funds and a large distribution in their historical performance. Just by random chance, some funds will have a truly outstanding track record. Perhaps the manager really was skilled. However, very careful empirical testing has shown the following: (1) You, me, and people whose profession it is to select outperforming mutual funds are unable to reliably detect which ones will outperform, except in hindsight (2) A fund that has outperformed, even over a long horizon, is not more likely to outperform in the future. No one is stopping you from putting all your money in that fund. Depending on its investment objective, you may even have decent diversification if you do so. However, please be aware that if you move your money based on historical outperformance, you will be acting on the same cognitive bias that makes gamblers believe they are on a \"\"hot streak\"\" and \"\"can't lose.\"\" They can, and so can you. ======== Edit to answer a more specific line of questions =========== One of your questions is whether it makes sense to buy a number of mutual funds as part of your diversification strategy. This is a slightly more subtle question and I will indicate where there is uncertainty in my answer. Diversifying across asset classes. Most of the gains from diversification are available in a single fund. There is a lot of idiosyncratic risk in one or two stocks and much less in a collection of hundreds of stocks, which is what any mutual fund will hold. Still,you will probably want at least a couple of funds in your portfolio. I will list them from most important to least and I will assume the bulk of your portfolio is in a total US equity fund (or S&P500-style fund) so that you are almost completely diversified already. Risky Bonds. These are corporate, municipal, sovereign debt, and long-term treasury debt funds. There is almost certainly a good deal to be gained by having a portion of your portfolio in bonds, and normally a total market fund will not include bond exposure. Bonds fund returns are closely related to interest rate and inflation changes. They are also exposed to some market risk but it's more efficient to get that from equity. The bond market is very large, so if you did market weights you would have more in bonds than in equity. Normally people do not do this, though. Instead you can get the exposure to interest rates by holding a lesser amount in longer-term bonds, rather than more in shorter-term bonds. I don't believe in shifting your weights toward nor away from this type of bond (as opposed to equity) as you age so if you are getting that advice, know that it is not well-founded in theory. Whatever your relative weight in risky bonds when you are young is should also be your weight when you are older. International. There are probably some gains from having some exposure to international markets, although these have decreased over time as economies have become more integrated. If we followed market weights, you would actually put half your equity weight in an international fund. Because international funds are taxed differently (gains are always taxed at the short-term capital gains rate) and because they have higher management fees, most people make only a small investment to international funds, if any at all. Emerging markets International funds often ignore emerging markets in order to maintain liquidity and low fees. You can get some exposure to these markets through emerging markets funds. However, the value of public equity in emerging markets is small when compared with that of developed markets, so according to finance theory, your investment in them should be small as well. That's a theoretical, not an empirical result. Emerging market funds charge high fees as well, so this one is kind of up to your taste. I can't say whether it will work out in the future. Real estate. You may want to get exposure to real estate by buying a real-estate fund (REIT). Though, if you own a house you are already exposed to the real estate market, perhaps more than you want to be. REITs often invest in commercial real estate, which is a little different from the residential market. Small Cap. Although total market funds invest in all capitalization levels, the market is so skewed toward large firms that many total market funds don't have any significant small cap exposure. It's common for individuals to hold a small cap fund to compensate for this, but it's not actually required by investment theory. In principle, the most diversified portfolio should be market-cap weighted, so small cap should have negligible weight in your portfolio. Many people hold small cap because historically it has outperformed large cap firms of equal risk, but this trend is uncertain. Many researchers feel that the small cap \"\"premium\"\" may have been a short-term artifact in the data. Given these facts and the fact that small-cap funds charge higher fees, it may make sense to pass on this asset class. Depends on your opinion and beliefs. Value (or Growth) Funds. Half the market can be classed as \"\"value\"\", while the other half is \"\"growth.\"\" Your total market fund should have equal representation in both so there is no diversification reason to buy a special value or growth fund. Historically, value funds have outperformed over long horizons and many researchers think this will continue, but it's not exactly mandated by the theory. If you choose to skew your portfolio by buying one of these, it should be a value fund. Sector funds. There is, in general, no diversification reason to buy funds that invest in a particular sector. If you are trying to hedge your income (like trying to avoid investing in the tech sector because you work in that sector) or your costs (buying energy because you buy use a disproportionate amount of energy) I could imagine you buying one of these funds. Risk-free bonds. Funds specializing in short-term treasuries or short-term high-quality bonds of other types are basically a substitute for a savings account, CD, money market fund, or other cash equivalent. Use as appropriate but there is little diversification here per se. In short, there is some value in diversifying across asset classes, and it is open to opinion how much you should do. Less well-justified is diversifying across managers within the same asset class. There's very little if any advantage to doing that.\"","\"Having worked for a financial company for years, my advice is to stay away from all the \"\"Freedom Funds\"\" offered. They're a new way for Fidelity to justify charging a higher management fee on those particular funds. That extra 1% or so a year is great for making the company money; it will kill your rate of return over the next 25+ years you're putting money into your retirement account. All these funds do is change the percentage of your funds in stocks vs. more fixed investments (bonds, etc.) so you have a higher percentage in stocks while you're young and slowly move the percentage more towards fixed as you get older. If you take a few hours every 5 years to re-balance your portfolio and just slowly shift more money towards fixed investments, you'll achieve the same thing WITHOUT the extra annual fee. So how much difference are we talking here? Let's do a quick example. Based on your salary of $70k and a 4% match by your company, you'll have $5,600 a year to put in your 401(k) (your 4% plus matched 4%). I'll also assume an 8% annual return for both funds. Here is what that 1% extra service charge will cost you: Fund with a 1% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $60.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $301.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25: $3,782 Fund with a 2% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $121.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $472.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25: $6,489 That's a total of $2,707 in extra fees over 25 years on just the investment you make this year! Next year if you invest the same amount in your 401k that will be another $2,707 paid over 25 years to the management company. This pattern repeats EACH year you pay the higher management fee. Trust me, if you invest that money in stock instead of paying it as fees, you'll have a whole lot more money saved when it's time to retire. My advice, pick a percentage you're comfortable with in stocks at your age, maybe 85 - 90%, and pick the stock funds with the lowest management fees (the remaining 10 - 15% should go into a fixed fund). Make sure you pick at least some of your stock money, I do 20 - 25%, and select a diverse (lots of different countries) international fund. For any retirement money you plan to save above the 4% getting matched by your company, set up a Roth IRA. That will give you the freedom to invest in any stocks or funds you want. Find some low-cost index funds (such as VTI for stocks, and BND for bonds) and put your money in those. Invest the same amount every month, automatically, and your cost average will work itself out through up markets and down. Good luck!\"","Every 401(k) has managers to make the stock choices. They all have different rates. You want to see that fidelity or Vangard is handling your 401(k).(and I am sure others) If you have a mega bank managing your funds or an insurance company odds are you are paying way to high management fees. So find out, the management fees should be available should be less than 1%. They can get as high as 2%...Ouch","If you don't have the time or interest to manage investments, you need a financial advisor. Generally speaking, you're better served by an advisor who collects an annual fee based on a percentage of your account value. Advisors who are compensated based on transactions have a vested interest to churn your account, which is often not in your best interest. You also need to be wary of advisors who peddle expensive mutual funds with sales loads (aka kick-backs to the advisor) or annuities. Your advisor's compensation structure should be transparent as well.","If you can afford to put money in your 401(k) account, I would say at least you should invest enough to get your employer's matching fund. It's free money, why not get it?","Another option to a human advisor is FutureAdvisor, a web service that (if it supports your 401k plan) gives personalized algorithmic advice on what you should hold in your 401(k) and other retirement accounts. If it doesn't support your 401(k) plan just yet you can sign up to be emailed when your plan is added. [Disclosure: I work here, but I believe in the product and it's designed to solve this exact problem so I'm mentioning it here] Note from JoeTaxpayer - bolu's disclosure is much appreciated. The fee is $39/yr, with a free trial. Consider that a commissions based advisor won't even take on a $10K level account, and at $100K, you'd be hard pressed to gain by more than his 1% fee. So while I've not dug deeper into this site, a rules-based methodology is likely to be worth the cost if over time it gains you even a fraction of a percent compared to what you'd have done blindly.","You may want to move money between your investments within the plan, rebalancing money to maintain your diversification. You don't have to deal with the details if selling and buying, just tell them how much to move where. Many plans offer investments that automatically rebalance for you such as Target Date accounts. You may be able to select one of those and just ignore the 401k until retirement, or at most rebalance even less often. Look at what's offered, look at what it costs as fees, run the numbers and decide whether you can do better.","I am sure there would be many views on the above topic, my take is that DIY takes the following: Now, for many, one or more of the other factors are missing. In this case, it is probably best to go for a financial adviser. There are others who have some of the above in place and are interested but probably cannot spend enough time. For them a middle ground of Mutual Funds probably is a good choice. Here they get to choose the fund they invest in and the fund manager manages the fund. For the people who have the above more or less in place and also are willing to take risk and learn, they probably can do a DIY for a while and find out the actual result. Just my views and opinion.","$10.90 for every $1000 per year. Are you kidding me!!! These are usually hidden within the expense ratio of the plan funds, but >1% seems to be quite a lot regardless. FUND X 1 year return 3% 3 year return 6% 10 year return 5% What does that exactly mean? This is the average annual rate of return. If measured for the last 3 years, the average annual rate of return is 6%, if measured for 1 year - it's 3%. What it means is that out of the last 3 years, the last year return was not the best, the previous two were much better. Does that mean that if I hold my mutual funds for 10 years I will get 5% return on it. Definitely not. Past performance doesn't promise anything for the future. It is merely a guidance for you, a comparison measure between the funds. You can assume that if in the past the fund performed certain way, then given the same conditions in the future, it will perform the same again. But it is in no way a promise or a guarantee of anything. Since my 401K plan stinks what are my options. If I put my money in a traditional IRA then I lose my pre tax benefits right! Wrong, IRA is pre-tax as well. But the pre-tax deduction limits for IRA are much lower than for 401k. You can consider investing in the 401k, and then rolling over to a IRA which will allow better investment options. After your update: Just clearing up the question. My current employer has a 401K. Most of the funds have the expense ratio of 1.20%. There is NO MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS. Ouch. Should I convert the 401K of my old company to Traditional IRA and start investing in that instead of investing in the new employer 401K plan with high fees. You should probably consider rolling over the old company 401k to a traditional IRA. However, it is unrelated to the current employer's 401k. If you're contributing up to the max to the Roth IRA, you can't add any additional contributions to traditional IRA on top of that - the $5000 limit is for both, and the AGI limitations for Roth are higher, so you're likely not able to contribute anything at all to the traditional IRA. You can contribute to the employer's 401k. You have to consider if the rather high expenses are worth the tax deferral for you.","\"The question you should be asking yourself is this: \"\"Why am I putting money into a 401(k)?\"\" For many people, the answer is to grow a (large) nest egg and save for future retirement expenses. Investors are balancing risk and potential reward, so the asset categories you're putting your 401(k) contribution towards will be a reflection on how much risk you're willing to take. Per a US News & World Report article: Ultimately, investors would do well to remember one of the key tenants of investing: diversify. The narrower you are with your investments, the greater your risk, says Vanguard's Bruno: \"\"[Diversification] doesn't ensure against a loss, but it does help lessen a significant loss.\"\" Generally, investing in your employer's stock in your 401(k) is considered very risk. In fact, one Forbes columnist recommends not putting any money into company stock. FINRA notes: Simply stated, if you put too many eggs in one basket, you can expose yourself to significant risk. In financial terms, you are under-diversified: you have too much of your holdings tied to a single investment—your company's stock. Investing heavily in company stock may seem like a good thing when your company and its stock are doing well. But many companies experience fluctuations in both operational performance and stock price. Not only do you expose yourself to the risk that the stock market as a whole could flounder, but you take on a lot of company risk, the risk that an individual firm—your company—will falter or fail. In simpler terms, if you invest a large portion of your 401(k) funds into company stock, if your company runs into trouble, you could lose both your job AND your retirement investments. For the other investment assets/vehicles, you should review a few things: Personally, I prefer to keep my portfolio simple and just pick just a few options based on my own risk tolerance. From your fund examples, without knowing specifics about your financial situation and risk tolerance, I would have created a portfolio that looks like this when I was in my 20's: I avoided the bond and income/money market funds because the growth potential is too low for my investing horizon. Like some of the other answers have noted, the Target Date funds invest in other funds and add some additional fee overhead, which I'm trying to avoid by investing primarily in index funds. Again, your risk tolerance and personal preference might result in a completely different portfolio mix.\"","I agree with others here that suggest that you should be taking higher risk since it is repaid with higher returns. You have 40 years or so to go before you might switch to safer but lower return funds. I suggest that you look at the Morningstar rating for the funds you are considering: http://www.morningstar.com/ A fund rated five stars means that the fund performs in the top 20% compared to all similar funds. I prefer five star funds. Next, check the management fees. Here is an example from one of the funds you mentioned; https://www.google.com/finance?cid=466533039917726 Next, I suggest you compare how each fund has performed compared to a benchmark. Here are some common indices: Compare an equity fund to, for example, the S&P 500. Has your fund beat or closely matched the S&P for 1, 5 and 10 years? If not, you may as well buy an index fund, such as SPY.","There are times when investing in an ETF is more convenient than a mutual fund. When you invest in a mutual fund, you often have an account directly with the mutual fund company, or you have an account with a mutual fund broker. Mutual funds often have either a front end or back end load, which essentially gives you a penalty for jumping in and out of funds. ETFs are traded exactly like stocks, so there is inherently no load when buying or selling. If you have a brokerage account and you want to move funds from a stock to a mutual fund, an ETF might be more convenient. With some accounts, an ETF allows you to invest in a fund that you would not be able to invest in otherwise. For example, you might have a 401k account through your employer. You might want to invest in a Vanguard mutual fund, but Vanguard funds are not available with your 401k. If you have access to a brokerage account inside your 401k, you can invest in the Vanguard fund through the associated ETF. Another reason that you might choose an ETF over a mutual fund is if you want to try to short the fund.","My super fund and I would say many other funds give you one free switch of strategies per year. Some suggest you should change from high growth option to a more balance option once you are say about 10 to 15 years from retirement, and then change to a more capital guaranteed option a few years from retirement. This is a more passive approach and has benefits as well as disadvantages. The benefit is that there is not much work involved, you just change your investment option based on your life stage, 2 to 3 times during your lifetime. This allows you to take more risk when you are young to aim for higher returns, take a balanced approach with moderate risk and returns during the middle part of your working life, and take less risk with lower returns (above inflation) during the latter part of your working life. A possible disadvantage of this strategy is you may be in the higher risk/ higher growth option during a market correction and then change to a more balanced option just when the market starts to pick up again. So your funds will be hit with large losses whilst the market is in retreat and just when things look to be getting better you change to a more balanced portfolio and miss out on the big gains. A second more active approach would be to track the market and change investment option as the market changes. One approach which shouldn't take much time is to track the index such as the ASX200 (if you investment option is mainly invested in the Australian stock market) with a 200 day Simple Moving Average (SMA). The concept is that if the index crosses above the 200 day SMA the market is bullish and if it crosses below it is bearish. See the chart below: This strategy will work well when the market is trending up or down but not very well when the market is going sideways, as you will be changing from aggressive to balanced and back too often. Possibly a more appropriate option would be a combination of the two. Use the first passive approach to change investment option from aggressive to balanced to capital guaranteed with your life stages, however use the second active approach to time the change. For example, if you were say in your late 40s now and were looking to change from aggressive to balanced in the near future, you could wait until the ASX200 crosses below the 200 day SMA before making the change. This way you could capture the majority of the uptrend (which could go on for years) before changing from the high growth/aggressive option to the balanced option. If you where after more control over your superannuation assets another option open to you is to start a SMSF, however I would recommend having at least $300K to $400K in assets before starting a SMSF, or else the annual costs would be too high as a percentage of your total super assets.","If you are working for a small company, the expense ratios on the funds in the 401k account are likely much higher than you can get with a similar IRA. Depending on your income, whether you are married and want to contribute to a spouse's IRA, your limit on what can be contributed to an IRA may vary, but the compelling reason to contribute to a 401k is that the contribution limit is higher ($17,500 vs $5,500 for people on the lower end of the income scale) so you may need to contribute to a 401k to meet your retirement savings goals.","Even experts have no real certainty what the market will do as a whole. 2/3's of managers fail to beat the market every year. I think this is mostly due to hedging and trying to meet their investors needs. If. You buy and hold a few index ETFs you will most likely beat actively managed accountsn that said, you will sacrifice liquidity if you want to avoid cyclical losses.","\"See if they offer a \"\"Target Date\"\" plan that automatically adjusts throughout your career to balance gains against preserving what you've already built up. You can adjust for more or less aggressive by selecting a plan with a later or sooner target date, respectively. (But check the administrative fees; higher fees can eat up a surprisingly large part of your growth since they're essentially subtracted from rate of return and thus get compounded.) If they don't have that option, or charge too much for it, then yes, you may want to adjust which plan your money is in over time; you can usually \"\"exchange\"\" between these plans at no cost and with no tax penalty. NOTE: The tax-advantaged 401(k) investments should be considered in the context of all your investments. This is one of the things an independent financial planner can help you with. As with other investment decisions, the best answer for you depends on your risk tolerance and your time horizon.\"","I have managed two IRA accounts; one I inherited from my wife's 401K and my own's 457B. I managed actively my wife's 401 at Tradestation which doesn't restrict on Options except level 5 as naked puts and calls. I moved half of my 457B funds to TDAmeritrade, the only broker authorized by my employer, to open a Self Directed account. However, my 457 plan disallows me from using a Cash-secured Puts, only Covered Calls. For those who does not know investing, I resent the contention that participants to these IRAs should not be messing around with their IRA funds. For years, I left my 401k/457B funds with my current fund custodian, Great West Financial. I checked it's current values once or twice a year. These last years, the market dived in the last 2 quarters of 2015 and another dive early January and February of 2016. I lost a total of $40K leaving my portfolio with my current custodian choosing all 30 products they offer, 90% of them are ETFs and the rest are bonds. If you don't know investing, better leave it with the pros - right? But no one can predict the future of the market. Even the pros are at the mercy of the market. So, I you know how to invest and choose your stocks, I don't think your plan administrator has to limit you on how you manage your funds. For example, if you are not allowed to place a Cash-Secured Puts and you just Buy the stocks or EFT at market or even limit order, you buy the securities at their market value. If you sell a Cash-secured puts against the stocks/ETF you are interested in buying, you will receive a credit in fraction of a dollar in a specific time frame. In average, your cost to owning a stock/ETF is lesser if you buy it at market or even a limit order. Most of the participants of the IRA funds rely too much on their portfolio manager because they don't know how to manage. If you try to educate yourself at a minimum, you will have a good understanding of how your IRA funds are tied up to the market. If you know how to trade in bear market compared to bull market, then you are good at managing your investments. When I started contributing to my employer's deferred comp account (457B) as a public employee, I have no idea of how my portfolio works. Year after year as I looked at my investment, I was happy because it continued to grow. Without scrutinizing how much it grew yearly, and my regular payroll contribution, I am happy even it only grew 2% per year. And at this age that I am ready to retire at 60, I started taking investment classes and attended pre-retirement seminars. Then I knew that it was not totally a good decision to leave your retirement funds in the hands of the portfolio manager since they don't really care if it tanked out on some years as long at overall it grew to a meager 1%-4% because they managers are pretty conservative on picking the equities they invest. You can generalize that maybe 90% of IRA investors don't know about investing and have poor decision making actions which securities/ETF to buy and hold. For those who would like to remain as one, that is fine. But for those who spent time and money to study and know how to invest, I don't think the plan manager can limit the participants ability to manage their own portfolio especially if the funds have no matching from the employer like mine. All I can say to all who have IRA or any retirement accounts, educate yourself early because if you leave it all to your portfolio managers, you lost a lot. Don't believe much in what those commercial fund managers also show in their presentation just to move your funds for them to manage. Be proactive. If you start learning how to invest now when you are young, JUST DO IT!","\"Ah I got ya. I partially agree with you, but it's far more complex. I think that is simplifying the debate a bit too much. When people go \"\"passive\"\" you are making the assumption that they are able to stay fully invested the full time period (say 30-40 years until retirement when you might change the asset allocation). This is not a fair assumption because many studies on behavioral finance have shown that people (90% plus) are not able to sit tight through a full market cycle and often sell out during a bear market. I'm not debating you're point that passive often outperforms due to the fees (although there are many managers that do outperform), but the main issue with self-managing and passive investing is people usually make emotional decisions, which then hurts their long-term performance. This would be the reason to hire an adviser. Assuming that people are able to stay passive the entire time and not make a single \"\"active\"\" decision is a very unfair assumption. There was a good study on this referenced in Forbes article below: https://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2014/04/24/why-the-average-investors-investment-return-is-so-low/#5169be2b111a Another issue is that there are a lot \"\"active managers\"\" that really just replicate their benchmarks and don't actually actively manage. If you look at active managers who really do have huge under-weights and over-weights relative to their benchmarks they actually tend to outperform them (look at the study below by martin cremers, he's one of the most highly respected researchers when it comes to investment performance research and the active vs passive debate) http://www.cfapubs.org/doi/pdf/10.2469/faj.v73.n2.4 I guess what I'm trying to say is that for most people having an adviser (and paying them a 1% fee) is usually better than going it alone, where they are going to A. chase heat (I bet they always choose the hottest benchmark from the past few years) and B. make poor emotional decisions relating their finances.\"","Mostly you nailed it. It's a good question, and the points you raise are excellent and comprise good analysis. Probably the biggest drawback is if you don't agree with the asset allocation strategy. It may be too much/too little into stocks/bonds/international/cash. I am kind of in this boat. My 401K offers very little choices in funds, but offers Vanguard target funds. These tend to be a bit too conservative for my taste, so I actually put money in the 2060 target fund. If I live that long, I will be 94 in 2060. So if the target funds are a bit too aggressive for you, move down in years. If they are a bit too conservative, move up.","In summary, you are correct that the goal of investing is to maximize returns, while paying low management fees. Index investing has become very popular because of the low fees. There are many actively traded mutual funds out there with very high management fees of 2.5% and up that do not beat the market. This begs the question of why you are paying high management fees and not just investing in index funds. Consider maxing out your tax sheltered accounts (401(k) and ROTH IRA) to avoid even more fees on your returns. Also consider having a growth component of your portfolio which is generally filled with equity, along with a secure component for assets such as bonds. Bonds may not have the exciting returns of equity, but they help to smooth out the volatility of your portfolio, which may help to keep peace of mind when the market dips.","There's a sizable community of people and fiscal advisers who advocate not managing the money at all. Set your passive investor friend with automatic bank draft into a simple three/four fund portfolio of low cost index funds and never never ever trade. See https://www.bogleheads.org/RecommendedReading.php You might be able to beat the stock market for a few years, but probably not over the long term. Most mutual fund professionals don't. Playing with your own money is one thing: playing with other people's money is a whole other ball game.","2%? I would put in just what it takes to share in the profit sharing, not a dime more. My S&P fund cost is .02% (edited, as it dropped to .02 since original post), 1/100 of the cost of most funds you list. Doesn't take too many years of this fee to negate the potential tax savings, and not many more to make this a real loser.","The other answers assumed student loan debt -- and for that, it's rarely worth it (unless your company only offers managed plans w/ really bad returns, or the economy recovers to the point where banks are paying 5% again on money market accounts) ... but if it's high rate debt, such as carrying a credit card debt, and the current rate of returns on the 401k aren't that great at the time, it would be worth doing the calculations to see if it's better to pay them down instead. If you're carrying extremely high interest debt (such as 'payday loans' or similar), it's almost always going to be worth paying down that debt as quickly as possible, even if it means forgoing matching 401k payments. The other possible reason for not taking the matching funds are if the required contributions would put you in a significant bind -- if you're barely scraping by, and you can't squeeze enough savings out of your budget that you'd risk default on a loan (eg, car or house) or might take penalties for late fees on your utilities, it might be preferable to save up for a bit before starting the contributions -- especially if you've maxed your available credit so you can't just push stuff to credit cards as a last resort.","The first two answers to this are very good, but I feel like there are a couple of points they left out that were a little too long for comments. First off take a look at the expense percentage,the load fees, and the average turnover ratio for the funds in your retirement account (assuming they are mutual funds). Having low expense fees <1% preferably and turnover ratios will help tremendously because those eat into returns whether the value of the fund goes up or down. The load fees (either incoming or outgoing) will lower the amount of money you actually put in and get out of the fund. There are thousands of no-load funds and most that have a backend load for taking the money out have clauses that lower that percentage to zero over several years. It is mostly there to keep people from trying to swing trade with mutual funds and pull their money out too quickly. The last thing I would suggest is to look at diversifying the holdings in your account. Bond funds have been up this year even though the stock market has done poorly. And they provide interest income that can increase the amount of shares you own even when the value of the bonds might have gone down.","\"If you want a Do-It-Yourself solution, look to a Vanguard account with their total market index funds. There's a lot of research that's been done recently in the financial independence community. Basically, there's not many money managers who can outperform the market index (either S&P 500 or a total market index). Actually, no mutual funds have been identified that outperform the market, after fees, consistently. So there's not much sense in paying someone to earn you less than a low fee index fund could do. And some of the numbers show that you can actually lose value on your 401k due to high fees. That's where Vanguard comes in. They offer some of the lowest fees (if not the lowest) and a selection of index funds that will let you balance your portfolio the way you want. Whether you want to go 100% total stock market index fund or a balance between total stock market index fund and total bond index fund, or a \"\"lazy 3 fund portfolio\"\", Vanguard gives you the tools to do it yourself. Rebalancing would require about an hour every quarter. (Or time span you declare yourself). jlcollinsnh A Simple Path to Wealth is my favorite blog about financial independence. Also, Warren Buffet recommended that the trustees for his wife's inheritance when he passes invest her trust in one investment. Vanguard's S&P500 index fund. The same fund he chose in a 10 year $1M bet vs. hedge fund managers. (proceeds go to charity). That was about 9 years ago. So far, Buffet's S&P500 is beating the hedge funds. Investopedia Article\"","You should be saving as much money as you can afford in your 401k up to the maximum allowed. If you don't contribute at least 6%, then you are essentially throwing away the match money that your employer is offering. Start out with the target date fund. You can always change your investment option later once you learn more about investing, but get started saving right away and get that match!","It's probably advantageous to stop depositing into a 401(k) when one is no longer receiving payroll deductions into them. Other than that, why would you want to give up the benefits? Remember, 401(k) is just the kind of account. Most offer a variety of investment options within them, and let you move money between those, so you can rebalance to suit your currently preferred risk/return tradeoffs without having to break them open. You might sometimes want to reduce your contribution for a while, if you have immediate cashflow needs elsewhere... but try to avoid doing that. Compound returns are a good thing, and the earlier the money goes in the more you get back from it.","While it is certainly easy to manage single fund, I am not sure it's the right strategy. It's been proven again and again that portfolio diversification is key to long term gains in wealth. I think your best option is to invest in low cost index funds and ETFs. While rebalancing your portfolio is hard, it is vastly simpler if your portfolio only has ETFs.","There's no one answer. You need to weigh the fees and quality of investment options on the one side against the slowly vesting employer contribution and tax benefits of 401k contributions in excess of IRA limits.","The managers of the 401(k) have to make their money somewhere. Either they'll make it from the employer, or from the employees via the expense ratio. If it's the employer setting up the plan, I can bet whose interest he'll be looking after. Regarding your last comment, I'd recommend looking outside your 401(k) for investing. If you get free money from your employer for contributing to your 401(k), that's a plus, but I wouldn't -- actually, I don't -- contribute anything beyond the match. I pay my taxes and I'm done with it.","The very term 'market conditions' is subjective and needs context. There are 'market conditions' that favor buying (such as post crash) or market conditions that favor selling (such as the peak of a bubble). Problem with mutual funds is you can't really pick these points yourself; because you're effectively outsourcing that to a firm. If you're tight on time and are looking for weekly update on the economy a good solution is to identify a reputable economist (with a solid track record) and simply follow their commentary via blog or newsletter.","\"Here is my simplified take: In any given market portfolio the market index will return the average return on investment for the given market. An actively managed product may outperform the market (great!), achieve average market performance (ok - but then it is more expensive than the index product) or be worse than the market (bad). Now if we divide all market returns into two buckets: returns from active investment and returns from passive investments then these two buckets must be the same as index return are by definition the average returns. Which means that all active investments must return the average market return. This means for individual active investments there are worse than market returns and better then market returns - depending on your product. And since we can't anticipate the future and nobody would willingly take the \"\"worse than market\"\" investment product, the index fund comes always up on top - IF - you would like to avoid the \"\"gamble\"\" of underperforming the market. With all these basics out of the way: if you can replicate the index by simply buying your own stocks at low/no costs I don't see any reason for going with the index product beyond the convenience.\"","If there is no match and you are disciplined enough to contribute without it coming directly out of your paycheck, dump the 401K. The reason: Most 401K plans have huge hidden fees built into the investment prices. You won't see them directly, but 3% is not uncommon. 3% is a horrible drag on your investment performance. Get an IRA or Roth IRA and pick something with low fees. Bonus: You will have a lot more investment choices!","You don't say what kinds of mutual funds, or what bonds. You don't say how old you are. You seem to have enough cushion to strike out on your own comfortably. This is good. Compared with Vanguard's management fees, the fees you're paying are pretty high. The bottom line of what to invest in rests with you. If you outsource it, it's still your money. The managers get paid whether you make money or not. You have lots of other options: real estate from a distressed seller, commodities, currencies, websites, or other things where you have a knowledge advantage. For the time being, though, if you're concerned about your main income stream, I wouldn't get terribly risky with your money. Cash is just peachy in that case.","I believe that kind of micro-tuning for every participant would make the operating costs of the fund intolerable. A better approach, if this is important to you, would be to find a fund or funds designed for people who share your criteria. If the goals and criteria aren't mutual, a mutual fund -- traditional or ETF -- is probably not the right tool.","rollover funds only mean the funds one was foolish enough to first roll into this 401(k). With no matching, and need for cash, I'd stop depositing to that account. But, from details you gave, you can't withdraw that money.","Even ignoring the match (which makes it like a non-deductible IRA), the 401k plans that I know all have a range of choices of investment. Can you find one that is part of the portfolio that you want? For example, do you want to own some S&P500 index fund? That must be an option. If so, do the 401k and make your other investments react to it-reduce the proportion of S&P500 because of it(remember that the values in the 401k are pretax, so only count 60%-70% in asset allocation). The tax deferral is huge over time. For starters, you get to invest the 30-40% you would have paid as taxes now. Yes, you will pay that in taxes on withdrawal, but any return you generate is (60%-70%) yours to keep. The same happens for your returns.","For what it's worth -- and I realize this isn't directly an answer to the question -- one of the advantages of sticking with mutual funds, beyond their being inherently diversified, is that it removes a lot of the temptation to try to time the market. When you need money, you sell shares in such a way that it maintains your preferred investment ratio, and simply don't worry about which stocks are actually involved. (I've gotten 15% APR this year across all my investments, for absolutely minimal effort. That's quite good enough for me.)","I'll respect the mod's suggestion. I'd answer with a warning. The concept of 401(k) pretax saving is to save at a high rate, while working, and withdraw at a lower rate. An annual expense pushing 1% or higher is likely to negate the benefit of the account over time. If your employer offers the Roth 401(k), I'd suggest using that for your deposits, and only up to the match. Then invest outside the 401(k). In the 25% bracket, it's good to have a mix of both pre and post tax retirement money.","I really like keshlam's answer. Your age is also a consideration. If you make your own target fund by matching the allocations of whatever Vanguard offers, I'd suggest re-balancing every year or every other year. But if you're just going to match the allocations of their target fund, you might as well just invest in the target fund itself. Most (not all, just most) target funds do not charge an additional management fee. So you just pay the fees of the underlying funds, same as if you mirrored the target fund yourself. (Check the prospectus to see if an additional fee is charged or not.) You may want to consider a more aggressive approach than the target funds. You can accomplish this by selecting a target fund later than your actual retirement age, or by picking your own allocations. The target funds become more conservative as you approach retirement age, so selecting a later target is a way of moving the risk/reward ratio. (I'm not saying target funds are necessarily the best choice, you should get professional advice, etc etc.)","the whole room basically jumped on me I really have an issue with this. Someone providing advice should offer data, and guidance. Not bully you or attack you. You offer 3 choices. And I see intelligent answers advising you against #1. But I don't believe these are the only choices. My 401(k) has an S&P fund, a short term bond fund, and about 8 other choices including foreign, small cap, etc. I may be mistaken, but I thought regulations forced more choices. From the 2 choices, S&P and short term bond, I can create a stock bond mix to my liking. With respect to the 2 answers here, I agree, 100% might not be wise, but 50% stock may be too little. Moving to such a conservative mix too young, and you'll see lower returns. I like your plan to shift more conservative as you approach retirement. Edit - in response to the disclosure of the fees - 1.18% for Aggressive, .96% for Moderate I wrote an article 5 years back, Are you 401(k)o'ed in which I discuss the level of fees that result in my suggestion to not deposit above the match. Clearly, any fee above .90% would quickly erode the average tax benefit one might expect. I also recommend you watch a PBS Frontline episode titled The Retirement Gamble It makes the point as well as I can, if not better. The benefit of a 401(k) aside from the match (which you should never pass up) is the ability to take advantage of the difference in your marginal tax rate at retirement vs when earned. For the typical taxpayer, this means working and taking those deposits at the 25% bracket, and in retirement, withdrawing at 15%. When you invest in a fund with a fee above 1%, you can see it will wipe out the difference over time. An investor can pay .05% for the VOO ETF, paying as much over an investing lifetime, say 50 years, as you will pay in just over 2 years. They jumped on you? People pushing funds with these fees should be in jail, not offering financial advice.","I would say that the three most important skills are: Note that some costs are hidden. So, for example, a mutual fund investing in other countries than where you live in may mean the investment target country charges a certain percentage of dividends going to the mutual fund. The mutual fund company doesn't usually want to tell you this. There may be clever financial instruments (derivatives) that can be used to avoid this, but they are not without their problems. If you diversify into equities at low cost, you will have a very wealthy future. I would recommend you to compare two options: ...and pick from these options the cheaper one. If your time has a high value, and you wish to take this value into account, I would say it is almost always far better option to choose an index fund. Whatever you do, don't pay for active management! It is a mathematical truth that before costs, actively managed investments will yield the same return than indexed investments. However, the costs are higher in active management, so you will have less total return. Don't believe that good historical return would imply good future return. However, if for some reason you see an index fund that continuously loses to the index more than by the amount of stated costs, beware!","I use the self-directed option for the 457b plan at my job, which basically allows me to invest in any mutual fund or ETF. We get Schwab as a broker, so the commissions are reasonable. Personally, I think it's great, because some of the funds offered by the core plan are limited. Generally, the trustees of your plan are going to limit your investment options, as participants generally make poor investment choices (even within the limited options available in a 401k) and may sue the employer after losing their savings. If I was a decision-maker in this area, there is no way I would ever sign off to allowing employees to mess around with options.","In your case I think you are doing just fine. Index funds, by their nature, have lower transaction costs and fewer taxable events than actively managed funds, good work. Index funds do not preclude the generation of dividends, and by their nature they probably generate slightly more than actively managed funds. You could take capital gain or dividend or both distributions, rather than reinvest them, if paying the taxes are a hardship. Otherwise look at the taxes you pay as your contributions to these funds. It stinks, but this is why 401K/IRA were rather revolutionary when they were formed. It was a really good deal to not have people's capital gains eaten by taxes when they occurred. Now its old hat, but it was pretty darn cool at the time. Should you prefer VTMSX rather than VFIAX? We can't really make the call on that one. Which one will perform better after taxes? Its anyone's guess. It is kind of a good problem to have.","You have to read the fine print of the pension wrapper (Standard Life), and of the new fund you want to invest into to find out. Typically here is were the fee feast could happen So you can manage actively your pension pot. But if you choose to do so you need to be mindful of the fees you have to pay. You should better find a pension wrapper with low fees and find funds with low fees If you change all your funds 4 times a year and you get a 1% charge each time, then you pay 4% of your assets. If your investments return for that year is 8%, then you wiped 50% of your return for that year! Good luck with the reading","If you can afford it, there are very few reasons not to save for retirement. The biggest reason I can think of is that, simply, you are saving in general. The tax advantages of 401k and IRA accounts help increase your wealth, but the most important thing is to start saving at an early age in your career (as you are doing) and making sure to continue contributing throughout your life. Compound interest serves you well. If you are really concerned that saving for retirement in your situation would equate to putting money away for no good reason, you can do a couple of things: Save in a Roth IRA account which does not require minimum distributions when you get past a certain age. Additionally, your contributions only (that is, not your interest earnings) to a Roth can be withdrawn tax and penalty free at any time while you are under the age of 59.5. And once you are older than that you can take distributions as however you need. Save by investing in a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds. You won't get the tax advantages of a retirement account, but you will still benefit from the time value of money. The bonus here is that you can withdraw your money whenever you want without penalty. Both IRA accounts and mutual fund/brokerage accounts will give you a choice of many securities that you can invest in. In comparison, 401k plans (below) often have limited choices for you. Most people choose to use their company's 401k plan for retirement savings. In general you do not want to be in a position where you have to borrow from your 401k. As such it's not a great option for savings that you think you'd need before you retire. Additionally 401k plans have minimum distributions, so you will have to periodically take some money from the account when you are in retirement. The biggest advantage of 401k plans is that often employers will match contributions to a certain extent, which is basically free money for you. In the end, these are just some suggestions. Probably best to consult with a financial planner to hammer out all the details.","As to the rollover question. Only rollover to a ROTH if you have other funds you can use to pay the taxes you will be hit with if you do that. DO NOT pay the taxes out of the funds in the 401k. If you don't have a way to pay the taxes, then roll it to a traditional IRA. You never want to pay the government any taxes 'early' and you don't want to reduce the balance. beyond that, A lot depends on how long you figure you will be with that company. If it's only a few years, or if you and other employees can make enough of a fuss that they move the fund to someplace decent (any of the big no-load companies such as Vanguard would be a better custodian), then I'd go ahead and max it out. If you figure to be there for a long while, and it looks like someone is in bed with the custodian and there's no way it will be changed, then maybe look to max out a Roth IRA instead.","Most 401k plans (maybe even all 401k plans as a matter of law) allow the option of moving the money in your 401k account from one mutual fund to another (within the group of funds that are in the plan). So, you can exit from one fund and put all your 401k money (not just the new contributions) into another fund in the group if you like. Whether you can find a fund within that group that invests only in the companies that you approve of is another matter. As mhoran_psprep's answer points out, changing investments inside a 401k (ditto IRAs, 403b and 457 plans) is without tax consequence which is not the case when you sell one mutual fund and buy another in a non-retirement account."],"string":"[\n \"When you look at managed funds the expense ratios are always high. They have the expense of analyzing the market, deciding where to invest, and then tracking the new investments. The lowest expenses are with the passive investments. What you have noticed is exactly what you expect. Now if you want to invest in active funds that throw off dividends and capital gains, the 401K is the perfect place to do it, because that income will not be immediately taxable. If the money is in a Roth 401K it is even better because that income will never be taxed.\",\n \"I would stay away from the Actively Managed Funds. Index funds or the asset allocation funds are your best bet since they have the lowest fees. What is your risk tolerance? How old are you? I would suggest reading:\",\n \"\\\"Hope springs eternal in the human breast. No actively managed fund has beaten the indices over a long period of time, but over shorter periods, actively managed funds have beaten the indices quite often, sometimes quite spectacularly, and sometimes even for many years in a row. Examples from the past include Fidelity Magellan and Legg Mason Value Trust. So people buy actively managed funds hoping to cash in on such good performance. The difficulty is, of course, that many people don't even think about investing in a fund until it is listed in some \\\"\\\"Top Forty Funds of last year\\\"\\\" compilation, and for many funds, they have already peaked, and new buyers are often disappointed. Some people who invested earlier plan on getting out of the fund before the fund falls flat on its face, and fewer even succeed in doing so. As to why 401k plans often have high-cost actively managed funds, there are several reasons. A most important one is that there are numerous companies that act as administrators of 401k programs and these companies put together package deals of 401k programs (funds, administrative costs etc), and small employers perforce have to choose from one of these packages. Second, there are various rules that have come into existence since the first days of 401k (and 403b) programs such as the investment choices must include funds of different types, and actively managed funds (large cap, small cap etc) are one of the choices that must be offered. Gone are the days when the only choice was a variable annuity offered by the insurance company administering the 401k program. Finally, program participants also have hopes (cf. opening sentence) and used to demand that the 401k program offer a few actively managed funds, not just index funds.\\\"\",\n \"Just find a low cost S&P 500 index fund, and spend your time reading The Great Mutual Fund Trap instead of wasting your time and money picking actively managed funds.\",\n \"\\\"For US stocks it's a bit of a gamble. Many actively managed funds underperform the market indexes, but some of them outperform in many years. With an index you will get average results. With an active manager you \\\"\\\"might\\\"\\\" do better than average. So you can view active management as a higher risk, potentially higher reward investment approach. On the other hand, if you want to diversify some of your investments into international stocks, bonds, junk bonds, and real estate (REITs) active management is highly likely to be better than indexing. For these specialized areas specialized knowledge and research is needed.\\\"\",\n \"Note that many funds just track indexes. In that case, you essentially don't have to worry about the fund manager making bad decisions. In general, the statistics are very clear that you want to avoid any actively managed fund. There are many funds that are good all-in-one investments. If you are in Canada, for example, Canadian Couch Potato recommends the Tangerine Investment Funds. The fees are a little high, but if you don't have a huge investment, one of these funds would be a good choice and appropriate for 100% of your investment. If you have a larger investment, to the point that Tangerine's MER scares you a little, you still may well look at a three or four fund (or ETF) portfolio. You may choose to use an actively-managed fund even though you know there's virtually no chance it'll beat a fund that just tracks an index, long-term. In that case, I'd recommend devoting only a small portion of your portfolio to this fund. Many people suggest speculating with no more than 10% of your combined investment. Note that other people are more positive on actively-managed funds.\",\n \"By definition, actively managed funds will underperform passive index funds as a whole. Or more specifically: The aggregate performance of all actively managed portfolio of publicly-tradable assets will have equal performance to those of passively managed portfolios. Which taken with premise two: Actively managed funds will charge higher fees than passively managed funds Results in: In general, lower-fee investment vehicles (e.g. passive index investments) with broad enough diversification to the desired risk exposure will outperform higher-fee options But don't take my wonkish approach, from a more practical perspective consider:\",\n \"Basically, no. Selecting an actively managed fund over a low-fee index fund means paying for the opportunity to possibly outperform the index fund. A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel argues that the best general strategy for the average investor is to select the index fund because the fee savings are certain. Assuming a random walk means that any mutual fund may outperform the index in some years, but this is not an indication that it will overall. Unless you have special information about the effectiveness of the bank fund management (it's run by the next Warren Buffett), you are better off in the index fund. And even Warren Buffett suggests you are probably better off in the index fund: This year, regarding Wall Street, Buffett wrote: “When trillions of dollars are managed by Wall Streeters charging high fees, it will usually be the managers who reap outsized profits, not the clients. Both large and small investors should stick with low-cost index funds.”\",\n \"\\\"First, consider what causes taxes to apply to a mutual fund, index or actively managed. Dividends and capital gains are generally what will be distributed to shareholders given the nature of a mutual fund since the fund itself doesn't pay taxes. For funds held in IRAs or other tax-advantaged accounts, this isn't a concern and thus people may not have this concern for those situations which can account for a lot of investing situations as people may have 401(k)s and IRAs that hold their investments rather than taxable accounts. Second, there can be tax-managed funds so there can be cases where a fund is managed with taxes in mind that is worth noting here as what is referenced is a \\\"\\\"Dummies\\\"\\\" link that is making a generalization. For taxable accounts, it may make more sense to have a tax-managed fund rather than an index fund though I'd also argue to be careful of asset allocation as to maintain a purity of style can require selling of stocks that grow too big and thus trigger capital gains,e.g. small-cap and mid-cap funds that can't hold onto the winners as they would become mid-cap and large-cap instead of representing the proper asset class. A FUND THAT PLAYED IT SAFE--AND WAS SORRY would be a Businessweek story from 1998 of an actively managed fund that went mostly to cash and missed the rise of the stock market at that time if you want a specific example of what an actively managed fund can do that an index fund often cannot do. The index fund is to track the index and stay nearly all invested all the time.\\\"\",\n \"No I get that. But if you don’t want risk, then buy bonds. Long term an S&P Index has very low risk. On the other hand, actively managed funds have fees that take out a ton of the gain that could be had. I don’t have time to look for the study but I read recently that 97% of actively managed funds were outperformed by S&P Indexes after fees. Now I don’t know about you but I think the risk of not picking a top 3% fund is probably higher than the safe return of index’s.\",\n \"\\\"There is a lot of interesting information that can be found in a fund's prospectus. I have found it very helpful to read books on the issue, one I just finished was \\\"\\\"The Boglehead's Guide to Investing\\\"\\\" which speaks mostly on mutual and index funds. Actively managed funds mean that someone is choosing which stocks to buy and which to sell. If they think a stock will be \\\"\\\"hot\\\"\\\" then they buy it. Research has shown that people cannot predict the stock market, which is why many people suggest index based funds. An index fund generally tracks a group of companies. Example: an index fund of the S&P 500 will try to mimic the returns that the S&P 500 has. Overall, managed funds are more expensive than index funds because the fund manager must be paid to manage it. Also, there is generally more buying and selling so that also increases the tax amount you would owe. What I am planning on doing is opening a Roth IRA with Vanguard, as their funds have incredibly low fees (0.2% on many). One of the most important things you do before you buy is to figure out your target allocation (% of stocks vs % of bonds). Once you figure that out then you can start narrowing down the funds that you wish to invest in.\\\"\",\n \"Statistically speaking active strategies **are** strictly on par with, or worse when you subtract fees, than passive strategies (regardless of how much time or money you spend investigating companies). Actively managed mutual funds are by and large just a racket where one class of rich people soaks another class of rich people plus some of the middle class. So yeah they should go ahead and call it a day. About time IMO.\",\n \"Current evidence is that, after you subtract their commission and the additional trading costs, actively managed funds average no better than index funds, maybe not as well. You can afford to take more risks at your age, assuming that it will be a long time before you need these funds -- but I would suggest that means putting a high percentage of your investments in small-cap and large-cap stock indexes. I'd suggest 10% in bonds, maybe more, just because maintaining that balance automatically encourages buy-low-sell-high as the market cycles. As you get older and closer to needing a large chunk of the money (for a house, or after retirement), you would move progressively more of that to other categories such as bonds to help safeguard your earnings. Some folks will say this an overly conservative approach. On the other hand, it requires almost zero effort and has netted me an average 10% return (or so claims Quicken) over the past two decades, and that average includes the dot-bomb and the great recession. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance, of course, but the point is that it can work quite well enough.\",\n \"This might be better suited to r/personalfinance but if you're looking to invest I'd say start with an index fund. The MER's (fees) for most other mutual funds take too heavy a chunk of returns to be worth it in a market where actively managed funds are either underperforming of performing at par with passive funds. Additionally if these are your first investments, make sure you're doing it with investment goals in mind. Is this money you're saving for short, medium, or long term? For medium and long term investing make sure you're doing it through a tax efficient instrument like an IRA or 401k.\",\n \"Buying the right shares gives higher return. Buying the wrong ones gives worse return, possibly negative. The usual recommendation, even if you have a pro advising you, is to diversify most of your investments to reduce the risk, even though that may reduce the possible gain. A mutual fund is diversification-in-a-can. It requires little to no active maintenance. Yes, you pay a management fee, but you aren't paying per-transaction fees every time you adjust your holdings, and the management costs can be quite reasonable if you pick the right funds; minimal in the case of computer-managed (index) funds. If you actively enjoy playing with stocks and bonds and are willing/able to accept your failures and less-than-great choices as part of the game, and if you can convince yourself that you will do better this way, go for it. For those of us who just want to deposit out money, watch it grow, and maybe rebalance once a year if that, index funds are a perfectly good choice. I spend at least 8 hours a day working for my money; the rest of the time, I want my money to work for me. Risk and reward tend to be proportional to each other; when they aren't, market prices tend to move to correct that. You need to decide how much risk you're comfortable with, and how much time and effort and money you're willing to spend managing that risk. Personally, I am perfectly happy with the better-than-market-rate-of-return I'm getting, and I don't have any conviction that I could do better if I was more involved. Your milage will vary. If folks didn't disagree, there wouldn't be a market.\",\n \"It all depends on whether you can manage your money or not. Many people are incapable of doing so in a responsible way. Like any service, you get what you pay for -- active management costs money!\",\n \"\\\"Most people advocate a passively managed, low fee mutual fund that simply aims to track a given benchmark (say S&P 500). Few funds can beat the S&P consistently, so investors are often better served finding a no load passive fund. First thing I would do is ask your benefits rep why you don't have an option to invest in a Fidelity passive index fund like Spartan 500. Ideally young people would be heavy in equities and slowly divest for less risky stuff as retirement comes closer, and rebalance the portfolio regularly when market swings put you off risk targets. Few people know how to do this and actually do so. So there are mutual funds that do it for you, for a fee. These in are called \\\"\\\"lifecycle\\\"\\\" funds (The Freedom funds here). I hesitate to recommend them because they're still fairly new. If you take a look at underlying assets, these things generally just reinvest in the broker's other funds, which themselves have expenses & fees. And there's all kinds personal situations that might lead to you place a portion with a different investment.\\\"\",\n \"As other posters have pointed out, many other potential factors at play here besides value, but that said, a huge part of my long-term money that I don't want to manage myself is in actively managed EM funds.\",\n \"\\\"Here is the \\\"\\\"investing for retirement\\\"\\\" theoretical background you should have. You should base your investment decisions not simply on the historical return of the fund, but on its potential for future returns and its risk. Past performance does not indicate future results: the past performance is frequently at its best the moment before the bubble pops. While no one knows the specifics of future returns, there are a few types of assets that it's (relatively) safe to make blanket statements about: The future returns of your portfolio will primarily be determined by your asset allocation . The general rules look like: There are a variety of guides out there to help decide your asset allocation and tell you specifically what to do. The other thing that you should consider is the cost of your funds. While it's easy to get lucky enough to make a mutual fund outperform the market in the short term, it's very hard to keep that up for decades on end. Moreover, chasing performance is risky, and expensive. So look at your fund information and locate the expense ratio. If the fund's expense ratio is 1%, that's super-expensive (the stock market's annualized real rate of return is about 4%, so that could be a quarter of your returns). All else being equal, choose the cheap index fund (with an expense ratio closer to 0.1%). Many 401(k) providers only have expensive mutual funds. This is because you're trapped and can't switch to a cheaper fund, so they're free to take lots of your money. If this is the case, deal with it in the short term for the tax benefits, then open a specific type of account called a \\\"\\\"rollover IRA\\\"\\\" when you change jobs, and move your assets there. Or, if your savings are small enough, just open an IRA (a \\\"\\\"traditional IRA\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"Roth IRA\\\"\\\") and use those instead. (Or, yell at your HR department, in the event that you think that'll actually accomplish anything.)\\\"\",\n \"The expense fees are high, and unfortunate. I would stop short of calling it criminal, however. What you are paying for with your expenses is the management of the holdings in the fund. The managers of the fund are actively, continuously watching the performance of the holdings, buying and selling inside the fund in an attempt to beat the stock market indexes. Whether or not this is worth the expenses is debatable, but it is indeed possible for a managed fund to beat an index. Despite the relatively high expenses of these funds, the 401K is still likely your best investment vehicle for retirement. The money you put in is tax deductible immediately, your account grows tax deferred, and anything that your employer kicks in is free money. Since, in the short term, you have little choice, don't lose a lot of sleep over it. Just pick the best option you have, and occasionally suggest to your employer that you would appreciate different options in the future. If things don't change, and you have the option in the future to rollover into a cheaper IRA, feel free to take it.\",\n \"\\\"Lifecycle funds might be a suitable fit for you. Lifecycle funds (aka \\\"\\\"target date funds\\\"\\\") are a mutual fund that invests your money in other mutual funds based on how much time is left until you need the money-- they follow a \\\"\\\"glide-path\\\"\\\" of reducing stock holdings in favor of bonds over time to reduce volatility of your final return as you near retirement. The ones I've looked at don't charge a fee of their own for this, but they do direct your portfolio to actively managed funds. That said, the ones I've seen have an \\\"\\\"acquired\\\"\\\" expense ratio of less than what you're proposing you'd pay a professional. FWIW, my current plan is to invest in a binary portfolio of cheap mutual funds that track S&P500 and AGG and rebalance regularly. This is easy enough that I don't see the point of adding in a 1 percent commission.\\\"\",\n \"Fire your fund manager. There are several passive funds that seek to duplicate the S&P 500 Index returns. They have lower management fees, which will make returns lower than S&P, and they have less risk by following a broadly diversified strategy (versus midcap growing stocks). There's also ETFs, but evidence is growing that they're not as safe as hoped. But here's the deal: the S&P has been on a tear lately. It could be overvalued and what looks like a good investment could start falling again. A possible alternative would be one of the Lifetime funds that seek to perform portfolio adjustment with a retirement decade target; they're fairly new which mostly means nobody knows how they screw you over yet. In theory, this decade structure means the brokerage can execute trading cash for stocks, stocks for bonds, and bonds for cash in house.\",\n \"Whatever you do, don't take your retirement savings to Vegas. Second, you should also consider investment expenses. Your investments profit after the managers pay themselves. Get the lowest expense ratio mutual funds you can. Third, most active managers do not beat the market. Index funds are your friends. They also tend to have the lower expense ratios.\",\n \"Most mutual funds underperform the stock market. Of those that over-perform, much of the performance can be attributed to dumb luck. Most mutual funds exist to generate fees from you, rather than make you wealthy. In my opinion, if you want to invest in one, choose a no-load index fund, and you will outperform most other funds. Better still get some good financial education and learn to manage your funds/investments yourself.\",\n \"The S&P top 5 - 401(k) usually comply with the DOL's suggestion to offer at least three distinct investment options with substantially different risk/return objectives. Typically a short term bond fund. Short term is a year or less and it will rarely have a negative year. A large cap fund, often the S&P index. A balanced fund, offering a mix. Last, the company's stock. This is a great way to put all your eggs in one basket, and when the company goes under, you have no job and no savings. My concern about your Microsoft remark is that you might not have the choice to manage you funds with such granularity. Will you get out of the S&P fund because you think this one stock or even one sector of the S&P is overvalued? And buy into what? The bond fund? If you have the skill to choose individual stocks, and the 401(k) doesn't offer a brokerage window (to trade on your own) then just invest your money outside the 401(k). But. If they offer a matching deposit, don't ignore that.\",\n \"That is such a vague statement, I highly recommend disregarding it entirely, as it is impossible to know what they meant. Their goal is to convince you that index funds are the way to go, but depending on what they consider an 'active trader', they may be supporting their claim with irrelevant data Their definition of 'active trader' could mean any one or more of the following: 1) retail investor 2) day trader 3) mutual fund 4) professional investor 5) fund continuously changing its position 6) hedge fund. I will go through all of these. 1) Most retail traders lose money. There are many reasons for this. Some rely on technical strategies that are largely unproven. Some buy rumors on penny stocks in hopes of making a quick buck. Some follow scammers on twitter who sell newsletters full of bogus stock tips. Some cant get around the psychology of trading, and thus close out losing positions late and winning positions early (or never at all) [I myself use to do this!!]. I am certain 99% of retail traders cant beat the market, because most of them, to be frank, put less effort into deciding what to trade than in deciding what to have for lunch. Even though your pension funds presentation is correct with respect to retail traders, it is largely irrelevant as professionals managing your money should not fall into any of these traps. 2) I call day traders active traders, but its likely not what your pension fund was referring to. Day trading is an entirely different animal to long or medium term investing, and thus I also think the typical performance is irrelevant, as they are not going to manage your money like a day trader anyway. 3,4,5) So the important question becomes, do active funds lose 99% of the time compared to index funds. NO! No no no. According to the WSJ, actively managed funds outperformed passive funds in 2007, 2009, 2013, 2015. 2010 was basically a tie. So 5 out of 9 years. I dont have a calculator on me but I believe that is less than 99%! Whats interesting is that this false belief that index funds are always better has become so pervasive that you can see active funds have huge outflows and passive have huge inflows. It is becoming a crowded trade. I will spare you the proverb about large crowds and small doors. Also, index funds are so heavily weighted towards a handful of stocks, that you end up becoming a stockpicker anyway. The S&P is almost indistinguishable from AAPL. Earlier this year, only 6 stocks were responsible for over 100% of gains in the NASDAQ index. Dont think FB has a good long term business model, or that Gilead and AMZN are a cheap buy? Well too bad if you bought QQQ, because those 3 stocks are your workhorses now. See here 6) That graphic is for mutual funds but your pension fund may have also been including hedge funds in their 99% figure. While many dont beat their own benchmark, its less than 99%. And there are reasons for it. Many have investors that are impatient. Fortress just had to close one of its funds, whose bets may actually pay off years from now, but too many people wanted their money out. Some hedge funds also have rules, eg long only, which can really limit your performance. While important to be aware of this, that placing your money with a hedge fund may not beat a benchmark, that does not automatically mean you should go with an index fund. So when are index funds useful? When you dont want to do any thinking. When you dont want to follow market news, at all. Then they are appropriate.\",\n \"\\\"The best predictor of mutual fund performance is low expense ratio, as reported by Morningstar despite the fact that it produces the star ratings you cite. Most of the funds you list are actively managed and thus have high expense ratios. Even if you believe there are mutual fund managers out there that can pick investments intelligently enough to offset the costs versus a passive index fund, do you trust that you will be able to select such a manager? Most people that aren't trying to sell you something will advise that your best bet is to stick with low-cost, passive index funds. I only see one of these in your options, which is FUSVX (Fidelity Spartan 500 Index Fund Fidelity Advantage Class) with an exceptionally low expense ratio of 0.05%. Do you have other investment accounts with more choices, like an IRA? If so you might consider putting a major chunk of your 401(k) money into FUSVX, and use your IRA to balance your overall porfolio with small- and medium-cap domestic stock, international stock, and bond funds. As an aside, I remember seeing a funny comment on this site once that is applicable here, something along the lines of \\\"\\\"don't take investment advice from coworkers unless they're Warren Buffett or Bill Gross\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"\\\"If you're willing to do a little more work and bookkeeping than just putting money into the 401(k) I would recommend the following. I note that you said you chose some funds based on performance since the expense ratios are all high. I would recommend against chasing performance because active funds will almost always falter; honor the old saw: \\\"\\\"past performance is no guarantee of future returns\\\"\\\". Assuming the cash in your Ally account is an emergency fund, I would use it to pay off your credit card debt to avoid the interest payments. Use free cash flow in the coming months to bring the emergency fund balance back up to an acceptable level. If the Ally account is not an emergency fund, I would make it one! With no debt and an emergency fund for 3-12 months of living expenses (pick your risk tolerance), then you can concentrate on investing. Your 401(k) options are unfortunately pretty poor. With those choices I would invest this way: Once you fill up your choice of IRA, then you have the tougher decision of where to put any extra money you have to invest (if any). A brokerage account gives you the freedom of investment choices and the ability to easily pull out money in the case of a dire emergency. The 401(k) will give you tax benefits, but high fund expenses. The tax benefits are considerable, so if I were at a job where I plan on moving on in a few years, I'd fund the 401(k) up to the max with the knowledge that I'd roll the 401(k) into a rollover IRA in the (relatively) short term. If I saw myself staying at the employer for a long time (5+ years), I'd probably take the taxable account route since those high fund fees will add up over time. One you start building up a solid base, then I might look into having a small allocation in one of my accounts for \\\"\\\"play money\\\"\\\" to pick individual stocks, or start making sector bets.\\\"\",\n \"You have to look at the market conditions and make decisions based on them. Ideally, you may want to have 30% of your portfolio in bonds. But from a practical point of view, it's probably not so smart to invest in bond funds right at this moment given the interest rate market. Styles of funds tend to go into and out of style. I personally do asset allocation two ways in my 457 plan (like a 401k for government workers): In my IRA, I invest in a portfolio of 5-6 stocks. The approach you take is dependent on what you are able to put into it. I invest about 10 hours a week into investment related research. If you can't do that, you want a strategy that is simpler -- but you still need to be cognizant of market conditions.\",\n \"There are fund of funds,e.g. life cycle funds or target retirement funds, that could cover a lot of these with an initial investment that one could invest into for a few years and then after building up a balance large enough, then it may make sense to switch to having more control.\",\n \"\\\"Yep, most 401k options suck. You'll have access to a couple dozen funds that have been blessed by the organization that manages your account. I recently rolled my 401k over into a self-directed IRA at Fidelity, and I have access to the entire mutual fund market, and can trade stocks/bonds if I wish. As for a practical solution for your situation: the options you've given us are worryingly vague -- hopefully you're able to do research on what positions these funds hold and make your own determination. Quick overview: Energy / Utilities: Doing good right now because they are low-risk, generally high dividends. These will underperform in the short-term as the market recovers. Health Care: riskier, and many firms are facing a sizable patent cliff. I am avoiding this sector. Emerging Markets: I'm also avoiding this due to the volatility and accounting issues, but it's up to you. Most large US companies have \\\"\\\"emerging markets\\\"\\\" exposure, so not necessary for to invest in a dedicated fund in my unprofessional opinion. Bonds: Avoid. Bonds are at their highest levels in decades. Short-term they might be ok; but medium-term, the only place to go is down. All of this depends on your age, and your own particular investment objectives. Don't listen to me or anyone else without doing your own research.\\\"\",\n \"Let me throw in one more variable to consider. Company 401K plans typically have MUCH higher fees than you are likely to get if you shop around on your own as long as you don't go with a high dollar broker. You won't see these fees on your statements typically, which I think is criminal, but they are hidden in the prices of the funds you are buying in the 401K. If you don't believe me, get the quotes for a fund from the 401K company's web-site then look up the same fund on a site like MSMoney. The share prices won't match and you will be angry until you come to terms with it. So if you have a choice of money in a personal retirement account versus a 401K always go with your own account... UNLESS: or\",\n \"\\\"That's a lot of manual checking-in to see if everything is performing the way you \\\"\\\"want\\\"\\\". Not to insult your intelligence, but that is not your job, and doing that on a monthly basis is going to eat a lot of time. Plus, most 401(k) programs have lockout periods wherein changes can't be made without incurring additional fees (related to distributions, etc). And if you're checking that often, you are [likely] losing the benefits of investing in mutual funds to start with. If you have the stomach to handle the risk, go for the high-risk investment vehicles early in your career - you can afford a 30% drop this year if you then make 105%, 15%, or 50% back each of the next 5. If, on the other hand, you're in your mid-career, switch to more conservative management tactics.\\\"\",\n \"If they're not matching, and their profit-sharing has nothing to do with how much you invest, then I'd say don't bother with the company 401k at all. If you need to at least have an account open to get the profit sharing, then contribute the bare minimum. Having your retirement account through your company forces you to follow their standards, choose from their funds, use their broker, etc. It also means that when you leave the company, you either have to move your money anyway, or else have an account through a company you don't work for, which I wouldn't feel all that comfortable doing anyway. If you open a retirement account through your bank or a private financial planner, then it's yours, and you can contribute what you want, when you want, and buy the securities that you want. Your account executive is there to service you, not your company.\",\n \"The benefit of the 401K and IRAs are that reallocating and re balancing are easy. They don't want you to move the funds every day, but you are not locked in to your current allocations. The fact that you mentioned in a comment that you also have a Roth IRA means that you should look at all retirements as a whole. Look at what options you have in the 401K and also what options you have with the IRA. Then determine the overall allocation between bonds, stocks, international, REIT, etc. Then use the mix of funds in the IRA and 401K to meet that goal. Asking if the 401K should be small and mid cap only can't be answered without knowing not just your risk tolerances but the total money in the 401K and IRA. Pick an allocation, map the available funds to that allocation. Rebalance every year. But review the allocation in a few years or after a life event such as: change of job, getting married, having kids, or buying a house.\",\n \"What decision are you trying to make? Are you interested day trading stocks to make it rich? Or are you looking at your investment options and trying to decide between an actively managed mutual fund and an ETF? If the former, then precise statistics are hard to come by, but I believe that 99% of day traders would do better investing in an ETF. If the latter, then there are lots of studies that show that most actively managed funds do worse than index funds, so with most actively managed funds you are paying higher fees for worse performance. Here is a quote from the Bogleheads Guide to Investing: Index funds outperform approximately 80 percent of all actively managed funds over long periods of time. They do so for one simple reason: rock-bottom costs. In a random market, we don't know what future returns will be. However, we do know that an investor who keeps his or her costs low will earn a higher return than one who does not. That's the indexer's edge. Many people believe that your best option for investing is a diverse portfolio of ETFs, like this. This is what I do.\",\n \"Does your employer offer a 401(k) match? If so, contribute enough to maximize that--it's free money. After that, contribute to an IRA where you can invest in funds with low expenses. After you max that out, if you still have money left over, max out your 401(k) despite the high expenses for the tax advantages. Remember when you leave the company you can roll over the balance into an IRA and switch to lower-cost investments. Of course this is general advice without knowing your situation. If you're looking to buy a home soon, for example, you might want to keep extra money in a taxable account for a downpayment rather than maxing out your 401(k).\",\n \"\\\"I think you are asking about actively managed funds vs. indexes and possibly also vs. diversified funds like target date funds. This is also related to the question of mutual fund vs. ETF. First, a fund can be either actively managed or it can attempt to track an index. An actively managed fund has a fund manager who tries to find the best stocks to invest in within some constraints, like \\\"\\\"this fund invests in large cap US companies\\\"\\\". An index fund tries to match as closely as possible the performance of an index like the S&P 500. A fund may also try to offer a portfolio that is suitable for someone to put their entire account into. For example, a target date fund is a fund that may invest in a mix of stocks, bonds and foreign stock in a proportion that would be appropriate to someone expecting to retire in a certain year. These are not what people tend to think of as the canonical examples of mutual funds, even though they share the same legal structure and investment mechanisms. Secondly, a fund can either be a traditional mutual fund or it can be an exchange traded fund (ETF). To invest in a traditional mutual fund, you send money to the fund, and they give you a number of shares equal to what that money would have bought of the net asset value (NAV) of the fund at the end of trading on the day they receive your deposit, possibly minus a sales charge. To invest in an ETF, you buy shares of the ETF on the stock market like any other stock. Under the covers, an ETF does have something similar to the mechanism of depositing money to get shares, but only big traders can use that, and it's not used for investing, but only for people who are making a market in the stock (if lots of people are buying VTI, Big Dealer Co will get 100,000 shares from Vanguard so that they can sell them on the market the next day). Historically and traditionally, ETFs are associated with an indexing strategy, while if not specifically mentioned, people assume that traditional mutual funds are actively managed. Many ETFs, notably all the Vanguard ETFs, are actually just a different way to hold the same underlying fund. The best way to understand this is to read the prospectus for a mutual fund and an ETF. It's all there in reasonably plain English.\\\"\",\n \"What you may be looking for are multi-manager ETFs; these invest in a basket of diversified funds to get the best out of all of the funds. The problem with multi-manager funds is, of course, that you pay fees twice; once to the fund itself and once to each of the funds in the fund. The low fees on ETFs mean that it is not very profitable to actively maintain one so there are not many around (Googling returns very few). Noting that historic success doesn't guarantee future success and that fees are being applied to fees these funds only really benefit from diversification of manager performance risk. partial source of information and an example of a (non-outperforming) Multi-manager ETF: http://www.etfstrategy.co.uk/advisorshares-sets-date-for-multi-manager-etf-with-charitable-twist-give-53126/\",\n \"Placing bets on targeted sectors of the market totally makes sense in my opinion. Especially if you've done research, with a non-biased eye, that convinces you those sectors will continue to outperform. However, the funds you've boxed in red all appear to be actively managed funds (I only double-checked on the first.) There is a bit of research showing that very few active managers consistently beat an index over the long term. By buying these funds, especially since you hope to hold for decades, you are placing bets that these managers maintain their edge over an equivalent index. This seems unlikely to be a winning bet the longer you hold the position. Perhaps there are no sector index funds for the sectors or focuses you have? But if there were, and it was my money that I planned to park for the long term, I'd pick the index fund over the active managed fund. Index funds also have an advantage in costs or fees. They can charge substantially less than an actively managed fund does. And fees can be a big drag on total return.\",\n \"The problem is that short-term trends are really unpredictable. There is nobody who can accurately predict where a fund (or even moreso, a single stock or bond) is going to move in a few hours, or days or even months. The long-term trends of the entire market, however, are (more or less) predictable. There is a definite upward bias when you look at time-scales of 5, 10, 20 years and more. Individual stocks and bonds may crash, and different sectors perform differently from year to year, but the market as a whole has historically always risen over long time scales. Of course, past performance never guarantees future performance. It is possible that everything could crash and never come back, but history shows that this would be incredibly unlikely. Which is the entire basis for strategies based on buying and holding (and periodically rebalancing) a portfolio containing funds that cover all market sectors. Now, regarding your 401(k), you know your time horizon. The laws won't let you withdraw money without penalty until you reach retirement age - this might be 40 years, depending on your current age. So we're definitely talking long term. You shouldn't care about where the market goes over a few months if you won't be using the money until 20 years from now. The most important thing for a 401(k) is to choose funds from those available to you that will be as diverse as possible. The actual allocation strategy is something you will need to work out with a financial advisor, since it will be different for every person. Once you come up with an appropriate allocation strategy, you will want to buy according to those ratios with every paycheck and rebalance your funds to those ratios whenever they start to drift away. And review the ratios with your advisor every few years, to keep them aligned with large-scale trends and changes in your life.\",\n \"The presence of the 401K option means that your ability to contribute to an IRA will be limited, it doesn't matter if you contribute to the 401K or not. Unless your company allows you to roll over 401K money into an IRA while you are still an employee, your money in the 401K will remain there. Many 401K programs offer not just stock mutual funds, but bond mutual funds, and international funds. Many also have target date funds. You will have to look at the paperwork for the funds to determine if any of them meet your definition of low expense. Because any money you have in those 401K funds is going to remain in the 401K, you still need to look at your options and make the best choice. Very few companies allow employees to invest in individual stocks, but some do. You can ask your employer to research other options for the 401K. The are contracting with a investment company to make the plan. They may be able to switch to a different package from the same company or may need to switch companies. How much it will cost them is unknown. You will have to understand when their current contract is up for renewal. If you feel their current plan is poor, it may be making hiring new employees difficult, or ti may lead to some employees to leave in search of better options. It may also be a factor in the number of employees contributing and how much they contribute.\",\n \"Unfortunately, that's a call only you can make and whichever route you choose comes with advantages and disadvantages. If you manage your money directly, you may significantly reduce costs (assuming that you don't frequently trade index funds or you use a brokerage like RobinHood) and take advantage of market returns if the indexes perform well. On the other hand, if the market experiences some bad years, a professional might (and this is a huge might) have more self-discipline and prevent a panic sell, or know how to allocate accordingly both before and after a rise or fall (keep in mind, investors often get too greedy for their own good, like they tend to panic at the wrong time). As an example of why this might is important: one family member of mine trusted a professional to do this and they failed; they bought in a rising market and sold in a falling market. To avoid the above example, if you do go with the professional service, the best course of action is to look at their track record; if they're new, you might be better on your own. Since I assume this one or more professionals at the company, testing to see what they've recommended over the years might help you evaluate if they're offering you a good choice. Finally, depending on how much money you have, you could always do what Scott Adams did: he took a portion of his own money and managed it himself and tested how well he did vs. how well his professional team did (if I recall, I believe he came out ahead of his professional team). With two decades left, that may help guide you the rest of the way, even through retirement.\",\n \"\\\"There are probably 3-4 questions here. Diversification - A good index, a low cost S&P fund or ETF can serve you very well. If you add an extended market index or just go with \\\"\\\"Total market\\\"\\\", that might be it for your stock allocation. I've seen people with 5 funds, and it didn't take much analysis to see the overlap was so significant, that the extra 4 funds added little, and 2 of the 5 would have been it. If you diversify by buying more ETFs or funds, be sure to see what they contain. If you can go back in time, buy Apple, Google, Amazon, etc, and don't sell them. Individual stocks are fun to pick, but unless you put in your homework, are tough to succeed at. You need to be right at the buy side, and again to know if, and when, to sell. I bought Apple, for example, long ago, pre-last few splits. But, using responsible a approach, I sold a bit each time it doubled. Has I kept it all through the splits, I'd have $1M+ instead of the current $200K or so of stock. Can you tell which companies now have that kind of potential for the future? The S&P has been just about double digit over 60 years. The average managed fund will lag the S&P over time, many will be combined with other funds or just close. Even with huge survivor bias, managed funds can't beat the index over time, on average. Aside from a small portion of stocks I've picked, I'm happy to get S&P less .02% in my 401(k). In aggregate, people actually do far worse due to horrific timing and some odd thing, called emotions.\\\"\",\n \"I'm looking for ways to geared to save for retirement, not general investment. Many mutual fund companies offer a range of target retirement funds for different retirement dates (usually in increments of 5 years). These are funds of funds, that is, a Target 2040 Fund, say, will be invested in five or six different stock and bond mutual funds offered by the same company. Over the years and as the target date approaches closer, the investment mix will change from extra weight given to stock mutual funds towards extra weight being given to bond mutual funds. The disadvantage to these funds is that the Target Fund charges its own expense ratio over and above the expense ratios charged by the mutual funds it invests in: you could do the same investments yourself (or pick your own mix and weighting of various funds) and save the extra expense ratio. However, over the years, as the Target Fund changes its mix, withdrawing money from the stock mutual funds and investing the proceeds into bond mutual funds, you do not have to pay taxes on the profits generated by these transactions except insofar as some part of the profits become distributions from the Target Fund itself. If you were doing the same transactions outside the Target Fund, you would be liable for taxes on the profits when you withdrew money from a stock fund and invested the proceeds into the bond fund.\",\n \"\\\"First of all, it's great you're now taking full advantage of your employer match – i.e. free money. Next, on the question of the use of a life cycle / target date fund as a \\\"\\\"hedge\\\"\\\": Life cycle funds were introduced for hands-off, one-stop-shopping investors who don't like a hassle or don't understand. Such funds are gaining in popularity: employers can use them as a default choice for automatic enrollment, which results in more participation in retirement savings plans than if employees had to opt-in. I think life cycle funds are a good innovation for that reason. But, the added service and convenience typically comes with higher fees. If you are going to be hands-off, make sure you're cost-conscious: Fees can devastate a portfolio's performance. In your case, it sounds like you are willing to do some work for your portfolio. If you are confident that you've chosen a good equity glide path – that is, the initial and final stock/bond allocations and the rebalancing plan to get from one to the other – then you're not going to benefit much by having a life cycle fund in your portfolio duplicating your own effort with inferior components. (I assume you are selecting great low-cost, liquid index funds for your own strategy!) Life cycle are neat, but replicating them isn't rocket science. However, I see a few cases in which life cycle funds may still be useful even if one has made a decision to be more involved in portfolio construction: Similar to your case: You have a company savings plan that you're taking advantage of because of a matching contribution. Chances are your company plan doesn't offer a wide variety of funds. Since a life cycle fund is available, it can be a good choice for that account. But make sure fees aren't out of hand. If much lower-cost equity and bond funds are available, consider them instead. Let's say you had another smaller account that you were unable to consolidate into your main account. (e.g. a Traditional IRA vs. your Roth, and you didn't necessarily want to convert it.) Even if that account had access to a wide variety of funds, it still might not be worth the added hassle or trading costs of owning and rebalancing multiple funds inside the smaller account. There, perhaps, the life cycle fund can help you out, while you use your own strategy in your main account. Finally, let's assume you had a single main account and you buy partially into the idea of a life cycle fund and you find a great one with low fees. Except: you want a bit of something else in your portfolio not provided by the life cycle fund, e.g. some more emerging markets, international, or commodity stock exposure. (Is this one reason you're doing it yourself?) In that case, where the life cycle fund doesn't quite have everything you want, you could still use it for the bulk of the portfolio (e.g. 85-95%) and then select one or two specific additional ETFs to complement it. Just make sure you factor in those additional components into the overall equity weighting and adjust your life cycle fund choice accordingly (e.g. perhaps go more conservative in the life cycle, to compensate.) I hope that helps! Additional References:\\\"\",\n \"I could see doing this if the investments were via different environments. The choices in a 401K are limited by the plan, so you might want to put new money into the 401K index fund. At the same time you could have IRA money invested in a similar index. You could even have non-retirement money invested. While you should look at all your investments while evaluating your investment percentages, the 401K (limited options) and the non-retirement account (avoiding taxes) might be harder to move around. Otherwise the only advantage of splitting between funds is avoiding having all your money in a Ponzi scheme.\",\n \"There are many technical answers above , but the short story to me is that very few active fund managers consistently beat the market. Look at the results of actively managed funds. Depending on whose analysis you read, you will find out that somewhere between 80-90% of fund managers in a given year do not beat passive index funds. So go figure how you will do compared to a mutual fund manager who has way more experience than you likely have. So, that in itself is moderately interesting, but if you look at same-manager performance over several consecutive years it is rare to find anyone that goes beats the market for more than a few years in a row. There are exceptions, but go pick one of these guys/gals - good luck. Getting in and out of the market is a loser. This is because there is no way to see market spikes and down turns. There are many behavioral studies that have been done that show people do the wrong thing: they sell after losses have occurred and they buy after the market has gone up. Missing an up spike and not being in before the spike is as devastating as missing a down turn and not getting out in time. There is another down side, if you are trading in a personal account, rather than a tax deferred account, going in and out of stocks has tax complications. In short, a broad based equity index will, over time, beat about anything out there and it will do it in a tax efficient manner. Exchange traded funds (ETFs) are a wonderful way to obtain diversification immediately at very low cost.\",\n \"See if any of the funds they offer are index funds, which will generally have MUCH lower fees and which seem to perform as well as any of the actively managed funds in the same categories.\",\n \"\\\"An investment portfolio is typically divided into three components: All three of those can be accessed through mutual funds or ETFs. A 401(k) will probably have a small set of mutual funds for you to pick from. Mutual funds may charge you silly expenses if you pick a bad one. Look at the prospectus for the expense ratio. If it's over 1% you're definitely paying too much. If it's over 0.5% you're probably paying too much. If it's less than 0.1% you have a really good deal. US stocks are generally the core holding until you move into retirement (or get close to spending the money on something else if it's not invested for retirement). International stocks are riskier than US stocks, but provide opportunity for diversification and better returns than the US stocks. Bonds, or fixed-income investments, are generally very safe, but have limited opportunities for returns. They tend to do better when stocks are doing poorly. When you've got a while to invest, you should be looking at riskier investments; when you don't, you should be looking for safer investments. A quick (and rough) rule of thumb is that \\\"\\\"your age should match the portion of your portfolio in bonds\\\"\\\". So if you're 50 years old and approaching retirement in 15 years or so, you should have about 50% in bonds. Roughly. People whose employment and future income is particularly tied to one sector of the market would also do well to avoid investing there, because they already are at risk if it performs badly. For instance, if you work in the technology sector, loading up on tech stocks is extra risky: if there's a big bust, you're not just out of a job, your portfolio is dead as well. More exotic options are available to diversify a portfolio: While many portfolios could benefit from these sorts of holdings, they come with their own advantages and disadvantages and should be researched carefully before taking a significant stake in them.\\\"\",\n \"With a match, the 401(k) becomes the priority, up to that match, often ahead of other high interest debt. Without the match, the analysis is more about the cost within the 401(k). The 401(k) is a tax deferred account (let's not go on a tangent to Roth 401(k)) so ideally, you'd be skimming off money at 25% and saving it till you retire, so some of it is taxed at 0, 10, 15%. If the fees in the 401(k) are say 1.5% between the underlying funds and management fee, it doesn't take long to wipe out the potential 10 or 15% you are trying to gain. Yes, there's a risk that cap gain rates go away, but with today's tax law, the long term rate is 15%. So that money put into a long term low cost ETF will have reinvested dividends taxed at 15% and upon sale, a 15% rate on the gains. There are great index ETFs with sub - .1% annual cost. My simple answer is - If the total cost in that 401(k) is .5% or higher, I'd pass. Save the money in an outside account, using IRAs as best you can. (The exact situation needs to be looked at very carefully. In personal finance, there's a lot of 'grey'. For example, a frequent job changer can view the 401(k) as a way of saving pretax, knowing the fee will only last 2 years, and will end with a transfer to the IRA)\",\n \"An experienced individual wouldn't ask such questions. I don't say this to take a jab at you, but to provide context. The matter is much more complicated than a simple answer to your question could accomplish. The short answer is no, not necessarily; but it depends on the details. Generally, if the employer matches, it's suggested that you take advantage of the match. It's free money. That said, it comes with some strings attached, like a vesting schedule. It's not yours right away, necessarily. Choices are limited in a 401k, but we should still come out ahead with that free money. The investment choices available in a 401k are also a part of the details. If they meet your needs you should certainly consider the 401k even if the employer doesn't match. There is also the matter of one's particular tax situation, which is certainly an involved matter. A 401k can certainly be a part of judicious tax planning. It's a matter of working out the details. Continuing this theme of details and coming back to the employer match: if the employer doesn't mach, I would make sure that I'm maxing out an IRA before considering the 401k. If the employer matched, I would probably contribute to take advantage of that match. However, it quickly becomes complicated here. I'm accustomed to employer matching up to some percentage of pay, which typically works out to be less then the anual contribution limits for a 401k. So, I my plan for such a situation is to contribute up to the employer match in the 401k, then max out an IRA, and then return to the 401k to finish contributing up to its yearly maximum. There is plenty for you to consider in order to come up with a plan of action. While it's certainly complicated, it's accessible to most people. You don't have to be a genius. In fact, eggheads are regularly trounced by the markets.\",\n \"\\\"Diversification is the only real free lunch in finance (reduction in risk without any reduction in expected returns), so clearly every good answer to your question will be \\\"\\\"yes.\\\"\\\" Diversification is good.\\\"\\\" Let's talk about many details your question solicits. Many funds are already pretty diversified. If you buy a mutual fund, you are generally already getting a large portion of the gains from diversification. There is a very large difference between the unnecessary risk in your portfolio if you only hold a couple of stocks and if you hold a mutual fund. Should you be diversified across mutual funds as well? It depends on what your funds are. Many funds, such as target-date funds, are intended to be your sole investment. If you have funds covering every major asset class, then there may not be any additional benefit to buying other funds. You probably could not have picked your \\\"\\\"favorite fund\\\"\\\" early on. As humans, we have cognitive biases that make us think we knew things early on that we did not. I'm sure at some point at the very beginning you had a positive feeling toward that fund. Today you regret not acting on it and putting all your money there. But the number of such feelings is very large and if you acted on all those, you would do a lot of crazy and harmful things. You didn't know early on which fund would do well. You could just as well have had a good feeling about a fund that subsequently did much worse than your diversified portfolio did. The advice you have had about your portfolio probably isn't based on sound finance theory. You say you have always kept your investments in line with your age. This implies that you believe the guidelines given you by your broker or financial advisor are based in finance theory. Generally speaking, they are not. They are rules of thumb that seemed good to someone but are not rigorously proven either in theory or empirics. For example the notion that you should slowly shift your investments from speculative to conservative as you age is not based on sound finance theory. It just seems good to the people who give advice on such things. Nothing particularly wrong with it, I guess, but it's not remotely on par with the general concept of being well-diversified. The latter is extremely well established and verified, both in theory and in practice. Don't confuse the concept of diversification with the specific advice you have received from your advisor. A fund averaging very good returns is not an anomaly--at least going forward it will not be. There are many thousand funds and a large distribution in their historical performance. Just by random chance, some funds will have a truly outstanding track record. Perhaps the manager really was skilled. However, very careful empirical testing has shown the following: (1) You, me, and people whose profession it is to select outperforming mutual funds are unable to reliably detect which ones will outperform, except in hindsight (2) A fund that has outperformed, even over a long horizon, is not more likely to outperform in the future. No one is stopping you from putting all your money in that fund. Depending on its investment objective, you may even have decent diversification if you do so. However, please be aware that if you move your money based on historical outperformance, you will be acting on the same cognitive bias that makes gamblers believe they are on a \\\"\\\"hot streak\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"can't lose.\\\"\\\" They can, and so can you. ======== Edit to answer a more specific line of questions =========== One of your questions is whether it makes sense to buy a number of mutual funds as part of your diversification strategy. This is a slightly more subtle question and I will indicate where there is uncertainty in my answer. Diversifying across asset classes. Most of the gains from diversification are available in a single fund. There is a lot of idiosyncratic risk in one or two stocks and much less in a collection of hundreds of stocks, which is what any mutual fund will hold. Still,you will probably want at least a couple of funds in your portfolio. I will list them from most important to least and I will assume the bulk of your portfolio is in a total US equity fund (or S&P500-style fund) so that you are almost completely diversified already. Risky Bonds. These are corporate, municipal, sovereign debt, and long-term treasury debt funds. There is almost certainly a good deal to be gained by having a portion of your portfolio in bonds, and normally a total market fund will not include bond exposure. Bonds fund returns are closely related to interest rate and inflation changes. They are also exposed to some market risk but it's more efficient to get that from equity. The bond market is very large, so if you did market weights you would have more in bonds than in equity. Normally people do not do this, though. Instead you can get the exposure to interest rates by holding a lesser amount in longer-term bonds, rather than more in shorter-term bonds. I don't believe in shifting your weights toward nor away from this type of bond (as opposed to equity) as you age so if you are getting that advice, know that it is not well-founded in theory. Whatever your relative weight in risky bonds when you are young is should also be your weight when you are older. International. There are probably some gains from having some exposure to international markets, although these have decreased over time as economies have become more integrated. If we followed market weights, you would actually put half your equity weight in an international fund. Because international funds are taxed differently (gains are always taxed at the short-term capital gains rate) and because they have higher management fees, most people make only a small investment to international funds, if any at all. Emerging markets International funds often ignore emerging markets in order to maintain liquidity and low fees. You can get some exposure to these markets through emerging markets funds. However, the value of public equity in emerging markets is small when compared with that of developed markets, so according to finance theory, your investment in them should be small as well. That's a theoretical, not an empirical result. Emerging market funds charge high fees as well, so this one is kind of up to your taste. I can't say whether it will work out in the future. Real estate. You may want to get exposure to real estate by buying a real-estate fund (REIT). Though, if you own a house you are already exposed to the real estate market, perhaps more than you want to be. REITs often invest in commercial real estate, which is a little different from the residential market. Small Cap. Although total market funds invest in all capitalization levels, the market is so skewed toward large firms that many total market funds don't have any significant small cap exposure. It's common for individuals to hold a small cap fund to compensate for this, but it's not actually required by investment theory. In principle, the most diversified portfolio should be market-cap weighted, so small cap should have negligible weight in your portfolio. Many people hold small cap because historically it has outperformed large cap firms of equal risk, but this trend is uncertain. Many researchers feel that the small cap \\\"\\\"premium\\\"\\\" may have been a short-term artifact in the data. Given these facts and the fact that small-cap funds charge higher fees, it may make sense to pass on this asset class. Depends on your opinion and beliefs. Value (or Growth) Funds. Half the market can be classed as \\\"\\\"value\\\"\\\", while the other half is \\\"\\\"growth.\\\"\\\" Your total market fund should have equal representation in both so there is no diversification reason to buy a special value or growth fund. Historically, value funds have outperformed over long horizons and many researchers think this will continue, but it's not exactly mandated by the theory. If you choose to skew your portfolio by buying one of these, it should be a value fund. Sector funds. There is, in general, no diversification reason to buy funds that invest in a particular sector. If you are trying to hedge your income (like trying to avoid investing in the tech sector because you work in that sector) or your costs (buying energy because you buy use a disproportionate amount of energy) I could imagine you buying one of these funds. Risk-free bonds. Funds specializing in short-term treasuries or short-term high-quality bonds of other types are basically a substitute for a savings account, CD, money market fund, or other cash equivalent. Use as appropriate but there is little diversification here per se. In short, there is some value in diversifying across asset classes, and it is open to opinion how much you should do. Less well-justified is diversifying across managers within the same asset class. There's very little if any advantage to doing that.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Having worked for a financial company for years, my advice is to stay away from all the \\\"\\\"Freedom Funds\\\"\\\" offered. They're a new way for Fidelity to justify charging a higher management fee on those particular funds. That extra 1% or so a year is great for making the company money; it will kill your rate of return over the next 25+ years you're putting money into your retirement account. All these funds do is change the percentage of your funds in stocks vs. more fixed investments (bonds, etc.) so you have a higher percentage in stocks while you're young and slowly move the percentage more towards fixed as you get older. If you take a few hours every 5 years to re-balance your portfolio and just slowly shift more money towards fixed investments, you'll achieve the same thing WITHOUT the extra annual fee. So how much difference are we talking here? Let's do a quick example. Based on your salary of $70k and a 4% match by your company, you'll have $5,600 a year to put in your 401(k) (your 4% plus matched 4%). I'll also assume an 8% annual return for both funds. Here is what that 1% extra service charge will cost you: Fund with a 1% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $60.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $301.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25: $3,782 Fund with a 2% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $121.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $472.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25: $6,489 That's a total of $2,707 in extra fees over 25 years on just the investment you make this year! Next year if you invest the same amount in your 401k that will be another $2,707 paid over 25 years to the management company. This pattern repeats EACH year you pay the higher management fee. Trust me, if you invest that money in stock instead of paying it as fees, you'll have a whole lot more money saved when it's time to retire. My advice, pick a percentage you're comfortable with in stocks at your age, maybe 85 - 90%, and pick the stock funds with the lowest management fees (the remaining 10 - 15% should go into a fixed fund). Make sure you pick at least some of your stock money, I do 20 - 25%, and select a diverse (lots of different countries) international fund. For any retirement money you plan to save above the 4% getting matched by your company, set up a Roth IRA. That will give you the freedom to invest in any stocks or funds you want. Find some low-cost index funds (such as VTI for stocks, and BND for bonds) and put your money in those. Invest the same amount every month, automatically, and your cost average will work itself out through up markets and down. Good luck!\\\"\",\n \"Every 401(k) has managers to make the stock choices. They all have different rates. You want to see that fidelity or Vangard is handling your 401(k).(and I am sure others) If you have a mega bank managing your funds or an insurance company odds are you are paying way to high management fees. So find out, the management fees should be available should be less than 1%. They can get as high as 2%...Ouch\",\n \"If you don't have the time or interest to manage investments, you need a financial advisor. Generally speaking, you're better served by an advisor who collects an annual fee based on a percentage of your account value. Advisors who are compensated based on transactions have a vested interest to churn your account, which is often not in your best interest. You also need to be wary of advisors who peddle expensive mutual funds with sales loads (aka kick-backs to the advisor) or annuities. Your advisor's compensation structure should be transparent as well.\",\n \"If you can afford to put money in your 401(k) account, I would say at least you should invest enough to get your employer's matching fund. It's free money, why not get it?\",\n \"Another option to a human advisor is FutureAdvisor, a web service that (if it supports your 401k plan) gives personalized algorithmic advice on what you should hold in your 401(k) and other retirement accounts. If it doesn't support your 401(k) plan just yet you can sign up to be emailed when your plan is added. [Disclosure: I work here, but I believe in the product and it's designed to solve this exact problem so I'm mentioning it here] Note from JoeTaxpayer - bolu's disclosure is much appreciated. The fee is $39/yr, with a free trial. Consider that a commissions based advisor won't even take on a $10K level account, and at $100K, you'd be hard pressed to gain by more than his 1% fee. So while I've not dug deeper into this site, a rules-based methodology is likely to be worth the cost if over time it gains you even a fraction of a percent compared to what you'd have done blindly.\",\n \"You may want to move money between your investments within the plan, rebalancing money to maintain your diversification. You don't have to deal with the details if selling and buying, just tell them how much to move where. Many plans offer investments that automatically rebalance for you such as Target Date accounts. You may be able to select one of those and just ignore the 401k until retirement, or at most rebalance even less often. Look at what's offered, look at what it costs as fees, run the numbers and decide whether you can do better.\",\n \"I am sure there would be many views on the above topic, my take is that DIY takes the following: Now, for many, one or more of the other factors are missing. In this case, it is probably best to go for a financial adviser. There are others who have some of the above in place and are interested but probably cannot spend enough time. For them a middle ground of Mutual Funds probably is a good choice. Here they get to choose the fund they invest in and the fund manager manages the fund. For the people who have the above more or less in place and also are willing to take risk and learn, they probably can do a DIY for a while and find out the actual result. Just my views and opinion.\",\n \"$10.90 for every $1000 per year. Are you kidding me!!! These are usually hidden within the expense ratio of the plan funds, but >1% seems to be quite a lot regardless. FUND X 1 year return 3% 3 year return 6% 10 year return 5% What does that exactly mean? This is the average annual rate of return. If measured for the last 3 years, the average annual rate of return is 6%, if measured for 1 year - it's 3%. What it means is that out of the last 3 years, the last year return was not the best, the previous two were much better. Does that mean that if I hold my mutual funds for 10 years I will get 5% return on it. Definitely not. Past performance doesn't promise anything for the future. It is merely a guidance for you, a comparison measure between the funds. You can assume that if in the past the fund performed certain way, then given the same conditions in the future, it will perform the same again. But it is in no way a promise or a guarantee of anything. Since my 401K plan stinks what are my options. If I put my money in a traditional IRA then I lose my pre tax benefits right! Wrong, IRA is pre-tax as well. But the pre-tax deduction limits for IRA are much lower than for 401k. You can consider investing in the 401k, and then rolling over to a IRA which will allow better investment options. After your update: Just clearing up the question. My current employer has a 401K. Most of the funds have the expense ratio of 1.20%. There is NO MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS. Ouch. Should I convert the 401K of my old company to Traditional IRA and start investing in that instead of investing in the new employer 401K plan with high fees. You should probably consider rolling over the old company 401k to a traditional IRA. However, it is unrelated to the current employer's 401k. If you're contributing up to the max to the Roth IRA, you can't add any additional contributions to traditional IRA on top of that - the $5000 limit is for both, and the AGI limitations for Roth are higher, so you're likely not able to contribute anything at all to the traditional IRA. You can contribute to the employer's 401k. You have to consider if the rather high expenses are worth the tax deferral for you.\",\n \"\\\"The question you should be asking yourself is this: \\\"\\\"Why am I putting money into a 401(k)?\\\"\\\" For many people, the answer is to grow a (large) nest egg and save for future retirement expenses. Investors are balancing risk and potential reward, so the asset categories you're putting your 401(k) contribution towards will be a reflection on how much risk you're willing to take. Per a US News & World Report article: Ultimately, investors would do well to remember one of the key tenants of investing: diversify. The narrower you are with your investments, the greater your risk, says Vanguard's Bruno: \\\"\\\"[Diversification] doesn't ensure against a loss, but it does help lessen a significant loss.\\\"\\\" Generally, investing in your employer's stock in your 401(k) is considered very risk. In fact, one Forbes columnist recommends not putting any money into company stock. FINRA notes: Simply stated, if you put too many eggs in one basket, you can expose yourself to significant risk. In financial terms, you are under-diversified: you have too much of your holdings tied to a single investment—your company's stock. Investing heavily in company stock may seem like a good thing when your company and its stock are doing well. But many companies experience fluctuations in both operational performance and stock price. Not only do you expose yourself to the risk that the stock market as a whole could flounder, but you take on a lot of company risk, the risk that an individual firm—your company—will falter or fail. In simpler terms, if you invest a large portion of your 401(k) funds into company stock, if your company runs into trouble, you could lose both your job AND your retirement investments. For the other investment assets/vehicles, you should review a few things: Personally, I prefer to keep my portfolio simple and just pick just a few options based on my own risk tolerance. From your fund examples, without knowing specifics about your financial situation and risk tolerance, I would have created a portfolio that looks like this when I was in my 20's: I avoided the bond and income/money market funds because the growth potential is too low for my investing horizon. Like some of the other answers have noted, the Target Date funds invest in other funds and add some additional fee overhead, which I'm trying to avoid by investing primarily in index funds. Again, your risk tolerance and personal preference might result in a completely different portfolio mix.\\\"\",\n \"I agree with others here that suggest that you should be taking higher risk since it is repaid with higher returns. You have 40 years or so to go before you might switch to safer but lower return funds. I suggest that you look at the Morningstar rating for the funds you are considering: http://www.morningstar.com/ A fund rated five stars means that the fund performs in the top 20% compared to all similar funds. I prefer five star funds. Next, check the management fees. Here is an example from one of the funds you mentioned; https://www.google.com/finance?cid=466533039917726 Next, I suggest you compare how each fund has performed compared to a benchmark. Here are some common indices: Compare an equity fund to, for example, the S&P 500. Has your fund beat or closely matched the S&P for 1, 5 and 10 years? If not, you may as well buy an index fund, such as SPY.\",\n \"There are times when investing in an ETF is more convenient than a mutual fund. When you invest in a mutual fund, you often have an account directly with the mutual fund company, or you have an account with a mutual fund broker. Mutual funds often have either a front end or back end load, which essentially gives you a penalty for jumping in and out of funds. ETFs are traded exactly like stocks, so there is inherently no load when buying or selling. If you have a brokerage account and you want to move funds from a stock to a mutual fund, an ETF might be more convenient. With some accounts, an ETF allows you to invest in a fund that you would not be able to invest in otherwise. For example, you might have a 401k account through your employer. You might want to invest in a Vanguard mutual fund, but Vanguard funds are not available with your 401k. If you have access to a brokerage account inside your 401k, you can invest in the Vanguard fund through the associated ETF. Another reason that you might choose an ETF over a mutual fund is if you want to try to short the fund.\",\n \"My super fund and I would say many other funds give you one free switch of strategies per year. Some suggest you should change from high growth option to a more balance option once you are say about 10 to 15 years from retirement, and then change to a more capital guaranteed option a few years from retirement. This is a more passive approach and has benefits as well as disadvantages. The benefit is that there is not much work involved, you just change your investment option based on your life stage, 2 to 3 times during your lifetime. This allows you to take more risk when you are young to aim for higher returns, take a balanced approach with moderate risk and returns during the middle part of your working life, and take less risk with lower returns (above inflation) during the latter part of your working life. A possible disadvantage of this strategy is you may be in the higher risk/ higher growth option during a market correction and then change to a more balanced option just when the market starts to pick up again. So your funds will be hit with large losses whilst the market is in retreat and just when things look to be getting better you change to a more balanced portfolio and miss out on the big gains. A second more active approach would be to track the market and change investment option as the market changes. One approach which shouldn't take much time is to track the index such as the ASX200 (if you investment option is mainly invested in the Australian stock market) with a 200 day Simple Moving Average (SMA). The concept is that if the index crosses above the 200 day SMA the market is bullish and if it crosses below it is bearish. See the chart below: This strategy will work well when the market is trending up or down but not very well when the market is going sideways, as you will be changing from aggressive to balanced and back too often. Possibly a more appropriate option would be a combination of the two. Use the first passive approach to change investment option from aggressive to balanced to capital guaranteed with your life stages, however use the second active approach to time the change. For example, if you were say in your late 40s now and were looking to change from aggressive to balanced in the near future, you could wait until the ASX200 crosses below the 200 day SMA before making the change. This way you could capture the majority of the uptrend (which could go on for years) before changing from the high growth/aggressive option to the balanced option. If you where after more control over your superannuation assets another option open to you is to start a SMSF, however I would recommend having at least $300K to $400K in assets before starting a SMSF, or else the annual costs would be too high as a percentage of your total super assets.\",\n \"If you are working for a small company, the expense ratios on the funds in the 401k account are likely much higher than you can get with a similar IRA. Depending on your income, whether you are married and want to contribute to a spouse's IRA, your limit on what can be contributed to an IRA may vary, but the compelling reason to contribute to a 401k is that the contribution limit is higher ($17,500 vs $5,500 for people on the lower end of the income scale) so you may need to contribute to a 401k to meet your retirement savings goals.\",\n \"Even experts have no real certainty what the market will do as a whole. 2/3's of managers fail to beat the market every year. I think this is mostly due to hedging and trying to meet their investors needs. If. You buy and hold a few index ETFs you will most likely beat actively managed accountsn that said, you will sacrifice liquidity if you want to avoid cyclical losses.\",\n \"\\\"See if they offer a \\\"\\\"Target Date\\\"\\\" plan that automatically adjusts throughout your career to balance gains against preserving what you've already built up. You can adjust for more or less aggressive by selecting a plan with a later or sooner target date, respectively. (But check the administrative fees; higher fees can eat up a surprisingly large part of your growth since they're essentially subtracted from rate of return and thus get compounded.) If they don't have that option, or charge too much for it, then yes, you may want to adjust which plan your money is in over time; you can usually \\\"\\\"exchange\\\"\\\" between these plans at no cost and with no tax penalty. NOTE: The tax-advantaged 401(k) investments should be considered in the context of all your investments. This is one of the things an independent financial planner can help you with. As with other investment decisions, the best answer for you depends on your risk tolerance and your time horizon.\\\"\",\n \"I have managed two IRA accounts; one I inherited from my wife's 401K and my own's 457B. I managed actively my wife's 401 at Tradestation which doesn't restrict on Options except level 5 as naked puts and calls. I moved half of my 457B funds to TDAmeritrade, the only broker authorized by my employer, to open a Self Directed account. However, my 457 plan disallows me from using a Cash-secured Puts, only Covered Calls. For those who does not know investing, I resent the contention that participants to these IRAs should not be messing around with their IRA funds. For years, I left my 401k/457B funds with my current fund custodian, Great West Financial. I checked it's current values once or twice a year. These last years, the market dived in the last 2 quarters of 2015 and another dive early January and February of 2016. I lost a total of $40K leaving my portfolio with my current custodian choosing all 30 products they offer, 90% of them are ETFs and the rest are bonds. If you don't know investing, better leave it with the pros - right? But no one can predict the future of the market. Even the pros are at the mercy of the market. So, I you know how to invest and choose your stocks, I don't think your plan administrator has to limit you on how you manage your funds. For example, if you are not allowed to place a Cash-Secured Puts and you just Buy the stocks or EFT at market or even limit order, you buy the securities at their market value. If you sell a Cash-secured puts against the stocks/ETF you are interested in buying, you will receive a credit in fraction of a dollar in a specific time frame. In average, your cost to owning a stock/ETF is lesser if you buy it at market or even a limit order. Most of the participants of the IRA funds rely too much on their portfolio manager because they don't know how to manage. If you try to educate yourself at a minimum, you will have a good understanding of how your IRA funds are tied up to the market. If you know how to trade in bear market compared to bull market, then you are good at managing your investments. When I started contributing to my employer's deferred comp account (457B) as a public employee, I have no idea of how my portfolio works. Year after year as I looked at my investment, I was happy because it continued to grow. Without scrutinizing how much it grew yearly, and my regular payroll contribution, I am happy even it only grew 2% per year. And at this age that I am ready to retire at 60, I started taking investment classes and attended pre-retirement seminars. Then I knew that it was not totally a good decision to leave your retirement funds in the hands of the portfolio manager since they don't really care if it tanked out on some years as long at overall it grew to a meager 1%-4% because they managers are pretty conservative on picking the equities they invest. You can generalize that maybe 90% of IRA investors don't know about investing and have poor decision making actions which securities/ETF to buy and hold. For those who would like to remain as one, that is fine. But for those who spent time and money to study and know how to invest, I don't think the plan manager can limit the participants ability to manage their own portfolio especially if the funds have no matching from the employer like mine. All I can say to all who have IRA or any retirement accounts, educate yourself early because if you leave it all to your portfolio managers, you lost a lot. Don't believe much in what those commercial fund managers also show in their presentation just to move your funds for them to manage. Be proactive. If you start learning how to invest now when you are young, JUST DO IT!\",\n \"\\\"Ah I got ya. I partially agree with you, but it's far more complex. I think that is simplifying the debate a bit too much. When people go \\\"\\\"passive\\\"\\\" you are making the assumption that they are able to stay fully invested the full time period (say 30-40 years until retirement when you might change the asset allocation). This is not a fair assumption because many studies on behavioral finance have shown that people (90% plus) are not able to sit tight through a full market cycle and often sell out during a bear market. I'm not debating you're point that passive often outperforms due to the fees (although there are many managers that do outperform), but the main issue with self-managing and passive investing is people usually make emotional decisions, which then hurts their long-term performance. This would be the reason to hire an adviser. Assuming that people are able to stay passive the entire time and not make a single \\\"\\\"active\\\"\\\" decision is a very unfair assumption. There was a good study on this referenced in Forbes article below: https://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2014/04/24/why-the-average-investors-investment-return-is-so-low/#5169be2b111a Another issue is that there are a lot \\\"\\\"active managers\\\"\\\" that really just replicate their benchmarks and don't actually actively manage. If you look at active managers who really do have huge under-weights and over-weights relative to their benchmarks they actually tend to outperform them (look at the study below by martin cremers, he's one of the most highly respected researchers when it comes to investment performance research and the active vs passive debate) http://www.cfapubs.org/doi/pdf/10.2469/faj.v73.n2.4 I guess what I'm trying to say is that for most people having an adviser (and paying them a 1% fee) is usually better than going it alone, where they are going to A. chase heat (I bet they always choose the hottest benchmark from the past few years) and B. make poor emotional decisions relating their finances.\\\"\",\n \"Mostly you nailed it. It's a good question, and the points you raise are excellent and comprise good analysis. Probably the biggest drawback is if you don't agree with the asset allocation strategy. It may be too much/too little into stocks/bonds/international/cash. I am kind of in this boat. My 401K offers very little choices in funds, but offers Vanguard target funds. These tend to be a bit too conservative for my taste, so I actually put money in the 2060 target fund. If I live that long, I will be 94 in 2060. So if the target funds are a bit too aggressive for you, move down in years. If they are a bit too conservative, move up.\",\n \"In summary, you are correct that the goal of investing is to maximize returns, while paying low management fees. Index investing has become very popular because of the low fees. There are many actively traded mutual funds out there with very high management fees of 2.5% and up that do not beat the market. This begs the question of why you are paying high management fees and not just investing in index funds. Consider maxing out your tax sheltered accounts (401(k) and ROTH IRA) to avoid even more fees on your returns. Also consider having a growth component of your portfolio which is generally filled with equity, along with a secure component for assets such as bonds. Bonds may not have the exciting returns of equity, but they help to smooth out the volatility of your portfolio, which may help to keep peace of mind when the market dips.\",\n \"There's a sizable community of people and fiscal advisers who advocate not managing the money at all. Set your passive investor friend with automatic bank draft into a simple three/four fund portfolio of low cost index funds and never never ever trade. See https://www.bogleheads.org/RecommendedReading.php You might be able to beat the stock market for a few years, but probably not over the long term. Most mutual fund professionals don't. Playing with your own money is one thing: playing with other people's money is a whole other ball game.\",\n \"2%? I would put in just what it takes to share in the profit sharing, not a dime more. My S&P fund cost is .02% (edited, as it dropped to .02 since original post), 1/100 of the cost of most funds you list. Doesn't take too many years of this fee to negate the potential tax savings, and not many more to make this a real loser.\",\n \"The other answers assumed student loan debt -- and for that, it's rarely worth it (unless your company only offers managed plans w/ really bad returns, or the economy recovers to the point where banks are paying 5% again on money market accounts) ... but if it's high rate debt, such as carrying a credit card debt, and the current rate of returns on the 401k aren't that great at the time, it would be worth doing the calculations to see if it's better to pay them down instead. If you're carrying extremely high interest debt (such as 'payday loans' or similar), it's almost always going to be worth paying down that debt as quickly as possible, even if it means forgoing matching 401k payments. The other possible reason for not taking the matching funds are if the required contributions would put you in a significant bind -- if you're barely scraping by, and you can't squeeze enough savings out of your budget that you'd risk default on a loan (eg, car or house) or might take penalties for late fees on your utilities, it might be preferable to save up for a bit before starting the contributions -- especially if you've maxed your available credit so you can't just push stuff to credit cards as a last resort.\",\n \"The first two answers to this are very good, but I feel like there are a couple of points they left out that were a little too long for comments. First off take a look at the expense percentage,the load fees, and the average turnover ratio for the funds in your retirement account (assuming they are mutual funds). Having low expense fees <1% preferably and turnover ratios will help tremendously because those eat into returns whether the value of the fund goes up or down. The load fees (either incoming or outgoing) will lower the amount of money you actually put in and get out of the fund. There are thousands of no-load funds and most that have a backend load for taking the money out have clauses that lower that percentage to zero over several years. It is mostly there to keep people from trying to swing trade with mutual funds and pull their money out too quickly. The last thing I would suggest is to look at diversifying the holdings in your account. Bond funds have been up this year even though the stock market has done poorly. And they provide interest income that can increase the amount of shares you own even when the value of the bonds might have gone down.\",\n \"\\\"If you want a Do-It-Yourself solution, look to a Vanguard account with their total market index funds. There's a lot of research that's been done recently in the financial independence community. Basically, there's not many money managers who can outperform the market index (either S&P 500 or a total market index). Actually, no mutual funds have been identified that outperform the market, after fees, consistently. So there's not much sense in paying someone to earn you less than a low fee index fund could do. And some of the numbers show that you can actually lose value on your 401k due to high fees. That's where Vanguard comes in. They offer some of the lowest fees (if not the lowest) and a selection of index funds that will let you balance your portfolio the way you want. Whether you want to go 100% total stock market index fund or a balance between total stock market index fund and total bond index fund, or a \\\"\\\"lazy 3 fund portfolio\\\"\\\", Vanguard gives you the tools to do it yourself. Rebalancing would require about an hour every quarter. (Or time span you declare yourself). jlcollinsnh A Simple Path to Wealth is my favorite blog about financial independence. Also, Warren Buffet recommended that the trustees for his wife's inheritance when he passes invest her trust in one investment. Vanguard's S&P500 index fund. The same fund he chose in a 10 year $1M bet vs. hedge fund managers. (proceeds go to charity). That was about 9 years ago. So far, Buffet's S&P500 is beating the hedge funds. Investopedia Article\\\"\",\n \"You should be saving as much money as you can afford in your 401k up to the maximum allowed. If you don't contribute at least 6%, then you are essentially throwing away the match money that your employer is offering. Start out with the target date fund. You can always change your investment option later once you learn more about investing, but get started saving right away and get that match!\",\n \"It's probably advantageous to stop depositing into a 401(k) when one is no longer receiving payroll deductions into them. Other than that, why would you want to give up the benefits? Remember, 401(k) is just the kind of account. Most offer a variety of investment options within them, and let you move money between those, so you can rebalance to suit your currently preferred risk/return tradeoffs without having to break them open. You might sometimes want to reduce your contribution for a while, if you have immediate cashflow needs elsewhere... but try to avoid doing that. Compound returns are a good thing, and the earlier the money goes in the more you get back from it.\",\n \"While it is certainly easy to manage single fund, I am not sure it's the right strategy. It's been proven again and again that portfolio diversification is key to long term gains in wealth. I think your best option is to invest in low cost index funds and ETFs. While rebalancing your portfolio is hard, it is vastly simpler if your portfolio only has ETFs.\",\n \"There's no one answer. You need to weigh the fees and quality of investment options on the one side against the slowly vesting employer contribution and tax benefits of 401k contributions in excess of IRA limits.\",\n \"The managers of the 401(k) have to make their money somewhere. Either they'll make it from the employer, or from the employees via the expense ratio. If it's the employer setting up the plan, I can bet whose interest he'll be looking after. Regarding your last comment, I'd recommend looking outside your 401(k) for investing. If you get free money from your employer for contributing to your 401(k), that's a plus, but I wouldn't -- actually, I don't -- contribute anything beyond the match. I pay my taxes and I'm done with it.\",\n \"The very term 'market conditions' is subjective and needs context. There are 'market conditions' that favor buying (such as post crash) or market conditions that favor selling (such as the peak of a bubble). Problem with mutual funds is you can't really pick these points yourself; because you're effectively outsourcing that to a firm. If you're tight on time and are looking for weekly update on the economy a good solution is to identify a reputable economist (with a solid track record) and simply follow their commentary via blog or newsletter.\",\n \"\\\"Here is my simplified take: In any given market portfolio the market index will return the average return on investment for the given market. An actively managed product may outperform the market (great!), achieve average market performance (ok - but then it is more expensive than the index product) or be worse than the market (bad). Now if we divide all market returns into two buckets: returns from active investment and returns from passive investments then these two buckets must be the same as index return are by definition the average returns. Which means that all active investments must return the average market return. This means for individual active investments there are worse than market returns and better then market returns - depending on your product. And since we can't anticipate the future and nobody would willingly take the \\\"\\\"worse than market\\\"\\\" investment product, the index fund comes always up on top - IF - you would like to avoid the \\\"\\\"gamble\\\"\\\" of underperforming the market. With all these basics out of the way: if you can replicate the index by simply buying your own stocks at low/no costs I don't see any reason for going with the index product beyond the convenience.\\\"\",\n \"If there is no match and you are disciplined enough to contribute without it coming directly out of your paycheck, dump the 401K. The reason: Most 401K plans have huge hidden fees built into the investment prices. You won't see them directly, but 3% is not uncommon. 3% is a horrible drag on your investment performance. Get an IRA or Roth IRA and pick something with low fees. Bonus: You will have a lot more investment choices!\",\n \"You don't say what kinds of mutual funds, or what bonds. You don't say how old you are. You seem to have enough cushion to strike out on your own comfortably. This is good. Compared with Vanguard's management fees, the fees you're paying are pretty high. The bottom line of what to invest in rests with you. If you outsource it, it's still your money. The managers get paid whether you make money or not. You have lots of other options: real estate from a distressed seller, commodities, currencies, websites, or other things where you have a knowledge advantage. For the time being, though, if you're concerned about your main income stream, I wouldn't get terribly risky with your money. Cash is just peachy in that case.\",\n \"I believe that kind of micro-tuning for every participant would make the operating costs of the fund intolerable. A better approach, if this is important to you, would be to find a fund or funds designed for people who share your criteria. If the goals and criteria aren't mutual, a mutual fund -- traditional or ETF -- is probably not the right tool.\",\n \"rollover funds only mean the funds one was foolish enough to first roll into this 401(k). With no matching, and need for cash, I'd stop depositing to that account. But, from details you gave, you can't withdraw that money.\",\n \"Even ignoring the match (which makes it like a non-deductible IRA), the 401k plans that I know all have a range of choices of investment. Can you find one that is part of the portfolio that you want? For example, do you want to own some S&P500 index fund? That must be an option. If so, do the 401k and make your other investments react to it-reduce the proportion of S&P500 because of it(remember that the values in the 401k are pretax, so only count 60%-70% in asset allocation). The tax deferral is huge over time. For starters, you get to invest the 30-40% you would have paid as taxes now. Yes, you will pay that in taxes on withdrawal, but any return you generate is (60%-70%) yours to keep. The same happens for your returns.\",\n \"For what it's worth -- and I realize this isn't directly an answer to the question -- one of the advantages of sticking with mutual funds, beyond their being inherently diversified, is that it removes a lot of the temptation to try to time the market. When you need money, you sell shares in such a way that it maintains your preferred investment ratio, and simply don't worry about which stocks are actually involved. (I've gotten 15% APR this year across all my investments, for absolutely minimal effort. That's quite good enough for me.)\",\n \"I'll respect the mod's suggestion. I'd answer with a warning. The concept of 401(k) pretax saving is to save at a high rate, while working, and withdraw at a lower rate. An annual expense pushing 1% or higher is likely to negate the benefit of the account over time. If your employer offers the Roth 401(k), I'd suggest using that for your deposits, and only up to the match. Then invest outside the 401(k). In the 25% bracket, it's good to have a mix of both pre and post tax retirement money.\",\n \"I really like keshlam's answer. Your age is also a consideration. If you make your own target fund by matching the allocations of whatever Vanguard offers, I'd suggest re-balancing every year or every other year. But if you're just going to match the allocations of their target fund, you might as well just invest in the target fund itself. Most (not all, just most) target funds do not charge an additional management fee. So you just pay the fees of the underlying funds, same as if you mirrored the target fund yourself. (Check the prospectus to see if an additional fee is charged or not.) You may want to consider a more aggressive approach than the target funds. You can accomplish this by selecting a target fund later than your actual retirement age, or by picking your own allocations. The target funds become more conservative as you approach retirement age, so selecting a later target is a way of moving the risk/reward ratio. (I'm not saying target funds are necessarily the best choice, you should get professional advice, etc etc.)\",\n \"the whole room basically jumped on me I really have an issue with this. Someone providing advice should offer data, and guidance. Not bully you or attack you. You offer 3 choices. And I see intelligent answers advising you against #1. But I don't believe these are the only choices. My 401(k) has an S&P fund, a short term bond fund, and about 8 other choices including foreign, small cap, etc. I may be mistaken, but I thought regulations forced more choices. From the 2 choices, S&P and short term bond, I can create a stock bond mix to my liking. With respect to the 2 answers here, I agree, 100% might not be wise, but 50% stock may be too little. Moving to such a conservative mix too young, and you'll see lower returns. I like your plan to shift more conservative as you approach retirement. Edit - in response to the disclosure of the fees - 1.18% for Aggressive, .96% for Moderate I wrote an article 5 years back, Are you 401(k)o'ed in which I discuss the level of fees that result in my suggestion to not deposit above the match. Clearly, any fee above .90% would quickly erode the average tax benefit one might expect. I also recommend you watch a PBS Frontline episode titled The Retirement Gamble It makes the point as well as I can, if not better. The benefit of a 401(k) aside from the match (which you should never pass up) is the ability to take advantage of the difference in your marginal tax rate at retirement vs when earned. For the typical taxpayer, this means working and taking those deposits at the 25% bracket, and in retirement, withdrawing at 15%. When you invest in a fund with a fee above 1%, you can see it will wipe out the difference over time. An investor can pay .05% for the VOO ETF, paying as much over an investing lifetime, say 50 years, as you will pay in just over 2 years. They jumped on you? People pushing funds with these fees should be in jail, not offering financial advice.\",\n \"I would say that the three most important skills are: Note that some costs are hidden. So, for example, a mutual fund investing in other countries than where you live in may mean the investment target country charges a certain percentage of dividends going to the mutual fund. The mutual fund company doesn't usually want to tell you this. There may be clever financial instruments (derivatives) that can be used to avoid this, but they are not without their problems. If you diversify into equities at low cost, you will have a very wealthy future. I would recommend you to compare two options: ...and pick from these options the cheaper one. If your time has a high value, and you wish to take this value into account, I would say it is almost always far better option to choose an index fund. Whatever you do, don't pay for active management! It is a mathematical truth that before costs, actively managed investments will yield the same return than indexed investments. However, the costs are higher in active management, so you will have less total return. Don't believe that good historical return would imply good future return. However, if for some reason you see an index fund that continuously loses to the index more than by the amount of stated costs, beware!\",\n \"I use the self-directed option for the 457b plan at my job, which basically allows me to invest in any mutual fund or ETF. We get Schwab as a broker, so the commissions are reasonable. Personally, I think it's great, because some of the funds offered by the core plan are limited. Generally, the trustees of your plan are going to limit your investment options, as participants generally make poor investment choices (even within the limited options available in a 401k) and may sue the employer after losing their savings. If I was a decision-maker in this area, there is no way I would ever sign off to allowing employees to mess around with options.\",\n \"In your case I think you are doing just fine. Index funds, by their nature, have lower transaction costs and fewer taxable events than actively managed funds, good work. Index funds do not preclude the generation of dividends, and by their nature they probably generate slightly more than actively managed funds. You could take capital gain or dividend or both distributions, rather than reinvest them, if paying the taxes are a hardship. Otherwise look at the taxes you pay as your contributions to these funds. It stinks, but this is why 401K/IRA were rather revolutionary when they were formed. It was a really good deal to not have people's capital gains eaten by taxes when they occurred. Now its old hat, but it was pretty darn cool at the time. Should you prefer VTMSX rather than VFIAX? We can't really make the call on that one. Which one will perform better after taxes? Its anyone's guess. It is kind of a good problem to have.\",\n \"You have to read the fine print of the pension wrapper (Standard Life), and of the new fund you want to invest into to find out. Typically here is were the fee feast could happen So you can manage actively your pension pot. But if you choose to do so you need to be mindful of the fees you have to pay. You should better find a pension wrapper with low fees and find funds with low fees If you change all your funds 4 times a year and you get a 1% charge each time, then you pay 4% of your assets. If your investments return for that year is 8%, then you wiped 50% of your return for that year! Good luck with the reading\",\n \"If you can afford it, there are very few reasons not to save for retirement. The biggest reason I can think of is that, simply, you are saving in general. The tax advantages of 401k and IRA accounts help increase your wealth, but the most important thing is to start saving at an early age in your career (as you are doing) and making sure to continue contributing throughout your life. Compound interest serves you well. If you are really concerned that saving for retirement in your situation would equate to putting money away for no good reason, you can do a couple of things: Save in a Roth IRA account which does not require minimum distributions when you get past a certain age. Additionally, your contributions only (that is, not your interest earnings) to a Roth can be withdrawn tax and penalty free at any time while you are under the age of 59.5. And once you are older than that you can take distributions as however you need. Save by investing in a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds. You won't get the tax advantages of a retirement account, but you will still benefit from the time value of money. The bonus here is that you can withdraw your money whenever you want without penalty. Both IRA accounts and mutual fund/brokerage accounts will give you a choice of many securities that you can invest in. In comparison, 401k plans (below) often have limited choices for you. Most people choose to use their company's 401k plan for retirement savings. In general you do not want to be in a position where you have to borrow from your 401k. As such it's not a great option for savings that you think you'd need before you retire. Additionally 401k plans have minimum distributions, so you will have to periodically take some money from the account when you are in retirement. The biggest advantage of 401k plans is that often employers will match contributions to a certain extent, which is basically free money for you. In the end, these are just some suggestions. Probably best to consult with a financial planner to hammer out all the details.\",\n \"As to the rollover question. Only rollover to a ROTH if you have other funds you can use to pay the taxes you will be hit with if you do that. DO NOT pay the taxes out of the funds in the 401k. If you don't have a way to pay the taxes, then roll it to a traditional IRA. You never want to pay the government any taxes 'early' and you don't want to reduce the balance. beyond that, A lot depends on how long you figure you will be with that company. If it's only a few years, or if you and other employees can make enough of a fuss that they move the fund to someplace decent (any of the big no-load companies such as Vanguard would be a better custodian), then I'd go ahead and max it out. If you figure to be there for a long while, and it looks like someone is in bed with the custodian and there's no way it will be changed, then maybe look to max out a Roth IRA instead.\",\n \"Most 401k plans (maybe even all 401k plans as a matter of law) allow the option of moving the money in your 401k account from one mutual fund to another (within the group of funds that are in the plan). So, you can exit from one fund and put all your 401k money (not just the new contributions) into another fund in the group if you like. Whether you can find a fund within that group that invests only in the companies that you approve of is another matter. As mhoran_psprep's answer points out, changing investments inside a 401k (ditto IRAs, 403b and 457 plans) is without tax consequence which is not the case when you sell one mutual fund and buy another in a non-retirement account.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"For US stocks it's a bit of a gamble. Many actively managed funds underperform the market indexes, but some of them outperform in many years. With an index you will get average results. With an active manager you \"\"might\"\" do better than average. So you can view active management as a higher risk, potentially higher reward investment approach. On the other hand, if you want to diversify some of your investments into international stocks, bonds, junk bonds, and real estate (REITs) active management is highly likely to be better than indexing. For these specialized areas specialized knowledge and research is needed.\"","By definition, actively managed funds will underperform passive index funds as a whole. Or more specifically: The aggregate performance of all actively managed portfolio of publicly-tradable assets will have equal performance to those of passively managed portfolios. Which taken with premise two: Actively managed funds will charge higher fees than passively managed funds Results in: In general, lower-fee investment vehicles (e.g. passive index investments) with broad enough diversification to the desired risk exposure will outperform higher-fee options But don't take my wonkish approach, from a more practical perspective consider:"],"string":"[\n \"\\\"For US stocks it's a bit of a gamble. Many actively managed funds underperform the market indexes, but some of them outperform in many years. With an index you will get average results. With an active manager you \\\"\\\"might\\\"\\\" do better than average. So you can view active management as a higher risk, potentially higher reward investment approach. On the other hand, if you want to diversify some of your investments into international stocks, bonds, junk bonds, and real estate (REITs) active management is highly likely to be better than indexing. For these specialized areas specialized knowledge and research is needed.\\\"\",\n \"By definition, actively managed funds will underperform passive index funds as a whole. Or more specifically: The aggregate performance of all actively managed portfolio of publicly-tradable assets will have equal performance to those of passively managed portfolios. Which taken with premise two: Actively managed funds will charge higher fees than passively managed funds Results in: In general, lower-fee investment vehicles (e.g. passive index investments) with broad enough diversification to the desired risk exposure will outperform higher-fee options But don't take my wonkish approach, from a more practical perspective consider:\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":182,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"1150"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"How are the best way to make and save money at 22 years old"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["531698","43603","353369","19936"],"string":"[\n \"531698\",\n \"43603\",\n \"353369\",\n \"19936\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["353369","70558","206785","43603","531698","121161","154714","457466","147745","38269","422946","392371","70730","85977","529444","423745","10476","47184","144304","430014","335248","471173","112499","478242","102331","339553","367415","415432","405985","326948","498640","45353","13602","477552","235098","480402","515440","228855","99987","417787","66864","321619","35680","208202","319760","493264","516782","54147","213435","468010","463043","474896","179640","494815","332938","118909","198328","423035","532787","544175","553288","416743","502051","586632","359510","80844","364666","482095","479697","396127","218731","426906","202208","438456","213714","315666","20304","322900","365167","241952","595287","58065","538023","85837","472328","450558","12133","200273","543275","395471","102379","213066","164559","55841","345403","317027","233100","514350","571218","386211"],"string":"[\n \"353369\",\n \"70558\",\n \"206785\",\n \"43603\",\n \"531698\",\n \"121161\",\n \"154714\",\n \"457466\",\n \"147745\",\n \"38269\",\n \"422946\",\n \"392371\",\n \"70730\",\n \"85977\",\n \"529444\",\n \"423745\",\n \"10476\",\n \"47184\",\n \"144304\",\n \"430014\",\n \"335248\",\n \"471173\",\n \"112499\",\n \"478242\",\n \"102331\",\n \"339553\",\n \"367415\",\n \"415432\",\n \"405985\",\n \"326948\",\n \"498640\",\n \"45353\",\n \"13602\",\n \"477552\",\n \"235098\",\n \"480402\",\n \"515440\",\n \"228855\",\n \"99987\",\n \"417787\",\n \"66864\",\n \"321619\",\n \"35680\",\n \"208202\",\n \"319760\",\n \"493264\",\n \"516782\",\n \"54147\",\n \"213435\",\n \"468010\",\n \"463043\",\n \"474896\",\n \"179640\",\n \"494815\",\n \"332938\",\n \"118909\",\n \"198328\",\n \"423035\",\n \"532787\",\n \"544175\",\n \"553288\",\n \"416743\",\n \"502051\",\n \"586632\",\n \"359510\",\n \"80844\",\n \"364666\",\n \"482095\",\n \"479697\",\n \"396127\",\n \"218731\",\n \"426906\",\n \"202208\",\n \"438456\",\n \"213714\",\n \"315666\",\n \"20304\",\n \"322900\",\n \"365167\",\n \"241952\",\n \"595287\",\n \"58065\",\n \"538023\",\n \"85837\",\n \"472328\",\n \"450558\",\n \"12133\",\n \"200273\",\n \"543275\",\n \"395471\",\n \"102379\",\n \"213066\",\n \"164559\",\n \"55841\",\n \"345403\",\n \"317027\",\n \"233100\",\n \"514350\",\n \"571218\",\n \"386211\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Determine how much you are going to save first. Then determine where you can spend your money. If you're living with your parents, try to build an emergency fund of six months income. The simplest way is to put half of your income in the emergency fund for a year. Try to save at least 10% of your income for retirement. The earlier you start this, the longer you'll have to let the magic of compounding work on it. If your employer offers a 401k with a match, do that first. If not, consider an IRA. You probably want to do a Roth now (because you probably pay little in taxes so the deduction from a standard IRA won't help you). After the year, you'll have an emergency fund. Work out how much money you'll need for rent, utilities, and groceries when you're on your own. Invest that in some way. Pay off student loans if you have any. Buy a car that you can keep a long time if you need one. Go to night school. Put any excess money in a savings account or mutual fund. This is money for doing things related to housing. Perhaps you'll need to buy a washer/dryer. Or pay a down payment on a mortgage eventually. Saving this money now does two things: first, it gives you savings for when you need it; second, it keeps you from getting used to spending your entire paycheck. If you are used to only having $200 of spending cash out of each check, you will fit your spending into that. If you are used to spending $800 every two weeks, it will be hard to cut your spending to make room for rent, etc.","This is all very basic and general advice, that works for most, but not all. You are unique with your own special needs and desires. Good luck! P.S.: not exactly related to your question, but when you get more familiar with investing and utilizing your money, find more ways to save more. For example, change phone plan, cut the cable, home made food in bulk, etc.","Buy a ticket to a special country/conference/symposium/exchange program, meet people related to your aspirations, get a mentor. I like the previous answer, but in my experience it is much more rewarding to grow career-wise to earn more than it is to save more money.","Get an education. A bachelor's degree preferably, but AA or even a certificate are fine too. It will increase your earning potential significantly and over your lifetime it will earn you a lot of money. You make around $30,000 a year now, median salary for someone with a bachelors in the humanities is around $45,000. If you degree is in the STEM field, that goes up to $55,000 - $65,000 range. Second best option is to start a small business of some kind that does not require substantial investment. Handyman comes to mind as an example or some sort of billing service maybe? I would not recommend self directed investment in the stock market - most people lose money and since you don't have a lot of money to invest, commissions and fees will eat up a significant portion of it. I would usually recommend a CD but interest rates it's not really worth it.","Fantastic question to be asking at the age of 22! A very wise man suggested to me the following with regard to your net income I've purposely not included saving a sum of money for a house deposit, as this is very much cultural and lots of EU countries have a low rate of home ownership. On the education versus entrepreneur question. I don't think these are mutually exclusive. I am a big advocate of education (I have a B.Eng) but have following working in the real world for a number of years have started an IT business in data analytics. My business partner and I saw a gap in the market and have exploited it. I continue to educate myself now in short courses on running business, data analytics and investment. My business partner did things the otherway around, starting the company first, then getting an M.Sc. Other posters have suggested that investing your money personally is a bad idea. I think it is a very good idea to take control of your own destiny and choose how you will invest your money. I would say similarly that giving your money to someone else who will sometimes lose you money and will charge you for the privilege is a bad idea. Also putting your money in a box under your bed or in the bank and receive interest that is less than inflation are bad ideas. You need to choose where to invest your money otherwise you will gain no advantage from the savings and inflation will erode your buying power. I would suggest that you educate yourself in the investment options that are available to you and those that suit you personality and life circumstances. Here are some notes on learning about stock market trading/investing if you choose to take that direction along with some books for self learning.","Borrow money and start a business. Follow your business plan and invest in yourself and your entrepreneurship. If you mean invest in the market, do not borrow money. In your plan, you are willing to make payments right? There are lots of things you can do better, but borrowing money to invest in the market for a couple of years is not one of them. Investing is boring, saving is boring, and planning your financial future is boring. It takes a consistent effort and you aren't going to get rich quick.","The first thing you need to do is to set yourself a budget. Total all your money coming in (from jobs, allowances, etc.) and all your money going out (including rent, utilities, loan repayments, food, other essential and the luxuries). If your money coming in is more than your money going out, then you are onto a positive start. If on the other hand your money going out is more than the money coming in, then you are at the beginning of big trouble. You will have to do at least one of 2 things, either increase your income or reduce your expenses or both. You will have to go through all your expenses (money going out) and cut back on the luxuries, try to get cheaper alternatives for some of your essential, and get a second job or increase your hours at your current job. The aim is to always have more money coming in than the money you spend. The second thing to do is to pay off any outstanding debts by paying more than the minimum amounts and then have some savings goals. You said you wanted to save for a car - that is one saving goal. Another saving goal could be to set up a 6 month emergency fund (enough money in a separate account to be able to survive at least 6 months in case something happened, such as you lost your job or you suddenly got sick). Next you could look at getting a higher education so you can go out and get higher paying jobs. When you do get a higher paying job, the secret is not to spend all your extra money coming in on luxuries, you should treat yourself but do not go overboard. Increase the amounts you save and learn how to invest so you can get your savings to work harder for you. Building a sound financial future for yourself takes a lot of hard work and discipline, but once you do get started and change the way you do things you will find that it doesn't take long for things to start getting easier. The one thing you do have going for you is time; you are starting early and have time on your side.","The best thing to do right now is track your spending. You know you're saving 1k a month, and you know you're spending 1k a month on rent. That's 24k so far. I presume you'll have some income tax taken out, let's assume it's another 6k to round us neatly up to 30k. Since you earn 80k and you've spent 30k so far, you have another 50k unaccounted for. If you're in the USA I'd recommend using mint.com or a similar service to automatically track your transactions, or even just a spreadsheet if you don't like handing out your bank details (and you shouldn't). After that, I agree with SoulsOpenSource's answer. Write a budget and try to figure out where the fat can be trimmed. When I started tracking I saw I was spending almost a hundred bucks every week on fast food, due to poor planning and laziness. I decided to cook more and plan better and now I'm spending less than half that - in the last year I've saved almost three thousand dollars! If you want to save up for your future (and good on you if you do!) then there'll be some choices to make ahead. If you're spending a few hundred bucks on going out drinking every weekend, or you grab two coffees every day, or you buy fifty blurays a month (do people still buy blurays?), you'll have to ask yourself: Will I be happier spending money here than saving for my future?","First pay yourself. When you get salary, send some parts of that (for example 10%) to your saving account. Step by step you'll save nice money ;)","\"It really depends a lot on you and how much time you are putting into it. Since you're saying you want your money to work for you I'm going to assume you want as little hassle as possible. A few general tips: Save a fixed percentage of your monthly income Don't try to save \"\"whenever you have money left over\"\", you will just end up spending it somehow. Invest long term - don't trade Don't try to beat the market - it will just take up too much time and statistically you will end up making less. Hedge If you invest in the company/industry you work in, you will be double screwed if the sector drops (lose job + savings at the same time). Optimally you should invest in something that will benefit when the company you work for is doing bad. Pay off high interest debt Usually debt will have a higher interest than any safe investment you can make. Spend money to save/make money Sometimes the best investment you can make is on stuff that will save you money in the long run. Like buy an apartment close to work (less transport costs) or get a more expensive car that will save you money on gas, insurance etc.\"","You are young so you have time on your side. This allows you to invest in more aggressive investments. I would do the following 1) Contribute at least what your company is willing to match on your 401k, if your company offers a Roth 401k use that instead of the normal 401k (When this becomes available to you) 2) Open a Roth IRA Contribute the maximum to this account ~$5500/year 3) Live below your means, setup a budget and try and save/invest a minimum of 50% of your salary, do not get used to spending more money. With each bonus or salary increase a minimum of 75% of it should go toward your savings/investment. This will keep you from rapidly increasing your spending budget. 3) Invest in real estate (this could be its own post). Being young and not too far out of college you have probably been moving every year and have not accumulated so much stuff that it makes moving difficult. I would utilize your FHA loan slot to buy a multifamily property (2-4 Units) for your first property using only 3.5% down payment (you can put more down if you like). Learn how to analyze properties first and find a great Realtor/Mentor. Then I would continue as a NOMAD investor. Where you move every year into a new owner occupied property and turn the previous into a rental. This allows you to put 3-5% down payment of properties that you would otherwise have to put 20-25% and since you are young you can afford the risk. You should check out this article/website as it is very informative and can show you the returns that you could earn. Young Professional Nomad Good luck I am in a very similar situation","Does you job offer a retirement plan? (401k, SIMPLE, etc) Does your employer offer a match on contributions? Typically an employer will match what you put in, up to a certain percentage (e.g. 3%). So, say you contribute 3% of your paycheck into your retirement plan. If your employer mathes that, you've effectively contributed 6%. You've just doubled your money! The best thing a young professional can do is to contribute to your employer-matched retirement plan, up to the maximum amount they will match. You should do it immediately. If not, you are leaving money on the table.","With $800/month extra? Do both. (I am ethnocentric enough to assume you live in the same country as me) First, figure out what your emergency fund should look like. Put this money in a high yield checking or savings account. Add to it monthly until you reach your goal. It should be 3 to 6 months of your total monthly expenses. It will be a lot more than $2k I suspect. You will earn bubkis in interest, but the point of the emergency fund is a highly liquid asset for emergencies so you can choose cheaper car insurance and not buy warranties on stuff. With your $800/month, split it up this way: $416/month into a Roth IRA account at Vanguard (or Schwab or Fidelity) in the Star Fund (or similar low cost, diversified fund). The star is $1000 to open, pretty diversified. $416 is a lazy number that comes close to the $5000 annual limit for a Roth IRA in the US. Contribute like clockwork, directly from your paycheck if you can. This will make it easy to do and get you the benefit of dollar cost averaging. $200 or $300 into your savings account until you reach your emergency fund goal. $85 - $100. Live a little. Speculate in stocks with your vanguard account. Or rent fancy cars. Or taken a vacation or go party. If you are saving $800/month in your early 20 be proud of yourself, but have a little fun too so you can let off steam. It isn't much but you know you can play with it. Once you reach your emergency fund, save up for your future house or car or plane tickets to Paris. Ask another question for how to save up for these kinds of goals.","Chances are since college is your next likely step I would recommend saving up for it. Start building an emergency fund. Recommended $1,000 minimum. To start building your credit rating (when 18) get a low interest low limit credit. Pay off the balance every month. Starting to build your credit rating now can save you hundreds of thousands when buying a house over the course of paying it off. ie. cheaper interest rate. As for investing, the sooner you can get started the better. Acquire preferred/stocks/bonds/REITs/ETFs/etc that pay you to own them (they pay you dividends monthly/quarterly/etc). Stick with solid stocks that have a history of consistently increasing their dividends over time and that are solid companies. I personally follow the work/advice of Derek Foster. He's not a professional but he retired at 34. His first book (Stop working - Here's how you can) is great and recommend it to anyone who is looking to get started. Also check out Ramit Sethi's blog I Will Teach You to be Rich. He focuses on big wins which save you a lot over the long term. He's also got some great advice for students as well. Best of luck!","As all said, the age limitation thing is nothing, and saving money not necessarily means to live poor nor Skimpy, spend your needs and try to get what you need instead of what you want, the 24 years old is a good start for saving money, the whole life still in front of you Good luck!","Save enough to build an emergency cushion of 4-6 months total expenses. After that, invest everything you can in areas where you are well researched and have carefully formed your own opinion on the subject. Those who save do not reach financial freedom, those who learn to invest and make their money work for them do. Invest in learning how to invest.","As a 22 year old planning for your financial life, it is obvious to say that saving as much as you can to invest for the long run is the smartest thing to do from a financial point of view. In general, at this point, aged 22, you can take as much risk as you'll ever will. You're investing for the very long term (+30/+40 years). The downside of risk, the level of uncertainty on returns (positive or negative), is most significant on the short term (<5years). While the upside of risk, assuming you can expect higher returns the more risk you take, are most significant on the long term. In short: for you're financial life, it's smart to save as much as you can and invest these savings with a lot of risk. So, what is smart to invest in? The most important rule is to keep your investment costs as low as possible. Risk and returns are strongly related, however investment costs lower the returns, while you keep the risk. Be aware of the investment industry marketing fancy investment products. Most of them leave you with higher costs and lower returns. Research strongly suggests that an lowcost etf portfolio is our best choice. Personally, i disregard this new smart beta hype as a marketing effort from the financial industry. They charge more investment costs (that's a certain) and promise better returns because they are geniuses (hmmm...). No thanks. As suggested in other comments, I would go for an low cost (you shouldn't pay more than 0.2% per year) etf portfolio with a global diversification, with at least 90% in stocks. Actually that is what I've been doing for three years now (I'm 27 years old).","Establish good saving and spending habits. Build up your savings so that when you do buy a car, you can pay cash. Make spending decisions, especially for housing, transportation and entertainment, that allow you to save a substantial portion of your income. The goal is to get yourself to a place where you have enough net worth that the return on your assets is greater than the amount you can earn by working. (BTW, this is basically what I did. I put my two sons through top colleges on my dime and retired six years ago at the age of 56).","Buy a home. A home is the first and best investment, u can own a home with as little as 3% down and as u pay for your living u pay it off.....also banks will always give you equity loans in case you need your money","\"My basic rule I tell everyone who will listen is to always live like you're a college student - if you could make it on $20k a year, when you get your first \"\"real\"\" job at $40k (eg), put all the rest into savings to start (401(k), IRA, etc). Gradually increase your lifestyle expenses after you hit major savings goals (3+ month emergency fund, house down payment, etc). Any time you get a raise, start by socking it all into your employer's 401(k) or similar. And repeat the above advice.\"","Take a certain percentage of your income (say, 10%, but more is better if you can) and put it aside with every paycheck. Some employers will even allow you to direct deposit your paycheck into two different accounts and you can specify a certain amount or percentage for the second account. Your savings will go directly into a separate account as if you never had it in the first place. Consider your savings untouchable as spending money. Watch it grow. There's no other secret, you just have to do it!","Congrats on your first real job! Save as much as your can while keeping yourself (relatively) comfortable. As to where to put your hard earned money, first establish why you want to save the money in the first place. Money is a mean to acquire the things we want or need in your life or the lives of others. Once your goals are set, then follow this order:","Let Go App...good way to find awesome deals on furniture. Depending on climate find a nice bike, pretty easy way to get around & low maintenance costs compared to a car ( i.e. insurance, gas, repairs). Then depending on whether your work offers matching 401k programs, max that out or find a good index fund & consistently build that emergency fund. Chill for 10-15 years & enjoy the benefits of compounding interest my friend.","At twenty-two, you can have anywhere between 100%-70% of your securities portfolio in equities. It is reasonable to start at 100% and reduce over time. The one thing that I would mention with that is that your target at retirement should be 70% stocks/30% bonds. You should NEVER have more than 30% bonds. Why? Because a 70/30 mix is both safer than 100% bonds and will give a higher return. Absent some market timing strategy (which as an amateur investor, you should absolutely avoid) or some complicated balancing scheme, there is never a reason to be at more than 30% bonds. A 50/50 mix of stocks and bonds or a 100% bonds ratio not only returns less than the 70/30 mix, it is actually riskier. Why? Because sometimes bonds fall. And when they do, stocks generally gain. And vice versa. Because of this behavior, the 70/30 mix is less likely to fall than 50% or 100% bonds. Does that mean that your stock percentage should never drop below 70%? No. If your portfolio contains things other than stocks and bonds, it is reasonable for stocks to fall below 70%. The problem is that when you drop stocks below 70%, you should drop bonds below 30% as well. So you keep the stock to bond ratio at 7:3. If you want to get a lower risk than a 70/30 mix, then you should move into cash equivalents. Cash equivalents are actually safer than stocks and bonds either individually or in combination. But at twenty-two, you don't really need more safety. At twenty-two, the first thing to do is to build your emergency fund. This should be able to handle six months of expenses without income. I recommend making it equal to six months of your income. The reason being that it is easy to calculate your income and difficult to be sure of expenses. Also, you can save six months of income at twenty-two. Are you going to stay where you are for the next five years? At twenty-two, the answer is almost certainly no. But the standard is the five year time frame. If you want a bigger place or one that is closer to work, then no. If you stay somewhere at least five years, then it is likely that the advantages to owning rather than renting will outweigh the costs of switching houses. Less than five years, the reverse is true. So you should probably rent now. You can max out your 401k and IRA now. Doing so even with a conservative strategy will produce big returns by sixty-seven. And perhaps more importantly, it helps keep your spending down. The less you do spend, the less you will feel that you need to spend. Once you fill your emergency fund, start building savings for a house. I would consider putting them in a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). A REIT will tend to track real estate. Since you want to buy real estate with the results, this is its own kind of safety. It fell in value? Houses are probably cheap. Houses increasing in price rapidly? A REIT is probably growing by leaps and bounds. You do this outside your retirement accounts, as you want to be able to access it without penalty.","In addition to Rocky's answer, and IF you have already saved an adequate emergency fund, then best way to increase your wealth (not your income) is to invest your extra money. If you have no extra money then you need to lower your expenses or work towards getting better income. They aren't really any tricks to this, but there are some tips that may help:","\"An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest, as Ben Franklin said. However, this is not a question I can answer for you, as it depends on the opportunities that are specifically available to you as an individual. Sometimes opportunities will knock on your door and you can take advantage, other times you have to create that door to allow opportunities to knock. Maybe you have a friend that is opening a side business, maybe there is a class you can get into at a trivial cost. What I suggest is to start investing just to get into the habit of it, not so much for the returns. Before you do, however, any financial advisor will advise you to begin with a emergency fund, worth about 3-6 months of your expenses for that time. I wanted to hit the ground running and start investing in stocks, but first things first I guess. \"\"Millionaire Next Door\"\" will help you get into a saving mindset, \"\"I will teach you to be rich\"\" is ok, plenty of other books. My advice is keep doing what you're doing, learn to start saving, and once you have obtained an emergency fund of the amount of your choosing, start looking to invest in Index Funds or ETFs through any platform that has LOW FEES!! I use Betterment, but Vanguard is good too, as they allow you to get your feet wet and it's passive. Hope this helps.\"","If you are going to work on making as much money as humanly possible, then you ought to consider investing in the market. [Compound Stock Earnings](http://www.compoundstockearnings.com) agrees that investing in stocks is a fantastic technique to acquire prosperity on your own. Believe it or not, it’s the greatest source of wealth in the history of the world. For that reason, you need to ensure that you get started at the earliest opportunity.","On average, you should be saving at least 10-15% of your income in order to be financially secure when you retire. Different people will tell you different things, but really this can be split between short term savings (cash), long term savings (401ks, IRAs, stocks & bonds), and paying down debt. That $5k is a good start on an emergency fund, but you probably want a little more. As justkt said, 6 months' worth is what you want to aim for. Put this in a Money Market account, where you'll earn a little more interest but won't be penalized from withdrawing it when its needed (you may have to live off it, after all). Beyond that, I would split things up; if possible, have payroll deductions going to a broker (sharebuilder is a good one to start with if you can't spare much change), as well as an IRA at a bank. Set up a separate checking account just for rent and utilities, put a month's worth of cash in there, and have another payroll deduction that covers your living expenses + maybe 5% put in there automatically. Then, set up automatic bill payments, so you don't even have to think about it. Check it once a month to make sure there aren't any surprises. Pay off your credit cards every month. These are, by far, the most expensive forms of credit that most people have. You shouldn't be financing large purchases with them (you'll get better rates by taking a personal loan from a bank). Set specific goals for savings, and set up automatic payroll deductions to work towards them. Especially for buying a house; most responsible lenders will ask for 20% down. In today's market, that means you need to write a check for $40k or $50k. While it's tempting to finance up to 100% of the property value, it's also risky considering how volatile markets can be. You don't want to end up owing more on the property than it's worth two years down the road. If you find yourself at the end of the month with an extra $50 or so, consider your savings goals or your current debt instead of blowing it on a toy. Especially if you have long term debt (high balance credit cards, vehicle or property loans), applying that money directly to principal can save you months (or years) paying it back, and hundreds or thousands of dollars of interest (all depending on the details of the loan, of course). Above all, have fun with it :) Think of your personal net worth as you do your Gamer score on the XBox, and look for ways to maximize it with a minimum of effort or investment on your part! Investing in yourself and your future can be incredibly rewarding emotionally :)","\"To buy a house, you need: At least 2 years tax returns (shows a steady income history; even if you're making 50k right now, you probably weren't when you were 16, and you might not be when you're 20; as they say, easy come, easy go). A 20% down payment. These days, that easily means writing a $50k check. You make $50k a year, great, but try this math: how long will it take you to save 100% of your annual salary? If you're saving 15% of your income (which puts you above many Americans), it'll still take 7 years. So no house for you for 7 years. While your attitude of \"\"I've got the money, so why not\"\" is certainly acceptable, the reality is that you don't have a lot of financial experience yet. There could easily be lean times ahead when you aren't making much (many people since 2008 have gone 18 months or more without any income at all). Save as much money as possible. Once you get $10k in a liquid savings account, speak to a CPA or an investment advisor at your local bank to set up tax deferred accounts such as an IRA. And don't wait to start investing; starting now versus waiting until you're 25 could mean a 100% difference in your net worth at any given time (that's not just a random number, either; an additional 7 years compounding time could literally mean another doubling of your worth).\"","You have made the most important first step by starting to think about your money, well done. Firstly pay of all credit cards as quickly as you can and start to live within your means. Until you have paid of your credits cards don’t spend any money of unnecessary items, e.g. Once your credit cards are paid off you can start living a more normal life. Each time you spend money you need to ask yourself: Is this worth more to be then being able to buy a new house in a few years time? You should be able to save at least half the amount you were paying of the credit card each mouth and still leave a reasonable life, so setup a standing order at the start of the month to your saving account. Given your age you are like to get promoted and hence have increased pay or get increments for each year of service. Therefore Every time your pay goes up, set up a standing order to transfer at least half of the pay increases to a saving account. You did not have this money before, so you will not miss it when you save it. In the long term, you should be able to keep your car until it is about 15 years old, so will not have the cost of buying another car. Therefore once the car loan is over, you can save that money as well.","\"You're right to seek passive income and since you're already looking for it, you probably already know some of the reasons to why it is important. Do you live in the United States? If so I'd strongly recommend purchasing your primary residence and then maybe investment properties if you like owning your own home. The US tax and banking structure is set up to favor this move in more ways than I can count. So, SAVE, SAVE, SAVE then beg, borrow and steal to get the down payment, rent rooms to friends or random people to afford the payments, buy a fixer upper in an up and coming neighborhood. The US is rife with these in all price ranges. If you're working 56 hrs a week, you've got the work ethic. So if you can't afford it it's probably because you're spending all your money on other stuff. If you want to do this, it will take some effort, smarts, and savings. You will have to trim back the mochas, vacations, dinners out, etc, etc etc. Let your friends do that stuff and rent from you. Your life will get continually easier. If you have already trimmed back all the discretionary spending and still can't make it then you need to earn more money. Doing either and both of these things will absolutely change your whole economic life and future. So in summary I'd offer these Ranked Priorities: 1) Learn to Save (unless you always want to have to work for someone else) 2) Increase your income capability (since your most valuable asset is YOU) 3) Buy and hold real estate (because the game is rigged to favor passive income) I'm 38, never earned a six figure salary, made some good purchases when I was 25-30 and work is \"\"optional\"\" for me now.\"","You should plan 1-3 months for an emergency fund. Saving 6 months of expenses is recommended by many, but you have a lot of goals to accomplish, and youth is impatient. Early in your life, you have a lot of building (saving) that you need to do. You can find a good car for under $5000. It might take some effort, and you might not get quite the car you want, but if you save for 5-6 months you should have a decent car. My son is a college student and bought a sedan earlier this year for about $4000. Onto the house thing. As you said, at $11,000*2=$22,000 expenses yearly, plus about $10,000 saved, you are making low 30's. Using a common rule of thumb of 25% for housing, you really cannot afford more than about $600-700/month for housing -- you probably want to wait on that first house for awhile. Down payments really should be about 20%, and depending upon the area of the country, a modest house might be $120,000 or $520,000. Even on a $120,000, the 20% down payment would be $24,000. As you have student loans ($20,000), you should put together a plan to pay them off, perhaps allocating half your savings amount to paying down the student loans and half to saving? As you are young, you should have strong salary gains in the first few years, and once you are closer to $40,000/year, you might find the numbers working better for housing. My worry is that you are spending $22,000 out of about $32,000 for living expenses. That you are saving is great, and you are putting aside a good amount. But, you want to target saving 30-40%, if you can.","Save what you can. Due to compounding of interest, saving early is much more advantageous than saving the same amount later. Obviously you need money to live on, and you're entitled to spend some money on entertainment -- but set a budget on that and stick to that budget. Buying toys now deprives you of better toys later. You aren't saving for an uncertain future; you are saving for a certain future!","\"I wish I was in your shoes with the knowledge I have in my head. financial goal setting is a great plan at your age. In my humble opinion you don't want to save for anything... you want to invest as much as you can, create a corporation and have the corporation invest as much as possible. When there is enough monthly cash flow coming from your investments... have the corporation buy you a house, a car, take out an insurance policy on you as key employee... etc. As for the $11,000 laying around in cash as an emergency fund, no way! With returns as high as 1-3% per month invested properly keep it invested. Getting to your emergency cash reserve you have in a trading account is only a couple key strokes away. As for the 401k... If it is not making at least 25% yearly for the last 10 years (excluding your Contributions) do it yourself in a self directed IRA. Oh... I forgot to mention When your corporation buys your stuff... if set up correctly you can take them as a loss in the corporate ledger and you know any loss from one entity can offset profits from another, thus reducing any taxes you may have. My friend you are at the point of great beginnings, hard choices and an open door to what ever you want your future to look like. Decide what you want out of your money and don't take \"\"NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT\"\" as an answer. Find someone that will tell you these secrets, they are out there. Good luck.\"","At your young age, the most of your wealth is your future labor income (unless you are already rich). Your most profitable investment at this time is most likely to be investment in your human capital (your professional skills, career opportunities). Depending on how you plan to earn your money, invest time and effort to enable you to earn better wages in that activity. So focus on education or professional training. Also, consider that it is probably your total lifetime utility/welfare you should maximize (but you decide!). I suggest you do not focus narrowly on earning as much money as possible. Consider what sort of life you want and what you need to do to enable it. Best of luck!","Your attitude is great, but be careful to temper your (awesome) ambition with a dose of reality. Saving is investing is great, the earlier the better, and seeing retirement at a young age with smooth lots of life's troubles; saving is smart and we all know it. But as a college junior, be honest with yourself. Don't you want to screw around and play with some of that money? Your first time with real income, don't you want to blow it on a big TV, vacation, or computer? Budget out those items with realistic costs. See the pros and cons of spending that money keeping in mind the opportunity cost. For example, when I was in college, getting a new laptop for $2000 (!) was easily more important to me than retirement. I don't regret that. I do regret buying my new truck too soon and borrowing money to do it. These are judgment calls. Here is the classic recipe: Adjust the numbers or businesses to your personal preferences. I threw out suggestions so you can research them and get an idea of what to compare. And most importantly of all. DO NOT GET INTO CREDIT CARD DEBT. Use credit if you wish, but do not carry a balance.","\"My father imparted this advice to me when I was a teenager, and it hasn't failed me yet. > Pay yourself first What this means is that the first \"\"bill\"\" you pay should always be your savings. Preferably in a way that automatically comes out of your paycheck or account without requiring you to take an active step to make it happen. I save a ton of money, but I am no more disciplined than anyone else. I just realized that over the years of progressing in my career that I gradually got higher and higher salaries, yet never had a substantial increase in the money I had leftover in my bank at the end of the month despite the fact that I make about 8x the money I used to live reasonably comfortably on. Therein is the point, we spend whatever money we see, so you almost have to hide it from yourself. First, participate to the fullest in your company's 401k if they offer it. After a while you will adjust naturally to the net take home pay and won't miss the savings you are accumulating. Absent that, or in addition to that, set up a separate bank or investment account and arrange an automatic transfer from your checking account every month. Then set up automatic investing in CD's or some other less-liquid-than-cash investment so you it is just enough hassle to get at the money that you won't do it on a whim. It sounds too simple, but it works.\"","Calculate a weekly budget for yourself for all incidentals (i.e. shopping, movies, eating out, etc...) and take that amount out in cash each week. For example, if your budget is $75 then try to spend only that $75 on all the extra stuff you do doing the week. It'll make you hyper-conscious of where your money is going and how fast. You'll be surprised at how quickly little things like grabbing coffee in the morning can chip away at your funds.","\"The suggestions towards retirement and emergency savings outlined by the other posters are absolute must-dos. The donations towards charitable causes are also extremely valuable considerations. If you are concerned about your savings, consider making some goals. If you plan on staying in an area long term (at least five years), consider beginning to save for a down payment to own a home. A rent-versus-buy calculator can help you figure out how long you'd need to stay in an area to make owning a home cost effective, but five years is usually a minimum to cover closing costs and such compared to rending. Other goals that might be worthwhile are a fully funded new car fund for when you need new wheels, the ability to take a longer or nicer vacation, a future wedding if you'd like to get married some day, and so on. Think of your savings not as a slush fund of money sitting around doing nothing, but as the seed of something worthwhile. Yes, you will only be young once. However being young does not mean you have to be Carrie from Sex in the City buying extremely expensive designer shoes or live like a rapper on Cribs. Dave Ramsey is attributed as saying something like, \"\"Live like no one else so that you can live like no one else.\"\" Many people in their 30s and 40s are struggling under mortgages, perhaps long-left-over student loan debt, credit card debt, auto loans, and not enough retirement savings because they had \"\"fun\"\" while they were young. Do you have any remaining debt? Pay it off early instead of saving so much. Perhaps you'll find that you prefer to hit that age with a fully paid off home and car, savings for your future goals (kids' college tuitions, early retirement, etc.). Maybe you want to be able to afford some land or a place in a very high cost of living city. In other words - now is the time to set your dreams and allocate your spare cash towards them. Life's only going to get more expensive if you choose to have a family, so save what you can as early as possible.\"","Start as early as possible and you will want to kiss your younger self when you get to retirement age. I know you (and everyone else at that age) thinks that they don't make enough to start saving and leans towards waiting until you get established in your career and start making better money. Don't put it off. Save some money out of each paycheck even if it is only $50. Trust me, as little as you make now, you probably have more disposable income than you will when you make twice as much. Your lifestyle always seems to keep up with your income and you will likely ALWAYS feel like you don't have money left over to save. The longer you wait, the more you are going to have to stuff away to make up for that lost time you could have been compounding your returns as shown in this table (assuming 9.4 percent average gain annually, which has been the average return on the stock market from 1926-2010). I also suggest reading this article when explains it in more detail: Who Wants to be a millionaire?","Get a job, get a car, get a better job, save more money, invest that money in a high yield savings account, keep adding to that account until you turn 18. Start buying in bulk from China and reselling on eBay or Amazon for a 200-500% mark up, put that money in savings, ????, Profit. You can easily make 7-10 grand a year while still going to school, just save it all. Don't spend a dime unless you absolutely have to.","This is assuming that you are now making some amount X per month which is more than the income you used to have as a student. (Otherwise, the question seems rather moot.) All figures should be net amounts (after taxes). First, figure out what the difference in your cost of living is. That is, housing, electricity, utilities, the basics that you need to have to have a place in which to live. I'm not considering food costs here unless they were subsidized while you were studying. Basically, you want to figure out how much you now have to spend extra per month for basic sustenance. Then, figure out how much more you are now making, compared to when you were a student. Subtract the sustenance extra from this to get your net pay increase. After that is when it gets trickier. Basically, you want to set aside or invest as much of the pay increase as possible, but you probably have other expenses now that you didn't before and which you cannot really do that much about. This mights be particular types of clothes, commute fares (car keepup, gas, bus pass, ...), or something entirely different. Anyway, decide on a savings goal, as a percentage of your net pay increase compared to when you were a student. This might be 5%, 10% or (if you are really ambitious) 50% or more. Whichever number you pick, make sure it's reasonable giving your living expenses, and keep in mind that anything is better than nothing. Find a financial institution that offers a high-interest savings account, preferably one with free withdrawals, and sign up for one. Each and every time you get paid, figure out how much to save based on the percentage you determined (if your regular case is that you get the same payment each time, you can simply set up an automated bank transfer), put that in the savings account and, for the moment, forget about that money. Try your best to live only on the remainder, but if you realize that you set aside too much, don't be afraid to tap into the savings account. Adjust your future deposits accordingly and try to find a good balance. At the end of each month, deposit whatever remains in your regular account into your savings account, and if that is a sizable amount of money, consider raising your savings goal a little. The ultimate goal should be that you don't need to tap into your savings except for truly exceptional situations, but still keep enough money outside of the savings account to cater to some of your wants. Yes, bank interest rates these days are often pretty dismal, and you will probably be lucky to find a savings account that (especially after taxes) will even keep up with inflation. But to start with, what you should be focusing on is not to make money in terms of real value appreciation, but simply figuring out how much money you really need to sustain a working life for yourself and then walking that walk. Eventually (this may take anywhere from a couple of months to a year or more), you should have settled pretty well on an amount that you feel comfortable with setting aside each month and just letting be. By that time, you should have a decently sized nest egg already, which will help you get over rough spots, and can start thinking about other forms of investing some of what you are setting aside. Whenever you get a net pay raise of any kind (gross pay raise, lower taxes, bonus, whichever), increase your savings goal by a portion of that raise. Maybe give yourself 60% of the raise and bank the remaining 40%. That way, you are (hopefully!) always increasing the amount of money that you are setting aside, while also reaping some benefits right away. One major upside of this approach is that, if you lose your job, not only will you have that nest egg, you will also be used to living on less. So you will have more money in the bank and less monthly expenses, which puts you in a significantly better position than if you had only one of those, let alone neither.","Yes, you should be saving for retirement. There are a million ideas out there on how much is a reasonable amount, but I think most advisor would say at least 6 to 10% of your income, which in your case is around $15,000 per year. You give amounts in dollars. Are you in the U.S.? If so, there are at least two very good reasons to put money into a 401k or IRA rather than ordinary savings or investments: (a) Often your employer will make matching contributions. 50% up to 6% of your salary is pretty common, i.e. if you put in 6% they put in 3%. If either of your employers has such a plan, that's an instant 50% profit on your investment. (b) Any profits on money invested in an IRA or 401k are tax free. (Effectively, the mechanics differ depending on the type of account.) So if you put $100,000 into an IRA today and left it there until you retire 30 years later, it would likely earn something like $600,000 over that time (assuming 7% per year growth). So you'd pay takes on your initial $100,000 but none on the $600,000. With your income you are likely in a high tax bracket, that would make a huge difference. If you're saying that you just can't find a way to put money away for retirement, may I suggest that you cut back on your spending. I understand that the average American family makes about $45,000 per year and somehow manages to live on that. If you were to put 10% of your income toward retirement, then you would be living on the remaining $171,000, which is still almost 4 times what the average family has. Yeah, I make more than $45,000 a year too and there are times when I think, How could anyone possibly live on that? But then I think about what I spend my money on. Did I really need to buy two new computer printers the last couple of months? I certainly could do my own cleaning rather than hiring a cleaning lady to come in twice a month. Etc. A tough decision to make can be paying off debt versus putting money into an investment account. If the likely return on investment is less than the interest rate on the loan, you should certainly concentrate on paying off the loan. But if the reverse is true, then you need to decide between likely returns and risk.","Get a job, if you don't have one right now. Take deductions from your paycheck for an IRA or 401K if the company has one.","Great question and great of you to be paying attention to this. Right now having the ability to save $2K per year might seem very out of reach. However with the right career path and by paying attention to personal finance saving 2K per month will become possible sooner than you may think. As a student you are already investing in your future, by building your greatest wealth building tool: your income. Right now concentrate on that. If you have extra money throw it in a boring old savings account and don't touch it other than emergencies. An emergency is defined as something that will preclude you from completing your education. It is not paying for the latest xbox game/skateboard/once in a lifetime trip. An important precursor to investing is having an emergency fund that sits in a boring old savings account earning almost nothing. Think of it as an insurance policy that prevents you from liquidating your investments in case of and emergency. Emergencies often come during economic downturns. If you have to liquidate your investment to cover these times then you will lock in negative returns. Once you are done with school, moved into a place of your own, and have your first job you will have a nice start on your emergency fund. Then you can start investing. Doing it in the right order you will be amazed how quickly your savings can accumulate. I'd be shooting for that 2 million by the time you are 40, not 65.","To generate a passive income you need lots of TIME or MONEY, you are short of both. As other people have said, do whatever you can to reduce you spending and start saving. Don’t think “I work very hard, therefore I deserve xxx”, start thinking “x cost y hrs of work, is it truly worth it?” (Remember to consider your take home pay per hr, not you before tax pay!) What would it take to get paid more per hr in one of your jobs? Maybe investing a little time/money in training would increase your pay. Doing your job a little better can often lead to a good outcome. (I see from your profile that you are a new computer programmer; I assume that one of your jobs is programming, if so put your time and effort into it. As you become more skilful within a few years you will start earning more. Maybe even give up one of the other jobs by spending less so you can do better at programming) Then as your incomes goes up, don’t allow your spending to increase, save the additional money.","Not 100% related, but the #1 thing you need to avoid is CREDIT CARD DEBT. Trust me on this one. I'm 31, and finally got out of credit card debt about eight months ago. For just about my entire 20s, I racked up credit card debt and saved zero. Invested zero. It pains me to realize that I basically wasted ten years of possible interest, and instead bought a lot of dumb things and paid 25% interest on it. So yes, put money into your 401k and an IRA. Max them out.","You need a budget. You need to know how much you make and how much you spend. How much you earn and what you choose to spend you money on is your choice. You have your own tolerance for risk and your own taste and style, so lifestyle and what you own isn't something that we can answer. The key to your budget is to really understand where you money goes. Maybe you are the sort of person who needs to know down to the penny, maybe you are a person who rounds off. Either way you should have some idea. How should I make a budget? and How can I come up with a good personal (daily) budget? Once you know what you budget is, here are some pretty standard steps to get started. Each point is a full question in of itself, but these are to give you a place to start thinking and learning. You might have other priorities like a charity or other organizations that go into your priority like. Regardless of your career path and salary, you will need a budget to understand where you money is, where it goes, and how you can reach your goals and which goals are reasonable to have.","\"The power of compounding interest and returns is an amazing thing. Start educating yourself about investing, and do it -- there are great Q&As on this site, numerous books (I recommend \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\", tools for small investors (like Sharebuilder.com) and other resources out there to get you started. Your portfolio doesn't need to include every dime you have either. But you do need to develop the discipline to save money -- even if that savings is $20 while you're in school. How you split between cash/deposit account savings and other investment vehicles is a decision that needs to make sense to you.\"","Start as soon as you can and make your saving routine. Start with whatever you feel comfortable with and be consistent. Increase that amount with raises, income gains, and whenever you want.","Start now. It's a lot easier to save now than it is to start to save later.","On the one hand, it's a great idea to open a Roth IRA now, once you've got the cash to contribute. It's a tax designation sounds like it would fit your meager earnings this year. The main reason to open one now rather than later is that some types of withdrawls require the account be aged 5 years. But you can also withdraw the amount you've contributed tax free any time. Student loans right now are pricey, so if you're carrying a balance at say 6.8 percent fixed you should pay that down ASAP. Beyond that, I'd keep the rest liquid for now. Having that kind of liquid cash is extremely reassuring, and many of the biggest returns on investment are going to be in your personal life. More fuel efficient vehicles, energy efficient appliances, computer backups, chest freezers and bulk meat purchases, etc. One example I see every six months is car insurance: I can pay for six months in full or I can pay a smaller monthly bill plus a small fee. That fee is well above current market rates. You see this everywhere; people searching for lower minimum payments rather than lower total costs. Save your money up and be the smart buyer. It's too damn expensive to be broke.","\"Excellent questions! Asking such questions indicates something special about yourself. The desire to learn and adjust your beliefs will increase your chance of success in your life. I would use a wide variety of authors to increase your education. Myself I prefer Dave Ramsey to Clark Howard, but I think Clark is very good. The first thing you should focus on is learning how to do and live by a budget. Often times, adults will assume that you are on a budget because you are broke. It happens with my friends and my youngest child is older than you. Nothing could be further from the truth. A budget is simply a plan on how you will spend your income so you don't run out of money before you run out of month. Along with budgeting I would also focus on goal setting. This is the type of \"\"investing\"\" you should be doing at your age. For example if your primary goal was to become an engineer, my recommendation is to hold off buying stocks/mutual funds and using your current income to get through school with little or no student loans. Another example might be to open your own HVAC business. Your best bet might be to learn the trade, working for someone else, and take night classes for business management. Most 18 year olds have very little earning power. Your focus at this point should be increasing your income and learning how to manage the income you have. Please keep in mind that most debt is bad. It robs you of your income which is your greatest wealth building tool. Car loans and credit card debt is just plain stupid. Often times a business case can be made for reasonable student loans. However, why not challenge yourself to take none. How much further ahead could you be if you graduate, with a degree, when your peers are strapped with a 40K loan? Keep up the good work and keep asking questions.\"","how can I save money for the future The fact that you are worrying is good. This is the first step. Follow this up with a plan. One way is first get hold of your income [its fixed you know the salary]. Maintain expenses, then see which costs can be cut down. Create individual goals and start investing for these. The best way for first timer is to invest into a Recurring Deposits or SIP in mutual fund, i.e. kind of forced saving so that you don't spend what is available in bank Account.","\"I take it you have nearly zero expenses, since you don't mention any savings and with your income you wouldn't have much left over for investing. At your level of income, any actual investing is either going to unwisely reduce your cash available should you need it (such as investment in mutual funds, which often have minimum investment periods of 2-6 months or more to avoid fees), or cost you a high percentage of your income in commissions (stock trading). So, I wouldn't recommend investing at all — yet. I find Dave Ramsey's baby steps to be very good general money management advice. Here is how I would adapt the first three steps to your income and stage in life. Beyond this, Dave recommends saving for retirement, college (for kids) and paying off your house early. These things are a little beyond your stage in life, but it would be good to start thinking about them. For you, I recommend following DJClayworth's advice to \"\"invest in yourself\"\". Specifically, plan to get through college debt-free. Put away money so that you have a head start once you do have living expenses — save for a car, save money for rent, etc. so that you don't have to live month to month as most people do starting out. So, what this boils down to: Put away every cent you have, in a savings account.\"","Apart from what others have contributed. Look at all your usual spendings. Can they be cheaper? (Telephone, Electricity, Gas, Car, Mortgage, Loans, Insurance...) Whenever you are tempted to buy anything, ask yourself: Do I need this? If the answer is 'Yes' go ahead and buy (food, basically). Otherwise, restrain yourself. Most things in life can be bought cheaper. Most things in shops are useless. For example, how many pairs of shoes do you need? You can drink water from the tab. You don't have to go to restaurants or bars, and if you do, you could budget yourself to some amount. If the restaurant is more expensive, walk. My 0,02€","Your first problem is looking at these as monthly expenses rather than looking longer-term at how to remove the expenses. You have a $600/month loan, but what is the interest rate? If you paid that loan more aggressively it would free up 10% of your income, but you can't pay the loan aggressively if you don't have an emergency fund. You need enough cash-flow to take care of emergencies so you don't incur more debt on less advantageous terms. The way you describe the problem, it appears that you don't know where all of the money is going, so the first step is to track all of your expenses and formulate a budget. The budget is a plan on how to spend the money for next month. At least 10% should be money you are saving for a short-term emergency fund. Another 10% should be money you are saving for retirement. Until you have 6 months of expenses saved for your emergency fund, you need to skip luxuries like taxi rides and maybe you need to reduce the amount you send home. 22% is a large amount and unless your parents are using that money to become independent (so that they won't rely on your contributions forever) it will only prevent you from becoming wealthy enough to really help them later. Only you can determine what can be cut from your monthly expenses--but if you want to save--spending less is required.","Track your expenses. Find out where your money is going, and target areas where you can reduce expenses. Some examples: I was spending a lot on food, buying too much packaged food, and eating out too much. So I started cooking from scratch more and eating out less. Now, even though I buy expensive organic produce, imported cheese, and grass-fed beef, I'm spending half of what I used to spend on food. It could be better. I could cut back on meat and eat out even less. I'm working on it. I was buying a ton of books and random impulsive crap off of Amazon. So I no longer let myself buy things right away. I put stuff on my wish list if I want it, and every couple of months I go on there and buy myself a couple of things off my wishlist. I usually end up realizing that some of the stuff on there isn't something I want that badly after all, so I just delete it from my wishlist. I replaced my 11-year-old Jeep SUV with an 11-year-old Saturn sedan that gets twice the gas mileage. That saves me almost $200/month in gasoline costs alone. I had cable internet through Comcast, even though I don't have a TV. So I went from a $70/month cable bill to a $35/month DSL bill, which cut my internet costs in half. I have an iPhone and my bill for that is $85/month. That's insane, with how little I talk on the phone and send text messages. Once it goes out of contract, I plan to replace it with a cheap phone, possibly a pre-paid. That should cut my phone expenses in half, or even less. I'll keep my iPhone, and just use it when wifi is available (which is almost everywhere these days).","\"If you want to be really \"\"financially smart,\"\" buy a used good condition Corolla with cash (if you want to talk about a car that holds re-sale value), quit renting and buy a detached house close to the city a for about $4,000/month (to build equity. It's NYC the house will appreciate in value). Last but not the least, DO NOT get married. Retire at 50, sell the house (now paid after 25-years). Or LEASE a nice brand new car every year and have a good time! You're 25 and single!\"","\"Honestly just keep track of your income and spending on a piece of paper. Write down every single thing. Also set goals like \"\"ok I will make $1000 this month, and my goal is to pay bills of $200 and only spend $500 therefore I should easily be able to save $300\"\" or something like that. Just do it there's no magic trick despite what some million stupid articles and forum posts will lead you to believe. Saving money is like being in good shape... or keeping yourself clean... it's an every day, every hour kinda thing\"","Are you working? Does your employer offer a 401(k) and if so, is there any match? Saving should be taught to kids at the same time they are old enough to get an allowance. There are many numbers tossed around, but 10% is a start for any new saver. If a college graduate can start by saving even 15%, better still. If you find that the 10% is too much, just start with what you can spare, and work to build that up over time, perhaps by splitting any future raises, half going toward savings, half to spending. Good luck. Edit - my 12 yr old made good money this summer baby sitting. I'm opening a Roth IRA for her. A 10 yr head start on her retirement savings. Edit (Jan-2013) - she's 14 now, 3 deposits to the Roth total $6000, and she's planning to up the number this year. Her goal is to have $50K saved in her Roth by the time she graduates college. Edit, by request (July-2017) 18, and off to college next month. Just under $24K, all invested in an S&P low cost index. We are planning to continue deposits of $4-$5K/yr, so the $50K is still a good goal.","Everybody else has given great answers on what to do, but I just want to add some encouragement. Keep saving. Learn to live within your means while saving, and things like houses and cars and new electronics will come. You can always wait a year and save money up for that new TV, but when retirement hits you are out of time. (I sure wish I had). Keep that retirement money out of sight and (mostly) out of mind. Great job saving and keep up the good work.","After paying off debts and the other obvious low hanging fruit, you need to start investing. With your time frame, most advice you'll find will say go for an all equities index fund. However, the market is hot and you can do better than the S&P average of 12%. Especially considering a downturn is on coming Take your time and find a safe investment fund to start building your portfolio. I run a PE fund buying Middle Market value add properties. I work exclusively in this market because it provides consistent income that continues through downturns, and we can safely give investors 15% tax mitigated return, every time. PM me if your are interested.","Try this as a starter - my eBook served up as a blog (http://www.sspf.co.uk/blog/001/). Then read as much as possible about investing. Once you have money set aside for emergencies, then make some steps towards investing. I'd guide you towards low-fee 'tracker-style' funds to provide a bedrock to long-term investing. Your post suggests it will be investing over the long-term (ie. 5-10 years or more), perhaps even to middle-age/retirement? Read as much as you can about the types of investments: unit trusts, investment trusts, ETFs; fixed-interest (bonds/corporate bonds), equities (IPOs/shares/dividends), property (mortgages, buy-to-let, off-plan). Be conservative and start with simple products. If you don't understand enough to describe it to me in a lift in 60 seconds, stay away from it and learn more about it. Many of the items you think are good long-term investments will be available within any pension plans you encounter, so the learning has a double benefit. Work a plan. Learn all the time. Keep your day-to-day life quite conservative and be more risky in your long-term investing. And ask for advice on things here, from friends who aren't skint and professionals for specific tasks (IFAs, financial planners, personal finance coaches, accountants, mortgage brokers). The fact you're being proactive tells me you've the tools to do well. Best wishes to you.","\"Congrats on saving the money but unfortunately, you're looking for a 24% annual rate of return and that's not \"\"reasonable\"\" to expect. $200 per month, is $2,400 per year. $2,400/$10,000 is 24%. In a 1% savings account with spending of $200 per month spending you'll have about $7,882 at the end of the year. You'll earn about $90 of interest over the course of the year. I'm sure other people will have more specific opinions about the best way to deploy that money. I'd open a brokerage account (not an IRA, just a regular plain vanilla brokerage account), break off $5,000 and put it in to a low fee no commission S&P index fund; which CAN lose value. Put the rest in a savings account/checking account and just spend wisely.\"","After looking at your profile, I see your age...28. Still a baby. At your age, and given your profession, there really is no need to build investment income. You are still working and should be working for many years. If I was you, I'd be looking to do a few different things: Eliminating debt reduces risk, and also reduces the need for future income. Saving for, and purchasing a home essentially freezes rent increases. If home prices double in your area, in theory, so should rent prices. If you own a home you might see some increases in taxes and insurance rates, but they are minor in comparison. This also reduces the need for future income. Owning real estate is a great way to build residual income, however, there is a lot of risk and even if you employ a management company there is a lot more hands on work and risk. Easier then that you can build an after tax investment portfolio. You can start off with mutual funds for diversification purposes and only after you have built a sizable portfolio should (if ever) make the transition to individual stocks. Some people might suggest DRIPs, but given the rate at which you are investing I would suggest the pain of such accounts is more hassle then it is worth.","Fund your retirement accounts first. Even as an intern, it is still worthwhile to open a Roth IRA and start contributing to it. See my answer to a similar question: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career?","\"The principle to follow is called \"\"pay yourself first\"\". Have your savings deducted from your paycheck before it hits your checking account. You spending will change to accommodate the reduction. If you have a 401(k) available from your employer, start saving some money via that. If not, figure out a way to have something moved out of your checking account to a separate savings account when your paycheck hits. Then as you get raises, up the amount of automatic savings by half of the raise. You will find this hurts less than you think and it will let you build an emergency fund, which is the first thing you need. When the emergency fund is 6 months of normal spending, then you can start to invest.\"","Investing requires capital, and the fastest way to get the capital is to develop good saving habits. Investing is an ongoing process to help you accumulate wealth, so to take advantage of compounding, the earlier you start, the better. I can suggest a few pointers to get you started on the investing journey. Godspeed! :)","While there is no age limit, bear in mind that saving money makes sense only if it doesn't delay your paying off expensive debt. If you have credit cards or expensive loans you would be best placed to focus on paying them down before saving a lot. If you save and keep debt, you'll effectively lose money as the interest on your debt will usually be higher than you can earn on savings. Having said that, it's worth saving a small amount anyway to have as an emergency fund. As you pay off your debt, start saving the money you no longer have to pay out and it will soon pay dividends.","I was in a similar situation at age 18/19, but not making quite as much money. I maxed out an IRA and bought savings bonds, although rates were decent then. I did flitter away about half of what I earned, which in retrospect was probably dumb. But I had a good time!","Try reading about budgeting. Make a list of all income coming in and all expenses going out. Eliminate any unnecessary expenses and try to increase income, which could include a part-time second job. Try to always put a portion of the income away as savings - try 10%, but if this is too hard to start with try saving at least 5% of the income.","Does anyone have any good resources for starting up learning about savings, finances, etc? I'm 20 years old and want to begin really saving consistently and learning about 401Ks, IRAs, savings accounts, how to grow your money safely and slowly, etc. I'm mainly looking for a website or application that will help me budget and organize things. A phone app would be nice. And any subreddit where I could learn about these things would be extremely helpful too.","I'd invest in yourself. Start up a side business. Take a certification class that gets your foot in the door for something else (auctioneering, real estate sales, whatever). Bid on a storage auction and try to re-sell it. Learn Spanish (or whatever second language is best for your area). And so forth. Most of the suggestions thus far are either debt reduction or passive investment. You have good control on your debt, and most passive investments pay jack (though Lending Club might be a bit better than most). Build up another basket to put your eggs in and build equity and cash flow instead of interest and dividends. You're young. This is the time to learn how to do it.","Buying options on a highly volatile underlying like AMD or JNUG. You may make piles of cash or go to zero, but it will be fast at least. Also working 6-12 and not just 9-5. Also you want /r/personalfinance","First I'd like to echo msemack's answer. Start by maxing out your 401K and IRA contributions. Not a lot of people just starting their career have the luxury of doing much more outside of that. Here are some additional tips that I learned when I was just getting started:","To be honest, all that they might be able to tell you is to keep saving. Your income seems like it will vary week to week thanks to commission (and I'm still very curious how at 18 you found a job making $96,000 a year at minimum). Right now because you have no savings, start stacking that up. You're going to want an emergency fund on the side as well. Even though now you may still live with parents, you still may run into issues where you'll need money on hand. It's much better to dig into an emergency fund than get a loan. Plus, when moving out, you won't be living paycheck to paycheck. Best rule of thumb for this is to keep an emergency fund of roughly 3-6 months of expenses. Right now because you're so young with so little money, there isn't a large reason to really open up an IRA or any sort of investment account. Unless you're actually guaranteed $2,000 a week, then things are different.","\"Buy and Hope is a common investment strategy. It's also one that will keep you poor. Instead of thinking about saving money to put against a credit card or line of credit using your own job and hard-earned dollars, why not use someone else's money? If you have enough of a down payment for a property of your own, consider a duplex, triplex, or 4-plex where you live in one of the units. Since you will be living there you only need 5% down as opposed to 20% down if you do not live there. This arrangement gives you a place to live while you have other people paying your mortgage and other debts. If done properly, you can find a place that is cash-flow positive so you basically live rent-free. This all assumes you have a down payment and a bank that will work with you. Your best bet is to discuss your situation with a mortgage broker. They know all the rules, and which banks have the best deal for you. A mortgage broker works on your behalf and is paid by the lending institution, not you. There are various caveats with this strategy, and they all revolve around knowing what to do and how to execute the plan. I suggest Googling Robert Kiyosaki and reading \"\"Rich Dad Poor Dad\"\" before taking this journey. He offers a number of free and paid seminars that teach people how to purchase real estate and make it pay. I have taken the free evening seminar and the $500 weekend seminar on how to purchase properties and make money with them. Note that I have no affiliation with Kiyosaki, and I do find his methods to work.\"","\"There are only two ways to increase your savings: You are young, and both of these are likely to spontaneously happen - you will be promoted and get raises, and your loans will be paid off, removing the loan payment. It would seem that you need only to wait a year or so, and there will a lot more than $87 left over each month, and your savings will grow almost without any action from you. But somehow, that is not what happens in real life. As people get older they \"\"need\"\" more than they did before (larger home, more expensive \"\"things\"\", etc) and they never manage to get around to saving. So it's great that you are wondering how to do it. But you are not truly making it a priority. You mention that you also pay/spend for friends, the internet, play & joy, cloth, gifts, book, etc. And this armwavy entirely optional spending is the difference between 72.85 (such precision!) and 90% of your salary. In other words it is 17-18% or more than your rent. Think about that for a moment. Every month you spend more than your rent on friends, play, joy, books and good old etc. If you were to cut that in half, you could save 8 or 9% of your salary. Maybe after your next raise you can get that up to 10%. How can you cut that optional \"\"fun\"\" stuff in half? Well, I don't know, because I don't know what it is, and I suspect you don't either. So track it, for a month or two. Are you getting takeout food or coffee every day? Are you always the one who pays when you go out with friends? Do you eat in restaurants a lot? Do you always wear the latest fashions, buy $500 shoes, pay people to do your nails or dye your hair, buy a new phone every year, have the top end phone plan, top end cable plan, ... You have to know where that rent's-worth of money goes every month. Then you can figure out how to send some of it to savings instead. In some ways you are in a hard generation. Your parents didn't need to save for their retirement because they had you, and they know you will send money home for them. But you probably don't expect the same from the children you don't have yet, so you have to save for yourself. This is a challenge. If you were saving the money you send your parents, you'd be fine. Yet you don't want to reduce what you send, they need it. Still, people have faced bigger challenges and overcome them. Start by understanding where your fun money is going, then look at how to send some (aim for half) of that to savings instead. You won't regret it.\"","Aside from what everyone else has said about your money (saving, investing, etc.), I'd like to comment on what else you could spend it on: Spend it all on small/stupid things that, while stupid, would make me happier. For example take taxis more often, eat often in nice restaurants, buy designer clothes, etc. I'll be young only one time. You could also put the money towards something more... productive? Like a home project. Convert a room in your living space into an office or a theater-like room. Install hardwood floors yourself. Renovate a bathroom. Plant a garden of things you would enjoy eating later. Something that you would enjoy having or doing and can look back at and be proud of putting your money towards something that you accomplished.","I wouldn't be too concerned, yet. You're young. Many young people are living longer in the family home. See this Guardian article: Young adults delay leaving family home. You're in good company. Yet, there will come a time when you ought to get your own place, either for your own sanity or your parents' sanity. You should be preparing for that and building up your savings. Since you've got an income, you should – if you're not already – put away some of that money regularly. Every time you get paid, make a point of depositing a portion of your income into a savings or investment account. Look up the popular strategy called Pay Yourself First. Since you still live at home, it's possible you're a little more loose with spending money than you should be – at least, I've found that to be the case with some friends who lived at home as young adults. So, perhaps pretend you're on your own. What would your rent be if you had to find a place of your own? If, say, £600 instead of the £200 you're currently paying, then you should reduce your spending to the point where you can save at least £400 per month. Follow a budget. With respect to your car, it's great you recognize your mistake. We're human and we can learn from our mistakes. Plan to make it your one and only car mistake. I made one too. With respect to your credit card debt, it's not an insurmountable amount. Focus on getting rid of that debt soon and then focus on staying out of debt. The effective way to use credit cards is to never carry a balance – i.e. pay it off in full each month. If you can't do that, you're likely overspending. Also, look at what pensions your employer might offer. If they offer matching contributions, contribute at least as much to maximize the tax free extra pay this equates to. If you have access to a defined benefit plan, join it as soon as you are eligible. Last, I think it's important to recognize that at age 23 you're just starting out. Much of your career income earning potential is ahead of you. Strive to be the best at what you do, get promotions, and increase your income. Meanwhile, continue to save a good portion of what you earn. With discipline, you'll get where you want to be.","\"This may sound very \"\"tongue in cheek\"\", but the best thing you can invest in is to raise your income in order to increase your retirement savings. How much are you able to contribute to retirement now? I think you would be lucky to do $150/month and most months probably less than that. However, if you were making like 60k/year, and allowed a little lifestyle bloat, you could probably easy put away 20k/year. Once you are able to do that the savings you can manage now will be quickly eclipsed. Often times when people consider \"\"having their money work for them\"\" they often neglect to factor risk. Prior to investing one should have a proper emergency fund in place. That is 6 months or so of living expenses in a nice safe savings account. Those earn about 1.25% these days, which is pretty meager, but it does earn something. Once the emergency fund is in place, one can invest with impunity. Without it, you will have to liquidate investments if economic calamity strikes you. This could be done at a loss furthering the harm done by the calamity. Increase your income and create an emergency fund. Do those things first.\"","You've never saved money? Have you ever bought anything? There probably was a small window of time that you had to pool some cash to buy something. In my experience, if you make it more interesting by 'allocating money for specific purposes' you'll have better results than just arbitrarily saving for a rainy day. Allocate your money for different things (ie- new car, emergency, travel, or starting a new business) by isolating your money into different places. Ex- your new car allocation could be in a savings account at your bank. Your emergency allocation can be in cash under your bed. Your new business allocation could be in an investment vehicle like a stocks where it could potentially see significant gains by the time you are ready to use it. The traditional concept of savings is gone. There is very little money to be earned in a savings account and any gains will be most certainly wiped out by inflation anyway. Allocate your money, allocate more with new income, and then use it to buy real things and fund new adventures when the time is right.","You are asking all the right questions. I predict a bright future! In addition to the excellent advice from Phil, I would add that NOW is the time to think about investing. If you have not yet started a retirement account, open up a Roth IRA and max it out ($5.5k in 2014) every year. The time value of money is strong and you will be thanking yourself in 40 years for starting now. Yes, paying down debt is important, and you should do that, too. It's a balance. If you get converted to a full-time employee, take part in any retirement plan they offer, and max out any matching because it's free money.","I started my career over 10 years ago and I work in the financial sector. As a young person from a working class family with no rich uncles, I would prioritize my investments like this: It seems to be pretty popular on here to recommend trading individual stocks, granted you've read a book on it. I would thoroughly recommend against this, for a number of reasons. Odds are you will underestimate the risks you're taking, waste time at your job, stress yourself out, and fail to beat a passive index fund. It's seriously not worth it. Some additional out-of-the box ideas for building wealth: Self-serving bias is pervasive in the financial world so be careful about what others tell you about what they know (including me). Good luck.","I had some extra money, so I opened American express saving account. At the time which was offering .80%, now .90%. I put most of the money in the saving account. The remainder of my money in a investment account at my local bank. I was in touch once a week with investment, I learned allot how the stock market worked and tax deferment(401k, IRA, IRA Roth). My suggestion is to do test run and see if you like it. Side note, NOT ALL investment are created equal.","In addition to the advice already given (particularly getting rid of high-interest debt), I would add the following:","/r/savedyouaclick 1. Focus on earning 2. Develop multiple streams of income 3. Save to invest, don't save to save 4. Be decisive 5. Don't show off — show up 6. Change your mindset about money 7. Invest in yourself 8. Ditch the steady paycheck 9. Set goals and visualize achieving them 10. Start hanging out with people you admire 11. Shoot for $10 million, not $1 million","Depends, sure you could save a buck or two here and there but maybe that time could be used for better things - i.e. earning a side income It's all situational and relative to you and where you are in life - try things, don't be afraid of mistakes","Congratulations on getting started in life! John Malloy's (American) research suggests that you should take some time to get used to living on your own, make some friends, and settle into your community. During this time, you can build up an emergency fund. If/when the stock markets do not seem to be in a bear market, you can follow user3771352's advice to buy stock ETFs. Do you hope to get married and have children in the next few years? If so, you should budget time and money for activities where you make new friends (both men and women). Malloy points out that many Americans meet their spouses through women's networks of friends.","If I were in your shoes I would concentrate now on investing in yourself. Your greatest wealth building tool is your income. Going to school is great, make sure you can finish. Also is there additional coursework you can obtain that might help boost your salary? I would look for course in the following areas that might be outside your core competency: After that I would concentrate on some books that will help you in your journey. However, I would not start investing until you have a well paying full time job: That will get you started.","Other answers here cover some of the basics, but this is also a great time to start establishing a credit history and developing good financial habits to carry throughout your life. In addition to opening a free checking account with the local credit union, establish an overdraft line of credit on that account. Never close this account or this line of credit as it will work to increase the average age of your accounts when you apply for credit later in life. If you are disciplined with your use of credit cards, you may also want to apply for a low limit credit card through the same credit union for the same purpose as above. Never carry a balance on this card, but make minor purchases with it each month, never more than 20% of the balance, maybe just buy gas with it. Start tracking all of your spending and make a monthly budget. There are a lot of online tools that make this very easy. Establishing the habit now will help you make informed financial decisions in the future. Open a Roth IRA and put at least 10% of your money away for retirement. In the future your income may increase enough to put you in the 25% tax bracket. If that ever happens, open a Regular IRA and put the money there instead. Also when you have employers that offer 401k matching do the same thing with a Roth 401k account. Keep your money invested in a low cost index fund.","You should invest in that with the best possible outcome. Right now that is in yourself. Your greatest wealth building tool, at this point, is your future income. As such anything you can do to increase your earnings potential. For some that might mean getting an engineering degree, for others it might mean starting a small business. For some it is both obtaining a college degree and learning about business. A secondary thing to learn about would be personal finance. I would hold off on stocks, at this time, until you get your first real job and you have an emergency fund in place. Penny stocks are worthless, forget about them. Bonds have their place, but not at this point in your life. Saving up for college and obtaining a quality education, debt free, should be your top priority. Saving up for emergencies is a secondary priority, but only after you have more than enough money to fund your college education. You can start thinking about retirement, but you need a career to help fund your savings plan. Put that off until you have such a career. Investing in stocks, at this juncture, is a bit foolish. Start a career first. Any job you take now should be seen as a step towards a larger goal and should not define who you are.","\"I posted a comment in another answer and it seems to be approved by others, so I have converted this into an answer. If you're talking about young adults who just graduated college and worked through it. I would recommend you tell them to keep the same budget as what they were living on before they got a full-time job. This way, as far as their spending habits go, nothing changes since they only have a $500 budget (random figure) and everything else goes into savings and investments. If as a student you made $500/month and you suddenly get $2000/month, that's a lot of money you get to blow on drinks. Now, if you put $500 in savings (until 6-12 month of living expenses), $500 in investments for the long run and $500 in vacation funds or \"\"big expenses\"\" funds (Ideally with a cap and dump the extra in investments). That's $18,000/yr you are saving. At this stage in your life, you have not gotten used to spending that extra $18,000/yr. Don't touch the side money except for the vacation fund when you want to treat yourself. Your friends will call you cheap, but that's not your problem. Take that head start and build that down payment on your dream house. The way I set it up, is (in this case) I have automatics every day after my paychecks come in for the set amounts. I never see it, but I need to make sure I have the money in there. Note: Numbers are there for the sake of simplicity. Adjust accordingly. PS: This is anecdotal evidence that has worked for me. Parents taught me this philosophy and it has worked wonders for me. This is the extent of my financial wisdom.\"","\"Congratulations. The first savings goal should be an emergency fund. Think of this not as an investment, but as insurance against life's woes. They happen and having this kind of money earmarked allows one to invest without needing to withdraw at an inopportune time. This should go into a \"\"high interest\"\" savings account or money market account. Figure three to six months of expenses. The next goal should be retirement savings. In the US this is typically done through 401K or if your company does not offer one, either a ROTH IRA or Traditional IRA. The goal should be about 15% of your income. You should favor a 401k match over just about anything else, and then a ROTH over that. The key to transforming from a broke college student into a person with a real job, and disposable income, is a budget. Otherwise you might just end up as a broke person with a real job (not fun). Part of your budget should include savings, spending, and giving. All three areas are the key to building wealth. Once you have all of those taking care of the real fun begins. That is you have an emergency fund, you are putting 15% to retirement, you are spending some on yourself, and giving to a charity of your choice. Then you can dream some with any money left over (after expenses of course). Do you want to retire early? Invest more for retirement. Looking to buy a home or own a bunch of rental property? Start educating yourself and invest for that. Are you passionate about a certain charity? Give more and save some money to take time off in order to volunteer for that charity. All that and more can be yours. Budgeting is a key concept, and the younger you start the easier it gets. While the financiers will disagree with me, you cannot really invest if you are borrowing money. Keep debt to zero or just on a primary residence. I can tell you from personal experience that I did not started building wealth until I made a firm commitment to being out of debt. Buy cars for cash and never pay credit card interest. Pay off student loans as soon as possible. For some reason the idea of giving to charity invokes rancor. A cursory study of millionaires will indicate some surprising facts: most of them are self made, most of them behave differently than pop culture, and among other things most of them are generous givers. Building wealth is about behavior. Giving to charity is part of that behavior. Its my own theory that giving does almost no good for the recipient, but a great amount of good for the giver. This may seem difficult to believe, but I ask that you try it.\"","Your own fault for taking out loans to get a degree in philosophy. If you have an automobile I would say get a job as a delivery driver, Pretty solid way to earn at least 15 bucks an hour. but regardless find a part time job and save scrupilously. Look at what you spend your money on and see where you can chop out expenses. Also look to see how you can find cheaper food. This is a great website to learn how to live on peanuts earlyretirementextreme.com","\"Goodness, I wish I could put away half my paycheck. Not to rain on your parade, but a 6-month emergency fund is not quite \"\"very good.\"\" It is the typical starting time frame. Personally, I would feel more comfortable with a 2+ year fund. That is a bit extreme, but only because many of us can barely seem to make it around to a 6-month fund. So, we focus on the more attainable goal. I say you do all three. Make saving money your priority, but do enjoy some of it; in moderation. Do not plan on making any big purchases with it, but know that you will eventually be able able to do so. Money not spent is worthless Idle money is worthless. Make some -- hopefully -- prudent investments with some of your money. A small portion of that investment portfolio can/should be in speculative investments. Maybe even as much as 20% of your investment portfolio, since you are young. Consider that money gone and you will hopefully be surprised by one of those speculative investments. That is the crucial point: earmark a small portion of your investment portfolio which you are willing to lose. However, do not gamble with it. Research the hot emerging technologies, for example, and find a way to make an investment. So, in summary: You may have more money that you know what do with, right now. However, that does not mean you need to go out and spend it all. Trust me, as you get older you will think of plenty of good uses for that money.\"","Brownbag your lunch and make coffee at home. If your current lifestyle includes daily takeout lunches and/or barista-made drinks, a rough estimate is you have a negative cash flow of $8-20 per day, $40-100 per week, $2080-5200 per year. If you have daily smoothies, buy a blender. If you have daily lattes buy an espresso maker. I recently got myself a sodastream and it's been worth it. Until you have a six figure portfolio, you aren't going to swing a comparable annual return differential based on asset allocation.","Congratulations! You're making enough money to invest. There are two easy places to start: I recommend against savings accounts because they will quite safely lose your money: the inflation rate is usually higher than the interest rate on a savings account. You may have twice as much money after 50 years, but if everything costs four times as much, then you've lost buying power. If, in the course of learning about investing, you'd like to try buying individual stocks, do it only with money you wouldn't mind losing. Index funds will go down slightly if one of the companies in that index fails entirely, but the stock of a failed company is worthless.","At this stage of the game your best investment is yourself. Rather than putting it in stocks, use any spare money you have to get yourself the best education you can. See if you can drop that part-time job and give yourself more time to study. Or maybe you can go to a better, more expensive college. Or maybe college will give you some opportunity to travel and learn more that way. You don't want to exclude yourself from those opportunities by not having enough spare cash. So in short, spend what you need to get yourself the best education you can, and keep any spare money you have somewhere you can use it to take advantage of any opportunities that come your way."],"string":"[\n \"Determine how much you are going to save first. Then determine where you can spend your money. If you're living with your parents, try to build an emergency fund of six months income. The simplest way is to put half of your income in the emergency fund for a year. Try to save at least 10% of your income for retirement. The earlier you start this, the longer you'll have to let the magic of compounding work on it. If your employer offers a 401k with a match, do that first. If not, consider an IRA. You probably want to do a Roth now (because you probably pay little in taxes so the deduction from a standard IRA won't help you). After the year, you'll have an emergency fund. Work out how much money you'll need for rent, utilities, and groceries when you're on your own. Invest that in some way. Pay off student loans if you have any. Buy a car that you can keep a long time if you need one. Go to night school. Put any excess money in a savings account or mutual fund. This is money for doing things related to housing. Perhaps you'll need to buy a washer/dryer. Or pay a down payment on a mortgage eventually. Saving this money now does two things: first, it gives you savings for when you need it; second, it keeps you from getting used to spending your entire paycheck. If you are used to only having $200 of spending cash out of each check, you will fit your spending into that. If you are used to spending $800 every two weeks, it will be hard to cut your spending to make room for rent, etc.\",\n \"This is all very basic and general advice, that works for most, but not all. You are unique with your own special needs and desires. Good luck! P.S.: not exactly related to your question, but when you get more familiar with investing and utilizing your money, find more ways to save more. For example, change phone plan, cut the cable, home made food in bulk, etc.\",\n \"Buy a ticket to a special country/conference/symposium/exchange program, meet people related to your aspirations, get a mentor. I like the previous answer, but in my experience it is much more rewarding to grow career-wise to earn more than it is to save more money.\",\n \"Get an education. A bachelor's degree preferably, but AA or even a certificate are fine too. It will increase your earning potential significantly and over your lifetime it will earn you a lot of money. You make around $30,000 a year now, median salary for someone with a bachelors in the humanities is around $45,000. If you degree is in the STEM field, that goes up to $55,000 - $65,000 range. Second best option is to start a small business of some kind that does not require substantial investment. Handyman comes to mind as an example or some sort of billing service maybe? I would not recommend self directed investment in the stock market - most people lose money and since you don't have a lot of money to invest, commissions and fees will eat up a significant portion of it. I would usually recommend a CD but interest rates it's not really worth it.\",\n \"Fantastic question to be asking at the age of 22! A very wise man suggested to me the following with regard to your net income I've purposely not included saving a sum of money for a house deposit, as this is very much cultural and lots of EU countries have a low rate of home ownership. On the education versus entrepreneur question. I don't think these are mutually exclusive. I am a big advocate of education (I have a B.Eng) but have following working in the real world for a number of years have started an IT business in data analytics. My business partner and I saw a gap in the market and have exploited it. I continue to educate myself now in short courses on running business, data analytics and investment. My business partner did things the otherway around, starting the company first, then getting an M.Sc. Other posters have suggested that investing your money personally is a bad idea. I think it is a very good idea to take control of your own destiny and choose how you will invest your money. I would say similarly that giving your money to someone else who will sometimes lose you money and will charge you for the privilege is a bad idea. Also putting your money in a box under your bed or in the bank and receive interest that is less than inflation are bad ideas. You need to choose where to invest your money otherwise you will gain no advantage from the savings and inflation will erode your buying power. I would suggest that you educate yourself in the investment options that are available to you and those that suit you personality and life circumstances. Here are some notes on learning about stock market trading/investing if you choose to take that direction along with some books for self learning.\",\n \"Borrow money and start a business. Follow your business plan and invest in yourself and your entrepreneurship. If you mean invest in the market, do not borrow money. In your plan, you are willing to make payments right? There are lots of things you can do better, but borrowing money to invest in the market for a couple of years is not one of them. Investing is boring, saving is boring, and planning your financial future is boring. It takes a consistent effort and you aren't going to get rich quick.\",\n \"The first thing you need to do is to set yourself a budget. Total all your money coming in (from jobs, allowances, etc.) and all your money going out (including rent, utilities, loan repayments, food, other essential and the luxuries). If your money coming in is more than your money going out, then you are onto a positive start. If on the other hand your money going out is more than the money coming in, then you are at the beginning of big trouble. You will have to do at least one of 2 things, either increase your income or reduce your expenses or both. You will have to go through all your expenses (money going out) and cut back on the luxuries, try to get cheaper alternatives for some of your essential, and get a second job or increase your hours at your current job. The aim is to always have more money coming in than the money you spend. The second thing to do is to pay off any outstanding debts by paying more than the minimum amounts and then have some savings goals. You said you wanted to save for a car - that is one saving goal. Another saving goal could be to set up a 6 month emergency fund (enough money in a separate account to be able to survive at least 6 months in case something happened, such as you lost your job or you suddenly got sick). Next you could look at getting a higher education so you can go out and get higher paying jobs. When you do get a higher paying job, the secret is not to spend all your extra money coming in on luxuries, you should treat yourself but do not go overboard. Increase the amounts you save and learn how to invest so you can get your savings to work harder for you. Building a sound financial future for yourself takes a lot of hard work and discipline, but once you do get started and change the way you do things you will find that it doesn't take long for things to start getting easier. The one thing you do have going for you is time; you are starting early and have time on your side.\",\n \"The best thing to do right now is track your spending. You know you're saving 1k a month, and you know you're spending 1k a month on rent. That's 24k so far. I presume you'll have some income tax taken out, let's assume it's another 6k to round us neatly up to 30k. Since you earn 80k and you've spent 30k so far, you have another 50k unaccounted for. If you're in the USA I'd recommend using mint.com or a similar service to automatically track your transactions, or even just a spreadsheet if you don't like handing out your bank details (and you shouldn't). After that, I agree with SoulsOpenSource's answer. Write a budget and try to figure out where the fat can be trimmed. When I started tracking I saw I was spending almost a hundred bucks every week on fast food, due to poor planning and laziness. I decided to cook more and plan better and now I'm spending less than half that - in the last year I've saved almost three thousand dollars! If you want to save up for your future (and good on you if you do!) then there'll be some choices to make ahead. If you're spending a few hundred bucks on going out drinking every weekend, or you grab two coffees every day, or you buy fifty blurays a month (do people still buy blurays?), you'll have to ask yourself: Will I be happier spending money here than saving for my future?\",\n \"First pay yourself. When you get salary, send some parts of that (for example 10%) to your saving account. Step by step you'll save nice money ;)\",\n \"\\\"It really depends a lot on you and how much time you are putting into it. Since you're saying you want your money to work for you I'm going to assume you want as little hassle as possible. A few general tips: Save a fixed percentage of your monthly income Don't try to save \\\"\\\"whenever you have money left over\\\"\\\", you will just end up spending it somehow. Invest long term - don't trade Don't try to beat the market - it will just take up too much time and statistically you will end up making less. Hedge If you invest in the company/industry you work in, you will be double screwed if the sector drops (lose job + savings at the same time). Optimally you should invest in something that will benefit when the company you work for is doing bad. Pay off high interest debt Usually debt will have a higher interest than any safe investment you can make. Spend money to save/make money Sometimes the best investment you can make is on stuff that will save you money in the long run. Like buy an apartment close to work (less transport costs) or get a more expensive car that will save you money on gas, insurance etc.\\\"\",\n \"You are young so you have time on your side. This allows you to invest in more aggressive investments. I would do the following 1) Contribute at least what your company is willing to match on your 401k, if your company offers a Roth 401k use that instead of the normal 401k (When this becomes available to you) 2) Open a Roth IRA Contribute the maximum to this account ~$5500/year 3) Live below your means, setup a budget and try and save/invest a minimum of 50% of your salary, do not get used to spending more money. With each bonus or salary increase a minimum of 75% of it should go toward your savings/investment. This will keep you from rapidly increasing your spending budget. 3) Invest in real estate (this could be its own post). Being young and not too far out of college you have probably been moving every year and have not accumulated so much stuff that it makes moving difficult. I would utilize your FHA loan slot to buy a multifamily property (2-4 Units) for your first property using only 3.5% down payment (you can put more down if you like). Learn how to analyze properties first and find a great Realtor/Mentor. Then I would continue as a NOMAD investor. Where you move every year into a new owner occupied property and turn the previous into a rental. This allows you to put 3-5% down payment of properties that you would otherwise have to put 20-25% and since you are young you can afford the risk. You should check out this article/website as it is very informative and can show you the returns that you could earn. Young Professional Nomad Good luck I am in a very similar situation\",\n \"Does you job offer a retirement plan? (401k, SIMPLE, etc) Does your employer offer a match on contributions? Typically an employer will match what you put in, up to a certain percentage (e.g. 3%). So, say you contribute 3% of your paycheck into your retirement plan. If your employer mathes that, you've effectively contributed 6%. You've just doubled your money! The best thing a young professional can do is to contribute to your employer-matched retirement plan, up to the maximum amount they will match. You should do it immediately. If not, you are leaving money on the table.\",\n \"With $800/month extra? Do both. (I am ethnocentric enough to assume you live in the same country as me) First, figure out what your emergency fund should look like. Put this money in a high yield checking or savings account. Add to it monthly until you reach your goal. It should be 3 to 6 months of your total monthly expenses. It will be a lot more than $2k I suspect. You will earn bubkis in interest, but the point of the emergency fund is a highly liquid asset for emergencies so you can choose cheaper car insurance and not buy warranties on stuff. With your $800/month, split it up this way: $416/month into a Roth IRA account at Vanguard (or Schwab or Fidelity) in the Star Fund (or similar low cost, diversified fund). The star is $1000 to open, pretty diversified. $416 is a lazy number that comes close to the $5000 annual limit for a Roth IRA in the US. Contribute like clockwork, directly from your paycheck if you can. This will make it easy to do and get you the benefit of dollar cost averaging. $200 or $300 into your savings account until you reach your emergency fund goal. $85 - $100. Live a little. Speculate in stocks with your vanguard account. Or rent fancy cars. Or taken a vacation or go party. If you are saving $800/month in your early 20 be proud of yourself, but have a little fun too so you can let off steam. It isn't much but you know you can play with it. Once you reach your emergency fund, save up for your future house or car or plane tickets to Paris. Ask another question for how to save up for these kinds of goals.\",\n \"Chances are since college is your next likely step I would recommend saving up for it. Start building an emergency fund. Recommended $1,000 minimum. To start building your credit rating (when 18) get a low interest low limit credit. Pay off the balance every month. Starting to build your credit rating now can save you hundreds of thousands when buying a house over the course of paying it off. ie. cheaper interest rate. As for investing, the sooner you can get started the better. Acquire preferred/stocks/bonds/REITs/ETFs/etc that pay you to own them (they pay you dividends monthly/quarterly/etc). Stick with solid stocks that have a history of consistently increasing their dividends over time and that are solid companies. I personally follow the work/advice of Derek Foster. He's not a professional but he retired at 34. His first book (Stop working - Here's how you can) is great and recommend it to anyone who is looking to get started. Also check out Ramit Sethi's blog I Will Teach You to be Rich. He focuses on big wins which save you a lot over the long term. He's also got some great advice for students as well. Best of luck!\",\n \"As all said, the age limitation thing is nothing, and saving money not necessarily means to live poor nor Skimpy, spend your needs and try to get what you need instead of what you want, the 24 years old is a good start for saving money, the whole life still in front of you Good luck!\",\n \"Save enough to build an emergency cushion of 4-6 months total expenses. After that, invest everything you can in areas where you are well researched and have carefully formed your own opinion on the subject. Those who save do not reach financial freedom, those who learn to invest and make their money work for them do. Invest in learning how to invest.\",\n \"As a 22 year old planning for your financial life, it is obvious to say that saving as much as you can to invest for the long run is the smartest thing to do from a financial point of view. In general, at this point, aged 22, you can take as much risk as you'll ever will. You're investing for the very long term (+30/+40 years). The downside of risk, the level of uncertainty on returns (positive or negative), is most significant on the short term (<5years). While the upside of risk, assuming you can expect higher returns the more risk you take, are most significant on the long term. In short: for you're financial life, it's smart to save as much as you can and invest these savings with a lot of risk. So, what is smart to invest in? The most important rule is to keep your investment costs as low as possible. Risk and returns are strongly related, however investment costs lower the returns, while you keep the risk. Be aware of the investment industry marketing fancy investment products. Most of them leave you with higher costs and lower returns. Research strongly suggests that an lowcost etf portfolio is our best choice. Personally, i disregard this new smart beta hype as a marketing effort from the financial industry. They charge more investment costs (that's a certain) and promise better returns because they are geniuses (hmmm...). No thanks. As suggested in other comments, I would go for an low cost (you shouldn't pay more than 0.2% per year) etf portfolio with a global diversification, with at least 90% in stocks. Actually that is what I've been doing for three years now (I'm 27 years old).\",\n \"Establish good saving and spending habits. Build up your savings so that when you do buy a car, you can pay cash. Make spending decisions, especially for housing, transportation and entertainment, that allow you to save a substantial portion of your income. The goal is to get yourself to a place where you have enough net worth that the return on your assets is greater than the amount you can earn by working. (BTW, this is basically what I did. I put my two sons through top colleges on my dime and retired six years ago at the age of 56).\",\n \"Buy a home. A home is the first and best investment, u can own a home with as little as 3% down and as u pay for your living u pay it off.....also banks will always give you equity loans in case you need your money\",\n \"\\\"My basic rule I tell everyone who will listen is to always live like you're a college student - if you could make it on $20k a year, when you get your first \\\"\\\"real\\\"\\\" job at $40k (eg), put all the rest into savings to start (401(k), IRA, etc). Gradually increase your lifestyle expenses after you hit major savings goals (3+ month emergency fund, house down payment, etc). Any time you get a raise, start by socking it all into your employer's 401(k) or similar. And repeat the above advice.\\\"\",\n \"Take a certain percentage of your income (say, 10%, but more is better if you can) and put it aside with every paycheck. Some employers will even allow you to direct deposit your paycheck into two different accounts and you can specify a certain amount or percentage for the second account. Your savings will go directly into a separate account as if you never had it in the first place. Consider your savings untouchable as spending money. Watch it grow. There's no other secret, you just have to do it!\",\n \"Congrats on your first real job! Save as much as your can while keeping yourself (relatively) comfortable. As to where to put your hard earned money, first establish why you want to save the money in the first place. Money is a mean to acquire the things we want or need in your life or the lives of others. Once your goals are set, then follow this order:\",\n \"Let Go App...good way to find awesome deals on furniture. Depending on climate find a nice bike, pretty easy way to get around & low maintenance costs compared to a car ( i.e. insurance, gas, repairs). Then depending on whether your work offers matching 401k programs, max that out or find a good index fund & consistently build that emergency fund. Chill for 10-15 years & enjoy the benefits of compounding interest my friend.\",\n \"At twenty-two, you can have anywhere between 100%-70% of your securities portfolio in equities. It is reasonable to start at 100% and reduce over time. The one thing that I would mention with that is that your target at retirement should be 70% stocks/30% bonds. You should NEVER have more than 30% bonds. Why? Because a 70/30 mix is both safer than 100% bonds and will give a higher return. Absent some market timing strategy (which as an amateur investor, you should absolutely avoid) or some complicated balancing scheme, there is never a reason to be at more than 30% bonds. A 50/50 mix of stocks and bonds or a 100% bonds ratio not only returns less than the 70/30 mix, it is actually riskier. Why? Because sometimes bonds fall. And when they do, stocks generally gain. And vice versa. Because of this behavior, the 70/30 mix is less likely to fall than 50% or 100% bonds. Does that mean that your stock percentage should never drop below 70%? No. If your portfolio contains things other than stocks and bonds, it is reasonable for stocks to fall below 70%. The problem is that when you drop stocks below 70%, you should drop bonds below 30% as well. So you keep the stock to bond ratio at 7:3. If you want to get a lower risk than a 70/30 mix, then you should move into cash equivalents. Cash equivalents are actually safer than stocks and bonds either individually or in combination. But at twenty-two, you don't really need more safety. At twenty-two, the first thing to do is to build your emergency fund. This should be able to handle six months of expenses without income. I recommend making it equal to six months of your income. The reason being that it is easy to calculate your income and difficult to be sure of expenses. Also, you can save six months of income at twenty-two. Are you going to stay where you are for the next five years? At twenty-two, the answer is almost certainly no. But the standard is the five year time frame. If you want a bigger place or one that is closer to work, then no. If you stay somewhere at least five years, then it is likely that the advantages to owning rather than renting will outweigh the costs of switching houses. Less than five years, the reverse is true. So you should probably rent now. You can max out your 401k and IRA now. Doing so even with a conservative strategy will produce big returns by sixty-seven. And perhaps more importantly, it helps keep your spending down. The less you do spend, the less you will feel that you need to spend. Once you fill your emergency fund, start building savings for a house. I would consider putting them in a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). A REIT will tend to track real estate. Since you want to buy real estate with the results, this is its own kind of safety. It fell in value? Houses are probably cheap. Houses increasing in price rapidly? A REIT is probably growing by leaps and bounds. You do this outside your retirement accounts, as you want to be able to access it without penalty.\",\n \"In addition to Rocky's answer, and IF you have already saved an adequate emergency fund, then best way to increase your wealth (not your income) is to invest your extra money. If you have no extra money then you need to lower your expenses or work towards getting better income. They aren't really any tricks to this, but there are some tips that may help:\",\n \"\\\"An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest, as Ben Franklin said. However, this is not a question I can answer for you, as it depends on the opportunities that are specifically available to you as an individual. Sometimes opportunities will knock on your door and you can take advantage, other times you have to create that door to allow opportunities to knock. Maybe you have a friend that is opening a side business, maybe there is a class you can get into at a trivial cost. What I suggest is to start investing just to get into the habit of it, not so much for the returns. Before you do, however, any financial advisor will advise you to begin with a emergency fund, worth about 3-6 months of your expenses for that time. I wanted to hit the ground running and start investing in stocks, but first things first I guess. \\\"\\\"Millionaire Next Door\\\"\\\" will help you get into a saving mindset, \\\"\\\"I will teach you to be rich\\\"\\\" is ok, plenty of other books. My advice is keep doing what you're doing, learn to start saving, and once you have obtained an emergency fund of the amount of your choosing, start looking to invest in Index Funds or ETFs through any platform that has LOW FEES!! I use Betterment, but Vanguard is good too, as they allow you to get your feet wet and it's passive. Hope this helps.\\\"\",\n \"If you are going to work on making as much money as humanly possible, then you ought to consider investing in the market. [Compound Stock Earnings](http://www.compoundstockearnings.com) agrees that investing in stocks is a fantastic technique to acquire prosperity on your own. Believe it or not, it’s the greatest source of wealth in the history of the world. For that reason, you need to ensure that you get started at the earliest opportunity.\",\n \"On average, you should be saving at least 10-15% of your income in order to be financially secure when you retire. Different people will tell you different things, but really this can be split between short term savings (cash), long term savings (401ks, IRAs, stocks & bonds), and paying down debt. That $5k is a good start on an emergency fund, but you probably want a little more. As justkt said, 6 months' worth is what you want to aim for. Put this in a Money Market account, where you'll earn a little more interest but won't be penalized from withdrawing it when its needed (you may have to live off it, after all). Beyond that, I would split things up; if possible, have payroll deductions going to a broker (sharebuilder is a good one to start with if you can't spare much change), as well as an IRA at a bank. Set up a separate checking account just for rent and utilities, put a month's worth of cash in there, and have another payroll deduction that covers your living expenses + maybe 5% put in there automatically. Then, set up automatic bill payments, so you don't even have to think about it. Check it once a month to make sure there aren't any surprises. Pay off your credit cards every month. These are, by far, the most expensive forms of credit that most people have. You shouldn't be financing large purchases with them (you'll get better rates by taking a personal loan from a bank). Set specific goals for savings, and set up automatic payroll deductions to work towards them. Especially for buying a house; most responsible lenders will ask for 20% down. In today's market, that means you need to write a check for $40k or $50k. While it's tempting to finance up to 100% of the property value, it's also risky considering how volatile markets can be. You don't want to end up owing more on the property than it's worth two years down the road. If you find yourself at the end of the month with an extra $50 or so, consider your savings goals or your current debt instead of blowing it on a toy. Especially if you have long term debt (high balance credit cards, vehicle or property loans), applying that money directly to principal can save you months (or years) paying it back, and hundreds or thousands of dollars of interest (all depending on the details of the loan, of course). Above all, have fun with it :) Think of your personal net worth as you do your Gamer score on the XBox, and look for ways to maximize it with a minimum of effort or investment on your part! Investing in yourself and your future can be incredibly rewarding emotionally :)\",\n \"\\\"To buy a house, you need: At least 2 years tax returns (shows a steady income history; even if you're making 50k right now, you probably weren't when you were 16, and you might not be when you're 20; as they say, easy come, easy go). A 20% down payment. These days, that easily means writing a $50k check. You make $50k a year, great, but try this math: how long will it take you to save 100% of your annual salary? If you're saving 15% of your income (which puts you above many Americans), it'll still take 7 years. So no house for you for 7 years. While your attitude of \\\"\\\"I've got the money, so why not\\\"\\\" is certainly acceptable, the reality is that you don't have a lot of financial experience yet. There could easily be lean times ahead when you aren't making much (many people since 2008 have gone 18 months or more without any income at all). Save as much money as possible. Once you get $10k in a liquid savings account, speak to a CPA or an investment advisor at your local bank to set up tax deferred accounts such as an IRA. And don't wait to start investing; starting now versus waiting until you're 25 could mean a 100% difference in your net worth at any given time (that's not just a random number, either; an additional 7 years compounding time could literally mean another doubling of your worth).\\\"\",\n \"You have made the most important first step by starting to think about your money, well done. Firstly pay of all credit cards as quickly as you can and start to live within your means. Until you have paid of your credits cards don’t spend any money of unnecessary items, e.g. Once your credit cards are paid off you can start living a more normal life. Each time you spend money you need to ask yourself: Is this worth more to be then being able to buy a new house in a few years time? You should be able to save at least half the amount you were paying of the credit card each mouth and still leave a reasonable life, so setup a standing order at the start of the month to your saving account. Given your age you are like to get promoted and hence have increased pay or get increments for each year of service. Therefore Every time your pay goes up, set up a standing order to transfer at least half of the pay increases to a saving account. You did not have this money before, so you will not miss it when you save it. In the long term, you should be able to keep your car until it is about 15 years old, so will not have the cost of buying another car. Therefore once the car loan is over, you can save that money as well.\",\n \"\\\"You're right to seek passive income and since you're already looking for it, you probably already know some of the reasons to why it is important. Do you live in the United States? If so I'd strongly recommend purchasing your primary residence and then maybe investment properties if you like owning your own home. The US tax and banking structure is set up to favor this move in more ways than I can count. So, SAVE, SAVE, SAVE then beg, borrow and steal to get the down payment, rent rooms to friends or random people to afford the payments, buy a fixer upper in an up and coming neighborhood. The US is rife with these in all price ranges. If you're working 56 hrs a week, you've got the work ethic. So if you can't afford it it's probably because you're spending all your money on other stuff. If you want to do this, it will take some effort, smarts, and savings. You will have to trim back the mochas, vacations, dinners out, etc, etc etc. Let your friends do that stuff and rent from you. Your life will get continually easier. If you have already trimmed back all the discretionary spending and still can't make it then you need to earn more money. Doing either and both of these things will absolutely change your whole economic life and future. So in summary I'd offer these Ranked Priorities: 1) Learn to Save (unless you always want to have to work for someone else) 2) Increase your income capability (since your most valuable asset is YOU) 3) Buy and hold real estate (because the game is rigged to favor passive income) I'm 38, never earned a six figure salary, made some good purchases when I was 25-30 and work is \\\"\\\"optional\\\"\\\" for me now.\\\"\",\n \"You should plan 1-3 months for an emergency fund. Saving 6 months of expenses is recommended by many, but you have a lot of goals to accomplish, and youth is impatient. Early in your life, you have a lot of building (saving) that you need to do. You can find a good car for under $5000. It might take some effort, and you might not get quite the car you want, but if you save for 5-6 months you should have a decent car. My son is a college student and bought a sedan earlier this year for about $4000. Onto the house thing. As you said, at $11,000*2=$22,000 expenses yearly, plus about $10,000 saved, you are making low 30's. Using a common rule of thumb of 25% for housing, you really cannot afford more than about $600-700/month for housing -- you probably want to wait on that first house for awhile. Down payments really should be about 20%, and depending upon the area of the country, a modest house might be $120,000 or $520,000. Even on a $120,000, the 20% down payment would be $24,000. As you have student loans ($20,000), you should put together a plan to pay them off, perhaps allocating half your savings amount to paying down the student loans and half to saving? As you are young, you should have strong salary gains in the first few years, and once you are closer to $40,000/year, you might find the numbers working better for housing. My worry is that you are spending $22,000 out of about $32,000 for living expenses. That you are saving is great, and you are putting aside a good amount. But, you want to target saving 30-40%, if you can.\",\n \"Save what you can. Due to compounding of interest, saving early is much more advantageous than saving the same amount later. Obviously you need money to live on, and you're entitled to spend some money on entertainment -- but set a budget on that and stick to that budget. Buying toys now deprives you of better toys later. You aren't saving for an uncertain future; you are saving for a certain future!\",\n \"\\\"I wish I was in your shoes with the knowledge I have in my head. financial goal setting is a great plan at your age. In my humble opinion you don't want to save for anything... you want to invest as much as you can, create a corporation and have the corporation invest as much as possible. When there is enough monthly cash flow coming from your investments... have the corporation buy you a house, a car, take out an insurance policy on you as key employee... etc. As for the $11,000 laying around in cash as an emergency fund, no way! With returns as high as 1-3% per month invested properly keep it invested. Getting to your emergency cash reserve you have in a trading account is only a couple key strokes away. As for the 401k... If it is not making at least 25% yearly for the last 10 years (excluding your Contributions) do it yourself in a self directed IRA. Oh... I forgot to mention When your corporation buys your stuff... if set up correctly you can take them as a loss in the corporate ledger and you know any loss from one entity can offset profits from another, thus reducing any taxes you may have. My friend you are at the point of great beginnings, hard choices and an open door to what ever you want your future to look like. Decide what you want out of your money and don't take \\\"\\\"NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT\\\"\\\" as an answer. Find someone that will tell you these secrets, they are out there. Good luck.\\\"\",\n \"At your young age, the most of your wealth is your future labor income (unless you are already rich). Your most profitable investment at this time is most likely to be investment in your human capital (your professional skills, career opportunities). Depending on how you plan to earn your money, invest time and effort to enable you to earn better wages in that activity. So focus on education or professional training. Also, consider that it is probably your total lifetime utility/welfare you should maximize (but you decide!). I suggest you do not focus narrowly on earning as much money as possible. Consider what sort of life you want and what you need to do to enable it. Best of luck!\",\n \"Your attitude is great, but be careful to temper your (awesome) ambition with a dose of reality. Saving is investing is great, the earlier the better, and seeing retirement at a young age with smooth lots of life's troubles; saving is smart and we all know it. But as a college junior, be honest with yourself. Don't you want to screw around and play with some of that money? Your first time with real income, don't you want to blow it on a big TV, vacation, or computer? Budget out those items with realistic costs. See the pros and cons of spending that money keeping in mind the opportunity cost. For example, when I was in college, getting a new laptop for $2000 (!) was easily more important to me than retirement. I don't regret that. I do regret buying my new truck too soon and borrowing money to do it. These are judgment calls. Here is the classic recipe: Adjust the numbers or businesses to your personal preferences. I threw out suggestions so you can research them and get an idea of what to compare. And most importantly of all. DO NOT GET INTO CREDIT CARD DEBT. Use credit if you wish, but do not carry a balance.\",\n \"\\\"My father imparted this advice to me when I was a teenager, and it hasn't failed me yet. > Pay yourself first What this means is that the first \\\"\\\"bill\\\"\\\" you pay should always be your savings. Preferably in a way that automatically comes out of your paycheck or account without requiring you to take an active step to make it happen. I save a ton of money, but I am no more disciplined than anyone else. I just realized that over the years of progressing in my career that I gradually got higher and higher salaries, yet never had a substantial increase in the money I had leftover in my bank at the end of the month despite the fact that I make about 8x the money I used to live reasonably comfortably on. Therein is the point, we spend whatever money we see, so you almost have to hide it from yourself. First, participate to the fullest in your company's 401k if they offer it. After a while you will adjust naturally to the net take home pay and won't miss the savings you are accumulating. Absent that, or in addition to that, set up a separate bank or investment account and arrange an automatic transfer from your checking account every month. Then set up automatic investing in CD's or some other less-liquid-than-cash investment so you it is just enough hassle to get at the money that you won't do it on a whim. It sounds too simple, but it works.\\\"\",\n \"Calculate a weekly budget for yourself for all incidentals (i.e. shopping, movies, eating out, etc...) and take that amount out in cash each week. For example, if your budget is $75 then try to spend only that $75 on all the extra stuff you do doing the week. It'll make you hyper-conscious of where your money is going and how fast. You'll be surprised at how quickly little things like grabbing coffee in the morning can chip away at your funds.\",\n \"\\\"The suggestions towards retirement and emergency savings outlined by the other posters are absolute must-dos. The donations towards charitable causes are also extremely valuable considerations. If you are concerned about your savings, consider making some goals. If you plan on staying in an area long term (at least five years), consider beginning to save for a down payment to own a home. A rent-versus-buy calculator can help you figure out how long you'd need to stay in an area to make owning a home cost effective, but five years is usually a minimum to cover closing costs and such compared to rending. Other goals that might be worthwhile are a fully funded new car fund for when you need new wheels, the ability to take a longer or nicer vacation, a future wedding if you'd like to get married some day, and so on. Think of your savings not as a slush fund of money sitting around doing nothing, but as the seed of something worthwhile. Yes, you will only be young once. However being young does not mean you have to be Carrie from Sex in the City buying extremely expensive designer shoes or live like a rapper on Cribs. Dave Ramsey is attributed as saying something like, \\\"\\\"Live like no one else so that you can live like no one else.\\\"\\\" Many people in their 30s and 40s are struggling under mortgages, perhaps long-left-over student loan debt, credit card debt, auto loans, and not enough retirement savings because they had \\\"\\\"fun\\\"\\\" while they were young. Do you have any remaining debt? Pay it off early instead of saving so much. Perhaps you'll find that you prefer to hit that age with a fully paid off home and car, savings for your future goals (kids' college tuitions, early retirement, etc.). Maybe you want to be able to afford some land or a place in a very high cost of living city. In other words - now is the time to set your dreams and allocate your spare cash towards them. Life's only going to get more expensive if you choose to have a family, so save what you can as early as possible.\\\"\",\n \"Start as early as possible and you will want to kiss your younger self when you get to retirement age. I know you (and everyone else at that age) thinks that they don't make enough to start saving and leans towards waiting until you get established in your career and start making better money. Don't put it off. Save some money out of each paycheck even if it is only $50. Trust me, as little as you make now, you probably have more disposable income than you will when you make twice as much. Your lifestyle always seems to keep up with your income and you will likely ALWAYS feel like you don't have money left over to save. The longer you wait, the more you are going to have to stuff away to make up for that lost time you could have been compounding your returns as shown in this table (assuming 9.4 percent average gain annually, which has been the average return on the stock market from 1926-2010). I also suggest reading this article when explains it in more detail: Who Wants to be a millionaire?\",\n \"Get a job, get a car, get a better job, save more money, invest that money in a high yield savings account, keep adding to that account until you turn 18. Start buying in bulk from China and reselling on eBay or Amazon for a 200-500% mark up, put that money in savings, ????, Profit. You can easily make 7-10 grand a year while still going to school, just save it all. Don't spend a dime unless you absolutely have to.\",\n \"This is assuming that you are now making some amount X per month which is more than the income you used to have as a student. (Otherwise, the question seems rather moot.) All figures should be net amounts (after taxes). First, figure out what the difference in your cost of living is. That is, housing, electricity, utilities, the basics that you need to have to have a place in which to live. I'm not considering food costs here unless they were subsidized while you were studying. Basically, you want to figure out how much you now have to spend extra per month for basic sustenance. Then, figure out how much more you are now making, compared to when you were a student. Subtract the sustenance extra from this to get your net pay increase. After that is when it gets trickier. Basically, you want to set aside or invest as much of the pay increase as possible, but you probably have other expenses now that you didn't before and which you cannot really do that much about. This mights be particular types of clothes, commute fares (car keepup, gas, bus pass, ...), or something entirely different. Anyway, decide on a savings goal, as a percentage of your net pay increase compared to when you were a student. This might be 5%, 10% or (if you are really ambitious) 50% or more. Whichever number you pick, make sure it's reasonable giving your living expenses, and keep in mind that anything is better than nothing. Find a financial institution that offers a high-interest savings account, preferably one with free withdrawals, and sign up for one. Each and every time you get paid, figure out how much to save based on the percentage you determined (if your regular case is that you get the same payment each time, you can simply set up an automated bank transfer), put that in the savings account and, for the moment, forget about that money. Try your best to live only on the remainder, but if you realize that you set aside too much, don't be afraid to tap into the savings account. Adjust your future deposits accordingly and try to find a good balance. At the end of each month, deposit whatever remains in your regular account into your savings account, and if that is a sizable amount of money, consider raising your savings goal a little. The ultimate goal should be that you don't need to tap into your savings except for truly exceptional situations, but still keep enough money outside of the savings account to cater to some of your wants. Yes, bank interest rates these days are often pretty dismal, and you will probably be lucky to find a savings account that (especially after taxes) will even keep up with inflation. But to start with, what you should be focusing on is not to make money in terms of real value appreciation, but simply figuring out how much money you really need to sustain a working life for yourself and then walking that walk. Eventually (this may take anywhere from a couple of months to a year or more), you should have settled pretty well on an amount that you feel comfortable with setting aside each month and just letting be. By that time, you should have a decently sized nest egg already, which will help you get over rough spots, and can start thinking about other forms of investing some of what you are setting aside. Whenever you get a net pay raise of any kind (gross pay raise, lower taxes, bonus, whichever), increase your savings goal by a portion of that raise. Maybe give yourself 60% of the raise and bank the remaining 40%. That way, you are (hopefully!) always increasing the amount of money that you are setting aside, while also reaping some benefits right away. One major upside of this approach is that, if you lose your job, not only will you have that nest egg, you will also be used to living on less. So you will have more money in the bank and less monthly expenses, which puts you in a significantly better position than if you had only one of those, let alone neither.\",\n \"Yes, you should be saving for retirement. There are a million ideas out there on how much is a reasonable amount, but I think most advisor would say at least 6 to 10% of your income, which in your case is around $15,000 per year. You give amounts in dollars. Are you in the U.S.? If so, there are at least two very good reasons to put money into a 401k or IRA rather than ordinary savings or investments: (a) Often your employer will make matching contributions. 50% up to 6% of your salary is pretty common, i.e. if you put in 6% they put in 3%. If either of your employers has such a plan, that's an instant 50% profit on your investment. (b) Any profits on money invested in an IRA or 401k are tax free. (Effectively, the mechanics differ depending on the type of account.) So if you put $100,000 into an IRA today and left it there until you retire 30 years later, it would likely earn something like $600,000 over that time (assuming 7% per year growth). So you'd pay takes on your initial $100,000 but none on the $600,000. With your income you are likely in a high tax bracket, that would make a huge difference. If you're saying that you just can't find a way to put money away for retirement, may I suggest that you cut back on your spending. I understand that the average American family makes about $45,000 per year and somehow manages to live on that. If you were to put 10% of your income toward retirement, then you would be living on the remaining $171,000, which is still almost 4 times what the average family has. Yeah, I make more than $45,000 a year too and there are times when I think, How could anyone possibly live on that? But then I think about what I spend my money on. Did I really need to buy two new computer printers the last couple of months? I certainly could do my own cleaning rather than hiring a cleaning lady to come in twice a month. Etc. A tough decision to make can be paying off debt versus putting money into an investment account. If the likely return on investment is less than the interest rate on the loan, you should certainly concentrate on paying off the loan. But if the reverse is true, then you need to decide between likely returns and risk.\",\n \"Get a job, if you don't have one right now. Take deductions from your paycheck for an IRA or 401K if the company has one.\",\n \"Great question and great of you to be paying attention to this. Right now having the ability to save $2K per year might seem very out of reach. However with the right career path and by paying attention to personal finance saving 2K per month will become possible sooner than you may think. As a student you are already investing in your future, by building your greatest wealth building tool: your income. Right now concentrate on that. If you have extra money throw it in a boring old savings account and don't touch it other than emergencies. An emergency is defined as something that will preclude you from completing your education. It is not paying for the latest xbox game/skateboard/once in a lifetime trip. An important precursor to investing is having an emergency fund that sits in a boring old savings account earning almost nothing. Think of it as an insurance policy that prevents you from liquidating your investments in case of and emergency. Emergencies often come during economic downturns. If you have to liquidate your investment to cover these times then you will lock in negative returns. Once you are done with school, moved into a place of your own, and have your first job you will have a nice start on your emergency fund. Then you can start investing. Doing it in the right order you will be amazed how quickly your savings can accumulate. I'd be shooting for that 2 million by the time you are 40, not 65.\",\n \"To generate a passive income you need lots of TIME or MONEY, you are short of both. As other people have said, do whatever you can to reduce you spending and start saving. Don’t think “I work very hard, therefore I deserve xxx”, start thinking “x cost y hrs of work, is it truly worth it?” (Remember to consider your take home pay per hr, not you before tax pay!) What would it take to get paid more per hr in one of your jobs? Maybe investing a little time/money in training would increase your pay. Doing your job a little better can often lead to a good outcome. (I see from your profile that you are a new computer programmer; I assume that one of your jobs is programming, if so put your time and effort into it. As you become more skilful within a few years you will start earning more. Maybe even give up one of the other jobs by spending less so you can do better at programming) Then as your incomes goes up, don’t allow your spending to increase, save the additional money.\",\n \"Not 100% related, but the #1 thing you need to avoid is CREDIT CARD DEBT. Trust me on this one. I'm 31, and finally got out of credit card debt about eight months ago. For just about my entire 20s, I racked up credit card debt and saved zero. Invested zero. It pains me to realize that I basically wasted ten years of possible interest, and instead bought a lot of dumb things and paid 25% interest on it. So yes, put money into your 401k and an IRA. Max them out.\",\n \"You need a budget. You need to know how much you make and how much you spend. How much you earn and what you choose to spend you money on is your choice. You have your own tolerance for risk and your own taste and style, so lifestyle and what you own isn't something that we can answer. The key to your budget is to really understand where you money goes. Maybe you are the sort of person who needs to know down to the penny, maybe you are a person who rounds off. Either way you should have some idea. How should I make a budget? and How can I come up with a good personal (daily) budget? Once you know what you budget is, here are some pretty standard steps to get started. Each point is a full question in of itself, but these are to give you a place to start thinking and learning. You might have other priorities like a charity or other organizations that go into your priority like. Regardless of your career path and salary, you will need a budget to understand where you money is, where it goes, and how you can reach your goals and which goals are reasonable to have.\",\n \"\\\"The power of compounding interest and returns is an amazing thing. Start educating yourself about investing, and do it -- there are great Q&As on this site, numerous books (I recommend \\\"\\\"The Intelligent Investor\\\"\\\", tools for small investors (like Sharebuilder.com) and other resources out there to get you started. Your portfolio doesn't need to include every dime you have either. But you do need to develop the discipline to save money -- even if that savings is $20 while you're in school. How you split between cash/deposit account savings and other investment vehicles is a decision that needs to make sense to you.\\\"\",\n \"Start as soon as you can and make your saving routine. Start with whatever you feel comfortable with and be consistent. Increase that amount with raises, income gains, and whenever you want.\",\n \"Start now. It's a lot easier to save now than it is to start to save later.\",\n \"On the one hand, it's a great idea to open a Roth IRA now, once you've got the cash to contribute. It's a tax designation sounds like it would fit your meager earnings this year. The main reason to open one now rather than later is that some types of withdrawls require the account be aged 5 years. But you can also withdraw the amount you've contributed tax free any time. Student loans right now are pricey, so if you're carrying a balance at say 6.8 percent fixed you should pay that down ASAP. Beyond that, I'd keep the rest liquid for now. Having that kind of liquid cash is extremely reassuring, and many of the biggest returns on investment are going to be in your personal life. More fuel efficient vehicles, energy efficient appliances, computer backups, chest freezers and bulk meat purchases, etc. One example I see every six months is car insurance: I can pay for six months in full or I can pay a smaller monthly bill plus a small fee. That fee is well above current market rates. You see this everywhere; people searching for lower minimum payments rather than lower total costs. Save your money up and be the smart buyer. It's too damn expensive to be broke.\",\n \"\\\"Excellent questions! Asking such questions indicates something special about yourself. The desire to learn and adjust your beliefs will increase your chance of success in your life. I would use a wide variety of authors to increase your education. Myself I prefer Dave Ramsey to Clark Howard, but I think Clark is very good. The first thing you should focus on is learning how to do and live by a budget. Often times, adults will assume that you are on a budget because you are broke. It happens with my friends and my youngest child is older than you. Nothing could be further from the truth. A budget is simply a plan on how you will spend your income so you don't run out of money before you run out of month. Along with budgeting I would also focus on goal setting. This is the type of \\\"\\\"investing\\\"\\\" you should be doing at your age. For example if your primary goal was to become an engineer, my recommendation is to hold off buying stocks/mutual funds and using your current income to get through school with little or no student loans. Another example might be to open your own HVAC business. Your best bet might be to learn the trade, working for someone else, and take night classes for business management. Most 18 year olds have very little earning power. Your focus at this point should be increasing your income and learning how to manage the income you have. Please keep in mind that most debt is bad. It robs you of your income which is your greatest wealth building tool. Car loans and credit card debt is just plain stupid. Often times a business case can be made for reasonable student loans. However, why not challenge yourself to take none. How much further ahead could you be if you graduate, with a degree, when your peers are strapped with a 40K loan? Keep up the good work and keep asking questions.\\\"\",\n \"how can I save money for the future The fact that you are worrying is good. This is the first step. Follow this up with a plan. One way is first get hold of your income [its fixed you know the salary]. Maintain expenses, then see which costs can be cut down. Create individual goals and start investing for these. The best way for first timer is to invest into a Recurring Deposits or SIP in mutual fund, i.e. kind of forced saving so that you don't spend what is available in bank Account.\",\n \"\\\"I take it you have nearly zero expenses, since you don't mention any savings and with your income you wouldn't have much left over for investing. At your level of income, any actual investing is either going to unwisely reduce your cash available should you need it (such as investment in mutual funds, which often have minimum investment periods of 2-6 months or more to avoid fees), or cost you a high percentage of your income in commissions (stock trading). So, I wouldn't recommend investing at all — yet. I find Dave Ramsey's baby steps to be very good general money management advice. Here is how I would adapt the first three steps to your income and stage in life. Beyond this, Dave recommends saving for retirement, college (for kids) and paying off your house early. These things are a little beyond your stage in life, but it would be good to start thinking about them. For you, I recommend following DJClayworth's advice to \\\"\\\"invest in yourself\\\"\\\". Specifically, plan to get through college debt-free. Put away money so that you have a head start once you do have living expenses — save for a car, save money for rent, etc. so that you don't have to live month to month as most people do starting out. So, what this boils down to: Put away every cent you have, in a savings account.\\\"\",\n \"Apart from what others have contributed. Look at all your usual spendings. Can they be cheaper? (Telephone, Electricity, Gas, Car, Mortgage, Loans, Insurance...) Whenever you are tempted to buy anything, ask yourself: Do I need this? If the answer is 'Yes' go ahead and buy (food, basically). Otherwise, restrain yourself. Most things in life can be bought cheaper. Most things in shops are useless. For example, how many pairs of shoes do you need? You can drink water from the tab. You don't have to go to restaurants or bars, and if you do, you could budget yourself to some amount. If the restaurant is more expensive, walk. My 0,02€\",\n \"Your first problem is looking at these as monthly expenses rather than looking longer-term at how to remove the expenses. You have a $600/month loan, but what is the interest rate? If you paid that loan more aggressively it would free up 10% of your income, but you can't pay the loan aggressively if you don't have an emergency fund. You need enough cash-flow to take care of emergencies so you don't incur more debt on less advantageous terms. The way you describe the problem, it appears that you don't know where all of the money is going, so the first step is to track all of your expenses and formulate a budget. The budget is a plan on how to spend the money for next month. At least 10% should be money you are saving for a short-term emergency fund. Another 10% should be money you are saving for retirement. Until you have 6 months of expenses saved for your emergency fund, you need to skip luxuries like taxi rides and maybe you need to reduce the amount you send home. 22% is a large amount and unless your parents are using that money to become independent (so that they won't rely on your contributions forever) it will only prevent you from becoming wealthy enough to really help them later. Only you can determine what can be cut from your monthly expenses--but if you want to save--spending less is required.\",\n \"Track your expenses. Find out where your money is going, and target areas where you can reduce expenses. Some examples: I was spending a lot on food, buying too much packaged food, and eating out too much. So I started cooking from scratch more and eating out less. Now, even though I buy expensive organic produce, imported cheese, and grass-fed beef, I'm spending half of what I used to spend on food. It could be better. I could cut back on meat and eat out even less. I'm working on it. I was buying a ton of books and random impulsive crap off of Amazon. So I no longer let myself buy things right away. I put stuff on my wish list if I want it, and every couple of months I go on there and buy myself a couple of things off my wishlist. I usually end up realizing that some of the stuff on there isn't something I want that badly after all, so I just delete it from my wishlist. I replaced my 11-year-old Jeep SUV with an 11-year-old Saturn sedan that gets twice the gas mileage. That saves me almost $200/month in gasoline costs alone. I had cable internet through Comcast, even though I don't have a TV. So I went from a $70/month cable bill to a $35/month DSL bill, which cut my internet costs in half. I have an iPhone and my bill for that is $85/month. That's insane, with how little I talk on the phone and send text messages. Once it goes out of contract, I plan to replace it with a cheap phone, possibly a pre-paid. That should cut my phone expenses in half, or even less. I'll keep my iPhone, and just use it when wifi is available (which is almost everywhere these days).\",\n \"\\\"If you want to be really \\\"\\\"financially smart,\\\"\\\" buy a used good condition Corolla with cash (if you want to talk about a car that holds re-sale value), quit renting and buy a detached house close to the city a for about $4,000/month (to build equity. It's NYC the house will appreciate in value). Last but not the least, DO NOT get married. Retire at 50, sell the house (now paid after 25-years). Or LEASE a nice brand new car every year and have a good time! You're 25 and single!\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Honestly just keep track of your income and spending on a piece of paper. Write down every single thing. Also set goals like \\\"\\\"ok I will make $1000 this month, and my goal is to pay bills of $200 and only spend $500 therefore I should easily be able to save $300\\\"\\\" or something like that. Just do it there's no magic trick despite what some million stupid articles and forum posts will lead you to believe. Saving money is like being in good shape... or keeping yourself clean... it's an every day, every hour kinda thing\\\"\",\n \"Are you working? Does your employer offer a 401(k) and if so, is there any match? Saving should be taught to kids at the same time they are old enough to get an allowance. There are many numbers tossed around, but 10% is a start for any new saver. If a college graduate can start by saving even 15%, better still. If you find that the 10% is too much, just start with what you can spare, and work to build that up over time, perhaps by splitting any future raises, half going toward savings, half to spending. Good luck. Edit - my 12 yr old made good money this summer baby sitting. I'm opening a Roth IRA for her. A 10 yr head start on her retirement savings. Edit (Jan-2013) - she's 14 now, 3 deposits to the Roth total $6000, and she's planning to up the number this year. Her goal is to have $50K saved in her Roth by the time she graduates college. Edit, by request (July-2017) 18, and off to college next month. Just under $24K, all invested in an S&P low cost index. We are planning to continue deposits of $4-$5K/yr, so the $50K is still a good goal.\",\n \"Everybody else has given great answers on what to do, but I just want to add some encouragement. Keep saving. Learn to live within your means while saving, and things like houses and cars and new electronics will come. You can always wait a year and save money up for that new TV, but when retirement hits you are out of time. (I sure wish I had). Keep that retirement money out of sight and (mostly) out of mind. Great job saving and keep up the good work.\",\n \"After paying off debts and the other obvious low hanging fruit, you need to start investing. With your time frame, most advice you'll find will say go for an all equities index fund. However, the market is hot and you can do better than the S&P average of 12%. Especially considering a downturn is on coming Take your time and find a safe investment fund to start building your portfolio. I run a PE fund buying Middle Market value add properties. I work exclusively in this market because it provides consistent income that continues through downturns, and we can safely give investors 15% tax mitigated return, every time. PM me if your are interested.\",\n \"Try this as a starter - my eBook served up as a blog (http://www.sspf.co.uk/blog/001/). Then read as much as possible about investing. Once you have money set aside for emergencies, then make some steps towards investing. I'd guide you towards low-fee 'tracker-style' funds to provide a bedrock to long-term investing. Your post suggests it will be investing over the long-term (ie. 5-10 years or more), perhaps even to middle-age/retirement? Read as much as you can about the types of investments: unit trusts, investment trusts, ETFs; fixed-interest (bonds/corporate bonds), equities (IPOs/shares/dividends), property (mortgages, buy-to-let, off-plan). Be conservative and start with simple products. If you don't understand enough to describe it to me in a lift in 60 seconds, stay away from it and learn more about it. Many of the items you think are good long-term investments will be available within any pension plans you encounter, so the learning has a double benefit. Work a plan. Learn all the time. Keep your day-to-day life quite conservative and be more risky in your long-term investing. And ask for advice on things here, from friends who aren't skint and professionals for specific tasks (IFAs, financial planners, personal finance coaches, accountants, mortgage brokers). The fact you're being proactive tells me you've the tools to do well. Best wishes to you.\",\n \"\\\"Congrats on saving the money but unfortunately, you're looking for a 24% annual rate of return and that's not \\\"\\\"reasonable\\\"\\\" to expect. $200 per month, is $2,400 per year. $2,400/$10,000 is 24%. In a 1% savings account with spending of $200 per month spending you'll have about $7,882 at the end of the year. You'll earn about $90 of interest over the course of the year. I'm sure other people will have more specific opinions about the best way to deploy that money. I'd open a brokerage account (not an IRA, just a regular plain vanilla brokerage account), break off $5,000 and put it in to a low fee no commission S&P index fund; which CAN lose value. Put the rest in a savings account/checking account and just spend wisely.\\\"\",\n \"After looking at your profile, I see your age...28. Still a baby. At your age, and given your profession, there really is no need to build investment income. You are still working and should be working for many years. If I was you, I'd be looking to do a few different things: Eliminating debt reduces risk, and also reduces the need for future income. Saving for, and purchasing a home essentially freezes rent increases. If home prices double in your area, in theory, so should rent prices. If you own a home you might see some increases in taxes and insurance rates, but they are minor in comparison. This also reduces the need for future income. Owning real estate is a great way to build residual income, however, there is a lot of risk and even if you employ a management company there is a lot more hands on work and risk. Easier then that you can build an after tax investment portfolio. You can start off with mutual funds for diversification purposes and only after you have built a sizable portfolio should (if ever) make the transition to individual stocks. Some people might suggest DRIPs, but given the rate at which you are investing I would suggest the pain of such accounts is more hassle then it is worth.\",\n \"Fund your retirement accounts first. Even as an intern, it is still worthwhile to open a Roth IRA and start contributing to it. See my answer to a similar question: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career?\",\n \"\\\"The principle to follow is called \\\"\\\"pay yourself first\\\"\\\". Have your savings deducted from your paycheck before it hits your checking account. You spending will change to accommodate the reduction. If you have a 401(k) available from your employer, start saving some money via that. If not, figure out a way to have something moved out of your checking account to a separate savings account when your paycheck hits. Then as you get raises, up the amount of automatic savings by half of the raise. You will find this hurts less than you think and it will let you build an emergency fund, which is the first thing you need. When the emergency fund is 6 months of normal spending, then you can start to invest.\\\"\",\n \"Investing requires capital, and the fastest way to get the capital is to develop good saving habits. Investing is an ongoing process to help you accumulate wealth, so to take advantage of compounding, the earlier you start, the better. I can suggest a few pointers to get you started on the investing journey. Godspeed! :)\",\n \"While there is no age limit, bear in mind that saving money makes sense only if it doesn't delay your paying off expensive debt. If you have credit cards or expensive loans you would be best placed to focus on paying them down before saving a lot. If you save and keep debt, you'll effectively lose money as the interest on your debt will usually be higher than you can earn on savings. Having said that, it's worth saving a small amount anyway to have as an emergency fund. As you pay off your debt, start saving the money you no longer have to pay out and it will soon pay dividends.\",\n \"I was in a similar situation at age 18/19, but not making quite as much money. I maxed out an IRA and bought savings bonds, although rates were decent then. I did flitter away about half of what I earned, which in retrospect was probably dumb. But I had a good time!\",\n \"Try reading about budgeting. Make a list of all income coming in and all expenses going out. Eliminate any unnecessary expenses and try to increase income, which could include a part-time second job. Try to always put a portion of the income away as savings - try 10%, but if this is too hard to start with try saving at least 5% of the income.\",\n \"Does anyone have any good resources for starting up learning about savings, finances, etc? I'm 20 years old and want to begin really saving consistently and learning about 401Ks, IRAs, savings accounts, how to grow your money safely and slowly, etc. I'm mainly looking for a website or application that will help me budget and organize things. A phone app would be nice. And any subreddit where I could learn about these things would be extremely helpful too.\",\n \"I'd invest in yourself. Start up a side business. Take a certification class that gets your foot in the door for something else (auctioneering, real estate sales, whatever). Bid on a storage auction and try to re-sell it. Learn Spanish (or whatever second language is best for your area). And so forth. Most of the suggestions thus far are either debt reduction or passive investment. You have good control on your debt, and most passive investments pay jack (though Lending Club might be a bit better than most). Build up another basket to put your eggs in and build equity and cash flow instead of interest and dividends. You're young. This is the time to learn how to do it.\",\n \"Buying options on a highly volatile underlying like AMD or JNUG. You may make piles of cash or go to zero, but it will be fast at least. Also working 6-12 and not just 9-5. Also you want /r/personalfinance\",\n \"First I'd like to echo msemack's answer. Start by maxing out your 401K and IRA contributions. Not a lot of people just starting their career have the luxury of doing much more outside of that. Here are some additional tips that I learned when I was just getting started:\",\n \"To be honest, all that they might be able to tell you is to keep saving. Your income seems like it will vary week to week thanks to commission (and I'm still very curious how at 18 you found a job making $96,000 a year at minimum). Right now because you have no savings, start stacking that up. You're going to want an emergency fund on the side as well. Even though now you may still live with parents, you still may run into issues where you'll need money on hand. It's much better to dig into an emergency fund than get a loan. Plus, when moving out, you won't be living paycheck to paycheck. Best rule of thumb for this is to keep an emergency fund of roughly 3-6 months of expenses. Right now because you're so young with so little money, there isn't a large reason to really open up an IRA or any sort of investment account. Unless you're actually guaranteed $2,000 a week, then things are different.\",\n \"\\\"Buy and Hope is a common investment strategy. It's also one that will keep you poor. Instead of thinking about saving money to put against a credit card or line of credit using your own job and hard-earned dollars, why not use someone else's money? If you have enough of a down payment for a property of your own, consider a duplex, triplex, or 4-plex where you live in one of the units. Since you will be living there you only need 5% down as opposed to 20% down if you do not live there. This arrangement gives you a place to live while you have other people paying your mortgage and other debts. If done properly, you can find a place that is cash-flow positive so you basically live rent-free. This all assumes you have a down payment and a bank that will work with you. Your best bet is to discuss your situation with a mortgage broker. They know all the rules, and which banks have the best deal for you. A mortgage broker works on your behalf and is paid by the lending institution, not you. There are various caveats with this strategy, and they all revolve around knowing what to do and how to execute the plan. I suggest Googling Robert Kiyosaki and reading \\\"\\\"Rich Dad Poor Dad\\\"\\\" before taking this journey. He offers a number of free and paid seminars that teach people how to purchase real estate and make it pay. I have taken the free evening seminar and the $500 weekend seminar on how to purchase properties and make money with them. Note that I have no affiliation with Kiyosaki, and I do find his methods to work.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"There are only two ways to increase your savings: You are young, and both of these are likely to spontaneously happen - you will be promoted and get raises, and your loans will be paid off, removing the loan payment. It would seem that you need only to wait a year or so, and there will a lot more than $87 left over each month, and your savings will grow almost without any action from you. But somehow, that is not what happens in real life. As people get older they \\\"\\\"need\\\"\\\" more than they did before (larger home, more expensive \\\"\\\"things\\\"\\\", etc) and they never manage to get around to saving. So it's great that you are wondering how to do it. But you are not truly making it a priority. You mention that you also pay/spend for friends, the internet, play & joy, cloth, gifts, book, etc. And this armwavy entirely optional spending is the difference between 72.85 (such precision!) and 90% of your salary. In other words it is 17-18% or more than your rent. Think about that for a moment. Every month you spend more than your rent on friends, play, joy, books and good old etc. If you were to cut that in half, you could save 8 or 9% of your salary. Maybe after your next raise you can get that up to 10%. How can you cut that optional \\\"\\\"fun\\\"\\\" stuff in half? Well, I don't know, because I don't know what it is, and I suspect you don't either. So track it, for a month or two. Are you getting takeout food or coffee every day? Are you always the one who pays when you go out with friends? Do you eat in restaurants a lot? Do you always wear the latest fashions, buy $500 shoes, pay people to do your nails or dye your hair, buy a new phone every year, have the top end phone plan, top end cable plan, ... You have to know where that rent's-worth of money goes every month. Then you can figure out how to send some of it to savings instead. In some ways you are in a hard generation. Your parents didn't need to save for their retirement because they had you, and they know you will send money home for them. But you probably don't expect the same from the children you don't have yet, so you have to save for yourself. This is a challenge. If you were saving the money you send your parents, you'd be fine. Yet you don't want to reduce what you send, they need it. Still, people have faced bigger challenges and overcome them. Start by understanding where your fun money is going, then look at how to send some (aim for half) of that to savings instead. You won't regret it.\\\"\",\n \"Aside from what everyone else has said about your money (saving, investing, etc.), I'd like to comment on what else you could spend it on: Spend it all on small/stupid things that, while stupid, would make me happier. For example take taxis more often, eat often in nice restaurants, buy designer clothes, etc. I'll be young only one time. You could also put the money towards something more... productive? Like a home project. Convert a room in your living space into an office or a theater-like room. Install hardwood floors yourself. Renovate a bathroom. Plant a garden of things you would enjoy eating later. Something that you would enjoy having or doing and can look back at and be proud of putting your money towards something that you accomplished.\",\n \"I wouldn't be too concerned, yet. You're young. Many young people are living longer in the family home. See this Guardian article: Young adults delay leaving family home. You're in good company. Yet, there will come a time when you ought to get your own place, either for your own sanity or your parents' sanity. You should be preparing for that and building up your savings. Since you've got an income, you should – if you're not already – put away some of that money regularly. Every time you get paid, make a point of depositing a portion of your income into a savings or investment account. Look up the popular strategy called Pay Yourself First. Since you still live at home, it's possible you're a little more loose with spending money than you should be – at least, I've found that to be the case with some friends who lived at home as young adults. So, perhaps pretend you're on your own. What would your rent be if you had to find a place of your own? If, say, £600 instead of the £200 you're currently paying, then you should reduce your spending to the point where you can save at least £400 per month. Follow a budget. With respect to your car, it's great you recognize your mistake. We're human and we can learn from our mistakes. Plan to make it your one and only car mistake. I made one too. With respect to your credit card debt, it's not an insurmountable amount. Focus on getting rid of that debt soon and then focus on staying out of debt. The effective way to use credit cards is to never carry a balance – i.e. pay it off in full each month. If you can't do that, you're likely overspending. Also, look at what pensions your employer might offer. If they offer matching contributions, contribute at least as much to maximize the tax free extra pay this equates to. If you have access to a defined benefit plan, join it as soon as you are eligible. Last, I think it's important to recognize that at age 23 you're just starting out. Much of your career income earning potential is ahead of you. Strive to be the best at what you do, get promotions, and increase your income. Meanwhile, continue to save a good portion of what you earn. With discipline, you'll get where you want to be.\",\n \"\\\"This may sound very \\\"\\\"tongue in cheek\\\"\\\", but the best thing you can invest in is to raise your income in order to increase your retirement savings. How much are you able to contribute to retirement now? I think you would be lucky to do $150/month and most months probably less than that. However, if you were making like 60k/year, and allowed a little lifestyle bloat, you could probably easy put away 20k/year. Once you are able to do that the savings you can manage now will be quickly eclipsed. Often times when people consider \\\"\\\"having their money work for them\\\"\\\" they often neglect to factor risk. Prior to investing one should have a proper emergency fund in place. That is 6 months or so of living expenses in a nice safe savings account. Those earn about 1.25% these days, which is pretty meager, but it does earn something. Once the emergency fund is in place, one can invest with impunity. Without it, you will have to liquidate investments if economic calamity strikes you. This could be done at a loss furthering the harm done by the calamity. Increase your income and create an emergency fund. Do those things first.\\\"\",\n \"You've never saved money? Have you ever bought anything? There probably was a small window of time that you had to pool some cash to buy something. In my experience, if you make it more interesting by 'allocating money for specific purposes' you'll have better results than just arbitrarily saving for a rainy day. Allocate your money for different things (ie- new car, emergency, travel, or starting a new business) by isolating your money into different places. Ex- your new car allocation could be in a savings account at your bank. Your emergency allocation can be in cash under your bed. Your new business allocation could be in an investment vehicle like a stocks where it could potentially see significant gains by the time you are ready to use it. The traditional concept of savings is gone. There is very little money to be earned in a savings account and any gains will be most certainly wiped out by inflation anyway. Allocate your money, allocate more with new income, and then use it to buy real things and fund new adventures when the time is right.\",\n \"You are asking all the right questions. I predict a bright future! In addition to the excellent advice from Phil, I would add that NOW is the time to think about investing. If you have not yet started a retirement account, open up a Roth IRA and max it out ($5.5k in 2014) every year. The time value of money is strong and you will be thanking yourself in 40 years for starting now. Yes, paying down debt is important, and you should do that, too. It's a balance. If you get converted to a full-time employee, take part in any retirement plan they offer, and max out any matching because it's free money.\",\n \"I started my career over 10 years ago and I work in the financial sector. As a young person from a working class family with no rich uncles, I would prioritize my investments like this: It seems to be pretty popular on here to recommend trading individual stocks, granted you've read a book on it. I would thoroughly recommend against this, for a number of reasons. Odds are you will underestimate the risks you're taking, waste time at your job, stress yourself out, and fail to beat a passive index fund. It's seriously not worth it. Some additional out-of-the box ideas for building wealth: Self-serving bias is pervasive in the financial world so be careful about what others tell you about what they know (including me). Good luck.\",\n \"I had some extra money, so I opened American express saving account. At the time which was offering .80%, now .90%. I put most of the money in the saving account. The remainder of my money in a investment account at my local bank. I was in touch once a week with investment, I learned allot how the stock market worked and tax deferment(401k, IRA, IRA Roth). My suggestion is to do test run and see if you like it. Side note, NOT ALL investment are created equal.\",\n \"In addition to the advice already given (particularly getting rid of high-interest debt), I would add the following:\",\n \"/r/savedyouaclick 1. Focus on earning 2. Develop multiple streams of income 3. Save to invest, don't save to save 4. Be decisive 5. Don't show off — show up 6. Change your mindset about money 7. Invest in yourself 8. Ditch the steady paycheck 9. Set goals and visualize achieving them 10. Start hanging out with people you admire 11. Shoot for $10 million, not $1 million\",\n \"Depends, sure you could save a buck or two here and there but maybe that time could be used for better things - i.e. earning a side income It's all situational and relative to you and where you are in life - try things, don't be afraid of mistakes\",\n \"Congratulations on getting started in life! John Malloy's (American) research suggests that you should take some time to get used to living on your own, make some friends, and settle into your community. During this time, you can build up an emergency fund. If/when the stock markets do not seem to be in a bear market, you can follow user3771352's advice to buy stock ETFs. Do you hope to get married and have children in the next few years? If so, you should budget time and money for activities where you make new friends (both men and women). Malloy points out that many Americans meet their spouses through women's networks of friends.\",\n \"If I were in your shoes I would concentrate now on investing in yourself. Your greatest wealth building tool is your income. Going to school is great, make sure you can finish. Also is there additional coursework you can obtain that might help boost your salary? I would look for course in the following areas that might be outside your core competency: After that I would concentrate on some books that will help you in your journey. However, I would not start investing until you have a well paying full time job: That will get you started.\",\n \"Other answers here cover some of the basics, but this is also a great time to start establishing a credit history and developing good financial habits to carry throughout your life. In addition to opening a free checking account with the local credit union, establish an overdraft line of credit on that account. Never close this account or this line of credit as it will work to increase the average age of your accounts when you apply for credit later in life. If you are disciplined with your use of credit cards, you may also want to apply for a low limit credit card through the same credit union for the same purpose as above. Never carry a balance on this card, but make minor purchases with it each month, never more than 20% of the balance, maybe just buy gas with it. Start tracking all of your spending and make a monthly budget. There are a lot of online tools that make this very easy. Establishing the habit now will help you make informed financial decisions in the future. Open a Roth IRA and put at least 10% of your money away for retirement. In the future your income may increase enough to put you in the 25% tax bracket. If that ever happens, open a Regular IRA and put the money there instead. Also when you have employers that offer 401k matching do the same thing with a Roth 401k account. Keep your money invested in a low cost index fund.\",\n \"You should invest in that with the best possible outcome. Right now that is in yourself. Your greatest wealth building tool, at this point, is your future income. As such anything you can do to increase your earnings potential. For some that might mean getting an engineering degree, for others it might mean starting a small business. For some it is both obtaining a college degree and learning about business. A secondary thing to learn about would be personal finance. I would hold off on stocks, at this time, until you get your first real job and you have an emergency fund in place. Penny stocks are worthless, forget about them. Bonds have their place, but not at this point in your life. Saving up for college and obtaining a quality education, debt free, should be your top priority. Saving up for emergencies is a secondary priority, but only after you have more than enough money to fund your college education. You can start thinking about retirement, but you need a career to help fund your savings plan. Put that off until you have such a career. Investing in stocks, at this juncture, is a bit foolish. Start a career first. Any job you take now should be seen as a step towards a larger goal and should not define who you are.\",\n \"\\\"I posted a comment in another answer and it seems to be approved by others, so I have converted this into an answer. If you're talking about young adults who just graduated college and worked through it. I would recommend you tell them to keep the same budget as what they were living on before they got a full-time job. This way, as far as their spending habits go, nothing changes since they only have a $500 budget (random figure) and everything else goes into savings and investments. If as a student you made $500/month and you suddenly get $2000/month, that's a lot of money you get to blow on drinks. Now, if you put $500 in savings (until 6-12 month of living expenses), $500 in investments for the long run and $500 in vacation funds or \\\"\\\"big expenses\\\"\\\" funds (Ideally with a cap and dump the extra in investments). That's $18,000/yr you are saving. At this stage in your life, you have not gotten used to spending that extra $18,000/yr. Don't touch the side money except for the vacation fund when you want to treat yourself. Your friends will call you cheap, but that's not your problem. Take that head start and build that down payment on your dream house. The way I set it up, is (in this case) I have automatics every day after my paychecks come in for the set amounts. I never see it, but I need to make sure I have the money in there. Note: Numbers are there for the sake of simplicity. Adjust accordingly. PS: This is anecdotal evidence that has worked for me. Parents taught me this philosophy and it has worked wonders for me. This is the extent of my financial wisdom.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Congratulations. The first savings goal should be an emergency fund. Think of this not as an investment, but as insurance against life's woes. They happen and having this kind of money earmarked allows one to invest without needing to withdraw at an inopportune time. This should go into a \\\"\\\"high interest\\\"\\\" savings account or money market account. Figure three to six months of expenses. The next goal should be retirement savings. In the US this is typically done through 401K or if your company does not offer one, either a ROTH IRA or Traditional IRA. The goal should be about 15% of your income. You should favor a 401k match over just about anything else, and then a ROTH over that. The key to transforming from a broke college student into a person with a real job, and disposable income, is a budget. Otherwise you might just end up as a broke person with a real job (not fun). Part of your budget should include savings, spending, and giving. All three areas are the key to building wealth. Once you have all of those taking care of the real fun begins. That is you have an emergency fund, you are putting 15% to retirement, you are spending some on yourself, and giving to a charity of your choice. Then you can dream some with any money left over (after expenses of course). Do you want to retire early? Invest more for retirement. Looking to buy a home or own a bunch of rental property? Start educating yourself and invest for that. Are you passionate about a certain charity? Give more and save some money to take time off in order to volunteer for that charity. All that and more can be yours. Budgeting is a key concept, and the younger you start the easier it gets. While the financiers will disagree with me, you cannot really invest if you are borrowing money. Keep debt to zero or just on a primary residence. I can tell you from personal experience that I did not started building wealth until I made a firm commitment to being out of debt. Buy cars for cash and never pay credit card interest. Pay off student loans as soon as possible. For some reason the idea of giving to charity invokes rancor. A cursory study of millionaires will indicate some surprising facts: most of them are self made, most of them behave differently than pop culture, and among other things most of them are generous givers. Building wealth is about behavior. Giving to charity is part of that behavior. Its my own theory that giving does almost no good for the recipient, but a great amount of good for the giver. This may seem difficult to believe, but I ask that you try it.\\\"\",\n \"Your own fault for taking out loans to get a degree in philosophy. If you have an automobile I would say get a job as a delivery driver, Pretty solid way to earn at least 15 bucks an hour. but regardless find a part time job and save scrupilously. Look at what you spend your money on and see where you can chop out expenses. Also look to see how you can find cheaper food. This is a great website to learn how to live on peanuts earlyretirementextreme.com\",\n \"\\\"Goodness, I wish I could put away half my paycheck. Not to rain on your parade, but a 6-month emergency fund is not quite \\\"\\\"very good.\\\"\\\" It is the typical starting time frame. Personally, I would feel more comfortable with a 2+ year fund. That is a bit extreme, but only because many of us can barely seem to make it around to a 6-month fund. So, we focus on the more attainable goal. I say you do all three. Make saving money your priority, but do enjoy some of it; in moderation. Do not plan on making any big purchases with it, but know that you will eventually be able able to do so. Money not spent is worthless Idle money is worthless. Make some -- hopefully -- prudent investments with some of your money. A small portion of that investment portfolio can/should be in speculative investments. Maybe even as much as 20% of your investment portfolio, since you are young. Consider that money gone and you will hopefully be surprised by one of those speculative investments. That is the crucial point: earmark a small portion of your investment portfolio which you are willing to lose. However, do not gamble with it. Research the hot emerging technologies, for example, and find a way to make an investment. So, in summary: You may have more money that you know what do with, right now. However, that does not mean you need to go out and spend it all. Trust me, as you get older you will think of plenty of good uses for that money.\\\"\",\n \"Brownbag your lunch and make coffee at home. If your current lifestyle includes daily takeout lunches and/or barista-made drinks, a rough estimate is you have a negative cash flow of $8-20 per day, $40-100 per week, $2080-5200 per year. If you have daily smoothies, buy a blender. If you have daily lattes buy an espresso maker. I recently got myself a sodastream and it's been worth it. Until you have a six figure portfolio, you aren't going to swing a comparable annual return differential based on asset allocation.\",\n \"Congratulations! You're making enough money to invest. There are two easy places to start: I recommend against savings accounts because they will quite safely lose your money: the inflation rate is usually higher than the interest rate on a savings account. You may have twice as much money after 50 years, but if everything costs four times as much, then you've lost buying power. If, in the course of learning about investing, you'd like to try buying individual stocks, do it only with money you wouldn't mind losing. Index funds will go down slightly if one of the companies in that index fails entirely, but the stock of a failed company is worthless.\",\n \"At this stage of the game your best investment is yourself. Rather than putting it in stocks, use any spare money you have to get yourself the best education you can. See if you can drop that part-time job and give yourself more time to study. Or maybe you can go to a better, more expensive college. Or maybe college will give you some opportunity to travel and learn more that way. You don't want to exclude yourself from those opportunities by not having enough spare cash. So in short, spend what you need to get yourself the best education you can, and keep any spare money you have somewhere you can use it to take advantage of any opportunities that come your way.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Fantastic question to be asking at the age of 22! A very wise man suggested to me the following with regard to your net income I've purposely not included saving a sum of money for a house deposit, as this is very much cultural and lots of EU countries have a low rate of home ownership. On the education versus entrepreneur question. I don't think these are mutually exclusive. I am a big advocate of education (I have a B.Eng) but have following working in the real world for a number of years have started an IT business in data analytics. My business partner and I saw a gap in the market and have exploited it. I continue to educate myself now in short courses on running business, data analytics and investment. My business partner did things the otherway around, starting the company first, then getting an M.Sc. Other posters have suggested that investing your money personally is a bad idea. I think it is a very good idea to take control of your own destiny and choose how you will invest your money. I would say similarly that giving your money to someone else who will sometimes lose you money and will charge you for the privilege is a bad idea. Also putting your money in a box under your bed or in the bank and receive interest that is less than inflation are bad ideas. You need to choose where to invest your money otherwise you will gain no advantage from the savings and inflation will erode your buying power. I would suggest that you educate yourself in the investment options that are available to you and those that suit you personality and life circumstances. Here are some notes on learning about stock market trading/investing if you choose to take that direction along with some books for self learning.","Get an education. A bachelor's degree preferably, but AA or even a certificate are fine too. It will increase your earning potential significantly and over your lifetime it will earn you a lot of money. You make around $30,000 a year now, median salary for someone with a bachelors in the humanities is around $45,000. If you degree is in the STEM field, that goes up to $55,000 - $65,000 range. Second best option is to start a small business of some kind that does not require substantial investment. Handyman comes to mind as an example or some sort of billing service maybe? I would not recommend self directed investment in the stock market - most people lose money and since you don't have a lot of money to invest, commissions and fees will eat up a significant portion of it. I would usually recommend a CD but interest rates it's not really worth it.","Determine how much you are going to save first. Then determine where you can spend your money. If you're living with your parents, try to build an emergency fund of six months income. The simplest way is to put half of your income in the emergency fund for a year. Try to save at least 10% of your income for retirement. The earlier you start this, the longer you'll have to let the magic of compounding work on it. If your employer offers a 401k with a match, do that first. If not, consider an IRA. You probably want to do a Roth now (because you probably pay little in taxes so the deduction from a standard IRA won't help you). After the year, you'll have an emergency fund. Work out how much money you'll need for rent, utilities, and groceries when you're on your own. Invest that in some way. Pay off student loans if you have any. Buy a car that you can keep a long time if you need one. Go to night school. Put any excess money in a savings account or mutual fund. This is money for doing things related to housing. Perhaps you'll need to buy a washer/dryer. Or pay a down payment on a mortgage eventually. Saving this money now does two things: first, it gives you savings for when you need it; second, it keeps you from getting used to spending your entire paycheck. If you are used to only having $200 of spending cash out of each check, you will fit your spending into that. If you are used to spending $800 every two weeks, it will be hard to cut your spending to make room for rent, etc.","Make sure you have a budget, there is a pretty cool budget tracker that you can download here (it works in excel and is easy to use). The important thing is to not only make a budget but also keep in touch and track your budget, some free ebooks and other investment ebooks too. Just start with the budget tracker: http://www.futureassist.com.au/young-to-mid-life Focus on paying off debt first Next look at ETF's (Exchange Traded Funds) as a possible investment option - this is an Australian Government Website but ETF's all work in the same way: https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/investing/managed-funds/exchange-traded-funds-etfs"],"string":"[\n \"Fantastic question to be asking at the age of 22! A very wise man suggested to me the following with regard to your net income I've purposely not included saving a sum of money for a house deposit, as this is very much cultural and lots of EU countries have a low rate of home ownership. On the education versus entrepreneur question. I don't think these are mutually exclusive. I am a big advocate of education (I have a B.Eng) but have following working in the real world for a number of years have started an IT business in data analytics. My business partner and I saw a gap in the market and have exploited it. I continue to educate myself now in short courses on running business, data analytics and investment. My business partner did things the otherway around, starting the company first, then getting an M.Sc. Other posters have suggested that investing your money personally is a bad idea. I think it is a very good idea to take control of your own destiny and choose how you will invest your money. I would say similarly that giving your money to someone else who will sometimes lose you money and will charge you for the privilege is a bad idea. Also putting your money in a box under your bed or in the bank and receive interest that is less than inflation are bad ideas. You need to choose where to invest your money otherwise you will gain no advantage from the savings and inflation will erode your buying power. I would suggest that you educate yourself in the investment options that are available to you and those that suit you personality and life circumstances. Here are some notes on learning about stock market trading/investing if you choose to take that direction along with some books for self learning.\",\n \"Get an education. A bachelor's degree preferably, but AA or even a certificate are fine too. It will increase your earning potential significantly and over your lifetime it will earn you a lot of money. You make around $30,000 a year now, median salary for someone with a bachelors in the humanities is around $45,000. If you degree is in the STEM field, that goes up to $55,000 - $65,000 range. Second best option is to start a small business of some kind that does not require substantial investment. Handyman comes to mind as an example or some sort of billing service maybe? I would not recommend self directed investment in the stock market - most people lose money and since you don't have a lot of money to invest, commissions and fees will eat up a significant portion of it. I would usually recommend a CD but interest rates it's not really worth it.\",\n \"Determine how much you are going to save first. Then determine where you can spend your money. If you're living with your parents, try to build an emergency fund of six months income. The simplest way is to put half of your income in the emergency fund for a year. Try to save at least 10% of your income for retirement. The earlier you start this, the longer you'll have to let the magic of compounding work on it. If your employer offers a 401k with a match, do that first. If not, consider an IRA. You probably want to do a Roth now (because you probably pay little in taxes so the deduction from a standard IRA won't help you). After the year, you'll have an emergency fund. Work out how much money you'll need for rent, utilities, and groceries when you're on your own. Invest that in some way. Pay off student loans if you have any. Buy a car that you can keep a long time if you need one. Go to night school. Put any excess money in a savings account or mutual fund. This is money for doing things related to housing. Perhaps you'll need to buy a washer/dryer. Or pay a down payment on a mortgage eventually. Saving this money now does two things: first, it gives you savings for when you need it; second, it keeps you from getting used to spending your entire paycheck. If you are used to only having $200 of spending cash out of each check, you will fit your spending into that. If you are used to spending $800 every two weeks, it will be hard to cut your spending to make room for rent, etc.\",\n \"Make sure you have a budget, there is a pretty cool budget tracker that you can download here (it works in excel and is easy to use). The important thing is to not only make a budget but also keep in touch and track your budget, some free ebooks and other investment ebooks too. Just start with the budget tracker: http://www.futureassist.com.au/young-to-mid-life Focus on paying off debt first Next look at ETF's (Exchange Traded Funds) as a possible investment option - this is an Australian Government Website but ETF's all work in the same way: https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/investing/managed-funds/exchange-traded-funds-etfs\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":183,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"3189"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Diversify my retirement investments with a Roth IRA"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["225395","272840"],"string":"[\n \"225395\",\n \"272840\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["65567","423658","240975","88311","404800","211525","553031","226298","347651","199181","530425","118691","287225","272840","239459","324012","214174","371922","428141","13209","271949","335436","31462","43974","580313","46986","253803","350082","167194","111350","101578","194862","326560","278346","359515","534795","294676","330743","335357","576890","231227","163834","586756","74283","525089","65006","569342","219208","175252","571579","479769","462457","113881","155318","400356","565429","241161","164672","178340","353337","96110","33714","422119","591909","477295","275334","346474","387338","195587","469853","204992","559027","232930","182305","300047","151042","122222","474896","403556","458168","299690","187124","499606","587727","326257","286227","551145","541783","124042","127263","437453","551122","57457","125168","149367","214901","561636","130118","584304","161445"],"string":"[\n \"65567\",\n \"423658\",\n \"240975\",\n \"88311\",\n \"404800\",\n \"211525\",\n \"553031\",\n \"226298\",\n \"347651\",\n \"199181\",\n \"530425\",\n \"118691\",\n \"287225\",\n \"272840\",\n \"239459\",\n \"324012\",\n \"214174\",\n \"371922\",\n \"428141\",\n \"13209\",\n \"271949\",\n \"335436\",\n \"31462\",\n \"43974\",\n \"580313\",\n \"46986\",\n \"253803\",\n \"350082\",\n \"167194\",\n \"111350\",\n \"101578\",\n \"194862\",\n \"326560\",\n \"278346\",\n \"359515\",\n \"534795\",\n \"294676\",\n \"330743\",\n \"335357\",\n \"576890\",\n \"231227\",\n \"163834\",\n \"586756\",\n \"74283\",\n \"525089\",\n \"65006\",\n \"569342\",\n \"219208\",\n \"175252\",\n \"571579\",\n \"479769\",\n \"462457\",\n \"113881\",\n \"155318\",\n \"400356\",\n \"565429\",\n \"241161\",\n \"164672\",\n \"178340\",\n \"353337\",\n \"96110\",\n \"33714\",\n \"422119\",\n \"591909\",\n \"477295\",\n \"275334\",\n \"346474\",\n \"387338\",\n \"195587\",\n \"469853\",\n \"204992\",\n \"559027\",\n \"232930\",\n \"182305\",\n \"300047\",\n \"151042\",\n \"122222\",\n \"474896\",\n \"403556\",\n \"458168\",\n \"299690\",\n \"187124\",\n \"499606\",\n \"587727\",\n \"326257\",\n \"286227\",\n \"551145\",\n \"541783\",\n \"124042\",\n \"127263\",\n \"437453\",\n \"551122\",\n \"57457\",\n \"125168\",\n \"149367\",\n \"214901\",\n \"561636\",\n \"130118\",\n \"584304\",\n \"161445\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["If you have just started an IRA (presumably with a contribution for 2012), you likely have $5000 in it, or $10,000 if you made a full contribution for 2013 as well. At this time, I would recommend putting it all in a single low-cost mutual fund. Typically, mutual funds that track an index such as the S&P 500 Index have lower costs (annual expense fees) than actively managed funds, and most investment companies offer such mutual funds, with Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, to name a few, having very low expenses even among index funds. Later, when you have more money in the account, you can consider diversifying into more funds, buying stocks and bonds, investing in ETFs, etc. Incidentally, if you are just starting out and your Roth IRA is essentially your first investment experience, be aware that you do not need a brokerage account for your Roth IRA until you have more money in the account to invest and specifically want to buy individual stocks and bonds instead of just mutual funds. If you opened a brokerage account for your Roth IRA, close it and transfer the Roth IRA to your choice of mutual fund company; else you will be paying annual fees to the brokerage for maintaining your account, inactivity fees since you won't be doing any trading, etc. The easiest way to do this is to go to the mutual fund company web site and tell them that you want to transfer your IRA to them (not roll over your IRA to them) and they will take care of all the paper work and collecting your money from the brokerage (ditto if your Roth IRA is with a bank or another mutual fund company). Then close your brokerage account.","It depends on how much diversification you think you need and what your mutual fund options are. For instance, picking an index fund already provides a fair amount of diversification, especially if you select a Total Market type of index (readily available from Fidelity and Vanguard, and many other fund families). Are you looking to balance domestic vs. international investments? You may want to add an international index fund to the mix. Feel that a particular sector has tremendous potential? Add a sector fund. This investment mix is up to you (or your investment advisor). However, depending on your Roth IRA mutual fund choices, some of these funds may have minimum investment requirement - $3k to open a fund's account, for instance. In that case, you'd have no choice but to put your entire investment into one fund, and wait for subsequent years where you'd be able to invest in other funds after providing additional contributions and/or reallocation any growth from your initial investment. One thing to look at is whether you have an option of putting some of your contributions into a money market account within the Roth IRA - you can then reallocate funds from that account into another fund after you can meet the minimum investment requirement. However, in my opinion, if you start out by investing in a solid, low-cost index fund from a reputable mutual fund company, you've already picked up most of the diversification you need - a single fund is enough.","First, you should diversify your portfolio. If your entire portfolio is in the Roth IRA, then you should eventually diversify that. However, if you have an IRA and a 401k, then it's perfectly fine for the IRA to be in a single fund. For example, I used my IRA to buy a riskier REIT that my 401k doesn't support. Second, if you only have a small amount currently invested, e.g. $5500, it may make sense to put everything in a single fund until you have enough to get past the low balance fees. It's not uncommon for funds to charge lower fees to someone who has $8000, $10,000, or $12,000 invested. Note that if you deposit $10,000 and the fund loses money, they'll usually charge you the rate for less than $10,000. So try to exceed the minimum with a decent cushion. A balanced fund may make sense as a first fund. That way they handle the diversification for you. A targeted fund is a special kind of balanced fund that changes the balance over time. Some have reported that targeted funds charge higher fees. Commissions on those higher fees may explain why your bank wants you to buy. I personally don't like the asset mixes that I've seen from targeted funds. They often change the stock/bond ratio, which is not really correct. The stock/bond ratio should stay the same. It's the securities (stocks and bonds) to monetary equivalents that should change, and that only starting five to ten years before retirement. Prior to that the only reason to put money into monetary equivalents is to provide time to pick the right securities fund. Retirees should maintain about a five year cushion in monetary equivalents so as not to be forced to sell into a bad market. Long term, I'd prefer low-load index funds. A bond fund and two or three stock funds. You might want to build your balance first though. It doesn't really make sense to have a separate fund until you have enough money to get the best fees. 70-75% stocks and 25-30% bonds (should add to 100%, e.g. 73% and 27%). Balance annually when you make your new deposit.","\"That depends, really. Generally speaking, though - Roth IRAs are THE PLACE for Stock-Market/Mutual-Fund investing. All the off the wall (or, not so off the wall) things like Real Estate investments, or buying up gold, or whatever other ideas you hear from people - they may be good or bad or whatnot. But your Roth IRA is maybe not the best place for that sort of thing. The whole philosophy behind IRAs is to deliberately set aside money for the future. Anything reasonable will work for this. Explore interesting investment ideas with today's money, not tomorrow's money. That being said - at your age I would go for the riskier options within what's available. If I were in your situation (and I have been, recently), I would lean toward low-fee mutual funds classified as \"\"Growth\"\" funds. My own personal opinion (THIS IS NOT ADVICE) is that Small Cap International funds are the place to be for young folks. That's a generalized opinion based on my feel for the world, but I don't think I'm personally competent to start making specific stock picks. So, mutual funds makes sense to me in that I can select the fund that generally aligns with my sense of things, and assume that their managers will make reasonably sound decisions within that framework. Of course that assumption has to be backed up with reputation of the specific MF company and the comparative performance of the fund relative to other funds in the same sector. As to the generalized question (how else can you work toward financial stability and independence), outside of your Roth IRA: find ways to boost your earning potential over time, and buy a house before the next bubble (within the next 18 months, I'm GUESSING).\"","First, check out some of the answers on this question: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing When you have determined that you are ready to invest for retirement, there are two things you need to consider: the investment and the account. These are separate items. The investment is what makes your money grow. The type of account provides tax advantages (and restrictions). Generally, these can be considered separately; for the most part, you can do any type of investment in any account. Briefly, here is an overview of some of the main options: In your situation, the Roth IRA is what I would recommend. This grows tax free, and if you need the funds for some reason, you can get out what you put in without penalty. You can invest up to $5500 in your Roth IRA each year. In addition to the above reasons, which are true for anybody, a Roth IRA would be especially beneficial for you for three reasons: For someone that is closer in age to retirement and in a higher tax bracket now, a Roth IRA is less attractive than it is for you. Inside your Roth IRA, there are lots of choices. You can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds (which are simply collections of stocks and bonds), bank accounts, precious metals, and many other things. Discussing all of these investments in one answer is too broad, but my recommendation is this: If you are investing for retirement, you should be investing in the stock market. However, picking individual stocks is too risky; you need to be diversified in a lot of stocks. Stock mutual funds are a great way to invest in the stock market. There are lots of different types of stock mutual funds with different strategies and expenses associated with them. Managed funds actively buy and sell different stocks inside them, but have high expenses to pay the managers. Index funds buy and hold a list of stocks, and have very low expenses. The conventional wisdom is that, in general, index funds perform better than managed funds when you take the expenses into account. I hope this overview and these recommendations were helpful. If you have any specific questions about any of these types of accounts or investments, feel free to ask another question.","First, a Roth is funded with post tax money. The Roth IRA deposit will not offset any tax obligation you might have. The IRA is not an investment, it's an account with a specific set of tax rules that apply to it. If you don't have a brokerage account, I'd suggest you consider a broker that has an office nearby. Schwab, Fidelity, Vanguard are 3 that I happen to have relationships with. Once the funds are deposited, you need to choose how to invest for the long term. The fact that I'd choose the lowest cost S&P ETF or mutual fund doesn't mean that's the ideal investment for you. You need to continue to do research to find the exact investment that matches your risk profile. By way of example, up until a few years ago, my wife and I were nearly 100% invested in stocks, mostly the S&P 500. When we retired, four years ago, I shifted a bit to be more conservative, closer to 80% stock 20% cash.","Your question seems like you don't understand what a Roth IRA is. A Roth IRA isn't an investment, per se. It is just a type of account that receives special tax treatment. Just like a checking and savings account are different at a bank, a ROTH IRA account is just flagged as such by a brokerage. It isn't an investment type, and there aren't really different ROTH IRA accounts. You can invest in just about anything inside that account so that is what you need to evaluate. One Roth IRA account is as good as any other.As to what to invest your money in inside a ROTH, that is a huge question and off-topic per the rules against specific investing advice.","I would just buy a low-cost diversified equity ETF. VTI is pretty solid. Also, JW are you working or in school? If you are working you should consider opening an IRA or Roth IRA. Also if your employer has a 401k or other retirement plan you can contribute to I would advise doing so.","You are young, and therefore have a very long time horizon for investing. Absolutely nothing you do should involve paying any attention to your investments more than once a year (if that). First off, you can only deposit money in an IRA (of whatever kind) if you have taxable income. If you don't, you can still invest, just without the tax benefits of a Roth. My suggestion would be to open an account with a discount brokerage (Schwab, Fidelity, eTrade, etc). The advantage of a brokerage IRA is that you can invest in whatever you want within the account. Then, either buy an S&P 500 or total market index fund within the account, or buy an index-based ETF (like a mutual fund, but trades like a stock). The latter might be better, since many mutual funds have minimum limits, which ETFs do not. Set the account up to reinvest the dividends automatically--S&P 500 yields will far outstrip current savings account yields--and sit back and do nothing for the next 40 or 50 years. Well, except for continuing to make annual contributions to the account, which you should continue to invest in pretty much the same thing until you have enough money (and experience and knowledge) to diversify into bond funds/international funds/individual stocks, etc. Disclaimer: I am not a financial planner. I just manage my own money, and this strategy has mostly kept me from stressing too badly over the last few years of market turmoil.","If you are a novice investor and want to diversify, I'd recommend looking into targeted mutual funds. They couldn't be easier. You just put your money in the fund with the year that you anticipating needing to take the money out and the fund manager handles diversification and adjusting the risk appropriately over the life of the fund based on the remaining time horizon. The only downside is that the annual expenses tend to be higher on these than if you just invested in the underlying securities/funds, but you are pretty much paying them to manage it for you.","\"You are overthinking it. Yes there is overlap between them, and you want to understand how much overlap there is so you don't end up with a concentration in one area when you were trying to avoid it. Pick two, put your money in those two; and then put your new money into those two until you want to expand into other funds. The advantage of having the money in an IRA held by a single fund family, is that moving some or all of the money from one Mutual fund/ETF to another is painless. The fact it is a retirement account means that selling a fund to move the money doesn't trigger taxes. The fact that you have about $10,000 for the IRA means that hopefully you have decades left before you need the money and that this $10,00 is just the start. You are not committed to these investment choices. With periodic re-balancing the allocations you make now will be adjusted over the decades. One potential issue. You said: \"\"I'm saving right not but haven't actually opened the account.\"\" I take it to mean that you have money in a Roth TRA account but it isn't invested into a stock fund, or that you have the money ready to go in a regular bank account and will be making a 2015 contribution into the actual IRA before tax day this year, and the 2016 contribution either at the same time or soon after. If it is the second case make sure you get the money for 2015 into the IRA before the deadline.\"","\"There are a lot of funds that exist only to feed people's belief that existing funds are not diversified or specialized enough. That's why you have so many options. Just choose the ones with the lowest fees. I'd suggest the following: I wouldn't mess around with funds that try and specialize in \"\"value\"\" or those target date funds. If you really don't want to think and don't mind paying slightly higher fees, just pick the target date fund that corresponds to when you will retire and put all your money there. On the traditional/Roth question, if your tax bracket will be higher when you retire than it is now (unlikely), choose Roth. Otherwise choose traditional.\"","Short answer is fund a Roth. If you are under 50 then you can put in $5500 or $6500 if you are older. Great to have money in two buckets one pre tax and one post tax. Plus you can be aggressive putting money in it because you can always take money you put in the Roth out of the Roth with no tax or penalty. Taxes are historically low so it makes a lot of sense to diversify your retirement.","Without making specific recommendations, it is worthwhile to point out the differing tax treatments for a Roth IRA: investments in a Roth IRA will not be taxed when you withdraw them during retirement (unless they change the law on that or something crazy). So if you are thinking about investing in some areas with high risk and high potential reward (e.g. emerging market stocks) then the Roth IRA might be the place to do it. That way, if the investment works out, you have more money in the account that won't ever be taxed. We can talk about the possible risks of certain kinds of investments, but this is not an appropriate forum to recommend for or against them specifically. Healthcare stocks are subject to political risk in the current regulatory climate. BRICs are subject to political risks regarding the political and business climate in the relevant nations, and the growth of their economies need not correspond with growth in the companies you hold in your portfolio. Energy stocks are subject to the world economic climate and demand for oil, unless you're talking alternative-energy stocks, which are subject to political risk regarding their subsidies and technological risk regarding whether or not their technologies pan out. It is worth pointing out that any ETF you invest in will have a prospectus, and that prospectus will contain a section discussing the risks which could affect your investment. Read it before investing! :)","As you have already good on your retirement kitty. Assuming you have a sufficient cash for difficult situations, explore the options of investing in Shares and Mutual Funds. As you are new to Stock Market, begin slowly by investing into Mutual Funds and ETF for precious metals. This will help you understand and give you confidence on markets and returns. Real estate is a good option, the down side being the hassle of getting rental and the illiquid nature of the investment.","Nowhere. To back up a bit, mutual funds are the stock market (and the bond market). That is, when you invest in a mutual fund, your money is ultimately buying stocks on the open market. Some of it might be buying bonds. The exact mix of stocks and bonds depends on the mutual fund. But a mutual fund is just a basket of stocks and/or bonds (and/or other, more exotic investments). At 25, you probably should just be investing your Roth IRA in index stock mutual funds and index bond mutual funds. You probably shouldn't even be doing peer-to-peer lending (unless you're willing to think of any losses as the cost of a hobby); the higher interest rate you're getting is a reflection of the risk that your borrowers will default. I'm not even sure if peer-to-peer lending is allowed in Roth IRA's. Investing in just stocks, bonds, and cast is boring, but these are easy investments to understand. The harder the investment is to understand, the easier it is for it to be a scam (or just a bad investment). There's not necessarily anything wrong with boring.","\"A Roth IRA is simply a tax-sheltered account that you deposit funds into, and then invest however you choose (within the limits of the firm you deposit the funds with). For example, you could open a Roth IRA account with Vanguard. You could then invest the $3000 by purchasing shares of VOO, which tracks the S&P 500 index and has a very low expense ratio (0.04 as of last time I checked). Fidelity has a similar option, or Schwab, or whatever brokerage firm you prefer. IRAs are basically just normal investment accounts, except they don't owe taxes until you withdraw them (and Roth don't even owe them then, though you paid taxes on the funds you deposit). They have some limitations regarding options trading and such, but if you're a novice investor just looking to do basic investments, you'll not notice. Then, your IRA would go up or down in value as the market went up or down in value. You do have some restrictions on when you can withdraw the funds; Roth IRA has fewer than a normal IRA, as you can withdraw the capital (the amount you deposited) without penalty, but the profits cannot be withdrawn until you're retirement age (I won't put an actual year, as I suspect that actual year will change by the time you're that old; but think 60s). The reason not to invest in an IRA is if you plan on using the money in the near future - even as an \"\"emergency fund\"\". You should have some money that is not invested aggressively, that is in something very safe and very accessible, for your emergency fund; and if you plan to buy a house or whatever with the funds, don't start an IRA. But if this is truly money you want to save for retirement, that's the best place to start. **Note, this is not investment advice, and you should do your own homework prior to making any investment. You can lose some or all of the value of your account while investing.\"","\"I will give a slightly different answer which is actually an addendum to JoeTaxpayer's (soon-to-be-edited) answer. Do NOT go to your financial advisor and ask him \"\"How do I go about transferring my Roth IRA to ....\"\"? where .... is whichever broker or mutual fund family that you have chosen from the list that Joe has suggested. Instead, go to the website of the new group (or call their toll-free number) and tell them \"\"I want to open a Roth IRA account with you and fund it by transferring all the money in my Roth IRA from First Clearing.\"\" Your new Roth IRA custodian will take care of all the paperwork and get the money transferred over at no cost to you except possibly fielding a weepy call from your current financial advisor because he had just ordered his new Lamborghini and now will have difficulty making payments on his auto loan. \"\"Why are you leaving me? After all the years we have had together?\"\" You will need to choose some place to put the money, and I suggest that you use their S&P 500 Index Fund, not the S&P 500 ETF, just the standard vanilla S&P 500 Index Mutual Fund. This recommendation is almost heresy in this forum, but it is better to pay the extra 0.01% fee that the Fund charges over and above the ETF until you become a little more savvy and are ready to branch out into individual stocks (which is when you really need a brokerage account). Revelation: I have never made the transition and invest only in mutual funds which does not require a brokerage account. After doing all this, pay no attention whatsoever to your Roth IRA investment or how the S&P 500 Index is doing for the next 20 years. This will help avoid the temptation of taking all your money out just because the Index went down a little. Everybody is told \"\"Buy Low, Sell High\"\" but far too many folks end up doing exactly the opposite: buying because the stock market is up and selling when it starts going down.\"","You don't really have a lot of money, and that isn't a criticism as much as that you are limited to diversification. For example, I would estimate you can only have one or two stocks for a buy-write scheme. Secondly you may be only to buy one fund with a high minimum investment, and a second fund with a smaller minimum investment. Thirdly there is not a whole lot of money to make a large difference. One options might be to look at iShares since your are with Fidelity. Trading those are commission free and the minimum investment is one share. They offer many sector funds. Since you were in a CD ladder you might be looking for stability of principle. If so you can look at USMV and PFF. If you can tolerate a little more volatility DGRO. Having said that you seem interested in doing some buy-writes. Why not mix and match? Pick a stock, like INTC (for example not a recommendation), and buy-write with half the money and some combination of iShares for the rest.","You're technically 'allowed' to do other investments with your Roth, but you get taken to the cleaners by the financial 'services' community who wants to take a slice. Non-securities investments from a Roth typically require a 'custodian' or other intermediary to handle your investment, e.g. buying silver coins and paying someone else to hold them. Buy these with cash and hold them yourself, assuming you trust yourself more than some stranger.","What asset allocation is right for you (at the most basic the percentage if stocks vs bonds; at the advanced level, percentage of growth vs value, international vs domestic etc) is a function of your age, retirement goals, income stability and employment prospects until retirement. Roth IRA is orthogonal to this. Now, once you have your allocation worked out there are tactical tax advantage decisions available: interest income, REIT and MLP dividends are taxed at income and not capital gains rate, so the tactical decision is to put these investments in tax advantage accounts like Roth and 401ks. Conversely, should you decide to buy and hold growth stocks there are tactical advantages to keeping them in a taxable account: you get tax deferment until the year you choose to sell (barring a takeover), you get the lower lt cap gains rate, and you can employ tax loss harvesting.","If I may echo the Roth comment - The Roth is a tax designation, not an end investment, so you still need to research and decide what's appropriate. I recommend the Roth for the long term investments, but keep in mind, even if you feel you may need to tap the Roth sooner than later, all deposits may be withdrawn at any time with no tax or penalty. Roth is great to store the emergency money for many if they aren't 100% sure they have enough cash to save for retirement. As you get further along, and see that you don't need it, change how it's invested to longer term, a mix of stocks (I prefer ETFs that mimic the S&P)","\"In asnwer to your questions: As @joetaxpayer said, you really should look into a Solo 401(k). In 2017, this allows you to contribute up to $18k/year and your employer (the LLC) to contribute more, up to $54k/year total (subject to IRS rules). 401(k) usually have ROTH and traditional sides, just like IRA. I believe the employer-contributed funds also see less tax burden for both you and your LLC that if that same money had become salary (payroll taxes, etc.). You might start at irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans and go from there. ROTH vs. pre-tax: You can mix and match within years and between years. Figure out what income you want to have when you retire. Any year you expect to pay lower taxes (low income, kids, deductions, etc.), make ROTH contributions. Any year you expect high taxes (bonus, high wage, taxable capital gains, etc.), make pre-tax payments. I have had a uniformly bad experience with target date funds across multiple 401(k) plans from multiple plan adminstrators. They just don't perform well (a common problem with almost any actively managed fund). You probably don't want to deal with individual stocks in your retirement accounts, so rather pick passively managed index funds that track various markets segments you care about and just sit on them. For example, your high-risk money might be in fast-growing but volatile industries (e.g. tech, aerospace, medical), your medium-risk money might go in \"\"total market\"\" or S&P 500 index funds, and your low-risk money might go in treasury notes and bonds. The breakdown is up to you, but as an 18 year old you have a ~50 year horizon and so can afford to wait out anything short of another Great Depression (and maybe even that). So you'd want generally you want more or your money in the high-risk high-return category, rebalancing to lower risk investments as you age. Diversifying into real estate, foreign investments, etc. might also make sense but I'm no expert on those.\"","Have you considered a self-directed IRA to invest, rather than the stock market or publicly traded assets? Your IRA can actually own direct title to real estate, loan money via secured or unsecured promissory notes much like a hard money loan or invest into shares of an entity that invests in real estate. The only nuance is that the IRA holder is responsible for finding and deciding upon the investment vehicle. Just an option outside of the normal parameters, if you have an existing IRA or old 401(k) or other qualified plan, this might be an option for you.","you should invest in a range of stock market indexes. Ex : Dow jones, S&P500, Nasdaq and keep it there until you are ready to retire. I'm invested half in SLYV and SLYG (S&P600 small cap value and S&P600 small cap growth; Respectively). It brings on average between 8-13% a year (since 1971). This is not investment advice. Talk to your broker before doing this.","I highly recommend passive investing through something like betterment (www.betterment.com) or vanguard's ETFs. FutureAdvisor.com can provide some good advice as to what funds to invest in. I'd recommend using that money to max out your Roth IRAs each year, too.","I'd open the Roth IRA account and fund for 2015 and 2016. For the very long term, I'd learn about index funds, specifically a low cost S&P mutual fund or ETF.","I know of no way to answer your question without 'spamming' a particular investment. First off, if you are a USA citizen, max out your 401-K. Whatever your employer matches will be an immediate boost to your investment. Secondly, you want your our gains to be tax deferred. A 401-K is tax deferred as well as a traditional IRA. Thirdly, you probably want the safety of diversification. You achieve this by buying an ETF (or mutual fund) that then buys individual stocks. Now for the recommendation that may be called spamming by others : As REITs pass the tax liability on to you, and as an IRA is tax deferred, you can get stellar returns by buying a mREIT ETF. To get you started here are five: mREITs Lastly, avoid commissions by having your dividends automatically reinvested by using that feature at Scottrade. You will have to pay commissions on new purchases but your purchases from your dividend Reinvestment will be commission free. Edit: Taking my own advice I just entered orders to liquidate some positions so I would have the $ on hand to buy into MORL and get some of that sweet 29% dividend return.","Since you're 20-30 years out of retirement, you should be 90% to 100% in stocks, and in one or two broad stock market funds likely. I'm not sure about the minimums at TD Ameritrade, but at Vanguard even $3k will get you into the basic funds. One option is the Targeted Retirement Year funds, which automatically rebalance as you get closer to retirement. They're a bit higher expense usually than a basic stock market fund, but they're often not too bad. (Look for expenses under 0.5% annually, and preferably much lower - I pay 0.05% on mine for example.) Otherwise, I'd just put everything into something simple - an S&P500 tracker for example (SPY or VOO are two examples) that has very low management fees. Then when your 401(k) gets up and running, that may have fewer options and thus you may end up in something more conservative - don't feel like you have to balance each account separately when they're just starting, think of them as one whole balancing act for the first year or two. Once they're each over $10k or so, then you can balance them individually (which you do want to do, to allow you to get better returns).","If you want to 'offset' current (2016) income, only deductible contribution to a traditional IRA does that. You can make nondeductible contributions to a trad IRA, and there are cases where that makes sense for the future and cases where it doesn't, but it doesn't give you a deduction now. Similarly a Roth IRA has possible advantages and disadvantages, but it does not have a deduction now. Currently he maximum is $5500 per person ($6500 if over age 50, but you aren't) which with two accounts (barely) covers your $10k. To be eligible to make this deductible traditional contribution, you must have earned income (employment or self-employment, but NOT the distribution from another IRA) at least the amount you want to contribute NOT have combined income (specifically MAGI, Modified Adjusted Gross Income) exceeding the phaseout limit (starts at $96,000 for married-joint) IF you were covered during the year (either you or your spouse) by an employer retirement plan (look at box 13 on your W-2's). With whom. Pretty much any bank, brokerage, or mutual fund family can handle IRAs. (To be technical, the bank's holding company will have an investment arm -- to you it will usually look like one operation with one name and logo, one office, one customer service department, one website etc, but the investment part must be legally separate from the insured banking part so you may notice a different name on your legal and tax forms.) If you are satisified with the custodian of the inherited IRA you already have, you might just stay with them -- they may not need as much paperwork, you don't need to meet and get comfortable with new people, you don't need to learn a new website. But if they sold you an annuity at your age -- as opposed to you inheriting an already annuitized IRA -- I'd want a lot of details before trusting they are acting in your best interests; most annuities sold to IRA holders are poor deals. In what. Since you want only moderate risk at least to start, and also since you are starting with a relatively small amount where minimum investments, expenses and fees can make more of an impact on your results, I would go with one or a few broad (= lower risk) index (= lower cost) fund(s). Every major fund familly also offers at least a few 'balanced' funds which give you a mixture of stocks and bonds, and sometimes some 'alternatives', in one fund. Remember this is not committing you forever; any reasonable custodian will allow you to move or spread to more-adventurous (but not wild and crazy) investments, which may be better for you in future years when you have some more money in the account and some more time to ponder your goals and options and comfort level.","First you need to distinguish between short-term and long-term capital gains. In an IRA you can use investment strategies that incur short-term capital gains without being taxed as ordinary income. As mentioned in a comment above, with a Roth IRA, you can invest now at your low income tax rates and withdraw all gains without incurring any taxes at retirement time. You can also pull out your contributions penalty free before retirement age (59 1/2) if you've had the account for more than 5 years. You only pay taxes and penalties on the earnings. You can also make withdrawals for education expenses and you have one lifetime exclusion of $10,000 for a down-payment on a house.","the $5500 Roth IRA is not restricted to earned income, you can put whatever money you have tax free and gains free.","Though I do think it is important to have a diversified portfolio for your retirement, I also think it's more important to make sure you are at no point touching this money until you retire. Taking money out of your retirement early is a sure fire way to get in a bad habit of spending this money when you need a little help. Here's a tip: If you consider this money gone, you will find another way to figure out your situation. With that said, I also would rather not put a percentage on this. Start by building your emergency fund. You'll want to treat this like a bill and make a monthly payment to your savings account each month or paycheck. When you have a good nine times your monthly income in here, stop contributing to this fund. Instead start putting the same amount into your IRA instead. At this point you should no longer have to add to your emergency fund unless there is a true emergency and you are replacing that money. Keep in mind that the amount of money in your emergency fund changes significantly in each situation. Sit down with your bills and think about how much money you would need in the event you lost your job. How long would you be out of work? How many bills do you have each month that would need to be covered?","Great question and good for you for starting investments. Are you young, like in your 20s? I would do all that you can in the ROTH. You will not get a tax break now, but you will get one later. Keep in mind that any company match does not go into ROTH but the IRA. I try to look at two things when judging a mutual fund: the historic performance, and the expense fee. When comparing two funds, if one has a 10% average return for 10 years, and a 1% fee, I feel it is better than a fund that has a 12% return for the same time period and a 3% fee. If they are close, you can always put a little bit in each one. An important question to ask is if you have debt. You may want to scale back your contributions some to pay down that debt. For me, I don't like to go below a company match to do so, but anything over and above might be better utilized to move that student, car or credit card loan to zero. Others might disagree, so YMMV, but I have done this myself.","A 401-K is something you get through an employer. I recommend getting a self-directed IRA. You can open an IRA with Scottrade with $500 The money you put into an IRA is tax deferred, meaning that you do not have to pay taxes on profits. It may also lower your tax liability. Scottrade has a feature to automatically reinvest any dividends from the securities you own. This feature allows you to avoid commissions on those automatic purchases. Don't try to time the market. Pick a good ETF (exchange traded fund) that pays dividends. It will give you diversification. Avoid the urge to buy and sell constantly. This only gives commissions to the broker.","401Ks and IRAs are types of retirement accounts. They have rules regarding maximum amount of investments per year; who can invest; destructibility; and the tax treatment of the growth. Stock, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs are all types of investments that can exist either inside or outside of the retirement account. Some 401Ks restrict the type of investments you can have, others allow you to own almost anything. Any investment is a risk, and there is no guarantee that it will grow. Look around the site for beginning investment advice. You should start with the 401K offered by your company especially if they have matching funds. That is free money. Many suggest you invest enough to get the match, then invest with an IRA. Look into IRAs because under US tax law you can still make a 2013 investment up until tax day 2014. Take the time before tax day to decide on Roth or Regular IRA. The more exotic investments take more time to understand and should not be a concern until you have laid out your basic retirement accounts.","If you are earning a salary, go for Roth IRA. You can contribute $5500 (2013 limits) every year . Once you open a account , let say Fidelity or Vanguard, you should invest based on risk appetite into some funds. the advantage is that your money grows tax free and when you are 25- 30 years old and need money for down payment of house, you can pull the money out with out any penalty. The gains you have made will continue to be in that account till the time your retire, growing every year.","There are fund of funds,e.g. life cycle funds or target retirement funds, that could cover a lot of these with an initial investment that one could invest into for a few years and then after building up a balance large enough, then it may make sense to switch to having more control.","Your question indicates confusion regarding what an Individual Retirement Account (whether Roth or Traditional) is vs. the S&P 500, which is nothing but a list of stocks. IOW, it's perfectly reasonable to open a Roth IRA, put your $3000 in it, and then use that money to buy a mutual fund or ETF which tracks the S&P 500. In fact, it's ridiculously common... :)","I would personally suggest owning Mutual Funds or ETF's in a tax sheltered account, such as a 401k or an IRA, especially Roth options if available. This lets you participate in the stock market while ensuring that you have diversified portfolio, and the money is managed by an expert. The tax sheltered accounts (or tax free in the case of Roth accounts) increase your savings, and simplify your life as you don't need to worry about taxes on earnings within those accounts, as long as you leave the money in. For a great beginner's guide see Clark's Investment Guide (Easy).","The most important thing is to keep in mind the deadline. If you want to have it count for 2016, you need to open the account and transfer the funds by tax day. Don't wait until the last day to do it, or you could run out of time. Setting up the initial account, and them verifying your information and transferring the money could take a few days. First decide how much of a lump sum you want to invest initially. This will determine some of your options because the mutual fund will have a minimum initial investment. Many of the funds will allow subsequent investments to be smaller. The beauty of a IRA or Roth IRA is that if the fund you want is out of reach for this initial investment in a few years you can transfer the money into another fund or even another fund family without having to worry about tax issues. Now decide on your risk level and you time horizon. Because you said you are student and you want a Roth IRA, it is assumed that you will not need this money for 4+ decades; so you can and should be willing to be a little more risky. As NathanL said an index fund is a great idea. Many also advise an aged based fund. My kids found that when they made their initial investments the age based funds were the only one with a low enough initial investment for their first few years. Then pick a fund family based on the general low fees, and a large mix of options. The best thing is that in a few years as you have more money and more options, you can adjust your choices.","In addition to George Marian's excellent advice, I'll add that if you're hitting the limits on IRA contributions, then you'd go back to your 401(k). So, put enough into your 401(k) to get the match, then max out IRA contributions to give you access to more and better investment options, then go back to your 401(k) until you top that out as well, assuming you have that much available to invest for retirement.","Your approach sounds solid to me. Alternatively, if (as appears to be the case) then you might want to consider devoting your tax-advantaged accounts to tax-inefficient investments, such as REITs and high-yield bond funds. That way your investments that generate non-capital-gain (i.e. tax-expensive) income are safe from the IRS until retirement (or forever). And your investments that generate only capital gains income are safe until you sell them (and then they're tax-cheap anyway). Of course, since there aren't really that many tax-expensive investment vehicles (especially not for a young person), you may still have room in your retirement accounts after allocating all the money you feel comfortable putting into REITs and junk bonds. In that case, the article I linked above ranks investment types by tax-efficiency so you can figure out the next best thing to put into your IRA, then the next, etc.","May I suggest putting it in a Roth IRA ($5,500 per year. Right now you can contribute to both 2015 and 2016 so that's $11K.)? Based on your description it sounds like your tax rate is very low, so it is awesome to put it away now and avoid taxes later on any gains you make on it. You can use Roth IRA money to pay for college, a home, or retirement. Within your Roth IRA, any of the investment options mentioned here will work. For example, CD's or money market accounts if you just want it to grow in a pretty much savings-account-like manner. You could also buy diversified mutual funds or have some fun buying individual stocks with some of it. I'm sorry to say that in the current market conditions you are not going to find a completely safe, cash-like investment or account that makes your money grow substantially. To do that you have to bear risk by buying risky stuff like stocks.","Sounds like you're doing fine, though somewhat fuzzy: how are you allocating the $500/month? Are you doing dollar cost averaging into funds, accumulating enough $$ to buy round lots of individual stocks, market timing, etc. The summary suggestion: max out the ROTH first, then with $$$ left over, do the after tax, low-cost fund, monthly dollar cost averaging approach.","There are quite a few options. Suggest you put a mix of things and begin investing into Mutual Funds.","\"You can have as many IRA accounts as you want (whether Roth or Traditional), so you can have a Roth IRA with American Funds and another Roth IRA with Vanguard if you like. One disadvantage of having too many IRA accounts with small balances in each is that most custodians (including Vanguard) charge an annual fee for maintaining IRA accounts with small balances but waive the fee if the balance is large. So it is best to keep your Roth IRA in just one or two funds with just one or two custodians until such time as investment returns plus additional contributions made over the years makes the balances large enough to diversify further. Remember also that you cannot contribute the maximum to each IRA; the sum total of all your IRA contributions (doesn't matter whether to Roth or to Traditional IRAs) for any year must satisfy the limit for that year. You can move money from one IRA of yours to another IRA (of the same type) of yours without any tax issues to worry about. Such movements (called rollovers or transfers) are not contributions and do not count towards the annual contribution limit. The easiest way to do move money from one IRA account to another IRA account is by a trustee-to-trustee transfer where the money goes directly from one custodian (American Funds in this case) to the other custodian (Vanguard in this case). The easiest way of accomplishing this is to call Vanguard or go online on their website, tell them that you are wanting to establish a Roth IRA with them, and that you want to fund it by transferring money held in a Roth IRA with American Funds. Give Vanguard the account number of your existing American Funds IRA, tell them how much you want to transfer over -- $1000 or $20,000 or the entire balance as the case may be -- and tell Vanguard to go get the money. In a few days' time, the money will appear in your new Vanguard Roth IRA and the American Funds Roth IRA will have a smaller balance, possibly a zero balance, or might even be closed if you told Vanguard to collect the entire balance. DO NOT approach American Funds and tell them that you want to transfer money to a new Roth IRA with Vanguard: they will bitch and moan and drag their heels about doing so because they are unhappy to lose your business, and will probably screw up the transfer. Talk to Vanguard only. They are eager to get their hands on your IRA money and will gladly take care of the whole thing for you at no charge to you. DO NOT cash in any stock shares, or mutual fund shares, or whatever is in your Roth IRA in preparation for \"\"cashing out of the old account\"\". There is a method where you take a \"\"rollover distribution\"\" from your American Funds Roth IRA and then deposit the money into your new Vanguard Roth IRA within 60 days, but I recommend most strongly against using this because too many people manage to screw it up. It is 60 days, not two months; the clock starts from the day American Funds cuts your check, not when you get the check, and it is stopped when the money gets deposited into your new account, not the day you mailed the check to Vanguard or the day that Vanguard received it, and so on. In short, DO NOT try this at home: stick to a trustee-to-trustee transfer and avoid the hassles.\"","Many mutual fund companies (including Vanguard when I checked many years ago) require smaller minimum investments (often $1000) for IRA and 401k accounts. Some also allow for smaller investments into their funds for IRA accounts if you set up an automatic investment plan that contributes a fixed amount of money each month or each quarter. On the other hand, many mutual fund companies charge an annual account maintenance fee ($10? $20? $25? more?) per fund for IRA investments unless the balance in the fund is above a certain amount (often $5K or $10K$). This fee can be paid in cash or deducted from the IRA investment, and the former option is vastly better. So, diversification into multiple funds while starting out with an IRA is not that great an idea. It is far better to get diversification through investment in an S&P 500 Index fund (VFINX since you won't have access to @JoeTaxpayer's VIIIX) or a Total Market Index fund or, if you prefer, a Target Retirement Fund, and then branch out into other types of mutual funds as your investment grows through future contributions and dividends etc. To answer your question about fund minimums, the IRA account is separate from a taxable investment account, and the minimum rule applies to each separately. But, as noted above, there often are smaller minimums for tax-deferred accounts.","My advice would be to invest in the 401k with the same type of funds you'd purchase when you rollover to your IRA. They are both retirement accounts. If the stock market tanks, your 401k balance will be low but you'll also be purchasing stocks at a much cheaper price when you establish your roth. You should create an asset allocation based on your age, not on the type of retirement account you have. One question to consider: When you do become a student, you'll likely be a in lower tax bracket. Can you contribute pre-tax dollars and then rollover to a ROTH in the year that you're a student?","At a very high-level, the answer is yes, that's a good idea. For money that you want to invest on the scale of decades, putting money into a broad, market-based fund has historically given the best returns. Something like the Vanguard S&P 500 automatically gives you a diverse portfolio, with super low expenses. As it sounds like you understand, the near-term returns are volatile, and if you really think you might want this money in the next few years, then the stock market might not be the best choice. As a final note, as one of the comments mentioned, it makes sense to hold a broad, market-based fund for your IRA as well, if possible.","I recommend you consider a Roth IRA. Invest it as others here suggest, safely, CDs, money market,etc. You can put in $5000/yr. When you spend, use this last, there is no penalty to withdraw the deposits. But if you make it through grad school without needing it, you'll have great start on your retirement savings.","Think about contributing to both a Traditional IRA and a Roth IRA if you have the funds. In theory, you could receive the lowest tax rates by depositing money into a regular IRA during years of democratic rule, depositing money into a Roth during years of Republic rule, and then withdrawing from the Roth during democratic rule and the tradition during Republican rule. Then you would be depositing with lower tax rates and withdrawing with lower tax rates. Granted this method would involve some speculation.","Your max contribution to your Roth IRA and your traditional IRA share the same cap, so if you are maxing your Roth IRA you cannot have a traditional one as well. I would put the additional into your 401k or perhaps a 529 if you have any kids.","You are permitted to withdraw the deposits from the Roth with no tax or penalty any time. To Dilip's point, the Roth is a good place to keep the investment, and what you might consider is a 'self-directed' account. This type of IRA or Roth IRA permits a choice of investments that are not typically handled by banks or brokers, including Real Estate and the type of Angel investing you seem to be considering. Note - the rules are tough, you need to be very careful to not be self-dealing, or dealing with certain related parties.","\"Your funds are in a retirement account. Withdrawals from your IRA will be penalized if you withdraw before you turn 59.5 years old, and you appear to be decades away from that age. The general advice I would give you is to pick a \"\"target year fund\"\" that targets the year you turn 59.5. The stock market is more volatile, but its average gains will protect you from inflation just eating your funds. Bonds are in counterpoint to your stocks - more stable, and protecting you from the chance that stocks dip right before you want to withdraw. Target year funds start with higher amounts of stock, and gradually rebalance towards bonds over time. Thus, you take your market risks earlier while you can benefit from the market's gains, and then have stability when you actually would want to retire and depend on the savings.\"","My thoughts are your retirement investing priorities should be as follows: So in your case I would not put any money into your 401k until you have maxed out your Roth IRA.","A Roth IRA is intended for retirement. Before age 59.5 (I think), you can only withdraw the amount you deposited without penalty. It's great you're saving in a Roth, but you shouldn't put savings in there that you will need before you reach sufficient age. And since it's long-term, you can invest in things you expect to grow over the long term, like equities. You should keep emergency funds either in federally insured, extremely liquid accounts (bank savings) or money market funds (which aren't insured, but are close enough to zero-risk). Yes, the interest rates are terrible right now. But anything else would potentially leave you with insufficient funds in the event of, you know, an emergency.","You're young. Build a side business in your spare time. Invest in yourself. Fail a few times when you have some time to recover financially. Use the money that you would have let sit in some account and develop your skills, start up an LLC, and build up the capacity to get some real returns on your money. Be a rainmaker, not a Roth taker.","First, if it's just about the income limit, you can deposit to a regular IRA and soon after (like next day) convert it to a Roth. So long as you have no pretax IRA money out there, there will be no tax consequence, a cent on a day's interest, perhaps. As far as the 401(k) goes, are the options any good? Some 401(k) investment choices are so awful it's best to stop after getting full matching. Mine has an S&P index fund with a .05%/yr expense ratio. That's less than I can find in the best ETF out there. Keep in mind, if you invest long term, the dividends are favored, 15% rate, and the capital gain is both controllable (you decide when to take it, by selling) and also favored, 15%. The magic of 401(k) and IRAs, whatever kind is a bit overplayed in the media. Your investing rate and asset choices are far more important.","\"Whoa. These things are on two dimensions. It's like burger and fries, you can also have chicken sandwich and fries, or burger and onion rings. You can invest in an taxable brokerage account and/or an IRA. And then, within each of those... You can buy index funds and/or anything else. All 4 combinations are possible. If someone says otherwise, take your money and run. They are a shady financial \"\"advisor\"\" who is ripping you off by steering you only into products where they get a commission. Those products are more expensive because the commission comes out of your end. Not to mention any names. E.J. If you want financial advice that is honest, find a financial advisor who you pay for his advice, and who doesn't sell products at all. Or, just ask here. But I would start by listening to Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey, whomever you prefer. And read John Bogle's book. They can tell you all about the difference between money market, bonds, stocks, managed mutual funds (ripoff!) and index funds. IRA accounts, Roth IRA accounts and taxable accounts are all brokerage accounts. Within them, you can buy any security you want, including index funds. The difference is taxation. Suppose you earn $1000 and choose to invest it however Later you withdraw it and it has grown to $3000. Investing in a taxable account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you later withdraw the $3000, you pay a tax on $2000 of income. If you invested more than a year, it is taxed at a much lower \"\"capital gains\"\" tax rate. With a traditional IRA account, you pay zero taxes on the initial $1000. Later, when you take the money out, you pay normal income tax on the full $3000. If you withdrew it before age 59-1/2, you also pay a 10% penalty ($300). With a Roth IRA account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you withdraw the $3000 later, you pay NOTHING in taxes. Provided you followed the rules. You can invest in almost anything inside these accounts: Money market funds. Terrible return. You won't keep up with the market. Bonds. Low return but usually quite safe. Individual stocks. Good luck. Managed mutual funds. You're paying some genius stock picker to select high performing stocks. He has a huge staff of researchers and good social connections. He also charges you 1.5% per year overhead as an \"\"expense ratio\"\", which is a total loss to you. The fact is, he can usually pick stocks better than a monkey throwing darts. But he's not 1.5% better! Index funds. These just shrug and buy every stock on the market. There's no huge staff or genius manager, just some intern making small adjustments every week. As such, the expense ratio is extremely small, like 0.1%. If any of these investments pay dividends, you must pay taxes on them when they're issued, if you're not in an IRA account. This problem gets fixed in ETF's. Index ETF's. These are index funds packaged to behave like stocks. Dividends increase your stock's value instead of being paid out to you, which simplifies your taxes. If you buy index funds outside of an IRA, use these. Too many other options to get into here.\"","If you're sure you want to go the high risk route: You could consider hot stocks or even bonds for companies/countries with lower credit ratings and higher risk. I think an underrated cost of investing is the tax penalties that you pay when you win if you aren't using a tax advantaged account. For your speculating account, you might want to open a self-directed IRA so that you can get access to more of the high risk options that you crave without the tax liability if any of those have a big payout. You want your high-growth money to be in a Roth, because it would be a shame to strike it rich while you're young and then have to pay taxes on it when you're older. If you choose not to make these investments in a tax-advantaged account, try to hold your stocks for a year so you only get taxed at capital gains rates instead of as ordinary income. If you choose to work for a startup, buy your stock options as they vest so that if the company goes public or sells privately, you will have owned those stocks long enough to qualify for capital gains. If you want my actual advice about what I think you should do: I would increase your 401k percentage to at least 10% with or without a match, and keep that in low cost index funds while you're young, but moving some of those investments over to bonds as you get closer to retirement and your risk tolerance declines. Assuming you're not in the 25% tax bracket, all of your money should be in a Roth 401k or IRA because you can withdraw it without being taxed when you retire. The more money you put into those accounts now while you are young, the more time it all has to grow. The real risk of chasing the high-risk returns is that when you bet wrong it will set you back far enough that you will lose the advantage that comes from investing the money while you're young. You're going to have up and down years with your self-selected investments, why not just keep plugging money into the S&P which has its ups and downs, but has always trended up over time?","Putting money into a Roth IRA or 401(k) will save you money if your taxes this year will be lower than your taxes in retirement. See also the Wikipedia retirement-savings matrix.","Lots of good answers. I'll try and improve by being more brief. For each option you will pay different taxes: Index Fund: Traditional IRA Roth IRA You can see that the Roth IRA is obviously better than investing in a taxable account. It may not be as obvious that the traditional IRA is better as well. The reason is that in the traditional account you can earn returns on the money that otherwise would have gone to the government today. The government taxes that money at the end, but they don't take all of it. In fact, for a given investment amount X and returns R, the decision of Roth vs Traditional depends only on your tax rate now vs at retirement because X(1-tax)(1+R_1)(1+R_2)...(1+R_n) = X(1+R_1)(1+R_2)...(1+R_n)(1-tax) The left hand side is what you will have at retirement if you do a Roth and the right hand side is what you will have at retirement if you do traditional. Only the tax rate differences between now and retirment matter here. An index fund investment is like the left hand side but has some additional tax terms on your capital gains. It's clearly worse than either.","As stated in the comments, Index Funds are the way to go. Stocks have the best return on investment, if you can stomach the volatility, and the diversification index funds bring you is unbeatable, while keeping costs low. You don't need an Individual Savings Account (UK), 401(k) (US) or similar, though they would be helpful to boost investment performance. These are tax advantaged accounts; without them you will have to pay taxes on your investment gains. However, there's still a lot to gain from investing, specially if the alternative is to place them in the vault or similar. Bear in mind that inflation makes your money shrink in real terms. Even a small interest is better than no interest. By best I mean that is safe (regulated by the financial authorities, so your money is safe and insured up to a certain amount) and has reasonable fees (keeping costs low is a must in any scenario). The two main concerns when designing your portfolio are diversification and low TER (Total Expense Ratio). As when we chose broker, our concern is to be as safe as we possibly can (diversification helps with this) and to keep costs at the bare minimum. Some issues might restrict your election or make others seem better. Depending on the country you live and the one of the fund, you might have to pay more taxes on gains/dividends. e.g. The US keeps some of them if your country doesn't have a special treaty with them. Look for W-8Ben and tax withholding for more information. Vanguard and Blackrock offer nice index funds. Morningstar might be a good place for gathering information. Don't trust blindly the 'rating'. Some values are 'not rated' and kick ass the 4 star ones. Again: seek low TER. Not a big fan of this point, but I'm bound to mention it. It can be actually helpful for sorting out tax related issues, which might decide the kind of index fund you pick, and if you find this topic somewhat daunting. You start with a good chunk of money, so it might make even more sense in your scenario to hire someone knowledgeable and trustworthy. I hope this helps to get you started. Best of luck.","Look at the aristocrat dividend paying stocks (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500_Dividend_Aristocrats). These all pay dividends and have consistently outperformed the S&P 500 - 10.6% vs 7.4% the last ten years. While stocks should not be generally considered for short-term investing, I personally think the market is showing a general up trend for the next few years. Also, the dividends add an additional buffer. Because you would be making regular monthly investments, you should choose a fund that invests in aristocrat stocks so you can set up an automatic depost.","If you are looking for an index index fund, I know vanguard offers their Star fund which invests in 11 other funds of theirs and is diversified across stocks, bonds, and short term investments.","I'm looking for ways to geared to save for retirement, not general investment. Many mutual fund companies offer a range of target retirement funds for different retirement dates (usually in increments of 5 years). These are funds of funds, that is, a Target 2040 Fund, say, will be invested in five or six different stock and bond mutual funds offered by the same company. Over the years and as the target date approaches closer, the investment mix will change from extra weight given to stock mutual funds towards extra weight being given to bond mutual funds. The disadvantage to these funds is that the Target Fund charges its own expense ratio over and above the expense ratios charged by the mutual funds it invests in: you could do the same investments yourself (or pick your own mix and weighting of various funds) and save the extra expense ratio. However, over the years, as the Target Fund changes its mix, withdrawing money from the stock mutual funds and investing the proceeds into bond mutual funds, you do not have to pay taxes on the profits generated by these transactions except insofar as some part of the profits become distributions from the Target Fund itself. If you were doing the same transactions outside the Target Fund, you would be liable for taxes on the profits when you withdrew money from a stock fund and invested the proceeds into the bond fund.","With a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time without penalty as long as you don't withdraw the earnings/interest. There are some circumstances where you can withdraw the earnings such as disability (and maybe first home). Also, the Roth IRA doesn't need to go through your employer and I wouldn't do it through your employer. I have mine setup through Fidelity though I'm not sure if they have any guaranteed 3% return unless it was a CD. All of mine is in stocks. Your wife could also setup a Roth IRA so over 2 years, you could contribute $20,000. If I was you, I would just max out any 403-b matches (which you surely are at 25% of gross income) and then save my down payment money in a normal money market/savings account. You are doing good contributing almost 25% to the 403-b. There are also some income limitations on Roth IRAs. I believe for a married couple, it is $160k.","\"I disagree with the IRA suggestion. Why IRA? You're a student, so probably won't get much tax benefits, so why locking the money for 40 years? You can do the same investments through any broker account as in IRA, but be able to cash out in need. 5 years is long enough term to put in a mutual fund or ETF and expect reasonable (>1.25%) gains. You can use the online \"\"analyst\"\" tools that brokers like ETrade or Sharebuilder provide to decide on how to spread your portfolio, 15K is enough for diversifying over several areas. If you want to keep it as cash - check the on-line savings accounts (like Capitol One, for example, or Ally, ING Direct that will merge with Capitol One and others) for better rates, brick and mortar banks can not possible compete with what you can get online.\"","I would not suggest closing out your Roth IRA -- Couple of reasons for that - 1) Since you've been contributing to it for 15 years, your investments have probably grown, seen dividends, etc. If you close it out, you will owe taxes and be slapped with a 10% penalty on the growth (money you didn't contribute). That's quite a waste of hard earned money. 2) While your income may exceed the contribution limit of a Roth, you could do what's called a 'backdoor' Roth - which is really just converting your after tax contributions into an IRA into a Roth IRA. 3) Given the length of your contributions your Roth IRA is seasoned (5 years) This allows you to use up to 10k for your house if you chose. (Usually not an option people use) Other than that, consider paying off the student loans with the highest interest first.","You can invest another $5,500 in your Roth IRA each year, so you can invest up to $11,000 between the two tax years. Additionally you can make investments for the previous year up until 15 April the following year. In your case that will be close to graduation time, and you may decide to max out the contribution for 2014, but wait until you are settled into a new job before setting those savings aside long-term. When you start your first job, there will likely also be an option to invest in a 401k. You can still have the advantages of a Roth, but you will be limited to the investments available in the plan. Most employers I've seen today still offer a low-cost index fund, but you may have to speak up at a company meeting to pressure them to include one of those options in the plan. With a 401k your limit increases to $17,500/year. Make sure that the index fund you invest in has the lowest possible expense ratio. I use VOO. Depending on trading fees, etc., you might pick something else.","Diversification is an important aspect of precious metals investing. Therefore I would suggest diversifying in a number of different ways:","Couple of factors here to consider: 1) The savings vehicle 2) The investments Savings Vehicle: Roth IRAs allow you the flexibility to save for retirement and/or your house. Each person can save up to $5,500 in a Roth and you can withdraw your principal at anytime without penalty. (There is a special clause for first time home buyers; however, it limits the amount to $10k per person. Given your estimate of $750k and history of putting down 20%. It would require a bit more.) The only thing is that you can't touch the growth or interest. When you do max out your Roth IRA, it may make sense for you to open a brokerage account (401Ks often have multiple steps in order to convert or withdraw money for your down payment) Investments: Given your timeline (5-7 years) your investments would be more conservative. (More fixed income) While you should stay diversified (both fixed income and equity), the conservative portfolio will allow less fluctuation in your portfolio value while allowing some growth potential.","You asked specifically about the ROTH IRA option and stated you want to get the most bang for your buck in retirement. While others have pointed out the benefits of a tax deduction due to using a Traditional IRA instead, I haven't seen anyone point out some of the other differences between ROTH and Traditional, such as: I agree with your thoughts on using an IRA once you maximize the company match into a 401k plan. My reasoning is: I personally prefer ETFs over mutual funds for the ability to get in and out with limit, stop, or OCO orders, at open or anytime mid-day if needed. However, the price for that flexibility is that you risk discounts to NAV for ETFs that you wouldn't have with the equivalent mutual fund. Said another way, you may find yourself selling your ETF for less than the holdings are actually worth. Personally, I value the ability to exit positions at the time of my choosing more highly than the impact of tracking error on NAV. Also, as a final comment to your plan, if it were me I'd personally pay off the student loans with any money I had after contributing enough to my employer 401k to maximize matching. The net effect of paying down the loans is a guaranteed avg 5.3% annually (given what you've said) whereas any investments in 401k or IRA are at risk and have no such guarantee. In fact, with there being reasonable arguments that this has been an excessively long bull market, you might figure your chances of a 5.3% or better return are pretty low for new money put into an IRA or 401k today. That said, I'm long on stocks still, but then I don't have debt besides my mortgage at the moment. If I weren't so conservative, I'd be looking to maximize my leverage in the continued low rate environment.","Start a Roth IRA. Keep it in low risk, short term money market or CDs. At this stage, stocks may be premature. As you build up the account, up to $5000/year, at some point, you should start buying an index mutual fund, say one following the S&P. When you are out of school and working for real money, save an emergency account outside the IRA and shift that Roth IRA to be fully invested. My 13 year old has her emergency account, and her Roth IRA to deposit her baby sitting money. It's never too soon to start.","You can buy stocks in the IRA, similarly to your regular investment account. Generally, when you open an account with a retail provider like TDAmeritrade, all the options available for you on that account are allowable. Keep in mind that you cannot just deposit money to IRA. There's a limit on how much you can deposit a year ($5500 as of 2015, $6500 for those 50 or older), and there's also a limit on top of that - the amount you deposit into an IRA cannot be more than your total earned income (i.e. income from work). In addition, there are limits on how much of your contribution you can deduct (depending on your income and whether you/your spouse have an employer-sponsored retirement plan).","Apply as many deductions as you are legally entitled to. Those are taxes you may never ever pay. Then turn around and put any more monies above the maximum retirement contributions into a taxable account. But this time invest in tax efficient investments. For example, VTI or SPY will incur very minimal taxes and when you withdraw, it will be at lower tax rate (based on current tax laws). Just as you diversify your investments, you also want to diversify your taxes.","On the one hand, it's a great idea to open a Roth IRA now, once you've got the cash to contribute. It's a tax designation sounds like it would fit your meager earnings this year. The main reason to open one now rather than later is that some types of withdrawls require the account be aged 5 years. But you can also withdraw the amount you've contributed tax free any time. Student loans right now are pricey, so if you're carrying a balance at say 6.8 percent fixed you should pay that down ASAP. Beyond that, I'd keep the rest liquid for now. Having that kind of liquid cash is extremely reassuring, and many of the biggest returns on investment are going to be in your personal life. More fuel efficient vehicles, energy efficient appliances, computer backups, chest freezers and bulk meat purchases, etc. One example I see every six months is car insurance: I can pay for six months in full or I can pay a smaller monthly bill plus a small fee. That fee is well above current market rates. You see this everywhere; people searching for lower minimum payments rather than lower total costs. Save your money up and be the smart buyer. It's too damn expensive to be broke.","I would open a taxable account with the same custodian that manages your Roth IRA (e.g., Vanguard, Fidelity, etc.). Then within the taxable account I would invest the extra money in low cost, broad market index funds that are tax efficient. Unlike in your 401(k) and Roth IRA, you will now have tax implications if your funds produce dividends or realize a capital gain. That is why tax-efficient funds are important to minimize this as much as possible. The 3-fund portfolio is a popular choice for taxable accounts because of simplicity and the tax efficiency of broad market index funds that are part of the three fund portfolio. The 3-fund portfolio normally consists of Depending on your tax bracket you may want to consider municipal bonds in your taxable instead of taxable bonds if your tax bracket is 25% or higher. Another option is to forgo bonds altogether in the taxable account and just hold bonds in retirement accounts while keeping tax efficient domestic and international tock funds in your taxable account. Then adjust the bond portion upward in your retirement accounts to account for the additional stocks in your taxable accounts. This will maintain the asset allocation that you've already chosen that is appropriate for your age and goals.","\"A well diversified retirement portfolio is going to have some component in cash or near-liquid investments. So I tend to put it all in one place knowing that I can draw on it (at least from the ROTH account) in the event of an emergency. Obviously, you don't want to do this very often, but hopefully emergencies don't happen often either. You also have to attenuate your idea of an emergency so that it doesn't mean \"\"I didn't get a bonus check this year and can't afford gifts for the kids as nice as last year!\"\"\"","\"As other people have indicated, traditional IRAs are tax deductable for a particular year. Please note, though, that traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free) accounts, meaning that you'll have to pay taxes on any money you take out later regardless of why you're making the withdrawal. (A lot of people mistakenly call them tax free, which they're not). There is no such thing as a \"\"tax-free\"\" retirement account. Really, in terms of Roth vs. Traditional IRAs, it's \"\"pay now or pay later.\"\" With the exception of special circumstances like this, I recommend investing exclusively in Roth IRAs for money that you expect to grow much (or that you expect to produce substantial income over time). Just to add a few thoughts on what to actually invest in once you open your IRA, I strongly agree with the advice that you invest mostly in low-cost mutual funds or index funds. The advantage of an open-ended mutual fund is that it's easier to purchase them in odd increments and you may be able to avoid at least some purchase fees, whereas with an ETF you have to buy in multiples of that day's asking price. For example, if you were investing $500 and the ETF costs $200 per share, you could only purchase 2 shares, leaving $100 uninvested (minus whatever fee your broker charged for the purchase). The advantage of an ETF is that it's easy to buy or sell quickly. Usually, when you add money to a mutual fund, it'll take a few days for it to hit your account, and when you want to sell it'll similarly take a few days for you to get your money; when I buy an ETF the transaction can occur almost instantly. The fees can also be lower (if the ETF is just a passive index fund). Also, there's a risk with open-ended mutual funds that if too many people pull money out at once the managers could be forced to sell stocks at an unfavorable price.\"","\"There's already an excellent answer here from @BenMiller, but I wanted to expand a bit on Types of Investments with some additional actionable information. You can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds (which are simply collections of stocks and bonds), bank accounts, precious metals, and many other things. Discussing all of these investments in one answer is too broad, but my recommendation is this: If you are investing for retirement, you should be investing in the stock market. However, picking individual stocks is too risky; you need to be diversified in a lot of stocks. Stock mutual funds are a great way to invest in the stock market. So how does one go about actually investing in the stock market in a diversified way? What if you also want to diversify a bit into bonds? Fortunately, in the last several years, several products have come about that do just these things, and are targeted towards newer investors. These are often labeled \"\"robo-advisors\"\". Most even allow you to adjust your allocation according to your risk preferences. Here's a list of the ones I know about: While these products all purport to achieve similar goals of giving you an easy way to obtain a diversified portfolio according to your risk, they differ in the buckets of stocks and funds they put your money into; the careful investor would be wise to compare which specific ETFs they use (e.g. looking at their expense ratios, capitalization, and spreads).\"","To answer your question: As far as what's available in addition to your 401(k) at work (most financial types will say to contribute up to the match first), you may qualify for a Roth IRA (qualification is based on income), if not, then you may have to go with a Traditional IRA. You and your husband can each have one and contribute up to the limit each year. After that, you could get just a straight up mutual fund, and/or contribute up to limit on your 401(k). My two cents: This may sound counter-intuitive (and I'm sure some folks will disagree), but instead of contributing to your 401(k) now, take whatever that amount is, and use it to pay extra on the car loan. Also take the extra being paid on the mortgage and pay it on the car loan too. Once the car loan is paid off, then set aside 15% of your gross income and use that amount to start your retirement investing. Any additional money beyond this can then go into the mortgage. Once it's paid off, then you can take the extra you were paying, plus the mortgage and invest that amount into mutual funds. You may want to check out Chris Hogan's Retire Inspired book or podcast as well.","\"IRAs have huge tax-advantages. You'll pay taxes when you liquidate gold and silver. While volatile, \"\"the stock market has never produced a loss during any rolling 15-year period (1926-2009)\"\" [PDF]. This is perhaps the most convincing article for retirement accounts over at I Will Teach You To Be Rich. An IRA is just a container for your money and you may invest the money however you like (cash, stocks, funds, etc). A typical investment is the purchase of stocks, bonds, and/or funds containing either or both. Stocks may pay dividends and bonds pay yields. Transactions of these things trigger capital gains (or losses). This happens if you sell or if the fund manager sells pieces of the fund to buy something in its place (i.e. transactions happen without your decision and high turnover can result in huge capital gains). In a taxable account you will pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. In an IRA you don't ever pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. Over the life of the IRA (30+ years) this can be a huge ton of savings. A traditional IRA is funded with pre-tax money and you only pay tax on the withdrawal. Therefore you get more money upfront to invest and more money compounds into greater amounts faster. A Roth IRA you fund with after-tax dollars, but your withdrawals are tax free. Traditional versus Roth comparison calculator. Here are a bunch more IRA and 401k calculators. Take a look at the IRA tax savings for various amounts compared to the same money in a taxable account. Compounding over time will make you rich and there's your reason for starting young. Increases in the value of gold and silver will never touch compounded gains. So tax savings are a huge reason to stash your money in an IRA. You trade liquidity (having to wait until age 59.5) for a heck of a lot more money. Though isn't it nice to be assured that you will have money when you retire? If you aren't going to earn it then, you'll have to earn it now. If you are going to earn it now, you may as well put it in a place that earns you even more. A traditional IRA has penalties for withdrawing before retirement age. With a Roth you can withdraw the principal at anytime without penalty as long as the account has been open 5 years. A traditional IRA requires you take out a certain amount once you reach retirement. A Roth doesn't, which means you can leave money in the account to grow even more. A Roth can be passed on to a spouse after death, and after the spouse's death onto another beneficiary. more on IRA Required Minimum Distributions.\"","Well, I was about to ask a similar question. Unless you get into stocks/mutual funds it seems like returns on less risky items such as CDs (certificate of deposit) are terrible. I don't think it is a good use of folks time to ask what a Roth IRA is. We were considering buying a new car (~$20000 with zero down and 0.9% interest rate) but we drive maybe 6000 miles per year. We would be paying ~$550/month to park something in our garage. Our current car is sexless but absolutely reliable. I am now looking elsewhere and may either invest the money in our house (i.e., refinishing upstairs) or paying down our debt. We have a home loan - $132,000 at 3.5% - and a student loan - $12,675 @ 3.375%. Depending on the loan rate on your car, I would pay that down first. Alternatively, find a fee-only broker and drop around $500 for them to come up with a financial plan for you. They will probably recommend a Roth IRA with a specific mutual fund in mind. You'll need $2500 or so to open the Roth, contributions from there should be such that you can start/stop them on demand without fees.","diversifying; but isn't that what mutual funds already do? They diversify and reduce stock-specific risk by moving from individual stocks to many stocks, but you can diversify even further by selecting different fund types (e.g. large-cal, small-cap, fixed- income (bond) funds, international, etc.). Your target-date fund probably includes a few different types already, and will automatically reallocate to less risky investments as you get close to the target date. I would look at the fees of different types of funds, and compare them to the historical returns of those funds. You can also use things like morningstar and other ratings as guides, but they are generally very large buckets and may not be much help distinguishing between individual funds. So to answer the question, yes you can diversify further - and probably get better returns (and lower fees) that a target-date fund. The question is - is it worth your time and effort to do so? You're obviously comfortable investing for the long-term, so you might get some benefit by spending a little time looking for different funds to increase your diversification. Note that ETFs don't really diversify any differently than mutual funds, they are just a different mechanism to invest in funds, and allow different trading strategies (trading during the day, derivatives, selling short, etc.).","None of your options seem mutually exclusive. Ordinarily nothing stops you from participating in your 401(k), opening an IRA, qualifying for your company's pension, and paying off your debts except your ability to pay for all this stuff. Moreover, you can open an IRA anywhere (scottrade, vanguard, etrade, etc.) and freely invest in vanguard mutual funds as well as those of other companies...you aren't normally locked in to the funds of your IRA provider. Consider a traditional IRA. To me your marginal tax rate of 25% doesn't seem that great. If I were in your shoes I would be more likely to contribute to a traditional IRA instead of a Roth. This will save you taxes today and you can put the extra 25% of $5,500 toward your loans. Yes, you will be taxed on that money when you retire, but I think it's likely your rate will be lower than 25%. Moreover, when you are retired you will already own a house and have paid off all your debt, hopefully. You kind of need money now. Between your current tax rate and your need for money now, I'd say a traditional makes good sense. Buy whatever funds you want. If you want a single, cheap, whole-market fund just buy VTSAX. You will need a minimum of $10K to get in, so until then you can buy the ETF version, VTI. Personally I would contribute enough to your 401(k) to get the match and anything else to an IRA (usually they have more and better investment options). If you max that out, go back to the 401(k). Your investment mix isn't that important. Recent research into target date funds puts them in a poor light. Since there isn't a good benchmark for a target date fund, the managers tend to buy whatever they feel like and it may not be what you would prefer if you were choosing. However, the fund you mention has a pretty low expense ratio and the difference between that and your own allocation to an equity index fund or a blend of equity and bond funds is small in expectation. Plus, you can change your allocation whenever you want. You are not locked in. The investment options you mention are reasonable enough that the difference between portfolios is not critical. More important is optimizing your taxes and paying off your debt in the right order. Your interest rates matter more than term does. Paying off debt with more debt will help you if the new debt has a lower interest rate and it won't if it has a higher interest rate. Normally speaking, longer term debt has a higher interest rate. For that reason shorter term debt, if you can afford it, is generally better. Be cold and calculating with your debt. Always pay off highest interest rate debt first and never pay off cheap debt with expensive debt. If the 25 year debt option is lower than all your other interest rates and will allow you to pay off higher interest rate debt faster, it's a good idea. Otherwise it most likely is not. Do not make debt decisions for psychological reasons (e.g., simplicity). Instead, always chose the option that maximizes your ultimate wealth.","One big pie chart. Traditional (pretax) 401(k) and IRA, Roth 401(k) and IRA, and non-tax favored accounts. All of these need to be viewed holistically, the non-favored money is where I'd keep cash/low return safe instruments, Roth IRA for highest growth.","Yours two funds are redundant. Both are designed to have a mix of bonds and stocks and allow you to put all your money in them. Pick the one that has the lowest fees and stick with that (I didn't look at the funds you didn't select...they didn't look great either). Although all your funds have high fees, some are higher than others, so don't ignore fees. When you have decided on your portfolio weights, prioritize your money thus: Contribute enough to your 401(k) to get the full match from your employer Put everything else toward paying off that credit card until you have 0 balance. It's ok to use the card, but let it be little enough that you pay your statement balance off each month so you pay no interest. Then set aside some savings and invest any retirement money into a Roth IRA. At your income level your taxes are low so Roth is better than traditional IRA or 401(k). If you max out your Roth, put any other retirement savings in your 401(k).","The article links to William Bernstein’s plan that he outlined for Business Insider, which says: Modelling this investment strategy Picking three funds from Google and running some numbers. The international stock index only goes back to April 29th 1996, so a run of 21 years was modelled. Based on 15% of a salary of $550 per month with various annual raises: Broadly speaking, this investment doubles the value of the contributions over two decades. Note: Rebalancing fees are not included in the simulation. Below is the code used to run the simulation. If you have Mathematica you can try with different funds. Notice above how the bond index (VBMFX) preserves value during the 2008 crash. This illustrates the rationale for diversifying across different fund types.","Being from the UK, I'd not heard of a Roth IRA, but it sounds very similar to our own ISA (Individual Savings Account). Having just looked it up, I couldn't believe the annual limit was so low: $5500! Still, you have to work within your jurisdiction's legal framework (or agitate for change?). I would definitely agree with Ben Miller's answer: you need different savings buckets for the different savings objectives you'll have throughout the different periods of your life. I, for instance, am now a parent of two young children. I am fortunate to be able to provide for them on multiple levels: I hope that's of some help.","If you have other savings, the diversification occurs across the accounts. e.g. my 401(k) has access to the insanely low .02% fee VIIIX (Vanguard S&P fund) You can bet it's 100% in. My IRAs are the other assets that make the full picture look better allocated. A new investor has the issue you suggest, although right now, you can deposit $5500 for 2013, and $5500 for 2014, so with $11K available, you can start with $6 or $9K and start with 2 or 3 funds. Or $9K now, but with $500 left over for the '14 deposit, you can deposit $6K in early '15. The disparity of $3K min/$5500 annual limit is annoying, I agree, but shouldn't be a detriment to your planning.","Since you are paying taxes on the distributions from your mutual funds anyway, instead of reinvesting the distributions back into the mutual funds, you could receive them as cash, then contribute them to your Roth IRA once you are able to open one.","If you have the cash on hand to pay the tax on the amount you are transferring I recommend moving to a Roth IRA An IRA is tax-deferred. You put in pretax contributions in to an IRA, and you are taxed on that money (your contributions and interest earned) when you withdraw it at retirement, age 59 1/2. The idea being that you will be taking less out per year in your retirement years, putting you into a lower tax bracket. The major problem is most people draw out as much or more a year in their retirement years than when they were working. A Roth IRA grows tax free You put after tax contributions into a Roth IRA, you have paid taxes on the contributions, and you are never taxed on the growth. When you draw the money out at retirement you don't pay any income taxes on that money. Let me give you an example: For this example we will use the following information for both scenario: We will invest $400 per month for a total of $4800. The current maximum is $5000 if you are under 50 years old $400 dollars after taxes is $300 Invest $300 a month, at age 65 you have 3,529,432 You owe no taxes on this money, it doesn't matter how much you take out a year. $400 dollars a month is taken pretax out of your paycheck. Invest $400 per month, at age 65 you have $4,705,909 You owe taxes of 25% as you draw that out for at total tax of 1,176,477 4,705,909 - 1,176,477 = 3,529,432 cash in your pocket The problem is if you draw out more than $82,400 (current 2010 filing single) per year you will be pushed to a higher tax bracket and take more of your money away. If you decide to buy a vacation home and you take out $250,000 to pay for it, that's counted as income for that year any you will be in the 33% tax bracket. Even if you can keep yourself to a low income the government forces your hand and makes you draw out more money at age 70, based on their tables, forcing you into a higher tax bracket","\"If you have wage income that is reported on a W2 form, you can contribute the maximum of your wages, what you can afford, or $5500 in a Roth IRA. One advantage of this is that the nominal amounts you contribute can always be removed without tax consequences, so a Roth IRA can be a deep emergency fund (i.e., if the choice is $2000 in cash as emergency fund or $2000 in cash in a 2015 Roth IRA contribution, choice 2 gives you more flexibility and optimistic upside at the risk of not being able to draw on interest/gains until you retire or claim losses on your tax return). If you let April 15 2016 pass by without making a Roth IRA contribution, you lose the 2015 limit forever. If you are presently a student and partially employed, you are most likely in the lowest marginal tax rate you will be in for decades, which utilizes the Roth tax game effectively. If you're estimating \"\"a few hundred\"\", then what you pick as an investment is going to be less important than making the contributions. That is, you can pick any mutual fund that strikes your fancy and be prepared to gain or lose, call it $50/year (or pick a single stock and be prepared to lose it all). At some point, you need to understand your emotions around volatility, and the only tuition for this school is taking a loss and having the presence of mind to examine any panic responses you may have. No reason not to learn this on \"\"a few hundred\"\". While it's not ideal to have losses in a Roth, \"\"a few hundred\"\" is not consequential in the long run. If you're not prepared at this time in your life for the possibility of losing it all (or will need the money within a year or few, as your edit suggests), keep it in cash and try to reduce your expenses to contribute more. Can you contribute another $100? You will have more money at the end of the year than investment choice will likely return.\"","I would wait, and invest that money in a Roth IRA. Because taxes are paid on the contributions to a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time, tax and penalty-free. In addition, you can withdraw contributions and earning to purchase your first home.","You're misunderstanding the concept of retirement savings. IRA distributions are taxed, in their entirety, as ordinary income. If you withdraw before the retirement age, additional 10% penalty is added. Investment income has preferential treatment - long term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. However, IRA contributions are tax deductible. I.e.: you don't pay taxes on the amounts contributed to the IRA when you earned the money, only when you withdraw. In the mean time, the money is growing, tax free, based on your investments. Anything inside the IRA is tax free, including dividends, distributions (from funds to your IRA, not from IRA to you), capital gains, etc. This is very powerful, when taking into account the compounding effect of reinvesting your dividends/sale proceeds without taking a chunk out for taxes. Consider you make an investment in a fund that appreciated 100% in half a year. You cash out to reinvest in something less volatile to lock the gains. In a regular account - you pay taxes when you sell, based on your brackets. In the IRA you reinvest all of your sale proceeds. That would be ~25-35% more of the gains to reinvest and continue working for you! However, if you decide to withdraw - you pay ordinary rate taxes on the whole amount. If you would invest in a single fund for 30 years in a regular account - you'd pay 20% capital gains tax (on the appreciation, not the dividends). In the IRA, if you invest in the same fund for the same period - you'll pay your ordinary income rates. However, the benefit of reinvesting dividends tax-free softens the blow somewhat, but that's much harder to quantify. Bottom line: if you want to plan for retirement - plan for retirment. Otherwise - IRA is not an investment vehicle. Also consider Roth IRA/conversions. Roth IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement. If your current tax bracket is at 20%, for example, contributing $5K to Roth IRA instead of a traditional will cost you $1K of taxes now, but will save you all the taxes during the retirement (for the distributions from the Roth IRA). It may be very much worth your while, especially if you can contribute directly to Roth IRA (there are some income limitations and phaseouts). You can withdraw contributions (but not earnings) from Roth IRA - something you cannot do with a traditional IRA.","I'm afraid you're mistaking 401k as an investment vehicle. It's not. It is a vehicle for retirement. Roth 401k/IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement, and as long as you're in the low tax bracket - it is for your benefit to take advantage of that. However, that is not the money you would be using to start a business or buy a home (except for maybe up to $10K you can withdraw without penalty for first time home buyers, but I wouldn't bother with $10k, if that's what will help you buying a house - maybe you shouldn't be buying at all). In addition, you should make sure you take advantage of the employer 401k match in full. That is free money added to your Traditional 401k retirement savings (taxed at distribution). Once you took the full advantage of the employer's match, and contributed as much as you consider necessary for your retirement above that (there are various retirement calculators on line that can help you in making that determination), everything else will probably go to taxable (regular) savings/investments.","\"You don't state a long term goal for your finances in your message, but I'm going to assume you want to retire early, and retire well. :-) any other ideas I'm missing out on? A fairly common way to reach financial independence is to build one or more passive income streams. The money returned by stock investing (capital gains and dividends) is just one such type of stream. Some others include owning rental properties, being a passive owner of a business, and producing goods that earn long-term royalties instead of just an immediate exchange of time & effort for cash. Of these, rental property is probably one of the most well-known and easiest to learn about, so I'd suggest you start with that as a second type of investment if you feel you need to diversify from stock ownership. Especially given your association with the military, it is likely there is a nearby supply of private housing that isn't too expensive (so easier to get started with) and has a high rental demand (so less risk in many ways.) Also, with our continued current low rate environment, now is the time to lock-in long term mortgage rates. Doing so will reap huge benefits as rates and rents will presumably rise from here (though that isn't guaranteed.) Regarding the idea of being a passive business owner, keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily mean starting a business yourself. Instead, you might look to become a partner by investing money with an existing or startup business, or even buying an existing business or franchise. Sometimes, perfectly good business can be transferred for surprisingly little down with the right deal structure. If you're creative in any way, producing goods to earn long-term royalties might be a useful path to go down. Writing books, articles, etc. is just one example of this. There are other opportunities depending on your interests and skill, but remember, the focus ought to be on passive royalties rather than trading time and effort for immediate money. You only have so many hours in a year. Would you rather spend 100 hours to earn $100 every year for 20 years, or have to spend 100 hours per year for 20 years to earn that same $100 every year? .... All that being said, while you're way ahead of the game for the average person of your age ($30k cash, $20k stocks, unknown TSP balance, low expenses,) I'm not sure I'd recommend trying to diversify quite yet. For one thing, I think you need to keep some amount of your $30k as cash to cover emergency situations. Typically people would say 6 months living expenses for covering employment gaps, but as you are in the military I don't think it's as likely you'll lose your job! So instead, I'd approach it as \"\"How much of this cash do I need over the next 5 years?\"\" That is, sum up $X for the car, $Y for fun & travel, $Z for emergencies, etc. Keep that amount as cash for now. Beyond that, I'd put the balance in your brokerage and get it working hard for you now. (I don't think an average of a 3% div yield is too hard to achieve even when picking a safe, conservative portfolio. Though you do run the risk of capital losses if invested.) Once your total portfolio (TSP + brokerage) is $100k* or more, then consider pulling the trigger on a second passive income stream by splitting off some of your brokerage balance. Until then, keep learning what you can about stock investing and also start the learning process on additional streams. Always keep an eye out for any opportunistic ways to kick additional streams off early if you can find a low cost entry. (*) The $100k number is admittedly a rough guess pulled from the air. I just think splitting your efforts and money prior to this will limit your opportunities to get a good start on any additional streams. Yes, you could do it earlier, but probably only with increased risk (lower capital means less opportunities to pick from, lower knowledge levels -- both stock investing and property rental) also increase risk of making bad choices.\"","The S&P 500 is a stock market index, which is a list of 500 stocks from the largest companies in America. You could open a brokerage account with a broker and buy shares in each of these companies, but the easiest, least expensive way to invest in all these stocks is to invest in an S&P 500 index mutual fund. Inside an index mutual fund, your money will be pooled together with everyone else in the fund to purchase all the stocks in the index. These types of funds are very low expense compared to managed mutual funds. Most mutual fund companies have an S&P 500 index fund; two examples are Vanguard and Fidelity. The minimum investment in most of these mutual funds is low enough that you will be able to open an account with your $4000. Something you need to keep in mind, however: investing in any stock mutual fund is not non-risk. It's not even low-risk, really. It is very possible to lose money by investing in the stock market. An S&P 500 index fund is diversified in the sense that you have money in lots of different stocks, but it is also not diversified, in a sense, because it is all in large cap American stocks. Before investing in the stock market, you should have a goal for the money you are investing. If you are investing for something several years away, an index fund can be a good place to invest, but if you will need this money within the next few years, the stock market might be too risky for you."],"string":"[\n \"If you have just started an IRA (presumably with a contribution for 2012), you likely have $5000 in it, or $10,000 if you made a full contribution for 2013 as well. At this time, I would recommend putting it all in a single low-cost mutual fund. Typically, mutual funds that track an index such as the S&P 500 Index have lower costs (annual expense fees) than actively managed funds, and most investment companies offer such mutual funds, with Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, to name a few, having very low expenses even among index funds. Later, when you have more money in the account, you can consider diversifying into more funds, buying stocks and bonds, investing in ETFs, etc. Incidentally, if you are just starting out and your Roth IRA is essentially your first investment experience, be aware that you do not need a brokerage account for your Roth IRA until you have more money in the account to invest and specifically want to buy individual stocks and bonds instead of just mutual funds. If you opened a brokerage account for your Roth IRA, close it and transfer the Roth IRA to your choice of mutual fund company; else you will be paying annual fees to the brokerage for maintaining your account, inactivity fees since you won't be doing any trading, etc. The easiest way to do this is to go to the mutual fund company web site and tell them that you want to transfer your IRA to them (not roll over your IRA to them) and they will take care of all the paper work and collecting your money from the brokerage (ditto if your Roth IRA is with a bank or another mutual fund company). Then close your brokerage account.\",\n \"It depends on how much diversification you think you need and what your mutual fund options are. For instance, picking an index fund already provides a fair amount of diversification, especially if you select a Total Market type of index (readily available from Fidelity and Vanguard, and many other fund families). Are you looking to balance domestic vs. international investments? You may want to add an international index fund to the mix. Feel that a particular sector has tremendous potential? Add a sector fund. This investment mix is up to you (or your investment advisor). However, depending on your Roth IRA mutual fund choices, some of these funds may have minimum investment requirement - $3k to open a fund's account, for instance. In that case, you'd have no choice but to put your entire investment into one fund, and wait for subsequent years where you'd be able to invest in other funds after providing additional contributions and/or reallocation any growth from your initial investment. One thing to look at is whether you have an option of putting some of your contributions into a money market account within the Roth IRA - you can then reallocate funds from that account into another fund after you can meet the minimum investment requirement. However, in my opinion, if you start out by investing in a solid, low-cost index fund from a reputable mutual fund company, you've already picked up most of the diversification you need - a single fund is enough.\",\n \"First, you should diversify your portfolio. If your entire portfolio is in the Roth IRA, then you should eventually diversify that. However, if you have an IRA and a 401k, then it's perfectly fine for the IRA to be in a single fund. For example, I used my IRA to buy a riskier REIT that my 401k doesn't support. Second, if you only have a small amount currently invested, e.g. $5500, it may make sense to put everything in a single fund until you have enough to get past the low balance fees. It's not uncommon for funds to charge lower fees to someone who has $8000, $10,000, or $12,000 invested. Note that if you deposit $10,000 and the fund loses money, they'll usually charge you the rate for less than $10,000. So try to exceed the minimum with a decent cushion. A balanced fund may make sense as a first fund. That way they handle the diversification for you. A targeted fund is a special kind of balanced fund that changes the balance over time. Some have reported that targeted funds charge higher fees. Commissions on those higher fees may explain why your bank wants you to buy. I personally don't like the asset mixes that I've seen from targeted funds. They often change the stock/bond ratio, which is not really correct. The stock/bond ratio should stay the same. It's the securities (stocks and bonds) to monetary equivalents that should change, and that only starting five to ten years before retirement. Prior to that the only reason to put money into monetary equivalents is to provide time to pick the right securities fund. Retirees should maintain about a five year cushion in monetary equivalents so as not to be forced to sell into a bad market. Long term, I'd prefer low-load index funds. A bond fund and two or three stock funds. You might want to build your balance first though. It doesn't really make sense to have a separate fund until you have enough money to get the best fees. 70-75% stocks and 25-30% bonds (should add to 100%, e.g. 73% and 27%). Balance annually when you make your new deposit.\",\n \"\\\"That depends, really. Generally speaking, though - Roth IRAs are THE PLACE for Stock-Market/Mutual-Fund investing. All the off the wall (or, not so off the wall) things like Real Estate investments, or buying up gold, or whatever other ideas you hear from people - they may be good or bad or whatnot. But your Roth IRA is maybe not the best place for that sort of thing. The whole philosophy behind IRAs is to deliberately set aside money for the future. Anything reasonable will work for this. Explore interesting investment ideas with today's money, not tomorrow's money. That being said - at your age I would go for the riskier options within what's available. If I were in your situation (and I have been, recently), I would lean toward low-fee mutual funds classified as \\\"\\\"Growth\\\"\\\" funds. My own personal opinion (THIS IS NOT ADVICE) is that Small Cap International funds are the place to be for young folks. That's a generalized opinion based on my feel for the world, but I don't think I'm personally competent to start making specific stock picks. So, mutual funds makes sense to me in that I can select the fund that generally aligns with my sense of things, and assume that their managers will make reasonably sound decisions within that framework. Of course that assumption has to be backed up with reputation of the specific MF company and the comparative performance of the fund relative to other funds in the same sector. As to the generalized question (how else can you work toward financial stability and independence), outside of your Roth IRA: find ways to boost your earning potential over time, and buy a house before the next bubble (within the next 18 months, I'm GUESSING).\\\"\",\n \"First, check out some of the answers on this question: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing When you have determined that you are ready to invest for retirement, there are two things you need to consider: the investment and the account. These are separate items. The investment is what makes your money grow. The type of account provides tax advantages (and restrictions). Generally, these can be considered separately; for the most part, you can do any type of investment in any account. Briefly, here is an overview of some of the main options: In your situation, the Roth IRA is what I would recommend. This grows tax free, and if you need the funds for some reason, you can get out what you put in without penalty. You can invest up to $5500 in your Roth IRA each year. In addition to the above reasons, which are true for anybody, a Roth IRA would be especially beneficial for you for three reasons: For someone that is closer in age to retirement and in a higher tax bracket now, a Roth IRA is less attractive than it is for you. Inside your Roth IRA, there are lots of choices. You can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds (which are simply collections of stocks and bonds), bank accounts, precious metals, and many other things. Discussing all of these investments in one answer is too broad, but my recommendation is this: If you are investing for retirement, you should be investing in the stock market. However, picking individual stocks is too risky; you need to be diversified in a lot of stocks. Stock mutual funds are a great way to invest in the stock market. There are lots of different types of stock mutual funds with different strategies and expenses associated with them. Managed funds actively buy and sell different stocks inside them, but have high expenses to pay the managers. Index funds buy and hold a list of stocks, and have very low expenses. The conventional wisdom is that, in general, index funds perform better than managed funds when you take the expenses into account. I hope this overview and these recommendations were helpful. If you have any specific questions about any of these types of accounts or investments, feel free to ask another question.\",\n \"First, a Roth is funded with post tax money. The Roth IRA deposit will not offset any tax obligation you might have. The IRA is not an investment, it's an account with a specific set of tax rules that apply to it. If you don't have a brokerage account, I'd suggest you consider a broker that has an office nearby. Schwab, Fidelity, Vanguard are 3 that I happen to have relationships with. Once the funds are deposited, you need to choose how to invest for the long term. The fact that I'd choose the lowest cost S&P ETF or mutual fund doesn't mean that's the ideal investment for you. You need to continue to do research to find the exact investment that matches your risk profile. By way of example, up until a few years ago, my wife and I were nearly 100% invested in stocks, mostly the S&P 500. When we retired, four years ago, I shifted a bit to be more conservative, closer to 80% stock 20% cash.\",\n \"Your question seems like you don't understand what a Roth IRA is. A Roth IRA isn't an investment, per se. It is just a type of account that receives special tax treatment. Just like a checking and savings account are different at a bank, a ROTH IRA account is just flagged as such by a brokerage. It isn't an investment type, and there aren't really different ROTH IRA accounts. You can invest in just about anything inside that account so that is what you need to evaluate. One Roth IRA account is as good as any other.As to what to invest your money in inside a ROTH, that is a huge question and off-topic per the rules against specific investing advice.\",\n \"I would just buy a low-cost diversified equity ETF. VTI is pretty solid. Also, JW are you working or in school? If you are working you should consider opening an IRA or Roth IRA. Also if your employer has a 401k or other retirement plan you can contribute to I would advise doing so.\",\n \"You are young, and therefore have a very long time horizon for investing. Absolutely nothing you do should involve paying any attention to your investments more than once a year (if that). First off, you can only deposit money in an IRA (of whatever kind) if you have taxable income. If you don't, you can still invest, just without the tax benefits of a Roth. My suggestion would be to open an account with a discount brokerage (Schwab, Fidelity, eTrade, etc). The advantage of a brokerage IRA is that you can invest in whatever you want within the account. Then, either buy an S&P 500 or total market index fund within the account, or buy an index-based ETF (like a mutual fund, but trades like a stock). The latter might be better, since many mutual funds have minimum limits, which ETFs do not. Set the account up to reinvest the dividends automatically--S&P 500 yields will far outstrip current savings account yields--and sit back and do nothing for the next 40 or 50 years. Well, except for continuing to make annual contributions to the account, which you should continue to invest in pretty much the same thing until you have enough money (and experience and knowledge) to diversify into bond funds/international funds/individual stocks, etc. Disclaimer: I am not a financial planner. I just manage my own money, and this strategy has mostly kept me from stressing too badly over the last few years of market turmoil.\",\n \"If you are a novice investor and want to diversify, I'd recommend looking into targeted mutual funds. They couldn't be easier. You just put your money in the fund with the year that you anticipating needing to take the money out and the fund manager handles diversification and adjusting the risk appropriately over the life of the fund based on the remaining time horizon. The only downside is that the annual expenses tend to be higher on these than if you just invested in the underlying securities/funds, but you are pretty much paying them to manage it for you.\",\n \"\\\"You are overthinking it. Yes there is overlap between them, and you want to understand how much overlap there is so you don't end up with a concentration in one area when you were trying to avoid it. Pick two, put your money in those two; and then put your new money into those two until you want to expand into other funds. The advantage of having the money in an IRA held by a single fund family, is that moving some or all of the money from one Mutual fund/ETF to another is painless. The fact it is a retirement account means that selling a fund to move the money doesn't trigger taxes. The fact that you have about $10,000 for the IRA means that hopefully you have decades left before you need the money and that this $10,00 is just the start. You are not committed to these investment choices. With periodic re-balancing the allocations you make now will be adjusted over the decades. One potential issue. You said: \\\"\\\"I'm saving right not but haven't actually opened the account.\\\"\\\" I take it to mean that you have money in a Roth TRA account but it isn't invested into a stock fund, or that you have the money ready to go in a regular bank account and will be making a 2015 contribution into the actual IRA before tax day this year, and the 2016 contribution either at the same time or soon after. If it is the second case make sure you get the money for 2015 into the IRA before the deadline.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"There are a lot of funds that exist only to feed people's belief that existing funds are not diversified or specialized enough. That's why you have so many options. Just choose the ones with the lowest fees. I'd suggest the following: I wouldn't mess around with funds that try and specialize in \\\"\\\"value\\\"\\\" or those target date funds. If you really don't want to think and don't mind paying slightly higher fees, just pick the target date fund that corresponds to when you will retire and put all your money there. On the traditional/Roth question, if your tax bracket will be higher when you retire than it is now (unlikely), choose Roth. Otherwise choose traditional.\\\"\",\n \"Short answer is fund a Roth. If you are under 50 then you can put in $5500 or $6500 if you are older. Great to have money in two buckets one pre tax and one post tax. Plus you can be aggressive putting money in it because you can always take money you put in the Roth out of the Roth with no tax or penalty. Taxes are historically low so it makes a lot of sense to diversify your retirement.\",\n \"Without making specific recommendations, it is worthwhile to point out the differing tax treatments for a Roth IRA: investments in a Roth IRA will not be taxed when you withdraw them during retirement (unless they change the law on that or something crazy). So if you are thinking about investing in some areas with high risk and high potential reward (e.g. emerging market stocks) then the Roth IRA might be the place to do it. That way, if the investment works out, you have more money in the account that won't ever be taxed. We can talk about the possible risks of certain kinds of investments, but this is not an appropriate forum to recommend for or against them specifically. Healthcare stocks are subject to political risk in the current regulatory climate. BRICs are subject to political risks regarding the political and business climate in the relevant nations, and the growth of their economies need not correspond with growth in the companies you hold in your portfolio. Energy stocks are subject to the world economic climate and demand for oil, unless you're talking alternative-energy stocks, which are subject to political risk regarding their subsidies and technological risk regarding whether or not their technologies pan out. It is worth pointing out that any ETF you invest in will have a prospectus, and that prospectus will contain a section discussing the risks which could affect your investment. Read it before investing! :)\",\n \"As you have already good on your retirement kitty. Assuming you have a sufficient cash for difficult situations, explore the options of investing in Shares and Mutual Funds. As you are new to Stock Market, begin slowly by investing into Mutual Funds and ETF for precious metals. This will help you understand and give you confidence on markets and returns. Real estate is a good option, the down side being the hassle of getting rental and the illiquid nature of the investment.\",\n \"Nowhere. To back up a bit, mutual funds are the stock market (and the bond market). That is, when you invest in a mutual fund, your money is ultimately buying stocks on the open market. Some of it might be buying bonds. The exact mix of stocks and bonds depends on the mutual fund. But a mutual fund is just a basket of stocks and/or bonds (and/or other, more exotic investments). At 25, you probably should just be investing your Roth IRA in index stock mutual funds and index bond mutual funds. You probably shouldn't even be doing peer-to-peer lending (unless you're willing to think of any losses as the cost of a hobby); the higher interest rate you're getting is a reflection of the risk that your borrowers will default. I'm not even sure if peer-to-peer lending is allowed in Roth IRA's. Investing in just stocks, bonds, and cast is boring, but these are easy investments to understand. The harder the investment is to understand, the easier it is for it to be a scam (or just a bad investment). There's not necessarily anything wrong with boring.\",\n \"\\\"A Roth IRA is simply a tax-sheltered account that you deposit funds into, and then invest however you choose (within the limits of the firm you deposit the funds with). For example, you could open a Roth IRA account with Vanguard. You could then invest the $3000 by purchasing shares of VOO, which tracks the S&P 500 index and has a very low expense ratio (0.04 as of last time I checked). Fidelity has a similar option, or Schwab, or whatever brokerage firm you prefer. IRAs are basically just normal investment accounts, except they don't owe taxes until you withdraw them (and Roth don't even owe them then, though you paid taxes on the funds you deposit). They have some limitations regarding options trading and such, but if you're a novice investor just looking to do basic investments, you'll not notice. Then, your IRA would go up or down in value as the market went up or down in value. You do have some restrictions on when you can withdraw the funds; Roth IRA has fewer than a normal IRA, as you can withdraw the capital (the amount you deposited) without penalty, but the profits cannot be withdrawn until you're retirement age (I won't put an actual year, as I suspect that actual year will change by the time you're that old; but think 60s). The reason not to invest in an IRA is if you plan on using the money in the near future - even as an \\\"\\\"emergency fund\\\"\\\". You should have some money that is not invested aggressively, that is in something very safe and very accessible, for your emergency fund; and if you plan to buy a house or whatever with the funds, don't start an IRA. But if this is truly money you want to save for retirement, that's the best place to start. **Note, this is not investment advice, and you should do your own homework prior to making any investment. You can lose some or all of the value of your account while investing.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I will give a slightly different answer which is actually an addendum to JoeTaxpayer's (soon-to-be-edited) answer. Do NOT go to your financial advisor and ask him \\\"\\\"How do I go about transferring my Roth IRA to ....\\\"\\\"? where .... is whichever broker or mutual fund family that you have chosen from the list that Joe has suggested. Instead, go to the website of the new group (or call their toll-free number) and tell them \\\"\\\"I want to open a Roth IRA account with you and fund it by transferring all the money in my Roth IRA from First Clearing.\\\"\\\" Your new Roth IRA custodian will take care of all the paperwork and get the money transferred over at no cost to you except possibly fielding a weepy call from your current financial advisor because he had just ordered his new Lamborghini and now will have difficulty making payments on his auto loan. \\\"\\\"Why are you leaving me? After all the years we have had together?\\\"\\\" You will need to choose some place to put the money, and I suggest that you use their S&P 500 Index Fund, not the S&P 500 ETF, just the standard vanilla S&P 500 Index Mutual Fund. This recommendation is almost heresy in this forum, but it is better to pay the extra 0.01% fee that the Fund charges over and above the ETF until you become a little more savvy and are ready to branch out into individual stocks (which is when you really need a brokerage account). Revelation: I have never made the transition and invest only in mutual funds which does not require a brokerage account. After doing all this, pay no attention whatsoever to your Roth IRA investment or how the S&P 500 Index is doing for the next 20 years. This will help avoid the temptation of taking all your money out just because the Index went down a little. Everybody is told \\\"\\\"Buy Low, Sell High\\\"\\\" but far too many folks end up doing exactly the opposite: buying because the stock market is up and selling when it starts going down.\\\"\",\n \"You don't really have a lot of money, and that isn't a criticism as much as that you are limited to diversification. For example, I would estimate you can only have one or two stocks for a buy-write scheme. Secondly you may be only to buy one fund with a high minimum investment, and a second fund with a smaller minimum investment. Thirdly there is not a whole lot of money to make a large difference. One options might be to look at iShares since your are with Fidelity. Trading those are commission free and the minimum investment is one share. They offer many sector funds. Since you were in a CD ladder you might be looking for stability of principle. If so you can look at USMV and PFF. If you can tolerate a little more volatility DGRO. Having said that you seem interested in doing some buy-writes. Why not mix and match? Pick a stock, like INTC (for example not a recommendation), and buy-write with half the money and some combination of iShares for the rest.\",\n \"You're technically 'allowed' to do other investments with your Roth, but you get taken to the cleaners by the financial 'services' community who wants to take a slice. Non-securities investments from a Roth typically require a 'custodian' or other intermediary to handle your investment, e.g. buying silver coins and paying someone else to hold them. Buy these with cash and hold them yourself, assuming you trust yourself more than some stranger.\",\n \"What asset allocation is right for you (at the most basic the percentage if stocks vs bonds; at the advanced level, percentage of growth vs value, international vs domestic etc) is a function of your age, retirement goals, income stability and employment prospects until retirement. Roth IRA is orthogonal to this. Now, once you have your allocation worked out there are tactical tax advantage decisions available: interest income, REIT and MLP dividends are taxed at income and not capital gains rate, so the tactical decision is to put these investments in tax advantage accounts like Roth and 401ks. Conversely, should you decide to buy and hold growth stocks there are tactical advantages to keeping them in a taxable account: you get tax deferment until the year you choose to sell (barring a takeover), you get the lower lt cap gains rate, and you can employ tax loss harvesting.\",\n \"If I may echo the Roth comment - The Roth is a tax designation, not an end investment, so you still need to research and decide what's appropriate. I recommend the Roth for the long term investments, but keep in mind, even if you feel you may need to tap the Roth sooner than later, all deposits may be withdrawn at any time with no tax or penalty. Roth is great to store the emergency money for many if they aren't 100% sure they have enough cash to save for retirement. As you get further along, and see that you don't need it, change how it's invested to longer term, a mix of stocks (I prefer ETFs that mimic the S&P)\",\n \"\\\"In asnwer to your questions: As @joetaxpayer said, you really should look into a Solo 401(k). In 2017, this allows you to contribute up to $18k/year and your employer (the LLC) to contribute more, up to $54k/year total (subject to IRS rules). 401(k) usually have ROTH and traditional sides, just like IRA. I believe the employer-contributed funds also see less tax burden for both you and your LLC that if that same money had become salary (payroll taxes, etc.). You might start at irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans and go from there. ROTH vs. pre-tax: You can mix and match within years and between years. Figure out what income you want to have when you retire. Any year you expect to pay lower taxes (low income, kids, deductions, etc.), make ROTH contributions. Any year you expect high taxes (bonus, high wage, taxable capital gains, etc.), make pre-tax payments. I have had a uniformly bad experience with target date funds across multiple 401(k) plans from multiple plan adminstrators. They just don't perform well (a common problem with almost any actively managed fund). You probably don't want to deal with individual stocks in your retirement accounts, so rather pick passively managed index funds that track various markets segments you care about and just sit on them. For example, your high-risk money might be in fast-growing but volatile industries (e.g. tech, aerospace, medical), your medium-risk money might go in \\\"\\\"total market\\\"\\\" or S&P 500 index funds, and your low-risk money might go in treasury notes and bonds. The breakdown is up to you, but as an 18 year old you have a ~50 year horizon and so can afford to wait out anything short of another Great Depression (and maybe even that). So you'd want generally you want more or your money in the high-risk high-return category, rebalancing to lower risk investments as you age. Diversifying into real estate, foreign investments, etc. might also make sense but I'm no expert on those.\\\"\",\n \"Have you considered a self-directed IRA to invest, rather than the stock market or publicly traded assets? Your IRA can actually own direct title to real estate, loan money via secured or unsecured promissory notes much like a hard money loan or invest into shares of an entity that invests in real estate. The only nuance is that the IRA holder is responsible for finding and deciding upon the investment vehicle. Just an option outside of the normal parameters, if you have an existing IRA or old 401(k) or other qualified plan, this might be an option for you.\",\n \"you should invest in a range of stock market indexes. Ex : Dow jones, S&P500, Nasdaq and keep it there until you are ready to retire. I'm invested half in SLYV and SLYG (S&P600 small cap value and S&P600 small cap growth; Respectively). It brings on average between 8-13% a year (since 1971). This is not investment advice. Talk to your broker before doing this.\",\n \"I highly recommend passive investing through something like betterment (www.betterment.com) or vanguard's ETFs. FutureAdvisor.com can provide some good advice as to what funds to invest in. I'd recommend using that money to max out your Roth IRAs each year, too.\",\n \"I'd open the Roth IRA account and fund for 2015 and 2016. For the very long term, I'd learn about index funds, specifically a low cost S&P mutual fund or ETF.\",\n \"I know of no way to answer your question without 'spamming' a particular investment. First off, if you are a USA citizen, max out your 401-K. Whatever your employer matches will be an immediate boost to your investment. Secondly, you want your our gains to be tax deferred. A 401-K is tax deferred as well as a traditional IRA. Thirdly, you probably want the safety of diversification. You achieve this by buying an ETF (or mutual fund) that then buys individual stocks. Now for the recommendation that may be called spamming by others : As REITs pass the tax liability on to you, and as an IRA is tax deferred, you can get stellar returns by buying a mREIT ETF. To get you started here are five: mREITs Lastly, avoid commissions by having your dividends automatically reinvested by using that feature at Scottrade. You will have to pay commissions on new purchases but your purchases from your dividend Reinvestment will be commission free. Edit: Taking my own advice I just entered orders to liquidate some positions so I would have the $ on hand to buy into MORL and get some of that sweet 29% dividend return.\",\n \"Since you're 20-30 years out of retirement, you should be 90% to 100% in stocks, and in one or two broad stock market funds likely. I'm not sure about the minimums at TD Ameritrade, but at Vanguard even $3k will get you into the basic funds. One option is the Targeted Retirement Year funds, which automatically rebalance as you get closer to retirement. They're a bit higher expense usually than a basic stock market fund, but they're often not too bad. (Look for expenses under 0.5% annually, and preferably much lower - I pay 0.05% on mine for example.) Otherwise, I'd just put everything into something simple - an S&P500 tracker for example (SPY or VOO are two examples) that has very low management fees. Then when your 401(k) gets up and running, that may have fewer options and thus you may end up in something more conservative - don't feel like you have to balance each account separately when they're just starting, think of them as one whole balancing act for the first year or two. Once they're each over $10k or so, then you can balance them individually (which you do want to do, to allow you to get better returns).\",\n \"If you want to 'offset' current (2016) income, only deductible contribution to a traditional IRA does that. You can make nondeductible contributions to a trad IRA, and there are cases where that makes sense for the future and cases where it doesn't, but it doesn't give you a deduction now. Similarly a Roth IRA has possible advantages and disadvantages, but it does not have a deduction now. Currently he maximum is $5500 per person ($6500 if over age 50, but you aren't) which with two accounts (barely) covers your $10k. To be eligible to make this deductible traditional contribution, you must have earned income (employment or self-employment, but NOT the distribution from another IRA) at least the amount you want to contribute NOT have combined income (specifically MAGI, Modified Adjusted Gross Income) exceeding the phaseout limit (starts at $96,000 for married-joint) IF you were covered during the year (either you or your spouse) by an employer retirement plan (look at box 13 on your W-2's). With whom. Pretty much any bank, brokerage, or mutual fund family can handle IRAs. (To be technical, the bank's holding company will have an investment arm -- to you it will usually look like one operation with one name and logo, one office, one customer service department, one website etc, but the investment part must be legally separate from the insured banking part so you may notice a different name on your legal and tax forms.) If you are satisified with the custodian of the inherited IRA you already have, you might just stay with them -- they may not need as much paperwork, you don't need to meet and get comfortable with new people, you don't need to learn a new website. But if they sold you an annuity at your age -- as opposed to you inheriting an already annuitized IRA -- I'd want a lot of details before trusting they are acting in your best interests; most annuities sold to IRA holders are poor deals. In what. Since you want only moderate risk at least to start, and also since you are starting with a relatively small amount where minimum investments, expenses and fees can make more of an impact on your results, I would go with one or a few broad (= lower risk) index (= lower cost) fund(s). Every major fund familly also offers at least a few 'balanced' funds which give you a mixture of stocks and bonds, and sometimes some 'alternatives', in one fund. Remember this is not committing you forever; any reasonable custodian will allow you to move or spread to more-adventurous (but not wild and crazy) investments, which may be better for you in future years when you have some more money in the account and some more time to ponder your goals and options and comfort level.\",\n \"First you need to distinguish between short-term and long-term capital gains. In an IRA you can use investment strategies that incur short-term capital gains without being taxed as ordinary income. As mentioned in a comment above, with a Roth IRA, you can invest now at your low income tax rates and withdraw all gains without incurring any taxes at retirement time. You can also pull out your contributions penalty free before retirement age (59 1/2) if you've had the account for more than 5 years. You only pay taxes and penalties on the earnings. You can also make withdrawals for education expenses and you have one lifetime exclusion of $10,000 for a down-payment on a house.\",\n \"the $5500 Roth IRA is not restricted to earned income, you can put whatever money you have tax free and gains free.\",\n \"Though I do think it is important to have a diversified portfolio for your retirement, I also think it's more important to make sure you are at no point touching this money until you retire. Taking money out of your retirement early is a sure fire way to get in a bad habit of spending this money when you need a little help. Here's a tip: If you consider this money gone, you will find another way to figure out your situation. With that said, I also would rather not put a percentage on this. Start by building your emergency fund. You'll want to treat this like a bill and make a monthly payment to your savings account each month or paycheck. When you have a good nine times your monthly income in here, stop contributing to this fund. Instead start putting the same amount into your IRA instead. At this point you should no longer have to add to your emergency fund unless there is a true emergency and you are replacing that money. Keep in mind that the amount of money in your emergency fund changes significantly in each situation. Sit down with your bills and think about how much money you would need in the event you lost your job. How long would you be out of work? How many bills do you have each month that would need to be covered?\",\n \"Great question and good for you for starting investments. Are you young, like in your 20s? I would do all that you can in the ROTH. You will not get a tax break now, but you will get one later. Keep in mind that any company match does not go into ROTH but the IRA. I try to look at two things when judging a mutual fund: the historic performance, and the expense fee. When comparing two funds, if one has a 10% average return for 10 years, and a 1% fee, I feel it is better than a fund that has a 12% return for the same time period and a 3% fee. If they are close, you can always put a little bit in each one. An important question to ask is if you have debt. You may want to scale back your contributions some to pay down that debt. For me, I don't like to go below a company match to do so, but anything over and above might be better utilized to move that student, car or credit card loan to zero. Others might disagree, so YMMV, but I have done this myself.\",\n \"A 401-K is something you get through an employer. I recommend getting a self-directed IRA. You can open an IRA with Scottrade with $500 The money you put into an IRA is tax deferred, meaning that you do not have to pay taxes on profits. It may also lower your tax liability. Scottrade has a feature to automatically reinvest any dividends from the securities you own. This feature allows you to avoid commissions on those automatic purchases. Don't try to time the market. Pick a good ETF (exchange traded fund) that pays dividends. It will give you diversification. Avoid the urge to buy and sell constantly. This only gives commissions to the broker.\",\n \"401Ks and IRAs are types of retirement accounts. They have rules regarding maximum amount of investments per year; who can invest; destructibility; and the tax treatment of the growth. Stock, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs are all types of investments that can exist either inside or outside of the retirement account. Some 401Ks restrict the type of investments you can have, others allow you to own almost anything. Any investment is a risk, and there is no guarantee that it will grow. Look around the site for beginning investment advice. You should start with the 401K offered by your company especially if they have matching funds. That is free money. Many suggest you invest enough to get the match, then invest with an IRA. Look into IRAs because under US tax law you can still make a 2013 investment up until tax day 2014. Take the time before tax day to decide on Roth or Regular IRA. The more exotic investments take more time to understand and should not be a concern until you have laid out your basic retirement accounts.\",\n \"If you are earning a salary, go for Roth IRA. You can contribute $5500 (2013 limits) every year . Once you open a account , let say Fidelity or Vanguard, you should invest based on risk appetite into some funds. the advantage is that your money grows tax free and when you are 25- 30 years old and need money for down payment of house, you can pull the money out with out any penalty. The gains you have made will continue to be in that account till the time your retire, growing every year.\",\n \"There are fund of funds,e.g. life cycle funds or target retirement funds, that could cover a lot of these with an initial investment that one could invest into for a few years and then after building up a balance large enough, then it may make sense to switch to having more control.\",\n \"Your question indicates confusion regarding what an Individual Retirement Account (whether Roth or Traditional) is vs. the S&P 500, which is nothing but a list of stocks. IOW, it's perfectly reasonable to open a Roth IRA, put your $3000 in it, and then use that money to buy a mutual fund or ETF which tracks the S&P 500. In fact, it's ridiculously common... :)\",\n \"I would personally suggest owning Mutual Funds or ETF's in a tax sheltered account, such as a 401k or an IRA, especially Roth options if available. This lets you participate in the stock market while ensuring that you have diversified portfolio, and the money is managed by an expert. The tax sheltered accounts (or tax free in the case of Roth accounts) increase your savings, and simplify your life as you don't need to worry about taxes on earnings within those accounts, as long as you leave the money in. For a great beginner's guide see Clark's Investment Guide (Easy).\",\n \"The most important thing is to keep in mind the deadline. If you want to have it count for 2016, you need to open the account and transfer the funds by tax day. Don't wait until the last day to do it, or you could run out of time. Setting up the initial account, and them verifying your information and transferring the money could take a few days. First decide how much of a lump sum you want to invest initially. This will determine some of your options because the mutual fund will have a minimum initial investment. Many of the funds will allow subsequent investments to be smaller. The beauty of a IRA or Roth IRA is that if the fund you want is out of reach for this initial investment in a few years you can transfer the money into another fund or even another fund family without having to worry about tax issues. Now decide on your risk level and you time horizon. Because you said you are student and you want a Roth IRA, it is assumed that you will not need this money for 4+ decades; so you can and should be willing to be a little more risky. As NathanL said an index fund is a great idea. Many also advise an aged based fund. My kids found that when they made their initial investments the age based funds were the only one with a low enough initial investment for their first few years. Then pick a fund family based on the general low fees, and a large mix of options. The best thing is that in a few years as you have more money and more options, you can adjust your choices.\",\n \"In addition to George Marian's excellent advice, I'll add that if you're hitting the limits on IRA contributions, then you'd go back to your 401(k). So, put enough into your 401(k) to get the match, then max out IRA contributions to give you access to more and better investment options, then go back to your 401(k) until you top that out as well, assuming you have that much available to invest for retirement.\",\n \"Your approach sounds solid to me. Alternatively, if (as appears to be the case) then you might want to consider devoting your tax-advantaged accounts to tax-inefficient investments, such as REITs and high-yield bond funds. That way your investments that generate non-capital-gain (i.e. tax-expensive) income are safe from the IRS until retirement (or forever). And your investments that generate only capital gains income are safe until you sell them (and then they're tax-cheap anyway). Of course, since there aren't really that many tax-expensive investment vehicles (especially not for a young person), you may still have room in your retirement accounts after allocating all the money you feel comfortable putting into REITs and junk bonds. In that case, the article I linked above ranks investment types by tax-efficiency so you can figure out the next best thing to put into your IRA, then the next, etc.\",\n \"May I suggest putting it in a Roth IRA ($5,500 per year. Right now you can contribute to both 2015 and 2016 so that's $11K.)? Based on your description it sounds like your tax rate is very low, so it is awesome to put it away now and avoid taxes later on any gains you make on it. You can use Roth IRA money to pay for college, a home, or retirement. Within your Roth IRA, any of the investment options mentioned here will work. For example, CD's or money market accounts if you just want it to grow in a pretty much savings-account-like manner. You could also buy diversified mutual funds or have some fun buying individual stocks with some of it. I'm sorry to say that in the current market conditions you are not going to find a completely safe, cash-like investment or account that makes your money grow substantially. To do that you have to bear risk by buying risky stuff like stocks.\",\n \"Sounds like you're doing fine, though somewhat fuzzy: how are you allocating the $500/month? Are you doing dollar cost averaging into funds, accumulating enough $$ to buy round lots of individual stocks, market timing, etc. The summary suggestion: max out the ROTH first, then with $$$ left over, do the after tax, low-cost fund, monthly dollar cost averaging approach.\",\n \"There are quite a few options. Suggest you put a mix of things and begin investing into Mutual Funds.\",\n \"\\\"You can have as many IRA accounts as you want (whether Roth or Traditional), so you can have a Roth IRA with American Funds and another Roth IRA with Vanguard if you like. One disadvantage of having too many IRA accounts with small balances in each is that most custodians (including Vanguard) charge an annual fee for maintaining IRA accounts with small balances but waive the fee if the balance is large. So it is best to keep your Roth IRA in just one or two funds with just one or two custodians until such time as investment returns plus additional contributions made over the years makes the balances large enough to diversify further. Remember also that you cannot contribute the maximum to each IRA; the sum total of all your IRA contributions (doesn't matter whether to Roth or to Traditional IRAs) for any year must satisfy the limit for that year. You can move money from one IRA of yours to another IRA (of the same type) of yours without any tax issues to worry about. Such movements (called rollovers or transfers) are not contributions and do not count towards the annual contribution limit. The easiest way to do move money from one IRA account to another IRA account is by a trustee-to-trustee transfer where the money goes directly from one custodian (American Funds in this case) to the other custodian (Vanguard in this case). The easiest way of accomplishing this is to call Vanguard or go online on their website, tell them that you are wanting to establish a Roth IRA with them, and that you want to fund it by transferring money held in a Roth IRA with American Funds. Give Vanguard the account number of your existing American Funds IRA, tell them how much you want to transfer over -- $1000 or $20,000 or the entire balance as the case may be -- and tell Vanguard to go get the money. In a few days' time, the money will appear in your new Vanguard Roth IRA and the American Funds Roth IRA will have a smaller balance, possibly a zero balance, or might even be closed if you told Vanguard to collect the entire balance. DO NOT approach American Funds and tell them that you want to transfer money to a new Roth IRA with Vanguard: they will bitch and moan and drag their heels about doing so because they are unhappy to lose your business, and will probably screw up the transfer. Talk to Vanguard only. They are eager to get their hands on your IRA money and will gladly take care of the whole thing for you at no charge to you. DO NOT cash in any stock shares, or mutual fund shares, or whatever is in your Roth IRA in preparation for \\\"\\\"cashing out of the old account\\\"\\\". There is a method where you take a \\\"\\\"rollover distribution\\\"\\\" from your American Funds Roth IRA and then deposit the money into your new Vanguard Roth IRA within 60 days, but I recommend most strongly against using this because too many people manage to screw it up. It is 60 days, not two months; the clock starts from the day American Funds cuts your check, not when you get the check, and it is stopped when the money gets deposited into your new account, not the day you mailed the check to Vanguard or the day that Vanguard received it, and so on. In short, DO NOT try this at home: stick to a trustee-to-trustee transfer and avoid the hassles.\\\"\",\n \"Many mutual fund companies (including Vanguard when I checked many years ago) require smaller minimum investments (often $1000) for IRA and 401k accounts. Some also allow for smaller investments into their funds for IRA accounts if you set up an automatic investment plan that contributes a fixed amount of money each month or each quarter. On the other hand, many mutual fund companies charge an annual account maintenance fee ($10? $20? $25? more?) per fund for IRA investments unless the balance in the fund is above a certain amount (often $5K or $10K$). This fee can be paid in cash or deducted from the IRA investment, and the former option is vastly better. So, diversification into multiple funds while starting out with an IRA is not that great an idea. It is far better to get diversification through investment in an S&P 500 Index fund (VFINX since you won't have access to @JoeTaxpayer's VIIIX) or a Total Market Index fund or, if you prefer, a Target Retirement Fund, and then branch out into other types of mutual funds as your investment grows through future contributions and dividends etc. To answer your question about fund minimums, the IRA account is separate from a taxable investment account, and the minimum rule applies to each separately. But, as noted above, there often are smaller minimums for tax-deferred accounts.\",\n \"My advice would be to invest in the 401k with the same type of funds you'd purchase when you rollover to your IRA. They are both retirement accounts. If the stock market tanks, your 401k balance will be low but you'll also be purchasing stocks at a much cheaper price when you establish your roth. You should create an asset allocation based on your age, not on the type of retirement account you have. One question to consider: When you do become a student, you'll likely be a in lower tax bracket. Can you contribute pre-tax dollars and then rollover to a ROTH in the year that you're a student?\",\n \"At a very high-level, the answer is yes, that's a good idea. For money that you want to invest on the scale of decades, putting money into a broad, market-based fund has historically given the best returns. Something like the Vanguard S&P 500 automatically gives you a diverse portfolio, with super low expenses. As it sounds like you understand, the near-term returns are volatile, and if you really think you might want this money in the next few years, then the stock market might not be the best choice. As a final note, as one of the comments mentioned, it makes sense to hold a broad, market-based fund for your IRA as well, if possible.\",\n \"I recommend you consider a Roth IRA. Invest it as others here suggest, safely, CDs, money market,etc. You can put in $5000/yr. When you spend, use this last, there is no penalty to withdraw the deposits. But if you make it through grad school without needing it, you'll have great start on your retirement savings.\",\n \"Think about contributing to both a Traditional IRA and a Roth IRA if you have the funds. In theory, you could receive the lowest tax rates by depositing money into a regular IRA during years of democratic rule, depositing money into a Roth during years of Republic rule, and then withdrawing from the Roth during democratic rule and the tradition during Republican rule. Then you would be depositing with lower tax rates and withdrawing with lower tax rates. Granted this method would involve some speculation.\",\n \"Your max contribution to your Roth IRA and your traditional IRA share the same cap, so if you are maxing your Roth IRA you cannot have a traditional one as well. I would put the additional into your 401k or perhaps a 529 if you have any kids.\",\n \"You are permitted to withdraw the deposits from the Roth with no tax or penalty any time. To Dilip's point, the Roth is a good place to keep the investment, and what you might consider is a 'self-directed' account. This type of IRA or Roth IRA permits a choice of investments that are not typically handled by banks or brokers, including Real Estate and the type of Angel investing you seem to be considering. Note - the rules are tough, you need to be very careful to not be self-dealing, or dealing with certain related parties.\",\n \"\\\"Your funds are in a retirement account. Withdrawals from your IRA will be penalized if you withdraw before you turn 59.5 years old, and you appear to be decades away from that age. The general advice I would give you is to pick a \\\"\\\"target year fund\\\"\\\" that targets the year you turn 59.5. The stock market is more volatile, but its average gains will protect you from inflation just eating your funds. Bonds are in counterpoint to your stocks - more stable, and protecting you from the chance that stocks dip right before you want to withdraw. Target year funds start with higher amounts of stock, and gradually rebalance towards bonds over time. Thus, you take your market risks earlier while you can benefit from the market's gains, and then have stability when you actually would want to retire and depend on the savings.\\\"\",\n \"My thoughts are your retirement investing priorities should be as follows: So in your case I would not put any money into your 401k until you have maxed out your Roth IRA.\",\n \"A Roth IRA is intended for retirement. Before age 59.5 (I think), you can only withdraw the amount you deposited without penalty. It's great you're saving in a Roth, but you shouldn't put savings in there that you will need before you reach sufficient age. And since it's long-term, you can invest in things you expect to grow over the long term, like equities. You should keep emergency funds either in federally insured, extremely liquid accounts (bank savings) or money market funds (which aren't insured, but are close enough to zero-risk). Yes, the interest rates are terrible right now. But anything else would potentially leave you with insufficient funds in the event of, you know, an emergency.\",\n \"You're young. Build a side business in your spare time. Invest in yourself. Fail a few times when you have some time to recover financially. Use the money that you would have let sit in some account and develop your skills, start up an LLC, and build up the capacity to get some real returns on your money. Be a rainmaker, not a Roth taker.\",\n \"First, if it's just about the income limit, you can deposit to a regular IRA and soon after (like next day) convert it to a Roth. So long as you have no pretax IRA money out there, there will be no tax consequence, a cent on a day's interest, perhaps. As far as the 401(k) goes, are the options any good? Some 401(k) investment choices are so awful it's best to stop after getting full matching. Mine has an S&P index fund with a .05%/yr expense ratio. That's less than I can find in the best ETF out there. Keep in mind, if you invest long term, the dividends are favored, 15% rate, and the capital gain is both controllable (you decide when to take it, by selling) and also favored, 15%. The magic of 401(k) and IRAs, whatever kind is a bit overplayed in the media. Your investing rate and asset choices are far more important.\",\n \"\\\"Whoa. These things are on two dimensions. It's like burger and fries, you can also have chicken sandwich and fries, or burger and onion rings. You can invest in an taxable brokerage account and/or an IRA. And then, within each of those... You can buy index funds and/or anything else. All 4 combinations are possible. If someone says otherwise, take your money and run. They are a shady financial \\\"\\\"advisor\\\"\\\" who is ripping you off by steering you only into products where they get a commission. Those products are more expensive because the commission comes out of your end. Not to mention any names. E.J. If you want financial advice that is honest, find a financial advisor who you pay for his advice, and who doesn't sell products at all. Or, just ask here. But I would start by listening to Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey, whomever you prefer. And read John Bogle's book. They can tell you all about the difference between money market, bonds, stocks, managed mutual funds (ripoff!) and index funds. IRA accounts, Roth IRA accounts and taxable accounts are all brokerage accounts. Within them, you can buy any security you want, including index funds. The difference is taxation. Suppose you earn $1000 and choose to invest it however Later you withdraw it and it has grown to $3000. Investing in a taxable account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you later withdraw the $3000, you pay a tax on $2000 of income. If you invested more than a year, it is taxed at a much lower \\\"\\\"capital gains\\\"\\\" tax rate. With a traditional IRA account, you pay zero taxes on the initial $1000. Later, when you take the money out, you pay normal income tax on the full $3000. If you withdrew it before age 59-1/2, you also pay a 10% penalty ($300). With a Roth IRA account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you withdraw the $3000 later, you pay NOTHING in taxes. Provided you followed the rules. You can invest in almost anything inside these accounts: Money market funds. Terrible return. You won't keep up with the market. Bonds. Low return but usually quite safe. Individual stocks. Good luck. Managed mutual funds. You're paying some genius stock picker to select high performing stocks. He has a huge staff of researchers and good social connections. He also charges you 1.5% per year overhead as an \\\"\\\"expense ratio\\\"\\\", which is a total loss to you. The fact is, he can usually pick stocks better than a monkey throwing darts. But he's not 1.5% better! Index funds. These just shrug and buy every stock on the market. There's no huge staff or genius manager, just some intern making small adjustments every week. As such, the expense ratio is extremely small, like 0.1%. If any of these investments pay dividends, you must pay taxes on them when they're issued, if you're not in an IRA account. This problem gets fixed in ETF's. Index ETF's. These are index funds packaged to behave like stocks. Dividends increase your stock's value instead of being paid out to you, which simplifies your taxes. If you buy index funds outside of an IRA, use these. Too many other options to get into here.\\\"\",\n \"If you're sure you want to go the high risk route: You could consider hot stocks or even bonds for companies/countries with lower credit ratings and higher risk. I think an underrated cost of investing is the tax penalties that you pay when you win if you aren't using a tax advantaged account. For your speculating account, you might want to open a self-directed IRA so that you can get access to more of the high risk options that you crave without the tax liability if any of those have a big payout. You want your high-growth money to be in a Roth, because it would be a shame to strike it rich while you're young and then have to pay taxes on it when you're older. If you choose not to make these investments in a tax-advantaged account, try to hold your stocks for a year so you only get taxed at capital gains rates instead of as ordinary income. If you choose to work for a startup, buy your stock options as they vest so that if the company goes public or sells privately, you will have owned those stocks long enough to qualify for capital gains. If you want my actual advice about what I think you should do: I would increase your 401k percentage to at least 10% with or without a match, and keep that in low cost index funds while you're young, but moving some of those investments over to bonds as you get closer to retirement and your risk tolerance declines. Assuming you're not in the 25% tax bracket, all of your money should be in a Roth 401k or IRA because you can withdraw it without being taxed when you retire. The more money you put into those accounts now while you are young, the more time it all has to grow. The real risk of chasing the high-risk returns is that when you bet wrong it will set you back far enough that you will lose the advantage that comes from investing the money while you're young. You're going to have up and down years with your self-selected investments, why not just keep plugging money into the S&P which has its ups and downs, but has always trended up over time?\",\n \"Putting money into a Roth IRA or 401(k) will save you money if your taxes this year will be lower than your taxes in retirement. See also the Wikipedia retirement-savings matrix.\",\n \"Lots of good answers. I'll try and improve by being more brief. For each option you will pay different taxes: Index Fund: Traditional IRA Roth IRA You can see that the Roth IRA is obviously better than investing in a taxable account. It may not be as obvious that the traditional IRA is better as well. The reason is that in the traditional account you can earn returns on the money that otherwise would have gone to the government today. The government taxes that money at the end, but they don't take all of it. In fact, for a given investment amount X and returns R, the decision of Roth vs Traditional depends only on your tax rate now vs at retirement because X(1-tax)(1+R_1)(1+R_2)...(1+R_n) = X(1+R_1)(1+R_2)...(1+R_n)(1-tax) The left hand side is what you will have at retirement if you do a Roth and the right hand side is what you will have at retirement if you do traditional. Only the tax rate differences between now and retirment matter here. An index fund investment is like the left hand side but has some additional tax terms on your capital gains. It's clearly worse than either.\",\n \"As stated in the comments, Index Funds are the way to go. Stocks have the best return on investment, if you can stomach the volatility, and the diversification index funds bring you is unbeatable, while keeping costs low. You don't need an Individual Savings Account (UK), 401(k) (US) or similar, though they would be helpful to boost investment performance. These are tax advantaged accounts; without them you will have to pay taxes on your investment gains. However, there's still a lot to gain from investing, specially if the alternative is to place them in the vault or similar. Bear in mind that inflation makes your money shrink in real terms. Even a small interest is better than no interest. By best I mean that is safe (regulated by the financial authorities, so your money is safe and insured up to a certain amount) and has reasonable fees (keeping costs low is a must in any scenario). The two main concerns when designing your portfolio are diversification and low TER (Total Expense Ratio). As when we chose broker, our concern is to be as safe as we possibly can (diversification helps with this) and to keep costs at the bare minimum. Some issues might restrict your election or make others seem better. Depending on the country you live and the one of the fund, you might have to pay more taxes on gains/dividends. e.g. The US keeps some of them if your country doesn't have a special treaty with them. Look for W-8Ben and tax withholding for more information. Vanguard and Blackrock offer nice index funds. Morningstar might be a good place for gathering information. Don't trust blindly the 'rating'. Some values are 'not rated' and kick ass the 4 star ones. Again: seek low TER. Not a big fan of this point, but I'm bound to mention it. It can be actually helpful for sorting out tax related issues, which might decide the kind of index fund you pick, and if you find this topic somewhat daunting. You start with a good chunk of money, so it might make even more sense in your scenario to hire someone knowledgeable and trustworthy. I hope this helps to get you started. Best of luck.\",\n \"Look at the aristocrat dividend paying stocks (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500_Dividend_Aristocrats). These all pay dividends and have consistently outperformed the S&P 500 - 10.6% vs 7.4% the last ten years. While stocks should not be generally considered for short-term investing, I personally think the market is showing a general up trend for the next few years. Also, the dividends add an additional buffer. Because you would be making regular monthly investments, you should choose a fund that invests in aristocrat stocks so you can set up an automatic depost.\",\n \"If you are looking for an index index fund, I know vanguard offers their Star fund which invests in 11 other funds of theirs and is diversified across stocks, bonds, and short term investments.\",\n \"I'm looking for ways to geared to save for retirement, not general investment. Many mutual fund companies offer a range of target retirement funds for different retirement dates (usually in increments of 5 years). These are funds of funds, that is, a Target 2040 Fund, say, will be invested in five or six different stock and bond mutual funds offered by the same company. Over the years and as the target date approaches closer, the investment mix will change from extra weight given to stock mutual funds towards extra weight being given to bond mutual funds. The disadvantage to these funds is that the Target Fund charges its own expense ratio over and above the expense ratios charged by the mutual funds it invests in: you could do the same investments yourself (or pick your own mix and weighting of various funds) and save the extra expense ratio. However, over the years, as the Target Fund changes its mix, withdrawing money from the stock mutual funds and investing the proceeds into bond mutual funds, you do not have to pay taxes on the profits generated by these transactions except insofar as some part of the profits become distributions from the Target Fund itself. If you were doing the same transactions outside the Target Fund, you would be liable for taxes on the profits when you withdrew money from a stock fund and invested the proceeds into the bond fund.\",\n \"With a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time without penalty as long as you don't withdraw the earnings/interest. There are some circumstances where you can withdraw the earnings such as disability (and maybe first home). Also, the Roth IRA doesn't need to go through your employer and I wouldn't do it through your employer. I have mine setup through Fidelity though I'm not sure if they have any guaranteed 3% return unless it was a CD. All of mine is in stocks. Your wife could also setup a Roth IRA so over 2 years, you could contribute $20,000. If I was you, I would just max out any 403-b matches (which you surely are at 25% of gross income) and then save my down payment money in a normal money market/savings account. You are doing good contributing almost 25% to the 403-b. There are also some income limitations on Roth IRAs. I believe for a married couple, it is $160k.\",\n \"\\\"I disagree with the IRA suggestion. Why IRA? You're a student, so probably won't get much tax benefits, so why locking the money for 40 years? You can do the same investments through any broker account as in IRA, but be able to cash out in need. 5 years is long enough term to put in a mutual fund or ETF and expect reasonable (>1.25%) gains. You can use the online \\\"\\\"analyst\\\"\\\" tools that brokers like ETrade or Sharebuilder provide to decide on how to spread your portfolio, 15K is enough for diversifying over several areas. If you want to keep it as cash - check the on-line savings accounts (like Capitol One, for example, or Ally, ING Direct that will merge with Capitol One and others) for better rates, brick and mortar banks can not possible compete with what you can get online.\\\"\",\n \"I would not suggest closing out your Roth IRA -- Couple of reasons for that - 1) Since you've been contributing to it for 15 years, your investments have probably grown, seen dividends, etc. If you close it out, you will owe taxes and be slapped with a 10% penalty on the growth (money you didn't contribute). That's quite a waste of hard earned money. 2) While your income may exceed the contribution limit of a Roth, you could do what's called a 'backdoor' Roth - which is really just converting your after tax contributions into an IRA into a Roth IRA. 3) Given the length of your contributions your Roth IRA is seasoned (5 years) This allows you to use up to 10k for your house if you chose. (Usually not an option people use) Other than that, consider paying off the student loans with the highest interest first.\",\n \"You can invest another $5,500 in your Roth IRA each year, so you can invest up to $11,000 between the two tax years. Additionally you can make investments for the previous year up until 15 April the following year. In your case that will be close to graduation time, and you may decide to max out the contribution for 2014, but wait until you are settled into a new job before setting those savings aside long-term. When you start your first job, there will likely also be an option to invest in a 401k. You can still have the advantages of a Roth, but you will be limited to the investments available in the plan. Most employers I've seen today still offer a low-cost index fund, but you may have to speak up at a company meeting to pressure them to include one of those options in the plan. With a 401k your limit increases to $17,500/year. Make sure that the index fund you invest in has the lowest possible expense ratio. I use VOO. Depending on trading fees, etc., you might pick something else.\",\n \"Diversification is an important aspect of precious metals investing. Therefore I would suggest diversifying in a number of different ways:\",\n \"Couple of factors here to consider: 1) The savings vehicle 2) The investments Savings Vehicle: Roth IRAs allow you the flexibility to save for retirement and/or your house. Each person can save up to $5,500 in a Roth and you can withdraw your principal at anytime without penalty. (There is a special clause for first time home buyers; however, it limits the amount to $10k per person. Given your estimate of $750k and history of putting down 20%. It would require a bit more.) The only thing is that you can't touch the growth or interest. When you do max out your Roth IRA, it may make sense for you to open a brokerage account (401Ks often have multiple steps in order to convert or withdraw money for your down payment) Investments: Given your timeline (5-7 years) your investments would be more conservative. (More fixed income) While you should stay diversified (both fixed income and equity), the conservative portfolio will allow less fluctuation in your portfolio value while allowing some growth potential.\",\n \"You asked specifically about the ROTH IRA option and stated you want to get the most bang for your buck in retirement. While others have pointed out the benefits of a tax deduction due to using a Traditional IRA instead, I haven't seen anyone point out some of the other differences between ROTH and Traditional, such as: I agree with your thoughts on using an IRA once you maximize the company match into a 401k plan. My reasoning is: I personally prefer ETFs over mutual funds for the ability to get in and out with limit, stop, or OCO orders, at open or anytime mid-day if needed. However, the price for that flexibility is that you risk discounts to NAV for ETFs that you wouldn't have with the equivalent mutual fund. Said another way, you may find yourself selling your ETF for less than the holdings are actually worth. Personally, I value the ability to exit positions at the time of my choosing more highly than the impact of tracking error on NAV. Also, as a final comment to your plan, if it were me I'd personally pay off the student loans with any money I had after contributing enough to my employer 401k to maximize matching. The net effect of paying down the loans is a guaranteed avg 5.3% annually (given what you've said) whereas any investments in 401k or IRA are at risk and have no such guarantee. In fact, with there being reasonable arguments that this has been an excessively long bull market, you might figure your chances of a 5.3% or better return are pretty low for new money put into an IRA or 401k today. That said, I'm long on stocks still, but then I don't have debt besides my mortgage at the moment. If I weren't so conservative, I'd be looking to maximize my leverage in the continued low rate environment.\",\n \"Start a Roth IRA. Keep it in low risk, short term money market or CDs. At this stage, stocks may be premature. As you build up the account, up to $5000/year, at some point, you should start buying an index mutual fund, say one following the S&P. When you are out of school and working for real money, save an emergency account outside the IRA and shift that Roth IRA to be fully invested. My 13 year old has her emergency account, and her Roth IRA to deposit her baby sitting money. It's never too soon to start.\",\n \"You can buy stocks in the IRA, similarly to your regular investment account. Generally, when you open an account with a retail provider like TDAmeritrade, all the options available for you on that account are allowable. Keep in mind that you cannot just deposit money to IRA. There's a limit on how much you can deposit a year ($5500 as of 2015, $6500 for those 50 or older), and there's also a limit on top of that - the amount you deposit into an IRA cannot be more than your total earned income (i.e. income from work). In addition, there are limits on how much of your contribution you can deduct (depending on your income and whether you/your spouse have an employer-sponsored retirement plan).\",\n \"Apply as many deductions as you are legally entitled to. Those are taxes you may never ever pay. Then turn around and put any more monies above the maximum retirement contributions into a taxable account. But this time invest in tax efficient investments. For example, VTI or SPY will incur very minimal taxes and when you withdraw, it will be at lower tax rate (based on current tax laws). Just as you diversify your investments, you also want to diversify your taxes.\",\n \"On the one hand, it's a great idea to open a Roth IRA now, once you've got the cash to contribute. It's a tax designation sounds like it would fit your meager earnings this year. The main reason to open one now rather than later is that some types of withdrawls require the account be aged 5 years. But you can also withdraw the amount you've contributed tax free any time. Student loans right now are pricey, so if you're carrying a balance at say 6.8 percent fixed you should pay that down ASAP. Beyond that, I'd keep the rest liquid for now. Having that kind of liquid cash is extremely reassuring, and many of the biggest returns on investment are going to be in your personal life. More fuel efficient vehicles, energy efficient appliances, computer backups, chest freezers and bulk meat purchases, etc. One example I see every six months is car insurance: I can pay for six months in full or I can pay a smaller monthly bill plus a small fee. That fee is well above current market rates. You see this everywhere; people searching for lower minimum payments rather than lower total costs. Save your money up and be the smart buyer. It's too damn expensive to be broke.\",\n \"I would open a taxable account with the same custodian that manages your Roth IRA (e.g., Vanguard, Fidelity, etc.). Then within the taxable account I would invest the extra money in low cost, broad market index funds that are tax efficient. Unlike in your 401(k) and Roth IRA, you will now have tax implications if your funds produce dividends or realize a capital gain. That is why tax-efficient funds are important to minimize this as much as possible. The 3-fund portfolio is a popular choice for taxable accounts because of simplicity and the tax efficiency of broad market index funds that are part of the three fund portfolio. The 3-fund portfolio normally consists of Depending on your tax bracket you may want to consider municipal bonds in your taxable instead of taxable bonds if your tax bracket is 25% or higher. Another option is to forgo bonds altogether in the taxable account and just hold bonds in retirement accounts while keeping tax efficient domestic and international tock funds in your taxable account. Then adjust the bond portion upward in your retirement accounts to account for the additional stocks in your taxable accounts. This will maintain the asset allocation that you've already chosen that is appropriate for your age and goals.\",\n \"\\\"A well diversified retirement portfolio is going to have some component in cash or near-liquid investments. So I tend to put it all in one place knowing that I can draw on it (at least from the ROTH account) in the event of an emergency. Obviously, you don't want to do this very often, but hopefully emergencies don't happen often either. You also have to attenuate your idea of an emergency so that it doesn't mean \\\"\\\"I didn't get a bonus check this year and can't afford gifts for the kids as nice as last year!\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"\\\"As other people have indicated, traditional IRAs are tax deductable for a particular year. Please note, though, that traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free) accounts, meaning that you'll have to pay taxes on any money you take out later regardless of why you're making the withdrawal. (A lot of people mistakenly call them tax free, which they're not). There is no such thing as a \\\"\\\"tax-free\\\"\\\" retirement account. Really, in terms of Roth vs. Traditional IRAs, it's \\\"\\\"pay now or pay later.\\\"\\\" With the exception of special circumstances like this, I recommend investing exclusively in Roth IRAs for money that you expect to grow much (or that you expect to produce substantial income over time). Just to add a few thoughts on what to actually invest in once you open your IRA, I strongly agree with the advice that you invest mostly in low-cost mutual funds or index funds. The advantage of an open-ended mutual fund is that it's easier to purchase them in odd increments and you may be able to avoid at least some purchase fees, whereas with an ETF you have to buy in multiples of that day's asking price. For example, if you were investing $500 and the ETF costs $200 per share, you could only purchase 2 shares, leaving $100 uninvested (minus whatever fee your broker charged for the purchase). The advantage of an ETF is that it's easy to buy or sell quickly. Usually, when you add money to a mutual fund, it'll take a few days for it to hit your account, and when you want to sell it'll similarly take a few days for you to get your money; when I buy an ETF the transaction can occur almost instantly. The fees can also be lower (if the ETF is just a passive index fund). Also, there's a risk with open-ended mutual funds that if too many people pull money out at once the managers could be forced to sell stocks at an unfavorable price.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"There's already an excellent answer here from @BenMiller, but I wanted to expand a bit on Types of Investments with some additional actionable information. You can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds (which are simply collections of stocks and bonds), bank accounts, precious metals, and many other things. Discussing all of these investments in one answer is too broad, but my recommendation is this: If you are investing for retirement, you should be investing in the stock market. However, picking individual stocks is too risky; you need to be diversified in a lot of stocks. Stock mutual funds are a great way to invest in the stock market. So how does one go about actually investing in the stock market in a diversified way? What if you also want to diversify a bit into bonds? Fortunately, in the last several years, several products have come about that do just these things, and are targeted towards newer investors. These are often labeled \\\"\\\"robo-advisors\\\"\\\". Most even allow you to adjust your allocation according to your risk preferences. Here's a list of the ones I know about: While these products all purport to achieve similar goals of giving you an easy way to obtain a diversified portfolio according to your risk, they differ in the buckets of stocks and funds they put your money into; the careful investor would be wise to compare which specific ETFs they use (e.g. looking at their expense ratios, capitalization, and spreads).\\\"\",\n \"To answer your question: As far as what's available in addition to your 401(k) at work (most financial types will say to contribute up to the match first), you may qualify for a Roth IRA (qualification is based on income), if not, then you may have to go with a Traditional IRA. You and your husband can each have one and contribute up to the limit each year. After that, you could get just a straight up mutual fund, and/or contribute up to limit on your 401(k). My two cents: This may sound counter-intuitive (and I'm sure some folks will disagree), but instead of contributing to your 401(k) now, take whatever that amount is, and use it to pay extra on the car loan. Also take the extra being paid on the mortgage and pay it on the car loan too. Once the car loan is paid off, then set aside 15% of your gross income and use that amount to start your retirement investing. Any additional money beyond this can then go into the mortgage. Once it's paid off, then you can take the extra you were paying, plus the mortgage and invest that amount into mutual funds. You may want to check out Chris Hogan's Retire Inspired book or podcast as well.\",\n \"\\\"IRAs have huge tax-advantages. You'll pay taxes when you liquidate gold and silver. While volatile, \\\"\\\"the stock market has never produced a loss during any rolling 15-year period (1926-2009)\\\"\\\" [PDF]. This is perhaps the most convincing article for retirement accounts over at I Will Teach You To Be Rich. An IRA is just a container for your money and you may invest the money however you like (cash, stocks, funds, etc). A typical investment is the purchase of stocks, bonds, and/or funds containing either or both. Stocks may pay dividends and bonds pay yields. Transactions of these things trigger capital gains (or losses). This happens if you sell or if the fund manager sells pieces of the fund to buy something in its place (i.e. transactions happen without your decision and high turnover can result in huge capital gains). In a taxable account you will pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. In an IRA you don't ever pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. Over the life of the IRA (30+ years) this can be a huge ton of savings. A traditional IRA is funded with pre-tax money and you only pay tax on the withdrawal. Therefore you get more money upfront to invest and more money compounds into greater amounts faster. A Roth IRA you fund with after-tax dollars, but your withdrawals are tax free. Traditional versus Roth comparison calculator. Here are a bunch more IRA and 401k calculators. Take a look at the IRA tax savings for various amounts compared to the same money in a taxable account. Compounding over time will make you rich and there's your reason for starting young. Increases in the value of gold and silver will never touch compounded gains. So tax savings are a huge reason to stash your money in an IRA. You trade liquidity (having to wait until age 59.5) for a heck of a lot more money. Though isn't it nice to be assured that you will have money when you retire? If you aren't going to earn it then, you'll have to earn it now. If you are going to earn it now, you may as well put it in a place that earns you even more. A traditional IRA has penalties for withdrawing before retirement age. With a Roth you can withdraw the principal at anytime without penalty as long as the account has been open 5 years. A traditional IRA requires you take out a certain amount once you reach retirement. A Roth doesn't, which means you can leave money in the account to grow even more. A Roth can be passed on to a spouse after death, and after the spouse's death onto another beneficiary. more on IRA Required Minimum Distributions.\\\"\",\n \"Well, I was about to ask a similar question. Unless you get into stocks/mutual funds it seems like returns on less risky items such as CDs (certificate of deposit) are terrible. I don't think it is a good use of folks time to ask what a Roth IRA is. We were considering buying a new car (~$20000 with zero down and 0.9% interest rate) but we drive maybe 6000 miles per year. We would be paying ~$550/month to park something in our garage. Our current car is sexless but absolutely reliable. I am now looking elsewhere and may either invest the money in our house (i.e., refinishing upstairs) or paying down our debt. We have a home loan - $132,000 at 3.5% - and a student loan - $12,675 @ 3.375%. Depending on the loan rate on your car, I would pay that down first. Alternatively, find a fee-only broker and drop around $500 for them to come up with a financial plan for you. They will probably recommend a Roth IRA with a specific mutual fund in mind. You'll need $2500 or so to open the Roth, contributions from there should be such that you can start/stop them on demand without fees.\",\n \"diversifying; but isn't that what mutual funds already do? They diversify and reduce stock-specific risk by moving from individual stocks to many stocks, but you can diversify even further by selecting different fund types (e.g. large-cal, small-cap, fixed- income (bond) funds, international, etc.). Your target-date fund probably includes a few different types already, and will automatically reallocate to less risky investments as you get close to the target date. I would look at the fees of different types of funds, and compare them to the historical returns of those funds. You can also use things like morningstar and other ratings as guides, but they are generally very large buckets and may not be much help distinguishing between individual funds. So to answer the question, yes you can diversify further - and probably get better returns (and lower fees) that a target-date fund. The question is - is it worth your time and effort to do so? You're obviously comfortable investing for the long-term, so you might get some benefit by spending a little time looking for different funds to increase your diversification. Note that ETFs don't really diversify any differently than mutual funds, they are just a different mechanism to invest in funds, and allow different trading strategies (trading during the day, derivatives, selling short, etc.).\",\n \"None of your options seem mutually exclusive. Ordinarily nothing stops you from participating in your 401(k), opening an IRA, qualifying for your company's pension, and paying off your debts except your ability to pay for all this stuff. Moreover, you can open an IRA anywhere (scottrade, vanguard, etrade, etc.) and freely invest in vanguard mutual funds as well as those of other companies...you aren't normally locked in to the funds of your IRA provider. Consider a traditional IRA. To me your marginal tax rate of 25% doesn't seem that great. If I were in your shoes I would be more likely to contribute to a traditional IRA instead of a Roth. This will save you taxes today and you can put the extra 25% of $5,500 toward your loans. Yes, you will be taxed on that money when you retire, but I think it's likely your rate will be lower than 25%. Moreover, when you are retired you will already own a house and have paid off all your debt, hopefully. You kind of need money now. Between your current tax rate and your need for money now, I'd say a traditional makes good sense. Buy whatever funds you want. If you want a single, cheap, whole-market fund just buy VTSAX. You will need a minimum of $10K to get in, so until then you can buy the ETF version, VTI. Personally I would contribute enough to your 401(k) to get the match and anything else to an IRA (usually they have more and better investment options). If you max that out, go back to the 401(k). Your investment mix isn't that important. Recent research into target date funds puts them in a poor light. Since there isn't a good benchmark for a target date fund, the managers tend to buy whatever they feel like and it may not be what you would prefer if you were choosing. However, the fund you mention has a pretty low expense ratio and the difference between that and your own allocation to an equity index fund or a blend of equity and bond funds is small in expectation. Plus, you can change your allocation whenever you want. You are not locked in. The investment options you mention are reasonable enough that the difference between portfolios is not critical. More important is optimizing your taxes and paying off your debt in the right order. Your interest rates matter more than term does. Paying off debt with more debt will help you if the new debt has a lower interest rate and it won't if it has a higher interest rate. Normally speaking, longer term debt has a higher interest rate. For that reason shorter term debt, if you can afford it, is generally better. Be cold and calculating with your debt. Always pay off highest interest rate debt first and never pay off cheap debt with expensive debt. If the 25 year debt option is lower than all your other interest rates and will allow you to pay off higher interest rate debt faster, it's a good idea. Otherwise it most likely is not. Do not make debt decisions for psychological reasons (e.g., simplicity). Instead, always chose the option that maximizes your ultimate wealth.\",\n \"One big pie chart. Traditional (pretax) 401(k) and IRA, Roth 401(k) and IRA, and non-tax favored accounts. All of these need to be viewed holistically, the non-favored money is where I'd keep cash/low return safe instruments, Roth IRA for highest growth.\",\n \"Yours two funds are redundant. Both are designed to have a mix of bonds and stocks and allow you to put all your money in them. Pick the one that has the lowest fees and stick with that (I didn't look at the funds you didn't select...they didn't look great either). Although all your funds have high fees, some are higher than others, so don't ignore fees. When you have decided on your portfolio weights, prioritize your money thus: Contribute enough to your 401(k) to get the full match from your employer Put everything else toward paying off that credit card until you have 0 balance. It's ok to use the card, but let it be little enough that you pay your statement balance off each month so you pay no interest. Then set aside some savings and invest any retirement money into a Roth IRA. At your income level your taxes are low so Roth is better than traditional IRA or 401(k). If you max out your Roth, put any other retirement savings in your 401(k).\",\n \"The article links to William Bernstein’s plan that he outlined for Business Insider, which says: Modelling this investment strategy Picking three funds from Google and running some numbers. The international stock index only goes back to April 29th 1996, so a run of 21 years was modelled. Based on 15% of a salary of $550 per month with various annual raises: Broadly speaking, this investment doubles the value of the contributions over two decades. Note: Rebalancing fees are not included in the simulation. Below is the code used to run the simulation. If you have Mathematica you can try with different funds. Notice above how the bond index (VBMFX) preserves value during the 2008 crash. This illustrates the rationale for diversifying across different fund types.\",\n \"Being from the UK, I'd not heard of a Roth IRA, but it sounds very similar to our own ISA (Individual Savings Account). Having just looked it up, I couldn't believe the annual limit was so low: $5500! Still, you have to work within your jurisdiction's legal framework (or agitate for change?). I would definitely agree with Ben Miller's answer: you need different savings buckets for the different savings objectives you'll have throughout the different periods of your life. I, for instance, am now a parent of two young children. I am fortunate to be able to provide for them on multiple levels: I hope that's of some help.\",\n \"If you have other savings, the diversification occurs across the accounts. e.g. my 401(k) has access to the insanely low .02% fee VIIIX (Vanguard S&P fund) You can bet it's 100% in. My IRAs are the other assets that make the full picture look better allocated. A new investor has the issue you suggest, although right now, you can deposit $5500 for 2013, and $5500 for 2014, so with $11K available, you can start with $6 or $9K and start with 2 or 3 funds. Or $9K now, but with $500 left over for the '14 deposit, you can deposit $6K in early '15. The disparity of $3K min/$5500 annual limit is annoying, I agree, but shouldn't be a detriment to your planning.\",\n \"Since you are paying taxes on the distributions from your mutual funds anyway, instead of reinvesting the distributions back into the mutual funds, you could receive them as cash, then contribute them to your Roth IRA once you are able to open one.\",\n \"If you have the cash on hand to pay the tax on the amount you are transferring I recommend moving to a Roth IRA An IRA is tax-deferred. You put in pretax contributions in to an IRA, and you are taxed on that money (your contributions and interest earned) when you withdraw it at retirement, age 59 1/2. The idea being that you will be taking less out per year in your retirement years, putting you into a lower tax bracket. The major problem is most people draw out as much or more a year in their retirement years than when they were working. A Roth IRA grows tax free You put after tax contributions into a Roth IRA, you have paid taxes on the contributions, and you are never taxed on the growth. When you draw the money out at retirement you don't pay any income taxes on that money. Let me give you an example: For this example we will use the following information for both scenario: We will invest $400 per month for a total of $4800. The current maximum is $5000 if you are under 50 years old $400 dollars after taxes is $300 Invest $300 a month, at age 65 you have 3,529,432 You owe no taxes on this money, it doesn't matter how much you take out a year. $400 dollars a month is taken pretax out of your paycheck. Invest $400 per month, at age 65 you have $4,705,909 You owe taxes of 25% as you draw that out for at total tax of 1,176,477 4,705,909 - 1,176,477 = 3,529,432 cash in your pocket The problem is if you draw out more than $82,400 (current 2010 filing single) per year you will be pushed to a higher tax bracket and take more of your money away. If you decide to buy a vacation home and you take out $250,000 to pay for it, that's counted as income for that year any you will be in the 33% tax bracket. Even if you can keep yourself to a low income the government forces your hand and makes you draw out more money at age 70, based on their tables, forcing you into a higher tax bracket\",\n \"\\\"If you have wage income that is reported on a W2 form, you can contribute the maximum of your wages, what you can afford, or $5500 in a Roth IRA. One advantage of this is that the nominal amounts you contribute can always be removed without tax consequences, so a Roth IRA can be a deep emergency fund (i.e., if the choice is $2000 in cash as emergency fund or $2000 in cash in a 2015 Roth IRA contribution, choice 2 gives you more flexibility and optimistic upside at the risk of not being able to draw on interest/gains until you retire or claim losses on your tax return). If you let April 15 2016 pass by without making a Roth IRA contribution, you lose the 2015 limit forever. If you are presently a student and partially employed, you are most likely in the lowest marginal tax rate you will be in for decades, which utilizes the Roth tax game effectively. If you're estimating \\\"\\\"a few hundred\\\"\\\", then what you pick as an investment is going to be less important than making the contributions. That is, you can pick any mutual fund that strikes your fancy and be prepared to gain or lose, call it $50/year (or pick a single stock and be prepared to lose it all). At some point, you need to understand your emotions around volatility, and the only tuition for this school is taking a loss and having the presence of mind to examine any panic responses you may have. No reason not to learn this on \\\"\\\"a few hundred\\\"\\\". While it's not ideal to have losses in a Roth, \\\"\\\"a few hundred\\\"\\\" is not consequential in the long run. If you're not prepared at this time in your life for the possibility of losing it all (or will need the money within a year or few, as your edit suggests), keep it in cash and try to reduce your expenses to contribute more. Can you contribute another $100? You will have more money at the end of the year than investment choice will likely return.\\\"\",\n \"I would wait, and invest that money in a Roth IRA. Because taxes are paid on the contributions to a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time, tax and penalty-free. In addition, you can withdraw contributions and earning to purchase your first home.\",\n \"You're misunderstanding the concept of retirement savings. IRA distributions are taxed, in their entirety, as ordinary income. If you withdraw before the retirement age, additional 10% penalty is added. Investment income has preferential treatment - long term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. However, IRA contributions are tax deductible. I.e.: you don't pay taxes on the amounts contributed to the IRA when you earned the money, only when you withdraw. In the mean time, the money is growing, tax free, based on your investments. Anything inside the IRA is tax free, including dividends, distributions (from funds to your IRA, not from IRA to you), capital gains, etc. This is very powerful, when taking into account the compounding effect of reinvesting your dividends/sale proceeds without taking a chunk out for taxes. Consider you make an investment in a fund that appreciated 100% in half a year. You cash out to reinvest in something less volatile to lock the gains. In a regular account - you pay taxes when you sell, based on your brackets. In the IRA you reinvest all of your sale proceeds. That would be ~25-35% more of the gains to reinvest and continue working for you! However, if you decide to withdraw - you pay ordinary rate taxes on the whole amount. If you would invest in a single fund for 30 years in a regular account - you'd pay 20% capital gains tax (on the appreciation, not the dividends). In the IRA, if you invest in the same fund for the same period - you'll pay your ordinary income rates. However, the benefit of reinvesting dividends tax-free softens the blow somewhat, but that's much harder to quantify. Bottom line: if you want to plan for retirement - plan for retirment. Otherwise - IRA is not an investment vehicle. Also consider Roth IRA/conversions. Roth IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement. If your current tax bracket is at 20%, for example, contributing $5K to Roth IRA instead of a traditional will cost you $1K of taxes now, but will save you all the taxes during the retirement (for the distributions from the Roth IRA). It may be very much worth your while, especially if you can contribute directly to Roth IRA (there are some income limitations and phaseouts). You can withdraw contributions (but not earnings) from Roth IRA - something you cannot do with a traditional IRA.\",\n \"I'm afraid you're mistaking 401k as an investment vehicle. It's not. It is a vehicle for retirement. Roth 401k/IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement, and as long as you're in the low tax bracket - it is for your benefit to take advantage of that. However, that is not the money you would be using to start a business or buy a home (except for maybe up to $10K you can withdraw without penalty for first time home buyers, but I wouldn't bother with $10k, if that's what will help you buying a house - maybe you shouldn't be buying at all). In addition, you should make sure you take advantage of the employer 401k match in full. That is free money added to your Traditional 401k retirement savings (taxed at distribution). Once you took the full advantage of the employer's match, and contributed as much as you consider necessary for your retirement above that (there are various retirement calculators on line that can help you in making that determination), everything else will probably go to taxable (regular) savings/investments.\",\n \"\\\"You don't state a long term goal for your finances in your message, but I'm going to assume you want to retire early, and retire well. :-) any other ideas I'm missing out on? A fairly common way to reach financial independence is to build one or more passive income streams. The money returned by stock investing (capital gains and dividends) is just one such type of stream. Some others include owning rental properties, being a passive owner of a business, and producing goods that earn long-term royalties instead of just an immediate exchange of time & effort for cash. Of these, rental property is probably one of the most well-known and easiest to learn about, so I'd suggest you start with that as a second type of investment if you feel you need to diversify from stock ownership. Especially given your association with the military, it is likely there is a nearby supply of private housing that isn't too expensive (so easier to get started with) and has a high rental demand (so less risk in many ways.) Also, with our continued current low rate environment, now is the time to lock-in long term mortgage rates. Doing so will reap huge benefits as rates and rents will presumably rise from here (though that isn't guaranteed.) Regarding the idea of being a passive business owner, keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily mean starting a business yourself. Instead, you might look to become a partner by investing money with an existing or startup business, or even buying an existing business or franchise. Sometimes, perfectly good business can be transferred for surprisingly little down with the right deal structure. If you're creative in any way, producing goods to earn long-term royalties might be a useful path to go down. Writing books, articles, etc. is just one example of this. There are other opportunities depending on your interests and skill, but remember, the focus ought to be on passive royalties rather than trading time and effort for immediate money. You only have so many hours in a year. Would you rather spend 100 hours to earn $100 every year for 20 years, or have to spend 100 hours per year for 20 years to earn that same $100 every year? .... All that being said, while you're way ahead of the game for the average person of your age ($30k cash, $20k stocks, unknown TSP balance, low expenses,) I'm not sure I'd recommend trying to diversify quite yet. For one thing, I think you need to keep some amount of your $30k as cash to cover emergency situations. Typically people would say 6 months living expenses for covering employment gaps, but as you are in the military I don't think it's as likely you'll lose your job! So instead, I'd approach it as \\\"\\\"How much of this cash do I need over the next 5 years?\\\"\\\" That is, sum up $X for the car, $Y for fun & travel, $Z for emergencies, etc. Keep that amount as cash for now. Beyond that, I'd put the balance in your brokerage and get it working hard for you now. (I don't think an average of a 3% div yield is too hard to achieve even when picking a safe, conservative portfolio. Though you do run the risk of capital losses if invested.) Once your total portfolio (TSP + brokerage) is $100k* or more, then consider pulling the trigger on a second passive income stream by splitting off some of your brokerage balance. Until then, keep learning what you can about stock investing and also start the learning process on additional streams. Always keep an eye out for any opportunistic ways to kick additional streams off early if you can find a low cost entry. (*) The $100k number is admittedly a rough guess pulled from the air. I just think splitting your efforts and money prior to this will limit your opportunities to get a good start on any additional streams. Yes, you could do it earlier, but probably only with increased risk (lower capital means less opportunities to pick from, lower knowledge levels -- both stock investing and property rental) also increase risk of making bad choices.\\\"\",\n \"The S&P 500 is a stock market index, which is a list of 500 stocks from the largest companies in America. You could open a brokerage account with a broker and buy shares in each of these companies, but the easiest, least expensive way to invest in all these stocks is to invest in an S&P 500 index mutual fund. Inside an index mutual fund, your money will be pooled together with everyone else in the fund to purchase all the stocks in the index. These types of funds are very low expense compared to managed mutual funds. Most mutual fund companies have an S&P 500 index fund; two examples are Vanguard and Fidelity. The minimum investment in most of these mutual funds is low enough that you will be able to open an account with your $4000. Something you need to keep in mind, however: investing in any stock mutual fund is not non-risk. It's not even low-risk, really. It is very possible to lose money by investing in the stock market. An S&P 500 index fund is diversified in the sense that you have money in lots of different stocks, but it is also not diversified, in a sense, because it is all in large cap American stocks. Before investing in the stock market, you should have a goal for the money you are investing. If you are investing for something several years away, an index fund can be a good place to invest, but if you will need this money within the next few years, the stock market might be too risky for you.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"Yep, most 401k options suck. You'll have access to a couple dozen funds that have been blessed by the organization that manages your account. I recently rolled my 401k over into a self-directed IRA at Fidelity, and I have access to the entire mutual fund market, and can trade stocks/bonds if I wish. As for a practical solution for your situation: the options you've given us are worryingly vague -- hopefully you're able to do research on what positions these funds hold and make your own determination. Quick overview: Energy / Utilities: Doing good right now because they are low-risk, generally high dividends. These will underperform in the short-term as the market recovers. Health Care: riskier, and many firms are facing a sizable patent cliff. I am avoiding this sector. Emerging Markets: I'm also avoiding this due to the volatility and accounting issues, but it's up to you. Most large US companies have \"\"emerging markets\"\" exposure, so not necessary for to invest in a dedicated fund in my unprofessional opinion. Bonds: Avoid. Bonds are at their highest levels in decades. Short-term they might be ok; but medium-term, the only place to go is down. All of this depends on your age, and your own particular investment objectives. Don't listen to me or anyone else without doing your own research.\"","Without making specific recommendations, it is worthwhile to point out the differing tax treatments for a Roth IRA: investments in a Roth IRA will not be taxed when you withdraw them during retirement (unless they change the law on that or something crazy). So if you are thinking about investing in some areas with high risk and high potential reward (e.g. emerging market stocks) then the Roth IRA might be the place to do it. That way, if the investment works out, you have more money in the account that won't ever be taxed. We can talk about the possible risks of certain kinds of investments, but this is not an appropriate forum to recommend for or against them specifically. Healthcare stocks are subject to political risk in the current regulatory climate. BRICs are subject to political risks regarding the political and business climate in the relevant nations, and the growth of their economies need not correspond with growth in the companies you hold in your portfolio. Energy stocks are subject to the world economic climate and demand for oil, unless you're talking alternative-energy stocks, which are subject to political risk regarding their subsidies and technological risk regarding whether or not their technologies pan out. It is worth pointing out that any ETF you invest in will have a prospectus, and that prospectus will contain a section discussing the risks which could affect your investment. Read it before investing! :)"],"string":"[\n \"\\\"Yep, most 401k options suck. You'll have access to a couple dozen funds that have been blessed by the organization that manages your account. I recently rolled my 401k over into a self-directed IRA at Fidelity, and I have access to the entire mutual fund market, and can trade stocks/bonds if I wish. As for a practical solution for your situation: the options you've given us are worryingly vague -- hopefully you're able to do research on what positions these funds hold and make your own determination. Quick overview: Energy / Utilities: Doing good right now because they are low-risk, generally high dividends. These will underperform in the short-term as the market recovers. Health Care: riskier, and many firms are facing a sizable patent cliff. I am avoiding this sector. Emerging Markets: I'm also avoiding this due to the volatility and accounting issues, but it's up to you. Most large US companies have \\\"\\\"emerging markets\\\"\\\" exposure, so not necessary for to invest in a dedicated fund in my unprofessional opinion. Bonds: Avoid. Bonds are at their highest levels in decades. Short-term they might be ok; but medium-term, the only place to go is down. All of this depends on your age, and your own particular investment objectives. Don't listen to me or anyone else without doing your own research.\\\"\",\n \"Without making specific recommendations, it is worthwhile to point out the differing tax treatments for a Roth IRA: investments in a Roth IRA will not be taxed when you withdraw them during retirement (unless they change the law on that or something crazy). So if you are thinking about investing in some areas with high risk and high potential reward (e.g. emerging market stocks) then the Roth IRA might be the place to do it. That way, if the investment works out, you have more money in the account that won't ever be taxed. We can talk about the possible risks of certain kinds of investments, but this is not an appropriate forum to recommend for or against them specifically. Healthcare stocks are subject to political risk in the current regulatory climate. BRICs are subject to political risks regarding the political and business climate in the relevant nations, and the growth of their economies need not correspond with growth in the companies you hold in your portfolio. Energy stocks are subject to the world economic climate and demand for oil, unless you're talking alternative-energy stocks, which are subject to political risk regarding their subsidies and technological risk regarding whether or not their technologies pan out. It is worth pointing out that any ETF you invest in will have a prospectus, and that prospectus will contain a section discussing the risks which could affect your investment. Read it before investing! :)\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":184,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"9381"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Trade? Buy and hold? Or both?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["408123","384983"],"string":"[\n \"408123\",\n \"384983\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["442005","408123","304398","83807","384983","528518","144349","113099","534010","299284","319793","428117","371195","341481","18532","25671","19113","123880","398900","220608","167404","337142","284075","180644","41905","392826","69308","111091","38510","41625","458244","442727","63176","577832","198957","239714","29502","240996","19184","484823","292609","471911","224695","227479","206063","103622","83046","162420","222900","296516","548705","135646","215542","488546","131127","113786","297429","563271","528475","534887","541335","280099","490525","155242","500452","166220","333265","552707","2376","139368","220665","504301","302808","187404","295277","453256","370995","279072","263955","554910","57393","199642","34241","422739","169408","329450","23387","428141","508610","107751","215296","542765","402306","510268","598295","7074","267756","24846","593521","346894"],"string":"[\n \"442005\",\n \"408123\",\n \"304398\",\n \"83807\",\n \"384983\",\n \"528518\",\n \"144349\",\n \"113099\",\n \"534010\",\n \"299284\",\n \"319793\",\n \"428117\",\n \"371195\",\n \"341481\",\n \"18532\",\n \"25671\",\n \"19113\",\n \"123880\",\n \"398900\",\n \"220608\",\n \"167404\",\n \"337142\",\n \"284075\",\n \"180644\",\n \"41905\",\n \"392826\",\n \"69308\",\n \"111091\",\n \"38510\",\n \"41625\",\n \"458244\",\n \"442727\",\n \"63176\",\n \"577832\",\n \"198957\",\n \"239714\",\n \"29502\",\n \"240996\",\n \"19184\",\n \"484823\",\n \"292609\",\n \"471911\",\n \"224695\",\n \"227479\",\n \"206063\",\n \"103622\",\n \"83046\",\n \"162420\",\n \"222900\",\n \"296516\",\n \"548705\",\n \"135646\",\n \"215542\",\n \"488546\",\n \"131127\",\n \"113786\",\n \"297429\",\n \"563271\",\n \"528475\",\n \"534887\",\n \"541335\",\n \"280099\",\n \"490525\",\n \"155242\",\n \"500452\",\n \"166220\",\n \"333265\",\n \"552707\",\n \"2376\",\n \"139368\",\n \"220665\",\n \"504301\",\n \"302808\",\n \"187404\",\n \"295277\",\n \"453256\",\n \"370995\",\n \"279072\",\n \"263955\",\n \"554910\",\n \"57393\",\n \"199642\",\n \"34241\",\n \"422739\",\n \"169408\",\n \"329450\",\n \"23387\",\n \"428141\",\n \"508610\",\n \"107751\",\n \"215296\",\n \"542765\",\n \"402306\",\n \"510268\",\n \"598295\",\n \"7074\",\n \"267756\",\n \"24846\",\n \"593521\",\n \"346894\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["> From what I hear and know you sell when you're up and buy when it's down. That *is* how profit is attained. However, if you're looking to *invest,* both buy and sell decisions should be made after extensive research and, generally, there should be some time between the two offsetting transactions. If you personally decide to *trade*, which is more often and less likely to succeed (per se), that's up to you.","\"You don't seem to be a big fan of trading as you may think it may be too risky or too time consuming being in front of your computer all day long. You also don't seem to be a fan of buy and hold as you don't know what your investments will be worth when you need the funds. How about a combination of the two, sometimes called trend trading or active investing. With this type of trading/investing you may hold a stock from a couple of months to many years. Once you buy a stock that is up-trending or starting to up-trend you hold onto it until it stops up-trending. You can use a combination of fundamental analysis (to find out what to buy) and technical analysis (to tell you when to buy and when to sell). So these are some topics you can start reading up on. Using a technique like this will enable you to invest in healthy stocks when they are moving up in price and get out of them when they start moving down in price. There are many techniques you can use to get out of a stock, but the simplest has to be using stop losses. And once you learn and set up your system it should not take up much of your time when you actually do start trading/investing - 2 to 3 hours per week, and you can set yourself up that you analyse the market after the close and place any order so they get executed the next trading day without you being in front or the screen all day. Other areas you might want to read and learn about are writing up a Trading Plan, using Position Sizing and Money Management so you don't overtrade in any one single trade, and Risk Management. A good book I quite liked is \"\"Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom\"\" by Van Tharp. Good luck.\"","Determine an investment strategy and that will likely answer this for you. Different people have different approaches and you need to determine for yourself what buy and sell criteria you want to have. Again, depending on the strategy there can be a wide range here as some may trade index funds though this can backfire in some cases. In others, there can be a lot of buy and hold if one finds an index fund to hold forever which depending on the strategy is possible. Returns can vary widely as an index can be everything from buying gold stocks in Russia to investing in short-term Treasuries as there are many different indices as any given market can have an index which could be stocks, bonds, a combination of the two or something else in some cases so please consider asset allocation, types of accounts, risk tolerance and time horizon in making decisions or consider using a financial planner to assist in drawing up a plan with allocations and how frequently you want to rebalance as my suggestion here.","\"You should establish a strategy -- eg a specific mix of investments/funds which has the long-term tradeofv of risk, returns, and diversification you want -- and stick to that strategy, rebalancing periodically to maintain your strategic ratios betwedn those investments. Yes, that means you will somettimes sell things that have been doing well and buy others that have been doing less well -- but that's to be expected; it's exactly what happens when you \"\"buy low, sell high\"\".\"","\"You mentioned three concepts: (1) trading (2) diversification (3) buy and hold. Trading with any frequency is for people who want to manage their investments as a hobby or profession. You do not seem to be in that category. Diversification is a critical element of any investment strategy. No matter what you do, you should be diversified. All the way would be best (this means owning at least some of every asset out there). The usual way to do this is to own a mutual or index fund. Or several. These funds own hundreds or thousands of stocks, so that buying the fund instantly diversifies you. Buy and hold is the only reasonable approach to a portfolio for someone who is not interested in spending a lot of time managing it. There's no reason to think a buy-and-hold portfolio will underperform a typical traded portfolio, nor that the gains will come later. It's the assets in the portfolio that determine how aggressive/risky it is, not the frequency with which it is traded. This isn't really a site for specific recommendations, but I'll provide a quick idea: Buy a couple of index funds that cover the whole universe of investments. Index funds have low expenses and are the cheapest/easiest way to diversify. Buy a \"\"total stock market\"\" fund and a \"\"total bond fund\"\" in a ratio that you like. If you want, also buy an \"\"international fund.\"\" If you want specific tickers and ratios, another forum would be better(or just ask your broker or 401(k) provider). The bogleheads forum is one that I respect where people are very happy to give and debate specific recommendations. At the end of the day, responsibly managing your investment portfolio is not rocket science and shouldn't occupy a lot of time or worry. Just choose a few funds with low expenses that cover all the assets you are really interested in, put your money in them in a reasonable-ish ratio (no one knows that the best ratio is) and then forget about it.\"","Buy and hold doesn't have an exact definition, as far as I know. In my opinion, it's offered as a contrast to those who trade too frequently, or panic every time the market drops 2%. For the general market, e.g. your S&P index holdings. You sell to rebalance to your desired asset allocation. As a personal example, at 50, I was full up invested, 95%+ in stocks. When my wife and I were retired (i.e. let go from company, but with no need to go back to work) I started shifting to get to a more sane allocation, 80/20. The ideal mix may be closer to 60/40. Also, there are times the market as a whole is overvalued as measure by P/E and/or CAPE, made popular by Nobel Prize winning Robert Shiller. During these times, an allocation shift might make sense. For the individual stocks, you had best have a strategy when you buy. Why did you buy XYZ? Because they had promise, decent company with a good outlook for their product? Now that they are up 300%, can they keep gaining share or expand their market? Sometimes you can keep raising the bar, and keep a company long term, really long. Other times, the reason you bought no longer applies, they are at or above the valuation you hoped to achieve. Note - I noticed from another question, the OP is in the UK. I answer this my from US centric view, but it should still apply to OP in general. The question was not tagged UK when I replied.","Depends on what you are, an investor or a speculator. An investor will look at an 'indefinite' investment period. A speculator will be after a fast buck. If you are an investor, buy your stock once as that will cost less commissions. After all, you'll sell your stock in 10, 15, 20 years.","\"If you're investing for the long term your best strategy is going to be a buy-and-hold strategy, or even just buying a few index funds in several major asset classes and forgetting about it. Following \"\"market conditions\"\" is about as useful to the long term trader as checking the weather in Anchorage, Alaska every day (assuming that you don't live in Anchorage, Alaska). Let me suggest treating yourself to a subscription to The Economist and read it once a week. You'll learn a lot more about investing, economics, and world trends, and you won't be completely in the dark if there are major structural changes in the world (like gigantic housing bubbles) that you might want to know about.\"","I think your best strategy is to learn more about the behavior of what you're investing in. Learn everything you can about it. Specialize in it. The more you study, the more the proper strategy will present itself. Answer the questions you ask in paragraph 3 through your own study.","The advice I have is short and sweet. Be an investor, not a speculator. Adopt the philosophy of Warren Buffet which is the 'buy and hold' philosophy. Avoid individual stocks and buy mutual funds or ETFs. Pick something that pays dividends and reinvest those dividends. Don't become a speculator, meaning avoid the 'buy low, sell high' philosophy. EDIT:For some reason I cannot add a comment, so I am putting my response here. @jad The 'buy low, sell high' approach makes money for the stock broker, not necessarily you. As we learn in the movie Trading Places, each buy or sell creates a commission for the broker. It is those commission expenses that eat away at your nestegg. Just don't sell. If a security is trading at $10 a share and pays $0.25 a share each quarter then you are getting 10% ROI if you buy that security (and if it continues to pay $0.25 a share each quarter). If the price goes up then the ROI for new buyers will go down, but your ROI will still be the same. You will continue to get 10% for as long as you hold that security. A mutual fund buys the individual stocks for you. The value of the fund is only calculated at the end of the day. An ETF is like a mutual fund but the value of the ETF is calculated moment by moment.","You talk about an individual not being advised to sell (or purchase) in response to trends in the market in such a buy and hold strategy. But think of this for a moment: You buy stock ABC for $10 when both the market as a whole and stock ABC are near the bottom of a bear market as say part of a value buying strategy. You've now held stock ABC for a number of years and it is performing well hitting $50. There is all good news about stock ABC, profit increases year after year in double digits. Would you consider selling this stock just because it has increased 400%. It could start falling in a general market crash or it could keep going up to $100 or more. Maybe a better strategy to sell ABC would be to place a trailing stop of say 20% on the highest price reached by the stock. So if ABC falls, say in a general market correction, by less than 20% off its high and then rebounds and goes higher - you keep it. If ABC however falls by more than 20% off its high you automatically sell it with your stop loss order. You may give 20% back to the market if the market or the stock crashes, but if the stock continues going up you benefit from more upside in the price. Take AAPL as an example, if you bought AAPL in March 2009, after the GFC, for about $100, would you have sold it in December 2011 when it hit $400. If you did you would have left money on the table. If instead you placed a trailing stop loss on AAPL of 20% you would have been still in it when it hit its high of $702 in September 2012. You would have finally been stopped out in November 2012 for around the $560 mark, and made an extra $160 per share. And if your thinking, how about if I decided to sell AAPL at $700, well I don't think many would have picked $700 as the high in hindsight. The main benefit of using stop losses is that it takes your emotions out of your trading, especially your exits.","\"You seem to prefer to trade like I do: \"\"Buy low, sell high.\"\" But there are some people that prefer a different way: \"\"Buy high, sell higher.\"\" A stock that has \"\"just appreciated\"\" is \"\"in motion.\"\" That is a \"\"promise\"\" (not always kept) that it will continue to go higher. Some people want stocks that not only go higher, but also SOON. The disadvantage of \"\"buy low, sell high\"\" is that the stock can stay low for some time. So that's a strategy for patient investors like you and me.\"","\"The only general rule is \"\"If you would buy the stock at its current price, hold and possibly buy. If you wouldn't, sell and buy something you believe in more strongly.\"\" Note that this rule applies no matter what the stock is doing. And that it leaves out the hard work of evaluating the stock and making those decisions. If you don't know how to do that evaluation to your own satisfaction, you probably shouldn't be buying individual stocks. Which is why I stick with index funds.\"","True, but the number of investors who are successful with this strategy is negligible. You are basically just trading return for volatility. A well built portfolio will be better than trying to time the market, at least historically.","Every time you buy or sell a share for some price, somebody must have thought that that was exactly the right moment to sell or buy that share at that price (and to trade with you). Every time a trade is made, both sides think they are doing the smart thing. Most of the time, one will turn out to be wrong, the other right. Nothing in your proposed method of trading explains why you would be the side that was right more often. So they'll probably even out. Or maybe there are people in the market who actually do have a slightly better than average method, and you'll be wrong somewhat more often than right. Each trade has transaction costs. If you simply hang on to your shares, that's more or less the same as evening out good trades and bad trades, but without the transaction costs.","The main question is, how much money you want to make? With every transaction, you should calculate the real price as the price plus costs. For example, if you but 10 GreatCorp stock of £100 each, and the transaction cost is £20 , then the real cost of buying a single share is in fact buying price of stock + broker costs / amount bought, or £104 in this case. Now you want to make a profit so calculate your desired profit margin. You want to receive a sales price of buying price + profit margin + broker costs / amount bought. Suppose that you'd like 5%, then you'll need the price per stock of my example to increase to 100 + 5% + £40 / 10 = £109. So you it only becomes worth while if you feel confident that GreatCorp's stock will rise to that level. Read the yearly balance of that company to see if they don't have any debt, and are profitable. Look at their dividend earning history. Study the stock's candle graphs of the last ten years or so, to find out if there's no seasonal effects, and if the stock performs well overall. Get to know the company well. You should only buy GreatCorp shares after doing your homework. But what about switching to another stock of LovelyInc? Actually it doesn't matter, since it's best to separate transactions. Sell your GreatCorp's stock when it has reached the desired profit margin or if it seems it is underperforming. Cut your losses! Make the calculations for LovelyCorp's shares without reference to GreatCorp's, and decide like that if it's worth while to buy.","Like almost all investing question: it depends! Boring companies generally appreciate slowly and as you note, pay dividends. More speculative investing can get you some capital gains, but also are more likely to tank and have you lose your original investment. The longer your time horizon, and the more risk you are willing to take, then it is reasonable to tilt towards, but not exclusively invest in, more speculative stocks. A shorter horizon, or if you have trouble sleeping at night if you lose money, or are looking for an income stream, would then tend towards the boring side. Good Luck","The two biggest issues that impact your question I would say are diversification and fees. If you have $10,000 to invest and only invest it in two securities, then a 20% drop in one security can have you lose 10% of your initial investment which I would consider a very high risk scenario. If you have $10,000 to invest and invest it in 20 securities, then a 20% drop in one security would only cause you to lose 1% of your initial investment. So far this is looking better from a diversification point of view. But then the issue of fees comes in. If you paid $10 per trade to buy those 20 securities you already spent 2% of your initial investment in fees! Not to mention you will pay at least another $200 to get out of all those positions. No right answer - but those are the two factors I always try to balance.","Trading and investing are very, very different activities. Investing is (very generally) done for the longer haul, by people looking for a reasonable return, determined largely by the long term prospects of the business in which they invest, accepting some moderate risk, usually around the prospects of that business. Trading is (very generally) done shorter term (seconds to days/weeks), and can involve significantly higher risk, usually focused around market conditions and players at the time of the trade. To reiterate, these are gross generalizations, but if you are just starting out: (a) you probably want to be investing, rather than trading; and (b) you may be best served by understanding as well as you can the difference between the two. Once you understand that difference, that will lead you to learning resources on each.","\"Selling as well as buying a stock are part science and part art form. I remember once selling a stock at its 52 week high too. That particular stock \"\"quadrupled\"\" in value over the next 52 weeks. Mind you I made 50% ROI on the stock but my point is that none of us have a crystal ball on whether a particular stock will ever stop or start going up or stop or start going down. If someone had those answers they wouldn't be telling you they would be practicing them to make more money! Make up your mind what you want to make and stick by your decisions. Bulls make money when stocks go up and Bears make money when they go down but pigs don't make money. -RobF\"","Instead of a simple buy signal, you need to be able to rank your investments from strong to weak on the buy scale and sell the weaker investments that you already own to buy the stronger investments that you have received signals from.","I let someone else pick and chose which junk bonds to buy and which to sell. So instead of holding individual bonds in my portfolio I hold an ETF that is managed by a man with a PHD and which buys junk bonds. I get a yearly 15.5% ROI, paid monthly. Buy and hold and you can get a good return for the rest of your life. It is only speculation when you sell.","The right time to buy real estate is easy to spot. It's when it is difficult to get loans or when real estate agents selling homes are tripping over each other. It's the wrong time to buy when houses are sold within hours of the sign going up. The way to profit from equities over time is to dollar-cost average a diversified portfolio over time, while keeping cash reserves of 5-15% around. When major corrections strike, buy a little extra. You can make money at trading. But it requires that you exert a consistent effort and stay up to date on your investments and future prospects.","Your question is a bit odd in that you are mixing long-term fundamental analysis signals which are generally meant to work on longer time frames with medium term trading where these fundamental signals are mostly irrelevant. Generally you would buy-and-hold on a fundamental signal and ride the short-term fluctuations if you believe you have done good analysis. If you would like to trade on the 2-6 month time scale you would need a signal that works on that sort of time scale. Some people believe that technical analysis can give you those kind of signals, but there are many, many, many different technical signals and how you would trade using them is highly dependent on which one you believe works. Some people do mix fundamental and technical signals, but that can be very complicated. Learning a good amount about technical analysis could get you started. I will note, though, that studies of non-professionals continuously show that the more frequently people trade the more on they underperform on average in the long term when compared with people that buy-and-hold. An aside on technical analysis: michael's comment is generally correct though not well explained. Say Bob found a technical signal that works and he believes that a stock that costs $10 dollars should be $11. He buys it and makes money two months later when the rest of the market figures out the right price is $11 and he sells at that price. This works a bunch of times and he now publishes how the signal works on Stack Exchange to show everyone how awesome he is. Next time, Bob's signal finds a different stock at $10 that should be $11, but Anna just wrote a computer program that checks that signal Bob published faster than he ever could. The computer program buys as much as it can in milliseconds until the price is $11. Bob goes to buy, but now it is too late the price is already $11 and he can't make any money. Eventually, people learn to anticipate/adjust for this signal and even Anna's algorithms don't even work anymore and the hunt for new signals starts again.","Dollar cost averaging is beneficial if you don't have the money to make large investments but are able to add to your holding over time. If you can buy the same monetary amount at regular intervals over time, your average cost per share will be lower than the stock's average value over that time. This won't necessarily get you the best price, but it will get you, on the whole, a good price and will enable you to increase your holdings over time. If you're doing frequent trading on a highly volatile stock, you don't want to use this method. A better strategy is to buy the dips: Know the range, and place limit orders toward the bottom of the range. Then place limit orders to sell toward the high end of the range. If you do it right, you might be able to build up enough money to buy and sell increasing numbers of shares over time. But like any frequent trader, you'll have to deal with transaction fees; you'll need to be sure the fees don't eat all your profit.","It doesn't matter which way you use. As long as your comfortable with the overall level of risk/reward in your portfolio, that's what matters. (Though I will say that there are more investment vehicles than stocks, bonds, and cash that are worth considering.)","Like @chirs, I'm of the opinion that you might want to buy more. I've done this a couple of times, price dropped a bunch, and I said, heck, I bought some last week, and this week I can get twice as much stock for about the same price. Brought down my average cost per share, and when the company was taken private, I actually didn't lose money - unlike some other people I know, who only bought at one price, watched the drop, and held on awaiting a recovery (which didn't happen in time before the big money swooped in on it). But to do this, you need to keep cash reserves (that, like @afforess says, you can afford to lose all of) on hand, awaiting buying opportunities. This, too, is a cost - an opportunity cost.","\"Unfortunately, there is very little data supporting fundamental analysis or technical analysis as appropriate tools to \"\"time\"\" the market. I will be so bold to say that technical analysis is meaningless. On the other hand, fundamental analysis has some merits. For example, the realization that CDOs were filled with toxic mortgages can be considered a product of fundamental analysis and hence provided traders with a directional assumption to buy CDSs. However, there is no way to tell when there is a good or bad time to buy or sell. The market behaves like a random 50/50 motion. There are many reasons for this and interestingly, there are many fundamentally sound companies that take large dips for no reason at all. Depending on your goal, you can either believe that this volatility will smooth over long periods and that the market has generally positive drift. On the other hand, I feel that the appropriate approach is to remain active. You will be able to mitigate the large downswings by simply staying small and diversifying - not in the sense of traditional finance but rather looking for uncorrelated products. Remember, volatility brings higher levels of correlation. My second suggestion is to look towards products like options to provide a method of shaping your P/L - giving up upside by selling calls against a long equity position is a great example. Ground your trades with fundamental beliefs if need be, but use your tools and knowledge to combat risks that may create long periods of drawdown.\"","1) Don't trade individual stocks. You expose yourself to unnecessary risk. 2) Pick a fund with low expenses that pays a dividend. Reinvest the dividend back into the fund. To quote Einstein: The greatest power on earth is compound interest. Something is wrong with the software of the site. It will not allow me to answer mark with another comment. So I have to edit this answer to be able to answer him. @mark No, I am not hoping the price will go up. The price is only relevant in comparison to the dividend. It is the dividend that is important, not the price. The price is irrelevant if you never sell. Dividend paying securities are what you buy and hold. Then you reinvest the dividend and buy more of the security. As I am buying the security with the dividend I am actually pleasantly surprised when the price goes down. When the price goes down, but the dividend remains the same, I am able to buy more shares of the security withwith that dividend. So if the price goes down, and the dividend remains the same, it is a good thing. Again, the site will not allow me to add another comment. @mark I profit from my investment, without selling, by receiving the dividend. I used to be a speculator, trying to get ahead of the market by 'buy low, sell high' but all that did was make money for the broker. I lost as much as I gained trying to do that. The broker made money on each transaction, regardless if I did or not. It took me decades to learn the lesson that 'buy and hold' of dividend paying securities is the way to go. Don't make my mistake. I now get, at least, 5.5% yeald on my investment (look at PGF, which forms the backbone of my investments). That is almost 0.5% per month. Each month that dividend is reinvested into PGF, with no commission. You can't beat that with a stick.","\"Oddly enough, in the USA, there are enough cost and tax savings between buy-and-hold of a static portfolio and buying into a fund that a few brokerages have sprung up around the concept, such as FolioFN, to make it easier for small investors to manage numerous small holdings via fractional shares and no commission window trades. A static buy-and-hold portfolio of stocks can be had for a few dollars per trade. Buying into a fund involves various annual and one time fees that are quoted as percentages of the investment. Even 1-2% can be a lot, especially if it is every year. Typically, a US mutual fund must send out a 1099 tax form to each investor, stating that investors share of the dividends and capital gains for each year. The true impact of this is not obvious until you get a tax bill for gains that you did not enjoy, which can happen when you buy into a fund late in the year that has realized capital gains. What fund investors sometimes fail to appreciate is that they are taxed both on their own holding period of fund shares and the fund's capital gains distributions determined by the fund's holding period of its investments. For example, if ABC tech fund bought Google stock several years ago for $100/share, and sold it for $500/share in the same year you bought into the ABC fund, then you will receive a \"\"capital gains distribution\"\" on your 1099 that will include some dollar amount, which is considered your share of that long-term profit for tax purposes. The amount is not customized for your holding period, capital gains are distributed pro-rata among all current fund shareholders as of the ex-distribution date. Morningstar tracks this as Potential Capital Gains Exposure and so there is a way to check this possibility before investing. Funds who have unsold losers in their portfolio are also affected by these same rules, have been called \"\"free rides\"\" because those funds, if they find some winners, will have losers that they can sell simultaneously with the winners to remain tax neutral. See \"\"On the Lookout for Tax Traps and Free Riders\"\", Morningstar, pdf In contrast, buying-and-holding a portfolio does not attract any capital gains taxes until the stocks in the portfolio are sold at a profit. A fund often is actively managed. That is, experts will alter the portfolio from time to time or advise the fund to buy or sell particular investments. Note however, that even the experts are required to tell you that \"\"past performance is no guarantee of future results.\"\"\"","\"'Buy and Hold' Is Still a Winner: An investor who used index funds and stayed the course could have earned satisfactory returns even during the first decade of the 21st century. by By Burton G. Malkiel in The Wall Street Journal on November 18, 2010: \"\"The other useful technique is \"\"rebalancing,\"\" keeping the portfolio asset allocation consistent with the investor's risk tolerance. For example, suppose an investor was most comfortable choosing an initial allocation of 60% equities, 40% bonds. As stock and bond prices change, these proportions will change as well. Rebalancing involves selling some of the asset class whose share is above the desired allocation and putting the money into the other asset class. From 1996 through 1999, annually rebalancing such a portfolio improved its return by 1 and 1/3 percentage points per year versus a strategy of making no changes.\"\" Mr. Malkiel is a professor of economics at Princeton University. This op-ed was adapted from the upcoming 10th edition of his book \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street,\"\" out in December by W.W. Norton. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608623469465624.html\"","\"Bob should treat both positions as incomplete, and explore a viewpoint which does a better job of separating value from volatility. So we should start by recognizing that what Bob is really doing is trading pieces of paper (say Stocks from Fund #1 or Bonds from Fund #2, to pick historically volatile and non-volatile instruments.*) for pieces of paper (Greenbacks). In the end, this is a trade, and should always be thought of as such. Does Bob value his stocks more than his bonds? Then he should probably draw from Fund #2. If he values his bonds more, he should probably draw from Fund #1. However, both Bob and his financial adviser demonstrate an assumption: that an instrument, whether stock bond or dollar bill, has some intrinsic value (which may raise over time). The issue is whether its perceived value is a good measure of its actual value or not. From this perspective, we can see the stock (Fund #1) as having an actual value that grows quickly (6.5% - 1.85% = 4.65%), and the bond (Fund #2) as having an actual value that grows slower (4.5% - 1.15$ = 3.35$). Now the perceived value of the stocks is highly volatile. The Chairman of the Fed sneezes and a high velocity trader drives a stock up or down at a rate that would give you whiplash. This perspective aligns with the broker's opinion. If the stocks are low, it means their perceived value is artificially low, and selling it would be a mistake because the market is perceiving those pieces of paper as being worth less than they actually are. In this case, Bob wins by keeping the stocks, and selling bonds, because the stocks are perceived as undervalued, and thus are worth keeping until perceptions change. On the other hand, consider the assumption we carefully slid into the argument without any fanfare: the assumption that the actual value of the stock aligns with its historical value. \"\"Past performance does not predict future results.\"\" Its entirely possible that the actual value of the stocks is actually much lower than the historical value, and that it was the perceived value that was artificially higher. It may be continuing to do so... who knows how overvalued the perceived value actually was! In this case, Bob wins by keeping the bonds. In this case, the stocks may have \"\"underperformed\"\" to drive perceptions towards their actual value, and Bob has a great chance to get out from under this market. The reality is somewhere between them. The actual values are moving, and the perceived values are moving, and the world mixes them up enough to make Scratchers lottery tickets look like a decent investment instrument. So what can we do? Bob's broker has a smart idea, he's just not fully explaining it because it is unprofessional to do so. Historically speaking, Bobs who lost a bunch of money in the stock market are poor judges of where the stock market is going next (arguably, you should be talking to the Joes who made a bunch of money. They might have more of a clue.). Humans are emotional beings, and we have an emotional instinct to cut ties when things start to go south. The market preys on emotional thinkers, happily giving them what they want in exchange for taking some of their money. Bob's broker is quoting a well recognized phrase that is a polite way of saying \"\"you are being emotional in your judgement, and here is a phrasing to suggest you should temper that judgement.\"\" Of course the broker may also not know what they're doing! (I've seen arguments that they don't!) Plenty of people listened to their brokers all the way to the great crash of 2008. Brokers are human too, they just put their emotions in different places. So now Bob has no clear voice to listen to. Sounds like a trap! However, there is a solution. Bob should think about more than just simple dollars. Bob should think about the rest of his life, and where he would like the risk to appear. If Bob draws from Fund #1 (liquidating stocks), then Bob has made a choice to realize any losses or gains early... specifically now. He may win, he may lose. However, no matter what, he will have a less volatile portfolio, and thus he can rely on it more in the long run. If Bob draws from Fund #2 (liquidating bonds) instead, then Bob has made a choice not to realize any losses or gains right away. He may win, he may lose. However, whether he wins or loses will not be clear, perhaps until retirement when he needs to draw on that money, and finds Fund #1 is still under-performing, so he has to work a few more years before retirement. There is a magical assumption that the stock market will always continue rewarding risk takers, but no one has quite been able to prove it! Once Bob includes his life perspective in the mix, and doesn't look just at the cold hard dollars on the table, Bob can make a more educated decision. Just to throw more options on the table, Bob might rationally choose to do any one of a number of other options which are not extremes, in order to find a happy medium that best fits Bob's life needs: * I intentionally chose to label Fund #1 as stocks and Fund #2 as bonds, even though this is a terribly crude assumption, because I feel those words have an emotional attachment associated to them which #1 and #2 simply do not. Given that part of the argument is that emotions play a part, it seemed reasonable to dig into underlying emotional biases as part of my wording. Feel free to replace words as you see fit to remove this bias if desired.\"","I believe firmly that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Cash your gains out and be happy with your profit.","Your question seems to be making assumptions around “investing”, that investing is only about stock market and bonds or similar things. I would suggest that you should look much broader than that in terms of your investments. Investment Types Your should consider (and include) some or all of the following for your investments, depending on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. I love @Blackjack’s explanation of diversification into other asset classes producing a lower risk portfolio. Excellent! All the above need to be considered in this spread of risk, depending as I said earlier on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. Stock Market Investment I’ll focus most of the rest of my post on the stock markets, as that is where my main experience lies. But the comments are applicable to a greater or lesser extent to other types of investing. We then come to how engaged you want to be with your investments. Two general management styles are passive investment management versus active investment management. @Blackjack says That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs across asset classes and just leave them. The difficulty with this idea is that profitability is very dependent upon when the stocks are purchased and when they are sold. This is why active investing should be considered as a viable alternative to passive investment. I don’t have access to a very long time frame of stock market data, but I do have 30 or so years of FTSE data, so let’s say that we invest £100,000 for 10 years by buying an ETF in the FTSE100 index. I know this isn't de-risking across a number of asset classes by purchasing a number of different EFTs, but the logic still applies, if you will bear with me. Passive Investing I have chosen my example dates of best 10 years and worst 10 years as specific dates that demonstrate my point that active investing will (usually) out-perform passive investing. From a passive investing point of view, here is a graph of the FTSE with two purchase dates chosen (for maximum effect), to show the best and worst return you could receive. Note this ignores brokerage and other fees. In these time frames of data I have … These are contrived dates to illustrate the point, on how ineffective passive investing can be, depending if there is a bear/bull market and where you buy in the cycle. One obviously wouldn’t buy all their stocks in one tranche, but I’m just trying to illustrate the point. Active Investing Let’s consider now active investing. I use the following rules for selling and buying:- This is obviously a very simple technical trading system and I would not recommend using it to trade with, as it is overly simplistic and there are some flaws and inefficiencies in it. So, in my simulation, These beat the passive stock market profit for their respective dates. Summary Passive stock market investing is dependent upon the entry and exit prices on the dates the transactions are made and will trade regardless of market cycles. Active stock market trading or investing engages with the market using a set of criteria, which can change over time, but allows one’s investments to be in or out of the market at any point in time. My time frames were arbitrary, but with the logic applied (which is a very simple technical trading methodology), I would suggest that any 10 year time frame active investing would beat passive investing.","I would add to this that, while everyone is right on trading, there are certain special situations you could look into that could turn a profit in a relatively short time frame (one month, say). A recent example is Northstar Realty Finance (NRF). I bought in at $16.50 prior to a spinoff, sold half (the spinoff company) at $18.75 within a month, and the other half (the REIT) has since paid a 50 cent dividend and gone up to mid $18s as well within a total of just over 2 months. (This admittedly sounds like bragging, which isn't intended- I just want to give an example of a short term position resulting in a gain, and I don't know any off the top of my head except the one I did recently). This isn't trading, but it is a short term position that would have turned a profit with $1800. I still wouldn't recommend it, considering commissions eats a sizable portion. But if you want to take short term positions, you don't need as much as you would to be a day trader. I would read Seth Klarman's Margin of Safety, the sections on spinoffs and bankruptcy. They provide some useful information on some short term positions. However, also be aware that you should be willing to hold any short term position as a long term position if it does not immediately work out. By way of example, I believed NRF would go up post spinoff but the spinoff company stay the same. Instead, NRF stayed the same and the spinoff went up. But NRF was undervalued, so I held it for another month. Just my advice. As far as learning goes- use play money. But if you never are going to have enough money to really trade with, hopefully my info on short-term positions is helpful.","\"I have heard that investing more money into an investment which has gone down is generally a bad idea*. \"\"Throwing good money after bad\"\" so to speak. This is over simplified statement to explain the concept. What is essentially says is; Say I hold stocks of XYZ; 100 units worth say USD 1000. This has lost me x% [say 50%]. The general tendency is to buy 100 more units in anticipation / hope that the price will go up. This is incorrect. However on case to case basis, this maybe the right decisions. On a periodic basis [or whenever you want to invest more money]; say you have USD 1000 and did not have the stock of XYZ, will you buy this at current price and outlook of the company. If the answer is Yes, hold the stock [or buy more], if the answer is no sell the stock at current market price and take the loss. The same applies when the price has appreciated. If you have USD 1000; given the current price and future outlook, will you buy the specific stock. If yes, hold the stock [or buy more], if answer is no sell the stock and book profit. Off-course I have not overlaid the various other considerations when buying stocks like diversification, risk profiles of individual stocks / segments, tax implications etc that are also essential even if you decide to buy or sell specific stock.\"","You pay taxes on any gains you make after selling, so if you buy and hold you won't pay taxes (and you should hold for more than a year so that it gets taxed at the long-term rate, not the short-term rate). I like ETFs, there are some good ones Vanguard offers that are fairly broad, or you can use something like www.Betterment.com which invests in a diversified portfolio of ETFs (and includes things like automatic re-balancing and tax-loss harvesting).","If you want to use that money and maybe don't have the time to wait a few years if things should go bad, than you will definitely want to hold a good bunch of your money in the currency you buy most stuff with (so in most cases the currency of the country you live in) even if it is more volatile.","I agree with this. I like to buy stocks that are priced low according to value investing principles but set limits to sell if the stock happens to get priced at a point that exceeds X% annualized return, for instance 15% or 30% depending on preference. If the price goes up, I cash out and find the next best value stock and repeat. If the price does not go up, then I hold it which is fine because I only buy what I'm comfortable with holding for the long term. I tend to prefer stocks that have a dividend yield in the 2-6% range so I can keep earning a return. Also I too like the look of MCD. GE looks good as well, from this perspective.","For me the aggressive approach makes sense since I have a longer time horizon before I need to withdraw the funds. This style should also match your personality and you should have the patience and appetite to deal with market fluctuations which can be wild in some cases (as we saw in 2008-2009). Not an easy question to answer since everyone's situation is different and everyone has to make their own decisions.","The risk of the particular share moving up or down is same for both. however in terms of mitigating the risk, Investor A is conservative on upside, ie will exit if he gets 10%, while is ready to take unlimited downside ... his belief is that things will not go worse .. While Investor B is wants to make at least 10% less than peak value and in general is less risk averse as he will sell his position the moment the price hits 10% less than max [peak value] So it more like how do you mitigate a risk, as to which one is wise depends on your belief and the loss appetite","Depends entirely on the stock and your perception of it. Would you buy it at the current price? If so, keep it. Would you buy something else? If so, sell it and buy that.","\"Below is just a little information on this topic from my small unique book \"\"The small stock trader\"\": The most significant non-company-specific factor affecting stock price is the market sentiment, while the most significant company-specific factor is the earning power of the company. Perhaps it would be safe to say that technical analysis is more related to psychology/emotions, while fundamental analysis is more related to reason – that is why it is said that fundamental analysis tells you what to trade and technical analysis tells you when to trade. Thus, many stock traders use technical analysis as a timing tool for their entry and exit points. Technical analysis is more suitable for short-term trading and works best with large caps, for stock prices of large caps are more correlated with the general market, while small caps are more affected by company-specific news and speculation…: Perhaps small stock traders should not waste a lot of time on fundamental analysis; avoid overanalyzing the financial position, market position, and management of the focus companies. It is difficult to make wise trading decisions based only on fundamental analysis (company-specific news accounts for only about 25 percent of stock price fluctuations). There are only a few important figures and ratios to look at, such as: perhaps also: Furthermore, single ratios and figures do not tell much, so it is wise to use a few ratios and figures in combination. You should look at their trends and also compare them with the company’s main competitors and the industry average. Preferably, you want to see trend improvements in these above-mentioned figures and ratios, or at least some stability when the times are tough. Despite all the exotic names found in technical analysis, simply put, it is the study of supply and demand for the stock, in order to predict and follow the trend. Many stock traders claim stock price just represents the current supply and demand for that stock and moves to the greater side of the forces of supply and demand. If you focus on a few simple small caps, perhaps you should just use the basic principles of technical analysis, such as: I have no doubt that there are different ways to make money in the stock market. Some may succeed purely on the basis of technical analysis, some purely due to fundamental analysis, and others from a combination of these two like most of the great stock traders have done (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen). It is just a matter of finding out what best fits your personality. I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of \"\"The small stock trader\"\")\"","It really depends on your specific goals. Since you are considering trading FOREX, I assume you hate money. It's more efficient to withdraw your money from the bank and light it on fire. Perhaps you like trading FOREX like some old ladies like to gamble away their social security checks. Well then its impossible to answer your question as it is based upon personal preference.","My own. Could be a pair trade or outright. I take positions that i believe i can sell later. Or short them then buy back from client. I usually have a lot of small positions and several large ones that i watch like a hawk every day all day. I mostly trade safer big cap stocks. Banks, insurance etc. nothing too risky. No penny stocks. I hedge with etfs.","If you know with 100% certainty what the market will do, then invest it all at the best time. If not, spread it out over time to avoid investing it all at the worst possible time.","If you know what you are doing, bear markets offer fantastic trading opportunities. I'm a futures and futures options trader, and am equally comfortable trading long or short, although I have a slight preference for the short side, in that moves are typically much quicker to the down side.","\"I think, the top three answers by Joe, Anthony and Bigh are giving you all the detail that you need on a technical sense. Although I would like to add a simple picture that underlines, that you can not really compare day trading to long-term trading and that the addictive and psychologic aspect that you mentioned can not be taken out of consideration. The long term investor is like someone buying a house for investment. You carefully look at all offers on the market. You choose by many factors, price, location, quality, environment, neighborhood and extras. After a long research, you pick your favorites and give them a closer look until you finally choose the object of desire, which will pay off in 10 years and will be a wise investment in your future. Now this sounds like a careful but smart person, who knows what he wants and has enough patience to have his earnings in the future. The short term investor is like someone running into the casino for a game of black-jack, roulette or poker. He is a person that thinks he has found the one and only formula, the philosopher's stone, the money-press and is seeking immense profits in just one night. And if it does not work, he is sure, that this was just bad coincidence and that his \"\"formula\"\" is correct and will work the next night. This person is a pure gambler and running the risk of becoming addicted. He is seeking quick and massive profits and does not give up, even though he knows, that the chances of becoming a millionaire in a casino are quite unrealistic and not better than playing in a lottery. So if you are a gamer, and the profit is less important than the \"\"fun\"\", then short term is the thing for you. If you are not necessarily seeking tons of millions, but just want to keep your risk of loss to a minimum, then long term is your way to go. So it is a question of personality, expectations and priorities. The answer why losses are bigger on high frequency signals is answered elsewhere. But I am convinced in reality it is a question of what you want and therefore very subjective. I have worked for both. I have worked for a portfolio company that has gone through periods of ups and downs, but on the long term has made a very tempting profit, which made me regret, that I did not ask for shares instead of money as payment. These people are very calm and intelligent people. They spend all their time investigating and searching for interesting objects for their portfolio and replace losers with winners. They are working for your money and investors just relax and wait. This has a very serious taste to it and I for my part would always prefer this form of investment. I have worked for an investment broker selling futures. I programmed the account management for their customers and in all those years I have only seen one customer that made the million. But tons of customers that had made huge losses. And this company was very emotional, harsh, unpersonal - employees changing day by day, top sellers coming in corvettes. All the people working there where gamblers, just like their customers. Well, it ended one day, when the police came and confiscated all computers from them, because customers have complained about their huge losses. I am glad, that I worked as a remote developer for them and got paid in money and not in options. So both worlds are so different from each other. The chances for bigger profits are higher on day trading, but so are the chances for bigger losses - so it is pure gambling. If you like gambling, split your investment: half in long term and other half in short term, that is fun and wise in one. But one thing is for sure: in over ten years, I have seen many customers loosing loads of money in options in the future markets or currencies. But I have never seen anyone making a loss in long term portfolio investment. There have been hard years, where the value dropped almost 30%, but that was caught up by the following years, so that the only risk was minimizing the profit.\"","Small purchases will have a disproportionate expense for commissions. Even a $5 trade fee is 5% on a $100 purchase. So on one hand, it's common to advise individuals just starting out to use mutual funds, specifically index funds with low fees. On the flip side, holding stocks has no annual fee, and if you are buying for the long term, you may still be better off with an eye toward cost, and learn over time. In theory, an individual stands a better chance to beat the experts for a number of reasons, no shareholders to answer to, and the ability to purchase without any disclosure, among them. In reality, most investor lag the average by such a wide margin, they'd be best off indexing and staying in for the long term.","If the market has not crashed but you know it will, sell short or buy puts. If the market has crashed, buy equities while they are cheap. If you don't know if or when it will crash hold a diversified portfolio including stocks, bonds, real estate, and alternatives (gold, etc).","This investment strategy may have tax advantages. In some countries, income received from dividends is taxed as income, whereas profits on share trades are capital gains. If you have already exceeded your tax-free income limit for the year, but not your capital gains tax allowance, it may be preferable to make a dealing profit rather than an investment income. These arrangements are called a bed-and-breakfast.","Yeah, that's what I do, just buy the indices and forget it. My portfolio is so boring it's elegant, and makes money too. 4.5% YTD and 5.9% in 2016, not bad for a 30/70 stock bond split for this 70-year-old. Oh, did I tell you my costs are .06%! I am enjoying the freedom of my retirement.","\"What determines your profitability is not your time, but your TRADES. It is probably a mistake to go into the market and say, I hope to make X% today/this month/this year. As a practical matter, you can make a lot of money in a short period of time, or lose a lot over a long period of time (the latter is more likely). You're better off looking at potential trades and saying \"\"I like this trade\"\" (be sure to know why) and \"\"I dislike that trade.\"\" If you're right about your chosen trade, you'll make money. Probably not on your original timetable, because markets react more slowly than individual people do. Then make ONLY those trades that you genuinely like and understand. IF you get into a \"\"rhythm,\"\" (rather few people do), your experience might tell you that you are likely to make, say, X% per month or year. But that's ONLY if the market continues to accommodate YOUR style of trading. If the markets change, YOU must change (or get lost in the shuffle). Trading is a risky, if sometimes rewarding business. The operative motto here is: \"\"You pay your money and you take your chances,\"\" NOT \"\"You put in your time and eventually rewards will come.\"\"\"","Recommended? There's really no perfect answer. You need to know the motivations of the participants in the markets that you will be participating in. For instance, the stock market's purpose is to raise capital (make as much money as possible), whereas the commodities-futures market's purpose is to hedge against producing actual goods. The participants in both markets have different reactions to changes in price.","\"You asked for advice, so I'll offer it. Trying to time the market is not a great strategy unless you're sitting in front of a Bloomberg terminal all the time. Another person answering your question suggests the use of index funds; he's likely to be right. Look up \"\"asset allocation.\"\" What you want to do is decide that you want your portfolio to contain, for example: If one of your stock holdings goes up far enough that you're out of your target asset allocation ranges, sell some of it and buy something in another asset class,s so you're back in balance. That way you lock in some profit when things go up, without losing access to potential future profits. The same applies if something goes down; you buy more of that asset class by selling others. This has worked really well for me for 30+ years.\"","\"There are two umbrellas in investing: active management and passive management. Passive management is based on the idea \"\"you can't beat the market.\"\" Passive investors believe in the efficient markets hypothesis: \"\"the market interprets all information about an asset, so price is equal to underlying value\"\". Another idea in this field is that there's a minimum risk associated with any given return. You can't increase your expected return without assuming more risk. To see it graphically: As expected return goes up, so does risk. If we stat with a portfolio of 100 bonds, then remove 30 bonds and add 30 stocks, we'll have a portfolio that's 70% bonds/30% stocks. Turns out that this makes expected return increase and lower risk because of diversification. Markowitz showed that you could reduce the overall portfolio risk by adding a riskier, but uncorrelated, asset! Basically, if your entire portfolio is US stocks, then you'll lose money whenever US stocks fall. But, if you have half US stocks, quarter US bonds, and quarter European stocks, then even if the US market tanks, half your portfolio will be unaffected (theoretically). Adding different types of uncorrelated assets can reduce risk and increase returns. Let's tie this all together. We should get a variety of stocks to reduce our risk, and we can't beat the market by security selection. Ideally, we ought to buy nearly every stock in the market so that So what's our solution? Why, the exchange traded fund (ETF) of course! An ETF is basically a bunch of stocks that trade as a single ticker symbol. For example, consider the SPDR S&P 500 (SPY). You can purchase a unit of \"\"SPY\"\" and it will move up/down proportional to the S&P 500. This gives us diversification among stocks, to prevent any significant downside while limiting our upside. How do we diversify across asset classes? Luckily, we can purchase ETF's for almost anything: Gold ETF's (commodities), US bond ETF's (domestic bonds), International stock ETFs, Intl. bonds ETFs, etc. So, we can buy ETF's to give us exposure to various asset classes, thus diversifying among asset classes and within each asset class. Determining what % of our portfolio to put in any given asset class is known as asset allocation and some people say up to 90% of portfolio returns can be determined by asset allocation. That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs across asset classes and just leave them. You can readjust your portfolio holdings periodically, but otherwise there is no rapid trading. Now the other umbrella is active management. The unifying idea is that you can generate superior returns by stock selection. Active investors reject the idea of efficient markets. A classic and time proven strategy is value investing. After the collapse of 07/08, bank stocks greatly fell, but all the other stocks fell with them. Some stocks worth $100 were selling for $50. Value investors quickly snapped up these stocks because they had a margin of safety. Even if the stock didn't go back to 100, it could go up to $80 or $90 eventually, and investors profit. The main ideas in value investing are: have a big margin of safety, look at a company's fundamentals (earnings, book value, etc), and see if it promises adequate return. Coke has tremendous earnings and it's a great company, but it's so large that you're never going to make 20% profits on it annually, because it just can't grow that fast. Another field of active investing is technical analysis. As opposed to the \"\"fundamental analysis\"\" of value investing, technical analysis involves looking at charts for patterns, and looking at stock history to determine future paths. Things like resistance points and trend lines also play a role. Technical analysts believe that stocks are just ticker symbols and that you can use guidelines to predict where they're headed. Another type of active investing is day trading. This basically involves buying and selling stocks every hour or every minute or just at a rapid pace. Day traders don't hold onto investments for very long, and are always trying to predict the market in the short term and take advantage of it. Many individual investors are also day traders. The other question is, how do you choose a strategy? The short answer is: pick whatever works for you. The long answer is: Day trading and technical analysis is a lot of luck. If there are consistent systems for trading , then people are keeping them secret, because there is no book that you can read and become a consistent trader. High frequency trading (HFT) is an area where people basically mint money, but it s more technology and less actual investing, and would not be categorized as day trading. Benjamin Graham once said: In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run it is a weighing machine. Value investing will work because there's evidence for it throughout history, but you need a certain temperament for it and most people don't have that. Furthermore, it takes a lot of time to adequately study stocks, and people with day jobs can't devote that kind of time. So there you have it. This is my opinion and by no means definitive, but I hope you have a starting point to continue your study. I included the theory in the beginning because there are too many monkeys on CNBC and the news who just don't understand fundamental economics and finance, and there's no sense in applying a theory until you can understand why it works and when it doesn't.\"","Chris Rea's comment captures it -- most people don't have working crystal balls. Unless you are a trader, you address risk with diversification. There are several questions on this site discussing strategies to diversify your portfolio. In many ways, the markets offer investors false choices. We have an emotional desire to react to stimuli -- but that often leads to lousy outcomes. For example, selling your NASDAQ 100 fund after its value falls is usually a bad idea.","If you're a person of normal means, being a short-term trader/speculator is a game that you are going to lose. Don't do it -- do some research on investing.","\"This is an old post I feel requires some more love for completeness. Though several responses have mentioned the inherent risks that currency speculation, leverage, and frequent trading of stocks or currencies bring about, more information, and possibly a combination of answers, is necessary to fully answer this question. My answer should probably not be the answer, just some additional information to help aid your (and others') decision(s). Firstly, as a retail investor, don't trade forex. Period. Major currency pairs arguably make up the most efficient market in the world, and as a layman, that puts you at a severe disadvantage. You mentioned you were a student—since you have something else to do other than trade currencies, implicitly you cannot spend all of your time researching, monitoring, and investigating the various (infinite) drivers of currency return. Since major financial institutions such as banks, broker-dealers, hedge-funds, brokerages, inter-dealer-brokers, mutual funds, ETF companies, etc..., do have highly intelligent people researching, monitoring, and investigating the various drivers of currency return at all times, you're unlikely to win against the opposing trader. Not impossible to win, just improbable; over time, that probability will rob you clean. Secondly, investing in individual businesses can be a worthwhile endeavor and, especially as a young student, one that could pay dividends (pun intended!) for a very long time. That being said, what I mentioned above also holds true for many large-capitalization equities—there are thousands, maybe millions, of very intelligent people who do nothing other than research a few individual stocks and are often paid quite handsomely to do so. As with forex, you will often be at a severe informational disadvantage when trading. So, view any purchase of a stock as a very long-term commitment—at least five years. And if you're going to invest in a stock, you must review the company's financial history—that means poring through 10-K/Q for several years (I typically examine a minimum ten years of financial statements) and reading the notes to the financial statements. Read the yearly MD&A (quarterly is usually too volatile to be useful for long term investors) – management discussion and analysis – but remember, management pays themselves with your money. I assure you: management will always place a cherry on top, even if that cherry does not exist. If you are a shareholder, any expense the company pays is partially an expense of yours—never forget that no matter how small a position, you have partial ownership of the business in which you're invested. Thirdly, I need to address the stark contrast and often (but not always!) deep conflict between the concepts of investment and speculation. According to Seth Klarman, written on page 21 in his famous Margin of Safety, \"\"both investments and speculations can be bought and sold. Both typically fluctuate in price and can thus appear to generate investment returns. But there is one critical difference: investments throw off cash flow for the benefit of the owners; speculations do not. The return to the owners of speculations depends exclusively on the vagaries of the resale market.\"\" This seems simple and it is; but do not underestimate the profound distinction Mr. Klarman makes here. (and ask yourself—will forex pay you cash flows while you have a position on?) A simple litmus test prior to purchasing a stock might help to differentiate between investment and speculation: at what price are you willing to sell, and why? I typically require the answer to be at least 50% higher than the current salable price (so that I have a margin of safety) and that I will never sell unless there is a material operating change, accounting fraud, or more generally, regime change within the industry in which my company operates. Furthermore, I then research what types of operating changes will alter my opinion and how severe they need to be prior to a liquidation. I then write this in a journal to keep myself honest. This is the personal aspect to investing, the kind of thing you learn only by doing yourself—and it takes a lifetime to master. You can try various methodologies (there are tons of books) but overall just be cautious. Money lost does not return on its own. I've just scratched the surface of a 200,000 page investing book you need to read if you'd like to do this professionally or as a hobbyist. If this seems like too much or you want to wait until you've more time to research, consider index investing strategies (I won't delve into these here). And because I'm an investment professional: please do not interpret anything you've read here as personal advice or as a solicitation to buy or sell any securities or types of securities, whatsoever. This has been provided for general informational purposes only. Contact a financial advisor to review your personal circumstances such as time horizon, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, and asset allocation strategies. Again, nothing written herein should be construed as individual advice.\"","\"Typical Human Advisor: Advantages: They can recommend funds and allocations that fit to your portfolio. Disadvantages: Those who are just fund salespeople in disguise will usually recommend poor-performing funds for higher commission pay. Their advice will not be much different from random person internet advice. When your portfolio drops, they still get paid, and they don't care because they are not a fiduciary. Robo-Advisor: Advantages: Rules are automated, and typically based on crunched numbers. Somebody else executes the trades, and remembers to rebalance your portfolio when you'd usually forget to. Disadvantages: Not always accurate, usually relies on momentum from popularity. No one at the helm to adjust for risk. If you follow, you'll usually just lag behind. Yet, those with simple, low-cost diversified ETF portfolios can be attractive. Market ETFs: Advantages: Low cost funds that typically match the market. High performance. Easy to sell when you need to, zero decision making required, and you will be sure to nearly match the general market. Disadvantages: Boring. You need to enter your own orders, but you won't be doing that too often. No thrill except counting all the commas in your account. No wacky stories to wow your friends and family about your gambling addiction. Seriously, some people just can't help but take the high risk route. Newsletter / Portfolio / Online \"\"Expert\"\": Advantages: They usually have some idea of what indicators to look for and can make predictions about price movements. Disadvantages: Predictions are as frequently wrong as they are right. Good ones won't have much to say, and incompetent ones will write multi-paragraph essays about Fibonacci sequences, resistance levels, trends RSI, ROIT, everything that might show an indicator in some direction maybe... and it's usually forgotten by the next newsletter.\"","Yes, you should own a diverse mix of company sizes to be well diversified. While both will probably get hit in a recession, different economies suit different sized companies very differently in many cases, and this diversity positions you best to not only not miss out in cases where small companies do better out of recessions than large, but also in environments where small companies rate of growth is larger in bull markets.","Well said. To put it shortly I think both can be a viable source of some side income when proper risk management is in place. It is likely not going to work when you are trading/betting with money that is important to you. Paper trade/bet until you find a viable strategy. Then use proper bankroll management and some expendable income to pick up some extra bucks on the side. Sports betting is nice because the initial investment is much lower than day trading.","Split the difference. Max it out, sell half immediately and wait a year or more for the rest. Or keep a third... whatever works for your risk tolerance. A perfectly diversified portfolio with $0 in it is still worth $0.","You have to look at the market conditions and make decisions based on them. Ideally, you may want to have 30% of your portfolio in bonds. But from a practical point of view, it's probably not so smart to invest in bond funds right at this moment given the interest rate market. Styles of funds tend to go into and out of style. I personally do asset allocation two ways in my 457 plan (like a 401k for government workers): In my IRA, I invest in a portfolio of 5-6 stocks. The approach you take is dependent on what you are able to put into it. I invest about 10 hours a week into investment related research. If you can't do that, you want a strategy that is simpler -- but you still need to be cognizant of market conditions.","As one of the answers described, its going to depend on many factors and the environment at the time. But there is no sure way to know which strategy is better, if any are at all. I would say over several hundred years the strategies would be equally as profitable. In a free market the longer dated bonds would be priced lower (higher yield) because they are higher risk. And over a long enough time period that higher risk may end up resulting in that bond being worth less, or maybe nothing at all. In a free market, price discovery would factor all this in, and the two strategies would become equal. The same is true for the price during inversion events Having said that, we dont live in a free market. With central bankers monetizing debt in so many countries, sometimes investing in short term bonds, including US treasuries, is a guaranteed way to lose purchasing power, as these yields are below inflation and sometimes even negative.","I would advise against both, at least in the way you are discussing it. You seem to be talking about day-trading (speculating) in either stock or currency markets. This seems ill-advised. In each trade, one of three things will happen. You will end up ahead and the person you buy from/sell to will end up behind. You will lose and the counterparty will win. Or you both will lose due to trading fees. That said, if you must do one, stick with stocks. They have a reason to have positive returns overall, while currency trade is net-zero. Additionally, as you said, if it sounds like you can gain more with less money, that means that there are many more losers than winners. How do you know you will be a winner? A lot of the reason for this idea that you can gain a lot with less is leverage; make sure you understand it well. On the other hand, it may make sense to learn this lesson now while you have little to lose.","Common financial advice is just that - it is common and general in nature and not specific for your financial needs, your goals and your risk tolerance. Regarding the possibility of a US market not going anywhere over a long period of time, well it is not a possibility, it has happened. See chart below: It took 13 years for the S&P 500 to break through 1550, a level first reached in March 2000, tested in October 2007 (just before the GFC) and finally broken through in March 2013. If you had bought in early 2000 you would still be behind when you take inflation into account. If you took the strategy of dollar cost averaging and bought the same dollar value (say $10,000) of the index every six months (beginning of each January and each July) starting from the start of 2000 and bought your last portion in January 2013, you would have a return of about 35% over 13.5 years (or an average of 2.6% per year). Now lets look at the same chart below, but this time add some trend lines. If we instead bought whenever the price crossed above the downtrend-line and sold whenever the price crossed below the uptrend-line (with the first purchase at the start of January 2000), we would have a return of 93% over the 13.5 years (or an average of 6.9% per year). Another more aggressive option (but manageable if you incorporate a risk management strategy) is to buy long when the price crosses the downtrend-line and sell your existing long position and sell short when the price drops below the uptrend-line. That is profiting both up-trending and down-trending markets. Again we start our buying at the start of January 2000. By shorting the index when the market is in a down-trend you could increase the above returns of 93% by another 54%, for a total return of 147% over 13.5 years (or an average of 10.9% per year). To conclude, using a simple long term strategy to time the markets may result in considerably higher returns than dollar cost averaging over the medium to long term, and I know which strategy would help me sleep better at night.","\"The psychology of investing is fascinating. I buy a stock that's out of favor at $10, and sell half at a 400% profit, $50/share. Then another half at $100, figuring you don't ever lose taking a profit. Now my Apple shares are over $500, but I only have 100. The $10 purchase was risky as Apple pre-iPod wasn't a company that was guaranteed to survive. The only intelligent advice I can offer is to look at your holdings frequently, and ask, \"\"would I buy this stock today given its fundamentals and price?\"\" If you wouldn't buy it, you shouldn't hold it. (This is in contrast to the company ratings you see of buy, hold, sell. If I should hold it, but you shouldn't buy it to hold, that makes no sense to me.) Disclaimer - I am old and have decided stock picking is tough. Most of our retirement accounts are indexed to the S&P. Maybe 10% is in individual stocks. The amount my stocks lag the index is less than my friends spend going to Vegas, so I'm happy with the results. Most people would be far better off indexing than picking stocks.\"","It depends on whether you want a career as a fund manager/ analyst or if you want to be an investor/ trader. A fund manager will have many constraints that a private investor doesn’t have, as they are managing other people’s money. If they do invest their own money as well they usually would invest it differently from how they invest the fund's money. Many would just get someone else to invest their money for them, just as a surgeon would get another surgeon to operate on a family member. My suggestion to you is to find a job you like doing and build up your savings. Whilst you are building up your savings read some books. You said you don’t know much about the financial markets, then learn about them. Get yourself a working knowledge about both fundamental and technical analysis. Work out which method of analysis (if not both) suits you best and you would like to know more about. As you read you will get a better idea if you prefer to be a long term investor or a short term trader or somewhere in-between or a combination of various methods. Now you will start to get an idea of what type of books and areas of analysis you would like to concentrate on. Once you have a better idea of what you would like to do and have gained some knowledge, then you can develop your investment/trading plan and start paper trading. Once you are happy with you plan and your paper trading you can start trading with a small account balance (not more than $10,000 and preferably under $5,000). No matter how well you did with paper trading you will always do worse with real money at first due to your emotions being in it now. So always start off small. If you want to become good at something it takes time and a lot of hard work. You can’t go from knowing nothing to making a million dollars per year without putting in the hard yards first.","Diversifying is the first advice given to beginner in order to avoid big loss. For example in 2014 the company Theranos was really appealing before it fail in 2016. So a beginner could have invest ALL his money and lose it. But if he has deverified he wouldn't lost everything. As an investor goes from beginner to experience some still Diversify and other concentrate. Mostly it depends how much confident you are about an investement. If you have 20 years of experience, now everything about the company and you are sure there will be profit you can concentrate. If you are not 100% sure there will be a profit, it is better to Diversify. Diversifying can also be profitating when you loose money: because you will pay tax when you earn money, if you diversify you can choose to loose money in some stock (usually in december) and in this way cut your taxes.","Here's an easy test... Look at the investments in your portfolio and ask yourself whether if you had the cash value, would you buy those same investments today, because effectively that is what you are doing when you continue to hold. If the answer is no, sell and pick something else. Above all else, don't react to market swings, in most cases you are going to get it wrong and wind up losing more by making emotional decisions.","What decision are you trying to make? Are you interested day trading stocks to make it rich? Or are you looking at your investment options and trying to decide between an actively managed mutual fund and an ETF? If the former, then precise statistics are hard to come by, but I believe that 99% of day traders would do better investing in an ETF. If the latter, then there are lots of studies that show that most actively managed funds do worse than index funds, so with most actively managed funds you are paying higher fees for worse performance. Here is a quote from the Bogleheads Guide to Investing: Index funds outperform approximately 80 percent of all actively managed funds over long periods of time. They do so for one simple reason: rock-bottom costs. In a random market, we don't know what future returns will be. However, we do know that an investor who keeps his or her costs low will earn a higher return than one who does not. That's the indexer's edge. Many people believe that your best option for investing is a diverse portfolio of ETFs, like this. This is what I do.","If the company is stable. I like to recoup losses by buying in the valley and selling it all at the plateau and then learning as all beginners do, don't buy stocks because there's a feeding frenzy...or because Joe told me too. Pick your strategy in stocks and learn to stick with that. If you have no strategy, buy land.","I would buy an ETF (or maybe a couple) in stable, blue chip companies with a decent yield (~3%) and then I'd play a conservative covered call strategy on the stock selling a new position about once a month. That's just me.","> It will have minimal effects on buy & hold traders since they typically research for a long time, then buy & hold stock for many months. This is the part I never understand. If a short term tax doesn't affect buy & hold traders, when why would HFT affect buy & hold traders?","I bought 1000 shares of a $10 stock. When it doubled, I sold half, no need to be greedy. I watched the shares split 2 for one, and sold as it doubled and doubled again. In the end, I had $50,000 in cash pulled out and still had 100 shares. The shares are now worth $84K since they split 7 for one and trade near $120. Had I just kept the shares till now, no sales, I'd have 14,000 shares of Apple worth $1.68M dollars. $130K for an initial $10,000 investment is nothing to complain about, but yes, taking a profit can be the wrong thing. 25%? Was that all the potential the company had? There's one question to ask, not where is the price today compared to last year or two years ago, but what are the company's prospects. Is the reason I bought them still valid? Look at your investment each quarter as if you were making the decision that day. I agree, diversification is important, so the choice is only hold or sell, not to buy more of a good company, because there are others out there, and the one sane thing Cramer says that everyone should adhere to is to not put your eggs in one basket.","\"My theory is that for every stock you buy, you should have an exit strategy and follow it. It is too hard to let emotions rule if you let your default strategy be \"\"let's see what happens.\"\" and emotional investing will almost never serve you well. So before buying a stock, set a maximum loss and maximum gain that you will watch for on the stock, and when it hits that number sell. At the very least, when it hits one of your numbers, consciously make a decision that you are effectively buying it again at the current price if you decide to stay in. When you do this, set a new high and low price and repeat the above strategy.\"","If you are diversifying just for diversification purposes then all you are doing is averaging down your returns. You shouldn't just buy two securities because you think it is safer than putting all your money into one. A better method is to use money management and position sizing to limit your risk and exposure in any one security. You should know what your maximum risk is before you buy any security and know when it is time to get out of it. There are better ways to manage your risk. Don't put all your eggs in the one basket - yes, but don't diversify just for diversification purposes.","\"This is basically martingale, which there is a lot of research on. Basically in bets that have positive expected value such as inflation hedged assets this works better over the long term, than bets that have negative expected value such as table games at casinos. But remember, whatever your analysis is: The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. Things that can disrupt your solvency are things such as options expiration, limitations of a company's ability to stay afloat, limitations in a company's ability to stay listed on an exchange, limitations on your borrowings and interest payments, a finite amount of capital you can ever acquire (which means there is a limited amount of times you can double down). Best to get out of the losers and free up capital for the winners. If your \"\"trade\"\" turned into an \"\"investment\"\", ditch it. Don't get married to positions.\"","\"But I don't see how it's any different than buying a stock at a low price and holding on to it for some months. Based on your question, I would say the difference is time. Day trading by its nature is a 6-hour endeavor. If you buy low and are planning to sell high, then you only have a few hours to make this happen. As a previous poster mentioned, there is a lot of \"\"white noise\"\" that occurs on a weekly/daily/hourly/min basis. Long-term investors have the time to wait it out. Although, as a side note, if you were a buy-and-hold investor from the 1960s-early 1980s, then buy and hold was not very good. Is it just the psychological/addictive aspect of it? This is the biggest reason. Day trading is stressful and stress can cause financially destructive decisions such as over-leveraging, over-trading, etc. Why is day trading stressful? Because you are managing hundreds to thousands of trades a year. When combined with the lack of time in a day to make moves, it becomes stressful. Also, many day traders do it full time. Which adds to the pressure to be correct and to be incredible at money managment. A lot of buy-and-hold investors have full time jobs and may only check their positions every month or so.\"","\"It's a tricky question w/out more context. If your only options are between stock/funds and letting it sit (i.e. in a saving or CD), I'd have to say option one is the way to go (but that's based on my situation, and you did ask \"\"if you ..\"\"). However, I think the true answer is \"\"it depends.\"\" It depends on your risk tolerance and what are your short-term vs. long-term financial needs. Only after answering those questions you can then seek to strategize and diversify investment accordingly.\"","By coincidence, I entered this position today. Ignore the stock itself, I am not recommending a particular stock, just looking at a strategy. The covered call. For this stock trading at $7.47, I am able, by selling an in-the-money call to be out of pocket $5.87/sh, and am obliged to let it go for $7.00 a year from now. A 19% return as long as the stock doesn't drop more than 6% over that time. The chart below shows maximum profit, and my loss starts if the stock trades 21% below current price. The risk is shifted a bit, but in return, I give up potential higher gains. The guy that paid $1.60 could triple his money if the stocks goes to $12, for example. In a flat market, this strategy can provide relatively high returns compared to holding only stocks.","\"It's a trade-off. The answer depends on your risk tolerance. Seeking higher rewards demands higher risk. If you want advice, I would recommend hiring an expert to design a plan which meets your needs. As a sample point, NOT necessarily right for anyone else...I'm considered an aggressive investor, and my own spread is still more conservative than many folks. I'm entirely in low-cost index funds, distributed as ... with the money tied up in a \"\"quiesced\"\" defined-contribution pension fund being treated as a low-yield bond. Some of these have beaten the indexes they're tracking, some haven't. My average yield since I started investing has been a bit over 10%/year (not including the company match on part of the 401k), which I consider Good Enough -- certainly good enough for something that requires near-zero attention from me. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance. This may be completely wrong for someone at a different point in their career and/or life and/or finances. I'm posting it only as an example, NOT a recommendation. Regarding when to rebalance: Set some threshhold at which things have drifted too far from your preferred distribution (value of a fund being 5% off its target percentage in the mix is one rule I've sometimes used), and/or pick some reasonable (usually fairly low) frequency at which you'll actively rebalance (once a year, 4x/year, whenever you change your car's oil, something like that), and/or rebalance by selecting which funds you deposit additional money into whenever you're adding to the investments. Note that that last option avoids having to take capital gains, which is generally a good thing; you want as much of your profit to be long-term as possible, and to avoid triggering the \"\"wash sales\"\" rule. Generally, you do not have to rebalance very frequently unless you are doing something that I'd consider unreasonably risky, or unless you're managing such huge sums that a tiny fraction of a percent still adds up to real money.\"","A lot of people on here will likely disagree with me and this opinion. In my opinion the answer lies in your own motives and intentions. If you'd like to be more cognizant of the market, I'd just dive in and buy a few companies you like. Many people will say you shouldn't pick your own stocks, you should buy an index fund, or this ETF or this much bonds, etc. You already have retirement savings, capital allocation is important there. You're talking about an account total around 10% of your annual salary, and assuming you have sufficient liquid emergency funds; there's a lot of non-monetary benefit to being more aware of the economy and the stock market. But if you find the house you're going to buy, you may have to liquidate this account at a time that's not ideal, possibly at a loss. If all you're after is a greater return on your savings than the paltry 0.05% (or whatever) the big deposit banks are paying, then a high yield savings account is the way I'd go, or a CD ladder. Yes, the market generally goes up but it doesn't ALWAYS go up. Get your money somewhere that it's inured and you can be certain how much you'll have tomorrow. Assuming a gain, the gain you'll see will PALE in comparison to the deposits you'll make. Deposits grow accounts. Consider these scenarios if you allocate $1,000 per month to this account. 1) Assuming an investment return of 5% you're talking about $330 return in the first year (not counting commissions or possible losses). 2) Assuming a high yield savings account at 1.25% you're talking about $80 in the first year. Also remember, both of these amounts would be taxable. I'll admit in the event of 5% return you'll have about four times the gain but you're talking about a difference of ~$250 on $12,000. Over three to five years the most significant contributor to the account, by far, will be your deposits. Anyway, as I'm sure you know this is not investment advice and you may lose money etc.","If you want to trade to gain from short-term volatility, you can use Derivative-based ETFs that try to track the inverse of a broad index like the S&P 500. Note that these ETFs only track the index over a 1 day period, so you shouldn't hold these. If you're looking for a longer-term investment strategy, look at low-beta stocks, which often do well or produce dividend income during volatile times. Examples include McDonald's Corp and utilities like Consolidated Edison.","I'm of the opinion that speculating is for young people like you, because they can afford to lose it all. Avoiding losses becomes necessary once you have to sustain a family, and manage a somewhat large retirement funds. Even if you lose all your money when speculating, you'll probably be better off later, because you make less costly mistakes once you have larger amounts of money.","\"You need to have 3 things if you are considering short-term trading (which I absolutely do not recommend): The ability to completely disconnect your emotions from your gains and losses (yes, even your gains but especially your losses). The winning/losing on a daily basis will cause you to start taking unnecessary risk in order to win again. If you can't disconnect your emotions, then this isn't the game for you. The lowest possible trading costs to enter and exit a position. People will talk about 1% trading costs; that rule-of-thumb doesn't apply anymore. Personally, my trading costs are a total 13.9 basis points to enter and exit a $10,000 position and I think it's still too high (that's just a hair above one-eighth of 1% for you non-traders). The ability to \"\"gut-check\"\" and exit a losing position FAST. Don't hesitate and don't hope for it to go up. GTFO. If you are serious about short-term trading then you must close all positions on a daily basis. Don't do margin in today's market as many valuations are high and some industries are not trending as they have in the past. The leverage will kill you. It's not a question of \"\"if\"\", it's a when. You're new. Don't trade anything larger than a $5,000 position, no matter what. Don't hold more than 10% of your portfolio in the same industry. Don't be afraid to sit on 50% cash or more for months at a time. Use money market funds to park cash because they are T+1 settlement and most firms will let you trade the stock without cash as long as you effect the money market trade on the same day since stock settlement is T+3.\"","You don't really have a lot of money, and that isn't a criticism as much as that you are limited to diversification. For example, I would estimate you can only have one or two stocks for a buy-write scheme. Secondly you may be only to buy one fund with a high minimum investment, and a second fund with a smaller minimum investment. Thirdly there is not a whole lot of money to make a large difference. One options might be to look at iShares since your are with Fidelity. Trading those are commission free and the minimum investment is one share. They offer many sector funds. Since you were in a CD ladder you might be looking for stability of principle. If so you can look at USMV and PFF. If you can tolerate a little more volatility DGRO. Having said that you seem interested in doing some buy-writes. Why not mix and match? Pick a stock, like INTC (for example not a recommendation), and buy-write with half the money and some combination of iShares for the rest.","I'm in a remarkably similar situation as yourself. I keep roughly 80% of my portfolio in low-cost ETFs (16% bond, 16% commodities, 48% stock), with about 20% in 6-8 individual stocks. Individual stocks are often overlooked by investors. The benefits of individual stock ownership are that you can avoid paying any holding or management fee (unlike ETFs and mutual funds). As long as you assess the fundamentals (P/B, P/E, PEG etc.) of the company you are buying, and don't over-trade, you can do quite well. I recommend semi-annual re-balancing among asset classes, and an individual stock check up. I've found over the years that my individual stocks outperform the S&P500 the vast majority of the time, although it often accompanied by an increase in volatility. Since you're limiting your stake to only 20%, the volatility is not really an issue.","When the market moves significantly, you should rebalance your investments to maintain the diversification ratios you have selected. That means if bonds go up and stocks go down, you sell bonds and buy stocks (to some degree), and vice versa. Sell high to buy low, and remember that over the long run most things regress to the mean.","If you have the money put it in, and invest the money over a few months. Always keep a modest reserve of cash to give you the flexibility to take advantage of market opportunities.","Using Fundamental and Technical Analysis together is actually a good idea for longer term trading of up to 6 months or longer. The whole idea behind trading with Technical Analysis is to increase the probabilities of a trade going in the desired direction by using uncorrelated indicators that produce the same signal to buy or sell at the same time. For example, you might use a Moving Average (MA) as a buy signal when the price falls for a few days, hits the MA and then reverses and starts moving back up. If however, you also include a Stochastic Oscillator (SO) to indicate when the stock is oversold (under 20%), and if the price rebounds from the MA average at the same time as the Stochastic is crossing over in the oversold position, then this may be a higher probability trade. If you also only trade stocks that are Fundamentally healthy (as fundamentally good stocks are more likely to go up than fundamentally bad stocks) then this might increase the probabilities again. Then if you only buy when the market as a whole is moving up, then this will increase your chances again. A few weeks ago at a seminar, the presenter totalled the men in the room to be 76 and the women in the room to be 8. He then asked what will most likely be the next person to walk in the room - a man or a woman? The statistics are on the side of a wan walking in next. This is what we try to do with Technical Analysis, increase our chances when we take a trade. Of course a woman could be the next person to walk in the room, just like any trade can go against you, and this is why we use money management and risk management and take a small loss when a trade does go against you. Lets look at an example where you could incorporate FA with TA to increase your chances of profits: Above is a candlestick chart of Select Harvest (SHV), the green line above the price is the perceived value, the pink line is the 40 day MA, the blue line is the EPS, and the white lines is the Stochastic Oscillator (above 80% being overbought and below 20% is oversold). From Feb 2015 to start of Aug 2015 the stock was uptrending, since then the price reversed and started to downtrend. The stock was determined to be fundamentally good early in 2015 with the perceived value gradually increasing and greater than the share price, and the EPS starting to increase regularly from mid April. Thus, as the stock is seen as fundamentally healthy any price reversal in the vicinity of the MA could be seen as a buy opportunity. In fact there where 2 such opportunities on 31st March and 11th June where price had reversed and rebounded off the MA whist the SO crossed over in or near the oversold area. The price did reverse and then rebounded off the MA again on 9th July, however the SO was not in or near the oversold area on this occasion, so not as high in probability terms. The price still rebounded and went up again, however another momentum indicator (not shown here) shows some bearish divergence in this case - so another reason to possibly keep away at this point in time. A good signal to get out of the trade, that is your stop loss has not already taken you out, is when the price breaks and closes below the MA line. This occurred on 7th August. So if we had bought on the first signal on 31st March for $7.41 and sold when the priced broke through the MA on 7th August for $11.76, we would have made a profit of approx. 59% in just over 4 months. If bought on the second signal on 11th June for $9.98 and again sold on 7th August for $11.76, we would have made about 18% in under 2 months. So the fundamentals, the Price (in relation to MA) and the SO where all lining up to provide two high probability trades. Of course you would need to incorporate you risk management (including stops) in case the price did not continue upwards after you bought. If the market is also moving up on the day of the signal this will further increase your chances. Unless you day trade, which I would avoid, a good way to enter your trades after a signal is to enter a stop buy order after market close to buy if the price moves above the high of the signal day. That way if the market and the stock open and move lower during the day after the signal you avoid entering the trade altogether. This can be incorporated as part of your risk management and trading rules. After the price broke down through the MA we can see that a downtrend commenced which is still current today (in fact I just took a short trade on this stock yesterday). We can also see that the perceived value, whilst still above the price, has reached a peak and is currently moving downwards and the EPS after being flat for a few months has just moved down for the first time in 10 months. So maybe the fundamentals are starting to waver a bit on this stock. It may be a good stock to continue shorting into the future. So basically you can continue using Fundamental Analysis to select which stocks to buy, place them in a watch-list, and then use Technical Analysis to determine when these stocks are starting to uptrend and use a combination of uncorrelated indicators to produce higher probability signals for when to enter your trades.","It's incredibly difficult to beat the market, especially after you're paying out significant fees for managed funds. The Bogleheads have some good things going for them on their low cost Vanguard style funds. The biggest winners in the financial markets are the people collecting fees from churn or setting up the deals which take advantage of less sophisticated/connected players. Buy, Hold and Forget has been shown as a loser as well in this recession. Diversifying and re-balancing however takes advantage of market swings by cashing out winners and buying beaten down stocks. If you take advantages of general market highs and lows (without worrying about strict timing) every few months to re-balance, you buy some protection from crashes in any given sector. One common guideline is to use your age as the percentage of your holdings that are in cash equivalents, rather than stocks. At age 28, at least 28% of my account should be in bonds, real estate, commodities, etc. This should help guide your allocation and re-balancing strategy. Finally, focusing on Growth and Income funds may give you a better shot at above S&P returns, but it's wise to hold a small percentage in the S&P 500 as well.","The answer may be a compromise... if your goal is to make bonds a larger part of your portfolio, sell both stocks and bonds in a 4:1 ratio. or (3:1 or whatever works for you) Also, just as you dollar-cost-average purchases of securities, you can do the same thing on the way out. Plan your sales and spread them over a period of time, especially if you have mutual funds.","Apart from making money from the price difference, some stocks also give dividends, or bonus issues. For long term investors whom are looking for steady income, they may be more interested with the dividend pay-out instead of the capital-appreciation.","In my IRA I try to find stocks that are in growing sectors but have are undervalued by traditional metrics like PE or book value; I make sure that they have lower debt levels than their peers, are profitable, and at least have comparable margins. I started trading options to make better returns off of indices or etfs. It seems overlooked but it's pretty good, in another thread I was telling someone about my strategy buy applying it to thier portfolio: https://www.reddit.com/r/options/comments/77bt17/ive_been_trading_stocks_for_a_year_and_am/dolydu8/?context=3 I double checked, I told him/her I would buy the DIA Jan 19 2018 call 225 for 795. 8 days later it's trading for 1085. Nearly 50% in a week. It'll never be 300% earnings returns, but I'm happy to take it slow. Shorting is a very different animal it takes a lot to get things right.","Over a period of time most mutual funds do not perform better that an index fund. Picking and buying individual stock can be a great learning experience.","\"If you are like most people, your timing is kind of awful. What I mean by most, is all. Psychologically we have strong tendencies to buy when the market is high and avoid buying when it is low. One of the easiest to implement strategies to avoid this is Dollar Cost Averaging. In most cases you are far better off making small investments regularly. Having said that, you may need to \"\"save\"\" a bit in order to make subsequent investments because of minimums. For me there is also a positive psychological effect of putting money to work sooner and more often. I find it enjoyable to purchase shares of a mutual fund or stock and the days that I do so are a bit better than the others. An added benefit to doing regular investing is to have them be automated. Many wealthy people describe this as a key to success as they can focused on the business of earning money in their chosen profession as opposed to investing money they have already earned. Additionally the author of I will Teach You to be Rich cites this as a easy, free, and key step in building wealth.\"","From my 15 years of experience, no technical indicator actually ever works. Those teaching technical indicators are either mostly brokers or broker promoted so called technical analysts. And what you really lose in disciplined trading over longer period is the taxes and brokerages. That is why you will see that teachers involved in this field are mostly technical analysts because they can never make money in real markets and believe that they did not adhere to rules or it was an exception case and they are not ready to accept facts. The graph given above for coin flip is really very interesting and proves that every trade you enter has 50% probability of win and lose. Now when you remove the brokerage and taxes from win side of your game, you will always lose. That is why the Warren Buffets of the world are never technical analysts. In fact, they buy when all technical analysts fails. Holding a stock may give pain over longer period but still that is only way to really earn. Diversification is a good friend of all bulls. Another friend of bull is the fact that you can lose 100% but gain any much as 1000%. So if one can work in his limits and keep investing, he can surely make money. So, if you have to invest 100 grand in 10 stocks, but 10 grand in each and then one of the stocks will multiply 10 times in long term to take out cost and others will give profit too... 1-2 stocks will fail totally, 2-3 will remain there where they were, 2-3 will double and 2-3 will multiply 3-4 times. Investor can get approx 15% CAGR earning from stock markets... Cheers !!!","Even experts have no real certainty what the market will do as a whole. 2/3's of managers fail to beat the market every year. I think this is mostly due to hedging and trying to meet their investors needs. If. You buy and hold a few index ETFs you will most likely beat actively managed accountsn that said, you will sacrifice liquidity if you want to avoid cyclical losses."],"string":"[\n \"> From what I hear and know you sell when you're up and buy when it's down. That *is* how profit is attained. However, if you're looking to *invest,* both buy and sell decisions should be made after extensive research and, generally, there should be some time between the two offsetting transactions. If you personally decide to *trade*, which is more often and less likely to succeed (per se), that's up to you.\",\n \"\\\"You don't seem to be a big fan of trading as you may think it may be too risky or too time consuming being in front of your computer all day long. You also don't seem to be a fan of buy and hold as you don't know what your investments will be worth when you need the funds. How about a combination of the two, sometimes called trend trading or active investing. With this type of trading/investing you may hold a stock from a couple of months to many years. Once you buy a stock that is up-trending or starting to up-trend you hold onto it until it stops up-trending. You can use a combination of fundamental analysis (to find out what to buy) and technical analysis (to tell you when to buy and when to sell). So these are some topics you can start reading up on. Using a technique like this will enable you to invest in healthy stocks when they are moving up in price and get out of them when they start moving down in price. There are many techniques you can use to get out of a stock, but the simplest has to be using stop losses. And once you learn and set up your system it should not take up much of your time when you actually do start trading/investing - 2 to 3 hours per week, and you can set yourself up that you analyse the market after the close and place any order so they get executed the next trading day without you being in front or the screen all day. Other areas you might want to read and learn about are writing up a Trading Plan, using Position Sizing and Money Management so you don't overtrade in any one single trade, and Risk Management. A good book I quite liked is \\\"\\\"Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom\\\"\\\" by Van Tharp. Good luck.\\\"\",\n \"Determine an investment strategy and that will likely answer this for you. Different people have different approaches and you need to determine for yourself what buy and sell criteria you want to have. Again, depending on the strategy there can be a wide range here as some may trade index funds though this can backfire in some cases. In others, there can be a lot of buy and hold if one finds an index fund to hold forever which depending on the strategy is possible. Returns can vary widely as an index can be everything from buying gold stocks in Russia to investing in short-term Treasuries as there are many different indices as any given market can have an index which could be stocks, bonds, a combination of the two or something else in some cases so please consider asset allocation, types of accounts, risk tolerance and time horizon in making decisions or consider using a financial planner to assist in drawing up a plan with allocations and how frequently you want to rebalance as my suggestion here.\",\n \"\\\"You should establish a strategy -- eg a specific mix of investments/funds which has the long-term tradeofv of risk, returns, and diversification you want -- and stick to that strategy, rebalancing periodically to maintain your strategic ratios betwedn those investments. Yes, that means you will somettimes sell things that have been doing well and buy others that have been doing less well -- but that's to be expected; it's exactly what happens when you \\\"\\\"buy low, sell high\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You mentioned three concepts: (1) trading (2) diversification (3) buy and hold. Trading with any frequency is for people who want to manage their investments as a hobby or profession. You do not seem to be in that category. Diversification is a critical element of any investment strategy. No matter what you do, you should be diversified. All the way would be best (this means owning at least some of every asset out there). The usual way to do this is to own a mutual or index fund. Or several. These funds own hundreds or thousands of stocks, so that buying the fund instantly diversifies you. Buy and hold is the only reasonable approach to a portfolio for someone who is not interested in spending a lot of time managing it. There's no reason to think a buy-and-hold portfolio will underperform a typical traded portfolio, nor that the gains will come later. It's the assets in the portfolio that determine how aggressive/risky it is, not the frequency with which it is traded. This isn't really a site for specific recommendations, but I'll provide a quick idea: Buy a couple of index funds that cover the whole universe of investments. Index funds have low expenses and are the cheapest/easiest way to diversify. Buy a \\\"\\\"total stock market\\\"\\\" fund and a \\\"\\\"total bond fund\\\"\\\" in a ratio that you like. If you want, also buy an \\\"\\\"international fund.\\\"\\\" If you want specific tickers and ratios, another forum would be better(or just ask your broker or 401(k) provider). The bogleheads forum is one that I respect where people are very happy to give and debate specific recommendations. At the end of the day, responsibly managing your investment portfolio is not rocket science and shouldn't occupy a lot of time or worry. Just choose a few funds with low expenses that cover all the assets you are really interested in, put your money in them in a reasonable-ish ratio (no one knows that the best ratio is) and then forget about it.\\\"\",\n \"Buy and hold doesn't have an exact definition, as far as I know. In my opinion, it's offered as a contrast to those who trade too frequently, or panic every time the market drops 2%. For the general market, e.g. your S&P index holdings. You sell to rebalance to your desired asset allocation. As a personal example, at 50, I was full up invested, 95%+ in stocks. When my wife and I were retired (i.e. let go from company, but with no need to go back to work) I started shifting to get to a more sane allocation, 80/20. The ideal mix may be closer to 60/40. Also, there are times the market as a whole is overvalued as measure by P/E and/or CAPE, made popular by Nobel Prize winning Robert Shiller. During these times, an allocation shift might make sense. For the individual stocks, you had best have a strategy when you buy. Why did you buy XYZ? Because they had promise, decent company with a good outlook for their product? Now that they are up 300%, can they keep gaining share or expand their market? Sometimes you can keep raising the bar, and keep a company long term, really long. Other times, the reason you bought no longer applies, they are at or above the valuation you hoped to achieve. Note - I noticed from another question, the OP is in the UK. I answer this my from US centric view, but it should still apply to OP in general. The question was not tagged UK when I replied.\",\n \"Depends on what you are, an investor or a speculator. An investor will look at an 'indefinite' investment period. A speculator will be after a fast buck. If you are an investor, buy your stock once as that will cost less commissions. After all, you'll sell your stock in 10, 15, 20 years.\",\n \"\\\"If you're investing for the long term your best strategy is going to be a buy-and-hold strategy, or even just buying a few index funds in several major asset classes and forgetting about it. Following \\\"\\\"market conditions\\\"\\\" is about as useful to the long term trader as checking the weather in Anchorage, Alaska every day (assuming that you don't live in Anchorage, Alaska). Let me suggest treating yourself to a subscription to The Economist and read it once a week. You'll learn a lot more about investing, economics, and world trends, and you won't be completely in the dark if there are major structural changes in the world (like gigantic housing bubbles) that you might want to know about.\\\"\",\n \"I think your best strategy is to learn more about the behavior of what you're investing in. Learn everything you can about it. Specialize in it. The more you study, the more the proper strategy will present itself. Answer the questions you ask in paragraph 3 through your own study.\",\n \"The advice I have is short and sweet. Be an investor, not a speculator. Adopt the philosophy of Warren Buffet which is the 'buy and hold' philosophy. Avoid individual stocks and buy mutual funds or ETFs. Pick something that pays dividends and reinvest those dividends. Don't become a speculator, meaning avoid the 'buy low, sell high' philosophy. EDIT:For some reason I cannot add a comment, so I am putting my response here. @jad The 'buy low, sell high' approach makes money for the stock broker, not necessarily you. As we learn in the movie Trading Places, each buy or sell creates a commission for the broker. It is those commission expenses that eat away at your nestegg. Just don't sell. If a security is trading at $10 a share and pays $0.25 a share each quarter then you are getting 10% ROI if you buy that security (and if it continues to pay $0.25 a share each quarter). If the price goes up then the ROI for new buyers will go down, but your ROI will still be the same. You will continue to get 10% for as long as you hold that security. A mutual fund buys the individual stocks for you. The value of the fund is only calculated at the end of the day. An ETF is like a mutual fund but the value of the ETF is calculated moment by moment.\",\n \"You talk about an individual not being advised to sell (or purchase) in response to trends in the market in such a buy and hold strategy. But think of this for a moment: You buy stock ABC for $10 when both the market as a whole and stock ABC are near the bottom of a bear market as say part of a value buying strategy. You've now held stock ABC for a number of years and it is performing well hitting $50. There is all good news about stock ABC, profit increases year after year in double digits. Would you consider selling this stock just because it has increased 400%. It could start falling in a general market crash or it could keep going up to $100 or more. Maybe a better strategy to sell ABC would be to place a trailing stop of say 20% on the highest price reached by the stock. So if ABC falls, say in a general market correction, by less than 20% off its high and then rebounds and goes higher - you keep it. If ABC however falls by more than 20% off its high you automatically sell it with your stop loss order. You may give 20% back to the market if the market or the stock crashes, but if the stock continues going up you benefit from more upside in the price. Take AAPL as an example, if you bought AAPL in March 2009, after the GFC, for about $100, would you have sold it in December 2011 when it hit $400. If you did you would have left money on the table. If instead you placed a trailing stop loss on AAPL of 20% you would have been still in it when it hit its high of $702 in September 2012. You would have finally been stopped out in November 2012 for around the $560 mark, and made an extra $160 per share. And if your thinking, how about if I decided to sell AAPL at $700, well I don't think many would have picked $700 as the high in hindsight. The main benefit of using stop losses is that it takes your emotions out of your trading, especially your exits.\",\n \"\\\"You seem to prefer to trade like I do: \\\"\\\"Buy low, sell high.\\\"\\\" But there are some people that prefer a different way: \\\"\\\"Buy high, sell higher.\\\"\\\" A stock that has \\\"\\\"just appreciated\\\"\\\" is \\\"\\\"in motion.\\\"\\\" That is a \\\"\\\"promise\\\"\\\" (not always kept) that it will continue to go higher. Some people want stocks that not only go higher, but also SOON. The disadvantage of \\\"\\\"buy low, sell high\\\"\\\" is that the stock can stay low for some time. So that's a strategy for patient investors like you and me.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The only general rule is \\\"\\\"If you would buy the stock at its current price, hold and possibly buy. If you wouldn't, sell and buy something you believe in more strongly.\\\"\\\" Note that this rule applies no matter what the stock is doing. And that it leaves out the hard work of evaluating the stock and making those decisions. If you don't know how to do that evaluation to your own satisfaction, you probably shouldn't be buying individual stocks. Which is why I stick with index funds.\\\"\",\n \"True, but the number of investors who are successful with this strategy is negligible. You are basically just trading return for volatility. A well built portfolio will be better than trying to time the market, at least historically.\",\n \"Every time you buy or sell a share for some price, somebody must have thought that that was exactly the right moment to sell or buy that share at that price (and to trade with you). Every time a trade is made, both sides think they are doing the smart thing. Most of the time, one will turn out to be wrong, the other right. Nothing in your proposed method of trading explains why you would be the side that was right more often. So they'll probably even out. Or maybe there are people in the market who actually do have a slightly better than average method, and you'll be wrong somewhat more often than right. Each trade has transaction costs. If you simply hang on to your shares, that's more or less the same as evening out good trades and bad trades, but without the transaction costs.\",\n \"The main question is, how much money you want to make? With every transaction, you should calculate the real price as the price plus costs. For example, if you but 10 GreatCorp stock of £100 each, and the transaction cost is £20 , then the real cost of buying a single share is in fact buying price of stock + broker costs / amount bought, or £104 in this case. Now you want to make a profit so calculate your desired profit margin. You want to receive a sales price of buying price + profit margin + broker costs / amount bought. Suppose that you'd like 5%, then you'll need the price per stock of my example to increase to 100 + 5% + £40 / 10 = £109. So you it only becomes worth while if you feel confident that GreatCorp's stock will rise to that level. Read the yearly balance of that company to see if they don't have any debt, and are profitable. Look at their dividend earning history. Study the stock's candle graphs of the last ten years or so, to find out if there's no seasonal effects, and if the stock performs well overall. Get to know the company well. You should only buy GreatCorp shares after doing your homework. But what about switching to another stock of LovelyInc? Actually it doesn't matter, since it's best to separate transactions. Sell your GreatCorp's stock when it has reached the desired profit margin or if it seems it is underperforming. Cut your losses! Make the calculations for LovelyCorp's shares without reference to GreatCorp's, and decide like that if it's worth while to buy.\",\n \"Like almost all investing question: it depends! Boring companies generally appreciate slowly and as you note, pay dividends. More speculative investing can get you some capital gains, but also are more likely to tank and have you lose your original investment. The longer your time horizon, and the more risk you are willing to take, then it is reasonable to tilt towards, but not exclusively invest in, more speculative stocks. A shorter horizon, or if you have trouble sleeping at night if you lose money, or are looking for an income stream, would then tend towards the boring side. Good Luck\",\n \"The two biggest issues that impact your question I would say are diversification and fees. If you have $10,000 to invest and only invest it in two securities, then a 20% drop in one security can have you lose 10% of your initial investment which I would consider a very high risk scenario. If you have $10,000 to invest and invest it in 20 securities, then a 20% drop in one security would only cause you to lose 1% of your initial investment. So far this is looking better from a diversification point of view. But then the issue of fees comes in. If you paid $10 per trade to buy those 20 securities you already spent 2% of your initial investment in fees! Not to mention you will pay at least another $200 to get out of all those positions. No right answer - but those are the two factors I always try to balance.\",\n \"Trading and investing are very, very different activities. Investing is (very generally) done for the longer haul, by people looking for a reasonable return, determined largely by the long term prospects of the business in which they invest, accepting some moderate risk, usually around the prospects of that business. Trading is (very generally) done shorter term (seconds to days/weeks), and can involve significantly higher risk, usually focused around market conditions and players at the time of the trade. To reiterate, these are gross generalizations, but if you are just starting out: (a) you probably want to be investing, rather than trading; and (b) you may be best served by understanding as well as you can the difference between the two. Once you understand that difference, that will lead you to learning resources on each.\",\n \"\\\"Selling as well as buying a stock are part science and part art form. I remember once selling a stock at its 52 week high too. That particular stock \\\"\\\"quadrupled\\\"\\\" in value over the next 52 weeks. Mind you I made 50% ROI on the stock but my point is that none of us have a crystal ball on whether a particular stock will ever stop or start going up or stop or start going down. If someone had those answers they wouldn't be telling you they would be practicing them to make more money! Make up your mind what you want to make and stick by your decisions. Bulls make money when stocks go up and Bears make money when they go down but pigs don't make money. -RobF\\\"\",\n \"Instead of a simple buy signal, you need to be able to rank your investments from strong to weak on the buy scale and sell the weaker investments that you already own to buy the stronger investments that you have received signals from.\",\n \"I let someone else pick and chose which junk bonds to buy and which to sell. So instead of holding individual bonds in my portfolio I hold an ETF that is managed by a man with a PHD and which buys junk bonds. I get a yearly 15.5% ROI, paid monthly. Buy and hold and you can get a good return for the rest of your life. It is only speculation when you sell.\",\n \"The right time to buy real estate is easy to spot. It's when it is difficult to get loans or when real estate agents selling homes are tripping over each other. It's the wrong time to buy when houses are sold within hours of the sign going up. The way to profit from equities over time is to dollar-cost average a diversified portfolio over time, while keeping cash reserves of 5-15% around. When major corrections strike, buy a little extra. You can make money at trading. But it requires that you exert a consistent effort and stay up to date on your investments and future prospects.\",\n \"Your question is a bit odd in that you are mixing long-term fundamental analysis signals which are generally meant to work on longer time frames with medium term trading where these fundamental signals are mostly irrelevant. Generally you would buy-and-hold on a fundamental signal and ride the short-term fluctuations if you believe you have done good analysis. If you would like to trade on the 2-6 month time scale you would need a signal that works on that sort of time scale. Some people believe that technical analysis can give you those kind of signals, but there are many, many, many different technical signals and how you would trade using them is highly dependent on which one you believe works. Some people do mix fundamental and technical signals, but that can be very complicated. Learning a good amount about technical analysis could get you started. I will note, though, that studies of non-professionals continuously show that the more frequently people trade the more on they underperform on average in the long term when compared with people that buy-and-hold. An aside on technical analysis: michael's comment is generally correct though not well explained. Say Bob found a technical signal that works and he believes that a stock that costs $10 dollars should be $11. He buys it and makes money two months later when the rest of the market figures out the right price is $11 and he sells at that price. This works a bunch of times and he now publishes how the signal works on Stack Exchange to show everyone how awesome he is. Next time, Bob's signal finds a different stock at $10 that should be $11, but Anna just wrote a computer program that checks that signal Bob published faster than he ever could. The computer program buys as much as it can in milliseconds until the price is $11. Bob goes to buy, but now it is too late the price is already $11 and he can't make any money. Eventually, people learn to anticipate/adjust for this signal and even Anna's algorithms don't even work anymore and the hunt for new signals starts again.\",\n \"Dollar cost averaging is beneficial if you don't have the money to make large investments but are able to add to your holding over time. If you can buy the same monetary amount at regular intervals over time, your average cost per share will be lower than the stock's average value over that time. This won't necessarily get you the best price, but it will get you, on the whole, a good price and will enable you to increase your holdings over time. If you're doing frequent trading on a highly volatile stock, you don't want to use this method. A better strategy is to buy the dips: Know the range, and place limit orders toward the bottom of the range. Then place limit orders to sell toward the high end of the range. If you do it right, you might be able to build up enough money to buy and sell increasing numbers of shares over time. But like any frequent trader, you'll have to deal with transaction fees; you'll need to be sure the fees don't eat all your profit.\",\n \"It doesn't matter which way you use. As long as your comfortable with the overall level of risk/reward in your portfolio, that's what matters. (Though I will say that there are more investment vehicles than stocks, bonds, and cash that are worth considering.)\",\n \"Like @chirs, I'm of the opinion that you might want to buy more. I've done this a couple of times, price dropped a bunch, and I said, heck, I bought some last week, and this week I can get twice as much stock for about the same price. Brought down my average cost per share, and when the company was taken private, I actually didn't lose money - unlike some other people I know, who only bought at one price, watched the drop, and held on awaiting a recovery (which didn't happen in time before the big money swooped in on it). But to do this, you need to keep cash reserves (that, like @afforess says, you can afford to lose all of) on hand, awaiting buying opportunities. This, too, is a cost - an opportunity cost.\",\n \"\\\"Unfortunately, there is very little data supporting fundamental analysis or technical analysis as appropriate tools to \\\"\\\"time\\\"\\\" the market. I will be so bold to say that technical analysis is meaningless. On the other hand, fundamental analysis has some merits. For example, the realization that CDOs were filled with toxic mortgages can be considered a product of fundamental analysis and hence provided traders with a directional assumption to buy CDSs. However, there is no way to tell when there is a good or bad time to buy or sell. The market behaves like a random 50/50 motion. There are many reasons for this and interestingly, there are many fundamentally sound companies that take large dips for no reason at all. Depending on your goal, you can either believe that this volatility will smooth over long periods and that the market has generally positive drift. On the other hand, I feel that the appropriate approach is to remain active. You will be able to mitigate the large downswings by simply staying small and diversifying - not in the sense of traditional finance but rather looking for uncorrelated products. Remember, volatility brings higher levels of correlation. My second suggestion is to look towards products like options to provide a method of shaping your P/L - giving up upside by selling calls against a long equity position is a great example. Ground your trades with fundamental beliefs if need be, but use your tools and knowledge to combat risks that may create long periods of drawdown.\\\"\",\n \"1) Don't trade individual stocks. You expose yourself to unnecessary risk. 2) Pick a fund with low expenses that pays a dividend. Reinvest the dividend back into the fund. To quote Einstein: The greatest power on earth is compound interest. Something is wrong with the software of the site. It will not allow me to answer mark with another comment. So I have to edit this answer to be able to answer him. @mark No, I am not hoping the price will go up. The price is only relevant in comparison to the dividend. It is the dividend that is important, not the price. The price is irrelevant if you never sell. Dividend paying securities are what you buy and hold. Then you reinvest the dividend and buy more of the security. As I am buying the security with the dividend I am actually pleasantly surprised when the price goes down. When the price goes down, but the dividend remains the same, I am able to buy more shares of the security withwith that dividend. So if the price goes down, and the dividend remains the same, it is a good thing. Again, the site will not allow me to add another comment. @mark I profit from my investment, without selling, by receiving the dividend. I used to be a speculator, trying to get ahead of the market by 'buy low, sell high' but all that did was make money for the broker. I lost as much as I gained trying to do that. The broker made money on each transaction, regardless if I did or not. It took me decades to learn the lesson that 'buy and hold' of dividend paying securities is the way to go. Don't make my mistake. I now get, at least, 5.5% yeald on my investment (look at PGF, which forms the backbone of my investments). That is almost 0.5% per month. Each month that dividend is reinvested into PGF, with no commission. You can't beat that with a stick.\",\n \"\\\"Oddly enough, in the USA, there are enough cost and tax savings between buy-and-hold of a static portfolio and buying into a fund that a few brokerages have sprung up around the concept, such as FolioFN, to make it easier for small investors to manage numerous small holdings via fractional shares and no commission window trades. A static buy-and-hold portfolio of stocks can be had for a few dollars per trade. Buying into a fund involves various annual and one time fees that are quoted as percentages of the investment. Even 1-2% can be a lot, especially if it is every year. Typically, a US mutual fund must send out a 1099 tax form to each investor, stating that investors share of the dividends and capital gains for each year. The true impact of this is not obvious until you get a tax bill for gains that you did not enjoy, which can happen when you buy into a fund late in the year that has realized capital gains. What fund investors sometimes fail to appreciate is that they are taxed both on their own holding period of fund shares and the fund's capital gains distributions determined by the fund's holding period of its investments. For example, if ABC tech fund bought Google stock several years ago for $100/share, and sold it for $500/share in the same year you bought into the ABC fund, then you will receive a \\\"\\\"capital gains distribution\\\"\\\" on your 1099 that will include some dollar amount, which is considered your share of that long-term profit for tax purposes. The amount is not customized for your holding period, capital gains are distributed pro-rata among all current fund shareholders as of the ex-distribution date. Morningstar tracks this as Potential Capital Gains Exposure and so there is a way to check this possibility before investing. Funds who have unsold losers in their portfolio are also affected by these same rules, have been called \\\"\\\"free rides\\\"\\\" because those funds, if they find some winners, will have losers that they can sell simultaneously with the winners to remain tax neutral. See \\\"\\\"On the Lookout for Tax Traps and Free Riders\\\"\\\", Morningstar, pdf In contrast, buying-and-holding a portfolio does not attract any capital gains taxes until the stocks in the portfolio are sold at a profit. A fund often is actively managed. That is, experts will alter the portfolio from time to time or advise the fund to buy or sell particular investments. Note however, that even the experts are required to tell you that \\\"\\\"past performance is no guarantee of future results.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"\\\"'Buy and Hold' Is Still a Winner: An investor who used index funds and stayed the course could have earned satisfactory returns even during the first decade of the 21st century. by By Burton G. Malkiel in The Wall Street Journal on November 18, 2010: \\\"\\\"The other useful technique is \\\"\\\"rebalancing,\\\"\\\" keeping the portfolio asset allocation consistent with the investor's risk tolerance. For example, suppose an investor was most comfortable choosing an initial allocation of 60% equities, 40% bonds. As stock and bond prices change, these proportions will change as well. Rebalancing involves selling some of the asset class whose share is above the desired allocation and putting the money into the other asset class. From 1996 through 1999, annually rebalancing such a portfolio improved its return by 1 and 1/3 percentage points per year versus a strategy of making no changes.\\\"\\\" Mr. Malkiel is a professor of economics at Princeton University. This op-ed was adapted from the upcoming 10th edition of his book \\\"\\\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street,\\\"\\\" out in December by W.W. Norton. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608623469465624.html\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Bob should treat both positions as incomplete, and explore a viewpoint which does a better job of separating value from volatility. So we should start by recognizing that what Bob is really doing is trading pieces of paper (say Stocks from Fund #1 or Bonds from Fund #2, to pick historically volatile and non-volatile instruments.*) for pieces of paper (Greenbacks). In the end, this is a trade, and should always be thought of as such. Does Bob value his stocks more than his bonds? Then he should probably draw from Fund #2. If he values his bonds more, he should probably draw from Fund #1. However, both Bob and his financial adviser demonstrate an assumption: that an instrument, whether stock bond or dollar bill, has some intrinsic value (which may raise over time). The issue is whether its perceived value is a good measure of its actual value or not. From this perspective, we can see the stock (Fund #1) as having an actual value that grows quickly (6.5% - 1.85% = 4.65%), and the bond (Fund #2) as having an actual value that grows slower (4.5% - 1.15$ = 3.35$). Now the perceived value of the stocks is highly volatile. The Chairman of the Fed sneezes and a high velocity trader drives a stock up or down at a rate that would give you whiplash. This perspective aligns with the broker's opinion. If the stocks are low, it means their perceived value is artificially low, and selling it would be a mistake because the market is perceiving those pieces of paper as being worth less than they actually are. In this case, Bob wins by keeping the stocks, and selling bonds, because the stocks are perceived as undervalued, and thus are worth keeping until perceptions change. On the other hand, consider the assumption we carefully slid into the argument without any fanfare: the assumption that the actual value of the stock aligns with its historical value. \\\"\\\"Past performance does not predict future results.\\\"\\\" Its entirely possible that the actual value of the stocks is actually much lower than the historical value, and that it was the perceived value that was artificially higher. It may be continuing to do so... who knows how overvalued the perceived value actually was! In this case, Bob wins by keeping the bonds. In this case, the stocks may have \\\"\\\"underperformed\\\"\\\" to drive perceptions towards their actual value, and Bob has a great chance to get out from under this market. The reality is somewhere between them. The actual values are moving, and the perceived values are moving, and the world mixes them up enough to make Scratchers lottery tickets look like a decent investment instrument. So what can we do? Bob's broker has a smart idea, he's just not fully explaining it because it is unprofessional to do so. Historically speaking, Bobs who lost a bunch of money in the stock market are poor judges of where the stock market is going next (arguably, you should be talking to the Joes who made a bunch of money. They might have more of a clue.). Humans are emotional beings, and we have an emotional instinct to cut ties when things start to go south. The market preys on emotional thinkers, happily giving them what they want in exchange for taking some of their money. Bob's broker is quoting a well recognized phrase that is a polite way of saying \\\"\\\"you are being emotional in your judgement, and here is a phrasing to suggest you should temper that judgement.\\\"\\\" Of course the broker may also not know what they're doing! (I've seen arguments that they don't!) Plenty of people listened to their brokers all the way to the great crash of 2008. Brokers are human too, they just put their emotions in different places. So now Bob has no clear voice to listen to. Sounds like a trap! However, there is a solution. Bob should think about more than just simple dollars. Bob should think about the rest of his life, and where he would like the risk to appear. If Bob draws from Fund #1 (liquidating stocks), then Bob has made a choice to realize any losses or gains early... specifically now. He may win, he may lose. However, no matter what, he will have a less volatile portfolio, and thus he can rely on it more in the long run. If Bob draws from Fund #2 (liquidating bonds) instead, then Bob has made a choice not to realize any losses or gains right away. He may win, he may lose. However, whether he wins or loses will not be clear, perhaps until retirement when he needs to draw on that money, and finds Fund #1 is still under-performing, so he has to work a few more years before retirement. There is a magical assumption that the stock market will always continue rewarding risk takers, but no one has quite been able to prove it! Once Bob includes his life perspective in the mix, and doesn't look just at the cold hard dollars on the table, Bob can make a more educated decision. Just to throw more options on the table, Bob might rationally choose to do any one of a number of other options which are not extremes, in order to find a happy medium that best fits Bob's life needs: * I intentionally chose to label Fund #1 as stocks and Fund #2 as bonds, even though this is a terribly crude assumption, because I feel those words have an emotional attachment associated to them which #1 and #2 simply do not. Given that part of the argument is that emotions play a part, it seemed reasonable to dig into underlying emotional biases as part of my wording. Feel free to replace words as you see fit to remove this bias if desired.\\\"\",\n \"I believe firmly that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Cash your gains out and be happy with your profit.\",\n \"Your question seems to be making assumptions around “investing”, that investing is only about stock market and bonds or similar things. I would suggest that you should look much broader than that in terms of your investments. Investment Types Your should consider (and include) some or all of the following for your investments, depending on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. I love @Blackjack’s explanation of diversification into other asset classes producing a lower risk portfolio. Excellent! All the above need to be considered in this spread of risk, depending as I said earlier on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. Stock Market Investment I’ll focus most of the rest of my post on the stock markets, as that is where my main experience lies. But the comments are applicable to a greater or lesser extent to other types of investing. We then come to how engaged you want to be with your investments. Two general management styles are passive investment management versus active investment management. @Blackjack says That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs across asset classes and just leave them. The difficulty with this idea is that profitability is very dependent upon when the stocks are purchased and when they are sold. This is why active investing should be considered as a viable alternative to passive investment. I don’t have access to a very long time frame of stock market data, but I do have 30 or so years of FTSE data, so let’s say that we invest £100,000 for 10 years by buying an ETF in the FTSE100 index. I know this isn't de-risking across a number of asset classes by purchasing a number of different EFTs, but the logic still applies, if you will bear with me. Passive Investing I have chosen my example dates of best 10 years and worst 10 years as specific dates that demonstrate my point that active investing will (usually) out-perform passive investing. From a passive investing point of view, here is a graph of the FTSE with two purchase dates chosen (for maximum effect), to show the best and worst return you could receive. Note this ignores brokerage and other fees. In these time frames of data I have … These are contrived dates to illustrate the point, on how ineffective passive investing can be, depending if there is a bear/bull market and where you buy in the cycle. One obviously wouldn’t buy all their stocks in one tranche, but I’m just trying to illustrate the point. Active Investing Let’s consider now active investing. I use the following rules for selling and buying:- This is obviously a very simple technical trading system and I would not recommend using it to trade with, as it is overly simplistic and there are some flaws and inefficiencies in it. So, in my simulation, These beat the passive stock market profit for their respective dates. Summary Passive stock market investing is dependent upon the entry and exit prices on the dates the transactions are made and will trade regardless of market cycles. Active stock market trading or investing engages with the market using a set of criteria, which can change over time, but allows one’s investments to be in or out of the market at any point in time. My time frames were arbitrary, but with the logic applied (which is a very simple technical trading methodology), I would suggest that any 10 year time frame active investing would beat passive investing.\",\n \"I would add to this that, while everyone is right on trading, there are certain special situations you could look into that could turn a profit in a relatively short time frame (one month, say). A recent example is Northstar Realty Finance (NRF). I bought in at $16.50 prior to a spinoff, sold half (the spinoff company) at $18.75 within a month, and the other half (the REIT) has since paid a 50 cent dividend and gone up to mid $18s as well within a total of just over 2 months. (This admittedly sounds like bragging, which isn't intended- I just want to give an example of a short term position resulting in a gain, and I don't know any off the top of my head except the one I did recently). This isn't trading, but it is a short term position that would have turned a profit with $1800. I still wouldn't recommend it, considering commissions eats a sizable portion. But if you want to take short term positions, you don't need as much as you would to be a day trader. I would read Seth Klarman's Margin of Safety, the sections on spinoffs and bankruptcy. They provide some useful information on some short term positions. However, also be aware that you should be willing to hold any short term position as a long term position if it does not immediately work out. By way of example, I believed NRF would go up post spinoff but the spinoff company stay the same. Instead, NRF stayed the same and the spinoff went up. But NRF was undervalued, so I held it for another month. Just my advice. As far as learning goes- use play money. But if you never are going to have enough money to really trade with, hopefully my info on short-term positions is helpful.\",\n \"\\\"I have heard that investing more money into an investment which has gone down is generally a bad idea*. \\\"\\\"Throwing good money after bad\\\"\\\" so to speak. This is over simplified statement to explain the concept. What is essentially says is; Say I hold stocks of XYZ; 100 units worth say USD 1000. This has lost me x% [say 50%]. The general tendency is to buy 100 more units in anticipation / hope that the price will go up. This is incorrect. However on case to case basis, this maybe the right decisions. On a periodic basis [or whenever you want to invest more money]; say you have USD 1000 and did not have the stock of XYZ, will you buy this at current price and outlook of the company. If the answer is Yes, hold the stock [or buy more], if the answer is no sell the stock at current market price and take the loss. The same applies when the price has appreciated. If you have USD 1000; given the current price and future outlook, will you buy the specific stock. If yes, hold the stock [or buy more], if answer is no sell the stock and book profit. Off-course I have not overlaid the various other considerations when buying stocks like diversification, risk profiles of individual stocks / segments, tax implications etc that are also essential even if you decide to buy or sell specific stock.\\\"\",\n \"You pay taxes on any gains you make after selling, so if you buy and hold you won't pay taxes (and you should hold for more than a year so that it gets taxed at the long-term rate, not the short-term rate). I like ETFs, there are some good ones Vanguard offers that are fairly broad, or you can use something like www.Betterment.com which invests in a diversified portfolio of ETFs (and includes things like automatic re-balancing and tax-loss harvesting).\",\n \"If you want to use that money and maybe don't have the time to wait a few years if things should go bad, than you will definitely want to hold a good bunch of your money in the currency you buy most stuff with (so in most cases the currency of the country you live in) even if it is more volatile.\",\n \"I agree with this. I like to buy stocks that are priced low according to value investing principles but set limits to sell if the stock happens to get priced at a point that exceeds X% annualized return, for instance 15% or 30% depending on preference. If the price goes up, I cash out and find the next best value stock and repeat. If the price does not go up, then I hold it which is fine because I only buy what I'm comfortable with holding for the long term. I tend to prefer stocks that have a dividend yield in the 2-6% range so I can keep earning a return. Also I too like the look of MCD. GE looks good as well, from this perspective.\",\n \"For me the aggressive approach makes sense since I have a longer time horizon before I need to withdraw the funds. This style should also match your personality and you should have the patience and appetite to deal with market fluctuations which can be wild in some cases (as we saw in 2008-2009). Not an easy question to answer since everyone's situation is different and everyone has to make their own decisions.\",\n \"The risk of the particular share moving up or down is same for both. however in terms of mitigating the risk, Investor A is conservative on upside, ie will exit if he gets 10%, while is ready to take unlimited downside ... his belief is that things will not go worse .. While Investor B is wants to make at least 10% less than peak value and in general is less risk averse as he will sell his position the moment the price hits 10% less than max [peak value] So it more like how do you mitigate a risk, as to which one is wise depends on your belief and the loss appetite\",\n \"Depends entirely on the stock and your perception of it. Would you buy it at the current price? If so, keep it. Would you buy something else? If so, sell it and buy that.\",\n \"\\\"Below is just a little information on this topic from my small unique book \\\"\\\"The small stock trader\\\"\\\": The most significant non-company-specific factor affecting stock price is the market sentiment, while the most significant company-specific factor is the earning power of the company. Perhaps it would be safe to say that technical analysis is more related to psychology/emotions, while fundamental analysis is more related to reason – that is why it is said that fundamental analysis tells you what to trade and technical analysis tells you when to trade. Thus, many stock traders use technical analysis as a timing tool for their entry and exit points. Technical analysis is more suitable for short-term trading and works best with large caps, for stock prices of large caps are more correlated with the general market, while small caps are more affected by company-specific news and speculation…: Perhaps small stock traders should not waste a lot of time on fundamental analysis; avoid overanalyzing the financial position, market position, and management of the focus companies. It is difficult to make wise trading decisions based only on fundamental analysis (company-specific news accounts for only about 25 percent of stock price fluctuations). There are only a few important figures and ratios to look at, such as: perhaps also: Furthermore, single ratios and figures do not tell much, so it is wise to use a few ratios and figures in combination. You should look at their trends and also compare them with the company’s main competitors and the industry average. Preferably, you want to see trend improvements in these above-mentioned figures and ratios, or at least some stability when the times are tough. Despite all the exotic names found in technical analysis, simply put, it is the study of supply and demand for the stock, in order to predict and follow the trend. Many stock traders claim stock price just represents the current supply and demand for that stock and moves to the greater side of the forces of supply and demand. If you focus on a few simple small caps, perhaps you should just use the basic principles of technical analysis, such as: I have no doubt that there are different ways to make money in the stock market. Some may succeed purely on the basis of technical analysis, some purely due to fundamental analysis, and others from a combination of these two like most of the great stock traders have done (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen). It is just a matter of finding out what best fits your personality. I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of \\\"\\\"The small stock trader\\\"\\\")\\\"\",\n \"It really depends on your specific goals. Since you are considering trading FOREX, I assume you hate money. It's more efficient to withdraw your money from the bank and light it on fire. Perhaps you like trading FOREX like some old ladies like to gamble away their social security checks. Well then its impossible to answer your question as it is based upon personal preference.\",\n \"My own. Could be a pair trade or outright. I take positions that i believe i can sell later. Or short them then buy back from client. I usually have a lot of small positions and several large ones that i watch like a hawk every day all day. I mostly trade safer big cap stocks. Banks, insurance etc. nothing too risky. No penny stocks. I hedge with etfs.\",\n \"If you know with 100% certainty what the market will do, then invest it all at the best time. If not, spread it out over time to avoid investing it all at the worst possible time.\",\n \"If you know what you are doing, bear markets offer fantastic trading opportunities. I'm a futures and futures options trader, and am equally comfortable trading long or short, although I have a slight preference for the short side, in that moves are typically much quicker to the down side.\",\n \"\\\"I think, the top three answers by Joe, Anthony and Bigh are giving you all the detail that you need on a technical sense. Although I would like to add a simple picture that underlines, that you can not really compare day trading to long-term trading and that the addictive and psychologic aspect that you mentioned can not be taken out of consideration. The long term investor is like someone buying a house for investment. You carefully look at all offers on the market. You choose by many factors, price, location, quality, environment, neighborhood and extras. After a long research, you pick your favorites and give them a closer look until you finally choose the object of desire, which will pay off in 10 years and will be a wise investment in your future. Now this sounds like a careful but smart person, who knows what he wants and has enough patience to have his earnings in the future. The short term investor is like someone running into the casino for a game of black-jack, roulette or poker. He is a person that thinks he has found the one and only formula, the philosopher's stone, the money-press and is seeking immense profits in just one night. And if it does not work, he is sure, that this was just bad coincidence and that his \\\"\\\"formula\\\"\\\" is correct and will work the next night. This person is a pure gambler and running the risk of becoming addicted. He is seeking quick and massive profits and does not give up, even though he knows, that the chances of becoming a millionaire in a casino are quite unrealistic and not better than playing in a lottery. So if you are a gamer, and the profit is less important than the \\\"\\\"fun\\\"\\\", then short term is the thing for you. If you are not necessarily seeking tons of millions, but just want to keep your risk of loss to a minimum, then long term is your way to go. So it is a question of personality, expectations and priorities. The answer why losses are bigger on high frequency signals is answered elsewhere. But I am convinced in reality it is a question of what you want and therefore very subjective. I have worked for both. I have worked for a portfolio company that has gone through periods of ups and downs, but on the long term has made a very tempting profit, which made me regret, that I did not ask for shares instead of money as payment. These people are very calm and intelligent people. They spend all their time investigating and searching for interesting objects for their portfolio and replace losers with winners. They are working for your money and investors just relax and wait. This has a very serious taste to it and I for my part would always prefer this form of investment. I have worked for an investment broker selling futures. I programmed the account management for their customers and in all those years I have only seen one customer that made the million. But tons of customers that had made huge losses. And this company was very emotional, harsh, unpersonal - employees changing day by day, top sellers coming in corvettes. All the people working there where gamblers, just like their customers. Well, it ended one day, when the police came and confiscated all computers from them, because customers have complained about their huge losses. I am glad, that I worked as a remote developer for them and got paid in money and not in options. So both worlds are so different from each other. The chances for bigger profits are higher on day trading, but so are the chances for bigger losses - so it is pure gambling. If you like gambling, split your investment: half in long term and other half in short term, that is fun and wise in one. But one thing is for sure: in over ten years, I have seen many customers loosing loads of money in options in the future markets or currencies. But I have never seen anyone making a loss in long term portfolio investment. There have been hard years, where the value dropped almost 30%, but that was caught up by the following years, so that the only risk was minimizing the profit.\\\"\",\n \"Small purchases will have a disproportionate expense for commissions. Even a $5 trade fee is 5% on a $100 purchase. So on one hand, it's common to advise individuals just starting out to use mutual funds, specifically index funds with low fees. On the flip side, holding stocks has no annual fee, and if you are buying for the long term, you may still be better off with an eye toward cost, and learn over time. In theory, an individual stands a better chance to beat the experts for a number of reasons, no shareholders to answer to, and the ability to purchase without any disclosure, among them. In reality, most investor lag the average by such a wide margin, they'd be best off indexing and staying in for the long term.\",\n \"If the market has not crashed but you know it will, sell short or buy puts. If the market has crashed, buy equities while they are cheap. If you don't know if or when it will crash hold a diversified portfolio including stocks, bonds, real estate, and alternatives (gold, etc).\",\n \"This investment strategy may have tax advantages. In some countries, income received from dividends is taxed as income, whereas profits on share trades are capital gains. If you have already exceeded your tax-free income limit for the year, but not your capital gains tax allowance, it may be preferable to make a dealing profit rather than an investment income. These arrangements are called a bed-and-breakfast.\",\n \"Yeah, that's what I do, just buy the indices and forget it. My portfolio is so boring it's elegant, and makes money too. 4.5% YTD and 5.9% in 2016, not bad for a 30/70 stock bond split for this 70-year-old. Oh, did I tell you my costs are .06%! I am enjoying the freedom of my retirement.\",\n \"\\\"What determines your profitability is not your time, but your TRADES. It is probably a mistake to go into the market and say, I hope to make X% today/this month/this year. As a practical matter, you can make a lot of money in a short period of time, or lose a lot over a long period of time (the latter is more likely). You're better off looking at potential trades and saying \\\"\\\"I like this trade\\\"\\\" (be sure to know why) and \\\"\\\"I dislike that trade.\\\"\\\" If you're right about your chosen trade, you'll make money. Probably not on your original timetable, because markets react more slowly than individual people do. Then make ONLY those trades that you genuinely like and understand. IF you get into a \\\"\\\"rhythm,\\\"\\\" (rather few people do), your experience might tell you that you are likely to make, say, X% per month or year. But that's ONLY if the market continues to accommodate YOUR style of trading. If the markets change, YOU must change (or get lost in the shuffle). Trading is a risky, if sometimes rewarding business. The operative motto here is: \\\"\\\"You pay your money and you take your chances,\\\"\\\" NOT \\\"\\\"You put in your time and eventually rewards will come.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"Recommended? There's really no perfect answer. You need to know the motivations of the participants in the markets that you will be participating in. For instance, the stock market's purpose is to raise capital (make as much money as possible), whereas the commodities-futures market's purpose is to hedge against producing actual goods. The participants in both markets have different reactions to changes in price.\",\n \"\\\"You asked for advice, so I'll offer it. Trying to time the market is not a great strategy unless you're sitting in front of a Bloomberg terminal all the time. Another person answering your question suggests the use of index funds; he's likely to be right. Look up \\\"\\\"asset allocation.\\\"\\\" What you want to do is decide that you want your portfolio to contain, for example: If one of your stock holdings goes up far enough that you're out of your target asset allocation ranges, sell some of it and buy something in another asset class,s so you're back in balance. That way you lock in some profit when things go up, without losing access to potential future profits. The same applies if something goes down; you buy more of that asset class by selling others. This has worked really well for me for 30+ years.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"There are two umbrellas in investing: active management and passive management. Passive management is based on the idea \\\"\\\"you can't beat the market.\\\"\\\" Passive investors believe in the efficient markets hypothesis: \\\"\\\"the market interprets all information about an asset, so price is equal to underlying value\\\"\\\". Another idea in this field is that there's a minimum risk associated with any given return. You can't increase your expected return without assuming more risk. To see it graphically: As expected return goes up, so does risk. If we stat with a portfolio of 100 bonds, then remove 30 bonds and add 30 stocks, we'll have a portfolio that's 70% bonds/30% stocks. Turns out that this makes expected return increase and lower risk because of diversification. Markowitz showed that you could reduce the overall portfolio risk by adding a riskier, but uncorrelated, asset! Basically, if your entire portfolio is US stocks, then you'll lose money whenever US stocks fall. But, if you have half US stocks, quarter US bonds, and quarter European stocks, then even if the US market tanks, half your portfolio will be unaffected (theoretically). Adding different types of uncorrelated assets can reduce risk and increase returns. Let's tie this all together. We should get a variety of stocks to reduce our risk, and we can't beat the market by security selection. Ideally, we ought to buy nearly every stock in the market so that So what's our solution? Why, the exchange traded fund (ETF) of course! An ETF is basically a bunch of stocks that trade as a single ticker symbol. For example, consider the SPDR S&P 500 (SPY). You can purchase a unit of \\\"\\\"SPY\\\"\\\" and it will move up/down proportional to the S&P 500. This gives us diversification among stocks, to prevent any significant downside while limiting our upside. How do we diversify across asset classes? Luckily, we can purchase ETF's for almost anything: Gold ETF's (commodities), US bond ETF's (domestic bonds), International stock ETFs, Intl. bonds ETFs, etc. So, we can buy ETF's to give us exposure to various asset classes, thus diversifying among asset classes and within each asset class. Determining what % of our portfolio to put in any given asset class is known as asset allocation and some people say up to 90% of portfolio returns can be determined by asset allocation. That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs across asset classes and just leave them. You can readjust your portfolio holdings periodically, but otherwise there is no rapid trading. Now the other umbrella is active management. The unifying idea is that you can generate superior returns by stock selection. Active investors reject the idea of efficient markets. A classic and time proven strategy is value investing. After the collapse of 07/08, bank stocks greatly fell, but all the other stocks fell with them. Some stocks worth $100 were selling for $50. Value investors quickly snapped up these stocks because they had a margin of safety. Even if the stock didn't go back to 100, it could go up to $80 or $90 eventually, and investors profit. The main ideas in value investing are: have a big margin of safety, look at a company's fundamentals (earnings, book value, etc), and see if it promises adequate return. Coke has tremendous earnings and it's a great company, but it's so large that you're never going to make 20% profits on it annually, because it just can't grow that fast. Another field of active investing is technical analysis. As opposed to the \\\"\\\"fundamental analysis\\\"\\\" of value investing, technical analysis involves looking at charts for patterns, and looking at stock history to determine future paths. Things like resistance points and trend lines also play a role. Technical analysts believe that stocks are just ticker symbols and that you can use guidelines to predict where they're headed. Another type of active investing is day trading. This basically involves buying and selling stocks every hour or every minute or just at a rapid pace. Day traders don't hold onto investments for very long, and are always trying to predict the market in the short term and take advantage of it. Many individual investors are also day traders. The other question is, how do you choose a strategy? The short answer is: pick whatever works for you. The long answer is: Day trading and technical analysis is a lot of luck. If there are consistent systems for trading , then people are keeping them secret, because there is no book that you can read and become a consistent trader. High frequency trading (HFT) is an area where people basically mint money, but it s more technology and less actual investing, and would not be categorized as day trading. Benjamin Graham once said: In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run it is a weighing machine. Value investing will work because there's evidence for it throughout history, but you need a certain temperament for it and most people don't have that. Furthermore, it takes a lot of time to adequately study stocks, and people with day jobs can't devote that kind of time. So there you have it. This is my opinion and by no means definitive, but I hope you have a starting point to continue your study. I included the theory in the beginning because there are too many monkeys on CNBC and the news who just don't understand fundamental economics and finance, and there's no sense in applying a theory until you can understand why it works and when it doesn't.\\\"\",\n \"Chris Rea's comment captures it -- most people don't have working crystal balls. Unless you are a trader, you address risk with diversification. There are several questions on this site discussing strategies to diversify your portfolio. In many ways, the markets offer investors false choices. We have an emotional desire to react to stimuli -- but that often leads to lousy outcomes. For example, selling your NASDAQ 100 fund after its value falls is usually a bad idea.\",\n \"If you're a person of normal means, being a short-term trader/speculator is a game that you are going to lose. Don't do it -- do some research on investing.\",\n \"\\\"This is an old post I feel requires some more love for completeness. Though several responses have mentioned the inherent risks that currency speculation, leverage, and frequent trading of stocks or currencies bring about, more information, and possibly a combination of answers, is necessary to fully answer this question. My answer should probably not be the answer, just some additional information to help aid your (and others') decision(s). Firstly, as a retail investor, don't trade forex. Period. Major currency pairs arguably make up the most efficient market in the world, and as a layman, that puts you at a severe disadvantage. You mentioned you were a student—since you have something else to do other than trade currencies, implicitly you cannot spend all of your time researching, monitoring, and investigating the various (infinite) drivers of currency return. Since major financial institutions such as banks, broker-dealers, hedge-funds, brokerages, inter-dealer-brokers, mutual funds, ETF companies, etc..., do have highly intelligent people researching, monitoring, and investigating the various drivers of currency return at all times, you're unlikely to win against the opposing trader. Not impossible to win, just improbable; over time, that probability will rob you clean. Secondly, investing in individual businesses can be a worthwhile endeavor and, especially as a young student, one that could pay dividends (pun intended!) for a very long time. That being said, what I mentioned above also holds true for many large-capitalization equities—there are thousands, maybe millions, of very intelligent people who do nothing other than research a few individual stocks and are often paid quite handsomely to do so. As with forex, you will often be at a severe informational disadvantage when trading. So, view any purchase of a stock as a very long-term commitment—at least five years. And if you're going to invest in a stock, you must review the company's financial history—that means poring through 10-K/Q for several years (I typically examine a minimum ten years of financial statements) and reading the notes to the financial statements. Read the yearly MD&A (quarterly is usually too volatile to be useful for long term investors) – management discussion and analysis – but remember, management pays themselves with your money. I assure you: management will always place a cherry on top, even if that cherry does not exist. If you are a shareholder, any expense the company pays is partially an expense of yours—never forget that no matter how small a position, you have partial ownership of the business in which you're invested. Thirdly, I need to address the stark contrast and often (but not always!) deep conflict between the concepts of investment and speculation. According to Seth Klarman, written on page 21 in his famous Margin of Safety, \\\"\\\"both investments and speculations can be bought and sold. Both typically fluctuate in price and can thus appear to generate investment returns. But there is one critical difference: investments throw off cash flow for the benefit of the owners; speculations do not. The return to the owners of speculations depends exclusively on the vagaries of the resale market.\\\"\\\" This seems simple and it is; but do not underestimate the profound distinction Mr. Klarman makes here. (and ask yourself—will forex pay you cash flows while you have a position on?) A simple litmus test prior to purchasing a stock might help to differentiate between investment and speculation: at what price are you willing to sell, and why? I typically require the answer to be at least 50% higher than the current salable price (so that I have a margin of safety) and that I will never sell unless there is a material operating change, accounting fraud, or more generally, regime change within the industry in which my company operates. Furthermore, I then research what types of operating changes will alter my opinion and how severe they need to be prior to a liquidation. I then write this in a journal to keep myself honest. This is the personal aspect to investing, the kind of thing you learn only by doing yourself—and it takes a lifetime to master. You can try various methodologies (there are tons of books) but overall just be cautious. Money lost does not return on its own. I've just scratched the surface of a 200,000 page investing book you need to read if you'd like to do this professionally or as a hobbyist. If this seems like too much or you want to wait until you've more time to research, consider index investing strategies (I won't delve into these here). And because I'm an investment professional: please do not interpret anything you've read here as personal advice or as a solicitation to buy or sell any securities or types of securities, whatsoever. This has been provided for general informational purposes only. Contact a financial advisor to review your personal circumstances such as time horizon, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, and asset allocation strategies. Again, nothing written herein should be construed as individual advice.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Typical Human Advisor: Advantages: They can recommend funds and allocations that fit to your portfolio. Disadvantages: Those who are just fund salespeople in disguise will usually recommend poor-performing funds for higher commission pay. Their advice will not be much different from random person internet advice. When your portfolio drops, they still get paid, and they don't care because they are not a fiduciary. Robo-Advisor: Advantages: Rules are automated, and typically based on crunched numbers. Somebody else executes the trades, and remembers to rebalance your portfolio when you'd usually forget to. Disadvantages: Not always accurate, usually relies on momentum from popularity. No one at the helm to adjust for risk. If you follow, you'll usually just lag behind. Yet, those with simple, low-cost diversified ETF portfolios can be attractive. Market ETFs: Advantages: Low cost funds that typically match the market. High performance. Easy to sell when you need to, zero decision making required, and you will be sure to nearly match the general market. Disadvantages: Boring. You need to enter your own orders, but you won't be doing that too often. No thrill except counting all the commas in your account. No wacky stories to wow your friends and family about your gambling addiction. Seriously, some people just can't help but take the high risk route. Newsletter / Portfolio / Online \\\"\\\"Expert\\\"\\\": Advantages: They usually have some idea of what indicators to look for and can make predictions about price movements. Disadvantages: Predictions are as frequently wrong as they are right. Good ones won't have much to say, and incompetent ones will write multi-paragraph essays about Fibonacci sequences, resistance levels, trends RSI, ROIT, everything that might show an indicator in some direction maybe... and it's usually forgotten by the next newsletter.\\\"\",\n \"Yes, you should own a diverse mix of company sizes to be well diversified. While both will probably get hit in a recession, different economies suit different sized companies very differently in many cases, and this diversity positions you best to not only not miss out in cases where small companies do better out of recessions than large, but also in environments where small companies rate of growth is larger in bull markets.\",\n \"Well said. To put it shortly I think both can be a viable source of some side income when proper risk management is in place. It is likely not going to work when you are trading/betting with money that is important to you. Paper trade/bet until you find a viable strategy. Then use proper bankroll management and some expendable income to pick up some extra bucks on the side. Sports betting is nice because the initial investment is much lower than day trading.\",\n \"Split the difference. Max it out, sell half immediately and wait a year or more for the rest. Or keep a third... whatever works for your risk tolerance. A perfectly diversified portfolio with $0 in it is still worth $0.\",\n \"You have to look at the market conditions and make decisions based on them. Ideally, you may want to have 30% of your portfolio in bonds. But from a practical point of view, it's probably not so smart to invest in bond funds right at this moment given the interest rate market. Styles of funds tend to go into and out of style. I personally do asset allocation two ways in my 457 plan (like a 401k for government workers): In my IRA, I invest in a portfolio of 5-6 stocks. The approach you take is dependent on what you are able to put into it. I invest about 10 hours a week into investment related research. If you can't do that, you want a strategy that is simpler -- but you still need to be cognizant of market conditions.\",\n \"As one of the answers described, its going to depend on many factors and the environment at the time. But there is no sure way to know which strategy is better, if any are at all. I would say over several hundred years the strategies would be equally as profitable. In a free market the longer dated bonds would be priced lower (higher yield) because they are higher risk. And over a long enough time period that higher risk may end up resulting in that bond being worth less, or maybe nothing at all. In a free market, price discovery would factor all this in, and the two strategies would become equal. The same is true for the price during inversion events Having said that, we dont live in a free market. With central bankers monetizing debt in so many countries, sometimes investing in short term bonds, including US treasuries, is a guaranteed way to lose purchasing power, as these yields are below inflation and sometimes even negative.\",\n \"I would advise against both, at least in the way you are discussing it. You seem to be talking about day-trading (speculating) in either stock or currency markets. This seems ill-advised. In each trade, one of three things will happen. You will end up ahead and the person you buy from/sell to will end up behind. You will lose and the counterparty will win. Or you both will lose due to trading fees. That said, if you must do one, stick with stocks. They have a reason to have positive returns overall, while currency trade is net-zero. Additionally, as you said, if it sounds like you can gain more with less money, that means that there are many more losers than winners. How do you know you will be a winner? A lot of the reason for this idea that you can gain a lot with less is leverage; make sure you understand it well. On the other hand, it may make sense to learn this lesson now while you have little to lose.\",\n \"Common financial advice is just that - it is common and general in nature and not specific for your financial needs, your goals and your risk tolerance. Regarding the possibility of a US market not going anywhere over a long period of time, well it is not a possibility, it has happened. See chart below: It took 13 years for the S&P 500 to break through 1550, a level first reached in March 2000, tested in October 2007 (just before the GFC) and finally broken through in March 2013. If you had bought in early 2000 you would still be behind when you take inflation into account. If you took the strategy of dollar cost averaging and bought the same dollar value (say $10,000) of the index every six months (beginning of each January and each July) starting from the start of 2000 and bought your last portion in January 2013, you would have a return of about 35% over 13.5 years (or an average of 2.6% per year). Now lets look at the same chart below, but this time add some trend lines. If we instead bought whenever the price crossed above the downtrend-line and sold whenever the price crossed below the uptrend-line (with the first purchase at the start of January 2000), we would have a return of 93% over the 13.5 years (or an average of 6.9% per year). Another more aggressive option (but manageable if you incorporate a risk management strategy) is to buy long when the price crosses the downtrend-line and sell your existing long position and sell short when the price drops below the uptrend-line. That is profiting both up-trending and down-trending markets. Again we start our buying at the start of January 2000. By shorting the index when the market is in a down-trend you could increase the above returns of 93% by another 54%, for a total return of 147% over 13.5 years (or an average of 10.9% per year). To conclude, using a simple long term strategy to time the markets may result in considerably higher returns than dollar cost averaging over the medium to long term, and I know which strategy would help me sleep better at night.\",\n \"\\\"The psychology of investing is fascinating. I buy a stock that's out of favor at $10, and sell half at a 400% profit, $50/share. Then another half at $100, figuring you don't ever lose taking a profit. Now my Apple shares are over $500, but I only have 100. The $10 purchase was risky as Apple pre-iPod wasn't a company that was guaranteed to survive. The only intelligent advice I can offer is to look at your holdings frequently, and ask, \\\"\\\"would I buy this stock today given its fundamentals and price?\\\"\\\" If you wouldn't buy it, you shouldn't hold it. (This is in contrast to the company ratings you see of buy, hold, sell. If I should hold it, but you shouldn't buy it to hold, that makes no sense to me.) Disclaimer - I am old and have decided stock picking is tough. Most of our retirement accounts are indexed to the S&P. Maybe 10% is in individual stocks. The amount my stocks lag the index is less than my friends spend going to Vegas, so I'm happy with the results. Most people would be far better off indexing than picking stocks.\\\"\",\n \"It depends on whether you want a career as a fund manager/ analyst or if you want to be an investor/ trader. A fund manager will have many constraints that a private investor doesn’t have, as they are managing other people’s money. If they do invest their own money as well they usually would invest it differently from how they invest the fund's money. Many would just get someone else to invest their money for them, just as a surgeon would get another surgeon to operate on a family member. My suggestion to you is to find a job you like doing and build up your savings. Whilst you are building up your savings read some books. You said you don’t know much about the financial markets, then learn about them. Get yourself a working knowledge about both fundamental and technical analysis. Work out which method of analysis (if not both) suits you best and you would like to know more about. As you read you will get a better idea if you prefer to be a long term investor or a short term trader or somewhere in-between or a combination of various methods. Now you will start to get an idea of what type of books and areas of analysis you would like to concentrate on. Once you have a better idea of what you would like to do and have gained some knowledge, then you can develop your investment/trading plan and start paper trading. Once you are happy with you plan and your paper trading you can start trading with a small account balance (not more than $10,000 and preferably under $5,000). No matter how well you did with paper trading you will always do worse with real money at first due to your emotions being in it now. So always start off small. If you want to become good at something it takes time and a lot of hard work. You can’t go from knowing nothing to making a million dollars per year without putting in the hard yards first.\",\n \"Diversifying is the first advice given to beginner in order to avoid big loss. For example in 2014 the company Theranos was really appealing before it fail in 2016. So a beginner could have invest ALL his money and lose it. But if he has deverified he wouldn't lost everything. As an investor goes from beginner to experience some still Diversify and other concentrate. Mostly it depends how much confident you are about an investement. If you have 20 years of experience, now everything about the company and you are sure there will be profit you can concentrate. If you are not 100% sure there will be a profit, it is better to Diversify. Diversifying can also be profitating when you loose money: because you will pay tax when you earn money, if you diversify you can choose to loose money in some stock (usually in december) and in this way cut your taxes.\",\n \"Here's an easy test... Look at the investments in your portfolio and ask yourself whether if you had the cash value, would you buy those same investments today, because effectively that is what you are doing when you continue to hold. If the answer is no, sell and pick something else. Above all else, don't react to market swings, in most cases you are going to get it wrong and wind up losing more by making emotional decisions.\",\n \"What decision are you trying to make? Are you interested day trading stocks to make it rich? Or are you looking at your investment options and trying to decide between an actively managed mutual fund and an ETF? If the former, then precise statistics are hard to come by, but I believe that 99% of day traders would do better investing in an ETF. If the latter, then there are lots of studies that show that most actively managed funds do worse than index funds, so with most actively managed funds you are paying higher fees for worse performance. Here is a quote from the Bogleheads Guide to Investing: Index funds outperform approximately 80 percent of all actively managed funds over long periods of time. They do so for one simple reason: rock-bottom costs. In a random market, we don't know what future returns will be. However, we do know that an investor who keeps his or her costs low will earn a higher return than one who does not. That's the indexer's edge. Many people believe that your best option for investing is a diverse portfolio of ETFs, like this. This is what I do.\",\n \"If the company is stable. I like to recoup losses by buying in the valley and selling it all at the plateau and then learning as all beginners do, don't buy stocks because there's a feeding frenzy...or because Joe told me too. Pick your strategy in stocks and learn to stick with that. If you have no strategy, buy land.\",\n \"I would buy an ETF (or maybe a couple) in stable, blue chip companies with a decent yield (~3%) and then I'd play a conservative covered call strategy on the stock selling a new position about once a month. That's just me.\",\n \"> It will have minimal effects on buy & hold traders since they typically research for a long time, then buy & hold stock for many months. This is the part I never understand. If a short term tax doesn't affect buy & hold traders, when why would HFT affect buy & hold traders?\",\n \"I bought 1000 shares of a $10 stock. When it doubled, I sold half, no need to be greedy. I watched the shares split 2 for one, and sold as it doubled and doubled again. In the end, I had $50,000 in cash pulled out and still had 100 shares. The shares are now worth $84K since they split 7 for one and trade near $120. Had I just kept the shares till now, no sales, I'd have 14,000 shares of Apple worth $1.68M dollars. $130K for an initial $10,000 investment is nothing to complain about, but yes, taking a profit can be the wrong thing. 25%? Was that all the potential the company had? There's one question to ask, not where is the price today compared to last year or two years ago, but what are the company's prospects. Is the reason I bought them still valid? Look at your investment each quarter as if you were making the decision that day. I agree, diversification is important, so the choice is only hold or sell, not to buy more of a good company, because there are others out there, and the one sane thing Cramer says that everyone should adhere to is to not put your eggs in one basket.\",\n \"\\\"My theory is that for every stock you buy, you should have an exit strategy and follow it. It is too hard to let emotions rule if you let your default strategy be \\\"\\\"let's see what happens.\\\"\\\" and emotional investing will almost never serve you well. So before buying a stock, set a maximum loss and maximum gain that you will watch for on the stock, and when it hits that number sell. At the very least, when it hits one of your numbers, consciously make a decision that you are effectively buying it again at the current price if you decide to stay in. When you do this, set a new high and low price and repeat the above strategy.\\\"\",\n \"If you are diversifying just for diversification purposes then all you are doing is averaging down your returns. You shouldn't just buy two securities because you think it is safer than putting all your money into one. A better method is to use money management and position sizing to limit your risk and exposure in any one security. You should know what your maximum risk is before you buy any security and know when it is time to get out of it. There are better ways to manage your risk. Don't put all your eggs in the one basket - yes, but don't diversify just for diversification purposes.\",\n \"\\\"This is basically martingale, which there is a lot of research on. Basically in bets that have positive expected value such as inflation hedged assets this works better over the long term, than bets that have negative expected value such as table games at casinos. But remember, whatever your analysis is: The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. Things that can disrupt your solvency are things such as options expiration, limitations of a company's ability to stay afloat, limitations in a company's ability to stay listed on an exchange, limitations on your borrowings and interest payments, a finite amount of capital you can ever acquire (which means there is a limited amount of times you can double down). Best to get out of the losers and free up capital for the winners. If your \\\"\\\"trade\\\"\\\" turned into an \\\"\\\"investment\\\"\\\", ditch it. Don't get married to positions.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"But I don't see how it's any different than buying a stock at a low price and holding on to it for some months. Based on your question, I would say the difference is time. Day trading by its nature is a 6-hour endeavor. If you buy low and are planning to sell high, then you only have a few hours to make this happen. As a previous poster mentioned, there is a lot of \\\"\\\"white noise\\\"\\\" that occurs on a weekly/daily/hourly/min basis. Long-term investors have the time to wait it out. Although, as a side note, if you were a buy-and-hold investor from the 1960s-early 1980s, then buy and hold was not very good. Is it just the psychological/addictive aspect of it? This is the biggest reason. Day trading is stressful and stress can cause financially destructive decisions such as over-leveraging, over-trading, etc. Why is day trading stressful? Because you are managing hundreds to thousands of trades a year. When combined with the lack of time in a day to make moves, it becomes stressful. Also, many day traders do it full time. Which adds to the pressure to be correct and to be incredible at money managment. A lot of buy-and-hold investors have full time jobs and may only check their positions every month or so.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"It's a tricky question w/out more context. If your only options are between stock/funds and letting it sit (i.e. in a saving or CD), I'd have to say option one is the way to go (but that's based on my situation, and you did ask \\\"\\\"if you ..\\\"\\\"). However, I think the true answer is \\\"\\\"it depends.\\\"\\\" It depends on your risk tolerance and what are your short-term vs. long-term financial needs. Only after answering those questions you can then seek to strategize and diversify investment accordingly.\\\"\",\n \"By coincidence, I entered this position today. Ignore the stock itself, I am not recommending a particular stock, just looking at a strategy. The covered call. For this stock trading at $7.47, I am able, by selling an in-the-money call to be out of pocket $5.87/sh, and am obliged to let it go for $7.00 a year from now. A 19% return as long as the stock doesn't drop more than 6% over that time. The chart below shows maximum profit, and my loss starts if the stock trades 21% below current price. The risk is shifted a bit, but in return, I give up potential higher gains. The guy that paid $1.60 could triple his money if the stocks goes to $12, for example. In a flat market, this strategy can provide relatively high returns compared to holding only stocks.\",\n \"\\\"It's a trade-off. The answer depends on your risk tolerance. Seeking higher rewards demands higher risk. If you want advice, I would recommend hiring an expert to design a plan which meets your needs. As a sample point, NOT necessarily right for anyone else...I'm considered an aggressive investor, and my own spread is still more conservative than many folks. I'm entirely in low-cost index funds, distributed as ... with the money tied up in a \\\"\\\"quiesced\\\"\\\" defined-contribution pension fund being treated as a low-yield bond. Some of these have beaten the indexes they're tracking, some haven't. My average yield since I started investing has been a bit over 10%/year (not including the company match on part of the 401k), which I consider Good Enough -- certainly good enough for something that requires near-zero attention from me. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance. This may be completely wrong for someone at a different point in their career and/or life and/or finances. I'm posting it only as an example, NOT a recommendation. Regarding when to rebalance: Set some threshhold at which things have drifted too far from your preferred distribution (value of a fund being 5% off its target percentage in the mix is one rule I've sometimes used), and/or pick some reasonable (usually fairly low) frequency at which you'll actively rebalance (once a year, 4x/year, whenever you change your car's oil, something like that), and/or rebalance by selecting which funds you deposit additional money into whenever you're adding to the investments. Note that that last option avoids having to take capital gains, which is generally a good thing; you want as much of your profit to be long-term as possible, and to avoid triggering the \\\"\\\"wash sales\\\"\\\" rule. Generally, you do not have to rebalance very frequently unless you are doing something that I'd consider unreasonably risky, or unless you're managing such huge sums that a tiny fraction of a percent still adds up to real money.\\\"\",\n \"A lot of people on here will likely disagree with me and this opinion. In my opinion the answer lies in your own motives and intentions. If you'd like to be more cognizant of the market, I'd just dive in and buy a few companies you like. Many people will say you shouldn't pick your own stocks, you should buy an index fund, or this ETF or this much bonds, etc. You already have retirement savings, capital allocation is important there. You're talking about an account total around 10% of your annual salary, and assuming you have sufficient liquid emergency funds; there's a lot of non-monetary benefit to being more aware of the economy and the stock market. But if you find the house you're going to buy, you may have to liquidate this account at a time that's not ideal, possibly at a loss. If all you're after is a greater return on your savings than the paltry 0.05% (or whatever) the big deposit banks are paying, then a high yield savings account is the way I'd go, or a CD ladder. Yes, the market generally goes up but it doesn't ALWAYS go up. Get your money somewhere that it's inured and you can be certain how much you'll have tomorrow. Assuming a gain, the gain you'll see will PALE in comparison to the deposits you'll make. Deposits grow accounts. Consider these scenarios if you allocate $1,000 per month to this account. 1) Assuming an investment return of 5% you're talking about $330 return in the first year (not counting commissions or possible losses). 2) Assuming a high yield savings account at 1.25% you're talking about $80 in the first year. Also remember, both of these amounts would be taxable. I'll admit in the event of 5% return you'll have about four times the gain but you're talking about a difference of ~$250 on $12,000. Over three to five years the most significant contributor to the account, by far, will be your deposits. Anyway, as I'm sure you know this is not investment advice and you may lose money etc.\",\n \"If you want to trade to gain from short-term volatility, you can use Derivative-based ETFs that try to track the inverse of a broad index like the S&P 500. Note that these ETFs only track the index over a 1 day period, so you shouldn't hold these. If you're looking for a longer-term investment strategy, look at low-beta stocks, which often do well or produce dividend income during volatile times. Examples include McDonald's Corp and utilities like Consolidated Edison.\",\n \"I'm of the opinion that speculating is for young people like you, because they can afford to lose it all. Avoiding losses becomes necessary once you have to sustain a family, and manage a somewhat large retirement funds. Even if you lose all your money when speculating, you'll probably be better off later, because you make less costly mistakes once you have larger amounts of money.\",\n \"\\\"You need to have 3 things if you are considering short-term trading (which I absolutely do not recommend): The ability to completely disconnect your emotions from your gains and losses (yes, even your gains but especially your losses). The winning/losing on a daily basis will cause you to start taking unnecessary risk in order to win again. If you can't disconnect your emotions, then this isn't the game for you. The lowest possible trading costs to enter and exit a position. People will talk about 1% trading costs; that rule-of-thumb doesn't apply anymore. Personally, my trading costs are a total 13.9 basis points to enter and exit a $10,000 position and I think it's still too high (that's just a hair above one-eighth of 1% for you non-traders). The ability to \\\"\\\"gut-check\\\"\\\" and exit a losing position FAST. Don't hesitate and don't hope for it to go up. GTFO. If you are serious about short-term trading then you must close all positions on a daily basis. Don't do margin in today's market as many valuations are high and some industries are not trending as they have in the past. The leverage will kill you. It's not a question of \\\"\\\"if\\\"\\\", it's a when. You're new. Don't trade anything larger than a $5,000 position, no matter what. Don't hold more than 10% of your portfolio in the same industry. Don't be afraid to sit on 50% cash or more for months at a time. Use money market funds to park cash because they are T+1 settlement and most firms will let you trade the stock without cash as long as you effect the money market trade on the same day since stock settlement is T+3.\\\"\",\n \"You don't really have a lot of money, and that isn't a criticism as much as that you are limited to diversification. For example, I would estimate you can only have one or two stocks for a buy-write scheme. Secondly you may be only to buy one fund with a high minimum investment, and a second fund with a smaller minimum investment. Thirdly there is not a whole lot of money to make a large difference. One options might be to look at iShares since your are with Fidelity. Trading those are commission free and the minimum investment is one share. They offer many sector funds. Since you were in a CD ladder you might be looking for stability of principle. If so you can look at USMV and PFF. If you can tolerate a little more volatility DGRO. Having said that you seem interested in doing some buy-writes. Why not mix and match? Pick a stock, like INTC (for example not a recommendation), and buy-write with half the money and some combination of iShares for the rest.\",\n \"I'm in a remarkably similar situation as yourself. I keep roughly 80% of my portfolio in low-cost ETFs (16% bond, 16% commodities, 48% stock), with about 20% in 6-8 individual stocks. Individual stocks are often overlooked by investors. The benefits of individual stock ownership are that you can avoid paying any holding or management fee (unlike ETFs and mutual funds). As long as you assess the fundamentals (P/B, P/E, PEG etc.) of the company you are buying, and don't over-trade, you can do quite well. I recommend semi-annual re-balancing among asset classes, and an individual stock check up. I've found over the years that my individual stocks outperform the S&P500 the vast majority of the time, although it often accompanied by an increase in volatility. Since you're limiting your stake to only 20%, the volatility is not really an issue.\",\n \"When the market moves significantly, you should rebalance your investments to maintain the diversification ratios you have selected. That means if bonds go up and stocks go down, you sell bonds and buy stocks (to some degree), and vice versa. Sell high to buy low, and remember that over the long run most things regress to the mean.\",\n \"If you have the money put it in, and invest the money over a few months. Always keep a modest reserve of cash to give you the flexibility to take advantage of market opportunities.\",\n \"Using Fundamental and Technical Analysis together is actually a good idea for longer term trading of up to 6 months or longer. The whole idea behind trading with Technical Analysis is to increase the probabilities of a trade going in the desired direction by using uncorrelated indicators that produce the same signal to buy or sell at the same time. For example, you might use a Moving Average (MA) as a buy signal when the price falls for a few days, hits the MA and then reverses and starts moving back up. If however, you also include a Stochastic Oscillator (SO) to indicate when the stock is oversold (under 20%), and if the price rebounds from the MA average at the same time as the Stochastic is crossing over in the oversold position, then this may be a higher probability trade. If you also only trade stocks that are Fundamentally healthy (as fundamentally good stocks are more likely to go up than fundamentally bad stocks) then this might increase the probabilities again. Then if you only buy when the market as a whole is moving up, then this will increase your chances again. A few weeks ago at a seminar, the presenter totalled the men in the room to be 76 and the women in the room to be 8. He then asked what will most likely be the next person to walk in the room - a man or a woman? The statistics are on the side of a wan walking in next. This is what we try to do with Technical Analysis, increase our chances when we take a trade. Of course a woman could be the next person to walk in the room, just like any trade can go against you, and this is why we use money management and risk management and take a small loss when a trade does go against you. Lets look at an example where you could incorporate FA with TA to increase your chances of profits: Above is a candlestick chart of Select Harvest (SHV), the green line above the price is the perceived value, the pink line is the 40 day MA, the blue line is the EPS, and the white lines is the Stochastic Oscillator (above 80% being overbought and below 20% is oversold). From Feb 2015 to start of Aug 2015 the stock was uptrending, since then the price reversed and started to downtrend. The stock was determined to be fundamentally good early in 2015 with the perceived value gradually increasing and greater than the share price, and the EPS starting to increase regularly from mid April. Thus, as the stock is seen as fundamentally healthy any price reversal in the vicinity of the MA could be seen as a buy opportunity. In fact there where 2 such opportunities on 31st March and 11th June where price had reversed and rebounded off the MA whist the SO crossed over in or near the oversold area. The price did reverse and then rebounded off the MA again on 9th July, however the SO was not in or near the oversold area on this occasion, so not as high in probability terms. The price still rebounded and went up again, however another momentum indicator (not shown here) shows some bearish divergence in this case - so another reason to possibly keep away at this point in time. A good signal to get out of the trade, that is your stop loss has not already taken you out, is when the price breaks and closes below the MA line. This occurred on 7th August. So if we had bought on the first signal on 31st March for $7.41 and sold when the priced broke through the MA on 7th August for $11.76, we would have made a profit of approx. 59% in just over 4 months. If bought on the second signal on 11th June for $9.98 and again sold on 7th August for $11.76, we would have made about 18% in under 2 months. So the fundamentals, the Price (in relation to MA) and the SO where all lining up to provide two high probability trades. Of course you would need to incorporate you risk management (including stops) in case the price did not continue upwards after you bought. If the market is also moving up on the day of the signal this will further increase your chances. Unless you day trade, which I would avoid, a good way to enter your trades after a signal is to enter a stop buy order after market close to buy if the price moves above the high of the signal day. That way if the market and the stock open and move lower during the day after the signal you avoid entering the trade altogether. This can be incorporated as part of your risk management and trading rules. After the price broke down through the MA we can see that a downtrend commenced which is still current today (in fact I just took a short trade on this stock yesterday). We can also see that the perceived value, whilst still above the price, has reached a peak and is currently moving downwards and the EPS after being flat for a few months has just moved down for the first time in 10 months. So maybe the fundamentals are starting to waver a bit on this stock. It may be a good stock to continue shorting into the future. So basically you can continue using Fundamental Analysis to select which stocks to buy, place them in a watch-list, and then use Technical Analysis to determine when these stocks are starting to uptrend and use a combination of uncorrelated indicators to produce higher probability signals for when to enter your trades.\",\n \"It's incredibly difficult to beat the market, especially after you're paying out significant fees for managed funds. The Bogleheads have some good things going for them on their low cost Vanguard style funds. The biggest winners in the financial markets are the people collecting fees from churn or setting up the deals which take advantage of less sophisticated/connected players. Buy, Hold and Forget has been shown as a loser as well in this recession. Diversifying and re-balancing however takes advantage of market swings by cashing out winners and buying beaten down stocks. If you take advantages of general market highs and lows (without worrying about strict timing) every few months to re-balance, you buy some protection from crashes in any given sector. One common guideline is to use your age as the percentage of your holdings that are in cash equivalents, rather than stocks. At age 28, at least 28% of my account should be in bonds, real estate, commodities, etc. This should help guide your allocation and re-balancing strategy. Finally, focusing on Growth and Income funds may give you a better shot at above S&P returns, but it's wise to hold a small percentage in the S&P 500 as well.\",\n \"The answer may be a compromise... if your goal is to make bonds a larger part of your portfolio, sell both stocks and bonds in a 4:1 ratio. or (3:1 or whatever works for you) Also, just as you dollar-cost-average purchases of securities, you can do the same thing on the way out. Plan your sales and spread them over a period of time, especially if you have mutual funds.\",\n \"Apart from making money from the price difference, some stocks also give dividends, or bonus issues. For long term investors whom are looking for steady income, they may be more interested with the dividend pay-out instead of the capital-appreciation.\",\n \"In my IRA I try to find stocks that are in growing sectors but have are undervalued by traditional metrics like PE or book value; I make sure that they have lower debt levels than their peers, are profitable, and at least have comparable margins. I started trading options to make better returns off of indices or etfs. It seems overlooked but it's pretty good, in another thread I was telling someone about my strategy buy applying it to thier portfolio: https://www.reddit.com/r/options/comments/77bt17/ive_been_trading_stocks_for_a_year_and_am/dolydu8/?context=3 I double checked, I told him/her I would buy the DIA Jan 19 2018 call 225 for 795. 8 days later it's trading for 1085. Nearly 50% in a week. It'll never be 300% earnings returns, but I'm happy to take it slow. Shorting is a very different animal it takes a lot to get things right.\",\n \"Over a period of time most mutual funds do not perform better that an index fund. Picking and buying individual stock can be a great learning experience.\",\n \"\\\"If you are like most people, your timing is kind of awful. What I mean by most, is all. Psychologically we have strong tendencies to buy when the market is high and avoid buying when it is low. One of the easiest to implement strategies to avoid this is Dollar Cost Averaging. In most cases you are far better off making small investments regularly. Having said that, you may need to \\\"\\\"save\\\"\\\" a bit in order to make subsequent investments because of minimums. For me there is also a positive psychological effect of putting money to work sooner and more often. I find it enjoyable to purchase shares of a mutual fund or stock and the days that I do so are a bit better than the others. An added benefit to doing regular investing is to have them be automated. Many wealthy people describe this as a key to success as they can focused on the business of earning money in their chosen profession as opposed to investing money they have already earned. Additionally the author of I will Teach You to be Rich cites this as a easy, free, and key step in building wealth.\\\"\",\n \"From my 15 years of experience, no technical indicator actually ever works. Those teaching technical indicators are either mostly brokers or broker promoted so called technical analysts. And what you really lose in disciplined trading over longer period is the taxes and brokerages. That is why you will see that teachers involved in this field are mostly technical analysts because they can never make money in real markets and believe that they did not adhere to rules or it was an exception case and they are not ready to accept facts. The graph given above for coin flip is really very interesting and proves that every trade you enter has 50% probability of win and lose. Now when you remove the brokerage and taxes from win side of your game, you will always lose. That is why the Warren Buffets of the world are never technical analysts. In fact, they buy when all technical analysts fails. Holding a stock may give pain over longer period but still that is only way to really earn. Diversification is a good friend of all bulls. Another friend of bull is the fact that you can lose 100% but gain any much as 1000%. So if one can work in his limits and keep investing, he can surely make money. So, if you have to invest 100 grand in 10 stocks, but 10 grand in each and then one of the stocks will multiply 10 times in long term to take out cost and others will give profit too... 1-2 stocks will fail totally, 2-3 will remain there where they were, 2-3 will double and 2-3 will multiply 3-4 times. Investor can get approx 15% CAGR earning from stock markets... Cheers !!!\",\n \"Even experts have no real certainty what the market will do as a whole. 2/3's of managers fail to beat the market every year. I think this is mostly due to hedging and trying to meet their investors needs. If. You buy and hold a few index ETFs you will most likely beat actively managed accountsn that said, you will sacrifice liquidity if you want to avoid cyclical losses.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"You don't seem to be a big fan of trading as you may think it may be too risky or too time consuming being in front of your computer all day long. You also don't seem to be a fan of buy and hold as you don't know what your investments will be worth when you need the funds. How about a combination of the two, sometimes called trend trading or active investing. With this type of trading/investing you may hold a stock from a couple of months to many years. Once you buy a stock that is up-trending or starting to up-trend you hold onto it until it stops up-trending. You can use a combination of fundamental analysis (to find out what to buy) and technical analysis (to tell you when to buy and when to sell). So these are some topics you can start reading up on. Using a technique like this will enable you to invest in healthy stocks when they are moving up in price and get out of them when they start moving down in price. There are many techniques you can use to get out of a stock, but the simplest has to be using stop losses. And once you learn and set up your system it should not take up much of your time when you actually do start trading/investing - 2 to 3 hours per week, and you can set yourself up that you analyse the market after the close and place any order so they get executed the next trading day without you being in front or the screen all day. Other areas you might want to read and learn about are writing up a Trading Plan, using Position Sizing and Money Management so you don't overtrade in any one single trade, and Risk Management. A good book I quite liked is \"\"Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom\"\" by Van Tharp. Good luck.\"","\"You mentioned three concepts: (1) trading (2) diversification (3) buy and hold. Trading with any frequency is for people who want to manage their investments as a hobby or profession. You do not seem to be in that category. Diversification is a critical element of any investment strategy. No matter what you do, you should be diversified. All the way would be best (this means owning at least some of every asset out there). The usual way to do this is to own a mutual or index fund. Or several. These funds own hundreds or thousands of stocks, so that buying the fund instantly diversifies you. Buy and hold is the only reasonable approach to a portfolio for someone who is not interested in spending a lot of time managing it. There's no reason to think a buy-and-hold portfolio will underperform a typical traded portfolio, nor that the gains will come later. It's the assets in the portfolio that determine how aggressive/risky it is, not the frequency with which it is traded. This isn't really a site for specific recommendations, but I'll provide a quick idea: Buy a couple of index funds that cover the whole universe of investments. Index funds have low expenses and are the cheapest/easiest way to diversify. Buy a \"\"total stock market\"\" fund and a \"\"total bond fund\"\" in a ratio that you like. If you want, also buy an \"\"international fund.\"\" If you want specific tickers and ratios, another forum would be better(or just ask your broker or 401(k) provider). The bogleheads forum is one that I respect where people are very happy to give and debate specific recommendations. At the end of the day, responsibly managing your investment portfolio is not rocket science and shouldn't occupy a lot of time or worry. Just choose a few funds with low expenses that cover all the assets you are really interested in, put your money in them in a reasonable-ish ratio (no one knows that the best ratio is) and then forget about it.\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"You don't seem to be a big fan of trading as you may think it may be too risky or too time consuming being in front of your computer all day long. You also don't seem to be a fan of buy and hold as you don't know what your investments will be worth when you need the funds. How about a combination of the two, sometimes called trend trading or active investing. With this type of trading/investing you may hold a stock from a couple of months to many years. Once you buy a stock that is up-trending or starting to up-trend you hold onto it until it stops up-trending. You can use a combination of fundamental analysis (to find out what to buy) and technical analysis (to tell you when to buy and when to sell). So these are some topics you can start reading up on. Using a technique like this will enable you to invest in healthy stocks when they are moving up in price and get out of them when they start moving down in price. There are many techniques you can use to get out of a stock, but the simplest has to be using stop losses. And once you learn and set up your system it should not take up much of your time when you actually do start trading/investing - 2 to 3 hours per week, and you can set yourself up that you analyse the market after the close and place any order so they get executed the next trading day without you being in front or the screen all day. Other areas you might want to read and learn about are writing up a Trading Plan, using Position Sizing and Money Management so you don't overtrade in any one single trade, and Risk Management. A good book I quite liked is \\\"\\\"Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom\\\"\\\" by Van Tharp. Good luck.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You mentioned three concepts: (1) trading (2) diversification (3) buy and hold. Trading with any frequency is for people who want to manage their investments as a hobby or profession. You do not seem to be in that category. Diversification is a critical element of any investment strategy. No matter what you do, you should be diversified. All the way would be best (this means owning at least some of every asset out there). The usual way to do this is to own a mutual or index fund. Or several. These funds own hundreds or thousands of stocks, so that buying the fund instantly diversifies you. Buy and hold is the only reasonable approach to a portfolio for someone who is not interested in spending a lot of time managing it. There's no reason to think a buy-and-hold portfolio will underperform a typical traded portfolio, nor that the gains will come later. It's the assets in the portfolio that determine how aggressive/risky it is, not the frequency with which it is traded. This isn't really a site for specific recommendations, but I'll provide a quick idea: Buy a couple of index funds that cover the whole universe of investments. Index funds have low expenses and are the cheapest/easiest way to diversify. Buy a \\\"\\\"total stock market\\\"\\\" fund and a \\\"\\\"total bond fund\\\"\\\" in a ratio that you like. If you want, also buy an \\\"\\\"international fund.\\\"\\\" If you want specific tickers and ratios, another forum would be better(or just ask your broker or 401(k) provider). The bogleheads forum is one that I respect where people are very happy to give and debate specific recommendations. At the end of the day, responsibly managing your investment portfolio is not rocket science and shouldn't occupy a lot of time or worry. Just choose a few funds with low expenses that cover all the assets you are really interested in, put your money in them in a reasonable-ish ratio (no one knows that the best ratio is) and then forget about it.\\\"\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":185,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"3357"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Why big clients want the contractor to be incorporated before giving them work"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["209974"],"string":"[\n \"209974\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["209974","19698","532932","424818","413879","525292","393031","468741","139501","220022","382400","418647","452248","260603","490865","175889","176777","18950","222049","352640","584218","513051","321566","524788","250766","172752","148250","596427","265397","326329","506108","173438","381830","227757","288","399762","47044","590102","50310","476262","312131","334902","113776","81530","442968","76486","487870","77488","210647","548291","406656","82163","495076","390015","144773","410223","502283","138065","178586","197782","212312","142645","316074","9085","568771","328066","451580","333954","194955","207997","40044","388078","519321","398273","564453","37725","355513","564197","36608","3746","32072","362778","1873","347723","594531","55440","107817","404846","129089","394871","580817","467704","397027","34731","70384","144190","466037","434906","159322","315552"],"string":"[\n \"209974\",\n \"19698\",\n \"532932\",\n \"424818\",\n \"413879\",\n \"525292\",\n \"393031\",\n \"468741\",\n \"139501\",\n \"220022\",\n \"382400\",\n \"418647\",\n \"452248\",\n \"260603\",\n \"490865\",\n \"175889\",\n \"176777\",\n \"18950\",\n \"222049\",\n \"352640\",\n \"584218\",\n \"513051\",\n \"321566\",\n \"524788\",\n \"250766\",\n \"172752\",\n \"148250\",\n \"596427\",\n \"265397\",\n \"326329\",\n \"506108\",\n \"173438\",\n \"381830\",\n \"227757\",\n \"288\",\n \"399762\",\n \"47044\",\n \"590102\",\n \"50310\",\n \"476262\",\n \"312131\",\n \"334902\",\n \"113776\",\n \"81530\",\n \"442968\",\n \"76486\",\n \"487870\",\n \"77488\",\n \"210647\",\n \"548291\",\n \"406656\",\n \"82163\",\n \"495076\",\n \"390015\",\n \"144773\",\n \"410223\",\n \"502283\",\n \"138065\",\n \"178586\",\n \"197782\",\n \"212312\",\n \"142645\",\n \"316074\",\n \"9085\",\n \"568771\",\n \"328066\",\n \"451580\",\n \"333954\",\n \"194955\",\n \"207997\",\n \"40044\",\n \"388078\",\n \"519321\",\n \"398273\",\n \"564453\",\n \"37725\",\n \"355513\",\n \"564197\",\n \"36608\",\n \"3746\",\n \"32072\",\n \"362778\",\n \"1873\",\n \"347723\",\n \"594531\",\n \"55440\",\n \"107817\",\n \"404846\",\n \"129089\",\n \"394871\",\n \"580817\",\n \"467704\",\n \"397027\",\n \"34731\",\n \"70384\",\n \"144190\",\n \"466037\",\n \"434906\",\n \"159322\",\n \"315552\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["They believe that it reduces the risk that Revenue Canada will deem you to be an employee and make them pay a whole pile of tax, EI, CPP and so on that should have been paid if you had been hired as an employee. It's my recollection that the employer gets dinged for both the employee and employer share of those withholdings (and generally the employer's share is larger than yours) so they really want to prevent it. There's a Revenue Canada publication about whether you're an employee or not. There's nothing on it about being incorporated, but still employers feel more protected when their contracts are incorporated. We did work as a sole proprietorship at the very beginning, so that we could deduct our losses against employment income earned earlier in the year, before we started the business. You can find clients who will take you on. We incorporated once the losses were over with (basically we had bought the equipment and office supplies we needed to get started.) It's a simple and relatively inexpensive thing to do, and gives clients a sense of protection. It won't protect you from your own poor decisions since you'll be a director of the firm.","Why not personal responsibility? Get paid *then* provide the service. It's what small business owners do every day without the help of government or the protection of a large corporation. Individuals comply with safety regulations to protect themselves. If you need a corporation to do it for you, expect to make less. If you can do it yourself, expect to make more as an entrepreneur.","Unless the amounts involved are very small, it is MUCH better to incorporate. First, incorporation gives you limited liability for your acts as an employee. As an individual, you have unlimited liability. Second, incorporating allows you to deduct (for tax purposes) the costs of doing business, including all of your health insurance, most transportation, and some meals. The exception to the rule is if the amounts you are earning are so small that they don't cover the cost of incorporating, accounting fees, etc. (a few hundred, or at most a few thousand dollars).","In short - if you can't get the job without incorporating, then incorporate! Some clients will require you to be incorporated (which is why I did it 10 years ago). Essentially, for them, it's a way of distancing themselves from you to ensure they are not responsible for any monies if you don't pay your taxes. For you, there is also this idea of distancing company assets from your personal assets. If they are not requiring you to incorporate, you can simply act as a sole proprietorship. A good place to start reading up could be the sites below (for Canada/Ontario): Canada Business http://sbinfocanada.about.com/ http://sbinfocanada.about.com/od/incorporation/Incorporating_A_Business_In_Canada.htm http://sbinfocanada.about.com/cs/startup/a/incorporatadv.htm When I registered, I simply bought a book at Grand&Toy, with all the required forms for Ontario. These forms would also be available at a local Government service centre. You walk in, give the government money, and shortly thereafter you are incorporated. There are a number of others things that are required (having a minutes book, writing resolutions, creating shares, setting up a bank account, etc) - all discussed in the guide For Ontario you can start here: http://www.ontario.ca/en/services_for_business/index.htm At a high level, there are some costs for being incorporated, and some tax savings. At a minimum, costs would include: You may need the help of an account to help set things up, but it's quite easy to maintain all the records, etc that are required. Some other minor things I enjoy are writing myself expense cheques so that I get money back immediately (and effectively only pay 60% of the cost after writing it off in the company). I can decide how much to pay myself and push income from year to year.","All the existing answers are right and the general theme is: contracting is a different kind of relationship. It's a business-to-business relationship rather than a business-to-employee relationship. This has implications such as: Of course, some contractors are effectively just over-paid employees, and some of the above points don't apply to them, but that's the idea behind bona fide contracting.","You are absolutely correct, incorporation and the fiduciary responsibility that comes with it almost always leads to a sacrifice in product quality and long-term business principles. I always think of the difference between McDonalds and In-n-Out hamburgers as examples of where each road leads.","You may want to start a company for a few reasons, the main one would be liability, you don't want your friend to drop a weight on a foot and sue you for millions taking your house away. You'd need to pay taxes on the income, that's after you pay all your expenses, bills, mortgage interest, insurance premiums (!), equipment depreciation. So it's going to be a lot less than you collect from your friends. Whether you incorporate or not you have to pay taxes on your income. If it's $200/year IRS may not notice that, if it's $20K a month it would be very hard to hide. If you pay your friends more than some amount (check the laws) you'd need to tell IRS about it (issue 1099-misc), then your friends must pay taxes on that income.","If you want to subcontract some of your excess work to somebody else, you better be in business! While some kinds of employees (e.g. commissioned salespeople) are permitted to deduct some expenses on their income tax, generally only a real business can deduct wages for additional employees, or the cost of services provided by subcontractors. Do you invoice your clients and charge HST (GST)? Or do you tell your clients each pay period how many hours you worked and they compensate you through their payroll system like everybody else that walks through the door? If you're not invoicing and charging HST (GST) (assuming you exceed the threshold, and if you have too much work, you probably do!), then perhaps your clients are treating you as an employee – by default – and withholding taxes, CPP, and EI so they don't get in trouble? After all, Canada Revenue Agency is likely to consider any person providing a service to a company to be an employee unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary, and when there isn't enough evidence, it's the company paying for the services that would be on the hook for unpaid taxes, CPP, and EI. Carefully consider what form of business you are operating, or were intending to operate. It's essential for your business to be structured appropriately if you want to hire or subcontract. You ought to be either self-employed as a sole proprietor, or perhaps incorporated if it makes more sense to your situation. Next, act accordingly. For instance, it's likely that your business should be taking care of the source deductions, CPP, and EI. In fact, self-employed individuals shouldn't even be paying into EI – an independent contractor wouldn't qualify to make an EI claim if they lost a contract. As an independent, one doesn't have a job, one has a business, and EI doesn't cover the business itself, only the employees that the business deals with at arm's length. As a business owner, you would be considered non-arms-length, and exempt from EI. Growing your business in the way that you are suggesting is an important enough a step that you should seek professional advice in advance. Find a good accountant that deals with self-employed individuals & small businesses and run all this by him. He should be able to guide you accordingly. Find a lawyer, too. A lawyer can guide you on how to properly subcontract others while protecting you and your business. Finally, be mindful of what it is you agreed to in your contract with your client: Do they expect all services to be performed by you, personally? Even if it wasn't written down who exactly would be performing the services, there may be an assumption it's you. Some negotiation may be in order if you want to use subcontractors.","\"There are a few sites out there that can give you some reasoning behind the request. LegalZoom, for instance. To quote the LZ doc in case the link dies: Employee vs. Independent Contractor If a worker is an employee, the employer is responsible for paying Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, and possibly other costs like workers' compensation insurance for the employee; at the end of the tax year, the employer is responsible for compiling all necessary payroll reports, including W-2 forms. If a worker is an independent contractor, the employer is not responsible for any of the above taxes or payments, and the only added paperwork is the issuing of a 1099 to the independent contractor at the end of the tax year, if he or she has made more than $600 with the employer. As Kent suggested, you should speak with an attorney (really you need one if setting up an LLC). There are a lot of companies out there these days that try to classify people as contractors rather than full-time employees as it gets them out of paying benefits and dealing with taxes. This is being heavily cracked down on, and several \"\"contractor\"\" employees are winning lawsuits to get full-time status. If you are truly acting as a contractor, then setting up an LLC can help with a few items such as taxes and protection on certain business aspects (see comments below regarding this). It's easy and relatively cheap (cost me about $250 with extra legal advice tacked on). If you are reporting directly to a manager with the company, or really working in any way that isn't consistent with the definition of a contractor, then I'd turn down the offer and ask to be made a FT employee. Additional information: https://www.sba.gov/content/hire-contractor-or-employee\"","It makes no difference for tax purposes. If you are 1099, you will pay the same amount of taxes as if you formed a corporation and then paid yourself (essentially you are doing this as a 1099 contractor, just not formally). Legally, I don't know the answer. I would assume you have some legal protections by forming an LLC but practically I think this won't make any difference if you get sued.","Operate a business which can incur its own liabilities and pay its own debts. If the corporate entity is used recklessly, incurring debits you know it cannot pay, using it for fraudulent purposes, co-mingling company funds with your own, etc., then creditors can come after your personal assets","Do you need to incorporate? This depends on whether the company prefers you to be incorporated. If you are going through a recruiting company, some of them are willing to deal with non-incorporated people (Sole Proprietor) and withhold taxes from your cheques for you. If you do want to incorporate, you can do it yourself, go through a paralegal, or you can even do it online. I did mine in Ontario for about $300 (no name search - i just have a numbered corporation like 123456 Ontario Inc.) through www.oncorp.com - there are other sites that do it as well. Things to consider - if you're contracting through a corporation you most likely need to: Talk to an accountant about these for clarification - most of them will give you an initial consultation for free. Generally speaking, accountant fees for corporate filing taxes averages about $1000-2000 a year.","It is a great advice. I would suggest going to the Companies House (it's in London somewhere), picking up all of their leaflets regarding requirements for different forms of corporate entity, and deciding if you want to have that burden. It is not a lot of work, you can essentially claim VAT on all business purchases (the way roughly it works, is that your company invoices your client, your client has to pay the fee + VAT (usually that VAT is then deducted by your client from it's VAT, so no loss there), and you pay the VAT on the difference between the service sales price, and your costs (computers etc.) ) You have to be careful to avoid excessive double taxation (paying income tax on both corporate income, and then your personal income off said company), but it usually comes off in your favor. Essentially, if you're making more than 50% of your income from services rendered, it is to your advantage to render such services as a business entity.","\"The \"\"independent contractor\"\" vs. \"\"employee\"\" distinction is a red herring to this discussion and not at all important just because someone suggested you use your LLC to do the job. Corp-2-Corp is a very common way to do contracting and having an LLC with business bank accounts provides you with more tax deductions (such as deducting interest on credit lines). Some accounting practices prefer to pay entities by their Tax ID numbers, instead of an individual's social security number. The actual reasoning behind this would be dubious, but the LLC only benefits you and gives you more advantages by having one than not. For example, it is easier for you to hire subcontractors through your LLC to assist with your job, due to the opaqueness of the private entity. Similarly, your LLC can sign Non Disclosure and Intellectual Property agreements, automatically extending the trade secrets to all of its members, as opposed to just you as an individual. By signing whatever agreement with the company that is paying you through your LLC, your LLC will be privy to all of this. Next, assuming you did have subcontractors or other liability inducing assets, the LLC limits the liability you personally have to deal with in a court system, to an extent. But even if you didn't, the facelessness of an LLC can deter potential creditors, for example, your client may just assume you are a cog in a wheel - a random employee of the LLC - as opposed to the sole owner. Having a business account for the LLC keeps all of your expenses in one account statement, making your tax deductions easier. If you had a business credit line, the interest is tax deductible (compared to just having a personal credit card for business purposes). Regarding the time/costs of setting up and managing an LLC, this does vary by jurisdiction. It can negligible, or it can be complex. You also only have to do it once. Hire an attorney to give you a head start on that, if you feel that is necessary. Now back to the \"\"independent contractor\"\" vs. \"\"employee\"\" distinction: It is true that the client will not be paying your social security, but they expect you to charge more hourly than an equivalent actual employee would, solely because you don't get health insurance from them or paid leave or retirement plans or any other perk, and you will receive the entire paycheck without any withheld by the employer. You also get more tax deductions to utilize, although you will now have self employment tax (assuming you are a US citizen), this becomes less and less important the higher over $105,000 you make, as it stops being counted (slightly more complicated than that, but self employment tax is it's own discussion).\"","\"I know this is a little late but here is my answer. No. You do not \"\"need\"\" to incorporate. In fact, incorporating in your situation will cost you in legal fees, administrative headaches, and a fair bit in taxes. The CRA would probably look at your corporation as a personal services corporation and it would not be allowed to claim a number of tax reductions. The tax rate would end up being over the top range (unless you are in Quebec where it would be just under the top marginal range).\"","They are already indirectly paying these expenses. They should be built into your rates. The amount per job or per hour needs to cover what would have been your salary, plus the what would have been sick, vacation, holidays, health insurance, life insurance, disability, education, overhead for office expenses, cost of accountants...and all taxes. In many companies the general rule of thumb is that they need to charge a customer 2x the employees salary to cover all this plus make a profit. If this is a side job some of these benefits will come from your main job. Some self employed get some of these benefits from their spouse. The company has said we give you money for the work you perform, but you need to cover everything else including paying all taxes. Depending on where you live you might have to send money in more often then once a year. They are also telling you that they will be reporting the money they give you to the government so they can claim it as a business expense. So you better make sure you report it as income.","In addition to the other answers, consultants and contractors face a real risk (though admittedly small) of not getting paid. The more short-term the gigs are, the higher the risk of not getting paid for a particular job. As an employee, there are laws to ensure that you get your paycheck. As a contractor, you're just another creditor. I know a couple of contractors (software engineers) who have had difficulty collecting after a job. (I'm not even sure one ever got paid the full amount.) I also personally witnessed a contractor show up for a job who was then told by the company that they unilaterally decided that they would pay half of their pre-arranged rate.","I don't know the term sole trader but usually the trade off is a corporation allows for shield from liability (i.e. creditors) more flexibility with respect to personal tax management, but higher operating costs (incorporation, financial statements, etc). I always incorporate.","Your recruiter is likely trying to avoid having to pay the employer's side of employment taxes, and may even be trying to avoid having to file a 1099 for you by treating your relationship as a vendor/service provider that he is purchasing services from, which would make your pay just a business expense. It's definitely in his best interest for you to do it this way. Whether it's in your best interest is up to you. You should consult a licensed legal/tax professional to help you determine whether this is a good arrangement for you. (Most of the time, when someone starts playing tax avoidance games, they eventually get stung by it.) The next big question: If you already know this guy is a snake, why are you still working with him? If you don't trust him, why would you take legal/tax advice from him? He might land you a high-paying job. But he also might cause you years of headaches if his tax advice turns out to be flawed.","I am surprised no one has mentioned the two biggest things (in my opinion). Or I should say, the two biggest things to me. First, 1099 have to file quarterly self employment taxes. I do not know for certain but I have heard that often times you will end up paying more this way then even a W-2 employees. Second, an LLC allows you to deduct business expenses off the top prior to determining what you pay in taxes as pass-through income. With 1099 you pay the same taxes regardless of your business expenses unless they are specifically allowed as a 1099 contractor (which most are not I believe). So what you should really do is figure out the expense you incur as a result of doing your business and check with an accountant to see if those expenses would be deductible in an LLC and if it offsets a decent amount of your income to see if it would be worth it. But I have read a lot of books and listened to a lot of interviews about wealthy people and most deal in companies not contracts. Most would open a new business and add clients rather than dealing in 1099 contracts. Just my two cents... Good luck and much prosperity.","To be honest I don't know how any of this work in the US so my answer will be of very limited value to yourself, I suspect, but when it comes to the UK if you're going to get the same pay gross either way than being independent makes very little sense. Running your own business is hassle, is generally more risky (although possibly not in your case) and costs money. Some of the most obvious costs are the added NI, probably the need for an accountant, at around £1200 p/a for basic accountancy service, you are obliged by law to have liability insurance and you probably want professional indemnity insurance, this will be around £600 p/a minmum, and so on and so forth. On top of that, oficially anyway, as a contractor, you really shouldn't be getting any benefits from the client, and so health insurance, company car, even parking are all meant to be arranged by, and paid by, your company, and can't (or rather - shouldn't) be charged to the client. So - I would say - if you're seriously thinking about setting up a consultancy company, and this client is first of many - set up a company, but take into account the sums you need to earn. If you're really thinking about employment - be an employee.","\"Interesting as I am in the exact same situations as yourself. I, in fact, just incorporated. You will be able \"\"save\"\" more in taxes in the end. The reason I put \"\"save\"\" in quotes, is that you don't necessarily save on taxes, but you can defer taxes. The driving factor behind this is that you specify your own fiscal calendar/year. Incorporating allows you to defer income for up to 6 months. Meaning that if you make your fiscal year starting in August or September, for example, you can claim that income on the following year (August + 6 months = February). It allows you to keep the current year taxes down. Also, any income left over at year end, is taxed at 15% (the Corporation rate) rather than the 30-40% personal rate you get with a sole-proprietorship. In a nutshell, with sole-proprietorship, all income is taxable (after write-offs)... in a corporation, you can take some of that income and keep it in the corporation (gives your company a \"\"value\"\"), and is only taxed at 15% - big saving there. I primarily work with US businesses. I am, however, a dual-citizen, US and Canadian, which allowed me as a sole-proprietor, to easily work with US companies. However, as a sole-proprietor or a Corporation, you simply need to get an EIN from the IRS and any US company will report earnings to that number, with no deductions. At year end, it is your responsibility to file the necessary tax forms and pay the necessary taxes to both countries. Therefore you can solicit new US business if you choose, but this is not restricted to corporations. The real benefit in incorporating is what I mentioned above. My suggestion to you is to speak with you CA, who can outline all benefits. Revenue Canada's website had some good information on this topic as well. Please let me know if you need anything else explained.\"","In addition to asking an accountant, I would also ask a lawyer. When exploring the same question for myself, I found that one of the benefits of incorporating or forming an LLC is that your personal assets are better protected. Including asset protection, here are 5 reasons to incorporate: Initially, I thought that as I had so few assets, I should not be concerned. I was glad I was able to do a free consult with a lawyer who advised me to look into forming an LLC. (Ultimately, my planned business idea never panned out. So, I never went the incorporation/LLC route.) Hope this helps!","\"Linkedlinked, You might want to seriously take another look at the links that Chris provided you. Specifically the ones on the IRS website: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html From the IRS website: Businesses must weigh all these factors when determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Some factors may indicate that the worker is an employee, while other factors indicate that the worker is an independent contractor. There is no “magic” or set number of factors that “makes” the worker an employee or an independent contractor, and no one factor stands alone in making this determination. Also, factors which are relevant in one situation may not be relevant in another. The keys are to look at the entire relationship, consider the degree or extent of the right to direct and control, and finally, to document each of the factors used in coming up with the determination. Perhaps more importantly... pay attention to what happens if you're WRONG: Consequences of Treating an Employee as an Independent Contractor If you classify an employee as an independent contractor and you have no reasonable basis for doing so, you may be held liable for employment taxes for that worker (the relief provisions, discussed below, will not apply). See Internal Revenue Code section 3509 for more information. I would STRONGLY recommend that you and your partners give your accountant a call and discuss the matter. They will be able to help you make the right decision. One of biggest mistakes businesses make in this are is to classify their employees as independent contractors. The IRS (who happens to be hungry for money right now) comes in and says, \"\"Nooooooooo... those are employees.\"\" ...and the COMPANY gets to pay the employment taxes. I actually have person experience with this as I worked for a company this happened to. Every contractor was re-classified as an employee except for two (myself and one other). The key reason in that case was that none of the other contractors had any other clients. While I understand that you have other clients, I would still recommend talking to your accountant for an hour or so... just to be 100% sure. Sincerely, Andrew Smith TaxQueries.com\"","The benefits and taxes thing, in my opinion is the biggie. Most people don't realize that the cost to the company for a full-time employee with benefits can be 2x or even 3x the amount they see in their paycheck. Health plans are extremely expensive. Even if you are having money taken from your check for health insurance, it is often just a fraction of the total cost, and the employer is subsidizing the rest. More expensive benefits that contractors don't typically get are 401K matches and paid vacation days. When contractors call in sick or don't work because it is a national holiday, they don't get paid for that day. Also, see that line on your paycheck deducting for Social security and Medicare? That is only half of the tax. The employer pays an equal amount that is not shown on that statement. Also, they pay taxes that go towards unemployment benefits , and may be required to pay higher taxes if they churn through a lot of full-time employees. You can usually let contractors go with relative impunity . For the unemployment tax reasons, not paying for people's days off or benefits, a lot less paperwork, and less risk to the business associated with committing to full-time employees all provide value to the company. Thus companies are willing to pay more because they are getting more. Think of it like a cell phone-contract. If you commit to a three year contract it can be a pain/expensive to get out of the deal early, but you will probably get a better rate in exchange for the risk being shifted to your end of the deal.","This sounds very like disguised employment. You act like an employee of the company, but your official relationship with them is as a contractor. You gain none of the protection you get from being an employee, and this may make you cheaper, less risky and more desirable for the company who is hiring you. Depending on your country you may also pay corporation tax rather than income tax, which may represent a very significant saving. Also, the company hiring you may not have to pay PAYE, national insurance, stakeholder pension, etc. This arrangement is normal and legal providing you genuinely are acting as a subcontractor. However if you are behaving as an employee (desk at the company, company email, have to work specific hours in a specific location, no ability to subcontract, etc.) you may be classified as a disguised employee. In the UK it used to be common practice for highly paid employees to set up shell companies to avoid tax. This will now get you into hot water. Google IR35 It sounds like your relationship in this case is directly with the recruiter. You will have to consider if the recruiter is acting as your employer, or if you remain a genuinely independent agent. The duration of your contract with the recruiter will have a bearing on this. In the UK there are a whole series of tests for disguised employment. This is a good arrangement provided you go in with your eyes open and an awareness of the legislation. However you should absolutely check the rules that apply in your country before entering into this agreement. You could potentially be stung very badly indeed.","Elance, UpWork, Fivver Who would've thought taking skilled labor and watering down the price to mere pennies would be bad for everybody involved? That's why, even though I operate just like a freelancer, I incorporated. Legally, I'm a sole proprietor, not a freelancer...aside the few tax differences, it just saves me a ton of headaches.","I'll assume you are asking about a check for some kind of work or service that you provided them, that they hired your company to do. No large business will do that. In their records they have a contract with your company to provide services. If they write you a personal check it won't match with the contract, and when the auditors see that they will scream blue murder. Whoever wrote the check will have to prove that you are legitimately the same thing as the company (that doesn't mean taking your word for it). They may also have to show they weren't conspiring with you to commit tax fraud ( that wasn't your intention of course, was it?) .","\"Get some professional accounting help. You're going to have to pay for everything out of the fee you charge: taxes, retirement, health care, etc. You'll be required to pay quarterly. I don't think you should base your fee on what \"\"this\"\" company will pay as a full-time employee, but what you can expect in your area. They're saving a lot of money not going through an established employment firm and essentially, making you create your own. There are costs to setting up and maintaining a company. They have less risk hiring you because there are no unemployment consequences for letting you go. Once you're hired, they'll probably put you on salary, so you can forget about making more money if you work over 40 hrs. IMHO - there have to be better jobs in your area than this one.\"","In the US we have social security taxes, where for a full time employee the company pays half and the employee pays half. When you work as a business, what we call 1099 for the form that the wages are reported on, then the contractor pays the full amount of social security tax. There are times when a contractor can negotiate a higher rate because the company does not have to pay that tax. However, most of the time the company just prefers to negotiate the rate based on your value. If you are a 60K year guy, then that is what they will pay you. From the company's perspective it does not matter what your tax rate is, only the value you can bring to the company. If you can add about 180K to the bottom line, then they will be happy to pay you 60K, and you should be happy to get it. Here in the US a contractor can expect to make about 7.5% more of an equivalent employee because of the social security tax savings to the company. However, not all companies are willing to provide that in compensation. Some companies see the legal and administrative costs of employees as normal, and the same costs with contractors as extra so they don't perceive a cost savings. There are other things that would preclude employers from giving the bump although it is logical to do so. First you will really have to feel out your employer for the attitude on the subject. Then I would make a logical case if they are open to providing extra compensation in return for tax savings. If I am an employee at 60K, you would also have to pay the government 18K. How about you pay me 75K as a contractor instead? That would be a great deal for all in the US.","\"LLC is, as far as I know, just a US thing, so I'm assuming that you are in the USA. Update for clarification: other countries do have similar concepts, but I'm not aware of any country that uses the term LLC, nor any other country that uses the single-member LLC that is disregarded for income tax purposes that I'm referring to here (and that I assume the recruiter also was talking about). Further, LLCs vary by state. I only have experience with California, so some things may not apply the same way elsewhere. Also, if you are located in one state but the client is elsewhere, things can get more complex. First, let's get one thing out of the way: do you want to be a contractor, or an employee? Both have advantage, and especially in the higher-income areas, contractor can be more beneficial for you. Make sure that if you are a contractor, your rate must be considerably higher than as employee, to make up for the benefits you give up, as well as the FICA taxes and your expense of maintaining an LLC (in California, it costs at least $800/year, plus legal advice, accounting, and various other fees etc.). On the other hand, oftentimes, the benefits as an employee aren't actually worth all that much when you are in high income brackets. Do pay attention to health insurance - that may be a valuable benefit, or it may have such high deductibles that you would be better off getting your own or paying the penalty for going uninsured. Instead of a 401(k), you can set up an IRA (update or various other options), and you can also replace all the other benefits. If you decide that being an employee is the way to go, stop here. If you decide that being a contractor is a better deal for you, then it is indeed a good idea to set up an LLC. You actually have three fundamental options: work as an individual (the legal term is \"\"sole proprietorship\"\"), form a single-member LLC disregarded for income tax purposes, or various other forms of incorporation. Of these, I would argue that the single-member LLC combines the best of both worlds: taxation is almost the same as for sole proprietorship, the paperwork is minimal (a lot less than any other form of incorporation), but it provides many of the main benefits of incorporating. There are several advantages. First, as others have already pointed out, the IRS and Department of Labor scrutinize contractor relationships carefully, because of companies that abused this status on a massive scale (Uber and now-defunct Homejoy, for instance, but also FedEx and other old-economy companies). One of the 20 criteria they use is whether you are incorporated or not. Basically, it adds to your legal credibility as a contractor. Another benefit is legal protection. If your client (or somebody else) sues \"\"you\"\", they can usually only sue the legal entity they are doing business with. Which is the LLC. Your personal assets are safe from judgments. That's why Donald Trump is still a billionaire despite his famous four bankruptcies (which I believe were corporate, not personal, bankrupcies). Update for clarification Some people argue that you are still liable for your personal actions. You should consult with a lawyer about the details, but most business liabilities don't arise from such acts. Another commenter suggested an E&O policy - a very good idea, but not a substitute for an LLC. An LLC does require some minimal paperwork - you need to set up a separate bank account, and you will need a professional accounting system (not an Excel spreadsheet). But if you are a single member LLC, the paperwork is really not a huge deal - you don't need to file a separate federal tax return. Your income will be treated as if it was personal income (the technical term is that the LLC is disregarded for IRS tax purposes). California still does require a separate tax return, but that's only two pages or so, and unless you make a large amount, the tax is always $800. That small amount of paperwork is probably why your recruiter recommended the LLC, rather than other forms of incorporation. So if you want to be a contractor, then it sounds like your recruiter gave you good advice. If you want to be an employee, don't do it. A couple more points, not directly related to the question, but hopefully generally helpful: If you are a contractor (whether as sole proprietor or through an LLC), in most cities you need a business license. Not only that, but you may even need a separate business license in every city you do business (for instance, in the city where your client is located, even if you don't live there). Business licenses can range from \"\"not needed\"\" to a few dollars to a few hundred dollars. In some cities, the business license fee may also depend on your income. And finally, one interesting drawback of a disregarded LLC vs. sole proprietorship as a contractor has to do with the W-9 form and your Social Security Number. Generally, when you work for somebody and receive more than $600/year, they need to ask you for your Social Security Number, using form W-9. That is always a bit of a concern because of identity theft. The IRS also recognizes a second number, the EIN (Employer Identification Number). This is basically like an SSN for corporations. You can also apply for one if you are a sole proprietor. This is a HUGE benefit because you can use the EIN in place of your SSN on the W-9. Instant identity theft protection. HOWEVER, if you have a disregarded LLC, the IRS says that you MUST use your SSN; you cannot use your EIN! Update: The source for that information is the W-9 instructions; it specifically only excludes LLCs.\"","You'd have to file to be incorporated (in Canada at least). It's mostly done for tax purposes. You can't just go and call yourself an corporation without filing legal papers (and be approved) with the tax agency of your country. In my experience, it'd be with the CRA. The rules at least here, there's a bunch of leeway that mostly any business can be classed as an corporation if you see fit. Hope it helps!","The VAT number should be equivalent from the point of view of your client. The fact that you are a sole trader and not a limited liability doesn't matter when it comes down to pay VAT. They should pay the VAT to you and you will pay it to the government. I'll guess that their issue is with tax breaks, it is a bit more tricky to receive a tax break on paid taxes if you buy something abroad (at least it is here in Finland). If they won't pay you because of that, you could open a LTD or contract the services of a 'management company' which will do the job of invoicing, receiving the money and passing it back to you, for a fee.","\"I don't know what you mean by \"\"claim for taxes,\"\" I think you mean pay taxes. I'm not sure how corps function in Canada but in the US single owner limited liability entities typically pass the net income through to the owner to be included in their personal tax return. So it seems all of this is more or less moot, because really you should probably already be including your income sourced from this project on your personal taxes and that's not really likely to change if you formed something more formal. The formal business arrangements really exist to limit the liability of the business spilling over in to the owner's assets. Or trouble in the owner's life spilling over to interrupt the business operation. I don't know what kind of business this is, but it may make sense to set up one of the limited liability arrangements to ensure that business liability doesn't automatically mean personal liability. A sole proprietorship or in the US we have DBA (doing business as) paperwork will get you a separate tax id number, which may be beneficial if you ever have to provide a tax ID and don't want to use your individual ID; but this won't limit your liability the way incorporating does.\"","\"> You do realize that investors are protected from being sued right? Not usually, no. If the investor is a partner in the company then they're just as responsible for the debts of their business as any other partner. If they're just a capital investor with no interest in the company business then sure - you can't sue them. But then my contract wouldn't be with them, would it? > So if the company you work for tanks, you can sue them, but they don't have any money so what do you expect to get? The registered owners of the company can also be held liable for it's debts if it's a corporation. Or you can always just have them sign as guarantor for your back pay. And don't say \"\"Nobody will ever do that!!\"\", because if your service is valuable enough then **YES THEY WILL**. I've pushed for a personal liability guarantee from a company owner before and got it.\"","VALIS Group Inc a new business on your own and defaulting on incorporating your business or being sued by a customer. Instead of being excited to start a new business, you will face difficulties as your personal assets could be taken away for fulfilling business expenses. However, if Incorporating your business, this nightmare can stay far away from you, as it alleviates personal liability as well as guards you as the corporate owner. also, has very friendly laws to incorporate a company and may require minimum documents and time period to complete company registration.","In general the other party will expect you to keep your promises. If you promise to do something for a fixed amount of money, you take on a risk and it is no longer their problem if you work slower than you planned. In principle it could even be the case that you take on a project and fail, after which the company may not have to pay at all. So regardless of how things should be written in your books (For example a theoretical pay above minimum wage but a loss for your private company): An important thing to note is that if you are worried about ending up below minimum wage, you are definitely asking a fee that is too low. You should keep in mind that your fee should include a fair compensation for the expected work, and a fair compensation for the risk that you have taken on.","When a business asks me to make out a cheque to a person rather than the business name, I take that as a red flag. Frankly it usually means that the person doesn't want the money going through their business account for some reason - probably tax evasion. I'm not saying you are doing that, but it is a frequent issue. If the company makes the cheque out to a person they may run the risk of being party to fraud. Worse still they only have your word for it that you actually own the company, and aren't ripping off your employer by pocketing their payment. Even worse, when the company is audited and finds that cheque, the person who wrote it will have to justify and document why they made it out to you or risk being charged with embezzlement. It's very much in their interests to make the cheque out to the company they did business with. Given that, you should really have an account in the name of your business. It's going to make your life much simpler in the long run.","Source Sole trader If you start working for yourself, you’re classed as a self-employed sole trader - even if you’ve not yet told HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). As a sole trader, you run your own business as an individual. You can keep all your business’s profits after you’ve paid tax on them. You can employ staff. ‘Sole trader’ means you’re responsible for the business, not that you have to work alone.You’re personally responsible for any losses your business makes. Tax responsibilities You must: You’re personally responsible for any losses your business makes. This is one condition which you would need to have a look. If you do some shoddy work and your client wants to recover the losses they can come after your personal money or property. LLPs have the same probelm too. And you pay NI and income tax on all of your profits. If you have a partner then both can take out the profits of a limited company, if both are directors. The tax hit will be less as compared to a single person.","Fellow dirty jerz resident here. I would highly recommend going the llc route. If, god forbid, anything ever happened and you were sued, the llc will contain all losses and your personal assets will not be at risk. I'm not sure about the timing of clients. Better to ask a lawyer - cheap to use online services like rocketlawyer (sp?)","\"This arrangement is a scam to get around certain tax and benefits laws, both State and Federal. I know they can't get away with this with a person-as-contractor, but this \"\"he's not a contractor, he's a business owner\"\" may move it into a gray area. (I used to know this stuff cold, but I've been retired for a while.) The fact that they asked you to do this is at all is, IMNSHO, a Red Flag®. They think that this way they won't be paying 1/2 your FICA, your Workman's Comp, health insurance, overtime, sick leave or vacation time ... you will. A somewhat simplistic rule of thumb for setting contracting rates is to take your targeted annual salary as a full-time, full-benefits employee and double it. So $50,000 becomes $100,000 a year; $25/hour becomes $50/hour. You can tell them that driving to their workplace from your company's location is now a \"\"site visit\"\" and charge them your hourly rate for the one-way commute time. You could also tell them that your company charges 150% for hours worked over 40 hours/week, plus 150% on Saturdays and 200% on Sundays. Your company may also have a minimum 30 days notice of termination with a penalty kicker. Get it all in writing and signed by someone who has the authority to sign it. Also, Get A Lawyer. The most expensive contracts I've ever signed were ones I thought I was smart enough to draw up myself.\"","There is no reason for you to open a firm. However, it will help you, if you operate separate bank account for business and personal purposes. You can run your business as proprietorship business. Your inward remittance is your income. You can deduct payment made to your colleagues as salary. You should pay them by way of cheques or bank transfer only. You are also entitled to deduct other business expenses provided you keep proper receipt of the same such as broadband connection charges, depreciation on equipment and more importantly, rent on your house. If your total receipt from such income exceeds INR 60,00,000 you will need to withhold tax on payment made to your colleagues as also subject to audit of your accounts. If you want to grow your business, suggest you should take an Import / Export Code in your own name. You can put any further question in this regard.","There are two reasons for incorporating a business in Canada - limiting liability and providing some freedom in structuring your taxes. Since you are asking about taxes, I will restrict myself to that topic. First of all, remember that if you don't make much money, there isn't much tax to save by clever structuring of your affairs. And if you do incorporate, you will pay taxes as a corporation, and pay taxes again on your salary paid from that corporation. It can still be advantageous, because the small business tax rate is less that the higher tax brackets of personal taxes, and you don't have to pay out all of the profit as salary. If you don't incorporate, you still must pay taxes on your net income from the business. (See brian's answer.) Definitely keep track of your income and expenses, even if you don't plan on making money, in case you get audited. If the CRA wants to call your hobby a business, you will need to show that you haven't made any profit. I am just giving you a few bits of advice because this subject is complicated. Too complicated for an answer on this site. If you are still interested, go to your local library and get some books on the subject.","\"Anytime you do work without any payment until the work is complete, you are effectively extending credit to the party receiving your service. How much credit you are willing to extend will vary greatly, depending on the amount and the trustworthiness of the party. For example, if you are charging $50 for something, you probably won't bother to collect money upfront, whereas if you are charging $5,000 you probably would collect some upfront. But if the party you are working for is a large financially sound company, the number may be even much higher than $5K as you can trust you will be paid. Obviously there are many factors that go into how much credit you are willing to extend to your customer. (This is why credit reports exist for banks to determine how much credit to extend to you.) As for the specific case you are asking about, which may be classified as a decent amount of work for a small business, I would default to having a written scope of work, a place in the document for both parties to sign, and specify 50% upfront payment and 50% payment at completion. When you receive the signed document and the upfront payment (and possibly even after the check clears), you begin work. I would call this my \"\"default contract\"\" and adjust according to your needs depending on the size of the job and the trustworthiness of the customer. As for your question about how to deposit the check, that depends on what type of entity you are. If you are a sole proprietor you should ask for the checks to be made out to you. If you are a business then the checks should be made out to your business name. You don't need \"\"in trust\"\" or anything similar because your customer, after paying the upfront fee, must trust that you will do the work you promise to do, just like you have to trust that after completing the work you will receive the final payment. This is the reason the default is 50% before and after. Both parties are risking (roughly) the same amount. Tip: having done the \"\"default\"\" contract many times in my career, both as a sole proprietor and a business owner, I can assure you there is a big difference between a potential customer agreeing to something in advance, and actually writing a check. The upfront payment definitely helps weed out those that were never going to end up paying you, even if their intentions were good. Tip 2: be as specific as possible as to what the scope of work will include. If you don't, particularly with software, they'll be adding feature after feature and expecting it to be \"\"included\"\".\"","I know a guy on a much higher rate than me, about £500 per day, and he claims to pay around 18% tax which has me bewildered He will be showing expenses, which are deductible. Check with your accountant about expenses, which can be legally claimed as expenses. This is the main benefit of operating through a limited company. Legtimate business expenses can be claimed, which you cannot do if you are a permanent employee. Your friend might also be claiming false expenses, with a shady accountant. If HMRC does decide to give a call, he might have to pay n times the money he has saved till now. And my suggestion is always ask your accountant first. He(she) knows the legal stuff, so he(she) would give you the legally correct options. If you aren't comfortable with him(her), you can always change accountants. holiday pay, sick pay and job security You miss those that is why you are paid at a rate much higher than an employee. benefit of a limited company You can arrange your salary to pay no PAYE and take the rest as dividends. You willn't have to pay PAYE on that. Secondly if you have a partner(s), all of you can be paid dividends without paying PAYE(if you don't cross the threshold).","I am not a lawyer. I do however own an LLC. It's setup as a partnership with 50/50 ownership. You can do it as a sole proprietorship. In basic terms, if you separate your money and assets from the money and assets of the company then you are personally immune from lawsuit and thus your personal assets are safe. You have to set it up right (fairly cheap) and keep the records right (ie never mix personal and company assets ) but it provides a nice legal buffer and in some cases tax benefits. Do not construe this as legal or accountanting advice. Speak with pros to understand and get it set up right. But it's worth it.","Creating a corporation is not necessarily less taxes. In fact, you'll face the problem of double taxation, and since you must pay yourself a reasonable salary, if your corporation doesn't earn much to give you as dividend after the salary, and/or your tax bracket is low, you'll in fact may end up paying more taxes. Also there's a lot of bureaucracy involved in managing a corporation. Liability on the other hand is important, and what's more important - is asset separation and limiting the liability to the corporation assets, keeping your personal assets safe. To achieve that, you don't have to create a corporation, but you can create a Limited Liability Company (LLC). LLC are disregarded entities for tax purposes (i.e.: you won't have to pay taxes twice, only once as a sole proprietor/partner), but provide the liability limitation and asset separation. LLC's are much less formal, and require much less paperwork reducing the risk of corporate veil piercing because of non-compliance. I myself decided to manage my investments through LLC's for that very reason (asset separation).","If the firm treats you as an employee then they are treated as having a place of business in the UK and therefore are obliged to operate PAYE on your behalf - this rule has applied to EU States since 2010 and the non-EU EEA members, including Switzerland, since 2012. If you are not an employee then your main options are: An umbrella company would basically bill the client on your behalf and pay you net of taxes and NI. You potentially take home a bit less than you would being 100% independent but it's a lot less hassle and potentially makes sense for a small contract.","The main risk is insurance liability - if they are in an accident who pays? It is not professional to have your employees deliver items. Most of whom make minimum wage and could care less about on time delivery.","Wait. You started a company and contracted it with the company you currently work for? I don’t know why but for some reason this sends up a legal red flag to me. I have no idea, but maybe double check that there isn’t any violations in this arrangement... or just never tell them.","\"My late answer is: Be aware of the difference of being a contractor and being an employee. I am not sure of the laws in Canada, but in the United States lots of small companies like to hire people as \"\"contractors\"\" but make them work under rules that fall into employee. The business is trying to avoid paying payroll taxes, which is fine, but make sure you know your rights and responsibilities as a contractor vs employee. You can check with your state's Bureau of Labor and Industry in the US, but I am sure wherever you are from there is a government agency to do the same thing.\"","Not a good idea. When you form a partnership with someone that creates a legal connection between you two. What if he racks up $50,000 on the company credit card? Do you want to be responsible for that debt? A better way to do this would be to either charge your clients $X for IT work and pay him half of $X which would get you the same 50% or simply have him agree to share 50% of any income he gets from people referred by you. This can be done in a simple contract or agreement without force you both into a partnership.","Note too that being a contractor means that you will unavoidably have periods between contracts; you tend to be out of work more often than a salaried employee would. You need to set your rates so your average income, including those down times, adds up to a living wage including all those benefits that aren't being covered. If a company hires a contractor, they understand that this is part of the trade-off. They avoid making a long-term commitment when they don't have a long-term need, and they accept that this convenience may cost a bit more in the short term.","I'd have a good look at how much anonymity an LLC offers in your state - as far as I'm aware this varies from state to state. Out here in NV an LLC owner's privacy is supposedly fairly well protected, but in other states, not quite as much. Also keep in mind that while the LLC offers some protection (and I'm a big advocate of this sort of structure if you're taking larger risks that might have a big impact on your overall personal finances), this might not apply to financing. A lot of banks tend to require an LLC's owner to guarantee loans to an LLC once they go over a certain amount or even in general. Do some research in this area because the LLC would be worth less as a protective shield to you if you're on the hook for the full amount of the loans anyway.","That actually sheds some useful light on the whole matter. As long as $client gets the paperwork in order, all will likely be well. Had a discussion with $client today about their recurring practices, just to establish a baseline for their understanding of the same. Not because I know there is or is not a concern, but because their business is risk management and that is a risk worth managing. Or at least worth understanding the scope of the risk and potential exposure.","This is dumb. The sub company will lose money but the parent company will pay taxes on the income they made off of expenses to the subcompany. This doesn't systematically reduce their risk either. Banks will loan more money if the parent company is liable to pay the bills if the sub company can't. So yes, a bank may make a loan to the sub company without any liability on the parent company, but its going to be a very small loan compared to what they would've given the parent company.","\"They are basically asking for the name of the legal entity that they should write on the check. You, as a person, are a legal entity, and so you can have them pay you directly, by name. This is in effect a \"\"sole proprietorship\"\" arrangement and it is the situation of most independent contractors; you're working for yourself, and you get all the money, but you also have all the responsibility. You can also set up a legal alias, or a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" (DBA) name. The only thing that changes versus using your own name is... well... that you aren't using your own name, to be honest. You pay some trivial fee for the paperwork to the county clerk or other office of record, and you're now not only John Doe, you're \"\"Zolani Enterprises\"\", and your business checks can be written out to that name and the bank (who will want a copy of the DBA paperwork to file when you set the name up as a payable entity on the account) will cash them for you. An LLC, since it was mentioned, is a \"\"Limited Liability Company\"\". It is a legal entity, incorporeal, that is your \"\"avatar\"\" in the business world. It, not you, is the entity that primarily faces anyone else in that world. You become, for legal purposes, an agent of that company, authorized to make decisions on its behalf. You can do all the same things, make all the same money, but if things go pear-shaped, the company is the one liable, not you. Sounds great, right? Well, there's a downside, and that's taxes and the increased complexity thereof. Depending on the exact structure of the company, the IRS will treat the LLC either as a corporation, a partnership, or as a \"\"disregarded entity\"\". Most one-man LLCs are typically \"\"disregarded\"\", meaning that for tax purposes, all the money the company makes is treated as if it were made by you as a sole proprietor, as in the above cases (and with the associated increased FICA and lack of tax deductions that an \"\"employee\"\" would get). Nothing can be \"\"retained\"\" by the company, because as far as the IRS is concerned it doesn't exist, so whether the money from the profits of the company actually made it into your personal checking account or not, it has to be reported by you on the Schedule C. You can elect, if you wish, to have the LLC treated as a corporation; this allows the corporation to retain earnings (and thus to \"\"own\"\" liquid assets like cash, as opposed to only fixed assets like land, cars etc). It also allows you to be an \"\"employee\"\" of your own company, and pay yourself a true \"\"salary\"\", with all the applicable tax rules including pre-tax healthcare, employer-paid FICA, etc. However, the downside here is that some money is subject to double taxation; any monies \"\"retained\"\" by the company, or paid out to members as \"\"dividends\"\", is \"\"profit\"\" of the company for which the company is taxed at the corporate rate. Then, the money from that dividend you receive from the company is taxed again at the capital gains rate on your own 1040 return. This also means that you have to file taxes twice; once for the corporation, once for you as the individual. You can't, of course, have it both ways with an LLC; you can't pay yourself a true \"\"salary\"\" and get the associated tax breaks, then receive leftover profits as a \"\"distribution\"\" and avoid double taxation. It takes multiple \"\"members\"\" (owners) to have the LLC treated like a partnership, and there are specific types of LLCs set up to handle investments, where some of what I've said above doesn't apply. I won't get into that because the question inferred a single-owner situation, but the tax rules in these additional situations are again different.\"","It really depends on the type of business you are running. If there is any chance of liability, you should protect yourself with an LLC. Then it is much more difficult for them to sue and take personal assets. For example, if you are a wedding photographer, you would want to be an LLC in case you lose someones pictures.","> Umm, one of the benefits of creating a corporation is to keep personal money separate from the business. you missed the key statement from that little link you posted. Here, I'll help you out: > An owner of a corporation can be held personally liable if he or she: personally guarantees a bank loan or a business debt on which the corporation defaults And for a brand new company, you can sure as shit guarantee that as an owner, you'll be held personally liable.","\"Here's an alternative. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of contract engineering firms (\"\"job shops\"\") in the United States, probably hundreds in California alone. They are in the business of doing what your \"\"employer\"\" wants you to do, they know how to do it, they have been doing it for decades, working with the biggest, most-established companies in the country. They have forgotten more about providing engineering services to clients, and paying the engineers, than you can learn in a lifetime. Call a few of them. Set up meetings. Budget a few hours for it. You want to talk with the most experienced recruiter in the office, the Old Guy Who Has Been There And Done That. Explain your situation, and tell them that, rather than go through all of the headaches yourself, you want to investigate the possibility of THEM handling all the headaches, for their usual markup of course. (You can probably word this better than I can, but you get the idea.) The shop may or may not be willing to talk about their markup. My personal opinion is that this is perfectly OK. What they make off of you, after your rate is paid, is THEIR business. Also, talk about what you do, and your recommended rate. It would not surprise me to learn that you are currently grossly underpaid. AND, mention that, if the client declines, you're going to be available immediately, and you'd certainly be open to working with them. (You will see this again.) In fact, if they have any current leads that you fit, you would certainly be interested in hearing about them. (They may already have a req from another client, for which you fit, for which the client is willing to pay much more than your current \"\"employer\"\".) If it were me, personally, I'd start with Yoh, Belcan, and maybe TAD Technical. These are three of the oldest and best. I'd also hit up CE Weekly, get a subscription, and find some other shops with offices in your area. Once you have a shop lined up, then ask your \"\"employer\"\" if, rather than you setting up a personal corporation, they'd be willing to work with an established Contract Engineering firm, who does this kind of thing for a living, who does this every day, who has been doing this for decades. Doing this is simpler for everyone, and, by going through an established firm, they avoid having to teach you how to do business with them. They also avoid the risk of having you reclassified by IRS as an employee, which exposes them to all kinds of legal and financial liability. If they say \"\"No\"\", WALK AWAY FROM THEM. Immediately. They've just thrown up a HUGE red flag. This is where the other discussions with the shop come into play.\"","Generally speaking, if a business loses money for whatever reason, then that reduces the profits of the business which reduces the tax payable. However if you were holding the assets on a personal basis prior to incorporating the business, the position may become more complicated. For that kind of money some professional advice may be worthwhile.","\"It is definitely legal, however none of such expenses will be allowed as a tax deduction for the corporation. Basically, you'll end up paying more to maintain the entity and pay taxes on its income (the rent you're paying to yourself as a corporation) at corporate rates, for no apparent benefit. Being the director/executive in the corporation will make you liable for whatever the corporation is liable, so liability isn't going away. The reason corporation is considered \"\"limited liability\"\" for owners is because shareholders are shielded from the corporate liability. Not directors or executives (which are explicitly not shielded).\"","\"I've been in a similar situation before. While contracting, sometimes the recruiting agency would allow me to choose between being a W2 employee or invoicing them via Corp-2-Corp. I already had a company set up (S-Corp) but the considerations are similar. Typically the C2C rate was higher than the W2 rate, to account for the extra 7.65% FICA taxes and insurance. But there were a few times where the rate offered was identical, and I still choose C2C because it enabled me to deduct many of my business expenses that I wouldn't have otherwise been able to deduct. In my case the deductions turned out to be greater than the FICA savings. Your case is slightly different than mine though in that I already had the company set up so my company related costs were \"\"sunk\"\" as far as my decision was concerned. For you though, the yearly costs associated with running the business must be factored in. For example, suppose the following: Due to these expenses you need to make up $3413 in tax deductions due to the LLC. If your effective tax rate on the extra income is 30%, then your break even point is approximately $8K in deductions (.3*(x+3413)=3413 => x = $7963) So with those made up numbers, if you have at least $8K in legitimate additional business expenses then it would make sense to form an LLC. Otherwise you'd be better off as a W2. Other considerations:\"","\"My employer puts \"\"contractor\"\" in your email address if you're a contractor, just so no one mistakenly treats you like a real employee. jsmith.contractor@company.com They get crappy desks not much bigger than 1970s library carrels. Some of them might be making more than I do, but I'd bet 6 months' salary that most of them aren't - a lot of them have that hangdog \"\"should I go for catfood again tonight or treat myself with some nice instant ramen?\"\" look.\"","Not as you suggest. Since you are sole prop, you are taxed on a cash basis. Within reason, you can prepay vendors - so temp to hire through an agency might appear more attractive than direct hire. But there needs to be a justification other than avoidance of taxes. So pre-paying 100k on 12/25 would look fishy as fuck. Plus your quality of candidate will suffer if you need anything other than low skill labor. Look at your other fully deductible expenses - anything you can prepay-prepay. For example, I set my liability insurance renewal January 15 to provide optionality. But it just shifts one year into another .. Means fuckall if you are in the same marginal bracket next year. The IRS has also relaxed depreciation on office technology. Computers are now fully deductible rather than being capitalized. @ 500k revenue you should have a CPA and legal counsel. Simply incorporating isn't tax magic. The purpose is to limit yourersonal liability, not a tax shelter - but shitty things happen once you have employees, don't create the potential for a disgruntled employee lawsuit put your shelter at risk of court judgment. That said, assuming you aren't dumping a hypothetical on the Internet, congrats - for all the headaches, having employees is the ultimate leverage .. it's like a xerox machine for your labor (including loss of fidelity with each copy) ..","Scalability is the key determinate - if it doesn't scale easily then chances are the big bucks will elude you. To the extent that unless your entrepreneurial idea doesn't have scalability built into the business model, you should probably think again. Straight contracting/manpower sub is always limited and problematic - whereas encapsulating the IP and developing the *system* of applying that IS scalable.","The short Answer is NO, HMRC do not like disguised employment which is what this is as you fall under IR35 you can bill them via an umbrella company and you should be charging the contractor rate not a permie rate. http://www.contractoruk.com/","Normally, incorporation is for liability reasons. Just file your taxes as a business. This just means adding a T2125 to your personal return. There's no registering, that's for GST if over a certain threshold. There's even a section in the instructions for internet businesses. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/t4002/t4002-e.html#internet_business_activities This is the form you have to fill out. Take note that there is a place to include costs from using your own home as well. Those specific expenses can't be used to create or increase a loss from your business, but a regular business loss can be deducted from your employment income. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/t2125/t2125-15e.pdf","Do not mix personal accounts and corporate accounts. If you're paid as your self person - this money belongs to you, not the corporation. You can contribute it to the corporation, but it is another tax event and you should understand fully the consequences. Talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). If they pay to you personally (1099) - it goes on your Schedule C, and you pay SE taxes on it. If they pay to your corporation, the corporation will pay it to you as salary, and will pay payroll taxes on it. Generally, payroll through corporation will be slightly more expensive than regular schedule C. If you have employees/subcontractors, though, you may earn money which is not from your own performance, in which case S-Corp may be an advantage.","You can ask the client to pay you through the LLC. In that case you should invoice them from the LLC and have them pay the invoice. If they pay you personally, you can always make a capital contribution to the LLC and use that money to buy equipment. The tax implications for a single person LLC providing professional services are the same for you either way: income is income whether it's from your LLC or an employer. It's different for the employer if they are giving you a W2 vs a 1099. So it doesn't matter much for you. If the LLC is buying equipment, make sure you get enough revenue through the LLC to at least offset those expenses.","You may also want to consider Delaware and Nevada as possible corporate homes. They are common choices for out of state corporations. You may find that they are better options. Will earnings prior to forming the LLC have to be claimed as self-employment income? If so, would it be easier to wait until the next calendar year to form the LLC? Earnings after forming the Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) will probably have to be claimed as self-employment income. See How LLC Members Are Taxed for more discussion. In particular, read the section on self-employment taxes: The current rule is that any owner who works in or helps manage the business must pay this tax on his or her distributive share (rightful share of profits). However, owners who are not active in the LLC -- that is, those who have merely invested money but don't provide services or make management decisions for the LLC -- may be exempt from paying self-employment taxes on their share of profits. The regulations in this area are a bit complicated, but if you actively manage or work in your LLC, you can expect to pay self-employment tax on all LLC profits allocated to you. As I read it, you actively work in the LLC, so it is unlikely that you can avoid paying self-employment taxes. So it shouldn't make any difference when you officially start an LLC. You'll have to pay self-employment taxes before and after creating the LLC regardless. If you don't want to pay self-employment taxes, you may want to consider forming a Subchapter C corporation. They don't have the same tax structure as Subchapter S corporations or LLCs. You would be paid some kind of wage, salary, or commission and the corporation would pay the employer's side of the payroll taxes. Note that Subchapter S corporations and LLCs exist because they usually pay less in tax than Subchapter C corporations do. Even including the self-employment taxes that you owe. A CPA should be able to guide you in making these decisions and help you with setup. The one time that I started a corporation, I just paid a few hundred dollars to a service and they filed the paperwork for me. That included state fees and notice costs. The CPA probably has a service association already.","\"Another factor you may want to consider is insurance, if your wife is at their house as a friend who happens to be teaching the kid to play and the kid falls off their chair and hurts them self that is rather different to your wife being brought in to the house as a contractor and an injury occurring during an activity that she was supervising. I am in a similar situation and I have a $5 million public liability policy, which costs about $300 per year. So if her income is likely to be less than that she may be better off \"\"helping a friend learn\"\" rather than \"\"providing tutoring services\"\". There may also be legal requirements, I am required to apply for government checks every few years in order to operate a business that involves working with children.\"","Are you being paid through a limited company or an umbrella company ? Are you self employed If not what they are doing is illegal. If you are being paid a salary, then the employer has to contribute their part of National Insurance. I believe they are treating you as self employed, hence asking you to generate invoices. Check your contract wordings properly. Or get help from Citizens Advice. Call them or visit their local office. Or else do call up HMRC. But if you are invoicing them, I would assume you are self employed and you have to do your self assessment. Get in contact with HMRC and ask them to generate your Unique Taxpayer Reference (UTR). THey will send you the UTR and using this you can fill your tax returns. It looks like cumbersome now, but it isn't so. You can do it yourself, I do mine. Or at the end of the financial year, get an accountant to do the returns for you, probably should charge you £100-£150. Keep all your invoices, bills, bank statements safely. This is some help from HMRC website","You don't need to make even close to that much to start doing this. All you need is a job where you hire your company out to another company to do work. Any kind of consulting work is usually done in a similar fashion. You can't expect people not to take advantage of tax breaks. That's like asking parents to stop getting subsidies for child care because it's not fair to bachelors. To say that people who do this don't feel anything is quite insulting.","It will depend on how much you expect to earn this way, and whether you expect the company to become profitable soon. Has the company just not made a profit yet, or has it actually made a significant loss that your invoices would just be offsetting? If you're earning over £10,000 per year then invoicing through the company is preferable. Above that level, you'd be taking money from the company as dividends after paying 20% corporation tax with no other tax to pay on your personal tax return. As a sole trader you'd be paying 20% income tax and 9% NI. (Note however that the company can only pay dividends from profits, which is a problem if there are significant losses to offset.) Below £10,000, there's little difference. Through the company, you can take a salary of £7956 per year without paying any income tax or NI. With the new £2000 discount on employers' NI you could then take salary up to £10,000 and just pay 12% employee's NI. As a sole trader, you pay 9% Class 4 NI over £7956 and a fixed £143 per year for Class 2 NI. Paying 9% rather than 12% saves you £60, but then you add the £143. In practice the company would work out more expensive at this level because you'll probably want to pay an accountant to deal with the payroll for you. Having the company repay your £2000 from the invoices doesn't really save any tax if the company will become profitable in the future. You don't pay any tax now since the money you receive isn't income, and the company doesn't pay any tax if the extra £2000 of revenue doesn't put it back in profit. However, if the company is profitable next year then it will have an extra £2000 of profit that would otherwise have been offset against this year's loss, and you do end up paying 20% corporation tax on the £2000. You could still have the company repay the loan in order to delay the tax liability, but it's not really tax free money. Loaning additional money to the company has no tax benefit, you just give the company £1000 and get your original £1000 back later. You pay no tax and neither does the company, but it was your money in the first place.","\"Your comment to James is telling and can help us lead you in the right direction: My work and lifestyle will be the same either way, as I said. This is all about how it goes \"\"on the books.\"\" [emphasis mine] As an independent consultant myself, when I hear something like \"\"the work will be the same either way\"\", I think: \"\"Here thar be dragons!\"\". Let me explain: If you go the independent contractor route, then you better act like one. The IRS (and the CRA, for Canadians) doesn't take lightly to people claiming to be independent contractors when they operate in fact like employees. Since you're not going to be behaving any different whether you are an employee or a contractor, (and assuming you'll be acting more like an employee, i.e. exclusive, etc.), then the IRS may later make a determination that you are in fact an employee, even if you choose to go \"\"on the books\"\" as an independent contractor. If that happens, then you may find yourself retroactively denied many tax benefits you'd have claimed; and owe penalties and interest too. Furthermore, your employer may be liable for additional withholding taxes, benefits, etc. after such a finding. So for those reasons, you should consider being an employee. You will avoid the potential headache I outlined above, as well as the additional paperwork etc. of being a contractor. If on the other hand you had said you wanted to maintain some flexibility to moonlight with other clients, build your own product on the side, choose what projects you work on (or don't), maybe hire subcontractors, etc. then I'd have supported the independent contractor idea. But, just on the basis of the tax characteristics only I'd say forget about it. On the financial side, I can tell you that I wouldn't have become a consultant if not for the ability to make more money in gross terms (i.e. before tax and expenses.) That is: your top line revenues ought to be higher in order to be able to offset many of the additional expenses you'd incur as an independent. IMHO, the tax benefits alone wouldn't make up for the difference. One final thing to look at is Form SS-8 mentioned at the IRS link below. If you're not sure what status to choose, the IRS can actually help you. But be prepared to wait... and wait... :-/ Additional Resources:\"","\"I'm no lawyer and no expert, so take my remarks as entertainment only. Also see this question. If you have a U.S. SSN which is eligible for work, they may be able to pay you on 1099 basis with your SSN as a sole proprietor, unless they have some personal reason for avoiding that. So perhaps try asking about that specifically. HR policies can be weird and tricky, maybe a nudge in the right direction will help. Not What You Asked: regardless, I might recommend you register as an LLC and get an EIN (sort of SSN for companies) for a variety of reasons. It's called a \"\"limited liability\"\" company for a reason. You may also have an easier time reaping various business-related rewards, like writing off expenses. If you do so, consider a state with no income tax like Wyoming. (Or, for convenience sake, WA if you live in BC, or maybe NH if you live in Ontario.. etc.)\"","In the US, and I suspect in most of the developed world, one major point of a corporation is limited liability. The stockholders are not on the hook for liabilities beyond their investment. If the company does something terrible, or fails economically, it goes bankrupt. Usually the stockholders have their investment wiped out, but they are guaranteed that they do not have to pay more in to any settlement.","I would not assume they would pay for any benefits. You will be responsible for paying entirely for health insurance and social security and Medicare. This move is most likely not in your best interests. At a minimum, I would charge double your current hourly rate and would charge for all hours worked including time and half for overtime. 3 times is actually probably a better choice if you want to cover holidays (which they will not pay you for), vacation time, etc. I know when I did project bids, we always priced at 2-3 times the salary we paid the employees.","Why would the companies pay more to cover personal risks of the employee? The employees will just have to suck it up and live with more risks. Employees who cannot work anymore because of that are the problem of the state and society, not of the company. There's a reason social safety nets were constructed in the first place.","I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer without knowing all about your situation, but some things to consider: If you are on a 1099, you have to pay self-employment tax, while on a W-2 you do not. That is, social security tax is 12.4% of your income. If you're a 1099, you pay the full 12.4%. If you're W-2, you pay 6.2% and the employer pays 6.2%. So if they offer you the same nominal rate of pay, you're 6.2% better off with the W-2. What sort of insurance could you get privately and what would it cost you? I have no idea what the going rates for insurance are in California. If you're all in generally good health, you might want to consider a high-deductible policy. Then if no one gets seriously sick you've saved a bunch of money on premiums. If someone does get sick you might still pay less paying the deductible than you would have paid on higher premiums. I won't go into further details as that's getting off into another question. Even if the benefits are poor, if there are any benefits at all it can be better than nothing. The only advantage I see to going with a 1099 is that if you are legally an independent contractor, then all your business expenses are deductible, while if you are an employee, there are sharp limits on deducting employee business expenses. Maybe others can think of other advantages. If there is some reason to go the 1099 route, I understand that setting up an LLC is not that hard. I've never done it, but I briefly looked into it once and it appeared to basically be a matter of filling out a form and paying a modest fee.","The major reason to start an LLC for side work is if you want the additional personal liability protection afforded by one. If you're operating as a sole proprietor, you may be exposing yourself to liability: debts and judgments against your business can put your personal assets at risk! So, if you're intending to continue and grow your side work in the future, you ought to consider the LLC sooner than later. It's also an important legal decision and you should consider seeking a professional opinion. The Wall Street Journal has a brief guide titled How to Form an LLC. Here are some notable excerpts: A limited liability company, or LLC, is similar to a partnership but has the legal protections of personal assets that a corporation offers without the burdensome formalities, paperwork and fees. [...] Some states charge annual fees and taxes that can diminish the economic advantage of choosing to become an LLC. Among LLC advantages: pass-through taxation – meaning the profits and losses “pass through” the business to the individuals owning the business who report this information on their own personal tax returns. The result can be paying less in taxes, since profits are not taxed at both the business level and the personal level. Another plus: Owners aren’t usually responsible for the company’s debts and liabilities. [...] Also check out onstartups.com's Startup 101: Should You Form An Inc. or An LLC? Here are some additional articles that discuss the advantages / disadvantages of forming an LLC:","\"I expect the company wanted to pay you for a product (on a purchase order) rather than as a contract laborer. Whatever. Would they be willing to re-issue the check to you as a sole proprietor of a business named ABC Consulting (or anything like that)? You can register your sole proprietor business with the state using a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" (DBA, or fictitious name), and then open the bank account for your business using the check provided by the customer as the first deposit. (There is likely a smaller registration fee for the DBA.) If they won't re-issue the check and you have to go the LLC route... Scrounge up $125 doing odd jobs or borrowing from a friend or parents. Seriously, anyone can earn that amount of money in a week or two. Besides the filing fee for the LLC, your bank may require you to provide an Operating Agreement (which is not required by the State). The Operating Agreement can be simple, or more complex if you have a partner (even if it's a spouse). If you do have a partner, it is essential to have such an agreement because it would specify the responsibilities and benefits allocated to each partner, particularly in the event of equity distributions (taking money out of the business, or liquidating and ending the LLC). There are websites that will provide you a boilerplate form for Operating Agreements. But if your business is anything more than just single member LLC, you should pay an attorney to draw one up for you so the wording is right. It's a safeguard against potential future lawsuits. And, while we're at it, don't forget to obtain a EIN (equivalent to a SSN) from the IRS for your LLC. There's no cost, but you'll have to have it to file taxes as a business for every year the LLC exists and has income. Good luck!\"","\"I don't see why you would need an \"\"international tax specialist\"\". You need a tax specialist to give you a consultation and training on your situation, but it doesn't seem too complicated to me. You invoice your client and get paid - you're a 1099 contractor. They should issue you a 1099 at the end of the year on everything they paid you. Once you become full-time employee - you become a W2 employee and will get a W2 at the end of the year on the amounts paid as such. From your perspective there's nothing international here, regular business. You have to pay your own taxes on the 1099 income (including SE taxes), they have to withhold taxes from your W2 income (including FICA). Since they're foreign employers, they might not do that latter part, and you'll have to deal with that on your tax return, any decent EA/CPA will be able to accommodate you with that. For the employer there's an issue of international taxation. They might have to register as a foreign business in your state, they might be liable for some payroll taxes and State taxes, etc etc. They might not be aware of all that. They might also be liable (or exempt) for Federal taxes, depending on the treaty provisions. But that's their problem. Your only concern is whether they're going to issue you a proper W2 and do all the withholdings or not when the time comes.\"","\"I am co-owner of a business, and we incorporated federally. (Mostly to limit liability.) There is some excellent information above, and most of my wisdom I got from a trusted lawyer and accountant (find experts you trust in these two areas, they will prove invaluable in so many areas.) The one point I would add is that if you decide to incorporate, you can do so federally or provincially. We were all set to go provincially, when our lawyer asked \"\"Is there any chance you might move the business? Any chance you might want to do work in other provinces? What about next year? Five years?\"\" If you are going through the expenses to set up a corporation, consider doing so federally, the extra costs were insignificant, but someday you might be glad you don't have to start from scratch. In this day and age, many people end up moving out of province for work, family concerns, etc.\"","This is pretty normal. I am in the UK and currently doing the exact same thing. As some answers state there is additional tax law called IR35. But thats all it is, an additional tax law that may be applicable to your situation (it very well may not). It is all perfectly legal and common (all my university friends now do it). You will be the director of a company, and invoice the recruiters company. This has benefits and disadvantages. Personally I love it, but each to their own. Don't do it if you don't want to.","You should look into an LLC. Its a fairly simple process, and the income simply flows through to your individual return. It will allow you to deduct supplies and other expenses from that income. It should also protect you if someone sues you for doing shoddy work (even if the work was fine), although you would need to consult a lawyer to be sure. For last year, it sounds like your taxes were done wrong. There are very, very few ways that you can end up adding more income and earning less after taxes. I'm tempted to say none, but our tax laws are so complex that I'm sure you can do it somehow.","Talk to an insurance broker. Dealing with property can be risky. If someone slips and decides to sue, the lawyer is going to drag everyone into it. Look for business insurance, but also personal liability and umbrella insurance. You might think you're doing things as part of your business and find out you're actually doing them as yourself and when sued, you are being sued, not your company! An insurance agent will be able to sort things out for you though.","\"The \"\"more money\"\" aspect is only true if you ignore the lack of symmetry between employment and contracting. Consulting is another story altogether. Companies are willing to pay consultants for a number of reasons but the most important is deniability. If a decision is recommended and goes wrong then the consultants can be sued. Liability cover is expensive. Cynicism aside, it often isn't cost-effective to keep specialists permanently on the payroll for tasks that are performed once a year. Recently I've noticed that the nature of consulting is changing. Companies are starting to assemble brains-trusts of internal consultants who can create and manage projects while outsourcing only the labour-intensive data-collection roles. Expect this to have a big impact on the management consulting industry.\"","In general that's illegal. If you're a W2 employee, you don't miraculously become a 1099 contractor just because they pay you more. If your job doesn't change - then your status doesn't change just because they give you a raise. They can be sued (by you, and by the IRS) for that. Other issues have already been raised by other respondents, just wanted to point out this legal perspective.","\"Not all of the reason to start an LLC is liability (although that is implicit). There are two main reasons as far as I have experienced it: I always recommend that people set things up properly from the beginning. If you do start to grow, or if you need to cut your losses, it can be very difficult to separate yourself from the company if it isn't set up entirely apart from you. I was once told, \"\"Run your small company as you would wish it to be.\"\" Don't get into bad habits at the beginning. They become bad habits in big companies later on.\"","They are a business. You're not a corporation. They paid you more than $600 during the year, so they're supposed to send 1099 to you and the IRS about it. They need your taxpayer certification (W9) for that. They were supposed to ask for it before they paid you, but yes - they're supposed to ask for it.","If it's a small one person business he will have to sign a personal guarantee no matter what he does with respect to incorporating. Not saying your idea isn't worth looking into but no bank will lend him money without a personal guarantee.","That's the foundation of Limited Liability. There is a corporate veil that protects your personal assets from that of your business. The corporate veil can be pierced if you do certain stuff and thus your personal assets will get effected. This allows people to start companies and innovate more and take more risks knowing that they could not be personally liable if the business folds.","Contractors earn less. Especially the people that are hired under them. They usually have no education, and base pay; long hours and hard work.","You can receive funds from US Client as an individual. There is no legal requirement for you to have a company. If the transactions are large say more than 20 lacs in a year, its advisable to open a Private Ltd. Although its simple opening & Registering a company [A CA or a Laywer would get one at a nominal price of Rs 5000] you can do yourself. Whatever be the case, its advisable to have seperate accounts for this business / professional service transactions. Maintain proper records of the funds received. There are certain benefits you can claim, a CA can help you. Paying taxes in Advance is your responsibility and hence make sure you keep paying every quarter as advance tax. Related questions Indian citizen working from India as freelancer for U.S.-based company. How to report the income & pay tax in India? Freelancer in India working for Swiss Company Freelancing to UK company from India How do I account for money paid to colleagues out of my professional income?","You are describing a corporation. You can set up a corporation to perform business, but if you were using the money for any personal reasons the courts could Pierce the corporate veil and hold you personally liable. Also, setting up a corporation for purely personal reasons is fraud.","I read, however, that if the company's assets are not kept separate from our assets then if we got sued, the corporate veil would be pierced. This whole venture would be to give us additional income so my wife could watch our daughter and have an income.","> Why would the companies pay more So that we, the taxpayer, don't have to. Taxpayers shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing corporate wages by providing necessary services that an employee should be able to buy via earned income.","Sounds you need to read up on S corp structures. I think this would benefit you if you generate income even after you physically stopped working which is incomes from membership fees, royalties % of customer revenue, middle man etc... Under the Scorp, you as the sole member must earn a wage that fair and at current market value. You pay social security and Medicare on this wage. The interesting thing here is that an Scorp can pay out earning dividends without having to pay payroll taxes but the catch is that you, as the sole employee must earn a fair wage. As for paying the other member you may want to look into 1099 contract work plus a finders fee. The 1099 hourly wage does not require you to pay Medicare and SS. The common fee I'm used to is 5% of gross invoice. Then you would pay her an hourly wage. The company then bills these hours multiplied by 2 or 3 (or whatever you think is fair) to the client. Deduct expenses from this and that's your profit. Example. Contractor brings Client A which is estimated as a 100 hour project with $100 cost in supplies and requires 2 hours of your time @ $40/hr. You quote 100 hours @ $50 to client, client agrees and gives you down payment. You then present the contract work to your contractor, they complete the work in 100 hours and bill you at $25. You pay your contractor 2500 plus the 5% ($250) and your company earns $2070 (5000 - 2500 - 100-80) And you'll earn $80 minus the payroll tax. Then at the end of the quarter or year or however you want to do earning payouts your LLC- Scorp will write you a check for $2070 or whatever earning % you want to take. This is then taxed at your income tax bracket. One thing to keep in mind is what is preventing this other person from becoming your competition? A partnership would be great motivation to try and bring in as much work under the LLC. But if you start shafting people then they'll just keep the work and cut you out."],"string":"[\n \"They believe that it reduces the risk that Revenue Canada will deem you to be an employee and make them pay a whole pile of tax, EI, CPP and so on that should have been paid if you had been hired as an employee. It's my recollection that the employer gets dinged for both the employee and employer share of those withholdings (and generally the employer's share is larger than yours) so they really want to prevent it. There's a Revenue Canada publication about whether you're an employee or not. There's nothing on it about being incorporated, but still employers feel more protected when their contracts are incorporated. We did work as a sole proprietorship at the very beginning, so that we could deduct our losses against employment income earned earlier in the year, before we started the business. You can find clients who will take you on. We incorporated once the losses were over with (basically we had bought the equipment and office supplies we needed to get started.) It's a simple and relatively inexpensive thing to do, and gives clients a sense of protection. It won't protect you from your own poor decisions since you'll be a director of the firm.\",\n \"Why not personal responsibility? Get paid *then* provide the service. It's what small business owners do every day without the help of government or the protection of a large corporation. Individuals comply with safety regulations to protect themselves. If you need a corporation to do it for you, expect to make less. If you can do it yourself, expect to make more as an entrepreneur.\",\n \"Unless the amounts involved are very small, it is MUCH better to incorporate. First, incorporation gives you limited liability for your acts as an employee. As an individual, you have unlimited liability. Second, incorporating allows you to deduct (for tax purposes) the costs of doing business, including all of your health insurance, most transportation, and some meals. The exception to the rule is if the amounts you are earning are so small that they don't cover the cost of incorporating, accounting fees, etc. (a few hundred, or at most a few thousand dollars).\",\n \"In short - if you can't get the job without incorporating, then incorporate! Some clients will require you to be incorporated (which is why I did it 10 years ago). Essentially, for them, it's a way of distancing themselves from you to ensure they are not responsible for any monies if you don't pay your taxes. For you, there is also this idea of distancing company assets from your personal assets. If they are not requiring you to incorporate, you can simply act as a sole proprietorship. A good place to start reading up could be the sites below (for Canada/Ontario): Canada Business http://sbinfocanada.about.com/ http://sbinfocanada.about.com/od/incorporation/Incorporating_A_Business_In_Canada.htm http://sbinfocanada.about.com/cs/startup/a/incorporatadv.htm When I registered, I simply bought a book at Grand&Toy, with all the required forms for Ontario. These forms would also be available at a local Government service centre. You walk in, give the government money, and shortly thereafter you are incorporated. There are a number of others things that are required (having a minutes book, writing resolutions, creating shares, setting up a bank account, etc) - all discussed in the guide For Ontario you can start here: http://www.ontario.ca/en/services_for_business/index.htm At a high level, there are some costs for being incorporated, and some tax savings. At a minimum, costs would include: You may need the help of an account to help set things up, but it's quite easy to maintain all the records, etc that are required. Some other minor things I enjoy are writing myself expense cheques so that I get money back immediately (and effectively only pay 60% of the cost after writing it off in the company). I can decide how much to pay myself and push income from year to year.\",\n \"All the existing answers are right and the general theme is: contracting is a different kind of relationship. It's a business-to-business relationship rather than a business-to-employee relationship. This has implications such as: Of course, some contractors are effectively just over-paid employees, and some of the above points don't apply to them, but that's the idea behind bona fide contracting.\",\n \"You are absolutely correct, incorporation and the fiduciary responsibility that comes with it almost always leads to a sacrifice in product quality and long-term business principles. I always think of the difference between McDonalds and In-n-Out hamburgers as examples of where each road leads.\",\n \"You may want to start a company for a few reasons, the main one would be liability, you don't want your friend to drop a weight on a foot and sue you for millions taking your house away. You'd need to pay taxes on the income, that's after you pay all your expenses, bills, mortgage interest, insurance premiums (!), equipment depreciation. So it's going to be a lot less than you collect from your friends. Whether you incorporate or not you have to pay taxes on your income. If it's $200/year IRS may not notice that, if it's $20K a month it would be very hard to hide. If you pay your friends more than some amount (check the laws) you'd need to tell IRS about it (issue 1099-misc), then your friends must pay taxes on that income.\",\n \"If you want to subcontract some of your excess work to somebody else, you better be in business! While some kinds of employees (e.g. commissioned salespeople) are permitted to deduct some expenses on their income tax, generally only a real business can deduct wages for additional employees, or the cost of services provided by subcontractors. Do you invoice your clients and charge HST (GST)? Or do you tell your clients each pay period how many hours you worked and they compensate you through their payroll system like everybody else that walks through the door? If you're not invoicing and charging HST (GST) (assuming you exceed the threshold, and if you have too much work, you probably do!), then perhaps your clients are treating you as an employee – by default – and withholding taxes, CPP, and EI so they don't get in trouble? After all, Canada Revenue Agency is likely to consider any person providing a service to a company to be an employee unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary, and when there isn't enough evidence, it's the company paying for the services that would be on the hook for unpaid taxes, CPP, and EI. Carefully consider what form of business you are operating, or were intending to operate. It's essential for your business to be structured appropriately if you want to hire or subcontract. You ought to be either self-employed as a sole proprietor, or perhaps incorporated if it makes more sense to your situation. Next, act accordingly. For instance, it's likely that your business should be taking care of the source deductions, CPP, and EI. In fact, self-employed individuals shouldn't even be paying into EI – an independent contractor wouldn't qualify to make an EI claim if they lost a contract. As an independent, one doesn't have a job, one has a business, and EI doesn't cover the business itself, only the employees that the business deals with at arm's length. As a business owner, you would be considered non-arms-length, and exempt from EI. Growing your business in the way that you are suggesting is an important enough a step that you should seek professional advice in advance. Find a good accountant that deals with self-employed individuals & small businesses and run all this by him. He should be able to guide you accordingly. Find a lawyer, too. A lawyer can guide you on how to properly subcontract others while protecting you and your business. Finally, be mindful of what it is you agreed to in your contract with your client: Do they expect all services to be performed by you, personally? Even if it wasn't written down who exactly would be performing the services, there may be an assumption it's you. Some negotiation may be in order if you want to use subcontractors.\",\n \"\\\"There are a few sites out there that can give you some reasoning behind the request. LegalZoom, for instance. To quote the LZ doc in case the link dies: Employee vs. Independent Contractor If a worker is an employee, the employer is responsible for paying Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, and possibly other costs like workers' compensation insurance for the employee; at the end of the tax year, the employer is responsible for compiling all necessary payroll reports, including W-2 forms. If a worker is an independent contractor, the employer is not responsible for any of the above taxes or payments, and the only added paperwork is the issuing of a 1099 to the independent contractor at the end of the tax year, if he or she has made more than $600 with the employer. As Kent suggested, you should speak with an attorney (really you need one if setting up an LLC). There are a lot of companies out there these days that try to classify people as contractors rather than full-time employees as it gets them out of paying benefits and dealing with taxes. This is being heavily cracked down on, and several \\\"\\\"contractor\\\"\\\" employees are winning lawsuits to get full-time status. If you are truly acting as a contractor, then setting up an LLC can help with a few items such as taxes and protection on certain business aspects (see comments below regarding this). It's easy and relatively cheap (cost me about $250 with extra legal advice tacked on). If you are reporting directly to a manager with the company, or really working in any way that isn't consistent with the definition of a contractor, then I'd turn down the offer and ask to be made a FT employee. Additional information: https://www.sba.gov/content/hire-contractor-or-employee\\\"\",\n \"It makes no difference for tax purposes. If you are 1099, you will pay the same amount of taxes as if you formed a corporation and then paid yourself (essentially you are doing this as a 1099 contractor, just not formally). Legally, I don't know the answer. I would assume you have some legal protections by forming an LLC but practically I think this won't make any difference if you get sued.\",\n \"Operate a business which can incur its own liabilities and pay its own debts. If the corporate entity is used recklessly, incurring debits you know it cannot pay, using it for fraudulent purposes, co-mingling company funds with your own, etc., then creditors can come after your personal assets\",\n \"Do you need to incorporate? This depends on whether the company prefers you to be incorporated. If you are going through a recruiting company, some of them are willing to deal with non-incorporated people (Sole Proprietor) and withhold taxes from your cheques for you. If you do want to incorporate, you can do it yourself, go through a paralegal, or you can even do it online. I did mine in Ontario for about $300 (no name search - i just have a numbered corporation like 123456 Ontario Inc.) through www.oncorp.com - there are other sites that do it as well. Things to consider - if you're contracting through a corporation you most likely need to: Talk to an accountant about these for clarification - most of them will give you an initial consultation for free. Generally speaking, accountant fees for corporate filing taxes averages about $1000-2000 a year.\",\n \"It is a great advice. I would suggest going to the Companies House (it's in London somewhere), picking up all of their leaflets regarding requirements for different forms of corporate entity, and deciding if you want to have that burden. It is not a lot of work, you can essentially claim VAT on all business purchases (the way roughly it works, is that your company invoices your client, your client has to pay the fee + VAT (usually that VAT is then deducted by your client from it's VAT, so no loss there), and you pay the VAT on the difference between the service sales price, and your costs (computers etc.) ) You have to be careful to avoid excessive double taxation (paying income tax on both corporate income, and then your personal income off said company), but it usually comes off in your favor. Essentially, if you're making more than 50% of your income from services rendered, it is to your advantage to render such services as a business entity.\",\n \"\\\"The \\\"\\\"independent contractor\\\"\\\" vs. \\\"\\\"employee\\\"\\\" distinction is a red herring to this discussion and not at all important just because someone suggested you use your LLC to do the job. Corp-2-Corp is a very common way to do contracting and having an LLC with business bank accounts provides you with more tax deductions (such as deducting interest on credit lines). Some accounting practices prefer to pay entities by their Tax ID numbers, instead of an individual's social security number. The actual reasoning behind this would be dubious, but the LLC only benefits you and gives you more advantages by having one than not. For example, it is easier for you to hire subcontractors through your LLC to assist with your job, due to the opaqueness of the private entity. Similarly, your LLC can sign Non Disclosure and Intellectual Property agreements, automatically extending the trade secrets to all of its members, as opposed to just you as an individual. By signing whatever agreement with the company that is paying you through your LLC, your LLC will be privy to all of this. Next, assuming you did have subcontractors or other liability inducing assets, the LLC limits the liability you personally have to deal with in a court system, to an extent. But even if you didn't, the facelessness of an LLC can deter potential creditors, for example, your client may just assume you are a cog in a wheel - a random employee of the LLC - as opposed to the sole owner. Having a business account for the LLC keeps all of your expenses in one account statement, making your tax deductions easier. If you had a business credit line, the interest is tax deductible (compared to just having a personal credit card for business purposes). Regarding the time/costs of setting up and managing an LLC, this does vary by jurisdiction. It can negligible, or it can be complex. You also only have to do it once. Hire an attorney to give you a head start on that, if you feel that is necessary. Now back to the \\\"\\\"independent contractor\\\"\\\" vs. \\\"\\\"employee\\\"\\\" distinction: It is true that the client will not be paying your social security, but they expect you to charge more hourly than an equivalent actual employee would, solely because you don't get health insurance from them or paid leave or retirement plans or any other perk, and you will receive the entire paycheck without any withheld by the employer. You also get more tax deductions to utilize, although you will now have self employment tax (assuming you are a US citizen), this becomes less and less important the higher over $105,000 you make, as it stops being counted (slightly more complicated than that, but self employment tax is it's own discussion).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I know this is a little late but here is my answer. No. You do not \\\"\\\"need\\\"\\\" to incorporate. In fact, incorporating in your situation will cost you in legal fees, administrative headaches, and a fair bit in taxes. The CRA would probably look at your corporation as a personal services corporation and it would not be allowed to claim a number of tax reductions. The tax rate would end up being over the top range (unless you are in Quebec where it would be just under the top marginal range).\\\"\",\n \"They are already indirectly paying these expenses. They should be built into your rates. The amount per job or per hour needs to cover what would have been your salary, plus the what would have been sick, vacation, holidays, health insurance, life insurance, disability, education, overhead for office expenses, cost of accountants...and all taxes. In many companies the general rule of thumb is that they need to charge a customer 2x the employees salary to cover all this plus make a profit. If this is a side job some of these benefits will come from your main job. Some self employed get some of these benefits from their spouse. The company has said we give you money for the work you perform, but you need to cover everything else including paying all taxes. Depending on where you live you might have to send money in more often then once a year. They are also telling you that they will be reporting the money they give you to the government so they can claim it as a business expense. So you better make sure you report it as income.\",\n \"In addition to the other answers, consultants and contractors face a real risk (though admittedly small) of not getting paid. The more short-term the gigs are, the higher the risk of not getting paid for a particular job. As an employee, there are laws to ensure that you get your paycheck. As a contractor, you're just another creditor. I know a couple of contractors (software engineers) who have had difficulty collecting after a job. (I'm not even sure one ever got paid the full amount.) I also personally witnessed a contractor show up for a job who was then told by the company that they unilaterally decided that they would pay half of their pre-arranged rate.\",\n \"I don't know the term sole trader but usually the trade off is a corporation allows for shield from liability (i.e. creditors) more flexibility with respect to personal tax management, but higher operating costs (incorporation, financial statements, etc). I always incorporate.\",\n \"Your recruiter is likely trying to avoid having to pay the employer's side of employment taxes, and may even be trying to avoid having to file a 1099 for you by treating your relationship as a vendor/service provider that he is purchasing services from, which would make your pay just a business expense. It's definitely in his best interest for you to do it this way. Whether it's in your best interest is up to you. You should consult a licensed legal/tax professional to help you determine whether this is a good arrangement for you. (Most of the time, when someone starts playing tax avoidance games, they eventually get stung by it.) The next big question: If you already know this guy is a snake, why are you still working with him? If you don't trust him, why would you take legal/tax advice from him? He might land you a high-paying job. But he also might cause you years of headaches if his tax advice turns out to be flawed.\",\n \"I am surprised no one has mentioned the two biggest things (in my opinion). Or I should say, the two biggest things to me. First, 1099 have to file quarterly self employment taxes. I do not know for certain but I have heard that often times you will end up paying more this way then even a W-2 employees. Second, an LLC allows you to deduct business expenses off the top prior to determining what you pay in taxes as pass-through income. With 1099 you pay the same taxes regardless of your business expenses unless they are specifically allowed as a 1099 contractor (which most are not I believe). So what you should really do is figure out the expense you incur as a result of doing your business and check with an accountant to see if those expenses would be deductible in an LLC and if it offsets a decent amount of your income to see if it would be worth it. But I have read a lot of books and listened to a lot of interviews about wealthy people and most deal in companies not contracts. Most would open a new business and add clients rather than dealing in 1099 contracts. Just my two cents... Good luck and much prosperity.\",\n \"To be honest I don't know how any of this work in the US so my answer will be of very limited value to yourself, I suspect, but when it comes to the UK if you're going to get the same pay gross either way than being independent makes very little sense. Running your own business is hassle, is generally more risky (although possibly not in your case) and costs money. Some of the most obvious costs are the added NI, probably the need for an accountant, at around £1200 p/a for basic accountancy service, you are obliged by law to have liability insurance and you probably want professional indemnity insurance, this will be around £600 p/a minmum, and so on and so forth. On top of that, oficially anyway, as a contractor, you really shouldn't be getting any benefits from the client, and so health insurance, company car, even parking are all meant to be arranged by, and paid by, your company, and can't (or rather - shouldn't) be charged to the client. So - I would say - if you're seriously thinking about setting up a consultancy company, and this client is first of many - set up a company, but take into account the sums you need to earn. If you're really thinking about employment - be an employee.\",\n \"\\\"Interesting as I am in the exact same situations as yourself. I, in fact, just incorporated. You will be able \\\"\\\"save\\\"\\\" more in taxes in the end. The reason I put \\\"\\\"save\\\"\\\" in quotes, is that you don't necessarily save on taxes, but you can defer taxes. The driving factor behind this is that you specify your own fiscal calendar/year. Incorporating allows you to defer income for up to 6 months. Meaning that if you make your fiscal year starting in August or September, for example, you can claim that income on the following year (August + 6 months = February). It allows you to keep the current year taxes down. Also, any income left over at year end, is taxed at 15% (the Corporation rate) rather than the 30-40% personal rate you get with a sole-proprietorship. In a nutshell, with sole-proprietorship, all income is taxable (after write-offs)... in a corporation, you can take some of that income and keep it in the corporation (gives your company a \\\"\\\"value\\\"\\\"), and is only taxed at 15% - big saving there. I primarily work with US businesses. I am, however, a dual-citizen, US and Canadian, which allowed me as a sole-proprietor, to easily work with US companies. However, as a sole-proprietor or a Corporation, you simply need to get an EIN from the IRS and any US company will report earnings to that number, with no deductions. At year end, it is your responsibility to file the necessary tax forms and pay the necessary taxes to both countries. Therefore you can solicit new US business if you choose, but this is not restricted to corporations. The real benefit in incorporating is what I mentioned above. My suggestion to you is to speak with you CA, who can outline all benefits. Revenue Canada's website had some good information on this topic as well. Please let me know if you need anything else explained.\\\"\",\n \"In addition to asking an accountant, I would also ask a lawyer. When exploring the same question for myself, I found that one of the benefits of incorporating or forming an LLC is that your personal assets are better protected. Including asset protection, here are 5 reasons to incorporate: Initially, I thought that as I had so few assets, I should not be concerned. I was glad I was able to do a free consult with a lawyer who advised me to look into forming an LLC. (Ultimately, my planned business idea never panned out. So, I never went the incorporation/LLC route.) Hope this helps!\",\n \"\\\"Linkedlinked, You might want to seriously take another look at the links that Chris provided you. Specifically the ones on the IRS website: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html From the IRS website: Businesses must weigh all these factors when determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Some factors may indicate that the worker is an employee, while other factors indicate that the worker is an independent contractor. There is no “magic” or set number of factors that “makes” the worker an employee or an independent contractor, and no one factor stands alone in making this determination. Also, factors which are relevant in one situation may not be relevant in another. The keys are to look at the entire relationship, consider the degree or extent of the right to direct and control, and finally, to document each of the factors used in coming up with the determination. Perhaps more importantly... pay attention to what happens if you're WRONG: Consequences of Treating an Employee as an Independent Contractor If you classify an employee as an independent contractor and you have no reasonable basis for doing so, you may be held liable for employment taxes for that worker (the relief provisions, discussed below, will not apply). See Internal Revenue Code section 3509 for more information. I would STRONGLY recommend that you and your partners give your accountant a call and discuss the matter. They will be able to help you make the right decision. One of biggest mistakes businesses make in this are is to classify their employees as independent contractors. The IRS (who happens to be hungry for money right now) comes in and says, \\\"\\\"Nooooooooo... those are employees.\\\"\\\" ...and the COMPANY gets to pay the employment taxes. I actually have person experience with this as I worked for a company this happened to. Every contractor was re-classified as an employee except for two (myself and one other). The key reason in that case was that none of the other contractors had any other clients. While I understand that you have other clients, I would still recommend talking to your accountant for an hour or so... just to be 100% sure. Sincerely, Andrew Smith TaxQueries.com\\\"\",\n \"The benefits and taxes thing, in my opinion is the biggie. Most people don't realize that the cost to the company for a full-time employee with benefits can be 2x or even 3x the amount they see in their paycheck. Health plans are extremely expensive. Even if you are having money taken from your check for health insurance, it is often just a fraction of the total cost, and the employer is subsidizing the rest. More expensive benefits that contractors don't typically get are 401K matches and paid vacation days. When contractors call in sick or don't work because it is a national holiday, they don't get paid for that day. Also, see that line on your paycheck deducting for Social security and Medicare? That is only half of the tax. The employer pays an equal amount that is not shown on that statement. Also, they pay taxes that go towards unemployment benefits , and may be required to pay higher taxes if they churn through a lot of full-time employees. You can usually let contractors go with relative impunity . For the unemployment tax reasons, not paying for people's days off or benefits, a lot less paperwork, and less risk to the business associated with committing to full-time employees all provide value to the company. Thus companies are willing to pay more because they are getting more. Think of it like a cell phone-contract. If you commit to a three year contract it can be a pain/expensive to get out of the deal early, but you will probably get a better rate in exchange for the risk being shifted to your end of the deal.\",\n \"This sounds very like disguised employment. You act like an employee of the company, but your official relationship with them is as a contractor. You gain none of the protection you get from being an employee, and this may make you cheaper, less risky and more desirable for the company who is hiring you. Depending on your country you may also pay corporation tax rather than income tax, which may represent a very significant saving. Also, the company hiring you may not have to pay PAYE, national insurance, stakeholder pension, etc. This arrangement is normal and legal providing you genuinely are acting as a subcontractor. However if you are behaving as an employee (desk at the company, company email, have to work specific hours in a specific location, no ability to subcontract, etc.) you may be classified as a disguised employee. In the UK it used to be common practice for highly paid employees to set up shell companies to avoid tax. This will now get you into hot water. Google IR35 It sounds like your relationship in this case is directly with the recruiter. You will have to consider if the recruiter is acting as your employer, or if you remain a genuinely independent agent. The duration of your contract with the recruiter will have a bearing on this. In the UK there are a whole series of tests for disguised employment. This is a good arrangement provided you go in with your eyes open and an awareness of the legislation. However you should absolutely check the rules that apply in your country before entering into this agreement. You could potentially be stung very badly indeed.\",\n \"Elance, UpWork, Fivver Who would've thought taking skilled labor and watering down the price to mere pennies would be bad for everybody involved? That's why, even though I operate just like a freelancer, I incorporated. Legally, I'm a sole proprietor, not a freelancer...aside the few tax differences, it just saves me a ton of headaches.\",\n \"I'll assume you are asking about a check for some kind of work or service that you provided them, that they hired your company to do. No large business will do that. In their records they have a contract with your company to provide services. If they write you a personal check it won't match with the contract, and when the auditors see that they will scream blue murder. Whoever wrote the check will have to prove that you are legitimately the same thing as the company (that doesn't mean taking your word for it). They may also have to show they weren't conspiring with you to commit tax fraud ( that wasn't your intention of course, was it?) .\",\n \"\\\"Get some professional accounting help. You're going to have to pay for everything out of the fee you charge: taxes, retirement, health care, etc. You'll be required to pay quarterly. I don't think you should base your fee on what \\\"\\\"this\\\"\\\" company will pay as a full-time employee, but what you can expect in your area. They're saving a lot of money not going through an established employment firm and essentially, making you create your own. There are costs to setting up and maintaining a company. They have less risk hiring you because there are no unemployment consequences for letting you go. Once you're hired, they'll probably put you on salary, so you can forget about making more money if you work over 40 hrs. IMHO - there have to be better jobs in your area than this one.\\\"\",\n \"In the US we have social security taxes, where for a full time employee the company pays half and the employee pays half. When you work as a business, what we call 1099 for the form that the wages are reported on, then the contractor pays the full amount of social security tax. There are times when a contractor can negotiate a higher rate because the company does not have to pay that tax. However, most of the time the company just prefers to negotiate the rate based on your value. If you are a 60K year guy, then that is what they will pay you. From the company's perspective it does not matter what your tax rate is, only the value you can bring to the company. If you can add about 180K to the bottom line, then they will be happy to pay you 60K, and you should be happy to get it. Here in the US a contractor can expect to make about 7.5% more of an equivalent employee because of the social security tax savings to the company. However, not all companies are willing to provide that in compensation. Some companies see the legal and administrative costs of employees as normal, and the same costs with contractors as extra so they don't perceive a cost savings. There are other things that would preclude employers from giving the bump although it is logical to do so. First you will really have to feel out your employer for the attitude on the subject. Then I would make a logical case if they are open to providing extra compensation in return for tax savings. If I am an employee at 60K, you would also have to pay the government 18K. How about you pay me 75K as a contractor instead? That would be a great deal for all in the US.\",\n \"\\\"LLC is, as far as I know, just a US thing, so I'm assuming that you are in the USA. Update for clarification: other countries do have similar concepts, but I'm not aware of any country that uses the term LLC, nor any other country that uses the single-member LLC that is disregarded for income tax purposes that I'm referring to here (and that I assume the recruiter also was talking about). Further, LLCs vary by state. I only have experience with California, so some things may not apply the same way elsewhere. Also, if you are located in one state but the client is elsewhere, things can get more complex. First, let's get one thing out of the way: do you want to be a contractor, or an employee? Both have advantage, and especially in the higher-income areas, contractor can be more beneficial for you. Make sure that if you are a contractor, your rate must be considerably higher than as employee, to make up for the benefits you give up, as well as the FICA taxes and your expense of maintaining an LLC (in California, it costs at least $800/year, plus legal advice, accounting, and various other fees etc.). On the other hand, oftentimes, the benefits as an employee aren't actually worth all that much when you are in high income brackets. Do pay attention to health insurance - that may be a valuable benefit, or it may have such high deductibles that you would be better off getting your own or paying the penalty for going uninsured. Instead of a 401(k), you can set up an IRA (update or various other options), and you can also replace all the other benefits. If you decide that being an employee is the way to go, stop here. If you decide that being a contractor is a better deal for you, then it is indeed a good idea to set up an LLC. You actually have three fundamental options: work as an individual (the legal term is \\\"\\\"sole proprietorship\\\"\\\"), form a single-member LLC disregarded for income tax purposes, or various other forms of incorporation. Of these, I would argue that the single-member LLC combines the best of both worlds: taxation is almost the same as for sole proprietorship, the paperwork is minimal (a lot less than any other form of incorporation), but it provides many of the main benefits of incorporating. There are several advantages. First, as others have already pointed out, the IRS and Department of Labor scrutinize contractor relationships carefully, because of companies that abused this status on a massive scale (Uber and now-defunct Homejoy, for instance, but also FedEx and other old-economy companies). One of the 20 criteria they use is whether you are incorporated or not. Basically, it adds to your legal credibility as a contractor. Another benefit is legal protection. If your client (or somebody else) sues \\\"\\\"you\\\"\\\", they can usually only sue the legal entity they are doing business with. Which is the LLC. Your personal assets are safe from judgments. That's why Donald Trump is still a billionaire despite his famous four bankruptcies (which I believe were corporate, not personal, bankrupcies). Update for clarification Some people argue that you are still liable for your personal actions. You should consult with a lawyer about the details, but most business liabilities don't arise from such acts. Another commenter suggested an E&O policy - a very good idea, but not a substitute for an LLC. An LLC does require some minimal paperwork - you need to set up a separate bank account, and you will need a professional accounting system (not an Excel spreadsheet). But if you are a single member LLC, the paperwork is really not a huge deal - you don't need to file a separate federal tax return. Your income will be treated as if it was personal income (the technical term is that the LLC is disregarded for IRS tax purposes). California still does require a separate tax return, but that's only two pages or so, and unless you make a large amount, the tax is always $800. That small amount of paperwork is probably why your recruiter recommended the LLC, rather than other forms of incorporation. So if you want to be a contractor, then it sounds like your recruiter gave you good advice. If you want to be an employee, don't do it. A couple more points, not directly related to the question, but hopefully generally helpful: If you are a contractor (whether as sole proprietor or through an LLC), in most cities you need a business license. Not only that, but you may even need a separate business license in every city you do business (for instance, in the city where your client is located, even if you don't live there). Business licenses can range from \\\"\\\"not needed\\\"\\\" to a few dollars to a few hundred dollars. In some cities, the business license fee may also depend on your income. And finally, one interesting drawback of a disregarded LLC vs. sole proprietorship as a contractor has to do with the W-9 form and your Social Security Number. Generally, when you work for somebody and receive more than $600/year, they need to ask you for your Social Security Number, using form W-9. That is always a bit of a concern because of identity theft. The IRS also recognizes a second number, the EIN (Employer Identification Number). This is basically like an SSN for corporations. You can also apply for one if you are a sole proprietor. This is a HUGE benefit because you can use the EIN in place of your SSN on the W-9. Instant identity theft protection. HOWEVER, if you have a disregarded LLC, the IRS says that you MUST use your SSN; you cannot use your EIN! Update: The source for that information is the W-9 instructions; it specifically only excludes LLCs.\\\"\",\n \"You'd have to file to be incorporated (in Canada at least). It's mostly done for tax purposes. You can't just go and call yourself an corporation without filing legal papers (and be approved) with the tax agency of your country. In my experience, it'd be with the CRA. The rules at least here, there's a bunch of leeway that mostly any business can be classed as an corporation if you see fit. Hope it helps!\",\n \"The VAT number should be equivalent from the point of view of your client. The fact that you are a sole trader and not a limited liability doesn't matter when it comes down to pay VAT. They should pay the VAT to you and you will pay it to the government. I'll guess that their issue is with tax breaks, it is a bit more tricky to receive a tax break on paid taxes if you buy something abroad (at least it is here in Finland). If they won't pay you because of that, you could open a LTD or contract the services of a 'management company' which will do the job of invoicing, receiving the money and passing it back to you, for a fee.\",\n \"\\\"I don't know what you mean by \\\"\\\"claim for taxes,\\\"\\\" I think you mean pay taxes. I'm not sure how corps function in Canada but in the US single owner limited liability entities typically pass the net income through to the owner to be included in their personal tax return. So it seems all of this is more or less moot, because really you should probably already be including your income sourced from this project on your personal taxes and that's not really likely to change if you formed something more formal. The formal business arrangements really exist to limit the liability of the business spilling over in to the owner's assets. Or trouble in the owner's life spilling over to interrupt the business operation. I don't know what kind of business this is, but it may make sense to set up one of the limited liability arrangements to ensure that business liability doesn't automatically mean personal liability. A sole proprietorship or in the US we have DBA (doing business as) paperwork will get you a separate tax id number, which may be beneficial if you ever have to provide a tax ID and don't want to use your individual ID; but this won't limit your liability the way incorporating does.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"> You do realize that investors are protected from being sued right? Not usually, no. If the investor is a partner in the company then they're just as responsible for the debts of their business as any other partner. If they're just a capital investor with no interest in the company business then sure - you can't sue them. But then my contract wouldn't be with them, would it? > So if the company you work for tanks, you can sue them, but they don't have any money so what do you expect to get? The registered owners of the company can also be held liable for it's debts if it's a corporation. Or you can always just have them sign as guarantor for your back pay. And don't say \\\"\\\"Nobody will ever do that!!\\\"\\\", because if your service is valuable enough then **YES THEY WILL**. I've pushed for a personal liability guarantee from a company owner before and got it.\\\"\",\n \"VALIS Group Inc a new business on your own and defaulting on incorporating your business or being sued by a customer. Instead of being excited to start a new business, you will face difficulties as your personal assets could be taken away for fulfilling business expenses. However, if Incorporating your business, this nightmare can stay far away from you, as it alleviates personal liability as well as guards you as the corporate owner. also, has very friendly laws to incorporate a company and may require minimum documents and time period to complete company registration.\",\n \"In general the other party will expect you to keep your promises. If you promise to do something for a fixed amount of money, you take on a risk and it is no longer their problem if you work slower than you planned. In principle it could even be the case that you take on a project and fail, after which the company may not have to pay at all. So regardless of how things should be written in your books (For example a theoretical pay above minimum wage but a loss for your private company): An important thing to note is that if you are worried about ending up below minimum wage, you are definitely asking a fee that is too low. You should keep in mind that your fee should include a fair compensation for the expected work, and a fair compensation for the risk that you have taken on.\",\n \"When a business asks me to make out a cheque to a person rather than the business name, I take that as a red flag. Frankly it usually means that the person doesn't want the money going through their business account for some reason - probably tax evasion. I'm not saying you are doing that, but it is a frequent issue. If the company makes the cheque out to a person they may run the risk of being party to fraud. Worse still they only have your word for it that you actually own the company, and aren't ripping off your employer by pocketing their payment. Even worse, when the company is audited and finds that cheque, the person who wrote it will have to justify and document why they made it out to you or risk being charged with embezzlement. It's very much in their interests to make the cheque out to the company they did business with. Given that, you should really have an account in the name of your business. It's going to make your life much simpler in the long run.\",\n \"Source Sole trader If you start working for yourself, you’re classed as a self-employed sole trader - even if you’ve not yet told HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). As a sole trader, you run your own business as an individual. You can keep all your business’s profits after you’ve paid tax on them. You can employ staff. ‘Sole trader’ means you’re responsible for the business, not that you have to work alone.You’re personally responsible for any losses your business makes. Tax responsibilities You must: You’re personally responsible for any losses your business makes. This is one condition which you would need to have a look. If you do some shoddy work and your client wants to recover the losses they can come after your personal money or property. LLPs have the same probelm too. And you pay NI and income tax on all of your profits. If you have a partner then both can take out the profits of a limited company, if both are directors. The tax hit will be less as compared to a single person.\",\n \"Fellow dirty jerz resident here. I would highly recommend going the llc route. If, god forbid, anything ever happened and you were sued, the llc will contain all losses and your personal assets will not be at risk. I'm not sure about the timing of clients. Better to ask a lawyer - cheap to use online services like rocketlawyer (sp?)\",\n \"\\\"This arrangement is a scam to get around certain tax and benefits laws, both State and Federal. I know they can't get away with this with a person-as-contractor, but this \\\"\\\"he's not a contractor, he's a business owner\\\"\\\" may move it into a gray area. (I used to know this stuff cold, but I've been retired for a while.) The fact that they asked you to do this is at all is, IMNSHO, a Red Flag®. They think that this way they won't be paying 1/2 your FICA, your Workman's Comp, health insurance, overtime, sick leave or vacation time ... you will. A somewhat simplistic rule of thumb for setting contracting rates is to take your targeted annual salary as a full-time, full-benefits employee and double it. So $50,000 becomes $100,000 a year; $25/hour becomes $50/hour. You can tell them that driving to their workplace from your company's location is now a \\\"\\\"site visit\\\"\\\" and charge them your hourly rate for the one-way commute time. You could also tell them that your company charges 150% for hours worked over 40 hours/week, plus 150% on Saturdays and 200% on Sundays. Your company may also have a minimum 30 days notice of termination with a penalty kicker. Get it all in writing and signed by someone who has the authority to sign it. Also, Get A Lawyer. The most expensive contracts I've ever signed were ones I thought I was smart enough to draw up myself.\\\"\",\n \"There is no reason for you to open a firm. However, it will help you, if you operate separate bank account for business and personal purposes. You can run your business as proprietorship business. Your inward remittance is your income. You can deduct payment made to your colleagues as salary. You should pay them by way of cheques or bank transfer only. You are also entitled to deduct other business expenses provided you keep proper receipt of the same such as broadband connection charges, depreciation on equipment and more importantly, rent on your house. If your total receipt from such income exceeds INR 60,00,000 you will need to withhold tax on payment made to your colleagues as also subject to audit of your accounts. If you want to grow your business, suggest you should take an Import / Export Code in your own name. You can put any further question in this regard.\",\n \"There are two reasons for incorporating a business in Canada - limiting liability and providing some freedom in structuring your taxes. Since you are asking about taxes, I will restrict myself to that topic. First of all, remember that if you don't make much money, there isn't much tax to save by clever structuring of your affairs. And if you do incorporate, you will pay taxes as a corporation, and pay taxes again on your salary paid from that corporation. It can still be advantageous, because the small business tax rate is less that the higher tax brackets of personal taxes, and you don't have to pay out all of the profit as salary. If you don't incorporate, you still must pay taxes on your net income from the business. (See brian's answer.) Definitely keep track of your income and expenses, even if you don't plan on making money, in case you get audited. If the CRA wants to call your hobby a business, you will need to show that you haven't made any profit. I am just giving you a few bits of advice because this subject is complicated. Too complicated for an answer on this site. If you are still interested, go to your local library and get some books on the subject.\",\n \"\\\"Anytime you do work without any payment until the work is complete, you are effectively extending credit to the party receiving your service. How much credit you are willing to extend will vary greatly, depending on the amount and the trustworthiness of the party. For example, if you are charging $50 for something, you probably won't bother to collect money upfront, whereas if you are charging $5,000 you probably would collect some upfront. But if the party you are working for is a large financially sound company, the number may be even much higher than $5K as you can trust you will be paid. Obviously there are many factors that go into how much credit you are willing to extend to your customer. (This is why credit reports exist for banks to determine how much credit to extend to you.) As for the specific case you are asking about, which may be classified as a decent amount of work for a small business, I would default to having a written scope of work, a place in the document for both parties to sign, and specify 50% upfront payment and 50% payment at completion. When you receive the signed document and the upfront payment (and possibly even after the check clears), you begin work. I would call this my \\\"\\\"default contract\\\"\\\" and adjust according to your needs depending on the size of the job and the trustworthiness of the customer. As for your question about how to deposit the check, that depends on what type of entity you are. If you are a sole proprietor you should ask for the checks to be made out to you. If you are a business then the checks should be made out to your business name. You don't need \\\"\\\"in trust\\\"\\\" or anything similar because your customer, after paying the upfront fee, must trust that you will do the work you promise to do, just like you have to trust that after completing the work you will receive the final payment. This is the reason the default is 50% before and after. Both parties are risking (roughly) the same amount. Tip: having done the \\\"\\\"default\\\"\\\" contract many times in my career, both as a sole proprietor and a business owner, I can assure you there is a big difference between a potential customer agreeing to something in advance, and actually writing a check. The upfront payment definitely helps weed out those that were never going to end up paying you, even if their intentions were good. Tip 2: be as specific as possible as to what the scope of work will include. If you don't, particularly with software, they'll be adding feature after feature and expecting it to be \\\"\\\"included\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"I know a guy on a much higher rate than me, about £500 per day, and he claims to pay around 18% tax which has me bewildered He will be showing expenses, which are deductible. Check with your accountant about expenses, which can be legally claimed as expenses. This is the main benefit of operating through a limited company. Legtimate business expenses can be claimed, which you cannot do if you are a permanent employee. Your friend might also be claiming false expenses, with a shady accountant. If HMRC does decide to give a call, he might have to pay n times the money he has saved till now. And my suggestion is always ask your accountant first. He(she) knows the legal stuff, so he(she) would give you the legally correct options. If you aren't comfortable with him(her), you can always change accountants. holiday pay, sick pay and job security You miss those that is why you are paid at a rate much higher than an employee. benefit of a limited company You can arrange your salary to pay no PAYE and take the rest as dividends. You willn't have to pay PAYE on that. Secondly if you have a partner(s), all of you can be paid dividends without paying PAYE(if you don't cross the threshold).\",\n \"I am not a lawyer. I do however own an LLC. It's setup as a partnership with 50/50 ownership. You can do it as a sole proprietorship. In basic terms, if you separate your money and assets from the money and assets of the company then you are personally immune from lawsuit and thus your personal assets are safe. You have to set it up right (fairly cheap) and keep the records right (ie never mix personal and company assets ) but it provides a nice legal buffer and in some cases tax benefits. Do not construe this as legal or accountanting advice. Speak with pros to understand and get it set up right. But it's worth it.\",\n \"Creating a corporation is not necessarily less taxes. In fact, you'll face the problem of double taxation, and since you must pay yourself a reasonable salary, if your corporation doesn't earn much to give you as dividend after the salary, and/or your tax bracket is low, you'll in fact may end up paying more taxes. Also there's a lot of bureaucracy involved in managing a corporation. Liability on the other hand is important, and what's more important - is asset separation and limiting the liability to the corporation assets, keeping your personal assets safe. To achieve that, you don't have to create a corporation, but you can create a Limited Liability Company (LLC). LLC are disregarded entities for tax purposes (i.e.: you won't have to pay taxes twice, only once as a sole proprietor/partner), but provide the liability limitation and asset separation. LLC's are much less formal, and require much less paperwork reducing the risk of corporate veil piercing because of non-compliance. I myself decided to manage my investments through LLC's for that very reason (asset separation).\",\n \"If the firm treats you as an employee then they are treated as having a place of business in the UK and therefore are obliged to operate PAYE on your behalf - this rule has applied to EU States since 2010 and the non-EU EEA members, including Switzerland, since 2012. If you are not an employee then your main options are: An umbrella company would basically bill the client on your behalf and pay you net of taxes and NI. You potentially take home a bit less than you would being 100% independent but it's a lot less hassle and potentially makes sense for a small contract.\",\n \"The main risk is insurance liability - if they are in an accident who pays? It is not professional to have your employees deliver items. Most of whom make minimum wage and could care less about on time delivery.\",\n \"Wait. You started a company and contracted it with the company you currently work for? I don’t know why but for some reason this sends up a legal red flag to me. I have no idea, but maybe double check that there isn’t any violations in this arrangement... or just never tell them.\",\n \"\\\"My late answer is: Be aware of the difference of being a contractor and being an employee. I am not sure of the laws in Canada, but in the United States lots of small companies like to hire people as \\\"\\\"contractors\\\"\\\" but make them work under rules that fall into employee. The business is trying to avoid paying payroll taxes, which is fine, but make sure you know your rights and responsibilities as a contractor vs employee. You can check with your state's Bureau of Labor and Industry in the US, but I am sure wherever you are from there is a government agency to do the same thing.\\\"\",\n \"Not a good idea. When you form a partnership with someone that creates a legal connection between you two. What if he racks up $50,000 on the company credit card? Do you want to be responsible for that debt? A better way to do this would be to either charge your clients $X for IT work and pay him half of $X which would get you the same 50% or simply have him agree to share 50% of any income he gets from people referred by you. This can be done in a simple contract or agreement without force you both into a partnership.\",\n \"Note too that being a contractor means that you will unavoidably have periods between contracts; you tend to be out of work more often than a salaried employee would. You need to set your rates so your average income, including those down times, adds up to a living wage including all those benefits that aren't being covered. If a company hires a contractor, they understand that this is part of the trade-off. They avoid making a long-term commitment when they don't have a long-term need, and they accept that this convenience may cost a bit more in the short term.\",\n \"I'd have a good look at how much anonymity an LLC offers in your state - as far as I'm aware this varies from state to state. Out here in NV an LLC owner's privacy is supposedly fairly well protected, but in other states, not quite as much. Also keep in mind that while the LLC offers some protection (and I'm a big advocate of this sort of structure if you're taking larger risks that might have a big impact on your overall personal finances), this might not apply to financing. A lot of banks tend to require an LLC's owner to guarantee loans to an LLC once they go over a certain amount or even in general. Do some research in this area because the LLC would be worth less as a protective shield to you if you're on the hook for the full amount of the loans anyway.\",\n \"That actually sheds some useful light on the whole matter. As long as $client gets the paperwork in order, all will likely be well. Had a discussion with $client today about their recurring practices, just to establish a baseline for their understanding of the same. Not because I know there is or is not a concern, but because their business is risk management and that is a risk worth managing. Or at least worth understanding the scope of the risk and potential exposure.\",\n \"This is dumb. The sub company will lose money but the parent company will pay taxes on the income they made off of expenses to the subcompany. This doesn't systematically reduce their risk either. Banks will loan more money if the parent company is liable to pay the bills if the sub company can't. So yes, a bank may make a loan to the sub company without any liability on the parent company, but its going to be a very small loan compared to what they would've given the parent company.\",\n \"\\\"They are basically asking for the name of the legal entity that they should write on the check. You, as a person, are a legal entity, and so you can have them pay you directly, by name. This is in effect a \\\"\\\"sole proprietorship\\\"\\\" arrangement and it is the situation of most independent contractors; you're working for yourself, and you get all the money, but you also have all the responsibility. You can also set up a legal alias, or a \\\"\\\"Doing Business As\\\"\\\" (DBA) name. The only thing that changes versus using your own name is... well... that you aren't using your own name, to be honest. You pay some trivial fee for the paperwork to the county clerk or other office of record, and you're now not only John Doe, you're \\\"\\\"Zolani Enterprises\\\"\\\", and your business checks can be written out to that name and the bank (who will want a copy of the DBA paperwork to file when you set the name up as a payable entity on the account) will cash them for you. An LLC, since it was mentioned, is a \\\"\\\"Limited Liability Company\\\"\\\". It is a legal entity, incorporeal, that is your \\\"\\\"avatar\\\"\\\" in the business world. It, not you, is the entity that primarily faces anyone else in that world. You become, for legal purposes, an agent of that company, authorized to make decisions on its behalf. You can do all the same things, make all the same money, but if things go pear-shaped, the company is the one liable, not you. Sounds great, right? Well, there's a downside, and that's taxes and the increased complexity thereof. Depending on the exact structure of the company, the IRS will treat the LLC either as a corporation, a partnership, or as a \\\"\\\"disregarded entity\\\"\\\". Most one-man LLCs are typically \\\"\\\"disregarded\\\"\\\", meaning that for tax purposes, all the money the company makes is treated as if it were made by you as a sole proprietor, as in the above cases (and with the associated increased FICA and lack of tax deductions that an \\\"\\\"employee\\\"\\\" would get). Nothing can be \\\"\\\"retained\\\"\\\" by the company, because as far as the IRS is concerned it doesn't exist, so whether the money from the profits of the company actually made it into your personal checking account or not, it has to be reported by you on the Schedule C. You can elect, if you wish, to have the LLC treated as a corporation; this allows the corporation to retain earnings (and thus to \\\"\\\"own\\\"\\\" liquid assets like cash, as opposed to only fixed assets like land, cars etc). It also allows you to be an \\\"\\\"employee\\\"\\\" of your own company, and pay yourself a true \\\"\\\"salary\\\"\\\", with all the applicable tax rules including pre-tax healthcare, employer-paid FICA, etc. However, the downside here is that some money is subject to double taxation; any monies \\\"\\\"retained\\\"\\\" by the company, or paid out to members as \\\"\\\"dividends\\\"\\\", is \\\"\\\"profit\\\"\\\" of the company for which the company is taxed at the corporate rate. Then, the money from that dividend you receive from the company is taxed again at the capital gains rate on your own 1040 return. This also means that you have to file taxes twice; once for the corporation, once for you as the individual. You can't, of course, have it both ways with an LLC; you can't pay yourself a true \\\"\\\"salary\\\"\\\" and get the associated tax breaks, then receive leftover profits as a \\\"\\\"distribution\\\"\\\" and avoid double taxation. It takes multiple \\\"\\\"members\\\"\\\" (owners) to have the LLC treated like a partnership, and there are specific types of LLCs set up to handle investments, where some of what I've said above doesn't apply. I won't get into that because the question inferred a single-owner situation, but the tax rules in these additional situations are again different.\\\"\",\n \"It really depends on the type of business you are running. If there is any chance of liability, you should protect yourself with an LLC. Then it is much more difficult for them to sue and take personal assets. For example, if you are a wedding photographer, you would want to be an LLC in case you lose someones pictures.\",\n \"> Umm, one of the benefits of creating a corporation is to keep personal money separate from the business. you missed the key statement from that little link you posted. Here, I'll help you out: > An owner of a corporation can be held personally liable if he or she: personally guarantees a bank loan or a business debt on which the corporation defaults And for a brand new company, you can sure as shit guarantee that as an owner, you'll be held personally liable.\",\n \"\\\"Here's an alternative. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of contract engineering firms (\\\"\\\"job shops\\\"\\\") in the United States, probably hundreds in California alone. They are in the business of doing what your \\\"\\\"employer\\\"\\\" wants you to do, they know how to do it, they have been doing it for decades, working with the biggest, most-established companies in the country. They have forgotten more about providing engineering services to clients, and paying the engineers, than you can learn in a lifetime. Call a few of them. Set up meetings. Budget a few hours for it. You want to talk with the most experienced recruiter in the office, the Old Guy Who Has Been There And Done That. Explain your situation, and tell them that, rather than go through all of the headaches yourself, you want to investigate the possibility of THEM handling all the headaches, for their usual markup of course. (You can probably word this better than I can, but you get the idea.) The shop may or may not be willing to talk about their markup. My personal opinion is that this is perfectly OK. What they make off of you, after your rate is paid, is THEIR business. Also, talk about what you do, and your recommended rate. It would not surprise me to learn that you are currently grossly underpaid. AND, mention that, if the client declines, you're going to be available immediately, and you'd certainly be open to working with them. (You will see this again.) In fact, if they have any current leads that you fit, you would certainly be interested in hearing about them. (They may already have a req from another client, for which you fit, for which the client is willing to pay much more than your current \\\"\\\"employer\\\"\\\".) If it were me, personally, I'd start with Yoh, Belcan, and maybe TAD Technical. These are three of the oldest and best. I'd also hit up CE Weekly, get a subscription, and find some other shops with offices in your area. Once you have a shop lined up, then ask your \\\"\\\"employer\\\"\\\" if, rather than you setting up a personal corporation, they'd be willing to work with an established Contract Engineering firm, who does this kind of thing for a living, who does this every day, who has been doing this for decades. Doing this is simpler for everyone, and, by going through an established firm, they avoid having to teach you how to do business with them. They also avoid the risk of having you reclassified by IRS as an employee, which exposes them to all kinds of legal and financial liability. If they say \\\"\\\"No\\\"\\\", WALK AWAY FROM THEM. Immediately. They've just thrown up a HUGE red flag. This is where the other discussions with the shop come into play.\\\"\",\n \"Generally speaking, if a business loses money for whatever reason, then that reduces the profits of the business which reduces the tax payable. However if you were holding the assets on a personal basis prior to incorporating the business, the position may become more complicated. For that kind of money some professional advice may be worthwhile.\",\n \"\\\"It is definitely legal, however none of such expenses will be allowed as a tax deduction for the corporation. Basically, you'll end up paying more to maintain the entity and pay taxes on its income (the rent you're paying to yourself as a corporation) at corporate rates, for no apparent benefit. Being the director/executive in the corporation will make you liable for whatever the corporation is liable, so liability isn't going away. The reason corporation is considered \\\"\\\"limited liability\\\"\\\" for owners is because shareholders are shielded from the corporate liability. Not directors or executives (which are explicitly not shielded).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I've been in a similar situation before. While contracting, sometimes the recruiting agency would allow me to choose between being a W2 employee or invoicing them via Corp-2-Corp. I already had a company set up (S-Corp) but the considerations are similar. Typically the C2C rate was higher than the W2 rate, to account for the extra 7.65% FICA taxes and insurance. But there were a few times where the rate offered was identical, and I still choose C2C because it enabled me to deduct many of my business expenses that I wouldn't have otherwise been able to deduct. In my case the deductions turned out to be greater than the FICA savings. Your case is slightly different than mine though in that I already had the company set up so my company related costs were \\\"\\\"sunk\\\"\\\" as far as my decision was concerned. For you though, the yearly costs associated with running the business must be factored in. For example, suppose the following: Due to these expenses you need to make up $3413 in tax deductions due to the LLC. If your effective tax rate on the extra income is 30%, then your break even point is approximately $8K in deductions (.3*(x+3413)=3413 => x = $7963) So with those made up numbers, if you have at least $8K in legitimate additional business expenses then it would make sense to form an LLC. Otherwise you'd be better off as a W2. Other considerations:\\\"\",\n \"\\\"My employer puts \\\"\\\"contractor\\\"\\\" in your email address if you're a contractor, just so no one mistakenly treats you like a real employee. jsmith.contractor@company.com They get crappy desks not much bigger than 1970s library carrels. Some of them might be making more than I do, but I'd bet 6 months' salary that most of them aren't - a lot of them have that hangdog \\\"\\\"should I go for catfood again tonight or treat myself with some nice instant ramen?\\\"\\\" look.\\\"\",\n \"Not as you suggest. Since you are sole prop, you are taxed on a cash basis. Within reason, you can prepay vendors - so temp to hire through an agency might appear more attractive than direct hire. But there needs to be a justification other than avoidance of taxes. So pre-paying 100k on 12/25 would look fishy as fuck. Plus your quality of candidate will suffer if you need anything other than low skill labor. Look at your other fully deductible expenses - anything you can prepay-prepay. For example, I set my liability insurance renewal January 15 to provide optionality. But it just shifts one year into another .. Means fuckall if you are in the same marginal bracket next year. The IRS has also relaxed depreciation on office technology. Computers are now fully deductible rather than being capitalized. @ 500k revenue you should have a CPA and legal counsel. Simply incorporating isn't tax magic. The purpose is to limit yourersonal liability, not a tax shelter - but shitty things happen once you have employees, don't create the potential for a disgruntled employee lawsuit put your shelter at risk of court judgment. That said, assuming you aren't dumping a hypothetical on the Internet, congrats - for all the headaches, having employees is the ultimate leverage .. it's like a xerox machine for your labor (including loss of fidelity with each copy) ..\",\n \"Scalability is the key determinate - if it doesn't scale easily then chances are the big bucks will elude you. To the extent that unless your entrepreneurial idea doesn't have scalability built into the business model, you should probably think again. Straight contracting/manpower sub is always limited and problematic - whereas encapsulating the IP and developing the *system* of applying that IS scalable.\",\n \"The short Answer is NO, HMRC do not like disguised employment which is what this is as you fall under IR35 you can bill them via an umbrella company and you should be charging the contractor rate not a permie rate. http://www.contractoruk.com/\",\n \"Normally, incorporation is for liability reasons. Just file your taxes as a business. This just means adding a T2125 to your personal return. There's no registering, that's for GST if over a certain threshold. There's even a section in the instructions for internet businesses. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/t4002/t4002-e.html#internet_business_activities This is the form you have to fill out. Take note that there is a place to include costs from using your own home as well. Those specific expenses can't be used to create or increase a loss from your business, but a regular business loss can be deducted from your employment income. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/t2125/t2125-15e.pdf\",\n \"Do not mix personal accounts and corporate accounts. If you're paid as your self person - this money belongs to you, not the corporation. You can contribute it to the corporation, but it is another tax event and you should understand fully the consequences. Talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). If they pay to you personally (1099) - it goes on your Schedule C, and you pay SE taxes on it. If they pay to your corporation, the corporation will pay it to you as salary, and will pay payroll taxes on it. Generally, payroll through corporation will be slightly more expensive than regular schedule C. If you have employees/subcontractors, though, you may earn money which is not from your own performance, in which case S-Corp may be an advantage.\",\n \"You can ask the client to pay you through the LLC. In that case you should invoice them from the LLC and have them pay the invoice. If they pay you personally, you can always make a capital contribution to the LLC and use that money to buy equipment. The tax implications for a single person LLC providing professional services are the same for you either way: income is income whether it's from your LLC or an employer. It's different for the employer if they are giving you a W2 vs a 1099. So it doesn't matter much for you. If the LLC is buying equipment, make sure you get enough revenue through the LLC to at least offset those expenses.\",\n \"You may also want to consider Delaware and Nevada as possible corporate homes. They are common choices for out of state corporations. You may find that they are better options. Will earnings prior to forming the LLC have to be claimed as self-employment income? If so, would it be easier to wait until the next calendar year to form the LLC? Earnings after forming the Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) will probably have to be claimed as self-employment income. See How LLC Members Are Taxed for more discussion. In particular, read the section on self-employment taxes: The current rule is that any owner who works in or helps manage the business must pay this tax on his or her distributive share (rightful share of profits). However, owners who are not active in the LLC -- that is, those who have merely invested money but don't provide services or make management decisions for the LLC -- may be exempt from paying self-employment taxes on their share of profits. The regulations in this area are a bit complicated, but if you actively manage or work in your LLC, you can expect to pay self-employment tax on all LLC profits allocated to you. As I read it, you actively work in the LLC, so it is unlikely that you can avoid paying self-employment taxes. So it shouldn't make any difference when you officially start an LLC. You'll have to pay self-employment taxes before and after creating the LLC regardless. If you don't want to pay self-employment taxes, you may want to consider forming a Subchapter C corporation. They don't have the same tax structure as Subchapter S corporations or LLCs. You would be paid some kind of wage, salary, or commission and the corporation would pay the employer's side of the payroll taxes. Note that Subchapter S corporations and LLCs exist because they usually pay less in tax than Subchapter C corporations do. Even including the self-employment taxes that you owe. A CPA should be able to guide you in making these decisions and help you with setup. The one time that I started a corporation, I just paid a few hundred dollars to a service and they filed the paperwork for me. That included state fees and notice costs. The CPA probably has a service association already.\",\n \"\\\"Another factor you may want to consider is insurance, if your wife is at their house as a friend who happens to be teaching the kid to play and the kid falls off their chair and hurts them self that is rather different to your wife being brought in to the house as a contractor and an injury occurring during an activity that she was supervising. I am in a similar situation and I have a $5 million public liability policy, which costs about $300 per year. So if her income is likely to be less than that she may be better off \\\"\\\"helping a friend learn\\\"\\\" rather than \\\"\\\"providing tutoring services\\\"\\\". There may also be legal requirements, I am required to apply for government checks every few years in order to operate a business that involves working with children.\\\"\",\n \"Are you being paid through a limited company or an umbrella company ? Are you self employed If not what they are doing is illegal. If you are being paid a salary, then the employer has to contribute their part of National Insurance. I believe they are treating you as self employed, hence asking you to generate invoices. Check your contract wordings properly. Or get help from Citizens Advice. Call them or visit their local office. Or else do call up HMRC. But if you are invoicing them, I would assume you are self employed and you have to do your self assessment. Get in contact with HMRC and ask them to generate your Unique Taxpayer Reference (UTR). THey will send you the UTR and using this you can fill your tax returns. It looks like cumbersome now, but it isn't so. You can do it yourself, I do mine. Or at the end of the financial year, get an accountant to do the returns for you, probably should charge you £100-£150. Keep all your invoices, bills, bank statements safely. This is some help from HMRC website\",\n \"You don't need to make even close to that much to start doing this. All you need is a job where you hire your company out to another company to do work. Any kind of consulting work is usually done in a similar fashion. You can't expect people not to take advantage of tax breaks. That's like asking parents to stop getting subsidies for child care because it's not fair to bachelors. To say that people who do this don't feel anything is quite insulting.\",\n \"It will depend on how much you expect to earn this way, and whether you expect the company to become profitable soon. Has the company just not made a profit yet, or has it actually made a significant loss that your invoices would just be offsetting? If you're earning over £10,000 per year then invoicing through the company is preferable. Above that level, you'd be taking money from the company as dividends after paying 20% corporation tax with no other tax to pay on your personal tax return. As a sole trader you'd be paying 20% income tax and 9% NI. (Note however that the company can only pay dividends from profits, which is a problem if there are significant losses to offset.) Below £10,000, there's little difference. Through the company, you can take a salary of £7956 per year without paying any income tax or NI. With the new £2000 discount on employers' NI you could then take salary up to £10,000 and just pay 12% employee's NI. As a sole trader, you pay 9% Class 4 NI over £7956 and a fixed £143 per year for Class 2 NI. Paying 9% rather than 12% saves you £60, but then you add the £143. In practice the company would work out more expensive at this level because you'll probably want to pay an accountant to deal with the payroll for you. Having the company repay your £2000 from the invoices doesn't really save any tax if the company will become profitable in the future. You don't pay any tax now since the money you receive isn't income, and the company doesn't pay any tax if the extra £2000 of revenue doesn't put it back in profit. However, if the company is profitable next year then it will have an extra £2000 of profit that would otherwise have been offset against this year's loss, and you do end up paying 20% corporation tax on the £2000. You could still have the company repay the loan in order to delay the tax liability, but it's not really tax free money. Loaning additional money to the company has no tax benefit, you just give the company £1000 and get your original £1000 back later. You pay no tax and neither does the company, but it was your money in the first place.\",\n \"\\\"Your comment to James is telling and can help us lead you in the right direction: My work and lifestyle will be the same either way, as I said. This is all about how it goes \\\"\\\"on the books.\\\"\\\" [emphasis mine] As an independent consultant myself, when I hear something like \\\"\\\"the work will be the same either way\\\"\\\", I think: \\\"\\\"Here thar be dragons!\\\"\\\". Let me explain: If you go the independent contractor route, then you better act like one. The IRS (and the CRA, for Canadians) doesn't take lightly to people claiming to be independent contractors when they operate in fact like employees. Since you're not going to be behaving any different whether you are an employee or a contractor, (and assuming you'll be acting more like an employee, i.e. exclusive, etc.), then the IRS may later make a determination that you are in fact an employee, even if you choose to go \\\"\\\"on the books\\\"\\\" as an independent contractor. If that happens, then you may find yourself retroactively denied many tax benefits you'd have claimed; and owe penalties and interest too. Furthermore, your employer may be liable for additional withholding taxes, benefits, etc. after such a finding. So for those reasons, you should consider being an employee. You will avoid the potential headache I outlined above, as well as the additional paperwork etc. of being a contractor. If on the other hand you had said you wanted to maintain some flexibility to moonlight with other clients, build your own product on the side, choose what projects you work on (or don't), maybe hire subcontractors, etc. then I'd have supported the independent contractor idea. But, just on the basis of the tax characteristics only I'd say forget about it. On the financial side, I can tell you that I wouldn't have become a consultant if not for the ability to make more money in gross terms (i.e. before tax and expenses.) That is: your top line revenues ought to be higher in order to be able to offset many of the additional expenses you'd incur as an independent. IMHO, the tax benefits alone wouldn't make up for the difference. One final thing to look at is Form SS-8 mentioned at the IRS link below. If you're not sure what status to choose, the IRS can actually help you. But be prepared to wait... and wait... :-/ Additional Resources:\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I'm no lawyer and no expert, so take my remarks as entertainment only. Also see this question. If you have a U.S. SSN which is eligible for work, they may be able to pay you on 1099 basis with your SSN as a sole proprietor, unless they have some personal reason for avoiding that. So perhaps try asking about that specifically. HR policies can be weird and tricky, maybe a nudge in the right direction will help. Not What You Asked: regardless, I might recommend you register as an LLC and get an EIN (sort of SSN for companies) for a variety of reasons. It's called a \\\"\\\"limited liability\\\"\\\" company for a reason. You may also have an easier time reaping various business-related rewards, like writing off expenses. If you do so, consider a state with no income tax like Wyoming. (Or, for convenience sake, WA if you live in BC, or maybe NH if you live in Ontario.. etc.)\\\"\",\n \"In the US, and I suspect in most of the developed world, one major point of a corporation is limited liability. The stockholders are not on the hook for liabilities beyond their investment. If the company does something terrible, or fails economically, it goes bankrupt. Usually the stockholders have their investment wiped out, but they are guaranteed that they do not have to pay more in to any settlement.\",\n \"I would not assume they would pay for any benefits. You will be responsible for paying entirely for health insurance and social security and Medicare. This move is most likely not in your best interests. At a minimum, I would charge double your current hourly rate and would charge for all hours worked including time and half for overtime. 3 times is actually probably a better choice if you want to cover holidays (which they will not pay you for), vacation time, etc. I know when I did project bids, we always priced at 2-3 times the salary we paid the employees.\",\n \"Why would the companies pay more to cover personal risks of the employee? The employees will just have to suck it up and live with more risks. Employees who cannot work anymore because of that are the problem of the state and society, not of the company. There's a reason social safety nets were constructed in the first place.\",\n \"I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer without knowing all about your situation, but some things to consider: If you are on a 1099, you have to pay self-employment tax, while on a W-2 you do not. That is, social security tax is 12.4% of your income. If you're a 1099, you pay the full 12.4%. If you're W-2, you pay 6.2% and the employer pays 6.2%. So if they offer you the same nominal rate of pay, you're 6.2% better off with the W-2. What sort of insurance could you get privately and what would it cost you? I have no idea what the going rates for insurance are in California. If you're all in generally good health, you might want to consider a high-deductible policy. Then if no one gets seriously sick you've saved a bunch of money on premiums. If someone does get sick you might still pay less paying the deductible than you would have paid on higher premiums. I won't go into further details as that's getting off into another question. Even if the benefits are poor, if there are any benefits at all it can be better than nothing. The only advantage I see to going with a 1099 is that if you are legally an independent contractor, then all your business expenses are deductible, while if you are an employee, there are sharp limits on deducting employee business expenses. Maybe others can think of other advantages. If there is some reason to go the 1099 route, I understand that setting up an LLC is not that hard. I've never done it, but I briefly looked into it once and it appeared to basically be a matter of filling out a form and paying a modest fee.\",\n \"The major reason to start an LLC for side work is if you want the additional personal liability protection afforded by one. If you're operating as a sole proprietor, you may be exposing yourself to liability: debts and judgments against your business can put your personal assets at risk! So, if you're intending to continue and grow your side work in the future, you ought to consider the LLC sooner than later. It's also an important legal decision and you should consider seeking a professional opinion. The Wall Street Journal has a brief guide titled How to Form an LLC. Here are some notable excerpts: A limited liability company, or LLC, is similar to a partnership but has the legal protections of personal assets that a corporation offers without the burdensome formalities, paperwork and fees. [...] Some states charge annual fees and taxes that can diminish the economic advantage of choosing to become an LLC. Among LLC advantages: pass-through taxation – meaning the profits and losses “pass through” the business to the individuals owning the business who report this information on their own personal tax returns. The result can be paying less in taxes, since profits are not taxed at both the business level and the personal level. Another plus: Owners aren’t usually responsible for the company’s debts and liabilities. [...] Also check out onstartups.com's Startup 101: Should You Form An Inc. or An LLC? Here are some additional articles that discuss the advantages / disadvantages of forming an LLC:\",\n \"\\\"I expect the company wanted to pay you for a product (on a purchase order) rather than as a contract laborer. Whatever. Would they be willing to re-issue the check to you as a sole proprietor of a business named ABC Consulting (or anything like that)? You can register your sole proprietor business with the state using a \\\"\\\"Doing Business As\\\"\\\" (DBA, or fictitious name), and then open the bank account for your business using the check provided by the customer as the first deposit. (There is likely a smaller registration fee for the DBA.) If they won't re-issue the check and you have to go the LLC route... Scrounge up $125 doing odd jobs or borrowing from a friend or parents. Seriously, anyone can earn that amount of money in a week or two. Besides the filing fee for the LLC, your bank may require you to provide an Operating Agreement (which is not required by the State). The Operating Agreement can be simple, or more complex if you have a partner (even if it's a spouse). If you do have a partner, it is essential to have such an agreement because it would specify the responsibilities and benefits allocated to each partner, particularly in the event of equity distributions (taking money out of the business, or liquidating and ending the LLC). There are websites that will provide you a boilerplate form for Operating Agreements. But if your business is anything more than just single member LLC, you should pay an attorney to draw one up for you so the wording is right. It's a safeguard against potential future lawsuits. And, while we're at it, don't forget to obtain a EIN (equivalent to a SSN) from the IRS for your LLC. There's no cost, but you'll have to have it to file taxes as a business for every year the LLC exists and has income. Good luck!\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I don't see why you would need an \\\"\\\"international tax specialist\\\"\\\". You need a tax specialist to give you a consultation and training on your situation, but it doesn't seem too complicated to me. You invoice your client and get paid - you're a 1099 contractor. They should issue you a 1099 at the end of the year on everything they paid you. Once you become full-time employee - you become a W2 employee and will get a W2 at the end of the year on the amounts paid as such. From your perspective there's nothing international here, regular business. You have to pay your own taxes on the 1099 income (including SE taxes), they have to withhold taxes from your W2 income (including FICA). Since they're foreign employers, they might not do that latter part, and you'll have to deal with that on your tax return, any decent EA/CPA will be able to accommodate you with that. For the employer there's an issue of international taxation. They might have to register as a foreign business in your state, they might be liable for some payroll taxes and State taxes, etc etc. They might not be aware of all that. They might also be liable (or exempt) for Federal taxes, depending on the treaty provisions. But that's their problem. Your only concern is whether they're going to issue you a proper W2 and do all the withholdings or not when the time comes.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I am co-owner of a business, and we incorporated federally. (Mostly to limit liability.) There is some excellent information above, and most of my wisdom I got from a trusted lawyer and accountant (find experts you trust in these two areas, they will prove invaluable in so many areas.) The one point I would add is that if you decide to incorporate, you can do so federally or provincially. We were all set to go provincially, when our lawyer asked \\\"\\\"Is there any chance you might move the business? Any chance you might want to do work in other provinces? What about next year? Five years?\\\"\\\" If you are going through the expenses to set up a corporation, consider doing so federally, the extra costs were insignificant, but someday you might be glad you don't have to start from scratch. In this day and age, many people end up moving out of province for work, family concerns, etc.\\\"\",\n \"This is pretty normal. I am in the UK and currently doing the exact same thing. As some answers state there is additional tax law called IR35. But thats all it is, an additional tax law that may be applicable to your situation (it very well may not). It is all perfectly legal and common (all my university friends now do it). You will be the director of a company, and invoice the recruiters company. This has benefits and disadvantages. Personally I love it, but each to their own. Don't do it if you don't want to.\",\n \"You should look into an LLC. Its a fairly simple process, and the income simply flows through to your individual return. It will allow you to deduct supplies and other expenses from that income. It should also protect you if someone sues you for doing shoddy work (even if the work was fine), although you would need to consult a lawyer to be sure. For last year, it sounds like your taxes were done wrong. There are very, very few ways that you can end up adding more income and earning less after taxes. I'm tempted to say none, but our tax laws are so complex that I'm sure you can do it somehow.\",\n \"Talk to an insurance broker. Dealing with property can be risky. If someone slips and decides to sue, the lawyer is going to drag everyone into it. Look for business insurance, but also personal liability and umbrella insurance. You might think you're doing things as part of your business and find out you're actually doing them as yourself and when sued, you are being sued, not your company! An insurance agent will be able to sort things out for you though.\",\n \"\\\"The \\\"\\\"more money\\\"\\\" aspect is only true if you ignore the lack of symmetry between employment and contracting. Consulting is another story altogether. Companies are willing to pay consultants for a number of reasons but the most important is deniability. If a decision is recommended and goes wrong then the consultants can be sued. Liability cover is expensive. Cynicism aside, it often isn't cost-effective to keep specialists permanently on the payroll for tasks that are performed once a year. Recently I've noticed that the nature of consulting is changing. Companies are starting to assemble brains-trusts of internal consultants who can create and manage projects while outsourcing only the labour-intensive data-collection roles. Expect this to have a big impact on the management consulting industry.\\\"\",\n \"In general that's illegal. If you're a W2 employee, you don't miraculously become a 1099 contractor just because they pay you more. If your job doesn't change - then your status doesn't change just because they give you a raise. They can be sued (by you, and by the IRS) for that. Other issues have already been raised by other respondents, just wanted to point out this legal perspective.\",\n \"\\\"Not all of the reason to start an LLC is liability (although that is implicit). There are two main reasons as far as I have experienced it: I always recommend that people set things up properly from the beginning. If you do start to grow, or if you need to cut your losses, it can be very difficult to separate yourself from the company if it isn't set up entirely apart from you. I was once told, \\\"\\\"Run your small company as you would wish it to be.\\\"\\\" Don't get into bad habits at the beginning. They become bad habits in big companies later on.\\\"\",\n \"They are a business. You're not a corporation. They paid you more than $600 during the year, so they're supposed to send 1099 to you and the IRS about it. They need your taxpayer certification (W9) for that. They were supposed to ask for it before they paid you, but yes - they're supposed to ask for it.\",\n \"If it's a small one person business he will have to sign a personal guarantee no matter what he does with respect to incorporating. Not saying your idea isn't worth looking into but no bank will lend him money without a personal guarantee.\",\n \"That's the foundation of Limited Liability. There is a corporate veil that protects your personal assets from that of your business. The corporate veil can be pierced if you do certain stuff and thus your personal assets will get effected. This allows people to start companies and innovate more and take more risks knowing that they could not be personally liable if the business folds.\",\n \"Contractors earn less. Especially the people that are hired under them. They usually have no education, and base pay; long hours and hard work.\",\n \"You can receive funds from US Client as an individual. There is no legal requirement for you to have a company. If the transactions are large say more than 20 lacs in a year, its advisable to open a Private Ltd. Although its simple opening & Registering a company [A CA or a Laywer would get one at a nominal price of Rs 5000] you can do yourself. Whatever be the case, its advisable to have seperate accounts for this business / professional service transactions. Maintain proper records of the funds received. There are certain benefits you can claim, a CA can help you. Paying taxes in Advance is your responsibility and hence make sure you keep paying every quarter as advance tax. Related questions Indian citizen working from India as freelancer for U.S.-based company. How to report the income & pay tax in India? Freelancer in India working for Swiss Company Freelancing to UK company from India How do I account for money paid to colleagues out of my professional income?\",\n \"You are describing a corporation. You can set up a corporation to perform business, but if you were using the money for any personal reasons the courts could Pierce the corporate veil and hold you personally liable. Also, setting up a corporation for purely personal reasons is fraud.\",\n \"I read, however, that if the company's assets are not kept separate from our assets then if we got sued, the corporate veil would be pierced. This whole venture would be to give us additional income so my wife could watch our daughter and have an income.\",\n \"> Why would the companies pay more So that we, the taxpayer, don't have to. Taxpayers shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing corporate wages by providing necessary services that an employee should be able to buy via earned income.\",\n \"Sounds you need to read up on S corp structures. I think this would benefit you if you generate income even after you physically stopped working which is incomes from membership fees, royalties % of customer revenue, middle man etc... Under the Scorp, you as the sole member must earn a wage that fair and at current market value. You pay social security and Medicare on this wage. The interesting thing here is that an Scorp can pay out earning dividends without having to pay payroll taxes but the catch is that you, as the sole employee must earn a fair wage. As for paying the other member you may want to look into 1099 contract work plus a finders fee. The 1099 hourly wage does not require you to pay Medicare and SS. The common fee I'm used to is 5% of gross invoice. Then you would pay her an hourly wage. The company then bills these hours multiplied by 2 or 3 (or whatever you think is fair) to the client. Deduct expenses from this and that's your profit. Example. Contractor brings Client A which is estimated as a 100 hour project with $100 cost in supplies and requires 2 hours of your time @ $40/hr. You quote 100 hours @ $50 to client, client agrees and gives you down payment. You then present the contract work to your contractor, they complete the work in 100 hours and bill you at $25. You pay your contractor 2500 plus the 5% ($250) and your company earns $2070 (5000 - 2500 - 100-80) And you'll earn $80 minus the payroll tax. Then at the end of the quarter or year or however you want to do earning payouts your LLC- Scorp will write you a check for $2070 or whatever earning % you want to take. This is then taxed at your income tax bracket. One thing to keep in mind is what is preventing this other person from becoming your competition? A partnership would be great motivation to try and bring in as much work under the LLC. But if you start shafting people then they'll just keep the work and cut you out.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["They believe that it reduces the risk that Revenue Canada will deem you to be an employee and make them pay a whole pile of tax, EI, CPP and so on that should have been paid if you had been hired as an employee. It's my recollection that the employer gets dinged for both the employee and employer share of those withholdings (and generally the employer's share is larger than yours) so they really want to prevent it. There's a Revenue Canada publication about whether you're an employee or not. There's nothing on it about being incorporated, but still employers feel more protected when their contracts are incorporated. We did work as a sole proprietorship at the very beginning, so that we could deduct our losses against employment income earned earlier in the year, before we started the business. You can find clients who will take you on. We incorporated once the losses were over with (basically we had bought the equipment and office supplies we needed to get started.) It's a simple and relatively inexpensive thing to do, and gives clients a sense of protection. It won't protect you from your own poor decisions since you'll be a director of the firm."],"string":"[\n \"They believe that it reduces the risk that Revenue Canada will deem you to be an employee and make them pay a whole pile of tax, EI, CPP and so on that should have been paid if you had been hired as an employee. It's my recollection that the employer gets dinged for both the employee and employer share of those withholdings (and generally the employer's share is larger than yours) so they really want to prevent it. There's a Revenue Canada publication about whether you're an employee or not. There's nothing on it about being incorporated, but still employers feel more protected when their contracts are incorporated. We did work as a sole proprietorship at the very beginning, so that we could deduct our losses against employment income earned earlier in the year, before we started the business. You can find clients who will take you on. We incorporated once the losses were over with (basically we had bought the equipment and office supplies we needed to get started.) It's a simple and relatively inexpensive thing to do, and gives clients a sense of protection. It won't protect you from your own poor decisions since you'll be a director of the firm.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":186,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"9164"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Bonds vs equities: crash theory"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["305274","365298","263390"],"string":"[\n \"305274\",\n \"365298\",\n \"263390\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["115648","16924","506743","149900","305274","321941","122581","187110","565226","405212","599420","418528","309326","296516","287656","101943","303037","269064","427707","228488","553734","420316","354767","500452","189764","288663","313669","392885","538079","226090","503467","108859","464824","89714","551893","160625","190891","409859","198119","66219","328556","477092","250018","112369","141174","461217","225536","477823","176253","212871","343693","549422","577578","283421","256950","127401","441133","503637","133380","311688","401952","313892","228341","483648","235391","559157","420978","478833","140189","543619","185156","520562","400016","392826","15385","475405","581514","304679","549465","280696","44555","166375","256663","283202","457729","55441","238024","494928","77440","482517","386162","72355","140213","225901","72510","453913","318558","10526","31581","282483"],"string":"[\n \"115648\",\n \"16924\",\n \"506743\",\n \"149900\",\n \"305274\",\n \"321941\",\n \"122581\",\n \"187110\",\n \"565226\",\n \"405212\",\n \"599420\",\n \"418528\",\n \"309326\",\n \"296516\",\n \"287656\",\n \"101943\",\n \"303037\",\n \"269064\",\n \"427707\",\n \"228488\",\n \"553734\",\n \"420316\",\n \"354767\",\n \"500452\",\n \"189764\",\n \"288663\",\n \"313669\",\n \"392885\",\n \"538079\",\n \"226090\",\n \"503467\",\n \"108859\",\n \"464824\",\n \"89714\",\n \"551893\",\n \"160625\",\n \"190891\",\n \"409859\",\n \"198119\",\n \"66219\",\n \"328556\",\n \"477092\",\n \"250018\",\n \"112369\",\n \"141174\",\n \"461217\",\n \"225536\",\n \"477823\",\n \"176253\",\n \"212871\",\n \"343693\",\n \"549422\",\n \"577578\",\n \"283421\",\n \"256950\",\n \"127401\",\n \"441133\",\n \"503637\",\n \"133380\",\n \"311688\",\n \"401952\",\n \"313892\",\n \"228341\",\n \"483648\",\n \"235391\",\n \"559157\",\n \"420978\",\n \"478833\",\n \"140189\",\n \"543619\",\n \"185156\",\n \"520562\",\n \"400016\",\n \"392826\",\n \"15385\",\n \"475405\",\n \"581514\",\n \"304679\",\n \"549465\",\n \"280696\",\n \"44555\",\n \"166375\",\n \"256663\",\n \"283202\",\n \"457729\",\n \"55441\",\n \"238024\",\n \"494928\",\n \"77440\",\n \"482517\",\n \"386162\",\n \"72355\",\n \"140213\",\n \"225901\",\n \"72510\",\n \"453913\",\n \"318558\",\n \"10526\",\n \"31581\",\n \"282483\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["I agree that the cause of the crash can make a huge difference in the effect on the bond market. Here's a few other possibilities: All that to say that there's no definitive answer as to how the bond market will respond to an equity crash. Bonds are much more highly correlated to equities lately, but that could be due to much lower interest rates pushing more of the risk of bonds to the credit worthiness of the issuer, increasing correlation.","It depends on why the stocks crashed. If this happened because interest rates shot up, bonds will suffer also. On the other hand, stocks could be crashing because economic growth (and hence earnings) are disappointing. This pulls down interest rates and lifts bonds.","what will happen to the valuation of Tom's bond holdings after the equity crash? This is primarily opinion based. What will happen is generally hard to predict. Bond Price Bump due to Demand: Is a possible outcome; this depends on the assumption that the bonds in the said country are still deemed safe. Recent Greece example, this may not be true. So if the investors don't believe that Bonds are safe, the money may move into Real Estate, into Bullion [Gold etc], or to other markets. In such a scenario; the price may not bump up. Bond Price Decline due to Rising Interest Rates: On a rising interest rates, the long-term bonds may loose in value while the short term bonds may hold their value. Related question How would bonds fare if interest rates rose?","The short answer is if you own a representative index of global bonds (say AGG) and global stocks (say ACWI) the bonds will generally only suffer minimally in even the medium large market crashes you describe. However, there are some caveats. Not all bonds will tend to react the same way. Bonds that are considered higher-yield (say BBB rated and below) tend to drop significantly in stock market crashes though not as much as stock markets themselves. Emerging market bonds can drop even more as weaker foreign currencies can drop in global crashes as well. Also, if a local market crash is caused by rampant inflation as in the US during the 70s-80s, bonds can crash at the same time as markets. There hasn't been a global crash caused by inflation after countries left the gold standard, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Still, I don't mean to scare you away from adding bond exposure to a stock portfolio as bonds tend to have low correlations with stocks and significant returns. Just be aware that these correlations can change over time (sometimes quickly) and depend on which stocks/bonds you invest in.","Cash would be the better alternative assuming both stocks take a major hit in ALL categories AND the Fed raise rates at the same time for some reason. Money market funds that may have relatively low yields at the moment would likely be one of the few securities not to be repriced downward as interest rates rising would decrease bond values which could be another crash as I could somewhat question how broad of a crash are you talking here. There are more than a few different market segments so that while some parts may get hit really hard in a crash, would you really want to claim everything goes down? Blackrock's graphic shows in 2008 how bonds did the best and only it and cash had positive returns in that year but there is something to be said for how big is a crash: 20%, 50%, 90%?","If the equity market in the USA crashed, its very likely equity markets everywhere else would crash. The USA has a high number of the world's largest businesses and there are correlations between equity markets. So you need to think of equities as a global asset class, not regional. Your question is then a question about the correlation between equity markets and currency markets. Here's a guess: If equity markets crashed, you would see a lot of panic selling of stocks denominated in many currencies, but probably the most in USD, due to the large number of the world's largest businesses trading on US stock exchanges. Therefore, when the rest of the world sells US equities they receive cash USD, which they might sell for their local currency. That selling pressure would cause USD to fall. But, when equity markets crash there's a move to safety of the bond markets. The world's largest bond markets are denominated in which currency? Probably USD. So those who receive USD for their equities are going to spend that USD on bonds. In which case there is probably no correlation between equity markets and currency markets at all. A quick google search shows this kind of thing","Bonds provide protections against stock market crashes, diversity and returns as the other posters have said but the primary reason to invest in bonds is to receive relatively guaranteed income. By that I mean you receive regular payments as long as the debtor doesn't go bankrupt and stop paying. Even when this happens, bondholders are the first in line to get paid from the sale of the business's assets. This also makes them less risky. Stocks don't guarantee income and shareholders are last in line to get paid. When a stock goes to zero, you lose everything, where as a bondholder will get some face value redemption to the notes issue price and still keep all the previous income payments. In addition, you can use your bond income to buy more shares of stock and increase your gains there.","This is a very common misconception. I've been studying equities and credits for a while now, and the simplest way to explain the difference is this: - Credit is about stable cash flows. Your investment in a bond has almost (read: almost) nothing to do with growth rate. It has everything to do with how stable the cash flows are and interest coverage. - Equity is about growth. No wonder companies with highly irregular cash flows (e.g., every single young tech company in the history of tech companies) can have the most in-demand equity while few bond investors would touch them with a ten foot pole.","It depends. Very generally when yields go up stocks go down and when yields go down stocks go up (as has been happening lately). If we look at the yield of the 10 year bond it reflects future expectations for interest rates. If the rate today is very low but expectations are that the short term rates will go up that would be reflected in a higher yield simply because no one would buy the longer term bond if they could simply wait out and get a better return on shoter term investments. If expectations are that the rate is going down you get what's called an inverted yield curve. The inverted yield curve is usually a sign of economic trouble ahead. Yields are also influenced by inflation expectations as @rhaskett is alluding in his answer. So. If the stock market crashes because the economy is doing poorly and if interest rates are relatively high then people would expect the rates to go down and therefore bonds will go up! However, if there's rampant inflation and the rates are going up we can expect stocks and bonds to move in opposite directions. Another interpretation of that is that one would expect stock prices to track inflation pretty well because company revenue is going to go up with inflation. If we're just talking about a bump in the road correction in a healthy economy I wouldn't expect that to have much of an immediate effect though bonds might go down a little bit in the short term but possibly even more in the long term as interest rates eventually head higher. Another scenario is a very low interest rate environment (as today) with a stock market crash and not a lot of room for yields to go further down. Both stocks and bonds are influenced by current interest rates, interest rate expectations, current inflation, inflation expectations and stock price expectation. Add noise and stir.","\"In a comment you say, if the market crashes, doesn't \"\"regress to the mean\"\" mean that I should still expect 7% over the long run? That being the case, wouldn't I benefit from intentionally unbalancing my portfolio and going all in on equities? I can can still rebalance using new savings. No. Regress to the mean just tells you that the future rate is likely to average 7%. The past rate and the future rate are entirely unconnected. Consider a series: The running average is That running average is (slowly) regressing to the long term mean without ever a member of the series being above 7%. Real markets actually go farther than this though. Real value may be increasing by 7% per year, but prices may move differently. Then market prices may revert to the real value. This happened to the S&P 500 in 2000-2002. Then the market started climbing again in 2003. In your system, you would have bought into the falling markets of 2001 and 2002. And you would have missed the positive bond returns in those years. That's about a -25% annual shift in returns on that portion of your portfolio. Since that's a third of your portfolio, you'd have lost 8% more than with the balanced strategy each of those two years. Note that in that case, the market was in an over-valued bubble. The bubble spent three years popping and overshot the actual value. So 2003 was a good year for stocks. But the three year return was still -11%. In retrospect, investors should have gone all in on bonds before 2000 and switched back to stocks for 2003. But no one knew that in 2000. People in the know actually started backing off in 1998 rather than 2000 and missed out on the tail end of the bubble. The rebalancing strategy automatically helps with your regression to the mean. It sells expensive bonds and buys cheaper stocks on average. Occasionally it sells modest priced bonds and buys over-priced stocks. But rarely enough that it is a better strategy overall. Incidentally, I would consider a 33% share high for bonds. 30% is better. And that shouldn't increase as you age (less than 30% bonds may be practical when you are young enough). Once you get close to retirement (five to ten years), start converting some of your savings to cash equivalents. The cash equivalents are guaranteed not to lose value (but might not gain much). This gives you predictable returns for your immediate expenses. Once retired, try to keep about five years of expenses in cash equivalents. Then you don't have to worry about short term market fluctuations. Spend down your buffer until the market catches back up. It's true that bonds are less volatile than stocks, but they can still have bad years. A 70%/30% mix of stocks/bonds is safer than either alone and gives almost as good of a return as stocks alone. Adding more bonds actually increases your risk unless you carefully balance them with the right stocks. And if you're doing that, you don't need simplistic rules like a 70%/30% balance.\"","A stopped clock is right two times a day. We may get a market crash similar to the financial crisis or the dot com crash or we may not. What if over the next 10 years rates rise very sluggishly, low inflation, and low growth more or less continues with maybe one brief and shallow recession. In that case I bet US stocks produce 4-5% returns per year and US bonds produce maybe 1-2% per year. European and emerging market stocks should have higher returns because they are in an earlier part of the cycle. I think your baseline has to look something like that. The last two crashes were caused by the tech bubble and the housing bubble - where is the bubble today? US stocks are expensive, but probably not in bubble territory. Bonds worldwide are unattractive with low or negative yields - negative yields maybe a bubble, but central banks will be the most hurt by negative rates and they are in a strong position to take the pain. There could be a crash I just don't see how we get there yet - maybe china?","\"Having cash and bonds in your portfolio isn't just about balancing out the risk and volatility inherent in equities. Consider: If you are 100% invested in equities and the market declines by 30%, you'll be hard pressed to come up with additional money to \"\"buy low\"\". You'll miss out on the rebalancing bonus. But, if you make a point of keeping some portion of your portfolio in cash and bonds, then when the market has such a decline (and it will), you'll be able to rebalance your portfolio back to target weights — i.e. redeploy some of your cash and bonds into equities to take advantage of the lower prices.\"","\"Nobody has a \"\"crash proof\"\" portfolio -- you can make it \"\"crash resistant\"\". You protect against a crash by diversifying and not reacting out of fear when the markets are down. Be careful about focusing on the worst possible scenario (US default) vs. the more likely scenarios. Right now, many people think that inflation and interest rates are heading up -- so you should be making sure that your bond portfolio is mostly in short-duration bonds that are less sensitive to rate risk. Another risk is opportunity cost. Many people sold all of their equities in 2008/2009, and are sitting on lots of money in cash accounts. That money is \"\"safe\"\", but those investors lost the opportunity to recoup investments or grow -- to the tune of 25-40%.\"","If the market has not crashed but you know it will, sell short or buy puts. If the market has crashed, buy equities while they are cheap. If you don't know if or when it will crash hold a diversified portfolio including stocks, bonds, real estate, and alternatives (gold, etc).","\"In some respects the analysis for this question is similar to comparing a \"\"safe\"\" return on a government bond vs. holding the stock market. Typically, the stock market's expected return will be higher -- i.e., there's a positive equity risk premium -- vs. a government bond (assuming it's held to maturity). There's no guarantee that the stock market will outperform, although the probability of outperformance rises (some analysts argue) the longer the holding period for equities beyond, say, 10 years. That's why there's generally a positive equity risk premium, otherwise no one (or relatively few investors) would hold equities.\"","And the fact that if notes trade up high enough they tend to get taken out with lower yielding notes (pending the call schedule), so in theory there is more limited upside in high-yield, whereas equity could theoretically trade to infinity. The positives for high-yield is that they generate monthly cash flow via coupon payments and have less down-side relative to equities. Naturally this lower down-side comes at the expense of lower up-side as well.","Bonds by themselves aren't recession proof. No investment is, and when a major crash (c.f. 2008) occurs, all investments will be to some extent at risk. However, bonds add a level of diversification to your investment portfolio that can make it much more stable even during downturns. Bonds do not move identically to the stock market, and so many times investing in bonds will be more profitable when the stock market is slumping. Investing some of your investment funds in bonds is safer, because that diversification allows you to have some earnings from that portion of your investment when the market is going down. It also allows you to do something called rebalancing. This is when you have target allocation proportions for your portfolio; say 60% stock 40% bond. Then, periodically look at your actual portfolio proportions. Say the market is way up - then your actual proportions might be 70% stock 30% bond. You sell 10 percentage points of stocks, and buy 10 percentage points of bonds. This over time will be a successful strategy, because it tends to buy low and sell high. In addition to the value of diversification, some bonds will tend to be more stable (but earn less), in particular blue chip corporate bonds and government bonds from stable countries. If you're willing to only earn a few percent annually on a portion of your portfolio, that part will likely not fall much during downturns - and in fact may grow as money flees to safer investments - which in turn is good for you. If you're particularly worried about your portfolio's value in the short term, such as if you're looking at retiring soon, a decent proportion should be in this kind of safer bond to ensure it doesn't lose too much value. But of course this will slow your earnings, so if you're still far from retirement, you're better off leaving things in growth stocks and accepting the risk; odds are no matter who's in charge, there will be another crash or two of some size before you retire if you're in your 30s now. But when it's not crashing, the market earns you a pretty good return, and so it's worth the risk.","\"That depends on how you're investing in them. Trading bonds is (arguably) riskier than trading stocks (because it has a lot of the same risks associated with stocks plus interest rate and inflation risk). That's true whether it's a recession or not. Holding bonds to maturity may or may not be recession-proof (or, perhaps more accurately, \"\"low risk\"\" as argued by @DepressedDaniel), depending on what kind of bonds they are. If you own bonds in stable governments (e.g. U.S. or German bonds or bonds in certain states or municipalities) or highly stable corporations, there's a very low risk of default even in a recession. (You didn't see companies like Microsoft, Google, or Apple going under during the 2008 crash). That's absolutely not the case for all kinds of bonds, though, especially if you're concerned about systemic risk. Just because a bond looks risk-free doesn't mean that it actually is - look how many AAA-rated securities went under during the 2008 recession. And many companies (CIT, Lehman Brothers) went bankrupt outright. To assess your exposure to risk, you have to look at a lot of factors, such as the credit-worthiness of the business, how \"\"recession-proof\"\" their product is, what kind of security or insurance you're being offered, etc. You can't even assume that bond insurance is an absolute guarantee against systemic risk - that's what got AIG into trouble, in fact. They were writing Credit Default Swaps (CDS), which are analogous to insurance on loans - basically, the seller of the CDS \"\"insures\"\" the debt (promises some kind of payment if a particular borrower defaults). When the entire credit market seized up, people naturally started asking AIG to make good on their agreement and compensate them for the loans that went bad; unfortunately, AIG didn't have the money and couldn't borrow it themselves (hence the government bailout). To address the whole issue of a company going bankrupt: it's not necessarily the case that your bonds would be completely worthless (so I disagree with the people who implied that this would be the case). They'd probably be worth a lot less than you paid for them originally, though (possibly as bad as pennies on the dollar depending on how much under water the company was). Also, depending on how long it takes to work out a deal that everyone could agree to, my understanding is that it could take a long time before you see any of your money. I think it's also possible that you'll get some of the money as equity (rather than cash) - in fact, that's how the U.S. government ended up owning a lot of Chrysler (they were Chrysler's largest lender when they went bankrupt, so the government ended up getting a lot of equity in the business as part of the settlement). Incidentally, there is a market for securities in bankrupt companies for people that don't have time to wait for the bankruptcy settlement. Naturally, people who buy securities that are in that much trouble generally expect a steep discount. To summarize:\"","The 'appropriate' amount of cash/bonds to hold will be largely a matter of opinion, but here are the general reasons why having at least some is a good idea: Cash is very liquid, and bonds are often mostly liquid. This means you can access them very quickly, without taking on losses. To get the most liquidity out of your bonds, you can do what is called 'laddering'. This means that you take out different bond amounts with different maturity dates, and periodically renew them on a schedule, so that you always have some bonds maturing, which you can access without paying an interest penalty. You can look this term up online for more details. Cash and bonds are low risk. If you have absolutely no low-risk assets, then in the event of, say, a market crash, you may have no savings to fall back on. By owning some bonds, and some equities, you are able to earn a modest return, without being too risky. However, note that some bonds are just as risky as equities - any bond which pays an abnormally high interest rate does so because the entity backing the repayment (government, company, whomever) is thought to not be guaranteed to be able to do so. The 25% figure given by your author is his opinion on the appropriate mix of cash/bonds to equities, but there are many views on the matter. Consider that any 'rule of thumb' in personal finance should be for general consideration only.","You say you have 90% in stocks. I'll assume that you have the other 10% in bonds. For the sake of simplicity, I'll assume that your investments in stocks are in nice, passive indexed mutual funds and ETFs, rather than in individual stocks. A 90% allocation in stocks is considered aggressive. The problem is that if the stock market crashes, you may lose 40% or more of your investment in a single year. As you point out, you are investing for the long term. That's great, it means you can rest easy if the stock market crashes, safe in the hope that you have many years for it to recover. So long as you have the emotional willpower to stick with it. Would you be better off with a 100% allocation in stocks? You'd think so, wouldn't you. After all, the stock market as a whole gives better expected returns than the bond market. But keep in mind, the stock market and the bond market are (somewhat) negatively correlated. That means when the stock market goes down, the bond market often goes up, and vice versa. Investing some of your money in bonds will slightly reduce your expected return but will also reduce your standard deviation and your maximum annual loss. Canadian Couch Potato has an interesting write-up on how to estimate stock and bond returns. It's based on your stocks being invested equally in the Canadian, U.S., and international markets. As you live in the U.S., that likely doesn't directly apply to you; you probably ignore the Canadian stock market, but your returns will be fairly similar. I've reproduced part of that table here: As you can see, your expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. With a 20 year window, you likely can recover from any crash. If you have the stomach for it, it's the allocation with the highest expected return. Once you get closer to retirement, though, you have less time to wait for the stock market to recover. If you still have 90% or 100% of your investment in stocks and the market crashes by 44%, it might well take you more than 6 years to recover. Canadian Couch Potato has another article, Does a 60/40 Portfolio Still Make Sense? A 60/40 portfolio is a fairly common split for regular investors. Typically considered not too aggressive, not too conservative. The article references an AP article that suggests, in the current financial climate, 60/40 isn't enough. Even they aren't recommending a 90/10 or a 100/0 split, though. Personally, I think 60/40 is too conservative. However, I don't have the stomach for a 100/0 split or even a 90/10 split. Okay, to get back to your question. So long as your time horizon is far enough out, the expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. Be sure that you can tolerate the risk, though. A 30% or 40% hit to your investments is enough to make anyone jittery. Investing a portion of your money in bonds slightly lowers your expected return but can measurably reduce your risk. As you get closer to retirement and your time horizon narrows, you have less time to recover from a stock market crash and do need to be more conservative. 6 years is probably too short to keep all your money in stocks. Is your stated approach reasonable? Well, only you can answer that. :)","A very simple and safe, though boring, approach is to hold cash rather than bonds, and move out of cash later once higher yields have lowered asset prices.","Write off the entire asset class of corporate bonds? Finance theory says yes, the only two asset classes that you need are stocks and treasury bills (very short-term US government bonds). See the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM).","For the type of market neutrality you desire, free from crash risk, it's best to hedge the shares with covered calls when implied volatility is expensive and puts when implied volatility is cheap with the nearest at the money expirations. A put only strategy can be very expensive and should only be used with the longest term options available since they can cost many tens of % per year. Securities become almost perfectly correlated during a crash; therefore, market crash risk of one security is essentially equal to the market crash risk, so hedging the security itself makes a position market neutral for crash risk. This strategy will have intermittent opportunity cost risk in the form of slower returns during market expansion to pay for smaller losses during a crash; however, the expected long run return hedged this way should be greater than the underlying's expected long run return with less volatility.","As one of the answers described, its going to depend on many factors and the environment at the time. But there is no sure way to know which strategy is better, if any are at all. I would say over several hundred years the strategies would be equally as profitable. In a free market the longer dated bonds would be priced lower (higher yield) because they are higher risk. And over a long enough time period that higher risk may end up resulting in that bond being worth less, or maybe nothing at all. In a free market, price discovery would factor all this in, and the two strategies would become equal. The same is true for the price during inversion events Having said that, we dont live in a free market. With central bankers monetizing debt in so many countries, sometimes investing in short term bonds, including US treasuries, is a guaranteed way to lose purchasing power, as these yields are below inflation and sometimes even negative.","There's no doubt that equities, as well as junk bonds (which have, in Europe, according to BAML, reached the same average return as 10-year-US treasuries) are currently overvalued, which is why I, and I suggest this to any active investor, have taken out all my money from tradable equities and debt and invested it into undervalued dank memes.","There is no single 'market interest rate'; there are myriad interest rates that vary by risk profile & term. Corporate bonds are (typically) riskier than bank deposits, and therefore pay a higher effective rate when the market for that bond is in equilibrium than a bank account does. If you are willing to accept a higher risk in order gain a higher return, you might choose bonds over bank deposits. If you want an even higher return and can accept even higher risk, you might turn to stocks over bonds. If you want still higher return and can bear the still higher risk, derivatives may be more appealing than stocks.","You're mixing up two different concepts: low-risk and recession-proof. I'll assume I don't need to explain risk: there is always risk, regardless what form you keep your assets in. With bonds, the interest rate is supposed to reflect the risk. If a company offers bonds with too low an interest rate for the risk level, few people will buy them. While if a company offers bonds with too high an interest rate for the level of risk, they are gypping themselves. So a bond is a slightly more transparent investment from a risk assessment perspective, but that doesn't mean the risk is necessarily low: if you buy a bond with a 20% effective annual yield, that means there is quite a high risk that the underlying company will fold (unless inflation is in the double-digit range as well, in which case a 20% yield is not that much). Whereas with a stock, no parameter directly tells you anything about the risk. Recession-proof is not the same thing as low-risk. Recession-proof refers to investing in (or holding debt for) industries that perform better in a recession. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/08/industries-thrive-on-recession.asp.","\"20-year Treasury Bonds are not equivalent to cash, not even close. Even though the bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, they are long-term debt and therefore their principal value will fluctuate considerably as market interest rates change. When interest rates rise, the market value of 20-year bonds will drop, and drop more than shorter-term bonds would. Your principal is not protected in the short term. Principal is only guaranteed returned at the 20-year maturity of those bonds. But, oops, there is no maturity on the 20-year bond ETFs because every year the ETF rolls the 19-year positions into new 20-year positions! ;-) For an \"\"equivalent to cash\"\" piece of a portfolio, I'd want my principal to be intact over the short term, and continually reinvested at the higher short-term rates as rates are rising. Reinvesting at short-term rates can be an inflation-hedge. But, money locked in for 20-years is a sitting duck for inflation. Still, inflation aside, why do we want our \"\"equivalent to cash\"\" position to be relatively liquid and principal-protected? When it comes time to rebalance your portfolio after disastrous equity and/or bond returns, you've got in your cash component some excess weighting since it was unaffected by the disastrous performance. That excess cash is ready to be deployed to purchase equities and/or bonds at the lower current prices. Rebalancing from cash can add a bonus to your returns and smooth volatility. If you have no cash component and only equities and bonds, you have no money to deploy when both equities and bonds are depressed. You didn't keep any powder dry. And, BTW, I would personally keep a bit more than 3% of my powder dry. Consider a short-term cash deposit or good money-market fund for your \"\"equivalent to cash\"\" position.\"","Dividends are actually a very stable portion of equity returns, the Great recession and Great Depression notwithstanding: However, dividends, with lower variance have lower returns. Most of the return is due to the more variant price: So while dividends fell by 25% during the worst drop since the Great Depression, prices fell almost by 2/3. If one can accumulate enough wealth to live only off of dividend income, the price risk becomes much more manageable. This is the ideal circumstance for retirement.","If you believe you can time the crash, then We all know what comes after a crash… just as we know what comes after the doom, we just don’t know when….","I found a comparison of stock and bond returns. The relevant portion here is that bonds went up by 10% in 2007 and 20% in 2008 (32% compounded). Stocks were already recovering in 2009, going up almost 26%. You don't mention what you were hoping to get from your gold investment, but bonds gave a very good return for those two years.","\"Yes. Bonds perform very well in a recession. In fact the safer the bond, the better it would do in a recession. Think of markets having four seasons: High growth and low inflation - \"\"growing economy\"\" High growth and high inflation - \"\"overheating economy\"\" Low growth and high inflation - \"\"stagflation\"\" Low growth and low inflation - \"\"recession\"\" Bonds are the best investment in a recession. qplum's flagship strategy had a very high allocation to bonds in the financial crisis. That's why in backtest it shows much better returns.\"","In 2008, the S&P was down 37%. I love charts that show sector performance by year, as it helps show that 2008 wasn't like the crash of 2000-01 which was more tech-centric. Funds that were more geared towards bonds would have been up as the 10 year Treasury was up 20%. I understand you have a low risk tolerance. Over the long term, this will cost you. The CAGR for the S&P from 1928-2011 was 9.23%, for treasuries, 5.14%. This difference adds up dramatically over time. These rates double your stock investments every 8 years on average vs nearly 14 years for bonds. See the MoneyChimp site to tinker with start/finish years to understand long term returns.","With a long enough time horizon, no matter when you buy, equities almost always outperform cash and bonds. There's an article here with some info: http://www.fool.co.uk/investing-basics/how-when-and-where-to-invest/ Holding period where shares have beaten cash There was a similar study done which showed if you picked any day in the last 100 years, no matter if the market was at a high or low, after 1 year your probability of being in profit was only 0.5, but after 10-20 years it was almost certainly 1.0. Equities compound dividends too, and the best place to invest is in diversified stock indices such as the S&P500, FTSE100, DOW30 or indices/funds which pay dividends. The best way to capture returns is to dollar cost average (e.g. place a lump sum, then add $x every month), to re-invest dividends, and oh, to forget about it in an IRA or SIPP (Self invested pension) or other vehicle which discourages tampering with your investment. Yes, values rise and fall but we humans are so short sighted, if we had bought the S&P in 2007 and sold in 2009 in fear, we would have missed out on the 25% gain (excluding dividends) from 2007-2014. That's about 3% a year gain even if you bought the 2007 high -beating cash or bonds even after the financial crisis. Now imagine had you dollar cost averaged the entire period from 2007-2014 where your gain would be. Your equity curve would have the same shape as the S&P (with its drastic dip in 2009) but an accelerated growth after. There are studies if you dig that demonstrate the above. From experience I can tell you timing the market is nigh impossible and most fund managers are unable to beat the indices. Far better to DCA and re-invest dividends and not care about market gyrations! ..","A stock is an ownership interest in a company. There can be multiple classes of shares, but to simplify, assuming only one class of shares, a company issues some number of shares, let's say 1,000,000 shares and you can buy shares of the company. If you own 1,000 shares in this example, you would own one one-thousandth of the company. Public companies have their shares traded on the open market and the price varies as demand for the stock comes and goes relative to people willing to sell their shares. You typically buy stock in a company because you believe the company is going to prosper into the future and thus the value of its stock should rise in the open market. A bond is an indebted interest in a company. A company issues bonds to borrow money at an interest rate specified in the bond issuance and makes periodic payments of principal and interest. You buy bonds in a company to lend the company money at an interest rate specified in the bond because you believe the company will be able to repay the debt per the terms of the bond. The value of a bond as traded on the open exchange varies as the prevailing interest rates vary. If you buy a bond for $1,000 yielding 5% interest and interest rates go up to 10%, the value of your bond in the open market goes down so that the payment terms of 5% on $1,000 matches hypothetical terms of 10% on a lesser principal amount. Whatever lesser principal amount at the new rate would lead to the same payment terms determines the new market value. Alternatively, if interest rates go down, the current value of your bond increases on the open market to make it appear as if it is yielding a lower rate. Regardless of the market value, the company continues to pay interest on the original debt per its terms, so you can always hold onto a bond and get the original promised interest as long as the company does not go bankrupt. So in summary, bonds tend to be a safer investment that offers less potential return. However, this is not always the case, since if interest rates skyrocket, your bond's value will plummet, although you could just hold onto them and get the low rate originally promised.","I always find this funny. How can government bonds be in attractive and currency be attractive? With monetary policy America guarantees that it can't default on debt. The only thing that can happen which breaks this is if the government prints itself out of debt. In which case not only will you bonds be worthless but so will your cash. So to all the investors with boats of cash, you are trading one problem for the same problem. The only difference is you can hold the second problem in your hands. Fools.","\"The price of real estate reacts to both demand for property and the rate of inflation and rate of income growth. Mortgage rates generally move as treasury rates move. See this paragraph: As we mentioned, intermediate term bonds and long-term mortgages (more properly, Mortgage-Backed Securities, or MBS) compete for the same fixed-income investor dollar. Treasury issues are 100% guaranteed to be repaid, but mortgages are not; therefore mortgages carry more risk of default or early repayment, which could potentially disturb the return on the investment. Therefore, mortgage rates must be priced higher to compensate for that risk. But how much higher are mortgages priced? In a normal market, the average \"\"spread\"\" or markup above the 100% secured Treasury is about 170 basis points, or 1.7%. That markup -- the spread relationship -- widens and contracts with a range of market conditions, investor appetites and supply of available product -- as well as the presence of competing investment opportunities, like corporate bonds or domestic (or foreign) equity markets Source: What Moves Mortgage Rates? And when the stock market crashes, investors tend to run to bonds and treasuries, which causes prices to go up and treasury yields to drop. Theoretically, this would also cause mortgage rates to drop, although most mortgage rates have a base price below which they cannot fall. How easy is it to profit from recent stock market drops and at what frequency? Incredibly difficult. The issue with your strategy is that you cannot predict the bottom of the market (at least us mortals can't). Just take the month of August for example. Stocks fell something like 15%? After the first 5-10% drop, people felt that the bottom was there, so they rushed in, only to have the market fall even more. How will you know when to invest? Even if the market falls by 50%, and there's a huge buying opportunity, and you increase the mortgage on your house, odds are your rates will increase because of the equity you take out. What if the market stays low for a very long time? Will you be able to maintain mortgage payments? Japan's stock bubble popped in the early 90's, and they've had two lost decade's now. Furthermore, there are issues of liquidity. What if you need more capital? Can you just sell a property or can you buy now property to draw equity against? What if the market is moving too fast for you to take advantage of. Don't ignore transaction costs and taxes either. Overall, there are a lot of ways that your idea can go wrong, and not many ways it can go right.\"","Yes, bond funds are marked to market, so they will decline as the composition of their holdings will. Households actually have unimpressive relative levels of credit to equity holdings. The reason why is because there is little return on credit, making it irrational to hold any amount greater than to fund future liquidity needs, risk adjusted and time discounted. The vast majority of credit is held by insurance companies. Pension funds have large stakes as well. Banks hold even fewer bonds since they try to sell them as soon as they've made them. Insurance companies are forced to hold a large percentage of their floats in credit then preferred equity. While this dulls their returns, it's not a large problem for them because they typically hold bonds until maturity. Only the ones who misprice the risk of insurance will have to sell at unfavorable prices. Being able to predict interest rates thus bond prices accurately would make one the best bond manager in the world. While it does look like inflation will rise again soon just as it has during every other US expansion, can it be assured when commodity prices are high in real terms and look like they may be in a collapse? The banking industry would have to produce credit at a much higher rate to counter the deflation of all physical goods. Households typically shun assets at low prices to pursue others at high prices, so their holdings of bonds ETFs should be expected to decline during a bond collapse. If insurance companies find it less costly to hold ETFs then they will contribute to an increase in bond ETF supply.","Barton Biggs's book Wealth, War and Wisdom aims to answer the question of what investments are best-suited to preserving value despite large-scale catastrophes by looking at how various investments and assets performed in countries affected by WWII. In Japan, stocks and urban land turned out to be good investments; in France, farm land and gold did better. Stocks outperformed bonds in nearly every country. Phil Greenspun recently wrote a review of the book.","If you know the market will crash, you could opt for going short. However, if you think this is too risky, not investing at all is probably your best move. In case of crises, correlation go up and almost all assets go down.","In the 2008 housing crash, cash was king. Cash can make your mortgage payment, buy groceries, utilities, etc. Great deals on bank owned properties were available for those with cash. Getting a mortgage in 2008-2011 was tough. If you are worried about stock market crashing, then diversification is key. Don't have all your investments in one mutual fund or sector. Gold and precious metals have a place in one's portfolio, say 5-10 percent as an insurance policy. The days of using a Gold Double Eagle to pay the property taxes are largely gone, although Utah does allow it. The biggest lesson I took from the crash is you cant have too much cash saved. Build up the rainy day fund.","The volatility of an index fund should usually be a lot lower than that of an individual stock. However even with a broad index fund you should consider the fact that being down by 10% in the time frame you refer to is quite possible! So is being up by 10% of course. A corporate bond might be a better choice if you can find one you trust.","\"not sure if I will help or just spread more gibberish but maybe the first concept I'd look at is risk tolerance. Risk tolerance is discerning your ability to risk losing money to get better results. So you know the saying \"\"the higher the risk the higher the reward\"\"? The way most people are going to operate is somewhere on the midpoint of behavior - not doing the riskiest thing, but not doing the very most cautious thing either. So given that concept, some investments will be more appealing given different economic scenarios. Typically stocks are going to reward your investment a little more aggressively than a treasury bond if the economy is humming along. This drives prices of treasuries lower, stock yields higher. In a crappy economy, people want to move their money into conservative investments like a treasury bond. Bond prices rise while stock prices dip. If you google 'correlations between the market prices of stocks and the market prices of Treasury bonds' you will find plenty of helpful and hopefully not too convoluted articles a la http://finance.zacks.com/correlation-treasuries-stocks-10871.html Don't get freaked out by graphs, the graphs are just a way to put into a picture that correlation.\"","\"I can think of a few reasons for this. First, bonds are not as correlated with the stock market so having some in your portfolio will reduce volatility by a bit. This is nice because it makes you panic less about the value changes in your portfolio when the stock market is acting up, and I'm sure that fund managers would rather you make less money consistently then more money in a more volatile way. Secondly, you never know when you might need that money, and since stock market crashes tend to be correlated with people losing their jobs, it would be really unfortunate to have to sell off stocks when they are under-priced due to market shenanigans. The bond portion of your portfolio would be more likely to be stable and easier to sell to help you get through a rough patch. I have some investment money I don't plan to touch for 20 years and I have the bond portion set to 5-10% since I might as well go for a \"\"high growth\"\" position, but if you're more conservative, and might make withdrawals, it's better to have more in bonds... I definitely will switch over more into bonds when I get ready to retire-- I'd rather have slow consistent payments for my retirement than lose a lot in an unexpected crash at a bad time!\"","Smallest risk of default would depend on where Alice and Bob live I suppose, but lets assume they are in a lower yielding nation where default is not a big concern. Remember for instance that Greece was a lower yielding nation at one point and that the US has defaulted before. Let's start with Bob because he is easier to analyze. Yield curves inversions generally pre-date recessions which is generally not so good for Bob as rates tend to drop during recessions and he will be at the short end of the curve so his bonds will be less sensitive. However, he will generally get higher yields in good times to make up for this, but these higher yields come with a price in that he is generally much more sensitive to yield changes and can get much larger swings in portfolio value. First off as JB mentioned Alice would likely own inflation-linked (IL) bonds. Which behave fairly differently from Bob's bonds. However, to keep this simple lets say they live in a place without IL bonds or IL bonds are not a consideration. Then generally Alice has lower yielding bonds in good times but may do very well when the fed steps in during a crisis. So, who wins in the long run? Likely Christi who owns a mix of a broad index of stocks and bonds in a risk mix where she wouldn't have to sell in downturns. Especially, as Christi wouldn't have to pay the trading costs of moving her whole portfolio between long and short bonds. Between Bob and Alice however Bob would likely win in the long run as the markets generally reward risk taking in the long run. Still inflation (even without the IL bonds) and general rate trends (long-term rates are historically low right now) could have Bob losing for uncomfortably long periods.","\"Being long the S&P Index ETF you can expect to make money. The index itself will never \"\"crash\"\" because the individual stocks in it are simply removed when they begin performing badly. This is not to say that the S&P Index won't lose 80% of its value in an instant (or over a few trading sessions if circuit breakers are considered), but even in the 2008 correction, the S&P still traded far above book value. With this in mind, you have to realize, that despite common sentiment, the indexes are hardly representative of \"\"the market\"\". They are just a derivative, and as you might be aware, derivatives can enable financial tricks far removed from reality. Regarding index funds, if a small group of people decide that 401k's are performing badly, then they will simply rebalance the components of the indexes with companies that are doing well. The headline will be \"\"S&P makes ANOTHER record high today\"\" So although panic selling can disrupt the order book, especially during periods of illiquidity, with the current structure \"\"the stock market\"\" being based off of three composite indexes, can never crash, because there will always exist a company that is not exposed to broad market fluctuations and will be performing better by fundamentals and share price. Similarly, you collect dividends from the index ETFs. You can also sell covered calls on your holdings. The CBOE has a chart through the 2008 crisis showing your theoretical profit and loss if you sold calls 2 standard deviations out of the money, at every monthly interval. If you are going to be holding an index ETF for a long time, then you shouldn't be concerned about its share price at all, since the returns would be pretty abysmal either way, but it should suffice for hedging inflation.\"","You should definitely favor holding bonds in tax-advantaged accounts, because bonds are not tax-efficient. The reason is that more of their value comes in the form of regular, periodic distributions, rather than an increase in value as is the case with stocks or stock funds. With stocks, you can choose to realize all that appreciation when it is most advantageous for you from a tax perspective. Additionally, stock dividends often receive lower tax rates. For much more detail, see Tax-efficient fund placement.","Bank assets are debt. Thus bank equity is a claim on debt. Note also that QE etal dropped interest rates, compressing interest rate spreads and making it harder for banks to make money. Banks do well when interest rates increase","Small companies are generally able to adapt quickly to take advantage of changing conditions to enter new markets when the economy is growing. This gives them a lot of growth potential under those circumstances. However, in times of crisis, there may not be a lot of new markets to enter, and financing to expand any operations may be impossible to get. Under these conditions, small-caps will suffer relative to large-caps.","I don't believe I said anything about the stock market going down, which happens regularly. It's not like municipal bond markets crash very often—once every few generations, maybe. So her being off by a couple years would be insignificant. Not saying I think it's going to happen. I'm just posing the question. If the municipal bond markets crashed within the next year, she would be vindicated.","\"The answer to your question depends very much on your definition of \"\"long-term\"\". Because let's make something clear: an investment horizon of three to six months is not long term. And you need to consider the length of time from when an \"\"emergency\"\" develops until you will need to tap into the money. Emergencies almost by definition are unplanned. When talking about investment risk, the real word that should be used is volatility. Stocks aren't inherently riskier than bonds issued by the same company. They are likely to be a more volatile instrument, however. This means that while stocks can easily gain 15-20 percent or more in a year if you are lucky (as a holder), they can also easily lose just as much (which is good if you are looking to buy, unless the loss is precipitated by significantly weaker fundamentals such as earning lookout). Most of the time stocks rebound and regain lost valuation, but this can take some time. If you have to sell during that period, then you lose money. The purpose of an emergency fund is generally to be liquid, easily accessible without penalties, stable in value, and provide a cushion against potentially large, unplanned expenses. If you live on your own, have good insurance, rent your home, don't have any major household (or other) items that might break and require immediate replacement or repair, then just looking at your emergency fund in terms of months of normal outlay makes sense. If you own your home, have dependents, lack insurance and have major possessions which you need, then you need to factor those risks into deciding how large an emergency fund you might need, and perhaps consider not just normal outlays but also some exceptional situations. What if the refrigerator and water heater breaks down at the same time that something breaks a few windows, for example? What if you also need to make an emergency trip near the same time because a relative becomes seriously ill? Notice that the purpose of the emergency fund is specifically not to generate significant interest or dividend income. Since it needs to be stable in value (not depreciate) and liquid, an emergency fund will tend towards lower-risk and thus lower-yield investments, the extreme being cash or the for many more practical option of a savings account. Account forms geared toward retirement savings tend to not be particularly liquid. Sure, you can usually swap out one investment vehicle for another, but you can't easily withdraw your money without significant penalties if at all. Bonds are generally more stable in value than stocks, which is a good thing for a longer-term portion of an emergency fund. Just make sure that you are able to withdraw the money with short notice without significant penalties, and pick bonds issued by stable companies (or a fund of investment-grade bonds). However, in the present investment climate, this means that you are looking at returns not significantly better than those of a high-yield savings account while taking on a certain amount of additional risk. Bonds today can easily have a place if you have to pick some form of investment vehicle, but if you have the option of keeping the cash in a high-yield savings account, that might actually be a better option. Any stock market investments should be seen as investments rather than a safety net. Hopefully they will grow over time, but it is perfectly possible that they will lose value. If what triggers your financial emergency is anything more than local, it is certainly possible to have that same trigger cause a decline in the stock market. Money that you need for regular expenses, even unplanned ones, should not be in investments. Thus, you first decide how large an emergency fund you need based on your particular situation. Then, you build up that amount of money in a savings vehicle rather than an investment vehicle. Once you have the emergency fund in savings, then by all means continue to put the same amount of money into investments instead. Just make sure to, if you tap into the emergency fund, replenish it as quickly as possible.\"","\"First, there will always be people who think the market is about to crash. It doesn't really crash very often. When it does crash, they always say they predicted it. Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. You could go short (short selling stocks), which requires a margin account that you have to qualify for (typically you can only short up to half the value of your account, in the US). And if you've maxed out your margin limits and your account continues to drop in value, you risk a margin call, which would force you to cover your shorts, which you may not be able to afford. You could invest in a fund that does the shorting for you. You could also consider actually buying good investments while their prices are low. Since you cannot predict the start, or end, of a \"\"crash\"\" you should consider dollar-cost-averaging until your stocks hit a price you've pre-determined is your \"\"trigger\"\", then purchase larger quantities at the bargain prices. The equity markets have never failed to recover from crashes. Ever.\"","\"The federal funds rate is one of the risk-free short-term rates in the economy. We often think of fixed income securities as paying this rate plus some premia associated with risk. For a treasury security, we can think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) The term premium is a bit extra the bond pays because if you hold a long term bond, you are exposed to interest rate risk, which is the risk that rates will generally rise after you buy, making your bond worth less. The relation is more complex if people have expectations of future rate moves, but this is the general idea. Anyway, generally speaking, longer term bonds are exposed to more interest rate risk, so they pay more, on average. For a corporate bond, we think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) + (default premium) where the default premium is some extra that the bond must pay to compensate the holder for default risk, which is the risk that the bond defaults or loses value as the company's prospects fall. You can see that corporate and government bonds are affected the same way (approximately, this is all hand-waving) by changes in the fed funds rate. Now, that all refers to the rates on new bonds. After a bond is issued, its value falls if rates rise because new bonds are relatively more attractive. Its value rises if rates on new bonds falls. So if there is an unexpected rise in the fed funds rate and you are holding a bond, you will be sad, especially if it is a long term bond (doesn't matter if it's corporate or government). Ask yourself, though, whether an increase in fed funds will be unexpected at this point. If the increase was expected, it will already be priced in. Are you more of an expert than the folks on wall-street at predicting interest rate changes? If not, it might not make sense to make decisions based on your belief about where rates are going. Just saying. Brick points out that treasuries are tax advantaged. That is, you don't have to pay state income tax on them (but you do pay federal). If you live in a state where this is true, this may matter to you a little bit. They also pay unnaturally little because they are convenient for use as a cash substitute in transactions and margining (\"\"convenience yield\"\"). In general, treasuries just don't pay much. Young folk like you tend to buy corporate bonds instead, so they can make money on the default and term premia.\"",">Well, reserve requirements concern, as the name suggests, the reserves, e.g. a position on the balance sheet. Yes, the book value of equity is not affected. However, when the market value experiences a steep decline, you find those that hold deposits begin moving them out of the bank. Investment fear and business fear tend to move together with financial institutions. That directly impacts the reserve requirements. >but sharp price drops in fact can help you to raise equity, simply because your ratios improved (P/E, P/B, in fact any ratio that includes the price part) and the stock became cheaper Not when there is bankruptcy or solvency issues that become present. Obviously an investor wants to buy low and sell high, but if there is a substantial risk of bankruptcy, the common stockholder will demand a premium unattainable by most non-growth firms (i.e. biotech, tech, etc.). That is the issue with France. Liquidity issues stem from systemic risk, but those French banks also possess significant firm risk due to their exposure to sovereign debt. Once those banks mark all of their holdings to market, they will realize substantial losses. BNP recently recorded a nearly $1B write-down.","Bonds have multiple points of risk: This is part of the time value of money chapter in any finance course. Disclaimer - Duff's answer popped up as I was still doing the bond calculations. Similar to mine but less nerdy.","You are right about the stock and index funds, with dollar cost averaging over several years, the daily price of the security (especially a dividend paying security) will not matter* because your position will have accumulated larger over several entry points, some entries with cheaper shares and some entries with more expensive shares. In the future your position will be so large that any uptick will net you large gains on your original equity. *not matter being a reference to even extreme forms of volatility. But if you had all your equity in a poor company and tanked, never to rise again, then you would still be in a losing position even with dollar cost averaging. If your only other holdings are bonds, then you MAY want to sell those to free up capital.","During the hyperinflation of the Wiermer republic, corporate stocks and convertible bonds were thought second only to the species (gold, silver etc) as the only secure currencies. As Milton Friedman proved, inflation is caused solely by the monetary token supply increasing faster than productivity. In the past, days of species of currency, it was caused by governments debasing the currency e.g. streatching the same amount of silver in 50 coins to 100 coins. Sudden increases in the supply of precious metals can also trigger it. The various gold rushes in 19th century and later, improvements in extraction methods caused bouts of inflation. Most famously, the huge amounts of silver the Spanish extracted from the New World mines, devastated the European economy with high inflation. Governments use inflation as a form of stealth flat tax. Money functions as an Abstract Universal Trade Good and it obeys all the rules of supply and demand. If the supply of money goes up suddenly, then its value drops in relation to real goods and service. But that drop in value doesn't occur instantly, the increased quality of tokens has to percolate through the market before the value changes. So, the first institution to spend the infalted/debased currency can get the full current value from trade. The second gets slightly less, the third even less and so on. In 2008, the Federal reserve began printing money and loaning at 0% to insolvent backs who then used that money to buy T-Bill. This had the duel effect of giving the banks an (arbitrary) A1 rated asset for their fractional reserve while the Federal government got full pre-inflation value of the money paid for the T-bills. As the government spent that money, the number of tokens increased fast than the economy. In times of inflation, the value of money per unit drops as its supply increases and increases The best hedges against inflation are real assets e.g. land, equipment, stocks (ownership of real assets) and convertible bonds which are convertible to stock. It's important to remember that money is, of itself, worthless. It's just a technology that abstracts and smilies trading which at the base, is still a barter system. During inflation the barter value of money plunges owing to increased supply. But the direct barter value between any two real assets remain the same because their supplies have not changed. The value of stocks and convertible bonds is maintained by the economic activity of the company whose ownership they represent. Dividends, stock prices and bond equity, as measured in the inflated currency continue to rise in sync with inflation. Thus they preserve the original value of the money paid for them. Not sure why you expect more inflation. The only institution that can create inflation in the US is the Federal Reserve which Trump has no direct control off. Deregulation of banks won't cause inflation in and of itself as the private banks cannot alter the money supply. If banks fail, owing to deregulation, unlikely I think given the dismal nearly century long record of regulation to date, then the Federal Reserve might fix the problem with another inflation tax, but otherwise not.","I have had similar thoughts regarding alternative diversifiers for the reasons you mention, but for the most part they don't exist. Gold is often mentioned, but outside of 1972-1974 when the US went off the gold standard, it hasn't been very effective in the diversification role. Cash can help a little, but it also fails to effectively protect you in a bear market, as measured by portfolio drawdowns as well as std dev, relative to gov't bonds. There are alternative assets, reverse ETFs, etc which can fulfill a specific short term defensive role in your portfolio, but which can be very dangerous and are especially poor as a long term solution; while some people claim to use them for effective results, I haven't seen anything verifiable. I don't recommend them. Gov't bonds really do have a negative correlation to equities during periods in which equities underperform (timing is often slightly delayed), and that makes them more valuable than any other asset class as a diversifier. If you are concerned about rate increases, avoid LT gov't bond funds. Intermediate will work, but will take a few hits... short term bonds will be the safest. Personally I'm in Intermediates (30%), and willing to take the modest hit, in exchange for the overall portfolio protection they provide against an equity downturn. If the hit concerns you, Tips may provide some long term help, assuming inflation rises along with rates to some degree. I personally think Tips give up too much return when equity performance is strong, but it's a modest concern - Tips may suit you better than any other option. In general, I'm less concerned with a single asset class than with the long term performance of my total portfolio.","Look. Here's a graph of the S&P 500. It's up 1200% since the start of the 70's, our late recession notwithstanding. You're not going to get that kind of return on bonds or commodities or savings accounts. (Maybe real estate stands a chance, if your real estate wasn't in, say, Detroit. It's not as easy to diversify real estate...) People in their 20's who have plenty of time before they need to spend their retirement money invest in the stock market exactly because they're long-term and can withstand these dips just by waiting them out, and earn a ton of money. People approaching their 60's transition their portfolio to bonds so that a market crash won't wipe them out.","The DLOM maybe different if the bond is more or less marketable than the equity. However, the ratio itself would be the same. So while this might affect the interest at which you are willing to lend, it would not affect the intrinsic value of the firm.","\"In general, yes. If interest rates go higher, then any existing fixed-rate bonds - and hence ETFs holding those bonds - become less valuable. The further each bond is from maturity, the larger the impact. As you suggest, once the bonds do mature, the fund can replace them at a market price, so the effect tails off. The bond market has a concept known as \"\"duration\"\" that helps reason about this effect. Roughly, it measures the average time from now to each payout of the bond, weighted by the payout. The longer the duration, the more the price will change for a given change in interest rates. The concept is just an approximation, and there are various slightly different ways of calculating it; but very roughly the price of a bond will reduce by a percentage equal to the duration times the increase in interest rates. So a bond with a duration of 5 years will lose 5% of its value for a 1% rise in interest rates (and of course vice-versa). For your second question, it really depends on what you're trying to achieve by diversifying - this might be best as a different question that gives more detail, as it's not very related to your first question. Short-term bonds are less risky. But both will lose value if the underlying company is in trouble. Gilts (government bonds) are less risky than corporate bonds.\"","The market moves faster than ratings agencies. Everyday the market is trying to figure out the true value of Assets - Liabilities and thus its overall equity value. The financial crisis illustrated this perfectly when Bear Sterns got stuck in a liquidity trap. It's MBS(CDO) was still highly rated, likewise its overall credit rating was sound, however in reality the value of assets were much higher due to coming default, credit providers realized assets Bear had posted as collateral were falling in value quickly. This started the death spiral, or feedback loop in which it isn't clear if the tail wagged the dog or the dog wagged the tail, but as equity value fell Bear could no longer get access to credit markets to fund daily operations, once it got margin called and couldn't pay, it was all over. When it was sold to JPM, they basically stole the entire company at a fire sale price, everyone knew they were getting a deal, as reflected in the post buyout price jump of JPM stock. So in a technical sense you are right, they have nothing to do with each other. But in a practical sense as we see equity value collapse we are approaching bankruptcy, and thus default, and credit ratings should represent likelihood of default so the two should have a positive correlation to one another, assuming equity value is the 'true value'.","\"Financing a portfolio with debt (on margin) leads to higher variance. That's the WHOLE POINT. Let's say it's 50-50. On the downside, with 100% equity, you can never lose more than your whole equity. But if you have assets of 100, of which 50% is equity and 50% is debt, your losses can be greater than 50%, which is to say more than the value of your equity. The reverse is true. You can make money at TWICE the rate if the market goes up. But \"\"you pay your money and you take your chances\"\" (Punch, 1846).\"","Totally depends on the drivers of the downturn. Keep in mind that in ~2005, both real estate and short-term bonds would arguably have been reasonable answers to this question (without the benefit of hindsight, of course). e: After re-reading your post, it looks like you were asking about (I assume) equity investments by sector rather than asset classes more broadly. I'm not sure equity in any sector can be considered a safe haven in a downturn. Utilities are the typical answer, but they didn't do much better than equity markets in general in 2008-2009.","\"In a sentence, stocks are a share of equity in the company, while bonds are a share of credit to the company. When you buy one share of stock, you own a (typically infinitesimal) percentage of the company. You are usually entitled to a share of the profits of that company, and/or to participate in the business decisions of that company. A particular type of stock may or may not pay dividends, which is the primary way companies share profits with their stockholders (the other way is simply by increasing the company's share value by being successful and thus desirable to investors). A stock also may or may not allow you to vote on company business; you may hear about companies buying 20% or 30% \"\"interests\"\" in other companies; they own that percentage of the company, and their vote on company matters is given that same weight in the total voting pool. Typically, a company offers two levels of stocks: \"\"Common\"\" stock usually has voting rights attached, and may pay dividends. \"\"Preferred\"\" stock usually gives up the voting rights, but pays a higher dividend percentage (maybe double or triple that of common stock) and may have payment guarantees (if a promised dividend is missed in one quarter and then paid in the next, the preferred stockholders get their dividend for the past and present quarters before the common shareholders see a penny). Governments and non-profits are typically prohibited from selling their equity; if a government sold stock it would basically be taxing everyone and then paying back stockholders, while non-profit organizations have no profits to pay out as dividends. Bonds, on the other hand, are a slice of the company's debt load. Think of bonds as kind of like a corporate credit card. When a company needs a lot of cash, it will sell bonds. A single bond may be worth $10, $100, or $1000, depending on the investor market being targeted. This is the amount the company will pay the bondholder at the end of the term of the bond. These bonds are bought by investors on the open market for less than their face value, and the company uses the cash it raises for whatever purpose it wants, before paying off the bondholders at term's end (usually by paying each bond at face value using money from a new package of bonds, in effect \"\"rolling over\"\" the debt to the next cycle, similar to you carrying a balance on your credit card). The difference between the cost and payoff is the \"\"interest charge\"\" on this slice of the loan, and can be expressed as a percentage of the purchase price over the remaining term of the bond, as its \"\"yield\"\" or \"\"APY\"\". For example, a bond worth $100 that was sold on Jan 1 for $85 and is due to be paid on Dec 31 of the same year has an APY of (15/85*100) = 17.65%. Typically, yields for highly-rated companies are more like 4-6%; a bond that would yield 17% is very risky and indicates a very low bond rating, so-called \"\"junk status\"\".\"","\"Bonds are priced \"\"very high\"\" because their price is compared to their yields. With the current interest rates, which are very low, the bond yields will be low. However, bond issuers still need the money, so there still will be high par value, and investors will not sell bonds at a loss unless there's a better investment (=bonds with better yields). Once the rates start going up, you'll see bonds with current rates dropping in value significantly. Once alternatives appear, people holding them will start dumping them to move the money somewhere more profitable. Similarly the stocks - since there's no other investment alternatives (yields on the bonds are low, interests are low), people invest more in the stocks. Once the rates go up, the investors will start rebalancing portfolios and cashing out.\"","Without providing direct investment advice, I can tell you that bond most assuredly are not recession-proof. All investments have risk, and each recession will impact asset-classes slightly differently. Before getting started, BONDS are LOANS. You are loaning money. Don't ever think of them as anything but that. Bonds/Loans have two chief risks: default risk and inflation risk. Default risk is the most obvious risk. This is when the person to whom you are loaning, does not pay back. In a recession, this can easily happen if the debtor is a company, and the company goes bankrupt in the recessionary environment. Inflation risk is a more subtle risk, and occurs when the (fixed) interest rate on your loan yields less than the inflation rate. This causes the 'real' value of your investment to depreciate over time. The second risk is most pronounced when the bonds that you own are government bonds, and the recession causes the government to be unable to pay back its debts. In these circumstances, the government may print more money to pay back its creditors, generating inflation.","Doesnt mean that equity or even debt holders wouldn't lose their investment. Those money and banking texts are presently useless post GFC given the incredible moral hazard and how all of the traditional bankruptcy rules were ignored.","\"If I don't need this money for decades, meaning I can ride out periodical market crashes, why would I invest in bonds instead of funds that track broad stock market indexes? You wouldn't. But you can never be 100% sure that you really won't need the money for decades. Also, even if you don't need it for decades, you can never be 100% certain that the market will not be way down at the time, decades in the future, when you do need the money. The amount of your portfolio you allocate to bonds (relative to stocks) can be seen as a measure of your desire to guard against that uncertainty. I don't think it's accurate to say that \"\"the general consensus is that your portfolio should at least be 25% in bonds\"\". For a young investor with high risk tolerance, many would recommend less than that. For instance, this page from T. Rowe Price suggests no more than 10% bonds for those in their 20s or 30s. Basically you would put money into bonds rather than stocks to reduce the volatility of your portfolio. If you care only about maximizing return and don't care about volatility, then you don't have to invest in bonds. But you probably actually do care about volatility, even if you don't think you do. You might not care enough to put 25% in bonds, but you might care enough to put 10% in bonds.\"","I've had the same thoughts recently and after reading Investing at Level 3 by James Cloonan I believe his thesis that for the passive investor you're giving up too much if you're not 100% in equities. He is clear to point out that you need to be well aware of your withdrawal horizons and has specific tactics for shifting the portfolio when you know you must have the money in the next five years and wouldn't want to pull money out when you're at a market low. The kicker for me was shifting your thought to a plotting a straight line of reasonable expectations on your return. Then you don't worry about how far down you are from your high (or up from your low) but you measure yourself against the expected return and you'll find some real grounding. You're investing for the long term so you're going to see 2-3 bear markets. That isn't the the time to get cold feet and react. Stay put and it will come back. The market gets back to the reasonable expectations very quickly as he confirms in all the bear markets and recessions of any note. He gives guidelines for a passive investing strategy to leverage this mentality and talks about venturing into an active strategy but doesn't go into great depth. So if you're looking to invest more passively this book may be enough to get you rolling with thinking differently than the traditional 70/30 split.","\"All bonds carry a risk of default, which means that it's possible that you can lose your principal investment in addition to potentially not getting the interest payments that you expect. Bonds (in the US anyway) are graded, so you can manage this risk somewhat by taking higher quality bonds, i.e. in companies or governments that are considered more creditworthy. Regular bank savings (again specific to the US) are insured by FDIC, so even if your bank goes bust, the US Government is backing them up to some limit. That makes such accounts less risky. There's generally no insurance on a bond, even if it is issued by a government entity. If you do your homework on the bond rating system and choose bonds in a rating band where you're comfortable, this could be a good option for you. You'll find, however, that the bond market also \"\"knows\"\" that the interest rates are generally low, so be ware that higher interest issues are usually coming from less creditworthy (and therefore more risky) issuers. EDIT Here's some additional information based on the follow-up question in the comment. When you buy a bond you are actually making a loan to the issuer. They will pay you interest over the lifetime of the bond and then return your principal at the end of the term. (Verify this payment schedule - This is typical, but you should be sure that whatever you're buying works like this.) This is not an investment in the value of the issuer itself like you would be making if you bought stock. With stock you are taking an ownership share in the company. This might entitle you to dividends if the company pays them, but otherwise your investment value on a stock will be tied to the performance of the company. With the bond, the company might be in decline but the bond still a good investment so long as the company doesn't decline so much that they cannot pay their debts. Also, bonds can be issued by governments, but governments do not sell stock. (An \"\"ownership share of the government\"\" would not make sense.) This may be the so-called sovereign debt if issued by a sovereign government or it may be local (we call it municipal here in the US) debt issued by a subordinate level of government. Bonds are a little bit like stock in the sense that there's a secondary market for them. That means that if you get partway through the length of the bond and don't want to hold it, you can sell the bond to someone else. Of course, it will be harder to sell a bond later if the company becomes insolvent or if the interest rates go up between when you buy and when you sell. Depending on these market factors, you might end up with a capital gain or capital loss (meaning you get more or less than the principal that you put into the bond) at the time of a sale.\"","Rates are a complex field. I will assume that context wise you are talking about rates for a individual saver quantities. The two rates you are asking about are personal bank saving account and exchange traded bonds. The points you want to compare between them are. In general, a bond is what we called a fixed rate instrument. This means that for the life of the product, it will yield a fixed percentage of its face value at a regular period. Baring any extreme circumstances (such as bankruptcy), no external factors will change the payment schedule on a bond. Conversely, by placing your money into a bank, you will accrue interest rate at some value related to some published interest rate. For example, if tomorrow, the Treasury decided to try to stimulate the economy, they could slash the interest rate, this would directly affect the rate at which your savings account would accrue interest. In general, a bond has a maturity date, where the capital is finally released from the bond. Until such date, you cannot access the money directly (you can however sell the bond, but it would likely be at a discounted value). Therefore, in general, you cannot get access to the money whenever you want it. As for a saving account, normally one can access the funds instantly, if not within a few days. This seems to the reason people seem to be focusing on. For each bond, the issuer of the bond is obligated to pay you the holder of the bond fixed payments at an interval, plus the capital at the maturity. However, obligation does not mean guarantee. If the issuer, is unable to make the payments, they may go into bankruptcy to avoid paying you. There are companies setup to advise people on the likelihood of each bond issuer on their ability to honour their debts. For example Standard and Poor issues a rating which goes all the way up to AAA for bonds. Recently, many sovereign countries have lost their AAA rating from S&P. Meaning that S&P feel that the possibility of these countries going bankrupt is non-zero. Conversely, banks may also be unable to give you your money when requested. In the US, the reserve requirements means that at any one time it only holds 10% of the money it owes to its customers. This can mean that if every customer turns up to the bank to demand their money, that bank would be unable to pay. This situation is called a Bank Run. During such a situation, the bank would likely collapse and default. In many modern countries, the government put into place guarantees on the first xxx amount in saving accounts, but otherwise, your savings could be lost. There are many complex reasons to choose one instrument over another (including some I have avoided), even if at the outset, they could appear to have the same rates.","While debt increases the likelihood and magnitude of a crash, speculation, excess supply and other market factors can result in crashes without requiring excessive debt. A popular counter example of crashes due to speculation is 16th century Dutch Tulip Mania. The dot com bubble is a more recent example of a speculative crash. There were debt related issues for some companies and the run ups in stock prices were increased by leveraged traders, but the actual crash was the result of failures of start up companies to produce profits. While all tech stocks fell together, sound companies with products and profits survive today. As for recessions, they are simply periods of time with decreased economic activity. Recessions can be caused by financial crashes, decreased demand following a war, or supply shocks like the oil crisis in the 1970's. In summary, debt is simply a magnifier. It can increase profits just as easily as can increase losses. The real problems with crashes and recessions are often related to unfounded faith in increasing value and unexpected changes in demand.","It doesn't matter which way you use. As long as your comfortable with the overall level of risk/reward in your portfolio, that's what matters. (Though I will say that there are more investment vehicles than stocks, bonds, and cash that are worth considering.)","I do this very thing, but with asset allocation and risk parity in mind. I disagree with the cash or bust answers above, but many of the aforementioned facts are valuable and I don't mean to undermine them in anyway. That said, let's look at two examples: Option 1: All-in For the sake of argument let's say you had $100k invested in the SPY (S&P 500 ETF) in early 2007, and you kept it there until today. Your lowest balance would have been about $51k, and at this point the possibility of you losing your job was probably at a peak. Today you would be left with $170k assuming no withdrawal. Option 2: Risk Parity BUT if you balanced your investments with a risk parity approach, using negatively correlated asset classes you avoid this dilemma. If you had invested 50% in XLP (Consumer Staples Sector ETF) and 50% in TLT ( Long Term Treasury ETF) your investments low point would have been $88k, and your lowest annual return would be +0.69%. Today you would be left with $214k assuming no withdrawals. I chose option #2 and it hasn't failed me yet, even in 2016 so far the results are steady and reliably given the reward. My general opinion is simple: when you have money always grow it. Just be sure to cover your ass and prepare for rain. Backtesting for this was done at portfoliovisualizer.com, the one caveat to this approach is that inflation and a lack of international exposure are a risk here.","\"In general, small cap stocks are exposed to more downside during recessions and when credit is tight, because it is more difficult for small companies to raise capital, and minor variations in cash flow have a bigger impact. Coming out of recessions or when credit is cheap, small companies generally perform better than larger companies. In the depths of recession, small companies with good cash flow are often great value investments, as analysts and institutional investors \"\"punish\"\" the entire class of smallcap companies.\"","In this type of strategy profit is made when the shares go down as your main position is the short trade of the common stock. The convertible instruments will tend to move in about the same direction as the underlying (what it can be converted to) but less violently as they are traded less (lower volatility and lower volume in the market on both sides), however, they are not being used to make a profit so much as to hedge against the stock going up. Since both the bonds and the preference shares are higher on the list to be repaid if the company declares bankruptcy and the bonds pay out a fixed amount of interest as well, both also help protect against problems that may occur with a long position in the common stock. Essentially the plan with this strategy is to earn fixed income on the bonds whilst the stock price drops and then to sell both the bonds and buy the stock back on the market to cover the short position. If the prediction that the stock will fall is wrong then you are still earning fixed income on the debt and are able to convert it into stock at the higher price to cover the short sale eliminating, or reducing, the loss made on the short sale. Effectively the profit here is made on the spread between the price of the bond, accounting for the conversion price, and the price of the stock and that fixed income is less volatile (except usually in the junk market) than stock.","Supply and demand for a particular bond may be such that the market price exceeds the par value for the bond at maturity. This is when you get a negative yield. Especially when volatility is high, people will actually pay money to park it in treasuries for an amount of time. But when compared to a > 25% vol in the equities market over that same period, taking a 5% or less hit doesn't sound nearly as bad!","No, he's right. Not only about the need to raise cash or capital via the equity markets, but the solvency and regulatory burden banks face. If there is a run on bank stocks, they will struggle to meet their reserve requirement ratios. This is what has been happening with the French banks over the past several months.","\"In theory, the term of the bond does not affect the priority. It does not matter whether a \"\"Junior Subordinated Debenture\"\" is due in one year or sixty, it is still lower priority than a \"\"Secured Note\"\". On the other hand, if the \"\"Secured Note\"\" is secured by something that is not worth as much as the note, the excess is an unsecured debt. In practice, the term of the bond has two effects: Short term debt holders are more likely to get out just before the company goes broke. Sometimes their efforts to get out are exactly what causes the company to go broke! (\"\"Commercial paper\"\" is even more fickle than banks.) All other things being equal, and depending on the terms of the loan, some bonds get priority over bonds of the same type that are issued later. For example, your first mortgage usually takes precedence over your second mortgage.\"","\"Let me see if I can restate your question: are speculative investments more volatile (subject to greater spikes and drops in pricing) than are more long-term investments which are defined by the predictability of their dividend returns? The short answer is: yes. However, where it gets complicated is in deciding whether something is a speculative investment. Take your example of housing. People who buy a house as an investment either choose to rent it out (so receive \"\"rent\"\" as \"\"dividend\"\") or live in it (foregoing dividends). Either way, the scale of the investment is large and this is often the only direct investment that people manage themselves. For this reason houses are bound up in the sentimental value people attach to a home, the difficulty of uprooting and moving elsewhere in search of cheaper housing or better employment, or the sunk cost of debt that can't be recovered by a fire-sale. Such inertia can lead to sudden sell-offs as critical inflection points are reached (such as hoped-for economic improvements fail to materialise and cash needs become critical). At different levels that is true of just about every investment. Driving price-volatility is the ease of sale and the trade-offs involved. A share that offers regular and dependable dividends, even if its absolute value falls, is going to be hung on to more frequently than those shares that suffer a similar decline but only offer a capital gain. For the latter, the race is on to sell before the drop neutralises any remaining capital gain the investor may have experienced. A house with a good tenant or a share with stable dividends will be kept in preference for the quick cash-return of selling an asset that offers no such ongoing returns. This would result, visually, in more eratic curves for \"\"speculative\"\" shares while more stable shares are characterised by periods of stability interspersed with moments of mania. But I have to take your query further, since you provide graphical evidence to support your thesis. Your charts combine varying time-scales, different sample rates and different scales (one of which is even a log scale). It becomes impossible to draw any sort of meaningful micro-comparison unless they're all presented using exactly the same criteria.\"","Historically October has been the month when crashes happen hasn’t it? I know not every crash has happened then but I think there’s something about the September/October period that it’s the part of the year where there’s been the most down months and the months where a few crashes started (Great Depression and recession off the top of my head)","Bonds can increase in price, if the demand is high and offer solid yield if the demand is low. For instance, Russian bond prices a year ago contracted big in price (ie: fell), but were paying 18% and made a solid buy. Now that the demand has risen, the price is up with the yield for those early investors the same, though newer investors are receiving less yield (about 9ish percent) and paying higher prices. I've rarely seen banks pay more variable interest than short term treasuries and the same holds true for long term CDs and long term treasuries. This isn't to say it's impossible, just rare. Also variable is different than a set term; if you buy a 10 year treasury at 18%, that means you get 18% for 10 years, even if interest rates fall four years later. Think about the people buying 30 year US treasuries during 1980-1985. Yowza. So if you have a very large amount of money you will store it in bonds as its much less likely that the US treasury will go bankrupt than your bank. Less likely? I don't know about your bank, but my bank doesn't owe $19 trillion.","\"The fact that some asset (in this case corporate bonds) has positive correlation with some other asset (equity) doesn't mean buying both isn't a good idea. Unless they are perfectly correlated, the best risk/reward portfolio will include both assets as they will sometimes move in opposite directions and cancel out each other's risk. So yes, you should buy corporate bonds. Short-term government bonds are essentially the risk-free asset. You will want to include that as well if you are very risk averse, otherwise you may not. Long-term government bonds may be default free but they are not risk free. They will make money if interest rates fall and lose if interest rates rise. Because of that risk, they also pay you a premium, albeit a small one, and should be in your portfolio. So yes, a passive portfolio (actually, any reasonable portfolio) should strive to reduce risk by diversifying into all assets that it reasonably can. If you believe the capital asset pricing model, the weights on portfolio assets should correspond to market weights (more money in bonds than stocks). Otherwise you will need to choose your weights. Unfortunately we are not able to estimate the true expected returns of risky assets, so no one can really agree on what the true optimal weights should be. That's why there are so many rules of thumb and so much disagreement on the subject. But there is little or no disagreement on the fact that the optimal portfolio does include risky bonds including long-term treasuries. To answer your follow-up question about an \"\"anchor,\"\" if by that you mean a risk-free asset then the answer is not really. Any risk-free asset is paying approximately zero right now. Some assets with very little risk will earn a very little bit more than short term treasuries, but overall there's nowhere to hide--the time value of money is extremely low at short horizons. You want expected returns, you must take risk.\"","It's worth pointing out that a bulk of the bond market is institutional investors (read: large corporations and countries). For individuals, it's very easy to just put your cash in a checking account. Checking accounts are insured and non-volatile. But what happens when you're GE or Apple or Panama? You can't just flop a couple billion dollars in to a Chase checking account and call it a day. Although, you still need a safe place to store money that won't be terribly volatile. GE can buy a billion dollars of treasury bonds. Many companies need tremendous amounts of collateral on hand, amounts far in excess of the capacity of a checking account; those funds are stored in treasuries of some sort. Separately, a treasury bond is not a substitute investment for an S&P index fund. For individuals they are two totally different investments with totally different characteristics. The only reason an individual investor should compare the return of the S&P against the readily available yield of treasuries is to ensure the expected return of an equity investment can sufficiently pay for the additional risk.","The average joe wouldn't... we would bury our cash in a mayonaise jar before we would take a guaranteed loss... (although the argument could be made that a positive return that doesnt outpace inflation IS a negative return)... big corporations with billions on hand dont have that luxury however... some investments may also guarantee investors that a certain percentage be allocated to bonds... and in times of deflation a negative return could still provide a net positive return...","Just before a crash or at the start of the crash most of the smart money would have gotten out, the remaining technical traders would be out by the time the market has dropped 10 to 15%, and some of them would be shorting their positions by now. Most long-term buy and hold investors would stick to their guns and stay in for the long haul. Some will start to get nervous and have sleepless nights when the markets have fallen 30%+ and look to get out as well. Others stay in until they cannot stand it anymore. And some will stick it out throughout the downturn. So who are the buyers at this stage? Some are the so called bargain hunters that buy when the market has fallen over 30% (only to sell again when it falls another 20%), or maybe buy more (because they think they are dollar cost averaging and will make a packet when the price goes back up - if and when it does). Some are those with stops covering their short positions, whilst others may be fund managers and individuals looking to rebalance their portfolios. What you have to remember during both an uptrend and a downtrend the price does not move straight up or straight down. If we take the downtrend for instance, it will have lower lows and lower highs (that is the definition of a downtrend). See the chart below of the S&P 500 during the GFC falls. As you can see just before it really started falling in Jan 08 there was ample opportunity for the smart money and the technical traders to get out of the market as the price drops below the 200 MA and it fails to make a higher peak. As the price falls from Jan 08 to Mar 08 you suddenly start getting some movement upwards. This is the bargain hunters who come into the market thinking the price is a bargain compared to 3 months ago, so they start buying and pushing the price up somewhat for a couple of months before it starts falling again. The reason it falls again is because the people who wanted to sell at the start of the year missed the boat, so are taking the opportunity to sell now that the prices have increased a bit. So you get this battle between the buyers (bulls) and seller (bears), and of course the bears are winning during this downtrend. That is why you see more sharper falls between Aug to Oct 08, and it continues until the lows of Mar 09. In short it has got to do with the phycology of the markets and how people's emotions can make them buy and/or sell at the wrong times.","When credit locks up, junk bond prices fall rapidly, and you see more defaults. The opportunity to make money with junk is to buy a diversified collection of them when the market declines. Look at the charts from some of the mutual funds or ETFs like PIMCO High Yield Instl (PHIYX), or Northeast Investors (NTHEX). Very volatile stuff. Keep in mind that junk bonds are not representative of the economy as a whole -- they cluster in certain industries. Retail and financials are big industry segments for junk. Also keep in mind that the market for these things is not as liquid as the stock market. If your investment choice is really a sector investment, you might be better served by investing in sector funds with stocks that trade every day versus bonds whose market price may be difficult to determine.","I seem to remember that put returns are actually way worse than what CAPM would predict based on their negative market correlation. Apparently something about negative skewness, jump risk and/or exposure to change in volatility carrying risk premia of their own. I'm not an expert, but if one can bear these risks, it may be better to replace some equity exposure with *short* puts rather than buying them. (That's what I'm doing a bit. But not very enthusiastically at the moment, with implied volatilities at such extremely low levels...)","\"If we can agree that 2010 was closer to the low of 2009 than 2007 then the rich did all the buying while the super-rich did all the selling. http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html Looks like the rich cleaned up during the Tech Crash too, but it looks like the poor lost faith. That limited data makes it look like the best investors are the rich. Market makers are only required by the exchanges to provide liquidity, bids & asks. They aren't required to buy endlessly. In fact, market makers (at least the ones who survive the busts) try to never have a stake in direction. They do this by holding equal inventories of long and shorts. They are actually the only people legally allowed to naked short stock: sell without securing shares to borrow. All us peons must secure borrowed shares before selling short. Also, firms involved in the actual workings of the market like bookies but unlike us peons who make the bets play by different margin rules. They're allowed to lever through the roof because they take on low risk or near riskless trades and \"\"positions\"\" (your broker, clearing agent, etc actually directly \"\"own\"\" your financial assets and borrow & lend them like a bank). http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@notice/documents/notices/p004001.pdf This is why market makers can be assumed not to load up on shares during a decline; they simply drop the bids & asks as their bids are hit.\"","I agree with @Turukawa that the x-axes need to be the same to make a direct comparison. However, the graphs you linked make me think of introductory calculus: If you time averaged plots, speculative investments (gold, housing) seem to have many large concave up time periods and the dow jones has many concave down sections. Using the concavity test: If the first derivative tells you about the rate of change, the second derivative tells you about the rate of change of rate of change. Remember back to Physics 101: 1st derivative is velocity & second derivative is acceleration. It would be interesting to have the same time scales for your plots & compare these accelerations between the two. I suspect the more volatile investments would have larger (in magnitude) accelerations during boom/bust cycles than less speculative investments.","\"Another factor to consider, beyond the fact that growth and volatility go together, is that the times when many people will need to liquidate their investments will correlate with the times that many other people need to liquidate their investments, and such correlation will push down the immediate value of those investments. While certificates of deposit have penalties for early withdrawal, one can establish up front what the worst-case penalty would be for cashing it in at the most inopportune time. By contrast, stocks offer no such assurance. Stocks sometimes have weird downward spikes that may be short-lived, but if life circumstances force one to liquidate stocks during such a downward spike the \"\"penalty\"\" can be much larger than on a CD.\"","Well, reserve requirements concern, as the name suggests, the reserves, e.g. a position on the balance sheet. The price of equity only marginally impacts the balance sheet (via positions in their own stock), not nearly strong enough to be significant. The French banks mainly had trouble with liquidity (this year we witnessed another collapse of the interbank lending market just as in 2007. watch the Libor-O/N-spread.) and solvency through deterioration of the asset side of the balance sheet. Naturally your ability to raise additional equity is influenced by the historic return of your stock, but sharp price drops in fact can help you to raise equity, simply because your ratios improved (P/E, P/B, in fact any ratio that includes the price part) and the stock became cheaper. See UBS/Singapore GIC and GS/Warren Buffet","Its still the case though. Most of the economy exists as either stocks, bonds, or debt. Bonds are stable so the wealthy stockpile there just in case, stocks are where they earn new wealth, and the debt just is everywhere. Real estate is basically just their flash cash.","Asset prices are inversely related to interest rates. If you're valuing a business or a bond, if you use a lower interest rate you get a higher valuation. Historic equity returns benefit from a falling interest rate environment which won't be repeated as interest rates can only go so low. edit: typo","Yes, this phenomenon is well documented. A collapse of an economy's exchange rate is coincidented with a collapse in its equities market. The recent calamities in Turkey, etc during 2014 had similar results. Inflation is highly correlated to valuations, and a collapse of an exchange rate is highly inflationary, so a collapse of an exchange rate is highly correlated to a collapse in valuations.","\"You may be thinking about this the wrong way. The yield (Return) on your investment is effectively the market price paid to the investor for the amount of risk assumed for participating. Looking at the last few years, many including myself would have given their left arm for a so-called \"\"meager return\"\" instead of the devastation visited on our portfolios. In essence, higher return almost always (arguably always) comes at the cost of increased risk. You just have to decide your risk profile and investment goals. For example, which of the following scenarios would you prefer? Investment Option A Treasuries, CD's Worst Case: 1% gain Best Case 5% gain Investment option B Equities/Commodities Worst Case: 25% loss Best Case: 40% gain\"","\"[...] are all bonds priced in such a way so that they all return the same amount (on average), after accounting for risk? In other words, do risk premiums ONLY compensate for the amount investors might lose? No. GE might be able to issue a bond with lower yield than, say, a company from China with no previous records of its presence in the U.S. markets. A bond price not only contains the risk of default, but also encompasses the servicability of the bond by the issuer with a specific stream of income, location of main business, any specific terms and conditions in the prospectus, e.g.callable or not, insurances against default, etc. Else for the same payoff, why would you take a higher risk? The payoff of a higher risk (not only default, but term structure, e.g. 5 years or 10 years, coupon payments) bond is more, to compensate for the extra risk it entails for the bondholder. The yield of a high risk bond will always be higher than a bond with lower risk. If you travel back in time, to 2011-2012, you would see the yields on Greek bonds were in the range of 25-30%, to reflect the high risk of a Greek default. Some hedge funds made a killing by buying Greek bonds during the eurozone crisis. If you go through the Efficient frontier theory, your argument is a counter statement to it. Same with individual bonds, or a portfolio of bonds. You always want to be compensated for the risk you take. The higher the risk, the higher the compensation, and vice versa. When investors buy the bond at this price, they are essentially buying a \"\"risk free\"\" bond [...] Logically yes, but no it isn't, and you shouldn't make that assumption.\"","When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that.","In general, investors with a long period of time until they would need to withdraw the cash are best off holding mostly equities. While the dividends that equities would return are less than the interest you would get in peer-to-peer lending, over long periods of time not only do you get the dividends from equity investment but the value of the stock will grow faster than interest on loans. The higher returns from stocks, however, comes with more risk of big downturns. Many people pull their investments out of stocks right after crashes which really hurts their long term returns. So, in order to get the benefit of investing in stocks you need to be strong enough to continue to hold the stocks through the crash and into the recovery. As for which stocks to invest in, generally it is best to invest in low-fee index funds/etfs where you own a broad collection of stocks so that if (when) any one stock goes bust that your portfolio does not take much damage. Try to own both international and domestic stocks to get good diversification. The consensus recommends adding just a little bit of REITs and bonds to your investments, but for someone at 25 it might not be worth it yet. Warren Buffett had some good thoughts on index investing."],"string":"[\n \"I agree that the cause of the crash can make a huge difference in the effect on the bond market. Here's a few other possibilities: All that to say that there's no definitive answer as to how the bond market will respond to an equity crash. Bonds are much more highly correlated to equities lately, but that could be due to much lower interest rates pushing more of the risk of bonds to the credit worthiness of the issuer, increasing correlation.\",\n \"It depends on why the stocks crashed. If this happened because interest rates shot up, bonds will suffer also. On the other hand, stocks could be crashing because economic growth (and hence earnings) are disappointing. This pulls down interest rates and lifts bonds.\",\n \"what will happen to the valuation of Tom's bond holdings after the equity crash? This is primarily opinion based. What will happen is generally hard to predict. Bond Price Bump due to Demand: Is a possible outcome; this depends on the assumption that the bonds in the said country are still deemed safe. Recent Greece example, this may not be true. So if the investors don't believe that Bonds are safe, the money may move into Real Estate, into Bullion [Gold etc], or to other markets. In such a scenario; the price may not bump up. Bond Price Decline due to Rising Interest Rates: On a rising interest rates, the long-term bonds may loose in value while the short term bonds may hold their value. Related question How would bonds fare if interest rates rose?\",\n \"The short answer is if you own a representative index of global bonds (say AGG) and global stocks (say ACWI) the bonds will generally only suffer minimally in even the medium large market crashes you describe. However, there are some caveats. Not all bonds will tend to react the same way. Bonds that are considered higher-yield (say BBB rated and below) tend to drop significantly in stock market crashes though not as much as stock markets themselves. Emerging market bonds can drop even more as weaker foreign currencies can drop in global crashes as well. Also, if a local market crash is caused by rampant inflation as in the US during the 70s-80s, bonds can crash at the same time as markets. There hasn't been a global crash caused by inflation after countries left the gold standard, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Still, I don't mean to scare you away from adding bond exposure to a stock portfolio as bonds tend to have low correlations with stocks and significant returns. Just be aware that these correlations can change over time (sometimes quickly) and depend on which stocks/bonds you invest in.\",\n \"Cash would be the better alternative assuming both stocks take a major hit in ALL categories AND the Fed raise rates at the same time for some reason. Money market funds that may have relatively low yields at the moment would likely be one of the few securities not to be repriced downward as interest rates rising would decrease bond values which could be another crash as I could somewhat question how broad of a crash are you talking here. There are more than a few different market segments so that while some parts may get hit really hard in a crash, would you really want to claim everything goes down? Blackrock's graphic shows in 2008 how bonds did the best and only it and cash had positive returns in that year but there is something to be said for how big is a crash: 20%, 50%, 90%?\",\n \"If the equity market in the USA crashed, its very likely equity markets everywhere else would crash. The USA has a high number of the world's largest businesses and there are correlations between equity markets. So you need to think of equities as a global asset class, not regional. Your question is then a question about the correlation between equity markets and currency markets. Here's a guess: If equity markets crashed, you would see a lot of panic selling of stocks denominated in many currencies, but probably the most in USD, due to the large number of the world's largest businesses trading on US stock exchanges. Therefore, when the rest of the world sells US equities they receive cash USD, which they might sell for their local currency. That selling pressure would cause USD to fall. But, when equity markets crash there's a move to safety of the bond markets. The world's largest bond markets are denominated in which currency? Probably USD. So those who receive USD for their equities are going to spend that USD on bonds. In which case there is probably no correlation between equity markets and currency markets at all. A quick google search shows this kind of thing\",\n \"Bonds provide protections against stock market crashes, diversity and returns as the other posters have said but the primary reason to invest in bonds is to receive relatively guaranteed income. By that I mean you receive regular payments as long as the debtor doesn't go bankrupt and stop paying. Even when this happens, bondholders are the first in line to get paid from the sale of the business's assets. This also makes them less risky. Stocks don't guarantee income and shareholders are last in line to get paid. When a stock goes to zero, you lose everything, where as a bondholder will get some face value redemption to the notes issue price and still keep all the previous income payments. In addition, you can use your bond income to buy more shares of stock and increase your gains there.\",\n \"This is a very common misconception. I've been studying equities and credits for a while now, and the simplest way to explain the difference is this: - Credit is about stable cash flows. Your investment in a bond has almost (read: almost) nothing to do with growth rate. It has everything to do with how stable the cash flows are and interest coverage. - Equity is about growth. No wonder companies with highly irregular cash flows (e.g., every single young tech company in the history of tech companies) can have the most in-demand equity while few bond investors would touch them with a ten foot pole.\",\n \"It depends. Very generally when yields go up stocks go down and when yields go down stocks go up (as has been happening lately). If we look at the yield of the 10 year bond it reflects future expectations for interest rates. If the rate today is very low but expectations are that the short term rates will go up that would be reflected in a higher yield simply because no one would buy the longer term bond if they could simply wait out and get a better return on shoter term investments. If expectations are that the rate is going down you get what's called an inverted yield curve. The inverted yield curve is usually a sign of economic trouble ahead. Yields are also influenced by inflation expectations as @rhaskett is alluding in his answer. So. If the stock market crashes because the economy is doing poorly and if interest rates are relatively high then people would expect the rates to go down and therefore bonds will go up! However, if there's rampant inflation and the rates are going up we can expect stocks and bonds to move in opposite directions. Another interpretation of that is that one would expect stock prices to track inflation pretty well because company revenue is going to go up with inflation. If we're just talking about a bump in the road correction in a healthy economy I wouldn't expect that to have much of an immediate effect though bonds might go down a little bit in the short term but possibly even more in the long term as interest rates eventually head higher. Another scenario is a very low interest rate environment (as today) with a stock market crash and not a lot of room for yields to go further down. Both stocks and bonds are influenced by current interest rates, interest rate expectations, current inflation, inflation expectations and stock price expectation. Add noise and stir.\",\n \"\\\"In a comment you say, if the market crashes, doesn't \\\"\\\"regress to the mean\\\"\\\" mean that I should still expect 7% over the long run? That being the case, wouldn't I benefit from intentionally unbalancing my portfolio and going all in on equities? I can can still rebalance using new savings. No. Regress to the mean just tells you that the future rate is likely to average 7%. The past rate and the future rate are entirely unconnected. Consider a series: The running average is That running average is (slowly) regressing to the long term mean without ever a member of the series being above 7%. Real markets actually go farther than this though. Real value may be increasing by 7% per year, but prices may move differently. Then market prices may revert to the real value. This happened to the S&P 500 in 2000-2002. Then the market started climbing again in 2003. In your system, you would have bought into the falling markets of 2001 and 2002. And you would have missed the positive bond returns in those years. That's about a -25% annual shift in returns on that portion of your portfolio. Since that's a third of your portfolio, you'd have lost 8% more than with the balanced strategy each of those two years. Note that in that case, the market was in an over-valued bubble. The bubble spent three years popping and overshot the actual value. So 2003 was a good year for stocks. But the three year return was still -11%. In retrospect, investors should have gone all in on bonds before 2000 and switched back to stocks for 2003. But no one knew that in 2000. People in the know actually started backing off in 1998 rather than 2000 and missed out on the tail end of the bubble. The rebalancing strategy automatically helps with your regression to the mean. It sells expensive bonds and buys cheaper stocks on average. Occasionally it sells modest priced bonds and buys over-priced stocks. But rarely enough that it is a better strategy overall. Incidentally, I would consider a 33% share high for bonds. 30% is better. And that shouldn't increase as you age (less than 30% bonds may be practical when you are young enough). Once you get close to retirement (five to ten years), start converting some of your savings to cash equivalents. The cash equivalents are guaranteed not to lose value (but might not gain much). This gives you predictable returns for your immediate expenses. Once retired, try to keep about five years of expenses in cash equivalents. Then you don't have to worry about short term market fluctuations. Spend down your buffer until the market catches back up. It's true that bonds are less volatile than stocks, but they can still have bad years. A 70%/30% mix of stocks/bonds is safer than either alone and gives almost as good of a return as stocks alone. Adding more bonds actually increases your risk unless you carefully balance them with the right stocks. And if you're doing that, you don't need simplistic rules like a 70%/30% balance.\\\"\",\n \"A stopped clock is right two times a day. We may get a market crash similar to the financial crisis or the dot com crash or we may not. What if over the next 10 years rates rise very sluggishly, low inflation, and low growth more or less continues with maybe one brief and shallow recession. In that case I bet US stocks produce 4-5% returns per year and US bonds produce maybe 1-2% per year. European and emerging market stocks should have higher returns because they are in an earlier part of the cycle. I think your baseline has to look something like that. The last two crashes were caused by the tech bubble and the housing bubble - where is the bubble today? US stocks are expensive, but probably not in bubble territory. Bonds worldwide are unattractive with low or negative yields - negative yields maybe a bubble, but central banks will be the most hurt by negative rates and they are in a strong position to take the pain. There could be a crash I just don't see how we get there yet - maybe china?\",\n \"\\\"Having cash and bonds in your portfolio isn't just about balancing out the risk and volatility inherent in equities. Consider: If you are 100% invested in equities and the market declines by 30%, you'll be hard pressed to come up with additional money to \\\"\\\"buy low\\\"\\\". You'll miss out on the rebalancing bonus. But, if you make a point of keeping some portion of your portfolio in cash and bonds, then when the market has such a decline (and it will), you'll be able to rebalance your portfolio back to target weights — i.e. redeploy some of your cash and bonds into equities to take advantage of the lower prices.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Nobody has a \\\"\\\"crash proof\\\"\\\" portfolio -- you can make it \\\"\\\"crash resistant\\\"\\\". You protect against a crash by diversifying and not reacting out of fear when the markets are down. Be careful about focusing on the worst possible scenario (US default) vs. the more likely scenarios. Right now, many people think that inflation and interest rates are heading up -- so you should be making sure that your bond portfolio is mostly in short-duration bonds that are less sensitive to rate risk. Another risk is opportunity cost. Many people sold all of their equities in 2008/2009, and are sitting on lots of money in cash accounts. That money is \\\"\\\"safe\\\"\\\", but those investors lost the opportunity to recoup investments or grow -- to the tune of 25-40%.\\\"\",\n \"If the market has not crashed but you know it will, sell short or buy puts. If the market has crashed, buy equities while they are cheap. If you don't know if or when it will crash hold a diversified portfolio including stocks, bonds, real estate, and alternatives (gold, etc).\",\n \"\\\"In some respects the analysis for this question is similar to comparing a \\\"\\\"safe\\\"\\\" return on a government bond vs. holding the stock market. Typically, the stock market's expected return will be higher -- i.e., there's a positive equity risk premium -- vs. a government bond (assuming it's held to maturity). There's no guarantee that the stock market will outperform, although the probability of outperformance rises (some analysts argue) the longer the holding period for equities beyond, say, 10 years. That's why there's generally a positive equity risk premium, otherwise no one (or relatively few investors) would hold equities.\\\"\",\n \"And the fact that if notes trade up high enough they tend to get taken out with lower yielding notes (pending the call schedule), so in theory there is more limited upside in high-yield, whereas equity could theoretically trade to infinity. The positives for high-yield is that they generate monthly cash flow via coupon payments and have less down-side relative to equities. Naturally this lower down-side comes at the expense of lower up-side as well.\",\n \"Bonds by themselves aren't recession proof. No investment is, and when a major crash (c.f. 2008) occurs, all investments will be to some extent at risk. However, bonds add a level of diversification to your investment portfolio that can make it much more stable even during downturns. Bonds do not move identically to the stock market, and so many times investing in bonds will be more profitable when the stock market is slumping. Investing some of your investment funds in bonds is safer, because that diversification allows you to have some earnings from that portion of your investment when the market is going down. It also allows you to do something called rebalancing. This is when you have target allocation proportions for your portfolio; say 60% stock 40% bond. Then, periodically look at your actual portfolio proportions. Say the market is way up - then your actual proportions might be 70% stock 30% bond. You sell 10 percentage points of stocks, and buy 10 percentage points of bonds. This over time will be a successful strategy, because it tends to buy low and sell high. In addition to the value of diversification, some bonds will tend to be more stable (but earn less), in particular blue chip corporate bonds and government bonds from stable countries. If you're willing to only earn a few percent annually on a portion of your portfolio, that part will likely not fall much during downturns - and in fact may grow as money flees to safer investments - which in turn is good for you. If you're particularly worried about your portfolio's value in the short term, such as if you're looking at retiring soon, a decent proportion should be in this kind of safer bond to ensure it doesn't lose too much value. But of course this will slow your earnings, so if you're still far from retirement, you're better off leaving things in growth stocks and accepting the risk; odds are no matter who's in charge, there will be another crash or two of some size before you retire if you're in your 30s now. But when it's not crashing, the market earns you a pretty good return, and so it's worth the risk.\",\n \"\\\"That depends on how you're investing in them. Trading bonds is (arguably) riskier than trading stocks (because it has a lot of the same risks associated with stocks plus interest rate and inflation risk). That's true whether it's a recession or not. Holding bonds to maturity may or may not be recession-proof (or, perhaps more accurately, \\\"\\\"low risk\\\"\\\" as argued by @DepressedDaniel), depending on what kind of bonds they are. If you own bonds in stable governments (e.g. U.S. or German bonds or bonds in certain states or municipalities) or highly stable corporations, there's a very low risk of default even in a recession. (You didn't see companies like Microsoft, Google, or Apple going under during the 2008 crash). That's absolutely not the case for all kinds of bonds, though, especially if you're concerned about systemic risk. Just because a bond looks risk-free doesn't mean that it actually is - look how many AAA-rated securities went under during the 2008 recession. And many companies (CIT, Lehman Brothers) went bankrupt outright. To assess your exposure to risk, you have to look at a lot of factors, such as the credit-worthiness of the business, how \\\"\\\"recession-proof\\\"\\\" their product is, what kind of security or insurance you're being offered, etc. You can't even assume that bond insurance is an absolute guarantee against systemic risk - that's what got AIG into trouble, in fact. They were writing Credit Default Swaps (CDS), which are analogous to insurance on loans - basically, the seller of the CDS \\\"\\\"insures\\\"\\\" the debt (promises some kind of payment if a particular borrower defaults). When the entire credit market seized up, people naturally started asking AIG to make good on their agreement and compensate them for the loans that went bad; unfortunately, AIG didn't have the money and couldn't borrow it themselves (hence the government bailout). To address the whole issue of a company going bankrupt: it's not necessarily the case that your bonds would be completely worthless (so I disagree with the people who implied that this would be the case). They'd probably be worth a lot less than you paid for them originally, though (possibly as bad as pennies on the dollar depending on how much under water the company was). Also, depending on how long it takes to work out a deal that everyone could agree to, my understanding is that it could take a long time before you see any of your money. I think it's also possible that you'll get some of the money as equity (rather than cash) - in fact, that's how the U.S. government ended up owning a lot of Chrysler (they were Chrysler's largest lender when they went bankrupt, so the government ended up getting a lot of equity in the business as part of the settlement). Incidentally, there is a market for securities in bankrupt companies for people that don't have time to wait for the bankruptcy settlement. Naturally, people who buy securities that are in that much trouble generally expect a steep discount. To summarize:\\\"\",\n \"The 'appropriate' amount of cash/bonds to hold will be largely a matter of opinion, but here are the general reasons why having at least some is a good idea: Cash is very liquid, and bonds are often mostly liquid. This means you can access them very quickly, without taking on losses. To get the most liquidity out of your bonds, you can do what is called 'laddering'. This means that you take out different bond amounts with different maturity dates, and periodically renew them on a schedule, so that you always have some bonds maturing, which you can access without paying an interest penalty. You can look this term up online for more details. Cash and bonds are low risk. If you have absolutely no low-risk assets, then in the event of, say, a market crash, you may have no savings to fall back on. By owning some bonds, and some equities, you are able to earn a modest return, without being too risky. However, note that some bonds are just as risky as equities - any bond which pays an abnormally high interest rate does so because the entity backing the repayment (government, company, whomever) is thought to not be guaranteed to be able to do so. The 25% figure given by your author is his opinion on the appropriate mix of cash/bonds to equities, but there are many views on the matter. Consider that any 'rule of thumb' in personal finance should be for general consideration only.\",\n \"You say you have 90% in stocks. I'll assume that you have the other 10% in bonds. For the sake of simplicity, I'll assume that your investments in stocks are in nice, passive indexed mutual funds and ETFs, rather than in individual stocks. A 90% allocation in stocks is considered aggressive. The problem is that if the stock market crashes, you may lose 40% or more of your investment in a single year. As you point out, you are investing for the long term. That's great, it means you can rest easy if the stock market crashes, safe in the hope that you have many years for it to recover. So long as you have the emotional willpower to stick with it. Would you be better off with a 100% allocation in stocks? You'd think so, wouldn't you. After all, the stock market as a whole gives better expected returns than the bond market. But keep in mind, the stock market and the bond market are (somewhat) negatively correlated. That means when the stock market goes down, the bond market often goes up, and vice versa. Investing some of your money in bonds will slightly reduce your expected return but will also reduce your standard deviation and your maximum annual loss. Canadian Couch Potato has an interesting write-up on how to estimate stock and bond returns. It's based on your stocks being invested equally in the Canadian, U.S., and international markets. As you live in the U.S., that likely doesn't directly apply to you; you probably ignore the Canadian stock market, but your returns will be fairly similar. I've reproduced part of that table here: As you can see, your expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. With a 20 year window, you likely can recover from any crash. If you have the stomach for it, it's the allocation with the highest expected return. Once you get closer to retirement, though, you have less time to wait for the stock market to recover. If you still have 90% or 100% of your investment in stocks and the market crashes by 44%, it might well take you more than 6 years to recover. Canadian Couch Potato has another article, Does a 60/40 Portfolio Still Make Sense? A 60/40 portfolio is a fairly common split for regular investors. Typically considered not too aggressive, not too conservative. The article references an AP article that suggests, in the current financial climate, 60/40 isn't enough. Even they aren't recommending a 90/10 or a 100/0 split, though. Personally, I think 60/40 is too conservative. However, I don't have the stomach for a 100/0 split or even a 90/10 split. Okay, to get back to your question. So long as your time horizon is far enough out, the expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. Be sure that you can tolerate the risk, though. A 30% or 40% hit to your investments is enough to make anyone jittery. Investing a portion of your money in bonds slightly lowers your expected return but can measurably reduce your risk. As you get closer to retirement and your time horizon narrows, you have less time to recover from a stock market crash and do need to be more conservative. 6 years is probably too short to keep all your money in stocks. Is your stated approach reasonable? Well, only you can answer that. :)\",\n \"A very simple and safe, though boring, approach is to hold cash rather than bonds, and move out of cash later once higher yields have lowered asset prices.\",\n \"Write off the entire asset class of corporate bonds? Finance theory says yes, the only two asset classes that you need are stocks and treasury bills (very short-term US government bonds). See the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM).\",\n \"For the type of market neutrality you desire, free from crash risk, it's best to hedge the shares with covered calls when implied volatility is expensive and puts when implied volatility is cheap with the nearest at the money expirations. A put only strategy can be very expensive and should only be used with the longest term options available since they can cost many tens of % per year. Securities become almost perfectly correlated during a crash; therefore, market crash risk of one security is essentially equal to the market crash risk, so hedging the security itself makes a position market neutral for crash risk. This strategy will have intermittent opportunity cost risk in the form of slower returns during market expansion to pay for smaller losses during a crash; however, the expected long run return hedged this way should be greater than the underlying's expected long run return with less volatility.\",\n \"As one of the answers described, its going to depend on many factors and the environment at the time. But there is no sure way to know which strategy is better, if any are at all. I would say over several hundred years the strategies would be equally as profitable. In a free market the longer dated bonds would be priced lower (higher yield) because they are higher risk. And over a long enough time period that higher risk may end up resulting in that bond being worth less, or maybe nothing at all. In a free market, price discovery would factor all this in, and the two strategies would become equal. The same is true for the price during inversion events Having said that, we dont live in a free market. With central bankers monetizing debt in so many countries, sometimes investing in short term bonds, including US treasuries, is a guaranteed way to lose purchasing power, as these yields are below inflation and sometimes even negative.\",\n \"There's no doubt that equities, as well as junk bonds (which have, in Europe, according to BAML, reached the same average return as 10-year-US treasuries) are currently overvalued, which is why I, and I suggest this to any active investor, have taken out all my money from tradable equities and debt and invested it into undervalued dank memes.\",\n \"There is no single 'market interest rate'; there are myriad interest rates that vary by risk profile & term. Corporate bonds are (typically) riskier than bank deposits, and therefore pay a higher effective rate when the market for that bond is in equilibrium than a bank account does. If you are willing to accept a higher risk in order gain a higher return, you might choose bonds over bank deposits. If you want an even higher return and can accept even higher risk, you might turn to stocks over bonds. If you want still higher return and can bear the still higher risk, derivatives may be more appealing than stocks.\",\n \"You're mixing up two different concepts: low-risk and recession-proof. I'll assume I don't need to explain risk: there is always risk, regardless what form you keep your assets in. With bonds, the interest rate is supposed to reflect the risk. If a company offers bonds with too low an interest rate for the risk level, few people will buy them. While if a company offers bonds with too high an interest rate for the level of risk, they are gypping themselves. So a bond is a slightly more transparent investment from a risk assessment perspective, but that doesn't mean the risk is necessarily low: if you buy a bond with a 20% effective annual yield, that means there is quite a high risk that the underlying company will fold (unless inflation is in the double-digit range as well, in which case a 20% yield is not that much). Whereas with a stock, no parameter directly tells you anything about the risk. Recession-proof is not the same thing as low-risk. Recession-proof refers to investing in (or holding debt for) industries that perform better in a recession. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/08/industries-thrive-on-recession.asp.\",\n \"\\\"20-year Treasury Bonds are not equivalent to cash, not even close. Even though the bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, they are long-term debt and therefore their principal value will fluctuate considerably as market interest rates change. When interest rates rise, the market value of 20-year bonds will drop, and drop more than shorter-term bonds would. Your principal is not protected in the short term. Principal is only guaranteed returned at the 20-year maturity of those bonds. But, oops, there is no maturity on the 20-year bond ETFs because every year the ETF rolls the 19-year positions into new 20-year positions! ;-) For an \\\"\\\"equivalent to cash\\\"\\\" piece of a portfolio, I'd want my principal to be intact over the short term, and continually reinvested at the higher short-term rates as rates are rising. Reinvesting at short-term rates can be an inflation-hedge. But, money locked in for 20-years is a sitting duck for inflation. Still, inflation aside, why do we want our \\\"\\\"equivalent to cash\\\"\\\" position to be relatively liquid and principal-protected? When it comes time to rebalance your portfolio after disastrous equity and/or bond returns, you've got in your cash component some excess weighting since it was unaffected by the disastrous performance. That excess cash is ready to be deployed to purchase equities and/or bonds at the lower current prices. Rebalancing from cash can add a bonus to your returns and smooth volatility. If you have no cash component and only equities and bonds, you have no money to deploy when both equities and bonds are depressed. You didn't keep any powder dry. And, BTW, I would personally keep a bit more than 3% of my powder dry. Consider a short-term cash deposit or good money-market fund for your \\\"\\\"equivalent to cash\\\"\\\" position.\\\"\",\n \"Dividends are actually a very stable portion of equity returns, the Great recession and Great Depression notwithstanding: However, dividends, with lower variance have lower returns. Most of the return is due to the more variant price: So while dividends fell by 25% during the worst drop since the Great Depression, prices fell almost by 2/3. If one can accumulate enough wealth to live only off of dividend income, the price risk becomes much more manageable. This is the ideal circumstance for retirement.\",\n \"If you believe you can time the crash, then We all know what comes after a crash… just as we know what comes after the doom, we just don’t know when….\",\n \"I found a comparison of stock and bond returns. The relevant portion here is that bonds went up by 10% in 2007 and 20% in 2008 (32% compounded). Stocks were already recovering in 2009, going up almost 26%. You don't mention what you were hoping to get from your gold investment, but bonds gave a very good return for those two years.\",\n \"\\\"Yes. Bonds perform very well in a recession. In fact the safer the bond, the better it would do in a recession. Think of markets having four seasons: High growth and low inflation - \\\"\\\"growing economy\\\"\\\" High growth and high inflation - \\\"\\\"overheating economy\\\"\\\" Low growth and high inflation - \\\"\\\"stagflation\\\"\\\" Low growth and low inflation - \\\"\\\"recession\\\"\\\" Bonds are the best investment in a recession. qplum's flagship strategy had a very high allocation to bonds in the financial crisis. That's why in backtest it shows much better returns.\\\"\",\n \"In 2008, the S&P was down 37%. I love charts that show sector performance by year, as it helps show that 2008 wasn't like the crash of 2000-01 which was more tech-centric. Funds that were more geared towards bonds would have been up as the 10 year Treasury was up 20%. I understand you have a low risk tolerance. Over the long term, this will cost you. The CAGR for the S&P from 1928-2011 was 9.23%, for treasuries, 5.14%. This difference adds up dramatically over time. These rates double your stock investments every 8 years on average vs nearly 14 years for bonds. See the MoneyChimp site to tinker with start/finish years to understand long term returns.\",\n \"With a long enough time horizon, no matter when you buy, equities almost always outperform cash and bonds. There's an article here with some info: http://www.fool.co.uk/investing-basics/how-when-and-where-to-invest/ Holding period where shares have beaten cash There was a similar study done which showed if you picked any day in the last 100 years, no matter if the market was at a high or low, after 1 year your probability of being in profit was only 0.5, but after 10-20 years it was almost certainly 1.0. Equities compound dividends too, and the best place to invest is in diversified stock indices such as the S&P500, FTSE100, DOW30 or indices/funds which pay dividends. The best way to capture returns is to dollar cost average (e.g. place a lump sum, then add $x every month), to re-invest dividends, and oh, to forget about it in an IRA or SIPP (Self invested pension) or other vehicle which discourages tampering with your investment. Yes, values rise and fall but we humans are so short sighted, if we had bought the S&P in 2007 and sold in 2009 in fear, we would have missed out on the 25% gain (excluding dividends) from 2007-2014. That's about 3% a year gain even if you bought the 2007 high -beating cash or bonds even after the financial crisis. Now imagine had you dollar cost averaged the entire period from 2007-2014 where your gain would be. Your equity curve would have the same shape as the S&P (with its drastic dip in 2009) but an accelerated growth after. There are studies if you dig that demonstrate the above. From experience I can tell you timing the market is nigh impossible and most fund managers are unable to beat the indices. Far better to DCA and re-invest dividends and not care about market gyrations! ..\",\n \"A stock is an ownership interest in a company. There can be multiple classes of shares, but to simplify, assuming only one class of shares, a company issues some number of shares, let's say 1,000,000 shares and you can buy shares of the company. If you own 1,000 shares in this example, you would own one one-thousandth of the company. Public companies have their shares traded on the open market and the price varies as demand for the stock comes and goes relative to people willing to sell their shares. You typically buy stock in a company because you believe the company is going to prosper into the future and thus the value of its stock should rise in the open market. A bond is an indebted interest in a company. A company issues bonds to borrow money at an interest rate specified in the bond issuance and makes periodic payments of principal and interest. You buy bonds in a company to lend the company money at an interest rate specified in the bond because you believe the company will be able to repay the debt per the terms of the bond. The value of a bond as traded on the open exchange varies as the prevailing interest rates vary. If you buy a bond for $1,000 yielding 5% interest and interest rates go up to 10%, the value of your bond in the open market goes down so that the payment terms of 5% on $1,000 matches hypothetical terms of 10% on a lesser principal amount. Whatever lesser principal amount at the new rate would lead to the same payment terms determines the new market value. Alternatively, if interest rates go down, the current value of your bond increases on the open market to make it appear as if it is yielding a lower rate. Regardless of the market value, the company continues to pay interest on the original debt per its terms, so you can always hold onto a bond and get the original promised interest as long as the company does not go bankrupt. So in summary, bonds tend to be a safer investment that offers less potential return. However, this is not always the case, since if interest rates skyrocket, your bond's value will plummet, although you could just hold onto them and get the low rate originally promised.\",\n \"I always find this funny. How can government bonds be in attractive and currency be attractive? With monetary policy America guarantees that it can't default on debt. The only thing that can happen which breaks this is if the government prints itself out of debt. In which case not only will you bonds be worthless but so will your cash. So to all the investors with boats of cash, you are trading one problem for the same problem. The only difference is you can hold the second problem in your hands. Fools.\",\n \"\\\"The price of real estate reacts to both demand for property and the rate of inflation and rate of income growth. Mortgage rates generally move as treasury rates move. See this paragraph: As we mentioned, intermediate term bonds and long-term mortgages (more properly, Mortgage-Backed Securities, or MBS) compete for the same fixed-income investor dollar. Treasury issues are 100% guaranteed to be repaid, but mortgages are not; therefore mortgages carry more risk of default or early repayment, which could potentially disturb the return on the investment. Therefore, mortgage rates must be priced higher to compensate for that risk. But how much higher are mortgages priced? In a normal market, the average \\\"\\\"spread\\\"\\\" or markup above the 100% secured Treasury is about 170 basis points, or 1.7%. That markup -- the spread relationship -- widens and contracts with a range of market conditions, investor appetites and supply of available product -- as well as the presence of competing investment opportunities, like corporate bonds or domestic (or foreign) equity markets Source: What Moves Mortgage Rates? And when the stock market crashes, investors tend to run to bonds and treasuries, which causes prices to go up and treasury yields to drop. Theoretically, this would also cause mortgage rates to drop, although most mortgage rates have a base price below which they cannot fall. How easy is it to profit from recent stock market drops and at what frequency? Incredibly difficult. The issue with your strategy is that you cannot predict the bottom of the market (at least us mortals can't). Just take the month of August for example. Stocks fell something like 15%? After the first 5-10% drop, people felt that the bottom was there, so they rushed in, only to have the market fall even more. How will you know when to invest? Even if the market falls by 50%, and there's a huge buying opportunity, and you increase the mortgage on your house, odds are your rates will increase because of the equity you take out. What if the market stays low for a very long time? Will you be able to maintain mortgage payments? Japan's stock bubble popped in the early 90's, and they've had two lost decade's now. Furthermore, there are issues of liquidity. What if you need more capital? Can you just sell a property or can you buy now property to draw equity against? What if the market is moving too fast for you to take advantage of. Don't ignore transaction costs and taxes either. Overall, there are a lot of ways that your idea can go wrong, and not many ways it can go right.\\\"\",\n \"Yes, bond funds are marked to market, so they will decline as the composition of their holdings will. Households actually have unimpressive relative levels of credit to equity holdings. The reason why is because there is little return on credit, making it irrational to hold any amount greater than to fund future liquidity needs, risk adjusted and time discounted. The vast majority of credit is held by insurance companies. Pension funds have large stakes as well. Banks hold even fewer bonds since they try to sell them as soon as they've made them. Insurance companies are forced to hold a large percentage of their floats in credit then preferred equity. While this dulls their returns, it's not a large problem for them because they typically hold bonds until maturity. Only the ones who misprice the risk of insurance will have to sell at unfavorable prices. Being able to predict interest rates thus bond prices accurately would make one the best bond manager in the world. While it does look like inflation will rise again soon just as it has during every other US expansion, can it be assured when commodity prices are high in real terms and look like they may be in a collapse? The banking industry would have to produce credit at a much higher rate to counter the deflation of all physical goods. Households typically shun assets at low prices to pursue others at high prices, so their holdings of bonds ETFs should be expected to decline during a bond collapse. If insurance companies find it less costly to hold ETFs then they will contribute to an increase in bond ETF supply.\",\n \"Barton Biggs's book Wealth, War and Wisdom aims to answer the question of what investments are best-suited to preserving value despite large-scale catastrophes by looking at how various investments and assets performed in countries affected by WWII. In Japan, stocks and urban land turned out to be good investments; in France, farm land and gold did better. Stocks outperformed bonds in nearly every country. Phil Greenspun recently wrote a review of the book.\",\n \"If you know the market will crash, you could opt for going short. However, if you think this is too risky, not investing at all is probably your best move. In case of crises, correlation go up and almost all assets go down.\",\n \"In the 2008 housing crash, cash was king. Cash can make your mortgage payment, buy groceries, utilities, etc. Great deals on bank owned properties were available for those with cash. Getting a mortgage in 2008-2011 was tough. If you are worried about stock market crashing, then diversification is key. Don't have all your investments in one mutual fund or sector. Gold and precious metals have a place in one's portfolio, say 5-10 percent as an insurance policy. The days of using a Gold Double Eagle to pay the property taxes are largely gone, although Utah does allow it. The biggest lesson I took from the crash is you cant have too much cash saved. Build up the rainy day fund.\",\n \"The volatility of an index fund should usually be a lot lower than that of an individual stock. However even with a broad index fund you should consider the fact that being down by 10% in the time frame you refer to is quite possible! So is being up by 10% of course. A corporate bond might be a better choice if you can find one you trust.\",\n \"\\\"not sure if I will help or just spread more gibberish but maybe the first concept I'd look at is risk tolerance. Risk tolerance is discerning your ability to risk losing money to get better results. So you know the saying \\\"\\\"the higher the risk the higher the reward\\\"\\\"? The way most people are going to operate is somewhere on the midpoint of behavior - not doing the riskiest thing, but not doing the very most cautious thing either. So given that concept, some investments will be more appealing given different economic scenarios. Typically stocks are going to reward your investment a little more aggressively than a treasury bond if the economy is humming along. This drives prices of treasuries lower, stock yields higher. In a crappy economy, people want to move their money into conservative investments like a treasury bond. Bond prices rise while stock prices dip. If you google 'correlations between the market prices of stocks and the market prices of Treasury bonds' you will find plenty of helpful and hopefully not too convoluted articles a la http://finance.zacks.com/correlation-treasuries-stocks-10871.html Don't get freaked out by graphs, the graphs are just a way to put into a picture that correlation.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I can think of a few reasons for this. First, bonds are not as correlated with the stock market so having some in your portfolio will reduce volatility by a bit. This is nice because it makes you panic less about the value changes in your portfolio when the stock market is acting up, and I'm sure that fund managers would rather you make less money consistently then more money in a more volatile way. Secondly, you never know when you might need that money, and since stock market crashes tend to be correlated with people losing their jobs, it would be really unfortunate to have to sell off stocks when they are under-priced due to market shenanigans. The bond portion of your portfolio would be more likely to be stable and easier to sell to help you get through a rough patch. I have some investment money I don't plan to touch for 20 years and I have the bond portion set to 5-10% since I might as well go for a \\\"\\\"high growth\\\"\\\" position, but if you're more conservative, and might make withdrawals, it's better to have more in bonds... I definitely will switch over more into bonds when I get ready to retire-- I'd rather have slow consistent payments for my retirement than lose a lot in an unexpected crash at a bad time!\\\"\",\n \"Smallest risk of default would depend on where Alice and Bob live I suppose, but lets assume they are in a lower yielding nation where default is not a big concern. Remember for instance that Greece was a lower yielding nation at one point and that the US has defaulted before. Let's start with Bob because he is easier to analyze. Yield curves inversions generally pre-date recessions which is generally not so good for Bob as rates tend to drop during recessions and he will be at the short end of the curve so his bonds will be less sensitive. However, he will generally get higher yields in good times to make up for this, but these higher yields come with a price in that he is generally much more sensitive to yield changes and can get much larger swings in portfolio value. First off as JB mentioned Alice would likely own inflation-linked (IL) bonds. Which behave fairly differently from Bob's bonds. However, to keep this simple lets say they live in a place without IL bonds or IL bonds are not a consideration. Then generally Alice has lower yielding bonds in good times but may do very well when the fed steps in during a crisis. So, who wins in the long run? Likely Christi who owns a mix of a broad index of stocks and bonds in a risk mix where she wouldn't have to sell in downturns. Especially, as Christi wouldn't have to pay the trading costs of moving her whole portfolio between long and short bonds. Between Bob and Alice however Bob would likely win in the long run as the markets generally reward risk taking in the long run. Still inflation (even without the IL bonds) and general rate trends (long-term rates are historically low right now) could have Bob losing for uncomfortably long periods.\",\n \"\\\"Being long the S&P Index ETF you can expect to make money. The index itself will never \\\"\\\"crash\\\"\\\" because the individual stocks in it are simply removed when they begin performing badly. This is not to say that the S&P Index won't lose 80% of its value in an instant (or over a few trading sessions if circuit breakers are considered), but even in the 2008 correction, the S&P still traded far above book value. With this in mind, you have to realize, that despite common sentiment, the indexes are hardly representative of \\\"\\\"the market\\\"\\\". They are just a derivative, and as you might be aware, derivatives can enable financial tricks far removed from reality. Regarding index funds, if a small group of people decide that 401k's are performing badly, then they will simply rebalance the components of the indexes with companies that are doing well. The headline will be \\\"\\\"S&P makes ANOTHER record high today\\\"\\\" So although panic selling can disrupt the order book, especially during periods of illiquidity, with the current structure \\\"\\\"the stock market\\\"\\\" being based off of three composite indexes, can never crash, because there will always exist a company that is not exposed to broad market fluctuations and will be performing better by fundamentals and share price. Similarly, you collect dividends from the index ETFs. You can also sell covered calls on your holdings. The CBOE has a chart through the 2008 crisis showing your theoretical profit and loss if you sold calls 2 standard deviations out of the money, at every monthly interval. If you are going to be holding an index ETF for a long time, then you shouldn't be concerned about its share price at all, since the returns would be pretty abysmal either way, but it should suffice for hedging inflation.\\\"\",\n \"You should definitely favor holding bonds in tax-advantaged accounts, because bonds are not tax-efficient. The reason is that more of their value comes in the form of regular, periodic distributions, rather than an increase in value as is the case with stocks or stock funds. With stocks, you can choose to realize all that appreciation when it is most advantageous for you from a tax perspective. Additionally, stock dividends often receive lower tax rates. For much more detail, see Tax-efficient fund placement.\",\n \"Bank assets are debt. Thus bank equity is a claim on debt. Note also that QE etal dropped interest rates, compressing interest rate spreads and making it harder for banks to make money. Banks do well when interest rates increase\",\n \"Small companies are generally able to adapt quickly to take advantage of changing conditions to enter new markets when the economy is growing. This gives them a lot of growth potential under those circumstances. However, in times of crisis, there may not be a lot of new markets to enter, and financing to expand any operations may be impossible to get. Under these conditions, small-caps will suffer relative to large-caps.\",\n \"I don't believe I said anything about the stock market going down, which happens regularly. It's not like municipal bond markets crash very often—once every few generations, maybe. So her being off by a couple years would be insignificant. Not saying I think it's going to happen. I'm just posing the question. If the municipal bond markets crashed within the next year, she would be vindicated.\",\n \"\\\"The answer to your question depends very much on your definition of \\\"\\\"long-term\\\"\\\". Because let's make something clear: an investment horizon of three to six months is not long term. And you need to consider the length of time from when an \\\"\\\"emergency\\\"\\\" develops until you will need to tap into the money. Emergencies almost by definition are unplanned. When talking about investment risk, the real word that should be used is volatility. Stocks aren't inherently riskier than bonds issued by the same company. They are likely to be a more volatile instrument, however. This means that while stocks can easily gain 15-20 percent or more in a year if you are lucky (as a holder), they can also easily lose just as much (which is good if you are looking to buy, unless the loss is precipitated by significantly weaker fundamentals such as earning lookout). Most of the time stocks rebound and regain lost valuation, but this can take some time. If you have to sell during that period, then you lose money. The purpose of an emergency fund is generally to be liquid, easily accessible without penalties, stable in value, and provide a cushion against potentially large, unplanned expenses. If you live on your own, have good insurance, rent your home, don't have any major household (or other) items that might break and require immediate replacement or repair, then just looking at your emergency fund in terms of months of normal outlay makes sense. If you own your home, have dependents, lack insurance and have major possessions which you need, then you need to factor those risks into deciding how large an emergency fund you might need, and perhaps consider not just normal outlays but also some exceptional situations. What if the refrigerator and water heater breaks down at the same time that something breaks a few windows, for example? What if you also need to make an emergency trip near the same time because a relative becomes seriously ill? Notice that the purpose of the emergency fund is specifically not to generate significant interest or dividend income. Since it needs to be stable in value (not depreciate) and liquid, an emergency fund will tend towards lower-risk and thus lower-yield investments, the extreme being cash or the for many more practical option of a savings account. Account forms geared toward retirement savings tend to not be particularly liquid. Sure, you can usually swap out one investment vehicle for another, but you can't easily withdraw your money without significant penalties if at all. Bonds are generally more stable in value than stocks, which is a good thing for a longer-term portion of an emergency fund. Just make sure that you are able to withdraw the money with short notice without significant penalties, and pick bonds issued by stable companies (or a fund of investment-grade bonds). However, in the present investment climate, this means that you are looking at returns not significantly better than those of a high-yield savings account while taking on a certain amount of additional risk. Bonds today can easily have a place if you have to pick some form of investment vehicle, but if you have the option of keeping the cash in a high-yield savings account, that might actually be a better option. Any stock market investments should be seen as investments rather than a safety net. Hopefully they will grow over time, but it is perfectly possible that they will lose value. If what triggers your financial emergency is anything more than local, it is certainly possible to have that same trigger cause a decline in the stock market. Money that you need for regular expenses, even unplanned ones, should not be in investments. Thus, you first decide how large an emergency fund you need based on your particular situation. Then, you build up that amount of money in a savings vehicle rather than an investment vehicle. Once you have the emergency fund in savings, then by all means continue to put the same amount of money into investments instead. Just make sure to, if you tap into the emergency fund, replenish it as quickly as possible.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"First, there will always be people who think the market is about to crash. It doesn't really crash very often. When it does crash, they always say they predicted it. Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. You could go short (short selling stocks), which requires a margin account that you have to qualify for (typically you can only short up to half the value of your account, in the US). And if you've maxed out your margin limits and your account continues to drop in value, you risk a margin call, which would force you to cover your shorts, which you may not be able to afford. You could invest in a fund that does the shorting for you. You could also consider actually buying good investments while their prices are low. Since you cannot predict the start, or end, of a \\\"\\\"crash\\\"\\\" you should consider dollar-cost-averaging until your stocks hit a price you've pre-determined is your \\\"\\\"trigger\\\"\\\", then purchase larger quantities at the bargain prices. The equity markets have never failed to recover from crashes. Ever.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The federal funds rate is one of the risk-free short-term rates in the economy. We often think of fixed income securities as paying this rate plus some premia associated with risk. For a treasury security, we can think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) The term premium is a bit extra the bond pays because if you hold a long term bond, you are exposed to interest rate risk, which is the risk that rates will generally rise after you buy, making your bond worth less. The relation is more complex if people have expectations of future rate moves, but this is the general idea. Anyway, generally speaking, longer term bonds are exposed to more interest rate risk, so they pay more, on average. For a corporate bond, we think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) + (default premium) where the default premium is some extra that the bond must pay to compensate the holder for default risk, which is the risk that the bond defaults or loses value as the company's prospects fall. You can see that corporate and government bonds are affected the same way (approximately, this is all hand-waving) by changes in the fed funds rate. Now, that all refers to the rates on new bonds. After a bond is issued, its value falls if rates rise because new bonds are relatively more attractive. Its value rises if rates on new bonds falls. So if there is an unexpected rise in the fed funds rate and you are holding a bond, you will be sad, especially if it is a long term bond (doesn't matter if it's corporate or government). Ask yourself, though, whether an increase in fed funds will be unexpected at this point. If the increase was expected, it will already be priced in. Are you more of an expert than the folks on wall-street at predicting interest rate changes? If not, it might not make sense to make decisions based on your belief about where rates are going. Just saying. Brick points out that treasuries are tax advantaged. That is, you don't have to pay state income tax on them (but you do pay federal). If you live in a state where this is true, this may matter to you a little bit. They also pay unnaturally little because they are convenient for use as a cash substitute in transactions and margining (\\\"\\\"convenience yield\\\"\\\"). In general, treasuries just don't pay much. Young folk like you tend to buy corporate bonds instead, so they can make money on the default and term premia.\\\"\",\n \">Well, reserve requirements concern, as the name suggests, the reserves, e.g. a position on the balance sheet. Yes, the book value of equity is not affected. However, when the market value experiences a steep decline, you find those that hold deposits begin moving them out of the bank. Investment fear and business fear tend to move together with financial institutions. That directly impacts the reserve requirements. >but sharp price drops in fact can help you to raise equity, simply because your ratios improved (P/E, P/B, in fact any ratio that includes the price part) and the stock became cheaper Not when there is bankruptcy or solvency issues that become present. Obviously an investor wants to buy low and sell high, but if there is a substantial risk of bankruptcy, the common stockholder will demand a premium unattainable by most non-growth firms (i.e. biotech, tech, etc.). That is the issue with France. Liquidity issues stem from systemic risk, but those French banks also possess significant firm risk due to their exposure to sovereign debt. Once those banks mark all of their holdings to market, they will realize substantial losses. BNP recently recorded a nearly $1B write-down.\",\n \"Bonds have multiple points of risk: This is part of the time value of money chapter in any finance course. Disclaimer - Duff's answer popped up as I was still doing the bond calculations. Similar to mine but less nerdy.\",\n \"You are right about the stock and index funds, with dollar cost averaging over several years, the daily price of the security (especially a dividend paying security) will not matter* because your position will have accumulated larger over several entry points, some entries with cheaper shares and some entries with more expensive shares. In the future your position will be so large that any uptick will net you large gains on your original equity. *not matter being a reference to even extreme forms of volatility. But if you had all your equity in a poor company and tanked, never to rise again, then you would still be in a losing position even with dollar cost averaging. If your only other holdings are bonds, then you MAY want to sell those to free up capital.\",\n \"During the hyperinflation of the Wiermer republic, corporate stocks and convertible bonds were thought second only to the species (gold, silver etc) as the only secure currencies. As Milton Friedman proved, inflation is caused solely by the monetary token supply increasing faster than productivity. In the past, days of species of currency, it was caused by governments debasing the currency e.g. streatching the same amount of silver in 50 coins to 100 coins. Sudden increases in the supply of precious metals can also trigger it. The various gold rushes in 19th century and later, improvements in extraction methods caused bouts of inflation. Most famously, the huge amounts of silver the Spanish extracted from the New World mines, devastated the European economy with high inflation. Governments use inflation as a form of stealth flat tax. Money functions as an Abstract Universal Trade Good and it obeys all the rules of supply and demand. If the supply of money goes up suddenly, then its value drops in relation to real goods and service. But that drop in value doesn't occur instantly, the increased quality of tokens has to percolate through the market before the value changes. So, the first institution to spend the infalted/debased currency can get the full current value from trade. The second gets slightly less, the third even less and so on. In 2008, the Federal reserve began printing money and loaning at 0% to insolvent backs who then used that money to buy T-Bill. This had the duel effect of giving the banks an (arbitrary) A1 rated asset for their fractional reserve while the Federal government got full pre-inflation value of the money paid for the T-bills. As the government spent that money, the number of tokens increased fast than the economy. In times of inflation, the value of money per unit drops as its supply increases and increases The best hedges against inflation are real assets e.g. land, equipment, stocks (ownership of real assets) and convertible bonds which are convertible to stock. It's important to remember that money is, of itself, worthless. It's just a technology that abstracts and smilies trading which at the base, is still a barter system. During inflation the barter value of money plunges owing to increased supply. But the direct barter value between any two real assets remain the same because their supplies have not changed. The value of stocks and convertible bonds is maintained by the economic activity of the company whose ownership they represent. Dividends, stock prices and bond equity, as measured in the inflated currency continue to rise in sync with inflation. Thus they preserve the original value of the money paid for them. Not sure why you expect more inflation. The only institution that can create inflation in the US is the Federal Reserve which Trump has no direct control off. Deregulation of banks won't cause inflation in and of itself as the private banks cannot alter the money supply. If banks fail, owing to deregulation, unlikely I think given the dismal nearly century long record of regulation to date, then the Federal Reserve might fix the problem with another inflation tax, but otherwise not.\",\n \"I have had similar thoughts regarding alternative diversifiers for the reasons you mention, but for the most part they don't exist. Gold is often mentioned, but outside of 1972-1974 when the US went off the gold standard, it hasn't been very effective in the diversification role. Cash can help a little, but it also fails to effectively protect you in a bear market, as measured by portfolio drawdowns as well as std dev, relative to gov't bonds. There are alternative assets, reverse ETFs, etc which can fulfill a specific short term defensive role in your portfolio, but which can be very dangerous and are especially poor as a long term solution; while some people claim to use them for effective results, I haven't seen anything verifiable. I don't recommend them. Gov't bonds really do have a negative correlation to equities during periods in which equities underperform (timing is often slightly delayed), and that makes them more valuable than any other asset class as a diversifier. If you are concerned about rate increases, avoid LT gov't bond funds. Intermediate will work, but will take a few hits... short term bonds will be the safest. Personally I'm in Intermediates (30%), and willing to take the modest hit, in exchange for the overall portfolio protection they provide against an equity downturn. If the hit concerns you, Tips may provide some long term help, assuming inflation rises along with rates to some degree. I personally think Tips give up too much return when equity performance is strong, but it's a modest concern - Tips may suit you better than any other option. In general, I'm less concerned with a single asset class than with the long term performance of my total portfolio.\",\n \"Look. Here's a graph of the S&P 500. It's up 1200% since the start of the 70's, our late recession notwithstanding. You're not going to get that kind of return on bonds or commodities or savings accounts. (Maybe real estate stands a chance, if your real estate wasn't in, say, Detroit. It's not as easy to diversify real estate...) People in their 20's who have plenty of time before they need to spend their retirement money invest in the stock market exactly because they're long-term and can withstand these dips just by waiting them out, and earn a ton of money. People approaching their 60's transition their portfolio to bonds so that a market crash won't wipe them out.\",\n \"The DLOM maybe different if the bond is more or less marketable than the equity. However, the ratio itself would be the same. So while this might affect the interest at which you are willing to lend, it would not affect the intrinsic value of the firm.\",\n \"\\\"In general, yes. If interest rates go higher, then any existing fixed-rate bonds - and hence ETFs holding those bonds - become less valuable. The further each bond is from maturity, the larger the impact. As you suggest, once the bonds do mature, the fund can replace them at a market price, so the effect tails off. The bond market has a concept known as \\\"\\\"duration\\\"\\\" that helps reason about this effect. Roughly, it measures the average time from now to each payout of the bond, weighted by the payout. The longer the duration, the more the price will change for a given change in interest rates. The concept is just an approximation, and there are various slightly different ways of calculating it; but very roughly the price of a bond will reduce by a percentage equal to the duration times the increase in interest rates. So a bond with a duration of 5 years will lose 5% of its value for a 1% rise in interest rates (and of course vice-versa). For your second question, it really depends on what you're trying to achieve by diversifying - this might be best as a different question that gives more detail, as it's not very related to your first question. Short-term bonds are less risky. But both will lose value if the underlying company is in trouble. Gilts (government bonds) are less risky than corporate bonds.\\\"\",\n \"The market moves faster than ratings agencies. Everyday the market is trying to figure out the true value of Assets - Liabilities and thus its overall equity value. The financial crisis illustrated this perfectly when Bear Sterns got stuck in a liquidity trap. It's MBS(CDO) was still highly rated, likewise its overall credit rating was sound, however in reality the value of assets were much higher due to coming default, credit providers realized assets Bear had posted as collateral were falling in value quickly. This started the death spiral, or feedback loop in which it isn't clear if the tail wagged the dog or the dog wagged the tail, but as equity value fell Bear could no longer get access to credit markets to fund daily operations, once it got margin called and couldn't pay, it was all over. When it was sold to JPM, they basically stole the entire company at a fire sale price, everyone knew they were getting a deal, as reflected in the post buyout price jump of JPM stock. So in a technical sense you are right, they have nothing to do with each other. But in a practical sense as we see equity value collapse we are approaching bankruptcy, and thus default, and credit ratings should represent likelihood of default so the two should have a positive correlation to one another, assuming equity value is the 'true value'.\",\n \"\\\"Financing a portfolio with debt (on margin) leads to higher variance. That's the WHOLE POINT. Let's say it's 50-50. On the downside, with 100% equity, you can never lose more than your whole equity. But if you have assets of 100, of which 50% is equity and 50% is debt, your losses can be greater than 50%, which is to say more than the value of your equity. The reverse is true. You can make money at TWICE the rate if the market goes up. But \\\"\\\"you pay your money and you take your chances\\\"\\\" (Punch, 1846).\\\"\",\n \"Totally depends on the drivers of the downturn. Keep in mind that in ~2005, both real estate and short-term bonds would arguably have been reasonable answers to this question (without the benefit of hindsight, of course). e: After re-reading your post, it looks like you were asking about (I assume) equity investments by sector rather than asset classes more broadly. I'm not sure equity in any sector can be considered a safe haven in a downturn. Utilities are the typical answer, but they didn't do much better than equity markets in general in 2008-2009.\",\n \"\\\"In a sentence, stocks are a share of equity in the company, while bonds are a share of credit to the company. When you buy one share of stock, you own a (typically infinitesimal) percentage of the company. You are usually entitled to a share of the profits of that company, and/or to participate in the business decisions of that company. A particular type of stock may or may not pay dividends, which is the primary way companies share profits with their stockholders (the other way is simply by increasing the company's share value by being successful and thus desirable to investors). A stock also may or may not allow you to vote on company business; you may hear about companies buying 20% or 30% \\\"\\\"interests\\\"\\\" in other companies; they own that percentage of the company, and their vote on company matters is given that same weight in the total voting pool. Typically, a company offers two levels of stocks: \\\"\\\"Common\\\"\\\" stock usually has voting rights attached, and may pay dividends. \\\"\\\"Preferred\\\"\\\" stock usually gives up the voting rights, but pays a higher dividend percentage (maybe double or triple that of common stock) and may have payment guarantees (if a promised dividend is missed in one quarter and then paid in the next, the preferred stockholders get their dividend for the past and present quarters before the common shareholders see a penny). Governments and non-profits are typically prohibited from selling their equity; if a government sold stock it would basically be taxing everyone and then paying back stockholders, while non-profit organizations have no profits to pay out as dividends. Bonds, on the other hand, are a slice of the company's debt load. Think of bonds as kind of like a corporate credit card. When a company needs a lot of cash, it will sell bonds. A single bond may be worth $10, $100, or $1000, depending on the investor market being targeted. This is the amount the company will pay the bondholder at the end of the term of the bond. These bonds are bought by investors on the open market for less than their face value, and the company uses the cash it raises for whatever purpose it wants, before paying off the bondholders at term's end (usually by paying each bond at face value using money from a new package of bonds, in effect \\\"\\\"rolling over\\\"\\\" the debt to the next cycle, similar to you carrying a balance on your credit card). The difference between the cost and payoff is the \\\"\\\"interest charge\\\"\\\" on this slice of the loan, and can be expressed as a percentage of the purchase price over the remaining term of the bond, as its \\\"\\\"yield\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"APY\\\"\\\". For example, a bond worth $100 that was sold on Jan 1 for $85 and is due to be paid on Dec 31 of the same year has an APY of (15/85*100) = 17.65%. Typically, yields for highly-rated companies are more like 4-6%; a bond that would yield 17% is very risky and indicates a very low bond rating, so-called \\\"\\\"junk status\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Bonds are priced \\\"\\\"very high\\\"\\\" because their price is compared to their yields. With the current interest rates, which are very low, the bond yields will be low. However, bond issuers still need the money, so there still will be high par value, and investors will not sell bonds at a loss unless there's a better investment (=bonds with better yields). Once the rates start going up, you'll see bonds with current rates dropping in value significantly. Once alternatives appear, people holding them will start dumping them to move the money somewhere more profitable. Similarly the stocks - since there's no other investment alternatives (yields on the bonds are low, interests are low), people invest more in the stocks. Once the rates go up, the investors will start rebalancing portfolios and cashing out.\\\"\",\n \"Without providing direct investment advice, I can tell you that bond most assuredly are not recession-proof. All investments have risk, and each recession will impact asset-classes slightly differently. Before getting started, BONDS are LOANS. You are loaning money. Don't ever think of them as anything but that. Bonds/Loans have two chief risks: default risk and inflation risk. Default risk is the most obvious risk. This is when the person to whom you are loaning, does not pay back. In a recession, this can easily happen if the debtor is a company, and the company goes bankrupt in the recessionary environment. Inflation risk is a more subtle risk, and occurs when the (fixed) interest rate on your loan yields less than the inflation rate. This causes the 'real' value of your investment to depreciate over time. The second risk is most pronounced when the bonds that you own are government bonds, and the recession causes the government to be unable to pay back its debts. In these circumstances, the government may print more money to pay back its creditors, generating inflation.\",\n \"Doesnt mean that equity or even debt holders wouldn't lose their investment. Those money and banking texts are presently useless post GFC given the incredible moral hazard and how all of the traditional bankruptcy rules were ignored.\",\n \"\\\"If I don't need this money for decades, meaning I can ride out periodical market crashes, why would I invest in bonds instead of funds that track broad stock market indexes? You wouldn't. But you can never be 100% sure that you really won't need the money for decades. Also, even if you don't need it for decades, you can never be 100% certain that the market will not be way down at the time, decades in the future, when you do need the money. The amount of your portfolio you allocate to bonds (relative to stocks) can be seen as a measure of your desire to guard against that uncertainty. I don't think it's accurate to say that \\\"\\\"the general consensus is that your portfolio should at least be 25% in bonds\\\"\\\". For a young investor with high risk tolerance, many would recommend less than that. For instance, this page from T. Rowe Price suggests no more than 10% bonds for those in their 20s or 30s. Basically you would put money into bonds rather than stocks to reduce the volatility of your portfolio. If you care only about maximizing return and don't care about volatility, then you don't have to invest in bonds. But you probably actually do care about volatility, even if you don't think you do. You might not care enough to put 25% in bonds, but you might care enough to put 10% in bonds.\\\"\",\n \"I've had the same thoughts recently and after reading Investing at Level 3 by James Cloonan I believe his thesis that for the passive investor you're giving up too much if you're not 100% in equities. He is clear to point out that you need to be well aware of your withdrawal horizons and has specific tactics for shifting the portfolio when you know you must have the money in the next five years and wouldn't want to pull money out when you're at a market low. The kicker for me was shifting your thought to a plotting a straight line of reasonable expectations on your return. Then you don't worry about how far down you are from your high (or up from your low) but you measure yourself against the expected return and you'll find some real grounding. You're investing for the long term so you're going to see 2-3 bear markets. That isn't the the time to get cold feet and react. Stay put and it will come back. The market gets back to the reasonable expectations very quickly as he confirms in all the bear markets and recessions of any note. He gives guidelines for a passive investing strategy to leverage this mentality and talks about venturing into an active strategy but doesn't go into great depth. So if you're looking to invest more passively this book may be enough to get you rolling with thinking differently than the traditional 70/30 split.\",\n \"\\\"All bonds carry a risk of default, which means that it's possible that you can lose your principal investment in addition to potentially not getting the interest payments that you expect. Bonds (in the US anyway) are graded, so you can manage this risk somewhat by taking higher quality bonds, i.e. in companies or governments that are considered more creditworthy. Regular bank savings (again specific to the US) are insured by FDIC, so even if your bank goes bust, the US Government is backing them up to some limit. That makes such accounts less risky. There's generally no insurance on a bond, even if it is issued by a government entity. If you do your homework on the bond rating system and choose bonds in a rating band where you're comfortable, this could be a good option for you. You'll find, however, that the bond market also \\\"\\\"knows\\\"\\\" that the interest rates are generally low, so be ware that higher interest issues are usually coming from less creditworthy (and therefore more risky) issuers. EDIT Here's some additional information based on the follow-up question in the comment. When you buy a bond you are actually making a loan to the issuer. They will pay you interest over the lifetime of the bond and then return your principal at the end of the term. (Verify this payment schedule - This is typical, but you should be sure that whatever you're buying works like this.) This is not an investment in the value of the issuer itself like you would be making if you bought stock. With stock you are taking an ownership share in the company. This might entitle you to dividends if the company pays them, but otherwise your investment value on a stock will be tied to the performance of the company. With the bond, the company might be in decline but the bond still a good investment so long as the company doesn't decline so much that they cannot pay their debts. Also, bonds can be issued by governments, but governments do not sell stock. (An \\\"\\\"ownership share of the government\\\"\\\" would not make sense.) This may be the so-called sovereign debt if issued by a sovereign government or it may be local (we call it municipal here in the US) debt issued by a subordinate level of government. Bonds are a little bit like stock in the sense that there's a secondary market for them. That means that if you get partway through the length of the bond and don't want to hold it, you can sell the bond to someone else. Of course, it will be harder to sell a bond later if the company becomes insolvent or if the interest rates go up between when you buy and when you sell. Depending on these market factors, you might end up with a capital gain or capital loss (meaning you get more or less than the principal that you put into the bond) at the time of a sale.\\\"\",\n \"Rates are a complex field. I will assume that context wise you are talking about rates for a individual saver quantities. The two rates you are asking about are personal bank saving account and exchange traded bonds. The points you want to compare between them are. In general, a bond is what we called a fixed rate instrument. This means that for the life of the product, it will yield a fixed percentage of its face value at a regular period. Baring any extreme circumstances (such as bankruptcy), no external factors will change the payment schedule on a bond. Conversely, by placing your money into a bank, you will accrue interest rate at some value related to some published interest rate. For example, if tomorrow, the Treasury decided to try to stimulate the economy, they could slash the interest rate, this would directly affect the rate at which your savings account would accrue interest. In general, a bond has a maturity date, where the capital is finally released from the bond. Until such date, you cannot access the money directly (you can however sell the bond, but it would likely be at a discounted value). Therefore, in general, you cannot get access to the money whenever you want it. As for a saving account, normally one can access the funds instantly, if not within a few days. This seems to the reason people seem to be focusing on. For each bond, the issuer of the bond is obligated to pay you the holder of the bond fixed payments at an interval, plus the capital at the maturity. However, obligation does not mean guarantee. If the issuer, is unable to make the payments, they may go into bankruptcy to avoid paying you. There are companies setup to advise people on the likelihood of each bond issuer on their ability to honour their debts. For example Standard and Poor issues a rating which goes all the way up to AAA for bonds. Recently, many sovereign countries have lost their AAA rating from S&P. Meaning that S&P feel that the possibility of these countries going bankrupt is non-zero. Conversely, banks may also be unable to give you your money when requested. In the US, the reserve requirements means that at any one time it only holds 10% of the money it owes to its customers. This can mean that if every customer turns up to the bank to demand their money, that bank would be unable to pay. This situation is called a Bank Run. During such a situation, the bank would likely collapse and default. In many modern countries, the government put into place guarantees on the first xxx amount in saving accounts, but otherwise, your savings could be lost. There are many complex reasons to choose one instrument over another (including some I have avoided), even if at the outset, they could appear to have the same rates.\",\n \"While debt increases the likelihood and magnitude of a crash, speculation, excess supply and other market factors can result in crashes without requiring excessive debt. A popular counter example of crashes due to speculation is 16th century Dutch Tulip Mania. The dot com bubble is a more recent example of a speculative crash. There were debt related issues for some companies and the run ups in stock prices were increased by leveraged traders, but the actual crash was the result of failures of start up companies to produce profits. While all tech stocks fell together, sound companies with products and profits survive today. As for recessions, they are simply periods of time with decreased economic activity. Recessions can be caused by financial crashes, decreased demand following a war, or supply shocks like the oil crisis in the 1970's. In summary, debt is simply a magnifier. It can increase profits just as easily as can increase losses. The real problems with crashes and recessions are often related to unfounded faith in increasing value and unexpected changes in demand.\",\n \"It doesn't matter which way you use. As long as your comfortable with the overall level of risk/reward in your portfolio, that's what matters. (Though I will say that there are more investment vehicles than stocks, bonds, and cash that are worth considering.)\",\n \"I do this very thing, but with asset allocation and risk parity in mind. I disagree with the cash or bust answers above, but many of the aforementioned facts are valuable and I don't mean to undermine them in anyway. That said, let's look at two examples: Option 1: All-in For the sake of argument let's say you had $100k invested in the SPY (S&P 500 ETF) in early 2007, and you kept it there until today. Your lowest balance would have been about $51k, and at this point the possibility of you losing your job was probably at a peak. Today you would be left with $170k assuming no withdrawal. Option 2: Risk Parity BUT if you balanced your investments with a risk parity approach, using negatively correlated asset classes you avoid this dilemma. If you had invested 50% in XLP (Consumer Staples Sector ETF) and 50% in TLT ( Long Term Treasury ETF) your investments low point would have been $88k, and your lowest annual return would be +0.69%. Today you would be left with $214k assuming no withdrawals. I chose option #2 and it hasn't failed me yet, even in 2016 so far the results are steady and reliably given the reward. My general opinion is simple: when you have money always grow it. Just be sure to cover your ass and prepare for rain. Backtesting for this was done at portfoliovisualizer.com, the one caveat to this approach is that inflation and a lack of international exposure are a risk here.\",\n \"\\\"In general, small cap stocks are exposed to more downside during recessions and when credit is tight, because it is more difficult for small companies to raise capital, and minor variations in cash flow have a bigger impact. Coming out of recessions or when credit is cheap, small companies generally perform better than larger companies. In the depths of recession, small companies with good cash flow are often great value investments, as analysts and institutional investors \\\"\\\"punish\\\"\\\" the entire class of smallcap companies.\\\"\",\n \"In this type of strategy profit is made when the shares go down as your main position is the short trade of the common stock. The convertible instruments will tend to move in about the same direction as the underlying (what it can be converted to) but less violently as they are traded less (lower volatility and lower volume in the market on both sides), however, they are not being used to make a profit so much as to hedge against the stock going up. Since both the bonds and the preference shares are higher on the list to be repaid if the company declares bankruptcy and the bonds pay out a fixed amount of interest as well, both also help protect against problems that may occur with a long position in the common stock. Essentially the plan with this strategy is to earn fixed income on the bonds whilst the stock price drops and then to sell both the bonds and buy the stock back on the market to cover the short position. If the prediction that the stock will fall is wrong then you are still earning fixed income on the debt and are able to convert it into stock at the higher price to cover the short sale eliminating, or reducing, the loss made on the short sale. Effectively the profit here is made on the spread between the price of the bond, accounting for the conversion price, and the price of the stock and that fixed income is less volatile (except usually in the junk market) than stock.\",\n \"Supply and demand for a particular bond may be such that the market price exceeds the par value for the bond at maturity. This is when you get a negative yield. Especially when volatility is high, people will actually pay money to park it in treasuries for an amount of time. But when compared to a > 25% vol in the equities market over that same period, taking a 5% or less hit doesn't sound nearly as bad!\",\n \"No, he's right. Not only about the need to raise cash or capital via the equity markets, but the solvency and regulatory burden banks face. If there is a run on bank stocks, they will struggle to meet their reserve requirement ratios. This is what has been happening with the French banks over the past several months.\",\n \"\\\"In theory, the term of the bond does not affect the priority. It does not matter whether a \\\"\\\"Junior Subordinated Debenture\\\"\\\" is due in one year or sixty, it is still lower priority than a \\\"\\\"Secured Note\\\"\\\". On the other hand, if the \\\"\\\"Secured Note\\\"\\\" is secured by something that is not worth as much as the note, the excess is an unsecured debt. In practice, the term of the bond has two effects: Short term debt holders are more likely to get out just before the company goes broke. Sometimes their efforts to get out are exactly what causes the company to go broke! (\\\"\\\"Commercial paper\\\"\\\" is even more fickle than banks.) All other things being equal, and depending on the terms of the loan, some bonds get priority over bonds of the same type that are issued later. For example, your first mortgage usually takes precedence over your second mortgage.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Let me see if I can restate your question: are speculative investments more volatile (subject to greater spikes and drops in pricing) than are more long-term investments which are defined by the predictability of their dividend returns? The short answer is: yes. However, where it gets complicated is in deciding whether something is a speculative investment. Take your example of housing. People who buy a house as an investment either choose to rent it out (so receive \\\"\\\"rent\\\"\\\" as \\\"\\\"dividend\\\"\\\") or live in it (foregoing dividends). Either way, the scale of the investment is large and this is often the only direct investment that people manage themselves. For this reason houses are bound up in the sentimental value people attach to a home, the difficulty of uprooting and moving elsewhere in search of cheaper housing or better employment, or the sunk cost of debt that can't be recovered by a fire-sale. Such inertia can lead to sudden sell-offs as critical inflection points are reached (such as hoped-for economic improvements fail to materialise and cash needs become critical). At different levels that is true of just about every investment. Driving price-volatility is the ease of sale and the trade-offs involved. A share that offers regular and dependable dividends, even if its absolute value falls, is going to be hung on to more frequently than those shares that suffer a similar decline but only offer a capital gain. For the latter, the race is on to sell before the drop neutralises any remaining capital gain the investor may have experienced. A house with a good tenant or a share with stable dividends will be kept in preference for the quick cash-return of selling an asset that offers no such ongoing returns. This would result, visually, in more eratic curves for \\\"\\\"speculative\\\"\\\" shares while more stable shares are characterised by periods of stability interspersed with moments of mania. But I have to take your query further, since you provide graphical evidence to support your thesis. Your charts combine varying time-scales, different sample rates and different scales (one of which is even a log scale). It becomes impossible to draw any sort of meaningful micro-comparison unless they're all presented using exactly the same criteria.\\\"\",\n \"Historically October has been the month when crashes happen hasn’t it? I know not every crash has happened then but I think there’s something about the September/October period that it’s the part of the year where there’s been the most down months and the months where a few crashes started (Great Depression and recession off the top of my head)\",\n \"Bonds can increase in price, if the demand is high and offer solid yield if the demand is low. For instance, Russian bond prices a year ago contracted big in price (ie: fell), but were paying 18% and made a solid buy. Now that the demand has risen, the price is up with the yield for those early investors the same, though newer investors are receiving less yield (about 9ish percent) and paying higher prices. I've rarely seen banks pay more variable interest than short term treasuries and the same holds true for long term CDs and long term treasuries. This isn't to say it's impossible, just rare. Also variable is different than a set term; if you buy a 10 year treasury at 18%, that means you get 18% for 10 years, even if interest rates fall four years later. Think about the people buying 30 year US treasuries during 1980-1985. Yowza. So if you have a very large amount of money you will store it in bonds as its much less likely that the US treasury will go bankrupt than your bank. Less likely? I don't know about your bank, but my bank doesn't owe $19 trillion.\",\n \"\\\"The fact that some asset (in this case corporate bonds) has positive correlation with some other asset (equity) doesn't mean buying both isn't a good idea. Unless they are perfectly correlated, the best risk/reward portfolio will include both assets as they will sometimes move in opposite directions and cancel out each other's risk. So yes, you should buy corporate bonds. Short-term government bonds are essentially the risk-free asset. You will want to include that as well if you are very risk averse, otherwise you may not. Long-term government bonds may be default free but they are not risk free. They will make money if interest rates fall and lose if interest rates rise. Because of that risk, they also pay you a premium, albeit a small one, and should be in your portfolio. So yes, a passive portfolio (actually, any reasonable portfolio) should strive to reduce risk by diversifying into all assets that it reasonably can. If you believe the capital asset pricing model, the weights on portfolio assets should correspond to market weights (more money in bonds than stocks). Otherwise you will need to choose your weights. Unfortunately we are not able to estimate the true expected returns of risky assets, so no one can really agree on what the true optimal weights should be. That's why there are so many rules of thumb and so much disagreement on the subject. But there is little or no disagreement on the fact that the optimal portfolio does include risky bonds including long-term treasuries. To answer your follow-up question about an \\\"\\\"anchor,\\\"\\\" if by that you mean a risk-free asset then the answer is not really. Any risk-free asset is paying approximately zero right now. Some assets with very little risk will earn a very little bit more than short term treasuries, but overall there's nowhere to hide--the time value of money is extremely low at short horizons. You want expected returns, you must take risk.\\\"\",\n \"It's worth pointing out that a bulk of the bond market is institutional investors (read: large corporations and countries). For individuals, it's very easy to just put your cash in a checking account. Checking accounts are insured and non-volatile. But what happens when you're GE or Apple or Panama? You can't just flop a couple billion dollars in to a Chase checking account and call it a day. Although, you still need a safe place to store money that won't be terribly volatile. GE can buy a billion dollars of treasury bonds. Many companies need tremendous amounts of collateral on hand, amounts far in excess of the capacity of a checking account; those funds are stored in treasuries of some sort. Separately, a treasury bond is not a substitute investment for an S&P index fund. For individuals they are two totally different investments with totally different characteristics. The only reason an individual investor should compare the return of the S&P against the readily available yield of treasuries is to ensure the expected return of an equity investment can sufficiently pay for the additional risk.\",\n \"The average joe wouldn't... we would bury our cash in a mayonaise jar before we would take a guaranteed loss... (although the argument could be made that a positive return that doesnt outpace inflation IS a negative return)... big corporations with billions on hand dont have that luxury however... some investments may also guarantee investors that a certain percentage be allocated to bonds... and in times of deflation a negative return could still provide a net positive return...\",\n \"Just before a crash or at the start of the crash most of the smart money would have gotten out, the remaining technical traders would be out by the time the market has dropped 10 to 15%, and some of them would be shorting their positions by now. Most long-term buy and hold investors would stick to their guns and stay in for the long haul. Some will start to get nervous and have sleepless nights when the markets have fallen 30%+ and look to get out as well. Others stay in until they cannot stand it anymore. And some will stick it out throughout the downturn. So who are the buyers at this stage? Some are the so called bargain hunters that buy when the market has fallen over 30% (only to sell again when it falls another 20%), or maybe buy more (because they think they are dollar cost averaging and will make a packet when the price goes back up - if and when it does). Some are those with stops covering their short positions, whilst others may be fund managers and individuals looking to rebalance their portfolios. What you have to remember during both an uptrend and a downtrend the price does not move straight up or straight down. If we take the downtrend for instance, it will have lower lows and lower highs (that is the definition of a downtrend). See the chart below of the S&P 500 during the GFC falls. As you can see just before it really started falling in Jan 08 there was ample opportunity for the smart money and the technical traders to get out of the market as the price drops below the 200 MA and it fails to make a higher peak. As the price falls from Jan 08 to Mar 08 you suddenly start getting some movement upwards. This is the bargain hunters who come into the market thinking the price is a bargain compared to 3 months ago, so they start buying and pushing the price up somewhat for a couple of months before it starts falling again. The reason it falls again is because the people who wanted to sell at the start of the year missed the boat, so are taking the opportunity to sell now that the prices have increased a bit. So you get this battle between the buyers (bulls) and seller (bears), and of course the bears are winning during this downtrend. That is why you see more sharper falls between Aug to Oct 08, and it continues until the lows of Mar 09. In short it has got to do with the phycology of the markets and how people's emotions can make them buy and/or sell at the wrong times.\",\n \"When credit locks up, junk bond prices fall rapidly, and you see more defaults. The opportunity to make money with junk is to buy a diversified collection of them when the market declines. Look at the charts from some of the mutual funds or ETFs like PIMCO High Yield Instl (PHIYX), or Northeast Investors (NTHEX). Very volatile stuff. Keep in mind that junk bonds are not representative of the economy as a whole -- they cluster in certain industries. Retail and financials are big industry segments for junk. Also keep in mind that the market for these things is not as liquid as the stock market. If your investment choice is really a sector investment, you might be better served by investing in sector funds with stocks that trade every day versus bonds whose market price may be difficult to determine.\",\n \"I seem to remember that put returns are actually way worse than what CAPM would predict based on their negative market correlation. Apparently something about negative skewness, jump risk and/or exposure to change in volatility carrying risk premia of their own. I'm not an expert, but if one can bear these risks, it may be better to replace some equity exposure with *short* puts rather than buying them. (That's what I'm doing a bit. But not very enthusiastically at the moment, with implied volatilities at such extremely low levels...)\",\n \"\\\"If we can agree that 2010 was closer to the low of 2009 than 2007 then the rich did all the buying while the super-rich did all the selling. http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html Looks like the rich cleaned up during the Tech Crash too, but it looks like the poor lost faith. That limited data makes it look like the best investors are the rich. Market makers are only required by the exchanges to provide liquidity, bids & asks. They aren't required to buy endlessly. In fact, market makers (at least the ones who survive the busts) try to never have a stake in direction. They do this by holding equal inventories of long and shorts. They are actually the only people legally allowed to naked short stock: sell without securing shares to borrow. All us peons must secure borrowed shares before selling short. Also, firms involved in the actual workings of the market like bookies but unlike us peons who make the bets play by different margin rules. They're allowed to lever through the roof because they take on low risk or near riskless trades and \\\"\\\"positions\\\"\\\" (your broker, clearing agent, etc actually directly \\\"\\\"own\\\"\\\" your financial assets and borrow & lend them like a bank). http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@notice/documents/notices/p004001.pdf This is why market makers can be assumed not to load up on shares during a decline; they simply drop the bids & asks as their bids are hit.\\\"\",\n \"I agree with @Turukawa that the x-axes need to be the same to make a direct comparison. However, the graphs you linked make me think of introductory calculus: If you time averaged plots, speculative investments (gold, housing) seem to have many large concave up time periods and the dow jones has many concave down sections. Using the concavity test: If the first derivative tells you about the rate of change, the second derivative tells you about the rate of change of rate of change. Remember back to Physics 101: 1st derivative is velocity & second derivative is acceleration. It would be interesting to have the same time scales for your plots & compare these accelerations between the two. I suspect the more volatile investments would have larger (in magnitude) accelerations during boom/bust cycles than less speculative investments.\",\n \"\\\"Another factor to consider, beyond the fact that growth and volatility go together, is that the times when many people will need to liquidate their investments will correlate with the times that many other people need to liquidate their investments, and such correlation will push down the immediate value of those investments. While certificates of deposit have penalties for early withdrawal, one can establish up front what the worst-case penalty would be for cashing it in at the most inopportune time. By contrast, stocks offer no such assurance. Stocks sometimes have weird downward spikes that may be short-lived, but if life circumstances force one to liquidate stocks during such a downward spike the \\\"\\\"penalty\\\"\\\" can be much larger than on a CD.\\\"\",\n \"Well, reserve requirements concern, as the name suggests, the reserves, e.g. a position on the balance sheet. The price of equity only marginally impacts the balance sheet (via positions in their own stock), not nearly strong enough to be significant. The French banks mainly had trouble with liquidity (this year we witnessed another collapse of the interbank lending market just as in 2007. watch the Libor-O/N-spread.) and solvency through deterioration of the asset side of the balance sheet. Naturally your ability to raise additional equity is influenced by the historic return of your stock, but sharp price drops in fact can help you to raise equity, simply because your ratios improved (P/E, P/B, in fact any ratio that includes the price part) and the stock became cheaper. See UBS/Singapore GIC and GS/Warren Buffet\",\n \"Its still the case though. Most of the economy exists as either stocks, bonds, or debt. Bonds are stable so the wealthy stockpile there just in case, stocks are where they earn new wealth, and the debt just is everywhere. Real estate is basically just their flash cash.\",\n \"Asset prices are inversely related to interest rates. If you're valuing a business or a bond, if you use a lower interest rate you get a higher valuation. Historic equity returns benefit from a falling interest rate environment which won't be repeated as interest rates can only go so low. edit: typo\",\n \"Yes, this phenomenon is well documented. A collapse of an economy's exchange rate is coincidented with a collapse in its equities market. The recent calamities in Turkey, etc during 2014 had similar results. Inflation is highly correlated to valuations, and a collapse of an exchange rate is highly inflationary, so a collapse of an exchange rate is highly correlated to a collapse in valuations.\",\n \"\\\"You may be thinking about this the wrong way. The yield (Return) on your investment is effectively the market price paid to the investor for the amount of risk assumed for participating. Looking at the last few years, many including myself would have given their left arm for a so-called \\\"\\\"meager return\\\"\\\" instead of the devastation visited on our portfolios. In essence, higher return almost always (arguably always) comes at the cost of increased risk. You just have to decide your risk profile and investment goals. For example, which of the following scenarios would you prefer? Investment Option A Treasuries, CD's Worst Case: 1% gain Best Case 5% gain Investment option B Equities/Commodities Worst Case: 25% loss Best Case: 40% gain\\\"\",\n \"\\\"[...] are all bonds priced in such a way so that they all return the same amount (on average), after accounting for risk? In other words, do risk premiums ONLY compensate for the amount investors might lose? No. GE might be able to issue a bond with lower yield than, say, a company from China with no previous records of its presence in the U.S. markets. A bond price not only contains the risk of default, but also encompasses the servicability of the bond by the issuer with a specific stream of income, location of main business, any specific terms and conditions in the prospectus, e.g.callable or not, insurances against default, etc. Else for the same payoff, why would you take a higher risk? The payoff of a higher risk (not only default, but term structure, e.g. 5 years or 10 years, coupon payments) bond is more, to compensate for the extra risk it entails for the bondholder. The yield of a high risk bond will always be higher than a bond with lower risk. If you travel back in time, to 2011-2012, you would see the yields on Greek bonds were in the range of 25-30%, to reflect the high risk of a Greek default. Some hedge funds made a killing by buying Greek bonds during the eurozone crisis. If you go through the Efficient frontier theory, your argument is a counter statement to it. Same with individual bonds, or a portfolio of bonds. You always want to be compensated for the risk you take. The higher the risk, the higher the compensation, and vice versa. When investors buy the bond at this price, they are essentially buying a \\\"\\\"risk free\\\"\\\" bond [...] Logically yes, but no it isn't, and you shouldn't make that assumption.\\\"\",\n \"When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that.\",\n \"In general, investors with a long period of time until they would need to withdraw the cash are best off holding mostly equities. While the dividends that equities would return are less than the interest you would get in peer-to-peer lending, over long periods of time not only do you get the dividends from equity investment but the value of the stock will grow faster than interest on loans. The higher returns from stocks, however, comes with more risk of big downturns. Many people pull their investments out of stocks right after crashes which really hurts their long term returns. So, in order to get the benefit of investing in stocks you need to be strong enough to continue to hold the stocks through the crash and into the recovery. As for which stocks to invest in, generally it is best to invest in low-fee index funds/etfs where you own a broad collection of stocks so that if (when) any one stock goes bust that your portfolio does not take much damage. Try to own both international and domestic stocks to get good diversification. The consensus recommends adding just a little bit of REITs and bonds to your investments, but for someone at 25 it might not be worth it yet. Warren Buffett had some good thoughts on index investing.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Cash would be the better alternative assuming both stocks take a major hit in ALL categories AND the Fed raise rates at the same time for some reason. Money market funds that may have relatively low yields at the moment would likely be one of the few securities not to be repriced downward as interest rates rising would decrease bond values which could be another crash as I could somewhat question how broad of a crash are you talking here. There are more than a few different market segments so that while some parts may get hit really hard in a crash, would you really want to claim everything goes down? Blackrock's graphic shows in 2008 how bonds did the best and only it and cash had positive returns in that year but there is something to be said for how big is a crash: 20%, 50%, 90%?","\"Diversify into leveraged short/bear ETFs and then you can quit your job and yell at your boss \"\"F you I'm short your house!\"\" edit: this is a quote from Greg Lippmann and mentioned in the book \"\"The Big Short\"\"\"","I would suggest looking into Relative Strength Asset Allocation. This type of investment strategy keeps you invested in the best performing asset classes. As a result of investing in this manner it removes the guesswork and moves naturally (say into cash) when the stock market turns down. There is a good whitepaper on this subject by Mebane Faber titled Relative Strength Strategies for Investing."],"string":"[\n \"Cash would be the better alternative assuming both stocks take a major hit in ALL categories AND the Fed raise rates at the same time for some reason. Money market funds that may have relatively low yields at the moment would likely be one of the few securities not to be repriced downward as interest rates rising would decrease bond values which could be another crash as I could somewhat question how broad of a crash are you talking here. There are more than a few different market segments so that while some parts may get hit really hard in a crash, would you really want to claim everything goes down? Blackrock's graphic shows in 2008 how bonds did the best and only it and cash had positive returns in that year but there is something to be said for how big is a crash: 20%, 50%, 90%?\",\n \"\\\"Diversify into leveraged short/bear ETFs and then you can quit your job and yell at your boss \\\"\\\"F you I'm short your house!\\\"\\\" edit: this is a quote from Greg Lippmann and mentioned in the book \\\"\\\"The Big Short\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"I would suggest looking into Relative Strength Asset Allocation. This type of investment strategy keeps you invested in the best performing asset classes. As a result of investing in this manner it removes the guesswork and moves naturally (say into cash) when the stock market turns down. There is a good whitepaper on this subject by Mebane Faber titled Relative Strength Strategies for Investing.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":187,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"10645"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Explain the details and benefits of rebalancing a retirement portfolio?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["588607","22221"],"string":"[\n \"588607\",\n \"22221\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["588607","28425","269169","117696","406192","148632","22221","441176","36284","432404","434014","107751","473504","549402","458244","418528","516607","224392","253268","569849","423073","410461","257274","34241","405212","271504","421769","235592","108721","507468","64634","469835","422051","340131","39569","138775","195631","509837","429929","18436","70194","83807","562305","331492","252918","355738","309969","12351","227324","241202","134345","252778","529179","310218","593698","570117","382384","74041","593879","500863","331673","528518","112187","470758","331008","297100","466403","19040","248799","476138","551719","85276","347825","126836","278718","307409","365189","599436","549311","463837","170717","185443","259084","296567","575435","274392","551590","391835","486643","502495","310752","539680","53100","272790","418551","499166","83079","484825","246253","291830"],"string":"[\n \"588607\",\n \"28425\",\n \"269169\",\n \"117696\",\n \"406192\",\n \"148632\",\n \"22221\",\n \"441176\",\n \"36284\",\n \"432404\",\n \"434014\",\n \"107751\",\n \"473504\",\n \"549402\",\n \"458244\",\n \"418528\",\n \"516607\",\n \"224392\",\n \"253268\",\n \"569849\",\n \"423073\",\n \"410461\",\n \"257274\",\n \"34241\",\n \"405212\",\n \"271504\",\n \"421769\",\n \"235592\",\n \"108721\",\n \"507468\",\n \"64634\",\n \"469835\",\n \"422051\",\n \"340131\",\n \"39569\",\n \"138775\",\n \"195631\",\n \"509837\",\n \"429929\",\n \"18436\",\n \"70194\",\n \"83807\",\n \"562305\",\n \"331492\",\n \"252918\",\n \"355738\",\n \"309969\",\n \"12351\",\n \"227324\",\n \"241202\",\n \"134345\",\n \"252778\",\n \"529179\",\n \"310218\",\n \"593698\",\n \"570117\",\n \"382384\",\n \"74041\",\n \"593879\",\n \"500863\",\n \"331673\",\n \"528518\",\n \"112187\",\n \"470758\",\n \"331008\",\n \"297100\",\n \"466403\",\n \"19040\",\n \"248799\",\n \"476138\",\n \"551719\",\n \"85276\",\n \"347825\",\n \"126836\",\n \"278718\",\n \"307409\",\n \"365189\",\n \"599436\",\n \"549311\",\n \"463837\",\n \"170717\",\n \"185443\",\n \"259084\",\n \"296567\",\n \"575435\",\n \"274392\",\n \"551590\",\n \"391835\",\n \"486643\",\n \"502495\",\n \"310752\",\n \"539680\",\n \"53100\",\n \"272790\",\n \"418551\",\n \"499166\",\n \"83079\",\n \"484825\",\n \"246253\",\n \"291830\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"Rebalancing a portfolio helps you reduce risk, sell high, and buy low. I'll use international stocks and large cap US stocks. They both have ups and downs, and they don't always track with each other (international might be up while large cap US stocks are down and vice-versa) If you started with 50% international and 50% large cap stocks and 1 year later you have 75% international and 25% large cap stocks that means that international stocks are doing (relatively) well to large cap stocks. Comparing only those two categories, large cap stocks are \"\"on sale\"\" relative to international stocks. Now move so you have 50% in each category and you've realized some of the gains from your international investment (sell high) and added to your large cap stocks (buy low). The reason to rebalance is to lower risk. You are spreading your investments across multiple categories to manage risk. If you don't rebalance, you could end up with 95% in one category and 5% in another which means 95% of your portfolio is tied to the performance of a single asset category. I try to rebalance every 12 months and usually get it done by every 18 months. I like being a hands-off long term investor and this has proven often enough to beat the S&P500.\"","A strategy of rebalancing assumes that the business cycle will continue, that all bull and bear markets end eventually. Imagine that you maintained a 50% split between a US Treasury bond mutual fund (VUSTX) and an S&P 500 stock mutual fund (VFINX) beginning with a $10,000 investment in each on January 1, 2008, then on the first of each year you rebalanced your portfolio on the first of January (we can pretend the markets are open that day). The following table illustrates the values in each of those funds with the rebalancing transactions: This second table shows what that same money would look like without any rebalancing over those years: Obviously this is cherry-picking for the biggest drop we've recently experienced, but even if you skipped 2008 and 2009, the increase for a rebalanced portfolio from 2010-2017 is 85% verses 54% for the portfolio that is not being rebalanced in the same period. This is also a plenty conservative portfolio. You can see that a 100% stock portfolio dropped 40% in 2008, but the combined portfolio only dropped 18%. A 100% stock portfolio has gained 175% since 2009, compared to 105% for the balanced portfolio, but it's common to trade gains for safety as you get closer to retirement. You didn't ask about a 100% stock portfolio in your initial question. These results would be repeated in many other portfolio allocations because some asset classes outperform others one year, then underperform the next. You sell after the years it outperforms, then you buy after years that it underperforms.","\"An asset allocation formula is useful because it provides a way to manage risk. Rebalancing preserves your asset allocation. The investment risk of a well-diversified portfolio (with a few ETFs or mutual funds in there to get a wide range of stocks, bonds, and international exposure) is mostly proportional to the asset class distribution. If you started out with half-stocks and half-bonds, and stocks surged 100% over the past few years while bonds have stayed flat, then you may be left with (say) 66% stocks and 33% bonds. Your portfolio is now more vulnerable to future stock market drops (the risk associated with stocks). (Most asset allocation recommendations are a little more specific than a stock/bond split, but I'm sure you can get the idea.) Rebalancing can be profitable because it's a formulaic way to enforce you to \"\"buy low, sell high\"\". Massive recessions notwithstanding, usually not everything in your portfolio will rise and fall at the same time, and some are actually negatively correlated (that's one idea behind diversification, anyway). If your stocks have surged, chances are that bonds are cheaper. This doesn't always work (repeatedly transferring money from bonds into stocks while the market was falling in 2008-2009 could have lost you even more money). Also, if you rebalance frequently, you might incur expenses from the trading (depending on what sort of financial instrument you're holding). It may be more effective to simply channel new money into the sector that you're light on, and limit the major rebalancing of the portfolio so that it's just an occasional thing. Talk to your financial adviser. :)\"","\"Rebalancing is, simply, a way of making sure your risk/reward level is where you want it to be. Let's say you've decided that your optimal mix is 50% stocks and 50% bonds (or 50% US stocks, 50% international, or 30/30/30 US large-cap/US small-cap/US midcap...). So you buy $100 of each, but over time, the prices will of course fluctuate. At the end of the year, the odds that the ratio of the value of your investments is equal to the starting ratio is nil. So you rebalance to get your target mix again. Rebalance too often and you end up paying a lot in transaction fees. Rebalance not often enough and you end up running outsize risk. People who tell you that you should rebalance to make money, or use \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\" or think there is any upside to rebalancing outside of risk management are making assumptions about the market (mean regressing or some such thing) that generally you should avoid.\"","As mentioned by others, dollar cost averaging is just a fancy term for how many shares your individual purchases get when you are initially adding money to your investment accounts. Once the money is invested, annual or quarterly rebalancing serves the purpose of taking advantage of higher rates of growth in particular market sectors. You define the asset allocation based on your risk profile, time to retirement, etc., then you periodically sell the shares of the investments that have grown faster than the rest and buy more shares of the investments that are relatively cheaper.","Also, almost by definition rebalancing involves making more trades than you would have otherwise; wouldn't the additional trading fees you incurred in doing so reduce the benefits of this strategy? You forgot to mention taxes. Rebalancing does or rather can incur costs. One way to minimize the costs is to use the parts of the portfolio that have essentially zero cost of moving. These generally are the funds in your retirement accounts. In the United States they can be in IRAs or 401Ks; they can be regular or Roth. Selling winners withing the structure of the plan doesn't trigger capital gains taxes, and many have funds within them that have zero loads. Another way to reduce trading fees is to only rebalance once a year or once every two years; or by setting a limit on how far out of balance. For example don't rebalance at 61/39 to get back to 60/40 even if it has been two years. Given that the ratio of investments is often rather arbitrary to begin with, how do I know whether I'm selling high and buying low or just obstinately sticking with a losing asset ratio? The ratio used in an example or in an article may be arbitrary, but your desired ratio isn't arbitrary. You selected the ratio of your investments based on several criteria: your age, your time horizon, your goals for the money, how comfortable you are with risk. As these change during your investing career those ratios would also morph. But they aren't arbitrary. These decisions to rebalance are separate from the ones to sell a particular investment. You could sell Computer Company X because of how it is performing, and buy stock in Technology Company Y because you think it has a better chance of growing. That transaction would not be a re-balancing. Selling part of your stock in Domestic Company A to buy stock in international Company B would be part of a re-balancing.","Rebalancing your portfolio doesn't have to include selling. You could simply adjust your buying to keep your portfolio in balance. If you portfolio has shifted from 50% stocks and 50% bonds to 75% stocks and 25% bonds, you can just only use new savings to buy bonds, until you are back at 50-50. Remember to take into account taxes if you are thinking of selling to rebalance in taxable accounts. The goal of rebalancing is to keep your exposures the way that you want them. Assuming that you had a good reason to have a portfolio of 50% stocks and 50% bonds, you probably want to keep your portfolio similar in the future. If you end up with a portfolio of 75% stocks and 25% bonds due to stock market fluctuations, the exposure and the risk / return profile of your portfolio will have changed, and it's probably not something that you want. You don't want to rebalance just for the sake of rebalancing either. There can be costs to rebalancing (taxes, transaction fees, etc...) and these aren't always worth the effort. That's why you don't need to rebalance every month or if your portfolio has shifted from 50/50 to 51/49. I take a look at my portfolio once a year, and adjust my automated investments so that by the end of the next year I'm back to the ratio I want.","If you are making regular periodic investments (e.g. each pay period into a 401(k) plan) or via automatic investment scheme in a non-tax-deferred portfolio (e.g. every month, $200 goes automatically from your checking account to your broker or mutual fund house), then one way of rebalancing (over a period of time) is to direct your investment differently into the various accounts you have, with more going into the pile that needs bringing up, and less into the pile that is too high. That way, you can avoid capital gains or losses etc in doing the selling-off of assets. You do, of course, take longer to achieve the balance that you seek, but you do get some of the benefits of dollar-cost averaging.","From Vanguard's Best practices for portfolio rebalancing:","Rebalance is across asset-classes which are mutually independent [like stocks and bonds; they may be inversely correlated at times as when stocks go down, bonds go up] 80%-20% (stock-bond) split is good for a young investor [say in 30s, some suggest 110-age as a good stock allocation percentage]. Here rebalance is done when say the asset-allocation(AA) strays away more than say 3 to 5% (again just a rule of thumb). E.g. if due to a recent run-up in stocks, AA could become 85%-15%. Then you sell stocks to buy bonds to make the AA 80%-20% And since this method always sells the winner -- you automatically make gains [selling high and buying low] S&P 500 index gives decent diversification within stocks; you want a total-bond-fund to take care of the bond side of your AA.","\"To answer your question directly.. you can investigate by using google or other means to look up research done in this area. There's been a bunch of it Here's an example of search terms that returns a wealth of information. effect+of+periodic+rebalancing+on+portfolio+return I'd especially look for stuff that appears to be academic papers etc, and then raid the 'references' section of those. Look for stuff published in industry journals such as \"\"Journal of Portfolio Management\"\" as an example. If you want to try out different models yourself and see what works and what doesn't, this Monte Carlo Simulator might be something you would find useful The basic theory for those that don't know is that various parts of a larger market do not usually move in perfect lockstep, but go through cycles.. one year tech might be hot, the next year it's healthcare. Or for an international portfolio, one year korea might be doing fantastic only to slow down and have another country perform better the next year. So the idea of re-balancing is that since these things tend to be cyclic, you can get a higher return if you sell part of a slice that is doing well (e.g. sell at the high) and invest it in one that is not (buy at the low) Because you do this based on some criteria, it helps circumvent the human tendency to 'hold on to a winner too long' (how many times have you heard someone say 'but it's doing so well, why do I want to sell now\"\"? presuming trends will continue and they will 'lose out' on future gains, only to miss the peak and ride the thing down back into mediocrity.) Depending on the volatility of the specific market, and the various slices, using re balancing can get you a pretty reasonable 'lift' above the market average, for relatively low risk. generally the more volatile the market, (such as say an emerging markets portfolio) the more opportunity for lift. I looked into this myself a number of years back, the concensus I came was that the most effective method was to rebalance based on 'need' rather than time. Need is defined as one or more of the 'slices' in your portfolio being more than 8% above or below the average. So you use that as the trigger. How you rebalance depends to some degree on if the portfolio is taxable or not. If in a tax deferred account, you can simply sell off whatever is above baseline and use it to buy up the stuff that is below. If you are subject to taxes and don't want to trigger any short term gains, then you may have to be more careful in terms of what you sell. Alternatively if you are adding funds to the portfolio, you can alter how your distribute the new money coming into the portfolio in order to bring up whatever is below the baseline (which takes a bit more time, but incurs no tax hit) The other question is how will you slice a given market? by company size? by 'sectors' such as tech/finance/industrial/healthcare, by geographic regions?\"","When the market moves significantly, you should rebalance your investments to maintain the diversification ratios you have selected. That means if bonds go up and stocks go down, you sell bonds and buy stocks (to some degree), and vice versa. Sell high to buy low, and remember that over the long run most things regress to the mean.","You are very correct, rebalancing is basically selling off winners to buy losers. Of course the thinking is that selling a winner that has already increased 100% on the basis that it has doubled so it is likely to go down in the near future. However, just look at Apple as an example, if you bought Apple in June 2009 for $20 (adjusted price) and sold it as part of rebalancing when it rose to $40 (adjusted price) in September 2010, you would have missed out on it reaching over $95 2 years later. Similarly you look to rebalance by buying assets which have been battered (say dropped by 50%) on the basis that it has dropped so much that it should start increasing in the near future. But many times the price can fall even further. A better method would be to sell your winners when they stop being winners (i.e. their uptrend ends) and replace them with assets that are just starting their winning ways (i.e. their downtrend has ended and are now starting to Uptrend). This can be achieved by looking at price action and referring to the definitions of an uptrend and a downtrend. Definition of an uptrend - higher highs and higher lows. Definition of a downtrend - lower lows and lower highs.","This answer will assume you know more math than most. An ideal case: For the point of argument, first consider the following admittedly incorrect assumptions: 1) The prices of all assets in your investment universe are continuously differentiable functions of time. 2) Investor R (for rebalance) continuously buys and sells in order to maintain a constant proportion of each of several investments in his portfolio. 3) Investor P (for passive) starts with the same portfolio as R, but neither buys nor sells Then under the assumptions of no taxes or trading costs, it is a mathematical theorem that investor P's portfolio return fraction will be the weighted arithmetic mean of the return fractions of all the individual investments, whereas investor R will obtain the weighted geometric mean of the return fractions of the individual investments. It's also a theorem that the weighted arithmetic mean is ALWAYS greater than or equal to the weighted geometric mean, so regardless of what happens in the market (given the above assumptions) the passive investor P does at least as well as the rebalancing investor R. P will do even better if taxes and trading costs are factored in. The real world: Of course prices aren't continuously differentiable or even continuous, nor can you continuously trade. (Indeed, under such assumptions the optimal investing strategy would be to sample the prices sufficiently rapidly to capture the derivatives and then to move all your assets to the stock increasing at the highest relative rate. This crazy momentum trading would explosively destabilize the market and cause the assumptions to break.) The point of this is not to argue for or against rebalancing, but to point out that any argument for rebalancing which continues to hold under the above ideal assumptions is bogus. (Many such arguments do.) If a stockbroker standing to profit from commission pushes rebalancing on you with an argument that still holds under the above assumptions then he is profiting off of BS.","\"'Buy and Hold' Is Still a Winner: An investor who used index funds and stayed the course could have earned satisfactory returns even during the first decade of the 21st century. by By Burton G. Malkiel in The Wall Street Journal on November 18, 2010: \"\"The other useful technique is \"\"rebalancing,\"\" keeping the portfolio asset allocation consistent with the investor's risk tolerance. For example, suppose an investor was most comfortable choosing an initial allocation of 60% equities, 40% bonds. As stock and bond prices change, these proportions will change as well. Rebalancing involves selling some of the asset class whose share is above the desired allocation and putting the money into the other asset class. From 1996 through 1999, annually rebalancing such a portfolio improved its return by 1 and 1/3 percentage points per year versus a strategy of making no changes.\"\" Mr. Malkiel is a professor of economics at Princeton University. This op-ed was adapted from the upcoming 10th edition of his book \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street,\"\" out in December by W.W. Norton. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608623469465624.html\"","\"Having cash and bonds in your portfolio isn't just about balancing out the risk and volatility inherent in equities. Consider: If you are 100% invested in equities and the market declines by 30%, you'll be hard pressed to come up with additional money to \"\"buy low\"\". You'll miss out on the rebalancing bonus. But, if you make a point of keeping some portion of your portfolio in cash and bonds, then when the market has such a decline (and it will), you'll be able to rebalance your portfolio back to target weights — i.e. redeploy some of your cash and bonds into equities to take advantage of the lower prices.\"","\"Rebalancing has been studied empirically quite a bit, but not particularly carefully and actually turns out to be very hard to study well. The main problem is that you don't know until afterward if your target weights were optimal so a bad rebalancing program might give better performance if it strayed closer to optimal weights even if it didn't do an efficient job of keeping near the target weights. In your particular case either method might be preferred depending on a number of things: You can see why there isn't a generally correct answer to your question and the results of empirical studies might very wildly depending on the mix of assets and risk tolerance. Still if your portfolio is not too complicated you can estimate the costs of the two methods without too much trouble and figure out if it is worthwhile to you. EDIT In Response to Comment Below: Your example gets at what makes rebalancing so hard empirically but also generally pretty easy in practice. If you were to target 75% Equity (25% bonds?) and look at returns only for 30 years the \"\"best\"\" rebalancing method would be to never rebalance and just let 75% equity go to near 100% as equity has better long term returns. This happens when you look only at returns as the final number and don't take into account the change in risk in your portfolio. In practice, most people that are still adding (or subtracting in retirement) to a retirement portfolio are adding (removing) a significant amount compared to the total amount in their portfolio. In the case you discribe, it is cheaper (massively cheaper in the presence of load fees) just to use new capital to trade toward your target, keeping your risk profile. New money should be large enough to keep you near enough your target. If you just estimate the trading costs/fees in both cases I think you'll see just how large the difference is between the two methods this will dwarf any small differences in return over the long run even if you can't trade back all the way to your target.\"","On what basis did you do your initial allocation of funds to each stock? If you are 're-balancing' that implies returning things to their initial allocation. You can do this without any research or recommendations. If you started out with say 10 stocks and 10% of the funds allocated to each stock, then re-balancing would simply be either buying/selling to return to that initial allocation. If you are contributing to the portfolio you could adjust where the new money goes to re-balance without selling. Or if you are drawing money from the portfolio, then you could adjust what you are selling. If on the other hand you are trying to decide if you want to alter the stocks the portfolio is HOLDING, then you have an entirely different question from 're-balancing'","There will quickly come a time when buying to rebalance is impractical. Consider, you save 10%, and at some point, you have 5x your income saved. (you earn $50K and have accumulated $250K). A simple allocation, 50/50, so $125K stock, $125K bonds. Now, in a year the market is up much over 4%, your $5K deposit will not be enough to balance. Earlier on, the method may work just fine, later on, not so much. Edit - The above is an example, to show that there will come a time when deposits are not enough to rebalance. The above single year produces a 52/48 split, and the rebalance deposits more than 2 years. If the market continues to rise a reasonable amount, 2 years later you are even more out of balance, perhaps 56/44. I chose reasonable numbers as a starting point, just 5X income saved, and a 10% annual deposit. In the end, you can waive off any divergence from your target. That's your choice.","\"This paper by a Columbia business school professor says: The standard 60%/40% strategy outperforms a 100% bond or 100% stock strategy over the 1926-1940 period (Figure 5) and over the 1990-2011 period (Figure 6). This is based on actual market data from those periods. You can see the figures in the PDF. These are periods of 14 and 21 years, which is perhaps shorter than the amount of time money would sit in your IRA, but still a fairly long time. The author goes on with a lot of additional discussion and claims that \"\"under certain conditions, rebalancing will always outperform a buy-and-hold portfolio given sufficient time\"\". Of course, there are also many periods over which a given asset mix would underperform, so there are no guarantees here. I read your question as asking \"\"is there any data suggesting that rebalancing a diversified portfolio can outperform an all-in-one-asset-class portfolio\"\". There is some such data. However, if you're asking which investing strategy you should actually choose, you'd want to look at a lot of data on both sides. You're unlikely to find data that \"\"proves\"\" anything conclusively either way. It should also be noted that the rebalancing advantage described here (and in your question) is not specific to bonds. For instance, in theory, rebalancing between US and international stocks could show a similar advantage over an all-US or all-non-US portfolio. The paper contains a lot of additional discussion about rebalancing. It seems that your question is really about whether rebalancing a diverse portfolio is better than going all-in with one asset class, and this question is touched on throughout the paper. The author mentions that diversification and rebalancing strategies should be chosen not solely for their effect on mathematically-calculated returns, but for their match with your psychological makeup and tolerance for risk.\"","Note that if 1) The stock prices are continuously differentiable (they aren't) 2) You rebalance continuously in the absence of trading fees and taxes then the return fraction (future price / original price) will be the geometric mean of the return fractions for each investment. If you don't rebalance then the return fraction will be the arithmetic mean. But the arithmetic mean is ALWAYS greater than or equal to the geometric mean, so continuous rebalancing in the case of continuously differentiable prices will always hurt you, even abscent trading costs/taxes. Any argument in favor of blind rebalancing which does not somehow fail in the continuously differentiable case is simply wrong. See https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/38536036/to%20karim.pdf -JT","\"If you want to make a profit from long term trading (whatever \"\"long term\"\" means for you), the best strategy is to let the good performers in your portfolio run, and cull the bad ones. Of course that strategy is hard to follow, unless you have the perfect foresight to know exactly how long your best performing investments will continue to outperform the market, but markets don't always follow the assumption that perfect information is available to all participants, and hence \"\"momentum\"\" has a real-world effect on prices, whether or not some theorists have chosen to ignore it. But a fixed strategy of \"\"daily rebalancing\"\" does exactly the opposite of the above - it continuously reduces the holdings of good performers and increases the holdings of bad. If this type of rebalancing is done more frequently than the constituents of benchmark index are adjusted, it is very likely to underperform the index in the long term. Other issues in a \"\"real world\"\" market are the impact of increased dealing costs on smaller parcels of securities, and the buy/sell spreads incurred in the daily rebalancing trades. If the market is up and down 1% on alternate days with no long tern trend, quite likely the fund will be repeatedly buying and selling small parcels of the same stocks to do its daily balancing.\"","\"There are ways to mitigate, but since you're not protected by a tax-deferred/advantaged account, the realized income will be taxed. But you can do any of the followings to reduce the burden: Prefer selling either short positions that are at loss or long positions that are at gain. Do not invest in stocks, but rather in index funds that do the rebalancing for you without (significant) tax impact on you. If you are rebalancing portfolio that includes assets that are not stocks (real-estate, mainly) consider performing 1031 exchanges instead of plain sale and re-purchase. Maximize your IRA contributions, even if non-deductible, and convert them to Roth IRA. Hold your more volatile investments and individual stocks there - you will not be taxed when rebalancing. Maximize your 401K, HSA, SEP-IRA and any other tax-advantaged account you may be eligible for. On some accounts you'll pay taxes when withdrawing, on others - you won't. For example - Roth IRA/401k accounts are not taxed at all when withdrawing qualified distributions, while traditional IRA/401k are taxed as ordinary income. During the \"\"low income\"\" years, consider converting portions of traditional accounts to Roth.\"","\"It's a trade-off. The answer depends on your risk tolerance. Seeking higher rewards demands higher risk. If you want advice, I would recommend hiring an expert to design a plan which meets your needs. As a sample point, NOT necessarily right for anyone else...I'm considered an aggressive investor, and my own spread is still more conservative than many folks. I'm entirely in low-cost index funds, distributed as ... with the money tied up in a \"\"quiesced\"\" defined-contribution pension fund being treated as a low-yield bond. Some of these have beaten the indexes they're tracking, some haven't. My average yield since I started investing has been a bit over 10%/year (not including the company match on part of the 401k), which I consider Good Enough -- certainly good enough for something that requires near-zero attention from me. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance. This may be completely wrong for someone at a different point in their career and/or life and/or finances. I'm posting it only as an example, NOT a recommendation. Regarding when to rebalance: Set some threshhold at which things have drifted too far from your preferred distribution (value of a fund being 5% off its target percentage in the mix is one rule I've sometimes used), and/or pick some reasonable (usually fairly low) frequency at which you'll actively rebalance (once a year, 4x/year, whenever you change your car's oil, something like that), and/or rebalance by selecting which funds you deposit additional money into whenever you're adding to the investments. Note that that last option avoids having to take capital gains, which is generally a good thing; you want as much of your profit to be long-term as possible, and to avoid triggering the \"\"wash sales\"\" rule. Generally, you do not have to rebalance very frequently unless you are doing something that I'd consider unreasonably risky, or unless you're managing such huge sums that a tiny fraction of a percent still adds up to real money.\"","\"In a comment you say, if the market crashes, doesn't \"\"regress to the mean\"\" mean that I should still expect 7% over the long run? That being the case, wouldn't I benefit from intentionally unbalancing my portfolio and going all in on equities? I can can still rebalance using new savings. No. Regress to the mean just tells you that the future rate is likely to average 7%. The past rate and the future rate are entirely unconnected. Consider a series: The running average is That running average is (slowly) regressing to the long term mean without ever a member of the series being above 7%. Real markets actually go farther than this though. Real value may be increasing by 7% per year, but prices may move differently. Then market prices may revert to the real value. This happened to the S&P 500 in 2000-2002. Then the market started climbing again in 2003. In your system, you would have bought into the falling markets of 2001 and 2002. And you would have missed the positive bond returns in those years. That's about a -25% annual shift in returns on that portion of your portfolio. Since that's a third of your portfolio, you'd have lost 8% more than with the balanced strategy each of those two years. Note that in that case, the market was in an over-valued bubble. The bubble spent three years popping and overshot the actual value. So 2003 was a good year for stocks. But the three year return was still -11%. In retrospect, investors should have gone all in on bonds before 2000 and switched back to stocks for 2003. But no one knew that in 2000. People in the know actually started backing off in 1998 rather than 2000 and missed out on the tail end of the bubble. The rebalancing strategy automatically helps with your regression to the mean. It sells expensive bonds and buys cheaper stocks on average. Occasionally it sells modest priced bonds and buys over-priced stocks. But rarely enough that it is a better strategy overall. Incidentally, I would consider a 33% share high for bonds. 30% is better. And that shouldn't increase as you age (less than 30% bonds may be practical when you are young enough). Once you get close to retirement (five to ten years), start converting some of your savings to cash equivalents. The cash equivalents are guaranteed not to lose value (but might not gain much). This gives you predictable returns for your immediate expenses. Once retired, try to keep about five years of expenses in cash equivalents. Then you don't have to worry about short term market fluctuations. Spend down your buffer until the market catches back up. It's true that bonds are less volatile than stocks, but they can still have bad years. A 70%/30% mix of stocks/bonds is safer than either alone and gives almost as good of a return as stocks alone. Adding more bonds actually increases your risk unless you carefully balance them with the right stocks. And if you're doing that, you don't need simplistic rules like a 70%/30% balance.\"","In your entire question, the only time you mention that this is an investment inside an IRA is when you say Every quarter, six months, whatever Id have to rebalance my IRA while Vanguard would do this for the fund of funds without me needing to. Within an IRA, there are no tax implications to the rebalancing. But if this investment were not inside an IRA, then the rebalancing done by you will have tax implications. In particular, any gains realized when you sell shares in one fund and buy shares in another fund during the rebalancing process are subject to income tax. Similarly, losses also might be realized (and will affect your taxes). However, if you are invested in a fund of funds, there are no capital gains (or capital losses) when re-balancing is done; you have gains or losses only when you sell shares of the fund of funds for a price different than the price you paid for them.","If the portfolio itself is taxable, then yes; if you have two stocks and you're rebalancing them, without using new cash, you are forced to sell one stock to buy another. That sale is taxable, unless you're in some sort of tax deferred/deductible account, such as an IRA. If you're talking about you being in a mutual fund and the fund itself rebalances, the same rules apply as above, though indirectly; you'll have capital gains realized and distributed to you, those gains will be taxed unless, again, your account is a retirement account.","R has really good package that lets you calculate the return of rebalanced portfolios. The package is called: PerformanceAnalytics (see: http://www.inside-r.org/packages/cran/PerformanceAnalytics/docs/Return.portfolio). I quickly wrote a small script for you that lets you do exactly what you want. Code: By default the portfolio is rebalanced to an equally weighted portfolio. It is also possible to rebalance your portfolio using custom weights. See the documentation on how to do this. In order for this code to work you need to have your data already in return terms. You can do this easily in Excel. Make sure your data in excel looks like this: Than export your data to a CSV file. Note: before you run the code make sure you have installed the package PerformanceAnalytics. You can do this as follows: Let me know if you have any questions regarding the above.","Fund rebalancing typically refers to changing the investment mix to stay within the guidelines of the mutual fund objective. For example, lets say a fund is supposed to have at least 20% in bonds. Because of a dramatic increase in stock price and decrease in bond values it finds itself with only 19.9% in bonds at the end of the trading day. The fund manager would sell sufficient equities to reduce its equity holdings and buy more bonds. Rebalancing is not always preferential because it could cause capital gain distribution, typically once per year, without selling the fund. And really any trading within the fun could do the same. In the case you cite the verbiage is confusing. Often times I wonder if the author knows less then the reader. It might also be a bit of a rush to get the article out, and the author did not write correctly. I agree that the ETFs cited are suitable for short term traders. However, that is because, traditionaly, the market has increased in value over the long term. If you bet it will go down over the long term, you are almost certain to lose money. Like you, I cannot figure out how rebalancing makes this suitable only for short term traders. If the ETFs distribute capital gains events much more frequently then once per year, that is worth mentioning, but does not provide a case for short versus long term traders. Secondly, I don't think these funds are doing true rebalancing. They might change investments daily for the most likely profitable outcome, but that really isn't rebalancing. It seems the author is confused.","Personally I'm not a huge fan of rebalancing within an asset class. I would vote for leaving the HD shares alone and buying other assets until you get to the portfolio you want. Frequent buying and selling incurs costs and possible tax consequences that can really hurt your returns.","Yes, the larger number of ETFs will have a greater chance of enhancing the effect you observe. It's beyond a simple discussion, but the bottom line is that by carving out the different market segments your rebalancing will have greater impact.","\"In theory, investing is not gambling because the expected outcome is not random; people are expecting positive returns, on average, with some relationship to risk undertaken and economic reality. (More risk = more returns.) Historically this is true on average, that assets have positive returns, and riskier assets have higher returns. Also it's true that stock market gains roughly track economic growth. Valuation (current price level relative to \"\"fundamentals\"\") matters - reversion to the mean does exist over a long enough time. Given a 7-10 year horizon, a lot of the variance in ending price level can be explained by valuation at the start of the period. On average over time, business profits have to vary around a curve that's related to the overall economy, and equity prices should reflect business profits. The shorter the horizon, the more random noise. Even 1 year is pretty short in this respect. Bubbles do exist, as do irrational panics, and milder forms of each. Investing is not like a coin flip because the current total number of heads and tails (current valuation) does affect the probability of future outcomes. That said, it's pretty hard to predict the timing, or the specific stocks that will do well, etc. Rebalancing gives you an objective, automated, unemotional way to take advantage of all the noise around the long-term trend. Rather than trying to use judgment to identify when to get in and out, with rebalancing (and dollar cost averaging) you guarantee getting in a bit more when things are lower, and getting out a bit more when things are higher. You can make money from prices bouncing around even if they end up going nowhere and even if you can't predict the bouncing. Here are a couple old posts from my blog that talk about this a little more:\"","Yes, rebalancing with new money avoids capital gains taxes and loads (although if you're financially literate enough to be thinking about rebalancing techniques, I'm surprised to hear that you're invested in funds with loads). On the other hand, if it's taking you years to rebalance, then: (a) you are not rebalancing anywhere near frequently enough. Rebalancing should be something you do every 6 months or 1 year, such that it would take only a few weeks or maybe a month of new investment to get back in balance. (b) you will be out-of-balance for quite a long time, while the whole point of the theory of rebalancing is to always be mathematically prepared for swings in the market. Any time spent out of balance represents that much more risk that an unexpected market move can seriously hurt your portfolio. You should weigh the time it will take you to rebalance the long way (i.e. the risk cost of not rebalancing immediately) vs. the taxes and fees involved in rebalancing quickly. If you had said that it would take you only a couple weeks or a month to rebalance the long way, I would say that the long way is fine. But the prospect of spending years without a balanced portfolio seems far more costly to me than any expenses you might incur rebalancing quickly. Since it's almost the end of the calendar year, have you considered doing two quick rebalances, one this year, and another in January? That way half of the tax consequences would happen in April, and the other half not until the next April, giving you plenty of time to scrounge up the money. Also, even if you have no capital losses this year with which to offset some of your expected capital gains, you would have all of next year to harvest some losses against next year's half of the rebalancing gains.","You may want to move money between your investments within the plan, rebalancing money to maintain your diversification. You don't have to deal with the details if selling and buying, just tell them how much to move where. Many plans offer investments that automatically rebalance for you such as Target Date accounts. You may be able to select one of those and just ignore the 401k until retirement, or at most rebalance even less often. Look at what's offered, look at what it costs as fees, run the numbers and decide whether you can do better.","\"There's nothing to rebalance, the index fund rebalances itself to continue matching the index. However, you need to understand that such an investment is not diversified and you only invest in a very specific market, and very specific stocks on that market. S&P 500 is large (500 different companies, most of the time), but still not as broadly diversified as your retirement investment portfolio should be. You should talk to a financial adviser (CFP for example), many companies provide access to these for 401k plan participants. But in any case, I'd suggest considering \"\"target date\"\" funds - funds that are investing based on your expected retirement year, and become more conservative as you get closer to that year.\"","You will have to rebalance every time your Boolean Buy flag is true. You buy 20% of each fund then next week you have to sell down to 10% of your first 5 funds and buy 10% of the second 5.","\"The way I've implemented essentially \"\"value averaging\"\", is to keep a constant ratio between different investment types in my portfolio. Lets say (in a simple example), 25% cash, 25% REIT (real estate), 25% US Stock, 25% Foreign stock. Lets say I deposit a set $1000 per month into this account. If the stock portion goes up, it will look like I need more cash & REIT, so all of that $1000 goes into cash & the REIT portion to get them towards their 25%. I may spend months investing only in cash & the REIT while the stock goes up. Of course if the stock goes down, that $1000 per month goes into the stock accounts. Now you can also balance your account if you'd like, regularly selling stock (or the REIT), and making the account balanced. So if the stock goes down, you'd use the cash & REIT to purchase more stock. If the stock went up, you'd sell the stock, and buy REIT & leave more in cash.\"","You need to look at all your investment as a whole. The 401K, IRA, and any taxable account need to be a part of the diversification and re-balancing. The fact you have regular deposits into the 401K needs to also be a part of your strategy. Regardless of how much specific investments have gone up this year, you need to first determine how you want to be invested in large cap stock, small cap stock, bond, international, emerging markets... Then you need to see where you are today compared to those investment percentages. You then move the money in the retirement accounts to get to your desired percentage. And set the 401K deposits to be consistent with your goals. Many times the deposits are allocated the same way the balances are, but that is more complex if one of the sectors you are investing in exists completely outside the 401K. When you re-balance in the future you will be selling sectors that grew the most and buying those that grew the least compared to their planned percentages. If all the moves are within the 401K and IRA then capital gains are not a concern. Don't think of the different accounts as separate baskets, but think of them as a whole investment strategy.","While it is certainly easy to manage single fund, I am not sure it's the right strategy. It's been proven again and again that portfolio diversification is key to long term gains in wealth. I think your best option is to invest in low cost index funds and ETFs. While rebalancing your portfolio is hard, it is vastly simpler if your portfolio only has ETFs.","Dollar cost averaging is an great way to diversify your investment risk. There's mainly 2 things you want to achieve when you're saving for retirement: 1) Keep your principal investment; 2) Grow it. The best methods recommended by most financial institutions are as follows: 1) Diversification; 2) Re-balance. There are a lot of additional recommendations, but these are my main take away. When you dollar cost average, you're essentially diversifying your exchange risk between the value of the funds you're investing. Including the ups and downs of the value of the underlying asset, may actually be re-balancing. Picking your asset portfolio: 1) You generally want to include within your 401k or any other invest, classes of investments that do not always move in total correlation as this allows you to diversify risk; 2) I'm making a lot of assumptions here - since you may have already picked your asset classes. Consider utilizing the following to tell you when to buy or sell your underlying investment: 1) Google re-balance excel sheet to find several examples of re-balance tools to help you always buy low and sell high; 2) Enter your portfolio investment; 3) Utilize the movement to invest in the underlying assets based on market movement; and 4) Execute in an emotionless way and stick to your plan. Example - Facts 1) I have 1 CAD and 1 USD in my 401k. Plan I will invest 1 dollar in the ratio of 50/50 - forever. Let's start in 2011 since we were closer to par: 2010 - 1 CAD (value 1 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 50/50 ratio 2011 start - 1 CAD ( value .8 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 40/60 ratio 2011 - rebalance - invest 1 USD as follows purchase .75 CAD (.60 USD) and purchase .40 USD = total of 1 USD reinvested 2011 end - 1.75 CAD (value 1.4USD) and 1.4 USD (value 1.4 USD) - 50/50 ratio As long as the fundamentals of your underlying assets (i.e. you're not expecting hyperinflation or your asset to approach 0), this approach will always build value over time since you're always buying low and selling high while dollar averaging. Keep in mind it does reduce your potential gains - but if you're looking to max gain, it may mean you're also max potential loss - unless you're able to find A symmetrical investments. I hope this helps.","Now, if I'm not mistaken, tracking a value-weighted index is extremely easy - just buy the shares in the exact amount they are in the index and wait. Yes in theory. In practise this is difficult. Most funds that track S&P do it on sample basis. This is to maintain the fund size. Although I don't have / know the exact number ... if one wants to replicate the 500 stocks in the same %, one would need close to billion in fund size. As funds are not this large, there are various strategies adopted, including sampling of companies [i.e. don't buy all]; select a set of companies that mimic the S&P behaviour, etc. All these strategies result in tracking errors. There are algorithms to reduce this. The only time you would need to rebalance your holdings is when there is a change in the index, i.e. a company is dropped and a new one is added, right? So essentially rebalance is done to; If so, why do passive ETFs require frequent rebalancing and generally lose to their benchmark index? lets take an Index with just 3 companies, with below price. The total Market cap is 1000 The Minimum required to mimic this index is 200 or Multiples of 200. If so you are fine. More Often, funds can't be this large. For example approx 100 funds track the S&P Index. Together they hold around 8-10% of Market Cap. Few large funds like Vangaurd, etc may hold around 2%. But most of the 100+ S&P funds hold something in 0.1 to 0.5 range. So lets say a fund only has 100. To maintain same proportion it has to buy shares in fraction. But it can only buy shares in whole numbers. This would then force the fund manager to allocate out of proportion, some may remain cash, etc. As you can see below illustrative, there is a tracking error. The fund is not truly able to mimic the index. Now lets say after 1st April, the share price moved, now this would mean more tracking error if no action is taken [block 2] ... and less tracking error if one share of company B is sold and one share of company C is purchased. Again the above is a very simplified view. Tracking error computation is involved mathematics. Now that we have the basic concepts, more often funds tracking S&P; Thus they need to rebalance.","\"You should establish a strategy -- eg a specific mix of investments/funds which has the long-term tradeofv of risk, returns, and diversification you want -- and stick to that strategy, rebalancing periodically to maintain your strategic ratios betwedn those investments. Yes, that means you will somettimes sell things that have been doing well and buy others that have been doing less well -- but that's to be expected; it's exactly what happens when you \"\"buy low, sell high\"\".\"","\"The goal of the single-fund with a retirement date is that they do the rebalancing for you. They have some set of magic ratios (specific to each fund) that go something like this: Note: I completely made up those numbers and asset mix. When you invest in the \"\"Mutual-Fund Super Account 2025 fund\"\" you get the benefit that in 2015 (10 years until retirement) they automatically change your asset mix and when you hit 2025, they do it again. You can replace the functionality by being on top of your rebalancing. That being said, I don't think you need to exactly match the fund choices they provide, just research asset allocation strategies and remember to adjust them as you get closer to retirement.\"","I really like keshlam's answer. Your age is also a consideration. If you make your own target fund by matching the allocations of whatever Vanguard offers, I'd suggest re-balancing every year or every other year. But if you're just going to match the allocations of their target fund, you might as well just invest in the target fund itself. Most (not all, just most) target funds do not charge an additional management fee. So you just pay the fees of the underlying funds, same as if you mirrored the target fund yourself. (Check the prospectus to see if an additional fee is charged or not.) You may want to consider a more aggressive approach than the target funds. You can accomplish this by selecting a target fund later than your actual retirement age, or by picking your own allocations. The target funds become more conservative as you approach retirement age, so selecting a later target is a way of moving the risk/reward ratio. (I'm not saying target funds are necessarily the best choice, you should get professional advice, etc etc.)","\"Target Date Funds automatically change their diversification balance over time, rebalancing and reassigning new contributions to become progressively more protective of what you've already earned. (As opposed to other funds which continue to maintain the same balance of investments until you explicitly move the money around.) You can certainly make that same evolution manually; we all used to do that before target funds were made available, and many of us still do so. I'm still handling the relative allocations by hand. But I'm also close to my retirement target, so a target fund wouldn't be changing that much more anyway, and since I'm already tracking the curve... Note that if you feel a bit braver, or a bit more cautious, than the \"\"average investor\"\" the target fund was designed for, you can tweak the risk/benefit curve of a Target Date Fund by selecting a fund with a target date a bit later or earlier, respectively, than the date at which you intend to start pulling money back out of the fund.\"","\"Doesn't \"\"no rebalancing\"\" mean \"\"start with a portfolio and let it fly?\"\" Seems like incorporation of rebalancing is more sophisticated than not. Just \"\"buy\"\" your portfolio at the start and see where it ends up with no buying/selling, as compared with where it ends up if you do rebalance. Or is it not that simple?\"","\"My answer is Microsoft Excel. Google \"\"VBA for dummies\"\" (seriously) and find out if your brokerage offers an 'API'. With a brief understanding of coding you can get a spreadsheet that is live connected to your brokers data stream. Say you have a spreadsheet with the 1990 value of each in the first two columns (cells a1 and b1). Maybe this formula could be the third column, it'll tell you how much to buy or sell to rebalance them. then to iterate the rebalance, set both a2 and b2 to =C1 and drag the formula through row 25, one row for each year. It'll probably be a little more work than that, but you get the idea.\"","I wrote a detailed article on Tax Loss Harvesting to show the impact on returns. For my example, I showed a person in the 15% bracket. In years with no loss, they trade to capture gains at 0% long term rate, thus bumping their basis up. In years with losses, they tax harvest for a 15% effective 'rebate' on that loss. I showed how for the lost decade 2000-2009, a buy and hold would have returned -1% CAGR, but the tax loss harvester would have gained 1% (just 1% for the decade, not CAGR), ending the decade with no loss. As one's portfolio grows, the math changes. You can only take $3000 capital loss against ordinary income, and my example relies on the difference between taking a gain for free but using a loss to offset income. Note, the higher earner would take gains at 15%, but losses at 25%, but only for the relatively small portfolio. The benefit for them is to use loss harvesting to offset gains, less so for ordinary income. As the other answer state, Wealthfront can aid you to do this with no math on your part.","They can rebalance and often times at a random manager's discretion. ETF's are just funds, and funds all have their own conditions, read the prospectus, thats the only source of truth.","The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. - Twain I use index funds in my retirement planning, but don't stick to just S&P 500 index funds. Suppose I balance my money 50/50 between Small Cap and Large Cap and say I have $10,000. I'd buy $5,000 of an S&P Index fund and $5,000 of a Russell 2000 index fund. Now, fast forward a year. Suppose the S&P Index fund has $4900 and the Russell Index fund has $5200. Sell $150 of Russell Index Fund and buy $150 of S&P 500 Index funds to balance. Repeat that activity every 12-18 months. This lets you be hands off (index fund-style) on your investment choices but still take advantage of great markets. This way, I can still rebalance to sell high and buy low, but I'm not stressing about an individual stock or mutual fund choice. You can repeat this model with more categories, I chose two for the simplicity of explaining.","\"Do not reinvent the wheel! Historical data about stock market returns and standard deviations suffer from number of issues such as past-filling and mostly survivorship bias -- that the current answers do not consider at all. I suggest to read the paper \"\"A Century of Global Stock Markets\"\" by Philippe Jorion (UC Irvine) and William Goetzmann (Yale), here. William Bernstein comments the results here, notice that rebalancing is sometimes a good option but not always, his non-obvious finding where the low SD did not favour from rebalancing: Look at the final page of the paper, \"\"geometric returns -- represent returns to a buy-and-hold strategy\"\" and the \"\"arithmetic averages -- give equal weight to each observation interval.\"\", where you can find your asked \"\"historical effect of Rebalancing on Return and Standard Deviation\"\". The paper nicely summarizes the results to this table: The results in the table are from the interval 1921-1996, it is not that long-time but even longer term data has its own drawbacks. The starting year 1921 is interesting choice because it is around the times of social-economical changes and depressing moments, historical context can be realized from books such as Grapes Of Wrath (short summary here, although fiction to some extent, it has some resonance to the history). The authors have had to ignore some years because of different reasons such as political unrest and wars. Instead of delving into marketed spam as suggested by one reply, I would look into this search here. Look at the number of references and the related papers to judge their value. P.s. I encourage people to attack my open question here, hope we can solve it!\"","With robo-advisor services, you don't select which funds you buy or sell. All you do is decide on a risk profile, and when you add or remove funds to your account, they decide what to buy or sell based on that profile. Each service might decide how to do this differently. Looking at Betterment's case, it looks like they try to do rebalancing when you buy. So if you put a deposit in each month, they'll buy the lower priced funds to rebalance your account to the desired ratio. In a taxable account, Betterment likes to optimize your tax liability when you withdraw, so they sell the funds that have lost money before they sell the ones that have gained.","The idea is you would also have a cash allowance in the portfolio originally - say 25%. So in this scenario, 375K in stock and 125k in cash. and assuming the goal is 1K increase in stock value you would buy 38.5K of stock at the now lower price.","\"If the stock market dropped 30%-40% next month, providing you with a rare opportunity to buy stocks at a deep discount, wouldn't you want to have some of your assets in investments other than stocks? If you don't otherwise have piles of new cash to throw into the market when it significantly tanks, then having some of your portfolio invested elsewhere will enable you to back up the proverbial truck and load up on more stocks while they are on sale. I'm not advocating active market timing. Rather, the way that long-term investors capitalize on such opportunities is by choosing a portfolio asset allocation that includes some percentage of safer assets (e.g. cash, short term bonds, etc.), permitting the investor to rebalance the portfolio periodically back to target allocations (e.g. 80% stocks, 20% bonds.) When rebalancing would have you buy stocks, it's usually because they are on sale. Similarly, when rebalancing would have you sell stocks, it's usually because they are overpriced. So, don't consider \"\"safer investments\"\" strictly as a way to reduce your risk. Rather, they can give you the means to take advantage of market drops, rather than just riding it out when you are already 100% invested in stocks. I could say a lot more about diversification and risk reduction, but there are plenty of other great questions on the site that you can look through instead.\"","SPY is up 29% YTD. If you are 100% S&P and not up 28.9% plus your deposits, I'd be concerned — check your fund's management fees. Are you calling a top? Proper asset allocation would adjust holding on a regular basis. At the simplest level, say 70% S&P 30% short term/bond fund. It's time to re-adjust to the mix that's right for you, and not market-time. If 2014 sees a huge drop, the re-allocation to 70/30 buys back in at a lower price. If up again, a bit gets shifted out. Last, it makes sense for your deposits to match your allocation split, to lessen the divergence from your target numbers. Note: Asset allocation is a bit more complex than I just described. A good thing to research a bit. (Happy to see someone edit a couple good references here, especially if they aren't looking to offer a full response.) Here are a few choice questions on this site that are related to asset allocation:","The benefit of the 401K and IRAs are that reallocating and re balancing are easy. They don't want you to move the funds every day, but you are not locked in to your current allocations. The fact that you mentioned in a comment that you also have a Roth IRA means that you should look at all retirements as a whole. Look at what options you have in the 401K and also what options you have with the IRA. Then determine the overall allocation between bonds, stocks, international, REIT, etc. Then use the mix of funds in the IRA and 401K to meet that goal. Asking if the 401K should be small and mid cap only can't be answered without knowing not just your risk tolerances but the total money in the 401K and IRA. Pick an allocation, map the available funds to that allocation. Rebalance every year. But review the allocation in a few years or after a life event such as: change of job, getting married, having kids, or buying a house.","\"Investing is always a matter of balancing risk vs reward, with the two being fairly strongly linked. Risk-free assets generally keep up with inflation, if that; these days advice is that even in retirement you're going to want something with better eturns for at least part of your portfolio. A \"\"whole market\"\" strategy is a reasonable idea, but not well defined. You need to decide wheher/how to weight stocks vs bonds, for example, and short/long term. And you may want international or REIT in the mix; again the question is how much. Again, the tradeoff is trying to decide how much volatility and risk you are comfortable with and picking a mix which comes in somewhere around that point -- and noting which assets tend to move out of synch with each other (stock/bond is the classic example) to help tune that. The recommendation for higher risk/return when you have a longer horizon before you need the money comes from being able to tolerate more volatility early on when you have less at risk and more time to let the market recover. That lets you take a more aggressive position and, on average, ger higher returns. Over time, you generally want to dial that back (in the direction of lower-risk if not risk free) so a late blip doesn't cause you to lose too much of what you've already gained... but see above re \"\"risk free\"\". That's the theoretical answer. The practical answer is that running various strategies against both historical data and statistical simulations of what the market might do in the future suggests some specific distributions among the categories I've mentioned do seem to work better than others. (The mix I use -- which is basically a whole-market with weighting factors for the categories mentioned above -- was the result of starting with a general mix appropriate to my risk tolerance based on historical data, then checking it by running about 100 monte-carlo simulations of the market for the next 50 years.)\"","Ben Miller's answer is very thorough, and I up voted it. I believe that the ability to rebalance without tax implications is very import, but there are two aspects of the question that were not covered: The 401K in many cases comes with a company match. Putting enough money into the fund each year to maximize the match, give you free money that is not available in the non-retirement accounts. The presence of that match is to encourage employees to contribute: even if they are tying up their funds until retirement age; and they are into a plan with only a handful of investment options; and they may have higher expenses in the 401K. The question also had a concern about the annual limits for the 401K (18,000) and the IRA (5,500). The use of a retirement account doesn't in any way limit your ability to invest in non-retirement accounts. You can choose to invest from 0 to 23,500 in the retirement accounts and from 0 to unlimited into the non-retirement accounts. Double those amounts if you are married.","\"A diversified portfolio (such as a 60% stocks / 40% bonds balanced fund) is much more predictable and reliable than an all-stocks portfolio, and the returns are perfectly adequate. The extra returns on 100% stocks vs. 60% are 1.2% per year (historically) according to https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations To get those average higher stock returns, you need to be thinking 20-30 years (even 10 years is too short-term). Over the 20-30 years, you must never panic and go to cash, or you will destroy the higher returns. You must never get discouraged and stop saving, or you will destroy the higher returns. You have to avoid the panic and discouragement despite the likelihood that some 10-year period in your 20-30 years the stock market will go nowhere. You also must never have an emergency or other reason to withdraw money early. If you look at \"\"dry periods\"\" in stocks, like 2000 to 2011, a 60/40 portfolio made significant money and stocks went nowhere. A diversified portfolio means that price volatility makes you money (due to rebalancing) while a 100% stocks portfolio means that price volatility is just a lot of stress with no benefit. It's somewhat possible, probably, to predict dry periods in stocks; if I remember the statistics, about 50% of the variability in the market price 10 years out can be explained by normalized market valuation (normalized = adjusted for business cycle and abnormal profit margins). Some funds such as http://hussmanfunds.com/ are completely based on this, though a lot of money managers consider it. With a balanced portfolio and rebalancing, though, you don't have to worry about it very much. In my view, the proper goal is not to beat the market, nor match the market, nor is it to earn the absolute highest possible returns. Instead, the goal is to have the highest chance of financing your non-financial goals (such as retirement, or buying a house). To maximize your chances of supporting your life goals with your financial decisions, predictability is more important than maximized returns. Your results are primarily determined by your savings rate - which realistic investment returns will never compensate for if it's too low. You can certainly make a 40-year projection in which 1.2% difference in returns makes a big difference. But you have to remember that a projection in which value steadily and predictably compounds is not the same as real life, where you could have emergency or emotional factors, where the market will move erratically and might have a big plunge at just the wrong time (end of the 40 years), and so on. If your plan \"\"relies\"\" on the extra 1.2% returns then it's not a reasonable plan anyhow, in my opinion, since you can't count on them. So why suffer the stress and extra risk created by an all-stocks portfolio?\"","Modern portfolio theory has a strong theoretical background and its conclusions on the risk/return trade-off have a lot of good supporting evidence. However, the conclusions it draws need to be used very carefully when thinking about retirement investing. If you were really just trying to just pick the one investment that you would guess would make you the most money in the future then yes, given no other information, the riskiest asset would be the best one. However, for most people the goal retirement investing is to be as sure as possible to retire comfortably. If you were to just invest in a single, very risky asset you may have the highest expected return, but the risk involved would mean there might be a good chance you money may not be there when you need it. Instead, a broad diversified basket of riskier and safer assets leaning more toward the riskier investments when younger and the safer assets when you get closer to retirement tends to be a better fit with most people's retirement goals. This tends to give (on average) more return when you are young and can better deal with the risk, but dials back the risk later in life when your investment portfolio is a majority of your wealth and you can least afford any major swings. This combines the lessons of MPT (diversity, risk/return trade-off) in a clearer way with common goals of retirement. Caveat: Your retirement goals and risk-tolerance may be very different from other peoples'. It is often good to talk to (fee-only) financial planner.","Unfortunately I believe there is not a good answer to this because it's not a well posed problem. It sounds like you are looking for a theoretically sound criteria to decide whether to sell or hold. Such a criteria would take the form of calculating the cost of continuing to hold a stock and comparing it to the transactions cost of replacing it in your portfolio. However, your criteria for stock selection doesn't take this form. You appear to have some ad hoc rules defining whether you want the stock in your portfolio that provide no way to calculate a cost of having something in your portfolio you don't want or failing to have something you do want. Criteria for optimally rebalancing a portfolio can't really be more quantitative than the rules that define the portfolio.","Buy and hold doesn't have an exact definition, as far as I know. In my opinion, it's offered as a contrast to those who trade too frequently, or panic every time the market drops 2%. For the general market, e.g. your S&P index holdings. You sell to rebalance to your desired asset allocation. As a personal example, at 50, I was full up invested, 95%+ in stocks. When my wife and I were retired (i.e. let go from company, but with no need to go back to work) I started shifting to get to a more sane allocation, 80/20. The ideal mix may be closer to 60/40. Also, there are times the market as a whole is overvalued as measure by P/E and/or CAPE, made popular by Nobel Prize winning Robert Shiller. During these times, an allocation shift might make sense. For the individual stocks, you had best have a strategy when you buy. Why did you buy XYZ? Because they had promise, decent company with a good outlook for their product? Now that they are up 300%, can they keep gaining share or expand their market? Sometimes you can keep raising the bar, and keep a company long term, really long. Other times, the reason you bought no longer applies, they are at or above the valuation you hoped to achieve. Note - I noticed from another question, the OP is in the UK. I answer this my from US centric view, but it should still apply to OP in general. The question was not tagged UK when I replied.","To add to Dheer's point, the vast majority of retail investors will have to pay fees and use up a large amount of valuable time on the entrance and exit of each stock, and each and every time you rebalance as the index weightings change. These also add up extremely fast vs the few basis points the large and liquid ETFs charge for this service.","\"One approach is to invest in \"\"allocation\"\" mutual funds that use various methods to vary their asset allocation. Some examples (these are not recommendations; just to show you what I am talking about): A good way to identify a useful allocation fund is to look at the \"\"R-squared\"\" (correlation) with indexes on Morningstar. If the allocation fund has a 90-plus R-squared with any index, it probably isn't doing a lot. If it's relatively uncorrelated, then the manager is not index-hugging, but is making decisions to give you different risks from the index. If you put 10% of your portfolio in a fund that varies allocation to stocks from 25% to 75%, then your allocation to stocks created by that 10% would be between 2.5% to 7.5% depending on the views of the fund manager. You can use that type of calculation to invest enough in allocation funds to allow your overall allocation to vary within a desired range, and then you could put the rest of your money in index funds or whatever you normally use. You can think of this as diversifying across investment discipline in addition to across asset class. Another approach is to simply rely on your already balanced portfolio and enjoy any downturns in stocks as an opportunity to rebalance and buy some stocks at a lower price. Then enjoy any run-up as an opportunity to rebalance and sell some stocks at a high price. The difficulty of course is going through with the rebalance. This is one advantage of all-in-one funds (target date, \"\"lifecycle,\"\" balanced, they have many names), they will always go through with the rebalance for you - and you can't \"\"see\"\" each bucket in order to get stressed about it. i.e. it's important to think of your portfolio as a whole, not look at the loss in the stocks portion. An all-in-one fund keeps you from seeing the stocks-by-themselves loss number, which is a good way to trick yourself into behaving sensibly. If you want to rebalance \"\"more aggressively\"\" then look at value averaging (search for \"\"value averaging\"\" on this site for example). A questionable approach is flat-out market-timing, where you try to get out and back in at the right times; a variation on this would be to buy put options at certain times; the problem is that it's just too hard. I think it makes more sense to buy an allocation fund that does this for you. If you do market time, you want to go in and out gradually, and value averaging is one way to do that.\"","\"I would like to first point out that there is nothing special about a self-managed investment portfolio as compared to one managed by someone else. With some exceptions, you can put together exactly the same investment portfolio yourself as a professional investor could put together for you. Not uncommonly, too, at a lower cost (and remember that cost is among the, if not the, best indicator(s) of how your investment portfolio will perform over time). Diversification is the concept of not \"\"putting all your eggs in one basket\"\". The idea here is that there are things that happen together because they have a common cause, and by spreading your investments in ways such that not all of your investments have the same underlying risks, you reduce your overall risk. The technical term for risk is generally volatility, meaning how much (in this case the price of) something fluctuates over a given period of time. A stock that falls 30% one month and then climbs 40% the next month is more volatile than one that falls 3% the first month and climbs 4% the second month. The former is riskier because if for some reason you need to sell when it is down, you lose a larger portion of your original investment with the former stock than with the latter. Diversification, thus, is reducing commonality between your investments, generally but not necessarily in an attempt to reduce the risk of all investments moving in the same direction by the same amount at the same time. You can diversify in various ways: Do you see where I am going with this? A well-diversed portfolio will tend to have a mix of equity in your own country and a variety of other countries, spread out over different types of equity (company stock, corporate bonds, government bonds, ...), in different sectors of the economy, in countries with differing growth patterns. It may contain uncommon classes of investments such as precious metals. A poorly diversified portfolio will likely be restricted to either some particular geographical area, type of equity or investment, focus on some particular sector of the economy (such as medicine or vehicle manufacturers), or so on. The poorly diversified portfolio can do better in the short term, if you time it just right and happen to pick exactly the right thing to buy or sell. This is incredibly hard to do, as you are basically working against everyone who gets paid to do that kind of work full time, plus computer-algorithm-based trading which is programmed to look for any exploitable patterns. It is virtually impossible to do for any real length of time. Thus, the well-diversified portfolio tends to do better over time.\"","\"There are a couple of reasons to diversify your assets. First, since we cannot predict which of our investments will perform best, we want to \"\"cast our net\"\" broadly enough to have something invested in what's going to be performing well. Second, diversification isn't intended to provide the highest returns, but rather it is used to soften the effects of market volatility. By softening the downsides and lowering the overall volatility among our assets, returns are more consistent. If a model does not address future downside risk it is only telling you part of the story. (Past performance does not guarantee... you get the picture)\"","It looks like an improvement to me, if for no other reason than lowering the expenses. But if you are around 35 years away from retirement you could consider eliminating all bond funds for now. They will pay better in a few years. And the stock market(s) will definitely go up more than bonds over the next 35 years.","\"The thing about the glide path is that the closer you're to the retirement age, the less risk you should be taking with your investments. All investments carry risk, but if you invest in a volatile stock market at the age of 20 and lose all your retirement money - it will not have the same effect on your retirement as if you'd invest in a volatile stock market at the age of 65 and then lose all your retirement money. Static allocation throughout your life without changing the risk factor, will lead you to a very conservative investment path, which would mean you're not likely to lose your investments, but you're not likely to gain much either. The point of the glide path is to allow you taking more risks early with more chances of higher gains, but to limit your risks down the road, also limiting your potential gains. That is why it is always suggested to start your retirement funds early in your life, to make sure you have enough time to invest in potentially high return stocks (with high risk), but when you get close to your retirement age, it is advised to do exactly the opposite. The date-targeted funds do that for you, but you can do it on your own as well. As to the academic research - you don't need to go that far. Just look at the graphs to see that over long period investments in stocks give much better return than \"\"conservative\"\" bonds and treasuries (especially when averaging the investments, as it usually is with the retirement funds), but over a given short period, investments in stocks are much more likely to significantly lose in value.\"","\"I don't think the advice to take lots more risk when young makes so much sense. The additional returns from loading up on stocks are overblown; and the rocky road from owning 75-100% stocks will almost certainly mess you up and make you lose money. Everyone thinks they're different, but none of us are. One big advantage of stocks over bonds is tax efficiency only if you buy index funds and don't ever sell them. But this does not matter in a retirement account, and outside a retirement account you can use tax-exempt bonds. Stocks have higher returns in theory but to have a reasonable guarantee of higher returns from them, you need around a 30-year horizon. That is a long, long time. Psychologically, a 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio, or something with similar risk mixing in a few more alternative assets like Swenson's, is SO MUCH better. With 100% stocks you can spend 10 or 15 years saving money and your investment returns may get you nowhere. Think what that does to your motivation to save. (And how much you save is way more important than what you invest in.) The same doesn't happen with a balanced portfolio. With a balanced portfolio you get reasonably steady progress. You can still have a down year, but you're a lot less likely to have a down decade or even a down few years. You save steadily and your balance goes up fairly steadily. The way humans really work, this is so important. For the same kind of reason, I think it's great to buy one fund that has both stocks and bonds in there. This forces you to view the thing as a whole instead of wrongly looking at the individual asset class \"\"buckets.\"\" And it also means rebalancing will happen automatically, without having to remember to do it, which you won't. Or if you remember you won't do it when you should, because stocks are doing so well, or some other rationalization. Speaking of rebalancing, that's where a lot of the steady, predictable returns come from if you have a nice balanced portfolio. You can make money over time even if both asset classes end up going nowhere, as long as they bounce around somewhat independently, so you'll buy low and sell high when you rebalance. To me the ideal is an all-in-one fund that aims for about 60/40 stocks/bonds level of risk, somewhat more diversified than stocks/bonds is great (international stock, commodities, high yield, REIT, etc.). You can just buy that at age 20 and keep it until you retire. In beautiful ideal-world economic theory, buy 90% stocks when young. Real world with human brain involved: I love balanced funds. The steady gains are such a mental win. The \"\"target retirement\"\" funds are not a bad option, but if you buy the matching year for your age, I personally wish they had less in stocks. If you want to read more on the \"\"equity premium\"\" (how much more you make from owning stocks) here are a couple of posts on it from a blog I like: Update: I wrote this up more comprehensively on my blog,\"","I still don't see the point of this software; rebalancing frequently is a waste of money (through fees). If you invest in index funds, you don't have to rebalance at all--effectively, the fund is doing it for you, and since they can generally trade more efficiently than individual investors can, that's a win. The Coverdell ESA is a great example. There's a maximum contribution amount, just as there are for almost any tax-exempt account. A decent financial adviser could help you plan how much to contribute to which accounts, at what time, and when you can/should start to withdraw from them.","\"The standard low-risk/gain very-short-term parking spot these days tends to be a money market account. However, you have only mentioned stock. For good balance, your portfolio should consider the bond market too. Consider adding a bond index fund to diversify the basic mix, taking up much of that 40%. This will also help stabilize your risk since bonds tend to move opposite stocks (prperhaps just because everyone else is also using them as the main alternative, though there are theoretical arguments why this should be so.) Eventually you may want to add a small amount of REIT fund to be mix, but that's back on the higher risk side. (By the way: Trying to guess when the next correction will occur is usually not a winning strategy; guesses tend to go wrong as often as they go right, even for pros. Rather than attempting to \"\"time the market\"\", pick a strategic mix of investments and rebalance periodically to maintain those ratios. There has been debate here about \"\"dollar-cost averaging\"\" -- see other answers -- but that idea may argue for investing and rebalancing in more small chunks rather than a few large ones. I generally actively rebalance once a year or so, and between those times let maintainng the balance suggest which fund(s) new money should go into -- minimal effort and it has worked quite well enough.,)\"","Taking as given that your definition of VA involves selling at intermediate times, your question can be made more general. After all, value averaging is just one special case of a portfolio that rebalances to target weights periodically. Do back-end fees (and front-end fees) harm the value of portfolios that require rebalancing? The answer is yes, they do. Those fees are put in place in order to prevent investors from redeeming shares over any but the longest horizons. Any portfolio that rebalances periodically will involve some periodic selling. If you invest in a fund with front-end or back-end fees, it is optimal to leave your money in it for as long as possible and not do any rebalancing. If you want to run a portfolio that is at all active (involves rebalancing), then it is probably wise to use no-load funds. These are often some of the best and cheapest funds anyway, but even if front or back end load funds have a lower expense ratio, you will likely lose money on those loads as you rebalance.","The reason diversification in general is a benefit is easily seen in your first graph. While the purple line (Betterment 100% Stock) is always below the blue line (S&P), and the blue line is the superior return over the entire period, it's a bit different if you retired in 2009, isn't it? In that case the orange line is superior: because its risk is much lower, so it didn't drop much during the major crash. Lowering risk (and lowering return) is a benefit the closer you get to retirement as you won't see as big a cumulative return from the large percentage, but you could see a big temporary drop, and need your income to be relatively stable (if you're living off it or soon going to). Now, you can certainly invest on your own in a diverse way, and if you're reasonably smart about it and have enough funds to avoid any fees, you can almost certainly do better than a managed solution - even a relatively lightly managed solution like Betterment. They take .15% off the top, so if you just did exactly the same as them, you would end up .15% (per year) better off. However, not everyone is reasonably smart, and not everyone has much in the way of funds. Betterment's target audience are people who aren't terribly smart about investing and/or have very small amounts of funds to invest. Plenty of people aren't able to work out how to do diversification on their own; while they probably mostly aren't asking questions on this site, they're a large percentage of the population. It's also work to diversify your portfolio: you have to make minor changes every year at a minimum to ensure you have a nicely balanced portfolio. This is why target retirement date portfolios are very popular; a bit higher cost (similar to Betterment, roughly) but no work required to diversify correctly and maintain that diversification.","For a non-technical investor (meaning someone who doesn't try to do all the various technical analysis things that theoretically point to specific investments or trends), having a diverse portfolio and rebalancing it periodically will typically be the best solution. For example, I might have a long-term-growth portfolio that is 40% broad stock market fund, 40% (large) industry specific market funds, and 20% bond funds. If the market as a whole tanks, then I might end up in a situation where my funds are invested 30% market 35% industry 35% bonds. Okay, sell those bonds (which are presumably high) and put that into the market (which is presumably low). Now back to 40/40/20. Then when the market goes up we may end up at 50/40/10, say, in which case we sell some of the broad market fund and buy some bond funds, back to 40/40/20. Ultimately ending up always selling high (whatever is currently overperforming the other two) and buying low (whatever is underperforming). Having the industry specific fund(s) means I can balance a bit between different sectors - maybe the healthcare industry takes a beating for a while, so that goes low, and I can sell some of my tech industry fund and buy that. None of this depends on timing anything; you can rebalance maybe twice a year, not worrying about where the market is at that exact time, and definitely not targeting a correction specifically. You just analyze your situation and adjust to make everything back in line with what you want. This isn't guaranteed to succeed (any more than any other strategy is), of course, and has some risk, particularly if you rebalance in the middle of a major correction (so you end up buying something that goes down more). But for long-term investments, it should be fairly sound.","If you are looking for an advisor to just build a portfolio and then manage it, a robo-advisor can be beneficial (especially if the alternative is doing it your self, assuming that you are not well versed in the markets). The primary risk with one is that it does not build a portfolio that accurately represents your needs and risk tolerance. Some firms base the number of questions they ask you on sign up based not on what is needed to get a good profile, but on how many before people decide that it is too much hassle and bail. That usually results in poorer profiles. Also a live advisor may be better at really getting at your risk tolerance. Many of day our risk tolerance is one thing but in reality we are not so risk tolerant. Once the profile is built. The algorithms maintain your portfolio on a day by day basis. If rebalancing opportunities occur they take advantage of it. The primary benefit of a robo-advisor is lower fees or smaller minimum account balances. The downside is the lack of human interaction and financial advise outside of putting together a portfolio.","\"JoeTaxpayer's advice is solid - reallocating to your target asset allocation is the right move. You should have an Investor Policy Statement (IPS) that maps out your financial objectives, risk tolerance, liquidity constraints, etc. From the IPS, you can determine your target asset allocation and rebalance accordingly. A few more comments: It sounds like 100% of your 401k is in US stocks. You might have other accounts that make your overall portfolio globally diversified, but if not, you want to make sure to set a target asset allocation for a global portfolio. Your statement \"\"If this were in my brokerage account I'd probably cash out some of the profits and hold onto it and buy more shares as the market eventually comes back down. But this being a 401k which has semi-monthly deposits from my paycheck, do I just leave it?\"\" is a bit counterintuitive. If you are going to try to time the market (a very hard task), it is better to use a retirement account, so you don't have to realize capital gains. Timing the market is probably a bad idea, but if you engage in market timing, it is probably better to use a retirement account than a brokerage account. If you would like to tilt your asset allocation based on the market valuation, I recommend researching Shiller's Cyclically Adjusted Price to Earnings ratio.\"","At its simplest level it's an application of basic statistics/probability: Suppose you have n independent and identically distributed assets with the return on asset i denoted R_i which has mean m and variance s^2 (same for all assets). You can easily weaken these assumptions but I make them to simplify the exposition [Square brackets show a numerical example with n=20, m=8%, s=2%] if you invest in one of these assets you expect to get a return of m [8%] with standard deviation s [2%] (so you expect with probability 95% (approx) to get a return between m-2*s and m+2*s. [between 4% and 12%] Now suppose you split your money equally among the n-assets. Your return is now R = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i your expected return is E(R) = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n E(R_i) = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n m = m [8%] the variance of your return is Var(R) = Var( (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i ) = (1/n^2)\\Sum{i=1}^n Var(R_i) = n * s^2 / n^2) = s^2/n So, the standard deviation is SD(R) = Sqrt(V(R)) = s/Sqrt(n) [2%/Sqrt(20) = 0.44%] Now, with 95% probability we get a return between E(R)-2*SD(R) and E(R)+2*SD(R) [between 7.12% and 8.88%]. This interval is smaller than when we invested in the single asset, so in effect with this portfolio we are achieving the same return m [8%] but with lower variance (risk) [0.44% instead of 2%]. This is the result of diversification. You can assume the assets are not independent (and most book expositions of this topic do indeed do that). In that case the calculation is modified because the variance of the portfolio now depends on the correlation between returns, as does the reduction in variance caused by the diversification. If assets are negatively correlated the result of the diversification will be more reduction in risk and vice versa. You can also assume the assets are not identically distributed and the above analysis does not change too much. You might look for some references on CAPM (Capital Asset Pricing Model) or portfolio theory but broadly these are based on what I have described above - finding the portfolio with minimum variance for a given return by investing proportionally in treasury bonds and risky assets.","\"1. Interest rates What you should know is that the longer the \"\"term\"\" of a bond fund, the more it will be affected by interest rates. So a short-term bond fund will not be subject to large gains or losses due to rate changes, an intermediate-term bond fund will be subject to moderate gains or losses, and a long-term bond fund will be subject to the largest gains or losses. When a book or financial planner says to buy \"\"bonds\"\" with no other qualification, they almost always mean investment-grade intermediate-term bond funds (or for individual bonds, the equivalent would be a bond ladder averaging an intermediate term). If you want technical details, look at the \"\"average duration\"\" or \"\"average maturity\"\" of the bond fund; as a rough guide, if the duration is 10, then a 1% change in interest rates would be a 10% gain or loss on the fund. Another thing you can do is look at long-term (10 years or ideally longer) performance history on some short, intermediate, and long term bond index funds, and you can see how the long term funds bounced around more. Non-investment-grade bonds (aka junk bonds or high yield bonds) are more affected by factors other than interest rates, including some of the same factors (economic booms or recessions) that affect stocks. As a result, they aren't as good for diversifying a portfolio that otherwise consists of stocks. (Having stocks, investment grade bonds, and also a little bit in high-yield bonds can add diversification, though. Just don't replace your bond allocation with high-yield bonds.) A variety of \"\"complicated\"\" bonds exist (convertible bonds are an example) and these are tough to analyze. There are also \"\"floating rate\"\" bonds (bank loan funds), these have minimal interest rate sensitivity because the rate goes up to offset rate rises. These funds still have credit risks, in the credit crisis some of them lost a lot of money. 2. Diversification The purpose of diversification is risk control. Your non-bond funds will outperform in many years, but in other years (say the -37% S&P 500 drop in 2008) they may not. You will not know in advance which year you'll get. You get risk control in at least a few ways. There's also an academic Modern Portfolio Theory explanation for why you should diversify among risky assets (aka stocks), something like: for a given desired risk/return ratio, it's better to leverage up a diverse portfolio than to use a non-diverse portfolio, because risk that can be eliminated through diversification is not compensated by increased returns. The theory also goes that you should choose your diversification between risk assets and the risk-free asset according to your risk tolerance (i.e. select the highest return with tolerable risk). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory for excruciating detail. The translation of the MPT stuff to practical steps is typically, put as much in stock index funds as you can tolerate over your time horizon, and put the rest in (intermediate-term investment-grade) bond index funds. That's probably what your planner is asking you to do. My personal view, which is not the standard view, is that you should take as much risk as you need to take, not as much as you think you can tolerate: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ But almost everyone else will say to do the 80/20 if you have decades to retirement and feel you can tolerate the risk, so my view that 60/40 is the max desirable allocation to stocks is not mainstream. Your planner's 80/20 advice is the standard advice. Before doing 100% stocks I'd give you at least a couple cautions: See also:\"","The reinvestment of dividends and capital gains is a very significant portion of investment gains over the years. This creates a compounding effect on your gains. You should almost certainly reinvest to help the account grow, until you are retired and want to withdraw some cash. Placing them in a money market account just builds a pile of uninvested cash.","\"John Bensin's answer covers the math, but I like the plain-English examples of the theory from William Bernstein's fine book, The Intelligent Asset Allocator. At the author's web site, you can find the complete chapter 1 and chapter 2, though not chapter 3, which is the one with the \"\"multiple coin toss\"\" portfolio example I want to highlight. I'll summarize Bernstein's multiple coin toss example here with some excerpts from the book. (Another top user, @JoeTaxpayer, has also written about the coin flip on his blog, also mentioning Bernstein's book.) Bernstein begins Chapter 1 by describing an offer from a fictitious \"\"Uncle Fred\"\": Imagine that you work for your rich but eccentric Uncle Fred. [...] he decides to let you in on the company pension plan. [...] you must pick ahead of time one of two investment choices for the duration of your employment: Certificates of deposit with a 3% annualized rate of return, or, A most peculiar option: At the end of each year Uncle Fred flips a coin. Heads you receive a 30% investment return for that year, tails a minus 10% (loss) for the year. This will be hereafter referred to as \"\"Uncle Fred’s coin toss,\"\" or simply, the \"\"coin toss.\"\" In effect, choosing option 2 results in a higher expected return than option 1, but it is certainly riskier, having a high standard deviation and being especially prone to a series of bad tosses. Chapters 1 and 2 continue to expand on the idea of risk, and take a look at various assets/markets over time. Chapter 3 then begins by introducing the multiple coin toss example: Time passes. You have spent several more years in the employ of your Uncle Fred, and have truly grown to dread the annual coin-toss sessions. [...] He makes you another offer. At the end of each year, he will divide your pension account into two equal parts and conduct a separate coin toss for each half [...] there are four possible outcomes [...]: [...] Being handy with numbers, you calculate that your annualized return for this two-coin-toss sequence is 9.08%, which is nearly a full percentage point higher than your previous expected return of 8.17% with only one coin toss. Even more amazingly, you realize that your risk has been reduced — with the addition of two returns at the mean of 10%, your calculated standard deviation is now only 14.14%, as opposed to 20% for the single coin toss. [...] Dividing your portfolio between assets with uncorrelated results increases return while decreasing risk. [...] If the second coin toss were perfectly inversely correlated with the first and always gave the opposite result [hence, outcomes 1 and 4 above never occurring], then our return would always be 10%. In this case, we would have a 10% annualized long-term return with zero risk! I hope that summarizes the example well. Of course, in the real world, one of the tricks to building a good portfolio is finding assets that aren't well-correlated, and if you're interested in more on the subject I suggest you check out his books (including The Four Pillars of Investing) and read more about Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT).\"","In the US, the key to understanding the benefits of retirement accounts is to understand capital gains taxes and how they work. Retirement accounts are designed for making investments throughout your career, then after several decades of contributions, withdrawing that money to pay for your needs when your full-time employment has concluded. Normally when you invest money in a brokerage account, if the value of your investment increases, and you sell in less than a year, those investments are considered short-term gains and taxed as ordinary income. If you hold that same investment for over a year, the same investment is taxed at a lower capital gains rate (depending on which tax bracket you are in during that year, the amount due could be up to 20%, but much lower than your regular income tax rate). When you place your money in a retirement account, you are choosing to either pay the tax due on the income when you put it in the account, or put the money in tax free and pay the tax when you withdraw (these are called tax-deferred accounts). When you have money invested several decades, the raw dollar amount increases greatly, but inflation is also reducing the value of those dollars. Imagine you bought some bonds that payed 4% over 40 years, but inflation was 2% during those same years. When you sell those bonds 40 years later, you will owe capital gains on the entire gain even though half of the gain came from inflation. Retirement accounts allow you to buy and sell according to your investment needs and goals without any consideration about whether the gains are short-term or long-term, and they also allow you to pay taxes just once, either when you put it in, or when you take it out, with no worries about whether you're paying taxes on inflated gains.","\"First, decide on your asset allocation; are you looking for a fund with 60% stocks/risky-stuff, or 40% or 20%? Second, look for funds that have a mix of stocks and bonds. Good keywords would be: \"\"target retirement,\"\" \"\"lifecycle,\"\" \"\"balanced,\"\" \"\"conservative/moderate allocation.\"\" As you discover these funds, probably the fund website (but at least Morningstar.com) will tell you the percentage in stocks and risk assets, vs. in conservative bonds. Look for funds that have the percentage you decided on, or as close to it as possible. Third, build a list of funds that meet your allocation goal, and compare the details. Are they based on index funds, or are they actively managed? What is the expense ratio? Is the fund from a reputable company? You could certainly ask more questions here if you have several candidates and aren't sure how to choose. For investing in US dollars one can't-go-wrong choice is Vanguard and they have several suitable funds, but unfortunately if you spend in NIS then you should probably invest in that currency, and I don't know anything about funds in Israel. Update: two other options here. One is a financial advisor who agrees to do rebalancing for you. If you get a cheap one, it could be worth it. Two is that some 401k plans have an automatic rebalancing feature, where you have multiple funds but you can set it up so their computer auto-rebalances you. That's almost as good as having a single fund, though it does still encourage some \"\"mental accounting\"\" so you'd have to try to only look at the total balance, not the individual fund balances, over time. Anyway both of these could be alternatives ways to go on autopilot, besides a single fund.\"","Diversification is used by many to hopefully reduce the risk when bad investments are made. Diversification does not help you make more profits but instead averages down your profits. There is no way one can tell whether a stock or portfolio of stocks will go up or down once they are purchased. In order to try to provide some protection against total loss of the portfolio, a lazy so called long term investor will use diversification as a way of risk management. But the best outcome for them will be an averaging down of their profits. A better method is to let the market tell you when your purchased investment is a bad one and get out of that investment early and thus limiting your losses, whilst letting your good investments (as determined by the market) run and make larger profits.","\"While it's definitely possible (and likely?) that a diversified portfolio generates higher returns than the S&P 500, that's not the main reason why you diversify. Diversification reduces risk. Modern portfolio theory suggests that you should maximize return while reducing risk, instead of blindly chasing the highest returns. Think about it this way--say the average return is 11% for large cap US stocks (the S&P 500), and it's 10% for a diversified portfolio (say, 6-8 asset classes). The large cap only portfolio has a 10% chance of losing 30% in a given year, while the diversified portfolio has a 1% chance of losing 30% in a year. For the vast majority of investors, it's worth the 1% annual gap in expected return to greatly reduce their risk exposure. Of course, I just made those numbers up. Read what finance professors have written for the \"\"data and proof\"\". But modern portfolio theory is believed by a lot of investors and other finance experts. There are a ton of studies (and therefore data) on MPT--including many that contradict it.\"","The target date investment will automatically reduce equity exposure and increase bond exposure as it approaches retirement date. If you are unlikely to make adjustments as you get older, you may be setting yourself up for more risk down the road. Only you can decide what level of risk you can tolerate as you chase higher gains.","Some years your portfolio may perform better than the benchmark, and some years it may be the other way around. Without a benchmark you will never know. And by the way if you choose poorly, you will never beat the benchmark. If the benchmark goes up 20% but your fund/investment only went up 3% you did make money, but you might want to reevaluate your strategy.","\"From http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ , Lots of sensible advisers will tell you to buy index funds, but importantly, the advice is not simply \"\"buy index funds.\"\" There are at least two other critical details: 1) asset allocation across multiple well-chosen indexes, maintained through regular rebalancing, and 2) dollar cost averaging (or, much-more-complex-but-probably-slightly-better, value averaging). The advice is not to take your single lump sum and buy and hold a cap-weighted index forever. The advice is an investment discipline which involves action over time, and an initial choice among indexes. An index-fund-based strategy is not completely passive, it involves some active risk control through rebalancing and averaging. If you'd held a balanced portfolio over the last ten years and rebalanced, and even better if you'd dollar cost averaged, you'd have done fine. Your reaction to the last 10 years incidentally is why I don't believe an almost-all-stocks allocation makes sense for most people even if they're pretty young. More detail in this answer: How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? I think some index fund advocacy and books do people a disservice by focusing too much on the extra cost of active management and why index funds are a good deal. That point is true, but for most investors, asset allocation, rebalancing, and \"\"autopilotness\"\" of their setup are more important to outcome than the expense ratio.\"","I could see doing this if the investments were via different environments. The choices in a 401K are limited by the plan, so you might want to put new money into the 401K index fund. At the same time you could have IRA money invested in a similar index. You could even have non-retirement money invested. While you should look at all your investments while evaluating your investment percentages, the 401K (limited options) and the non-retirement account (avoiding taxes) might be harder to move around. Otherwise the only advantage of splitting between funds is avoiding having all your money in a Ponzi scheme.","Dummy example to explain this. Suppose your portfolio contained just two securities; a thirty year US government bond and a Tesla stock. Both of those position are currently valued at $1mm. The Tesla position however is very volatile with its daily volatility being about 5% (based on the standard deviation of its daily return) whole there bond's daily volatility is 1%. Then the Tesla position is 5/6 of your risk while being only 1/2 of the portfolio. Now if in month the Tesla stock tanks to half is values then. Then it's risk is half as much as before and so it's total contribution to risk has gone down.","Diversification is a good method of risk management. Different types of investments do better in different situations and economic climates. Invest all your money at the wrong time in a single product and you could lose everything. You could also technically make a great deal of money, but actions such as these are the actions of speculators, not investors. Spreading your investments appropriately lets you maximize your growth opportunities while limiting your risk.","Yes E[x] is expected value of x. E[x|y] = expected value of x, given y. c, k are some constants Let E[s_{n+1}|s_n=c] = c, but if E[s_{n+1}|s_n,s_{n-1},...,s_{n-m}] ->some constant k as m->\\infty (call this equation 1) then rebalancing makes sense. Notes:","\"There is no rule-of-thumb that fits every person and every situation. However, the reasons why this advice is generally applicable to most people are simple. Why it is good to be more aggressive when you are young The stock market has historically gone up, on average, over the long term. However, on its way up, it has ups and downs. If you won't need your investment returns for many years to come, you can afford to put a large portion of your investment into the volatile stock market, because you have plenty of time for the market to recover from temporary downturns. Why it is good to be more conservative when you are older Over a short-term period, there is no certainty that the stock market will go up. When you are in retirement, most people withdraw/sell their investments for income. (And once you reach a certain age, you are required to withdraw some of your retirement savings.) If the market is in a temporary downturn, you would be forced to \"\"sell low,\"\" losing a significant portion of your investment. Exceptions Of course, there are exceptions to these guidelines. If you are a young person who can't help but watch your investments closely and gets depressed when seeing the value go down during a market downturn, perhaps you should move some of your investment out of stocks. It will cost you money in the long term, but may help you sleep at night. If you are retired, but have more saved than you could possibly need, you can afford to risk more in the stock market. On average, you'll come out ahead, and if a downturn happens when you need to sell, it won't affect your overall situation much.\"","\"That's a lot of manual checking-in to see if everything is performing the way you \"\"want\"\". Not to insult your intelligence, but that is not your job, and doing that on a monthly basis is going to eat a lot of time. Plus, most 401(k) programs have lockout periods wherein changes can't be made without incurring additional fees (related to distributions, etc). And if you're checking that often, you are [likely] losing the benefits of investing in mutual funds to start with. If you have the stomach to handle the risk, go for the high-risk investment vehicles early in your career - you can afford a 30% drop this year if you then make 105%, 15%, or 50% back each of the next 5. If, on the other hand, you're in your mid-career, switch to more conservative management tactics.\"","\"In a cap-weighted fund, the fund itself isn't buying or selling at all (except to support redemptions or purchases of the fund). As the value of a stock in the index goes up, then its value in the fund goes up naturally. This is the advantage of a cap-weighted fund, that it doesn't have to trade (buy and sell), it just sits on the stocks. That makes a cap-weighted fund inexpensive (low trading costs) and tax-efficient (doesn't trigger capital gains due to sales). The buying high and selling low referred to by \"\"fundamental indexation\"\" advocates like Wisdom Tree is buying high and selling low on the part of the investor. That is, when you purchase the market-cap-weighted fund, at that time that you purchase, you will spend more on the higher-priced stocks, just because they account for more of the value of the fund, and less money goes to the cheaper stocks which account for less of the value of the fund. In the prospectus for a fund they should tell you which index they use, and if the prospectus doesn't describe the weighting of the index, you could do a web search for the index name and find out how that index is constructed. A market-cap-weighted fund is the standard kind of weighting which is what you get if you buy the stocks in the index and then hold them without buying or selling. Most of the famous indexes (e.g. S&P500) are cap-weighted, with the notable exception of the Dow Jones Industrial Average which is \"\"price-weighted\"\" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-weighted_index. Price-weighting is just an archaic tradition, not something one would use for a new index design today. A fund weighted by \"\"fundamentals\"\" or equal-weighted, rather than cap-weighted, is effectively doing a kind of rebalancing, selling what's gone up to buy more of what's gone down. Rather than buying an exotic fund, you could get a similar effect by buying a balanced fund (one that mixes stocks and bonds). Then when stocks go up, your fund would sell them and buy bonds, and the fund would sell the most of the highest-market-cap stocks that make up more of the index. And vice versa of course. But the fundamental-weighted funds are fine, the more important considerations include your stocks vs. bonds percentages (asset allocation) and whether you make irrational trades instead of sticking to a plan.\"","\"Aggressiveness in a retirement portfolio is usually a function of your age and your risk tolerance. Your portfolio is usually a mix of the following asset classes: You can break down these asset classes further, but each one is a topic unto itself. If you are young, you want to invest in things that have a higher return, but are more volatile, because market fluctuations (like the current financial meltdown) will be long gone before you reach retirement age. This means that at a younger age, you should be investing more in stocks and foreign/developing countries. If you are older, you need to be into more conservative investments (bonds, money market, etc). If you were in your 50s-60s and still heavily invested in stock, something like the current financial crisis could have ruined your retirement plans. (A lot of baby boomers learned this the hard way.) For most of your life, you will probably be somewhere in between these two. Start aggressive, and gradually get more conservative as you get older. You will probably need to re-check your asset allocation once every 5 years or so. As for how much of each investment class, there are no hard and fast rules. The idea is to maximize return while accepting a certain amount of risk. There are two big unknowns in there: (1) how much return do you expect from the various investments, and (2) how much risk are you willing to accept. #1 is a big guess, and #2 is personal opinion. A general portfolio guideline is \"\"100 minus your age\"\". This means if you are 20, you should have 80% of your retirement portfolio in stocks. If you are 60, your retirement portfolio should be 40% stock. Over the years, the \"\"100\"\" number has varied. Some financial advisor types have suggested \"\"150\"\" or \"\"200\"\". Unfortunately, that's why a lot of baby boomers can't retire now. Above all, re-balance your portfolio regularly. At least once a year, perhaps quarterly if the market is going wild. Make sure you are still in-line with your desired asset allocation. If the stock market tanks and you are under-invested in stocks, buy more stock, selling off other funds if necessary. (I've read interviews with fund managers who say failure to rebalance in a down stock market is one of the big mistakes people make when managing a retirement portfolio.) As for specific mutual fund suggestions, I'm not going to do that, because it depends on what your 401k or IRA has available as investment options. I do suggest that your focus on selecting a \"\"passive\"\" index fund, not an actively managed fund with a high expense ratio. Personally, I like \"\"total market\"\" funds to give you the broadest allocation of small and big companies. (This makes your question about large/small cap stocks moot.) The next best choice would be an S&P 500 index fund. You should also be able to find a low-cost Bond Index Fund that will give you a healthy mix of different bond types. However, you need to look at expense ratios to make an informed decision. A better-performing fund is pointless if you lose it all to fees! Also, watch out for overlap between your fund choices. Investing in both a Total Market fund, and an S&P 500 fund undermines the idea of a diversified portfolio. An aggressive portfolio usually includes some Foreign/Developing Nation investments. There aren't many index fund options here, so you may have to go with an actively-managed fund (with a much higher expense ratio). However, this kind of investment can be worth it to take advantage of the economic growth in places like China. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/04/27/how-to-create-your-own-target-date-mutual-fund/\"","It's all about risk. These guidelines were all developed based on the risk characteristics of the various asset categories. Bonds are ultra-low-risk, large caps are low-risk (you don't see most big stocks like Coca-Cola going anywhere soon), foreign stocks are medium-risk (subject to additional political risk and currency risk, especially so in developing markets) and small-caps are higher risk (more to gain, but more likely to go out of business). Moreover, the risks of different asset classes tend to balance each other out some. When stocks fall, bonds typically rise (the recent credit crunch being a notable but temporary exception) as people flock to safety or as the Fed adjusts interest rates. When stocks soar, bonds don't look as attractive, and interest rates may rise (a bummer when you already own the bonds). Is the US economy stumbling with the dollar in the dumps, while the rest of the world passes us by? Your foreign holdings will be worth more in dollar terms. If you'd like to work alternative asset classes (real estate, gold and other commodities, etc) into your mix, consider their risk characteristics, and what will make them go up and down. A good asset allocation should limit the amount of 'down' that can happen all at once; the more conservative the allocation needs to be, the less 'down' is possible (at the expense of the 'up'). .... As for what risks you are willing to take, that will depend on your position in life, and what risks you are presently are exposed to (including: your job, how stable your company is and whether it could fold or do layoffs in a recession like this one, whether you're married, whether you have kids, where you live). For instance, if you're a realtor by trade, you should probably avoid investing too much in real estate or it'll be a double-whammy if the market crashes. A good financial advisor can discuss these matters with you in detail.","Check out some common portfolios compared: Note that all these portfolios are loosely based on Modern Portfolio Theory, a theory of how to maximize reward given a risk tolerance introduced by Harry Markowitz. The theory behind the Gone Fishin' Portfolio and the Couch Potato Portfolio (more info) is that you can make money by rebalancing once a year or less. You can take a look at 8 Lazy ETF Portfolios to see other lazy allocation percentages. One big thing to remember - the expense ratio of the funds you invest in is a major contributor to the return you get. If they're taking 1% of all of your gains, you're not. If they're only taking .2%, that's an automatic .8% you get. The reason Vanguard is so often used in these model portfolios is that they have the lowest expense ratios around. If you are talking about an IRA or a mutual fund account where you get to choose who you go with (as opposed to a 401K with company match), conventional wisdom says go with Vanguard for the lowest expense ratios.","Older folk might wish to let the dividends and cap gains be paid in cash, and use that cash towards their RMDs (required distributions). If you are investing in mutual funds and wish to keep adding to the funds you've selected, the reinvestment is a simple way to avoid having to visit the account and make a new purchase. In other words, you invest $5500, buy the fund, and X years from now, you simply have more shares of the fund but no cash o worry about. The pro is as mentioned, and the con is really for the 70-1/2+ people who will need to take their RMDs. (Although even they can take the RMD in kind, as fund shares)","\"An investment portfolio is typically divided into three components: All three of those can be accessed through mutual funds or ETFs. A 401(k) will probably have a small set of mutual funds for you to pick from. Mutual funds may charge you silly expenses if you pick a bad one. Look at the prospectus for the expense ratio. If it's over 1% you're definitely paying too much. If it's over 0.5% you're probably paying too much. If it's less than 0.1% you have a really good deal. US stocks are generally the core holding until you move into retirement (or get close to spending the money on something else if it's not invested for retirement). International stocks are riskier than US stocks, but provide opportunity for diversification and better returns than the US stocks. Bonds, or fixed-income investments, are generally very safe, but have limited opportunities for returns. They tend to do better when stocks are doing poorly. When you've got a while to invest, you should be looking at riskier investments; when you don't, you should be looking for safer investments. A quick (and rough) rule of thumb is that \"\"your age should match the portion of your portfolio in bonds\"\". So if you're 50 years old and approaching retirement in 15 years or so, you should have about 50% in bonds. Roughly. People whose employment and future income is particularly tied to one sector of the market would also do well to avoid investing there, because they already are at risk if it performs badly. For instance, if you work in the technology sector, loading up on tech stocks is extra risky: if there's a big bust, you're not just out of a job, your portfolio is dead as well. More exotic options are available to diversify a portfolio: While many portfolios could benefit from these sorts of holdings, they come with their own advantages and disadvantages and should be researched carefully before taking a significant stake in them.\"","\"You're right, the asset allocation is one fundamental thing you want to get right in your portfolio. I agree 110%. If you really want to understand asset allocation, I suggest any and all of the following three books, all by the same author, William J. Bernstein. They are excellent – and yes I've read each. From a theory perspective, and being about asset allocation specifically, the Intelligent Asset Allocator is a good choice. Whereas, the next two books are more accessible and more complete, covering topics including investor psychology, history, financial products you can use to implement a strategy, etc. Got the time? Read them all. I finished reading his latest book, The Investor's Manifesto, two weeks ago. Here are some choice quotes from Chapter 3, \"\"The Nature of the Portfolio\"\", that address some of the points you've asked about. All emphasis below is mine. Page 74: The good news is [the asset allocation process] is not really that hard: The investor only makes two important decisions: Page 76: Rather, younger investors should own a higher portion of stocks because they have the ability to apply their regular savings to the markets at depressed prices. More precisely, young investors possess more \"\"human capital\"\" than financial capital; that is, their total future earnings dwarf their savings and investments. From a financial perspective, human capital looks like a bond whose coupons escalate with inflation. Page 78: The most important asset allocation decision is the overall stock/bind mix; start with age = bond allocation rule of thumb. [i.e. because the younger you are, you already have bond-like income from anticipated employment earnings; the older you get, the less bond-like income you have in your future, so buy more bonds in your portfolio.] He also mentions adjusting that with respect to one's risk tolerance. If you can't take the ups-and-downs of the market, adjust the stock portion down (up to 20% less); if you can stomach the risk without a problem, adjust the stock portion up (up to 20% more). Page 86: [in reference to a specific example where two assets that zig and zag are purchased in a 50/50 split and adjusted back to targets] This process, called \"\"rebalancing,\"\" provides the investor with an automatic buy-low/sell-high bias that over the long run usually – but not always – improves returns. Page 87: The essence of portfolio construction is the combination of asset classes that move in different directions at least some of the time. Finally, this gem on pages 88 and 89: Is there a way of scientifically picking the very best future allocation, which offers the maximum return for the minimum risk? No, but people still try. [... continues with description of Markowitz's \"\"mean-variance analysis\"\" technique...] It took investment professionals quite a while to realize that limitation of mean-variance analysis, and other \"\"black box\"\" techniques for allocating assets. I could go on quoting relevant pieces ... he even goes into much detail on constructing an asset allocation suitable for a large portfolio containing a variety of different stock asset classes, but I suggest you read the book :-)\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"Rebalancing a portfolio helps you reduce risk, sell high, and buy low. I'll use international stocks and large cap US stocks. They both have ups and downs, and they don't always track with each other (international might be up while large cap US stocks are down and vice-versa) If you started with 50% international and 50% large cap stocks and 1 year later you have 75% international and 25% large cap stocks that means that international stocks are doing (relatively) well to large cap stocks. Comparing only those two categories, large cap stocks are \\\"\\\"on sale\\\"\\\" relative to international stocks. Now move so you have 50% in each category and you've realized some of the gains from your international investment (sell high) and added to your large cap stocks (buy low). The reason to rebalance is to lower risk. You are spreading your investments across multiple categories to manage risk. If you don't rebalance, you could end up with 95% in one category and 5% in another which means 95% of your portfolio is tied to the performance of a single asset category. I try to rebalance every 12 months and usually get it done by every 18 months. I like being a hands-off long term investor and this has proven often enough to beat the S&P500.\\\"\",\n \"A strategy of rebalancing assumes that the business cycle will continue, that all bull and bear markets end eventually. Imagine that you maintained a 50% split between a US Treasury bond mutual fund (VUSTX) and an S&P 500 stock mutual fund (VFINX) beginning with a $10,000 investment in each on January 1, 2008, then on the first of each year you rebalanced your portfolio on the first of January (we can pretend the markets are open that day). The following table illustrates the values in each of those funds with the rebalancing transactions: This second table shows what that same money would look like without any rebalancing over those years: Obviously this is cherry-picking for the biggest drop we've recently experienced, but even if you skipped 2008 and 2009, the increase for a rebalanced portfolio from 2010-2017 is 85% verses 54% for the portfolio that is not being rebalanced in the same period. This is also a plenty conservative portfolio. You can see that a 100% stock portfolio dropped 40% in 2008, but the combined portfolio only dropped 18%. A 100% stock portfolio has gained 175% since 2009, compared to 105% for the balanced portfolio, but it's common to trade gains for safety as you get closer to retirement. You didn't ask about a 100% stock portfolio in your initial question. These results would be repeated in many other portfolio allocations because some asset classes outperform others one year, then underperform the next. You sell after the years it outperforms, then you buy after years that it underperforms.\",\n \"\\\"An asset allocation formula is useful because it provides a way to manage risk. Rebalancing preserves your asset allocation. The investment risk of a well-diversified portfolio (with a few ETFs or mutual funds in there to get a wide range of stocks, bonds, and international exposure) is mostly proportional to the asset class distribution. If you started out with half-stocks and half-bonds, and stocks surged 100% over the past few years while bonds have stayed flat, then you may be left with (say) 66% stocks and 33% bonds. Your portfolio is now more vulnerable to future stock market drops (the risk associated with stocks). (Most asset allocation recommendations are a little more specific than a stock/bond split, but I'm sure you can get the idea.) Rebalancing can be profitable because it's a formulaic way to enforce you to \\\"\\\"buy low, sell high\\\"\\\". Massive recessions notwithstanding, usually not everything in your portfolio will rise and fall at the same time, and some are actually negatively correlated (that's one idea behind diversification, anyway). If your stocks have surged, chances are that bonds are cheaper. This doesn't always work (repeatedly transferring money from bonds into stocks while the market was falling in 2008-2009 could have lost you even more money). Also, if you rebalance frequently, you might incur expenses from the trading (depending on what sort of financial instrument you're holding). It may be more effective to simply channel new money into the sector that you're light on, and limit the major rebalancing of the portfolio so that it's just an occasional thing. Talk to your financial adviser. :)\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Rebalancing is, simply, a way of making sure your risk/reward level is where you want it to be. Let's say you've decided that your optimal mix is 50% stocks and 50% bonds (or 50% US stocks, 50% international, or 30/30/30 US large-cap/US small-cap/US midcap...). So you buy $100 of each, but over time, the prices will of course fluctuate. At the end of the year, the odds that the ratio of the value of your investments is equal to the starting ratio is nil. So you rebalance to get your target mix again. Rebalance too often and you end up paying a lot in transaction fees. Rebalance not often enough and you end up running outsize risk. People who tell you that you should rebalance to make money, or use \\\"\\\"dollar cost averaging\\\"\\\" or think there is any upside to rebalancing outside of risk management are making assumptions about the market (mean regressing or some such thing) that generally you should avoid.\\\"\",\n \"As mentioned by others, dollar cost averaging is just a fancy term for how many shares your individual purchases get when you are initially adding money to your investment accounts. Once the money is invested, annual or quarterly rebalancing serves the purpose of taking advantage of higher rates of growth in particular market sectors. You define the asset allocation based on your risk profile, time to retirement, etc., then you periodically sell the shares of the investments that have grown faster than the rest and buy more shares of the investments that are relatively cheaper.\",\n \"Also, almost by definition rebalancing involves making more trades than you would have otherwise; wouldn't the additional trading fees you incurred in doing so reduce the benefits of this strategy? You forgot to mention taxes. Rebalancing does or rather can incur costs. One way to minimize the costs is to use the parts of the portfolio that have essentially zero cost of moving. These generally are the funds in your retirement accounts. In the United States they can be in IRAs or 401Ks; they can be regular or Roth. Selling winners withing the structure of the plan doesn't trigger capital gains taxes, and many have funds within them that have zero loads. Another way to reduce trading fees is to only rebalance once a year or once every two years; or by setting a limit on how far out of balance. For example don't rebalance at 61/39 to get back to 60/40 even if it has been two years. Given that the ratio of investments is often rather arbitrary to begin with, how do I know whether I'm selling high and buying low or just obstinately sticking with a losing asset ratio? The ratio used in an example or in an article may be arbitrary, but your desired ratio isn't arbitrary. You selected the ratio of your investments based on several criteria: your age, your time horizon, your goals for the money, how comfortable you are with risk. As these change during your investing career those ratios would also morph. But they aren't arbitrary. These decisions to rebalance are separate from the ones to sell a particular investment. You could sell Computer Company X because of how it is performing, and buy stock in Technology Company Y because you think it has a better chance of growing. That transaction would not be a re-balancing. Selling part of your stock in Domestic Company A to buy stock in international Company B would be part of a re-balancing.\",\n \"Rebalancing your portfolio doesn't have to include selling. You could simply adjust your buying to keep your portfolio in balance. If you portfolio has shifted from 50% stocks and 50% bonds to 75% stocks and 25% bonds, you can just only use new savings to buy bonds, until you are back at 50-50. Remember to take into account taxes if you are thinking of selling to rebalance in taxable accounts. The goal of rebalancing is to keep your exposures the way that you want them. Assuming that you had a good reason to have a portfolio of 50% stocks and 50% bonds, you probably want to keep your portfolio similar in the future. If you end up with a portfolio of 75% stocks and 25% bonds due to stock market fluctuations, the exposure and the risk / return profile of your portfolio will have changed, and it's probably not something that you want. You don't want to rebalance just for the sake of rebalancing either. There can be costs to rebalancing (taxes, transaction fees, etc...) and these aren't always worth the effort. That's why you don't need to rebalance every month or if your portfolio has shifted from 50/50 to 51/49. I take a look at my portfolio once a year, and adjust my automated investments so that by the end of the next year I'm back to the ratio I want.\",\n \"If you are making regular periodic investments (e.g. each pay period into a 401(k) plan) or via automatic investment scheme in a non-tax-deferred portfolio (e.g. every month, $200 goes automatically from your checking account to your broker or mutual fund house), then one way of rebalancing (over a period of time) is to direct your investment differently into the various accounts you have, with more going into the pile that needs bringing up, and less into the pile that is too high. That way, you can avoid capital gains or losses etc in doing the selling-off of assets. You do, of course, take longer to achieve the balance that you seek, but you do get some of the benefits of dollar-cost averaging.\",\n \"From Vanguard's Best practices for portfolio rebalancing:\",\n \"Rebalance is across asset-classes which are mutually independent [like stocks and bonds; they may be inversely correlated at times as when stocks go down, bonds go up] 80%-20% (stock-bond) split is good for a young investor [say in 30s, some suggest 110-age as a good stock allocation percentage]. Here rebalance is done when say the asset-allocation(AA) strays away more than say 3 to 5% (again just a rule of thumb). E.g. if due to a recent run-up in stocks, AA could become 85%-15%. Then you sell stocks to buy bonds to make the AA 80%-20% And since this method always sells the winner -- you automatically make gains [selling high and buying low] S&P 500 index gives decent diversification within stocks; you want a total-bond-fund to take care of the bond side of your AA.\",\n \"\\\"To answer your question directly.. you can investigate by using google or other means to look up research done in this area. There's been a bunch of it Here's an example of search terms that returns a wealth of information. effect+of+periodic+rebalancing+on+portfolio+return I'd especially look for stuff that appears to be academic papers etc, and then raid the 'references' section of those. Look for stuff published in industry journals such as \\\"\\\"Journal of Portfolio Management\\\"\\\" as an example. If you want to try out different models yourself and see what works and what doesn't, this Monte Carlo Simulator might be something you would find useful The basic theory for those that don't know is that various parts of a larger market do not usually move in perfect lockstep, but go through cycles.. one year tech might be hot, the next year it's healthcare. Or for an international portfolio, one year korea might be doing fantastic only to slow down and have another country perform better the next year. So the idea of re-balancing is that since these things tend to be cyclic, you can get a higher return if you sell part of a slice that is doing well (e.g. sell at the high) and invest it in one that is not (buy at the low) Because you do this based on some criteria, it helps circumvent the human tendency to 'hold on to a winner too long' (how many times have you heard someone say 'but it's doing so well, why do I want to sell now\\\"\\\"? presuming trends will continue and they will 'lose out' on future gains, only to miss the peak and ride the thing down back into mediocrity.) Depending on the volatility of the specific market, and the various slices, using re balancing can get you a pretty reasonable 'lift' above the market average, for relatively low risk. generally the more volatile the market, (such as say an emerging markets portfolio) the more opportunity for lift. I looked into this myself a number of years back, the concensus I came was that the most effective method was to rebalance based on 'need' rather than time. Need is defined as one or more of the 'slices' in your portfolio being more than 8% above or below the average. So you use that as the trigger. How you rebalance depends to some degree on if the portfolio is taxable or not. If in a tax deferred account, you can simply sell off whatever is above baseline and use it to buy up the stuff that is below. If you are subject to taxes and don't want to trigger any short term gains, then you may have to be more careful in terms of what you sell. Alternatively if you are adding funds to the portfolio, you can alter how your distribute the new money coming into the portfolio in order to bring up whatever is below the baseline (which takes a bit more time, but incurs no tax hit) The other question is how will you slice a given market? by company size? by 'sectors' such as tech/finance/industrial/healthcare, by geographic regions?\\\"\",\n \"When the market moves significantly, you should rebalance your investments to maintain the diversification ratios you have selected. That means if bonds go up and stocks go down, you sell bonds and buy stocks (to some degree), and vice versa. Sell high to buy low, and remember that over the long run most things regress to the mean.\",\n \"You are very correct, rebalancing is basically selling off winners to buy losers. Of course the thinking is that selling a winner that has already increased 100% on the basis that it has doubled so it is likely to go down in the near future. However, just look at Apple as an example, if you bought Apple in June 2009 for $20 (adjusted price) and sold it as part of rebalancing when it rose to $40 (adjusted price) in September 2010, you would have missed out on it reaching over $95 2 years later. Similarly you look to rebalance by buying assets which have been battered (say dropped by 50%) on the basis that it has dropped so much that it should start increasing in the near future. But many times the price can fall even further. A better method would be to sell your winners when they stop being winners (i.e. their uptrend ends) and replace them with assets that are just starting their winning ways (i.e. their downtrend has ended and are now starting to Uptrend). This can be achieved by looking at price action and referring to the definitions of an uptrend and a downtrend. Definition of an uptrend - higher highs and higher lows. Definition of a downtrend - lower lows and lower highs.\",\n \"This answer will assume you know more math than most. An ideal case: For the point of argument, first consider the following admittedly incorrect assumptions: 1) The prices of all assets in your investment universe are continuously differentiable functions of time. 2) Investor R (for rebalance) continuously buys and sells in order to maintain a constant proportion of each of several investments in his portfolio. 3) Investor P (for passive) starts with the same portfolio as R, but neither buys nor sells Then under the assumptions of no taxes or trading costs, it is a mathematical theorem that investor P's portfolio return fraction will be the weighted arithmetic mean of the return fractions of all the individual investments, whereas investor R will obtain the weighted geometric mean of the return fractions of the individual investments. It's also a theorem that the weighted arithmetic mean is ALWAYS greater than or equal to the weighted geometric mean, so regardless of what happens in the market (given the above assumptions) the passive investor P does at least as well as the rebalancing investor R. P will do even better if taxes and trading costs are factored in. The real world: Of course prices aren't continuously differentiable or even continuous, nor can you continuously trade. (Indeed, under such assumptions the optimal investing strategy would be to sample the prices sufficiently rapidly to capture the derivatives and then to move all your assets to the stock increasing at the highest relative rate. This crazy momentum trading would explosively destabilize the market and cause the assumptions to break.) The point of this is not to argue for or against rebalancing, but to point out that any argument for rebalancing which continues to hold under the above ideal assumptions is bogus. (Many such arguments do.) If a stockbroker standing to profit from commission pushes rebalancing on you with an argument that still holds under the above assumptions then he is profiting off of BS.\",\n \"\\\"'Buy and Hold' Is Still a Winner: An investor who used index funds and stayed the course could have earned satisfactory returns even during the first decade of the 21st century. by By Burton G. Malkiel in The Wall Street Journal on November 18, 2010: \\\"\\\"The other useful technique is \\\"\\\"rebalancing,\\\"\\\" keeping the portfolio asset allocation consistent with the investor's risk tolerance. For example, suppose an investor was most comfortable choosing an initial allocation of 60% equities, 40% bonds. As stock and bond prices change, these proportions will change as well. Rebalancing involves selling some of the asset class whose share is above the desired allocation and putting the money into the other asset class. From 1996 through 1999, annually rebalancing such a portfolio improved its return by 1 and 1/3 percentage points per year versus a strategy of making no changes.\\\"\\\" Mr. Malkiel is a professor of economics at Princeton University. This op-ed was adapted from the upcoming 10th edition of his book \\\"\\\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street,\\\"\\\" out in December by W.W. Norton. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608623469465624.html\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Having cash and bonds in your portfolio isn't just about balancing out the risk and volatility inherent in equities. Consider: If you are 100% invested in equities and the market declines by 30%, you'll be hard pressed to come up with additional money to \\\"\\\"buy low\\\"\\\". You'll miss out on the rebalancing bonus. But, if you make a point of keeping some portion of your portfolio in cash and bonds, then when the market has such a decline (and it will), you'll be able to rebalance your portfolio back to target weights — i.e. redeploy some of your cash and bonds into equities to take advantage of the lower prices.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Rebalancing has been studied empirically quite a bit, but not particularly carefully and actually turns out to be very hard to study well. The main problem is that you don't know until afterward if your target weights were optimal so a bad rebalancing program might give better performance if it strayed closer to optimal weights even if it didn't do an efficient job of keeping near the target weights. In your particular case either method might be preferred depending on a number of things: You can see why there isn't a generally correct answer to your question and the results of empirical studies might very wildly depending on the mix of assets and risk tolerance. Still if your portfolio is not too complicated you can estimate the costs of the two methods without too much trouble and figure out if it is worthwhile to you. EDIT In Response to Comment Below: Your example gets at what makes rebalancing so hard empirically but also generally pretty easy in practice. If you were to target 75% Equity (25% bonds?) and look at returns only for 30 years the \\\"\\\"best\\\"\\\" rebalancing method would be to never rebalance and just let 75% equity go to near 100% as equity has better long term returns. This happens when you look only at returns as the final number and don't take into account the change in risk in your portfolio. In practice, most people that are still adding (or subtracting in retirement) to a retirement portfolio are adding (removing) a significant amount compared to the total amount in their portfolio. In the case you discribe, it is cheaper (massively cheaper in the presence of load fees) just to use new capital to trade toward your target, keeping your risk profile. New money should be large enough to keep you near enough your target. If you just estimate the trading costs/fees in both cases I think you'll see just how large the difference is between the two methods this will dwarf any small differences in return over the long run even if you can't trade back all the way to your target.\\\"\",\n \"On what basis did you do your initial allocation of funds to each stock? If you are 're-balancing' that implies returning things to their initial allocation. You can do this without any research or recommendations. If you started out with say 10 stocks and 10% of the funds allocated to each stock, then re-balancing would simply be either buying/selling to return to that initial allocation. If you are contributing to the portfolio you could adjust where the new money goes to re-balance without selling. Or if you are drawing money from the portfolio, then you could adjust what you are selling. If on the other hand you are trying to decide if you want to alter the stocks the portfolio is HOLDING, then you have an entirely different question from 're-balancing'\",\n \"There will quickly come a time when buying to rebalance is impractical. Consider, you save 10%, and at some point, you have 5x your income saved. (you earn $50K and have accumulated $250K). A simple allocation, 50/50, so $125K stock, $125K bonds. Now, in a year the market is up much over 4%, your $5K deposit will not be enough to balance. Earlier on, the method may work just fine, later on, not so much. Edit - The above is an example, to show that there will come a time when deposits are not enough to rebalance. The above single year produces a 52/48 split, and the rebalance deposits more than 2 years. If the market continues to rise a reasonable amount, 2 years later you are even more out of balance, perhaps 56/44. I chose reasonable numbers as a starting point, just 5X income saved, and a 10% annual deposit. In the end, you can waive off any divergence from your target. That's your choice.\",\n \"\\\"This paper by a Columbia business school professor says: The standard 60%/40% strategy outperforms a 100% bond or 100% stock strategy over the 1926-1940 period (Figure 5) and over the 1990-2011 period (Figure 6). This is based on actual market data from those periods. You can see the figures in the PDF. These are periods of 14 and 21 years, which is perhaps shorter than the amount of time money would sit in your IRA, but still a fairly long time. The author goes on with a lot of additional discussion and claims that \\\"\\\"under certain conditions, rebalancing will always outperform a buy-and-hold portfolio given sufficient time\\\"\\\". Of course, there are also many periods over which a given asset mix would underperform, so there are no guarantees here. I read your question as asking \\\"\\\"is there any data suggesting that rebalancing a diversified portfolio can outperform an all-in-one-asset-class portfolio\\\"\\\". There is some such data. However, if you're asking which investing strategy you should actually choose, you'd want to look at a lot of data on both sides. You're unlikely to find data that \\\"\\\"proves\\\"\\\" anything conclusively either way. It should also be noted that the rebalancing advantage described here (and in your question) is not specific to bonds. For instance, in theory, rebalancing between US and international stocks could show a similar advantage over an all-US or all-non-US portfolio. The paper contains a lot of additional discussion about rebalancing. It seems that your question is really about whether rebalancing a diverse portfolio is better than going all-in with one asset class, and this question is touched on throughout the paper. The author mentions that diversification and rebalancing strategies should be chosen not solely for their effect on mathematically-calculated returns, but for their match with your psychological makeup and tolerance for risk.\\\"\",\n \"Note that if 1) The stock prices are continuously differentiable (they aren't) 2) You rebalance continuously in the absence of trading fees and taxes then the return fraction (future price / original price) will be the geometric mean of the return fractions for each investment. If you don't rebalance then the return fraction will be the arithmetic mean. But the arithmetic mean is ALWAYS greater than or equal to the geometric mean, so continuous rebalancing in the case of continuously differentiable prices will always hurt you, even abscent trading costs/taxes. Any argument in favor of blind rebalancing which does not somehow fail in the continuously differentiable case is simply wrong. See https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/38536036/to%20karim.pdf -JT\",\n \"\\\"If you want to make a profit from long term trading (whatever \\\"\\\"long term\\\"\\\" means for you), the best strategy is to let the good performers in your portfolio run, and cull the bad ones. Of course that strategy is hard to follow, unless you have the perfect foresight to know exactly how long your best performing investments will continue to outperform the market, but markets don't always follow the assumption that perfect information is available to all participants, and hence \\\"\\\"momentum\\\"\\\" has a real-world effect on prices, whether or not some theorists have chosen to ignore it. But a fixed strategy of \\\"\\\"daily rebalancing\\\"\\\" does exactly the opposite of the above - it continuously reduces the holdings of good performers and increases the holdings of bad. If this type of rebalancing is done more frequently than the constituents of benchmark index are adjusted, it is very likely to underperform the index in the long term. Other issues in a \\\"\\\"real world\\\"\\\" market are the impact of increased dealing costs on smaller parcels of securities, and the buy/sell spreads incurred in the daily rebalancing trades. If the market is up and down 1% on alternate days with no long tern trend, quite likely the fund will be repeatedly buying and selling small parcels of the same stocks to do its daily balancing.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"There are ways to mitigate, but since you're not protected by a tax-deferred/advantaged account, the realized income will be taxed. But you can do any of the followings to reduce the burden: Prefer selling either short positions that are at loss or long positions that are at gain. Do not invest in stocks, but rather in index funds that do the rebalancing for you without (significant) tax impact on you. If you are rebalancing portfolio that includes assets that are not stocks (real-estate, mainly) consider performing 1031 exchanges instead of plain sale and re-purchase. Maximize your IRA contributions, even if non-deductible, and convert them to Roth IRA. Hold your more volatile investments and individual stocks there - you will not be taxed when rebalancing. Maximize your 401K, HSA, SEP-IRA and any other tax-advantaged account you may be eligible for. On some accounts you'll pay taxes when withdrawing, on others - you won't. For example - Roth IRA/401k accounts are not taxed at all when withdrawing qualified distributions, while traditional IRA/401k are taxed as ordinary income. During the \\\"\\\"low income\\\"\\\" years, consider converting portions of traditional accounts to Roth.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"It's a trade-off. The answer depends on your risk tolerance. Seeking higher rewards demands higher risk. If you want advice, I would recommend hiring an expert to design a plan which meets your needs. As a sample point, NOT necessarily right for anyone else...I'm considered an aggressive investor, and my own spread is still more conservative than many folks. I'm entirely in low-cost index funds, distributed as ... with the money tied up in a \\\"\\\"quiesced\\\"\\\" defined-contribution pension fund being treated as a low-yield bond. Some of these have beaten the indexes they're tracking, some haven't. My average yield since I started investing has been a bit over 10%/year (not including the company match on part of the 401k), which I consider Good Enough -- certainly good enough for something that requires near-zero attention from me. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance. This may be completely wrong for someone at a different point in their career and/or life and/or finances. I'm posting it only as an example, NOT a recommendation. Regarding when to rebalance: Set some threshhold at which things have drifted too far from your preferred distribution (value of a fund being 5% off its target percentage in the mix is one rule I've sometimes used), and/or pick some reasonable (usually fairly low) frequency at which you'll actively rebalance (once a year, 4x/year, whenever you change your car's oil, something like that), and/or rebalance by selecting which funds you deposit additional money into whenever you're adding to the investments. Note that that last option avoids having to take capital gains, which is generally a good thing; you want as much of your profit to be long-term as possible, and to avoid triggering the \\\"\\\"wash sales\\\"\\\" rule. Generally, you do not have to rebalance very frequently unless you are doing something that I'd consider unreasonably risky, or unless you're managing such huge sums that a tiny fraction of a percent still adds up to real money.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"In a comment you say, if the market crashes, doesn't \\\"\\\"regress to the mean\\\"\\\" mean that I should still expect 7% over the long run? That being the case, wouldn't I benefit from intentionally unbalancing my portfolio and going all in on equities? I can can still rebalance using new savings. No. Regress to the mean just tells you that the future rate is likely to average 7%. The past rate and the future rate are entirely unconnected. Consider a series: The running average is That running average is (slowly) regressing to the long term mean without ever a member of the series being above 7%. Real markets actually go farther than this though. Real value may be increasing by 7% per year, but prices may move differently. Then market prices may revert to the real value. This happened to the S&P 500 in 2000-2002. Then the market started climbing again in 2003. In your system, you would have bought into the falling markets of 2001 and 2002. And you would have missed the positive bond returns in those years. That's about a -25% annual shift in returns on that portion of your portfolio. Since that's a third of your portfolio, you'd have lost 8% more than with the balanced strategy each of those two years. Note that in that case, the market was in an over-valued bubble. The bubble spent three years popping and overshot the actual value. So 2003 was a good year for stocks. But the three year return was still -11%. In retrospect, investors should have gone all in on bonds before 2000 and switched back to stocks for 2003. But no one knew that in 2000. People in the know actually started backing off in 1998 rather than 2000 and missed out on the tail end of the bubble. The rebalancing strategy automatically helps with your regression to the mean. It sells expensive bonds and buys cheaper stocks on average. Occasionally it sells modest priced bonds and buys over-priced stocks. But rarely enough that it is a better strategy overall. Incidentally, I would consider a 33% share high for bonds. 30% is better. And that shouldn't increase as you age (less than 30% bonds may be practical when you are young enough). Once you get close to retirement (five to ten years), start converting some of your savings to cash equivalents. The cash equivalents are guaranteed not to lose value (but might not gain much). This gives you predictable returns for your immediate expenses. Once retired, try to keep about five years of expenses in cash equivalents. Then you don't have to worry about short term market fluctuations. Spend down your buffer until the market catches back up. It's true that bonds are less volatile than stocks, but they can still have bad years. A 70%/30% mix of stocks/bonds is safer than either alone and gives almost as good of a return as stocks alone. Adding more bonds actually increases your risk unless you carefully balance them with the right stocks. And if you're doing that, you don't need simplistic rules like a 70%/30% balance.\\\"\",\n \"In your entire question, the only time you mention that this is an investment inside an IRA is when you say Every quarter, six months, whatever Id have to rebalance my IRA while Vanguard would do this for the fund of funds without me needing to. Within an IRA, there are no tax implications to the rebalancing. But if this investment were not inside an IRA, then the rebalancing done by you will have tax implications. In particular, any gains realized when you sell shares in one fund and buy shares in another fund during the rebalancing process are subject to income tax. Similarly, losses also might be realized (and will affect your taxes). However, if you are invested in a fund of funds, there are no capital gains (or capital losses) when re-balancing is done; you have gains or losses only when you sell shares of the fund of funds for a price different than the price you paid for them.\",\n \"If the portfolio itself is taxable, then yes; if you have two stocks and you're rebalancing them, without using new cash, you are forced to sell one stock to buy another. That sale is taxable, unless you're in some sort of tax deferred/deductible account, such as an IRA. If you're talking about you being in a mutual fund and the fund itself rebalances, the same rules apply as above, though indirectly; you'll have capital gains realized and distributed to you, those gains will be taxed unless, again, your account is a retirement account.\",\n \"R has really good package that lets you calculate the return of rebalanced portfolios. The package is called: PerformanceAnalytics (see: http://www.inside-r.org/packages/cran/PerformanceAnalytics/docs/Return.portfolio). I quickly wrote a small script for you that lets you do exactly what you want. Code: By default the portfolio is rebalanced to an equally weighted portfolio. It is also possible to rebalance your portfolio using custom weights. See the documentation on how to do this. In order for this code to work you need to have your data already in return terms. You can do this easily in Excel. Make sure your data in excel looks like this: Than export your data to a CSV file. Note: before you run the code make sure you have installed the package PerformanceAnalytics. You can do this as follows: Let me know if you have any questions regarding the above.\",\n \"Fund rebalancing typically refers to changing the investment mix to stay within the guidelines of the mutual fund objective. For example, lets say a fund is supposed to have at least 20% in bonds. Because of a dramatic increase in stock price and decrease in bond values it finds itself with only 19.9% in bonds at the end of the trading day. The fund manager would sell sufficient equities to reduce its equity holdings and buy more bonds. Rebalancing is not always preferential because it could cause capital gain distribution, typically once per year, without selling the fund. And really any trading within the fun could do the same. In the case you cite the verbiage is confusing. Often times I wonder if the author knows less then the reader. It might also be a bit of a rush to get the article out, and the author did not write correctly. I agree that the ETFs cited are suitable for short term traders. However, that is because, traditionaly, the market has increased in value over the long term. If you bet it will go down over the long term, you are almost certain to lose money. Like you, I cannot figure out how rebalancing makes this suitable only for short term traders. If the ETFs distribute capital gains events much more frequently then once per year, that is worth mentioning, but does not provide a case for short versus long term traders. Secondly, I don't think these funds are doing true rebalancing. They might change investments daily for the most likely profitable outcome, but that really isn't rebalancing. It seems the author is confused.\",\n \"Personally I'm not a huge fan of rebalancing within an asset class. I would vote for leaving the HD shares alone and buying other assets until you get to the portfolio you want. Frequent buying and selling incurs costs and possible tax consequences that can really hurt your returns.\",\n \"Yes, the larger number of ETFs will have a greater chance of enhancing the effect you observe. It's beyond a simple discussion, but the bottom line is that by carving out the different market segments your rebalancing will have greater impact.\",\n \"\\\"In theory, investing is not gambling because the expected outcome is not random; people are expecting positive returns, on average, with some relationship to risk undertaken and economic reality. (More risk = more returns.) Historically this is true on average, that assets have positive returns, and riskier assets have higher returns. Also it's true that stock market gains roughly track economic growth. Valuation (current price level relative to \\\"\\\"fundamentals\\\"\\\") matters - reversion to the mean does exist over a long enough time. Given a 7-10 year horizon, a lot of the variance in ending price level can be explained by valuation at the start of the period. On average over time, business profits have to vary around a curve that's related to the overall economy, and equity prices should reflect business profits. The shorter the horizon, the more random noise. Even 1 year is pretty short in this respect. Bubbles do exist, as do irrational panics, and milder forms of each. Investing is not like a coin flip because the current total number of heads and tails (current valuation) does affect the probability of future outcomes. That said, it's pretty hard to predict the timing, or the specific stocks that will do well, etc. Rebalancing gives you an objective, automated, unemotional way to take advantage of all the noise around the long-term trend. Rather than trying to use judgment to identify when to get in and out, with rebalancing (and dollar cost averaging) you guarantee getting in a bit more when things are lower, and getting out a bit more when things are higher. You can make money from prices bouncing around even if they end up going nowhere and even if you can't predict the bouncing. Here are a couple old posts from my blog that talk about this a little more:\\\"\",\n \"Yes, rebalancing with new money avoids capital gains taxes and loads (although if you're financially literate enough to be thinking about rebalancing techniques, I'm surprised to hear that you're invested in funds with loads). On the other hand, if it's taking you years to rebalance, then: (a) you are not rebalancing anywhere near frequently enough. Rebalancing should be something you do every 6 months or 1 year, such that it would take only a few weeks or maybe a month of new investment to get back in balance. (b) you will be out-of-balance for quite a long time, while the whole point of the theory of rebalancing is to always be mathematically prepared for swings in the market. Any time spent out of balance represents that much more risk that an unexpected market move can seriously hurt your portfolio. You should weigh the time it will take you to rebalance the long way (i.e. the risk cost of not rebalancing immediately) vs. the taxes and fees involved in rebalancing quickly. If you had said that it would take you only a couple weeks or a month to rebalance the long way, I would say that the long way is fine. But the prospect of spending years without a balanced portfolio seems far more costly to me than any expenses you might incur rebalancing quickly. Since it's almost the end of the calendar year, have you considered doing two quick rebalances, one this year, and another in January? That way half of the tax consequences would happen in April, and the other half not until the next April, giving you plenty of time to scrounge up the money. Also, even if you have no capital losses this year with which to offset some of your expected capital gains, you would have all of next year to harvest some losses against next year's half of the rebalancing gains.\",\n \"You may want to move money between your investments within the plan, rebalancing money to maintain your diversification. You don't have to deal with the details if selling and buying, just tell them how much to move where. Many plans offer investments that automatically rebalance for you such as Target Date accounts. You may be able to select one of those and just ignore the 401k until retirement, or at most rebalance even less often. Look at what's offered, look at what it costs as fees, run the numbers and decide whether you can do better.\",\n \"\\\"There's nothing to rebalance, the index fund rebalances itself to continue matching the index. However, you need to understand that such an investment is not diversified and you only invest in a very specific market, and very specific stocks on that market. S&P 500 is large (500 different companies, most of the time), but still not as broadly diversified as your retirement investment portfolio should be. You should talk to a financial adviser (CFP for example), many companies provide access to these for 401k plan participants. But in any case, I'd suggest considering \\\"\\\"target date\\\"\\\" funds - funds that are investing based on your expected retirement year, and become more conservative as you get closer to that year.\\\"\",\n \"You will have to rebalance every time your Boolean Buy flag is true. You buy 20% of each fund then next week you have to sell down to 10% of your first 5 funds and buy 10% of the second 5.\",\n \"\\\"The way I've implemented essentially \\\"\\\"value averaging\\\"\\\", is to keep a constant ratio between different investment types in my portfolio. Lets say (in a simple example), 25% cash, 25% REIT (real estate), 25% US Stock, 25% Foreign stock. Lets say I deposit a set $1000 per month into this account. If the stock portion goes up, it will look like I need more cash & REIT, so all of that $1000 goes into cash & the REIT portion to get them towards their 25%. I may spend months investing only in cash & the REIT while the stock goes up. Of course if the stock goes down, that $1000 per month goes into the stock accounts. Now you can also balance your account if you'd like, regularly selling stock (or the REIT), and making the account balanced. So if the stock goes down, you'd use the cash & REIT to purchase more stock. If the stock went up, you'd sell the stock, and buy REIT & leave more in cash.\\\"\",\n \"You need to look at all your investment as a whole. The 401K, IRA, and any taxable account need to be a part of the diversification and re-balancing. The fact you have regular deposits into the 401K needs to also be a part of your strategy. Regardless of how much specific investments have gone up this year, you need to first determine how you want to be invested in large cap stock, small cap stock, bond, international, emerging markets... Then you need to see where you are today compared to those investment percentages. You then move the money in the retirement accounts to get to your desired percentage. And set the 401K deposits to be consistent with your goals. Many times the deposits are allocated the same way the balances are, but that is more complex if one of the sectors you are investing in exists completely outside the 401K. When you re-balance in the future you will be selling sectors that grew the most and buying those that grew the least compared to their planned percentages. If all the moves are within the 401K and IRA then capital gains are not a concern. Don't think of the different accounts as separate baskets, but think of them as a whole investment strategy.\",\n \"While it is certainly easy to manage single fund, I am not sure it's the right strategy. It's been proven again and again that portfolio diversification is key to long term gains in wealth. I think your best option is to invest in low cost index funds and ETFs. While rebalancing your portfolio is hard, it is vastly simpler if your portfolio only has ETFs.\",\n \"Dollar cost averaging is an great way to diversify your investment risk. There's mainly 2 things you want to achieve when you're saving for retirement: 1) Keep your principal investment; 2) Grow it. The best methods recommended by most financial institutions are as follows: 1) Diversification; 2) Re-balance. There are a lot of additional recommendations, but these are my main take away. When you dollar cost average, you're essentially diversifying your exchange risk between the value of the funds you're investing. Including the ups and downs of the value of the underlying asset, may actually be re-balancing. Picking your asset portfolio: 1) You generally want to include within your 401k or any other invest, classes of investments that do not always move in total correlation as this allows you to diversify risk; 2) I'm making a lot of assumptions here - since you may have already picked your asset classes. Consider utilizing the following to tell you when to buy or sell your underlying investment: 1) Google re-balance excel sheet to find several examples of re-balance tools to help you always buy low and sell high; 2) Enter your portfolio investment; 3) Utilize the movement to invest in the underlying assets based on market movement; and 4) Execute in an emotionless way and stick to your plan. Example - Facts 1) I have 1 CAD and 1 USD in my 401k. Plan I will invest 1 dollar in the ratio of 50/50 - forever. Let's start in 2011 since we were closer to par: 2010 - 1 CAD (value 1 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 50/50 ratio 2011 start - 1 CAD ( value .8 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 40/60 ratio 2011 - rebalance - invest 1 USD as follows purchase .75 CAD (.60 USD) and purchase .40 USD = total of 1 USD reinvested 2011 end - 1.75 CAD (value 1.4USD) and 1.4 USD (value 1.4 USD) - 50/50 ratio As long as the fundamentals of your underlying assets (i.e. you're not expecting hyperinflation or your asset to approach 0), this approach will always build value over time since you're always buying low and selling high while dollar averaging. Keep in mind it does reduce your potential gains - but if you're looking to max gain, it may mean you're also max potential loss - unless you're able to find A symmetrical investments. I hope this helps.\",\n \"Now, if I'm not mistaken, tracking a value-weighted index is extremely easy - just buy the shares in the exact amount they are in the index and wait. Yes in theory. In practise this is difficult. Most funds that track S&P do it on sample basis. This is to maintain the fund size. Although I don't have / know the exact number ... if one wants to replicate the 500 stocks in the same %, one would need close to billion in fund size. As funds are not this large, there are various strategies adopted, including sampling of companies [i.e. don't buy all]; select a set of companies that mimic the S&P behaviour, etc. All these strategies result in tracking errors. There are algorithms to reduce this. The only time you would need to rebalance your holdings is when there is a change in the index, i.e. a company is dropped and a new one is added, right? So essentially rebalance is done to; If so, why do passive ETFs require frequent rebalancing and generally lose to their benchmark index? lets take an Index with just 3 companies, with below price. The total Market cap is 1000 The Minimum required to mimic this index is 200 or Multiples of 200. If so you are fine. More Often, funds can't be this large. For example approx 100 funds track the S&P Index. Together they hold around 8-10% of Market Cap. Few large funds like Vangaurd, etc may hold around 2%. But most of the 100+ S&P funds hold something in 0.1 to 0.5 range. So lets say a fund only has 100. To maintain same proportion it has to buy shares in fraction. But it can only buy shares in whole numbers. This would then force the fund manager to allocate out of proportion, some may remain cash, etc. As you can see below illustrative, there is a tracking error. The fund is not truly able to mimic the index. Now lets say after 1st April, the share price moved, now this would mean more tracking error if no action is taken [block 2] ... and less tracking error if one share of company B is sold and one share of company C is purchased. Again the above is a very simplified view. Tracking error computation is involved mathematics. Now that we have the basic concepts, more often funds tracking S&P; Thus they need to rebalance.\",\n \"\\\"You should establish a strategy -- eg a specific mix of investments/funds which has the long-term tradeofv of risk, returns, and diversification you want -- and stick to that strategy, rebalancing periodically to maintain your strategic ratios betwedn those investments. Yes, that means you will somettimes sell things that have been doing well and buy others that have been doing less well -- but that's to be expected; it's exactly what happens when you \\\"\\\"buy low, sell high\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The goal of the single-fund with a retirement date is that they do the rebalancing for you. They have some set of magic ratios (specific to each fund) that go something like this: Note: I completely made up those numbers and asset mix. When you invest in the \\\"\\\"Mutual-Fund Super Account 2025 fund\\\"\\\" you get the benefit that in 2015 (10 years until retirement) they automatically change your asset mix and when you hit 2025, they do it again. You can replace the functionality by being on top of your rebalancing. That being said, I don't think you need to exactly match the fund choices they provide, just research asset allocation strategies and remember to adjust them as you get closer to retirement.\\\"\",\n \"I really like keshlam's answer. Your age is also a consideration. If you make your own target fund by matching the allocations of whatever Vanguard offers, I'd suggest re-balancing every year or every other year. But if you're just going to match the allocations of their target fund, you might as well just invest in the target fund itself. Most (not all, just most) target funds do not charge an additional management fee. So you just pay the fees of the underlying funds, same as if you mirrored the target fund yourself. (Check the prospectus to see if an additional fee is charged or not.) You may want to consider a more aggressive approach than the target funds. You can accomplish this by selecting a target fund later than your actual retirement age, or by picking your own allocations. The target funds become more conservative as you approach retirement age, so selecting a later target is a way of moving the risk/reward ratio. (I'm not saying target funds are necessarily the best choice, you should get professional advice, etc etc.)\",\n \"\\\"Target Date Funds automatically change their diversification balance over time, rebalancing and reassigning new contributions to become progressively more protective of what you've already earned. (As opposed to other funds which continue to maintain the same balance of investments until you explicitly move the money around.) You can certainly make that same evolution manually; we all used to do that before target funds were made available, and many of us still do so. I'm still handling the relative allocations by hand. But I'm also close to my retirement target, so a target fund wouldn't be changing that much more anyway, and since I'm already tracking the curve... Note that if you feel a bit braver, or a bit more cautious, than the \\\"\\\"average investor\\\"\\\" the target fund was designed for, you can tweak the risk/benefit curve of a Target Date Fund by selecting a fund with a target date a bit later or earlier, respectively, than the date at which you intend to start pulling money back out of the fund.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Doesn't \\\"\\\"no rebalancing\\\"\\\" mean \\\"\\\"start with a portfolio and let it fly?\\\"\\\" Seems like incorporation of rebalancing is more sophisticated than not. Just \\\"\\\"buy\\\"\\\" your portfolio at the start and see where it ends up with no buying/selling, as compared with where it ends up if you do rebalance. Or is it not that simple?\\\"\",\n \"\\\"My answer is Microsoft Excel. Google \\\"\\\"VBA for dummies\\\"\\\" (seriously) and find out if your brokerage offers an 'API'. With a brief understanding of coding you can get a spreadsheet that is live connected to your brokers data stream. Say you have a spreadsheet with the 1990 value of each in the first two columns (cells a1 and b1). Maybe this formula could be the third column, it'll tell you how much to buy or sell to rebalance them. then to iterate the rebalance, set both a2 and b2 to =C1 and drag the formula through row 25, one row for each year. It'll probably be a little more work than that, but you get the idea.\\\"\",\n \"I wrote a detailed article on Tax Loss Harvesting to show the impact on returns. For my example, I showed a person in the 15% bracket. In years with no loss, they trade to capture gains at 0% long term rate, thus bumping their basis up. In years with losses, they tax harvest for a 15% effective 'rebate' on that loss. I showed how for the lost decade 2000-2009, a buy and hold would have returned -1% CAGR, but the tax loss harvester would have gained 1% (just 1% for the decade, not CAGR), ending the decade with no loss. As one's portfolio grows, the math changes. You can only take $3000 capital loss against ordinary income, and my example relies on the difference between taking a gain for free but using a loss to offset income. Note, the higher earner would take gains at 15%, but losses at 25%, but only for the relatively small portfolio. The benefit for them is to use loss harvesting to offset gains, less so for ordinary income. As the other answer state, Wealthfront can aid you to do this with no math on your part.\",\n \"They can rebalance and often times at a random manager's discretion. ETF's are just funds, and funds all have their own conditions, read the prospectus, thats the only source of truth.\",\n \"The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. - Twain I use index funds in my retirement planning, but don't stick to just S&P 500 index funds. Suppose I balance my money 50/50 between Small Cap and Large Cap and say I have $10,000. I'd buy $5,000 of an S&P Index fund and $5,000 of a Russell 2000 index fund. Now, fast forward a year. Suppose the S&P Index fund has $4900 and the Russell Index fund has $5200. Sell $150 of Russell Index Fund and buy $150 of S&P 500 Index funds to balance. Repeat that activity every 12-18 months. This lets you be hands off (index fund-style) on your investment choices but still take advantage of great markets. This way, I can still rebalance to sell high and buy low, but I'm not stressing about an individual stock or mutual fund choice. You can repeat this model with more categories, I chose two for the simplicity of explaining.\",\n \"\\\"Do not reinvent the wheel! Historical data about stock market returns and standard deviations suffer from number of issues such as past-filling and mostly survivorship bias -- that the current answers do not consider at all. I suggest to read the paper \\\"\\\"A Century of Global Stock Markets\\\"\\\" by Philippe Jorion (UC Irvine) and William Goetzmann (Yale), here. William Bernstein comments the results here, notice that rebalancing is sometimes a good option but not always, his non-obvious finding where the low SD did not favour from rebalancing: Look at the final page of the paper, \\\"\\\"geometric returns -- represent returns to a buy-and-hold strategy\\\"\\\" and the \\\"\\\"arithmetic averages -- give equal weight to each observation interval.\\\"\\\", where you can find your asked \\\"\\\"historical effect of Rebalancing on Return and Standard Deviation\\\"\\\". The paper nicely summarizes the results to this table: The results in the table are from the interval 1921-1996, it is not that long-time but even longer term data has its own drawbacks. The starting year 1921 is interesting choice because it is around the times of social-economical changes and depressing moments, historical context can be realized from books such as Grapes Of Wrath (short summary here, although fiction to some extent, it has some resonance to the history). The authors have had to ignore some years because of different reasons such as political unrest and wars. Instead of delving into marketed spam as suggested by one reply, I would look into this search here. Look at the number of references and the related papers to judge their value. P.s. I encourage people to attack my open question here, hope we can solve it!\\\"\",\n \"With robo-advisor services, you don't select which funds you buy or sell. All you do is decide on a risk profile, and when you add or remove funds to your account, they decide what to buy or sell based on that profile. Each service might decide how to do this differently. Looking at Betterment's case, it looks like they try to do rebalancing when you buy. So if you put a deposit in each month, they'll buy the lower priced funds to rebalance your account to the desired ratio. In a taxable account, Betterment likes to optimize your tax liability when you withdraw, so they sell the funds that have lost money before they sell the ones that have gained.\",\n \"The idea is you would also have a cash allowance in the portfolio originally - say 25%. So in this scenario, 375K in stock and 125k in cash. and assuming the goal is 1K increase in stock value you would buy 38.5K of stock at the now lower price.\",\n \"\\\"If the stock market dropped 30%-40% next month, providing you with a rare opportunity to buy stocks at a deep discount, wouldn't you want to have some of your assets in investments other than stocks? If you don't otherwise have piles of new cash to throw into the market when it significantly tanks, then having some of your portfolio invested elsewhere will enable you to back up the proverbial truck and load up on more stocks while they are on sale. I'm not advocating active market timing. Rather, the way that long-term investors capitalize on such opportunities is by choosing a portfolio asset allocation that includes some percentage of safer assets (e.g. cash, short term bonds, etc.), permitting the investor to rebalance the portfolio periodically back to target allocations (e.g. 80% stocks, 20% bonds.) When rebalancing would have you buy stocks, it's usually because they are on sale. Similarly, when rebalancing would have you sell stocks, it's usually because they are overpriced. So, don't consider \\\"\\\"safer investments\\\"\\\" strictly as a way to reduce your risk. Rather, they can give you the means to take advantage of market drops, rather than just riding it out when you are already 100% invested in stocks. I could say a lot more about diversification and risk reduction, but there are plenty of other great questions on the site that you can look through instead.\\\"\",\n \"SPY is up 29% YTD. If you are 100% S&P and not up 28.9% plus your deposits, I'd be concerned — check your fund's management fees. Are you calling a top? Proper asset allocation would adjust holding on a regular basis. At the simplest level, say 70% S&P 30% short term/bond fund. It's time to re-adjust to the mix that's right for you, and not market-time. If 2014 sees a huge drop, the re-allocation to 70/30 buys back in at a lower price. If up again, a bit gets shifted out. Last, it makes sense for your deposits to match your allocation split, to lessen the divergence from your target numbers. Note: Asset allocation is a bit more complex than I just described. A good thing to research a bit. (Happy to see someone edit a couple good references here, especially if they aren't looking to offer a full response.) Here are a few choice questions on this site that are related to asset allocation:\",\n \"The benefit of the 401K and IRAs are that reallocating and re balancing are easy. They don't want you to move the funds every day, but you are not locked in to your current allocations. The fact that you mentioned in a comment that you also have a Roth IRA means that you should look at all retirements as a whole. Look at what options you have in the 401K and also what options you have with the IRA. Then determine the overall allocation between bonds, stocks, international, REIT, etc. Then use the mix of funds in the IRA and 401K to meet that goal. Asking if the 401K should be small and mid cap only can't be answered without knowing not just your risk tolerances but the total money in the 401K and IRA. Pick an allocation, map the available funds to that allocation. Rebalance every year. But review the allocation in a few years or after a life event such as: change of job, getting married, having kids, or buying a house.\",\n \"\\\"Investing is always a matter of balancing risk vs reward, with the two being fairly strongly linked. Risk-free assets generally keep up with inflation, if that; these days advice is that even in retirement you're going to want something with better eturns for at least part of your portfolio. A \\\"\\\"whole market\\\"\\\" strategy is a reasonable idea, but not well defined. You need to decide wheher/how to weight stocks vs bonds, for example, and short/long term. And you may want international or REIT in the mix; again the question is how much. Again, the tradeoff is trying to decide how much volatility and risk you are comfortable with and picking a mix which comes in somewhere around that point -- and noting which assets tend to move out of synch with each other (stock/bond is the classic example) to help tune that. The recommendation for higher risk/return when you have a longer horizon before you need the money comes from being able to tolerate more volatility early on when you have less at risk and more time to let the market recover. That lets you take a more aggressive position and, on average, ger higher returns. Over time, you generally want to dial that back (in the direction of lower-risk if not risk free) so a late blip doesn't cause you to lose too much of what you've already gained... but see above re \\\"\\\"risk free\\\"\\\". That's the theoretical answer. The practical answer is that running various strategies against both historical data and statistical simulations of what the market might do in the future suggests some specific distributions among the categories I've mentioned do seem to work better than others. (The mix I use -- which is basically a whole-market with weighting factors for the categories mentioned above -- was the result of starting with a general mix appropriate to my risk tolerance based on historical data, then checking it by running about 100 monte-carlo simulations of the market for the next 50 years.)\\\"\",\n \"Ben Miller's answer is very thorough, and I up voted it. I believe that the ability to rebalance without tax implications is very import, but there are two aspects of the question that were not covered: The 401K in many cases comes with a company match. Putting enough money into the fund each year to maximize the match, give you free money that is not available in the non-retirement accounts. The presence of that match is to encourage employees to contribute: even if they are tying up their funds until retirement age; and they are into a plan with only a handful of investment options; and they may have higher expenses in the 401K. The question also had a concern about the annual limits for the 401K (18,000) and the IRA (5,500). The use of a retirement account doesn't in any way limit your ability to invest in non-retirement accounts. You can choose to invest from 0 to 23,500 in the retirement accounts and from 0 to unlimited into the non-retirement accounts. Double those amounts if you are married.\",\n \"\\\"A diversified portfolio (such as a 60% stocks / 40% bonds balanced fund) is much more predictable and reliable than an all-stocks portfolio, and the returns are perfectly adequate. The extra returns on 100% stocks vs. 60% are 1.2% per year (historically) according to https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations To get those average higher stock returns, you need to be thinking 20-30 years (even 10 years is too short-term). Over the 20-30 years, you must never panic and go to cash, or you will destroy the higher returns. You must never get discouraged and stop saving, or you will destroy the higher returns. You have to avoid the panic and discouragement despite the likelihood that some 10-year period in your 20-30 years the stock market will go nowhere. You also must never have an emergency or other reason to withdraw money early. If you look at \\\"\\\"dry periods\\\"\\\" in stocks, like 2000 to 2011, a 60/40 portfolio made significant money and stocks went nowhere. A diversified portfolio means that price volatility makes you money (due to rebalancing) while a 100% stocks portfolio means that price volatility is just a lot of stress with no benefit. It's somewhat possible, probably, to predict dry periods in stocks; if I remember the statistics, about 50% of the variability in the market price 10 years out can be explained by normalized market valuation (normalized = adjusted for business cycle and abnormal profit margins). Some funds such as http://hussmanfunds.com/ are completely based on this, though a lot of money managers consider it. With a balanced portfolio and rebalancing, though, you don't have to worry about it very much. In my view, the proper goal is not to beat the market, nor match the market, nor is it to earn the absolute highest possible returns. Instead, the goal is to have the highest chance of financing your non-financial goals (such as retirement, or buying a house). To maximize your chances of supporting your life goals with your financial decisions, predictability is more important than maximized returns. Your results are primarily determined by your savings rate - which realistic investment returns will never compensate for if it's too low. You can certainly make a 40-year projection in which 1.2% difference in returns makes a big difference. But you have to remember that a projection in which value steadily and predictably compounds is not the same as real life, where you could have emergency or emotional factors, where the market will move erratically and might have a big plunge at just the wrong time (end of the 40 years), and so on. If your plan \\\"\\\"relies\\\"\\\" on the extra 1.2% returns then it's not a reasonable plan anyhow, in my opinion, since you can't count on them. So why suffer the stress and extra risk created by an all-stocks portfolio?\\\"\",\n \"Modern portfolio theory has a strong theoretical background and its conclusions on the risk/return trade-off have a lot of good supporting evidence. However, the conclusions it draws need to be used very carefully when thinking about retirement investing. If you were really just trying to just pick the one investment that you would guess would make you the most money in the future then yes, given no other information, the riskiest asset would be the best one. However, for most people the goal retirement investing is to be as sure as possible to retire comfortably. If you were to just invest in a single, very risky asset you may have the highest expected return, but the risk involved would mean there might be a good chance you money may not be there when you need it. Instead, a broad diversified basket of riskier and safer assets leaning more toward the riskier investments when younger and the safer assets when you get closer to retirement tends to be a better fit with most people's retirement goals. This tends to give (on average) more return when you are young and can better deal with the risk, but dials back the risk later in life when your investment portfolio is a majority of your wealth and you can least afford any major swings. This combines the lessons of MPT (diversity, risk/return trade-off) in a clearer way with common goals of retirement. Caveat: Your retirement goals and risk-tolerance may be very different from other peoples'. It is often good to talk to (fee-only) financial planner.\",\n \"Unfortunately I believe there is not a good answer to this because it's not a well posed problem. It sounds like you are looking for a theoretically sound criteria to decide whether to sell or hold. Such a criteria would take the form of calculating the cost of continuing to hold a stock and comparing it to the transactions cost of replacing it in your portfolio. However, your criteria for stock selection doesn't take this form. You appear to have some ad hoc rules defining whether you want the stock in your portfolio that provide no way to calculate a cost of having something in your portfolio you don't want or failing to have something you do want. Criteria for optimally rebalancing a portfolio can't really be more quantitative than the rules that define the portfolio.\",\n \"Buy and hold doesn't have an exact definition, as far as I know. In my opinion, it's offered as a contrast to those who trade too frequently, or panic every time the market drops 2%. For the general market, e.g. your S&P index holdings. You sell to rebalance to your desired asset allocation. As a personal example, at 50, I was full up invested, 95%+ in stocks. When my wife and I were retired (i.e. let go from company, but with no need to go back to work) I started shifting to get to a more sane allocation, 80/20. The ideal mix may be closer to 60/40. Also, there are times the market as a whole is overvalued as measure by P/E and/or CAPE, made popular by Nobel Prize winning Robert Shiller. During these times, an allocation shift might make sense. For the individual stocks, you had best have a strategy when you buy. Why did you buy XYZ? Because they had promise, decent company with a good outlook for their product? Now that they are up 300%, can they keep gaining share or expand their market? Sometimes you can keep raising the bar, and keep a company long term, really long. Other times, the reason you bought no longer applies, they are at or above the valuation you hoped to achieve. Note - I noticed from another question, the OP is in the UK. I answer this my from US centric view, but it should still apply to OP in general. The question was not tagged UK when I replied.\",\n \"To add to Dheer's point, the vast majority of retail investors will have to pay fees and use up a large amount of valuable time on the entrance and exit of each stock, and each and every time you rebalance as the index weightings change. These also add up extremely fast vs the few basis points the large and liquid ETFs charge for this service.\",\n \"\\\"One approach is to invest in \\\"\\\"allocation\\\"\\\" mutual funds that use various methods to vary their asset allocation. Some examples (these are not recommendations; just to show you what I am talking about): A good way to identify a useful allocation fund is to look at the \\\"\\\"R-squared\\\"\\\" (correlation) with indexes on Morningstar. If the allocation fund has a 90-plus R-squared with any index, it probably isn't doing a lot. If it's relatively uncorrelated, then the manager is not index-hugging, but is making decisions to give you different risks from the index. If you put 10% of your portfolio in a fund that varies allocation to stocks from 25% to 75%, then your allocation to stocks created by that 10% would be between 2.5% to 7.5% depending on the views of the fund manager. You can use that type of calculation to invest enough in allocation funds to allow your overall allocation to vary within a desired range, and then you could put the rest of your money in index funds or whatever you normally use. You can think of this as diversifying across investment discipline in addition to across asset class. Another approach is to simply rely on your already balanced portfolio and enjoy any downturns in stocks as an opportunity to rebalance and buy some stocks at a lower price. Then enjoy any run-up as an opportunity to rebalance and sell some stocks at a high price. The difficulty of course is going through with the rebalance. This is one advantage of all-in-one funds (target date, \\\"\\\"lifecycle,\\\"\\\" balanced, they have many names), they will always go through with the rebalance for you - and you can't \\\"\\\"see\\\"\\\" each bucket in order to get stressed about it. i.e. it's important to think of your portfolio as a whole, not look at the loss in the stocks portion. An all-in-one fund keeps you from seeing the stocks-by-themselves loss number, which is a good way to trick yourself into behaving sensibly. If you want to rebalance \\\"\\\"more aggressively\\\"\\\" then look at value averaging (search for \\\"\\\"value averaging\\\"\\\" on this site for example). A questionable approach is flat-out market-timing, where you try to get out and back in at the right times; a variation on this would be to buy put options at certain times; the problem is that it's just too hard. I think it makes more sense to buy an allocation fund that does this for you. If you do market time, you want to go in and out gradually, and value averaging is one way to do that.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I would like to first point out that there is nothing special about a self-managed investment portfolio as compared to one managed by someone else. With some exceptions, you can put together exactly the same investment portfolio yourself as a professional investor could put together for you. Not uncommonly, too, at a lower cost (and remember that cost is among the, if not the, best indicator(s) of how your investment portfolio will perform over time). Diversification is the concept of not \\\"\\\"putting all your eggs in one basket\\\"\\\". The idea here is that there are things that happen together because they have a common cause, and by spreading your investments in ways such that not all of your investments have the same underlying risks, you reduce your overall risk. The technical term for risk is generally volatility, meaning how much (in this case the price of) something fluctuates over a given period of time. A stock that falls 30% one month and then climbs 40% the next month is more volatile than one that falls 3% the first month and climbs 4% the second month. The former is riskier because if for some reason you need to sell when it is down, you lose a larger portion of your original investment with the former stock than with the latter. Diversification, thus, is reducing commonality between your investments, generally but not necessarily in an attempt to reduce the risk of all investments moving in the same direction by the same amount at the same time. You can diversify in various ways: Do you see where I am going with this? A well-diversed portfolio will tend to have a mix of equity in your own country and a variety of other countries, spread out over different types of equity (company stock, corporate bonds, government bonds, ...), in different sectors of the economy, in countries with differing growth patterns. It may contain uncommon classes of investments such as precious metals. A poorly diversified portfolio will likely be restricted to either some particular geographical area, type of equity or investment, focus on some particular sector of the economy (such as medicine or vehicle manufacturers), or so on. The poorly diversified portfolio can do better in the short term, if you time it just right and happen to pick exactly the right thing to buy or sell. This is incredibly hard to do, as you are basically working against everyone who gets paid to do that kind of work full time, plus computer-algorithm-based trading which is programmed to look for any exploitable patterns. It is virtually impossible to do for any real length of time. Thus, the well-diversified portfolio tends to do better over time.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"There are a couple of reasons to diversify your assets. First, since we cannot predict which of our investments will perform best, we want to \\\"\\\"cast our net\\\"\\\" broadly enough to have something invested in what's going to be performing well. Second, diversification isn't intended to provide the highest returns, but rather it is used to soften the effects of market volatility. By softening the downsides and lowering the overall volatility among our assets, returns are more consistent. If a model does not address future downside risk it is only telling you part of the story. (Past performance does not guarantee... you get the picture)\\\"\",\n \"It looks like an improvement to me, if for no other reason than lowering the expenses. But if you are around 35 years away from retirement you could consider eliminating all bond funds for now. They will pay better in a few years. And the stock market(s) will definitely go up more than bonds over the next 35 years.\",\n \"\\\"The thing about the glide path is that the closer you're to the retirement age, the less risk you should be taking with your investments. All investments carry risk, but if you invest in a volatile stock market at the age of 20 and lose all your retirement money - it will not have the same effect on your retirement as if you'd invest in a volatile stock market at the age of 65 and then lose all your retirement money. Static allocation throughout your life without changing the risk factor, will lead you to a very conservative investment path, which would mean you're not likely to lose your investments, but you're not likely to gain much either. The point of the glide path is to allow you taking more risks early with more chances of higher gains, but to limit your risks down the road, also limiting your potential gains. That is why it is always suggested to start your retirement funds early in your life, to make sure you have enough time to invest in potentially high return stocks (with high risk), but when you get close to your retirement age, it is advised to do exactly the opposite. The date-targeted funds do that for you, but you can do it on your own as well. As to the academic research - you don't need to go that far. Just look at the graphs to see that over long period investments in stocks give much better return than \\\"\\\"conservative\\\"\\\" bonds and treasuries (especially when averaging the investments, as it usually is with the retirement funds), but over a given short period, investments in stocks are much more likely to significantly lose in value.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I don't think the advice to take lots more risk when young makes so much sense. The additional returns from loading up on stocks are overblown; and the rocky road from owning 75-100% stocks will almost certainly mess you up and make you lose money. Everyone thinks they're different, but none of us are. One big advantage of stocks over bonds is tax efficiency only if you buy index funds and don't ever sell them. But this does not matter in a retirement account, and outside a retirement account you can use tax-exempt bonds. Stocks have higher returns in theory but to have a reasonable guarantee of higher returns from them, you need around a 30-year horizon. That is a long, long time. Psychologically, a 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio, or something with similar risk mixing in a few more alternative assets like Swenson's, is SO MUCH better. With 100% stocks you can spend 10 or 15 years saving money and your investment returns may get you nowhere. Think what that does to your motivation to save. (And how much you save is way more important than what you invest in.) The same doesn't happen with a balanced portfolio. With a balanced portfolio you get reasonably steady progress. You can still have a down year, but you're a lot less likely to have a down decade or even a down few years. You save steadily and your balance goes up fairly steadily. The way humans really work, this is so important. For the same kind of reason, I think it's great to buy one fund that has both stocks and bonds in there. This forces you to view the thing as a whole instead of wrongly looking at the individual asset class \\\"\\\"buckets.\\\"\\\" And it also means rebalancing will happen automatically, without having to remember to do it, which you won't. Or if you remember you won't do it when you should, because stocks are doing so well, or some other rationalization. Speaking of rebalancing, that's where a lot of the steady, predictable returns come from if you have a nice balanced portfolio. You can make money over time even if both asset classes end up going nowhere, as long as they bounce around somewhat independently, so you'll buy low and sell high when you rebalance. To me the ideal is an all-in-one fund that aims for about 60/40 stocks/bonds level of risk, somewhat more diversified than stocks/bonds is great (international stock, commodities, high yield, REIT, etc.). You can just buy that at age 20 and keep it until you retire. In beautiful ideal-world economic theory, buy 90% stocks when young. Real world with human brain involved: I love balanced funds. The steady gains are such a mental win. The \\\"\\\"target retirement\\\"\\\" funds are not a bad option, but if you buy the matching year for your age, I personally wish they had less in stocks. If you want to read more on the \\\"\\\"equity premium\\\"\\\" (how much more you make from owning stocks) here are a couple of posts on it from a blog I like: Update: I wrote this up more comprehensively on my blog,\\\"\",\n \"I still don't see the point of this software; rebalancing frequently is a waste of money (through fees). If you invest in index funds, you don't have to rebalance at all--effectively, the fund is doing it for you, and since they can generally trade more efficiently than individual investors can, that's a win. The Coverdell ESA is a great example. There's a maximum contribution amount, just as there are for almost any tax-exempt account. A decent financial adviser could help you plan how much to contribute to which accounts, at what time, and when you can/should start to withdraw from them.\",\n \"\\\"The standard low-risk/gain very-short-term parking spot these days tends to be a money market account. However, you have only mentioned stock. For good balance, your portfolio should consider the bond market too. Consider adding a bond index fund to diversify the basic mix, taking up much of that 40%. This will also help stabilize your risk since bonds tend to move opposite stocks (prperhaps just because everyone else is also using them as the main alternative, though there are theoretical arguments why this should be so.) Eventually you may want to add a small amount of REIT fund to be mix, but that's back on the higher risk side. (By the way: Trying to guess when the next correction will occur is usually not a winning strategy; guesses tend to go wrong as often as they go right, even for pros. Rather than attempting to \\\"\\\"time the market\\\"\\\", pick a strategic mix of investments and rebalance periodically to maintain those ratios. There has been debate here about \\\"\\\"dollar-cost averaging\\\"\\\" -- see other answers -- but that idea may argue for investing and rebalancing in more small chunks rather than a few large ones. I generally actively rebalance once a year or so, and between those times let maintainng the balance suggest which fund(s) new money should go into -- minimal effort and it has worked quite well enough.,)\\\"\",\n \"Taking as given that your definition of VA involves selling at intermediate times, your question can be made more general. After all, value averaging is just one special case of a portfolio that rebalances to target weights periodically. Do back-end fees (and front-end fees) harm the value of portfolios that require rebalancing? The answer is yes, they do. Those fees are put in place in order to prevent investors from redeeming shares over any but the longest horizons. Any portfolio that rebalances periodically will involve some periodic selling. If you invest in a fund with front-end or back-end fees, it is optimal to leave your money in it for as long as possible and not do any rebalancing. If you want to run a portfolio that is at all active (involves rebalancing), then it is probably wise to use no-load funds. These are often some of the best and cheapest funds anyway, but even if front or back end load funds have a lower expense ratio, you will likely lose money on those loads as you rebalance.\",\n \"The reason diversification in general is a benefit is easily seen in your first graph. While the purple line (Betterment 100% Stock) is always below the blue line (S&P), and the blue line is the superior return over the entire period, it's a bit different if you retired in 2009, isn't it? In that case the orange line is superior: because its risk is much lower, so it didn't drop much during the major crash. Lowering risk (and lowering return) is a benefit the closer you get to retirement as you won't see as big a cumulative return from the large percentage, but you could see a big temporary drop, and need your income to be relatively stable (if you're living off it or soon going to). Now, you can certainly invest on your own in a diverse way, and if you're reasonably smart about it and have enough funds to avoid any fees, you can almost certainly do better than a managed solution - even a relatively lightly managed solution like Betterment. They take .15% off the top, so if you just did exactly the same as them, you would end up .15% (per year) better off. However, not everyone is reasonably smart, and not everyone has much in the way of funds. Betterment's target audience are people who aren't terribly smart about investing and/or have very small amounts of funds to invest. Plenty of people aren't able to work out how to do diversification on their own; while they probably mostly aren't asking questions on this site, they're a large percentage of the population. It's also work to diversify your portfolio: you have to make minor changes every year at a minimum to ensure you have a nicely balanced portfolio. This is why target retirement date portfolios are very popular; a bit higher cost (similar to Betterment, roughly) but no work required to diversify correctly and maintain that diversification.\",\n \"For a non-technical investor (meaning someone who doesn't try to do all the various technical analysis things that theoretically point to specific investments or trends), having a diverse portfolio and rebalancing it periodically will typically be the best solution. For example, I might have a long-term-growth portfolio that is 40% broad stock market fund, 40% (large) industry specific market funds, and 20% bond funds. If the market as a whole tanks, then I might end up in a situation where my funds are invested 30% market 35% industry 35% bonds. Okay, sell those bonds (which are presumably high) and put that into the market (which is presumably low). Now back to 40/40/20. Then when the market goes up we may end up at 50/40/10, say, in which case we sell some of the broad market fund and buy some bond funds, back to 40/40/20. Ultimately ending up always selling high (whatever is currently overperforming the other two) and buying low (whatever is underperforming). Having the industry specific fund(s) means I can balance a bit between different sectors - maybe the healthcare industry takes a beating for a while, so that goes low, and I can sell some of my tech industry fund and buy that. None of this depends on timing anything; you can rebalance maybe twice a year, not worrying about where the market is at that exact time, and definitely not targeting a correction specifically. You just analyze your situation and adjust to make everything back in line with what you want. This isn't guaranteed to succeed (any more than any other strategy is), of course, and has some risk, particularly if you rebalance in the middle of a major correction (so you end up buying something that goes down more). But for long-term investments, it should be fairly sound.\",\n \"If you are looking for an advisor to just build a portfolio and then manage it, a robo-advisor can be beneficial (especially if the alternative is doing it your self, assuming that you are not well versed in the markets). The primary risk with one is that it does not build a portfolio that accurately represents your needs and risk tolerance. Some firms base the number of questions they ask you on sign up based not on what is needed to get a good profile, but on how many before people decide that it is too much hassle and bail. That usually results in poorer profiles. Also a live advisor may be better at really getting at your risk tolerance. Many of day our risk tolerance is one thing but in reality we are not so risk tolerant. Once the profile is built. The algorithms maintain your portfolio on a day by day basis. If rebalancing opportunities occur they take advantage of it. The primary benefit of a robo-advisor is lower fees or smaller minimum account balances. The downside is the lack of human interaction and financial advise outside of putting together a portfolio.\",\n \"\\\"JoeTaxpayer's advice is solid - reallocating to your target asset allocation is the right move. You should have an Investor Policy Statement (IPS) that maps out your financial objectives, risk tolerance, liquidity constraints, etc. From the IPS, you can determine your target asset allocation and rebalance accordingly. A few more comments: It sounds like 100% of your 401k is in US stocks. You might have other accounts that make your overall portfolio globally diversified, but if not, you want to make sure to set a target asset allocation for a global portfolio. Your statement \\\"\\\"If this were in my brokerage account I'd probably cash out some of the profits and hold onto it and buy more shares as the market eventually comes back down. But this being a 401k which has semi-monthly deposits from my paycheck, do I just leave it?\\\"\\\" is a bit counterintuitive. If you are going to try to time the market (a very hard task), it is better to use a retirement account, so you don't have to realize capital gains. Timing the market is probably a bad idea, but if you engage in market timing, it is probably better to use a retirement account than a brokerage account. If you would like to tilt your asset allocation based on the market valuation, I recommend researching Shiller's Cyclically Adjusted Price to Earnings ratio.\\\"\",\n \"At its simplest level it's an application of basic statistics/probability: Suppose you have n independent and identically distributed assets with the return on asset i denoted R_i which has mean m and variance s^2 (same for all assets). You can easily weaken these assumptions but I make them to simplify the exposition [Square brackets show a numerical example with n=20, m=8%, s=2%] if you invest in one of these assets you expect to get a return of m [8%] with standard deviation s [2%] (so you expect with probability 95% (approx) to get a return between m-2*s and m+2*s. [between 4% and 12%] Now suppose you split your money equally among the n-assets. Your return is now R = (1/n)\\\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i your expected return is E(R) = (1/n)\\\\Sum{i=1}^n E(R_i) = (1/n)\\\\Sum{i=1}^n m = m [8%] the variance of your return is Var(R) = Var( (1/n)\\\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i ) = (1/n^2)\\\\Sum{i=1}^n Var(R_i) = n * s^2 / n^2) = s^2/n So, the standard deviation is SD(R) = Sqrt(V(R)) = s/Sqrt(n) [2%/Sqrt(20) = 0.44%] Now, with 95% probability we get a return between E(R)-2*SD(R) and E(R)+2*SD(R) [between 7.12% and 8.88%]. This interval is smaller than when we invested in the single asset, so in effect with this portfolio we are achieving the same return m [8%] but with lower variance (risk) [0.44% instead of 2%]. This is the result of diversification. You can assume the assets are not independent (and most book expositions of this topic do indeed do that). In that case the calculation is modified because the variance of the portfolio now depends on the correlation between returns, as does the reduction in variance caused by the diversification. If assets are negatively correlated the result of the diversification will be more reduction in risk and vice versa. You can also assume the assets are not identically distributed and the above analysis does not change too much. You might look for some references on CAPM (Capital Asset Pricing Model) or portfolio theory but broadly these are based on what I have described above - finding the portfolio with minimum variance for a given return by investing proportionally in treasury bonds and risky assets.\",\n \"\\\"1. Interest rates What you should know is that the longer the \\\"\\\"term\\\"\\\" of a bond fund, the more it will be affected by interest rates. So a short-term bond fund will not be subject to large gains or losses due to rate changes, an intermediate-term bond fund will be subject to moderate gains or losses, and a long-term bond fund will be subject to the largest gains or losses. When a book or financial planner says to buy \\\"\\\"bonds\\\"\\\" with no other qualification, they almost always mean investment-grade intermediate-term bond funds (or for individual bonds, the equivalent would be a bond ladder averaging an intermediate term). If you want technical details, look at the \\\"\\\"average duration\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"average maturity\\\"\\\" of the bond fund; as a rough guide, if the duration is 10, then a 1% change in interest rates would be a 10% gain or loss on the fund. Another thing you can do is look at long-term (10 years or ideally longer) performance history on some short, intermediate, and long term bond index funds, and you can see how the long term funds bounced around more. Non-investment-grade bonds (aka junk bonds or high yield bonds) are more affected by factors other than interest rates, including some of the same factors (economic booms or recessions) that affect stocks. As a result, they aren't as good for diversifying a portfolio that otherwise consists of stocks. (Having stocks, investment grade bonds, and also a little bit in high-yield bonds can add diversification, though. Just don't replace your bond allocation with high-yield bonds.) A variety of \\\"\\\"complicated\\\"\\\" bonds exist (convertible bonds are an example) and these are tough to analyze. There are also \\\"\\\"floating rate\\\"\\\" bonds (bank loan funds), these have minimal interest rate sensitivity because the rate goes up to offset rate rises. These funds still have credit risks, in the credit crisis some of them lost a lot of money. 2. Diversification The purpose of diversification is risk control. Your non-bond funds will outperform in many years, but in other years (say the -37% S&P 500 drop in 2008) they may not. You will not know in advance which year you'll get. You get risk control in at least a few ways. There's also an academic Modern Portfolio Theory explanation for why you should diversify among risky assets (aka stocks), something like: for a given desired risk/return ratio, it's better to leverage up a diverse portfolio than to use a non-diverse portfolio, because risk that can be eliminated through diversification is not compensated by increased returns. The theory also goes that you should choose your diversification between risk assets and the risk-free asset according to your risk tolerance (i.e. select the highest return with tolerable risk). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory for excruciating detail. The translation of the MPT stuff to practical steps is typically, put as much in stock index funds as you can tolerate over your time horizon, and put the rest in (intermediate-term investment-grade) bond index funds. That's probably what your planner is asking you to do. My personal view, which is not the standard view, is that you should take as much risk as you need to take, not as much as you think you can tolerate: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ But almost everyone else will say to do the 80/20 if you have decades to retirement and feel you can tolerate the risk, so my view that 60/40 is the max desirable allocation to stocks is not mainstream. Your planner's 80/20 advice is the standard advice. Before doing 100% stocks I'd give you at least a couple cautions: See also:\\\"\",\n \"The reinvestment of dividends and capital gains is a very significant portion of investment gains over the years. This creates a compounding effect on your gains. You should almost certainly reinvest to help the account grow, until you are retired and want to withdraw some cash. Placing them in a money market account just builds a pile of uninvested cash.\",\n \"\\\"John Bensin's answer covers the math, but I like the plain-English examples of the theory from William Bernstein's fine book, The Intelligent Asset Allocator. At the author's web site, you can find the complete chapter 1 and chapter 2, though not chapter 3, which is the one with the \\\"\\\"multiple coin toss\\\"\\\" portfolio example I want to highlight. I'll summarize Bernstein's multiple coin toss example here with some excerpts from the book. (Another top user, @JoeTaxpayer, has also written about the coin flip on his blog, also mentioning Bernstein's book.) Bernstein begins Chapter 1 by describing an offer from a fictitious \\\"\\\"Uncle Fred\\\"\\\": Imagine that you work for your rich but eccentric Uncle Fred. [...] he decides to let you in on the company pension plan. [...] you must pick ahead of time one of two investment choices for the duration of your employment: Certificates of deposit with a 3% annualized rate of return, or, A most peculiar option: At the end of each year Uncle Fred flips a coin. Heads you receive a 30% investment return for that year, tails a minus 10% (loss) for the year. This will be hereafter referred to as \\\"\\\"Uncle Fred’s coin toss,\\\"\\\" or simply, the \\\"\\\"coin toss.\\\"\\\" In effect, choosing option 2 results in a higher expected return than option 1, but it is certainly riskier, having a high standard deviation and being especially prone to a series of bad tosses. Chapters 1 and 2 continue to expand on the idea of risk, and take a look at various assets/markets over time. Chapter 3 then begins by introducing the multiple coin toss example: Time passes. You have spent several more years in the employ of your Uncle Fred, and have truly grown to dread the annual coin-toss sessions. [...] He makes you another offer. At the end of each year, he will divide your pension account into two equal parts and conduct a separate coin toss for each half [...] there are four possible outcomes [...]: [...] Being handy with numbers, you calculate that your annualized return for this two-coin-toss sequence is 9.08%, which is nearly a full percentage point higher than your previous expected return of 8.17% with only one coin toss. Even more amazingly, you realize that your risk has been reduced — with the addition of two returns at the mean of 10%, your calculated standard deviation is now only 14.14%, as opposed to 20% for the single coin toss. [...] Dividing your portfolio between assets with uncorrelated results increases return while decreasing risk. [...] If the second coin toss were perfectly inversely correlated with the first and always gave the opposite result [hence, outcomes 1 and 4 above never occurring], then our return would always be 10%. In this case, we would have a 10% annualized long-term return with zero risk! I hope that summarizes the example well. Of course, in the real world, one of the tricks to building a good portfolio is finding assets that aren't well-correlated, and if you're interested in more on the subject I suggest you check out his books (including The Four Pillars of Investing) and read more about Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT).\\\"\",\n \"In the US, the key to understanding the benefits of retirement accounts is to understand capital gains taxes and how they work. Retirement accounts are designed for making investments throughout your career, then after several decades of contributions, withdrawing that money to pay for your needs when your full-time employment has concluded. Normally when you invest money in a brokerage account, if the value of your investment increases, and you sell in less than a year, those investments are considered short-term gains and taxed as ordinary income. If you hold that same investment for over a year, the same investment is taxed at a lower capital gains rate (depending on which tax bracket you are in during that year, the amount due could be up to 20%, but much lower than your regular income tax rate). When you place your money in a retirement account, you are choosing to either pay the tax due on the income when you put it in the account, or put the money in tax free and pay the tax when you withdraw (these are called tax-deferred accounts). When you have money invested several decades, the raw dollar amount increases greatly, but inflation is also reducing the value of those dollars. Imagine you bought some bonds that payed 4% over 40 years, but inflation was 2% during those same years. When you sell those bonds 40 years later, you will owe capital gains on the entire gain even though half of the gain came from inflation. Retirement accounts allow you to buy and sell according to your investment needs and goals without any consideration about whether the gains are short-term or long-term, and they also allow you to pay taxes just once, either when you put it in, or when you take it out, with no worries about whether you're paying taxes on inflated gains.\",\n \"\\\"First, decide on your asset allocation; are you looking for a fund with 60% stocks/risky-stuff, or 40% or 20%? Second, look for funds that have a mix of stocks and bonds. Good keywords would be: \\\"\\\"target retirement,\\\"\\\" \\\"\\\"lifecycle,\\\"\\\" \\\"\\\"balanced,\\\"\\\" \\\"\\\"conservative/moderate allocation.\\\"\\\" As you discover these funds, probably the fund website (but at least Morningstar.com) will tell you the percentage in stocks and risk assets, vs. in conservative bonds. Look for funds that have the percentage you decided on, or as close to it as possible. Third, build a list of funds that meet your allocation goal, and compare the details. Are they based on index funds, or are they actively managed? What is the expense ratio? Is the fund from a reputable company? You could certainly ask more questions here if you have several candidates and aren't sure how to choose. For investing in US dollars one can't-go-wrong choice is Vanguard and they have several suitable funds, but unfortunately if you spend in NIS then you should probably invest in that currency, and I don't know anything about funds in Israel. Update: two other options here. One is a financial advisor who agrees to do rebalancing for you. If you get a cheap one, it could be worth it. Two is that some 401k plans have an automatic rebalancing feature, where you have multiple funds but you can set it up so their computer auto-rebalances you. That's almost as good as having a single fund, though it does still encourage some \\\"\\\"mental accounting\\\"\\\" so you'd have to try to only look at the total balance, not the individual fund balances, over time. Anyway both of these could be alternatives ways to go on autopilot, besides a single fund.\\\"\",\n \"Diversification is used by many to hopefully reduce the risk when bad investments are made. Diversification does not help you make more profits but instead averages down your profits. There is no way one can tell whether a stock or portfolio of stocks will go up or down once they are purchased. In order to try to provide some protection against total loss of the portfolio, a lazy so called long term investor will use diversification as a way of risk management. But the best outcome for them will be an averaging down of their profits. A better method is to let the market tell you when your purchased investment is a bad one and get out of that investment early and thus limiting your losses, whilst letting your good investments (as determined by the market) run and make larger profits.\",\n \"\\\"While it's definitely possible (and likely?) that a diversified portfolio generates higher returns than the S&P 500, that's not the main reason why you diversify. Diversification reduces risk. Modern portfolio theory suggests that you should maximize return while reducing risk, instead of blindly chasing the highest returns. Think about it this way--say the average return is 11% for large cap US stocks (the S&P 500), and it's 10% for a diversified portfolio (say, 6-8 asset classes). The large cap only portfolio has a 10% chance of losing 30% in a given year, while the diversified portfolio has a 1% chance of losing 30% in a year. For the vast majority of investors, it's worth the 1% annual gap in expected return to greatly reduce their risk exposure. Of course, I just made those numbers up. Read what finance professors have written for the \\\"\\\"data and proof\\\"\\\". But modern portfolio theory is believed by a lot of investors and other finance experts. There are a ton of studies (and therefore data) on MPT--including many that contradict it.\\\"\",\n \"The target date investment will automatically reduce equity exposure and increase bond exposure as it approaches retirement date. If you are unlikely to make adjustments as you get older, you may be setting yourself up for more risk down the road. Only you can decide what level of risk you can tolerate as you chase higher gains.\",\n \"Some years your portfolio may perform better than the benchmark, and some years it may be the other way around. Without a benchmark you will never know. And by the way if you choose poorly, you will never beat the benchmark. If the benchmark goes up 20% but your fund/investment only went up 3% you did make money, but you might want to reevaluate your strategy.\",\n \"\\\"From http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ , Lots of sensible advisers will tell you to buy index funds, but importantly, the advice is not simply \\\"\\\"buy index funds.\\\"\\\" There are at least two other critical details: 1) asset allocation across multiple well-chosen indexes, maintained through regular rebalancing, and 2) dollar cost averaging (or, much-more-complex-but-probably-slightly-better, value averaging). The advice is not to take your single lump sum and buy and hold a cap-weighted index forever. The advice is an investment discipline which involves action over time, and an initial choice among indexes. An index-fund-based strategy is not completely passive, it involves some active risk control through rebalancing and averaging. If you'd held a balanced portfolio over the last ten years and rebalanced, and even better if you'd dollar cost averaged, you'd have done fine. Your reaction to the last 10 years incidentally is why I don't believe an almost-all-stocks allocation makes sense for most people even if they're pretty young. More detail in this answer: How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? I think some index fund advocacy and books do people a disservice by focusing too much on the extra cost of active management and why index funds are a good deal. That point is true, but for most investors, asset allocation, rebalancing, and \\\"\\\"autopilotness\\\"\\\" of their setup are more important to outcome than the expense ratio.\\\"\",\n \"I could see doing this if the investments were via different environments. The choices in a 401K are limited by the plan, so you might want to put new money into the 401K index fund. At the same time you could have IRA money invested in a similar index. You could even have non-retirement money invested. While you should look at all your investments while evaluating your investment percentages, the 401K (limited options) and the non-retirement account (avoiding taxes) might be harder to move around. Otherwise the only advantage of splitting between funds is avoiding having all your money in a Ponzi scheme.\",\n \"Dummy example to explain this. Suppose your portfolio contained just two securities; a thirty year US government bond and a Tesla stock. Both of those position are currently valued at $1mm. The Tesla position however is very volatile with its daily volatility being about 5% (based on the standard deviation of its daily return) whole there bond's daily volatility is 1%. Then the Tesla position is 5/6 of your risk while being only 1/2 of the portfolio. Now if in month the Tesla stock tanks to half is values then. Then it's risk is half as much as before and so it's total contribution to risk has gone down.\",\n \"Diversification is a good method of risk management. Different types of investments do better in different situations and economic climates. Invest all your money at the wrong time in a single product and you could lose everything. You could also technically make a great deal of money, but actions such as these are the actions of speculators, not investors. Spreading your investments appropriately lets you maximize your growth opportunities while limiting your risk.\",\n \"Yes E[x] is expected value of x. E[x|y] = expected value of x, given y. c, k are some constants Let E[s_{n+1}|s_n=c] = c, but if E[s_{n+1}|s_n,s_{n-1},...,s_{n-m}] ->some constant k as m->\\\\infty (call this equation 1) then rebalancing makes sense. Notes:\",\n \"\\\"There is no rule-of-thumb that fits every person and every situation. However, the reasons why this advice is generally applicable to most people are simple. Why it is good to be more aggressive when you are young The stock market has historically gone up, on average, over the long term. However, on its way up, it has ups and downs. If you won't need your investment returns for many years to come, you can afford to put a large portion of your investment into the volatile stock market, because you have plenty of time for the market to recover from temporary downturns. Why it is good to be more conservative when you are older Over a short-term period, there is no certainty that the stock market will go up. When you are in retirement, most people withdraw/sell their investments for income. (And once you reach a certain age, you are required to withdraw some of your retirement savings.) If the market is in a temporary downturn, you would be forced to \\\"\\\"sell low,\\\"\\\" losing a significant portion of your investment. Exceptions Of course, there are exceptions to these guidelines. If you are a young person who can't help but watch your investments closely and gets depressed when seeing the value go down during a market downturn, perhaps you should move some of your investment out of stocks. It will cost you money in the long term, but may help you sleep at night. If you are retired, but have more saved than you could possibly need, you can afford to risk more in the stock market. On average, you'll come out ahead, and if a downturn happens when you need to sell, it won't affect your overall situation much.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"That's a lot of manual checking-in to see if everything is performing the way you \\\"\\\"want\\\"\\\". Not to insult your intelligence, but that is not your job, and doing that on a monthly basis is going to eat a lot of time. Plus, most 401(k) programs have lockout periods wherein changes can't be made without incurring additional fees (related to distributions, etc). And if you're checking that often, you are [likely] losing the benefits of investing in mutual funds to start with. If you have the stomach to handle the risk, go for the high-risk investment vehicles early in your career - you can afford a 30% drop this year if you then make 105%, 15%, or 50% back each of the next 5. If, on the other hand, you're in your mid-career, switch to more conservative management tactics.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"In a cap-weighted fund, the fund itself isn't buying or selling at all (except to support redemptions or purchases of the fund). As the value of a stock in the index goes up, then its value in the fund goes up naturally. This is the advantage of a cap-weighted fund, that it doesn't have to trade (buy and sell), it just sits on the stocks. That makes a cap-weighted fund inexpensive (low trading costs) and tax-efficient (doesn't trigger capital gains due to sales). The buying high and selling low referred to by \\\"\\\"fundamental indexation\\\"\\\" advocates like Wisdom Tree is buying high and selling low on the part of the investor. That is, when you purchase the market-cap-weighted fund, at that time that you purchase, you will spend more on the higher-priced stocks, just because they account for more of the value of the fund, and less money goes to the cheaper stocks which account for less of the value of the fund. In the prospectus for a fund they should tell you which index they use, and if the prospectus doesn't describe the weighting of the index, you could do a web search for the index name and find out how that index is constructed. A market-cap-weighted fund is the standard kind of weighting which is what you get if you buy the stocks in the index and then hold them without buying or selling. Most of the famous indexes (e.g. S&P500) are cap-weighted, with the notable exception of the Dow Jones Industrial Average which is \\\"\\\"price-weighted\\\"\\\" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-weighted_index. Price-weighting is just an archaic tradition, not something one would use for a new index design today. A fund weighted by \\\"\\\"fundamentals\\\"\\\" or equal-weighted, rather than cap-weighted, is effectively doing a kind of rebalancing, selling what's gone up to buy more of what's gone down. Rather than buying an exotic fund, you could get a similar effect by buying a balanced fund (one that mixes stocks and bonds). Then when stocks go up, your fund would sell them and buy bonds, and the fund would sell the most of the highest-market-cap stocks that make up more of the index. And vice versa of course. But the fundamental-weighted funds are fine, the more important considerations include your stocks vs. bonds percentages (asset allocation) and whether you make irrational trades instead of sticking to a plan.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Aggressiveness in a retirement portfolio is usually a function of your age and your risk tolerance. Your portfolio is usually a mix of the following asset classes: You can break down these asset classes further, but each one is a topic unto itself. If you are young, you want to invest in things that have a higher return, but are more volatile, because market fluctuations (like the current financial meltdown) will be long gone before you reach retirement age. This means that at a younger age, you should be investing more in stocks and foreign/developing countries. If you are older, you need to be into more conservative investments (bonds, money market, etc). If you were in your 50s-60s and still heavily invested in stock, something like the current financial crisis could have ruined your retirement plans. (A lot of baby boomers learned this the hard way.) For most of your life, you will probably be somewhere in between these two. Start aggressive, and gradually get more conservative as you get older. You will probably need to re-check your asset allocation once every 5 years or so. As for how much of each investment class, there are no hard and fast rules. The idea is to maximize return while accepting a certain amount of risk. There are two big unknowns in there: (1) how much return do you expect from the various investments, and (2) how much risk are you willing to accept. #1 is a big guess, and #2 is personal opinion. A general portfolio guideline is \\\"\\\"100 minus your age\\\"\\\". This means if you are 20, you should have 80% of your retirement portfolio in stocks. If you are 60, your retirement portfolio should be 40% stock. Over the years, the \\\"\\\"100\\\"\\\" number has varied. Some financial advisor types have suggested \\\"\\\"150\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"200\\\"\\\". Unfortunately, that's why a lot of baby boomers can't retire now. Above all, re-balance your portfolio regularly. At least once a year, perhaps quarterly if the market is going wild. Make sure you are still in-line with your desired asset allocation. If the stock market tanks and you are under-invested in stocks, buy more stock, selling off other funds if necessary. (I've read interviews with fund managers who say failure to rebalance in a down stock market is one of the big mistakes people make when managing a retirement portfolio.) As for specific mutual fund suggestions, I'm not going to do that, because it depends on what your 401k or IRA has available as investment options. I do suggest that your focus on selecting a \\\"\\\"passive\\\"\\\" index fund, not an actively managed fund with a high expense ratio. Personally, I like \\\"\\\"total market\\\"\\\" funds to give you the broadest allocation of small and big companies. (This makes your question about large/small cap stocks moot.) The next best choice would be an S&P 500 index fund. You should also be able to find a low-cost Bond Index Fund that will give you a healthy mix of different bond types. However, you need to look at expense ratios to make an informed decision. A better-performing fund is pointless if you lose it all to fees! Also, watch out for overlap between your fund choices. Investing in both a Total Market fund, and an S&P 500 fund undermines the idea of a diversified portfolio. An aggressive portfolio usually includes some Foreign/Developing Nation investments. There aren't many index fund options here, so you may have to go with an actively-managed fund (with a much higher expense ratio). However, this kind of investment can be worth it to take advantage of the economic growth in places like China. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/04/27/how-to-create-your-own-target-date-mutual-fund/\\\"\",\n \"It's all about risk. These guidelines were all developed based on the risk characteristics of the various asset categories. Bonds are ultra-low-risk, large caps are low-risk (you don't see most big stocks like Coca-Cola going anywhere soon), foreign stocks are medium-risk (subject to additional political risk and currency risk, especially so in developing markets) and small-caps are higher risk (more to gain, but more likely to go out of business). Moreover, the risks of different asset classes tend to balance each other out some. When stocks fall, bonds typically rise (the recent credit crunch being a notable but temporary exception) as people flock to safety or as the Fed adjusts interest rates. When stocks soar, bonds don't look as attractive, and interest rates may rise (a bummer when you already own the bonds). Is the US economy stumbling with the dollar in the dumps, while the rest of the world passes us by? Your foreign holdings will be worth more in dollar terms. If you'd like to work alternative asset classes (real estate, gold and other commodities, etc) into your mix, consider their risk characteristics, and what will make them go up and down. A good asset allocation should limit the amount of 'down' that can happen all at once; the more conservative the allocation needs to be, the less 'down' is possible (at the expense of the 'up'). .... As for what risks you are willing to take, that will depend on your position in life, and what risks you are presently are exposed to (including: your job, how stable your company is and whether it could fold or do layoffs in a recession like this one, whether you're married, whether you have kids, where you live). For instance, if you're a realtor by trade, you should probably avoid investing too much in real estate or it'll be a double-whammy if the market crashes. A good financial advisor can discuss these matters with you in detail.\",\n \"Check out some common portfolios compared: Note that all these portfolios are loosely based on Modern Portfolio Theory, a theory of how to maximize reward given a risk tolerance introduced by Harry Markowitz. The theory behind the Gone Fishin' Portfolio and the Couch Potato Portfolio (more info) is that you can make money by rebalancing once a year or less. You can take a look at 8 Lazy ETF Portfolios to see other lazy allocation percentages. One big thing to remember - the expense ratio of the funds you invest in is a major contributor to the return you get. If they're taking 1% of all of your gains, you're not. If they're only taking .2%, that's an automatic .8% you get. The reason Vanguard is so often used in these model portfolios is that they have the lowest expense ratios around. If you are talking about an IRA or a mutual fund account where you get to choose who you go with (as opposed to a 401K with company match), conventional wisdom says go with Vanguard for the lowest expense ratios.\",\n \"Older folk might wish to let the dividends and cap gains be paid in cash, and use that cash towards their RMDs (required distributions). If you are investing in mutual funds and wish to keep adding to the funds you've selected, the reinvestment is a simple way to avoid having to visit the account and make a new purchase. In other words, you invest $5500, buy the fund, and X years from now, you simply have more shares of the fund but no cash o worry about. The pro is as mentioned, and the con is really for the 70-1/2+ people who will need to take their RMDs. (Although even they can take the RMD in kind, as fund shares)\",\n \"\\\"An investment portfolio is typically divided into three components: All three of those can be accessed through mutual funds or ETFs. A 401(k) will probably have a small set of mutual funds for you to pick from. Mutual funds may charge you silly expenses if you pick a bad one. Look at the prospectus for the expense ratio. If it's over 1% you're definitely paying too much. If it's over 0.5% you're probably paying too much. If it's less than 0.1% you have a really good deal. US stocks are generally the core holding until you move into retirement (or get close to spending the money on something else if it's not invested for retirement). International stocks are riskier than US stocks, but provide opportunity for diversification and better returns than the US stocks. Bonds, or fixed-income investments, are generally very safe, but have limited opportunities for returns. They tend to do better when stocks are doing poorly. When you've got a while to invest, you should be looking at riskier investments; when you don't, you should be looking for safer investments. A quick (and rough) rule of thumb is that \\\"\\\"your age should match the portion of your portfolio in bonds\\\"\\\". So if you're 50 years old and approaching retirement in 15 years or so, you should have about 50% in bonds. Roughly. People whose employment and future income is particularly tied to one sector of the market would also do well to avoid investing there, because they already are at risk if it performs badly. For instance, if you work in the technology sector, loading up on tech stocks is extra risky: if there's a big bust, you're not just out of a job, your portfolio is dead as well. More exotic options are available to diversify a portfolio: While many portfolios could benefit from these sorts of holdings, they come with their own advantages and disadvantages and should be researched carefully before taking a significant stake in them.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You're right, the asset allocation is one fundamental thing you want to get right in your portfolio. I agree 110%. If you really want to understand asset allocation, I suggest any and all of the following three books, all by the same author, William J. Bernstein. They are excellent – and yes I've read each. From a theory perspective, and being about asset allocation specifically, the Intelligent Asset Allocator is a good choice. Whereas, the next two books are more accessible and more complete, covering topics including investor psychology, history, financial products you can use to implement a strategy, etc. Got the time? Read them all. I finished reading his latest book, The Investor's Manifesto, two weeks ago. Here are some choice quotes from Chapter 3, \\\"\\\"The Nature of the Portfolio\\\"\\\", that address some of the points you've asked about. All emphasis below is mine. Page 74: The good news is [the asset allocation process] is not really that hard: The investor only makes two important decisions: Page 76: Rather, younger investors should own a higher portion of stocks because they have the ability to apply their regular savings to the markets at depressed prices. More precisely, young investors possess more \\\"\\\"human capital\\\"\\\" than financial capital; that is, their total future earnings dwarf their savings and investments. From a financial perspective, human capital looks like a bond whose coupons escalate with inflation. Page 78: The most important asset allocation decision is the overall stock/bind mix; start with age = bond allocation rule of thumb. [i.e. because the younger you are, you already have bond-like income from anticipated employment earnings; the older you get, the less bond-like income you have in your future, so buy more bonds in your portfolio.] He also mentions adjusting that with respect to one's risk tolerance. If you can't take the ups-and-downs of the market, adjust the stock portion down (up to 20% less); if you can stomach the risk without a problem, adjust the stock portion up (up to 20% more). Page 86: [in reference to a specific example where two assets that zig and zag are purchased in a 50/50 split and adjusted back to targets] This process, called \\\"\\\"rebalancing,\\\"\\\" provides the investor with an automatic buy-low/sell-high bias that over the long run usually – but not always – improves returns. Page 87: The essence of portfolio construction is the combination of asset classes that move in different directions at least some of the time. Finally, this gem on pages 88 and 89: Is there a way of scientifically picking the very best future allocation, which offers the maximum return for the minimum risk? No, but people still try. [... continues with description of Markowitz's \\\"\\\"mean-variance analysis\\\"\\\" technique...] It took investment professionals quite a while to realize that limitation of mean-variance analysis, and other \\\"\\\"black box\\\"\\\" techniques for allocating assets. I could go on quoting relevant pieces ... he even goes into much detail on constructing an asset allocation suitable for a large portfolio containing a variety of different stock asset classes, but I suggest you read the book :-)\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"Rebalancing a portfolio helps you reduce risk, sell high, and buy low. I'll use international stocks and large cap US stocks. They both have ups and downs, and they don't always track with each other (international might be up while large cap US stocks are down and vice-versa) If you started with 50% international and 50% large cap stocks and 1 year later you have 75% international and 25% large cap stocks that means that international stocks are doing (relatively) well to large cap stocks. Comparing only those two categories, large cap stocks are \"\"on sale\"\" relative to international stocks. Now move so you have 50% in each category and you've realized some of the gains from your international investment (sell high) and added to your large cap stocks (buy low). The reason to rebalance is to lower risk. You are spreading your investments across multiple categories to manage risk. If you don't rebalance, you could end up with 95% in one category and 5% in another which means 95% of your portfolio is tied to the performance of a single asset category. I try to rebalance every 12 months and usually get it done by every 18 months. I like being a hands-off long term investor and this has proven often enough to beat the S&P500.\"","Rebalancing your portfolio doesn't have to include selling. You could simply adjust your buying to keep your portfolio in balance. If you portfolio has shifted from 50% stocks and 50% bonds to 75% stocks and 25% bonds, you can just only use new savings to buy bonds, until you are back at 50-50. Remember to take into account taxes if you are thinking of selling to rebalance in taxable accounts. The goal of rebalancing is to keep your exposures the way that you want them. Assuming that you had a good reason to have a portfolio of 50% stocks and 50% bonds, you probably want to keep your portfolio similar in the future. If you end up with a portfolio of 75% stocks and 25% bonds due to stock market fluctuations, the exposure and the risk / return profile of your portfolio will have changed, and it's probably not something that you want. You don't want to rebalance just for the sake of rebalancing either. There can be costs to rebalancing (taxes, transaction fees, etc...) and these aren't always worth the effort. That's why you don't need to rebalance every month or if your portfolio has shifted from 50/50 to 51/49. I take a look at my portfolio once a year, and adjust my automated investments so that by the end of the next year I'm back to the ratio I want."],"string":"[\n \"\\\"Rebalancing a portfolio helps you reduce risk, sell high, and buy low. I'll use international stocks and large cap US stocks. They both have ups and downs, and they don't always track with each other (international might be up while large cap US stocks are down and vice-versa) If you started with 50% international and 50% large cap stocks and 1 year later you have 75% international and 25% large cap stocks that means that international stocks are doing (relatively) well to large cap stocks. Comparing only those two categories, large cap stocks are \\\"\\\"on sale\\\"\\\" relative to international stocks. Now move so you have 50% in each category and you've realized some of the gains from your international investment (sell high) and added to your large cap stocks (buy low). The reason to rebalance is to lower risk. You are spreading your investments across multiple categories to manage risk. If you don't rebalance, you could end up with 95% in one category and 5% in another which means 95% of your portfolio is tied to the performance of a single asset category. I try to rebalance every 12 months and usually get it done by every 18 months. I like being a hands-off long term investor and this has proven often enough to beat the S&P500.\\\"\",\n \"Rebalancing your portfolio doesn't have to include selling. You could simply adjust your buying to keep your portfolio in balance. If you portfolio has shifted from 50% stocks and 50% bonds to 75% stocks and 25% bonds, you can just only use new savings to buy bonds, until you are back at 50-50. Remember to take into account taxes if you are thinking of selling to rebalance in taxable accounts. The goal of rebalancing is to keep your exposures the way that you want them. Assuming that you had a good reason to have a portfolio of 50% stocks and 50% bonds, you probably want to keep your portfolio similar in the future. If you end up with a portfolio of 75% stocks and 25% bonds due to stock market fluctuations, the exposure and the risk / return profile of your portfolio will have changed, and it's probably not something that you want. You don't want to rebalance just for the sake of rebalancing either. There can be costs to rebalancing (taxes, transaction fees, etc...) and these aren't always worth the effort. That's why you don't need to rebalance every month or if your portfolio has shifted from 50/50 to 51/49. I take a look at my portfolio once a year, and adjust my automated investments so that by the end of the next year I'm back to the ratio I want.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":188,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"10809"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Definitions of leverage and of leverage factor"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["103362","286141","242524"],"string":"[\n \"103362\",\n \"286141\",\n \"242524\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["103362","163641","286141","329923","419138","393591","543811","106310","242524","177563","475199","597679","469125","482077","457584","549254","521060","379314","182192","499331","306815","62955","63091","99131","297764","536043","598993","273789","592665","345294","428187","145123","180249","40160","89509","427300","271643","552496","309976","511587","6990","437659","74369","199133","553304","314410","102618","317399","360621","189894","93890","331606","549640","570178","80871","260094","197056","392403","549895","103528","167753","582161","228341","283782","290568","139654","302420","467535","528052","429704","515391","208926","255102","33562","77963","355614","258306","398960","274839","5152","583304","19946","7712","189680","554653","594755","76776","506618","229026","27797","168639","25550","101343","238484","450949","73201","554465","40723","422922","333360"],"string":"[\n \"103362\",\n \"163641\",\n \"286141\",\n \"329923\",\n \"419138\",\n \"393591\",\n \"543811\",\n \"106310\",\n \"242524\",\n \"177563\",\n \"475199\",\n \"597679\",\n \"469125\",\n \"482077\",\n \"457584\",\n \"549254\",\n \"521060\",\n \"379314\",\n \"182192\",\n \"499331\",\n \"306815\",\n \"62955\",\n \"63091\",\n \"99131\",\n \"297764\",\n \"536043\",\n \"598993\",\n \"273789\",\n \"592665\",\n \"345294\",\n \"428187\",\n \"145123\",\n \"180249\",\n \"40160\",\n \"89509\",\n \"427300\",\n \"271643\",\n \"552496\",\n \"309976\",\n \"511587\",\n \"6990\",\n \"437659\",\n \"74369\",\n \"199133\",\n \"553304\",\n \"314410\",\n \"102618\",\n \"317399\",\n \"360621\",\n \"189894\",\n \"93890\",\n \"331606\",\n \"549640\",\n \"570178\",\n \"80871\",\n \"260094\",\n \"197056\",\n \"392403\",\n \"549895\",\n \"103528\",\n \"167753\",\n \"582161\",\n \"228341\",\n \"283782\",\n \"290568\",\n \"139654\",\n \"302420\",\n \"467535\",\n \"528052\",\n \"429704\",\n \"515391\",\n \"208926\",\n \"255102\",\n \"33562\",\n \"77963\",\n \"355614\",\n \"258306\",\n \"398960\",\n \"274839\",\n \"5152\",\n \"583304\",\n \"19946\",\n \"7712\",\n \"189680\",\n \"554653\",\n \"594755\",\n \"76776\",\n \"506618\",\n \"229026\",\n \"27797\",\n \"168639\",\n \"25550\",\n \"101343\",\n \"238484\",\n \"450949\",\n \"73201\",\n \"554465\",\n \"40723\",\n \"422922\",\n \"333360\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Levarge in simple terms is how of your own money to how much of borrowed money. So in 2008 Typical leverage ratios were Investment Banks 30:1 means that for every 1 Unit of Banks money [shareholders capital/ long term debts] there was 30 Units of borrowed money [from deposits/for other institutions/etc]. This is a very unstable situation as typically say you lent out 31 to someone else, half way through repayments, the depositors and other lends are asking you 30 back. You are sunk. Now lets say if you lent 31 to some one, but 30 was your moeny and 1 was from deposits/etc. Then you can anytime more easily pay back the 1 to the depositor. In day trading, usually one squares away the position the same day or within a short period. Hence say you want to buy something worth 1000 in the morning and are selling it say the same day. You are expecting the price to by 1005 and a gain 5. Now when you buy via your broker/trader, you may not be required to pay 1000. Normally one just needs to pay a margin money, typically 10% [varies from market to market, country to country]. So in the first case if you put 1000 and get by 5, you made a profit of 0.5%. However if you were to pay only 10 as margin money [rest 990 is assumed loan from your broker]. You sell at 1005, the broker deducts his 990, and you get 15. So technically on 10 you have made 5 more, ie 50% returns. So this is leveraging of 10:1. If say your broker allowed only 5% margin money, then you just need to pay 5 for the 1000 trade, get back 5. You have made a 100% profit, but the leveraging is 20:1. Now lets say at this high leveraging when you are selling you get only 990. So you still owe the broker 5, if you can't pay-up and if lot of other such people can't pay-up, then the broker will also go bankrupt and there is a huge risk. Hence although leveraging helps in quite a few cases, there is always an associated risk when things go wrong badly.","Leverage comes in many forms. You'll learn about things like operational leverage, financial leverage, and total leverage throughout school. In the real world, tier 1 capital ratio has become the most commonly scrutinized because it is essentially a ratio of the core equity capital of a firm divided by the risk weighted assets (assets multiplied by a credit weighting which for most banks now a days is using the standard of Basel 2.5 and moving towards Basel III). The multiples you talked about were references to the reciprocal of this formula. You could reciprocate the T1C ratio and get a whole number that is the multiplier. This multiplier would show for every 1$ in core capital, how much the firm held in risk weighted assets. The 30x number would have represented a tier 1 cap of 3.33%. The concept behind it being, a 10% growth in risk weighted assets with a 3.33% T1CR would result in a 300% growth in core equity capital value. As proven in 2008, it is a double edge blade and works the same way in both directions.","This would clear out a lot more. 1) Leverage is the act of taking on debt in lieu of the equity you hold. Not always related to firms, it applies to personal situations too. When you take a loan, you get a certain %age of the loan, the bank establishes your equity by looking at your past financial records and then decides the amount it is going to lend, deciding on the safest leverage. In the current action leverage is the whole act of borrowing yen and profiting from it. The leverage factor mentions the amount of leverage happening. 10000 yen being borrowed with an equity of 1000 yen. 2) Commercial banks: 10 to 1 -> They don't deal in complicated investments, derivatives except for hedging, and are under stricter controls of the government. They have to have certain amount of liquidity and can loan out the rest for business. Investment banks: 30 to 1 -> Their main idea is making money and trade heavily. Their deposits are limited by the amount clients have deposited. And as their main motive is to get maximum returns from the available amount, they trade heavily. Derivatives, one of the instruments, are structured on underlyings and sometimes in multiple layers which build up quite a bit of leverage. And all of the trades happen on margins. You don't invest $10k to buy $10k of a traded stock. You put in, maybe $500 to take up the position and borrow the rest of the amount per se. It improves liquidity in the markets and increases efficiency. Else you could do only with what you have. So these margins add up to the leverage the bank is taking on.","What I meant by leverage was not borrowing money in order to buy more. What I am getting at is the purchasing power your dollar has in relation to the number of dollars you have (which may mean using leverage, but not per se).","Leverage is when you borrow in order to invest. Mind you, most people aren't going to just give you money to gamble on the stock market completely unsecured; rather, you deposit (say) $10,000 and buy a stock... and then you have $10k in assets which you can borrow against, so you can buy another $10,000 of that stock. Now if the stock goes up you'll make twice the gain (2x leverage). However, if it goes down, you'll lose twice as much as well. If the value of your stock falls, your line of credit will be reduced as well; in this case, since you used all your credit and are now over your limit, your broker will issue a margin call (they will demand a deposit of additional funds, or they will sell some of your stock at their discretion). This protects you from owing more than you invested, but it's still sometimes possible (for instance, if a company spontaneously goes bankrupt and becomes worthless, and your stock becomes worthless). There are also things like leveraged index funds and commodity funds which aim to return some multiple of the market's earnings. These are designed for intraday trading, though, and usually end up underperforming significantly over the long term. [edit] Mose people who accept borrowed funds should generally accept real cash as well. However, if you're trying to short sell, i.e. borrow shares and sell them (in the hopes you can get them back cheaper later after the stock falls) you will need a margin line of credit to do so as well. [edit 2] clarified margin calls","\"It's called leverage. Here's an example from real estate. The underlying appreciation on a house in certain parts of America is something like 7% a year. So if you bought the house \"\"all cash,\"\" your return would be something like 7% a year. (Actually, a little more, because of the rent you would be collecting, or saving, if you were the \"\"renter.\"\") Suppose you buy the same house, 20% down, 80% mortgage. The rent pays for your mortgage, taxes, insurance, etc. like it is supposed to. The house goes up the same 7% each year. But now your rate of return is 35%, that is 7%/20% (your down payment). You get the whole appreciation but put up only 20% of the money. The bank (and your renter) did the rest.\"","\"I think to some extent you may be confusing the terms margin and leverage. From Investopedia Two concepts that are important to traders are margin and leverage. Margin is a loan extended by your broker that allows you to leverage the funds and securities in your account to enter larger trades. In order to use margin, you must open and be approved for a margin account. The loan is collateralized by the securities and cash in your margin account. The borrowed money doesn't come free, however; it has to be paid back with interest. If you are a day trader or scalper this may not be a concern; but if you are a swing trader, you can expect to pay between 5 and 10% interest on the borrowed money, or margin. Going hand-in-hand with margin is leverage; you use margin to create leverage. Leverage is the increased buying power that is available to margin account holders. Essentially, leverage allows you to pay less than full price for a trade, giving you the ability to enter larger positions than would be possible with your account funds alone. Leverage is expressed as a ratio. A 2:1 leverage, for example, means that you would be able to hold a position that is twice the value of your trading account. If you had $25,000 in your trading account with 2:1 leverage, you would be able to purchase $50,000 worth of stock. Margin refers to essentially buying with borrowed money. This must be paid back, with interest. You also may have a \"\"margin call\"\" forcing you to liquidate assets if you go beyond your margin limits. Leverage can be achieved in a number of ways when investing, one of which is investing with a margin account.\"","A lease payment is composed of an interest portion (borrowed money) and depreciation amount (purchase - residual). The Monthly payment is then Monthly Interest Cost + Monthly Depreciation Cost The Money Factor is used to estimate the amount of interest due in a single month of a lease so you can figure out the monthly payment. If you are borrowing $100,000 then over the entire loan of repayment from a balance of $100,000 to a balance of $0, the average amount you owed was $50,000 (1/2 of principal). You are repaying this loan monthly (1/12 of a year) and percents are expressed as decimals (1/100). 6 * 1/2 (for principal) * 1/12 (for monthly) * 1/100 (to convert percentage from 6% to .06) = 6 * 1/2400. 2400 is the product of 3 consecutive conversion (1/2 * 1/12 * 1/100) to convert from an interest rate to a money factor. 6/2400 = Money factor of 0.0025 which can be multiplied against the total amount being borrowed to know what the monthly interest would roughly equal. Some Money Factor info: https://www.alphaleasing.com/resources/articles/MoneyFactor.asp","Your original example is a little confusing because just shorting for 1k and buying for 1k is 100% leveraged or an infinitive leverage ratio. (and not allowed) Brokerage houses would require you to invest some capital in the trade. One example might be requiring you to hold $100 in the brokerage. This is where the 10:1 ratio comes from. (1000/10) Thus a return of 4.5% on the 1000k bond and no movement on the short position would net you $45 and voila a 45% return on your $100 investment. A 40 to 1 leverage ratio would mean that you would only have to invest $25 to make this trade. Something that no individual investor are allowed to do, but for some reason some financial firms have been able to.","\"I would say that you should keep in mind one simple idea. Leverage was the principal reason for the 2008 financial meltdown. For a great explanation on this, I would HIGHLY recommend Michael Lewis' book, \"\"The Big Short,\"\" which does an excellent job in spelling out the case against being highly leveraged. As Dale M. pointed out, losses are greatly magnified by your degree of leverage. That being said, there's nothing wrong with being highly leveraged as a short-term strategy, and I want to emphasize the \"\"short-term\"\" part. If, for instance, an opportunity arises where you aren't presently liquid enough to cover then you could use leverage to at least stay in the game until your cash situation improves enough to de-leverage the investment. This can be a common strategy in equities, where you simply substitute the term \"\"leverage\"\" for the term \"\"margin\"\". Margin positions can be scary, because a rapid downturn in the market can cause margin calls that you're unable to cover, and that's disastrous. Interestingly, it was the 2008 financial crisis which lead to the undoing of Bernie Madoff. Many of his clients were highly leveraged in the markets, and when everything began to unravel, they turned to him to cash out what they thought they had with him to cover their margin calls, only to then discover there was no money. Not being able to meet the redemptions of his clients forced Madoff to come clean about his scheme, and the rest is history. The banks themselves were over-leveraged, sometimes at a rate of 50-1, and any little hiccup in the payment stream from borrowers caused massive losses in the portfolios which were magnified by this leveraging. This is why you should view leverage with great caution. It is very, very tempting, but also fraught with extreme peril if you don't know what you're getting into or don't have the wherewithal to manage it if anything should go wrong. In real estate, I could use the leverage of my present cash reserves to buy a bigger property with the intent of de-leveraging once something else I have on the market sells. But that's only a wise play if I am certain I can unwind the leveraged position reasonably soon. Seriously, know what you're doing before you try anything like this! Too many people have been shipwrecked by not understanding the pitfalls of leverage, simply because they're too enamored by the profits they think they can make. Be careful, my friend.\"","Degree of Operating Leverage (DOL) measures the percent change in EBIT given a 1% change in Revenue. In other words, if DOL is 1.5, then increasing Revenue by 1% will increase EBIT by 1.5%. Degree of Financial Leverage (DFL) measures the percent change in NI given a 1% change in EBIT. Degree of Total Leverage (DTL) cuts EBIT out and measures the percent change in NI given a 1% change in Revenue. What all three of these numbers measure is “elasticity.” The elasticity between two variables is always the percentage change effect on one due to a 1% change in the other. Before we talk about why you would multiply elasticities, let’s first just look at absolute changes between a change of three variables, X Y and Z. Lets say X impacts Y (X->Y) and Y impacts Z (Y->Z). To make it even more concrete, let’s imagine a classroom where every student is required to have 2 books and every book has 100 pages. So X = # students, Y = # of books, and Z = # of pages. If we add one student to the class, we need to add 2 books. If we add 1 book to the class, we have added 100 pages. With absolute changes like this it is obvious that we don’t add, we multiply. In other words, to directly see the impact of a new student on the number of pages (X -> Z), we would say 1 student -> 2 books -> 200 pages. To say 102 pages would obviously be silly. For percent changes, this looks pretty similar. To make it easy say the class has 100 students. So adding 1 student is a 1% change. Then we go from 200 books to 202 books, a 1% change. So the degree of Student to Book Leverage is 1 (which make sense there are no “fixed pages”). We go from 20,000 pages to 20,200 pages, also a 1% change so the degree of Book to Page leverage is also 1. Thus, the Student to Page leverage is also just a flat 1. Let’s add fixed amounts. The teacher has a single 2,000 page book on how to teach. We’ll assume the class has 20 students. So we start with 20*2 + 1 = 41 books and 40*100 + 2,000 = 6,000 pages. Let’s add a student. We have a 21/20 -1 = 4% increase in students. 43/41 -1 = 4.89% increase in books. 6,200/6,000 – 1 = 3.33% increase in pages. So the Degree of Student to Book Leverage is 4.00/4.89 = 0.818 and the Degree of Book to Page Leverage is 4.89/3.33 = 1.47. And the direct Student to Page Leverage is 4.00/3.33 = 1.20. Again, note that here it would be silly to add the degrees of leverage, and when we do multiply them we get 0.82*1.47 = 1.2, the right answer. From here the application to EBIT [= Sales - Fixed Cost - Variable Cost = (Gross Margin * Sales) - Fixed Cost] and the application to EPS [= EBIT - Interest – Taxes = (1 – tax rate)*(EBIT – Interest)] should be obvious. I can supply the full proof mathematically, however, if you would like.","\"Leverage here is referring to \"\"financial leverage\"\". This is the practice of \"\"levering\"\" [ie increasing, like the use of a lever to increase the amount of weight you can lift] the value of your investment by taking on debt. For example: if you have 100k in cash, you can buy a 100k rental property. Assume the property makes 10k a year, net of expenses [10%]. Now assume the bank will also give you a 100k mortgage, at 3%. You could take the mortgage, plus your cash, and buy a 200k rental property. This would earn you 20k from the rental property, less 3k a year in interest costs [the 3%]. Your total income would be 17k, and since you only used 100k of your own money, your rate of return would now be 17% instead of 10%. This is financial leveraging. Note that this increases your risk, because if your investment fails not only have you lost your own money, you now need to pay back the bank. \"\"Beta riders\"\" appears to be negative commentary on investors who use Beta to calculate the value of a particular stock, without regard to other quantitative factors. Therefore \"\"leveraged beta riders\"\" are those who take on additional risk [by taking on debt to invest], and invest in a manner that the author would perhaps considered \"\"blindly\"\" following Beta. However, I have never seen this term before, and it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. A \"\"quant process driven discipline\"\" appears to be positive commentary on investors who use detailed quantitative analysis to develop rules which they rigorously follow to invest. I have never seen this exact phrasing before, and like the above, it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. I am not providing any opinion on whether \"\"beta riding\"\" or \"\"quant processes\"\" are good or bad things; this is just my attempt to interpret the quote as you presented it. Note that I did not go to the article to get context, so perhaps something else in the article could skew the language to mean something other than what I have presented.\"","Leverage increase returns, but also risks, ie, the least you can pay, the greater the opportunity to profit, but also the greater the chance you will be underwater. Leverage is given by the value of your asset (the house) over the equity you put down. So, for example, if the house is worth 100k and you put down 20k, then the leverage is 5 (another way to look at it is to see that the leverage is the inverse of the margin - or percentage down payment - so 1/0.20 = 5). The return on your investment will be magnified by the amount of your leverage. Suppose the value of your house goes up by 10%. Had you paid your house in full, your return would be 10%, or 10k/100k. However, if you had borrowed 80 dollars and your leverage was 5, as above, a 10% increase in the value of your house means you made a profit of 10k on a 20k investment, a return of 50%, or 10k/20k*100. As I said, your return was magnified by the amount of your leverage, that is, 10% return on the asset times your leverage of 5 = 50%. This is because all the profit of the house price appreciation goes to you, as the value of your debt does not depend on the value of the house. What you borrowed from the bank remains the same, regardless of whether the price of the house changed. The problem is that the amplification mechanism also works in reverse. If the price of the house falls by 10%, it means now you only have 10k equity. If the price falls enough your equity is wiped out and you are underwater, giving you an incentive to default on your loan. In summary, borrowing tends to be a really good deal: heads you win, tails the bank loses (or as happened in the US, the taxpayer loses).","\"leverage amplifies gains and losses, when returns are positive leverage makes them more positive, but when returns are negative leverage makes them more negative. since most investments have a positive return in \"\"the long run\"\", leverage is generally considered a good idea for long term illiquid investments like real estate. that said, to quote keynes: in the long run we are all dead. in the case of real estate specifically, negative returns generally happen when house prices drop. assuming you have no intention of ever selling the properties, you can still end up with negative returns if rents fall, mortgage rates increase or tax rates rise (all of which tend to correlate with falling property values). also, if cash flow becomes negative, you may be forced to sell during a down market, thereby amplifying the loss. besides loss scenarios, leverage can turn a small gain into a loss because leverage has a price (interest) that is subtracted from any amplified gains (and added to any amplified losses). to give a specific example: if you realize a 0.1% gain on x$ when unleveraged, you could end up with a 17% loss if leveraged 90% at 2% interest. (gains-interest)/investment=(0.001*x-0.02*0.9*x)/(x/10)=-0.017*10=-0.17=17% loss one reason leveraged investments are popular (particularly with real estate), is that the investor can file bankruptcy to \"\"erase\"\" a large negative net worth. this means the down side of a leveraged investment is limited for the highly leveraged investor. this leads to a \"\"get rich or start over\"\" mentality common among the self-made millionaire (and failed entrepreneurs). unfortunately, this dynamic also leads to serious problems for the banking sector in the event of a large nation-wide devaluation of real estate prices.\"","\"The reason that UltraLong funds and the like are bad isn't because of the leverage ratio. It's because they're compounded daily, and the product of all the doubled daily returns is not mathematically equivalent to the double the long-term return. I'd consider providing big fancy equations using uppercase pi as the 'product of elements in a sequence' operator and other calculus fanciness, but that would be overkill, I don't think I can do TeX here, and I don't know the relevant TeX anyway. Anyway. From the economics theory perspective, the ideal leverage ratio is 1X - that is, unlevered, straight investment. Consider: Using leverage costs money. You know that, surely. If someone could borrow money at N% and invest at an expected N+X%, where X > 0, then they would. They would borrow all the money they could and buy all the S&P500 they could. But when they bought all that S&P500, they'd eventually run out of people who were willing to sell it for that cheap. That would mean the excess return would be smaller. Eventually you'd get to a point where the excess return is... zero? .... well, no, empirically, we can see that it's definitely not zero, and that in the real world that stocks do return more than bonds. Why? Because stocks are riskier than bonds. The difference in expected return between an index like the S&P500 and a US Treasury bond is due to the relative riskiness of the S&P500, which isn't guaranteed by the US Government to return your principal. Any money that you make off of leverage comes from assuming some sort of a risk. Now, assuming risk can be a profitable thing to do, but there are also a lot of people out there with higher risk tolerance than you, like insurance companies and billionaires, so the market isn't exactly short of people willing to take risks, and you shouldn't expect the returns of \"\"assuming risk\"\" in the general case to be qualitatively awesome. Now, it's true that investing in an unlevered fashion is risky also. But that's not an excuse to go leveraged anyway; it's a reason to hold back. In fact, regular stocks are sufficiently risky that most people probably shouldn't be holding a 100% stock portfolio. They should be tempering that risk with bonds, instead, and increasing the size of their bond holdings over time. The appropriate time to use leverage is when you have information which limits your risk. You have done research, and have reason to believe that you understand the future of an individual stock/index better than the rest of the stock market does. You calculate that the potential for achieving returns with leverage outweighs the risks. Then you dump your money into the leveraged position. (In exchange for this, the market receives information about anticipated future returns of this instrument, because of the price movement which occurs as a result of someone putting his money where his mouth is.) If you're just looking to dump money into broad market indicies in a leveraged fashion, you're doing it wrong. There is no free money. (Ed. Which is not to say there's not money. There's lots of money. But if you go looking for the free kind, you won't find it, and may end up with money that you thought was free but was actually quite expensive.) Edit. Okay, so you don't like my answer. I'm not surprised. I'm giving you a real answer instead of a \"\"make free money\"\" answer. Okay. Here's your \"\"how to make free money\"\" answer. Assume you are using a constant leverage ratio over the length of time you've invested your money, and you don't get to just jump into and out of the market (that's market-timing, not leverage) so you have to stay invested. You're going to have a scenario which falls into one of these categories: The S&P500 historically rises over time. The average rate of return probably exceeds the average interest rate. So the ideal leverage ratio is infinite. Of course, this is a stupid answer in real life because you can't pull that off. Your risk tolerance is too low and you will have trouble finding a lender willing to lend you unsecured money, and you'll probably lose all your money in a crash sooner or later. Ultimately it's a stupid answer because you're asking the wrong question. You should probably ask a better question: \"\"when I use leverage to gain additional exposure to risk, am I being properly compensated for assuming that risk?\"\"\"","\"Exposure is the amount of money that you are at risk of losing on a given position (i.e. on a UST 10 year bond), portfolio of positions, strategy (selling covered calls for example), or counterparty, usually represented as a percentage of your total assets. Interbank exposure is the exposure of banks to other banks either through owning debt or stock, or by having open positions with the other banks as counterparties. Leveraging occurs when the value of your position is more than the value of what you are trading in. One example of this is borrowing money (i.e. creating debt for yourself) to buy bonds. The amount of your own funds that you are using to pay for the position is \"\"leveraged\"\" by the debt so that you are risking more than 100% of your capital if, for example, the bond became worthless). Another example would be buying futures \"\"on margin\"\" where you only put up the margin value of the trade and not the full cost. The problem with these leveraged positions is what happens if a credit event (default etc.) happens. Since a large amount of the leverage is being \"\"passed on\"\" as banks are issuing debt to buy other banks' debt who are issuing debt to buy debt there is a risk that a single failure could cause an unravelling of these leveraged positions and, since the prices of the bonds will be falling resulting in these leveraged positions losing money, it will cause a cascade of losses and defaults. If a leveraged position becomes worth less than the amount of real (rather than borrowed or margined) money that was put up to take the position then it is almost inevitable that the firm in that position will default on the requirements for the leverage. When that firm defaults it sparks all of the firms who own that debt to go through the same problems that it did, hence the contagion.\"","Money factor is a term coined by leasing companies to make car leasing that much more convoluted. It's basically a decimal value that you multiply by 2400 in order to arrive at your actual annual percentage rate or interest rate. Here's a really good article detailing how you can calculate your interest rate based on other criteria in your leasing contract, because most of the time you won't even be given money factor on your leasing contract","\"No one is FORCED to use leverage. But most people do. Trading companies like it because, the more leverage, the more \"\"business\"\" (and total commissions). If someone starts with $1 million and leverages it up ten times to ten million, companies would rather do ten million of business than one. That's a given. On the other hand, if you're Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, and you say I want to do $1 billion of FX, no leverage, no trading company is going to turn it down. More often, it's a company like IBM or Exxon Mobil that wants to do FX, no leverage, because they just earned, say $1 billion Euros. Individuals USUALLY want to use more leverage in order to earn (or lose) more with their capital.\"","Alex's answer is very helpful. However, I would like to add why it might be convenient to use money factor instead of APR when computing lease payments. Money factor makes it easier to compute the lease payments manually. Lease payments have two parts: Here is how to calculate them: Where, This is a computation that anyone can perform without any tools.","This essentially depends on how you prefer to measure your performance. I will just give a few simple examples to start. Let me know if you're looking for something more. If you just want to achieve maximum $ return, then you should always use maximum margin, so long as your expected return (%) is higher than your cost to borrow. For example, suppose you can use margin to double your investment, and the cost to borrow is 7%. If you're investing in some security that expects to return 10%, then your annual return on an account opened with $100 is: (2 * $100 * 10% - $100 * 7%) / $100 = 13% So, you see the expected return, amount of leverage, and cost to borrow will all factor in to your return. Suppose you want to also account for the additional risk you're incurring. Then you could use the Sharpe Ratio. For example, suppose the same security has volatility of 20%, and the risk free rate is 5%. Then the Sharpe Ratio without leverage is: (10% - 5%) / 20% = 0.25 The Sharpe Ratio using maximum margin is then: (13% - 5%) / (2 * 20%) = 0.2, where the 13% comes from the above formula. So on a risk-adjusted basis, it's better not to utilize margin in this particular example.","Yes, more leverage increases the variance of your individual portfolio (variance of your personal net worth). The simple way to think about it is that if you only own only 50% of your risky assets, then you can own twice as many risky assets. That means they will move around twice as much (in absolute terms). Expected returns and risk (if risk is variance) both go up. If you lend rather than borrow, then you might have only half your net worth in risky assets, and then your expected returns and variation in returns will go down. Note, the practice of using leverage differs from portfolio theory in a couple important ways.","The fundamental issue with leverage (of any sort, really) is that the amplified downsides are extremely likely to more than cancel out amplified equivalent upsides. Example without using a major swing: 2x leverage on a 5% decline (so a 10% decline). The 5% decline needs a 5.26% increase to get back level. However, the 2x leverage needs an 5.55% increase to get back. So a cycle for the unleveraged returns of -5%, +5.4% would see the unleveraged asset go up by a net +0.13% but 2x leverage would leave you at -0.28%. Conversely, imagine 0.5x leverage (it's easy to do that: 50% cash allocation): after an underlying -5%, the 0.5x leverage needs only +5.13% to reach par. This is basically the argument for low volatility funds. Of course, if you can leverage an asset that doesn't go down, then the leverage is great. And for an asset with an overall positive compound return, a little leverage is probably not going to hurt, simply because there are likely to be enough upsides to cancel out downsides.","More leverage means more risk. There is more upside. There is also more downside. If property prices and/or rents fall then your losses are amplified. If you leverage at 90% then a 5% fall means you've lost half your money.","\"When portfolio positions are reported in percentages, those percentages are relative to the portfolio's base equity. When you start out, that is equal to the cash you have in a portfolio. Later it's the net equity of the portfolio (i.e., how much money you could withdraw if you were to exit all your positions). If you put $5,000 into your account and are long and short 50%, then you are long $2,500 and short $2,500. If it's 100% and -100%, then long and short $5,000. \"\"Leverage\"\" is often computed gross (as if all positions were long). So if you have 100% and -100%, then your broker may say you are \"\"levered 2 to 1.\"\" That is, your gross exposure is twice as large as your underlying base equity.\"","\"Leverage means you can make more investments with the same amount of money. In the case of rental properties, it means you can own more properties and generate more rents. You exchange a higher cost of doing business (higher interest fees) and a higher risk of total failure, for a larger number of rents and thus higher potential earnings. As with any investment advice, whenever someone tells you \"\"Do X and you are guaranteed to make more money\"\", unless you are a printer of money that is not entirely true. In this case, taking more leverage exposes you to more risk, while giving you more potential gain. That risk is not only on the selling front; in fact, for most small property owners, the risk is primarily that you will have periods of time of higher expense or lower income. These can come in several ways: If you weather these and similar problems, then you will stand to make more money using higher leverage, assuming you make more money from each property than your additional interest costs. As long as you're making any money on your properties this is likely (as interest rates are very low right now), but making any money at all (above and beyond the sale value) may be challenging early on. These sorts of risks are magnified for your first few years, until you've built up a significant reserve to keep your business afloat in downturns. And of course, any money in a reserve is money you're not leveraging for new property acquisition - the very same trade-off. And while you may be able to sell one or more properties if you did end up in a temporarily bad situation, you also may run into 2008 again and be unable to do so.\"","The opposite of a hedge is leverage (aka gearing). A hedge is where you spend money to reduce your exposure. Leverage is where you spend money to increase your exposure. Spread bets are a form of leverage - that's what makes them such an effective way to lose all your money, quickly.","Let's do a real example of leverage on the SPY. Imagine you have $20K today and plan on having $100K by JAN 2018. You could get 100 shares of SPY and ride it out. Maybe buying another 100 shares every few months until 2018, ending up with less than 500 shares to your name ( and zero cash in the bank ). or You could lever with DEC 2017 LEAP CALLS. They'll expire in 2.5 years, so you'd have to re-up sooner than your plan. With 20K starting cash, in my example we'll go with 5 contracts to start with. If we choose the $230 strike they'd cost $1250 each (putting roughly $6250 at risk). The plan in is if the stock market goes up, you've got leverage. You are the proud owner of contracts worth 500 shares of SPY and have only spent 1/3rd of your present day dollars. If the market goes down in the next two years, sure, you lost the entire $6250, but likely saved $93,750 powder dry and can try your luck with the 2021 LEAPS. Probably get down votes for this, but I'll even argue that proper use of leverage can very much reduce your risk. One truth is you'll never get a margin call from holding long options.","I'm not entirely sure about some of the details in your question, since I think you meant to use $10,000 as the value of the futures contract and $3 as the value of the underlying stock. Those numbers would make more sense. That being said, I can give you a simple example of how to calculate the profit and loss from a leveraged futures contract. For the sake of simplicity, I'll use a well-known futures contract: the E-mini S&P500 contract. Each E-mini is worth $50 times the value of the S&P 500 index and has a tick size of 0.25, so the minimum price change is 0.25 * $50 = $12.50. Here's an example. Say the current value of the S&P500 is 1,600; the value of each contract is therefore $50 * 1,600 = $80,000. You purchase one contract on margin, with an initial margin requirement1 of 5%, or $4,000. If the S&P 500 index rises to 1,610, the value of your futures contract increases to $50 * 1,610 = $80,500. Once you return the 80,000 - 4,000 = $76,000 that you borrowed as leverage, your profit is 80,500 - 76,000 = $4,500. Since you used $4,000 of your own funds as an initial margin, your profit, excluding commissions is 4,500 - 4,000 = $500, which is a 500/4000 = 12.5% return. If the index dropped to 1,580, the value of your futures contract decreases to $50 * 1,580 = $79,000. After you return the $76,000 in leverage, you're left with $3,000, or a net loss of (3,000 - 4000)/(4000) = -25%. The math illustrates why using leverage increases your risk, but also increases your potential for return. Consider the first scenario, in which the index increases to 1,610. If you had forgone using margin and spent $80,000 of your own funds, your profit would be (80,500 - 80,000) / 80000 = .625%. This is smaller than your leveraged profit by a factor of 20, the inverse of the margin requirement (.625% / .05 = 12.5%). In this case, the use of leverage dramatically increased your rate of return. However, in the case of a decrease, you spent $80,000, but gained $79,000, for a loss of only 1.25%. This is 20 times smaller in magnitude than your negative return when using leverage. By forgoing leverage, you've decreased your opportunity for upside, but also decreased your downside risk. 1) For futures contracts, the margin requirements are set by the exchange, which is CME group, in the case of the E-mini. The 5% in my example is higher than the actual margin requirement, which is currently $3,850 USD per contract, but it keeps the numbers simple. Also note that CME group refers to the initial margin as the performance bond instead.","The paragraph before on page 115 states: Scaling corresponds to having a weight in the long and short legs that is different from one and varies over time, but the strategy is still self-financing. Meaning that the long and short positions are no longer equal due to weighting one side more highly than the other. The weighting of one side (either long or short) is the number between 0.2 and 2 that you mention.","There are two obvious cases in which your return is lower with a heavily leveraged investment. If a $100,000 investment of your own cash yields $1000 that's a 1% return. If you put in $50,000 of your own money and borrow $50,000 at 2%, you get a 0% return (After factoring in the interest as above.) If you buy an investment for $100,000 and it loses $1000, that's a -1% return. If you borrow $100,000 and buy two investments, and they both lose $1000, that's a -2% return.","First, make sure you understand the objective of an ETF. In some cases, they may use leverage to get a multiple of the index's return that is different than 1. Some may be ultra funds that go for double the return or double the inverse of the return and thus will try to apply the appropriate leverage to achieve that return. Those that use physical replication can still have a small portion be used to try to minimize the tracking error as there is something to be said for what kind of tracking error do you accept as the fund's returns may differ from the index by some measure. Yes. For example, if you were to have a fund that had a 50% and -50% return in back to back periods, what would your final return be? Answer: -25%, which if you need to visualize this, take $1 that then becomes $1.50 by going up 50% and then becomes $.75 by going down 50% in a compounded fashion. This is where you have to be careful of the risks of leverage as those returns will compound in a possibly negative way.","great example of levered tracking error is any 2x/3x VIX etf. during periods of high volatility (like last week) you will be able to realize much higher returns on the underlying index as the levered and inverse ETFs are unable to replicate their intended performance using market securities. it is not uncommon to see the VIX up ~30% with levered ETFs only netting ~10-12% as opposed to the intended 60 or 90%, for example","Is the following correct? The firm needs $20,000 for the investment. It borrows $6,000 @ 7%, and supplies $14,000 in equity. The interest expense on the borrowing is $420 ($6,000 times 7%). After one year, the firm receives $26,500 from its investment. Subtract $6,420 (return borrowings plus interest). The firm is left with $20,080. Divide by starting equity of $14,000. Subtract 1 from the ratio. **Levered return on equity is 43.4%.**","First, corporate profits can grow relative to GDP. If companies succeed in growing revenue without paying much more to workers, then corporate profits and stock prices will grow relative to GDP. That has been happening for the last couple decades. If you require that we keep corporate profits vs GDP constant, then borrowing/leverage is how you do it. Companies can expand their operations on a fixed amount of shareholder equity, and as long as they can grow their profits faster than the cost of the debt, then shareholders keep the upside. But this also means that share prices will quickly fall if profits decline even a small amount, because the debt must still be paid off.","If you are calculating simple ROI, the answer is straightforward math. See This Answer for some examples, but yes, with more leverage you will always see better ROI on a property IF you can maintain a positive cash flow. The most complete answer is to factor in your total risk. That high ROI of a leveraged property is far more volatile and sensitive to any unexpected expenses. Additionally, a loss of equity in the property (or an upside-down mortgage) will further impact your long term position. To put this more simply (as noted in the comments below), your losses will be amplified. You cannot say a leveraged property will always give you a better ROI because you cannot predict your losses.","I think you may be confused on terminology here. Financial leverage is debt that you have taken on, in order to invest. It increases your returns, because it allows you to invest with more money than what you actually own. Example: If a $1,000 mutual fund investment returns $60 [6%], then you could also take on $1,000 of debt at 3% interest, and earn $120 from both mutual fund investments, paying $30 in interest, leaving you with a net $90 [9% of your initial $1,000]. However, if the mutual fund 'takes a nose dive', and loses money, you still need to pay the $30 interest. In this way, using financial leverage actually increases your risk. It may provide higher returns, but you have the risk of losing more than just your initial principle amount. In the example above, imagine if the mutual fund you owned collapsed, and was worth nothing. Now, you would have lost $1,000 from the money you invested in the first place, and you would also still owe $1,000 to the bank. The key take away is that 'no risk' and 'high returns' do not go together. Safe returns right now are hovering around 0% interest rates. If you ever feel you have concocted a mix of options that leaves you with no risk and high returns, check your math again. As an addendum, if instead what you plan on doing is investing, say, 90% of your money in safe(r) money-market type funds, and 10% in the stock market, then this is a good way to reduce your risk. However, it also reduces your returns, as only a small portion of your portfolio will realize the (typically higher) gains of the stock market. Once again, being safer with your investments leads to less return. That is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact investing some part of your portfolio in interest-earning low risk investments is often advised. 99% is basically the same as 100%, however, so you almost don't benefit at all by investing that 1% in the stock market.","\"Hi, accounting major here! A lot of people mentioned both tax advantages and \"\"cheap\"\" money (money you can borrow at a low interest rate). Another reason businesses do this is to reward investors. Generally people with stock in a company want to see some of its operations financed with debt, instead of all of it financed from investors' money or profit. This way the company can grow more and still pay better dividends to its investors. However, you don't want too much debt either. It's a balance, and a way to see how much debt vs equity a company has is called a leverage ratio (leverage=debt). Hope this helps!\"","\"Step 2 is wrong. Leverage is NOT necessary. It increases possible gain, but increases risk of loss by essentially the same amount. Those two numbers are pretty tightly linked by market forces. See many, many other answers here showing that one can earn \"\"market rate\"\" -- 8% or so -- with far less risk and effort, if one is patient, and some evidence that one can do better with more effort and not too much more risk. And yes, investing for a longer time horizon is also safer.\"","\"While it's not true that you have to use leverage to participate in Forex, the alternative makes it impractical for most people to be able to do so. You need to be able to put a lot of money into it in order to not trade on leverage. The fact is, most accounts for \"\"normal\"\" people require leverage because the size of the typical contract is more than the average person can afford to risk (or usually more than the average person has). Leverage, however, in the Forex market is not like Leverage in the stock or commodities market (well, they're the same thing in theory, but they are executed differently). In Forex, the broker is the one lending you the money in nearly all cases, and they will cash out your position when your account balance is exhausted. Thus, there is no risk for them (barring fraud or other illegal issues). Technically, I don't believe they guarantee that you will not accrue a debt, but I've never heard of anyone having their position cashed out and then owed more money. They've very good about making sure you can only spend money you've deposited. To put this another way, if you have $1,000 in your account and you are leveraged to 100,000. Once your trade drops to $1000 in losses your position is automatically cashed out. There is no risk to the broker, and no risk to you (other than your $1000)... So trading without leverage has little value, while traiding with leverage has lots of potential gain and no downsides (other than a faster rate of loss, but if you're worried about that, just trade smaller lots.)\"","\"I am assuming you mean derivatives such as speeders, sprinters, turbo's or factors when you say \"\"derivatives\"\". These derivatives are rather popular in European markets. In such derivatives, a bank borrows the leverage to you, and depending on the leverage factor you may own between 50% to +-3% of the underlying value. The main catch with such derivatives from stocks as opposed to owning the stock itself are: Counterpart risk: The bank could go bankrupt in which case the derivatives will lose all their value even if the underlying stock is sound. Or the bank could decide to phase out the certificate forcing you to sell in an undesirable situation. Spread costs: The bank will sell and buy the certificate at a spread price to ensure it always makes a profit. The spread can be 1, 5, or even 10 pips, which can translate to a the bank taking up to 10% of your profits on the spread. Price complexity: The bank buys and sells the (long) certificate at a price that is proportional to the price of the underlying value, but it usually does so in a rather complex way. If the share rises by €1, the (long) certificate will also rise, but not by €1, often not even by leverage * €1. The factors that go into determining the price are are normally documented in the prospectus of the certificate but that may be hard to find on the internet. Furthermore the bank often makes the calculation complex on purpose to dissimulate commissions or other kickbacks to itself in it's certificate prices. Double Commissions: You will have to pay your broker the commission costs for buying the certificate. However, the bank that issues the derivative certificate normally makes you pay the commission costs they incur by hiding them in the price of the certificate by reducing your effective leverage. In effect you pay commissions twice, once directly for buying the derivative, and once to the bank to allow it to buy the stock. So as Havoc P says, there is no free lunch. The bank makes you pay for the convenience of providing you the leverage in several ways. As an alternative, futures can also give you leverage, but they have different downsides such as margin requirements. However, even with all the all the drawbacks of such derivative certificates, I think that they have enough benefits to be useful for short term investments or speculation.\"","You should check out existing resources like Investopedia for definitions, and ask questions if there is something you do not understand, instead of asking folks to spit out definitions. A good book for you to read might be Wall Street Words","This isn't totally wrong- there are hedge funds that are long 150% of AUM and short 50%. However, Rentech has said that holding a position for 8 seconds is long for them, so that's not what they're doing. I'd assume the 4X leverage most just refers to option positions that have delta 4 on average. They also may be borrowing money, which they can probably do extremely cheaply since they have a 35 year track record showing they're essentially risk-free.","\"JoeTaxpayer's answer adequately explained leverage and some of your risks. Your risks also include: The firm's risk is that you will figure out a way to leave them with a negative account that contributes to another customer's profit and yet you disappear in a way that makes the negative account impossible to collect. Another risk is that you are not who you say you are, or that the money you invest is not yours. These are called \"\"know your customer\"\" risks.\"","How should we disregard leverage when it's the leverage that creates the 'wipe-out' potential? If you simply convert 100K EUR to USDollars, you dollars might then fluctuate a few thousand, maybe even 10K over a year, but the guy that only put up 1000 EUR to do this has a disproportionally higher risk.","Actually, most of the forex traders do not prefer the practice of leveraging. In forex trading, a contract signed by a common trader is way more than any common man can afford to risk. It is not a compulsion for the traders to use leveraging yet most of the traders practice it. The other side of it is completely different. Trading companies or brokers specifically like it because you turn into a kind of cash cow when your account gets exhausted. As for trader, most of them don’t practice leveraging.","\"None of the previous answers (which are all good) mention margin accounts (loans from your broker). You may also have heard them described as \"\"leverage\"\". It may seem odd to mention this rather narrow form of debt here, but it's important because overuse of leverage has played a large part in pretty much every financial crisis you can think of (including the most recent one). As the Investopedia definitions indicate, leverage magnifies gains, but also magnifies losses. I consider margin/leverage to be \"\"bad\"\" debt.\"","Highest possible is meaningless. Ex: Use 17x Leverage on E-mini S&P 500 Futures, perfectly long before an uptick and short before a downtick every minute. Goes to the moon in a day of 1,440 minutes. You are supposed to use a Buy-and-Hold SPY, with leverage that makes the Standard Deviation of SPY same as your Portfolio/Algorithm, as benchmark.","The major drawback to borrowing to invest (i.e. using leverage) is that your return on investment must be high enough to overcome the cost of finance. The average return on the S&P 500 is about 9.8% (from CNBC) a typical unsecured personal loan will have an interest rate of around 18-36% APR (from NerdWallet). This means that on average you will be paying more interest than you are receiving in returns so are losing money on the margin investment. Sometimes the S&P falls and over those periods you would be paying out interest having lost money so will have a negative return! You may have better credit and so be able to get a lower rate but I don't know your loan terms currently. Secured loans, such as remortgaging your house, will have lower costs but come with more life changing risks. The above assumes that you are getting financing by directly borrowing money, however, it is also possible to trade on margin. This is where you post a proportion of the value that you wish to trade with as collateral against a loan to buy the security. This form of finance is normally used by day traders and other short term holders of stocks. Although the financing costs here are low (I am not charged an interest rate on intraday margin trading) there are very high costs if you exceed the term of the loan. An example is that I am charged a fee if I hold a position overnight and my profits and losses are crystallised at that time. If I am in a losing position at that time the crystallisation process and fee can result in not having enough margin to recover the position and the loss of a potentially profit making position. Additionally if the amount of collateral cash (margin) posted is insufficient to cover the expected losses as calculated by your broker they will initiate a margin call asking for more collateral money. If you do not (or cannot) post this extra margin your losing position will be cashed out and you will take as a loss the total loss at that time. Since the market can change very rapidly, such as in a flash crash, this can result in your losing more money than you had in the first place. As this is essentially a loan you can be bankrupted by this. Overall using leverage to invest magnifies your potential profits but it also magnifies your potential losses. In many cases this magnification could be sufficient to lose you more money than you had originally invested. In addition to magnification you need to consider the cost of finance and that your return over the course of the loan needs to be higher than your cost of finance as well as inflation and other opportunity costs of capital. The S&P 500 is a relatively low volatility market in general so is unlikely to return losses in any given period that will mean that leverage of 1.25 times will take you into losses beyond your own capital investment but it is not impossible. The low level of risk automatically means that your returns are lower and so your cost of capital is likely to be a large proportion of your returns and your returns may not completely cover the cost of capital even when you are making money. The key thing if you are going to trade or invest on leverage is to understand the terms and costs of your leverage and discount them from any returns that you receive before declaring to yourself that you are profitable. It is even more important than usual to know how your positions are doing and whether you are covering your cost of capital when using leverage. It is also very important to know the terms of your leverage in detail, especially what will happen when and if your credit runs out for whatever reason be it the end of the financing period (the length of the loan) or your leverage ratio gets too high. You should also be aware of the costs of closing out the loan early should you need to do so and how to factor that into your investing decisions.","\"QUICK ANSWER When it comes to fixed income assets, whether rental real estate or government bonds, it's unusual for highly-leveraged assets to yield less than the same asset unleveraged or lowly-leveraged. This is especially so in countries where interest costs are tax deductible. If we exclude capital losses (i.e. the property sells in future at a price less than it was purchased) or net rental income that doesn't keep up with maintenance, regulatory, taxation, inflation and / or other costs, there is one primary scenario where higher leverage results in lower yields compared to lower leverage, even if rental income keeps up with non-funding costs. This occurs when variable rate financing is used and rates substantially increase. EXPLANATION Borrowers and lenders in different countries have different mortgage rate customs. Some are more likely to have long-term fixed rates; some prefer variable rates; and others are a hybrid, i.e. fixed for a few years and then become variable. If variable rates are used for a mortgage and the reference rates increase substantially, as they did in the US during the 1970s, the borrower can easily become \"\"upside-down,\"\" i.e. owe more on the mortgage than the property is then worth, and have mortgage service costs that exceed the net rental income. Some of those costs aren't easy to pass along to renters, even when there are periodic lease renewals or base rent increases referencing inflation rates. Central banks set policies for what would be the lowest short-term rates in a country that has such a bank. Private sector rates are established broadly by supply and demand for credit and can thus diverge markedly from central bank rates. Over time, the higher finance-carrying-cost-to-net-rental-income ratio should abate as (1) rental market prices change to reflect the costs and (2) the landlord can reinvest his net rental income at a higher rate. In the short-term though, this can result in the landlord having to \"\"eat\"\" the costs making his yield on his leveraged fixed income asset less than what he would have without leverage, even if the property was later sold at same price regardless of financing method. ========== Interestingly, and on the flip side, this is one of the quirks in finance where an accounting liability can become, at least in part, an economic asset. If a landlord borrows at a high loan-to-value ratio for a fixed interest rate for the life of the mortgage and rates, variable and fixed, were to increase substantially, the difference between his original rate and the present rates accrues to him. If he's able to sell the property with the loan attached (which is not uncommon for commercial, industrial and sometimes municipal real estate), the buyer will be assuming a liability with a lower carrying cost than his present alternatives and will hence pay a higher price for the property than if it were unleveraged. With long-term rates in many economically advanced countries at historic lows, if a borrower today were to take a long-term fixed rate loan and rates shortly after increased substantially, he may have an instant profit in this scenario even if his property hasn't increased in value.\"","In addition to the excellent answers here I might suggest a reason for investing in leveraged funds and the original purpose for their existence. Lets say you run a mutual fund that is supposed to track the performance of the S&P 500. If you have cash inflows and outflows from your fund due to people investing and selling shares of your fund you may have periods where not all funds are invested appropriately because some of the funds are in cash. Lets say 98% of your funds are invested in the securities that reflect the stocks in the S&P 500. You will will miss matching the S&P 500 because you have 2% not invested in some money market account. If you take 1/3 of the cash balance and invest in a triple leveraged fund or take 1/2 of the funds and invest in a double leveraged fund you will more accurately track the index to which your fund is supposed to track. I am not sure what percentage mutual fund owners keep in cash but this is one use that I know these ETFs are used for. The difference over time that compounding effects have on leveraged funds is called Beta Slippage. There are many fine articles explaining it at you can find one located at this link.","\"The main difference between a bull market and a bear market is due the \"\"the leverage effect\"\". http://www.princeton.edu/~yacine/leverage.pdf The leverage effect refers to the observed tendency of an asset’s volatility to be negatively correlated with the asset’s returns. Typically, rising asset prices are accompanied by declining volatility, and vice versa. The term “leverage” refers to one possible economic interpretation of this phenomenon, developed in Black (1976) and Christie (1982): as asset prices decline, companies become mechanically more leveraged since the relative value of their debt rises relative to that of their equity. As a result, it is natural to expect that their stock becomes riskier, hence more volatile. More volatile assets in a bear market are not such good investments as less volatile assets in a bull market.\"","\"When margin is calculated as the equity percentage of an account, the point at which a broker will forcibly liquidate is typically called \"\"maintenance margin\"\". In the US, this is 25% for equities. To calculate the price at which this will occur, the initial and maintenance margin must be known. The formula for a long with margin is: and for a short where P_m is the maintenance margin price, P_i is the initial margin price, m_i is the initial margin rate, and m_m is the maintenance margin rate. At an initial margin of 50% and a maintenance margin of 25%, a long equity may fall by 1/3 before forced liquidation, a short one may rise by 50%. This calculation can become very complex with different asset classes with differing maintenance margins because the margin debt is applied to all securities collectively.\"","\"A \"\"junk bond\"\" is one that pays a high yield UP FRONT because there is a good chance that it could default. So the higher interest rate is necessary to try to compensate for the default Junk bonds are used in leveraged buyouts (LBOs) because such deals are INHERENTLY risky. \"\"Normal\"\" companies may have 20%-30% debt and the rest equity, so that the company will have to lose 70%-80% of its value before the debtholders start losing money on \"\"normal\"\" bonds. But in an LBO, the company may have only 10%-20% equity and the rest debt. Meaning that if it loses that small equity cushion, the value of the \"\"junk\"\" bonds will be impaired.\"","At the most basic level of financing a business -- you are trying to acquire capital as cheaply as you can to invest in your projects. The measure for how expensive your capital is to acquire is Weighted Average Cost of Capital. The formula for WACC: Equity Ratio * Cost of Equity + Debt Ratio * Cost of Debt * (1 - Tax Rate) This is also your discount rate when you're making a DCF model. Debt tends to be cheaper than equity when you don't already have any, and is also advantaged by tax rates since you don't pay taxes on interest. In the real world, banks and lenders will ratchet up rates the more debt you acquire, or shut you out once you've taken on too much and your debt service coverage is too low for them. In a classroom though, most teachers are too lazy to make a curvilinear formula for borrowing and will just state a rate for borrowing so you can load up on debt so long as you don't fall below being able to service your debt (cash flow to make your debt payments). This will ultimately juice the returns on equity. Realistically, you would find lenders would let you have ~20% equity in the business and ~80% debt without raising your teacher's eyebrow. If you haven't taken accounting yet; be careful about the difference between cash and revenue in your analyses. Revenue is recognition for work done; not cash in hand. You can have all the revenue in the world but if no one's paid you for it yet, you can't pay anyone.","long deep ITM calls is equivalent to owning the equity. You're going to pay alot and hence will start off in a hole already, and you aren't getting too much leverage there at all depending how deep ITM you go. Covariance scales, but assuming B-S in order to get nice scaling and ignoring the risks you are actually taking with options (unlimited down-size ie you can lose your entire investment in the option, people forget this) will screw you unless you really know what you are dong. Leverage means increasing your risk. long dep ITM is not obtaining much leverage and therefore not risking too much. but you aren't going ot get 3-4x leverage this way. you get leverage by saying: oh, i have 100, i could invest in 1 share of stock OR I could buy 100 worth of some option. If I pick a deep ITM (think strike = 0) it's identical to owing the stock. If i pick ATM, i have a ~50/50 chance of wining, so i should be able to double my upside. If I go OTM, i can increase my exposure to the upside while increasing hte chance that my options expire worthless. So really, i have no idea why deep ITM do what you are trying to do. and If you don't either, you probably shouldn't do it.","So Betas are not found on a company's financial statements. Beta is essentially a measure of the covariance of an asset and the overall market return, in relation to the variance of the market's return. A beta of 1 is to describe an asset whose daily returns mimic the returns of the overall market. A beta of >1 describes an asset whose returns are greater than the market return and a beta <1 describes an asset whose returns are less than the market return. To the extent that the asset you are comparing to the market index is a share of common stock, the beta you are looking at is levered if the company has debt or preferred stock. The technique your professor is alluding to is the process of unlevering betas of two different companies that may have similar underlying operating assets but because of different capital structures, have different betas when using their common stock returns. This adjustment makes comparing different betas between companies agnostic of the capital structure used.","> one of the most highly leveraged Not even close. In general joint retail-investment banking institutions are less leveraged than primary IB's. BOA is sitting at a T1CR under Basel III of 8.1%. JPM 9.18% DB 7.2 MS 8.5% GS 7.3% UBS 8.8% This is all as of Q2 reports.","High frequency trades are intra day. The would buy a stock for 100 and sell for 100.10 multiple times. So If you start with 100 in your broker account, you buy something [it takes 2-3 days to settle], you sell for 100.10 [it takes 2-3 days to settle]. You again buy something for 100. It is the net value of both buys and sells that you need to look at. Trading on Margin Accounts. Most brokers offer Margin Accounts. The exact leverage ratios varies. What this means is that if you start with 10 [or 15 or 25] in your broker you can buy stock of 100. Of course legally you wont own the stock unless you pay the broker balance, etc.","Investopedia has a nice article on this here The Key benefit looks like better returns with lower capital. The disadvantage is few brokers offering that can be trusted. Potentially lower return due to margins / spreads. Higher leverage and can become an issue.","\"If you're looking to leverage your capital more efficiently, at the money options offer the best balance. Options deep in the money will have little time premium remaining on them, but don't allow for greater leverage. On the other hand deep out of the money options may be thinly traded, or might not offer the \"\"mirroring\"\" you'd like of the underlying. By purchasing ATM you will likely be buying some time premium, but still be leveraging your capital, potentially several times over.\"","Excess capital is the primary means of navigating around a trade which is moving against you. In a very basic case, consider a long position moving against you. With additional capital you could average in as the price drops or you could write options against your position. If you don't have the capital to handle when (not if) a trade move against you then you're at a significant disadvantage as your only option may be a liquidation.","\"As others have pointed out, leveraged investing is investing borrowed money. To do so, you need to convince a lender that you're good for the loan. This usually means you need to have collateral worth what you're trying to borrow, or you need to pay a higher rate to account for the fact that they're gambling that you will remain employed and pay off the loan. Leveraged investing is, in general, a risky move for exactly this reason. You can lose not just your original investment, but everything you borrowed as well. The only time it really makes sense, in my admittedly conservative opinion, is when you (a) can afford to suffer that loss, (b) are pretty confident of your investment, and (c) have assets which you have no intention to sell for the duration of the loan. An \"\"unneeded\"\" mortgage on a house is a classic example, thusly: When I purchased my house, I had enough savings that I could have bought it without taking a mortgage. Instead, I took out a mortgage for a large part of that, and left the remainder in my investment accounts -- essentially building the leveraging loan into the mortgage. I then got obscenely \"\"lucky\"\" when interest rates fell through the floor due to the Great Recession, and was able to refinance the mortgage to near record low rates. As a result, on that loan -- which, as I say, I'm in the position of being able to pay off at any time without killing my finances -- I'm currently paying about 3.5%, while the cash this has let me leave in my investments is earning several times that... a net win. But again, note that this required collateral. Essentially, all I'm doing is paying a bit to to borrow my own money (part of the value of the house). There really is no easy way to \"\"convert 25k to 250k\"\" -- if there was, everyone would be doing it. There's no magic in investment. Just time and compounding returns and trading off risk against potential gain. The more you try to push it and win big, the more you risk losing big. I really recommend not attempting anything fancy until you're wealthy enough that you can afford those losses. But if you insist on playing in this space, the answer to your question is to buy options. Options are a packaged form of borrowing to invest. Note that they're still considered high-risk unless you know EXACTLY what you're doing, and again I strongly recommend you not put money into them unless you can afford to lose it -- options have a nasty habit of turning from apparent gains on paper to losses remarkably quickly.\"","\"Financing a portfolio with debt (on margin) leads to higher variance. That's the WHOLE POINT. Let's say it's 50-50. On the downside, with 100% equity, you can never lose more than your whole equity. But if you have assets of 100, of which 50% is equity and 50% is debt, your losses can be greater than 50%, which is to say more than the value of your equity. The reverse is true. You can make money at TWICE the rate if the market goes up. But \"\"you pay your money and you take your chances\"\" (Punch, 1846).\"","The most obvious example would be a situation where a Company is growth constrained, but cash flow positive. It may have enough cash flow to service $10 million of debt, but it needs to build a new facility that will cost $20 million. There is the option to raise debt and equity or just raise equity and move quicker to getting that facility up and running. There are also situations where debt is used to replace equity (i.e. dividend recapitalization or leveraged share redemption).","\"At my soon to be legendary Stock Options Cafe, I recently wrote an article \"\"Betting On Apple at 9 to 2.\"\" It described a trade in which a 35% move in a stock over a fixed time (2 years) would result in a 354% gain in one's bet. In this case, the options serve to create remarkable leverage for speculators. In general, option help provide liquidity and extend the nature of the risk/reward curve. There are option trades that range from conservative (e.g. a 'covered call') to wildly speculative, as the one I described above.\"","The value of a company is, simplified, the sum of the value of the equity and the value of the debt. There are some other things to add/subtract to that, but just think about those for now. You could also say the value of a company is the value of its assets, or more precisely the value of the net cash flows those assets will generate in the future. So let's say you want to start a company, so you want to buy some assets. Maybe you want to buy a $200 asset. Well, you only have $100, so you take out a loan (debt) for $100 for the remainder. You buy the asset and start generating income. Let's say after a month you get bored and decide to sell the company. Let's assume the value of the assets hasn't changed. Your equity is worth $100, and you find a buyer who is willing to pay $100 for your company. Great! Right? Well there's still the $100 loan you owe, so you have to pay that back. And suddenly you now have $0. So in fact, you should have negotiated $200 with the buyer, because that's what the assets are actually worth. Then you can pay back the loan and still have the $100 in equity you deserve. (Alternatively, you could have negotiated the buyer to assume responsibility for the loan; same outcome for you.) Did that help?","\"A real simple definition or analogy of present Value would be the \"\"Principal\"\" or \"\"Loan Amount\"\" being lent and the future value as being returning the Principal along with cost of borrowing The (1+i)^n is the interest you earn on present value The (i+i)^-n is the interest you pay on future value The first one is the FVIF or future value of a $1 The second one is the PVIF or present value of a $1 Both these interest factors assume interest is paid annually, if the interest payment is made more often within the payment year then interest factors look this way m is the frequency of interest payment, the higher this frequency the more of interest you pay or earn and you pay or earn the most interest when compounding occurs on each small fraction of time This entails here e is the Euler's e Thus the interest factors turn to this The preceeding examples only considered a single repayment at future date. Now if you were obliged to make periodic loan repayments say in amount of $1 for n number of periods. Then the present value of all such periodic payment is the \"\"Principal\"\" or amount you borrowed. This is the sum of discounted periodic payments as if we replace 1/1+i with x then this turns out to be geometric series of the form This simplifies to replacing (1/1+i) for x we get which is the present value of periodic payment in amount of $1 The future value of periodic payments in amount of $1 can be arrived at multiplying the PVIFA by (1+i)^n giving Once again the interest is compounded per annum and for intra-year compounding you would have to at first find the annual effective yield AEY to use as the effect rate is the PVIFA and FVIFA calculation for continuous compounding All the calculation discussed thus far did not take inflation into consideration, if we were to adjust the amounts for a growth of g% then the present value of a $1 would be as follow Once again you would have to use AEY if compounding frequency of interest is intra-year Now assume that each loan repayment increases or decreases by an extra amount Q per period. To find the present value of series of payments P that increase or decrease per period by an amount Q we would do the following calculations Here and All of these calculations have been available in tadXL add-in for finance and incrementally being offered as JavaScript financial functions library tadJS. Please note that the tad series of the financial functions library for various environments such as Excel, JavaScript, PHP, Ruby, Microsoft.net and others are property of the author writing this post. All of these libraries except one for Excel are available for FREE for public use. And the future value of such payments with increments may be found by multiplying the PV by (1+i)^n as follows Here\"","Each situation is different, but it has to do with assessing what the Company is trying to do. People always talk about WACC, but in reality, WACC is less important than figuring how how much debt a Company can support (determined by leverage and solvency statistics). Here are a few things to think about: -How stable are the Company's cash flows? (big difference between a Company that has multi-year contracts locked in place vs. variable/cyclical revenue streams; what type of Capex requirement is there?) -What is the purpose of raising the capital? (growth vs. recapitalization; where are the proceeds going?) -What collateral is available for creditors? -What does working capital look like? (is there seasonality?)","\"Your question indicates that you might have a little confusion about put options and/or leveraging. There's no sense I'm aware of in which purchasing a put levers a position. Purchasing a put will cost you money up front. Leveraging typically means entering a transaction that gives you extra money now that you can use to buy other things. If you meant to sell a put, that will make money up front but there is no possibility of making money later. Best case scenario the put is not exercised. The other use of the term \"\"leverage\"\" refers to purchasing an asset that, proportionally, goes up faster than the value of the underlying. For example, a call option. If you purchase a put, you are buying downside protection, which is kind of the opposite of leverage. Notice that for an American put you will most likely be better off selling the put when the price of the underlying falls than exercising it. That way you make the money you would have made by exercising plus whatever optional value the put still contains. That is true unless the time value of money is greater than the optional (insurance) value. Since the time value of money is currently exceptionally low, this is unlikely. Anyway, if you sell the option instead of exercising, you don't need to own any shares at all. Even if you do exercise, you can just buy them on the market and sell right away so I wouldn't worry about what you happen to be holding. The rules for what you can trade with a cash instead of a margin account vary by broker, I think. You can usually buy puts and calls in a cash account, but more advanced strategies, such as writing options, are prohibited. Ask your broker or check their help pages to see what you have available to you.\"","\"First it is worth noting the two sided nature of the contracts (long one currency/short a second) make leverage in currencies over a diverse set of clients generally less of a problem. In equities, since most margin investors are long \"\"equities\"\" making it more likely that large margin calls will all be made at the same time. Also, it's worth noting that high-frequency traders often highly levered make up a large portion of all volume in all liquid markets ~70% in equity markets for instance. Would you call that grossly artificial? What is that volume number really telling us anyway in that case? The major players holding long-term positions in the FX markets are large banks (non-investment arm), central banks and corporations and unlike equity markets which can nearly slow to a trickle currency markets need to keep trading just for many of those corporations/banks to do business. This kind of depth allows these brokers to even consider offering 400-to-1 leverage. I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea for these brokers, but the liquidity in currency markets is much deeper than their costumers.\"","\"RBL is likely *reserve based lending*, which is a type of asset-based financing in oil&gas world where debt is secured by oil reserves. Presumably context is that have an oil&gas company that the analyst thinks should be acquiring other companies. To fund that, the analyst is saying the parent company should borrow money against their reserves (should be relatively inexpensive capital b/c asset-backed) and then using it to fund acquisitions. For the target's capital structure, those amounts are equity infused by the Parent (even though the Parent got the money by borrowing it). The Target can then borrow money against its own operations... this borrowed money will \"\"gear\"\" up the Target -- gearing is just a term for leverage, typically specifically debt-to-equity ratio. So to fund the acquisition, the Parent is (1) going to borrow using a RBL on Parent's assets to come up with equity to put into target and (2) going to borrow against Target's business. Presumably today Target is relatively debt free or even cash heavy.\"","Ok, so disregarding passivity, could you help me through a simplified example? Say I only had two assets, SPY and TLT, with a respective weight of 35 and 65% and I want want to leverage this to 4x. Additionally, say daily return covar is: * B/B .004% * B/S -.004% * S/S .02% Now, if I read correctly, I should buy ATM calls xxx days in the future. Which may look like: Ticker, S, K, Option Price, Delta, Lambda * TLT $126.04 $126.00 $4.35 0.50 14.5 * SPY $134.91 $134.00 $6.26 0.55 11.8 ^ This example is pretty close but some assets are far off. I feel like I'm on the wrong track so I'll stop here. I just want to lever up my risk-parity. Margin rates are too high and I'm docked by Reg-T.","You miss the step where the return being doubled is daily. Consider you invested $100 today, went up 10%, and tomorrow you went down 10%. Third day market went up 1.01% and without leverage - got even. Here's the calculation for you: day - start - end 1 $100 $120 - +10% doubled 2 $120 $96 - -10% doubled 3 $96 $97.94 - +1.01% doubled So in fact you're in $2.06 loss, while without leveraging you would break even. That means that if the trend is generally positive, but volatile - you'll end up barely breaking even while the non-leveraged investment would make profits. That's what the quote means. edit to summarize the long and fruitless discussion in the comments: The reason that the leveraged ETF's are very good for day-trading is exactly the same reason why they are bad for continuous investment. You should buy them when there's a reasonable expectation for the market to immediately go in the direction you expect. If for whatever reason you believe the markets will plunge, or soar, tomorrow - you should buy a leveraged ETF, ride the plunge, and sell it in the end of the day. But you asked the question about volatile markets, not markets going in one direction. There - you lose.","I wouldn't recommend leveraged dividend fishing. Dividend stocks with such high dividends are highly volatile, you will run out of collateral to cover your trades very quickly","In order to calculate the ratio you are looking for, just divide total debt by the market capitalization of the stock. Both values can be found on the link you provided. The market capitalization is the market value of equity.",">Tax benefit of debt The interest on repayments for debt (eg bonds, loans) is tax deductible (as interest expense). The way you figure out the after tax cost of debt is repayment*(1-tax rate). >Marginal tax benefit Just as marginal benefit, this is asking for every ADDITIONAL (ie marginal) dollar of debt, what is my additional tax benefit (tax deduction). Pretty rough explanation, let me know if there is something in particular that doesn't make sense.","Reading and analyzing financial statements is one of the most important tasks of Equity Analysts which look at a company from a fundamental perspective. However, analyzing a company and its financial statements is much more than just reading the absolute dollar figures provided in financial statements: You need to calculate financial ratios which can be compared over multiple periods and companies to be able to gauge the development of a company over time and compare it to its competitors. For instance, for an Equity Analyst, the absolute dollar figures of a company's operating profit is less important than the ratio of the operating profit to revenue, which is called the operating margin. Another very important figure is Free Cash Flow which can be set in relation to sales (= Free Cash Flow / Sales). The following working capital related metrics can be used as a health check for a company and give you early warning signs when they deviate too much: You can either calculate those metrics yourself using a spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) or use a professional solution, e.g. Bloomberg Professional, Reuters Eikon or WorldCap.","From http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Business+Fundamentals The facts that affect a company's underlying value. Examples of business fundamentals include debt, cash flow, supply of and demand for the company's products, and so forth. For instance, if a company does not have a sufficient supply of products, it will fail. Likewise, demand for the product must remain at a certain level in order for it to be successful. Strong business fundamentals are considered essential for long-term success and stability. See also: Value Investing, Fundamental Analysis. For a stock the basic fundamentals are the second column of numbers you see on the google finance summary page, P/E ratio, div/yeild, EPS, shares, beta. For the company itself it's generally the stuff on the 'financials' link (e.g. things in the quarterly and annual report, debt, liabilities, assets, earnings, profit etc.","I guess I wasn't clear. I want to modestly leverage (3-4x) my portfolio using options. I believe long deep-in-the-money calls would be the best way to do this? (Let me know if not.) It's important to me that the covariance matrix from the equity portfolio scales up but doesn't fundamentally change. (I liken it to systemic change as opposed to idiosyncratic change.) This is what I was thinking: * For the same expiry date, find each positions lowest lambda. * Match all option to the the highest of the lowest lambda. * Adjust number of contracts to compensate for higher leverage. I don't think this will work because if I matched the lowest lambda of options on bond etfs to my equity options they would be out-of-the-money. By the way, thanks for your time.","Essentially, what you're describing is a leveraged investment. As others noted, the question is how confident you can be that (a) the returns on the investment will exceed what you're paying in interest, and (b) that if you lose the bet you'll still be able to pay off the loan without severely injuring yourself. I did essentially this when I bought my house, taking out a larger loan than necessary and leaving more money in my investments, which had been returning more than the mortgage's interest rate. I then got indecently lucky during the recession and was able to refinance down to under 4%, which I am very certain my investment will beat. I actually considered lengthening the term of the loan for that reason, or borrowing a bit more, but decided not to double down on the bet; that was my own risk-comfort threshold. Know exactly what your risks are, including secondary effects of these risks. Run the numbers to see what the likely return is. Decide whether you like the odds enough to go for it.","Yeah sorry I didn't actually read the entirety of your text as carefully as I should have. I absolutely see where I jumped to the conclusion and obfuscated your point. Sorry bout that. I just saw you hadn't mentioned leveraging and all too quickly hit the reply button. Good day to you!","[it was 15 to 1 before the SEC decided that big banks needed to be able to risk more.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_capital_rule) it also started teh distrust between banks. With 15 to 1 you were pretty sure that another bank you were dealing with was leveraged exactly 15 to 1. WHen he removed that requirement, then banks had a much harder time judging the health of other banks they were dealing with. you just didnt know if they were 20 to 1 or 30 to 1 or higher, without going through all their books. This was one of the main reasons the recession was so large in scope. Housing would have exploded eventually, but without the leverage regulations they were able to make it hurt far far far far far far worse.. several times worse.","Here is a simple example of how daily leverage fails, when applied over periods longer than a day. It is specifically adjusted to be more extreme than the actual market so you can see the effects more readily. You buy a daily leveraged fund and the index is at 1000. Suddenly the market goes crazy, and goes up to 2000 - a 100% gain! Because you have a 2x ETF, you will find your return to be somewhere near 200% (if the ETF did its job). Then tomorrow it goes back to normal and falls back down to 1000. This is a fall of 50%. If your ETF did its job, you should find your loss is somewhere near twice that: 100%. You have wiped out all your money. Forever. You lose. :) The stock market does not, in practice, make jumps that huge in a single day. But it does go up and down, not just up, and if you're doing a daily leveraged ETF, your money will be gradually eroded. It doesn't matter whether it's 2x leveraged or 8x leveraged or inverse (-1x) or anything else. Do the math, get some historical data, run some simulations. You're right that it is possible to beat the market using a 2x ETF, in the short run. But the longer you hold the stock, the more ups and downs you experience along the way, and the more opportunity your money has to decay. If you really want to double your exposure to the market over the intermediate term, borrow the money yourself. This is why they invented the margin account: Your broker will essentially give you a loan using your existing portfolio as collateral. You can then invest the borrowed money, increasing your exposure even more. Alternatively, if you have existing assets like, say, a house, you can take out a mortgage on it and invest the proceeds. (This isn't necessarily a good idea, but it's not really worse than a margin account; investing with borrowed money is investing with borrowed money, and you might get a better interest rate. Actually, a lot of rich people who could pay off their mortgages don't, and invest the money instead, and keep the tax deduction for mortgage interest. But I digress.) Remember that assets shrink; liabilities (loans) never shrink. If you really want to double your return over the long term, invest twice as much money.","\"This is an example from another field, real estate. Suppose you buy a $100,000 house with a 20 percent down payment, or $20,000, and borrow the other $80,000. In this example, your \"\"equity\"\" or \"\"market cap\"\" is $20,000. But the total value, or \"\"enterprise value\"\" of the house, is actually $100,000, counting the $80,000 mortgage. \"\"Enterprise value\"\" is what a buyer would have to pay to own the company or the house \"\"free and clear,\"\" counting the debt.\"","Other metrics like Price/Book Value or Price/Sales can be used to determine if a company has above average valuations and would be classified as growth or below average valuations and be classified as value. Fama and French's 3 Factor model would be one example that was studied a great deal using an inverse of Price/Book I believe.","Risk in finance is defined as standard deviation of returns. This is a measure of size of your returns, both negative and positive. Since the mean return is positive (at least for the stock market and fixed income), if you double the standard deviation your mean return also doubles along with it. In this way you are compensated by the market for taking on more risk.","\"A junk bond is, broadly, a bond with a non-negligible risk of default. (\"\"Bond\"\" ought to be defined elsewhere, but broadly it's a financial instrument you buy from a company or government, where they promise to pay you back the principal and some interest over time, on a particular schedule.) The name \"\"junk\"\" is a bit exaggerated: many of them are issued by respectable and reasonably stable businesses. junk bonds were required to do large leveraged buyouts. This means: the company issued fairly risky, fairly high-yield debt, to buy out equity holders. They have to pay a high rate on the debt because the company's now fairly highly geared (ie has a lot of debt relative to its value) and it may have to pay out a large fraction of its earnings as interest. What is a junk bond and how does it differ from a regular bond? It's only a matter of degree and nomenclature. A bond that has a credit rating below a particular level (eg S&P BBB-) is called junk, or more politely \"\"non-investment grade\"\" or \"\"speculative\"\". It's possible for an existing bond to be reclassified from one side to another, or for a single issuer to have different series some of which are more risky than others. The higher the perceived risk, the more interest the bond must pay offer in order to attract lenders. Why is there higher risk/chance of default? Well, why would a company be considered at higher risk of failing to repay its debt? Basically it comes down to doubt about the company's future earnings being sufficient to repay its debt, which could be for example:\"","\"There is actually a recent paper that attempted to decompose Buffett's outperformance. I've quoted the abstract below: \"\"Berkshire Hathaway has realized a Sharpe ratio of 0.76, higher than any other stock or mutual fund with a history of more than 30 years, and Berkshire has a significant alpha to traditional risk factors. However, we find that the alpha becomes insignificant when controlling for exposures to Betting-Against-Beta and Quality-Minus-Junk factors. Further, we estimate that Buffett’s leverage is about 1.6-to-1 on average. Buffett’s returns appear to be neither luck nor magic, but, rather, reward for the use of leverage combined with a focus on cheap, safe, quality stocks. Decomposing Berkshires’ portfolio into ownership in publicly traded stocks versus wholly-owned private companies, we find that the former performs the best, suggesting that Buffett’s returns are more due to stock selection than to his effect on management. These results have broad implications for market efficiency and the implementability of academic factors.\"\"\"","\"For sake of simplicity, say the Euro is trading at $1.25. You have leveraged control of $100,000 given the 100x leverage. If you are bullish on the Euro, you are long 80,000 euros. For every 1% it rises, you gain $1000. If it drops by the same 1%, you are wiped out, you lost your $1000. With the contracts I am familiar with, there is a minimum margin, and your account is \"\"marked to market\"\" each night. If your positive balance drops too low, you get the margin call. It's a zero sum game, for every dollar you make, there's a guy on the other side of the trade. Odds are he's doing this full time and is smarter than you.\"","Hi all Started my MBA studies recently. We have a simulation project and I've taken the VP Finance Role as I didn't have much experience in this and wanted to learn more. Unfortunately I don't have accounting until next semester, so I'm trying to make up the cap with my career experience so far as an engineer + youtube tutorials. I built a discounted cashflow model. I'm trying to now determine the amount of loan to take in my first year of business. Basically the equity financing doesn't cover our first year capital expenditure, let alone any other costs. My question is how do I determine what an appropriate loan amount is to take. My first thoughts are enough to cover my capital expenses + 1st half of the year operating expenses before I start seeing a revenue. Right now my balance sheet would lead me to believe I have a 0.52 Debt Ratio and 1.23 Debt-to-Equity ratio. Is that ok?","Contrary to what other people said I believe that even without leverage you can lose more that you invest when you short a FX. Why? because the amount it can go down is alwasy limited to zero but it can, potentially, go up without limit. See This question for a mored detailed information.","\"Because they don't leverage using credit but by shorting stocks. eg they short $400 of microsoft, and use the proceed to buy $400 of Apple. That's a 4x \"\"leverage\"\". It's one of the main characteristics of hedge fund vs traditional fund, they can short while your vanilla long only mutual fund cannot. And they limit capital from outside investors due to decreasing marginal return and liquidity consideration.\"","\"If you don't use leverage you can't lose more than you invested because you \"\"play\"\" with your own money. But even with leverage when you reach a certain limit (maintenance margin) you will receive a margin call from your broker to add more funds to your account. If you don't comply with this (meaning you don't add funds) the broker will liquidate some of the assets (in this case the currency) and it will restore the balance of the account to meet with his/her maintenance margin. At least, this is valid for assets like stocks and derivatives. Hope it helps! Edit: I should mention that\"","\"Every bank/financial institution uses different terms but I read \"\"cost of carry\"\" as the 'risk' cost of the portfolio. that is, what is the equivalent maturity risk-free rate + the principal-weight probability of default (or to make it more complex, loss give default) %. If this summed % is less than the rate earned on the portfolio of loans you would buy loans. The difference is your spread or profit.\"","\"Standard deviation from Wikipedia : In statistics and probability theory, the standard deviation (represented by the Greek letter sigma, σ) shows how much variation or dispersion from the average exists.1 A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean (also called expected value); a high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a large range of values. In the case of stock returns, a lower value would indicate less volatility while a higher value would mean more volatility, which could be interpreted as high much change does the stock's price go through over time. Mean would be interpreted as if all the figures had to be the same, what would they be? So if a stock returns 10% each year for 3 years in a row, then 10% would be the mean or average return. Now, it is worth noting that there are more than a few calculations that may be done to derive a mean. First, there is the straight forward sum and division by the number of elements idea. For example, if the returns by year were 0%, 10%, and 20% then one may take the sum of 30% and divide by 3 to get a simple mean of 10%. However, some people would rather look at a Compound Annual Growth Rate which in this case would mean multiplying the returns together so 1*(1+.1)*(1+.2)=1.1*1.2=1.32 or 32% since there is some compounding here. Now, instead of dividing a cubic root is taken to get approximately 9.7% average annual return that is a bit lower yet if you compound it over 3 years it will get up to 32% as 10% compounded over 3 years would be 33.1% as (1.1)^3=1.331. Sharpe Ratio from Investopedia: A ratio developed by Nobel laureate William F. Sharpe to measure risk-adjusted performance. The Sharpe ratio is calculated by subtracting the risk-free rate - such as that of the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond - from the rate of return for a portfolio and dividing the result by the standard deviation of the portfolio returns. Thus, this is a way to think about given the volatility how much better did the portfolio do than the 10 year bond. R-squared, Alpha and Beta: These are all around the idea of \"\"linear regression\"\" modelling. The idea is to take some standard like say the \"\"S & P 500\"\" in the case of US stocks and see how well does the portfolio follow this and what if one were to use a linear model are the multipliers and addition components to it. R-squared can be thought of it as a measure as to how good is the fit on a scale of 0 to 1. An S & P 500 index fund may well have an R-squared of 1.00 or 0.99 to the index as it will track it extremely closely while other investments may not follow that well at all. Part of modern portfolio theory would be to have asset classes that move independently of each other and thus would have a lower R-squared so that the movement of the index doesn't indicate how an investment will do. Now, as for alpha and beta, do you remember the formula for a line in slope-intercept form, where y is the portfolio's return and x is the index's return: y=mx+b In this situation m is beta which is the multiple of the return, and b is the alpha or how much additional return one gets without the multiple. Going back to an index fund example, m will be near 1 and b will be near 0 and there isn't anything being done and so the portfolio's return computed based on the index's return is simply y=x. Other mutual funds may try to have a high alpha as this is seen as the risk-free return as there isn't the ups and downs of the market here. Other mutual funds may go for a high beta so that there is volatility for investors to handle.\"","You don't even need to look at WACC (which is fairly complicated as a concept) you can simply look up gearing. Both high and low gearing is bad, so even if you've got loads of cash you shouldn't just be using that to invest","If you want to see a more academic version of this look up Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC). It's a formula that tells you how much it costs for a company to raise $1 of capital whether it be through issuing bonds or stocks. One thing you learn is that there are times that if you take on loans (even if you don't need it) you can raise shareholder value and therefore the total company netvalue. The thought process is (as it states in the article above) that a company can issue debt for cheaper than issue shares and it will have extra cash which it can use to get a better return than its net effective interest rate. I tried to give an example but I only ended up rehashing what it says in the article. Anyhow look up WACC and you'll understand the fundamentals.","> People who don't understand leverage shouldn't be writing articles about them Agreed. I wasn't condoning the article, just offering my thoughts. > why should there be a cap at 3x for ETFs when you can get way more leverage with other instruments 3x seems arbitrary. 5x seems arbitrary. I'd love to see a study that analyzed what, if any, would be an optimal 'ceiling' for these. > 3 seems to be a valid point to some degree 3 was getting at speculators using them in excess. A potential solution to limit misuse would be to impose higher costs on levered instruments and capping at 3x or 5x or whatever can be viewed as an (extreme) cost.","To calculate any daily return, all one need do is divide the final value by the initial value, subtract 1, and multiply by 100%: This can be applied to either the futures alone, the investments used as margin collateral alone, or all together. Margin collateral as a factor of a derivative's return Collateral can take many forms. Many suggest that cost and revenue for a derivative trade should also take into account margin requirements. This can become problematic. If a futures position moved against the trader, yet the margin was secured with equities at the maximum, and the equities moved with the trader, the futures trade could be interpreted as less of a loss because the collateral, which is probably totally disassociated with the futures position, increased in value. Then again, if a futures position moved with the trader, yet the margin collateral moved against the trader then taken together, the futures trade would look less profitable. Furthermore, most likely the result of a futures position and its collateral would never produce the same result, so extrapolation would become ever more difficult. For ease of analysis, a position's cost and revenue should be segmented from another unless if those positions are meant to hedge each other. Margin is not a cost, but it is a liability, so margin will affect the balance sheet of a futures trade but not its income statement, again unless if the collateral is also used to hedge such futures position.","\"A lot of financial software will calculate the value of operating leasess for you (bullet 2). E.g. Capital IQ, BB. What a lot of professionals do is \"\"reverse\"\" out EBITDA/EBIT etc. for: - non-recurring expenses (think big accounting changes, some impairments) - change operating expenses into capital leases to adjust the capital structure - occasionally change some operating expenses (e.g. options) because you are under the assumption if you take a company private that those expenses will not be relevant The whole point is simply to see the operating revenues/expenses of the firm\""],"string":"[\n \"Levarge in simple terms is how of your own money to how much of borrowed money. So in 2008 Typical leverage ratios were Investment Banks 30:1 means that for every 1 Unit of Banks money [shareholders capital/ long term debts] there was 30 Units of borrowed money [from deposits/for other institutions/etc]. This is a very unstable situation as typically say you lent out 31 to someone else, half way through repayments, the depositors and other lends are asking you 30 back. You are sunk. Now lets say if you lent 31 to some one, but 30 was your moeny and 1 was from deposits/etc. Then you can anytime more easily pay back the 1 to the depositor. In day trading, usually one squares away the position the same day or within a short period. Hence say you want to buy something worth 1000 in the morning and are selling it say the same day. You are expecting the price to by 1005 and a gain 5. Now when you buy via your broker/trader, you may not be required to pay 1000. Normally one just needs to pay a margin money, typically 10% [varies from market to market, country to country]. So in the first case if you put 1000 and get by 5, you made a profit of 0.5%. However if you were to pay only 10 as margin money [rest 990 is assumed loan from your broker]. You sell at 1005, the broker deducts his 990, and you get 15. So technically on 10 you have made 5 more, ie 50% returns. So this is leveraging of 10:1. If say your broker allowed only 5% margin money, then you just need to pay 5 for the 1000 trade, get back 5. You have made a 100% profit, but the leveraging is 20:1. Now lets say at this high leveraging when you are selling you get only 990. So you still owe the broker 5, if you can't pay-up and if lot of other such people can't pay-up, then the broker will also go bankrupt and there is a huge risk. Hence although leveraging helps in quite a few cases, there is always an associated risk when things go wrong badly.\",\n \"Leverage comes in many forms. You'll learn about things like operational leverage, financial leverage, and total leverage throughout school. In the real world, tier 1 capital ratio has become the most commonly scrutinized because it is essentially a ratio of the core equity capital of a firm divided by the risk weighted assets (assets multiplied by a credit weighting which for most banks now a days is using the standard of Basel 2.5 and moving towards Basel III). The multiples you talked about were references to the reciprocal of this formula. You could reciprocate the T1C ratio and get a whole number that is the multiplier. This multiplier would show for every 1$ in core capital, how much the firm held in risk weighted assets. The 30x number would have represented a tier 1 cap of 3.33%. The concept behind it being, a 10% growth in risk weighted assets with a 3.33% T1CR would result in a 300% growth in core equity capital value. As proven in 2008, it is a double edge blade and works the same way in both directions.\",\n \"This would clear out a lot more. 1) Leverage is the act of taking on debt in lieu of the equity you hold. Not always related to firms, it applies to personal situations too. When you take a loan, you get a certain %age of the loan, the bank establishes your equity by looking at your past financial records and then decides the amount it is going to lend, deciding on the safest leverage. In the current action leverage is the whole act of borrowing yen and profiting from it. The leverage factor mentions the amount of leverage happening. 10000 yen being borrowed with an equity of 1000 yen. 2) Commercial banks: 10 to 1 -> They don't deal in complicated investments, derivatives except for hedging, and are under stricter controls of the government. They have to have certain amount of liquidity and can loan out the rest for business. Investment banks: 30 to 1 -> Their main idea is making money and trade heavily. Their deposits are limited by the amount clients have deposited. And as their main motive is to get maximum returns from the available amount, they trade heavily. Derivatives, one of the instruments, are structured on underlyings and sometimes in multiple layers which build up quite a bit of leverage. And all of the trades happen on margins. You don't invest $10k to buy $10k of a traded stock. You put in, maybe $500 to take up the position and borrow the rest of the amount per se. It improves liquidity in the markets and increases efficiency. Else you could do only with what you have. So these margins add up to the leverage the bank is taking on.\",\n \"What I meant by leverage was not borrowing money in order to buy more. What I am getting at is the purchasing power your dollar has in relation to the number of dollars you have (which may mean using leverage, but not per se).\",\n \"Leverage is when you borrow in order to invest. Mind you, most people aren't going to just give you money to gamble on the stock market completely unsecured; rather, you deposit (say) $10,000 and buy a stock... and then you have $10k in assets which you can borrow against, so you can buy another $10,000 of that stock. Now if the stock goes up you'll make twice the gain (2x leverage). However, if it goes down, you'll lose twice as much as well. If the value of your stock falls, your line of credit will be reduced as well; in this case, since you used all your credit and are now over your limit, your broker will issue a margin call (they will demand a deposit of additional funds, or they will sell some of your stock at their discretion). This protects you from owing more than you invested, but it's still sometimes possible (for instance, if a company spontaneously goes bankrupt and becomes worthless, and your stock becomes worthless). There are also things like leveraged index funds and commodity funds which aim to return some multiple of the market's earnings. These are designed for intraday trading, though, and usually end up underperforming significantly over the long term. [edit] Mose people who accept borrowed funds should generally accept real cash as well. However, if you're trying to short sell, i.e. borrow shares and sell them (in the hopes you can get them back cheaper later after the stock falls) you will need a margin line of credit to do so as well. [edit 2] clarified margin calls\",\n \"\\\"It's called leverage. Here's an example from real estate. The underlying appreciation on a house in certain parts of America is something like 7% a year. So if you bought the house \\\"\\\"all cash,\\\"\\\" your return would be something like 7% a year. (Actually, a little more, because of the rent you would be collecting, or saving, if you were the \\\"\\\"renter.\\\"\\\") Suppose you buy the same house, 20% down, 80% mortgage. The rent pays for your mortgage, taxes, insurance, etc. like it is supposed to. The house goes up the same 7% each year. But now your rate of return is 35%, that is 7%/20% (your down payment). You get the whole appreciation but put up only 20% of the money. The bank (and your renter) did the rest.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I think to some extent you may be confusing the terms margin and leverage. From Investopedia Two concepts that are important to traders are margin and leverage. Margin is a loan extended by your broker that allows you to leverage the funds and securities in your account to enter larger trades. In order to use margin, you must open and be approved for a margin account. The loan is collateralized by the securities and cash in your margin account. The borrowed money doesn't come free, however; it has to be paid back with interest. If you are a day trader or scalper this may not be a concern; but if you are a swing trader, you can expect to pay between 5 and 10% interest on the borrowed money, or margin. Going hand-in-hand with margin is leverage; you use margin to create leverage. Leverage is the increased buying power that is available to margin account holders. Essentially, leverage allows you to pay less than full price for a trade, giving you the ability to enter larger positions than would be possible with your account funds alone. Leverage is expressed as a ratio. A 2:1 leverage, for example, means that you would be able to hold a position that is twice the value of your trading account. If you had $25,000 in your trading account with 2:1 leverage, you would be able to purchase $50,000 worth of stock. Margin refers to essentially buying with borrowed money. This must be paid back, with interest. You also may have a \\\"\\\"margin call\\\"\\\" forcing you to liquidate assets if you go beyond your margin limits. Leverage can be achieved in a number of ways when investing, one of which is investing with a margin account.\\\"\",\n \"A lease payment is composed of an interest portion (borrowed money) and depreciation amount (purchase - residual). The Monthly payment is then Monthly Interest Cost + Monthly Depreciation Cost The Money Factor is used to estimate the amount of interest due in a single month of a lease so you can figure out the monthly payment. If you are borrowing $100,000 then over the entire loan of repayment from a balance of $100,000 to a balance of $0, the average amount you owed was $50,000 (1/2 of principal). You are repaying this loan monthly (1/12 of a year) and percents are expressed as decimals (1/100). 6 * 1/2 (for principal) * 1/12 (for monthly) * 1/100 (to convert percentage from 6% to .06) = 6 * 1/2400. 2400 is the product of 3 consecutive conversion (1/2 * 1/12 * 1/100) to convert from an interest rate to a money factor. 6/2400 = Money factor of 0.0025 which can be multiplied against the total amount being borrowed to know what the monthly interest would roughly equal. Some Money Factor info: https://www.alphaleasing.com/resources/articles/MoneyFactor.asp\",\n \"Your original example is a little confusing because just shorting for 1k and buying for 1k is 100% leveraged or an infinitive leverage ratio. (and not allowed) Brokerage houses would require you to invest some capital in the trade. One example might be requiring you to hold $100 in the brokerage. This is where the 10:1 ratio comes from. (1000/10) Thus a return of 4.5% on the 1000k bond and no movement on the short position would net you $45 and voila a 45% return on your $100 investment. A 40 to 1 leverage ratio would mean that you would only have to invest $25 to make this trade. Something that no individual investor are allowed to do, but for some reason some financial firms have been able to.\",\n \"\\\"I would say that you should keep in mind one simple idea. Leverage was the principal reason for the 2008 financial meltdown. For a great explanation on this, I would HIGHLY recommend Michael Lewis' book, \\\"\\\"The Big Short,\\\"\\\" which does an excellent job in spelling out the case against being highly leveraged. As Dale M. pointed out, losses are greatly magnified by your degree of leverage. That being said, there's nothing wrong with being highly leveraged as a short-term strategy, and I want to emphasize the \\\"\\\"short-term\\\"\\\" part. If, for instance, an opportunity arises where you aren't presently liquid enough to cover then you could use leverage to at least stay in the game until your cash situation improves enough to de-leverage the investment. This can be a common strategy in equities, where you simply substitute the term \\\"\\\"leverage\\\"\\\" for the term \\\"\\\"margin\\\"\\\". Margin positions can be scary, because a rapid downturn in the market can cause margin calls that you're unable to cover, and that's disastrous. Interestingly, it was the 2008 financial crisis which lead to the undoing of Bernie Madoff. Many of his clients were highly leveraged in the markets, and when everything began to unravel, they turned to him to cash out what they thought they had with him to cover their margin calls, only to then discover there was no money. Not being able to meet the redemptions of his clients forced Madoff to come clean about his scheme, and the rest is history. The banks themselves were over-leveraged, sometimes at a rate of 50-1, and any little hiccup in the payment stream from borrowers caused massive losses in the portfolios which were magnified by this leveraging. This is why you should view leverage with great caution. It is very, very tempting, but also fraught with extreme peril if you don't know what you're getting into or don't have the wherewithal to manage it if anything should go wrong. In real estate, I could use the leverage of my present cash reserves to buy a bigger property with the intent of de-leveraging once something else I have on the market sells. But that's only a wise play if I am certain I can unwind the leveraged position reasonably soon. Seriously, know what you're doing before you try anything like this! Too many people have been shipwrecked by not understanding the pitfalls of leverage, simply because they're too enamored by the profits they think they can make. Be careful, my friend.\\\"\",\n \"Degree of Operating Leverage (DOL) measures the percent change in EBIT given a 1% change in Revenue. In other words, if DOL is 1.5, then increasing Revenue by 1% will increase EBIT by 1.5%. Degree of Financial Leverage (DFL) measures the percent change in NI given a 1% change in EBIT. Degree of Total Leverage (DTL) cuts EBIT out and measures the percent change in NI given a 1% change in Revenue. What all three of these numbers measure is “elasticity.” The elasticity between two variables is always the percentage change effect on one due to a 1% change in the other. Before we talk about why you would multiply elasticities, let’s first just look at absolute changes between a change of three variables, X Y and Z. Lets say X impacts Y (X->Y) and Y impacts Z (Y->Z). To make it even more concrete, let’s imagine a classroom where every student is required to have 2 books and every book has 100 pages. So X = # students, Y = # of books, and Z = # of pages. If we add one student to the class, we need to add 2 books. If we add 1 book to the class, we have added 100 pages. With absolute changes like this it is obvious that we don’t add, we multiply. In other words, to directly see the impact of a new student on the number of pages (X -> Z), we would say 1 student -> 2 books -> 200 pages. To say 102 pages would obviously be silly. For percent changes, this looks pretty similar. To make it easy say the class has 100 students. So adding 1 student is a 1% change. Then we go from 200 books to 202 books, a 1% change. So the degree of Student to Book Leverage is 1 (which make sense there are no “fixed pages”). We go from 20,000 pages to 20,200 pages, also a 1% change so the degree of Book to Page leverage is also 1. Thus, the Student to Page leverage is also just a flat 1. Let’s add fixed amounts. The teacher has a single 2,000 page book on how to teach. We’ll assume the class has 20 students. So we start with 20*2 + 1 = 41 books and 40*100 + 2,000 = 6,000 pages. Let’s add a student. We have a 21/20 -1 = 4% increase in students. 43/41 -1 = 4.89% increase in books. 6,200/6,000 – 1 = 3.33% increase in pages. So the Degree of Student to Book Leverage is 4.00/4.89 = 0.818 and the Degree of Book to Page Leverage is 4.89/3.33 = 1.47. And the direct Student to Page Leverage is 4.00/3.33 = 1.20. Again, note that here it would be silly to add the degrees of leverage, and when we do multiply them we get 0.82*1.47 = 1.2, the right answer. From here the application to EBIT [= Sales - Fixed Cost - Variable Cost = (Gross Margin * Sales) - Fixed Cost] and the application to EPS [= EBIT - Interest – Taxes = (1 – tax rate)*(EBIT – Interest)] should be obvious. I can supply the full proof mathematically, however, if you would like.\",\n \"\\\"Leverage here is referring to \\\"\\\"financial leverage\\\"\\\". This is the practice of \\\"\\\"levering\\\"\\\" [ie increasing, like the use of a lever to increase the amount of weight you can lift] the value of your investment by taking on debt. For example: if you have 100k in cash, you can buy a 100k rental property. Assume the property makes 10k a year, net of expenses [10%]. Now assume the bank will also give you a 100k mortgage, at 3%. You could take the mortgage, plus your cash, and buy a 200k rental property. This would earn you 20k from the rental property, less 3k a year in interest costs [the 3%]. Your total income would be 17k, and since you only used 100k of your own money, your rate of return would now be 17% instead of 10%. This is financial leveraging. Note that this increases your risk, because if your investment fails not only have you lost your own money, you now need to pay back the bank. \\\"\\\"Beta riders\\\"\\\" appears to be negative commentary on investors who use Beta to calculate the value of a particular stock, without regard to other quantitative factors. Therefore \\\"\\\"leveraged beta riders\\\"\\\" are those who take on additional risk [by taking on debt to invest], and invest in a manner that the author would perhaps considered \\\"\\\"blindly\\\"\\\" following Beta. However, I have never seen this term before, and it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. A \\\"\\\"quant process driven discipline\\\"\\\" appears to be positive commentary on investors who use detailed quantitative analysis to develop rules which they rigorously follow to invest. I have never seen this exact phrasing before, and like the above, it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. I am not providing any opinion on whether \\\"\\\"beta riding\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"quant processes\\\"\\\" are good or bad things; this is just my attempt to interpret the quote as you presented it. Note that I did not go to the article to get context, so perhaps something else in the article could skew the language to mean something other than what I have presented.\\\"\",\n \"Leverage increase returns, but also risks, ie, the least you can pay, the greater the opportunity to profit, but also the greater the chance you will be underwater. Leverage is given by the value of your asset (the house) over the equity you put down. So, for example, if the house is worth 100k and you put down 20k, then the leverage is 5 (another way to look at it is to see that the leverage is the inverse of the margin - or percentage down payment - so 1/0.20 = 5). The return on your investment will be magnified by the amount of your leverage. Suppose the value of your house goes up by 10%. Had you paid your house in full, your return would be 10%, or 10k/100k. However, if you had borrowed 80 dollars and your leverage was 5, as above, a 10% increase in the value of your house means you made a profit of 10k on a 20k investment, a return of 50%, or 10k/20k*100. As I said, your return was magnified by the amount of your leverage, that is, 10% return on the asset times your leverage of 5 = 50%. This is because all the profit of the house price appreciation goes to you, as the value of your debt does not depend on the value of the house. What you borrowed from the bank remains the same, regardless of whether the price of the house changed. The problem is that the amplification mechanism also works in reverse. If the price of the house falls by 10%, it means now you only have 10k equity. If the price falls enough your equity is wiped out and you are underwater, giving you an incentive to default on your loan. In summary, borrowing tends to be a really good deal: heads you win, tails the bank loses (or as happened in the US, the taxpayer loses).\",\n \"\\\"leverage amplifies gains and losses, when returns are positive leverage makes them more positive, but when returns are negative leverage makes them more negative. since most investments have a positive return in \\\"\\\"the long run\\\"\\\", leverage is generally considered a good idea for long term illiquid investments like real estate. that said, to quote keynes: in the long run we are all dead. in the case of real estate specifically, negative returns generally happen when house prices drop. assuming you have no intention of ever selling the properties, you can still end up with negative returns if rents fall, mortgage rates increase or tax rates rise (all of which tend to correlate with falling property values). also, if cash flow becomes negative, you may be forced to sell during a down market, thereby amplifying the loss. besides loss scenarios, leverage can turn a small gain into a loss because leverage has a price (interest) that is subtracted from any amplified gains (and added to any amplified losses). to give a specific example: if you realize a 0.1% gain on x$ when unleveraged, you could end up with a 17% loss if leveraged 90% at 2% interest. (gains-interest)/investment=(0.001*x-0.02*0.9*x)/(x/10)=-0.017*10=-0.17=17% loss one reason leveraged investments are popular (particularly with real estate), is that the investor can file bankruptcy to \\\"\\\"erase\\\"\\\" a large negative net worth. this means the down side of a leveraged investment is limited for the highly leveraged investor. this leads to a \\\"\\\"get rich or start over\\\"\\\" mentality common among the self-made millionaire (and failed entrepreneurs). unfortunately, this dynamic also leads to serious problems for the banking sector in the event of a large nation-wide devaluation of real estate prices.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The reason that UltraLong funds and the like are bad isn't because of the leverage ratio. It's because they're compounded daily, and the product of all the doubled daily returns is not mathematically equivalent to the double the long-term return. I'd consider providing big fancy equations using uppercase pi as the 'product of elements in a sequence' operator and other calculus fanciness, but that would be overkill, I don't think I can do TeX here, and I don't know the relevant TeX anyway. Anyway. From the economics theory perspective, the ideal leverage ratio is 1X - that is, unlevered, straight investment. Consider: Using leverage costs money. You know that, surely. If someone could borrow money at N% and invest at an expected N+X%, where X > 0, then they would. They would borrow all the money they could and buy all the S&P500 they could. But when they bought all that S&P500, they'd eventually run out of people who were willing to sell it for that cheap. That would mean the excess return would be smaller. Eventually you'd get to a point where the excess return is... zero? .... well, no, empirically, we can see that it's definitely not zero, and that in the real world that stocks do return more than bonds. Why? Because stocks are riskier than bonds. The difference in expected return between an index like the S&P500 and a US Treasury bond is due to the relative riskiness of the S&P500, which isn't guaranteed by the US Government to return your principal. Any money that you make off of leverage comes from assuming some sort of a risk. Now, assuming risk can be a profitable thing to do, but there are also a lot of people out there with higher risk tolerance than you, like insurance companies and billionaires, so the market isn't exactly short of people willing to take risks, and you shouldn't expect the returns of \\\"\\\"assuming risk\\\"\\\" in the general case to be qualitatively awesome. Now, it's true that investing in an unlevered fashion is risky also. But that's not an excuse to go leveraged anyway; it's a reason to hold back. In fact, regular stocks are sufficiently risky that most people probably shouldn't be holding a 100% stock portfolio. They should be tempering that risk with bonds, instead, and increasing the size of their bond holdings over time. The appropriate time to use leverage is when you have information which limits your risk. You have done research, and have reason to believe that you understand the future of an individual stock/index better than the rest of the stock market does. You calculate that the potential for achieving returns with leverage outweighs the risks. Then you dump your money into the leveraged position. (In exchange for this, the market receives information about anticipated future returns of this instrument, because of the price movement which occurs as a result of someone putting his money where his mouth is.) If you're just looking to dump money into broad market indicies in a leveraged fashion, you're doing it wrong. There is no free money. (Ed. Which is not to say there's not money. There's lots of money. But if you go looking for the free kind, you won't find it, and may end up with money that you thought was free but was actually quite expensive.) Edit. Okay, so you don't like my answer. I'm not surprised. I'm giving you a real answer instead of a \\\"\\\"make free money\\\"\\\" answer. Okay. Here's your \\\"\\\"how to make free money\\\"\\\" answer. Assume you are using a constant leverage ratio over the length of time you've invested your money, and you don't get to just jump into and out of the market (that's market-timing, not leverage) so you have to stay invested. You're going to have a scenario which falls into one of these categories: The S&P500 historically rises over time. The average rate of return probably exceeds the average interest rate. So the ideal leverage ratio is infinite. Of course, this is a stupid answer in real life because you can't pull that off. Your risk tolerance is too low and you will have trouble finding a lender willing to lend you unsecured money, and you'll probably lose all your money in a crash sooner or later. Ultimately it's a stupid answer because you're asking the wrong question. You should probably ask a better question: \\\"\\\"when I use leverage to gain additional exposure to risk, am I being properly compensated for assuming that risk?\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Exposure is the amount of money that you are at risk of losing on a given position (i.e. on a UST 10 year bond), portfolio of positions, strategy (selling covered calls for example), or counterparty, usually represented as a percentage of your total assets. Interbank exposure is the exposure of banks to other banks either through owning debt or stock, or by having open positions with the other banks as counterparties. Leveraging occurs when the value of your position is more than the value of what you are trading in. One example of this is borrowing money (i.e. creating debt for yourself) to buy bonds. The amount of your own funds that you are using to pay for the position is \\\"\\\"leveraged\\\"\\\" by the debt so that you are risking more than 100% of your capital if, for example, the bond became worthless). Another example would be buying futures \\\"\\\"on margin\\\"\\\" where you only put up the margin value of the trade and not the full cost. The problem with these leveraged positions is what happens if a credit event (default etc.) happens. Since a large amount of the leverage is being \\\"\\\"passed on\\\"\\\" as banks are issuing debt to buy other banks' debt who are issuing debt to buy debt there is a risk that a single failure could cause an unravelling of these leveraged positions and, since the prices of the bonds will be falling resulting in these leveraged positions losing money, it will cause a cascade of losses and defaults. If a leveraged position becomes worth less than the amount of real (rather than borrowed or margined) money that was put up to take the position then it is almost inevitable that the firm in that position will default on the requirements for the leverage. When that firm defaults it sparks all of the firms who own that debt to go through the same problems that it did, hence the contagion.\\\"\",\n \"Money factor is a term coined by leasing companies to make car leasing that much more convoluted. It's basically a decimal value that you multiply by 2400 in order to arrive at your actual annual percentage rate or interest rate. Here's a really good article detailing how you can calculate your interest rate based on other criteria in your leasing contract, because most of the time you won't even be given money factor on your leasing contract\",\n \"\\\"No one is FORCED to use leverage. But most people do. Trading companies like it because, the more leverage, the more \\\"\\\"business\\\"\\\" (and total commissions). If someone starts with $1 million and leverages it up ten times to ten million, companies would rather do ten million of business than one. That's a given. On the other hand, if you're Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, and you say I want to do $1 billion of FX, no leverage, no trading company is going to turn it down. More often, it's a company like IBM or Exxon Mobil that wants to do FX, no leverage, because they just earned, say $1 billion Euros. Individuals USUALLY want to use more leverage in order to earn (or lose) more with their capital.\\\"\",\n \"Alex's answer is very helpful. However, I would like to add why it might be convenient to use money factor instead of APR when computing lease payments. Money factor makes it easier to compute the lease payments manually. Lease payments have two parts: Here is how to calculate them: Where, This is a computation that anyone can perform without any tools.\",\n \"This essentially depends on how you prefer to measure your performance. I will just give a few simple examples to start. Let me know if you're looking for something more. If you just want to achieve maximum $ return, then you should always use maximum margin, so long as your expected return (%) is higher than your cost to borrow. For example, suppose you can use margin to double your investment, and the cost to borrow is 7%. If you're investing in some security that expects to return 10%, then your annual return on an account opened with $100 is: (2 * $100 * 10% - $100 * 7%) / $100 = 13% So, you see the expected return, amount of leverage, and cost to borrow will all factor in to your return. Suppose you want to also account for the additional risk you're incurring. Then you could use the Sharpe Ratio. For example, suppose the same security has volatility of 20%, and the risk free rate is 5%. Then the Sharpe Ratio without leverage is: (10% - 5%) / 20% = 0.25 The Sharpe Ratio using maximum margin is then: (13% - 5%) / (2 * 20%) = 0.2, where the 13% comes from the above formula. So on a risk-adjusted basis, it's better not to utilize margin in this particular example.\",\n \"Yes, more leverage increases the variance of your individual portfolio (variance of your personal net worth). The simple way to think about it is that if you only own only 50% of your risky assets, then you can own twice as many risky assets. That means they will move around twice as much (in absolute terms). Expected returns and risk (if risk is variance) both go up. If you lend rather than borrow, then you might have only half your net worth in risky assets, and then your expected returns and variation in returns will go down. Note, the practice of using leverage differs from portfolio theory in a couple important ways.\",\n \"The fundamental issue with leverage (of any sort, really) is that the amplified downsides are extremely likely to more than cancel out amplified equivalent upsides. Example without using a major swing: 2x leverage on a 5% decline (so a 10% decline). The 5% decline needs a 5.26% increase to get back level. However, the 2x leverage needs an 5.55% increase to get back. So a cycle for the unleveraged returns of -5%, +5.4% would see the unleveraged asset go up by a net +0.13% but 2x leverage would leave you at -0.28%. Conversely, imagine 0.5x leverage (it's easy to do that: 50% cash allocation): after an underlying -5%, the 0.5x leverage needs only +5.13% to reach par. This is basically the argument for low volatility funds. Of course, if you can leverage an asset that doesn't go down, then the leverage is great. And for an asset with an overall positive compound return, a little leverage is probably not going to hurt, simply because there are likely to be enough upsides to cancel out downsides.\",\n \"More leverage means more risk. There is more upside. There is also more downside. If property prices and/or rents fall then your losses are amplified. If you leverage at 90% then a 5% fall means you've lost half your money.\",\n \"\\\"When portfolio positions are reported in percentages, those percentages are relative to the portfolio's base equity. When you start out, that is equal to the cash you have in a portfolio. Later it's the net equity of the portfolio (i.e., how much money you could withdraw if you were to exit all your positions). If you put $5,000 into your account and are long and short 50%, then you are long $2,500 and short $2,500. If it's 100% and -100%, then long and short $5,000. \\\"\\\"Leverage\\\"\\\" is often computed gross (as if all positions were long). So if you have 100% and -100%, then your broker may say you are \\\"\\\"levered 2 to 1.\\\"\\\" That is, your gross exposure is twice as large as your underlying base equity.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Leverage means you can make more investments with the same amount of money. In the case of rental properties, it means you can own more properties and generate more rents. You exchange a higher cost of doing business (higher interest fees) and a higher risk of total failure, for a larger number of rents and thus higher potential earnings. As with any investment advice, whenever someone tells you \\\"\\\"Do X and you are guaranteed to make more money\\\"\\\", unless you are a printer of money that is not entirely true. In this case, taking more leverage exposes you to more risk, while giving you more potential gain. That risk is not only on the selling front; in fact, for most small property owners, the risk is primarily that you will have periods of time of higher expense or lower income. These can come in several ways: If you weather these and similar problems, then you will stand to make more money using higher leverage, assuming you make more money from each property than your additional interest costs. As long as you're making any money on your properties this is likely (as interest rates are very low right now), but making any money at all (above and beyond the sale value) may be challenging early on. These sorts of risks are magnified for your first few years, until you've built up a significant reserve to keep your business afloat in downturns. And of course, any money in a reserve is money you're not leveraging for new property acquisition - the very same trade-off. And while you may be able to sell one or more properties if you did end up in a temporarily bad situation, you also may run into 2008 again and be unable to do so.\\\"\",\n \"The opposite of a hedge is leverage (aka gearing). A hedge is where you spend money to reduce your exposure. Leverage is where you spend money to increase your exposure. Spread bets are a form of leverage - that's what makes them such an effective way to lose all your money, quickly.\",\n \"Let's do a real example of leverage on the SPY. Imagine you have $20K today and plan on having $100K by JAN 2018. You could get 100 shares of SPY and ride it out. Maybe buying another 100 shares every few months until 2018, ending up with less than 500 shares to your name ( and zero cash in the bank ). or You could lever with DEC 2017 LEAP CALLS. They'll expire in 2.5 years, so you'd have to re-up sooner than your plan. With 20K starting cash, in my example we'll go with 5 contracts to start with. If we choose the $230 strike they'd cost $1250 each (putting roughly $6250 at risk). The plan in is if the stock market goes up, you've got leverage. You are the proud owner of contracts worth 500 shares of SPY and have only spent 1/3rd of your present day dollars. If the market goes down in the next two years, sure, you lost the entire $6250, but likely saved $93,750 powder dry and can try your luck with the 2021 LEAPS. Probably get down votes for this, but I'll even argue that proper use of leverage can very much reduce your risk. One truth is you'll never get a margin call from holding long options.\",\n \"I'm not entirely sure about some of the details in your question, since I think you meant to use $10,000 as the value of the futures contract and $3 as the value of the underlying stock. Those numbers would make more sense. That being said, I can give you a simple example of how to calculate the profit and loss from a leveraged futures contract. For the sake of simplicity, I'll use a well-known futures contract: the E-mini S&P500 contract. Each E-mini is worth $50 times the value of the S&P 500 index and has a tick size of 0.25, so the minimum price change is 0.25 * $50 = $12.50. Here's an example. Say the current value of the S&P500 is 1,600; the value of each contract is therefore $50 * 1,600 = $80,000. You purchase one contract on margin, with an initial margin requirement1 of 5%, or $4,000. If the S&P 500 index rises to 1,610, the value of your futures contract increases to $50 * 1,610 = $80,500. Once you return the 80,000 - 4,000 = $76,000 that you borrowed as leverage, your profit is 80,500 - 76,000 = $4,500. Since you used $4,000 of your own funds as an initial margin, your profit, excluding commissions is 4,500 - 4,000 = $500, which is a 500/4000 = 12.5% return. If the index dropped to 1,580, the value of your futures contract decreases to $50 * 1,580 = $79,000. After you return the $76,000 in leverage, you're left with $3,000, or a net loss of (3,000 - 4000)/(4000) = -25%. The math illustrates why using leverage increases your risk, but also increases your potential for return. Consider the first scenario, in which the index increases to 1,610. If you had forgone using margin and spent $80,000 of your own funds, your profit would be (80,500 - 80,000) / 80000 = .625%. This is smaller than your leveraged profit by a factor of 20, the inverse of the margin requirement (.625% / .05 = 12.5%). In this case, the use of leverage dramatically increased your rate of return. However, in the case of a decrease, you spent $80,000, but gained $79,000, for a loss of only 1.25%. This is 20 times smaller in magnitude than your negative return when using leverage. By forgoing leverage, you've decreased your opportunity for upside, but also decreased your downside risk. 1) For futures contracts, the margin requirements are set by the exchange, which is CME group, in the case of the E-mini. The 5% in my example is higher than the actual margin requirement, which is currently $3,850 USD per contract, but it keeps the numbers simple. Also note that CME group refers to the initial margin as the performance bond instead.\",\n \"The paragraph before on page 115 states: Scaling corresponds to having a weight in the long and short legs that is different from one and varies over time, but the strategy is still self-financing. Meaning that the long and short positions are no longer equal due to weighting one side more highly than the other. The weighting of one side (either long or short) is the number between 0.2 and 2 that you mention.\",\n \"There are two obvious cases in which your return is lower with a heavily leveraged investment. If a $100,000 investment of your own cash yields $1000 that's a 1% return. If you put in $50,000 of your own money and borrow $50,000 at 2%, you get a 0% return (After factoring in the interest as above.) If you buy an investment for $100,000 and it loses $1000, that's a -1% return. If you borrow $100,000 and buy two investments, and they both lose $1000, that's a -2% return.\",\n \"First, make sure you understand the objective of an ETF. In some cases, they may use leverage to get a multiple of the index's return that is different than 1. Some may be ultra funds that go for double the return or double the inverse of the return and thus will try to apply the appropriate leverage to achieve that return. Those that use physical replication can still have a small portion be used to try to minimize the tracking error as there is something to be said for what kind of tracking error do you accept as the fund's returns may differ from the index by some measure. Yes. For example, if you were to have a fund that had a 50% and -50% return in back to back periods, what would your final return be? Answer: -25%, which if you need to visualize this, take $1 that then becomes $1.50 by going up 50% and then becomes $.75 by going down 50% in a compounded fashion. This is where you have to be careful of the risks of leverage as those returns will compound in a possibly negative way.\",\n \"great example of levered tracking error is any 2x/3x VIX etf. during periods of high volatility (like last week) you will be able to realize much higher returns on the underlying index as the levered and inverse ETFs are unable to replicate their intended performance using market securities. it is not uncommon to see the VIX up ~30% with levered ETFs only netting ~10-12% as opposed to the intended 60 or 90%, for example\",\n \"Is the following correct? The firm needs $20,000 for the investment. It borrows $6,000 @ 7%, and supplies $14,000 in equity. The interest expense on the borrowing is $420 ($6,000 times 7%). After one year, the firm receives $26,500 from its investment. Subtract $6,420 (return borrowings plus interest). The firm is left with $20,080. Divide by starting equity of $14,000. Subtract 1 from the ratio. **Levered return on equity is 43.4%.**\",\n \"First, corporate profits can grow relative to GDP. If companies succeed in growing revenue without paying much more to workers, then corporate profits and stock prices will grow relative to GDP. That has been happening for the last couple decades. If you require that we keep corporate profits vs GDP constant, then borrowing/leverage is how you do it. Companies can expand their operations on a fixed amount of shareholder equity, and as long as they can grow their profits faster than the cost of the debt, then shareholders keep the upside. But this also means that share prices will quickly fall if profits decline even a small amount, because the debt must still be paid off.\",\n \"If you are calculating simple ROI, the answer is straightforward math. See This Answer for some examples, but yes, with more leverage you will always see better ROI on a property IF you can maintain a positive cash flow. The most complete answer is to factor in your total risk. That high ROI of a leveraged property is far more volatile and sensitive to any unexpected expenses. Additionally, a loss of equity in the property (or an upside-down mortgage) will further impact your long term position. To put this more simply (as noted in the comments below), your losses will be amplified. You cannot say a leveraged property will always give you a better ROI because you cannot predict your losses.\",\n \"I think you may be confused on terminology here. Financial leverage is debt that you have taken on, in order to invest. It increases your returns, because it allows you to invest with more money than what you actually own. Example: If a $1,000 mutual fund investment returns $60 [6%], then you could also take on $1,000 of debt at 3% interest, and earn $120 from both mutual fund investments, paying $30 in interest, leaving you with a net $90 [9% of your initial $1,000]. However, if the mutual fund 'takes a nose dive', and loses money, you still need to pay the $30 interest. In this way, using financial leverage actually increases your risk. It may provide higher returns, but you have the risk of losing more than just your initial principle amount. In the example above, imagine if the mutual fund you owned collapsed, and was worth nothing. Now, you would have lost $1,000 from the money you invested in the first place, and you would also still owe $1,000 to the bank. The key take away is that 'no risk' and 'high returns' do not go together. Safe returns right now are hovering around 0% interest rates. If you ever feel you have concocted a mix of options that leaves you with no risk and high returns, check your math again. As an addendum, if instead what you plan on doing is investing, say, 90% of your money in safe(r) money-market type funds, and 10% in the stock market, then this is a good way to reduce your risk. However, it also reduces your returns, as only a small portion of your portfolio will realize the (typically higher) gains of the stock market. Once again, being safer with your investments leads to less return. That is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact investing some part of your portfolio in interest-earning low risk investments is often advised. 99% is basically the same as 100%, however, so you almost don't benefit at all by investing that 1% in the stock market.\",\n \"\\\"Hi, accounting major here! A lot of people mentioned both tax advantages and \\\"\\\"cheap\\\"\\\" money (money you can borrow at a low interest rate). Another reason businesses do this is to reward investors. Generally people with stock in a company want to see some of its operations financed with debt, instead of all of it financed from investors' money or profit. This way the company can grow more and still pay better dividends to its investors. However, you don't want too much debt either. It's a balance, and a way to see how much debt vs equity a company has is called a leverage ratio (leverage=debt). Hope this helps!\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Step 2 is wrong. Leverage is NOT necessary. It increases possible gain, but increases risk of loss by essentially the same amount. Those two numbers are pretty tightly linked by market forces. See many, many other answers here showing that one can earn \\\"\\\"market rate\\\"\\\" -- 8% or so -- with far less risk and effort, if one is patient, and some evidence that one can do better with more effort and not too much more risk. And yes, investing for a longer time horizon is also safer.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"While it's not true that you have to use leverage to participate in Forex, the alternative makes it impractical for most people to be able to do so. You need to be able to put a lot of money into it in order to not trade on leverage. The fact is, most accounts for \\\"\\\"normal\\\"\\\" people require leverage because the size of the typical contract is more than the average person can afford to risk (or usually more than the average person has). Leverage, however, in the Forex market is not like Leverage in the stock or commodities market (well, they're the same thing in theory, but they are executed differently). In Forex, the broker is the one lending you the money in nearly all cases, and they will cash out your position when your account balance is exhausted. Thus, there is no risk for them (barring fraud or other illegal issues). Technically, I don't believe they guarantee that you will not accrue a debt, but I've never heard of anyone having their position cashed out and then owed more money. They've very good about making sure you can only spend money you've deposited. To put this another way, if you have $1,000 in your account and you are leveraged to 100,000. Once your trade drops to $1000 in losses your position is automatically cashed out. There is no risk to the broker, and no risk to you (other than your $1000)... So trading without leverage has little value, while traiding with leverage has lots of potential gain and no downsides (other than a faster rate of loss, but if you're worried about that, just trade smaller lots.)\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I am assuming you mean derivatives such as speeders, sprinters, turbo's or factors when you say \\\"\\\"derivatives\\\"\\\". These derivatives are rather popular in European markets. In such derivatives, a bank borrows the leverage to you, and depending on the leverage factor you may own between 50% to +-3% of the underlying value. The main catch with such derivatives from stocks as opposed to owning the stock itself are: Counterpart risk: The bank could go bankrupt in which case the derivatives will lose all their value even if the underlying stock is sound. Or the bank could decide to phase out the certificate forcing you to sell in an undesirable situation. Spread costs: The bank will sell and buy the certificate at a spread price to ensure it always makes a profit. The spread can be 1, 5, or even 10 pips, which can translate to a the bank taking up to 10% of your profits on the spread. Price complexity: The bank buys and sells the (long) certificate at a price that is proportional to the price of the underlying value, but it usually does so in a rather complex way. If the share rises by €1, the (long) certificate will also rise, but not by €1, often not even by leverage * €1. The factors that go into determining the price are are normally documented in the prospectus of the certificate but that may be hard to find on the internet. Furthermore the bank often makes the calculation complex on purpose to dissimulate commissions or other kickbacks to itself in it's certificate prices. Double Commissions: You will have to pay your broker the commission costs for buying the certificate. However, the bank that issues the derivative certificate normally makes you pay the commission costs they incur by hiding them in the price of the certificate by reducing your effective leverage. In effect you pay commissions twice, once directly for buying the derivative, and once to the bank to allow it to buy the stock. So as Havoc P says, there is no free lunch. The bank makes you pay for the convenience of providing you the leverage in several ways. As an alternative, futures can also give you leverage, but they have different downsides such as margin requirements. However, even with all the all the drawbacks of such derivative certificates, I think that they have enough benefits to be useful for short term investments or speculation.\\\"\",\n \"You should check out existing resources like Investopedia for definitions, and ask questions if there is something you do not understand, instead of asking folks to spit out definitions. A good book for you to read might be Wall Street Words\",\n \"This isn't totally wrong- there are hedge funds that are long 150% of AUM and short 50%. However, Rentech has said that holding a position for 8 seconds is long for them, so that's not what they're doing. I'd assume the 4X leverage most just refers to option positions that have delta 4 on average. They also may be borrowing money, which they can probably do extremely cheaply since they have a 35 year track record showing they're essentially risk-free.\",\n \"\\\"JoeTaxpayer's answer adequately explained leverage and some of your risks. Your risks also include: The firm's risk is that you will figure out a way to leave them with a negative account that contributes to another customer's profit and yet you disappear in a way that makes the negative account impossible to collect. Another risk is that you are not who you say you are, or that the money you invest is not yours. These are called \\\"\\\"know your customer\\\"\\\" risks.\\\"\",\n \"How should we disregard leverage when it's the leverage that creates the 'wipe-out' potential? If you simply convert 100K EUR to USDollars, you dollars might then fluctuate a few thousand, maybe even 10K over a year, but the guy that only put up 1000 EUR to do this has a disproportionally higher risk.\",\n \"Actually, most of the forex traders do not prefer the practice of leveraging. In forex trading, a contract signed by a common trader is way more than any common man can afford to risk. It is not a compulsion for the traders to use leveraging yet most of the traders practice it. The other side of it is completely different. Trading companies or brokers specifically like it because you turn into a kind of cash cow when your account gets exhausted. As for trader, most of them don’t practice leveraging.\",\n \"\\\"None of the previous answers (which are all good) mention margin accounts (loans from your broker). You may also have heard them described as \\\"\\\"leverage\\\"\\\". It may seem odd to mention this rather narrow form of debt here, but it's important because overuse of leverage has played a large part in pretty much every financial crisis you can think of (including the most recent one). As the Investopedia definitions indicate, leverage magnifies gains, but also magnifies losses. I consider margin/leverage to be \\\"\\\"bad\\\"\\\" debt.\\\"\",\n \"Highest possible is meaningless. Ex: Use 17x Leverage on E-mini S&P 500 Futures, perfectly long before an uptick and short before a downtick every minute. Goes to the moon in a day of 1,440 minutes. You are supposed to use a Buy-and-Hold SPY, with leverage that makes the Standard Deviation of SPY same as your Portfolio/Algorithm, as benchmark.\",\n \"The major drawback to borrowing to invest (i.e. using leverage) is that your return on investment must be high enough to overcome the cost of finance. The average return on the S&P 500 is about 9.8% (from CNBC) a typical unsecured personal loan will have an interest rate of around 18-36% APR (from NerdWallet). This means that on average you will be paying more interest than you are receiving in returns so are losing money on the margin investment. Sometimes the S&P falls and over those periods you would be paying out interest having lost money so will have a negative return! You may have better credit and so be able to get a lower rate but I don't know your loan terms currently. Secured loans, such as remortgaging your house, will have lower costs but come with more life changing risks. The above assumes that you are getting financing by directly borrowing money, however, it is also possible to trade on margin. This is where you post a proportion of the value that you wish to trade with as collateral against a loan to buy the security. This form of finance is normally used by day traders and other short term holders of stocks. Although the financing costs here are low (I am not charged an interest rate on intraday margin trading) there are very high costs if you exceed the term of the loan. An example is that I am charged a fee if I hold a position overnight and my profits and losses are crystallised at that time. If I am in a losing position at that time the crystallisation process and fee can result in not having enough margin to recover the position and the loss of a potentially profit making position. Additionally if the amount of collateral cash (margin) posted is insufficient to cover the expected losses as calculated by your broker they will initiate a margin call asking for more collateral money. If you do not (or cannot) post this extra margin your losing position will be cashed out and you will take as a loss the total loss at that time. Since the market can change very rapidly, such as in a flash crash, this can result in your losing more money than you had in the first place. As this is essentially a loan you can be bankrupted by this. Overall using leverage to invest magnifies your potential profits but it also magnifies your potential losses. In many cases this magnification could be sufficient to lose you more money than you had originally invested. In addition to magnification you need to consider the cost of finance and that your return over the course of the loan needs to be higher than your cost of finance as well as inflation and other opportunity costs of capital. The S&P 500 is a relatively low volatility market in general so is unlikely to return losses in any given period that will mean that leverage of 1.25 times will take you into losses beyond your own capital investment but it is not impossible. The low level of risk automatically means that your returns are lower and so your cost of capital is likely to be a large proportion of your returns and your returns may not completely cover the cost of capital even when you are making money. The key thing if you are going to trade or invest on leverage is to understand the terms and costs of your leverage and discount them from any returns that you receive before declaring to yourself that you are profitable. It is even more important than usual to know how your positions are doing and whether you are covering your cost of capital when using leverage. It is also very important to know the terms of your leverage in detail, especially what will happen when and if your credit runs out for whatever reason be it the end of the financing period (the length of the loan) or your leverage ratio gets too high. You should also be aware of the costs of closing out the loan early should you need to do so and how to factor that into your investing decisions.\",\n \"\\\"QUICK ANSWER When it comes to fixed income assets, whether rental real estate or government bonds, it's unusual for highly-leveraged assets to yield less than the same asset unleveraged or lowly-leveraged. This is especially so in countries where interest costs are tax deductible. If we exclude capital losses (i.e. the property sells in future at a price less than it was purchased) or net rental income that doesn't keep up with maintenance, regulatory, taxation, inflation and / or other costs, there is one primary scenario where higher leverage results in lower yields compared to lower leverage, even if rental income keeps up with non-funding costs. This occurs when variable rate financing is used and rates substantially increase. EXPLANATION Borrowers and lenders in different countries have different mortgage rate customs. Some are more likely to have long-term fixed rates; some prefer variable rates; and others are a hybrid, i.e. fixed for a few years and then become variable. If variable rates are used for a mortgage and the reference rates increase substantially, as they did in the US during the 1970s, the borrower can easily become \\\"\\\"upside-down,\\\"\\\" i.e. owe more on the mortgage than the property is then worth, and have mortgage service costs that exceed the net rental income. Some of those costs aren't easy to pass along to renters, even when there are periodic lease renewals or base rent increases referencing inflation rates. Central banks set policies for what would be the lowest short-term rates in a country that has such a bank. Private sector rates are established broadly by supply and demand for credit and can thus diverge markedly from central bank rates. Over time, the higher finance-carrying-cost-to-net-rental-income ratio should abate as (1) rental market prices change to reflect the costs and (2) the landlord can reinvest his net rental income at a higher rate. In the short-term though, this can result in the landlord having to \\\"\\\"eat\\\"\\\" the costs making his yield on his leveraged fixed income asset less than what he would have without leverage, even if the property was later sold at same price regardless of financing method. ========== Interestingly, and on the flip side, this is one of the quirks in finance where an accounting liability can become, at least in part, an economic asset. If a landlord borrows at a high loan-to-value ratio for a fixed interest rate for the life of the mortgage and rates, variable and fixed, were to increase substantially, the difference between his original rate and the present rates accrues to him. If he's able to sell the property with the loan attached (which is not uncommon for commercial, industrial and sometimes municipal real estate), the buyer will be assuming a liability with a lower carrying cost than his present alternatives and will hence pay a higher price for the property than if it were unleveraged. With long-term rates in many economically advanced countries at historic lows, if a borrower today were to take a long-term fixed rate loan and rates shortly after increased substantially, he may have an instant profit in this scenario even if his property hasn't increased in value.\\\"\",\n \"In addition to the excellent answers here I might suggest a reason for investing in leveraged funds and the original purpose for their existence. Lets say you run a mutual fund that is supposed to track the performance of the S&P 500. If you have cash inflows and outflows from your fund due to people investing and selling shares of your fund you may have periods where not all funds are invested appropriately because some of the funds are in cash. Lets say 98% of your funds are invested in the securities that reflect the stocks in the S&P 500. You will will miss matching the S&P 500 because you have 2% not invested in some money market account. If you take 1/3 of the cash balance and invest in a triple leveraged fund or take 1/2 of the funds and invest in a double leveraged fund you will more accurately track the index to which your fund is supposed to track. I am not sure what percentage mutual fund owners keep in cash but this is one use that I know these ETFs are used for. The difference over time that compounding effects have on leveraged funds is called Beta Slippage. There are many fine articles explaining it at you can find one located at this link.\",\n \"\\\"The main difference between a bull market and a bear market is due the \\\"\\\"the leverage effect\\\"\\\". http://www.princeton.edu/~yacine/leverage.pdf The leverage effect refers to the observed tendency of an asset’s volatility to be negatively correlated with the asset’s returns. Typically, rising asset prices are accompanied by declining volatility, and vice versa. The term “leverage” refers to one possible economic interpretation of this phenomenon, developed in Black (1976) and Christie (1982): as asset prices decline, companies become mechanically more leveraged since the relative value of their debt rises relative to that of their equity. As a result, it is natural to expect that their stock becomes riskier, hence more volatile. More volatile assets in a bear market are not such good investments as less volatile assets in a bull market.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"When margin is calculated as the equity percentage of an account, the point at which a broker will forcibly liquidate is typically called \\\"\\\"maintenance margin\\\"\\\". In the US, this is 25% for equities. To calculate the price at which this will occur, the initial and maintenance margin must be known. The formula for a long with margin is: and for a short where P_m is the maintenance margin price, P_i is the initial margin price, m_i is the initial margin rate, and m_m is the maintenance margin rate. At an initial margin of 50% and a maintenance margin of 25%, a long equity may fall by 1/3 before forced liquidation, a short one may rise by 50%. This calculation can become very complex with different asset classes with differing maintenance margins because the margin debt is applied to all securities collectively.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"A \\\"\\\"junk bond\\\"\\\" is one that pays a high yield UP FRONT because there is a good chance that it could default. So the higher interest rate is necessary to try to compensate for the default Junk bonds are used in leveraged buyouts (LBOs) because such deals are INHERENTLY risky. \\\"\\\"Normal\\\"\\\" companies may have 20%-30% debt and the rest equity, so that the company will have to lose 70%-80% of its value before the debtholders start losing money on \\\"\\\"normal\\\"\\\" bonds. But in an LBO, the company may have only 10%-20% equity and the rest debt. Meaning that if it loses that small equity cushion, the value of the \\\"\\\"junk\\\"\\\" bonds will be impaired.\\\"\",\n \"At the most basic level of financing a business -- you are trying to acquire capital as cheaply as you can to invest in your projects. The measure for how expensive your capital is to acquire is Weighted Average Cost of Capital. The formula for WACC: Equity Ratio * Cost of Equity + Debt Ratio * Cost of Debt * (1 - Tax Rate) This is also your discount rate when you're making a DCF model. Debt tends to be cheaper than equity when you don't already have any, and is also advantaged by tax rates since you don't pay taxes on interest. In the real world, banks and lenders will ratchet up rates the more debt you acquire, or shut you out once you've taken on too much and your debt service coverage is too low for them. In a classroom though, most teachers are too lazy to make a curvilinear formula for borrowing and will just state a rate for borrowing so you can load up on debt so long as you don't fall below being able to service your debt (cash flow to make your debt payments). This will ultimately juice the returns on equity. Realistically, you would find lenders would let you have ~20% equity in the business and ~80% debt without raising your teacher's eyebrow. If you haven't taken accounting yet; be careful about the difference between cash and revenue in your analyses. Revenue is recognition for work done; not cash in hand. You can have all the revenue in the world but if no one's paid you for it yet, you can't pay anyone.\",\n \"long deep ITM calls is equivalent to owning the equity. You're going to pay alot and hence will start off in a hole already, and you aren't getting too much leverage there at all depending how deep ITM you go. Covariance scales, but assuming B-S in order to get nice scaling and ignoring the risks you are actually taking with options (unlimited down-size ie you can lose your entire investment in the option, people forget this) will screw you unless you really know what you are dong. Leverage means increasing your risk. long dep ITM is not obtaining much leverage and therefore not risking too much. but you aren't going ot get 3-4x leverage this way. you get leverage by saying: oh, i have 100, i could invest in 1 share of stock OR I could buy 100 worth of some option. If I pick a deep ITM (think strike = 0) it's identical to owing the stock. If i pick ATM, i have a ~50/50 chance of wining, so i should be able to double my upside. If I go OTM, i can increase my exposure to the upside while increasing hte chance that my options expire worthless. So really, i have no idea why deep ITM do what you are trying to do. and If you don't either, you probably shouldn't do it.\",\n \"So Betas are not found on a company's financial statements. Beta is essentially a measure of the covariance of an asset and the overall market return, in relation to the variance of the market's return. A beta of 1 is to describe an asset whose daily returns mimic the returns of the overall market. A beta of >1 describes an asset whose returns are greater than the market return and a beta <1 describes an asset whose returns are less than the market return. To the extent that the asset you are comparing to the market index is a share of common stock, the beta you are looking at is levered if the company has debt or preferred stock. The technique your professor is alluding to is the process of unlevering betas of two different companies that may have similar underlying operating assets but because of different capital structures, have different betas when using their common stock returns. This adjustment makes comparing different betas between companies agnostic of the capital structure used.\",\n \"> one of the most highly leveraged Not even close. In general joint retail-investment banking institutions are less leveraged than primary IB's. BOA is sitting at a T1CR under Basel III of 8.1%. JPM 9.18% DB 7.2 MS 8.5% GS 7.3% UBS 8.8% This is all as of Q2 reports.\",\n \"High frequency trades are intra day. The would buy a stock for 100 and sell for 100.10 multiple times. So If you start with 100 in your broker account, you buy something [it takes 2-3 days to settle], you sell for 100.10 [it takes 2-3 days to settle]. You again buy something for 100. It is the net value of both buys and sells that you need to look at. Trading on Margin Accounts. Most brokers offer Margin Accounts. The exact leverage ratios varies. What this means is that if you start with 10 [or 15 or 25] in your broker you can buy stock of 100. Of course legally you wont own the stock unless you pay the broker balance, etc.\",\n \"Investopedia has a nice article on this here The Key benefit looks like better returns with lower capital. The disadvantage is few brokers offering that can be trusted. Potentially lower return due to margins / spreads. Higher leverage and can become an issue.\",\n \"\\\"If you're looking to leverage your capital more efficiently, at the money options offer the best balance. Options deep in the money will have little time premium remaining on them, but don't allow for greater leverage. On the other hand deep out of the money options may be thinly traded, or might not offer the \\\"\\\"mirroring\\\"\\\" you'd like of the underlying. By purchasing ATM you will likely be buying some time premium, but still be leveraging your capital, potentially several times over.\\\"\",\n \"Excess capital is the primary means of navigating around a trade which is moving against you. In a very basic case, consider a long position moving against you. With additional capital you could average in as the price drops or you could write options against your position. If you don't have the capital to handle when (not if) a trade move against you then you're at a significant disadvantage as your only option may be a liquidation.\",\n \"\\\"As others have pointed out, leveraged investing is investing borrowed money. To do so, you need to convince a lender that you're good for the loan. This usually means you need to have collateral worth what you're trying to borrow, or you need to pay a higher rate to account for the fact that they're gambling that you will remain employed and pay off the loan. Leveraged investing is, in general, a risky move for exactly this reason. You can lose not just your original investment, but everything you borrowed as well. The only time it really makes sense, in my admittedly conservative opinion, is when you (a) can afford to suffer that loss, (b) are pretty confident of your investment, and (c) have assets which you have no intention to sell for the duration of the loan. An \\\"\\\"unneeded\\\"\\\" mortgage on a house is a classic example, thusly: When I purchased my house, I had enough savings that I could have bought it without taking a mortgage. Instead, I took out a mortgage for a large part of that, and left the remainder in my investment accounts -- essentially building the leveraging loan into the mortgage. I then got obscenely \\\"\\\"lucky\\\"\\\" when interest rates fell through the floor due to the Great Recession, and was able to refinance the mortgage to near record low rates. As a result, on that loan -- which, as I say, I'm in the position of being able to pay off at any time without killing my finances -- I'm currently paying about 3.5%, while the cash this has let me leave in my investments is earning several times that... a net win. But again, note that this required collateral. Essentially, all I'm doing is paying a bit to to borrow my own money (part of the value of the house). There really is no easy way to \\\"\\\"convert 25k to 250k\\\"\\\" -- if there was, everyone would be doing it. There's no magic in investment. Just time and compounding returns and trading off risk against potential gain. The more you try to push it and win big, the more you risk losing big. I really recommend not attempting anything fancy until you're wealthy enough that you can afford those losses. But if you insist on playing in this space, the answer to your question is to buy options. Options are a packaged form of borrowing to invest. Note that they're still considered high-risk unless you know EXACTLY what you're doing, and again I strongly recommend you not put money into them unless you can afford to lose it -- options have a nasty habit of turning from apparent gains on paper to losses remarkably quickly.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Financing a portfolio with debt (on margin) leads to higher variance. That's the WHOLE POINT. Let's say it's 50-50. On the downside, with 100% equity, you can never lose more than your whole equity. But if you have assets of 100, of which 50% is equity and 50% is debt, your losses can be greater than 50%, which is to say more than the value of your equity. The reverse is true. You can make money at TWICE the rate if the market goes up. But \\\"\\\"you pay your money and you take your chances\\\"\\\" (Punch, 1846).\\\"\",\n \"The most obvious example would be a situation where a Company is growth constrained, but cash flow positive. It may have enough cash flow to service $10 million of debt, but it needs to build a new facility that will cost $20 million. There is the option to raise debt and equity or just raise equity and move quicker to getting that facility up and running. There are also situations where debt is used to replace equity (i.e. dividend recapitalization or leveraged share redemption).\",\n \"\\\"At my soon to be legendary Stock Options Cafe, I recently wrote an article \\\"\\\"Betting On Apple at 9 to 2.\\\"\\\" It described a trade in which a 35% move in a stock over a fixed time (2 years) would result in a 354% gain in one's bet. In this case, the options serve to create remarkable leverage for speculators. In general, option help provide liquidity and extend the nature of the risk/reward curve. There are option trades that range from conservative (e.g. a 'covered call') to wildly speculative, as the one I described above.\\\"\",\n \"The value of a company is, simplified, the sum of the value of the equity and the value of the debt. There are some other things to add/subtract to that, but just think about those for now. You could also say the value of a company is the value of its assets, or more precisely the value of the net cash flows those assets will generate in the future. So let's say you want to start a company, so you want to buy some assets. Maybe you want to buy a $200 asset. Well, you only have $100, so you take out a loan (debt) for $100 for the remainder. You buy the asset and start generating income. Let's say after a month you get bored and decide to sell the company. Let's assume the value of the assets hasn't changed. Your equity is worth $100, and you find a buyer who is willing to pay $100 for your company. Great! Right? Well there's still the $100 loan you owe, so you have to pay that back. And suddenly you now have $0. So in fact, you should have negotiated $200 with the buyer, because that's what the assets are actually worth. Then you can pay back the loan and still have the $100 in equity you deserve. (Alternatively, you could have negotiated the buyer to assume responsibility for the loan; same outcome for you.) Did that help?\",\n \"\\\"A real simple definition or analogy of present Value would be the \\\"\\\"Principal\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"Loan Amount\\\"\\\" being lent and the future value as being returning the Principal along with cost of borrowing The (1+i)^n is the interest you earn on present value The (i+i)^-n is the interest you pay on future value The first one is the FVIF or future value of a $1 The second one is the PVIF or present value of a $1 Both these interest factors assume interest is paid annually, if the interest payment is made more often within the payment year then interest factors look this way m is the frequency of interest payment, the higher this frequency the more of interest you pay or earn and you pay or earn the most interest when compounding occurs on each small fraction of time This entails here e is the Euler's e Thus the interest factors turn to this The preceeding examples only considered a single repayment at future date. Now if you were obliged to make periodic loan repayments say in amount of $1 for n number of periods. Then the present value of all such periodic payment is the \\\"\\\"Principal\\\"\\\" or amount you borrowed. This is the sum of discounted periodic payments as if we replace 1/1+i with x then this turns out to be geometric series of the form This simplifies to replacing (1/1+i) for x we get which is the present value of periodic payment in amount of $1 The future value of periodic payments in amount of $1 can be arrived at multiplying the PVIFA by (1+i)^n giving Once again the interest is compounded per annum and for intra-year compounding you would have to at first find the annual effective yield AEY to use as the effect rate is the PVIFA and FVIFA calculation for continuous compounding All the calculation discussed thus far did not take inflation into consideration, if we were to adjust the amounts for a growth of g% then the present value of a $1 would be as follow Once again you would have to use AEY if compounding frequency of interest is intra-year Now assume that each loan repayment increases or decreases by an extra amount Q per period. To find the present value of series of payments P that increase or decrease per period by an amount Q we would do the following calculations Here and All of these calculations have been available in tadXL add-in for finance and incrementally being offered as JavaScript financial functions library tadJS. Please note that the tad series of the financial functions library for various environments such as Excel, JavaScript, PHP, Ruby, Microsoft.net and others are property of the author writing this post. All of these libraries except one for Excel are available for FREE for public use. And the future value of such payments with increments may be found by multiplying the PV by (1+i)^n as follows Here\\\"\",\n \"Each situation is different, but it has to do with assessing what the Company is trying to do. People always talk about WACC, but in reality, WACC is less important than figuring how how much debt a Company can support (determined by leverage and solvency statistics). Here are a few things to think about: -How stable are the Company's cash flows? (big difference between a Company that has multi-year contracts locked in place vs. variable/cyclical revenue streams; what type of Capex requirement is there?) -What is the purpose of raising the capital? (growth vs. recapitalization; where are the proceeds going?) -What collateral is available for creditors? -What does working capital look like? (is there seasonality?)\",\n \"\\\"Your question indicates that you might have a little confusion about put options and/or leveraging. There's no sense I'm aware of in which purchasing a put levers a position. Purchasing a put will cost you money up front. Leveraging typically means entering a transaction that gives you extra money now that you can use to buy other things. If you meant to sell a put, that will make money up front but there is no possibility of making money later. Best case scenario the put is not exercised. The other use of the term \\\"\\\"leverage\\\"\\\" refers to purchasing an asset that, proportionally, goes up faster than the value of the underlying. For example, a call option. If you purchase a put, you are buying downside protection, which is kind of the opposite of leverage. Notice that for an American put you will most likely be better off selling the put when the price of the underlying falls than exercising it. That way you make the money you would have made by exercising plus whatever optional value the put still contains. That is true unless the time value of money is greater than the optional (insurance) value. Since the time value of money is currently exceptionally low, this is unlikely. Anyway, if you sell the option instead of exercising, you don't need to own any shares at all. Even if you do exercise, you can just buy them on the market and sell right away so I wouldn't worry about what you happen to be holding. The rules for what you can trade with a cash instead of a margin account vary by broker, I think. You can usually buy puts and calls in a cash account, but more advanced strategies, such as writing options, are prohibited. Ask your broker or check their help pages to see what you have available to you.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"First it is worth noting the two sided nature of the contracts (long one currency/short a second) make leverage in currencies over a diverse set of clients generally less of a problem. In equities, since most margin investors are long \\\"\\\"equities\\\"\\\" making it more likely that large margin calls will all be made at the same time. Also, it's worth noting that high-frequency traders often highly levered make up a large portion of all volume in all liquid markets ~70% in equity markets for instance. Would you call that grossly artificial? What is that volume number really telling us anyway in that case? The major players holding long-term positions in the FX markets are large banks (non-investment arm), central banks and corporations and unlike equity markets which can nearly slow to a trickle currency markets need to keep trading just for many of those corporations/banks to do business. This kind of depth allows these brokers to even consider offering 400-to-1 leverage. I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea for these brokers, but the liquidity in currency markets is much deeper than their costumers.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"RBL is likely *reserve based lending*, which is a type of asset-based financing in oil&gas world where debt is secured by oil reserves. Presumably context is that have an oil&gas company that the analyst thinks should be acquiring other companies. To fund that, the analyst is saying the parent company should borrow money against their reserves (should be relatively inexpensive capital b/c asset-backed) and then using it to fund acquisitions. For the target's capital structure, those amounts are equity infused by the Parent (even though the Parent got the money by borrowing it). The Target can then borrow money against its own operations... this borrowed money will \\\"\\\"gear\\\"\\\" up the Target -- gearing is just a term for leverage, typically specifically debt-to-equity ratio. So to fund the acquisition, the Parent is (1) going to borrow using a RBL on Parent's assets to come up with equity to put into target and (2) going to borrow against Target's business. Presumably today Target is relatively debt free or even cash heavy.\\\"\",\n \"Ok, so disregarding passivity, could you help me through a simplified example? Say I only had two assets, SPY and TLT, with a respective weight of 35 and 65% and I want want to leverage this to 4x. Additionally, say daily return covar is: * B/B .004% * B/S -.004% * S/S .02% Now, if I read correctly, I should buy ATM calls xxx days in the future. Which may look like: Ticker, S, K, Option Price, Delta, Lambda * TLT $126.04 $126.00 $4.35 0.50 14.5 * SPY $134.91 $134.00 $6.26 0.55 11.8 ^ This example is pretty close but some assets are far off. I feel like I'm on the wrong track so I'll stop here. I just want to lever up my risk-parity. Margin rates are too high and I'm docked by Reg-T.\",\n \"You miss the step where the return being doubled is daily. Consider you invested $100 today, went up 10%, and tomorrow you went down 10%. Third day market went up 1.01% and without leverage - got even. Here's the calculation for you: day - start - end 1 $100 $120 - +10% doubled 2 $120 $96 - -10% doubled 3 $96 $97.94 - +1.01% doubled So in fact you're in $2.06 loss, while without leveraging you would break even. That means that if the trend is generally positive, but volatile - you'll end up barely breaking even while the non-leveraged investment would make profits. That's what the quote means. edit to summarize the long and fruitless discussion in the comments: The reason that the leveraged ETF's are very good for day-trading is exactly the same reason why they are bad for continuous investment. You should buy them when there's a reasonable expectation for the market to immediately go in the direction you expect. If for whatever reason you believe the markets will plunge, or soar, tomorrow - you should buy a leveraged ETF, ride the plunge, and sell it in the end of the day. But you asked the question about volatile markets, not markets going in one direction. There - you lose.\",\n \"I wouldn't recommend leveraged dividend fishing. Dividend stocks with such high dividends are highly volatile, you will run out of collateral to cover your trades very quickly\",\n \"In order to calculate the ratio you are looking for, just divide total debt by the market capitalization of the stock. Both values can be found on the link you provided. The market capitalization is the market value of equity.\",\n \">Tax benefit of debt The interest on repayments for debt (eg bonds, loans) is tax deductible (as interest expense). The way you figure out the after tax cost of debt is repayment*(1-tax rate). >Marginal tax benefit Just as marginal benefit, this is asking for every ADDITIONAL (ie marginal) dollar of debt, what is my additional tax benefit (tax deduction). Pretty rough explanation, let me know if there is something in particular that doesn't make sense.\",\n \"Reading and analyzing financial statements is one of the most important tasks of Equity Analysts which look at a company from a fundamental perspective. However, analyzing a company and its financial statements is much more than just reading the absolute dollar figures provided in financial statements: You need to calculate financial ratios which can be compared over multiple periods and companies to be able to gauge the development of a company over time and compare it to its competitors. For instance, for an Equity Analyst, the absolute dollar figures of a company's operating profit is less important than the ratio of the operating profit to revenue, which is called the operating margin. Another very important figure is Free Cash Flow which can be set in relation to sales (= Free Cash Flow / Sales). The following working capital related metrics can be used as a health check for a company and give you early warning signs when they deviate too much: You can either calculate those metrics yourself using a spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) or use a professional solution, e.g. Bloomberg Professional, Reuters Eikon or WorldCap.\",\n \"From http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Business+Fundamentals The facts that affect a company's underlying value. Examples of business fundamentals include debt, cash flow, supply of and demand for the company's products, and so forth. For instance, if a company does not have a sufficient supply of products, it will fail. Likewise, demand for the product must remain at a certain level in order for it to be successful. Strong business fundamentals are considered essential for long-term success and stability. See also: Value Investing, Fundamental Analysis. For a stock the basic fundamentals are the second column of numbers you see on the google finance summary page, P/E ratio, div/yeild, EPS, shares, beta. For the company itself it's generally the stuff on the 'financials' link (e.g. things in the quarterly and annual report, debt, liabilities, assets, earnings, profit etc.\",\n \"I guess I wasn't clear. I want to modestly leverage (3-4x) my portfolio using options. I believe long deep-in-the-money calls would be the best way to do this? (Let me know if not.) It's important to me that the covariance matrix from the equity portfolio scales up but doesn't fundamentally change. (I liken it to systemic change as opposed to idiosyncratic change.) This is what I was thinking: * For the same expiry date, find each positions lowest lambda. * Match all option to the the highest of the lowest lambda. * Adjust number of contracts to compensate for higher leverage. I don't think this will work because if I matched the lowest lambda of options on bond etfs to my equity options they would be out-of-the-money. By the way, thanks for your time.\",\n \"Essentially, what you're describing is a leveraged investment. As others noted, the question is how confident you can be that (a) the returns on the investment will exceed what you're paying in interest, and (b) that if you lose the bet you'll still be able to pay off the loan without severely injuring yourself. I did essentially this when I bought my house, taking out a larger loan than necessary and leaving more money in my investments, which had been returning more than the mortgage's interest rate. I then got indecently lucky during the recession and was able to refinance down to under 4%, which I am very certain my investment will beat. I actually considered lengthening the term of the loan for that reason, or borrowing a bit more, but decided not to double down on the bet; that was my own risk-comfort threshold. Know exactly what your risks are, including secondary effects of these risks. Run the numbers to see what the likely return is. Decide whether you like the odds enough to go for it.\",\n \"Yeah sorry I didn't actually read the entirety of your text as carefully as I should have. I absolutely see where I jumped to the conclusion and obfuscated your point. Sorry bout that. I just saw you hadn't mentioned leveraging and all too quickly hit the reply button. Good day to you!\",\n \"[it was 15 to 1 before the SEC decided that big banks needed to be able to risk more.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_capital_rule) it also started teh distrust between banks. With 15 to 1 you were pretty sure that another bank you were dealing with was leveraged exactly 15 to 1. WHen he removed that requirement, then banks had a much harder time judging the health of other banks they were dealing with. you just didnt know if they were 20 to 1 or 30 to 1 or higher, without going through all their books. This was one of the main reasons the recession was so large in scope. Housing would have exploded eventually, but without the leverage regulations they were able to make it hurt far far far far far far worse.. several times worse.\",\n \"Here is a simple example of how daily leverage fails, when applied over periods longer than a day. It is specifically adjusted to be more extreme than the actual market so you can see the effects more readily. You buy a daily leveraged fund and the index is at 1000. Suddenly the market goes crazy, and goes up to 2000 - a 100% gain! Because you have a 2x ETF, you will find your return to be somewhere near 200% (if the ETF did its job). Then tomorrow it goes back to normal and falls back down to 1000. This is a fall of 50%. If your ETF did its job, you should find your loss is somewhere near twice that: 100%. You have wiped out all your money. Forever. You lose. :) The stock market does not, in practice, make jumps that huge in a single day. But it does go up and down, not just up, and if you're doing a daily leveraged ETF, your money will be gradually eroded. It doesn't matter whether it's 2x leveraged or 8x leveraged or inverse (-1x) or anything else. Do the math, get some historical data, run some simulations. You're right that it is possible to beat the market using a 2x ETF, in the short run. But the longer you hold the stock, the more ups and downs you experience along the way, and the more opportunity your money has to decay. If you really want to double your exposure to the market over the intermediate term, borrow the money yourself. This is why they invented the margin account: Your broker will essentially give you a loan using your existing portfolio as collateral. You can then invest the borrowed money, increasing your exposure even more. Alternatively, if you have existing assets like, say, a house, you can take out a mortgage on it and invest the proceeds. (This isn't necessarily a good idea, but it's not really worse than a margin account; investing with borrowed money is investing with borrowed money, and you might get a better interest rate. Actually, a lot of rich people who could pay off their mortgages don't, and invest the money instead, and keep the tax deduction for mortgage interest. But I digress.) Remember that assets shrink; liabilities (loans) never shrink. If you really want to double your return over the long term, invest twice as much money.\",\n \"\\\"This is an example from another field, real estate. Suppose you buy a $100,000 house with a 20 percent down payment, or $20,000, and borrow the other $80,000. In this example, your \\\"\\\"equity\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"market cap\\\"\\\" is $20,000. But the total value, or \\\"\\\"enterprise value\\\"\\\" of the house, is actually $100,000, counting the $80,000 mortgage. \\\"\\\"Enterprise value\\\"\\\" is what a buyer would have to pay to own the company or the house \\\"\\\"free and clear,\\\"\\\" counting the debt.\\\"\",\n \"Other metrics like Price/Book Value or Price/Sales can be used to determine if a company has above average valuations and would be classified as growth or below average valuations and be classified as value. Fama and French's 3 Factor model would be one example that was studied a great deal using an inverse of Price/Book I believe.\",\n \"Risk in finance is defined as standard deviation of returns. This is a measure of size of your returns, both negative and positive. Since the mean return is positive (at least for the stock market and fixed income), if you double the standard deviation your mean return also doubles along with it. In this way you are compensated by the market for taking on more risk.\",\n \"\\\"A junk bond is, broadly, a bond with a non-negligible risk of default. (\\\"\\\"Bond\\\"\\\" ought to be defined elsewhere, but broadly it's a financial instrument you buy from a company or government, where they promise to pay you back the principal and some interest over time, on a particular schedule.) The name \\\"\\\"junk\\\"\\\" is a bit exaggerated: many of them are issued by respectable and reasonably stable businesses. junk bonds were required to do large leveraged buyouts. This means: the company issued fairly risky, fairly high-yield debt, to buy out equity holders. They have to pay a high rate on the debt because the company's now fairly highly geared (ie has a lot of debt relative to its value) and it may have to pay out a large fraction of its earnings as interest. What is a junk bond and how does it differ from a regular bond? It's only a matter of degree and nomenclature. A bond that has a credit rating below a particular level (eg S&P BBB-) is called junk, or more politely \\\"\\\"non-investment grade\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"speculative\\\"\\\". It's possible for an existing bond to be reclassified from one side to another, or for a single issuer to have different series some of which are more risky than others. The higher the perceived risk, the more interest the bond must pay offer in order to attract lenders. Why is there higher risk/chance of default? Well, why would a company be considered at higher risk of failing to repay its debt? Basically it comes down to doubt about the company's future earnings being sufficient to repay its debt, which could be for example:\\\"\",\n \"\\\"There is actually a recent paper that attempted to decompose Buffett's outperformance. I've quoted the abstract below: \\\"\\\"Berkshire Hathaway has realized a Sharpe ratio of 0.76, higher than any other stock or mutual fund with a history of more than 30 years, and Berkshire has a significant alpha to traditional risk factors. However, we find that the alpha becomes insignificant when controlling for exposures to Betting-Against-Beta and Quality-Minus-Junk factors. Further, we estimate that Buffett’s leverage is about 1.6-to-1 on average. Buffett’s returns appear to be neither luck nor magic, but, rather, reward for the use of leverage combined with a focus on cheap, safe, quality stocks. Decomposing Berkshires’ portfolio into ownership in publicly traded stocks versus wholly-owned private companies, we find that the former performs the best, suggesting that Buffett’s returns are more due to stock selection than to his effect on management. These results have broad implications for market efficiency and the implementability of academic factors.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"\\\"For sake of simplicity, say the Euro is trading at $1.25. You have leveraged control of $100,000 given the 100x leverage. If you are bullish on the Euro, you are long 80,000 euros. For every 1% it rises, you gain $1000. If it drops by the same 1%, you are wiped out, you lost your $1000. With the contracts I am familiar with, there is a minimum margin, and your account is \\\"\\\"marked to market\\\"\\\" each night. If your positive balance drops too low, you get the margin call. It's a zero sum game, for every dollar you make, there's a guy on the other side of the trade. Odds are he's doing this full time and is smarter than you.\\\"\",\n \"Hi all Started my MBA studies recently. We have a simulation project and I've taken the VP Finance Role as I didn't have much experience in this and wanted to learn more. Unfortunately I don't have accounting until next semester, so I'm trying to make up the cap with my career experience so far as an engineer + youtube tutorials. I built a discounted cashflow model. I'm trying to now determine the amount of loan to take in my first year of business. Basically the equity financing doesn't cover our first year capital expenditure, let alone any other costs. My question is how do I determine what an appropriate loan amount is to take. My first thoughts are enough to cover my capital expenses + 1st half of the year operating expenses before I start seeing a revenue. Right now my balance sheet would lead me to believe I have a 0.52 Debt Ratio and 1.23 Debt-to-Equity ratio. Is that ok?\",\n \"Contrary to what other people said I believe that even without leverage you can lose more that you invest when you short a FX. Why? because the amount it can go down is alwasy limited to zero but it can, potentially, go up without limit. See This question for a mored detailed information.\",\n \"\\\"Because they don't leverage using credit but by shorting stocks. eg they short $400 of microsoft, and use the proceed to buy $400 of Apple. That's a 4x \\\"\\\"leverage\\\"\\\". It's one of the main characteristics of hedge fund vs traditional fund, they can short while your vanilla long only mutual fund cannot. And they limit capital from outside investors due to decreasing marginal return and liquidity consideration.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"If you don't use leverage you can't lose more than you invested because you \\\"\\\"play\\\"\\\" with your own money. But even with leverage when you reach a certain limit (maintenance margin) you will receive a margin call from your broker to add more funds to your account. If you don't comply with this (meaning you don't add funds) the broker will liquidate some of the assets (in this case the currency) and it will restore the balance of the account to meet with his/her maintenance margin. At least, this is valid for assets like stocks and derivatives. Hope it helps! Edit: I should mention that\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Every bank/financial institution uses different terms but I read \\\"\\\"cost of carry\\\"\\\" as the 'risk' cost of the portfolio. that is, what is the equivalent maturity risk-free rate + the principal-weight probability of default (or to make it more complex, loss give default) %. If this summed % is less than the rate earned on the portfolio of loans you would buy loans. The difference is your spread or profit.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Standard deviation from Wikipedia : In statistics and probability theory, the standard deviation (represented by the Greek letter sigma, σ) shows how much variation or dispersion from the average exists.1 A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean (also called expected value); a high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a large range of values. In the case of stock returns, a lower value would indicate less volatility while a higher value would mean more volatility, which could be interpreted as high much change does the stock's price go through over time. Mean would be interpreted as if all the figures had to be the same, what would they be? So if a stock returns 10% each year for 3 years in a row, then 10% would be the mean or average return. Now, it is worth noting that there are more than a few calculations that may be done to derive a mean. First, there is the straight forward sum and division by the number of elements idea. For example, if the returns by year were 0%, 10%, and 20% then one may take the sum of 30% and divide by 3 to get a simple mean of 10%. However, some people would rather look at a Compound Annual Growth Rate which in this case would mean multiplying the returns together so 1*(1+.1)*(1+.2)=1.1*1.2=1.32 or 32% since there is some compounding here. Now, instead of dividing a cubic root is taken to get approximately 9.7% average annual return that is a bit lower yet if you compound it over 3 years it will get up to 32% as 10% compounded over 3 years would be 33.1% as (1.1)^3=1.331. Sharpe Ratio from Investopedia: A ratio developed by Nobel laureate William F. Sharpe to measure risk-adjusted performance. The Sharpe ratio is calculated by subtracting the risk-free rate - such as that of the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond - from the rate of return for a portfolio and dividing the result by the standard deviation of the portfolio returns. Thus, this is a way to think about given the volatility how much better did the portfolio do than the 10 year bond. R-squared, Alpha and Beta: These are all around the idea of \\\"\\\"linear regression\\\"\\\" modelling. The idea is to take some standard like say the \\\"\\\"S & P 500\\\"\\\" in the case of US stocks and see how well does the portfolio follow this and what if one were to use a linear model are the multipliers and addition components to it. R-squared can be thought of it as a measure as to how good is the fit on a scale of 0 to 1. An S & P 500 index fund may well have an R-squared of 1.00 or 0.99 to the index as it will track it extremely closely while other investments may not follow that well at all. Part of modern portfolio theory would be to have asset classes that move independently of each other and thus would have a lower R-squared so that the movement of the index doesn't indicate how an investment will do. Now, as for alpha and beta, do you remember the formula for a line in slope-intercept form, where y is the portfolio's return and x is the index's return: y=mx+b In this situation m is beta which is the multiple of the return, and b is the alpha or how much additional return one gets without the multiple. Going back to an index fund example, m will be near 1 and b will be near 0 and there isn't anything being done and so the portfolio's return computed based on the index's return is simply y=x. Other mutual funds may try to have a high alpha as this is seen as the risk-free return as there isn't the ups and downs of the market here. Other mutual funds may go for a high beta so that there is volatility for investors to handle.\\\"\",\n \"You don't even need to look at WACC (which is fairly complicated as a concept) you can simply look up gearing. Both high and low gearing is bad, so even if you've got loads of cash you shouldn't just be using that to invest\",\n \"If you want to see a more academic version of this look up Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC). It's a formula that tells you how much it costs for a company to raise $1 of capital whether it be through issuing bonds or stocks. One thing you learn is that there are times that if you take on loans (even if you don't need it) you can raise shareholder value and therefore the total company netvalue. The thought process is (as it states in the article above) that a company can issue debt for cheaper than issue shares and it will have extra cash which it can use to get a better return than its net effective interest rate. I tried to give an example but I only ended up rehashing what it says in the article. Anyhow look up WACC and you'll understand the fundamentals.\",\n \"> People who don't understand leverage shouldn't be writing articles about them Agreed. I wasn't condoning the article, just offering my thoughts. > why should there be a cap at 3x for ETFs when you can get way more leverage with other instruments 3x seems arbitrary. 5x seems arbitrary. I'd love to see a study that analyzed what, if any, would be an optimal 'ceiling' for these. > 3 seems to be a valid point to some degree 3 was getting at speculators using them in excess. A potential solution to limit misuse would be to impose higher costs on levered instruments and capping at 3x or 5x or whatever can be viewed as an (extreme) cost.\",\n \"To calculate any daily return, all one need do is divide the final value by the initial value, subtract 1, and multiply by 100%: This can be applied to either the futures alone, the investments used as margin collateral alone, or all together. Margin collateral as a factor of a derivative's return Collateral can take many forms. Many suggest that cost and revenue for a derivative trade should also take into account margin requirements. This can become problematic. If a futures position moved against the trader, yet the margin was secured with equities at the maximum, and the equities moved with the trader, the futures trade could be interpreted as less of a loss because the collateral, which is probably totally disassociated with the futures position, increased in value. Then again, if a futures position moved with the trader, yet the margin collateral moved against the trader then taken together, the futures trade would look less profitable. Furthermore, most likely the result of a futures position and its collateral would never produce the same result, so extrapolation would become ever more difficult. For ease of analysis, a position's cost and revenue should be segmented from another unless if those positions are meant to hedge each other. Margin is not a cost, but it is a liability, so margin will affect the balance sheet of a futures trade but not its income statement, again unless if the collateral is also used to hedge such futures position.\",\n \"\\\"A lot of financial software will calculate the value of operating leasess for you (bullet 2). E.g. Capital IQ, BB. What a lot of professionals do is \\\"\\\"reverse\\\"\\\" out EBITDA/EBIT etc. for: - non-recurring expenses (think big accounting changes, some impairments) - change operating expenses into capital leases to adjust the capital structure - occasionally change some operating expenses (e.g. options) because you are under the assumption if you take a company private that those expenses will not be relevant The whole point is simply to see the operating revenues/expenses of the firm\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Levarge in simple terms is how of your own money to how much of borrowed money. So in 2008 Typical leverage ratios were Investment Banks 30:1 means that for every 1 Unit of Banks money [shareholders capital/ long term debts] there was 30 Units of borrowed money [from deposits/for other institutions/etc]. This is a very unstable situation as typically say you lent out 31 to someone else, half way through repayments, the depositors and other lends are asking you 30 back. You are sunk. Now lets say if you lent 31 to some one, but 30 was your moeny and 1 was from deposits/etc. Then you can anytime more easily pay back the 1 to the depositor. In day trading, usually one squares away the position the same day or within a short period. Hence say you want to buy something worth 1000 in the morning and are selling it say the same day. You are expecting the price to by 1005 and a gain 5. Now when you buy via your broker/trader, you may not be required to pay 1000. Normally one just needs to pay a margin money, typically 10% [varies from market to market, country to country]. So in the first case if you put 1000 and get by 5, you made a profit of 0.5%. However if you were to pay only 10 as margin money [rest 990 is assumed loan from your broker]. You sell at 1005, the broker deducts his 990, and you get 15. So technically on 10 you have made 5 more, ie 50% returns. So this is leveraging of 10:1. If say your broker allowed only 5% margin money, then you just need to pay 5 for the 1000 trade, get back 5. You have made a 100% profit, but the leveraging is 20:1. Now lets say at this high leveraging when you are selling you get only 990. So you still owe the broker 5, if you can't pay-up and if lot of other such people can't pay-up, then the broker will also go bankrupt and there is a huge risk. Hence although leveraging helps in quite a few cases, there is always an associated risk when things go wrong badly.","This would clear out a lot more. 1) Leverage is the act of taking on debt in lieu of the equity you hold. Not always related to firms, it applies to personal situations too. When you take a loan, you get a certain %age of the loan, the bank establishes your equity by looking at your past financial records and then decides the amount it is going to lend, deciding on the safest leverage. In the current action leverage is the whole act of borrowing yen and profiting from it. The leverage factor mentions the amount of leverage happening. 10000 yen being borrowed with an equity of 1000 yen. 2) Commercial banks: 10 to 1 -> They don't deal in complicated investments, derivatives except for hedging, and are under stricter controls of the government. They have to have certain amount of liquidity and can loan out the rest for business. Investment banks: 30 to 1 -> Their main idea is making money and trade heavily. Their deposits are limited by the amount clients have deposited. And as their main motive is to get maximum returns from the available amount, they trade heavily. Derivatives, one of the instruments, are structured on underlyings and sometimes in multiple layers which build up quite a bit of leverage. And all of the trades happen on margins. You don't invest $10k to buy $10k of a traded stock. You put in, maybe $500 to take up the position and borrow the rest of the amount per se. It improves liquidity in the markets and increases efficiency. Else you could do only with what you have. So these margins add up to the leverage the bank is taking on.","Your original example is a little confusing because just shorting for 1k and buying for 1k is 100% leveraged or an infinitive leverage ratio. (and not allowed) Brokerage houses would require you to invest some capital in the trade. One example might be requiring you to hold $100 in the brokerage. This is where the 10:1 ratio comes from. (1000/10) Thus a return of 4.5% on the 1000k bond and no movement on the short position would net you $45 and voila a 45% return on your $100 investment. A 40 to 1 leverage ratio would mean that you would only have to invest $25 to make this trade. Something that no individual investor are allowed to do, but for some reason some financial firms have been able to."],"string":"[\n \"Levarge in simple terms is how of your own money to how much of borrowed money. So in 2008 Typical leverage ratios were Investment Banks 30:1 means that for every 1 Unit of Banks money [shareholders capital/ long term debts] there was 30 Units of borrowed money [from deposits/for other institutions/etc]. This is a very unstable situation as typically say you lent out 31 to someone else, half way through repayments, the depositors and other lends are asking you 30 back. You are sunk. Now lets say if you lent 31 to some one, but 30 was your moeny and 1 was from deposits/etc. Then you can anytime more easily pay back the 1 to the depositor. In day trading, usually one squares away the position the same day or within a short period. Hence say you want to buy something worth 1000 in the morning and are selling it say the same day. You are expecting the price to by 1005 and a gain 5. Now when you buy via your broker/trader, you may not be required to pay 1000. Normally one just needs to pay a margin money, typically 10% [varies from market to market, country to country]. So in the first case if you put 1000 and get by 5, you made a profit of 0.5%. However if you were to pay only 10 as margin money [rest 990 is assumed loan from your broker]. You sell at 1005, the broker deducts his 990, and you get 15. So technically on 10 you have made 5 more, ie 50% returns. So this is leveraging of 10:1. If say your broker allowed only 5% margin money, then you just need to pay 5 for the 1000 trade, get back 5. You have made a 100% profit, but the leveraging is 20:1. Now lets say at this high leveraging when you are selling you get only 990. So you still owe the broker 5, if you can't pay-up and if lot of other such people can't pay-up, then the broker will also go bankrupt and there is a huge risk. Hence although leveraging helps in quite a few cases, there is always an associated risk when things go wrong badly.\",\n \"This would clear out a lot more. 1) Leverage is the act of taking on debt in lieu of the equity you hold. Not always related to firms, it applies to personal situations too. When you take a loan, you get a certain %age of the loan, the bank establishes your equity by looking at your past financial records and then decides the amount it is going to lend, deciding on the safest leverage. In the current action leverage is the whole act of borrowing yen and profiting from it. The leverage factor mentions the amount of leverage happening. 10000 yen being borrowed with an equity of 1000 yen. 2) Commercial banks: 10 to 1 -> They don't deal in complicated investments, derivatives except for hedging, and are under stricter controls of the government. They have to have certain amount of liquidity and can loan out the rest for business. Investment banks: 30 to 1 -> Their main idea is making money and trade heavily. Their deposits are limited by the amount clients have deposited. And as their main motive is to get maximum returns from the available amount, they trade heavily. Derivatives, one of the instruments, are structured on underlyings and sometimes in multiple layers which build up quite a bit of leverage. And all of the trades happen on margins. You don't invest $10k to buy $10k of a traded stock. You put in, maybe $500 to take up the position and borrow the rest of the amount per se. It improves liquidity in the markets and increases efficiency. Else you could do only with what you have. So these margins add up to the leverage the bank is taking on.\",\n \"Your original example is a little confusing because just shorting for 1k and buying for 1k is 100% leveraged or an infinitive leverage ratio. (and not allowed) Brokerage houses would require you to invest some capital in the trade. One example might be requiring you to hold $100 in the brokerage. This is where the 10:1 ratio comes from. (1000/10) Thus a return of 4.5% on the 1000k bond and no movement on the short position would net you $45 and voila a 45% return on your $100 investment. A 40 to 1 leverage ratio would mean that you would only have to invest $25 to make this trade. Something that no individual investor are allowed to do, but for some reason some financial firms have been able to.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":189,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"2589"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"How can I detect potential fraud in a company before investing in them?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["43961","450577","468144"],"string":"[\n \"43961\",\n \"450577\",\n \"468144\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["450577","513980","43961","217035","251303","468144","46818","472243","431682","467141","272862","309199","391655","548596","88972","358939","308964","492044","374149","541152","538086","284165","327814","420486","254319","62417","448872","47450","220772","183999","424439","252942","33717","146091","509430","229878","88508","25431","575713","496921","193404","160787","327997","148348","137516","364701","442158","85286","520165","561703","596001","490650","148270","19354","315568","458345","400620","205665","323269","130967","314898","258306","437994","534059","486964","533140","186693","511072","428552","396208","125204","499978","171135","9938","318937","241308","126144","69506","599043","316872","123418","56781","228571","531395","349567","376209","415034","86281","466835","463429","104221","303754","405591","564542","488928","149493","402477","101600","268241","12652"],"string":"[\n \"450577\",\n \"513980\",\n \"43961\",\n \"217035\",\n \"251303\",\n \"468144\",\n \"46818\",\n \"472243\",\n \"431682\",\n \"467141\",\n \"272862\",\n \"309199\",\n \"391655\",\n \"548596\",\n \"88972\",\n \"358939\",\n \"308964\",\n \"492044\",\n \"374149\",\n \"541152\",\n \"538086\",\n \"284165\",\n \"327814\",\n \"420486\",\n \"254319\",\n \"62417\",\n \"448872\",\n \"47450\",\n \"220772\",\n \"183999\",\n \"424439\",\n \"252942\",\n \"33717\",\n \"146091\",\n \"509430\",\n \"229878\",\n \"88508\",\n \"25431\",\n \"575713\",\n \"496921\",\n \"193404\",\n \"160787\",\n \"327997\",\n \"148348\",\n \"137516\",\n \"364701\",\n \"442158\",\n \"85286\",\n \"520165\",\n \"561703\",\n \"596001\",\n \"490650\",\n \"148270\",\n \"19354\",\n \"315568\",\n \"458345\",\n \"400620\",\n \"205665\",\n \"323269\",\n \"130967\",\n \"314898\",\n \"258306\",\n \"437994\",\n \"534059\",\n \"486964\",\n \"533140\",\n \"186693\",\n \"511072\",\n \"428552\",\n \"396208\",\n \"125204\",\n \"499978\",\n \"171135\",\n \"9938\",\n \"318937\",\n \"241308\",\n \"126144\",\n \"69506\",\n \"599043\",\n \"316872\",\n \"123418\",\n \"56781\",\n \"228571\",\n \"531395\",\n \"349567\",\n \"376209\",\n \"415034\",\n \"86281\",\n \"466835\",\n \"463429\",\n \"104221\",\n \"303754\",\n \"405591\",\n \"564542\",\n \"488928\",\n \"149493\",\n \"402477\",\n \"101600\",\n \"268241\",\n \"12652\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Most of the information we get about how a company is running its business, in any market, comes from the company. If the information is related to financial statements, it is checked by an external audit, and then provided to the public through official channels. All of these controls are meant to make it very unlikely for a firm to commit fraud or to cook its books. In that sense the controls are successful, very few firms provide fraudulent information to the public compared with the thousands of companies that list in stock markets around the world. Now, there is still a handful of firms that have committed fraud, and it is probable that a few firms are committing fraud right now. But, these companies go to great lengths to keep information about their fraud hidden from both the public and the authorities. All of these factors contribute to such frauds being black swan events to the outside observer. A black swan event is an event that is highly improbable, impossible to foresee with the information available before the event (it can only be analyzed in retrospect), and it has very large impact. The classification of an event as a black swan depends on your perspective. E.g. the Enron collapse was not as unexpected to the Enron executives as it was to its investors. You cannot foresee black swan events, but there are a few strategies that allow you to insure yourself against them. One such strategy is buying out of the money puts in the stocks where you have an investment, the idea being that in the event of a crash - due to fraud or whatever other reason - the profits in your puts would offset the loses on the stock. This strategy however suffers from time and loses a little money every day that the black swan doesn't show up, thanks to theta decay. So while it is not possible to detect fraud before investing, or at least not feasible with the resources and information available to the average investor, it is possible to obtain some degree of protection against it, at a cost. Whether that cost is too high or not, is the million dollar question.","If you are trying to weed out companies that are fronts for scams, one way is to look for a physical address that checks out with the phone book and a phone number posted on the site that connects you to an actual person. By itself this isn't a guarantee that the company is legit, but it will weed out a large number of fraudulent companies hiding behind PO boxes. That is, companies that defraud a lot of people don't usually make it very easy to track them down or contact them to complain or sue them.","\"Given that such activities are criminal and the people committing them have to hide them from the law, it's very unlikely that an investor could detect them, let alone one from a different country. The only things that can realistically help is to keep in mind the adage \"\"If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is\"\", and to stick to relatively large companies, since they have more auditing requirements and fraud is much harder to hide at scale (but not impossible, see Enron). Edit: and, of course, diversify. This kind of thing is rare, and not systematic, so diversification is a very good protection.\"","Research the company. Obtain and read their current and past financial statements. Find and read news stories about them. Look for patterns and draw conclusions. Or diversify to the point where one company failing doesn't hurt you significantly. Or both.","You can avoid companies that might go bankrupt by not buying the stock of companies with debt. Every quarter, a public company must file financials with the EDGAR system called a 10-Q. This filing includes unaudited financial statements and provides a continuing view of the company's financial position during the year. Any debt the company has acquired will appear on this filing and their annual report. If servicing the debt is costing the company a substantial fraction of their income, then the company is a bankruptcy risk.","Even without fraud, a company can get into serious trouble overnight, often through no fault of their own. That's part of the hazard of being part owner of a company -- which is what a share of stock is. As a minority owner not involved in actually running the business, there really isn't a lot you can do about that excep to play the odds and think about how that risk compares to the profit you're taking (which is one reason the current emphasis on stock price rather than dividends is considered a departure from traditional investing) and, as everyone else has said, avoid putting too much of your wealth in one place.","Ponzi schemes (or pyramid schemes) are based on paying earlier investors from the money invested by the later ones. For Ponzi scheme, the idea is generally to distribute some relateviely high consistent dividend/payout based on the inflow of money from new investors. As long as new investors are coming, the scheme can be sustained for quite some time (see the Madoff's example that spanned over decades). In the mean time the scheme operator can take (some of) the investment money to himself (legally as fees and salary, illegally as embezzling). The scheme operator doesn't actually have to put in any money other than some organizational expenses. However, at some point the new investors' money won't be enough to pay all the existing investors (inevitably, sooner or later, since the dividend payout grows with each new investor and there are no infinite exponential amount of new investors to cover for it). That's when the $#!+ hits the fan and sons of the schemers start ending up hanging from the ceiling. Pyramid scheme is built on similar idea, but the dividend payout varies based on the level of the investor (i.e.: the investor gets paid based on how many new ones he brought in, and how many new ones rooted from them). Thus the incentive to bring new investors is directly shifted to the investors themselves. The schemers here are at the top and get the most payouts from all the rest of the participants. They themselves usually put no or very little investment. However, the end result is the same: couldn't possibly be enough investors to sustain this model forever, and it will inevitably fail at some point. When such a scheme fails - the paying fund ends up being bankrupt, either due to cashflow problems (not enough money in to pay money out) or because all the money dries out (usually - both). How to detect - if the reports are not falsified (which in most cases they are) you'll see clearly that there's no actual investment income in the cash-flow. But, the reports are usually falsified to conceal this exact fact. So, that's where the independent auditors and regulatory oversight come in handy. Generally, if an investment fund doesn't have a reputable independent auditor - stay away.","If you too want to avoid losing your money again in the stock loss recovery scams that have been going on then there are a few tips to keep in mind. Be diligent about researching the company thoroughly online, know about its owners, teams and what others have said about it. This can help you be safe from fraudulent firms.","One can never be too cautious when when choosing a financial adviser. For example, has the company your adviser claims to represent ever been sanctioned by the local financial authorities? Does your adviser reside in the country in which he purports to operate? Have you thoroughly researched his background? It is also important to bear in mind what venues a company uses for advertising - if the company resorts to advertising by spamming, then their overall business practices are likely unethical and this could lead to trouble down the line. Finally, one should also research how the company's clientele has been built up. Was it through word of mouth or was the client data acquired by other means?","In Order To Be Safe From A Fraudulent Stock Loss Recovery Firms, You Need To Be Careful And Notice Some Warning Signs Beforehand. Aggressive Unexpected calls, asking advance fee, self-praise online and elsewhere all these are characteristics of such a firm","It depends greatly from place to place, but nothing beats the Internet reviews' research. If you can't find anything digging slightly deeper than the impressive home page, then you probably should be worried. As it seems that you are. Specifically, I do these: @JohnFX mentions a valid point: check for physical presence. Check that the office address is a real office and not a PO box or residential; call the number and see who answers it (if you call several times during different hours and the same person answers - that's probably a one-man operation). But that doesn't always help because short-term renting an office is not all that hard and getting a call-centre outsourced to a third-world country doesn't cost all that much. It definitely helps if you're dealing with someone local, but if you're in Sweden and checking out a suspicious operation in Cyprus - this is definitely not enough.","It is very important to note the strength and reputation of the country's regulatory agency. You cannot assume the standards of say the SEC (US Securities and Exchange Commission) apply in other countries (even well-developed ones). These regulations force companies to disclose certain information to inform and protect investors. The standards for such practices vary internationally.","How you check if a broker is legitimate: 1) Are they a registered broker dealer? Broker dealers have to be registered with FINRA and the SEC , which have their own databases for you to look up individuals and companies. here is FINRA's http://www.finra.org/Investors/ToolsCalculators/BrokerCheck/ FINRA is a self-regulatory agency, the SEC is a federal government agency. All things considered, they pretty much have similar legislative authority over the industry. But thats a different story. If the broker isn't able to produce information that would confirm their registration status, or if you can't readily find it in the regulators database, then that is a major red flag. The biggest red flag of them all. 2) If brokers are also acting as a consumer bank, such as how Merrill Lynch is now part of Bank of America and the accounts can be linked pretty easily, then they should will also be regulated by the FDIC. This means that you will be able to find the capital ratio that the company has, letting you know how stable it is as an institution. Physical locations, the name, and duration of existence, or their rating on BBB have nothing to do with it.","For months prior to going public a company has to file financial documents with the SEC. These are available to the public at www.sec.gov on their Edgar database. For instance, Eagleline is listed as potentially IPOing next week. You can find out all the details of any IPO including correspondence between the company and the SEC on Edgar. Here's the link for Eagleline (disclaimer, I have not investigated this company. It is an example only) https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001675776&owner=exclude&count=40 The most important, complex, and thorough document is the initial registration statement, usually an S-1, and subsequent amendments that occur as a result of new information or SEC questions. You can often get insight into a new public company by looking at the changes that have occurred in amendments since their initial filings. I highly advise people starting out to first look at the filings of companies they work for or know the industry intimately. This will help you to better understand the filings from companies you may not be so familiar with. A word of caution. Markets and company filings are followed by very large numbers of smart people experienced in each business area so don't assume there is fast and easy money to be made. Still, you will be a bit ahead if you learn to read and understand the filings public companies are required to make.","\"The key with analyzing financial statements is that you need to look at all angles of a particular item. ie: Sales has gone up, but has the cost of sales increased by even more, implying narrower margins? Or, interest expense has gone up, but is that because new debt was taken on to pay for expansion? In the specific case you mentioned [buying assets that will create depreciation expense over time], there is a grouping on the cash flow statement called 'Investing', which will state the amount of cash used during the year to invest in the business. This could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on other factors (and your personal preference regarding dividends being paid to shareholders). In addition, you can see the amount of depreciation expense separately listed on the cash flow statement. This tells you many things. Consider a company with $10M in assets on the balance sheet, but $2M in depreciation expense. This tells you that [in a very loose sense], every 5 years the assets owned by the company will all need to be replaced. Compare that with the Investing section of the cash flow statement - if they are buying $4M of new assets this year, this tells you that on an overall basis, they are likely expanding the business, because the new investments outpace the depreciation. But, is your concern of under-reported earnings a common issue? Typically, keep in mind that the most common bias of a company is to over-report earnings. This is because management compensation (in the form of performance bonuses and stock option valuation) is increased by profitable years. However, in a year where a loss / poor performance is likely, a reverse-bias occurs, to take as much of a loss as possible in that year. This is because if a manager's bonus is already 0 due to poor company performance, having a worse year will not turn the bonus negative. So, by taking all expenses possible today on the financial statements, next year might have less allocated expenses, and therefore the manager might get a bigger bonus impact next year. This is called \"\"Taking a big bath\"\". Note that public companies must meet certain reporting standards, and they are audited by external accounting firms to show that they meet those standards. Of course, there is no guarantee that the auditors will catch all cases of accounting manipulation (see Enron, etc., etc.).\"","\"(1) I think the phrase \"\"Variable Annuity\"\" is a glowing red flag. A corollary to that is that any strategy that uses insurance for a purpose (e.g. tax avoidance) other than protecting against loss rates at least a yellow flag. (2) The other really obvious indicator is a return that is completely out of whack with the level of risk they are saying the investment has. For example, if someone promises a 10% annual return that is \"\"Completely Safe\"\" or \"\"Very low risk\"\", Run. (3) If it is advertised on tv/radio, or all your friends are talking about it at parties. Stay away. Example: Investing in Gold Coins or the hot Tech IPO. (4) The whole sales pitch relies on past returns as proof that the investment will do well without any real discussion of other reasons it will continue to to well. Beware the gambler's fallacy. (5) Finally, be very wary of anyone who has some sort of great investment plan that they will teach you if you just pay $X or go to their seminar. Fee based advice is fine, but people selling a get rich quick vehicle typically know the real way to get rich is to get suckers to pay for their seminars.\"","\"I think you're right that these sites look so unprofessional that they aren't likely to be legitimate. However, even a very legitimate-looking site might be a fake designed to separate you from your money. There is an entire underground industry devoted to this kind of fakery and some of them are adept at what they do. So how can you tell? One place that you can consult is FINRA's BrokerCheck online service. This might be the first of many checks you should undertake. Who is FINRA, you might ask? \"\"The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is the largest independent regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States.\"\" See here. My unprofessional guess is, even if a firm's line of business is to broker deals in private company shares, that if they're located in the U.S. or else dealing in U.S. securities then they'd still need to be registered with FINRA – note the \"\"all securities firms\"\" above. I was able to search BrokerCheck and find SecondMarket (the firm @duffbeer703 mentioned) listed as \"\"Active\"\" in the FINRA database. The entry also provides some information about the firm. For instance, SecondMarket appears to also be registered with the S.E.C.. You should also note that SecondMarket links back to these authorities (refer to the footer of their site): \"\"Member FINRA | MSRB | SIPC. Registered with the SEC as an alternative trading system for trading in private company shares. SEC 606 Info [...]\"\" Any legitimate broker would want you to look them up with the authorities if you're unsure about their legitimacy. However, to undertake any such kind of deal, I'd still suggest more due diligence. An accredited investor with serious money to invest ought to, if they are not already experts themselves on these things, hire a professional who is expert to provide counsel, help navigate the system, and avoid the frauds.\"","Sap just developed a fraud detection module for their ERP suite in conjuction with EY. It offers live fraud scanning so you can stop a flagged transaction before a transfer is carried out. I saw a presentation an it looks pretty powerfull although it is only in the early stages.","You need to know your costs. Some are fixed. Review them. There are some expenses that are variable. Review the amount and if it is reasonable. Review your large orders. Are they increasing? Ask him how he thinks people will steal from the company. Did he see a large order and the customer will default?","I would also consider unnecessarily complex investment strategies a big warning sign as they can easily hide poor investment advice or a bad strategy. This is especially the case when it comes to retail investment as complex strategies can have so many moving parts that you, as someone with a day job, can't spend enough time on it to keep an eye on everything and you only spot issues when it's too late. Other bugbears:","If you see something that looks like a sales pitch, be skeptical, even if they sound informed, say things which resonate with your concerns and promise to alleviate your problems. Watch out in particular for people who pontificate about matters which are tangentially related to the investment (e.g. populist anti-Wall-Street sentiment). Beware limited-time opportunities, offers, and discounts. I'm specifically talking about your email pitches, Motley Fool. They're shameful. Remember you're allowed to change your mind and go back on something that you've said a few minutes ago. If anyone tries to trick you into agreeing to go along with them by taking what something you've said and manipulating it, or uses logic to demonstrate that you must buy something based on things you've said, tell them you're not comfortable, head for the door and don't look back. Don't be afraid of embarrassment or anything like that. (You can investigate whether your position is in fact logically consistent later.) Run away from anyone who resents or deprecates the notion of a second opinion. Don't ever go along with anything that seems shady: it may be shadier than you know. Some people thought Bernie Maddoff was doing some front-running on the side; turns out it was a Ponzi scheme. (Likewise the Ponzi scheme that devastated Albania's economy was widely suspected of being dirty, but people suspected more of a black-market angle.) Beware of anyone who is promising stability and protection. Insurance companies can sell you products (especially annuities) which can deliver it, but they're very expensive for what you get. Don't buy it unless you seriously need it.","So, first -- good job on making a thorough checklist of things to look into. And onto your questions -- is this a worthwhile process? Even independent of specific investing goals, learning how to research is valuable. If you decided to forgo investing in stocks directly, and chose to only invest in index funds, the same type of research skills would be useful. (Not to mention that such discipline would come in handy in other fields as well.) What other 80/20 'low hanging fruit' knowledge have I missed? While it may not count as 'low hanging fruit', one thing that stands out to me is there's no mention of what competition a company has in its field. For example, a company may be doing well today, but you may see signs that it's consistently losing ground to its competition. While that alone may not dissuade you from investing, it may give you something to consider. Is what I've got so far any good? or am I totally missing the point. Your cheat sheet seems pretty good to me. But a lot depends on what your goals are. If you're doing this solely for your education and experience, I would say you've done well. If you're looking to invest in a company that is involved in a field you're passionate about, you're on the right track. But you should probably consider expanding your cheat sheet to include things that are not 'low hanging fruit' but still matter to you. However, I'd echo the comments that have already been made and suggest that if this is for retirement investments, take the skills you've developed in creating your cheat sheet and apply that work towards finding a set of index funds that meet your criteria. Otherwise happy hunting!","First utilize a security screener to identify the security profiles you are looking to identify for identifying your target securities for shorting. Most online brokers have stock screeners that you can utilize. At this point you may want to look at your target list of securities to find out those that are eligible for shorting. The SHO thresold list is also a good place to look for securities that are hard to borrow to eliminate potential target securities. http://regsho.finra.org/regsho-Index.html Also your broker can let you know the stocks that are available for borrowing. You can then take your target securities and then you can look at the corporate filings on the SEC's Edgar site to look for the key words you are looking for. I would suggest that you utilize XBRL so you can electronically run your key word searched in an automated manner. I would further suggest that you can run the key word XBRL daily for issuer filings of your target list of securities. Additional word searches you may want to consider are those that could indicate a dilution of the companies stock such as the issuance of convertible debt. Also the below link detailing real short interest may be helpful. Clearing firms are required to report short interest every two weeks. http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/short-interest.aspx","This study introduces XBRL-enhanced digit analysis as a possible new approach to identify firm-year observations suspect of having manipulated earnings. Based on all available XBRL 10-K filings submitted to the SEC between 2009 and 2012, we find that firms likely to have managed earnings exhibit a higher amount of abnormal digit frequencies compared to other firm-years. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2297355","I look at the following ratios and how these ratios developed over time, for instance how did valuation come down in a recession, what was the trough multiple during the Lehman crisis in 2008, how did a recession or good economy affect profitability of the company. Valuation metrics: Enterprise value / EBIT (EBIT = operating income) Enterprise value / sales (for fast growing companies as their operating profit is expected to be realized later in time) and P/E Profitability: Operating margin, which is EBIT / sales Cashflow / sales Business model stability and news flow","I look at the following ratios and how these ratios developed over time, for instance how did valuation come down in a recession, what was the trough multiple during the Lehman crisis in 2008, how did a recession or good economy affect profitability of the company. Valuation metrics: Enterprise value / EBIT (EBIT = operating income) Enterprise value / sales (for fast growing companies as their operating profit is expected to be realized later in time) and P/E Profitability: Operating margin, which is EBIT / sales Cashflow / sales Business model stability and news flow","\"IMO, what it seems like you've done is nothing more than having screened out a company worth further investigation. The next step would be a thorough analysis of the company's past financials and current statements to arrive at your own opinion / forecast of the immediate and far future of the company's prospects. Typically, this is done by looking at the company's regulatory filings, and maybe some additional searching on comparison businesses. There are many sources of instruction for how one might \"\"value\"\" or \"\"analyze\"\" a company, or that provide help on \"\"reading a balance sheet\"\". (This is not an easy skill to learn, but it is one that will prove invaluable over a lifetime of investing.) It is possible that you'll uncover a deteriorating business where the latest selling, and subsequent drop in price that caused the high yield, is well-deserved. In which case, you know to stay away and move on to the next idea. On the other hand, you might end up confident that the company is not suffering from a drop in sales, rise in expenses, growing debt payments, loss of \"\"moat\"\", etc. In which case, you've found a great investment candidate. I say candidate because you still may decide this company isn't for you, even if the financials are right, because you might find better opportunities for an equal, or acceptable, return at lower risk while you're researching. As to the yield being high when there are no problems with the fundamentals of the business, this may simply be because of panic selling during this past few week's downturn, or some other sort of temporary and superficial scare. However, be warned that the masses can remain irrational, and thus the price stay suppressed or even drop further, for longer than you're willing to wait for your ROI. The good news is that in that case, you're being well compensated to wait at a 11+% yield!\"","What this abbreviated balance sheet tells you is that this company has negative equity. The liabilities are greater than the value of the assets. The obvious problem for the company who wants to do business with you is that they are going to have a real hard time accessing credit to pay off any debts that they incur with doing business with you. In this case, the recommended course would be to ask them put cash up front instead of putting them on account. You don't really need to look at the income statement to see that they are currently underwater. If their income statement turns out to be splendid, then you can wait for them to get their liabilities under control before you set up an account for them.","\"The following is only an overview and does not contain all of the in-depth reasons why you should look more deeply. When you look at a stock's financials in depth you are looking for warning signs. These may warn of many things but one important thing to look for is ratio and growth rate manipulation. Using several different accounting methods it is possible to make a final report reflect a PE ratio (or any other ratio) that is inconsistent with the realities of the company's position. Earnings manipulation (in the way that Enron in particular manipulated them) is more widespread than you might think as \"\"earnings smoothing\"\" is a common way of keeping earnings in line (or smooth) in a recession or a boom. The reason that PE ratio looks so good could well be because professional investors have avoided the stock as there appear to be \"\"interesting\"\" (but legal) accounting decisions that are of concern. Another issue that you don't consider is growth. earnings may look good in the current reporting period but may have been stagnant or falling when considered over multiple periods. The low price may indicate falling revenues, earnings and market share that you would not be aware of when taking only your criteria into account. Understanding a firm will also give you an insight into how future news might affect the company. If the company has a lot of debt and market interest rates rise or fall how will that effect their debt, if another company brings out a competing product next week how will it effect the company? How will it effect their bottom line? How much do they rely on a single product line? How likely is it that their flagship product will become obsolete? How would that effect the company? Looking deeply into a company's financial statements will allow you to see any issues in their accounting practices and give you a feel for how they are preforming over time, it will also let you look into their cost of capital and investment decisions. Looking deeply into their products, company structure and how news will effect them will give you an understanding of potential issues that could threaten your investment before they occur. When looking for value you shouldn't just look at part of the value of the company; you wouldn't just look at sales of a single T-shirt range at Wallmart when deciding whether to invest in them. It is exactly the same argument for why you should look at the whole of the company's state when choosing to invest rather than a few small metrics.\"","\"Be wary of pump and dump schemes. This scheme works like this: When you observe that \"\"From time to time the action explodes with 100 or 200% gains and volumes exceeding one million and it then back down to $ 0.02\"\", it appears that this scheme was performed repeatedly on this stock. When you see a company with a very, very low stock price which claims to have a very bright future, you should ask yourself why the stock is so low. There are professional stock brokers who have access to the same information you have, and much more. So why don't they buy that stock? Likely because they realize that the claims about the company are greatly exaggerated or even completely made up.\"","Every listed company needs to maintain book of accounts, when you are investing in companies you would have to look at what is stated in the books and along with other info decide to invest in it.","In addition to evaluating the business (great answer), consider the potential payoff. If bonds pay off in the 5-10% range, the S&P500 has averged 10.5%. You should be expecting a payoff of 15-20% to invest in something riskier than the stock market. That means that if you invest $10k, then in 5 years you'll need to get out $25K (20% returns over 5 years). If you get less than this much in 5 years, the risk-to-reward ratio probably rules this out as a good investment.","He gets upset if I insist on bringing an extra person to help him out but then he complains about his work load and how he's running the company alone. Why complain if I offered him an assistant? I wish my boss would've offered me an assistant when I worked at companies. He refuses to take paid vacations. If he does take a vacation he'll tell me 2 to 3 weeks in advance. My red flag is he never ever takes a paid vacation. If he does take a paid vacation he plans it out a few weeks in advance. This is the perfect way to cover up anything.","\"zPesk has a great answer about dividends generally, but to answer your question specifically about yield traps, here are a few things that I look for: As with everything, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is. A 17% yield is pretty out of this world, even for a REIT. And I wouldn't bet on it holding up. Compare a company's yield to that of others in the same industry (different industries have different \"\"standards\"\" for what is considered a high or low yield) Dividends have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is cash flow. Look at the company's financial statements. Do they have sufficient cash flow to pay the dividend? Have there been any recent changes in their cash flow situation? How are earnings holding up? Debt levels? Cash on hand? Sudden moves in stock price. A sudden drop in the stock price will cause the yield to rise. Sometimes this indicates a bargain, but if the drop is due to a real worry about the company's financial health (see #2) it's probably an indication that a dividend cut is coming. What does their dividend history look like? Do they have a consistent track record of paying out good dividends for years and years? Companies with a track record of paying dividends consistently and/or increasing their dividend regularly are likely to continue to do so.\"","\"Pump-and-Dump strategy is happening everywhere. Less so in developed market. I can tell an experience from Emerging Market perspective. Usually several securities brokers work together to pump several \"\"penny\"\" stocks (5 - 7 stocks). They conspire together and searching for several investors, who have money and willing to participate in this scheme. These investors will then agree to invest (usually with Margin from securities) to start pumping the stocks. The stocks will be pumped until several Research Analysts take interest in it. Once the news were spread out regarding these highly speculative stocks. The investors gradually dumps the stocks (with help of their brokers). The things that you need to keep an eye for: - Low trading volume in the previous 3 - 6 months (relative to their peers) - Low P/E ratio with unremarkable earning growth - No positive catalyst or material news regarding the company - Stocks have high momentum (observe on weekly rather daily returns) Pump-and-dump usually last between 3 months to 6 months.\"","\"To expand on the above, go to the \"\"Investor Relations\"\" part of the website if they're public, and take a look at how they explain themselves to their shareholders. You'll learn a lot very quickly about everything you'd need for the interview.\"","Here are the basic questions I usually ask any new business startup: Do these numbers/answers seem reasonable to you and is some benchmark available that allows you to see how likely this is? Remember, particularly in Internet-based advertising ventures, the client may be indirect. The person who clicks on a Google context-based link is not directly Google's client. The person who decided to host AdWords code on their site is the direct client. You're also going to want to see a Gant chart or some process chart indicating exactly what needs to be done, at what cost and by whom. Answers to these questions give a sense of not only how seriously they are taking the business, but also how organised. My final question: who is your first client? They need either someone who is going to contract the service, or have a clear indication of where income is going to come from, on their first day of trading. Their task is to sell their idea to you by proving that it will return on your investment and be profitable. From the strength of these answers you can gauge the value of your investment to them, how critical it is, how risky the opportunity and - ultimately - the stake and returns you should expect.","* Absolutely agree with /u/IsAnAlpaca * You /must/ not agree to this without seeing his balance sheet. * That means assets and liabilities, but also ask for the last 12 months' cash flow * Inability or unwillingness to provide any of those things is a HUGE no-go red flag.","@ Daniel Anderson shared interesting insights. In my research I learned a few things Some interesting data on fraud trends AFP Payments Fraud and Control Survey 2016 As a consumer, at the very least I'd improve awareness of I'd also learn about basic types of fraud And for the techies out there, I'd recommend learning about layered security (There's no way the customer service is going to talk about this)","\"The hardest part seems to be knowing exactly when to sell the stock. Well yes, that's the problem with all stock investing. Reports come out all the time, sometimes even from very smart people with no motivation to lie, about expected earnings for this company, or for that industry. Whether those predictions come true is something you will only find out with time. What you are considering is using financial information available to you (and equally available to the public) to make investment choices. This is called 'fundamental analysis'; that is, the analysis of the fundamentals of a business and what it should be worth. It forms the basis of how many investment firms decide where to put their money. In a perfectly 'efficient' market, all information available to the public is immediately factored into the market price for that company's stock. ie: if a bank report states with absolute certainty (through leaked documents) that Coca-Cola is going to announce 10% revenue growth tomorrow, then everyone will immediately buy Coca-Cola stock today, and then tomorrow there would be no impact. Even if PwC is 100% accurate in its predictions, if the rest of the market agrees with them, then the price at the time of IPO would equal the future value of the cashflows, meaning there would be no gain unless results surpassed expectations. So what you are proposing is to take one sliver of the information available to the public (have you also read all publicly available reports on those businesses and their industries?), and using that to make a high risk investment. Are you going to do better than the investment firms that have teams of researchers and years of experience in the investment world? You can do quite well by picking individual stocks, but you can also lose a lot of money if you do it haphazardly. Be aware that there is risk in doing any type of investing. There is higher than average risk if you invest in equities ('the stock market'). There is higher risk still, if you pick individual stocks. There is yet even higher risk, if you pick small startup companies. There are some specific interesting side-elements with your proposal to purchase stock about to have an IPO - those are better dealt with in a separate question if you want more information; search this site for 'IPO' and you should find a good starting point. In short, the company about to go public will hire a firm of analysts who will try to calculate the best price the public will accept for an offering of shares. Stock often goes up after IPO, but not always. Sometimes the company doesn't even fill its full IPO order, adding a new type of risk to a potential investor, that the stock will drop on day 1. Consider an analogy outside the investing world: Let's say Auto Trader magazine prints an article that says \"\"all 2015 Honda Civics are worth $15,000 if they have less than 50,000 Miles.\"\" Assume you have no particular knowledge about cars. If you read this article, and you see an ad in the paper the next day for a Honda Civic with 40k miles, should you buy it for $14k? The answer is not without more research. And even if you determine enough about cars to find one for $14k that you can reasonably sell for $15k, there's a whole world of mechanics out there who buy and sell cars for a living, and they have an edge both because they can repair the cars themselves to sell for more, and also because they have experience to spot low-offers faster than you. And if you pick a clunker (or a stock that doesn't perform even when everyone expected it would), then you could lose some serious money. As with buying and selling individual stocks, there is money to be made from car trading, but that money gets made by people who really know what they're doing. People who go in without full information are the ones who lose money in the long run.\"","Pump-and-dump scams are indeed very real, but the scale of a single scam isn't anywhere near the type of heist you see in movies like Trading Places. Usually, the scammer will buy a few hundred dollars of a penny stock for some obscure small business, then they'll spam every address they have with advice that this business is about to announce a huge breakthrough that will make it the next Microsoft. A few dozen people bite, buy up a few thousand shares each (remember the shares are trading for pennies), then when the rise in demand pushes up the price enough for the scammer to make a decent buck, he cashes out, the price falls based on the resulting glut of stock, and the victims lose their money. Thus a few red flags shake out that would-be investors should be wary of:","In my experience, any kind of equity you may be offered by the company is just a carrot. Your offer may be written in such a way that your potential ownership represents, say, 1% of the company today. But if the company goes for a round of financing your ownership percentage can get diluted. If this happens a couple of times and the terms of financing aren't very favorable then your percentage can go from that 1% down to 0.001%, making the equity worthless. I've known people who heard their company was being bought and thought they might get some kind of payoff. Come to find out the company hadn't done all that well and there wasn't anything to pay out after the main investors got some money back. (The main investors took a loss.) For obvious reasons, management wasn't keeping the staff up to date about the fact that they were operating in the red and their options were worthless. Some people grumbled about lawyers and filing lawsuits, but at the end of the day, there wasn't any money to be won. Keep this in mind. As to your question regarding what to look out for:","\"The recommendation is not to make the investment. In general, a company does not have to sell their shares to you or allow you to become an investor, because, as you have stated, it is a private company not quoted on the stock market. If everyone were trustworthy, you could buy the tools for $11000 -- so that you own the tools -- and sign a lease of the tools to the company whereby they pay you $X/month. The lease should be reviewed by a lawyer before it is signed, and perhaps give the buyer the right to demand back the tools at any time. However, even this arrangement is very risky, because the \"\"company\"\" could simply steal or damage the tools and disappear. It is not an investment that I would make, because it sounds too good to be true. $2800/mo steady cash flow for $11,000 invested. No, I don't think so. The following information may also be useful, either to you, or future readers: If you still want to make this investment, then you should know that: The offering for sale of shares by companies located in the USA is subject to a wild array of complex laws. This is true in many other countries as well. These laws, called securities laws or regulations, can require certain disclosures, require that investors have a high net worth so that they can afford to lose the money or conduct their own investigations and legal actions, or require that the investors know the company founders personally, and can prohibit or limit resale by the buyer/investor. Promoters who say you can still invest and are ignoring or disobeying the securities laws are being at least negligent, but more likely are dishonest and probably criminal. Even if you trust in the investment, can you trust negligent managers to do a good job executing that investment? What about dishonest managers? What about criminals and thieves?\"","Just don't buy any kind of paper and you will be fine :-) And don't forget most of these 'blue-chip companies' sell marketing garbage which have no real market. Finally, make all decissions slooooowly and after extensive research.","Good post - just to note to self to add my comments this weekend A couple thoughts that came to mind (sorry, was working on an idea this weekend): * When comparing companies, reviewing accounting policies in detail for any substantive differences. A notable example would be telecom companies who expense wireless subsidies vs. capitalizing them - obviously makes a large difference in a EBITDA-based * I always approach a company from a SOTP perspective... hidden assets or otherwise, many businesses have various segments, which if they can be reliably broken off, provide good insight into underlying op performance * If appropriate (i.e. will never be reinvested), tax-adjusting cash balances that are offshore * Cyclical industries, always compare on a mid-cycle basis * Dynamic schedules (i.e. at various prices) for dilutive instruments and proceeds thereof. For most large caps this is not relevant, but for certain industries it is much more popular (e.g. resource, tech)","Financial health is typically assessed with 3 things. Balance Sheet Cash Flow Analysis Profit & Loss Statement That should give you a pretty solid view on where the business has been, where it is now, and where it is headed. You also want to see any specific contracts currently in-place. Things like leases for property or facilities or any long term customer contracts. I also often like to look at the last year's tax information. Pay attention to Retained Earnings, that'll tell you about the long term functioning of the business from a historical perspective. Source: Am M&A guy","If your partner starts cheating you or you have a doubt on it, don’t go directly and blame him/her. Before taking such step, first start noticing your partner’s behavior and make full proof of that. You can also hire investing agencies that help you in partner background checks.","Also keep note - some companies have a combined CEO/Chairman of the board role. While he/she would not be allowed to negotiate contracts or stock plans, some corporate governance analysts advocate for the separation of the roles to remove any opportunity for the CEO to unduly influence the board. This could be the case for dysfunctional boards. However, the alternate camps will say that the combined role has no negative effect on shareholder returns. SEC regulations require companies to disclose negotiations between the board and CEO (as well as other named executives) for contracts, employee stock plans, and related information. Sometimes reading the proxy statement to find out, for example, how many times the board meets a year, how many other boards a director serves on, and if the CEO sits on any other board (usually discouraged to serve on more than 2) will provide some insight into a well-run (or not well-run) board.","I'd start with learning how to read a company's financial statement and their annual report. I would recommend reading the following: All three books are cheap and readily available. If you really want to enhance your learning, grab a few annual reports from companies' websites to reference as you learn about different aspects of the financial statements.","I don't see balance sheet in what you're looking at, and I'd definitely suggest learning how to read a balance sheet and looking at it, if you're going to buy stock in a company, unless you know that the recommendations you're buying on are already doing that and you're willing to take that risk. Also, reading past balance sheets and statements can give you an idea about how accurate the company is with their predictions, or if they have a history of financial integrity. Now, if you're going the model portfolio route, which has become popular, the assumption that many of these stock buyers are making is that someone else is doing that for them. I am not saying that this assumption is valid, just one that I've seen; you will definitely find a lot of skeptics, and rightly so, about model portfolios. Likewise, people who trade based on what [Person X] does (like Warren Buffett or David Einhorn) are assuming that they're doing the research. The downside to this is if you follow someone like this. Yeah, oops. I should also point out that technical analysis, especially high probability TA, generally only looks at history. Most would define it as high risk and there are many underlying assumptions with reading the price movements by high probability TA types.","So you think there is a business that can take $X and in two weeks turn it into $10X plus their profit. That means that in two weeks you can turn $1,000 into $10,000. So every two weeks you add a zero, in six weeks you add 3 zeros. In 12 weeks total your $1,000 is now $1,000,000,000; and in a few weeks after that you are richer than Bill Gates. All Guaranteed! Run away.","\"First paragraph is very true. But you also have to take into consideration that the adviser and the company are 2 different \"\"things\"\" to look into. For the adviser, quickest and easiest way is to do a Facebook search. The point of this is to see how transparent they are with their personal life. Even companies are now relying on Facebook to see how they \"\"really\"\" are. I wouldn't care if the person has lots of photos with booze and girls, but I would be concerned if they are using FB for spamming purposes, have pictures with drugs, or hints that they don't like their job and want to move on to something else. Second paragraph is spot on as well. But I would rather want to know if the company cold calls or not... which leads in to your last statement. For one adviser, more than 100 clients is a red flag. This could mean that they push savings plans left and right, they don't contact their current clients, and/or they may not have the ability to assist clients should they get many queries. A few good questions to ask: 1. How do you make your salary? 2. Besides this plan you are selling me, what other types of products do you work with and show me several examples? 3. How many other advisers are in your firm? 4. How many clients does your colleagues and boss have? 5. How often do you cold call? 6. Who else cold calls in your office? 7. How does your company get new clients OTHER than referrals? Go interrogation style and ask the above questions several times using different phrases.\"","The Art of Short Selling by Kathryn Stanley providers for many case studies about what kind of opportunities to look for from a fundamental analysis perspective. Typically things you can look for are financing terms that are not very favorable (expensive interest payments) as well as other constrictions on cash flow, arbitrary decisions by management (poor management), and dilution that doesn't make sense (usually another product of poor management). From a quantitative analysis perspective, you can gain insight by looking at the credit default swap rate history, if the company is listed in that market. The things that affect a CDS spread are different than what immediately affects share prices. Some market participants trade DOOMs over Credit Default Swaps, when they are betting on a company's insolvency. But looking at large trades in the options market isn't indicative of anything on its own, but you can use that information to help confirm your opinion. You can certainly jump on a trend using bad headlines, but typically by the time it is headline news, the majority of the downward move in the share price has already happened, or the stock opened lower because the news came outside of market hours. You have to factor in the short interest of the company, if the short interest is high then it will be very easy to squeeze the shorts resulting in a rally of share prices, the opposite of what you want. A short squeeze doesn't change the fundamental or quantitative reasons you wanted to short. The technical analysis should only be used to help you decide your entry and exit price ranges amongst an otherwise random walk. The technical rules you created sound like something a very basic program or stock screener might be able to follow, but it doesn't tell you anything, you will have to do research in the company's public filings yourself.","You need to look at the financial statements, talking to the executives, and have some sort of discussion about price. Then you would have to do due-diligence to make sure that they are not hiding stuff. Bear in mind, the company isn't going to go through all of this unless you can convince them that you have the means to complete the transaction.","A cautionary tale: About 25 years ago I decided that I should try my hand at investing in some technology companies. I was in the computer biz but decided that I might suffer from myopia there, so I researched some medical startups. And I did some reasonably good research, given the available resources (the Internet was quite primitive). I narrowed things down to 4-5 companies, studying their technology plans, then researched their business plans and their personnel. In the end I picked a drug company. Not only did it have a promising business plan, but it had as it's CEO a hotshot from some other company, and the BOD was populated buy big names from tech companies and the like. AND the company had like $2 of cash for every $1 of outstanding share value, following their recent IPO. So I sold a bit of stock I had in my employer and bought like $3000 worth of this company. Then, taking the advice I'd seen several places, I forgot about it for about 6 months. When I went back to look their stock value had dropped a little, and the cash reserves were down about 20%. I wasn't too worried. 6 months later the cash was down 50%. Worrying a little. After I'd had the stock for about 2 years the stock price was about 10% of what I'd paid. Hardly worth selling, so I hung on for awhile longer. The company was eventually sold to some other company and I got maybe $50 in stock in the new company.","Great answers. Here's my two cents: First, don't forget to look at the overall picture, not just the dividend. Study the company's income statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement for the last few years. Make sure they have good earnings potential, and are not carrying too much debt. I know it's dull, but it's better to miss an opportunity than to buy a turkey and watch the dividends and the share price tank. I went through this with BAC (Bank of America) a couple of years ago. They had a 38-year history of rising dividends when I bought them, and the yield was about 8%. Then the banking crisis happened and the dividend went from $2.56/share to $0.04, and the price fell from $40 to $5. (I stuck with it, continuing to buy at lower and lower prices, and eventually sold them all at $12 and managed to break even, but it was not a pleasant experience) Do your homework. :) Still, one of the most reliable ways to judge a company's dividend-paying ability is to look at its dividend history. Once a company has started paying a dividend there is a strong expectation from shareholders that these payments will continue, and the company's management will try very hard to maintain them. (Though sometimes this doesn't work out, e.g. BAC) You should see an uninterrupted stream of non-decreasing payments over a period of at least 5 years (this timeframe is just a rule of thumb). Well-established, profitable companies also tend to increase their dividends over time, which has the added benefit of pushing up their share price. So you're getting increasing dividends and capital gains. Next, look at the company's payout ratio over time, and the actual cost of the dividend. Can the projected earnings cover the dividend cost without going above the payout ratio? If not, then the dividend is likely to get reduced. In the case of CIM, the dividend history is short and erratic. The earnings are also all over the place, so it's hard to predict what will happen next year. The company is up to its eyeballs debt (current ratio is .2), and its earnings have dropped by 20% in the last quarter. They have lost money in two of the last three years, even though earning have jumped dramatically. This is a very young company, and in my opinion it is too early for them to be paying dividends. A very speculative stock, and you are more likely to make money from capital gains than dividends. AAE is a different story. They are profitable, and have a long dividend history, although the dividend was cut in half recently. This may be a good to buy them hoping the dividend comes back once the economy recovers. However, they are trading at over 40 times earnings, which seems expensive, considering their low profit margins. Before investing your money, invest in your education. :) Get some books on interpretation of financial staments, and learn how to read the numbers. It's sort of like looking at the codes in The Matrix, and seeing the blonde in the red dress (or whatever it was). Good luck!","\"Let's say you see a café. You're looking to buy a café so you walk into one and ask the manager how much profit he makes in a year. He says $N and you walk out and think to yourself, \"\"I'd be willing to pay $500,000 for this café.\"\" You arrange to meet again to discuss purchasing the business (and he's looking for someone to purchase it). You go into the store again the following day and the manager says, \"\"Sorry, I told you we make $N. I've checked the numbers and it's actually only $0.8N (20% lower than what you thought).\"\" Are you still willing to buy the café for $500,000 as well? No, of course you're not. I think that this is a sufficient analogy to public companies.\"","\"Don't do this if haven't talked about investments and don't learn quickly. Don't do this if you don't like cold calling. Don't do this if they want you to pump and dump. Don't do this if you don't think you can convince gamblers to invest with you. Don't do this if you have a better opportunity. I checked their website. Maybe double check with FINRA and SIPC to see that they're really members if you're really skeptical and you're still interested. Just dial and keep asking until you get a better answer than \"\"If they say so then yes.\"\" Oh, and don't do this if they're giving you a shitty deal on commissions. Ask for a tour of the premises too.\"","Ask for at least 10 references. Ask for 10 because it will be harder for them to refer you to ringer references like their family or friends.","From what you have written, it could be a boiler room company. These operate with fancy website and have proper book keeping systems but are elaborate scams. How did you find about this broker. If there was a seller when you purchased the shares, there is no reason you can't be seller","If you're researching a publicly traded company in the USA, you can search the company filings with the SEC. Clicking 'Filings' should take you here.","Reading and analyzing financial statements is one of the most important tasks of Equity Analysts which look at a company from a fundamental perspective. However, analyzing a company and its financial statements is much more than just reading the absolute dollar figures provided in financial statements: You need to calculate financial ratios which can be compared over multiple periods and companies to be able to gauge the development of a company over time and compare it to its competitors. For instance, for an Equity Analyst, the absolute dollar figures of a company's operating profit is less important than the ratio of the operating profit to revenue, which is called the operating margin. Another very important figure is Free Cash Flow which can be set in relation to sales (= Free Cash Flow / Sales). The following working capital related metrics can be used as a health check for a company and give you early warning signs when they deviate too much: You can either calculate those metrics yourself using a spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) or use a professional solution, e.g. Bloomberg Professional, Reuters Eikon or WorldCap.","If anyone offers you guaranteed better than average returns, run. They are either lying to you or to themselves. (Claiming that they will try to beat the market is more credible, but that becomes a matter of whether there is any reason to believe that they'll succeed.) If anyone sends you an unsolicited stock tip, run. They wouldn't be doing so if it wasn't an attempt to manipulate you or the market or both. Most likely its a pump-and-dump attempt.","I use 10-K and 10-Qs to understand to read the disclosed risk factors related to a business. Sometimes they are very comical. But when you see that risk factor materializing you can understand how it will effect the company. For example, one microlending company's risk factor stated that if Elizabeth Warren becomes head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau we will have a hard time... so we are expanding in Mexico and taking our politically unfavorable lending practices there. I like seeing how many authorized shares there are or if there are plans to issue more. An example was where I heard from former employees of a company how gullible the other employees at that company were and how they all thought they were going to get rich or were being told so by upper management. Poor/Quirky/Questionable/Misleading management is one of my favorite things to look for in a company so I started digging into their SEC filings and saw that they were going to do a reverse split which would make the share prices trade higher (while experiencing no change in market cap), but then digging further I saw that they were only changing the already issued shares, but keeping the authorized shares at the much larger amount of shares, and that they planned to do financing by issuing more of the authorized shares. I exclaimed that this would mean the share prices would drop by 90%-99% after the reverse split and you mean to tell me that nobody realizes this (employees or the broad market). I was almost tempted to stand outside their office and ask employees if I could borrow their shares to short, because there wasn't enough liquidity on the stock market! This was almost the perfect short but it wasn't liquid or have any options so not perfect after all. It traded from $20 after the reverse split to $1.27 I like understanding how much debt a company is in and the structure of that debt, like if a loan shark has large payments coming up soon. This is generally what I use those particular forms for. But they contain a lot of information A lot of companies are able to act they way they do because people do not read.","You need to understand the business and the books as an owner do it for your parents also the manager could be the issue but it could a lot of things I’d like to see the quarterlies for the last 3 Years and a few other things like monthly statements payrolls some accounts etc... to do the math. it could be a partner? The only way to know this is to follow the paper trail.","If you don't have a good knowledge of finance, maybe you should not put too much money in individual stocks. But if you really want to invest, you can just compare the rate of return of the most known stocks available to you (like the one from the S&P for the US). The rate of return is very simple to compute, it's 100*dividend/share price. For example a company with a current share price of 50.12 USD that delivered a dividend of 1.26 USD last year would have a rate of return of 100 * 1.26/50.12= 2.51% Now if you only invest in the most known stocks, since they are already covered by nearly all financial institutions and analysts: If you are looking for lower risk dividend companies, take a sample of companies and invest those with the lowest rates of return (but avoid extreme values). Of course since the stock prices are changing all the time, you have to compare them with a price taken at the same time (like the closing price of a specific day) and for the dividend, they can be on several basis (yearly, quartely, etc..) so you have to be sure to take the same basis. You can also find the P/E ratio which is the opposite indicator (= share price/dividend) so an higher P/E ratio means a lower risk. Most of the time you can find the P/E ratio or the rate of return already computed on specialized website or brokers.","I recall at the time that people on investment boards were circulating lists of companies audited by AA, as a - quite reliable - indication that they were fraudulent. I have had a lot of dealings with their offshoot AA Consulting, now known as Accenture. These dealings have not, to put it mildly, given me any reason to think that AA's culture was very ethical. And if you cannot trust an auditor, they are worthless.","Both Scottrade and ING Direct (CapitalOne) have physical branches. Scottrade are wide-spread, ING/CapitalOne are less common (in California where I live, I have a bunch of Scottrade branches around where I live, but the only ING presence I know of is in LA on Sepulveda at Santa Monica). So one way to verify the company is legit is to go to their physical location and talk to the people there. Similarly, you can find physical locations in major metropolitan areas for many other web-based discount brokers. In my area (SF Bay Area) we have Scottrade, ETrade, Fidelity, TD Ameritrade, and that's just those I've actually seen with my own eyes. You can just walk in and talk to the people there about their options and their web operations. It is hard and unlikely for a sting operation to set up a web of brick-and-mortar offices across the nation. Even Madoff had only one or two offices. Of course I totally agree with Chris's answer, especially with regards to the SSL certificates' verification and spoofing and phishing avoidance.","\"Investing in a business can be daunting and risky, so it is not for everyone. The most common pitfalls are mentioned here: Beyond that: It all sounds a bit like \"\"Don't trust anyone\"\" and sadly, this is true when there's a lot of money involved. So be prepared and do your homework, this sometimes will save you more money than you gain with your investments :) Good luck!\"","To evaluate any advice, this lists some of the things to consider: There are good advisors out there. There are also Bernie Madoffs who give the entire industry a black eye. In the end, the best path is to educate yourself, read as much as you can before you invest. Better to lose a bit by staying out of the market than to lose it all by getting scammed.","I can't address the psychology of trust involved in your question, but here are some common sense guidelines for dealing with your issue. Make sure you know who you are talking to. Call the company you need to speak to via a publicly available phone number. An email or something you got in a letter might be from a different source. If you use a website, you should be sure you are on the correct website. Keep careful records. Make good notes of each phone call and keep all emails and letters forever. Note the time, name and/or ID of the person you spoke to and numbers called in addition to keeping notes on what actions should be done. Keep your faxing transmission receipts and shipping tracking numbers too. If you are nervous, ask them why they want the info. The fraud department should be able to explain it to you. For example, they probably want your social because that is how your credit report is identified. If they are going to fix a credit report, they will need a social. It is doubtful they would have a good explanation why they need your mother's maiden name. Ask for secure transmission, or confirm they have it. Postal mail isn't so secure, but I'll go out on a limb and say most fax machines today are not really fax machines, but software that deals in PDFs. At some point you will have to realize you will have to transmit something. No method is perfect, but you can limit your exposure. Help them do their jobs. If you are (understandably) nervous, consider their motivations: corporate profit. BUT that could very well mean not running afoul of the law and (with any luck) treating customers the best way they know to earn business. If you stymy the fraud department, how can they help you? If the ID theft was serious enough, document your issue for future law enforcement so you getting pulled over for speeding doesn't result in you going to jail for whatever crime the other person did. Perhaps the fraud department you are dealing with can assist there. Finally, while you work with fraud departments to clear up your name and account, work on the other end to limit future damage. Freeze your credit. See if you bank or credit card have monitoring. Use CreditKarma.com or a similar if you cannot find a free service. (Please don't ever pay for credit monitoring.)","A true story, from a friend's company, one of the largest electronics company in the world. The company decided that if the difference is less than $25,000, then ignore it. And went on to fire many people in accounting. Six months later on, one old-timer found many many reports that show less than $25,000 difference. Do you understand what happened here?","\"You are probably going to hate my answer, but... If there was an easy way to ID stocks like FB that were going to do what FB did, then those stocks wouldn't exist and do that because they would be priced higher at the IPO. The fact is there is always some doubt, no one knows the future, and sometimes value only becomes clear with time. Everyone wants to buy a stock before it rises right? It will only be worth a rise if it makes more profit though, and once it is established as making more profit the price will be already up, because why wouldn't it be? That means to buy a real winner you have to buy before it is completely obvious to everyone that it is going to make more profit in the future, and that means stock prices trade at speculative prices, based on expected future performance, not current or past performance. Now I'm not saying past and future performance has nothing in common, but there is a reason that a thousand financially oriented websites quote a disclaimer like \"\"past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance\"\". Now maybe this is sort of obvious, but looking at your image, excluding things like market capital that you've not restricted, the PE ratio is based on CURRENT price and PAST earnings, the dividend yield is based on PAST publications of what the dividend will be and CURRENT price, the price to book is based on PAST publication of the company balance sheet and CURRENT price, the EPS is based on PAST earnings and the published number of shares, and the ROI and net profit margin in based on published PAST profits and earnings and costs and number of shares. So it must be understood that every criteria chosen is PAST data that analysts have been looking at for a lot longer than you have with a lot more additional information and experience with it. The only information that is even CURRENT is the price. Thus, my ultimate conclusive point is, you can't based your stock picks on criteria like this because it's based on past information and current stock price, and the current stock price is based on the markets opinion of relative future performance. The only way to make a good stock pick is understand the business, understand its market, and possibly understand world economics as it pertains to that market and business. You can use various criteria as an initial filter to find companies and investigate them, but which criteria you use is entirely your preference. You might invest only in profitable companies (ones that make money and probably pay regular dividends), thus excluding something like an oil exploration company, which will just lose money, and lose it, and lose some more, forever... unless it hits the jackpot, in which case you might suddenly find yourself sitting on a huge profit. It's a question of risk and preference. Regarding your concern for false data. Google defines the Return on investment (TTM) (%) as: Trailing twelve month Income after taxes divided by the average (Total Long-Term Debt + Long-Term Liabilities + Shareholders Equity), expressed as a percentage. If you really think they have it wrong you could contact them, but it's probably correct for whatever past data or last annual financial results it's based on.\"","The best source of financial statements would be from the company in question. On corporate websites of public listed companies, you can find such financial statements uploaded in the Investor's Relations section of their website. If their company does not have an online presence, another alternative would be to go to the website of the exchange the company is trading in (e.g. NYSE or NASDAQ) for financial data.","Sales are useless. Profit determines value. Others made good suggestions, but make sure you don't personally guarantee anthing. Understand your requirements to continue having the investor involved. Understand who has approval authority and decision making authority, ie are you a hired gun or the managing owner? Finally, probability of success is low, so do your homework, bust your ass, and understand when you will wall away (ie if you aren't profitable in 3 years, or below $500k in rev, etc)","The three places you want to focus on are the income statement, the balance sheet, and cash flow statement. The standard measure for multiple of income is the P/E or price earnings ratio For the balance sheet, the debt to equity or debt to capital (debt+equity) ratio. For cash generation, price to cash flow, or price to free cash flow. (The lower the better, all other things being equal, for all three ratios.)","First and foremost, I would warn about having to shell out your own money for start-up, inventory, or other sunk costs. If I have to significant amounts of goods and stockpile them, that would be a warning. Some goods-based MLM have significant start-up costs. Along with this - how realistic are your time expectations. Is this to be a part-time occasional endeavor - or your full-time occupation? Do you know enough people that you believe you can recruit, as it is the pyramid that makes you the money, not the goods themselves. Secondly, market research. Companies that I would consider real franchise-like companies generally either have, or demand you do, significant market research in an area before you start. They don't want the good name of their company tarnished by having a venue close down. MLM generally don't care as much (generalization). Similarly, are there others in the same neighborhood/town already in the scheme? If so, and depending on the size of your community, many of your potential target recruits may already either be in the scheme, or already scared/annoyed. Third, and last for my list are any kind of pressure tactics. Again - franchisee companies and their ilk generally want a long-term relationship with the right people - not just more and more people as part of the pyramid. MLM and the like tend to want expand at all costs.","Try to find the P/E ratio of the Company and then Multiply it with last E.P.S, this calculation gives the Fundamental Value of the share, anything higher than this Value is not acceptable and Vice versa.","Do a common size analysis to compare to its competitors. Also run a rqtio analysis to the industry. Explain the commonalities and differences as it pertains to the business. A lot of big banks publish research on public companies and where they're headed in terms of financials. They are usually published for a fee but you can sometimes find them for free online. It would be useful to talk about the current financial landscape like yellen, rate hikes etc if you wanna go there.","Firstly, call up the company and speak to them over the phone. The right questions must be asked as this will make great difference. Questions are important because you would be able to get every possible information, so that you take the right decision.","\"(I answered a similar question before.) Essentially, you shouldn't trust a site you find on the Internet merely because it looks professional and real. Before signing up with any new service provider you found online, you should verify the authenticity of both the organization itself and their web site address. Even if the name displayed by a web site represents a legitimate brokerage firm, any site you happen to come across on the Internet could be an elaborate spoof of a real company, intended to capture your personal details (or worse). First, to check if a brokerage firm is in fact registered to trade securities – in the United States – you can consult FINRA's BrokerCheck online service. This might be the first of many checks you should undertake ... after you convince yourself that FINRA is legitimate. A meta-problem ;-) Then, if you want to know if the web site address is authentic, one way is to contact that broker offline using the contact information found from a trusted source, such as the FINRA BrokerCheck details. Unfortunately, those details do not currently appear to contain the broker's web site URL. (Else, that could be useful.) Another thing to look at is the site's login or sign-up page, for a valid SSL certificate that is both issued to the correct legal name of the brokerage firm as well as has been signed by a well-known certificate authority (e.g. VeriSign). For a financial services firm of any kind, you should look for and expect to see an Extended Validation Certificate. Any other kind of certificate might only assert that the certificate was issued to the domain-name owner, and not necessarily to an organization with the registered legal name. (Yes, anybody can register a domain with a similar name and then acquire a basic SSL certificate for that domain.) FWIW, Scottrade and ShareBuilder are both legitimate brokers (I was aware already of each, but I also just checked in the FINRA tool), and the URLs currently linked to by the question are legitimate web site addresses for each. Also, you can see their EV certificates in action on secured pages here and here. As to whether your investments with those brokers would be \"\"safe\"\" in the event of the broker failing (e.g. goes bankrupt), you'll want to know that they are members of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (Wikipedia). (Of course, this kind of protection doesn't protect you if your investments simply go down in value.) But do your own due diligence – always.\"","I've never understood why the auditing procedure is privatized in the first-place. The conflicts of interest seem much too inevitable. Shouldn't the SEC or some other governing body perform the audits? If an accounting firm's bottom-line is profit and not objective analysis, how can we expect it to not to ignore things here and there if it is good for business?","If you do your homework on the front end, so can find reliable, quality suppliers. You can avoid scams and fraud. And you can then avoid the path of last resort, the Alibaba Fair Play Fund. And the Fair Play Fund is not a bad thing - it helps compensate users who have lost money - but avoiding it is critical.","Mostly we invest in companies to make money. The money can be paid to as in the form of dividends that are a share of the profit. Or the company can convince enough people that it will make a lot higher profit next year, so its stock prices increases. Clearly a company that reinvests its 20% profit from one shop to open an 2nd shop is doing well and is a good investment. But, But, But... we only have the companies word for it! A dividend paying company finds it a lot harder to hide bad news for long, as it will not have the money in the bank to pay the dividends.","for buying: High PE, low debt, discount = win. a company with high debt (in relation to revenues and cash on hand) will have to pay interest and pay off the debt, stunting their growth. and just like a normal person, will barely be able to pay their bills and keep borrowing and might go bankrupt determining discount is just looking for a technical retracement to a support level or lower. (but if you dont enter at the support level, you most likely missed the best entry)","On first glance it sounds to good to be true. From what I understand bridge loans are for people waiting on other loans. In this case I would presume a housing developer would take this loan if something were to go wrong and their first choice of funding went wrong. Not anything wrong with that in and of itself but the coupon is way, way too big not to draw attention. Examine the financial statements of the credit institutions and the companies they're giving credit to would be the only solution. The terms of the bond should be dictated by all information available, therefore if the return is this lucrative then there must be a large degree of risk associated with it.","\"Well, everyone knows that a lot of funds have a strict policy to own a market-cap based part of shares from all listed companies above a certain threshold. Now, if I would go and inflate my share price and market cap, they would be forced to buy in; you can argue that this is \"\"just exploiting a weakness of the market\"\", but for me that's simply fraud.\"","You can use the Securities Exchange Commission's EDGAR search engine to search all available SEC related filings. https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html Top tip: use the fast search on the right to search for the company ticker rather than by company name.","\"This is several questions wrapped together: How can I diplomatically see the company's financial information? How strong a claim does a stockholder or warrantholder have to see the company's financials? What information do I need to know about the company financials before deciding to buy in? I'll start with the easier second question (which is quasi implicit). Stockholders typically have inspection rights. For example, Delaware General Corporate Law § 220 gives stockholders the right to inspect and copy company financial information, subject to certain restrictions. Check the laws and corporate code of your company's state of incorporation to find the specific inspection right. If it is an LLC or partnership, then the operating agreement usually controls and there may be no inspection rights. If you have no corporate stock, then of course you have no statutory inspection rights. My (admittedly incomplete) understanding is that warrantholders generally have no inspection rights unless somehow contracted for. So if you vest as a corporate stockholder, it'll be your right to see the financials—which may make even a small purchase valuable to you as a continuing employee with the right to see the financials. Until then, this is probably a courtesy and not their obligation. The first question is not easy to answer, except to say that it's variable and highly personal for small companies. Some people interpret it as prying or accusatory, the implication being that the founders are either hiding something or that you need to examine really closely the mouth of their beautiful gift horse. Other people may be much cooler about the question, understanding that small companies are risky and you're being methodical. And in some smaller companies, they may believe giving you the expenses could make office life awkward. If you approach it professionally, directly, and briefly (do not over-explain yourself) with the responsible accountant or HR person (if any), then I imagine it should not be a problem for them to give some information. Conversely, you may feel comfortable enough to review a high-level summary sheet with a founder, or to find some other way of tactfully reviewing the right information. In any case, I would keep the request vague, simple, and direct, and see what information they show you. If your request is too specific, then you risk pushing them to show information A, which they refuse to do, but a vague request would've prompted them to show you information B. A too-specific request might get you information X when a vague request could have garnered XYZ. Vague requests are also less aggressive and may raise fewer objections. The third question is difficult to say. My personal understanding is some perspective of how venture capitalists look at the investment opportunity (you didn't say how new this startup is or what series/stage they are on, so I'll try to stay vague). The actual financials are less relevant for startups than they are for other investments because the situation will definitely change. Most venture capital firms like to look at the burn rate or amount of cash spent, usually at a monthly rate. A high burn rate relative to infusions of cash suggests the company is growing rapidly but may have a risk of toppling (i.e. failing before exit). Burn rate can change drastically during the early life of the startup. Of course burn rate needs the context of revenues and reserves (and latest valuation is helpful as a benchmark, but you may be able to calculate that from the restricted share offer made to you). High burn rate might not be bad, if the company is booming along towards a successful exit. You might also want to look at some sort of business plan or info sheet, rather than financials alone. You want to gauge the size of the market (most startups like to claim 9- or 10-figure markets, so even a few percentage points of market share will hit revenue into the 8-figures). You'll also have to have a sense for the business plan and model and whether it's a good investment or a ridiculous rehash (\"\"it's Twitter for dogs meets Match.com for Russian Orthodox singles!\"\"). In other words, appraise it like an investor or VC and figure out whether it's a prospect for decent return. Typical things like competition, customer acquisition costs, manufacturing costs are relevant depending on the type of business activity. Of course, I wouldn't ignore psychology (note that economists and finance people don't generally condone the following sort of emotional thinking). If you don't invest in the company and it goes big, you'll kick yourself. If it goes really big, other people will either assume you are rich or feel sad for you if you say you didn't get rich. If you invest but lose money, it may not be so painful as not investing and losing out the opportunity. So if you consider the emotional aspect of personal finance, it may be wise to invest at least a little, and hedge against \"\"woulda-shoulda\"\" syndrome. That's more like emotional advice than hard-nosed financial advice. So much of the answer really depends on your particular circumstances. Obviously you have other considerations like whether you can afford the investment, which will be on you to decide. And of course, the § 83(b) election is almost always recommended in these situations (which seems to be what you are saying) to convert ordinary income into capital gain. You may also need cash to pay any up-front taxes on the § 83(b) equity, depending on your circumstances.\"","lol- yeah, I know how banks work. My point is EVERY transaction should be recorded somewhere. Banks have both internal and external auditors who's only job it is to monitor the transactions to make sure everything adds up. It just doesn't make sense that the CEO of the company would have so little idea of what is going on. Shades of Enron to me.","I think in such situations a good rule of thumb may be - if you are asked to pay significant sums of money upfront before anything is done, stop and ask yourself, what would you do if they don't do what they promised? They know who you are, but usually most you know is a company name and phone number. Both can disappear in a minute and what are you left with? If they said they'd pay off the debt and issue the new loan - fine, let them do it and then you pay them. If they insist on having money upfront without delivering anything - unless it's a very big and known and established company you probably better off not doing it. Either it's a scam or in the minuscule chance they are legit you still risking too much - you're giving money and not getting anything in return.","If anyone could reliably pick winners, they could make more money by investing in those winners than by selling their advice. Generally, when someone sends you unsolicited hype about stocks, that's because they're trying to pump the price up so they can dump their own shares before it collapses again. Also note that, these days, it's remarkably easy to run the scam where you sell half your customers buy advice and the other half sell advice on the same stock. Each time, some of the customers drop out in disgust (half, minus whoever decides to give you another chance) and the rest pay you for the next iteration. You can make a lot of money before you run out of suckers. That, all by itself, is good reason to be skeptical about anyone who doesn't publish their full history so it can be audited for such shenanigans.","\"In general, if you think something even MIGHT be a scam, the answer is\"\"yes\"\".\"","In the case of an investment strategy, if you don't retain custodianship over your funds, or at least determine who is the custodian, then walk away. You should be able to get accurate account statements from a trustworthy third party at all times.","Promotion of any stock should be treated with extreme suspicion, since the purpose is generally to make money for the promoter, not to inform the public.","\"For this to work, those who control the dilution must also control their salaries because the only way for them to be paid off when it's the corporation itself selling is to gain access to the proceeds. When a corporation sells newly issued equity, the corporation itself owns the money. To at least have the appearance of propriety, the scammers must be paid those proceeds. Both actions imply that the board is captured by the scammers. There are many corporations that seem to do this even with persistently large market capitalizations. The key difference between this and pump-and-dump is that its a fraudulent group of investors selling in this case instead of the corporation itself. A detailed simple example Corporations are mandated by law to be little oligarchies; although, \"\"republic\"\" is now becoming more appropriate with all of the new shareholder rights. A corporation is controlled at root by the board of directors who are elected by the shareholders. The board has no direct operational control, as that is left to the \"\"king\"\", the CEO; however, the board does control what everyone wants access to: the money. Board members have all sorts of legal qualitative mandates on how to behave, and they've functioned fairly decently efficiently over the long run, but there are definitely some bad apples. Boards are somewhat intransigent since it's difficult to hold board elections, and usually only specific board members are put up for election by a shareholder vote, so a bad one has the potential to really get stuck in there. Once a bad one is in there, they don't care because they know it will be tough to get them out, so they run roughshod over the company's purse. Only the board can take action on major funding such as the CEO's operating budget, board compensation, financing, investment, etc, some with shareholder approval, some without. The corporation itself owns all of those assets, but the board controls them. In this example, they scheme with most likely the top executive, but a rubber stamp top executive could allow a lower rung to scheme with the board, but the board is always constant until the law is changed. Because there's no honor amongst thieves, the board votes which can require some combination of executive and shareholder approval are taken very close together: sell shares, increase salaries to key executive schemers, increase board compensation. The trusting shareholders believe this is in the best interests of the company at large so go along. So the money flows from existing & new shareholders to the corporation now controlled by a malicious board and then finally to the necessary malicious executive and the vital malicious board.\"","\"1. Most of the information you want can be found in the annual report of the company. Go to their official website, look for shareholders information and then download the annual report. This will answer: \"\"number of issued stock, voting rights, if there is more than one kind of stock, etc. In summary all the legal and formal details of a given stock. 2. After reading the annual report, check on investors websites to see if you can find analyst reports written on this company. You can sometimes find them in some free newsletters. These reports will complete the information you have found in the annual report like \"\"if the dividends are always paid, etc.\"\"\"","The only certain way is to have the issuer confirm it. You'd think there would be a better way, but no there isn't. I suggest you read this story about what can happen even if you are the innocent victim trying to cash a fraudulent Cashier's Check. The consequences included some jail time and huge attorney fees for this unlucky person.","It does raise the question of whether investment bank analysts are doing their job when advising clients on IPOs. Sadly, no one, and I literally mean not a single person, reads a registration statement in its entirety. That's why I find this criticism of the JOBS Act particularly stupid. The problem isn't that enough information isn't getting out, it's that too few investors and analysts actually do anything with it.","As an employee of one of these firms, us auditors are the bread and butter while consulting work is sexy and just the flavor of the week. And now that my personal rant is over, I definitely agree with the point of the article. But you must understand that any Channel 1 audit client will not be allowed to receive any consulting from the same firm. In fact, often times when fraud happens one of the Big 4 will hire another firm to investigate, just look at what's unfolding with MF Global."],"string":"[\n \"Most of the information we get about how a company is running its business, in any market, comes from the company. If the information is related to financial statements, it is checked by an external audit, and then provided to the public through official channels. All of these controls are meant to make it very unlikely for a firm to commit fraud or to cook its books. In that sense the controls are successful, very few firms provide fraudulent information to the public compared with the thousands of companies that list in stock markets around the world. Now, there is still a handful of firms that have committed fraud, and it is probable that a few firms are committing fraud right now. But, these companies go to great lengths to keep information about their fraud hidden from both the public and the authorities. All of these factors contribute to such frauds being black swan events to the outside observer. A black swan event is an event that is highly improbable, impossible to foresee with the information available before the event (it can only be analyzed in retrospect), and it has very large impact. The classification of an event as a black swan depends on your perspective. E.g. the Enron collapse was not as unexpected to the Enron executives as it was to its investors. You cannot foresee black swan events, but there are a few strategies that allow you to insure yourself against them. One such strategy is buying out of the money puts in the stocks where you have an investment, the idea being that in the event of a crash - due to fraud or whatever other reason - the profits in your puts would offset the loses on the stock. This strategy however suffers from time and loses a little money every day that the black swan doesn't show up, thanks to theta decay. So while it is not possible to detect fraud before investing, or at least not feasible with the resources and information available to the average investor, it is possible to obtain some degree of protection against it, at a cost. Whether that cost is too high or not, is the million dollar question.\",\n \"If you are trying to weed out companies that are fronts for scams, one way is to look for a physical address that checks out with the phone book and a phone number posted on the site that connects you to an actual person. By itself this isn't a guarantee that the company is legit, but it will weed out a large number of fraudulent companies hiding behind PO boxes. That is, companies that defraud a lot of people don't usually make it very easy to track them down or contact them to complain or sue them.\",\n \"\\\"Given that such activities are criminal and the people committing them have to hide them from the law, it's very unlikely that an investor could detect them, let alone one from a different country. The only things that can realistically help is to keep in mind the adage \\\"\\\"If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is\\\"\\\", and to stick to relatively large companies, since they have more auditing requirements and fraud is much harder to hide at scale (but not impossible, see Enron). Edit: and, of course, diversify. This kind of thing is rare, and not systematic, so diversification is a very good protection.\\\"\",\n \"Research the company. Obtain and read their current and past financial statements. Find and read news stories about them. Look for patterns and draw conclusions. Or diversify to the point where one company failing doesn't hurt you significantly. Or both.\",\n \"You can avoid companies that might go bankrupt by not buying the stock of companies with debt. Every quarter, a public company must file financials with the EDGAR system called a 10-Q. This filing includes unaudited financial statements and provides a continuing view of the company's financial position during the year. Any debt the company has acquired will appear on this filing and their annual report. If servicing the debt is costing the company a substantial fraction of their income, then the company is a bankruptcy risk.\",\n \"Even without fraud, a company can get into serious trouble overnight, often through no fault of their own. That's part of the hazard of being part owner of a company -- which is what a share of stock is. As a minority owner not involved in actually running the business, there really isn't a lot you can do about that excep to play the odds and think about how that risk compares to the profit you're taking (which is one reason the current emphasis on stock price rather than dividends is considered a departure from traditional investing) and, as everyone else has said, avoid putting too much of your wealth in one place.\",\n \"Ponzi schemes (or pyramid schemes) are based on paying earlier investors from the money invested by the later ones. For Ponzi scheme, the idea is generally to distribute some relateviely high consistent dividend/payout based on the inflow of money from new investors. As long as new investors are coming, the scheme can be sustained for quite some time (see the Madoff's example that spanned over decades). In the mean time the scheme operator can take (some of) the investment money to himself (legally as fees and salary, illegally as embezzling). The scheme operator doesn't actually have to put in any money other than some organizational expenses. However, at some point the new investors' money won't be enough to pay all the existing investors (inevitably, sooner or later, since the dividend payout grows with each new investor and there are no infinite exponential amount of new investors to cover for it). That's when the $#!+ hits the fan and sons of the schemers start ending up hanging from the ceiling. Pyramid scheme is built on similar idea, but the dividend payout varies based on the level of the investor (i.e.: the investor gets paid based on how many new ones he brought in, and how many new ones rooted from them). Thus the incentive to bring new investors is directly shifted to the investors themselves. The schemers here are at the top and get the most payouts from all the rest of the participants. They themselves usually put no or very little investment. However, the end result is the same: couldn't possibly be enough investors to sustain this model forever, and it will inevitably fail at some point. When such a scheme fails - the paying fund ends up being bankrupt, either due to cashflow problems (not enough money in to pay money out) or because all the money dries out (usually - both). How to detect - if the reports are not falsified (which in most cases they are) you'll see clearly that there's no actual investment income in the cash-flow. But, the reports are usually falsified to conceal this exact fact. So, that's where the independent auditors and regulatory oversight come in handy. Generally, if an investment fund doesn't have a reputable independent auditor - stay away.\",\n \"If you too want to avoid losing your money again in the stock loss recovery scams that have been going on then there are a few tips to keep in mind. Be diligent about researching the company thoroughly online, know about its owners, teams and what others have said about it. This can help you be safe from fraudulent firms.\",\n \"One can never be too cautious when when choosing a financial adviser. For example, has the company your adviser claims to represent ever been sanctioned by the local financial authorities? Does your adviser reside in the country in which he purports to operate? Have you thoroughly researched his background? It is also important to bear in mind what venues a company uses for advertising - if the company resorts to advertising by spamming, then their overall business practices are likely unethical and this could lead to trouble down the line. Finally, one should also research how the company's clientele has been built up. Was it through word of mouth or was the client data acquired by other means?\",\n \"In Order To Be Safe From A Fraudulent Stock Loss Recovery Firms, You Need To Be Careful And Notice Some Warning Signs Beforehand. Aggressive Unexpected calls, asking advance fee, self-praise online and elsewhere all these are characteristics of such a firm\",\n \"It depends greatly from place to place, but nothing beats the Internet reviews' research. If you can't find anything digging slightly deeper than the impressive home page, then you probably should be worried. As it seems that you are. Specifically, I do these: @JohnFX mentions a valid point: check for physical presence. Check that the office address is a real office and not a PO box or residential; call the number and see who answers it (if you call several times during different hours and the same person answers - that's probably a one-man operation). But that doesn't always help because short-term renting an office is not all that hard and getting a call-centre outsourced to a third-world country doesn't cost all that much. It definitely helps if you're dealing with someone local, but if you're in Sweden and checking out a suspicious operation in Cyprus - this is definitely not enough.\",\n \"It is very important to note the strength and reputation of the country's regulatory agency. You cannot assume the standards of say the SEC (US Securities and Exchange Commission) apply in other countries (even well-developed ones). These regulations force companies to disclose certain information to inform and protect investors. The standards for such practices vary internationally.\",\n \"How you check if a broker is legitimate: 1) Are they a registered broker dealer? Broker dealers have to be registered with FINRA and the SEC , which have their own databases for you to look up individuals and companies. here is FINRA's http://www.finra.org/Investors/ToolsCalculators/BrokerCheck/ FINRA is a self-regulatory agency, the SEC is a federal government agency. All things considered, they pretty much have similar legislative authority over the industry. But thats a different story. If the broker isn't able to produce information that would confirm their registration status, or if you can't readily find it in the regulators database, then that is a major red flag. The biggest red flag of them all. 2) If brokers are also acting as a consumer bank, such as how Merrill Lynch is now part of Bank of America and the accounts can be linked pretty easily, then they should will also be regulated by the FDIC. This means that you will be able to find the capital ratio that the company has, letting you know how stable it is as an institution. Physical locations, the name, and duration of existence, or their rating on BBB have nothing to do with it.\",\n \"For months prior to going public a company has to file financial documents with the SEC. These are available to the public at www.sec.gov on their Edgar database. For instance, Eagleline is listed as potentially IPOing next week. You can find out all the details of any IPO including correspondence between the company and the SEC on Edgar. Here's the link for Eagleline (disclaimer, I have not investigated this company. It is an example only) https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001675776&owner=exclude&count=40 The most important, complex, and thorough document is the initial registration statement, usually an S-1, and subsequent amendments that occur as a result of new information or SEC questions. You can often get insight into a new public company by looking at the changes that have occurred in amendments since their initial filings. I highly advise people starting out to first look at the filings of companies they work for or know the industry intimately. This will help you to better understand the filings from companies you may not be so familiar with. A word of caution. Markets and company filings are followed by very large numbers of smart people experienced in each business area so don't assume there is fast and easy money to be made. Still, you will be a bit ahead if you learn to read and understand the filings public companies are required to make.\",\n \"\\\"The key with analyzing financial statements is that you need to look at all angles of a particular item. ie: Sales has gone up, but has the cost of sales increased by even more, implying narrower margins? Or, interest expense has gone up, but is that because new debt was taken on to pay for expansion? In the specific case you mentioned [buying assets that will create depreciation expense over time], there is a grouping on the cash flow statement called 'Investing', which will state the amount of cash used during the year to invest in the business. This could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on other factors (and your personal preference regarding dividends being paid to shareholders). In addition, you can see the amount of depreciation expense separately listed on the cash flow statement. This tells you many things. Consider a company with $10M in assets on the balance sheet, but $2M in depreciation expense. This tells you that [in a very loose sense], every 5 years the assets owned by the company will all need to be replaced. Compare that with the Investing section of the cash flow statement - if they are buying $4M of new assets this year, this tells you that on an overall basis, they are likely expanding the business, because the new investments outpace the depreciation. But, is your concern of under-reported earnings a common issue? Typically, keep in mind that the most common bias of a company is to over-report earnings. This is because management compensation (in the form of performance bonuses and stock option valuation) is increased by profitable years. However, in a year where a loss / poor performance is likely, a reverse-bias occurs, to take as much of a loss as possible in that year. This is because if a manager's bonus is already 0 due to poor company performance, having a worse year will not turn the bonus negative. So, by taking all expenses possible today on the financial statements, next year might have less allocated expenses, and therefore the manager might get a bigger bonus impact next year. This is called \\\"\\\"Taking a big bath\\\"\\\". Note that public companies must meet certain reporting standards, and they are audited by external accounting firms to show that they meet those standards. Of course, there is no guarantee that the auditors will catch all cases of accounting manipulation (see Enron, etc., etc.).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"(1) I think the phrase \\\"\\\"Variable Annuity\\\"\\\" is a glowing red flag. A corollary to that is that any strategy that uses insurance for a purpose (e.g. tax avoidance) other than protecting against loss rates at least a yellow flag. (2) The other really obvious indicator is a return that is completely out of whack with the level of risk they are saying the investment has. For example, if someone promises a 10% annual return that is \\\"\\\"Completely Safe\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"Very low risk\\\"\\\", Run. (3) If it is advertised on tv/radio, or all your friends are talking about it at parties. Stay away. Example: Investing in Gold Coins or the hot Tech IPO. (4) The whole sales pitch relies on past returns as proof that the investment will do well without any real discussion of other reasons it will continue to to well. Beware the gambler's fallacy. (5) Finally, be very wary of anyone who has some sort of great investment plan that they will teach you if you just pay $X or go to their seminar. Fee based advice is fine, but people selling a get rich quick vehicle typically know the real way to get rich is to get suckers to pay for their seminars.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I think you're right that these sites look so unprofessional that they aren't likely to be legitimate. However, even a very legitimate-looking site might be a fake designed to separate you from your money. There is an entire underground industry devoted to this kind of fakery and some of them are adept at what they do. So how can you tell? One place that you can consult is FINRA's BrokerCheck online service. This might be the first of many checks you should undertake. Who is FINRA, you might ask? \\\"\\\"The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is the largest independent regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States.\\\"\\\" See here. My unprofessional guess is, even if a firm's line of business is to broker deals in private company shares, that if they're located in the U.S. or else dealing in U.S. securities then they'd still need to be registered with FINRA – note the \\\"\\\"all securities firms\\\"\\\" above. I was able to search BrokerCheck and find SecondMarket (the firm @duffbeer703 mentioned) listed as \\\"\\\"Active\\\"\\\" in the FINRA database. The entry also provides some information about the firm. For instance, SecondMarket appears to also be registered with the S.E.C.. You should also note that SecondMarket links back to these authorities (refer to the footer of their site): \\\"\\\"Member FINRA | MSRB | SIPC. Registered with the SEC as an alternative trading system for trading in private company shares. SEC 606 Info [...]\\\"\\\" Any legitimate broker would want you to look them up with the authorities if you're unsure about their legitimacy. However, to undertake any such kind of deal, I'd still suggest more due diligence. An accredited investor with serious money to invest ought to, if they are not already experts themselves on these things, hire a professional who is expert to provide counsel, help navigate the system, and avoid the frauds.\\\"\",\n \"Sap just developed a fraud detection module for their ERP suite in conjuction with EY. It offers live fraud scanning so you can stop a flagged transaction before a transfer is carried out. I saw a presentation an it looks pretty powerfull although it is only in the early stages.\",\n \"You need to know your costs. Some are fixed. Review them. There are some expenses that are variable. Review the amount and if it is reasonable. Review your large orders. Are they increasing? Ask him how he thinks people will steal from the company. Did he see a large order and the customer will default?\",\n \"I would also consider unnecessarily complex investment strategies a big warning sign as they can easily hide poor investment advice or a bad strategy. This is especially the case when it comes to retail investment as complex strategies can have so many moving parts that you, as someone with a day job, can't spend enough time on it to keep an eye on everything and you only spot issues when it's too late. Other bugbears:\",\n \"If you see something that looks like a sales pitch, be skeptical, even if they sound informed, say things which resonate with your concerns and promise to alleviate your problems. Watch out in particular for people who pontificate about matters which are tangentially related to the investment (e.g. populist anti-Wall-Street sentiment). Beware limited-time opportunities, offers, and discounts. I'm specifically talking about your email pitches, Motley Fool. They're shameful. Remember you're allowed to change your mind and go back on something that you've said a few minutes ago. If anyone tries to trick you into agreeing to go along with them by taking what something you've said and manipulating it, or uses logic to demonstrate that you must buy something based on things you've said, tell them you're not comfortable, head for the door and don't look back. Don't be afraid of embarrassment or anything like that. (You can investigate whether your position is in fact logically consistent later.) Run away from anyone who resents or deprecates the notion of a second opinion. Don't ever go along with anything that seems shady: it may be shadier than you know. Some people thought Bernie Maddoff was doing some front-running on the side; turns out it was a Ponzi scheme. (Likewise the Ponzi scheme that devastated Albania's economy was widely suspected of being dirty, but people suspected more of a black-market angle.) Beware of anyone who is promising stability and protection. Insurance companies can sell you products (especially annuities) which can deliver it, but they're very expensive for what you get. Don't buy it unless you seriously need it.\",\n \"So, first -- good job on making a thorough checklist of things to look into. And onto your questions -- is this a worthwhile process? Even independent of specific investing goals, learning how to research is valuable. If you decided to forgo investing in stocks directly, and chose to only invest in index funds, the same type of research skills would be useful. (Not to mention that such discipline would come in handy in other fields as well.) What other 80/20 'low hanging fruit' knowledge have I missed? While it may not count as 'low hanging fruit', one thing that stands out to me is there's no mention of what competition a company has in its field. For example, a company may be doing well today, but you may see signs that it's consistently losing ground to its competition. While that alone may not dissuade you from investing, it may give you something to consider. Is what I've got so far any good? or am I totally missing the point. Your cheat sheet seems pretty good to me. But a lot depends on what your goals are. If you're doing this solely for your education and experience, I would say you've done well. If you're looking to invest in a company that is involved in a field you're passionate about, you're on the right track. But you should probably consider expanding your cheat sheet to include things that are not 'low hanging fruit' but still matter to you. However, I'd echo the comments that have already been made and suggest that if this is for retirement investments, take the skills you've developed in creating your cheat sheet and apply that work towards finding a set of index funds that meet your criteria. Otherwise happy hunting!\",\n \"First utilize a security screener to identify the security profiles you are looking to identify for identifying your target securities for shorting. Most online brokers have stock screeners that you can utilize. At this point you may want to look at your target list of securities to find out those that are eligible for shorting. The SHO thresold list is also a good place to look for securities that are hard to borrow to eliminate potential target securities. http://regsho.finra.org/regsho-Index.html Also your broker can let you know the stocks that are available for borrowing. You can then take your target securities and then you can look at the corporate filings on the SEC's Edgar site to look for the key words you are looking for. I would suggest that you utilize XBRL so you can electronically run your key word searched in an automated manner. I would further suggest that you can run the key word XBRL daily for issuer filings of your target list of securities. Additional word searches you may want to consider are those that could indicate a dilution of the companies stock such as the issuance of convertible debt. Also the below link detailing real short interest may be helpful. Clearing firms are required to report short interest every two weeks. http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/short-interest.aspx\",\n \"This study introduces XBRL-enhanced digit analysis as a possible new approach to identify firm-year observations suspect of having manipulated earnings. Based on all available XBRL 10-K filings submitted to the SEC between 2009 and 2012, we find that firms likely to have managed earnings exhibit a higher amount of abnormal digit frequencies compared to other firm-years. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2297355\",\n \"I look at the following ratios and how these ratios developed over time, for instance how did valuation come down in a recession, what was the trough multiple during the Lehman crisis in 2008, how did a recession or good economy affect profitability of the company. Valuation metrics: Enterprise value / EBIT (EBIT = operating income) Enterprise value / sales (for fast growing companies as their operating profit is expected to be realized later in time) and P/E Profitability: Operating margin, which is EBIT / sales Cashflow / sales Business model stability and news flow\",\n \"I look at the following ratios and how these ratios developed over time, for instance how did valuation come down in a recession, what was the trough multiple during the Lehman crisis in 2008, how did a recession or good economy affect profitability of the company. Valuation metrics: Enterprise value / EBIT (EBIT = operating income) Enterprise value / sales (for fast growing companies as their operating profit is expected to be realized later in time) and P/E Profitability: Operating margin, which is EBIT / sales Cashflow / sales Business model stability and news flow\",\n \"\\\"IMO, what it seems like you've done is nothing more than having screened out a company worth further investigation. The next step would be a thorough analysis of the company's past financials and current statements to arrive at your own opinion / forecast of the immediate and far future of the company's prospects. Typically, this is done by looking at the company's regulatory filings, and maybe some additional searching on comparison businesses. There are many sources of instruction for how one might \\\"\\\"value\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"analyze\\\"\\\" a company, or that provide help on \\\"\\\"reading a balance sheet\\\"\\\". (This is not an easy skill to learn, but it is one that will prove invaluable over a lifetime of investing.) It is possible that you'll uncover a deteriorating business where the latest selling, and subsequent drop in price that caused the high yield, is well-deserved. In which case, you know to stay away and move on to the next idea. On the other hand, you might end up confident that the company is not suffering from a drop in sales, rise in expenses, growing debt payments, loss of \\\"\\\"moat\\\"\\\", etc. In which case, you've found a great investment candidate. I say candidate because you still may decide this company isn't for you, even if the financials are right, because you might find better opportunities for an equal, or acceptable, return at lower risk while you're researching. As to the yield being high when there are no problems with the fundamentals of the business, this may simply be because of panic selling during this past few week's downturn, or some other sort of temporary and superficial scare. However, be warned that the masses can remain irrational, and thus the price stay suppressed or even drop further, for longer than you're willing to wait for your ROI. The good news is that in that case, you're being well compensated to wait at a 11+% yield!\\\"\",\n \"What this abbreviated balance sheet tells you is that this company has negative equity. The liabilities are greater than the value of the assets. The obvious problem for the company who wants to do business with you is that they are going to have a real hard time accessing credit to pay off any debts that they incur with doing business with you. In this case, the recommended course would be to ask them put cash up front instead of putting them on account. You don't really need to look at the income statement to see that they are currently underwater. If their income statement turns out to be splendid, then you can wait for them to get their liabilities under control before you set up an account for them.\",\n \"\\\"The following is only an overview and does not contain all of the in-depth reasons why you should look more deeply. When you look at a stock's financials in depth you are looking for warning signs. These may warn of many things but one important thing to look for is ratio and growth rate manipulation. Using several different accounting methods it is possible to make a final report reflect a PE ratio (or any other ratio) that is inconsistent with the realities of the company's position. Earnings manipulation (in the way that Enron in particular manipulated them) is more widespread than you might think as \\\"\\\"earnings smoothing\\\"\\\" is a common way of keeping earnings in line (or smooth) in a recession or a boom. The reason that PE ratio looks so good could well be because professional investors have avoided the stock as there appear to be \\\"\\\"interesting\\\"\\\" (but legal) accounting decisions that are of concern. Another issue that you don't consider is growth. earnings may look good in the current reporting period but may have been stagnant or falling when considered over multiple periods. The low price may indicate falling revenues, earnings and market share that you would not be aware of when taking only your criteria into account. Understanding a firm will also give you an insight into how future news might affect the company. If the company has a lot of debt and market interest rates rise or fall how will that effect their debt, if another company brings out a competing product next week how will it effect the company? How will it effect their bottom line? How much do they rely on a single product line? How likely is it that their flagship product will become obsolete? How would that effect the company? Looking deeply into a company's financial statements will allow you to see any issues in their accounting practices and give you a feel for how they are preforming over time, it will also let you look into their cost of capital and investment decisions. Looking deeply into their products, company structure and how news will effect them will give you an understanding of potential issues that could threaten your investment before they occur. When looking for value you shouldn't just look at part of the value of the company; you wouldn't just look at sales of a single T-shirt range at Wallmart when deciding whether to invest in them. It is exactly the same argument for why you should look at the whole of the company's state when choosing to invest rather than a few small metrics.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Be wary of pump and dump schemes. This scheme works like this: When you observe that \\\"\\\"From time to time the action explodes with 100 or 200% gains and volumes exceeding one million and it then back down to $ 0.02\\\"\\\", it appears that this scheme was performed repeatedly on this stock. When you see a company with a very, very low stock price which claims to have a very bright future, you should ask yourself why the stock is so low. There are professional stock brokers who have access to the same information you have, and much more. So why don't they buy that stock? Likely because they realize that the claims about the company are greatly exaggerated or even completely made up.\\\"\",\n \"Every listed company needs to maintain book of accounts, when you are investing in companies you would have to look at what is stated in the books and along with other info decide to invest in it.\",\n \"In addition to evaluating the business (great answer), consider the potential payoff. If bonds pay off in the 5-10% range, the S&P500 has averged 10.5%. You should be expecting a payoff of 15-20% to invest in something riskier than the stock market. That means that if you invest $10k, then in 5 years you'll need to get out $25K (20% returns over 5 years). If you get less than this much in 5 years, the risk-to-reward ratio probably rules this out as a good investment.\",\n \"He gets upset if I insist on bringing an extra person to help him out but then he complains about his work load and how he's running the company alone. Why complain if I offered him an assistant? I wish my boss would've offered me an assistant when I worked at companies. He refuses to take paid vacations. If he does take a vacation he'll tell me 2 to 3 weeks in advance. My red flag is he never ever takes a paid vacation. If he does take a paid vacation he plans it out a few weeks in advance. This is the perfect way to cover up anything.\",\n \"\\\"zPesk has a great answer about dividends generally, but to answer your question specifically about yield traps, here are a few things that I look for: As with everything, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is. A 17% yield is pretty out of this world, even for a REIT. And I wouldn't bet on it holding up. Compare a company's yield to that of others in the same industry (different industries have different \\\"\\\"standards\\\"\\\" for what is considered a high or low yield) Dividends have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is cash flow. Look at the company's financial statements. Do they have sufficient cash flow to pay the dividend? Have there been any recent changes in their cash flow situation? How are earnings holding up? Debt levels? Cash on hand? Sudden moves in stock price. A sudden drop in the stock price will cause the yield to rise. Sometimes this indicates a bargain, but if the drop is due to a real worry about the company's financial health (see #2) it's probably an indication that a dividend cut is coming. What does their dividend history look like? Do they have a consistent track record of paying out good dividends for years and years? Companies with a track record of paying dividends consistently and/or increasing their dividend regularly are likely to continue to do so.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Pump-and-Dump strategy is happening everywhere. Less so in developed market. I can tell an experience from Emerging Market perspective. Usually several securities brokers work together to pump several \\\"\\\"penny\\\"\\\" stocks (5 - 7 stocks). They conspire together and searching for several investors, who have money and willing to participate in this scheme. These investors will then agree to invest (usually with Margin from securities) to start pumping the stocks. The stocks will be pumped until several Research Analysts take interest in it. Once the news were spread out regarding these highly speculative stocks. The investors gradually dumps the stocks (with help of their brokers). The things that you need to keep an eye for: - Low trading volume in the previous 3 - 6 months (relative to their peers) - Low P/E ratio with unremarkable earning growth - No positive catalyst or material news regarding the company - Stocks have high momentum (observe on weekly rather daily returns) Pump-and-dump usually last between 3 months to 6 months.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"To expand on the above, go to the \\\"\\\"Investor Relations\\\"\\\" part of the website if they're public, and take a look at how they explain themselves to their shareholders. You'll learn a lot very quickly about everything you'd need for the interview.\\\"\",\n \"Here are the basic questions I usually ask any new business startup: Do these numbers/answers seem reasonable to you and is some benchmark available that allows you to see how likely this is? Remember, particularly in Internet-based advertising ventures, the client may be indirect. The person who clicks on a Google context-based link is not directly Google's client. The person who decided to host AdWords code on their site is the direct client. You're also going to want to see a Gant chart or some process chart indicating exactly what needs to be done, at what cost and by whom. Answers to these questions give a sense of not only how seriously they are taking the business, but also how organised. My final question: who is your first client? They need either someone who is going to contract the service, or have a clear indication of where income is going to come from, on their first day of trading. Their task is to sell their idea to you by proving that it will return on your investment and be profitable. From the strength of these answers you can gauge the value of your investment to them, how critical it is, how risky the opportunity and - ultimately - the stake and returns you should expect.\",\n \"* Absolutely agree with /u/IsAnAlpaca * You /must/ not agree to this without seeing his balance sheet. * That means assets and liabilities, but also ask for the last 12 months' cash flow * Inability or unwillingness to provide any of those things is a HUGE no-go red flag.\",\n \"@ Daniel Anderson shared interesting insights. In my research I learned a few things Some interesting data on fraud trends AFP Payments Fraud and Control Survey 2016 As a consumer, at the very least I'd improve awareness of I'd also learn about basic types of fraud And for the techies out there, I'd recommend learning about layered security (There's no way the customer service is going to talk about this)\",\n \"\\\"The hardest part seems to be knowing exactly when to sell the stock. Well yes, that's the problem with all stock investing. Reports come out all the time, sometimes even from very smart people with no motivation to lie, about expected earnings for this company, or for that industry. Whether those predictions come true is something you will only find out with time. What you are considering is using financial information available to you (and equally available to the public) to make investment choices. This is called 'fundamental analysis'; that is, the analysis of the fundamentals of a business and what it should be worth. It forms the basis of how many investment firms decide where to put their money. In a perfectly 'efficient' market, all information available to the public is immediately factored into the market price for that company's stock. ie: if a bank report states with absolute certainty (through leaked documents) that Coca-Cola is going to announce 10% revenue growth tomorrow, then everyone will immediately buy Coca-Cola stock today, and then tomorrow there would be no impact. Even if PwC is 100% accurate in its predictions, if the rest of the market agrees with them, then the price at the time of IPO would equal the future value of the cashflows, meaning there would be no gain unless results surpassed expectations. So what you are proposing is to take one sliver of the information available to the public (have you also read all publicly available reports on those businesses and their industries?), and using that to make a high risk investment. Are you going to do better than the investment firms that have teams of researchers and years of experience in the investment world? You can do quite well by picking individual stocks, but you can also lose a lot of money if you do it haphazardly. Be aware that there is risk in doing any type of investing. There is higher than average risk if you invest in equities ('the stock market'). There is higher risk still, if you pick individual stocks. There is yet even higher risk, if you pick small startup companies. There are some specific interesting side-elements with your proposal to purchase stock about to have an IPO - those are better dealt with in a separate question if you want more information; search this site for 'IPO' and you should find a good starting point. In short, the company about to go public will hire a firm of analysts who will try to calculate the best price the public will accept for an offering of shares. Stock often goes up after IPO, but not always. Sometimes the company doesn't even fill its full IPO order, adding a new type of risk to a potential investor, that the stock will drop on day 1. Consider an analogy outside the investing world: Let's say Auto Trader magazine prints an article that says \\\"\\\"all 2015 Honda Civics are worth $15,000 if they have less than 50,000 Miles.\\\"\\\" Assume you have no particular knowledge about cars. If you read this article, and you see an ad in the paper the next day for a Honda Civic with 40k miles, should you buy it for $14k? The answer is not without more research. And even if you determine enough about cars to find one for $14k that you can reasonably sell for $15k, there's a whole world of mechanics out there who buy and sell cars for a living, and they have an edge both because they can repair the cars themselves to sell for more, and also because they have experience to spot low-offers faster than you. And if you pick a clunker (or a stock that doesn't perform even when everyone expected it would), then you could lose some serious money. As with buying and selling individual stocks, there is money to be made from car trading, but that money gets made by people who really know what they're doing. People who go in without full information are the ones who lose money in the long run.\\\"\",\n \"Pump-and-dump scams are indeed very real, but the scale of a single scam isn't anywhere near the type of heist you see in movies like Trading Places. Usually, the scammer will buy a few hundred dollars of a penny stock for some obscure small business, then they'll spam every address they have with advice that this business is about to announce a huge breakthrough that will make it the next Microsoft. A few dozen people bite, buy up a few thousand shares each (remember the shares are trading for pennies), then when the rise in demand pushes up the price enough for the scammer to make a decent buck, he cashes out, the price falls based on the resulting glut of stock, and the victims lose their money. Thus a few red flags shake out that would-be investors should be wary of:\",\n \"In my experience, any kind of equity you may be offered by the company is just a carrot. Your offer may be written in such a way that your potential ownership represents, say, 1% of the company today. But if the company goes for a round of financing your ownership percentage can get diluted. If this happens a couple of times and the terms of financing aren't very favorable then your percentage can go from that 1% down to 0.001%, making the equity worthless. I've known people who heard their company was being bought and thought they might get some kind of payoff. Come to find out the company hadn't done all that well and there wasn't anything to pay out after the main investors got some money back. (The main investors took a loss.) For obvious reasons, management wasn't keeping the staff up to date about the fact that they were operating in the red and their options were worthless. Some people grumbled about lawyers and filing lawsuits, but at the end of the day, there wasn't any money to be won. Keep this in mind. As to your question regarding what to look out for:\",\n \"\\\"The recommendation is not to make the investment. In general, a company does not have to sell their shares to you or allow you to become an investor, because, as you have stated, it is a private company not quoted on the stock market. If everyone were trustworthy, you could buy the tools for $11000 -- so that you own the tools -- and sign a lease of the tools to the company whereby they pay you $X/month. The lease should be reviewed by a lawyer before it is signed, and perhaps give the buyer the right to demand back the tools at any time. However, even this arrangement is very risky, because the \\\"\\\"company\\\"\\\" could simply steal or damage the tools and disappear. It is not an investment that I would make, because it sounds too good to be true. $2800/mo steady cash flow for $11,000 invested. No, I don't think so. The following information may also be useful, either to you, or future readers: If you still want to make this investment, then you should know that: The offering for sale of shares by companies located in the USA is subject to a wild array of complex laws. This is true in many other countries as well. These laws, called securities laws or regulations, can require certain disclosures, require that investors have a high net worth so that they can afford to lose the money or conduct their own investigations and legal actions, or require that the investors know the company founders personally, and can prohibit or limit resale by the buyer/investor. Promoters who say you can still invest and are ignoring or disobeying the securities laws are being at least negligent, but more likely are dishonest and probably criminal. Even if you trust in the investment, can you trust negligent managers to do a good job executing that investment? What about dishonest managers? What about criminals and thieves?\\\"\",\n \"Just don't buy any kind of paper and you will be fine :-) And don't forget most of these 'blue-chip companies' sell marketing garbage which have no real market. Finally, make all decissions slooooowly and after extensive research.\",\n \"Good post - just to note to self to add my comments this weekend A couple thoughts that came to mind (sorry, was working on an idea this weekend): * When comparing companies, reviewing accounting policies in detail for any substantive differences. A notable example would be telecom companies who expense wireless subsidies vs. capitalizing them - obviously makes a large difference in a EBITDA-based * I always approach a company from a SOTP perspective... hidden assets or otherwise, many businesses have various segments, which if they can be reliably broken off, provide good insight into underlying op performance * If appropriate (i.e. will never be reinvested), tax-adjusting cash balances that are offshore * Cyclical industries, always compare on a mid-cycle basis * Dynamic schedules (i.e. at various prices) for dilutive instruments and proceeds thereof. For most large caps this is not relevant, but for certain industries it is much more popular (e.g. resource, tech)\",\n \"Financial health is typically assessed with 3 things. Balance Sheet Cash Flow Analysis Profit & Loss Statement That should give you a pretty solid view on where the business has been, where it is now, and where it is headed. You also want to see any specific contracts currently in-place. Things like leases for property or facilities or any long term customer contracts. I also often like to look at the last year's tax information. Pay attention to Retained Earnings, that'll tell you about the long term functioning of the business from a historical perspective. Source: Am M&A guy\",\n \"If your partner starts cheating you or you have a doubt on it, don’t go directly and blame him/her. Before taking such step, first start noticing your partner’s behavior and make full proof of that. You can also hire investing agencies that help you in partner background checks.\",\n \"Also keep note - some companies have a combined CEO/Chairman of the board role. While he/she would not be allowed to negotiate contracts or stock plans, some corporate governance analysts advocate for the separation of the roles to remove any opportunity for the CEO to unduly influence the board. This could be the case for dysfunctional boards. However, the alternate camps will say that the combined role has no negative effect on shareholder returns. SEC regulations require companies to disclose negotiations between the board and CEO (as well as other named executives) for contracts, employee stock plans, and related information. Sometimes reading the proxy statement to find out, for example, how many times the board meets a year, how many other boards a director serves on, and if the CEO sits on any other board (usually discouraged to serve on more than 2) will provide some insight into a well-run (or not well-run) board.\",\n \"I'd start with learning how to read a company's financial statement and their annual report. I would recommend reading the following: All three books are cheap and readily available. If you really want to enhance your learning, grab a few annual reports from companies' websites to reference as you learn about different aspects of the financial statements.\",\n \"I don't see balance sheet in what you're looking at, and I'd definitely suggest learning how to read a balance sheet and looking at it, if you're going to buy stock in a company, unless you know that the recommendations you're buying on are already doing that and you're willing to take that risk. Also, reading past balance sheets and statements can give you an idea about how accurate the company is with their predictions, or if they have a history of financial integrity. Now, if you're going the model portfolio route, which has become popular, the assumption that many of these stock buyers are making is that someone else is doing that for them. I am not saying that this assumption is valid, just one that I've seen; you will definitely find a lot of skeptics, and rightly so, about model portfolios. Likewise, people who trade based on what [Person X] does (like Warren Buffett or David Einhorn) are assuming that they're doing the research. The downside to this is if you follow someone like this. Yeah, oops. I should also point out that technical analysis, especially high probability TA, generally only looks at history. Most would define it as high risk and there are many underlying assumptions with reading the price movements by high probability TA types.\",\n \"So you think there is a business that can take $X and in two weeks turn it into $10X plus their profit. That means that in two weeks you can turn $1,000 into $10,000. So every two weeks you add a zero, in six weeks you add 3 zeros. In 12 weeks total your $1,000 is now $1,000,000,000; and in a few weeks after that you are richer than Bill Gates. All Guaranteed! Run away.\",\n \"\\\"First paragraph is very true. But you also have to take into consideration that the adviser and the company are 2 different \\\"\\\"things\\\"\\\" to look into. For the adviser, quickest and easiest way is to do a Facebook search. The point of this is to see how transparent they are with their personal life. Even companies are now relying on Facebook to see how they \\\"\\\"really\\\"\\\" are. I wouldn't care if the person has lots of photos with booze and girls, but I would be concerned if they are using FB for spamming purposes, have pictures with drugs, or hints that they don't like their job and want to move on to something else. Second paragraph is spot on as well. But I would rather want to know if the company cold calls or not... which leads in to your last statement. For one adviser, more than 100 clients is a red flag. This could mean that they push savings plans left and right, they don't contact their current clients, and/or they may not have the ability to assist clients should they get many queries. A few good questions to ask: 1. How do you make your salary? 2. Besides this plan you are selling me, what other types of products do you work with and show me several examples? 3. How many other advisers are in your firm? 4. How many clients does your colleagues and boss have? 5. How often do you cold call? 6. Who else cold calls in your office? 7. How does your company get new clients OTHER than referrals? Go interrogation style and ask the above questions several times using different phrases.\\\"\",\n \"The Art of Short Selling by Kathryn Stanley providers for many case studies about what kind of opportunities to look for from a fundamental analysis perspective. Typically things you can look for are financing terms that are not very favorable (expensive interest payments) as well as other constrictions on cash flow, arbitrary decisions by management (poor management), and dilution that doesn't make sense (usually another product of poor management). From a quantitative analysis perspective, you can gain insight by looking at the credit default swap rate history, if the company is listed in that market. The things that affect a CDS spread are different than what immediately affects share prices. Some market participants trade DOOMs over Credit Default Swaps, when they are betting on a company's insolvency. But looking at large trades in the options market isn't indicative of anything on its own, but you can use that information to help confirm your opinion. You can certainly jump on a trend using bad headlines, but typically by the time it is headline news, the majority of the downward move in the share price has already happened, or the stock opened lower because the news came outside of market hours. You have to factor in the short interest of the company, if the short interest is high then it will be very easy to squeeze the shorts resulting in a rally of share prices, the opposite of what you want. A short squeeze doesn't change the fundamental or quantitative reasons you wanted to short. The technical analysis should only be used to help you decide your entry and exit price ranges amongst an otherwise random walk. The technical rules you created sound like something a very basic program or stock screener might be able to follow, but it doesn't tell you anything, you will have to do research in the company's public filings yourself.\",\n \"You need to look at the financial statements, talking to the executives, and have some sort of discussion about price. Then you would have to do due-diligence to make sure that they are not hiding stuff. Bear in mind, the company isn't going to go through all of this unless you can convince them that you have the means to complete the transaction.\",\n \"A cautionary tale: About 25 years ago I decided that I should try my hand at investing in some technology companies. I was in the computer biz but decided that I might suffer from myopia there, so I researched some medical startups. And I did some reasonably good research, given the available resources (the Internet was quite primitive). I narrowed things down to 4-5 companies, studying their technology plans, then researched their business plans and their personnel. In the end I picked a drug company. Not only did it have a promising business plan, but it had as it's CEO a hotshot from some other company, and the BOD was populated buy big names from tech companies and the like. AND the company had like $2 of cash for every $1 of outstanding share value, following their recent IPO. So I sold a bit of stock I had in my employer and bought like $3000 worth of this company. Then, taking the advice I'd seen several places, I forgot about it for about 6 months. When I went back to look their stock value had dropped a little, and the cash reserves were down about 20%. I wasn't too worried. 6 months later the cash was down 50%. Worrying a little. After I'd had the stock for about 2 years the stock price was about 10% of what I'd paid. Hardly worth selling, so I hung on for awhile longer. The company was eventually sold to some other company and I got maybe $50 in stock in the new company.\",\n \"Great answers. Here's my two cents: First, don't forget to look at the overall picture, not just the dividend. Study the company's income statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement for the last few years. Make sure they have good earnings potential, and are not carrying too much debt. I know it's dull, but it's better to miss an opportunity than to buy a turkey and watch the dividends and the share price tank. I went through this with BAC (Bank of America) a couple of years ago. They had a 38-year history of rising dividends when I bought them, and the yield was about 8%. Then the banking crisis happened and the dividend went from $2.56/share to $0.04, and the price fell from $40 to $5. (I stuck with it, continuing to buy at lower and lower prices, and eventually sold them all at $12 and managed to break even, but it was not a pleasant experience) Do your homework. :) Still, one of the most reliable ways to judge a company's dividend-paying ability is to look at its dividend history. Once a company has started paying a dividend there is a strong expectation from shareholders that these payments will continue, and the company's management will try very hard to maintain them. (Though sometimes this doesn't work out, e.g. BAC) You should see an uninterrupted stream of non-decreasing payments over a period of at least 5 years (this timeframe is just a rule of thumb). Well-established, profitable companies also tend to increase their dividends over time, which has the added benefit of pushing up their share price. So you're getting increasing dividends and capital gains. Next, look at the company's payout ratio over time, and the actual cost of the dividend. Can the projected earnings cover the dividend cost without going above the payout ratio? If not, then the dividend is likely to get reduced. In the case of CIM, the dividend history is short and erratic. The earnings are also all over the place, so it's hard to predict what will happen next year. The company is up to its eyeballs debt (current ratio is .2), and its earnings have dropped by 20% in the last quarter. They have lost money in two of the last three years, even though earning have jumped dramatically. This is a very young company, and in my opinion it is too early for them to be paying dividends. A very speculative stock, and you are more likely to make money from capital gains than dividends. AAE is a different story. They are profitable, and have a long dividend history, although the dividend was cut in half recently. This may be a good to buy them hoping the dividend comes back once the economy recovers. However, they are trading at over 40 times earnings, which seems expensive, considering their low profit margins. Before investing your money, invest in your education. :) Get some books on interpretation of financial staments, and learn how to read the numbers. It's sort of like looking at the codes in The Matrix, and seeing the blonde in the red dress (or whatever it was). Good luck!\",\n \"\\\"Let's say you see a café. You're looking to buy a café so you walk into one and ask the manager how much profit he makes in a year. He says $N and you walk out and think to yourself, \\\"\\\"I'd be willing to pay $500,000 for this café.\\\"\\\" You arrange to meet again to discuss purchasing the business (and he's looking for someone to purchase it). You go into the store again the following day and the manager says, \\\"\\\"Sorry, I told you we make $N. I've checked the numbers and it's actually only $0.8N (20% lower than what you thought).\\\"\\\" Are you still willing to buy the café for $500,000 as well? No, of course you're not. I think that this is a sufficient analogy to public companies.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Don't do this if haven't talked about investments and don't learn quickly. Don't do this if you don't like cold calling. Don't do this if they want you to pump and dump. Don't do this if you don't think you can convince gamblers to invest with you. Don't do this if you have a better opportunity. I checked their website. Maybe double check with FINRA and SIPC to see that they're really members if you're really skeptical and you're still interested. Just dial and keep asking until you get a better answer than \\\"\\\"If they say so then yes.\\\"\\\" Oh, and don't do this if they're giving you a shitty deal on commissions. Ask for a tour of the premises too.\\\"\",\n \"Ask for at least 10 references. Ask for 10 because it will be harder for them to refer you to ringer references like their family or friends.\",\n \"From what you have written, it could be a boiler room company. These operate with fancy website and have proper book keeping systems but are elaborate scams. How did you find about this broker. If there was a seller when you purchased the shares, there is no reason you can't be seller\",\n \"If you're researching a publicly traded company in the USA, you can search the company filings with the SEC. Clicking 'Filings' should take you here.\",\n \"Reading and analyzing financial statements is one of the most important tasks of Equity Analysts which look at a company from a fundamental perspective. However, analyzing a company and its financial statements is much more than just reading the absolute dollar figures provided in financial statements: You need to calculate financial ratios which can be compared over multiple periods and companies to be able to gauge the development of a company over time and compare it to its competitors. For instance, for an Equity Analyst, the absolute dollar figures of a company's operating profit is less important than the ratio of the operating profit to revenue, which is called the operating margin. Another very important figure is Free Cash Flow which can be set in relation to sales (= Free Cash Flow / Sales). The following working capital related metrics can be used as a health check for a company and give you early warning signs when they deviate too much: You can either calculate those metrics yourself using a spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) or use a professional solution, e.g. Bloomberg Professional, Reuters Eikon or WorldCap.\",\n \"If anyone offers you guaranteed better than average returns, run. They are either lying to you or to themselves. (Claiming that they will try to beat the market is more credible, but that becomes a matter of whether there is any reason to believe that they'll succeed.) If anyone sends you an unsolicited stock tip, run. They wouldn't be doing so if it wasn't an attempt to manipulate you or the market or both. Most likely its a pump-and-dump attempt.\",\n \"I use 10-K and 10-Qs to understand to read the disclosed risk factors related to a business. Sometimes they are very comical. But when you see that risk factor materializing you can understand how it will effect the company. For example, one microlending company's risk factor stated that if Elizabeth Warren becomes head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau we will have a hard time... so we are expanding in Mexico and taking our politically unfavorable lending practices there. I like seeing how many authorized shares there are or if there are plans to issue more. An example was where I heard from former employees of a company how gullible the other employees at that company were and how they all thought they were going to get rich or were being told so by upper management. Poor/Quirky/Questionable/Misleading management is one of my favorite things to look for in a company so I started digging into their SEC filings and saw that they were going to do a reverse split which would make the share prices trade higher (while experiencing no change in market cap), but then digging further I saw that they were only changing the already issued shares, but keeping the authorized shares at the much larger amount of shares, and that they planned to do financing by issuing more of the authorized shares. I exclaimed that this would mean the share prices would drop by 90%-99% after the reverse split and you mean to tell me that nobody realizes this (employees or the broad market). I was almost tempted to stand outside their office and ask employees if I could borrow their shares to short, because there wasn't enough liquidity on the stock market! This was almost the perfect short but it wasn't liquid or have any options so not perfect after all. It traded from $20 after the reverse split to $1.27 I like understanding how much debt a company is in and the structure of that debt, like if a loan shark has large payments coming up soon. This is generally what I use those particular forms for. But they contain a lot of information A lot of companies are able to act they way they do because people do not read.\",\n \"You need to understand the business and the books as an owner do it for your parents also the manager could be the issue but it could a lot of things I’d like to see the quarterlies for the last 3 Years and a few other things like monthly statements payrolls some accounts etc... to do the math. it could be a partner? The only way to know this is to follow the paper trail.\",\n \"If you don't have a good knowledge of finance, maybe you should not put too much money in individual stocks. But if you really want to invest, you can just compare the rate of return of the most known stocks available to you (like the one from the S&P for the US). The rate of return is very simple to compute, it's 100*dividend/share price. For example a company with a current share price of 50.12 USD that delivered a dividend of 1.26 USD last year would have a rate of return of 100 * 1.26/50.12= 2.51% Now if you only invest in the most known stocks, since they are already covered by nearly all financial institutions and analysts: If you are looking for lower risk dividend companies, take a sample of companies and invest those with the lowest rates of return (but avoid extreme values). Of course since the stock prices are changing all the time, you have to compare them with a price taken at the same time (like the closing price of a specific day) and for the dividend, they can be on several basis (yearly, quartely, etc..) so you have to be sure to take the same basis. You can also find the P/E ratio which is the opposite indicator (= share price/dividend) so an higher P/E ratio means a lower risk. Most of the time you can find the P/E ratio or the rate of return already computed on specialized website or brokers.\",\n \"I recall at the time that people on investment boards were circulating lists of companies audited by AA, as a - quite reliable - indication that they were fraudulent. I have had a lot of dealings with their offshoot AA Consulting, now known as Accenture. These dealings have not, to put it mildly, given me any reason to think that AA's culture was very ethical. And if you cannot trust an auditor, they are worthless.\",\n \"Both Scottrade and ING Direct (CapitalOne) have physical branches. Scottrade are wide-spread, ING/CapitalOne are less common (in California where I live, I have a bunch of Scottrade branches around where I live, but the only ING presence I know of is in LA on Sepulveda at Santa Monica). So one way to verify the company is legit is to go to their physical location and talk to the people there. Similarly, you can find physical locations in major metropolitan areas for many other web-based discount brokers. In my area (SF Bay Area) we have Scottrade, ETrade, Fidelity, TD Ameritrade, and that's just those I've actually seen with my own eyes. You can just walk in and talk to the people there about their options and their web operations. It is hard and unlikely for a sting operation to set up a web of brick-and-mortar offices across the nation. Even Madoff had only one or two offices. Of course I totally agree with Chris's answer, especially with regards to the SSL certificates' verification and spoofing and phishing avoidance.\",\n \"\\\"Investing in a business can be daunting and risky, so it is not for everyone. The most common pitfalls are mentioned here: Beyond that: It all sounds a bit like \\\"\\\"Don't trust anyone\\\"\\\" and sadly, this is true when there's a lot of money involved. So be prepared and do your homework, this sometimes will save you more money than you gain with your investments :) Good luck!\\\"\",\n \"To evaluate any advice, this lists some of the things to consider: There are good advisors out there. There are also Bernie Madoffs who give the entire industry a black eye. In the end, the best path is to educate yourself, read as much as you can before you invest. Better to lose a bit by staying out of the market than to lose it all by getting scammed.\",\n \"I can't address the psychology of trust involved in your question, but here are some common sense guidelines for dealing with your issue. Make sure you know who you are talking to. Call the company you need to speak to via a publicly available phone number. An email or something you got in a letter might be from a different source. If you use a website, you should be sure you are on the correct website. Keep careful records. Make good notes of each phone call and keep all emails and letters forever. Note the time, name and/or ID of the person you spoke to and numbers called in addition to keeping notes on what actions should be done. Keep your faxing transmission receipts and shipping tracking numbers too. If you are nervous, ask them why they want the info. The fraud department should be able to explain it to you. For example, they probably want your social because that is how your credit report is identified. If they are going to fix a credit report, they will need a social. It is doubtful they would have a good explanation why they need your mother's maiden name. Ask for secure transmission, or confirm they have it. Postal mail isn't so secure, but I'll go out on a limb and say most fax machines today are not really fax machines, but software that deals in PDFs. At some point you will have to realize you will have to transmit something. No method is perfect, but you can limit your exposure. Help them do their jobs. If you are (understandably) nervous, consider their motivations: corporate profit. BUT that could very well mean not running afoul of the law and (with any luck) treating customers the best way they know to earn business. If you stymy the fraud department, how can they help you? If the ID theft was serious enough, document your issue for future law enforcement so you getting pulled over for speeding doesn't result in you going to jail for whatever crime the other person did. Perhaps the fraud department you are dealing with can assist there. Finally, while you work with fraud departments to clear up your name and account, work on the other end to limit future damage. Freeze your credit. See if you bank or credit card have monitoring. Use CreditKarma.com or a similar if you cannot find a free service. (Please don't ever pay for credit monitoring.)\",\n \"A true story, from a friend's company, one of the largest electronics company in the world. The company decided that if the difference is less than $25,000, then ignore it. And went on to fire many people in accounting. Six months later on, one old-timer found many many reports that show less than $25,000 difference. Do you understand what happened here?\",\n \"\\\"You are probably going to hate my answer, but... If there was an easy way to ID stocks like FB that were going to do what FB did, then those stocks wouldn't exist and do that because they would be priced higher at the IPO. The fact is there is always some doubt, no one knows the future, and sometimes value only becomes clear with time. Everyone wants to buy a stock before it rises right? It will only be worth a rise if it makes more profit though, and once it is established as making more profit the price will be already up, because why wouldn't it be? That means to buy a real winner you have to buy before it is completely obvious to everyone that it is going to make more profit in the future, and that means stock prices trade at speculative prices, based on expected future performance, not current or past performance. Now I'm not saying past and future performance has nothing in common, but there is a reason that a thousand financially oriented websites quote a disclaimer like \\\"\\\"past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance\\\"\\\". Now maybe this is sort of obvious, but looking at your image, excluding things like market capital that you've not restricted, the PE ratio is based on CURRENT price and PAST earnings, the dividend yield is based on PAST publications of what the dividend will be and CURRENT price, the price to book is based on PAST publication of the company balance sheet and CURRENT price, the EPS is based on PAST earnings and the published number of shares, and the ROI and net profit margin in based on published PAST profits and earnings and costs and number of shares. So it must be understood that every criteria chosen is PAST data that analysts have been looking at for a lot longer than you have with a lot more additional information and experience with it. The only information that is even CURRENT is the price. Thus, my ultimate conclusive point is, you can't based your stock picks on criteria like this because it's based on past information and current stock price, and the current stock price is based on the markets opinion of relative future performance. The only way to make a good stock pick is understand the business, understand its market, and possibly understand world economics as it pertains to that market and business. You can use various criteria as an initial filter to find companies and investigate them, but which criteria you use is entirely your preference. You might invest only in profitable companies (ones that make money and probably pay regular dividends), thus excluding something like an oil exploration company, which will just lose money, and lose it, and lose some more, forever... unless it hits the jackpot, in which case you might suddenly find yourself sitting on a huge profit. It's a question of risk and preference. Regarding your concern for false data. Google defines the Return on investment (TTM) (%) as: Trailing twelve month Income after taxes divided by the average (Total Long-Term Debt + Long-Term Liabilities + Shareholders Equity), expressed as a percentage. If you really think they have it wrong you could contact them, but it's probably correct for whatever past data or last annual financial results it's based on.\\\"\",\n \"The best source of financial statements would be from the company in question. On corporate websites of public listed companies, you can find such financial statements uploaded in the Investor's Relations section of their website. If their company does not have an online presence, another alternative would be to go to the website of the exchange the company is trading in (e.g. NYSE or NASDAQ) for financial data.\",\n \"Sales are useless. Profit determines value. Others made good suggestions, but make sure you don't personally guarantee anthing. Understand your requirements to continue having the investor involved. Understand who has approval authority and decision making authority, ie are you a hired gun or the managing owner? Finally, probability of success is low, so do your homework, bust your ass, and understand when you will wall away (ie if you aren't profitable in 3 years, or below $500k in rev, etc)\",\n \"The three places you want to focus on are the income statement, the balance sheet, and cash flow statement. The standard measure for multiple of income is the P/E or price earnings ratio For the balance sheet, the debt to equity or debt to capital (debt+equity) ratio. For cash generation, price to cash flow, or price to free cash flow. (The lower the better, all other things being equal, for all three ratios.)\",\n \"First and foremost, I would warn about having to shell out your own money for start-up, inventory, or other sunk costs. If I have to significant amounts of goods and stockpile them, that would be a warning. Some goods-based MLM have significant start-up costs. Along with this - how realistic are your time expectations. Is this to be a part-time occasional endeavor - or your full-time occupation? Do you know enough people that you believe you can recruit, as it is the pyramid that makes you the money, not the goods themselves. Secondly, market research. Companies that I would consider real franchise-like companies generally either have, or demand you do, significant market research in an area before you start. They don't want the good name of their company tarnished by having a venue close down. MLM generally don't care as much (generalization). Similarly, are there others in the same neighborhood/town already in the scheme? If so, and depending on the size of your community, many of your potential target recruits may already either be in the scheme, or already scared/annoyed. Third, and last for my list are any kind of pressure tactics. Again - franchisee companies and their ilk generally want a long-term relationship with the right people - not just more and more people as part of the pyramid. MLM and the like tend to want expand at all costs.\",\n \"Try to find the P/E ratio of the Company and then Multiply it with last E.P.S, this calculation gives the Fundamental Value of the share, anything higher than this Value is not acceptable and Vice versa.\",\n \"Do a common size analysis to compare to its competitors. Also run a rqtio analysis to the industry. Explain the commonalities and differences as it pertains to the business. A lot of big banks publish research on public companies and where they're headed in terms of financials. They are usually published for a fee but you can sometimes find them for free online. It would be useful to talk about the current financial landscape like yellen, rate hikes etc if you wanna go there.\",\n \"Firstly, call up the company and speak to them over the phone. The right questions must be asked as this will make great difference. Questions are important because you would be able to get every possible information, so that you take the right decision.\",\n \"\\\"(I answered a similar question before.) Essentially, you shouldn't trust a site you find on the Internet merely because it looks professional and real. Before signing up with any new service provider you found online, you should verify the authenticity of both the organization itself and their web site address. Even if the name displayed by a web site represents a legitimate brokerage firm, any site you happen to come across on the Internet could be an elaborate spoof of a real company, intended to capture your personal details (or worse). First, to check if a brokerage firm is in fact registered to trade securities – in the United States – you can consult FINRA's BrokerCheck online service. This might be the first of many checks you should undertake ... after you convince yourself that FINRA is legitimate. A meta-problem ;-) Then, if you want to know if the web site address is authentic, one way is to contact that broker offline using the contact information found from a trusted source, such as the FINRA BrokerCheck details. Unfortunately, those details do not currently appear to contain the broker's web site URL. (Else, that could be useful.) Another thing to look at is the site's login or sign-up page, for a valid SSL certificate that is both issued to the correct legal name of the brokerage firm as well as has been signed by a well-known certificate authority (e.g. VeriSign). For a financial services firm of any kind, you should look for and expect to see an Extended Validation Certificate. Any other kind of certificate might only assert that the certificate was issued to the domain-name owner, and not necessarily to an organization with the registered legal name. (Yes, anybody can register a domain with a similar name and then acquire a basic SSL certificate for that domain.) FWIW, Scottrade and ShareBuilder are both legitimate brokers (I was aware already of each, but I also just checked in the FINRA tool), and the URLs currently linked to by the question are legitimate web site addresses for each. Also, you can see their EV certificates in action on secured pages here and here. As to whether your investments with those brokers would be \\\"\\\"safe\\\"\\\" in the event of the broker failing (e.g. goes bankrupt), you'll want to know that they are members of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (Wikipedia). (Of course, this kind of protection doesn't protect you if your investments simply go down in value.) But do your own due diligence – always.\\\"\",\n \"I've never understood why the auditing procedure is privatized in the first-place. The conflicts of interest seem much too inevitable. Shouldn't the SEC or some other governing body perform the audits? If an accounting firm's bottom-line is profit and not objective analysis, how can we expect it to not to ignore things here and there if it is good for business?\",\n \"If you do your homework on the front end, so can find reliable, quality suppliers. You can avoid scams and fraud. And you can then avoid the path of last resort, the Alibaba Fair Play Fund. And the Fair Play Fund is not a bad thing - it helps compensate users who have lost money - but avoiding it is critical.\",\n \"Mostly we invest in companies to make money. The money can be paid to as in the form of dividends that are a share of the profit. Or the company can convince enough people that it will make a lot higher profit next year, so its stock prices increases. Clearly a company that reinvests its 20% profit from one shop to open an 2nd shop is doing well and is a good investment. But, But, But... we only have the companies word for it! A dividend paying company finds it a lot harder to hide bad news for long, as it will not have the money in the bank to pay the dividends.\",\n \"for buying: High PE, low debt, discount = win. a company with high debt (in relation to revenues and cash on hand) will have to pay interest and pay off the debt, stunting their growth. and just like a normal person, will barely be able to pay their bills and keep borrowing and might go bankrupt determining discount is just looking for a technical retracement to a support level or lower. (but if you dont enter at the support level, you most likely missed the best entry)\",\n \"On first glance it sounds to good to be true. From what I understand bridge loans are for people waiting on other loans. In this case I would presume a housing developer would take this loan if something were to go wrong and their first choice of funding went wrong. Not anything wrong with that in and of itself but the coupon is way, way too big not to draw attention. Examine the financial statements of the credit institutions and the companies they're giving credit to would be the only solution. The terms of the bond should be dictated by all information available, therefore if the return is this lucrative then there must be a large degree of risk associated with it.\",\n \"\\\"Well, everyone knows that a lot of funds have a strict policy to own a market-cap based part of shares from all listed companies above a certain threshold. Now, if I would go and inflate my share price and market cap, they would be forced to buy in; you can argue that this is \\\"\\\"just exploiting a weakness of the market\\\"\\\", but for me that's simply fraud.\\\"\",\n \"You can use the Securities Exchange Commission's EDGAR search engine to search all available SEC related filings. https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html Top tip: use the fast search on the right to search for the company ticker rather than by company name.\",\n \"\\\"This is several questions wrapped together: How can I diplomatically see the company's financial information? How strong a claim does a stockholder or warrantholder have to see the company's financials? What information do I need to know about the company financials before deciding to buy in? I'll start with the easier second question (which is quasi implicit). Stockholders typically have inspection rights. For example, Delaware General Corporate Law § 220 gives stockholders the right to inspect and copy company financial information, subject to certain restrictions. Check the laws and corporate code of your company's state of incorporation to find the specific inspection right. If it is an LLC or partnership, then the operating agreement usually controls and there may be no inspection rights. If you have no corporate stock, then of course you have no statutory inspection rights. My (admittedly incomplete) understanding is that warrantholders generally have no inspection rights unless somehow contracted for. So if you vest as a corporate stockholder, it'll be your right to see the financials—which may make even a small purchase valuable to you as a continuing employee with the right to see the financials. Until then, this is probably a courtesy and not their obligation. The first question is not easy to answer, except to say that it's variable and highly personal for small companies. Some people interpret it as prying or accusatory, the implication being that the founders are either hiding something or that you need to examine really closely the mouth of their beautiful gift horse. Other people may be much cooler about the question, understanding that small companies are risky and you're being methodical. And in some smaller companies, they may believe giving you the expenses could make office life awkward. If you approach it professionally, directly, and briefly (do not over-explain yourself) with the responsible accountant or HR person (if any), then I imagine it should not be a problem for them to give some information. Conversely, you may feel comfortable enough to review a high-level summary sheet with a founder, or to find some other way of tactfully reviewing the right information. In any case, I would keep the request vague, simple, and direct, and see what information they show you. If your request is too specific, then you risk pushing them to show information A, which they refuse to do, but a vague request would've prompted them to show you information B. A too-specific request might get you information X when a vague request could have garnered XYZ. Vague requests are also less aggressive and may raise fewer objections. The third question is difficult to say. My personal understanding is some perspective of how venture capitalists look at the investment opportunity (you didn't say how new this startup is or what series/stage they are on, so I'll try to stay vague). The actual financials are less relevant for startups than they are for other investments because the situation will definitely change. Most venture capital firms like to look at the burn rate or amount of cash spent, usually at a monthly rate. A high burn rate relative to infusions of cash suggests the company is growing rapidly but may have a risk of toppling (i.e. failing before exit). Burn rate can change drastically during the early life of the startup. Of course burn rate needs the context of revenues and reserves (and latest valuation is helpful as a benchmark, but you may be able to calculate that from the restricted share offer made to you). High burn rate might not be bad, if the company is booming along towards a successful exit. You might also want to look at some sort of business plan or info sheet, rather than financials alone. You want to gauge the size of the market (most startups like to claim 9- or 10-figure markets, so even a few percentage points of market share will hit revenue into the 8-figures). You'll also have to have a sense for the business plan and model and whether it's a good investment or a ridiculous rehash (\\\"\\\"it's Twitter for dogs meets Match.com for Russian Orthodox singles!\\\"\\\"). In other words, appraise it like an investor or VC and figure out whether it's a prospect for decent return. Typical things like competition, customer acquisition costs, manufacturing costs are relevant depending on the type of business activity. Of course, I wouldn't ignore psychology (note that economists and finance people don't generally condone the following sort of emotional thinking). If you don't invest in the company and it goes big, you'll kick yourself. If it goes really big, other people will either assume you are rich or feel sad for you if you say you didn't get rich. If you invest but lose money, it may not be so painful as not investing and losing out the opportunity. So if you consider the emotional aspect of personal finance, it may be wise to invest at least a little, and hedge against \\\"\\\"woulda-shoulda\\\"\\\" syndrome. That's more like emotional advice than hard-nosed financial advice. So much of the answer really depends on your particular circumstances. Obviously you have other considerations like whether you can afford the investment, which will be on you to decide. And of course, the § 83(b) election is almost always recommended in these situations (which seems to be what you are saying) to convert ordinary income into capital gain. You may also need cash to pay any up-front taxes on the § 83(b) equity, depending on your circumstances.\\\"\",\n \"lol- yeah, I know how banks work. My point is EVERY transaction should be recorded somewhere. Banks have both internal and external auditors who's only job it is to monitor the transactions to make sure everything adds up. It just doesn't make sense that the CEO of the company would have so little idea of what is going on. Shades of Enron to me.\",\n \"I think in such situations a good rule of thumb may be - if you are asked to pay significant sums of money upfront before anything is done, stop and ask yourself, what would you do if they don't do what they promised? They know who you are, but usually most you know is a company name and phone number. Both can disappear in a minute and what are you left with? If they said they'd pay off the debt and issue the new loan - fine, let them do it and then you pay them. If they insist on having money upfront without delivering anything - unless it's a very big and known and established company you probably better off not doing it. Either it's a scam or in the minuscule chance they are legit you still risking too much - you're giving money and not getting anything in return.\",\n \"If anyone could reliably pick winners, they could make more money by investing in those winners than by selling their advice. Generally, when someone sends you unsolicited hype about stocks, that's because they're trying to pump the price up so they can dump their own shares before it collapses again. Also note that, these days, it's remarkably easy to run the scam where you sell half your customers buy advice and the other half sell advice on the same stock. Each time, some of the customers drop out in disgust (half, minus whoever decides to give you another chance) and the rest pay you for the next iteration. You can make a lot of money before you run out of suckers. That, all by itself, is good reason to be skeptical about anyone who doesn't publish their full history so it can be audited for such shenanigans.\",\n \"\\\"In general, if you think something even MIGHT be a scam, the answer is\\\"\\\"yes\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"In the case of an investment strategy, if you don't retain custodianship over your funds, or at least determine who is the custodian, then walk away. You should be able to get accurate account statements from a trustworthy third party at all times.\",\n \"Promotion of any stock should be treated with extreme suspicion, since the purpose is generally to make money for the promoter, not to inform the public.\",\n \"\\\"For this to work, those who control the dilution must also control their salaries because the only way for them to be paid off when it's the corporation itself selling is to gain access to the proceeds. When a corporation sells newly issued equity, the corporation itself owns the money. To at least have the appearance of propriety, the scammers must be paid those proceeds. Both actions imply that the board is captured by the scammers. There are many corporations that seem to do this even with persistently large market capitalizations. The key difference between this and pump-and-dump is that its a fraudulent group of investors selling in this case instead of the corporation itself. A detailed simple example Corporations are mandated by law to be little oligarchies; although, \\\"\\\"republic\\\"\\\" is now becoming more appropriate with all of the new shareholder rights. A corporation is controlled at root by the board of directors who are elected by the shareholders. The board has no direct operational control, as that is left to the \\\"\\\"king\\\"\\\", the CEO; however, the board does control what everyone wants access to: the money. Board members have all sorts of legal qualitative mandates on how to behave, and they've functioned fairly decently efficiently over the long run, but there are definitely some bad apples. Boards are somewhat intransigent since it's difficult to hold board elections, and usually only specific board members are put up for election by a shareholder vote, so a bad one has the potential to really get stuck in there. Once a bad one is in there, they don't care because they know it will be tough to get them out, so they run roughshod over the company's purse. Only the board can take action on major funding such as the CEO's operating budget, board compensation, financing, investment, etc, some with shareholder approval, some without. The corporation itself owns all of those assets, but the board controls them. In this example, they scheme with most likely the top executive, but a rubber stamp top executive could allow a lower rung to scheme with the board, but the board is always constant until the law is changed. Because there's no honor amongst thieves, the board votes which can require some combination of executive and shareholder approval are taken very close together: sell shares, increase salaries to key executive schemers, increase board compensation. The trusting shareholders believe this is in the best interests of the company at large so go along. So the money flows from existing & new shareholders to the corporation now controlled by a malicious board and then finally to the necessary malicious executive and the vital malicious board.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"1. Most of the information you want can be found in the annual report of the company. Go to their official website, look for shareholders information and then download the annual report. This will answer: \\\"\\\"number of issued stock, voting rights, if there is more than one kind of stock, etc. In summary all the legal and formal details of a given stock. 2. After reading the annual report, check on investors websites to see if you can find analyst reports written on this company. You can sometimes find them in some free newsletters. These reports will complete the information you have found in the annual report like \\\"\\\"if the dividends are always paid, etc.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"The only certain way is to have the issuer confirm it. You'd think there would be a better way, but no there isn't. I suggest you read this story about what can happen even if you are the innocent victim trying to cash a fraudulent Cashier's Check. The consequences included some jail time and huge attorney fees for this unlucky person.\",\n \"It does raise the question of whether investment bank analysts are doing their job when advising clients on IPOs. Sadly, no one, and I literally mean not a single person, reads a registration statement in its entirety. That's why I find this criticism of the JOBS Act particularly stupid. The problem isn't that enough information isn't getting out, it's that too few investors and analysts actually do anything with it.\",\n \"As an employee of one of these firms, us auditors are the bread and butter while consulting work is sexy and just the flavor of the week. And now that my personal rant is over, I definitely agree with the point of the article. But you must understand that any Channel 1 audit client will not be allowed to receive any consulting from the same firm. In fact, often times when fraud happens one of the Big 4 will hire another firm to investigate, just look at what's unfolding with MF Global.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"Given that such activities are criminal and the people committing them have to hide them from the law, it's very unlikely that an investor could detect them, let alone one from a different country. The only things that can realistically help is to keep in mind the adage \"\"If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is\"\", and to stick to relatively large companies, since they have more auditing requirements and fraud is much harder to hide at scale (but not impossible, see Enron). Edit: and, of course, diversify. This kind of thing is rare, and not systematic, so diversification is a very good protection.\"","Most of the information we get about how a company is running its business, in any market, comes from the company. If the information is related to financial statements, it is checked by an external audit, and then provided to the public through official channels. All of these controls are meant to make it very unlikely for a firm to commit fraud or to cook its books. In that sense the controls are successful, very few firms provide fraudulent information to the public compared with the thousands of companies that list in stock markets around the world. Now, there is still a handful of firms that have committed fraud, and it is probable that a few firms are committing fraud right now. But, these companies go to great lengths to keep information about their fraud hidden from both the public and the authorities. All of these factors contribute to such frauds being black swan events to the outside observer. A black swan event is an event that is highly improbable, impossible to foresee with the information available before the event (it can only be analyzed in retrospect), and it has very large impact. The classification of an event as a black swan depends on your perspective. E.g. the Enron collapse was not as unexpected to the Enron executives as it was to its investors. You cannot foresee black swan events, but there are a few strategies that allow you to insure yourself against them. One such strategy is buying out of the money puts in the stocks where you have an investment, the idea being that in the event of a crash - due to fraud or whatever other reason - the profits in your puts would offset the loses on the stock. This strategy however suffers from time and loses a little money every day that the black swan doesn't show up, thanks to theta decay. So while it is not possible to detect fraud before investing, or at least not feasible with the resources and information available to the average investor, it is possible to obtain some degree of protection against it, at a cost. Whether that cost is too high or not, is the million dollar question.","Even without fraud, a company can get into serious trouble overnight, often through no fault of their own. That's part of the hazard of being part owner of a company -- which is what a share of stock is. As a minority owner not involved in actually running the business, there really isn't a lot you can do about that excep to play the odds and think about how that risk compares to the profit you're taking (which is one reason the current emphasis on stock price rather than dividends is considered a departure from traditional investing) and, as everyone else has said, avoid putting too much of your wealth in one place."],"string":"[\n \"\\\"Given that such activities are criminal and the people committing them have to hide them from the law, it's very unlikely that an investor could detect them, let alone one from a different country. The only things that can realistically help is to keep in mind the adage \\\"\\\"If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is\\\"\\\", and to stick to relatively large companies, since they have more auditing requirements and fraud is much harder to hide at scale (but not impossible, see Enron). Edit: and, of course, diversify. This kind of thing is rare, and not systematic, so diversification is a very good protection.\\\"\",\n \"Most of the information we get about how a company is running its business, in any market, comes from the company. If the information is related to financial statements, it is checked by an external audit, and then provided to the public through official channels. All of these controls are meant to make it very unlikely for a firm to commit fraud or to cook its books. In that sense the controls are successful, very few firms provide fraudulent information to the public compared with the thousands of companies that list in stock markets around the world. Now, there is still a handful of firms that have committed fraud, and it is probable that a few firms are committing fraud right now. But, these companies go to great lengths to keep information about their fraud hidden from both the public and the authorities. All of these factors contribute to such frauds being black swan events to the outside observer. A black swan event is an event that is highly improbable, impossible to foresee with the information available before the event (it can only be analyzed in retrospect), and it has very large impact. The classification of an event as a black swan depends on your perspective. E.g. the Enron collapse was not as unexpected to the Enron executives as it was to its investors. You cannot foresee black swan events, but there are a few strategies that allow you to insure yourself against them. One such strategy is buying out of the money puts in the stocks where you have an investment, the idea being that in the event of a crash - due to fraud or whatever other reason - the profits in your puts would offset the loses on the stock. This strategy however suffers from time and loses a little money every day that the black swan doesn't show up, thanks to theta decay. So while it is not possible to detect fraud before investing, or at least not feasible with the resources and information available to the average investor, it is possible to obtain some degree of protection against it, at a cost. Whether that cost is too high or not, is the million dollar question.\",\n \"Even without fraud, a company can get into serious trouble overnight, often through no fault of their own. That's part of the hazard of being part owner of a company -- which is what a share of stock is. As a minority owner not involved in actually running the business, there really isn't a lot you can do about that excep to play the odds and think about how that risk compares to the profit you're taking (which is one reason the current emphasis on stock price rather than dividends is considered a departure from traditional investing) and, as everyone else has said, avoid putting too much of your wealth in one place.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":190,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"10628"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"What happens with the “long” buyer of a stock when somebody else's short fails (that is, unlimited loss bankrupts short seller)"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["588116"],"string":"[\n \"588116\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["588116","434788","376136","45065","283982","487329","366484","80894","389501","384015","500534","176822","336018","354815","206342","293767","129454","374331","418336","148728","348735","519781","75965","254474","591694","251711","101343","350095","187568","523729","209359","520098","41468","532171","122050","33159","103147","84761","333674","53749","551463","553110","498056","163670","357583","210887","558921","511280","334473","476224","352588","255978","342972","295511","478833","103130","142110","228058","458546","3463","458907","315871","550879","520079","397325","280111","367928","316037","318750","501372","473776","10090","94690","8913","163290","444854","73723","240215","130651","35102","405206","357739","428786","224069","4854","166227","345368","369359","524254","313544","137898","47276","333496","63971","388571","217042","456183","349147","49794","281533"],"string":"[\n \"588116\",\n \"434788\",\n \"376136\",\n \"45065\",\n \"283982\",\n \"487329\",\n \"366484\",\n \"80894\",\n \"389501\",\n \"384015\",\n \"500534\",\n \"176822\",\n \"336018\",\n \"354815\",\n \"206342\",\n \"293767\",\n \"129454\",\n \"374331\",\n \"418336\",\n \"148728\",\n \"348735\",\n \"519781\",\n \"75965\",\n \"254474\",\n \"591694\",\n \"251711\",\n \"101343\",\n \"350095\",\n \"187568\",\n \"523729\",\n \"209359\",\n \"520098\",\n \"41468\",\n \"532171\",\n \"122050\",\n \"33159\",\n \"103147\",\n \"84761\",\n \"333674\",\n \"53749\",\n \"551463\",\n \"553110\",\n \"498056\",\n \"163670\",\n \"357583\",\n \"210887\",\n \"558921\",\n \"511280\",\n \"334473\",\n \"476224\",\n \"352588\",\n \"255978\",\n \"342972\",\n \"295511\",\n \"478833\",\n \"103130\",\n \"142110\",\n \"228058\",\n \"458546\",\n \"3463\",\n \"458907\",\n \"315871\",\n \"550879\",\n \"520079\",\n \"397325\",\n \"280111\",\n \"367928\",\n \"316037\",\n \"318750\",\n \"501372\",\n \"473776\",\n \"10090\",\n \"94690\",\n \"8913\",\n \"163290\",\n \"444854\",\n \"73723\",\n \"240215\",\n \"130651\",\n \"35102\",\n \"405206\",\n \"357739\",\n \"428786\",\n \"224069\",\n \"4854\",\n \"166227\",\n \"345368\",\n \"369359\",\n \"524254\",\n \"313544\",\n \"137898\",\n \"47276\",\n \"333496\",\n \"63971\",\n \"388571\",\n \"217042\",\n \"456183\",\n \"349147\",\n \"49794\",\n \"281533\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Unless I am missing something subtle, nothing happens to the buyer. Suppose Alice wants to sell short 1000 shares of XYZ at $5. She borrows the shares from Bob and sells them to Charlie. Now Charlie actually owns the shares; they are in his account. If the stock later goes up to $10, Charlie is happy; he could sell the shares he now owns, and make a $5000 profit. Alice still has the $5000 she received from her short sale, and she owes 1000 shares to Bob. So she's effectively $5000 in debt. If Bob calls in the loan, she'll have to try to come up with another $5000 to buy 1000 shares at $10 on the open market. If she can't, well, that's between her and Bob. Maybe she goes bankrupt and Bob has to write off a loss. But none of this has any effect on Charlie! He got the shares he paid for, and nobody's going to take them away from him. He has no reason to care where they came from, or what sort of complicated transactions brought them into Alice's possession. She had them, and she sold them to him, and that's the end of the story as far as he's concerned.","Not really. The lender is not buying the stock back at a lower price. Remember, he already owns it, so he need not buy it again. The person losing is the one from whom the short seller buys back the stock, provided that person bought the stock at higher price. So if B borrowed from A(lender) and sold it to C, and later B purchased it back from C at a lower price, then B made profit, C made loss and A made nothing .","In the case of regulated, exchange-traded options, the writer of an options contract is obliged to maintain a margin with their broker, and the broker is obliged to maintain a margin with the clearing house. (Institutional writers of options will deal directly with the clearing house.) In the event that the writer is unable to make a daily margin call, the broker (or clearing house) may automatically close out (all of) their positions using existing margin held. If there was a shortfall, the broker (or clearing house) would be left to persue the client (writer) to make good on their obligations. None of this effects the position of the original buyer of the options contract. Effectively, the buyer's counterparty is their broker's clearing house account.","You would generally have to pay interest for everyday you hold the position overnight. If you never close the position and the stock price goes to zero, you will be closed out and credited with your profit. If you never close the position and the stock price keeps going up and up, your potential loss is an unlimited amount of money. Of course your broker may close you out early for a number of reasons, particularly if your loss goes above the amount of capital you have in your trading account.","\"He sold at 25 cents per pound and then as the price rises, the cash he has will buy less and less which could trigger a margin call as you are missing the \"\"short\"\" part of his position which is rather important here. From Investopedia: A margin account also allows your brokerage firm to liquidate your position if the likelihood that you will return what you've borrowed diminishes. This is part of the agreement that is signed when the margin account is created. From the broker's perspective, this increases the likelihood that you will return the shares before losses become too large and you become unable to return the shares. If you sold at 25 cents per pound and the price goes up, at some point you may be forced to buy to cover the position as brokers don't like to lose their money. As another example of a short going bad, \"\"Devastated\"\" Trader Crushed By Soaring Biotech, Starts Online Begging Campaign To Fund $106,000 Margin Call notes in part: However where this story gets abusrdly entertaining, or woefully tragic, depending on one's perspective, is that one trader, Joe Campbell, was on the wrong side of last night's massive surge. As the RutRho blog, which noticed it first explains, a \"\"dummy\"\" E-trader, Joe Campbell, decided to go $35,000 short KBIO \"\"and now owes $ETFC a wonderful $106K.\"\"\"","Well, if the short seller has to pay the dividend out of their pocket, what happens to the dividend the company paid out ?? Sounds like there are 2 divdends floating around, the short's, and the company's, but only 1 share of stock.","For every seller, there's a buyer. Buyers may have any reason for wanting to buy (bargain shopping, foolish belief in a crazy business, etc). The party (brokerage, market maker, individual) owning the stock at the time the company goes out of business is the loser . But in a general panic, not every company is going to go out of business. So the party owning those stocks can expect to recover some, or all, of the value at some point in the future. Brokerages all reserve the right to limit margin trading (required for short selling), and during a panic would likely not allow you to short a stock they feel is a high risk for them.","The broker would give you a margin call and get you to deposit more funds into your account. They wouldn't wait for the stock price to reach $30, but would take this action much earlier. More over it is very unrealistic for any stock to go up 275% over a few hours, and if the stock was this volatile the broker would be asking for a higher margin to start with. What I am really worried about is that if there were any situation like this you are not considering what you would do as part of your risk management strategy. Before writing the option you should already have an exit point at which you would buy back the option to limit your losses.","If the underlying is currently moving as aggressively as stated, the broker would immediately forcibly close positions to maintain margin. What securities are in fact closed depends upon the internal algorithms. If the equity in the account remains negative after closing all positions if necessary, the owner of the account shall owe the broker the balance. The broker will close the account and commence collections if the owner of the account does not pay the balance quickly. Sometimes, brokers will impose higher margin requirements than mandated to prevent the above eventuality. Brokers frequently close positions that violate internal or external margin requirements as soon as they are breached.","http://www.investopedia.com/university/shortselling/shortselling1.asp 'Therein lies the major risk of short selling, the fear of infinite losses. While the maximum loss for a long investor is the amount invested in a security, the maximum loss for a short seller is theoretically infinite, since there is no upper limit to a stock’s price appreciation. This risk is compounded by the fact that during a short squeeze or buy-in...' Never have shorted a stock. Too intimidated by that!","Yes, it can buy back the call, but much before stock hits the $30 mark. Let us say you got 1$ from selling the call. So the total money in your account is 4$ + 1 $ = 5 $. When stock hits 10$ (your strike), the maintenance margin is 5$. As soon as stock goes past 10, your maintenance margin is violated. So broker will buy back your call (at least IB does that, it does not wait for a margin call). Now if the stock gapped up from 8 to 30,then yes, broker will buy it back at 30, so your account will have a negative balance. Assume the call cost 20$ when stock hit 30, your balance is: 5 - (30-10) = -15. Depending on broker, I suppose they will ask you to bring your account balance back up to positive. If they don't do that, they risk going out of business.","2 things may happen. Either your positions are closed by the broker and the loss or profit is credited to your account. Else it is carried over to the next day and you pay interest on the stocks lent to you. What happens will be decided by the agreement signed between you and your broker.","\"Learn something new every day... I found this interesting and thought I'd throw my 2c in. Good description (I hope) from Short Selling: What is Short Selling First, let's describe what short selling means when you purchase shares of stock. In purchasing stocks, you buy a piece of ownership in the company. You buy/sell stock to gain/sell ownership of a company. When an investor goes long on an investment, it means that he or she has bought a stock believing its price will rise in the future. Conversely, when an investor goes short, he or she is anticipating a decrease in share price. Short selling is the selling of a stock that the seller doesn't own. More specifically, a short sale is the sale of a security that isn't owned by the seller, but that is promised to be delivered. Still with us? Here's the skinny: when you short sell a stock, your broker will lend it to you. The stock will come from the brokerage's own inventory, from another one of the firm's customers, or from another brokerage firm. The shares are sold and the proceeds are credited to your account. Sooner or later, you must \"\"close\"\" the short by buying back the same number of shares (called covering) and returning them to your broker. If the price drops, you can buy back the stock at the lower price and make a profit on the difference. If the price of the stock rises, you have to buy it back at the higher price, and you lose money. So what happened? The Plan The Reality Lesson I never understood what \"\"Shorting a stock\"\" meant until today. Seems a bit risky for my blood, but I would assume this is an extreme example of what can go wrong. This guy literally chose the wrong time to short a stock that was, in all visible aspects, on the decline. How often does a Large Company or Individual buy stock on the decline... and send that stock soaring? How often does a stock go up 100% in 24 hours? 600%? Another example is recently when Oprah bought 10% of Weight Watchers and caused the stock to soar %105 in 24 hours. You would have rued the day you shorted that stock - on that particular day - if you believed enough to \"\"gamble\"\" on it going down in price.\"","+1 to YosefWeiner. Let me add: Legally, technically, or at least theoretically, when you buy stock through a broker, you own the stock, not the broker. The broker is just holding it for you. If the broker goes bankrupt, that has nothing to do with the value of your stock. That said, if the broker fails to transfer your shares to another broker before ceasing operation, it could be difficult to get your assets. Suppose you take your shoes to a shoe repair shop. Before you can pick them up, the shop goes bankrupt. The shoes are still rightfully yours. If the shop owner was a nice guy he would have called you and told you to pick up your shoes before he closed the shop. But if he didn't, you may have to go through legal gyrations to get your shoes back. If as his business failed the shop owner quit caring and got sloppy about his records, you might have to prove that those shoes are yours and not someone else's, etc.","While the issuer of the security such as a stock or bond not the short is responsible for the credit risk, the issuer and the short of a derivative is one. In all cases, it is more than likely that a trader is owed securities by an agent such as a broker or exchange or clearinghouse. Legally, only the Options Clearing Corporation clears openly traded options. With stocks and bonds, brokerages can clear with each other if approved. While a trader is expected to fund margin, the legal responsibility is shared by all in the agent chain. Clearinghouses are liable to exchanges. Exchanges are liable to members. Traders are liable to brokerages. Both ways and so on. Clearinghouses are usually ultimately liable for counterparty risk to the long counterparty, and the short counterparty is ultimately liable to the clearinghouse. Clearinghouses are not responsible for the credit risk of stocks and bonds because the issuers are not short those securities on the exchange, thus no margin is required. Credit risk for stocks and bonds is mitigated away from the clearing process.","If the buyer exercises your option, you will have to give him the stock. If you already own the stock, the worst that can happen is you have to give him your stock, thus losing the money you spend to buy it. So the most you can lose is what you already spent to buy the stock (minus the price the buyer paid for your option). If you don't own the stock, you will have to buy it. But if the stock skyrockets in value, it will be very expensive to buy it. If for instance you buy the stock when it is worth $100, sell your covered call, and the next day the stock shoots to $1000, you will lose the $100 you got from the purchase of the stock. But if you had used a naked call, you would have to buy the stock at $1000, and you would lose $900. Since there is no limit to how high the stock can go, there is no limit to how much money you may lose.","There is no margin call. Inverse ETFs use derivatives that would lose value in the case you describe though this doesn't force a margin call as you may be misunderstanding how these funds are constructed.","\"By their agreements with the central counterparty - in the US, the exchange or the Options Clearing Corporation, which interposes itself between the counterparties of each trade and guarantees that they settle. From the CCP article: A clearing house stands between two clearing firms (also known as member firms or participants). Its purpose is to reduce the risk a member firm failing to honor its trade settlement obligations. A CCP reduces the settlement risks by netting offsetting transactions between multiple counterparties, by requiring collateral deposits (also called \"\"margin deposits\"\"), by providing independent valuation of trades and collateral, by monitoring the credit worthiness of the member firms, and in many cases, by providing a guarantee fund that can be used to cover losses that exceed a defaulting member's collateral on deposit. Exercisers on most contracts are matched against random writers during the assignment process, and if the writer doesn't deliver/buy the stock, the OCC does so using its funds and goes after the defaulting party.\"","Not sure if I follow your question completely. Re: What if some fraud takes place that's too big even for it to fund? SIPC does not fund anything. What it does is takes over the troubled brokerage firm, books / assets and returns the money faster. Refer to SIPC - What SIPC Covers... What it Does Not and more specifically SIPC - Why We Are Not the FDIC. SIPC is free for ordinary investors. To get the same from elsewhere one has to pay the premium. Edit: The event we are saying is a large brokrage firm, takes all of the Margin Money from Customer Accounts and loses it and also sell off all the stocks actually shown as being held in customer account ... that would be to big. While its not clear as to what exactly will happens, my guess is that the limits per customers will go down as initial payments. Subsequent payments will only be done after recover of funds from the bankrupt firm. What normally happens when a brokrage firm goes down is some of the money from customers account is diverted ... stocks are typically safe and not diverted. Hence the way SIPC works is that it will give the money back to customer faster to individuals. In absence of SIPC individual investors would have had to fight for themselves.","\"Assuming these are standardized and regulated contracts, the short answer is yes. In your example, Trader A is short while Trader B is long. If Trader B wants to exit his long position, he merely enters a \"\"sell to close\"\" order with his broker. Trader B never goes short as you state. He was long while he held the contract, then he \"\"sold to close\"\". As to who finds the buyer of Trader B's contract, I believe that would be the exchange or a market maker. Therefore, Trader C ends up the counterparty to Trader A's short position after buying from Trader B. Assuming the contract is held until expiration, Trader A is responsible for delivering contracted product to Trader C for contracted price. In reality this is generally settled up in cash, and Trader A and Trader C never even know each other's identity.\"","The answer depends on whether the company involved has 'limited liability'. Most, but not all public and listed companies and corporations have this, but not all so it is worth checking and understanding what you are getting involved with. The expression 'limited liability' means that the owners (shareholders) of a company have a liability up to the amount of the face value of the shares they hold which they have not yet paid for. The difference is usually minor but basically it means that if you buy $10 of shares you have no liability, but if the company gives you $10 of shares, and you pay them (in cash or kind) $5, then you still have a liability of $5. If the company fails, the debtors can come after you for that liability. An 'unlimited liability' company is a different animal altogether. Lloyds insurance is probably the most famous example. Lloyds worked by putting together consortiums to underwrite risk. If the risk doesn't happen, the consortium keeps the premiums, if it does, they cover the loss. Most of the time they are very profitable but not always. For example, the consortiums which covered asbestos caused the bankruptcies of a great many very wealthy people.","\"When the buyout happens, the $30 strike is worth $10, as it's in the money, you get $10 ($1000 per contract). Yes, the $40 strike is pretty worthless, it actually dropped in value today. Some deals are worded as an offer or intention, so a new offer can come in. This appears to be a done deal. From Chapter 8 of CHARACTERISTICS AND RISKS OF STANDARDIZED OPTIONS - FEB 1994 with supplemental updates 1997 through 2012; \"\"In certain unusual circumstances, it might not be possible for uncovered call writers of physical delivery stock and stock index options to obtain the underlying equity securities in order to meet their settlement obligations following exercise. This could happen, for example, in the event of a successful tender offer for all or substantially all of the outstanding shares of an underlying security or if trading in an underlying security were enjoined or suspended. In situations of that type, OCC may impose special exercise settlement procedures. These special procedures, applicable only to calls and only when an assigned writer is unable to obtain the underlying security, may involve the suspension of the settlement obligations of the holder and writer and/or the fixing of cash settlement prices in lieu of delivery of the underlying security. In such circumstances, OCC might also prohibit the exercise of puts by holders who would be unable to deliver the underlying security on the exercise settlement date. When special exercise settlement procedures are imposed, OCC will announce to its Clearing Members how settlements are to be handled. Investors may obtain that information from their brokerage firms.\"\" I believe this confirms my observation. Happy to discuss if a reader feels otherwise.\"","@MichaelBorgwardt gave an excellent answer. Let me add a little analogy here that might help. Suppose you bought a car from Joe's Auto Sales. You pay your money, do all the paperwork, and drive your car home. The next day Joe's goes bankrupt. What affect does that have on your ownership rights to your car? The answer is, Absolutely none. Same thing with stocks and a stock exchange. A stock exchange is basically just a store where you can buy stock. Once you buy it, it's yours. That said, there could potentially be a problem with record keeping. If you bought a car from Joe's Auto Sales, and Joe went out of business before sending the registration paperwork to the state, you might find that the state has no record that you legally own the car and you could have difficulty proving it. Likewise if a stock exchange went out of business without getting all their records properly updated, their might be an issue. Actually I think the bigger concern here for most folks would be their broker and not the stock exchange, as your broker is the one who keeps the records of what stocks you own long term. In practice, though, most companies are responsible enough to clean up their paperwork properly when they go out of business, and if they don't, a successor company or government regulators or someone will try to clean it all up.","\"I think the question, as worded, has some incorrect assumptions built into it, but let me try to hit the key answers that I think might help: Your broker can't really do anything here. Your broker doesn't own the calls you sold, and can't elect to exercise someone else's calls. Your broker can take action to liquidate positions when you are in margin calls, but the scenario you describe wouldn't generate them: If you are long stock, and short calls, the calls are covered, and have no margin requirement. The stock is the only collateral you need, and you can have the position on in a cash (non-margin) account. So, assuming you haven't bought other things on margin that have gone south and are generating calls, your broker has no right to do anything to you. If you're wondering about the \"\"other guy\"\", meaning the person who is long the calls that you are short, they are the one who can impact you, by exercising their right to buy the stock from you. In that scenario, you make $21, your maximum possible return (since you bought the stock at $100, collected $1 premium, and sold it for $120. But they usually won't do that before expiration, and they pretty definitely won't here. The reason they usually won't is that most options trade above their intrinsic value (the amount that they're in the money). In your example, the options aren't in the money at all. The stock is trading at 120, and the option gives the owner the right to buy at 120.* Put another way, exercising the option lets the owner buy the stock for the exact same price anyone with no options can in the market. So, if the call has any value whatsoever, exercising it is irrational; the owner would be better off selling the call and buying the stock in the market.\"","\"The correct answer to this question is: the person who the short sells the stock to. Here's why this is the case. Say we have A, who owns the stock and lends it to B, who then sells it short to C. After this the price drops and B buys the stock back from D and returns it to A. The outcome for A is neutral. Typically stock that is sold short must be held in a margin account; the broker can borrow the shares from A, collect interest from B, and A has no idea this is going on, because the shares are held in a street name (the brokerage's name) and not A. If A decides during this period to sell, the transaction will occur immediately, and the brokerage must shuffle things around so the shares can be delivered. If this is going to be difficult then the cost for borrowing shares becomes very high. The outcome for B is obviously a profit: they sold high first and bought (back) low afterwards. This leaves either C or D as having lost this money. Why isn't it D? One way of looking at this is that the profit to B comes from the difference in the price from selling to C and buying from D. D is sitting on the low end, and thus is not paying out the profit. D bought low, compared to C and this did not lose any money, so C is the only remaining choice. Another way of looking at it is that C actually \"\"lost\"\" all the money when purchasing the stock. After all, all the money went directly from C to B. In return, C got some stock with the hope that in the future C could sell it for more than was paid for it. But C literally gave the money to B, so how could anybody else \"\"pay\"\" the loss? Another way of looking at it is that C buys a stock which then decreases in value. C is thus now sitting on a loss. The fact that it is currently only a paper loss makes this less obvious; if the stock were to recover to the price C bought at, one might conclude that C did not lose the money to B. However, in this same scenario, D also makes money that C could have made had C bought at D's price, proving that C really did lose the money to B. The final way of seeing that the answer is C is to consider what happens when somebody sells a stock which they already hold but the price goes up; who did they lose out on the gain to? The person again is; who bought their stock. The person would buys the stock is always the person who the gain goes to when the price appreciates, or the loss comes out of if the price falls.\"","For the lenders to sell their positions they need buyers on the other side. For a large brokerage that means they should always be able to find another lender. For many contracts the client may have no idea they are a lender as lending is part of their agreement with the broker","\"If you don't use leverage you can't lose more than you invested because you \"\"play\"\" with your own money. But even with leverage when you reach a certain limit (maintenance margin) you will receive a margin call from your broker to add more funds to your account. If you don't comply with this (meaning you don't add funds) the broker will liquidate some of the assets (in this case the currency) and it will restore the balance of the account to meet with his/her maintenance margin. At least, this is valid for assets like stocks and derivatives. Hope it helps! Edit: I should mention that\"","\"What will happen if the stock price just continues to decline? Nothing. What would happen if folks just stop trading it? Nothing. What if the company goes private? Then they will have to buy you out based on some agreed upon price, as voted by the board and (potentially) approved by the shareholders. Depending on the corporation charter, the board may not be required to seek the shareholders' approval, but if the price the board agreed upon is unreasonable you can sue and prevent the transaction. How do they decide the fair value of the outstanding stocks? Through a process called \"\"valuation\"\", there are accounting firms which specialize in this area of public accounting.\"","Nobody is going to short sell stocks through a lender that forces people to buy in as soon as it is getting good for them.","But by closing the short position the broker would still be purchasing shares from the market no? Or at least, someone would be purchasing the shares to close the short position. So, why doesn't the broker just let Client A keep their short position open and buy shares in the market so that Client B can sell them...I know it sounds a bit ridic, but not much more so to me than letting Client A borrow the shares to begin with!","When you short a stock, you can lose an unlimited amount of money if the trade goes against you. If the shorted stock gaps up overnight you can lose more money than you have in your account. The best case is you make 100% if the stock goes to zero. And then you have margin fees on top of that. With long positions, it's the other way around. Your max loss is 100% and your gains are potentially unlimited.","\"A derivative contract can be an option, and you can take a short (sell) position , much the same way you would in a stock. When BUYING options you risk only the money you put in. However when selling naked(you don't have the securities or cash to cover all potential losses) options, you are borrowing. Brokers force you to maintain a required amount of cash called, a maintenance requirement. When selling naked calls - theoretically you are able to lose an INFINITE amount of money, so in order to sell this type of options you have to maintain a certain level of cash in your account. If you fail to maintain this level you will enter into whats often referred to as a \"\"margin-call\"\". And yes they will call your phone and tell you :). Your broker has the right to liquidate your positions in order to meet requirements. PS: From experience my broker has never liquidated any of my holdings, but then again I've never been in a margin call for longer then a few days and never with a severe amount. The margin requirement for investors is regulated and brokers follow these regulations.\"","The obvious thing would happen. 10 shares change owner at the price of $100. A partially still open selling order would remain. Market orders without limits means to buy or sell at the best possible or current price. However, this is not very realistic. Usually there is a spread between the bid and the ask price and the reason is that market makers are acting in between. They would immediately exploit this situation, for example, by placing appropriately limited orders. Orders without limits are not advisable for stocks with low trading activity. Would you buy or sell stuff without caring for the price?","\"An important thing that many people fail to realize is that the number of shares outstanding in a stock, times the current market price of those shares, does not represent anything related to the total value of those shares. If a company has one million shares outstanding and its total value is $10 million, then the real worth of each share is $10. If few people feels like buying or selling, but a few people think the company is worth $50 million and offer $50/share, that could raise the market price to $50/share, but it wouldn't mean that the company became worth five times as much; it would merely mean the stock was overpriced. If, after the price went to $50/share, all the owners of the stock put in stop-loss orders at $45. Note that the real $10/share \"\"real value\"\" of their stock would never have changed. If the people who thought the stock was worth $50 decided to get out of the market, and nobody else was willing to offer more than $10, that would instantly drop the price to $10. The fact that a million shares of stock have stop-loss orders at $45 wouldn't magically generate buyers for those stocks at that price. Indeed, unchecked stop-loss orders would have the reverse effect, since many people who would have been willing if not eager to buy the stock if it had been available for less than $10/share would instead be trying to sell it below that price. It's too bad people think that the number of shares outstanding times the current market price represents some kind of \"\"meaningful quantity\"\". If the present cash value of all future payouts associated with a share of stock is $10, then someone who buys a share of stock for less than that makes money off the seller; someone who pays more loses money to the seller. Many people think they can lose money to the seller and still come out okay if the price goes higher, but what that really means is that they're hoping to find a bigger sucker--a game where it's guaranteed that some people will have losses they don't recoup.\"","In this example, Client A has to buy shares to return them to Client B for his sale (closing Client A's short position). Client B then sells the shares. The end result is there are no shares within the brokerage clientele anymore, so Client A can't borrow them anymore. The broker is just an intermediary, they wouldn't go out and acquire securities on their own for the benefit of a client wanting to short it, as they would be taking on the risk of the opposite position. This would be in addition to the risk they already take on when allowing people to short sell -- which is that Client A won't have the money to buy the shares it owes to Client B, in which case the broker has to make Client B whole.","From Wikipedia: If a company with limited liability is sued, then the claimants are suing the company, not its owners or investors. A shareholder in a limited company is not personally liable for any of the debts of the company, other than for the value of their investment in that company. Summarized, no, if you buy stock from the regular stock market like NYSE, you're not personally liable for any debt or fraud that happens.","The original option writer (seller) can close his short position in the contracts he wrote by purchasing back matching contracts (i.e. contracts with the same terms: underlying, option type, strike price, expiration date) from any others who hold long positions, or else who write new matching contract instances. Rather than buyer and seller settling directly, options are settled through a central options clearing house, being the Options Clearing Corporation for exchange-listed options in the U.S. See also Wikipedia - Clearing house (finance). So, the original buyer of the put maintains his position (insurance) and the clearing process ensures he is matched up with somebody else holding a matching obligation, if he chooses to exercise his put. I also answered a similar question but in more detail, here.","When you set up a short sale for equities you are borrowing stock from someone else; typically another client at the broker. The broker usually buries an agreement to let your shares be borrowed for short sales in your account details. So if Client A wants to short a stock, he borrows stock from Client B to do the short sale (it's usually not this direct as they can borrow from many clients). If Client B then wants to sell his shares; if the broker can't shift around assets to find another client's shares to let Client A borrow; then he has to close the short position out because he doesn't have the shares in the brokerage to let Client A borrow to short anymore.","Different brokerages have different house rules for margin requirements and margin calls. You will likely get a margin call giving you a small amount of time to deposit the required funds to bring your account balance up to the required margin requirements. In reality, a stock that falls from $50 to $4 in a short period will probably become unmarginable. In short, yes, you will owe the broker for the loss.","As mentioned in the comments: According to the message from the exchange all trades at or below $5.86 that were executed in NASDAQ between 09:38:00 and 09:46:00 ET got canceled. If the short doesn't fall into those criteria but the long does, though luck the long is invalid, the short is valid. Traders that got the short end of the stick in the end, should contact their brokers and inquire about this situation. Depending on the terms of the broker the short might get canceled as well. If not, then it's up to the market. The trader can keep or close the short. IMO, what the person in question should have done is hold on to the trade and see what happens at the end of the trading day. He should've realized something was wrong when the price went from 8.xx to 0.8x.","The options market requires much more attention to avoid the situation you're describing. An overnight $10 ask will remain on the books most likely as Good-Til-Canceled. The first to bid the low order gets it. If traders are paying attention, which they probably are then they will bid at $10. If not, they will bid immediately at $20. If they crossed the order, it would be filled at their higher than $10 bid. This is all governed by the exchange where the ask is posted, and most implement price-time priority.","\"There are situations where you can be forced to cover a position, particular when \"\"Reg SHO\"\" (\"\"regulation sho\"\") is activated. Reg SHO is intended to make naked short sellers cover their position, it is to prevent abusive failure to delivers, where someone goes short without borrowing someone else's shares. Naked shorting isn't a violation of federal securities laws but it becomes an accounting problem when multiple people have claims to the same underlying assets. (I've seen companies that had 120% of their shares sold short, too funny, FWIW the market was correct as the company was worth nothing.) You can be naked short without knowing it. So there can be times when you will be forced to cover. Other people being forced to cover can result in a short squeeze. A risk. The other downside is that you have to pay interest on your borrowings. You also have to pay the dividends to the owner of the shares, if applicable. In shorter time frames these are negligible, but in longer time frames, such as closer to a year or longer, these really add up. Let alone the costs of the market going in the opposite direction, and the commissions.\"","Unlike the stock market which offers growth long term, the derivatives market is a zero sum game. This phrase is how one describes a poker game. 7 people walk in, and walk out with the same total amount of money (note, the 7th guy is the 'house', and with nothing at risk, he gets his cut). No money is created, the total value doesn't change. When I buy or sell an option, there is someone on the other side of that trade with a gain or loss equal and opposite to my position. At option expiration, or a repurchase that closes an open contract, the whole series of trades resulted in no net gain of wealth. The huge losses were spread among the banks, the investors, the insurance companies, and the government. By government, I mean the taxpayer. You paid your share, my friend, as did I. Welcome to Money.SE. Get to 150 rep, and vote in the election.","\"Long here does not mean you wish for the underlying stock to increase in value, in fact, as the chart shows, just the opposite is true. \"\"Long means you bought the derivative, and you own the option. The guy that sold it to you is at your mercy, he is short the put, and it's your decision to put the stock to him should it fall in value. The value of the put itself rises with the falling stock price, you are long the put and want the put, itself, to rise in value.\"","Short-term, the game is supply/demand and how the various participants react to it at various prices. On longer term, prices start to better reflect the fundamentals. Within something like week to some month or two, if there has not been any unique value affecting news, then interest, options, market maker(s), swing traders and such play bigger part. With intraday, the effects of available liquidity become very pronounced. The market makers have algos that try to guess what type of client they have and they prefer to give high price to large buyer and low price to small buyer. As intraday trader has spreads and commissions big part of their expenses and leverage magnifies those, instead of being able to take advantage of the lower prices, they prefer to stop out after small move against them. In practise this means that when they buy low, that low will soon be the midpoint of the day and tomorrows high etc if they are still holding on. Buy and sell are similar to long call or long put options position. And options are like insurance, they cost you. Also the longer the position is held the more likely it is to end up with someone with ability to test your margin if you're highly leveraged and constantly making your wins from the same source. Risk management is also issue. The leveraged pros trade through a company. Not sure if they're able to open another such company and still open accounts after the inevitable.","If the price had dropped to $4 from $50, and you had $5000 to start with on your account, you will be left with $400 in your account if you closed the position now. So you would not be in debt if this was the only possition you had open.","Answers here are correct but I'll offer an extremely (overly) simple explanation that should help you in understanding the more detailed answers. When most people own stock they do so through a broker. Unless you jump through some hoops, the broker keeps the shares in the name of the brokerage. This is called holding the stock in street name. When you sell short through a brokerage, the broker is letting you borrow a certain number of shares owned by someone else and sell them for cash now. At some point, you need to repay this loan with the same number of shares you borrowed. Ideally, you want the stock to drop to $0. The reason you might be forced to purchase the stock is that the actual owner(s) of the stock want to sell. If the broker has too many people wanting to sell, you will need to repay some of all of the loan (in shares) i.e. purchasing shares at the current market price.","One thing no one else has touched on is the issue of time frame. If I'm looking to hold my shares over the next few years, I don't mind riding out a few short-term bumps, while the short-seller is looking to make a quick profit on some bad news. Sure, I could sell and rebuy, but that's a lot of hassle, not to mention commissions and tax issues.","You can buy a put and exercise it. The ideal option in this case will have little time premium left and very near the money. Who lent you the shares? The person that sold you the option! In reality, when you exercise, assignment can be random, but everything is [supposedly] accounted for as the option seller had to put up margin collateral to sell the option.","The market maker will always take it off your hands. Just enter a market sell order. It will cost you a commission to pull the loss into this year. But that's it.","You're assuming options traded on the open market. To close open positions, a seller buys them back on the open market. If there's little on offer, this will drive the price up.","Short sellers have to pay interest on the borrowings to the shareholders. Although many times brokers don't pass on these earnings to the shareholders, this is the exchange.","You can D/K a trade if it is not confirmed in a timely manner. Also, UBS chose not to sell on the first day they waited hoping and got burned. So that first day loss argument doesn't stand here, it can't due to a technical error. My post states that it had to be a large holding for some time.","When you buy a stock, the worst case scenario is that it drops to 0. Therefore, the most you can lose when buying a stock is 100% of your investment. When you short a stock, however, there's no limit on how high the stock can go. If you short a stock at 10, and it goes up to 30, then you've lost 200% on your investment. Therefore shorting stocks is riskier than buying stocks, since you can lose more than 100% of your investment when shorting. because the price might go up, but it will never be as big of a change as a regular price drop i suppose... That is not true. Stocks can sometimes go up significantly (50-100% or more) in a very short amount of time on a positive news release (such as an earnings or a buyout announcement). A famous example occurred in 2008, when Volkswagen stock quintupled (went up 400%) in less than 2 days on some corporate news: Porsche, for some reason, wants to control Volkswagen, and by building up its stake has driven up the price. Hedge funds, figuring the share price would fall as soon as Porsche got control and stopped buying, sold a lot of VW shares short. Then last weekend, Porsche disclosed that it owned 42.6 percent of the stock and had acquired options for another 31.5 percent. It said it wanted to go to 75 percent. The result: instant short-squeeze. The German state of Lower Saxony owns a 20 percent stake in VW, which it said it would not sell. That left precious few shares available for anyone else. The shorts scrambled to cover, and the price leaped from about €200, or about $265, to above €1,000.","Doesnt mean that equity or even debt holders wouldn't lose their investment. Those money and banking texts are presently useless post GFC given the incredible moral hazard and how all of the traditional bankruptcy rules were ignored.","Your question has 6 questions marks along with comments on what you'd like to know. Yes, there are stocks that are tough to short, a combination of low float, high current short positions, etc. Interest charged on the position rises in a supply/demand fashion. To unwind the position, there's always going to be stock available to buy. A shortage of willing sellers will cause the price to go up, but you'll see a bid/ask and the market will clear, i.e. The buy order fills.","\"He didn't sell in the \"\"normal\"\" way that most people think of when they hear the term \"\"sell.\"\" He engaged in a (perfectly legitimate) technique known as short selling, in which he borrows shares from his broker and sells them immediately. He's betting that the price of the stock will drop so he can buy them back at a lower price to return the borrowed shares back to his broker. He gets to pocket the difference. He had about $37,000 of cash in his account. Since he borrowed ~8400 shares and sold them immediately at $2/share, he got $16,800 in cash and owed his broker 8400 shares. So, his net purchasing power at the time of the short sale was $37,000 + $16,800 - 4800 shares * $2/share. As the price of the stock changes, his purchasing power will change according to this equation. He's allowed to continue to borrow these 8400 shares as long as his purchasing power remains above 0. That is, the broker requires him to have enough cash on hand to buy back all of his borrowed shares at any given moment. If his purchasing power ever goes negative, he'll be subject to a margin call: the broker will make him either deposit cash into his account or close his positions (sell long positions or buy back short positions) until it's positive again. The stock jumped up to $13.85 the next morning before the market opened (during \"\"before-hours\"\" trading). His purchasing power at that time was $37,000 + $16,800 - 8400 shares * $13.85/share = -$62,540. Since his purchasing power was negative, he was subject to a margin call. By the time he got out, he had to pay $17.50/share to buy back the 8400 shares that he borrowed, making his purchasing power -$101,600. This $101,600 was money that he borrowed from his broker to buy back the shares to fulfill his margin call. His huge loss was from borrowing shares from his broker. Note that his maximum potential loss is unlimited, since there is no limit to how much a stock can grow. Evidently, he failed to grasp the most important concept of short selling, which is that he's borrowing stock from his broker and he's obligated to give that stock back whenever his broker wants, no matter what it costs him to fulfill that obligation.\"","\"In addition to JoeTaxpayer's answer there are articles that describe the writing of options as \"\"being the casino\"\". When you write, or sell to open an option, you are selling one of the most desirable things in the world to sell: a depreciating asset. Writing options are not without risk, but they can be a very conservative strategy. Who wins these massive losses? Sometimes run of the mill investors, myself being one of them.\"","If the share is listed on a stock exchange that creates liquidity and orderly sales with specialist market makers, such as the NYSE, there will always be a counterparty to trade with, though they will let the price rise or fall to meet other open interest. On other exchanges, or in closely held or private equity scenarios, this is not necessarily the case (NASDAQ has market maker firms that maintain the bid-ask spread and can do the same thing with their own inventory as the specialists, but are not required to by the brokerage rules as the NYSE brokers are). The NYSE has listing requirements of at least 1.1 million shares, so there will not be a case with only 100 shares on this exchange.","You seem to think that stock exchanges are much more than they actually are. But it's right there in the name: stock exchange. It's a place where people exchange (i.e. trade) stocks, no more and no less. All it does is enable the trading (and thereby price finding). Supposedly they went into mysterious bankruptcy then what will happen to the listed companies Absolutely nothing. They may have to use a different exchange if they're planning an IPO or stock buyback, that's all. and to the shareholder's stock who invested in companies that were listed in these markets ? Absolutley nothing. It still belongs to them. Trades that were in progress at the moment the exchange went down might be problematic, but usually the shutdown would happen in a manner that takes care of it, and ultimately the trade either went through or it didn't (and you still have the money). It might take some time to establish this. Let's suppose I am an investor and I bought stocks from a listed company in NYSE and NYSE went into bankruptcy, even though NYSE is a unique business, meaning it doesn't have to do anything with that firm which I invested in. How would I know the stock price of that firm Look at a different stock exchange. There are dozens even within the USA, hundreds internationally. and will I lose my purchased stocks ? Of course not, they will still be listed as yours at your broker. In general, what will happen after that ? People will use different stock exchanges, and some of them migth get overloaded from the additional volume. Expect some inconveniences but no huge problems.","\"If you can't find anyone to lend you the shares, then you can't short. You can attempt to raise the interest rate at which you will borrow at, in order to entice others to lend you their shares. In practice, broadcasting this information is pretty convoluted. If there aren't any stocks for you to buy back, then you have to buy back at a higher price. As in, place a limit buy order higher and higher until someone decides to sell to you. This affects your profit. Regarding the public ledger: This functions different in different markets. United States stock markets have an evolving body of regulations to alleviate the exact concerns you detailed, but Canada's or Dubai's stock markets would have different provisions. You make the assumption that it is an efficient process, but it is not and it is indeed ripe for abuse. In US stocks, the public ledger has a 3 business day delay between showing change of ownership. Many times brokers and clearing firms and other market participants allow a customer to go short with fake shares, with the idea that they will find real shares within the 3 business day time period to cover the position. During the time period that there is no real shares hitting the market, this is called a \"\"naked short\"\". The only legal system that attempts to deter this practice is the \"\"fail to deliver\"\" (FTD) list. If someone fails to deliver, that means there is a short position active with fake shares for which no real shares have been borrowed against. Too many FTD's allow for a short selling restriction to be placed, meaning nobody else can be short, and existing short sellers may be forced to cover.\"","TD will only sell the stock for you if there's a buyer. There was a buyer, for at least one transaction of at least one stock at 96.66. But who said there were more? Obviously, the stocks later fell, i.e.: there were not that many buyers as there were sellers. What I'm saying is that once the stock passed/reached the limit, the order becomes an active order. But it doesn't become the only active order. It is added to the list, and to the bottom of that list. Obviously, in this case, there were not enough buyers to go through the whole list and get to your order, and since it was a limit order - it would only execute with the limit price you put. Once the price went down you got out of luck. That said, there could of course be a possibility of a system failure. But given the story of the market behavior - it just looks like you miscalculated and lost on a bet.","There would be small generic risk that the company stock goes down real fast by more than 15% in a specific event to the company [fraud, segment company operates suffers a shock, etc] or a generic event to the stock market like recent events of Greece etc.","according to the Options Industry council ( http://www.optionseducation.org/tools/faq/splits_mergers_spinoffs_bankruptcies.html ) put options the shares (and therefore the options) may continue trading OTC but if the shares completely stop trading then: if the courts cancel the shares, whereby common shareholders receive nothing, calls will become worthless and an investor who exercises a put would receive 100 times the strike price and deliver nothing. The reason for this is that it is not the company whose shares you have the option on that you have a contract with but the counterparty who wrote the option. If the counterparty goes bankrupt then you may not get paid out (depending on assets available at liquidation - this is counterparty risk) but, unless the two are the same, if the company whose shares you have a put option on declares bankruptcy then you will get paid","\"To summarize, there are three basic ways: (3) is the truly dangerous one. If there is a lot of short interest in a stock, but for some reason the stock goes up, suddenly a lot of people will be scrambling to buy that stock to cover their short position -- which will drive the price up even further, making the problem worse. Pretty soon, a bunch of smart rich guys will be poor guys who are suddenly very aware that they aren't as smart as they thought they were. Eight years ago, such a \"\"short squeeze\"\", as it's called, made the price of VW quadruple in two days. You could hear the Heinies howl from Hamburg to Haldenwanger. There are ways to protect yourself, of course. You can go short but also buy a call at a much higher price, thereby limiting your exposure, a strategy called a \"\"straddle\"\", but you also reduce your profit if you guessed right. It comes down to, as it always does, do you want to eat well, or to sleep well?\"","\"No. If the share price drops to $0, it's likely that the company is in bankruptcy. Usually, debt holders (especially holders of senior debt) are paid first, and you're entitled to whatever the bankruptcy proceedings decide to give holders of equity after the debt holders are paid off. More often than not, equity holders probably won't get much. To give an example, corporate bankruptcy usually involves one of two options: liquidation or reorganization. In the US, these are called Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 bankruptcy, respectively. Canada and the United Kingdom also have similar procedures for corporations, although in the UK, reorganization is often referred to as administration. Many countries have similar procedures in place. I'll use the US as an example because it's what I'm most familiar with. In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the company is liquidated to pay its debts. Investopedia's article about bankruptcy states: During Chapter 7 bankruptcy, investors are considered especially low on the ladder. Usually, the stock of a company undergoing Chapter 7 proceedings is usually worthless, and investors lose the money they invested. If you hold a bond, you might receive a fraction of its face value. What you receive depends on the amount of assets available for distribution and where your investment ranks on the priority list on the first page. In Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the company is turned over to a trustee that guides it through a reorganization. The Investopedia article quotes the SEC to describe what happens to stockholders when this happens: \"\"During Chapter 11 bankruptcy, bondholders stop receiving interest and principal payments, and stockholders stop receiving dividends. If you are a bondholder, you may receive new stock in exchange for your bonds, new bonds or a combination of stock and bonds. If you are a stockholder, the trustee may ask you to send back your stock in exchange for shares in the reorganized company. The new shares may be fewer in number and worth less. The reorganization plan spells out your rights as an investor and what you can expect to receive, if anything, from the company.\"\" The exact details will depend on the reorganization plan that's worked out, local laws, court agreements, etc.. For example, in the case of General Motor's bankruptcy, stockholders in the company before reorganization were left with worthless shares and were not granted shares in the new company.\"","It would be nice if the broker could be instructed to clear out the position for you, but in my experience the broker will simply give you the shares that you can't afford, then freeze your account because you are over your margin limit, and issue a margin call. This happened to me recently because of a dumb mistake: options I paid $200 for and expected to expire worthless, ended up slightly ITM, so they were auto-exercised on Friday for about $20k, and my account was frozen (only able to close positions). By the next Monday, market news had shifted the stock against me and I had to sell it at a loss of $1200 to meet the margin call. This kind of thing is what gives option trading a reputation for danger: A supposedly max-$200-risk turned into a 6x greater loss. I see no reason to ever exercise, I always try to close my positions, but these things can happen.","You are long the puts. By exercising them you force the underlying stock to be bought from you at your strike price. Let's say your strike it $100 and the stock is currently $25. Buy 100 shares and exercise 1 (bought/long) put. That gives you $7500 of new money, so do the previous sentence over again in as many 'units' as you can.","Absolutely true, but in a bankruptcy situation the best OP can do is win a judgment for breach of contract/fiduciary duty/whatever against Refco, and then get a levy on some assets. He's still just a lien creditor who will be paid after all the secureds in bankruptcy. As MF Global is demonstrating once again, whatever regulations there are to keep clients' money in brokerages sequestered ain't cutting it.","If you get selected for exercise, your broker will liquidate the whole position for you most likely Talk to your broker.","Because someone smarter than you by 50 IQ points (a quant) will depart their larger position long before you have a chance to see it coming. Your stop losses are useless as the market will open with the issue below your sell price. Your trade even if place at the same mine would settle after theirs. don't piss in the tall grass with the big dogs. If they are wrong or right does not matter you will be haircut or whipsawed.","This is your best answer so far. A detail left out is that derivatives are mostly known for the amount of leverage allowed, which is typically about 20-1, or 5% down. This is legal because it's generally assumed that someone is not going to buy or sell the underlying asset, that they will offset their long or short position long before the contract's delivery date. Your derivative broker(typically futures instead of forwards, because they're a standardized size, traded on an exchange and more liquid) will call you when you lose about half of your 5% to tell you to either transfer some money to cover your position or to ask you to exit your position at a loss. Fowards are traded through clearinghouses, not exchanges, and they can be for any underlying asset, for any delivery date, for any price, so long as parties agree on it. Just think of it as a contract.","The day trader in the article was engaging in short selling. Short selling is a technique used to profit when a stock goes down. The investor borrows shares of a stock from someone else and sells them. After the stock price goes down, the investor buys the shares back and returns them, pocketing the difference. As the day trader in the article found out, it is a dangerous practice, because there is no limit to the amount of money you can lose. The stock was trading at $2, and the day trader thought the stock was going to go down to $1. He borrowed and sold 8,400 shares at $2. He hoped to buy them back at $1 and earn $8,400 profit. Instead, the stock went up a lot, and he was forced to buy back the shares at $18.50 per share, or about $155,400. He had had $37,000 with E-Trade, which they took, and he is now over $100,000 in debt.","If you didn't have a stop loss set (or trailing stop loss) then an equally random spike in the other direction could have obliterated your account and put you in debt to the broker, depending on the terms of that broker, as these are highly leveraged positions. Market anomaly? If your currency bet was unrelated to the fed's interest rate decision today, then you should probably just stop trading.","The dividend goes to he who owns the stock when it goes ex-div. A buyer (the call buyer who exercises) will not exercise unless the stock plus dividend are in the money. Otherwise they'd be buying the stock at a premium. I like the scenario your friend doesn't. If I can find a high dividend stock and sell the call for a decent price, I may get a great return on a stock that's gone down 5% over a year's time. If it goes up and called away, that's fine too, it means a profit.","You haven't said why you think you will gain at $41, but the graph never lies. Take it one piece at a time: At $41, your stock will lose a big chunk of value. Your short calls will expire. Your puts will gain a bit of value. The stock's loss outweighs the option gains.","I will answer my own question. After calling my broker, they explained me this:","\"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or \"\"going short.\"\" When you use money to buy shares, it is called \"\"going long.\"\" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything. Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share. You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000. You are both long and short in the stock for $2000. At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds. You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share. Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000. However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares. Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest. Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share. Your long shares have lost $1000 in value. However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares. However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything. Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time. However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame. The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting. Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time. You are only attempting to hedge your bets. And it doesn't work. A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position. And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future. This, however, doesn't really change things much. Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term. Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess. And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain. You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop. You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon. Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short. However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position. And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up. You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain.\"","\"Oh please. Most of the unsecured creditors who get screwed in bankruptcy are large banks. They know the risk going in which is why unsecured lends at a high interest rate. Yes, trade creditors often do get screwed but it's a cost of doing business -- it's why a vendor needs to monitor its receivables and watch for signs of insolvency and adjust the terms of trade accordingly. You should have made sure you were covered by brokerage insurance before handing money to a company like that. The \"\"I'm the little guy\"\" argument is just weak.\"","\"The margin rules are also more complicated. A simple buy on a non-margin account will never run into margin rules and you can just wait out any dips if you have confidence the stock will recover. A \"\"simple\"\" short sell might get you a call from your broker that you have a margin call, and you can't wait it out without putting more money in. Personally I have trouble keeping the short sale margin rules straight in my head, at least compared to a long sale. I got in way over my head shorting AMZN once, and lost a lot of money because I thought it was overvalued at the time, but it just kept going up and I wanted it to go down. I've never gotten stuck like that on a long position.\"","Michael gave a good answer describing the transaction but I wanted to follow up on your questions about the lender. First, the lender does charge interest on the borrowed securities. The amount of interest can vary based on a number of factors, such as who is borrowing, how much are they borrowing, and what stock are they trying to borrow. Occasionally when you are trying to short a stock you will get an error that it is hard to borrow. This could be for a few reasons, such as there are already a large amount of people who have shorted your broker's shares, or your broker never acquired the shares to begin with (which usually only happens on very small stocks). In both cases the broker/lender doesnt have enough shares and may be unwilling to get more. In that way they are discriminating on what they lend. If a company is about to go bankrupt and a lender doesnt have any more shares to lend out, it is unlikely they will purchase more as they stand to lose a lot and gain very little. It might seem like lending is a risky business but think of it as occurring over decades and not months. General Motors had been around for 100 years before it went bankrupt, so any lender who had owned and been lending out GM shares for a fraction of that time likely still profited. Also this is all very simplified. JoeTaxpayer alluded to this in the comments but in actuality who is lending stock or even who owns stock is much more complicated and probably doesnt need to be explained here. I just wanted to show in this over-simplified explanation that lending is not as risky as it may first seem.","While I am not an advocate of shorting anything (unlimited downside, capped upside), you can:","How so? If i sell short, then i make a profit only if the price goes down so i can buy back at a lower price. Yes, but if the price is going up then you would go long instead. Shorting a stock (or any other asset) allows you to profit when the price is going down. Going long allows you to profit when the price is going up. In the opposite cases, you lose money. In order to make a profit in either of those situations, you have to accurately assess which way the price will trade over the period of time you are dealing with. If you make the wrong judgment, then you lose money because you'll either sell for a lower price than you bought (if you went long), or have to buy back at a higher price than you sold for (if you went short). In either case, unless the trader can live with making a short-term loss and recouperating it later, one needs a good stop-loss strategy.","\"You need to interpret \"\"security\"\" appropriately in Wikipedia's definition. You should think of it as saying: to be long in a put, means the holder of the position owns the put and will profit if the price of the put goes up And what makes the price of the put go up? -- the price of the underlying stock going down.\"","Nominal. What you say is true, but I'm guessing it would be too complicated to modelate. Plus, a shareholder of a very large company would not necessarily experience said loss if he/she sells the stock in small chunks at a time.","First off, you should phone your broker and ask them just to be 100% certain. You will be exercised on the short option that was in the money. It is irrelevant that your portfolio does not contain AAPL stock. You will simply be charged the amount it costs to purchase the shares that you owe. I believe your broker would just take this money from your margin/cash account, they would not have let you put the position on if your account could not cover it. I can't see how you having a long dated 2017 call matters. You would still be long this call once assignment of the short call was settled.","\"If you sell a stock you don't own, it's called a short sale. You borrowed the shares from an owner of the stock and eventually would buy to close. On most normal shares, you can hold a short position indefinitely, but there are some shares that have a combination of either a small float or too high a short position that shares to short are not available. This can create a \"\"short squeeze\"\" where shorts are burned by being forced to buy the stock back. Last - when you did this, you should have instructed the broker that you were \"\"selling to open\"\" or \"\"selling short.\"\" In the old days, when people held stock certificates, you were required to send the certificate in when you sold. Today, the broker should know that wasn't your intention.\"","as in, the person you made the agreement with can no longer fulfill the contract's requirements. It's the same thing as if they went bankrupt, you would have to pursue legal channels to recover your dues. Granted in an FX forward you would only have to deliver your part at expiration, so you could hold out if you *know* the counterparty is dead/bankrupt.","> Fourth, even if they ever did go bankrupt, since you already used up your share of their bonds, the other firms can't blame you for that, because you honestly went about using them with no knowledge that the firm would go bankrupt ever. What if you had knowledge it would, and did this as a scam? The mere possibility of the above would limit the third-hand user's willingness to accept bonds from unknown companies. It's that simple.","\"If you own a stake large enough to do that, you became regulated - under Section 13(d) of the 1934 Act and Regulation (in case of US stock) and you became regulated. Restricting you from \"\"shocking\"\" market. Another thing is that your broker will probably not allow you to execute order like that - directed MKT order for such volume. And market is deeper than anyone could measure - darkpools and HFTs passively waiting for opportunities like that.\"","With every loser there is a winner on trades like that. There were some other large hedge funds that figured out what they were doing, and basically just added fuel to the fire and are now making great money as a result. Had the bet reversed, JPM would have been the winner. Check [THIS](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/business/how-boaz-weinstein-and-hedge-funds-outsmarted-jpmorgan.html?pagewanted=all) out.","Presumably you mean to ask what happens if State Street files chapter 7 bankruptcy, since not all bankruptcy proceedings end in liquidation. SPY is a well known ticker, I can't imagine that there wouldn't be an eager bank willing to pay to pick up that ticker and immediately acquire all the assets related to it. The most likely scenario is that another bank would assume control of the ticker and assets, and the shares would continue trading as they always have. A less likely scenario is that no other financial institution wanted to acquire SPY, and the shares would be liquidated and the proceeds would go to the owners of shares of the ETF. Since the underlying assets are in companies that have actual value, the shares shouldn't trade at much of a discount prior to liquidation. Additionally, if there is a black swan event, there will probably be losses on the underlying assets, so it might even be helpful if the SPY fund was tied up in legal proceedings while everyone gets their heads straight in the market.","\"Your strategy fails to control risk. Your \"\"inversed crash\"\" is called a rally. And These kind of things often turn into bigger rallies because of short squeezes, when all the people that are shorting a stock are forced to close their stock because of margin calls - its not that shorts \"\"scramble\"\" to close their position, the broker AUTOMATICALLY closes your short positions with market orders and you are stuck with the loss. So no, your \"\"trick\"\" is not enough. There are better ways to profit from a bearish outlook.\"","I'm not sure I understand your question. If the stock price is at an all-time high, everyone who owns the stock is 'in the money'. Of course, they won't actually realise a capital gain until they sell the stock. Similarly, if the stock becomes worthless (the company shuts down after declaring bankruptcy, etc.), everyone who owns the stock is out whatever they paid for the stock.","\"Number 2 cannot occur. You can buy the call back and sell the stock, but the broker won't force that #2 choice. To trade options, you must have a margin account. No matter how high the stock goes, once \"\"in the money\"\" the option isn't going to rise faster, so your margin % is not an issue. And your example is a bit troublesome to me. Why would a $120 strike call spike to $22 with only a month left? You've made the full $20 on the stock rise and given up any gain after that. That's all. The call owner may exercise at any time. Edit: @jaydles is right, there are circumstances where an option price can increase faster than the stock price. Options pricing generally follows the Black-Scholes model. Since the OP gave us the current stock price, option strike price, and time to expiration, and we know the risk free rate is <1%, you can use the calculator to change volatility. The number two scenario won't occur, however, because a covered call has no risk to the broker, they won't force you to buy the option back, and the option buyer has no motive to exercise it as the entire option value is time premium.\"","\"Look at the link to the SIPC. I don't know exactly what you mean by \"\"runs out of funds,\"\" but the SIPC will replace shares of stock stolen from your account, and up to $100,000 in cash. The real risk is when a shady brokers sells you shares in a stock that becomes worthless, that's when \"\"buyer beware\"\" kicks in. No help there.\"","\"And the absolutely brilliant punchline: who do these regulators and leaders\"\" think will be the purchasers of said debt? Why other systemically important, TBTF banks of course! Which means that, in the by now quite familiar \"\"daisy-chaining\"\" of counterparties and collateral, once one bank fails, its exposure via collateral, repo and certainly, funding of other bank balance sheets, everything will promptly freeze as risk reprices, a la Lehman bonds.\"\"\"","\"What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? I imagine supply would outweigh demand and the stock would fall. Yes this is the case. Every large \"\"Sell\"\" order results in price going down and every large \"\"Buy\"\" order results in price going up. Hence typically when large orders are being executed, they are first negotiated outside for a price and then sold at the exchange. I am not talking about Ownership change event. If a company wants a change in ownership, the buyer would be ready to pay a premium over the market price to get controlling stake.\"","I'm just began playing in the stock market. I assume you mean that you're not using real money, but rather you have an account with a stock simulator like the one Investopedia offers. I am hopeful that's the case due to the high level of risk involved in short selling like you're describing. Here is another post about short selling that expands a bit on that point. To learn much more about the ins and outs of short selling I will point again to Investopedia. I swear I don't work for them, but they do have a great short selling tutorial. When you short sell a stock you are borrowing the stock from your broker. (The broker typically uses stock held by one or more of his clients to cover the loan.) Since it's basically a loan you pay interest. Of course the longer you hold it the more interest you pay. Also, as Joe mentioned there are scenarios in which you may be forced to buy the stock (at a higher price than you sold it). This tends to happen when the stock price is going against the short sell (i.e. you lose money). Finally, did anyone mention that the potential losses in a short sell are infinite?","\"You are likely making an assumption that the \"\"Short call\"\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \"\"write\"\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\""],"string":"[\n \"Unless I am missing something subtle, nothing happens to the buyer. Suppose Alice wants to sell short 1000 shares of XYZ at $5. She borrows the shares from Bob and sells them to Charlie. Now Charlie actually owns the shares; they are in his account. If the stock later goes up to $10, Charlie is happy; he could sell the shares he now owns, and make a $5000 profit. Alice still has the $5000 she received from her short sale, and she owes 1000 shares to Bob. So she's effectively $5000 in debt. If Bob calls in the loan, she'll have to try to come up with another $5000 to buy 1000 shares at $10 on the open market. If she can't, well, that's between her and Bob. Maybe she goes bankrupt and Bob has to write off a loss. But none of this has any effect on Charlie! He got the shares he paid for, and nobody's going to take them away from him. He has no reason to care where they came from, or what sort of complicated transactions brought them into Alice's possession. She had them, and she sold them to him, and that's the end of the story as far as he's concerned.\",\n \"Not really. The lender is not buying the stock back at a lower price. Remember, he already owns it, so he need not buy it again. The person losing is the one from whom the short seller buys back the stock, provided that person bought the stock at higher price. So if B borrowed from A(lender) and sold it to C, and later B purchased it back from C at a lower price, then B made profit, C made loss and A made nothing .\",\n \"In the case of regulated, exchange-traded options, the writer of an options contract is obliged to maintain a margin with their broker, and the broker is obliged to maintain a margin with the clearing house. (Institutional writers of options will deal directly with the clearing house.) In the event that the writer is unable to make a daily margin call, the broker (or clearing house) may automatically close out (all of) their positions using existing margin held. If there was a shortfall, the broker (or clearing house) would be left to persue the client (writer) to make good on their obligations. None of this effects the position of the original buyer of the options contract. Effectively, the buyer's counterparty is their broker's clearing house account.\",\n \"You would generally have to pay interest for everyday you hold the position overnight. If you never close the position and the stock price goes to zero, you will be closed out and credited with your profit. If you never close the position and the stock price keeps going up and up, your potential loss is an unlimited amount of money. Of course your broker may close you out early for a number of reasons, particularly if your loss goes above the amount of capital you have in your trading account.\",\n \"\\\"He sold at 25 cents per pound and then as the price rises, the cash he has will buy less and less which could trigger a margin call as you are missing the \\\"\\\"short\\\"\\\" part of his position which is rather important here. From Investopedia: A margin account also allows your brokerage firm to liquidate your position if the likelihood that you will return what you've borrowed diminishes. This is part of the agreement that is signed when the margin account is created. From the broker's perspective, this increases the likelihood that you will return the shares before losses become too large and you become unable to return the shares. If you sold at 25 cents per pound and the price goes up, at some point you may be forced to buy to cover the position as brokers don't like to lose their money. As another example of a short going bad, \\\"\\\"Devastated\\\"\\\" Trader Crushed By Soaring Biotech, Starts Online Begging Campaign To Fund $106,000 Margin Call notes in part: However where this story gets abusrdly entertaining, or woefully tragic, depending on one's perspective, is that one trader, Joe Campbell, was on the wrong side of last night's massive surge. As the RutRho blog, which noticed it first explains, a \\\"\\\"dummy\\\"\\\" E-trader, Joe Campbell, decided to go $35,000 short KBIO \\\"\\\"and now owes $ETFC a wonderful $106K.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"Well, if the short seller has to pay the dividend out of their pocket, what happens to the dividend the company paid out ?? Sounds like there are 2 divdends floating around, the short's, and the company's, but only 1 share of stock.\",\n \"For every seller, there's a buyer. Buyers may have any reason for wanting to buy (bargain shopping, foolish belief in a crazy business, etc). The party (brokerage, market maker, individual) owning the stock at the time the company goes out of business is the loser . But in a general panic, not every company is going to go out of business. So the party owning those stocks can expect to recover some, or all, of the value at some point in the future. Brokerages all reserve the right to limit margin trading (required for short selling), and during a panic would likely not allow you to short a stock they feel is a high risk for them.\",\n \"The broker would give you a margin call and get you to deposit more funds into your account. They wouldn't wait for the stock price to reach $30, but would take this action much earlier. More over it is very unrealistic for any stock to go up 275% over a few hours, and if the stock was this volatile the broker would be asking for a higher margin to start with. What I am really worried about is that if there were any situation like this you are not considering what you would do as part of your risk management strategy. Before writing the option you should already have an exit point at which you would buy back the option to limit your losses.\",\n \"If the underlying is currently moving as aggressively as stated, the broker would immediately forcibly close positions to maintain margin. What securities are in fact closed depends upon the internal algorithms. If the equity in the account remains negative after closing all positions if necessary, the owner of the account shall owe the broker the balance. The broker will close the account and commence collections if the owner of the account does not pay the balance quickly. Sometimes, brokers will impose higher margin requirements than mandated to prevent the above eventuality. Brokers frequently close positions that violate internal or external margin requirements as soon as they are breached.\",\n \"http://www.investopedia.com/university/shortselling/shortselling1.asp 'Therein lies the major risk of short selling, the fear of infinite losses. While the maximum loss for a long investor is the amount invested in a security, the maximum loss for a short seller is theoretically infinite, since there is no upper limit to a stock’s price appreciation. This risk is compounded by the fact that during a short squeeze or buy-in...' Never have shorted a stock. Too intimidated by that!\",\n \"Yes, it can buy back the call, but much before stock hits the $30 mark. Let us say you got 1$ from selling the call. So the total money in your account is 4$ + 1 $ = 5 $. When stock hits 10$ (your strike), the maintenance margin is 5$. As soon as stock goes past 10, your maintenance margin is violated. So broker will buy back your call (at least IB does that, it does not wait for a margin call). Now if the stock gapped up from 8 to 30,then yes, broker will buy it back at 30, so your account will have a negative balance. Assume the call cost 20$ when stock hit 30, your balance is: 5 - (30-10) = -15. Depending on broker, I suppose they will ask you to bring your account balance back up to positive. If they don't do that, they risk going out of business.\",\n \"2 things may happen. Either your positions are closed by the broker and the loss or profit is credited to your account. Else it is carried over to the next day and you pay interest on the stocks lent to you. What happens will be decided by the agreement signed between you and your broker.\",\n \"\\\"Learn something new every day... I found this interesting and thought I'd throw my 2c in. Good description (I hope) from Short Selling: What is Short Selling First, let's describe what short selling means when you purchase shares of stock. In purchasing stocks, you buy a piece of ownership in the company. You buy/sell stock to gain/sell ownership of a company. When an investor goes long on an investment, it means that he or she has bought a stock believing its price will rise in the future. Conversely, when an investor goes short, he or she is anticipating a decrease in share price. Short selling is the selling of a stock that the seller doesn't own. More specifically, a short sale is the sale of a security that isn't owned by the seller, but that is promised to be delivered. Still with us? Here's the skinny: when you short sell a stock, your broker will lend it to you. The stock will come from the brokerage's own inventory, from another one of the firm's customers, or from another brokerage firm. The shares are sold and the proceeds are credited to your account. Sooner or later, you must \\\"\\\"close\\\"\\\" the short by buying back the same number of shares (called covering) and returning them to your broker. If the price drops, you can buy back the stock at the lower price and make a profit on the difference. If the price of the stock rises, you have to buy it back at the higher price, and you lose money. So what happened? The Plan The Reality Lesson I never understood what \\\"\\\"Shorting a stock\\\"\\\" meant until today. Seems a bit risky for my blood, but I would assume this is an extreme example of what can go wrong. This guy literally chose the wrong time to short a stock that was, in all visible aspects, on the decline. How often does a Large Company or Individual buy stock on the decline... and send that stock soaring? How often does a stock go up 100% in 24 hours? 600%? Another example is recently when Oprah bought 10% of Weight Watchers and caused the stock to soar %105 in 24 hours. You would have rued the day you shorted that stock - on that particular day - if you believed enough to \\\"\\\"gamble\\\"\\\" on it going down in price.\\\"\",\n \"+1 to YosefWeiner. Let me add: Legally, technically, or at least theoretically, when you buy stock through a broker, you own the stock, not the broker. The broker is just holding it for you. If the broker goes bankrupt, that has nothing to do with the value of your stock. That said, if the broker fails to transfer your shares to another broker before ceasing operation, it could be difficult to get your assets. Suppose you take your shoes to a shoe repair shop. Before you can pick them up, the shop goes bankrupt. The shoes are still rightfully yours. If the shop owner was a nice guy he would have called you and told you to pick up your shoes before he closed the shop. But if he didn't, you may have to go through legal gyrations to get your shoes back. If as his business failed the shop owner quit caring and got sloppy about his records, you might have to prove that those shoes are yours and not someone else's, etc.\",\n \"While the issuer of the security such as a stock or bond not the short is responsible for the credit risk, the issuer and the short of a derivative is one. In all cases, it is more than likely that a trader is owed securities by an agent such as a broker or exchange or clearinghouse. Legally, only the Options Clearing Corporation clears openly traded options. With stocks and bonds, brokerages can clear with each other if approved. While a trader is expected to fund margin, the legal responsibility is shared by all in the agent chain. Clearinghouses are liable to exchanges. Exchanges are liable to members. Traders are liable to brokerages. Both ways and so on. Clearinghouses are usually ultimately liable for counterparty risk to the long counterparty, and the short counterparty is ultimately liable to the clearinghouse. Clearinghouses are not responsible for the credit risk of stocks and bonds because the issuers are not short those securities on the exchange, thus no margin is required. Credit risk for stocks and bonds is mitigated away from the clearing process.\",\n \"If the buyer exercises your option, you will have to give him the stock. If you already own the stock, the worst that can happen is you have to give him your stock, thus losing the money you spend to buy it. So the most you can lose is what you already spent to buy the stock (minus the price the buyer paid for your option). If you don't own the stock, you will have to buy it. But if the stock skyrockets in value, it will be very expensive to buy it. If for instance you buy the stock when it is worth $100, sell your covered call, and the next day the stock shoots to $1000, you will lose the $100 you got from the purchase of the stock. But if you had used a naked call, you would have to buy the stock at $1000, and you would lose $900. Since there is no limit to how high the stock can go, there is no limit to how much money you may lose.\",\n \"There is no margin call. Inverse ETFs use derivatives that would lose value in the case you describe though this doesn't force a margin call as you may be misunderstanding how these funds are constructed.\",\n \"\\\"By their agreements with the central counterparty - in the US, the exchange or the Options Clearing Corporation, which interposes itself between the counterparties of each trade and guarantees that they settle. From the CCP article: A clearing house stands between two clearing firms (also known as member firms or participants). Its purpose is to reduce the risk a member firm failing to honor its trade settlement obligations. A CCP reduces the settlement risks by netting offsetting transactions between multiple counterparties, by requiring collateral deposits (also called \\\"\\\"margin deposits\\\"\\\"), by providing independent valuation of trades and collateral, by monitoring the credit worthiness of the member firms, and in many cases, by providing a guarantee fund that can be used to cover losses that exceed a defaulting member's collateral on deposit. Exercisers on most contracts are matched against random writers during the assignment process, and if the writer doesn't deliver/buy the stock, the OCC does so using its funds and goes after the defaulting party.\\\"\",\n \"Not sure if I follow your question completely. Re: What if some fraud takes place that's too big even for it to fund? SIPC does not fund anything. What it does is takes over the troubled brokerage firm, books / assets and returns the money faster. Refer to SIPC - What SIPC Covers... What it Does Not and more specifically SIPC - Why We Are Not the FDIC. SIPC is free for ordinary investors. To get the same from elsewhere one has to pay the premium. Edit: The event we are saying is a large brokrage firm, takes all of the Margin Money from Customer Accounts and loses it and also sell off all the stocks actually shown as being held in customer account ... that would be to big. While its not clear as to what exactly will happens, my guess is that the limits per customers will go down as initial payments. Subsequent payments will only be done after recover of funds from the bankrupt firm. What normally happens when a brokrage firm goes down is some of the money from customers account is diverted ... stocks are typically safe and not diverted. Hence the way SIPC works is that it will give the money back to customer faster to individuals. In absence of SIPC individual investors would have had to fight for themselves.\",\n \"\\\"Assuming these are standardized and regulated contracts, the short answer is yes. In your example, Trader A is short while Trader B is long. If Trader B wants to exit his long position, he merely enters a \\\"\\\"sell to close\\\"\\\" order with his broker. Trader B never goes short as you state. He was long while he held the contract, then he \\\"\\\"sold to close\\\"\\\". As to who finds the buyer of Trader B's contract, I believe that would be the exchange or a market maker. Therefore, Trader C ends up the counterparty to Trader A's short position after buying from Trader B. Assuming the contract is held until expiration, Trader A is responsible for delivering contracted product to Trader C for contracted price. In reality this is generally settled up in cash, and Trader A and Trader C never even know each other's identity.\\\"\",\n \"The answer depends on whether the company involved has 'limited liability'. Most, but not all public and listed companies and corporations have this, but not all so it is worth checking and understanding what you are getting involved with. The expression 'limited liability' means that the owners (shareholders) of a company have a liability up to the amount of the face value of the shares they hold which they have not yet paid for. The difference is usually minor but basically it means that if you buy $10 of shares you have no liability, but if the company gives you $10 of shares, and you pay them (in cash or kind) $5, then you still have a liability of $5. If the company fails, the debtors can come after you for that liability. An 'unlimited liability' company is a different animal altogether. Lloyds insurance is probably the most famous example. Lloyds worked by putting together consortiums to underwrite risk. If the risk doesn't happen, the consortium keeps the premiums, if it does, they cover the loss. Most of the time they are very profitable but not always. For example, the consortiums which covered asbestos caused the bankruptcies of a great many very wealthy people.\",\n \"\\\"When the buyout happens, the $30 strike is worth $10, as it's in the money, you get $10 ($1000 per contract). Yes, the $40 strike is pretty worthless, it actually dropped in value today. Some deals are worded as an offer or intention, so a new offer can come in. This appears to be a done deal. From Chapter 8 of CHARACTERISTICS AND RISKS OF STANDARDIZED OPTIONS - FEB 1994 with supplemental updates 1997 through 2012; \\\"\\\"In certain unusual circumstances, it might not be possible for uncovered call writers of physical delivery stock and stock index options to obtain the underlying equity securities in order to meet their settlement obligations following exercise. This could happen, for example, in the event of a successful tender offer for all or substantially all of the outstanding shares of an underlying security or if trading in an underlying security were enjoined or suspended. In situations of that type, OCC may impose special exercise settlement procedures. These special procedures, applicable only to calls and only when an assigned writer is unable to obtain the underlying security, may involve the suspension of the settlement obligations of the holder and writer and/or the fixing of cash settlement prices in lieu of delivery of the underlying security. In such circumstances, OCC might also prohibit the exercise of puts by holders who would be unable to deliver the underlying security on the exercise settlement date. When special exercise settlement procedures are imposed, OCC will announce to its Clearing Members how settlements are to be handled. Investors may obtain that information from their brokerage firms.\\\"\\\" I believe this confirms my observation. Happy to discuss if a reader feels otherwise.\\\"\",\n \"@MichaelBorgwardt gave an excellent answer. Let me add a little analogy here that might help. Suppose you bought a car from Joe's Auto Sales. You pay your money, do all the paperwork, and drive your car home. The next day Joe's goes bankrupt. What affect does that have on your ownership rights to your car? The answer is, Absolutely none. Same thing with stocks and a stock exchange. A stock exchange is basically just a store where you can buy stock. Once you buy it, it's yours. That said, there could potentially be a problem with record keeping. If you bought a car from Joe's Auto Sales, and Joe went out of business before sending the registration paperwork to the state, you might find that the state has no record that you legally own the car and you could have difficulty proving it. Likewise if a stock exchange went out of business without getting all their records properly updated, their might be an issue. Actually I think the bigger concern here for most folks would be their broker and not the stock exchange, as your broker is the one who keeps the records of what stocks you own long term. In practice, though, most companies are responsible enough to clean up their paperwork properly when they go out of business, and if they don't, a successor company or government regulators or someone will try to clean it all up.\",\n \"\\\"I think the question, as worded, has some incorrect assumptions built into it, but let me try to hit the key answers that I think might help: Your broker can't really do anything here. Your broker doesn't own the calls you sold, and can't elect to exercise someone else's calls. Your broker can take action to liquidate positions when you are in margin calls, but the scenario you describe wouldn't generate them: If you are long stock, and short calls, the calls are covered, and have no margin requirement. The stock is the only collateral you need, and you can have the position on in a cash (non-margin) account. So, assuming you haven't bought other things on margin that have gone south and are generating calls, your broker has no right to do anything to you. If you're wondering about the \\\"\\\"other guy\\\"\\\", meaning the person who is long the calls that you are short, they are the one who can impact you, by exercising their right to buy the stock from you. In that scenario, you make $21, your maximum possible return (since you bought the stock at $100, collected $1 premium, and sold it for $120. But they usually won't do that before expiration, and they pretty definitely won't here. The reason they usually won't is that most options trade above their intrinsic value (the amount that they're in the money). In your example, the options aren't in the money at all. The stock is trading at 120, and the option gives the owner the right to buy at 120.* Put another way, exercising the option lets the owner buy the stock for the exact same price anyone with no options can in the market. So, if the call has any value whatsoever, exercising it is irrational; the owner would be better off selling the call and buying the stock in the market.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The correct answer to this question is: the person who the short sells the stock to. Here's why this is the case. Say we have A, who owns the stock and lends it to B, who then sells it short to C. After this the price drops and B buys the stock back from D and returns it to A. The outcome for A is neutral. Typically stock that is sold short must be held in a margin account; the broker can borrow the shares from A, collect interest from B, and A has no idea this is going on, because the shares are held in a street name (the brokerage's name) and not A. If A decides during this period to sell, the transaction will occur immediately, and the brokerage must shuffle things around so the shares can be delivered. If this is going to be difficult then the cost for borrowing shares becomes very high. The outcome for B is obviously a profit: they sold high first and bought (back) low afterwards. This leaves either C or D as having lost this money. Why isn't it D? One way of looking at this is that the profit to B comes from the difference in the price from selling to C and buying from D. D is sitting on the low end, and thus is not paying out the profit. D bought low, compared to C and this did not lose any money, so C is the only remaining choice. Another way of looking at it is that C actually \\\"\\\"lost\\\"\\\" all the money when purchasing the stock. After all, all the money went directly from C to B. In return, C got some stock with the hope that in the future C could sell it for more than was paid for it. But C literally gave the money to B, so how could anybody else \\\"\\\"pay\\\"\\\" the loss? Another way of looking at it is that C buys a stock which then decreases in value. C is thus now sitting on a loss. The fact that it is currently only a paper loss makes this less obvious; if the stock were to recover to the price C bought at, one might conclude that C did not lose the money to B. However, in this same scenario, D also makes money that C could have made had C bought at D's price, proving that C really did lose the money to B. The final way of seeing that the answer is C is to consider what happens when somebody sells a stock which they already hold but the price goes up; who did they lose out on the gain to? The person again is; who bought their stock. The person would buys the stock is always the person who the gain goes to when the price appreciates, or the loss comes out of if the price falls.\\\"\",\n \"For the lenders to sell their positions they need buyers on the other side. For a large brokerage that means they should always be able to find another lender. For many contracts the client may have no idea they are a lender as lending is part of their agreement with the broker\",\n \"\\\"If you don't use leverage you can't lose more than you invested because you \\\"\\\"play\\\"\\\" with your own money. But even with leverage when you reach a certain limit (maintenance margin) you will receive a margin call from your broker to add more funds to your account. If you don't comply with this (meaning you don't add funds) the broker will liquidate some of the assets (in this case the currency) and it will restore the balance of the account to meet with his/her maintenance margin. At least, this is valid for assets like stocks and derivatives. Hope it helps! Edit: I should mention that\\\"\",\n \"\\\"What will happen if the stock price just continues to decline? Nothing. What would happen if folks just stop trading it? Nothing. What if the company goes private? Then they will have to buy you out based on some agreed upon price, as voted by the board and (potentially) approved by the shareholders. Depending on the corporation charter, the board may not be required to seek the shareholders' approval, but if the price the board agreed upon is unreasonable you can sue and prevent the transaction. How do they decide the fair value of the outstanding stocks? Through a process called \\\"\\\"valuation\\\"\\\", there are accounting firms which specialize in this area of public accounting.\\\"\",\n \"Nobody is going to short sell stocks through a lender that forces people to buy in as soon as it is getting good for them.\",\n \"But by closing the short position the broker would still be purchasing shares from the market no? Or at least, someone would be purchasing the shares to close the short position. So, why doesn't the broker just let Client A keep their short position open and buy shares in the market so that Client B can sell them...I know it sounds a bit ridic, but not much more so to me than letting Client A borrow the shares to begin with!\",\n \"When you short a stock, you can lose an unlimited amount of money if the trade goes against you. If the shorted stock gaps up overnight you can lose more money than you have in your account. The best case is you make 100% if the stock goes to zero. And then you have margin fees on top of that. With long positions, it's the other way around. Your max loss is 100% and your gains are potentially unlimited.\",\n \"\\\"A derivative contract can be an option, and you can take a short (sell) position , much the same way you would in a stock. When BUYING options you risk only the money you put in. However when selling naked(you don't have the securities or cash to cover all potential losses) options, you are borrowing. Brokers force you to maintain a required amount of cash called, a maintenance requirement. When selling naked calls - theoretically you are able to lose an INFINITE amount of money, so in order to sell this type of options you have to maintain a certain level of cash in your account. If you fail to maintain this level you will enter into whats often referred to as a \\\"\\\"margin-call\\\"\\\". And yes they will call your phone and tell you :). Your broker has the right to liquidate your positions in order to meet requirements. PS: From experience my broker has never liquidated any of my holdings, but then again I've never been in a margin call for longer then a few days and never with a severe amount. The margin requirement for investors is regulated and brokers follow these regulations.\\\"\",\n \"The obvious thing would happen. 10 shares change owner at the price of $100. A partially still open selling order would remain. Market orders without limits means to buy or sell at the best possible or current price. However, this is not very realistic. Usually there is a spread between the bid and the ask price and the reason is that market makers are acting in between. They would immediately exploit this situation, for example, by placing appropriately limited orders. Orders without limits are not advisable for stocks with low trading activity. Would you buy or sell stuff without caring for the price?\",\n \"\\\"An important thing that many people fail to realize is that the number of shares outstanding in a stock, times the current market price of those shares, does not represent anything related to the total value of those shares. If a company has one million shares outstanding and its total value is $10 million, then the real worth of each share is $10. If few people feels like buying or selling, but a few people think the company is worth $50 million and offer $50/share, that could raise the market price to $50/share, but it wouldn't mean that the company became worth five times as much; it would merely mean the stock was overpriced. If, after the price went to $50/share, all the owners of the stock put in stop-loss orders at $45. Note that the real $10/share \\\"\\\"real value\\\"\\\" of their stock would never have changed. If the people who thought the stock was worth $50 decided to get out of the market, and nobody else was willing to offer more than $10, that would instantly drop the price to $10. The fact that a million shares of stock have stop-loss orders at $45 wouldn't magically generate buyers for those stocks at that price. Indeed, unchecked stop-loss orders would have the reverse effect, since many people who would have been willing if not eager to buy the stock if it had been available for less than $10/share would instead be trying to sell it below that price. It's too bad people think that the number of shares outstanding times the current market price represents some kind of \\\"\\\"meaningful quantity\\\"\\\". If the present cash value of all future payouts associated with a share of stock is $10, then someone who buys a share of stock for less than that makes money off the seller; someone who pays more loses money to the seller. Many people think they can lose money to the seller and still come out okay if the price goes higher, but what that really means is that they're hoping to find a bigger sucker--a game where it's guaranteed that some people will have losses they don't recoup.\\\"\",\n \"In this example, Client A has to buy shares to return them to Client B for his sale (closing Client A's short position). Client B then sells the shares. The end result is there are no shares within the brokerage clientele anymore, so Client A can't borrow them anymore. The broker is just an intermediary, they wouldn't go out and acquire securities on their own for the benefit of a client wanting to short it, as they would be taking on the risk of the opposite position. This would be in addition to the risk they already take on when allowing people to short sell -- which is that Client A won't have the money to buy the shares it owes to Client B, in which case the broker has to make Client B whole.\",\n \"From Wikipedia: If a company with limited liability is sued, then the claimants are suing the company, not its owners or investors. A shareholder in a limited company is not personally liable for any of the debts of the company, other than for the value of their investment in that company. Summarized, no, if you buy stock from the regular stock market like NYSE, you're not personally liable for any debt or fraud that happens.\",\n \"The original option writer (seller) can close his short position in the contracts he wrote by purchasing back matching contracts (i.e. contracts with the same terms: underlying, option type, strike price, expiration date) from any others who hold long positions, or else who write new matching contract instances. Rather than buyer and seller settling directly, options are settled through a central options clearing house, being the Options Clearing Corporation for exchange-listed options in the U.S. See also Wikipedia - Clearing house (finance). So, the original buyer of the put maintains his position (insurance) and the clearing process ensures he is matched up with somebody else holding a matching obligation, if he chooses to exercise his put. I also answered a similar question but in more detail, here.\",\n \"When you set up a short sale for equities you are borrowing stock from someone else; typically another client at the broker. The broker usually buries an agreement to let your shares be borrowed for short sales in your account details. So if Client A wants to short a stock, he borrows stock from Client B to do the short sale (it's usually not this direct as they can borrow from many clients). If Client B then wants to sell his shares; if the broker can't shift around assets to find another client's shares to let Client A borrow; then he has to close the short position out because he doesn't have the shares in the brokerage to let Client A borrow to short anymore.\",\n \"Different brokerages have different house rules for margin requirements and margin calls. You will likely get a margin call giving you a small amount of time to deposit the required funds to bring your account balance up to the required margin requirements. In reality, a stock that falls from $50 to $4 in a short period will probably become unmarginable. In short, yes, you will owe the broker for the loss.\",\n \"As mentioned in the comments: According to the message from the exchange all trades at or below $5.86 that were executed in NASDAQ between 09:38:00 and 09:46:00 ET got canceled. If the short doesn't fall into those criteria but the long does, though luck the long is invalid, the short is valid. Traders that got the short end of the stick in the end, should contact their brokers and inquire about this situation. Depending on the terms of the broker the short might get canceled as well. If not, then it's up to the market. The trader can keep or close the short. IMO, what the person in question should have done is hold on to the trade and see what happens at the end of the trading day. He should've realized something was wrong when the price went from 8.xx to 0.8x.\",\n \"The options market requires much more attention to avoid the situation you're describing. An overnight $10 ask will remain on the books most likely as Good-Til-Canceled. The first to bid the low order gets it. If traders are paying attention, which they probably are then they will bid at $10. If not, they will bid immediately at $20. If they crossed the order, it would be filled at their higher than $10 bid. This is all governed by the exchange where the ask is posted, and most implement price-time priority.\",\n \"\\\"There are situations where you can be forced to cover a position, particular when \\\"\\\"Reg SHO\\\"\\\" (\\\"\\\"regulation sho\\\"\\\") is activated. Reg SHO is intended to make naked short sellers cover their position, it is to prevent abusive failure to delivers, where someone goes short without borrowing someone else's shares. Naked shorting isn't a violation of federal securities laws but it becomes an accounting problem when multiple people have claims to the same underlying assets. (I've seen companies that had 120% of their shares sold short, too funny, FWIW the market was correct as the company was worth nothing.) You can be naked short without knowing it. So there can be times when you will be forced to cover. Other people being forced to cover can result in a short squeeze. A risk. The other downside is that you have to pay interest on your borrowings. You also have to pay the dividends to the owner of the shares, if applicable. In shorter time frames these are negligible, but in longer time frames, such as closer to a year or longer, these really add up. Let alone the costs of the market going in the opposite direction, and the commissions.\\\"\",\n \"Unlike the stock market which offers growth long term, the derivatives market is a zero sum game. This phrase is how one describes a poker game. 7 people walk in, and walk out with the same total amount of money (note, the 7th guy is the 'house', and with nothing at risk, he gets his cut). No money is created, the total value doesn't change. When I buy or sell an option, there is someone on the other side of that trade with a gain or loss equal and opposite to my position. At option expiration, or a repurchase that closes an open contract, the whole series of trades resulted in no net gain of wealth. The huge losses were spread among the banks, the investors, the insurance companies, and the government. By government, I mean the taxpayer. You paid your share, my friend, as did I. Welcome to Money.SE. Get to 150 rep, and vote in the election.\",\n \"\\\"Long here does not mean you wish for the underlying stock to increase in value, in fact, as the chart shows, just the opposite is true. \\\"\\\"Long means you bought the derivative, and you own the option. The guy that sold it to you is at your mercy, he is short the put, and it's your decision to put the stock to him should it fall in value. The value of the put itself rises with the falling stock price, you are long the put and want the put, itself, to rise in value.\\\"\",\n \"Short-term, the game is supply/demand and how the various participants react to it at various prices. On longer term, prices start to better reflect the fundamentals. Within something like week to some month or two, if there has not been any unique value affecting news, then interest, options, market maker(s), swing traders and such play bigger part. With intraday, the effects of available liquidity become very pronounced. The market makers have algos that try to guess what type of client they have and they prefer to give high price to large buyer and low price to small buyer. As intraday trader has spreads and commissions big part of their expenses and leverage magnifies those, instead of being able to take advantage of the lower prices, they prefer to stop out after small move against them. In practise this means that when they buy low, that low will soon be the midpoint of the day and tomorrows high etc if they are still holding on. Buy and sell are similar to long call or long put options position. And options are like insurance, they cost you. Also the longer the position is held the more likely it is to end up with someone with ability to test your margin if you're highly leveraged and constantly making your wins from the same source. Risk management is also issue. The leveraged pros trade through a company. Not sure if they're able to open another such company and still open accounts after the inevitable.\",\n \"If the price had dropped to $4 from $50, and you had $5000 to start with on your account, you will be left with $400 in your account if you closed the position now. So you would not be in debt if this was the only possition you had open.\",\n \"Answers here are correct but I'll offer an extremely (overly) simple explanation that should help you in understanding the more detailed answers. When most people own stock they do so through a broker. Unless you jump through some hoops, the broker keeps the shares in the name of the brokerage. This is called holding the stock in street name. When you sell short through a brokerage, the broker is letting you borrow a certain number of shares owned by someone else and sell them for cash now. At some point, you need to repay this loan with the same number of shares you borrowed. Ideally, you want the stock to drop to $0. The reason you might be forced to purchase the stock is that the actual owner(s) of the stock want to sell. If the broker has too many people wanting to sell, you will need to repay some of all of the loan (in shares) i.e. purchasing shares at the current market price.\",\n \"One thing no one else has touched on is the issue of time frame. If I'm looking to hold my shares over the next few years, I don't mind riding out a few short-term bumps, while the short-seller is looking to make a quick profit on some bad news. Sure, I could sell and rebuy, but that's a lot of hassle, not to mention commissions and tax issues.\",\n \"You can buy a put and exercise it. The ideal option in this case will have little time premium left and very near the money. Who lent you the shares? The person that sold you the option! In reality, when you exercise, assignment can be random, but everything is [supposedly] accounted for as the option seller had to put up margin collateral to sell the option.\",\n \"The market maker will always take it off your hands. Just enter a market sell order. It will cost you a commission to pull the loss into this year. But that's it.\",\n \"You're assuming options traded on the open market. To close open positions, a seller buys them back on the open market. If there's little on offer, this will drive the price up.\",\n \"Short sellers have to pay interest on the borrowings to the shareholders. Although many times brokers don't pass on these earnings to the shareholders, this is the exchange.\",\n \"You can D/K a trade if it is not confirmed in a timely manner. Also, UBS chose not to sell on the first day they waited hoping and got burned. So that first day loss argument doesn't stand here, it can't due to a technical error. My post states that it had to be a large holding for some time.\",\n \"When you buy a stock, the worst case scenario is that it drops to 0. Therefore, the most you can lose when buying a stock is 100% of your investment. When you short a stock, however, there's no limit on how high the stock can go. If you short a stock at 10, and it goes up to 30, then you've lost 200% on your investment. Therefore shorting stocks is riskier than buying stocks, since you can lose more than 100% of your investment when shorting. because the price might go up, but it will never be as big of a change as a regular price drop i suppose... That is not true. Stocks can sometimes go up significantly (50-100% or more) in a very short amount of time on a positive news release (such as an earnings or a buyout announcement). A famous example occurred in 2008, when Volkswagen stock quintupled (went up 400%) in less than 2 days on some corporate news: Porsche, for some reason, wants to control Volkswagen, and by building up its stake has driven up the price. Hedge funds, figuring the share price would fall as soon as Porsche got control and stopped buying, sold a lot of VW shares short. Then last weekend, Porsche disclosed that it owned 42.6 percent of the stock and had acquired options for another 31.5 percent. It said it wanted to go to 75 percent. The result: instant short-squeeze. The German state of Lower Saxony owns a 20 percent stake in VW, which it said it would not sell. That left precious few shares available for anyone else. The shorts scrambled to cover, and the price leaped from about €200, or about $265, to above €1,000.\",\n \"Doesnt mean that equity or even debt holders wouldn't lose their investment. Those money and banking texts are presently useless post GFC given the incredible moral hazard and how all of the traditional bankruptcy rules were ignored.\",\n \"Your question has 6 questions marks along with comments on what you'd like to know. Yes, there are stocks that are tough to short, a combination of low float, high current short positions, etc. Interest charged on the position rises in a supply/demand fashion. To unwind the position, there's always going to be stock available to buy. A shortage of willing sellers will cause the price to go up, but you'll see a bid/ask and the market will clear, i.e. The buy order fills.\",\n \"\\\"He didn't sell in the \\\"\\\"normal\\\"\\\" way that most people think of when they hear the term \\\"\\\"sell.\\\"\\\" He engaged in a (perfectly legitimate) technique known as short selling, in which he borrows shares from his broker and sells them immediately. He's betting that the price of the stock will drop so he can buy them back at a lower price to return the borrowed shares back to his broker. He gets to pocket the difference. He had about $37,000 of cash in his account. Since he borrowed ~8400 shares and sold them immediately at $2/share, he got $16,800 in cash and owed his broker 8400 shares. So, his net purchasing power at the time of the short sale was $37,000 + $16,800 - 4800 shares * $2/share. As the price of the stock changes, his purchasing power will change according to this equation. He's allowed to continue to borrow these 8400 shares as long as his purchasing power remains above 0. That is, the broker requires him to have enough cash on hand to buy back all of his borrowed shares at any given moment. If his purchasing power ever goes negative, he'll be subject to a margin call: the broker will make him either deposit cash into his account or close his positions (sell long positions or buy back short positions) until it's positive again. The stock jumped up to $13.85 the next morning before the market opened (during \\\"\\\"before-hours\\\"\\\" trading). His purchasing power at that time was $37,000 + $16,800 - 8400 shares * $13.85/share = -$62,540. Since his purchasing power was negative, he was subject to a margin call. By the time he got out, he had to pay $17.50/share to buy back the 8400 shares that he borrowed, making his purchasing power -$101,600. This $101,600 was money that he borrowed from his broker to buy back the shares to fulfill his margin call. His huge loss was from borrowing shares from his broker. Note that his maximum potential loss is unlimited, since there is no limit to how much a stock can grow. Evidently, he failed to grasp the most important concept of short selling, which is that he's borrowing stock from his broker and he's obligated to give that stock back whenever his broker wants, no matter what it costs him to fulfill that obligation.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"In addition to JoeTaxpayer's answer there are articles that describe the writing of options as \\\"\\\"being the casino\\\"\\\". When you write, or sell to open an option, you are selling one of the most desirable things in the world to sell: a depreciating asset. Writing options are not without risk, but they can be a very conservative strategy. Who wins these massive losses? Sometimes run of the mill investors, myself being one of them.\\\"\",\n \"If the share is listed on a stock exchange that creates liquidity and orderly sales with specialist market makers, such as the NYSE, there will always be a counterparty to trade with, though they will let the price rise or fall to meet other open interest. On other exchanges, or in closely held or private equity scenarios, this is not necessarily the case (NASDAQ has market maker firms that maintain the bid-ask spread and can do the same thing with their own inventory as the specialists, but are not required to by the brokerage rules as the NYSE brokers are). The NYSE has listing requirements of at least 1.1 million shares, so there will not be a case with only 100 shares on this exchange.\",\n \"You seem to think that stock exchanges are much more than they actually are. But it's right there in the name: stock exchange. It's a place where people exchange (i.e. trade) stocks, no more and no less. All it does is enable the trading (and thereby price finding). Supposedly they went into mysterious bankruptcy then what will happen to the listed companies Absolutely nothing. They may have to use a different exchange if they're planning an IPO or stock buyback, that's all. and to the shareholder's stock who invested in companies that were listed in these markets ? Absolutley nothing. It still belongs to them. Trades that were in progress at the moment the exchange went down might be problematic, but usually the shutdown would happen in a manner that takes care of it, and ultimately the trade either went through or it didn't (and you still have the money). It might take some time to establish this. Let's suppose I am an investor and I bought stocks from a listed company in NYSE and NYSE went into bankruptcy, even though NYSE is a unique business, meaning it doesn't have to do anything with that firm which I invested in. How would I know the stock price of that firm Look at a different stock exchange. There are dozens even within the USA, hundreds internationally. and will I lose my purchased stocks ? Of course not, they will still be listed as yours at your broker. In general, what will happen after that ? People will use different stock exchanges, and some of them migth get overloaded from the additional volume. Expect some inconveniences but no huge problems.\",\n \"\\\"If you can't find anyone to lend you the shares, then you can't short. You can attempt to raise the interest rate at which you will borrow at, in order to entice others to lend you their shares. In practice, broadcasting this information is pretty convoluted. If there aren't any stocks for you to buy back, then you have to buy back at a higher price. As in, place a limit buy order higher and higher until someone decides to sell to you. This affects your profit. Regarding the public ledger: This functions different in different markets. United States stock markets have an evolving body of regulations to alleviate the exact concerns you detailed, but Canada's or Dubai's stock markets would have different provisions. You make the assumption that it is an efficient process, but it is not and it is indeed ripe for abuse. In US stocks, the public ledger has a 3 business day delay between showing change of ownership. Many times brokers and clearing firms and other market participants allow a customer to go short with fake shares, with the idea that they will find real shares within the 3 business day time period to cover the position. During the time period that there is no real shares hitting the market, this is called a \\\"\\\"naked short\\\"\\\". The only legal system that attempts to deter this practice is the \\\"\\\"fail to deliver\\\"\\\" (FTD) list. If someone fails to deliver, that means there is a short position active with fake shares for which no real shares have been borrowed against. Too many FTD's allow for a short selling restriction to be placed, meaning nobody else can be short, and existing short sellers may be forced to cover.\\\"\",\n \"TD will only sell the stock for you if there's a buyer. There was a buyer, for at least one transaction of at least one stock at 96.66. But who said there were more? Obviously, the stocks later fell, i.e.: there were not that many buyers as there were sellers. What I'm saying is that once the stock passed/reached the limit, the order becomes an active order. But it doesn't become the only active order. It is added to the list, and to the bottom of that list. Obviously, in this case, there were not enough buyers to go through the whole list and get to your order, and since it was a limit order - it would only execute with the limit price you put. Once the price went down you got out of luck. That said, there could of course be a possibility of a system failure. But given the story of the market behavior - it just looks like you miscalculated and lost on a bet.\",\n \"There would be small generic risk that the company stock goes down real fast by more than 15% in a specific event to the company [fraud, segment company operates suffers a shock, etc] or a generic event to the stock market like recent events of Greece etc.\",\n \"according to the Options Industry council ( http://www.optionseducation.org/tools/faq/splits_mergers_spinoffs_bankruptcies.html ) put options the shares (and therefore the options) may continue trading OTC but if the shares completely stop trading then: if the courts cancel the shares, whereby common shareholders receive nothing, calls will become worthless and an investor who exercises a put would receive 100 times the strike price and deliver nothing. The reason for this is that it is not the company whose shares you have the option on that you have a contract with but the counterparty who wrote the option. If the counterparty goes bankrupt then you may not get paid out (depending on assets available at liquidation - this is counterparty risk) but, unless the two are the same, if the company whose shares you have a put option on declares bankruptcy then you will get paid\",\n \"\\\"To summarize, there are three basic ways: (3) is the truly dangerous one. If there is a lot of short interest in a stock, but for some reason the stock goes up, suddenly a lot of people will be scrambling to buy that stock to cover their short position -- which will drive the price up even further, making the problem worse. Pretty soon, a bunch of smart rich guys will be poor guys who are suddenly very aware that they aren't as smart as they thought they were. Eight years ago, such a \\\"\\\"short squeeze\\\"\\\", as it's called, made the price of VW quadruple in two days. You could hear the Heinies howl from Hamburg to Haldenwanger. There are ways to protect yourself, of course. You can go short but also buy a call at a much higher price, thereby limiting your exposure, a strategy called a \\\"\\\"straddle\\\"\\\", but you also reduce your profit if you guessed right. It comes down to, as it always does, do you want to eat well, or to sleep well?\\\"\",\n \"\\\"No. If the share price drops to $0, it's likely that the company is in bankruptcy. Usually, debt holders (especially holders of senior debt) are paid first, and you're entitled to whatever the bankruptcy proceedings decide to give holders of equity after the debt holders are paid off. More often than not, equity holders probably won't get much. To give an example, corporate bankruptcy usually involves one of two options: liquidation or reorganization. In the US, these are called Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 bankruptcy, respectively. Canada and the United Kingdom also have similar procedures for corporations, although in the UK, reorganization is often referred to as administration. Many countries have similar procedures in place. I'll use the US as an example because it's what I'm most familiar with. In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the company is liquidated to pay its debts. Investopedia's article about bankruptcy states: During Chapter 7 bankruptcy, investors are considered especially low on the ladder. Usually, the stock of a company undergoing Chapter 7 proceedings is usually worthless, and investors lose the money they invested. If you hold a bond, you might receive a fraction of its face value. What you receive depends on the amount of assets available for distribution and where your investment ranks on the priority list on the first page. In Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the company is turned over to a trustee that guides it through a reorganization. The Investopedia article quotes the SEC to describe what happens to stockholders when this happens: \\\"\\\"During Chapter 11 bankruptcy, bondholders stop receiving interest and principal payments, and stockholders stop receiving dividends. If you are a bondholder, you may receive new stock in exchange for your bonds, new bonds or a combination of stock and bonds. If you are a stockholder, the trustee may ask you to send back your stock in exchange for shares in the reorganized company. The new shares may be fewer in number and worth less. The reorganization plan spells out your rights as an investor and what you can expect to receive, if anything, from the company.\\\"\\\" The exact details will depend on the reorganization plan that's worked out, local laws, court agreements, etc.. For example, in the case of General Motor's bankruptcy, stockholders in the company before reorganization were left with worthless shares and were not granted shares in the new company.\\\"\",\n \"It would be nice if the broker could be instructed to clear out the position for you, but in my experience the broker will simply give you the shares that you can't afford, then freeze your account because you are over your margin limit, and issue a margin call. This happened to me recently because of a dumb mistake: options I paid $200 for and expected to expire worthless, ended up slightly ITM, so they were auto-exercised on Friday for about $20k, and my account was frozen (only able to close positions). By the next Monday, market news had shifted the stock against me and I had to sell it at a loss of $1200 to meet the margin call. This kind of thing is what gives option trading a reputation for danger: A supposedly max-$200-risk turned into a 6x greater loss. I see no reason to ever exercise, I always try to close my positions, but these things can happen.\",\n \"You are long the puts. By exercising them you force the underlying stock to be bought from you at your strike price. Let's say your strike it $100 and the stock is currently $25. Buy 100 shares and exercise 1 (bought/long) put. That gives you $7500 of new money, so do the previous sentence over again in as many 'units' as you can.\",\n \"Absolutely true, but in a bankruptcy situation the best OP can do is win a judgment for breach of contract/fiduciary duty/whatever against Refco, and then get a levy on some assets. He's still just a lien creditor who will be paid after all the secureds in bankruptcy. As MF Global is demonstrating once again, whatever regulations there are to keep clients' money in brokerages sequestered ain't cutting it.\",\n \"If you get selected for exercise, your broker will liquidate the whole position for you most likely Talk to your broker.\",\n \"Because someone smarter than you by 50 IQ points (a quant) will depart their larger position long before you have a chance to see it coming. Your stop losses are useless as the market will open with the issue below your sell price. Your trade even if place at the same mine would settle after theirs. don't piss in the tall grass with the big dogs. If they are wrong or right does not matter you will be haircut or whipsawed.\",\n \"This is your best answer so far. A detail left out is that derivatives are mostly known for the amount of leverage allowed, which is typically about 20-1, or 5% down. This is legal because it's generally assumed that someone is not going to buy or sell the underlying asset, that they will offset their long or short position long before the contract's delivery date. Your derivative broker(typically futures instead of forwards, because they're a standardized size, traded on an exchange and more liquid) will call you when you lose about half of your 5% to tell you to either transfer some money to cover your position or to ask you to exit your position at a loss. Fowards are traded through clearinghouses, not exchanges, and they can be for any underlying asset, for any delivery date, for any price, so long as parties agree on it. Just think of it as a contract.\",\n \"The day trader in the article was engaging in short selling. Short selling is a technique used to profit when a stock goes down. The investor borrows shares of a stock from someone else and sells them. After the stock price goes down, the investor buys the shares back and returns them, pocketing the difference. As the day trader in the article found out, it is a dangerous practice, because there is no limit to the amount of money you can lose. The stock was trading at $2, and the day trader thought the stock was going to go down to $1. He borrowed and sold 8,400 shares at $2. He hoped to buy them back at $1 and earn $8,400 profit. Instead, the stock went up a lot, and he was forced to buy back the shares at $18.50 per share, or about $155,400. He had had $37,000 with E-Trade, which they took, and he is now over $100,000 in debt.\",\n \"If you didn't have a stop loss set (or trailing stop loss) then an equally random spike in the other direction could have obliterated your account and put you in debt to the broker, depending on the terms of that broker, as these are highly leveraged positions. Market anomaly? If your currency bet was unrelated to the fed's interest rate decision today, then you should probably just stop trading.\",\n \"The dividend goes to he who owns the stock when it goes ex-div. A buyer (the call buyer who exercises) will not exercise unless the stock plus dividend are in the money. Otherwise they'd be buying the stock at a premium. I like the scenario your friend doesn't. If I can find a high dividend stock and sell the call for a decent price, I may get a great return on a stock that's gone down 5% over a year's time. If it goes up and called away, that's fine too, it means a profit.\",\n \"You haven't said why you think you will gain at $41, but the graph never lies. Take it one piece at a time: At $41, your stock will lose a big chunk of value. Your short calls will expire. Your puts will gain a bit of value. The stock's loss outweighs the option gains.\",\n \"I will answer my own question. After calling my broker, they explained me this:\",\n \"\\\"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or \\\"\\\"going short.\\\"\\\" When you use money to buy shares, it is called \\\"\\\"going long.\\\"\\\" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything. Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share. You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000. You are both long and short in the stock for $2000. At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds. You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share. Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000. However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares. Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest. Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share. Your long shares have lost $1000 in value. However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares. However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything. Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time. However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame. The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting. Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time. You are only attempting to hedge your bets. And it doesn't work. A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position. And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future. This, however, doesn't really change things much. Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term. Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess. And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain. You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop. You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon. Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short. However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position. And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up. You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Oh please. Most of the unsecured creditors who get screwed in bankruptcy are large banks. They know the risk going in which is why unsecured lends at a high interest rate. Yes, trade creditors often do get screwed but it's a cost of doing business -- it's why a vendor needs to monitor its receivables and watch for signs of insolvency and adjust the terms of trade accordingly. You should have made sure you were covered by brokerage insurance before handing money to a company like that. The \\\"\\\"I'm the little guy\\\"\\\" argument is just weak.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The margin rules are also more complicated. A simple buy on a non-margin account will never run into margin rules and you can just wait out any dips if you have confidence the stock will recover. A \\\"\\\"simple\\\"\\\" short sell might get you a call from your broker that you have a margin call, and you can't wait it out without putting more money in. Personally I have trouble keeping the short sale margin rules straight in my head, at least compared to a long sale. I got in way over my head shorting AMZN once, and lost a lot of money because I thought it was overvalued at the time, but it just kept going up and I wanted it to go down. I've never gotten stuck like that on a long position.\\\"\",\n \"Michael gave a good answer describing the transaction but I wanted to follow up on your questions about the lender. First, the lender does charge interest on the borrowed securities. The amount of interest can vary based on a number of factors, such as who is borrowing, how much are they borrowing, and what stock are they trying to borrow. Occasionally when you are trying to short a stock you will get an error that it is hard to borrow. This could be for a few reasons, such as there are already a large amount of people who have shorted your broker's shares, or your broker never acquired the shares to begin with (which usually only happens on very small stocks). In both cases the broker/lender doesnt have enough shares and may be unwilling to get more. In that way they are discriminating on what they lend. If a company is about to go bankrupt and a lender doesnt have any more shares to lend out, it is unlikely they will purchase more as they stand to lose a lot and gain very little. It might seem like lending is a risky business but think of it as occurring over decades and not months. General Motors had been around for 100 years before it went bankrupt, so any lender who had owned and been lending out GM shares for a fraction of that time likely still profited. Also this is all very simplified. JoeTaxpayer alluded to this in the comments but in actuality who is lending stock or even who owns stock is much more complicated and probably doesnt need to be explained here. I just wanted to show in this over-simplified explanation that lending is not as risky as it may first seem.\",\n \"While I am not an advocate of shorting anything (unlimited downside, capped upside), you can:\",\n \"How so? If i sell short, then i make a profit only if the price goes down so i can buy back at a lower price. Yes, but if the price is going up then you would go long instead. Shorting a stock (or any other asset) allows you to profit when the price is going down. Going long allows you to profit when the price is going up. In the opposite cases, you lose money. In order to make a profit in either of those situations, you have to accurately assess which way the price will trade over the period of time you are dealing with. If you make the wrong judgment, then you lose money because you'll either sell for a lower price than you bought (if you went long), or have to buy back at a higher price than you sold for (if you went short). In either case, unless the trader can live with making a short-term loss and recouperating it later, one needs a good stop-loss strategy.\",\n \"\\\"You need to interpret \\\"\\\"security\\\"\\\" appropriately in Wikipedia's definition. You should think of it as saying: to be long in a put, means the holder of the position owns the put and will profit if the price of the put goes up And what makes the price of the put go up? -- the price of the underlying stock going down.\\\"\",\n \"Nominal. What you say is true, but I'm guessing it would be too complicated to modelate. Plus, a shareholder of a very large company would not necessarily experience said loss if he/she sells the stock in small chunks at a time.\",\n \"First off, you should phone your broker and ask them just to be 100% certain. You will be exercised on the short option that was in the money. It is irrelevant that your portfolio does not contain AAPL stock. You will simply be charged the amount it costs to purchase the shares that you owe. I believe your broker would just take this money from your margin/cash account, they would not have let you put the position on if your account could not cover it. I can't see how you having a long dated 2017 call matters. You would still be long this call once assignment of the short call was settled.\",\n \"\\\"If you sell a stock you don't own, it's called a short sale. You borrowed the shares from an owner of the stock and eventually would buy to close. On most normal shares, you can hold a short position indefinitely, but there are some shares that have a combination of either a small float or too high a short position that shares to short are not available. This can create a \\\"\\\"short squeeze\\\"\\\" where shorts are burned by being forced to buy the stock back. Last - when you did this, you should have instructed the broker that you were \\\"\\\"selling to open\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"selling short.\\\"\\\" In the old days, when people held stock certificates, you were required to send the certificate in when you sold. Today, the broker should know that wasn't your intention.\\\"\",\n \"as in, the person you made the agreement with can no longer fulfill the contract's requirements. It's the same thing as if they went bankrupt, you would have to pursue legal channels to recover your dues. Granted in an FX forward you would only have to deliver your part at expiration, so you could hold out if you *know* the counterparty is dead/bankrupt.\",\n \"> Fourth, even if they ever did go bankrupt, since you already used up your share of their bonds, the other firms can't blame you for that, because you honestly went about using them with no knowledge that the firm would go bankrupt ever. What if you had knowledge it would, and did this as a scam? The mere possibility of the above would limit the third-hand user's willingness to accept bonds from unknown companies. It's that simple.\",\n \"\\\"If you own a stake large enough to do that, you became regulated - under Section 13(d) of the 1934 Act and Regulation (in case of US stock) and you became regulated. Restricting you from \\\"\\\"shocking\\\"\\\" market. Another thing is that your broker will probably not allow you to execute order like that - directed MKT order for such volume. And market is deeper than anyone could measure - darkpools and HFTs passively waiting for opportunities like that.\\\"\",\n \"With every loser there is a winner on trades like that. There were some other large hedge funds that figured out what they were doing, and basically just added fuel to the fire and are now making great money as a result. Had the bet reversed, JPM would have been the winner. Check [THIS](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/business/how-boaz-weinstein-and-hedge-funds-outsmarted-jpmorgan.html?pagewanted=all) out.\",\n \"Presumably you mean to ask what happens if State Street files chapter 7 bankruptcy, since not all bankruptcy proceedings end in liquidation. SPY is a well known ticker, I can't imagine that there wouldn't be an eager bank willing to pay to pick up that ticker and immediately acquire all the assets related to it. The most likely scenario is that another bank would assume control of the ticker and assets, and the shares would continue trading as they always have. A less likely scenario is that no other financial institution wanted to acquire SPY, and the shares would be liquidated and the proceeds would go to the owners of shares of the ETF. Since the underlying assets are in companies that have actual value, the shares shouldn't trade at much of a discount prior to liquidation. Additionally, if there is a black swan event, there will probably be losses on the underlying assets, so it might even be helpful if the SPY fund was tied up in legal proceedings while everyone gets their heads straight in the market.\",\n \"\\\"Your strategy fails to control risk. Your \\\"\\\"inversed crash\\\"\\\" is called a rally. And These kind of things often turn into bigger rallies because of short squeezes, when all the people that are shorting a stock are forced to close their stock because of margin calls - its not that shorts \\\"\\\"scramble\\\"\\\" to close their position, the broker AUTOMATICALLY closes your short positions with market orders and you are stuck with the loss. So no, your \\\"\\\"trick\\\"\\\" is not enough. There are better ways to profit from a bearish outlook.\\\"\",\n \"I'm not sure I understand your question. If the stock price is at an all-time high, everyone who owns the stock is 'in the money'. Of course, they won't actually realise a capital gain until they sell the stock. Similarly, if the stock becomes worthless (the company shuts down after declaring bankruptcy, etc.), everyone who owns the stock is out whatever they paid for the stock.\",\n \"\\\"Number 2 cannot occur. You can buy the call back and sell the stock, but the broker won't force that #2 choice. To trade options, you must have a margin account. No matter how high the stock goes, once \\\"\\\"in the money\\\"\\\" the option isn't going to rise faster, so your margin % is not an issue. And your example is a bit troublesome to me. Why would a $120 strike call spike to $22 with only a month left? You've made the full $20 on the stock rise and given up any gain after that. That's all. The call owner may exercise at any time. Edit: @jaydles is right, there are circumstances where an option price can increase faster than the stock price. Options pricing generally follows the Black-Scholes model. Since the OP gave us the current stock price, option strike price, and time to expiration, and we know the risk free rate is <1%, you can use the calculator to change volatility. The number two scenario won't occur, however, because a covered call has no risk to the broker, they won't force you to buy the option back, and the option buyer has no motive to exercise it as the entire option value is time premium.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Look at the link to the SIPC. I don't know exactly what you mean by \\\"\\\"runs out of funds,\\\"\\\" but the SIPC will replace shares of stock stolen from your account, and up to $100,000 in cash. The real risk is when a shady brokers sells you shares in a stock that becomes worthless, that's when \\\"\\\"buyer beware\\\"\\\" kicks in. No help there.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"And the absolutely brilliant punchline: who do these regulators and leaders\\\"\\\" think will be the purchasers of said debt? Why other systemically important, TBTF banks of course! Which means that, in the by now quite familiar \\\"\\\"daisy-chaining\\\"\\\" of counterparties and collateral, once one bank fails, its exposure via collateral, repo and certainly, funding of other bank balance sheets, everything will promptly freeze as risk reprices, a la Lehman bonds.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"\\\"What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? I imagine supply would outweigh demand and the stock would fall. Yes this is the case. Every large \\\"\\\"Sell\\\"\\\" order results in price going down and every large \\\"\\\"Buy\\\"\\\" order results in price going up. Hence typically when large orders are being executed, they are first negotiated outside for a price and then sold at the exchange. I am not talking about Ownership change event. If a company wants a change in ownership, the buyer would be ready to pay a premium over the market price to get controlling stake.\\\"\",\n \"I'm just began playing in the stock market. I assume you mean that you're not using real money, but rather you have an account with a stock simulator like the one Investopedia offers. I am hopeful that's the case due to the high level of risk involved in short selling like you're describing. Here is another post about short selling that expands a bit on that point. To learn much more about the ins and outs of short selling I will point again to Investopedia. I swear I don't work for them, but they do have a great short selling tutorial. When you short sell a stock you are borrowing the stock from your broker. (The broker typically uses stock held by one or more of his clients to cover the loan.) Since it's basically a loan you pay interest. Of course the longer you hold it the more interest you pay. Also, as Joe mentioned there are scenarios in which you may be forced to buy the stock (at a higher price than you sold it). This tends to happen when the stock price is going against the short sell (i.e. you lose money). Finally, did anyone mention that the potential losses in a short sell are infinite?\",\n \"\\\"You are likely making an assumption that the \\\"\\\"Short call\\\"\\\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \\\"\\\"write\\\"\\\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Unless I am missing something subtle, nothing happens to the buyer. Suppose Alice wants to sell short 1000 shares of XYZ at $5. She borrows the shares from Bob and sells them to Charlie. Now Charlie actually owns the shares; they are in his account. If the stock later goes up to $10, Charlie is happy; he could sell the shares he now owns, and make a $5000 profit. Alice still has the $5000 she received from her short sale, and she owes 1000 shares to Bob. So she's effectively $5000 in debt. If Bob calls in the loan, she'll have to try to come up with another $5000 to buy 1000 shares at $10 on the open market. If she can't, well, that's between her and Bob. Maybe she goes bankrupt and Bob has to write off a loss. But none of this has any effect on Charlie! He got the shares he paid for, and nobody's going to take them away from him. He has no reason to care where they came from, or what sort of complicated transactions brought them into Alice's possession. She had them, and she sold them to him, and that's the end of the story as far as he's concerned."],"string":"[\n \"Unless I am missing something subtle, nothing happens to the buyer. Suppose Alice wants to sell short 1000 shares of XYZ at $5. She borrows the shares from Bob and sells them to Charlie. Now Charlie actually owns the shares; they are in his account. If the stock later goes up to $10, Charlie is happy; he could sell the shares he now owns, and make a $5000 profit. Alice still has the $5000 she received from her short sale, and she owes 1000 shares to Bob. So she's effectively $5000 in debt. If Bob calls in the loan, she'll have to try to come up with another $5000 to buy 1000 shares at $10 on the open market. If she can't, well, that's between her and Bob. Maybe she goes bankrupt and Bob has to write off a loss. But none of this has any effect on Charlie! He got the shares he paid for, and nobody's going to take them away from him. He has no reason to care where they came from, or what sort of complicated transactions brought them into Alice's possession. She had them, and she sold them to him, and that's the end of the story as far as he's concerned.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":191,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"2384"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Tax: 1099 paper form"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["435835"],"string":"[\n \"435835\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["435835","77990","277812","345942","586026","122185","489898","585356","466213","196920","72209","360756","427442","39125","31793","211869","335833","390102","284085","490997","406789","80789","51761","406042","196399","232566","537763","445052","505341","449116","57707","382908","458231","362933","244104","287398","174025","471257","599842","581345","505761","151810","100452","237331","301453","208216","327078","105046","34099","587639","599496","197546","249687","211147","46737","380226","466678","578196","135688","148104","288438","585023","341960","69333","223042","219156","72321","313012","452896","350555","568165","106673","416117","4457","57229","405777","417866","55407","454184","355679","467704","11569","3778","408434","90290","382295","1011","442146","304479","487728","183688","566607","299258","51621","5433","402686","216404","304888","416476","28633"],"string":"[\n \"435835\",\n \"77990\",\n \"277812\",\n \"345942\",\n \"586026\",\n \"122185\",\n \"489898\",\n \"585356\",\n \"466213\",\n \"196920\",\n \"72209\",\n \"360756\",\n \"427442\",\n \"39125\",\n \"31793\",\n \"211869\",\n \"335833\",\n \"390102\",\n \"284085\",\n \"490997\",\n \"406789\",\n \"80789\",\n \"51761\",\n \"406042\",\n \"196399\",\n \"232566\",\n \"537763\",\n \"445052\",\n \"505341\",\n \"449116\",\n \"57707\",\n \"382908\",\n \"458231\",\n \"362933\",\n \"244104\",\n \"287398\",\n \"174025\",\n \"471257\",\n \"599842\",\n \"581345\",\n \"505761\",\n \"151810\",\n \"100452\",\n \"237331\",\n \"301453\",\n \"208216\",\n \"327078\",\n \"105046\",\n \"34099\",\n \"587639\",\n \"599496\",\n \"197546\",\n \"249687\",\n \"211147\",\n \"46737\",\n \"380226\",\n \"466678\",\n \"578196\",\n \"135688\",\n \"148104\",\n \"288438\",\n \"585023\",\n \"341960\",\n \"69333\",\n \"223042\",\n \"219156\",\n \"72321\",\n \"313012\",\n \"452896\",\n \"350555\",\n \"568165\",\n \"106673\",\n \"416117\",\n \"4457\",\n \"57229\",\n \"405777\",\n \"417866\",\n \"55407\",\n \"454184\",\n \"355679\",\n \"467704\",\n \"11569\",\n \"3778\",\n \"408434\",\n \"90290\",\n \"382295\",\n \"1011\",\n \"442146\",\n \"304479\",\n \"487728\",\n \"183688\",\n \"566607\",\n \"299258\",\n \"51621\",\n \"5433\",\n \"402686\",\n \"216404\",\n \"304888\",\n \"416476\",\n \"28633\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["You can print them on any IRS-approved paper, you don't have to use pre-printed forms. The IRS publishes specifications for paper that is approved for use for these kinds of forms (109*, W*, etc). Here's the reason why it is important: Even the slightest deviation can result in incorrect scanning, and may affect money amounts reported for employees. Note that some portions of these forms are in different color (1099-MISC copy A). This is important, and using incorrect color will affect the IRS OCR mechanisms. Forms for individuals are less complicated with regards to technical specifications, because individuals must file them, and as such any complication will unnecessarily burden the citizenry. All the 109*, W* etc forms are not legally required to be filed by all citizens. You're only required to file them if you chose to do business, or chose to employ others. As such, using professional software and special forms is a cost of doing your business, and not a tax as it would be had it been mandatory to everyone. Mistakes in individual forms due to OCR failure or something else will be noticed by the taxpayers (less/more refund, etc) or through the internal matching and cross-check. However, forms 109* and W* feed that matching and cross-check system and are considered source of truth by it, and as such their processing must be much more reliable and precise.","Is it right that I request form W-9 or form W-8BEN (for non U.S. citizens) from the affiliate users before sending them payments? Not just OK. Required. I know that I have to send form 1099, but I don't know where does this form should go to. Should I send it to the IRS or the affiliate user or both? Both. There's also form 1096 that you need to send to the IRS. Read the instructions. Should I send form 1099 once a year or each time I make a payment to the affiliate? Once a year. Read the instructions. Do I have to send form 1099 when the money earned by the affiliate hit a certain threshold or I have to send it anyway? $600 or more requires the form, but you can send for any amount. Read the instructions. Is there any other forms or documents to request from or send to the affiliate user or the IRS? There may be additional forms. Especially if the recipient is a foreign person and you withhold taxes. Talk to your tax adviser.","There are many different types of 1099 forms. Since you are comparing it to a W-2, I'm assuming you are talking about a 1099-MISC form. Independent contractor income If you are a worker earning a salary or wage, your employer reports your annual earnings at year-end on Form W-2. However, if you are an independent contractor or self-employed you will receive a Form 1099-MISC from each client that pays you at least $600 during the tax year. For example, if you are a freelance writer, consultant or artist, you hire yourself out to individuals or companies on a contract basis. The income you receive from each job you take should be reported to you on Form 1099-MISC. When you prepare your tax return, the IRS requires you to report all of this income and pay income tax on it. So even if you receive a 1099-MISC form, you are required to pay taxes on it.","Am I required to send form 1099 to non-US citizens who are not even residing in the US? Since they're not required to file US taxes, do I still have to send the form to them? That's tricky. You need to get W8/W9 from them, and act accordingly. You may need to withhold 30% (or different percentage, depending on tax treaty they claim on W8). If you withhold taxes, you also need to file form 1042. I suggest you talk to a tax professional. Is it fine to expose my ITIN (taxpayer identification number) to individuals or companies who I send the form to them. Since the form requires me to write my TIN/EIN, what would be the risks of this and what precautions should be taken to avoid inappropriate/illegal use? No, it is not OK. But if you pay these people directly - you don't have much choice, so deal with it. Get a good insurance for identity theft, and don't transact with people you don't trust. One alternative would be to pay through a payment processor (Paypal or credit cards) - see your next question. I send payments via PayPal and wire transfer. Should I send form 1099-MISC or 1099-K? Paypal is a corporation, so you don't need to send 1099 to Paypal. Whatever Paypal sends to others - it will issue the appropriate forms. Similarly if you use a credit card for payment. When you send money through Paypal - you don't send money directly to your business counterparts. You send money to Paypal.","Forms 1099 and W2 are mutually exclusive. Employers file both, not the employees. 1099 is filed for contractors, W2 is filed for employees. These terms are defined in the tax code, and you may very well be employee, even though your employer pays you as a contractor and issues 1099. You may complain to the IRS if this is the case, and have them explain the difference to the employer (at the employer's expense, through fines and penalties). Employers usually do this to avoid providing benefits (and by the way also avoid paying payroll taxes). If you're working as a contractor, lets check your follow-up questions: where do i pay my taxes on my hourly that means does the IRS have a payment center for the tax i pay. If you're an independent contractor (1099), you're supposed to pay your own taxes on a quarterly basis using the form 1040-ES. Check this page for more information on your quarterly payments and follow the links. If you're a salaried employee elsewhere (i.e.: receive W2, from a different employer), then instead of doing the quarterly estimates you can adjust your salary withholding at that other place of work to cover for your additional income. To do that you submit an updated form W4 there, check with the payroll department on details. Is this a hobby tax No such thing, hobby income is taxed as ordinary income. The difference is that hobby cannot be at loss, while regular business activity can. If you're a contractor, it is likely that you're not working at loss, so it is irrelevant. what tax do i pay the city? does this require a sole proprietor license? This really depends on your local laws and the type of work you're doing and where you're doing it. Most likely, if you're working from your employer's office, you don't need any business license from the city (unless you have to be licensed to do the job). If you're working from home, you might need a license, check with the local government. These are very general answers to very general questions. You should seek a proper advice from a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for your specific case.","Form 1127 (updated link) should be filed in paper (with the supporting documents) to the IRS office that has jurisdiction in the area where you live. From the instructions (see the link above): File Form 1127 with the Internal Revenue Service (Attn: Advisory Group Manager), for the area where you maintain your legal residence or principal place of business. See Pub. 4235, Collection Advisory Group Addresses, to find the address for your local advisory group. However, if the tax due is a gift tax reportable on Form 709, send Form 1127 to: Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Center Cincinnati, OH 45999","\"Whenever you do paid work for a company, you will need to fill out some sort of paperwork so that the company knows how to pay you, and also how to report how much they paid you to the appropriate government agencies. You should not think of this as a \"\"hurdle\"\" and you shouldn't worry that you haven't been employed for a long time. The two most common ways a company pays an individual are via employee wages, or \"\"independent contractor\"\" payments. When you start a relationship with a company, if you are going to become an employee, then you will out a W4 form, and at the end of the year you will receive a W2 form. If you are an independent contractor, (which you would be considered in this case), you will fill out form W9 and at the end of the year you will receive a 1099. This is completely normal and you have nothing to worry about. All it means is that if you make more than a certain amount (typically $600) in a year, you will receive a 1099 in the mail or electronically. The 1099 form basically means that they are reporting that amount to the IRS, and it also helps you file your tax return by showing you all the numbers you need on one form. Please remember that when you are paid as an independent contractor, no taxes are withheld on your behalf, so you may owe some tax on the money you make. It's best to set aside some of your income so you are prepared to pay it come tax time next year.\"","\"In the U.S., Form 1040 is known as the tax return. This is the form that is filed annually to calculate your tax due for the year, and you either claim a refund if you have overpaid your taxes or send in a payment if you have underpaid. The form is generally due on April 15 each year, but this year the due date is April 18, 2016. When it comes to filing your taxes, there are two questions you need to ask yourself: \"\"Am I required to file?\"\" and \"\"Should I file?\"\" Am I required to file? The 1040 instructions has a section called \"\"Do I have to file?\"\" with several charts that determine if you are legally required to file. It depends on your status and your gross income. If you are single, under 65, and not a dependent on someone else's return, you are not required to file if your 2015 income was less than $10,300. If you will be claimed as a dependent on someone else's return, however, you must file if your earned income (from work) was over $6300, or your unearned income (from investments) was over $1050, or your gross (total) income was more than the larger of either $1050 or your earned income + $350. See the instructions for more details. Should I file? Even if you find that you are not required to file, it may be beneficial to you to file anyway. There are two main reasons you might do this: If you have had income where tax has been taken out, you may have overpaid the tax. Filing the tax return will allow you to get a refund of the amount that you overpaid. As a student, you may be eligible for student tax credits that can get you a refund even if you did not pay any tax during the year. How to file For low income tax payers, the IRS has a program called Free File that provides free filing software options.\"","\"You file taxes as usual. W2 is a form given to you, you don't need to fill it. Similarly, 1099. Both report moneys paid to you by your employers. W2 is for actual employer (the one where you're on the payroll), 1099 is for contractors (where you invoice the entity you provide services to and get paid per contract). You need to look at form 1040 and its instructions as to how exactly to fill it. That would be the annual tax return. It has various schedules (A, B, C, D, E, F, H, etc) which you should familiarize yourself with, and various additional forms that you attach to it. If you're self employed, you're expected to make quarterly estimate payments, but if you're a salaried employee you can instruct your employer to withhold the amounts you expect to owe for taxes from your salary, instead. If you're using a tax preparation software (like TurboTax or TaxAct), it will \"\"interview\"\" you to get all the needed information and provide you with the forms filled accordingly. Alternatively you can pay someone to prepare the tax return for you.\"","From the 1099 instructions: File Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, for each person to whom you have paid during the year Your accounting method doesn't matter. You file 1099 for the year you paid the money.","\"1099's and other official tax forms are often reported to the IRS by the issuer, whether or not you include a copy in your return. You should not neglect to include this income in your 2016 return in an attempt to balance out the two tax years. It's up to you whether or not you feel like filing an amended 2015 return to recover over-payment of taxes from that tax year. You have up to three years to amend tax returns using form 1040X. Since you couldn't have furnished a 1099 for this when you filed your 2015 return (otherwise you wouldn't be in receipt of it for tax year 2016), I'm assuming you reported it simply as \"\"Other Income\"\" and therefore would have been [over] taxed your marginal rate on it. From irs.gov: When to amend a return. You should file an amended return if you need to correct your filing status, number of dependents, total income, tax deductions or tax credits. The instructions for Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, list additional reasons to amend a return.\"","No, do not file a Form 1099. You should not issue a form to yourself and you have no separate entity to issue one. The reporting obligation is Form 1040, plus Schedule C. You may have followed a wrong turn somewhere in the TurboTax questionnaire or it may not have picked up the subtleties of your situation. The business income is already yours. Some writers use vehicles to hold their royalties and pay themselves. The questionnaire may have been trying to get at this issue or may have wrongly assumed it. There are special rules around such entities, so getting an adviser is a good idea. For now, just file Schedule C, remember to deduct your costs (e.g. cost to print the books), and pay your self-employment tax.","There are two parts in this 1042-S form. The income/dividends go into the Canada T5 form. There will be credit if 1042-S has held money already, so use T2209 to report too.","\"Form W-9 (officially, the \"\"Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification\"\") is used in the United States income tax system by a third party who must file an information return with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It requests the name, address, and taxpayer identification information of a taxpayer (in the form of a Social Security Number or Employer Identification Number). A W-9 is typically required when an individual is doing work, as a contractor or as an employee, for a company and will be paid more than $600 in a tax-year. The company is required to file a W-2 or a 1099 and so requests a W-9 to get the information necessary for those forms. I cannot say if it is incompetence on the part of the accounting department or a deliberate ploy to make the refund process more onerous, but do not comply. Politely nsist on a refund without any further information. If the company refuses, request a charge-back from the credit-card company, file a complaint with the consumer-protection department of the state where the company is located, and write a bad review on Yelp or wherever else seems appropriate.\"","Depends whom the 1099 was issued to. If it was issued to your corporation - then its your corporation's income, not yours. Why would it go to your tax return? Your corporation and you are two separate legal entities. You will have to file the 1120S, whether you have corporate income or not, it has to be filed each year. So why make a mess of your reporting and not just report the corporation income on its return and your personal income on your own return? If you no longer use the corporation and all the 1099's are issued to you personally, then just dissolve it so that you won't have to file an empty 1120S every year and pay additional fees for maintaining it.","is it possible to file that single form aside from the rest of my return? Turbotax will generate all the forms necessary to file your return. I recommend you access these forms and file them manually. According to the IRS in order to report capital gains and losses you need to fill out Form 8949 and summarize them on Form 1040 D. Add these two forms to the stack that turbotax generates. Add the total capital gains to line 13 of the Form 1040 which turbotax generated, and adjust the totals on the form accordingly.","The deadline to mail is February 15. However, if the form is being prepared by a middleman (i.e. Wells Fargo) then they have until March 15th (on page 24). Also, if you haven't received your 1099 form by February 14, you may contact the IRS and they will contact and request the missing form on your behalf. I know that's a lot of information, but to answer your question, yes, there are situations where March 15th is the deadline instead of February 15th.","According to the Form W-8BEN instructions for Part II, Line 10: Line 10. Line 10 must be used only if you are claiming treaty benefits that require that you meet conditions not covered by the representations you make on line 9 and Part III. For example, persons claiming treaty benefits on royalties must complete this line if the treaty contains different withholding rates for different types of royalties. In tax treaties, some of the benefits apply to every resident of a foreign country. Other benefits only apply to certain groups of people. Line 10 is where you affirm that you meet whatever special conditions are necessary in the treaty to obtain the benefit. If you are claiming that Article 15 of the U.S.-India Tax Treaty, you could use Line 10 to do this. It is important to remember that this form goes to the company paying you; it does not actually get sent to the IRS. Therefore, you can ask the company themselves if filling out Line 9 only will result in them withholding nothing, or if they would need you to fill out Line 10.","You need to file IRS Form 1040-NR. The IRS's website provides instructions.","Why was I sent both 1042-S and 1099. Which amount is the right amount that has been withheld. Generally, each tax form you get will be about a separate income; for instance, you might get a 1099-DIV for dividends you earned from an investment and then a 1099-B for the profit or loss on selling that investment, in which case you'd report them both to the IRS. In this case, you've also had money withheld as a non-resident alien, which is why you've been issued a 1042-S. So you need to report both amounts to the IRS.","\"Littleadv is incorrect because receiving a 1099 means she will be taxed self-employment tax on top of federal income taxes. Your employer will automatically withhold 7.65% of payroll taxes as they pay you each paycheck and then they'll automatically pay the other half of your payroll tax (an additional 7.65%) to bring it to a total of 15.3%. In other words, because your wife is technically self employed, she will owe both sides of payroll tax which is 15.3% of $38k = $5,800 on TOP of your federal income tax (which is the only thing the W-4 is instructing them about what amount to withhold). The huge advantage to a 1099, however, is that she's essentially self-employed which means ALL of the things she needs to run her business are deductible expenses. This includes her car, computer, home office, supplies, sometimes phone, gas, maintenance, travel expenses, sometimes entertainment, etc - which can easily bring her \"\"income\"\" down from $38k to lets say $23k, reducing both her federal income tax AND self-employment tax to apply to $15k less (saving lets say 50% of $15k = $7.5k with federal and self employment because your income is so high). She is actually supposed to pay quarterly taxes to make up for all of this. The easy way to do this is each quarter plug YOUR total salary + bonus and the tax YOU have paid so far (check your paystubs) into TurboTax along with her income so far and all of her expenses. This will give you how much tax you can expect to have left to owe so far--this would be your first quarter. When you calculate your other quarters, do it the exact same way and just subtract what you've already paid so far that year from your total tax liability.\"","I got notice from Charles Schwab that the forms weren't being mailed out until the middle of February because, for some reason, the forms were likely to change and rather than mail them out twice, they mailed them out once. Perhaps some state tax laws took effect (such as two Oregon bills regarding tax rates for higher incomes) and they waited on that. While I haven't gotten my forms mailed to me yet, I did go online and get the electronic copies that allowed me to finish my taxes already.","You are correct that you do not need to file under a certain circumstances primarily related to income, but other items are taken into account such as filing status, whether the amount was earned or unearned income (interest, dividends, etc.) and a few other special situations which probably don't apply to you. If you go through table 2 on page 3 and 4 of IRS publication 501 (attached), there is a worksheet to fill out that will give you the definitive answer. As far as the 1099 goes, that is to be filed by the person who paid you. How you were paid (i.e., cash, check, etc., makes no difference). You don't have a filing requirement for that form in this case. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf","Are the amounts in those boxes taxes that have already been removed? Yes. If they are, how do I report these totals? When I entered the information from the 1099-MISC, it only asked for the total, and didn't ask for (what I thought were) the taxes already taken out. It should appear on your 1040 line 64 (and similar line on your State tax return). If the program doesn't ask for all the 1099 fields (which is stupid), you can add it as additional taxes paid in the Credits section, somewhere in the area where they ask about estimated payments etc.","I can't find specific information for Form 1099-DIV for this tax year. However, I found this quote for next tax season that talks about Form 1099-B: Due date for certain statements sent to recipients. The due date for furnishing statements to recipients for Forms 1099-B, 1099-S, and 1099-MISC (if amounts are reported in box 8 or 14) is February 15, 2018. [emphasis added] I know many brokerages bundle the 1099-DIV with the 1099-B, so one might assume that the deadlines are the same. February 15 seems consistent with the messages I got from my brokerages that said the forms will be mailed by mid-February.","The IRS instructions do not specify how to connect the forms, just that you should not staple the check to the form (likely because it goes to a different location for processing). I have always either stapled or paper-clipped them together, however I would assume that the receiving department does not care, otherwise it would be explicit in the instructions.","Form 1099-misc reports PAYMENTS, not earnings. This does not imply the EARNINGS are not taxable in the year they were earned.","He has included this on Schedule D line 1a, but I don't see any details on the actual transaction. It is reported on form 8949. However, if it is fully reported in 1099-B (with cost basis), then you don't have to actually detail every position. Turbotax asked me to fill in individual stock sales with proceeds and cost basis information. ... Again, it seems to be documented on Schedule D in boxes 1a and 8a. See above. I received a 1099-Q for a 529 distribution for a family member. It was used for qualified expenses, so should not be taxable. Then there's nothing to report. I believe I paid the correct amounts based on my (possibly flawed) understanding of estimated taxes. His initial draft had me paying a penalty. I explained my situation for the year, and his next draft had the penalties removed, with no documentation or explanation. IRS assesses the penalty. If you volunteer to pay the penalty, you can calculate it yourself and pay with the taxes due. Otherwise - leave it to the IRS to calculate and assess the penalty they deem right and send you a bill. You can then argue with the IRS about that assessment. Many times they don't even bother, if the amounts are small, so I'd suggest going with what the CPA did.","Normally you could either head down to the office supply store and pick up a copy of a tax program, or you could head over to the IRS office and pick up the instructions and forms. However, in your case you should be talking to a tax lawyer. The unfiled taxes are bad enough but you own a business outside the USA and most likely have bank accounts also. That brings you into the realm of FATCA.","\"You would put your earnings (and expenses, don't forget) on Schedule C, and then do a Schedule SE for self-employment tax. http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98846,00.html 1040ES isn't used to compute taxes, it's used to pay taxes. Generally you are supposed to pay taxes as you go, rather than when you file. There are exceptions where you won't be penalized for paying when you file, \"\"most taxpayers will avoid this penalty if they owe less than $1,000 in tax after subtracting their withholdings and credits, or if they paid at least 90% of the tax for the current year, or 100% of the tax shown on the return for the prior year, whichever is smaller\"\" from http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc306.html i.e. there's a safe harbor as long as you pay as much as you owed the year before. If you owe a lot at the end of the year a second time in a row, then you get penalized.\"","\"Depending on what you need to explain, you can submit your electronic return without the supplemental information and subsequently mail a Form 8453 with the additional information. This is helpful for form 8489, for example, where you need to list every transaction reported by your stock broker on a 1099-B. See https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8453.pdf for more details on this form. If the information you need to submit an attachment for doesn't follow one of the options on that form, you will likely need to file a paper return or use a paid tax preparation service/application. Limitations of FreeFile are explained here, along with a list of forms that are available: https://www.irs.gov/uac/List-of-Available-Free-File-Fillable-Forms The \"\"Attaching Statements\"\" and \"\"Write-in information\"\" sections seem like they might apply to your situation. Attaching Statements - If you need to add statements and you can't use Form 8453, U.S. Individual Income Tax Transmittal for an IRS e-file Return, to mail that information, you will not be able to use this program to efile your return Identity Protection PIN's (IP PIN) - This program only supports the entry of a Primary taxpayer's IP PIN. If the spouse or dependents have an IP PIN, you cannot use this program to efile the return. Writing In Information - Your ability to \"\"write in\"\" additional information to explain an entry is generally limited to the 1040 forms and some of the more frequently submitted forms. If you need to write in additional information on a form, other than the 1040 series, you may not be able to use this program to efile your tax return. E-filing Forms - To efile forms, (except Form 4868) they must be attached to a 1040 series form (1040, 1040A or 1040EZ). Form Limitations - There may be Known Limitations of forms you plan to complete. Please review them. A form limitation may keep you from completing or e-filing your return.\"","Can I work on 1099 from my own company instead of on W2? The reason is on W2 I can't deduct my commute, Health Insurance and some other expenses while on 1099 I think I can able do that. Since I am going to client place to work not at my own office, I am not sure whether I should able to do that or not. If you have LLC, unless you elected to tax it as a corporation, you need neither 1099 nor W2. For tax purposes the LLC is disregarded. So it is, from tax perspective, a sole proprietorship (or partnership, if multiple members). Being a W2 employee of your own LLC is a bad idea. For all these above expenses, which can I use company's debit/credit card or I need to use only my personal debit/credit card? It would be better to always use a business account for business purposes. Doesn't matter much for tax per se, but will make your life easier in case of an audit or a legal dispute (limited liability protection may depend on it). If I work on 1099, I guess I need to file some reasonable taxes on quarterly basis instead of filing at year end. If so, how do I pay my tax on quarterly basis to IRS? I mean which forms should I file and how to pay tax? Unless you're a W2 employee, you need to do quarterly estimate payments using form 1040-ES. If you are a W2 employee (even for a different job, and even if it is not you, but your spouse with whom you're filing jointly) - you can adjust your/spouse's withholding using form W4 to cover the additional tax liability. This is, IMHO, a better way than paying estimates. There are numerous questions on this, search the site or ask another one for details.","Instead of SSN, foreign person should get a ITIN from the IRS. Instead of W9 a foreigner should fill W8-BEN. Foreigner might also be required to file 1040NR/NR-EZ tax report, and depending on tax treaties also be liable for US taxes.","\"Actually, if you don't care about paying a bit more, either hire an accountant and dump the paper on them, or (may be cheaper but a bit more work) spring for tax software. Modern tax programs can often download most of your data directly. If you don't care about claiming deductions you can skip a lot of the rest. I'm perfectly capable of doing my taxes on paper or in a spreadsheet... but I spring for tax software every year because I find it a _LOT more pleasant. Remember that most of the complexity does come from policies intended to reduce your taxes. When you call for simplification, you may not like the result. It's better than it was a decade or two ago. I used to joke that the battle cry of the next revolution would be \"\"No Taxation Without Proper Instructions!\"\"\"","If you've been using TurboTax, let me suggest a compromise: Let TTax fill out the forms, but then print them out and go through it again by hand. If you don't get the same numbers, investigate why. If you do, you can probably conclude that you could do it by hand if you really want to, especially if you have the previous year's returns as a reference. (I've gone through every version of this from before personal tax software existed thru hand-constructed spreadsheets to commercial software and e-filing (federal only; I refuse to pay for something that reduces THEIR work). I can't use the free online version -- my return's got complications it won't handle -- and I'm uncomfortable putting that much data on a machine I don't control, so I'm still buying software each year. I COULD save the money, but it's worth a few bucks to me to make the process less annoying.) Late edit: Note that a self-constructed spreadsheet is one answer to the annoyance of pencil and paper -- you're still doing all the data manipulation yourself, but you're recording HOW you manipulated it as you go, and if numbers change you don't have to redo all the work. And it avoids raw math errors. It does require that you enter all the formulas rather than just their results, and figuring out how to express some things in stylesheet form can be a nuisance, but it isn't awful... and once you've done it (assuming you got it right) updating it for the next year is usually not hard unless you've introduced a completely new set of issues.","\"I would advise against \"\"pencil and paper\"\" approach for the following reasons: You should e-file instead of paper filing. Although the IRS provides an option of \"\"Fillable Forms\"\", there's no additional benefit there. Software ensures correctness of the calculations. It is easy to make math errors, lookup the wrong table It is easy to forget to fill a line or to click a checkbox (one particular checkbox on Schedule B cost many people thousands of dollars). Software ask you questions in a \"\"interview\"\" manner, and makes it harder to miss. Software can provide soft copies that you can retrieve later or reuse for amendments and carry-overs to the next year, making the task next time easier and quicker. You may not always know about all the available deductions and credits. Instead of researching the tax changes every year, just flow with the interview process of the software, and they'll suggest what may be available for you (lifetime learners credit? Who knows). Software provides some kind of liability protection (for example, if there's something wrong because the software had a bug - you can have them fix it for you and pay your penalties, if any). It's free. So why not use it? As to professional help later in life - depending on your needs. I'm fully capable of filling my own tax returns, for example, but I prefer to have a professional do it since I'm not always aware about all the intricacies of taxation of my transactions and prefer to have a professional counsel (who also provides some liability coverage if she counsels me wrong...). Some things may become very complex and many people are not aware of that (I've shared the things I learned here on this forum, but there are many things I'm not aware of and the tax professional should know).\"","You are right that even if you do not receive a 1099-MISC, you still need to report all income to the IRS. Report the $40 on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ. Since your net profit was less than $400, you do not need to file Schedule SE. From the IRS web site: Self-Employment Income It is a common misconception that if a taxpayer does not receive a Form 1099-MISC or if the income is under $600 per payer, the income is not taxable. There is no minimum amount that a taxpayer may exclude from gross income. All income earned through the taxpayer’s business, as an independent contractor or from informal side jobs is self-employment income, which is fully taxable and must be reported on Form 1040. Use Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship) to report income and expenses. Taxpayers will also need to prepare Form 1040 Schedule SE for self-employment taxes if the net profit exceeds $400 for a year. Do not report this income on Form 1040 Line 21 as Other Income. Independent contractors must report all income as taxable, even if it is less than $600. Even if the client does not issue a Form 1099-MISC, the income, whatever the amount, is still reportable by the taxpayer.","Here's a description. The relevant discussion for tax year 2010 starts on page 22 of the 1040 instructions.","Fill out the form manually, using last year's return as an example of how to report these gains. Or experiment with one of the low-priced tax programs; I've been told that they are available for as little as $17, and if your alternative is doing it manually, spending a bit of time checking their results isn't a huge problem. Or run the basic TTax, and tell it to add the appropriate forms manually. It supports them, it just doesn't have the interview sections to handle them. (@DanielCarson's answer has more details about that.) Or...","\"The forms get updated every year, and the software providers need to get approved by the IRS every year. \"\"Form is not yet finalized\"\" means that this year form hasn't been approved yet. IRS starts accepting returns on January 31st anyway, nothing to be worried about. Why are you nearing a deadline? The deadline for 1120 (corporate tax return) is 2 and 1/2 months after your corp year end, which if you're a calendar year corp is March 15th. If your year end is in November/December - you can use the prior year forms, those are finalized.\"","Just type in the forms as they are, separately. That would be the easiest way both to enter the data without any mistakes, and ensure that everything matches properly with the IRS reports.","\"It's not quite as bad as the comments indicate. Form 1040ES has been available since January (and IME has been similarly for all past years). It mostly uses the prior year (currently 2016) as the basis, but it does have the updated (2017) figures for items that are automatically adjusted for inflation: bracket points (and thus filing threshhold), standard deductions, Social Security cap, and maybe another one or two I missed. The forms making up the actual return cannot be prepared very far in advance because, as commented, Congress frequently makes changes to tax law well after the year begins, and in some cases right up to Dec. 31. The IRS must start preparing forms and pubs -- and equally important, setting the specifications for software providers like Intuit (TurboTax) and H&RBlock -- several months ahead in order to not seriously delay filing season, and with it refunds, which nearly everyone in the country considers (at least publicly) to be worse than World War Three and the destruction of the Earth by rogue asteroids. I have 1040 series from the last 4 years still on my computer, and the download dates mostly range from late September to mid January. Although one outlier shows the range of possibility: 2013 form 1040 and Schedule A were tweaked in April 2014 because Congress passed a law allowing charitable contributions for Typhoon Haiyan to be deducted in the prior year. Substantive, but relatively minor, changes happen every year, including many that keep recurring like the special (pre-AGI) teacher supplies deduction (\"\"will they or won't they?\"\"), section 179 expensing (changes slightly almost every year), and formerly the IRA-direct-to-charity option (finally made permanent last year). As commented, the current Congress and President were elected on a platform with tax reform as an important element, and they are talking even more intensely than before about doing it, although whether they will actually do anything this year is still uncertain. However, if major reform is done it will almost certainly apply to future years only, and likely only start after a lag of some months to a year. They know it causes chaos for businesses and households alike to upend without advance warning the assumptions built in to current budgets and plans -- and IME as a political matter something that is enacted now and effective fairly soon but not now is just as good (but I think that part is offtopic).\"","A 1040X is the form and instructions you need. Don't worry you can rescind the $3 presidential campaign contribution for both you and a spouse.","If you're under audit - you should get a proper representation. I.e.: EA or CPA licensed in California and experienced with the FTB audit representation. There's a penalty on failure to file form 1099, but it is with the IRS, not the FTB. If I remember correctly, it's something like $50 or $100 per instance. Technically they can disqualify deductions claiming you paid under the table and no taxes were paid on the other side, however I doubt they'd do it in a case of simple omission of filing 1099 forms. Check with your licensed tax adviser. Keep in mind that for the IRS 2011 is now closed, since the 3-year statute of limitations has passed. For California the statute is 4 years, and you're almost at the end of it. However since you're already under audit they may ask you to agree to extend it.","\"According to this link http://taxes.lovetoknow.com/federal-income-tax/w9-tax-form: The very last line on the personal information section refers to \"\"account numbers.\"\" Here, the taxpayer lists any accounts they have with the IRS to pay back taxes or pre-payments for anticipated tax liability obligations. This information is optional and is inapplicable in many situations.\"","\"Hearing somewhere is a level or two worse than \"\"my friend told me.\"\" You need to do some planning to forecast your full year income and tax bill. In general, you should be filing a quarterly form and tax payment. You'll still reconcile the year with an April filing, but if you are looking to save up to pay a huge bill next year, you are looking at the potential of a penalty for under-withholding. The instructions and payment coupons are available at the IRS site. At this point I'm required to offer the following advice - If you are making enough money that this even concerns you, you should consider starting to save for the future. A Solo-401(k) or IRA, or both. Read more on these two accounts and ask separate questions, if you'd like.\"","\"Does he need to file a tax return in this situation? Will the IRS be concerned that he did not file even if he received a 1099? No. However, if you don't file the IRS may come back asking why, or \"\"make up\"\" a return for you assuming that the whole amount on the 1099-MISC is your net earnings. So in the end, I suspect you'll end up filing even though you don't have to, just to prove that you don't have to. Bottom line - if you have 1099 income (or any other income reported to the IRS that brings you over the filing threshold), file a return.\"","It is perfectly legitimate to adjust your 1099-B income by broker's fees. Publication 17 (p 116) specifically instructs taxpayers to adjust their Schedule D reporting by broker's fees: Form 1099-B transactions. If you sold property, such as stocks, bonds, or certain commodities, through a broker, you should receive Form 1099-B or substitute statement from the broker. Use the Form 1099-B or the substitute statement to complete Form 8949. If you sold a covered security in 2013, your broker should send you a Form 1099-B (or substitute statement) that shows your basis. This will help you complete Form 8949. Generally, a covered security is a security you acquired after 2010. Report the gross proceeds shown in box 2a of Form 1099-B as the sales price in column (d) of either Part I or Part II of Form 8949, whichever applies. However, if the broker advises you, in box 2a of Form 1099-B, that gross proceeds (sales price) less commissions and option premiums were reported to the IRS, enter that net sales price in column (d) of either Part I or Part II of Form 8949, whichever applies. Include in column (g) any expense of sale, such as broker's fees, commissions, state and local transfer taxes, and option premiums, unless you reported the net sales price in column (d). If you include an expense of sale in column (g), enter “E” in column (f). You can rely on your own records and judgment, if you feel comfortable doing so. Brokers often make incomplete tax reporting. This may have been simpler from their perspective if the broker fees were variable, or integrated, or unknown for a number of clients party to a transaction. If a taxpayer has documentation of the expenses that justify an adjustment, then it's perfectly appropriate to include that in the calculations. It is not necessary to report the discrepancy, and it may increase scrutiny to include a written addendum. The Schedule D, Form 8949, and Form 1099-B will probably together adequately explain the source of the deduction.","Since there's no taxable income (inheritance is not taxed to you), you do not need to amend. The executor used the correct form. Note, I'm not a tax adviser or a licensed professional. For a tax advice advice contact a CPA/EA licensed in your state.","Publication 15 is the IRS guide for business. https://www.irs.gov/uac/about-publication-15 They will be deposited electronically at https://www.eftps.com/eftps/ Form 941 is the one you will be using: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/depositing-and-reporting-employment-taxes The other ones are for special circumstances. I would recommend that you have a chat with an accountant.","Why would the IRS be coming after you if you reported the income? If you reported everything, then the IRS will use the 1099 to cross-check, see that everything is in order, be happy and done with it. The lady was supposed to give you the 1099 by the end of January, and she may be penalized by the IRS for being late, but as long as you/wifey reported all the income - you're fine. It was supposed to be reported on Schedule C or as miscellaneous income on line 21 (schedule C sounds more suitable as it seems that your wifey is in a cleaning business). But there's no difference in how you report whether you got 1099 or not, so if you reported - you should be fine.","One of the triggers for audit is when the IRS can't match 1099 income to the tax return. Whoever got the 1099 in her name should include that income on her return.","You wouldn't fill out a 1099, your employer would or possibly whoever manages the stock account. The 1099-B imported from E-Trade says I had a transaction with sell price ~$4,500. Yes. You sold ~$4500 of stock to pay income taxes. Both the cost basis and the sale price would probably be ~$4500, so no capital gain. This is because you received and sold the stock at the same time. If they waited a little, you could have had a small gain or loss. The remainder of the stock has a cost basis of ~$5500. There are at least two transactions here. In the future you may sell the remaining stock. It has a cost basis of ~$5500. Sale price of course unknown until then. You may break that into different pieces. So you might sell $500 of cost basis for $1000 with a ~$500 capital gain. Then later sell the remainder for $15,000 for a capital gain of ~$10,000.","In the end, I filled out the form with a foreign TIN (my UK National Insurance Number) on line 6, as well as a short sentence detailing my claim for 0% tax withholding according to the relevant section of the UK-US tax treaty. It looks like this was good enough; the prize money arrived in my account a few days ago, and it seems that no tax was withheld!","\"If you file the long-form Form 2210 in which you have to figure out exactly how much you should have had withheld (or paid via quarterly payments of estimated tax), you might be able to reduce the underpayment penalty somewhat, or possibly eliminate it entirely. This often happens because some of your income comes late in the year (e.g. dividend and capital gain distributions from stock mutual funds) and possibly because some of your itemized deductions come early (e.g. real estate tax bills due April 1, charitable deductions early in the year because of New Year resolutions to be more philanthropic) etc. It takes a fair amount of effort to gather up the information you need for this (money management programs help), and it is easy to make mistakes while filling out the form. I strongly recommend use of a \"\"deluxe\"\" or \"\"premier\"\" version of a tax program - basic versions might not include Form 2210 or have only the short version of it. I also seem to remember something to the effect that the long form 2210 must be filed with the tax return and cannot be filed as part of an amended return, and if so, the above advice would be applicable to future years only. But you might be able to fill out the form and appeal to the IRS that you owe a reduced penalty, or don't owe a penalty at all, and that your only mistake was not filing the long form 2210 with your tax return and so please can you be forgiven this once? In any case, I strongly recommend paying the underpayment penalty ASAP because it is increasing day by day due to interest being charged. If the IRS agrees to your eloquent appeal, they will refund the overpayment.\"","The line you are referring to says 5 U.S. taxpayer identification number (SSN or ITIN), if required (see instructions) It does not appear to be required in your case.","The I-9 form is required because you are working. It is kept by the employer as proof that you have the proper documents to work. If the government was to inspect their records they can be fined if they don't have those document, in fact they have to keep them for several years after your employment is done. A w-4 form is a federal tax form. There also was probably a state version of the form. When you completed the w-4 it is used by your employer to determine how much in taxes need to be withheld. Employers don't know your tax situation. Even though you are on work study, you still could have made enough money over the summer to pay taxes. But if this is your only job, and you will not make enough money to have to pay taxes, you can fill out the form as exempt. That means that last year you didn't make enough money to have to pay taxes, and you don't expect to make enough to have to pay taxes this year. If you are exempt, no federal income tax will be withheld. They might still withhold for social security and medicare. The state w-4 can also be used to be exempt from state taxes. If they withhold any income taxes you have to file one of the 1040 tax forms to get that income tax money back. You will have to do so for the state income tax withholding. A note about social security and medicare. If you have an on campus job, at the campus you attend, during the school year; they don't withhold money for social security and medicare. That law applies to students on work study jobs, and on non-work-study jobs. for single dependents the federal threshold where you must file is: > You must file a return if any of the following apply. Your gross income was more than the larger of— a. $1,000, or b. Your earned income (up to $5,850) plus $350.","\"The contract he wants me to sign states I'll receive my monthly stipend (if that is the right word) as a 1099 contractor. The right word is guaranteed payment, which is what \"\"salary\"\" is called when a partner is working for a partnership she's a partner in. Which is exactly the case in your situation. 1099 is not the right form to report this, the partnership (LLC in your case) should be using the Schedule K-1 for that. I suggest you talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser (EA/CPA) who are licensed in your State, before you sign anything.\"","\"If you don't want to get income tax taken out of your check, then get a 1099 job and stop blubbering like a baby. You are not doing your case any help. If fact, I am more positive that \"\"anti-taxers\"\" are out of their gourd.\"","I don't like keeping my tax information online. Personally, I buy TaxCut from Amazon for $25-30. I store my info securely on resources under my control. Call me a luddite or a weirdo, but I also file using paper, because I don't see the advantage of paying for the privilege of saving the government time and money.","I typed my information into both last year, and while they were not exactly the same, they were within $10 of each other. For my simple 2009 taxes they were not different in any meaningful way.","You'll have to file an amended tax return for that tax year. Filing an Amended Tax Return","To start with, I should mention that many tax preparation companies will give you any number of free consultations on tax issues — they will only charge you if you use their services to file a tax form, such as an amended return. I know that H&R Block has international tax specialists who are familiar with the issues facing F-1 students, so they might be the right people to talk about your specific situation. According to TurboTax support, you should prepare a completely new 1040NR, then submit that with a 1040X. GWU’s tax department says you can submit late 8843, so you should probably do that if you need to claim non-resident status for tax purposes.","\"There could be a few reasons for this, my first guess is that you didn't report the distribution on your return (indicated on line 15 of your 1040, pictured below), the IRS got a copy of the 1099-R, and assumes it's all taxable (or maybe the 1099-R indicates the full amount is taxable). If a 1099-R doesn't have an amount populated for 'taxable amount' it doesn't mean the distribution isn't taxable, and without any indication that it's not taxable the IRS assumes it is. It's not taxable if it's a withdrawal of your contribution. Here's a snippet from How to Calculate the Taxable Amount of an IRA Withdrawal: Withdrawals from a Roth IRA Since Roth IRA contributions are made on an after-tax basis, qualified withdrawals are completely tax-free. A \"\"qualified\"\" Roth withdrawal includes the following: If your 1099-R indicates a taxable amount, then you might need to contact the issuer to understand why. If it does not indicate a taxable amount and you failed to record the distribution on your return, you just need to file an amended return that shows the distribution on line 15a and shows no taxable amount on 15b along with a completed Form 8606. You may not need additional documentation to support of your claim that it's not taxable, but if you do it would be any statement showing that your contributions over the years exceed your withdrawal. What a 1040 with a non-taxable IRA withdrawal would show: Note: There'd also be a completed Form 8606, the 1040 lines above just show if it was entered in. The easiest path forward is probably to file an amended return using turbotax since you filed with them originally. I haven't dealt with an IRS letter in a few years, I can't recall if you need to contact them or simply file the amended return, but they're pretty good about including instructions so the letter probably indicates what you need to do. Don't delay in taking action, as the IRS can and will garnish wages if they are owed (or think they are owed) money. Update: OP contacted IRS and they didn't even want an amended return, just the completed Form 8606, so it's worth calling the IRS first with these letters.\"","The key for you this year (2015) be aggressive in paying the taxes quarterly so that you do not have to do the quarterly filings or pay penalties for owing too much in taxes in future years. The tax system has a safe harbor provision. If you have withheld or sent via the estimated quarterly taxes an amount equal to 100% of the previous years taxes then you are safe. That means that if you end to the IRS in 2015 an amount equal to 100% of your 2014 taxes then in April 2016 you can avoid the penalties. You should note that the required percentage is 110% for high income individual. Because you can never be sure about your side income, use your ability to adjust your W-4 to cover your taxes. You will know early in 2016 how much you need to cover via withholding, so make the adjustments. Yes the risk is what you over pay, but that may be what you need to do to avoid the quarterly filing requirements. From IRS PUB 17: If you owe additional tax for 2014, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2015. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2015 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2015, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2015 tax return, or 100% of the tax shown on your 2014 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2014 tax return must cover all 12 months. and Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty.","\"If you want an \"\"account statement\"\" from the IRS listing the taxes due and paid and confirming a zero balance remaining, you want what they call a Tax Account Transcript. It sounds like you tried to submit this online, but yes, it would require the actual taxpayer to submit it. The other option would be to fill out Form 4506-T requesting the Form 1040 Tax Account Transcript, have the taxpayer sign it, and mail it in. Presumably whatever method you used to have her sign the Form 1040 you prepared for her you could also use to have her sign the 4506-T. Another option could be to try to request the transcript over the phone. I don't know what authentication they require, or if you would need to have been listed on the 1040 as an authorized Third Party Designee. According to the IRS Transcript FAQ Page: Q19. What if I’m unable to use Get Transcript by Mail? If you are unable to use Get Transcript by Mail, you may try our automated phone transcript service at 800-908-9946 and also receive your transcript by mail. Please allow 5 to 10 calendar days for delivery. But unless there's a reason to think that the tax account wasn't credited properly or the IRS is sending another bill or the like, I don't think there's a lot of point in doing so. In general, the fact that the check cleared the bank should be sufficient documentation that the amount was paid.\"","Form 10-K is filed by corporations to SEC. You must be thinking of form 1065 (its schedule K) that a partnership (and multi-member LLC) must file with the IRS. Unless the multi-member LLC is legally dissolved, it must file this form. You're a member, so it is your responsibility, with all the other members, to make sure that the manager files all the forms, and if the manager doesn't - fire the manager and appoint another one (or, if its member managed - chose a different member to manage). If you're a sole member of the LLC - then you don't need to file any forms with the IRS, all the business expenses and credits are done on your Schedule C, as if you were a sole propriator.","\"You are not the only one with this problem. When Intuit changed their pricing and services structure in 2015 a lot of people got angry, facing larger fees and having to go through an annoying upgrade just to get the same functionality (such as Schedule D, capital gains). You have several options: (1) Forget Turbo Tax and just use paper forms. That is what I do. Paper is reliable. (2) Use forms mode in Turbo Tax. Of course, that may be even more complicated than simply filing out paper forms. (3) Use a different service. If your income is below $64,000 the IRS has a free electronic filing service. Other online vendors have full taxes services for less than Turbo Tax. (4) Add the amount to ordinary income. Technically, as long as you report the income, you cannot be penalized, so if you add the capital gain to your ordinary income, then you have paid taxes on the income. Even if they send you a letter, you can send an answer that you added it to ordinary income and that will satisfy them. Of course you pay a higher rate on your $26 if you do that. (5) If you are in the 15% or below income bracket you are exempt from capital gains, and you can omit it. Don't believe the nervous Nellies who say the IRS will burn your house down if you don't report $26 in capital gains. Penalties are assessed on the percentage of TAXES you did not pay (0.5% penalty per month). Since 0.5% of $0 is $0 your penalty is $0. The IRS knows this. The IRS does not send out assessment letters for $0. (6) Even if you are above the 15% bracket, there is likelihood it is still a no-tax situation (see 5 above). (7) Worst case scenario: you are making a million dollars per year and you omit your $26 capital gains from your return. The IRS will send you an assessment letter for about $10. You can then send them a separate check or money order to pay it. In all honesty I have omitted documented tax items, like taxable interest, that the IRS knows about many times and never gotten an assessment letter. Once I made a serious math error on my return and they sent me an assessment letter, which I just paid, end of story. And that was for a lot more than $26. The technical verbiage for something like this in IRS lingo is CP-2000, underreported income. As you can see from this official IRS web page, basically what they do is guess how much they think you owe and send you a bill. Then you pay it. If you do so in time, you don't even get a 0.5% interest penalty on your $6.75 owed or whatever it is. (8) Go hog wild. As long as you are risking an assessment on your $26, why not go hog wild and just let the IRS compute all your taxes for you? Make a copy of your income statements, then mail them to the IRS with a letter that says, \"\"Hi, I am Mr. Odinson, my SSN is XXX-XX-XXXX. My address is XYZ. I am unable to compute my taxes due to a confused state of mind. I am hereby requesting a tax assessment for the 2016 tax year.\"\" Make sure you sign and date the letter. In all probability they will compute the full assessment and send you a bill (or refund).\"","I'm not sure why you're confusing the two unrelated things. 1040ES is your estimated tax payments. 941 is your corporation's payroll tax report. They have nothing to do with each other. You being the corporation's employee is accidental, and can only help you to avoid 1040ES and use the W2 withholding instead - like any other employee. From the IRS standpoint you're not running a LLC - you're running a corporation, and you're that corporation's employee. While technically you're self-employed, from tax perspective - you're not (to the extent of your corporate salary, at least).","Capital gain distribution is not capital gain on sale of stock. If you have stock sales (Schedule D) you should be filing 1040, not 1040A. Capital gain distributions are distributions from mutual funds/ETFs that are attributed to capital gains of the funds (you may not have actually received the distribution, but you still may have gain attributed to you). It is reported on 1099-DIV, and if it is 0 - then you don't have any. If you sold a stock, your broker should have given you 1099-B (which is not the same as 1099-DIV, but may be consolidated by your broker into one large PDF and not provided separately). On 1099-B the sales proceeds are recorded, and if you purchased the stock after 2011 - the cost basis is also recorded. The difference between the proceeds and the cost basis is your gain (or loss, if it is negative). Fees are added to cost basis.","\"I'm mostly guessing based on existing documentation, and have no direct experience, so take this with a pinch of salt. My best understanding is that you need to file Form 843. The instructions for the form say that it can be used to request: A refund or abatement of a penalty or addition to tax due to reasonable cause or other reason (other than erroneous written advice provided by the IRS) allowed under the law. The \"\"reasonable cause\"\" here is a good-faith confusion about what Line 79 of the form was referring to. In Form 843, the IRC Section Code you should enter is 6654 (estimated tax). For more, see the IRC Section 6654 (note, however, that if you already received a CP14 notice from the IRS, you should cross-check that this section code is listed on the notice under the part that covers the estimated tax penalty). If your request is accepted, the IRS should issue you Notice 746, item 17 Penalty Removed: You can get more general information about the tax collection process, and how to challenge it, from the pages linked from Understanding your CP14 Notice\"","This sounds like a rental fee as described in the instructions for the 1099-MISC. Enter amounts of $600 or more for all types of rents, such as any of the following. ... Non-Employee compensation does not seem appropriate because you did not perform a service. You mention that your tax-preparer brought this up. I think you will need to consult with a CPA to receive a more reliable opinion. Make sure to bring the contract that describes the situation with you. From there, you may need to consult a tax attorney, but the CPA should be able to help you figure out what your next step is.","You are confused about a couple of terms: For example you work for company A: As to the 1098-T: It is likely that you or your parents will use the 1098-T. You don't have to file a copy with the IRS. You and your parents need to determine who should be reporting the educational expenses: you or your parents.","From WePay (GoFundMe's payment processor) support. I received only gifts and donations. Will I receive a Form 1099-K? As of 2015, the IRS has clarified that WePay is not required to send a Form 1099-K with respect to payments that are made solely as gifts or donations. The purpose of Form 1099-K is to report payments for the provision of goods or services, which may be subject to tax. Gifts and donations typically are not reported as income by recipients, so it is not necessary to send them a Form 1099-K. https://support.wepay.com/hc/en-us/articles/203609483-Tax-Reporting","Your clients should not send you 1099-MISC if they paid with a credit card. You can refer them to this text in the instructions for the form 1099-MISC: Payments made with a credit card or payment card and certain other types of payments, including third party network transactions, must be reported on Form 1099-K by the payment settlement entity under section 6050W and are not subject to reporting on Form 1099-MISC. See the separate Instructions for Form 1099-K. By sending out the 1099-MISC, your clients are essentially saying that they paid you directly (check or cash) in addition to the payment they made with a credit card (which will be reported on 1099-K). In case of an audit, you'll have trouble convincing the IRS that it didn't happen. I suggest asking the clients not to do this to you, since it may cost you significant amounts to fight the IRS later on. In any case, you report on your tax return what you really got, not what the 1099 says. If you have two 1099's covering the same income - there's no legal obligation to report the income twice. You do not have to pay twice the tax just because you have stupid clients. But you may have troubles explaining it to the IRS, especially if you're dealing with cash in your business. If you want to avoid matching issues, consider reporting all the 1099s, and then subtracting the duplicates and attaching a statement (the software will do it automatically when you add the description in the miscellaneous item) about what it is.","(do I need to get a W9 from our suppliers)? Will PayPal or Shopify send me a 1099k or something? Do not assume that you'll get paperwork from anyone. Do assume that you have to generate your own paperwork. Ideally you should print out some kind of record of each transaction. Note that it can be hard to view older transactions in PayPal, so start now. If you can't document something, write up a piece of paper showing the state of the world to the best of your knowledge. Do assume that you need separate receipts for each expenditure. The PayPal receipt might be enough (but print it in case the IRS wants to see it). A receipt from the vendor would be better (again, print it if it is online now). A CPA is not strictly necessary. A CPA is certified (the C in CPA) to formally audit the books of a corporation. In your case, any accountant would be legally sufficient. You still may want to use a CPA, as the certification, while technically unnecessary, still demonstrates knowledge. You may otherwise not be in a position to evaluate an accountant. A compromise option is to go to a firm that includes a CPA and then let them assign you to someone else to process the actual taxes. You are going to have to fill out some business tax forms. In particular, I would expect a schedule C. That's where you would show revenues and expenses. You may well have to file other forms as well.","\"Payment gateways such as Square do not normally withhold tax. It is up to you to pay the appropriate tax at tax time. That having been said, Square does report your payments to the IRS on a form 1099-K if your payments are large enough. According to Square, you'll get a 1099-K from them if your total payments for the year add up to $20,000 AND more than 200 transactions. Whether or not they report on a 1099-K, you are required to pay the appropriate taxes on your income. So now the question becomes, \"\"Do I have to pay income tax on the proceeds from my garage sale?\"\" And the answer to that question is usually not. When you sell something that you previously purchased, if you sell it for more than you paid for it, you have a capital gain and need to pay tax on that. However, generally you sell things in a garage sale at a loss, meaning that there is no tax due. If you make more than $20,000 at your garage sale and the IRS gets a 1099-K, the IRS might be curious as to how you did that with no capital gain. So if you sell any big ticket items (a bulldozer, for example), you should keep a record of what you paid for it, so you can show the loss to the IRS in the event of an audit.\"","According to pages 6 & 7 of the instructions for form 1040 in 2009 AMT was only temporarily patched for the year. Congress can't politically afford to drastically cut AMT exemptions by 30 to 40%, and may even retroactively change it, if it isn't passed by the end of the year (despite the constitution forbidding ex post facto laws) : What’s New for 2009 ... Alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amount increased. The AMT exemption amount has increased to $46,700 ($70,950 if married filing jointly or a qualifying widow(er); $35,475 if married filing separately)... What’s New for 2010 ... Alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amount. The AMT exemption amount is scheduled to decrease to $33,750 ($45,000 if married filing jointly or a qualifying widow(er); $22,500 if married filing separately). So, if you are married, and several regular tax deductions push your income below the AMT exemption amount of $45,000, it's quite possible you would be required to pay AMT, even if you didn't last year. There is a work sheet for AMT in the instructions for line 43, but the IRS also provides an AMT calculator. According to page 146 (E-8) of the instructions for form 1040 AMT is paid as: the smallest amount you are allowed to report as your taxable income (Form 1040, line 43). It is also the smallest amount you are allowed to report as your alternative minimum taxable income (AMTI) on Form 6251, line 29. If the [AMT calculation] is larger than your taxable income would otherwise be, enter the amount from column (c) on Form 1040, line 43 [or ...] Form 6251, line 29. As always, congress finds ways to further complicate things by making a few credits and losses deductible against the absolute minimum you're expected to pay taxes on, making the AMT a misnomer.","I'm not sure how this gets entered in TurboTax, but this income from the company should be included in the Schedule C (or C-EZ) Line 1 Gross Receipts total, along with all of your 1099-MISC income from your business and any other income that your business took in. You don't need a 1099 from them, and the IRS doesn't care (at least from your perspective) if you got a 1099 or not; in fact, they probably expect you to have some non-1099 income. We don't know why the company chose not to issue 1099 forms, but luckily it isn't your concern. You can fill out your tax return properly without it. Note: This answer assumes that you didn't have any tax withheld from your checks from this company. If you did have tax withheld, you'll need to insist on a 1099 to show that.","\"If one looks at the \"\"Guide to Information Returns\"\" in the Form 1099 General Instructions (the instructions that the IRS provides to companies on how to fill out 1099 and other forms), it says that the 1099-B is due to recipient by February 15, with a footnote that says \"\"The due date is March 15 for reporting by trustees and middlemen of WHFITs.\"\" I doubt that exception applies, though it may. There's also a section in the instructions on \"\"Extension of time to furnish statements to recipients\"\" which says that a company can apply to the IRS to get an extension to this deadline if needed. I'm guessing that if you were told that there were \"\"complications\"\" that they may have applied for and been given this extension, though that's just a guess. While you could try calling the IRS if you want (and in fact, their web site does suggest calling them if you don't receive a W-2 or 1099-R by the end of February), my honest opinion is that they won't do much until mid-March anyway. Unfortunately, you're probably out of luck being able to file as early as you want to.\"","They are a business. You're not a corporation. They paid you more than $600 during the year, so they're supposed to send 1099 to you and the IRS about it. They need your taxpayer certification (W9) for that. They were supposed to ask for it before they paid you, but yes - they're supposed to ask for it.","You are expected to file 1099 for each person you pay $600 a year. I.e.: not a one time payment, but the total over the course of the year. Since we don't know how much and what else you paid - we cannot answer this question. The real question you're asking is that if you're treating the enterprise as a hobby, whether you're supposed to file 1099s at all. The answer to that question is yes. You should talk to your tax adviser (a EA/CPA licensed in your state) about this, and whether it is the right thing for you to do treating this as a hobby at all.","Why is the US still working with paper checks when Europe went digital about a decade ago? Tax filing is just another area in which the US is lagging. Modernizing it costs money, and the US is quite close to bankruptcy (as seen by the repeated government shutdowns). Also, the US tax code is quite complicated. For instance, I doubt there's anyone who has a full and complete list of all allowed deductions. Some comments wonder about multiple incomes. This doesn't require tax filing either. My local tax authority just sends me a combined statement with data from 2 employers and 2 banks, and asks me to confirm the resulting payment. This is possible because tax number usage is strictly regulated. SSN abuse in the US presumably makes this problematic.","You can have multiple W2 forms on the same tax return. If you are using software, it will have the ability for you to enter additional W2 forms. If you are doing it by paper, just follow the instructions and combine the numbers at the correct place and attach both. Similarly you can also have a 1099 with and without a W2. Just remember that with a 1099 you will have to pay the self employment tax ( FICA taxes, both employee and employer) and that no taxes will be withheld. You will want to either adjust the withholding on your main job or file quartely estimated taxes. Travel reimbursement should be the same tax exempt wise. The difference is that with a 1098, you will need to list your business expenses for deduction on the corresponding tax schedule. The value on the 1099 will include travel reimbursement. But then you can deduct your self employment expenses. I believe schedule C is where this occurs.","I think you're making a mistake. If you still want to make this mistake (I'll explain later why I think its a mistake), the resources for you are: IRS.GOV - The IRS official web site, that has all the up-to-date forms and instructions for them, guiding publications and the relevant rules. You might get a bit overwhelmed through. Software programs - TurboTax (Home & Business for a sole propriator or single member LLC, Business for more complicated business), or H&R Block Business (only one version that should cover all) are for your guidance. They provide tips and interactive guidance in filling in all the raw data, and produce all the forms filled for you according to the raw data you entered. I personally prefer TurboTax, I think its interface is nicer and the workflow is more intuitive, but that's my personal preference. I wrote about it in my blog last year. Both also include plug-ins for the state taxes (If I remember correctly, for both the first state is included in the price, if you need more than 1 state - there's extra $30-$40 per state). Your state tax authority web site (Minnesota Department of Revenue in your case). Both Intuit and H&R Block have on-line forums where people answer each others questions while using the software to prepare the taxes, you might find useful information there. As always, Google is your friend. Now, why I think this is a mistake. Mistakes that you make - will be your responsibility. If you use the software - they'll cover the calculation mistakes. But if you write income in a wrong specification or take a wrong deduction that you shouldn't have taken - it will be on your head and you're the one to pay the fines and penalties for that. Missed deductions and credits - CPA's (should) know about all the latest deductions and credits that you or your business might be entitled to. They also (should) know which one got canceled and you shouldn't be continuing taking them if you had before. Expenses - there are plenty of rules of what can be written off as an expense and how. Some things should be written off this year, others over several years, for some depreciation formula should be used, etc etc. Tax programs might help you with that, but again - mistakes are your responsibility. Especially for the first time and for the newly formed business, I think you should use a (good!) CPA. The CPA should take responsibility over your filing. The CPA should provide guarantee that based on the documents you provided, he filled all the necessary forms correctly, and will absorb all the fees and penalties if there's an audit and mistakes were found not because you withheld information from your CPA, but because the CPA made a mistake. That costs money, and that's why the CPA's are more expensive than using a program or preparing yourself. But, the risk is much higher, especially for a new business. And after all - its a business expense.","Since you were a nonresident alien student on F-1 visa then you will be considered engaged in a trade or business in the USA. You must file Form 1040NR. Here is the detailed instruction by IRS - http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Taxation-of-Nonresident-Aliens","\"You will be filing the exact same form you've been filing until now (I hope...) which is called form 1040. Attached to it, you'll add a \"\"Schedule C\"\" form and \"\"Schedule SE\"\" form. Keep in mind the potential effect of the tax and totalization treaties the US has with the UK which may affect your filings. I suggest you talk to a licensed EA/CPA who works with expats in the UK and is familiar with all the issues. There are several prominent offices you can find by Googling.\"","Yes, you can send in a 2012 1040-ES form with a check to cover your tax liability. However, you will likely have to pay penalties for not paying tax in timely fashion as well as interest on the late payment. You can have the IRS figure the penalty and bill you for it, or you can complete Form 2210 (on which these matters are figured out) yourself and file it with your Form 1040. The long version of Form 2210 often results in the smallest extra amount due but is considerably more time-consuming to complete correctly. Alternatively, if you or your wife have one or more paychecks coming before the end of 2012, it might be possible to file a new W-4 form with the HR Department with a request to withhold additional amounts as Federal income tax. I say might because if the last paycheck of the year will be issued in just a few days' time, it might already have been sent for processing, and HR might tell you it is too late. But, depending on the take-home pay, it might be possible to have the entire $2000 withheld as additional income tax instead of sending in a 1040-ES. The advantage of doing it through withholding is that you are allowed to treat the entire withholding for 2012 as satisfying the timely filing requirements. So, no penalty for late payment even though you had a much bigger chunk withheld in December, and no interest due either. If you do use this approach, remember that Form W-4 applies until it is replaced with another, and so HR will continue to withhold the extra amount on your January paychecks as well. So, file a new W-4 in January to get back to normal withholding. (Fix the extra exemption too so the problem does not recur in 2013).","You may be able to find the answers to your question on the IRS web site: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98263,00.html Specifically, using this form to estimate taxes for salary: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120w.pdf and this form to estimate taxes for dividends: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf","I strongly recommend that you talk to an accountant right away because you could save some money by making a tax payment by January 15, 2014. You will receive Forms 1099-MISC from the various entities with whom you are doing business as a contractor detailing how much money they paid you. A copy will go to the IRS also. You file a Schedule C with your Form 1040 in which you detail how much you received on the 1099-MISC forms as well as any other income that your contracting business received (e.g. amounts less than $600 for which a 1099-MISc does not need to be issued, or tips, say, if you are a taxi-driver running your own cab), and you can deduct various expenses that you incurred in generating this income, including tools, books, (or gasoline!) etc that you bought for doing the job. You will need to file a Schedule SE that will compute how much you owe in Social Security and Medicare taxes on the net income on Schedule C. You will pay at twice the rate that employees pay because you get to pay not only the employee's share but also the employer's share. At least, you will not have to pay income tax on the employer's share. Your net income on Schedule C will transfer onto Form 1040 where you will compute how much income tax you owe, and then add on the Social Security tax etc to compute a final amount of tax to be paid. You will have to pay a penalty for not making tax payments every quarter during 2013, plus interest on the tax paid late. Send the IRS a check for the total. If you talk to an accountant right away, he/she will likely be able to come up with a rough estimate of what you might owe, and sending in that amount by January 15 will save some money. The accountant can also help you set up for the 2014 tax year during which you could make quarterly payments of estimated tax for 2014 and avoid the penalties and interest referred to above.","I just want to point out something that seems to be generally true: If you are supposed to report something to the IRS, and you don't, the IRS will probably send you a letter assuming the maximum possible tax liability, and it's up to you to prove that scenario is incorrect. In your case you obviously owe no tax, but since you didn't report it, the IRS simply assumed that you do owe tax until you prove otherwise. You're one form away from fixing the issue. I have first hand experience that this is also true if you forget to report an HSA distribution. I received a letter considering my entire distribution as if it was for non eligible medical expenses. This made the amount taxable and had an additional 20% penalty to boot. Of course I have medical receipts for all of the distributions which makes them not taxable, and had I simply put the correct number on my return to begin with I wouldn't have had to fill out the additional form to correct my mistake.","I am currently dealing with the same issue of having a 1099 reported to the wrong person. I applied for the square account for my son's business but used my information, which I realized now was a BIG mistake. I did contact Square by email yesterday, which was Saturday, not expecting to hear from them until Monday, or possibly not at all (wasn't hearing a lot of good things about Square's customer service). She was most helpful and while the issue isn't completely taken care of, I do feel better about it. She just had me update the taxpayer information number which then updated the 1099 form.","From the IRS web site: So if your income was reported to the IRS (by the payer, not you) using one of the forms above, the IRS would have a record of it, regardless of whether you filed a tax return or not.","I know nothing about this, but found this link which suggests for H&R Block specifically: I kept searching and I found the section. It's at the end in the Credits section under 'other backup withholding'. Hopefully this helps someone else in the future.","W9 is required for any payments. However, in your case - these are not payments, but refunds, i.e.: you're not receiving any income from the company that is subject to tax or withholding rules, you're receiving money that is yours already. I do not think they have a right to demand W9 as a condition of refund, and as Joe suggested - would dispute the charge as fraudulent.","You should include the checks you received from the company, invoices you sent, bank statements showing the deposits, and your receipts, if any, you issued to the company. You'd be surprised to know that this is a fairly common tax fraud. You can also try and sue the company or its successor for the missing amounts, but if it has been dissolved it may be difficult. As with any non-trivial tax issue - I suggest you get a professional advice from a EA/CPA licensed in your State. You may need representation before the IRS - only EA, CPA or an Attorney may represent you in IRS proceedings (including audit and correspondence).","Generally stock trades will require an additional Capital Gains and Losses form included with a 1040, known as Schedule D (summary) and Schedule D-1 (itemized). That year I believe the maximum declarable Capital loss was $3000--the rest could carry over to future years. The purchase date/year only matters insofar as to rank the lot as short term or long term(a position held 365 days or longer), short term typically but depends on actual asset taxed then at 25%, long term 15%. The year a position was closed(eg. sold) tells you which year's filing it belongs in. The tiny $16.08 interest earned probably goes into Schedule B, typically a short form. The IRS actually has a hotline 800-829-1040 (Individuals) for quick questions such as advising which previous-year filing forms they'd expect from you. Be sure to explain the custodial situation and that it all recently came to your awareness etc. Disclaimer: I am no specialist. You'd need to verify everything I wrote; it was just from personal experience with the IRS and taxes.","Only your contributions count. There should be no ambiguity in what you contributed to the IRA. The IRA should have sent you a Form 5498 at the beginning of the next year detailing what you contributed that year. This is important because there are limits on how much you can contribute to an IRA per year. You don't need to fill out the form in a following year if you've made no nondeductible contributions (or Roth IRA conversions or any of the other stuff on the form) that year.","If your dad would have won money on the slot machines(And the amount was high), the casino would have given him a W2G to fill out right there and taxes would have been deducted. However, table games including Poker does not have any such rule. You will have to account for your winnings(And losses) at the end of the year. So, it is ok if you sign that paper, as you do not owe the IRS any money yet. You will still need to file your taxes as a non resident alien at the end of the year and attach the form W2G with it and pay your dues.","\"I think I found the answer, at least in my specific case. From the heading \"\"Questar/Dominion Resources Merger\"\" in this linked website: Q: When will I receive tax forms showing the stock and dividend payments? A: You can expect a Form 1099-B in early February 2017 showing the amount associated with payment of your shares. You also will receive a Form 1099-DIV by Jan. 31, 2017, with your 2016 dividends earned.\""],"string":"[\n \"You can print them on any IRS-approved paper, you don't have to use pre-printed forms. The IRS publishes specifications for paper that is approved for use for these kinds of forms (109*, W*, etc). Here's the reason why it is important: Even the slightest deviation can result in incorrect scanning, and may affect money amounts reported for employees. Note that some portions of these forms are in different color (1099-MISC copy A). This is important, and using incorrect color will affect the IRS OCR mechanisms. Forms for individuals are less complicated with regards to technical specifications, because individuals must file them, and as such any complication will unnecessarily burden the citizenry. All the 109*, W* etc forms are not legally required to be filed by all citizens. You're only required to file them if you chose to do business, or chose to employ others. As such, using professional software and special forms is a cost of doing your business, and not a tax as it would be had it been mandatory to everyone. Mistakes in individual forms due to OCR failure or something else will be noticed by the taxpayers (less/more refund, etc) or through the internal matching and cross-check. However, forms 109* and W* feed that matching and cross-check system and are considered source of truth by it, and as such their processing must be much more reliable and precise.\",\n \"Is it right that I request form W-9 or form W-8BEN (for non U.S. citizens) from the affiliate users before sending them payments? Not just OK. Required. I know that I have to send form 1099, but I don't know where does this form should go to. Should I send it to the IRS or the affiliate user or both? Both. There's also form 1096 that you need to send to the IRS. Read the instructions. Should I send form 1099 once a year or each time I make a payment to the affiliate? Once a year. Read the instructions. Do I have to send form 1099 when the money earned by the affiliate hit a certain threshold or I have to send it anyway? $600 or more requires the form, but you can send for any amount. Read the instructions. Is there any other forms or documents to request from or send to the affiliate user or the IRS? There may be additional forms. Especially if the recipient is a foreign person and you withhold taxes. Talk to your tax adviser.\",\n \"There are many different types of 1099 forms. Since you are comparing it to a W-2, I'm assuming you are talking about a 1099-MISC form. Independent contractor income If you are a worker earning a salary or wage, your employer reports your annual earnings at year-end on Form W-2. However, if you are an independent contractor or self-employed you will receive a Form 1099-MISC from each client that pays you at least $600 during the tax year. For example, if you are a freelance writer, consultant or artist, you hire yourself out to individuals or companies on a contract basis. The income you receive from each job you take should be reported to you on Form 1099-MISC. When you prepare your tax return, the IRS requires you to report all of this income and pay income tax on it. So even if you receive a 1099-MISC form, you are required to pay taxes on it.\",\n \"Am I required to send form 1099 to non-US citizens who are not even residing in the US? Since they're not required to file US taxes, do I still have to send the form to them? That's tricky. You need to get W8/W9 from them, and act accordingly. You may need to withhold 30% (or different percentage, depending on tax treaty they claim on W8). If you withhold taxes, you also need to file form 1042. I suggest you talk to a tax professional. Is it fine to expose my ITIN (taxpayer identification number) to individuals or companies who I send the form to them. Since the form requires me to write my TIN/EIN, what would be the risks of this and what precautions should be taken to avoid inappropriate/illegal use? No, it is not OK. But if you pay these people directly - you don't have much choice, so deal with it. Get a good insurance for identity theft, and don't transact with people you don't trust. One alternative would be to pay through a payment processor (Paypal or credit cards) - see your next question. I send payments via PayPal and wire transfer. Should I send form 1099-MISC or 1099-K? Paypal is a corporation, so you don't need to send 1099 to Paypal. Whatever Paypal sends to others - it will issue the appropriate forms. Similarly if you use a credit card for payment. When you send money through Paypal - you don't send money directly to your business counterparts. You send money to Paypal.\",\n \"Forms 1099 and W2 are mutually exclusive. Employers file both, not the employees. 1099 is filed for contractors, W2 is filed for employees. These terms are defined in the tax code, and you may very well be employee, even though your employer pays you as a contractor and issues 1099. You may complain to the IRS if this is the case, and have them explain the difference to the employer (at the employer's expense, through fines and penalties). Employers usually do this to avoid providing benefits (and by the way also avoid paying payroll taxes). If you're working as a contractor, lets check your follow-up questions: where do i pay my taxes on my hourly that means does the IRS have a payment center for the tax i pay. If you're an independent contractor (1099), you're supposed to pay your own taxes on a quarterly basis using the form 1040-ES. Check this page for more information on your quarterly payments and follow the links. If you're a salaried employee elsewhere (i.e.: receive W2, from a different employer), then instead of doing the quarterly estimates you can adjust your salary withholding at that other place of work to cover for your additional income. To do that you submit an updated form W4 there, check with the payroll department on details. Is this a hobby tax No such thing, hobby income is taxed as ordinary income. The difference is that hobby cannot be at loss, while regular business activity can. If you're a contractor, it is likely that you're not working at loss, so it is irrelevant. what tax do i pay the city? does this require a sole proprietor license? This really depends on your local laws and the type of work you're doing and where you're doing it. Most likely, if you're working from your employer's office, you don't need any business license from the city (unless you have to be licensed to do the job). If you're working from home, you might need a license, check with the local government. These are very general answers to very general questions. You should seek a proper advice from a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for your specific case.\",\n \"Form 1127 (updated link) should be filed in paper (with the supporting documents) to the IRS office that has jurisdiction in the area where you live. From the instructions (see the link above): File Form 1127 with the Internal Revenue Service (Attn: Advisory Group Manager), for the area where you maintain your legal residence or principal place of business. See Pub. 4235, Collection Advisory Group Addresses, to find the address for your local advisory group. However, if the tax due is a gift tax reportable on Form 709, send Form 1127 to: Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Center Cincinnati, OH 45999\",\n \"\\\"Whenever you do paid work for a company, you will need to fill out some sort of paperwork so that the company knows how to pay you, and also how to report how much they paid you to the appropriate government agencies. You should not think of this as a \\\"\\\"hurdle\\\"\\\" and you shouldn't worry that you haven't been employed for a long time. The two most common ways a company pays an individual are via employee wages, or \\\"\\\"independent contractor\\\"\\\" payments. When you start a relationship with a company, if you are going to become an employee, then you will out a W4 form, and at the end of the year you will receive a W2 form. If you are an independent contractor, (which you would be considered in this case), you will fill out form W9 and at the end of the year you will receive a 1099. This is completely normal and you have nothing to worry about. All it means is that if you make more than a certain amount (typically $600) in a year, you will receive a 1099 in the mail or electronically. The 1099 form basically means that they are reporting that amount to the IRS, and it also helps you file your tax return by showing you all the numbers you need on one form. Please remember that when you are paid as an independent contractor, no taxes are withheld on your behalf, so you may owe some tax on the money you make. It's best to set aside some of your income so you are prepared to pay it come tax time next year.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"In the U.S., Form 1040 is known as the tax return. This is the form that is filed annually to calculate your tax due for the year, and you either claim a refund if you have overpaid your taxes or send in a payment if you have underpaid. The form is generally due on April 15 each year, but this year the due date is April 18, 2016. When it comes to filing your taxes, there are two questions you need to ask yourself: \\\"\\\"Am I required to file?\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"Should I file?\\\"\\\" Am I required to file? The 1040 instructions has a section called \\\"\\\"Do I have to file?\\\"\\\" with several charts that determine if you are legally required to file. It depends on your status and your gross income. If you are single, under 65, and not a dependent on someone else's return, you are not required to file if your 2015 income was less than $10,300. If you will be claimed as a dependent on someone else's return, however, you must file if your earned income (from work) was over $6300, or your unearned income (from investments) was over $1050, or your gross (total) income was more than the larger of either $1050 or your earned income + $350. See the instructions for more details. Should I file? Even if you find that you are not required to file, it may be beneficial to you to file anyway. There are two main reasons you might do this: If you have had income where tax has been taken out, you may have overpaid the tax. Filing the tax return will allow you to get a refund of the amount that you overpaid. As a student, you may be eligible for student tax credits that can get you a refund even if you did not pay any tax during the year. How to file For low income tax payers, the IRS has a program called Free File that provides free filing software options.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You file taxes as usual. W2 is a form given to you, you don't need to fill it. Similarly, 1099. Both report moneys paid to you by your employers. W2 is for actual employer (the one where you're on the payroll), 1099 is for contractors (where you invoice the entity you provide services to and get paid per contract). You need to look at form 1040 and its instructions as to how exactly to fill it. That would be the annual tax return. It has various schedules (A, B, C, D, E, F, H, etc) which you should familiarize yourself with, and various additional forms that you attach to it. If you're self employed, you're expected to make quarterly estimate payments, but if you're a salaried employee you can instruct your employer to withhold the amounts you expect to owe for taxes from your salary, instead. If you're using a tax preparation software (like TurboTax or TaxAct), it will \\\"\\\"interview\\\"\\\" you to get all the needed information and provide you with the forms filled accordingly. Alternatively you can pay someone to prepare the tax return for you.\\\"\",\n \"From the 1099 instructions: File Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, for each person to whom you have paid during the year Your accounting method doesn't matter. You file 1099 for the year you paid the money.\",\n \"\\\"1099's and other official tax forms are often reported to the IRS by the issuer, whether or not you include a copy in your return. You should not neglect to include this income in your 2016 return in an attempt to balance out the two tax years. It's up to you whether or not you feel like filing an amended 2015 return to recover over-payment of taxes from that tax year. You have up to three years to amend tax returns using form 1040X. Since you couldn't have furnished a 1099 for this when you filed your 2015 return (otherwise you wouldn't be in receipt of it for tax year 2016), I'm assuming you reported it simply as \\\"\\\"Other Income\\\"\\\" and therefore would have been [over] taxed your marginal rate on it. From irs.gov: When to amend a return. You should file an amended return if you need to correct your filing status, number of dependents, total income, tax deductions or tax credits. The instructions for Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, list additional reasons to amend a return.\\\"\",\n \"No, do not file a Form 1099. You should not issue a form to yourself and you have no separate entity to issue one. The reporting obligation is Form 1040, plus Schedule C. You may have followed a wrong turn somewhere in the TurboTax questionnaire or it may not have picked up the subtleties of your situation. The business income is already yours. Some writers use vehicles to hold their royalties and pay themselves. The questionnaire may have been trying to get at this issue or may have wrongly assumed it. There are special rules around such entities, so getting an adviser is a good idea. For now, just file Schedule C, remember to deduct your costs (e.g. cost to print the books), and pay your self-employment tax.\",\n \"There are two parts in this 1042-S form. The income/dividends go into the Canada T5 form. There will be credit if 1042-S has held money already, so use T2209 to report too.\",\n \"\\\"Form W-9 (officially, the \\\"\\\"Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification\\\"\\\") is used in the United States income tax system by a third party who must file an information return with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It requests the name, address, and taxpayer identification information of a taxpayer (in the form of a Social Security Number or Employer Identification Number). A W-9 is typically required when an individual is doing work, as a contractor or as an employee, for a company and will be paid more than $600 in a tax-year. The company is required to file a W-2 or a 1099 and so requests a W-9 to get the information necessary for those forms. I cannot say if it is incompetence on the part of the accounting department or a deliberate ploy to make the refund process more onerous, but do not comply. Politely nsist on a refund without any further information. If the company refuses, request a charge-back from the credit-card company, file a complaint with the consumer-protection department of the state where the company is located, and write a bad review on Yelp or wherever else seems appropriate.\\\"\",\n \"Depends whom the 1099 was issued to. If it was issued to your corporation - then its your corporation's income, not yours. Why would it go to your tax return? Your corporation and you are two separate legal entities. You will have to file the 1120S, whether you have corporate income or not, it has to be filed each year. So why make a mess of your reporting and not just report the corporation income on its return and your personal income on your own return? If you no longer use the corporation and all the 1099's are issued to you personally, then just dissolve it so that you won't have to file an empty 1120S every year and pay additional fees for maintaining it.\",\n \"is it possible to file that single form aside from the rest of my return? Turbotax will generate all the forms necessary to file your return. I recommend you access these forms and file them manually. According to the IRS in order to report capital gains and losses you need to fill out Form 8949 and summarize them on Form 1040 D. Add these two forms to the stack that turbotax generates. Add the total capital gains to line 13 of the Form 1040 which turbotax generated, and adjust the totals on the form accordingly.\",\n \"The deadline to mail is February 15. However, if the form is being prepared by a middleman (i.e. Wells Fargo) then they have until March 15th (on page 24). Also, if you haven't received your 1099 form by February 14, you may contact the IRS and they will contact and request the missing form on your behalf. I know that's a lot of information, but to answer your question, yes, there are situations where March 15th is the deadline instead of February 15th.\",\n \"According to the Form W-8BEN instructions for Part II, Line 10: Line 10. Line 10 must be used only if you are claiming treaty benefits that require that you meet conditions not covered by the representations you make on line 9 and Part III. For example, persons claiming treaty benefits on royalties must complete this line if the treaty contains different withholding rates for different types of royalties. In tax treaties, some of the benefits apply to every resident of a foreign country. Other benefits only apply to certain groups of people. Line 10 is where you affirm that you meet whatever special conditions are necessary in the treaty to obtain the benefit. If you are claiming that Article 15 of the U.S.-India Tax Treaty, you could use Line 10 to do this. It is important to remember that this form goes to the company paying you; it does not actually get sent to the IRS. Therefore, you can ask the company themselves if filling out Line 9 only will result in them withholding nothing, or if they would need you to fill out Line 10.\",\n \"You need to file IRS Form 1040-NR. The IRS's website provides instructions.\",\n \"Why was I sent both 1042-S and 1099. Which amount is the right amount that has been withheld. Generally, each tax form you get will be about a separate income; for instance, you might get a 1099-DIV for dividends you earned from an investment and then a 1099-B for the profit or loss on selling that investment, in which case you'd report them both to the IRS. In this case, you've also had money withheld as a non-resident alien, which is why you've been issued a 1042-S. So you need to report both amounts to the IRS.\",\n \"\\\"Littleadv is incorrect because receiving a 1099 means she will be taxed self-employment tax on top of federal income taxes. Your employer will automatically withhold 7.65% of payroll taxes as they pay you each paycheck and then they'll automatically pay the other half of your payroll tax (an additional 7.65%) to bring it to a total of 15.3%. In other words, because your wife is technically self employed, she will owe both sides of payroll tax which is 15.3% of $38k = $5,800 on TOP of your federal income tax (which is the only thing the W-4 is instructing them about what amount to withhold). The huge advantage to a 1099, however, is that she's essentially self-employed which means ALL of the things she needs to run her business are deductible expenses. This includes her car, computer, home office, supplies, sometimes phone, gas, maintenance, travel expenses, sometimes entertainment, etc - which can easily bring her \\\"\\\"income\\\"\\\" down from $38k to lets say $23k, reducing both her federal income tax AND self-employment tax to apply to $15k less (saving lets say 50% of $15k = $7.5k with federal and self employment because your income is so high). She is actually supposed to pay quarterly taxes to make up for all of this. The easy way to do this is each quarter plug YOUR total salary + bonus and the tax YOU have paid so far (check your paystubs) into TurboTax along with her income so far and all of her expenses. This will give you how much tax you can expect to have left to owe so far--this would be your first quarter. When you calculate your other quarters, do it the exact same way and just subtract what you've already paid so far that year from your total tax liability.\\\"\",\n \"I got notice from Charles Schwab that the forms weren't being mailed out until the middle of February because, for some reason, the forms were likely to change and rather than mail them out twice, they mailed them out once. Perhaps some state tax laws took effect (such as two Oregon bills regarding tax rates for higher incomes) and they waited on that. While I haven't gotten my forms mailed to me yet, I did go online and get the electronic copies that allowed me to finish my taxes already.\",\n \"You are correct that you do not need to file under a certain circumstances primarily related to income, but other items are taken into account such as filing status, whether the amount was earned or unearned income (interest, dividends, etc.) and a few other special situations which probably don't apply to you. If you go through table 2 on page 3 and 4 of IRS publication 501 (attached), there is a worksheet to fill out that will give you the definitive answer. As far as the 1099 goes, that is to be filed by the person who paid you. How you were paid (i.e., cash, check, etc., makes no difference). You don't have a filing requirement for that form in this case. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf\",\n \"Are the amounts in those boxes taxes that have already been removed? Yes. If they are, how do I report these totals? When I entered the information from the 1099-MISC, it only asked for the total, and didn't ask for (what I thought were) the taxes already taken out. It should appear on your 1040 line 64 (and similar line on your State tax return). If the program doesn't ask for all the 1099 fields (which is stupid), you can add it as additional taxes paid in the Credits section, somewhere in the area where they ask about estimated payments etc.\",\n \"I can't find specific information for Form 1099-DIV for this tax year. However, I found this quote for next tax season that talks about Form 1099-B: Due date for certain statements sent to recipients. The due date for furnishing statements to recipients for Forms 1099-B, 1099-S, and 1099-MISC (if amounts are reported in box 8 or 14) is February 15, 2018. [emphasis added] I know many brokerages bundle the 1099-DIV with the 1099-B, so one might assume that the deadlines are the same. February 15 seems consistent with the messages I got from my brokerages that said the forms will be mailed by mid-February.\",\n \"The IRS instructions do not specify how to connect the forms, just that you should not staple the check to the form (likely because it goes to a different location for processing). I have always either stapled or paper-clipped them together, however I would assume that the receiving department does not care, otherwise it would be explicit in the instructions.\",\n \"Form 1099-misc reports PAYMENTS, not earnings. This does not imply the EARNINGS are not taxable in the year they were earned.\",\n \"He has included this on Schedule D line 1a, but I don't see any details on the actual transaction. It is reported on form 8949. However, if it is fully reported in 1099-B (with cost basis), then you don't have to actually detail every position. Turbotax asked me to fill in individual stock sales with proceeds and cost basis information. ... Again, it seems to be documented on Schedule D in boxes 1a and 8a. See above. I received a 1099-Q for a 529 distribution for a family member. It was used for qualified expenses, so should not be taxable. Then there's nothing to report. I believe I paid the correct amounts based on my (possibly flawed) understanding of estimated taxes. His initial draft had me paying a penalty. I explained my situation for the year, and his next draft had the penalties removed, with no documentation or explanation. IRS assesses the penalty. If you volunteer to pay the penalty, you can calculate it yourself and pay with the taxes due. Otherwise - leave it to the IRS to calculate and assess the penalty they deem right and send you a bill. You can then argue with the IRS about that assessment. Many times they don't even bother, if the amounts are small, so I'd suggest going with what the CPA did.\",\n \"Normally you could either head down to the office supply store and pick up a copy of a tax program, or you could head over to the IRS office and pick up the instructions and forms. However, in your case you should be talking to a tax lawyer. The unfiled taxes are bad enough but you own a business outside the USA and most likely have bank accounts also. That brings you into the realm of FATCA.\",\n \"\\\"You would put your earnings (and expenses, don't forget) on Schedule C, and then do a Schedule SE for self-employment tax. http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98846,00.html 1040ES isn't used to compute taxes, it's used to pay taxes. Generally you are supposed to pay taxes as you go, rather than when you file. There are exceptions where you won't be penalized for paying when you file, \\\"\\\"most taxpayers will avoid this penalty if they owe less than $1,000 in tax after subtracting their withholdings and credits, or if they paid at least 90% of the tax for the current year, or 100% of the tax shown on the return for the prior year, whichever is smaller\\\"\\\" from http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc306.html i.e. there's a safe harbor as long as you pay as much as you owed the year before. If you owe a lot at the end of the year a second time in a row, then you get penalized.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Depending on what you need to explain, you can submit your electronic return without the supplemental information and subsequently mail a Form 8453 with the additional information. This is helpful for form 8489, for example, where you need to list every transaction reported by your stock broker on a 1099-B. See https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8453.pdf for more details on this form. If the information you need to submit an attachment for doesn't follow one of the options on that form, you will likely need to file a paper return or use a paid tax preparation service/application. Limitations of FreeFile are explained here, along with a list of forms that are available: https://www.irs.gov/uac/List-of-Available-Free-File-Fillable-Forms The \\\"\\\"Attaching Statements\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"Write-in information\\\"\\\" sections seem like they might apply to your situation. Attaching Statements - If you need to add statements and you can't use Form 8453, U.S. Individual Income Tax Transmittal for an IRS e-file Return, to mail that information, you will not be able to use this program to efile your return Identity Protection PIN's (IP PIN) - This program only supports the entry of a Primary taxpayer's IP PIN. If the spouse or dependents have an IP PIN, you cannot use this program to efile the return. Writing In Information - Your ability to \\\"\\\"write in\\\"\\\" additional information to explain an entry is generally limited to the 1040 forms and some of the more frequently submitted forms. If you need to write in additional information on a form, other than the 1040 series, you may not be able to use this program to efile your tax return. E-filing Forms - To efile forms, (except Form 4868) they must be attached to a 1040 series form (1040, 1040A or 1040EZ). Form Limitations - There may be Known Limitations of forms you plan to complete. Please review them. A form limitation may keep you from completing or e-filing your return.\\\"\",\n \"Can I work on 1099 from my own company instead of on W2? The reason is on W2 I can't deduct my commute, Health Insurance and some other expenses while on 1099 I think I can able do that. Since I am going to client place to work not at my own office, I am not sure whether I should able to do that or not. If you have LLC, unless you elected to tax it as a corporation, you need neither 1099 nor W2. For tax purposes the LLC is disregarded. So it is, from tax perspective, a sole proprietorship (or partnership, if multiple members). Being a W2 employee of your own LLC is a bad idea. For all these above expenses, which can I use company's debit/credit card or I need to use only my personal debit/credit card? It would be better to always use a business account for business purposes. Doesn't matter much for tax per se, but will make your life easier in case of an audit or a legal dispute (limited liability protection may depend on it). If I work on 1099, I guess I need to file some reasonable taxes on quarterly basis instead of filing at year end. If so, how do I pay my tax on quarterly basis to IRS? I mean which forms should I file and how to pay tax? Unless you're a W2 employee, you need to do quarterly estimate payments using form 1040-ES. If you are a W2 employee (even for a different job, and even if it is not you, but your spouse with whom you're filing jointly) - you can adjust your/spouse's withholding using form W4 to cover the additional tax liability. This is, IMHO, a better way than paying estimates. There are numerous questions on this, search the site or ask another one for details.\",\n \"Instead of SSN, foreign person should get a ITIN from the IRS. Instead of W9 a foreigner should fill W8-BEN. Foreigner might also be required to file 1040NR/NR-EZ tax report, and depending on tax treaties also be liable for US taxes.\",\n \"\\\"Actually, if you don't care about paying a bit more, either hire an accountant and dump the paper on them, or (may be cheaper but a bit more work) spring for tax software. Modern tax programs can often download most of your data directly. If you don't care about claiming deductions you can skip a lot of the rest. I'm perfectly capable of doing my taxes on paper or in a spreadsheet... but I spring for tax software every year because I find it a _LOT more pleasant. Remember that most of the complexity does come from policies intended to reduce your taxes. When you call for simplification, you may not like the result. It's better than it was a decade or two ago. I used to joke that the battle cry of the next revolution would be \\\"\\\"No Taxation Without Proper Instructions!\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"If you've been using TurboTax, let me suggest a compromise: Let TTax fill out the forms, but then print them out and go through it again by hand. If you don't get the same numbers, investigate why. If you do, you can probably conclude that you could do it by hand if you really want to, especially if you have the previous year's returns as a reference. (I've gone through every version of this from before personal tax software existed thru hand-constructed spreadsheets to commercial software and e-filing (federal only; I refuse to pay for something that reduces THEIR work). I can't use the free online version -- my return's got complications it won't handle -- and I'm uncomfortable putting that much data on a machine I don't control, so I'm still buying software each year. I COULD save the money, but it's worth a few bucks to me to make the process less annoying.) Late edit: Note that a self-constructed spreadsheet is one answer to the annoyance of pencil and paper -- you're still doing all the data manipulation yourself, but you're recording HOW you manipulated it as you go, and if numbers change you don't have to redo all the work. And it avoids raw math errors. It does require that you enter all the formulas rather than just their results, and figuring out how to express some things in stylesheet form can be a nuisance, but it isn't awful... and once you've done it (assuming you got it right) updating it for the next year is usually not hard unless you've introduced a completely new set of issues.\",\n \"\\\"I would advise against \\\"\\\"pencil and paper\\\"\\\" approach for the following reasons: You should e-file instead of paper filing. Although the IRS provides an option of \\\"\\\"Fillable Forms\\\"\\\", there's no additional benefit there. Software ensures correctness of the calculations. It is easy to make math errors, lookup the wrong table It is easy to forget to fill a line or to click a checkbox (one particular checkbox on Schedule B cost many people thousands of dollars). Software ask you questions in a \\\"\\\"interview\\\"\\\" manner, and makes it harder to miss. Software can provide soft copies that you can retrieve later or reuse for amendments and carry-overs to the next year, making the task next time easier and quicker. You may not always know about all the available deductions and credits. Instead of researching the tax changes every year, just flow with the interview process of the software, and they'll suggest what may be available for you (lifetime learners credit? Who knows). Software provides some kind of liability protection (for example, if there's something wrong because the software had a bug - you can have them fix it for you and pay your penalties, if any). It's free. So why not use it? As to professional help later in life - depending on your needs. I'm fully capable of filling my own tax returns, for example, but I prefer to have a professional do it since I'm not always aware about all the intricacies of taxation of my transactions and prefer to have a professional counsel (who also provides some liability coverage if she counsels me wrong...). Some things may become very complex and many people are not aware of that (I've shared the things I learned here on this forum, but there are many things I'm not aware of and the tax professional should know).\\\"\",\n \"You are right that even if you do not receive a 1099-MISC, you still need to report all income to the IRS. Report the $40 on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ. Since your net profit was less than $400, you do not need to file Schedule SE. From the IRS web site: Self-Employment Income It is a common misconception that if a taxpayer does not receive a Form 1099-MISC or if the income is under $600 per payer, the income is not taxable. There is no minimum amount that a taxpayer may exclude from gross income. All income earned through the taxpayer’s business, as an independent contractor or from informal side jobs is self-employment income, which is fully taxable and must be reported on Form 1040. Use Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship) to report income and expenses. Taxpayers will also need to prepare Form 1040 Schedule SE for self-employment taxes if the net profit exceeds $400 for a year. Do not report this income on Form 1040 Line 21 as Other Income. Independent contractors must report all income as taxable, even if it is less than $600. Even if the client does not issue a Form 1099-MISC, the income, whatever the amount, is still reportable by the taxpayer.\",\n \"Here's a description. The relevant discussion for tax year 2010 starts on page 22 of the 1040 instructions.\",\n \"Fill out the form manually, using last year's return as an example of how to report these gains. Or experiment with one of the low-priced tax programs; I've been told that they are available for as little as $17, and if your alternative is doing it manually, spending a bit of time checking their results isn't a huge problem. Or run the basic TTax, and tell it to add the appropriate forms manually. It supports them, it just doesn't have the interview sections to handle them. (@DanielCarson's answer has more details about that.) Or...\",\n \"\\\"The forms get updated every year, and the software providers need to get approved by the IRS every year. \\\"\\\"Form is not yet finalized\\\"\\\" means that this year form hasn't been approved yet. IRS starts accepting returns on January 31st anyway, nothing to be worried about. Why are you nearing a deadline? The deadline for 1120 (corporate tax return) is 2 and 1/2 months after your corp year end, which if you're a calendar year corp is March 15th. If your year end is in November/December - you can use the prior year forms, those are finalized.\\\"\",\n \"Just type in the forms as they are, separately. That would be the easiest way both to enter the data without any mistakes, and ensure that everything matches properly with the IRS reports.\",\n \"\\\"It's not quite as bad as the comments indicate. Form 1040ES has been available since January (and IME has been similarly for all past years). It mostly uses the prior year (currently 2016) as the basis, but it does have the updated (2017) figures for items that are automatically adjusted for inflation: bracket points (and thus filing threshhold), standard deductions, Social Security cap, and maybe another one or two I missed. The forms making up the actual return cannot be prepared very far in advance because, as commented, Congress frequently makes changes to tax law well after the year begins, and in some cases right up to Dec. 31. The IRS must start preparing forms and pubs -- and equally important, setting the specifications for software providers like Intuit (TurboTax) and H&RBlock -- several months ahead in order to not seriously delay filing season, and with it refunds, which nearly everyone in the country considers (at least publicly) to be worse than World War Three and the destruction of the Earth by rogue asteroids. I have 1040 series from the last 4 years still on my computer, and the download dates mostly range from late September to mid January. Although one outlier shows the range of possibility: 2013 form 1040 and Schedule A were tweaked in April 2014 because Congress passed a law allowing charitable contributions for Typhoon Haiyan to be deducted in the prior year. Substantive, but relatively minor, changes happen every year, including many that keep recurring like the special (pre-AGI) teacher supplies deduction (\\\"\\\"will they or won't they?\\\"\\\"), section 179 expensing (changes slightly almost every year), and formerly the IRA-direct-to-charity option (finally made permanent last year). As commented, the current Congress and President were elected on a platform with tax reform as an important element, and they are talking even more intensely than before about doing it, although whether they will actually do anything this year is still uncertain. However, if major reform is done it will almost certainly apply to future years only, and likely only start after a lag of some months to a year. They know it causes chaos for businesses and households alike to upend without advance warning the assumptions built in to current budgets and plans -- and IME as a political matter something that is enacted now and effective fairly soon but not now is just as good (but I think that part is offtopic).\\\"\",\n \"A 1040X is the form and instructions you need. Don't worry you can rescind the $3 presidential campaign contribution for both you and a spouse.\",\n \"If you're under audit - you should get a proper representation. I.e.: EA or CPA licensed in California and experienced with the FTB audit representation. There's a penalty on failure to file form 1099, but it is with the IRS, not the FTB. If I remember correctly, it's something like $50 or $100 per instance. Technically they can disqualify deductions claiming you paid under the table and no taxes were paid on the other side, however I doubt they'd do it in a case of simple omission of filing 1099 forms. Check with your licensed tax adviser. Keep in mind that for the IRS 2011 is now closed, since the 3-year statute of limitations has passed. For California the statute is 4 years, and you're almost at the end of it. However since you're already under audit they may ask you to agree to extend it.\",\n \"\\\"According to this link http://taxes.lovetoknow.com/federal-income-tax/w9-tax-form: The very last line on the personal information section refers to \\\"\\\"account numbers.\\\"\\\" Here, the taxpayer lists any accounts they have with the IRS to pay back taxes or pre-payments for anticipated tax liability obligations. This information is optional and is inapplicable in many situations.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Hearing somewhere is a level or two worse than \\\"\\\"my friend told me.\\\"\\\" You need to do some planning to forecast your full year income and tax bill. In general, you should be filing a quarterly form and tax payment. You'll still reconcile the year with an April filing, but if you are looking to save up to pay a huge bill next year, you are looking at the potential of a penalty for under-withholding. The instructions and payment coupons are available at the IRS site. At this point I'm required to offer the following advice - If you are making enough money that this even concerns you, you should consider starting to save for the future. A Solo-401(k) or IRA, or both. Read more on these two accounts and ask separate questions, if you'd like.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Does he need to file a tax return in this situation? Will the IRS be concerned that he did not file even if he received a 1099? No. However, if you don't file the IRS may come back asking why, or \\\"\\\"make up\\\"\\\" a return for you assuming that the whole amount on the 1099-MISC is your net earnings. So in the end, I suspect you'll end up filing even though you don't have to, just to prove that you don't have to. Bottom line - if you have 1099 income (or any other income reported to the IRS that brings you over the filing threshold), file a return.\\\"\",\n \"It is perfectly legitimate to adjust your 1099-B income by broker's fees. Publication 17 (p 116) specifically instructs taxpayers to adjust their Schedule D reporting by broker's fees: Form 1099-B transactions. If you sold property, such as stocks, bonds, or certain commodities, through a broker, you should receive Form 1099-B or substitute statement from the broker. Use the Form 1099-B or the substitute statement to complete Form 8949. If you sold a covered security in 2013, your broker should send you a Form 1099-B (or substitute statement) that shows your basis. This will help you complete Form 8949. Generally, a covered security is a security you acquired after 2010. Report the gross proceeds shown in box 2a of Form 1099-B as the sales price in column (d) of either Part I or Part II of Form 8949, whichever applies. However, if the broker advises you, in box 2a of Form 1099-B, that gross proceeds (sales price) less commissions and option premiums were reported to the IRS, enter that net sales price in column (d) of either Part I or Part II of Form 8949, whichever applies. Include in column (g) any expense of sale, such as broker's fees, commissions, state and local transfer taxes, and option premiums, unless you reported the net sales price in column (d). If you include an expense of sale in column (g), enter “E” in column (f). You can rely on your own records and judgment, if you feel comfortable doing so. Brokers often make incomplete tax reporting. This may have been simpler from their perspective if the broker fees were variable, or integrated, or unknown for a number of clients party to a transaction. If a taxpayer has documentation of the expenses that justify an adjustment, then it's perfectly appropriate to include that in the calculations. It is not necessary to report the discrepancy, and it may increase scrutiny to include a written addendum. The Schedule D, Form 8949, and Form 1099-B will probably together adequately explain the source of the deduction.\",\n \"Since there's no taxable income (inheritance is not taxed to you), you do not need to amend. The executor used the correct form. Note, I'm not a tax adviser or a licensed professional. For a tax advice advice contact a CPA/EA licensed in your state.\",\n \"Publication 15 is the IRS guide for business. https://www.irs.gov/uac/about-publication-15 They will be deposited electronically at https://www.eftps.com/eftps/ Form 941 is the one you will be using: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/depositing-and-reporting-employment-taxes The other ones are for special circumstances. I would recommend that you have a chat with an accountant.\",\n \"Why would the IRS be coming after you if you reported the income? If you reported everything, then the IRS will use the 1099 to cross-check, see that everything is in order, be happy and done with it. The lady was supposed to give you the 1099 by the end of January, and she may be penalized by the IRS for being late, but as long as you/wifey reported all the income - you're fine. It was supposed to be reported on Schedule C or as miscellaneous income on line 21 (schedule C sounds more suitable as it seems that your wifey is in a cleaning business). But there's no difference in how you report whether you got 1099 or not, so if you reported - you should be fine.\",\n \"One of the triggers for audit is when the IRS can't match 1099 income to the tax return. Whoever got the 1099 in her name should include that income on her return.\",\n \"You wouldn't fill out a 1099, your employer would or possibly whoever manages the stock account. The 1099-B imported from E-Trade says I had a transaction with sell price ~$4,500. Yes. You sold ~$4500 of stock to pay income taxes. Both the cost basis and the sale price would probably be ~$4500, so no capital gain. This is because you received and sold the stock at the same time. If they waited a little, you could have had a small gain or loss. The remainder of the stock has a cost basis of ~$5500. There are at least two transactions here. In the future you may sell the remaining stock. It has a cost basis of ~$5500. Sale price of course unknown until then. You may break that into different pieces. So you might sell $500 of cost basis for $1000 with a ~$500 capital gain. Then later sell the remainder for $15,000 for a capital gain of ~$10,000.\",\n \"In the end, I filled out the form with a foreign TIN (my UK National Insurance Number) on line 6, as well as a short sentence detailing my claim for 0% tax withholding according to the relevant section of the UK-US tax treaty. It looks like this was good enough; the prize money arrived in my account a few days ago, and it seems that no tax was withheld!\",\n \"\\\"If you file the long-form Form 2210 in which you have to figure out exactly how much you should have had withheld (or paid via quarterly payments of estimated tax), you might be able to reduce the underpayment penalty somewhat, or possibly eliminate it entirely. This often happens because some of your income comes late in the year (e.g. dividend and capital gain distributions from stock mutual funds) and possibly because some of your itemized deductions come early (e.g. real estate tax bills due April 1, charitable deductions early in the year because of New Year resolutions to be more philanthropic) etc. It takes a fair amount of effort to gather up the information you need for this (money management programs help), and it is easy to make mistakes while filling out the form. I strongly recommend use of a \\\"\\\"deluxe\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"premier\\\"\\\" version of a tax program - basic versions might not include Form 2210 or have only the short version of it. I also seem to remember something to the effect that the long form 2210 must be filed with the tax return and cannot be filed as part of an amended return, and if so, the above advice would be applicable to future years only. But you might be able to fill out the form and appeal to the IRS that you owe a reduced penalty, or don't owe a penalty at all, and that your only mistake was not filing the long form 2210 with your tax return and so please can you be forgiven this once? In any case, I strongly recommend paying the underpayment penalty ASAP because it is increasing day by day due to interest being charged. If the IRS agrees to your eloquent appeal, they will refund the overpayment.\\\"\",\n \"The line you are referring to says 5 U.S. taxpayer identification number (SSN or ITIN), if required (see instructions) It does not appear to be required in your case.\",\n \"The I-9 form is required because you are working. It is kept by the employer as proof that you have the proper documents to work. If the government was to inspect their records they can be fined if they don't have those document, in fact they have to keep them for several years after your employment is done. A w-4 form is a federal tax form. There also was probably a state version of the form. When you completed the w-4 it is used by your employer to determine how much in taxes need to be withheld. Employers don't know your tax situation. Even though you are on work study, you still could have made enough money over the summer to pay taxes. But if this is your only job, and you will not make enough money to have to pay taxes, you can fill out the form as exempt. That means that last year you didn't make enough money to have to pay taxes, and you don't expect to make enough to have to pay taxes this year. If you are exempt, no federal income tax will be withheld. They might still withhold for social security and medicare. The state w-4 can also be used to be exempt from state taxes. If they withhold any income taxes you have to file one of the 1040 tax forms to get that income tax money back. You will have to do so for the state income tax withholding. A note about social security and medicare. If you have an on campus job, at the campus you attend, during the school year; they don't withhold money for social security and medicare. That law applies to students on work study jobs, and on non-work-study jobs. for single dependents the federal threshold where you must file is: > You must file a return if any of the following apply. Your gross income was more than the larger of— a. $1,000, or b. Your earned income (up to $5,850) plus $350.\",\n \"\\\"The contract he wants me to sign states I'll receive my monthly stipend (if that is the right word) as a 1099 contractor. The right word is guaranteed payment, which is what \\\"\\\"salary\\\"\\\" is called when a partner is working for a partnership she's a partner in. Which is exactly the case in your situation. 1099 is not the right form to report this, the partnership (LLC in your case) should be using the Schedule K-1 for that. I suggest you talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser (EA/CPA) who are licensed in your State, before you sign anything.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"If you don't want to get income tax taken out of your check, then get a 1099 job and stop blubbering like a baby. You are not doing your case any help. If fact, I am more positive that \\\"\\\"anti-taxers\\\"\\\" are out of their gourd.\\\"\",\n \"I don't like keeping my tax information online. Personally, I buy TaxCut from Amazon for $25-30. I store my info securely on resources under my control. Call me a luddite or a weirdo, but I also file using paper, because I don't see the advantage of paying for the privilege of saving the government time and money.\",\n \"I typed my information into both last year, and while they were not exactly the same, they were within $10 of each other. For my simple 2009 taxes they were not different in any meaningful way.\",\n \"You'll have to file an amended tax return for that tax year. Filing an Amended Tax Return\",\n \"To start with, I should mention that many tax preparation companies will give you any number of free consultations on tax issues — they will only charge you if you use their services to file a tax form, such as an amended return. I know that H&R Block has international tax specialists who are familiar with the issues facing F-1 students, so they might be the right people to talk about your specific situation. According to TurboTax support, you should prepare a completely new 1040NR, then submit that with a 1040X. GWU’s tax department says you can submit late 8843, so you should probably do that if you need to claim non-resident status for tax purposes.\",\n \"\\\"There could be a few reasons for this, my first guess is that you didn't report the distribution on your return (indicated on line 15 of your 1040, pictured below), the IRS got a copy of the 1099-R, and assumes it's all taxable (or maybe the 1099-R indicates the full amount is taxable). If a 1099-R doesn't have an amount populated for 'taxable amount' it doesn't mean the distribution isn't taxable, and without any indication that it's not taxable the IRS assumes it is. It's not taxable if it's a withdrawal of your contribution. Here's a snippet from How to Calculate the Taxable Amount of an IRA Withdrawal: Withdrawals from a Roth IRA Since Roth IRA contributions are made on an after-tax basis, qualified withdrawals are completely tax-free. A \\\"\\\"qualified\\\"\\\" Roth withdrawal includes the following: If your 1099-R indicates a taxable amount, then you might need to contact the issuer to understand why. If it does not indicate a taxable amount and you failed to record the distribution on your return, you just need to file an amended return that shows the distribution on line 15a and shows no taxable amount on 15b along with a completed Form 8606. You may not need additional documentation to support of your claim that it's not taxable, but if you do it would be any statement showing that your contributions over the years exceed your withdrawal. What a 1040 with a non-taxable IRA withdrawal would show: Note: There'd also be a completed Form 8606, the 1040 lines above just show if it was entered in. The easiest path forward is probably to file an amended return using turbotax since you filed with them originally. I haven't dealt with an IRS letter in a few years, I can't recall if you need to contact them or simply file the amended return, but they're pretty good about including instructions so the letter probably indicates what you need to do. Don't delay in taking action, as the IRS can and will garnish wages if they are owed (or think they are owed) money. Update: OP contacted IRS and they didn't even want an amended return, just the completed Form 8606, so it's worth calling the IRS first with these letters.\\\"\",\n \"The key for you this year (2015) be aggressive in paying the taxes quarterly so that you do not have to do the quarterly filings or pay penalties for owing too much in taxes in future years. The tax system has a safe harbor provision. If you have withheld or sent via the estimated quarterly taxes an amount equal to 100% of the previous years taxes then you are safe. That means that if you end to the IRS in 2015 an amount equal to 100% of your 2014 taxes then in April 2016 you can avoid the penalties. You should note that the required percentage is 110% for high income individual. Because you can never be sure about your side income, use your ability to adjust your W-4 to cover your taxes. You will know early in 2016 how much you need to cover via withholding, so make the adjustments. Yes the risk is what you over pay, but that may be what you need to do to avoid the quarterly filing requirements. From IRS PUB 17: If you owe additional tax for 2014, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2015. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2015 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2015, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2015 tax return, or 100% of the tax shown on your 2014 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2014 tax return must cover all 12 months. and Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty.\",\n \"\\\"If you want an \\\"\\\"account statement\\\"\\\" from the IRS listing the taxes due and paid and confirming a zero balance remaining, you want what they call a Tax Account Transcript. It sounds like you tried to submit this online, but yes, it would require the actual taxpayer to submit it. The other option would be to fill out Form 4506-T requesting the Form 1040 Tax Account Transcript, have the taxpayer sign it, and mail it in. Presumably whatever method you used to have her sign the Form 1040 you prepared for her you could also use to have her sign the 4506-T. Another option could be to try to request the transcript over the phone. I don't know what authentication they require, or if you would need to have been listed on the 1040 as an authorized Third Party Designee. According to the IRS Transcript FAQ Page: Q19. What if I’m unable to use Get Transcript by Mail? If you are unable to use Get Transcript by Mail, you may try our automated phone transcript service at 800-908-9946 and also receive your transcript by mail. Please allow 5 to 10 calendar days for delivery. But unless there's a reason to think that the tax account wasn't credited properly or the IRS is sending another bill or the like, I don't think there's a lot of point in doing so. In general, the fact that the check cleared the bank should be sufficient documentation that the amount was paid.\\\"\",\n \"Form 10-K is filed by corporations to SEC. You must be thinking of form 1065 (its schedule K) that a partnership (and multi-member LLC) must file with the IRS. Unless the multi-member LLC is legally dissolved, it must file this form. You're a member, so it is your responsibility, with all the other members, to make sure that the manager files all the forms, and if the manager doesn't - fire the manager and appoint another one (or, if its member managed - chose a different member to manage). If you're a sole member of the LLC - then you don't need to file any forms with the IRS, all the business expenses and credits are done on your Schedule C, as if you were a sole propriator.\",\n \"\\\"You are not the only one with this problem. When Intuit changed their pricing and services structure in 2015 a lot of people got angry, facing larger fees and having to go through an annoying upgrade just to get the same functionality (such as Schedule D, capital gains). You have several options: (1) Forget Turbo Tax and just use paper forms. That is what I do. Paper is reliable. (2) Use forms mode in Turbo Tax. Of course, that may be even more complicated than simply filing out paper forms. (3) Use a different service. If your income is below $64,000 the IRS has a free electronic filing service. Other online vendors have full taxes services for less than Turbo Tax. (4) Add the amount to ordinary income. Technically, as long as you report the income, you cannot be penalized, so if you add the capital gain to your ordinary income, then you have paid taxes on the income. Even if they send you a letter, you can send an answer that you added it to ordinary income and that will satisfy them. Of course you pay a higher rate on your $26 if you do that. (5) If you are in the 15% or below income bracket you are exempt from capital gains, and you can omit it. Don't believe the nervous Nellies who say the IRS will burn your house down if you don't report $26 in capital gains. Penalties are assessed on the percentage of TAXES you did not pay (0.5% penalty per month). Since 0.5% of $0 is $0 your penalty is $0. The IRS knows this. The IRS does not send out assessment letters for $0. (6) Even if you are above the 15% bracket, there is likelihood it is still a no-tax situation (see 5 above). (7) Worst case scenario: you are making a million dollars per year and you omit your $26 capital gains from your return. The IRS will send you an assessment letter for about $10. You can then send them a separate check or money order to pay it. In all honesty I have omitted documented tax items, like taxable interest, that the IRS knows about many times and never gotten an assessment letter. Once I made a serious math error on my return and they sent me an assessment letter, which I just paid, end of story. And that was for a lot more than $26. The technical verbiage for something like this in IRS lingo is CP-2000, underreported income. As you can see from this official IRS web page, basically what they do is guess how much they think you owe and send you a bill. Then you pay it. If you do so in time, you don't even get a 0.5% interest penalty on your $6.75 owed or whatever it is. (8) Go hog wild. As long as you are risking an assessment on your $26, why not go hog wild and just let the IRS compute all your taxes for you? Make a copy of your income statements, then mail them to the IRS with a letter that says, \\\"\\\"Hi, I am Mr. Odinson, my SSN is XXX-XX-XXXX. My address is XYZ. I am unable to compute my taxes due to a confused state of mind. I am hereby requesting a tax assessment for the 2016 tax year.\\\"\\\" Make sure you sign and date the letter. In all probability they will compute the full assessment and send you a bill (or refund).\\\"\",\n \"I'm not sure why you're confusing the two unrelated things. 1040ES is your estimated tax payments. 941 is your corporation's payroll tax report. They have nothing to do with each other. You being the corporation's employee is accidental, and can only help you to avoid 1040ES and use the W2 withholding instead - like any other employee. From the IRS standpoint you're not running a LLC - you're running a corporation, and you're that corporation's employee. While technically you're self-employed, from tax perspective - you're not (to the extent of your corporate salary, at least).\",\n \"Capital gain distribution is not capital gain on sale of stock. If you have stock sales (Schedule D) you should be filing 1040, not 1040A. Capital gain distributions are distributions from mutual funds/ETFs that are attributed to capital gains of the funds (you may not have actually received the distribution, but you still may have gain attributed to you). It is reported on 1099-DIV, and if it is 0 - then you don't have any. If you sold a stock, your broker should have given you 1099-B (which is not the same as 1099-DIV, but may be consolidated by your broker into one large PDF and not provided separately). On 1099-B the sales proceeds are recorded, and if you purchased the stock after 2011 - the cost basis is also recorded. The difference between the proceeds and the cost basis is your gain (or loss, if it is negative). Fees are added to cost basis.\",\n \"\\\"I'm mostly guessing based on existing documentation, and have no direct experience, so take this with a pinch of salt. My best understanding is that you need to file Form 843. The instructions for the form say that it can be used to request: A refund or abatement of a penalty or addition to tax due to reasonable cause or other reason (other than erroneous written advice provided by the IRS) allowed under the law. The \\\"\\\"reasonable cause\\\"\\\" here is a good-faith confusion about what Line 79 of the form was referring to. In Form 843, the IRC Section Code you should enter is 6654 (estimated tax). For more, see the IRC Section 6654 (note, however, that if you already received a CP14 notice from the IRS, you should cross-check that this section code is listed on the notice under the part that covers the estimated tax penalty). If your request is accepted, the IRS should issue you Notice 746, item 17 Penalty Removed: You can get more general information about the tax collection process, and how to challenge it, from the pages linked from Understanding your CP14 Notice\\\"\",\n \"This sounds like a rental fee as described in the instructions for the 1099-MISC. Enter amounts of $600 or more for all types of rents, such as any of the following. ... Non-Employee compensation does not seem appropriate because you did not perform a service. You mention that your tax-preparer brought this up. I think you will need to consult with a CPA to receive a more reliable opinion. Make sure to bring the contract that describes the situation with you. From there, you may need to consult a tax attorney, but the CPA should be able to help you figure out what your next step is.\",\n \"You are confused about a couple of terms: For example you work for company A: As to the 1098-T: It is likely that you or your parents will use the 1098-T. You don't have to file a copy with the IRS. You and your parents need to determine who should be reporting the educational expenses: you or your parents.\",\n \"From WePay (GoFundMe's payment processor) support. I received only gifts and donations. Will I receive a Form 1099-K? As of 2015, the IRS has clarified that WePay is not required to send a Form 1099-K with respect to payments that are made solely as gifts or donations. The purpose of Form 1099-K is to report payments for the provision of goods or services, which may be subject to tax. Gifts and donations typically are not reported as income by recipients, so it is not necessary to send them a Form 1099-K. https://support.wepay.com/hc/en-us/articles/203609483-Tax-Reporting\",\n \"Your clients should not send you 1099-MISC if they paid with a credit card. You can refer them to this text in the instructions for the form 1099-MISC: Payments made with a credit card or payment card and certain other types of payments, including third party network transactions, must be reported on Form 1099-K by the payment settlement entity under section 6050W and are not subject to reporting on Form 1099-MISC. See the separate Instructions for Form 1099-K. By sending out the 1099-MISC, your clients are essentially saying that they paid you directly (check or cash) in addition to the payment they made with a credit card (which will be reported on 1099-K). In case of an audit, you'll have trouble convincing the IRS that it didn't happen. I suggest asking the clients not to do this to you, since it may cost you significant amounts to fight the IRS later on. In any case, you report on your tax return what you really got, not what the 1099 says. If you have two 1099's covering the same income - there's no legal obligation to report the income twice. You do not have to pay twice the tax just because you have stupid clients. But you may have troubles explaining it to the IRS, especially if you're dealing with cash in your business. If you want to avoid matching issues, consider reporting all the 1099s, and then subtracting the duplicates and attaching a statement (the software will do it automatically when you add the description in the miscellaneous item) about what it is.\",\n \"(do I need to get a W9 from our suppliers)? Will PayPal or Shopify send me a 1099k or something? Do not assume that you'll get paperwork from anyone. Do assume that you have to generate your own paperwork. Ideally you should print out some kind of record of each transaction. Note that it can be hard to view older transactions in PayPal, so start now. If you can't document something, write up a piece of paper showing the state of the world to the best of your knowledge. Do assume that you need separate receipts for each expenditure. The PayPal receipt might be enough (but print it in case the IRS wants to see it). A receipt from the vendor would be better (again, print it if it is online now). A CPA is not strictly necessary. A CPA is certified (the C in CPA) to formally audit the books of a corporation. In your case, any accountant would be legally sufficient. You still may want to use a CPA, as the certification, while technically unnecessary, still demonstrates knowledge. You may otherwise not be in a position to evaluate an accountant. A compromise option is to go to a firm that includes a CPA and then let them assign you to someone else to process the actual taxes. You are going to have to fill out some business tax forms. In particular, I would expect a schedule C. That's where you would show revenues and expenses. You may well have to file other forms as well.\",\n \"\\\"Payment gateways such as Square do not normally withhold tax. It is up to you to pay the appropriate tax at tax time. That having been said, Square does report your payments to the IRS on a form 1099-K if your payments are large enough. According to Square, you'll get a 1099-K from them if your total payments for the year add up to $20,000 AND more than 200 transactions. Whether or not they report on a 1099-K, you are required to pay the appropriate taxes on your income. So now the question becomes, \\\"\\\"Do I have to pay income tax on the proceeds from my garage sale?\\\"\\\" And the answer to that question is usually not. When you sell something that you previously purchased, if you sell it for more than you paid for it, you have a capital gain and need to pay tax on that. However, generally you sell things in a garage sale at a loss, meaning that there is no tax due. If you make more than $20,000 at your garage sale and the IRS gets a 1099-K, the IRS might be curious as to how you did that with no capital gain. So if you sell any big ticket items (a bulldozer, for example), you should keep a record of what you paid for it, so you can show the loss to the IRS in the event of an audit.\\\"\",\n \"According to pages 6 & 7 of the instructions for form 1040 in 2009 AMT was only temporarily patched for the year. Congress can't politically afford to drastically cut AMT exemptions by 30 to 40%, and may even retroactively change it, if it isn't passed by the end of the year (despite the constitution forbidding ex post facto laws) : What’s New for 2009 ... Alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amount increased. The AMT exemption amount has increased to $46,700 ($70,950 if married filing jointly or a qualifying widow(er); $35,475 if married filing separately)... What’s New for 2010 ... Alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amount. The AMT exemption amount is scheduled to decrease to $33,750 ($45,000 if married filing jointly or a qualifying widow(er); $22,500 if married filing separately). So, if you are married, and several regular tax deductions push your income below the AMT exemption amount of $45,000, it's quite possible you would be required to pay AMT, even if you didn't last year. There is a work sheet for AMT in the instructions for line 43, but the IRS also provides an AMT calculator. According to page 146 (E-8) of the instructions for form 1040 AMT is paid as: the smallest amount you are allowed to report as your taxable income (Form 1040, line 43). It is also the smallest amount you are allowed to report as your alternative minimum taxable income (AMTI) on Form 6251, line 29. If the [AMT calculation] is larger than your taxable income would otherwise be, enter the amount from column (c) on Form 1040, line 43 [or ...] Form 6251, line 29. As always, congress finds ways to further complicate things by making a few credits and losses deductible against the absolute minimum you're expected to pay taxes on, making the AMT a misnomer.\",\n \"I'm not sure how this gets entered in TurboTax, but this income from the company should be included in the Schedule C (or C-EZ) Line 1 Gross Receipts total, along with all of your 1099-MISC income from your business and any other income that your business took in. You don't need a 1099 from them, and the IRS doesn't care (at least from your perspective) if you got a 1099 or not; in fact, they probably expect you to have some non-1099 income. We don't know why the company chose not to issue 1099 forms, but luckily it isn't your concern. You can fill out your tax return properly without it. Note: This answer assumes that you didn't have any tax withheld from your checks from this company. If you did have tax withheld, you'll need to insist on a 1099 to show that.\",\n \"\\\"If one looks at the \\\"\\\"Guide to Information Returns\\\"\\\" in the Form 1099 General Instructions (the instructions that the IRS provides to companies on how to fill out 1099 and other forms), it says that the 1099-B is due to recipient by February 15, with a footnote that says \\\"\\\"The due date is March 15 for reporting by trustees and middlemen of WHFITs.\\\"\\\" I doubt that exception applies, though it may. There's also a section in the instructions on \\\"\\\"Extension of time to furnish statements to recipients\\\"\\\" which says that a company can apply to the IRS to get an extension to this deadline if needed. I'm guessing that if you were told that there were \\\"\\\"complications\\\"\\\" that they may have applied for and been given this extension, though that's just a guess. While you could try calling the IRS if you want (and in fact, their web site does suggest calling them if you don't receive a W-2 or 1099-R by the end of February), my honest opinion is that they won't do much until mid-March anyway. Unfortunately, you're probably out of luck being able to file as early as you want to.\\\"\",\n \"They are a business. You're not a corporation. They paid you more than $600 during the year, so they're supposed to send 1099 to you and the IRS about it. They need your taxpayer certification (W9) for that. They were supposed to ask for it before they paid you, but yes - they're supposed to ask for it.\",\n \"You are expected to file 1099 for each person you pay $600 a year. I.e.: not a one time payment, but the total over the course of the year. Since we don't know how much and what else you paid - we cannot answer this question. The real question you're asking is that if you're treating the enterprise as a hobby, whether you're supposed to file 1099s at all. The answer to that question is yes. You should talk to your tax adviser (a EA/CPA licensed in your state) about this, and whether it is the right thing for you to do treating this as a hobby at all.\",\n \"Why is the US still working with paper checks when Europe went digital about a decade ago? Tax filing is just another area in which the US is lagging. Modernizing it costs money, and the US is quite close to bankruptcy (as seen by the repeated government shutdowns). Also, the US tax code is quite complicated. For instance, I doubt there's anyone who has a full and complete list of all allowed deductions. Some comments wonder about multiple incomes. This doesn't require tax filing either. My local tax authority just sends me a combined statement with data from 2 employers and 2 banks, and asks me to confirm the resulting payment. This is possible because tax number usage is strictly regulated. SSN abuse in the US presumably makes this problematic.\",\n \"You can have multiple W2 forms on the same tax return. If you are using software, it will have the ability for you to enter additional W2 forms. If you are doing it by paper, just follow the instructions and combine the numbers at the correct place and attach both. Similarly you can also have a 1099 with and without a W2. Just remember that with a 1099 you will have to pay the self employment tax ( FICA taxes, both employee and employer) and that no taxes will be withheld. You will want to either adjust the withholding on your main job or file quartely estimated taxes. Travel reimbursement should be the same tax exempt wise. The difference is that with a 1098, you will need to list your business expenses for deduction on the corresponding tax schedule. The value on the 1099 will include travel reimbursement. But then you can deduct your self employment expenses. I believe schedule C is where this occurs.\",\n \"I think you're making a mistake. If you still want to make this mistake (I'll explain later why I think its a mistake), the resources for you are: IRS.GOV - The IRS official web site, that has all the up-to-date forms and instructions for them, guiding publications and the relevant rules. You might get a bit overwhelmed through. Software programs - TurboTax (Home & Business for a sole propriator or single member LLC, Business for more complicated business), or H&R Block Business (only one version that should cover all) are for your guidance. They provide tips and interactive guidance in filling in all the raw data, and produce all the forms filled for you according to the raw data you entered. I personally prefer TurboTax, I think its interface is nicer and the workflow is more intuitive, but that's my personal preference. I wrote about it in my blog last year. Both also include plug-ins for the state taxes (If I remember correctly, for both the first state is included in the price, if you need more than 1 state - there's extra $30-$40 per state). Your state tax authority web site (Minnesota Department of Revenue in your case). Both Intuit and H&R Block have on-line forums where people answer each others questions while using the software to prepare the taxes, you might find useful information there. As always, Google is your friend. Now, why I think this is a mistake. Mistakes that you make - will be your responsibility. If you use the software - they'll cover the calculation mistakes. But if you write income in a wrong specification or take a wrong deduction that you shouldn't have taken - it will be on your head and you're the one to pay the fines and penalties for that. Missed deductions and credits - CPA's (should) know about all the latest deductions and credits that you or your business might be entitled to. They also (should) know which one got canceled and you shouldn't be continuing taking them if you had before. Expenses - there are plenty of rules of what can be written off as an expense and how. Some things should be written off this year, others over several years, for some depreciation formula should be used, etc etc. Tax programs might help you with that, but again - mistakes are your responsibility. Especially for the first time and for the newly formed business, I think you should use a (good!) CPA. The CPA should take responsibility over your filing. The CPA should provide guarantee that based on the documents you provided, he filled all the necessary forms correctly, and will absorb all the fees and penalties if there's an audit and mistakes were found not because you withheld information from your CPA, but because the CPA made a mistake. That costs money, and that's why the CPA's are more expensive than using a program or preparing yourself. But, the risk is much higher, especially for a new business. And after all - its a business expense.\",\n \"Since you were a nonresident alien student on F-1 visa then you will be considered engaged in a trade or business in the USA. You must file Form 1040NR. Here is the detailed instruction by IRS - http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Taxation-of-Nonresident-Aliens\",\n \"\\\"You will be filing the exact same form you've been filing until now (I hope...) which is called form 1040. Attached to it, you'll add a \\\"\\\"Schedule C\\\"\\\" form and \\\"\\\"Schedule SE\\\"\\\" form. Keep in mind the potential effect of the tax and totalization treaties the US has with the UK which may affect your filings. I suggest you talk to a licensed EA/CPA who works with expats in the UK and is familiar with all the issues. There are several prominent offices you can find by Googling.\\\"\",\n \"Yes, you can send in a 2012 1040-ES form with a check to cover your tax liability. However, you will likely have to pay penalties for not paying tax in timely fashion as well as interest on the late payment. You can have the IRS figure the penalty and bill you for it, or you can complete Form 2210 (on which these matters are figured out) yourself and file it with your Form 1040. The long version of Form 2210 often results in the smallest extra amount due but is considerably more time-consuming to complete correctly. Alternatively, if you or your wife have one or more paychecks coming before the end of 2012, it might be possible to file a new W-4 form with the HR Department with a request to withhold additional amounts as Federal income tax. I say might because if the last paycheck of the year will be issued in just a few days' time, it might already have been sent for processing, and HR might tell you it is too late. But, depending on the take-home pay, it might be possible to have the entire $2000 withheld as additional income tax instead of sending in a 1040-ES. The advantage of doing it through withholding is that you are allowed to treat the entire withholding for 2012 as satisfying the timely filing requirements. So, no penalty for late payment even though you had a much bigger chunk withheld in December, and no interest due either. If you do use this approach, remember that Form W-4 applies until it is replaced with another, and so HR will continue to withhold the extra amount on your January paychecks as well. So, file a new W-4 in January to get back to normal withholding. (Fix the extra exemption too so the problem does not recur in 2013).\",\n \"You may be able to find the answers to your question on the IRS web site: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98263,00.html Specifically, using this form to estimate taxes for salary: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120w.pdf and this form to estimate taxes for dividends: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf\",\n \"I strongly recommend that you talk to an accountant right away because you could save some money by making a tax payment by January 15, 2014. You will receive Forms 1099-MISC from the various entities with whom you are doing business as a contractor detailing how much money they paid you. A copy will go to the IRS also. You file a Schedule C with your Form 1040 in which you detail how much you received on the 1099-MISC forms as well as any other income that your contracting business received (e.g. amounts less than $600 for which a 1099-MISc does not need to be issued, or tips, say, if you are a taxi-driver running your own cab), and you can deduct various expenses that you incurred in generating this income, including tools, books, (or gasoline!) etc that you bought for doing the job. You will need to file a Schedule SE that will compute how much you owe in Social Security and Medicare taxes on the net income on Schedule C. You will pay at twice the rate that employees pay because you get to pay not only the employee's share but also the employer's share. At least, you will not have to pay income tax on the employer's share. Your net income on Schedule C will transfer onto Form 1040 where you will compute how much income tax you owe, and then add on the Social Security tax etc to compute a final amount of tax to be paid. You will have to pay a penalty for not making tax payments every quarter during 2013, plus interest on the tax paid late. Send the IRS a check for the total. If you talk to an accountant right away, he/she will likely be able to come up with a rough estimate of what you might owe, and sending in that amount by January 15 will save some money. The accountant can also help you set up for the 2014 tax year during which you could make quarterly payments of estimated tax for 2014 and avoid the penalties and interest referred to above.\",\n \"I just want to point out something that seems to be generally true: If you are supposed to report something to the IRS, and you don't, the IRS will probably send you a letter assuming the maximum possible tax liability, and it's up to you to prove that scenario is incorrect. In your case you obviously owe no tax, but since you didn't report it, the IRS simply assumed that you do owe tax until you prove otherwise. You're one form away from fixing the issue. I have first hand experience that this is also true if you forget to report an HSA distribution. I received a letter considering my entire distribution as if it was for non eligible medical expenses. This made the amount taxable and had an additional 20% penalty to boot. Of course I have medical receipts for all of the distributions which makes them not taxable, and had I simply put the correct number on my return to begin with I wouldn't have had to fill out the additional form to correct my mistake.\",\n \"I am currently dealing with the same issue of having a 1099 reported to the wrong person. I applied for the square account for my son's business but used my information, which I realized now was a BIG mistake. I did contact Square by email yesterday, which was Saturday, not expecting to hear from them until Monday, or possibly not at all (wasn't hearing a lot of good things about Square's customer service). She was most helpful and while the issue isn't completely taken care of, I do feel better about it. She just had me update the taxpayer information number which then updated the 1099 form.\",\n \"From the IRS web site: So if your income was reported to the IRS (by the payer, not you) using one of the forms above, the IRS would have a record of it, regardless of whether you filed a tax return or not.\",\n \"I know nothing about this, but found this link which suggests for H&R Block specifically: I kept searching and I found the section. It's at the end in the Credits section under 'other backup withholding'. Hopefully this helps someone else in the future.\",\n \"W9 is required for any payments. However, in your case - these are not payments, but refunds, i.e.: you're not receiving any income from the company that is subject to tax or withholding rules, you're receiving money that is yours already. I do not think they have a right to demand W9 as a condition of refund, and as Joe suggested - would dispute the charge as fraudulent.\",\n \"You should include the checks you received from the company, invoices you sent, bank statements showing the deposits, and your receipts, if any, you issued to the company. You'd be surprised to know that this is a fairly common tax fraud. You can also try and sue the company or its successor for the missing amounts, but if it has been dissolved it may be difficult. As with any non-trivial tax issue - I suggest you get a professional advice from a EA/CPA licensed in your State. You may need representation before the IRS - only EA, CPA or an Attorney may represent you in IRS proceedings (including audit and correspondence).\",\n \"Generally stock trades will require an additional Capital Gains and Losses form included with a 1040, known as Schedule D (summary) and Schedule D-1 (itemized). That year I believe the maximum declarable Capital loss was $3000--the rest could carry over to future years. The purchase date/year only matters insofar as to rank the lot as short term or long term(a position held 365 days or longer), short term typically but depends on actual asset taxed then at 25%, long term 15%. The year a position was closed(eg. sold) tells you which year's filing it belongs in. The tiny $16.08 interest earned probably goes into Schedule B, typically a short form. The IRS actually has a hotline 800-829-1040 (Individuals) for quick questions such as advising which previous-year filing forms they'd expect from you. Be sure to explain the custodial situation and that it all recently came to your awareness etc. Disclaimer: I am no specialist. You'd need to verify everything I wrote; it was just from personal experience with the IRS and taxes.\",\n \"Only your contributions count. There should be no ambiguity in what you contributed to the IRA. The IRA should have sent you a Form 5498 at the beginning of the next year detailing what you contributed that year. This is important because there are limits on how much you can contribute to an IRA per year. You don't need to fill out the form in a following year if you've made no nondeductible contributions (or Roth IRA conversions or any of the other stuff on the form) that year.\",\n \"If your dad would have won money on the slot machines(And the amount was high), the casino would have given him a W2G to fill out right there and taxes would have been deducted. However, table games including Poker does not have any such rule. You will have to account for your winnings(And losses) at the end of the year. So, it is ok if you sign that paper, as you do not owe the IRS any money yet. You will still need to file your taxes as a non resident alien at the end of the year and attach the form W2G with it and pay your dues.\",\n \"\\\"I think I found the answer, at least in my specific case. From the heading \\\"\\\"Questar/Dominion Resources Merger\\\"\\\" in this linked website: Q: When will I receive tax forms showing the stock and dividend payments? A: You can expect a Form 1099-B in early February 2017 showing the amount associated with payment of your shares. You also will receive a Form 1099-DIV by Jan. 31, 2017, with your 2016 dividends earned.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["You can print them on any IRS-approved paper, you don't have to use pre-printed forms. The IRS publishes specifications for paper that is approved for use for these kinds of forms (109*, W*, etc). Here's the reason why it is important: Even the slightest deviation can result in incorrect scanning, and may affect money amounts reported for employees. Note that some portions of these forms are in different color (1099-MISC copy A). This is important, and using incorrect color will affect the IRS OCR mechanisms. Forms for individuals are less complicated with regards to technical specifications, because individuals must file them, and as such any complication will unnecessarily burden the citizenry. All the 109*, W* etc forms are not legally required to be filed by all citizens. You're only required to file them if you chose to do business, or chose to employ others. As such, using professional software and special forms is a cost of doing your business, and not a tax as it would be had it been mandatory to everyone. Mistakes in individual forms due to OCR failure or something else will be noticed by the taxpayers (less/more refund, etc) or through the internal matching and cross-check. However, forms 109* and W* feed that matching and cross-check system and are considered source of truth by it, and as such their processing must be much more reliable and precise."],"string":"[\n \"You can print them on any IRS-approved paper, you don't have to use pre-printed forms. The IRS publishes specifications for paper that is approved for use for these kinds of forms (109*, W*, etc). Here's the reason why it is important: Even the slightest deviation can result in incorrect scanning, and may affect money amounts reported for employees. Note that some portions of these forms are in different color (1099-MISC copy A). This is important, and using incorrect color will affect the IRS OCR mechanisms. Forms for individuals are less complicated with regards to technical specifications, because individuals must file them, and as such any complication will unnecessarily burden the citizenry. All the 109*, W* etc forms are not legally required to be filed by all citizens. You're only required to file them if you chose to do business, or chose to employ others. As such, using professional software and special forms is a cost of doing your business, and not a tax as it would be had it been mandatory to everyone. Mistakes in individual forms due to OCR failure or something else will be noticed by the taxpayers (less/more refund, etc) or through the internal matching and cross-check. However, forms 109* and W* feed that matching and cross-check system and are considered source of truth by it, and as such their processing must be much more reliable and precise.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":192,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"9808"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Selling To Close"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["40702","557582","431946"],"string":"[\n \"40702\",\n \"557582\",\n \"431946\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["490620","121158","217837","416307","152719","449280","219762","345368","31465","250873","485424","320101","362473","557582","293959","352588","519745","27401","3095","69696","107045","199966","551286","40702","92695","501372","278729","279185","89460","476224","507097","303724","84761","382339","253866","123320","407602","368348","211509","414636","55535","55893","226984","438974","292045","322284","582562","81353","318185","317365","388718","120082","444405","154665","432111","429378","276314","165917","545284","215878","536647","271048","160169","92267","490170","377117","166307","521133","513734","301757","314478","233379","258531","501931","362762","390864","305676","557877","361238","387147","92670","139438","499877","279401","382568","102316","307155","388754","75024","365331","292159","516227","402593","547553","118360","281533","294522","272091","350276","47053"],"string":"[\n \"490620\",\n \"121158\",\n \"217837\",\n \"416307\",\n \"152719\",\n \"449280\",\n \"219762\",\n \"345368\",\n \"31465\",\n \"250873\",\n \"485424\",\n \"320101\",\n \"362473\",\n \"557582\",\n \"293959\",\n \"352588\",\n \"519745\",\n \"27401\",\n \"3095\",\n \"69696\",\n \"107045\",\n \"199966\",\n \"551286\",\n \"40702\",\n \"92695\",\n \"501372\",\n \"278729\",\n \"279185\",\n \"89460\",\n \"476224\",\n \"507097\",\n \"303724\",\n \"84761\",\n \"382339\",\n \"253866\",\n \"123320\",\n \"407602\",\n \"368348\",\n \"211509\",\n \"414636\",\n \"55535\",\n \"55893\",\n \"226984\",\n \"438974\",\n \"292045\",\n \"322284\",\n \"582562\",\n \"81353\",\n \"318185\",\n \"317365\",\n \"388718\",\n \"120082\",\n \"444405\",\n \"154665\",\n \"432111\",\n \"429378\",\n \"276314\",\n \"165917\",\n \"545284\",\n \"215878\",\n \"536647\",\n \"271048\",\n \"160169\",\n \"92267\",\n \"490170\",\n \"377117\",\n \"166307\",\n \"521133\",\n \"513734\",\n \"301757\",\n \"314478\",\n \"233379\",\n \"258531\",\n \"501931\",\n \"362762\",\n \"390864\",\n \"305676\",\n \"557877\",\n \"361238\",\n \"387147\",\n \"92670\",\n \"139438\",\n \"499877\",\n \"279401\",\n \"382568\",\n \"102316\",\n \"307155\",\n \"388754\",\n \"75024\",\n \"365331\",\n \"292159\",\n \"516227\",\n \"402593\",\n \"547553\",\n \"118360\",\n \"281533\",\n \"294522\",\n \"272091\",\n \"350276\",\n \"47053\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["You sell any investment because you need to do something else with the money -- rebalance your investments, buy something, pay off a debt....","Futures exchanges are essentially auction houses facilitating a two-way auction. While they provide a venue for buyers and sellers to come together and transact (be that a physical venue such as a pit at the CME or an electronic network such as Globex), they don't actively seek out or find buyers and sellers to pair them together. The exchanges enable this process through an order book. As a futures trader you may submit one of two types of order to an exchange: Market Order - this is sent to the exchange and is filled immediately by being paired with a limit order. Limit Order - this is placed on the books of the exchange at the price you specify. If other participants enter opposing market orders at this price, then their market order will be paired with your limit order. In your example, trader B wishes to close his long position. To do this he may enter a market sell order, which will immediately close his position at the lowest possible buy limit price, or he may enter a limit sell order, specifying the price at or above which he is willing to sell. In the case of the limit order, he will only sell and successfully close his position if his order becomes the lowest sell order on the book. All this may be a lot easier to understand by looking at a visual image of an order book such as the one given in the explanation that I have published here: Stop Orders for Futures Finally, not that as far as the exchange is concerned, there is no difference between an order to open and an order to close a position. They're all just 'buy' or 'sell' orders. Whether they cause you to reduce/exit a position or increase/establish a position is relative to the position you currently hold; if you're flat a buy order establishes a new position, if you're short it closes your position and leaves you flat.","why sell? Because the stock no longer fits your strategy. Or you've lost faith in the company. In our case, it's because we're taking our principal out and buying something else. Our strategy is, basically, to sell (or offer to sell) after the we can sell and get our principal out, after taxes. That includes dividends -- we reduce the sell price a little with every dividend collected.","\"Can anyone explain what each of them mean and how they're different from each other? When you \"\"buy to open\"\", you are purchasing an option and opening a new position. When you \"\"sell to open\"\", you are creating a brand new options contract and selling it. \"\"Covered\"\" means that you have assets in your account to satisfy the terms of the options contract. A \"\"covered call\"\" is a call option for which you own shares of the underlying stock that you will sell to the buyer at the option's strike price if he exercises the option. If you previously made a \"\"sell to open\"\" trade to create a new position, and you want to close the position, you can buy back the option. If you previously made a \"\"buy to open\"\" trade, you can \"\"sell to close\"\" which will sell back your option and close your position. In summary:\"","Buy it at the close. That way you won't lose money (even if marked to market) on the day.","\"You seem to have it right. You will be selling what's known as a covered call. When you sell the call, you enter it as \"\"sell to open\"\" and the system should see that you own the stock. You need to be approved for options trading, not all accounts are. As far as this particular trade goes - No, the stock doesn't necessarily get called away the day it's in the money, but it can be. If the stock closes just in the money around the time of expiration are you ok will selling it for the strike price? Remember, the option buyer is taking a small risk, the cost of this option, hoping the stock will go far above that price.\"","In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-). In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.","\"If you sell a stock you don't own, it's called a short sale. You borrowed the shares from an owner of the stock and eventually would buy to close. On most normal shares, you can hold a short position indefinitely, but there are some shares that have a combination of either a small float or too high a short position that shares to short are not available. This can create a \"\"short squeeze\"\" where shorts are burned by being forced to buy the stock back. Last - when you did this, you should have instructed the broker that you were \"\"selling to open\"\" or \"\"selling short.\"\" In the old days, when people held stock certificates, you were required to send the certificate in when you sold. Today, the broker should know that wasn't your intention.\"","\"Honestly, I wonder if the other answerers aren't overthinking it. Their answers are detailed and correct, but what your coach may be saying is this: When you have bought a stock, on cash or margin, and you are watching it rise you are evaluating when you sell on the price of the stock you are seeing. In reality, you should look at the bid (price buyers will give you for the stock) and ask (price sellers will charge you for the stock) prices. If the stock is going up, odds are the price of the stock is very close to the ask price because it is purchases that are driving it up, but that's not what you're going to get when you sell. You're going to get something around the bid price. If the spread between the two is large (i.e. a volatile stock) this could be many cents or more lower than the ask price. Therefore, what your coach may mean by \"\"Selling on Ask\"\" is you're using the stock price when it's equal or close to the ask price to decide when to sell, instead of letting the stock peak and drop (when its price will approach the bid price) or letting the trailing bid offers catch up to your desired sell point and selling then (i.e. letting the stock point grow PAST your sell point, dragging the bid price up with it). Just a thought, but that sounds like a term a coach would come up with to mean selling and getting less than you thought you were going to from the sale. (I know it's a necro reply, but the Interwebs are immortal and people come via Google... I did)\"","The best thing to do to avoid this is not to sell as you've described. What purpose does it solve? If you're speculating, set a price at which you want to cash out and put a limit order. If you're a long term investor, then unless something fundamental has changed - why would you sell?","If you sold bought a call option then as you stated sold it to someone else what you are doing is selling the call you bought. That leaves you with no position. This is the case if you are talking about the same strike, same expiration.","\"The two dimensions are to open the trade (creating a position) and to buy or sell (becoming long or short the option). If you already own an option, you bought it to open and then you would sell it to close. If you don't own an option, you can either buy it to open, or sell it (short it) to open. If you are already short an option, you can buy it back to close. If you sell to open covered, the point is you're creating a \"\"covered call\"\" which means you own the stock, and then sell a call. Since you own the stock, the covered call has a lot of the risk of loss removed, though it also subtracts much of the reward possible from your stock.\"","\"Seems like you are concerned with something called assignment risk. It's an inherent risk of selling options: you are giving somebody the right, but not the obligation, to sell to you 100 shares of GOOGL. Option buyers pay a premium to have that right - the extrinsic value. When they exercise the option, the option immediately disappears. Together with it, all the extrinsic value disappears. So, the lower the extrinsic value, the higher the assignment risk. Usually, option contracts that are very close to expiration (let's say, around 2 to 3 weeks to expiration or less) have significantly lower extrinsic value than longer option contracts. Also, generally speaking, the deeper ITM an option contract is, the lower extrinsic value it will have. So, to reduce assignment risk, I usually close out my option positions 1-2 weeks before expiration, especially the contracts that are deep in the money. edit: to make sure this is clear, based on a comment I've just seen on your question. To \"\"close out an options position\"\", you just have to create the \"\"opposite\"\" trade. So, if you sell a Put, you close that by buying back that exact same put. Just like stock: if you buy stock, you have a position; you close that position by selling the exact same stock, in the exact same amount. That's a very common thing to do with options. A post in Tradeking's forums, very old post, but with an interesting piece of data from the OCC, states that 35% of the options expire worthless, and 48% are bought or sold before expiration to close the position - only 17% of the contracts are actually exercised! (http://community.tradeking.com/members/optionsguy/blogs/11260-what-percentage-of-options-get-exercised) A few other things to keep in mind: certain stocks have \"\"mini options contracts\"\", that would correspond to a lot of 10 shares of stock. These contracts are usually not very liquid, though, so you might not get great prices when opening/closing positions you said in a comment, \"\"I cannot use this strategy to buy stocks like GOOGL\"\"; if the reason is because 100*GOOGL is too much to fit in your buying power, that's a pretty big risk - the assignment could result in a margin call! if margin call is not really your concern, but your concern is more like the risk of holding 100 shares of GOOGL, you can help manage that by buying some lower strike Puts (that have smaller absolute delta than your Put), or selling some calls against your short put. Both strategies, while very different, will effectively reduce your delta exposure. You'd get 100 deltas from the 100 shares of GOOGL, but you'd get some negative deltas by holding the lower strike Put, or by writing the higher strike Call. So as the stock moves around, your account value would move less than the exposure equivalent to 100 shares of stock.\"","Absolutely. There is no requirement that an option be in-the-money for you to close out a position. Remember that there are alwayes two sides to a trade - a buyer and a seller. When you bought your option, it's entirely possible that someone else was closing out their long position by selling it to you.","\"Unless you want to own the actual shares, you should simply sell the call option.By doing so you actual collect the profits (including any remaining time-value) of your position without ever needing to own the actual shares. Please be aware that you do not need to wait until maturity of the call option to sell it. Also the longer you wait, more and more of the time value embedded in the option's price will disappear which means your \"\"profit\"\" will go down.\"","You're assuming options traded on the open market. To close open positions, a seller buys them back on the open market. If there's little on offer, this will drive the price up.","Yes, selling premium is selling an option that contains premium over it's intrinsic value. Out-of-the-money options contain no intrinsic value, at the money and near the money options contain premium over the intrinsic value. The deeper in-the-money go, the less premium there is.","\"With stocks, you can buy or sell. If you sell first, that's called 'shorting.' As in \"\"I think linkedin is too high, I'm going to short it.\"\" With options, the terminology is different, the normal process is to buy to open/sell to close, but if you were shorting the option itself, you would first sell to open, i.e you are selling a position to start it, effectively selling it short. Eventually, you may close it out, by buying to close. Options trading is not for the amateur. If you plan to trade, study first and be very cautious.\"","What is essential is that company you are selling is transparent enough. Because it will provide additional liquidity to market. When I decide to sell, I drop all volume once at a time. Liquidation price will be somewhat worse then usual. But being out of position will save you nerves for future thinking where to step in again. Cold head is best you can afford in such scenario. In very large crashes, there could be large liquidity holes. But if you are on upper side of sigmoid, you will be profiting from selling before that holes appear. Problem is, nobody could predict if market is on upper-fall, mid-fall or down-fall at any time.","You said the decision will be made by EOD. If you've made the decision prior to the market close, I'd execute on the closing price. If you are trading stocks with any decent volume, I'd not worry about the liquidity. If your strategy's profits are so small that your gains are significantly impacted by say, the bid/ask spread (a penny or less for liquid stocks) I'd rethink the approach. You'll find the difference between the market open and prior night close is far greater than the normal bid/ask.","Rich's answer captures the basic essence of short selling with example. I'd like to add these additional points: You typically need a specially-privileged brokerage account to perform short selling. If you didn't request short selling when you opened your account, odds are good you don't have it, and that's good because it's not something most people should ever consider doing. Short selling is an advanced trading strategy. Be sure you truly grok selling short before doing it. Consider that when buying stock (a.k.a. going long or taking a long position, in contrast to short) then your potential loss as a buyer is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero) and your potential gain unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're lucky!) Whereas, with short selling, it's reversed: Your loss can be unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're unlucky!) and your potential gain is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero.) The proceeds you receive from a short sale – and then some – need to stay in your account to offset the short position. Brokers require this. Typically, margin equivalent to 150% the market value of the shares sold short must be maintained in the account while the short position is open. The owner of the borrowed shares is still expecting his dividends, if any. You are responsible for covering the cost of those dividends out of your own pocket. To close or cover your short position, you initiate a buy to cover. This is simply a buy order with the intention that it will close out your matching short position. You may be forced to cover your short position before you want to and when it is to your disadvantage! Even if you have sufficient margin available to cover your short, there are cases when lenders need their shares back. If too many short sellers are forced to close out positions at the same time, they push up demand for the stock, increasing price and deepening their losses. When this happens, it's called a short squeeze. In the eyes of the public who mostly go long buying stock, short sellers are often reviled. However, some people and many short sellers believe they are providing balance to the market and preventing it sometimes from getting ahead of itself. [Disambiguation: A short sale in the stock market is not related to the real estate concept of a short sale, which is when a property owner sells his property for less than he owes the bank.] Additional references:","\"Yes, selling premium is just selling options. It's usually used to talk about out-of-the-money options without coverage from underlying securities which you expect to expire worthless. More \"\"sophisticated\"\" ways to sell premium would include selling options strangles or straddles which allow you to sell more premium if you have more specific beliefs about the price action.\"","The person may just want to get out of that position in order to buy a different stock, he or she feels may go up faster. There is really a lot of reasons.","Yes, if there is liquidity you can sell your option to someone else as a profit. This is what the majority of option trading volume is used for: speculative trading with leverage.","Yes there will be enough liquidity to sell your position barring some sort of Flash Crash anomaly. Volume generally rises on the day of expiration to increase this liquidity. Don't forget that there are many investment strategies--buying to cover a short position is closing out a trade similar to your case.","If you get selected for exercise, your broker will liquidate the whole position for you most likely Talk to your broker.","It's not quite identical, due to fees, stock rights, and reporting & tax obligations. But the primary difference is that a person could have voting rights in a company while maintaining zero economic exposure to the company, sometimes known as empty voting. As an abstract matter, it's identical in that you reduce your financial exposure whether you sell your stock or short it. So the essence of your question is fundamentally true. But the details make it different. Of course there are fee differences in how your broker will handle it, and also margin requirements for shorting. Somebody playing games with overlapping features of ownership, sales, and purchases, may have tax and reporting obligations for straddles, wash sales, and related issues. A straight sale is generally less complicated for tax reporting purposes, and a loss is more likely to be respected than someone playing games with sales and purchases. But the empty voting issue is an important difference. You could buy stock with rights such as voting, engage in other behavior such as forwards, shorts, or options to negate your economic exposure to the stock, while maintaining the right to vote. Of course in some cases this may have to be disclosed or may be covered by contract, and most people engaging in stock trades are unlikely to have meaningful voting power in a public company. But the principle is still there. As explained in the article by Henry Hu and Bernie Black: Hedge funds have been especially creative in decoupling voting rights from economic ownership. Sometimes they hold more votes than economic ownership - a pattern we call empty voting. In an extreme situation, a vote holder can have a negative economic interest and, thus, an incentive to vote in ways that reduce the company's share price. Sometimes investors hold more economic ownership than votes, though often with morphable voting rights - the de facto ability to acquire the votes if needed. We call this situation hidden (morphable) ownership because the economic ownership and (de facto) voting ownership are often not disclosed.","\"Simplest way to answer this is that on margin, one is using borrowed assets and thus there are strings that come with doing that. Thus, if the amount of equity left gets too low, the broker has a legal obligation to close the position which can be selling purchased shares or buying back borrowed shares depending on if this is a long or short position respectively. Investopedia has an example that they walk through as the call is where you are asked to either put in more money to the account or the position may be closed because the broker wants their money back. What is Maintenance Margin? A maintenance margin is the required amount of securities an investor must hold in his account if he either purchases shares on margin, or if he sells shares short. If an investor's margin balance falls below the set maintenance margin, the investor would then need to contribute additional funds to the account or liquidate stocks in the account to bring the account back to the initial margin requirement. This request is known as a margin call. As discussed previously, the Federal Reserve Board sets the initial margin requirement (currently at 50%). The Federal Reserve Board also sets the maintenance margin. The maintenance margin, the amount of equity an investor needs to hold in his account if he buys stock on margin or sells shares short, is 25%. Keep in mind, however, that this 25% level is the minimum level set, brokerage firms can increase, but not decrease this level as they desire. Example: Determining when a margin call would occur. Assume that an investor had purchased 500 shares of Newco's stock. The shares were trading at $50 when the transaction was executed. The initial margin requirement on the account was 70% and the maintenance margin is 30%. Assume no transaction costs. Determine the price at which the investor will receive a margin call. Answer: Calculate the price as follows: $50 (1- 0.70) = $21.43 1 - 0.30 A margin call would be received when the price of Newco's stock fell below $21.43 per share. At that time, the investor would either need to deposit additional funds or liquidate shares to satisfy the initial margin requirement. Most people don't want \"\"Margin Calls\"\" but stocks may move in unexpected ways and this is where there are mechanisms to limit losses, especially for the brokerage firm that wants to make as much money as possible. Cancel what trade? No, the broker will close the position if the requirement isn't kept. Basically think of this as a way for the broker to get their money back if necessary while following federal rules. This would be selling in a long position or buying in a short sale situation. The Margin Investor walks through an example where an e-mail would be sent and if the requirement isn't met then the position gets exited as per the law.\"","You put in a market order when you want to sell to whomever raises their hand first. It results in the fastest possible liquidation of your stock. It's appropriate when you need to sell now, regardless of price. An example of when to use it: It's 3:55 PM, the market's going to close in 5 minutes and you need to sell some stocks to make some kind of urgent payment elsewhere. If instead you have a limit order in place, you might not reach the limit price before the market closes, and you'll still own the stock, which might not be what you want.","The market maker will always take it off your hands. Just enter a market sell order. It will cost you a commission to pull the loss into this year. But that's it.","You should know when to sell your shares before you buy them. This is most easily done by placing a stop loss conditional order at the same time you place your buy order. There are many ways to determine at what level to place your stop losses at. The easiest is to place a trailing stop loss at a percentage below the highest close price, so as the price reaches new highs the trailing stop will rise. If looking for short to medium term gains you might place your trailing stop at 10% below the highest close, whilst if you were looking for more longer term gains you should probably place a 20% trailing stop. Another way to place your stops for short to medium term gains is to keep moving your trailing stop up to just below the last trough in an existing uptrend.","\"In my view, it's better to sell when there's a reason to sell, rather than to cap your gains at 8%. I'm assuming you have no such criteria on the other side - i.e. hold your losses down to 8%. That's because what matters is how much you make overall in your portfolio, not how much you make per trade. Example: if you own three stocks, equal amounts - and two go up 20% but one falls 20%. If you sell your gains at 8%, and hold the loser, you have net LOST money. So when do you actually sell? You might say a \"\"fall of 10%\"\" from the last high is good enough to sell. This is called a \"\"trailing\"\" stop, which means if a stock goes from 100 to 120, I'll still hold and sell if it retraces to 108. Needless to say if it had gone from 100 to 90, I would still be out. The idea is to ride the trend for as long as you can, because trends are strong. And keep your trailing stops wide enough for it to absorb natural jiggles, because you may get stopped out of a stock that falls 4% but eventually goes up 200%. Or sell under other conditions: if the earnings show a distinct drop, or the sector falls out of favor. Whenever you decide to sell, also consider what it would take for you to buy the stock back - increased earnings, strong prices, a product release, whatever. Because getting out might seem like a good thing, but it's just as important to not think of it as saying a stock is crappy - it might just be that you had enough of one ride. That doesn't mean you can't come back for another one.\"","When you set up a short sale for equities you are borrowing stock from someone else; typically another client at the broker. The broker usually buries an agreement to let your shares be borrowed for short sales in your account details. So if Client A wants to short a stock, he borrows stock from Client B to do the short sale (it's usually not this direct as they can borrow from many clients). If Client B then wants to sell his shares; if the broker can't shift around assets to find another client's shares to let Client A borrow; then he has to close the short position out because he doesn't have the shares in the brokerage to let Client A borrow to short anymore.","try to sell if today's google stock goes above 669$ This is Relative/Pegged-to-Primary Order with a Limit Price of $669 and an offset from National Best Offer of $0.00, but it is no different than an Market Order if the market price is $669 to begin with. do not sell if the stock keeps climbing beyond 669 unless there is a down tick of 20cents is seen This is a Trailing Stop Order with a Trailing Amount of $0.20. It sells if the market price dropped $0.20 from the peak. The two orders are contradictory. From your comments, I think the following is what you want: Submit Trailing Stop Order when market price is above $669. Cancel Trailing Stop Order before the end of the day and Submit Relative/Pegged-to-Primary Order to Sell.","Your math shows that you bought an 'at the money' option for .35 and when the stock is $1 above the strike, your $35 (options trade as a contract for 100 shares) is now worth $100. You knew this, just spelling it out for future readers. 1 - Yes 2 - An execute/sell may not be nesesary, the ooption will have time value right until expiration, and most ofter the bid/ask will favor selling the option. You should ask the broker what the margin requirement is for an execute/sell. Keep in mind this usually cannot be done on line, if I recall, when I wanted to execute, it was a (n expensive) manual order. 3 - I think I answered in (2), but in general they are not identical, the bid/ask on options can get crazy. Just look at some thinly traded strikes and you'll see what I mean.","\"The question is, how do I exit? I can't really sell the puts because there isn't enough open interest in them now that they are so far out of the money. I have about $150K of funds outside of this position that I could use, but I'm confused by the rules of exercising a put. Do I have to start shorting the stock? You certainly don't want to give your broker any instructions to short the stock! Shorting the stock at this point would actually be increasing your bet that the stock is going to go down more. Worse, a short position in the stock also puts you in a situation of unlimited risk on the stock's upside – a risk you avoided in the first place by using puts. The puts limited your potential loss to only your cost for the options. There is a scenario where a short position could come into play indirectly, if you aren't careful. If your broker were to permit you to exercise your puts without you having first bought enough underlying shares, then yes, you would end up with a short position in the stock. I say \"\"permit you\"\" because most brokers don't allow clients to take on short positions unless they've applied and been approved for short positions in their account. In any case, since you are interested in closing out your position and taking your profit, exercising only and thus ending up with a resulting open short position in the underlying is not the right approach. It's not really a correct intermediate step, either. Rather, you have two typical ways out: Sell the puts. @quantycuenta has pointed out in his answer that you should be able to sell for no less than the intrinsic value, although you may be leaving a small amount of time value on the table if you aren't careful. My suggestion is to consider using limit orders and test various prices approaching the intrinsic value of the put. Don't use market orders where you'll take any price offered, or you might be sorry. If you have multiple put contracts, you don't need to sell them all at once. With the kind of profit you're talking about, don't sweat paying a few extra transactions worth of commission. Exercise the puts. Remember that at the other end of your long put position is one (or more) trader who wrote (created) the put contract in the first place. This trader is obligated to buy your stock from you at the contract price should you choose to exercise your option. But, in order for you to fulfill your end of the contract when you choose to exercise, you're obligated to deliver the underlying shares in exchange for receiving the option strike price. So, you would first need to buy underlying shares sufficient to exercise at least one of the contracts. Again, you don't need to do this all at once. @PeterGum's answer has described an approach. (Note that you'll lose any remaining time value in the option if you choose to exercise.) Finally, I'll suggest that you ought to discuss the timing and apportioning of closing out your position with a qualified tax professional. There are tax implications and, being near the end of the year, there may be an opportunity* to shift some/all of the income into the following tax year to minimize and defer tax due. * Be careful if your options are near expiry! Options typically expire on the 3rd Friday of the month.\"","Note that the rules around wash sales vary depending on where you live. For the U.S., the wash sale rules say that you cannot buy a substantially identical stock or security within 30 days (before or after) your sale. So, you could sell your stock today to lock in the capital losses. However, you would then have to wait at least 30 days before purchasing it back. If you bought it back within 30 days, you would disqualify the capital loss event. The risk, of course, is that the stock's price goes up substantially while you are waiting for the wash sale period. It's up to you to determine if the risk outweighs the benefit of locking in your capital losses. Note that this applies regardless of whether you sell SOME or ALL of the stock. Or indeed, if we are talking about securities other than stocks.","Don't sell. Ever. Well almost. A number of studies have shown that buying equal amounts of shares randomly will beat the market long term, and certainly won't do badly. Starting from this premise then perhaps you can add a tiny bit extra with your skill... maybe, but who knows, you might suck. Point is when buying you have the wind behind you - a monkey would make money. Selling is a different matter. You have the cost of trading out and back in to something else, only to have changed from one monkey portfolio to the other. If you have skill that covers this cost then yes you should do this - but how confident are you? A few studies have been done on anonymised retail broker accounts and they show the same story. Retail investors on average lose money on their switches. Even if you believe you have a real edge on the market, you're strategy still should not just say sell when it drops out of your criteria. Your criteria are positive indicators. Lack of positive is not a negative indicator. Sell when you would happily go short the stock. That is you are really confident it is going down. Otherwise leave it.","\"This is actually a very complicated question. The key reading in this area is a seminal paper by Almgren & Chriss, \"\"Optimal Execution of Portfolio Transactions\"\" (2000). They show that there's a tradeoff between liquidating your portfolio faster and knowing the value with more certainty, versus liquidating more slowly (and likely for a higher price) but with less certainty. So for example, if you sold your entire position right now, you would know almost certainly how much you would get for the position. Or, you could sell off your position more slowly, and likely get more money, but you would have less certainty about how much you would get. The paper is available online at http://www.courant.nyu.edu/~almgren/papers/optliq.pdf\"","In the US you specify explicitly what stocks you're selling. Brokers now are required to keep track of cost basis and report it to the IRS on the 1099-B, so you have to tell the broker which position it is that you're closing. Usually, the default is FIFO (i.e.: when you sell, you're assumed to be closing the oldest position), but you can change it if you want. In the US you cannot average costs basis of stocks (you can for mutual funds), so you either do FIFO, LIFO (last position closed first), or specify the specific positions when you submit the sale order.","If the position starts losing money as soon as it is put on, then I would close it out ,taking a small loss. However, if it starts making money,as in the stock inches higher, then you can use part of the premium collected to buy an out of money put, thereby limiting your downside. It is called a collar.","Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.","\"The settlement date for any trade is the date on which the seller gets the buyer's money and the buyer gets the seller's product. In US equities markets the settlement date is (almost universally) three trading days after the trade date. This settlement period gives the exchanges, the clearing houses, and the brokers time to figure out how many shares and how many dollars need to actually be moved around in order to give everyone what they're owed (and then to actually do all that moving around). So, \"\"settling\"\" a short trade is the same thing as settling any other trade. It has nothing to do with \"\"closing\"\" (or covering) the seller's short position. Q: Is this referring to when a short is initiated, or closed? A: Initiated. If you initiate a short position by selling borrowed shares on day 1, then settlement occurs on day 4. (Regardless of whether your short position is still open or has been closed.) Q: All open shorts which are still open by the settlement date have to be reported by the due date. A: Not exactly. The requirement is that all short positions evaluated based on their settlement dates (rather than their trade dates) still open on the deadline have to be reported by the due date. You sell short 100 AAPL on day 1. You then cover that short by buying 100 AAPL on day 2. As far as the clearing houses and brokers are concerned, however, you don't even get into the short position until your sell settles at the end of day 4, and you finally get out of your short position (in their eyes) when your buy settles at the end of day 5. So imagine the following scenarios: The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 2. Since your (FINRA member) broker has been told to report based on settlement date, it would report no open position for you in AAPL even though you executed a trade to sell on day 1. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 3. Your sell still has not settled, so there's still no open position to report for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 4. Your sell has settled but your buy has not, so the broker reports a 100 share open short position for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 5. Your sell and buy have both settled, so the broker once again has no open position to report for you. So, the point is that when dealing with settlement dates you just pretend the world is 3 days behind where it actually is.\"","Yes you can, provided if buyers are available. Normally high liquidty stocks can be sold at market prices a little higher or lower.","\"When the strike price ($25 in this case) is in-the-money, even by $0.01, your shares will be sold the day after expiration if you take no action. If you want to let your shares go,. allow assignment rather than close the short position and sell the long position...it will be cheaper that way. If you want to keep your shares you must buy back the option prior to 4Pm EST on expiration Friday. First ask yourself why you want to keep the shares. Is it to write another option? Is it to hold for a longer term strategy? Assuming this is a covered call writing account, you should consider \"\"rolling\"\" the option. This involves buying back the near-term option and selling the later date option of a similar or higher strike. Make sure to check to see if there is an upcoming earnings report in the latter month because you may want to avoid writing a call in that situation. I never write a call when there's an upcoming ER prior to expiration. Good luck. Alan\"","\"You have to calculate the total value of all shares and then ask yourself \"\"Would I invest that amount of money in this stock?\"\" If the answer is yes, then only sell what you need to sell. Take the $3k loss against your income, if you have no other gains. If you would not invest that amount of cash in that stock, then sell it all right now and carry forward the excess loss every year. Note at any point you have capital gains you can offset all of them with your loss carryover (not just $3k).\"","Your broker should be able to answer this. Many brokers will buy it from you for the cost of a commission, if there's no legit buyer.","When you sell a stock that you own, you realize gains, or losses. Short-term gains, realized within a year of buying and selling an asset, are taxed at your maximum (or marginal) tax rate. Long term-gains, realized after a year, are taxed at a lower, preferential rate. The first thing to consider is losses. Losses can be cancelled against gains, reducing your tax liability. Losses can also be carried over to the next tax year and be redeemed against those gains. When you own a bunch of the same type of stock, bought at different times and prices, you can choose which shares to sell. This allows you to decide whether you realize short- or long-term gains (or losses). This is known as lot matching (or order matching). You want to sell the shares that lost value before selling the ones that gained value. Booking losses reduces your taxes; booking gains increases them. If faced with a choice between booking short term and long term losses, I'd go with the former. Since net short-term gains are taxed at a higher rate, I'd want to minimize the short-term tax liability before moving on to long-term tax liability. If my remaining shares had gains, I'd sell the ones purchased earliest since long-term gains are taxed at a lower rate, and delaying the booking of gains converts short-term gains into long-term ones. If there's a formula for this, I'd say it's (profit - loss) x (tax bracket) = tax paid","You have no guarantees. The stock may last have traded at $100 (so, the market price is $100), but is currently in free-fall and nobody else will be willing to buy it for any more than $80. Or heck, maybe nobody will be willing to buy it at all, at any price. Or maybe trading on this stock will be halted. Remember, the market price is just what the stock last traded at. If you put in a 'market order', you are ordering your broker to sell at the best available current price. Assuming someone's willing to buy your stock, that means you'll sell it. But if it last traded at $100, this doesn't guarantee you'll sell at anything close to that.","\"Most of the time* you're selling to other investors, not back to the company. The stock market is a collection of bid (buy offers) and asks (sell offers). When you sell your stock as a retail investor at the \"\"market\"\" price you're essentially just meeting whatever standing bid offers are on the market. For very liquid stocks (e.g. Apple), you can pretty much always get the displayed price because so many stocks are being traded. However during periods of very high volatility or for low-volume stocks, the quoted price may not be indicative of what you actually pay. As an example, let's say you have 5 stocks you're trying to sell and the bid-side order book is 2 stocks for $105, 2 for $100, and 5 for $95. In this scenario the quoted price will be $105 (the best bid price), but if you accept market price you'll settle 2 for 105, 2 for 100, and 1 for 95. After your sell order goes through, the new quoted price will be $95. For high volume stocks, there will usually be so many orders near the midpoint price ($105, in this case) that you won't see any price slippage for small orders. You can also post limit orders, which are essentially open orders waiting to be filled like in the above example. They ensure you get the price you want, but you have no way to guarantee they'll be filled or not. Edit: as a cool example, check out the bitcoin GDAX on coinbase for a live example of what the order book looks like for stocks. You'll see that the price of bitcoin will drift towards whichever direction has the less dense order book (e.g. price drifts upwards when there are far more bids than asks.)\"","\"I'm not sure what you expect in terms of answers, but it depends on personal factors. It pretty well has to depend on personal factors, since otherwise everyone would want to do the same thing (either everyone thinks the current price is one to sell at, or everyone thinks it's one to buy at), and there would be no trades. You wouldn't be able to do what you want, except on the liquidity provided by market makers. Once that's hit, the price is shifting quickly, so your calculation will change quickly too. Purely in terms of maximising expected value taking into account the time value of money, it's all about the same. The market \"\"should\"\" already know everything you know, which means that one time to sell is as good as any other. The current price is generally below the expected acquisition price because there's a chance the deal will fall through and the stock price will plummet. That's not to say there aren't clever \"\"sure-fire\"\" trading strategies around acquisitions, but they're certain to be based on more than just timing when to sell an existing holding of stock. If you have information that the market doesn't (and assuming it is legal to do so) then you trade based on that information. If you know something the market doesn't that's going to be good for price, hold. If you know something that will reduce the price, sell now. And \"\"know\"\" can be used in a loose sense, if you have a strong opinion against the market then you might like to invest based on that. Nothing beats being paid for being right. Finally, bear in mind that expected return is not the same as utility. You have your own investment goals and your own view of risk. If you're more risk-averse than the market then you might prefer to sell now rather than wait for the acquisition. If you're more risk-prone than the market then you might prefer a 90% chance of $1 to 90c. That's fine, hold the stock. The extreme case of this is that you might have a fixed sum at which you will definitely sell up, put everything into the most secure investments you can find, and retire to the Caribbean. If that's the case then you become totally risk-averse the instant your holding crosses that line. Sell and order cocktails.\"","ML is a brokerage firm. Tell them to sell. If you can't or don't know how to do it on-line - call them and do it over the phone. Your citizenship might come in effect when tax are withheld, you need to fill form W8-BEN if you haven't done so yet. If US taxes are withheld, you can file 1040NR to request refund, or get it credited against your local tax liabilities.","Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.","Opened Long - is when you open a long position. Long means that you buy to open the position, so you are trying to profit as the price rises. So if you were closing a long position you would sell it. Closed Short - is when you close out a short position. Short means that you sell to open and buy back to close. With a short position you are trying to profit as the price falls. Scaled Out - means you get out of a position in increments as the price climbs (for long positions). Scaled In - means you set a target price and then invest in increments as the stock falls below that price (for long positions).","I do this often with shares that I own - mostly as a learning/experience-building exercise, since I don't own enough individual stocks to make me rich (and don't risk enough to make me broke). Suppose I own 1,000 shares of X. I don't expect my shares to go down, but I want to be compensated in case they do go down. Sure, I could put in a stop-loss order, but another option is to sell a call above where the stock is now (out-of-the-money). So I get the premium regardless of what happens. From there three things can happen: So a covered call essentially lets you give up some upside for some compensation against downward moves. Mathematically it's roughly equivalent to selling a put option - you make a little money (from the premium) if the stock goes up but can lose a lot if the stock plummets. So you would sell call options if:","\"This is called a Contingent Order and is set up so if one order is filled (in this case) the other order is cancelled. It's a common desire that one would wish to have a stop-loss in place but also a targeted sell price for their in-the-money sell point. Your broker will tell you all you need to know about how to enter this, if you explain you'd like to place a contingent order. (As Victor noted below, your specific order would be a \"\"One Cancels Other\"\" or \"\"OCO\"\") Great first question, welcome to Money,SE.\"","Selling options is a great idea, but tweak it a bit and sell credit spreads on both sides of the market, i.e. sell OTM bear call spreads and OTM bull put spreads. This is also known as an iron condor, and limits risk, and allows for much more flexibility.","You could always maintain a limit order to sell at a price you're comfortable with.","\"Obviously a stock that's hit a high is profit waiting to be taken, be safe, take the money, Sell Sell Sell!! Ah.. but wait, they say \"\"run your winners, cut your losers\"\", so here this stock is a winner... keep on to it, Hold Hold Hold!!!!! Of course, if you're holding, then you think it's going to return even higher.... Buy Buy Buy!!!! So, hope that's clears things up for you - Sell, Hold, or maybe Buy :-) A more serious answer is not ever to worry about past performance, if its gone past a reasonable valuation then consider selling, but never care about selling out just because its reached some arbitrary share price. If you are worried about losses, you might like to set a trailing stop and sell if it drops, but if you're a LTBH type person, just keep it until you feel it is overvalued compared to its fundamentals.\"","The price doesn't have to drop 5% in one go to activate your order. The trailing aspect simply means your sell trigger price will increase if the current value increases (it will never decrease).","None of your options or strategies are ideal. Have you considered looking at the stock chart and making a decision? Is the price currently up-trending, or is it down-trending, or is it going sideways? As Knuckle Dragger mentions, you could just set a limit price order and if it does not hit by Friday you can just sell at whatever price on Friday. However, this could be very damaging if the price is currently down-trending. It may fall considerably by Friday. I think a better strategy would be to place a trailing stop loss order, say 5% from the current price. If the stock starts heading south you will be stopped out approximately 5% below the current price. However, if the price goes up, your trailing stop order will move up as well, always trailing 5% below the highest price reached. If the trailing stop has not been hit by Friday afternoon, you can sell at the current price. This way you will be protected on the downside (only approx. 5% below current price) and can potentially benefit from any short term upside.","\"There are two ways you can \"\"cash in.\"\" 1) Buy enough additional shares to bring your share total to 100, then exercise the put. 2) Sell the put in the open market for a profit.\"","Yes, theoretically you can flip the shares you agreed to buy and make a profit, but you're banking on the market behaving in some very precise and potentially unlikely ways. In practice it's very tricky for you to successfully navigate paying arbitrarily more for a stock than it's currently listed for, and selling it back again for enough to cover the difference. Yes, the price could drop to $28, but it could just as easily drop to $27.73 (or further) and now you're hurting, before even taking into account the potentially hefty commissions involved. Another way to think about it is to recognize that an option transaction is a bet; the buyer is betting a small amount of money that a stock will move in the direction they expect, the seller is betting a large amount of money that the same stock will not. One of you has to lose. And unless you've some reason to be solidly confident in your predictive powers the loser, long term, is quite likely to be you. Now that said, it is possible (particularly when selling puts) to create win-win scenarios for yourself, where you're betting one direction, but you'd be perfectly happy with the alternative(s). Here's an example. Suppose, unrelated to the option chain, you've come to the conclusion that you'd be happy paying $28 for BBY. It's currently (June 2011) at ~$31, so you can't buy it on the open market for a price you'd be happy with. But you could sell a $28 put, promising to buy it at that price should someone want to sell it (presumably, because the price is now below $28). Either the put expires worthless and you pocket a few bucks and you're basically no worse off because the stock is still overpriced by your estimates, or the option is executed, and you receive 100 shares of BBY at a price you previously decided you were willing to pay. Even if the list price is now lower, long term you expect the stock to be worth more than $28. Conceptually, this makes selling a put very similar to being paid to place a limit order to buy the stock itself. Of course, you could be wrong in your estimate (too low, and you now have a position that might not become profitable; too high, and you never get in and instead just watch the stock gain in value), but that is not unique to options - if you're bad at estimating value (which is not to be confused with predicting price movement) you're doomed just about whatever you do.","The 'normal' series of events when trading a stock is to buy it, time passes, then you sell it. If you believe the stock will drop in price, you can reverse the order, selling shares, waiting for the price drop, then buying them back. During that time you own say, -100 shares, and are 'short' those shares.","\"You should distinguish between the price and the value of a company: \"\"Price is what you pay, value is what you get\"\". Price is the share price you pay for one share of the company. Value is what a company is worth (based on fundamental analysis, one of the principles of value investing). I would recommend selling the stock only if the company's value has deteriorated due to fundamental changes (e.g. better products from competitors, declining market) and its value is lower than the current share price.\"","When you are a certain age you will be able to tap into your retirement accounts, or start receiving pension and social security funds. In addition you may be faced with required minimum distributions from these accounts. But even before you get to those points you will generally shift the focus of new funds into the retirement account to be more conservative. Depending on the balances in the various accounts and the size of the pension and social security accounts you may even move invested funds from aggressive to conservative investments. The proper proportion of the many different types of investments and revenue streams is open to much debate. During retirement you will be pulling money out of retirement accounts either to support your standard of living or to meet the required minimum distributions. What to sell will be based on either the tax implications or the required distributions that will still maintain the asset allocation you desire. If your distributions are driven by the law you will be selling enough to meet a specific required $ figure. You will either spend that money or move it into a low interest savings account or a non-retirement investment account. If trying to meet your standard of living expectations you will be selling funds that allow you to keep your desired asset allocation but still have enough to live on. Again you will be trying to meet a specific $ figure. Of course you may decide at anytime in retirement to rebalance based on changes to your lifestyle, family obligations, or winning the lottery.","Depending on the day and even time, you'd get your $2 profit less the $5 commission. Jack's warning is correct, but more so for thinly traded options, either due to the options having little open interest or the stock not quite so popular. In your case you have a just-in-the-money strike for a highly traded stock near expiration. That makes for about the best liquidity one can ask for. One warning is in order - Sometime friday afternoon, there will be a negative time premium. i.e. the bid might seem lower than in the money value. At exactly $110, why would I buy the option? Only if I can buy it, exercise, and sell the stock, all for a profit, even if just pennies.","My broker offers a service to transfer the shares where you only pay commission once. Therefore say if standard commission is £10, then you don't end up paying £20 (10 for selling + 10 for buy back). You'll have to be okay with the spread though. Hope this helps.","\"There are a few things you are missing here. These appear to be penny stocks or subpenny stocks. Buying these are easy.... selling is a total different ball game. Buying commissions are low and selling commissions are outrageous. Another thing you are missing in this order is... some trading platform may assume the \"\"AON\"\" sale. That is All Or None. There was an offer of 10k shares @ .63. The buyer only wanted 10k what was the broker to do with the other 20k? Did you inform the broker that partial sales where acceptable? You may want to contact your broker and explain this to them. The ALL OR NONE order has made plenty of investor a little unhappy, which seems to be your new learning experience for the day. Sorry, school of hard knocks is not always fun.\"","Simply if your stock is still rising in price keep it. If it is falling in price sell it and pay off your mortgage. To know when to do this is very easy. If it is currently rising you can put a trailing stop loss on it and sell it when it drops and hits your stop loss. A second easy method is to draw an uptrend line under the increasing price and then sell when the price drops down below the uptrend line, as per the chart below. This will enable you to capture the bulk of the price movement upward and sell before the price drops too far down. You can then use the profits (after tax) to pay down your mortgage. Of course if the price is currently in a downtrend sell it ASAP.","\"And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position. When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here. In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them. If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from. Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest). Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy. Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800. In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question). It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement. Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money. If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a \"\"margin call\"\" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses. And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin). When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go. There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position. You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs.\"","\"Selling short is simply by definition the selling, then later re-buying of stock you don't initially own. Say you tally your entire portfolio balance: the quantity of each stock you own, and your cash assets. Let's call this your \"\"initial position\"\". We define \"\"profit\"\" as any increase in assets, relative to this initial position. If you know a particular stock will go down, you can realize a profit by selling some of that stock, waiting for the price to go down, then buying it back. In the end you will have returned to your initial position, except you will have more cash. If you sell 10 shares of a stock valued at £1.50, then buy them back at £1.00, you will make a £5.00 profit while having otherwise returned to your previous position. If you do the same, but you initially owned 1000 shares, sold just 10 of those, then bought 10 back, that's still a profit of £5.00. Selling short is doing the same thing, but with an initial and ending balance of 0 shares. If you initially own 0 shares, sell 10, then buy 10 back, you return to your initial position (0 shares) plus a profit of £5.00. (And in practice you must also pay a borrowing fee to do this.) The advantage of selling short is it can be done with any stock, not just those currently owned.\"","\"The current price is $8.05. If you want the right to sell it to someone (put it to the buyer) for $10, you have to pay $2. Since you're looking at an expiration that's so close, the \"\"in the money\"\" value is nearly the same as what it trades for. The JAN 2013 sells for nearly $3.\"","I believe this depends on the broker's policies. For example, here is Vanguard's policy (from https://personal.vanguard.com/us/whatweoffer/stocksbondscds/brokeragedividendprogram): Does selling shares affect a distribution? If you sell the entire position two days or more before the dividend-payable date, your distribution will be paid in cash. If, however, you sell an entire position within the two day time frame of the security's payable date, the dividend will be reinvested, resulting in additional shares. Selling these subsequent shares will require another sell order, which will incur additional commission charges. Dividends which would have been reinvested into less than one whole share will be automatically liquidated into cash. If you want to guarantee you receive no fractional shares, I'd call your broker and ask whether selling stock ABC on a particular date will result in the dividend being paid in shares.","For exchange contracts, yes. A trader can close a position by taking an offsetting position. CME's introduction to Futures explains it quite well (on page 22). Exiting the Market Jack entered the market on the buy side, speculating that the S&P 500 futures price would move higher. He has three choices for exiting the market:","I sold it at 609.25 and buy again at 608.75 in the same day If you Sold and bought the same day, it would be considered as intra-day trade. Profit will be due and would be taxed at normal tax brackets. Edits Best Consult a CA. This is covered under Indian Accounting Standard AG51 The following examples illustrate the application of the derecognition principles of this Standard. (e) Wash sale transaction. The repurchase of a financial asset shortly after it has been sold is sometimes referred to as a wash sale. Such a repurchase does not preclude derecognition provided that the original transaction met the derecognition requirements. However, if an agreement to sell a financial asset is entered into concurrently with an agreement to repurchase the same asset at a fixed price or the sale price plus a lender's return, then the asset is not derecognised. This is more relevant now for shares/stocks as Long Term Capital Gains are tax free, Long Term Capital Loss cannot be adjusted against anything. Short Term Gains are taxed differentially. Hence the transaction can be interpreted as tax evasion, professional advise is recommended. A simple way to avoid this situation; sell on a given day and buy it next or few days later.","\"In general there are two types of futures contract, a put and call. Both contract types have both common sides of a transaction, a buyer and a seller. You can sell a put contract, or sell a call contract also; you're just taking the other side of the agreement. If you're selling it would commonly be called a \"\"sell to open\"\" meaning you're opening your position by selling a contract which is different from simply selling an option that you currently own to close your position. A put contract gives the buyer the right to sell shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to put the shares on someone else. A call contract gives the buyer the right to buy shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to call on someone for shares. \"\"American\"\" options contracts allow the buyer can exercise their rights under the contract on or before the expiration date; while \"\"European\"\" type contracts can only be exercised on the expiration date. To address your example. Typically for stock an option contract involves 100 shares of a stock. The value of these contracts fluctuates the same way other assets do. Typically retail investors don't actually exercise their contracts, they just close a profitable position before the exercise deadline, and let unprofitable positions expire worthless. If you were to buy a single call contract with an exercise price of $100 with a maturity date of August 1 for $1 per share, the contract will have cost you $100. Let's say on August 1 the underlying shares are now available for $110 per share. You have two options: Option 1: On August 1, you can exercise your contract to buy 100 shares for $100 per share. You would exercise for $10,000 ($100 times 100 shares), then sell the shares for $10 profit per share; less the cost of the contract and transaction costs. Option 2: Your contract is now worth something closer to $10 per share, up from $1 per share when you bought it. You can just sell your contract without ever exercising it to someone with an account large enough to exercise and/or an actual desire to receive the asset or commodity.\"","\"This answer relies on why you are holding shares of a company in the first place. So let's address that: So does this mean you would like to vote with your shares on the directions the company takes? If so, your reasons for selling would be different from the next speculator who only is interested in share price volatility. Regardless of your participation in potential voting rights associated with your share ownership, a different reason to sell is based on if your fundamental reasons for investing in the company have changed. Enhancements on this topic include: Trade management, how to deal with position sizes. Buying and selling partial positions based on price action while keeping a core long term position, but this is not something \"\"long term investors\"\" generally put too much effort in. Price targets, start your long term investment with a price target in mind, derived from a future market cap based on your initial fundamental analysis of the company's prospects. And finally, there are a lot of things you can do with a profitable investment in shares.\"","Yes You could write a covered call and the stock gets called away at the price + premium. You could convince someone to buy it regardless of the market price.","\"Write means sell to open. It is called that because options writers are creating (i.e. writing) new contracts. No such thing as \"\"reading\"\" an option.\"","I am close to retirement and sell cash secured puts and covered calls on a regular basis. I make 15 % plus per year from the puts. Less risky than buying stocks, which I also do. Riskier than bonds, but several times the income. Example: I owned 4,000 shares of XYZ, which I bought last year at 6.50 and was at 7.70 two months ago. I sold 3,000 shares, sold 10 Dec puts @ 7.50 (1,000 shares) for $.90 per share and sold 10 Dec calls at 10.00 for $.20. Now I had cash from the sale of 3,000 shares ($23,100) plus $900 cash from the sale of the puts, plus $200 cash from the sale of the calls. Price is now at 6.25. Had I held the 4,000 shares, I would be down $5,800 from when it was 7.70. Instead, I am down $1,450 from the held 1,000 shares, down $550 on the put and up $200 on the calls. So down $1,800 instead of down $5,800. I began buying XYZ back at 6.25 today.","Investopedia defines it in the following way: It's essentially a market order that doesn't get entered until the last minute (or thereabouts) of trading. With this type of order you are not necessarily guaranteed the closing price but usually something very similar, depending on the liquidity in the market and bid-ask for the security in question. Traders who believe that a security or market will move more heavily during the last few minutes of trading will often place such an order in the hopes of having their order filled at a more desirable price.","\"The reason for selling a stock \"\"short\"\", is for when you believe the stock value will decrease in the near future. Here is an example: Today Exxon-Mobile stock is selling for $100 / share. You are expecting the price to decrease, so you want to short the stock, which means your broker (i.e. eTrade, etc) allows you to borrow shares without paying money, and those shares are transferred into your account, and then you sell them and receive money for the sale. But you didn't actually own those shares, you only borrowed them, so you need to return the shares to your broker sometime in the future. Let's say you borrow 10 shares @ $100, and you sell them at the market price of $100, you receive $1,000 in your account. But you owe your broker 10 shares, which you need to return sometime in the future. A few days later, the share price has decreased to $80. Now you can buy 10 shares from the market at a total cost of $800. You get 10 shares, and return those shares to your broker. Since you originally took in $1,000, and you just paid out $800, you keep a resulting profit of $200\"","\"Writing options means \"\"selling\"\" options and \"\"put\"\" options are contracts to sell a defined security (the underlying), at a specific date (expiration date) and at a specific price (strike price). So, writing put options simply mean selling to others contracts to sell. Your profit is limited to the premium but your loss may be unlimited in a falling market.\"","\"You should check with your broker for details, but you can generally specify which \"\"lot\"\" you are selling. where I've seen it, that's done by concurrently sending a \"\"letter of instruction\"\" documenting your choice of lot concurrent with the sale, but different brokers may handle this differently. I would think this should work for the case that you describe. (In addition, the default rule used by your broker is \"\"probably\"\" first-in-first-out, which will do what you want here.) Note that this may come into play even in a margin account to the extent that you might want to specify a lot in order to obtain (or set yourself up for later benefit of) favorable tax treatment under the long-term capital gains rules\"","Assignment risk. In your example, if someone exercises OTM call, your account could be assigned. In that case, if you do nothing, you could lose more money than there is in the account. The broker won't do it for you because there is more than one way to handle the assignment. For example, you might choose to exercise the long call, or buy a different call and exercise that. Selling the long call may be enough to satisfy any resulting margin call.","This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.","\"The question you are asking concerns the exercise of a short option position. The other replies do not appear to address this situation. Suppose that Apple is trading at $96 and you sell a put option with a strike price of $95 for some future delivery date - say August 2016. The option contract is for 100 shares and you sell the contract for a premium of $3.20. When you sell the option your account will be credited with the premium and debited with the broker commission. The premium you receive will be $320 = 100 x $3.20. The commission you pay will depend on you broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple drops to $90 and your option is exercised, either on expiry or prior to expiry. Then you would be obliged to take delivery of 100 Apple shares at the contracted option strike price of $95 costing you $9,500 plus broker commission. If you immediately sell the Apple shares you have purchased under your contract obligations, then assuming you sell the shares at the current market price of $90 you would realise a loss of $500 ( = 100x($95-$90) )plus commission. Since you received a premium of $320 when you sold the put option, your net loss would be $500-$320 = $180 plus any commissions paid to your broker. Now let's look at the case of selling a call option. Again assume that the price of Apple is $96 and you sell a call option for 100 shares with a strike price of $97 for a premium of $3.60. The premium you receive would be $360 = 100 x $3.60. You would also be debited for commission by your broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple shares rises to $101 and your option is exercised. Then you would be obliged to deliver 100 Apple shares to the party exercising the option at the contracted strike price of $97. If you did not own the shares to effect delivery, then you would need to purchase those shares in the market at the current market price of $101, and then sell them to the party exercising the option at the strike price of $97. This would realise an immediate loss of $400 = 100 x ($101-$97) plus any commission payable. If you did own the shares, then you would simply deliver them and possibly pay some commission or a delivery fee to your broker. Since you received $360 when you sold the option, your net loss would be $40 = $400-$360 plus any commission and fees payable to the broker. It is important to understand that in addition to these accounting items, short option positions carry with them a \"\"margin\"\" requirement. You will need to maintain a margin deposit to show \"\"good faith\"\" so long as the short option position is open. If the option you have sold moves against you, then you will be called upon to put up extra margin to cover any potential losses.\"","Assuming that you have capital gains, you can expect to have to pay taxes on them. It might be short term, or long term capital gains. If you specify exactly which shares to sell, it is possible to sell mostly losers, thus reducing or eliminating capital gains. There are separate rules for 401K and other retirement programs regarding down payments for a house. This leads to many other issues such as the hit your retirement will take.","A trailing stop will sell X shares at some percentage below the current market price. Putting in this order with a 10% trailing stop when the stock price is $50 will sell the stock when it hits $45. It's a market order at that point (see below). A stop order will sell the stock when it reaches a certain price. The stop order becomes a market order when the magic price is hit. This means that you may not sell it at or below your price when the order is executed. But the stock will sell faster because the trader must execute. A stop limit order is the same as a stop order, except the stock won't be sold if it can't be gotten for the price. As a result, the sell may not be executed. More information here.","\"Scenario 1 - When you sell the shares in a margin account, you will see your buying power go up, but your \"\"amount available to withdraw\"\" stays the same until settlement. Yes, you can reallocate the same day, no need to wait until settlement. There is no margin interest for this scenario. Scenario 2 - If that stock is marginable to 50%, and all you have is $10,000 in that stock, you can buy another $10,000. Once done, you are at 50% margin, exactly.\"","(buy these when you expect the price to go down) You 'lock in' the price you can sell at. If the price goes down below the 'locked-in' price, you buy at the new low price and sell at the higher 'locked-in' price; make money. (buy these when you expect the price to go up) You 'lock in' the price you can buy at. If the price goes up above the 'locked-in' price, you buy at the 'locked-in' price and sell at the new higher price, make money.","how does the trading company know which one I want to sell? It doesn't need to know. You just sell one. From taxation point of view depending on the country / tax jurisdiction, it can be only be FIFO or specific stock.","\"Most of the investors who have large holdings in a particular stock have pretty good exit strategies for those positions to ensure they are getting the best price they can by selling gradually into the volume over time. Putting a single large block of stock up for sale is problematic for one simple reason: Let's say you have 100,000 shares of a stock, and for some reason you decide today is the day to sell them, take your profits, and ride off into the sunset. So you call your broker (or log into your brokerage account) and put them up for sale. He puts in an order somewhere, the stock is sold, and your account is credited. Seems simple, right? Well...not so fast. Professionals - I'm keeping this simple, so please don't beat me up for it! The way stocks are bought and sold is through companies known as \"\"market makers\"\". These are entities which sit between the markets and you (and your broker), and when you want to buy or sell a stock, most of the time the order is ultimately handled somewhere along the line by a market maker. If you work with a large brokerage firm, sometimes they'll buy or sell your shares out of their own accounts, but that's another story. It is normal for there to be many, sometimes hundreds, of market makers who are all trading in the same equity. The bigger the stock, the more market makers it attracts. They all compete with each other for business, and they make their money on the spread between what they buy stock from people selling for and what they can get for it selling it to people who want it. Given that there could be hundreds of market makers on a particular stock (Google, Apple, and Microsoft are good examples of having hundreds of market makers trading in their stocks), it is very competitive. The way the makers compete is on price. It might surprise you to know that it is the market makers, not the markets, that decide what a stock will buy or sell for. Each market maker sets their own prices for what they'll pay to buy from sellers for, and what they'll sell it to buyers for. This is called, respectively, the \"\"bid\"\" and the \"\"ask\"\" prices. So, if there are hundreds of market makers then there could be hundreds of different bid and ask prices on the same stock. The prices you see for stocks are what are called the \"\"best bid and best ask\"\" prices. What that means is, you are being shown the highest \"\"bid\"\" price (what you can sell your shares for) and the best \"\"ask\"\" price (what you can buy those shares for) because that's what is required. That being said, there are many other market makers on the same stock whose bid prices are lower and ask prices are higher. Many times there will be a big clump of market makers all at the same bid/ask, or within fractions of a cent of each other, all competing for business. Trading computers are taught to seek out the best prices and the fastest trade fills they can. The point to this very simplistic lesson is that the market makers set the prices that shares trade at. They adjust those prices based (among other factors) on how much buying and selling volume they're seeing. If they see a wave of sell orders coming into the system then they'll start marking down their bid prices. This keeps them from paying too much for shares they're going to have to find a buyer for eventually, and it can sometimes slow down the pace of selling as investors and automated systems notice the price decline and decide to wait to sell. Conversely, if market makers see a wave of buy orders coming into the system, they'll start marking their ask prices up to maximize their gains, since they're selling you shares they bought from someone else, presumably at a lower price. But they typically adjust their prices up or down before they actually fill trades. (sneaky, eh?) Depending on how much volume there is on the shares of the company you're selling, and depending on whether there are more buyers than sellers at the moment, your share sell order may be filled at market by a market maker with no real consequence to the share's price. If the block is large enough then it's possible it will not all sell to one market maker, or it might not all happen in one transaction or even all at the same price. This is a pretty complex subject, as you can see, and I've cut a LOT of corners and oversimplified much to keep it comprehensible. But the short answer to your question is -- it depends. Hope this helps. Good luck!\"","First, it depends on your broker. Full service firms will tear you a new one, discount brokers may charge ~nothing. You'll have to check with your broker on assignment fees. Theoretically, this is the case of the opposite of my answer in this question: Are underlying assets supposed to be sold/bought immediately after being bought/sold in call/put option? Your trading strategy/reasoning for your covered call notwithstanding, in your case, as an option writer covering in the money calls, you want to hold and pray that your option expires worthless. As I said in the other answer, there is always a theoretical premium of option price + exercise price to underlying prices, no matter how slight, right up until expiration, so on that basis, it doesn't pay to close out the option. However, there's a reality that I didn't mention in the other answer: if it's a deep in the money option, you can actually put a bid < stock price - exercise price - trade fee and hope for the best since the market makers rarely bid above stock price - exercise price for illiquid options, but it's unlikely that you'll beat the market makers + hft. They're systems are too fast. I know the philly exchange allows you to put in implied volatility orders, but they're expensive, and I couldn't tell you if a broker/exchange allows for dynamic orders with the equation I specified above, but it may be worth a shot to check out; however, it's unlikely that such a low order would ever be filled since you'll at best be lined up with the market makers, and it would require a big player dumping all its' holdings at once to get to your order. If you're doing a traditional, true-blue covered call, there's absolutely nothing wrong being assigned except for the tax implications. When your counterparty calls away your underlyings, it is a sell for tax purposes. If you're not covering with the underlying but with a more complex spread, things could get hairy for you real quick if someone were to exercise on you, but that's always a risk. If your broker is extremely strict, they may close the rest of your spread for you at the offer. In illiquid markets, that would be a huge percentage loss considering the wide bid/ask spreads.","\"You are likely making an assumption that the \"\"Short call\"\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \"\"write\"\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\"","It this a real situation or is it a made up example? Because for a stock that has a last traded priced of $5 or $6 and volume traded over $4M (i.e. it seems to be quite liquid), it is hardly likely that the difference from bid to ask would be as large as $1 (maybe for a stock that has volume of 4 to 5 thousand, but not for one having volume of 4 to 5 million). In regards to your question, if you were short selling the order would go in exactly the same as if you were selling a stock you owned. So your order would be on the ask side and would need to be matched up with a price on the bid side for there to be a trade.","If you know you have picked a bad stock, the sooner you sell the better. There is a tendency to hold a bad stock in the hope that it will pick up again. Most of us fall into this trap. The best way one needs to look at things are;","I think the best answer that doesn't make the buyer look like a moron is this. Buyer had previously sold a covered call. They wanted to act on a different opportunity so they did a closing buy/write with a spread of a couple cents below asking for the stock, but it dipped a couple cents and the purchase of those options to close resolved at 4 cents due to lack of sellers.","\"If you really believe in the particular stocks, then don't worry about their daily price. Overall if the company is sound, and presumably paying a dividend, then you're in it for the long haul. Notwithstanding that, it is reasonable to look for a way out. The two you describe are quite different in their specifics. Selling sounds like the simpler of the two, but the trigger event, and if it is automatic or \"\"manual\"\" matters. If you are happy to put in a sell order at some time in the future, then just go ahead with that. Many brokers can place a STOP order, that will trigger on a certain price threshold being hit. Do note, however, that by default this would place a market order, and depending on the price that breaks through, in the event of a flash crash, depending on how fast the brokers systems were, you could find yourself selling quite cheaply. A STOP LIMIT order will place a limit order at a triggered price. This would limit your overall downside loss, but you might not sell at all if the market is really running away. Options are another reasonable way to deal with the situation, sort of like insurance. In this case you would likely buy a PUT, which would give you the right, but not the obligation to sell the stock at the price the that was specified in the option. In this case, no matter what, you are out the price of the option itself (hence my allusion to insurance), but if the event never happens then that was the price you paid to have that peace of mind. I cannot recommend a specific course of action, but hopefully that fleshed out the options you have.\""],"string":"[\n \"You sell any investment because you need to do something else with the money -- rebalance your investments, buy something, pay off a debt....\",\n \"Futures exchanges are essentially auction houses facilitating a two-way auction. While they provide a venue for buyers and sellers to come together and transact (be that a physical venue such as a pit at the CME or an electronic network such as Globex), they don't actively seek out or find buyers and sellers to pair them together. The exchanges enable this process through an order book. As a futures trader you may submit one of two types of order to an exchange: Market Order - this is sent to the exchange and is filled immediately by being paired with a limit order. Limit Order - this is placed on the books of the exchange at the price you specify. If other participants enter opposing market orders at this price, then their market order will be paired with your limit order. In your example, trader B wishes to close his long position. To do this he may enter a market sell order, which will immediately close his position at the lowest possible buy limit price, or he may enter a limit sell order, specifying the price at or above which he is willing to sell. In the case of the limit order, he will only sell and successfully close his position if his order becomes the lowest sell order on the book. All this may be a lot easier to understand by looking at a visual image of an order book such as the one given in the explanation that I have published here: Stop Orders for Futures Finally, not that as far as the exchange is concerned, there is no difference between an order to open and an order to close a position. They're all just 'buy' or 'sell' orders. Whether they cause you to reduce/exit a position or increase/establish a position is relative to the position you currently hold; if you're flat a buy order establishes a new position, if you're short it closes your position and leaves you flat.\",\n \"why sell? Because the stock no longer fits your strategy. Or you've lost faith in the company. In our case, it's because we're taking our principal out and buying something else. Our strategy is, basically, to sell (or offer to sell) after the we can sell and get our principal out, after taxes. That includes dividends -- we reduce the sell price a little with every dividend collected.\",\n \"\\\"Can anyone explain what each of them mean and how they're different from each other? When you \\\"\\\"buy to open\\\"\\\", you are purchasing an option and opening a new position. When you \\\"\\\"sell to open\\\"\\\", you are creating a brand new options contract and selling it. \\\"\\\"Covered\\\"\\\" means that you have assets in your account to satisfy the terms of the options contract. A \\\"\\\"covered call\\\"\\\" is a call option for which you own shares of the underlying stock that you will sell to the buyer at the option's strike price if he exercises the option. If you previously made a \\\"\\\"sell to open\\\"\\\" trade to create a new position, and you want to close the position, you can buy back the option. If you previously made a \\\"\\\"buy to open\\\"\\\" trade, you can \\\"\\\"sell to close\\\"\\\" which will sell back your option and close your position. In summary:\\\"\",\n \"Buy it at the close. That way you won't lose money (even if marked to market) on the day.\",\n \"\\\"You seem to have it right. You will be selling what's known as a covered call. When you sell the call, you enter it as \\\"\\\"sell to open\\\"\\\" and the system should see that you own the stock. You need to be approved for options trading, not all accounts are. As far as this particular trade goes - No, the stock doesn't necessarily get called away the day it's in the money, but it can be. If the stock closes just in the money around the time of expiration are you ok will selling it for the strike price? Remember, the option buyer is taking a small risk, the cost of this option, hoping the stock will go far above that price.\\\"\",\n \"In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-). In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.\",\n \"\\\"If you sell a stock you don't own, it's called a short sale. You borrowed the shares from an owner of the stock and eventually would buy to close. On most normal shares, you can hold a short position indefinitely, but there are some shares that have a combination of either a small float or too high a short position that shares to short are not available. This can create a \\\"\\\"short squeeze\\\"\\\" where shorts are burned by being forced to buy the stock back. Last - when you did this, you should have instructed the broker that you were \\\"\\\"selling to open\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"selling short.\\\"\\\" In the old days, when people held stock certificates, you were required to send the certificate in when you sold. Today, the broker should know that wasn't your intention.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Honestly, I wonder if the other answerers aren't overthinking it. Their answers are detailed and correct, but what your coach may be saying is this: When you have bought a stock, on cash or margin, and you are watching it rise you are evaluating when you sell on the price of the stock you are seeing. In reality, you should look at the bid (price buyers will give you for the stock) and ask (price sellers will charge you for the stock) prices. If the stock is going up, odds are the price of the stock is very close to the ask price because it is purchases that are driving it up, but that's not what you're going to get when you sell. You're going to get something around the bid price. If the spread between the two is large (i.e. a volatile stock) this could be many cents or more lower than the ask price. Therefore, what your coach may mean by \\\"\\\"Selling on Ask\\\"\\\" is you're using the stock price when it's equal or close to the ask price to decide when to sell, instead of letting the stock peak and drop (when its price will approach the bid price) or letting the trailing bid offers catch up to your desired sell point and selling then (i.e. letting the stock point grow PAST your sell point, dragging the bid price up with it). Just a thought, but that sounds like a term a coach would come up with to mean selling and getting less than you thought you were going to from the sale. (I know it's a necro reply, but the Interwebs are immortal and people come via Google... I did)\\\"\",\n \"The best thing to do to avoid this is not to sell as you've described. What purpose does it solve? If you're speculating, set a price at which you want to cash out and put a limit order. If you're a long term investor, then unless something fundamental has changed - why would you sell?\",\n \"If you sold bought a call option then as you stated sold it to someone else what you are doing is selling the call you bought. That leaves you with no position. This is the case if you are talking about the same strike, same expiration.\",\n \"\\\"The two dimensions are to open the trade (creating a position) and to buy or sell (becoming long or short the option). If you already own an option, you bought it to open and then you would sell it to close. If you don't own an option, you can either buy it to open, or sell it (short it) to open. If you are already short an option, you can buy it back to close. If you sell to open covered, the point is you're creating a \\\"\\\"covered call\\\"\\\" which means you own the stock, and then sell a call. Since you own the stock, the covered call has a lot of the risk of loss removed, though it also subtracts much of the reward possible from your stock.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Seems like you are concerned with something called assignment risk. It's an inherent risk of selling options: you are giving somebody the right, but not the obligation, to sell to you 100 shares of GOOGL. Option buyers pay a premium to have that right - the extrinsic value. When they exercise the option, the option immediately disappears. Together with it, all the extrinsic value disappears. So, the lower the extrinsic value, the higher the assignment risk. Usually, option contracts that are very close to expiration (let's say, around 2 to 3 weeks to expiration or less) have significantly lower extrinsic value than longer option contracts. Also, generally speaking, the deeper ITM an option contract is, the lower extrinsic value it will have. So, to reduce assignment risk, I usually close out my option positions 1-2 weeks before expiration, especially the contracts that are deep in the money. edit: to make sure this is clear, based on a comment I've just seen on your question. To \\\"\\\"close out an options position\\\"\\\", you just have to create the \\\"\\\"opposite\\\"\\\" trade. So, if you sell a Put, you close that by buying back that exact same put. Just like stock: if you buy stock, you have a position; you close that position by selling the exact same stock, in the exact same amount. That's a very common thing to do with options. A post in Tradeking's forums, very old post, but with an interesting piece of data from the OCC, states that 35% of the options expire worthless, and 48% are bought or sold before expiration to close the position - only 17% of the contracts are actually exercised! (http://community.tradeking.com/members/optionsguy/blogs/11260-what-percentage-of-options-get-exercised) A few other things to keep in mind: certain stocks have \\\"\\\"mini options contracts\\\"\\\", that would correspond to a lot of 10 shares of stock. These contracts are usually not very liquid, though, so you might not get great prices when opening/closing positions you said in a comment, \\\"\\\"I cannot use this strategy to buy stocks like GOOGL\\\"\\\"; if the reason is because 100*GOOGL is too much to fit in your buying power, that's a pretty big risk - the assignment could result in a margin call! if margin call is not really your concern, but your concern is more like the risk of holding 100 shares of GOOGL, you can help manage that by buying some lower strike Puts (that have smaller absolute delta than your Put), or selling some calls against your short put. Both strategies, while very different, will effectively reduce your delta exposure. You'd get 100 deltas from the 100 shares of GOOGL, but you'd get some negative deltas by holding the lower strike Put, or by writing the higher strike Call. So as the stock moves around, your account value would move less than the exposure equivalent to 100 shares of stock.\\\"\",\n \"Absolutely. There is no requirement that an option be in-the-money for you to close out a position. Remember that there are alwayes two sides to a trade - a buyer and a seller. When you bought your option, it's entirely possible that someone else was closing out their long position by selling it to you.\",\n \"\\\"Unless you want to own the actual shares, you should simply sell the call option.By doing so you actual collect the profits (including any remaining time-value) of your position without ever needing to own the actual shares. Please be aware that you do not need to wait until maturity of the call option to sell it. Also the longer you wait, more and more of the time value embedded in the option's price will disappear which means your \\\"\\\"profit\\\"\\\" will go down.\\\"\",\n \"You're assuming options traded on the open market. To close open positions, a seller buys them back on the open market. If there's little on offer, this will drive the price up.\",\n \"Yes, selling premium is selling an option that contains premium over it's intrinsic value. Out-of-the-money options contain no intrinsic value, at the money and near the money options contain premium over the intrinsic value. The deeper in-the-money go, the less premium there is.\",\n \"\\\"With stocks, you can buy or sell. If you sell first, that's called 'shorting.' As in \\\"\\\"I think linkedin is too high, I'm going to short it.\\\"\\\" With options, the terminology is different, the normal process is to buy to open/sell to close, but if you were shorting the option itself, you would first sell to open, i.e you are selling a position to start it, effectively selling it short. Eventually, you may close it out, by buying to close. Options trading is not for the amateur. If you plan to trade, study first and be very cautious.\\\"\",\n \"What is essential is that company you are selling is transparent enough. Because it will provide additional liquidity to market. When I decide to sell, I drop all volume once at a time. Liquidation price will be somewhat worse then usual. But being out of position will save you nerves for future thinking where to step in again. Cold head is best you can afford in such scenario. In very large crashes, there could be large liquidity holes. But if you are on upper side of sigmoid, you will be profiting from selling before that holes appear. Problem is, nobody could predict if market is on upper-fall, mid-fall or down-fall at any time.\",\n \"You said the decision will be made by EOD. If you've made the decision prior to the market close, I'd execute on the closing price. If you are trading stocks with any decent volume, I'd not worry about the liquidity. If your strategy's profits are so small that your gains are significantly impacted by say, the bid/ask spread (a penny or less for liquid stocks) I'd rethink the approach. You'll find the difference between the market open and prior night close is far greater than the normal bid/ask.\",\n \"Rich's answer captures the basic essence of short selling with example. I'd like to add these additional points: You typically need a specially-privileged brokerage account to perform short selling. If you didn't request short selling when you opened your account, odds are good you don't have it, and that's good because it's not something most people should ever consider doing. Short selling is an advanced trading strategy. Be sure you truly grok selling short before doing it. Consider that when buying stock (a.k.a. going long or taking a long position, in contrast to short) then your potential loss as a buyer is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero) and your potential gain unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're lucky!) Whereas, with short selling, it's reversed: Your loss can be unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're unlucky!) and your potential gain is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero.) The proceeds you receive from a short sale – and then some – need to stay in your account to offset the short position. Brokers require this. Typically, margin equivalent to 150% the market value of the shares sold short must be maintained in the account while the short position is open. The owner of the borrowed shares is still expecting his dividends, if any. You are responsible for covering the cost of those dividends out of your own pocket. To close or cover your short position, you initiate a buy to cover. This is simply a buy order with the intention that it will close out your matching short position. You may be forced to cover your short position before you want to and when it is to your disadvantage! Even if you have sufficient margin available to cover your short, there are cases when lenders need their shares back. If too many short sellers are forced to close out positions at the same time, they push up demand for the stock, increasing price and deepening their losses. When this happens, it's called a short squeeze. In the eyes of the public who mostly go long buying stock, short sellers are often reviled. However, some people and many short sellers believe they are providing balance to the market and preventing it sometimes from getting ahead of itself. [Disambiguation: A short sale in the stock market is not related to the real estate concept of a short sale, which is when a property owner sells his property for less than he owes the bank.] Additional references:\",\n \"\\\"Yes, selling premium is just selling options. It's usually used to talk about out-of-the-money options without coverage from underlying securities which you expect to expire worthless. More \\\"\\\"sophisticated\\\"\\\" ways to sell premium would include selling options strangles or straddles which allow you to sell more premium if you have more specific beliefs about the price action.\\\"\",\n \"The person may just want to get out of that position in order to buy a different stock, he or she feels may go up faster. There is really a lot of reasons.\",\n \"Yes, if there is liquidity you can sell your option to someone else as a profit. This is what the majority of option trading volume is used for: speculative trading with leverage.\",\n \"Yes there will be enough liquidity to sell your position barring some sort of Flash Crash anomaly. Volume generally rises on the day of expiration to increase this liquidity. Don't forget that there are many investment strategies--buying to cover a short position is closing out a trade similar to your case.\",\n \"If you get selected for exercise, your broker will liquidate the whole position for you most likely Talk to your broker.\",\n \"It's not quite identical, due to fees, stock rights, and reporting & tax obligations. But the primary difference is that a person could have voting rights in a company while maintaining zero economic exposure to the company, sometimes known as empty voting. As an abstract matter, it's identical in that you reduce your financial exposure whether you sell your stock or short it. So the essence of your question is fundamentally true. But the details make it different. Of course there are fee differences in how your broker will handle it, and also margin requirements for shorting. Somebody playing games with overlapping features of ownership, sales, and purchases, may have tax and reporting obligations for straddles, wash sales, and related issues. A straight sale is generally less complicated for tax reporting purposes, and a loss is more likely to be respected than someone playing games with sales and purchases. But the empty voting issue is an important difference. You could buy stock with rights such as voting, engage in other behavior such as forwards, shorts, or options to negate your economic exposure to the stock, while maintaining the right to vote. Of course in some cases this may have to be disclosed or may be covered by contract, and most people engaging in stock trades are unlikely to have meaningful voting power in a public company. But the principle is still there. As explained in the article by Henry Hu and Bernie Black: Hedge funds have been especially creative in decoupling voting rights from economic ownership. Sometimes they hold more votes than economic ownership - a pattern we call empty voting. In an extreme situation, a vote holder can have a negative economic interest and, thus, an incentive to vote in ways that reduce the company's share price. Sometimes investors hold more economic ownership than votes, though often with morphable voting rights - the de facto ability to acquire the votes if needed. We call this situation hidden (morphable) ownership because the economic ownership and (de facto) voting ownership are often not disclosed.\",\n \"\\\"Simplest way to answer this is that on margin, one is using borrowed assets and thus there are strings that come with doing that. Thus, if the amount of equity left gets too low, the broker has a legal obligation to close the position which can be selling purchased shares or buying back borrowed shares depending on if this is a long or short position respectively. Investopedia has an example that they walk through as the call is where you are asked to either put in more money to the account or the position may be closed because the broker wants their money back. What is Maintenance Margin? A maintenance margin is the required amount of securities an investor must hold in his account if he either purchases shares on margin, or if he sells shares short. If an investor's margin balance falls below the set maintenance margin, the investor would then need to contribute additional funds to the account or liquidate stocks in the account to bring the account back to the initial margin requirement. This request is known as a margin call. As discussed previously, the Federal Reserve Board sets the initial margin requirement (currently at 50%). The Federal Reserve Board also sets the maintenance margin. The maintenance margin, the amount of equity an investor needs to hold in his account if he buys stock on margin or sells shares short, is 25%. Keep in mind, however, that this 25% level is the minimum level set, brokerage firms can increase, but not decrease this level as they desire. Example: Determining when a margin call would occur. Assume that an investor had purchased 500 shares of Newco's stock. The shares were trading at $50 when the transaction was executed. The initial margin requirement on the account was 70% and the maintenance margin is 30%. Assume no transaction costs. Determine the price at which the investor will receive a margin call. Answer: Calculate the price as follows: $50 (1- 0.70) = $21.43 1 - 0.30 A margin call would be received when the price of Newco's stock fell below $21.43 per share. At that time, the investor would either need to deposit additional funds or liquidate shares to satisfy the initial margin requirement. Most people don't want \\\"\\\"Margin Calls\\\"\\\" but stocks may move in unexpected ways and this is where there are mechanisms to limit losses, especially for the brokerage firm that wants to make as much money as possible. Cancel what trade? No, the broker will close the position if the requirement isn't kept. Basically think of this as a way for the broker to get their money back if necessary while following federal rules. This would be selling in a long position or buying in a short sale situation. The Margin Investor walks through an example where an e-mail would be sent and if the requirement isn't met then the position gets exited as per the law.\\\"\",\n \"You put in a market order when you want to sell to whomever raises their hand first. It results in the fastest possible liquidation of your stock. It's appropriate when you need to sell now, regardless of price. An example of when to use it: It's 3:55 PM, the market's going to close in 5 minutes and you need to sell some stocks to make some kind of urgent payment elsewhere. If instead you have a limit order in place, you might not reach the limit price before the market closes, and you'll still own the stock, which might not be what you want.\",\n \"The market maker will always take it off your hands. Just enter a market sell order. It will cost you a commission to pull the loss into this year. But that's it.\",\n \"You should know when to sell your shares before you buy them. This is most easily done by placing a stop loss conditional order at the same time you place your buy order. There are many ways to determine at what level to place your stop losses at. The easiest is to place a trailing stop loss at a percentage below the highest close price, so as the price reaches new highs the trailing stop will rise. If looking for short to medium term gains you might place your trailing stop at 10% below the highest close, whilst if you were looking for more longer term gains you should probably place a 20% trailing stop. Another way to place your stops for short to medium term gains is to keep moving your trailing stop up to just below the last trough in an existing uptrend.\",\n \"\\\"In my view, it's better to sell when there's a reason to sell, rather than to cap your gains at 8%. I'm assuming you have no such criteria on the other side - i.e. hold your losses down to 8%. That's because what matters is how much you make overall in your portfolio, not how much you make per trade. Example: if you own three stocks, equal amounts - and two go up 20% but one falls 20%. If you sell your gains at 8%, and hold the loser, you have net LOST money. So when do you actually sell? You might say a \\\"\\\"fall of 10%\\\"\\\" from the last high is good enough to sell. This is called a \\\"\\\"trailing\\\"\\\" stop, which means if a stock goes from 100 to 120, I'll still hold and sell if it retraces to 108. Needless to say if it had gone from 100 to 90, I would still be out. The idea is to ride the trend for as long as you can, because trends are strong. And keep your trailing stops wide enough for it to absorb natural jiggles, because you may get stopped out of a stock that falls 4% but eventually goes up 200%. Or sell under other conditions: if the earnings show a distinct drop, or the sector falls out of favor. Whenever you decide to sell, also consider what it would take for you to buy the stock back - increased earnings, strong prices, a product release, whatever. Because getting out might seem like a good thing, but it's just as important to not think of it as saying a stock is crappy - it might just be that you had enough of one ride. That doesn't mean you can't come back for another one.\\\"\",\n \"When you set up a short sale for equities you are borrowing stock from someone else; typically another client at the broker. The broker usually buries an agreement to let your shares be borrowed for short sales in your account details. So if Client A wants to short a stock, he borrows stock from Client B to do the short sale (it's usually not this direct as they can borrow from many clients). If Client B then wants to sell his shares; if the broker can't shift around assets to find another client's shares to let Client A borrow; then he has to close the short position out because he doesn't have the shares in the brokerage to let Client A borrow to short anymore.\",\n \"try to sell if today's google stock goes above 669$ This is Relative/Pegged-to-Primary Order with a Limit Price of $669 and an offset from National Best Offer of $0.00, but it is no different than an Market Order if the market price is $669 to begin with. do not sell if the stock keeps climbing beyond 669 unless there is a down tick of 20cents is seen This is a Trailing Stop Order with a Trailing Amount of $0.20. It sells if the market price dropped $0.20 from the peak. The two orders are contradictory. From your comments, I think the following is what you want: Submit Trailing Stop Order when market price is above $669. Cancel Trailing Stop Order before the end of the day and Submit Relative/Pegged-to-Primary Order to Sell.\",\n \"Your math shows that you bought an 'at the money' option for .35 and when the stock is $1 above the strike, your $35 (options trade as a contract for 100 shares) is now worth $100. You knew this, just spelling it out for future readers. 1 - Yes 2 - An execute/sell may not be nesesary, the ooption will have time value right until expiration, and most ofter the bid/ask will favor selling the option. You should ask the broker what the margin requirement is for an execute/sell. Keep in mind this usually cannot be done on line, if I recall, when I wanted to execute, it was a (n expensive) manual order. 3 - I think I answered in (2), but in general they are not identical, the bid/ask on options can get crazy. Just look at some thinly traded strikes and you'll see what I mean.\",\n \"\\\"The question is, how do I exit? I can't really sell the puts because there isn't enough open interest in them now that they are so far out of the money. I have about $150K of funds outside of this position that I could use, but I'm confused by the rules of exercising a put. Do I have to start shorting the stock? You certainly don't want to give your broker any instructions to short the stock! Shorting the stock at this point would actually be increasing your bet that the stock is going to go down more. Worse, a short position in the stock also puts you in a situation of unlimited risk on the stock's upside – a risk you avoided in the first place by using puts. The puts limited your potential loss to only your cost for the options. There is a scenario where a short position could come into play indirectly, if you aren't careful. If your broker were to permit you to exercise your puts without you having first bought enough underlying shares, then yes, you would end up with a short position in the stock. I say \\\"\\\"permit you\\\"\\\" because most brokers don't allow clients to take on short positions unless they've applied and been approved for short positions in their account. In any case, since you are interested in closing out your position and taking your profit, exercising only and thus ending up with a resulting open short position in the underlying is not the right approach. It's not really a correct intermediate step, either. Rather, you have two typical ways out: Sell the puts. @quantycuenta has pointed out in his answer that you should be able to sell for no less than the intrinsic value, although you may be leaving a small amount of time value on the table if you aren't careful. My suggestion is to consider using limit orders and test various prices approaching the intrinsic value of the put. Don't use market orders where you'll take any price offered, or you might be sorry. If you have multiple put contracts, you don't need to sell them all at once. With the kind of profit you're talking about, don't sweat paying a few extra transactions worth of commission. Exercise the puts. Remember that at the other end of your long put position is one (or more) trader who wrote (created) the put contract in the first place. This trader is obligated to buy your stock from you at the contract price should you choose to exercise your option. But, in order for you to fulfill your end of the contract when you choose to exercise, you're obligated to deliver the underlying shares in exchange for receiving the option strike price. So, you would first need to buy underlying shares sufficient to exercise at least one of the contracts. Again, you don't need to do this all at once. @PeterGum's answer has described an approach. (Note that you'll lose any remaining time value in the option if you choose to exercise.) Finally, I'll suggest that you ought to discuss the timing and apportioning of closing out your position with a qualified tax professional. There are tax implications and, being near the end of the year, there may be an opportunity* to shift some/all of the income into the following tax year to minimize and defer tax due. * Be careful if your options are near expiry! Options typically expire on the 3rd Friday of the month.\\\"\",\n \"Note that the rules around wash sales vary depending on where you live. For the U.S., the wash sale rules say that you cannot buy a substantially identical stock or security within 30 days (before or after) your sale. So, you could sell your stock today to lock in the capital losses. However, you would then have to wait at least 30 days before purchasing it back. If you bought it back within 30 days, you would disqualify the capital loss event. The risk, of course, is that the stock's price goes up substantially while you are waiting for the wash sale period. It's up to you to determine if the risk outweighs the benefit of locking in your capital losses. Note that this applies regardless of whether you sell SOME or ALL of the stock. Or indeed, if we are talking about securities other than stocks.\",\n \"Don't sell. Ever. Well almost. A number of studies have shown that buying equal amounts of shares randomly will beat the market long term, and certainly won't do badly. Starting from this premise then perhaps you can add a tiny bit extra with your skill... maybe, but who knows, you might suck. Point is when buying you have the wind behind you - a monkey would make money. Selling is a different matter. You have the cost of trading out and back in to something else, only to have changed from one monkey portfolio to the other. If you have skill that covers this cost then yes you should do this - but how confident are you? A few studies have been done on anonymised retail broker accounts and they show the same story. Retail investors on average lose money on their switches. Even if you believe you have a real edge on the market, you're strategy still should not just say sell when it drops out of your criteria. Your criteria are positive indicators. Lack of positive is not a negative indicator. Sell when you would happily go short the stock. That is you are really confident it is going down. Otherwise leave it.\",\n \"\\\"This is actually a very complicated question. The key reading in this area is a seminal paper by Almgren & Chriss, \\\"\\\"Optimal Execution of Portfolio Transactions\\\"\\\" (2000). They show that there's a tradeoff between liquidating your portfolio faster and knowing the value with more certainty, versus liquidating more slowly (and likely for a higher price) but with less certainty. So for example, if you sold your entire position right now, you would know almost certainly how much you would get for the position. Or, you could sell off your position more slowly, and likely get more money, but you would have less certainty about how much you would get. The paper is available online at http://www.courant.nyu.edu/~almgren/papers/optliq.pdf\\\"\",\n \"In the US you specify explicitly what stocks you're selling. Brokers now are required to keep track of cost basis and report it to the IRS on the 1099-B, so you have to tell the broker which position it is that you're closing. Usually, the default is FIFO (i.e.: when you sell, you're assumed to be closing the oldest position), but you can change it if you want. In the US you cannot average costs basis of stocks (you can for mutual funds), so you either do FIFO, LIFO (last position closed first), or specify the specific positions when you submit the sale order.\",\n \"If the position starts losing money as soon as it is put on, then I would close it out ,taking a small loss. However, if it starts making money,as in the stock inches higher, then you can use part of the premium collected to buy an out of money put, thereby limiting your downside. It is called a collar.\",\n \"Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.\",\n \"\\\"The settlement date for any trade is the date on which the seller gets the buyer's money and the buyer gets the seller's product. In US equities markets the settlement date is (almost universally) three trading days after the trade date. This settlement period gives the exchanges, the clearing houses, and the brokers time to figure out how many shares and how many dollars need to actually be moved around in order to give everyone what they're owed (and then to actually do all that moving around). So, \\\"\\\"settling\\\"\\\" a short trade is the same thing as settling any other trade. It has nothing to do with \\\"\\\"closing\\\"\\\" (or covering) the seller's short position. Q: Is this referring to when a short is initiated, or closed? A: Initiated. If you initiate a short position by selling borrowed shares on day 1, then settlement occurs on day 4. (Regardless of whether your short position is still open or has been closed.) Q: All open shorts which are still open by the settlement date have to be reported by the due date. A: Not exactly. The requirement is that all short positions evaluated based on their settlement dates (rather than their trade dates) still open on the deadline have to be reported by the due date. You sell short 100 AAPL on day 1. You then cover that short by buying 100 AAPL on day 2. As far as the clearing houses and brokers are concerned, however, you don't even get into the short position until your sell settles at the end of day 4, and you finally get out of your short position (in their eyes) when your buy settles at the end of day 5. So imagine the following scenarios: The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 2. Since your (FINRA member) broker has been told to report based on settlement date, it would report no open position for you in AAPL even though you executed a trade to sell on day 1. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 3. Your sell still has not settled, so there's still no open position to report for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 4. Your sell has settled but your buy has not, so the broker reports a 100 share open short position for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 5. Your sell and buy have both settled, so the broker once again has no open position to report for you. So, the point is that when dealing with settlement dates you just pretend the world is 3 days behind where it actually is.\\\"\",\n \"Yes you can, provided if buyers are available. Normally high liquidty stocks can be sold at market prices a little higher or lower.\",\n \"\\\"When the strike price ($25 in this case) is in-the-money, even by $0.01, your shares will be sold the day after expiration if you take no action. If you want to let your shares go,. allow assignment rather than close the short position and sell the long position...it will be cheaper that way. If you want to keep your shares you must buy back the option prior to 4Pm EST on expiration Friday. First ask yourself why you want to keep the shares. Is it to write another option? Is it to hold for a longer term strategy? Assuming this is a covered call writing account, you should consider \\\"\\\"rolling\\\"\\\" the option. This involves buying back the near-term option and selling the later date option of a similar or higher strike. Make sure to check to see if there is an upcoming earnings report in the latter month because you may want to avoid writing a call in that situation. I never write a call when there's an upcoming ER prior to expiration. Good luck. Alan\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You have to calculate the total value of all shares and then ask yourself \\\"\\\"Would I invest that amount of money in this stock?\\\"\\\" If the answer is yes, then only sell what you need to sell. Take the $3k loss against your income, if you have no other gains. If you would not invest that amount of cash in that stock, then sell it all right now and carry forward the excess loss every year. Note at any point you have capital gains you can offset all of them with your loss carryover (not just $3k).\\\"\",\n \"Your broker should be able to answer this. Many brokers will buy it from you for the cost of a commission, if there's no legit buyer.\",\n \"When you sell a stock that you own, you realize gains, or losses. Short-term gains, realized within a year of buying and selling an asset, are taxed at your maximum (or marginal) tax rate. Long term-gains, realized after a year, are taxed at a lower, preferential rate. The first thing to consider is losses. Losses can be cancelled against gains, reducing your tax liability. Losses can also be carried over to the next tax year and be redeemed against those gains. When you own a bunch of the same type of stock, bought at different times and prices, you can choose which shares to sell. This allows you to decide whether you realize short- or long-term gains (or losses). This is known as lot matching (or order matching). You want to sell the shares that lost value before selling the ones that gained value. Booking losses reduces your taxes; booking gains increases them. If faced with a choice between booking short term and long term losses, I'd go with the former. Since net short-term gains are taxed at a higher rate, I'd want to minimize the short-term tax liability before moving on to long-term tax liability. If my remaining shares had gains, I'd sell the ones purchased earliest since long-term gains are taxed at a lower rate, and delaying the booking of gains converts short-term gains into long-term ones. If there's a formula for this, I'd say it's (profit - loss) x (tax bracket) = tax paid\",\n \"You have no guarantees. The stock may last have traded at $100 (so, the market price is $100), but is currently in free-fall and nobody else will be willing to buy it for any more than $80. Or heck, maybe nobody will be willing to buy it at all, at any price. Or maybe trading on this stock will be halted. Remember, the market price is just what the stock last traded at. If you put in a 'market order', you are ordering your broker to sell at the best available current price. Assuming someone's willing to buy your stock, that means you'll sell it. But if it last traded at $100, this doesn't guarantee you'll sell at anything close to that.\",\n \"\\\"Most of the time* you're selling to other investors, not back to the company. The stock market is a collection of bid (buy offers) and asks (sell offers). When you sell your stock as a retail investor at the \\\"\\\"market\\\"\\\" price you're essentially just meeting whatever standing bid offers are on the market. For very liquid stocks (e.g. Apple), you can pretty much always get the displayed price because so many stocks are being traded. However during periods of very high volatility or for low-volume stocks, the quoted price may not be indicative of what you actually pay. As an example, let's say you have 5 stocks you're trying to sell and the bid-side order book is 2 stocks for $105, 2 for $100, and 5 for $95. In this scenario the quoted price will be $105 (the best bid price), but if you accept market price you'll settle 2 for 105, 2 for 100, and 1 for 95. After your sell order goes through, the new quoted price will be $95. For high volume stocks, there will usually be so many orders near the midpoint price ($105, in this case) that you won't see any price slippage for small orders. You can also post limit orders, which are essentially open orders waiting to be filled like in the above example. They ensure you get the price you want, but you have no way to guarantee they'll be filled or not. Edit: as a cool example, check out the bitcoin GDAX on coinbase for a live example of what the order book looks like for stocks. You'll see that the price of bitcoin will drift towards whichever direction has the less dense order book (e.g. price drifts upwards when there are far more bids than asks.)\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I'm not sure what you expect in terms of answers, but it depends on personal factors. It pretty well has to depend on personal factors, since otherwise everyone would want to do the same thing (either everyone thinks the current price is one to sell at, or everyone thinks it's one to buy at), and there would be no trades. You wouldn't be able to do what you want, except on the liquidity provided by market makers. Once that's hit, the price is shifting quickly, so your calculation will change quickly too. Purely in terms of maximising expected value taking into account the time value of money, it's all about the same. The market \\\"\\\"should\\\"\\\" already know everything you know, which means that one time to sell is as good as any other. The current price is generally below the expected acquisition price because there's a chance the deal will fall through and the stock price will plummet. That's not to say there aren't clever \\\"\\\"sure-fire\\\"\\\" trading strategies around acquisitions, but they're certain to be based on more than just timing when to sell an existing holding of stock. If you have information that the market doesn't (and assuming it is legal to do so) then you trade based on that information. If you know something the market doesn't that's going to be good for price, hold. If you know something that will reduce the price, sell now. And \\\"\\\"know\\\"\\\" can be used in a loose sense, if you have a strong opinion against the market then you might like to invest based on that. Nothing beats being paid for being right. Finally, bear in mind that expected return is not the same as utility. You have your own investment goals and your own view of risk. If you're more risk-averse than the market then you might prefer to sell now rather than wait for the acquisition. If you're more risk-prone than the market then you might prefer a 90% chance of $1 to 90c. That's fine, hold the stock. The extreme case of this is that you might have a fixed sum at which you will definitely sell up, put everything into the most secure investments you can find, and retire to the Caribbean. If that's the case then you become totally risk-averse the instant your holding crosses that line. Sell and order cocktails.\\\"\",\n \"ML is a brokerage firm. Tell them to sell. If you can't or don't know how to do it on-line - call them and do it over the phone. Your citizenship might come in effect when tax are withheld, you need to fill form W8-BEN if you haven't done so yet. If US taxes are withheld, you can file 1040NR to request refund, or get it credited against your local tax liabilities.\",\n \"Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.\",\n \"Opened Long - is when you open a long position. Long means that you buy to open the position, so you are trying to profit as the price rises. So if you were closing a long position you would sell it. Closed Short - is when you close out a short position. Short means that you sell to open and buy back to close. With a short position you are trying to profit as the price falls. Scaled Out - means you get out of a position in increments as the price climbs (for long positions). Scaled In - means you set a target price and then invest in increments as the stock falls below that price (for long positions).\",\n \"I do this often with shares that I own - mostly as a learning/experience-building exercise, since I don't own enough individual stocks to make me rich (and don't risk enough to make me broke). Suppose I own 1,000 shares of X. I don't expect my shares to go down, but I want to be compensated in case they do go down. Sure, I could put in a stop-loss order, but another option is to sell a call above where the stock is now (out-of-the-money). So I get the premium regardless of what happens. From there three things can happen: So a covered call essentially lets you give up some upside for some compensation against downward moves. Mathematically it's roughly equivalent to selling a put option - you make a little money (from the premium) if the stock goes up but can lose a lot if the stock plummets. So you would sell call options if:\",\n \"\\\"This is called a Contingent Order and is set up so if one order is filled (in this case) the other order is cancelled. It's a common desire that one would wish to have a stop-loss in place but also a targeted sell price for their in-the-money sell point. Your broker will tell you all you need to know about how to enter this, if you explain you'd like to place a contingent order. (As Victor noted below, your specific order would be a \\\"\\\"One Cancels Other\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"OCO\\\"\\\") Great first question, welcome to Money,SE.\\\"\",\n \"Selling options is a great idea, but tweak it a bit and sell credit spreads on both sides of the market, i.e. sell OTM bear call spreads and OTM bull put spreads. This is also known as an iron condor, and limits risk, and allows for much more flexibility.\",\n \"You could always maintain a limit order to sell at a price you're comfortable with.\",\n \"\\\"Obviously a stock that's hit a high is profit waiting to be taken, be safe, take the money, Sell Sell Sell!! Ah.. but wait, they say \\\"\\\"run your winners, cut your losers\\\"\\\", so here this stock is a winner... keep on to it, Hold Hold Hold!!!!! Of course, if you're holding, then you think it's going to return even higher.... Buy Buy Buy!!!! So, hope that's clears things up for you - Sell, Hold, or maybe Buy :-) A more serious answer is not ever to worry about past performance, if its gone past a reasonable valuation then consider selling, but never care about selling out just because its reached some arbitrary share price. If you are worried about losses, you might like to set a trailing stop and sell if it drops, but if you're a LTBH type person, just keep it until you feel it is overvalued compared to its fundamentals.\\\"\",\n \"The price doesn't have to drop 5% in one go to activate your order. The trailing aspect simply means your sell trigger price will increase if the current value increases (it will never decrease).\",\n \"None of your options or strategies are ideal. Have you considered looking at the stock chart and making a decision? Is the price currently up-trending, or is it down-trending, or is it going sideways? As Knuckle Dragger mentions, you could just set a limit price order and if it does not hit by Friday you can just sell at whatever price on Friday. However, this could be very damaging if the price is currently down-trending. It may fall considerably by Friday. I think a better strategy would be to place a trailing stop loss order, say 5% from the current price. If the stock starts heading south you will be stopped out approximately 5% below the current price. However, if the price goes up, your trailing stop order will move up as well, always trailing 5% below the highest price reached. If the trailing stop has not been hit by Friday afternoon, you can sell at the current price. This way you will be protected on the downside (only approx. 5% below current price) and can potentially benefit from any short term upside.\",\n \"\\\"There are two ways you can \\\"\\\"cash in.\\\"\\\" 1) Buy enough additional shares to bring your share total to 100, then exercise the put. 2) Sell the put in the open market for a profit.\\\"\",\n \"Yes, theoretically you can flip the shares you agreed to buy and make a profit, but you're banking on the market behaving in some very precise and potentially unlikely ways. In practice it's very tricky for you to successfully navigate paying arbitrarily more for a stock than it's currently listed for, and selling it back again for enough to cover the difference. Yes, the price could drop to $28, but it could just as easily drop to $27.73 (or further) and now you're hurting, before even taking into account the potentially hefty commissions involved. Another way to think about it is to recognize that an option transaction is a bet; the buyer is betting a small amount of money that a stock will move in the direction they expect, the seller is betting a large amount of money that the same stock will not. One of you has to lose. And unless you've some reason to be solidly confident in your predictive powers the loser, long term, is quite likely to be you. Now that said, it is possible (particularly when selling puts) to create win-win scenarios for yourself, where you're betting one direction, but you'd be perfectly happy with the alternative(s). Here's an example. Suppose, unrelated to the option chain, you've come to the conclusion that you'd be happy paying $28 for BBY. It's currently (June 2011) at ~$31, so you can't buy it on the open market for a price you'd be happy with. But you could sell a $28 put, promising to buy it at that price should someone want to sell it (presumably, because the price is now below $28). Either the put expires worthless and you pocket a few bucks and you're basically no worse off because the stock is still overpriced by your estimates, or the option is executed, and you receive 100 shares of BBY at a price you previously decided you were willing to pay. Even if the list price is now lower, long term you expect the stock to be worth more than $28. Conceptually, this makes selling a put very similar to being paid to place a limit order to buy the stock itself. Of course, you could be wrong in your estimate (too low, and you now have a position that might not become profitable; too high, and you never get in and instead just watch the stock gain in value), but that is not unique to options - if you're bad at estimating value (which is not to be confused with predicting price movement) you're doomed just about whatever you do.\",\n \"The 'normal' series of events when trading a stock is to buy it, time passes, then you sell it. If you believe the stock will drop in price, you can reverse the order, selling shares, waiting for the price drop, then buying them back. During that time you own say, -100 shares, and are 'short' those shares.\",\n \"\\\"You should distinguish between the price and the value of a company: \\\"\\\"Price is what you pay, value is what you get\\\"\\\". Price is the share price you pay for one share of the company. Value is what a company is worth (based on fundamental analysis, one of the principles of value investing). I would recommend selling the stock only if the company's value has deteriorated due to fundamental changes (e.g. better products from competitors, declining market) and its value is lower than the current share price.\\\"\",\n \"When you are a certain age you will be able to tap into your retirement accounts, or start receiving pension and social security funds. In addition you may be faced with required minimum distributions from these accounts. But even before you get to those points you will generally shift the focus of new funds into the retirement account to be more conservative. Depending on the balances in the various accounts and the size of the pension and social security accounts you may even move invested funds from aggressive to conservative investments. The proper proportion of the many different types of investments and revenue streams is open to much debate. During retirement you will be pulling money out of retirement accounts either to support your standard of living or to meet the required minimum distributions. What to sell will be based on either the tax implications or the required distributions that will still maintain the asset allocation you desire. If your distributions are driven by the law you will be selling enough to meet a specific required $ figure. You will either spend that money or move it into a low interest savings account or a non-retirement investment account. If trying to meet your standard of living expectations you will be selling funds that allow you to keep your desired asset allocation but still have enough to live on. Again you will be trying to meet a specific $ figure. Of course you may decide at anytime in retirement to rebalance based on changes to your lifestyle, family obligations, or winning the lottery.\",\n \"Depending on the day and even time, you'd get your $2 profit less the $5 commission. Jack's warning is correct, but more so for thinly traded options, either due to the options having little open interest or the stock not quite so popular. In your case you have a just-in-the-money strike for a highly traded stock near expiration. That makes for about the best liquidity one can ask for. One warning is in order - Sometime friday afternoon, there will be a negative time premium. i.e. the bid might seem lower than in the money value. At exactly $110, why would I buy the option? Only if I can buy it, exercise, and sell the stock, all for a profit, even if just pennies.\",\n \"My broker offers a service to transfer the shares where you only pay commission once. Therefore say if standard commission is £10, then you don't end up paying £20 (10 for selling + 10 for buy back). You'll have to be okay with the spread though. Hope this helps.\",\n \"\\\"There are a few things you are missing here. These appear to be penny stocks or subpenny stocks. Buying these are easy.... selling is a total different ball game. Buying commissions are low and selling commissions are outrageous. Another thing you are missing in this order is... some trading platform may assume the \\\"\\\"AON\\\"\\\" sale. That is All Or None. There was an offer of 10k shares @ .63. The buyer only wanted 10k what was the broker to do with the other 20k? Did you inform the broker that partial sales where acceptable? You may want to contact your broker and explain this to them. The ALL OR NONE order has made plenty of investor a little unhappy, which seems to be your new learning experience for the day. Sorry, school of hard knocks is not always fun.\\\"\",\n \"Simply if your stock is still rising in price keep it. If it is falling in price sell it and pay off your mortgage. To know when to do this is very easy. If it is currently rising you can put a trailing stop loss on it and sell it when it drops and hits your stop loss. A second easy method is to draw an uptrend line under the increasing price and then sell when the price drops down below the uptrend line, as per the chart below. This will enable you to capture the bulk of the price movement upward and sell before the price drops too far down. You can then use the profits (after tax) to pay down your mortgage. Of course if the price is currently in a downtrend sell it ASAP.\",\n \"\\\"And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position. When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here. In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them. If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from. Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest). Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy. Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800. In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question). It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement. Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money. If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a \\\"\\\"margin call\\\"\\\" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses. And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin). When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go. There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position. You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Selling short is simply by definition the selling, then later re-buying of stock you don't initially own. Say you tally your entire portfolio balance: the quantity of each stock you own, and your cash assets. Let's call this your \\\"\\\"initial position\\\"\\\". We define \\\"\\\"profit\\\"\\\" as any increase in assets, relative to this initial position. If you know a particular stock will go down, you can realize a profit by selling some of that stock, waiting for the price to go down, then buying it back. In the end you will have returned to your initial position, except you will have more cash. If you sell 10 shares of a stock valued at £1.50, then buy them back at £1.00, you will make a £5.00 profit while having otherwise returned to your previous position. If you do the same, but you initially owned 1000 shares, sold just 10 of those, then bought 10 back, that's still a profit of £5.00. Selling short is doing the same thing, but with an initial and ending balance of 0 shares. If you initially own 0 shares, sell 10, then buy 10 back, you return to your initial position (0 shares) plus a profit of £5.00. (And in practice you must also pay a borrowing fee to do this.) The advantage of selling short is it can be done with any stock, not just those currently owned.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The current price is $8.05. If you want the right to sell it to someone (put it to the buyer) for $10, you have to pay $2. Since you're looking at an expiration that's so close, the \\\"\\\"in the money\\\"\\\" value is nearly the same as what it trades for. The JAN 2013 sells for nearly $3.\\\"\",\n \"I believe this depends on the broker's policies. For example, here is Vanguard's policy (from https://personal.vanguard.com/us/whatweoffer/stocksbondscds/brokeragedividendprogram): Does selling shares affect a distribution? If you sell the entire position two days or more before the dividend-payable date, your distribution will be paid in cash. If, however, you sell an entire position within the two day time frame of the security's payable date, the dividend will be reinvested, resulting in additional shares. Selling these subsequent shares will require another sell order, which will incur additional commission charges. Dividends which would have been reinvested into less than one whole share will be automatically liquidated into cash. If you want to guarantee you receive no fractional shares, I'd call your broker and ask whether selling stock ABC on a particular date will result in the dividend being paid in shares.\",\n \"For exchange contracts, yes. A trader can close a position by taking an offsetting position. CME's introduction to Futures explains it quite well (on page 22). Exiting the Market Jack entered the market on the buy side, speculating that the S&P 500 futures price would move higher. He has three choices for exiting the market:\",\n \"I sold it at 609.25 and buy again at 608.75 in the same day If you Sold and bought the same day, it would be considered as intra-day trade. Profit will be due and would be taxed at normal tax brackets. Edits Best Consult a CA. This is covered under Indian Accounting Standard AG51 The following examples illustrate the application of the derecognition principles of this Standard. (e) Wash sale transaction. The repurchase of a financial asset shortly after it has been sold is sometimes referred to as a wash sale. Such a repurchase does not preclude derecognition provided that the original transaction met the derecognition requirements. However, if an agreement to sell a financial asset is entered into concurrently with an agreement to repurchase the same asset at a fixed price or the sale price plus a lender's return, then the asset is not derecognised. This is more relevant now for shares/stocks as Long Term Capital Gains are tax free, Long Term Capital Loss cannot be adjusted against anything. Short Term Gains are taxed differentially. Hence the transaction can be interpreted as tax evasion, professional advise is recommended. A simple way to avoid this situation; sell on a given day and buy it next or few days later.\",\n \"\\\"In general there are two types of futures contract, a put and call. Both contract types have both common sides of a transaction, a buyer and a seller. You can sell a put contract, or sell a call contract also; you're just taking the other side of the agreement. If you're selling it would commonly be called a \\\"\\\"sell to open\\\"\\\" meaning you're opening your position by selling a contract which is different from simply selling an option that you currently own to close your position. A put contract gives the buyer the right to sell shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to put the shares on someone else. A call contract gives the buyer the right to buy shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to call on someone for shares. \\\"\\\"American\\\"\\\" options contracts allow the buyer can exercise their rights under the contract on or before the expiration date; while \\\"\\\"European\\\"\\\" type contracts can only be exercised on the expiration date. To address your example. Typically for stock an option contract involves 100 shares of a stock. The value of these contracts fluctuates the same way other assets do. Typically retail investors don't actually exercise their contracts, they just close a profitable position before the exercise deadline, and let unprofitable positions expire worthless. If you were to buy a single call contract with an exercise price of $100 with a maturity date of August 1 for $1 per share, the contract will have cost you $100. Let's say on August 1 the underlying shares are now available for $110 per share. You have two options: Option 1: On August 1, you can exercise your contract to buy 100 shares for $100 per share. You would exercise for $10,000 ($100 times 100 shares), then sell the shares for $10 profit per share; less the cost of the contract and transaction costs. Option 2: Your contract is now worth something closer to $10 per share, up from $1 per share when you bought it. You can just sell your contract without ever exercising it to someone with an account large enough to exercise and/or an actual desire to receive the asset or commodity.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"This answer relies on why you are holding shares of a company in the first place. So let's address that: So does this mean you would like to vote with your shares on the directions the company takes? If so, your reasons for selling would be different from the next speculator who only is interested in share price volatility. Regardless of your participation in potential voting rights associated with your share ownership, a different reason to sell is based on if your fundamental reasons for investing in the company have changed. Enhancements on this topic include: Trade management, how to deal with position sizes. Buying and selling partial positions based on price action while keeping a core long term position, but this is not something \\\"\\\"long term investors\\\"\\\" generally put too much effort in. Price targets, start your long term investment with a price target in mind, derived from a future market cap based on your initial fundamental analysis of the company's prospects. And finally, there are a lot of things you can do with a profitable investment in shares.\\\"\",\n \"Yes You could write a covered call and the stock gets called away at the price + premium. You could convince someone to buy it regardless of the market price.\",\n \"\\\"Write means sell to open. It is called that because options writers are creating (i.e. writing) new contracts. No such thing as \\\"\\\"reading\\\"\\\" an option.\\\"\",\n \"I am close to retirement and sell cash secured puts and covered calls on a regular basis. I make 15 % plus per year from the puts. Less risky than buying stocks, which I also do. Riskier than bonds, but several times the income. Example: I owned 4,000 shares of XYZ, which I bought last year at 6.50 and was at 7.70 two months ago. I sold 3,000 shares, sold 10 Dec puts @ 7.50 (1,000 shares) for $.90 per share and sold 10 Dec calls at 10.00 for $.20. Now I had cash from the sale of 3,000 shares ($23,100) plus $900 cash from the sale of the puts, plus $200 cash from the sale of the calls. Price is now at 6.25. Had I held the 4,000 shares, I would be down $5,800 from when it was 7.70. Instead, I am down $1,450 from the held 1,000 shares, down $550 on the put and up $200 on the calls. So down $1,800 instead of down $5,800. I began buying XYZ back at 6.25 today.\",\n \"Investopedia defines it in the following way: It's essentially a market order that doesn't get entered until the last minute (or thereabouts) of trading. With this type of order you are not necessarily guaranteed the closing price but usually something very similar, depending on the liquidity in the market and bid-ask for the security in question. Traders who believe that a security or market will move more heavily during the last few minutes of trading will often place such an order in the hopes of having their order filled at a more desirable price.\",\n \"\\\"The reason for selling a stock \\\"\\\"short\\\"\\\", is for when you believe the stock value will decrease in the near future. Here is an example: Today Exxon-Mobile stock is selling for $100 / share. You are expecting the price to decrease, so you want to short the stock, which means your broker (i.e. eTrade, etc) allows you to borrow shares without paying money, and those shares are transferred into your account, and then you sell them and receive money for the sale. But you didn't actually own those shares, you only borrowed them, so you need to return the shares to your broker sometime in the future. Let's say you borrow 10 shares @ $100, and you sell them at the market price of $100, you receive $1,000 in your account. But you owe your broker 10 shares, which you need to return sometime in the future. A few days later, the share price has decreased to $80. Now you can buy 10 shares from the market at a total cost of $800. You get 10 shares, and return those shares to your broker. Since you originally took in $1,000, and you just paid out $800, you keep a resulting profit of $200\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Writing options means \\\"\\\"selling\\\"\\\" options and \\\"\\\"put\\\"\\\" options are contracts to sell a defined security (the underlying), at a specific date (expiration date) and at a specific price (strike price). So, writing put options simply mean selling to others contracts to sell. Your profit is limited to the premium but your loss may be unlimited in a falling market.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You should check with your broker for details, but you can generally specify which \\\"\\\"lot\\\"\\\" you are selling. where I've seen it, that's done by concurrently sending a \\\"\\\"letter of instruction\\\"\\\" documenting your choice of lot concurrent with the sale, but different brokers may handle this differently. I would think this should work for the case that you describe. (In addition, the default rule used by your broker is \\\"\\\"probably\\\"\\\" first-in-first-out, which will do what you want here.) Note that this may come into play even in a margin account to the extent that you might want to specify a lot in order to obtain (or set yourself up for later benefit of) favorable tax treatment under the long-term capital gains rules\\\"\",\n \"Assignment risk. In your example, if someone exercises OTM call, your account could be assigned. In that case, if you do nothing, you could lose more money than there is in the account. The broker won't do it for you because there is more than one way to handle the assignment. For example, you might choose to exercise the long call, or buy a different call and exercise that. Selling the long call may be enough to satisfy any resulting margin call.\",\n \"This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.\",\n \"\\\"The question you are asking concerns the exercise of a short option position. The other replies do not appear to address this situation. Suppose that Apple is trading at $96 and you sell a put option with a strike price of $95 for some future delivery date - say August 2016. The option contract is for 100 shares and you sell the contract for a premium of $3.20. When you sell the option your account will be credited with the premium and debited with the broker commission. The premium you receive will be $320 = 100 x $3.20. The commission you pay will depend on you broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple drops to $90 and your option is exercised, either on expiry or prior to expiry. Then you would be obliged to take delivery of 100 Apple shares at the contracted option strike price of $95 costing you $9,500 plus broker commission. If you immediately sell the Apple shares you have purchased under your contract obligations, then assuming you sell the shares at the current market price of $90 you would realise a loss of $500 ( = 100x($95-$90) )plus commission. Since you received a premium of $320 when you sold the put option, your net loss would be $500-$320 = $180 plus any commissions paid to your broker. Now let's look at the case of selling a call option. Again assume that the price of Apple is $96 and you sell a call option for 100 shares with a strike price of $97 for a premium of $3.60. The premium you receive would be $360 = 100 x $3.60. You would also be debited for commission by your broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple shares rises to $101 and your option is exercised. Then you would be obliged to deliver 100 Apple shares to the party exercising the option at the contracted strike price of $97. If you did not own the shares to effect delivery, then you would need to purchase those shares in the market at the current market price of $101, and then sell them to the party exercising the option at the strike price of $97. This would realise an immediate loss of $400 = 100 x ($101-$97) plus any commission payable. If you did own the shares, then you would simply deliver them and possibly pay some commission or a delivery fee to your broker. Since you received $360 when you sold the option, your net loss would be $40 = $400-$360 plus any commission and fees payable to the broker. It is important to understand that in addition to these accounting items, short option positions carry with them a \\\"\\\"margin\\\"\\\" requirement. You will need to maintain a margin deposit to show \\\"\\\"good faith\\\"\\\" so long as the short option position is open. If the option you have sold moves against you, then you will be called upon to put up extra margin to cover any potential losses.\\\"\",\n \"Assuming that you have capital gains, you can expect to have to pay taxes on them. It might be short term, or long term capital gains. If you specify exactly which shares to sell, it is possible to sell mostly losers, thus reducing or eliminating capital gains. There are separate rules for 401K and other retirement programs regarding down payments for a house. This leads to many other issues such as the hit your retirement will take.\",\n \"A trailing stop will sell X shares at some percentage below the current market price. Putting in this order with a 10% trailing stop when the stock price is $50 will sell the stock when it hits $45. It's a market order at that point (see below). A stop order will sell the stock when it reaches a certain price. The stop order becomes a market order when the magic price is hit. This means that you may not sell it at or below your price when the order is executed. But the stock will sell faster because the trader must execute. A stop limit order is the same as a stop order, except the stock won't be sold if it can't be gotten for the price. As a result, the sell may not be executed. More information here.\",\n \"\\\"Scenario 1 - When you sell the shares in a margin account, you will see your buying power go up, but your \\\"\\\"amount available to withdraw\\\"\\\" stays the same until settlement. Yes, you can reallocate the same day, no need to wait until settlement. There is no margin interest for this scenario. Scenario 2 - If that stock is marginable to 50%, and all you have is $10,000 in that stock, you can buy another $10,000. Once done, you are at 50% margin, exactly.\\\"\",\n \"(buy these when you expect the price to go down) You 'lock in' the price you can sell at. If the price goes down below the 'locked-in' price, you buy at the new low price and sell at the higher 'locked-in' price; make money. (buy these when you expect the price to go up) You 'lock in' the price you can buy at. If the price goes up above the 'locked-in' price, you buy at the 'locked-in' price and sell at the new higher price, make money.\",\n \"how does the trading company know which one I want to sell? It doesn't need to know. You just sell one. From taxation point of view depending on the country / tax jurisdiction, it can be only be FIFO or specific stock.\",\n \"\\\"Most of the investors who have large holdings in a particular stock have pretty good exit strategies for those positions to ensure they are getting the best price they can by selling gradually into the volume over time. Putting a single large block of stock up for sale is problematic for one simple reason: Let's say you have 100,000 shares of a stock, and for some reason you decide today is the day to sell them, take your profits, and ride off into the sunset. So you call your broker (or log into your brokerage account) and put them up for sale. He puts in an order somewhere, the stock is sold, and your account is credited. Seems simple, right? Well...not so fast. Professionals - I'm keeping this simple, so please don't beat me up for it! The way stocks are bought and sold is through companies known as \\\"\\\"market makers\\\"\\\". These are entities which sit between the markets and you (and your broker), and when you want to buy or sell a stock, most of the time the order is ultimately handled somewhere along the line by a market maker. If you work with a large brokerage firm, sometimes they'll buy or sell your shares out of their own accounts, but that's another story. It is normal for there to be many, sometimes hundreds, of market makers who are all trading in the same equity. The bigger the stock, the more market makers it attracts. They all compete with each other for business, and they make their money on the spread between what they buy stock from people selling for and what they can get for it selling it to people who want it. Given that there could be hundreds of market makers on a particular stock (Google, Apple, and Microsoft are good examples of having hundreds of market makers trading in their stocks), it is very competitive. The way the makers compete is on price. It might surprise you to know that it is the market makers, not the markets, that decide what a stock will buy or sell for. Each market maker sets their own prices for what they'll pay to buy from sellers for, and what they'll sell it to buyers for. This is called, respectively, the \\\"\\\"bid\\\"\\\" and the \\\"\\\"ask\\\"\\\" prices. So, if there are hundreds of market makers then there could be hundreds of different bid and ask prices on the same stock. The prices you see for stocks are what are called the \\\"\\\"best bid and best ask\\\"\\\" prices. What that means is, you are being shown the highest \\\"\\\"bid\\\"\\\" price (what you can sell your shares for) and the best \\\"\\\"ask\\\"\\\" price (what you can buy those shares for) because that's what is required. That being said, there are many other market makers on the same stock whose bid prices are lower and ask prices are higher. Many times there will be a big clump of market makers all at the same bid/ask, or within fractions of a cent of each other, all competing for business. Trading computers are taught to seek out the best prices and the fastest trade fills they can. The point to this very simplistic lesson is that the market makers set the prices that shares trade at. They adjust those prices based (among other factors) on how much buying and selling volume they're seeing. If they see a wave of sell orders coming into the system then they'll start marking down their bid prices. This keeps them from paying too much for shares they're going to have to find a buyer for eventually, and it can sometimes slow down the pace of selling as investors and automated systems notice the price decline and decide to wait to sell. Conversely, if market makers see a wave of buy orders coming into the system, they'll start marking their ask prices up to maximize their gains, since they're selling you shares they bought from someone else, presumably at a lower price. But they typically adjust their prices up or down before they actually fill trades. (sneaky, eh?) Depending on how much volume there is on the shares of the company you're selling, and depending on whether there are more buyers than sellers at the moment, your share sell order may be filled at market by a market maker with no real consequence to the share's price. If the block is large enough then it's possible it will not all sell to one market maker, or it might not all happen in one transaction or even all at the same price. This is a pretty complex subject, as you can see, and I've cut a LOT of corners and oversimplified much to keep it comprehensible. But the short answer to your question is -- it depends. Hope this helps. Good luck!\\\"\",\n \"First, it depends on your broker. Full service firms will tear you a new one, discount brokers may charge ~nothing. You'll have to check with your broker on assignment fees. Theoretically, this is the case of the opposite of my answer in this question: Are underlying assets supposed to be sold/bought immediately after being bought/sold in call/put option? Your trading strategy/reasoning for your covered call notwithstanding, in your case, as an option writer covering in the money calls, you want to hold and pray that your option expires worthless. As I said in the other answer, there is always a theoretical premium of option price + exercise price to underlying prices, no matter how slight, right up until expiration, so on that basis, it doesn't pay to close out the option. However, there's a reality that I didn't mention in the other answer: if it's a deep in the money option, you can actually put a bid < stock price - exercise price - trade fee and hope for the best since the market makers rarely bid above stock price - exercise price for illiquid options, but it's unlikely that you'll beat the market makers + hft. They're systems are too fast. I know the philly exchange allows you to put in implied volatility orders, but they're expensive, and I couldn't tell you if a broker/exchange allows for dynamic orders with the equation I specified above, but it may be worth a shot to check out; however, it's unlikely that such a low order would ever be filled since you'll at best be lined up with the market makers, and it would require a big player dumping all its' holdings at once to get to your order. If you're doing a traditional, true-blue covered call, there's absolutely nothing wrong being assigned except for the tax implications. When your counterparty calls away your underlyings, it is a sell for tax purposes. If you're not covering with the underlying but with a more complex spread, things could get hairy for you real quick if someone were to exercise on you, but that's always a risk. If your broker is extremely strict, they may close the rest of your spread for you at the offer. In illiquid markets, that would be a huge percentage loss considering the wide bid/ask spreads.\",\n \"\\\"You are likely making an assumption that the \\\"\\\"Short call\\\"\\\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \\\"\\\"write\\\"\\\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\\\"\",\n \"It this a real situation or is it a made up example? Because for a stock that has a last traded priced of $5 or $6 and volume traded over $4M (i.e. it seems to be quite liquid), it is hardly likely that the difference from bid to ask would be as large as $1 (maybe for a stock that has volume of 4 to 5 thousand, but not for one having volume of 4 to 5 million). In regards to your question, if you were short selling the order would go in exactly the same as if you were selling a stock you owned. So your order would be on the ask side and would need to be matched up with a price on the bid side for there to be a trade.\",\n \"If you know you have picked a bad stock, the sooner you sell the better. There is a tendency to hold a bad stock in the hope that it will pick up again. Most of us fall into this trap. The best way one needs to look at things are;\",\n \"I think the best answer that doesn't make the buyer look like a moron is this. Buyer had previously sold a covered call. They wanted to act on a different opportunity so they did a closing buy/write with a spread of a couple cents below asking for the stock, but it dipped a couple cents and the purchase of those options to close resolved at 4 cents due to lack of sellers.\",\n \"\\\"If you really believe in the particular stocks, then don't worry about their daily price. Overall if the company is sound, and presumably paying a dividend, then you're in it for the long haul. Notwithstanding that, it is reasonable to look for a way out. The two you describe are quite different in their specifics. Selling sounds like the simpler of the two, but the trigger event, and if it is automatic or \\\"\\\"manual\\\"\\\" matters. If you are happy to put in a sell order at some time in the future, then just go ahead with that. Many brokers can place a STOP order, that will trigger on a certain price threshold being hit. Do note, however, that by default this would place a market order, and depending on the price that breaks through, in the event of a flash crash, depending on how fast the brokers systems were, you could find yourself selling quite cheaply. A STOP LIMIT order will place a limit order at a triggered price. This would limit your overall downside loss, but you might not sell at all if the market is really running away. Options are another reasonable way to deal with the situation, sort of like insurance. In this case you would likely buy a PUT, which would give you the right, but not the obligation to sell the stock at the price the that was specified in the option. In this case, no matter what, you are out the price of the option itself (hence my allusion to insurance), but if the event never happens then that was the price you paid to have that peace of mind. I cannot recommend a specific course of action, but hopefully that fleshed out the options you have.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Yes, if there is liquidity you can sell your option to someone else as a profit. This is what the majority of option trading volume is used for: speculative trading with leverage.","Absolutely. There is no requirement that an option be in-the-money for you to close out a position. Remember that there are alwayes two sides to a trade - a buyer and a seller. When you bought your option, it's entirely possible that someone else was closing out their long position by selling it to you.","At the higher level - yes. The value of an OTM (out of the money) option is pure time value. It's certainly possible that when the stock price gets close to that strike, the value of that option may very well offer you a chance to sell at a profit. Look at any OTM strike bid/ask and see if you can find the contract low for that option. Most will show that there was an opportunity to buy it lower at some point in the past. Your trade. Ask is meaningless when you own an option. A thinly traded one can be bid $0 /ask $0.50. What is the bid on yours?"],"string":"[\n \"Yes, if there is liquidity you can sell your option to someone else as a profit. This is what the majority of option trading volume is used for: speculative trading with leverage.\",\n \"Absolutely. There is no requirement that an option be in-the-money for you to close out a position. Remember that there are alwayes two sides to a trade - a buyer and a seller. When you bought your option, it's entirely possible that someone else was closing out their long position by selling it to you.\",\n \"At the higher level - yes. The value of an OTM (out of the money) option is pure time value. It's certainly possible that when the stock price gets close to that strike, the value of that option may very well offer you a chance to sell at a profit. Look at any OTM strike bid/ask and see if you can find the contract low for that option. Most will show that there was an opportunity to buy it lower at some point in the past. Your trade. Ask is meaningless when you own an option. A thinly traded one can be bid $0 /ask $0.50. What is the bid on yours?\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":193,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"684"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Beyond RRSP deductions, how does a high income earner save on taxes?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["441120"],"string":"[\n \"441120\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["196807","97233","477940","12822","441120","200131","160555","549401","51086","122222","354965","145787","81599","6103","177736","8859","495864","312626","168906","98868","451314","406324","443757","53028","512238","118603","318954","162176","577582","454082","578317","520584","434252","568771","297966","257703","483620","83177","314056","550526","99716","405342","255101","97842","446226","444266","363591","263724","557361","297652","68636","175679","300721","413694","318242","60750","540834","296345","111967","556976","544439","586756","345219","106611","48203","43350","290019","141458","102732","134047","500744","110114","417257","358275","576736","202645","257274","499279","585764","376781","181652","138835","509111","507871","442741","44187","444568","423873","564627","468047","4830","510676","34887","251564","418951","355897","101578","114643","361510","1666"],"string":"[\n \"196807\",\n \"97233\",\n \"477940\",\n \"12822\",\n \"441120\",\n \"200131\",\n \"160555\",\n \"549401\",\n \"51086\",\n \"122222\",\n \"354965\",\n \"145787\",\n \"81599\",\n \"6103\",\n \"177736\",\n \"8859\",\n \"495864\",\n \"312626\",\n \"168906\",\n \"98868\",\n \"451314\",\n \"406324\",\n \"443757\",\n \"53028\",\n \"512238\",\n \"118603\",\n \"318954\",\n \"162176\",\n \"577582\",\n \"454082\",\n \"578317\",\n \"520584\",\n \"434252\",\n \"568771\",\n \"297966\",\n \"257703\",\n \"483620\",\n \"83177\",\n \"314056\",\n \"550526\",\n \"99716\",\n \"405342\",\n \"255101\",\n \"97842\",\n \"446226\",\n \"444266\",\n \"363591\",\n \"263724\",\n \"557361\",\n \"297652\",\n \"68636\",\n \"175679\",\n \"300721\",\n \"413694\",\n \"318242\",\n \"60750\",\n \"540834\",\n \"296345\",\n \"111967\",\n \"556976\",\n \"544439\",\n \"586756\",\n \"345219\",\n \"106611\",\n \"48203\",\n \"43350\",\n \"290019\",\n \"141458\",\n \"102732\",\n \"134047\",\n \"500744\",\n \"110114\",\n \"417257\",\n \"358275\",\n \"576736\",\n \"202645\",\n \"257274\",\n \"499279\",\n \"585764\",\n \"376781\",\n \"181652\",\n \"138835\",\n \"509111\",\n \"507871\",\n \"442741\",\n \"44187\",\n \"444568\",\n \"423873\",\n \"564627\",\n \"468047\",\n \"4830\",\n \"510676\",\n \"34887\",\n \"251564\",\n \"418951\",\n \"355897\",\n \"101578\",\n \"114643\",\n \"361510\",\n \"1666\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Revenue Canada allows for some amount of tax deferral via several methods. The point is that none of them allow you to avoid tax, but by deferring from years when you have high income to years when you have lower income allows you to realize less total tax paid due to the marginal rate for personal income tax. The corporate dividend approach (as explained in another answer) is one way. TFSAs are another way, but as you point out, they have limits. Since you brought TFSAs into your question: About the best and easiest tax deferral option available in Canada is the RRSP. If you don't have a company pension, you can contribute something like 18% of your income. If you have a pension plan, you may still be able to contribute to an RRSP as well, but the maximum contribution amount will be lower. The contribution lowers your taxable income which can save you tax. Interest earned on the equity in your RRSP isn't taxed. Tax is only paid on money drawn from the plan because it is deemed income in that year. They are intended for retirement, but you're allowed to withdraw at any time, so if you have little or no income in a year, you can draw money from your RRSP. Tax is withheld, which you may or may not get back depending on your taxable income for that year. You can think of it as a way to level your income and lower your legitimate tax burden","The issue only arises when the investments grow in size. A small amount won't trigger the higher tax rates. If the amount is large enough, then consider using either: Insurance products that are 'segregated', or RRSPs in your own name after your business pays you wages, or Gifting to other family members.","Consider the individual who pays $1,000,000 in taxes. His/her income must be substantial. That is what one should aim for. Investments for the most part, do not lower ones taxes. In one of John Grisham's novels, tax shelters are being discussed. Sorry, I do not remember which book. The discussion goes something like this: There are a few investments which can lower your taxes. Purchase a house. Mortgage interest on your principle residence is deductible (if you itemize deductions). If you don't itemize, focus on increasing income to the point where itemizing benefits you. In general, businesses have more deductions than individuals. Own a small business. You (or your accountant) will discover many deductions. Hint: the company should lease a car/truck, many meals are now deductible. This is not the reason to own a business.","avoid corporation tax There aren't many avenues to save on corporation tax legally. The best option you can try is paying into a generous pension for yourself, which will save some corporation tax. Buying a house You can claim deduction for the mortgage payments, but profits on selling the house will require paying capital gains tax on the profit. You can rent it out, this will be decided between your mortgage provider and your company, but the rent will go towards as income. Buying a car Not worth it. You will have to pay Class 1A NI contribution for benefits in kind. Any sane accountant will ask you to buy the car yourself and expense the mileage. Any income generated from the cash you have is taxable. Even the interest being paid on your money is taxable.","That's not especially high income, and while I can't speak for Canadians, most of us south of the border just pay the tax. There are tax-advantged retirement savings plans, and charitable donations are often offset by a tax credit, and there are some tax incentives for mortgages, and so on.. but generally the right answer is to just accept that the income tax money was never yours to begin with.","The $250K and up are not one homogeneous group. The lower end of this group benefits from normal Schedule A itemized deductions, e.g. mortgage interest, property tax, state income tax, and charitable donations. As you mention, 401(k) ($17k employee contribution limit this year), but also things like the dependent care account ($5k limit) and flexible spending account, limited usually up to $2500 in '14. The 529 deposits are limited to the gifting limit, $14K in 2014, but one can gift up to five years' deposits up front. This isn't a tax deduction, but does pull money out of one's estate and lets it grow tax free similar to a Roth IRA. The savings from such accounts is probably in the $15k - $20K range given the 20 or so year lifetime of the account and limited deposits. At the higher end, the folks making the news are those whose income is all considered capital gains. This applies both to hedge fund managers as well as CEOs whose compensation included large blocks of stock. This isn't a tax deduction, but it's how our system works, the taxation of capital gains vs. ordinary income.","\"There is nothing legal you can do in the United States to avoid the tax burden of income earned as an employee other than offsetting it with pre-tax contributions (which it sounds like you're already doing), making charitable contributions, or incurring investment losses (which is cutting off your nose to spite your face). So that $660K can't be helped. As for the $80K in stock dividends, you could move those investments into \"\"growth\"\" companies rather than \"\"value\"\" companies. Growth companies are those that pay less in dividends, where the primary increase in wealth occurs only in share price increase. This puts off your tax bill until you finally sell your shares, and (depending on how the tax laws are at that time) your tax bill will be lower on those capital gains than they are currently on these dividends. Regarding rental income I know nothing, but I think you're entitled to depreciate your property's value over time and count that against the taxes you owe on the rents. And you can deduct all the upkeep expenses. As with employment income, intentionally incurring rental losses to lower your tax bill is not logical: for every dollar you earn, you only have to give about 50 cents to the government, whereas for every dollar you lose, you've lost a dollar.\"","Keep in mind that chasing after tax savings tends to not be a good way of saving money. What is a good strategy? Making sure that you take all the deductions you are entitled to. What is a bad strategy: You asked for a book recommendation. The problem is that I don't know of any books that cover all these topics. Also keep in mind that all books, blogs, articles, and yes answers to questions have a bias. Sometimes the bias can be ignored, other times it can't. Just keep looking for information on this site, and ask good specific questions about these topics.","\"The primary tax-sheltered investing vehicles in Canada include: The RRSP. You can contribute up to 18% of your prior year's earned income, up to a limit ($24,930 in 2015, plus past unused contribution allowance) and receive an income tax deduction for your contributions. In an RRSP, investments grow on a tax-deferred basis. No tax is due until you begin withdrawals. When you withdraw funds, the withdrawn amount will be taxed at marginal income tax rates in effect at that time. The RRSP is similar to the U.S. \"\"traditional\"\" IRA, being an individual account with pre-tax contributions, tax-deferred growth, and ordinary tax rates applied to withdrawals. Yet, RRSPs have contribution limits higher than IRAs; higher, even, than U.S. 401(k) employee contribution limits. But, the RRSP is dissimilar to the IRA and 401(k) since an individual's annual contribution allowance isn't use-it-or-lose-it—unused allowance accumulates. The TFSA. Once you turn 18, you can put in up to $5,500 each year, irrespective of earned income. Like the RRSP, contribution room accumulates. If you were 18 in 2009 (when TFSAs were introduced) you'd be able to contribute $36,500 if you'd never contributed to one before. Unlike the RRSP, contributions to a TFSA are made on an after-tax basis and you pay no tax when you withdraw money. The post-tax nature of the TFSA and completely tax-free withdrawals makes them comparable to Roth-type accounts in the U.S.; i.e. while you won't get a tax deduction for contributing, you won't pay tax on earnings when withdrawn. Yet, unlike U.S. Roth-type accounts, you are not required to use the TFSA strictly for retirement savings—there is no penalty for pre-retirement withdrawal of TFSA funds. There are also employer-sponsored defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) retirement pension plans. Generally, employees who participate in these kinds of plans have their annual RRSP contribution limits reduced. I won't comment on these kinds of plans other than to say they exist and if your employer has one, check it out—many employees lose out on free money by not participating. The under-appreciated RESP. Typically used for education savings. A lifetime $50,000 contribution limit per beneficiary, and you can put that all in at once if you're not concerned about maximizing grants (see below). No tax deduction for contributions, but investments grow on a tax-deferred basis. Original contributions can be withdrawn tax-free. Qualified educational withdrawals of earnings are taxed as regular income in the hands of the beneficiary. An RESP beneficiary is typically a child, and in a child's case the Canadian federal government provides matching grant money (called CESG) of 20% on the first $2500 contributed each year, up to age 18, to a lifetime maximum of $7200 per beneficiary. Grant money is subject to additional conditions for withdrawal. While RESPs are typically used to save for a child's future education, there's nothing stopping an adult from opening an RESP for himself. If you've never had one, you can deposit $50,000 of after-tax money to grow on a tax-deferred basis for up to 36 years ... as far as I understand. An adult RESP will not qualify for CESG. Moreover, if you use the RESP strictly as a tax shelter and don't make qualified educational withdrawals when the time comes, your original contributions still come out free of tax but you'll pay ordinary income tax plus 20% additional tax on the earnings portion. That's the \"\"catch\"\"*. *However, if at that time you have accumulated sufficient RRSP contribution room, you may move up to $50,000 of your RESP earnings into your RRSP without any tax consequences (i.e. also avoiding the 20% additional tax) at time of transfer. Perhaps there's something above you haven't considered. Still, be sure to do your own due diligence and to consult a qualified, experienced, and conflict-free financial advisor for advice particular to your own situation.\"","Apply as many deductions as you are legally entitled to. Those are taxes you may never ever pay. Then turn around and put any more monies above the maximum retirement contributions into a taxable account. But this time invest in tax efficient investments. For example, VTI or SPY will incur very minimal taxes and when you withdraw, it will be at lower tax rate (based on current tax laws). Just as you diversify your investments, you also want to diversify your taxes.","As far as broad principles, I think that you are on track. The only suggestion I would have is to look into HSAs. They are another great tax-advantaged account, accessible to those with high incomes.","Probably the biggest tax-deferment available to US workers is through employee-sponsored investment plans like the 401k. If you meet the income limits, you could also use a Traditional IRA if you do not have a 401k at work. But keep in mind that you are really just deferring taxes here. The US Government will eventually get their due. :) One way which you may find interesting is by using 529 plans, or other college investment plans, to save for your child's (or your) college expenses. Generally, contributions up to a certain amount are deductible on your state taxes, and are exempt from Federal and State taxes when used for qualifying education expenses. The state deduction can lower your taxes and help you save for college for your children, if that is a desire of yours.","Seek professional advice as duffbeer703 has suggested already. Very important! Consider incorporating. If your income will fluctuate year to year, you can keep profit in the corporation, taxed in its hands at the Canadian small business rate, since such corporate income below $500,000 would likely qualify for the small business deduction. You could pay retained earnings to yourself as dividends over more than one year in order to lessen the personal tax burden. If you don't incorporate, all your profits in the year they are earned are taxed at personal income tax rates, and with our progressive income tax system, taking the tax hit all in one year can be expensive. However, if this project is a one-off and you're not likely to continue working like this, you might not want the overhead of a corporation. Taxes aside, there are also legal issues to consider vis-a-vis incorporating, or not. A professional can help you make this decision. Yes, you can claim deductions for reasonable business expenses, whether or not you are incorporated. No, you can't do free work on the side and claim it as donations. It's nice to volunteer, but you wouldn't get a charitable tax credit for your time, only for money or goods donated. Consider opening an RRSP so you can start saving for retirement and get a tax deduction for any contributions you make. This is but one strategy to reduce your tax. There are others. For instance, if you are a student, you perhaps have some unused tuition credits that you could claim in your first year with higher income. Oh, and seek professional advice! ;-)","\"You're asking explicitly about $250K+ wage earners. Well, believe it or not, but this is the most discriminated group of people in the US tax code. This is what is called \"\"the upper middle class\"\". People who still have to work for a living, but treated as if they're rich (I don't consider people who must work to keep up their life style as rich). Many of the deductions cannot be taken by them. Lets go over the list Keith made: You mentioned losses - you cannot deduct gambling losses (in excess of gambling income), and you cannot deduct passive (rental real estate, for example) losses. While for rental real estate there's a small amount of losses you could deduct, it phases out well below the $250K line (can be deducted against passive income, or when disposed of the property). 529 plans are not deductible (in fact, its a gift subject to the gift tax). Bottom line, being a high earner with wages only means you pay the most tax. You either find a way to become self employed and have a lot of business deductions on your schedule C/1120S, or switch to capital gains. You can marry an unemployed partner, it will make your life slightly easier.\"","My first question to you is if you itemize? If not the charitable contributions will not do any good. Along these lines, donating unused items to Goodwill or similar can help boost your charitable giving. The bottom line is that the 401K is one of the few real deductions high earners have. If you anticipate earning similarly next year, you could both contribute the max. You still have some time before the end of the year, can you get more in your wife's account? Does your state have income tax? You might be able to deduct sales tax for larger purchases if you made any. However, I would not justify a large purchase just to write off the sales tax. Conventional wisdom will tell you that you should have a large mortgage in order to deduct the interests. However, it does not make sense to pay the bank 10K so you can get 3K back from the government. That seems pretty dumb. If you did not do additional withholding, you probably will have to pay a significant amount plus penalty if you owe more than $1000. You still have time to make one more quarterly payment, so you may want to do so by January 15th. For next year I would recommend the following: The funny thing about giving is that it rarely helps the recipient, it does so much more for the giver. It helps you build wealth. For myself I like to give to charities that have a bent to helping people out of poverty or homelessness. We have two excellent ones here in Orlando, FL: Orlando Rescue Mission and Christian Help. Both have significant job training and budgeting programs.","Welcome to the real world :-) There really aren't all that many ways for ordinary employees to lower taxes. You could put more in your 401k, buy a house (for the mortgage interest deduction, which lets you deduct some other things instead of taking standard deduction), or move to a different state to get rid of the state tax.","So. You might be looking at the world of investing after tax deductions are gone. Buy index funds, or a few stable stocks of your choice. (Index funds have minimal turnover, so you won't realize as many uncontrollable tax events throughout the year). The top long-term capital gains rate is presently 15% (will it go up to 20% soon? who knows! it might. That's up to Congress and Obama, really.) If you can control when you realize it (say, in a year when you don't have a lot of other income) the tax consequences aren't toooo horrible. (It also helps if you live in a state that doesn't tax the gains themselves, e.g. not California?) Or buy real estate, if you don't own the house where you live already (and your lifestyle permits). You shouldn't expect impressive capital appreciation, but you don't have to pay tax on the imputed rent (the rent money you avoid paying by owning the place yourself).","Use your line of credit (LOC) to purchase more investments (non RRSP). That way, all of your LOC interest use to purchase those investments becomes tax deductible. Then use the money from your tax return to pay down the LOC.","\"Does your company offer a Medical Savings Account? That can allow you to reduce your taxable income. You normally have to join during \"\"open season\"\". Another option is Medical and Dental Expenses above 7.5% of your adjusted gross income. This is a high hurdle to meet, and only reduces your taxes by the tax rate x the amount your bills exceed 7.5%\"","If your annual income is less than $45000 or so (and you expect this to change for the better in the future), it's not worthwhile to put that in an RRSP -- save your contribution room for the future years where you will gain more of a tax deduction. There's no real downside in investing in a TFSA (what you withdraw this year can be put back in next year), so any surplus funds that you do not anticipate needing this year can be put in a TFSA to earn a bit more than the equivalent investment outside of a shelter.","Without more information about what tax bracket you are in, I cannot make a recommendation about what your best option is, but here are a few things to consider:","Based on your comment that you do not itemize your deductions, I think that's probably the next step for you to consider. Many of the suggestions that we would give require that you itemize. If you are not familiar with the potential deductions it would probably be worth your while to visit with a local tax professional and discuss your expenses including what changes you could make to minimize your tax bill. Ultimately becoming eligible for the 401(k) if possible will allow you access to the biggest avenue for reducing tax liability. It sounds like you are already prioritizing and saving for retirement through your IRA, but most earners in the 25% bracket can't put the recommended 15% into savings (with tax advantages) through an IRA.","Depending on the size of the donation, you may be able to reduce taxes further by donating appreciated assets, such as stock or fund shares that have gone up a lot. That lets you dodge the capital gains tax on redeeming the shares, and if you're donating to a tax-exempt organization they don't have to pay that tax either. And as @JoeTaxpayer has confirmed, you still get to deduct the current value of the donation, not just the basis value of those shares. So if you're donating anyway, this comes close to being Free Money in exchange for some slightly annoying paperwork. (Yet another benefit of long-term investing!) Of course folks in the top brackets sometimes set up their own tax-exempt foundations so they can decouple taking the tax break from deciding what to do with the donation.","\"With these income levels you cannot deduct any IRA contribution. I.e.: you cannot save pre-tax, as you want. But you still can contribute to IRA (as a non-deductible contribution), and using the \"\"loophole\"\" transfer the contribution to Roth (you are probably over the limit to be able to contribute to Roth directly). For pre-tax contributions - max out your 401k.\"","Can you make use of an HSA (health savings account) or a medical FSA (flexible spending account)? Depending on your medical coverage, one of these may be available to you. Buying a house usually does the trick, between property tax and interest, it's not tough to have quite a bit in deductions. Of course, you need to want a house in the first place.","The only way you can save taxes is by starting a limited company, not paying yourself any salary, so you pay 20% corporation taxes, you can take I think £5000 a year dividends tax free, and leave the rest in the company account, and don't touch it until you make less money.","Without knowing specifics about your personal situation, there are two items to consider: 1. Pre-pay as many items as possible this year. (rent/lease, insurance premiums, etc.) to reduce your profit on paper in this tax year. 2. If you don't have a retirement plan for yourself, look into it as a way to put some money aside for retirement pre-tax. If your accountant can't help with this, perhaps find a financial planner. Congrats though, great problem to have!","If you're maxing out your 401k, just save in tax-efficient investments like stocks and tax efficient funds. If you live in a state with income taxes, look at municipal bond funds for some tax-free income. In 2011, be careful with bond funds and look for short duration funds.","Make sure you are hitting the actual max of the 401k. Most think it is 18K, but that is the amount you can contribute into either pre-tax or roth. On top of this, you can also contribute using an after-tax contribution (treated differently from Roth). Total amounts up to 54k (since you are under 50). One thing I would look into for ways to beat interest rates in bank accounts and CDs is Municipal Bond funds, given your high income. I have seen some earning almost 6% tax-free YTD. These also give you liquidity. Definitely keep your 3 mo salary in the bank, but once you get over that while maxing out your 401k, this is a pretty good way to make your money work for you, without crushing you come tax time. Building that muni bond fund account gradually, you can eventually use that account to pay for things like car payments, mortgage, rent, vacation, etc. Just be sure if you go with a mutual fund, that you are aware of any surrender charge schedules. I have seen this done with C Shares, where you can withdraw your investment without penalty after 1 year. Let me know if this is unclear or you would like any additional information. Best of luck!","\"This scheme doesn't work, because the combination of corporation tax, even the lower CCPC tax, plus the personal income tax doesn't give you a tax advantage, not on any realistic income I've ever worked it out on anyway. Prior to the 2014 tax year on lower incomes you could scrape a bit of an advantage but the 2013 budget changed the calculation for the tax credit on non-eligible dividends so there shouldn't be an advantage anymore. Moreover if you were to do it this way, by paying corporation tax instead of CPP you aren't eligible for CPP. If you sit with a calculator for long enough you may figure out a way of saving $200 or something small but it's a lot of paperwork for little if any benefit and you wouldn't get CPP. I understand the money multiplier effect described above, but the tax system is designed in a way that it makes more sense to take it as salary and put it in a tax deferred saving account, i.e. an RRSP - so there's no limit on the multiplier effect. Like I said, sit with a calculator - if you're earning a really large amount and are still under the small business limit it may make more sense to use a CCPC, but that is the case regardless of using it as a tax shelter because if you're earning a lot you're probably running a business of some size. The main benefit I think is that if you use a CCPC you can carry forward your losses, but you have to be aware of the definition of an \"\"allowable business investment loss\"\".\"","It is important to remember that the tax brackets in the U.S. are marginal. This means that the first part of your income is taxed at 10%, the next part at 15%, next at 25%, etc. Therefore, if you find yourself just on the edge of a tax bracket, it really does not make any difference which side of that line you end up falling on. That having been said, of course, reducing your taxable income reduces your taxes. There are lots of deductions you can take, if you qualify. Depending on what type of health insurance coverage you have, a Health Savings Account (HSA) is a great way to shelter some income from taxes. Charitable contributions are also an easy way to reduce your taxes; you don't really personally benefit from them, but if you'd rather send your money to a good cause than to Uncle Sam, that's an easy way to do it.","IANAL (and nor am I an accountant), so I can't give a definitive answer as to legality, but AFAIK, what you propose is legal. But what's the benefit? Avoiding corporation tax? It's simplistic – and costly – to think in terms like that. You need to run the numbers for different scenarios, and make a plan. You can end up ahead of the game precisely by choosing to pay some corporate tax each year. Really! Read on. One of the many reasons that self-employed Canadians sometimes opt for a corporate structure over being a sole proprietor is to be able to not pay themselves everything the company earns each year. This is especially important when a business has some really good years, and others, meh. Using the corporation to retain earnings can be more tax effective. Example: Imagine your corporation earns, net of accounting & other non-tax costs except for your draws, $120,000/year for 5 years, and $0 in year 6. Assume the business is your only source of income for those 6 years. Would you rather: Pay yourself the entire $120,000/yr in years 1-5, then $0 in year 6 (living off personal savings you hopefully accumulated earlier), subjecting the $120,000/yr to personal income tax only, leaving nothing in the corporation to be taxed? Very roughly speaking, assuming tax rates & brackets are level from year to year, and using this calculator (which simplifies certain things), then in Ontario, then you'd net ~$84,878/yr for years 1-5, and $0 in year 6. Overall, you realized $424,390. Drawing the income in this manner, the average tax rate on the $600,000 was 29.26%. vs. Pay yourself only $100,000/yr in years 1-5, leaving $20,000/yr subject to corporation tax. Assuming a 15.5% combined federal/provincial corporate tax rate (includes the small business deduction), then the corp. is left with $16,900/yr to add to retained earnings in years 1-5. In year 6, the corp. has $84,500 in retained earnings to be distributed to you, the sole owner, as a dividend (of the non-eligible kind.) Again, very roughly speaking, you'd personally net $73,560/yr in years 1-5, and then on the $84,500 dividend in year 6, you'd net $73,658. Overall, you realized $441,458. Drawing the income in this manner, the average tax rate on the $600K was 26.42%. i.e. Scenario 2, which spreads the income out over the six years, saved 2.84% in tax, or $14,400. Smoothing out your income is also a prudent thing to do. Would you rather find yourself in year 6, having no clients and no revenue, with nothing left to draw on? Or would you rather the company had saved money from the good years to pay you in the lean one?","You could use HBB and other similar funds that exchange distributions for capital gains. There's HXT and HXS which is Canada and US equity markets. The swap fee + mer is a little more than some funds except for HXT which is very cheap. There's a risk for long term holders that this may eventually get banned and you're forced to sell with a gain at the wrong time, but this won't matter much if you're planning on selling in a few years. You have to pay the capital gains tax eventually. Note, the tax on distributions is really a long term drag on performance and won't make a big difference in the short term.","Not as you suggest. Since you are sole prop, you are taxed on a cash basis. Within reason, you can prepay vendors - so temp to hire through an agency might appear more attractive than direct hire. But there needs to be a justification other than avoidance of taxes. So pre-paying 100k on 12/25 would look fishy as fuck. Plus your quality of candidate will suffer if you need anything other than low skill labor. Look at your other fully deductible expenses - anything you can prepay-prepay. For example, I set my liability insurance renewal January 15 to provide optionality. But it just shifts one year into another .. Means fuckall if you are in the same marginal bracket next year. The IRS has also relaxed depreciation on office technology. Computers are now fully deductible rather than being capitalized. @ 500k revenue you should have a CPA and legal counsel. Simply incorporating isn't tax magic. The purpose is to limit yourersonal liability, not a tax shelter - but shitty things happen once you have employees, don't create the potential for a disgruntled employee lawsuit put your shelter at risk of court judgment. That said, assuming you aren't dumping a hypothetical on the Internet, congrats - for all the headaches, having employees is the ultimate leverage .. it's like a xerox machine for your labor (including loss of fidelity with each copy) ..","To piggyback on a comment that @enderland posted, if you have some extra cash saved, something worth considering is to evaluate your current retirement accounts to determine future tax liability. In Canada, there exist Roth IRA-like Tax Free Savings Accounts (TFSA) which are pre-taxed (meaning that you pay all taxes up front when you deposit monies to this account rather than when you withdraw them during retirement after they have grown in interest). Depending on the type of account your retirement funds are currently held in, it might be financially advantageous of you to save your extra money in a short term savings account, transfer your current retirement savings from a post-tax account to a TFSA and use that extra money to pay off any immediate tax liability incurred as a result of the transfer. You will have to run the numbers yourself to determine if your retirement account setup, balance and interest justifies this route but given your age there is a fairly high chance that you can end up saving many tens of thousands of dollars in taxes that might be otherwise be due when you retire.","\"How can I avoid this, so we are taxed as if we are making the $60k/yr that we want to receive? You can't. In the US the income is taxed when received, not when used. If you receive 1M this year, taking out 60K doesn't mean the other 940K \"\"weren't received\"\". They were, and are taxable. Create a pension fund in the corporation, feed it all profits, and pay out $60k/yr of \"\"pension\"\". I doubt that the corporation could deduct a million a year in pension funding. You cannot do that. You can only deposit to a pension plan up to 100% of your salary, and no more than $50K total (maybe a little more this year, its adjusted to inflation). Buy a million dollars in \"\"business equipment\"\" of some sort each year to get a deduction, then sell it over time to fund a $60k/yr salary. I doubt such a vehicle exists. If there's no real business purpose, it will be disallowed and you'll be penalized. Your only purpose is tax avoidance, meaning you're trying to shift income using your business to avoid paying taxes - that's illegal. Do crazy Section 79 life insurance schemes to tax-defer the income. The law caps this so I can only deduct < $100k of the $1 million annually, and there are other problems with this approach.\\ Yes. Wouldn't go there. Added: From what I understand, this is a term life insurance plan sponsored by the employer for the employee. This is not a deferral of income, but rather a deduction: instead of paying your term life insurance with your own after tax money, your employer pays with their pre-tax. It has a limit of $50K per employee, and is only available for employees. There are non-discrimination limitations that may affect your ability to use it, but I don't see how it is at all helpful for you. It gives you a deduction, but its money spent, not money in your pocket. End added. Do some tax avoidance like Facebook does with its Double Irish trick, storing the income in some foreign subsidiary and drawing $60k/yr in salary to be taxed at $60k/yr rates. This is probably cost-prohibitive for a $1MM/yr company. You're not Facebook. What works with a billion, will not work with a million. Keep in mind that you're a one-man business, things that huge corporations like Google or Facebook can get away with are a no-no for a sole-proprietor (even if incorporated). Bottom line you'll probably have to pay the taxes. Get a good tax professional to help you identify as much deductions as possible, and if you can plan income ahead - plan it better.\"","The above is very true, but the biggest bang for your buck can also be in the RESP, assuming you qualify for the grant of 20% per year...it's hard to beat free money from the government...in this account, your investment grows, and the growth and grant is taxed in the hands of the child when it is withdrawn. (Normally, they dont have much income at this point, so pay little or no tax) However, you do not get any income tax deduction or tax break at the time you make the deposit.","In my opinion, I would: If the income is from this year, you can tax shelter $59,000 plus somewhere between $50,000 and $300,000 depending on age, in a 401(k) and defined benefit plan. This will take care of the current tax burden. Afterwards, set aside your remaining tax liability in cash. The after-tax money should be split into cash and the rest into assets. The split depends on your level of risk tolerance. Build a core portfolio using highly liquid and non-correlated ETFs (think SPY, TLT, QQQ, ect.). Once these core positions are locked in. Start lowering your basis by systematically selling a 1 standard deviation call in the ETF per 100 units of underlying. This will reduce your upside, extend your breakeven, and often yield steady income. Similarly, you can sell 1 standard deviation iron condors should the VIX be high enough. Point is, you have the money to deploy a professional-type, systematic strategy that is non-correlated, and income generating.","This question is indeed rather complicated. Let's simplify it a little bit. Paying down your mortgage makes sense if your expected return in the rest of your portfolio is less than the cost of the mortgage. In many cases, people may also decide to pay down their mortgage because they are risk-averse and do not like carrying debt. There's no tax benefit to doing so, though; Canada doesn't generally allow you to write off mortgage interest, unlike the U.S. As to keeping money in the corporation or not, I'm not going to address that. I don't have a firm enough understanding of corporate taxation. Canadian Couch Potato advises treating all of your investment assets as one large portfolio. That is what you are trying to do here. However, let's consider a different approach. If you do not have enough money to max out your RRSP or TFSA, you may choose to keep your TFSA for an emergency fund, where the money is kept highly liquid. Keep your cash in an interest-bearing TFSA, or perhaps invest it in the money market, inside your TFSA. Then, use your RRSP for the rest of your investment money, split according to your investment goals. This is not the most tax-efficient approach, but it is nice and simple. But you are looking for the most tax-efficient approach. So, let's assume you have enough to more than max out your TFSA and RRSP contributions, and all of your investments are going toward your retirement, which is at least a decade away. Because you are not taxed on your investment income from RRSPs (until you withdraw the money) or TFSA, it makes sense to hold the least tax-efficient investments there. Tax-advantaged investments such as Canadian equities should be held in your investment accounts outside of TFSA and RRSPs. Again, the Canadian Couch Potato has a great article on where to put your investment assets. That article covers interest, dividends, foreign dividends, and capital gains, as well as RRSPs, RESPs, and TFSAs. That article recommends holding Canadian equities in a taxable account, REITs in a tax-sheltered account (TFSA or RRSP), bonds, GICs, and money-market funds in a tax-sheltered account (as these count as interest). The article goes into rather more detail than this, and is worth checking out. It mentions the 15% withholding tax on US-listed ETFs, for example. In addition to that website, I recommend the following three books: The above three resources strongly advocate passive indexed investments, which I like but not everyone agrees with. All three specifically discuss tax implications, which is why I include them here.","That plan wouldn't save you any money because tax brackets don't work that way. All of your earnings up to each level are taxed at that rate. You aren't taxed at the highest rate on all of the money. In your example you pay... If you reduce your income to $37,4000 you pay... In the end you'd be spending $100 to save $20. The only way you conceivably come out ahead by donating to charity (not counting the good karma for doing so) is if you own the charity and it is a way for you to funnel money to yourself and write it off.","The only ways to increase your after-tax income are to increase your tax-deferred savings (401k), increase your tax deductions, or increase your pre-tax income. Increasing tax-deferred savings is great for the long term, but will usually not result in a bigger paycheck (though net pay including the savings will go up). This is, however, probably your best bet for reducing current tax liability. Increasing deductions usually involves spending money--on charity, mortgage interest, other taxes, etc. So, while you may reduce your tax liability, you probably won't end up with more money in your pocket. Also, if you are single and aren't paying a mortgage, it probably won't be easy to exceed the Standard Deduction. Which pretty much leaves you with asking for a raise, getting a better paying job, or taking on a second job to increase your top-line income.","\"If you only have to pay 23k federal taxes on 100k, that means you are in the long term capital gains tax rate, which is the lower of the tax rates available. First you get your federal income tax marginal tax rate, and then find the matching long term capital gains tax rate. For example, if your marginal federal income tax rate is 28%, your capital gains tax rate would be 15%. Or rather, if the amount of the gain would put you in the 28% rate, then your long term capital gains tax rate is 15%. You can reduce that by having more losses. If you have anything else invested anywhere that is taking a loss, then you can sell that this year and it will offset the other gains you have realized. The only note is that your losses have to be long term capital losses too. Tax loss harvesting takes this to an extreme where you sell something at a loss to lock in the tax loss, but you didn't really want to get rid of that investment, so then you buy a nearly identical investment. ie. if you owned shares of \"\"Direxion Tech Sector ETF\"\" and it was at a loss, you would sell that and then immediately buy \"\"ProShares Tech Sector ETF\"\", the competing product that does the exact same thing. Then there is charity. This still requires spending money and you not having it any longer. If you feel that a cause can use the money more directly than the US government, you can donate an appreciated asset to the charity - not report a gain and also take a charitable deduction.\"","\"(Disclaimer: I am not an accountant nor a tax pro, etc., etc.) Yes, a Canadian corporation can function as a partial income tax shelter. This is possible since a corporation can retain earnings (profits) indefinitely, and corporate income tax rates are generally less than personal income tax rates. Details: If you own and run your business through a corporation, you can choose to take income from your corporation in one of two ways: as salary, or as dividends. Salary constitutes an expense of the corporation, i.e. it gets deducted from revenue in calculating corporate taxable income. No corporate income tax is due on money paid out as salary. However, personal income taxes and other deductions (e.g. CPP) would apply to salary at regular rates, the same as for a regular employee. Dividends are paid by the corporation to shareholders out of after-tax profits. i.e. the corporation first pays income tax on taxable income for the fiscal year, and resulting net income could be used to pay dividends (or not). At the personal level, dividends are taxed less than salary to account for tax the corporation paid. The net effect of corporate + personal tax is about the same as for salary (leaving out deductions like CPP.) The key point: Dividends don't have to be paid out in the year the money was earned. The corporation can carry profits forward (retained earnings) as long as it wants and choose to issue dividends (or not) in later years. Given that, here's how would the partial income tax shelter works: At some point, for you to personally realize income from the corporation, you can have the corporation declare a dividend. You'll then have to pay personal income taxes on the income, at the dividend rates. But for as long as the money was invested inside the corporation, it was subject only to lesser corporate tax rates, not higher personal income tax rates. Hence the \"\"partial\"\" aspect of this kind of tax shelter. Or, if you're lucky enough to find a buyer for your corporation, you could qualify for the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption on proceeds up to $750,000 when you sell a qualified small business corporation. This is the best exit strategy; unfortunately, not an easy one where the business has no valuable assets (e.g. a client base, or intellectual property.) * The major sticking-point: You need to have real business revenue! A regular employee (of another company) can't funnel his personally-earned employment income into a corporation just to take advantage of this mechanism. Sorry. :-/\"","Income and Capital are taxed separately in the uk. You probably can't get dividends paid gross even in ISA's you pay the basic rate of tax on dividends only higher rate tax payers get tax benefit from dividends. What you could do is invest in splits (Spilt capital investment trusts ) in the share class where all the return comes as capital and use up some of your yearly CGT allowance that way.","\"First off, high five on the paycheck. There are a few retirement issues to deal with. 401k issues - At that income level, you will probably fall into the \"\"Highly Compensated Employee\"\" category, which means things get a little more complicated, both for you and your employer. (Wikipedia link) IRA issues - As you already realized, you make too much to directly open and contribute to a Roth IRA. You can open a Traditional IRA, however. Your income is already over the limit for Traditional IRA deduction (bummer), so it would seem there is little point to opening an IRA at all. However, there is a way to take advantage of a Roth IRA, even at your income level. It is possible to convert a Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. There used to be income limits on the ability to do the conversion, which would have normally made this off limits to you. Starting in 2010, the income limit is removed, so you can do this. Basically, you open a Traditional IRA, max it out, then convert it to a Roth. Since there was no income deduction, you shouldn't have to pay any more taxes. (link) Disclaimer: I've never tried this, nor do I know anyone who has, so you might want to research it a bit more before you try it yourself.\"","There is no way you can directly defer that capital gains tax. If you sell a property that is not your principal residence, it will be taxed in the year in which it was sold. It doesn't matter what you do with the proceeds - that tax will get paid. Now, if you had adequate RRSP contribution room you could certainly put some money there, and would get a deduction on your tax return that would offset this capital gains tax. For example, if you sold a property for $300K that was originally purchased for $200K, then you would incur capital gains tax of $50K (assuming you were not claiming CCA deductions). If you took $50K of your proceeds and put it in an RRSP, it would offset the tax you pay now, and essentially defer the tax on that $50K of income until you withdraw - hopefully at a lower marginal tax rate. A spousal RRSP would work the same, except it would be taxed at your spouse's marginal tax rate when withdrawn. Either way, you need to have sufficient contribution room in the RRSP for this to work. Check your Notice of Assessment to see how much room you have available.","If you were looking to maximize your ability to save in a qualified plan, why not setup a 401K plan in Company A and keep the SEP in B? Setup the 401K in A such that any employee can contribute 100% of their salary. Then take a salary for around 19K/year (assuming under age 50), so you can contribute and have enough to cover SS taxes. Then continue to move dividends to Company A, and continue the SEP in B. This way if you are below age 50, you can contribute 54K (SEP limit) + 18K (IRA limit) + 5500 (ROTH income dependent) to a qualified plan.","Given you other question and your resulting marginal tax rate, you may want to optimize where you hold each type of security. If you still plan to have a regular investment account, it's hard to beat the low tax rate of Canadian dividends. In a TFSA, you won't pay tax on the dividend income, and you won't get a dividend tax credit either. For some people in BC this actually costs them money as they have negative marginal dividend tax rates. For you it seems to be 6%. Contrast this with any other holding in your regular account, interest at full marginal rates, and cap gains at half that. Dividends still win in a regular account.","Consider doing things that will allow for tax deductions, such as short selling. The IRS has regulations on this as well. And consider that Futures are taxed more favorably than other kinds of investments. (60% taxed as long term, 40% taxed as short term)","Ditto Rocky. Also: Break the sale up over several tax years so that you don't have a spike in your income pushing you into a higher tax bracket. Don't sell it until you retire, when you're probably in a lower tax bracket. (If you're 20, this may be impractical.) Get some other deductions, like medical expenses, charity, etc. Failing that, maybe a couple of other ideas that neither of us thought of, I think the real answer is: suck it up and pay the taxes. If there was a way to reduce your taxes just by checking the right box on a tax form or some such, everybody would do it and the government wouldn't collect any taxes.","It turns out that my logic was faulty. I wasn't aware that RRSP contributions and RRSP deductions are independent. There's no reason to split up my RRSP contributions across the two years. In my original plan, I was going to defer some RRSP contributions until 2017 so that they wouldn't be deducted from my 2016 income. This isn't necessary — nothing is forcing me to deduct the entire RRSP contribution on my taxes this year. I can still follow the plan I described in my question and max out my RRSP contribution this tax year by only deducting part of the contribution on this year's taxes","Put in the maximum you can into the 401(k), the limit should be $16,500 so long as the highly compensated rules don't kick in. Since you cannot deduct the traditional IRA, it's a great option to deposit to a traditional IRA and immediately convert that balance to a Roth account. That puts you at $21,500/yr saved, nearly 18%. There's nothing stopping you from investing outside these accounts. A nice ETF with low expenses, investing in a stock index (I am thinking SPY for the S&P 500) is great to accumulate long term.","This is ideal placement for your allocation to income investments or those with nonqualified dividends: bonds, REITS, MLPS, other partnerships, and so forth. These are all taxed at income rate, generally throw off more income than capital gains, so you get the deferment without losing the cap gains rate.","\"The \"\"hire a pro\"\" is quite correct, if you are truly making this kind of money. That said, I believe in a certain amount of self-education so you don't follow a pro's advice blindly. First, I wrote an article that discussed Marginal Tax Rates, and it's worth understanding. It simply means that as your income rises past certain thresholds, the tax rate also will change a bit. You are on track to be in the top rate, 33%. Next, Solo 401(k). You didn't ask about retirement accounts, but the combined situations of making this sum of money and just setting it aside, leads me to suggest this. Since you are both employer and employee, the Solo 401(k) limit is a combined $66,500. Seems like a lot, but if you are really on track to make $500K this year, that's just over 10% saved. Then, whatever the pro recommends for your status, you'll still have some kind of Social Security obligation, as both employer and employee, so that's another 15% or so for the first $110K. Last, some of the answers seemed to imply that you'll settle in April. Not quite. You are required to pay your tax through the year and if you wait until April to pay the tax along with your return, you will have a very unpleasant tax bill. (I mean it will have penalties for underpayment through the year.) This is to be avoided. I offer this because often a pro will have a specialty and not go outside that focus. It's possible to find the guy that knows everything about setting you up as an LLC or Sole Proprietorship, yet doesn't have the 401(k) conversation. Good luck, please let us know here how the Pro discussion goes for you.\"","mb's answer for FSA was dead on. You also mention child care - The child care credit comes with a phaseout based on income, the Dependent care account alows you to set aside up to $5K pretax money to covers these costs. It's pre-FICA and medicare as well, so the savings can be 33% pretty easily.","The numbers you have quoted don't add up. For Rs 30,000 / month is 3,60,000 a year. The tax should be around 11,000 again this will be reduced by the contributions to PF. You have indicated a tax deductions of 18,000. There are multiple ways to save taxes. Since you are beginner, investments into section 80C should give you required tax benefits. Please read this article in Economic Times","how does a single employee LLC bring in 500k? I mean if you want to have it in a low-tax environment, you can probably invest it in something and then pull them out? I don't think you can put away pre-tax earnings to then use on salary costs.","\"From Rich Dad, Poor Dad. 3 Major Things: With rental real estate, in addition to mortgage interest, you also deduct property taxes, and must claim depreciation (cost of house / 27.5 years) Business Expenses. For example, buy a yacht and put it in a charter fleet. Deduct interest on the loan, depreciation of the asset, property taxes, upkeep of the boat. Your \"\"business\"\" earns profit from chartering the boat, which if I recall correctly is taxed at a lower rate. You get to go sailing for free. Then there was the concept of subdividing the businesses. If you own a restaurant, create another business to own the property, and the equipment used in the company. Then lease the equipment and rent the land to the restaurant. Now admittedly I thought this was like the Daylight Savings plan of tax avoidance, I mean now aren't you essentially having two companies paying half the taxes. I am sure there are well paid CPAs that make the math happen, perhaps using insurance plans.. Perhaps each business funds a \"\"whole life\"\" insurance account, and contributes vast amounts into that. Then you take a loan from your insurance account. Loans of course are not income, so not taxed. The third way is to create your own bank. Banks are required to have reserves of 9%. Meaning if I have $100 dollars, the FDIA allows me to loan $1,111. I then charge you 20% interest, or $222/yr. Now how much can I loan? ...well you can see how profitable that is. Sure you pay taxes, but when you print your own money who cares? Most of this is just gleamed from books, and government publications, but that was my general understanding of it. Feel free to correct the finer points.\"","How is not different? You want to retire early; hence, you will save what you deem necessary to retire early. On the other hand, if you turn your retirement savings into capital gains; that's good. Nonetheless, if you start to earn capital gains that is detrimental to the economic value of the state; then, your taxes should be at higher rate to compensate for that. Everyone encourages business; rarely anyone would encourage a monopoly. Earning wealth is good business, hoarding wealth is a monopoly.","There are few things going on here: My advice would be: with 75k income and a regular pay check there isn't a whole let you can do to adjust your tax burden. It's unlikely that any adviser will save enough money to warrant professional advice and the associated cost. Use off the shelf software for tax return and tax planning.","\"As was stated, households earning over $250k/yr don't all get their income one way. Below that threshold, even in the six figure range, most households are in one of two categories; salary/wage/commission workers, and those living off of nest eggs/entitlements (retired, disabled, welfare). Above $250k, though, are a lot of disparate types of incomes: Now, you specifically mentioned wage earners above $250k. Wage earners typically have the same \"\"tax havens\"\" that most of us do; the difference is usually that they are better able to make use of them: In other words, there are many ways for a high-end wage earner to live the good life and write a lot of it off.\"","Your approach sounds solid to me. Alternatively, if (as appears to be the case) then you might want to consider devoting your tax-advantaged accounts to tax-inefficient investments, such as REITs and high-yield bond funds. That way your investments that generate non-capital-gain (i.e. tax-expensive) income are safe from the IRS until retirement (or forever). And your investments that generate only capital gains income are safe until you sell them (and then they're tax-cheap anyway). Of course, since there aren't really that many tax-expensive investment vehicles (especially not for a young person), you may still have room in your retirement accounts after allocating all the money you feel comfortable putting into REITs and junk bonds. In that case, the article I linked above ranks investment types by tax-efficiency so you can figure out the next best thing to put into your IRA, then the next, etc.","I'm not familiar with Canadian taxes, but had your question been written about the United States, I'd advise you to at least consult for a couple of hours with an accountant. Taxes are complex, and the cost of making a mistake generally exceeds the cost of getting professional advice.","\"Retirement accounts often can be invested with pretax money, with the exception of Roth accounts that use post-tax and have tax-free growth if you follow the rules, rather than after tax money as well as provide a shelter so that you aren't having to pay annual taxes on dividends and other possible distributions. Another point would be to consider how much money you'd be investing as some funds may have institutional versions that can be much cheaper than others, e.g. compare Vanguard's index funds that the 500 Index in Investor shares, Admiral shares and institutional forms where the tickers would be VFINX, VFIAX, VINIX, VIIIX to consider. Some companies may have access to the institutional funds that aren't what you'd have unless you are investing millions of dollars upfront. Lastly, if there isn't an employer plan and you make a ton of cash, you may not qualify for a deductible IRA or Roth IRA contribution for something else that may happen if you want to start playing with, \"\"What if.\"\"\"","You have many options, and there is no one-size-fits-all recommendation. You can contribute to your IRA in addition to your 401(k), but because you have that 401(k), it is not tax-deductable. So there is little advantage in putting money in the IRA compared to saving it in a personal investment account, where you keep full control over it. It does, however, open the option to do a backdoor-rollover from that IRA to a Roth IRA, which is a good idea to have; you will not pay any taxes if you do that conversion, if the money in the IRA was not tax deducted (which it isn't as you have the 401(k)). You can also contribute to a Roth IRA directly, if you are under the income limits for that (193k$ for married, I think, not sure for single). If this is the case, you don't need to take the detour through the IRA with the backdoor-rollover. Main advantage for Roth is that gains are tax free. There are many other answers here that give details on where to save if you have more money to save. In a nutshell, In between is 'pay off all high-interest debt', I think right after 1. - if you have any. 'High-Interest' means anything that costs more interest than you can expect when investing.","You should very much nail down your planned expenses and profit. However beyond that you may have some better options to avoid taxation assuming all your plans go well. You should take into account the ability to avoid taxes on the sale of a primary residence. You could build the spec house, then move into the spec house. You could then sell the primary (avoiding any profit less than $500k filing jointly, assuming you meet the Home Sale Tax Exclusion requirements). You can then in another two years or so sell the spec house if you want and again avoid up to $500k in profit. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-250000500000-home-sale-tax-exclusion.html","\"I'm being taxed at a 40% rate, then I can give $500,000 to charity, write it off, and save $200,000 on my taxes. That's a net loss of $300,000. I may have paid less taxes, but it cost me 300 grand. Your logic is correct. However, here's another way to think about it. Suppose you are being taxed at a 40% rate. You wish to purchase $500,000 worth of diamonds. How much do you have to make in income to do so? You need to make $833,333 in income, pay 40% of that ($333,333) in taxes, and then spend the $500,000 on the diamonds. But to spend that $500,000 on a charitable donation, you only need to make an income of $500,000, taxed at a rate of 0%, because donations to charity count against your taxable income. Or, yet another way to think about it, is that if you make $833,333 in income, you can spend it on $500,000 worth of diamonds, or $833,333 worth of charitable contributions; effectively you get to purchase $333,333 worth of charitable contributions \"\"for free\"\" over the equivalent purchase that is not a charitable donation.\"","\"Not really, no. The assumption you're making—withdrawals from a corporation are subject to \"\"[ordinary] income tax\"\"—is simplistic. \"\"Income tax\"\" encompasses many taxes, some more benign than others, owing to credits and exemptions based on the kind of income. Moreover, the choices you listed as benefits in the sole-proprietor case—the RRSP, the TFSA, and capital gains treatment for non-registered investments—all remain open to the owner of a small corporation ... the RRSP to the extent that the owner has received salary to create contribution room. A corporation can even, at some expense, establish a defined benefit (DB) pension plan and exceed individual RRSP contribution limits. Yes, there is a more tax-efficient way for small business owners to benefit when it comes time to retirement. Here is an outline of two things I'm aware of: If your retirement withdrawals from your Canadian small business corporation would constitute withdrawal from the corporation's retained earnings (profits), i.e. income to the corporation that had already been subject to corporate income tax in prior years, then the corporation is able to declare such distributions as dividends and issue you a T5 slip (Statement of Investment Income) instead of a T4 slip (Statement of Remuneration Paid). Dividends received by Canadian residents from Canadian corporations benefit from the Dividend Tax Credit (DTC), which substantially increases the amount of income you can receive without incurring income tax. See TaxTips.ca - Non-eligible (small business) dividend tax credit (DTC). Quote: For a single individual with no income other than taxable Canadian dividends which are eligible for the small business dividend tax credit, in 2014 approximately $35,551 [...] could be earned before any federal* taxes were payable. * Provincial DTCs vary, and so combined federal/provincial maximums vary. See here. If you're wondering about \"\"non-eligible\"\" vs. \"\"eligible\"\": private small business corporation dividends are generally considered non-eligible for the best DTC benefit—but they get some benefit—while a large public corporation's dividends would generally be considered eligible. Eligible/non-eligible has to do with the corporation's own income tax rates; since Canadian small businesses already get a big tax break that large companies don't enjoy, the DTC for small businesses isn't as good as the DTC for public company dividends. Finally, even if there is hardly any same-year income tax advantage in taking dividends over salary from an active small business corporation (when you factor in both the income tax paid by the corporation and the individual), dividends still allow a business owner to smooth his income over time, which can result in a lower lifetime average tax rate. So you can use your business as a retained earnings piggy bank to spin off dividends that attract less tax than ordinary income. But! ... if you can convince somebody to buy your business from you, then you can benefit from the lifetime capital gains exemption of up to $800,000 on qualifying small business shares. i.e. you can receive up to $800K tax-free on the sale of your small business shares. This lifetime capital gains exemption is a big carrot—designed, I believe, to incentivize Canadian entrepreneurs to develop going-concern businesses that have value beyond their own time in the business. This means building things that would make your business worth buying, e.g. a valued brand or product, a customer base, intellectual property, etc. Of course, there are details and conditions with all of what I described, and I am not an accountant, so please consult a qualified, conflict-free professional if you need advice specific to your situation.\"","\"Call me rude, but I would be less concerned with taxes and more concerned with increasing your income. Double your income and say \"\"fuck you\"\" to the taxes! Also, I'm no expert on taxes, but a corporation would not prevent you from having income so you would likely be passing the profits through and still paying the same income tax rate.\"","\"First of all congrats... very nice work indeed.. Secondly, i do not offer this as legal advise.. lol.. anyhow.. you need to make sure to hang on to as much as possible, being a single earner, our Uncle (Sam) is going to want what's due... That being said, you should probably look into investments, for starters, purchase a primary residence or start a business, or purchase a primary residence and use that as a business residence (both).. what you basically want are write-offs.. you need to bring your \"\"taxable\"\" income as low as possible so you pay minimal taxes.. in your case, you're in danger of paying a hefty sum in taxes... i'm sure you can shield yourself with various business expenses (a car, workplace, computers, etc.. ) that you could benefit from, both professionally and individually.. and then seriously bro... making 250k leads me to believe you've got at least more than half a brain, and that you're using more than half of that.. so dude.. get an accountant... and one you can trust.. ask your parents, colleagues, people you've worked with in the past.. etc.. there are professionals who are equally as talented in helping you keep your money as you are in making it.. -OR- you could get married, make sure your wife stays at home and start popping out kids asap... those keep my taxable (and excess) income pretty low.. LOL!!! I'm going to add to this... as a contractor, i've generally put any \"\"estimated\"\" taxes into some kind of interest accruing account so i can at least make a little money before i have to give it away.. in your case, i'd say put away at least 2/3's into some kind of interest earning account.. start by talking to your personal banker wherever your money is.. you'll be surprised at how nice they treat you... you ARE going to have to pay taxes.. so until you do, try to make a little money while it sits.. again, nice problem to have!\"","\"Get an accountant. Now. There are many subtle things that you do not know especially if you are just starting with your own corporation. There is also an issue of corporate tax return that you will have to face pretty soon. You should be looking for accountant that does accounting for corporations, there are companies specializing in small business. I do not think you can \"\"just\"\" transfer money to your personal account. They have to be treated as dividends and treated as such for income tax purposes. Or, as you described, you may pay yourself a salary, but then you have to pay CPP and EI on top of that. When you pay yourself dividends your corporation will need to issue T5 slip for you (accountant will do that) that you will need to use when preparing personal tax return. If you pay yourself salary, corporation will need to give you T4 In terms of tax treatment, if we do not take RRSP contributions dividend tax treatment will leave little bit more money in your hands. I'd say if you have RRSP room and/or TFSA room, pay yourself dividends and then do contributions as you see fit, if you need RRSP room, pay yourself salary. TFSA room does not depend on the type of income, so if you have room there, consider filling it first.\"","All data for a single adult in tax year 2010. Roth IRA 401K Roth 401k Traditional IRA and your employer offers a 401k Traditional IRA and your employer does NOT offer a 401k So, here are your options. If you have a 401k at work, you could max that out. If you make close to $120K, you could reduce your AGI enough to contribute to a Roth IRA. If you do not have a 401k at work, you could contribute to a Traditional IRA and deduct the $5K from your AGI similar to how a 401k works. Other than that, I think you are looking at investing outside of a retirement plan which means more flexibility, but no tax advantage.","You might want to bring this fancy new IRS rule to your employer's attention. If your employer sets it up, an After-Tax 401(k) Plan allows employees to contribute after-tax money above the $18k/year limit into a special 401(k) that allows deferral of tax on all earnings until withdrawal in retirement. Now, if you think about it, that's not all that special on its own. Since you've already paid tax on the contribution, you could imitate the above plan all by yourself by simply investing in things that generate no income until the day you sell them and then just waiting to sell them until retirement. So basically you're locking up money until retirement and getting zero benefit. But here's the cool part: the new IRS rule says you can roll over these contributions into a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA with no extra taxes or penalties! And a Roth plan is much better, because you don't have to pay tax ever on the earnings. So you can contribute to this After-Tax plan and then immediately roll over into a Roth plan and start earning tax-free forever. Now, the article I linked above gets some important things slightly wrong. It seems to suggest that your company is not allowed to create a brand new 401(k) bucket for these special After-Tax contributions. And that means that you would have to mingle pre-tax and post-tax dollars in your existing Traditional 401(k), which would just completely destroy the usefulness of the rollover to Roth. That would make this whole thing worthless. However, I know from personal experience that this is not true. Your company can most definitely set up a separate After-Tax plan to receive all of these new contributions. Then there's no mingling of pre-tax and post-tax dollars, and you can do the rollover to Roth with the click of a button, no taxes or penalties owed. Now, this new plan still sits under the overall umbrella of your company's total retirement plan offerings. So the total amount of money that you can put into a Traditional 401(k), a Roth 401(k), and this new After-Tax 401(k) -- both your personal contributions and your company's match (if any) -- is still limited to $53k per year and still must satisfy all the non-discrimination rules for HCEs, etc. So it's not trivial to set up, and your company will almost certainly not be able to go all the way to $53k, but they could get a lot closer than they currently do.","\"Depending on what your other deductions are and the amount you are wanting to donate, you can save some money by \"\"batching\"\" deductions into every other year. For example, if you are single in 2015, the standard deduction is $6,300. This means the first $6,300 in deductions you have basically don't \"\"matter\"\" because the standard deduction is larger. You only \"\"count\"\" itemized deductions greater than $6,300. Let's imagine you are donating $10k in 2015 and 2016 and have no other itemized deductions. If you donate in both years, you basically get a net deduction of ($10,000 - $6,300) * 2 = $7,400 over the standard deduction. However, if you donate $10k in 2015 and the next $10k on Dec31, 2015, then you now have donated $20k in 2015 and $0k in 2016. This affects your taxes because you now get ($20,000 - $6,300) = $13,700 in \"\"bonus\"\" deductions. You still get the full $6,300 standard deduction in 2016 as well. This can be a significant impact on your taxes (especially if you are married as the married deduction is double the single or have minimal other itemizable deductions)..\"","I agree that best is subjective and will not give investment advice. However, the tax deductible part can be dealt with quite swiftly. If you need tax deductibility right now, at the expense of later, put it into an RSP account. If you don't need tax deductibility right now, put it into a TFSA. Assuming you have room in either of these vehicles, I would suggest using just an RSP or TFSA cash savings account for now at ING Direct. Three reasons: You get the immediate benefit of having put it somewhere, and in the case of the RSP, an immediate tax deductibility. You don't have to worry about rushing into a specific investment and can give yourself time to figure out your goals and portfolio composition. (Read about the Couch Potato portfolio for a starting point.) You can transfer your money from them for free and still keep it registered in whichever plan it is in. The last point is the most important for my suggestion. The ability to quickly park the cash in a registered account and to move it for free using the appropriate form at a later date. Most places have a sneaky transfer-out fee. ING may not be the only place that doesn't, but I haven't looked into many other places about this. You might find something else that works the same way. And please, don't ever use GIC and high return in the same sentence.","For stocks, bonds, ETF funds and so on - Taxed only on realised gain and losses are deductible from the gain and not from company's income. Corporate tax is calculated only after all expenses have been deducted. Not the other way around. Real estate expenses can be deducted because of repairs and maintenance. In general all expenses related to the operation of the business can be deducted. But you cannot use expenses as willy nilly, as you assume. You cannot deduct your subscription to Playboy as an expense. Doing it is illegal and if caught, the tours to church will increase exponentially. VAT is only paid if you claim VAT on your invoices. Your situation seems quite complicated. I would suggest, get an accountant pronto. There are nuances in your situation, which an accountant only can understand and help.","\"There are ways to mitigate, but since you're not protected by a tax-deferred/advantaged account, the realized income will be taxed. But you can do any of the followings to reduce the burden: Prefer selling either short positions that are at loss or long positions that are at gain. Do not invest in stocks, but rather in index funds that do the rebalancing for you without (significant) tax impact on you. If you are rebalancing portfolio that includes assets that are not stocks (real-estate, mainly) consider performing 1031 exchanges instead of plain sale and re-purchase. Maximize your IRA contributions, even if non-deductible, and convert them to Roth IRA. Hold your more volatile investments and individual stocks there - you will not be taxed when rebalancing. Maximize your 401K, HSA, SEP-IRA and any other tax-advantaged account you may be eligible for. On some accounts you'll pay taxes when withdrawing, on others - you won't. For example - Roth IRA/401k accounts are not taxed at all when withdrawing qualified distributions, while traditional IRA/401k are taxed as ordinary income. During the \"\"low income\"\" years, consider converting portions of traditional accounts to Roth.\"","In the case you propose, a taxable windfall, your best hope is to marry someone who has his/her own loss of about the same amount. This advice would work if your gain is a 10 bagger, as you suggest, but not for a lottery. In the dot com bubble, I heard of more than one couple that got married under these conditions. As far as other gains, it would be tough to contrive a situation that would give you such a tax offset without taking on a huge risk, far greater that the $133K in tax you might save.","I brought this up to my CPA. She said don't do it. People used to do it, but now they're cracking down. Is it unfair? Yes. But it's the government so don't mess with them.","You can defer RRSP deductions to future years. So, if you purchase $20,000 in RRSPs this year but had no income, you could use this to offset your income next year when you are making, say, $100,000. For more details, see Deferring claim of significant purchase of RRSPs Note that I strongly advise you ensure you have sufficient emergency funds prior to purchasing RRSPs.","If you have self-employment income you can open a Solo 401k. Your question is unclear as to what your employment status is. If you are self-employed as an independent contractor, you can open a Solo 401k. You can still do this even if you also earn non-self-employment income (i.e., you are an employee and receive a W-2). However, the limits for contributions to a Solo 401k are based on your self-mployment income, not your total income, so if you have only a small amount of self-employment income, you won't be able to contribute much to the Solo 401k. You may be able to reduce your taxes somewhat, but it's not like you can earn $1000 of self-employment income, open a Solo 401k, and dump $5000 into it; the limits don't work that way.","If you expect to pay tax on dividends move dividend producing assets into your ISA. If have a lot of investments you can Look at Zeros (zero dividend preference share) issued by splits (split capital trusts), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_capital_investment_trust","No there is no way to have untaxed earnings. Single Member LLC are taxed on your personal taxes. Partnership LLC is taxed on your and your partners personal taxes. An C-Corp LLC has its own tax bracket. An S-Corp is taxed on your personal taxes (but does not get taxed as self-employment taxes). At $500,000, YOU SHOULD BE AN S-CORP or C-CORP to save on self-employment taxes.","PSB taxed at higher rates. PSB is taxed at 39.5% in Ontario, as the article mentioned. But if you pay all the net income to yourself as salary, you expense it and zero it out on the corporate level. So who cares what tax rate it is if the taxable income is zero? No-one. Same goes for the US, by the way. Personal Service Corporations are taxed at flat 35% Federal tax rate. But if you pour all the income into your salary - its moot, because there's no net income to pay tax of. If it's too complicated to figure out, maybe it would be wise to hire a tax accountant to provide counsel to you before you make decisions about your business.","You don't seem to have any particular question to be answered. Your understanding of RRSPs seems to be very good. Have you considered whether you might be better off putting your retirement savings into a TFSA instead? Both types can protect your growth from taxation (provided you reinvest the refund from the RRSP). The main way in which the RRSP is better than TFSA is that you can pay the tax on the contribution at a time when your income is lower, and thus have a lower marginal tax rate. Most people retire with a lower income than during their earning years, but it's a matter of tax brackets. If you think you'll be in the same bracket (same marginal tax rate) when you retire, then the TFSA and RRSP work out even in that regard. So in your case, the question you want to ask yourself is: when I retire, will I have an income (including CPP, OAS, pension payments, etc) that exceeds $45,282 worth of today's dollars? If so, your RRSP holds no advantage over the TFSA. In fact, the RRSP may even be worse, since the withdrawals count as income and reduce the amount of OAS and perhaps GIS payments that the government gives you - at least under current regulations. If you're unsure, I suggest you try this calculator from taxtips.ca that runs both scenarios and helps you see which one is more beneficial. It even factors in the OAS/GIS clawbacks.","You can't max out your retirement savings. There are vehicles that aren't tax-advantaged that you can fund after you've exhausted the tax-advantaged ones. Consider how much you want to put into these vehicles. There are disadvantages as well as advantages. The rules on these can change at any time and can make it harder for you to get your money out. How's your liquid (cash) emergency fund? It sounds like you're in a position to amass a good one. Don't miss this opportunity. Save like crazy while you can. Kids make this harder. Paying down your mortgage will save you interest, of course, but make sure you're not cash-poor as a result. If something happens to your income(s), the bank will still foreclose on you even if you only owe $15,000. A cash cushion buys you time.","There are some great answers on this site similar to what you asked, with either a non-jurisdictional or a US-centric focus. I would read those answers as well to give yourself more points of view on early investing. There are a few differences between Canada and the US from an investing perspective that you should also then consider, namely tax rules, healthcare, and education. I'll get Healthcare and Education out of the way quickly. Just note the difference in perspective in Canada of having government healthcare; putting money into health-savings plans or focusing on insurance as a workplace benefit is not a key motivating factor, but more a 'nice-to-have'. For education, it is more common in Canada for a student to either pay for school while working summer / part-time jobs, or at least taking on manageable levels of debt [because it is typically not quite as expensive as private colleges in the US]. There is still somewhat of a culture of saving for your child's education here, but it is not as much of a necessity as it may be in the US. From an investing perspective, I will quickly note some common [though not universal] general advice, before getting Canadian specific. I have blatantly stolen the meat of this section from Ben Miller's great answer here: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing Once you have a solid financial footing, some peculiarities of Canadian investing are below. For all the tax-specific plans I'm about to mention, note that the banks do a very good job here of tricking you into believing they are complex, and that you need your hand to be held. I have gotten some criminally bad tax advice from banking reps, so at the risk of sounding prejudiced, I recommend that you learn everything you can beforehand, and only go into your bank when you already know the right answer. The 'account types' themselves just involve a few pages of paperwork to open, and the banks will often do that for free. They make up their fees in offering investment types that earn them management fees once the accounts are created. Be sure to separate the investments (stocks vs bonds etc.) vs the investment vehicles. Canada has 'Tax Free Savings Accounts', where you can contribute a certain amount of money every year, and invest in just about anything you want, from bonds to stocks to mutual funds. Any Income you earn in this account is completely tax free. You can withdraw these investments any time you want, but you can't re-contribute until January 1st of next year. ie: you invest $5k today in stocks held in a TFSA, and they grow to $6k. You withdraw $6k in July. No tax is involved. On January 1st next year, you can re-contribute a new $6K, and also any additional amounts added to your total limit annually. TFSA's are good for short-term liquid investments. If you don't know for sure when you'll need the money, putting it in a TFSA saves you some tax, but doesn't commit you to any specific plan of action. Registered Retirement Savings Plans allow you to contribute money based on your employment income accrued over your lifetime in Canada. The contributions are deducted from your taxable income in the year you make them. When you withdraw money from your RRSP, the amount you withdraw gets added as additional income in that year. ie: you invest $5k today in stocks held in an RRSP, and get a $5k deduction from your taxable income this year. The investments grow to $6k. You withdraw $6k next year. Your taxable income increases by $6k [note that if the investments were held 'normally' {outside of an RRSP}, you would have a taxable gain of only 50% of the total gain; but withdrawing the amount from your RRSP makes the gain 100% taxable]. On January 1st next year, you CANNOT recontribute this amount. Once withdrawn, it cannot be recontributed [except for below items]. RRSP's are good for long-term investing for retirement. There are a few factors at play here: (1) you get an immediate tax deduction, thus increasing the original size of investment by deferring tax to the withdrawal date; (2) your investments compound tax-free [you only pay tax at the end when you withdraw, not annually on earnings]; and (3) many people expect that they will have a lower tax-rate when they retire, than they do today. Some warnings about RRSP's: (1) They are less liquid than TFSA's; you can't put money in, take it out, and put it in again. In general, when you take it out, it's out, and therefore useless unless you leave it in for a long time; (2) Income gets re-characterized to be fully taxable [no dividend tax credits, no reduced capital gains tax rate]; and (3) There is no guarantee that your tax rate on retirement will be less than today. If you contribute only when your tax rate is in the top bracket, then this is a good bet, but even still, in 30 years, tax rates might rise by 20% [who knows?], meaning you could end up paying more tax on the back-end, than you saved in the short term. Home Buyer Plan RRSP withdrawals My single favourite piece of advice for young Canadians is this: if you contribute to an RRSP at least 3 months before you make a down payment on your first house, you can withdraw up to $25k from your RRSP without paying tax! to use for the down payment. Then over the next ~10 years, you need to recontribute money back to your RRSP, and you will ultimately be taxed when you finally take the money out at retirement. This means that contributing up to 25k to an RRSP can multiply your savings available for a down payment, by the amount of your tax rate. So if you make ~60k, you'll save ~35% on your 25k deposited, turning your down payment into $33,750. Getting immediate access to the tax savings while also having access to the cash for a downpayment, makes the Home Buyer Plan a solid way to make the most out of your RRSP, as long as one of your near-term goals is to own your own home. Registered Pension Plans are even less liquid than RRSPs. Tax-wise, they basically work the same: you get a deduction in the year you contribute, and are taxed when you withdraw. The big difference is that there are rules on when you are allowed to withdraw: only in retirement [barring specific circumstances]. Typically your employer's matching program (if you have one) will be inside of an RPP. Note that RPP's and RRSP's reduce your taxes on your employment paycheques immediately, if you contribute through a work program. That means you get the tax savings during the year, instead of all at once a year later on April 30th. *Note that I have attempted at all times to keep my advice current with applicable tax legislation, but I do not guarantee accuracy. Research these things yourself because I may have missed something relevant to your situation, I may be just plain wrong, and tax law may have changed since I wrote this to when you read it.","Let's say your marginal tax rate is 33%. For every dollar you put in an RRSP, you'll get 33 cents back on your taxes, while the whole amount grows tax free inside the investment. If you can afford it, money in an RRSP generates a lot of free money.","Go to a good bookstore and find a book about saving on income tax. Unlike other countries, where filling in your tax returns usually means you have to pay extra money, in Germany filling in your tax return usually means that you will be paid money, and the more tax deductible items you can fill in, the more money you will get back. At the very least, ask some German colleagues about the most typical tax deductible items. They love getting taxes back.","Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax.","Yes, you could avoid capital gains tax altogether, however, capital gains are used in determining your tax bracket even though they are not taxed at that rate. This would only work in situations where your total capital gains and ordinary income kept you in the 0% longterm capital gains bracket. You can't realize a million dollars in capital gains and have no tax burden due to lack of ordinary income. You can potentially save some money by realizing capital gains strategically. Giving up income in an attempt to save on taxes rarely makes sense.","The biggest issue is your lack of diversification. Your real estate investments have performed quite well so far, but you have also likely enjoyed a period of unprecedented growth that is not sustainable. In the long term, stocks have always outperformed real estate investments, which tend to track more closely to the inflation rate. You need more balance for when when the real estate market cools off. You don't mention tax-deferred retirement savings accounts. You should prioritize your attention to these to keep your income tax low. Consider selling one of your investment properties if you can't adequately fund the 401k.","\"Paying yourself through a corporation requires an analysis of a variety of issues. First, a salary paid to yourself creates RRSP contribution room as well as CPP contributions. Paying yourself a dividend achieves neither of those. By having a corporation, you will have to file a corporate (T2) tax return. The corporation is considered a separate legal entity from you. As an individual, you will still need to file a personal (T1) tax return. Never just \"\"draw\"\" money out of a corporation. This can create messy transactions involving loans to shareholders. Interest is due on these amounts and any amounts not paid within one calendar year are considered as wages by Canada Revenue and would need to be reported as income on your next T1 return. You should never withhold EI premiums as the sole owner of a corporation. You are considered exempt from these costs by CRA. Any amounts that have been remitted to CRA can be reclaimed by submitting a formal request. The decision on whether to take a salary or dividends normally requires some detailed analysis. Your accountant or financial advisor should be able to assist in this matter.\"","question #2 - yes, 25% of your 1099 income. Good idea. It adds up quickly and is a good way to reduce taxable income.","\"The $100,000 is taxed separately as \"\"ordinary income\"\". The $350,000 is taxed at long-term capital gains of 15%. Capital gains is not taxed at 20% until $415,050. Even though $100,000 + 350,000 = $450,000, only $350,000 can be taxed at capital gains. The total ordinary income tax burden will be $31,986 if single, in California. Caveat: By creating a holdings corporation (C-corp), you can section 351 that $100,000 into the C-corp for tax deferment, which won't be taxed until you take money from the corporation. Since you will hold 100% of the voting stock, all distributions will be considered pro rata. Additionally, you can issue yourself a dividend under the rules of 26 USC §§243-246 (a greather-than-80% shareholder who receives a dividend can write-off 100% of said dividend). As long as that dividend doesn't trigger §§1.243-246 of The Regulations by keeping the distribution just under 10% of E&P i.e. $10,000. Wages are deductible against basis so pay yourself $35,000 and keep $55,000 in the corporation and you can decrease the total liabilities down to $22,000 from $31,000, which includes the CA franchise tax. You don't have to pay yourself any money out a corporation to use the money.\"","\"First, point: The CRA wants you to start a business with a \"\"Reasonable expectation of profit\"\". They typically expect to see a profit within 5 years, so you may be inviting unwanted questions from future auditors by using a breakeven strategy. Second point: If the goal is to pay as little tax as possible, you may want to consider having the corporation pay you as little as possible. Corporate income taxes are much lower than personal income taxes, according to these two CRA links: How it works is that your company pays you little as an outright salary and offers you perks like a leased company car, expense account for lunch and entertainment, a mobile phone, computer, etc. The company owns all of this stuff and lets you use it as part of the job. The company pays for all this stuff with corporate pre-tax dollars as opposed to you paying for it with personal after-tax dollars. There are specifics on meals & entertainment which modify this slightly (you can claim 50%) but you get the idea. The actual rate difference will depend on your province of residence and your corporate income level. There is also a requirement for \"\"Reasonable Expenses\"\", such that the expenses have to be in line with what you are doing. If you need to travel to a conference each year, that would be a reasonable expense. Adding your family and making it a vacation for everyone would not. You can claim such expenses as a sole proprietor or a corporation. The sole-proprietorship option puts any after-expense profits into your pocket as taxable income, where the corporate structure allows the corporation to hold funds and limit the amount paid out to you. I've seen this strategy successfully done first-hand, but have not done it myself. I am not a lawyer or accountant, consult these professionals about this tax strategy before taking any action.\"","First you need to distinguish between short-term and long-term capital gains. In an IRA you can use investment strategies that incur short-term capital gains without being taxed as ordinary income. As mentioned in a comment above, with a Roth IRA, you can invest now at your low income tax rates and withdraw all gains without incurring any taxes at retirement time. You can also pull out your contributions penalty free before retirement age (59 1/2) if you've had the account for more than 5 years. You only pay taxes and penalties on the earnings. You can also make withdrawals for education expenses and you have one lifetime exclusion of $10,000 for a down-payment on a house.","I was once the personal assistant to two wealthy NYC sisters. They did not pay for anything. For example, if we were riding the subway, I would pay, and be reimbursed by the Company. They had multiple residences and investment properties. Each property was purchased through a separate Limited Liablity Corporation, and paid for by the Company. When they purchased, donated or sold art, it was through their family Foundation. Their income primarily came from a draw of funds from the family estate, although one of them worked as an architect, which provided further income.","If your employer offers a 401k retirement plan then you can contribute a portion of your salary to your retirement and that will lower your effective income to remain in the 15% bracket (although as others have pointed out, only the dollars that exceed the 15% bracket will be taxed at the higher rate anyway). AND if your employer offers any kind of 401k matching contribution, that's effectively a pay-raise or 100% return on investment (depending on how you prefer to look at it).","\"http://www.investopedia.com/articles/mortgages-real-estate/08/tax-deductible-mortgage-canada.asp > This strategy is not for everyone. Borrowing against your home is psychologically difficult, and if the investments don't yield expected returns, this strategy could yield negative results. By re-borrowing the equity in your home, you are also removing your \"\"cushion\"\" of safety if the real estate (or investment) markets take a turn for the worse. By creating an income-producing portfolio in an unregistered account, there can also be additional tax consequences - so always consult with a professional financial advisor to determine whether this strategy is for you, and if it is, have it tailor-made to you and your family's personal financial situation.\""],"string":"[\n \"Revenue Canada allows for some amount of tax deferral via several methods. The point is that none of them allow you to avoid tax, but by deferring from years when you have high income to years when you have lower income allows you to realize less total tax paid due to the marginal rate for personal income tax. The corporate dividend approach (as explained in another answer) is one way. TFSAs are another way, but as you point out, they have limits. Since you brought TFSAs into your question: About the best and easiest tax deferral option available in Canada is the RRSP. If you don't have a company pension, you can contribute something like 18% of your income. If you have a pension plan, you may still be able to contribute to an RRSP as well, but the maximum contribution amount will be lower. The contribution lowers your taxable income which can save you tax. Interest earned on the equity in your RRSP isn't taxed. Tax is only paid on money drawn from the plan because it is deemed income in that year. They are intended for retirement, but you're allowed to withdraw at any time, so if you have little or no income in a year, you can draw money from your RRSP. Tax is withheld, which you may or may not get back depending on your taxable income for that year. You can think of it as a way to level your income and lower your legitimate tax burden\",\n \"The issue only arises when the investments grow in size. A small amount won't trigger the higher tax rates. If the amount is large enough, then consider using either: Insurance products that are 'segregated', or RRSPs in your own name after your business pays you wages, or Gifting to other family members.\",\n \"Consider the individual who pays $1,000,000 in taxes. His/her income must be substantial. That is what one should aim for. Investments for the most part, do not lower ones taxes. In one of John Grisham's novels, tax shelters are being discussed. Sorry, I do not remember which book. The discussion goes something like this: There are a few investments which can lower your taxes. Purchase a house. Mortgage interest on your principle residence is deductible (if you itemize deductions). If you don't itemize, focus on increasing income to the point where itemizing benefits you. In general, businesses have more deductions than individuals. Own a small business. You (or your accountant) will discover many deductions. Hint: the company should lease a car/truck, many meals are now deductible. This is not the reason to own a business.\",\n \"avoid corporation tax There aren't many avenues to save on corporation tax legally. The best option you can try is paying into a generous pension for yourself, which will save some corporation tax. Buying a house You can claim deduction for the mortgage payments, but profits on selling the house will require paying capital gains tax on the profit. You can rent it out, this will be decided between your mortgage provider and your company, but the rent will go towards as income. Buying a car Not worth it. You will have to pay Class 1A NI contribution for benefits in kind. Any sane accountant will ask you to buy the car yourself and expense the mileage. Any income generated from the cash you have is taxable. Even the interest being paid on your money is taxable.\",\n \"That's not especially high income, and while I can't speak for Canadians, most of us south of the border just pay the tax. There are tax-advantged retirement savings plans, and charitable donations are often offset by a tax credit, and there are some tax incentives for mortgages, and so on.. but generally the right answer is to just accept that the income tax money was never yours to begin with.\",\n \"The $250K and up are not one homogeneous group. The lower end of this group benefits from normal Schedule A itemized deductions, e.g. mortgage interest, property tax, state income tax, and charitable donations. As you mention, 401(k) ($17k employee contribution limit this year), but also things like the dependent care account ($5k limit) and flexible spending account, limited usually up to $2500 in '14. The 529 deposits are limited to the gifting limit, $14K in 2014, but one can gift up to five years' deposits up front. This isn't a tax deduction, but does pull money out of one's estate and lets it grow tax free similar to a Roth IRA. The savings from such accounts is probably in the $15k - $20K range given the 20 or so year lifetime of the account and limited deposits. At the higher end, the folks making the news are those whose income is all considered capital gains. This applies both to hedge fund managers as well as CEOs whose compensation included large blocks of stock. This isn't a tax deduction, but it's how our system works, the taxation of capital gains vs. ordinary income.\",\n \"\\\"There is nothing legal you can do in the United States to avoid the tax burden of income earned as an employee other than offsetting it with pre-tax contributions (which it sounds like you're already doing), making charitable contributions, or incurring investment losses (which is cutting off your nose to spite your face). So that $660K can't be helped. As for the $80K in stock dividends, you could move those investments into \\\"\\\"growth\\\"\\\" companies rather than \\\"\\\"value\\\"\\\" companies. Growth companies are those that pay less in dividends, where the primary increase in wealth occurs only in share price increase. This puts off your tax bill until you finally sell your shares, and (depending on how the tax laws are at that time) your tax bill will be lower on those capital gains than they are currently on these dividends. Regarding rental income I know nothing, but I think you're entitled to depreciate your property's value over time and count that against the taxes you owe on the rents. And you can deduct all the upkeep expenses. As with employment income, intentionally incurring rental losses to lower your tax bill is not logical: for every dollar you earn, you only have to give about 50 cents to the government, whereas for every dollar you lose, you've lost a dollar.\\\"\",\n \"Keep in mind that chasing after tax savings tends to not be a good way of saving money. What is a good strategy? Making sure that you take all the deductions you are entitled to. What is a bad strategy: You asked for a book recommendation. The problem is that I don't know of any books that cover all these topics. Also keep in mind that all books, blogs, articles, and yes answers to questions have a bias. Sometimes the bias can be ignored, other times it can't. Just keep looking for information on this site, and ask good specific questions about these topics.\",\n \"\\\"The primary tax-sheltered investing vehicles in Canada include: The RRSP. You can contribute up to 18% of your prior year's earned income, up to a limit ($24,930 in 2015, plus past unused contribution allowance) and receive an income tax deduction for your contributions. In an RRSP, investments grow on a tax-deferred basis. No tax is due until you begin withdrawals. When you withdraw funds, the withdrawn amount will be taxed at marginal income tax rates in effect at that time. The RRSP is similar to the U.S. \\\"\\\"traditional\\\"\\\" IRA, being an individual account with pre-tax contributions, tax-deferred growth, and ordinary tax rates applied to withdrawals. Yet, RRSPs have contribution limits higher than IRAs; higher, even, than U.S. 401(k) employee contribution limits. But, the RRSP is dissimilar to the IRA and 401(k) since an individual's annual contribution allowance isn't use-it-or-lose-it—unused allowance accumulates. The TFSA. Once you turn 18, you can put in up to $5,500 each year, irrespective of earned income. Like the RRSP, contribution room accumulates. If you were 18 in 2009 (when TFSAs were introduced) you'd be able to contribute $36,500 if you'd never contributed to one before. Unlike the RRSP, contributions to a TFSA are made on an after-tax basis and you pay no tax when you withdraw money. The post-tax nature of the TFSA and completely tax-free withdrawals makes them comparable to Roth-type accounts in the U.S.; i.e. while you won't get a tax deduction for contributing, you won't pay tax on earnings when withdrawn. Yet, unlike U.S. Roth-type accounts, you are not required to use the TFSA strictly for retirement savings—there is no penalty for pre-retirement withdrawal of TFSA funds. There are also employer-sponsored defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) retirement pension plans. Generally, employees who participate in these kinds of plans have their annual RRSP contribution limits reduced. I won't comment on these kinds of plans other than to say they exist and if your employer has one, check it out—many employees lose out on free money by not participating. The under-appreciated RESP. Typically used for education savings. A lifetime $50,000 contribution limit per beneficiary, and you can put that all in at once if you're not concerned about maximizing grants (see below). No tax deduction for contributions, but investments grow on a tax-deferred basis. Original contributions can be withdrawn tax-free. Qualified educational withdrawals of earnings are taxed as regular income in the hands of the beneficiary. An RESP beneficiary is typically a child, and in a child's case the Canadian federal government provides matching grant money (called CESG) of 20% on the first $2500 contributed each year, up to age 18, to a lifetime maximum of $7200 per beneficiary. Grant money is subject to additional conditions for withdrawal. While RESPs are typically used to save for a child's future education, there's nothing stopping an adult from opening an RESP for himself. If you've never had one, you can deposit $50,000 of after-tax money to grow on a tax-deferred basis for up to 36 years ... as far as I understand. An adult RESP will not qualify for CESG. Moreover, if you use the RESP strictly as a tax shelter and don't make qualified educational withdrawals when the time comes, your original contributions still come out free of tax but you'll pay ordinary income tax plus 20% additional tax on the earnings portion. That's the \\\"\\\"catch\\\"\\\"*. *However, if at that time you have accumulated sufficient RRSP contribution room, you may move up to $50,000 of your RESP earnings into your RRSP without any tax consequences (i.e. also avoiding the 20% additional tax) at time of transfer. Perhaps there's something above you haven't considered. Still, be sure to do your own due diligence and to consult a qualified, experienced, and conflict-free financial advisor for advice particular to your own situation.\\\"\",\n \"Apply as many deductions as you are legally entitled to. Those are taxes you may never ever pay. Then turn around and put any more monies above the maximum retirement contributions into a taxable account. But this time invest in tax efficient investments. For example, VTI or SPY will incur very minimal taxes and when you withdraw, it will be at lower tax rate (based on current tax laws). Just as you diversify your investments, you also want to diversify your taxes.\",\n \"As far as broad principles, I think that you are on track. The only suggestion I would have is to look into HSAs. They are another great tax-advantaged account, accessible to those with high incomes.\",\n \"Probably the biggest tax-deferment available to US workers is through employee-sponsored investment plans like the 401k. If you meet the income limits, you could also use a Traditional IRA if you do not have a 401k at work. But keep in mind that you are really just deferring taxes here. The US Government will eventually get their due. :) One way which you may find interesting is by using 529 plans, or other college investment plans, to save for your child's (or your) college expenses. Generally, contributions up to a certain amount are deductible on your state taxes, and are exempt from Federal and State taxes when used for qualifying education expenses. The state deduction can lower your taxes and help you save for college for your children, if that is a desire of yours.\",\n \"Seek professional advice as duffbeer703 has suggested already. Very important! Consider incorporating. If your income will fluctuate year to year, you can keep profit in the corporation, taxed in its hands at the Canadian small business rate, since such corporate income below $500,000 would likely qualify for the small business deduction. You could pay retained earnings to yourself as dividends over more than one year in order to lessen the personal tax burden. If you don't incorporate, all your profits in the year they are earned are taxed at personal income tax rates, and with our progressive income tax system, taking the tax hit all in one year can be expensive. However, if this project is a one-off and you're not likely to continue working like this, you might not want the overhead of a corporation. Taxes aside, there are also legal issues to consider vis-a-vis incorporating, or not. A professional can help you make this decision. Yes, you can claim deductions for reasonable business expenses, whether or not you are incorporated. No, you can't do free work on the side and claim it as donations. It's nice to volunteer, but you wouldn't get a charitable tax credit for your time, only for money or goods donated. Consider opening an RRSP so you can start saving for retirement and get a tax deduction for any contributions you make. This is but one strategy to reduce your tax. There are others. For instance, if you are a student, you perhaps have some unused tuition credits that you could claim in your first year with higher income. Oh, and seek professional advice! ;-)\",\n \"\\\"You're asking explicitly about $250K+ wage earners. Well, believe it or not, but this is the most discriminated group of people in the US tax code. This is what is called \\\"\\\"the upper middle class\\\"\\\". People who still have to work for a living, but treated as if they're rich (I don't consider people who must work to keep up their life style as rich). Many of the deductions cannot be taken by them. Lets go over the list Keith made: You mentioned losses - you cannot deduct gambling losses (in excess of gambling income), and you cannot deduct passive (rental real estate, for example) losses. While for rental real estate there's a small amount of losses you could deduct, it phases out well below the $250K line (can be deducted against passive income, or when disposed of the property). 529 plans are not deductible (in fact, its a gift subject to the gift tax). Bottom line, being a high earner with wages only means you pay the most tax. You either find a way to become self employed and have a lot of business deductions on your schedule C/1120S, or switch to capital gains. You can marry an unemployed partner, it will make your life slightly easier.\\\"\",\n \"My first question to you is if you itemize? If not the charitable contributions will not do any good. Along these lines, donating unused items to Goodwill or similar can help boost your charitable giving. The bottom line is that the 401K is one of the few real deductions high earners have. If you anticipate earning similarly next year, you could both contribute the max. You still have some time before the end of the year, can you get more in your wife's account? Does your state have income tax? You might be able to deduct sales tax for larger purchases if you made any. However, I would not justify a large purchase just to write off the sales tax. Conventional wisdom will tell you that you should have a large mortgage in order to deduct the interests. However, it does not make sense to pay the bank 10K so you can get 3K back from the government. That seems pretty dumb. If you did not do additional withholding, you probably will have to pay a significant amount plus penalty if you owe more than $1000. You still have time to make one more quarterly payment, so you may want to do so by January 15th. For next year I would recommend the following: The funny thing about giving is that it rarely helps the recipient, it does so much more for the giver. It helps you build wealth. For myself I like to give to charities that have a bent to helping people out of poverty or homelessness. We have two excellent ones here in Orlando, FL: Orlando Rescue Mission and Christian Help. Both have significant job training and budgeting programs.\",\n \"Welcome to the real world :-) There really aren't all that many ways for ordinary employees to lower taxes. You could put more in your 401k, buy a house (for the mortgage interest deduction, which lets you deduct some other things instead of taking standard deduction), or move to a different state to get rid of the state tax.\",\n \"So. You might be looking at the world of investing after tax deductions are gone. Buy index funds, or a few stable stocks of your choice. (Index funds have minimal turnover, so you won't realize as many uncontrollable tax events throughout the year). The top long-term capital gains rate is presently 15% (will it go up to 20% soon? who knows! it might. That's up to Congress and Obama, really.) If you can control when you realize it (say, in a year when you don't have a lot of other income) the tax consequences aren't toooo horrible. (It also helps if you live in a state that doesn't tax the gains themselves, e.g. not California?) Or buy real estate, if you don't own the house where you live already (and your lifestyle permits). You shouldn't expect impressive capital appreciation, but you don't have to pay tax on the imputed rent (the rent money you avoid paying by owning the place yourself).\",\n \"Use your line of credit (LOC) to purchase more investments (non RRSP). That way, all of your LOC interest use to purchase those investments becomes tax deductible. Then use the money from your tax return to pay down the LOC.\",\n \"\\\"Does your company offer a Medical Savings Account? That can allow you to reduce your taxable income. You normally have to join during \\\"\\\"open season\\\"\\\". Another option is Medical and Dental Expenses above 7.5% of your adjusted gross income. This is a high hurdle to meet, and only reduces your taxes by the tax rate x the amount your bills exceed 7.5%\\\"\",\n \"If your annual income is less than $45000 or so (and you expect this to change for the better in the future), it's not worthwhile to put that in an RRSP -- save your contribution room for the future years where you will gain more of a tax deduction. There's no real downside in investing in a TFSA (what you withdraw this year can be put back in next year), so any surplus funds that you do not anticipate needing this year can be put in a TFSA to earn a bit more than the equivalent investment outside of a shelter.\",\n \"Without more information about what tax bracket you are in, I cannot make a recommendation about what your best option is, but here are a few things to consider:\",\n \"Based on your comment that you do not itemize your deductions, I think that's probably the next step for you to consider. Many of the suggestions that we would give require that you itemize. If you are not familiar with the potential deductions it would probably be worth your while to visit with a local tax professional and discuss your expenses including what changes you could make to minimize your tax bill. Ultimately becoming eligible for the 401(k) if possible will allow you access to the biggest avenue for reducing tax liability. It sounds like you are already prioritizing and saving for retirement through your IRA, but most earners in the 25% bracket can't put the recommended 15% into savings (with tax advantages) through an IRA.\",\n \"Depending on the size of the donation, you may be able to reduce taxes further by donating appreciated assets, such as stock or fund shares that have gone up a lot. That lets you dodge the capital gains tax on redeeming the shares, and if you're donating to a tax-exempt organization they don't have to pay that tax either. And as @JoeTaxpayer has confirmed, you still get to deduct the current value of the donation, not just the basis value of those shares. So if you're donating anyway, this comes close to being Free Money in exchange for some slightly annoying paperwork. (Yet another benefit of long-term investing!) Of course folks in the top brackets sometimes set up their own tax-exempt foundations so they can decouple taking the tax break from deciding what to do with the donation.\",\n \"\\\"With these income levels you cannot deduct any IRA contribution. I.e.: you cannot save pre-tax, as you want. But you still can contribute to IRA (as a non-deductible contribution), and using the \\\"\\\"loophole\\\"\\\" transfer the contribution to Roth (you are probably over the limit to be able to contribute to Roth directly). For pre-tax contributions - max out your 401k.\\\"\",\n \"Can you make use of an HSA (health savings account) or a medical FSA (flexible spending account)? Depending on your medical coverage, one of these may be available to you. Buying a house usually does the trick, between property tax and interest, it's not tough to have quite a bit in deductions. Of course, you need to want a house in the first place.\",\n \"The only way you can save taxes is by starting a limited company, not paying yourself any salary, so you pay 20% corporation taxes, you can take I think £5000 a year dividends tax free, and leave the rest in the company account, and don't touch it until you make less money.\",\n \"Without knowing specifics about your personal situation, there are two items to consider: 1. Pre-pay as many items as possible this year. (rent/lease, insurance premiums, etc.) to reduce your profit on paper in this tax year. 2. If you don't have a retirement plan for yourself, look into it as a way to put some money aside for retirement pre-tax. If your accountant can't help with this, perhaps find a financial planner. Congrats though, great problem to have!\",\n \"If you're maxing out your 401k, just save in tax-efficient investments like stocks and tax efficient funds. If you live in a state with income taxes, look at municipal bond funds for some tax-free income. In 2011, be careful with bond funds and look for short duration funds.\",\n \"Make sure you are hitting the actual max of the 401k. Most think it is 18K, but that is the amount you can contribute into either pre-tax or roth. On top of this, you can also contribute using an after-tax contribution (treated differently from Roth). Total amounts up to 54k (since you are under 50). One thing I would look into for ways to beat interest rates in bank accounts and CDs is Municipal Bond funds, given your high income. I have seen some earning almost 6% tax-free YTD. These also give you liquidity. Definitely keep your 3 mo salary in the bank, but once you get over that while maxing out your 401k, this is a pretty good way to make your money work for you, without crushing you come tax time. Building that muni bond fund account gradually, you can eventually use that account to pay for things like car payments, mortgage, rent, vacation, etc. Just be sure if you go with a mutual fund, that you are aware of any surrender charge schedules. I have seen this done with C Shares, where you can withdraw your investment without penalty after 1 year. Let me know if this is unclear or you would like any additional information. Best of luck!\",\n \"\\\"This scheme doesn't work, because the combination of corporation tax, even the lower CCPC tax, plus the personal income tax doesn't give you a tax advantage, not on any realistic income I've ever worked it out on anyway. Prior to the 2014 tax year on lower incomes you could scrape a bit of an advantage but the 2013 budget changed the calculation for the tax credit on non-eligible dividends so there shouldn't be an advantage anymore. Moreover if you were to do it this way, by paying corporation tax instead of CPP you aren't eligible for CPP. If you sit with a calculator for long enough you may figure out a way of saving $200 or something small but it's a lot of paperwork for little if any benefit and you wouldn't get CPP. I understand the money multiplier effect described above, but the tax system is designed in a way that it makes more sense to take it as salary and put it in a tax deferred saving account, i.e. an RRSP - so there's no limit on the multiplier effect. Like I said, sit with a calculator - if you're earning a really large amount and are still under the small business limit it may make more sense to use a CCPC, but that is the case regardless of using it as a tax shelter because if you're earning a lot you're probably running a business of some size. The main benefit I think is that if you use a CCPC you can carry forward your losses, but you have to be aware of the definition of an \\\"\\\"allowable business investment loss\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"It is important to remember that the tax brackets in the U.S. are marginal. This means that the first part of your income is taxed at 10%, the next part at 15%, next at 25%, etc. Therefore, if you find yourself just on the edge of a tax bracket, it really does not make any difference which side of that line you end up falling on. That having been said, of course, reducing your taxable income reduces your taxes. There are lots of deductions you can take, if you qualify. Depending on what type of health insurance coverage you have, a Health Savings Account (HSA) is a great way to shelter some income from taxes. Charitable contributions are also an easy way to reduce your taxes; you don't really personally benefit from them, but if you'd rather send your money to a good cause than to Uncle Sam, that's an easy way to do it.\",\n \"IANAL (and nor am I an accountant), so I can't give a definitive answer as to legality, but AFAIK, what you propose is legal. But what's the benefit? Avoiding corporation tax? It's simplistic – and costly – to think in terms like that. You need to run the numbers for different scenarios, and make a plan. You can end up ahead of the game precisely by choosing to pay some corporate tax each year. Really! Read on. One of the many reasons that self-employed Canadians sometimes opt for a corporate structure over being a sole proprietor is to be able to not pay themselves everything the company earns each year. This is especially important when a business has some really good years, and others, meh. Using the corporation to retain earnings can be more tax effective. Example: Imagine your corporation earns, net of accounting & other non-tax costs except for your draws, $120,000/year for 5 years, and $0 in year 6. Assume the business is your only source of income for those 6 years. Would you rather: Pay yourself the entire $120,000/yr in years 1-5, then $0 in year 6 (living off personal savings you hopefully accumulated earlier), subjecting the $120,000/yr to personal income tax only, leaving nothing in the corporation to be taxed? Very roughly speaking, assuming tax rates & brackets are level from year to year, and using this calculator (which simplifies certain things), then in Ontario, then you'd net ~$84,878/yr for years 1-5, and $0 in year 6. Overall, you realized $424,390. Drawing the income in this manner, the average tax rate on the $600,000 was 29.26%. vs. Pay yourself only $100,000/yr in years 1-5, leaving $20,000/yr subject to corporation tax. Assuming a 15.5% combined federal/provincial corporate tax rate (includes the small business deduction), then the corp. is left with $16,900/yr to add to retained earnings in years 1-5. In year 6, the corp. has $84,500 in retained earnings to be distributed to you, the sole owner, as a dividend (of the non-eligible kind.) Again, very roughly speaking, you'd personally net $73,560/yr in years 1-5, and then on the $84,500 dividend in year 6, you'd net $73,658. Overall, you realized $441,458. Drawing the income in this manner, the average tax rate on the $600K was 26.42%. i.e. Scenario 2, which spreads the income out over the six years, saved 2.84% in tax, or $14,400. Smoothing out your income is also a prudent thing to do. Would you rather find yourself in year 6, having no clients and no revenue, with nothing left to draw on? Or would you rather the company had saved money from the good years to pay you in the lean one?\",\n \"You could use HBB and other similar funds that exchange distributions for capital gains. There's HXT and HXS which is Canada and US equity markets. The swap fee + mer is a little more than some funds except for HXT which is very cheap. There's a risk for long term holders that this may eventually get banned and you're forced to sell with a gain at the wrong time, but this won't matter much if you're planning on selling in a few years. You have to pay the capital gains tax eventually. Note, the tax on distributions is really a long term drag on performance and won't make a big difference in the short term.\",\n \"Not as you suggest. Since you are sole prop, you are taxed on a cash basis. Within reason, you can prepay vendors - so temp to hire through an agency might appear more attractive than direct hire. But there needs to be a justification other than avoidance of taxes. So pre-paying 100k on 12/25 would look fishy as fuck. Plus your quality of candidate will suffer if you need anything other than low skill labor. Look at your other fully deductible expenses - anything you can prepay-prepay. For example, I set my liability insurance renewal January 15 to provide optionality. But it just shifts one year into another .. Means fuckall if you are in the same marginal bracket next year. The IRS has also relaxed depreciation on office technology. Computers are now fully deductible rather than being capitalized. @ 500k revenue you should have a CPA and legal counsel. Simply incorporating isn't tax magic. The purpose is to limit yourersonal liability, not a tax shelter - but shitty things happen once you have employees, don't create the potential for a disgruntled employee lawsuit put your shelter at risk of court judgment. That said, assuming you aren't dumping a hypothetical on the Internet, congrats - for all the headaches, having employees is the ultimate leverage .. it's like a xerox machine for your labor (including loss of fidelity with each copy) ..\",\n \"To piggyback on a comment that @enderland posted, if you have some extra cash saved, something worth considering is to evaluate your current retirement accounts to determine future tax liability. In Canada, there exist Roth IRA-like Tax Free Savings Accounts (TFSA) which are pre-taxed (meaning that you pay all taxes up front when you deposit monies to this account rather than when you withdraw them during retirement after they have grown in interest). Depending on the type of account your retirement funds are currently held in, it might be financially advantageous of you to save your extra money in a short term savings account, transfer your current retirement savings from a post-tax account to a TFSA and use that extra money to pay off any immediate tax liability incurred as a result of the transfer. You will have to run the numbers yourself to determine if your retirement account setup, balance and interest justifies this route but given your age there is a fairly high chance that you can end up saving many tens of thousands of dollars in taxes that might be otherwise be due when you retire.\",\n \"\\\"How can I avoid this, so we are taxed as if we are making the $60k/yr that we want to receive? You can't. In the US the income is taxed when received, not when used. If you receive 1M this year, taking out 60K doesn't mean the other 940K \\\"\\\"weren't received\\\"\\\". They were, and are taxable. Create a pension fund in the corporation, feed it all profits, and pay out $60k/yr of \\\"\\\"pension\\\"\\\". I doubt that the corporation could deduct a million a year in pension funding. You cannot do that. You can only deposit to a pension plan up to 100% of your salary, and no more than $50K total (maybe a little more this year, its adjusted to inflation). Buy a million dollars in \\\"\\\"business equipment\\\"\\\" of some sort each year to get a deduction, then sell it over time to fund a $60k/yr salary. I doubt such a vehicle exists. If there's no real business purpose, it will be disallowed and you'll be penalized. Your only purpose is tax avoidance, meaning you're trying to shift income using your business to avoid paying taxes - that's illegal. Do crazy Section 79 life insurance schemes to tax-defer the income. The law caps this so I can only deduct < $100k of the $1 million annually, and there are other problems with this approach.\\\\ Yes. Wouldn't go there. Added: From what I understand, this is a term life insurance plan sponsored by the employer for the employee. This is not a deferral of income, but rather a deduction: instead of paying your term life insurance with your own after tax money, your employer pays with their pre-tax. It has a limit of $50K per employee, and is only available for employees. There are non-discrimination limitations that may affect your ability to use it, but I don't see how it is at all helpful for you. It gives you a deduction, but its money spent, not money in your pocket. End added. Do some tax avoidance like Facebook does with its Double Irish trick, storing the income in some foreign subsidiary and drawing $60k/yr in salary to be taxed at $60k/yr rates. This is probably cost-prohibitive for a $1MM/yr company. You're not Facebook. What works with a billion, will not work with a million. Keep in mind that you're a one-man business, things that huge corporations like Google or Facebook can get away with are a no-no for a sole-proprietor (even if incorporated). Bottom line you'll probably have to pay the taxes. Get a good tax professional to help you identify as much deductions as possible, and if you can plan income ahead - plan it better.\\\"\",\n \"The above is very true, but the biggest bang for your buck can also be in the RESP, assuming you qualify for the grant of 20% per year...it's hard to beat free money from the government...in this account, your investment grows, and the growth and grant is taxed in the hands of the child when it is withdrawn. (Normally, they dont have much income at this point, so pay little or no tax) However, you do not get any income tax deduction or tax break at the time you make the deposit.\",\n \"In my opinion, I would: If the income is from this year, you can tax shelter $59,000 plus somewhere between $50,000 and $300,000 depending on age, in a 401(k) and defined benefit plan. This will take care of the current tax burden. Afterwards, set aside your remaining tax liability in cash. The after-tax money should be split into cash and the rest into assets. The split depends on your level of risk tolerance. Build a core portfolio using highly liquid and non-correlated ETFs (think SPY, TLT, QQQ, ect.). Once these core positions are locked in. Start lowering your basis by systematically selling a 1 standard deviation call in the ETF per 100 units of underlying. This will reduce your upside, extend your breakeven, and often yield steady income. Similarly, you can sell 1 standard deviation iron condors should the VIX be high enough. Point is, you have the money to deploy a professional-type, systematic strategy that is non-correlated, and income generating.\",\n \"This question is indeed rather complicated. Let's simplify it a little bit. Paying down your mortgage makes sense if your expected return in the rest of your portfolio is less than the cost of the mortgage. In many cases, people may also decide to pay down their mortgage because they are risk-averse and do not like carrying debt. There's no tax benefit to doing so, though; Canada doesn't generally allow you to write off mortgage interest, unlike the U.S. As to keeping money in the corporation or not, I'm not going to address that. I don't have a firm enough understanding of corporate taxation. Canadian Couch Potato advises treating all of your investment assets as one large portfolio. That is what you are trying to do here. However, let's consider a different approach. If you do not have enough money to max out your RRSP or TFSA, you may choose to keep your TFSA for an emergency fund, where the money is kept highly liquid. Keep your cash in an interest-bearing TFSA, or perhaps invest it in the money market, inside your TFSA. Then, use your RRSP for the rest of your investment money, split according to your investment goals. This is not the most tax-efficient approach, but it is nice and simple. But you are looking for the most tax-efficient approach. So, let's assume you have enough to more than max out your TFSA and RRSP contributions, and all of your investments are going toward your retirement, which is at least a decade away. Because you are not taxed on your investment income from RRSPs (until you withdraw the money) or TFSA, it makes sense to hold the least tax-efficient investments there. Tax-advantaged investments such as Canadian equities should be held in your investment accounts outside of TFSA and RRSPs. Again, the Canadian Couch Potato has a great article on where to put your investment assets. That article covers interest, dividends, foreign dividends, and capital gains, as well as RRSPs, RESPs, and TFSAs. That article recommends holding Canadian equities in a taxable account, REITs in a tax-sheltered account (TFSA or RRSP), bonds, GICs, and money-market funds in a tax-sheltered account (as these count as interest). The article goes into rather more detail than this, and is worth checking out. It mentions the 15% withholding tax on US-listed ETFs, for example. In addition to that website, I recommend the following three books: The above three resources strongly advocate passive indexed investments, which I like but not everyone agrees with. All three specifically discuss tax implications, which is why I include them here.\",\n \"That plan wouldn't save you any money because tax brackets don't work that way. All of your earnings up to each level are taxed at that rate. You aren't taxed at the highest rate on all of the money. In your example you pay... If you reduce your income to $37,4000 you pay... In the end you'd be spending $100 to save $20. The only way you conceivably come out ahead by donating to charity (not counting the good karma for doing so) is if you own the charity and it is a way for you to funnel money to yourself and write it off.\",\n \"The only ways to increase your after-tax income are to increase your tax-deferred savings (401k), increase your tax deductions, or increase your pre-tax income. Increasing tax-deferred savings is great for the long term, but will usually not result in a bigger paycheck (though net pay including the savings will go up). This is, however, probably your best bet for reducing current tax liability. Increasing deductions usually involves spending money--on charity, mortgage interest, other taxes, etc. So, while you may reduce your tax liability, you probably won't end up with more money in your pocket. Also, if you are single and aren't paying a mortgage, it probably won't be easy to exceed the Standard Deduction. Which pretty much leaves you with asking for a raise, getting a better paying job, or taking on a second job to increase your top-line income.\",\n \"\\\"If you only have to pay 23k federal taxes on 100k, that means you are in the long term capital gains tax rate, which is the lower of the tax rates available. First you get your federal income tax marginal tax rate, and then find the matching long term capital gains tax rate. For example, if your marginal federal income tax rate is 28%, your capital gains tax rate would be 15%. Or rather, if the amount of the gain would put you in the 28% rate, then your long term capital gains tax rate is 15%. You can reduce that by having more losses. If you have anything else invested anywhere that is taking a loss, then you can sell that this year and it will offset the other gains you have realized. The only note is that your losses have to be long term capital losses too. Tax loss harvesting takes this to an extreme where you sell something at a loss to lock in the tax loss, but you didn't really want to get rid of that investment, so then you buy a nearly identical investment. ie. if you owned shares of \\\"\\\"Direxion Tech Sector ETF\\\"\\\" and it was at a loss, you would sell that and then immediately buy \\\"\\\"ProShares Tech Sector ETF\\\"\\\", the competing product that does the exact same thing. Then there is charity. This still requires spending money and you not having it any longer. If you feel that a cause can use the money more directly than the US government, you can donate an appreciated asset to the charity - not report a gain and also take a charitable deduction.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"(Disclaimer: I am not an accountant nor a tax pro, etc., etc.) Yes, a Canadian corporation can function as a partial income tax shelter. This is possible since a corporation can retain earnings (profits) indefinitely, and corporate income tax rates are generally less than personal income tax rates. Details: If you own and run your business through a corporation, you can choose to take income from your corporation in one of two ways: as salary, or as dividends. Salary constitutes an expense of the corporation, i.e. it gets deducted from revenue in calculating corporate taxable income. No corporate income tax is due on money paid out as salary. However, personal income taxes and other deductions (e.g. CPP) would apply to salary at regular rates, the same as for a regular employee. Dividends are paid by the corporation to shareholders out of after-tax profits. i.e. the corporation first pays income tax on taxable income for the fiscal year, and resulting net income could be used to pay dividends (or not). At the personal level, dividends are taxed less than salary to account for tax the corporation paid. The net effect of corporate + personal tax is about the same as for salary (leaving out deductions like CPP.) The key point: Dividends don't have to be paid out in the year the money was earned. The corporation can carry profits forward (retained earnings) as long as it wants and choose to issue dividends (or not) in later years. Given that, here's how would the partial income tax shelter works: At some point, for you to personally realize income from the corporation, you can have the corporation declare a dividend. You'll then have to pay personal income taxes on the income, at the dividend rates. But for as long as the money was invested inside the corporation, it was subject only to lesser corporate tax rates, not higher personal income tax rates. Hence the \\\"\\\"partial\\\"\\\" aspect of this kind of tax shelter. Or, if you're lucky enough to find a buyer for your corporation, you could qualify for the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption on proceeds up to $750,000 when you sell a qualified small business corporation. This is the best exit strategy; unfortunately, not an easy one where the business has no valuable assets (e.g. a client base, or intellectual property.) * The major sticking-point: You need to have real business revenue! A regular employee (of another company) can't funnel his personally-earned employment income into a corporation just to take advantage of this mechanism. Sorry. :-/\\\"\",\n \"Income and Capital are taxed separately in the uk. You probably can't get dividends paid gross even in ISA's you pay the basic rate of tax on dividends only higher rate tax payers get tax benefit from dividends. What you could do is invest in splits (Spilt capital investment trusts ) in the share class where all the return comes as capital and use up some of your yearly CGT allowance that way.\",\n \"\\\"First off, high five on the paycheck. There are a few retirement issues to deal with. 401k issues - At that income level, you will probably fall into the \\\"\\\"Highly Compensated Employee\\\"\\\" category, which means things get a little more complicated, both for you and your employer. (Wikipedia link) IRA issues - As you already realized, you make too much to directly open and contribute to a Roth IRA. You can open a Traditional IRA, however. Your income is already over the limit for Traditional IRA deduction (bummer), so it would seem there is little point to opening an IRA at all. However, there is a way to take advantage of a Roth IRA, even at your income level. It is possible to convert a Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. There used to be income limits on the ability to do the conversion, which would have normally made this off limits to you. Starting in 2010, the income limit is removed, so you can do this. Basically, you open a Traditional IRA, max it out, then convert it to a Roth. Since there was no income deduction, you shouldn't have to pay any more taxes. (link) Disclaimer: I've never tried this, nor do I know anyone who has, so you might want to research it a bit more before you try it yourself.\\\"\",\n \"There is no way you can directly defer that capital gains tax. If you sell a property that is not your principal residence, it will be taxed in the year in which it was sold. It doesn't matter what you do with the proceeds - that tax will get paid. Now, if you had adequate RRSP contribution room you could certainly put some money there, and would get a deduction on your tax return that would offset this capital gains tax. For example, if you sold a property for $300K that was originally purchased for $200K, then you would incur capital gains tax of $50K (assuming you were not claiming CCA deductions). If you took $50K of your proceeds and put it in an RRSP, it would offset the tax you pay now, and essentially defer the tax on that $50K of income until you withdraw - hopefully at a lower marginal tax rate. A spousal RRSP would work the same, except it would be taxed at your spouse's marginal tax rate when withdrawn. Either way, you need to have sufficient contribution room in the RRSP for this to work. Check your Notice of Assessment to see how much room you have available.\",\n \"If you were looking to maximize your ability to save in a qualified plan, why not setup a 401K plan in Company A and keep the SEP in B? Setup the 401K in A such that any employee can contribute 100% of their salary. Then take a salary for around 19K/year (assuming under age 50), so you can contribute and have enough to cover SS taxes. Then continue to move dividends to Company A, and continue the SEP in B. This way if you are below age 50, you can contribute 54K (SEP limit) + 18K (IRA limit) + 5500 (ROTH income dependent) to a qualified plan.\",\n \"Given you other question and your resulting marginal tax rate, you may want to optimize where you hold each type of security. If you still plan to have a regular investment account, it's hard to beat the low tax rate of Canadian dividends. In a TFSA, you won't pay tax on the dividend income, and you won't get a dividend tax credit either. For some people in BC this actually costs them money as they have negative marginal dividend tax rates. For you it seems to be 6%. Contrast this with any other holding in your regular account, interest at full marginal rates, and cap gains at half that. Dividends still win in a regular account.\",\n \"Consider doing things that will allow for tax deductions, such as short selling. The IRS has regulations on this as well. And consider that Futures are taxed more favorably than other kinds of investments. (60% taxed as long term, 40% taxed as short term)\",\n \"Ditto Rocky. Also: Break the sale up over several tax years so that you don't have a spike in your income pushing you into a higher tax bracket. Don't sell it until you retire, when you're probably in a lower tax bracket. (If you're 20, this may be impractical.) Get some other deductions, like medical expenses, charity, etc. Failing that, maybe a couple of other ideas that neither of us thought of, I think the real answer is: suck it up and pay the taxes. If there was a way to reduce your taxes just by checking the right box on a tax form or some such, everybody would do it and the government wouldn't collect any taxes.\",\n \"It turns out that my logic was faulty. I wasn't aware that RRSP contributions and RRSP deductions are independent. There's no reason to split up my RRSP contributions across the two years. In my original plan, I was going to defer some RRSP contributions until 2017 so that they wouldn't be deducted from my 2016 income. This isn't necessary — nothing is forcing me to deduct the entire RRSP contribution on my taxes this year. I can still follow the plan I described in my question and max out my RRSP contribution this tax year by only deducting part of the contribution on this year's taxes\",\n \"Put in the maximum you can into the 401(k), the limit should be $16,500 so long as the highly compensated rules don't kick in. Since you cannot deduct the traditional IRA, it's a great option to deposit to a traditional IRA and immediately convert that balance to a Roth account. That puts you at $21,500/yr saved, nearly 18%. There's nothing stopping you from investing outside these accounts. A nice ETF with low expenses, investing in a stock index (I am thinking SPY for the S&P 500) is great to accumulate long term.\",\n \"This is ideal placement for your allocation to income investments or those with nonqualified dividends: bonds, REITS, MLPS, other partnerships, and so forth. These are all taxed at income rate, generally throw off more income than capital gains, so you get the deferment without losing the cap gains rate.\",\n \"\\\"The \\\"\\\"hire a pro\\\"\\\" is quite correct, if you are truly making this kind of money. That said, I believe in a certain amount of self-education so you don't follow a pro's advice blindly. First, I wrote an article that discussed Marginal Tax Rates, and it's worth understanding. It simply means that as your income rises past certain thresholds, the tax rate also will change a bit. You are on track to be in the top rate, 33%. Next, Solo 401(k). You didn't ask about retirement accounts, but the combined situations of making this sum of money and just setting it aside, leads me to suggest this. Since you are both employer and employee, the Solo 401(k) limit is a combined $66,500. Seems like a lot, but if you are really on track to make $500K this year, that's just over 10% saved. Then, whatever the pro recommends for your status, you'll still have some kind of Social Security obligation, as both employer and employee, so that's another 15% or so for the first $110K. Last, some of the answers seemed to imply that you'll settle in April. Not quite. You are required to pay your tax through the year and if you wait until April to pay the tax along with your return, you will have a very unpleasant tax bill. (I mean it will have penalties for underpayment through the year.) This is to be avoided. I offer this because often a pro will have a specialty and not go outside that focus. It's possible to find the guy that knows everything about setting you up as an LLC or Sole Proprietorship, yet doesn't have the 401(k) conversation. Good luck, please let us know here how the Pro discussion goes for you.\\\"\",\n \"mb's answer for FSA was dead on. You also mention child care - The child care credit comes with a phaseout based on income, the Dependent care account alows you to set aside up to $5K pretax money to covers these costs. It's pre-FICA and medicare as well, so the savings can be 33% pretty easily.\",\n \"The numbers you have quoted don't add up. For Rs 30,000 / month is 3,60,000 a year. The tax should be around 11,000 again this will be reduced by the contributions to PF. You have indicated a tax deductions of 18,000. There are multiple ways to save taxes. Since you are beginner, investments into section 80C should give you required tax benefits. Please read this article in Economic Times\",\n \"how does a single employee LLC bring in 500k? I mean if you want to have it in a low-tax environment, you can probably invest it in something and then pull them out? I don't think you can put away pre-tax earnings to then use on salary costs.\",\n \"\\\"From Rich Dad, Poor Dad. 3 Major Things: With rental real estate, in addition to mortgage interest, you also deduct property taxes, and must claim depreciation (cost of house / 27.5 years) Business Expenses. For example, buy a yacht and put it in a charter fleet. Deduct interest on the loan, depreciation of the asset, property taxes, upkeep of the boat. Your \\\"\\\"business\\\"\\\" earns profit from chartering the boat, which if I recall correctly is taxed at a lower rate. You get to go sailing for free. Then there was the concept of subdividing the businesses. If you own a restaurant, create another business to own the property, and the equipment used in the company. Then lease the equipment and rent the land to the restaurant. Now admittedly I thought this was like the Daylight Savings plan of tax avoidance, I mean now aren't you essentially having two companies paying half the taxes. I am sure there are well paid CPAs that make the math happen, perhaps using insurance plans.. Perhaps each business funds a \\\"\\\"whole life\\\"\\\" insurance account, and contributes vast amounts into that. Then you take a loan from your insurance account. Loans of course are not income, so not taxed. The third way is to create your own bank. Banks are required to have reserves of 9%. Meaning if I have $100 dollars, the FDIA allows me to loan $1,111. I then charge you 20% interest, or $222/yr. Now how much can I loan? ...well you can see how profitable that is. Sure you pay taxes, but when you print your own money who cares? Most of this is just gleamed from books, and government publications, but that was my general understanding of it. Feel free to correct the finer points.\\\"\",\n \"How is not different? You want to retire early; hence, you will save what you deem necessary to retire early. On the other hand, if you turn your retirement savings into capital gains; that's good. Nonetheless, if you start to earn capital gains that is detrimental to the economic value of the state; then, your taxes should be at higher rate to compensate for that. Everyone encourages business; rarely anyone would encourage a monopoly. Earning wealth is good business, hoarding wealth is a monopoly.\",\n \"There are few things going on here: My advice would be: with 75k income and a regular pay check there isn't a whole let you can do to adjust your tax burden. It's unlikely that any adviser will save enough money to warrant professional advice and the associated cost. Use off the shelf software for tax return and tax planning.\",\n \"\\\"As was stated, households earning over $250k/yr don't all get their income one way. Below that threshold, even in the six figure range, most households are in one of two categories; salary/wage/commission workers, and those living off of nest eggs/entitlements (retired, disabled, welfare). Above $250k, though, are a lot of disparate types of incomes: Now, you specifically mentioned wage earners above $250k. Wage earners typically have the same \\\"\\\"tax havens\\\"\\\" that most of us do; the difference is usually that they are better able to make use of them: In other words, there are many ways for a high-end wage earner to live the good life and write a lot of it off.\\\"\",\n \"Your approach sounds solid to me. Alternatively, if (as appears to be the case) then you might want to consider devoting your tax-advantaged accounts to tax-inefficient investments, such as REITs and high-yield bond funds. That way your investments that generate non-capital-gain (i.e. tax-expensive) income are safe from the IRS until retirement (or forever). And your investments that generate only capital gains income are safe until you sell them (and then they're tax-cheap anyway). Of course, since there aren't really that many tax-expensive investment vehicles (especially not for a young person), you may still have room in your retirement accounts after allocating all the money you feel comfortable putting into REITs and junk bonds. In that case, the article I linked above ranks investment types by tax-efficiency so you can figure out the next best thing to put into your IRA, then the next, etc.\",\n \"I'm not familiar with Canadian taxes, but had your question been written about the United States, I'd advise you to at least consult for a couple of hours with an accountant. Taxes are complex, and the cost of making a mistake generally exceeds the cost of getting professional advice.\",\n \"\\\"Retirement accounts often can be invested with pretax money, with the exception of Roth accounts that use post-tax and have tax-free growth if you follow the rules, rather than after tax money as well as provide a shelter so that you aren't having to pay annual taxes on dividends and other possible distributions. Another point would be to consider how much money you'd be investing as some funds may have institutional versions that can be much cheaper than others, e.g. compare Vanguard's index funds that the 500 Index in Investor shares, Admiral shares and institutional forms where the tickers would be VFINX, VFIAX, VINIX, VIIIX to consider. Some companies may have access to the institutional funds that aren't what you'd have unless you are investing millions of dollars upfront. Lastly, if there isn't an employer plan and you make a ton of cash, you may not qualify for a deductible IRA or Roth IRA contribution for something else that may happen if you want to start playing with, \\\"\\\"What if.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"You have many options, and there is no one-size-fits-all recommendation. You can contribute to your IRA in addition to your 401(k), but because you have that 401(k), it is not tax-deductable. So there is little advantage in putting money in the IRA compared to saving it in a personal investment account, where you keep full control over it. It does, however, open the option to do a backdoor-rollover from that IRA to a Roth IRA, which is a good idea to have; you will not pay any taxes if you do that conversion, if the money in the IRA was not tax deducted (which it isn't as you have the 401(k)). You can also contribute to a Roth IRA directly, if you are under the income limits for that (193k$ for married, I think, not sure for single). If this is the case, you don't need to take the detour through the IRA with the backdoor-rollover. Main advantage for Roth is that gains are tax free. There are many other answers here that give details on where to save if you have more money to save. In a nutshell, In between is 'pay off all high-interest debt', I think right after 1. - if you have any. 'High-Interest' means anything that costs more interest than you can expect when investing.\",\n \"You should very much nail down your planned expenses and profit. However beyond that you may have some better options to avoid taxation assuming all your plans go well. You should take into account the ability to avoid taxes on the sale of a primary residence. You could build the spec house, then move into the spec house. You could then sell the primary (avoiding any profit less than $500k filing jointly, assuming you meet the Home Sale Tax Exclusion requirements). You can then in another two years or so sell the spec house if you want and again avoid up to $500k in profit. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-250000500000-home-sale-tax-exclusion.html\",\n \"\\\"I'm being taxed at a 40% rate, then I can give $500,000 to charity, write it off, and save $200,000 on my taxes. That's a net loss of $300,000. I may have paid less taxes, but it cost me 300 grand. Your logic is correct. However, here's another way to think about it. Suppose you are being taxed at a 40% rate. You wish to purchase $500,000 worth of diamonds. How much do you have to make in income to do so? You need to make $833,333 in income, pay 40% of that ($333,333) in taxes, and then spend the $500,000 on the diamonds. But to spend that $500,000 on a charitable donation, you only need to make an income of $500,000, taxed at a rate of 0%, because donations to charity count against your taxable income. Or, yet another way to think about it, is that if you make $833,333 in income, you can spend it on $500,000 worth of diamonds, or $833,333 worth of charitable contributions; effectively you get to purchase $333,333 worth of charitable contributions \\\"\\\"for free\\\"\\\" over the equivalent purchase that is not a charitable donation.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Not really, no. The assumption you're making—withdrawals from a corporation are subject to \\\"\\\"[ordinary] income tax\\\"\\\"—is simplistic. \\\"\\\"Income tax\\\"\\\" encompasses many taxes, some more benign than others, owing to credits and exemptions based on the kind of income. Moreover, the choices you listed as benefits in the sole-proprietor case—the RRSP, the TFSA, and capital gains treatment for non-registered investments—all remain open to the owner of a small corporation ... the RRSP to the extent that the owner has received salary to create contribution room. A corporation can even, at some expense, establish a defined benefit (DB) pension plan and exceed individual RRSP contribution limits. Yes, there is a more tax-efficient way for small business owners to benefit when it comes time to retirement. Here is an outline of two things I'm aware of: If your retirement withdrawals from your Canadian small business corporation would constitute withdrawal from the corporation's retained earnings (profits), i.e. income to the corporation that had already been subject to corporate income tax in prior years, then the corporation is able to declare such distributions as dividends and issue you a T5 slip (Statement of Investment Income) instead of a T4 slip (Statement of Remuneration Paid). Dividends received by Canadian residents from Canadian corporations benefit from the Dividend Tax Credit (DTC), which substantially increases the amount of income you can receive without incurring income tax. See TaxTips.ca - Non-eligible (small business) dividend tax credit (DTC). Quote: For a single individual with no income other than taxable Canadian dividends which are eligible for the small business dividend tax credit, in 2014 approximately $35,551 [...] could be earned before any federal* taxes were payable. * Provincial DTCs vary, and so combined federal/provincial maximums vary. See here. If you're wondering about \\\"\\\"non-eligible\\\"\\\" vs. \\\"\\\"eligible\\\"\\\": private small business corporation dividends are generally considered non-eligible for the best DTC benefit—but they get some benefit—while a large public corporation's dividends would generally be considered eligible. Eligible/non-eligible has to do with the corporation's own income tax rates; since Canadian small businesses already get a big tax break that large companies don't enjoy, the DTC for small businesses isn't as good as the DTC for public company dividends. Finally, even if there is hardly any same-year income tax advantage in taking dividends over salary from an active small business corporation (when you factor in both the income tax paid by the corporation and the individual), dividends still allow a business owner to smooth his income over time, which can result in a lower lifetime average tax rate. So you can use your business as a retained earnings piggy bank to spin off dividends that attract less tax than ordinary income. But! ... if you can convince somebody to buy your business from you, then you can benefit from the lifetime capital gains exemption of up to $800,000 on qualifying small business shares. i.e. you can receive up to $800K tax-free on the sale of your small business shares. This lifetime capital gains exemption is a big carrot—designed, I believe, to incentivize Canadian entrepreneurs to develop going-concern businesses that have value beyond their own time in the business. This means building things that would make your business worth buying, e.g. a valued brand or product, a customer base, intellectual property, etc. Of course, there are details and conditions with all of what I described, and I am not an accountant, so please consult a qualified, conflict-free professional if you need advice specific to your situation.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Call me rude, but I would be less concerned with taxes and more concerned with increasing your income. Double your income and say \\\"\\\"fuck you\\\"\\\" to the taxes! Also, I'm no expert on taxes, but a corporation would not prevent you from having income so you would likely be passing the profits through and still paying the same income tax rate.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"First of all congrats... very nice work indeed.. Secondly, i do not offer this as legal advise.. lol.. anyhow.. you need to make sure to hang on to as much as possible, being a single earner, our Uncle (Sam) is going to want what's due... That being said, you should probably look into investments, for starters, purchase a primary residence or start a business, or purchase a primary residence and use that as a business residence (both).. what you basically want are write-offs.. you need to bring your \\\"\\\"taxable\\\"\\\" income as low as possible so you pay minimal taxes.. in your case, you're in danger of paying a hefty sum in taxes... i'm sure you can shield yourself with various business expenses (a car, workplace, computers, etc.. ) that you could benefit from, both professionally and individually.. and then seriously bro... making 250k leads me to believe you've got at least more than half a brain, and that you're using more than half of that.. so dude.. get an accountant... and one you can trust.. ask your parents, colleagues, people you've worked with in the past.. etc.. there are professionals who are equally as talented in helping you keep your money as you are in making it.. -OR- you could get married, make sure your wife stays at home and start popping out kids asap... those keep my taxable (and excess) income pretty low.. LOL!!! I'm going to add to this... as a contractor, i've generally put any \\\"\\\"estimated\\\"\\\" taxes into some kind of interest accruing account so i can at least make a little money before i have to give it away.. in your case, i'd say put away at least 2/3's into some kind of interest earning account.. start by talking to your personal banker wherever your money is.. you'll be surprised at how nice they treat you... you ARE going to have to pay taxes.. so until you do, try to make a little money while it sits.. again, nice problem to have!\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Get an accountant. Now. There are many subtle things that you do not know especially if you are just starting with your own corporation. There is also an issue of corporate tax return that you will have to face pretty soon. You should be looking for accountant that does accounting for corporations, there are companies specializing in small business. I do not think you can \\\"\\\"just\\\"\\\" transfer money to your personal account. They have to be treated as dividends and treated as such for income tax purposes. Or, as you described, you may pay yourself a salary, but then you have to pay CPP and EI on top of that. When you pay yourself dividends your corporation will need to issue T5 slip for you (accountant will do that) that you will need to use when preparing personal tax return. If you pay yourself salary, corporation will need to give you T4 In terms of tax treatment, if we do not take RRSP contributions dividend tax treatment will leave little bit more money in your hands. I'd say if you have RRSP room and/or TFSA room, pay yourself dividends and then do contributions as you see fit, if you need RRSP room, pay yourself salary. TFSA room does not depend on the type of income, so if you have room there, consider filling it first.\\\"\",\n \"All data for a single adult in tax year 2010. Roth IRA 401K Roth 401k Traditional IRA and your employer offers a 401k Traditional IRA and your employer does NOT offer a 401k So, here are your options. If you have a 401k at work, you could max that out. If you make close to $120K, you could reduce your AGI enough to contribute to a Roth IRA. If you do not have a 401k at work, you could contribute to a Traditional IRA and deduct the $5K from your AGI similar to how a 401k works. Other than that, I think you are looking at investing outside of a retirement plan which means more flexibility, but no tax advantage.\",\n \"You might want to bring this fancy new IRS rule to your employer's attention. If your employer sets it up, an After-Tax 401(k) Plan allows employees to contribute after-tax money above the $18k/year limit into a special 401(k) that allows deferral of tax on all earnings until withdrawal in retirement. Now, if you think about it, that's not all that special on its own. Since you've already paid tax on the contribution, you could imitate the above plan all by yourself by simply investing in things that generate no income until the day you sell them and then just waiting to sell them until retirement. So basically you're locking up money until retirement and getting zero benefit. But here's the cool part: the new IRS rule says you can roll over these contributions into a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA with no extra taxes or penalties! And a Roth plan is much better, because you don't have to pay tax ever on the earnings. So you can contribute to this After-Tax plan and then immediately roll over into a Roth plan and start earning tax-free forever. Now, the article I linked above gets some important things slightly wrong. It seems to suggest that your company is not allowed to create a brand new 401(k) bucket for these special After-Tax contributions. And that means that you would have to mingle pre-tax and post-tax dollars in your existing Traditional 401(k), which would just completely destroy the usefulness of the rollover to Roth. That would make this whole thing worthless. However, I know from personal experience that this is not true. Your company can most definitely set up a separate After-Tax plan to receive all of these new contributions. Then there's no mingling of pre-tax and post-tax dollars, and you can do the rollover to Roth with the click of a button, no taxes or penalties owed. Now, this new plan still sits under the overall umbrella of your company's total retirement plan offerings. So the total amount of money that you can put into a Traditional 401(k), a Roth 401(k), and this new After-Tax 401(k) -- both your personal contributions and your company's match (if any) -- is still limited to $53k per year and still must satisfy all the non-discrimination rules for HCEs, etc. So it's not trivial to set up, and your company will almost certainly not be able to go all the way to $53k, but they could get a lot closer than they currently do.\",\n \"\\\"Depending on what your other deductions are and the amount you are wanting to donate, you can save some money by \\\"\\\"batching\\\"\\\" deductions into every other year. For example, if you are single in 2015, the standard deduction is $6,300. This means the first $6,300 in deductions you have basically don't \\\"\\\"matter\\\"\\\" because the standard deduction is larger. You only \\\"\\\"count\\\"\\\" itemized deductions greater than $6,300. Let's imagine you are donating $10k in 2015 and 2016 and have no other itemized deductions. If you donate in both years, you basically get a net deduction of ($10,000 - $6,300) * 2 = $7,400 over the standard deduction. However, if you donate $10k in 2015 and the next $10k on Dec31, 2015, then you now have donated $20k in 2015 and $0k in 2016. This affects your taxes because you now get ($20,000 - $6,300) = $13,700 in \\\"\\\"bonus\\\"\\\" deductions. You still get the full $6,300 standard deduction in 2016 as well. This can be a significant impact on your taxes (especially if you are married as the married deduction is double the single or have minimal other itemizable deductions)..\\\"\",\n \"I agree that best is subjective and will not give investment advice. However, the tax deductible part can be dealt with quite swiftly. If you need tax deductibility right now, at the expense of later, put it into an RSP account. If you don't need tax deductibility right now, put it into a TFSA. Assuming you have room in either of these vehicles, I would suggest using just an RSP or TFSA cash savings account for now at ING Direct. Three reasons: You get the immediate benefit of having put it somewhere, and in the case of the RSP, an immediate tax deductibility. You don't have to worry about rushing into a specific investment and can give yourself time to figure out your goals and portfolio composition. (Read about the Couch Potato portfolio for a starting point.) You can transfer your money from them for free and still keep it registered in whichever plan it is in. The last point is the most important for my suggestion. The ability to quickly park the cash in a registered account and to move it for free using the appropriate form at a later date. Most places have a sneaky transfer-out fee. ING may not be the only place that doesn't, but I haven't looked into many other places about this. You might find something else that works the same way. And please, don't ever use GIC and high return in the same sentence.\",\n \"For stocks, bonds, ETF funds and so on - Taxed only on realised gain and losses are deductible from the gain and not from company's income. Corporate tax is calculated only after all expenses have been deducted. Not the other way around. Real estate expenses can be deducted because of repairs and maintenance. In general all expenses related to the operation of the business can be deducted. But you cannot use expenses as willy nilly, as you assume. You cannot deduct your subscription to Playboy as an expense. Doing it is illegal and if caught, the tours to church will increase exponentially. VAT is only paid if you claim VAT on your invoices. Your situation seems quite complicated. I would suggest, get an accountant pronto. There are nuances in your situation, which an accountant only can understand and help.\",\n \"\\\"There are ways to mitigate, but since you're not protected by a tax-deferred/advantaged account, the realized income will be taxed. But you can do any of the followings to reduce the burden: Prefer selling either short positions that are at loss or long positions that are at gain. Do not invest in stocks, but rather in index funds that do the rebalancing for you without (significant) tax impact on you. If you are rebalancing portfolio that includes assets that are not stocks (real-estate, mainly) consider performing 1031 exchanges instead of plain sale and re-purchase. Maximize your IRA contributions, even if non-deductible, and convert them to Roth IRA. Hold your more volatile investments and individual stocks there - you will not be taxed when rebalancing. Maximize your 401K, HSA, SEP-IRA and any other tax-advantaged account you may be eligible for. On some accounts you'll pay taxes when withdrawing, on others - you won't. For example - Roth IRA/401k accounts are not taxed at all when withdrawing qualified distributions, while traditional IRA/401k are taxed as ordinary income. During the \\\"\\\"low income\\\"\\\" years, consider converting portions of traditional accounts to Roth.\\\"\",\n \"In the case you propose, a taxable windfall, your best hope is to marry someone who has his/her own loss of about the same amount. This advice would work if your gain is a 10 bagger, as you suggest, but not for a lottery. In the dot com bubble, I heard of more than one couple that got married under these conditions. As far as other gains, it would be tough to contrive a situation that would give you such a tax offset without taking on a huge risk, far greater that the $133K in tax you might save.\",\n \"I brought this up to my CPA. She said don't do it. People used to do it, but now they're cracking down. Is it unfair? Yes. But it's the government so don't mess with them.\",\n \"You can defer RRSP deductions to future years. So, if you purchase $20,000 in RRSPs this year but had no income, you could use this to offset your income next year when you are making, say, $100,000. For more details, see Deferring claim of significant purchase of RRSPs Note that I strongly advise you ensure you have sufficient emergency funds prior to purchasing RRSPs.\",\n \"If you have self-employment income you can open a Solo 401k. Your question is unclear as to what your employment status is. If you are self-employed as an independent contractor, you can open a Solo 401k. You can still do this even if you also earn non-self-employment income (i.e., you are an employee and receive a W-2). However, the limits for contributions to a Solo 401k are based on your self-mployment income, not your total income, so if you have only a small amount of self-employment income, you won't be able to contribute much to the Solo 401k. You may be able to reduce your taxes somewhat, but it's not like you can earn $1000 of self-employment income, open a Solo 401k, and dump $5000 into it; the limits don't work that way.\",\n \"If you expect to pay tax on dividends move dividend producing assets into your ISA. If have a lot of investments you can Look at Zeros (zero dividend preference share) issued by splits (split capital trusts), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_capital_investment_trust\",\n \"No there is no way to have untaxed earnings. Single Member LLC are taxed on your personal taxes. Partnership LLC is taxed on your and your partners personal taxes. An C-Corp LLC has its own tax bracket. An S-Corp is taxed on your personal taxes (but does not get taxed as self-employment taxes). At $500,000, YOU SHOULD BE AN S-CORP or C-CORP to save on self-employment taxes.\",\n \"PSB taxed at higher rates. PSB is taxed at 39.5% in Ontario, as the article mentioned. But if you pay all the net income to yourself as salary, you expense it and zero it out on the corporate level. So who cares what tax rate it is if the taxable income is zero? No-one. Same goes for the US, by the way. Personal Service Corporations are taxed at flat 35% Federal tax rate. But if you pour all the income into your salary - its moot, because there's no net income to pay tax of. If it's too complicated to figure out, maybe it would be wise to hire a tax accountant to provide counsel to you before you make decisions about your business.\",\n \"You don't seem to have any particular question to be answered. Your understanding of RRSPs seems to be very good. Have you considered whether you might be better off putting your retirement savings into a TFSA instead? Both types can protect your growth from taxation (provided you reinvest the refund from the RRSP). The main way in which the RRSP is better than TFSA is that you can pay the tax on the contribution at a time when your income is lower, and thus have a lower marginal tax rate. Most people retire with a lower income than during their earning years, but it's a matter of tax brackets. If you think you'll be in the same bracket (same marginal tax rate) when you retire, then the TFSA and RRSP work out even in that regard. So in your case, the question you want to ask yourself is: when I retire, will I have an income (including CPP, OAS, pension payments, etc) that exceeds $45,282 worth of today's dollars? If so, your RRSP holds no advantage over the TFSA. In fact, the RRSP may even be worse, since the withdrawals count as income and reduce the amount of OAS and perhaps GIS payments that the government gives you - at least under current regulations. If you're unsure, I suggest you try this calculator from taxtips.ca that runs both scenarios and helps you see which one is more beneficial. It even factors in the OAS/GIS clawbacks.\",\n \"You can't max out your retirement savings. There are vehicles that aren't tax-advantaged that you can fund after you've exhausted the tax-advantaged ones. Consider how much you want to put into these vehicles. There are disadvantages as well as advantages. The rules on these can change at any time and can make it harder for you to get your money out. How's your liquid (cash) emergency fund? It sounds like you're in a position to amass a good one. Don't miss this opportunity. Save like crazy while you can. Kids make this harder. Paying down your mortgage will save you interest, of course, but make sure you're not cash-poor as a result. If something happens to your income(s), the bank will still foreclose on you even if you only owe $15,000. A cash cushion buys you time.\",\n \"There are some great answers on this site similar to what you asked, with either a non-jurisdictional or a US-centric focus. I would read those answers as well to give yourself more points of view on early investing. There are a few differences between Canada and the US from an investing perspective that you should also then consider, namely tax rules, healthcare, and education. I'll get Healthcare and Education out of the way quickly. Just note the difference in perspective in Canada of having government healthcare; putting money into health-savings plans or focusing on insurance as a workplace benefit is not a key motivating factor, but more a 'nice-to-have'. For education, it is more common in Canada for a student to either pay for school while working summer / part-time jobs, or at least taking on manageable levels of debt [because it is typically not quite as expensive as private colleges in the US]. There is still somewhat of a culture of saving for your child's education here, but it is not as much of a necessity as it may be in the US. From an investing perspective, I will quickly note some common [though not universal] general advice, before getting Canadian specific. I have blatantly stolen the meat of this section from Ben Miller's great answer here: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing Once you have a solid financial footing, some peculiarities of Canadian investing are below. For all the tax-specific plans I'm about to mention, note that the banks do a very good job here of tricking you into believing they are complex, and that you need your hand to be held. I have gotten some criminally bad tax advice from banking reps, so at the risk of sounding prejudiced, I recommend that you learn everything you can beforehand, and only go into your bank when you already know the right answer. The 'account types' themselves just involve a few pages of paperwork to open, and the banks will often do that for free. They make up their fees in offering investment types that earn them management fees once the accounts are created. Be sure to separate the investments (stocks vs bonds etc.) vs the investment vehicles. Canada has 'Tax Free Savings Accounts', where you can contribute a certain amount of money every year, and invest in just about anything you want, from bonds to stocks to mutual funds. Any Income you earn in this account is completely tax free. You can withdraw these investments any time you want, but you can't re-contribute until January 1st of next year. ie: you invest $5k today in stocks held in a TFSA, and they grow to $6k. You withdraw $6k in July. No tax is involved. On January 1st next year, you can re-contribute a new $6K, and also any additional amounts added to your total limit annually. TFSA's are good for short-term liquid investments. If you don't know for sure when you'll need the money, putting it in a TFSA saves you some tax, but doesn't commit you to any specific plan of action. Registered Retirement Savings Plans allow you to contribute money based on your employment income accrued over your lifetime in Canada. The contributions are deducted from your taxable income in the year you make them. When you withdraw money from your RRSP, the amount you withdraw gets added as additional income in that year. ie: you invest $5k today in stocks held in an RRSP, and get a $5k deduction from your taxable income this year. The investments grow to $6k. You withdraw $6k next year. Your taxable income increases by $6k [note that if the investments were held 'normally' {outside of an RRSP}, you would have a taxable gain of only 50% of the total gain; but withdrawing the amount from your RRSP makes the gain 100% taxable]. On January 1st next year, you CANNOT recontribute this amount. Once withdrawn, it cannot be recontributed [except for below items]. RRSP's are good for long-term investing for retirement. There are a few factors at play here: (1) you get an immediate tax deduction, thus increasing the original size of investment by deferring tax to the withdrawal date; (2) your investments compound tax-free [you only pay tax at the end when you withdraw, not annually on earnings]; and (3) many people expect that they will have a lower tax-rate when they retire, than they do today. Some warnings about RRSP's: (1) They are less liquid than TFSA's; you can't put money in, take it out, and put it in again. In general, when you take it out, it's out, and therefore useless unless you leave it in for a long time; (2) Income gets re-characterized to be fully taxable [no dividend tax credits, no reduced capital gains tax rate]; and (3) There is no guarantee that your tax rate on retirement will be less than today. If you contribute only when your tax rate is in the top bracket, then this is a good bet, but even still, in 30 years, tax rates might rise by 20% [who knows?], meaning you could end up paying more tax on the back-end, than you saved in the short term. Home Buyer Plan RRSP withdrawals My single favourite piece of advice for young Canadians is this: if you contribute to an RRSP at least 3 months before you make a down payment on your first house, you can withdraw up to $25k from your RRSP without paying tax! to use for the down payment. Then over the next ~10 years, you need to recontribute money back to your RRSP, and you will ultimately be taxed when you finally take the money out at retirement. This means that contributing up to 25k to an RRSP can multiply your savings available for a down payment, by the amount of your tax rate. So if you make ~60k, you'll save ~35% on your 25k deposited, turning your down payment into $33,750. Getting immediate access to the tax savings while also having access to the cash for a downpayment, makes the Home Buyer Plan a solid way to make the most out of your RRSP, as long as one of your near-term goals is to own your own home. Registered Pension Plans are even less liquid than RRSPs. Tax-wise, they basically work the same: you get a deduction in the year you contribute, and are taxed when you withdraw. The big difference is that there are rules on when you are allowed to withdraw: only in retirement [barring specific circumstances]. Typically your employer's matching program (if you have one) will be inside of an RPP. Note that RPP's and RRSP's reduce your taxes on your employment paycheques immediately, if you contribute through a work program. That means you get the tax savings during the year, instead of all at once a year later on April 30th. *Note that I have attempted at all times to keep my advice current with applicable tax legislation, but I do not guarantee accuracy. Research these things yourself because I may have missed something relevant to your situation, I may be just plain wrong, and tax law may have changed since I wrote this to when you read it.\",\n \"Let's say your marginal tax rate is 33%. For every dollar you put in an RRSP, you'll get 33 cents back on your taxes, while the whole amount grows tax free inside the investment. If you can afford it, money in an RRSP generates a lot of free money.\",\n \"Go to a good bookstore and find a book about saving on income tax. Unlike other countries, where filling in your tax returns usually means you have to pay extra money, in Germany filling in your tax return usually means that you will be paid money, and the more tax deductible items you can fill in, the more money you will get back. At the very least, ask some German colleagues about the most typical tax deductible items. They love getting taxes back.\",\n \"Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax.\",\n \"Yes, you could avoid capital gains tax altogether, however, capital gains are used in determining your tax bracket even though they are not taxed at that rate. This would only work in situations where your total capital gains and ordinary income kept you in the 0% longterm capital gains bracket. You can't realize a million dollars in capital gains and have no tax burden due to lack of ordinary income. You can potentially save some money by realizing capital gains strategically. Giving up income in an attempt to save on taxes rarely makes sense.\",\n \"The biggest issue is your lack of diversification. Your real estate investments have performed quite well so far, but you have also likely enjoyed a period of unprecedented growth that is not sustainable. In the long term, stocks have always outperformed real estate investments, which tend to track more closely to the inflation rate. You need more balance for when when the real estate market cools off. You don't mention tax-deferred retirement savings accounts. You should prioritize your attention to these to keep your income tax low. Consider selling one of your investment properties if you can't adequately fund the 401k.\",\n \"\\\"Paying yourself through a corporation requires an analysis of a variety of issues. First, a salary paid to yourself creates RRSP contribution room as well as CPP contributions. Paying yourself a dividend achieves neither of those. By having a corporation, you will have to file a corporate (T2) tax return. The corporation is considered a separate legal entity from you. As an individual, you will still need to file a personal (T1) tax return. Never just \\\"\\\"draw\\\"\\\" money out of a corporation. This can create messy transactions involving loans to shareholders. Interest is due on these amounts and any amounts not paid within one calendar year are considered as wages by Canada Revenue and would need to be reported as income on your next T1 return. You should never withhold EI premiums as the sole owner of a corporation. You are considered exempt from these costs by CRA. Any amounts that have been remitted to CRA can be reclaimed by submitting a formal request. The decision on whether to take a salary or dividends normally requires some detailed analysis. Your accountant or financial advisor should be able to assist in this matter.\\\"\",\n \"question #2 - yes, 25% of your 1099 income. Good idea. It adds up quickly and is a good way to reduce taxable income.\",\n \"\\\"The $100,000 is taxed separately as \\\"\\\"ordinary income\\\"\\\". The $350,000 is taxed at long-term capital gains of 15%. Capital gains is not taxed at 20% until $415,050. Even though $100,000 + 350,000 = $450,000, only $350,000 can be taxed at capital gains. The total ordinary income tax burden will be $31,986 if single, in California. Caveat: By creating a holdings corporation (C-corp), you can section 351 that $100,000 into the C-corp for tax deferment, which won't be taxed until you take money from the corporation. Since you will hold 100% of the voting stock, all distributions will be considered pro rata. Additionally, you can issue yourself a dividend under the rules of 26 USC §§243-246 (a greather-than-80% shareholder who receives a dividend can write-off 100% of said dividend). As long as that dividend doesn't trigger §§1.243-246 of The Regulations by keeping the distribution just under 10% of E&P i.e. $10,000. Wages are deductible against basis so pay yourself $35,000 and keep $55,000 in the corporation and you can decrease the total liabilities down to $22,000 from $31,000, which includes the CA franchise tax. You don't have to pay yourself any money out a corporation to use the money.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"First, point: The CRA wants you to start a business with a \\\"\\\"Reasonable expectation of profit\\\"\\\". They typically expect to see a profit within 5 years, so you may be inviting unwanted questions from future auditors by using a breakeven strategy. Second point: If the goal is to pay as little tax as possible, you may want to consider having the corporation pay you as little as possible. Corporate income taxes are much lower than personal income taxes, according to these two CRA links: How it works is that your company pays you little as an outright salary and offers you perks like a leased company car, expense account for lunch and entertainment, a mobile phone, computer, etc. The company owns all of this stuff and lets you use it as part of the job. The company pays for all this stuff with corporate pre-tax dollars as opposed to you paying for it with personal after-tax dollars. There are specifics on meals & entertainment which modify this slightly (you can claim 50%) but you get the idea. The actual rate difference will depend on your province of residence and your corporate income level. There is also a requirement for \\\"\\\"Reasonable Expenses\\\"\\\", such that the expenses have to be in line with what you are doing. If you need to travel to a conference each year, that would be a reasonable expense. Adding your family and making it a vacation for everyone would not. You can claim such expenses as a sole proprietor or a corporation. The sole-proprietorship option puts any after-expense profits into your pocket as taxable income, where the corporate structure allows the corporation to hold funds and limit the amount paid out to you. I've seen this strategy successfully done first-hand, but have not done it myself. I am not a lawyer or accountant, consult these professionals about this tax strategy before taking any action.\\\"\",\n \"First you need to distinguish between short-term and long-term capital gains. In an IRA you can use investment strategies that incur short-term capital gains without being taxed as ordinary income. As mentioned in a comment above, with a Roth IRA, you can invest now at your low income tax rates and withdraw all gains without incurring any taxes at retirement time. You can also pull out your contributions penalty free before retirement age (59 1/2) if you've had the account for more than 5 years. You only pay taxes and penalties on the earnings. You can also make withdrawals for education expenses and you have one lifetime exclusion of $10,000 for a down-payment on a house.\",\n \"I was once the personal assistant to two wealthy NYC sisters. They did not pay for anything. For example, if we were riding the subway, I would pay, and be reimbursed by the Company. They had multiple residences and investment properties. Each property was purchased through a separate Limited Liablity Corporation, and paid for by the Company. When they purchased, donated or sold art, it was through their family Foundation. Their income primarily came from a draw of funds from the family estate, although one of them worked as an architect, which provided further income.\",\n \"If your employer offers a 401k retirement plan then you can contribute a portion of your salary to your retirement and that will lower your effective income to remain in the 15% bracket (although as others have pointed out, only the dollars that exceed the 15% bracket will be taxed at the higher rate anyway). AND if your employer offers any kind of 401k matching contribution, that's effectively a pay-raise or 100% return on investment (depending on how you prefer to look at it).\",\n \"\\\"http://www.investopedia.com/articles/mortgages-real-estate/08/tax-deductible-mortgage-canada.asp > This strategy is not for everyone. Borrowing against your home is psychologically difficult, and if the investments don't yield expected returns, this strategy could yield negative results. By re-borrowing the equity in your home, you are also removing your \\\"\\\"cushion\\\"\\\" of safety if the real estate (or investment) markets take a turn for the worse. By creating an income-producing portfolio in an unregistered account, there can also be additional tax consequences - so always consult with a professional financial advisor to determine whether this strategy is for you, and if it is, have it tailor-made to you and your family's personal financial situation.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["That's not especially high income, and while I can't speak for Canadians, most of us south of the border just pay the tax. There are tax-advantged retirement savings plans, and charitable donations are often offset by a tax credit, and there are some tax incentives for mortgages, and so on.. but generally the right answer is to just accept that the income tax money was never yours to begin with."],"string":"[\n \"That's not especially high income, and while I can't speak for Canadians, most of us south of the border just pay the tax. There are tax-advantged retirement savings plans, and charitable donations are often offset by a tax credit, and there are some tax incentives for mortgages, and so on.. but generally the right answer is to just accept that the income tax money was never yours to begin with.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":194,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"7467"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Stocks are traded on secondary markets?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["193312"],"string":"[\n \"193312\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["193312","163987","584350","408546","516078","505379","433806","301985","182462","517323","12027","179258","107227","260023","565568","438974","322771","505244","257457","574820","186184","186392","519663","295445","434596","510753","434212","120447","420551","396985","404339","561205","226197","566553","580364","26203","321639","365465","62653","598295","560273","332323","878","346669","467352","10726","94336","163333","365926","307008","343638","593445","559635","334849","537222","60314","101408","371720","137984","120271","225877","37558","488546","116846","218842","288977","134430","189979","211441","151802","131788","34080","47738","390817","51063","350110","3463","78053","357706","455168","421724","428018","192600","253024","124188","79410","272585","543927","584295","535525","257656","381665","130303","98654","251100","307828","485757","201361","502607","516561"],"string":"[\n \"193312\",\n \"163987\",\n \"584350\",\n \"408546\",\n \"516078\",\n \"505379\",\n \"433806\",\n \"301985\",\n \"182462\",\n \"517323\",\n \"12027\",\n \"179258\",\n \"107227\",\n \"260023\",\n \"565568\",\n \"438974\",\n \"322771\",\n \"505244\",\n \"257457\",\n \"574820\",\n \"186184\",\n \"186392\",\n \"519663\",\n \"295445\",\n \"434596\",\n \"510753\",\n \"434212\",\n \"120447\",\n \"420551\",\n \"396985\",\n \"404339\",\n \"561205\",\n \"226197\",\n \"566553\",\n \"580364\",\n \"26203\",\n \"321639\",\n \"365465\",\n \"62653\",\n \"598295\",\n \"560273\",\n \"332323\",\n \"878\",\n \"346669\",\n \"467352\",\n \"10726\",\n \"94336\",\n \"163333\",\n \"365926\",\n \"307008\",\n \"343638\",\n \"593445\",\n \"559635\",\n \"334849\",\n \"537222\",\n \"60314\",\n \"101408\",\n \"371720\",\n \"137984\",\n \"120271\",\n \"225877\",\n \"37558\",\n \"488546\",\n \"116846\",\n \"218842\",\n \"288977\",\n \"134430\",\n \"189979\",\n \"211441\",\n \"151802\",\n \"131788\",\n \"34080\",\n \"47738\",\n \"390817\",\n \"51063\",\n \"350110\",\n \"3463\",\n \"78053\",\n \"357706\",\n \"455168\",\n \"421724\",\n \"428018\",\n \"192600\",\n \"253024\",\n \"124188\",\n \"79410\",\n \"272585\",\n \"543927\",\n \"584295\",\n \"535525\",\n \"257656\",\n \"381665\",\n \"130303\",\n \"98654\",\n \"251100\",\n \"307828\",\n \"485757\",\n \"201361\",\n \"502607\",\n \"516561\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["NYSE and Nasdaq are secondary markets where stocks are bought or sold. The process of creating new stocks via IPO or private placements etc are called Private Market.","\"Very often, the word secondary market is used synonymously with the stock market as we all know it. In this case, the primary market would be the \"\"closed\"\" world of VCs, business angels, etc to which stock market investors do not have access, e.g. the securities are not trading on a public stock market.\"","\"When there is a trade the shares were both bought and sold. In any trade on the secondary market there has to be both a buyer and a seller for the trade to take place. So in \"\"lasttradesize\"\" a buyer has bought the shares from a seller.\"","\"With regards to \"\"the stock market,\"\" there are actually two markets involved here: PRIMARY MARKET Value is created in the primary market where capital is exchanged for a residual interest in an opportunity. As a theoretical example, if a person operating solo (or with a small team) were to discover or create a breakthrough product, such as an retro-aging pill, that person likely wouldn't have the financial means to fully capitalize on his new-found idea. Others with more capital may also soon discover his idea or improve upon it and exploit it before he has a chance to. For a real life example, a person studying at a California university during the 1990s discovered a method to index internet webpages and was approached by some students after a talk on the subject. He returned to his native southern Europe country seeking funds to develop the web-indexing business and failed to do so. Two of the students that approached him found capital readily available from investors in their campus sphere; their business is today one of the biggest in the world. They had exchanged part of their residual interest for capital to develop their business. The primary market of the stock market works mostly same in creating value. It is also dependent upon the secondary market. SECONDARY MARKET The secondary market indicates the day-to-day value of an enterprise. That market allows shareholders to manage their risk appetites and the enterprise's operators to execute their shareholders' interest for gains. In most cases, a secondary market reference will be used for pricing a primary market issuance. Without that reference, capital would be allocated less efficiently creating additional costs for all involved, issuers and investors. Consider what would happen if you sought to purchase a house and the mortgage lenders had no indication what the property was worth. This would make capital very expensive or possibly deny you access to credit. By having an indication, all involved are better off. That is value creating. There are some large developed economies' equity markets, such as that in Germany, where many large enterprises stay privately held and credit financing, mostly from banks, is used. The approach has proven successful as well. So why do some nations' financial markets still rely on capricious stock markets when private credit financing may do just fine in many cases? It's largely a matter of national culture. Countries such as the Netherlands, the UK and the US have long had active equity markets in continuous use that investors have trusted for centuries. CONCLUSION When leaders of an enterprise wish to grow the business to a large size with investment from the stock market, they aren't limited by the size of their banks' capital. Those leaders and their prospective investors will rely on the secondary market to determine values. In addition, if the leaders raise equity instead of debt capital, they are usually accorded more flexibility to take risks since shareholders usually have their own flexibility to transfer those risks to other investors if for any number of reasons they choose to do so. Stock markets create value in many other ways. The above are the main ways.\"","I work at BATS Chi-X Europe and wanted to provide some clarity/answers to these questions. BATS Chi-X Europe is a Recognised Investment Exchange, so it is indeed a stock exchange. Sometimes the term “equity market” could be used when explaining our business, but essentially we are a stock exchange. As some background, BATS Chi-X Europe was formed by the acquisition of Chi-X Europe by BATS Trading in November 2011. At the time of the acquisition, each company operated as a Multilateral Trading Facility (MTF) for the trading of pan-European equities via a single trading platform. The category of MTF was introduced by MIFID (markets in Financial Instrument Directive) in 2007, which introduced competition in equities trading and allowed European stocks, to be traded on any European platform. Until 2007, many European stocks had to be traded only their local exchanges due to so-called “Concentration Rules”. Following the acquisition, BATS Chi-X Europe became the largest MTF in Europe, offering trading in more than 2,000 securities (2,700 securities by September 2013) across 15 major European markets, on a single trading platform. In May 2013, BATS Chi-X Europe received Recognised Investment Exchange status from the UK Financial Conduct Authority, meaning that BATS Chi-X Europe has changed from an MTF status to full exchange status. In response to question 1: The equities traded on BATS Chi-X Europe are listed on stock exchanges such as the LSE but also listed on the other European Exchanges. The term “third party” equities is not particularly useful as all stock trading in Europe is generally a “second hand” business referred to as “secondary market” trading. At the time of listing a firm issues shares; trading in these shares after the listing exercise is generally what happens in equity markets and these shares can be bought and sold on stock exchanges across Europe. Secondary market trading describes all trading on all exchanges or MTFs that takes place after the listing. In response to question 2: BATS Chi-X Europe trades over 2,700 stocks on its own trading platform. When trading on BATS Chi-X Europe, orders are executed on their own platform and will not end up of the LSE order books or platform. The fact that a stock was first listed on the LSE, does not mean that all trading in this stock happens via the LSE. However settlement process ensures that stocks end up being logged in a single depository. This means that a stock bought on BATS Chi-X Europe can be offset against the same stock sold on the LSE. In response to question 3: As noted above, BATS Chi-X Europe received Recognised Investment Exchange (RIE) status from the UK Financial Conduct Authority in May 2013, meaning that BATS Chi-X Europe has changed from an MTF status to full stock exchange status. As an exchange / RIE, BATS Chi-X Europe is authorised to offer primary and secondary listings alongside its existing business. According to the Federations of European Securities Exchanges (FESE), BATS Chi-X Europe has been the largest equity exchange in Europe by value traded in every month so far in 2013. In August, 24.1% of European equities trading in the 15 markets covered were traded on BATS Chi-X Europe. In July and August, the average notional value traded on BATS Chi-X Europe was around €7.2 billion per day. Hope this information is helpful.","\"> If the only function of the stock market is investment and provide capital to companies, why have a secondary market at all? > Maybe we shouldn't, I don't know Are you (and the 8 upvoters) for real? What do you think would happen to the \"\"primary\"\" market if initial investors had no way of converting their investments back into currency when they needed to? Seriously, this isn't fucking [rocket surgery](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I).\"","\"1) Are the definitions for capital market from the two sources the same? Yes. They are from two different perspectives. Investopedia is looking at it primarily from the perspective of a trader and they lead-off with the secondary market. This refers to the secondary market: A market in which individuals and institutions trade financial securities. This refers to the primary market: Organizations/institutions in the public and private sectors also often sell securities on the capital markets in order to raise funds. Also, the Investopedia definition leaves much to be desired, but it is supposed to be pithy. So, you are comparing apples and oranges, to some extent. One is an article, as short as it may be, this other one is an entry in a dictionary. 2) What is the opposite of capital market, according to the definition in investopedia? It's not quite about opposites, this is not physics. However, that is not the issue here. The Investopedia definition simply does not mention any other possibilities. The Wikipedia article defines the term more thoroughly. It talks about primary/secondary markets in separate paragraph. 3) According to the Wikipedia's definition, why does stock market belong to capital market, given that stocks can be held less than one year too? If you follow the link in the Wikipedia article to money market: As money became a commodity, the money market is nowadays a component of the financial markets for assets involved in short-term borrowing, lending, buying and selling with original maturities of one year or less. The key here is original maturities of one year or less. Here's my attempt at explaining this: Financial markets are comprised of money markets and capital markets. Money is traded as if it were a commodity on the money markets. Hence, the short-term nature in its definition. They are more focused on the money itself. Capital markets are focused on the money as a means to an end. Companies seek money in these markets for longer terms in order to improve their business in some way. A business may go to the money markets to access money quickly in order to deal with a short-term cash crunch. Meanwhile, a business may go to the capital markets to seek money in order to expand its business. Note that capital markets came first and money markets are a relatively recent development. Also, we are typically speaking about the secondary (capital) market when we are talking about the stock or bond market. In this market, participants are merely trading among themselves. The company that sought money by issuing that stock/bond certificate is out of the picture at that point and has its money. So, Facebook got its money from participants in the primary market: the underwriters. The underwriters then turned around and sold that stock in an IPO to the secondary market. After the IPO, their stock trades on the secondary market where you or I have access to trade it. That money flows between traders. Facebook got its money at the \"\"beginning\"\" of the process.\"","Stock trades are always between real buyers and real sellers. In thinly-traded small stocks, for example, you may not always be able to find a buyer when you want to sell. For most public companies, there is enough volume that individual investors can just about always fill their market orders.","For the second part, no most NYSE trades are done electronically.","The stock market is just like any other market, but stocks are bought and sold here. Just like you buy and sell your electronics at the electronics market, this is a place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares or stocks or equity, no matter what you call it. What are these shares? A share is nothing but a portion of ownership of a company. Suppose a company has 100 shares issued to it, and you were sold 10 out of those, it literally means you are a 10% owner of the company. Why do companies sell shares? Companies sell shares to grow or expand. Suppose a business is manufacturing or producing and selling goods or services that are high in demand, the owners would want to take advantage of it and increase the production of his goods or services. And in order to increase production he would need money to buy land or equipment or labor, etc. Now either he could go get a loan by pledging something, or he could partner with someone who could give him money in exchange for some portion of the ownership of the company. This way, the owner gets the money to expand his business and make more profit, and the lender gets a portion of profit every time the company makes some. Now if the owner decides to sell shares rather than getting a loan, that's when the stock market comes into the picture. Why would a person want to trade stocks? First of all, please remember that stocks were never meant to be traded. You always invest in stocks. What's the difference? Trading is short term and investing is long term, in very simple language. It's the greed of humans which led to this concept of trading stocks. A person should only buy stocks if he believes in the business the company is doing and sees the potential of growth. Back to the question: a person would want to buy stocks of the company because: How does a stock market help society? Look around you for the answer to this question. Let me give you a start and I wish everyone reading this post to add at least one point to the answer. Corporations in general allow many people come together and invest in a business without fear that their investment will cause them undue liability - because shareholders are ultimately not liable for the actions of a corporation. The cornerstone North American case of how corporations add value is by allowing many investors to have put money towards the railroads that were built across America and Canada. For The stock market in particular, by making it easier to trade shares of a company once the company sells them, the number of people able to conveniently invest grows exponentially. This means that someone can buy shares in a company without needing to knock door to door in 5 years trying to find someone to sell to. Participating in the stock market creates 'liquidity', which is essentially the ease with which stocks are converted into cash. High liquidity reduces risk overall, and it means that those who want risk [because high risk often creates high reward] can buy shares, and those who want low risk [because say they are retiring and don't have a risk appetite anymore] can sell shares.","You don't have to go through an exchange. That wasn't the problem. It was that the people trading on them wouldn't be willing to take your offer. An exchange can't just list a company. They need that company's consent and the company need's the exchange's consent. I don't know if you're aware of this but that was also an entirely new disaster during Facebook's IPO. Computer glitches didn't help. What you're talking about is a called a secondary market, kind of. Stock exchanges offer those too, especially for options. That's the typical stock footage you see of guys on wall street yelling and screaming while throwing paper up in the air.","In the world of stock exchanges, the result depends on the market state of the traded stock. There are two possibilities, (a) a trade occurs or (b) no trade occurs. During the so-called auction phase, bid and ask prices may overlap, actually they usually do. During an open market, when bid and ask match, trades occur.","popularity that you are referring to is just known as liquidity when discussing markets. More liquid securities tend to trade more shares per day and have very tight bid/ask spreads as many investors are buying and selling the shares at one time. Some larger securities, especially on exchanges, further enhance liquidity by providing market makers. These are individuals on the NYSE, for example, that will make the market in large securities by handling large orders and providing liquidity through their own book of capital. The individuals on the floor on the NYSE you often see on TV are those market makers. However, as trading becomes more electronic, market markers are becoming less and less required. A previous comment suggested pink sheets are risky companies. This is not entirely factual. While the majority of pink sheets are very highly risky companies, many very solid international companies trade their ADRs (American Depository Receipt) on the pink sheets to avoid the high cost of setting up a large exchange at the NYSE and register and report through the SEC. As a TD Ameritrade user, I would be willing to help you out if you have any other questions.","Every company has Stocks. For the stocks to be traded via some stock exchange, the companies must follow the eligibility criteria and guidelines. Once done, these are then listed on the stock exchange and can be traded. The advantage [amongst others] of listing is liquidity and stocks can easily be bought and sold. Some small companies or closely held companies may not want to list on stock exchange and hence are not traded. This does not mean they can't be bought and sold, they can be outside of the market, however the deals are complex and every deal has to be worked out. During the course of time a stock that is traded on a stock exchange, would either fail to meet the criteria or voluntarily choose not to be traded and follow the delisting process [either by stock exchange or by company]. After this the stocks are no longer traded on the exchange.","\"The Auction Market is where investors such you and me, as well as Market Makers, buy and sell securities. The Auction Markets operate with the familiar bid-ask pricing that you see on financial pages such as Google and Yahoo. The Market Makers are institutions that are there to provide liquidity so that investors can easily buy and sell shares at a \"\"fair\"\" price. Market Makers need to have on hand a suitable supply of shares to meet investor demands. When Market Makers feel the need to either increase or decrease their supply of a particular security quickly, they turn to the Dealer Market. In order to participate in a Dealer Market, you must be designated a Market Maker. As noted already, Market Makers are dedicated to providing liquidity for the Auction Market in certain securities and therefore require that they have on hand a suitable supply of those securities which they support. For example, if a Market Maker for Apple shares is low on their supply of Apple shares, then will go the Dealer Market to purchase more Apple shares. Conversely, if they are holding what they feel are too many Apple shares, they will go to the Dealer Market to sell Apple shares. The Dealer Market does operate on a bid-ask basis, contrary to your stated understanding. The bid-ask prices quoted on the Dealer Market are more or less identical to those on the Auction Market, except the quote sizes will be generally much larger. This is the case because otherwise, why would a Market Maker offer to sell shares to another Market Maker at a price well below what they could themselves sell them for in the Auction Market. (And similarly with buy orders.) If Market Makers are generally holding low quantities of a particular security, this will drive up the price in both the Dealer Market and the Auction Market. Similarly, if Market Makers are generally holding too much of a particular security, this may drive down prices on both the Auction Market and the Dealer Market.\"","Yes you can, provided if buyers are available. Normally high liquidty stocks can be sold at market prices a little higher or lower.","You can check whether the company whose stock you want to buy is present on an european market. For instance this is the case for Apple at Frankfurt.","\"- In a quote driven market, must every investor trade with a market maker? In other words, two parties that are both not market makers cannot trade between themselves directly? In a way yes, all trades go through a market maker but those trades can be orders put in place by a \"\"person\"\" IE: you, or me. - Does a quote driven market only display the \"\"best\"\" bid and ask prices proposed by the market makers? In other words, only the highest bid price among all the market makers is displayed, and other lower bid prices by other market makers are not? Similarly, only the lowest ask price over all market makers is displayed, and other higher ask prices by other market makers are not? No, you can see other lower bid and higher ask prices. - In a order-driven market, is it meaningful to talk about \"\"the current stock price\"\", which is the price of last transaction? Well that's kind of an opinion. Information is information so it won't be bad to know it. Personally I would say the bid and ask price is more important. However in the real world these prices are changing constantly and quickly so realistically it is easier to keep track of the quote price and most likely the bid/ask spread is small and the quote will fall in between. The less liquid a security is the more important the bid/ask is. -- This goes for all market types. - For a specific asset, will there be several transactions happened at the same time but with different prices? Today with electronic markets, trades can happen so quickly it's difficult to say. In the US stock market trades happen one at a time but there is no set time limit between each trade. So within 1 second you can have a trade be $50 or $50.04. However it will only go to $50.04 when the lower ask prices have been exhausted. - Does an order driven market have market makers? By definition, no. - What are some examples of quote driven and order driven financial markets, in which investors are commonly trading stocks and derivatives, especially in U.S.? Quote driven market: Bond market, Forex. Order driven market: NYSE comes from an order driven market but now would be better classified as a \"\"hybird market\"\" Conclusion: If you are asking in order to better understand today's stock markets then these old definitions of Quote market or Order market may not work. The big markets in the real world are neither. (IE: Nasdaq, NYSE...) The NYSE and Nasdaq are better classified as a \"\"hybird market\"\" as they use more then a single tactic from both market types to insure market liquidity, and transparency. Markets these days are strongly electronic, fast, and fairly liquid in most cases. Here are some resources to better understand these markets: An Introduction To Securities Markets The NYSE And Nasdaq: How They Work Understanding Order Execution\"","> Stock markets are supposed to be about investment and providing capital to companies for operations and research. High frequency trading is only about gaming the market and nothing else. Arguments that this provides more capital or liquidity don't make any sense because the speed of trading is such that listed companies cannot take advantage and only high frequency traders are served. I used to feel this way about derivatives but a commentator on reddit disabused me of that notion - http://www.reddit.com/r/Entrepreneur/comments/11bqnk/what_you_wont_see_on_the_front_page_of_reddit_the/c6lnqow If the only function of the stock market is investment and provide capital to companies, why have a secondary market at all?","All securities must be registered with the SEC. Securities are defined as (1) The term “security” means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a “security”, or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing. thus currencies are not defined as securities. While OTC transactions of securities is not outright forbidden, there are numerous regulations issued by the SEC as a result of the 1943 Exchange Act and others that make this difficult and/or costly. Many other securities are exempted from registration thus trade in a way that could be called OTC. Different countries have variances upon US law but are very similar. Any security could be traded OTC, but law prohibits it expressly or in such a way to make it relatively expensive; further, stock options are so tightly regulated that expiration dates, expiration intervals, strike intervals, and minimum ticks are all set by the authorities.","\"In general, I think you're conflating a lot of ideas. The stock market is not like a supermarket. With the exception of a direct issue, you're not buying your shares from the company or from the New York Stock Exchange you're buying from an owner of stock, Joe, Sally, a pension fund, a hedge fund, etc; it's not sitting on a shelf at the stock market. When you buy an Apple stock you don't own $10 of Apple, you own 1/5,480,000,000th of Apple because Apple has 5,480,000,000 shares outstanding. When a the board gets together to vote on and approve a dividend the approved dividend is then divided by 5.48 billion to determine how much each owner receives. The company doesn't pay dividends out to owners from a pot of money it received from new owners; it sold iPhones at a profit and is sending a portion of that profit to the owners of the company. \"\"When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets.\"\" The statement does have backing. It's backed by the US Judicial system. But there's a difference between owning a company and owning the assets of the company. You own 1/5,480,000,000 of the company and the company owns the company's assets. Nevermind how disruptive it would be if any shareholder could unilaterally decide to sell a company's buildings or other assets. This is not a ponzi scheme because when you buy or sell your Apple stock, it has no impact on Apple, you're simply transacting with another random shareholder (barring a share-repurchase or direct issue). Apple doesn't receive the proceeds of your private transaction, you do. As far as value goes, yes the stock market provides tons of value and is a staple of capitalism. The stock market provides an avenue of financing for companies. Rather than taking a loan, a company's board can choose to relinquish some control and take on additional owners who will share in the spoils of the enterprise. Additionally, the exchanges deliver value via an unbelievable level of liquidity. You don't have to go seek out Joe or Sally when you want to sell your Apple stock. You don't need to put your shares on Craigslist in the hope of finding a buyer. You don't have to negotiate a price with someone who knows you want to sell. You just place an order at an exchange and you're aligned with a buyer. Also understand that anything can move up or down in value without any money actually changing hands. Say you get your hands on a pair of shoes (or whatever), they're hot on the market, very rare and sought after. You think you can sell them for $1,000. On tonight's news it turns out that the leather is actually from humans and the CEO of the company is being indicted, the company is falling apart, etc. Your shoes just went from $1,000 to $0 with no money changing hands (or from $1,000 to $100,000 depending on how cynical you are).\"","This is too lengthy for a comment. The following quoted passages are excerpted from this Money SE post. Before electronic trading and HFTs specifically, trading was thin and onerous. No. The NYSE and AMEX were deep, liquid and transparent for nearly 75 years prior to high frequency trading (HFT), in 2000 or so. The same is true for NASDAQ, but not for as many years, as NASDAQ is newer, being an electronic market. The point is that it existed, and thrived, prior to HFT. The NASDAQ can be active and functional, WITH or WITHOUT high frequency trading. This is not historically true, nor is it true now: Without a bid or ask at any given time, there could be no trade... Market makers, also known as specialists, were responsible for hitting the bid and taking the offer on whatever security they covered. They had a responsibility assigned to them by the exchange. Yes, it was lucrative! There was risk, and they were rewarded for bearing it. There is a trade-off though. Specialists provided greater stability on a systemic level, although other market participants paid for that cost. Prior to HFT, traders who were not market makers were often bounded by, boxed in, by the toll paid to market makers. Market makers had different, much higher capital and solvency requirements than other traders. Most specialists/market makers had seats, or shared a seat on the NYSE or AMEX. Remember that market makers/specialists are specific to stock markets, whereas HFT is not. If this is true, then we are in trouble: HFTs have supplanted the traditional market maker Why? Because trading volume is LOWER now than it was in the 1990's! EDIT In the comments, I noticed that OP was asking about the difference between I suggest reading this very accurate, well-written answer to a related question, The spread goes to the market maker, is the market maker the exchange? That explains the difference between","I understand what you mean, but for the general population the technicalities of secondary market is fundamentally a grey area. However, in my opinion, leading financial institutions such as GS, I expect them to make prudent decisions that is both ethical & sustainable for the society as whole, even though it might not be feasible all the time.","Also important to keep in mind is the difference in liquidity. The stock could be very liquid in 1 exchange but not in another. When times get bad, liquidity could dry up 1 one exchange, which results in a trading discount.","In general stock markets are very similar to that, however, you can also put in limit orders to say that you will only buy or sell at a given price. These sit in the market for a specified length of time and will be executed when an order arrives that matches the price (or better). Traders who set limit orders are called liquidity (or price) makers as they provide liquidity (i.e. volume to be traded) to be filled later. If there is no counterparty (i.e. buyer to your seller) in the market, a market maker; a large bank or brokerage who is licensed and regulated to do so, will fill your order at some price. That price is based on how much volume (i.e. trading) there is in that stock on average. This is called average daily volume (ADV) and is calculated over varying periods of time; we use ADV30 which is the 30 day average. You can always sell stocks for whatever price you like privately but a market order does not allow you to set your price (you are a price taker) therefore that kind of order will always fill at a market price. As mentioned above limit orders will not fill until the price is hit but will stay on book as long as they aren't filled, expired or cancelled.","The stock exchange here serves as a meeting place for current shareholders who want to sell their shares to someone else. This has nothing to do with liquidation, which is a transaction between the company and its shareholders. A company does not have to be listed on an exchange to make distributions to shareholders.","A stock exchange is a marketplace where people can bring their goods [shares] to be traded. There are certain rules. Stock Exchange does not own any shares of the companies that are trading in. The list of who owns with stock is with the registrar of each company. The electronic shares are held by a Financial Institution [Securities Depository]. So even if the exchange itself goes down, you still hold the same shares as you had before it went down. One would now have to find ways to trade these shares ... possibly via other stock exchange. This leaves the question of inflight transactions, which again would be recorded and available. Think of it similar to eBay. What happens when eBay goes bankrupt? Nothing much, all the seller still have their goods with them. All the buyers who had purchased good before have it when them ... so the question remains on inflight goods where the buyer has paid the seller and not yet received shipments ...","There is indeed a market for single stock futures, and they have been trading on the OneChicago exchange since 2002. Futures are available in 12,509 individual stocks, according to the exchange's current product listing. One advantage they offer over trading the underlying stock is the significantly higher leverage that is available, combined with the lack of pattern day trader rules that apply to stocks and similar securities. Single stock futures have proven to be something of a regulatory challenge as it has been unclear whether their oversight is the remit of the SEC/FINRA or the CFTC/NFA.","The easiest route for you to go down will be to consult wikipedia, which will provide a comprehensive list of all US stock exchanges (there are plenty more than the ones you list!). Then visit the websites for those that are of interest to you, where you will find a list of holiday dates along with the trading schedule for specific products and the settlement dates where relevant. In answer to the other part of your question, yes, a stock can trade on multiple exchanges. Typically (unless you instruct otherwise), your broker will route your order to the exchange where it can be matched at the most favorable price to you at that time.","The Greek Piraeus Bank offers such services for trading stocks in Athens Stock Exchange (ASE) and in addition 26 other markets including NASDAQ, NYSE and largest European ones (full list, in Greek). Same goes for Eurobank with a list of 17 international markets and the ability to trade bonds. BETA Securities has also an online platform, but I think it's only for ASE. Some other banks (like National Bank of Greece) do have similar online services, but are usually restricted to ASE.","I was wondering what relations are between brokerage companies and exchanges? Are brokers representing investors to trade on exchanges? Yes...but a broker may also buy and sell stocks for his own account. This is called broker-delaer firm. For individual investors, what are some cons and pros of trading on the exchanges directly versus indirectly via brokers? Doesn't the former save the investors any costs/expenses paid to the brokers? Yes, but to trade directly on an exchange, you need to register with them. That costs money and only a limited number of people can register I believe. Note that some (or all?) exchanges have their websites where I think trading can be done electronically, such as NASDAQ and BATS? Can almost all stocks be found and traded on almost every exchange? In other words, is it possible that a popular stock can only be found and traded on one exchange, but not found on the other exchange? If needed to be more specific, I am particularly interested in the U.S. case,and for example, Apple's stock. Yes, it is very much possible with smaller companies. Big companies are usually on multiple exchanges. What are your advices for choosing exchange and choosing brokerage companies? What exchanges and brokerage companies do you recommend? For brokerage companies, a beginner can go with discount broker. For sophisticated investors can opt for full service brokers. Usually your bank will have a brokerage firm. For exchanges, it depends...if you are in US, you should send to the US exchanges. IF you wish to send to other exchanges in other countries, you should check with the broker about that.","Let's clarify some things. Companies allow for the public to purchase their shares through Initial Public Offering (IPO) (first-time) and Seasoned Public Offering (SPO) (all other times). They choose however many shares they want to issue depending on the amount of capital they want to raise. What this means is that the current owners give up some ownership % in exchange for cash (usually). In the course of IPOs and SPOs, it can happen that the public will not buy all shares if there is very little interest, but I would assume that the more probable scenario if very little interest is present is that the shares' value would take a big drop on their issuance date from the proposed IPO/SPO price. After those shares are bought by the public, they are traded on Exchanges which are a secondary and (mostly) do not affect the underlying company. The shares are exchanged from John Doe to Jane Doe as John Doe believes the market value for those shares will take a direction that Jane Doe believes in the opposite. Generally speaking, markets will find an equilibrium price where you can reasonably easily buy-sell securities as the price is not too far from what most participants in the market believe it should be. In cases where all participants agree on the direction (most often in case of a crash) it can be hard to find a party to make a trade with. Say a company just announced negative news with long-lasting effects on the business there will be a surge in sell orders with very few buyers. If you are willing to buy, you will likely very easily find a trading partner but if you are trying to sell instead then you will have to compete for the lowest price against all other sellers. All that to say that in such cases, while shares are technically sellable / purchasable, the end result can be that no shares are purchasable.","\"The answer is partly and sometimes, but you cannot know when or how. Most clearly, you do not take somebody else's money if you buy shares in a start-up company. You are putting your money at risk in exchange for a share in the rewards. Later, if the company thrives, you can sell your shares for whatever somebody else will pay for your current share in the thriving company's earnings. Or, you lose your money, when the company fails. (Much of it has then ended up in the company's employees' pockets, much of the rest with the government as taxes that the company paid). If the stockmarket did not exist, people would be far less willing to put their money into a new company, because selling shares would be far harder. This in turn would mean that fewer new things were tried out, and less progress would be made. Communists insist that central state planning would make better decisions than random people linked by a market. I suggest that the historical record proves otherwise. Historically, limited liability companies came first, then dividing them up into larger numbers of \"\"bearer\"\" shares, and finally creating markets where such shares were traded. On the other hand if you trade in the short or medium term, you are betting that your opinion that XYZ shares are undervalued against other investors who think otherwise. But there again, you may be buying from a person who has some other reason for selling. Maybe he just needs some cash for a new car or his child's marriage, and will buy back into XYZ once he has earned some more money. You can't tell who you are buying from, and the seller can only tell if his decision to sell was good with the benefit of a good few years of hindsight. I bought shares hand over fist immediately after the Brexit vote. I was putting my money where my vote went, and I've now made a decent profit. I don't feel that I harmed the people who sold out in expectation of the UK economy cratering. They got the peace of mind of cash (which they might then reinvest in Euro stocks or gold or whatever). Time will tell whether my selling out of these purchases more recently was a good decision (short term, not my best, but a profit is a profit ...) I never trade using borrowed money and I'm not sure whether city institutions should be allowed to do so (or more reasonably, to what extent this should be allowed). In a certain size and shortness of holding time, they cease to contribute to an orderly market and become a destabilizing force. This showed up in the financial crisis when certain banks were \"\"too big to fail\"\" and had to be bailed out at the taxpayer's expense. \"\"Heads we win, tails you lose\"\", rather than trading with us small guys as equals! Likewise it's hard to see any justification for high-frequency trading, where stocks are held for mere milliseconds, and the speed of light between the trader's and the market's computers is significant.\"","The other answer has some good points, to which I'll add this: I believe you're only considering a company's Initial Public Offering (IPO), when shares are first offered to the public. An IPO is the way most companies get a public listing on the stock market. However, companies often go to market again and again to issue/sell more shares, after their IPO. These secondary offerings don't make as many headlines as an IPO, but they are typical-enough occurrences in markets. When a company goes back to the market to raise additional funds (perhaps to fund expansion), the value of the company's existing shares that are being traded is a good indicator of what they may expect to get for a secondary offering of shares. A company about to raise money desires a higher share price, because that will permit them to issue less shares for the amount of money they need. If the share price drops, they would need to issue more shares for the same amount of money – and dilute existing owners' share of the overall equity further. Also, consider corporate acquisitions: When one company wants to buy another, instead of the transaction being entirely in cash (maybe they don't have that much in the bank!), there's often an equity component, which involves swapping shares of the company being acquired for new shares in the acquiring company or merged company. In that case, the values of the shares in the public marketplace also matter, to provide relative valuations for the companies, etc.","\"This is a misconception. One of the explanations is that if you buy at the ask price and want to sell it right away, you can only sell at the bid price. This is incorrect. There are no two separate bid and ask prices. The price you buy (your \"\"bid\"\") is the same price someone else sells (their \"\"sell\"\"). The same goes when you sell - the price you sell at is the price someone else buys. There's no spread with stocks. Emphasized it on purpose, because many people (especially those who gamble on stock exchange without knowing what they're doing) don't understand how the stock market works. On the stock exchange, the transaction price is the match between the bid price and the ask price. Thus, on any given transaction, bid always equals ask. There's no spread. There is spread with commodities (if you buy it directly, especially), contracts, mutual funds and other kinds of brokered transactions that go through a third party. The difference (spread) is that third party's fee for assuming part of the risk in the transaction, and is indeed added to your cost (indirectly, in the way you described). These transactions don't go directly between a seller and a buyer. For example, there's no buyer when you redeem some of your mutual fund - the fund pays you money. So the fund assumes certain risk, which is why there's a spread in the prices to invest and to redeem. Similarly with commodities: when you buy a gold bar - you buy it from a dealer, who needs to keep a stock. Thus, the dealer will not buy from you at the same price: there's a premium on sale and a discount on buy, which is a spread, to compensate the dealer for the risk of keeping a stock.\"","First, the stock does represent a share of ownership and if you have a different interpretation I'd like to see proof of that. Secondly, when the IPO or secondary offering happened that put those shares into the market int he first place, the company did receive proceeds from selling those shares. While others may profit afterward, it is worth noting that more than a few companies will have secondary offerings, convertible debt, incentive stock options and restricted stock that may be used down the road that are all dependent upon the current trading share price in terms of how useful these can be used to fund operations, pay executives and so forth. Third, if someone buys up enough shares of the company then they gain control of the company which while you aren't mentioning this case, it is something to note as some individuals buy stock so that they can take over the company which happens. Usually this has more of an overall plan but the idea here is that getting that 50%+1 control of the company's voting shares are an important piece to things here.","Most stocks are not actively trades by lots of people. When you buy or sell a stock the price is set by the “order book” – that is the other people looking to trade in the given stock at the same time. Without a large number of active traders, it is very likely the pricing system will break down and result in widely changing prices second by second. Therefore for the market to work well, it need most people to be trading at the same time.","\"Very simple. You open an account with a broker who will do the trades for you. Then you give the broker orders to buy and sell (and the money to pay for the purchases). That's it. In the old days, you would call on the phone (remember, in all the movies, \"\"Sell, sell!!!!\"\"? That's how), now every decent broker has an online trading platform. If you don't want to have \"\"additional value\"\" and just trade - there are many online discount brokers (ETrade, ScotTrade, TD Ameritrade, and others) who offer pretty cheap trades and provide decent services and access to information. For more fees, you can also get advices and professional management where an investment manager will make the decisions for you (if you have several millions to invest, that is). After you open an account and login, you'll find a big green (usually) button which says \"\"BUY\"\". Stocks are traded on exchanges. For example the NYSE and the NASDAQ are the most common US exchanges (there's another one called \"\"pink sheets\"\", but its a different kind of animal), there are also stock exchanges in Europe (notably London, Frankfurt, Paris, Moscow) and Asia (notably Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo). Many trading platforms (ETrade, that I use, for example) allow investing on some of those as well.\"","\"You are correct that a share of stock in a company has zero intrinsic value. Even if the company typically pays dividends, there's no guarantee that it will continue to do so. A share's only worth comes from: So that's one step better than a Ponzi scheme, because in a Ponzi scheme there's not actually any value present behind the scenes, making option (2) literally impossible. In this way company stock is similar to paper money. It's only worth something because people believe it's worth something. Slightly better than company stock is company bonds. Since a bond is a contract between you and the company, if the company should go out of business then bondholders at least get to stand near the front of the line when the company's assets are liquidated. I work in finance, and the vast majority of my colleagues agree that the secondary stock market (what the average citizen simply calls \"\"the stock market\"\") is a giant confidence game. And yet it's so profitable to believe in the value of equities the way everyone else does, that we all happily pretend these ones and zeroes we move around have actual value.\"","Apart from making money from the price difference, some stocks also give dividends, or bonus issues. For long term investors whom are looking for steady income, they may be more interested with the dividend pay-out instead of the capital-appreciation.","yes, there does need to be demand. on heavily traded stocks, there is no reason to be concerned. on thinly traded equities, you will want to check the market depth before placing a sell. the company is likely not the one that is buying your shares on the open market.","Stock trading (as opposed to IPO) doesn't directly benefit the company. But it affects their ability to raise additional funds; if they're valued higher, they don't need to sell as many shares to raise a given amount of money. And the stockholders are part owners of the company; their votes in annual corporate meetings and the like can add up to a substantial influence on the company's policies, so the company has an interest in keeping them (reasonably) happy. Dividends (distributing part of the company's profits to the stockholders) are one way of doing so. You're still investing in the company. The fact that you're buying someone else's share just means you're doing so indirectly, and they're dis-investing at the same time.","Will there be a scenario in which I want to sell, but nobody wants to buy from me and I'm stuck at the brokerage website? Similarly, if nobody wants to sell their stocks, I will not be able to buy at all? Yes, that is entirely possible.","The OTC market is a marketplace, the location it definitely relied on the purchaser marketplace. The OTC market is mostly used to exchange bonds among the two occasions and all this technique are executed by way of manner of the third celebration. They are able to also be used to alternate equity, such because of the OTC QX and purple marketplaces within the USA. The minamargroup is the Florida, USA situated agency, who elements their purchase investor relation with to present organization into to make new ones. OTC way it's far a protection traded in some context other, changing between parties or groups inclusive of New York Stock trade.","Depends on how you measure liquidity. There's papers out there that approach this very question. Measured in order book spreads for a consolidated $100m trade, I'd say the second biggest market is FX swaps, followed or par'd by the money market (government bonds). If you disallow OTC venues, it's most definitely exchange listed government bonds. If, however, you happen to think in terms of sheer volume per time, the most liquid market phase could be considered the NYSE closing auction, as you can move billions in a matter of minutes, or expressed in speed terms: several m$/s (million dollars per second). You should pick a definition and we can provide you with a more accurate list of candidates and actual data.","Is my observation that the currency exchange market is indirect correct? Is there a particular reason for this? Why isn't currency traded like stocks? I guess yes. In Stocks its pretty simple where the stock is held with a depository. Hence listing matching is simple and the exchange of money is via local clearing. Currency markets are more global and there is no one place where trades happen. There are multiple places where it happens and is loosely called Fx market place. Building a matching engine is also complex and confusing. If we go with your example of currency pair, matches would be difficult. Say; If we were to say all transactions happen in USD say, and list every currency as item to be purchased or sold. I could put a trade Sell Trade for Quantity 100 Stock Code EUR at Price 1.13 [Price in USD]. So there has to be a buy at a price and we can match. Similarly we would have Stock Code for GBP, AUD, JPY, etc. Since not every thing would be USD based, say I need to convert GBP to EUR, I would have to have a different set of Base currency say GBP. So here the quantity would All currencies except GBP which would be price. Even then we have issues, someone using USD as base currency has quoted for Stock GBP. While someone else using GBP has quoted for Stock USD. Plus moving money internationally is expensive and doing this for small trades removes the advantages. The kind of guarantees required are difficult to achieve without established correspondence bank relationships. One heavily traded currency pair, the exchange for funds happens via CLS Bank.","\"listed simultaneously in New York, London, and maybe even some Asian markets - is this correct? If the exchanges are not connected, then in primary market the shares are listed. On other exchanges, the \"\"Depository Receipts\"\" are listed. i.e. the Company will keep say 100,000 shares with the primary stock exchange / depository. Based on this it would create new instruments \"\"Depository Receipts\"\". They can be 1:1 or whatever ratio. hypothetically, if I want to buy all of the company's stock Even if it is on one exchange, buying all stocks would trigger various regulatory aspects of Companies Act, or Stock Exchange rules. This is not simple or easy like clicking some buttons and buying everything. That is, let's say that in New York the company has listed 1000 shares, and in London only 10 shares, each worth 10 USD Market capitalization is sum of all outstanding shares into value.\"","Yes for every order there is a buyer and seller. But overall there are multiple buyers and multiple sellers. So every trade is at a different price and this price is agreed by both buyer and seller. Related question will help you understand this better. How do exchanges match limit orders?","You can execute block trades on the options market and get exercised for shares to create a very large position in Energy Transfer Partners LP without moving the stock market. You can then place limit sell orders, after selling directly into the market and keep an overhang of low priced shares (the technical analysis traders won't know what you specifically are doing, and will call this 'resistance'). If you hit nice even numbers (multiples of 5, multiples of 10) with your sell orders, you can exacerbate selling as many market participants will have their own stop loss orders at those numbers, causing other people to sell at lower and lower prices automatically, and simultaneously keep your massive ask in effect. If your position is bigger than the demand then you can keep a stock lower. The secondary market doesn't inherently affect a company in any way. But many companies have borrowed against the price of their shares, and if you get the share price low enough they can get suddenly margin called and be unable to service their existing debt. You will also lose a lot of money doing this, so you can also buy puts along the way or attempt to execute a collar to lower your own losses. The collar strategy is nice because it is unlikely that other traders and analysts will notice what you are doing, since there are calls, puts and share orders involved in creating it. One person may notice the block trade for the calls initially, but nobody will notice it is part of a larger strategy with multiple legs. With the share position, you may also be able to vote on some things, but that solely depends on the conditions of the shares.","\"I think you've got basics, but you may have the order / emphasis a bit wrong. I've changed the order of the things you've learned in to what I think is the most important to understand: Owning a stock is like owning a tiny chunk of the business Owning stock is owning a tiny chunk of the business, it's not just \"\"like\"\" it. The \"\"tiny chunks\"\" are called shares, because that is literally what they are, a share of the business. Sometimes shares are also called stocks. The words stock and share are mostly interchangeable, but a single stock normally means your holding of many shares in a business, so if you have 100 shares in 1 company, that's a stock in that company, if you then buy 100 shares in another company, you now own 2 stocks. An investor seeks to buy stocks at a low price, and sell when the price is high. Not necessarily. An investor will buy shares in a company that they believe will make them a profit. In general, a company will make a profit and distribute some or all of it to shareholders in the form of dividends. They will also keep back a portion of the profit to invest in growing the company. If the company does grow, it will grow in value and your shares will get more valuable. Price (of a stock) is affected by supply/demand, volume, and possibly company profits The price of a share that you see on a stock ticker is the price that people on the market have exchanged the share for recently, not the price you or I can buy a share for, although usually if people on the market are buying and selling at that price, someone will buy or sell from you at a similar sort of price. In theory, the price will be the companies total value, if you were to own the whole thing (it's market capitalisation) divided by the total number of shares that exist in that company. The problem is that it's very difficult to work out the total value of a company. You can start by counting the different things that it owns (including things like intellectual property and the knowledge and experience of people who work there), subtract all the money it owes in loans etc., and then make an allowance for how much profit you expect the company to make in the future. The problem is that these numbers are all going to be estimates, and different peoples estimates will disagree. Some people don't bother to estimate at all. The market makers will just follow supply and demand. They will hold a few shares in each of many companies that they are interested in. They will advertise a lower price that they are willing to buy at and a higher price that they will sell at all the time. When they hold a lot of a share, they will price it lower so that people buy it from them. When they start to run out, they will price it higher. You will never need to spend more than the market makers price to buy a share, or get less than the market makers price when you come to sell it (unless you want to buy or sell more shares than they are willing to). This is why stock price depends on supply and demand. The other category of people who don't care about the companies they are trading are the high speed traders. They just look at information like the past price, the volume (total amount of shares being exchanged on the market) and many other statistics both from the market and elsewhere and look for patterns. You cannot compete with these people - they do things like physically locate their servers nearer to the stock exchanges buildings to get a few milliseconds time advantage over their competitors to buy shares quicker than them.\"","\"In the US there is only one stock market (ignoring penny stocks) and handfuls of different exchanges behind it. NYSE and NASDAQ are two different exchanges, but all the products you can buy on one can also be bought on the other; i.e. they are all the same market. So a US equities broker cannot possibly restrict access to any \"\"markets\"\" in the US because there is only one. (Interestingly, it is commonplace for US equity brokers to cheat their customers by using only exchanges where they -- the brokers -- get the best deals, even if it means your order is not executed as quickly or cheaply as possible. This is called payment for order flow and unfortunately will probably take an Act of Congress to stop.) Some very large brokers will have trading access to popular equity markets in other countries (Toronto Stock Exchange, Mexico Stock Exchange, London Stock Exchange) and can support your trades there. However, at many brokers or in less popular foreign markets this is usually not the case; to trade in the average foreign country you typically must open an account with a broker in that country.\"","\"Brokerages offer you the convenience of buying and selling financial products. They are usually not exchanges themselves, but they can be. Typically there is an exchange and the broker sends orders to that exchange. The main benefit that brokers offer is a simpler commission structure. Not all brokers have their own liquidity, but brokers can have their own allotment of shares of a stock, for example, that they will sell you when you make an order, so that you get what you want faster. Regarding accounts at the exchanges to track actual ownership and transfer of assets, it is not safe to assume thats how that works. There are a lot of shortcomings in how the actual exchange works, since the settlement time is 1 - 3 business days, depending on the product (so upwards of 5 to 6 actual days). In a fast market, the asset can change hands many many times making the accounting completely incorrect for extended time periods. Better to not worry about that part, but if you'd like to read more about how that is regulated look up \"\"Failure To Deliver\"\" regulations on short selling to get a better understanding of market microstructure. It is a very antiquated system.\"","Tradable is a much broader term than marketable. For example, some programmers/developers sell their services online, hence programming is a tradable service. However, it is not a security nor is it marketable since it cannot readily be converted to cash. All marketable securities are, by definition, tradable.","In a simple statement, no doesn't matter. Checked on my trade portal, everything lines up. Same ISIN, same price(after factoring in FX conversions, if you were thinking about arbitrage those days are long gone). But a unusual phenomenon I have observed is, if you aren't allowed to buy/sell a stock in one market and try to do that in a different market for the same stock you will still not be allowed to do it. Tried it on French stocks as my current provider doesn't allow me to deal in French stocks.","If a company's shares trade in multiple exchanges, the prices in every exchange are very near to each other, otherwise you could earn money by doing arbitrage deals (buying in one, selling in the other) - and people do that once it becomes worth it. Which stock exchange you use is more a convenience for the buyer/seller - many investment banks offer only something local/near, and you have to go to specific investment banks to use other exchanges. For example, in Germany, it is easy to deal in Frankfurt, but if you want to trade at the the NASDAQ, you have to run around and find a bank that offers it, and you probably have to pay extra for it. In the USA, most investment banks offer NASDAQ, but if you want to trade in Frankfurt, you will have run around for an international company that offers that. As a stock owner/buyer, you can sell/buy your shares on any stock exchange where the company is listed (again, assuming your investment broker supports it). So you can buy in Frankfurt and sell in Tokyo seconds later, as nothing needs to be physically moved. Companies that are listed in multiple stock exchangs are typically large, and offer this to make trading their shares easier for a larger part of the world. Considering your 'theoretical buy all shares' - the shares are not located in the exchanges, they are in the hands of the owners, and not all are for sale, for various reasons. The owners decide if and when they want them offered for sale, and they also decide which stock exchange they offer them on; so you would need to go to all exchanges to buy them all. However, if you raise your offer price in one exchange only slightly, someone will see the arbitrage and buy them in the other locations and offer them to you in your stock exchange; in other words, for a small fee the shares will come to you. But again, most shares are typically not for sale. It's the same as trying to buy all Chevy Tahoes - even if you had the money, most owners wouldn't know or care about you. You would have to go around and contact every single one and convince them to sell.","Wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_exchanges","The Money Market is a place where one trades Instruments. The market is similar to that of the Stock Market. The instruments traded in Money Markets include Short Term Debt Instruments as well as FX Swap Instruments and Mortgage & Asset Backed Securities. The FX & Mortgage Securities are not Debt instruments per se. They also include other custom created instruments that are traded. The definition of Short Term debt is any guaranteed instrument with a maturity of less than a year. These instruments are used in various transactions, including retail and the Money Market is not the only place these are traded.","Most of stock trading occurs on what is called a secondary market. For example, Microsoft is traded on NASDAQ, which is a stock exchange. An analogy that can be made is that of selling a used car. When you sell a used car to a third person, the maker of your car is unaffected by this transaction and the same goes for stock trading. Still within the same analogy, when the car is first sold, money goes directly to the maker (actually more complicated than that but good enough for our purposes). In the case of stock trading, this is called an Initial Public Offering (IPO) / Seasoned Public Offering (SPO), for most purposes. What this means is that a drop of value on a secondary market does not directly affect earning potential. Let me add some nuance to this. Say this drop from 20$ to 10$ is permanent and this company needs to finance itself through equity (stock) in the future. It is likely that it would not be able to obtain as much financing in this matter and would either 1) have to rely more on debt and raise its cost of capital or 2) obtain less financing overall. This could potentially affect earnings through less cash available from financing. One last note: in any case, financing does not affect earnings except through cost of capital (i.e. interest paid) because it is neither revenue nor expense. Financing obtained from debt increases assets (cash) and liabilities (debt) and financing obtained from stock issuance increases assets (cash) and shareholder equity.","\"We're in agreement, I just want retail investors to understand that in most of these types of discussions, the unspoken reality is the retail sector trading the market is *over*. This includes the mutual funds you mentioned, and even most index funds (most are so narrowly focused they lose their relevance for the retail investor). In the retail investment markets I'm familiar with, there are market makers of some sort or another for specified ranges. I'm perfectly fine with no market makers; but retail investors should be told the naked truth as well, and not sold a bunch of come-ons. What upsets me is seeing that just as computers really start to make an orderly market possible (you are right, the classic NYSE specialist structure was outrageously corrupt), regulators turned a blind eye to implementing better controls for retail investors. The financial services industry has to come to terms whether they want AUM from retail or not, and having heard messaging much like yours from other professionals, I've concluded that the industry does *not* want the constraints with accepting those funds, but neither do they want to disabuse retail investors of how tilted the game is against them. Luring them in with deceptively suggestive marketing and then taking money from those naturally ill-prepared for the rigors of the setting is like beating up the Downs' Syndrome kid on the short bus and boasting about it back on the campus about how clever and strong one is. If there was as stringent truth in marketing in financial services as cigarettes, like \"\"this service makes their profit by encouraging the churning of trades\"\", there would be a lot of kvetching from so-called \"\"pros\"\" as well. If all retail financial services were described like \"\"dead cold cow meat\"\" describes \"\"steak\"\", a lot of retail investors would be better off. As it stands today, you'd have to squint mighty hard to see the faintly-inscribed \"\"caveat emptor\"\" on financial services offerings to the retail sector. Note that depending upon the market setting, the definition of retail differs. I'm surprised the herd hasn't been spooked more by the MF Global disaster, for example, and yet there are some surprisingly large accounts detrimentally affected by that incident, which in a conventional equities setting would be considered \"\"pros\"\".\"","You cannot trade in pre-IPO shares of companies like Facebook without being an accredited investor. If a website or company doesn't mention that requirement, they are a scam. A legitimate market for private shares is SecondMarket.","Keep in mind that the exchanges do not hold, buy, or sell the stock - people (or funds) do. All the exchange does is facilitate the sale of stock from one entity to another. So the shares outstanding (and market cap) for a company are set regardless of how many exchanges the stock is listed on. The company typically indicates the number of shares outstanding in its financial statements. I do not know if the exchange itself keeps track of shares outstanding; it may just report whatever the company publishes. So theoretically, if you wanted to buy all of the stock of a company, you could do it all in one exchange, provided that all the existing holders of the stock were willing to sell you their shares. There are many issues with that, though, which I don't think are germane to your question.","\"Market cap is speculative value, M = P * W, where W is stock (or other way of owning) percentage of ownership, P - price of percentage of ownership. This could include \"\"outside of exchange\"\" deals. Some funds could buy ownership percentage directly via partial ownership deal. That ownership is not stock, but fixed-type which has value too. Stock market cap is speculative value, M2 = Q * D, where D is free stocks available freely, Q - price of stock, in other words Quote number (not price of ownership). Many stock types do NOT provide actual percentage of ownership, being just another type of bond with non-fixed coupon and non-fixed price. Though such stocks do not add to company's capitalization after sold to markets, it adds to market capitalization at the moment of selling via initial price.\"","Recommended? There's really no perfect answer. You need to know the motivations of the participants in the markets that you will be participating in. For instance, the stock market's purpose is to raise capital (make as much money as possible), whereas the commodities-futures market's purpose is to hedge against producing actual goods. The participants in both markets have different reactions to changes in price.","\"When people talk about \"\"the price\"\" of a stock, they usually mean one of the following: Last price: The price at which a trade most recently took place. If someone sold (and someone else bought) shares of XYZ for $20 each, then until another trade occurs, the last price of the stock will be quoted at $20. Bid price: The highest price at which someone is currently offering to buy the stock. Ask price: The lowest price at which someone is currently offering to sell the stock. As you can see, all of these are completely determined by the people buying and selling the stock.\"","Prices quoted are primarily the offer prices quoted by the numerous market makers on the stock exchange(s) willing to sell you the stock. There is another price which generally isn't seen on these websites, the bid prices, which are lower prices quoted by buyers and market makers willing to buy your shares from you. You wouldn't see those prices, unless you login to your trade terminal. How meaningful are they to you depends on what you want to do buy or sell. If you want to buy then yes they are relevant. But if you want to sell, then no. And remember some websites delay market information by 15 minutes, in case of Google you might have seen that the volume is delayed by 15 minutes. So you need to consider that also while trading, but mayn't be a concern unless you are trying to buy out the company.","Depending on your broker, you can buy these stocks directly at the most liquid local exchanges. For instance, if you are US resident and want to to buy German stocks (like RWE) you can trade these stocks over InteractiveBrokers (or other direct brokers in the US). They offer direct access to German Xetra and other local markets.","When you are placing an order with an online broker you should already know what exchange or exchanges that stock trades on. For example if you look up under Yahoo Finance: Notice how News Corp is traded both on the ASX and the Nasdaq. The difference is the shares traded on the ASX have the extension .AX, that is how you know the difference between them. When you are putting orders in with your online broker you will need to select the exchange you wish your order to go to (if your broker allows trading on multiple exchanges). So you should always know which exchange your order goes to.","I didn't say only the IPO I just said public offerings. Trades between secondary investors would be taxed at a higher level. I also understand the difference between loaning money to a company and investing in equity. Personally I think that loans are underused in today's investment world because people are too focused on getting the most out of the few big winners.","\"As others have noted, your definition of \"\"market price\"\" is a bit loose. Really whatever price you get becomes the current market price. What you usually get quoted are the current best bid and ask with the last transaction price. For stocks that don't trade much, the last transaction price may not be representative of the current market value. Your question included regulation (\"\"standards bureau\"\"), and I don't think the current answers are addressing that. In the US, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) provides some regulation regarding execution price. It goes by the designation Regulation NMS, and, very roughly, it says that each transaction has to take the best available price at the time that it is executed. There are some subtleties, but that's the gist of it. No regulation ensures that there will be a counterparty to any transaction that you want to make. It could happen, for example, that you have shares of some company that you're never able to sell because no one wants them. (BitCoin is the same in this regard. There is a currently a market for BitCoin, but there's no regulation that ensures there will be a market for it tomorrow.) Outside of the US, I don't know what regulation, if any, exists.\"","Do you simply get call options you can sell on an options exchange? No, you don't get call options that you can sell on an options exchange. Rather, you get rights that you can (generally) sell on the stock exchange. The right issue is in essence a call option – in that it behaves like one, but it is not considered a standardized option contract. is there a special exchange where such rights issues are traded? No. It will normally be done on the stock exchange.","Let's say that you bought a share of Apple for $10. When (if ever) their stock sold for $10, it was a very small company with a very small net worth; that is, the excess of assets over liabilities. Your $10 share was perhaps a 1/10,000,000th share of a tiny company. Over the years, Apple has developed both software and hardware that have real value to the world. No-one knew they needed a smartphone and, particularly, an iPhone, until Apple showed it to us. The same is true of iPads, iPods, Apple watches, etc. Because of the sales of products and services, Apple is now a huge company with a huge net worth. Obviously, your 1/10,000,000th share of the company is now worth a lot more. Perhaps it is worth $399. Maybe you think Apples good days are behind it. After all, it is harder to grow a huge company 15% a year than it is a small company. So maybe you will go into the marketplace and offer to sell your 1/10,000,000th share of Apple. If someone offers you $399, would you take it? The value of stocks in the market is not a Ponzi scheme, although it is a bit speculative. You might have a different conclusion and different research about the future value of Apple than I do. Your research might lead you to believe the stock is worth $399. Mine might suggest it's worth $375. Then I wouldn't buy. The value of stocks in the market is based on the present and estimated future value of living, breathing companies that are growing, shrinking and steady. The value of each company changes all the time. So, then, does the price of the stock. Real value is created in the stock market when real value is created in the underlying company.","Yes, it would be incorrect to refer to BATS Chi-X Europe as a market maker. Market makers make markets on BATS Chi-X Europe, which is a stock exchange.","These markets are independent, just like any other stock market. For example, there are stocks on the Milan stock exchange that are also on the New York stock exchange and have different historical prices. Remember, this is all about offer and demand. The Hong Kong stock exchange has the Hong Kong Dollar as its currency, which is anchored to the USD. Also, there is more trade going on, on the Hong Kong stock exchange. As for the answer, I don't know whether these stocks are exactly the same. I guess they should be, but maybe somebody else could answer that.","The worth of a share of stocks may be defined as the present cash value of all future dividends and liquidations associated therewith. Without a crystal ball, such worth may generally only be determined retrospectively, but even though it's generally not possible to know the precise worth of a stock in time for such information to be useful, it has a level of worth which is absolute and not--unlikely market price--is generally unaffected by people buying and selling the stock (except insofar as activities in company stock affect a company's ability to do business). If a particular share of stock is worth $10 by the above measure, but Joe sells it to Larry for $8, that means Joe gives Larry $2. If Larry sells it to Fred $12, Fred gives Larry $2. The only way Fred can come out ahead is if he finds someone else to give him $2 or more. If Fred can sell it to Adam for $13, then Adam will give Fred $3, leaving Fred $1 better off than he would be if he hadn't bought the stock, but Adam will be $3 worse off. The key point is that if you sell something for less than it's worth, or buy something for more that it's worth, you give money away. You might be able to convince other people to give you money in the same way you gave someone else money, but fundamentally the money has been given away, and it's not coming back.","It's an over-the-counter stock quote system. Read all about it. Or visit it.","\"Because I feel the answers given do not wholely represent the answer you are expecting, I'd like to re-iterate but include more information. When you own stock in a company, you OWN some of that company. When that company makes profit, you usually receive a dividend of those profits. If you owned 1% of the company stock, you (should) recieve 1% of the profits. If your company is doing well, someone might ask to buy your stock. The price of that stock is (supposed) to be worth a value representative of the expected yield or how much of a dividend you'd be getting. The \"\"worth\"\" of that, is what you're betting on when you buy the stock, if you buy $100 worth of coca cola stock and they paid $10 as dividend, you'd be pretty happy with a 10% growth in your wealth. Especially if the banks are only playing 3%. So maybe some other guy sees your 10% increase and thinks, heck.. 10% is better than 3%, if I buy your stocks, even as much as 6% more than they are worth ($106) I'm still going to be better off by that extra 1% than I would be if I left it in the bank.. so he offers you $106.. and you think.. awesome.. I can sell my $100 of cola shares now, make a $6 profit and buy $100 worth of some other share I think will pay a good dividend. Then cola publicises their profits, and they only made 2% profit, that guy that bought your shares for $106, only got a dividend of $2 (since their 'worth' is still $100, and effectively he lost $4 as a result. He bet on a better than 10% profit, and lost out when it didn't hit that. Now, (IMHO) while the stock market was supposed to be about buying shares, and getting dividends, people (brokers) discovered that you could make far more money buying and selling shares for 'perceived value' rather than waiting for dividends to show actual value, especially if you were not the one doing the buying and selling (and risk), but instead making a 0.4% cut off the difference between each purchase (broker fees). So, TL;DR, Many people have lost money in the market to those who made money from them. But only the traders and gamblers.\"","You seem to think that stock exchanges are much more than they actually are. But it's right there in the name: stock exchange. It's a place where people exchange (i.e. trade) stocks, no more and no less. All it does is enable the trading (and thereby price finding). Supposedly they went into mysterious bankruptcy then what will happen to the listed companies Absolutely nothing. They may have to use a different exchange if they're planning an IPO or stock buyback, that's all. and to the shareholder's stock who invested in companies that were listed in these markets ? Absolutley nothing. It still belongs to them. Trades that were in progress at the moment the exchange went down might be problematic, but usually the shutdown would happen in a manner that takes care of it, and ultimately the trade either went through or it didn't (and you still have the money). It might take some time to establish this. Let's suppose I am an investor and I bought stocks from a listed company in NYSE and NYSE went into bankruptcy, even though NYSE is a unique business, meaning it doesn't have to do anything with that firm which I invested in. How would I know the stock price of that firm Look at a different stock exchange. There are dozens even within the USA, hundreds internationally. and will I lose my purchased stocks ? Of course not, they will still be listed as yours at your broker. In general, what will happen after that ? People will use different stock exchanges, and some of them migth get overloaded from the additional volume. Expect some inconveniences but no huge problems.","\"Joke warning: These days, it seems that rogue trading programs are the big market makers (this concludes the joke) Historically, exchange members were market makers. One or more members guaranteed a market in a particular stock, and would buy whatever you wanted to sell (or vice-versa). In a balanced market -- one where there were an equal number of buyers and sellers -- the spread was indeed profit for them. To make this work, market makers need an enormous amount of liquidity (ability to hold an inventory of stocks) to deal with temporary imbalances. And a day like October 29, 1929, can make that liquidity evaporate. I say \"\"historically,\"\" because I don't think that any stock market works this way today (I was discussing this very topic with a colleague last week, went to Wikipedia to look at the structure of the NYSE, and saw no mention of exchange members as market makers -- in fact, it appears that the NYSE is no longer a member-based exchange). Instead, today most (all?) trading happens on \"\"electronic crossing networks,\"\" where the spread is simply the difference between the highest bid and lowest ask. In a liquid stock, there will be hundreds if not thousands of orders clustered around the \"\"current\"\" price, usually diverging by fractions of a cent. In an illiquid stock, there may be a spread, but eventually one bid will move up or one ask will move down (or new bids will come in). You could claim that an entity with a large block of stock to move takes the role of market maker, but it doesn't have the same meaning as an exchange market maker. Since there's no entity between the bidder and asker, there's no profit in the spread, just a fee taken by the ECN. Edit: I think you have a misconception of what the \"\"spread\"\" is. It's simply the difference between the highest bid and the lowest offer. At the instant a trade takes place, the spread is 0: the highest bid equals the lowest offer, and the bidder and seller exchange shares for money. As soon as that trade is completed, the spread re-appears. The only way that a trade happens is if buyer and seller agree on price. The traditional market maker is simply an entity that has the ability to buy or sell an effectively unlimited number of shares. However, if the market maker sets a price and there are no buyers, then no trade takes place. And if there's another entity willing to sell shares below the market maker's price, then the buyers will go to that entity unless the market's rules forbid it.\"","What prevents a company from doing secondary public stock offerings on regular basis? The primary goal of a company doing secondary public offering is to raise more funds, that can be utilized for funding the business. If no funding is needed [i.e. company has sufficient funds, or no expansion plans], this funding creates a drag and existing shareholder including promoters loose value. For example with the current 100 invested, the company is able to generate say 125 [25 as profit]. If additional 100 is taken as secondary public offering, then with 200, the company should mark around 250, else it looses value. So if the company took additional 100 and did not / is not able to deploy in market, on 200 they still make 25 as profit, its bad. There are other reasons, i.e. to fight off hostile acquisition or dilute some of promoters shares etc. Thus the reasons for company to do a secondary PO are few and doing it often reduces the value for primary share holders as well as minority share holders.","\"Yes! What you are describing is an \"\"off-exchange\"\" trade and can be done using stock certificates. Here, you will privately negotiate with the seller on a price and delivery details. That is the old-school way to do it. Many companies (about 20% of the S&P 500) will not issue paper certificates and you may run a hefty printing fee up to $500 (source: Wikipedia, above). Other other type of private-party transactions include a deal negotiated between two parties and settled immediately or based on a future event. For example, Warren Buffet created a deal with Goldman Sachs where Warren would have the choice to purchase GS shares in the future at a certain price. This was to be settled with actual shares (rather than cash-settled). Ignoring that he later canceled this agreement, if it were to go through the transaction would still have been handled by a broker transferring the shares. You can purchase directly from a company using a direct stock purchase plan (SPP). Just pick up the phone, ask for their investor relations and then ask if they offer this option. If not, they will be glad for your interest and look into setting it up for you.\"","Many exchanges trade the same securities. An order may be posted to a secondary exchange, but if the National Best Bid and Offer data provider malfunctions, only those with data feeds from that exchange will see it. Only the data provider for the primary exchange where a stock is listed provides the NBBO. Missing orders are very common with the NBBO data providers. NASDAQ's order consolidator has had many failures over the past few years, and the data provider's top executive has recently resigned. Brokers have no control over this system. A broker may be alerted to a malfunction by an accountholder, but a broker may only inform the relevant exchange and the relevant data provider.","No, the stock market and investing in general is not a zero sum game. Some types of trades are zero sum because of the nature of the trade. But someone isn't necessarily losing when you gain in the sale of a stock or other security. I'm not going to type out a technical thesis for your question. But the main failure of the idea that investing is zero sum is the fact the a company does not participate in the transacting of its stock in the secondary market nor does it set the price. This is materially different from the trading of options contracts. Options contracts are the trading of risk, one side of the contract wins and one side of the contract loses. If you want to run down the economic theory that if Jenny bought her shares from Bob someone else is missing out on Jenny's money you're free to do that. But that would mean that literally every transaction in the entire economy is part of a zero sum game (and really misses the definition of zero sum game). Poker is a zero sum game. All players bet in to the game in equal amounts, one player takes all the money. And hell, I've played poker and lost but still sometimes feel that received value in the form of entertainment.","Stock A last traded at $100. Stock A has 1 million shares outstanding. No seller is willing to sell Stock A for less than $110 a share. One buyer is willing to buy 1 share for $110. The order executes. The buyer pays the seller $110. Stock A's new price is $110. An $110 investment increased the market cap by $10 million. Neat trick (for all who own Stock A).","Verify if a local bank offers to participate in different stock markets - big companies like apple or facebook often gets traded on different markets - like Xetra (germany) or SIX (Switzerland). That being said I'd recommend you to rethink this strategy and maybe using some products offered by your bank - for 1000$ you will quickly drown in fees (my bank requires 40$ for every trade. If you buy and sell them you already lost nearly 10% of your investment)","Yes, on the settlement the stock is yours to sell with no risk of freeride or day trading applying.","On NYSE it isn't the equity which is listed but is an ADR(American Depositary Receipt). Source A negotiable certificate issued by a U.S. bank representing a specified number of shares (or one share) in a foreign stock that is traded on a U.S. exchange. ADRs are denominated in U.S. dollars, with the underlying security held by a U.S. financial institution overseas. ADRs help to reduce administration and duty costs that would otherwise be levied on each transaction. Else people would make a killing on the arbitrage opportunity. Frankly speaking arbitrage opportunities are more or less non existent. They occur for maybe seconds or milliseconds and the HFT firms and banks trade on it to remove the arbitrage.",">Why not give extra tax breaks for the sale of stock purchased during a public offering (since that goes to helping the company) but not for secondhand (less necessary) trading Because secondary trading determines how easy it is for companies to raise additional money and it also allows the company to manipulate private vs publicly held stakes in their company. >Should we give big tax breaks to people who lend businesses money? There's a difference between lending money and investing in a corporation. Furthermore the income tax code when it comes to lending money via bonds is a complete mess. Corporate bond coupons are taxed like regular income (although the principal return is, of course, tax free). Federal and munis are taxed differently. There is also the advantage that you do get a tax break in the event of default, so any additional risk you take on has some marginal tax benefits.","3) Isn't strictly true, as off market swaps do trade quite regularly. For example, if the company has a bad credit rating, an off market swap is often executed to cover the credit costs (and essentially the cost of the bank's capital Under BASEL III.) Hence a bank shouldn't trade at mid.","There are two terms that are related, but separate here: Broker and Market Maker. The former is who goes and finds a buyer/seller to buy/sell shares from/to you. The latter (Market Maker) is a company which will agree to partner with you to complete the sale at a set price (typically the market price, often by definition as the market maker often is the one who determines the market price in a relatively low volumne listing). A market maker will have as you say a 'pool' of relatively common stock (and even relatively uncommon, up to a point) for this purpose. A broker can be a market maker (or work for one), also, in which case he would sell you directly the shares from the market maker reservoir. This may be a bad idea for you - the broker (while obligated to act in your interest, in theory) may push you towards stocks that the brokerage acts as a market maker for.","No, it's not even remotely accurate in the current sense. Both markets have counterparties directly executing against one another, and both have auctions. The auction mechanics are different (with NYSE's Specialist/DMM model) but during normal market hours there isn't much difference.","There are still human brokers on the floor primarily due to tradition. Their numbers have certainly dwindled, however, and it's reasonable to expect the number of floor traders to decrease even more as electronic trading continues to grow. A key reason for human brokers, however, is due to privacy. Certain private exchanges such as dark pools maintain privacy for high profile clients and institutional investors, and human brokers are needed to execute anonymous deals in these venues. Even in this region, however, technology is supplanting the need for brokers. I don't believe there is any human-broker-free stock exchange, but Nasdaq and other traditionally OTC (over the counter) exchanges are as close as it gets since they never even had trading floors.","\"It's not a ponzi scheme, and it does create value. I think you are confusing \"\"creating value\"\" and \"\"producing something\"\". The stock market does create value, but not in the same way as Toyota creates value by making a car. The stock market does not produce anything. The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. The only other cash flow is in through dividends and out when businesses go public. & The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. Earnings are the in-flow that you are missing here. Business profits DO flow back into the stock market through earnings and dividends. Think about a private company: if it has $100,000 in profits for the year then the company keeps $100,000, but if that same company is publicly traded with 100,000 shares outstanding then, all else being equal, each of those shares went up by $1. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. You can't go to an Apple store and try to pay with a stock certificate, but that doesn't mean the certificate doesn't have value. Using your agriculture example, you wouldn't be able to pay with a basket of tomatoes either. You wouldn't even be able to pay with a lump of gold! We used to do that. It was called the barter system. Companies also do buy shares back from the market using company cash. Although they usually do it through clearing-houses that are capable of moving blocks of 1,000 shares at a time.\"","The core issue is to understand what 'selling a share' means. There is no special person or company that takes the share from you; you are selling on the open market. So your question is effectively 'can I find a guy on the street that buys a 10$-bill for 11$ ?' - Well, maybe someone is dumb enough, but chances are slim.","outstanding shares are the shares(regular shares) that are still tradable in the market, where the firm in question is listed. The term is primarily used to distinguish from shares held in treasury(treasury stock), which have been bought back(buybacks) from the market and aren't currently tradable in the market. Wikipedia is a bit more clearer and mentions the diluted outstanding shares(used for convertible bonds, warrants, etc) which is used to calculated diluted EPS.","In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.","The futures market trades 24 hours a day, 5.5 days a week. S&P 500 futures market continues trading, and this gives pricing exposure and influences the individual stocks when they resume trading in US session.","I stumbled on the same discrepancy, and was puzzled by a significant difference between the two prices on ETR and FRA. For example, today is Sunday, and google shows the following closing prices for DAI. FRA:DAI: ETR:DAI: So it looks like there are indeed two different exchanges trading at different prices. Now, the important value here, is the last column (Volume). According to Wikipedia, the trading on Frankfort Stock Exchange is done today exclusively via Xetra platform, thus the volume on ETR:DAI is much more important than on FRA:DAI. Obviously, they Wikipedia is not 100% accurate, i.e. not all trading is done electronically via Xetra. According to their web-page, Frankfort exchange has a Specialist Trading on Frankfurt Floor service which has slightly different trading hours. I suspect what Google and Yahoo show as Frankfort exchange is this manual trading via a Specialist (opposed to Xetra electronic trading). To answer your question, the stock you're having is exactly the same, meaning if you bought an ETR:BMW you can still sell it on FRA (by calling a FRA Trading Floor Specialist which will probably cost you a fee). On the other hand, for the portfolio valuation and performance assessments you should only use ETR:BMW prices, because it is way more liquid, and thus better reflect the current market valuation.","\"I assume that mutual funds are being discussed here. As Bryce says, open-ended funds are bought from the mutual fund company and redeemed from the fund company. Except in very rare circumstances, they exist only as bits in the fund company's computers and not as share certificates (whether paper or electronic) that can be delivered from the selling broker to the buying broker on a stock exchange. Effectively, the fund company is the sole market maker: if you want to buy, ask the fund company at what price it will sell them to you (and it will tell you the answer only after 4 pm that day when a sale at that price is no longer possible unless you committed to buy, say, 100 shares and authorized the fund company to withdraw the correct amount from your bank account or other liquid asset after the price was known). Ditto if you want to sell: the mutual fund company will tell you what price it will give you only after 4 pm that day and you cannot sell at that price unless you had committed to accept whatever the company was going to give you for your shares (or had said \"\"Send me $1000 and sell as many shares of mine as are needed to give me proceeds of $1000 cash.\"\")\"","No, Mark is right, if you place a market order there will always be someone to buy or sell at the market price. Only if you place a limit order on the price can it not sell or be bought. Just research on your computer and you will find your answer. You must be specify about open order or limit order when asking.","The stock market is no different in this respect to anything that's bought or sold. The price of a stock like many other things reflects what the seller is prepared to sell it at and what the buyer is prepared to offer for it. If those things match then a transaction can take place. The seller loses money but gains stocks they feel represent equivalent value, the reverse happens for the buyer. Take buying a house for example, did the buyer lose money when they bought a house, sure they did but they gained a house. The seller gained money but lost a house. New money is created in the sense that companies can and do make profits, those profits, together with the expected profits from future years increase the value that is put on the company. If we take something simple like a mining company then its value represents a lot of things: and numerous other lesser things too. The value of shares in the mining company will reflect all of these things. It likely rises and falls in line with the price of the raw materials it mines and those change based on the overall supply and demand for those raw materials. Stocks do have an inherent value, they are ownership of a part of a company. You own part of the asset value, profits and losses made by that company. Betting on things is different in that you've no ownership of the thing you bet on, you're only dependent on the outcome of the bet."],"string":"[\n \"NYSE and Nasdaq are secondary markets where stocks are bought or sold. The process of creating new stocks via IPO or private placements etc are called Private Market.\",\n \"\\\"Very often, the word secondary market is used synonymously with the stock market as we all know it. In this case, the primary market would be the \\\"\\\"closed\\\"\\\" world of VCs, business angels, etc to which stock market investors do not have access, e.g. the securities are not trading on a public stock market.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"When there is a trade the shares were both bought and sold. In any trade on the secondary market there has to be both a buyer and a seller for the trade to take place. So in \\\"\\\"lasttradesize\\\"\\\" a buyer has bought the shares from a seller.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"With regards to \\\"\\\"the stock market,\\\"\\\" there are actually two markets involved here: PRIMARY MARKET Value is created in the primary market where capital is exchanged for a residual interest in an opportunity. As a theoretical example, if a person operating solo (or with a small team) were to discover or create a breakthrough product, such as an retro-aging pill, that person likely wouldn't have the financial means to fully capitalize on his new-found idea. Others with more capital may also soon discover his idea or improve upon it and exploit it before he has a chance to. For a real life example, a person studying at a California university during the 1990s discovered a method to index internet webpages and was approached by some students after a talk on the subject. He returned to his native southern Europe country seeking funds to develop the web-indexing business and failed to do so. Two of the students that approached him found capital readily available from investors in their campus sphere; their business is today one of the biggest in the world. They had exchanged part of their residual interest for capital to develop their business. The primary market of the stock market works mostly same in creating value. It is also dependent upon the secondary market. SECONDARY MARKET The secondary market indicates the day-to-day value of an enterprise. That market allows shareholders to manage their risk appetites and the enterprise's operators to execute their shareholders' interest for gains. In most cases, a secondary market reference will be used for pricing a primary market issuance. Without that reference, capital would be allocated less efficiently creating additional costs for all involved, issuers and investors. Consider what would happen if you sought to purchase a house and the mortgage lenders had no indication what the property was worth. This would make capital very expensive or possibly deny you access to credit. By having an indication, all involved are better off. That is value creating. There are some large developed economies' equity markets, such as that in Germany, where many large enterprises stay privately held and credit financing, mostly from banks, is used. The approach has proven successful as well. So why do some nations' financial markets still rely on capricious stock markets when private credit financing may do just fine in many cases? It's largely a matter of national culture. Countries such as the Netherlands, the UK and the US have long had active equity markets in continuous use that investors have trusted for centuries. CONCLUSION When leaders of an enterprise wish to grow the business to a large size with investment from the stock market, they aren't limited by the size of their banks' capital. Those leaders and their prospective investors will rely on the secondary market to determine values. In addition, if the leaders raise equity instead of debt capital, they are usually accorded more flexibility to take risks since shareholders usually have their own flexibility to transfer those risks to other investors if for any number of reasons they choose to do so. Stock markets create value in many other ways. The above are the main ways.\\\"\",\n \"I work at BATS Chi-X Europe and wanted to provide some clarity/answers to these questions. BATS Chi-X Europe is a Recognised Investment Exchange, so it is indeed a stock exchange. Sometimes the term “equity market” could be used when explaining our business, but essentially we are a stock exchange. As some background, BATS Chi-X Europe was formed by the acquisition of Chi-X Europe by BATS Trading in November 2011. At the time of the acquisition, each company operated as a Multilateral Trading Facility (MTF) for the trading of pan-European equities via a single trading platform. The category of MTF was introduced by MIFID (markets in Financial Instrument Directive) in 2007, which introduced competition in equities trading and allowed European stocks, to be traded on any European platform. Until 2007, many European stocks had to be traded only their local exchanges due to so-called “Concentration Rules”. Following the acquisition, BATS Chi-X Europe became the largest MTF in Europe, offering trading in more than 2,000 securities (2,700 securities by September 2013) across 15 major European markets, on a single trading platform. In May 2013, BATS Chi-X Europe received Recognised Investment Exchange status from the UK Financial Conduct Authority, meaning that BATS Chi-X Europe has changed from an MTF status to full exchange status. In response to question 1: The equities traded on BATS Chi-X Europe are listed on stock exchanges such as the LSE but also listed on the other European Exchanges. The term “third party” equities is not particularly useful as all stock trading in Europe is generally a “second hand” business referred to as “secondary market” trading. At the time of listing a firm issues shares; trading in these shares after the listing exercise is generally what happens in equity markets and these shares can be bought and sold on stock exchanges across Europe. Secondary market trading describes all trading on all exchanges or MTFs that takes place after the listing. In response to question 2: BATS Chi-X Europe trades over 2,700 stocks on its own trading platform. When trading on BATS Chi-X Europe, orders are executed on their own platform and will not end up of the LSE order books or platform. The fact that a stock was first listed on the LSE, does not mean that all trading in this stock happens via the LSE. However settlement process ensures that stocks end up being logged in a single depository. This means that a stock bought on BATS Chi-X Europe can be offset against the same stock sold on the LSE. In response to question 3: As noted above, BATS Chi-X Europe received Recognised Investment Exchange (RIE) status from the UK Financial Conduct Authority in May 2013, meaning that BATS Chi-X Europe has changed from an MTF status to full stock exchange status. As an exchange / RIE, BATS Chi-X Europe is authorised to offer primary and secondary listings alongside its existing business. According to the Federations of European Securities Exchanges (FESE), BATS Chi-X Europe has been the largest equity exchange in Europe by value traded in every month so far in 2013. In August, 24.1% of European equities trading in the 15 markets covered were traded on BATS Chi-X Europe. In July and August, the average notional value traded on BATS Chi-X Europe was around €7.2 billion per day. Hope this information is helpful.\",\n \"\\\"> If the only function of the stock market is investment and provide capital to companies, why have a secondary market at all? > Maybe we shouldn't, I don't know Are you (and the 8 upvoters) for real? What do you think would happen to the \\\"\\\"primary\\\"\\\" market if initial investors had no way of converting their investments back into currency when they needed to? Seriously, this isn't fucking [rocket surgery](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"1) Are the definitions for capital market from the two sources the same? Yes. They are from two different perspectives. Investopedia is looking at it primarily from the perspective of a trader and they lead-off with the secondary market. This refers to the secondary market: A market in which individuals and institutions trade financial securities. This refers to the primary market: Organizations/institutions in the public and private sectors also often sell securities on the capital markets in order to raise funds. Also, the Investopedia definition leaves much to be desired, but it is supposed to be pithy. So, you are comparing apples and oranges, to some extent. One is an article, as short as it may be, this other one is an entry in a dictionary. 2) What is the opposite of capital market, according to the definition in investopedia? It's not quite about opposites, this is not physics. However, that is not the issue here. The Investopedia definition simply does not mention any other possibilities. The Wikipedia article defines the term more thoroughly. It talks about primary/secondary markets in separate paragraph. 3) According to the Wikipedia's definition, why does stock market belong to capital market, given that stocks can be held less than one year too? If you follow the link in the Wikipedia article to money market: As money became a commodity, the money market is nowadays a component of the financial markets for assets involved in short-term borrowing, lending, buying and selling with original maturities of one year or less. The key here is original maturities of one year or less. Here's my attempt at explaining this: Financial markets are comprised of money markets and capital markets. Money is traded as if it were a commodity on the money markets. Hence, the short-term nature in its definition. They are more focused on the money itself. Capital markets are focused on the money as a means to an end. Companies seek money in these markets for longer terms in order to improve their business in some way. A business may go to the money markets to access money quickly in order to deal with a short-term cash crunch. Meanwhile, a business may go to the capital markets to seek money in order to expand its business. Note that capital markets came first and money markets are a relatively recent development. Also, we are typically speaking about the secondary (capital) market when we are talking about the stock or bond market. In this market, participants are merely trading among themselves. The company that sought money by issuing that stock/bond certificate is out of the picture at that point and has its money. So, Facebook got its money from participants in the primary market: the underwriters. The underwriters then turned around and sold that stock in an IPO to the secondary market. After the IPO, their stock trades on the secondary market where you or I have access to trade it. That money flows between traders. Facebook got its money at the \\\"\\\"beginning\\\"\\\" of the process.\\\"\",\n \"Stock trades are always between real buyers and real sellers. In thinly-traded small stocks, for example, you may not always be able to find a buyer when you want to sell. For most public companies, there is enough volume that individual investors can just about always fill their market orders.\",\n \"For the second part, no most NYSE trades are done electronically.\",\n \"The stock market is just like any other market, but stocks are bought and sold here. Just like you buy and sell your electronics at the electronics market, this is a place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares or stocks or equity, no matter what you call it. What are these shares? A share is nothing but a portion of ownership of a company. Suppose a company has 100 shares issued to it, and you were sold 10 out of those, it literally means you are a 10% owner of the company. Why do companies sell shares? Companies sell shares to grow or expand. Suppose a business is manufacturing or producing and selling goods or services that are high in demand, the owners would want to take advantage of it and increase the production of his goods or services. And in order to increase production he would need money to buy land or equipment or labor, etc. Now either he could go get a loan by pledging something, or he could partner with someone who could give him money in exchange for some portion of the ownership of the company. This way, the owner gets the money to expand his business and make more profit, and the lender gets a portion of profit every time the company makes some. Now if the owner decides to sell shares rather than getting a loan, that's when the stock market comes into the picture. Why would a person want to trade stocks? First of all, please remember that stocks were never meant to be traded. You always invest in stocks. What's the difference? Trading is short term and investing is long term, in very simple language. It's the greed of humans which led to this concept of trading stocks. A person should only buy stocks if he believes in the business the company is doing and sees the potential of growth. Back to the question: a person would want to buy stocks of the company because: How does a stock market help society? Look around you for the answer to this question. Let me give you a start and I wish everyone reading this post to add at least one point to the answer. Corporations in general allow many people come together and invest in a business without fear that their investment will cause them undue liability - because shareholders are ultimately not liable for the actions of a corporation. The cornerstone North American case of how corporations add value is by allowing many investors to have put money towards the railroads that were built across America and Canada. For The stock market in particular, by making it easier to trade shares of a company once the company sells them, the number of people able to conveniently invest grows exponentially. This means that someone can buy shares in a company without needing to knock door to door in 5 years trying to find someone to sell to. Participating in the stock market creates 'liquidity', which is essentially the ease with which stocks are converted into cash. High liquidity reduces risk overall, and it means that those who want risk [because high risk often creates high reward] can buy shares, and those who want low risk [because say they are retiring and don't have a risk appetite anymore] can sell shares.\",\n \"You don't have to go through an exchange. That wasn't the problem. It was that the people trading on them wouldn't be willing to take your offer. An exchange can't just list a company. They need that company's consent and the company need's the exchange's consent. I don't know if you're aware of this but that was also an entirely new disaster during Facebook's IPO. Computer glitches didn't help. What you're talking about is a called a secondary market, kind of. Stock exchanges offer those too, especially for options. That's the typical stock footage you see of guys on wall street yelling and screaming while throwing paper up in the air.\",\n \"In the world of stock exchanges, the result depends on the market state of the traded stock. There are two possibilities, (a) a trade occurs or (b) no trade occurs. During the so-called auction phase, bid and ask prices may overlap, actually they usually do. During an open market, when bid and ask match, trades occur.\",\n \"popularity that you are referring to is just known as liquidity when discussing markets. More liquid securities tend to trade more shares per day and have very tight bid/ask spreads as many investors are buying and selling the shares at one time. Some larger securities, especially on exchanges, further enhance liquidity by providing market makers. These are individuals on the NYSE, for example, that will make the market in large securities by handling large orders and providing liquidity through their own book of capital. The individuals on the floor on the NYSE you often see on TV are those market makers. However, as trading becomes more electronic, market markers are becoming less and less required. A previous comment suggested pink sheets are risky companies. This is not entirely factual. While the majority of pink sheets are very highly risky companies, many very solid international companies trade their ADRs (American Depository Receipt) on the pink sheets to avoid the high cost of setting up a large exchange at the NYSE and register and report through the SEC. As a TD Ameritrade user, I would be willing to help you out if you have any other questions.\",\n \"Every company has Stocks. For the stocks to be traded via some stock exchange, the companies must follow the eligibility criteria and guidelines. Once done, these are then listed on the stock exchange and can be traded. The advantage [amongst others] of listing is liquidity and stocks can easily be bought and sold. Some small companies or closely held companies may not want to list on stock exchange and hence are not traded. This does not mean they can't be bought and sold, they can be outside of the market, however the deals are complex and every deal has to be worked out. During the course of time a stock that is traded on a stock exchange, would either fail to meet the criteria or voluntarily choose not to be traded and follow the delisting process [either by stock exchange or by company]. After this the stocks are no longer traded on the exchange.\",\n \"\\\"The Auction Market is where investors such you and me, as well as Market Makers, buy and sell securities. The Auction Markets operate with the familiar bid-ask pricing that you see on financial pages such as Google and Yahoo. The Market Makers are institutions that are there to provide liquidity so that investors can easily buy and sell shares at a \\\"\\\"fair\\\"\\\" price. Market Makers need to have on hand a suitable supply of shares to meet investor demands. When Market Makers feel the need to either increase or decrease their supply of a particular security quickly, they turn to the Dealer Market. In order to participate in a Dealer Market, you must be designated a Market Maker. As noted already, Market Makers are dedicated to providing liquidity for the Auction Market in certain securities and therefore require that they have on hand a suitable supply of those securities which they support. For example, if a Market Maker for Apple shares is low on their supply of Apple shares, then will go the Dealer Market to purchase more Apple shares. Conversely, if they are holding what they feel are too many Apple shares, they will go to the Dealer Market to sell Apple shares. The Dealer Market does operate on a bid-ask basis, contrary to your stated understanding. The bid-ask prices quoted on the Dealer Market are more or less identical to those on the Auction Market, except the quote sizes will be generally much larger. This is the case because otherwise, why would a Market Maker offer to sell shares to another Market Maker at a price well below what they could themselves sell them for in the Auction Market. (And similarly with buy orders.) If Market Makers are generally holding low quantities of a particular security, this will drive up the price in both the Dealer Market and the Auction Market. Similarly, if Market Makers are generally holding too much of a particular security, this may drive down prices on both the Auction Market and the Dealer Market.\\\"\",\n \"Yes you can, provided if buyers are available. Normally high liquidty stocks can be sold at market prices a little higher or lower.\",\n \"You can check whether the company whose stock you want to buy is present on an european market. For instance this is the case for Apple at Frankfurt.\",\n \"\\\"- In a quote driven market, must every investor trade with a market maker? In other words, two parties that are both not market makers cannot trade between themselves directly? In a way yes, all trades go through a market maker but those trades can be orders put in place by a \\\"\\\"person\\\"\\\" IE: you, or me. - Does a quote driven market only display the \\\"\\\"best\\\"\\\" bid and ask prices proposed by the market makers? In other words, only the highest bid price among all the market makers is displayed, and other lower bid prices by other market makers are not? Similarly, only the lowest ask price over all market makers is displayed, and other higher ask prices by other market makers are not? No, you can see other lower bid and higher ask prices. - In a order-driven market, is it meaningful to talk about \\\"\\\"the current stock price\\\"\\\", which is the price of last transaction? Well that's kind of an opinion. Information is information so it won't be bad to know it. Personally I would say the bid and ask price is more important. However in the real world these prices are changing constantly and quickly so realistically it is easier to keep track of the quote price and most likely the bid/ask spread is small and the quote will fall in between. The less liquid a security is the more important the bid/ask is. -- This goes for all market types. - For a specific asset, will there be several transactions happened at the same time but with different prices? Today with electronic markets, trades can happen so quickly it's difficult to say. In the US stock market trades happen one at a time but there is no set time limit between each trade. So within 1 second you can have a trade be $50 or $50.04. However it will only go to $50.04 when the lower ask prices have been exhausted. - Does an order driven market have market makers? By definition, no. - What are some examples of quote driven and order driven financial markets, in which investors are commonly trading stocks and derivatives, especially in U.S.? Quote driven market: Bond market, Forex. Order driven market: NYSE comes from an order driven market but now would be better classified as a \\\"\\\"hybird market\\\"\\\" Conclusion: If you are asking in order to better understand today's stock markets then these old definitions of Quote market or Order market may not work. The big markets in the real world are neither. (IE: Nasdaq, NYSE...) The NYSE and Nasdaq are better classified as a \\\"\\\"hybird market\\\"\\\" as they use more then a single tactic from both market types to insure market liquidity, and transparency. Markets these days are strongly electronic, fast, and fairly liquid in most cases. Here are some resources to better understand these markets: An Introduction To Securities Markets The NYSE And Nasdaq: How They Work Understanding Order Execution\\\"\",\n \"> Stock markets are supposed to be about investment and providing capital to companies for operations and research. High frequency trading is only about gaming the market and nothing else. Arguments that this provides more capital or liquidity don't make any sense because the speed of trading is such that listed companies cannot take advantage and only high frequency traders are served. I used to feel this way about derivatives but a commentator on reddit disabused me of that notion - http://www.reddit.com/r/Entrepreneur/comments/11bqnk/what_you_wont_see_on_the_front_page_of_reddit_the/c6lnqow If the only function of the stock market is investment and provide capital to companies, why have a secondary market at all?\",\n \"All securities must be registered with the SEC. Securities are defined as (1) The term “security” means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a “security”, or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing. thus currencies are not defined as securities. While OTC transactions of securities is not outright forbidden, there are numerous regulations issued by the SEC as a result of the 1943 Exchange Act and others that make this difficult and/or costly. Many other securities are exempted from registration thus trade in a way that could be called OTC. Different countries have variances upon US law but are very similar. Any security could be traded OTC, but law prohibits it expressly or in such a way to make it relatively expensive; further, stock options are so tightly regulated that expiration dates, expiration intervals, strike intervals, and minimum ticks are all set by the authorities.\",\n \"\\\"In general, I think you're conflating a lot of ideas. The stock market is not like a supermarket. With the exception of a direct issue, you're not buying your shares from the company or from the New York Stock Exchange you're buying from an owner of stock, Joe, Sally, a pension fund, a hedge fund, etc; it's not sitting on a shelf at the stock market. When you buy an Apple stock you don't own $10 of Apple, you own 1/5,480,000,000th of Apple because Apple has 5,480,000,000 shares outstanding. When a the board gets together to vote on and approve a dividend the approved dividend is then divided by 5.48 billion to determine how much each owner receives. The company doesn't pay dividends out to owners from a pot of money it received from new owners; it sold iPhones at a profit and is sending a portion of that profit to the owners of the company. \\\"\\\"When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets.\\\"\\\" The statement does have backing. It's backed by the US Judicial system. But there's a difference between owning a company and owning the assets of the company. You own 1/5,480,000,000 of the company and the company owns the company's assets. Nevermind how disruptive it would be if any shareholder could unilaterally decide to sell a company's buildings or other assets. This is not a ponzi scheme because when you buy or sell your Apple stock, it has no impact on Apple, you're simply transacting with another random shareholder (barring a share-repurchase or direct issue). Apple doesn't receive the proceeds of your private transaction, you do. As far as value goes, yes the stock market provides tons of value and is a staple of capitalism. The stock market provides an avenue of financing for companies. Rather than taking a loan, a company's board can choose to relinquish some control and take on additional owners who will share in the spoils of the enterprise. Additionally, the exchanges deliver value via an unbelievable level of liquidity. You don't have to go seek out Joe or Sally when you want to sell your Apple stock. You don't need to put your shares on Craigslist in the hope of finding a buyer. You don't have to negotiate a price with someone who knows you want to sell. You just place an order at an exchange and you're aligned with a buyer. Also understand that anything can move up or down in value without any money actually changing hands. Say you get your hands on a pair of shoes (or whatever), they're hot on the market, very rare and sought after. You think you can sell them for $1,000. On tonight's news it turns out that the leather is actually from humans and the CEO of the company is being indicted, the company is falling apart, etc. Your shoes just went from $1,000 to $0 with no money changing hands (or from $1,000 to $100,000 depending on how cynical you are).\\\"\",\n \"This is too lengthy for a comment. The following quoted passages are excerpted from this Money SE post. Before electronic trading and HFTs specifically, trading was thin and onerous. No. The NYSE and AMEX were deep, liquid and transparent for nearly 75 years prior to high frequency trading (HFT), in 2000 or so. The same is true for NASDAQ, but not for as many years, as NASDAQ is newer, being an electronic market. The point is that it existed, and thrived, prior to HFT. The NASDAQ can be active and functional, WITH or WITHOUT high frequency trading. This is not historically true, nor is it true now: Without a bid or ask at any given time, there could be no trade... Market makers, also known as specialists, were responsible for hitting the bid and taking the offer on whatever security they covered. They had a responsibility assigned to them by the exchange. Yes, it was lucrative! There was risk, and they were rewarded for bearing it. There is a trade-off though. Specialists provided greater stability on a systemic level, although other market participants paid for that cost. Prior to HFT, traders who were not market makers were often bounded by, boxed in, by the toll paid to market makers. Market makers had different, much higher capital and solvency requirements than other traders. Most specialists/market makers had seats, or shared a seat on the NYSE or AMEX. Remember that market makers/specialists are specific to stock markets, whereas HFT is not. If this is true, then we are in trouble: HFTs have supplanted the traditional market maker Why? Because trading volume is LOWER now than it was in the 1990's! EDIT In the comments, I noticed that OP was asking about the difference between I suggest reading this very accurate, well-written answer to a related question, The spread goes to the market maker, is the market maker the exchange? That explains the difference between\",\n \"I understand what you mean, but for the general population the technicalities of secondary market is fundamentally a grey area. However, in my opinion, leading financial institutions such as GS, I expect them to make prudent decisions that is both ethical & sustainable for the society as whole, even though it might not be feasible all the time.\",\n \"Also important to keep in mind is the difference in liquidity. The stock could be very liquid in 1 exchange but not in another. When times get bad, liquidity could dry up 1 one exchange, which results in a trading discount.\",\n \"In general stock markets are very similar to that, however, you can also put in limit orders to say that you will only buy or sell at a given price. These sit in the market for a specified length of time and will be executed when an order arrives that matches the price (or better). Traders who set limit orders are called liquidity (or price) makers as they provide liquidity (i.e. volume to be traded) to be filled later. If there is no counterparty (i.e. buyer to your seller) in the market, a market maker; a large bank or brokerage who is licensed and regulated to do so, will fill your order at some price. That price is based on how much volume (i.e. trading) there is in that stock on average. This is called average daily volume (ADV) and is calculated over varying periods of time; we use ADV30 which is the 30 day average. You can always sell stocks for whatever price you like privately but a market order does not allow you to set your price (you are a price taker) therefore that kind of order will always fill at a market price. As mentioned above limit orders will not fill until the price is hit but will stay on book as long as they aren't filled, expired or cancelled.\",\n \"The stock exchange here serves as a meeting place for current shareholders who want to sell their shares to someone else. This has nothing to do with liquidation, which is a transaction between the company and its shareholders. A company does not have to be listed on an exchange to make distributions to shareholders.\",\n \"A stock exchange is a marketplace where people can bring their goods [shares] to be traded. There are certain rules. Stock Exchange does not own any shares of the companies that are trading in. The list of who owns with stock is with the registrar of each company. The electronic shares are held by a Financial Institution [Securities Depository]. So even if the exchange itself goes down, you still hold the same shares as you had before it went down. One would now have to find ways to trade these shares ... possibly via other stock exchange. This leaves the question of inflight transactions, which again would be recorded and available. Think of it similar to eBay. What happens when eBay goes bankrupt? Nothing much, all the seller still have their goods with them. All the buyers who had purchased good before have it when them ... so the question remains on inflight goods where the buyer has paid the seller and not yet received shipments ...\",\n \"There is indeed a market for single stock futures, and they have been trading on the OneChicago exchange since 2002. Futures are available in 12,509 individual stocks, according to the exchange's current product listing. One advantage they offer over trading the underlying stock is the significantly higher leverage that is available, combined with the lack of pattern day trader rules that apply to stocks and similar securities. Single stock futures have proven to be something of a regulatory challenge as it has been unclear whether their oversight is the remit of the SEC/FINRA or the CFTC/NFA.\",\n \"The easiest route for you to go down will be to consult wikipedia, which will provide a comprehensive list of all US stock exchanges (there are plenty more than the ones you list!). Then visit the websites for those that are of interest to you, where you will find a list of holiday dates along with the trading schedule for specific products and the settlement dates where relevant. In answer to the other part of your question, yes, a stock can trade on multiple exchanges. Typically (unless you instruct otherwise), your broker will route your order to the exchange where it can be matched at the most favorable price to you at that time.\",\n \"The Greek Piraeus Bank offers such services for trading stocks in Athens Stock Exchange (ASE) and in addition 26 other markets including NASDAQ, NYSE and largest European ones (full list, in Greek). Same goes for Eurobank with a list of 17 international markets and the ability to trade bonds. BETA Securities has also an online platform, but I think it's only for ASE. Some other banks (like National Bank of Greece) do have similar online services, but are usually restricted to ASE.\",\n \"I was wondering what relations are between brokerage companies and exchanges? Are brokers representing investors to trade on exchanges? Yes...but a broker may also buy and sell stocks for his own account. This is called broker-delaer firm. For individual investors, what are some cons and pros of trading on the exchanges directly versus indirectly via brokers? Doesn't the former save the investors any costs/expenses paid to the brokers? Yes, but to trade directly on an exchange, you need to register with them. That costs money and only a limited number of people can register I believe. Note that some (or all?) exchanges have their websites where I think trading can be done electronically, such as NASDAQ and BATS? Can almost all stocks be found and traded on almost every exchange? In other words, is it possible that a popular stock can only be found and traded on one exchange, but not found on the other exchange? If needed to be more specific, I am particularly interested in the U.S. case,and for example, Apple's stock. Yes, it is very much possible with smaller companies. Big companies are usually on multiple exchanges. What are your advices for choosing exchange and choosing brokerage companies? What exchanges and brokerage companies do you recommend? For brokerage companies, a beginner can go with discount broker. For sophisticated investors can opt for full service brokers. Usually your bank will have a brokerage firm. For exchanges, it depends...if you are in US, you should send to the US exchanges. IF you wish to send to other exchanges in other countries, you should check with the broker about that.\",\n \"Let's clarify some things. Companies allow for the public to purchase their shares through Initial Public Offering (IPO) (first-time) and Seasoned Public Offering (SPO) (all other times). They choose however many shares they want to issue depending on the amount of capital they want to raise. What this means is that the current owners give up some ownership % in exchange for cash (usually). In the course of IPOs and SPOs, it can happen that the public will not buy all shares if there is very little interest, but I would assume that the more probable scenario if very little interest is present is that the shares' value would take a big drop on their issuance date from the proposed IPO/SPO price. After those shares are bought by the public, they are traded on Exchanges which are a secondary and (mostly) do not affect the underlying company. The shares are exchanged from John Doe to Jane Doe as John Doe believes the market value for those shares will take a direction that Jane Doe believes in the opposite. Generally speaking, markets will find an equilibrium price where you can reasonably easily buy-sell securities as the price is not too far from what most participants in the market believe it should be. In cases where all participants agree on the direction (most often in case of a crash) it can be hard to find a party to make a trade with. Say a company just announced negative news with long-lasting effects on the business there will be a surge in sell orders with very few buyers. If you are willing to buy, you will likely very easily find a trading partner but if you are trying to sell instead then you will have to compete for the lowest price against all other sellers. All that to say that in such cases, while shares are technically sellable / purchasable, the end result can be that no shares are purchasable.\",\n \"\\\"The answer is partly and sometimes, but you cannot know when or how. Most clearly, you do not take somebody else's money if you buy shares in a start-up company. You are putting your money at risk in exchange for a share in the rewards. Later, if the company thrives, you can sell your shares for whatever somebody else will pay for your current share in the thriving company's earnings. Or, you lose your money, when the company fails. (Much of it has then ended up in the company's employees' pockets, much of the rest with the government as taxes that the company paid). If the stockmarket did not exist, people would be far less willing to put their money into a new company, because selling shares would be far harder. This in turn would mean that fewer new things were tried out, and less progress would be made. Communists insist that central state planning would make better decisions than random people linked by a market. I suggest that the historical record proves otherwise. Historically, limited liability companies came first, then dividing them up into larger numbers of \\\"\\\"bearer\\\"\\\" shares, and finally creating markets where such shares were traded. On the other hand if you trade in the short or medium term, you are betting that your opinion that XYZ shares are undervalued against other investors who think otherwise. But there again, you may be buying from a person who has some other reason for selling. Maybe he just needs some cash for a new car or his child's marriage, and will buy back into XYZ once he has earned some more money. You can't tell who you are buying from, and the seller can only tell if his decision to sell was good with the benefit of a good few years of hindsight. I bought shares hand over fist immediately after the Brexit vote. I was putting my money where my vote went, and I've now made a decent profit. I don't feel that I harmed the people who sold out in expectation of the UK economy cratering. They got the peace of mind of cash (which they might then reinvest in Euro stocks or gold or whatever). Time will tell whether my selling out of these purchases more recently was a good decision (short term, not my best, but a profit is a profit ...) I never trade using borrowed money and I'm not sure whether city institutions should be allowed to do so (or more reasonably, to what extent this should be allowed). In a certain size and shortness of holding time, they cease to contribute to an orderly market and become a destabilizing force. This showed up in the financial crisis when certain banks were \\\"\\\"too big to fail\\\"\\\" and had to be bailed out at the taxpayer's expense. \\\"\\\"Heads we win, tails you lose\\\"\\\", rather than trading with us small guys as equals! Likewise it's hard to see any justification for high-frequency trading, where stocks are held for mere milliseconds, and the speed of light between the trader's and the market's computers is significant.\\\"\",\n \"The other answer has some good points, to which I'll add this: I believe you're only considering a company's Initial Public Offering (IPO), when shares are first offered to the public. An IPO is the way most companies get a public listing on the stock market. However, companies often go to market again and again to issue/sell more shares, after their IPO. These secondary offerings don't make as many headlines as an IPO, but they are typical-enough occurrences in markets. When a company goes back to the market to raise additional funds (perhaps to fund expansion), the value of the company's existing shares that are being traded is a good indicator of what they may expect to get for a secondary offering of shares. A company about to raise money desires a higher share price, because that will permit them to issue less shares for the amount of money they need. If the share price drops, they would need to issue more shares for the same amount of money – and dilute existing owners' share of the overall equity further. Also, consider corporate acquisitions: When one company wants to buy another, instead of the transaction being entirely in cash (maybe they don't have that much in the bank!), there's often an equity component, which involves swapping shares of the company being acquired for new shares in the acquiring company or merged company. In that case, the values of the shares in the public marketplace also matter, to provide relative valuations for the companies, etc.\",\n \"\\\"This is a misconception. One of the explanations is that if you buy at the ask price and want to sell it right away, you can only sell at the bid price. This is incorrect. There are no two separate bid and ask prices. The price you buy (your \\\"\\\"bid\\\"\\\") is the same price someone else sells (their \\\"\\\"sell\\\"\\\"). The same goes when you sell - the price you sell at is the price someone else buys. There's no spread with stocks. Emphasized it on purpose, because many people (especially those who gamble on stock exchange without knowing what they're doing) don't understand how the stock market works. On the stock exchange, the transaction price is the match between the bid price and the ask price. Thus, on any given transaction, bid always equals ask. There's no spread. There is spread with commodities (if you buy it directly, especially), contracts, mutual funds and other kinds of brokered transactions that go through a third party. The difference (spread) is that third party's fee for assuming part of the risk in the transaction, and is indeed added to your cost (indirectly, in the way you described). These transactions don't go directly between a seller and a buyer. For example, there's no buyer when you redeem some of your mutual fund - the fund pays you money. So the fund assumes certain risk, which is why there's a spread in the prices to invest and to redeem. Similarly with commodities: when you buy a gold bar - you buy it from a dealer, who needs to keep a stock. Thus, the dealer will not buy from you at the same price: there's a premium on sale and a discount on buy, which is a spread, to compensate the dealer for the risk of keeping a stock.\\\"\",\n \"First, the stock does represent a share of ownership and if you have a different interpretation I'd like to see proof of that. Secondly, when the IPO or secondary offering happened that put those shares into the market int he first place, the company did receive proceeds from selling those shares. While others may profit afterward, it is worth noting that more than a few companies will have secondary offerings, convertible debt, incentive stock options and restricted stock that may be used down the road that are all dependent upon the current trading share price in terms of how useful these can be used to fund operations, pay executives and so forth. Third, if someone buys up enough shares of the company then they gain control of the company which while you aren't mentioning this case, it is something to note as some individuals buy stock so that they can take over the company which happens. Usually this has more of an overall plan but the idea here is that getting that 50%+1 control of the company's voting shares are an important piece to things here.\",\n \"Most stocks are not actively trades by lots of people. When you buy or sell a stock the price is set by the “order book” – that is the other people looking to trade in the given stock at the same time. Without a large number of active traders, it is very likely the pricing system will break down and result in widely changing prices second by second. Therefore for the market to work well, it need most people to be trading at the same time.\",\n \"\\\"Very simple. You open an account with a broker who will do the trades for you. Then you give the broker orders to buy and sell (and the money to pay for the purchases). That's it. In the old days, you would call on the phone (remember, in all the movies, \\\"\\\"Sell, sell!!!!\\\"\\\"? That's how), now every decent broker has an online trading platform. If you don't want to have \\\"\\\"additional value\\\"\\\" and just trade - there are many online discount brokers (ETrade, ScotTrade, TD Ameritrade, and others) who offer pretty cheap trades and provide decent services and access to information. For more fees, you can also get advices and professional management where an investment manager will make the decisions for you (if you have several millions to invest, that is). After you open an account and login, you'll find a big green (usually) button which says \\\"\\\"BUY\\\"\\\". Stocks are traded on exchanges. For example the NYSE and the NASDAQ are the most common US exchanges (there's another one called \\\"\\\"pink sheets\\\"\\\", but its a different kind of animal), there are also stock exchanges in Europe (notably London, Frankfurt, Paris, Moscow) and Asia (notably Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo). Many trading platforms (ETrade, that I use, for example) allow investing on some of those as well.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You are correct that a share of stock in a company has zero intrinsic value. Even if the company typically pays dividends, there's no guarantee that it will continue to do so. A share's only worth comes from: So that's one step better than a Ponzi scheme, because in a Ponzi scheme there's not actually any value present behind the scenes, making option (2) literally impossible. In this way company stock is similar to paper money. It's only worth something because people believe it's worth something. Slightly better than company stock is company bonds. Since a bond is a contract between you and the company, if the company should go out of business then bondholders at least get to stand near the front of the line when the company's assets are liquidated. I work in finance, and the vast majority of my colleagues agree that the secondary stock market (what the average citizen simply calls \\\"\\\"the stock market\\\"\\\") is a giant confidence game. And yet it's so profitable to believe in the value of equities the way everyone else does, that we all happily pretend these ones and zeroes we move around have actual value.\\\"\",\n \"Apart from making money from the price difference, some stocks also give dividends, or bonus issues. For long term investors whom are looking for steady income, they may be more interested with the dividend pay-out instead of the capital-appreciation.\",\n \"yes, there does need to be demand. on heavily traded stocks, there is no reason to be concerned. on thinly traded equities, you will want to check the market depth before placing a sell. the company is likely not the one that is buying your shares on the open market.\",\n \"Stock trading (as opposed to IPO) doesn't directly benefit the company. But it affects their ability to raise additional funds; if they're valued higher, they don't need to sell as many shares to raise a given amount of money. And the stockholders are part owners of the company; their votes in annual corporate meetings and the like can add up to a substantial influence on the company's policies, so the company has an interest in keeping them (reasonably) happy. Dividends (distributing part of the company's profits to the stockholders) are one way of doing so. You're still investing in the company. The fact that you're buying someone else's share just means you're doing so indirectly, and they're dis-investing at the same time.\",\n \"Will there be a scenario in which I want to sell, but nobody wants to buy from me and I'm stuck at the brokerage website? Similarly, if nobody wants to sell their stocks, I will not be able to buy at all? Yes, that is entirely possible.\",\n \"The OTC market is a marketplace, the location it definitely relied on the purchaser marketplace. The OTC market is mostly used to exchange bonds among the two occasions and all this technique are executed by way of manner of the third celebration. They are able to also be used to alternate equity, such because of the OTC QX and purple marketplaces within the USA. The minamargroup is the Florida, USA situated agency, who elements their purchase investor relation with to present organization into to make new ones. OTC way it's far a protection traded in some context other, changing between parties or groups inclusive of New York Stock trade.\",\n \"Depends on how you measure liquidity. There's papers out there that approach this very question. Measured in order book spreads for a consolidated $100m trade, I'd say the second biggest market is FX swaps, followed or par'd by the money market (government bonds). If you disallow OTC venues, it's most definitely exchange listed government bonds. If, however, you happen to think in terms of sheer volume per time, the most liquid market phase could be considered the NYSE closing auction, as you can move billions in a matter of minutes, or expressed in speed terms: several m$/s (million dollars per second). You should pick a definition and we can provide you with a more accurate list of candidates and actual data.\",\n \"Is my observation that the currency exchange market is indirect correct? Is there a particular reason for this? Why isn't currency traded like stocks? I guess yes. In Stocks its pretty simple where the stock is held with a depository. Hence listing matching is simple and the exchange of money is via local clearing. Currency markets are more global and there is no one place where trades happen. There are multiple places where it happens and is loosely called Fx market place. Building a matching engine is also complex and confusing. If we go with your example of currency pair, matches would be difficult. Say; If we were to say all transactions happen in USD say, and list every currency as item to be purchased or sold. I could put a trade Sell Trade for Quantity 100 Stock Code EUR at Price 1.13 [Price in USD]. So there has to be a buy at a price and we can match. Similarly we would have Stock Code for GBP, AUD, JPY, etc. Since not every thing would be USD based, say I need to convert GBP to EUR, I would have to have a different set of Base currency say GBP. So here the quantity would All currencies except GBP which would be price. Even then we have issues, someone using USD as base currency has quoted for Stock GBP. While someone else using GBP has quoted for Stock USD. Plus moving money internationally is expensive and doing this for small trades removes the advantages. The kind of guarantees required are difficult to achieve without established correspondence bank relationships. One heavily traded currency pair, the exchange for funds happens via CLS Bank.\",\n \"\\\"listed simultaneously in New York, London, and maybe even some Asian markets - is this correct? If the exchanges are not connected, then in primary market the shares are listed. On other exchanges, the \\\"\\\"Depository Receipts\\\"\\\" are listed. i.e. the Company will keep say 100,000 shares with the primary stock exchange / depository. Based on this it would create new instruments \\\"\\\"Depository Receipts\\\"\\\". They can be 1:1 or whatever ratio. hypothetically, if I want to buy all of the company's stock Even if it is on one exchange, buying all stocks would trigger various regulatory aspects of Companies Act, or Stock Exchange rules. This is not simple or easy like clicking some buttons and buying everything. That is, let's say that in New York the company has listed 1000 shares, and in London only 10 shares, each worth 10 USD Market capitalization is sum of all outstanding shares into value.\\\"\",\n \"Yes for every order there is a buyer and seller. But overall there are multiple buyers and multiple sellers. So every trade is at a different price and this price is agreed by both buyer and seller. Related question will help you understand this better. How do exchanges match limit orders?\",\n \"You can execute block trades on the options market and get exercised for shares to create a very large position in Energy Transfer Partners LP without moving the stock market. You can then place limit sell orders, after selling directly into the market and keep an overhang of low priced shares (the technical analysis traders won't know what you specifically are doing, and will call this 'resistance'). If you hit nice even numbers (multiples of 5, multiples of 10) with your sell orders, you can exacerbate selling as many market participants will have their own stop loss orders at those numbers, causing other people to sell at lower and lower prices automatically, and simultaneously keep your massive ask in effect. If your position is bigger than the demand then you can keep a stock lower. The secondary market doesn't inherently affect a company in any way. But many companies have borrowed against the price of their shares, and if you get the share price low enough they can get suddenly margin called and be unable to service their existing debt. You will also lose a lot of money doing this, so you can also buy puts along the way or attempt to execute a collar to lower your own losses. The collar strategy is nice because it is unlikely that other traders and analysts will notice what you are doing, since there are calls, puts and share orders involved in creating it. One person may notice the block trade for the calls initially, but nobody will notice it is part of a larger strategy with multiple legs. With the share position, you may also be able to vote on some things, but that solely depends on the conditions of the shares.\",\n \"\\\"I think you've got basics, but you may have the order / emphasis a bit wrong. I've changed the order of the things you've learned in to what I think is the most important to understand: Owning a stock is like owning a tiny chunk of the business Owning stock is owning a tiny chunk of the business, it's not just \\\"\\\"like\\\"\\\" it. The \\\"\\\"tiny chunks\\\"\\\" are called shares, because that is literally what they are, a share of the business. Sometimes shares are also called stocks. The words stock and share are mostly interchangeable, but a single stock normally means your holding of many shares in a business, so if you have 100 shares in 1 company, that's a stock in that company, if you then buy 100 shares in another company, you now own 2 stocks. An investor seeks to buy stocks at a low price, and sell when the price is high. Not necessarily. An investor will buy shares in a company that they believe will make them a profit. In general, a company will make a profit and distribute some or all of it to shareholders in the form of dividends. They will also keep back a portion of the profit to invest in growing the company. If the company does grow, it will grow in value and your shares will get more valuable. Price (of a stock) is affected by supply/demand, volume, and possibly company profits The price of a share that you see on a stock ticker is the price that people on the market have exchanged the share for recently, not the price you or I can buy a share for, although usually if people on the market are buying and selling at that price, someone will buy or sell from you at a similar sort of price. In theory, the price will be the companies total value, if you were to own the whole thing (it's market capitalisation) divided by the total number of shares that exist in that company. The problem is that it's very difficult to work out the total value of a company. You can start by counting the different things that it owns (including things like intellectual property and the knowledge and experience of people who work there), subtract all the money it owes in loans etc., and then make an allowance for how much profit you expect the company to make in the future. The problem is that these numbers are all going to be estimates, and different peoples estimates will disagree. Some people don't bother to estimate at all. The market makers will just follow supply and demand. They will hold a few shares in each of many companies that they are interested in. They will advertise a lower price that they are willing to buy at and a higher price that they will sell at all the time. When they hold a lot of a share, they will price it lower so that people buy it from them. When they start to run out, they will price it higher. You will never need to spend more than the market makers price to buy a share, or get less than the market makers price when you come to sell it (unless you want to buy or sell more shares than they are willing to). This is why stock price depends on supply and demand. The other category of people who don't care about the companies they are trading are the high speed traders. They just look at information like the past price, the volume (total amount of shares being exchanged on the market) and many other statistics both from the market and elsewhere and look for patterns. You cannot compete with these people - they do things like physically locate their servers nearer to the stock exchanges buildings to get a few milliseconds time advantage over their competitors to buy shares quicker than them.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"In the US there is only one stock market (ignoring penny stocks) and handfuls of different exchanges behind it. NYSE and NASDAQ are two different exchanges, but all the products you can buy on one can also be bought on the other; i.e. they are all the same market. So a US equities broker cannot possibly restrict access to any \\\"\\\"markets\\\"\\\" in the US because there is only one. (Interestingly, it is commonplace for US equity brokers to cheat their customers by using only exchanges where they -- the brokers -- get the best deals, even if it means your order is not executed as quickly or cheaply as possible. This is called payment for order flow and unfortunately will probably take an Act of Congress to stop.) Some very large brokers will have trading access to popular equity markets in other countries (Toronto Stock Exchange, Mexico Stock Exchange, London Stock Exchange) and can support your trades there. However, at many brokers or in less popular foreign markets this is usually not the case; to trade in the average foreign country you typically must open an account with a broker in that country.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Brokerages offer you the convenience of buying and selling financial products. They are usually not exchanges themselves, but they can be. Typically there is an exchange and the broker sends orders to that exchange. The main benefit that brokers offer is a simpler commission structure. Not all brokers have their own liquidity, but brokers can have their own allotment of shares of a stock, for example, that they will sell you when you make an order, so that you get what you want faster. Regarding accounts at the exchanges to track actual ownership and transfer of assets, it is not safe to assume thats how that works. There are a lot of shortcomings in how the actual exchange works, since the settlement time is 1 - 3 business days, depending on the product (so upwards of 5 to 6 actual days). In a fast market, the asset can change hands many many times making the accounting completely incorrect for extended time periods. Better to not worry about that part, but if you'd like to read more about how that is regulated look up \\\"\\\"Failure To Deliver\\\"\\\" regulations on short selling to get a better understanding of market microstructure. It is a very antiquated system.\\\"\",\n \"Tradable is a much broader term than marketable. For example, some programmers/developers sell their services online, hence programming is a tradable service. However, it is not a security nor is it marketable since it cannot readily be converted to cash. All marketable securities are, by definition, tradable.\",\n \"In a simple statement, no doesn't matter. Checked on my trade portal, everything lines up. Same ISIN, same price(after factoring in FX conversions, if you were thinking about arbitrage those days are long gone). But a unusual phenomenon I have observed is, if you aren't allowed to buy/sell a stock in one market and try to do that in a different market for the same stock you will still not be allowed to do it. Tried it on French stocks as my current provider doesn't allow me to deal in French stocks.\",\n \"If a company's shares trade in multiple exchanges, the prices in every exchange are very near to each other, otherwise you could earn money by doing arbitrage deals (buying in one, selling in the other) - and people do that once it becomes worth it. Which stock exchange you use is more a convenience for the buyer/seller - many investment banks offer only something local/near, and you have to go to specific investment banks to use other exchanges. For example, in Germany, it is easy to deal in Frankfurt, but if you want to trade at the the NASDAQ, you have to run around and find a bank that offers it, and you probably have to pay extra for it. In the USA, most investment banks offer NASDAQ, but if you want to trade in Frankfurt, you will have run around for an international company that offers that. As a stock owner/buyer, you can sell/buy your shares on any stock exchange where the company is listed (again, assuming your investment broker supports it). So you can buy in Frankfurt and sell in Tokyo seconds later, as nothing needs to be physically moved. Companies that are listed in multiple stock exchangs are typically large, and offer this to make trading their shares easier for a larger part of the world. Considering your 'theoretical buy all shares' - the shares are not located in the exchanges, they are in the hands of the owners, and not all are for sale, for various reasons. The owners decide if and when they want them offered for sale, and they also decide which stock exchange they offer them on; so you would need to go to all exchanges to buy them all. However, if you raise your offer price in one exchange only slightly, someone will see the arbitrage and buy them in the other locations and offer them to you in your stock exchange; in other words, for a small fee the shares will come to you. But again, most shares are typically not for sale. It's the same as trying to buy all Chevy Tahoes - even if you had the money, most owners wouldn't know or care about you. You would have to go around and contact every single one and convince them to sell.\",\n \"Wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_exchanges\",\n \"The Money Market is a place where one trades Instruments. The market is similar to that of the Stock Market. The instruments traded in Money Markets include Short Term Debt Instruments as well as FX Swap Instruments and Mortgage & Asset Backed Securities. The FX & Mortgage Securities are not Debt instruments per se. They also include other custom created instruments that are traded. The definition of Short Term debt is any guaranteed instrument with a maturity of less than a year. These instruments are used in various transactions, including retail and the Money Market is not the only place these are traded.\",\n \"Most of stock trading occurs on what is called a secondary market. For example, Microsoft is traded on NASDAQ, which is a stock exchange. An analogy that can be made is that of selling a used car. When you sell a used car to a third person, the maker of your car is unaffected by this transaction and the same goes for stock trading. Still within the same analogy, when the car is first sold, money goes directly to the maker (actually more complicated than that but good enough for our purposes). In the case of stock trading, this is called an Initial Public Offering (IPO) / Seasoned Public Offering (SPO), for most purposes. What this means is that a drop of value on a secondary market does not directly affect earning potential. Let me add some nuance to this. Say this drop from 20$ to 10$ is permanent and this company needs to finance itself through equity (stock) in the future. It is likely that it would not be able to obtain as much financing in this matter and would either 1) have to rely more on debt and raise its cost of capital or 2) obtain less financing overall. This could potentially affect earnings through less cash available from financing. One last note: in any case, financing does not affect earnings except through cost of capital (i.e. interest paid) because it is neither revenue nor expense. Financing obtained from debt increases assets (cash) and liabilities (debt) and financing obtained from stock issuance increases assets (cash) and shareholder equity.\",\n \"\\\"We're in agreement, I just want retail investors to understand that in most of these types of discussions, the unspoken reality is the retail sector trading the market is *over*. This includes the mutual funds you mentioned, and even most index funds (most are so narrowly focused they lose their relevance for the retail investor). In the retail investment markets I'm familiar with, there are market makers of some sort or another for specified ranges. I'm perfectly fine with no market makers; but retail investors should be told the naked truth as well, and not sold a bunch of come-ons. What upsets me is seeing that just as computers really start to make an orderly market possible (you are right, the classic NYSE specialist structure was outrageously corrupt), regulators turned a blind eye to implementing better controls for retail investors. The financial services industry has to come to terms whether they want AUM from retail or not, and having heard messaging much like yours from other professionals, I've concluded that the industry does *not* want the constraints with accepting those funds, but neither do they want to disabuse retail investors of how tilted the game is against them. Luring them in with deceptively suggestive marketing and then taking money from those naturally ill-prepared for the rigors of the setting is like beating up the Downs' Syndrome kid on the short bus and boasting about it back on the campus about how clever and strong one is. If there was as stringent truth in marketing in financial services as cigarettes, like \\\"\\\"this service makes their profit by encouraging the churning of trades\\\"\\\", there would be a lot of kvetching from so-called \\\"\\\"pros\\\"\\\" as well. If all retail financial services were described like \\\"\\\"dead cold cow meat\\\"\\\" describes \\\"\\\"steak\\\"\\\", a lot of retail investors would be better off. As it stands today, you'd have to squint mighty hard to see the faintly-inscribed \\\"\\\"caveat emptor\\\"\\\" on financial services offerings to the retail sector. Note that depending upon the market setting, the definition of retail differs. I'm surprised the herd hasn't been spooked more by the MF Global disaster, for example, and yet there are some surprisingly large accounts detrimentally affected by that incident, which in a conventional equities setting would be considered \\\"\\\"pros\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"You cannot trade in pre-IPO shares of companies like Facebook without being an accredited investor. If a website or company doesn't mention that requirement, they are a scam. A legitimate market for private shares is SecondMarket.\",\n \"Keep in mind that the exchanges do not hold, buy, or sell the stock - people (or funds) do. All the exchange does is facilitate the sale of stock from one entity to another. So the shares outstanding (and market cap) for a company are set regardless of how many exchanges the stock is listed on. The company typically indicates the number of shares outstanding in its financial statements. I do not know if the exchange itself keeps track of shares outstanding; it may just report whatever the company publishes. So theoretically, if you wanted to buy all of the stock of a company, you could do it all in one exchange, provided that all the existing holders of the stock were willing to sell you their shares. There are many issues with that, though, which I don't think are germane to your question.\",\n \"\\\"Market cap is speculative value, M = P * W, where W is stock (or other way of owning) percentage of ownership, P - price of percentage of ownership. This could include \\\"\\\"outside of exchange\\\"\\\" deals. Some funds could buy ownership percentage directly via partial ownership deal. That ownership is not stock, but fixed-type which has value too. Stock market cap is speculative value, M2 = Q * D, where D is free stocks available freely, Q - price of stock, in other words Quote number (not price of ownership). Many stock types do NOT provide actual percentage of ownership, being just another type of bond with non-fixed coupon and non-fixed price. Though such stocks do not add to company's capitalization after sold to markets, it adds to market capitalization at the moment of selling via initial price.\\\"\",\n \"Recommended? There's really no perfect answer. You need to know the motivations of the participants in the markets that you will be participating in. For instance, the stock market's purpose is to raise capital (make as much money as possible), whereas the commodities-futures market's purpose is to hedge against producing actual goods. The participants in both markets have different reactions to changes in price.\",\n \"\\\"When people talk about \\\"\\\"the price\\\"\\\" of a stock, they usually mean one of the following: Last price: The price at which a trade most recently took place. If someone sold (and someone else bought) shares of XYZ for $20 each, then until another trade occurs, the last price of the stock will be quoted at $20. Bid price: The highest price at which someone is currently offering to buy the stock. Ask price: The lowest price at which someone is currently offering to sell the stock. As you can see, all of these are completely determined by the people buying and selling the stock.\\\"\",\n \"Prices quoted are primarily the offer prices quoted by the numerous market makers on the stock exchange(s) willing to sell you the stock. There is another price which generally isn't seen on these websites, the bid prices, which are lower prices quoted by buyers and market makers willing to buy your shares from you. You wouldn't see those prices, unless you login to your trade terminal. How meaningful are they to you depends on what you want to do buy or sell. If you want to buy then yes they are relevant. But if you want to sell, then no. And remember some websites delay market information by 15 minutes, in case of Google you might have seen that the volume is delayed by 15 minutes. So you need to consider that also while trading, but mayn't be a concern unless you are trying to buy out the company.\",\n \"Depending on your broker, you can buy these stocks directly at the most liquid local exchanges. For instance, if you are US resident and want to to buy German stocks (like RWE) you can trade these stocks over InteractiveBrokers (or other direct brokers in the US). They offer direct access to German Xetra and other local markets.\",\n \"When you are placing an order with an online broker you should already know what exchange or exchanges that stock trades on. For example if you look up under Yahoo Finance: Notice how News Corp is traded both on the ASX and the Nasdaq. The difference is the shares traded on the ASX have the extension .AX, that is how you know the difference between them. When you are putting orders in with your online broker you will need to select the exchange you wish your order to go to (if your broker allows trading on multiple exchanges). So you should always know which exchange your order goes to.\",\n \"I didn't say only the IPO I just said public offerings. Trades between secondary investors would be taxed at a higher level. I also understand the difference between loaning money to a company and investing in equity. Personally I think that loans are underused in today's investment world because people are too focused on getting the most out of the few big winners.\",\n \"\\\"As others have noted, your definition of \\\"\\\"market price\\\"\\\" is a bit loose. Really whatever price you get becomes the current market price. What you usually get quoted are the current best bid and ask with the last transaction price. For stocks that don't trade much, the last transaction price may not be representative of the current market value. Your question included regulation (\\\"\\\"standards bureau\\\"\\\"), and I don't think the current answers are addressing that. In the US, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) provides some regulation regarding execution price. It goes by the designation Regulation NMS, and, very roughly, it says that each transaction has to take the best available price at the time that it is executed. There are some subtleties, but that's the gist of it. No regulation ensures that there will be a counterparty to any transaction that you want to make. It could happen, for example, that you have shares of some company that you're never able to sell because no one wants them. (BitCoin is the same in this regard. There is a currently a market for BitCoin, but there's no regulation that ensures there will be a market for it tomorrow.) Outside of the US, I don't know what regulation, if any, exists.\\\"\",\n \"Do you simply get call options you can sell on an options exchange? No, you don't get call options that you can sell on an options exchange. Rather, you get rights that you can (generally) sell on the stock exchange. The right issue is in essence a call option – in that it behaves like one, but it is not considered a standardized option contract. is there a special exchange where such rights issues are traded? No. It will normally be done on the stock exchange.\",\n \"Let's say that you bought a share of Apple for $10. When (if ever) their stock sold for $10, it was a very small company with a very small net worth; that is, the excess of assets over liabilities. Your $10 share was perhaps a 1/10,000,000th share of a tiny company. Over the years, Apple has developed both software and hardware that have real value to the world. No-one knew they needed a smartphone and, particularly, an iPhone, until Apple showed it to us. The same is true of iPads, iPods, Apple watches, etc. Because of the sales of products and services, Apple is now a huge company with a huge net worth. Obviously, your 1/10,000,000th share of the company is now worth a lot more. Perhaps it is worth $399. Maybe you think Apples good days are behind it. After all, it is harder to grow a huge company 15% a year than it is a small company. So maybe you will go into the marketplace and offer to sell your 1/10,000,000th share of Apple. If someone offers you $399, would you take it? The value of stocks in the market is not a Ponzi scheme, although it is a bit speculative. You might have a different conclusion and different research about the future value of Apple than I do. Your research might lead you to believe the stock is worth $399. Mine might suggest it's worth $375. Then I wouldn't buy. The value of stocks in the market is based on the present and estimated future value of living, breathing companies that are growing, shrinking and steady. The value of each company changes all the time. So, then, does the price of the stock. Real value is created in the stock market when real value is created in the underlying company.\",\n \"Yes, it would be incorrect to refer to BATS Chi-X Europe as a market maker. Market makers make markets on BATS Chi-X Europe, which is a stock exchange.\",\n \"These markets are independent, just like any other stock market. For example, there are stocks on the Milan stock exchange that are also on the New York stock exchange and have different historical prices. Remember, this is all about offer and demand. The Hong Kong stock exchange has the Hong Kong Dollar as its currency, which is anchored to the USD. Also, there is more trade going on, on the Hong Kong stock exchange. As for the answer, I don't know whether these stocks are exactly the same. I guess they should be, but maybe somebody else could answer that.\",\n \"The worth of a share of stocks may be defined as the present cash value of all future dividends and liquidations associated therewith. Without a crystal ball, such worth may generally only be determined retrospectively, but even though it's generally not possible to know the precise worth of a stock in time for such information to be useful, it has a level of worth which is absolute and not--unlikely market price--is generally unaffected by people buying and selling the stock (except insofar as activities in company stock affect a company's ability to do business). If a particular share of stock is worth $10 by the above measure, but Joe sells it to Larry for $8, that means Joe gives Larry $2. If Larry sells it to Fred $12, Fred gives Larry $2. The only way Fred can come out ahead is if he finds someone else to give him $2 or more. If Fred can sell it to Adam for $13, then Adam will give Fred $3, leaving Fred $1 better off than he would be if he hadn't bought the stock, but Adam will be $3 worse off. The key point is that if you sell something for less than it's worth, or buy something for more that it's worth, you give money away. You might be able to convince other people to give you money in the same way you gave someone else money, but fundamentally the money has been given away, and it's not coming back.\",\n \"It's an over-the-counter stock quote system. Read all about it. Or visit it.\",\n \"\\\"Because I feel the answers given do not wholely represent the answer you are expecting, I'd like to re-iterate but include more information. When you own stock in a company, you OWN some of that company. When that company makes profit, you usually receive a dividend of those profits. If you owned 1% of the company stock, you (should) recieve 1% of the profits. If your company is doing well, someone might ask to buy your stock. The price of that stock is (supposed) to be worth a value representative of the expected yield or how much of a dividend you'd be getting. The \\\"\\\"worth\\\"\\\" of that, is what you're betting on when you buy the stock, if you buy $100 worth of coca cola stock and they paid $10 as dividend, you'd be pretty happy with a 10% growth in your wealth. Especially if the banks are only playing 3%. So maybe some other guy sees your 10% increase and thinks, heck.. 10% is better than 3%, if I buy your stocks, even as much as 6% more than they are worth ($106) I'm still going to be better off by that extra 1% than I would be if I left it in the bank.. so he offers you $106.. and you think.. awesome.. I can sell my $100 of cola shares now, make a $6 profit and buy $100 worth of some other share I think will pay a good dividend. Then cola publicises their profits, and they only made 2% profit, that guy that bought your shares for $106, only got a dividend of $2 (since their 'worth' is still $100, and effectively he lost $4 as a result. He bet on a better than 10% profit, and lost out when it didn't hit that. Now, (IMHO) while the stock market was supposed to be about buying shares, and getting dividends, people (brokers) discovered that you could make far more money buying and selling shares for 'perceived value' rather than waiting for dividends to show actual value, especially if you were not the one doing the buying and selling (and risk), but instead making a 0.4% cut off the difference between each purchase (broker fees). So, TL;DR, Many people have lost money in the market to those who made money from them. But only the traders and gamblers.\\\"\",\n \"You seem to think that stock exchanges are much more than they actually are. But it's right there in the name: stock exchange. It's a place where people exchange (i.e. trade) stocks, no more and no less. All it does is enable the trading (and thereby price finding). Supposedly they went into mysterious bankruptcy then what will happen to the listed companies Absolutely nothing. They may have to use a different exchange if they're planning an IPO or stock buyback, that's all. and to the shareholder's stock who invested in companies that were listed in these markets ? Absolutley nothing. It still belongs to them. Trades that were in progress at the moment the exchange went down might be problematic, but usually the shutdown would happen in a manner that takes care of it, and ultimately the trade either went through or it didn't (and you still have the money). It might take some time to establish this. Let's suppose I am an investor and I bought stocks from a listed company in NYSE and NYSE went into bankruptcy, even though NYSE is a unique business, meaning it doesn't have to do anything with that firm which I invested in. How would I know the stock price of that firm Look at a different stock exchange. There are dozens even within the USA, hundreds internationally. and will I lose my purchased stocks ? Of course not, they will still be listed as yours at your broker. In general, what will happen after that ? People will use different stock exchanges, and some of them migth get overloaded from the additional volume. Expect some inconveniences but no huge problems.\",\n \"\\\"Joke warning: These days, it seems that rogue trading programs are the big market makers (this concludes the joke) Historically, exchange members were market makers. One or more members guaranteed a market in a particular stock, and would buy whatever you wanted to sell (or vice-versa). In a balanced market -- one where there were an equal number of buyers and sellers -- the spread was indeed profit for them. To make this work, market makers need an enormous amount of liquidity (ability to hold an inventory of stocks) to deal with temporary imbalances. And a day like October 29, 1929, can make that liquidity evaporate. I say \\\"\\\"historically,\\\"\\\" because I don't think that any stock market works this way today (I was discussing this very topic with a colleague last week, went to Wikipedia to look at the structure of the NYSE, and saw no mention of exchange members as market makers -- in fact, it appears that the NYSE is no longer a member-based exchange). Instead, today most (all?) trading happens on \\\"\\\"electronic crossing networks,\\\"\\\" where the spread is simply the difference between the highest bid and lowest ask. In a liquid stock, there will be hundreds if not thousands of orders clustered around the \\\"\\\"current\\\"\\\" price, usually diverging by fractions of a cent. In an illiquid stock, there may be a spread, but eventually one bid will move up or one ask will move down (or new bids will come in). You could claim that an entity with a large block of stock to move takes the role of market maker, but it doesn't have the same meaning as an exchange market maker. Since there's no entity between the bidder and asker, there's no profit in the spread, just a fee taken by the ECN. Edit: I think you have a misconception of what the \\\"\\\"spread\\\"\\\" is. It's simply the difference between the highest bid and the lowest offer. At the instant a trade takes place, the spread is 0: the highest bid equals the lowest offer, and the bidder and seller exchange shares for money. As soon as that trade is completed, the spread re-appears. The only way that a trade happens is if buyer and seller agree on price. The traditional market maker is simply an entity that has the ability to buy or sell an effectively unlimited number of shares. However, if the market maker sets a price and there are no buyers, then no trade takes place. And if there's another entity willing to sell shares below the market maker's price, then the buyers will go to that entity unless the market's rules forbid it.\\\"\",\n \"What prevents a company from doing secondary public stock offerings on regular basis? The primary goal of a company doing secondary public offering is to raise more funds, that can be utilized for funding the business. If no funding is needed [i.e. company has sufficient funds, or no expansion plans], this funding creates a drag and existing shareholder including promoters loose value. For example with the current 100 invested, the company is able to generate say 125 [25 as profit]. If additional 100 is taken as secondary public offering, then with 200, the company should mark around 250, else it looses value. So if the company took additional 100 and did not / is not able to deploy in market, on 200 they still make 25 as profit, its bad. There are other reasons, i.e. to fight off hostile acquisition or dilute some of promoters shares etc. Thus the reasons for company to do a secondary PO are few and doing it often reduces the value for primary share holders as well as minority share holders.\",\n \"\\\"Yes! What you are describing is an \\\"\\\"off-exchange\\\"\\\" trade and can be done using stock certificates. Here, you will privately negotiate with the seller on a price and delivery details. That is the old-school way to do it. Many companies (about 20% of the S&P 500) will not issue paper certificates and you may run a hefty printing fee up to $500 (source: Wikipedia, above). Other other type of private-party transactions include a deal negotiated between two parties and settled immediately or based on a future event. For example, Warren Buffet created a deal with Goldman Sachs where Warren would have the choice to purchase GS shares in the future at a certain price. This was to be settled with actual shares (rather than cash-settled). Ignoring that he later canceled this agreement, if it were to go through the transaction would still have been handled by a broker transferring the shares. You can purchase directly from a company using a direct stock purchase plan (SPP). Just pick up the phone, ask for their investor relations and then ask if they offer this option. If not, they will be glad for your interest and look into setting it up for you.\\\"\",\n \"Many exchanges trade the same securities. An order may be posted to a secondary exchange, but if the National Best Bid and Offer data provider malfunctions, only those with data feeds from that exchange will see it. Only the data provider for the primary exchange where a stock is listed provides the NBBO. Missing orders are very common with the NBBO data providers. NASDAQ's order consolidator has had many failures over the past few years, and the data provider's top executive has recently resigned. Brokers have no control over this system. A broker may be alerted to a malfunction by an accountholder, but a broker may only inform the relevant exchange and the relevant data provider.\",\n \"No, the stock market and investing in general is not a zero sum game. Some types of trades are zero sum because of the nature of the trade. But someone isn't necessarily losing when you gain in the sale of a stock or other security. I'm not going to type out a technical thesis for your question. But the main failure of the idea that investing is zero sum is the fact the a company does not participate in the transacting of its stock in the secondary market nor does it set the price. This is materially different from the trading of options contracts. Options contracts are the trading of risk, one side of the contract wins and one side of the contract loses. If you want to run down the economic theory that if Jenny bought her shares from Bob someone else is missing out on Jenny's money you're free to do that. But that would mean that literally every transaction in the entire economy is part of a zero sum game (and really misses the definition of zero sum game). Poker is a zero sum game. All players bet in to the game in equal amounts, one player takes all the money. And hell, I've played poker and lost but still sometimes feel that received value in the form of entertainment.\",\n \"Stock A last traded at $100. Stock A has 1 million shares outstanding. No seller is willing to sell Stock A for less than $110 a share. One buyer is willing to buy 1 share for $110. The order executes. The buyer pays the seller $110. Stock A's new price is $110. An $110 investment increased the market cap by $10 million. Neat trick (for all who own Stock A).\",\n \"Verify if a local bank offers to participate in different stock markets - big companies like apple or facebook often gets traded on different markets - like Xetra (germany) or SIX (Switzerland). That being said I'd recommend you to rethink this strategy and maybe using some products offered by your bank - for 1000$ you will quickly drown in fees (my bank requires 40$ for every trade. If you buy and sell them you already lost nearly 10% of your investment)\",\n \"Yes, on the settlement the stock is yours to sell with no risk of freeride or day trading applying.\",\n \"On NYSE it isn't the equity which is listed but is an ADR(American Depositary Receipt). Source A negotiable certificate issued by a U.S. bank representing a specified number of shares (or one share) in a foreign stock that is traded on a U.S. exchange. ADRs are denominated in U.S. dollars, with the underlying security held by a U.S. financial institution overseas. ADRs help to reduce administration and duty costs that would otherwise be levied on each transaction. Else people would make a killing on the arbitrage opportunity. Frankly speaking arbitrage opportunities are more or less non existent. They occur for maybe seconds or milliseconds and the HFT firms and banks trade on it to remove the arbitrage.\",\n \">Why not give extra tax breaks for the sale of stock purchased during a public offering (since that goes to helping the company) but not for secondhand (less necessary) trading Because secondary trading determines how easy it is for companies to raise additional money and it also allows the company to manipulate private vs publicly held stakes in their company. >Should we give big tax breaks to people who lend businesses money? There's a difference between lending money and investing in a corporation. Furthermore the income tax code when it comes to lending money via bonds is a complete mess. Corporate bond coupons are taxed like regular income (although the principal return is, of course, tax free). Federal and munis are taxed differently. There is also the advantage that you do get a tax break in the event of default, so any additional risk you take on has some marginal tax benefits.\",\n \"3) Isn't strictly true, as off market swaps do trade quite regularly. For example, if the company has a bad credit rating, an off market swap is often executed to cover the credit costs (and essentially the cost of the bank's capital Under BASEL III.) Hence a bank shouldn't trade at mid.\",\n \"There are two terms that are related, but separate here: Broker and Market Maker. The former is who goes and finds a buyer/seller to buy/sell shares from/to you. The latter (Market Maker) is a company which will agree to partner with you to complete the sale at a set price (typically the market price, often by definition as the market maker often is the one who determines the market price in a relatively low volumne listing). A market maker will have as you say a 'pool' of relatively common stock (and even relatively uncommon, up to a point) for this purpose. A broker can be a market maker (or work for one), also, in which case he would sell you directly the shares from the market maker reservoir. This may be a bad idea for you - the broker (while obligated to act in your interest, in theory) may push you towards stocks that the brokerage acts as a market maker for.\",\n \"No, it's not even remotely accurate in the current sense. Both markets have counterparties directly executing against one another, and both have auctions. The auction mechanics are different (with NYSE's Specialist/DMM model) but during normal market hours there isn't much difference.\",\n \"There are still human brokers on the floor primarily due to tradition. Their numbers have certainly dwindled, however, and it's reasonable to expect the number of floor traders to decrease even more as electronic trading continues to grow. A key reason for human brokers, however, is due to privacy. Certain private exchanges such as dark pools maintain privacy for high profile clients and institutional investors, and human brokers are needed to execute anonymous deals in these venues. Even in this region, however, technology is supplanting the need for brokers. I don't believe there is any human-broker-free stock exchange, but Nasdaq and other traditionally OTC (over the counter) exchanges are as close as it gets since they never even had trading floors.\",\n \"\\\"It's not a ponzi scheme, and it does create value. I think you are confusing \\\"\\\"creating value\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"producing something\\\"\\\". The stock market does create value, but not in the same way as Toyota creates value by making a car. The stock market does not produce anything. The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. The only other cash flow is in through dividends and out when businesses go public. & The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. Earnings are the in-flow that you are missing here. Business profits DO flow back into the stock market through earnings and dividends. Think about a private company: if it has $100,000 in profits for the year then the company keeps $100,000, but if that same company is publicly traded with 100,000 shares outstanding then, all else being equal, each of those shares went up by $1. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. You can't go to an Apple store and try to pay with a stock certificate, but that doesn't mean the certificate doesn't have value. Using your agriculture example, you wouldn't be able to pay with a basket of tomatoes either. You wouldn't even be able to pay with a lump of gold! We used to do that. It was called the barter system. Companies also do buy shares back from the market using company cash. Although they usually do it through clearing-houses that are capable of moving blocks of 1,000 shares at a time.\\\"\",\n \"The core issue is to understand what 'selling a share' means. There is no special person or company that takes the share from you; you are selling on the open market. So your question is effectively 'can I find a guy on the street that buys a 10$-bill for 11$ ?' - Well, maybe someone is dumb enough, but chances are slim.\",\n \"outstanding shares are the shares(regular shares) that are still tradable in the market, where the firm in question is listed. The term is primarily used to distinguish from shares held in treasury(treasury stock), which have been bought back(buybacks) from the market and aren't currently tradable in the market. Wikipedia is a bit more clearer and mentions the diluted outstanding shares(used for convertible bonds, warrants, etc) which is used to calculated diluted EPS.\",\n \"In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.\",\n \"The futures market trades 24 hours a day, 5.5 days a week. S&P 500 futures market continues trading, and this gives pricing exposure and influences the individual stocks when they resume trading in US session.\",\n \"I stumbled on the same discrepancy, and was puzzled by a significant difference between the two prices on ETR and FRA. For example, today is Sunday, and google shows the following closing prices for DAI. FRA:DAI: ETR:DAI: So it looks like there are indeed two different exchanges trading at different prices. Now, the important value here, is the last column (Volume). According to Wikipedia, the trading on Frankfort Stock Exchange is done today exclusively via Xetra platform, thus the volume on ETR:DAI is much more important than on FRA:DAI. Obviously, they Wikipedia is not 100% accurate, i.e. not all trading is done electronically via Xetra. According to their web-page, Frankfort exchange has a Specialist Trading on Frankfurt Floor service which has slightly different trading hours. I suspect what Google and Yahoo show as Frankfort exchange is this manual trading via a Specialist (opposed to Xetra electronic trading). To answer your question, the stock you're having is exactly the same, meaning if you bought an ETR:BMW you can still sell it on FRA (by calling a FRA Trading Floor Specialist which will probably cost you a fee). On the other hand, for the portfolio valuation and performance assessments you should only use ETR:BMW prices, because it is way more liquid, and thus better reflect the current market valuation.\",\n \"\\\"I assume that mutual funds are being discussed here. As Bryce says, open-ended funds are bought from the mutual fund company and redeemed from the fund company. Except in very rare circumstances, they exist only as bits in the fund company's computers and not as share certificates (whether paper or electronic) that can be delivered from the selling broker to the buying broker on a stock exchange. Effectively, the fund company is the sole market maker: if you want to buy, ask the fund company at what price it will sell them to you (and it will tell you the answer only after 4 pm that day when a sale at that price is no longer possible unless you committed to buy, say, 100 shares and authorized the fund company to withdraw the correct amount from your bank account or other liquid asset after the price was known). Ditto if you want to sell: the mutual fund company will tell you what price it will give you only after 4 pm that day and you cannot sell at that price unless you had committed to accept whatever the company was going to give you for your shares (or had said \\\"\\\"Send me $1000 and sell as many shares of mine as are needed to give me proceeds of $1000 cash.\\\"\\\")\\\"\",\n \"No, Mark is right, if you place a market order there will always be someone to buy or sell at the market price. Only if you place a limit order on the price can it not sell or be bought. Just research on your computer and you will find your answer. You must be specify about open order or limit order when asking.\",\n \"The stock market is no different in this respect to anything that's bought or sold. The price of a stock like many other things reflects what the seller is prepared to sell it at and what the buyer is prepared to offer for it. If those things match then a transaction can take place. The seller loses money but gains stocks they feel represent equivalent value, the reverse happens for the buyer. Take buying a house for example, did the buyer lose money when they bought a house, sure they did but they gained a house. The seller gained money but lost a house. New money is created in the sense that companies can and do make profits, those profits, together with the expected profits from future years increase the value that is put on the company. If we take something simple like a mining company then its value represents a lot of things: and numerous other lesser things too. The value of shares in the mining company will reflect all of these things. It likely rises and falls in line with the price of the raw materials it mines and those change based on the overall supply and demand for those raw materials. Stocks do have an inherent value, they are ownership of a part of a company. You own part of the asset value, profits and losses made by that company. Betting on things is different in that you've no ownership of the thing you bet on, you're only dependent on the outcome of the bet.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["NYSE and Nasdaq are secondary markets where stocks are bought or sold. The process of creating new stocks via IPO or private placements etc are called Private Market."],"string":"[\n \"NYSE and Nasdaq are secondary markets where stocks are bought or sold. The process of creating new stocks via IPO or private placements etc are called Private Market.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":195,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"6713"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Will my father still be eligible for SNAP if I claim him as my dependent?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["147853","357571"],"string":"[\n \"147853\",\n \"357571\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["147853","295562","192120","113632","692","106735","357571","43647","473523","212091","545497","15319","175540","280788","4167","162202","367102","245365","200603","148204","283113","323284","24277","4495","451588","79655","472122","79091","256789","40300","460775","432638","291079","469601","36481","307246","481114","284746","473530","455529","470066","495321","474433","23309","286245","599485","214690","574386","43494","236177","204703","278653","39734","15322","162294","404102","484799","348615","267128","199617","320362","204187","458934","164572","276538","244707","274901","366865","495282","185077","281166","361821","463874","367558","352851","221502","147999","408327","431101","565313","444172","349674","282010","377714","120312","495467","522423","436611","106084","84171","59317","510232","406235","197938","437405","105570","229134","194136","430407","400927"],"string":"[\n \"147853\",\n \"295562\",\n \"192120\",\n \"113632\",\n \"692\",\n \"106735\",\n \"357571\",\n \"43647\",\n \"473523\",\n \"212091\",\n \"545497\",\n \"15319\",\n \"175540\",\n \"280788\",\n \"4167\",\n \"162202\",\n \"367102\",\n \"245365\",\n \"200603\",\n \"148204\",\n \"283113\",\n \"323284\",\n \"24277\",\n \"4495\",\n \"451588\",\n \"79655\",\n \"472122\",\n \"79091\",\n \"256789\",\n \"40300\",\n \"460775\",\n \"432638\",\n \"291079\",\n \"469601\",\n \"36481\",\n \"307246\",\n \"481114\",\n \"284746\",\n \"473530\",\n \"455529\",\n \"470066\",\n \"495321\",\n \"474433\",\n \"23309\",\n \"286245\",\n \"599485\",\n \"214690\",\n \"574386\",\n \"43494\",\n \"236177\",\n \"204703\",\n \"278653\",\n \"39734\",\n \"15322\",\n \"162294\",\n \"404102\",\n \"484799\",\n \"348615\",\n \"267128\",\n \"199617\",\n \"320362\",\n \"204187\",\n \"458934\",\n \"164572\",\n \"276538\",\n \"244707\",\n \"274901\",\n \"366865\",\n \"495282\",\n \"185077\",\n \"281166\",\n \"361821\",\n \"463874\",\n \"367558\",\n \"352851\",\n \"221502\",\n \"147999\",\n \"408327\",\n \"431101\",\n \"565313\",\n \"444172\",\n \"349674\",\n \"282010\",\n \"377714\",\n \"120312\",\n \"495467\",\n \"522423\",\n \"436611\",\n \"106084\",\n \"84171\",\n \"59317\",\n \"510232\",\n \"406235\",\n \"197938\",\n \"437405\",\n \"105570\",\n \"229134\",\n \"194136\",\n \"430407\",\n \"400927\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"It seems that counting your father as your dependent shouldn't, in itself, cause him to be ineligible for SNAP. Eligibility requirements for SNAP can be found on this FNS page. There are upper limits on the \"\"countable resources, such as a bank account\"\" that the beneficiary's household may have, and on that household's income. (There are some other requirements, too.) From what I can tell from your question, your father shouldn't be part of your household for SNAP purposes, because: Everyone who lives together and purchases and prepares meals together is grouped together as one household. If you're transferring him money, I assume he's living and eating somewhere else, so it seems you are not part of his household. According to the IRS's Publication 501, your father is not required to be part of your household for IRS purposes to be your dependent. The test to qualify is that a non-child dependent must either: Live with you all year as a member of your household, or Be related to you in one of the ways listed under Relatives who do not have to live with you. However, by the \"\"Special rule for parent\"\", you may be able to use your father as your qualifying person (dependent) to be able to file as \"\"head of household\"\", so long as you pay more than half their support, and \"\"more than half the cost of keeping up a home that was the main home for the entire year for your father\"\". I don't know if in this case the IRS would consider your father \"\"part of your household\"\" or not. Even if the IRS considered your father part of your household based on the way you filed your taxes, I think it's possible, as the IRS and FNS are two different entities, that the definition of your father's household for SNAP purposes could be different from the IRS's.\"","If she claims you as a dependant she may be able to claim your education expenses also and depending on tax bracket (hers and yours) they may be worth more to her than they are to you. Having her claim you may also affect your eligibility for financial aid however, if she has been claiming you so far with no negative effect on your eligibility then that may not matter next year either.","\"The IRS isn't going to care how you filed for benefits - they're effectively the high man on the totem pole. The agency that administers the SNAP program is the one who might care. File the 1040 correctly, and then deal with SNAP as you note. Do deal with SNAP, though; otherwise they might be in trouble if SNAP notices the discrepancy in an audit of their paperwork. Further, SNAP doesn't necessarily care here either. SNAP defines a household as the people who live together in a house and share expenses; a separated couple who neither shared expenses nor lived together would not be treated as a single household, and thus one or both would separately qualify. See this Geeks on Finance article or this Federal SNAP page for more details; and ask the state program administrator. It may well be that this has no impact for him/her. The details are complicated though, particularly when it comes to joint assets (which may still be joint even if they're otherwise separated), so look it over in detail, and talk to the agency to attempt to correct any issues. Note that depending on the exact circumstances, your friend might have another option other than Married Filing Jointly. If the following are true: Then she may file as \"\"Head of Household\"\", and her (soon-to-be) ex would file as \"\"Married Filing Separately\"\", unless s/he also has dependents which would separately allow filing as Head of Household. See the IRS document on Filing Status for more details, and consider consulting a tax advisor, particularly if she qualifies to consult one for free due to lower income.\"","First, you need to see if you actually qualify as a dependent under IRS rules; in short: While there may be exceptions to the cohabitation rule, I am not sure what those could be. The takeaway is that if your parent is wishing to claim you as a dependent, they must be responsible for supporting the majority of your living expenses (e.g. food and shelter). If this is the case, then the next question is to look at how the impact of the exemptions play out. In your situation, I would guess that your mother is correct: your taxable income is likely to be so low that if you do not take an exemption for yourself, you probably would still have zero or minimal tax liability; but if you mother claims you as a dependent, she will be able to take a deduction. In the case of your grants and loans, the loans should not be taxable income since these need to be repaid (presumably, with future earnings). Federal grants may be taxable--basically, the portion of the grant that is used solely for paying educational expenses toward a specific degree (tuition and books) is non-taxable, but the remainder may be subject to tax. As for tax credits, you would need to see how much you would get and how they would apply to you. The bottom line is, there are too many variables to say for certain what the best approach would be, so both your and your mother's returns must be prepared under each scenario (you as her dependent, versus you claiming a personal exemption).","If she lives by herself, my guess would be that she qualifies as a household of one. Either way, her monthly income is below the threshold, so she should be eligible. Per the linked website The only way to determine if your household is eligible for SNAP benefits is to apply. I'd say it's worth a try.","Your parents would not be able to claim her as a dependent as multiple people are not allowed to claim a single person as a dependent. Utilize the IRS website to show who you are and are not allowed to claim (https://www.irs.gov/uac/Who-Can-I-Claim-as-a-Dependent%3F).","This may be best handled by an expert. Look for somebody recommended by a church, homeless shelter, food pantry, office of unemployment, office of disability, or Veterans services to advise you on maximizing support for your father. You want to know what type of help you can give without causing the overall level of support to drop. You may even find there are other avenues of assistance.","I know this is rather late, but with your income it is almost certainly better for your mother to claim you as a dependent. I was in a similar situation this last year, I didn't get the full weight of the tax break because my taxes went down to zero with this exemption along with claiming myself as a dependent. I used Turbotax to run both our taxes both ways to verify, the difference was about 1000 dollars saved for my parents to claim me as a dependent vs claiming myself as a dependent. If you are unsure it doesn't take long to run the numbers through Turbotax, TaxACT, or some similar software.","No, you can not claim any sort of tax benefit. The main problem is that your parent is not living with you, though even if they were, they would also have to be dependent on you. I cannot find a good definition of 'dependant', but from what I can find, they must have only a trivial amount of income and must rely on you for at least 50% of their living expenses. Useful links include: Note that your parent may (but probably won't) be required to pay taxes on the money you submit to them. I have no experience whatsoever with Indian tax law, just pointing this out as a possibility.","Since you aren't contributing enough to count your parent as a dependent, there is no tax benefit to you for helping them. Gift tax is paid by the giver when total gifts to an individual exceed $14k/year and the lifetime exclusion of $5.49M has been exceeded. If your annual gifts exceed $14k (subject to change, as is the lifetime exclusion amount) then you have to file Form 709 with your return, but you will not pay gift tax unless you've both exhausted the lifetime exclusion and gift over $14k/year. If you pay medical bills directly, that amount does not count toward the $14k/year limit, so you could likely assist in excess of $14k/year and still avoid having to file the extra form. Most assistance programs are income-based, and gifts do not count toward income, but you'll want to check on the specific requirements for programs they are enrolled in.","\"Yes, you will have to file taxes. Each peson gets a standard deduction. By \"\"claiming you\"\", your parents are applying your standard deduction to their taxes, meaning that you cannot use that same deduction on your taxes. You still must pay taxes on your income. This generally works out best overall, assuming that your parents are in a higher tax bracket (have a higher income) than you.\"","\"3) NOT to claim her as my dependent. No additional tax return (since she is NOT my dependent), but also no penalty. My end of year balance would be $0 No. Not claiming her as a dependent does not save you from being responsible for her penalty. You are responsible for her penalty if she is your dependent (i.e. she meets the conditions for being your dependent), regardless of whether you claim her on your tax return or not. If you have the option of claiming her or not, then she is your dependent, and you are responsible for her penalty. 26 CFR 1.5000A-1(c)(2)(i): For a month when a nonexempt individual does not have minimum essential coverage, if the nonexempt individual is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of another individual for the other individual's taxable year including that month, the other individual is liable for the shared responsibility payment attributable to the dependent's lack of coverage. An individual is a dependent of a taxpayer for a taxable year if the individual satisfies the definition of dependent under section 152, regardless of whether the taxpayer claims the individual as a dependent on a Federal income tax return for the taxable year. [...] Form 1040 instructions, Line 61: [...] If you had qualifying health care coverage (called minimum essential coverage) for every month of 2015 for yourself, your spouse (if filing jointly), and anyone you can or do claim as a dependent, check the box on this line and leave the entry space blank. Otherwise, do not check the box on this line. If you, your spouse (if filing jointly), or someone you can or do claim as a dependent didn’t have coverage for each month of 2015 you must either claim a coverage exemption on Form 8965 or report a shared responsibility payment on line 61. [...] So you cannot check the box and must report exemptions for your sister, or report a shared responsibility payment. Form 8965 instructions, Definitions, \"\"Tax household\"\": For purposes of Form 8965, your tax household generally includes you, your spouse (if filing a joint return), and any individual you claim as a dependent on your tax return. It also generally includes each individual you can, but don't, claim as a dependent on your tax return. [...] Your sister is part of your tax household regardless of whether you claim her, and you must compute her shared responsibility payment for any months she did not have insurance and did not qualify for an exemption.\"","No they do not. From form 1040 instructions, a single, non-blind dependent under age 65 must file if the following are true: You must file a return if any of the following apply. There is no return required for receipt of a gift.","\"Are you working for a company that offers a Dependent Care Account? You may be able to withhold up to $5000/yr pre tax for care for you child. If you cover more than half her expenses, she is your dependent. You can't \"\"double dip.\"\" If she is your dependent, she cannot be the care provider for purposes of the DCAS, see Pub 503 top of p7 \"\"Payments to Relatives or Dependents.\"\" How do you think a business would change your situation? The DCA is a small tax break, if you have no business now, this break isn't something that should drive this.\"","\"I am not aware of any place that the tax forms ask, \"\"How many people live in your house?\"\" They ask how many dependants you have, and not everyone who lives in your house is your dependant. There are very specific rules about that. If your girlfriend is being claimed as a dependent on her parents' tax return, then she cannot also be claimed on anyone else's return, and there's no need to investigate further. To claim someone as a dependent, they have to meet a number of conditions. I am not a lawyer. See IRS Publication 17. But the gist of it is that they must, (a) either be a relative (there's a list of what sorts of relatives qualify) or live with you all year; (b) Living with you must not violate local law; (c) Must make less than $4000 per year; and (d) You must provide over half of their support. Your girlfriend may meet the \"\"live with you all year\"\" or maybe not. But the real stumper is likely to be (d). Unless your parents are paying her tuition, they almost certainly don't meet this test.\"","Your parents would file their taxes as they normally do. It would be as if your parents were landlords renting a room to your girlfriend. She would not be claimed on their taxes. If your girlfriend pays rent to your parents (through her parents or otherwise) it would be claimed as rental income. The household size wouldn't change because even though your girlfriend is living with your parents they are not financially responsible for her. Example: A landlord would not claim renters as dependents or in household size on their taxes.","Essentially obamacare act is forcing me NOT to claim my sister as my dependent (although I provide > 51% for her). No, that's not what it's doing. It's forcing you (or her) to get insurance. So, as a big sister I can provide for her, but NOT claim her as my dependent. Do I understand everything correctly? The exemption (that gave you that $1K back) can only be claimed by you, she cannot claim it. So by not claiming her you're giving that up. Her medical bills will probably be on you as well, so it would be in your best interest to have her insured. If you want to dump her on the taxpayer in case of a medical emergency - then yes, it will cost you the tax benefit of the additional exemption and the HOH deduction (depending on your tax rates, probably a couple of thousands of dollars). Either way you'll pay.","You are only responsible for IRS debt that you owe from returns that you have filed for yourself. The back taxes that your dependent owes are between him and the IRS.","It only matters for purposes of the dependent, so if you are clearly at 50%, then you don't need to calculate this cost. If it is close to not being 50%, then you will have to allocate between your sister and mother. To calculate support costs, you can of course include the costs incurred for transportation, per Pub 17 p 34. If you and your sister have an arrangement where she uses the car and in exchange she shoulders extra costs for your mother, then that's legitimately your expense for your mother (as long as this is a true agreement, then it was money she owed you but paid directly to the vendors and creditors that you would have paid). Note that there is a simpler avenue. If your sister agrees that you will claim your mother as dependent, and nobody else provides any substantial support (10%+ of costs), then she can just agree that it's you who will claim her. If you like, such an agreement may be attached to your taxes, possibly using Form 2120. As a general rule, though, you do not need to use 2120 or any other agreement, nor submit any support calculations. If your sister verbally agrees that she hasn't and won't claim your mother, then it's unlikely to cause any problems. Her signed agreement not to claim your mother is merely the most conservative possible documentation strategy, but isn't really necessary. See Pub 17, p 35 on Multiple Support Agreements for more info.","Are you actually supporting both your mother and father? Is the account joint? Is your mother aware of the gift and has control over the money same as your father? If you cannot answer (and provide support) yes to all these questions, then I doubt you could make such a claim. If the fact that the bank account is only in your father's name is a mere technicality for whatever reason, and the money is in fact intended, controlled by and benefits both of your parents, then I believe you can. See more details about gift tax in the IRS publication 950.","It appears that this is the case. From IRS Publication 969, Health Savings Accounts and Other Tax-Favored Health Plans Qualified medical expenses are those incurred by the following persons. You and your spouse. All dependents you claim on your tax return. Any person you could have claimed as a dependent on your return except that: The person filed a joint return, The person had gross income of $3,700 or more, or You, or your spouse if filing jointly, could be claimed as a dependent on someone else's 2011 return.","I don't see how allowing usage of your vehicle is less support than giving money to buy their own vehicle. If that's the only vehicle your mother has - then you're supporting her. Quantifying that support may be difficult though, but if you are providing her all of her needs - it doesn't matter. If she does have income of her own, I do not think that you can put the actual amount you're paying as part of the calculation towards the 50% rule since she would otherwise have bought a much cheaper car. But if you pass the 50% threshold even without the car payments - then you're fine either way.","I suppose if you consider tax liability, and when you moved back in with your parents they started claiming you as a dependent on their taxes, but otherwise single-filer means you are your own household regardless of who rents to you.","Up to RS50,000 is exempt from gift taxes. In the US, if one provides more than half the expenses for a relative, they may be a dependent. I don't know the India rules.","You don't get any tax benefit. When you are helping a relative or a friend in such situations the income is just gone. The only way to get around this is if you contribute to a charity, and they give it to your mom. You can then deduct the contributions to that charity. However, the IRS has cracked down on such situations and it probably is not worth pursuing. By the recent tax rules, that charity can use those contributions in which every way they choose, they cannot guarantee they go to your mom. Given that you are closed to your allowed exclusion (14K for 2017), I would work to keep your number under that. If you are married, you each get that exclusion so you can give up to 28K. I can't really speak to the reduction of benefits part as I am knowledgeable and more details on the type of transfer payments she receives would be germane to the discussion.","\"If they allowed people to skip reporting the funds \"\"even though I might not intend to use this money to help my kids through college\"\", then children of a Billionaire would be eligible for financial aid. In addition you might have reported all your income to the IRS, but the rest of the government isn't able to see that information.\"","Yes. Basically, I see it as a huge giveaway to corporate interests when we have to do things like step in and pay for food for their workers (e.g. SNAP), enabling a business to keep their own wages low. It's basically a wealth transfer to shareholders. A full-time worker should be able to cover their nutritional needs from their salary.","For the record, I am the original question-asker and I'm reporting back to say that the approach described in the accepted answer did not work. I am adding a new answer, rather than commenting on the accepted answer, because of the length of explanation required. I applied for an ITIN by filing a W-7 with all appropriate documentation, including a birth certificate, death certificate, and consular recognition of birth abroad (i.e., proof of U.S. citizenship). The IRS rejected the application, saying that people who are eligible for SSNs can't have ITINs. That placed me in an untenable situation, because even though the IRS said she was eligible for an SSN, the Social Security Administration said they never issue SSNs to dead people as a matter of policy. So: Insult was added to injury. It is true that I should have applied for an SSN while she was alive, in which case it would have been a simple matter. I just paid the extra tax that was due because of her not counting as a dependent during the years for which I was filing. The amount was not worth fighting over further, or renouncing my U.S. citizenship. Moral of story: Live, in all ways, as if there is no guarantee your children will be alive tomorrow. Because there is no such guarantee.","Yes, you'll be able to get the money by submitting legitimate receipts for care for your child, and at tax time you'll pay the tax on the extra $3600.","\"The author really glosses over the impact of changes pertaining to \"\"return to work\"\" requirements/qualification. [In Georgia, some recipient groups have been reduced by 60%](http://www.myajc.com/news/breaking-news/more-will-have-work-keep-food-stamps/pu0Y9SASOVxc5QwEzJJLdJ/). I'd be cautious about celebrating this kind of report being connected to people rising out of poverty status. The more obvious conclusion is that the reductions owe more to people simply being excluded from SNAP.\"","And you have yet to explain how it would matter how they use the benefits they are entitled to. If they didn't spend any of the money they were given it would stay on their card. If they bought food and didn't eat it, it would sit on their shelves. What if they bought food and let someone who was hungry eat it at their house? Are these people abusing the system as well? What you don't seem to understand is ITS THEIR ENTITLEMENT. They can do with it as they please, it would be smart to use it to eat food but guess what some people have drug problems and or likely a mental issue. Apparently in your worldview poor people don't get to have freedom? These people would get it either way if they spent it on food or drugs. Not to mention we are talking about a very small percentage of people and an even smaller pittance of money. We have THOUSANDS of tanks we paid hundreds of millions of dollars for each just sitting in the fucking desert that replaced the already working tanks we already had that we do not need. Yet here you are concerned about some person at the lowest rank of society trading 15 dollars on a snap card for cigarettes.","Only for farmers markets and only 3 bucks at a time. Kind of like a stupid screw up typical of government. This won't devastate folks and if the markets are solely dependent on these subsidies they will need to close. Maybe the meals on wheels should buy more local produce instead.","There are too many qualifying questions like martial status, dependent status, annual income, etc. Your answer is most likely in the Form Pub 970 you referenced: Adjustments to Qualified Education Expenses If you pay qualified education expenses with certain tax-free funds, you cannot claim a deduction for those amounts If the grant is tax free, you can not claim deductions up to that amount. Even if you were able to expense all the educational expenses you list, I doubt you can exceed the grant disbursement disbursement amount. I'm not a tax professional, so take my advice for what it is worth.","Here's an answer received elsewhere. Yes, it looks like you have a pretty good understanding the concept and the process. Your wife's income will be so low - why? If she is a full-time student in any of those months, you may attribute $250 x 2 children worth of income for each of those months. Incidentally, even if you do end up paying taxes on the extra $3000, you won't be paying the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare (7.65%) or state disability on those funds. So you still end up saving some tax money. No doubt, there's no need to remind you to be sure that you submit all the valid receipts to the administrator in time to get reimbursed. And a must-have disclaimer: Please be advised that, based on current IRS rules and standards, any advice contained herein is not intended to be used, nor can it be used, for the avoidance of any tax penalty that the IRS may assess related to this matter. Any information contained in this email, whether viewed or subsequently printed, cannot be relied upon as qualified tax and accounting advice. ... Any information contained in this email does not fall under the guidelines of IRS Circular 230.","a) He can loan you the money tax free he can even give you and your wife 29k a year tax free. Many people do a loan for lets say 100k and then they forgive the load 14.5k a year to avoid the taxes. b) Yes when they see that deposit they will give you a hard time potentially. I got a hard time for my Real Estate tax refund. c) Just putting stress on the family potentially.","No. You already received the deduction, since that lost FSA money was pre-tax. You can't double dip. However if your FSA amount was less than your actual expenses, you can file on the difference. Example: $4500 actual expenses, $3000 FSA (lost). You can get the dependent care credit based on $1500.","I'm guessing you're asking about the US. Please add a location tag to your question. Unfortunately you cannot claim expenses paid for someone other than yourself or your dependents. In IRS publication 970, that deals with education credits, they give the following guidance: Expenses paid by others. Someone other than you, your spouse, or your dependent (such as a relative or former spouse) may make a payment directly to an eligible educational institution to pay for an eligible student's qualified education expenses. In this case, the student is treated as receiving the payment from the other person and, in turn, paying the institution. If you claim an exemption on your tax return for the student, you are considered to have paid the expenses. Also, you should keep the gift tax in mind: your help to your friend is only exempt from gift tax if you pay the tuition directly (i.e.: you write the check to the school cashier, not to your friend). If you give the money to your friend, it is subject to gift tax (which you have to pay). In some cases, someone who is not family may in fact qualify to become your dependent. For that he must live with you (in the same household), and be supported by you and not have any significant income. If that's the case with you and your friend, you might be able to claim him as a dependent and get some significant tax benefits, including the education credits. Consult your tax adviser if its relevant to your situation.","They're wrong. The IRS instructions (pub 969) specifically say: To be an eligible individual and qualify for an HSA ... You [must] have no other health coverage except what is permitted under Other health coverage, later. So no, he is not eligible for HSA if he keeps your coverage. Here's what the same IRS Publication 969 has to say about the excess contributions (contributions in excess of what is allowed): Generally, you must pay a 6% excise tax on excess contributions. See Form 5329, Additional Taxes on Qualified Plans (including IRAs) and Other Tax-Favored Accounts, to figure the excise tax. The excise tax applies to each tax year the excess contribution remains in the account. You may withdraw some or all of the excess contributions and not pay the excise tax on the amount withdrawn if you meet the following conditions. You withdraw the excess contributions by the due date, including extensions, of your tax return for the year the contributions were made. You withdraw any income earned on the withdrawn contributions and include the earnings in “Other income” on your tax return for the year you withdraw the contributions and earnings. The 6% excise tax is on top of any other tax (like the regular income tax) that he has to pay on the money.","\"What kind of financial aid? Today, most \"\"financial aid\"\" consists of loans. Methinks it better for you to be ineligible for \"\"financial aid\"\" and be able to pay enough that they can cover the difference with their own sweat (their own income) rather than deliberately spending the money and forcing them to take out \"\"low interest\"\" student loans to pay part of the bill. Have you played with FAFSA to see what happens?\"","I would go here and play with the FASFA financial aid calculator to see if you qualify for grants, which is probably your ultimate objective. It would seem to me that qualified retirement contributions do not count towards eligibility provided you are younger than 59.5, and even then it would be questionable.","You said your mother-in-law lives with you. Does she pay rent, or are you splitting the cost of housing? That would also have to figured into the equation. If you had a business you would now have to declare the expense on your business taxes. This would also then be income for her, which she would have to account for on her taxes. Remember there are both state and federal taxes involved. Regarding expenses like diapers. If the MIL had the business she could deduct them as a business expense. If you have the business it would greatly complicate the taxes. Your business would be essentially covering your personal expenses. If your MIL was not a business the cost of diapers would be paid by you regardless of the working situation of you and your spouse. To claim the tax credit: You must report the name, address, and taxpayer identification number (either the social security number, or the employer identification number) of the care provider on your return. If the care provider is a tax-exempt organization, you need only report the name and address on your return. You can use Form W-10 (PDF), Dependent Care Provider's Identification and Certification, to request this information from the care provider. If you do not provide information regarding the care provider, you may still be eligible for the credit if you can show that you exercised due diligence in attempting to provide the required information. The IRS will be looking for an income tax form from your MIL that claims the income. Getting too cute with the babysitting situation, by starting a business just for the purpose of saving money on taxes could invite an audit. Also it is not as if you just claim 3000 and you are good to go. You can only claim a percentage of the expenses based on the household AGI, the more the make the more you have to have in expenses to get the full 3000 credit, which mil cause more taxes for your MIL. Plus the whole issue with having to pay social security and other taxes on a household employee. It might be best to skip the risk of the audit. Claiming your MIL as a dependent might just be easier.","\"If you earn $160 a week for 26 weeks, are unable to claim yourself, have no other income at all, you will earn $4,160, which falls under the standard deduction, in your case a bit over $4,500; per publication 17, it is $350 above your earned income, to a maximum of $6300 as of 2016. (H/t Hart CO for the reminder.) In that case, if you paid no taxes (at all) last year (either did not file or filed and had 0 tax paid, so got a 100% refund), you could legitimately claim \"\"exempt\"\" by writing that on line 7. However, you would be very close to owing taxes, so if you have any unearned income (interest from bank accounts, dividends from your non-sheltered college fund, etc.), you would possibly owe taxes. You're also going to owe taxes if you have another ~$2150 of earned income from any other source (including things like mowing lawns, tutoring, etc.). Keep all of that in mind if you have any other sources of income other than the above.\"","Check out personal finance. But, my guess is no. Given you are married and you were prepared to contribute $x out of the entire family pot, why don't they just contribute $x from their portion of the entire family pot? Net effect should be similar or identical. (I'm not an accountant nor married, so enjoy the grain of salt).","I am unsympathetic. His mother made a conscious choice to evade taxes that would have provided her with at least a minimal security when she was too old to work. First while as business owner she should have been paying self employment tax on the income they made through the restaurant and his other merchant activities. Second while working in her own career selling Mary Kay and side work she should have paid her taxes on her income from that. There is a part of me that says good on you for getting by with out getting caught. But her ultimate failure was to plan for her future. She should have known she would be ineligible for SSI and saved for her retirement. Instead she choose to spend her money while benefiting from the government services that the rest of us pay taxes for. Now we will provide her with medicaid as well as welfare benefits. She has placed her son in the unenviable situation of having to either provide for his mother because she failed to do the minimum planning for herself or turn his back on her. He might be able to find a sympathetic prosecutor who would prosecute her for tax evasion. The government would take care of her needs(food and housing) and she would get her medical care taken care of. He could also move to Alaska. The oil industry provide residents of Alaska with a stipend, there is lots of work for people willing to work hard, and the compensation for that work is pretty good and would likely put him in a position where he is able to provide care for his mother.","A tenant is a tenant regardless of your relationship to them, and as long as the property is classified as an investment property, you can claim depreciation and regular business losses just as you would on any property with any tenant.","\"There are two types of insurance, which causes some confusion. Social Security Disability Insurance (which you indicate you have) is insurance you can receive benefit from if you earn enough \"\"work credits\"\" (payroll taxes) prior to your disability onset. It is not a needs-based program. Supplemental Security Income is a need-based program which does not consider your work history. To qualify for this, your total assets need to be lower than some threshold and your family income also below some threshold. If you inherit a home, or money, I doubt this would jeopardize your SSDI qualification, since your qualification was based on a disabling condition and work history. If you inherit an income property, which you manage (i.e. you become a landlord), this may jeopardize your claim that you are unable to work. Even if you are not making an \"\"income\"\" as the landlord, but the work your are performing is deemed to have some \"\"value\"\" this too could jeopardize your claim. All of this can be very complicated, and there are some excellent references on the web including SSA website, and some other related websites. Finally, if you become able to work while on SSDI, your benefit may/will end depending on the level of work you are able to perform. But just because you are able to work again does not mean you need to repay past benefits received (assuming your condition has not been falsified). Your local social security office, or the social security main office both offer telephone support and can also answer questions regarding your concern. Here are a couple relevant links:\"","Gifts from your parents are not treated as income for tax purposes. You should not include that in your subsidy calculation. If you are here on a student-visa and have been in the US for less than 5 years, then you are considered a non-resident alien, and you are not required to buy a qualified plan through the insurance marketplace. You might be able to get a cheaper student plan through your school, but the subsidy might be enough that it's still worth it when calculated correctly. If you are a resident-alien or you are a citizen of the US, then you are required to get coverage, though you can choose not to purchase coverage and pay the tax for not having creditable coverage. That tax cannot be collected by the IRS unless you have already had federal tax withheld. They can only confiscate your tax return money to recoup that money. I don't have enough information to recommend one way or the other what you should do, but I would bet that if you recalculated your subsidy without including your parents income it would cover the majority of the cost. You should also consider applying for Medicaid if you meet the eligibility requirements in your state.","As Dilip commented, the Social Security web site is pretty comprehensive. Understanding Supplemental Security Income SSI Income has the details you are looking for. It's a convoluted equation. You lose SSI at a pretty fast rate as earned income rises. The system is not kind to those who qualify for SSI but try to earn some money to cover their needs.","There would be no point to claim the gift exemption because a gift from a spouse that you file jointly with wouldn't be considered income. It would be the same as if you moved money from one bank account to another.","\"Having dealt with with Social Security, state agencies, and banks more than I'd care to, I would urge you to do the following: 1) Get a 100% clear answer on whether or not you are listed as \"\"joint\"\" or \"\"authorized user/signer\"\" for an account. This will probably require a call to the bank, but for less than an hour of you and your friend's time you will save yourself a whole lot of hassle. The difference is like this: if you worked at a business that added you as an authorized user for a credit or debit card, this would allow you to use the card to buy things. But that doesn't make the money in the bank yours! On the other hand if you are listed as \"\"joint\"\", this regards ownership, and it could become tricky to establish whether its your money or not to any governmental satisfaction. 2) You are completely correct in being honest with the agency, but that's not enough - if you don't know what the facts are, you can't really be honest with them. If the form is unclear it's ok to ask, \"\"on having a bank account, does being listed as an authorized user on someone else's account count if it isn't my money or bank account?\"\" But if you are listed as holding the account jointly, that changes the question to: \"\"I am listed as joint on someone else's checking account, but it isn't my money - how is that considered?\"\" To Social Security it might mean generating an extra form, or it might mean you need to have the status on the account changed, or they might not care. But if you don't get the facts first, they won't give you the right answers or help you need. And from personal experience, it's a heck of a lot easier to get a straight and clear answer from a bank than it is from a federal government agency. Have the facts with you when you contact them and you'll be ok - but trust me, you don't want them guessing!\"","The request for your parent's income comes from Form 8615, Tax for Certain Children Who Have Unearned Income. I typically see this form appear as I'm doing my daughter's taxes and start to enter data from stock transactions. In other words, your earned income is your's. But if you are a dependent, or 'can be,' the flow avoids the potentially lucrative results from gifting children appreciated stock, and have them take the gain at their lower, potentially zero cap gain rate. I suggest you grab a coffee and thumb through Pub 929 Tax Rules for Children and Dependents to understand this better. From page 14 of the linked doc - Parent's return information not available. If a child can’t get the required information about his or her parent's tax return, the child (or the child's legal representative) can request the necessary information from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). How to request. After the end of the tax year, send a signed, written request for the information to the Internal Revenue Service Center where the parent's return will be filed. (The IRS can’t process a request received before the end of the tax year.) It also suggests that you file for an extension for the due date of your return. Include payment for the tax you expect to pay, say by plugging in $200K for parent income as an estimate. My parents' accountant tells them I do not need it. Well, a piece of software told you that you do, and 3 people on line who collectively qualify as experts documented why. (Note, I am not full of myself. This board operates via the wisdom of crowds. Members DStanley, and Ben Miller, commented and edited to help me form a well documented response that would be tough to argue against.)","Quick get a Social Security Number for the child. You will need it before you file your taxes early next year. If you don't have a SSN for your child you will not be able to claim them as a dependent. If you applied for one already, many do so at the hospital, then wait for it to arrive. The next step is to open a savings account with the child's SSN. Then have your parent write the check in the child's name and deposit it into the account. If it is written in the child's name already then you don't need a new check from them. If the check is large, you may run into problems if you take a check in the name of a minor and try and deposit it into your account. The bank would have no idea that the person is related to you.","No, you may not deduct the charitable contributions of your children. The Nest covers this in detail: The IRS only allows you to deduct charitable contributions that you personally funded, whether the contribution was made in your name or in someone else's. If your child or dependent makes a donation to a charity, you are not allowed to claim it as a tax deduction. This is true even if your dependent does not claim the contribution on his own tax return because he opts for the standard deduction rather than itemizing or claims exemption. Now, had you constructed the transaction differently, it's possible you could've made the contribution in your child's name and thus claimed the deduction. Allowance is technically a gift, and if she agrees to forgo allowance in exchange for you making a contribution, well, the IRS can't really complain (though they might try if it were a large amount!). Contributions in the name of someone else, but funded by yourself, are deductible: [Y]ou can deduct contributions you make in someone else’s name. So if you donated a certain amount of money to XYZ charity in your child’s name, for example, you would be able to deduct this amount on your taxes, as long as the deduction requirements are met. You will need to keep accurate records of the payment along with the receipt from the organization to prove you financed the donation.","As a 19 year old if she can get SSDI instead of SSI her benefit amount will be calculated by her parents' contributions ... if either parent is deceased or over 62 then she qualifies for SSDI instead of SSI and I believe she would receive the full benefit amount. I'd guess that would be something in the $1400+ range. I see no reason why you couldn't get married either way ... at least not from a financial perspective. I'd be worried about being on the hook for her medical expenses. Therapy, meds, hospital visits, side-effects, etc ... that's a good way to spend the rest of your life owing millions.","You would be surprised. I work in a grocery store where poor customers use a food stamps card to buy their groceries but pull out a debit card for a $60 carton of cigarettes and a $20 case of beer. They use the money they should be using for food on other things because they get an EBT card.","This is a good question and you seemed troubled by this and this person's choices in life. And that is the rub, they are choices. They know how to make them, they know the consequences, and they know how to work around them. Its a skill you probably don't have (and don't want to have). In the end they will survive. If you go to a fast food store in a popular retirement location you will see plenty of elderly people working. They might live in low income housing, receive some financial assistance, and utilize other charities such a food banks. They might depend on family and friends. There is also the ugly, it is not a fairy tale that some supplement their diets with pet food. There is of course social security. The amount is very low for most workers, but the amount is almost inconsequential. They would spend it all anyway and still be short despite the predictability of the income and a time frame with predictable expenses. Budgeting is a skill. So I have a friend that deals with this himself, and is helping an elder relation. He and his wife provide some help, but when it started there was a endless stream of requests. His policy now is: No more help unless he works out a budget with the person requesting help. I've used his ideas myself, and by using this it becomes clear on who is in actual need and who is just looking for the next handout. You can feel good about yourself for helping an actual needy person or guiltless say no.","Since you are not (yet) legally married, he is a stranger to you and strictly speaking you don't need to worry about the tax impact of his income yet. File on your income alone. That said, you may have to address the money transfer aspect at a later date as banks are getting skittish around money laundering regulations. It's really best if he has his own account for this, especially given you are not married. The worst case scenario is that his income gets frozen due to money laundering regulations and the deposits in your account get treated as (unreported) monetary gifts to you. Again, you should be able to argue out of this but separate accounts make it much easier to do so.","Generally speaking, you'll be able to keep it. Your spending ability may be reduced though. The published eligibility criteria aren't necessarily carved in stone anyway. Some road-warrior types with platinum cards who don't necessarily spend $250k a year will get the card offered to them.","It will not affect your tax bracket so long as he files his taxes. It will not affect your credit negatively so long as the joint account takes out no debts. If it does take out debts, then someone would need to pay them to avoid negative credit. Ideally debts should take signatures from both of you (ask the bank). The IRS will not automatically assume that the only reason that two people might have a joint account is illegal activities. If he withdraws money from the account in such a way to cause an overdraft, you might be responsible for it. However, it sounds like he isn't supposed to be withdrawing money from that account. So that's a potential problem but not a guaranteed problem. Make sure that you have the power to close the account without him (so if you break up later, you can take your name off unilaterally). Realize that you might have to pay a little to close the account if he overdraws it. If possible, have the bank refuse overdrafts. Consider a savings account rather than a checking account. The rules may better fit what you want to do. In particular, if you are limited to transfers, that's safer than checks. Schedule a time to talk to someone at the bank about the account. Ask them to leave plenty of time because you have questions. Explain what you want and let them tell you how to structure the account.","There is no document that I know of that stipulates otherwise. This can also be corroborated by the fact that RESP withdrawals are considered as income in the name of the student. Thus, so long as the student pays tuition and receives a T2202A slip from the educational institution, they should be able to claim tuition, education, and textbook amounts.","\"You'd need to talk with an attorney familiar with Social Security, or an appropriately qualified SSA representative to be sure - but all signs point to the idea that unfortunately Social Security does not work the way your father was told it would. And if he doesn't file to receive benefits the reality is actually much worse than \"\"throwing away free money\"\"! However, this is not due to a complete misunderstanding of the system! Social Security does work the way he thinks in some instances, just that the rules don't apply to his exact situation! First of all, retroactive benefits come in a few forms: File and suspend to get a lump only if you really need it - BEFORE the age of 70 only! In this method you apply for retirement, but you tell the SSA to suspend/delay your benefits. You are entitled to full lump sum of the payments you deferred...but at a cost of getting lower monthly benefits permanently (and that also lowers spousal and dependent children's benefits, too - if those could apply to your dad). But note that at the age of 70, Social Security will stop deferring the payments and start paying you the full maximum retirement benefit monthly, with no lump sum. This is a kind of emergency insurance policy for those who want to try to defer retirement benefits, but who want the opportunity to cash out and get the money they would have been getting \"\"just in case\"\". You can get up to 6 months of retroactive benefits, such as if you wait past your exact retirement age to apply for benefits. But no more: \"\"we cannot pay retroactive benefits for any month before you reached full retirement age or more than 6 months in the past\"\". As for after-death benefits, an estate can only get benefits that were already due to be paid, which generally means a person died and did not get their benefits for that month, so SSA can re-issue a check to the estate following these rules. But as a person cannot be due a lump sum payment after age 70 (for more than 6 months at most), the estate will only be able to get at most 1-6 months of payments (and 6 months is doubtful - you'll need to ask a lawyer if that much would even be possible). If your father was below 70 and wanted to file-and-suspend, the question of lump on death would be more complex and I don't know that answer - but once you are past 70 this doesn't matter any more as you aren't due a lump anymore. Given the above, we've established pretty clearly that if you don't claim your benefits within 6 months after age 70, any months of payment you would have gotten are just forfeited to the system. But if you claim the benefits and stick them in the bank, can they be taken? Well, if a lawsuit is really a worry, then yes these accumulated funds can required to pay a debt - but this potential for loss can be protected against without forfeiting the benefits entirely! This is not very common, but if your father doesn't need the money now he may be able to deposit some of the money into a special partially-lawsuit protected format of the Roth IRA (which has no age limits) as detailed here. If he never gets sued, that's OK - it's still his money! If he passes away, the value goes to his estate and does not disappear. And he doesn't forfeit any of his earned retirement benefits. Finally, I would like to share one last thing with you and your father. These benefits aren't free - he has been paying a portion of his paycheck for decades into Social Security, and now he is eligible for the maximum amount of benefits per month that he will qualify for - and if he wants to keep working he loses no benefit and the amount could potentially even go up. That's up to him. But not filing for benefits now will mean that all this money he's been paying in for decades will just be lost - they'll basically just be a tax he's paid out to other retirees. His estate (which means you kids) won't get any of it, either. That'd just be a waste for everyone involved. If you have continued doubts or questions, I wouldn't hesitate to consult a specialist lawyer or talk with the SSA directly to make sure this is all correct. It's his money, and he has earned his benefits for many years. I very much hope he gets to enjoy as much of them as he can!\"","The taxes that are deducted from you paycheck are estimated from the expected annual income you receive from the employer. In the same way, the employer will deduct from that expected annual income the tax deductions you would get for the number of dependents you specify. Hence your net income will be lower, your annual tax obligation also, which can than be calculated down to the period of your paycheck.","The program has not existed long, so the effects likely modest. The goals were to help local growers and to get people eating healthier food. I know seniors living on $800 a month total. Most of that goes to rent. They eat the cheap microwave meals, as fresh fruit and vegetables are too expensive. Their main meal is provided by meals on wheels, which is also on Republican's radar to cut.","working full time for low wages, does force a family to take government assistance. It is a way my business and others who pay a living wage while still paying our taxes subsidized the mega businesses destroying america like walmart. Sorry but if you have a family cant get another job with better pay and have to work 40 hours for min wage, you are going to use government assistance.","Did you become a homeowner in this case? Would you be paying property tax as a homeowner somehow? Were you the homeowner of your apartment? No. Are you a homeowner of your parent's home? No. I do not believe that living at your parent's house makes you a homeowner or someone counted as a homeowner for statistical purposes.","They are entitled to a benefit for things for survival, This is not a UBI. If they have enough food to be giving it away, the system isn't working properly. You think because they're (the abusers of the system) are being a useless member of society that they are entitled to have these benefits, which legally they are, but this should not be a long term solution for millions of people, which it is. Are we talking about a small amount of people, from what google says its a pretty big issue. We have a military, start your own rant thread about that if you want to talk about that or better yet, go join the military and fix it from the inside out.","Sit down with professional with knowledge about eldercare issues. Know how your options regarding the property ownership can impact the services they qualify for. Even making a change in ownership can impact their eligibility for certain programs. Some of which can reach back to events in the recent past. Also if you own it but she will get some of the profits when you sell, she could still be considered an owner, which can impact eligibility for programs. This is in addition to the issues with the lender, the IRS, and your estate.","Smart parents not wanting to get stuck with a student loan or co-signing on a loan. because rent is so high Are you able to live with your parents? Is there anyway to reduce the cost of rent like renting a room? Can you move somewhere where the rent is cheaper? working 25 hours per week Working 25 hours per week and taking 6 hours is a pretty light schedule. It is not even 40 hours per week. What is stopping you from working 40 hours and paying for school from your salary? In my own life I created a pretty crappy situation for myself when I was a young man. I really wanted to go to a prestigious university, but ended up going to a community college, and then to a university that was lesser known in a less expensive area. I had to work like crazy, upwards of 50 hours per week. I also took a full load in a difficult degree program. You probably don't have to go to the extremes that I went through, but you can work more. Most adults work at their jobs well more than 40 hours per week, then come home and continue to work (on the house, raising kids, trying to start a side business, etc...). So you might as well become an adult now. There are ways to become independent from your parents for FAFSA like have a baby, get married, or join the military. I'd only recommend the last one as you will also receive the GI Bill. Another option is to try and obtain a job that offers financial aid.","\"It depends on other factors like your income, \"\"need\"\" and other assets. Parents are expected to contribute 6% of their assets, students at least 35%. 529s and ESAs (which I think may be in the process of being phased out) count as parental assets, which may or may not be a good thing. If this is a significant chunk of money, you need to talk to a professional deeply familiar with the financial aid process. Colleges are rapacious for your money, and you can easily \"\"overpay\"\" for a child's education, particularly if you send your kid to a private school.\"","This is a topic you need to sit down and discuss with your parents. Income taxes probably aren't going to be a big issue, and will be refunded in April. Social Security and Medicare will not be refunded, but start you on the road to qualifying for them in the future. How much of you expenses you will now cover will be a family decision; how much of your college expenses you will be responsible for will also need to be discussed. These topics need to be understood before it is time to apply to schools in the fall of your senior year of high school. It is nice to know that you are at least thinking about saving money for your future and for emergencies.","a. Depends on whether it is a gift (no tax, but need to file gift tax form against his lifetime exclusion) or a loan (in which case he needs to charge fair market interest, which he can forgive as a gift with no gift tax form, but for which will need to pay tax on the forgiven income. b. This is a definite possibility. Probably depends on the specific lender, but I would imagine this might be questioned, especially if there is an expectation of paying him back. c. Relationships. I would always avoid mixing family and finances in this way. Do you want your family gatherings to be tainted by owing him money? What if you fall on hard times? What if you go on a nice vacation instead of paying him back faster?","If the child is a dependent the question is moot. It is accepted that the parent will pay for some, most, or all of the tuition. There is no tax issue for a current student. The payment of tuition helps them qualify as a dependent. There is no need to transfer the money to the child's account; it can be sent directly to the school. If the money is to be used in the future there are accounts such as 529s pre-paid accounts, and Coverdell savings accounts that can be used. All have pluses and minuses, all can impact taxes, and all can impact financial aid calculations.","Wrong, the whole point is to help people who need it. The only reason they need the help is because their employer refuses to pay them accordingly. The food stamp program was not created to help coincide with a business model, it was created to make sure people who couldn't afford to eat were able to eat. If Walmart can't make it on it's own then a company like Walmart doesn't deserve to exist. If we had some sort of law requiring businesses to pay higher wages than minimum wage when these businesses meet some sort of requirement then we wouldn't have this problem.","Yes, it's considered the students asset, regardless of the custodian aspect. I don't know how you'd propose to put it in a retirement account, even with the earned income to facilitate this, the limit is $5500/yr. The larger issue is parental income. That and parental assets. Tough to game that part of the system to get aid. In the end, one should look to scholarships, both merit and non merit based to maximize college support.","Sorry to hear about your spouse's health issues. May he have a speedy and, as far as possible, full recovery. The Patient Protectection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, aka Obamacare) is now the law of the land. Among its many provisions are that insurers may no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, they may not put lifetime caps on benefits, and they may not charge different premiums based on any criteria except age cohort and geographic area (i.e. rates may be higher for 50 year olds than 30 year olds, but sick and healthy 50 year olds living in the same area pay the same). If he gets government health coverage because he's on disability, this may not matter. On the other hand, you might find it better to put him on your employer's policy, because you like the coverage better, the employer covers part of the dependent premium, or some other reason. In any case, they can't discriminate against him or you based on his condition. ETA: Rates may vary by geography as well as age.","I was in that same situation years ago with my parents. One way she could apply for a loan in her name without her parents is if she is not currently living with them she shouldn't need them to cosign if she doesn't have bad credit. But if she isn't living with them and they aren't financing her room and board they can't claim her as a dependent so if she really wants to stick it to them she can go and try to politely explain how the loans work and tell them if they don't cosign for her then she will apply on her own (which she can only do while not living with them I believe but not sure) and they will HAVE to STOP claiming her as a dependent on their taxes. If they don't agree she can put her foot down and force them to stop claiming her and tell them she will file her own application anyway and if they continue claiming her and get in trouble for it it's their own fault cause she warned them to stop first. They may agree to cosign rather than lose her as a dependent if it makes that big of a difference on their taxes, if they don't then she can forcefully punish them financially and their taxes will go up. Those were my choices when my parents refused to cosign for me to live at school but that was back in 1999-2000 and things may have changed since then, things also change state by state and I live in PA.","To answer the last question first: there are no tax consequences to you. If your family member is married (or has a joint owner of the funds), and so are you, each of them can give each of you the $14K annual gift, which would be $56K. The remainder of the $70K would be subject to either (1) Gift Tax for the tax year in which it was given, or (2) applied to the lifetime exclusion. Either way would require filing a form with the IRS.","If you file your taxes jointly, she can pay for you. The money can be spent on any taxable dependent can for qualified expenses. The rules for how much money can be contributed to the account are based off of the number enrolled. Since your spouse has your children enrolled, she can contribute the higher family limit (current $6250 in 2012) but that has no bearing on how she spends the money so long as the expense is a qualified one. She could not pay for a cousin's expenses if that cousin is not listed on her taxes. Because your wife has the HSA, you are not allowed to contribute to an FSA, so be careful with whatever insure you being provided by the university.","\"If the account is really only in your father's name and not even \"\"in trust\"\" for you, then you can't touch it, I'm afraid. And taking your family to small-claims court is something of a nuclear option. Hiitting sympathetic family members for a loan may be the best course here;. Anything you do to try to force cooperation is likely to be a \"\"nuclear option\"\" as far as getting back on peaceable terms with your family goes. If you must resort to that, i'd suggest asking whether the local department of youth services, or s religious figure or someone else your father respects, could persuade him to cooperate. He might be more willing to listen to someone else.\"","\"It depends on whether your goal is to \"\"teach a man to fish\"\" or setup an ongoing system where his neighbor is required to keep giving him fish every day for the rest of his life. From my point of view a true solution involves getting people standing on their own two feet, not relying on the government for handouts the rest of their life.\"","You've already counted the cost. It will cost your family ~$10,000 per month until your father dies, or until there's no money left, to enable him to pretend that he is a successful business owner. I'd ask him when he thinks business is going to pick up again. He may be honest with himself. Or, ask him to consider what will happen if he outlives the money that's going out the door. Ask him if he would like to be bankrupt on top of needing to close his business. (I don't view asking those questions as being unloving, by the way.)","Does allowing family to stay at the rental jeopardize my depreciation? No, accumulated depreciation that hasn't been deducted reduces your basis in the event of sale. That doesn't go anywhere. Accumulating more may not be allowed though. If the property is no longer rental (i.e.: personal use, your family member lives there for free), you cannot claim expenses or depreciation on it. If you still rent it out to your family member, but not at the fair market value, then you can only claim expenses up to the rental income. I.e.: you can only depreciate up to the extent the depreciation (after all the expenses) not being over the income generated. You cannot generate losses in such case, even if disallowed. If you rent to your family member at the market rate (make sure it is properly documented), then the family relationship really doesn't matter. You continue accumulating expenses as usual.","Stupid article. People on government assistance typically don't have a great deal of money to begin with, and there aren't exactly many items on Amazon that are at 'dollar store' level prices..and unless one is house-bound level of disabled, you really can't fill a whole grocery list by shopping at Amazon as you could running down to Walmart or Save a Lot.","\"According to the FAFSA info here, they will count your nonretirement assets when figuring the EFC. The old Motley Fool forum question I mentioned in my comment suggests asking the school for a \"\"special circumstances adjustment to your FAFSA\"\". I don't know much about it, but googling finds many pages about it at different colleges. This would seem to be something you need to do individually with whatever school(s) your son winds up considering. Also, it is up to the school whether to have mercy on you and accept your request. Other than that, you should establish whatever retirement accounts you can and immediately begin contributing as much as possible. Given that the decision is likely to be complicated by your foreign income, you should seek professional advice from an accountant versed in such matters.\"","Like for example I use transferwise to send $x to my dad's account in India, would it show my name as the depositor ? That would depend from bank to bank, it may or may not show your name. Would it be considered as income for my dad ? Assuming your parents are Indian Residents for tax purposes. No. It would be considered as Gift. Gifts between father and son are tax free in India and there is no limit. Any special care/precaution to take before using such services ? Not really. Just to be safe, keep a copy of the transfer instruction / details of debit to you account etc, so that if there is enquiry you have all the data handy. Edit: Clarifying the comment, if you are Resident Alien in US for tax purposes, you would be liable to Gift Tax [Not your parents as they are Indian Residents and would follow Indian tax rules]. As per IRS the liability of Gift tax is on Donor subject to limit of $14000 per year per Donee. So you and your wife can gift your father and mother $14000 each. i.e. $56000 each year. Anything more will be taxable or can be reduced from the overall estate limit.","The IRS' primary reference Pub 519 Tax Guide for Aliens -- current year online (current and previous years downloadable in PDF from the Forms&Pubs section of the website) says NO: Students and business apprentices from India. A special rule applies .... You can claim the standard deduction .... Use Worksheet 5-1 to figure your standard deduction. If you are married and your spouse files a return and itemizes deductions, you cannot take the standard deduction. Note the last sentence, which is clearly an exception to the 'India rule', which is already an exception to the general rule that nonresident filers never get the standard deduction. Of course this is the IRS' interpretation of the law (which is defined to include ratified treaties); if you think they are wrong, you could claim the deduction anyway and when they assess the additional tax (and demand payment) take it to US Tax Court -- but I suspect the legal fees will cost you more than the marginal tax on $6300, even under Tax Court's simplified procedures for small cases.","And how is that abuse, those are their benefits. If they choose to use them to do drugs or eat food they would still get them either way. These people are NOT entitled to them. If they bought the food and didn't eat it, is that abuse too? I fully understand that's not the intent but at the end of the day how you choose to use the benefits you are entitled to is on you, land of the free right?","I'm not an expert, just giving my opinion. If you are an owner of a bank account that does not make you liable for their debts unless also cosign on their loans. I would in this join custody of the if only to assist your parents in financial decision making.","Yes, you can be on a different plan from your dependents. The only real benefit to having everyone on the sale plan is the Family Deductible and Family Out of Pocket Maximum; which are both generally two times the Individual amounts for the same plan. When you have just two people on the plan, this combination doesn't do anything. When you have three or more people on the same plan you can realize the benefit of combining everyone under one plan. Once one person in the family meets their deductible, any combination of the other family members can meet the rest up to the Family deductible; same goes for the out of pocket max.","If you can still work or have income to support yourself, I would wait. contrary to some media reports, Social Security has enough money to cover full benefits for a number of years to come, and there are solutions that don't involve cutting payouts. And as mentioned before it is likely you'll be grandfathered in if there are cuts.","This depends on the nature of the income. Please consult a professional CPA for specific advise.","Keep in mind that lenders will consider the terms of any loans you have when determining your ability to pay back the mortgage. They'll want to see paperwork, or if you claim it is a gift they will require a letter to that effect from your relative. Obviously, this could effect your ability to qualify for a loan.","Assuming the funds are being transferred for his treatment, Yes it should be added to your income and taxed at the bracket you fall into. This is same as a person walking into your clinic and paying you cash/cheque/credit card to get treated.","Yes you are eligible even if your spouse is enrolled in Medicare. As long as YOU are not enrolled in Medicare you can contribute to an HSA. You may use the money to pay the cost of qualified medical expenses for you and your spouse. Here are some resources with additional information: HSA FAQ's HSA Resources","Your friend would have only been liable for a tax penalty if he withdrew more 529 money than he reported for qualified expenses. That said, if he took the distribution in his name, it triggers a 1099-Q report to the IRS in his name rather than his beneficiaries. This will likely be flagged by the IRS, since it looks like he withdrew the money, but didn't pay taxes and penalties on it, not the beneficiary. In other words, qualified education expenses only apply to the beneficiary, not the plan owner/contributor. In this case, the IRS would request additional documentation to show that the expenses were indeed qualified. To avoid this hassle, it's easiest to make sure the distribution is payed directly to the beneficiary rather than yourself. Once he or she has the check, then have them sign the check over to you or transfer it into your account. Otherwise you trigger an IRS 1099-Q in your name rather than your beneficiary.","Require it to survive? hat has that got to do with anything? That is absolutely not the point at all. It is a bridge to the next job. People should not have to sell their homes and move on, especially in this environment, simply because they went without a job for several months more than they expected. If you don't want to collect what is owed to you, then that is fine. Do not assume that counts for others. I know people who live in rich households who pay rent and do not eat at the table with others. They show up in these statistics and could use the help even though it may not seem like it. That isn't the point. And it really isn't clear what the point is when the proposal appears to be causing people to mix their lives up in order to save the government a couple of million over the course of a year. What is disingenuous is to set up an unemployment insurance system and then expect it to be conditional based on all kinds of criteria. One thing you might not be keeping in mind is that the existing system has a error rate of around 20% varying a bit between states. That means around 1 in 5 that are owed insurance payments and sign up never get anything, and around 1 in 5 that are owed nothing for whatever reason end up getting full payments anyway. The more criteria you add to the mechanism the higher that error rate goes. You are quibbling over details that the existing system lacks the capacity to handle.","\"To receive unemployment benefits, you must be registered with an employment agency and be actively seeking work, and be willing to accept work should it be offered to you. As a full-time Cornell University student, as you describe yourself, this does not seem a likely scenario. Also, you need to have established a state of residence. It is not clear to me that you have done so, given your travel between the South Pacific, Ithaca, New York, North Carolina etc. You should check with your local state unemployment office in New York State, or perhaps North Carolina, although I don't know if you satisfy residency requirements in either state. They will be able to confirm however. Are your parents claiming you as a dependent on their federal income taxes? If so, I do not believe that you will be able to file for unemployment benefits, regardless of your student status at Cornell University. One more issue to consider: Have you filed tax returns for the income you received from your television production work? I am uncertain of the amount, as you said that you worked for two 4-month intervals making $10,000. That implies $20,000 of earnings over two years. Yet your bullet point number 7 states that you made \"\"10 grand each of the four months\"\". If that means that you made $10,000 per month for four months, then you earned $40,000 per summer, for a total of $80,000 for two summer's worth of work. I don't think unemployment benefits are intended for individuals in your situation.\"","In the US, gift tax always falls on the donor, never the recipient, and gifts are not taxable income to the recipient. The IRS could raise questions if there is an employer-employee relationship between donor and recipient; your employer cannot give you money or property (e.g. a Rolex watch) or benefits (e.g. a house to live in rent-free) and claim that it is a gift, so that you do not have to pay income tax on that money. But, your parents need to be careful; that $14K per person is the exemption for the whole year and once they give you that, anything extra (birthday present, Christmas present etc) is subject to gift tax (for them) though you can still enjoy your gifts without any tax issue.","I am by no means an expert in this, but I did a little research and came across this page on the SSA site -- Can You Be Entitled To Benefits Retroactively? You may be entitled to monthly benefits retroactively for months before the month you filed an application for benefits. For example, full retirement age claims and survivor claims may be paid for up to six months retroactively. In certain cases, benefits involving disability up to 12 months may be paid retroactively. (This is not true of the special age 72 payments (see §§346-348), black lung benefits (see Chapter 22), medical insurance (see Chapter 24), or SSI (see Chapter 21).) SSA Handbook (emphasis mine) Based on this, it sounds like he may be mistaken. I recommend speaking to a SSA rep to get a solid answer on this though. Not everything on the internet is true.","Better for you and for me, yes, but not for the disadvantaged without benefactors. That's the situation I was in. I just wish social security wasn't spent on the elderly, when they have so little left to contribute to our society and economy, in terms of new business, growth, and constructing the future."],"string":"[\n \"\\\"It seems that counting your father as your dependent shouldn't, in itself, cause him to be ineligible for SNAP. Eligibility requirements for SNAP can be found on this FNS page. There are upper limits on the \\\"\\\"countable resources, such as a bank account\\\"\\\" that the beneficiary's household may have, and on that household's income. (There are some other requirements, too.) From what I can tell from your question, your father shouldn't be part of your household for SNAP purposes, because: Everyone who lives together and purchases and prepares meals together is grouped together as one household. If you're transferring him money, I assume he's living and eating somewhere else, so it seems you are not part of his household. According to the IRS's Publication 501, your father is not required to be part of your household for IRS purposes to be your dependent. The test to qualify is that a non-child dependent must either: Live with you all year as a member of your household, or Be related to you in one of the ways listed under Relatives who do not have to live with you. However, by the \\\"\\\"Special rule for parent\\\"\\\", you may be able to use your father as your qualifying person (dependent) to be able to file as \\\"\\\"head of household\\\"\\\", so long as you pay more than half their support, and \\\"\\\"more than half the cost of keeping up a home that was the main home for the entire year for your father\\\"\\\". I don't know if in this case the IRS would consider your father \\\"\\\"part of your household\\\"\\\" or not. Even if the IRS considered your father part of your household based on the way you filed your taxes, I think it's possible, as the IRS and FNS are two different entities, that the definition of your father's household for SNAP purposes could be different from the IRS's.\\\"\",\n \"If she claims you as a dependant she may be able to claim your education expenses also and depending on tax bracket (hers and yours) they may be worth more to her than they are to you. Having her claim you may also affect your eligibility for financial aid however, if she has been claiming you so far with no negative effect on your eligibility then that may not matter next year either.\",\n \"\\\"The IRS isn't going to care how you filed for benefits - they're effectively the high man on the totem pole. The agency that administers the SNAP program is the one who might care. File the 1040 correctly, and then deal with SNAP as you note. Do deal with SNAP, though; otherwise they might be in trouble if SNAP notices the discrepancy in an audit of their paperwork. Further, SNAP doesn't necessarily care here either. SNAP defines a household as the people who live together in a house and share expenses; a separated couple who neither shared expenses nor lived together would not be treated as a single household, and thus one or both would separately qualify. See this Geeks on Finance article or this Federal SNAP page for more details; and ask the state program administrator. It may well be that this has no impact for him/her. The details are complicated though, particularly when it comes to joint assets (which may still be joint even if they're otherwise separated), so look it over in detail, and talk to the agency to attempt to correct any issues. Note that depending on the exact circumstances, your friend might have another option other than Married Filing Jointly. If the following are true: Then she may file as \\\"\\\"Head of Household\\\"\\\", and her (soon-to-be) ex would file as \\\"\\\"Married Filing Separately\\\"\\\", unless s/he also has dependents which would separately allow filing as Head of Household. See the IRS document on Filing Status for more details, and consider consulting a tax advisor, particularly if she qualifies to consult one for free due to lower income.\\\"\",\n \"First, you need to see if you actually qualify as a dependent under IRS rules; in short: While there may be exceptions to the cohabitation rule, I am not sure what those could be. The takeaway is that if your parent is wishing to claim you as a dependent, they must be responsible for supporting the majority of your living expenses (e.g. food and shelter). If this is the case, then the next question is to look at how the impact of the exemptions play out. In your situation, I would guess that your mother is correct: your taxable income is likely to be so low that if you do not take an exemption for yourself, you probably would still have zero or minimal tax liability; but if you mother claims you as a dependent, she will be able to take a deduction. In the case of your grants and loans, the loans should not be taxable income since these need to be repaid (presumably, with future earnings). Federal grants may be taxable--basically, the portion of the grant that is used solely for paying educational expenses toward a specific degree (tuition and books) is non-taxable, but the remainder may be subject to tax. As for tax credits, you would need to see how much you would get and how they would apply to you. The bottom line is, there are too many variables to say for certain what the best approach would be, so both your and your mother's returns must be prepared under each scenario (you as her dependent, versus you claiming a personal exemption).\",\n \"If she lives by herself, my guess would be that she qualifies as a household of one. Either way, her monthly income is below the threshold, so she should be eligible. Per the linked website The only way to determine if your household is eligible for SNAP benefits is to apply. I'd say it's worth a try.\",\n \"Your parents would not be able to claim her as a dependent as multiple people are not allowed to claim a single person as a dependent. Utilize the IRS website to show who you are and are not allowed to claim (https://www.irs.gov/uac/Who-Can-I-Claim-as-a-Dependent%3F).\",\n \"This may be best handled by an expert. Look for somebody recommended by a church, homeless shelter, food pantry, office of unemployment, office of disability, or Veterans services to advise you on maximizing support for your father. You want to know what type of help you can give without causing the overall level of support to drop. You may even find there are other avenues of assistance.\",\n \"I know this is rather late, but with your income it is almost certainly better for your mother to claim you as a dependent. I was in a similar situation this last year, I didn't get the full weight of the tax break because my taxes went down to zero with this exemption along with claiming myself as a dependent. I used Turbotax to run both our taxes both ways to verify, the difference was about 1000 dollars saved for my parents to claim me as a dependent vs claiming myself as a dependent. If you are unsure it doesn't take long to run the numbers through Turbotax, TaxACT, or some similar software.\",\n \"No, you can not claim any sort of tax benefit. The main problem is that your parent is not living with you, though even if they were, they would also have to be dependent on you. I cannot find a good definition of 'dependant', but from what I can find, they must have only a trivial amount of income and must rely on you for at least 50% of their living expenses. Useful links include: Note that your parent may (but probably won't) be required to pay taxes on the money you submit to them. I have no experience whatsoever with Indian tax law, just pointing this out as a possibility.\",\n \"Since you aren't contributing enough to count your parent as a dependent, there is no tax benefit to you for helping them. Gift tax is paid by the giver when total gifts to an individual exceed $14k/year and the lifetime exclusion of $5.49M has been exceeded. If your annual gifts exceed $14k (subject to change, as is the lifetime exclusion amount) then you have to file Form 709 with your return, but you will not pay gift tax unless you've both exhausted the lifetime exclusion and gift over $14k/year. If you pay medical bills directly, that amount does not count toward the $14k/year limit, so you could likely assist in excess of $14k/year and still avoid having to file the extra form. Most assistance programs are income-based, and gifts do not count toward income, but you'll want to check on the specific requirements for programs they are enrolled in.\",\n \"\\\"Yes, you will have to file taxes. Each peson gets a standard deduction. By \\\"\\\"claiming you\\\"\\\", your parents are applying your standard deduction to their taxes, meaning that you cannot use that same deduction on your taxes. You still must pay taxes on your income. This generally works out best overall, assuming that your parents are in a higher tax bracket (have a higher income) than you.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"3) NOT to claim her as my dependent. No additional tax return (since she is NOT my dependent), but also no penalty. My end of year balance would be $0 No. Not claiming her as a dependent does not save you from being responsible for her penalty. You are responsible for her penalty if she is your dependent (i.e. she meets the conditions for being your dependent), regardless of whether you claim her on your tax return or not. If you have the option of claiming her or not, then she is your dependent, and you are responsible for her penalty. 26 CFR 1.5000A-1(c)(2)(i): For a month when a nonexempt individual does not have minimum essential coverage, if the nonexempt individual is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of another individual for the other individual's taxable year including that month, the other individual is liable for the shared responsibility payment attributable to the dependent's lack of coverage. An individual is a dependent of a taxpayer for a taxable year if the individual satisfies the definition of dependent under section 152, regardless of whether the taxpayer claims the individual as a dependent on a Federal income tax return for the taxable year. [...] Form 1040 instructions, Line 61: [...] If you had qualifying health care coverage (called minimum essential coverage) for every month of 2015 for yourself, your spouse (if filing jointly), and anyone you can or do claim as a dependent, check the box on this line and leave the entry space blank. Otherwise, do not check the box on this line. If you, your spouse (if filing jointly), or someone you can or do claim as a dependent didn’t have coverage for each month of 2015 you must either claim a coverage exemption on Form 8965 or report a shared responsibility payment on line 61. [...] So you cannot check the box and must report exemptions for your sister, or report a shared responsibility payment. Form 8965 instructions, Definitions, \\\"\\\"Tax household\\\"\\\": For purposes of Form 8965, your tax household generally includes you, your spouse (if filing a joint return), and any individual you claim as a dependent on your tax return. It also generally includes each individual you can, but don't, claim as a dependent on your tax return. [...] Your sister is part of your tax household regardless of whether you claim her, and you must compute her shared responsibility payment for any months she did not have insurance and did not qualify for an exemption.\\\"\",\n \"No they do not. From form 1040 instructions, a single, non-blind dependent under age 65 must file if the following are true: You must file a return if any of the following apply. There is no return required for receipt of a gift.\",\n \"\\\"Are you working for a company that offers a Dependent Care Account? You may be able to withhold up to $5000/yr pre tax for care for you child. If you cover more than half her expenses, she is your dependent. You can't \\\"\\\"double dip.\\\"\\\" If she is your dependent, she cannot be the care provider for purposes of the DCAS, see Pub 503 top of p7 \\\"\\\"Payments to Relatives or Dependents.\\\"\\\" How do you think a business would change your situation? The DCA is a small tax break, if you have no business now, this break isn't something that should drive this.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I am not aware of any place that the tax forms ask, \\\"\\\"How many people live in your house?\\\"\\\" They ask how many dependants you have, and not everyone who lives in your house is your dependant. There are very specific rules about that. If your girlfriend is being claimed as a dependent on her parents' tax return, then she cannot also be claimed on anyone else's return, and there's no need to investigate further. To claim someone as a dependent, they have to meet a number of conditions. I am not a lawyer. See IRS Publication 17. But the gist of it is that they must, (a) either be a relative (there's a list of what sorts of relatives qualify) or live with you all year; (b) Living with you must not violate local law; (c) Must make less than $4000 per year; and (d) You must provide over half of their support. Your girlfriend may meet the \\\"\\\"live with you all year\\\"\\\" or maybe not. But the real stumper is likely to be (d). Unless your parents are paying her tuition, they almost certainly don't meet this test.\\\"\",\n \"Your parents would file their taxes as they normally do. It would be as if your parents were landlords renting a room to your girlfriend. She would not be claimed on their taxes. If your girlfriend pays rent to your parents (through her parents or otherwise) it would be claimed as rental income. The household size wouldn't change because even though your girlfriend is living with your parents they are not financially responsible for her. Example: A landlord would not claim renters as dependents or in household size on their taxes.\",\n \"Essentially obamacare act is forcing me NOT to claim my sister as my dependent (although I provide > 51% for her). No, that's not what it's doing. It's forcing you (or her) to get insurance. So, as a big sister I can provide for her, but NOT claim her as my dependent. Do I understand everything correctly? The exemption (that gave you that $1K back) can only be claimed by you, she cannot claim it. So by not claiming her you're giving that up. Her medical bills will probably be on you as well, so it would be in your best interest to have her insured. If you want to dump her on the taxpayer in case of a medical emergency - then yes, it will cost you the tax benefit of the additional exemption and the HOH deduction (depending on your tax rates, probably a couple of thousands of dollars). Either way you'll pay.\",\n \"You are only responsible for IRS debt that you owe from returns that you have filed for yourself. The back taxes that your dependent owes are between him and the IRS.\",\n \"It only matters for purposes of the dependent, so if you are clearly at 50%, then you don't need to calculate this cost. If it is close to not being 50%, then you will have to allocate between your sister and mother. To calculate support costs, you can of course include the costs incurred for transportation, per Pub 17 p 34. If you and your sister have an arrangement where she uses the car and in exchange she shoulders extra costs for your mother, then that's legitimately your expense for your mother (as long as this is a true agreement, then it was money she owed you but paid directly to the vendors and creditors that you would have paid). Note that there is a simpler avenue. If your sister agrees that you will claim your mother as dependent, and nobody else provides any substantial support (10%+ of costs), then she can just agree that it's you who will claim her. If you like, such an agreement may be attached to your taxes, possibly using Form 2120. As a general rule, though, you do not need to use 2120 or any other agreement, nor submit any support calculations. If your sister verbally agrees that she hasn't and won't claim your mother, then it's unlikely to cause any problems. Her signed agreement not to claim your mother is merely the most conservative possible documentation strategy, but isn't really necessary. See Pub 17, p 35 on Multiple Support Agreements for more info.\",\n \"Are you actually supporting both your mother and father? Is the account joint? Is your mother aware of the gift and has control over the money same as your father? If you cannot answer (and provide support) yes to all these questions, then I doubt you could make such a claim. If the fact that the bank account is only in your father's name is a mere technicality for whatever reason, and the money is in fact intended, controlled by and benefits both of your parents, then I believe you can. See more details about gift tax in the IRS publication 950.\",\n \"It appears that this is the case. From IRS Publication 969, Health Savings Accounts and Other Tax-Favored Health Plans Qualified medical expenses are those incurred by the following persons. You and your spouse. All dependents you claim on your tax return. Any person you could have claimed as a dependent on your return except that: The person filed a joint return, The person had gross income of $3,700 or more, or You, or your spouse if filing jointly, could be claimed as a dependent on someone else's 2011 return.\",\n \"I don't see how allowing usage of your vehicle is less support than giving money to buy their own vehicle. If that's the only vehicle your mother has - then you're supporting her. Quantifying that support may be difficult though, but if you are providing her all of her needs - it doesn't matter. If she does have income of her own, I do not think that you can put the actual amount you're paying as part of the calculation towards the 50% rule since she would otherwise have bought a much cheaper car. But if you pass the 50% threshold even without the car payments - then you're fine either way.\",\n \"I suppose if you consider tax liability, and when you moved back in with your parents they started claiming you as a dependent on their taxes, but otherwise single-filer means you are your own household regardless of who rents to you.\",\n \"Up to RS50,000 is exempt from gift taxes. In the US, if one provides more than half the expenses for a relative, they may be a dependent. I don't know the India rules.\",\n \"You don't get any tax benefit. When you are helping a relative or a friend in such situations the income is just gone. The only way to get around this is if you contribute to a charity, and they give it to your mom. You can then deduct the contributions to that charity. However, the IRS has cracked down on such situations and it probably is not worth pursuing. By the recent tax rules, that charity can use those contributions in which every way they choose, they cannot guarantee they go to your mom. Given that you are closed to your allowed exclusion (14K for 2017), I would work to keep your number under that. If you are married, you each get that exclusion so you can give up to 28K. I can't really speak to the reduction of benefits part as I am knowledgeable and more details on the type of transfer payments she receives would be germane to the discussion.\",\n \"\\\"If they allowed people to skip reporting the funds \\\"\\\"even though I might not intend to use this money to help my kids through college\\\"\\\", then children of a Billionaire would be eligible for financial aid. In addition you might have reported all your income to the IRS, but the rest of the government isn't able to see that information.\\\"\",\n \"Yes. Basically, I see it as a huge giveaway to corporate interests when we have to do things like step in and pay for food for their workers (e.g. SNAP), enabling a business to keep their own wages low. It's basically a wealth transfer to shareholders. A full-time worker should be able to cover their nutritional needs from their salary.\",\n \"For the record, I am the original question-asker and I'm reporting back to say that the approach described in the accepted answer did not work. I am adding a new answer, rather than commenting on the accepted answer, because of the length of explanation required. I applied for an ITIN by filing a W-7 with all appropriate documentation, including a birth certificate, death certificate, and consular recognition of birth abroad (i.e., proof of U.S. citizenship). The IRS rejected the application, saying that people who are eligible for SSNs can't have ITINs. That placed me in an untenable situation, because even though the IRS said she was eligible for an SSN, the Social Security Administration said they never issue SSNs to dead people as a matter of policy. So: Insult was added to injury. It is true that I should have applied for an SSN while she was alive, in which case it would have been a simple matter. I just paid the extra tax that was due because of her not counting as a dependent during the years for which I was filing. The amount was not worth fighting over further, or renouncing my U.S. citizenship. Moral of story: Live, in all ways, as if there is no guarantee your children will be alive tomorrow. Because there is no such guarantee.\",\n \"Yes, you'll be able to get the money by submitting legitimate receipts for care for your child, and at tax time you'll pay the tax on the extra $3600.\",\n \"\\\"The author really glosses over the impact of changes pertaining to \\\"\\\"return to work\\\"\\\" requirements/qualification. [In Georgia, some recipient groups have been reduced by 60%](http://www.myajc.com/news/breaking-news/more-will-have-work-keep-food-stamps/pu0Y9SASOVxc5QwEzJJLdJ/). I'd be cautious about celebrating this kind of report being connected to people rising out of poverty status. The more obvious conclusion is that the reductions owe more to people simply being excluded from SNAP.\\\"\",\n \"And you have yet to explain how it would matter how they use the benefits they are entitled to. If they didn't spend any of the money they were given it would stay on their card. If they bought food and didn't eat it, it would sit on their shelves. What if they bought food and let someone who was hungry eat it at their house? Are these people abusing the system as well? What you don't seem to understand is ITS THEIR ENTITLEMENT. They can do with it as they please, it would be smart to use it to eat food but guess what some people have drug problems and or likely a mental issue. Apparently in your worldview poor people don't get to have freedom? These people would get it either way if they spent it on food or drugs. Not to mention we are talking about a very small percentage of people and an even smaller pittance of money. We have THOUSANDS of tanks we paid hundreds of millions of dollars for each just sitting in the fucking desert that replaced the already working tanks we already had that we do not need. Yet here you are concerned about some person at the lowest rank of society trading 15 dollars on a snap card for cigarettes.\",\n \"Only for farmers markets and only 3 bucks at a time. Kind of like a stupid screw up typical of government. This won't devastate folks and if the markets are solely dependent on these subsidies they will need to close. Maybe the meals on wheels should buy more local produce instead.\",\n \"There are too many qualifying questions like martial status, dependent status, annual income, etc. Your answer is most likely in the Form Pub 970 you referenced: Adjustments to Qualified Education Expenses If you pay qualified education expenses with certain tax-free funds, you cannot claim a deduction for those amounts If the grant is tax free, you can not claim deductions up to that amount. Even if you were able to expense all the educational expenses you list, I doubt you can exceed the grant disbursement disbursement amount. I'm not a tax professional, so take my advice for what it is worth.\",\n \"Here's an answer received elsewhere. Yes, it looks like you have a pretty good understanding the concept and the process. Your wife's income will be so low - why? If she is a full-time student in any of those months, you may attribute $250 x 2 children worth of income for each of those months. Incidentally, even if you do end up paying taxes on the extra $3000, you won't be paying the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare (7.65%) or state disability on those funds. So you still end up saving some tax money. No doubt, there's no need to remind you to be sure that you submit all the valid receipts to the administrator in time to get reimbursed. And a must-have disclaimer: Please be advised that, based on current IRS rules and standards, any advice contained herein is not intended to be used, nor can it be used, for the avoidance of any tax penalty that the IRS may assess related to this matter. Any information contained in this email, whether viewed or subsequently printed, cannot be relied upon as qualified tax and accounting advice. ... Any information contained in this email does not fall under the guidelines of IRS Circular 230.\",\n \"a) He can loan you the money tax free he can even give you and your wife 29k a year tax free. Many people do a loan for lets say 100k and then they forgive the load 14.5k a year to avoid the taxes. b) Yes when they see that deposit they will give you a hard time potentially. I got a hard time for my Real Estate tax refund. c) Just putting stress on the family potentially.\",\n \"No. You already received the deduction, since that lost FSA money was pre-tax. You can't double dip. However if your FSA amount was less than your actual expenses, you can file on the difference. Example: $4500 actual expenses, $3000 FSA (lost). You can get the dependent care credit based on $1500.\",\n \"I'm guessing you're asking about the US. Please add a location tag to your question. Unfortunately you cannot claim expenses paid for someone other than yourself or your dependents. In IRS publication 970, that deals with education credits, they give the following guidance: Expenses paid by others. Someone other than you, your spouse, or your dependent (such as a relative or former spouse) may make a payment directly to an eligible educational institution to pay for an eligible student's qualified education expenses. In this case, the student is treated as receiving the payment from the other person and, in turn, paying the institution. If you claim an exemption on your tax return for the student, you are considered to have paid the expenses. Also, you should keep the gift tax in mind: your help to your friend is only exempt from gift tax if you pay the tuition directly (i.e.: you write the check to the school cashier, not to your friend). If you give the money to your friend, it is subject to gift tax (which you have to pay). In some cases, someone who is not family may in fact qualify to become your dependent. For that he must live with you (in the same household), and be supported by you and not have any significant income. If that's the case with you and your friend, you might be able to claim him as a dependent and get some significant tax benefits, including the education credits. Consult your tax adviser if its relevant to your situation.\",\n \"They're wrong. The IRS instructions (pub 969) specifically say: To be an eligible individual and qualify for an HSA ... You [must] have no other health coverage except what is permitted under Other health coverage, later. So no, he is not eligible for HSA if he keeps your coverage. Here's what the same IRS Publication 969 has to say about the excess contributions (contributions in excess of what is allowed): Generally, you must pay a 6% excise tax on excess contributions. See Form 5329, Additional Taxes on Qualified Plans (including IRAs) and Other Tax-Favored Accounts, to figure the excise tax. The excise tax applies to each tax year the excess contribution remains in the account. You may withdraw some or all of the excess contributions and not pay the excise tax on the amount withdrawn if you meet the following conditions. You withdraw the excess contributions by the due date, including extensions, of your tax return for the year the contributions were made. You withdraw any income earned on the withdrawn contributions and include the earnings in “Other income” on your tax return for the year you withdraw the contributions and earnings. The 6% excise tax is on top of any other tax (like the regular income tax) that he has to pay on the money.\",\n \"\\\"What kind of financial aid? Today, most \\\"\\\"financial aid\\\"\\\" consists of loans. Methinks it better for you to be ineligible for \\\"\\\"financial aid\\\"\\\" and be able to pay enough that they can cover the difference with their own sweat (their own income) rather than deliberately spending the money and forcing them to take out \\\"\\\"low interest\\\"\\\" student loans to pay part of the bill. Have you played with FAFSA to see what happens?\\\"\",\n \"I would go here and play with the FASFA financial aid calculator to see if you qualify for grants, which is probably your ultimate objective. It would seem to me that qualified retirement contributions do not count towards eligibility provided you are younger than 59.5, and even then it would be questionable.\",\n \"You said your mother-in-law lives with you. Does she pay rent, or are you splitting the cost of housing? That would also have to figured into the equation. If you had a business you would now have to declare the expense on your business taxes. This would also then be income for her, which she would have to account for on her taxes. Remember there are both state and federal taxes involved. Regarding expenses like diapers. If the MIL had the business she could deduct them as a business expense. If you have the business it would greatly complicate the taxes. Your business would be essentially covering your personal expenses. If your MIL was not a business the cost of diapers would be paid by you regardless of the working situation of you and your spouse. To claim the tax credit: You must report the name, address, and taxpayer identification number (either the social security number, or the employer identification number) of the care provider on your return. If the care provider is a tax-exempt organization, you need only report the name and address on your return. You can use Form W-10 (PDF), Dependent Care Provider's Identification and Certification, to request this information from the care provider. If you do not provide information regarding the care provider, you may still be eligible for the credit if you can show that you exercised due diligence in attempting to provide the required information. The IRS will be looking for an income tax form from your MIL that claims the income. Getting too cute with the babysitting situation, by starting a business just for the purpose of saving money on taxes could invite an audit. Also it is not as if you just claim 3000 and you are good to go. You can only claim a percentage of the expenses based on the household AGI, the more the make the more you have to have in expenses to get the full 3000 credit, which mil cause more taxes for your MIL. Plus the whole issue with having to pay social security and other taxes on a household employee. It might be best to skip the risk of the audit. Claiming your MIL as a dependent might just be easier.\",\n \"\\\"If you earn $160 a week for 26 weeks, are unable to claim yourself, have no other income at all, you will earn $4,160, which falls under the standard deduction, in your case a bit over $4,500; per publication 17, it is $350 above your earned income, to a maximum of $6300 as of 2016. (H/t Hart CO for the reminder.) In that case, if you paid no taxes (at all) last year (either did not file or filed and had 0 tax paid, so got a 100% refund), you could legitimately claim \\\"\\\"exempt\\\"\\\" by writing that on line 7. However, you would be very close to owing taxes, so if you have any unearned income (interest from bank accounts, dividends from your non-sheltered college fund, etc.), you would possibly owe taxes. You're also going to owe taxes if you have another ~$2150 of earned income from any other source (including things like mowing lawns, tutoring, etc.). Keep all of that in mind if you have any other sources of income other than the above.\\\"\",\n \"Check out personal finance. But, my guess is no. Given you are married and you were prepared to contribute $x out of the entire family pot, why don't they just contribute $x from their portion of the entire family pot? Net effect should be similar or identical. (I'm not an accountant nor married, so enjoy the grain of salt).\",\n \"I am unsympathetic. His mother made a conscious choice to evade taxes that would have provided her with at least a minimal security when she was too old to work. First while as business owner she should have been paying self employment tax on the income they made through the restaurant and his other merchant activities. Second while working in her own career selling Mary Kay and side work she should have paid her taxes on her income from that. There is a part of me that says good on you for getting by with out getting caught. But her ultimate failure was to plan for her future. She should have known she would be ineligible for SSI and saved for her retirement. Instead she choose to spend her money while benefiting from the government services that the rest of us pay taxes for. Now we will provide her with medicaid as well as welfare benefits. She has placed her son in the unenviable situation of having to either provide for his mother because she failed to do the minimum planning for herself or turn his back on her. He might be able to find a sympathetic prosecutor who would prosecute her for tax evasion. The government would take care of her needs(food and housing) and she would get her medical care taken care of. He could also move to Alaska. The oil industry provide residents of Alaska with a stipend, there is lots of work for people willing to work hard, and the compensation for that work is pretty good and would likely put him in a position where he is able to provide care for his mother.\",\n \"A tenant is a tenant regardless of your relationship to them, and as long as the property is classified as an investment property, you can claim depreciation and regular business losses just as you would on any property with any tenant.\",\n \"\\\"There are two types of insurance, which causes some confusion. Social Security Disability Insurance (which you indicate you have) is insurance you can receive benefit from if you earn enough \\\"\\\"work credits\\\"\\\" (payroll taxes) prior to your disability onset. It is not a needs-based program. Supplemental Security Income is a need-based program which does not consider your work history. To qualify for this, your total assets need to be lower than some threshold and your family income also below some threshold. If you inherit a home, or money, I doubt this would jeopardize your SSDI qualification, since your qualification was based on a disabling condition and work history. If you inherit an income property, which you manage (i.e. you become a landlord), this may jeopardize your claim that you are unable to work. Even if you are not making an \\\"\\\"income\\\"\\\" as the landlord, but the work your are performing is deemed to have some \\\"\\\"value\\\"\\\" this too could jeopardize your claim. All of this can be very complicated, and there are some excellent references on the web including SSA website, and some other related websites. Finally, if you become able to work while on SSDI, your benefit may/will end depending on the level of work you are able to perform. But just because you are able to work again does not mean you need to repay past benefits received (assuming your condition has not been falsified). Your local social security office, or the social security main office both offer telephone support and can also answer questions regarding your concern. Here are a couple relevant links:\\\"\",\n \"Gifts from your parents are not treated as income for tax purposes. You should not include that in your subsidy calculation. If you are here on a student-visa and have been in the US for less than 5 years, then you are considered a non-resident alien, and you are not required to buy a qualified plan through the insurance marketplace. You might be able to get a cheaper student plan through your school, but the subsidy might be enough that it's still worth it when calculated correctly. If you are a resident-alien or you are a citizen of the US, then you are required to get coverage, though you can choose not to purchase coverage and pay the tax for not having creditable coverage. That tax cannot be collected by the IRS unless you have already had federal tax withheld. They can only confiscate your tax return money to recoup that money. I don't have enough information to recommend one way or the other what you should do, but I would bet that if you recalculated your subsidy without including your parents income it would cover the majority of the cost. You should also consider applying for Medicaid if you meet the eligibility requirements in your state.\",\n \"As Dilip commented, the Social Security web site is pretty comprehensive. Understanding Supplemental Security Income SSI Income has the details you are looking for. It's a convoluted equation. You lose SSI at a pretty fast rate as earned income rises. The system is not kind to those who qualify for SSI but try to earn some money to cover their needs.\",\n \"There would be no point to claim the gift exemption because a gift from a spouse that you file jointly with wouldn't be considered income. It would be the same as if you moved money from one bank account to another.\",\n \"\\\"Having dealt with with Social Security, state agencies, and banks more than I'd care to, I would urge you to do the following: 1) Get a 100% clear answer on whether or not you are listed as \\\"\\\"joint\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"authorized user/signer\\\"\\\" for an account. This will probably require a call to the bank, but for less than an hour of you and your friend's time you will save yourself a whole lot of hassle. The difference is like this: if you worked at a business that added you as an authorized user for a credit or debit card, this would allow you to use the card to buy things. But that doesn't make the money in the bank yours! On the other hand if you are listed as \\\"\\\"joint\\\"\\\", this regards ownership, and it could become tricky to establish whether its your money or not to any governmental satisfaction. 2) You are completely correct in being honest with the agency, but that's not enough - if you don't know what the facts are, you can't really be honest with them. If the form is unclear it's ok to ask, \\\"\\\"on having a bank account, does being listed as an authorized user on someone else's account count if it isn't my money or bank account?\\\"\\\" But if you are listed as holding the account jointly, that changes the question to: \\\"\\\"I am listed as joint on someone else's checking account, but it isn't my money - how is that considered?\\\"\\\" To Social Security it might mean generating an extra form, or it might mean you need to have the status on the account changed, or they might not care. But if you don't get the facts first, they won't give you the right answers or help you need. And from personal experience, it's a heck of a lot easier to get a straight and clear answer from a bank than it is from a federal government agency. Have the facts with you when you contact them and you'll be ok - but trust me, you don't want them guessing!\\\"\",\n \"The request for your parent's income comes from Form 8615, Tax for Certain Children Who Have Unearned Income. I typically see this form appear as I'm doing my daughter's taxes and start to enter data from stock transactions. In other words, your earned income is your's. But if you are a dependent, or 'can be,' the flow avoids the potentially lucrative results from gifting children appreciated stock, and have them take the gain at their lower, potentially zero cap gain rate. I suggest you grab a coffee and thumb through Pub 929 Tax Rules for Children and Dependents to understand this better. From page 14 of the linked doc - Parent's return information not available. If a child can’t get the required information about his or her parent's tax return, the child (or the child's legal representative) can request the necessary information from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). How to request. After the end of the tax year, send a signed, written request for the information to the Internal Revenue Service Center where the parent's return will be filed. (The IRS can’t process a request received before the end of the tax year.) It also suggests that you file for an extension for the due date of your return. Include payment for the tax you expect to pay, say by plugging in $200K for parent income as an estimate. My parents' accountant tells them I do not need it. Well, a piece of software told you that you do, and 3 people on line who collectively qualify as experts documented why. (Note, I am not full of myself. This board operates via the wisdom of crowds. Members DStanley, and Ben Miller, commented and edited to help me form a well documented response that would be tough to argue against.)\",\n \"Quick get a Social Security Number for the child. You will need it before you file your taxes early next year. If you don't have a SSN for your child you will not be able to claim them as a dependent. If you applied for one already, many do so at the hospital, then wait for it to arrive. The next step is to open a savings account with the child's SSN. Then have your parent write the check in the child's name and deposit it into the account. If it is written in the child's name already then you don't need a new check from them. If the check is large, you may run into problems if you take a check in the name of a minor and try and deposit it into your account. The bank would have no idea that the person is related to you.\",\n \"No, you may not deduct the charitable contributions of your children. The Nest covers this in detail: The IRS only allows you to deduct charitable contributions that you personally funded, whether the contribution was made in your name or in someone else's. If your child or dependent makes a donation to a charity, you are not allowed to claim it as a tax deduction. This is true even if your dependent does not claim the contribution on his own tax return because he opts for the standard deduction rather than itemizing or claims exemption. Now, had you constructed the transaction differently, it's possible you could've made the contribution in your child's name and thus claimed the deduction. Allowance is technically a gift, and if she agrees to forgo allowance in exchange for you making a contribution, well, the IRS can't really complain (though they might try if it were a large amount!). Contributions in the name of someone else, but funded by yourself, are deductible: [Y]ou can deduct contributions you make in someone else’s name. So if you donated a certain amount of money to XYZ charity in your child’s name, for example, you would be able to deduct this amount on your taxes, as long as the deduction requirements are met. You will need to keep accurate records of the payment along with the receipt from the organization to prove you financed the donation.\",\n \"As a 19 year old if she can get SSDI instead of SSI her benefit amount will be calculated by her parents' contributions ... if either parent is deceased or over 62 then she qualifies for SSDI instead of SSI and I believe she would receive the full benefit amount. I'd guess that would be something in the $1400+ range. I see no reason why you couldn't get married either way ... at least not from a financial perspective. I'd be worried about being on the hook for her medical expenses. Therapy, meds, hospital visits, side-effects, etc ... that's a good way to spend the rest of your life owing millions.\",\n \"You would be surprised. I work in a grocery store where poor customers use a food stamps card to buy their groceries but pull out a debit card for a $60 carton of cigarettes and a $20 case of beer. They use the money they should be using for food on other things because they get an EBT card.\",\n \"This is a good question and you seemed troubled by this and this person's choices in life. And that is the rub, they are choices. They know how to make them, they know the consequences, and they know how to work around them. Its a skill you probably don't have (and don't want to have). In the end they will survive. If you go to a fast food store in a popular retirement location you will see plenty of elderly people working. They might live in low income housing, receive some financial assistance, and utilize other charities such a food banks. They might depend on family and friends. There is also the ugly, it is not a fairy tale that some supplement their diets with pet food. There is of course social security. The amount is very low for most workers, but the amount is almost inconsequential. They would spend it all anyway and still be short despite the predictability of the income and a time frame with predictable expenses. Budgeting is a skill. So I have a friend that deals with this himself, and is helping an elder relation. He and his wife provide some help, but when it started there was a endless stream of requests. His policy now is: No more help unless he works out a budget with the person requesting help. I've used his ideas myself, and by using this it becomes clear on who is in actual need and who is just looking for the next handout. You can feel good about yourself for helping an actual needy person or guiltless say no.\",\n \"Since you are not (yet) legally married, he is a stranger to you and strictly speaking you don't need to worry about the tax impact of his income yet. File on your income alone. That said, you may have to address the money transfer aspect at a later date as banks are getting skittish around money laundering regulations. It's really best if he has his own account for this, especially given you are not married. The worst case scenario is that his income gets frozen due to money laundering regulations and the deposits in your account get treated as (unreported) monetary gifts to you. Again, you should be able to argue out of this but separate accounts make it much easier to do so.\",\n \"Generally speaking, you'll be able to keep it. Your spending ability may be reduced though. The published eligibility criteria aren't necessarily carved in stone anyway. Some road-warrior types with platinum cards who don't necessarily spend $250k a year will get the card offered to them.\",\n \"It will not affect your tax bracket so long as he files his taxes. It will not affect your credit negatively so long as the joint account takes out no debts. If it does take out debts, then someone would need to pay them to avoid negative credit. Ideally debts should take signatures from both of you (ask the bank). The IRS will not automatically assume that the only reason that two people might have a joint account is illegal activities. If he withdraws money from the account in such a way to cause an overdraft, you might be responsible for it. However, it sounds like he isn't supposed to be withdrawing money from that account. So that's a potential problem but not a guaranteed problem. Make sure that you have the power to close the account without him (so if you break up later, you can take your name off unilaterally). Realize that you might have to pay a little to close the account if he overdraws it. If possible, have the bank refuse overdrafts. Consider a savings account rather than a checking account. The rules may better fit what you want to do. In particular, if you are limited to transfers, that's safer than checks. Schedule a time to talk to someone at the bank about the account. Ask them to leave plenty of time because you have questions. Explain what you want and let them tell you how to structure the account.\",\n \"There is no document that I know of that stipulates otherwise. This can also be corroborated by the fact that RESP withdrawals are considered as income in the name of the student. Thus, so long as the student pays tuition and receives a T2202A slip from the educational institution, they should be able to claim tuition, education, and textbook amounts.\",\n \"\\\"You'd need to talk with an attorney familiar with Social Security, or an appropriately qualified SSA representative to be sure - but all signs point to the idea that unfortunately Social Security does not work the way your father was told it would. And if he doesn't file to receive benefits the reality is actually much worse than \\\"\\\"throwing away free money\\\"\\\"! However, this is not due to a complete misunderstanding of the system! Social Security does work the way he thinks in some instances, just that the rules don't apply to his exact situation! First of all, retroactive benefits come in a few forms: File and suspend to get a lump only if you really need it - BEFORE the age of 70 only! In this method you apply for retirement, but you tell the SSA to suspend/delay your benefits. You are entitled to full lump sum of the payments you deferred...but at a cost of getting lower monthly benefits permanently (and that also lowers spousal and dependent children's benefits, too - if those could apply to your dad). But note that at the age of 70, Social Security will stop deferring the payments and start paying you the full maximum retirement benefit monthly, with no lump sum. This is a kind of emergency insurance policy for those who want to try to defer retirement benefits, but who want the opportunity to cash out and get the money they would have been getting \\\"\\\"just in case\\\"\\\". You can get up to 6 months of retroactive benefits, such as if you wait past your exact retirement age to apply for benefits. But no more: \\\"\\\"we cannot pay retroactive benefits for any month before you reached full retirement age or more than 6 months in the past\\\"\\\". As for after-death benefits, an estate can only get benefits that were already due to be paid, which generally means a person died and did not get their benefits for that month, so SSA can re-issue a check to the estate following these rules. But as a person cannot be due a lump sum payment after age 70 (for more than 6 months at most), the estate will only be able to get at most 1-6 months of payments (and 6 months is doubtful - you'll need to ask a lawyer if that much would even be possible). If your father was below 70 and wanted to file-and-suspend, the question of lump on death would be more complex and I don't know that answer - but once you are past 70 this doesn't matter any more as you aren't due a lump anymore. Given the above, we've established pretty clearly that if you don't claim your benefits within 6 months after age 70, any months of payment you would have gotten are just forfeited to the system. But if you claim the benefits and stick them in the bank, can they be taken? Well, if a lawsuit is really a worry, then yes these accumulated funds can required to pay a debt - but this potential for loss can be protected against without forfeiting the benefits entirely! This is not very common, but if your father doesn't need the money now he may be able to deposit some of the money into a special partially-lawsuit protected format of the Roth IRA (which has no age limits) as detailed here. If he never gets sued, that's OK - it's still his money! If he passes away, the value goes to his estate and does not disappear. And he doesn't forfeit any of his earned retirement benefits. Finally, I would like to share one last thing with you and your father. These benefits aren't free - he has been paying a portion of his paycheck for decades into Social Security, and now he is eligible for the maximum amount of benefits per month that he will qualify for - and if he wants to keep working he loses no benefit and the amount could potentially even go up. That's up to him. But not filing for benefits now will mean that all this money he's been paying in for decades will just be lost - they'll basically just be a tax he's paid out to other retirees. His estate (which means you kids) won't get any of it, either. That'd just be a waste for everyone involved. If you have continued doubts or questions, I wouldn't hesitate to consult a specialist lawyer or talk with the SSA directly to make sure this is all correct. It's his money, and he has earned his benefits for many years. I very much hope he gets to enjoy as much of them as he can!\\\"\",\n \"The taxes that are deducted from you paycheck are estimated from the expected annual income you receive from the employer. In the same way, the employer will deduct from that expected annual income the tax deductions you would get for the number of dependents you specify. Hence your net income will be lower, your annual tax obligation also, which can than be calculated down to the period of your paycheck.\",\n \"The program has not existed long, so the effects likely modest. The goals were to help local growers and to get people eating healthier food. I know seniors living on $800 a month total. Most of that goes to rent. They eat the cheap microwave meals, as fresh fruit and vegetables are too expensive. Their main meal is provided by meals on wheels, which is also on Republican's radar to cut.\",\n \"working full time for low wages, does force a family to take government assistance. It is a way my business and others who pay a living wage while still paying our taxes subsidized the mega businesses destroying america like walmart. Sorry but if you have a family cant get another job with better pay and have to work 40 hours for min wage, you are going to use government assistance.\",\n \"Did you become a homeowner in this case? Would you be paying property tax as a homeowner somehow? Were you the homeowner of your apartment? No. Are you a homeowner of your parent's home? No. I do not believe that living at your parent's house makes you a homeowner or someone counted as a homeowner for statistical purposes.\",\n \"They are entitled to a benefit for things for survival, This is not a UBI. If they have enough food to be giving it away, the system isn't working properly. You think because they're (the abusers of the system) are being a useless member of society that they are entitled to have these benefits, which legally they are, but this should not be a long term solution for millions of people, which it is. Are we talking about a small amount of people, from what google says its a pretty big issue. We have a military, start your own rant thread about that if you want to talk about that or better yet, go join the military and fix it from the inside out.\",\n \"Sit down with professional with knowledge about eldercare issues. Know how your options regarding the property ownership can impact the services they qualify for. Even making a change in ownership can impact their eligibility for certain programs. Some of which can reach back to events in the recent past. Also if you own it but she will get some of the profits when you sell, she could still be considered an owner, which can impact eligibility for programs. This is in addition to the issues with the lender, the IRS, and your estate.\",\n \"Smart parents not wanting to get stuck with a student loan or co-signing on a loan. because rent is so high Are you able to live with your parents? Is there anyway to reduce the cost of rent like renting a room? Can you move somewhere where the rent is cheaper? working 25 hours per week Working 25 hours per week and taking 6 hours is a pretty light schedule. It is not even 40 hours per week. What is stopping you from working 40 hours and paying for school from your salary? In my own life I created a pretty crappy situation for myself when I was a young man. I really wanted to go to a prestigious university, but ended up going to a community college, and then to a university that was lesser known in a less expensive area. I had to work like crazy, upwards of 50 hours per week. I also took a full load in a difficult degree program. You probably don't have to go to the extremes that I went through, but you can work more. Most adults work at their jobs well more than 40 hours per week, then come home and continue to work (on the house, raising kids, trying to start a side business, etc...). So you might as well become an adult now. There are ways to become independent from your parents for FAFSA like have a baby, get married, or join the military. I'd only recommend the last one as you will also receive the GI Bill. Another option is to try and obtain a job that offers financial aid.\",\n \"\\\"It depends on other factors like your income, \\\"\\\"need\\\"\\\" and other assets. Parents are expected to contribute 6% of their assets, students at least 35%. 529s and ESAs (which I think may be in the process of being phased out) count as parental assets, which may or may not be a good thing. If this is a significant chunk of money, you need to talk to a professional deeply familiar with the financial aid process. Colleges are rapacious for your money, and you can easily \\\"\\\"overpay\\\"\\\" for a child's education, particularly if you send your kid to a private school.\\\"\",\n \"This is a topic you need to sit down and discuss with your parents. Income taxes probably aren't going to be a big issue, and will be refunded in April. Social Security and Medicare will not be refunded, but start you on the road to qualifying for them in the future. How much of you expenses you will now cover will be a family decision; how much of your college expenses you will be responsible for will also need to be discussed. These topics need to be understood before it is time to apply to schools in the fall of your senior year of high school. It is nice to know that you are at least thinking about saving money for your future and for emergencies.\",\n \"a. Depends on whether it is a gift (no tax, but need to file gift tax form against his lifetime exclusion) or a loan (in which case he needs to charge fair market interest, which he can forgive as a gift with no gift tax form, but for which will need to pay tax on the forgiven income. b. This is a definite possibility. Probably depends on the specific lender, but I would imagine this might be questioned, especially if there is an expectation of paying him back. c. Relationships. I would always avoid mixing family and finances in this way. Do you want your family gatherings to be tainted by owing him money? What if you fall on hard times? What if you go on a nice vacation instead of paying him back faster?\",\n \"If the child is a dependent the question is moot. It is accepted that the parent will pay for some, most, or all of the tuition. There is no tax issue for a current student. The payment of tuition helps them qualify as a dependent. There is no need to transfer the money to the child's account; it can be sent directly to the school. If the money is to be used in the future there are accounts such as 529s pre-paid accounts, and Coverdell savings accounts that can be used. All have pluses and minuses, all can impact taxes, and all can impact financial aid calculations.\",\n \"Wrong, the whole point is to help people who need it. The only reason they need the help is because their employer refuses to pay them accordingly. The food stamp program was not created to help coincide with a business model, it was created to make sure people who couldn't afford to eat were able to eat. If Walmart can't make it on it's own then a company like Walmart doesn't deserve to exist. If we had some sort of law requiring businesses to pay higher wages than minimum wage when these businesses meet some sort of requirement then we wouldn't have this problem.\",\n \"Yes, it's considered the students asset, regardless of the custodian aspect. I don't know how you'd propose to put it in a retirement account, even with the earned income to facilitate this, the limit is $5500/yr. The larger issue is parental income. That and parental assets. Tough to game that part of the system to get aid. In the end, one should look to scholarships, both merit and non merit based to maximize college support.\",\n \"Sorry to hear about your spouse's health issues. May he have a speedy and, as far as possible, full recovery. The Patient Protectection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, aka Obamacare) is now the law of the land. Among its many provisions are that insurers may no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, they may not put lifetime caps on benefits, and they may not charge different premiums based on any criteria except age cohort and geographic area (i.e. rates may be higher for 50 year olds than 30 year olds, but sick and healthy 50 year olds living in the same area pay the same). If he gets government health coverage because he's on disability, this may not matter. On the other hand, you might find it better to put him on your employer's policy, because you like the coverage better, the employer covers part of the dependent premium, or some other reason. In any case, they can't discriminate against him or you based on his condition. ETA: Rates may vary by geography as well as age.\",\n \"I was in that same situation years ago with my parents. One way she could apply for a loan in her name without her parents is if she is not currently living with them she shouldn't need them to cosign if she doesn't have bad credit. But if she isn't living with them and they aren't financing her room and board they can't claim her as a dependent so if she really wants to stick it to them she can go and try to politely explain how the loans work and tell them if they don't cosign for her then she will apply on her own (which she can only do while not living with them I believe but not sure) and they will HAVE to STOP claiming her as a dependent on their taxes. If they don't agree she can put her foot down and force them to stop claiming her and tell them she will file her own application anyway and if they continue claiming her and get in trouble for it it's their own fault cause she warned them to stop first. They may agree to cosign rather than lose her as a dependent if it makes that big of a difference on their taxes, if they don't then she can forcefully punish them financially and their taxes will go up. Those were my choices when my parents refused to cosign for me to live at school but that was back in 1999-2000 and things may have changed since then, things also change state by state and I live in PA.\",\n \"To answer the last question first: there are no tax consequences to you. If your family member is married (or has a joint owner of the funds), and so are you, each of them can give each of you the $14K annual gift, which would be $56K. The remainder of the $70K would be subject to either (1) Gift Tax for the tax year in which it was given, or (2) applied to the lifetime exclusion. Either way would require filing a form with the IRS.\",\n \"If you file your taxes jointly, she can pay for you. The money can be spent on any taxable dependent can for qualified expenses. The rules for how much money can be contributed to the account are based off of the number enrolled. Since your spouse has your children enrolled, she can contribute the higher family limit (current $6250 in 2012) but that has no bearing on how she spends the money so long as the expense is a qualified one. She could not pay for a cousin's expenses if that cousin is not listed on her taxes. Because your wife has the HSA, you are not allowed to contribute to an FSA, so be careful with whatever insure you being provided by the university.\",\n \"\\\"If the account is really only in your father's name and not even \\\"\\\"in trust\\\"\\\" for you, then you can't touch it, I'm afraid. And taking your family to small-claims court is something of a nuclear option. Hiitting sympathetic family members for a loan may be the best course here;. Anything you do to try to force cooperation is likely to be a \\\"\\\"nuclear option\\\"\\\" as far as getting back on peaceable terms with your family goes. If you must resort to that, i'd suggest asking whether the local department of youth services, or s religious figure or someone else your father respects, could persuade him to cooperate. He might be more willing to listen to someone else.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"It depends on whether your goal is to \\\"\\\"teach a man to fish\\\"\\\" or setup an ongoing system where his neighbor is required to keep giving him fish every day for the rest of his life. From my point of view a true solution involves getting people standing on their own two feet, not relying on the government for handouts the rest of their life.\\\"\",\n \"You've already counted the cost. It will cost your family ~$10,000 per month until your father dies, or until there's no money left, to enable him to pretend that he is a successful business owner. I'd ask him when he thinks business is going to pick up again. He may be honest with himself. Or, ask him to consider what will happen if he outlives the money that's going out the door. Ask him if he would like to be bankrupt on top of needing to close his business. (I don't view asking those questions as being unloving, by the way.)\",\n \"Does allowing family to stay at the rental jeopardize my depreciation? No, accumulated depreciation that hasn't been deducted reduces your basis in the event of sale. That doesn't go anywhere. Accumulating more may not be allowed though. If the property is no longer rental (i.e.: personal use, your family member lives there for free), you cannot claim expenses or depreciation on it. If you still rent it out to your family member, but not at the fair market value, then you can only claim expenses up to the rental income. I.e.: you can only depreciate up to the extent the depreciation (after all the expenses) not being over the income generated. You cannot generate losses in such case, even if disallowed. If you rent to your family member at the market rate (make sure it is properly documented), then the family relationship really doesn't matter. You continue accumulating expenses as usual.\",\n \"Stupid article. People on government assistance typically don't have a great deal of money to begin with, and there aren't exactly many items on Amazon that are at 'dollar store' level prices..and unless one is house-bound level of disabled, you really can't fill a whole grocery list by shopping at Amazon as you could running down to Walmart or Save a Lot.\",\n \"\\\"According to the FAFSA info here, they will count your nonretirement assets when figuring the EFC. The old Motley Fool forum question I mentioned in my comment suggests asking the school for a \\\"\\\"special circumstances adjustment to your FAFSA\\\"\\\". I don't know much about it, but googling finds many pages about it at different colleges. This would seem to be something you need to do individually with whatever school(s) your son winds up considering. Also, it is up to the school whether to have mercy on you and accept your request. Other than that, you should establish whatever retirement accounts you can and immediately begin contributing as much as possible. Given that the decision is likely to be complicated by your foreign income, you should seek professional advice from an accountant versed in such matters.\\\"\",\n \"Like for example I use transferwise to send $x to my dad's account in India, would it show my name as the depositor ? That would depend from bank to bank, it may or may not show your name. Would it be considered as income for my dad ? Assuming your parents are Indian Residents for tax purposes. No. It would be considered as Gift. Gifts between father and son are tax free in India and there is no limit. Any special care/precaution to take before using such services ? Not really. Just to be safe, keep a copy of the transfer instruction / details of debit to you account etc, so that if there is enquiry you have all the data handy. Edit: Clarifying the comment, if you are Resident Alien in US for tax purposes, you would be liable to Gift Tax [Not your parents as they are Indian Residents and would follow Indian tax rules]. As per IRS the liability of Gift tax is on Donor subject to limit of $14000 per year per Donee. So you and your wife can gift your father and mother $14000 each. i.e. $56000 each year. Anything more will be taxable or can be reduced from the overall estate limit.\",\n \"The IRS' primary reference Pub 519 Tax Guide for Aliens -- current year online (current and previous years downloadable in PDF from the Forms&Pubs section of the website) says NO: Students and business apprentices from India. A special rule applies .... You can claim the standard deduction .... Use Worksheet 5-1 to figure your standard deduction. If you are married and your spouse files a return and itemizes deductions, you cannot take the standard deduction. Note the last sentence, which is clearly an exception to the 'India rule', which is already an exception to the general rule that nonresident filers never get the standard deduction. Of course this is the IRS' interpretation of the law (which is defined to include ratified treaties); if you think they are wrong, you could claim the deduction anyway and when they assess the additional tax (and demand payment) take it to US Tax Court -- but I suspect the legal fees will cost you more than the marginal tax on $6300, even under Tax Court's simplified procedures for small cases.\",\n \"And how is that abuse, those are their benefits. If they choose to use them to do drugs or eat food they would still get them either way. These people are NOT entitled to them. If they bought the food and didn't eat it, is that abuse too? I fully understand that's not the intent but at the end of the day how you choose to use the benefits you are entitled to is on you, land of the free right?\",\n \"I'm not an expert, just giving my opinion. If you are an owner of a bank account that does not make you liable for their debts unless also cosign on their loans. I would in this join custody of the if only to assist your parents in financial decision making.\",\n \"Yes, you can be on a different plan from your dependents. The only real benefit to having everyone on the sale plan is the Family Deductible and Family Out of Pocket Maximum; which are both generally two times the Individual amounts for the same plan. When you have just two people on the plan, this combination doesn't do anything. When you have three or more people on the same plan you can realize the benefit of combining everyone under one plan. Once one person in the family meets their deductible, any combination of the other family members can meet the rest up to the Family deductible; same goes for the out of pocket max.\",\n \"If you can still work or have income to support yourself, I would wait. contrary to some media reports, Social Security has enough money to cover full benefits for a number of years to come, and there are solutions that don't involve cutting payouts. And as mentioned before it is likely you'll be grandfathered in if there are cuts.\",\n \"This depends on the nature of the income. Please consult a professional CPA for specific advise.\",\n \"Keep in mind that lenders will consider the terms of any loans you have when determining your ability to pay back the mortgage. They'll want to see paperwork, or if you claim it is a gift they will require a letter to that effect from your relative. Obviously, this could effect your ability to qualify for a loan.\",\n \"Assuming the funds are being transferred for his treatment, Yes it should be added to your income and taxed at the bracket you fall into. This is same as a person walking into your clinic and paying you cash/cheque/credit card to get treated.\",\n \"Yes you are eligible even if your spouse is enrolled in Medicare. As long as YOU are not enrolled in Medicare you can contribute to an HSA. You may use the money to pay the cost of qualified medical expenses for you and your spouse. Here are some resources with additional information: HSA FAQ's HSA Resources\",\n \"Your friend would have only been liable for a tax penalty if he withdrew more 529 money than he reported for qualified expenses. That said, if he took the distribution in his name, it triggers a 1099-Q report to the IRS in his name rather than his beneficiaries. This will likely be flagged by the IRS, since it looks like he withdrew the money, but didn't pay taxes and penalties on it, not the beneficiary. In other words, qualified education expenses only apply to the beneficiary, not the plan owner/contributor. In this case, the IRS would request additional documentation to show that the expenses were indeed qualified. To avoid this hassle, it's easiest to make sure the distribution is payed directly to the beneficiary rather than yourself. Once he or she has the check, then have them sign the check over to you or transfer it into your account. Otherwise you trigger an IRS 1099-Q in your name rather than your beneficiary.\",\n \"Require it to survive? hat has that got to do with anything? That is absolutely not the point at all. It is a bridge to the next job. People should not have to sell their homes and move on, especially in this environment, simply because they went without a job for several months more than they expected. If you don't want to collect what is owed to you, then that is fine. Do not assume that counts for others. I know people who live in rich households who pay rent and do not eat at the table with others. They show up in these statistics and could use the help even though it may not seem like it. That isn't the point. And it really isn't clear what the point is when the proposal appears to be causing people to mix their lives up in order to save the government a couple of million over the course of a year. What is disingenuous is to set up an unemployment insurance system and then expect it to be conditional based on all kinds of criteria. One thing you might not be keeping in mind is that the existing system has a error rate of around 20% varying a bit between states. That means around 1 in 5 that are owed insurance payments and sign up never get anything, and around 1 in 5 that are owed nothing for whatever reason end up getting full payments anyway. The more criteria you add to the mechanism the higher that error rate goes. You are quibbling over details that the existing system lacks the capacity to handle.\",\n \"\\\"To receive unemployment benefits, you must be registered with an employment agency and be actively seeking work, and be willing to accept work should it be offered to you. As a full-time Cornell University student, as you describe yourself, this does not seem a likely scenario. Also, you need to have established a state of residence. It is not clear to me that you have done so, given your travel between the South Pacific, Ithaca, New York, North Carolina etc. You should check with your local state unemployment office in New York State, or perhaps North Carolina, although I don't know if you satisfy residency requirements in either state. They will be able to confirm however. Are your parents claiming you as a dependent on their federal income taxes? If so, I do not believe that you will be able to file for unemployment benefits, regardless of your student status at Cornell University. One more issue to consider: Have you filed tax returns for the income you received from your television production work? I am uncertain of the amount, as you said that you worked for two 4-month intervals making $10,000. That implies $20,000 of earnings over two years. Yet your bullet point number 7 states that you made \\\"\\\"10 grand each of the four months\\\"\\\". If that means that you made $10,000 per month for four months, then you earned $40,000 per summer, for a total of $80,000 for two summer's worth of work. I don't think unemployment benefits are intended for individuals in your situation.\\\"\",\n \"In the US, gift tax always falls on the donor, never the recipient, and gifts are not taxable income to the recipient. The IRS could raise questions if there is an employer-employee relationship between donor and recipient; your employer cannot give you money or property (e.g. a Rolex watch) or benefits (e.g. a house to live in rent-free) and claim that it is a gift, so that you do not have to pay income tax on that money. But, your parents need to be careful; that $14K per person is the exemption for the whole year and once they give you that, anything extra (birthday present, Christmas present etc) is subject to gift tax (for them) though you can still enjoy your gifts without any tax issue.\",\n \"I am by no means an expert in this, but I did a little research and came across this page on the SSA site -- Can You Be Entitled To Benefits Retroactively? You may be entitled to monthly benefits retroactively for months before the month you filed an application for benefits. For example, full retirement age claims and survivor claims may be paid for up to six months retroactively. In certain cases, benefits involving disability up to 12 months may be paid retroactively. (This is not true of the special age 72 payments (see §§346-348), black lung benefits (see Chapter 22), medical insurance (see Chapter 24), or SSI (see Chapter 21).) SSA Handbook (emphasis mine) Based on this, it sounds like he may be mistaken. I recommend speaking to a SSA rep to get a solid answer on this though. Not everything on the internet is true.\",\n \"Better for you and for me, yes, but not for the disadvantaged without benefactors. That's the situation I was in. I just wish social security wasn't spent on the elderly, when they have so little left to contribute to our society and economy, in terms of new business, growth, and constructing the future.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"It seems that counting your father as your dependent shouldn't, in itself, cause him to be ineligible for SNAP. Eligibility requirements for SNAP can be found on this FNS page. There are upper limits on the \"\"countable resources, such as a bank account\"\" that the beneficiary's household may have, and on that household's income. (There are some other requirements, too.) From what I can tell from your question, your father shouldn't be part of your household for SNAP purposes, because: Everyone who lives together and purchases and prepares meals together is grouped together as one household. If you're transferring him money, I assume he's living and eating somewhere else, so it seems you are not part of his household. According to the IRS's Publication 501, your father is not required to be part of your household for IRS purposes to be your dependent. The test to qualify is that a non-child dependent must either: Live with you all year as a member of your household, or Be related to you in one of the ways listed under Relatives who do not have to live with you. However, by the \"\"Special rule for parent\"\", you may be able to use your father as your qualifying person (dependent) to be able to file as \"\"head of household\"\", so long as you pay more than half their support, and \"\"more than half the cost of keeping up a home that was the main home for the entire year for your father\"\". I don't know if in this case the IRS would consider your father \"\"part of your household\"\" or not. Even if the IRS considered your father part of your household based on the way you filed your taxes, I think it's possible, as the IRS and FNS are two different entities, that the definition of your father's household for SNAP purposes could be different from the IRS's.\"","This may be best handled by an expert. Look for somebody recommended by a church, homeless shelter, food pantry, office of unemployment, office of disability, or Veterans services to advise you on maximizing support for your father. You want to know what type of help you can give without causing the overall level of support to drop. You may even find there are other avenues of assistance."],"string":"[\n \"\\\"It seems that counting your father as your dependent shouldn't, in itself, cause him to be ineligible for SNAP. Eligibility requirements for SNAP can be found on this FNS page. There are upper limits on the \\\"\\\"countable resources, such as a bank account\\\"\\\" that the beneficiary's household may have, and on that household's income. (There are some other requirements, too.) From what I can tell from your question, your father shouldn't be part of your household for SNAP purposes, because: Everyone who lives together and purchases and prepares meals together is grouped together as one household. If you're transferring him money, I assume he's living and eating somewhere else, so it seems you are not part of his household. According to the IRS's Publication 501, your father is not required to be part of your household for IRS purposes to be your dependent. The test to qualify is that a non-child dependent must either: Live with you all year as a member of your household, or Be related to you in one of the ways listed under Relatives who do not have to live with you. However, by the \\\"\\\"Special rule for parent\\\"\\\", you may be able to use your father as your qualifying person (dependent) to be able to file as \\\"\\\"head of household\\\"\\\", so long as you pay more than half their support, and \\\"\\\"more than half the cost of keeping up a home that was the main home for the entire year for your father\\\"\\\". I don't know if in this case the IRS would consider your father \\\"\\\"part of your household\\\"\\\" or not. Even if the IRS considered your father part of your household based on the way you filed your taxes, I think it's possible, as the IRS and FNS are two different entities, that the definition of your father's household for SNAP purposes could be different from the IRS's.\\\"\",\n \"This may be best handled by an expert. Look for somebody recommended by a church, homeless shelter, food pantry, office of unemployment, office of disability, or Veterans services to advise you on maximizing support for your father. You want to know what type of help you can give without causing the overall level of support to drop. You may even find there are other avenues of assistance.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":196,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"3594"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"If I were to get into a life situation where I would not be able to make regular payments, do lenders typically provide options other than default?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["246882","554171","525247","490294"],"string":"[\n \"246882\",\n \"554171\",\n \"525247\",\n \"490294\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["490294","554171","598313","525247","246882","501433","30623","177028","443728","450427","141005","243627","455488","14511","489401","19793","422770","94586","2519","152446","326225","493900","532669","175782","96666","567206","491680","23420","491127","425157","54027","247778","520026","353268","395379","327441","19479","527582","310871","466342","452562","3092","178127","305520","209063","120816","515815","141320","397538","373730","366215","120717","533028","205652","386611","263934","439003","517299","537716","183237","289450","77044","107699","61014","357553","290325","171931","344573","378872","35922","500034","365988","51148","329137","165824","352638","291914","315275","233892","80840","587682","472527","178028","430911","491350","357447","249643","379023","453941","442241","177915","22592","30311","116700","339976","239611","401093","181816","361698","384175"],"string":"[\n \"490294\",\n \"554171\",\n \"598313\",\n \"525247\",\n \"246882\",\n \"501433\",\n \"30623\",\n \"177028\",\n \"443728\",\n \"450427\",\n \"141005\",\n \"243627\",\n \"455488\",\n \"14511\",\n \"489401\",\n \"19793\",\n \"422770\",\n \"94586\",\n \"2519\",\n \"152446\",\n \"326225\",\n \"493900\",\n \"532669\",\n \"175782\",\n \"96666\",\n \"567206\",\n \"491680\",\n \"23420\",\n \"491127\",\n \"425157\",\n \"54027\",\n \"247778\",\n \"520026\",\n \"353268\",\n \"395379\",\n \"327441\",\n \"19479\",\n \"527582\",\n \"310871\",\n \"466342\",\n \"452562\",\n \"3092\",\n \"178127\",\n \"305520\",\n \"209063\",\n \"120816\",\n \"515815\",\n \"141320\",\n \"397538\",\n \"373730\",\n \"366215\",\n \"120717\",\n \"533028\",\n \"205652\",\n \"386611\",\n \"263934\",\n \"439003\",\n \"517299\",\n \"537716\",\n \"183237\",\n \"289450\",\n \"77044\",\n \"107699\",\n \"61014\",\n \"357553\",\n \"290325\",\n \"171931\",\n \"344573\",\n \"378872\",\n \"35922\",\n \"500034\",\n \"365988\",\n \"51148\",\n \"329137\",\n \"165824\",\n \"352638\",\n \"291914\",\n \"315275\",\n \"233892\",\n \"80840\",\n \"587682\",\n \"472527\",\n \"178028\",\n \"430911\",\n \"491350\",\n \"357447\",\n \"249643\",\n \"379023\",\n \"453941\",\n \"442241\",\n \"177915\",\n \"22592\",\n \"30311\",\n \"116700\",\n \"339976\",\n \"239611\",\n \"401093\",\n \"181816\",\n \"361698\",\n \"384175\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Some lenders will work with you if you contact them early and openly discuss your situation. They are not required to do so. The larger and more corporate the lender, the less likely you'll find one that will work with you. My experience is that your success in working out repayment plan for missed payments depends on the duration of your reduced income. If this is a period of unemployment and you will be able to pay again in a number of months, you may be able to work out a plan on some debts. If you're permanently unable to pay in full, or the duration is too long, you may have to file bankruptcy to save your domicile and transportation. The ethics of this go beyond this forum, as do the specifics of when it is advisable to file bankruptcy. Research your area, find debt counselling. They can really help with specifics. Speak with your lenders, they may be able to refer you to local non-profit services. Be sure that you find one of those, not one of the predatory lenders posing as credit counselling services. There's even some that take the money you can afford to pay, divide it up over your creditors, allowing you to keep accruing late/partial payment fees, and charge you a fee on top of it. To me this is fraudulent and should be cause for criminal charges. The key is open communication with your lenders with disclosure to the level that they need to know. If you're disabled, long term, they need to know that. They do not need to know the specific symptoms or causes or discomforts. They need to know whether the Social Security Administration has declared you disabled and are paying you a disability check. (If this is the case, you probably have a case worker who can find you resources to help negotiate with your creditors).","For insight on what will happen, I suggest looking at the situation from the lender's perspective: If your setbacks are temporary, and you are likely to get back on your feet again, they will protect their investment by making accommodations, and probably charging you extra fees along the way. If your financial hardship seems irredeemable, they probably try to squeeze you for as much as possible, and then eventually take your house, protecting their investment as best they can. If they are going to foreclose, they may be reluctant to do it quickly, as foreclosure is expensive, takes man power, and looks bad on their books. So it may get pushed off for a Quarter, or a fiscal year. But if you are asking if they'll help you out from the goodness of their heart, well, a bank has no heart, and creditors are interested in ROI. They'll take the easiest path to profit, or failing that, the path to minimum financial losses. The personal consequences to you are not their concern. Once you realize this, it may change your thinking about your own situation. If you think you have a path to financial recovery, then you need to make that clear to them, in writing, with details. Make a business case that working with you is in their own best interests. If you cannot make such a case, recognize that they'll likely squeeze you for as much as possible in penalties, fees, interest payments, etc, before eventually foreclosing on you anyway. Don't play that game. If your home is a lost cause financially, plan how to get out from it with the smallest losses possible. Don't pay more than you need to, and don't throw good money after bad.","You should look into the Income Contingent Repayment and Income Sensitive Repayment plans to see which one you may qualify for. Another possibility would be to start taking courses part time at another college so that you can qualify for a deferment. I'm not sure that you can qualify for a deferment if you are currently in default. I've found that negotiating did not work in my case, as the collectors' BATNA would result in them getting more money if they refused to negotiate. I also found that every time the student loans went into default, 30% was added to the balance in fees.","The answer is generally yes. Depending on your circumstances and where you live, you may be able to get help through a federal, state, or lender program that:","I would say generally, the answer is No. There might be some short term relief to people in certain situations, but generally speaking you sign a contract to borrow money and you are responsible to pay. This is why home loans offer better terms then auto loans, and auto loans better than credit cards or things like furniture. The better terms offer less risk to the lender because there are assets that can be repossessed. Homes retain values better than autos, autos better than furniture, and credit cards are not secured at all. People are not as helpless as your question suggests. Sure a person might lose their high paying job, but could they still make a mortgage payment if they worked really hard at it? This might mean taking several part time jobs. Now if a person buys a home that has a very large mortgage payment this might not be possible. However, wise people don't buy every bit of house they can afford. People should also be wise about the kinds of mortgages they use to buy a home. Many people lost their homes due to missing a payment on their interest only loan. Penalty rates and fees jacked up their payment, that was way beyond their means. If they had a fixed rate loan the chance to catch up would have not been impossible. Perhaps an injury might prevent a person from working. This is why long term disability insurance is a must for most people. You can buy quite a bit of coverage for not very much money. Typical US households have quite a bit of debt. Car payments, phone payments, and either a mortgage or rent, and of course credit cards. If income is drastically reduced making all of those payments becomes next to impossible. Which one gets paid first. Just this last week, I attempted to help a client in just this situation. They foolishly chose to pay the credit card first, and were going to pay the house payment last (if there was anything left over). There wasn't, and they are risking eviction (renters). People finding themselves in crisis, generally do a poor job of paying the most important things first. Basic food first, housing and utilities second, etc... Let the credit card slip if need be no matter how often one is threatened by creditors. They do this to maintain their credit score, how foolish. I feel like you have a sense of bondage associated with debt. It is there and real despite many people noticing it. There is also the fact that compounding interest is working against you and with your labor you are enriching the bank. This is a great reason to have the goal of living a debt free life. I can tell you it is quite liberating.","I would contact your loan servicing company explain the situation and see if you can renegotiate terms. They may be able to drop the interest rate or lengthen the schedule to reduce the payment amount. I wouldn't default on the loan as that would likely hinder coming to/working in the US in the future. Not knowing your financial situation or country, could you attempt to obtain financing in your own country in order to pay off the US based loan? I would at least attempt to make some sort of payment while you attempt renegotiation, refinancing or pursue a job in the US, even if it technically puts or keeps you in default of the loan. Making any payment at least shows the willingness to pay back the loan, and you're not intentionally defaulting on your obligation.","From my understanding by paying your bills more than 5 days late will not lead you into bankruptcy or stop you from getting a new loan in the future, however it may mean that lenders offer you credit at a higher interest rate. This of course would not help you as you are already struggling with your finances. However, no matter how bad you think things might be for you financially, there are always things you can do to improve your situation. Set a Budget The first thing you must do is to set a budget. List down all sources of income you receive each month, including any allowances. Then list all your sources of expenses and spending. List all your bills such as rent, telephone, electricity, car maintenance, credit card and other loans. Keep a diary for a month for all your discretionary spending - including coffees, lunches, and other odd bits and ends. You can also talk with your existing lenders and come to some agreement on reducing you interest rates on your debts and the repayments. But remember any reduction in repayments may increase your repayment period and the total interest you have to pay in the long term. If you need help setting up your budget here are some links to resources you can download to help you get started: Once you set up your budget you want your total income to be more than your total expenses. If it isn't you will be getting further and further behind each month. Some things you can do are to increase your income - get a job/second job, sell some unwanted items, or start a small home business. Some things you can do to reduce your expenses - make coffees and lunches at home before going out and buying these, pay off higher interest debts first, consolidate all your debts into a lower interest rate loan, reduce discretionary spending to an absolute minimum, cancel all unnecessary services, etc. Debt Consolidation In regards to a Debt Consolidation for your existing personal loans and credit cards into a single lower interest rate loan can be a good idea, but there are some pitfalls you should consider. Manly, if you are taking out a loan with a lower interest rate but a longer term to pay it off, you may end up paying less in monthly repayments but will end up paying more interest in the long run. If you do take this course of action try to keep your term to no longer than your current debt's terms, and try to keep your repayments as high as possible to pay the debt off as soon as possible and reduce any interest you have to pay. Again be wary of the fine print and read the PDS of any products you are thinking of getting. Refer to ASIC - Money Smart website for more valuable information you should consider before taking out any debt consolidation. Assistance improving your skills and getting a higher paid job If you are finding it hard to get a job, especially one that pays a bit more, look into your options of doing a course and improving your skills. There is plenty of assistance available for those wanting to improve their skills in order to improve their chances of getting a better job. Check out Centrelink's website for more information on Payments for students and trainees. Other Action You Can Take If you are finding that the repayments are really getting out of hand and no one will help you with any debt consolidation or reducing your interest rates on your debts, as a last resort you can apply for a Part 9 debt agreement. But be very careful as this is an alternative to bankruptcy, and like bankruptcy a debt agreement will appear on your credit file for seven years and your name will be listed on the National Personal Insolvency Index forever. Further Assistance and Help If you have trouble reading any PDS, or want further information or help regarding any issues I have raised or any other part of your financial situation you can contact Centrelink's Financial Information Service. They provide a free and confidential service that provides education and information on financial and lifestyle issues to all Australians. Learn how to manage your money so you can get out of your debt and can lead a much more comfortable and less stressful life into the future.","That's tricky. Typically you lock in the minimum monthly payment when you close the loan. You can pay more but not less. Options:","First I'd call and make sure there's not some kind of mistake. If that fails, look into reapplying for forbearance. I'm not sure what you got it for before, but I added up your expenses (which you say is more than your income) and from your stated SL payments, it's more than 20% of your income. That should qualify you for a mandatory forbearance. If not, it should definitely get them to approve a financial hardship forbearance. Before either of those, try to get a deferment though as a financial hardship (not the same as a hardship forbearance, but same principle). If none of that works, ask for an income based repayment plan. It'll stretch out your loans but will relieve some of the pressure now. Best of luck!","Standard Repayment can be quite burdensome. Fortunately, it looks like FedLoan Servicing offers a variety of payment plan options, and even provides a calculator that you can use to compare them given your adjusted gross income and current loan balances. This won't reduce that $420 to $0 but it may bring it down significantly. I agree with @littleadv that you need legal advice to answer your other questions. That being said, I can tell you that it is possible to go into deferment and/or forbearance at any time (not only before you start making regular payments) as long as you meet the criteria. Otherwise, it may be worth looking through other questions and answers on here about lowering expenses and increasing income. There is a lot of good advice for people in similar situations to yours. If you are truly in hardship, even with a full-time job, you may qualify for supplemental nutrition insurance, a.k.a. food stamps. Best of luck.","It sounds like there are no provisions in the loan document for how to proceed in this case. I would view this as creating a brand new loan. The amount owed is going to be (Principal remaining + interest from 2 years + penalties). If you created a new loan for 13 years, that would not be how I would expect a lender to behave. I would expect most repayment plans to be something like make double payments until you are caught up or pay an extra $1000 per month until caught up and then resume normal payments.","\"I am lucky enough to have chosen a flexible mortgage that allows me to change payment amounts at certain, very lenient intervals (to a minimum amount). So when I was laid off, the first thing I did was call my bank to lower my payments to a level that allowed me some breathing room, at my new, lower income. If and when my family's income increases, I'll re-adjust my payments to a higher amount. But if you're concerned about the \"\"what if\"\"s in this economy, I'd definitely choose a mortgage that allows for flexibility so that you don't lose your house if you don't have to, particularly if your situation is temporary.\"","You can often convert the outstanding balance of a HELOC into a fixed-rate home equity loan, generally with the same bank. Doing this can open possibilities to extend the term allowing for lower monthly payments, but resulting in a larger overall payoff cost. Most HELOCs allow for an interest-only payment or in some cases no-payment at all if you still have unused available credit. Not advising that you do this. If you are struggling with the size of the payment converting to a fixed-rate, fixed-term loan may be what you need. The key will be getting the term such that you can manage both the principal and interest that will be included in the payment.","They were kind and let you extend the repayment time on the loan. But that does mean additional interest accumulated during that additional time. You agreed to this; you can't change the contract now. What you can do is find the money to pay off the loan faster, to reduce the total amount of interest you'll be charged.","One option is to try to get a month ahead on your mortgage payments. Rather than using the current month's rent to pay the current month's mortgage payments, try to use the previous month's rent to pay the current month's mortgage payments. This should allow you to pay on time rather than late but not unacceptably late.","Sounds like you are drowning in debt. Why not just stop paying? It will ruin your credit, but eventually you might be able to settle for much less than you owe and a reasonable interest rate. You will then have a long road to recover you credit, but IMHO this road is much longer and stressful. Hey, you are paying a high interest rate because you are EXPECTED to default. If you were expected to pay back your rates would be lower!","Run the numbers in advance. Understand what are the current rates for an additional 2nd mortgage, what are the rates for a brand new mortgage that will cover the additional funds. Understand what they are for another lender. Estimate the amount of paperwork involved in each option (new first, new 2nd, and new lender). Ask the what are the options they can offer you. Because you have estimated the costs in money and time for the different options, you can evaluate the offer they make. What they offer you can range from everything you want to nothing you would accept. What they offer will depend on several factors: Do they care to keep you as a customer?; Do they expect you to walk away?; are they trying to get rid of mortgages like the one you have?; Can they make more money with the plan they are offering you? You will be interested in the upfront costs, the monthly costs, and the amount of time required for the process to be completed.","Sounds like you are stuck. These are your options: increase limit Not going to happen. You said you don't qualify. You also won't convince them to let you access more borrowing power by arguing that you can't pay now. No responsible lender would take that bet. negotiate balance Unlikely. This sounds like mostly real debt, not fees. They generally won't write off real debt except if you are in default. They will only negotiate if they think you can't pay. Note that this will probably hurt your credit, as they will report that you didn't pay your debt. pay down balance This is your best and only real option. If you can't afford to pay down the balance you can't afford to borrow more. I am sorry for your situation; it is frustrating. I know how that feels. It is a textbook example of the risk associated with debt. Even if you plan to pay the balance every month, when the unexpected happens, you pay the price.","\"The first thing I'd do is to find out your credit (FICO) score. If you have a good one, try to get another card with a lower rate. Then call up the lender, point to your good score, and your alternatives. If you have a bad score, do nothing. \"\"Let sleeping dogs lie.\"\"\"","\"If the default happens through mass monetary inflation rather than openly (\"\"We're not paying interest on our bonds\"\") then make sure you pay off your house. There may not be a very long window to do so. If the currency becomes worthless, then it depends on what you have of value that would be accepted by the lender as payment. If you don't have anything, the lender will take it back, as they're probably entitled to on the notes.\"","Note that this kind of entry on your credit record may also affect your ability to get a job. Basically, you're going on record as not honoring your commitments... and unless you have a darned good reason for having gotten into that situation and being completely unable to get back out, it's going to reflect on your general trustworthiness.","Think about your priorities in life. Everybody is a little different. In my case I have a wife and child, so these are priorities for me, and you might have your own depending on your story. So if I lost my job, and I have no more money coming in (unemployment insurance runs out, savings depleted) then the bank can have the house. I personally would probably drop the house long before it came to that point. The first thing you do is talk to your creditors and work out a deal. At the same time I would stop paying for ALL unnecessary things (cable TV, extra cell phones, automobiles, leaving light bulbs on and turning the heat up over putting on a sweater). If I can't get a good deal from the creditors, I would stop paying the mortgage, find a place to live (family, friends, cheap apartment) while the credit is still good. My advice is to get yourself setup while your credit is good and you have SOME money in the bank. Waiting until the bank decides to foreclose is probably going to make your harder.","I defaulted on my federal loans, as have over 8 million others. I have a ton of money in savings from not having paid the loans for several years. I work for myself, so all they can do is make calls asking me to sign up for their payment plans.","I have an example that may be interesting for your question. My grandfather had a tennis club around 35 years ago, and some other businesses. Some investments went bad and he was heading for bankruptcy due to the tennis club's expensive payments. So he asked to renegotiate a variable rate rather than a fixed rate, even though the interest rates were going up, not down. The idea was that if the current situation is going to bankrupt you, taking a chance might be better. As an analogy, if you can't swim and you'll drown in 6 feet of water, it doesn't matter that you're taking the risk to go deeper. You might have to take that chance to survive. He did keep the tennis club in the end but that's irrelevant here. For student loans, if I'm not mistaken, declaring bankruptcy doesn't free you of all their debt, so it may not be applicable. And this situation is when renegotiating, not when negotiating the first time. because obviously if you're in trouble financially, taking a loan you know you can't repay is suicide.","You could look into refinancing with a bank or credit union. But to weed out options quickly, use a service like LendingTree, which can vet multiple options for you a whole lot more quickly than you could probably do yourself. (I don't work for, or get any benefit from LendingTree.) Whatever you do, try to do all the applying within a short span of time, as to not negatively affect your credit score (read here) by creating extraneous inquiries. Then again, if your credit sucks, you might not qualify for a re-fi. If you are turned down, make your payments on time for six months or so, and try again.","\"Let me give you some advice from someone who has experience at both ends - had student loan issues myself and parents ran financial aid department at local university. Quick story of my student loan. I graduated in debt and could not pay at first due to having kids way too early. I deferred. Schools will have rules for deference. There are also federal guidelines - lets not get specific on this though since these change every year it seems. So basically there is an initial deferment period in which any student can request for the repayments to be deferred and it is granted. Then there is an extended deferment. Here someone has to OK it. This is really rather arbitrary and up to the school/lender. My school decided to not extend mine after I filled out a mound of paperwork and showed that even without paying I had basically $200 a month for the family to live off past housing/fixed expenses. Eventually they had to cave, because I had no money so they gave me an extended deferment. After the 5 years I started paying. Since my school had a very complex way to pay, I decided to give them 6 months at a time. You would think they would love that right? (On the check it was clearly stated what months I was paying for to show that I was not prepaying the loan off) Well I was in collections 4 months later. Their billing messed up, set me up for prepayment. They then played dumb and acted like I didn't but I had a picture of the check and their bank's stamp on the back... They couldn't get my loan out of collections - even though they messed up. This is probably some lower level employee trying to cover their mistake. So this office tells creditors to leave me alone but I also CANNOT pay my loan because the credit collection agency has slapped a 5k fee on the 7k loan. So my loan spent 5 years (kid you not) like this. It was interest free since the employee stopped the loan processing. Point being is that if you don't pay the lender will either put your loan into deferment automatically or go after you. MOST (not all) schools will opt for deferment, which I believe is 2 years at most places. Then after that you have the optional deferment. So if you keep not paying they might throw you into that bucket. However if you stop paying and you never communicate with them the chances of you getting the optional deferment are almost none - unless school doesn't know where you live. Basically if you don't respond to their mail/emails you get swept into their credit collection process. So just filling out the deferment stuff when you get it - even if they deny it - could buy you up to 10 years - kid you not. Now once you go into the collection process... anything is game. As long as you don't need a home/car loan you can play this game. What the collection agency does depends on size of loan and the rules. If you are at a \"\"major\"\" university the rules are usually more lax, but if you are at the smaller schools, especially the advertised trade/online schools boom - better watch out. Wages will be garnished very soon. Expect to go to court, might have to hire an attorney because some corrupt lenders start smacking on fees - think of the 5k mine smacked on me. So the moral of the story is you will pay it off. If you act nice, fill out paperwork, talk to school, and so on you can probably push this off quite a few years. But you are still paying and you will pay interest on everything. So factor in that to the equation. I had a 2.3% loan but they are much higher now. Defaulting isn't always a bad thing. If you don't have the money then you don't have it. And using credit cards to help is not the thing to do. But you need to try to work with the school so you don't incur penalties/fees and so that your job doesn't have creditors calling them. My story ended year 4 that my loan was in collection. A higher up was reviewing my case and called me. Told her the story and emailed her a picture of their cashed check. She was completely embarrassed when she was trying to work out a plan for me and I am like - how about I come down tomorrow with the 7k. But even though lender admitted fault this took 20+ calls to agencies to clear up my credit so I could buy a house. So your goal should be:\"","Maybe. As other have said, doing this deliberately is fraud, but almost impossible to prove unless you've lied on the loan documents or discussed your plans with witnesses. The lender may consider negotiating a partial write-down of the loan, but that is far from their only option. Depending on the details of the loan agreement they may be able to garnish your wages, seize your property, or walk into your business with a sheriffs' deputy and empty your cash register. They may also be able to add their costs for recovering the money to your debt.","All new loans must be originated from the direct loan program. In most cases, the Stafford loan is better, as the rate is lower (6.8% vs. 7.9% for the PLUS loan). There aren't many viable alternatives for most people. Private student loans exist, but carry significantly higher rates and worse payment terms. The exceptions are programs that exist for professions like medicine and dentistry. Credit cards usually carry higher rates and limited credit lines, but you have the option of negotiating the balance down or declaring bankruptcy to discharge the debt if you are unable to repay.","Several answers already addressed the issue that you wouldn't want to get into this situation in the first place, but looking forward the problem is that you want to spend 2000, whilst you don't have it (or at least not 3200). Besides finding a way to get more loans/credit than you already have, you can consider whether you could survive without spending the 2k in question.","You could do that once, maybe, if the lender negotiates rather than going to court and taking you for everything you have plus having you wages garnished for the next several decades. And in the process, you would destroy your credit rating, making it impossible to borrow again any time soon. Doing this deliberately is fraud ... But worse than that, it's blatently stupid. You are likely to lose far more than you could gain.","If you have a minimum monthly payment amount of $190, then you have to make a payment every month. If you pay only every 3 months (even if you pay 3 times the minimum amount, or much more), you would not be making the minimum monthly payment for each month: one month would get the minimum monthly payment, plus a lot more, then the following 2 months you would be in default because you didn't pay the minimum amount for that month! Interest is usually accrued daily, so you want to make the payments as early as possible. Pay back as much as you can afford each month, as soon as the money comes in. When computing how much you can afford, if you haven't already done so, it may be a good idea to keep a little bit aside (at least the first few months, to build up a little security pillow), just in case you need it (you won't be able to get money back from those overpayments if you need any money for an emergency).","It's sad. My mother lost her job after a brutal divorce. BOA bought up Countrywide, then when my mother pleaded for assistance BOA said they could not help her unless she was behind/in default of her mortgage. She tried to do a deed-in-lieu with a lawyer and BOA refused to accept the deed-in-lieu many times. Then BOA sold her mortgage to Green Tree (?) and they refused her deed-in-lieu as well. This went on for over 2 years and they foreclosed on the house. I told my mother to sue because they should have accepted her deed-in-lieu because it was approved by the court in her bankruptcy but she was tired of trying to save her house that she just walked away. 6 months after she left and moved in with my sister Green Tree called her offering a refinance at a lower rate and a mortgage payment that was less than a typical car payment. Now 5 years later my mom is just going to pay cash for her house and never do a mortgage again.","You could do a voluntary repossession. While a repossession never looks good on your credit a voluntary repossession is slightly better. A good friend of mine had a situation like this about 11 years ago. She was in an accident didn't have replacement coverage insurance and was left with a large chunk of debt on a wrecked vehicle that she then rolled into a new car. In the end it came down to the simple fact that she could not afford a car loan on a vehicle that never was worth as much as she owed. Since the car was worth less than the loan she really couldn't sell it to fix the problem. She called and arranged a voluntary repossession. She stopped making payments, and parked the car till they came and picked it up. (Took about 4 months and 20 phone calls from her for them to come get it.) In the mean time, I purchased her a much older used but decent car for a couple thousand and she paid me back over the next year. The total she paid me back was less than the money she would have paid in the 4 months it took them to come get the car. In fact by the time they picked up the car she had paid back over half on the car I bought her. Yes the repossession did stay on her credit for seven years but during that time she was approved for a mortgage, cellphone plans, and credit cards etc. Therefore I don't know that it did that much damage to her credit. When her car was sold at auction by the repo company it sold for much less than the loan amount. Technically she was on the hook for the remaining amount. The outstanding balance on the loan was then sold several times to several different collection agencies. Over the years since then she has gotten letters every now and then demanding she pay the amount off, she ignores these. Most of these letters even included very favorable terms (full forgiveness for 20% of the amount) At this point the statute time has run out on the debt so there is no recourse for anyone to collect from her. The statute time limit varies from state to state. Some states it is as long as 10 years in others it is as short as 3 years. What this means is that counting from the date of the repossession, incurrance of debt, last payment, or agreement to pay whichever is later if the statute period has elapsed and the lender/collector has not filed a suit against you by the end of the period then they have effectively abandoned the debt and cannot collect. Find out what that period of time is in your state. If you can avoid the collection agencies till that period runs out you are scott free. You just have to make sure that you do not ever send them any money, or agree to pay them anything as this resets the calendar. If you do not want to wait for the calendar to run out if you wait long enough you will probably be offered favorable terms to pay only a fraction of the remaining amount, you just have to wait it out. Note, I normally would not endorse anyone not paying off their debts. However sometimes it is necessary and it is for this type of situation that we have things like this and bankruptcy.","You could walk away from your mortgage. When you signed the mortgage you and the bank agreed that if you stopped making payments the bank would get the house. Give them the house. Of course this would be a huge hit to your credit score and you would probably not be able to obtain another mortgage at a decent rate for at least 7 years. You may have trouble obtaining other financing as well (i.e. auto loans). If you plan on moving to an apartment and don't need to finance car purchases this may be OK.","I've kind of been there myself. I stretched my finances for the deposit on a house, and lived off my credit card for a few months to build up what I was short on the deposit. Add some unexpected car repairs, and I ended up with £10k on the card. The problem I had then was that interest on the card ran at around 20%, and although I could meet the interest payments I couldn't clear the £10k. I simply went and talked to my bank. In the UK there are some clear rules about banks giving customers a chance to restructure their debts. That's the BANK doing it, not some shady loan-shark. We went through my finances and established that in principle it was repayable. So I got a 2-year unsecured loan at around 5%, cleared the card, and spent the next 2 years paying off a loan that I could afford. My credit score is still aces. Forget the loan-sharks. Talk to your bank. If they're crap, talk to another bank. If no bank is going to help you, consider bankrupcy as per advice above. Debt restructuring companies are ALWAYS a con, no exceptions.","\"Bankruptcy should be your last option, and you will find that BK will not resolve most of your problems, and create many more problems. There are two kinds of BK that are available to the average person, Ch13 debt repayment and Ch7 liquidation. Both have severe repercussions and lasting effects on your credit (7-10 years, after discharge). And the calculations required under the 2005 BAPCPA are complex and may require help to understand. Ch7 liquidation is the more severe course, and the trustee would liquidate assets that exceed exemptions (vary by state) to pay your creditors. Ch13 debt repayment is hard, and only 20-25% of those who pursue that route complete the debt repayment plan. Your credit score for either course would suffer greatly (200-250 points) and would remain reduced for years, especially since you would have to rebuild credit. And the law is flawed both in design and execution as there is no reward for successful debt repayment, few finish their repayment plan (20-25%), the mean recovery for unsecured creditors in repayment is zero (thus does not help creditors), and leaves the debtor with damaged credit for years (not a fresh start). Although you may have made some decisions that have placed you in a difficult position, you can find solutions to resolve these problems. You may find that simply learning to make better choices will improve your situation. Take a financial education course (such as the Dave Ramsey course), and learn how to budget, and make better choices. The LearnVest website offers a simple way to budget by dividing budgeting into only three (3) categories with suggested percentages for each, essentials (<50%), financial priorities (>20%), and lifestyle (<30%). The damage to your credit from the derogatory effects of BK would linger for years, but the damage from poor payment history declines much quicker, and loses most of the effect after 2 years (and should you keep the accounts open, leaves you with good history and longer account history), thus the effects decline to minimal after as little as 2 years of good behavior/payment history. Make a plan that prioritizes the debts, and how you will resolve the problem, and work the plan. Based upon the income and debts you mention, the situation you have may not be as bad as it appears. You may be getting bad advice, especially from a debt settlement company that might be more interested in their fees than in your problem. Since you \"\"want to play fair and continue with payments, but when people start to get greedy like this I am ready to just stop caring\"\", you really need two things, a plan, and a friend, someone who you can talk to honestly and openly, and who can support you as you work through the plan you make. Since you \"\"would prefer the option that will give me the most peace of mind and allow me to start saving money as soon as possible\"\", you need to find an approach that fits your goals. Your statement that you \"\"don't plan on ever using credit again\"\", fits with the Dave Ramsey philosophy and resonates with many of us who have learned that those who grant credit are often harsh masters. Now that you have provided more information, the advice below expands upon the above reflecting upon your specific situation. Since you make $62K/year, you may be close to the median income, and the BAPCPA (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) has a presumption of abuse for filing Ch7 when you have above median income (for your state, check the law). As you may be pushed into Ch13 debt repayment anyway, examine what you could do to repay the debt (over 5 years, 60 months, as that would be a Ch13 repayment duration). Since you have $8K of revolving (unsecured?) debt, that would be repaid in Ch13 over 60 months at about $133/month (no interest), but you would also be paying 10% to the trustee. There might be some portion of your auto debt which is unsecured, and also be repaid unsecured, suppose that is $3000. That would add another $50/month to the plan. The car could be repaid over 60 months (including interest), so you might be repaying $300/month for the car (estimate), although the payment could be higher or lower depending upon how much of the value of the car is unsecured. The trustee might object that the car is too expensive (depends upon the value, and the trustee), and require be liquidated. Since BK excludes relief for student loans, you might find yourself paying the student loans at the same payment. Your $62K income suggests that you have about $4200/month (guess, after taxes). The mortgage payment is higher than 25% ($1050-1100 would be ideal for your income). But after your mortgage payment you should still have about $3900. Even with $300 for credit card debt, $500 for car, and $400 for student loans (guessing), that leaves $2700 for essentials (utilities, food), lifestyle (cellphone, entertainment), and savings. You might find a friend who is good at budgeting who would be willing to help you craft a budget and be your \"\"responsibility partner\"\" to help you stick to the budget. Here is a sample plan (your mileage may vary), Essentials (50%, $2100): $2180 Financial (30%, 1230): $1250 Lifestyle (20%, 840): $500 (pick up slack here, as you have high debt load)\"","You can take a out loan against your 401k, which means you won't be penalized for the withdrawal. You will have to pay that amount back though, but it can help since the interest will be lower than a lot of credit card rates. You could refinance your home if you can get a reasonable interest rate. You could also get a 0% APR balance transfer credit card and transfer the balance and pay it off that way. There are a lot of options. I would contact a Credit Counselor and explore further options. The main objective is to get you out of debt, not put you more in debt - whether that is refinancing your mortgage, cashing in an annuity, etc.","Two choices: 1. Sell everything you have and move to North Korea. 2. Questions regarding loans, refinancing, mortgages, credit cards, investing and anything else that may be related to personal finance should be directed towards the subreddit /r/personalfinance. You will receive a probation (temporary ban) for disregarding this rule.","I have this exact same issue. Event the dollar amounts are close. Here is how I am looking at the problem. Option 1: Walk away. Goodbye credit for 7+ years. Luckily I can operate in cash with the extra $800 per month, but should I have a non medical emergency I might be SOL. With a family I am not sure I am willing to risk it. What if my car dies the month after I quit paying and the bank chooses to foreclose? What if my wife or I lose our job and we have no credit to live? Option 2: Short sale. Good if I can let it happen. I might or might not be on the hook for the balance depending on the state. If I am on the hook, okay, suck but I could live. If I am not on the hook, it is going to hurt my credit the same as foreclosure. It isn't easy, you need an experienced real estate agent and a willing bank. Option 3: Keep paying. I am going for this. At the moment I can still afford the house even though it is at the expense of some luxuries in my live. (Cable TV, driving to work, a new computer). I am wagering the market fixes itself in the next several years. Should the S hit the fan in most any manner, the mortgage is the first thing I stop paying. I don't know what other options I have. I can't re-fi; too upside down. I can't sell; the house isn't worth the mortgage (and I don't have the cash for the balance). I can't walk away; the credit hit wouldn't be worth the monthly money gain. I have no emotions about the house. I am in a real bad investment and getting out now seems like a good idea, but I am going to guess that having the house 10 years from now is better than not. I don't care about the bank at all, nor do I feel I owe them the money because I took the loan. They assumed risk loaning me the money in the first place. The minute it gets worse for me than for the bank; I will stop paying. Summary Not much to do without a serious consequence. I would suggest holding out for the very long term if you feel you can. The best way to minimize the bad investment is to ride it out and pray it gets better. I am thinking I am a landlord for the next 10 years.","Another option, not yet discussed here, is to allow the loan to go into default and let the loaning agency repossess the property the loan was used for, after which they sell it and that sale should discharge some significant portion of the loan. Knowing where the friend and property is, you may be able to help them carry out the repossession by providing them information. Meanwhile, your credit will take a significant hit, but unless your name is on the deed/title of the property then you have little claim that the property is yours just because you're paying the loan. The contract you signed for the loan is not going to be easily bypassed with a lawsuit of any sort, so unless you can produce another contract between you and your friend it's unlikely that you can even sue them. In short, you have no claim to the property, but the loaning agency does - perhaps that's the only way to avoid paying most of the debt, but you do trade some of your credit for it. Hopefully you understand that what you loaned wasn't money, but your credit score and earning potential, and that you will be more careful who you choose to lend this to in the future.","It depends on your equity(assets - liabilities). If you have a lot of equity, banks will be happy to lend you money because they now they can always seize your assets. If you don't have a lot of equity another option is to go to hard money lenders. They charge high rates and some of them lend-to-own, but is an option. And consider what Pete said, you might be a little optimistic.","To littleadv's comment, walking away may be the best option. If your numbers are as described, any ideas we could offer on earning or raising cash would be best to use as money to live on, not to pay down a loan on an under water house. the double wide you propose to buy will like cost less than your HELOC balance. I'd see if you could buy that home first, renting the house, and only default after you're in the new place.","\"The comments are getting too much, but to verify that you are not insane, you are being bullied. It sounds like this is a sub-prime loan, of which you are wisely trying to get out of. It also sounds like they are doing everything in their power to prevent you from doing so. For them you are a very profitable customer. This might take some legwork for you, but depending on how bad they are violating the law they might be willing to forgive the loan. What I am trying to say, it might be very worth your while! Your first step will be looking for any free resources at your disposal: Just be cautious as many \"\"credit representation\"\" type business are only offering loan consolidation. That is not what you need. Fight those bastards!\"","\"You also want to make sure that the loan is being re-amortized (sometimes called \"\"recasting\"\"). Without this, you are still responsible for the interest payments according to the original amortization table. If you re-amortize the loan with a principal that is lower than on the table, you will reduce the amount of interest you owe each period, which means that if you maintain the same payment you will pay less in total interest. It's important to realize that most people re-amortize to reduce the payment amount but not the term. Also, not all loans can be re-amortized, and some banks limit how often it can be done.\"","My advice to you? Act like responsible adults and owe up to your financial commitments. When you bought your house and took out a loan from the bank, you made an agreement to pay it back. If you breach this agreement, you deserve to have your credit score trashed. What do you think will happen to the $100K+ if you decide to stiff the bank? The bank will make up for its loss by increasing the mortgage rates for others that are taking out loans, so responsible borrowers get to subsidize those that shirk their responsibilities. If you were in a true hardship situation, I would be inclined to take a different stance. But, as you've indicated, you are perfectly able to make the payments -- you just don't feel like it. Real estate fluctuates in value, just like any other asset. If a stock I bought drops in value, does the government come and bail me out? Of course not! What I find most problematic about your plan is that not only do you wish to breach your agreement, but you are also looking for ways to conceal your breach. Please think about this. Best of luck with your decision.","I suppose it depends on the circumstances, but I wouldn't advise it. If you default on a loan to the bank it might ruin your credit, if you default to a family member it has the potential for much more damage in the form of fostering bad feelings and hurt the relationship.","As someone with a lot of student loan debt, I can relate - the first thing you should do is read the promissory note on your current loans - there might be information there you can use. For govt loans (stafford, etc) made after July 1, 2006 the interest rate is going to be fixed and even a federal direct consolidation is not going to lower the rates themselves. If anything, consolidation will just increase the repayment period, which means you'll end up paying more in the long run. Most private Loans usually offer variable interest rates, which today are quite low. But unless your financial situation is very comfortable and stable, consolidating out of federally guaranteed loans into private loans might not be the best path. You might lose options like deferment, forbearance, and maybe even things like a death benefit (if you die, your loans die with you). related - if you have a co-signer you don't get that death benefit! But refinancing into a variable rate private loan is going to push a lot of risk to you in terms of interest rate inflation, etc. Most financial professionals will agree that interest rates can only go up in the long run. Keep in mind, student loans are completely unsecured - meaning lenders are taking a fairly large risk in loaning money (and probably why the fed govt has to guarantee most of them). I've heard of people borrowing against their home equity to pay down student loan debt - but I can't think of a reason you'd want to substitute secured for unsecured debt and possibly lose the loan interest tax deduction. The bottom line is you're unlikely to find an alternative lending source at a lower interest rate for an unsecured student loan. Another option may be the income based repayment plan. If you qualify, it caps student loan monthly payments at 15% of your discretionary income (discretionary is your income minus whatever the poverty threshold income amount is). And if that 15% doesn't even cover the interest on the loans, the govt picks up the tab for the difference (for up to 3 years). You have to re-qualify every year by sending in all sorts of documentation, but if you somehow stay on IBR for 25 years, your loans are then forgiven. Obviously the downside here is that you are probably paying little to no principal, but if you do the math and determine that your IBR payment would be next to nothing, and your current situation is barely paying interest-only... well, maybe IBR isn't a bad thing for a couple of years (or 25 if you think you will never have a larger income). Personally, I went through all these options as well and decided that my best option was to just earn more money... a 2nd job or side project here and there helps me pay down the debt faster, and with less risk, than moving to private variable rate loans.","I wouldn't like to say either way what you should do, not being an financial advisor or lawyer, but I did find an interesting article on nytimes.com: Walk Away From Your Mortgage! that you might also find helpful to frame your decision. It has some interesting information on defaults, it says this: Mortgage holders do sign a promissory note, which is a promise to pay. But the contract explicitly details the penalty for nonpayment — surrender of the property. The borrower isn’t escaping the consequences; he is suffering them. In some states, lenders also have recourse to the borrowers’ unmortgaged assets, like their car and savings accounts. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond found that defaults are lower in such states, apparently because lenders threaten the borrowers with judgments against their assets. But actual lawsuits are rare. And given that nearly a quarter of mortgages are underwater, and that 10 percent of mortgages are delinquent, White, of the University of Arizona, is surprised that more people haven’t walked. He thinks the desire to avoid shame is a factor, as are overblown fears of harm to credit ratings. Probably, homeowners also labor under a delusion that their homes will quickly return to value. White has argued that the government should stop perpetuating default “scare stories” and, indeed, should encourage borrowers to default when it’s in their economic interest. This would correct a prevailing imbalance: homeowners operate under a “powerful moral constraint” while lenders are busily trying to maximize profits. More important, it might get the system unstuck. If lenders feared an avalanche of strategic defaults, they would have an incentive to renegotiate loan terms. In theory, this could produce a wave of loan modifications — the very goal the Treasury has been pursuing to end the crisis.","\"It can be difficult when all your disposable income is spoken for. Your options depend on how good your credit is and how flexible your expenses are. I don't have all the answers without more details (possibly not then). However, couple of points of advice: Paying off that credit card debt (and not adding any more to it) is your #1 priority. You should make minimum payments to every other debt until you have done that because the interest on it will kill you in the mean time. It is always optimal to pay the maximum to your highest interest debt and minimum to all other debts. 11% doesn't sound very good on your house loan. You may want to consider refinancing. That is, if you can get a lower rate. You may also want to get a longer term loan (if you have enough discipline to use the extra income to actually pay off your credit card and then the put it toward the house when the cards are paid off). Look at options to increase your income, at least temporarily. Second jobs and such. When your finances are more in order, you can back off. The debt \"\"trap\"\" is behavioral. We humans tend to increase our spending until we can't any more. But the reason we can't spend any more is that we have increased our debt until we have no flexible income. Then we are stuck for a long time and have few options. The only way out (long term) is to change our habits so that we don't increase spending each time we pay down a debt or get an increase to our income. Financial discipline is the only way to have financial security. Almost always the first step is to pay off credit cards and stop maintaining a balance (always pay off every card at the end of each month). Then start paying off other debts from highest interest rate to lowest. This is a hard challenge and one most of us face at some point in our lives. Good luck!\"","No, you were not the stupid one. Yes many of these mortgage companies will only work with you if you are behind. . . no idea why, but I will say that yes I have seen it. You do not have to deal with the stress. . . . working with mortgage companies is not a fun proposition, they don't know what they are doing half the time. You can leave and move whenever you want. . . even if their payments are better now who knows how long till they can actually see the place for enough to move. I work in bankruptcy I have seen the stresses this causes. . . it is not fun, even if they are doing better now, try not to envy them, it is not fun.","Do you have any legal options? Not really. Citi is under no obligation to refinance your loan on your terms. But that goes both ways, and you are under no obligation to refinance with Citi! Get more quotes from another lender. It'll feel really good when you find a lender that wants your business. You might get a better deal. And think how good it will feel to cut ties with Citi!","If you can't sell it, refinance the bugger. Even if you can knock the interest rate down to 8% and take out a 3-year loan, you'll save about $100 per month. Or really kill the payment (but pay more interest) by taking out another 6-year. A 6-year at 9% on $12k is only $215/month. My credit union routinely advertises specials on car loans. It shouldn't be difficult to get out of the usurious loan you have now. As for others' advice about getting another job, having been a PhD student I hesiate to suggest that you get another one, because your job is probably your life right now. But can your wife (or even you) start a blog on a subject that interests you? A few posts a week add up over time, and pretty soon you have a real asset that can be another basket to put your eggs in.","I know there are plenty of people who have to deal with the stress and know it isn't pleasant...but it's hard to see how much worse it is as far as stress goes because I have to pay $1950 in rent each month and don't get the option to default and if I do, I don't get to wait for 8 months while the banks get their paperwork in order to evict me. I want to believe that in the end I will come out ahead but either I've been incredibly smart with my life decisions or incredibly naive...","Whatever you choose for a remedy (my first impulse is to suggest bankruptcy) you should protect your retirement plans. These are immune from most collection actions, the exception being govt debts (e.g. taxes) and student loans. The sad part is that the student loans won't go away except by paying them off. Miss one payment and it will hound you for 10 years. Bankruptcy will stop you from getting a home loan for only two years. Unless you have the discipline to live like a monk for a decade it sounds like you're headed for a train wreck. The kids will have to cut back to junior college or some other method of reducing costs and as hard as it sounds, don't cosign for any more student loans. Kids are more resilient than you think and they'll probably come up with their own solutions like scholarships, work study and off campus jobs. I hate to keep beating the bankruptcy horse but at least that way you could still keep your house and car. Otherwise you risk losing either or both from missed payments. I actually hope that you can avoid bankruptcy so I suggest first you talk to a financial adviser or bankruptcy attorney to see if this is in fact right for you. But if it's just the shame of the scarlet letter B then consider that pride doesn't keep a roof over your head or food in your belly.","JoeTaxpayer mentioned a budget. Staying on top of your spending will be the result of getting out from under this debt. You may have Excel on your PC now, if not Open Office is free which has a program that handles finance applications. There is budgeting software for free out there. Youneedabudget.com is a lot better but cost a little. It keeps me from spending money I don't necessarily have as I can see a result month to month from having outflow of cash. As Joe mentioned - no more lattes in the near future which will help you pay off this debt which will be a bigger relief than a fashion statement. Having used budgeting software and attempted to stay in budget has been useful. I still over spend a little on food and can see the ramifications immediately. In short, try creating and sticking to a budget no matter the urge. As far as insolvency is concerned I'd struggle with paying it down before I do that. The thought passed my mind but I bit the bullet. DO NOT walk away from the debt however. That isn't a good idea Either. Budget and bite.","I wish this was the case in Canada. I lost about 60k on my home in one year and have to sell now to move for work. In the US I could simply default and the bank takes the loss. In Canada if I default, CMHC pays the bank, then I'm sued by CMHC and stuck with the bad debt. Simply put - here the onus of repayment is on the lender, not the lending institution. It sounds good until you are the one looking at losing your shirt.","If your parents can afford to shell out $1,250 a month for 5 years, they would pretty much have the debt paid off, provided the credit card companies don't start playing games with rates. If that payment is too high, maybe you could kick in $5k every few months to knock the principal down. If they think the business can keep puttering along without losing more money, that may be the way to go. Five years is long enough that the business or property may have recovered some value. Another option, depending on the value of the home, could be a reverse mortgage. I don't know how the economy has affected those programs, but that might be a good option to get the debt cleared away. My grandfather was in a similar position back in the 70's. He owned taverns in NYC that catered to an industrial clientele... the place was booming in the 60s and my grandfather and his brother owned 4 locations at one point. But the death of his brother, post-Vietnam malaise, suburban exodus and shutting of industry really hurt the business, and he ended up selling out his last tavern in 1979 -- which was a dark hour in NYC history and real estate values. A few years later, that building sold for a tremendous amount of money... I believe 10x more. I don't know whether there was a way for his business to survive for another 5-7 years, as I was too young to remember. But I do remember my grandfather (and my father to this day) being melancholy about the whole affair. It's hard to have to work part-time in your 60's and be constantly reminded that your family business -- and to some degree a part of your life -- ended in failure. The stress of keeping things afloat when you're broke is tough. But there's also a mental reward from getting through a tough situation on your own. Good luck!","You say you are underwater by $10k-15k. Does that include the 6% comission that selling will cost you? If you are underwater and have to sell anyway, why would you want to give the bank any extra money? A loss will be taken on the sale. Personally i would want the bank to take as much of that loss as possible, rather than myself. Depending on the locale the mortgage may or may not be non-recourse, ie the loan contract implies that the bank can take the house from you if you default, but if 'non-recourse' the bank has no legal way to demand more money from you. Getting the bank to cooperate on a short sale might be massively painful. If you have $ in your savings, you might have more leverage to nego with the bank on how much money you have to give them in the event the loan is not 'non-recourse'. Note that even if not 'non-recourse', it's not clear it would be worth the banks time and money to pursue any shortfall after a sale or if you just walk away and mail the keys to the bank. If you're not worried about your credit, the most financially beneficial action for you might be to simply stop paying the mortgage at all and bank the whole payments. It will take the bank some time to get you out of the house and you can live cost-free during that time. You may feel a moral obligation to the bank. I would not feel this way. The banks and bankers took a ton of money out of selling mortgages to buyers and then selling securities based on the mortgages to investors. They looted the whole system and pushed prices up greatly in the process, which burned most home buyers and home owners. It's all about business -my advice is to act like a business does and minimize your costs. The bank should have required a big enough downpayment to cover their risk. If they did not, then they are to blame for any loss they incur. This is the most basic rule of finance.","Others have covered the usual vehicles for getting money out of a property. There's another category of home loan called a hard money loan. It would take a lot of inquiries to find a hard money loan given your needs, but chances are its doable. The terms can be onerous, and hard money lenders don't mess around when it comes to foreclosing after a few missed payments. It's an off-the-radar industry and the private lenders and specialized trustees operate together with strike-force precision. Trustees normally should be trust-able by borrower and lender, but in the case I describe below, one man owned the small company that lent, and the small company that acted as trustee. Borrower beware. Yet, if your credit score and income are dismal, but your home equity is great, hard money is the only way to borrow against your home. In making hard money loans, lenders don't consider your credit score or income, just how much equity is in the property. I daresay they hope you'll default. They don't always hang onto the loans. If you look like a payer instead of someone they can foreclose on, they might sell the loan to someone who wants a stable monthly income. You don't know a thing about that person. A Cautionary Tale: *Check out HankandHelen.blogspot.com for a currently-unfolding saga, in which an elderly couple's grandson convinced them to let him take title to their house, borrow against it, invest the proceeds, and share the profits. It didn't work that way. He went through hard-money lenders. He borrowed $360,000 and then $65,000. Those were mysteriously paid off (total mystery at this point), and he borrowed $47,000. About a year later, he lost the house by defaulting the $47,000 loan. He was only about $2000 behind in payments when the trustee issued a notice of default, followed by a notice of sale. The trustee put the place up for auction, which didn't require a court order: that's the way it is in California and many western states, and a few others. The hard money lender bought the loan at auction for $83,000, and a home worth about $800,000 no longer belonged to the grandson. A fundraiser brought in about $120,000 and the couple bought a mobile home in a mobile home park. The acre of land and swimming pool they used to own will be for sale soon, or possibly demolished for a mansion to be built. (House in the area go for about $2.5M when improved with very large, new houses.)* I poke around PropertyShark.com when I see a house bought cheaply at a foreclosure auction. Quite often the (former) borrower had inherited the house, treated it like a piggy bank, defaulted, and boom--no more house. It never makes sense to put a house at risk for a small amount like $5000. If you can't pay those credit card bills, the lenders can hound you and maybe get a court order to extract something from your checking account every month, but they can't take your belongings. When you sign a deed of trust or mortgage, you're giving a third party the right to kick you out of your home and take possession of it. You don't have any say in the matter. You might go to court, and say whatever you feel like saying, but if you owe many payments and can't pay them immediately, you're very likely to be out of luck. Someone mentioned paying off credit card balances with the highest interest rates first. That's done by throwing whatever cash you have at them while paying the minimum on the lower-rate balances. That's financially sound, but there's a technique that turns out to be more motivating for some, which is attacking the lowest balance first. It leads to the quickest reduction in the number payments you're required to make every month, and quickly lets you add the money you were applying to the smallest balance to the payment you make on the next-smallest balance. (Close each card as you pay it off if you don't want to accumulate debt again.) P.S. I don't know what your home's feed is, so I didn't address that. If it's some kind of rental income, every lender I have encountered credits 75% of the current monthly rent toward your gross income. They assume there will be vacancies and other costs.","You should definitely pay the remaining loan amount as quickly as possible. A loan in bad debts means that Bank has written it off books as its a education loan and there is no collateral. The defaults do get report to CIBIL [Credit Information Bureau India] and as such you will have difficulties getting credit card / new loans in future. Talk to the Bank Manager and ask can you regularize the loan? There are multiple options you would need to talk and find out; 1. You can negotiate and arrive at a number. Typically more than the principal outstanding and less than interest and penalties charged. 2. You can request to re-do the monthly payments with new duration, this will give you more time. 3. May one time large payment and subsequent amount in monthly payments. At the end its Bank's discretion whether to accept your terms or not.","\"How much is rent in your area? You should compare a rental payment versus your mortgage payment now, bearing in mind the opportunity cost of the difference. Let's say that a rental unit in your area that has the same safety & convenience as your house costs $1600 per month to rent, and your mortgage is $2400. By staying in the house, you are losing that $800 month as well as interest earned on banking that money (however, right now, interest rates are negligible). Factor in total cost of ownership too, meaning extra utilities for one or the other (sometimes houses are cheaper, sometime not), property insurance and taxes for the house (if they aren't already in escrow through your mortgage) and generic house repair stuff. If the savings for a rental are worth more than a couple hundred a month, then I suggest you consider bailing. Start multiplying $500-1000 per month out over a year or two and decide if that extra cash is better for you than crappy credit. Also, this is not the most ethical thing, but I do know of one couple who stopped paying their mortgage for several months, knowing they were going to give the house back at the end. They took what they would have spent in mortgage payments during that time into a savings account, and will have more than enough cash to float for the few years that their credit is lowered by the default. Also something to consider is that we are in a time of ridiculous numbers of people defaulting. As such, a poor credit score might start to be more common among people with decent incomes, to the point where a \"\"poor\"\" score in 5 years is worth about the same as an \"\"average\"\" score today. I wouldn't count on that, but it might soften the blow of your bad credit if you default.\"","There are different options here. Either way, ensure that you have a paper trail of all your payments. When in doubt, speak to a lawyer, there are many who offer free consultations.","What if you felt you were cheated by the bank? What if you had something terrible unexpected happen to you financially? Also a loan is not a promise. A loan is a contract. The contract has outs for all parties. I never understood why people felt a loan was a promise. Many people were sold home mortgages that they did not understand. Of course it is their fault for not understanding what they were getting into.","There are loan options for those in your situation. It is very common. I am a licensed loan officer nmls 1301324 and have done many loans just like this. Your schooling is counted as your work history Contrary to popular belief. We want to write loans and guidelines are easing. Banks are a different story and their loan officers aren't licensed. If you talk to a bank you aren't getting an educated loan officer. They also have what are called overlays that make guidelines stricter.","\"You're welcome to throw in the towel and stop paying any time you want. You'll just suffer the consequences of doing so. It sounds like you're concerned about losing your job \"\"in the next few years.\"\" What are you doing to stem this off? Are you building up a side income? Are you building up portable skills -- ones that can be used anywhere? If you think you have a few years left, use them. Build something up. You may be able to recover more quickly, or last longer until you find a new job. Some of my blogging friends have been at it about as long as I have, and they're in high-five, low-six figures now. For blogging. Some did it even faster. All it takes is time. Your expenses for starting a blog are $10/month plus cutting out two hours of TV / drinking / anything else consumer-ish to learn more about your favorite interest, write about it, and interact with the online community. That's just one idea. Season to taste or choose a different meal altogether. Are you frugal? Are you looking for ways to cut expenses? If you can find extra money to save a little bit more and knock out just one of those debts (say, the car), you'll be able to throw that payment at the student loan. Then they'll both be gone, and you can save up a cushion for yourself faster. I just think it's a little weak to give up when you're not really in trouble yet. You're tight, but you can get through that.\"","Have you considered social lending (for example: Lending Club)?","What to do when institutions stop lending you money, or lend at high rates? Live within your means! Your friend has shown financial behavior that indicates he's a bad credit risk. If he cleans up his act, banks will lend to him at reasonable rates again. Not a whole lot he can do except build his credit again. He didn't lose it overnight, and he won't get it back overnight either.","Honestly, the best way to manage this risk is to manage your savings appropriately. Many experts recommend that maintain a reasonably liquid account with 6-9x your minimum monthly expenses for just this occurrence. I know, easier said than done. Right? As for insurance, I can only speak for what is the case in the US. Here, most mortgages will require you to get PMI insurance until you have at least 20% equity in your house. However, that insurance only protects the BANK from losing money if you can't pay. It doesn't save you from foreclosure or ruining your credit. Really, the type of insurance you are talking about is Unemployment insurance which all states in the US make available to workers via deductions from their paycheck. The best advice, I suppose, is to keep your expenses low enough to cover them with an unemployment check until you have accumulated enough savings to get through a rough patch. That may mean buying a less expensive home, or just waiting until you have saved a bigger down payment. If you didn't plan ahead, and you are already in the house, another option might be to extend your mortgage. For example from a 20 to a 30 year to reduce your payments to a manageable level. A more risky option might be to convert to a variable rate loan temporarily, which typically carries a lower interest rate. However, it might be hard to secure a new loan if you don't currently have an income.","Typically, this is not an option, as the monthly payments are fixed. It depends on the willingness of your financing bank for such a change. You probably will have to refinance (with them or another lender); which is not a bad thing, as you even can get a lower interest rate potentially (as of Jan 2017 - this will change). Consider too: It could be a better solution to instead invest the 25000, and use the investment returns to fill up the difference every month. Certainly more effort, but you probably come out ahead financially.","It will take a bit of sacrifice. First, I'd review spending. Between you and all your family, try to separate the 'needs' from the 'wants' and cut out 75% of the 'wants.' Second, there's almost always part time work that can help raise extra money. Even if it's a small fraction of your current hourly pay, every bit you and your family can throw at that 30% debt will help get rid of it and help you get to the point when you can refinance the mortgage.","This is something that will vary from situation to situation. What is the secured debt? What is the interest rate? Does your retirement account have a match? What are your other financial obligations? How much money do you have available after meeting all of your minimum financial obligations. All of these are very important factors in deciding what the best course of action would be.","Umm actually asking to be refinanced at a lower rate *IS* asking them to forgive/give up part of the mortgage. Peoples greed in getting themselves into upside down mortgages are why we have problems, not the banks not helping them out enough.",">You default on a loan, student or otherwise, by not paying. Student Loan debt, backed by the government, means the government can garnish any wages you make, or otherwise put liens against property you own to secure the debt. You have no say in the matter.","\"Pay it off. If necessary, get a loan so you can pay it off; that's what refinancing is all about and your favorite bank or credit union would be happy to help you with this. If that isn't sufficient to make the car affordable you may need to sell it, take the loss, and learn from the experience. Sorry, but you made an agreement and it's up to you to find a way to meet your end of the bargain. (If you had decided you didn't like this loan within a few days of signing, you might have been able to back out under \"\"cooling off period\"\" laws. But those only allow a very limited time for reconsideration.)\"","I'm pessimistic about most things, so: They can't REPO the degree and the knowledge, but they can sure REPO the CAR, so pay off the car. My suggestion would be to pay off the vehicle, because no matter what the future holds (good or bad) you will need a vehicle to get around. Although, I recently found out from the comment below that student loans are a recourse debt that won't be forgiven. Not even with bankruptcy. Most collection agencies will take pennies in the dollar for debt, but not with student loans.","\"There are a number of bona fide reasons to consider here. If there is a cost to discharging a security packet, or a mortgage, it may not be convenient if we are advanced in the repayment schedule. Early exit fees may apply, or the interest may be \"\"pre-determined\"\". As a rule of thumb, when we are talking about rates above 10% p.a. then arrangements should be short (bridging finance - keep it short and charge 'em heaps), and for personal arrangements, small.\"","Some types of loans allow for reamortization (recasting) - which does exactly what you're talking about (making a big payment and then refiguring the monthly amount rather than the overall lifespan), without requiring any kind of a fee that refinancing does. Not every, or even most, mortgages, allow for recasting. And most that do offer recasting, may limit the recasting to a once-a-loan type of thing. So check beforehand, and make those big payments before you do any recasting. (Most banks and mortgage servicing companies may not advertise or even speak about recasting options unless you specifically ask your loan officer.)","\"A lot of your options depends on the type of debt you have. If you're single, young, and have lots of credit card debt then don't discount bankruptcy. It's definitely not an \"\"appealing\"\" thought I'm sure, but it's an option. One thing I did was completely cut myself off from most forms of credit (credit cards and personal credit loans). I know my weaknesses. I will never, ever, ever, get another credit card. I'm probably older than you are and have lived with debt for a long time. I'm pretty much debt free; at least from debts that are not covered 100% by assets. It took a long time. Keep your spirits up. Maybe try contacting a credit councilor; one of the real ones that aren't paid for by credit card companies. I've known people that took that route.\"","If you are now in a better position to pay your debts, the wise move for your long-term credit is to consolidate any high-interest debt that remains and pay it off as quickly as possible. This may not be possible depending on your situation, but one way to get such consolidation loans is to have a parent with good credit cosign as guarantor on the consolidation loan. The only way your credit will recover is if you establish a good history of payments over the next seven years. Frankly I wouldn't cosign a loan with a family member who made the same decisions you have made, because I wouldn't want to put my own credit at risk, but I might loan the money directly, which would ease the pain for that family member, but it wouldn't help their credit going forward. This may not be a popular opinion, but without any details, it's hard for me to agree that any of your creditors are being greedy when they threaten a judgment. They loaned you the money in good faith, and now you are attempting to negotiate a change of terms. Are they greedy because the interest rates are too high? Maybe you were a bad risk when they loaned the money and the rates reflected the risk of losing some portion of the money. The fact that you are trying to discharge some portion of that debt vindicates any high rates charged.","Talk to your parents, and find out if you are reducing the debt or not. Find buyers, sell the place now and get out the deal. Of course you will have to wait to get a good price on it. Short term you haven't lost that much, but long term you will. Take your 25%, and use it as a down payment on a regular bank mortgage. Lesson learned move on.","You have the 2 properties, and even though the value of property B is less than the amount you owe on it hopefully you have some equity in propery A. So if you do have enough equity in property A, why don't you just go to the one lender and get both property A and B refinanced under the same mortgage. This way hopefully the combined equity in both properties would be enough to cover the full amount of the loan, and you have the opportunity to refinance at favourable rate and terms. Sounds like you are in the USA with an interest rate of 3.25%, I am in Australia and my mortgage rates are currently between 6.3% to 6.6%.","Yep, basically no loans for me for at least two years and new credit cards are at a higher interest rate then I'm comfortable with. That's fine. I have two cars that are fully paid for, just paid off one credit card last week and will have the other one paid off before the end of the year. And I have a savings account with a positive balance. All of this happened by moving to a different house where my rent is $1,500 per month cheaper than I was paying on a house.","\"Assuming the numbers you gave are forecasted 2013 annual income, you should really use an average and give the lender 1 number, as long as you can provide documentation to back it up. Lenders aren't as sophisticated as considering your monthly income fluctuations into their underwriting algorithm. If you're not tied down to your existing lender, I highly recommend you to shop around. There isn't an \"\"universal lending requirement\"\". You'll be surprised at how flexible they are. Not as a recommendation to get around the rules, but just finding a lender that'll work with your situation. Try personal finance forums such as FatWallet or Slickdeal to find low-cost lenders: http://goo.gl/vIojT\"","A good resource for this type of help is the National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC). They provide free and low-cost credit counselors who can... Most importantly, avoid those for-profit debt consolidation companies. They are ripoffs.","I am sorry for your troubles, but impressed with your problem solving skills. Keep going, things will get better. Your best hope is to find a place that does manual underwriting. If they do computer generated stuff, then you will be kicked for sure. If you can show 20% down, and have some savings, and have some history of paying bills, then you might be approved. Here in Florida, RP Funding still does manual underwriting. Another one that is mentioned is Church Hill mortgage. Also you might check with local credit unions. Of course your best bet to be approved is to be open and state upfront the challenges. You have to find someone that has the ability to think, has the ability to see passed the challenges, and has the authority to do so.","I'm 40 and been carrying student debt for nearly 20 years. Because of life events and various circumstances I've had to defer several times. This means my balance history looks like a rollercoaster. At this point I just consider the Department of Education to be akin to heroin addiction. I feed it as regularly as I can. It starts to get painful when I can't. It requires an ever increasing amount to get that fix. I'm financially fucked and it's my fault. And one day it'll probably kill me. But I just keep trying. What choice do I have?","In a perfect the world, the most ideal solution would be to find a way to pay back all of your debt so that your credit will not be affected any further. Unfortunately, it does not work this way most of the time. Debt settlement is where you work with a creditor to settle your a credit card debt for less than the full amount owed. This could be a very viable solution for you instead of filing for bankruptcy. However, there are many scams out there when it applies to debt settlement so you must tread carefully. Debt settlement can only occur when you're behind on your payments. If you are currently paying off your payments successfully, the creditor has no obligation to settle when they think you should be able to pay it fully back.","EDIT: new ideas based on the full story. I wouldn't worry about the price history. While it is certainly true that some buyers might try to leverage that information against you, the bottom line is the price is the price. Both the buyer and the seller have to agree. If the initial listing was too high, then lower the price. If that isn't low enough, then readjust down. I see no harm in moving the price down over time repeatedly. In fact, I thin that is a good tactic to getting the most for the house. If you happen to have the luxury of time, then keep lowering that price until it sells. Don't fret how that behavior appears. You can lower the price as often as you like until it sells. I am not a real estate agent, and I am a terrible negotiator, but I would lower the price every quarter until it sells. You can't go down to fast (a buyer might wait you out) and you can't wait to long as you stated. Also, if you house is priced inline with the neighborhood, you can at least get offers and negotiate. Buy asking for such a premium (25%) folks might not even make an offer. You simply need to decide what is more important, the selling price or the time frame in getting it sold. If you house doesn't sell because the market doesn't support your price, then consider keeping it as a rental. You can do it yourself, or if you are not interested in that (large) amount of work, then hire a rental management company to do it for a fee. Renting a home is hard work and requires attention to detail, a good amount of your time and much labor. If you just need to wait a couple of years before selling, renting it can be a good option to cover your costs while you wait for the market to reach you. You should get advice on how to handle the money, how to rent it, how to deal with renters, and the the laws are in your jurisdiction. Rent it out to a trusted friend or family member for a steal of a deal. They save money, and you get the luxury of time waiting for the sale. With a real estate lawyer you hire, get a contract for a lease option or owner finance deal on the house. Sometimes you can expand the market of people looking to buy your house. If you have a willing purchaser will bad credit, you can be doing them a favor and solving your own issue. It costs money and you will make less on the sale, but it could be better than nothing. Take heed, there is a reason some people cannot get a traditional loan on their own. Before you extend your good name or credit think about it. It is another hassle for sure. This won't help if you have to pay off a mortgage, but you could donate it. This is another tricky deal that you really need to speak with a lawyer who specialize in charitable giving. There are tax benefits, but I would make any kind of a deal where tax deductions are the only benefit. This is common enough these days. If you are unable to pay for the mortgage, it benefits you and the bank to get into a short sale arrangement. They bank gets probably more money than if they have to foreclose (and they save money on legal fees) and you can get rid of the obligation. You will do a deed in lieu or the short sale depending on how the market it and what the house can be sold for. You and the bank will have to work it out. This will ruin for a credit for a while, and you will not likely qualify to get a new mortgage for at least a few years. You can stop paying your mortgage, tell the bank and they will foreclose. This is going to ruin your credit for a long time as well as disqualify you from mortgages in the near future. Don't do this. If you are planning a foreclosure, take the time to contact your bank and arrange a short sale or a deed in lieu. There isn't really any excuse to go into foreclosure if you are having problems. Talk to the bank and work out a deal.","I have been through default in Ukraine august 1998. That was a real nightmare. The financial system stopped working properly for 1 month, about 30% of businesses went bankrupt because of chain effect, significant inflation and devaluation of currency. So, it is better to be prepared, because this type of processes result in unpredictable situation.","A traditional bank is not likely to give you a loan if you have no source of income. Credit card application forms also ask for your current income level and may reject you based on not having a job. You might want to make a list of income and expenses and look closely at which expenses can be reduced or eliminated. Use 6 months of your actual bills to calculate this list. Also make a list of your assets and liabilities. A sheet that lists income/expenses and assets/liabilities is called a Financial Statement. This is the most basic tool you'll need to get your expenses under control. There are many other options for raising capital to pay for your monthly expenses: Sell off your possessions that you no longer need or can't afford Ask for short term loan help from family and friends Advertise for short term loan help on websites such as Kijiji Start a part-time business doing something that you like and people need. Tutoring, dog-walking, photography, you make the list and pick from it. Look into unemployment insurance. Apply as soon as you are out of work. The folks at the unemployment office are willing to answer all your questions and help you get what you need. Dip into your retirement fund. To reduce your expenses, here are a few things you may not have considered: If you own your home, make an appointment with your bank to discuss renegotiation of your mortgage payments. The bank will be more interested in helping you before you start missing payments than after. Depending on how much equity you have in your home, you may be able to significantly reduce payments by extending the life of the mortgage. Your banker will be impressed if you can bring them a balance sheet that shows your assets, liabilities, income and expenses. As above, for car payments as well. Call your phone, cable, credit card, and internet service providers and tell them you want to cancel your service. This will immediately connect you to Customer Retention. Let them know that you are having a hard time paying your bill and will either have to negotiate a lower payment or cancel the service. This tactic can significantly reduce your payments. When you have your new job, there are some things you can do to make sure this doesn't happen again: Set aside 10% of your income in a savings account. Have it automatically deducted from your income at source if you can. 75% of Americans are 4 weeks away from bankruptcy. You can avoid this by forcing yourself to save enough to manage your household finances for 3 - 6 months, a year is better. If you own your own home, take out a line of credit against it based on the available equity. Your bank can help you with that. It won't cost you anything as long as you don't use it. This is emergency money; do not use it for vacations or car repairs. There will always be little emergencies in life, this line of credit is not for that. Pay off your credit cards and loans, most expensive rate first. Use 10% of your income to do this. When the first one is paid off, use the 10% plus the interest you are now saving to pay off the next most expensive card/loan. Create a budget you can stick to. You can find a great budget calculator here: http://www.gailvazoxlade.com/resources/interactive_budget_worksheet.html Note I have no affiliation with the above-mentioned site, and have a great respect for this woman's ability to teach people about how to handle money.","Same thing as for any debt: bank sues you, you lose, you are in an even deeper hole because you now owe them for the cost of the court case, your credit rating goes into the toilet, you may even have trouble retaining/finding a job. Being stupid is always more expensive.","The article made it seem like a lot of these were frivolous purchases, but I doubt there's any clear data on the percent that were someone's primary vehicle, etc. Usually if you default on a new-car loan you can still get a high-interest loan for a used car that will still be a lot less than your old payment.","\"You're in good shape as long as your income stays. Your only variable-rate debt now is your private student loan. I think you'd be wise to pay that down first, and you sense that already. Worst-case, in the event of a bankruptcy, student loans usually cannot be discharged, so that isn't a way out. Once that loan is gone, apply what you were paying to your other student loan to knock that out. You might investigate refinancing your home (to another 30-year fixed). You may be able to shave a half-percent off if your credit is stellar. Given the size of the mortgage, this could be several thousand out of pocket, so consider that when figuring out potential payback time. Consider using any \"\"free time\"\" to starting up a side business (I'm assuming you both have day jobs but that may not be a correct assumption). Start with what you know well. You and your wife are experts in something, and have passion about something. Go with that. Use the extra income from that to either pay down your debts faster, or just reinvest in the business so that you can offset the income on your taxes. Again, you're in good shape. Just do what you can to protect and grow your income streams.\"","\"Will the proportion of my payments towards interest eventually go down? Yes. Today would be a good day to do a web search for \"\"amortization schedule\"\". You will quickly learn how to compute precisely how much of each payment goes to interest and how much goes to principal given different payment choices. Would it be wiser to spend more each month on loan payments? That depends on your goals and resources, which we know nothing about. If you have extra money you could spend it on debt reduction, or you could spend it on an investment that pays more money in growth or dividends than the interest you'd save. Or you could decide that the longer you have that loan, sure, the more interest you'll pay, but inflation will make future money less valuable. Basically, by taking out a loan you have chosen to gamble that the thing you bought with the loaned money will be worth the cost of the interest payments in the future, adjusted for inflation. The bank on the other hand is gambling that you're good for the debt and that they can make a reasonable profit off it. If you have more money to gamble with, which bet is the wisest one is really up to you. would it be smarter to try to pay off one loan before the other? If you want to pay off a loan early then always choose the loan with the higher interest rate. should I start making bi-weekly payments instead of monthly? That's roughly equivalent to paying off the principal by one additional payment a year. There are two reasons to do so. The first is that the total interest will be lower and the loan will be paid off faster. You can work out exactly how much with your new found skill at amortization computation. The second is the simple convenience of knowing that your budget for each pay period is the same. That convenience is worth something; is it worth the amount extra you'll be paying every year? Again, this is for you to decide. Work out how much extra you're paying per year and how much you're saving in the long run, and compare that against the benefit.\"","Yeah, just ran across one talking about making payments for 20 years and getting screwed. I feel terrible that these people were taken advantage of, but I also want to grab these people by the lapel, shake them, and ask them what the hell they were thinking :|","\"The most important thing in my view is flexibility, to avoid running into problems. One useful thing in the UK would be an arranged overdraft. You go to your bank, and they'll agree that you can overdraw your account by a certain number of pounds, depending on your income etc. It will cost you a very high interest rate, but only for each day where you are overdrawn. So paying a bill two days before your salary comes in isn't too bad. Obviously avoid using the overdraft if you can, having an overdraft while not using it is free. It's meant for an emergency; being regularly overdrawn is expensive. But once it is arranged with your bank, an arranged overdraft is much much cheaper than bouncing cheques etc. and possibly high fees for overdrawing your account. And it takes the pressure of you. Now things to need before you get a loan (again, UK): The real interest rate that you are paying is called APR. That's the number that counts, and that cannot be manipulated. No \"\"payday loans\"\" to avoid getting yourself into deep, deep trouble. No loan sharks, obviously. If you buy things with \"\"interest free credit\"\", that's (a) included in the price, so you pay more, and (b) if you miss paying by one day they'll hit you with huge interest payments, and some will try this intentionally. Interest rate depends on loan amount. I once had to borrow 20% more than I needed because it reduced the interest rate by half... The 20% went straight into a savings account. Credit cards and overdrafts are much more expensive than loans. Mortgage is again cheaper than a loan usually. Make sure that you only use money from sources that charge the least amount. Make sure you pay back regularly so cheap sources stay available to you. Just do yourself a favour and if at all possible, spend less instead of getting a loan.\"","Get a Bankrupsy lawyer. They'll tell you to stop paying the bills and use the money to pay their fee. Yes... You do need to pay in advance. I can tell you honestly that it was the best thing that ever happened to me. Think about it this way... When you loan someone moneyyou're placing a bet that they'll pay you back. You try to keep the dos in your favor by using credit ratings etc but sometimes you win and sometimes you lose that bet. It's nothing personal. It's business. The casino doesn't feel bad when you lose your bets and your money and you don't expect them to. The person placing the bet knows what they're doing and knows all about the risks, etc. it's a calculated risk. Again... It's just business and it's nothing personal. It's also not nesessairly a failure. Depending on the situation... Bankrupsy is an excellent business decision. Big business do it all the time. Sometimes bankruptcy is a very smart decision and not going bankrupt is the worst decision you can make. My only regret with my own bankruptcy is that I didn't do it sooner. I could have saved the family years of unnecessary hardship and I could have gotten it over with much sooner. Don't be emotional. Be smart and do the smart thing.","\"Pete B mentioned adjusting your payments using the Debt Snowball Method and I agree it is one possible solution, another being the Debt Avalanche Method. Here is a link that describes both. There was a time in my past when I had 17 credit lines open totaling about $12,000. If I had paid them the way the banks asked (minimum monthly payments) it would have taken decades to pay off. Then I was shown these two techniques and as a result I was able pay them down rapidly and close all but 2 lines within 5 years. Like others I am going to say that if you already own your house free and clear never Never NEVER put a loan on it unless the loan is (a) to improve the house, or (b) a life & death emergency. If you get sick or fired and miss even a single payment on a HELOC you could lose your house forever and that just plain sucks. Not only will you then be forced into renting a place (money down the drain) but your credit rating will take such a huge hit it will be years (if ever) before you can even try and buy a new home. Debts come and go, as do the \"\"toys\"\" and other things we buy with that debt. Homes are security & stability for tomorrow. Never give that up for a little ease & comfort today. UPDATE: I had to go looking for it but here is some software that I used all those years ago to figure out my strategy for paying down all my credit bills. It's a bit clunky but it's super easy to use plus it has some other variations on snowball and avalanche methods as well. I definitely found it helpful.\"","Short-term, getting a balance transfer will help. It'll reduce the interest you pay. You can also reduce the interest you pay on your cars if you are able to consolidate your debt into a personal loan. To your question about debt consolidation companies, as far as I know, that's all they do. However, long-term, there's only two ways to stay on top of debt: increase your income, or reduce your spending. Basically, if you can't or won't get a raise or a job that pays more (or a second job), you need to cut back on your spending. You might need to do something radical, like move somewhere with cheaper rent (as long as increased travel costs doesn't offset the saving). But you'll be much better off in the long run if you step back and take a look at your situation now, and make adjustments accordingly.","\"Without knowing the details of your financial situation, I can only offer general advice. It might be worth having a financial counselor look at your finances and offer some custom advice. You might be able to find someone that will do this for free by asking at your local church. I would advise you not to try to get another loan, and certainly not to start charging things to a credit card. You are correct when you called it a \"\"nightmare.\"\" You are currently struggling with your finances, and getting further into debt will not help. It would only be a very short-term fix and have long-lasting consequences. What you need to do is look at the income that you have and prioritize your spending. For example, your list of basic needs includes: If you have other things that you are spending money on, such as medical debt or other old debt that you are trying to pay off, those are not as important as funding your basic needs above. If there is anything you can do to reduce the cost of the basic needs, do it. For example, finding a cheaper place to live or a place closer to your job might save you money. Perhaps accepting nutrition assistance from a local food bank or the Salvation Army is an option for you. Now, about your car: Your transportation to your job is very much one of your basic needs, as it will enable you to pay for your other needs. If you can use public transportation until you can get a working car again, or you can find someone that will give you a ride, that will solve this problem. If not, you'll need to get a working car. You definitely don't want to take out another loan for a car, as you are already having trouble paying the first loan. I'm guessing that it will be less expensive to get the engine repaired than it will be to buy a new car at this point. But that is just a guess. You'll need to find out how much it will cost to fix the car, and see if you can swing it by perhaps eliminating expenses that aren't necessary, even for a short time. For example, if you are paying installments on medical debt, you might have to skip a payment to fix your car. It's not ideal, but if you are short on cash, it is a better option than losing your job or taking out even more debt for your car. Alternatively, buying another, functional car, if it costs less than fixing your current car, is an option. If you don't have the money to pay your current car loan payments, you'll lose your current car. Just to be clear, many of these options will mess up your credit score. However, borrowing more, in an attempt to save your credit score, will probably only put off the inevitable, as it will make paying everything off that much harder. If you don't have enough income to pay your debts, you might be better off to just take the credit score ding, get back on your feet, and then work to eliminate the debt once you've got your basic needs covered. Sorry to hear about your situation. Again, this advice is just general, and might not all apply to your financial details. I recommend talking to the pastor of a local church and see if they have someone that can sit down with you and discuss your options.\""],"string":"[\n \"Some lenders will work with you if you contact them early and openly discuss your situation. They are not required to do so. The larger and more corporate the lender, the less likely you'll find one that will work with you. My experience is that your success in working out repayment plan for missed payments depends on the duration of your reduced income. If this is a period of unemployment and you will be able to pay again in a number of months, you may be able to work out a plan on some debts. If you're permanently unable to pay in full, or the duration is too long, you may have to file bankruptcy to save your domicile and transportation. The ethics of this go beyond this forum, as do the specifics of when it is advisable to file bankruptcy. Research your area, find debt counselling. They can really help with specifics. Speak with your lenders, they may be able to refer you to local non-profit services. Be sure that you find one of those, not one of the predatory lenders posing as credit counselling services. There's even some that take the money you can afford to pay, divide it up over your creditors, allowing you to keep accruing late/partial payment fees, and charge you a fee on top of it. To me this is fraudulent and should be cause for criminal charges. The key is open communication with your lenders with disclosure to the level that they need to know. If you're disabled, long term, they need to know that. They do not need to know the specific symptoms or causes or discomforts. They need to know whether the Social Security Administration has declared you disabled and are paying you a disability check. (If this is the case, you probably have a case worker who can find you resources to help negotiate with your creditors).\",\n \"For insight on what will happen, I suggest looking at the situation from the lender's perspective: If your setbacks are temporary, and you are likely to get back on your feet again, they will protect their investment by making accommodations, and probably charging you extra fees along the way. If your financial hardship seems irredeemable, they probably try to squeeze you for as much as possible, and then eventually take your house, protecting their investment as best they can. If they are going to foreclose, they may be reluctant to do it quickly, as foreclosure is expensive, takes man power, and looks bad on their books. So it may get pushed off for a Quarter, or a fiscal year. But if you are asking if they'll help you out from the goodness of their heart, well, a bank has no heart, and creditors are interested in ROI. They'll take the easiest path to profit, or failing that, the path to minimum financial losses. The personal consequences to you are not their concern. Once you realize this, it may change your thinking about your own situation. If you think you have a path to financial recovery, then you need to make that clear to them, in writing, with details. Make a business case that working with you is in their own best interests. If you cannot make such a case, recognize that they'll likely squeeze you for as much as possible in penalties, fees, interest payments, etc, before eventually foreclosing on you anyway. Don't play that game. If your home is a lost cause financially, plan how to get out from it with the smallest losses possible. Don't pay more than you need to, and don't throw good money after bad.\",\n \"You should look into the Income Contingent Repayment and Income Sensitive Repayment plans to see which one you may qualify for. Another possibility would be to start taking courses part time at another college so that you can qualify for a deferment. I'm not sure that you can qualify for a deferment if you are currently in default. I've found that negotiating did not work in my case, as the collectors' BATNA would result in them getting more money if they refused to negotiate. I also found that every time the student loans went into default, 30% was added to the balance in fees.\",\n \"The answer is generally yes. Depending on your circumstances and where you live, you may be able to get help through a federal, state, or lender program that:\",\n \"I would say generally, the answer is No. There might be some short term relief to people in certain situations, but generally speaking you sign a contract to borrow money and you are responsible to pay. This is why home loans offer better terms then auto loans, and auto loans better than credit cards or things like furniture. The better terms offer less risk to the lender because there are assets that can be repossessed. Homes retain values better than autos, autos better than furniture, and credit cards are not secured at all. People are not as helpless as your question suggests. Sure a person might lose their high paying job, but could they still make a mortgage payment if they worked really hard at it? This might mean taking several part time jobs. Now if a person buys a home that has a very large mortgage payment this might not be possible. However, wise people don't buy every bit of house they can afford. People should also be wise about the kinds of mortgages they use to buy a home. Many people lost their homes due to missing a payment on their interest only loan. Penalty rates and fees jacked up their payment, that was way beyond their means. If they had a fixed rate loan the chance to catch up would have not been impossible. Perhaps an injury might prevent a person from working. This is why long term disability insurance is a must for most people. You can buy quite a bit of coverage for not very much money. Typical US households have quite a bit of debt. Car payments, phone payments, and either a mortgage or rent, and of course credit cards. If income is drastically reduced making all of those payments becomes next to impossible. Which one gets paid first. Just this last week, I attempted to help a client in just this situation. They foolishly chose to pay the credit card first, and were going to pay the house payment last (if there was anything left over). There wasn't, and they are risking eviction (renters). People finding themselves in crisis, generally do a poor job of paying the most important things first. Basic food first, housing and utilities second, etc... Let the credit card slip if need be no matter how often one is threatened by creditors. They do this to maintain their credit score, how foolish. I feel like you have a sense of bondage associated with debt. It is there and real despite many people noticing it. There is also the fact that compounding interest is working against you and with your labor you are enriching the bank. This is a great reason to have the goal of living a debt free life. I can tell you it is quite liberating.\",\n \"I would contact your loan servicing company explain the situation and see if you can renegotiate terms. They may be able to drop the interest rate or lengthen the schedule to reduce the payment amount. I wouldn't default on the loan as that would likely hinder coming to/working in the US in the future. Not knowing your financial situation or country, could you attempt to obtain financing in your own country in order to pay off the US based loan? I would at least attempt to make some sort of payment while you attempt renegotiation, refinancing or pursue a job in the US, even if it technically puts or keeps you in default of the loan. Making any payment at least shows the willingness to pay back the loan, and you're not intentionally defaulting on your obligation.\",\n \"From my understanding by paying your bills more than 5 days late will not lead you into bankruptcy or stop you from getting a new loan in the future, however it may mean that lenders offer you credit at a higher interest rate. This of course would not help you as you are already struggling with your finances. However, no matter how bad you think things might be for you financially, there are always things you can do to improve your situation. Set a Budget The first thing you must do is to set a budget. List down all sources of income you receive each month, including any allowances. Then list all your sources of expenses and spending. List all your bills such as rent, telephone, electricity, car maintenance, credit card and other loans. Keep a diary for a month for all your discretionary spending - including coffees, lunches, and other odd bits and ends. You can also talk with your existing lenders and come to some agreement on reducing you interest rates on your debts and the repayments. But remember any reduction in repayments may increase your repayment period and the total interest you have to pay in the long term. If you need help setting up your budget here are some links to resources you can download to help you get started: Once you set up your budget you want your total income to be more than your total expenses. If it isn't you will be getting further and further behind each month. Some things you can do are to increase your income - get a job/second job, sell some unwanted items, or start a small home business. Some things you can do to reduce your expenses - make coffees and lunches at home before going out and buying these, pay off higher interest debts first, consolidate all your debts into a lower interest rate loan, reduce discretionary spending to an absolute minimum, cancel all unnecessary services, etc. Debt Consolidation In regards to a Debt Consolidation for your existing personal loans and credit cards into a single lower interest rate loan can be a good idea, but there are some pitfalls you should consider. Manly, if you are taking out a loan with a lower interest rate but a longer term to pay it off, you may end up paying less in monthly repayments but will end up paying more interest in the long run. If you do take this course of action try to keep your term to no longer than your current debt's terms, and try to keep your repayments as high as possible to pay the debt off as soon as possible and reduce any interest you have to pay. Again be wary of the fine print and read the PDS of any products you are thinking of getting. Refer to ASIC - Money Smart website for more valuable information you should consider before taking out any debt consolidation. Assistance improving your skills and getting a higher paid job If you are finding it hard to get a job, especially one that pays a bit more, look into your options of doing a course and improving your skills. There is plenty of assistance available for those wanting to improve their skills in order to improve their chances of getting a better job. Check out Centrelink's website for more information on Payments for students and trainees. Other Action You Can Take If you are finding that the repayments are really getting out of hand and no one will help you with any debt consolidation or reducing your interest rates on your debts, as a last resort you can apply for a Part 9 debt agreement. But be very careful as this is an alternative to bankruptcy, and like bankruptcy a debt agreement will appear on your credit file for seven years and your name will be listed on the National Personal Insolvency Index forever. Further Assistance and Help If you have trouble reading any PDS, or want further information or help regarding any issues I have raised or any other part of your financial situation you can contact Centrelink's Financial Information Service. They provide a free and confidential service that provides education and information on financial and lifestyle issues to all Australians. Learn how to manage your money so you can get out of your debt and can lead a much more comfortable and less stressful life into the future.\",\n \"That's tricky. Typically you lock in the minimum monthly payment when you close the loan. You can pay more but not less. Options:\",\n \"First I'd call and make sure there's not some kind of mistake. If that fails, look into reapplying for forbearance. I'm not sure what you got it for before, but I added up your expenses (which you say is more than your income) and from your stated SL payments, it's more than 20% of your income. That should qualify you for a mandatory forbearance. If not, it should definitely get them to approve a financial hardship forbearance. Before either of those, try to get a deferment though as a financial hardship (not the same as a hardship forbearance, but same principle). If none of that works, ask for an income based repayment plan. It'll stretch out your loans but will relieve some of the pressure now. Best of luck!\",\n \"Standard Repayment can be quite burdensome. Fortunately, it looks like FedLoan Servicing offers a variety of payment plan options, and even provides a calculator that you can use to compare them given your adjusted gross income and current loan balances. This won't reduce that $420 to $0 but it may bring it down significantly. I agree with @littleadv that you need legal advice to answer your other questions. That being said, I can tell you that it is possible to go into deferment and/or forbearance at any time (not only before you start making regular payments) as long as you meet the criteria. Otherwise, it may be worth looking through other questions and answers on here about lowering expenses and increasing income. There is a lot of good advice for people in similar situations to yours. If you are truly in hardship, even with a full-time job, you may qualify for supplemental nutrition insurance, a.k.a. food stamps. Best of luck.\",\n \"It sounds like there are no provisions in the loan document for how to proceed in this case. I would view this as creating a brand new loan. The amount owed is going to be (Principal remaining + interest from 2 years + penalties). If you created a new loan for 13 years, that would not be how I would expect a lender to behave. I would expect most repayment plans to be something like make double payments until you are caught up or pay an extra $1000 per month until caught up and then resume normal payments.\",\n \"\\\"I am lucky enough to have chosen a flexible mortgage that allows me to change payment amounts at certain, very lenient intervals (to a minimum amount). So when I was laid off, the first thing I did was call my bank to lower my payments to a level that allowed me some breathing room, at my new, lower income. If and when my family's income increases, I'll re-adjust my payments to a higher amount. But if you're concerned about the \\\"\\\"what if\\\"\\\"s in this economy, I'd definitely choose a mortgage that allows for flexibility so that you don't lose your house if you don't have to, particularly if your situation is temporary.\\\"\",\n \"You can often convert the outstanding balance of a HELOC into a fixed-rate home equity loan, generally with the same bank. Doing this can open possibilities to extend the term allowing for lower monthly payments, but resulting in a larger overall payoff cost. Most HELOCs allow for an interest-only payment or in some cases no-payment at all if you still have unused available credit. Not advising that you do this. If you are struggling with the size of the payment converting to a fixed-rate, fixed-term loan may be what you need. The key will be getting the term such that you can manage both the principal and interest that will be included in the payment.\",\n \"They were kind and let you extend the repayment time on the loan. But that does mean additional interest accumulated during that additional time. You agreed to this; you can't change the contract now. What you can do is find the money to pay off the loan faster, to reduce the total amount of interest you'll be charged.\",\n \"One option is to try to get a month ahead on your mortgage payments. Rather than using the current month's rent to pay the current month's mortgage payments, try to use the previous month's rent to pay the current month's mortgage payments. This should allow you to pay on time rather than late but not unacceptably late.\",\n \"Sounds like you are drowning in debt. Why not just stop paying? It will ruin your credit, but eventually you might be able to settle for much less than you owe and a reasonable interest rate. You will then have a long road to recover you credit, but IMHO this road is much longer and stressful. Hey, you are paying a high interest rate because you are EXPECTED to default. If you were expected to pay back your rates would be lower!\",\n \"Run the numbers in advance. Understand what are the current rates for an additional 2nd mortgage, what are the rates for a brand new mortgage that will cover the additional funds. Understand what they are for another lender. Estimate the amount of paperwork involved in each option (new first, new 2nd, and new lender). Ask the what are the options they can offer you. Because you have estimated the costs in money and time for the different options, you can evaluate the offer they make. What they offer you can range from everything you want to nothing you would accept. What they offer will depend on several factors: Do they care to keep you as a customer?; Do they expect you to walk away?; are they trying to get rid of mortgages like the one you have?; Can they make more money with the plan they are offering you? You will be interested in the upfront costs, the monthly costs, and the amount of time required for the process to be completed.\",\n \"Sounds like you are stuck. These are your options: increase limit Not going to happen. You said you don't qualify. You also won't convince them to let you access more borrowing power by arguing that you can't pay now. No responsible lender would take that bet. negotiate balance Unlikely. This sounds like mostly real debt, not fees. They generally won't write off real debt except if you are in default. They will only negotiate if they think you can't pay. Note that this will probably hurt your credit, as they will report that you didn't pay your debt. pay down balance This is your best and only real option. If you can't afford to pay down the balance you can't afford to borrow more. I am sorry for your situation; it is frustrating. I know how that feels. It is a textbook example of the risk associated with debt. Even if you plan to pay the balance every month, when the unexpected happens, you pay the price.\",\n \"\\\"The first thing I'd do is to find out your credit (FICO) score. If you have a good one, try to get another card with a lower rate. Then call up the lender, point to your good score, and your alternatives. If you have a bad score, do nothing. \\\"\\\"Let sleeping dogs lie.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"\\\"If the default happens through mass monetary inflation rather than openly (\\\"\\\"We're not paying interest on our bonds\\\"\\\") then make sure you pay off your house. There may not be a very long window to do so. If the currency becomes worthless, then it depends on what you have of value that would be accepted by the lender as payment. If you don't have anything, the lender will take it back, as they're probably entitled to on the notes.\\\"\",\n \"Note that this kind of entry on your credit record may also affect your ability to get a job. Basically, you're going on record as not honoring your commitments... and unless you have a darned good reason for having gotten into that situation and being completely unable to get back out, it's going to reflect on your general trustworthiness.\",\n \"Think about your priorities in life. Everybody is a little different. In my case I have a wife and child, so these are priorities for me, and you might have your own depending on your story. So if I lost my job, and I have no more money coming in (unemployment insurance runs out, savings depleted) then the bank can have the house. I personally would probably drop the house long before it came to that point. The first thing you do is talk to your creditors and work out a deal. At the same time I would stop paying for ALL unnecessary things (cable TV, extra cell phones, automobiles, leaving light bulbs on and turning the heat up over putting on a sweater). If I can't get a good deal from the creditors, I would stop paying the mortgage, find a place to live (family, friends, cheap apartment) while the credit is still good. My advice is to get yourself setup while your credit is good and you have SOME money in the bank. Waiting until the bank decides to foreclose is probably going to make your harder.\",\n \"I defaulted on my federal loans, as have over 8 million others. I have a ton of money in savings from not having paid the loans for several years. I work for myself, so all they can do is make calls asking me to sign up for their payment plans.\",\n \"I have an example that may be interesting for your question. My grandfather had a tennis club around 35 years ago, and some other businesses. Some investments went bad and he was heading for bankruptcy due to the tennis club's expensive payments. So he asked to renegotiate a variable rate rather than a fixed rate, even though the interest rates were going up, not down. The idea was that if the current situation is going to bankrupt you, taking a chance might be better. As an analogy, if you can't swim and you'll drown in 6 feet of water, it doesn't matter that you're taking the risk to go deeper. You might have to take that chance to survive. He did keep the tennis club in the end but that's irrelevant here. For student loans, if I'm not mistaken, declaring bankruptcy doesn't free you of all their debt, so it may not be applicable. And this situation is when renegotiating, not when negotiating the first time. because obviously if you're in trouble financially, taking a loan you know you can't repay is suicide.\",\n \"You could look into refinancing with a bank or credit union. But to weed out options quickly, use a service like LendingTree, which can vet multiple options for you a whole lot more quickly than you could probably do yourself. (I don't work for, or get any benefit from LendingTree.) Whatever you do, try to do all the applying within a short span of time, as to not negatively affect your credit score (read here) by creating extraneous inquiries. Then again, if your credit sucks, you might not qualify for a re-fi. If you are turned down, make your payments on time for six months or so, and try again.\",\n \"\\\"Let me give you some advice from someone who has experience at both ends - had student loan issues myself and parents ran financial aid department at local university. Quick story of my student loan. I graduated in debt and could not pay at first due to having kids way too early. I deferred. Schools will have rules for deference. There are also federal guidelines - lets not get specific on this though since these change every year it seems. So basically there is an initial deferment period in which any student can request for the repayments to be deferred and it is granted. Then there is an extended deferment. Here someone has to OK it. This is really rather arbitrary and up to the school/lender. My school decided to not extend mine after I filled out a mound of paperwork and showed that even without paying I had basically $200 a month for the family to live off past housing/fixed expenses. Eventually they had to cave, because I had no money so they gave me an extended deferment. After the 5 years I started paying. Since my school had a very complex way to pay, I decided to give them 6 months at a time. You would think they would love that right? (On the check it was clearly stated what months I was paying for to show that I was not prepaying the loan off) Well I was in collections 4 months later. Their billing messed up, set me up for prepayment. They then played dumb and acted like I didn't but I had a picture of the check and their bank's stamp on the back... They couldn't get my loan out of collections - even though they messed up. This is probably some lower level employee trying to cover their mistake. So this office tells creditors to leave me alone but I also CANNOT pay my loan because the credit collection agency has slapped a 5k fee on the 7k loan. So my loan spent 5 years (kid you not) like this. It was interest free since the employee stopped the loan processing. Point being is that if you don't pay the lender will either put your loan into deferment automatically or go after you. MOST (not all) schools will opt for deferment, which I believe is 2 years at most places. Then after that you have the optional deferment. So if you keep not paying they might throw you into that bucket. However if you stop paying and you never communicate with them the chances of you getting the optional deferment are almost none - unless school doesn't know where you live. Basically if you don't respond to their mail/emails you get swept into their credit collection process. So just filling out the deferment stuff when you get it - even if they deny it - could buy you up to 10 years - kid you not. Now once you go into the collection process... anything is game. As long as you don't need a home/car loan you can play this game. What the collection agency does depends on size of loan and the rules. If you are at a \\\"\\\"major\\\"\\\" university the rules are usually more lax, but if you are at the smaller schools, especially the advertised trade/online schools boom - better watch out. Wages will be garnished very soon. Expect to go to court, might have to hire an attorney because some corrupt lenders start smacking on fees - think of the 5k mine smacked on me. So the moral of the story is you will pay it off. If you act nice, fill out paperwork, talk to school, and so on you can probably push this off quite a few years. But you are still paying and you will pay interest on everything. So factor in that to the equation. I had a 2.3% loan but they are much higher now. Defaulting isn't always a bad thing. If you don't have the money then you don't have it. And using credit cards to help is not the thing to do. But you need to try to work with the school so you don't incur penalties/fees and so that your job doesn't have creditors calling them. My story ended year 4 that my loan was in collection. A higher up was reviewing my case and called me. Told her the story and emailed her a picture of their cashed check. She was completely embarrassed when she was trying to work out a plan for me and I am like - how about I come down tomorrow with the 7k. But even though lender admitted fault this took 20+ calls to agencies to clear up my credit so I could buy a house. So your goal should be:\\\"\",\n \"Maybe. As other have said, doing this deliberately is fraud, but almost impossible to prove unless you've lied on the loan documents or discussed your plans with witnesses. The lender may consider negotiating a partial write-down of the loan, but that is far from their only option. Depending on the details of the loan agreement they may be able to garnish your wages, seize your property, or walk into your business with a sheriffs' deputy and empty your cash register. They may also be able to add their costs for recovering the money to your debt.\",\n \"All new loans must be originated from the direct loan program. In most cases, the Stafford loan is better, as the rate is lower (6.8% vs. 7.9% for the PLUS loan). There aren't many viable alternatives for most people. Private student loans exist, but carry significantly higher rates and worse payment terms. The exceptions are programs that exist for professions like medicine and dentistry. Credit cards usually carry higher rates and limited credit lines, but you have the option of negotiating the balance down or declaring bankruptcy to discharge the debt if you are unable to repay.\",\n \"Several answers already addressed the issue that you wouldn't want to get into this situation in the first place, but looking forward the problem is that you want to spend 2000, whilst you don't have it (or at least not 3200). Besides finding a way to get more loans/credit than you already have, you can consider whether you could survive without spending the 2k in question.\",\n \"You could do that once, maybe, if the lender negotiates rather than going to court and taking you for everything you have plus having you wages garnished for the next several decades. And in the process, you would destroy your credit rating, making it impossible to borrow again any time soon. Doing this deliberately is fraud ... But worse than that, it's blatently stupid. You are likely to lose far more than you could gain.\",\n \"If you have a minimum monthly payment amount of $190, then you have to make a payment every month. If you pay only every 3 months (even if you pay 3 times the minimum amount, or much more), you would not be making the minimum monthly payment for each month: one month would get the minimum monthly payment, plus a lot more, then the following 2 months you would be in default because you didn't pay the minimum amount for that month! Interest is usually accrued daily, so you want to make the payments as early as possible. Pay back as much as you can afford each month, as soon as the money comes in. When computing how much you can afford, if you haven't already done so, it may be a good idea to keep a little bit aside (at least the first few months, to build up a little security pillow), just in case you need it (you won't be able to get money back from those overpayments if you need any money for an emergency).\",\n \"It's sad. My mother lost her job after a brutal divorce. BOA bought up Countrywide, then when my mother pleaded for assistance BOA said they could not help her unless she was behind/in default of her mortgage. She tried to do a deed-in-lieu with a lawyer and BOA refused to accept the deed-in-lieu many times. Then BOA sold her mortgage to Green Tree (?) and they refused her deed-in-lieu as well. This went on for over 2 years and they foreclosed on the house. I told my mother to sue because they should have accepted her deed-in-lieu because it was approved by the court in her bankruptcy but she was tired of trying to save her house that she just walked away. 6 months after she left and moved in with my sister Green Tree called her offering a refinance at a lower rate and a mortgage payment that was less than a typical car payment. Now 5 years later my mom is just going to pay cash for her house and never do a mortgage again.\",\n \"You could do a voluntary repossession. While a repossession never looks good on your credit a voluntary repossession is slightly better. A good friend of mine had a situation like this about 11 years ago. She was in an accident didn't have replacement coverage insurance and was left with a large chunk of debt on a wrecked vehicle that she then rolled into a new car. In the end it came down to the simple fact that she could not afford a car loan on a vehicle that never was worth as much as she owed. Since the car was worth less than the loan she really couldn't sell it to fix the problem. She called and arranged a voluntary repossession. She stopped making payments, and parked the car till they came and picked it up. (Took about 4 months and 20 phone calls from her for them to come get it.) In the mean time, I purchased her a much older used but decent car for a couple thousand and she paid me back over the next year. The total she paid me back was less than the money she would have paid in the 4 months it took them to come get the car. In fact by the time they picked up the car she had paid back over half on the car I bought her. Yes the repossession did stay on her credit for seven years but during that time she was approved for a mortgage, cellphone plans, and credit cards etc. Therefore I don't know that it did that much damage to her credit. When her car was sold at auction by the repo company it sold for much less than the loan amount. Technically she was on the hook for the remaining amount. The outstanding balance on the loan was then sold several times to several different collection agencies. Over the years since then she has gotten letters every now and then demanding she pay the amount off, she ignores these. Most of these letters even included very favorable terms (full forgiveness for 20% of the amount) At this point the statute time has run out on the debt so there is no recourse for anyone to collect from her. The statute time limit varies from state to state. Some states it is as long as 10 years in others it is as short as 3 years. What this means is that counting from the date of the repossession, incurrance of debt, last payment, or agreement to pay whichever is later if the statute period has elapsed and the lender/collector has not filed a suit against you by the end of the period then they have effectively abandoned the debt and cannot collect. Find out what that period of time is in your state. If you can avoid the collection agencies till that period runs out you are scott free. You just have to make sure that you do not ever send them any money, or agree to pay them anything as this resets the calendar. If you do not want to wait for the calendar to run out if you wait long enough you will probably be offered favorable terms to pay only a fraction of the remaining amount, you just have to wait it out. Note, I normally would not endorse anyone not paying off their debts. However sometimes it is necessary and it is for this type of situation that we have things like this and bankruptcy.\",\n \"You could walk away from your mortgage. When you signed the mortgage you and the bank agreed that if you stopped making payments the bank would get the house. Give them the house. Of course this would be a huge hit to your credit score and you would probably not be able to obtain another mortgage at a decent rate for at least 7 years. You may have trouble obtaining other financing as well (i.e. auto loans). If you plan on moving to an apartment and don't need to finance car purchases this may be OK.\",\n \"I've kind of been there myself. I stretched my finances for the deposit on a house, and lived off my credit card for a few months to build up what I was short on the deposit. Add some unexpected car repairs, and I ended up with £10k on the card. The problem I had then was that interest on the card ran at around 20%, and although I could meet the interest payments I couldn't clear the £10k. I simply went and talked to my bank. In the UK there are some clear rules about banks giving customers a chance to restructure their debts. That's the BANK doing it, not some shady loan-shark. We went through my finances and established that in principle it was repayable. So I got a 2-year unsecured loan at around 5%, cleared the card, and spent the next 2 years paying off a loan that I could afford. My credit score is still aces. Forget the loan-sharks. Talk to your bank. If they're crap, talk to another bank. If no bank is going to help you, consider bankrupcy as per advice above. Debt restructuring companies are ALWAYS a con, no exceptions.\",\n \"\\\"Bankruptcy should be your last option, and you will find that BK will not resolve most of your problems, and create many more problems. There are two kinds of BK that are available to the average person, Ch13 debt repayment and Ch7 liquidation. Both have severe repercussions and lasting effects on your credit (7-10 years, after discharge). And the calculations required under the 2005 BAPCPA are complex and may require help to understand. Ch7 liquidation is the more severe course, and the trustee would liquidate assets that exceed exemptions (vary by state) to pay your creditors. Ch13 debt repayment is hard, and only 20-25% of those who pursue that route complete the debt repayment plan. Your credit score for either course would suffer greatly (200-250 points) and would remain reduced for years, especially since you would have to rebuild credit. And the law is flawed both in design and execution as there is no reward for successful debt repayment, few finish their repayment plan (20-25%), the mean recovery for unsecured creditors in repayment is zero (thus does not help creditors), and leaves the debtor with damaged credit for years (not a fresh start). Although you may have made some decisions that have placed you in a difficult position, you can find solutions to resolve these problems. You may find that simply learning to make better choices will improve your situation. Take a financial education course (such as the Dave Ramsey course), and learn how to budget, and make better choices. The LearnVest website offers a simple way to budget by dividing budgeting into only three (3) categories with suggested percentages for each, essentials (<50%), financial priorities (>20%), and lifestyle (<30%). The damage to your credit from the derogatory effects of BK would linger for years, but the damage from poor payment history declines much quicker, and loses most of the effect after 2 years (and should you keep the accounts open, leaves you with good history and longer account history), thus the effects decline to minimal after as little as 2 years of good behavior/payment history. Make a plan that prioritizes the debts, and how you will resolve the problem, and work the plan. Based upon the income and debts you mention, the situation you have may not be as bad as it appears. You may be getting bad advice, especially from a debt settlement company that might be more interested in their fees than in your problem. Since you \\\"\\\"want to play fair and continue with payments, but when people start to get greedy like this I am ready to just stop caring\\\"\\\", you really need two things, a plan, and a friend, someone who you can talk to honestly and openly, and who can support you as you work through the plan you make. Since you \\\"\\\"would prefer the option that will give me the most peace of mind and allow me to start saving money as soon as possible\\\"\\\", you need to find an approach that fits your goals. Your statement that you \\\"\\\"don't plan on ever using credit again\\\"\\\", fits with the Dave Ramsey philosophy and resonates with many of us who have learned that those who grant credit are often harsh masters. Now that you have provided more information, the advice below expands upon the above reflecting upon your specific situation. Since you make $62K/year, you may be close to the median income, and the BAPCPA (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) has a presumption of abuse for filing Ch7 when you have above median income (for your state, check the law). As you may be pushed into Ch13 debt repayment anyway, examine what you could do to repay the debt (over 5 years, 60 months, as that would be a Ch13 repayment duration). Since you have $8K of revolving (unsecured?) debt, that would be repaid in Ch13 over 60 months at about $133/month (no interest), but you would also be paying 10% to the trustee. There might be some portion of your auto debt which is unsecured, and also be repaid unsecured, suppose that is $3000. That would add another $50/month to the plan. The car could be repaid over 60 months (including interest), so you might be repaying $300/month for the car (estimate), although the payment could be higher or lower depending upon how much of the value of the car is unsecured. The trustee might object that the car is too expensive (depends upon the value, and the trustee), and require be liquidated. Since BK excludes relief for student loans, you might find yourself paying the student loans at the same payment. Your $62K income suggests that you have about $4200/month (guess, after taxes). The mortgage payment is higher than 25% ($1050-1100 would be ideal for your income). But after your mortgage payment you should still have about $3900. Even with $300 for credit card debt, $500 for car, and $400 for student loans (guessing), that leaves $2700 for essentials (utilities, food), lifestyle (cellphone, entertainment), and savings. You might find a friend who is good at budgeting who would be willing to help you craft a budget and be your \\\"\\\"responsibility partner\\\"\\\" to help you stick to the budget. Here is a sample plan (your mileage may vary), Essentials (50%, $2100): $2180 Financial (30%, 1230): $1250 Lifestyle (20%, 840): $500 (pick up slack here, as you have high debt load)\\\"\",\n \"You can take a out loan against your 401k, which means you won't be penalized for the withdrawal. You will have to pay that amount back though, but it can help since the interest will be lower than a lot of credit card rates. You could refinance your home if you can get a reasonable interest rate. You could also get a 0% APR balance transfer credit card and transfer the balance and pay it off that way. There are a lot of options. I would contact a Credit Counselor and explore further options. The main objective is to get you out of debt, not put you more in debt - whether that is refinancing your mortgage, cashing in an annuity, etc.\",\n \"Two choices: 1. Sell everything you have and move to North Korea. 2. Questions regarding loans, refinancing, mortgages, credit cards, investing and anything else that may be related to personal finance should be directed towards the subreddit /r/personalfinance. You will receive a probation (temporary ban) for disregarding this rule.\",\n \"I have this exact same issue. Event the dollar amounts are close. Here is how I am looking at the problem. Option 1: Walk away. Goodbye credit for 7+ years. Luckily I can operate in cash with the extra $800 per month, but should I have a non medical emergency I might be SOL. With a family I am not sure I am willing to risk it. What if my car dies the month after I quit paying and the bank chooses to foreclose? What if my wife or I lose our job and we have no credit to live? Option 2: Short sale. Good if I can let it happen. I might or might not be on the hook for the balance depending on the state. If I am on the hook, okay, suck but I could live. If I am not on the hook, it is going to hurt my credit the same as foreclosure. It isn't easy, you need an experienced real estate agent and a willing bank. Option 3: Keep paying. I am going for this. At the moment I can still afford the house even though it is at the expense of some luxuries in my live. (Cable TV, driving to work, a new computer). I am wagering the market fixes itself in the next several years. Should the S hit the fan in most any manner, the mortgage is the first thing I stop paying. I don't know what other options I have. I can't re-fi; too upside down. I can't sell; the house isn't worth the mortgage (and I don't have the cash for the balance). I can't walk away; the credit hit wouldn't be worth the monthly money gain. I have no emotions about the house. I am in a real bad investment and getting out now seems like a good idea, but I am going to guess that having the house 10 years from now is better than not. I don't care about the bank at all, nor do I feel I owe them the money because I took the loan. They assumed risk loaning me the money in the first place. The minute it gets worse for me than for the bank; I will stop paying. Summary Not much to do without a serious consequence. I would suggest holding out for the very long term if you feel you can. The best way to minimize the bad investment is to ride it out and pray it gets better. I am thinking I am a landlord for the next 10 years.\",\n \"Another option, not yet discussed here, is to allow the loan to go into default and let the loaning agency repossess the property the loan was used for, after which they sell it and that sale should discharge some significant portion of the loan. Knowing where the friend and property is, you may be able to help them carry out the repossession by providing them information. Meanwhile, your credit will take a significant hit, but unless your name is on the deed/title of the property then you have little claim that the property is yours just because you're paying the loan. The contract you signed for the loan is not going to be easily bypassed with a lawsuit of any sort, so unless you can produce another contract between you and your friend it's unlikely that you can even sue them. In short, you have no claim to the property, but the loaning agency does - perhaps that's the only way to avoid paying most of the debt, but you do trade some of your credit for it. Hopefully you understand that what you loaned wasn't money, but your credit score and earning potential, and that you will be more careful who you choose to lend this to in the future.\",\n \"It depends on your equity(assets - liabilities). If you have a lot of equity, banks will be happy to lend you money because they now they can always seize your assets. If you don't have a lot of equity another option is to go to hard money lenders. They charge high rates and some of them lend-to-own, but is an option. And consider what Pete said, you might be a little optimistic.\",\n \"To littleadv's comment, walking away may be the best option. If your numbers are as described, any ideas we could offer on earning or raising cash would be best to use as money to live on, not to pay down a loan on an under water house. the double wide you propose to buy will like cost less than your HELOC balance. I'd see if you could buy that home first, renting the house, and only default after you're in the new place.\",\n \"\\\"The comments are getting too much, but to verify that you are not insane, you are being bullied. It sounds like this is a sub-prime loan, of which you are wisely trying to get out of. It also sounds like they are doing everything in their power to prevent you from doing so. For them you are a very profitable customer. This might take some legwork for you, but depending on how bad they are violating the law they might be willing to forgive the loan. What I am trying to say, it might be very worth your while! Your first step will be looking for any free resources at your disposal: Just be cautious as many \\\"\\\"credit representation\\\"\\\" type business are only offering loan consolidation. That is not what you need. Fight those bastards!\\\"\",\n \"\\\"You also want to make sure that the loan is being re-amortized (sometimes called \\\"\\\"recasting\\\"\\\"). Without this, you are still responsible for the interest payments according to the original amortization table. If you re-amortize the loan with a principal that is lower than on the table, you will reduce the amount of interest you owe each period, which means that if you maintain the same payment you will pay less in total interest. It's important to realize that most people re-amortize to reduce the payment amount but not the term. Also, not all loans can be re-amortized, and some banks limit how often it can be done.\\\"\",\n \"My advice to you? Act like responsible adults and owe up to your financial commitments. When you bought your house and took out a loan from the bank, you made an agreement to pay it back. If you breach this agreement, you deserve to have your credit score trashed. What do you think will happen to the $100K+ if you decide to stiff the bank? The bank will make up for its loss by increasing the mortgage rates for others that are taking out loans, so responsible borrowers get to subsidize those that shirk their responsibilities. If you were in a true hardship situation, I would be inclined to take a different stance. But, as you've indicated, you are perfectly able to make the payments -- you just don't feel like it. Real estate fluctuates in value, just like any other asset. If a stock I bought drops in value, does the government come and bail me out? Of course not! What I find most problematic about your plan is that not only do you wish to breach your agreement, but you are also looking for ways to conceal your breach. Please think about this. Best of luck with your decision.\",\n \"I suppose it depends on the circumstances, but I wouldn't advise it. If you default on a loan to the bank it might ruin your credit, if you default to a family member it has the potential for much more damage in the form of fostering bad feelings and hurt the relationship.\",\n \"As someone with a lot of student loan debt, I can relate - the first thing you should do is read the promissory note on your current loans - there might be information there you can use. For govt loans (stafford, etc) made after July 1, 2006 the interest rate is going to be fixed and even a federal direct consolidation is not going to lower the rates themselves. If anything, consolidation will just increase the repayment period, which means you'll end up paying more in the long run. Most private Loans usually offer variable interest rates, which today are quite low. But unless your financial situation is very comfortable and stable, consolidating out of federally guaranteed loans into private loans might not be the best path. You might lose options like deferment, forbearance, and maybe even things like a death benefit (if you die, your loans die with you). related - if you have a co-signer you don't get that death benefit! But refinancing into a variable rate private loan is going to push a lot of risk to you in terms of interest rate inflation, etc. Most financial professionals will agree that interest rates can only go up in the long run. Keep in mind, student loans are completely unsecured - meaning lenders are taking a fairly large risk in loaning money (and probably why the fed govt has to guarantee most of them). I've heard of people borrowing against their home equity to pay down student loan debt - but I can't think of a reason you'd want to substitute secured for unsecured debt and possibly lose the loan interest tax deduction. The bottom line is you're unlikely to find an alternative lending source at a lower interest rate for an unsecured student loan. Another option may be the income based repayment plan. If you qualify, it caps student loan monthly payments at 15% of your discretionary income (discretionary is your income minus whatever the poverty threshold income amount is). And if that 15% doesn't even cover the interest on the loans, the govt picks up the tab for the difference (for up to 3 years). You have to re-qualify every year by sending in all sorts of documentation, but if you somehow stay on IBR for 25 years, your loans are then forgiven. Obviously the downside here is that you are probably paying little to no principal, but if you do the math and determine that your IBR payment would be next to nothing, and your current situation is barely paying interest-only... well, maybe IBR isn't a bad thing for a couple of years (or 25 if you think you will never have a larger income). Personally, I went through all these options as well and decided that my best option was to just earn more money... a 2nd job or side project here and there helps me pay down the debt faster, and with less risk, than moving to private variable rate loans.\",\n \"I wouldn't like to say either way what you should do, not being an financial advisor or lawyer, but I did find an interesting article on nytimes.com: Walk Away From Your Mortgage! that you might also find helpful to frame your decision. It has some interesting information on defaults, it says this: Mortgage holders do sign a promissory note, which is a promise to pay. But the contract explicitly details the penalty for nonpayment — surrender of the property. The borrower isn’t escaping the consequences; he is suffering them. In some states, lenders also have recourse to the borrowers’ unmortgaged assets, like their car and savings accounts. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond found that defaults are lower in such states, apparently because lenders threaten the borrowers with judgments against their assets. But actual lawsuits are rare. And given that nearly a quarter of mortgages are underwater, and that 10 percent of mortgages are delinquent, White, of the University of Arizona, is surprised that more people haven’t walked. He thinks the desire to avoid shame is a factor, as are overblown fears of harm to credit ratings. Probably, homeowners also labor under a delusion that their homes will quickly return to value. White has argued that the government should stop perpetuating default “scare stories” and, indeed, should encourage borrowers to default when it’s in their economic interest. This would correct a prevailing imbalance: homeowners operate under a “powerful moral constraint” while lenders are busily trying to maximize profits. More important, it might get the system unstuck. If lenders feared an avalanche of strategic defaults, they would have an incentive to renegotiate loan terms. In theory, this could produce a wave of loan modifications — the very goal the Treasury has been pursuing to end the crisis.\",\n \"\\\"It can be difficult when all your disposable income is spoken for. Your options depend on how good your credit is and how flexible your expenses are. I don't have all the answers without more details (possibly not then). However, couple of points of advice: Paying off that credit card debt (and not adding any more to it) is your #1 priority. You should make minimum payments to every other debt until you have done that because the interest on it will kill you in the mean time. It is always optimal to pay the maximum to your highest interest debt and minimum to all other debts. 11% doesn't sound very good on your house loan. You may want to consider refinancing. That is, if you can get a lower rate. You may also want to get a longer term loan (if you have enough discipline to use the extra income to actually pay off your credit card and then the put it toward the house when the cards are paid off). Look at options to increase your income, at least temporarily. Second jobs and such. When your finances are more in order, you can back off. The debt \\\"\\\"trap\\\"\\\" is behavioral. We humans tend to increase our spending until we can't any more. But the reason we can't spend any more is that we have increased our debt until we have no flexible income. Then we are stuck for a long time and have few options. The only way out (long term) is to change our habits so that we don't increase spending each time we pay down a debt or get an increase to our income. Financial discipline is the only way to have financial security. Almost always the first step is to pay off credit cards and stop maintaining a balance (always pay off every card at the end of each month). Then start paying off other debts from highest interest rate to lowest. This is a hard challenge and one most of us face at some point in our lives. Good luck!\\\"\",\n \"No, you were not the stupid one. Yes many of these mortgage companies will only work with you if you are behind. . . no idea why, but I will say that yes I have seen it. You do not have to deal with the stress. . . . working with mortgage companies is not a fun proposition, they don't know what they are doing half the time. You can leave and move whenever you want. . . even if their payments are better now who knows how long till they can actually see the place for enough to move. I work in bankruptcy I have seen the stresses this causes. . . it is not fun, even if they are doing better now, try not to envy them, it is not fun.\",\n \"Do you have any legal options? Not really. Citi is under no obligation to refinance your loan on your terms. But that goes both ways, and you are under no obligation to refinance with Citi! Get more quotes from another lender. It'll feel really good when you find a lender that wants your business. You might get a better deal. And think how good it will feel to cut ties with Citi!\",\n \"If you can't sell it, refinance the bugger. Even if you can knock the interest rate down to 8% and take out a 3-year loan, you'll save about $100 per month. Or really kill the payment (but pay more interest) by taking out another 6-year. A 6-year at 9% on $12k is only $215/month. My credit union routinely advertises specials on car loans. It shouldn't be difficult to get out of the usurious loan you have now. As for others' advice about getting another job, having been a PhD student I hesiate to suggest that you get another one, because your job is probably your life right now. But can your wife (or even you) start a blog on a subject that interests you? A few posts a week add up over time, and pretty soon you have a real asset that can be another basket to put your eggs in.\",\n \"I know there are plenty of people who have to deal with the stress and know it isn't pleasant...but it's hard to see how much worse it is as far as stress goes because I have to pay $1950 in rent each month and don't get the option to default and if I do, I don't get to wait for 8 months while the banks get their paperwork in order to evict me. I want to believe that in the end I will come out ahead but either I've been incredibly smart with my life decisions or incredibly naive...\",\n \"Whatever you choose for a remedy (my first impulse is to suggest bankruptcy) you should protect your retirement plans. These are immune from most collection actions, the exception being govt debts (e.g. taxes) and student loans. The sad part is that the student loans won't go away except by paying them off. Miss one payment and it will hound you for 10 years. Bankruptcy will stop you from getting a home loan for only two years. Unless you have the discipline to live like a monk for a decade it sounds like you're headed for a train wreck. The kids will have to cut back to junior college or some other method of reducing costs and as hard as it sounds, don't cosign for any more student loans. Kids are more resilient than you think and they'll probably come up with their own solutions like scholarships, work study and off campus jobs. I hate to keep beating the bankruptcy horse but at least that way you could still keep your house and car. Otherwise you risk losing either or both from missed payments. I actually hope that you can avoid bankruptcy so I suggest first you talk to a financial adviser or bankruptcy attorney to see if this is in fact right for you. But if it's just the shame of the scarlet letter B then consider that pride doesn't keep a roof over your head or food in your belly.\",\n \"JoeTaxpayer mentioned a budget. Staying on top of your spending will be the result of getting out from under this debt. You may have Excel on your PC now, if not Open Office is free which has a program that handles finance applications. There is budgeting software for free out there. Youneedabudget.com is a lot better but cost a little. It keeps me from spending money I don't necessarily have as I can see a result month to month from having outflow of cash. As Joe mentioned - no more lattes in the near future which will help you pay off this debt which will be a bigger relief than a fashion statement. Having used budgeting software and attempted to stay in budget has been useful. I still over spend a little on food and can see the ramifications immediately. In short, try creating and sticking to a budget no matter the urge. As far as insolvency is concerned I'd struggle with paying it down before I do that. The thought passed my mind but I bit the bullet. DO NOT walk away from the debt however. That isn't a good idea Either. Budget and bite.\",\n \"I wish this was the case in Canada. I lost about 60k on my home in one year and have to sell now to move for work. In the US I could simply default and the bank takes the loss. In Canada if I default, CMHC pays the bank, then I'm sued by CMHC and stuck with the bad debt. Simply put - here the onus of repayment is on the lender, not the lending institution. It sounds good until you are the one looking at losing your shirt.\",\n \"If your parents can afford to shell out $1,250 a month for 5 years, they would pretty much have the debt paid off, provided the credit card companies don't start playing games with rates. If that payment is too high, maybe you could kick in $5k every few months to knock the principal down. If they think the business can keep puttering along without losing more money, that may be the way to go. Five years is long enough that the business or property may have recovered some value. Another option, depending on the value of the home, could be a reverse mortgage. I don't know how the economy has affected those programs, but that might be a good option to get the debt cleared away. My grandfather was in a similar position back in the 70's. He owned taverns in NYC that catered to an industrial clientele... the place was booming in the 60s and my grandfather and his brother owned 4 locations at one point. But the death of his brother, post-Vietnam malaise, suburban exodus and shutting of industry really hurt the business, and he ended up selling out his last tavern in 1979 -- which was a dark hour in NYC history and real estate values. A few years later, that building sold for a tremendous amount of money... I believe 10x more. I don't know whether there was a way for his business to survive for another 5-7 years, as I was too young to remember. But I do remember my grandfather (and my father to this day) being melancholy about the whole affair. It's hard to have to work part-time in your 60's and be constantly reminded that your family business -- and to some degree a part of your life -- ended in failure. The stress of keeping things afloat when you're broke is tough. But there's also a mental reward from getting through a tough situation on your own. Good luck!\",\n \"You say you are underwater by $10k-15k. Does that include the 6% comission that selling will cost you? If you are underwater and have to sell anyway, why would you want to give the bank any extra money? A loss will be taken on the sale. Personally i would want the bank to take as much of that loss as possible, rather than myself. Depending on the locale the mortgage may or may not be non-recourse, ie the loan contract implies that the bank can take the house from you if you default, but if 'non-recourse' the bank has no legal way to demand more money from you. Getting the bank to cooperate on a short sale might be massively painful. If you have $ in your savings, you might have more leverage to nego with the bank on how much money you have to give them in the event the loan is not 'non-recourse'. Note that even if not 'non-recourse', it's not clear it would be worth the banks time and money to pursue any shortfall after a sale or if you just walk away and mail the keys to the bank. If you're not worried about your credit, the most financially beneficial action for you might be to simply stop paying the mortgage at all and bank the whole payments. It will take the bank some time to get you out of the house and you can live cost-free during that time. You may feel a moral obligation to the bank. I would not feel this way. The banks and bankers took a ton of money out of selling mortgages to buyers and then selling securities based on the mortgages to investors. They looted the whole system and pushed prices up greatly in the process, which burned most home buyers and home owners. It's all about business -my advice is to act like a business does and minimize your costs. The bank should have required a big enough downpayment to cover their risk. If they did not, then they are to blame for any loss they incur. This is the most basic rule of finance.\",\n \"Others have covered the usual vehicles for getting money out of a property. There's another category of home loan called a hard money loan. It would take a lot of inquiries to find a hard money loan given your needs, but chances are its doable. The terms can be onerous, and hard money lenders don't mess around when it comes to foreclosing after a few missed payments. It's an off-the-radar industry and the private lenders and specialized trustees operate together with strike-force precision. Trustees normally should be trust-able by borrower and lender, but in the case I describe below, one man owned the small company that lent, and the small company that acted as trustee. Borrower beware. Yet, if your credit score and income are dismal, but your home equity is great, hard money is the only way to borrow against your home. In making hard money loans, lenders don't consider your credit score or income, just how much equity is in the property. I daresay they hope you'll default. They don't always hang onto the loans. If you look like a payer instead of someone they can foreclose on, they might sell the loan to someone who wants a stable monthly income. You don't know a thing about that person. A Cautionary Tale: *Check out HankandHelen.blogspot.com for a currently-unfolding saga, in which an elderly couple's grandson convinced them to let him take title to their house, borrow against it, invest the proceeds, and share the profits. It didn't work that way. He went through hard-money lenders. He borrowed $360,000 and then $65,000. Those were mysteriously paid off (total mystery at this point), and he borrowed $47,000. About a year later, he lost the house by defaulting the $47,000 loan. He was only about $2000 behind in payments when the trustee issued a notice of default, followed by a notice of sale. The trustee put the place up for auction, which didn't require a court order: that's the way it is in California and many western states, and a few others. The hard money lender bought the loan at auction for $83,000, and a home worth about $800,000 no longer belonged to the grandson. A fundraiser brought in about $120,000 and the couple bought a mobile home in a mobile home park. The acre of land and swimming pool they used to own will be for sale soon, or possibly demolished for a mansion to be built. (House in the area go for about $2.5M when improved with very large, new houses.)* I poke around PropertyShark.com when I see a house bought cheaply at a foreclosure auction. Quite often the (former) borrower had inherited the house, treated it like a piggy bank, defaulted, and boom--no more house. It never makes sense to put a house at risk for a small amount like $5000. If you can't pay those credit card bills, the lenders can hound you and maybe get a court order to extract something from your checking account every month, but they can't take your belongings. When you sign a deed of trust or mortgage, you're giving a third party the right to kick you out of your home and take possession of it. You don't have any say in the matter. You might go to court, and say whatever you feel like saying, but if you owe many payments and can't pay them immediately, you're very likely to be out of luck. Someone mentioned paying off credit card balances with the highest interest rates first. That's done by throwing whatever cash you have at them while paying the minimum on the lower-rate balances. That's financially sound, but there's a technique that turns out to be more motivating for some, which is attacking the lowest balance first. It leads to the quickest reduction in the number payments you're required to make every month, and quickly lets you add the money you were applying to the smallest balance to the payment you make on the next-smallest balance. (Close each card as you pay it off if you don't want to accumulate debt again.) P.S. I don't know what your home's feed is, so I didn't address that. If it's some kind of rental income, every lender I have encountered credits 75% of the current monthly rent toward your gross income. They assume there will be vacancies and other costs.\",\n \"You should definitely pay the remaining loan amount as quickly as possible. A loan in bad debts means that Bank has written it off books as its a education loan and there is no collateral. The defaults do get report to CIBIL [Credit Information Bureau India] and as such you will have difficulties getting credit card / new loans in future. Talk to the Bank Manager and ask can you regularize the loan? There are multiple options you would need to talk and find out; 1. You can negotiate and arrive at a number. Typically more than the principal outstanding and less than interest and penalties charged. 2. You can request to re-do the monthly payments with new duration, this will give you more time. 3. May one time large payment and subsequent amount in monthly payments. At the end its Bank's discretion whether to accept your terms or not.\",\n \"\\\"How much is rent in your area? You should compare a rental payment versus your mortgage payment now, bearing in mind the opportunity cost of the difference. Let's say that a rental unit in your area that has the same safety & convenience as your house costs $1600 per month to rent, and your mortgage is $2400. By staying in the house, you are losing that $800 month as well as interest earned on banking that money (however, right now, interest rates are negligible). Factor in total cost of ownership too, meaning extra utilities for one or the other (sometimes houses are cheaper, sometime not), property insurance and taxes for the house (if they aren't already in escrow through your mortgage) and generic house repair stuff. If the savings for a rental are worth more than a couple hundred a month, then I suggest you consider bailing. Start multiplying $500-1000 per month out over a year or two and decide if that extra cash is better for you than crappy credit. Also, this is not the most ethical thing, but I do know of one couple who stopped paying their mortgage for several months, knowing they were going to give the house back at the end. They took what they would have spent in mortgage payments during that time into a savings account, and will have more than enough cash to float for the few years that their credit is lowered by the default. Also something to consider is that we are in a time of ridiculous numbers of people defaulting. As such, a poor credit score might start to be more common among people with decent incomes, to the point where a \\\"\\\"poor\\\"\\\" score in 5 years is worth about the same as an \\\"\\\"average\\\"\\\" score today. I wouldn't count on that, but it might soften the blow of your bad credit if you default.\\\"\",\n \"There are different options here. Either way, ensure that you have a paper trail of all your payments. When in doubt, speak to a lawyer, there are many who offer free consultations.\",\n \"What if you felt you were cheated by the bank? What if you had something terrible unexpected happen to you financially? Also a loan is not a promise. A loan is a contract. The contract has outs for all parties. I never understood why people felt a loan was a promise. Many people were sold home mortgages that they did not understand. Of course it is their fault for not understanding what they were getting into.\",\n \"There are loan options for those in your situation. It is very common. I am a licensed loan officer nmls 1301324 and have done many loans just like this. Your schooling is counted as your work history Contrary to popular belief. We want to write loans and guidelines are easing. Banks are a different story and their loan officers aren't licensed. If you talk to a bank you aren't getting an educated loan officer. They also have what are called overlays that make guidelines stricter.\",\n \"\\\"You're welcome to throw in the towel and stop paying any time you want. You'll just suffer the consequences of doing so. It sounds like you're concerned about losing your job \\\"\\\"in the next few years.\\\"\\\" What are you doing to stem this off? Are you building up a side income? Are you building up portable skills -- ones that can be used anywhere? If you think you have a few years left, use them. Build something up. You may be able to recover more quickly, or last longer until you find a new job. Some of my blogging friends have been at it about as long as I have, and they're in high-five, low-six figures now. For blogging. Some did it even faster. All it takes is time. Your expenses for starting a blog are $10/month plus cutting out two hours of TV / drinking / anything else consumer-ish to learn more about your favorite interest, write about it, and interact with the online community. That's just one idea. Season to taste or choose a different meal altogether. Are you frugal? Are you looking for ways to cut expenses? If you can find extra money to save a little bit more and knock out just one of those debts (say, the car), you'll be able to throw that payment at the student loan. Then they'll both be gone, and you can save up a cushion for yourself faster. I just think it's a little weak to give up when you're not really in trouble yet. You're tight, but you can get through that.\\\"\",\n \"Have you considered social lending (for example: Lending Club)?\",\n \"What to do when institutions stop lending you money, or lend at high rates? Live within your means! Your friend has shown financial behavior that indicates he's a bad credit risk. If he cleans up his act, banks will lend to him at reasonable rates again. Not a whole lot he can do except build his credit again. He didn't lose it overnight, and he won't get it back overnight either.\",\n \"Honestly, the best way to manage this risk is to manage your savings appropriately. Many experts recommend that maintain a reasonably liquid account with 6-9x your minimum monthly expenses for just this occurrence. I know, easier said than done. Right? As for insurance, I can only speak for what is the case in the US. Here, most mortgages will require you to get PMI insurance until you have at least 20% equity in your house. However, that insurance only protects the BANK from losing money if you can't pay. It doesn't save you from foreclosure or ruining your credit. Really, the type of insurance you are talking about is Unemployment insurance which all states in the US make available to workers via deductions from their paycheck. The best advice, I suppose, is to keep your expenses low enough to cover them with an unemployment check until you have accumulated enough savings to get through a rough patch. That may mean buying a less expensive home, or just waiting until you have saved a bigger down payment. If you didn't plan ahead, and you are already in the house, another option might be to extend your mortgage. For example from a 20 to a 30 year to reduce your payments to a manageable level. A more risky option might be to convert to a variable rate loan temporarily, which typically carries a lower interest rate. However, it might be hard to secure a new loan if you don't currently have an income.\",\n \"Typically, this is not an option, as the monthly payments are fixed. It depends on the willingness of your financing bank for such a change. You probably will have to refinance (with them or another lender); which is not a bad thing, as you even can get a lower interest rate potentially (as of Jan 2017 - this will change). Consider too: It could be a better solution to instead invest the 25000, and use the investment returns to fill up the difference every month. Certainly more effort, but you probably come out ahead financially.\",\n \"It will take a bit of sacrifice. First, I'd review spending. Between you and all your family, try to separate the 'needs' from the 'wants' and cut out 75% of the 'wants.' Second, there's almost always part time work that can help raise extra money. Even if it's a small fraction of your current hourly pay, every bit you and your family can throw at that 30% debt will help get rid of it and help you get to the point when you can refinance the mortgage.\",\n \"This is something that will vary from situation to situation. What is the secured debt? What is the interest rate? Does your retirement account have a match? What are your other financial obligations? How much money do you have available after meeting all of your minimum financial obligations. All of these are very important factors in deciding what the best course of action would be.\",\n \"Umm actually asking to be refinanced at a lower rate *IS* asking them to forgive/give up part of the mortgage. Peoples greed in getting themselves into upside down mortgages are why we have problems, not the banks not helping them out enough.\",\n \">You default on a loan, student or otherwise, by not paying. Student Loan debt, backed by the government, means the government can garnish any wages you make, or otherwise put liens against property you own to secure the debt. You have no say in the matter.\",\n \"\\\"Pay it off. If necessary, get a loan so you can pay it off; that's what refinancing is all about and your favorite bank or credit union would be happy to help you with this. If that isn't sufficient to make the car affordable you may need to sell it, take the loss, and learn from the experience. Sorry, but you made an agreement and it's up to you to find a way to meet your end of the bargain. (If you had decided you didn't like this loan within a few days of signing, you might have been able to back out under \\\"\\\"cooling off period\\\"\\\" laws. But those only allow a very limited time for reconsideration.)\\\"\",\n \"I'm pessimistic about most things, so: They can't REPO the degree and the knowledge, but they can sure REPO the CAR, so pay off the car. My suggestion would be to pay off the vehicle, because no matter what the future holds (good or bad) you will need a vehicle to get around. Although, I recently found out from the comment below that student loans are a recourse debt that won't be forgiven. Not even with bankruptcy. Most collection agencies will take pennies in the dollar for debt, but not with student loans.\",\n \"\\\"There are a number of bona fide reasons to consider here. If there is a cost to discharging a security packet, or a mortgage, it may not be convenient if we are advanced in the repayment schedule. Early exit fees may apply, or the interest may be \\\"\\\"pre-determined\\\"\\\". As a rule of thumb, when we are talking about rates above 10% p.a. then arrangements should be short (bridging finance - keep it short and charge 'em heaps), and for personal arrangements, small.\\\"\",\n \"Some types of loans allow for reamortization (recasting) - which does exactly what you're talking about (making a big payment and then refiguring the monthly amount rather than the overall lifespan), without requiring any kind of a fee that refinancing does. Not every, or even most, mortgages, allow for recasting. And most that do offer recasting, may limit the recasting to a once-a-loan type of thing. So check beforehand, and make those big payments before you do any recasting. (Most banks and mortgage servicing companies may not advertise or even speak about recasting options unless you specifically ask your loan officer.)\",\n \"\\\"A lot of your options depends on the type of debt you have. If you're single, young, and have lots of credit card debt then don't discount bankruptcy. It's definitely not an \\\"\\\"appealing\\\"\\\" thought I'm sure, but it's an option. One thing I did was completely cut myself off from most forms of credit (credit cards and personal credit loans). I know my weaknesses. I will never, ever, ever, get another credit card. I'm probably older than you are and have lived with debt for a long time. I'm pretty much debt free; at least from debts that are not covered 100% by assets. It took a long time. Keep your spirits up. Maybe try contacting a credit councilor; one of the real ones that aren't paid for by credit card companies. I've known people that took that route.\\\"\",\n \"If you are now in a better position to pay your debts, the wise move for your long-term credit is to consolidate any high-interest debt that remains and pay it off as quickly as possible. This may not be possible depending on your situation, but one way to get such consolidation loans is to have a parent with good credit cosign as guarantor on the consolidation loan. The only way your credit will recover is if you establish a good history of payments over the next seven years. Frankly I wouldn't cosign a loan with a family member who made the same decisions you have made, because I wouldn't want to put my own credit at risk, but I might loan the money directly, which would ease the pain for that family member, but it wouldn't help their credit going forward. This may not be a popular opinion, but without any details, it's hard for me to agree that any of your creditors are being greedy when they threaten a judgment. They loaned you the money in good faith, and now you are attempting to negotiate a change of terms. Are they greedy because the interest rates are too high? Maybe you were a bad risk when they loaned the money and the rates reflected the risk of losing some portion of the money. The fact that you are trying to discharge some portion of that debt vindicates any high rates charged.\",\n \"Talk to your parents, and find out if you are reducing the debt or not. Find buyers, sell the place now and get out the deal. Of course you will have to wait to get a good price on it. Short term you haven't lost that much, but long term you will. Take your 25%, and use it as a down payment on a regular bank mortgage. Lesson learned move on.\",\n \"You have the 2 properties, and even though the value of property B is less than the amount you owe on it hopefully you have some equity in propery A. So if you do have enough equity in property A, why don't you just go to the one lender and get both property A and B refinanced under the same mortgage. This way hopefully the combined equity in both properties would be enough to cover the full amount of the loan, and you have the opportunity to refinance at favourable rate and terms. Sounds like you are in the USA with an interest rate of 3.25%, I am in Australia and my mortgage rates are currently between 6.3% to 6.6%.\",\n \"Yep, basically no loans for me for at least two years and new credit cards are at a higher interest rate then I'm comfortable with. That's fine. I have two cars that are fully paid for, just paid off one credit card last week and will have the other one paid off before the end of the year. And I have a savings account with a positive balance. All of this happened by moving to a different house where my rent is $1,500 per month cheaper than I was paying on a house.\",\n \"\\\"Assuming the numbers you gave are forecasted 2013 annual income, you should really use an average and give the lender 1 number, as long as you can provide documentation to back it up. Lenders aren't as sophisticated as considering your monthly income fluctuations into their underwriting algorithm. If you're not tied down to your existing lender, I highly recommend you to shop around. There isn't an \\\"\\\"universal lending requirement\\\"\\\". You'll be surprised at how flexible they are. Not as a recommendation to get around the rules, but just finding a lender that'll work with your situation. Try personal finance forums such as FatWallet or Slickdeal to find low-cost lenders: http://goo.gl/vIojT\\\"\",\n \"A good resource for this type of help is the National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC). They provide free and low-cost credit counselors who can... Most importantly, avoid those for-profit debt consolidation companies. They are ripoffs.\",\n \"I am sorry for your troubles, but impressed with your problem solving skills. Keep going, things will get better. Your best hope is to find a place that does manual underwriting. If they do computer generated stuff, then you will be kicked for sure. If you can show 20% down, and have some savings, and have some history of paying bills, then you might be approved. Here in Florida, RP Funding still does manual underwriting. Another one that is mentioned is Church Hill mortgage. Also you might check with local credit unions. Of course your best bet to be approved is to be open and state upfront the challenges. You have to find someone that has the ability to think, has the ability to see passed the challenges, and has the authority to do so.\",\n \"I'm 40 and been carrying student debt for nearly 20 years. Because of life events and various circumstances I've had to defer several times. This means my balance history looks like a rollercoaster. At this point I just consider the Department of Education to be akin to heroin addiction. I feed it as regularly as I can. It starts to get painful when I can't. It requires an ever increasing amount to get that fix. I'm financially fucked and it's my fault. And one day it'll probably kill me. But I just keep trying. What choice do I have?\",\n \"In a perfect the world, the most ideal solution would be to find a way to pay back all of your debt so that your credit will not be affected any further. Unfortunately, it does not work this way most of the time. Debt settlement is where you work with a creditor to settle your a credit card debt for less than the full amount owed. This could be a very viable solution for you instead of filing for bankruptcy. However, there are many scams out there when it applies to debt settlement so you must tread carefully. Debt settlement can only occur when you're behind on your payments. If you are currently paying off your payments successfully, the creditor has no obligation to settle when they think you should be able to pay it fully back.\",\n \"EDIT: new ideas based on the full story. I wouldn't worry about the price history. While it is certainly true that some buyers might try to leverage that information against you, the bottom line is the price is the price. Both the buyer and the seller have to agree. If the initial listing was too high, then lower the price. If that isn't low enough, then readjust down. I see no harm in moving the price down over time repeatedly. In fact, I thin that is a good tactic to getting the most for the house. If you happen to have the luxury of time, then keep lowering that price until it sells. Don't fret how that behavior appears. You can lower the price as often as you like until it sells. I am not a real estate agent, and I am a terrible negotiator, but I would lower the price every quarter until it sells. You can't go down to fast (a buyer might wait you out) and you can't wait to long as you stated. Also, if you house is priced inline with the neighborhood, you can at least get offers and negotiate. Buy asking for such a premium (25%) folks might not even make an offer. You simply need to decide what is more important, the selling price or the time frame in getting it sold. If you house doesn't sell because the market doesn't support your price, then consider keeping it as a rental. You can do it yourself, or if you are not interested in that (large) amount of work, then hire a rental management company to do it for a fee. Renting a home is hard work and requires attention to detail, a good amount of your time and much labor. If you just need to wait a couple of years before selling, renting it can be a good option to cover your costs while you wait for the market to reach you. You should get advice on how to handle the money, how to rent it, how to deal with renters, and the the laws are in your jurisdiction. Rent it out to a trusted friend or family member for a steal of a deal. They save money, and you get the luxury of time waiting for the sale. With a real estate lawyer you hire, get a contract for a lease option or owner finance deal on the house. Sometimes you can expand the market of people looking to buy your house. If you have a willing purchaser will bad credit, you can be doing them a favor and solving your own issue. It costs money and you will make less on the sale, but it could be better than nothing. Take heed, there is a reason some people cannot get a traditional loan on their own. Before you extend your good name or credit think about it. It is another hassle for sure. This won't help if you have to pay off a mortgage, but you could donate it. This is another tricky deal that you really need to speak with a lawyer who specialize in charitable giving. There are tax benefits, but I would make any kind of a deal where tax deductions are the only benefit. This is common enough these days. If you are unable to pay for the mortgage, it benefits you and the bank to get into a short sale arrangement. They bank gets probably more money than if they have to foreclose (and they save money on legal fees) and you can get rid of the obligation. You will do a deed in lieu or the short sale depending on how the market it and what the house can be sold for. You and the bank will have to work it out. This will ruin for a credit for a while, and you will not likely qualify to get a new mortgage for at least a few years. You can stop paying your mortgage, tell the bank and they will foreclose. This is going to ruin your credit for a long time as well as disqualify you from mortgages in the near future. Don't do this. If you are planning a foreclosure, take the time to contact your bank and arrange a short sale or a deed in lieu. There isn't really any excuse to go into foreclosure if you are having problems. Talk to the bank and work out a deal.\",\n \"I have been through default in Ukraine august 1998. That was a real nightmare. The financial system stopped working properly for 1 month, about 30% of businesses went bankrupt because of chain effect, significant inflation and devaluation of currency. So, it is better to be prepared, because this type of processes result in unpredictable situation.\",\n \"A traditional bank is not likely to give you a loan if you have no source of income. Credit card application forms also ask for your current income level and may reject you based on not having a job. You might want to make a list of income and expenses and look closely at which expenses can be reduced or eliminated. Use 6 months of your actual bills to calculate this list. Also make a list of your assets and liabilities. A sheet that lists income/expenses and assets/liabilities is called a Financial Statement. This is the most basic tool you'll need to get your expenses under control. There are many other options for raising capital to pay for your monthly expenses: Sell off your possessions that you no longer need or can't afford Ask for short term loan help from family and friends Advertise for short term loan help on websites such as Kijiji Start a part-time business doing something that you like and people need. Tutoring, dog-walking, photography, you make the list and pick from it. Look into unemployment insurance. Apply as soon as you are out of work. The folks at the unemployment office are willing to answer all your questions and help you get what you need. Dip into your retirement fund. To reduce your expenses, here are a few things you may not have considered: If you own your home, make an appointment with your bank to discuss renegotiation of your mortgage payments. The bank will be more interested in helping you before you start missing payments than after. Depending on how much equity you have in your home, you may be able to significantly reduce payments by extending the life of the mortgage. Your banker will be impressed if you can bring them a balance sheet that shows your assets, liabilities, income and expenses. As above, for car payments as well. Call your phone, cable, credit card, and internet service providers and tell them you want to cancel your service. This will immediately connect you to Customer Retention. Let them know that you are having a hard time paying your bill and will either have to negotiate a lower payment or cancel the service. This tactic can significantly reduce your payments. When you have your new job, there are some things you can do to make sure this doesn't happen again: Set aside 10% of your income in a savings account. Have it automatically deducted from your income at source if you can. 75% of Americans are 4 weeks away from bankruptcy. You can avoid this by forcing yourself to save enough to manage your household finances for 3 - 6 months, a year is better. If you own your own home, take out a line of credit against it based on the available equity. Your bank can help you with that. It won't cost you anything as long as you don't use it. This is emergency money; do not use it for vacations or car repairs. There will always be little emergencies in life, this line of credit is not for that. Pay off your credit cards and loans, most expensive rate first. Use 10% of your income to do this. When the first one is paid off, use the 10% plus the interest you are now saving to pay off the next most expensive card/loan. Create a budget you can stick to. You can find a great budget calculator here: http://www.gailvazoxlade.com/resources/interactive_budget_worksheet.html Note I have no affiliation with the above-mentioned site, and have a great respect for this woman's ability to teach people about how to handle money.\",\n \"Same thing as for any debt: bank sues you, you lose, you are in an even deeper hole because you now owe them for the cost of the court case, your credit rating goes into the toilet, you may even have trouble retaining/finding a job. Being stupid is always more expensive.\",\n \"The article made it seem like a lot of these were frivolous purchases, but I doubt there's any clear data on the percent that were someone's primary vehicle, etc. Usually if you default on a new-car loan you can still get a high-interest loan for a used car that will still be a lot less than your old payment.\",\n \"\\\"You're in good shape as long as your income stays. Your only variable-rate debt now is your private student loan. I think you'd be wise to pay that down first, and you sense that already. Worst-case, in the event of a bankruptcy, student loans usually cannot be discharged, so that isn't a way out. Once that loan is gone, apply what you were paying to your other student loan to knock that out. You might investigate refinancing your home (to another 30-year fixed). You may be able to shave a half-percent off if your credit is stellar. Given the size of the mortgage, this could be several thousand out of pocket, so consider that when figuring out potential payback time. Consider using any \\\"\\\"free time\\\"\\\" to starting up a side business (I'm assuming you both have day jobs but that may not be a correct assumption). Start with what you know well. You and your wife are experts in something, and have passion about something. Go with that. Use the extra income from that to either pay down your debts faster, or just reinvest in the business so that you can offset the income on your taxes. Again, you're in good shape. Just do what you can to protect and grow your income streams.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Will the proportion of my payments towards interest eventually go down? Yes. Today would be a good day to do a web search for \\\"\\\"amortization schedule\\\"\\\". You will quickly learn how to compute precisely how much of each payment goes to interest and how much goes to principal given different payment choices. Would it be wiser to spend more each month on loan payments? That depends on your goals and resources, which we know nothing about. If you have extra money you could spend it on debt reduction, or you could spend it on an investment that pays more money in growth or dividends than the interest you'd save. Or you could decide that the longer you have that loan, sure, the more interest you'll pay, but inflation will make future money less valuable. Basically, by taking out a loan you have chosen to gamble that the thing you bought with the loaned money will be worth the cost of the interest payments in the future, adjusted for inflation. The bank on the other hand is gambling that you're good for the debt and that they can make a reasonable profit off it. If you have more money to gamble with, which bet is the wisest one is really up to you. would it be smarter to try to pay off one loan before the other? If you want to pay off a loan early then always choose the loan with the higher interest rate. should I start making bi-weekly payments instead of monthly? That's roughly equivalent to paying off the principal by one additional payment a year. There are two reasons to do so. The first is that the total interest will be lower and the loan will be paid off faster. You can work out exactly how much with your new found skill at amortization computation. The second is the simple convenience of knowing that your budget for each pay period is the same. That convenience is worth something; is it worth the amount extra you'll be paying every year? Again, this is for you to decide. Work out how much extra you're paying per year and how much you're saving in the long run, and compare that against the benefit.\\\"\",\n \"Yeah, just ran across one talking about making payments for 20 years and getting screwed. I feel terrible that these people were taken advantage of, but I also want to grab these people by the lapel, shake them, and ask them what the hell they were thinking :|\",\n \"\\\"The most important thing in my view is flexibility, to avoid running into problems. One useful thing in the UK would be an arranged overdraft. You go to your bank, and they'll agree that you can overdraw your account by a certain number of pounds, depending on your income etc. It will cost you a very high interest rate, but only for each day where you are overdrawn. So paying a bill two days before your salary comes in isn't too bad. Obviously avoid using the overdraft if you can, having an overdraft while not using it is free. It's meant for an emergency; being regularly overdrawn is expensive. But once it is arranged with your bank, an arranged overdraft is much much cheaper than bouncing cheques etc. and possibly high fees for overdrawing your account. And it takes the pressure of you. Now things to need before you get a loan (again, UK): The real interest rate that you are paying is called APR. That's the number that counts, and that cannot be manipulated. No \\\"\\\"payday loans\\\"\\\" to avoid getting yourself into deep, deep trouble. No loan sharks, obviously. If you buy things with \\\"\\\"interest free credit\\\"\\\", that's (a) included in the price, so you pay more, and (b) if you miss paying by one day they'll hit you with huge interest payments, and some will try this intentionally. Interest rate depends on loan amount. I once had to borrow 20% more than I needed because it reduced the interest rate by half... The 20% went straight into a savings account. Credit cards and overdrafts are much more expensive than loans. Mortgage is again cheaper than a loan usually. Make sure that you only use money from sources that charge the least amount. Make sure you pay back regularly so cheap sources stay available to you. Just do yourself a favour and if at all possible, spend less instead of getting a loan.\\\"\",\n \"Get a Bankrupsy lawyer. They'll tell you to stop paying the bills and use the money to pay their fee. Yes... You do need to pay in advance. I can tell you honestly that it was the best thing that ever happened to me. Think about it this way... When you loan someone moneyyou're placing a bet that they'll pay you back. You try to keep the dos in your favor by using credit ratings etc but sometimes you win and sometimes you lose that bet. It's nothing personal. It's business. The casino doesn't feel bad when you lose your bets and your money and you don't expect them to. The person placing the bet knows what they're doing and knows all about the risks, etc. it's a calculated risk. Again... It's just business and it's nothing personal. It's also not nesessairly a failure. Depending on the situation... Bankrupsy is an excellent business decision. Big business do it all the time. Sometimes bankruptcy is a very smart decision and not going bankrupt is the worst decision you can make. My only regret with my own bankruptcy is that I didn't do it sooner. I could have saved the family years of unnecessary hardship and I could have gotten it over with much sooner. Don't be emotional. Be smart and do the smart thing.\",\n \"\\\"Pete B mentioned adjusting your payments using the Debt Snowball Method and I agree it is one possible solution, another being the Debt Avalanche Method. Here is a link that describes both. There was a time in my past when I had 17 credit lines open totaling about $12,000. If I had paid them the way the banks asked (minimum monthly payments) it would have taken decades to pay off. Then I was shown these two techniques and as a result I was able pay them down rapidly and close all but 2 lines within 5 years. Like others I am going to say that if you already own your house free and clear never Never NEVER put a loan on it unless the loan is (a) to improve the house, or (b) a life & death emergency. If you get sick or fired and miss even a single payment on a HELOC you could lose your house forever and that just plain sucks. Not only will you then be forced into renting a place (money down the drain) but your credit rating will take such a huge hit it will be years (if ever) before you can even try and buy a new home. Debts come and go, as do the \\\"\\\"toys\\\"\\\" and other things we buy with that debt. Homes are security & stability for tomorrow. Never give that up for a little ease & comfort today. UPDATE: I had to go looking for it but here is some software that I used all those years ago to figure out my strategy for paying down all my credit bills. It's a bit clunky but it's super easy to use plus it has some other variations on snowball and avalanche methods as well. I definitely found it helpful.\\\"\",\n \"Short-term, getting a balance transfer will help. It'll reduce the interest you pay. You can also reduce the interest you pay on your cars if you are able to consolidate your debt into a personal loan. To your question about debt consolidation companies, as far as I know, that's all they do. However, long-term, there's only two ways to stay on top of debt: increase your income, or reduce your spending. Basically, if you can't or won't get a raise or a job that pays more (or a second job), you need to cut back on your spending. You might need to do something radical, like move somewhere with cheaper rent (as long as increased travel costs doesn't offset the saving). But you'll be much better off in the long run if you step back and take a look at your situation now, and make adjustments accordingly.\",\n \"\\\"Without knowing the details of your financial situation, I can only offer general advice. It might be worth having a financial counselor look at your finances and offer some custom advice. You might be able to find someone that will do this for free by asking at your local church. I would advise you not to try to get another loan, and certainly not to start charging things to a credit card. You are correct when you called it a \\\"\\\"nightmare.\\\"\\\" You are currently struggling with your finances, and getting further into debt will not help. It would only be a very short-term fix and have long-lasting consequences. What you need to do is look at the income that you have and prioritize your spending. For example, your list of basic needs includes: If you have other things that you are spending money on, such as medical debt or other old debt that you are trying to pay off, those are not as important as funding your basic needs above. If there is anything you can do to reduce the cost of the basic needs, do it. For example, finding a cheaper place to live or a place closer to your job might save you money. Perhaps accepting nutrition assistance from a local food bank or the Salvation Army is an option for you. Now, about your car: Your transportation to your job is very much one of your basic needs, as it will enable you to pay for your other needs. If you can use public transportation until you can get a working car again, or you can find someone that will give you a ride, that will solve this problem. If not, you'll need to get a working car. You definitely don't want to take out another loan for a car, as you are already having trouble paying the first loan. I'm guessing that it will be less expensive to get the engine repaired than it will be to buy a new car at this point. But that is just a guess. You'll need to find out how much it will cost to fix the car, and see if you can swing it by perhaps eliminating expenses that aren't necessary, even for a short time. For example, if you are paying installments on medical debt, you might have to skip a payment to fix your car. It's not ideal, but if you are short on cash, it is a better option than losing your job or taking out even more debt for your car. Alternatively, buying another, functional car, if it costs less than fixing your current car, is an option. If you don't have the money to pay your current car loan payments, you'll lose your current car. Just to be clear, many of these options will mess up your credit score. However, borrowing more, in an attempt to save your credit score, will probably only put off the inevitable, as it will make paying everything off that much harder. If you don't have enough income to pay your debts, you might be better off to just take the credit score ding, get back on your feet, and then work to eliminate the debt once you've got your basic needs covered. Sorry to hear about your situation. Again, this advice is just general, and might not all apply to your financial details. I recommend talking to the pastor of a local church and see if they have someone that can sit down with you and discuss your options.\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["I would say generally, the answer is No. There might be some short term relief to people in certain situations, but generally speaking you sign a contract to borrow money and you are responsible to pay. This is why home loans offer better terms then auto loans, and auto loans better than credit cards or things like furniture. The better terms offer less risk to the lender because there are assets that can be repossessed. Homes retain values better than autos, autos better than furniture, and credit cards are not secured at all. People are not as helpless as your question suggests. Sure a person might lose their high paying job, but could they still make a mortgage payment if they worked really hard at it? This might mean taking several part time jobs. Now if a person buys a home that has a very large mortgage payment this might not be possible. However, wise people don't buy every bit of house they can afford. People should also be wise about the kinds of mortgages they use to buy a home. Many people lost their homes due to missing a payment on their interest only loan. Penalty rates and fees jacked up their payment, that was way beyond their means. If they had a fixed rate loan the chance to catch up would have not been impossible. Perhaps an injury might prevent a person from working. This is why long term disability insurance is a must for most people. You can buy quite a bit of coverage for not very much money. Typical US households have quite a bit of debt. Car payments, phone payments, and either a mortgage or rent, and of course credit cards. If income is drastically reduced making all of those payments becomes next to impossible. Which one gets paid first. Just this last week, I attempted to help a client in just this situation. They foolishly chose to pay the credit card first, and were going to pay the house payment last (if there was anything left over). There wasn't, and they are risking eviction (renters). People finding themselves in crisis, generally do a poor job of paying the most important things first. Basic food first, housing and utilities second, etc... Let the credit card slip if need be no matter how often one is threatened by creditors. They do this to maintain their credit score, how foolish. I feel like you have a sense of bondage associated with debt. It is there and real despite many people noticing it. There is also the fact that compounding interest is working against you and with your labor you are enriching the bank. This is a great reason to have the goal of living a debt free life. I can tell you it is quite liberating.","For insight on what will happen, I suggest looking at the situation from the lender's perspective: If your setbacks are temporary, and you are likely to get back on your feet again, they will protect their investment by making accommodations, and probably charging you extra fees along the way. If your financial hardship seems irredeemable, they probably try to squeeze you for as much as possible, and then eventually take your house, protecting their investment as best they can. If they are going to foreclose, they may be reluctant to do it quickly, as foreclosure is expensive, takes man power, and looks bad on their books. So it may get pushed off for a Quarter, or a fiscal year. But if you are asking if they'll help you out from the goodness of their heart, well, a bank has no heart, and creditors are interested in ROI. They'll take the easiest path to profit, or failing that, the path to minimum financial losses. The personal consequences to you are not their concern. Once you realize this, it may change your thinking about your own situation. If you think you have a path to financial recovery, then you need to make that clear to them, in writing, with details. Make a business case that working with you is in their own best interests. If you cannot make such a case, recognize that they'll likely squeeze you for as much as possible in penalties, fees, interest payments, etc, before eventually foreclosing on you anyway. Don't play that game. If your home is a lost cause financially, plan how to get out from it with the smallest losses possible. Don't pay more than you need to, and don't throw good money after bad.","The answer is generally yes. Depending on your circumstances and where you live, you may be able to get help through a federal, state, or lender program that:","Some lenders will work with you if you contact them early and openly discuss your situation. They are not required to do so. The larger and more corporate the lender, the less likely you'll find one that will work with you. My experience is that your success in working out repayment plan for missed payments depends on the duration of your reduced income. If this is a period of unemployment and you will be able to pay again in a number of months, you may be able to work out a plan on some debts. If you're permanently unable to pay in full, or the duration is too long, you may have to file bankruptcy to save your domicile and transportation. The ethics of this go beyond this forum, as do the specifics of when it is advisable to file bankruptcy. Research your area, find debt counselling. They can really help with specifics. Speak with your lenders, they may be able to refer you to local non-profit services. Be sure that you find one of those, not one of the predatory lenders posing as credit counselling services. There's even some that take the money you can afford to pay, divide it up over your creditors, allowing you to keep accruing late/partial payment fees, and charge you a fee on top of it. To me this is fraudulent and should be cause for criminal charges. The key is open communication with your lenders with disclosure to the level that they need to know. If you're disabled, long term, they need to know that. They do not need to know the specific symptoms or causes or discomforts. They need to know whether the Social Security Administration has declared you disabled and are paying you a disability check. (If this is the case, you probably have a case worker who can find you resources to help negotiate with your creditors)."],"string":"[\n \"I would say generally, the answer is No. There might be some short term relief to people in certain situations, but generally speaking you sign a contract to borrow money and you are responsible to pay. This is why home loans offer better terms then auto loans, and auto loans better than credit cards or things like furniture. The better terms offer less risk to the lender because there are assets that can be repossessed. Homes retain values better than autos, autos better than furniture, and credit cards are not secured at all. People are not as helpless as your question suggests. Sure a person might lose their high paying job, but could they still make a mortgage payment if they worked really hard at it? This might mean taking several part time jobs. Now if a person buys a home that has a very large mortgage payment this might not be possible. However, wise people don't buy every bit of house they can afford. People should also be wise about the kinds of mortgages they use to buy a home. Many people lost their homes due to missing a payment on their interest only loan. Penalty rates and fees jacked up their payment, that was way beyond their means. If they had a fixed rate loan the chance to catch up would have not been impossible. Perhaps an injury might prevent a person from working. This is why long term disability insurance is a must for most people. You can buy quite a bit of coverage for not very much money. Typical US households have quite a bit of debt. Car payments, phone payments, and either a mortgage or rent, and of course credit cards. If income is drastically reduced making all of those payments becomes next to impossible. Which one gets paid first. Just this last week, I attempted to help a client in just this situation. They foolishly chose to pay the credit card first, and were going to pay the house payment last (if there was anything left over). There wasn't, and they are risking eviction (renters). People finding themselves in crisis, generally do a poor job of paying the most important things first. Basic food first, housing and utilities second, etc... Let the credit card slip if need be no matter how often one is threatened by creditors. They do this to maintain their credit score, how foolish. I feel like you have a sense of bondage associated with debt. It is there and real despite many people noticing it. There is also the fact that compounding interest is working against you and with your labor you are enriching the bank. This is a great reason to have the goal of living a debt free life. I can tell you it is quite liberating.\",\n \"For insight on what will happen, I suggest looking at the situation from the lender's perspective: If your setbacks are temporary, and you are likely to get back on your feet again, they will protect their investment by making accommodations, and probably charging you extra fees along the way. If your financial hardship seems irredeemable, they probably try to squeeze you for as much as possible, and then eventually take your house, protecting their investment as best they can. If they are going to foreclose, they may be reluctant to do it quickly, as foreclosure is expensive, takes man power, and looks bad on their books. So it may get pushed off for a Quarter, or a fiscal year. But if you are asking if they'll help you out from the goodness of their heart, well, a bank has no heart, and creditors are interested in ROI. They'll take the easiest path to profit, or failing that, the path to minimum financial losses. The personal consequences to you are not their concern. Once you realize this, it may change your thinking about your own situation. If you think you have a path to financial recovery, then you need to make that clear to them, in writing, with details. Make a business case that working with you is in their own best interests. If you cannot make such a case, recognize that they'll likely squeeze you for as much as possible in penalties, fees, interest payments, etc, before eventually foreclosing on you anyway. Don't play that game. If your home is a lost cause financially, plan how to get out from it with the smallest losses possible. Don't pay more than you need to, and don't throw good money after bad.\",\n \"The answer is generally yes. Depending on your circumstances and where you live, you may be able to get help through a federal, state, or lender program that:\",\n \"Some lenders will work with you if you contact them early and openly discuss your situation. They are not required to do so. The larger and more corporate the lender, the less likely you'll find one that will work with you. My experience is that your success in working out repayment plan for missed payments depends on the duration of your reduced income. If this is a period of unemployment and you will be able to pay again in a number of months, you may be able to work out a plan on some debts. If you're permanently unable to pay in full, or the duration is too long, you may have to file bankruptcy to save your domicile and transportation. The ethics of this go beyond this forum, as do the specifics of when it is advisable to file bankruptcy. Research your area, find debt counselling. They can really help with specifics. Speak with your lenders, they may be able to refer you to local non-profit services. Be sure that you find one of those, not one of the predatory lenders posing as credit counselling services. There's even some that take the money you can afford to pay, divide it up over your creditors, allowing you to keep accruing late/partial payment fees, and charge you a fee on top of it. To me this is fraudulent and should be cause for criminal charges. The key is open communication with your lenders with disclosure to the level that they need to know. If you're disabled, long term, they need to know that. They do not need to know the specific symptoms or causes or discomforts. They need to know whether the Social Security Administration has declared you disabled and are paying you a disability check. (If this is the case, you probably have a case worker who can find you resources to help negotiate with your creditors).\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":197,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"8874"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"When can you adjust for (and re-allow) a disallowed year-end (December) wash-sale loss?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["403025"],"string":"[\n \"403025\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1],"string":"[\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["151037","140267","292762","161155","436530","596518","517577","403025","571124","232540","338754","377944","407602","177674","113948","350080","330848","177798","536610","132966","150809","376800","537212","416789","155616","137251","261902","60590","187761","50250","476224","132111","511066","524708","438419","584917","212394","152960","390864","358602","275340","362060","457059","540292","23217","400730","221715","17184","84228","171819","279606","552255","306460","161076","207929","322284","38287","318321","285135","551398","46625","530631","304918","483394","462291","219762","110282","436044","554784","219472","266898","378523","408742","598646","585023","415815","490176","43049","191704","55893","590010","19183","179398","474981","17795","105046","477597","231590","11122","430718","481284","474384","216404","399583","411034","428318","335375","33117","588372","248619"],"string":"[\n \"151037\",\n \"140267\",\n \"292762\",\n \"161155\",\n \"436530\",\n \"596518\",\n \"517577\",\n \"403025\",\n \"571124\",\n \"232540\",\n \"338754\",\n \"377944\",\n \"407602\",\n \"177674\",\n \"113948\",\n \"350080\",\n \"330848\",\n \"177798\",\n \"536610\",\n \"132966\",\n \"150809\",\n \"376800\",\n \"537212\",\n \"416789\",\n \"155616\",\n \"137251\",\n \"261902\",\n \"60590\",\n \"187761\",\n \"50250\",\n \"476224\",\n \"132111\",\n \"511066\",\n \"524708\",\n \"438419\",\n \"584917\",\n \"212394\",\n \"152960\",\n \"390864\",\n \"358602\",\n \"275340\",\n \"362060\",\n \"457059\",\n \"540292\",\n \"23217\",\n \"400730\",\n \"221715\",\n \"17184\",\n \"84228\",\n \"171819\",\n \"279606\",\n \"552255\",\n \"306460\",\n \"161076\",\n \"207929\",\n \"322284\",\n \"38287\",\n \"318321\",\n \"285135\",\n \"551398\",\n \"46625\",\n \"530631\",\n \"304918\",\n \"483394\",\n \"462291\",\n \"219762\",\n \"110282\",\n \"436044\",\n \"554784\",\n \"219472\",\n \"266898\",\n \"378523\",\n \"408742\",\n \"598646\",\n \"585023\",\n \"415815\",\n \"490176\",\n \"43049\",\n \"191704\",\n \"55893\",\n \"590010\",\n \"19183\",\n \"179398\",\n \"474981\",\n \"17795\",\n \"105046\",\n \"477597\",\n \"231590\",\n \"11122\",\n \"430718\",\n \"481284\",\n \"474384\",\n \"216404\",\n \"399583\",\n \"411034\",\n \"428318\",\n \"335375\",\n \"33117\",\n \"588372\",\n \"248619\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Disallowed losses due to the wash sale rule are added to the basis of the repurchased shares. In your example, on day two you paid $0.70 per share. Then the disallowed $0.30 loss from the previous day gets added to the basis, making your total basis $1.00 per share. When you sell at the end of the day for $1.00 per share, your net gain/loss is zero. Furthermore, you can recapture disallowed losses by selling the last lot of ABC, completely divesting yourself of all holdings in ABC for at least 31 days. Even if that last lot was a loss, when taking into account the increased basis from previously disallowed wash sale losses, you can claim the loss fully on this last, non-wash sale.","\"Strangely enough, you have a wash sale, but, for the fact that you sold the shares and then more than 30 days passed, you can take the loss. I mistakenly used the phrase \"\"and ended the year with no shared of the stock\"\" elsewhere, and was corrected, as one can sell at a loss up to 12/31, and have until the end of January to create a wash condition. In your case, the facts in June combined with you ending the year with no shares removes any doubt, a wash sale, but one that's fully closed out. Note - while Vicky's answer is correct, it should go on to say that once the stock is not owned for 30 days, the wash sale loss is permitted.\"","Yes. On December 10, you have a wash sale. As long as you don't buy the stock back for 30 days after that, the wash is of no consequence. In other words, you don't have a wash issue if you don't own the stock for 30 days.","Is wash rule applicable for this? No - because you made a gain on the sale. You paid $13,500 for the stock and sold it for $14,250. The wash rule prevents you from claiming a loss if you buy the same stock again within 30 days. You have no loss to claim, so the rule does not apply.","\"From Pub 550: More or less stock bought than sold. If the number of shares of substantially identical stock or securities you buy within 30 days before or after the sale is either more or less than the number of shares you sold, you must determine the particular shares to which the wash sale rules apply. You do this by matching the shares bought with an equal number of the shares sold. Match the shares bought in the same order that you bought them, beginning with the first shares bought. The shares or securities so matched are subject to the wash sale rules. You must match \"\"beginning with the first shares bought.\"\" If only activity 1 & 4 happened, you'd have bought and sold stock with no wash sale. If you remove activity 1 & 4 from consideration because they are a \"\"normal\"\" or non-wash sale transaction, then the Activity 2 or Activity 3 trigger a wash sale. The shares in lot 1 are sold for disallowed loss, so the disallowed basis would be added to shares in lot 2 because lot 2 was purchased before lot 3. (hat tip to user662852 who had much better wording) Second example: Activity 5, 7, and 8 all together would not be a wash sale. The addition of activity 6 creates a wash sale. The shares in Activity 5 are sold for a disallowed loss in Activity 7 & 8 because of the wash sale triggering purchase in Activity 6. Activity 6 is where you add the disallowed basis because they are the \"\"first shares bought\"\" that cause the wash sale rule to be triggered.\"","I was not able to find any authority for the opinion you suggest. Wash sale rules should, IMHO, apply. According to the regulations, you attribute the newly purchased shares to the oldest sold shares for the purposes of the calculation of the disallowed loss and cost basis. (c) Where the amount of stock or securities acquired within the 61-day period is less than the amount of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of, then the particular shares of stock or securities the loss from the sale or other disposition of which is not deductible shall be those with which the stock or securities acquired are matched in accordance with the following rule: The stock or securities acquired will be matched in accordance with the order of their acquisition (beginning with the earliest acquisition) with an equal number of the shares of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of. You can resort to the claim that you have not, in fact, entered into the contract within 30 days, but when you gave the instructions to reinvest dividends. I don't know if such a claim will hold, but to me it sounds reasonable. This is similar to the rules re short sales (in (g) there). In this case, wash sale rules will not apply (unless you instructed to reinvest dividends within the 30 days prior to the sale). But I'd ask a tax professional if such a claim would hold, talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state.","You sold all shares? The potential wash sale effect goes away after 30 days from the dividend date. Selling all shares of a stock where a wash existed effectively negates the wash and you can take the loss.","Disallowed losses are created when you buy a stock */- 30 days of a sale at a loss. When you sell and have no shares left, the loss is taken. You can't have no shares and leftover disallowed loss.","\"According to Wikipedia this is still a wash sale: In the USA wash sale rules are codified in \"\"26 USC § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities.\"\" Under Section 1091, a wash sale occurs when a taxpayer sells or trades stock or securities at a loss, and within 30 days before or after the sale:\"","Well it would appear that you had a wash sale that canceled out a loss position. Without seeing the entire report, I couldn't tell you exactly what was happening or how you triggered § 1091. But just from the excerpted images, it appears as though your purchase of stock was layered into multiple tranches - perhaps you acquired more of the stock in the 61-day period than you sold (possibly because of a prior holding). If in the 61-day period around the sale of stock (30 days before and 30 days after), you also acquire the same stock (including by contract or option), then it washes out your loss. If you held your stock for a while, then in a 61-day period bought more, and sold some, then any loss would be washed out by the acquisition. Of course it is also a wash sale if your purchase of the stock follows your sale, rather than precedes it. Your disallowed loss goes into the basis of your stock holding, so will be meaningful when you do have a true economic sale of that stock. From IRS Pub 550: A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you: Buy substantially identical stock or securities, Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade, Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement account (IRA) or Roth IRA. If you sell stock and your spouse or a corporation you control buys substantially identical stock, you also have a wash sale. Looking at your excerpted account images, we can see a number of positions sold at a loss (sale proceeds less than basis) but each one is adjusted to a zero loss. I suspect the fuller picture of your account history and portfolio will show a more complicated and longer history with this particular stock. That is likely the source of the wash sale disallowed loss notations. You might be able to confirm that all the added numbers are appearing in your current basis in this stock (or were reflected upon your final exit from the stock).","Yes. Wash rules are only for losses.","Brokerage->Brokerage 13-16 The loss from the previous purchase will be added to the cost basis of the security for the second purchase. Since you sold it at a loss again it would increase your losses. Your loss from the first sale will be disallowed. Your loss will be added to the cost basis of the next purchase. Your gains will be taxed on the total of the cost basis which will reduce your gains. Which you will taxed 'less'. Your gains will be taxed. Your loss is allowed. You will be taxed on both. Wash Sales really only applies to losses. If you sell for gain, the tax man will be happy to take his share. From my understanding, it does not matter if it is IRA or Brokerage, the wash sale rule affects them all. Check this link: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02","Note that the rules around wash sales vary depending on where you live. For the U.S., the wash sale rules say that you cannot buy a substantially identical stock or security within 30 days (before or after) your sale. So, you could sell your stock today to lock in the capital losses. However, you would then have to wait at least 30 days before purchasing it back. If you bought it back within 30 days, you would disqualify the capital loss event. The risk, of course, is that the stock's price goes up substantially while you are waiting for the wash sale period. It's up to you to determine if the risk outweighs the benefit of locking in your capital losses. Note that this applies regardless of whether you sell SOME or ALL of the stock. Or indeed, if we are talking about securities other than stocks.","You add the wash sale loss to your cost basis for the other transaction so you would have two entries in your schedule d reporting 1.) Listing the $2000 loss as a wash 2.) The cost basis for your second transaction is thus $1000+$2000 = $3000 so when it was sold for $2000 you now have a reportable loss of $1000. For more information see here.... http://www.ehow.com/how_5313540_calculate-wash-sale.html","Yes, an overall $500 loss on the stock can be claimed. Since the day trader sold both lots she acquired, the Wash Sale rule has no net impact on her taxes. The Wash Sale rule would come into play if within thirty days of second sale, she purchased the stock a third time. Then she would have to amend her taxes because claiming the $500 loss would no longer be a valid under the Wash Sale rule. It would have to be added to the cost basis of the most recent purchase.","Great question! It can be a confusing for sure -- but here's a great example I've adapted to your scenario: As a Day Trader, you buy 100 shares of LMNO at $100, then after a large drop the same day, you sell all 10 shares at $90 for a loss of $1,000. Later in the afternoon, you bought another 100 shares at $92 and resold them an hour later at $97 (a $500 profit), closing out your position for the day. The second trade had a profit of $500, so you had a net loss of $500 (the $1,000 loss plus the $500 profit). Here’s how this works out tax-wise: The IRS first disallows the $1,000 loss and lets you show only a profit of $500 for the first trade (since it was a wash). But it lets you add the $1,000 loss to the basis of your replacement shares. So instead of spending $9,200 (100 shares times $92), for tax purposes, you spent $10,200 ($9,200 plus $1,000), which means that the second trade is what caused you to lose the $500 that you added back (100 x $97 = $9,700 minus the 100 x $102 = $10,200, netting $500 loss). On a net basis, you get to record your loss, it just gets recorded on the second trade. The basis addition lets you work off your wash-sale losses eventually, and in your case, on Day 3 you would recognize a $500 final net loss for tax purposes since you EXITED your position. Caveat: UNLESS you re-enter LMNO within 30 days later (at which point it would be another wash and the basis would shift again). Source: http://www.dummies.com/personal-finance/investing/day-trading/understand-the-irs-wash-sale-rule-when-day-trading/","\"According to page 56 of the 2015 IRS Publication 550 on Investment Income and Expenses: Wash sales. Your holding period for substantially identical stock or securities you acquire in a wash sale includes the period you held the old stock or securities. It looks like the rule applies to stocks and other securities, including options. It seems like the key is \"\"substantially identical\"\". For your brokerage / trading platform to handle these periods correctly for reporting to IRS, it seems best to trade the same security instead of trying to use something substantially identical.\"","\"Edited: Pub 550 says 30 days before or after so the example is ok - but still a gain by average share basis. On sale your basis is likely defaulted to \"\"average price\"\" (in the example 9.67 so there was a gain selling at 10), but can be named shares at your election to your brokerage, and supported by record keeping. A Pub 550 wash might be buy 2000 @ 10 with basis 20000, sell 1000 @9 (nominally a loss of 1000 for now and remaining basis 10000), buy 1000 @ 8 within 30 days. Because of the wash sale rule the basis is 10000+8000 paid + 1000 disallowed loss from wash sale with a final position of 2000 shares at 19000 basis. I think I have the link at the example: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2014_publink100010601\"","\"The wash sale rule only applies when the sale in question is at a loss. So the rule does not apply at all to your cases 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16, which all start with a gain. You get a capital gain at the first sale and then a separately computed gain / loss at the second sale, depending on the case, BUT any gain or loss in the IRA is not a taxable event due to the usual tax-advantaged rules for the IRA. The wash sale does not apply to \"\"first\"\" sales in your IRA because there is no taxable gain or loss in that case. That means that you wouldn't be seeking a deduction anyway, and there is nothing to get rolled into the repurchase. This means that the rule does not apply to 1-8. For 5-8, where the second sale is in your brokerage account, you have a \"\"usual\"\" capital gain / loss as if the sale in the IRA didn't happen. (For 1-4, again, the second sale is in the IRA, so that sale is not taxable.) What's left are 9-10 (Brokerage -> IRA) and 13-14 (Brokerage -> Brokerage). The easier two are 13-14. In this case, you cannot take a capital loss deduction for the first sale at a loss. The loss gets added to the basis of the repurchase instead. When you ultimately close the position with the second sale, then you compute your gain or loss based on the modified basis. Note that this means you need to be careful about what you mean by \"\"gain\"\" or \"\"loss\"\" at the second sale, because you need to be careful about when you account for the basis adjustment due to the wash sale. Example 1: All buys and sells are in your brokerage account. You buy initially at $10 and sell at $8, creating a $2 loss. But you buy again within the wash sale window at $9 and sell that at $12. You get no deduction after the first sale because it's wash. You have a $1 capital gain at the second sale because your basis is $11 = $9 + $2 due to the $2 basis adjustment from wash sale. Example 2: Same as Example 1, except that final sale is at $8 instead of at $12. In this case you appear to have taken a $2 loss on the first buy-sell and another $1 loss on the second buy-sell. For taxes however, you cannot claim the loss at the first sale due to the wash. At the second sale, your basis is still $11 (as in Example 1), so your overall capital loss is the $3 dollars that you might expect, computed as the $8 final sale price minus the $11 (wash-adjusted) basis. Now for 9-10 (Brokerage->IRA), things are a little more complicated. In the IRA, you don't worry about the basis of individual stocks that you hold because of the way that tax advantages of those accounts work. You do need to worry about the basis of the IRA account as a whole, however, in some cases. The most common case would be if you have non-deductable contributions to your traditional IRA. When you eventually withdraw, you don't pay tax on any distributions that are attributable to those nondeductible contributions (because you already paid tax on that part). There are other cases where basis of your account matters, but that's a whole question in itself - It's enough for now to understand 1. Basis in your IRA as a whole is a well-defined concept with tax implications, and 2. Basis in individual holdings within your account don't matter. So with the brokerage-IRA wash sale, there are two questions: 1. Can you take the capital loss on the brokerage side? 2. If no because of the wash sale, does this increase the basis of your IRA account (as a whole)? The answer to both is \"\"no,\"\" although the reason is not obvious. The IRS actually put out a Special Bulletin to answer the question specifically because it was unclear in the law. Bottom line for 9-10 is that you apparently are losing your tax deduction completely in that case. In addition, if you were counting on an increase in the basis of your IRA to avoid early distribution penalties, you don't get that either, which will result in yet more tax if you actually take the early distribution. In addition to the Special Bulletin noted above, Publication 550, which talks about wash sale rules for individuals, may also help some.\"","From the IRS Section 1091. Loss from Wash Sales of Stock or Securities Section 1091(a) provides that in the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law),or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or 3 securities, then no deduction shall be allowed under § 165 The document is not long, 4 pages, and should be read to see the intent. It's tough to choose the one snippet, but the conclusion is this is the definitive response to that question. A purchase within an IRA or other retirement account can create a wash sale if such a purchase would be a wash sale otherwise, i.e. the fact that it's a retirement account doesn't avoid wash rules.","You are not allowed to pick and choose what years to take a loss once the stock/fund is sold. While I realize it might be too late for you to do anything now, in the future if members should read this, they might consider doing a Roth conversion during that year they will have $3000 in losses. This way they will show some income that can be offset by that loss, effectively getting a free conversion to the Roth.","The top long-term capital gains tax rate will rise to 20% effective 1 Jan, 2011, unless Congress decides to do something about it before then. (Will they? Who knows!! There's been talk about it, but, well, it's Congress. They don't even know what they're going to do.) Anyway. The rules about when you can sell stock are mostly concerned with when you can realize a capital loss: if you sell a stock at a loss and then re-buy it for tax purposes within 30 days, it's a wash sale and not eligible for a deduction. However, I don't believe this applies to any stocks once you realize a gain - once you've realized the gain and paid your tax for it, it's all yours, locked in at whatever rate. Your replacement stock will be subject to short-term capital gains for the next year afterwards, and you might need to be careful with identifying the holding period on different lots of your stock, but I don't believe there will be any particular trouble. Please do not rely entirely on my advice and consult also with your tax preparer or lawyer. :) And the IRS documentation: Special Addendum for Nov/Dec 2012! Spoiler alert! Congress did indeed act: they extended the rates, but only temporarily, so now we're looking at tax hikes starting in 2013 instead, only the new top rate++ will be something like 23.8% on account of an extra 3.8% medicare tax on passive earnings (brought to you via Obamacare legislation). But the year and the rates' specifics aside, same thing still applies. And the Republican house and Democratic senate/President are still duking it out. Have fun. ++ 3.8% surtax applies to the lesser of (a) net investment income (b) income over $200,000 ($250k if married). 20% tax rate applies to people in the 15% income tax bracket for ordinary income or higher. Additional tax discounts for property held over 5 years may be available. Consult tax law and your favorite tax professional and prepare to be confused.","Yes, the newly bought shares will have a long-term holding period, regardless of when you sell them. In addition, it's only a wash sale if you sold the first shares for a loss; it's not a wash sale if you sold them for a gain. Wikipedia mentions this: When a wash sale occurs, the holding period for the replacement stock includes the period you held the stock you sold. Example: You've held shares of XYZ for 10 years. You sell it at a loss but then buy it back within the wash sale period. When you sell the replacement stock, your gain or loss will be long-term — no matter how soon you sell it. Charles Schwab also mentions this: Here's a quick example of a wash sale. On 9/30/XX, you buy 500 shares of ABC at $10 per share. One year later the stock price starts to drop, and you sell all your shares at $9 per share on 10/4/XY. Two days later, on 10/6, ABC bottoms out at $8 and you buy 500 shares again. This series of trades triggers a wash sale. The holding period of the original shares will be added to the holding period of the replacement shares, effectively leaving you with a long-term position.","Equal sized gains and losses in alternating years would lead to an unjust positive tax. On the contrary. If I can take my gains at the long term rate (15%) in even years, but take losses in odd years, up to $3000, or let them offset short term gains at ordinary rate, I've just gamed the system. What is the purpose of the wash sale rule? Respectfully, we here can do a fine job of explaining how a bit of tax code works. And we can suggest the implication of those code bits. But, I suspect that it's not easy to explain the history of particular rules. For wash sale, the simple intent is to not let someone take a loss without actually selling the stock for a time. You'd be right to say the +/- 30 days is arbitrary. I'd ask you to keep 2 things in mind if you continue to frequent this board -","Once you own no shares for 31 days, it's game over. Even though the accounting has wash sales to consider, in the end, gains and losses all cancel to one net position of break even, gain or loss. It's when there are shares remaining at the end of a period of time that the wash sale rules really impact the numbers.","You are correct. She cannot claim the initial loss of $1,000 on her taxes, she can only report the $500 profit. However, the IRS does allow her to add the $1,000 loss to the basis cost of her replacement shares. e.g.","\"The IRS rules are actually the same. 26 U.S. Code § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities In the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law), or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or securities, then no deduction shall be allowed... What you should take away from the quote above is \"\"substantially identical stock or securities.\"\" With stocks, one company may happen to have a high correlation, Exxon and Mobil come to mind, before their merger of course. With funds or ETFs, the story is different. The IRS has yet to issue rules regarding what level of overlap or correlation makes two funds or ETFs \"\"substantially identical.\"\" Last month, I wrote an article, Tax Loss Harvesting, which analyses the impact of taking losses each year. I study the 2000's which showed an average loss of 1% per year, a 9% loss for the decade. Tax loss harvesting made the decade slightly positive, i.e. an annual boost of approx 1%.\"","You need to give specific dates! In the United States, you have three years to file an amended tax return. https://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Ten-Facts-about-Amended-Tax-Returns Did the restaurant fail in 2012? If so, that's probably the year to take the loss. If you need to amend your 2012 return, which you filed in 2013, you should have until 2016 to file this. The exact date may be based on when you filed 2012 taxes!","Wash sale applies. If you purchase shares within 30 days of that Feb 3 sell date, the wash sale kicks in, preventing the loss on that sale, and deferring it into the new shares.","In addition to the adjustment type in NL7's answer, there are a host of others. If there are any adjustments, form 8949 is required, if not, the gains can be separated into short and long-term and added together to be entered on Schedule D. Anything requiring an adjustment code in column F of the 8949 requires an entry in column G. Some other example entries for column F include: (see the 8949 instructions for a complete list) **A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you: Buy substantially identical stock or securities, Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade, Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement account (IRA) or Roth IRA. (from Pub17)","The market maker will always take it off your hands. Just enter a market sell order. It will cost you a commission to pull the loss into this year. But that's it.","\"Yes- you do not realize gains or losses until you actually sell the stock. After you sell the initial stocks/bonds you have realized the gain. When you buy the new, different stocks you haven't realized anything until you then sell those. There is one exception to this, called the \"\"Wash-Sale Rule\"\". From Investopedia.com: With the wash-sale rule, the IRS disallows a loss deduction from the sale of a security if a ‘substantially identical security' was purchased within 30 days before or after the sale. The wash-sale period is actually 61 days, consisting of the 30 days before and the 30 days after the date of the sale. For example, if you bought 100 shares of IBM on December 1 and then sold 100 shares of IBM on December 15 at a loss, the loss deduction would not be allowed. Similarly, selling IBM on December 15 and then buying it back on January 10 of the following year does not permit a deduction. The wash-sale rule is designed to prevent investors from making trades for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes.\"","\"For restricted stock, I think the vesting date meets the requirements of the second wash sale trigger from IRS Pub 550: Wash Sales: Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade I base this on these two quotes from IRS Pub 525: Restricted Property: any income from the property, or the right to use the property, is included in your income as additional compensation in the year you receive the income or have the right to use the property. - Until the property becomes substantially vested, it is owned by the person who makes the transfer to you, usually your employer. So on the vest date: The transfer is taxable Ownership is transferred to you That seems close enough to \"\"a fully taxable trade\"\" for me. Maybe this changes if you pay the tax on the stock on the grant date. See Pub 525: Restricted Property: Choosing to include in income for year of transfer. Obviously, if this is important you should consult your tax advisor. Technicalities aside, I don't think it passes the sniff test. You're getting salable shares when the restricted stock vests. If you're selling other shares at a loss within 30 days of the vesting date, that smells like a wash sale to me.\"","Based on the statement in your question you think it should have been on the 2014 W-2 but it was included on the 2015 W-2. If you are correct, then you are asking them to correct two w-2 forms: the 2014 form and the 2015 form. You will also have to file form 1040-x for 2014 to correct last years tax forms. You will have to pay additional tax with that filing, and there could be penalties and interest. But if you directed them on the last day of the year, it is likely that the transaction actually took place the next year. You will have to look at the paperwork for the account to see what is the expected delay. You should also be able to see from the account history when it actually took place, and when the funds were credited to your account. or you could just pay the tax this year. This might be the best if there is no real difference in the result. Now if you added the sale to your taxes lat year without a corresponding tax statement from your account, that is a much more complex situation. The IRS could eventually flag the discrepancy, so you may have to adjust last year filing anyway.","Looks like there are no specific rule in India to prevent Wash sales. See the link below. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/personal-finance-news/investors-can-rejig-portfolio-book-short-term-loss-to-save-tax/articleshow/7812788.cms?intenttarget=no","When you get into reading Revenue Rulings and Treasury Regulations - I'd suggest hiring a professional to do that for you. Especially since you also need to assure that the new stock does indeed qualify as QSBS. However, from the revenue ruling you quoted it doesn't sound like there's any other requirement other than reporting the subsequent purchase as a loss on your schedule D. I wouldn't know, however, if there are subsequent/superseding revenue rulings on the matter since 1998. Professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) would have the means and the ability to research this and give you a proper advice.","\"I'll try to answer using your original example. First, let me restate your assumptions, slightly modified: The mutual fund has: Note that I say the \"\"mutual fund has\"\" those gains and losses. That's because they occur inside the mutual fund and not directly to you as a shareholder. I use \"\"realized\"\" gains and losses because the only gains and losses handled this way are those causes by actual asset (stock) sales within the fund (as directed by fund management). Changes in the value of fund holdings that are not sold are not included in this. As a holder of the fund, you learn the values of X, Y, and Z after the end of the year when the fund management reports the values. For gains, you will also typically see the values reported on your 1099-DIV under \"\"capital gains distributions\"\". For example, your 1099-DIV for year 3 will have the value Z for capital gains (besides reporting any ordinary dividends in another box). Your year 1 1099 will have $0 \"\"capital gains distributions\"\" shown because of the rule you highlighted in bold: net realized losses are not distributed. This capital loss however can later be used to the mutual fund holder's tax advantage. The fund's internal accounting carries forward the loss, and uses it to offset later realized gains. Thus your year 2 1099 will have a capital gain distribution of (Y-X), not Y, thus recognizing the loss which occurred. Thus the loss is taken into account. Note that for capital gains you, the holder, pay no tax in year 1, pay tax in year 2 on Y-X, and pay tax in year 3 on Z. All the above is the way it works whether or not you sell the shares immediately after the end of year 3 or you hold the shares for many more years. Whenever you do sell the shares, you will have a gain or loss, but that is different from the fund's realized losses we have been talking about (X, Y, and Z).\"","\"Summary of accepted answer: Your \"\"loss\"\" will not count as a loss (to the IRS). Which means no tax deduction for a \"\"short-term capital loss\"\" (on that sale). Instead, the IRS simply pretends like you had paid less for the stock to begin with.\"","I sold it at 609.25 and buy again at 608.75 in the same day If you Sold and bought the same day, it would be considered as intra-day trade. Profit will be due and would be taxed at normal tax brackets. Edits Best Consult a CA. This is covered under Indian Accounting Standard AG51 The following examples illustrate the application of the derecognition principles of this Standard. (e) Wash sale transaction. The repurchase of a financial asset shortly after it has been sold is sometimes referred to as a wash sale. Such a repurchase does not preclude derecognition provided that the original transaction met the derecognition requirements. However, if an agreement to sell a financial asset is entered into concurrently with an agreement to repurchase the same asset at a fixed price or the sale price plus a lender's return, then the asset is not derecognised. This is more relevant now for shares/stocks as Long Term Capital Gains are tax free, Long Term Capital Loss cannot be adjusted against anything. Short Term Gains are taxed differentially. Hence the transaction can be interpreted as tax evasion, professional advise is recommended. A simple way to avoid this situation; sell on a given day and buy it next or few days later.","The way the wash sale works is your loss is added to your cost basis of the buy. So suppose your original cost basis is $10,000. You then sell the stock for $9,000 which accounts for your $1,000 loss. You then buy the stock again, say for $8,500, and sell it for $9,000. Since your loss of $1,000 is added to your cost basis, you actually still have a net loss of $500. You then buy the stock again for say $10,500, then sell it for $9,500. Your $500 loss is added to your cost basis, and you have a net loss of $1,500. Since you never had a net gain, you will not owe any tax for these transactions.","No, there's nothing special in mutual funds or ETFs. Wash sale rules apply to any asset.","I am not an accountant, but I have a light accounting background, despite being primarily an engineer. I also have a tiny schedule C business which has both better and worse years. I am also in the United States and pay US taxes. I assume you are referring to the US Form 1040 tax return, with the attached Schedule C. However little I know about US taxes, I know nothing about foreign taxes. You are a cash-basis taxpayer, so the transactions that happen in each tax year are based on the cash paid and cash received in that year. You were paid last year, you computed your schedule C based on last year's actual transactions, and you paid taxes on that income. You can not recompute last years schedule C based on the warranty claim. You might want to switch to an accrual accounting method, where you can book allowances for warranty claims. It is more complex, and if your business is spotty and low volume, it may be more trouble than it is worth. At this point, you have two months to look for ways to shift expenses into next year or being income into this year, both of which help offset this loss. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on. This article on LegalZoom (link here) discusses how to apply a significant net operating loss (NOL) in this year to the previous two years, and potentially carry it forward to the next two years. This does involve filing amended returns for the prior two years, showing this year's NOL. For this to be relevant, your schedule C loss this year must exceed your other W2 and self-employment income this year, with other tests also applied. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on.","\"There are different schools of thought. You can ask the IRS - and it would not surprise me if you got different answers on different phone calls. One interpretation is that a put is not \"\"substantially identical\"\" to the disposed stock, therefore no wash is triggered by that sale. However if that put is exercised, then you automatically purchase the security, and that is identical. As to whether the IRS (or your brokerage firm) recognizes the identical security when it falls out of an option, I can't say; but technically they could enforce it because the rule is based on 30 days and a \"\"substantially identical\"\" stock or security. In this interpretation (your investor) would probably at least want to stay out of the money in choosing a strike price, to avoid exercise; however, options are normally either held or sold, rather than be exercised, until at or very close to the expiration date (because time value is left on the table otherwise). So the key driver in this interpretation would be expiration date, which should be at least 31 days out from the stock sale; and it would be prudent to sell an out of the money put as well, in order to avoid the wash sale trigger. However there is also a more unfavorable opinion - see fairmark.com/capgain/wash/wsoption.htm where they hold that a \"\"deep in the money\"\" option is an immediate trigger (regardless of exercise). This article is sage, in that they say that the Treasury (IRS) may interpret an option transaction as a wash if it's ballpark to being exercisable. And, if the IRS throws paper, it always beats each of paper, rock and scissors :( A Schwab article (\"\"A Primer on Wash Sales\"\") says, if the CUSIPs match, bang, wash. This is the one that they may interpret unfavorably on in any case, supporting Schwab's \"\"play it safe\"\" position: \"\"3. Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities...\"\" . This certainly nails buying a call. As to selling a put, well, it is at least conceivable that an IRS official would call that a contract to buy! SO it's simply not a slam dunk; there are varying opinions that you might describe as ranging from \"\"hell no\"\" to \"\"only if blatant.\"\" If you can get an \"\"official\"\" predetermination, or you like to go aggressive in your tax strategy, there's that; they may act adversely, so Caveat Taxfiler!\"","Is this possible and will it have the intended effect? From the US tax perspective, it most definitely is and will. Is my plan not very similar to Wash Sale? Yes, except that wash sale rules apply for losses, not gains. In any case, since you're not a US tax resident, the US wash sale rules won't apply to you.","It was not 100% clear if you have held all of these stocks for over a year. Therefore, depending on your income tax bracket, it might make sense to hold on to the stock until you have held the individual stock for a year to only be taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Also, you need to take into account the Net Investment Income Tax(NIIT), if your current modified adjusted income is above the current threshold. Beyond these, I would think that you would want to apply the same methodology that caused you to buy these in the first place, as it seems to be working well for you. 2 & 3. No. You trigger a taxable event and therefore have to pay capital gains tax on any gains. If you have a loss in the stock and repurchase the stock within 30 days, you don't get to recognize the loss and have to add the loss to your basis in the stock (Wash Sales Rules).","Yes. As long as the stock is in a taxable account (i.e. not a tax deferred retirement account) you'll pay gain on the profit regardless of subsequent purchases. If the sale is a loss, however, you'll risk delaying the claim for the loss if you repurchase identical shares within 30 days of that sale. This is called a wash sale.","\"If you bought them, you can sell them. That does not preclude you from buying again later. You might get yourself into a situation where you need to account for a so-called \"\"wash sale\"\" on your taxes, but your broker should calculate that and report it on your 1099-B at the end of the year. There's nothing illegal about this though - It's just a required step in the accounting of capital gains for tax purposes.\"","\"When a question is phrased this way, i.e. \"\"for tax purposes\"\" I'm compelled to advise - Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog. In theory, one can create a loss, up to the $3K, and take it against ordinary income. When sold, the gains may be long term and be at a lower rate. In reality, if you are out of the stock for the required 30 days, it will shoot up in price. If you double up, as LittleAdv correctly offers, it will drop over the 30 days and negate any benefit. The investing dog's water bowl is half full.\"","First, I believe that you can't just divide the losses over a number of years. I know that would be ideal as it might let you use the losses to only offset 25% income. A loss that gets you below zero taxable income would carry forward to the next year. That said, I think it would be a great strategy to use the loss to offset a Roth conversion, in your case, from the traditional 401(k) to Roth 401(k). Keep in mind, as you've seen from using the 2016 tax year TurboTax, you should be able to make a fairly good estimate for your 2017 return. This could effectively use all of the loss to offset 25% income. I'd look at the current projection and convert say 75-80% of the target amount immediately, then in November when the 2017 software comes out, convert the rest to get as close to your goal as you can.","\"There some specific circumstances when you would have a long-term gain. Option 1: If you meet all of these conditions: Then you've got a long-term gain on the stock. The premium on the option gets rolled into the capital gain on the stock and is not taxed separately. From the IRS: If a call you write is exercised and you sell the underlying stock, increase your amount realized on the sale of the stock by the amount you received for the call when figuring your gain or loss. The gain or loss is long term or short term depending on your holding period of the stock. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010630 Option 2: If you didn't hold the underlying and the exercise of the call that you wrote resulted in a short position, you might also be able to get to a long-term gain by buying the underlying while keeping your short position open and then \"\"crossing\"\" them to close both positions after one year. (In other words, don't \"\"buy to cover\"\" just \"\"buy\"\" so that your account shows both a long and a short position in the same security. Your broker probably allows this, but if not you, could buy in a different account than the one with the short position.) That would get you to this rule: As a general rule, you determine whether you have short-term or long-term capital gain or loss on a short sale by the amount of time you actually hold the property eventually delivered to the lender to close the short sale. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010586 Option 1 is probably reasonably common. Option 2, I would guess, is uncommon and likely not worthwhile. I do not think that the wash sale rules can help string along options from expiration to expiration though. Option 1 has some elements of what you wrote in italics (I find that paragraph a bit confusing), but the wash sale does not help you out.\"","Reading IRS Regulations section 15a.453-1(c) more closely, I see that this was a contingent payment sale with a stated maximum selling price. Therefore, at the time of filing prior years, there was no way of knowing the final contingent payment would not be reached and thus the prior years were filed correctly and should not be amended. Those regulations go on to give an example of a sale with a stated maximum selling price where the maximum was not reached due to contingency and states that in such cases: When the maximum [payment] amount is subsequently reduced, the gross profit ratio will be recomputed with respect to payments received in or after the taxable year in which an event requiring reduction occurs. However, in this case, that would result in a negative gross profit ratio on line 19 of form 6252 which Turbo Tax reports should be a non-negative number. Looking further in the regulations, I found an example which relates to bankruptcy and a resulting loss in a subsequent year: For 1992 A will report a loss of $5 million attributable to the sale, taken at the time determined to be appropriate under the rules generally applicable to worthless debts. Therefore, I used a gross profit ratio of zero on line 19 and entered a separate stock sale not reported on a 1099-B as a worthless stock on Form 8949 as a capital loss based upon the remaining basis in the stock sold in an installment sale. I also included an explanatory statement with my return to the IRS stating: In 2008, I entered into an installment sale of stock. The sale was a contingent payment sale with a stated maximum selling price. The sales price did not reach the agreed upon maximum sales price due to some contingencies not being met. According to the IRS Regulations section 15a.453-1(c) my basis in the stock remains at $500 in 2012 after the final payment. Rather than using a negative gross profit ratio on line 19 of form 6252, I'm using a zero ratio and treating the remaining basis as a schedule-D loss similar to worthless stock since the sale is now complete and my remaining basis is no longer recoverable.","The loss for B can be used to write off the gain for A. You will fill out a schedule 3 with cost base and proceeds of disposition. This will give you a $0 capital gain for the year and an amount of $5 (50% of the $10 loss) you can carry forward to offset future capital gains. You can also file a T1-a and carry the losses back up to 3 years if you're so inclined. It can't be used to offset other income (unless you die). Your C and D trades can't be on income account except for very unusual circumstances. It's not generally acceptable to the CRA for you to use 2 separate accounting methods. There are some intricacies but you should probably just use capital gains. There is one caveat that if you do short sales of Canadian listed securities, they will be on income account unless you fill out form T-123 and elect to have them all treated as capital gains. I just remembered one wrinkle in carrying forward capital losses. They don't reduce your capital gains anymore, but they reduce your taxable income. This means your net income won't be reduced and any benefits that are calculated from that (line 236), will not get an increase.","No one can advise you on whether to hold this stock or sell it. Your carried losses can offset short or long term gains, but the long term losses have to be applied to offset long term gains before any remaining losses can offset short term gains. Your question doesn't indicate how long you have to hold before the short term gains become long term gains. Obviously the longer the holding period, the greater the risk. You also must avoid a wash sale (selling to lock in the gains/reset your basis then repurchasing within a month). All of those decisions hold risks that you have to weigh. If you see further upside in holding it longer, keep the investment. Don't sell just to try to maximize tax benefits.","Your 1&2 are the end of that chapter. You can't convert for that year again, and must wait 30 days to convert in the new tax year. For example, each year for over a decade, I've helped my mother in law with this. In May, we convert a chunk of money/stock to Roth. In April, I'll recharacterize just enough so she tops off her 15% bracket but doesn't hit 25%. 30 days later, the new conversion happens. All the Roth money is money now taxed at 15%, which, in an emergency, a need for a lot of cash, will avoid the potential of 25% or higher, tax. You see, your 3 never really happens.","I agree, one should not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. The only question should be whether he'd buy the stock at today's price. If he wishes to own it long term, he keeps it. To take the loss this year, he'd have to sell soon, and can't buy it back for 30 days. If, for whatever reason, the stock comes back a bit, he's going to buy in higher. To be clear, the story changes for ETFs or mutual funds. You can buy a fund to replace one you're selling, capture the loss, and easily not run afoul of wash sale rules.","\"You have to calculate the total value of all shares and then ask yourself \"\"Would I invest that amount of money in this stock?\"\" If the answer is yes, then only sell what you need to sell. Take the $3k loss against your income, if you have no other gains. If you would not invest that amount of cash in that stock, then sell it all right now and carry forward the excess loss every year. Note at any point you have capital gains you can offset all of them with your loss carryover (not just $3k).\"","I don't believe in letting the tax tail wag the investing dog. You have a stock you no longer wish to hold for whatever reason? Sell it. But to sell a loser, hoping it doesn't rise by the time you wish to re-buy it in 30 days is folly. This effort may gain you $50 if done right. No, it's not worth it either way.","My understanding is that losses are first deductible against any capital gains you may have, then against your regular income (up to $3,000 per year). If you still have a loss after that, the loss may be carried over to offset capital gains or income in subsequent years As you suspect, a short term capital loss is deductible against short term capital gains and long term losses are deductible against long term gains. So taking the loss now MIGHT be beneficial from a tax perspective. I say MIGHT because there are a couple scenarios in which it either may not matter, or actually be detrimental: If you don't have any short term capital gains this year, but you have long term capital gains, you would have to use the short term loss to offset the long term gain before you could apply it to ordinary income. So in that situation you lose out on the difference between the long term tax rate (15%) and your ordinary income rate (potentially higher). If you keep the stock, and sell it for a long term loss next year, but you only have short-term capital gains or no capital gains next year, then you may use the long term loss to offset your short-term gains (first) or your ordinary income. Clear as mud? The whole mess is outlined in IRS Publication 550 Finally, if you still think the stock is good, but just want to take the tax loss, you can sell the stock now (to realize the loss) then re-buy it in 30 days. This is called Tax Loss Harvesting. The 30 day delay is an IRS requirement for being allowed to realize the loss.","\"The IRS has been particularly vague about the \"\"substantially identical\"\" investment part of the wash rule. Many brokers, Schwab for instance, say that only identical CUSIPs (exactly the same ETF) matter for the wash rule in their internal calculations, but warn that the IRS might consider two ETFs over the same index to be substantially identical. In your case, the broker has chosen to call these a wash despite even having different underlying indices. Talking to the broker is the first step as they will report it to the IRS. Though technically you have the final say in your taxes about the cost basis, discussing this with the IRS could be rather painful. First though it is probably worth checking with your broker about exactly what happened. There are other wash sale triggers that frequently trip people up that may have been in play here.\"","On line 21 of Schedule D, you write the smaller of So, in your case, since your Line 16 shows a loss of more than $3000 on Line 21, you write 3000 on Line 21 (the parentheses indicating that is it a negative number are already included on the form). Also, you write (3000) on Form 1040 Line 13. The rest of the loss is a carryover to next year (be sure to fill out the Capital Loss Carryover Worksheet where the carryover to next year is computed). Summary: you cannot write 0 on Line 21 of Schedule D and carry over the entire loss to next year. You must deduct $3000 this year and carry over the rest of the loss to next year.","\"'Note that \"\"to keep an investor from lowering their tax bill\"\" is not an explanation'. Well, yes it is. In fact it is the only explanation. The rule plainly exists to prevent someone from realizing a loss when their economic situation remains unchanged before/after a sale. Now, you might say 'but I have suffered a loss, even if it is unrealized!' But, would you want to pay tax on unrealized gains? The tax system still caters to reducing the tax impact of investments, particularly capital investments. Part and parcel with the system of taxing gains only when realized, is that you can recognize losses only when realized. Are there other ways to 'artificially' reduce taxable income? Yes. But the goal of a good tax system should be to reduce those opportunities. Whether you agree that it is fair for the government to prevent this tax-saving opportunity, when others exist, is another question. But that is why the rule exists.\"","\"It sounds like this is an entirely unsettled question, unfortunately. In the examples you provide, I think it is safe to say that none of those are 'substantially identical'; a small overlap or no overlap certainly should not be considered such by a reasonable interpretation of the rule. This article on Kitces goes into some detail on the topic. A few specifics. First, Former publication 564 explains: Ordinarily, shares issued by one mutual fund are not considered to be substantially identical to shares issued by another mutual fund. Of course, what \"\"ordinarily\"\" means is unspecified (and this is no longer a current publication, so, who knows). The Kitces article goes on to explain that the IRS hasn't really gone after wash sales for mutual funds: Over the years, the IRS has not pursued wash sale abuses against mutual funds, perhaps because it just wasn’t very feasible to crack down on them, or perhaps because it just wasn’t perceived as that big of an abuse. After all, while the rules might allow you to loss-harvest a particular stock you couldn’t have otherwise, it also limits you from harvesting ANY losses if the overall fund is up in the aggregate, since losses on individual stocks can’t pass through to the mutual fund shareholders. But then goes to explain about ETFs being very different: sell SPY, buy IVV or VTI, and you're basically buying/selling the identical thing (99% or so correlation in stocks owned). The recommendation by the article is to look at the correlation in owned stocks, and stay away from things over 95%; that seems reasonable in my book as well. Ultimately, there will no doubt be a large number of “grey” and murky situations, but I suspect that until the IRS provides better guidance (or Congress rewrites/updates the wash sale rules altogether!), in the near term the easiest “red flag” warning is simply to look at the correlation between the original investment being loss-harvested, and the replacement security; at correlations above 0.95, and especially at 0.99+, it’s difficult to argue that the securities are not ”substantially identical” to each other in performance. Basically - use common sense, and don't do anything you think would be hard to defend in an audit, but otherwise you should be okay.\"","If you do this, you own a stock worth $1, with a basis of $2. The loss doesn't get realized until the shares are sold. Of course, we hope you see the stock increase above that price, else, why do this?","What might make more sense is to 'capture' your losses. Sell out the funds you have, move into something else that is different enough that the IRS won't consider it a wash sale, and you can then use those losses to offset gains (you can even carry them forward) You would still be in the market, just having made a sort of 'sideways move'. A month or two later (once you are clear of wash sale rules) you could shift back to your original choices. (this answer presumes you are in the US, or somewhere that lets you use losses to offset gains)","Using a different cost basis than your broker's reporting is NOT a problem. You need to keep your own records to account for this difference. Among the other many legitimate reasons to adjust your cost basis, the most popular is when you have two brokerage accounts and sell an asset in one then buy in another. This is called a Wash Sale and is not a taxable event for you. However from the perspective of each broker with their limited information you are making a transaction with tax implications and their reported 1099 will show as such. Links: https://www.firstinvestors.com/docs/pdf/news/tax-qa-2012.pdf","In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-). In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.","This answer assumes you're asking about how to handle this issue in the USA. I generally downvote questions that ask about a tax/legal issue and don't bother providing the jurisdiction. In my opinion it is extremely rude. Seeing that you applied for an LLC, I think that you somehow consider it as a relevant piece of information. You also attribute some importance to the EIN which has nothing to do with your question. I'm going to filter out that noise. As an individual/sole-proprietor (whether under LLC or not), you cannot use fiscal years, only calendar years. It doesn't matter if you decide to have your LLC taxed as S-Corp as well, still calendar year. Only C-Corp can have a fiscal year, and you probably don't want to become a C-Corp. So the year ends on December 31, and whether accrual or cash - you can only deduct expenses you incurred until then. Also, you must declare the income you got until then, which in your case will be the full amount of funding - again regardless of whether you decided to be cash-based or accrual based. So the main thing you need to do is to talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) and learn about the tax law relevant to your business and its implications on your actions. There may be some ways to make it work better, and there are some ways in which you can screw yourself up completely in your scenario, so do get a professional advice.","Your final tax basis could not be determined until June 14, 2012, the first day of separate trading of all four securities that you received from the GM bankruptcy reorganization.","\"After much research, the answer is \"\"a\"\": recompute the tax return using the installment sales method because (1) the escrow payment was subject to \"\"substantial restrictions\"\" by virtue of the escrow being structured to pay buyer's indemnification claims and (2) the taxpayer did not correctly elect out of the installment method by reporting the entire gain including the escrow payments on the return in the year of the transaction.\"","If you received a distribution to buy, build, or rebuild a first home and the purchase or construction was canceled or delayed, you generally can contribute the amount of the distribution to an IRA within 120 days of the distribution. This contribution is treated as a rollover contribution to the IRA. This is from my friend, Publication 590. See Page 51, next to 'TIP' in second col.","Capital losses do mirror capital gains within their holding periods. An asset or investment this is certainly held for a year into the day or less, and sold at a loss, will create a short-term capital loss. A sale of any asset held for over a year to your day, and sold at a loss, will create a loss that is long-term. When capital gains and losses are reported from the tax return, the taxpayer must first categorize all gains and losses between long and short term, and then aggregate the sum total amounts for every single regarding the four categories. Then the gains that are long-term losses are netted against each other, therefore the same is done for short-term gains and losses. Then your net gain that is long-term loss is netted against the net short-term gain or loss. This final net number is then reported on Form 1040. Example Frank has the following gains and losses from his stock trading for the year: Short-term gains - $6,000 Long-term gains - $4,000 Short-term losses - $2,000 Long-term losses - $5,000 Net short-term gain/loss - $4,000 ST gain ($6,000 ST gain - $2,000 ST loss) Net long-term gain/loss - $1,000 LT loss ($4,000 LT gain - $5,000 LT loss) Final net gain/loss - $3,000 short-term gain ($4,000 ST gain - $1,000 LT loss) Again, Frank can only deduct $3,000 of final net short- or long-term losses against other types of income for that year and must carry forward any remaining balance.","You need to submit an updated return. The problem is that once three years have passed you can't update the return to get any kind of refund, but if they are going after you for the sale price of the stocks, not knowing the cost, your goal is to show them there was no gain, and in fact you'd have had the loss if you were aware of the account. This is less than ten years back, so the broker should be able to give you the statements pretty easily.","No, the 120 days rule only applies in cases of delay or cancellation. If the purchase went through and you got additional money elsewhere - you cannot re-deposit the distribution back. See IRC Sec. 72(t)(8)(E): If any distribution from any individual retirement plan fails to meet the requirements of subparagraph (A) solely by reason of a delay or cancellation of the purchase or construction of the residence, the amount of the distribution may be contributed to an individual retirement plan as provided in section 408 (d)(3)(A)(i) (determined by substituting “120th day” for “60th day” in such section)","\"From Intuit: \"\"Yes, but there are limits. Losses on your investments are first used to offset capital gains of the same type. So short-term losses are first deducted against short-term gains, and long-term losses are deducted against long-term gains. Net losses of either type can then be deducted against the other kind of gain.\"\" \"\"If you have an overall net capital loss for the year, you can deduct up to $3,000 of that loss against other kinds of income, including your salary, for example, and interest income. Any excess net capital loss can be carried over to subsequent years to be deducted against capital gains and against up to $3,000 of other kinds of income.\"\" So in your case, take the loss now if you have short term gains. Also take it if you want to take a deduction on your salary (but this maxes at 3k, but you can keep using an additional 3k each year into the future until its all used up). There isn't really an advantage to a long term loss right now (since long term rates are LOWER than short term rates).\"","You'll have to file an amended tax return for that tax year. Filing an Amended Tax Return","If you made a contribution to a Traditional IRA for Year X (whether made during Year X or made in Year X+1 before the due date of your tax return for Year X), then you can withdraw the contribution and any gains on that contribution by the due date of your tax return. If the contribution was deductible, then of course you must not take a deduction for it in on your tax return for Year X (or any other year for that matter). As for the gains (if any) that were withdrawn, they are taxable income to you for Year X (not X+1, even if the withdrawal occurred in Year X+1). Publication 590a says You generally can make a tax-free withdrawal of contributions if you do it before the due date for filing your tax return for the year in which you made them. This means that, even if you are under age 59-1/2, the 10% additional tax may not apply. and later in the same Publication If you have an extension of time to file your return, you can withdraw them tax free by the extended due date. You can do this if, for each contribution you withdraw, both of the following conditions apply. - You did not take a deduction for the contribution. - You withdraw any interest or other income earned on the contribution. You can take into account any loss on the contribution while it was in the IRA when calculating the amount that must be withdrawn. If there was a loss, the net income earned on the contribution may be a negative amount. Later, the document says You must include in income any earnings on the contributions you withdraw. Include the earnings in income for the year in which you made the contributions, not the year in which you withdraw them. and The 10% additional tax on distributions made before you reach age 59-1/2 does not apply to these tax-free withdrawals of your contributions. However, the distribution of interest or other income must be reported on Form 5329 and, unless the distribution qualifies as an exception to the age 59-1/2 rule, it will be subject to this tax. Since you have a loss on the contributions that you are withdrawing, there is no interest or other income that needs to be reported.","\"Individuals most definitely can have NOL. This is covered in the IRS publication 536. What is the difference between NOL and capital loss? NOL is Net Operating Loss. I.e.: a situation where your (allowable) expenses and deductions exceed your gross income. Basically it means that you have negative income for that year, for tax purposes. Capital loss occurs when the total amount of your capital gains reported on Schedule D is negative. What are their relations then? Not all expenses and deductions that you usually put on your tax return are allowed for NOL calculation. For example, capital loss is not allowed. I.e.: if you earned $2000 and you lost in stocks $3000 - you do not get a $1K NOL. Capital losses are excluded from NOL calculation and in this scenario you still have non-negative income for NOL purposes even though it is offset in full by capital loss deduction and your \"\"taxable income\"\" line is negative. The $1K that was not allowed - gets carried forward to the next year using the Capital Loss Carryover Worksheet in the instructions to Schedule D. You calculate your NOL using form 1045 schedule A. You can use the form 1045 to apply the NOL to prior 2 years, or you can elect to apply it only to future years (up to 20 years). In what cases, capital loss can be NOL? Never.\"","Is it true that you cannot amend a tax return to include both a futures loss carry back and a Schedule C at the same time? No, it is not true. You can include all the changes necessary in a single amended return, attaching statement explaining each of the changes. However you're talking about two different kinds of changes. Futures loss carryback is a Sec. 1212 carryback and not a correction of an error. Adding Schedule C would be a correction of an error. I'm guessing your CPA wants to separate the two kinds to avoid the situation where the IRS refuses to accept your correction of an error and by the way also doesn't accept the Sec. 1212 carryback on the same return. Or the CPA just wants to charge you twice for amendments.","The short answer is no - the CGT discount is only applied against your net capital gain. So your net capital gain would be: $25,000 - $5,000 = $20,000 Your CGT discount is $10,000 You will then pay CGT on $10,000 Of course you could sell ABC in this financial year and sell DEF next financial year. If you had no other share activities next financial year than that net capital loss can be carried forward to a future year. In that case your net capital gain this year would be $25,000 Your CGT discount is $12,500 You will then pay CGT on $12,500 Next year if oyu sell DEF, you'll have a $5000 net capital loss which you can carry forward to a future year as an offset against capital gains. Reference: https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Capital-gains-tax/Working-out-your-capital-gain-or-loss/Working-out-your-net-capital-gain-or-loss/","Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.","What JoeTaxpayer means is that you can sell one ETF and buy another that will perform substantially the same during the 30 day wash sale period without being considered substantially the same from a wash sale perspective more easily than you could with an individual stock. For example, you could sell an S&P 500 index ETF and then temporarily buy a DJIA index ETF. As these track different indexes, they are not considered to be substantially the same for wash sale purposes, but for a short term investing period, their performance should still be substantially the same.","\"If your sole proprietorship losses exceed all other sources of taxable income, then you have what's called a Net Operating Loss (NOL). You will have the option to \"\"carry back\"\" and amend a return you filed in the last 2 years where you owed tax, or you can \"\"carry forward\"\" the losses and decrease your taxes in a future year, up to 20 years in the future. For more information see the IRS links for NOL. Note: it's important to make sure you file the NOL correctly so I'd advise speaking with an accountant. (Especially if the loss is greater than the cost of the accountant...)\"","You mentioned that the 1099B that reports this sale is for 2014, which means that you got the proceeds in 2014. What I suspect happened was that the employer reported this on the next available paycheck, thus reporting it in the 2015 period. If this ends up being a significant difference for you, I'd argue the employer needs to correct both W2s, since you've actually received the money in 2014. However, if the difference for you is not substantial I'd leave it as is and remember that the employer will not know of your ESPP sales until at least several days later when the report from the broker arrives. If you sell on 12/31, you make it very difficult for the employer to account correctly since the report from the broker arrives in the next year.","\"You have multiple issues buried within this question. First, we don't know your tax bracket. For my answer, I'll assume 25%. This simply means that in 2016, you'll have a taxable $37,650 or higher. The interesting thing is that losses and gains are treated differently. A 25%er's long term gain is taxed at 15%, yet losses, up to $3000, can offset ordinary income. This sets the stage for strategic tax loss harvesting. In the linked article, I offered a look at how the strategy would have resulted in the awful 2000-2009 decade producing a slight gain (1%, not great, of course) vs the near 10% loss the S&P suffered over that time. This was by taking losses in down years, and capturing long term gains when positive (and not using a carried loss). Back to you - a 15%er's long term gain tax is zero. So using a gain to offset a loss makes little sense. Just as creating a loss to offset the gain. The bottom line? Enjoy the loss, up to $3000 against your income, and only take gains when there's no loss. This advice is all superseded by my rule \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" For individual stocks, I would never suggest a transaction for tax purposes. You keep good stocks, you sell bad ones. Sell a stock to take a short term loss only to have it recover in the 30 day waiting period just once, and you'll learn that lesson. Learn it here for free, don't make that mistake at your own expense.\"","You should apply for 83(b) within 30 days. 10 months is too late, sorry.","It is perfectly legitimate to adjust your 1099-B income by broker's fees. Publication 17 (p 116) specifically instructs taxpayers to adjust their Schedule D reporting by broker's fees: Form 1099-B transactions. If you sold property, such as stocks, bonds, or certain commodities, through a broker, you should receive Form 1099-B or substitute statement from the broker. Use the Form 1099-B or the substitute statement to complete Form 8949. If you sold a covered security in 2013, your broker should send you a Form 1099-B (or substitute statement) that shows your basis. This will help you complete Form 8949. Generally, a covered security is a security you acquired after 2010. Report the gross proceeds shown in box 2a of Form 1099-B as the sales price in column (d) of either Part I or Part II of Form 8949, whichever applies. However, if the broker advises you, in box 2a of Form 1099-B, that gross proceeds (sales price) less commissions and option premiums were reported to the IRS, enter that net sales price in column (d) of either Part I or Part II of Form 8949, whichever applies. Include in column (g) any expense of sale, such as broker's fees, commissions, state and local transfer taxes, and option premiums, unless you reported the net sales price in column (d). If you include an expense of sale in column (g), enter “E” in column (f). You can rely on your own records and judgment, if you feel comfortable doing so. Brokers often make incomplete tax reporting. This may have been simpler from their perspective if the broker fees were variable, or integrated, or unknown for a number of clients party to a transaction. If a taxpayer has documentation of the expenses that justify an adjustment, then it's perfectly appropriate to include that in the calculations. It is not necessary to report the discrepancy, and it may increase scrutiny to include a written addendum. The Schedule D, Form 8949, and Form 1099-B will probably together adequately explain the source of the deduction.","If you take the profit or loss next year, it counts on next year's taxes. There's no profit or loss until that happens.","For every document that the IRS posts, there will be a correlating instructions page. This would be the instructions for the 1099-B, here. Furthermore, as you will be reporting this on Form 8949, as a substitute for previously used Schedule D; instructions are here.This article explains that the best course of action is to donate the shares as the cost basis would switch to FMV (fair market value) of the assets today. But as this did not happen, I would recommend contacting the purchasing company directly. Being a share holder, and by purchasing the shares from the source, the accounting department should still have recorded the date of purchase along with the price sold. It may take effort to prove who you are, but if their accounting records are well documented, this will not be an issue. If nothing else, claim a 100% capital gain on the entirety of the sale, and pay the tax. That is stated here.","\"Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer nor a tax-expert This page on the HMRC site lists several pages that appear to be relevant, starting with CG78401 - Foreign currency: delayed remittances and on to CG78408 - Foreign currency: example which seems pertinent to your case [paraphrased]: A property bought in 1983 is sold for a [taxable] gain in one tax-year (1986/87) but the proceeds cannot be released/remitted to the UK until later (1991/92), by which time currency fluctuations have created a second [taxable] gain. The size of the first gain (selling the property) is determined by the exchange rate in effect at the time of the sale but because of local restrictions, this can be deferred. The size of the second gain (currency movement) is determined by the change in exchange-rate between the time of the sale and the time of conversion. In your case, the first \"\"gain\"\" was actually a loss, so I believe you should be able to use this to offset any tax due second gain. This page states that losses can be claimed up to four years after the end of the tax-year in which they were incurred, so you are probably still OK. (The example makes application under TCGA92/S279 to defer the gain made on the original sale [because of the inability to transfer funds], but as I understand it, this is primarily to avoid a tax liability in that year. Since you made a loss on the sale, there wouldn't have been a tax liability, so there would be no need to defer it).\"","\"According to the IRS, you must have written confirmation from your broker \"\"or other agent\"\" whenever you sell shares using a method other than FIFO: Specific share identification. If you adequately identify the shares you sold, you can use the adjusted basis of those particular shares to figure your gain or loss. You will adequately identify your mutual fund shares, even if you bought the shares in different lots at various prices and times, if you: Specify to your broker or other agent the particular shares to be sold or transferred at the time of the sale or transfer, and Receive confirmation in writing from your broker or other agent within a reasonable time of your specification of the particular shares sold or transferred. If you don't have a stockbroker, I'm not sure how you even got the shares. If you have an actual stock certificate, then you are selling very specific shares and the purchase date corresponds to the purchase date of those shares represented on the certificate.\"","Typically that applies if the broker Form 1099-B reports an incorrect basis to the IRS. If the Form 1099-B shows incorrect basis relative to your records, then you can use 8949, column (g) to report the correct basis. The 8949 Instructions provide a brief example. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i8949--2013.pdf Although you have an obligation to report all income, and hence to report the true basis, as a practical matter this information will usually be correct as presented by the broker. If you have separate information or reports relating to your investments, and you are so inclined, then you can double-check the basis information in your 1099-B. If you aren't aware of basis discrepancies, then the adjustments probably don't apply to you and your investments can stick to Schedule D.","From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(1)i): ... if a taxpayer sells or transfers shares of stock in a corporation that the taxpayer purchased or acquired on different dates or at different prices and the taxpayer does not adequately identify the lot from which the stock is sold or transferred, the stock sold or transferred is charged against the earliest lot the taxpayer purchased or acquired to determine the basis and holding period of the stock. From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(3): (i) Where the stock is left in the custody of a broker or other agent, an adequate identification is made if— (a) At the time of the sale or transfer, the taxpayer specifies to such broker or other agent having custody of the stock the particular stock to be sold or transferred, and ... So if you don't specify, the first share bought (for $100) is the one sold, and you have a capital gain of $800. But you can specify to the broker if you would rather sell the stock bought later (and thus have a lower gain). This can either be done for the individual sale (no later than the settlement date of the trade), or via standing order: 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(8) ... A standing order or instruction for the specific identification of stock is treated as an adequate identification made at the time of sale, transfer, delivery, or distribution.","Generally stock trades will require an additional Capital Gains and Losses form included with a 1040, known as Schedule D (summary) and Schedule D-1 (itemized). That year I believe the maximum declarable Capital loss was $3000--the rest could carry over to future years. The purchase date/year only matters insofar as to rank the lot as short term or long term(a position held 365 days or longer), short term typically but depends on actual asset taxed then at 25%, long term 15%. The year a position was closed(eg. sold) tells you which year's filing it belongs in. The tiny $16.08 interest earned probably goes into Schedule B, typically a short form. The IRS actually has a hotline 800-829-1040 (Individuals) for quick questions such as advising which previous-year filing forms they'd expect from you. Be sure to explain the custodial situation and that it all recently came to your awareness etc. Disclaimer: I am no specialist. You'd need to verify everything I wrote; it was just from personal experience with the IRS and taxes.","In a comment on this answer you asked It's not clear to me why the ability to defer the gains would matter (since you never materially benefit until you actually sell) but the estate step up in basis is a great point! Could you describe a hypothetical exploitive scenario (utilizing a wash sale) in a little more detail? This sounds like you still have the same question as originally, so I'll take a stab at answering with an example. I sell some security for a $10,000 profit. I then sell another security at a $10,000 loss and immediately rebuy. So pay no taxes (without the rule). Assuming a 15% rate, that's $1500 in savings which I realize immediately. Next year, I sell that same security for a $20,000 profit over the $10,000 loss basis (so a $10,000 profit over my original purchase). I sell and buy another security to pay no taxes. In fact, I pay no taxes like this for fifty years as I live off my investments (and a pension or social security that uses up my tax deductions). Then I die. All my securities step up in basis to their current market value. So I completely evade taxes on $500,000 in profits. That's $75,000 in tax savings to make my heirs richer. And they're already getting at least $500,000 worth of securities. Especially consider the case where I sell a privately held security to a private buyer who then sells me back the same shares at the same price. Don't think that $10,000 is enough? Remember that you also get the original value. But this also scales. It could be $100,000 in gains as well, for $750,000 in tax savings over the fifty years. That's at least $5 million of securities. The effective result of this would be to make a 0% tax on capital gains for many rich people. Worse, a poorer person can't do the same thing. You need to have many investments to take advantage of this. If a relatively poor person with two $500 investments tried this, that person would lose all the benefit in trading fees. And of course such a person would run out of investments quickly. Really poor people have $0 in investments, so this is totally impractical.","I wrote an article about this a while ago with detailed instructions, so I'll link to it here. Here's a snippet about how to use the Roth IRA loophole and report it properly: You don’t have any Traditional/Rollover IRA at all. You deposit up to the yearly maximum (currently $5500) into a traditional IRA. In your case, you re-characterized, which means you essentially deposited. The fact that it lost money may help you later if you have extra amounts in Traditional IRA. You convert your traditional IRA to become Roth IRA ($5500 change designation from Traditional IRA to Roth IRA). You fill IRS form 8606 and attach it to your yearly tax return, no tax due. You have a fully funded Roth IRA account. If you have amounts in the Traditional IRA in excess to what you contributed last year - it becomes a bit more complicated and you need to prorate. See my article for a detailed example. On the form 8606 you fill the numbers as they are. You deposited to IRA 5500, you converted 5100, your $400 loss is lost (unless you have more money in IRA from elsewhere). If you completely distribute your IRA, you can deduct the $400 on your Schedule A, if you itemize.","Interesting. How would they account for it? Monthly? And if so do they modify the cost basis for each lot for the month and then restate? It's hard to imagine they do that. I have a million questions regarding this topic do you know where in the regs it is covered?","\"Once again I offer some sage advice - \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" Michael offers an excellent method to decide what to do. Note, he doesn't base the decision on the tax implication. If you are truly indifferent to holding the stock, taxwise, you might consider selling just the profitable shares if that's enough cash. Then sell shares at a loss each year if you have no other gains. That will let you pay the long term gain rate on the shares sold this year, but offset regular income in years to come. But. I'm hard pressed to believe you are indifferent, and I'd use Michel's approach to decide. Updated - The New Law is simply a rule requiring brokers to track basis. Your situation doesn't change at all. When you sell the shares, you need to identify which shares you want to sell. For older shares, the tracking is your responsibility, that's all.\"","If this was a public corporation (stock) and the investment was made in a non-registered account, then you can claim a capital loss. Capital losses are claimed against capital gains (not income), and can be carried back 3 years or carried forward indefinitely. Here's an article I've written on how to claim capital losses that may help.","Your administrator will pull from last year's funds first, before automatically moving on to the new year. The procedures are under guidelines from the IRS so it should be pretty standard. You likely only have to submit the claim once, but your administrator may have a special grace period form to fill out.","Conversions must be done during the calendar year. This would apply to both IRA and 401(k) accounts. For IRAs, deposits may be made until 4/15, and the same holds for Solo 401(k) accounts. For conversions, the IRA permits a recharacterization, basically, a do-over, which reverses the conversion, any or all, in case you have any reason it should not have been done. That has a deadline of 10/15, i.e. 4/15 plus 6 month extension. The 401(k) conversion has no such provision. Simple answer 12/31 of the given year."],"string":"[\n \"Disallowed losses due to the wash sale rule are added to the basis of the repurchased shares. In your example, on day two you paid $0.70 per share. Then the disallowed $0.30 loss from the previous day gets added to the basis, making your total basis $1.00 per share. When you sell at the end of the day for $1.00 per share, your net gain/loss is zero. Furthermore, you can recapture disallowed losses by selling the last lot of ABC, completely divesting yourself of all holdings in ABC for at least 31 days. Even if that last lot was a loss, when taking into account the increased basis from previously disallowed wash sale losses, you can claim the loss fully on this last, non-wash sale.\",\n \"\\\"Strangely enough, you have a wash sale, but, for the fact that you sold the shares and then more than 30 days passed, you can take the loss. I mistakenly used the phrase \\\"\\\"and ended the year with no shared of the stock\\\"\\\" elsewhere, and was corrected, as one can sell at a loss up to 12/31, and have until the end of January to create a wash condition. In your case, the facts in June combined with you ending the year with no shares removes any doubt, a wash sale, but one that's fully closed out. Note - while Vicky's answer is correct, it should go on to say that once the stock is not owned for 30 days, the wash sale loss is permitted.\\\"\",\n \"Yes. On December 10, you have a wash sale. As long as you don't buy the stock back for 30 days after that, the wash is of no consequence. In other words, you don't have a wash issue if you don't own the stock for 30 days.\",\n \"Is wash rule applicable for this? No - because you made a gain on the sale. You paid $13,500 for the stock and sold it for $14,250. The wash rule prevents you from claiming a loss if you buy the same stock again within 30 days. You have no loss to claim, so the rule does not apply.\",\n \"\\\"From Pub 550: More or less stock bought than sold. If the number of shares of substantially identical stock or securities you buy within 30 days before or after the sale is either more or less than the number of shares you sold, you must determine the particular shares to which the wash sale rules apply. You do this by matching the shares bought with an equal number of the shares sold. Match the shares bought in the same order that you bought them, beginning with the first shares bought. The shares or securities so matched are subject to the wash sale rules. You must match \\\"\\\"beginning with the first shares bought.\\\"\\\" If only activity 1 & 4 happened, you'd have bought and sold stock with no wash sale. If you remove activity 1 & 4 from consideration because they are a \\\"\\\"normal\\\"\\\" or non-wash sale transaction, then the Activity 2 or Activity 3 trigger a wash sale. The shares in lot 1 are sold for disallowed loss, so the disallowed basis would be added to shares in lot 2 because lot 2 was purchased before lot 3. (hat tip to user662852 who had much better wording) Second example: Activity 5, 7, and 8 all together would not be a wash sale. The addition of activity 6 creates a wash sale. The shares in Activity 5 are sold for a disallowed loss in Activity 7 & 8 because of the wash sale triggering purchase in Activity 6. Activity 6 is where you add the disallowed basis because they are the \\\"\\\"first shares bought\\\"\\\" that cause the wash sale rule to be triggered.\\\"\",\n \"I was not able to find any authority for the opinion you suggest. Wash sale rules should, IMHO, apply. According to the regulations, you attribute the newly purchased shares to the oldest sold shares for the purposes of the calculation of the disallowed loss and cost basis. (c) Where the amount of stock or securities acquired within the 61-day period is less than the amount of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of, then the particular shares of stock or securities the loss from the sale or other disposition of which is not deductible shall be those with which the stock or securities acquired are matched in accordance with the following rule: The stock or securities acquired will be matched in accordance with the order of their acquisition (beginning with the earliest acquisition) with an equal number of the shares of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of. You can resort to the claim that you have not, in fact, entered into the contract within 30 days, but when you gave the instructions to reinvest dividends. I don't know if such a claim will hold, but to me it sounds reasonable. This is similar to the rules re short sales (in (g) there). In this case, wash sale rules will not apply (unless you instructed to reinvest dividends within the 30 days prior to the sale). But I'd ask a tax professional if such a claim would hold, talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state.\",\n \"You sold all shares? The potential wash sale effect goes away after 30 days from the dividend date. Selling all shares of a stock where a wash existed effectively negates the wash and you can take the loss.\",\n \"Disallowed losses are created when you buy a stock */- 30 days of a sale at a loss. When you sell and have no shares left, the loss is taken. You can't have no shares and leftover disallowed loss.\",\n \"\\\"According to Wikipedia this is still a wash sale: In the USA wash sale rules are codified in \\\"\\\"26 USC § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities.\\\"\\\" Under Section 1091, a wash sale occurs when a taxpayer sells or trades stock or securities at a loss, and within 30 days before or after the sale:\\\"\",\n \"Well it would appear that you had a wash sale that canceled out a loss position. Without seeing the entire report, I couldn't tell you exactly what was happening or how you triggered § 1091. But just from the excerpted images, it appears as though your purchase of stock was layered into multiple tranches - perhaps you acquired more of the stock in the 61-day period than you sold (possibly because of a prior holding). If in the 61-day period around the sale of stock (30 days before and 30 days after), you also acquire the same stock (including by contract or option), then it washes out your loss. If you held your stock for a while, then in a 61-day period bought more, and sold some, then any loss would be washed out by the acquisition. Of course it is also a wash sale if your purchase of the stock follows your sale, rather than precedes it. Your disallowed loss goes into the basis of your stock holding, so will be meaningful when you do have a true economic sale of that stock. From IRS Pub 550: A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you: Buy substantially identical stock or securities, Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade, Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement account (IRA) or Roth IRA. If you sell stock and your spouse or a corporation you control buys substantially identical stock, you also have a wash sale. Looking at your excerpted account images, we can see a number of positions sold at a loss (sale proceeds less than basis) but each one is adjusted to a zero loss. I suspect the fuller picture of your account history and portfolio will show a more complicated and longer history with this particular stock. That is likely the source of the wash sale disallowed loss notations. You might be able to confirm that all the added numbers are appearing in your current basis in this stock (or were reflected upon your final exit from the stock).\",\n \"Yes. Wash rules are only for losses.\",\n \"Brokerage->Brokerage 13-16 The loss from the previous purchase will be added to the cost basis of the security for the second purchase. Since you sold it at a loss again it would increase your losses. Your loss from the first sale will be disallowed. Your loss will be added to the cost basis of the next purchase. Your gains will be taxed on the total of the cost basis which will reduce your gains. Which you will taxed 'less'. Your gains will be taxed. Your loss is allowed. You will be taxed on both. Wash Sales really only applies to losses. If you sell for gain, the tax man will be happy to take his share. From my understanding, it does not matter if it is IRA or Brokerage, the wash sale rule affects them all. Check this link: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02\",\n \"Note that the rules around wash sales vary depending on where you live. For the U.S., the wash sale rules say that you cannot buy a substantially identical stock or security within 30 days (before or after) your sale. So, you could sell your stock today to lock in the capital losses. However, you would then have to wait at least 30 days before purchasing it back. If you bought it back within 30 days, you would disqualify the capital loss event. The risk, of course, is that the stock's price goes up substantially while you are waiting for the wash sale period. It's up to you to determine if the risk outweighs the benefit of locking in your capital losses. Note that this applies regardless of whether you sell SOME or ALL of the stock. Or indeed, if we are talking about securities other than stocks.\",\n \"You add the wash sale loss to your cost basis for the other transaction so you would have two entries in your schedule d reporting 1.) Listing the $2000 loss as a wash 2.) The cost basis for your second transaction is thus $1000+$2000 = $3000 so when it was sold for $2000 you now have a reportable loss of $1000. For more information see here.... http://www.ehow.com/how_5313540_calculate-wash-sale.html\",\n \"Yes, an overall $500 loss on the stock can be claimed. Since the day trader sold both lots she acquired, the Wash Sale rule has no net impact on her taxes. The Wash Sale rule would come into play if within thirty days of second sale, she purchased the stock a third time. Then she would have to amend her taxes because claiming the $500 loss would no longer be a valid under the Wash Sale rule. It would have to be added to the cost basis of the most recent purchase.\",\n \"Great question! It can be a confusing for sure -- but here's a great example I've adapted to your scenario: As a Day Trader, you buy 100 shares of LMNO at $100, then after a large drop the same day, you sell all 10 shares at $90 for a loss of $1,000. Later in the afternoon, you bought another 100 shares at $92 and resold them an hour later at $97 (a $500 profit), closing out your position for the day. The second trade had a profit of $500, so you had a net loss of $500 (the $1,000 loss plus the $500 profit). Here’s how this works out tax-wise: The IRS first disallows the $1,000 loss and lets you show only a profit of $500 for the first trade (since it was a wash). But it lets you add the $1,000 loss to the basis of your replacement shares. So instead of spending $9,200 (100 shares times $92), for tax purposes, you spent $10,200 ($9,200 plus $1,000), which means that the second trade is what caused you to lose the $500 that you added back (100 x $97 = $9,700 minus the 100 x $102 = $10,200, netting $500 loss). On a net basis, you get to record your loss, it just gets recorded on the second trade. The basis addition lets you work off your wash-sale losses eventually, and in your case, on Day 3 you would recognize a $500 final net loss for tax purposes since you EXITED your position. Caveat: UNLESS you re-enter LMNO within 30 days later (at which point it would be another wash and the basis would shift again). Source: http://www.dummies.com/personal-finance/investing/day-trading/understand-the-irs-wash-sale-rule-when-day-trading/\",\n \"\\\"According to page 56 of the 2015 IRS Publication 550 on Investment Income and Expenses: Wash sales. Your holding period for substantially identical stock or securities you acquire in a wash sale includes the period you held the old stock or securities. It looks like the rule applies to stocks and other securities, including options. It seems like the key is \\\"\\\"substantially identical\\\"\\\". For your brokerage / trading platform to handle these periods correctly for reporting to IRS, it seems best to trade the same security instead of trying to use something substantially identical.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Edited: Pub 550 says 30 days before or after so the example is ok - but still a gain by average share basis. On sale your basis is likely defaulted to \\\"\\\"average price\\\"\\\" (in the example 9.67 so there was a gain selling at 10), but can be named shares at your election to your brokerage, and supported by record keeping. A Pub 550 wash might be buy 2000 @ 10 with basis 20000, sell 1000 @9 (nominally a loss of 1000 for now and remaining basis 10000), buy 1000 @ 8 within 30 days. Because of the wash sale rule the basis is 10000+8000 paid + 1000 disallowed loss from wash sale with a final position of 2000 shares at 19000 basis. I think I have the link at the example: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2014_publink100010601\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The wash sale rule only applies when the sale in question is at a loss. So the rule does not apply at all to your cases 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16, which all start with a gain. You get a capital gain at the first sale and then a separately computed gain / loss at the second sale, depending on the case, BUT any gain or loss in the IRA is not a taxable event due to the usual tax-advantaged rules for the IRA. The wash sale does not apply to \\\"\\\"first\\\"\\\" sales in your IRA because there is no taxable gain or loss in that case. That means that you wouldn't be seeking a deduction anyway, and there is nothing to get rolled into the repurchase. This means that the rule does not apply to 1-8. For 5-8, where the second sale is in your brokerage account, you have a \\\"\\\"usual\\\"\\\" capital gain / loss as if the sale in the IRA didn't happen. (For 1-4, again, the second sale is in the IRA, so that sale is not taxable.) What's left are 9-10 (Brokerage -> IRA) and 13-14 (Brokerage -> Brokerage). The easier two are 13-14. In this case, you cannot take a capital loss deduction for the first sale at a loss. The loss gets added to the basis of the repurchase instead. When you ultimately close the position with the second sale, then you compute your gain or loss based on the modified basis. Note that this means you need to be careful about what you mean by \\\"\\\"gain\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"loss\\\"\\\" at the second sale, because you need to be careful about when you account for the basis adjustment due to the wash sale. Example 1: All buys and sells are in your brokerage account. You buy initially at $10 and sell at $8, creating a $2 loss. But you buy again within the wash sale window at $9 and sell that at $12. You get no deduction after the first sale because it's wash. You have a $1 capital gain at the second sale because your basis is $11 = $9 + $2 due to the $2 basis adjustment from wash sale. Example 2: Same as Example 1, except that final sale is at $8 instead of at $12. In this case you appear to have taken a $2 loss on the first buy-sell and another $1 loss on the second buy-sell. For taxes however, you cannot claim the loss at the first sale due to the wash. At the second sale, your basis is still $11 (as in Example 1), so your overall capital loss is the $3 dollars that you might expect, computed as the $8 final sale price minus the $11 (wash-adjusted) basis. Now for 9-10 (Brokerage->IRA), things are a little more complicated. In the IRA, you don't worry about the basis of individual stocks that you hold because of the way that tax advantages of those accounts work. You do need to worry about the basis of the IRA account as a whole, however, in some cases. The most common case would be if you have non-deductable contributions to your traditional IRA. When you eventually withdraw, you don't pay tax on any distributions that are attributable to those nondeductible contributions (because you already paid tax on that part). There are other cases where basis of your account matters, but that's a whole question in itself - It's enough for now to understand 1. Basis in your IRA as a whole is a well-defined concept with tax implications, and 2. Basis in individual holdings within your account don't matter. So with the brokerage-IRA wash sale, there are two questions: 1. Can you take the capital loss on the brokerage side? 2. If no because of the wash sale, does this increase the basis of your IRA account (as a whole)? The answer to both is \\\"\\\"no,\\\"\\\" although the reason is not obvious. The IRS actually put out a Special Bulletin to answer the question specifically because it was unclear in the law. Bottom line for 9-10 is that you apparently are losing your tax deduction completely in that case. In addition, if you were counting on an increase in the basis of your IRA to avoid early distribution penalties, you don't get that either, which will result in yet more tax if you actually take the early distribution. In addition to the Special Bulletin noted above, Publication 550, which talks about wash sale rules for individuals, may also help some.\\\"\",\n \"From the IRS Section 1091. Loss from Wash Sales of Stock or Securities Section 1091(a) provides that in the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law),or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or 3 securities, then no deduction shall be allowed under § 165 The document is not long, 4 pages, and should be read to see the intent. It's tough to choose the one snippet, but the conclusion is this is the definitive response to that question. A purchase within an IRA or other retirement account can create a wash sale if such a purchase would be a wash sale otherwise, i.e. the fact that it's a retirement account doesn't avoid wash rules.\",\n \"You are not allowed to pick and choose what years to take a loss once the stock/fund is sold. While I realize it might be too late for you to do anything now, in the future if members should read this, they might consider doing a Roth conversion during that year they will have $3000 in losses. This way they will show some income that can be offset by that loss, effectively getting a free conversion to the Roth.\",\n \"The top long-term capital gains tax rate will rise to 20% effective 1 Jan, 2011, unless Congress decides to do something about it before then. (Will they? Who knows!! There's been talk about it, but, well, it's Congress. They don't even know what they're going to do.) Anyway. The rules about when you can sell stock are mostly concerned with when you can realize a capital loss: if you sell a stock at a loss and then re-buy it for tax purposes within 30 days, it's a wash sale and not eligible for a deduction. However, I don't believe this applies to any stocks once you realize a gain - once you've realized the gain and paid your tax for it, it's all yours, locked in at whatever rate. Your replacement stock will be subject to short-term capital gains for the next year afterwards, and you might need to be careful with identifying the holding period on different lots of your stock, but I don't believe there will be any particular trouble. Please do not rely entirely on my advice and consult also with your tax preparer or lawyer. :) And the IRS documentation: Special Addendum for Nov/Dec 2012! Spoiler alert! Congress did indeed act: they extended the rates, but only temporarily, so now we're looking at tax hikes starting in 2013 instead, only the new top rate++ will be something like 23.8% on account of an extra 3.8% medicare tax on passive earnings (brought to you via Obamacare legislation). But the year and the rates' specifics aside, same thing still applies. And the Republican house and Democratic senate/President are still duking it out. Have fun. ++ 3.8% surtax applies to the lesser of (a) net investment income (b) income over $200,000 ($250k if married). 20% tax rate applies to people in the 15% income tax bracket for ordinary income or higher. Additional tax discounts for property held over 5 years may be available. Consult tax law and your favorite tax professional and prepare to be confused.\",\n \"Yes, the newly bought shares will have a long-term holding period, regardless of when you sell them. In addition, it's only a wash sale if you sold the first shares for a loss; it's not a wash sale if you sold them for a gain. Wikipedia mentions this: When a wash sale occurs, the holding period for the replacement stock includes the period you held the stock you sold. Example: You've held shares of XYZ for 10 years. You sell it at a loss but then buy it back within the wash sale period. When you sell the replacement stock, your gain or loss will be long-term — no matter how soon you sell it. Charles Schwab also mentions this: Here's a quick example of a wash sale. On 9/30/XX, you buy 500 shares of ABC at $10 per share. One year later the stock price starts to drop, and you sell all your shares at $9 per share on 10/4/XY. Two days later, on 10/6, ABC bottoms out at $8 and you buy 500 shares again. This series of trades triggers a wash sale. The holding period of the original shares will be added to the holding period of the replacement shares, effectively leaving you with a long-term position.\",\n \"Equal sized gains and losses in alternating years would lead to an unjust positive tax. On the contrary. If I can take my gains at the long term rate (15%) in even years, but take losses in odd years, up to $3000, or let them offset short term gains at ordinary rate, I've just gamed the system. What is the purpose of the wash sale rule? Respectfully, we here can do a fine job of explaining how a bit of tax code works. And we can suggest the implication of those code bits. But, I suspect that it's not easy to explain the history of particular rules. For wash sale, the simple intent is to not let someone take a loss without actually selling the stock for a time. You'd be right to say the +/- 30 days is arbitrary. I'd ask you to keep 2 things in mind if you continue to frequent this board -\",\n \"Once you own no shares for 31 days, it's game over. Even though the accounting has wash sales to consider, in the end, gains and losses all cancel to one net position of break even, gain or loss. It's when there are shares remaining at the end of a period of time that the wash sale rules really impact the numbers.\",\n \"You are correct. She cannot claim the initial loss of $1,000 on her taxes, she can only report the $500 profit. However, the IRS does allow her to add the $1,000 loss to the basis cost of her replacement shares. e.g.\",\n \"\\\"The IRS rules are actually the same. 26 U.S. Code § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities In the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law), or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or securities, then no deduction shall be allowed... What you should take away from the quote above is \\\"\\\"substantially identical stock or securities.\\\"\\\" With stocks, one company may happen to have a high correlation, Exxon and Mobil come to mind, before their merger of course. With funds or ETFs, the story is different. The IRS has yet to issue rules regarding what level of overlap or correlation makes two funds or ETFs \\\"\\\"substantially identical.\\\"\\\" Last month, I wrote an article, Tax Loss Harvesting, which analyses the impact of taking losses each year. I study the 2000's which showed an average loss of 1% per year, a 9% loss for the decade. Tax loss harvesting made the decade slightly positive, i.e. an annual boost of approx 1%.\\\"\",\n \"You need to give specific dates! In the United States, you have three years to file an amended tax return. https://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Ten-Facts-about-Amended-Tax-Returns Did the restaurant fail in 2012? If so, that's probably the year to take the loss. If you need to amend your 2012 return, which you filed in 2013, you should have until 2016 to file this. The exact date may be based on when you filed 2012 taxes!\",\n \"Wash sale applies. If you purchase shares within 30 days of that Feb 3 sell date, the wash sale kicks in, preventing the loss on that sale, and deferring it into the new shares.\",\n \"In addition to the adjustment type in NL7's answer, there are a host of others. If there are any adjustments, form 8949 is required, if not, the gains can be separated into short and long-term and added together to be entered on Schedule D. Anything requiring an adjustment code in column F of the 8949 requires an entry in column G. Some other example entries for column F include: (see the 8949 instructions for a complete list) **A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you: Buy substantially identical stock or securities, Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade, Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement account (IRA) or Roth IRA. (from Pub17)\",\n \"The market maker will always take it off your hands. Just enter a market sell order. It will cost you a commission to pull the loss into this year. But that's it.\",\n \"\\\"Yes- you do not realize gains or losses until you actually sell the stock. After you sell the initial stocks/bonds you have realized the gain. When you buy the new, different stocks you haven't realized anything until you then sell those. There is one exception to this, called the \\\"\\\"Wash-Sale Rule\\\"\\\". From Investopedia.com: With the wash-sale rule, the IRS disallows a loss deduction from the sale of a security if a ‘substantially identical security' was purchased within 30 days before or after the sale. The wash-sale period is actually 61 days, consisting of the 30 days before and the 30 days after the date of the sale. For example, if you bought 100 shares of IBM on December 1 and then sold 100 shares of IBM on December 15 at a loss, the loss deduction would not be allowed. Similarly, selling IBM on December 15 and then buying it back on January 10 of the following year does not permit a deduction. The wash-sale rule is designed to prevent investors from making trades for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"For restricted stock, I think the vesting date meets the requirements of the second wash sale trigger from IRS Pub 550: Wash Sales: Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade I base this on these two quotes from IRS Pub 525: Restricted Property: any income from the property, or the right to use the property, is included in your income as additional compensation in the year you receive the income or have the right to use the property. - Until the property becomes substantially vested, it is owned by the person who makes the transfer to you, usually your employer. So on the vest date: The transfer is taxable Ownership is transferred to you That seems close enough to \\\"\\\"a fully taxable trade\\\"\\\" for me. Maybe this changes if you pay the tax on the stock on the grant date. See Pub 525: Restricted Property: Choosing to include in income for year of transfer. Obviously, if this is important you should consult your tax advisor. Technicalities aside, I don't think it passes the sniff test. You're getting salable shares when the restricted stock vests. If you're selling other shares at a loss within 30 days of the vesting date, that smells like a wash sale to me.\\\"\",\n \"Based on the statement in your question you think it should have been on the 2014 W-2 but it was included on the 2015 W-2. If you are correct, then you are asking them to correct two w-2 forms: the 2014 form and the 2015 form. You will also have to file form 1040-x for 2014 to correct last years tax forms. You will have to pay additional tax with that filing, and there could be penalties and interest. But if you directed them on the last day of the year, it is likely that the transaction actually took place the next year. You will have to look at the paperwork for the account to see what is the expected delay. You should also be able to see from the account history when it actually took place, and when the funds were credited to your account. or you could just pay the tax this year. This might be the best if there is no real difference in the result. Now if you added the sale to your taxes lat year without a corresponding tax statement from your account, that is a much more complex situation. The IRS could eventually flag the discrepancy, so you may have to adjust last year filing anyway.\",\n \"Looks like there are no specific rule in India to prevent Wash sales. See the link below. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/personal-finance-news/investors-can-rejig-portfolio-book-short-term-loss-to-save-tax/articleshow/7812788.cms?intenttarget=no\",\n \"When you get into reading Revenue Rulings and Treasury Regulations - I'd suggest hiring a professional to do that for you. Especially since you also need to assure that the new stock does indeed qualify as QSBS. However, from the revenue ruling you quoted it doesn't sound like there's any other requirement other than reporting the subsequent purchase as a loss on your schedule D. I wouldn't know, however, if there are subsequent/superseding revenue rulings on the matter since 1998. Professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) would have the means and the ability to research this and give you a proper advice.\",\n \"\\\"I'll try to answer using your original example. First, let me restate your assumptions, slightly modified: The mutual fund has: Note that I say the \\\"\\\"mutual fund has\\\"\\\" those gains and losses. That's because they occur inside the mutual fund and not directly to you as a shareholder. I use \\\"\\\"realized\\\"\\\" gains and losses because the only gains and losses handled this way are those causes by actual asset (stock) sales within the fund (as directed by fund management). Changes in the value of fund holdings that are not sold are not included in this. As a holder of the fund, you learn the values of X, Y, and Z after the end of the year when the fund management reports the values. For gains, you will also typically see the values reported on your 1099-DIV under \\\"\\\"capital gains distributions\\\"\\\". For example, your 1099-DIV for year 3 will have the value Z for capital gains (besides reporting any ordinary dividends in another box). Your year 1 1099 will have $0 \\\"\\\"capital gains distributions\\\"\\\" shown because of the rule you highlighted in bold: net realized losses are not distributed. This capital loss however can later be used to the mutual fund holder's tax advantage. The fund's internal accounting carries forward the loss, and uses it to offset later realized gains. Thus your year 2 1099 will have a capital gain distribution of (Y-X), not Y, thus recognizing the loss which occurred. Thus the loss is taken into account. Note that for capital gains you, the holder, pay no tax in year 1, pay tax in year 2 on Y-X, and pay tax in year 3 on Z. All the above is the way it works whether or not you sell the shares immediately after the end of year 3 or you hold the shares for many more years. Whenever you do sell the shares, you will have a gain or loss, but that is different from the fund's realized losses we have been talking about (X, Y, and Z).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Summary of accepted answer: Your \\\"\\\"loss\\\"\\\" will not count as a loss (to the IRS). Which means no tax deduction for a \\\"\\\"short-term capital loss\\\"\\\" (on that sale). Instead, the IRS simply pretends like you had paid less for the stock to begin with.\\\"\",\n \"I sold it at 609.25 and buy again at 608.75 in the same day If you Sold and bought the same day, it would be considered as intra-day trade. Profit will be due and would be taxed at normal tax brackets. Edits Best Consult a CA. This is covered under Indian Accounting Standard AG51 The following examples illustrate the application of the derecognition principles of this Standard. (e) Wash sale transaction. The repurchase of a financial asset shortly after it has been sold is sometimes referred to as a wash sale. Such a repurchase does not preclude derecognition provided that the original transaction met the derecognition requirements. However, if an agreement to sell a financial asset is entered into concurrently with an agreement to repurchase the same asset at a fixed price or the sale price plus a lender's return, then the asset is not derecognised. This is more relevant now for shares/stocks as Long Term Capital Gains are tax free, Long Term Capital Loss cannot be adjusted against anything. Short Term Gains are taxed differentially. Hence the transaction can be interpreted as tax evasion, professional advise is recommended. A simple way to avoid this situation; sell on a given day and buy it next or few days later.\",\n \"The way the wash sale works is your loss is added to your cost basis of the buy. So suppose your original cost basis is $10,000. You then sell the stock for $9,000 which accounts for your $1,000 loss. You then buy the stock again, say for $8,500, and sell it for $9,000. Since your loss of $1,000 is added to your cost basis, you actually still have a net loss of $500. You then buy the stock again for say $10,500, then sell it for $9,500. Your $500 loss is added to your cost basis, and you have a net loss of $1,500. Since you never had a net gain, you will not owe any tax for these transactions.\",\n \"No, there's nothing special in mutual funds or ETFs. Wash sale rules apply to any asset.\",\n \"I am not an accountant, but I have a light accounting background, despite being primarily an engineer. I also have a tiny schedule C business which has both better and worse years. I am also in the United States and pay US taxes. I assume you are referring to the US Form 1040 tax return, with the attached Schedule C. However little I know about US taxes, I know nothing about foreign taxes. You are a cash-basis taxpayer, so the transactions that happen in each tax year are based on the cash paid and cash received in that year. You were paid last year, you computed your schedule C based on last year's actual transactions, and you paid taxes on that income. You can not recompute last years schedule C based on the warranty claim. You might want to switch to an accrual accounting method, where you can book allowances for warranty claims. It is more complex, and if your business is spotty and low volume, it may be more trouble than it is worth. At this point, you have two months to look for ways to shift expenses into next year or being income into this year, both of which help offset this loss. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on. This article on LegalZoom (link here) discusses how to apply a significant net operating loss (NOL) in this year to the previous two years, and potentially carry it forward to the next two years. This does involve filing amended returns for the prior two years, showing this year's NOL. For this to be relevant, your schedule C loss this year must exceed your other W2 and self-employment income this year, with other tests also applied. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on.\",\n \"\\\"There are different schools of thought. You can ask the IRS - and it would not surprise me if you got different answers on different phone calls. One interpretation is that a put is not \\\"\\\"substantially identical\\\"\\\" to the disposed stock, therefore no wash is triggered by that sale. However if that put is exercised, then you automatically purchase the security, and that is identical. As to whether the IRS (or your brokerage firm) recognizes the identical security when it falls out of an option, I can't say; but technically they could enforce it because the rule is based on 30 days and a \\\"\\\"substantially identical\\\"\\\" stock or security. In this interpretation (your investor) would probably at least want to stay out of the money in choosing a strike price, to avoid exercise; however, options are normally either held or sold, rather than be exercised, until at or very close to the expiration date (because time value is left on the table otherwise). So the key driver in this interpretation would be expiration date, which should be at least 31 days out from the stock sale; and it would be prudent to sell an out of the money put as well, in order to avoid the wash sale trigger. However there is also a more unfavorable opinion - see fairmark.com/capgain/wash/wsoption.htm where they hold that a \\\"\\\"deep in the money\\\"\\\" option is an immediate trigger (regardless of exercise). This article is sage, in that they say that the Treasury (IRS) may interpret an option transaction as a wash if it's ballpark to being exercisable. And, if the IRS throws paper, it always beats each of paper, rock and scissors :( A Schwab article (\\\"\\\"A Primer on Wash Sales\\\"\\\") says, if the CUSIPs match, bang, wash. This is the one that they may interpret unfavorably on in any case, supporting Schwab's \\\"\\\"play it safe\\\"\\\" position: \\\"\\\"3. Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities...\\\"\\\" . This certainly nails buying a call. As to selling a put, well, it is at least conceivable that an IRS official would call that a contract to buy! SO it's simply not a slam dunk; there are varying opinions that you might describe as ranging from \\\"\\\"hell no\\\"\\\" to \\\"\\\"only if blatant.\\\"\\\" If you can get an \\\"\\\"official\\\"\\\" predetermination, or you like to go aggressive in your tax strategy, there's that; they may act adversely, so Caveat Taxfiler!\\\"\",\n \"Is this possible and will it have the intended effect? From the US tax perspective, it most definitely is and will. Is my plan not very similar to Wash Sale? Yes, except that wash sale rules apply for losses, not gains. In any case, since you're not a US tax resident, the US wash sale rules won't apply to you.\",\n \"It was not 100% clear if you have held all of these stocks for over a year. Therefore, depending on your income tax bracket, it might make sense to hold on to the stock until you have held the individual stock for a year to only be taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Also, you need to take into account the Net Investment Income Tax(NIIT), if your current modified adjusted income is above the current threshold. Beyond these, I would think that you would want to apply the same methodology that caused you to buy these in the first place, as it seems to be working well for you. 2 & 3. No. You trigger a taxable event and therefore have to pay capital gains tax on any gains. If you have a loss in the stock and repurchase the stock within 30 days, you don't get to recognize the loss and have to add the loss to your basis in the stock (Wash Sales Rules).\",\n \"Yes. As long as the stock is in a taxable account (i.e. not a tax deferred retirement account) you'll pay gain on the profit regardless of subsequent purchases. If the sale is a loss, however, you'll risk delaying the claim for the loss if you repurchase identical shares within 30 days of that sale. This is called a wash sale.\",\n \"\\\"If you bought them, you can sell them. That does not preclude you from buying again later. You might get yourself into a situation where you need to account for a so-called \\\"\\\"wash sale\\\"\\\" on your taxes, but your broker should calculate that and report it on your 1099-B at the end of the year. There's nothing illegal about this though - It's just a required step in the accounting of capital gains for tax purposes.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"When a question is phrased this way, i.e. \\\"\\\"for tax purposes\\\"\\\" I'm compelled to advise - Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog. In theory, one can create a loss, up to the $3K, and take it against ordinary income. When sold, the gains may be long term and be at a lower rate. In reality, if you are out of the stock for the required 30 days, it will shoot up in price. If you double up, as LittleAdv correctly offers, it will drop over the 30 days and negate any benefit. The investing dog's water bowl is half full.\\\"\",\n \"First, I believe that you can't just divide the losses over a number of years. I know that would be ideal as it might let you use the losses to only offset 25% income. A loss that gets you below zero taxable income would carry forward to the next year. That said, I think it would be a great strategy to use the loss to offset a Roth conversion, in your case, from the traditional 401(k) to Roth 401(k). Keep in mind, as you've seen from using the 2016 tax year TurboTax, you should be able to make a fairly good estimate for your 2017 return. This could effectively use all of the loss to offset 25% income. I'd look at the current projection and convert say 75-80% of the target amount immediately, then in November when the 2017 software comes out, convert the rest to get as close to your goal as you can.\",\n \"\\\"There some specific circumstances when you would have a long-term gain. Option 1: If you meet all of these conditions: Then you've got a long-term gain on the stock. The premium on the option gets rolled into the capital gain on the stock and is not taxed separately. From the IRS: If a call you write is exercised and you sell the underlying stock, increase your amount realized on the sale of the stock by the amount you received for the call when figuring your gain or loss. The gain or loss is long term or short term depending on your holding period of the stock. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010630 Option 2: If you didn't hold the underlying and the exercise of the call that you wrote resulted in a short position, you might also be able to get to a long-term gain by buying the underlying while keeping your short position open and then \\\"\\\"crossing\\\"\\\" them to close both positions after one year. (In other words, don't \\\"\\\"buy to cover\\\"\\\" just \\\"\\\"buy\\\"\\\" so that your account shows both a long and a short position in the same security. Your broker probably allows this, but if not you, could buy in a different account than the one with the short position.) That would get you to this rule: As a general rule, you determine whether you have short-term or long-term capital gain or loss on a short sale by the amount of time you actually hold the property eventually delivered to the lender to close the short sale. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010586 Option 1 is probably reasonably common. Option 2, I would guess, is uncommon and likely not worthwhile. I do not think that the wash sale rules can help string along options from expiration to expiration though. Option 1 has some elements of what you wrote in italics (I find that paragraph a bit confusing), but the wash sale does not help you out.\\\"\",\n \"Reading IRS Regulations section 15a.453-1(c) more closely, I see that this was a contingent payment sale with a stated maximum selling price. Therefore, at the time of filing prior years, there was no way of knowing the final contingent payment would not be reached and thus the prior years were filed correctly and should not be amended. Those regulations go on to give an example of a sale with a stated maximum selling price where the maximum was not reached due to contingency and states that in such cases: When the maximum [payment] amount is subsequently reduced, the gross profit ratio will be recomputed with respect to payments received in or after the taxable year in which an event requiring reduction occurs. However, in this case, that would result in a negative gross profit ratio on line 19 of form 6252 which Turbo Tax reports should be a non-negative number. Looking further in the regulations, I found an example which relates to bankruptcy and a resulting loss in a subsequent year: For 1992 A will report a loss of $5 million attributable to the sale, taken at the time determined to be appropriate under the rules generally applicable to worthless debts. Therefore, I used a gross profit ratio of zero on line 19 and entered a separate stock sale not reported on a 1099-B as a worthless stock on Form 8949 as a capital loss based upon the remaining basis in the stock sold in an installment sale. I also included an explanatory statement with my return to the IRS stating: In 2008, I entered into an installment sale of stock. The sale was a contingent payment sale with a stated maximum selling price. The sales price did not reach the agreed upon maximum sales price due to some contingencies not being met. According to the IRS Regulations section 15a.453-1(c) my basis in the stock remains at $500 in 2012 after the final payment. Rather than using a negative gross profit ratio on line 19 of form 6252, I'm using a zero ratio and treating the remaining basis as a schedule-D loss similar to worthless stock since the sale is now complete and my remaining basis is no longer recoverable.\",\n \"The loss for B can be used to write off the gain for A. You will fill out a schedule 3 with cost base and proceeds of disposition. This will give you a $0 capital gain for the year and an amount of $5 (50% of the $10 loss) you can carry forward to offset future capital gains. You can also file a T1-a and carry the losses back up to 3 years if you're so inclined. It can't be used to offset other income (unless you die). Your C and D trades can't be on income account except for very unusual circumstances. It's not generally acceptable to the CRA for you to use 2 separate accounting methods. There are some intricacies but you should probably just use capital gains. There is one caveat that if you do short sales of Canadian listed securities, they will be on income account unless you fill out form T-123 and elect to have them all treated as capital gains. I just remembered one wrinkle in carrying forward capital losses. They don't reduce your capital gains anymore, but they reduce your taxable income. This means your net income won't be reduced and any benefits that are calculated from that (line 236), will not get an increase.\",\n \"No one can advise you on whether to hold this stock or sell it. Your carried losses can offset short or long term gains, but the long term losses have to be applied to offset long term gains before any remaining losses can offset short term gains. Your question doesn't indicate how long you have to hold before the short term gains become long term gains. Obviously the longer the holding period, the greater the risk. You also must avoid a wash sale (selling to lock in the gains/reset your basis then repurchasing within a month). All of those decisions hold risks that you have to weigh. If you see further upside in holding it longer, keep the investment. Don't sell just to try to maximize tax benefits.\",\n \"Your 1&2 are the end of that chapter. You can't convert for that year again, and must wait 30 days to convert in the new tax year. For example, each year for over a decade, I've helped my mother in law with this. In May, we convert a chunk of money/stock to Roth. In April, I'll recharacterize just enough so she tops off her 15% bracket but doesn't hit 25%. 30 days later, the new conversion happens. All the Roth money is money now taxed at 15%, which, in an emergency, a need for a lot of cash, will avoid the potential of 25% or higher, tax. You see, your 3 never really happens.\",\n \"I agree, one should not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. The only question should be whether he'd buy the stock at today's price. If he wishes to own it long term, he keeps it. To take the loss this year, he'd have to sell soon, and can't buy it back for 30 days. If, for whatever reason, the stock comes back a bit, he's going to buy in higher. To be clear, the story changes for ETFs or mutual funds. You can buy a fund to replace one you're selling, capture the loss, and easily not run afoul of wash sale rules.\",\n \"\\\"You have to calculate the total value of all shares and then ask yourself \\\"\\\"Would I invest that amount of money in this stock?\\\"\\\" If the answer is yes, then only sell what you need to sell. Take the $3k loss against your income, if you have no other gains. If you would not invest that amount of cash in that stock, then sell it all right now and carry forward the excess loss every year. Note at any point you have capital gains you can offset all of them with your loss carryover (not just $3k).\\\"\",\n \"I don't believe in letting the tax tail wag the investing dog. You have a stock you no longer wish to hold for whatever reason? Sell it. But to sell a loser, hoping it doesn't rise by the time you wish to re-buy it in 30 days is folly. This effort may gain you $50 if done right. No, it's not worth it either way.\",\n \"My understanding is that losses are first deductible against any capital gains you may have, then against your regular income (up to $3,000 per year). If you still have a loss after that, the loss may be carried over to offset capital gains or income in subsequent years As you suspect, a short term capital loss is deductible against short term capital gains and long term losses are deductible against long term gains. So taking the loss now MIGHT be beneficial from a tax perspective. I say MIGHT because there are a couple scenarios in which it either may not matter, or actually be detrimental: If you don't have any short term capital gains this year, but you have long term capital gains, you would have to use the short term loss to offset the long term gain before you could apply it to ordinary income. So in that situation you lose out on the difference between the long term tax rate (15%) and your ordinary income rate (potentially higher). If you keep the stock, and sell it for a long term loss next year, but you only have short-term capital gains or no capital gains next year, then you may use the long term loss to offset your short-term gains (first) or your ordinary income. Clear as mud? The whole mess is outlined in IRS Publication 550 Finally, if you still think the stock is good, but just want to take the tax loss, you can sell the stock now (to realize the loss) then re-buy it in 30 days. This is called Tax Loss Harvesting. The 30 day delay is an IRS requirement for being allowed to realize the loss.\",\n \"\\\"The IRS has been particularly vague about the \\\"\\\"substantially identical\\\"\\\" investment part of the wash rule. Many brokers, Schwab for instance, say that only identical CUSIPs (exactly the same ETF) matter for the wash rule in their internal calculations, but warn that the IRS might consider two ETFs over the same index to be substantially identical. In your case, the broker has chosen to call these a wash despite even having different underlying indices. Talking to the broker is the first step as they will report it to the IRS. Though technically you have the final say in your taxes about the cost basis, discussing this with the IRS could be rather painful. First though it is probably worth checking with your broker about exactly what happened. There are other wash sale triggers that frequently trip people up that may have been in play here.\\\"\",\n \"On line 21 of Schedule D, you write the smaller of So, in your case, since your Line 16 shows a loss of more than $3000 on Line 21, you write 3000 on Line 21 (the parentheses indicating that is it a negative number are already included on the form). Also, you write (3000) on Form 1040 Line 13. The rest of the loss is a carryover to next year (be sure to fill out the Capital Loss Carryover Worksheet where the carryover to next year is computed). Summary: you cannot write 0 on Line 21 of Schedule D and carry over the entire loss to next year. You must deduct $3000 this year and carry over the rest of the loss to next year.\",\n \"\\\"'Note that \\\"\\\"to keep an investor from lowering their tax bill\\\"\\\" is not an explanation'. Well, yes it is. In fact it is the only explanation. The rule plainly exists to prevent someone from realizing a loss when their economic situation remains unchanged before/after a sale. Now, you might say 'but I have suffered a loss, even if it is unrealized!' But, would you want to pay tax on unrealized gains? The tax system still caters to reducing the tax impact of investments, particularly capital investments. Part and parcel with the system of taxing gains only when realized, is that you can recognize losses only when realized. Are there other ways to 'artificially' reduce taxable income? Yes. But the goal of a good tax system should be to reduce those opportunities. Whether you agree that it is fair for the government to prevent this tax-saving opportunity, when others exist, is another question. But that is why the rule exists.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"It sounds like this is an entirely unsettled question, unfortunately. In the examples you provide, I think it is safe to say that none of those are 'substantially identical'; a small overlap or no overlap certainly should not be considered such by a reasonable interpretation of the rule. This article on Kitces goes into some detail on the topic. A few specifics. First, Former publication 564 explains: Ordinarily, shares issued by one mutual fund are not considered to be substantially identical to shares issued by another mutual fund. Of course, what \\\"\\\"ordinarily\\\"\\\" means is unspecified (and this is no longer a current publication, so, who knows). The Kitces article goes on to explain that the IRS hasn't really gone after wash sales for mutual funds: Over the years, the IRS has not pursued wash sale abuses against mutual funds, perhaps because it just wasn’t very feasible to crack down on them, or perhaps because it just wasn’t perceived as that big of an abuse. After all, while the rules might allow you to loss-harvest a particular stock you couldn’t have otherwise, it also limits you from harvesting ANY losses if the overall fund is up in the aggregate, since losses on individual stocks can’t pass through to the mutual fund shareholders. But then goes to explain about ETFs being very different: sell SPY, buy IVV or VTI, and you're basically buying/selling the identical thing (99% or so correlation in stocks owned). The recommendation by the article is to look at the correlation in owned stocks, and stay away from things over 95%; that seems reasonable in my book as well. Ultimately, there will no doubt be a large number of “grey” and murky situations, but I suspect that until the IRS provides better guidance (or Congress rewrites/updates the wash sale rules altogether!), in the near term the easiest “red flag” warning is simply to look at the correlation between the original investment being loss-harvested, and the replacement security; at correlations above 0.95, and especially at 0.99+, it’s difficult to argue that the securities are not ”substantially identical” to each other in performance. Basically - use common sense, and don't do anything you think would be hard to defend in an audit, but otherwise you should be okay.\\\"\",\n \"If you do this, you own a stock worth $1, with a basis of $2. The loss doesn't get realized until the shares are sold. Of course, we hope you see the stock increase above that price, else, why do this?\",\n \"What might make more sense is to 'capture' your losses. Sell out the funds you have, move into something else that is different enough that the IRS won't consider it a wash sale, and you can then use those losses to offset gains (you can even carry them forward) You would still be in the market, just having made a sort of 'sideways move'. A month or two later (once you are clear of wash sale rules) you could shift back to your original choices. (this answer presumes you are in the US, or somewhere that lets you use losses to offset gains)\",\n \"Using a different cost basis than your broker's reporting is NOT a problem. You need to keep your own records to account for this difference. Among the other many legitimate reasons to adjust your cost basis, the most popular is when you have two brokerage accounts and sell an asset in one then buy in another. This is called a Wash Sale and is not a taxable event for you. However from the perspective of each broker with their limited information you are making a transaction with tax implications and their reported 1099 will show as such. Links: https://www.firstinvestors.com/docs/pdf/news/tax-qa-2012.pdf\",\n \"In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-). In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.\",\n \"This answer assumes you're asking about how to handle this issue in the USA. I generally downvote questions that ask about a tax/legal issue and don't bother providing the jurisdiction. In my opinion it is extremely rude. Seeing that you applied for an LLC, I think that you somehow consider it as a relevant piece of information. You also attribute some importance to the EIN which has nothing to do with your question. I'm going to filter out that noise. As an individual/sole-proprietor (whether under LLC or not), you cannot use fiscal years, only calendar years. It doesn't matter if you decide to have your LLC taxed as S-Corp as well, still calendar year. Only C-Corp can have a fiscal year, and you probably don't want to become a C-Corp. So the year ends on December 31, and whether accrual or cash - you can only deduct expenses you incurred until then. Also, you must declare the income you got until then, which in your case will be the full amount of funding - again regardless of whether you decided to be cash-based or accrual based. So the main thing you need to do is to talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) and learn about the tax law relevant to your business and its implications on your actions. There may be some ways to make it work better, and there are some ways in which you can screw yourself up completely in your scenario, so do get a professional advice.\",\n \"Your final tax basis could not be determined until June 14, 2012, the first day of separate trading of all four securities that you received from the GM bankruptcy reorganization.\",\n \"\\\"After much research, the answer is \\\"\\\"a\\\"\\\": recompute the tax return using the installment sales method because (1) the escrow payment was subject to \\\"\\\"substantial restrictions\\\"\\\" by virtue of the escrow being structured to pay buyer's indemnification claims and (2) the taxpayer did not correctly elect out of the installment method by reporting the entire gain including the escrow payments on the return in the year of the transaction.\\\"\",\n \"If you received a distribution to buy, build, or rebuild a first home and the purchase or construction was canceled or delayed, you generally can contribute the amount of the distribution to an IRA within 120 days of the distribution. This contribution is treated as a rollover contribution to the IRA. This is from my friend, Publication 590. See Page 51, next to 'TIP' in second col.\",\n \"Capital losses do mirror capital gains within their holding periods. An asset or investment this is certainly held for a year into the day or less, and sold at a loss, will create a short-term capital loss. A sale of any asset held for over a year to your day, and sold at a loss, will create a loss that is long-term. When capital gains and losses are reported from the tax return, the taxpayer must first categorize all gains and losses between long and short term, and then aggregate the sum total amounts for every single regarding the four categories. Then the gains that are long-term losses are netted against each other, therefore the same is done for short-term gains and losses. Then your net gain that is long-term loss is netted against the net short-term gain or loss. This final net number is then reported on Form 1040. Example Frank has the following gains and losses from his stock trading for the year: Short-term gains - $6,000 Long-term gains - $4,000 Short-term losses - $2,000 Long-term losses - $5,000 Net short-term gain/loss - $4,000 ST gain ($6,000 ST gain - $2,000 ST loss) Net long-term gain/loss - $1,000 LT loss ($4,000 LT gain - $5,000 LT loss) Final net gain/loss - $3,000 short-term gain ($4,000 ST gain - $1,000 LT loss) Again, Frank can only deduct $3,000 of final net short- or long-term losses against other types of income for that year and must carry forward any remaining balance.\",\n \"You need to submit an updated return. The problem is that once three years have passed you can't update the return to get any kind of refund, but if they are going after you for the sale price of the stocks, not knowing the cost, your goal is to show them there was no gain, and in fact you'd have had the loss if you were aware of the account. This is less than ten years back, so the broker should be able to give you the statements pretty easily.\",\n \"No, the 120 days rule only applies in cases of delay or cancellation. If the purchase went through and you got additional money elsewhere - you cannot re-deposit the distribution back. See IRC Sec. 72(t)(8)(E): If any distribution from any individual retirement plan fails to meet the requirements of subparagraph (A) solely by reason of a delay or cancellation of the purchase or construction of the residence, the amount of the distribution may be contributed to an individual retirement plan as provided in section 408 (d)(3)(A)(i) (determined by substituting “120th day” for “60th day” in such section)\",\n \"\\\"From Intuit: \\\"\\\"Yes, but there are limits. Losses on your investments are first used to offset capital gains of the same type. So short-term losses are first deducted against short-term gains, and long-term losses are deducted against long-term gains. Net losses of either type can then be deducted against the other kind of gain.\\\"\\\" \\\"\\\"If you have an overall net capital loss for the year, you can deduct up to $3,000 of that loss against other kinds of income, including your salary, for example, and interest income. Any excess net capital loss can be carried over to subsequent years to be deducted against capital gains and against up to $3,000 of other kinds of income.\\\"\\\" So in your case, take the loss now if you have short term gains. Also take it if you want to take a deduction on your salary (but this maxes at 3k, but you can keep using an additional 3k each year into the future until its all used up). There isn't really an advantage to a long term loss right now (since long term rates are LOWER than short term rates).\\\"\",\n \"You'll have to file an amended tax return for that tax year. Filing an Amended Tax Return\",\n \"If you made a contribution to a Traditional IRA for Year X (whether made during Year X or made in Year X+1 before the due date of your tax return for Year X), then you can withdraw the contribution and any gains on that contribution by the due date of your tax return. If the contribution was deductible, then of course you must not take a deduction for it in on your tax return for Year X (or any other year for that matter). As for the gains (if any) that were withdrawn, they are taxable income to you for Year X (not X+1, even if the withdrawal occurred in Year X+1). Publication 590a says You generally can make a tax-free withdrawal of contributions if you do it before the due date for filing your tax return for the year in which you made them. This means that, even if you are under age 59-1/2, the 10% additional tax may not apply. and later in the same Publication If you have an extension of time to file your return, you can withdraw them tax free by the extended due date. You can do this if, for each contribution you withdraw, both of the following conditions apply. - You did not take a deduction for the contribution. - You withdraw any interest or other income earned on the contribution. You can take into account any loss on the contribution while it was in the IRA when calculating the amount that must be withdrawn. If there was a loss, the net income earned on the contribution may be a negative amount. Later, the document says You must include in income any earnings on the contributions you withdraw. Include the earnings in income for the year in which you made the contributions, not the year in which you withdraw them. and The 10% additional tax on distributions made before you reach age 59-1/2 does not apply to these tax-free withdrawals of your contributions. However, the distribution of interest or other income must be reported on Form 5329 and, unless the distribution qualifies as an exception to the age 59-1/2 rule, it will be subject to this tax. Since you have a loss on the contributions that you are withdrawing, there is no interest or other income that needs to be reported.\",\n \"\\\"Individuals most definitely can have NOL. This is covered in the IRS publication 536. What is the difference between NOL and capital loss? NOL is Net Operating Loss. I.e.: a situation where your (allowable) expenses and deductions exceed your gross income. Basically it means that you have negative income for that year, for tax purposes. Capital loss occurs when the total amount of your capital gains reported on Schedule D is negative. What are their relations then? Not all expenses and deductions that you usually put on your tax return are allowed for NOL calculation. For example, capital loss is not allowed. I.e.: if you earned $2000 and you lost in stocks $3000 - you do not get a $1K NOL. Capital losses are excluded from NOL calculation and in this scenario you still have non-negative income for NOL purposes even though it is offset in full by capital loss deduction and your \\\"\\\"taxable income\\\"\\\" line is negative. The $1K that was not allowed - gets carried forward to the next year using the Capital Loss Carryover Worksheet in the instructions to Schedule D. You calculate your NOL using form 1045 schedule A. You can use the form 1045 to apply the NOL to prior 2 years, or you can elect to apply it only to future years (up to 20 years). In what cases, capital loss can be NOL? Never.\\\"\",\n \"Is it true that you cannot amend a tax return to include both a futures loss carry back and a Schedule C at the same time? No, it is not true. You can include all the changes necessary in a single amended return, attaching statement explaining each of the changes. However you're talking about two different kinds of changes. Futures loss carryback is a Sec. 1212 carryback and not a correction of an error. Adding Schedule C would be a correction of an error. I'm guessing your CPA wants to separate the two kinds to avoid the situation where the IRS refuses to accept your correction of an error and by the way also doesn't accept the Sec. 1212 carryback on the same return. Or the CPA just wants to charge you twice for amendments.\",\n \"The short answer is no - the CGT discount is only applied against your net capital gain. So your net capital gain would be: $25,000 - $5,000 = $20,000 Your CGT discount is $10,000 You will then pay CGT on $10,000 Of course you could sell ABC in this financial year and sell DEF next financial year. If you had no other share activities next financial year than that net capital loss can be carried forward to a future year. In that case your net capital gain this year would be $25,000 Your CGT discount is $12,500 You will then pay CGT on $12,500 Next year if oyu sell DEF, you'll have a $5000 net capital loss which you can carry forward to a future year as an offset against capital gains. Reference: https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Capital-gains-tax/Working-out-your-capital-gain-or-loss/Working-out-your-net-capital-gain-or-loss/\",\n \"Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.\",\n \"What JoeTaxpayer means is that you can sell one ETF and buy another that will perform substantially the same during the 30 day wash sale period without being considered substantially the same from a wash sale perspective more easily than you could with an individual stock. For example, you could sell an S&P 500 index ETF and then temporarily buy a DJIA index ETF. As these track different indexes, they are not considered to be substantially the same for wash sale purposes, but for a short term investing period, their performance should still be substantially the same.\",\n \"\\\"If your sole proprietorship losses exceed all other sources of taxable income, then you have what's called a Net Operating Loss (NOL). You will have the option to \\\"\\\"carry back\\\"\\\" and amend a return you filed in the last 2 years where you owed tax, or you can \\\"\\\"carry forward\\\"\\\" the losses and decrease your taxes in a future year, up to 20 years in the future. For more information see the IRS links for NOL. Note: it's important to make sure you file the NOL correctly so I'd advise speaking with an accountant. (Especially if the loss is greater than the cost of the accountant...)\\\"\",\n \"You mentioned that the 1099B that reports this sale is for 2014, which means that you got the proceeds in 2014. What I suspect happened was that the employer reported this on the next available paycheck, thus reporting it in the 2015 period. If this ends up being a significant difference for you, I'd argue the employer needs to correct both W2s, since you've actually received the money in 2014. However, if the difference for you is not substantial I'd leave it as is and remember that the employer will not know of your ESPP sales until at least several days later when the report from the broker arrives. If you sell on 12/31, you make it very difficult for the employer to account correctly since the report from the broker arrives in the next year.\",\n \"\\\"You have multiple issues buried within this question. First, we don't know your tax bracket. For my answer, I'll assume 25%. This simply means that in 2016, you'll have a taxable $37,650 or higher. The interesting thing is that losses and gains are treated differently. A 25%er's long term gain is taxed at 15%, yet losses, up to $3000, can offset ordinary income. This sets the stage for strategic tax loss harvesting. In the linked article, I offered a look at how the strategy would have resulted in the awful 2000-2009 decade producing a slight gain (1%, not great, of course) vs the near 10% loss the S&P suffered over that time. This was by taking losses in down years, and capturing long term gains when positive (and not using a carried loss). Back to you - a 15%er's long term gain tax is zero. So using a gain to offset a loss makes little sense. Just as creating a loss to offset the gain. The bottom line? Enjoy the loss, up to $3000 against your income, and only take gains when there's no loss. This advice is all superseded by my rule \\\"\\\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\\\"\\\" For individual stocks, I would never suggest a transaction for tax purposes. You keep good stocks, you sell bad ones. Sell a stock to take a short term loss only to have it recover in the 30 day waiting period just once, and you'll learn that lesson. Learn it here for free, don't make that mistake at your own expense.\\\"\",\n \"You should apply for 83(b) within 30 days. 10 months is too late, sorry.\",\n \"It is perfectly legitimate to adjust your 1099-B income by broker's fees. Publication 17 (p 116) specifically instructs taxpayers to adjust their Schedule D reporting by broker's fees: Form 1099-B transactions. If you sold property, such as stocks, bonds, or certain commodities, through a broker, you should receive Form 1099-B or substitute statement from the broker. Use the Form 1099-B or the substitute statement to complete Form 8949. If you sold a covered security in 2013, your broker should send you a Form 1099-B (or substitute statement) that shows your basis. This will help you complete Form 8949. Generally, a covered security is a security you acquired after 2010. Report the gross proceeds shown in box 2a of Form 1099-B as the sales price in column (d) of either Part I or Part II of Form 8949, whichever applies. However, if the broker advises you, in box 2a of Form 1099-B, that gross proceeds (sales price) less commissions and option premiums were reported to the IRS, enter that net sales price in column (d) of either Part I or Part II of Form 8949, whichever applies. Include in column (g) any expense of sale, such as broker's fees, commissions, state and local transfer taxes, and option premiums, unless you reported the net sales price in column (d). If you include an expense of sale in column (g), enter “E” in column (f). You can rely on your own records and judgment, if you feel comfortable doing so. Brokers often make incomplete tax reporting. This may have been simpler from their perspective if the broker fees were variable, or integrated, or unknown for a number of clients party to a transaction. If a taxpayer has documentation of the expenses that justify an adjustment, then it's perfectly appropriate to include that in the calculations. It is not necessary to report the discrepancy, and it may increase scrutiny to include a written addendum. The Schedule D, Form 8949, and Form 1099-B will probably together adequately explain the source of the deduction.\",\n \"If you take the profit or loss next year, it counts on next year's taxes. There's no profit or loss until that happens.\",\n \"For every document that the IRS posts, there will be a correlating instructions page. This would be the instructions for the 1099-B, here. Furthermore, as you will be reporting this on Form 8949, as a substitute for previously used Schedule D; instructions are here.This article explains that the best course of action is to donate the shares as the cost basis would switch to FMV (fair market value) of the assets today. But as this did not happen, I would recommend contacting the purchasing company directly. Being a share holder, and by purchasing the shares from the source, the accounting department should still have recorded the date of purchase along with the price sold. It may take effort to prove who you are, but if their accounting records are well documented, this will not be an issue. If nothing else, claim a 100% capital gain on the entirety of the sale, and pay the tax. That is stated here.\",\n \"\\\"Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer nor a tax-expert This page on the HMRC site lists several pages that appear to be relevant, starting with CG78401 - Foreign currency: delayed remittances and on to CG78408 - Foreign currency: example which seems pertinent to your case [paraphrased]: A property bought in 1983 is sold for a [taxable] gain in one tax-year (1986/87) but the proceeds cannot be released/remitted to the UK until later (1991/92), by which time currency fluctuations have created a second [taxable] gain. The size of the first gain (selling the property) is determined by the exchange rate in effect at the time of the sale but because of local restrictions, this can be deferred. The size of the second gain (currency movement) is determined by the change in exchange-rate between the time of the sale and the time of conversion. In your case, the first \\\"\\\"gain\\\"\\\" was actually a loss, so I believe you should be able to use this to offset any tax due second gain. This page states that losses can be claimed up to four years after the end of the tax-year in which they were incurred, so you are probably still OK. (The example makes application under TCGA92/S279 to defer the gain made on the original sale [because of the inability to transfer funds], but as I understand it, this is primarily to avoid a tax liability in that year. Since you made a loss on the sale, there wouldn't have been a tax liability, so there would be no need to defer it).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"According to the IRS, you must have written confirmation from your broker \\\"\\\"or other agent\\\"\\\" whenever you sell shares using a method other than FIFO: Specific share identification. If you adequately identify the shares you sold, you can use the adjusted basis of those particular shares to figure your gain or loss. You will adequately identify your mutual fund shares, even if you bought the shares in different lots at various prices and times, if you: Specify to your broker or other agent the particular shares to be sold or transferred at the time of the sale or transfer, and Receive confirmation in writing from your broker or other agent within a reasonable time of your specification of the particular shares sold or transferred. If you don't have a stockbroker, I'm not sure how you even got the shares. If you have an actual stock certificate, then you are selling very specific shares and the purchase date corresponds to the purchase date of those shares represented on the certificate.\\\"\",\n \"Typically that applies if the broker Form 1099-B reports an incorrect basis to the IRS. If the Form 1099-B shows incorrect basis relative to your records, then you can use 8949, column (g) to report the correct basis. The 8949 Instructions provide a brief example. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i8949--2013.pdf Although you have an obligation to report all income, and hence to report the true basis, as a practical matter this information will usually be correct as presented by the broker. If you have separate information or reports relating to your investments, and you are so inclined, then you can double-check the basis information in your 1099-B. If you aren't aware of basis discrepancies, then the adjustments probably don't apply to you and your investments can stick to Schedule D.\",\n \"From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(1)i): ... if a taxpayer sells or transfers shares of stock in a corporation that the taxpayer purchased or acquired on different dates or at different prices and the taxpayer does not adequately identify the lot from which the stock is sold or transferred, the stock sold or transferred is charged against the earliest lot the taxpayer purchased or acquired to determine the basis and holding period of the stock. From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(3): (i) Where the stock is left in the custody of a broker or other agent, an adequate identification is made if— (a) At the time of the sale or transfer, the taxpayer specifies to such broker or other agent having custody of the stock the particular stock to be sold or transferred, and ... So if you don't specify, the first share bought (for $100) is the one sold, and you have a capital gain of $800. But you can specify to the broker if you would rather sell the stock bought later (and thus have a lower gain). This can either be done for the individual sale (no later than the settlement date of the trade), or via standing order: 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(8) ... A standing order or instruction for the specific identification of stock is treated as an adequate identification made at the time of sale, transfer, delivery, or distribution.\",\n \"Generally stock trades will require an additional Capital Gains and Losses form included with a 1040, known as Schedule D (summary) and Schedule D-1 (itemized). That year I believe the maximum declarable Capital loss was $3000--the rest could carry over to future years. The purchase date/year only matters insofar as to rank the lot as short term or long term(a position held 365 days or longer), short term typically but depends on actual asset taxed then at 25%, long term 15%. The year a position was closed(eg. sold) tells you which year's filing it belongs in. The tiny $16.08 interest earned probably goes into Schedule B, typically a short form. The IRS actually has a hotline 800-829-1040 (Individuals) for quick questions such as advising which previous-year filing forms they'd expect from you. Be sure to explain the custodial situation and that it all recently came to your awareness etc. Disclaimer: I am no specialist. You'd need to verify everything I wrote; it was just from personal experience with the IRS and taxes.\",\n \"In a comment on this answer you asked It's not clear to me why the ability to defer the gains would matter (since you never materially benefit until you actually sell) but the estate step up in basis is a great point! Could you describe a hypothetical exploitive scenario (utilizing a wash sale) in a little more detail? This sounds like you still have the same question as originally, so I'll take a stab at answering with an example. I sell some security for a $10,000 profit. I then sell another security at a $10,000 loss and immediately rebuy. So pay no taxes (without the rule). Assuming a 15% rate, that's $1500 in savings which I realize immediately. Next year, I sell that same security for a $20,000 profit over the $10,000 loss basis (so a $10,000 profit over my original purchase). I sell and buy another security to pay no taxes. In fact, I pay no taxes like this for fifty years as I live off my investments (and a pension or social security that uses up my tax deductions). Then I die. All my securities step up in basis to their current market value. So I completely evade taxes on $500,000 in profits. That's $75,000 in tax savings to make my heirs richer. And they're already getting at least $500,000 worth of securities. Especially consider the case where I sell a privately held security to a private buyer who then sells me back the same shares at the same price. Don't think that $10,000 is enough? Remember that you also get the original value. But this also scales. It could be $100,000 in gains as well, for $750,000 in tax savings over the fifty years. That's at least $5 million of securities. The effective result of this would be to make a 0% tax on capital gains for many rich people. Worse, a poorer person can't do the same thing. You need to have many investments to take advantage of this. If a relatively poor person with two $500 investments tried this, that person would lose all the benefit in trading fees. And of course such a person would run out of investments quickly. Really poor people have $0 in investments, so this is totally impractical.\",\n \"I wrote an article about this a while ago with detailed instructions, so I'll link to it here. Here's a snippet about how to use the Roth IRA loophole and report it properly: You don’t have any Traditional/Rollover IRA at all. You deposit up to the yearly maximum (currently $5500) into a traditional IRA. In your case, you re-characterized, which means you essentially deposited. The fact that it lost money may help you later if you have extra amounts in Traditional IRA. You convert your traditional IRA to become Roth IRA ($5500 change designation from Traditional IRA to Roth IRA). You fill IRS form 8606 and attach it to your yearly tax return, no tax due. You have a fully funded Roth IRA account. If you have amounts in the Traditional IRA in excess to what you contributed last year - it becomes a bit more complicated and you need to prorate. See my article for a detailed example. On the form 8606 you fill the numbers as they are. You deposited to IRA 5500, you converted 5100, your $400 loss is lost (unless you have more money in IRA from elsewhere). If you completely distribute your IRA, you can deduct the $400 on your Schedule A, if you itemize.\",\n \"Interesting. How would they account for it? Monthly? And if so do they modify the cost basis for each lot for the month and then restate? It's hard to imagine they do that. I have a million questions regarding this topic do you know where in the regs it is covered?\",\n \"\\\"Once again I offer some sage advice - \\\"\\\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\\\"\\\" Michael offers an excellent method to decide what to do. Note, he doesn't base the decision on the tax implication. If you are truly indifferent to holding the stock, taxwise, you might consider selling just the profitable shares if that's enough cash. Then sell shares at a loss each year if you have no other gains. That will let you pay the long term gain rate on the shares sold this year, but offset regular income in years to come. But. I'm hard pressed to believe you are indifferent, and I'd use Michel's approach to decide. Updated - The New Law is simply a rule requiring brokers to track basis. Your situation doesn't change at all. When you sell the shares, you need to identify which shares you want to sell. For older shares, the tracking is your responsibility, that's all.\\\"\",\n \"If this was a public corporation (stock) and the investment was made in a non-registered account, then you can claim a capital loss. Capital losses are claimed against capital gains (not income), and can be carried back 3 years or carried forward indefinitely. Here's an article I've written on how to claim capital losses that may help.\",\n \"Your administrator will pull from last year's funds first, before automatically moving on to the new year. The procedures are under guidelines from the IRS so it should be pretty standard. You likely only have to submit the claim once, but your administrator may have a special grace period form to fill out.\",\n \"Conversions must be done during the calendar year. This would apply to both IRA and 401(k) accounts. For IRAs, deposits may be made until 4/15, and the same holds for Solo 401(k) accounts. For conversions, the IRA permits a recharacterization, basically, a do-over, which reverses the conversion, any or all, in case you have any reason it should not have been done. That has a deadline of 10/15, i.e. 4/15 plus 6 month extension. The 401(k) conversion has no such provision. Simple answer 12/31 of the given year.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Disallowed losses are created when you buy a stock */- 30 days of a sale at a loss. When you sell and have no shares left, the loss is taken. You can't have no shares and leftover disallowed loss."],"string":"[\n \"Disallowed losses are created when you buy a stock */- 30 days of a sale at a loss. When you sell and have no shares left, the loss is taken. You can't have no shares and leftover disallowed loss.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":198,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"8779"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"How does a defined contribution plan work"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["180571","209730"],"string":"[\n \"180571\",\n \"209730\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["12614","420511","436897","180571","539112","460905","592032","98018","209730","403514","471259","84967","38532","242556","244412","290105","264023","481475","165305","325113","200898","154178","79083","522438","24231","591383","248536","15841","360533","417257","427997","218823","554140","449828","187498","203232","549223","2369","183643","560241","486367","257674","367556","349847","18239","20485","62281","49614","530703","42301","490497","191447","323355","289064","52438","399543","258440","239341","97805","58103","463892","452592","39071","87529","408233","408724","336917","505617","312369","300665","53544","560497","498444","511945","394549","435463","506182","168561","559883","169232","170717","294676","519750","349208","160786","19190","392752","555377","431203","353009","107520","536374","576391","30597","240259","181515","1219","181652","404587","514357"],"string":"[\n \"12614\",\n \"420511\",\n \"436897\",\n \"180571\",\n \"539112\",\n \"460905\",\n \"592032\",\n \"98018\",\n \"209730\",\n \"403514\",\n \"471259\",\n \"84967\",\n \"38532\",\n \"242556\",\n \"244412\",\n \"290105\",\n \"264023\",\n \"481475\",\n \"165305\",\n \"325113\",\n \"200898\",\n \"154178\",\n \"79083\",\n \"522438\",\n \"24231\",\n \"591383\",\n \"248536\",\n \"15841\",\n \"360533\",\n \"417257\",\n \"427997\",\n \"218823\",\n \"554140\",\n \"449828\",\n \"187498\",\n \"203232\",\n \"549223\",\n \"2369\",\n \"183643\",\n \"560241\",\n \"486367\",\n \"257674\",\n \"367556\",\n \"349847\",\n \"18239\",\n \"20485\",\n \"62281\",\n \"49614\",\n \"530703\",\n \"42301\",\n \"490497\",\n \"191447\",\n \"323355\",\n \"289064\",\n \"52438\",\n \"399543\",\n \"258440\",\n \"239341\",\n \"97805\",\n \"58103\",\n \"463892\",\n \"452592\",\n \"39071\",\n \"87529\",\n \"408233\",\n \"408724\",\n \"336917\",\n \"505617\",\n \"312369\",\n \"300665\",\n \"53544\",\n \"560497\",\n \"498444\",\n \"511945\",\n \"394549\",\n \"435463\",\n \"506182\",\n \"168561\",\n \"559883\",\n \"169232\",\n \"170717\",\n \"294676\",\n \"519750\",\n \"349208\",\n \"160786\",\n \"19190\",\n \"392752\",\n \"555377\",\n \"431203\",\n \"353009\",\n \"107520\",\n \"536374\",\n \"576391\",\n \"30597\",\n \"240259\",\n \"181515\",\n \"1219\",\n \"181652\",\n \"404587\",\n \"514357\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["Defined Benefit - the benefit you receive when you retire is defined e.g. $500 a month if you retire at age 65. It is up to the plan administrators to manage the pension fund, and ensure that there is enough money to cover the benefits based on the life expectancy of the retiree. Defined Contribution - the amount you contribute to the plan is defined. The benefit you receive at retirement depends on how well the investments do over the years.","In short, defined contribution plans yield different amounts of return based on the market whereas defined benefit plans yield predetermined amounts defined based on factors such as salary and years of service.","As others have explained defined contribution is when you (or your employer) contributes a specified amount and you reap all the investment returns. Defined benefit is when your employer promises to pay you a specified amount (benefit) and is responsible for making the necessary investments to provide for it. Is one better than the other? We can argue this either way. Defined benefit would seem to be more predictable and assured. The problem being of course that it is entirely reliant upon the employer to have saved enough money to pay that amount. If the employer fails in that responsibility, then the only fallback is government guarantees. And of course the government has limitations on what it can guarantee. For example, from Wikipedia: The maximum pension benefit guaranteed by PBGC is set by law and adjusted yearly. For plans that end in 2016, workers who retire at age 65 can receive up to $5,011.36 per month (or $60,136 per year) under PBGC's insurance program for single-employer plans. Benefit payments starting at ages other than 65 are adjusted actuarially, which means the maximum guaranteed benefit is lower for those who retire early or when there is a benefit for a survivor, and higher for those who retire after age 65. Additionally, the PBGC will not fully guarantee benefit improvements that were adopted within the five-year period prior to a plan's termination or benefits that are not payable over a retiree's lifetime. Other limitations also apply to supplemental benefits in excess of normal retirement benefits, benefit increases within the last five years before a plan's termination, and benefits earned after a plan sponsor's bankruptcy. By contrast, people tend to control their own defined contribution accounts. So they control how much gets invested and where. Defined contribution accounts are always 100% funded. Defined benefit pension plans are often underfunded. They expect the employer to step forward and subsidize them when they run short. This allows the defined benefits to both be cheaper during the employment period and more generous in retirement. But it also means that employers have to subsidize the plans later, when they no longer get a benefit from the relationship with the employee. If you want someone else to make promises to you and aren't worried that they won't keep them, you probably prefer defined benefit. If you want to have personal control over the money, you probably prefer defined contribution. My personal opinion is that defined benefit plans are a curse. They encourage risky behavior and false promises. Defined contribution plans are more honest about what they provide and better match the production of employment with its compensation. Others see defined benefit plans as the gold standard of pensions.","\"The end result is basically the same, it's just a choice of whether you want to base the final amount you receive on your salary, or on the stock market. You pay in a set proportion of your salary, and receive a set proportion of your salary in return. The pension (both contributions and benefit) are based on your career earnings. You get x% of your salary every year from retirement until death. These are just a private investment, basically: you pay a set amount in, and whatever is there is what you get at the end. Normally you would buy an annuity with the final sum, which pays you a set amount per year from retirement until death, as with the above. The amount you receive depends on how much you pay in, and the performance of the investment. If the stock market does well, you'll get more. If it does badly, you could actually end up with less. In general (in as much as anything relating to the stock market and investment can be generalised), a Defined Benefit plan is usually considered better for \"\"security\"\" - or at least, public sector ones, and a majority of people in my experience would prefer one, but it entirely depends on your personal attitude to risk. I'm on a defined benefit plan and like the fact that I basically get a benefit based on a proportion of my salary and that the amount is guaranteed, no matter what happens to the stock market in the meantime. I pay in 9% of my salary get 2% of my salary as pension, for each year I pay into the pension: no questions, no if's or buts, no performance indicators. Others prefer a defined contribution scheme because they know that it is based on the amount they pay in, not the amount they earn (although to an extent it is still based on earnings, as that's what defines how much you pay in), and because it has the potential to grow significantly based on the stock market. Unfortunately, nobody can give you a \"\"which is best\"\" answer - if I knew how pension funds were going to perform over the next 10-50 years, I wouldn't be on StackExchange, I'd be out there making a (rather large) fortune on the stock market.\"","\"The specific \"\"State Pension\"\" plan you have linked to is provided by the government of the U.K. to workers resident there. More generally speaking, many countries provide some kind of basic worker's pension (or \"\"social security\"\") to residents. In the United States, it is called (surprise!) \"\"Social Security\"\", and in Canada most of us call ours \"\"Canada Pension Plan\"\". Such pensions are typically funded by payroll deductions distinct & separate from income tax deducted at source. You can learn about the variety of social security programs around the world courtesy of the U.S. Social Security Administration's own survey. What those and many other government or state pensions have in common, and the term or concept that I think you are looking for, is that they are typically defined benefit type of plans. A defined benefit or DB plan is where there is a promised (or \"\"defined\"\") benefit, i.e. a set lump sum amount (such as with a \"\"cash balance\"\" type of DB plan) or income per year in retirement (more typical). (Note: Defined benefit plans are not restricted to be offered by governments only. Many companies also offer DB plans to their employees, but DB plans in the private sector are becoming more rare due to the funding risk inherent in making such a long-term promise to employees.) Whereas a defined contribution or DC plan is one where employee and/or employer put money into a retirement account, the balance of which is invested in a selection of funds. Then, at retirement the resulting lump sum amount or annual income amounts (if the resulting balance is annuitized) are based on the performance of the investments selected. That is, with a DC plan, there is no promise of you getting either a set lump sum amount or a set amount of annual income at retirement! The promise was up front, on how much money they would contribute. So, the contributions are defined (often according to a matching contribution scheme), yet the resulting benefit itself is not defined (i.e. promised.) Summary: DB plans promise you the money (the benefit) you'll get at retirement. DC plans only promise you the money (the contributions) you get now.\"","Defined Benefit Plans: Defined benefit plans are disappearing because of their high cost to the companies that provide them. When an employee retires, the company must pay his pension for the rest of his life, even longer if the pension includes a survivor option. Thus the company's financial burden grows as more employees retire. By law, they must provide a fund that has sufficient resources to pay all present and future pensions. Low interest rates, such as we have now, place a greater burden on the amount that must be in these funds. For these reasons, most companies, including large ones like IBM and Lockheed Martin, have discontinued their pension plans and provide only defined contribution plans. Defined Contribution Plans: These require the company to only make contributions while the employee is working. Once the employee retires, the company's responsibility ends. Usually these plans employ a 401K type savings plan for which the employee contributes and the companies matches some or all of that contribution. Comparison: Although a fully company paid pension plan is the best, it is now almost unavailable. The defined contribution plan, if it includes company matching, can be a viable alternative if the investments are chosen wisely and perform as expected. Of course, this is not guaranteed but is probably the best option that most working people have at this time.","Direct answers to your questions: contribute 6%, and put it in the Target Date Fund (probably Target Date Fund 2050).","The simple answer is that with the defined contribution plan: 401k, 403b, 457 and the US government TSP; the employer doesn't hold on to the funds. When they take your money from your paycheck there is a period of a few days or at the most a few weeks before they must turn the money over to the trustee running the program. If they are matching your contributions they must do the same with those funds. The risk is in that window of time between payday and deposit day. If the business folds, or enters bankruptcy protection, or decides to slash what they will contribute to the match in the future anything already sent to the trustee is out of their clutches. In the other hand a defined a benefit plan or pension plan: where you get X percent of your highest salary times the number of years you worked; is not protected from the company. These plans work by the company putting aide money each year based on a formula. The formula is complex because they know from history some employees never stick around long enough to get the pension. The money in a pension is invested outside the company but it is not out of the control of the company. Generally with a well run company they invest wisely but safely because if the value goes up due to interest or a rising stock market, the next year their required contribution is smaller. The formula also expects that they will not go out of business. The problems occur when they don't have the money to afford to make the contribution. Even governments have looked for relief in this area by skipping a deposit or delaying a deposit. There is some good news in this area because a pension program has to pay an annual insurance premium to The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation a quai-government agency of the federal government. If the business folds the PBGC steps in to protect the rights of the employees. They don't get all they were promised, but they do get a lot of it. None of those pension issues relate to the 401K like program. Once the money is transferred to the trustee the company has no control over the funds.","It is comparing apples to oranges. From govt or institution point of view defined contribution is better than defined benefits as they don't have to carry obligations. Although defined benefit sounds good, one can't guarantee it will be enough when you retire compared to inflation. It often becomes political issue. Defined contribution puts you in charge.","\"How will contribution limits rise? Contribution limits are raised based on COLA. COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) is a number based on CPI (Consumer Price Index) which is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The IRS publishes these limits annually and a simple search term to find them each year is \"\"415 limits\"\" because section 415 lists how much the various qualified plans can set aside each year. CPI is a heavily managed and very political number. It is the number that is cited when the media talks about \"\"inflation.\"\" Since it drives increases in salaries, deductions, Social Security and pension payments, there is very heavy pressure to keep the number smaller than it really is. My next step was to calculate how long that money will last One traditional rule-of-thumb is to withdraw 4% of your balance each year. Another alternative is to purchase annuities. While younger people think that annuities are horrible investments, they appeal to older people because they protect the annuitant from excessive risk of losing your capital. When you are 30, and another 2008 comes along wiping out half your savings, you have time to re-earn that money. When you are 60, and another 2008 comes along wiping out half your savings, you have very few years to recover that money. So an annuity pushes that risk onto insurance companies. If you think you will die in your 90s, then an annuity is going to be a good investment (the insurance company will be betting that you won't be living that long). I have a simple spreadsheet that I use to calculate estimated projected balances and compare them to actual performance. Don't forget that when you reach 50, the amount you can contribute goes up due to \"\"catch up contributions.\"\" There are 2 views of the same tab in this picture. There are 3 growth rates: pessimistic, nominal and optimistic. You can change the numbers to suit your own projections of future growth. Other tabs on this spreadsheet include measurements of actual performance by my 401k and IRA accounts. At the end of the year, I replace the numbers in columns F, G & H with the actual end-of-year dollar amounts. This way, future estimates do not get too far unhinged from reality. If you need more sophisticated planning, such as Monte Carlo analysis to attempt to cope with inflation, I recommend the book Engineering Your Retirement. The book is aimed at younger engineers, so there is a bit more math than the average person would want.\"","\"Hahaha, that sounds good but in real life pensions are almost never fully funded and almost never fully funded when starting off. That is why the post office is almost always losing money. They're required by law to pre-pay some crazy number like 70% of pension and retiree obligations up front which sucks up all resources. When a employee opens a pension plan their employer starts contributing a target amount dependent on the stated benefits and the actuarial projections. The market doesn't always go up and the actuaries are not always correct with lifespans either. You take the risk of losing that pension if you work for a bad company, same as if you invest in an employee stock option plan. You can usually take a lump-sum payout, but who would do that when you can get \"\"guaranteed\"\" money.\"","My employer matches 6% of my salary, dollar for dollar. So you have a great benefit. The self-directed side has no fees but $10 trades. No option trading. Yours basically allows you to invest your own funds, but not the match. It's a restriction, agreed, but a good plan.","\"Your contribution limit to a 401(k) is $18,000. Your employer is allowed to contribute to your 401(k), usually a \"\"matching contribution\"\". That matching contribution comes from your employer, so is not subject to your personal contribution limit. A contribution to a regular 401(k) is typically made with pre-tax money (i.e. you don't pay payroll taxes on the money you contribute) so you pay less taxes for the current tax year. However when you retire and you take money out, you pay taxes on the money you take out. On one hand, your tax rate may be lower when you have retired, but on the other hand, if your investments have appreciated over time, the total amount of tax you pay would be higher. If your company offers a Roth 401(k) plan, you can contribute $18,000 of after tax money. This way you pay the tax on the $18,000 today, as you would if you did not put the money in the 401(k), but when you take the money out at retirement, you would not have to pay tax. In my opinion, that serves as a way to pay effectively more money into your 401(k). Some firms put vesting provisions on the amount that they match in your 401(k), e.g. 4 years at 25% per year. So you have to work 1 full year to be entitled to 25% of their matching contribution, 2 years for 50%, and 4 years to receive all of it. Check your company's Summary Plan Description of the 401(k) to be sure. You are not allowed to invest pre-tax money into a Traditional IRA if you are already contributing to a 401(k) plan and have reached the income limits ($62,000 AGI for single head of household). You are allowed to contribute post-tax money to a Traditional IRA plan if you have already contributed to a 401(k), which you can then Roll-over into a Roth IRA (look up 'backdoor IRA'). The IRA contribution limit applies to all IRA accounts over that calendar year. You could put some money in a traditional IRA, a Roth IRA, another traditional IRA, etc. so long as the total amount is not more than the contribution limit. This gives you an upper limit of 5.5k + 18k = 23.5 investments in retirement accounts. Note however, once you reach age 50, these limits increase to 6.5k (IRA) + 24k (401(k)). They also are adjusted periodically with the rate of inflation. The following approach may be more efficient for building wealth: This ordering is the subject of debate and people have different opinions. There is a separate discussion of these priorities here: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? Note however, a 401(k) loan becomes payable if you leave your company, and if not repaid, is an unauthorised distribution from your 401k (and therefore subject to an additional 10% tax penalty). You should also be careful putting money into an IRA, as you will be subject to an additional 10% tax penalty if you take out the money (distribution) before retirement, unless one of the exceptions defined by the IRA applies (e.g. $10,000 for first time home purchase), which could wipe out more than any gains you made by putting it in there in the first place. Your specific circumstances may vary, so this approach may not be best for you. A registered financial advisor may be able to help - ensure they are legitimate: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov\"","\"If you aren't already contributing the maximum allowable amount, by all means do so. If you are already contributing the maximum, it doesn't matter that much when you make those contributions. Making fixed monthly contributions is done mostly for budgeting reasons. Most of us can't predict fund performance well enough to optimize our contributions (by which I mean, contributing more early if you think the market is going up, but waiting if you think it will go down, following the \"\"buy low\"\" strategy). As for employer matching, check with your company to see how they compute matches. They may match contributions for the year, even if those matching funds are only paid up to a maximum per paycheck. (For example, if you contribute 200% of the match for the first 6 months, then contribute nothing for the remaining 6 months, you may still receive the same matching funds per pay period as if you were contributing 100% throughout the year.)\"","My understanding is that to make the $18,000 elective deferral in this case, you need to pay yourself at least $18,000. There will be some tax on that for social security and Medicare, so you'll actually need to pay yourself a bit more to cover that too. The employer contribution is limited to 25% of your total compensation. The $18,000 above counts, but if you want to max out on the employer side, you'll need to pay yourself $140,000 salary since 25% of $140,000 is the $35,000 that you want to put into the 401k from the employer side. There are some examples from the IRS here that may help: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401-k-plans I know that you're not a one-participant plan, but some of the examples may help anyway since they are not all specific to one-participant plans.","I would hire an accountant to help set this up, given the sums of money involved. $53,000 would be the minimum amount of compensation needed to maximize the 401k. The total limit of contributions is the lesser of: 100% of the participant's compensation, or $53,000 ($59,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2015 and 2016. and they don't count contributions as compensation Your employer's contributions to a qualified retirement plan for you are not included in income at the time contributed. (Your employer can tell you whether your retirement plan is qualified.) On the bright side, employer contributions aren't subject to FICA withholdings.","\"when you contribute to a 401k, you get to invest pre-tax money. that means part of it (e.g. 25%) is money you would otherwise have to pay in taxes (deferred money) and the rest (e.g. 75%) is money you could otherwise invest (base money). growth in the 401k is essentially tax free because the taxes on the growth of the base money are paid for by the growth in the deferred portion. that is of course assuming the same marginal tax rate both now and when you withdraw the money. if your marginal tax rate is lower in retirement than it is now, you would save even more money using a traditional 401k or ira. an alternative is to invest in a roth account (401k or ira). in which case the money goes in after tax and the growth is untaxed. this would be advantageous if you expect to have a higher marginal tax rate during retirement. moreover, it reduces tax risk, which could give you peace of mind considering u.s. marginal tax rates were over 90% in the 1940's. a roth could also be advantageous if you hit the contribution limits since the contributions are after-tax and therefore more valuable. lastly, contributions to a roth account can be withdrawn at any time tax and penalty free. however, the growth in a roth account is basically stuck there until you turn 60. unlike a traditional ira/401k where you can take early retirement with a SEPP plan. another alternative is to invest the money in a normal taxed account. the advantage of this approach is that the money is available to you whenever you need it rather than waiting until you retire. also, investment losses can be deducted from earned income (e.g. 15-25%), while gains can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate (e.g. 0-15%). the upshot being that even if you make money over the course of several years, you can actually realize negative taxes by taking gains and losses in different tax years. finally, when you decide to retire you might end up paying 0% taxes on your long term capital gains if your income is low enough (currently ~50k$/yr for a single person). the biggest limitation of this strategy is that losses are limited to 3k$ per year. also, this strategy works best when you invest in individual stocks rather than mutual funds, increasing volatility (aka risk). lastly, this makes filing your taxes more complicated since you need to report every purchase and sale and watch out for the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules. side note: you should contribute enough to get all the 401k matching your employer offers. even if you cash out the whole account when you want the money, the matching (typically 50%-200%) should exceed the 10% early withdrawal penalty.\"","I have had pension programs with two companies. The first told you what your benefit would be if you retired at age X with Y years of service. Each year of service got you a percentage of your final years salary. There was a different formula for early retirement, and there was an offset for social security. They were responsible for putting enough money away each year to meet their obligations. Just before I left they did add a new feature. You could get the funds in the account in a lump sum when you left. If you left early you got the money in the account. If you left at retirement age you got the money that was needed to produce the benefit you were promised. Which was based on current interest rates. The second company had a plan where they published the funding formula. You knew with every quarterly statement how much was in your account, and what interest it had earned, and what benefit they estimated you would receive if you stayed until retirement age. This fund felt almost like a defined contribution, because the formula was published. If most people took the lump sum that was the only part that mattered. Both pension plans had a different set of formulas based on marriage status and survivor rules. The interest rates are important because they are used to determine how much money is needed to produce the promised monthly benefit. They are also used to determine how much they need to allocate each year to cover their obligations. If you can't make the math work you need to keep contacting HR. You need to understand how much should be flowing into the account each month.","In addition to the prior answer, talking from experience, you get into trouble if you surpass the contribution limit and your employer continues to deposit money above the IRS maximum allowed. When that happens, you have until April to take out the excess contribution and earned interest on that chunk of money and included in your tax return or else you get a steep tax penalty in addition to being double taxed ( for the current and next tax year). Also from experience, payroll departments will most likely get this wrong and it will end up in a compliance mess with you picking up the tab on your tax bill. Don't let it happen!!!","In the UK you have an allowance of £40,000 per annum for tax relief into a pension. This amount includes both your and your employer's contributions. If you earn more than £150,000 per annum this allowance starts to reduce and if you earn less than the allowance, your allowance is limited to what you earn. You can also carry over unused allowance from up to 3 years previously. If you stick within this allowance you won't pay tax on your pension contributions, if you go over the excess will be subject to tax. Salary exchange normally lets you avoid the National Insurance value of your contribution being taxed. If you paid your own money into your pension (without going through salary exchange), your contributions would have the 20% basic rate of tax credited to them and if you're a higher rate taxpayer you could reclaim the difference between the basic rate of tax and the higher rate of tax you pay but the National Insurance you've paid on your own money would not be reclaimable. You can't get the money back you've paid into your pension till you are are 58 (given that you are 27 now), the minimum age has risen from its historic 55 for your age group. That's the pension trade off, you forgo tax now in the expectation that, once retired, you will be paying tax at a lower rate (because your income will be lower and you are much less likely to be subject to higher rate taxation) in return for locking in your money till you're older. Your pension income will be subject to tax when you eventually take it. There are other options such as ISAs which have lower annual limits (£20,000 currently) and on which your contributions do not attract tax relief, but which are not taxed as income when you eventually spend them. ISAs and pensions are not mutually exclusive so if you have the money, you can do both. It's up to you to determine what mix of savings will be appropriate to generate income for your eventual retirement. If you are living in some other country when you retire your pension will be paid net of UK tax. You might then be able to claim (or pay) any difference between that and your local tax rate depending on what agreement exists between the UK government and the other country's government.","In addition to JoeTaxpayer's thorough answer, I just want to tackle one particular question that was also asked: ...all employer contributions are pretax? There are a few main reasons that employer contributions go into the traditional bucket instead of the Roth bucket: The only way an employer could logically contribute to your Roth directly would be by increasing your W2 wages by the same amount, but if they did that then you could just contribute to your own Roth with the extra money (up to the annual limit which is currently $18K).","Having money held from one paycheck hardly counts as being covered by a retirement plan in my book! It's not your book that counts, it's the Congress' book called the Internal Revenue Code. No, you cannot rescind a contribution after the fact. Maybe during the year you can do something with employer balancing it out, but not after the year is closed. (That, by the way, is different for IRAs where you can actually do re-characterization until the tax day of the next year)","\"All right, I will try to take this nice and slow. This is going to be a little long; try to bear with me. Suppose you contribute $100 to your newly opened 401(k). You now have $100 in cash and $0 in mutual funds in your 401(k) (and $100 less than you used to somewhere else). At some later date, you use that money within the 401(k) to buy a single share of the Acme World All-Market Index Fund which happens to trade at exactly $100 per share on the day your purchase goes through. As a result, you have $0 in cash and exactly one share of that fund (corresponding to $100) within your 401(k). Some time later, the price of the fund is up 10%, so your share is now worth $110. Since you haven't contributed anything more to your 401(k) for whatever reason, your cash holding is still $0. Because your holding is really denominated in shares of this mutual fund, of which you still have exactly one, the cash equivalent of your holding is now $110. Now, you can basically do one of two things: By selling the share, you protect against it falling in price, thus in a sense \"\"locking in\"\" your gain. But where do you put the money instead? You obviously can't put the money in anything else that might fall in price; doing so would mean that you could lose a portion of your gains. The only way to truly \"\"lock in\"\" a gain is to remove the money from your investment portfolio altogether. Roughly speaking, that means withdrawing the money and spending it. (And then you have to consider if the value of what you spent the money on can fluctuate, and as a consequence, fall. What's the value of that three weeks old jug of milk in the back of your refrigerator?) The beauty of compounding is that it doesn't care when you bought an investment. Let's say that you kept the original fund, which was at $110. Now, since that day, it is up another 5%. Since we are looking at the change of price of the fund over some period of time, that's 5% of $110, not 5% of the $100 you bought at (which was an arbitrary point, anyway). 5% of $110 is $5.50, which means that the value of your holding is now at $115.50 from a gain first of 10% followed by another 5%. If at the same day when the original fund was at $110 you buy another $100 worth of it, the additional 5% gain is realized on the sum of the two at the time of the purchase, or $210. Thus after the additional 5% gain, you would have not $210 (($100 + $100) + 5%), nor $205 (($100 + 5%) + $100), but $220.50 (($110 + $100) + 5%). See how you don't need to do anything in particular to realize the beauty of compounding growth? There is one exception to the above. Some investments pay out dividends, interest or equivalent in cash equivalents. (Basically, deposit money into an account of yours somewhere; in the case of retirement plans, usually within the same container where you are holding the investment. These dividends are generally not counted against your contribution limits, but check the relevant legal texts if you want to be absolutely certain.) This is somewhat uncommon in mutual funds, but very common in other investments such as stocks or bonds that you purchase directly (which you really should not do if you are just starting out and/or feel the need to ask this type of question). In that case, you need to place a purchase order yourself for whatever you want to invest the dividend in. If you don't, then the extra money of the dividend will not be growing along with your original investment.\"","With an annuity, you invest directly into an annuity with money you have earned as wages/salary/etc. You pay for it, and trade your payments into the annuity for guaranteed payments from the annuity issuer in the future. The more you pay in before the annuity payments begin, the more you will receive for your annuity payment. With a pension, most often you invest implicitly, rather than directly, into the pension. Rather than making a cash contribution on a regular basis, it is likely that your employer has periodically invested into the pension fund for you, using monies that would otherwise have been paid to you if there were no pension system. This is why your pension benefits are often determined based on years of service, your rate of pay, and similar factors.","If one makes say, $10K/mo, and the company will match the first 5% dollar for dollar, a 10%/mo deposit of $1K/mo will see a $500/mo match. If the employee manages to request 90% get put into the 401(k), after 2 months, he's done. If the company wished, they could continue the $500/mo match, I agree. They typically don't and in fact, the 'true up' you mention isn't even required, one is fortunate to get it. Many companies that match are going the other way, matching only after the year is over. Why? Why does any company do anything? To save money. I used to make an attempt to divide my deposit over the year to max out the 401(k) in December and get the match real time, not a true up.","If they're not matching, and their profit-sharing has nothing to do with how much you invest, then I'd say don't bother with the company 401k at all. If you need to at least have an account open to get the profit sharing, then contribute the bare minimum. Having your retirement account through your company forces you to follow their standards, choose from their funds, use their broker, etc. It also means that when you leave the company, you either have to move your money anyway, or else have an account through a company you don't work for, which I wouldn't feel all that comfortable doing anyway. If you open a retirement account through your bank or a private financial planner, then it's yours, and you can contribute what you want, when you want, and buy the securities that you want. Your account executive is there to service you, not your company.","According to the IRS, you can still put money in your IRA. Here (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Retirement-Topics-IRA-Contribution-Limits) they say: Can I contribute to an IRA if I participate in a retirement plan at work? You can contribute to a traditional or Roth IRA whether or not you participate in another retirement plan through your employer or business. However, you might not be able to deduct all of your traditional IRA contributions if you or your spouse participates in another retirement plan at work. Roth IRA contributions might be limited if your income exceeds a certain level. In addition, in this link (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/IRA-Deduction-Limits), the IRS says: Retirement plan at work: Your deduction may be limited if you (or your spouse, if you are married) are covered by a retirement plan at work and your income exceeds certain levels. The word 'covered' should clarify that - you are not covered anymore in that year, you just got a contribution in that year which was triggered by work done in a previous year. You cannot legally be covered in a plan at an employer where you did not work in that year.","I have worked for companies that have done this. One did have a match and the other did not. When they figured their profit at the end of the year a portion was given to the employees as a 401K deposit. retirement-topics-401k-and-profit-sharing-plan-contribution-limits Total annual contributions (annual additions) to all of your accounts in plans maintained by one employer (and any related employer) are limited. The limit applies to the total of: elective deferrals employer matching contributions employer nonelective contributions allocations of forfeitures The annual additions paid to a participant’s account cannot exceed the lesser of: 100% of the participant's compensation, or $54,000 ($60,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2017; $53,000 ($59,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2016. So as long as everything stays below that $54,000 limit you are good. In one case the decision was made by the company for the employee, the other company gave us the option of bonus check or 401K. I heard that most of the employees wanted the money in the 401K.","This is an older question but things have changed. Its a common misconception on what the contribution cap is. A few things. In 2014, the IRS did not adjust the maximum contribution from the previous year which include 401(k) accounts, 403(b) accounts, most 457 plans, and Thrift Savings Plans, will be $18,000, up $500 from $17,500. Savers and investors aged 50 or older can take advantage of a catch-up contribution. In 2015, taxpayers who meet this age-based criterion can contribute an additional $6,000 above the regular maximum of $18,000, thus you can contribute a maximum of $24,000 into these tax-advantaged accounts. The total contribution limit, including employer contributions, has increased to $53,000 You can actually contribute up to 53k (including matching) so the exact amount you contribute from your actual income may end up being more or less than 24k. If you get a poor employer match you can actually contribute more but it would go in as after tax dollars and not claim the tax deduction. Note: after tax does NOT equal Roth. However if your a high salaried individual you can use this as a potential loop hole for funding a Roth IRA. Chances are if your making enough money to contribute 53k Total Contributions then your not going to qualify for a roth. However once you retire (or possibly before depending on the plan withdraw terms) you can roll the after tax money into a Roth IRA. This is a gray area on the tax policy. The IRS may come back and change their mind about this. If considering this option talk to a tax adviser.","You might want to bring this fancy new IRS rule to your employer's attention. If your employer sets it up, an After-Tax 401(k) Plan allows employees to contribute after-tax money above the $18k/year limit into a special 401(k) that allows deferral of tax on all earnings until withdrawal in retirement. Now, if you think about it, that's not all that special on its own. Since you've already paid tax on the contribution, you could imitate the above plan all by yourself by simply investing in things that generate no income until the day you sell them and then just waiting to sell them until retirement. So basically you're locking up money until retirement and getting zero benefit. But here's the cool part: the new IRS rule says you can roll over these contributions into a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA with no extra taxes or penalties! And a Roth plan is much better, because you don't have to pay tax ever on the earnings. So you can contribute to this After-Tax plan and then immediately roll over into a Roth plan and start earning tax-free forever. Now, the article I linked above gets some important things slightly wrong. It seems to suggest that your company is not allowed to create a brand new 401(k) bucket for these special After-Tax contributions. And that means that you would have to mingle pre-tax and post-tax dollars in your existing Traditional 401(k), which would just completely destroy the usefulness of the rollover to Roth. That would make this whole thing worthless. However, I know from personal experience that this is not true. Your company can most definitely set up a separate After-Tax plan to receive all of these new contributions. Then there's no mingling of pre-tax and post-tax dollars, and you can do the rollover to Roth with the click of a button, no taxes or penalties owed. Now, this new plan still sits under the overall umbrella of your company's total retirement plan offerings. So the total amount of money that you can put into a Traditional 401(k), a Roth 401(k), and this new After-Tax 401(k) -- both your personal contributions and your company's match (if any) -- is still limited to $53k per year and still must satisfy all the non-discrimination rules for HCEs, etc. So it's not trivial to set up, and your company will almost certainly not be able to go all the way to $53k, but they could get a lot closer than they currently do.","\"typically, your employer will automatically stop making contributions once you hit the 18k$ limit. it is worth noting that employer contributions (e.g. \"\"matching\"\") do not count towards the 18k$ employee pre-tax contribution limit. however, if you have 2 employers during the year their combined payroll deductions might exceed the limit if you do not inform your later employer of the contributions you made at your former employer (or they ignore the info). in which case, you must request a refund of \"\"excess contributions\"\" from one of the plans (your choice). you must report the refund as taxable income on your taxes. if you do not make this request by the time you file your taxes, the tax man will reject your filing and \"\"adjust\"\" your return with more taxes and penalties. sometimes requesting a refund of excess contributions might cause your employer to remove \"\"matching\"\" funds, but i am not clear on the rules behind that. there are some 401k plans that allow \"\"supplemental after-tax contributions\"\" up to the combined employee/employer limit (53k$ in 2015 and 2016). it is a rare feature, and if your company offers it, you probably already know. however, generally it is governed by a separate contribution election that only take effect once you hit the employee pre-tax contribution limit (18k$ in 2015 and 2016). you could ask your hr department to be sure. 401k plans can be changed if there is enough employee demand for a rule change. especially in a small company, simply asking for them to allow dollar based contributions instead of percent based contributions can cause them to change the plan to allow it. similarly, you could request they allow \"\"supplemental after-tax contributions\"\", but that might be a harder change to get.\"","\"Both are saying essentially the same thing. The Forbes articles says \"\"as much as 20% [...] up to a maximum of $50,000\"\". This means the same as what the IRS page when it says the lesser of a percentage of your income or a total of $53,000. In other words, the $53k is a cap: you can contribute a percentage of your earnings, but you can never contribute more than $53k, even if you make so much money that 20% of your earnings would be more than that. (The difference between 20% and 25% in the two sources appears to reflect a difference in contribution limits depending on whether you are making contributions for employees, or for yourself as a self-employed individual; see Publication 560. The difference between $50k and $53k is due to the two pages being written in different years; the limits increase each year.)\"","Sending your money off to do the heavy lifting is a way of saying that compound returns can do the bulk of your retirement investing work. Check out the image below, I swiped this from a quick google search so I cannot claim graphic credit. But as you can see the earning potential of your money as you approach retirement is many times higher than your annual contributions. With the aim of having your money earn interest/returns to pay your annual living expenses, replacing your previous annual income. https://i.stack.imgur.com/fpZPN.jpg I tried to post the image but do not have enough rep.","\"Your retirement PLAN is a lifelong plan and shouldn't be tied to your employer status. Max out your 401(k) contribution to the maximum that your employer matches (that's a 100% ROI!) and as much as you can afford. When you leave the work force rollover your 401(k) to an IRA account (e.g.: you can create an IRA account with any of the online brokerage firms Schwab, E-Trade, Sharebuilder, or go with a brick-and-mortar firm like JP Morgan, Stifel Nicolaus, etc.). You should have a plan: How much money do you need/month for your expenses? Accounting for inflation, how much is that going to be at retirement (whatever age you plan to retire)? How much money do you need to have so that 4.5% of that money will provide for your annual living expenses? That's your target retirement amount of savings. Now figure out how to get to that target. Rule #1 Invest early and invest often! The more money you can sock away early in your career the more time that money has to grow. If you aren't comfortable allocating your investments yourself then you could go with a Targeted Retirement Fund. These funds have a general \"\"date\"\" for retirement and the assets are allocated as appropriate for the amount of risk appropriate for the time to retirement.\"","Most companies put the company match in your account each paycheck, but your are not generally vested for the match. If you leave before the specified time period then they pull back part of the matching funds. I knew somebody who did something similar back in the 1980's with their 401K. They put in 8% of their paycheck after taxes; a 100% match was deposited; then they pulled out the employees contribution every quarter. They did this for the 10 years I knew them. It avoided any tax implications, and they were still saving 8% of their pay for retirement.","If you had a retirement plan at any time in 2013 you are considered covered by an plan. Are You Covered by an Employer's Retirement Plan? You’re covered by an employer retirement plan for a tax year if your employer (or your spouse’s employer) has a: Defined contribution plan (profit-sharing, 401(k), stock bonus and money purchase pension plan) and any contributions or forfeitures were allocated to your account for the plan year ending with or within the tax year; IRA-based plan (SEP, SARSEP or SIMPLE IRA plan) and you had an amount contributed to your IRA for the plan year that ends with or within the tax year; or Defined benefit plan (pension plan that pays a retirement benefit spelled out in the plan) and you are eligible to participate for the plan year ending with or within the tax year. Box 13 on the Form W-2 you receive from your employer should contain a check in the “Retirement plan” box if you are covered. If you are still not certain, check with your (or your spouse’s) employer. The limits on the amount you can deduct don’t affect the amount you can contribute. However, you can never deduct more than you actually contribute. Additional Resources: Publication 590, Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs)","Your annual contributions are capped at the maximum of $5500 or your taxable income (wages, salary, tips, self employment income, alimony). You pay taxes by the regular calculations on Form 1040 on your earned income. In this scenario, you earn the income, pay taxes on the amount you earn, and put money in the Roth IRA. The alternative, a Traditional IRA, up to certain income levels, allows you to put the amount you contribute on line 32 of Form 1040, which subtracts the Traditional IRA contribution amount from your Adjusted Gross Income (line 37) before tax is calculated on line 44. In this scenario, you earn the income, put the money in the Traditional IRA, reduce your taxable income, and pay taxes on the reduced amount.","So I learned that your employer CAN force you to make employee contributions. However, this source seems to think that the mandatory employee contributions do not count against the 402(g) limit of $18,000.","These are treasury stocks allocated to the plan. If necessary, a company issues new shares (depending on a company it may require shareholders or only board approval).","The tax deferred status of a 401k plan helps you in theory because your tax rate will be lower once you retire and start drawing the money. This theory could prove incorrect. Also the money you add to a 401k lowers your taxable income today so you end up paying less taxes to the government right now. Depending on where you are in the tax bracket scale that could have the affect of lowering your tax bracket which will save you money in other areas. Each person's situation is different by my general theory is to contribute towards retirement in the following order: Hope this helps.","As you point out, the main benefits of a pension/retirement account over a traditional cash/taxable account are the legal and tax benefits. Most Western countries establish a specific legal definition for an account which is often taxed less or not at all relative to taxable accounts and which contains some protection for the owner in case of a bankruptcy. The typical drawbacks for investing within such structures are limited investment choice, limited withdrawal rights (either in terms of age or rate of withdrawal), and maximum contributions. The benefits are usually very clear, and your decision whether or not to open a pension/retirement account should depend on a careful weighing of the benefits and drawbacks. As to whether you may end up with less than you started, that depends on what you invest in. As with all of finance, you must take more risk to get more return. Although the choices inside a pension/retirement account may be worded somewhat differently, they are usually fundamentally no different than some of the most popular investments available for ordinary taxable accounts.","\"Pretty simple actually. This is a state-run defined benefit plan, where the benefit is calculated based on the length of the employment and the contributed amounts. This is what in the US is known as the Social Security. This is a defined contribution plan, where the employee can chose the level of risk based on certain pre-defined investment guidelines (more conservative or more aggressive). In Poland, it appears that there's a certain amount of the state-mandated SS tax is transferred to these plans. Nothing in the US is like that, but you can see it as a mandatory IRA with a preset limited choice of mutual funds to invest into, as an analogy. The recent change was to reduce the portion of the madatory contribution that is diverted to this plan from 7+% to 2.3% (on account of expanding the contribution to (1)). Probably the recent crashes of the stock markets that affected these accounts lead to this decision. This is voluntary defined contribution plan, similar to the US 401Ks. This division is actually pretty common, not unique to Poland. I'd say its the \"\"standard\"\" pension scheme, as opposed to what we're used to in the US.\"","\"There are two types of 401(k) contributions: \"\"elective contributions,\"\" which are the part put in by the employee and \"\"nonelective contributions,\"\" which are the part put in by the company. Elective contributions are summed across all the plans she is contributing to. So she can contribute $18,000 minus whatever she put in her 403(b). Additionally she can contribute 20% of the net profit of the company (before the elective contributions) as nonelective contributions (these contributions must be designated as such). You will notice that the IRS document says 25%, but that's what you can do if her business is incorporated. For a sole proprietorship, nonelective contributions ends up being limited at 20% of profit. Additionally, the sum of these two and her contribution to her 403(b) cannot exceed $53,000. Example: line 31 of her schedule C is $30,000 and she has contributed $10,000 to her 403(b). Maximum contribution to her solo 401(k) is ($18,000 - $10,000) + 0.2 * $30,000 = $14,000 Her total contributions for the year are $10,000 from her 403(b) plus $14,000 in her solo 401(k). This is less than $53,000 so this limit does not bind. If she made a ton of 1099 money, her contribution maximum would follow the above until it hit $53,000 and then it would stop there. The IRS describes this in detail in Publication 560, which also has a worksheet for figuring out your maximum explicitly. It's unpleasant reading and the worksheets are painful, but if you do it right, it will end up being as I just described it. Using the language of that publication, hers is a \"\"qualified plan\"\" of the \"\"defined contribution\"\" variety.\"","Your total salary deferral cannot exceed $18K (as of 2016). You can split it between your different jobs as you want, to maximize the matching. You can contribute non-elective contribution on top of that, which means that your self-proprietorship will commit to paying you that portion regardless of your deferral. That would be on top of the $18K. You cannot contribute more than 20% of your earnings, though. So if you earn $2K, you can add $400 on top of the $18K limit (ignoring the SE tax for a second here). Keep in mind that if you ever have employees, the non-elective contribution will apply to them as well. Also, the total contribution limit from all sources (deferral, matching, non-elective) cannot exceed $53K (for 2016).","Here's an Irish government publication that should give you some background information to get you started. In a nutshell, you get tax benefits, but cannot withdraw money without penalty until you reach retirement age.","Deposits are contributions. You deposit say, $5000, and over time you have $6000. The $5000 can be withdrawn any time with no issue. It's tracked via form 8606. With this in mind, I wrote an article The Roth Emergency Fund, suggesting that since one can withdraw deposits with no issue, the Roth can be used to hold emergency money.","\"Click on the ? icon next to \"\"Employer Plan\"\". This is used to determine if you can deduct your annual contributions from your taxes. For more information on how an employer plan can affect your IRA tax deduction, see the definition for non-deductible contributions. So, we look there: The total of your Traditional IRA contributions that were deposited without a tax deduction. Traditional IRA contributions are normally tax deductible. However, if you have an employer-sponsored retirement plan, such as a 401(k), your tax deduction may be limited. The $20K difference between $272K and $252K just happens to be $15% of $132,500 which is the amount of your non-deductible contributions.\"","\"401k plans are required to not discriminate against the non-HCE participants, and one way they achieve this is by limiting the percentage of wages that HCEs can contribute to the plan to the average annual percentage contribution by the non-HCE participants or 3% whichever is higher. If most non-HCE employees contribute only 3% (usually to capture the employer match but no more), then the HCEs are stuck with 3%. However, be aware that in companies that award year-end bonuses to all employees, many non-HCEs contribute part of their bonuses to their 401k plans, and so the average annual percentage can rise above 3% at the end of year. Some payroll offices have been known to ask all those who have not already maxed out their 401k contribution for the year (yes, it is possible to do this even while contributing only 3% if you are not just a HCE but a VHCE) whether they want to contribute the usual 3%, or a higher percentage, or to contribute the maximum possible under the nondiscrimination rules. So, you might be able to contribute more than 3% if the non-HCEs put in more money at the end of the year. With regard to NQSPs, you pretty much have their properties pegged correctly. That money is considered to be deferred compensation and so you pay taxes on it only when you receive it upon leaving employment. The company also gets to deduct it as a business expense when the money is paid out, and as you said, it is not money that is segregated as a 401k plan is. On the other hand, you have earned the money already: it is just that the company is \"\"holding\"\" it for you. Is it paying you interest on the money (accumulating in the NQSP, not paid out in cash or taxable income to you)? Would it be better to just take the money right now, pay taxes on it, and invest it yourself? Some deferred compensation plans work as follows. The deferred compensation is given to you as a loan in the year it is earned, and you pay only interest on the principal each year. Since the money is a loan, there is no tax of any kind due on the money when you receive it. Now you can invest the proceeds of this loan and hopefully earn enough to cover the interest payments due. (The interest you pay is deductible on Schedule A as an Investment Interest Expense). When employment ceases, you repay the loan to the company as a lump sum or in five or ten annual installments, whatever was agreed to, while the company pays you your deferred compensation less taxes withheld. The net effect is that you pay the company the taxes due on the money, and the company sends this on to the various tax authorities as money withheld from wages paid. The advantage is that you do not need to worry about what happens to your money if the company fails; you have received it up front. Yes, you have to pay the loan principal to the company but the company also owes you exactly that much money as unpaid wages. In the best of all worlds, things will proceed smoothly, but if not, it is better to be in this Mexican standoff rather than standing in line in bankruptcy court and hoping to get pennies on the dollar for your work.\"","One of the strengths of 401K accounts is that you can move from investment X in the program to investment Y in the program without tax consequences. As you move through your lifetime you will tend to want to lower risk by investing in funds that are less aggressive. The only way this works is if there is an ability to move funds. If there were only one or two funds to pick from or that you were locked in to your initial choices that would be a very poor 401K to be enrolled in. On your benefits/401K website you should be able to adjust three sets of numbers: Some have you enter the current money as a percentage others allow you to enter it in dollars. They might limit the number of changes you can do in a month to the current money balances to avoid the temptation to try and time the market. These changes usually happen within 1 business day. Regarding new and match money they could limit the lowest non zero percent to 5% or 10%, but they might allow numbers as low as 1%. These changes take place generally with the next paycheck.","You can only contribute up to 5% of your salary? Odd. Usually 401(k) contributions are limited to some dollar amount in the vicinity of $15,000 or so a year. Normal retirement guidelines suggest that putting away 10-15% of your salary is enough that you probably won't need to worry much when you retire. 5% isn't likely to be enough, employer match or no. I'd try to contribute 10-15% of my salary. I think you're reading the rules wrong. I'm almost certain. It's definitely worth checking. If you're not, you should seriously consider supplementing this saving with a Roth IRA or just an after-tax account. So. If you're with Fidelity and don't know what to do, look for a target date fund with a date near your retirement (e.g. Target Retirement 2040) and put 100% in there until you have a better idea of what going on. All Fidelity funds have pretty miserable expense ratios, even their token S&P500 index fund from another provider, so you might as let them do some leg work and pick your asset allocation for you. Alternatively, look for the Fidelity retirement planner tools on their website to suggest an asset allocation. As a (very rough) rule of thumb, as you're saving for retirement you'll want to have N% of your portfolio in bonds and the rest in stocks, where N is your age in years. Your stocks should probably be split about 70% US and 30% rest-of-world, give or take, and your US stocks should be split about 64% large-cap, 28% mid-cap and 8% small-cap (that's basically how the US stock market is split).","Back in the late 80's I had a co-worked do exactly this. In those days you could only do things quarterly: change the percentage, change the investment mix, make a withdrawal.. There were no Roth 401K accounts, but contributions could be pre-tax or post-tax. Long term employees were matched 100% up to 8%, newer employees were only matched 50% up to 8% (resulting in 4% match). Every quarter this employee put in 8%, and then pulled out the previous quarters contribution. The company match continued to grow. Was it smart? He still ended up with 8% going into the 401K. In those pre-Enron days the law allowed companies to limit the company match to 100% company stock which meant that employees retirement was at risk. Of course by the early 2000's the stock that was purchased for $6 a share was worth $80 a share... Now what about the IRS: Since I make designated Roth contributions from after-tax income, can I make tax-free withdrawals from my designated Roth account at any time? No, the same restrictions on withdrawals that apply to pre-tax elective contributions also apply to designated Roth contributions. If your plan permits distributions from accounts because of hardship, you may choose to receive a hardship distribution from your designated Roth account. The hardship distribution will consist of a pro-rata share of earnings and basis and the earnings portion will be included in gross income unless you have had the designated Roth account for 5 years and are either disabled or over age 59 ½. Regarding getting just contributions: What happens if I take a distribution from my designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period? If you take a distribution from your designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period, it is a nonqualified distribution. You must include the earnings portion of the nonqualified distribution in gross income. However, the basis (or contributions) portion of the nonqualified distribution is not included in gross income. The basis portion of the distribution is determined by multiplying the amount of the nonqualified distribution by the ratio of designated Roth contributions to the total designated Roth account balance. For example, if a nonqualified distribution of $5,000 is made from your designated Roth account when the account consists of $9,400 of designated Roth contributions and $600 of earnings, the distribution consists of $4,700 of designated Roth contributions (that are not includible in your gross income) and $300 of earnings (that are includible in your gross income). See Q&As regarding Rollovers of Designated Roth Contributions, for additional rules for rolling over both qualified and nonqualified distributions from designated Roth accounts.","Employer match doesn't incur FICA tax (social security, medicare) for you at all - either current year or when you withdraw. All you have to pay is income tax when you withdraw after retirement age. (Disclaimer - I'm not tax professional but has done my research)","The deadline for contributing to a 401K is the last paycheck paid in December. That may not be the last pay period that ends in December. For example if the last pay period ends on Friday the 30th and you get paid on Thursday January 5th, that check is the first in the new year. The US government has rules regarding how quickly the money needs to be sent to the 401K trustee. It is possible that the money may get there after the first of the year, but the important date for you is the date of the last paycheck in December. The company form to set the contribution rate (it could also be on a website) will have a deadline to determine if the rate makes the next check or the one after that. The form will also have a maximum amount as a percentage of the check. Some could allow up to 100% but yours might not. So how much you can put in with the last paycheck or two is up to company policy and your pay rate. The company forms or website will describe how the company match works. If you were try and put as much as possible into a few checks, it is possible to hit the $18,000 yearly limit in just a small part of the year. In some companies that would mean that you could miss out on company match money, because that would never be more than x% of each check. For example if you were to put $3,000 per check with a base pay of $5,000 every two weeks and if the maximum company match was 5%. After 6 checks you would be done: you would have put in $18,000 and the company would have put in $250 x 6 or $1,500. If you were to spread the money over all 26 checks you would still put in $18,000 but the company would have put in $6,500.","\"If you are the sole owner (or just you and your spouse) and expect to be that way for a few years, consider the benefits of an individual 401(k). The contribution limits are higher than an IRA, and there are usually no fees involved. You can google \"\"Individual 401k\"\" and any of the major investment firms (Fidelity, Schwab, etc) will set one up free of charge. This option gives you a lot of freedom to decide how much money to put away without any plan management fees. The IRS site has all the details in an article titled One-Participant 401(k) Plans. Once you have employees, if you want to set up a retirement plan for them, you'll need to switch to a traditional, employer-sponsored 401k, which will involve some fees on your part. I seem to recall $2k/yr in fees when I had a sponsored 401(k) for my company, and I'm sure this varies widely. If you have employees and don't feel a need to have a company-wide retirement plan, you can set up your own personal IRA and simply not offer a company plan to your employees. The IRA contribution limits are lower than an individual 401(k), but setting it up is easy and fee-free. So basically, if you want to spend $0 on plan management fees, get an individual 401(k) if you are self-employed, or an IRA for yourself if you have employees.\"","\"Highly Compensated Employee Rules Aim to Make 401k's Fair would be the piece that I suspect you are missing here. I remember hearing of this rule when I worked in the US and can understand why it exists. A key quote from the article: You wouldn't think the prospect of getting money from an employer would be nerve-wracking. But those jittery co-workers are highly compensated employees (HCEs) concerned that they will receive a refund of excess 401k contributions because their plan failed its discrimination test. A refund means they will owe more income tax for the current tax year. Geersk (a pseudonym), who is also an HCE, is in information services and manages the computers that process his firm's 401k plan. 401(k) - Wikipedia reference on this: To help ensure that companies extend their 401(k) plans to low-paid employees, an IRS rule limits the maximum deferral by the company's \"\"highly compensated\"\" employees, based on the average deferral by the company's non-highly compensated employees. If the less compensated employees are allowed to save more for retirement, then the executives are allowed to save more for retirement. This provision is enforced via \"\"non-discrimination testing\"\". Non-discrimination testing takes the deferral rates of \"\"highly compensated employees\"\" (HCEs) and compares them to non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs). An HCE in 2008 is defined as an employee with compensation of greater than $100,000 in 2007 or an employee that owned more than 5% of the business at any time during the year or the preceding year.[13] In addition to the $100,000 limit for determining HCEs, employers can elect to limit the top-paid group of employees to the top 20% of employees ranked by compensation.[13] That is for plans whose first day of the plan year is in calendar year 2007, we look to each employee's prior year gross compensation (also known as 'Medicare wages') and those who earned more than $100,000 are HCEs. Most testing done now in 2009 will be for the 2008 plan year and compare employees' 2007 plan year gross compensation to the $100,000 threshold for 2007 to determine who is HCE and who is a NHCE. The threshold was $110,000 in 2010 and it did not change for 2011. The average deferral percentage (ADP) of all HCEs, as a group, can be no more than 2 percentage points greater (or 125% of, whichever is more) than the NHCEs, as a group. This is known as the ADP test. When a plan fails the ADP test, it essentially has two options to come into compliance. It can have a return of excess done to the HCEs to bring their ADP to a lower, passing, level. Or it can process a \"\"qualified non-elective contribution\"\" (QNEC) to some or all of the NHCEs to raise their ADP to a passing level. The return of excess requires the plan to send a taxable distribution to the HCEs (or reclassify regular contributions as catch-up contributions subject to the annual catch-up limit for those HCEs over 50) by March 15 of the year following the failed test. A QNEC must be an immediately vested contribution. The annual contribution percentage (ACP) test is similarly performed but also includes employer matching and employee after-tax contributions. ACPs do not use the simple 2% threshold, and include other provisions which can allow the plan to \"\"shift\"\" excess passing rates from the ADP over to the ACP. A failed ACP test is likewise addressed through return of excess, or a QNEC or qualified match (QMAC). There are a number of \"\"safe harbor\"\" provisions that can allow a company to be exempted from the ADP test. This includes making a \"\"safe harbor\"\" employer contribution to employees' accounts. Safe harbor contributions can take the form of a match (generally totaling 4% of pay) or a non-elective profit sharing (totaling 3% of pay). Safe harbor 401(k) contributions must be 100% vested at all times with immediate eligibility for employees. There are other administrative requirements within the safe harbor, such as requiring the employer to notify all eligible employees of the opportunity to participate in the plan, and restricting the employer from suspending participants for any reason other than due to a hardship withdrawal.\"","Does your employer provide a matching contribution to your 401k? If so, contribute enough to the 401k that you can fully take advantage of the 401k match (e.g. if you employer matches 3% of your income, contribute 3% of your income). It's free money, take advantage of it. Next up, max out your Roth IRA. The limit is $5000 currently a year. After maxing your Roth, revisit your 401k. You can contribute up to 16,500 per year. You savings account is a good place to keep a rainy day fund (do you have one?), but it lacks the tax advantages of a Roth IRA or 401k, so it is not really suitable for retirement savings (unless you have maxed out both your 401k and Roth IRA). Once you have take care of getting money into your 401k and Roth IRA accounts, the next step is investing it. The specific investment options available to you will vary depending on who provides your retirement account(s), so these are general guidelines. Generally, you want to invest in higher-risk, higher-return investments when you are young. This includes things like stocks and developing countries. As you get older (>30), you should look at moving some of your investments into things that less volatile. Bond funds are the usual choice. They tend to be safer than stocks (assuming you don't invest in Junk bonds), but your investment grows at a slower rate. Now this doesn't mean you immediately dump all of your stock and buy bonds. Rather, it is a gradual transition over time. As you get older and older, you gradually shift your investments to bond funds. A general rule of thumb I have seen: 100 - (YOUR AGE) = Percentage of your portfolio that should be in stocks Someone that is 30 would have 70% of their portfolio in stock, someone that is 40 would have 60% in stock, etc. As you get closer to retirement (50s-60s), you will want to start looking at investments that are more conservatie than bonds. Start to look at fixed-income and money market funds.","You can contribute to both but the total contribution is capped: More than one plan. If you contribute to a defined contribution plan (defined in chapter 4), annual additions to an account are limited to the lesser of $53,000 or 100% of the participant's compensation. When you figure this limit, you must add your contributions to all defined contribution plans maintained by you. Because a SEP is considered a defined contribution plan for this limit, your contributions to a SEP must be added to your contributions to other defined contribution plans you maintain. Source: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p560.pdf on page 6.","\"Close... Warning, I may be off a bit here; I'm sure someone will correct me if so. Traditional 401k or IRA: money goes in pre-tax (so, yes, you avoid paying tax on it now), grows untaxed, taxes are due when you retire and start taking money back out of the account -- but your income, including these withdrawals, is likely to be lower than your peak earning years so your tax rate will be lower. You don't avoid all the tax, but you delay it and hopefully reduce it, and by doing so there's more money in your account earning returns. Roth 401k or IRA: money goes in after taxes (you do pay income tax now). However, all returns on the money are untaxed (I believe), and you pay no tax when you're eligible to withdraw the funds. Either or both kinds of 401k may be eligible for some percentage of matching funds from your employer (there are some incentives for them to offer this benefit). I believe that even if you're doing a Roth 401k, the matching funds legally have to go in as traditional plan. And yes, as that implies, it is possible to split your contribution between the two styles. Note: the matching funds are \"\"free money.\"\" If your plan offers a match, it is highly recommended that you contribute enough to your 401k to capture the maximum match.\"","If your employer does not offer contribution matching, and you don't like the range of investment options provided by the company 401k, then you probably are better off investing in your own IRA instead. In an IRA held at a bank or brokerage, you can invest in multiple stocks or funds and move money around within the IRA pretty freely in most cases. If your company is doing well and is actually sharing profit into the 401k, you might consider leaving your 5% contribution to the 401k where it is and put the other 5% you are planning to contribute into a new IRA of your own. This straddles the risk of you losing money if your company 401k tanks (or profit sharing dries up) and your missing out on profit sharing if it continues to pay well.","\"The \"\"Deferral\"\" for the 401k means that you're not collecting your pay immediately, but instead diverting it to a retirement account (Roth 401k in this case). This article defines deferral well: What is the difference between a regular 401(k) deferral (pre-tax) and a Roth 401(k) deferral? Under either a regular 401(k) deferral or a Roth 401(k) deferral, you make a deferral contribution by electing to set aside part of your pay (by either a certain percentage or a certain dollar amount). For a regular 401(k) deferral, the taxable wages on your W-2 are reduced by the deferral contribution; therefore, you pay less current income tax. However, you will eventually pay tax on these contributions and earnings when the plan distributes the regular 401(k) deferrals and earnings to you. The result is that the tax on the regular 401(k) deferrals and earnings is only postponed. A Roth 401(k) deferral is an after-tax contribution, which means you must pay current income tax on the deferral. Since you have already paid tax on the deferral, you won’t pay tax on it again when you receive a distribution of your Roth 401(k) deferral. In addition, if you satisfy cer tain distribution conditions, then you won’t have to pay tax on the earnings either. This means that the distribution of the Roth 401(k) earnings can be tax free not just tax postponed. Traditionally, this deferred compensation typically was directed to a 401k, but now that Roth 401k is another available option, deferred compensation can be directed there as well.\"","Your employer's matching contribution is calculated based on the dollar amounts you end up putting in. The nature of your 401(k) contribution—whether pre-tax or Roth after-tax—doesn't matter with respect to how their match gets calculated, and their match always goes into a pre-tax account, even if you are contributing after-tax. The onus is on you to choose a contribution amount that maximizes your employer match regardless of the nature of your contribution. Maximizing your employer match using Roth after-tax contributions will eat up more of your annual gross salary, but as long as you are willing to do that then you won't leave free employer match money on the table. Roth after-tax contributions don't get the tax deduction inherent in a pre-tax contribution. The tradeoff is that you end up with less take-home pay per period if you contribute the same number of dollars on a Roth after-tax basis to your 401(k) as opposed to on a pre-tax basis. For instance, to make a maximum $18,000 Roth after-tax contribution to a 401(k), it's going to cost you a lot more than $18,000 of your annual gross salary to net the same $18,000 number. (On the flip side, the Roth money is worth more in retirement than pre-tax money, because it won't be subject to taxes then.) However, 401(k) plan contribution amounts are almost always expressed as a percentage of gross salary, i.e. in pre-tax terms, even when electing to make after-tax contributions! So when electing after-tax, one is implicitly accepting that the contribution will cost more than the percentage of gross salary, because you'll need to pay the tax on a gross amount that would yield the same number of dollars but as an after-tax amount.","You are already doing everything you can. If your employer does not have a 401(k) you are limited to investing in a Roth or a traditional IRA (Roth is post tax money, traditional IRA gives you a deduction so it is essentially pre tax money). The contribution limits are the same for both and contributing to either adds to the limit (so you can't duplicate). CNN wrote an article on some other ways to save: One thing you may want to bring up with your employer is that they could set up a SEP-IRA. This allows them to set a % (up to 25%) that they contribute pre-tax to an IRA for everyone at the company that has worked there at least 3 years. If you are at a small company, maybe everyone with that kind of seniority would take an equivalent pay cut to get the automatic retirement contribution? (Note that a SEP-IRA has to apply to everyone equally percentage wise that has worked there for 3 years, and the employer makes the contribution, not you).","If you are working for a small company, the expense ratios on the funds in the 401k account are likely much higher than you can get with a similar IRA. Depending on your income, whether you are married and want to contribute to a spouse's IRA, your limit on what can be contributed to an IRA may vary, but the compelling reason to contribute to a 401k is that the contribution limit is higher ($17,500 vs $5,500 for people on the lower end of the income scale) so you may need to contribute to a 401k to meet your retirement savings goals.","Maximum FSA contribution amounts are set by the IRS. For tax year 2015 you are allowed to place no more than $2,550 (and same maximum for 2016) in an FSA account, tax-free. Your employer's plan year is not relevant to the IRS for this purpose. It's important to note that one interesting benefit to FSA accounts is the full amount of your annual contribution is available to you on the first day of the plan year; it is not a money-in money-out plan.","Those aren't distributions, they're contributions. Distribution is when the money comes out of the retirement accounts. Here is the best source (the IRS) for information about tax advantaged retirement plans.","You can't be doing it yourself. Only your employer can do it. If the employer doesn't provide the option - switch employers. The only way for you to do it yourself is if you're the employer, i.e.: self-employed.","\"It seems I can make contributions as employee-elective, employer match, or profit sharing; yet they all end up in the same 401k from my money since I'm both the employer and employee in this situation. Correct. What does this mean for my allowed limits for each of the 3 types of contributions? Are all 3 types deductible? \"\"Deductible\"\"? Nothing is deductible. First you need to calculate your \"\"compensation\"\". According to the IRS, it is this: compensation is your “earned income,” which is defined as net earnings from self-employment after deducting both: So assuming (numbers for example, not real numbers) your business netted $30, and $500 is the SE tax (half). You contributed $17.5 (max) for yourself. Your compensation is thus 30-17.5-0.5=12. Your business can contribute up to 25% of that on your behalf, i.e.: $4K. Total that you can contribute in such a scenario is $21.5K. Whatever is contributed to a regular 401k is deferred, i.e.: excluded from income for the current year and taxed when you withdraw it from 401k (not \"\"deducted\"\" - deferred).\"","Be sure to consider the difference between Roth 401K and standard 401K. The Roth 401K is taxed as income then put into your account. So the money you put into the Roth 401K is taxed as income for the current year, however, any interest you accumulate over the years is not taxed when you withdraw the money. So to break it down: You may also want to look into Self Directed 401K, which can be either standard or Roth. Check if your employer supports this type of account. But if you're self employed or 1099 it may be a good option.","Congratulations on your raise! Is my employer allowed to impose their own limit on my contributions that's different from the IRS limit? No. Is it something they can limit at will, or are they required to allow me to contribute up to the IRS limit? The employer cannot limit you, you can contribute up to the IRS limit. Your mistake is in thinking that the IRS limit is 17K for everyone. That is not so. You're affected by the HCE rules (Highly Compensated Employees). These rules define certain employees as HCE (if their salary is significantly higher than that of the rest of the employees), and limit the ability of the HCE's to deposit money into 401k, based on the deposits made by the rest of the employees. Basically it means that while the overall maximum is indeed 17K, your personal (and other HCE's in your company) is lowered down because those who are not HCE's in the company don't deposit to 401k enough. You can read more details and technical explanation about the HCE rules in this article and in this blog post.","US corporations are allowed to automatically enter employees into a 401K plan. A basic automatic enrollment 401(k) plan must state that employees will be automatically enrolled in the plan unless they elect otherwise and must specify the percentage of an employee's wages that will be automatically deducted from each paycheck for contribution to the plan. The document must also explain that employees have the right to elect not to have salary deferrals withheld or to elect a different percentage to be withheld. An eligible automatic contribution arrangement (EACA) is similar to the basic automatic enrollment plan but has specific notice requirements. An EACA can allow automatically enrolled participants to withdraw their contributions within 30 to 90 days of the first contribution. A qualified automatic contribution arrangement (QACA) is a type of automatic enrollment 401(k) plan that automatically passes certain kinds of annual required testing. The plan must include certain features, such as a fixed schedule of automatic employee contributions, employer contributions, a special vesting schedule, and specific notice requirements. You generally have a period of time to stop the first deposit. One I saw recently gave new employees to the first paycheck after the 60 day mark to refuse to join. You also may be able to get back the first deposit if you really don't want to join. If you don't want to participate look on the corporate website or the Fidelity website to set your future contributions to 0% of your paycheck. Keep in mind several things: Personally I'm against any type of government sponsored investments or savings. I can save money on my own and I don't care about their benefits. Some companies provide an annual contribution to all employees regardless of participation in the 401K. They do need to establish an account to do that. Again that is free money Does it mean if I never contribute any money so I will have 0 I might go below 0 and owe them money in case they bankrupt or do bad investments? Even in total market collapse the value of the 401K could never go below zero, unless the 401K was setup to allow very exotic investments.","A matching pension scheme is like free money. No wait, it actually IS free money. You are literally earning 100% interest rate on that money the instant you pay it in to the account. That money would have to sit in your credit card account for at least five years to earn that kind of return; five years in which the pension money would have earned an additional return over and above the 100%. Mathematically there is no contest that contributing to a matching pension scheme is one of the best investment there is. You should always do it. Well, almost always. When should you not do it?","You're contributing 98.2% of your contributed amount (deducting 1.8%) each month and at the end of the year, deducting a flat 15 pounds. The easiest way to do this is to use a spreadsheet. But you're missing some key information. What is your expected growth rate and what is your expected inflation rate? Is this a taxable account where you deduct (for example, 35%) of the growth annually for taxes or is this a non-taxable account?","There are two steps. First you take the age at retirement and annual benefit. Say it's $10,000/yr. You can easily look up the present value of a $10k/yr annuity starting at age X. (I used age 62, male, at Immediate Annuity. It calculates to be $147K. You then need to look at your current age and with a finance calculator calculate the annual deposits required to get to $147K by that age. What I can't tell you is what value to use as a cost of money until retiring. 4%? 6%? That's the larger unknown.","You asked some direct questions, here are some direct answers: 10% of your salary is a popular rule of thumb. An IRA account is something to consider, you can open one with any of the major discount brokers and select an S&P 500 index fund for your investment. You can let it sit. That's the beauty of an index fund, it simply matches the market and you don't have to worry about trying to beat the market because you ARE the market! The average annual return for the S&P 500 Index has been around 10% (since inception). That's no guarantee, and some years are more or less and up or down. Over the long run, it goes up.","\"The company itself doesn't benefit. In most cases, it's an expense as the match that many offer is going to cost the company some percent of salary. As Mike said, it's part of the benefit package. Vacation, medical, dental, cafeteria plans (i.e. both flexible spending and dependent care accounts, not food), stock options, employee stock purchase plans, defined contribution or defined benefit pension, and the 401(k) or 403(b) for teachers. Each and all of these are what one should look at when looking at \"\"total compensation\"\". You allude to the lack of choices in the 401(k) compared to other accounts. Noted. And that lack of choice should be part of your decision process as to how you choose to invest for retirement. If the fess/selection is bad enough, you need to be vocal about it and request a change. Bad choices + no match, and maybe the account should be avoided, else just deposit to the match. Note - Keith thanks for catching and fixing one typo, I just caught another.\"","Ask the folks administering your plan. They're the ones who define and implement the available choices for that specific plan.","One small note: If you have an employer sponsored account and get let go you might have an issue. You would lose any funds in the account as of the day of your unemployment if you don't have enough expenses to use it all up! So if you put in a lot every month because you have a large planned expense like root canal or operation then you could lose it all. This happened to me.","On my quarterly statement and the 401K plan website I can see the vesting for various categories. They total all these up and report the total balance and the vested balance. If I do the math I discover that the vested balance is equal to A + B + D + (60% of C) For my company at least, if I was to leave now I would get 60% of the Company match, which does include significant gains. This document for the Department of Labor discuss many aspects of 401K plans including vesting. In a defined contribution plan such as a 401(k) plan, you are always 100 percent vested in your own contributions to a plan, and in any subsequent earnings from your contributions. However, in most defined contribution plans you may have to work several years before you are vested in the employer’s matching contributions. (There are exceptions, such as the SIMPLE 401(k) and safe harbor 401(k), in which you are immediately vested in all required employer contributions. You also vest immediately in the SIMPLE IRA and the SEP.) Currently, employers have a choice of two different vesting schedules for employer matching 401(k) contributions, which are shown in Table 2. Your employer may use a schedule in which employees are 100 percent vested in employer contributions after 3 years of service (cliff vesting). Under graduated vesting, an employee must be at least 20 percent vested after 2 years, 40 percent after 3 years, 60 percent after 4 years, 80 percent after 5 years, and 100 percent after 6 years. If your automatic enrollment 401(k) plan requires employer contributions, you vest in those contributions after 2 years. Automatic enrollment 401(k) plans with optional matching contributions follow one of the vesting schedules noted above.","You are close to understanding, but it looks like you are slightly off: regular 401K - The amount you contribute is taken out of your taxable income for tax purposes in the tax year you earn it. However, when you take it out at retirement that withdrawal counts as income for tax purposes. (You pay the tax on the money later) Roth 401K - The amount you contribute is not taken out of your taxable income for tax purposes in the tax year you earn it. However, when you take it out at retirement that withdrawal will not as income for tax purposes. (You pay the tax on the money now.) Additional benefit: You don't pay tax ever on the gains.","A good general rule is to save 15% of your income for retirement. As for where you put it: Put as much as it takes to maximize your employer match into your 401(k), but no more. The employer match is free money, and you can't beat free money If you still haven't put in 15%, put the rest into a Roth IRA. By historical standards, taxes are pretty low today. They are almost certainly going to be higher in retirement, especially since you likely won't have the deductions in retirement that you may have now (kids, mortgage, etc). If you've maxed our the allowed contribution for your Roth and still haven't saved 15%, put the rest in a traditional IRA.","In the US, the key to understanding the benefits of retirement accounts is to understand capital gains taxes and how they work. Retirement accounts are designed for making investments throughout your career, then after several decades of contributions, withdrawing that money to pay for your needs when your full-time employment has concluded. Normally when you invest money in a brokerage account, if the value of your investment increases, and you sell in less than a year, those investments are considered short-term gains and taxed as ordinary income. If you hold that same investment for over a year, the same investment is taxed at a lower capital gains rate (depending on which tax bracket you are in during that year, the amount due could be up to 20%, but much lower than your regular income tax rate). When you place your money in a retirement account, you are choosing to either pay the tax due on the income when you put it in the account, or put the money in tax free and pay the tax when you withdraw (these are called tax-deferred accounts). When you have money invested several decades, the raw dollar amount increases greatly, but inflation is also reducing the value of those dollars. Imagine you bought some bonds that payed 4% over 40 years, but inflation was 2% during those same years. When you sell those bonds 40 years later, you will owe capital gains on the entire gain even though half of the gain came from inflation. Retirement accounts allow you to buy and sell according to your investment needs and goals without any consideration about whether the gains are short-term or long-term, and they also allow you to pay taxes just once, either when you put it in, or when you take it out, with no worries about whether you're paying taxes on inflated gains.","If you are earning a salary, go for Roth IRA. You can contribute $5500 (2013 limits) every year . Once you open a account , let say Fidelity or Vanguard, you should invest based on risk appetite into some funds. the advantage is that your money grows tax free and when you are 25- 30 years old and need money for down payment of house, you can pull the money out with out any penalty. The gains you have made will continue to be in that account till the time your retire, growing every year.","If your employer offers a 401(k) match, definitely take advantage of it. It's free money, so take advantage of it!","401K accounts, both regular and Roth, generally have loans available. There are maximum amounts that are based on federal limits, and your balance in the program. These rules also determine the amount of time you have to repay the loan, and what happens if you quit or are fired while the loan is outstanding. In these loan programs the loan comes from your 401K funds. Regarding matching funds. This plan is not atypical. Some match right away, some make you wait. Some put in X percent regardless of what you contribute. Some make you opt out, others make you opt in. Some will direct their automatic amounts to a specific fund, unless you tell them otherwise. The big plus for the fund you describe is the immediate vesting. Some companies will match your investments but then only partially vest the funds. They don't want to put a bunch of matching funds into your account, and then have you leave. So they say that if you leave before 5 years is up, they will not let you keep all the funds. If you leave after 2 years you keep 25%, if you leave after 3 years you keep 50%... The fact they immediately vest is a very generous plan.","JoeTapayer has good advice here. I would like to add my notes. If they give a 50% match that means you are getting a 50% return on investment(ROI) immediately. I do not know of a way to get a better guaranteed ROI. Next, when investing you need to determine what kind of investor you are. I would suggest you make yourself more literate in investments, as I suggest to anyone, but there are basic things you want to look for. If your primary worry is loss of your prinicipal, go for Conservative investments. This means that you are willing to accept a reduced expected ROI in exchange for lower volatility(risk of loss of principal). This does not mean you have a 100% safe investment as the last market issues have shown, but in general you are better protected. The fidelity investments should give you some information as to volatility or if they deem the investments conservative. Conservative investments are normally made up of trading bonds, which have the lowest ROI in general but are the most secure. You can also invest in blue chip companies, although stock is inherently riskier. It is pointed out in comments that stocks always outperform bonds in the long term, and this has been true over the last 100 years. I am just suggesting ways you can protect yourself against market downturns. When the market is doing very well bonds will not give you the return your friends are seeing. I am just trying to give you a basic idea of what to look for when you pick your investments, nothing can replace a solid investment adviser and taking the time to educate yourself.","My two-cents, read your plan document or Summary Plan Description. The availability of in-service withdrawals will vary by document. Moreover, many plans, especially those compliant with 404(c) of ERISA will allow for individual brokerage accounts. This is common for smaller plans. If so, you can request to direct your own investments in your own account. You will likely have to pay any associated fees. Resources: work as actuary at a TPA firm","\"Why? Simply: because it has been mandated as law, and so you may have no choice in the matter whether to contribute or not. Quoting from GOV.UK – Workplace pensions: ‘Automatic enrolment’ A new law means that every employer must automatically enrol workers into a workplace pension scheme if they: Next: even if you think you will work \"\"until you die\"\", you can still access the money saved in the pension scheme when you attain the required minimum age for withdrawals under your scheme. For instance, that may be age 55, but it may also vary by scheme. Becoming fully retired — as in stopping all work — is not a requirement to access retirement income from your pension scheme. In the eyes of a pension scheme, retirement is typically when you elect to take your income benefits according to the established rules of the scheme. Quoting from nidirect – Working past State Pension age: Continuing in work and your workplace pension If you reached the age at which you can start claiming your workplace pension scheme, you don't need to stop work in order to claim. You have a number of options, including taking some of the pension you've built up while continuing to work for the same employer. As to why things are set up this way: While some younger folk may, today, expect to continue working until death, for a variety of reasons that isn't always possible. Two typical such reasons are: disability, and involuntary unemployment (i.e. willing and able but still can't land the next job). Moreover, plans change. Young workers with health and vitality may expect they'll always feel invincible, but end up learning otherwise over time, and may come to appreciate the savings that were forced upon them. The \"\"forced savings\"\" aspect of state and state-sponsored pension schemes are meant to provide some safety net for those later years when it is a strong possibility that one can't continue to work. The alternative is to be a 100% burden on family and/or society.\"","An experienced individual wouldn't ask such questions. I don't say this to take a jab at you, but to provide context. The matter is much more complicated than a simple answer to your question could accomplish. The short answer is no, not necessarily; but it depends on the details. Generally, if the employer matches, it's suggested that you take advantage of the match. It's free money. That said, it comes with some strings attached, like a vesting schedule. It's not yours right away, necessarily. Choices are limited in a 401k, but we should still come out ahead with that free money. The investment choices available in a 401k are also a part of the details. If they meet your needs you should certainly consider the 401k even if the employer doesn't match. There is also the matter of one's particular tax situation, which is certainly an involved matter. A 401k can certainly be a part of judicious tax planning. It's a matter of working out the details. Continuing this theme of details and coming back to the employer match: if the employer doesn't mach, I would make sure that I'm maxing out an IRA before considering the 401k. If the employer matched, I would probably contribute to take advantage of that match. However, it quickly becomes complicated here. I'm accustomed to employer matching up to some percentage of pay, which typically works out to be less then the anual contribution limits for a 401k. So, I my plan for such a situation is to contribute up to the employer match in the 401k, then max out an IRA, and then return to the 401k to finish contributing up to its yearly maximum. There is plenty for you to consider in order to come up with a plan of action. While it's certainly complicated, it's accessible to most people. You don't have to be a genius. In fact, eggheads are regularly trounced by the markets.","James, money saved over the long term will typically beat inflation. There are many articles that discuss the advantage of starting young, and offer: A 21 year old who puts away $1000/yr for 10 years and stops depositing will be ahead of the 31 yr old who starts the $1000/yr deposit and continues through retirement. If any of us can get a message to our younger selves (time travel, anyone?) we would deliver two messages: Start out by living beneath your means, never take on credit card debt, and save at least 10%/yr as soon as you start working. I'd add, put half your raises to savings until your rate is 15%. I can't comment on the pension companies. Here in the US, our accounts are somewhat guaranteed, not for value, but against theft. We invest in stocks and bonds, our funds are not mingled with the assets of the investment plan company.","Some companies allow you to make a post-tax contribution to the 401K. This is not a Roth contribution. This can be money beyond the 18,000 or 24,000 401k limit. The best news is that eventually that money can be rolled into 1 Roth-IRA. Not all companies allow this option. One company I worked for did this automatically when you hit the annual max. Of course that was made more complex if you had multiple employers that year.","Interesting. The answer can be as convoluted/complex as one wishes to make it, or back-of-envelope. My claim is that if one starts at 21, and deposits 10% of their income each year, they will likely hit a good retirement nest egg. At an 8% return each year (Keep in mind, the last 40 years produced 10%, even with the lost decade) the 10% saver has just over 15X their final income as a retirement account. At 4% withdrawal, this replaces 60% of their income, with social security the rest, to get to nearly 100% or so replacement. Note - I wrote an article about Social Security Benefits, showing the benefit as a percent of final income. At $50K it's 42%, it's a higher replacement rate for lower income, but the replacement rate drops as income rises. So, the $5000 question. For an individual earning $50K or less, this amount is enough to fund their retirement. For those earning more, it will be one of the components, but not the full savings needed. (By the way, a single person has a standard deduction and exemption totaling $10150 in 2014. I refer to this as the 'zero bracket.' The next $8800 is taxed at 10%. Why go 100% Roth and miss the opportunity to fund these low or no tax withdrawals?)","\"Re: Specifically, am I right in that everything I put on these is deducted from tax, or are there other rules? and Am I correctly understanding this as \"\"anything above £3,600 per year will not be deducted from your tax\"\"? Neither interpretation seems quite right… Unless what you mean is this: The contributions (to a pension, or to the share-save scheme) are deducted from your pay before it is taxed. That's how it works for employer-run pension schemes. In other words, you are paying the gross amount you earn into the pension, not the amount after tax. It's a tax-efficient way to save, because: compared to other forms of saving: (The bit about the £3,600: you can ignore this assuming you're earning more than £3,600 a year.) What happens to the pension if you decide to move back to France or another country? In some cases you can transfer tax free. Worst case, you'd pay some tax on the transfer but not more than 25%. [See here for the current rules: https://www.gov.uk/transferring-your-pension/transferring-to-an-overseas-pension-scheme. Re: the share scheme, if by 'salary exchange' you mean salary sacrifice (where your gross pay is officially reduced by that amount e.g. £150 a month), that's even more tax-efficient, because it saves you paying the National Insurance contribution too (approx 9% of the pay packet). Conclusion: Saving into pension and company share save schemes is supremely tax-efficient and, provided you're OK with your money being locked away until you're 57 (pension) or tied up in company shares, it's understandably many people's priority to make use of these schemes before considering other forms of saving where you pay into them from your salary after tax. Now, about this: I am trying to understand how much I should put into it Should I put money into these, or should look for another way to save (how will this work out if I go back to France or another country)? Nobody here can advise you what to do since individuals' goals and circumstances are different and we don't know enough of the picture. That said: FWIW, I'll tell you what I might do based solely on what you've told us in the question… First, I'd definitely contribute 6% to the company pension. This gets you the full employer match. That's free money (plus, remember the tax relief = more free money). If you're 27, a total of 12% salary into a pension a year is a decent rate to start saving for retirement. Actually, 14% would be generally advisable, and maybe more still – it's generally a case of 'the more the better' especially while young, as you have time for growth and you don't know what later priorities might change / financial needs might arise. Nevertheless, you said you might move overseas. So in your position I would then:\"","You should be saving as much money as you can afford in your 401k up to the maximum allowed. If you don't contribute at least 6%, then you are essentially throwing away the match money that your employer is offering. Start out with the target date fund. You can always change your investment option later once you learn more about investing, but get started saving right away and get that match!","\"Ah, I see what you mean, then. But if you die at 57, being hit by a bus, those self-invested funds won't help the general social welfare of the union. Instead 1/3 would go to some estate tax, and the rest are left to the designated appointee of your choosing. This soulless system helps the general populace a bit more directly. That is the theory, anyways. *edit: what I mean to say is, you still perceive that money as your own, like some compulsory retirement savings plan. I see it more as tax revenue,math little to no guarantee I will personally benefit from it directly any more than the general benefit it provides to This Great Union.\"\"\"","401k contributions are exempt from employee and employer FICA withholding. The employer withholding is approximately 7% of the gross. The closer the employer match ratio is to 7%, the closer it is to paying for itself. Example: Assuming an employee is match-maximizing and in very round numbers grosses 100,000 per year. A 50% match schedule is about $350 cheaper per employee than a 100% match schedule: Default non participant: The employee will see about 7000 deducted for FICA, and the employer will pay 7000 to FICA if they don't participate. First case: the match is 100%, 1-for-1 to a 5% cap, the employee will deduct 5000, and have 6650 withheld for FICA. The employer will pay 6650 to FICA. The total employer cost of withholding and match is 11,650. Second case: If the match is 50%, 1-for-2 to a 5% cap, the employee will deduct 10000, and have 6300 withheld for FICA. The employer will pay 6300 to FICA. The total employer cost of withholding and match is 11,300.","Pensions in the UK are a real free-for-all. A few years ago, the government introduced stakeholder pensions to try and simplify things, but if anything it's just made things more complex. To give you an idea, everyone has access to a Basic state retirement pension, but there's also SERPS (state earnings related pension scheme) and the State second pension provided by the government. Then in the private sector there are the aforementioned Stakeholder pensions, Self Invested Personal Pensions, Final salary occupational pension schemes and Money purchase occupational pension schemes. For a good summary, take a look at this excellent Times article and for more details, have a look at the Pensions in the United Kingdom Wikipedia page or browse around the Which? retirement section or the moneysavingsexpert pensions pages. The main things to look out for are whether your company offers a defined benefits scheme, or a money purchase scheme where they offer pay additional contributions or offer to match your additional contributions. Either of these are likely to be better than just buying a money purchase scheme pension privately.","You can contribute to a Traditional IRA instead of a Roth. The main difference is a contribution to a Roth is made with after tax money but at retirement you can withdraw the money tax free. With a Traditional IRA your contribution is tax-deductible but at retirement the withdrawal is not tax free. This is why most people prefer a Roth if they can contribute. You can also contribute to your work's 401k plan assuming they have one. And you can always save for retirement in a regular account.","If you have self-employment income you can open a Solo 401k. Your question is unclear as to what your employment status is. If you are self-employed as an independent contractor, you can open a Solo 401k. You can still do this even if you also earn non-self-employment income (i.e., you are an employee and receive a W-2). However, the limits for contributions to a Solo 401k are based on your self-mployment income, not your total income, so if you have only a small amount of self-employment income, you won't be able to contribute much to the Solo 401k. You may be able to reduce your taxes somewhat, but it's not like you can earn $1000 of self-employment income, open a Solo 401k, and dump $5000 into it; the limits don't work that way.","The general idea of the PRPP is so that small business who cannot afford to offer a plan alone will be able to pool resources with others along with self-employed to create voluntary, defined-contribution pension plans that would be managed by private sector financial institutions. The PRPP concept would offer more options to individuals as well as small and medium-sized businesses - Tax Rules for Pooled Registered Pension Plans You can also find an overview here THE NEW PRPP – A Pension for the Pension-Less","You cannot withdraw funds from a 401(k) while still employed with your company. To access your contributions, that would be treated as a loan against the 401(k), in which case you'd pay an upfront fee, and then have to repay the amount loaned, plus interest, over a set period of time. (In essence, you are paying back yourself.) Typically, there is also a minimum amount you must take out as a loan. Should you leave the job and still have an outstanding loan against your 401(k), it will be treated as a withdrawal after a certain date, at which point a 10% penalty plus taxes applies, unless you pay back the full amount of the loan remaining before that certain date. Your friends should seriously consider contributing the minimum amount necessary to get that full 50% matching amount. It's free money. As you said, it's like leaving money on the table."],"string":"[\n \"Defined Benefit - the benefit you receive when you retire is defined e.g. $500 a month if you retire at age 65. It is up to the plan administrators to manage the pension fund, and ensure that there is enough money to cover the benefits based on the life expectancy of the retiree. Defined Contribution - the amount you contribute to the plan is defined. The benefit you receive at retirement depends on how well the investments do over the years.\",\n \"In short, defined contribution plans yield different amounts of return based on the market whereas defined benefit plans yield predetermined amounts defined based on factors such as salary and years of service.\",\n \"As others have explained defined contribution is when you (or your employer) contributes a specified amount and you reap all the investment returns. Defined benefit is when your employer promises to pay you a specified amount (benefit) and is responsible for making the necessary investments to provide for it. Is one better than the other? We can argue this either way. Defined benefit would seem to be more predictable and assured. The problem being of course that it is entirely reliant upon the employer to have saved enough money to pay that amount. If the employer fails in that responsibility, then the only fallback is government guarantees. And of course the government has limitations on what it can guarantee. For example, from Wikipedia: The maximum pension benefit guaranteed by PBGC is set by law and adjusted yearly. For plans that end in 2016, workers who retire at age 65 can receive up to $5,011.36 per month (or $60,136 per year) under PBGC's insurance program for single-employer plans. Benefit payments starting at ages other than 65 are adjusted actuarially, which means the maximum guaranteed benefit is lower for those who retire early or when there is a benefit for a survivor, and higher for those who retire after age 65. Additionally, the PBGC will not fully guarantee benefit improvements that were adopted within the five-year period prior to a plan's termination or benefits that are not payable over a retiree's lifetime. Other limitations also apply to supplemental benefits in excess of normal retirement benefits, benefit increases within the last five years before a plan's termination, and benefits earned after a plan sponsor's bankruptcy. By contrast, people tend to control their own defined contribution accounts. So they control how much gets invested and where. Defined contribution accounts are always 100% funded. Defined benefit pension plans are often underfunded. They expect the employer to step forward and subsidize them when they run short. This allows the defined benefits to both be cheaper during the employment period and more generous in retirement. But it also means that employers have to subsidize the plans later, when they no longer get a benefit from the relationship with the employee. If you want someone else to make promises to you and aren't worried that they won't keep them, you probably prefer defined benefit. If you want to have personal control over the money, you probably prefer defined contribution. My personal opinion is that defined benefit plans are a curse. They encourage risky behavior and false promises. Defined contribution plans are more honest about what they provide and better match the production of employment with its compensation. Others see defined benefit plans as the gold standard of pensions.\",\n \"\\\"The end result is basically the same, it's just a choice of whether you want to base the final amount you receive on your salary, or on the stock market. You pay in a set proportion of your salary, and receive a set proportion of your salary in return. The pension (both contributions and benefit) are based on your career earnings. You get x% of your salary every year from retirement until death. These are just a private investment, basically: you pay a set amount in, and whatever is there is what you get at the end. Normally you would buy an annuity with the final sum, which pays you a set amount per year from retirement until death, as with the above. The amount you receive depends on how much you pay in, and the performance of the investment. If the stock market does well, you'll get more. If it does badly, you could actually end up with less. In general (in as much as anything relating to the stock market and investment can be generalised), a Defined Benefit plan is usually considered better for \\\"\\\"security\\\"\\\" - or at least, public sector ones, and a majority of people in my experience would prefer one, but it entirely depends on your personal attitude to risk. I'm on a defined benefit plan and like the fact that I basically get a benefit based on a proportion of my salary and that the amount is guaranteed, no matter what happens to the stock market in the meantime. I pay in 9% of my salary get 2% of my salary as pension, for each year I pay into the pension: no questions, no if's or buts, no performance indicators. Others prefer a defined contribution scheme because they know that it is based on the amount they pay in, not the amount they earn (although to an extent it is still based on earnings, as that's what defines how much you pay in), and because it has the potential to grow significantly based on the stock market. Unfortunately, nobody can give you a \\\"\\\"which is best\\\"\\\" answer - if I knew how pension funds were going to perform over the next 10-50 years, I wouldn't be on StackExchange, I'd be out there making a (rather large) fortune on the stock market.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"The specific \\\"\\\"State Pension\\\"\\\" plan you have linked to is provided by the government of the U.K. to workers resident there. More generally speaking, many countries provide some kind of basic worker's pension (or \\\"\\\"social security\\\"\\\") to residents. In the United States, it is called (surprise!) \\\"\\\"Social Security\\\"\\\", and in Canada most of us call ours \\\"\\\"Canada Pension Plan\\\"\\\". Such pensions are typically funded by payroll deductions distinct & separate from income tax deducted at source. You can learn about the variety of social security programs around the world courtesy of the U.S. Social Security Administration's own survey. What those and many other government or state pensions have in common, and the term or concept that I think you are looking for, is that they are typically defined benefit type of plans. A defined benefit or DB plan is where there is a promised (or \\\"\\\"defined\\\"\\\") benefit, i.e. a set lump sum amount (such as with a \\\"\\\"cash balance\\\"\\\" type of DB plan) or income per year in retirement (more typical). (Note: Defined benefit plans are not restricted to be offered by governments only. Many companies also offer DB plans to their employees, but DB plans in the private sector are becoming more rare due to the funding risk inherent in making such a long-term promise to employees.) Whereas a defined contribution or DC plan is one where employee and/or employer put money into a retirement account, the balance of which is invested in a selection of funds. Then, at retirement the resulting lump sum amount or annual income amounts (if the resulting balance is annuitized) are based on the performance of the investments selected. That is, with a DC plan, there is no promise of you getting either a set lump sum amount or a set amount of annual income at retirement! The promise was up front, on how much money they would contribute. So, the contributions are defined (often according to a matching contribution scheme), yet the resulting benefit itself is not defined (i.e. promised.) Summary: DB plans promise you the money (the benefit) you'll get at retirement. DC plans only promise you the money (the contributions) you get now.\\\"\",\n \"Defined Benefit Plans: Defined benefit plans are disappearing because of their high cost to the companies that provide them. When an employee retires, the company must pay his pension for the rest of his life, even longer if the pension includes a survivor option. Thus the company's financial burden grows as more employees retire. By law, they must provide a fund that has sufficient resources to pay all present and future pensions. Low interest rates, such as we have now, place a greater burden on the amount that must be in these funds. For these reasons, most companies, including large ones like IBM and Lockheed Martin, have discontinued their pension plans and provide only defined contribution plans. Defined Contribution Plans: These require the company to only make contributions while the employee is working. Once the employee retires, the company's responsibility ends. Usually these plans employ a 401K type savings plan for which the employee contributes and the companies matches some or all of that contribution. Comparison: Although a fully company paid pension plan is the best, it is now almost unavailable. The defined contribution plan, if it includes company matching, can be a viable alternative if the investments are chosen wisely and perform as expected. Of course, this is not guaranteed but is probably the best option that most working people have at this time.\",\n \"Direct answers to your questions: contribute 6%, and put it in the Target Date Fund (probably Target Date Fund 2050).\",\n \"The simple answer is that with the defined contribution plan: 401k, 403b, 457 and the US government TSP; the employer doesn't hold on to the funds. When they take your money from your paycheck there is a period of a few days or at the most a few weeks before they must turn the money over to the trustee running the program. If they are matching your contributions they must do the same with those funds. The risk is in that window of time between payday and deposit day. If the business folds, or enters bankruptcy protection, or decides to slash what they will contribute to the match in the future anything already sent to the trustee is out of their clutches. In the other hand a defined a benefit plan or pension plan: where you get X percent of your highest salary times the number of years you worked; is not protected from the company. These plans work by the company putting aide money each year based on a formula. The formula is complex because they know from history some employees never stick around long enough to get the pension. The money in a pension is invested outside the company but it is not out of the control of the company. Generally with a well run company they invest wisely but safely because if the value goes up due to interest or a rising stock market, the next year their required contribution is smaller. The formula also expects that they will not go out of business. The problems occur when they don't have the money to afford to make the contribution. Even governments have looked for relief in this area by skipping a deposit or delaying a deposit. There is some good news in this area because a pension program has to pay an annual insurance premium to The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation a quai-government agency of the federal government. If the business folds the PBGC steps in to protect the rights of the employees. They don't get all they were promised, but they do get a lot of it. None of those pension issues relate to the 401K like program. Once the money is transferred to the trustee the company has no control over the funds.\",\n \"It is comparing apples to oranges. From govt or institution point of view defined contribution is better than defined benefits as they don't have to carry obligations. Although defined benefit sounds good, one can't guarantee it will be enough when you retire compared to inflation. It often becomes political issue. Defined contribution puts you in charge.\",\n \"\\\"How will contribution limits rise? Contribution limits are raised based on COLA. COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) is a number based on CPI (Consumer Price Index) which is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The IRS publishes these limits annually and a simple search term to find them each year is \\\"\\\"415 limits\\\"\\\" because section 415 lists how much the various qualified plans can set aside each year. CPI is a heavily managed and very political number. It is the number that is cited when the media talks about \\\"\\\"inflation.\\\"\\\" Since it drives increases in salaries, deductions, Social Security and pension payments, there is very heavy pressure to keep the number smaller than it really is. My next step was to calculate how long that money will last One traditional rule-of-thumb is to withdraw 4% of your balance each year. Another alternative is to purchase annuities. While younger people think that annuities are horrible investments, they appeal to older people because they protect the annuitant from excessive risk of losing your capital. When you are 30, and another 2008 comes along wiping out half your savings, you have time to re-earn that money. When you are 60, and another 2008 comes along wiping out half your savings, you have very few years to recover that money. So an annuity pushes that risk onto insurance companies. If you think you will die in your 90s, then an annuity is going to be a good investment (the insurance company will be betting that you won't be living that long). I have a simple spreadsheet that I use to calculate estimated projected balances and compare them to actual performance. Don't forget that when you reach 50, the amount you can contribute goes up due to \\\"\\\"catch up contributions.\\\"\\\" There are 2 views of the same tab in this picture. There are 3 growth rates: pessimistic, nominal and optimistic. You can change the numbers to suit your own projections of future growth. Other tabs on this spreadsheet include measurements of actual performance by my 401k and IRA accounts. At the end of the year, I replace the numbers in columns F, G & H with the actual end-of-year dollar amounts. This way, future estimates do not get too far unhinged from reality. If you need more sophisticated planning, such as Monte Carlo analysis to attempt to cope with inflation, I recommend the book Engineering Your Retirement. The book is aimed at younger engineers, so there is a bit more math than the average person would want.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Hahaha, that sounds good but in real life pensions are almost never fully funded and almost never fully funded when starting off. That is why the post office is almost always losing money. They're required by law to pre-pay some crazy number like 70% of pension and retiree obligations up front which sucks up all resources. When a employee opens a pension plan their employer starts contributing a target amount dependent on the stated benefits and the actuarial projections. The market doesn't always go up and the actuaries are not always correct with lifespans either. You take the risk of losing that pension if you work for a bad company, same as if you invest in an employee stock option plan. You can usually take a lump-sum payout, but who would do that when you can get \\\"\\\"guaranteed\\\"\\\" money.\\\"\",\n \"My employer matches 6% of my salary, dollar for dollar. So you have a great benefit. The self-directed side has no fees but $10 trades. No option trading. Yours basically allows you to invest your own funds, but not the match. It's a restriction, agreed, but a good plan.\",\n \"\\\"Your contribution limit to a 401(k) is $18,000. Your employer is allowed to contribute to your 401(k), usually a \\\"\\\"matching contribution\\\"\\\". That matching contribution comes from your employer, so is not subject to your personal contribution limit. A contribution to a regular 401(k) is typically made with pre-tax money (i.e. you don't pay payroll taxes on the money you contribute) so you pay less taxes for the current tax year. However when you retire and you take money out, you pay taxes on the money you take out. On one hand, your tax rate may be lower when you have retired, but on the other hand, if your investments have appreciated over time, the total amount of tax you pay would be higher. If your company offers a Roth 401(k) plan, you can contribute $18,000 of after tax money. This way you pay the tax on the $18,000 today, as you would if you did not put the money in the 401(k), but when you take the money out at retirement, you would not have to pay tax. In my opinion, that serves as a way to pay effectively more money into your 401(k). Some firms put vesting provisions on the amount that they match in your 401(k), e.g. 4 years at 25% per year. So you have to work 1 full year to be entitled to 25% of their matching contribution, 2 years for 50%, and 4 years to receive all of it. Check your company's Summary Plan Description of the 401(k) to be sure. You are not allowed to invest pre-tax money into a Traditional IRA if you are already contributing to a 401(k) plan and have reached the income limits ($62,000 AGI for single head of household). You are allowed to contribute post-tax money to a Traditional IRA plan if you have already contributed to a 401(k), which you can then Roll-over into a Roth IRA (look up 'backdoor IRA'). The IRA contribution limit applies to all IRA accounts over that calendar year. You could put some money in a traditional IRA, a Roth IRA, another traditional IRA, etc. so long as the total amount is not more than the contribution limit. This gives you an upper limit of 5.5k + 18k = 23.5 investments in retirement accounts. Note however, once you reach age 50, these limits increase to 6.5k (IRA) + 24k (401(k)). They also are adjusted periodically with the rate of inflation. The following approach may be more efficient for building wealth: This ordering is the subject of debate and people have different opinions. There is a separate discussion of these priorities here: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? Note however, a 401(k) loan becomes payable if you leave your company, and if not repaid, is an unauthorised distribution from your 401k (and therefore subject to an additional 10% tax penalty). You should also be careful putting money into an IRA, as you will be subject to an additional 10% tax penalty if you take out the money (distribution) before retirement, unless one of the exceptions defined by the IRA applies (e.g. $10,000 for first time home purchase), which could wipe out more than any gains you made by putting it in there in the first place. Your specific circumstances may vary, so this approach may not be best for you. A registered financial advisor may be able to help - ensure they are legitimate: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov\\\"\",\n \"\\\"If you aren't already contributing the maximum allowable amount, by all means do so. If you are already contributing the maximum, it doesn't matter that much when you make those contributions. Making fixed monthly contributions is done mostly for budgeting reasons. Most of us can't predict fund performance well enough to optimize our contributions (by which I mean, contributing more early if you think the market is going up, but waiting if you think it will go down, following the \\\"\\\"buy low\\\"\\\" strategy). As for employer matching, check with your company to see how they compute matches. They may match contributions for the year, even if those matching funds are only paid up to a maximum per paycheck. (For example, if you contribute 200% of the match for the first 6 months, then contribute nothing for the remaining 6 months, you may still receive the same matching funds per pay period as if you were contributing 100% throughout the year.)\\\"\",\n \"My understanding is that to make the $18,000 elective deferral in this case, you need to pay yourself at least $18,000. There will be some tax on that for social security and Medicare, so you'll actually need to pay yourself a bit more to cover that too. The employer contribution is limited to 25% of your total compensation. The $18,000 above counts, but if you want to max out on the employer side, you'll need to pay yourself $140,000 salary since 25% of $140,000 is the $35,000 that you want to put into the 401k from the employer side. There are some examples from the IRS here that may help: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401-k-plans I know that you're not a one-participant plan, but some of the examples may help anyway since they are not all specific to one-participant plans.\",\n \"I would hire an accountant to help set this up, given the sums of money involved. $53,000 would be the minimum amount of compensation needed to maximize the 401k. The total limit of contributions is the lesser of: 100% of the participant's compensation, or $53,000 ($59,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2015 and 2016. and they don't count contributions as compensation Your employer's contributions to a qualified retirement plan for you are not included in income at the time contributed. (Your employer can tell you whether your retirement plan is qualified.) On the bright side, employer contributions aren't subject to FICA withholdings.\",\n \"\\\"when you contribute to a 401k, you get to invest pre-tax money. that means part of it (e.g. 25%) is money you would otherwise have to pay in taxes (deferred money) and the rest (e.g. 75%) is money you could otherwise invest (base money). growth in the 401k is essentially tax free because the taxes on the growth of the base money are paid for by the growth in the deferred portion. that is of course assuming the same marginal tax rate both now and when you withdraw the money. if your marginal tax rate is lower in retirement than it is now, you would save even more money using a traditional 401k or ira. an alternative is to invest in a roth account (401k or ira). in which case the money goes in after tax and the growth is untaxed. this would be advantageous if you expect to have a higher marginal tax rate during retirement. moreover, it reduces tax risk, which could give you peace of mind considering u.s. marginal tax rates were over 90% in the 1940's. a roth could also be advantageous if you hit the contribution limits since the contributions are after-tax and therefore more valuable. lastly, contributions to a roth account can be withdrawn at any time tax and penalty free. however, the growth in a roth account is basically stuck there until you turn 60. unlike a traditional ira/401k where you can take early retirement with a SEPP plan. another alternative is to invest the money in a normal taxed account. the advantage of this approach is that the money is available to you whenever you need it rather than waiting until you retire. also, investment losses can be deducted from earned income (e.g. 15-25%), while gains can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate (e.g. 0-15%). the upshot being that even if you make money over the course of several years, you can actually realize negative taxes by taking gains and losses in different tax years. finally, when you decide to retire you might end up paying 0% taxes on your long term capital gains if your income is low enough (currently ~50k$/yr for a single person). the biggest limitation of this strategy is that losses are limited to 3k$ per year. also, this strategy works best when you invest in individual stocks rather than mutual funds, increasing volatility (aka risk). lastly, this makes filing your taxes more complicated since you need to report every purchase and sale and watch out for the \\\"\\\"wash sale\\\"\\\" rules. side note: you should contribute enough to get all the 401k matching your employer offers. even if you cash out the whole account when you want the money, the matching (typically 50%-200%) should exceed the 10% early withdrawal penalty.\\\"\",\n \"I have had pension programs with two companies. The first told you what your benefit would be if you retired at age X with Y years of service. Each year of service got you a percentage of your final years salary. There was a different formula for early retirement, and there was an offset for social security. They were responsible for putting enough money away each year to meet their obligations. Just before I left they did add a new feature. You could get the funds in the account in a lump sum when you left. If you left early you got the money in the account. If you left at retirement age you got the money that was needed to produce the benefit you were promised. Which was based on current interest rates. The second company had a plan where they published the funding formula. You knew with every quarterly statement how much was in your account, and what interest it had earned, and what benefit they estimated you would receive if you stayed until retirement age. This fund felt almost like a defined contribution, because the formula was published. If most people took the lump sum that was the only part that mattered. Both pension plans had a different set of formulas based on marriage status and survivor rules. The interest rates are important because they are used to determine how much money is needed to produce the promised monthly benefit. They are also used to determine how much they need to allocate each year to cover their obligations. If you can't make the math work you need to keep contacting HR. You need to understand how much should be flowing into the account each month.\",\n \"In addition to the prior answer, talking from experience, you get into trouble if you surpass the contribution limit and your employer continues to deposit money above the IRS maximum allowed. When that happens, you have until April to take out the excess contribution and earned interest on that chunk of money and included in your tax return or else you get a steep tax penalty in addition to being double taxed ( for the current and next tax year). Also from experience, payroll departments will most likely get this wrong and it will end up in a compliance mess with you picking up the tab on your tax bill. Don't let it happen!!!\",\n \"In the UK you have an allowance of £40,000 per annum for tax relief into a pension. This amount includes both your and your employer's contributions. If you earn more than £150,000 per annum this allowance starts to reduce and if you earn less than the allowance, your allowance is limited to what you earn. You can also carry over unused allowance from up to 3 years previously. If you stick within this allowance you won't pay tax on your pension contributions, if you go over the excess will be subject to tax. Salary exchange normally lets you avoid the National Insurance value of your contribution being taxed. If you paid your own money into your pension (without going through salary exchange), your contributions would have the 20% basic rate of tax credited to them and if you're a higher rate taxpayer you could reclaim the difference between the basic rate of tax and the higher rate of tax you pay but the National Insurance you've paid on your own money would not be reclaimable. You can't get the money back you've paid into your pension till you are are 58 (given that you are 27 now), the minimum age has risen from its historic 55 for your age group. That's the pension trade off, you forgo tax now in the expectation that, once retired, you will be paying tax at a lower rate (because your income will be lower and you are much less likely to be subject to higher rate taxation) in return for locking in your money till you're older. Your pension income will be subject to tax when you eventually take it. There are other options such as ISAs which have lower annual limits (£20,000 currently) and on which your contributions do not attract tax relief, but which are not taxed as income when you eventually spend them. ISAs and pensions are not mutually exclusive so if you have the money, you can do both. It's up to you to determine what mix of savings will be appropriate to generate income for your eventual retirement. If you are living in some other country when you retire your pension will be paid net of UK tax. You might then be able to claim (or pay) any difference between that and your local tax rate depending on what agreement exists between the UK government and the other country's government.\",\n \"In addition to JoeTaxpayer's thorough answer, I just want to tackle one particular question that was also asked: ...all employer contributions are pretax? There are a few main reasons that employer contributions go into the traditional bucket instead of the Roth bucket: The only way an employer could logically contribute to your Roth directly would be by increasing your W2 wages by the same amount, but if they did that then you could just contribute to your own Roth with the extra money (up to the annual limit which is currently $18K).\",\n \"Having money held from one paycheck hardly counts as being covered by a retirement plan in my book! It's not your book that counts, it's the Congress' book called the Internal Revenue Code. No, you cannot rescind a contribution after the fact. Maybe during the year you can do something with employer balancing it out, but not after the year is closed. (That, by the way, is different for IRAs where you can actually do re-characterization until the tax day of the next year)\",\n \"\\\"All right, I will try to take this nice and slow. This is going to be a little long; try to bear with me. Suppose you contribute $100 to your newly opened 401(k). You now have $100 in cash and $0 in mutual funds in your 401(k) (and $100 less than you used to somewhere else). At some later date, you use that money within the 401(k) to buy a single share of the Acme World All-Market Index Fund which happens to trade at exactly $100 per share on the day your purchase goes through. As a result, you have $0 in cash and exactly one share of that fund (corresponding to $100) within your 401(k). Some time later, the price of the fund is up 10%, so your share is now worth $110. Since you haven't contributed anything more to your 401(k) for whatever reason, your cash holding is still $0. Because your holding is really denominated in shares of this mutual fund, of which you still have exactly one, the cash equivalent of your holding is now $110. Now, you can basically do one of two things: By selling the share, you protect against it falling in price, thus in a sense \\\"\\\"locking in\\\"\\\" your gain. But where do you put the money instead? You obviously can't put the money in anything else that might fall in price; doing so would mean that you could lose a portion of your gains. The only way to truly \\\"\\\"lock in\\\"\\\" a gain is to remove the money from your investment portfolio altogether. Roughly speaking, that means withdrawing the money and spending it. (And then you have to consider if the value of what you spent the money on can fluctuate, and as a consequence, fall. What's the value of that three weeks old jug of milk in the back of your refrigerator?) The beauty of compounding is that it doesn't care when you bought an investment. Let's say that you kept the original fund, which was at $110. Now, since that day, it is up another 5%. Since we are looking at the change of price of the fund over some period of time, that's 5% of $110, not 5% of the $100 you bought at (which was an arbitrary point, anyway). 5% of $110 is $5.50, which means that the value of your holding is now at $115.50 from a gain first of 10% followed by another 5%. If at the same day when the original fund was at $110 you buy another $100 worth of it, the additional 5% gain is realized on the sum of the two at the time of the purchase, or $210. Thus after the additional 5% gain, you would have not $210 (($100 + $100) + 5%), nor $205 (($100 + 5%) + $100), but $220.50 (($110 + $100) + 5%). See how you don't need to do anything in particular to realize the beauty of compounding growth? There is one exception to the above. Some investments pay out dividends, interest or equivalent in cash equivalents. (Basically, deposit money into an account of yours somewhere; in the case of retirement plans, usually within the same container where you are holding the investment. These dividends are generally not counted against your contribution limits, but check the relevant legal texts if you want to be absolutely certain.) This is somewhat uncommon in mutual funds, but very common in other investments such as stocks or bonds that you purchase directly (which you really should not do if you are just starting out and/or feel the need to ask this type of question). In that case, you need to place a purchase order yourself for whatever you want to invest the dividend in. If you don't, then the extra money of the dividend will not be growing along with your original investment.\\\"\",\n \"With an annuity, you invest directly into an annuity with money you have earned as wages/salary/etc. You pay for it, and trade your payments into the annuity for guaranteed payments from the annuity issuer in the future. The more you pay in before the annuity payments begin, the more you will receive for your annuity payment. With a pension, most often you invest implicitly, rather than directly, into the pension. Rather than making a cash contribution on a regular basis, it is likely that your employer has periodically invested into the pension fund for you, using monies that would otherwise have been paid to you if there were no pension system. This is why your pension benefits are often determined based on years of service, your rate of pay, and similar factors.\",\n \"If one makes say, $10K/mo, and the company will match the first 5% dollar for dollar, a 10%/mo deposit of $1K/mo will see a $500/mo match. If the employee manages to request 90% get put into the 401(k), after 2 months, he's done. If the company wished, they could continue the $500/mo match, I agree. They typically don't and in fact, the 'true up' you mention isn't even required, one is fortunate to get it. Many companies that match are going the other way, matching only after the year is over. Why? Why does any company do anything? To save money. I used to make an attempt to divide my deposit over the year to max out the 401(k) in December and get the match real time, not a true up.\",\n \"If they're not matching, and their profit-sharing has nothing to do with how much you invest, then I'd say don't bother with the company 401k at all. If you need to at least have an account open to get the profit sharing, then contribute the bare minimum. Having your retirement account through your company forces you to follow their standards, choose from their funds, use their broker, etc. It also means that when you leave the company, you either have to move your money anyway, or else have an account through a company you don't work for, which I wouldn't feel all that comfortable doing anyway. If you open a retirement account through your bank or a private financial planner, then it's yours, and you can contribute what you want, when you want, and buy the securities that you want. Your account executive is there to service you, not your company.\",\n \"According to the IRS, you can still put money in your IRA. Here (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Retirement-Topics-IRA-Contribution-Limits) they say: Can I contribute to an IRA if I participate in a retirement plan at work? You can contribute to a traditional or Roth IRA whether or not you participate in another retirement plan through your employer or business. However, you might not be able to deduct all of your traditional IRA contributions if you or your spouse participates in another retirement plan at work. Roth IRA contributions might be limited if your income exceeds a certain level. In addition, in this link (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/IRA-Deduction-Limits), the IRS says: Retirement plan at work: Your deduction may be limited if you (or your spouse, if you are married) are covered by a retirement plan at work and your income exceeds certain levels. The word 'covered' should clarify that - you are not covered anymore in that year, you just got a contribution in that year which was triggered by work done in a previous year. You cannot legally be covered in a plan at an employer where you did not work in that year.\",\n \"I have worked for companies that have done this. One did have a match and the other did not. When they figured their profit at the end of the year a portion was given to the employees as a 401K deposit. retirement-topics-401k-and-profit-sharing-plan-contribution-limits Total annual contributions (annual additions) to all of your accounts in plans maintained by one employer (and any related employer) are limited. The limit applies to the total of: elective deferrals employer matching contributions employer nonelective contributions allocations of forfeitures The annual additions paid to a participant’s account cannot exceed the lesser of: 100% of the participant's compensation, or $54,000 ($60,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2017; $53,000 ($59,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2016. So as long as everything stays below that $54,000 limit you are good. In one case the decision was made by the company for the employee, the other company gave us the option of bonus check or 401K. I heard that most of the employees wanted the money in the 401K.\",\n \"This is an older question but things have changed. Its a common misconception on what the contribution cap is. A few things. In 2014, the IRS did not adjust the maximum contribution from the previous year which include 401(k) accounts, 403(b) accounts, most 457 plans, and Thrift Savings Plans, will be $18,000, up $500 from $17,500. Savers and investors aged 50 or older can take advantage of a catch-up contribution. In 2015, taxpayers who meet this age-based criterion can contribute an additional $6,000 above the regular maximum of $18,000, thus you can contribute a maximum of $24,000 into these tax-advantaged accounts. The total contribution limit, including employer contributions, has increased to $53,000 You can actually contribute up to 53k (including matching) so the exact amount you contribute from your actual income may end up being more or less than 24k. If you get a poor employer match you can actually contribute more but it would go in as after tax dollars and not claim the tax deduction. Note: after tax does NOT equal Roth. However if your a high salaried individual you can use this as a potential loop hole for funding a Roth IRA. Chances are if your making enough money to contribute 53k Total Contributions then your not going to qualify for a roth. However once you retire (or possibly before depending on the plan withdraw terms) you can roll the after tax money into a Roth IRA. This is a gray area on the tax policy. The IRS may come back and change their mind about this. If considering this option talk to a tax adviser.\",\n \"You might want to bring this fancy new IRS rule to your employer's attention. If your employer sets it up, an After-Tax 401(k) Plan allows employees to contribute after-tax money above the $18k/year limit into a special 401(k) that allows deferral of tax on all earnings until withdrawal in retirement. Now, if you think about it, that's not all that special on its own. Since you've already paid tax on the contribution, you could imitate the above plan all by yourself by simply investing in things that generate no income until the day you sell them and then just waiting to sell them until retirement. So basically you're locking up money until retirement and getting zero benefit. But here's the cool part: the new IRS rule says you can roll over these contributions into a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA with no extra taxes or penalties! And a Roth plan is much better, because you don't have to pay tax ever on the earnings. So you can contribute to this After-Tax plan and then immediately roll over into a Roth plan and start earning tax-free forever. Now, the article I linked above gets some important things slightly wrong. It seems to suggest that your company is not allowed to create a brand new 401(k) bucket for these special After-Tax contributions. And that means that you would have to mingle pre-tax and post-tax dollars in your existing Traditional 401(k), which would just completely destroy the usefulness of the rollover to Roth. That would make this whole thing worthless. However, I know from personal experience that this is not true. Your company can most definitely set up a separate After-Tax plan to receive all of these new contributions. Then there's no mingling of pre-tax and post-tax dollars, and you can do the rollover to Roth with the click of a button, no taxes or penalties owed. Now, this new plan still sits under the overall umbrella of your company's total retirement plan offerings. So the total amount of money that you can put into a Traditional 401(k), a Roth 401(k), and this new After-Tax 401(k) -- both your personal contributions and your company's match (if any) -- is still limited to $53k per year and still must satisfy all the non-discrimination rules for HCEs, etc. So it's not trivial to set up, and your company will almost certainly not be able to go all the way to $53k, but they could get a lot closer than they currently do.\",\n \"\\\"typically, your employer will automatically stop making contributions once you hit the 18k$ limit. it is worth noting that employer contributions (e.g. \\\"\\\"matching\\\"\\\") do not count towards the 18k$ employee pre-tax contribution limit. however, if you have 2 employers during the year their combined payroll deductions might exceed the limit if you do not inform your later employer of the contributions you made at your former employer (or they ignore the info). in which case, you must request a refund of \\\"\\\"excess contributions\\\"\\\" from one of the plans (your choice). you must report the refund as taxable income on your taxes. if you do not make this request by the time you file your taxes, the tax man will reject your filing and \\\"\\\"adjust\\\"\\\" your return with more taxes and penalties. sometimes requesting a refund of excess contributions might cause your employer to remove \\\"\\\"matching\\\"\\\" funds, but i am not clear on the rules behind that. there are some 401k plans that allow \\\"\\\"supplemental after-tax contributions\\\"\\\" up to the combined employee/employer limit (53k$ in 2015 and 2016). it is a rare feature, and if your company offers it, you probably already know. however, generally it is governed by a separate contribution election that only take effect once you hit the employee pre-tax contribution limit (18k$ in 2015 and 2016). you could ask your hr department to be sure. 401k plans can be changed if there is enough employee demand for a rule change. especially in a small company, simply asking for them to allow dollar based contributions instead of percent based contributions can cause them to change the plan to allow it. similarly, you could request they allow \\\"\\\"supplemental after-tax contributions\\\"\\\", but that might be a harder change to get.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Both are saying essentially the same thing. The Forbes articles says \\\"\\\"as much as 20% [...] up to a maximum of $50,000\\\"\\\". This means the same as what the IRS page when it says the lesser of a percentage of your income or a total of $53,000. In other words, the $53k is a cap: you can contribute a percentage of your earnings, but you can never contribute more than $53k, even if you make so much money that 20% of your earnings would be more than that. (The difference between 20% and 25% in the two sources appears to reflect a difference in contribution limits depending on whether you are making contributions for employees, or for yourself as a self-employed individual; see Publication 560. The difference between $50k and $53k is due to the two pages being written in different years; the limits increase each year.)\\\"\",\n \"Sending your money off to do the heavy lifting is a way of saying that compound returns can do the bulk of your retirement investing work. Check out the image below, I swiped this from a quick google search so I cannot claim graphic credit. But as you can see the earning potential of your money as you approach retirement is many times higher than your annual contributions. With the aim of having your money earn interest/returns to pay your annual living expenses, replacing your previous annual income. https://i.stack.imgur.com/fpZPN.jpg I tried to post the image but do not have enough rep.\",\n \"\\\"Your retirement PLAN is a lifelong plan and shouldn't be tied to your employer status. Max out your 401(k) contribution to the maximum that your employer matches (that's a 100% ROI!) and as much as you can afford. When you leave the work force rollover your 401(k) to an IRA account (e.g.: you can create an IRA account with any of the online brokerage firms Schwab, E-Trade, Sharebuilder, or go with a brick-and-mortar firm like JP Morgan, Stifel Nicolaus, etc.). You should have a plan: How much money do you need/month for your expenses? Accounting for inflation, how much is that going to be at retirement (whatever age you plan to retire)? How much money do you need to have so that 4.5% of that money will provide for your annual living expenses? That's your target retirement amount of savings. Now figure out how to get to that target. Rule #1 Invest early and invest often! The more money you can sock away early in your career the more time that money has to grow. If you aren't comfortable allocating your investments yourself then you could go with a Targeted Retirement Fund. These funds have a general \\\"\\\"date\\\"\\\" for retirement and the assets are allocated as appropriate for the amount of risk appropriate for the time to retirement.\\\"\",\n \"Most companies put the company match in your account each paycheck, but your are not generally vested for the match. If you leave before the specified time period then they pull back part of the matching funds. I knew somebody who did something similar back in the 1980's with their 401K. They put in 8% of their paycheck after taxes; a 100% match was deposited; then they pulled out the employees contribution every quarter. They did this for the 10 years I knew them. It avoided any tax implications, and they were still saving 8% of their pay for retirement.\",\n \"If you had a retirement plan at any time in 2013 you are considered covered by an plan. Are You Covered by an Employer's Retirement Plan? You’re covered by an employer retirement plan for a tax year if your employer (or your spouse’s employer) has a: Defined contribution plan (profit-sharing, 401(k), stock bonus and money purchase pension plan) and any contributions or forfeitures were allocated to your account for the plan year ending with or within the tax year; IRA-based plan (SEP, SARSEP or SIMPLE IRA plan) and you had an amount contributed to your IRA for the plan year that ends with or within the tax year; or Defined benefit plan (pension plan that pays a retirement benefit spelled out in the plan) and you are eligible to participate for the plan year ending with or within the tax year. Box 13 on the Form W-2 you receive from your employer should contain a check in the “Retirement plan” box if you are covered. If you are still not certain, check with your (or your spouse’s) employer. The limits on the amount you can deduct don’t affect the amount you can contribute. However, you can never deduct more than you actually contribute. Additional Resources: Publication 590, Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs)\",\n \"Your annual contributions are capped at the maximum of $5500 or your taxable income (wages, salary, tips, self employment income, alimony). You pay taxes by the regular calculations on Form 1040 on your earned income. In this scenario, you earn the income, pay taxes on the amount you earn, and put money in the Roth IRA. The alternative, a Traditional IRA, up to certain income levels, allows you to put the amount you contribute on line 32 of Form 1040, which subtracts the Traditional IRA contribution amount from your Adjusted Gross Income (line 37) before tax is calculated on line 44. In this scenario, you earn the income, put the money in the Traditional IRA, reduce your taxable income, and pay taxes on the reduced amount.\",\n \"So I learned that your employer CAN force you to make employee contributions. However, this source seems to think that the mandatory employee contributions do not count against the 402(g) limit of $18,000.\",\n \"These are treasury stocks allocated to the plan. If necessary, a company issues new shares (depending on a company it may require shareholders or only board approval).\",\n \"The tax deferred status of a 401k plan helps you in theory because your tax rate will be lower once you retire and start drawing the money. This theory could prove incorrect. Also the money you add to a 401k lowers your taxable income today so you end up paying less taxes to the government right now. Depending on where you are in the tax bracket scale that could have the affect of lowering your tax bracket which will save you money in other areas. Each person's situation is different by my general theory is to contribute towards retirement in the following order: Hope this helps.\",\n \"As you point out, the main benefits of a pension/retirement account over a traditional cash/taxable account are the legal and tax benefits. Most Western countries establish a specific legal definition for an account which is often taxed less or not at all relative to taxable accounts and which contains some protection for the owner in case of a bankruptcy. The typical drawbacks for investing within such structures are limited investment choice, limited withdrawal rights (either in terms of age or rate of withdrawal), and maximum contributions. The benefits are usually very clear, and your decision whether or not to open a pension/retirement account should depend on a careful weighing of the benefits and drawbacks. As to whether you may end up with less than you started, that depends on what you invest in. As with all of finance, you must take more risk to get more return. Although the choices inside a pension/retirement account may be worded somewhat differently, they are usually fundamentally no different than some of the most popular investments available for ordinary taxable accounts.\",\n \"\\\"Pretty simple actually. This is a state-run defined benefit plan, where the benefit is calculated based on the length of the employment and the contributed amounts. This is what in the US is known as the Social Security. This is a defined contribution plan, where the employee can chose the level of risk based on certain pre-defined investment guidelines (more conservative or more aggressive). In Poland, it appears that there's a certain amount of the state-mandated SS tax is transferred to these plans. Nothing in the US is like that, but you can see it as a mandatory IRA with a preset limited choice of mutual funds to invest into, as an analogy. The recent change was to reduce the portion of the madatory contribution that is diverted to this plan from 7+% to 2.3% (on account of expanding the contribution to (1)). Probably the recent crashes of the stock markets that affected these accounts lead to this decision. This is voluntary defined contribution plan, similar to the US 401Ks. This division is actually pretty common, not unique to Poland. I'd say its the \\\"\\\"standard\\\"\\\" pension scheme, as opposed to what we're used to in the US.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"There are two types of 401(k) contributions: \\\"\\\"elective contributions,\\\"\\\" which are the part put in by the employee and \\\"\\\"nonelective contributions,\\\"\\\" which are the part put in by the company. Elective contributions are summed across all the plans she is contributing to. So she can contribute $18,000 minus whatever she put in her 403(b). Additionally she can contribute 20% of the net profit of the company (before the elective contributions) as nonelective contributions (these contributions must be designated as such). You will notice that the IRS document says 25%, but that's what you can do if her business is incorporated. For a sole proprietorship, nonelective contributions ends up being limited at 20% of profit. Additionally, the sum of these two and her contribution to her 403(b) cannot exceed $53,000. Example: line 31 of her schedule C is $30,000 and she has contributed $10,000 to her 403(b). Maximum contribution to her solo 401(k) is ($18,000 - $10,000) + 0.2 * $30,000 = $14,000 Her total contributions for the year are $10,000 from her 403(b) plus $14,000 in her solo 401(k). This is less than $53,000 so this limit does not bind. If she made a ton of 1099 money, her contribution maximum would follow the above until it hit $53,000 and then it would stop there. The IRS describes this in detail in Publication 560, which also has a worksheet for figuring out your maximum explicitly. It's unpleasant reading and the worksheets are painful, but if you do it right, it will end up being as I just described it. Using the language of that publication, hers is a \\\"\\\"qualified plan\\\"\\\" of the \\\"\\\"defined contribution\\\"\\\" variety.\\\"\",\n \"Your total salary deferral cannot exceed $18K (as of 2016). You can split it between your different jobs as you want, to maximize the matching. You can contribute non-elective contribution on top of that, which means that your self-proprietorship will commit to paying you that portion regardless of your deferral. That would be on top of the $18K. You cannot contribute more than 20% of your earnings, though. So if you earn $2K, you can add $400 on top of the $18K limit (ignoring the SE tax for a second here). Keep in mind that if you ever have employees, the non-elective contribution will apply to them as well. Also, the total contribution limit from all sources (deferral, matching, non-elective) cannot exceed $53K (for 2016).\",\n \"Here's an Irish government publication that should give you some background information to get you started. In a nutshell, you get tax benefits, but cannot withdraw money without penalty until you reach retirement age.\",\n \"Deposits are contributions. You deposit say, $5000, and over time you have $6000. The $5000 can be withdrawn any time with no issue. It's tracked via form 8606. With this in mind, I wrote an article The Roth Emergency Fund, suggesting that since one can withdraw deposits with no issue, the Roth can be used to hold emergency money.\",\n \"\\\"Click on the ? icon next to \\\"\\\"Employer Plan\\\"\\\". This is used to determine if you can deduct your annual contributions from your taxes. For more information on how an employer plan can affect your IRA tax deduction, see the definition for non-deductible contributions. So, we look there: The total of your Traditional IRA contributions that were deposited without a tax deduction. Traditional IRA contributions are normally tax deductible. However, if you have an employer-sponsored retirement plan, such as a 401(k), your tax deduction may be limited. The $20K difference between $272K and $252K just happens to be $15% of $132,500 which is the amount of your non-deductible contributions.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"401k plans are required to not discriminate against the non-HCE participants, and one way they achieve this is by limiting the percentage of wages that HCEs can contribute to the plan to the average annual percentage contribution by the non-HCE participants or 3% whichever is higher. If most non-HCE employees contribute only 3% (usually to capture the employer match but no more), then the HCEs are stuck with 3%. However, be aware that in companies that award year-end bonuses to all employees, many non-HCEs contribute part of their bonuses to their 401k plans, and so the average annual percentage can rise above 3% at the end of year. Some payroll offices have been known to ask all those who have not already maxed out their 401k contribution for the year (yes, it is possible to do this even while contributing only 3% if you are not just a HCE but a VHCE) whether they want to contribute the usual 3%, or a higher percentage, or to contribute the maximum possible under the nondiscrimination rules. So, you might be able to contribute more than 3% if the non-HCEs put in more money at the end of the year. With regard to NQSPs, you pretty much have their properties pegged correctly. That money is considered to be deferred compensation and so you pay taxes on it only when you receive it upon leaving employment. The company also gets to deduct it as a business expense when the money is paid out, and as you said, it is not money that is segregated as a 401k plan is. On the other hand, you have earned the money already: it is just that the company is \\\"\\\"holding\\\"\\\" it for you. Is it paying you interest on the money (accumulating in the NQSP, not paid out in cash or taxable income to you)? Would it be better to just take the money right now, pay taxes on it, and invest it yourself? Some deferred compensation plans work as follows. The deferred compensation is given to you as a loan in the year it is earned, and you pay only interest on the principal each year. Since the money is a loan, there is no tax of any kind due on the money when you receive it. Now you can invest the proceeds of this loan and hopefully earn enough to cover the interest payments due. (The interest you pay is deductible on Schedule A as an Investment Interest Expense). When employment ceases, you repay the loan to the company as a lump sum or in five or ten annual installments, whatever was agreed to, while the company pays you your deferred compensation less taxes withheld. The net effect is that you pay the company the taxes due on the money, and the company sends this on to the various tax authorities as money withheld from wages paid. The advantage is that you do not need to worry about what happens to your money if the company fails; you have received it up front. Yes, you have to pay the loan principal to the company but the company also owes you exactly that much money as unpaid wages. In the best of all worlds, things will proceed smoothly, but if not, it is better to be in this Mexican standoff rather than standing in line in bankruptcy court and hoping to get pennies on the dollar for your work.\\\"\",\n \"One of the strengths of 401K accounts is that you can move from investment X in the program to investment Y in the program without tax consequences. As you move through your lifetime you will tend to want to lower risk by investing in funds that are less aggressive. The only way this works is if there is an ability to move funds. If there were only one or two funds to pick from or that you were locked in to your initial choices that would be a very poor 401K to be enrolled in. On your benefits/401K website you should be able to adjust three sets of numbers: Some have you enter the current money as a percentage others allow you to enter it in dollars. They might limit the number of changes you can do in a month to the current money balances to avoid the temptation to try and time the market. These changes usually happen within 1 business day. Regarding new and match money they could limit the lowest non zero percent to 5% or 10%, but they might allow numbers as low as 1%. These changes take place generally with the next paycheck.\",\n \"You can only contribute up to 5% of your salary? Odd. Usually 401(k) contributions are limited to some dollar amount in the vicinity of $15,000 or so a year. Normal retirement guidelines suggest that putting away 10-15% of your salary is enough that you probably won't need to worry much when you retire. 5% isn't likely to be enough, employer match or no. I'd try to contribute 10-15% of my salary. I think you're reading the rules wrong. I'm almost certain. It's definitely worth checking. If you're not, you should seriously consider supplementing this saving with a Roth IRA or just an after-tax account. So. If you're with Fidelity and don't know what to do, look for a target date fund with a date near your retirement (e.g. Target Retirement 2040) and put 100% in there until you have a better idea of what going on. All Fidelity funds have pretty miserable expense ratios, even their token S&P500 index fund from another provider, so you might as let them do some leg work and pick your asset allocation for you. Alternatively, look for the Fidelity retirement planner tools on their website to suggest an asset allocation. As a (very rough) rule of thumb, as you're saving for retirement you'll want to have N% of your portfolio in bonds and the rest in stocks, where N is your age in years. Your stocks should probably be split about 70% US and 30% rest-of-world, give or take, and your US stocks should be split about 64% large-cap, 28% mid-cap and 8% small-cap (that's basically how the US stock market is split).\",\n \"Back in the late 80's I had a co-worked do exactly this. In those days you could only do things quarterly: change the percentage, change the investment mix, make a withdrawal.. There were no Roth 401K accounts, but contributions could be pre-tax or post-tax. Long term employees were matched 100% up to 8%, newer employees were only matched 50% up to 8% (resulting in 4% match). Every quarter this employee put in 8%, and then pulled out the previous quarters contribution. The company match continued to grow. Was it smart? He still ended up with 8% going into the 401K. In those pre-Enron days the law allowed companies to limit the company match to 100% company stock which meant that employees retirement was at risk. Of course by the early 2000's the stock that was purchased for $6 a share was worth $80 a share... Now what about the IRS: Since I make designated Roth contributions from after-tax income, can I make tax-free withdrawals from my designated Roth account at any time? No, the same restrictions on withdrawals that apply to pre-tax elective contributions also apply to designated Roth contributions. If your plan permits distributions from accounts because of hardship, you may choose to receive a hardship distribution from your designated Roth account. The hardship distribution will consist of a pro-rata share of earnings and basis and the earnings portion will be included in gross income unless you have had the designated Roth account for 5 years and are either disabled or over age 59 ½. Regarding getting just contributions: What happens if I take a distribution from my designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period? If you take a distribution from your designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period, it is a nonqualified distribution. You must include the earnings portion of the nonqualified distribution in gross income. However, the basis (or contributions) portion of the nonqualified distribution is not included in gross income. The basis portion of the distribution is determined by multiplying the amount of the nonqualified distribution by the ratio of designated Roth contributions to the total designated Roth account balance. For example, if a nonqualified distribution of $5,000 is made from your designated Roth account when the account consists of $9,400 of designated Roth contributions and $600 of earnings, the distribution consists of $4,700 of designated Roth contributions (that are not includible in your gross income) and $300 of earnings (that are includible in your gross income). See Q&As regarding Rollovers of Designated Roth Contributions, for additional rules for rolling over both qualified and nonqualified distributions from designated Roth accounts.\",\n \"Employer match doesn't incur FICA tax (social security, medicare) for you at all - either current year or when you withdraw. All you have to pay is income tax when you withdraw after retirement age. (Disclaimer - I'm not tax professional but has done my research)\",\n \"The deadline for contributing to a 401K is the last paycheck paid in December. That may not be the last pay period that ends in December. For example if the last pay period ends on Friday the 30th and you get paid on Thursday January 5th, that check is the first in the new year. The US government has rules regarding how quickly the money needs to be sent to the 401K trustee. It is possible that the money may get there after the first of the year, but the important date for you is the date of the last paycheck in December. The company form to set the contribution rate (it could also be on a website) will have a deadline to determine if the rate makes the next check or the one after that. The form will also have a maximum amount as a percentage of the check. Some could allow up to 100% but yours might not. So how much you can put in with the last paycheck or two is up to company policy and your pay rate. The company forms or website will describe how the company match works. If you were try and put as much as possible into a few checks, it is possible to hit the $18,000 yearly limit in just a small part of the year. In some companies that would mean that you could miss out on company match money, because that would never be more than x% of each check. For example if you were to put $3,000 per check with a base pay of $5,000 every two weeks and if the maximum company match was 5%. After 6 checks you would be done: you would have put in $18,000 and the company would have put in $250 x 6 or $1,500. If you were to spread the money over all 26 checks you would still put in $18,000 but the company would have put in $6,500.\",\n \"\\\"If you are the sole owner (or just you and your spouse) and expect to be that way for a few years, consider the benefits of an individual 401(k). The contribution limits are higher than an IRA, and there are usually no fees involved. You can google \\\"\\\"Individual 401k\\\"\\\" and any of the major investment firms (Fidelity, Schwab, etc) will set one up free of charge. This option gives you a lot of freedom to decide how much money to put away without any plan management fees. The IRS site has all the details in an article titled One-Participant 401(k) Plans. Once you have employees, if you want to set up a retirement plan for them, you'll need to switch to a traditional, employer-sponsored 401k, which will involve some fees on your part. I seem to recall $2k/yr in fees when I had a sponsored 401(k) for my company, and I'm sure this varies widely. If you have employees and don't feel a need to have a company-wide retirement plan, you can set up your own personal IRA and simply not offer a company plan to your employees. The IRA contribution limits are lower than an individual 401(k), but setting it up is easy and fee-free. So basically, if you want to spend $0 on plan management fees, get an individual 401(k) if you are self-employed, or an IRA for yourself if you have employees.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Highly Compensated Employee Rules Aim to Make 401k's Fair would be the piece that I suspect you are missing here. I remember hearing of this rule when I worked in the US and can understand why it exists. A key quote from the article: You wouldn't think the prospect of getting money from an employer would be nerve-wracking. But those jittery co-workers are highly compensated employees (HCEs) concerned that they will receive a refund of excess 401k contributions because their plan failed its discrimination test. A refund means they will owe more income tax for the current tax year. Geersk (a pseudonym), who is also an HCE, is in information services and manages the computers that process his firm's 401k plan. 401(k) - Wikipedia reference on this: To help ensure that companies extend their 401(k) plans to low-paid employees, an IRS rule limits the maximum deferral by the company's \\\"\\\"highly compensated\\\"\\\" employees, based on the average deferral by the company's non-highly compensated employees. If the less compensated employees are allowed to save more for retirement, then the executives are allowed to save more for retirement. This provision is enforced via \\\"\\\"non-discrimination testing\\\"\\\". Non-discrimination testing takes the deferral rates of \\\"\\\"highly compensated employees\\\"\\\" (HCEs) and compares them to non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs). An HCE in 2008 is defined as an employee with compensation of greater than $100,000 in 2007 or an employee that owned more than 5% of the business at any time during the year or the preceding year.[13] In addition to the $100,000 limit for determining HCEs, employers can elect to limit the top-paid group of employees to the top 20% of employees ranked by compensation.[13] That is for plans whose first day of the plan year is in calendar year 2007, we look to each employee's prior year gross compensation (also known as 'Medicare wages') and those who earned more than $100,000 are HCEs. Most testing done now in 2009 will be for the 2008 plan year and compare employees' 2007 plan year gross compensation to the $100,000 threshold for 2007 to determine who is HCE and who is a NHCE. The threshold was $110,000 in 2010 and it did not change for 2011. The average deferral percentage (ADP) of all HCEs, as a group, can be no more than 2 percentage points greater (or 125% of, whichever is more) than the NHCEs, as a group. This is known as the ADP test. When a plan fails the ADP test, it essentially has two options to come into compliance. It can have a return of excess done to the HCEs to bring their ADP to a lower, passing, level. Or it can process a \\\"\\\"qualified non-elective contribution\\\"\\\" (QNEC) to some or all of the NHCEs to raise their ADP to a passing level. The return of excess requires the plan to send a taxable distribution to the HCEs (or reclassify regular contributions as catch-up contributions subject to the annual catch-up limit for those HCEs over 50) by March 15 of the year following the failed test. A QNEC must be an immediately vested contribution. The annual contribution percentage (ACP) test is similarly performed but also includes employer matching and employee after-tax contributions. ACPs do not use the simple 2% threshold, and include other provisions which can allow the plan to \\\"\\\"shift\\\"\\\" excess passing rates from the ADP over to the ACP. A failed ACP test is likewise addressed through return of excess, or a QNEC or qualified match (QMAC). There are a number of \\\"\\\"safe harbor\\\"\\\" provisions that can allow a company to be exempted from the ADP test. This includes making a \\\"\\\"safe harbor\\\"\\\" employer contribution to employees' accounts. Safe harbor contributions can take the form of a match (generally totaling 4% of pay) or a non-elective profit sharing (totaling 3% of pay). Safe harbor 401(k) contributions must be 100% vested at all times with immediate eligibility for employees. There are other administrative requirements within the safe harbor, such as requiring the employer to notify all eligible employees of the opportunity to participate in the plan, and restricting the employer from suspending participants for any reason other than due to a hardship withdrawal.\\\"\",\n \"Does your employer provide a matching contribution to your 401k? If so, contribute enough to the 401k that you can fully take advantage of the 401k match (e.g. if you employer matches 3% of your income, contribute 3% of your income). It's free money, take advantage of it. Next up, max out your Roth IRA. The limit is $5000 currently a year. After maxing your Roth, revisit your 401k. You can contribute up to 16,500 per year. You savings account is a good place to keep a rainy day fund (do you have one?), but it lacks the tax advantages of a Roth IRA or 401k, so it is not really suitable for retirement savings (unless you have maxed out both your 401k and Roth IRA). Once you have take care of getting money into your 401k and Roth IRA accounts, the next step is investing it. The specific investment options available to you will vary depending on who provides your retirement account(s), so these are general guidelines. Generally, you want to invest in higher-risk, higher-return investments when you are young. This includes things like stocks and developing countries. As you get older (>30), you should look at moving some of your investments into things that less volatile. Bond funds are the usual choice. They tend to be safer than stocks (assuming you don't invest in Junk bonds), but your investment grows at a slower rate. Now this doesn't mean you immediately dump all of your stock and buy bonds. Rather, it is a gradual transition over time. As you get older and older, you gradually shift your investments to bond funds. A general rule of thumb I have seen: 100 - (YOUR AGE) = Percentage of your portfolio that should be in stocks Someone that is 30 would have 70% of their portfolio in stock, someone that is 40 would have 60% in stock, etc. As you get closer to retirement (50s-60s), you will want to start looking at investments that are more conservatie than bonds. Start to look at fixed-income and money market funds.\",\n \"You can contribute to both but the total contribution is capped: More than one plan. If you contribute to a defined contribution plan (defined in chapter 4), annual additions to an account are limited to the lesser of $53,000 or 100% of the participant's compensation. When you figure this limit, you must add your contributions to all defined contribution plans maintained by you. Because a SEP is considered a defined contribution plan for this limit, your contributions to a SEP must be added to your contributions to other defined contribution plans you maintain. Source: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p560.pdf on page 6.\",\n \"\\\"Close... Warning, I may be off a bit here; I'm sure someone will correct me if so. Traditional 401k or IRA: money goes in pre-tax (so, yes, you avoid paying tax on it now), grows untaxed, taxes are due when you retire and start taking money back out of the account -- but your income, including these withdrawals, is likely to be lower than your peak earning years so your tax rate will be lower. You don't avoid all the tax, but you delay it and hopefully reduce it, and by doing so there's more money in your account earning returns. Roth 401k or IRA: money goes in after taxes (you do pay income tax now). However, all returns on the money are untaxed (I believe), and you pay no tax when you're eligible to withdraw the funds. Either or both kinds of 401k may be eligible for some percentage of matching funds from your employer (there are some incentives for them to offer this benefit). I believe that even if you're doing a Roth 401k, the matching funds legally have to go in as traditional plan. And yes, as that implies, it is possible to split your contribution between the two styles. Note: the matching funds are \\\"\\\"free money.\\\"\\\" If your plan offers a match, it is highly recommended that you contribute enough to your 401k to capture the maximum match.\\\"\",\n \"If your employer does not offer contribution matching, and you don't like the range of investment options provided by the company 401k, then you probably are better off investing in your own IRA instead. In an IRA held at a bank or brokerage, you can invest in multiple stocks or funds and move money around within the IRA pretty freely in most cases. If your company is doing well and is actually sharing profit into the 401k, you might consider leaving your 5% contribution to the 401k where it is and put the other 5% you are planning to contribute into a new IRA of your own. This straddles the risk of you losing money if your company 401k tanks (or profit sharing dries up) and your missing out on profit sharing if it continues to pay well.\",\n \"\\\"The \\\"\\\"Deferral\\\"\\\" for the 401k means that you're not collecting your pay immediately, but instead diverting it to a retirement account (Roth 401k in this case). This article defines deferral well: What is the difference between a regular 401(k) deferral (pre-tax) and a Roth 401(k) deferral? Under either a regular 401(k) deferral or a Roth 401(k) deferral, you make a deferral contribution by electing to set aside part of your pay (by either a certain percentage or a certain dollar amount). For a regular 401(k) deferral, the taxable wages on your W-2 are reduced by the deferral contribution; therefore, you pay less current income tax. However, you will eventually pay tax on these contributions and earnings when the plan distributes the regular 401(k) deferrals and earnings to you. The result is that the tax on the regular 401(k) deferrals and earnings is only postponed. A Roth 401(k) deferral is an after-tax contribution, which means you must pay current income tax on the deferral. Since you have already paid tax on the deferral, you won’t pay tax on it again when you receive a distribution of your Roth 401(k) deferral. In addition, if you satisfy cer tain distribution conditions, then you won’t have to pay tax on the earnings either. This means that the distribution of the Roth 401(k) earnings can be tax free not just tax postponed. Traditionally, this deferred compensation typically was directed to a 401k, but now that Roth 401k is another available option, deferred compensation can be directed there as well.\\\"\",\n \"Your employer's matching contribution is calculated based on the dollar amounts you end up putting in. The nature of your 401(k) contribution—whether pre-tax or Roth after-tax—doesn't matter with respect to how their match gets calculated, and their match always goes into a pre-tax account, even if you are contributing after-tax. The onus is on you to choose a contribution amount that maximizes your employer match regardless of the nature of your contribution. Maximizing your employer match using Roth after-tax contributions will eat up more of your annual gross salary, but as long as you are willing to do that then you won't leave free employer match money on the table. Roth after-tax contributions don't get the tax deduction inherent in a pre-tax contribution. The tradeoff is that you end up with less take-home pay per period if you contribute the same number of dollars on a Roth after-tax basis to your 401(k) as opposed to on a pre-tax basis. For instance, to make a maximum $18,000 Roth after-tax contribution to a 401(k), it's going to cost you a lot more than $18,000 of your annual gross salary to net the same $18,000 number. (On the flip side, the Roth money is worth more in retirement than pre-tax money, because it won't be subject to taxes then.) However, 401(k) plan contribution amounts are almost always expressed as a percentage of gross salary, i.e. in pre-tax terms, even when electing to make after-tax contributions! So when electing after-tax, one is implicitly accepting that the contribution will cost more than the percentage of gross salary, because you'll need to pay the tax on a gross amount that would yield the same number of dollars but as an after-tax amount.\",\n \"You are already doing everything you can. If your employer does not have a 401(k) you are limited to investing in a Roth or a traditional IRA (Roth is post tax money, traditional IRA gives you a deduction so it is essentially pre tax money). The contribution limits are the same for both and contributing to either adds to the limit (so you can't duplicate). CNN wrote an article on some other ways to save: One thing you may want to bring up with your employer is that they could set up a SEP-IRA. This allows them to set a % (up to 25%) that they contribute pre-tax to an IRA for everyone at the company that has worked there at least 3 years. If you are at a small company, maybe everyone with that kind of seniority would take an equivalent pay cut to get the automatic retirement contribution? (Note that a SEP-IRA has to apply to everyone equally percentage wise that has worked there for 3 years, and the employer makes the contribution, not you).\",\n \"If you are working for a small company, the expense ratios on the funds in the 401k account are likely much higher than you can get with a similar IRA. Depending on your income, whether you are married and want to contribute to a spouse's IRA, your limit on what can be contributed to an IRA may vary, but the compelling reason to contribute to a 401k is that the contribution limit is higher ($17,500 vs $5,500 for people on the lower end of the income scale) so you may need to contribute to a 401k to meet your retirement savings goals.\",\n \"Maximum FSA contribution amounts are set by the IRS. For tax year 2015 you are allowed to place no more than $2,550 (and same maximum for 2016) in an FSA account, tax-free. Your employer's plan year is not relevant to the IRS for this purpose. It's important to note that one interesting benefit to FSA accounts is the full amount of your annual contribution is available to you on the first day of the plan year; it is not a money-in money-out plan.\",\n \"Those aren't distributions, they're contributions. Distribution is when the money comes out of the retirement accounts. Here is the best source (the IRS) for information about tax advantaged retirement plans.\",\n \"You can't be doing it yourself. Only your employer can do it. If the employer doesn't provide the option - switch employers. The only way for you to do it yourself is if you're the employer, i.e.: self-employed.\",\n \"\\\"It seems I can make contributions as employee-elective, employer match, or profit sharing; yet they all end up in the same 401k from my money since I'm both the employer and employee in this situation. Correct. What does this mean for my allowed limits for each of the 3 types of contributions? Are all 3 types deductible? \\\"\\\"Deductible\\\"\\\"? Nothing is deductible. First you need to calculate your \\\"\\\"compensation\\\"\\\". According to the IRS, it is this: compensation is your “earned income,” which is defined as net earnings from self-employment after deducting both: So assuming (numbers for example, not real numbers) your business netted $30, and $500 is the SE tax (half). You contributed $17.5 (max) for yourself. Your compensation is thus 30-17.5-0.5=12. Your business can contribute up to 25% of that on your behalf, i.e.: $4K. Total that you can contribute in such a scenario is $21.5K. Whatever is contributed to a regular 401k is deferred, i.e.: excluded from income for the current year and taxed when you withdraw it from 401k (not \\\"\\\"deducted\\\"\\\" - deferred).\\\"\",\n \"Be sure to consider the difference between Roth 401K and standard 401K. The Roth 401K is taxed as income then put into your account. So the money you put into the Roth 401K is taxed as income for the current year, however, any interest you accumulate over the years is not taxed when you withdraw the money. So to break it down: You may also want to look into Self Directed 401K, which can be either standard or Roth. Check if your employer supports this type of account. But if you're self employed or 1099 it may be a good option.\",\n \"Congratulations on your raise! Is my employer allowed to impose their own limit on my contributions that's different from the IRS limit? No. Is it something they can limit at will, or are they required to allow me to contribute up to the IRS limit? The employer cannot limit you, you can contribute up to the IRS limit. Your mistake is in thinking that the IRS limit is 17K for everyone. That is not so. You're affected by the HCE rules (Highly Compensated Employees). These rules define certain employees as HCE (if their salary is significantly higher than that of the rest of the employees), and limit the ability of the HCE's to deposit money into 401k, based on the deposits made by the rest of the employees. Basically it means that while the overall maximum is indeed 17K, your personal (and other HCE's in your company) is lowered down because those who are not HCE's in the company don't deposit to 401k enough. You can read more details and technical explanation about the HCE rules in this article and in this blog post.\",\n \"US corporations are allowed to automatically enter employees into a 401K plan. A basic automatic enrollment 401(k) plan must state that employees will be automatically enrolled in the plan unless they elect otherwise and must specify the percentage of an employee's wages that will be automatically deducted from each paycheck for contribution to the plan. The document must also explain that employees have the right to elect not to have salary deferrals withheld or to elect a different percentage to be withheld. An eligible automatic contribution arrangement (EACA) is similar to the basic automatic enrollment plan but has specific notice requirements. An EACA can allow automatically enrolled participants to withdraw their contributions within 30 to 90 days of the first contribution. A qualified automatic contribution arrangement (QACA) is a type of automatic enrollment 401(k) plan that automatically passes certain kinds of annual required testing. The plan must include certain features, such as a fixed schedule of automatic employee contributions, employer contributions, a special vesting schedule, and specific notice requirements. You generally have a period of time to stop the first deposit. One I saw recently gave new employees to the first paycheck after the 60 day mark to refuse to join. You also may be able to get back the first deposit if you really don't want to join. If you don't want to participate look on the corporate website or the Fidelity website to set your future contributions to 0% of your paycheck. Keep in mind several things: Personally I'm against any type of government sponsored investments or savings. I can save money on my own and I don't care about their benefits. Some companies provide an annual contribution to all employees regardless of participation in the 401K. They do need to establish an account to do that. Again that is free money Does it mean if I never contribute any money so I will have 0 I might go below 0 and owe them money in case they bankrupt or do bad investments? Even in total market collapse the value of the 401K could never go below zero, unless the 401K was setup to allow very exotic investments.\",\n \"A matching pension scheme is like free money. No wait, it actually IS free money. You are literally earning 100% interest rate on that money the instant you pay it in to the account. That money would have to sit in your credit card account for at least five years to earn that kind of return; five years in which the pension money would have earned an additional return over and above the 100%. Mathematically there is no contest that contributing to a matching pension scheme is one of the best investment there is. You should always do it. Well, almost always. When should you not do it?\",\n \"You're contributing 98.2% of your contributed amount (deducting 1.8%) each month and at the end of the year, deducting a flat 15 pounds. The easiest way to do this is to use a spreadsheet. But you're missing some key information. What is your expected growth rate and what is your expected inflation rate? Is this a taxable account where you deduct (for example, 35%) of the growth annually for taxes or is this a non-taxable account?\",\n \"There are two steps. First you take the age at retirement and annual benefit. Say it's $10,000/yr. You can easily look up the present value of a $10k/yr annuity starting at age X. (I used age 62, male, at Immediate Annuity. It calculates to be $147K. You then need to look at your current age and with a finance calculator calculate the annual deposits required to get to $147K by that age. What I can't tell you is what value to use as a cost of money until retiring. 4%? 6%? That's the larger unknown.\",\n \"You asked some direct questions, here are some direct answers: 10% of your salary is a popular rule of thumb. An IRA account is something to consider, you can open one with any of the major discount brokers and select an S&P 500 index fund for your investment. You can let it sit. That's the beauty of an index fund, it simply matches the market and you don't have to worry about trying to beat the market because you ARE the market! The average annual return for the S&P 500 Index has been around 10% (since inception). That's no guarantee, and some years are more or less and up or down. Over the long run, it goes up.\",\n \"\\\"The company itself doesn't benefit. In most cases, it's an expense as the match that many offer is going to cost the company some percent of salary. As Mike said, it's part of the benefit package. Vacation, medical, dental, cafeteria plans (i.e. both flexible spending and dependent care accounts, not food), stock options, employee stock purchase plans, defined contribution or defined benefit pension, and the 401(k) or 403(b) for teachers. Each and all of these are what one should look at when looking at \\\"\\\"total compensation\\\"\\\". You allude to the lack of choices in the 401(k) compared to other accounts. Noted. And that lack of choice should be part of your decision process as to how you choose to invest for retirement. If the fess/selection is bad enough, you need to be vocal about it and request a change. Bad choices + no match, and maybe the account should be avoided, else just deposit to the match. Note - Keith thanks for catching and fixing one typo, I just caught another.\\\"\",\n \"Ask the folks administering your plan. They're the ones who define and implement the available choices for that specific plan.\",\n \"One small note: If you have an employer sponsored account and get let go you might have an issue. You would lose any funds in the account as of the day of your unemployment if you don't have enough expenses to use it all up! So if you put in a lot every month because you have a large planned expense like root canal or operation then you could lose it all. This happened to me.\",\n \"On my quarterly statement and the 401K plan website I can see the vesting for various categories. They total all these up and report the total balance and the vested balance. If I do the math I discover that the vested balance is equal to A + B + D + (60% of C) For my company at least, if I was to leave now I would get 60% of the Company match, which does include significant gains. This document for the Department of Labor discuss many aspects of 401K plans including vesting. In a defined contribution plan such as a 401(k) plan, you are always 100 percent vested in your own contributions to a plan, and in any subsequent earnings from your contributions. However, in most defined contribution plans you may have to work several years before you are vested in the employer’s matching contributions. (There are exceptions, such as the SIMPLE 401(k) and safe harbor 401(k), in which you are immediately vested in all required employer contributions. You also vest immediately in the SIMPLE IRA and the SEP.) Currently, employers have a choice of two different vesting schedules for employer matching 401(k) contributions, which are shown in Table 2. Your employer may use a schedule in which employees are 100 percent vested in employer contributions after 3 years of service (cliff vesting). Under graduated vesting, an employee must be at least 20 percent vested after 2 years, 40 percent after 3 years, 60 percent after 4 years, 80 percent after 5 years, and 100 percent after 6 years. If your automatic enrollment 401(k) plan requires employer contributions, you vest in those contributions after 2 years. Automatic enrollment 401(k) plans with optional matching contributions follow one of the vesting schedules noted above.\",\n \"You are close to understanding, but it looks like you are slightly off: regular 401K - The amount you contribute is taken out of your taxable income for tax purposes in the tax year you earn it. However, when you take it out at retirement that withdrawal counts as income for tax purposes. (You pay the tax on the money later) Roth 401K - The amount you contribute is not taken out of your taxable income for tax purposes in the tax year you earn it. However, when you take it out at retirement that withdrawal will not as income for tax purposes. (You pay the tax on the money now.) Additional benefit: You don't pay tax ever on the gains.\",\n \"A good general rule is to save 15% of your income for retirement. As for where you put it: Put as much as it takes to maximize your employer match into your 401(k), but no more. The employer match is free money, and you can't beat free money If you still haven't put in 15%, put the rest into a Roth IRA. By historical standards, taxes are pretty low today. They are almost certainly going to be higher in retirement, especially since you likely won't have the deductions in retirement that you may have now (kids, mortgage, etc). If you've maxed our the allowed contribution for your Roth and still haven't saved 15%, put the rest in a traditional IRA.\",\n \"In the US, the key to understanding the benefits of retirement accounts is to understand capital gains taxes and how they work. Retirement accounts are designed for making investments throughout your career, then after several decades of contributions, withdrawing that money to pay for your needs when your full-time employment has concluded. Normally when you invest money in a brokerage account, if the value of your investment increases, and you sell in less than a year, those investments are considered short-term gains and taxed as ordinary income. If you hold that same investment for over a year, the same investment is taxed at a lower capital gains rate (depending on which tax bracket you are in during that year, the amount due could be up to 20%, but much lower than your regular income tax rate). When you place your money in a retirement account, you are choosing to either pay the tax due on the income when you put it in the account, or put the money in tax free and pay the tax when you withdraw (these are called tax-deferred accounts). When you have money invested several decades, the raw dollar amount increases greatly, but inflation is also reducing the value of those dollars. Imagine you bought some bonds that payed 4% over 40 years, but inflation was 2% during those same years. When you sell those bonds 40 years later, you will owe capital gains on the entire gain even though half of the gain came from inflation. Retirement accounts allow you to buy and sell according to your investment needs and goals without any consideration about whether the gains are short-term or long-term, and they also allow you to pay taxes just once, either when you put it in, or when you take it out, with no worries about whether you're paying taxes on inflated gains.\",\n \"If you are earning a salary, go for Roth IRA. You can contribute $5500 (2013 limits) every year . Once you open a account , let say Fidelity or Vanguard, you should invest based on risk appetite into some funds. the advantage is that your money grows tax free and when you are 25- 30 years old and need money for down payment of house, you can pull the money out with out any penalty. The gains you have made will continue to be in that account till the time your retire, growing every year.\",\n \"If your employer offers a 401(k) match, definitely take advantage of it. It's free money, so take advantage of it!\",\n \"401K accounts, both regular and Roth, generally have loans available. There are maximum amounts that are based on federal limits, and your balance in the program. These rules also determine the amount of time you have to repay the loan, and what happens if you quit or are fired while the loan is outstanding. In these loan programs the loan comes from your 401K funds. Regarding matching funds. This plan is not atypical. Some match right away, some make you wait. Some put in X percent regardless of what you contribute. Some make you opt out, others make you opt in. Some will direct their automatic amounts to a specific fund, unless you tell them otherwise. The big plus for the fund you describe is the immediate vesting. Some companies will match your investments but then only partially vest the funds. They don't want to put a bunch of matching funds into your account, and then have you leave. So they say that if you leave before 5 years is up, they will not let you keep all the funds. If you leave after 2 years you keep 25%, if you leave after 3 years you keep 50%... The fact they immediately vest is a very generous plan.\",\n \"JoeTapayer has good advice here. I would like to add my notes. If they give a 50% match that means you are getting a 50% return on investment(ROI) immediately. I do not know of a way to get a better guaranteed ROI. Next, when investing you need to determine what kind of investor you are. I would suggest you make yourself more literate in investments, as I suggest to anyone, but there are basic things you want to look for. If your primary worry is loss of your prinicipal, go for Conservative investments. This means that you are willing to accept a reduced expected ROI in exchange for lower volatility(risk of loss of principal). This does not mean you have a 100% safe investment as the last market issues have shown, but in general you are better protected. The fidelity investments should give you some information as to volatility or if they deem the investments conservative. Conservative investments are normally made up of trading bonds, which have the lowest ROI in general but are the most secure. You can also invest in blue chip companies, although stock is inherently riskier. It is pointed out in comments that stocks always outperform bonds in the long term, and this has been true over the last 100 years. I am just suggesting ways you can protect yourself against market downturns. When the market is doing very well bonds will not give you the return your friends are seeing. I am just trying to give you a basic idea of what to look for when you pick your investments, nothing can replace a solid investment adviser and taking the time to educate yourself.\",\n \"My two-cents, read your plan document or Summary Plan Description. The availability of in-service withdrawals will vary by document. Moreover, many plans, especially those compliant with 404(c) of ERISA will allow for individual brokerage accounts. This is common for smaller plans. If so, you can request to direct your own investments in your own account. You will likely have to pay any associated fees. Resources: work as actuary at a TPA firm\",\n \"\\\"Why? Simply: because it has been mandated as law, and so you may have no choice in the matter whether to contribute or not. Quoting from GOV.UK – Workplace pensions: ‘Automatic enrolment’ A new law means that every employer must automatically enrol workers into a workplace pension scheme if they: Next: even if you think you will work \\\"\\\"until you die\\\"\\\", you can still access the money saved in the pension scheme when you attain the required minimum age for withdrawals under your scheme. For instance, that may be age 55, but it may also vary by scheme. Becoming fully retired — as in stopping all work — is not a requirement to access retirement income from your pension scheme. In the eyes of a pension scheme, retirement is typically when you elect to take your income benefits according to the established rules of the scheme. Quoting from nidirect – Working past State Pension age: Continuing in work and your workplace pension If you reached the age at which you can start claiming your workplace pension scheme, you don't need to stop work in order to claim. You have a number of options, including taking some of the pension you've built up while continuing to work for the same employer. As to why things are set up this way: While some younger folk may, today, expect to continue working until death, for a variety of reasons that isn't always possible. Two typical such reasons are: disability, and involuntary unemployment (i.e. willing and able but still can't land the next job). Moreover, plans change. Young workers with health and vitality may expect they'll always feel invincible, but end up learning otherwise over time, and may come to appreciate the savings that were forced upon them. The \\\"\\\"forced savings\\\"\\\" aspect of state and state-sponsored pension schemes are meant to provide some safety net for those later years when it is a strong possibility that one can't continue to work. The alternative is to be a 100% burden on family and/or society.\\\"\",\n \"An experienced individual wouldn't ask such questions. I don't say this to take a jab at you, but to provide context. The matter is much more complicated than a simple answer to your question could accomplish. The short answer is no, not necessarily; but it depends on the details. Generally, if the employer matches, it's suggested that you take advantage of the match. It's free money. That said, it comes with some strings attached, like a vesting schedule. It's not yours right away, necessarily. Choices are limited in a 401k, but we should still come out ahead with that free money. The investment choices available in a 401k are also a part of the details. If they meet your needs you should certainly consider the 401k even if the employer doesn't match. There is also the matter of one's particular tax situation, which is certainly an involved matter. A 401k can certainly be a part of judicious tax planning. It's a matter of working out the details. Continuing this theme of details and coming back to the employer match: if the employer doesn't mach, I would make sure that I'm maxing out an IRA before considering the 401k. If the employer matched, I would probably contribute to take advantage of that match. However, it quickly becomes complicated here. I'm accustomed to employer matching up to some percentage of pay, which typically works out to be less then the anual contribution limits for a 401k. So, I my plan for such a situation is to contribute up to the employer match in the 401k, then max out an IRA, and then return to the 401k to finish contributing up to its yearly maximum. There is plenty for you to consider in order to come up with a plan of action. While it's certainly complicated, it's accessible to most people. You don't have to be a genius. In fact, eggheads are regularly trounced by the markets.\",\n \"James, money saved over the long term will typically beat inflation. There are many articles that discuss the advantage of starting young, and offer: A 21 year old who puts away $1000/yr for 10 years and stops depositing will be ahead of the 31 yr old who starts the $1000/yr deposit and continues through retirement. If any of us can get a message to our younger selves (time travel, anyone?) we would deliver two messages: Start out by living beneath your means, never take on credit card debt, and save at least 10%/yr as soon as you start working. I'd add, put half your raises to savings until your rate is 15%. I can't comment on the pension companies. Here in the US, our accounts are somewhat guaranteed, not for value, but against theft. We invest in stocks and bonds, our funds are not mingled with the assets of the investment plan company.\",\n \"Some companies allow you to make a post-tax contribution to the 401K. This is not a Roth contribution. This can be money beyond the 18,000 or 24,000 401k limit. The best news is that eventually that money can be rolled into 1 Roth-IRA. Not all companies allow this option. One company I worked for did this automatically when you hit the annual max. Of course that was made more complex if you had multiple employers that year.\",\n \"Interesting. The answer can be as convoluted/complex as one wishes to make it, or back-of-envelope. My claim is that if one starts at 21, and deposits 10% of their income each year, they will likely hit a good retirement nest egg. At an 8% return each year (Keep in mind, the last 40 years produced 10%, even with the lost decade) the 10% saver has just over 15X their final income as a retirement account. At 4% withdrawal, this replaces 60% of their income, with social security the rest, to get to nearly 100% or so replacement. Note - I wrote an article about Social Security Benefits, showing the benefit as a percent of final income. At $50K it's 42%, it's a higher replacement rate for lower income, but the replacement rate drops as income rises. So, the $5000 question. For an individual earning $50K or less, this amount is enough to fund their retirement. For those earning more, it will be one of the components, but not the full savings needed. (By the way, a single person has a standard deduction and exemption totaling $10150 in 2014. I refer to this as the 'zero bracket.' The next $8800 is taxed at 10%. Why go 100% Roth and miss the opportunity to fund these low or no tax withdrawals?)\",\n \"\\\"Re: Specifically, am I right in that everything I put on these is deducted from tax, or are there other rules? and Am I correctly understanding this as \\\"\\\"anything above £3,600 per year will not be deducted from your tax\\\"\\\"? Neither interpretation seems quite right… Unless what you mean is this: The contributions (to a pension, or to the share-save scheme) are deducted from your pay before it is taxed. That's how it works for employer-run pension schemes. In other words, you are paying the gross amount you earn into the pension, not the amount after tax. It's a tax-efficient way to save, because: compared to other forms of saving: (The bit about the £3,600: you can ignore this assuming you're earning more than £3,600 a year.) What happens to the pension if you decide to move back to France or another country? In some cases you can transfer tax free. Worst case, you'd pay some tax on the transfer but not more than 25%. [See here for the current rules: https://www.gov.uk/transferring-your-pension/transferring-to-an-overseas-pension-scheme. Re: the share scheme, if by 'salary exchange' you mean salary sacrifice (where your gross pay is officially reduced by that amount e.g. £150 a month), that's even more tax-efficient, because it saves you paying the National Insurance contribution too (approx 9% of the pay packet). Conclusion: Saving into pension and company share save schemes is supremely tax-efficient and, provided you're OK with your money being locked away until you're 57 (pension) or tied up in company shares, it's understandably many people's priority to make use of these schemes before considering other forms of saving where you pay into them from your salary after tax. Now, about this: I am trying to understand how much I should put into it Should I put money into these, or should look for another way to save (how will this work out if I go back to France or another country)? Nobody here can advise you what to do since individuals' goals and circumstances are different and we don't know enough of the picture. That said: FWIW, I'll tell you what I might do based solely on what you've told us in the question… First, I'd definitely contribute 6% to the company pension. This gets you the full employer match. That's free money (plus, remember the tax relief = more free money). If you're 27, a total of 12% salary into a pension a year is a decent rate to start saving for retirement. Actually, 14% would be generally advisable, and maybe more still – it's generally a case of 'the more the better' especially while young, as you have time for growth and you don't know what later priorities might change / financial needs might arise. Nevertheless, you said you might move overseas. So in your position I would then:\\\"\",\n \"You should be saving as much money as you can afford in your 401k up to the maximum allowed. If you don't contribute at least 6%, then you are essentially throwing away the match money that your employer is offering. Start out with the target date fund. You can always change your investment option later once you learn more about investing, but get started saving right away and get that match!\",\n \"\\\"Ah, I see what you mean, then. But if you die at 57, being hit by a bus, those self-invested funds won't help the general social welfare of the union. Instead 1/3 would go to some estate tax, and the rest are left to the designated appointee of your choosing. This soulless system helps the general populace a bit more directly. That is the theory, anyways. *edit: what I mean to say is, you still perceive that money as your own, like some compulsory retirement savings plan. I see it more as tax revenue,math little to no guarantee I will personally benefit from it directly any more than the general benefit it provides to This Great Union.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"401k contributions are exempt from employee and employer FICA withholding. The employer withholding is approximately 7% of the gross. The closer the employer match ratio is to 7%, the closer it is to paying for itself. Example: Assuming an employee is match-maximizing and in very round numbers grosses 100,000 per year. A 50% match schedule is about $350 cheaper per employee than a 100% match schedule: Default non participant: The employee will see about 7000 deducted for FICA, and the employer will pay 7000 to FICA if they don't participate. First case: the match is 100%, 1-for-1 to a 5% cap, the employee will deduct 5000, and have 6650 withheld for FICA. The employer will pay 6650 to FICA. The total employer cost of withholding and match is 11,650. Second case: If the match is 50%, 1-for-2 to a 5% cap, the employee will deduct 10000, and have 6300 withheld for FICA. The employer will pay 6300 to FICA. The total employer cost of withholding and match is 11,300.\",\n \"Pensions in the UK are a real free-for-all. A few years ago, the government introduced stakeholder pensions to try and simplify things, but if anything it's just made things more complex. To give you an idea, everyone has access to a Basic state retirement pension, but there's also SERPS (state earnings related pension scheme) and the State second pension provided by the government. Then in the private sector there are the aforementioned Stakeholder pensions, Self Invested Personal Pensions, Final salary occupational pension schemes and Money purchase occupational pension schemes. For a good summary, take a look at this excellent Times article and for more details, have a look at the Pensions in the United Kingdom Wikipedia page or browse around the Which? retirement section or the moneysavingsexpert pensions pages. The main things to look out for are whether your company offers a defined benefits scheme, or a money purchase scheme where they offer pay additional contributions or offer to match your additional contributions. Either of these are likely to be better than just buying a money purchase scheme pension privately.\",\n \"You can contribute to a Traditional IRA instead of a Roth. The main difference is a contribution to a Roth is made with after tax money but at retirement you can withdraw the money tax free. With a Traditional IRA your contribution is tax-deductible but at retirement the withdrawal is not tax free. This is why most people prefer a Roth if they can contribute. You can also contribute to your work's 401k plan assuming they have one. And you can always save for retirement in a regular account.\",\n \"If you have self-employment income you can open a Solo 401k. Your question is unclear as to what your employment status is. If you are self-employed as an independent contractor, you can open a Solo 401k. You can still do this even if you also earn non-self-employment income (i.e., you are an employee and receive a W-2). However, the limits for contributions to a Solo 401k are based on your self-mployment income, not your total income, so if you have only a small amount of self-employment income, you won't be able to contribute much to the Solo 401k. You may be able to reduce your taxes somewhat, but it's not like you can earn $1000 of self-employment income, open a Solo 401k, and dump $5000 into it; the limits don't work that way.\",\n \"The general idea of the PRPP is so that small business who cannot afford to offer a plan alone will be able to pool resources with others along with self-employed to create voluntary, defined-contribution pension plans that would be managed by private sector financial institutions. The PRPP concept would offer more options to individuals as well as small and medium-sized businesses - Tax Rules for Pooled Registered Pension Plans You can also find an overview here THE NEW PRPP – A Pension for the Pension-Less\",\n \"You cannot withdraw funds from a 401(k) while still employed with your company. To access your contributions, that would be treated as a loan against the 401(k), in which case you'd pay an upfront fee, and then have to repay the amount loaned, plus interest, over a set period of time. (In essence, you are paying back yourself.) Typically, there is also a minimum amount you must take out as a loan. Should you leave the job and still have an outstanding loan against your 401(k), it will be treated as a withdrawal after a certain date, at which point a 10% penalty plus taxes applies, unless you pay back the full amount of the loan remaining before that certain date. Your friends should seriously consider contributing the minimum amount necessary to get that full 50% matching amount. It's free money. As you said, it's like leaving money on the table.\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"The end result is basically the same, it's just a choice of whether you want to base the final amount you receive on your salary, or on the stock market. You pay in a set proportion of your salary, and receive a set proportion of your salary in return. The pension (both contributions and benefit) are based on your career earnings. You get x% of your salary every year from retirement until death. These are just a private investment, basically: you pay a set amount in, and whatever is there is what you get at the end. Normally you would buy an annuity with the final sum, which pays you a set amount per year from retirement until death, as with the above. The amount you receive depends on how much you pay in, and the performance of the investment. If the stock market does well, you'll get more. If it does badly, you could actually end up with less. In general (in as much as anything relating to the stock market and investment can be generalised), a Defined Benefit plan is usually considered better for \"\"security\"\" - or at least, public sector ones, and a majority of people in my experience would prefer one, but it entirely depends on your personal attitude to risk. I'm on a defined benefit plan and like the fact that I basically get a benefit based on a proportion of my salary and that the amount is guaranteed, no matter what happens to the stock market in the meantime. I pay in 9% of my salary get 2% of my salary as pension, for each year I pay into the pension: no questions, no if's or buts, no performance indicators. Others prefer a defined contribution scheme because they know that it is based on the amount they pay in, not the amount they earn (although to an extent it is still based on earnings, as that's what defines how much you pay in), and because it has the potential to grow significantly based on the stock market. Unfortunately, nobody can give you a \"\"which is best\"\" answer - if I knew how pension funds were going to perform over the next 10-50 years, I wouldn't be on StackExchange, I'd be out there making a (rather large) fortune on the stock market.\"","It is comparing apples to oranges. From govt or institution point of view defined contribution is better than defined benefits as they don't have to carry obligations. Although defined benefit sounds good, one can't guarantee it will be enough when you retire compared to inflation. It often becomes political issue. Defined contribution puts you in charge."],"string":"[\n \"\\\"The end result is basically the same, it's just a choice of whether you want to base the final amount you receive on your salary, or on the stock market. You pay in a set proportion of your salary, and receive a set proportion of your salary in return. The pension (both contributions and benefit) are based on your career earnings. You get x% of your salary every year from retirement until death. These are just a private investment, basically: you pay a set amount in, and whatever is there is what you get at the end. Normally you would buy an annuity with the final sum, which pays you a set amount per year from retirement until death, as with the above. The amount you receive depends on how much you pay in, and the performance of the investment. If the stock market does well, you'll get more. If it does badly, you could actually end up with less. In general (in as much as anything relating to the stock market and investment can be generalised), a Defined Benefit plan is usually considered better for \\\"\\\"security\\\"\\\" - or at least, public sector ones, and a majority of people in my experience would prefer one, but it entirely depends on your personal attitude to risk. I'm on a defined benefit plan and like the fact that I basically get a benefit based on a proportion of my salary and that the amount is guaranteed, no matter what happens to the stock market in the meantime. I pay in 9% of my salary get 2% of my salary as pension, for each year I pay into the pension: no questions, no if's or buts, no performance indicators. Others prefer a defined contribution scheme because they know that it is based on the amount they pay in, not the amount they earn (although to an extent it is still based on earnings, as that's what defines how much you pay in), and because it has the potential to grow significantly based on the stock market. Unfortunately, nobody can give you a \\\"\\\"which is best\\\"\\\" answer - if I knew how pension funds were going to perform over the next 10-50 years, I wouldn't be on StackExchange, I'd be out there making a (rather large) fortune on the stock market.\\\"\",\n \"It is comparing apples to oranges. From govt or institution point of view defined contribution is better than defined benefits as they don't have to carry obligations. Although defined benefit sounds good, one can't guarantee it will be enough when you retire compared to inflation. It often becomes political issue. Defined contribution puts you in charge.\"\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":199,"cells":{"_id":{"kind":"string","value":"8456"},"query":{"kind":"string","value":"What typically happens to unvested stock during an acquisition?"},"gt_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["257853","510875","486333"],"string":"[\n \"257853\",\n \"510875\",\n \"486333\"\n]"},"gt_qrels":{"kind":"list like","value":[1,1,1],"string":"[\n 1,\n 1,\n 1\n]"},"candidate_ids":{"kind":"list like","value":["257853","376314","555276","469036","510875","104188","575741","492428","187776","340730","145864","255045","475560","102436","451613","235779","142401","207253","87331","518340","259560","361507","261487","595787","505673","159703","515942","190261","103437","541368","567244","361482","139387","232207","248393","143655","396180","178497","186869","39345","518088","81721","214946","83012","400644","81924","56118","511066","558233","123595","544800","575875","453829","199206","31037","352757","238903","174321","499286","38808","265111","220147","519781","409818","517516","134972","163396","200756","15635","15030","374867","481339","218695","38711","57534","391156","595605","511240","384213","417838","511528","576503","201127","171072","266613","23355","295258","237718","325818","432080","317711","591385","393439","238215","514231","217124","223070","261522","147805","135798"],"string":"[\n \"257853\",\n \"376314\",\n \"555276\",\n \"469036\",\n \"510875\",\n \"104188\",\n \"575741\",\n \"492428\",\n \"187776\",\n \"340730\",\n \"145864\",\n \"255045\",\n \"475560\",\n \"102436\",\n \"451613\",\n \"235779\",\n \"142401\",\n \"207253\",\n \"87331\",\n \"518340\",\n \"259560\",\n \"361507\",\n \"261487\",\n \"595787\",\n \"505673\",\n \"159703\",\n \"515942\",\n \"190261\",\n \"103437\",\n \"541368\",\n \"567244\",\n \"361482\",\n \"139387\",\n \"232207\",\n \"248393\",\n \"143655\",\n \"396180\",\n \"178497\",\n \"186869\",\n \"39345\",\n \"518088\",\n \"81721\",\n \"214946\",\n \"83012\",\n \"400644\",\n \"81924\",\n \"56118\",\n \"511066\",\n \"558233\",\n \"123595\",\n \"544800\",\n \"575875\",\n \"453829\",\n \"199206\",\n \"31037\",\n \"352757\",\n \"238903\",\n \"174321\",\n \"499286\",\n \"38808\",\n \"265111\",\n \"220147\",\n \"519781\",\n \"409818\",\n \"517516\",\n \"134972\",\n \"163396\",\n \"200756\",\n \"15635\",\n \"15030\",\n \"374867\",\n \"481339\",\n \"218695\",\n \"38711\",\n \"57534\",\n \"391156\",\n \"595605\",\n \"511240\",\n \"384213\",\n \"417838\",\n \"511528\",\n \"576503\",\n \"201127\",\n \"171072\",\n \"266613\",\n \"23355\",\n \"295258\",\n \"237718\",\n \"325818\",\n \"432080\",\n \"317711\",\n \"591385\",\n \"393439\",\n \"238215\",\n \"514231\",\n \"217124\",\n \"223070\",\n \"261522\",\n \"147805\",\n \"135798\"\n]"},"candidate_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"This is a great question. I've participated in a deal like that as an employee, and I also know of friends and family who have been involved during a buyout. In short: The updated part of your question is correct: There is no single typical treatment. What happens to unvested restricted stock units (RSUs), unvested employee stock options, etc. varies from case to case. Furthermore, what exactly will happen in your case ought to have been described in the grant documentation which you (hopefully) received when you were issued restricted stock in the first place. Anyway, here are the two cases I've seen happen before: Immediate vesting of all units. Immediate vesting is often the case with RSUs or options that are granted to executives or key employees. The grant documentation usually details the cases that will have immediate vesting. One of the cases is usually a Change in/of Control (CIC or COC) provision, triggered in a buyout. Other immediate vesting cases may be when the key employee is terminated without cause, or dies. The terms vary, and are often negotiated by shrewd key employees. Conversion of the units to a new schedule. If anything is more \"\"typical\"\" of regular employee-level grants, I think this one would be. Generally, such RSU or option grants will be converted, at the deal price, to a new schedule with identical dates and vesting percentages, but a new number of units and dollar amount or strike price, usually so the end result would have been the same as before the deal. I'm also curious if anybody else has been through a buyout, or knows anybody who has been through a buyout, and how they were treated.\"","Vesting typically stops after you quit. So, if your plan vests 20% per year for 5 years, and you received a one-time stock grant as part of this plan (i.e., ignoring the fact that these often involve new grants each year that vest separately), and you were hired in 2014 and leave at the end of 2016, then you vested 20% in 2015 and 20% in 2016, so would have 40% of the stock vested when you quit, and would never have more than that.","I would ask your HR or benefits department to be certain, but here's how I read that without any specific knowledge of the situation: What is right to receive the RSU consideration? Company A was bought by Company B. You had unvested Restricted Stock Units in A, which is now gone. B is saying that you now have the right to receive consideration equivalent to the value of those RSUs in A. Since B is private, there's no publicly traded stock, so it will likely be in cash, but read the rest of the paperwork or talk to HR to be certain. For example, if you had 100 RSUs vesting next year and the price of stock in A was $50 when the company was bought, those RSUs would be worth $5,000. B is give you the right to consideration for those RSUs, hopefully for somewhere around $5,000. That consideration is unvested, meaning you must stay employed until the vesting period in order to claim that right. If you are fired without cause (i.e. laid off), you will receive those unvested claims as compensation. I assume the same will be applicable if employee leaves the company Probably not. In any situation, if you voluntarily leave a company, any unvested stock, RSUs, options, etc. are forfeited.","\"I'd early-exercised 75% of my grant at $5 and (later) exercised the remaining portion at $2. So did you actually pay the money and got \"\"X\"\" unvested shares? I'll be leaving the company; and they'll be unwinding half of the grant, so I'll get some money back, but now the question is: Do they pay me back from the $5 shares or the $2 shares? This would depend on what your contract says on unvested shares. There can be numerous combinations. More Often these are forfeited. i.e. you are not granted the shares. At times if you have paid then the guideline would give the details what would happen; i.e. only half vest and are priced at market and you are forced to encash them.\"","I've been through two instances where I worked for a public company that was merged (for stock) into another company. In both cases the options I had were replaced with equivalent options in the merged company with the number of shares and strike price adjusted at the same rate as the actual stock was converted, and the vesting terms remained essentially the same. In other words, the options before and after were in essence equivalent.","This should all be covered in your stock grant documentation, or the employee stock program of which your grant is a part. Find those docs and it should specify how or when you can sale your shares, and how the money is paid to you. Generally, vested shares are yours until you take action. If instead you have options, then be aware these need to be exercised before they become shares. There is generally a limited time period on how long you can wait to exercise. In the US, 10 years is common. Unvested shares will almost certainly expire upon your departure of the company. Whether your Merrill Lynch account will show this, or show them as never existing, I can't say. But either way, there is nothing you can or should do.","\"You were probably not given stock, but stock options. Those options have a strike price and you can do some more research on them if needed. Lets assume that you were given 5K shares at a strike of 20, and they vest 20% per year. Assume the same thing in your second year and you are going to leave in year three. You would have 2K shares from your year 1 grant, and 1K shares from your year 2 grant, so 2K total. If you leave no more shares would be vested. If you leave you have one of two options: To complicate matters subsequent grants may have different strike prices, so perhaps year two grant is at $22 per share. However, in pre-public companies that is not likely the case. For a bit of history, I worked at a pre-ipo company and we were all going to get rich. I was given generous grants, but decided to leave. I really wanted to buy my options but simply didn't have the money. Shortly after I left the company folded, so the money would have been thrown away anyway. When a company is private the motivate their employees with tales of riches, but they are not required to disclose financial data. This company did a very good job of convincing employees that all was fine, when it wasn't. Also I received options in a publicly traded company. Myself and other employees received options that were \"\"underwater\"\" or worth far less than the strike price. You could let them expire so one did not owe money, but they were worthless. Hopefully that answers your question.\"","An employer can decide that the employee funds are automatically vested. The new company could have had a more aggressive vesting schedule and grandfathered in all the employees of the company they acquired. This could have been part of the purchase negoaitaions. I would be surprised if they did it for employees that left years ago, especially if they were beyond the return period. I wouldn't keep money in a plan with a former employer just in case it happens. Check the plan documents to see all the verbiage regarding vesting here is a paragraph from one: You will receive one year of vesting service for each calendar year during which you complete 850 or more hours of service. Once you have five years of service, your account is fully vested and any future Company contributions made to your account will be immediately vested. Full vesting also occurs at age 59½, total disability or death while employed by the Company. If you leave the Company prior to 100% vesting, any unvested portion of your Plan account will be forfeited.","Generally speaking: when a company buys another company it's a complex agreement that spells out many things, including how the acquiring company is paying for the target company. These are the most common form of payment: 1. Cash. Shareholders of the target company get cash. 2. Shares. Shareholders of the target company get shares of the acquiring company. 3. A combination of 1 and 2 above.","When your options vest, you will have the option to buy your company's stock at a particular price (the strike price). A big part of the value of the option is the difference between the price that your company's stock is trading at, and the strike price of the option. If the price of the company stock in the market is lower than the strike price of the option, they are almost worthless. I say 'almost' because there is still the possibility that the stock price could go up before the options expire. If your company is big enough that their stock is not only listed on an exchange, but there is an active options market in your company's stock, you could get a feel for what they are worth by seeing what the market is willing to buy or sell similar exchange listed options. Once the options have vested, you now have the right to purchase your company's stock at the specified strike price until the options expire. When you use that right, you are exercising the option. You don't have to do that until you think it is worthwhile buying company stock at that price. If the company pays a dividend, it would probably be worth exercising the options sooner, (options don't receive a dividend). Ultimately you are buying your company's stock (albeit at a discount). You need to see if your company's stock is still a good investment. If you think your company has growth prospects, you might want to hold onto the stock. If you think you'd be better off putting your money elsewhere in the market, sell the stock you acquired at a discount and use the money to invest in something else. If there are any additional benefits to holding on to the stock for a period of time (e.g. selling part to fit within your capital gain allowance for that year) you should factor that into your investment decision, but it shouldn't force you to invest in, or remain invested in something you would otherwise view as too risky to invest in. A reminder of that fact is that some employees of Enron invested their entire retirement plans into Enron stock, so when Enron went bankrupt, these employees not only lost their job but their savings for retirement as well...","\"As the comments above have been trying to get across, the prospective employer is offering to pay you for the bonus/unvested compensation that you would be losing by jumping ship right now to go work for them. They are not offering to buy any securities that you already hold, regardless of whether they're profitable or unprofitable. Example 1. You participate in your current company's 401(k), and your company matches your contributions at 50%. However, the matching funds are not yours immediately; they vest in 20%/year increments until you have been at the company for 5 years. Let's say you've been there for 3 years and have contributed $50K to the plan. Your company has matched you at $25K, but only 60% of that ($15K) has vested. If you leave right now for the new employer, you're leaving $10K behind. So the new employer might offer to \"\"buy out\"\" (i.e. pay you) that $10K to help encourage you to switch now. You might then counter their offer by pointing out that if you stay where you are that $10K is coming to you tax-deferred, whereas their $10K signing bonus would be taxed. So you ask for $15K instead. Example 2. You work for a Wall Street investment bank. Each December you receive a performance bonus. Since you began working there, your three yearly bonuses have been (in chronological order) $500K, $750K, and $1M. It's June, so you've worked halfway towards your next bonus. You have a lot of incentive to NOT leave your current employer. A competing employer may offer to \"\"buy you out\"\" of your anticipated bonus by giving you a $1.25M signing bonus (since you'd almost certainly not be eligible for a performance bonus during your first year there). You might negotiate with them and say \"\"I'm on track for $2M this year\"\", and then they would figure out if you're really worth that much to them. So you can see this all has to do with the prospective employer trying to compensate you for any income you're already counting on receiving from your current employer. By jumping ship now you would be foregoing that guaranteed/expected income, so the competitor wants to remove that anchor that might be holding you back from making the move. Stocks/options that you already own are irrelevant to the prospective employer. Since you wouldn't be giving those up by changing jobs, there's no reason for them to factor into the equation.\"","As littleadv says it depends on the local laws. Normally one shouldn't be too worried. Typically the stocks given to the employees are a very small portion of the overall stocks ... the owners would not try to jeopardize the deal just so that they make an incrementally small amount of money ... they would rather play safe than get into such a practice.","\"Recently, I asked about what the company valuation is and how many shares does my 4% represent.CFO told me that there is no point to talk about \"\"shares\"\" or \"\"stock\"\" since the company is not public. Is it right? No, it is wrong. Shares and stocks exist regardless of how they can be traded. Once a company is formed, there are stocks that belong to the owners in the proportion of the ownership. They may not exist physically, but they do exist on paper. As an owner of 5% of the company, you own 5% of the company stocks. I asked if my investor portion equity will be subjected under a vesting schedule, CFO said yes. That doesn't make sense to me, because I bought those 4%? Aren't those supposed to be fully vested? I agree to my employee equity to be vested. Doesn't make sense to me either, since your money is already in their pocket. But I'm not sure if its illegal. If that's what is written in the signed contract - then may be its possible to have that situation. But it doesn't make much sense, because these shares are granted to you in return to your money, not some potential future work (as the 1% employee's portion). You already gave the money, so why wouldn't they be vested? Best to read the contract upon which you gave them your money, I really hope you have at least that and not just gave them a check....\"","Vesting As you may know a stock option is the right to acquire a given amount of stock at a given price. Actually acquiring the stock is referred to as exercising the option. Your company is offering you options over 200,000 shares but not all of those options can be exercised immediately. Initially you will only be able to acquire 25,000 shares; the other 175,000 have conditions attached, the condition in this case presumably being that you are still employed by the company at the specified time in the future. When the conditions attached to a stock option are satisfied that option is said to have vested - this simply means that the holder of the option can now exercise that option at any time they choose and thereby acquire the relevant shares. Dividends Arguably the primary purpose of most private companies is to make money for their owners (i.e. the shareholders) by selling goods and/or services at a profit. How does that money actually get to the shareholders? There are a few possible ways of which paying a dividend is one. Periodically (potentially annually but possibly more or less frequently or irregularly) the management of a company may look at how it is doing and decide that it can afford to pay so many cents per share as a dividend. Every shareholder would then receive that number of cents multiplied by the number of shares held. So for example in 4 years or so, after all your stock options have vested and assuming you have exercised them you will own 200,000 shares in your company. If the board declares a dividend of 10 cents per share you would receive $20,000. Depending on where you are and your exact circumstances you may or may not have to pay tax on this. Those are the basic concepts - as you might expect there are all kinds of variations and complications that can occur, but that's hopefully enough to get you started.","Having stock options means that you have worked for and rightfully earned a part of the company's capital appreciation. Takeover of the company would indicate someone is interested in the company (something should be valuable). It would be unwise to not strike before the period lapses since the strike price is always lower than market price and takeovers generally increases stock values ... it is capital gains all the way my friend. Good luck. *observations not in professional capacity. pls consult a professional for investment related advice.","I have had this happen a couple of times because of splits or sales of portions of the company. The general timeline was to announce how the split was to be handled; then the split; then a freeze in purchasing stock in the other company; then a freeze in sales; followed by a short blackout period; then the final transfers to funds/options/cash based on a mapping announced at the start of the process. You need to answer two questions: To determine if the final transactions will make the market move you have to understand how many shares are involved compared to the typical daily volume. There are two caveats: professional investors will be aware of the transaction date and can either ignore the employee transactions or try and take advantage of them; There may also be a mirroring set of transactions if the people left in the old company were awarded shares in your company as part of the sale. If you are happy with the default mapping then you can do nothing, and let the transaction happen based on the announced timeline. It is easy, and you don't have to worry about deadlines. If you don't like the default mapping then you need to know when the blackout period starts, so you don't end up not being able to perform the steps you want when you want. Timing is up to you. If the market doesn't like the acquisition/split it make make sense to make the move now, or wait until the last possible day depending on which part they don't like. Only you can answer that question.","It depends. If you accept the offer, then your stock will cease existing. If you reject the offer, then you will become a minority shareholder. Depending on the circumstances, you could be in the case where it becomes illegal to trade your shares. That can happen if the firm ceases to be a public company. In that case, you would discount the cash flows of future dividends to determine worth because there would be no market for it. If the firm remained public and also was listed for trading, then you could sell your shares although the terms and conditions in the market would depend on how the controlling firm managed the original firm.","According to this article: With an all-stock merger, the number of shares covered by a call option is changed to adjust for the value of the buyout. The options on the bought-out company will change to options on the buyer stock at the same strike price, but for a different number of shares. Normally, one option is for 100 shares of the underlying stock. For example, company A buys company B, exchanging 1/2 share of A for each share of B. Options purchased on company B stock would change to options on company A, with 50 shares of stock delivered if the option is exercised. This outcome strongly suggests that, in general, holders of options should cash out once the takeover is announced, before the transactions takes place. Since the acquiring company will typically offer a significant premium, this will offer an opportunity for instant profits for call option holders while at the same time being a big negative for put option holders. However, it is possible in some cases where the nominal price of the two companies favours the SML company (ie. the share prices of SML is lower than that of BIG), the holder of a call option may wish to hold onto their options. (And, possibly, conversely for put option holders.)","As far as I know, the AMT implications are the same for a privately held company as for one that is publicly traded. When I was given my ISO package, it came with a big package of articles on AMT to encourage me to exercise as close to the strike price as possible. Remember that the further the actual price at the time of purchase is from the strike price, the more the likely liability for AMT. That is an argument for buying early. Your company should have a common metric for determining the price of the stock that is vetted by outside sources and stable from year to year that is used in a similar way to the publicly traded value when determining AMT liability. During acquisitions stock options often, from what I know of my industry, at least, become options in the new company's stock. This won't always happen, but its possible that your options will simply translate. This can be valuable, because the price of stock during acquisition may triple or quadruple (unless the acquisition is helping out a very troubled company). As long as you are confident that the company will one day be acquired rather than fold and you are able to hold the stock until that one day comes, or you'll be able to sell it back at a likely gain, other than tying up the money I don't see much of a downside to investing now.","\"It seems like this was a \"\"stock for stock\"\" transaction. That is, your company was acquired, not for cash, but for the stock of Company X in a deal that your company's board of directors \"\"signed off\"\" on. Your company no longer exists, and that's why your stock was cancelled. The acquirer will be sending you an equivalent amount of stock in their Company, X. You don't need to worry about taxes, only accounting, because this is a \"\"non-cash\"\" transaction. What this means that your cost basis in the stock of Company X will be what you paid for the original company's stock (not its value on the day of the merger, which may be higher or lower than what you paid).\"","\"I'm in the US, so there may be idiosyncrasies with UK taxes that I'm not familiar with, but here's how I've always treated stock I get as compensation. Suppose the vested shares are worth X. If I had X in cash, would I buy my company's stock as an investment? Usually the answer is no, not because I think the stock will tank, but because there's better things I can do with that cash (pay off debt, unfortunately). Therefore I sell the shares and use the cash for something else. You have stock options. So suppose the stock value is X but you can buy it for Y. You can either: Therefore, the math is the same. If you had X in cash, would you buy your company's stock as an investment? If so, then option 2 is best, because you can get X in stock for a lower cost. (Option 3 might be better if the gain on the stock will be taxed higher, but they're pretty much equivalent if there's no chance that the stock will drop below Y) If not, then option 4 is best since you will likely get more than X-Y from selling the options that by exercising them and selling the stock (since options have time value). If option 4 is not a possibility, then option 1 is best - you pocket X-Y as \"\"income\"\" and invest it however you see fit.\"","The tax cost at election should be zero. The appreciation is all capital gain beyond your basis, which will be the value at election. IRC §83 applies to property received as compensation for services, where the property is still subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. It will catch unvested equity given to employees. §83(a) stops taxation until the substantial risk of forfeiture abates (i.e. no tax until stock vests) since the item is revocable and not yet truly income. §83(b) allows the taxpayer to make a quick election (up to 30 days after transfer - firm deadline!) to waive the substantial risk of forfeiture (e.g. treat shares as vested today). The normal operation of §83 takes over after election and the taxable income is generally the value of the vested property minus the price paid for it. If you paid fair market value today, then the difference is zero and your income from the shares is zero. The shares are now yours for tax purposes, though not for legal purposes. That means they are most likely a capital asset in your hands, like other stocks you own or trade. The shares will not be treated as compensation income on vesting, and vesting is not a tax matter for elected shares. If you sell them, you get capital gain (with tax dependent on your holding period) over a basis equal to FMV at the election. The appreciation past election-FMV will be capital gain, rather than ordinary income. This is why the §83(b) election is so valuable. It does not matter at this point whether you bought the restricted shares at FMV or at discount (or received them free) - that only affects the taxes upon §83(b) election.","A buy out is agreed by shareholders. Plus most countries have regulation protecting minority interest. Depending on the terms of buy out, you may get equivalent shares of buyer company or cash or both.","Its important that you carefully read the agreement, if you accept the job. The options agreement will usually specify the vesting schedule, the strike price, and the number of options you will have. When you start vesting options, you can choose to buy stock at the strike price. When you do exercise the options, your employer will likely withhold state and federal income tax. The strike price will hopefully be well below the market price. Unlike stock, when your employment ends, you usually are not able to hold on to your options. There's typically a small window of time in which you can exercise your options. You should read this part of the agreement carefully and plan accordingly.","Unfortunately, the money that is not vested is not yours. It belongs to your employer. They have promised to give it to you after you have been with the company for a certain length of time, but if you aren't still with the company after that time, no matter what the reason, the money never becomes yours. Sorry to hear about this. It would have been nice if your company had waived the vesting requirement like this guy's employer did, but I don't think they are required to do so, unfortunately. If it's a lot of money, you could ask an attorney, but as @JoeTaxpayer said, AT&T and IBM probably know what they are doing.","How you are taxed will depend on what kind of stock awards they are. The value will be determined by the company that issues it, and appropriate tax forms will be sent to you to include with your taxes. The way the value is determined is an accounting question that is off-topic here, but the value will be stated on your stock award paperwork. If you are awarded the stock directly then that value will be taxed as ordinary income. If you are awarded options, then you can purchase the stock to start the clock on long-term capital gains, but you will not incur any tax liability through the initial purchase. If the company is sold privately and you have held the stock for over 1 year, then yes, it will be taxed as a long-term capital gain. If you receive/exercise the stock less than 1 year before such an acquisition, then it will be considered a short-term capital gain and will be taxed as ordinary income.","This is only one of a series of questions your friend needs to understand. They will also need to know what happens to: vacation balances; the vacation earning schedule; retirement fund matching; the pension program; all the costs and rules regarding health, dental and vision;life insurance amounts. Some of these can be changed immediately. Some will not be changed this year because of IRS regulations. Everything can be changed by the next year. But there is no way to know if they will change a little a possible or as much a possible. It will depend on if they are buying the company, or if the company is going out of business and the new company is buying the remnants. They may also be essentially terminating the employees at the old place, and giving them the first opportunity for interviews. If they are essentially quitting they will not have to continue paying into the plan. The bad news is that their last day of work is also probably their last day to incur expenses that they can pay for with the flexible plan. If They are being purchased or absorbed the company will likely make no changes to the current plan, and fold them into the plan next year. I have been involved with company purchases and company splits, and this is how it was handled.","The NY company's board of directors are your agents and fiduciaries. I'll call them your agents below. The acquiring company entered into some contract that your agents negotiated. Whatever the acquiring company owes you in terms of money, equity, or specific communication is based on what your agents dealt for in the sale contract. Best ask your agents what they got for you.","Here is how it should look: 100 shares of restricted stock (RSU) vest. 25 shares sold to pay for taxes. W2 (and probably paycheck) shows your income going up by 100 shares worth and your taxes withheld going up by 25 shares worth. Now you own 75 shares with after-tax money. If you stop here, there would be no stock sale and no tax issues. You'd have just earned W2 income and withheld taxes through your W2 job. Now, when you sell those 75 shares whether it is the same day or years later, the basis for those 75 shares is adjusted by the amount that went in to your W2. So if they were bought for $20, your adjusted basis would be 75*$20.","I've seen many buyouts in my own portfolio, including the company I worked for. There have been several different scenarios: The terms of the deal are subject to the deal -- frankly whatever makes sense to the buyer and that is accepted by the seller. So sometimes brokers charge reorganization fees. check into those for your broker. I've not seen one in a while, but my brokerage account is substantial, and often that's a perk they offer higher-value accounts. Also watch out for taxes. The transaction where my employer was bought by another publicly traded company -- we got bit because the IRS treated it as a taxable transaction, and all our RSUs were effectively sold and then repurchased. So we ended up with a big tax bill (capital gains) without any cash to offset the big tax bill. I suspect its because my old employer was a US based company, whereas the new company is not.","When the deal closes, will it be as if I sold all of my ESPP shares with regards to taxes? Probably. If the deal is for cash and not stock exchange, then once the deal is approved and closed all the existing shareholders will sell their shares to the buyer for cash. Is there any way to mitigate this? Unlikely. You need to understand that ESPP is just a specific way to purchase shares, it doesn't give you any special rights or protections that other shareholders don't have.","Stock awards by employers are treated and taxed as salary. I.e.: you pay ordinary rate income tax, FICA taxes, State taxes etc. The fact that you got your salary in shares and not cash is irrelevant for tax purposes. Once you got the shares and paid your taxes on them, the treatment is the same as if you got the salary and immediately bought the shares. Holding period for capital gains tax purposes starts at the time you paid your taxes on the award, which is the time at which you get full ownership (i.e.: vesting time, for the restricted stocks). When you sell these stocks - you treat the sale as any other stock sale: you check the holding period for capital gains tax rates, and you do not pay (or get refund) any FICA taxes on the sales transaction. So bottom line: You got $10K salary and you bought $10K worth of company stock, and you sold it at $8K half a year later. You have $10K wages income and $2K short term capital loss.","\"A little terminology: Grant: you get a \"\"gift\"\" with strings attached. \"\"Grant\"\" refers to the plan (legal contract) under which you get the stock options. Vesting: these are the strings attached to the grant. As long as you're employed by the company, your options will vest every quarter, proportionally. You'll become an owner of 4687 or 4688 options every quarter. Each such vest event means you'd be getting an opportunity to buy the corresponding amount of stocks at the strike price (and not the current market price which may be higher). Buying is called exercising. Exercising a nonqualified option is a taxable event, and you'll be taxed on the value of the \"\"gift\"\" you got. The value is determined by the difference between the strike price (the price at which you have the option to buy the stock) and the actual fair market value of the stock at the time of vest (based on valuations). Options that are vested are yours (depending on the grant contract, read it carefully, leaving the company may lead to forfeiture). Options that are not vested will disappear once you leave the company. Exercised options become stocks, and are yours. Qualified vs Nonqualifed - refers to the tax treatment. Nonqualified options don't have any special treatment, qualified do. 3.02M stocks issued refers to the value of the options. Consider the total valuation of the company being $302M. With $302M value and 3.02M stocks issued, each stock is worth ~$100. Now, in a year, a new investor comes in, and another 3.02M stocks are issued (if, for example, the new investor wants a 50% stake). In this case, there will be 6.04M stocks issued, for 302M value - each stock is worth $50 now. That is called dilution. Your grant is in nominal options, so in case of dilution, the value of your options will go down. Additional points: If the company is not yet public, selling the stocks may be difficult, and you may own pieces of paper that no-one else wants to buy. You will still pay taxes based on the valuations and you may end up paying for these pieces of paper out of your own pocket. In California, it is illegal to not pay salary to regular employees. Unless you're a senior executive of the company (which I doubt), you should be paid at least $9/hour per the CA minimum wages law.\"","does it still count as a capital gain or loss? Yes. Is it essentially treated like you sold the stock at the price of the buy-out? Yes. Do you still get a 1099-B from your broker? Yes.","ISOs (incentive stock options) can be closed out in a cashless transaction. Say the first round vests, 25,000 shares. The stock is worth $7 but your option is to buy at $5 as you say. The broker executes and sells, you get $50,000, with no up front money. Edit based on comment below - you know they vest over 4 years, but how long before they expire? It stands to reason the longer you are able to hold them, the better a chance the company succeeds, and the price rises. The article Understanding employer-granted stock options (PDF) offers a nice discussion of different scenarios supporting my answer.","\"An option is a financial instrument instrument that gives you the right, but not the obligation, to do some transaction in the future at a given price. An employee stock option is a kind of \"\"call option\"\" -- it gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy the stock at a certain price (the \"\"exercise price\"\", usually set as the price of the stock when the option was granted). The idea is that you would \"\"exercise\"\" the option (buy the stock at the given price as provided by the option), if the value of the stock is higher than the exercise price, and not if it is lower. The option is gifted to you. But that does not mean you get any stock. If and when you choose to exercise the option, you would buy the stock with your own money. At what time you can exercise the option (and how many shares you can exercise at a given time) will be specified in the agreement. Usually, you can only exercise a particular share after it has \"\"vested\"\" (according to some vesting schedule), and you lose the ability to exercise after you no longer work for the company (plus perhaps a grace period), or after the option expires.\"","\"I don't think its a taxable event since no income has been constructively received (talking about the RSU shareholders here). I believe you're right with the IRC 1033, and the basis of the RSU is the basis of the original stock option (probably zero). Edit: see below. However, once the stock becomes vested - then it is a taxable event (not when the cash is received, but when the chance of forfeiture diminishes, even if the employee doesn't sell the stock), and is an ordinary income, not capital. That is my understanding of the situation, do not consider it as a tax advice in any way. I gave it a bit more though and I don't think IRC 1033 is relevant. You're not doing any exchange or conversion here, because you didn't have anything to convert to begin with, and don't have anything after the \"\"conversion\"\". Your ISO's are forfeited and no longer available, basically - you treat them as you've never had them. What happened is that you've received RSU's, and you treat them as a regular RSU grant, based on its vesting schedule. The tax consequences are exactly as I described in my original response: you recognize ordinary income on the vested stocks, as they vest. Your basis is zero (i.e.: the whole FMV of the stock at the time of vesting is your ordinary income). It should also be reflected in your W2 accordingly.\"","Stock options represent an option to buy a share at a given price. What you have been offered is the option to buy the company share at a given price ($5) starting a given date (your golden handcuffs aka vesting schedule). If the company's value doubles in 1 year and the shares are liquid (i.e. you can sell them) then you've just made $125k of profit. If the company's value has gone to zero in 1 year then you've lost nothing other than your hopes of getting rich. As others have mentioned, the mechanics of exercising the option and selling the shares can typically be accomplished without any cash involved. The broker will do both in a single transaction and use the proceeds of the sale to pay the cost of buying the shares. You should always at least cover the taxable portion of the transaction and typically the broker will withhold that tax anyways. Otherwise you could find yourself in a position where you have actually lost money due to tax being owed while the shares decline in value below that tax. You don't have to worry about that right now. Again as people have mentioned options will typically expire 10 years from vesting or 90 days from leaving your employment with the company. I'm sure there are some variations on the theme. Make sure you ask and all this should be part of some written contract. I'm sure you can ask to see it if you wish. Also typical is that stock option grants have to be approved by the board which is normally a technicality. Some general advice:","A lot may depend on the nature of a buyout, sometimes it's is for stock and cash, sometimes just stock, or in the case of this google deal, all cash. Since that deal was used, we'll discuss what happens in a cash buyout. If the stock price goes high enough before the buyout date to put you in the money, pull the trigger before the settlement date (in some cases, it might be pulled for you, see below). Otherwise, once the buyout occurs you will either be done or may receive adjusted options in the stock of the company that did the buyout (not applicable in a cash buyout). Typically the price will approach but not exceed the buyout price as the time gets close to the buyout date. If the buyout price is above your option strike price, then you have some hope of being in the money at some point before the buyout; just be sure to exercise in time. You need to check the fine print on the option contract itself to see if it had some provision that determines what happens in the event of a buyout. That will tell you what happens with your particular options. For example Joe Taxpayer just amended his answer to include the standard language from CBOE on it's options, which if I read it right means if you have options via them you need to check with your broker to see what if any special exercise settlement procedures are being imposed by CBOE in this case.","Good questions. I can only add that it may be valuable if the company is bought, they may buy the options. Happened to me in previous company.","Since the 2 existing answers addressed the question as asked. Let me offer a warning. You have 10,000 options at $1. You've worked four years and the options are vested. The stock is worth $101 when you get a job offer (at another company) which you accept. So you put up $10k and buy the shares. At this moment, you put up $10K for stock worth $1.01M, a $1M profit and ordinary income. You got out of the company just in time. For whatever reason, the stock drops to $21 and at tax time you realize the $1M gain was ordinary income, but now the $800k loss is a capital loss, limited to $3000/yr above capital gains. In other words you have $210k worth of stock but a tax bill on $1M. This is not a contrived story, but a common one from the dotcon bubble. It's a warning that 'buy and hold' has the potential to blow up in your face, even if the shares you buy retain some value.","Coincidentally just read a nice post on this topic: http://thefinancebuff.com/no-tax-advantage-in-rsu.html In short, sell the stock as soon as it vests and treat it as a cash bonus. Assuming you're in the US and the stock is possible to sell (public company, no trading window restrictions, you have no material nonpublic information, etc.) What do you do with a cash bonus? If you have no savings, an emergency fund would be good, then start on retirement savings perhaps... it sounds a bit like you could use some broad general financial planning info, my favorite book for that is: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/B0013L2ED6 One exception to selling immediately could be if the company stock is hugely undervalued, but it probably isn't, and it's probably too hard to determine.","\"Simply put, yes. I bought that call. I was betting the shares would rise in value by Jan 2018, and chose the $130 strike. With a strike nearly a year away, I paid a premium that was all time value as the shares traded at Now the shares are replaced by $128. The time value has gone to zero, and there is no intrinsic \"\"in the money\"\" value. If the shares were bought at $140, the time value stills drops to zero, but the option is closed at $10 in the money. My answer was for a cash deal. In a case where the old shares are replaced by new shares or a combination of shares and money, the options terms are changed to reflect the combination of new assets for old. Update based on disclosure that it's Monsanto we are discussing. Bayer and Monsanto have announced that they signed a definitive agreement under which Bayer will acquire Monsanto for USD 128 per share in an all-cash transaction. Based on Monsanto’s closing share price on May 9, 2016, the day before Bayer’s first written proposal to Monsanto, the offer represents a premium of 44 percent to that price. You can see that the deal has been in the works for some time now. Further research shows they expect the deal to close by \"\"the end of 2017\"\". It's not a done deal. This is why the options are still trading. Now the shares are replaced by $128. The time value has gone to zero, and there is no intrinsic \"\"in the money\"\" value. If the shares were bought at $140, the time value stills drops to zero, but the option is closed at $10 in the money. My answer was for a cash deal. In a case where the old shares are replaced by new shares or a combination of shares and money, the options terms are changed to reflect the combination of new assets for old. Update based on disclosure that it's Monsanto we are discussing. Bayer and Monsanto have announced that they signed a definitive agreement under which Bayer will acquire Monsanto for USD 128 per share in an all-cash transaction. Based on Monsanto’s closing share price on May 9, 2016, the day before Bayer’s first written proposal to Monsanto, the offer represents a premium of 44 percent to that price. You can see that the deal has been in the works for some time now. Further research shows they expect the deal to close by \"\"the end of 2017\"\". It's not a done deal. This is why the options are still trading.\"","\"I was told by the lawyers there was no tax consequence because the two numbers were the same. That is correct. However, a tax professional tells me that since the start-up stock was \"\"realized\"\" there invokes a taxable event now. That is correct. I'm now led to believe I owe cap-gains tax on the entire 4 year vest this year That is incorrect. You owe capital gains tax on the sale of your startup stock. Which is accidentally the exact same amount you \"\"paid\"\" for the new unvested stocks. There's no taxable event with regards to the new stocks because the amount you paid for them was the amount you got for the old stocks. But you did sell the old stocks, and that is a taxable event.\"","In the real world, there are only two times you'll see that 5% become worth anything - ie, something you can exchange for cash - 1) if another company buys them; (2) if they go public. If neither of these things happen, you cannot do anything with the stock or stock options that you own.","\"I believe that your option contracts will become \"\"non-standard\"\" and will be for a combination of ACE stock and cash. The allocation between stock and cash should follow that of the acquisition parameters of the underlying - probably with fractional shares converted to cash. Hence 1 call contract for 100 shares of CB will become 1 call contract for 60 shares of ACE + $6293 cash + a cash correction for the 0.19 fractional share of ACE that you would have had claim to get. The corrections should be 0.19 sh x $62.93/sh.\"","Let's work from the inside out. Options are not stock. Options are a contract that give you the right to own the stock. For options to have value they have to be exercised. Straight line means that each quarter 1/16th of the option grant becomes yours and the company cannot take it away. Four quarters in a year times four years is 16 quarters. 'Grant' means they are giving you the options at no cost to you. 'Nonqualified' means that there is nothing you have to do, or be, in order to get the options. (Some options are only for management.)","\"For restricted stock, I think the vesting date meets the requirements of the second wash sale trigger from IRS Pub 550: Wash Sales: Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade I base this on these two quotes from IRS Pub 525: Restricted Property: any income from the property, or the right to use the property, is included in your income as additional compensation in the year you receive the income or have the right to use the property. - Until the property becomes substantially vested, it is owned by the person who makes the transfer to you, usually your employer. So on the vest date: The transfer is taxable Ownership is transferred to you That seems close enough to \"\"a fully taxable trade\"\" for me. Maybe this changes if you pay the tax on the stock on the grant date. See Pub 525: Restricted Property: Choosing to include in income for year of transfer. Obviously, if this is important you should consult your tax advisor. Technicalities aside, I don't think it passes the sniff test. You're getting salable shares when the restricted stock vests. If you're selling other shares at a loss within 30 days of the vesting date, that smells like a wash sale to me.\"","I've been offered a package that includes 100k stock options at 5 dollars a share. They vest over 4 years at 25% a year. Does this mean that at the end of the first year, I'm supposed to pay for 25,000 shares? Wouldn't this cost me 125,000 dollars? I don't have this kind of money. At the end of the first year, you will generally have the option to pay for the shares. Yes, this means you have to use your own money. You generally dont have to buy ANY until the whole option vests, after 4 years in your case, at which point you either buy, or you are considered 'vested' (you have equity in the company without buying) or the option expires worthless, with you losing your window to buy into the company. This gives you plenty of opportunity to evaluate the company's growth prospects and viability over this time. Regarding options expiration the contract can have an arbitrarily long expiration date, like 17 years. You not having the money or not isn't a consideration in this matter. Negotiate a higher salary instead. I've told several companies that I don't want their equity despite my interest in their business model and product. YMMV. Also, options can come with tax consequences, or none at all. its not a raw deal but you need to be able to look at it objectively.","It depends on the timing of the events. Sometimes the buying company announces their intention but the other company doesn't like the deal. It can go back and forth several times, before the deal is finalized. The specifics of the deal determine what happens to the stock: The deal will specify when the cutoff is. Some people want the cash, others want the shares. Some will speculate once the initial offer is announced where the final offer (if there is one) will end up. This can cause a spike in volume, and the price could go up or down. Regarding this particular deal I did find the following: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/expedia-to-acquire-orbitz-worldwide-for-12-per-share-in-cash-300035187.html Additional Information and Where to Find It Orbitz intends to file with the SEC a proxy statement as well as other relevant documents in connection with the proposed transaction with Expedia. The definitive proxy statement will be sent or given to the stockholders of Orbitz and will contain important information about the proposed transaction and related matters. SECURITY HOLDERS ARE URGED TO READ THE PROXY STATEMENT CAREFULLY WHEN IT BECOMES AVAILABLE AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE SEC, AS WELL AS ANY AMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS TO THOSE DOCUMENTS, BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION. The proxy statement and other relevant materials (when they become available), and any other documents filed by Expedia or Orbitz with the SEC, may be obtained free of charge at the SEC's website, at www.sec.gov. In addition, security holders will be able to obtain free copies of the proxy statement from Orbitz by contacting Investor Relations by mail at ATTN: Corporate Secretary, Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 1000, Chicago, Illinois 60661.","Both you and the Company were probably benefitted by this decision. Specifically an option grant that was not FRV or more would require you to recognize the option as income whether you had exercised it or not. Additionally a host of other 409A tax issues/penalties could have been levied against you as an employee recipient. I certainly appreciate your concern about a change in compensation, but this is one where Corporate America likely saved your bacon.","No, unvested money returns to the employer, its not yours. They should send you W2 which will only show the actual (vested) monies you got.","At the most basic level, the employee is getting a share of ownership in the company and would get a percentage of the sales price. That said, as littleadv alluded to, different share classes have different priorities and get paid in different orders. In a bankruptcy, for example, some classes almost never get paid in practice because they are so far down the ladder of priority. The first step you should take would be to try to clarify what you are getting with the company itself. Failing that, contact a financial professional or an attorney in your area who can read the terms and give you a better understanding of the contract before you sign.","It's still the purchase price or the price at which the shares are purchased or granted. This Investopedia article describes how the price is used for tax purposes: The amount that must be declared [for tax purposes] is determined by subtracting the original purchase or exercise price of the stock (which may be zero) from the fair market value of the stock as of the date that the stock becomes fully vested. Restricted stock awards are similar to stock options. The employer promises to grant the employee a certain number of shares upon the completion of the vesting schedule. The price at which the shares are purchased (or granted, if the price is zero) is the exercise price.","My friend Harry Sit wrote an excellent article No Tax Advantage In RSU. The punchline is this. The day the RSUs vested, it's pretty much you got $XXX in taxable income and then bought the stock at the price at that moment. The clock for long term gain starts the same as if I bought the stock that day. Historical side note - In the insane days of the Dotcom bubble, people found they got RSUs vested and worth, say, $1M. Crash. The shares are worth $100K. The $1M was ordinary income, the basis was $1M and the $900K loss could offset cap gains, not ordinary income above $3000/yr. Let me be clear - the tax bill was $250K+ but the poor taxpayer had $100K in stock to sell to pay that bill. Ooops. This is the origin of the 'sell the day it vests' advice. The shares you own will be long term for capital gain a year after vesting. After the year, be sure to sell those particular shares and you're all set. No different than anyone selling the LT shares of stock when owning multiple lots. But. Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you feel it's time to sell, you can easily lose the tax savings while watching the stock fall waiting for the clock to tick to one year.","\"I highly doubt this was a mistake. In the event of a corporate merger/buyout, changes to employee 401(k) plans are usually hashed out as part of the M&A agreement. The choices made in the agreement depend on numerous factors, so it may be difficult to predict what happens to your plan in situations like this. A quick online search reveals a few articles, e.g. this one from expertplan.com, that list the three most common consequences for retirement plans: It sounds like the company that purchased your employer agreed to immediately vest employees in employer 401(k) contributions as part of the purchase agreement. Without knowing the details of the merger/buyout, I can't say this for sure, but this sounds like a plausible way to keep employees of the purchased company content. Rather than roll it over, does it make sense to wait for that company to be purchased, in the hopes that a similar \"\"mistake\"\" occurs? Since this doesn't sound like a mistake, but rather a part of the buyout agreement, I don't think it's something you should count on in the future. It may be very likely, or it could be a relatively rare occurrence that happened to be part of this purchase agreement. I don't believe the Employee Retirement Income Security Act regulates what can or can't be done to your 401(k) in a buyout, except that the company is required to inform you of any changes (and obviously, the new 401(k) plan must conform to ERISA as well).\"","The sale of shares on vesting convolutes matters. In a way similar to how reinvested dividends are taxed but the newly purchased fund shares' basis has to be increased, you need to be sure to have the correct per share cost basis. It's easy to confuse the total RSU purchase with the correct numbers, only what remained. The vesting stock is a taxable event, ordinary income. You then own the stock at that cost basis. A sale after that is long or short term and the profit is the to extent it exceeds that basis. The fact that you got these shares in 2013 means you should have paid the tax then. And this is part two of the process. Of course the partial sale means a bit of math to calculate the basis of what remained.","Generally speaking, if the acquiring company buys less than 50% of the target, the acquirer would not claim any income until there was a dividend or the equity stock appreciated. With a dividend, the acqiring company would participate in and book earnings on the cash received. Without a dividend, equity stock of the target should theoretically rise to reflect higher retained income and the acquirer would book an unrealized gain to gross profit (I think). If the acquiring company buys more than 50% of the target, it is likely all revenues and expences would be consolidated and included in the acquiring company's respective accounts as if it was one cohesive whole. Any residual stake in the target owned by a third party would be reflected in a Minority Interest expense on the acquiring company's income statement.","Is the Grant Date or the Vest Date used when determining the 12-month cutoff for long-term and short-term capital gains? You don't actually acquire the stock until it's vested, so that is the date and price used to determine your cost basis and short-term/long-term gain/loss. The grant date really has no tax bearing. If you held the stock (time between vesting and sale) for more than one year you will owe long-term CG tax, if less than one year you will owe short-term CG tax.","I do not know for sure so do not quote me on this. But I would assume that you will get paid out to what the value of the buyout is. Example if your company has 100 private shares and you own 1 share (1%), and the company sells for $1,000,000. Your share will be worth 1% of the $1 million.","This happened to me recently. What became the final offer was a cash buy-out of all of our shares rather than a conversion. The cash buy-out was higher than the company's original asking price and than the stock ever went on the market before hand. I was extremely pleased to have held on to the stock until the end. That said, it sounds like your situation is different. You can't necessarily time this sort of thing. You can just make your best decision and determine to be happy with the way it all plays out.","Options granted by an employer to an employee are generally different that the standardized options that are traded on public stock option exchanges. They may or may not have somewhat comparable terms, but generally the terms are fairly different. As a holder of an expiring employee option, you can only choose to exercise it by paying the specified price and receiving the shares, or not. It is common that the exercise system will allow you to exercise all the shares and simultaneously sell enough of the acquired shares to cover the option cost of all the shares, thus leaving you owning some of the stock without having to spend any cash. You will owe taxes on the gain on exercise, regardless of what you do with the stock. If you want to buy publicly-traded options, you should consider that completely separately from your employer options other than thinking about how much exposure you have to your company situation. It is very common for employees to be imprudently overexposed to their company's stock (through direct ownership or options).","\"When the buyout happens, the $30 strike is worth $10, as it's in the money, you get $10 ($1000 per contract). Yes, the $40 strike is pretty worthless, it actually dropped in value today. Some deals are worded as an offer or intention, so a new offer can come in. This appears to be a done deal. From Chapter 8 of CHARACTERISTICS AND RISKS OF STANDARDIZED OPTIONS - FEB 1994 with supplemental updates 1997 through 2012; \"\"In certain unusual circumstances, it might not be possible for uncovered call writers of physical delivery stock and stock index options to obtain the underlying equity securities in order to meet their settlement obligations following exercise. This could happen, for example, in the event of a successful tender offer for all or substantially all of the outstanding shares of an underlying security or if trading in an underlying security were enjoined or suspended. In situations of that type, OCC may impose special exercise settlement procedures. These special procedures, applicable only to calls and only when an assigned writer is unable to obtain the underlying security, may involve the suspension of the settlement obligations of the holder and writer and/or the fixing of cash settlement prices in lieu of delivery of the underlying security. In such circumstances, OCC might also prohibit the exercise of puts by holders who would be unable to deliver the underlying security on the exercise settlement date. When special exercise settlement procedures are imposed, OCC will announce to its Clearing Members how settlements are to be handled. Investors may obtain that information from their brokerage firms.\"\" I believe this confirms my observation. Happy to discuss if a reader feels otherwise.\"","\"When you exercise your options, you come up with cash to buy the shares. This makes you an owner of the company for shares at the share price your options let you have. Ideally, your share price is at a significant discount to what the company is worth. Being a shareholder, you gain from any share price appreciation in a sale. The only thing the \"\"60-day window\"\" applies to is whether you come up with the cash to buy fast enough, or your shares get permanently deleted from the company finances, where everyone else potentially makes more, you make nothing. The sale of the company is based on whenever the sell finalizes, which is between your company and the acquiring company.\"","I am not required to hold any company stock. I also have an ESOP plan carrying a similar number of shares in company stock. So if it were to be sold, what would the recommendation be to replace it? I can move the shares into any option shown, and have quite a few others. Not dealing with any huge amounts, just a 4.5% contribution over three years (so far).","The company may not permit a transfer of these options. If they do permit it, you simply give him the money and he has them issue the options in your name. As a non-public company, they may have a condition where an exiting employee has to buy the shares or let them expire. If non-employees are allowed to own shares, you give him the money to exercise the options and he takes possession of the stock and transfers it to you. Either way, it seems you really need a lawyer to handle this. Whenever this kind of money is in motion, get a lawyer. By the way, the options are his. You mean he must purchase the shares, correct?","What you will probably get is an option to buy, for £10,000, £10,000 worth of stock. If the stock price on the day your option is granted is £2.50, then that's 4,000 shares. Companies rarely grant discounted options, as there are tax disincentives. The benefit of the stock option is that when you exercise it, you still only pay £10,000, no matter what the 4,000 shares are now worth. This is supposed to be an incentive for you to work harder to increase the value of the company. You should also check the vesting schedule. You will typically not be able to exercise all your options for some years, although some portion of it may vest each year.","This is not right. Inferring the employee stock pool’s takeaway is not as easy as just taking a fraction of the purchase price. As an example, that wouldn’t account for any preferred returns of other ownership classes, among other things. All considered though, it’s reasonable to assume that the employee stock pool will get some premium. Best of luck.","\"The simplest thing to do here is to speak to your employer about what is allowed. This should be spelt out in your company's \"\"Stock Options Plan\"\" documentation. In particular, this document will include details of the vesting schedule. For example, the schedule may only allow you to exercise 25% in the first year, 25% in the second year, and the remainder in the third year. Technically I can see no reason to prevent you from the mix-and-match approach you are suggesting. However, this may not be the case according to the schedule specification.\"","Advantage: more money. The financial tradeoff is usually to your benefit: Given these, for having your money locked up for the average length of the vesting periods (some is locked up for 3 months, some is locked up for nearly 0), you get a 10% return. Overall, it's like a 1.5% bonus for the year, assuming you were to sell everything right away. Of course, whether or not you wish to keep the stock depends on how you value MSFT as an investment. The disadvantage lies in a couple parts:","Does this make sense? I'm concerned that by buying shares with post tax income, I'll have ended up being taxed twice or have increased my taxable income. ... The company will then re-reimburse me for the difference in stock price between the vesting and the purchase share price. Sure. Assuming you received a 100-share RSU for shares worth $10, and your marginal tax rate is 30% (all made up numbers), either: or So you're in the same spot either way. You paid $300 to get $1,000 worth of stock. Taxes are the same as well. The full value of the RSU will count as income either way, and you'll either pay tax on the gains of the 100 shares in your RSU our you'll pay tax on gains on the 70 shares in your RSU and the 30 shares you bought. Since they're reimbursing you for any difference the cost basis will be the same (although you might get taxed on the reimbursement, but that should be a relatively small amount). This first year I wanted to keep all of the shares, due to tax reasons and because believe the share price will go up. I don't see how this would make a difference from a tax standpoint. You're going to pay tax on the RSU either way - either in shares or in cash. how does the value of the shares going up make a difference in tax? Additionally I'm concerned that by doing this I'm going to be hit by my bank for GBP->USD exchange fees, foreign money transfer charges, broker purchase fees etc. That might be true - if that's the case then you need to decide whether to keep fighting or decide if it's worth the transaction costs.","There's an odd anomaly that often occurs with shares acquired through company plans via ESPP or option purchase. The general situation is that the share value above strike price or grant price may become ordinary income, but a sale below the price at day the shares are valued is a capital loss. e.g. in an ESPP offering, I have a $10 purchase price, but at the end of the offering, the shares are valued at $100. Unless I hold the shares for an additional year, the sale price contains ordinary W2 income. So, if I see the shares falling and sell for $50, I have a tax bill for $90 of W2 income, but a $50 capital loss. Tax is due on $90 (and for 1K shares, $90,000 which can be a $30K hit) but that $50K loss can only be applied to cap gains, or $3K/yr of income. In the dotcom bubble, there were many people who had million dollar tax bills and the value of the money netted from the sale couldn't even cover the taxes. And $1M in losses would take 300 years at $3K/yr. The above is one reason the lockup date expiration is why shares get sold. And one can probably profit on the bigger companies stock. Edit - see Yelp down 3% following expiration of 180 day IPO lock-up period, for similar situation.","RSU are taxed when vested, based on their value at that point, as salary. If you don't sell to cover, you need to pay the taxes, if you sell to cover - you sell the portion that is worth the taxes (brokers do that automatically, and remit the taxes on your behalf). Once paid your taxes, it becomes a regular stock position - short term gains if you sell within a year after vesting, long term if you wait for more than a year. The consideration whether to wait or sell is as with any other investment, them being previously restricted has no meaning. You calculate the gain for each position, so the fact that you have more than one position is not a problem. The RSU income and the taxes paid will appear on your W2, so when the broker reports proceeds, you can show the basis and thus calculate the gain. See this question for some useful answers on how to report the RSU sale on your taxes.","Fidelity has a good explanation of Restricted Stock Awards: For grants that pay in actual shares, the employee’s tax holding period begins at the time of vesting, and the employee’s tax basis is equal to the amount paid for the stock plus the amount included as ordinary compensation income. Upon a later sale of the shares, assuming the employee holds the shares as a capital asset, the employee would recognize capital gain income or loss; whether such capital gain would be a short- or long-term gain would depend on the time between the beginning of the holding period at vesting and the date of the subsequent sale. Consult your tax adviser regarding the income tax consequences to you. So, you would count from vesting for long-term capital gains purposes. Also note the point to include the amount of income you were considered to have earned as a result of the original vesting [market value then - amount you paid]. (And of course, you reported that as income in 2015/2016, right?) So if you had 300 shares of Stock ABC granted you in 2014 for a price of $5/share, and in 2015 100 of those shares vested at FMV $8/share, and in 2016 100 of those shares vested, current FMV $10/share, you had $300 in income in 2015 and $500 of income in 2016 from this. Then in 2017 you sold 200 shares for $15/share:","There are two dates that matter for vesting in this situation: If you left the company on 12/31/16, you would be entitled to none of the company contributions. If you left on 1/1/17, you would be entitled to all $20k. This is sometimes known as a cliff vesting schedule. Some companies do a stair step - 20% after year 1, 40% after year 2, etc. This is known as graded vesting. But, that is not the case based on the language here.","\"I can see two possibilities. Either a deal is struck that someone (the company itself, or a large owner) buys out the remaining shares. This is the scenario @mbhunter is talking about, so I won't go too deeply into it, but it simply means that you get money in your bank account for the shares in question the same as if you were to sell them for that price (in turn possibly triggering tax effects, etc.). I imagine that this is by far the most common approach. The other possibility is that the stock is simply de-listed from a public stock exchange, and not re-listed elsewhere. In this case, you will still have the stock, and it will represent the same thing (a portion of the company), but you will lose out on most of the \"\"market\"\" part of \"\"stock market\"\". That is, the shares will still represent a monetary value, you will have the same right to a portion of the company's profits as you do now, etc., but you will not have the benefit of the market setting a price per share so current valuation will be harder. Should you wish to buy or sell stock, you will have to find someone yourself who is interested in striking a deal with you at a price point that you feel comfortable with.\"","\"Yes, you would pay no taxes at the time of purchase. In fact, this is not uncommon. Many early employees of startup companies are offered stock options that can be \"\"early-exercised\"\" (exercised before they vest). In such a case, an employee who exercises immediately upon grant (and assuming the exercise price of the option is the FMV at the time of grant) purchases the stock at FMV, and there no no tax paid when filing 83(b) election.\"","Probably not. If you were at a small company and asked such a question, you'd get advice and links to erisa or other case law, etc. it's safe to say that a Fortune 500 company such as IBM is going to have their facts in order, and not going to run afoul of the rules in these cases (vesting rules and takeover of other company). I was in a company that cancelled its pension program. Those of us with the required years got the option of a lump sum payout, those with less than 5 years had no vested value and got nothing. One month longer employment, in the case of a particular coworker, would have given him a lump sum worth nearly 6 months pay.","If the company's ownership is structured similarly to a typical start-up then an 1% employee ownership in a company which sells for 1 million will yield far less than 10k due to various liquidation preferences of the investors, different share classes, etc. It's pretty hard to get a specific number because it depends a lot on the details of earlier fundraising and stock grants. That said, unless the company is circling the drain and the sale was just to avoid BK, the share price you get should be higher unless the share class structure and acquisition deal are completely unfair.","\"The main thing is the percentage of the company represented by the shares. Number of shares is meaningless without total shares. If you compute percentage and total company value you can estimate the value of the grant. Or perhaps more useful for a startup is to multiple the percentage by some plausible \"\"exit\"\" value, such as how much the company might sell for or IPO for. Many grants expire when or soon after you leave the company if you don't \"\"cash out\"\" vested shares when you leave, this is standard, but do remember it when you leave. The other major thing is vesting. In the tech industry, vesting 1/4 after a year and then the rest quarterly over 3 more years is most common.\"","You're asking whether the shares you sold while being a US tax resident are taxable in the US. The answer is yes, they are. How you acquired them or what were the circumstances of the sale is irrelevant. When you acquired them is relevant to the determination of the tax treatment - short or long term capital gains. You report this transaction on your Schedule D, follow the instructions. Make sure you can substantiate the cost basis properly based on how much you paid for the shares you sold (the taxable income recognized to you at vest).","\"An option without the vesting period and the price at which one can exercise the option is of not much value. If vesting is determined by board, then at any given point in time they can change the vesting period to say 3, 5, 10 years any number. The other aspect is at what price you are allowed to exercise the option, ie if the stock is of value 10, you may be given an option to buy this at 10, 20 or 100. This has to be stated upfront for you to know the real value. On listing if the value is say 80, then if you have the option to exercise at 10, or 20 you would make money, else at 100 you loose money and hence choose not to exercise the option. However your having stuck around the company for \"\"x\"\" years in anticipation of making money would go waste. Without a vesting period or the price to exercise the option, they are pretty much meaningless and would depend on the goodwill of the founders\"","Here's an article on it that might help: http://thefinancebuff.com/restricted-stock-units-rsu-sales-and.html One of the tricky things is that you probably have the value of the vested shares and withheld taxes already on your W-2. This confuses everyone including the IRS (they sent me one of those audits-by-mail one year, where the issue was they wanted to double-count stock compensation that was on both 1099-B and W-2; a quick letter explaining this and they were happy). The general idea is that when you first irrevocably own the stock (it vests) then that's income, because you're receiving something of value. So this goes on a W-2 and is taxed as income, not capital gains. Conceptually you've just spent however many dollars in income to buy stock, so that's your basis on the stock. For tax paid, if your employer withheld taxes, it should be included in your W-2. In that case you would not separately list it elsewhere.","I don't know the legal framework for RSUs, so I'm not sure what is mandatory and what is chosen by the company issuing them. I recently reviewed one companies offering and it basically looked like a flat purchase of stock on the VEST date. So even if I got a zillion shares for $1 GRANTED to me, if it was 100 shares that vested at $100 on the 1st, then I would owe tax on the market value on the day of vest. Further, the company would withhold 25% of the VEST for federal taxes and 10% for state taxes, if I lived in a state with income tax. The withholding rate was flat, regardless of what my actual tax rate was. Capital gains on the change from the market value on the VEST date was calculated as short-term or long-term based on the time since the VEST date. So if my 100 shares went up to $120, I would pay the $20 difference as short term or long term based on how long I had owned them since the VEST. That said, I don't know if this is universal. Your HR folks should be able to help answer at least some of these questions, though I know their favorite response when they don't know is that you should consult a tax professional. Good luck.","The stockholders of company A vote to approve or disapprove the buy out. That is the only control you have on the price: Vote to approve or disapprove. If the deal is approved then you get the money, or stock in B, or both, in accordance with the terms of the deal. It will arrive into your account automatically.","The vesting date. Look at publication 525, under stock options, where they talk about ESPP: Your basis is equal to the option price at the time you exercised your option and acquired the stock. The timing and amount of pay period deductions do not affect your basis.","\"First, you mentioned your brother-in-law has \"\"$100,000 in stock options (fully vested)\"\". Do you mean his exercise cost would be $100,000, i.e. what he'd need to pay to buy the shares? If so, then what might be the estimated value of the shares acquired? Options having vested doesn't necessarily mean they possess value, merely that they may be exercised. Or did you mean the estimated intrinsic value of those options (estimated value less exercise cost) is $100,000? Speaking from my own experience, I'd like to address just the first part of your question: Have you treated this as you would a serious investment in any other company? That is, have you or your brother-in-law reviewed the company's financial statements for the last few years? Other than hearing from people with a vested interest (quite literally!) to pump up the stock with talk around the office, how do you know the company is: BTW, as an option holder only, your brother-in-law's rights to financial information may be limited. Will the company share these details anyway? Or, if he exercised at least one option to become a bona-fide shareholder, I believe he'd have rights to request the financial statements – but company bylaws vary, and different jurisdictions say different things about what can be restricted. Beyond the financial statements, here are some more things to consider: The worst-case risk you'd need to accept is zero liquidity and complete loss: If there's no eventual buy-out or IPO, the shares may (effectively) be worthless. Even if there is a private market, willing buyers may quickly dry up if company fortunes decline. Contrast this to public stock markets, where there's usually an opportunity to witness deterioration, exit at a loss, and preserve some capital. Of course, with great risk may come great reward. Do your own due diligence and convince yourself through a rigorous analysis — not hopes & dreams — that the investment might be worth the risk.\"","There are two things to consider: taxes - beneficial treatment for long-term holding, and for ESPP's you can get lower taxes on higher earnings. Also, depending on local laws, some share schemes allow one to avoid some or all on the income tax. For example, in the UK £2000 in shares is treated differently to 2000 in cash vesting - restricted stocks or options can only be sold/exercised years after being granted, as long as the employee keeps his part of the contract (usually - staying at the same place of works through the vesting period). This means job retention for the employees, that's why they don't really care if you exercise the same day or not, they care that you actually keep working until the day when you can exercise arrives. By then you'll get more grants you'll want to wait to vest, and so on. This would keep you at the same place of work for a long time because by quitting you'd be forfeiting the grants.","There are a number of ways this can result. In a broad ETF, such as SPY, the S&P 500 spider, the S&P index will have 500 stocks no matter what, so a buyout would simply result in a re-shuffling of the index makeup. No buyout will happen so quickly that there's no time to choose the next stock to join the index. In your case, if the fund manager (per the terms of the prospectus) wishes to simply reallocate the index to remove the taken-over stock that's probably how he handle it. Unless of course, the prospectus dictates otherwise. In which case, a cash dividend is a possible alternative.","If the contributions were yours, they are vested immediately. Otherwise, there are some rules laid out on the Department of Labor website: ww.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/wyskapr.htm","This really comes down to tax structuring (which I am not an expert on), for public companies the acquiror almost always pays for the cash to prevent any taxable drawdown of overseas accounts, dividend taxes suck, etc. For a private company, first the debt gets swept, then special dividend out - dividends received by the selling corporate entity benefit from a tax credit plus it reduces the selling price of the equity, reducing capital gains taxes.","\"Your employer should send you a statement with this information. If they didn't, you should still be able to find it through E*Trade. Navigate to: Trading & Portfolios>Portfolios. Select the stock plan account. Under \"\"Restricted Stock\"\", you should see a list of your grants. If you click on the grant in question, you should see a breakdown of how many shares were vested and released by date. It will also tell you the cost basis per share and the amount of taxes withheld. You calculate your cost basis by multiplying the number of released shares by the cost basis per share. You can ignore the ordinary income tax and taxes withheld since they will already have been included on your W2 earnings and withholdings. Really all you need to do is report the capital gain or loss from the cost basis (which if you sold right away will be rather small).\"","Now assume these shares are vested, held for at least 1 year, and are then sold for $5 each. Everything I've read implies that the grantee now owes long-term capital gains taxes on the difference, which would be 10k * ($5 - $1). No. That's exactly what the SO is NQ for. Read more on the differences between ISO and NQSO here. Now assume these shares are vested, held for at least 1 year, and are then sold for $5 each. Everything I've read implies that the grantee now owes long-term capital gains taxes on the difference, which would be 10k * ($5 - $1). At this point you no longer have NQSO, you have RSU. If you filed 83(b) when you exercised, then you pay capital gains tax when they vest. If you didn't - its ordinary income to you. NQSO is a red herring here since once exercised they no longer exist. If you didn't file 83(b), then when the stock vests the difference between the FMV at vest and the money you spent on it when exercising (if any) is considered wages and taxed as ordinary income (+FICA etc). From that point the RSU becomes a regular stock investment and the capital gains clock starts ticking.","You'd likely be subject to a lock-up period before you could sell the shares along with possibly having other rules about how you could sell your shares as you'd likely be seen as an insider that may have information that gives you an unfair advantage for selling the stock possibly. Depending on how far in advance you hold the shares, you may or may not have adjustments in the valuation and number of shares as some companies may do a split or reverse split when preparing for an IPO. A company I worked for in the late 1990s had an IPO and my stock options had a revised strike price because of a reverse stock split that was done prior to the IPO.","As part of this acquisition 96% of the shareholders accepted an offer for their shares This means that most of the shareholder agreed for the sale. If this was less than specified percentage, the deal would not have gone through. To make it easier, there were 2 options present to shareholder, full exchange of shares of Infinera or part shares and part cash. I failed to do so as I was unwell at the time So you cannot now choose the option. There will be a default option of getting the equivalent shares in Infinera. What options are available to me now? Contact Infinera investor relations and ask them.","\"Check how long you have to hold the stock after buying it. If you can sell reasonably soon and your company is reasonably stable, you're unlikely to lose and/or be taxed and/or pay enough in fees to lose more than the 30% \"\"free money\"\" they're giving you. Whether you hold it longer than the minimum time depends partly on whether you think you can better invest the money elsewhere, and partly on how you feel about having both your salary and (part of) your investments tied to the company's success? The company would like you to \"\"double down\"\" that way, in the theory that it may make you mors motivated... but some investment councelors would advise keeping that a relatively small part of your total investments, basically for the same reasons you are always advised to diversify.\"","Yes. You incur income tax on the RSU on they date they vest. At this point you own the actual shares and you can decide to sell them or to hold them. If you hold them for the required period, and sell them later, the difference between your price at vesting and the sales price would be taxed as long term capital gains. Caution: if you decide to hold, you are still liable to pay income tax in the year they vest. You have to pay taxes on income that you haven't made yet. This is fairly dangerous: if the stock goes down, you may lose a lot of this tax payment. Technically you could recover some of this through claiming capital losses, but that this is severely restricted: the IRS makes it much easier to increase taxes through gains than reducing taxes through losses.","Like others have already said, it may cause an immediate dip due to a large and sudden move in shares for that particular stock. However, if there is nothing else affecting the company's financials and investors perceive no other risks, it will probably bounce back a bit, but not back to the full value before the shares were issued. Why? Whenever a company issues more stock, the new shares dilute the value of the current shares outstanding, simply because there are now more shares of that stock trading on the market; the Earnings Per Share (EPS) Ratio will drop since the same profit and company value has to be spread across more shares. Example: If a company is valued at $100 dollars and they have 25 shares outstanding, then the EPS ratio equates to $4 per share (100/25 = 4). If the company then issues more shares (stock to employees who sell or keep them), let's say 25 more shares, then shares outstanding increase to 50, but the company's value still remains at $100 dollars. EPS now equates to $2 per share (100/50 = 2). Now, sometimes when shareholders (especially employees...and especially employees who just received them) suddenly all sell their shares, this causes a micro-panic in the market because investors believe the employees know something bad about the company that they don't. Other common shareholders then want to dump their holdings for fear of impending collapse in the company. This could cause the share price to dip a bit below the new diluted value, but again if no real, immediate risks exist, the price should go back up to the new, diluted value. Example 2: If EPS was at $4 before issuing more stock, and then dropped to $2 after issuing new stock, the micro-panic may cause the EPS to drop below $2 and then soon rebound back to $2 or more when investors realize no actual risk exists. After the dilution phase plays out, the EPS could actually even go above the pre-issuing value of $4 because investors may believe that since more stock was issued due to good profits, more profits may ensue. Hope that helps!","Often buyouts are paid for by the buyer issuing a load of new shares and giving those to the seller to pay them. Sometimes it could be all shares, sometimes all cash, or any mix in-between. If you believe in the future of the buyers' business model, you'll often get a load of shares at a discounted rate this way. If you do not believe in the buyers' future then you're getting shares that you think may be worth little or nothing some day, so cash would be better.","\"It depends on how big the dilution is. Could be a good trade. Do the math yourself, many times nobody else has as all the employees think they are going to get rich because \"\"options\"\" :)\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"This is a great question. I've participated in a deal like that as an employee, and I also know of friends and family who have been involved during a buyout. In short: The updated part of your question is correct: There is no single typical treatment. What happens to unvested restricted stock units (RSUs), unvested employee stock options, etc. varies from case to case. Furthermore, what exactly will happen in your case ought to have been described in the grant documentation which you (hopefully) received when you were issued restricted stock in the first place. Anyway, here are the two cases I've seen happen before: Immediate vesting of all units. Immediate vesting is often the case with RSUs or options that are granted to executives or key employees. The grant documentation usually details the cases that will have immediate vesting. One of the cases is usually a Change in/of Control (CIC or COC) provision, triggered in a buyout. Other immediate vesting cases may be when the key employee is terminated without cause, or dies. The terms vary, and are often negotiated by shrewd key employees. Conversion of the units to a new schedule. If anything is more \\\"\\\"typical\\\"\\\" of regular employee-level grants, I think this one would be. Generally, such RSU or option grants will be converted, at the deal price, to a new schedule with identical dates and vesting percentages, but a new number of units and dollar amount or strike price, usually so the end result would have been the same as before the deal. I'm also curious if anybody else has been through a buyout, or knows anybody who has been through a buyout, and how they were treated.\\\"\",\n \"Vesting typically stops after you quit. So, if your plan vests 20% per year for 5 years, and you received a one-time stock grant as part of this plan (i.e., ignoring the fact that these often involve new grants each year that vest separately), and you were hired in 2014 and leave at the end of 2016, then you vested 20% in 2015 and 20% in 2016, so would have 40% of the stock vested when you quit, and would never have more than that.\",\n \"I would ask your HR or benefits department to be certain, but here's how I read that without any specific knowledge of the situation: What is right to receive the RSU consideration? Company A was bought by Company B. You had unvested Restricted Stock Units in A, which is now gone. B is saying that you now have the right to receive consideration equivalent to the value of those RSUs in A. Since B is private, there's no publicly traded stock, so it will likely be in cash, but read the rest of the paperwork or talk to HR to be certain. For example, if you had 100 RSUs vesting next year and the price of stock in A was $50 when the company was bought, those RSUs would be worth $5,000. B is give you the right to consideration for those RSUs, hopefully for somewhere around $5,000. That consideration is unvested, meaning you must stay employed until the vesting period in order to claim that right. If you are fired without cause (i.e. laid off), you will receive those unvested claims as compensation. I assume the same will be applicable if employee leaves the company Probably not. In any situation, if you voluntarily leave a company, any unvested stock, RSUs, options, etc. are forfeited.\",\n \"\\\"I'd early-exercised 75% of my grant at $5 and (later) exercised the remaining portion at $2. So did you actually pay the money and got \\\"\\\"X\\\"\\\" unvested shares? I'll be leaving the company; and they'll be unwinding half of the grant, so I'll get some money back, but now the question is: Do they pay me back from the $5 shares or the $2 shares? This would depend on what your contract says on unvested shares. There can be numerous combinations. More Often these are forfeited. i.e. you are not granted the shares. At times if you have paid then the guideline would give the details what would happen; i.e. only half vest and are priced at market and you are forced to encash them.\\\"\",\n \"I've been through two instances where I worked for a public company that was merged (for stock) into another company. In both cases the options I had were replaced with equivalent options in the merged company with the number of shares and strike price adjusted at the same rate as the actual stock was converted, and the vesting terms remained essentially the same. In other words, the options before and after were in essence equivalent.\",\n \"This should all be covered in your stock grant documentation, or the employee stock program of which your grant is a part. Find those docs and it should specify how or when you can sale your shares, and how the money is paid to you. Generally, vested shares are yours until you take action. If instead you have options, then be aware these need to be exercised before they become shares. There is generally a limited time period on how long you can wait to exercise. In the US, 10 years is common. Unvested shares will almost certainly expire upon your departure of the company. Whether your Merrill Lynch account will show this, or show them as never existing, I can't say. But either way, there is nothing you can or should do.\",\n \"\\\"You were probably not given stock, but stock options. Those options have a strike price and you can do some more research on them if needed. Lets assume that you were given 5K shares at a strike of 20, and they vest 20% per year. Assume the same thing in your second year and you are going to leave in year three. You would have 2K shares from your year 1 grant, and 1K shares from your year 2 grant, so 2K total. If you leave no more shares would be vested. If you leave you have one of two options: To complicate matters subsequent grants may have different strike prices, so perhaps year two grant is at $22 per share. However, in pre-public companies that is not likely the case. For a bit of history, I worked at a pre-ipo company and we were all going to get rich. I was given generous grants, but decided to leave. I really wanted to buy my options but simply didn't have the money. Shortly after I left the company folded, so the money would have been thrown away anyway. When a company is private the motivate their employees with tales of riches, but they are not required to disclose financial data. This company did a very good job of convincing employees that all was fine, when it wasn't. Also I received options in a publicly traded company. Myself and other employees received options that were \\\"\\\"underwater\\\"\\\" or worth far less than the strike price. You could let them expire so one did not owe money, but they were worthless. Hopefully that answers your question.\\\"\",\n \"An employer can decide that the employee funds are automatically vested. The new company could have had a more aggressive vesting schedule and grandfathered in all the employees of the company they acquired. This could have been part of the purchase negoaitaions. I would be surprised if they did it for employees that left years ago, especially if they were beyond the return period. I wouldn't keep money in a plan with a former employer just in case it happens. Check the plan documents to see all the verbiage regarding vesting here is a paragraph from one: You will receive one year of vesting service for each calendar year during which you complete 850 or more hours of service. Once you have five years of service, your account is fully vested and any future Company contributions made to your account will be immediately vested. Full vesting also occurs at age 59½, total disability or death while employed by the Company. If you leave the Company prior to 100% vesting, any unvested portion of your Plan account will be forfeited.\",\n \"Generally speaking: when a company buys another company it's a complex agreement that spells out many things, including how the acquiring company is paying for the target company. These are the most common form of payment: 1. Cash. Shareholders of the target company get cash. 2. Shares. Shareholders of the target company get shares of the acquiring company. 3. A combination of 1 and 2 above.\",\n \"When your options vest, you will have the option to buy your company's stock at a particular price (the strike price). A big part of the value of the option is the difference between the price that your company's stock is trading at, and the strike price of the option. If the price of the company stock in the market is lower than the strike price of the option, they are almost worthless. I say 'almost' because there is still the possibility that the stock price could go up before the options expire. If your company is big enough that their stock is not only listed on an exchange, but there is an active options market in your company's stock, you could get a feel for what they are worth by seeing what the market is willing to buy or sell similar exchange listed options. Once the options have vested, you now have the right to purchase your company's stock at the specified strike price until the options expire. When you use that right, you are exercising the option. You don't have to do that until you think it is worthwhile buying company stock at that price. If the company pays a dividend, it would probably be worth exercising the options sooner, (options don't receive a dividend). Ultimately you are buying your company's stock (albeit at a discount). You need to see if your company's stock is still a good investment. If you think your company has growth prospects, you might want to hold onto the stock. If you think you'd be better off putting your money elsewhere in the market, sell the stock you acquired at a discount and use the money to invest in something else. If there are any additional benefits to holding on to the stock for a period of time (e.g. selling part to fit within your capital gain allowance for that year) you should factor that into your investment decision, but it shouldn't force you to invest in, or remain invested in something you would otherwise view as too risky to invest in. A reminder of that fact is that some employees of Enron invested their entire retirement plans into Enron stock, so when Enron went bankrupt, these employees not only lost their job but their savings for retirement as well...\",\n \"\\\"As the comments above have been trying to get across, the prospective employer is offering to pay you for the bonus/unvested compensation that you would be losing by jumping ship right now to go work for them. They are not offering to buy any securities that you already hold, regardless of whether they're profitable or unprofitable. Example 1. You participate in your current company's 401(k), and your company matches your contributions at 50%. However, the matching funds are not yours immediately; they vest in 20%/year increments until you have been at the company for 5 years. Let's say you've been there for 3 years and have contributed $50K to the plan. Your company has matched you at $25K, but only 60% of that ($15K) has vested. If you leave right now for the new employer, you're leaving $10K behind. So the new employer might offer to \\\"\\\"buy out\\\"\\\" (i.e. pay you) that $10K to help encourage you to switch now. You might then counter their offer by pointing out that if you stay where you are that $10K is coming to you tax-deferred, whereas their $10K signing bonus would be taxed. So you ask for $15K instead. Example 2. You work for a Wall Street investment bank. Each December you receive a performance bonus. Since you began working there, your three yearly bonuses have been (in chronological order) $500K, $750K, and $1M. It's June, so you've worked halfway towards your next bonus. You have a lot of incentive to NOT leave your current employer. A competing employer may offer to \\\"\\\"buy you out\\\"\\\" of your anticipated bonus by giving you a $1.25M signing bonus (since you'd almost certainly not be eligible for a performance bonus during your first year there). You might negotiate with them and say \\\"\\\"I'm on track for $2M this year\\\"\\\", and then they would figure out if you're really worth that much to them. So you can see this all has to do with the prospective employer trying to compensate you for any income you're already counting on receiving from your current employer. By jumping ship now you would be foregoing that guaranteed/expected income, so the competitor wants to remove that anchor that might be holding you back from making the move. Stocks/options that you already own are irrelevant to the prospective employer. Since you wouldn't be giving those up by changing jobs, there's no reason for them to factor into the equation.\\\"\",\n \"As littleadv says it depends on the local laws. Normally one shouldn't be too worried. Typically the stocks given to the employees are a very small portion of the overall stocks ... the owners would not try to jeopardize the deal just so that they make an incrementally small amount of money ... they would rather play safe than get into such a practice.\",\n \"\\\"Recently, I asked about what the company valuation is and how many shares does my 4% represent.CFO told me that there is no point to talk about \\\"\\\"shares\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"stock\\\"\\\" since the company is not public. Is it right? No, it is wrong. Shares and stocks exist regardless of how they can be traded. Once a company is formed, there are stocks that belong to the owners in the proportion of the ownership. They may not exist physically, but they do exist on paper. As an owner of 5% of the company, you own 5% of the company stocks. I asked if my investor portion equity will be subjected under a vesting schedule, CFO said yes. That doesn't make sense to me, because I bought those 4%? Aren't those supposed to be fully vested? I agree to my employee equity to be vested. Doesn't make sense to me either, since your money is already in their pocket. But I'm not sure if its illegal. If that's what is written in the signed contract - then may be its possible to have that situation. But it doesn't make much sense, because these shares are granted to you in return to your money, not some potential future work (as the 1% employee's portion). You already gave the money, so why wouldn't they be vested? Best to read the contract upon which you gave them your money, I really hope you have at least that and not just gave them a check....\\\"\",\n \"Vesting As you may know a stock option is the right to acquire a given amount of stock at a given price. Actually acquiring the stock is referred to as exercising the option. Your company is offering you options over 200,000 shares but not all of those options can be exercised immediately. Initially you will only be able to acquire 25,000 shares; the other 175,000 have conditions attached, the condition in this case presumably being that you are still employed by the company at the specified time in the future. When the conditions attached to a stock option are satisfied that option is said to have vested - this simply means that the holder of the option can now exercise that option at any time they choose and thereby acquire the relevant shares. Dividends Arguably the primary purpose of most private companies is to make money for their owners (i.e. the shareholders) by selling goods and/or services at a profit. How does that money actually get to the shareholders? There are a few possible ways of which paying a dividend is one. Periodically (potentially annually but possibly more or less frequently or irregularly) the management of a company may look at how it is doing and decide that it can afford to pay so many cents per share as a dividend. Every shareholder would then receive that number of cents multiplied by the number of shares held. So for example in 4 years or so, after all your stock options have vested and assuming you have exercised them you will own 200,000 shares in your company. If the board declares a dividend of 10 cents per share you would receive $20,000. Depending on where you are and your exact circumstances you may or may not have to pay tax on this. Those are the basic concepts - as you might expect there are all kinds of variations and complications that can occur, but that's hopefully enough to get you started.\",\n \"Having stock options means that you have worked for and rightfully earned a part of the company's capital appreciation. Takeover of the company would indicate someone is interested in the company (something should be valuable). It would be unwise to not strike before the period lapses since the strike price is always lower than market price and takeovers generally increases stock values ... it is capital gains all the way my friend. Good luck. *observations not in professional capacity. pls consult a professional for investment related advice.\",\n \"I have had this happen a couple of times because of splits or sales of portions of the company. The general timeline was to announce how the split was to be handled; then the split; then a freeze in purchasing stock in the other company; then a freeze in sales; followed by a short blackout period; then the final transfers to funds/options/cash based on a mapping announced at the start of the process. You need to answer two questions: To determine if the final transactions will make the market move you have to understand how many shares are involved compared to the typical daily volume. There are two caveats: professional investors will be aware of the transaction date and can either ignore the employee transactions or try and take advantage of them; There may also be a mirroring set of transactions if the people left in the old company were awarded shares in your company as part of the sale. If you are happy with the default mapping then you can do nothing, and let the transaction happen based on the announced timeline. It is easy, and you don't have to worry about deadlines. If you don't like the default mapping then you need to know when the blackout period starts, so you don't end up not being able to perform the steps you want when you want. Timing is up to you. If the market doesn't like the acquisition/split it make make sense to make the move now, or wait until the last possible day depending on which part they don't like. Only you can answer that question.\",\n \"It depends. If you accept the offer, then your stock will cease existing. If you reject the offer, then you will become a minority shareholder. Depending on the circumstances, you could be in the case where it becomes illegal to trade your shares. That can happen if the firm ceases to be a public company. In that case, you would discount the cash flows of future dividends to determine worth because there would be no market for it. If the firm remained public and also was listed for trading, then you could sell your shares although the terms and conditions in the market would depend on how the controlling firm managed the original firm.\",\n \"According to this article: With an all-stock merger, the number of shares covered by a call option is changed to adjust for the value of the buyout. The options on the bought-out company will change to options on the buyer stock at the same strike price, but for a different number of shares. Normally, one option is for 100 shares of the underlying stock. For example, company A buys company B, exchanging 1/2 share of A for each share of B. Options purchased on company B stock would change to options on company A, with 50 shares of stock delivered if the option is exercised. This outcome strongly suggests that, in general, holders of options should cash out once the takeover is announced, before the transactions takes place. Since the acquiring company will typically offer a significant premium, this will offer an opportunity for instant profits for call option holders while at the same time being a big negative for put option holders. However, it is possible in some cases where the nominal price of the two companies favours the SML company (ie. the share prices of SML is lower than that of BIG), the holder of a call option may wish to hold onto their options. (And, possibly, conversely for put option holders.)\",\n \"As far as I know, the AMT implications are the same for a privately held company as for one that is publicly traded. When I was given my ISO package, it came with a big package of articles on AMT to encourage me to exercise as close to the strike price as possible. Remember that the further the actual price at the time of purchase is from the strike price, the more the likely liability for AMT. That is an argument for buying early. Your company should have a common metric for determining the price of the stock that is vetted by outside sources and stable from year to year that is used in a similar way to the publicly traded value when determining AMT liability. During acquisitions stock options often, from what I know of my industry, at least, become options in the new company's stock. This won't always happen, but its possible that your options will simply translate. This can be valuable, because the price of stock during acquisition may triple or quadruple (unless the acquisition is helping out a very troubled company). As long as you are confident that the company will one day be acquired rather than fold and you are able to hold the stock until that one day comes, or you'll be able to sell it back at a likely gain, other than tying up the money I don't see much of a downside to investing now.\",\n \"\\\"It seems like this was a \\\"\\\"stock for stock\\\"\\\" transaction. That is, your company was acquired, not for cash, but for the stock of Company X in a deal that your company's board of directors \\\"\\\"signed off\\\"\\\" on. Your company no longer exists, and that's why your stock was cancelled. The acquirer will be sending you an equivalent amount of stock in their Company, X. You don't need to worry about taxes, only accounting, because this is a \\\"\\\"non-cash\\\"\\\" transaction. What this means that your cost basis in the stock of Company X will be what you paid for the original company's stock (not its value on the day of the merger, which may be higher or lower than what you paid).\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I'm in the US, so there may be idiosyncrasies with UK taxes that I'm not familiar with, but here's how I've always treated stock I get as compensation. Suppose the vested shares are worth X. If I had X in cash, would I buy my company's stock as an investment? Usually the answer is no, not because I think the stock will tank, but because there's better things I can do with that cash (pay off debt, unfortunately). Therefore I sell the shares and use the cash for something else. You have stock options. So suppose the stock value is X but you can buy it for Y. You can either: Therefore, the math is the same. If you had X in cash, would you buy your company's stock as an investment? If so, then option 2 is best, because you can get X in stock for a lower cost. (Option 3 might be better if the gain on the stock will be taxed higher, but they're pretty much equivalent if there's no chance that the stock will drop below Y) If not, then option 4 is best since you will likely get more than X-Y from selling the options that by exercising them and selling the stock (since options have time value). If option 4 is not a possibility, then option 1 is best - you pocket X-Y as \\\"\\\"income\\\"\\\" and invest it however you see fit.\\\"\",\n \"The tax cost at election should be zero. The appreciation is all capital gain beyond your basis, which will be the value at election. IRC §83 applies to property received as compensation for services, where the property is still subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. It will catch unvested equity given to employees. §83(a) stops taxation until the substantial risk of forfeiture abates (i.e. no tax until stock vests) since the item is revocable and not yet truly income. §83(b) allows the taxpayer to make a quick election (up to 30 days after transfer - firm deadline!) to waive the substantial risk of forfeiture (e.g. treat shares as vested today). The normal operation of §83 takes over after election and the taxable income is generally the value of the vested property minus the price paid for it. If you paid fair market value today, then the difference is zero and your income from the shares is zero. The shares are now yours for tax purposes, though not for legal purposes. That means they are most likely a capital asset in your hands, like other stocks you own or trade. The shares will not be treated as compensation income on vesting, and vesting is not a tax matter for elected shares. If you sell them, you get capital gain (with tax dependent on your holding period) over a basis equal to FMV at the election. The appreciation past election-FMV will be capital gain, rather than ordinary income. This is why the §83(b) election is so valuable. It does not matter at this point whether you bought the restricted shares at FMV or at discount (or received them free) - that only affects the taxes upon §83(b) election.\",\n \"A buy out is agreed by shareholders. Plus most countries have regulation protecting minority interest. Depending on the terms of buy out, you may get equivalent shares of buyer company or cash or both.\",\n \"Its important that you carefully read the agreement, if you accept the job. The options agreement will usually specify the vesting schedule, the strike price, and the number of options you will have. When you start vesting options, you can choose to buy stock at the strike price. When you do exercise the options, your employer will likely withhold state and federal income tax. The strike price will hopefully be well below the market price. Unlike stock, when your employment ends, you usually are not able to hold on to your options. There's typically a small window of time in which you can exercise your options. You should read this part of the agreement carefully and plan accordingly.\",\n \"Unfortunately, the money that is not vested is not yours. It belongs to your employer. They have promised to give it to you after you have been with the company for a certain length of time, but if you aren't still with the company after that time, no matter what the reason, the money never becomes yours. Sorry to hear about this. It would have been nice if your company had waived the vesting requirement like this guy's employer did, but I don't think they are required to do so, unfortunately. If it's a lot of money, you could ask an attorney, but as @JoeTaxpayer said, AT&T and IBM probably know what they are doing.\",\n \"How you are taxed will depend on what kind of stock awards they are. The value will be determined by the company that issues it, and appropriate tax forms will be sent to you to include with your taxes. The way the value is determined is an accounting question that is off-topic here, but the value will be stated on your stock award paperwork. If you are awarded the stock directly then that value will be taxed as ordinary income. If you are awarded options, then you can purchase the stock to start the clock on long-term capital gains, but you will not incur any tax liability through the initial purchase. If the company is sold privately and you have held the stock for over 1 year, then yes, it will be taxed as a long-term capital gain. If you receive/exercise the stock less than 1 year before such an acquisition, then it will be considered a short-term capital gain and will be taxed as ordinary income.\",\n \"This is only one of a series of questions your friend needs to understand. They will also need to know what happens to: vacation balances; the vacation earning schedule; retirement fund matching; the pension program; all the costs and rules regarding health, dental and vision;life insurance amounts. Some of these can be changed immediately. Some will not be changed this year because of IRS regulations. Everything can be changed by the next year. But there is no way to know if they will change a little a possible or as much a possible. It will depend on if they are buying the company, or if the company is going out of business and the new company is buying the remnants. They may also be essentially terminating the employees at the old place, and giving them the first opportunity for interviews. If they are essentially quitting they will not have to continue paying into the plan. The bad news is that their last day of work is also probably their last day to incur expenses that they can pay for with the flexible plan. If They are being purchased or absorbed the company will likely make no changes to the current plan, and fold them into the plan next year. I have been involved with company purchases and company splits, and this is how it was handled.\",\n \"The NY company's board of directors are your agents and fiduciaries. I'll call them your agents below. The acquiring company entered into some contract that your agents negotiated. Whatever the acquiring company owes you in terms of money, equity, or specific communication is based on what your agents dealt for in the sale contract. Best ask your agents what they got for you.\",\n \"Here is how it should look: 100 shares of restricted stock (RSU) vest. 25 shares sold to pay for taxes. W2 (and probably paycheck) shows your income going up by 100 shares worth and your taxes withheld going up by 25 shares worth. Now you own 75 shares with after-tax money. If you stop here, there would be no stock sale and no tax issues. You'd have just earned W2 income and withheld taxes through your W2 job. Now, when you sell those 75 shares whether it is the same day or years later, the basis for those 75 shares is adjusted by the amount that went in to your W2. So if they were bought for $20, your adjusted basis would be 75*$20.\",\n \"I've seen many buyouts in my own portfolio, including the company I worked for. There have been several different scenarios: The terms of the deal are subject to the deal -- frankly whatever makes sense to the buyer and that is accepted by the seller. So sometimes brokers charge reorganization fees. check into those for your broker. I've not seen one in a while, but my brokerage account is substantial, and often that's a perk they offer higher-value accounts. Also watch out for taxes. The transaction where my employer was bought by another publicly traded company -- we got bit because the IRS treated it as a taxable transaction, and all our RSUs were effectively sold and then repurchased. So we ended up with a big tax bill (capital gains) without any cash to offset the big tax bill. I suspect its because my old employer was a US based company, whereas the new company is not.\",\n \"When the deal closes, will it be as if I sold all of my ESPP shares with regards to taxes? Probably. If the deal is for cash and not stock exchange, then once the deal is approved and closed all the existing shareholders will sell their shares to the buyer for cash. Is there any way to mitigate this? Unlikely. You need to understand that ESPP is just a specific way to purchase shares, it doesn't give you any special rights or protections that other shareholders don't have.\",\n \"Stock awards by employers are treated and taxed as salary. I.e.: you pay ordinary rate income tax, FICA taxes, State taxes etc. The fact that you got your salary in shares and not cash is irrelevant for tax purposes. Once you got the shares and paid your taxes on them, the treatment is the same as if you got the salary and immediately bought the shares. Holding period for capital gains tax purposes starts at the time you paid your taxes on the award, which is the time at which you get full ownership (i.e.: vesting time, for the restricted stocks). When you sell these stocks - you treat the sale as any other stock sale: you check the holding period for capital gains tax rates, and you do not pay (or get refund) any FICA taxes on the sales transaction. So bottom line: You got $10K salary and you bought $10K worth of company stock, and you sold it at $8K half a year later. You have $10K wages income and $2K short term capital loss.\",\n \"\\\"A little terminology: Grant: you get a \\\"\\\"gift\\\"\\\" with strings attached. \\\"\\\"Grant\\\"\\\" refers to the plan (legal contract) under which you get the stock options. Vesting: these are the strings attached to the grant. As long as you're employed by the company, your options will vest every quarter, proportionally. You'll become an owner of 4687 or 4688 options every quarter. Each such vest event means you'd be getting an opportunity to buy the corresponding amount of stocks at the strike price (and not the current market price which may be higher). Buying is called exercising. Exercising a nonqualified option is a taxable event, and you'll be taxed on the value of the \\\"\\\"gift\\\"\\\" you got. The value is determined by the difference between the strike price (the price at which you have the option to buy the stock) and the actual fair market value of the stock at the time of vest (based on valuations). Options that are vested are yours (depending on the grant contract, read it carefully, leaving the company may lead to forfeiture). Options that are not vested will disappear once you leave the company. Exercised options become stocks, and are yours. Qualified vs Nonqualifed - refers to the tax treatment. Nonqualified options don't have any special treatment, qualified do. 3.02M stocks issued refers to the value of the options. Consider the total valuation of the company being $302M. With $302M value and 3.02M stocks issued, each stock is worth ~$100. Now, in a year, a new investor comes in, and another 3.02M stocks are issued (if, for example, the new investor wants a 50% stake). In this case, there will be 6.04M stocks issued, for 302M value - each stock is worth $50 now. That is called dilution. Your grant is in nominal options, so in case of dilution, the value of your options will go down. Additional points: If the company is not yet public, selling the stocks may be difficult, and you may own pieces of paper that no-one else wants to buy. You will still pay taxes based on the valuations and you may end up paying for these pieces of paper out of your own pocket. In California, it is illegal to not pay salary to regular employees. Unless you're a senior executive of the company (which I doubt), you should be paid at least $9/hour per the CA minimum wages law.\\\"\",\n \"does it still count as a capital gain or loss? Yes. Is it essentially treated like you sold the stock at the price of the buy-out? Yes. Do you still get a 1099-B from your broker? Yes.\",\n \"ISOs (incentive stock options) can be closed out in a cashless transaction. Say the first round vests, 25,000 shares. The stock is worth $7 but your option is to buy at $5 as you say. The broker executes and sells, you get $50,000, with no up front money. Edit based on comment below - you know they vest over 4 years, but how long before they expire? It stands to reason the longer you are able to hold them, the better a chance the company succeeds, and the price rises. The article Understanding employer-granted stock options (PDF) offers a nice discussion of different scenarios supporting my answer.\",\n \"\\\"An option is a financial instrument instrument that gives you the right, but not the obligation, to do some transaction in the future at a given price. An employee stock option is a kind of \\\"\\\"call option\\\"\\\" -- it gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy the stock at a certain price (the \\\"\\\"exercise price\\\"\\\", usually set as the price of the stock when the option was granted). The idea is that you would \\\"\\\"exercise\\\"\\\" the option (buy the stock at the given price as provided by the option), if the value of the stock is higher than the exercise price, and not if it is lower. The option is gifted to you. But that does not mean you get any stock. If and when you choose to exercise the option, you would buy the stock with your own money. At what time you can exercise the option (and how many shares you can exercise at a given time) will be specified in the agreement. Usually, you can only exercise a particular share after it has \\\"\\\"vested\\\"\\\" (according to some vesting schedule), and you lose the ability to exercise after you no longer work for the company (plus perhaps a grace period), or after the option expires.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I don't think its a taxable event since no income has been constructively received (talking about the RSU shareholders here). I believe you're right with the IRC 1033, and the basis of the RSU is the basis of the original stock option (probably zero). Edit: see below. However, once the stock becomes vested - then it is a taxable event (not when the cash is received, but when the chance of forfeiture diminishes, even if the employee doesn't sell the stock), and is an ordinary income, not capital. That is my understanding of the situation, do not consider it as a tax advice in any way. I gave it a bit more though and I don't think IRC 1033 is relevant. You're not doing any exchange or conversion here, because you didn't have anything to convert to begin with, and don't have anything after the \\\"\\\"conversion\\\"\\\". Your ISO's are forfeited and no longer available, basically - you treat them as you've never had them. What happened is that you've received RSU's, and you treat them as a regular RSU grant, based on its vesting schedule. The tax consequences are exactly as I described in my original response: you recognize ordinary income on the vested stocks, as they vest. Your basis is zero (i.e.: the whole FMV of the stock at the time of vesting is your ordinary income). It should also be reflected in your W2 accordingly.\\\"\",\n \"Stock options represent an option to buy a share at a given price. What you have been offered is the option to buy the company share at a given price ($5) starting a given date (your golden handcuffs aka vesting schedule). If the company's value doubles in 1 year and the shares are liquid (i.e. you can sell them) then you've just made $125k of profit. If the company's value has gone to zero in 1 year then you've lost nothing other than your hopes of getting rich. As others have mentioned, the mechanics of exercising the option and selling the shares can typically be accomplished without any cash involved. The broker will do both in a single transaction and use the proceeds of the sale to pay the cost of buying the shares. You should always at least cover the taxable portion of the transaction and typically the broker will withhold that tax anyways. Otherwise you could find yourself in a position where you have actually lost money due to tax being owed while the shares decline in value below that tax. You don't have to worry about that right now. Again as people have mentioned options will typically expire 10 years from vesting or 90 days from leaving your employment with the company. I'm sure there are some variations on the theme. Make sure you ask and all this should be part of some written contract. I'm sure you can ask to see it if you wish. Also typical is that stock option grants have to be approved by the board which is normally a technicality. Some general advice:\",\n \"A lot may depend on the nature of a buyout, sometimes it's is for stock and cash, sometimes just stock, or in the case of this google deal, all cash. Since that deal was used, we'll discuss what happens in a cash buyout. If the stock price goes high enough before the buyout date to put you in the money, pull the trigger before the settlement date (in some cases, it might be pulled for you, see below). Otherwise, once the buyout occurs you will either be done or may receive adjusted options in the stock of the company that did the buyout (not applicable in a cash buyout). Typically the price will approach but not exceed the buyout price as the time gets close to the buyout date. If the buyout price is above your option strike price, then you have some hope of being in the money at some point before the buyout; just be sure to exercise in time. You need to check the fine print on the option contract itself to see if it had some provision that determines what happens in the event of a buyout. That will tell you what happens with your particular options. For example Joe Taxpayer just amended his answer to include the standard language from CBOE on it's options, which if I read it right means if you have options via them you need to check with your broker to see what if any special exercise settlement procedures are being imposed by CBOE in this case.\",\n \"Good questions. I can only add that it may be valuable if the company is bought, they may buy the options. Happened to me in previous company.\",\n \"Since the 2 existing answers addressed the question as asked. Let me offer a warning. You have 10,000 options at $1. You've worked four years and the options are vested. The stock is worth $101 when you get a job offer (at another company) which you accept. So you put up $10k and buy the shares. At this moment, you put up $10K for stock worth $1.01M, a $1M profit and ordinary income. You got out of the company just in time. For whatever reason, the stock drops to $21 and at tax time you realize the $1M gain was ordinary income, but now the $800k loss is a capital loss, limited to $3000/yr above capital gains. In other words you have $210k worth of stock but a tax bill on $1M. This is not a contrived story, but a common one from the dotcon bubble. It's a warning that 'buy and hold' has the potential to blow up in your face, even if the shares you buy retain some value.\",\n \"Coincidentally just read a nice post on this topic: http://thefinancebuff.com/no-tax-advantage-in-rsu.html In short, sell the stock as soon as it vests and treat it as a cash bonus. Assuming you're in the US and the stock is possible to sell (public company, no trading window restrictions, you have no material nonpublic information, etc.) What do you do with a cash bonus? If you have no savings, an emergency fund would be good, then start on retirement savings perhaps... it sounds a bit like you could use some broad general financial planning info, my favorite book for that is: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/B0013L2ED6 One exception to selling immediately could be if the company stock is hugely undervalued, but it probably isn't, and it's probably too hard to determine.\",\n \"\\\"Simply put, yes. I bought that call. I was betting the shares would rise in value by Jan 2018, and chose the $130 strike. With a strike nearly a year away, I paid a premium that was all time value as the shares traded at Now the shares are replaced by $128. The time value has gone to zero, and there is no intrinsic \\\"\\\"in the money\\\"\\\" value. If the shares were bought at $140, the time value stills drops to zero, but the option is closed at $10 in the money. My answer was for a cash deal. In a case where the old shares are replaced by new shares or a combination of shares and money, the options terms are changed to reflect the combination of new assets for old. Update based on disclosure that it's Monsanto we are discussing. Bayer and Monsanto have announced that they signed a definitive agreement under which Bayer will acquire Monsanto for USD 128 per share in an all-cash transaction. Based on Monsanto’s closing share price on May 9, 2016, the day before Bayer’s first written proposal to Monsanto, the offer represents a premium of 44 percent to that price. You can see that the deal has been in the works for some time now. Further research shows they expect the deal to close by \\\"\\\"the end of 2017\\\"\\\". It's not a done deal. This is why the options are still trading. Now the shares are replaced by $128. The time value has gone to zero, and there is no intrinsic \\\"\\\"in the money\\\"\\\" value. If the shares were bought at $140, the time value stills drops to zero, but the option is closed at $10 in the money. My answer was for a cash deal. In a case where the old shares are replaced by new shares or a combination of shares and money, the options terms are changed to reflect the combination of new assets for old. Update based on disclosure that it's Monsanto we are discussing. Bayer and Monsanto have announced that they signed a definitive agreement under which Bayer will acquire Monsanto for USD 128 per share in an all-cash transaction. Based on Monsanto’s closing share price on May 9, 2016, the day before Bayer’s first written proposal to Monsanto, the offer represents a premium of 44 percent to that price. You can see that the deal has been in the works for some time now. Further research shows they expect the deal to close by \\\"\\\"the end of 2017\\\"\\\". It's not a done deal. This is why the options are still trading.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"I was told by the lawyers there was no tax consequence because the two numbers were the same. That is correct. However, a tax professional tells me that since the start-up stock was \\\"\\\"realized\\\"\\\" there invokes a taxable event now. That is correct. I'm now led to believe I owe cap-gains tax on the entire 4 year vest this year That is incorrect. You owe capital gains tax on the sale of your startup stock. Which is accidentally the exact same amount you \\\"\\\"paid\\\"\\\" for the new unvested stocks. There's no taxable event with regards to the new stocks because the amount you paid for them was the amount you got for the old stocks. But you did sell the old stocks, and that is a taxable event.\\\"\",\n \"In the real world, there are only two times you'll see that 5% become worth anything - ie, something you can exchange for cash - 1) if another company buys them; (2) if they go public. If neither of these things happen, you cannot do anything with the stock or stock options that you own.\",\n \"\\\"I believe that your option contracts will become \\\"\\\"non-standard\\\"\\\" and will be for a combination of ACE stock and cash. The allocation between stock and cash should follow that of the acquisition parameters of the underlying - probably with fractional shares converted to cash. Hence 1 call contract for 100 shares of CB will become 1 call contract for 60 shares of ACE + $6293 cash + a cash correction for the 0.19 fractional share of ACE that you would have had claim to get. The corrections should be 0.19 sh x $62.93/sh.\\\"\",\n \"Let's work from the inside out. Options are not stock. Options are a contract that give you the right to own the stock. For options to have value they have to be exercised. Straight line means that each quarter 1/16th of the option grant becomes yours and the company cannot take it away. Four quarters in a year times four years is 16 quarters. 'Grant' means they are giving you the options at no cost to you. 'Nonqualified' means that there is nothing you have to do, or be, in order to get the options. (Some options are only for management.)\",\n \"\\\"For restricted stock, I think the vesting date meets the requirements of the second wash sale trigger from IRS Pub 550: Wash Sales: Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade I base this on these two quotes from IRS Pub 525: Restricted Property: any income from the property, or the right to use the property, is included in your income as additional compensation in the year you receive the income or have the right to use the property. - Until the property becomes substantially vested, it is owned by the person who makes the transfer to you, usually your employer. So on the vest date: The transfer is taxable Ownership is transferred to you That seems close enough to \\\"\\\"a fully taxable trade\\\"\\\" for me. Maybe this changes if you pay the tax on the stock on the grant date. See Pub 525: Restricted Property: Choosing to include in income for year of transfer. Obviously, if this is important you should consult your tax advisor. Technicalities aside, I don't think it passes the sniff test. You're getting salable shares when the restricted stock vests. If you're selling other shares at a loss within 30 days of the vesting date, that smells like a wash sale to me.\\\"\",\n \"I've been offered a package that includes 100k stock options at 5 dollars a share. They vest over 4 years at 25% a year. Does this mean that at the end of the first year, I'm supposed to pay for 25,000 shares? Wouldn't this cost me 125,000 dollars? I don't have this kind of money. At the end of the first year, you will generally have the option to pay for the shares. Yes, this means you have to use your own money. You generally dont have to buy ANY until the whole option vests, after 4 years in your case, at which point you either buy, or you are considered 'vested' (you have equity in the company without buying) or the option expires worthless, with you losing your window to buy into the company. This gives you plenty of opportunity to evaluate the company's growth prospects and viability over this time. Regarding options expiration the contract can have an arbitrarily long expiration date, like 17 years. You not having the money or not isn't a consideration in this matter. Negotiate a higher salary instead. I've told several companies that I don't want their equity despite my interest in their business model and product. YMMV. Also, options can come with tax consequences, or none at all. its not a raw deal but you need to be able to look at it objectively.\",\n \"It depends on the timing of the events. Sometimes the buying company announces their intention but the other company doesn't like the deal. It can go back and forth several times, before the deal is finalized. The specifics of the deal determine what happens to the stock: The deal will specify when the cutoff is. Some people want the cash, others want the shares. Some will speculate once the initial offer is announced where the final offer (if there is one) will end up. This can cause a spike in volume, and the price could go up or down. Regarding this particular deal I did find the following: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/expedia-to-acquire-orbitz-worldwide-for-12-per-share-in-cash-300035187.html Additional Information and Where to Find It Orbitz intends to file with the SEC a proxy statement as well as other relevant documents in connection with the proposed transaction with Expedia. The definitive proxy statement will be sent or given to the stockholders of Orbitz and will contain important information about the proposed transaction and related matters. SECURITY HOLDERS ARE URGED TO READ THE PROXY STATEMENT CAREFULLY WHEN IT BECOMES AVAILABLE AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE SEC, AS WELL AS ANY AMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS TO THOSE DOCUMENTS, BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION. The proxy statement and other relevant materials (when they become available), and any other documents filed by Expedia or Orbitz with the SEC, may be obtained free of charge at the SEC's website, at www.sec.gov. In addition, security holders will be able to obtain free copies of the proxy statement from Orbitz by contacting Investor Relations by mail at ATTN: Corporate Secretary, Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 1000, Chicago, Illinois 60661.\",\n \"Both you and the Company were probably benefitted by this decision. Specifically an option grant that was not FRV or more would require you to recognize the option as income whether you had exercised it or not. Additionally a host of other 409A tax issues/penalties could have been levied against you as an employee recipient. I certainly appreciate your concern about a change in compensation, but this is one where Corporate America likely saved your bacon.\",\n \"No, unvested money returns to the employer, its not yours. They should send you W2 which will only show the actual (vested) monies you got.\",\n \"At the most basic level, the employee is getting a share of ownership in the company and would get a percentage of the sales price. That said, as littleadv alluded to, different share classes have different priorities and get paid in different orders. In a bankruptcy, for example, some classes almost never get paid in practice because they are so far down the ladder of priority. The first step you should take would be to try to clarify what you are getting with the company itself. Failing that, contact a financial professional or an attorney in your area who can read the terms and give you a better understanding of the contract before you sign.\",\n \"It's still the purchase price or the price at which the shares are purchased or granted. This Investopedia article describes how the price is used for tax purposes: The amount that must be declared [for tax purposes] is determined by subtracting the original purchase or exercise price of the stock (which may be zero) from the fair market value of the stock as of the date that the stock becomes fully vested. Restricted stock awards are similar to stock options. The employer promises to grant the employee a certain number of shares upon the completion of the vesting schedule. The price at which the shares are purchased (or granted, if the price is zero) is the exercise price.\",\n \"My friend Harry Sit wrote an excellent article No Tax Advantage In RSU. The punchline is this. The day the RSUs vested, it's pretty much you got $XXX in taxable income and then bought the stock at the price at that moment. The clock for long term gain starts the same as if I bought the stock that day. Historical side note - In the insane days of the Dotcom bubble, people found they got RSUs vested and worth, say, $1M. Crash. The shares are worth $100K. The $1M was ordinary income, the basis was $1M and the $900K loss could offset cap gains, not ordinary income above $3000/yr. Let me be clear - the tax bill was $250K+ but the poor taxpayer had $100K in stock to sell to pay that bill. Ooops. This is the origin of the 'sell the day it vests' advice. The shares you own will be long term for capital gain a year after vesting. After the year, be sure to sell those particular shares and you're all set. No different than anyone selling the LT shares of stock when owning multiple lots. But. Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you feel it's time to sell, you can easily lose the tax savings while watching the stock fall waiting for the clock to tick to one year.\",\n \"\\\"I highly doubt this was a mistake. In the event of a corporate merger/buyout, changes to employee 401(k) plans are usually hashed out as part of the M&A agreement. The choices made in the agreement depend on numerous factors, so it may be difficult to predict what happens to your plan in situations like this. A quick online search reveals a few articles, e.g. this one from expertplan.com, that list the three most common consequences for retirement plans: It sounds like the company that purchased your employer agreed to immediately vest employees in employer 401(k) contributions as part of the purchase agreement. Without knowing the details of the merger/buyout, I can't say this for sure, but this sounds like a plausible way to keep employees of the purchased company content. Rather than roll it over, does it make sense to wait for that company to be purchased, in the hopes that a similar \\\"\\\"mistake\\\"\\\" occurs? Since this doesn't sound like a mistake, but rather a part of the buyout agreement, I don't think it's something you should count on in the future. It may be very likely, or it could be a relatively rare occurrence that happened to be part of this purchase agreement. I don't believe the Employee Retirement Income Security Act regulates what can or can't be done to your 401(k) in a buyout, except that the company is required to inform you of any changes (and obviously, the new 401(k) plan must conform to ERISA as well).\\\"\",\n \"The sale of shares on vesting convolutes matters. In a way similar to how reinvested dividends are taxed but the newly purchased fund shares' basis has to be increased, you need to be sure to have the correct per share cost basis. It's easy to confuse the total RSU purchase with the correct numbers, only what remained. The vesting stock is a taxable event, ordinary income. You then own the stock at that cost basis. A sale after that is long or short term and the profit is the to extent it exceeds that basis. The fact that you got these shares in 2013 means you should have paid the tax then. And this is part two of the process. Of course the partial sale means a bit of math to calculate the basis of what remained.\",\n \"Generally speaking, if the acquiring company buys less than 50% of the target, the acquirer would not claim any income until there was a dividend or the equity stock appreciated. With a dividend, the acqiring company would participate in and book earnings on the cash received. Without a dividend, equity stock of the target should theoretically rise to reflect higher retained income and the acquirer would book an unrealized gain to gross profit (I think). If the acquiring company buys more than 50% of the target, it is likely all revenues and expences would be consolidated and included in the acquiring company's respective accounts as if it was one cohesive whole. Any residual stake in the target owned by a third party would be reflected in a Minority Interest expense on the acquiring company's income statement.\",\n \"Is the Grant Date or the Vest Date used when determining the 12-month cutoff for long-term and short-term capital gains? You don't actually acquire the stock until it's vested, so that is the date and price used to determine your cost basis and short-term/long-term gain/loss. The grant date really has no tax bearing. If you held the stock (time between vesting and sale) for more than one year you will owe long-term CG tax, if less than one year you will owe short-term CG tax.\",\n \"I do not know for sure so do not quote me on this. But I would assume that you will get paid out to what the value of the buyout is. Example if your company has 100 private shares and you own 1 share (1%), and the company sells for $1,000,000. Your share will be worth 1% of the $1 million.\",\n \"This happened to me recently. What became the final offer was a cash buy-out of all of our shares rather than a conversion. The cash buy-out was higher than the company's original asking price and than the stock ever went on the market before hand. I was extremely pleased to have held on to the stock until the end. That said, it sounds like your situation is different. You can't necessarily time this sort of thing. You can just make your best decision and determine to be happy with the way it all plays out.\",\n \"Options granted by an employer to an employee are generally different that the standardized options that are traded on public stock option exchanges. They may or may not have somewhat comparable terms, but generally the terms are fairly different. As a holder of an expiring employee option, you can only choose to exercise it by paying the specified price and receiving the shares, or not. It is common that the exercise system will allow you to exercise all the shares and simultaneously sell enough of the acquired shares to cover the option cost of all the shares, thus leaving you owning some of the stock without having to spend any cash. You will owe taxes on the gain on exercise, regardless of what you do with the stock. If you want to buy publicly-traded options, you should consider that completely separately from your employer options other than thinking about how much exposure you have to your company situation. It is very common for employees to be imprudently overexposed to their company's stock (through direct ownership or options).\",\n \"\\\"When the buyout happens, the $30 strike is worth $10, as it's in the money, you get $10 ($1000 per contract). Yes, the $40 strike is pretty worthless, it actually dropped in value today. Some deals are worded as an offer or intention, so a new offer can come in. This appears to be a done deal. From Chapter 8 of CHARACTERISTICS AND RISKS OF STANDARDIZED OPTIONS - FEB 1994 with supplemental updates 1997 through 2012; \\\"\\\"In certain unusual circumstances, it might not be possible for uncovered call writers of physical delivery stock and stock index options to obtain the underlying equity securities in order to meet their settlement obligations following exercise. This could happen, for example, in the event of a successful tender offer for all or substantially all of the outstanding shares of an underlying security or if trading in an underlying security were enjoined or suspended. In situations of that type, OCC may impose special exercise settlement procedures. These special procedures, applicable only to calls and only when an assigned writer is unable to obtain the underlying security, may involve the suspension of the settlement obligations of the holder and writer and/or the fixing of cash settlement prices in lieu of delivery of the underlying security. In such circumstances, OCC might also prohibit the exercise of puts by holders who would be unable to deliver the underlying security on the exercise settlement date. When special exercise settlement procedures are imposed, OCC will announce to its Clearing Members how settlements are to be handled. Investors may obtain that information from their brokerage firms.\\\"\\\" I believe this confirms my observation. Happy to discuss if a reader feels otherwise.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"When you exercise your options, you come up with cash to buy the shares. This makes you an owner of the company for shares at the share price your options let you have. Ideally, your share price is at a significant discount to what the company is worth. Being a shareholder, you gain from any share price appreciation in a sale. The only thing the \\\"\\\"60-day window\\\"\\\" applies to is whether you come up with the cash to buy fast enough, or your shares get permanently deleted from the company finances, where everyone else potentially makes more, you make nothing. The sale of the company is based on whenever the sell finalizes, which is between your company and the acquiring company.\\\"\",\n \"I am not required to hold any company stock. I also have an ESOP plan carrying a similar number of shares in company stock. So if it were to be sold, what would the recommendation be to replace it? I can move the shares into any option shown, and have quite a few others. Not dealing with any huge amounts, just a 4.5% contribution over three years (so far).\",\n \"The company may not permit a transfer of these options. If they do permit it, you simply give him the money and he has them issue the options in your name. As a non-public company, they may have a condition where an exiting employee has to buy the shares or let them expire. If non-employees are allowed to own shares, you give him the money to exercise the options and he takes possession of the stock and transfers it to you. Either way, it seems you really need a lawyer to handle this. Whenever this kind of money is in motion, get a lawyer. By the way, the options are his. You mean he must purchase the shares, correct?\",\n \"What you will probably get is an option to buy, for £10,000, £10,000 worth of stock. If the stock price on the day your option is granted is £2.50, then that's 4,000 shares. Companies rarely grant discounted options, as there are tax disincentives. The benefit of the stock option is that when you exercise it, you still only pay £10,000, no matter what the 4,000 shares are now worth. This is supposed to be an incentive for you to work harder to increase the value of the company. You should also check the vesting schedule. You will typically not be able to exercise all your options for some years, although some portion of it may vest each year.\",\n \"This is not right. Inferring the employee stock pool’s takeaway is not as easy as just taking a fraction of the purchase price. As an example, that wouldn’t account for any preferred returns of other ownership classes, among other things. All considered though, it’s reasonable to assume that the employee stock pool will get some premium. Best of luck.\",\n \"\\\"The simplest thing to do here is to speak to your employer about what is allowed. This should be spelt out in your company's \\\"\\\"Stock Options Plan\\\"\\\" documentation. In particular, this document will include details of the vesting schedule. For example, the schedule may only allow you to exercise 25% in the first year, 25% in the second year, and the remainder in the third year. Technically I can see no reason to prevent you from the mix-and-match approach you are suggesting. However, this may not be the case according to the schedule specification.\\\"\",\n \"Advantage: more money. The financial tradeoff is usually to your benefit: Given these, for having your money locked up for the average length of the vesting periods (some is locked up for 3 months, some is locked up for nearly 0), you get a 10% return. Overall, it's like a 1.5% bonus for the year, assuming you were to sell everything right away. Of course, whether or not you wish to keep the stock depends on how you value MSFT as an investment. The disadvantage lies in a couple parts:\",\n \"Does this make sense? I'm concerned that by buying shares with post tax income, I'll have ended up being taxed twice or have increased my taxable income. ... The company will then re-reimburse me for the difference in stock price between the vesting and the purchase share price. Sure. Assuming you received a 100-share RSU for shares worth $10, and your marginal tax rate is 30% (all made up numbers), either: or So you're in the same spot either way. You paid $300 to get $1,000 worth of stock. Taxes are the same as well. The full value of the RSU will count as income either way, and you'll either pay tax on the gains of the 100 shares in your RSU our you'll pay tax on gains on the 70 shares in your RSU and the 30 shares you bought. Since they're reimbursing you for any difference the cost basis will be the same (although you might get taxed on the reimbursement, but that should be a relatively small amount). This first year I wanted to keep all of the shares, due to tax reasons and because believe the share price will go up. I don't see how this would make a difference from a tax standpoint. You're going to pay tax on the RSU either way - either in shares or in cash. how does the value of the shares going up make a difference in tax? Additionally I'm concerned that by doing this I'm going to be hit by my bank for GBP->USD exchange fees, foreign money transfer charges, broker purchase fees etc. That might be true - if that's the case then you need to decide whether to keep fighting or decide if it's worth the transaction costs.\",\n \"There's an odd anomaly that often occurs with shares acquired through company plans via ESPP or option purchase. The general situation is that the share value above strike price or grant price may become ordinary income, but a sale below the price at day the shares are valued is a capital loss. e.g. in an ESPP offering, I have a $10 purchase price, but at the end of the offering, the shares are valued at $100. Unless I hold the shares for an additional year, the sale price contains ordinary W2 income. So, if I see the shares falling and sell for $50, I have a tax bill for $90 of W2 income, but a $50 capital loss. Tax is due on $90 (and for 1K shares, $90,000 which can be a $30K hit) but that $50K loss can only be applied to cap gains, or $3K/yr of income. In the dotcom bubble, there were many people who had million dollar tax bills and the value of the money netted from the sale couldn't even cover the taxes. And $1M in losses would take 300 years at $3K/yr. The above is one reason the lockup date expiration is why shares get sold. And one can probably profit on the bigger companies stock. Edit - see Yelp down 3% following expiration of 180 day IPO lock-up period, for similar situation.\",\n \"RSU are taxed when vested, based on their value at that point, as salary. If you don't sell to cover, you need to pay the taxes, if you sell to cover - you sell the portion that is worth the taxes (brokers do that automatically, and remit the taxes on your behalf). Once paid your taxes, it becomes a regular stock position - short term gains if you sell within a year after vesting, long term if you wait for more than a year. The consideration whether to wait or sell is as with any other investment, them being previously restricted has no meaning. You calculate the gain for each position, so the fact that you have more than one position is not a problem. The RSU income and the taxes paid will appear on your W2, so when the broker reports proceeds, you can show the basis and thus calculate the gain. See this question for some useful answers on how to report the RSU sale on your taxes.\",\n \"Fidelity has a good explanation of Restricted Stock Awards: For grants that pay in actual shares, the employee’s tax holding period begins at the time of vesting, and the employee’s tax basis is equal to the amount paid for the stock plus the amount included as ordinary compensation income. Upon a later sale of the shares, assuming the employee holds the shares as a capital asset, the employee would recognize capital gain income or loss; whether such capital gain would be a short- or long-term gain would depend on the time between the beginning of the holding period at vesting and the date of the subsequent sale. Consult your tax adviser regarding the income tax consequences to you. So, you would count from vesting for long-term capital gains purposes. Also note the point to include the amount of income you were considered to have earned as a result of the original vesting [market value then - amount you paid]. (And of course, you reported that as income in 2015/2016, right?) So if you had 300 shares of Stock ABC granted you in 2014 for a price of $5/share, and in 2015 100 of those shares vested at FMV $8/share, and in 2016 100 of those shares vested, current FMV $10/share, you had $300 in income in 2015 and $500 of income in 2016 from this. Then in 2017 you sold 200 shares for $15/share:\",\n \"There are two dates that matter for vesting in this situation: If you left the company on 12/31/16, you would be entitled to none of the company contributions. If you left on 1/1/17, you would be entitled to all $20k. This is sometimes known as a cliff vesting schedule. Some companies do a stair step - 20% after year 1, 40% after year 2, etc. This is known as graded vesting. But, that is not the case based on the language here.\",\n \"\\\"I can see two possibilities. Either a deal is struck that someone (the company itself, or a large owner) buys out the remaining shares. This is the scenario @mbhunter is talking about, so I won't go too deeply into it, but it simply means that you get money in your bank account for the shares in question the same as if you were to sell them for that price (in turn possibly triggering tax effects, etc.). I imagine that this is by far the most common approach. The other possibility is that the stock is simply de-listed from a public stock exchange, and not re-listed elsewhere. In this case, you will still have the stock, and it will represent the same thing (a portion of the company), but you will lose out on most of the \\\"\\\"market\\\"\\\" part of \\\"\\\"stock market\\\"\\\". That is, the shares will still represent a monetary value, you will have the same right to a portion of the company's profits as you do now, etc., but you will not have the benefit of the market setting a price per share so current valuation will be harder. Should you wish to buy or sell stock, you will have to find someone yourself who is interested in striking a deal with you at a price point that you feel comfortable with.\\\"\",\n \"\\\"Yes, you would pay no taxes at the time of purchase. In fact, this is not uncommon. Many early employees of startup companies are offered stock options that can be \\\"\\\"early-exercised\\\"\\\" (exercised before they vest). In such a case, an employee who exercises immediately upon grant (and assuming the exercise price of the option is the FMV at the time of grant) purchases the stock at FMV, and there no no tax paid when filing 83(b) election.\\\"\",\n \"Probably not. If you were at a small company and asked such a question, you'd get advice and links to erisa or other case law, etc. it's safe to say that a Fortune 500 company such as IBM is going to have their facts in order, and not going to run afoul of the rules in these cases (vesting rules and takeover of other company). I was in a company that cancelled its pension program. Those of us with the required years got the option of a lump sum payout, those with less than 5 years had no vested value and got nothing. One month longer employment, in the case of a particular coworker, would have given him a lump sum worth nearly 6 months pay.\",\n \"If the company's ownership is structured similarly to a typical start-up then an 1% employee ownership in a company which sells for 1 million will yield far less than 10k due to various liquidation preferences of the investors, different share classes, etc. It's pretty hard to get a specific number because it depends a lot on the details of earlier fundraising and stock grants. That said, unless the company is circling the drain and the sale was just to avoid BK, the share price you get should be higher unless the share class structure and acquisition deal are completely unfair.\",\n \"\\\"The main thing is the percentage of the company represented by the shares. Number of shares is meaningless without total shares. If you compute percentage and total company value you can estimate the value of the grant. Or perhaps more useful for a startup is to multiple the percentage by some plausible \\\"\\\"exit\\\"\\\" value, such as how much the company might sell for or IPO for. Many grants expire when or soon after you leave the company if you don't \\\"\\\"cash out\\\"\\\" vested shares when you leave, this is standard, but do remember it when you leave. The other major thing is vesting. In the tech industry, vesting 1/4 after a year and then the rest quarterly over 3 more years is most common.\\\"\",\n \"You're asking whether the shares you sold while being a US tax resident are taxable in the US. The answer is yes, they are. How you acquired them or what were the circumstances of the sale is irrelevant. When you acquired them is relevant to the determination of the tax treatment - short or long term capital gains. You report this transaction on your Schedule D, follow the instructions. Make sure you can substantiate the cost basis properly based on how much you paid for the shares you sold (the taxable income recognized to you at vest).\",\n \"\\\"An option without the vesting period and the price at which one can exercise the option is of not much value. If vesting is determined by board, then at any given point in time they can change the vesting period to say 3, 5, 10 years any number. The other aspect is at what price you are allowed to exercise the option, ie if the stock is of value 10, you may be given an option to buy this at 10, 20 or 100. This has to be stated upfront for you to know the real value. On listing if the value is say 80, then if you have the option to exercise at 10, or 20 you would make money, else at 100 you loose money and hence choose not to exercise the option. However your having stuck around the company for \\\"\\\"x\\\"\\\" years in anticipation of making money would go waste. Without a vesting period or the price to exercise the option, they are pretty much meaningless and would depend on the goodwill of the founders\\\"\",\n \"Here's an article on it that might help: http://thefinancebuff.com/restricted-stock-units-rsu-sales-and.html One of the tricky things is that you probably have the value of the vested shares and withheld taxes already on your W-2. This confuses everyone including the IRS (they sent me one of those audits-by-mail one year, where the issue was they wanted to double-count stock compensation that was on both 1099-B and W-2; a quick letter explaining this and they were happy). The general idea is that when you first irrevocably own the stock (it vests) then that's income, because you're receiving something of value. So this goes on a W-2 and is taxed as income, not capital gains. Conceptually you've just spent however many dollars in income to buy stock, so that's your basis on the stock. For tax paid, if your employer withheld taxes, it should be included in your W-2. In that case you would not separately list it elsewhere.\",\n \"I don't know the legal framework for RSUs, so I'm not sure what is mandatory and what is chosen by the company issuing them. I recently reviewed one companies offering and it basically looked like a flat purchase of stock on the VEST date. So even if I got a zillion shares for $1 GRANTED to me, if it was 100 shares that vested at $100 on the 1st, then I would owe tax on the market value on the day of vest. Further, the company would withhold 25% of the VEST for federal taxes and 10% for state taxes, if I lived in a state with income tax. The withholding rate was flat, regardless of what my actual tax rate was. Capital gains on the change from the market value on the VEST date was calculated as short-term or long-term based on the time since the VEST date. So if my 100 shares went up to $120, I would pay the $20 difference as short term or long term based on how long I had owned them since the VEST. That said, I don't know if this is universal. Your HR folks should be able to help answer at least some of these questions, though I know their favorite response when they don't know is that you should consult a tax professional. Good luck.\",\n \"The stockholders of company A vote to approve or disapprove the buy out. That is the only control you have on the price: Vote to approve or disapprove. If the deal is approved then you get the money, or stock in B, or both, in accordance with the terms of the deal. It will arrive into your account automatically.\",\n \"The vesting date. Look at publication 525, under stock options, where they talk about ESPP: Your basis is equal to the option price at the time you exercised your option and acquired the stock. The timing and amount of pay period deductions do not affect your basis.\",\n \"\\\"First, you mentioned your brother-in-law has \\\"\\\"$100,000 in stock options (fully vested)\\\"\\\". Do you mean his exercise cost would be $100,000, i.e. what he'd need to pay to buy the shares? If so, then what might be the estimated value of the shares acquired? Options having vested doesn't necessarily mean they possess value, merely that they may be exercised. Or did you mean the estimated intrinsic value of those options (estimated value less exercise cost) is $100,000? Speaking from my own experience, I'd like to address just the first part of your question: Have you treated this as you would a serious investment in any other company? That is, have you or your brother-in-law reviewed the company's financial statements for the last few years? Other than hearing from people with a vested interest (quite literally!) to pump up the stock with talk around the office, how do you know the company is: BTW, as an option holder only, your brother-in-law's rights to financial information may be limited. Will the company share these details anyway? Or, if he exercised at least one option to become a bona-fide shareholder, I believe he'd have rights to request the financial statements – but company bylaws vary, and different jurisdictions say different things about what can be restricted. Beyond the financial statements, here are some more things to consider: The worst-case risk you'd need to accept is zero liquidity and complete loss: If there's no eventual buy-out or IPO, the shares may (effectively) be worthless. Even if there is a private market, willing buyers may quickly dry up if company fortunes decline. Contrast this to public stock markets, where there's usually an opportunity to witness deterioration, exit at a loss, and preserve some capital. Of course, with great risk may come great reward. Do your own due diligence and convince yourself through a rigorous analysis — not hopes & dreams — that the investment might be worth the risk.\\\"\",\n \"There are two things to consider: taxes - beneficial treatment for long-term holding, and for ESPP's you can get lower taxes on higher earnings. Also, depending on local laws, some share schemes allow one to avoid some or all on the income tax. For example, in the UK £2000 in shares is treated differently to 2000 in cash vesting - restricted stocks or options can only be sold/exercised years after being granted, as long as the employee keeps his part of the contract (usually - staying at the same place of works through the vesting period). This means job retention for the employees, that's why they don't really care if you exercise the same day or not, they care that you actually keep working until the day when you can exercise arrives. By then you'll get more grants you'll want to wait to vest, and so on. This would keep you at the same place of work for a long time because by quitting you'd be forfeiting the grants.\",\n \"There are a number of ways this can result. In a broad ETF, such as SPY, the S&P 500 spider, the S&P index will have 500 stocks no matter what, so a buyout would simply result in a re-shuffling of the index makeup. No buyout will happen so quickly that there's no time to choose the next stock to join the index. In your case, if the fund manager (per the terms of the prospectus) wishes to simply reallocate the index to remove the taken-over stock that's probably how he handle it. Unless of course, the prospectus dictates otherwise. In which case, a cash dividend is a possible alternative.\",\n \"If the contributions were yours, they are vested immediately. Otherwise, there are some rules laid out on the Department of Labor website: ww.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/wyskapr.htm\",\n \"This really comes down to tax structuring (which I am not an expert on), for public companies the acquiror almost always pays for the cash to prevent any taxable drawdown of overseas accounts, dividend taxes suck, etc. For a private company, first the debt gets swept, then special dividend out - dividends received by the selling corporate entity benefit from a tax credit plus it reduces the selling price of the equity, reducing capital gains taxes.\",\n \"\\\"Your employer should send you a statement with this information. If they didn't, you should still be able to find it through E*Trade. Navigate to: Trading & Portfolios>Portfolios. Select the stock plan account. Under \\\"\\\"Restricted Stock\\\"\\\", you should see a list of your grants. If you click on the grant in question, you should see a breakdown of how many shares were vested and released by date. It will also tell you the cost basis per share and the amount of taxes withheld. You calculate your cost basis by multiplying the number of released shares by the cost basis per share. You can ignore the ordinary income tax and taxes withheld since they will already have been included on your W2 earnings and withholdings. Really all you need to do is report the capital gain or loss from the cost basis (which if you sold right away will be rather small).\\\"\",\n \"Now assume these shares are vested, held for at least 1 year, and are then sold for $5 each. Everything I've read implies that the grantee now owes long-term capital gains taxes on the difference, which would be 10k * ($5 - $1). No. That's exactly what the SO is NQ for. Read more on the differences between ISO and NQSO here. Now assume these shares are vested, held for at least 1 year, and are then sold for $5 each. Everything I've read implies that the grantee now owes long-term capital gains taxes on the difference, which would be 10k * ($5 - $1). At this point you no longer have NQSO, you have RSU. If you filed 83(b) when you exercised, then you pay capital gains tax when they vest. If you didn't - its ordinary income to you. NQSO is a red herring here since once exercised they no longer exist. If you didn't file 83(b), then when the stock vests the difference between the FMV at vest and the money you spent on it when exercising (if any) is considered wages and taxed as ordinary income (+FICA etc). From that point the RSU becomes a regular stock investment and the capital gains clock starts ticking.\",\n \"You'd likely be subject to a lock-up period before you could sell the shares along with possibly having other rules about how you could sell your shares as you'd likely be seen as an insider that may have information that gives you an unfair advantage for selling the stock possibly. Depending on how far in advance you hold the shares, you may or may not have adjustments in the valuation and number of shares as some companies may do a split or reverse split when preparing for an IPO. A company I worked for in the late 1990s had an IPO and my stock options had a revised strike price because of a reverse stock split that was done prior to the IPO.\",\n \"As part of this acquisition 96% of the shareholders accepted an offer for their shares This means that most of the shareholder agreed for the sale. If this was less than specified percentage, the deal would not have gone through. To make it easier, there were 2 options present to shareholder, full exchange of shares of Infinera or part shares and part cash. I failed to do so as I was unwell at the time So you cannot now choose the option. There will be a default option of getting the equivalent shares in Infinera. What options are available to me now? Contact Infinera investor relations and ask them.\",\n \"\\\"Check how long you have to hold the stock after buying it. If you can sell reasonably soon and your company is reasonably stable, you're unlikely to lose and/or be taxed and/or pay enough in fees to lose more than the 30% \\\"\\\"free money\\\"\\\" they're giving you. Whether you hold it longer than the minimum time depends partly on whether you think you can better invest the money elsewhere, and partly on how you feel about having both your salary and (part of) your investments tied to the company's success? The company would like you to \\\"\\\"double down\\\"\\\" that way, in the theory that it may make you mors motivated... but some investment councelors would advise keeping that a relatively small part of your total investments, basically for the same reasons you are always advised to diversify.\\\"\",\n \"Yes. You incur income tax on the RSU on they date they vest. At this point you own the actual shares and you can decide to sell them or to hold them. If you hold them for the required period, and sell them later, the difference between your price at vesting and the sales price would be taxed as long term capital gains. Caution: if you decide to hold, you are still liable to pay income tax in the year they vest. You have to pay taxes on income that you haven't made yet. This is fairly dangerous: if the stock goes down, you may lose a lot of this tax payment. Technically you could recover some of this through claiming capital losses, but that this is severely restricted: the IRS makes it much easier to increase taxes through gains than reducing taxes through losses.\",\n \"Like others have already said, it may cause an immediate dip due to a large and sudden move in shares for that particular stock. However, if there is nothing else affecting the company's financials and investors perceive no other risks, it will probably bounce back a bit, but not back to the full value before the shares were issued. Why? Whenever a company issues more stock, the new shares dilute the value of the current shares outstanding, simply because there are now more shares of that stock trading on the market; the Earnings Per Share (EPS) Ratio will drop since the same profit and company value has to be spread across more shares. Example: If a company is valued at $100 dollars and they have 25 shares outstanding, then the EPS ratio equates to $4 per share (100/25 = 4). If the company then issues more shares (stock to employees who sell or keep them), let's say 25 more shares, then shares outstanding increase to 50, but the company's value still remains at $100 dollars. EPS now equates to $2 per share (100/50 = 2). Now, sometimes when shareholders (especially employees...and especially employees who just received them) suddenly all sell their shares, this causes a micro-panic in the market because investors believe the employees know something bad about the company that they don't. Other common shareholders then want to dump their holdings for fear of impending collapse in the company. This could cause the share price to dip a bit below the new diluted value, but again if no real, immediate risks exist, the price should go back up to the new, diluted value. Example 2: If EPS was at $4 before issuing more stock, and then dropped to $2 after issuing new stock, the micro-panic may cause the EPS to drop below $2 and then soon rebound back to $2 or more when investors realize no actual risk exists. After the dilution phase plays out, the EPS could actually even go above the pre-issuing value of $4 because investors may believe that since more stock was issued due to good profits, more profits may ensue. Hope that helps!\",\n \"Often buyouts are paid for by the buyer issuing a load of new shares and giving those to the seller to pay them. Sometimes it could be all shares, sometimes all cash, or any mix in-between. If you believe in the future of the buyers' business model, you'll often get a load of shares at a discounted rate this way. If you do not believe in the buyers' future then you're getting shares that you think may be worth little or nothing some day, so cash would be better.\",\n \"\\\"It depends on how big the dilution is. Could be a good trade. Do the math yourself, many times nobody else has as all the employees think they are going to get rich because \\\"\\\"options\\\"\\\" :)\\\"\"\n]"},"gt_docs":{"kind":"list like","value":["\"This is a great question. I've participated in a deal like that as an employee, and I also know of friends and family who have been involved during a buyout. In short: The updated part of your question is correct: There is no single typical treatment. What happens to unvested restricted stock units (RSUs), unvested employee stock options, etc. varies from case to case. Furthermore, what exactly will happen in your case ought to have been described in the grant documentation which you (hopefully) received when you were issued restricted stock in the first place. Anyway, here are the two cases I've seen happen before: Immediate vesting of all units. Immediate vesting is often the case with RSUs or options that are granted to executives or key employees. The grant documentation usually details the cases that will have immediate vesting. One of the cases is usually a Change in/of Control (CIC or COC) provision, triggered in a buyout. Other immediate vesting cases may be when the key employee is terminated without cause, or dies. The terms vary, and are often negotiated by shrewd key employees. Conversion of the units to a new schedule. If anything is more \"\"typical\"\" of regular employee-level grants, I think this one would be. Generally, such RSU or option grants will be converted, at the deal price, to a new schedule with identical dates and vesting percentages, but a new number of units and dollar amount or strike price, usually so the end result would have been the same as before the deal. I'm also curious if anybody else has been through a buyout, or knows anybody who has been through a buyout, and how they were treated.\"","I've been through two instances where I worked for a public company that was merged (for stock) into another company. In both cases the options I had were replaced with equivalent options in the merged company with the number of shares and strike price adjusted at the same rate as the actual stock was converted, and the vesting terms remained essentially the same. In other words, the options before and after were in essence equivalent.","\"I worked for a small private tech company that was aquired by a larger publicly traded tech company. My shares were accelerated by 18 months, as written in the contract. I excercised those shares at a very low strike price (under $1) and was given an equal number of shares in the new company. Made about $300,000 pre tax. This was in 2000. (I love how the government considered us \"\"rich\"\" that year, but have never made that amount since!)\""],"string":"[\n \"\\\"This is a great question. I've participated in a deal like that as an employee, and I also know of friends and family who have been involved during a buyout. In short: The updated part of your question is correct: There is no single typical treatment. What happens to unvested restricted stock units (RSUs), unvested employee stock options, etc. varies from case to case. Furthermore, what exactly will happen in your case ought to have been described in the grant documentation which you (hopefully) received when you were issued restricted stock in the first place. Anyway, here are the two cases I've seen happen before: Immediate vesting of all units. Immediate vesting is often the case with RSUs or options that are granted to executives or key employees. The grant documentation usually details the cases that will have immediate vesting. One of the cases is usually a Change in/of Control (CIC or COC) provision, triggered in a buyout. Other immediate vesting cases may be when the key employee is terminated without cause, or dies. The terms vary, and are often negotiated by shrewd key employees. Conversion of the units to a new schedule. If anything is more \\\"\\\"typical\\\"\\\" of regular employee-level grants, I think this one would be. Generally, such RSU or option grants will be converted, at the deal price, to a new schedule with identical dates and vesting percentages, but a new number of units and dollar amount or strike price, usually so the end result would have been the same as before the deal. I'm also curious if anybody else has been through a buyout, or knows anybody who has been through a buyout, and how they were treated.\\\"\",\n \"I've been through two instances where I worked for a public company that was merged (for stock) into another company. In both cases the options I had were replaced with equivalent options in the merged company with the number of shares and strike price adjusted at the same rate as the actual stock was converted, and the vesting terms remained essentially the same. In other words, the options before and after were in essence equivalent.\",\n \"\\\"I worked for a small private tech company that was aquired by a larger publicly traded tech company. My shares were accelerated by 18 months, as written in the contract. I excercised those shares at a very low strike price (under $1) and was given an equal number of shares in the new company. Made about $300,000 pre tax. This was in 2000. (I love how the government considered us \\\"\\\"rich\\\"\\\" that year, but have never made that amount since!)\\\"\"\n]"}}}],"truncated":false,"partial":false},"paginationData":{"pageIndex":1,"numItemsPerPage":100,"numTotalItems":500,"offset":100,"length":100}},"jwt":"eyJhbGciOiJFZERTQSJ9.eyJyZWFkIjp0cnVlLCJwZXJtaXNzaW9ucyI6eyJyZXBvLmNvbnRlbnQucmVhZCI6dHJ1ZX0sImlhdCI6MTc2MjIyMjUyNSwic3ViIjoiL2RhdGFzZXRzL0NvbnRleHR1YWxBSS9maXFhMjAxOCIsImV4cCI6MTc2MjIyNjEyNSwiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9odWdnaW5nZmFjZS5jbyJ9.rHOPzvJWh1P7x82Qz3q-uMsr2CiCI2qWzDeIWJcoqQg-ge-_UewqsaWOhHPu-WcDCmzFPCbDJ9o8o-3gnq2TBg","displayUrls":true,"sqlConsoleEnabled":true},"discussionsStats":{"closed":0,"open":0,"total":0},"fullWidth":true,"hasGatedAccess":true,"hasFullAccess":true,"isEmbedded":false,"savedQueries":{"community":[],"user":[]}}">
_id
stringlengths 1
5
| query
stringlengths 16
147
| gt_ids
listlengths 1
15
| gt_qrels
listlengths 1
15
| candidate_ids
listlengths 100
100
| candidate_docs
listlengths 100
100
| gt_docs
listlengths 1
15
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1826
|
Is the contribution towards Employment Insurance (EI) wasted if I never get fired, or are my premiums refunded?
|
[
"401731",
"8057",
"181787",
"583788"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"401731",
"181787",
"8057",
"583788",
"540394",
"520047",
"529927",
"68516",
"277178",
"336268",
"505027",
"30597",
"539522",
"465905",
"516991",
"597574",
"474596",
"506182",
"34887",
"25896",
"397369",
"154178",
"79903",
"52978",
"149210",
"332124",
"201012",
"338796",
"416511",
"217748",
"84896",
"315244",
"398622",
"307120",
"71898",
"94332",
"34302",
"481896",
"575875",
"579747",
"9753",
"19272",
"339326",
"280538",
"392752",
"179818",
"316286",
"396010",
"20485",
"100121",
"593173",
"387304",
"412078",
"156832",
"88645",
"590994",
"520116",
"490223",
"110732",
"464166",
"101760",
"54406",
"267830",
"372129",
"324878",
"587633",
"259881",
"272987",
"15553",
"514357",
"185077",
"546678",
"247132",
"505673",
"31483",
"400927",
"291847",
"227906",
"267070",
"525277",
"462956",
"250395",
"247074",
"248630",
"304376",
"296844",
"228445",
"208989",
"70209",
"516555",
"16767",
"165305",
"436701",
"422373",
"360089",
"48274",
"249025",
"556236",
"60803",
"38359"
] |
[
"\"Sorry, even if you never file a claim for Employment Insurance (EI), you don't get your premiums back. So, yes, if you paid into EI and never filed a claim, your contributions are, as you put it, \"\"wasted\"\" – insofar that your premiums provided no direct benefit to you. However, your premiums may have provided a benefit to society, perhaps even your previous colleagues. Yet, some would point out that a good chunk of EI premiums are likely wasted on excessive administration of the program itself. That's government. A couple of cases I'm aware of where you may be refunded some of the EI premiums paid are: Meaning, a legal way to avoid paying into the EI system altogether is to run your own business. Of course, you won't be able to file an EI claim if your business evaporates overnight. Other kinds of claims unavailable to those who don't pay into EI include maternity, parental*, and sickness benefits .. although they recently made some changes to permit the self-employed to opt-in for some special benefits. * except in the province of Quebec, where there is a separate Quebec Parental Insurance Plan (QPIP) that also covers the self-employed.\"",
"It is not wasted: it bought you peace of mind. Perhaps you would have had peace of mind without it, because of the particular industry you are in. But people from any industry can get sick or give birth, and not all industries are as evergreen as people think. A number of my onetime programmer colleagues now drive a truck or run a farm because new programming jobs weren't as easy to get as they once were. Like any insurance, it can't be affordable if it is bought only by those who think they will need it. The premiums you pay, in addition to giving you peace of mind, lower the premiums your neighbours pay. That contributes to social harmony. When your neighbours collect EI while looking for another job, they aren't tempted to turn to crime or legal-but-not-savoury ways to earn money. You probably like that, too. The fact they didn't get to choose whether or not to contribute means that they will be covered even if they aren't prudent and forward-looking people, which again is a benefit for you. And BTW, employers pay $1.40 in premiums for every dollar you pay. And we never collect. It's not for us. But we pay it.",
"Actually, most insurance policies DON'T have a cash value if you don't make a claim. The reason that some life insurance policies do this is that they are really tax sheltered investments posing as insurance. With that in mind, the root of your question is really whether insurance premiums are wasted if you never make a claim. It really makes no difference if you are talking about EI, Auto, or Homeowner's insurance. My answer to that is no. What you are paying for when you buy insurance is financial risk avoidance. Look at it this way, you don't buy EI as an investment where you hope to get a return on your investment. You are buying the right to be protected against catastrophic financial difficulty associated with losing your job. Whether you claim it or not you did receive that protection. This is what drives me so crazy when I hear people talk about how an insurance company is ripping you off because you paid more in premiums than they paid out in benefits. Of course you did! If most people didn't pay in more than the company paid out there would be no financial interest for someone to form an insurance company.",
"I would suggest they are not wasted because your premiums fund unemployment insurance, which is a net to prevent people from going under if they lose their jobs. Unemployment insurance is in many ways an incubator for success because it allows an entrepreneur to take more risk in starting a business because failure won't mean devastation. Perhaps that person who took the risk because of the ability to fail started the business that you now work for. Society works better (in my opinion) by keeping the bottom closer to the top. Paying into the unemployment insurance fund indirectly provides you opportunity.",
"No, you cannot. The FICA taxes paid are not refunded if you're not reaching the benefits threshold. They're gone. That is why foreigners who are not tax residents (mainly students) are not required to pay them. If your home country has a social security reciprocity agreement with the US - you can have a credit in your home country.",
"No. You have been purchasing protection from unexpected emergencies. You got the protection you paid for. That money has been spent. Some insurance plans do pay you something at the end. They do this by charging you additional money, and investing it. At the end, you get some of the profit n that investment, after the company has taken payments for managing this account. You can do better by setting up your own investments, separate from the insurance.",
"\"Your SSA payments are not IRA contributions, but they're actually a tax that is earmarked to the Social Security Trust Fund. As such, no, you don't have any \"\"contributions\"\" that can be refunded: you paid a tax, and in exchange for having paid that tax you will possibly later have a benefit. However, some foreign nationals are able to convey that benefit into their national savings plan. The Social Security Administration has a FAQ page on this particular subject. Unfortunately for you, Pakistan does not have a bilateral agreement according to their list, so you may be out of luck.\"",
"You have to consider that taxes that you pay on the premiums is money definitely paid, while benefits being tax free won't save you a thing if you never receive the benefits.",
">So, we agree then. No, Unemployment is not insurance paid for by the worker. We do not agree on that. Apparently we agree on the fact that is not illegal. >So, what? This is why there should be qualifications and tests much like those proposed for social security. Especially since the employee doesn't actually pay for any of it. If you are making millions of dollars and still can't figure out to create an 'Oh shit' savings account, well looks like you are SOL.",
"\"Your CHMC insurance is payable to the lender not to you if you default. So technically you get nothing from it. However the likelihood is that you could not have got this loan, or got it only at an extremely high interest rate, without this insurance. The Canadian government has a page on CHMC, including a link to a page called \"\"What's in it for you?\"\".\"",
"\"Let's say, I have a Life Insurance for 20 years. Whether the money will be given back to the Policy Holder along with the Accumulated Interest on it ? This depends on the type of Insurance Policy. If you have purchased a \"\"Term Plan/Policy\"\" then these do not give back anything. However the premium is very low and is essentially covering for the risk. If you have \"\"Cash Value type\"\" of policies [Whole Life, Endowment, Universal Life, etc] then you get something back at the end. This depends on the policy document. The premiums are substantially high. It is generally advised that Cash Value type of policies are not good and the returns they generate are poor than depositing the difference in premium in alternative investments and buying a Term Plan.\"",
"\"Ah, I see what you mean, then. But if you die at 57, being hit by a bus, those self-invested funds won't help the general social welfare of the union. Instead 1/3 would go to some estate tax, and the rest are left to the designated appointee of your choosing. This soulless system helps the general populace a bit more directly. That is the theory, anyways. *edit: what I mean to say is, you still perceive that money as your own, like some compulsory retirement savings plan. I see it more as tax revenue,math little to no guarantee I will personally benefit from it directly any more than the general benefit it provides to This Great Union.\"\"\"",
"But they did have the accident. The insurance is in case they become unemployed which they did. If you want to come up with some alternative concept called destitution insurance or some such then go for it. So far that has turned out to be both technically and politically impossible.",
"When you got your original HUD backed mortgage there were three options: monthly, annual and upfront payments. The plan is designed to insure the lender of the mortgage against your default. The plan is not expected to cover the mortgage for 30 years. If you are in the early years of the mortgage, you may be owed a refund for the unused years. HUD has a Fact sheet discussing this, and a page to help you determine if they owe you a refund. If you are refinancing back into a HUD/FHA mortgage they will not give you a refund, but will roll the refund back into your new loan. FHA to FHA Refinances: When an FHA loan is refinanced, the refund from the old premium may be applied toward the up-front premium required for the new loan. Note: Depending on the year of the original loan the government has different lengths they used for coverage and refunds. I suggest you use the webpage to determine if you are due a refund, or a roll over.",
"\"No. Switzerland is one of the few countries the United States has \"\"totalizaton\"\" agreements with (not to confuse with tax treaties) to work around this kind of thing. You can find the list of the agreements here. You can use the years you work in Switzerland to make up for the remaining credits you need to qualify for benefits in the U.S. When it's time to retire, you'll receive a partial U.S. benefit that is proportional to the number of credits you earned in the U.S. You can learn more about all this here. For other countries, for which the US doesn't have totalization agreements, in this scenario you would get no benefits back for the money. So yes, it would be lost.\"",
"The amount you contribute will reduce the taxable income for each paycheck, but it won't impact the level of your social security and medicare taxes. A 401(k) plan is a qualified deferred compensation plan in which an employee can elect to have the employer contribute a portion of his or her cash wages to the plan on a pretax basis. Generally, these deferred wages (commonly referred to as elective contributions) are not subject to income tax withholding at the time of deferral, and they are not reflected on your Form 1040 (PDF) since they were not included in the taxable wages on your Form W-2 (PDF). However, they are included as wages subject to withholding for social security and Medicare taxes. In addition, employers must report the elective contributions as wages subject to federal unemployment taxes. You might be able to keep this up for more than 7 weeks if the company offers health, dental and vision insurance. Your contributions for these policies would need to be paid for before you contribute to the 401K. Of course these items are also pre-tax so they will keep the taxable amount at zero. If there was a non-pretax deduction on your pay check that would keep the check at zero, but there would be taxes owed. This might be union dues, but it can also be some life and disability insurance polices. Most stubs specify which deductions are pre-tax, and which are post-tax. Warning. If you get the company match some companies give you the maximum match for those 7 weeks, then zero for the rest of the year. Others will still credit you with a match at the end of the year saying if you should get the benefit. It is not required that they do this. Check the company documents. You could also contribute post-tax money, which is different than Roth 401K, for the rest of the year to keep the match going. Note: If you are turning 50 this year, or are already 50, then you can contribute an additional $5,500",
"\"Is there any way out from letting the money disappear into a black hole? But that is the whole point of insurance; the \"\"black hole\"\" = the insurance company. That's how they stay in business. You are giving up your money to them, but you get something in return: a guarantee of financial rescue if something happens to you medically. Considering how much health care costs can cost in the U.S., this is not insubstantial. To the degree that you might be able to divert some of that money out of the \"\"black hole\"\" and back into your pocket, or a charity, would be equivalent to reducing your premium costs. There are few ways to do that, but none too significantly. E.g., sometimes plans have health programs that customers can participate in and get a small discount, etc. But for the most part, you are stuck. Welcome to the U.S. Health Care System. One tiny tip: see if your school offers a free flu shot this fall; many do, it seems, so there is $15 saved. The school's human resources office would probably know about this.\"",
"One small note: If you have an employer sponsored account and get let go you might have an issue. You would lose any funds in the account as of the day of your unemployment if you don't have enough expenses to use it all up! So if you put in a lot every month because you have a large planned expense like root canal or operation then you could lose it all. This happened to me.",
"\"Paying yourself through a corporation requires an analysis of a variety of issues. First, a salary paid to yourself creates RRSP contribution room as well as CPP contributions. Paying yourself a dividend achieves neither of those. By having a corporation, you will have to file a corporate (T2) tax return. The corporation is considered a separate legal entity from you. As an individual, you will still need to file a personal (T1) tax return. Never just \"\"draw\"\" money out of a corporation. This can create messy transactions involving loans to shareholders. Interest is due on these amounts and any amounts not paid within one calendar year are considered as wages by Canada Revenue and would need to be reported as income on your next T1 return. You should never withhold EI premiums as the sole owner of a corporation. You are considered exempt from these costs by CRA. Any amounts that have been remitted to CRA can be reclaimed by submitting a formal request. The decision on whether to take a salary or dividends normally requires some detailed analysis. Your accountant or financial advisor should be able to assist in this matter.\"",
"\"From the page you referenced, first click the link \"\"EI premium rate and maximum\"\". There you'll find the calculation itself, but not the percentage rate. Then from that page, near the bottom, click the link \"\"EI premium rates and maximums\"\". It's almost the same title as the prior page, so a little confusing, but that pluralized version has the data you were looking for. Partial quote: The same rates are applied across Canada, except in the province of Quebec. That province has a different set of rates because they administer their own Parental Insurance Plan. In particular, self-employed workers in Quebec can opt into QPIP (even if they wouldn't qualify to participate in EI) and potentially collect parental benefits. Typical non-self-employed workers in Quebec pay into both EI (at the reduced rates for Quebec) as well as QPIP.\"",
"True, but it's still money that (in theory) could be paid to the employee instead, in the same way that the employer's social security contribution could also be paid to the employee. Note that I'm not saying that if the law were changed, every employer would suddenly increase wages by _x_ percent; merely that these taxes all fit into wage calculations along with perquisites, salaries, overhead, etc.",
"Having money held from one paycheck hardly counts as being covered by a retirement plan in my book! It's not your book that counts, it's the Congress' book called the Internal Revenue Code. No, you cannot rescind a contribution after the fact. Maybe during the year you can do something with employer balancing it out, but not after the year is closed. (That, by the way, is different for IRAs where you can actually do re-characterization until the tax day of the next year)",
"Unanticipated unemployment is usually the triggering factor for drawing on an emergency fund. Ask yourself: what happens if I lose my job tomorrow? Or my spouse becomes unemployed? What happens if I become disabled and can't work for x amount of time? Sure, you can discount your chances of needing such a fund if you have free health care. But having health insurance doesn't change the fact that an emergency fund is a good idea. There are many ways to go broke!",
"You already received a tax deduction, more or less, as you didn't pay tax on this income. Beyond that, no; the money is lost if you don't spend it. See this explanation for example, among many others; it's specific to FSA, but they work generally the same way. To go into a bit more detail, read the IRS publication on the subject; basically, what's happening here is that you're receiving a fringe benefit, rather than salary. So yes, you agreed to voluntarily reduce your salary by $255 or whatever per month in exchange for funds in this account. As such, they're nontaxable, which both your employer and you find helpful; but the downside is it's not really your money - it's a fringe benefit. Nice that it's tax free, and dissimilar to a medical or dependent care FSA, it doesn't have an expiration date; but it does go away when you leave your employer, and you don't get it back. It's money you never had.",
"If you are the only contributor to the premiums, you will not owe income taxes on the benefits. Only the portion of the benefits you receive which were paid by your employer are taxable. Source: IRS 'Life Insurance & Disability Insurance Proceeds' Question: I am receiving long-term disability. Is it considered taxable? If you pay the entire cost of a health or accident insurance plan, do not include any amounts you receive for your disability as income on your tax return EDIT: In regards to @NateEldredge's comment: If you are inquiring about the premiums, then yes, you have to pay income tax on the portion of income that pays the premiums (it's a post-tax expense and is not tax-deductible)",
"In your situation, it sounds like the only added benefit would be insurance continuance. For employees who can't access short-term disability it is a critical protection against losing their job. I just want to emphasize that given that you are in a pretty decent employment situation.",
"To add to JoeTaxpayer's answer, the cost of providing (term) life insurance for one year increases with the age of the insured. Thus, if you buy a 30-year term policy with level premiums (the premium is the same for 30 years) then, during the earlier years, you pay more than the cost to the insurance company for providing the benefit. In later years, you pay somewhat less than the cost of providing the insurance. The excess premiums that the insurance company charged in earlier years and the earnings from investing that money covers the difference between the premium paid in later years and the true cost of providing the coverage. If after 20 years you decide that you no longer need the protection (children have grown up and now have jobs etc) and you cancel the policy, you will have overpaid for the protection that you got. The insurance company will not give you backsies on the overpayment. As an alternative, you might want to consider a term life insurance policy in which the premiums increase each year (or increase every 5 years) and thus better approximate the actual cost to the insurance company. One advantage is that you pay less in early life and pay more in later years (when hopefully your income will have increased and you can afford to pay more). Thus, you can get a policy with a larger face value (150K for your wife and 400K for yourself is really quite small) with annual premium of $550 now and more in later years. Also if you decide to cancel the policy after 20 years, you will not have overpaid for the level of coverage provided. Finally, in addition to a policy with larger face value, I recommend that you include the mortgage (if any) on your house in the amount that you decide is enough for your family to live on and to send the kids to college, etc., or get a separate (term life insurance) policy to cover the mortgage on your home. Many mortgage contracts have clauses to the effect that the entire principal owed becomes immediately due if either of the borrowers dies. Yes, the widow or widower can get a replacement mortgage, or prove to the lender that the monthly payments will continue as before, (or pay off the mortgage from that $150K or $400K which will leave a heck of a lot less for the family to survive on) etc., but in the middle of dealing with all the hassles created by a death in the family, this is one headache that can be taken care of now. The advantage of including the mortgage amount in a single policy that will support the family when you are gone is that you get a bit of a break; the sum of the annual premiums on ten policies for $100K is more than the premiums for a single $1M policy. There is also the consideration that the principal owed on the mortgage declines over the years (very slowly at first, though) and so there will be more money available for living expenses in later years. Alternatively, consider a special term life insurance policy geared towards mortgage coverage. The face value of this policy reduces each year to match the amount still due on the mortgage. Note that you may already have such a policy in place because the lender has insisted on you getting such a policy as a condition for issuing the loan. In this case, keep in mind that not only is the lender the beneficiary of such a policy, but if you bought the policy through the lender, you are providing extra profit to the lender; you can get a similar policy at lower premiums on the open market than the policy that your lender has so thoughtfully provided you. I bought mine from a source that caters to employees of nonprofit organizations and public sector employees; your mileage may vary.",
"\"Yes, it's normal. If you \"\"buy\"\" your own disability insurance with after tax money, any payout you get is non taxable. If your employer \"\"buys\"\" your disability insurance with their own money, any payout you get is taxable. Since the payout is not 100% of your pre-disability income, most folks strongly prefer that the payout be non taxable. To achieve this, I pay the premiums on behalf of my employees (including myself) and then add that premium to their salary as a taxable benefit. In effect I paid it to them, then took it from them and used it to buy the insurance. (It has no impact on my corporate taxes since I can either deduct premiums or salaries, same either way.) This ensures they won't pay tax if they should collect. And I have had people collect, and it was non-taxable to them.\"",
"\"As a Canadian resident, the simple answer to your question is \"\"yes\"\" Having worked as a tax auditor and as a Certified Financial Planner, you are required to file an income tax return because you have taxable employment income. All the employer is doing is deducting it at source and remitting it on your behalf. That does not alleviate your need to file. In fact, if you don't file you will be subject to a no filing penalty. The one aspect you are missing is that taxpayers may be entitled to tax credits that may result in a refund to you depending on your personal situation (e.g spousal or minor dependents). I hope this helps.\"",
"Edit: Let's forget about Wikipedia. From the horse's mouth: The cafeteria plan rules require that a health FSA provide uniform coverage throughout the coverage period (which is the period when the employee is covered by the plan). See Proposed Treasury Regulations Section 1.125-5(d). Under the uniform coverage rules, the maximum amount of reimbursement from a health FSA must be available at all times during the coverage period. This means that the employee’s entire health FSA election is available from the first day of the plan year to reimburse qualified medical expenses incurred during the coverage period. The cafeteria plan may not, therefore, base its reimbursements to an employee on what that employee may have contributed up to any particular date, such as the date the employee is laid-off or terminated. Thus, if an employee’s reimbursements from the health FSA exceed his contributions to the health FSA at the time of lay-off or termination, the employer cannot recoup the difference from the employee. (emphasis added) http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/1012060.pdf Uniform Coverage Rule The IRS has required that “health FSAS must qualify as accident or health plans. This means that, in general, while the health coverage under the FSA need not be provided through a commercial insurance contract, health FSAS must exhibit the risk-shifting and risk-distribution characteristics of insurance.” This concept has led to the “uniform coverage” rule. The uniformcoverage rule requires that the maximum amount of an employee’s projected elective contributions to a health FSA must be available from the first day of the plan year to reimburse the employee’s qualified medical expenses, regardless of the amount actually contributed to the plan at the time that reimbursement is sought. Citing proposed Treasury Regulations Section the IRS General Counsel has determined that: “Under the uniform coverage rules, the maximum amount of reimbursement from a health FSA must be available at all times during the coverage period. The cafeteria plan may not, therefore, base its reimbursements to an employee on what that employee may have contributed up to any particular date, such as the date the employee is laid-off or terminated. Thus, if an employee’s reimbursements from the health FSA exceed his contributions to the health FSA at the time of or termination, the employer cannot recoup the difference from the employee.” This rule is unfair and also constitutes a disincentive to establishing FSAS because of the exposure to out-of pocket expenditures arising from employees who leave the company. NSBA believes that the uniform coverage rule should also be revised if the or lose- it rule is changed. Revising the use-it or lose-it rule while leaving the uniform coverage rule unchanged will introduce an inappropriate asymmetry to FSAS. An employer should be allowed to deduct any negative amount arising from insuftîcient employee contributions from a terminating partieipant’s last paycheck. http://www.ecfc.org/files/legislative-news/NSBA_(David_Burton).pdf (emphasis added) Now, that's some fresh bitterness for you right there. (Dated August 17, 2012)",
"That's not unemployment insurance. Because it's perfectly possible, and even likely, that your industry will do badly but you'll keep your job, or that your industry will do well but you'll lose your job anyway. Any bet you make to insure yourself against unemployment has to be individually about you -- there are no suitable proxies.",
"Let me get this straight, if I'm smart and save money to last times between jobs using my own money, I shouldn't take the unemployment given to me? If I'm reckless and save nothing on my own, I should be bailed out though. No-, That's ridiculous. Of course I'll take the unemployment, it's given whether I have 0 dollars or 1,000,000 dollars.",
"If you expect your taxes to be higher next year, it saves you the trouble of sending estimates or changing the withholding levels. But yes, its basically a free loan you're giving to the government.",
"\"Unemployment insurance provides a temporary safety net to workers who lose their jobs by replacing a portion of their salary for certain periods. Each state administers its own unemployment insurance program so some rules may vary from state to state. To receive unemployment insurance payments, you must have lost your job through no fault of your own. If you quit your job or lost it because of poor performance or another justifiable reason, you are not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. State unemployment insurance programs require claimants to have worked sufficiently before they can claim benefits. As soon as you apply for unemployment insurance, an agency with the state in which you live will verify that you were a victim of a layoff by contacting your previous employer and making sure you lost your job due to lack of work and not an action within your control. After the state verifies you were indeed the victim of a layoff, your weekly payment is calculated. Your payment will be a percentage of what you made in your previous job, generally between 20 percent and 50 percent, depending on your state. Unemployment insurance replaces only a portion of your previous pay because it is intended to pay only for the essentials of living such as food and utilities until you find new employment. Before you begin receiving benefits, you must complete a waiting period of typically one or two weeks. If you find a new job during this period, you will not be eligible for unemployment benefits, even if the job does not pay you as much as your previous job. After the waiting period, you will begin to receive your weekly payments. Employers pay for unemployment insurance through payroll taxes. So, while employees' work and earnings history are important to funding their unemployment benefits, the money does not come from their pay. Employer unemployment insurance contributions depend on several factors, including how many former employees have received benefits. Employers pay taxes on an employee's base wages, which vary by state. California, for example taxes employers on the first $7,000 of an employee's annual earnings, while neighboring Oregon taxes up to $32,000 of wages. Employers must set aside funds each payroll period and then report taxes and pay their states quarterly. States have several categories of tax rates they charge employers. New businesses and those first adding employees pay the \"\"new rate,\"\" which is typically lower and geared toward small businesses. Established businesses who haven't paid their taxes recently or properly are usually assessed the \"\"standard rate\"\" --- the highest possible tax rate, which in 2010 ranged from 5.4 percent in several states including Georgia, Hawaii and Alaska to 13.56 percent in Pennsylvania. Businesses in good standing may receive discounts under the \"\"experienced rate.\"\" Depending on the number of employees a business has and how many former employees have claimed unemployment, states can give sizable rate reductions. The fewer claims, the lower the rate a business pays in unemployment insurance taxes. As a result of the economic crisis legislation has been passed to extend Unemployment benefits. Regular unemployment benefits are paid for a maximum of 26 weeks in most states. However, additional weeks of extended unemployment benefits are available during times of high unemployment. The unemployment extension legislation passed by Congress in February 2012 changed the way the tiers of Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) are structured. A tier of unemployment is an extension of a certain amount of weeks of unemployment benefits. There are currently four tiers of unemployment benefits. Each tier provides extra weeks of unemployment in addition to basic state unemployment benefits. Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) Tiers June - August 2012: Source and further information can be found here - Unemployment Tiers - About.com Sources: Unemployment Insurance(UI) - US Dept. of Labor How Does Unemployment Insurance Work? - eHow Percentage of Pay That Goes to Unemployment Insurance - eHow Additional Info: You can file for UI over the internet here are some useful resources. OWS Links State Unemployment Offices - About.com How to Apply for Unemployment Over the Internet - eHow\"",
"If your refund is so small (like $20 - $25), and it's not worth receiving, it can be put towards next years just to give you a slight edge.",
"The point of unemployment insurance *from a governmental spending perspective* is as stimulus. The government is interested in keeping society working properly for as many people as possible, it is not concerned with giving *you* money between *your* jobs. Unemployment insurance helps make sure that recessions do not turn into depressions, because the economy won't grind to a halt as soon as people get fired.",
"This depends on the jurisdiction, but such companies are typically subject to regulations (and audits) that require them to keep the customers' accumulated premiums very strictly separated from the company's own assets, liabilities and expenses. Additionally, they are typically only allowed to invest the capital in very safe things like government bonds. So, unless something truly catastrophic happens (like the US government defaulting on its bonds) or people in the company break the regulations (which would invovle all kinds of serious crimes and require complicity or complete failure of the auditors), your premiums and the contractual obligation to you would still be there, and would be absorbed by a different insurance company that takes over the defunct company's business. Realistically, what all this means is that insurance companies never go bankrupt; if they do badly, they are typically bought up by a competitor long before things get that bad.",
"Unemployment is meant for people who were laid off, not terminated. Also, the employee who claimed unemployment did so even after they had worked for another company for several months between working for me and making the claim. If I actually laid someone off I would be the first to personally help them fill out paperwork for unemployment benefits. If those benefits go to those who shouldn't receive them it hurts everyone. That 3% increase in unemployment insurance is 3% that isn't going into paying my actual employees.",
"No, unvested money returns to the employer, its not yours. They should send you W2 which will only show the actual (vested) monies you got.",
"Question: at what point, if any, am i free to use this money? Never. It's not your money.",
"The Australian Tax Office website shows Tax Rates for individuals based on the income earned in the Financial Year. Calculating what you'll be taxed For instance, it show that every dollar you earn up to $18,200, you are not taxed. Every dollar over that, up to $37k is taxed at 19 cents. And so on.. Example 1 So as an example, if your income for the year is $25,000 you will be taxed $1292. Working: Here's how it's look if you were doing it in a spreadsheet using the Tax Rates table on the ATO website as a guide: Example 2 If you income is $50,000, it'd look like this: Withholding Your employer is obligated to remove the taxable part from your wage each time your paid. They do that using the calculation above. If at the end of the financial year, the ATO determines that too much as been withheld (ie. you've claimed deductions that've reduce your taxable income to less than what your actual income is), that's when you may be eligible for a refund. If your employer didn't withhold enough or you had income from other sources that haven't been taxed already, then you may actually need to pay rather than expecting a refund. Your question If you earn $18,200 in the year and for some reason your employer did withhold tax from your pay, say $2,000, then yes, you'll get all that $2,000 back as a refund since the Tax Rate for income up to $18,200 is $0.00. If you earned $18,201 and your employer withheld $2000, you'd get $1999.81 back as a refund ($2000 - 19c). You have to pay 19c tax on that $1 over $18,200.",
"\"Years ago, a coworker bragged to me how his \"\"tax guy\"\" got him a huge refund. I told him my goal was to owe a couple thousand dollars, and that I'm glad I didn't have his guy. In the end, your return should reflect the truth, and a good tax guy will be little better than good tax software. The bottom line is that a refund is money you lend the government, interest free. If you can owe a bit of money but avoid paying a penalty, you'll have gotten a free loan from Uncle Sam. Given the fact that most (it seems that way, someone tell me if I'm wrong) families carry some balance on their credit cards, they are paying out 12% or more on their highest interest debt. Lending the government even $1000 for the year comes at a cost, if you file in time to get your refund by the end of March, that's an average 9 months you are out your money. 12%/yr is $90. Scale that up to $3000, the average refund, and the max 24% rate I've seen, $540 lost. Better to adjust your withholding, and get the extra money each paycheck to pay off other debt. Obviously, for those with no debt, their cost is minimal, perhaps 1%, but still better in your pocket for the year. If you pay in this money every paycheck, only to feel good getting it back every March or April, while paying 18% card interest every month, that's your choice. And Stevej will support that decision, or so it seems. EDIT - The Huffpost article Steve linked titled \"\"Big Tax Refunds Really Are Good\"\" ignores this debt, only focusing on the near zero rate banks offer now. The article listed 8 reasons the author felt this way. By the way, the author is the \"\"Chief Tax Officer, Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc\"\" which makes him a bit less than a disinterested third party. And all 8 of his reasons are far from compelling. \"\"In my opinion, getting a $3,000 check is never a bad thing.\"\" This was #1, and by now you know why I disagree. Next, \"\"More than 75 percent of all individual taxpayers get refunds year after year. It has been this way for decades.... It is unlikely that 75 percent of all taxpayers are all making bad financial decisions every year.\"\" That's enough. Rhetorical nonsense. Read the rest for yourself and decide if the next 6 reasons are any more compelling. Keep in mind, sellers of tax software or services have backed themselves into a corner with the \"\"largest refund\"\" claims. I'm sympathetic to the fact that \"\"we'll shoot for no refund at all, in fact, our goal is for you to owe just $100\"\" will not be their next campaign. EDIT 2 - I gave this more thought as I started to write a near 1000 word post on this topic. I came to find that 1 in 4 employees did not deposit enough in their 401(k) to capture the full match. This is the highest lost opportunity as the potential return is an instant 100% for matched deposits. Again, it's easy to dismiss the near zero bank rates, but that's not the alternative best use for the money.\"",
"\"There are a few questions that need qualification, and a bit on the understanding of what is being 'purchased'. There are two axioms that require re-iteraton, Death, and Taxes. Now, The First is eventually inevitable, as most people will eventually die. It depends what is happening now, that determines what will happen tomorrow, and the concept of certainty. The Second Is a pay as you go plan. If you are contemplating what will heppen tomorrow, you have to look at what types of \"\"Insurance\"\" are available, and why they were invented in the first place. The High seas can be a rough travelling ground, and Not every shipment of goods and passengers arrived on time, and one piece. This was the origin of \"\"insurance\"\", when speculators would gamble on the safe arrival of a ship laden with goods, at the destination, and for this they received a 'cut' on the value of the goods shipped. Thus the concept of 'Underwriting', and the VALUE associated with the cargo, and the method of transport. Based on an example gallion of good repair and a well seasoned Captain and crew, a lower rate of 'insurance' was deemed needed, prior to shipment, than some other 'rating agency - or underwriter'. Now, I bring this up, because, it depends on the Underwriter that you choose as to the payout, and the associated Guarantee of Funds, that you will receive if you happen to need to 'collect' on the 'Insurance Contract'. In the case of 'Death Benefit' insurance, You will never see the benefit, at the end, however, while the policy is in force (The Term), it IS an Asset, that would be considered in any 'Estate Planning' exercise. First, you have to consider, your Occupation, and the incidence of death due to occupational hazards. Generally this is considered in your employment negotiations, and is either reflected in the salary, or if it is a state sponsored Employer funded, it is determined by your occupational risk, and assessed to the employer, and forms part of the 'Cost-of-doing-business', in that this component or 'Occupational Insurance' is covered by that program. The problem, is 'disability' and what is deemed the same by the experience of the particular 'Underwriter', in your location. For Death Benefits, Where there is an Accident, for Motor Vehicle Accidents (and 50,000 People in the US die annually) these are covered by Motor Vehicle Policy contracts, and vary from State to State. Check the Registrar of State Insurance Co's for your state to see who are the market leaders and the claim /payout ratios, compared to insurance in force. Depending on the particular, 'Underwiriter' there may be significant differences, and different results in premium, depending on your employer. (Warren Buffet did not Invest in GEICO, because of his benevolence to those who purchase Insurance Policies with GEICO). The original Poster mentions some paramaters such as Age, Smoking, and other 'Risk factors'.... , but does not mention the 'Soft Factors' that are not mentioned. They are, 'Risk Factors' such, as Incidence of Murder, in the region you live, the Zip Code, you live at, and the endeavours that you enjoy when you are not in your occupation. From the Time you get up in the morning, till the time you fall asleep (And then some), you are 'AT Risk' , not from a event standpoint, but from a 'Fianancial risk' standpoint. This is the reason that all of the insurance contracts, stipulate exclusions, and limits on when they will pay out. This is what is meant by the 'Soft Risk Factors', and need to be ascertained. IF you are in an occupation that has a limited exposure to getting killed 'on the job', then you will be paying a lower premium, than someone who has a high risk occupation. IT used to be that 'SkySkraper Iron Workers', had a high incidence of injury and death , but over the last 50 years, this has changed. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics lists these 10 jobs as the highest for death (per 100,000 workers). The scales tilt the other way for these occupations: (In Canada, the Cheapest Rate for Occupational Insurance is Lawyer, and Politician) So, for the rest in Sales, management etc, the national average is 3 to 3.5 depending on the region, of deaths per 100,000 employed in that occupation. So, for a 30 year old bank worker, the premium is more like a 'forced savings plan', in the sense that you are paying towards something in the future. The 'Risk of Payout' in Less than 6 months is slim. For a Logging Worker or Fisher(Men&Women) , the risk is very high that they might not return from that voyage for fish and seafood. If you partake in 'Extreme Sports' or similar risk factors, then consider getting 'Whole Term- Life' , where the premium is spread out over your working lifetime, and once you hit retirement (55 or 65) then the occupational risk is less, and the plan will payout at the age of 65, if you make it that far, and you get a partial benefit. IF you have a 'Pension Plan', then that also needs to be factored in, and be part of a compreshensive thinking on where you want to be 5 years from today.\"",
"In some circumstances losses from self-employment can be offset against total income and/or capital gains. If this applies to you may be able to claim back some of the tax taken by PAYE from your day job. You can also to some extent carry the loss backwards into previous tax years or forward into the next one if you can't use it fully this year. HMRC have some information available on the current rules: When you can claim losses You can claim: But You can’t claim:",
"\"Why? Simply: because it has been mandated as law, and so you may have no choice in the matter whether to contribute or not. Quoting from GOV.UK – Workplace pensions: ‘Automatic enrolment’ A new law means that every employer must automatically enrol workers into a workplace pension scheme if they: Next: even if you think you will work \"\"until you die\"\", you can still access the money saved in the pension scheme when you attain the required minimum age for withdrawals under your scheme. For instance, that may be age 55, but it may also vary by scheme. Becoming fully retired — as in stopping all work — is not a requirement to access retirement income from your pension scheme. In the eyes of a pension scheme, retirement is typically when you elect to take your income benefits according to the established rules of the scheme. Quoting from nidirect – Working past State Pension age: Continuing in work and your workplace pension If you reached the age at which you can start claiming your workplace pension scheme, you don't need to stop work in order to claim. You have a number of options, including taking some of the pension you've built up while continuing to work for the same employer. As to why things are set up this way: While some younger folk may, today, expect to continue working until death, for a variety of reasons that isn't always possible. Two typical such reasons are: disability, and involuntary unemployment (i.e. willing and able but still can't land the next job). Moreover, plans change. Young workers with health and vitality may expect they'll always feel invincible, but end up learning otherwise over time, and may come to appreciate the savings that were forced upon them. The \"\"forced savings\"\" aspect of state and state-sponsored pension schemes are meant to provide some safety net for those later years when it is a strong possibility that one can't continue to work. The alternative is to be a 100% burden on family and/or society.\"",
"According to this, if your employer will not refund FICA taxes withheld in error, you need to file forms 843 and 8316 with IRS. Unfortunately, I have heard that it sometimes takes years for them to respond to those.",
"Yes, provided you're not over the IRA deductibility limit as well. – JoeTaxpayer♦ Aug 4 at 18:02 Note that if you get refunded for excess contributions, it usually happens in the following year, in which case it doesn't affect the year where these contributions occured -- rather, the refund counts as taxable income in the year you received the refund. – user102008 Aug 11 at 8:11",
"\"I disagree with @Sam's answers: yes you will get that money back when your tax return is processed. This is not true. You will receive funds that are in excess of your liability (contrary to popular belief, the government does not take more than what you are liable for). \"\"is it possible to return the check and modify how it's calculated if I talk to payroll?\"\" No. When you sign your documents at the beginning of the year, that will dictate the amount of liability they take from each of your paychecks. \"\"Will this difference be given back in my next tax return\"\" Because your company is withdrawing 25% on your paycheck you may/or may not need to pay more depending on the rest of your salary. The IRS has set the system up as brackets. You pay your taxes based on the amount earned (voluntarily or involuntarily). So if you have income of $9,275 you would pay $923 in taxes at a marginal rate of 10% (and average rate of 10%). If you made $10,000, you would pay $923+$109=$1,032 with your marginal rate as 15% (while your average rate is 10.31%). All in all, this is dependent on your salary, filing, and other deductions to raise or lower your tax liability. Note: The $109 came from this: [(10,000-9,275)*.15]\"",
"Deposits are contributions. You deposit say, $5000, and over time you have $6000. The $5000 can be withdrawn any time with no issue. It's tracked via form 8606. With this in mind, I wrote an article The Roth Emergency Fund, suggesting that since one can withdraw deposits with no issue, the Roth can be used to hold emergency money.",
"I would like to add to the answer provided by Dheer. I think under some ULIPs you need not pay premium after 3 years and you can take the money back after 5 years (something like that, read your policy statement of course). Since the money is invested in Stock markets and since generally people say the longer money stays in stocks, the better; you can keep the money with them without taking it back and without paying any further premium. That way, whatever you paid will be invested and you can get it back later when you feel you will make a profit.",
"No not deductible. But - If you work more than one job, you run the risk of having too much SS withheld. Each employer doesn't know what the others pays you. Tax time reconciles this. And much thanks to Dilip for the following clarification - Not only does each employer not know what the others pays you, but even if you tell him, he will not care. He is required to withhold Social Security tax on the wages he pays you (and send in an equal amount as his contribution) regardless of what anyone else pays you. If the sum of your taxable wages from all employers exceed the maximum wages subject to Social Security, the excess withholding is credited towards the income tax due (and thus reduces the amount to be paid or increases the refund you are owed) but the employer's (excess) contribution that he sent in is not returned to him..... Also, there is no such things as excess Medicare tax having been withheld because there is no maximum wage beyond which Medicare tax does not apply.",
"\"Generally you do not pay taxes on insurance payouts that occur because of some kind of loss, provided you paid the premiums yourself. \"\"Generally, if you're paying premiums yourself, such as for homeowners insurance and auto insurance, then your insurance benefits are not a taxable event,\"\" says Adam Sherman, CEO of Firstrust Financial Resources in Philadelphia. \"\"Your benefits are reimbursement for expenses, rather than income.\"\" It's not as straightforward for death benefits and life insurance.\"",
"If it goes to a millionaire who continues to pay larger bills than others while unemployed then that money goes right back into the economy. The money for unemployment insurance is linked to compensation. If they are millionaires then their compensation has already paid for unemployment insurance. This idea that money is going to turn around and go to some others possibly through some other program is flatly wrong. Either you have unemployment insurance or you don't. You want to withhold unemployment insurance from rich people because you don't think they are worthy. That is an interesting idea, but so far it has never worked politically.",
"\"Your question does not say this explicitly, but I assume that you were once a W-2 employee. Each paycheck a certain amount was withheld from your check to pay income, social security, and medicare taxes. Just because you did not receive that amount of money earned does not mean it was immediately sent to the IRS. While I am not all that savvy on payroll procedures, I recall an article that indicated some companies only send in withheld taxes every quarter, much like you are doing now. They get a short term interest free loan. For example taxes withheld by a w-2 employee in the later months of the year may not be provided to the IRS until 15 January of the next year. You are correct in assuming that if you make 100K as a W-2 you will probably pay less in taxes than someone who is 100K self employed with 5K in expenses. However there are many factors. Provided you properly fill out a 1040ES, and pay the correct amount of quarterly payments, you will almost never owe taxes. In fact my experience has been the forms will probably allow you to receive a refund. Tax laws can change and one thing the form did not include last year was the .9% Medicare surcharge for high income earners catching some by surprise. As far as what you pay into is indicative of the games the politicians play. It all just goes into a big old bucket of money, and more is spent by congress than what is in the bucket. The notion of a \"\"social security lockbox\"\" is pure politics/fantasy as well as the notion of medicare and social security taxes. The latter were created to make the actual income tax rate more palatable. I'd recommend getting your taxes done as early as possible come 1 January 2017. While you may not have all the needed info, you could firm up an estimate by 15 Jan and modify the amount for your last estimated payment. Complete the taxes when all stuff comes in and even if you owe an amount you have time to save for anything additional. Keep in mind, between 1 Jan 17 and 15 Apr 17 you will earn and presumably save money to use towards taxes. You can always \"\"rob\"\" from that money to pay any owed tax for 2016 and make it up later. All that is to say you will be golden because you are showing concern and planning. When you hear horror stories of IRS dealings it is most often that people spent the money that should have been sent to the IRS.\"",
"The employer most likely has already sent that money that was withheld to the IRS. Therefore they cannot refund you any money. Instead you need to get the money back from the IRS. You do this by filing a tax return. Your W2C will show that taxes were withheld (I.e., that you paid taxes). The rest of the return will show that no taxes were due and therefore you are entitled to have your money refunded. If you have already filed for that tax you, you just need to file an amended return with the new data. That amendment will show that you are to be refunded the extra money. Then just wait several weeks for the payment from the IRS. As pointed out user102008, if it is Medicare and social security taxes that have been withheld in error, then you need to file a different set of forms with IRS. It would be nice if refunding FICA also occurred via the tax return.",
"\"First of all, insurance never covers the cost of the item, it is almost always a partial payout at best. For example, a typical house in the Northeast US where I live that costs $300,000 will have the actual house valued at maybe $100,00 and rest of the value will be in the land. Therefore, the insured value will typically be $100,000. The only problem is that to actually rebuild the house might easily cost $250,000. So, your idea that some kinds of insurance allows the beneficiary to recoup their loss is usually never true. As you say, from an actuarial point of view insurance is a sheer waste of money. For example, a typical house has maybe a 0.5% chance of burning down every year. In other words out of 2000 houses, maybe 1 will burn down every year. So, lets say you got $100,000 of insurance on your house. Then the value of that policy would be $100,000 / 2000 = $50 per year. An insurance company will charge around $700 per year for the policy. That means you are basically flushing $650 down the toilet every year to maintain that policy. The reason why they do this is what blankip says above, they are buying \"\"peace of mind\"\", a psychological product. In other they imagine they are somehow safe. So, even though they are losing money, paying it makes them feel as though they are not losing money. It's delusional, but then again most people have a lot of delusions of which insurance is just one of many.\"",
"\"I have a mildly exceptional relationship with Social Security. When I was eight years old my father died, leaving nothing but a mountain of debt and an apartment full of trinkets. My mother received Social Security Survivor benefits checks in lieu of his child support payments, which kept me fed and clothed until I graduated high school. She also worked, sometimes multiple jobs, and did what she could to provide health and stability. I consider myself privileged even though we were often financially ... Disadvantaged. When I graduated high school and the checks from Social Security ended, I went on to college, financed a good portion of it, but also received a lot of scholarships and aid along the way. As I near 30, I still wear enough student debt equivalent of a new, mid-class sedan, but I am financially solvent, work a good job, and can afford my own rent, child support, actual child costs, and regular living expenses. While I can still ferret away some of my income into my 401(k), I still need to save for my child's education. I still need to save up for a home. I still have to save up for – and often spend for - a more immediate future. I do not anticipate Social Security being available to in any meaningful sense of the word, when I retire. But I \"\"already got mine\"\" in a sense, and I consider my SSI deductions to be contributions back into the system that kept me fed, kept me healthy, an kept me teachable. I preferred the notion that Social Security didn't become available until someone had exceeded their life expectancy. I preferred the notion that Social Security should never need to be used by anyone. I would much rather the safetynet never be depended upon. But the contributions were much appreciated all the same, and I can now appreciate how those contributions need to be a bit more randomized, more spread across the populace. I am pretty sure this is enough to have people shrieking a me that I'm done kind of socialist. All I know is that I miss that 4% from my paychecks (and I'll miss the full 6% when the \"\"holiday\"\" ends) but that it might help someone thrive, like it did me. My only regret is that the safety net is squandered on old people.\"",
"While the OP disses the health insurance coverage offered through his wife's employer as a complete rip-off, one advantage of such coverage is that, if set up right (by the employer), the premiums can be paid for through pre-tax dollars instead of post-tax dollars. On the other hand, Health insurance premiums cannot be deducted on Schedule C by self-employed persons. So the self-employed person has to pay both the employer's share as well as the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes on that money. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Line 29 of Form 1040 but only for those months during which the Schedule C filer is neither covered nor eligible to be covered by a subsidized health insurance plan maintained by an employer of the self-employed person (whose self-employment might be a sideline) or the self-employed person's spouse. In other words, just having the plan coverage available through the wife's employment, even though one disdains taking it, is sufficient to make a Line 29 deduction impermissible. So, AGI is increased. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Schedule A but only to the extent that they (together with other medical costs) exceed 10% of AGI. For many people in good health, this means no deduction there either. Thus, when comparing the premiums of health insurance policies, one should pay some attention to the tax issues too. Health insurance through a spouse's employment might not be that bad a deal after all.",
"insurance premiums My annual car premium always caught me off guard until I set up a dedicated savings account for it.",
"\"You are kind of thinking of this correctly, but you will and should pay for insurance at some point. What I mean by that is that, although the insurance company is making a profit, that removing the risk for certain incidents from your life, you are still receiving a lot of value. Things that inflict large losses in your life tend to be good insurance buys. Health, liability, long term care, long term disability and property insurance typically fall into this category. In your case, assuming you are young and healthy, it would be a poor choice to drop the major medical health insurance. There is a small chance you will get very sick in the next 10 years or so and require the use of this insurance. A much smaller chance than what is represented by the premium. But if you do get very sick, and don't have insurance, it will probably wipe you out financially. The devastation could last the rest of your life. You are paying to mitigate that possibility. And as you said, it's pretty low cost. While you seem to be really good at numbers it is hard to quantify the risk avoidance. But it must be considered in your analysis. Also along those lines is car insurance. While you may not be willing to pay for \"\"full coverage\"\" it's a great idea to max out your personal liability if you have sufficient assets.\"",
"A) Q1) No, you beat the system, you benefit from flip side of 'use it or lose it' Q2) You need to ask, they may have a $50/week limit, or they may divide the amount you wish by remaining time in year. They may also not let you start till next enrollment period. B) Q1) No, in fact, you just lost $400 that you deposited but didn't spend. Q2) You missed the opportunity to spend an extra $1000 as well, but the loss was opportunity not pocket. Q3) Same as Q2 above, ask them. C) These accounts are not coupled. I'd change the law to do so, however, I am not a congressman.",
"Your math is fine, except employers might not permit the withdrawal. You'd have to go back to their rules or contact HR to understand the withdrawals permitted.",
"> think about it as an investment in the future for when you do need it, and those kids skills. I have a large portfolio of stocks I've bought from the income I earn. I've already thought about the future and acted appropriately. >good luck getting the cashflow with that sorta system to work It works just fine in the government department where I work. You pay for the services you request. >read Bill Clinton's last book it goes into a lot of detail around it. If I never see a Clinton again, it will be too soon. Slab of beef Hillary and cigar in the vagina rapist Bill can fuck off.",
"If the IRS has your money (the withholding you mentioned), and you do not owe the IRS any/all of it, you have to file a return to get it back. No return, no refund.",
">However, you would have to pay income taxes on that wage and could end up with less money overall to spend on healthcare. That's not truth tho. You can open IRA and 401k and now you have more money to put into them that won't get tax and it help you save for the retirement.",
"One situation where it would be prudent not to contribute would be if expenses are so tight that you cannot afford to contribute because you need that cashflow for expenses.",
"This is something that many people misunderstand. Nearly everyone who works in the U.S. is required to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes (sometimes called payroll taxes or FICA). These are not a savings plan, and the money you pay is not going into an account with your name on it. This money is used to pay for the benefits of the current retirees/beneficiaries. When you retire, the benefits you get will be paid for by the workers that are still working and paying that tax. You may be receiving benefits, but you are also still working, so you still have to pay the tax.",
"If I were you I would educate myself better on the ins and outs of employment law. Apparently not knowing all the details has already cost you substantial amount of money. [http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unemployment-benefits-contesting-employees-claim-30348.html](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unemployment-benefits-contesting-employees-claim-30348.html) Of course the details can vary quite a bit by jurisdiction. Please consider consulting with an attorney who specializes in employment law who can help you protect yourself in the future.",
"A student on F1 working under the conditions of the OPT program is exempt from FICA taxes. Once you switch to H1b - you no longer have the exemption. You can use form 8316 and form 843 to request the refund, if the employer cannot or will not refund the withholding. Employer is the first stop, but keep in mind that you have 3 years at most to request the refund after filing the tax returns for the year in question (or when they should have been filed, if you didn't). Detailed instructions here.",
"You cannot withdraw funds from a 401(k) while still employed with your company. To access your contributions, that would be treated as a loan against the 401(k), in which case you'd pay an upfront fee, and then have to repay the amount loaned, plus interest, over a set period of time. (In essence, you are paying back yourself.) Typically, there is also a minimum amount you must take out as a loan. Should you leave the job and still have an outstanding loan against your 401(k), it will be treated as a withdrawal after a certain date, at which point a 10% penalty plus taxes applies, unless you pay back the full amount of the loan remaining before that certain date. Your friends should seriously consider contributing the minimum amount necessary to get that full 50% matching amount. It's free money. As you said, it's like leaving money on the table.",
"This is a topic you need to sit down and discuss with your parents. Income taxes probably aren't going to be a big issue, and will be refunded in April. Social Security and Medicare will not be refunded, but start you on the road to qualifying for them in the future. How much of you expenses you will now cover will be a family decision; how much of your college expenses you will be responsible for will also need to be discussed. These topics need to be understood before it is time to apply to schools in the fall of your senior year of high school. It is nice to know that you are at least thinking about saving money for your future and for emergencies.",
"While you have found a way to possibly gain $1275 in tax free income, you are also risking $1275 if you end up not using the money you contributed. You will have to find a way to have that much in medical expenses by your retirement date or you will leave some money in the Flexible Spending Account. There are risks you take with these accounts (use it or lose it) and risks the company takes (leave with a deficit in the account). Many times we get questions about how to spend all that the employee contributed before the last day of work, or the end of the plan year. You can play it more fair by selecting the maximum amount per check to be taken from your pay check, then waiting until the retirement date to decide how much you will withdraw from the FSA. Your last day of work is your last day to incur a medical expense but you are given a window to submit your claims that extends beyond your last day of work. I have not personally heard of an employer requiring a former employee to pay back the money when there is a deficit in their FSA. Remember people are fired, or laid off with little or no warning trapping their money in a FSA. The fact that you have the ability to plan for this event and considered your options, is a great position to be in.",
"So don't retire. But plan like you will retire. I am sure that some billionaire put some money away into a pension, 401K, or IRA for their retirement when they were young. It turns out they never had to worry about outliving their money. The next few paragraphs use United States examples. What happens if you have to retire, but you never saved. All the matching funds you could have collected in a 401K are gone, they disappeared with every paycheck you didn't contribute. Every year you didn't contribute to an IRA can never be replayed. You gave up the magic of compounding, because you thought you would never want to retire. If you save but don't need it, you will have more money to play with as you cut back your hours to part time. If you skip all the plans that make it hard to spend the money until you are 59 1/2, you can still save, but it takes even more discipline to not spend it before you are old.",
"Unfortunately, the money that is not vested is not yours. It belongs to your employer. They have promised to give it to you after you have been with the company for a certain length of time, but if you aren't still with the company after that time, no matter what the reason, the money never becomes yours. Sorry to hear about this. It would have been nice if your company had waived the vesting requirement like this guy's employer did, but I don't think they are required to do so, unfortunately. If it's a lot of money, you could ask an attorney, but as @JoeTaxpayer said, AT&T and IBM probably know what they are doing.",
"If you have non-salary income, you might be required to file 1040ES estimated tax for the next year on a quarterly basis. You can instead pay some or all in advance from your previous year's refund. In theory, you lose the interest you might have made by holding that money for a few months. In practice it might be worth it to avoid needing to send forms and checks every quarter. For instance if you had a $1000 estimated tax requirement and the alternative was to get 1% taxable savings account interest for six months, you'd make about $3 from holding it for the year. I would choose to just pay in advance. If you had a very large estimation, or you could pay off a high-rate debt and get a different effective rate of return, the tradeoff may be different.",
"Better for you and for me, yes, but not for the disadvantaged without benefactors. That's the situation I was in. I just wish social security wasn't spent on the elderly, when they have so little left to contribute to our society and economy, in terms of new business, growth, and constructing the future.",
"Unfortunately, no. Think about the numbers. If you work for me, and I pay you $1000, you owe tax on $1000. If you still work, but I don't pay you, you have no tax due, but there's no benefit for you to collect for my stealing your time.",
"When you withdraw from your RRSP, you lose that contribution room and you will never get it back. Let's say you have room to contribute a total of $50,000 to RRSPs. If you withdraw $5000 from one institution and deposit it in another, you will now have a total contribution room of $45,000. This will only matter to you if you hope to max out your RRSP contributions sometime in your life, of course, but almost everyone should be aiming for this. Otherwise, you are correct. Your extra income will be mitigated by your immediate recontribution to your RRSP. Note that there are two circumstances where withdrawing from your RRSP does not reduce your contribution limit. The home-buyers plan lets you withdraw up to $25,000 to buy a home. You have to repay this over no more than 15 years. The second is the Lifelong Learning Plan, which lets you withdraw up to $20,000 (up to $10,000 annually), to be repaid over a 10-year period. Any other withdrawals (or failure to repay under the HBP or LLP) will lower your RRSP contribution room. In summary, it's almost certainly worth paying the $125 fee unless you are certain you will not be maxing out your RRSP contributions in your lifetime.",
"\"Seems like you could shoehorn this into an investment account. You make purchases similar to what you would make in a money market account ($1 per share) via your premium payments. You see appreciation in those shares. You incur expenses on your \"\"purchases\"\" via cost of insurance and possibly monthly payment fees.\"",
"You should not continue contributing, as you're no longer qualified for it. You can keep it, and use the money in it toward the current medical expenses, without a problem. There are specific examples in pub 969.",
"\"Publication 590a covers this in a fairly specific manner. Page 11, section \"\"Are You Covered by an Employer Plan?\"\", specifies: The Form W-2 you receive from your employer has a box used to indicate whether you were covered for the year. The “Retirement Plan” box should be checked if you were covered. So, by default, if that's checked, you're covered. 590 does go into more detail, though. Assuming you're covered under a Defined Contribution plan (a 401k for example): Defined contribution plan. Generally, you are covered by a defined contribution plan for a tax year if amounts are contributed or allocated to your account for the plan year that ends with or within that tax year. Tax Year: Tax year. Your tax year is the annual accounting period you use to keep records and report income and expenses on your income tax return. For almost all people, the tax year is the calendar year. Further, they cover issues related to an employee leaving Dec. 31 very specifically: A special rule applies to certain plans in which it is not possible to determine if an amount will be contributed to your account for a given plan year. If, for a plan year, no amounts have been allocated to your account that are attributable to employer contributions, employee contributions, or forfeitures, by the last day of the plan year, and contributions are discretionary for the plan year, you are not covered for the tax year in which the plan year ends. If, after the plan year ends, the employer makes a contribution for that plan year, you are covered for the tax year in which the contribution is made. Example: Example. Mickey was covered by a profit-sharing plan and left the company on December 31, 2014. The plan year runs from July 1 to June 30. Under the terms of the plan, employer contributions do not have to be made, but if they are made, they are contributed to the plan before the due date for filing the company's tax return. Such contributions are allocated as of the last day of the plan year, and allocations are made to the accounts of individuals who have any service during the plan year. As of June 30, 2015, no contributions were made that were allocated to the June 30, 2015, plan year, and no forfeitures had been allocated within the plan year. In addition, as of that date, the company was not obligated to make a contribution for such plan year and it was impossible to determine whether or not a contribution would be made for the plan year. On December 31, 2015, the company decided to contribute to the plan for the plan year ending June 30, 2015. That contribution was made on February 15, 2016. Mickey is an active participant in the plan for his 2016 tax year but not for his 2015 tax year. Mickey is in a similar (but different) circumstance, and it's clear from the IRS's treatment of his circumstance that you would be in the same boat (just a year less off) - but be aware given Mickey's situation that it's theoretically possible for them to make another contribution next year, as Mickey had, depending on when their plan year/etc. ends. So - from the IRS's point of view, everything you said the company did is correct. They paid you in January, contributed to your 401k as a result of that paycheck, and thus you were officially considered covered for 2015.\"",
"This is snarky, but I really consider life insurance only to be an investment for THE INSURANCE COMPANY, if you don't have dependents who will need the insurance in case you are hurt or die.",
"\"If I remember the information in \"\"The Wealthy Barber\"\" correctly, he said: And as someone once said to me, \"\"make sure you're worth more alive than dead!\"\" :-)\"",
"Life insurance is not an investment -- by definition, since the companies need to take a profit out of it, the average amount paid in exceeds the amount paid out, yielding a negative rate of return. Get life insurance if your death would cause severe financial hardship for someone. If you have sufficient savings that your wife could recover and move on with her life without hardship, and your kids are grown, you probably DO NOT need life insurance.",
"You will not benefit at tax time like you did with your initial contributions, because you have already benefited and are simply repaying your withdrawn contributions. However, capital gains are not taxed inside of your RRSP, until you withdraw the money. Let's say you have $10,000 to repay and have all the money now. It makes sense to repay it immediately. Whatever interest or capital gains you make inside of the RRSP are not taxed. However, your $10,000 contribution this year will not offer you any deductions on your tax return. There are exactly two reasons I can see to not immediately repay the full amount, if able. First, you may need the money for an emergency fund, and there are significant implications for removing money from your RRSP in such a case. Second, if you believe you will be in a higher tax bracket when you retire, it may not make sense to put any money into an RRSP right now. Almost certainly, you want to repay the entire lump sum if able.",
"\"If we are only talking about a few extra months between jobs which is quite common now then how do you get to \"\"living beyond their means\"\"? Either they have unemployment insurance or they don't. It sounds like you don't like unemployment insurance. So go bring that to a vote. So far the majority of people want unemployment insurance in place because they see greater economic benefit in providing this service.\"",
"Yes, you have to file a tax return in Canada. Non residents that have earned employment income in Canada are required to file a Canadian personal income tax return. Usually, your employer will have deducted sufficient taxes from your pay-cheques, resulting in a tax refund upon filing your Canadian tax return. You will also receive a tax credit on your US tax return for taxes paid in Canada.",
"\"It's not possible to determine whether you can \"\"expect a refund\"\" or whether you are claiming the right number of exemptions from the information given. If your wife were not working and you did not do independent contracting, then the answer would be much simpler. However, in this case, we must also factor in how much your contracting brings in (since you must pay income tax on that, as well as Medicare and, probably, Social Security), whether you are filing jointly or separately, and your wife's income from her business. There are also other factors such as whether you'll be claiming certain child care expenses, and certain tax credits which may phase out depending on your income. If you can accurately estimate your total household income for the year, and separate that into income from wages, contracting, and your wife's business, as well as your expenses for things like state and local income and property taxes, then you can make a very reasonable estimate about your total tax burden (including the self-employment taxes on your non-wage income) and then determine whether you are having enough tax withheld from your paycheck. Some people may find that they should have additional tax withheld to compensate for these expenses (see IRS W-4 Line #6).\"",
"No. What's the point in that? All it does is create government overhead to administer the payments. Just pay your own way in the first place. Oh, wait! I see, when you say it's my turn now and your turn later, later never comes. Nevermind. I get it.",
"I wish I had started contributing to the pension fund offered by my employer sooner than it became compulsory. That is, I started working when I was 23 but did not contribute to the pension fund until I was 30 (the age at which it is compulsory to do so). I lost a lot of productive years in mid to late 90s, when the stocks were doing well. :-(",
">Better for you and for me, yes, but not for the disadvantaged without benefactors. That's the situation I was in. That wasn't exactly my point. I'm all for helping people, and social security does help people, and I am very happy it helped you - I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that what you got from social security is not as good as what you would have got from a $500,000 - $1,000,000 term life insurance policy. For people in there 20s, in good health, that kind of policy should be $20-$40/month, which could easily be bought with the money we otherwise spend on social security. (Now... whether parents would actually be responsible enough to buy term life insurance and put money towards retirement if we didn't have social security is a WHOOOOOOOOOLE nother discussion.) That's all I'm saying - I'd rather buy term life and invest for my own retirement because me and my family will come out ahead of where social security will put us. I'm really not a financial wizard, and I have to believe that this type of plan would work well for everyone else, too.",
"In addition to the prior answer, talking from experience, you get into trouble if you surpass the contribution limit and your employer continues to deposit money above the IRS maximum allowed. When that happens, you have until April to take out the excess contribution and earned interest on that chunk of money and included in your tax return or else you get a steep tax penalty in addition to being double taxed ( for the current and next tax year). Also from experience, payroll departments will most likely get this wrong and it will end up in a compliance mess with you picking up the tab on your tax bill. Don't let it happen!!!",
"Unless you make those investments inside a tax-deferred account, you will have to pay income-taxes on that money this year. Because you made that money through your own business, you will also have payroll taxes due on that money this year.",
"\"IRA contributions are limited; you cannot \"\"dump the excess into a retirement account like an IRA\"\" if the excess is more than $5500. Furthermore, as @firefly points out, you need to have earned income (technical term is compensation and it includes self-employment income, not just wages) to contribute to an IRA, and the limit mentioned above is actually the lesser of your earned income and $5500. (There are other limitations for people with high gross income, but these likely will not affect you) On the positive side, if your earned income is small, you can contribute your entire taxable earned income including the money withheld by your employer for Social Security and Medicare tax and Federal, State and local income taxes to an IRA, not just your take-home pay. For example, if your earned income is $5500 and take-home pay after tax withholding is $5000, you are still entitled to contribute $5500. So, where do you get that withheld money from so that it can be put into your IRA? Well, it can come from the student loan or interest earned from a bank or from the dividends and capital gains on your investments, etc. Money is fungible; it is not the case that only the cash received (or deposited into your bank account) as your take-home pay can be contributed. Subject to other limitations mentioned, your earned income can be contributed, not just your take-home pay.\"",
"Or am missing something? Yes. The rate of 8.53 is illustration. There is no guarantee that the rate will be applicable. My yearly premium is Rs. 26289. On this amount I will save tax of Rs. 7887. So net premium is Rs. 18402. The other way to look at this is invest Rs 26289 [or actually less of Eq Term Deposit premium]. If you invest into Eq Term Deposit [lock-in for 6 years] with tax benefits, your numbers are going to be very different and definitely better than LIC returns. Edits:",
"You're partially correct, at least in my understanding of this. Yes, the tax credit can be carried forward to future years, but since it is non-refundable it will reduce your tax liability solely. Depending on your tax situation this may result in a bigger refund or it may not. In an example, If you've had $3K withheld from your paycheck toward your income tax and this is also an accurate reflection if your tax liability then taking the NRTC would reduce your tax liability enabling you to be eligible for a refund (due to having already pre-paid more tax than you're liable for).",
"The Medicare deduction you see is a tax, not a monthly premium you are paying for your own Medicare coverage.",
"\"That's actually a really cool feature, **but**... TFA doesn't say a single word about loans. I *believe* you, it's just not mentioned. I don't get all the hate I'm seeing over not divining the \"\"obvious\"\" value of investing in something that (when used as intended) I can't have until I die. **Thank you** for giving me one possible explanation of how to make this work, but everyone else needs to chill. \"\"If a 45-year-old, non-smoking man were to contribute $2.5 million to an IDF for four years, the investment would be worth $113 million within 40 years\"\" ... \"\"Beneficiaries get their money when the insured person dies. For products structured correctly, there aren’t any levies on death benefits.\"\" Is it *really* so absurd that I failed to see how that applies to literally 99.*99*% of the population?\"",
"Your employer pays the expected (but estimated) taxes for you. So the chances are you don't own more; but that might be different if you have other sources of income that he doesn't know about (interest on savings or a side-job or whatever). Also, you could have deductions that reduce the taxes you owe, which he again doesn't know, so you overpay. If you don't file, you don't get them back. Most tax software companies offer free usage of their tool for standard filings, and you can use it to find out your tax situation, and then buy the tool only when you want to file. If you use one of those, you can type in all your data, and depending on the result, decide to buy it and file right away. Note that if it turns out you owe taxes, you must file (and pay), but of course you can do it manually instead of buying the tool. If it turns out you get money back, it is your decision to file - you probably don't care for a small amount, but if you get 1000 $ back, you might want to file - again, buying the software of doing it manually.",
"I contend that there is great value in over-paying during the year and reaping a bigger refund. I'm an engineer and understand the concept interest earned, blah blah. But for most of us, this isn't reality. The reality is that we spend what we earn, plus a little more. At the end of each month, if the typical American has money left over - we spend it. We don't faithfully put that money that we would have payed into taxes to good use (such as savings or paying off that credit card). Getting that big refund at the end of the year tends encourage us to make that one-time large payment to that high interest account, or to purchase that item that we otherwise wouldn't have saved for (or purchased with a credit card). I say, give Uncle Sam the free interest - you'll have wasted that money during the year anyway - and enjoy a nice healthy refund that you can put to use for something you enjoy. Life is just too short. [Edit] For the nose snubbers that can't think beyond the possibility of a different perspective: Link1 Huff Post SteveJ"
] |
[
"\"Sorry, even if you never file a claim for Employment Insurance (EI), you don't get your premiums back. So, yes, if you paid into EI and never filed a claim, your contributions are, as you put it, \"\"wasted\"\" – insofar that your premiums provided no direct benefit to you. However, your premiums may have provided a benefit to society, perhaps even your previous colleagues. Yet, some would point out that a good chunk of EI premiums are likely wasted on excessive administration of the program itself. That's government. A couple of cases I'm aware of where you may be refunded some of the EI premiums paid are: Meaning, a legal way to avoid paying into the EI system altogether is to run your own business. Of course, you won't be able to file an EI claim if your business evaporates overnight. Other kinds of claims unavailable to those who don't pay into EI include maternity, parental*, and sickness benefits .. although they recently made some changes to permit the self-employed to opt-in for some special benefits. * except in the province of Quebec, where there is a separate Quebec Parental Insurance Plan (QPIP) that also covers the self-employed.\"",
"Actually, most insurance policies DON'T have a cash value if you don't make a claim. The reason that some life insurance policies do this is that they are really tax sheltered investments posing as insurance. With that in mind, the root of your question is really whether insurance premiums are wasted if you never make a claim. It really makes no difference if you are talking about EI, Auto, or Homeowner's insurance. My answer to that is no. What you are paying for when you buy insurance is financial risk avoidance. Look at it this way, you don't buy EI as an investment where you hope to get a return on your investment. You are buying the right to be protected against catastrophic financial difficulty associated with losing your job. Whether you claim it or not you did receive that protection. This is what drives me so crazy when I hear people talk about how an insurance company is ripping you off because you paid more in premiums than they paid out in benefits. Of course you did! If most people didn't pay in more than the company paid out there would be no financial interest for someone to form an insurance company.",
"It is not wasted: it bought you peace of mind. Perhaps you would have had peace of mind without it, because of the particular industry you are in. But people from any industry can get sick or give birth, and not all industries are as evergreen as people think. A number of my onetime programmer colleagues now drive a truck or run a farm because new programming jobs weren't as easy to get as they once were. Like any insurance, it can't be affordable if it is bought only by those who think they will need it. The premiums you pay, in addition to giving you peace of mind, lower the premiums your neighbours pay. That contributes to social harmony. When your neighbours collect EI while looking for another job, they aren't tempted to turn to crime or legal-but-not-savoury ways to earn money. You probably like that, too. The fact they didn't get to choose whether or not to contribute means that they will be covered even if they aren't prudent and forward-looking people, which again is a benefit for you. And BTW, employers pay $1.40 in premiums for every dollar you pay. And we never collect. It's not for us. But we pay it.",
"I would suggest they are not wasted because your premiums fund unemployment insurance, which is a net to prevent people from going under if they lose their jobs. Unemployment insurance is in many ways an incubator for success because it allows an entrepreneur to take more risk in starting a business because failure won't mean devastation. Perhaps that person who took the risk because of the ability to fail started the business that you now work for. Society works better (in my opinion) by keeping the bottom closer to the top. Paying into the unemployment insurance fund indirectly provides you opportunity."
] |
547
|
What percentage of my company should I have if I only put money?
|
[
"6349",
"278629"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"68088",
"213399",
"245228",
"396694",
"32102",
"278629",
"80913",
"253045",
"498681",
"294150",
"531695",
"467020",
"547622",
"445353",
"480119",
"521044",
"74373",
"156747",
"6349",
"106878",
"36366",
"511571",
"308049",
"236375",
"120714",
"255193",
"88400",
"475560",
"329637",
"333574",
"135411",
"238587",
"239064",
"511670",
"263746",
"285041",
"378088",
"50081",
"572760",
"490630",
"480367",
"413534",
"506302",
"560897",
"193109",
"369998",
"95243",
"22207",
"569111",
"1681",
"120395",
"319477",
"556421",
"15356",
"535314",
"93936",
"389032",
"97962",
"204169",
"574415",
"535043",
"542139",
"150450",
"38808",
"480515",
"192888",
"366231",
"135873",
"599411",
"187073",
"336017",
"277305",
"135765",
"569224",
"158153",
"77503",
"483385",
"132180",
"413256",
"408695",
"498604",
"454526",
"204541",
"311786",
"387344",
"559522",
"349926",
"423260",
"494264",
"93017",
"575213",
"368010",
"307095",
"166166",
"279588",
"337286",
"234979",
"146547",
"475273",
"101205"
] |
[
"Looking through his post history, it seems all he does is hit up Internet strangers for advice on his business. I don't see it there, but I vaguely remember a post he had on either here or r/personalfinance that didn't go his way. On topic: if it were me, I'd want no less than 60% of the company. If I'm fronting 100%, it's *my* risk, while you have zero.",
"Another way to decide would be to do a fair valuation of the company agreeable to both the partners. Lets assume when you started the company it was worth $10,000 and to acquire 75%, you must have put $7,500 worth of money and effort. Similarly, the other partner must have put $2,500 worth of time and money. Now say after 2 years, you both agree that company is worth $50,000. And say now the company needs $10,000 worth of investment. Whoever invests that money should get 20% (10k/50k) of the company. Or each $1,000 will buy 2% in the company. Post this investment the equity division would be First investor (you) 75% of 80% = 60 % Second investor (your partner) 25% of 80% = 20% Third (new) investor = 20% Now, if you alone decide to put all the money you stake will be 60 + 20 = 80% and your partner will be reduced to 20%. If you guys want to maintain equity as it was (75-25), you need to put money in the same ratio ($7500 and $2500). If you do that- First investor 60% + 15% (for $7,500) = 75% Second investor 20% + 5% (for $2,500) = 25%. Please know for IP-centric company valuation is very subjective. But, do make an effort to do the valuation at every stage of the company so that you can put a number in terms of equity for each investment.",
"In my mind you would get all the money. You owned 100% when that transaction occurred. S/He gets 10% then on everything after. I usually go to an extreme case to figure out the answer. So... If S/He bought 100% of the company it wouldn't go to the company it would go to you. I would be open to criticism on this answer I am answering from common sense not because I really know the answer.",
"\"Now, my own answer: If you join and receive equity, do the 1/3 split as a max. Truthfully, if it were my company, I would try to negotiate with you to only give you 15%--20% because as an advisor you're not going to be involved in executing the idea to turn it into a business. If you contribute capital, do it as a loan. End of story. You don't own more because you financed growth... you shouldn't. The growth will have come because of the collective performance of the whole team. You should get paid back at a \"\"fair\"\" rate for your investment... if the company can handle it, I would argue something like 10% interest is reflective of the risk you're taking with your money. If the finances are so tight that the interest repayment isn't an option, do the math behind what you should be paid for the loan in interest, and convert that to shares or equity somehow, and get paid back for the invested capital. If the company can't repay your loan, the business model may not be sound enough, or developed enough, to be investing in to begin with.\"",
"Get involved a lawyer and Accountant. Without it you may not be sure what you are getting. What exactly will 30% mean for me? It will mean exactly what gets written in contract. It can mean you are owner of 30% of the company. If this is structured as partnership, it would also mean you are party to 30% loss. It can mean by current valuation, you get x fixed shares. In future if the directors creates more shares, your % ownership can get diluted. Or anything else. It all depends on what is written in contract and how the contract is structured. Is there anything I should I be aware of before agreeing? Get a draft and talk to a Lawyer and Accountant, they should be able to tell you exactly what it means and you can then decide if you agree to it or not; or need this contract worded differently.",
"Question (which you need to ask yourself): How well are your friends paid for their work? What would happen if you just took your money and bought a garage, and hired two car mechanics? How would that be different from what you are doing? The money that you put into the company, is that paid in capital, or is it a loan to the company that will be repaid?",
"\"It should be pretty obvious that without knowing what sort of assets the company owns, and what sort of net earnings are being generated it's impossible to say what a $20k equity investment should get you in terms of ownership percentage. With that said, you want to look at a few to several years of books, look for trends. Some things to understand that might be subtle red flags: It's extremely common for early stage investors to essentially make loans rather than strictly buying shares. In the worst case scenario creditors get to participate in liquidation proceedings before shareholders do. You may be better off investing in this business via a loan that's convertible to equity at your discretion. Single owner service companies are difficult because all of the net earnings go to the proprietor and that person maintains all of the relationships. So taking something like 5 years of net earnings as the value of the company doesn't make much sense because you (or someone else) couldn't just step in and replace the owner. Granted, you aren't contemplating taking over the business, but it negates using an X years of net earnings valuation method. When you read about valuation there is a sort of overriding assumption that no single person could topple the operation which couldn't be farther from the truth in single employee service companies. Additionally, understand that your investment in a single owner company hinges completely on one person's ability and willingness to work. It's really vital to understand the purpose of the funds. Someone will be hired? $20,000 couldn't be even six months of wages... Put things in to perspective with a pad, pen and calculator. Don't invest in the pipe dream of a friend of yours, and DEFINITELY don't hand this person the downpayment for their new house. The first rule of investing is \"\"don't lose money,\"\" this isn't emotional, this is a dollars and cents pragmatic process. Why does the business need this money? How will you be paid back? Personally, I think it would be more gratifying to put $20k in a blender and watch it blend, this is probably a horrible investment. The risk should just be left to credit card companies.\"",
"Obviously you don't know the full extent of our company, but I'd be forgoing my salary for a year. Is that worth it to get 10%? I mean assuming it becomes a 1 Million Dollar Idea, I'd get 100k while he gets 700k, working the same amount of time. Then i'd get put on salary.",
"There is nothing fair / unfair in such deals. It is an art than a science. what kind of things should be considered, to work out what would be a fair percentage stake A true fair value is; take the current valuation of the company [This can be difficult if it is small and does not maintain proper records]. Divide by number of shares, that is the value of share and you should 20K worth of such shares. But then there is risk premium. You are taking a risk that an small start-up may do exceedingly well ... or it may close off. This risk premium is what is negotiated. It depends on how desperate the owner of the small company is; who all are interested in this specific deal ... if you want 30% share; someone else is ready to offer 20K for 15% of share. Or there is no one willing to lend 20K as they don't believe it will make money ... and the owner is desperate, you may even get 50%.",
"There is no right and wrong answer to this question. What you and your business partner perceive as Fair is the best way to split the ownership of the new venture. First, regarding the two issues you have raised: Capital Contributions: The fact that you are contributing 90% of initial capital does not necessarily translate to 90% of equity. In my opinion, what is fair is that you transform your contributions into a loan for the company. The securitization of your contribution into a loan will make it easier to calculate your fair contribution and also compensate you for your risk by choosing whatever combination of interest income and equity you see suitable. For example, you might decide to split the company in half and consider your contributions a loan with 20%, 50% or 200% annual interest. Salary: It is common that co-founders of start-ups forgo their wages at the start of the company. I do not recommend that this forgone salary be compensated through equity because it is impossible to determine the suitable amount of equity to be paid. I suggest the translation of forgone wages into loans or preferred stocks in similar fashion to capital contribution Also, consider the following in deciding the best way to allocate equity between both of you and your partner Whose idea was it? Talk with you business partner how both of you value the inventor of the concept. In general, execution is more important but talking about how you both feel about it is good. Full-time vs. part-time: A person who works full time at the new venture should have more equity than the partner who is only a part-time helper. Control: It is important to talk about control and decision making of the company. You can separate the control and decision making of important decisions from ownership. You can also check the following article about this topic at http://www.forbes.com/sites/dailymuse/2012/04/05/what-every-founder-needs-to-know-about-equity/#726842f3668a",
"It depends. It sounds like they already have the product idea and supply, so it's not a blank slate. When you mention that they are supplying capital, is that capital also going towards your salary? If so, the 15-20% they are offering on top of that could be generous. Compare what you are asking for to them spending money hiring someone to build out an additional product line, which does not involve giving that hire a huge share of the business.",
"From my understanding, only A and B are shareholders, and M is a managing entity that takes commission on the profit. Assuming that's true. At the start of the project, A contributes $500,000. At this point, A is the sole shareholder, owning 100% of the project that's valued at $500,000. The real question is, did the value of the project change when B contributed 3 month later. If the value didn't change, then A owns 33.33%, and B owns 66.66%. Assuming both A and B wants to pay themselves with the $800,000 profit, then A gets a third of that, and B gets the rest. However, if at the time of B's contribution, both parties agreed that the pre-money of the project has changed to $1 million, then B owns half the project valued at 2 million post-money. Then the profit would be split half way.",
"You'll most likely need additional funding at some point in the future so that'll dilute your position below 51%. I think it's best to do what you can with what you've got before you NEED those additional funds from outside investors. They only cause trouble and if they're focused on short-term results & getting their cash back as soon as possible rather than long-term sustainability, it'll be a nightmare dealing with them.",
"Your question has already been answered, you divide the amount of shares you own * 100% by the total amount of shares. However, I feel it is somewhat misleading to talk about owning a percentage of the company by owning shares. Strictly speaking, shares do not entitle you to a part of the company but instead give you a proportional amount of votes at shareholder meetings (assuming no funky share classes). What this means is that someone who owns 30% of a company's shares can't just grab 30% of the company's assets (factories, offices and whatever) and say that they are entitled to own this. What they actually own is 30% of the voting rights in this company, this means that they control 30% of all available votes when the company calls a vote on corporate actions, choosing a new director etc. which is how shareholders exert their influence on a company.",
"As a start-up, the initial shares can be given at various price points. So essentially they can give someone a larger percentage based on the same amount earlier, and lesser percentage to someone else for the same amount. As its a start-up the valuations can be very tricy and what matters is that whether you believe the percentage you got for the amount is right or not. It is very important to note that when you have been given an ownership in the company, how that is designated. Is it in absolute number of shares or is it in terms of percentage based on the existing shares. For example you maybe given 100 shares, without any qualification. Or you maybe given a 5% stake in the paid-up capital, that translates to 100 shares. It is always better to hold the shares in % of the total shares. Also read the contract, any dilution should require your approval. Normally start-ups once the valuation starts to go up, start creating more shares and sell these to private equity or create more shares and give it as a bonus to promoters. Hence in both cases your holding will keep getting diluted. There is a related quesiton If a startup can always issue new shares, what value is there to stocks/options?",
"\"I have worked with venture capitalists on a few different online based tools. There is no rule. I have seen deals go through for as little as 10% and up to 80%. There are a number of factors in place: What it really comes down to in the tech world is \"\"Is this a side job or your life and can you live while your site isn't generating income... and then can you pay others that you need to pay for your site to exist?\"\" Venture capitalists are into risky ventures that offer a high return. They have a portfolio of businesses and one going down will be made up for with a huge return on another. They will shut you down super quick though if they think your team/idea is a dud. What they initially take from your business is so negotiable there is no reason for me to give a number. We might be able to give you a half-assed forecast if you tell us your idea/staff size/current revenue and expenses/projections/amount of investment looking for.\"",
"No necessarily. Do you bring any unique value to the company other than a sweaty pair of hands? Did you bring a unique skill, bring in investors, have relationships that are able to get the business off the ground, have intellectual property worth something to the business? Did you cultivate the unique seeds or strain on your own before the business started? These are all things one takes into consideration when dividng up shares in a company. The question you need to ask yourself is could someone else have provided the sweaty hands other than you? If yes, then unfortunately you provide no unique value to the business and that will be reflected in how share are portioned. I'm speaking as a co-founder in a Silicon Valley tech company. I've spent a lot of money with lawyers to understand this. You should definitely talk to a lawyer.",
"\"Equity could mean stock options. If that's the case if the company makes it big, you'll have the option to buy stocks cheap (which can then be sold at a huge profit) How are you going to buy those without income? 5% equity is laughable. I'd be looking for 30-40% if not better without salary. Or even better, a salary. To elaborate, 5% is fine, and even normal for an early employee taking a mild pay cut in exchange for a chance at return. That chance of any return on the equity is only about 1/20 (94% of startups fail) There is no reason for an employee to work for no pay. An argument could be made for a cofounder, with direct control and influence in the company to work for equity only, but it would be a /lot/ more (that 30-40%), or an advisory role (5% is reasonable) I also just noticed you mentioned \"\"investing\"\" in the startup with cash. As an angel investor, I'd still expect far more than 5%, and preferred shares at that. More like 16-20%. Read this for more info on how equity is usually split.\"",
"There is no universal answer here; it depends on how much risk each person is taking, how you want to define the value of the business now and in the future, how much each person's contribution is essential to creating and sustaining the business, how hard it would be to get those resources elsewhere and what they would cost... What is fair is whatever you folks agree is fair. Just make sure to get it nailed down in writing and signed by all the parties, so you don't risk someone changing their minds later.",
"Yeah the percentage thing I was a bit unsure of and that totally makes sense. It is a fairly popular place and I would show you more about the company, but I want to stay on the safe side and not broadcast where it is, just in case someone would want to steal this opportunity from me, but anyways... This company literally has no marketing or advertising and I feel like I could literally double their business with just a good amount of time marketing/advertising. I threw in the percentage idea because I know what I am capable of doing and how much money I could bring to the business. My strategy is to get a good, but fair cut of this deal. Also to give you a idea how bad it is: - No Facebook feed for 1 year - No website modification for 2.5 years - No other social media accounts - A 75,000 email list that has not been engaged in 13 months and so much more...",
"\"This is such a common question here and elsewhere that I will attempt to write the world's most canonical answer to this question. Hopefully in the future when someone on answers.onstartups asks how to split up the ownership of their new company, you can simply point to this answer. The most important principle: Fairness, and the perception of fairness, is much more valuable than owning a large stake. Almost everything that can go wrong in a startup will go wrong, and one of the biggest things that can go wrong is huge, angry, shouting matches between the founders as to who worked harder, who owns more, whose idea was it anyway, etc. That is why I would always rather split a new company 50-50 with a friend than insist on owning 60% because \"\"it was my idea,\"\" or because \"\"I was more experienced\"\" or anything else. Why? Because if I split the company 60-40, the company is going to fail when we argue ourselves to death. And if you just say, \"\"to heck with it, we can NEVER figure out what the correct split is, so let's just be pals and go 50-50,\"\" you'll stay friends and the company will survive. Thus, I present you with Joel's Totally Fair Method to Divide Up The Ownership of Any Startup. For simplicity sake, I'm going to start by assuming that you are not going to raise venture capital and you are not going to have outside investors. Later, I'll explain how to deal with venture capital, but for now assume no investors. Also for simplicity sake, let's temporarily assume that the founders all quit their jobs and start working on the new company full time at the same time. Later, I'll explain how to deal with founders who do not start at the same time. Here's the principle. As your company grows, you tend to add people in \"\"layers\"\". The top layer is the first founder or founders. There may be 1, 2, 3, or more of you, but you all start working about the same time, and you all take the same risk... quitting your jobs to go work for a new and unproven company. The second layer is the first real employees. By the time you hire this layer, you've got cash coming in from somewhere (investors or customers--doesn't matter). These people didn't take as much risk because they got a salary from day one, and honestly, they didn't start the company, they joined it as a job. The third layer are later employees. By the time they joined the company, it was going pretty well. For many companies, each \"\"layer\"\" will be approximately one year long. By the time your company is big enough to sell to Google or go public or whatever, you probably have about 6 layers: the founders and roughly five layers of employees. Each successive layer is larger. There might be two founders, five early employees in layer 2, 25 employees in layer 3, and 200 employees in layer 4. The later layers took less risk. OK, now here's how you use that information: The founders should end up with about 50% of the company, total. Each of the next five layers should end up with about 10% of the company, split equally among everyone in the layer. Example: Two founders start the company. They each take 2500 shares. There are 5000 shares outstanding, so each founder owns half. They hire four employees in year one. These four employees each take 250 shares. There are 6000 shares outstanding. They hire another 20 employees in year two. Each one takes 50 shares. They get fewer shares because they took less risk, and they get 50 shares because we're giving each layer 1000 shares to divide up. By the time the company has six layers, you have given out 10,000 shares. Each founder ends up owning 25%. Each employee layer owns 10% collectively. The earliest employees who took the most risk own the most shares. Make sense? You don't have to follow this exact formula but the basic idea is that you set up \"\"stripes\"\" of seniority, where the top stripe took the most risk and the bottom stripe took the least, and each \"\"stripe\"\" shares an equal number of shares, which magically gives employees more shares for joining early. A slightly different way to use the stripes is for seniority. Your top stripe is the founders, below that you reserve a whole stripe for the fancy CEO that you recruited who insisted on owning 10%, the stripe below that is for the early employees and also the top managers, etc. However you organize the stripes, it should be simple and clear and easy to understand and not prone to arguments. Now that we have a fair system set out, there is one important principle. You must have vesting. Preferably 4 or 5 years. Nobody earns their shares until they've stayed with the company for a year. A good vesting schedule is 25% in the first year, 2% each additional month. Otherwise your co-founder is going to quit after three weeks and show up, 7 years later, claiming he owns 25% of the company. It never makes sense to give anyone equity without vesting. This is an extremely common mistake and it's terrible when it happens. You have these companies where 3 cofounders have been working day and night for five years, and then you discover there's some jerk that quit after two weeks and he still thinks he owns 25% of the company for his two weeks of work. Now, let me clear up some little things that often complicate the picture. What happens if you raise an investment? The investment can come from anywhere... an angel, a VC, or someone's dad. Basically, the answer is simple: the investment just dilutes everyone. Using the example from above... we're two founders, we gave ourselves 2500 shares each, so we each own 50%, and now we go to a VC and he offers to give us a million dollars in exchange for 1/3rd of the company. 1/3rd of the company is 2500 shares. So you make another 2500 shares and give them to the VC. He owns 1/3rd and you each own 1/3rd. That's all there is to it. What happens if not all the early employees need to take a salary? A lot of times you have one founder who has a little bit of money saved up, so she decides to go without a salary for a while, while the other founder, who needs the money, takes a salary. It is tempting just to give the founder who went without pay more shares to make up for it. The trouble is that you can never figure out the right amount of shares to give. This is just going to cause conflicts. Don't resolve these problems with shares. Instead, just keep a ledger of how much you paid each of the founders, and if someone goes without salary, give them an IOU. Later, when you have money, you'll pay them back in cash. In a few years when the money comes rolling in, or even after the first VC investment, you can pay back each founder so that each founder has taken exactly the same amount of salary from the company. Shouldn't I get more equity because it was my idea? No. Ideas are pretty much worthless. It is not worth the arguments it would cause to pay someone in equity for an idea. If one of you had the idea but you both quit your jobs and started working at the same time, you should both get the same amount of equity. Working on the company is what causes value, not thinking up some crazy invention in the shower. What if one of the founders doesn't work full time on the company? Then they're not a founder. In my book nobody who is not working full time counts as a founder. Anyone who holds on to their day job gets a salary or IOUs, but not equity. If they hang onto that day job until the VC puts in funding and then comes to work for the company full time, they didn't take nearly as much risk and they deserve to receive equity along with the first layer of employees. What if someone contributes equipment or other valuable goods (patents, domain names, etc) to the company? Great. Pay for that in cash or IOUs, not shares. Figure out the right price for that computer they brought with them, or their clever word-processing patent, and give them an IOU to be paid off when you're doing well. Trying to buy things with equity at this early stage just creates inequality, arguments, and unfairness. How much should the investors own vs. the founders and employees? That depends on market conditions. Realistically, if the investors end up owning more than 50%, the founders are going to feel like sharecroppers and lose motivation, so good investors don't get greedy that way. If the company can bootstrap without investors, the founders and employees might end up owning 100% of the company. Interestingly enough, the pressure is pretty strong to keep things balanced between investors and founders/employees; an old rule of thumb was that at IPO time (when you had hired all the employees and raised as much money as you were going to raise) the investors would have 50% and the founders/employees would have 50%, but with hot Internet companies in 2011, investors may end up owning a lot less than 50%. Conclusion There is no one-size-fits-all solution to this problem, but anything you can do to make it simple, transparent, straightforward, and, above-all, fair, will make your company much more likely to be successful. The above awesome answer came from the Stack Exchange beta site for startups, which has now closed. I expect that this equity distribution question (which is strongly tied to personal finance) will come up more times in the future so I have copied the content originally posted. All credit for this excellent answer is due to Joel Spolsky, a moderator for the Startups SE beta site, and co-founder of Stack Exchange.\"",
"You should ask the bank supplying the SBA loan about the % of ownership that is required to personally guarantee the loan. Different banks give different figures, but I believe the last time I heard about this it was 20% or more owners must personally guarantee the loan. Before you spend a lot of money on legal fees drawing up a complicated scheme of shares, ask the bank what they require. Make sure you speak with an underwriter since many service people don't know the rules.",
"I don't like it using percentages makes no sense. Find out what market value is for rent and pay 1/2 of that to your partner, adjust annually. You partner should be protected from inflation if he is going to invest in real estate.",
"Okay I will asap. And yes, to getting the business off the ground. I've done all the marketing and will be for some time to come. Not just sweaty hands, but also ideas that shape our marketing strategies and also bringing in loyal customers that I personally know who are going to be consistent with us. But I'll talk to a lawyer and have that figured out. I just dont want to get screwed over and I'm new to this being only 19 so.",
"They are thinking they'll do an hourly rate in the beginning until we get sales and can make sure it's profitable, and then switch to solely being paid the percentage of the business I would own. If it was a salary AND 15-20% I'd be happy with that :)",
"You will probably never see it. The startup at some point may start issuing dividends to the shareholders (which would be the owners, including you if you are in fact getting equity), but that day may never come. If they hire others with this method, you'll likely lose even that 5% as more shares are created. Think of inflation that happens when government just prints more money. All notes effectively lose value. I wouldn't invest either, most startups fail. Don't work for free on the vague promise of some future compensation; you want a salary and benefits. Equity doesn't put food on your table.",
"From your question, it seems your problem is that you have a company that wants to make a deal, but does not currently have enough money to go through with it. Therefore it needs to raise capital. Assuming that you cannot get a loan from a bank and you do not want to seek funding from other sources, the two owners must provide the funds themselves somehow. Option A: The easiest and fairest way to do this is for the two shareholders to provide 75%, and 25% of the funding as a loan to the company. They will provide this loan knowing it may not be paid back if the company goes under. Note that it would not be fair for one of the shareholders to provide more, as that shareholder would be taking all the risk, while the other still reaps the rewards (although you could add a large interest rate to account for this). Option B: But say one of the shareholders cannot provide additional funds. In that case, the company should issue new shares, and each shareholder can purchase however many of the new shares he/she wants (each shareholder is entitled to purchase at least 75% or 25% respectively, but does not have to). The result of this may be that company ownership percentages have changed after the capital raising. This is more complex as it require valuing the company accurately to be fair, and probably requires reporting to a government (depending on the jurisdiction).",
"\"Recently, I asked about what the company valuation is and how many shares does my 4% represent.CFO told me that there is no point to talk about \"\"shares\"\" or \"\"stock\"\" since the company is not public. Is it right? No, it is wrong. Shares and stocks exist regardless of how they can be traded. Once a company is formed, there are stocks that belong to the owners in the proportion of the ownership. They may not exist physically, but they do exist on paper. As an owner of 5% of the company, you own 5% of the company stocks. I asked if my investor portion equity will be subjected under a vesting schedule, CFO said yes. That doesn't make sense to me, because I bought those 4%? Aren't those supposed to be fully vested? I agree to my employee equity to be vested. Doesn't make sense to me either, since your money is already in their pocket. But I'm not sure if its illegal. If that's what is written in the signed contract - then may be its possible to have that situation. But it doesn't make much sense, because these shares are granted to you in return to your money, not some potential future work (as the 1% employee's portion). You already gave the money, so why wouldn't they be vested? Best to read the contract upon which you gave them your money, I really hope you have at least that and not just gave them a check....\"",
"You need to be clear about who gets your money: If you pay the existing owner $25K and (s)he gives you half the business, then you now own half of a $50K business an the original owner has an extra $25K in spending cash. The value of the business has not changed. If you contribute $25 to the company, new equity shares are created. Shares should be priced correctly, meaning you now own $25K worth of shares in a company worth $75k, so you should have 1/3 of the outstanding shares (counting both old and new shares). If you get more or less than this, then the transaction has happened in an unfair way. If this is a public company, that would most likely be illegal and the SEC may throw you in jail. If it was a private company and your friend created enough shares that you own half the company, then (s)he has given you a gift. If you are contributing to the company at a fair price, you would need to contribute $50K in order to end up with half the equity of the new and now more valuable firm. In that case the firm would be worth $100K after your contribution. Bottom line, this is a common and not complex transaction and should end up with a completely fair outcome. Any unfair situation you can imagine is probably based on false assumptions or a situation where a non-arms-length transaction is transferring wealth contrary to normal rules and procedures.",
"In the theory: *Somewhere between the most you think you can get, and the minimum you think you deserve * In your case: If they want you to actually invest, they aren't purely interested in your technical expertise. which means that you need to actually believe in the idea and be involved in the decision making process. That really depends on what technology entrepreneurship exactly you are talking about.",
"\"I think your question might be coming from a misunderstanding of how corporate structures work - specifically, that a corporation is a legal entity (sort of like a person) that can have its own assets and debts. To make it clear, let's look at your example. We have two founders, Albert and Brian, and they start a corporation called CorpTech. When they start the company, it has no assets - just like you would if you owned nothing and had no bank account. In order to do anything, CorpTech is going to need some money. So Albert and Brian give it some. They can give it as much as they want - they can give it property if they want, too. Usually, people don't just put money into a corporation without some sort of agreement in place, though. In most cases, the agreement says something like \"\"Each member will own a fraction of the company that is in proportion to this initial investment.\"\" The way that is done varies depending on the type of corporation, but in general, if Albert ends up owning 75% and Brian ends up owning 25%, then they probably valued their contributions at 75% and 25% of the total value. These contributions don't have to be money or property, though. They could just be general \"\"know-how,\"\" or \"\"connections,\"\" or \"\"an expectation that they will do some work.\"\" The important thing is that they agree on the value of these contributions and assign ownership of the company according to that agreement. If they don't have an agreement, then the laws of the state that the company is registered in will say how the ownership is assigned. Now, what \"\"ownership\"\" means can be different depending on the context. When it comes to decision-making, you could \"\"own\"\" one percentage of the company in terms of votes, but when it comes to shares of future profits, you could own a different amount. This is why you can have voting and non-voting versions of a company's stock, for example. So this is a critical point - the ownership of a company is independent of the individual contributions to the company. The next part of your question is related to this: what happens when CorpTech sees an opportunity to make an investment? If it has enough cash on hand (because of the initial investment, or through financing, or reinvested profits), then the decision to make the investment is made according to Albert and Brian's ownership agreement, and they spend it. The money doesn't belong to them individually anymore, it belongs to CorpTech, and so CorpTech is spending it. They are just making the decision for CorpTech to spend it. This is why people say the owners are not financially liable beyond their initial investment. If the deal is bad, and they lose the money, the most they can lose is what they initially put in. On the other hand, if CorpTech doesn't have the money, then they have to figure out a way to get it. They might decide to each put in an amount in proportion to their ownership, so that their stake doesn't change. Or, Albert might agree to finance the deal 100% in exchange for a larger share of ownership. Or, he could agree to fund all of it without a larger stake, because Brian is the one who set the deal up. Or, they might take out a loan, and not need to invest any new money. Or, they might find an investor who agrees to put in the needed money in exchange for a a 51% share, in which case Albert and Brian will have to figure out how to split the remaining 49% if they agree to the deal. The details of how all of this would work depend on the structure (LLC, LLP, C-corp, S-corp, etc), but in general, the idea is that the company has assets and debts, and the owners can have voting rights, equity rights, and rights to future profits in any type of split that they want, regardless of what the companies assets and debts are, or what their initial investment was.\"",
"Because some overhead expenses will be shared (accounting, most salaries, sales etc.) it's far easier to give him an ownership stake in the company because you won't be able to calculate net profit for each component correctly. What I would say to him is, in exchange for $80K and the contract with his building company (make sure it is significant enough to be worth it$ you will give him 35% of the company. How did you come up with he $1 million in net profit calculation? How much of that is reliant on his business?",
"When I invest in a business valued at $50,000, I pay $25,000 and receive 50% equity. Does that $25,000 go to the current owner of the business, or into the capital of the business itself? Who receives the money depends on who is selling you the equity. There are a couple of different scenarios that can fit your question. You could buy existing shares from the current owner(s) of the company. In this case, the current owner(s) would be receiving the funds from you, and in return giving you their stake in the company. So if you all agree that the value of the business is $50,000, and you give $25,000 to the current owner(s), they give you half of their shares. The value of the company has not changed. The company could be issuing new shares. This is called stock dilution, or an increase in authorized share capital. Let's say that everyone agrees that the value of the business is $50,000. The company could create new shares and sell them to you for $25,000. In this case, the value of the company has jumped to $75,000; you now control one-third of the company, and the existing owner(s), who previously owned 100% of the company, now only own two-thirds. In order for you to end up with 50% of the company in this case, you would have to invest $50,000 instead, which would result in the company being valued at $100,000. If you are wondering why the current owners would agree to this second scenario, there are two questions that address this:",
"Isn't this absolute bullshit? You're basically giving him 8% interest plus 30% stake in the company for nothing other than putting up the initial shareholder capital ... which he's basically treating like a loan because he wants the money back and guaranteed dividend on the stake he's buying with it. Essentially, he's hedging himself against this not being a long continuing concern. So much for trust eh? I have absolutely no idea how the VC world evaluates things so this may be normal practice for them ... but it seems like short changing which will come back to bite you if the business takes off.",
"The details of how you can convert your 5% equity share to cash or stocks will be detailed in writing in the legal agreement you have already signed. If you do not have any signed written agreement, there is no 5%. Since 0% of anything is zero, you can expect to get $0 some time within the next few years. Lastly, if the person running the business, tells you that there is 5% equity for you, even though it is not in writing, that is extremely unlikely to be the case. This is because the Seller of the equity has no obligation whatsoever to pay you. In fact, they are obligated by their other agreements with actual shareholders not to dilute their equity without good cause. So, odds are, if your agreement is not in writing, not only will it not be honored, but it probably can't be honored.",
"\"Companies normally do not give you X% of shares, but in effect give you a fixed \"\"N\"\" number of shares. The \"\"N\"\" may translate initially to X%, but this can go down. If say we began with 100 shares, A holding 50 shares and B holding 50 shares. As the startup grows, there is need for more money. Create 50 more shares and sell it at an arranged price to investor C. Now the percentage of each investor is 33.33%. The money that comes in will go to the company and not to A & B. From here on, A & C together can decide to slowly cut out B by, for example: After any of the above the % of shares held by B would definitely go down.\"",
"You're can only get used (you are being used now,) if you let them. Tell him that a 25% share is the minimum you'll take and that you'll hand him all the login information in the morning if he doesn't accept your terms. Don't bother explaining who did what, he surely knows. And if he doesn't, he surely won't have dome revelation by you telling him the work you did. Quit and learn your lesson and start a competition business exactly the same, and smoothly push your network to your own shop. Your pal that took out the loan may be entitled to some more equity than you and the third guy, but $10k is really not much money in business. You guys should be making that in revenue in just a matter of weeks. Especially if you have to support three employees / shareholders. Of course, we only know your side to this story. He may have spent a lot of time on licensing and using his personal network to accomplish certain things that you fail to mention here or are just unaware of.",
"What percent of a company are you buying when you purchase stock? The percent of a company represented by a single share can be calculated by percent = 1/number_of_shares*100% Apple comprises 5,250,000,000 shares, so one share makes up about 1.9e-8% of a company, or 0.000000019% of Apple.",
"If you own 100% of the shares of a company, then you own those shares personally. They are not owned by the company. If you sell 50% of you shares to a third party, then you receive the proceeds of the sale, not the company. In this case, the company's net equity is unchanged but you have exchanged 50% of your equity for cash. If you wish the company to receive the proceeds of the sale of shares, then you would have the company issue new shares in the company. In this case, your company's net equity would increase by the cash amount received and your personal equity would change accordingly. EDIT In order to fairly sell 50% of equity by issuing new shares it would be necessary for the new investor to invest 50K. This is because the new equity would be the original 50K of equity plus the cash received for new shares. Thus : cost of 50% of equity = 50% of (50K + cash recieved) = cash received. Solving for cash received gives 50K, so that is the correct amount to charge the new investor.",
"Perhaps an example will help make it more clear. Any given year: Revenue: 200K, profit 60K You get 40K in profit, plus any salary, he gets 20K Next year you attract the attention of a competitor and they offer and you accept to sell. You would get 100% of the proceeds. This is kind of a bad deal for him as you could easily play accounting tricks to diminish the company's profits and reduce his pay. For the given example, you could pay yourself a 60K bonus and reduce the profit to zero and eliminate his compensation. There should probably be a revenue metric included in his compensation. Edit: It is really nice to hear you have a desire to treat this person fairly. Honesty in business is necessary for long term success. I would simply make his salary dependent upon the revenue he generates. For example, lets say you can make a widget for 4 and you expect to sell them for 10. Your profit would be 6, and with the suggested split he would receive $2, you $4. Instead I would have him receive like 15% of the revenue generated This allows for some discounts for bulk items and covers the cost of processing sales. It also allows him to share revenue with his staff. Alternatively you could also do a split. Perhaps 7.5% of revenue and 10% of profit.",
"That's all? What's the total shares outstanding? It's on thing is it's 100,000 and another if it's 10,000,000. What's the capitalization? If you don't know, check tech crunch and/or read the about section of your website. Having a bit of experience, my guess would be 10,000,000 (or much much more). Series A capitalization usually goes off at $1. If you are not in a management, sales, production or technology role .. you may not benefit much from the growth. So if you want to, watch your internal job postings and try to move up.",
"\"I write software myself and was involved in a couple of start ups. One failed, another was wildly successful, but I did not receive much in compensation. The former I received stock, but since it failed, it was worthless anyway. There should be compensation for your time in addition to equity in a company. Any agreement needs be in writing. In the later situation I was told to expect about a 17%/year bonus, but nothing could be guaranteed. Translation: \"\"It will never happen.\"\" It didn't, but I meet my lovely wife there so I have that for a bonus. Agreements need to address the bad things can happen. What happens if one of you is no longer interested in continuing? What happens if one of you die, or addicted to something? What happens if one of you gets thrown in jail or disabled? Right now you are full of optimism and hope, but bad things happen. Cover those things while you still like each other. It might be enough to have a good salary, and some stock options. You man not be interested in running the day to day business. Most of all good luck, I wish you all the best!\"",
"2%? I would put in just what it takes to share in the profit sharing, not a dime more. My S&P fund cost is .02% (edited, as it dropped to .02 since original post), 1/100 of the cost of most funds you list. Doesn't take too many years of this fee to negate the potential tax savings, and not many more to make this a real loser.",
"You and your husband are fronting all the money upfront. I'm guessing this will cost you around 67,000 once closing costs and fees are included. So obviously you would be hundred percent owners at the beginning. You'll then pay 31% of the mortgage and have your sister pay the remaining 69%. This puts your total investment at the end at 67k + 74.4k + 31% of interest accrued, and your sisters total investment at 165.6k+69% of interest accrued. If you hold the full length of the mortgage, your sister will have invested much more than you( assuming 30 year fixed rate, and 3.75%, she'd pay 116.6k in interest as opposed to your 49.6k) She will have spent 282.2k and y'all will have spent 191k. However if you sell early, your percentage could be much higher. These calculations don't take into account the opportunity cost of fronting all the cash. It could be earning you more in the stock market or in a different investment property. Liability also could be an issue in the case of her not being able to pay. The bank can still come after you for the whole amount. Lastly and most importantly, this also doesn't include the fact that she will be living there and y'all will not. What kind of rent would she be paying to live in a similar home? If it is more than 1400, you will basically be subsidizing her living, as well as tying up funds, and increasing your risk exposure. If it is more than 1400, she shouldn't be any percent owner.",
"\"Read the book, \"\"Slicing Pie: Fund Your Company Without Funds\"\". You can be given 5% over four years and in four years, they hire someone and give him twice as much as you, for working a month and not sacrificing his salary at all. Over the four years, the idiot who offered you the deal will waste investors money on obvious, stupid things because he doesn't know anything about how to build what he's asking you to build, causing the need for more investment and the dilution of your equity. I'm speaking from personal experience. Don't even do this. Start your own company if you're working for free, and tell the idiot who offered you 5% you'll offer him 2% for four years of him working for you for free.\"",
"It depends. If the investor bought newly-issued shares or treasury shares, the company gets the money. If the investor bought shares already held by the owner, the owner gets the money. A 100% owner can decide how to structure the sale. Yet, the investor may only be willing to buy shares if the funds increase the company's working capital.",
"So the key factor here, IMHO, is the amount we are talking about. $2K is just not a lot of money. If you lose every penny, you can recover. On the other hand it is unlikely to make you wealthy. So if I was you I would buy in, more for the fun of it all. Now if it was a large amount of money that we were talking about it would be about a percentage of my net worth. For example, lets say the minimum was 20K, and you really believed in the company. If I had a net worth of less than 200K, I would not do it. If I had a larger net worth, I would consider it unless I was near retirement. So if I was 30, hand a net worth of 300K, I would probably invest as even if I did lose it all, I could recover. Having said all that it does not sound like you completely agree that the company will be profitable. So in that case, don't buy. Also, I have the opportunity to buy my own company's stock at a discount. However, I do not for two reasons. The first is I don't like investing in the company I work for. Secondly, they require you to hold the stock for a year.",
"\"I agree with all the people cautioning against working for free, but I'll also have a go at answering the question: When do I see money related to that 5%? Is it only when they get bought, or is there some sort of quarterly payout of profits? It's up to the shareholders of the company whether and when it pays dividends. A new startup will typically have a small number of people, perhaps 1-3, who between them control any shareholder vote (the founder(s) and an investor). If they're offering you 5%, chances are they've made sure your vote will not matter, but some companies (an equity partnership springs to mind) might be structured such that control is genuinely distributed. You would want to check what the particular situation is in this company. Assuming the founders/main investors have control, those people (or that person) will decide whether to pay dividends, so you can ask them their plans to realise money from the company. It is very rare for startups to pay any dividends. This is firstly because they're rarely profitable, but even when they are profitable the whole point of a startup is to grow, so there are plenty of things to spend cash on other than payouts to shareholders. Paying anything out to shareholders is the opposite of receiving investment. So unless you're in the very unusual position of a startup that will quickly make so much money that it doesn't need investment, and is planning to pay out to shareholders rather than spend on growth, then no, it will not pay out. One way for a shareholder to exit is to be bought out by other shareholders. For example if they want to get rid of you then they might make you an offer for your 5%. This can be any amount they think you'll take, given the situation at the time. If you don't take it, there may be things they can do in future to reduce its value to you (see below). If you do take it then your 5% would pay you once, when you leave. If the company succeeds, commonly it will be wholly or partly sold (either privately or by IPO). At this point, if it's wholly sold then the soon-to-be-ex-shareholders at the time will receive the proceeds of the sale. If it's partly sold then as with an investment round it's up for negotiation what happens. For example I believe the cash from an IPO of X% of the company could be taken into the company, leaving the shareholders with no immediate direct payout but (100-X)% of shares in their names that they're more-or-less free to sell, or retain and receive future dividends. Alternatively, if the company settles down as a small private business that's no longer in startup mode, it might start paying out without a sale. If the company fails, as most startups do, it will never pay anything. It's very important to remember that it's the shareholders at the time who receive money in proportion to their holding (or as defined by the company articles, if there are different classes of share). Just because you have 5% now doesn't mean you'll have 5% by that time, because any new investment into the company in the mean time will \"\"dilute\"\" your shareholding. It works like this: Note that I've assumed for simplicity that the new investment comes in at equal value to the old investment. This isn't necessarily the case, it can be more or less according to the terms of the new investment voted for by the shareholders, so the first line really is \"\"nominal value\"\", not necessarily the actual cash the founders put in. Therefore, you should not think of your 5% as 5% of what you imagine a company like yours might eventually exit for. At best, think of it as 5% of what a company like yours might exit for, if it receives no further investment whatsoever. Ah, but won't the founders also have their holdings diluted and lose control of the company, so they wouldn't do that? Well, not necessarily. Look carefully at whether you're being offered the same class of shares as the founders. If not consider whether they can dilute your shares without diluting their own. Look also at whether a new investor could use the founders' executive positions to give them new equity in the same way they gave you old equity, without giving you any new equity. Look at whether the founders will themselves participate in future investment rounds using sacks of cash that they own from other ventures, when you can't afford to keep up. Look at whether new investors will receive a priority class of share that's guaranteed at exit to pay out a certain multiple of the money invested before the older, inferior classes of shares receive anything (VCs like to do this, at least in the UK). Look at any other tricks they can legally pull: even if the founders aren't inclined to be tricky, they may eventually be forced to consider pulling them by a future new investor. And when I say \"\"look\"\", I mean get your lawyer to look. If your shareholding survives until exit, then it will pay out at exit. But repeated dilutions and investors with priority classes of shares could mean that your holding doesn't survive to exit even if the company does. Your 5% could turn into a nominal holding that hasn't really \"\"survived\"\", that entitles you to 0.5% of any sale value over $100 million. Then if the company sells for $50 million you get $0, while other investors are getting a good return. All of this is why you should not work for equity unless you can afford to work for free. And even then you need to lawyer up, now and during any future investment, so your lawyer can explain to you what your investment actually is, which almost certainly is different from what it looks like at a casual uninformed glance.\"",
"They're not going to look very hard at the asset value (except for actual cash in the bank), which doesn't bear much relationship to the real value of the company. More likely they will look at the last three years' earnings and choose a target P/E ratio based on that. The owner's share depends entirely on how much of the business they choose to sell. If the business is worth $60M and they want to raise $20M for themselves, then that means selling 33% of the company. If they want to raise $20M for the business as well, then that means selling half the company and retaining ownership of the other half, which is now worth $80M because of the cash infusion. But many stock exchanges will have minimum requirements for the percentage of the shares that are trading freely, so they will have to sell at least that much.",
"If you just make a capital contribution to the company it is not a taxable event. If you're the owner, lending only makes sense if you want the company to pay you interest (if you have partners who aren't lending money, for example) and you want to be compensated for lending, a loan would allow that. But the interest is taxable as income to you (1099-int) and the company can expense it. But a capital contribution is much easier and you can take a distribution later to get paid back. Neither event is taxed, but you cannot take interest.",
"A company is basically divided into shit the company owns (assets) and shit the company owes to people (liabilities). So what about ownership? Ownership is called equity and on a simplistic level equity = asset - liabilities. But a better view of that should be asset = liabilities + equity. Which means a company's assets is separated into things owned by debtors (e.g. Banks) and things owned by owners(founders and you). So when you are offered one percent, you are basically owning one percent of the company. Not the best explanation, but should be a simplified one. Here's where the options come in. When you are offered options. That means you have the option of redeeming the shares at a lower price than market. However these options are not usually immediately redeemable, there's usually a minimum amount of time you have to work at a company to be able to use these options. This period is called the vesting period.",
"Say the company has created 500 shares [or whatever number]. You have 10 shares [equivalent of 2%]. Now when new capital is needed, generally more shares are created. Say they create 100 more shares and sell it to venture capital to raise funds. After this happens; Total Shares: 500+100 = 600 You own: 10 shares Your Ownership % = 1.66% down from 2% Like wise for other older shareholder. The New Venture guy gets 16.66% of ownership. More funds would mean more growth and overall the value of your 10 shares would be more depending on the valuation.",
"You really have asked two different questions here: I'm interested in putting away some money for my family Then I urge you to read up on investing. Improving your knowledge in investing is an investment that will very likely pay off in the long-term - this can't be answered here in full length, pointers to where to start are asset allocation and low-cost index funds. Read serious books, read stackexchange posts, and try avoid the Wall Street marketing machine. Also, before considering any long term investments, build an emergency fund (e.g. 6 months worth of your expenses) in case you need some liquid money (loss of job etc.), and also helps you sleep better at night. What things are important to consider before making this kind of investment? Mainly the risk (other answers already elaborate on the details). Investing in a single stock is quite risky, even more so when your income also depends on that company. Framed another way: which percentage of your portfolio should you put into a single stock? (which has been answered in this post). If after considering all things you think it's a good deal, take the offer, but don't put a too great percentage of you overall savings into it, limit it to say 10% (maybe even less).",
"On last nights episode of The Profit Marcus made an offer to the owner of a coffee company. The owner said up front he has 51% with the remaining 49% split between two early investors. Marcus asked for 40%, said the owner will have 40% and the investors will be reduced to 20%. Question is how can the owner agree to that deal and take equity away from the investors? It's not his percentage to sell.",
"I think you're looking at the picture in an odd way. When each of you made your initial investments and determined what portions you owned, that gave the company capital that they could use to finance its operations. In return, you are entitled to the future profits of the company (in proportion to your ownership). Any future investment by either of you is at your own discretion. Your company now faces a situation where it would like to pursue a potentially lucrative opportunity, but needs more capital than it has to do so. So, you need to raise more capital. That capital can come from one or both of you (or from an outsider). Since that investment would be discretionary, what the investor gets is a negotiation: the company negotiates with the investor how much equity (in the form of new shares) to award in exchange for the new investment (or whatever other compensation you decide on, if not equity).",
"However what actually appears to happen is that the 100k is invested into the company to fund some growth plan. So is it actually the case that E's company is worth 400k only AFTER the transaction? Is the 100k added to the balance sheet as cash and would the other 300k be listed as an IP asset? The investor gets 25% of the shares of the company and pays $100k for them, so Owner's Equity increases by $100k, and the company gets $100k more in cash. The $400k number is an implicit calculation: if 25% of the company is worth $100k, 100% of the company is worth $400k. It's not on the books: the investor is just commenting that they feel that they are being over-charged.",
"The value of a business without proven profits is really just a guess. But to determine what % ownership the VC takes some measure must be used. He is asking the OP to start the negotiations. So you start high - higher than you will settle for. The value of the business should always be WAY more the $$ you have put into it ... because you have also invested your time (which has an opportunity cost) and assumed huge risk that you will never get those $$ back. When you need the cash and only one person will give it to you, you are over a barrel. You either take the terms they offer, or you let the business collapse. So keep a show of strength and invent other funders. Or create a business plan showing that you can continue without their $$ (just at a smaller volume).",
"There are 2 basic ways to have someone buy partial ownership of your company: OR If they buy shares that you already own, then their shares will have the same rights as yours (same voting rights, same dividend rights, etc.). If they buy shares newly created from the company, they could be either identical shares to what you already own, or they could be a new class of shares [you may need to adjust the articles of incorporation if you did not plan ahead with multiple share classes]. You really need to talk to a lawyer & tax accountant about this. There are a lot of questions you need to consider here. For example: do you want to use the money in the business, or would you rather have it personally? Are you concerned about losing some control of how the business is run? What are the short term and long-term tax consequences of each method? What does your new partner want in terms of their share class? The answers to these questions will be highly valuable, and likely worth much more than the fees you will need to pay. At the very least, you will likely need a lawyer and accountant anyway to ensure the filings & taxes are done correctly, so better to involve them now, rather than later. There are many other situations to consider here, and an online forum is not the best place to get advice that might put you in a sticky legal situation later on.",
"A firm is a separate legal person from its shareholders or owners (but doesn't get invited to parties much). Owners invest capital to get shares in the firm or may get shares for investing time, effort etc. but those shares are on a limited liability basis. That means that shareholders are only liable up to the value of their shares and that the firm itself is responsible for any expenses or liabilities. The firm will have working capital from its initial investors (i.e. any capital invested to get shares) and can borrow money on the bond market or issue new shares to cover outgoings. Share ownership simply entitles the owner to a proportion of the residual equity of the company and voting rights (for non-prefered equity). In a firm that I previously worked for, for example, one of the partners owned 51% of the firm but put up 100% of the firm's equity capital. The other partner owned 49% and provided 90% of the intellectual capital of the firm. They both took decisions equally. The distribution of ownership should, therefore, have no bearing on who finances deals. The owners (or managers in larger firms) should decide together how to use the company's capital for spending because it is exactly that; the company's capital; not any one of the investor's. Limited liability of owners is one of the major benefits of forming a company.",
"You are being ripped off on several counts. 1) 40k is 26% not 25%. 2) Why should you pay them $500 rent? they bought a share of the property, they should fund it if they intend to keep 75% 3) Why do you need to pay them for the 75%? why dont they need to pay you for the 25%? You are better off getting a loan for the 75% and going solo so you get to buy equity.",
"A private company say has 100 shares with single owner Mr X, now it needs say 10,000/- to run the company, if they can get a price of say 1000 per share, then they just need to issue 10 additional shares, so now the total shares is 110 [100 older plus 10]. So now the owner's share in the company is around 91%. However if they can get a price of only Rs 200 per share, they need to create 50 more shares. So now the total shares is 150 [100 older plus 50]. So now Mr X's equity in his own company is down to 66%. While this may still be OK, if it continues and goes below 50%, there is chances that he [Original owner] will be thrown out",
"First of all $1k is not enough money to start a web business. You're probably going to lose all your money, your business and your friendship. Second of all you need to retain a lawyer. I really can't emphasize this enough. If a lawyer is too expensive for you, then THIS BUSINESS IS TOO EXPENSIVE FOR YOU. If you don't have the money, then you don't have the time. When you say it's his idea - did he come to you with a fully written business plan? Even if he did, that's not really worth 20% of the equity. I would insist on 50/50 if the capital is 50/50, and salary to whoever is working on it. You're not going to have profits in the first year. Let me repeat that. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE PROFITS IN THE FIRST YEAR. Things never, ever, EVER work that way. Or ok they do but it's like 1%. It's not going to happen to you.",
"First of all, I've raised VC money before so I have experience in this area. The other commenter who said they'll only cause trouble is wrong, as a general statement. Some may, but that just means you've chosen your investors poorly. Choosing an investor is a very important decision and you should choose someone who you think will be able truly add value to your business, rather than just someone who is willing to write a check. Cultural alignment is important, and having a shared set of goals and timelines for the business is important. That said, no one here is going to be able to tell you how to structure your deal because it varies so much based on the business. In general I think it's a good idea to only take money when you need it and have a solid plan for how you're going to use it. Every time you take money you're diluting your ownership and reducing your long-term upside. Keep in mind that, as the other commenter said, if you take a deal now that means that you maintain 51% and then you take more money in the future, that 51% will be diluted further. That said with more investors in the mix you still are likely to be the largest shareholder, but again, that depends on how the deals are structured. My advice: seek out as much advice from as many sources as you can. And hire a good law firm to handle your financing transaction because their advice is invaluable as you negotiate terms. Finally, you should have more conditions than just retaining 51% ownership -- there are a lot of terms that get baked into these deals that have an impact on the long-term upside. Learn those terms. Do a bunch of googling and a bunch of reading. And ask for more advice. :)",
"I do not know for sure so do not quote me on this. But I would assume that you will get paid out to what the value of the buyout is. Example if your company has 100 private shares and you own 1 share (1%), and the company sells for $1,000,000. Your share will be worth 1% of the $1 million.",
"\"One of two things is true: You own less than 5% of the total shares outstanding. Your transaction will have little to no effect on the market. For most purposes you can use the current market price to value the position. You own more than 5% of the total shares outstanding. You are probably restricted on when, where, and why you can sell the shares because you are considered part owner of the company. Regardless, how to estimate (not really \"\"calculate,\"\" since some of the inputs to the formula are assumptions a.k.a. guesses) the value depends on exactly what you plan to with the result.\"",
"Since you're not loaning the company the money, the correct category is Equity. It's not an income type account, rather it represents the balance of Assets - Liabilities = Owner's Equity So you'd put down £100 as the starting balance of Owner's Equity, and then a Cash Balance of £100 in a cash account.",
"What you are describing does not sound like an investment; it sounds like a loan. An investment involves you putting up a stake and sharing in the profits or losses of the business - there is no guarantee you will get your money back. A loan involves you putting up money for which you will receive interest and principal repayment in accordance with an agreed schedule - you get this irrespective of how the business is performing. Also, is the arrangement with your friend or his company? They are different legal entities and your risk profile is different in both cases. Whatever the arrangement you need to sign a contract which details all the terms and conditions - how much you will pay, to whom and when; how much you will get back, from whom and when; a method for resolving disputes; what happens in the event of insolvency or bankruptcy; what happens if someone breaks the terms of the contract; if your payout depends on the value of the business at some future date, how it is to be valued; etc. etc. Two points: I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer.",
"\"Does your company offer a 401k? or similar pre-tax retirement plans? Is your company a publicly traded company? These questions are important, basically the key to any of your investments should be diversification. This means buying more than one kind of investment, amongst stock(s), bonds, real estate or more. The answer to \"\"How Much\"\" of your salary should go to company stock, is subjective. I personally would contribute the max toward a retirement plan or even post-tax savings, which would be invested in a variety of public companies. Hope that helps.\"",
"Assuming there are no other liabilities... The enterprise value is $5mm. $1mm loan + $4mm equity. The proforma enterprise value will be the same, but the equity will now represent all of it at $5mm. Your 4% will now be 3.2%, but equal the same value; $160,000.",
"In addition to finding another woman investor, you have an equitable option that is not unreasonable: ask your partner to buy out 3% worth of shares from you (which then gives her 54%, allowing you to then sell 5% to an investor and have it not dilute her below 51%: .54 * .95 = .513). That keeps you whole but also keeps your woman-owned-business status.",
"You'll own whatever fraction you bought. To own the company (as in, boolean - yes or no) you need to buy 100% of the outstanding stock. RE controlling the company, in general the answer is yes - although the mechanism for this might not be so straight forward (ie. you may have to appoint board members and may only be able to do so at pre-set intervals) and there may be conditions in the company charter designed to stop this happening. Depending on your jurisdiction certain ownership percentages can also trigger the need to do certain things so you may not be able to just buy 50% - in Australia when you reach 20% ownership you have to launch a formal takeover bid.",
"Hah, good luck getting those kind of terms. There's always another fresh-faced new grad with dollar signs in his eyes who doesn't know enough to ask about outstanding shares, dilution, or preferences. Very few startups are looking for penny-ante 'investor' employees who can only put <$100k. That's what co-founders are for. Actual employees are lucky if they can properly value their options, let alone control how much it ends up being worth in the end.",
"How much should a rational investor have in individual stocks? Probably none. An additional dollar invested in a ETF or low cost index fund comprised of many stocks will be far less risky than a specific stock. And you'd need a lot more capital to make buying, voting, and selling in individual stocks as if you were running your own personal index fund worthwhile. I think in index funds use weightings to make it easier to track the index without constantly trading. So my advice here is to allocate based not on some financial principal but just loss aversion. Don't gamble with more than you can afford to lose. Figure out how much of that 320k you need. It doesn't sound like you can actually afford to lose it all. So I'd say 5 percent and make sure that's funded from other equity holdings or you'll end up overweight in stocks.",
"What most respondents are forgetting, is when a company allows its employees to purchase its shares at a discount with their salary, the employee is usually required to hold the stock for a number of years before they can sell them. The reason the company is allowing or promoting its employees to purchase its shares at a discount is to give the employees a sense of ownership of the company. Being a part owner in the company, the employee will want the company to succeed and will tend to be more productive. If employees were allowed to purchase the shares at a discount and sell them straight away, it would defeat this purpose. Your best option to decide whether or not to buy the shares is to work out if the investment is a good one as per any other investment you would undertake, i.e. determine how the company is currently performing and what its future prospects are likely to be. Regarding what percentage of pay to purchase the shares with, if you do decide to buy them, you need to work that out based on your current and future budgetary needs and your savings plan for the future.",
"I think the first step is to be thankful that your relationship with this person has not degenerated into lawsuits and bickering. That would greatly affect your cash flow and valuations! It also seems that this person is open to a variety of solutions. This truly is a gift. I see two options without taking a mortgage or fronting cash: The key here is if the 65% property already has a mortgage. Does it have enough equity to provide 15% cash out, and cover the existing mortgage? What is the interest rate? Can you get a lower rate that will reduce the impact of a higher mortgage payment will have on your income? Can you have your partner finance the 15%? In the end there really isn't a way to divest this company without impacting your income.",
"You can look at the company separately from the ownership. The company needs money that it doesn't have, therefore it needs to borrow money from somewhere or go bankrupt. And if they can't get money from their bank, then they can of course ask people related to the company, like the two shareholders, for a loan. It's a loan, like every other loan, that needs to be repaid. How big the loan is doesn't depend on the ownership, but on how much money each one is willing and capable of giving. The loan doesn't give them any rights in the company, except the right to get their money back with interest in the future. Alternatively, such a company might have 200 shares, and might have given 75 to one owner and 25 to the other owner, keeping 100 shares back. In that case, the shareholders can decide to sell some of these 100 shares. I might buy 10 shares for $1,000 each, so the company has now $10,000 cash, and I have some ownership of the company (about 9.09%, and the 75% and 25% shares have gone down, because now they own 75 out of 110 or 25 out of 110 shares). I won't get the $10,000 back, ever; it's not a loan but the purchase of part of the company.",
"It depends on the business entity. If the entity is a sole proprietorship or a general partnership, the individual are considered to be the business. There are no shares, and so yes, the owner would have to take on 75% of the expenses. For example, in the event of a lawsuit, if the claimant were awarded $1,000,000, the 75% partner would be personally liable for $750,000. In the event of a corporation, there are shares, so the responsibility is on the management of the company, not the owners, to come up with money for the expenses of the business. That money can come from the business' capital, which is the money owners have put in. Basically, for a corporate entity, the owner is not responsible for 75% of expenses, for a partnership, yes, they are.",
"\"Will the investment bank evaluate the worth of my company more than or less than 50 crs. Assuming the salvage value of the assets of 50 crs (meaning that's what you could sell them for to someone else), that would be the minimum value of your company (less any outstanding debts). There are many ways to calculate the \"\"value\"\" of a company, but the most common one is to look at the future potential for generating cash. The underwriters will look at what your current cash flow projections are, and what they will be when you invest the proceeds from the public offering back into the company. That will then be used to determine the total value of the company, and in turn the value of the portion that you are taking public. And what will be the owner’s share in the resulting public company? That's completely up to you. You're essentially selling a part of the company in order to bring cash in, presumably to invest in assets that will generate more cash in the future. If you want to keep complete control of the company, then you'll want to sell less than 50% of the company, otherwise you can sell as much or as little as you want.\"",
"\"There is a legal document called a \"\"Stock Purchase Agreement\"\" and it depends on who is the other party to the buyer in the Agreement. In almost all startups the sale goes through the company, so the company keeps the money. In your example, the company would be worth $10,000 \"\"Post-Money\"\" because the $1k got 10% of the Company.\"",
"its the best investment you can have specially with the company you work for and IPO, if i was you i would invest in more then just the minimum since its IPO. ask you your manager or supervisor how much are they buying the stocks for if they are doing it the go for it you'll be okay just keep track of it regular sometime you can invest more as time go by. You can get the idea by how much production your company is doing, if your company's profit going up chances are you need to buy more.",
"The question is for your HR department, or administrator of the plan. How long must you hold the employee shares before you are permitted to sell? Loyalty to your company is one thing, but after a time, you will be too heavily invested in one company, and you need to diversify out. One can cite any number they wish, 5%, 10%. All I know is that when Enron blew up, it only added insult to injury that not only did these people lose their job, they lost a huge chunk of their savings as well.",
"There is a fundemental misunderstanding: the business and the owner are not the same entity. You said: I give the business $25,000 and take 50% of the business. No you can give the owner of the business 25K, and now he has 25K and 50% of a 50K business. That 25K sits in Mr. Smith's bank account, not Acme Widget's account. A more simple example is when you buy a car. The money goes to the car dealership, it does not get put into the car's glove box. You may be thinking of an investor in a business. He could pump $$ into the business as operating capital for a share of the business. In that case, it would be a bit unfair to get 50% of the business for a 25K. However, the owner may be interested in doing such a deal because value of the investor can add more than just $$ to the business. Having a celebrity investor might do more good for the business than the actual dollars. Another situation is that the owner might be desperate. Without a influx of cash the whole business might end. There are guidelines to business evaluation, but valuing them is not an easy thing.",
"The value of the company is ill-defined until it actually has some assets and/or product. You give the investors whatever equity stakes you and they negotiate as appropriate for their investment based on how convinced they are by your plan and how badly you need their money.",
"\"Do you need the capital? If you not, are you considering taking it to help you grow faster? To lower your downside risk? In terms of deal structure start with your financial model and evaluate your payback period and IRR... Think if you were investor how much of a split would you need to compensate the risk you are taking. Generally the investor will want to get 100% of their original investment paid back plus a annual 8% \"\"preferred\"\", return and after they are made whole 80% of proceeds, but I've seen restaurant deals at 50/50 splits and no preferred return. I'd try to ensure you get a salary and/or management fee. Make sure you retain control and rights! Don't sign anything without legal review.\"",
"\"As for the letting the \"\"wise\"\" people only make the decisions, I guess that would be a bit odd in the long run. Especially when you get more experienced or when you don't agree with their decision. What you could do, is make an agreement that always 3/4 (+/-) of the partners must agree with an investment. This promotes your involvement in the investments and it will also make the debate about where to invest more alive, fun and educational). As for the taxes I can't give you any good advice as I don't know how tax / business stuff works in the US. Here in The Netherlands we have several business forms that each have their own tax savings. The savings mostly depend on the amount of money that is involved. Some forms are better for small earnings (80k or less), other forms only get interesting with large amounts of money (100k or more). Apart from the tax savings, there could also be some legal / technical reasons to choose a specific form. Again, I don't know the situation in your country, so maybe some other folks can help. A final tip if your also doing this for fun, try to use this investment company to learn from. This might come in handy later.\"",
"\"It will depend somewhat on the rules where the company is formed, and perhaps how much you're talking about investing. I don't know about Canada, but when I've formed businesses in the U.S., I've been advised to invest some of the money as an equity investment, and the bulk of the remainder as a loan. You say \"\"more shares\"\", so it sounds like you've already invested some money and need to inject another round. If you make a loan to the company, make sure everything is done at arm's length -- you'll need to wear the hat of the Company Management and sign a contract with yourself, use a market-based interest rate, and make sure the company is paying you back with interest. An alternative which may work if you expect cash flow soon is to pay for certain expenses personally and then submit an expense report to the company, which will pay you back. Overall, a quick consultation with your accountant should be a relatively inexpensive way to get the best answer for your specific circumstances.\"",
"If it's just you working, I'd use a ballpark figure of 35% owed - it may be a little high or low, but it's a safe margin to keep set aside for paying your liabilities at the end of the year.",
"Need help with a finance problem I'm currently facing in my business. My company might be going through an acquisition and I need to understand how the dilution works out for shareholders. They currently have large shareholder loans (debt), and will be converting to equity pre-transaction. For this case, if the original company value = $1 MM and the SHL value = $1 MM, I'm assuming that'd dilute equity by 50% for all shareholders if converted to equity at original company value. Correct? However, what if the $1 MM in shareholder loans were converted at the market value of the company, say $4 MM? I might be confusing myself, but just want to confirm.. thanks!",
"To qualify as a woman owned business, a woman or group of women must own shares worth 51% of the business. If your investor was a woman, the entire 5% could come from her share of the company without affecting the 51% ownership requirement. Could you find a woman to add as an investor? If you each had your shares diluted 5%, She would be down to 48.45% ownership, and you would be down to 46.55% ownership. The only way for you to get back to a 51% female ownership situation would be to give a 2.55% ownership stake (from your share) to a wife, sister, mom, girlfriend, or any other woman who you think should benefit from this arrangement. This would still put you down at 44% (effectively taking the whole 5% from you) but by giving some of your share to someone else, it does require your partner to make some of the sacrifice, while still benefiting someone you care about (if you have someone you would like to give that benefit to). In summary, this is what it would look like:",
"I wanted to know that what if the remaining 40% of 60% in a LTV (Loan to Value ratio ) for buying a home is not paid but the borrower only wants to get 60% of the total amount of home loan that is being provided by lending company. Generally, A lending company {say Bank] will not part with their funds unless you first pay your portion of the funds. This is essentially to safeguard their interest. Let's say they pay the 60% [either to you or to the seller]; The title is still with Seller as full payment is not made. Now if you default, the Bank has no recourse against the seller [who still owns the title] and you are not paying. Some Banks may allow a schedule where the 60/40 may be applied to every payment made. This would be case to case basis. The deal could be done with only paying 20% in the beginning to the buyer and then I have to pay EMI's of $7451. The lending company is offering you 1.1 million assuming that you are paying 700K and the title will be yours. This would safeguard the Banks interest. Now if you default, the Bank can take possession of the house and recover the funds, a distress sale may be mean the house goes for less than 1.8 M; say for 1.4 million. The Bank would take back the 1.1 million plus interest and other closing costs. So if you can close the deal by paying only 20%, Bank would ask you to close this first and then lend you any money. This way if you are not able to pay the balance as per the deal agreement, you would be in loss and not the Bank.",
"You're talking about ESPP? For ESPP it makes sense to utilize the most the company allows, i.e.: in your case - 15% of the paycheck (if you can afford deferring that much, I assume you can). When the stocks are purchased, I would sell them immediately, not hold. This way you have ~10% premium as your income (pretty much guaranteed, unless the stock falls significantly on the very same day), and almost no exposure. This sums up to be a nice 1.5% yearly guaranteed bonus, on top of any other compensation. As to keeping the stocks, this depends on how much you believe in your company and expect the stocks to appreciate. Being employed and dependent on the company with your salary, I'd avoid investing in your company, as you're invested in it deeply as it is.",
"You're not missing any concepts! It sounds like you are contributing a piece of collateral to the business, and you want to know a fair way to value how much this contribution of collateral is worth. Technically the economic answer would be the difference in interest between a secured loan and an unsecured loan. So for example suppose that the business could get a loan at 17% without the collateral (maybe just on a credit card) but with the duplex as collateral it is able to get the loan at 10.5%. In principle, the value of this collateral is (17% - 10.5%) or 6.5%, because it has allowed the business to pay 6.5% less interest on its loan.",
"If that company issues another 100 shares, shouldn't 10 of those new 100 shares be mine? Those 100 shares are an asset of the company, and you own 10% of them. When investors buy those new shares, you again own a share of the proceeds, just as you own a share of all the company's assets. A company only issues new share to raise money - it is a borrowing from investors, and in that way can be seen as an alternative to taking on loans. Both share issuing and a loan bring new capital and debt into a company. The difference is that shares don't need to be repaid.",
"Honestly, get a ln employment lawyer, preferably one with a MBA. If you're having to ask these questions, and considering giving away equity, get proper business legal advice. I've seen several lucrative companies torn apart because things were sloppy when it was originally set up. Also remember employees don't need equity to spur them on; that what a paycheck and meaningful employment is for. And certainly don't give anything from the outset.",
"\"When the VC is asking what your Pre-Money Valuation is, he's asking what percentage of shares his $200,000 will buy. If you say your company is worth $800K, then after he puts the money in, it will be worth $1M, and he will own 20% of all shares – you'll still own the remainder. So when the VC is asking for a valuation, what he really wants to know is how much of your company he's going to own after he funds you. Determining your pre-money valuation, then, is a question of negotiation: how much money will you need, how likely are you to require more money later (and thus dilute the VC's shares, or give up more of your own shares), how likely is your business to survive, and how much money will it make if it does survive? It isn't about the actual value of your business right now, as much as it is \"\"how much work has gone into this, and how successful can it be?\"\" The value is going to be a bit higher than you expect, because the work is already done and you can get to market faster than someone else who hasn't started yet. VCs are often looking for long shots – they'll invest in 10 companies, and expect 7 to fail, 2 to be barely-profitable, and the last one to make hilarious amounts of money. A VC doesn't necessarily want 51% of your company (you'll probably lose motivation if you're not in charge), but they'll want as much as they can get otherwise.\"",
"\"We’re buying the home right over $200,000 so that means he will only need to put down (as a ‘gift’) roughly $7000. I'm with the others, don't call this a gift unless it is a gift. I'd have him check with the bank that previously refused him a mortgage if putting both of you on a mortgage would allay their concerns. Your cash flow would be paying the mortgage payment and if you failed to do so, then they could fall back on his. That may make more sense to them, even if they would deny each of you a loan on your own. This works for them because either of you is responsible for the whole loan. It works for him because he was already willing to be responsible for the whole loan. And your alternative plan makes you responsible for the whole loan, so this is just as good for you. At what percentage would you suggest splitting ownership and future expenses? Typically a cash/financing partnership would be 50/50, but since it’s only a 3.5% down-payment instead of 20% is that still fair? Surprisingly enough, a 3.5% down-payment that accumulates is about half the equity of a 20% down-payment. So your suggestion of a 25%-75% split makes sense if 20% would give a 50%-50% split. I expected it to be considerably lower. The way that I calculated it was to have his share increase by his equity share of the \"\"rent\"\" which I set to the principal plus interest payment for a thirty year loan. With a 20% down-payment, this would give him 84% equity. With 3.5%, about 40% equity. I'm not sure why 84% equity should be the equivalent of a 50% share, but it may be a side effect of other expenses. Perhaps taking property taxes out would reduce the equity share. Note that if you increase the down-payment to 20%, your mortgage payment will drop substantially. The difference in interest between 3.5% and 20% equity is a couple hundred dollars. Also, you'll be able to eliminate any PMI payment at 20%. It could be argued that if he pays a third of the monthly mortgage payment, that that would give him the same 50% equity stake on a 3.5% down-payment as he would get with a 20% down-payment. The problem there is that then he is effectively subsidizing your monthly payment. If he were to stop doing that for some reason, you'd have what is effectively a 50% increase in your rent. It would be safer for you to handle the monthly payment while he handles the down-payment. If you couldn't pay the mortgage, it sounds like he is in a position to buy out your equity, rent the property, and take over the mortgage payment. If he stopped being able to pay his third of the mortgage, it's not evident that you'd be able to pick up the slack from him much less buy him out. And it's unlikely that you'd find someone else willing to replace him under those terms. But your brother could construct things such that in the face of tragedy, you'd inherit his equity in the house. If you're making the entire mortgage payment, that's a stable situation. He's not at risk because he could take over the mortgage if necessary. You're not at risk because you inherit his equity share and can afford the monthly payment. So even in the face of tragedy, things can go on. And that's important, as otherwise you could lose your equity in the house.\"",
"There is no rule of thumb (although some may suggest there is). Everybody will have different goals, investment preferences and risk tolerances. You need to figure this out by yourself by either education yourself in the type of investments you are interested in or by engaging (and paying for) a financial advisor. You should not be taking advice from others unless it is specifically geared for your goals, investment DNA and risk tolerance. The only advice I would give you is to have a plan (whether you develop it yourself or pay a financial advisor to develop one). Also, don't have all your savings sitting in cash, as long-term you will fall behind the eight ball in real returns (allowing for inflation).",
"I think rather than take a percentage out, I focus on getting a total amount I consider appropriate for my emergency fund. Then as for retirement, I do at least what my employer matches, up to the contribution limit. For example my personal retirement plan in the US has an annual max contribution of $5000. Once I have my 6 to 12 month emergency fund (in a pretty liquid form) and a fully funded retirement, I want to concentrate on building wealth via investments or increasing the quality of my life by spending. Summary answer is: no percentage for emergency, just get to a total amount you feel comfortable. Then whatever percentage will allow you to make the most of employer matching and make your retirement fully funded.",
"If someone invest certain amount on my company and after a year I am able to return the exact capital with the profit, what will I do to that investor? Did the investor receive shares in the company for the money that was invested in the company? This is the big question here as if so then there isn't the need to return the money but rather grow the business so that the investor's shares are worth more. Will that person still invest in my company? You may need to consider what you mean by invest as generally there are a couple of ways to finance a business: Equity - Ownership of the company is sold to raise money to run the company. Debt - The company is lent money that is to be repaid over time. Investing is usually the first case not the second. What if I have enough profit to continue my business, do I still need that investor? You wouldn't need the investor. However, you may want that investor as they could provide more funds, connections or other benefits to the company that may be worth considering here.",
"Oh man... youve been to school for this, i can tell! Haha. Excellent points, some i havent thought of. Like i mentioned, im not a buisness major or anything but im smart enough (and stupid enough) to take chances if i see opportunity to make money. (A mindset that probably started with my majuana empire in high school lol). I will most likely follow through with welding full time, at least until i have money built up to invest and still live comfortably. Like i said, im smart enough to know what needs to be done but im wide-eyed and hungry to make more also. Anyway, thank you for your response, its very helpful and full of things i hadnt considered yet; specifically the investment structure of the company."
] |
[
"There is no universal answer here; it depends on how much risk each person is taking, how you want to define the value of the business now and in the future, how much each person's contribution is essential to creating and sustaining the business, how hard it would be to get those resources elsewhere and what they would cost... What is fair is whatever you folks agree is fair. Just make sure to get it nailed down in writing and signed by all the parties, so you don't risk someone changing their minds later.",
"Question (which you need to ask yourself): How well are your friends paid for their work? What would happen if you just took your money and bought a garage, and hired two car mechanics? How would that be different from what you are doing? The money that you put into the company, is that paid in capital, or is it a loan to the company that will be repaid?"
] |
2118
|
What happened in Argentina in 2001 bank sector? did the banks closed? all or some?
|
[
"411061"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"411061",
"598465",
"457461",
"179245",
"203231",
"458485",
"400826",
"453941",
"362797",
"568090",
"198953",
"409562",
"211688",
"284942",
"65916",
"160421",
"430923",
"169627",
"448173",
"460580",
"450586",
"125847",
"76377",
"195701",
"28375",
"479527",
"461349",
"526743",
"235079",
"323676",
"537887",
"273179",
"107365",
"266447",
"544337",
"490324",
"550637",
"479351",
"94279",
"80464",
"285799",
"599563",
"527904",
"559912",
"166400",
"92377",
"37189",
"304007",
"75131",
"546646",
"365101",
"220156",
"472879",
"585900",
"352832",
"491523",
"41271",
"62185",
"30382",
"289001",
"386909",
"301432",
"241985",
"382112",
"3548",
"548872",
"237906",
"560622",
"441183",
"294212",
"478833",
"94724",
"314240",
"38038",
"93275",
"304509",
"90781",
"400231",
"489661",
"247150",
"61026",
"139790",
"278226",
"444104",
"432339",
"318106",
"3463",
"145404",
"305179",
"257910",
"169163",
"108390",
"218045",
"373619",
"363602",
"251961",
"431359",
"594500",
"334914",
"545349"
] |
[
"One place you might consider looking for answers is in case studies from Harvard Business School. When I was working an MBA, we studied the default of Argentina as part of our economics coursework. Other sources for your consideration might include:",
"\"Yes, except many, many Icelanders still owe debt on assets they purchased in krona (the Icelandic dollar) before it collapsed. Now many are stuck with homes, vehicles, etc. on which they owe twice the underlying value. You'll often see this referred to as \"\"private debt overhang\"\" in financial news articles, and it is not reported on nearly enough. Just letting the banks fail doesn't unwind all of the ridiculous currency speculation that took place in Iceland. They may be on their way to recovery...eventually...but they're still in terrible shape in the short term.\"",
"What typically happens to brokerage accounts during similar situations? This depends on country, time and situation. Nothing is predictable in such situations. In Greece during the said period the stock exchanges were closed for 5 weeks. There was no trading. Edits: Every situation is different and it would be unfair to compare one against another or use it to predict something else. Right now in India due to demonitization, cash withdrawal is limited. One can trade in stocks, unlimited bank transfers, transfer money out of India ...etc. Everything same except for cash withdrawal. In 1990, the ASEAN countries survived a financial collapse, everything was allowed except moving money out of country.",
"\"Great writing, Ellen Brown. I wish the Argentinians all the best in stinging the vulture funds and doing a successful end run on the IMF. Clearly, Argentina is not the bad guy in all this, despite some people trying to make them appear as such, by regurgitating the convenient Financialese spin. On a different note, there is an interesting history lesson concerning the Baring Bank Economic Crisis of 1890 related to or rather caused by poor Baring Bank investments in Argentina, which were so massive that the debts had to be bank rolled by the British Government since, as is has become usual ever since, it threatened to bring down the hole (British) financial system which was then the world's debtor of last resort. \"\"Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose\"\", etc.\"",
"\"Global banks are without a doubt the new evil empires. They're buying debt for pennies on the dollar, because they know the risk of default/bankruptcy, yet they expect the IMF to do for international debt what W did for student loans. Wasn't Argentina also the country that had a vulture fund \"\"seize\"\" one of their naval vessels? Soon banks will have their own standing armies and naval fleets to exact asset forfeiture.\"",
"\"This will happen automatically when you open an interest-bearing account with a bank. You didn't think that banks just kept all that cash in a vault somewhere, did you? That's not the way modern banking works. Today (and for a long, long time) banks will keep only a small fraction of their deposits on hand (called the \"\"reserve\"\") to fund daily withdrawals and other operations. The rest they routinely lend out to other customers, which is how they pay for their operations (someone has to pay all those tellers, branch managers, loan officers) and pay interest on your deposits, as well as a profit for their owners (it's not a charity service). The fees charged for loan origination, as well as the difference between the loan interest rate and the deposit rate, make up the profit. Banks rarely hold their own loans. Instead, they will sell the loans in portfolios to investors, sometimes retaining servicing rights (they continue to collect the payments and pass them on) and sometimes not (the payments are now due to someone else). This allows them to make more loans. Banks may sometimes not have enough capital on hand. In this case, they can make inter-bank loans to meet their short-term needs. In some cases, they'll take those loans from a government central bank. In the US, this is \"\"The Fed\"\", or the Federal Reserve Bank. In the US, back around the late 1920's, and again in the 1980's some banks experienced a \"\"run\"\", or a situation where people lost confidence in the bank and wanted to withdraw their money. This caused the bank to have insufficient funds to support the withdrawals, so not everyone got their money. People panicked, and others wanted to take their money out, which caused the situation to snowball. This is how many banks failed. (In the '80s, it was savings-and-loans that failed - still a kind of \"\"bank\"\".) Today, we have the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to protect depositors. In the crashes in the early 2000's, many banks closed up one night and opened the next in a conservatorship, and then were literally doing business as a new bank without depositors (necessarily) even knowing. This protected the consumers. The bank (as a company) and its owners were not protected.\"",
"There are many different things that can happen, all or some. Taking Russia and Argentina as precedence - you may not be able to withdraw funds from your bank for some period of time. Not because your accounts will be drained, but because the cash supply will be restricted. Similar thing has also happened recently in Cyprus. However, the fact that the governments of Russia and Argentina limited the use of cash for a period of time doesn't mean that the US government will have to do the same, it my choose some other means of restraint. What's for sure is that nothing good will happen. Nothing will probably happen to your balance in the bank (Although Cyprus has shown that that is not a given either). But I'm not so sure about FDIC maintaining it's insurance if the bank fails (meaning if the bank defaults as a result of the chain effect - you may lose your money). If the government is defaulting, it might not have enough cash to take over the bank deposits. After the default the currency value will probably drop sharply (devaluation) which will lead to inflation. Meaning your same balance will be worth much less than it is now. So there's something to worry about for everyone.",
"I have been through default in Ukraine august 1998. That was a real nightmare. The financial system stopped working properly for 1 month, about 30% of businesses went bankrupt because of chain effect, significant inflation and devaluation of currency. So, it is better to be prepared, because this type of processes result in unpredictable situation.",
"Let me just say that Argentina didn't fail because of protectionism, it failed because of collectivism and government control of businesses like all familiar communist countries failed. It's actually a good argument against socialism in general against those who say it's superior to communism.",
"\"but not from the Fed as numerous British and European banks did. Canadian banks did not have a solvency issue as U.S. banks did. They just got caught up in a \"\"Everybody is scared shitless and nobody is willing to lend to anybody\"\" situation. All banks rely on overnight lending to balance the books. The cause had nothing to do with mismanagement or bad decision-making. Canadian banks have again and again been rated the [best managed](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-02/canadians-dominate-world-s-10-strongest-banks.html) and [best regulated](http://business.financialpost.com/2012/10/10/canadas-banks-shake-off-global-sector-crisis/) in the world. And as soon as some semblance of normality was restored to the credit markets the money was paid back.\"",
"No argument there. A few months prior it was a jewelry store, but November it was a place to sell off your gold. It looked the same, but the business model shifted dramatically. Yes, it's just an anecdote. But there were tens of thousands of dollars worth of orders by many people in the days after. I had just been hired to design and learn wax milling. This trickled down very quickly to me just doing photography and ad design part time instead of a full time position at a liveable wage. I got out of there as quickly as possible.",
"\"In 2001, Argentina defaulted on it's debt, and started negotiating a \"\"haircut\"\" with it's debtors. As a result, a lot of the debtors sold the bonds they had a fire-sale prices, thinking better get some back than nothing. One of the guys that bought those cheap bonds was Paul Singer AKA \"\"Mr. Vulture Hedge-fund\"\". I'll speculate here saying that Mr. Singer saw that the bond conditions gave him a way to force Argentina to pay the full value of the bonds notwithstanding it's default or negotiated haircut. Argentina did negotiate a haircut with about 97% of it's bond-holders. This meant that although they would lose out on some of the money, they would still get some back, and Argentina could work its way back to its feet eventually. Mr. Singer and friends were the 3% that did not accept the haircut, and took the country to court to get 100% of the bond value back. Now, the plot thickens. I don't understand if Mr. Singer knew this or not, but the bonds also had a post-2001 condition that said that no bond-holder would be worst-off than the highest bond deal Argentina offered anyone. Which basically means, if they pay Mr. Singer 100%, they have to pay everybody else 100%. Now, it was well established that Argentina could not pay 100%, and is not able to pay 100% of the debt, hence the 2001 default. Meanwhile, Argentina was paying out the hair-cut bonds, but holding out on Mr. Singer and friends as they still didn't agree to pay 100%. The courts ruled that they could not do this, and had to pay everybody. Since Argentina cannot pay everybody 100%, it is defaulting on the debt.\"",
"Any bank that lends Cristina Fernández de Kirchner or any Argentinian government any money would be further ahead to just use that money as kindling to roast marshmallows over. At least they'd get some heat and light and toasted marshmallows for their trouble. Argentina has defaulted or forced major haircuts on bondholders eight times since the 1830s.",
"Yes, I think you're correct. I think it was more like. Paul Singer: Pay up on time and in full or I will ruin your credit history so bad you'll never be able to get a loan again. Argentina: Burn the house, we will call the BRIC bank to re-build.",
"\"None. The first \"\"caja\"\" that \"\"required\"\" a rescue from the spanish government was Caja Castilla la Mancha. This \"\"caja\"\" was a special entity created by the spanish local government and had politicians in the governing board. This politicians were from the ruling party of that region, at that time PSOE (socialist party of Spain). The funny part is that the president then, Zapatero from the same socialist party, went to London for a G20 meeting and his main reivindication was that the world governments needed to fight against tax paradises. The same week he was there spreading this message it was known that directors of Caja Castilla la Mancha (remember, politicians from the same party) had set up a special entity in a fiscal paradise so their speculations would be cheaper. Obviously nothing happened to those people.\"",
"When I read that part of his post, it reminded me more of credit companies rather than banks. People default on credit all the time. I have no idea what the regulations are on the amount of credit that a company can issue, though. And this is sort of part of what actually happened in the beginning of the economic crunch. A bunch of people began to trade for credit (debt) against what they thought the *future* value of their house or other real estate would be. After a while, people stopped being able to afford property at its future value, so they stopped buying it. When people then tried to sell their property for the future value that they had borrowed against, they couldn't, so they couldn't pay back their debt. Because real estate had become a popular investment vehicle for the middle class, this was able to reach a kind of critical mass, and shortly afterward the effects rippled back into the credit market, which also had its own crunch -- a bunch of credit just disappeared overnight because so many people had assumed a level of debt that they could not actually fulfill their promises on once the future value of their home became completely imaginary.",
"\"India's a very interesting case study. They're economy's exploded and grown by leaps and bounds in the last decade. It's a free market but the Reserve Bank of India's get's weird sometimes. For instance a lot of these crappy and defaulting loans are because the government (Reserve Bank of India) said to fuel growth you have to make sure a certain percentage of your loan book is made out industries we want to develop. So huge loans were made to construction firms, not because they fit the risk profile of the bank or were good investments, but cause the government mandated it. Ton's of horribly run companies got money they shouldn't have. Also, public banks pay a lot less than their private counterparts, so you don't have the best and brightest handing out these loans. India's a fucking mess of laws. Like there's no codified way to declare bankruptcy like there is in the West. So if a company goes belly up, they have to go through this maze of different government offices with contradictory rules so creditors (in many cases, the banks that lent them money) can get some of their money back, IMF said it takes 4.5 years on average for a company to go through bankruptcy proceedings. That's insane! And because it's India, there's a ton of shady shit going on behind the scenes. Up until 2-3 years ago, loans that the banking industry considers non performing (interest payments haven't been made in 90 days) were lumped in another category and hidden in the balance sheet, so the rest of the world looked at this said, \"\"well, their NPL ratio is only 3-4% which is fine for developing country\"\" and continued to rate them highly. It wasn't until recently that we figured out the ENTIRE banking sector wasn't reporting their bad loans properly.\"",
"\"Yes, many hedge funds (for example) did not survive 2008-2009. But hedge funds were failing both before and after that period, and other hedge funds thrived. Those types of funds are particularly risky because they depend so much on leverage (i.e. on money that isn't actually theirs). More publically-visible funds (like those of the big-name index fund companies) tended not to close because they are not leveraged. You say that \"\"a great many companies\"\" failed during the recession, but that's not actually true. I can't think of more than a handful of publically-traded companies that went bankrupt. So, since the vast majority of publically-traded companies stayed in business, their stocks kept some/most of their value, and the funds that owned those stocks stayed afloat. I personally did not see a single index fund that went out of business due to the recession.\"",
"Uhh ... Not really. There was a bank run, it just wasn't on deposits. We are only staving off depression by taxing future dollars ... That policy will probably fail eventually and if we haven't gained enough aggregate hard inputs (people or technology) by the time this delaying tactic runs out then it will be depression. You really misread my comment anyway. Move all insured deposits to not for profit credit unions and sever them completely from investment/commercial banking. Remove all deposit insurance from commercial/investment banking and with it the inherent moral hazard imbedded in the system. We still have insured deposits but for profit banks won't be able to filter them through to investment banking through the shadow banking system.",
"\"Spain is one of the most socialists states in Europe. I know because I live here. You are totally correct that the former owners broke it, what you are not right about is that they were private. Caja Madrid was a special partnership between the local governments and some private parties. All the \"\"cajas\"\" in Spain were set up that way and all had government representatives in their boards. EDIT: I just checked and turns out Caja Madrid, which represents 50% of Bankia, was 100% owned by the Madrid local government. The rest of the 50% of Bankia was formed with other \"\"cajas\"\" which were partly or completely owned by their local governments as well. Also is worth noting that the spanish private banks are also in trouble and have survived only because of the liquidity provided by the ECB, but they are not even close to the level of bankruption that the \"\"cajas\"\" have achieved.\"",
"I was just wondering, are banks in India federally insured? Yes the Banks in India are insured for Principal and Interest upto Rs 1,00,000/- per holding type per Bank. See the DICGC website. So if you have one or more accounts [in the same or different branches of a bank] and the Principal is say Rs 98,000/- and the interest accrued at the time of liquidation is say Rs 4,000/- you will get Rs 1,00,000/- If you have more than Rs 1,00,000/- you will not get only 1 lac. If you have an individual account, and your wife has an account and both of you have a joint account. The total limit will be Rs 3,00,000/-. If you are guardian to your Children, its again considered separate. RBI Site as a good example on this. If you open Accounts in Different Banks, the limit increases. What happen if banks like Yes Bank or IndusInd bank goes bankrupt? Both Yes Bank and IndusInd are participants in the DICGC and are insured. See the full list here. How will we recover money in those cases? Although insured, the process to get the money back would be time consuming. More often the bank is placed under moratorium, an effort is made for amalgamation or reconstruction ... Only if everything fails, the bank goes into liquidation. So it could be anywhere from few months to few years for you to see you money.",
"\"**Are you nuts?** >*\"\"Are you talking about TARP because that was paid back early and at 6.2% interest, the gov't made money on that bailout. The auto bailout however lost the gov't billions at the taxpayers expense and the bondholders got screwed over and the unions made out like bandits. Your title just shows how bias and uneducated you are on the subject. \"\"* I'm talking about the GFC/Global Financial Crisis. In 2008. -------------QUOTED TEXT-------------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308 This article is about the financial crisis that peaked in 2008. *For the global recession triggered by the financial crisis, see [Great Recession](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession).* The financial crisis of 2007–2008, also known as the Global Financial Crisis and 2008 financial crisis, is considered by many economists the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[1] It resulted in the threat of total collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world. In many areas, the housing market also suffered, resulting in evictions, foreclosures and prolonged unemployment. The crisis played a significant role in the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in trillions of U.S. dollars, and a downturn in economic activity leading to the 2008–2012 global recession and contributing to the European sovereign-debt crisis.[2][3] The active phase of the crisis, which manifested as a liquidity crisis, can be dated from August 9, 2007, when BNP Paribas terminated withdrawals from three hedge funds citing \"\"a complete evaporation of liquidity\"\".[4] The bursting of the U.S. (United States) housing bubble, which peaked in 2006,[5] caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally.[6][7] The financial crisis was triggered by a complex interplay of policies that encouraged home ownership, providing easier access to loans for (lending) borrowers, overvaluation of bundled subprime mortgages based on the theory that housing prices would continue to escalate, questionable trading practices on behalf of both buyers and sellers, compensation structures that prioritize short-term deal flow over long-term value creation, and a lack of adequate capital holdings from banks and insurance companies to back the financial commitments they were making.[8][9][10][11] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period, as credit tightened and international trade declined.[12] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion and institutional bailouts. In the U.S., Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. (continued- thats just the first two paragraphs)\"",
"Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns failed before there ever was such a thing as a Systemically Important Financial Institution (SIFI). OP's article and the study that it is based on are referring quite specifically to SIFI's, not every bank in American history.",
"Didn't they also say a couple of weeks ago that the bank is doing just fine? Weren't there rumors of bank runs that Spain adamantly denied? Could this be to cover that up without causing panic? There are so many statements that could end with a question mark I don't know I can list them all, but it doesn't matter. The media will never give us answers until after the whole thing implodes.",
"\"The \"\"just accounting\"\" is how money market works these days. Lets look at this simplified example: The bank creates an asset - loan in the amount of X, secured by a house worth 1.25*X (assuming 20% downpayment). The bank also creates a liability in the amount of X to its depositors, because the money lent was the money first deposited into the bank by someone else (or borrowed by the bank from the Federal Reserve(*), which is, again, a liability). That liability is not secured. Now the person defaults on the loan in the amount of X, but at that time the prices dropped, and the house is now worth 0.8*X. The bank forecloses, sells the house, recovers 80% of the loan, and removes the asset of the loan, creating an asset of cash in the value of 0.8*X. But the liability in the amount of X didn't go anywhere. Bank still has to repay the X amount of money back to its depositors/Feds. The difference? 20% of X in our scenario - that's the bank's loss. (*) Federal Reserve is the US equivalent of a central bank.\"",
"\"Sovereigns cannot go bankrupt. Basically, when a sovereign government (this includes nations and US States, probably political subdivisions in other countries as well) becomes insolvent, they default. Sovereigns with the ability to issue new currency have the option to do so because it is politically expedient. Sovereigns in default will negotiate with creditor committees to reduce payments. Creditors with debt backed by the \"\"full faith and credit\"\" of the sovereign are generally first in line. Creditors with debt secured by revenue may be entitled to the underlying assets that provide the revenue. The value of your money in the bank in a deposit account may be at risk due to currency devaluation or bank failure. A default by a major country would likely lock up the credit markets, and you may see yourself in a situation where money market accounts actually fall in value.\"",
"> The new exchange bonds will be getting paid as normal in Argentina. (Unless Argentina changes its mind! In which case it will have home-court advantage in changing the terms of the bonds.) The old exchange bonds, and the old old bonds, won't get paid, exactly, but Argentina will deposit money at the central bank for them, which they can get any time they want to swap into new exchange bonds. Presumably many people will hold on to the old exchange bonds, hoping for some improvement in their lot in life, and eventually that hope will turn into lawsuits, as hope does. So there will be two classes of bondholders suing Argentina, and each other, and not getting paid, and being sad. This paragraph from OP's article is golden",
"Santander - Spains largest bank was unable to fulfill it's obligation to finance the airline Norwegian's purchase of new planes. The contract was signed, but Santander had no money. They will now meet angry Norwegian's in court. If I had any money in any Spanish financial institution - bank, stocks, bonds, pension- or other funds - I would get them out today. They have been cooking their books. This is not Lehman Brothers, this is another Enron.",
"A ton of good comments and a lot of innocent comments. Basically with fractional reserve banking, the creation of money out of nothng to increase the money supply is very simple to do and happens every second. But like anything leveraged, it's great in good times adn horrible is bad times. Contraction is magnified so if I pull out $1, the banks available funds are decreased by a multiple of that (depending on the reserve requirements and capital requirements). SO to answer you're question, the money gets destroyed and disappears and a portion remains.",
"No. The majority of creditors agreed to those terms. If they hadn't, then Argentinas default would have been an open and shut case some time ago. Its only now that they're in technical default, because the holdouts went against the majority, and the conditions of the bonds are that all must get equal treatment.",
"Not entirely true. Argentina walks away without the ability to get credit in the normal way, but with other (more expensive) avenues to get credit if needed. However, they also no longer have to pay the bond debt, which frees up a fair amount of tax income to go to the things they were previously paying with debt. Singer comes away with... nothing. He's out the cost of purchasing the debt. He's out the cost of litigating. He actually came away with worse than nothing. He lost bad.",
"The government started the crisis and the banks concluded it. Barney Frank and the House Committee on Financial Services continually pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to issue new mortgages with the intent of increasing home ownership. The House set goals for mortgage issuances; thus Fannie and Freddie lowered the requirements for obtaining a new mortgage. Other banks saw this happening and were forced to lower their requirements for issuing mortgages. Then, the banks realized they were holding a lot of risky mortgages on their books, so they found a way to spread the risk among other banks and investors. Through financial ingenuity to reduce risk and maximize return, they created a new investment (securitized the debt) where risky mortgages were bundled, the earnings tranched, and resold to investors. In this way, they transformed hard-to-sell subprime mortgages into salable AAA and AA debt. This depended on the fact that the risk of default on each mortgage was *independent* of the others. This scheme reduced risk and increased returns for banks and investors. However, the securitized mortgages contributed to a higher overall *system* risk. As long as there weren't mass defaults, everyone was better off. Well, clearly there were mass defaults on risky mortgages, which destroyed the securitization scheme and brought down the banks. The missing element in all this was a strong, competent regulatory body that looked out for the country's welfare. Everyone else was looking out for themselves: Barney Frank & the House looked out for their voters' agenda to push home ownership. Home buyers were taking advantage of the favorable credit. The banks satisfied mortgage demand. The banks also figured out a way to sell risky mortgages to investors so more could be issued. However, no one looked out for the system-wide risk.",
"\"Ok, now if someone could explain to my why Argentina didn't do the following: * Set out a schedule of payments for the 100% of the debt, and pay everybody (Mr. Singer included); * When they hit the haircut % amount, declare \"\"default\"\". The parties that had agreed to the haircut would be fine, as they had already agreed to the haircut. Mr. Singer would be left out to dry for the rest of the money, due to the default. It would technically count as a default, but only the vulture-funds would experience the actual default, and so the markets would see that haircuts for the majority actually apply for everybody, and henceforth encouraging all bond-holders to negotiate hair-cuts rather than encourage vultures to buy nonds for a nickle and demand the full dollar.\"",
"I disagree. The question is leading, it presumes that backstopping the banks was a cause, not an effect, of poor government funding, which is absolutely insane. A country cannot be brought down by the financial sector, it's just not possible, not even where the country doesn't have monetary authority.",
"So ... how are you going to have a bank run if you got rid of cash? I suspect big investors will attempt (have already attempted?) to pull their cash, but regular people? Not like running to the ATM will do much good and I don't think they have offshore accounts. Excuse my naïveté, but that's the first thing that came to my mind...",
"A short list 1) Inability to survive the financial crisis without government assistance. 2) Underperformance compared to other similar institutions, mostly because of problems relating to point 1 3) Previous work experience 4) Financial products whose value to the consumer is less so than comparable products from similar institutions",
"Inflation of the type currently experienced in Argentina is particularly hard to deal with. Also, real estate prices in global cities such as Buenos Aires and even secondary cities have grown significantly. There are no full solutions to this problem, but there are a few things that can really help.",
">[While Argentina has the money to pay the interest it owes, a U.S. judge’s ruling bars it from passing the funds to holders before settling with the so-called holdout creditors that won an order for full repayment on defaulted debt from 2001. Argentine officials say the plaintiffs have rebuffed all offers for a deal.](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-04/argentine-default-sours-outlook-for-peso-as-talks-ordered.html)",
"It certainly is possible for a run on the bank to drive it into insolvency. And yes, if the bank makes some bad loans, it can magnify the problem. Generally, this does not happen, though. Remember that banks usually have lots of customers, and people are depositing money and making mortgage payments every day, so there is usually enough on-hand to cover average banking withdrawl activity, regardless of any bad loans they have outstanding. Banks have lots of historical data to know what the average withdrawl demands are for a given day. They also have risk models to predict the likelihood of their loans going into default. A bank will generally use this information to strike a healthy balance between profit-making activity (e.g. issuing loans), and satisfying its account holders. In the event of a major withdrawl demand, there are some protections in place to guard against insolvency. There are regulations that specify a Reserve Requirement. The bank must keep a certain amount of money on hand, so they can't take huge risks by loaning out too much money all at once. Regulators can tweak this requirement over time to reflect the current economic situation. If a bank does run into trouble, it can take out a short-term loan. Either from another bank, or from the central bank (e.g. the US Federal Reserve). Banks don't want to pay interest on loans any more than you do, so if they are regularly borrowing money, they will adjust thier cash reserves accordingly. If all else fails and the bank can't meet its obligations (e.g. the Fed loan fell through), the bank has an insurance policy to make sure the account holders get paid. In the US, this is what the FDIC is for. Worst case, the bank goes under, but your money is safe. These protections have worked pretty well for many decades. However, during the recent financial crisis, all three of these protections were under heavy strain. So, one of the things banking regulators did was to put the major banks through stress tests to make sure they could handle several bad financial events without collapsing. These tests showed that some banks didn't have enough money in reserve. (Not long after, banks started to increase fees and credit card rates to raise this additional capital.) Keep in mind that if banks were unable to use the deposited money (loan it out, invest it, etc), the current financial landscape would change considerably.",
"A 'bailout' is money from the government to keep open a business that is no longer viable and by rights deserves to fail. What happened in this case was different. All banks rely on the overnight bank lending market for liquidity. It is the grease that oils the wheels of international banking. That is not a sign of weakness or recklessness. It is just standard banking practice. In 2008, during the failure of Bear Stearns and the Lehman Shock the overnight lending market simply stopped operating as nobody knew who they could trust and as a result nobody trusted anybody. Something needed to temporarily replace this overnight lending until the crisis was over. This is what that cash infusion was. It was not a bailout.",
"\"I have family in Argentina, this is no surprise to them. Everybody I know over there, family and friends, are going crazy \"\"blowing up their credit cards\"\" and going through savings like there is no tomorrow. Their mantra is.. \"\"enjoy it today, because tomorrow its evaporated\"\".\"",
"The FDIC has been pretty good at recovery lost money from failed banks. The problem is the temporary loss from immediate needs. The best thing for anyone to do is diversify in investments and banks with adequate covered insurance for all accounts. Immediate access to available cash is always a priority that should be governed by the money manager in this case yourself.",
"Argentina's rampant inflation is due to the reckless fiscal and monetary policy that Christina Fernandez and her worthless socialist ilk enacted. No surprise here. They are literally running out of other people's money and can't run the printing presses fast enough.",
"Well basically a lot of dot-com companies that had no real plans for having actual profit's, self-destructed. I had worked for a company called VarsityOnline.com which was depending on endless money from investor's, and had never really made any kind of profit, for which it had ample opportunity. People lost sight of reality, that just because it wasn't a real brick and mortar store, that common sense, good service and good products didn't matter. We were so clueless back then.",
"This is all somewhat true. The likely scenario was that those transactions were flagged in the banks suspicious activity monitoring system for potential layering activity and they may have filed a suspicious activity report with FinCEN and may have a policy to close accounts with suspicious activity.",
"I'm not sure I'd say the assets they had were worthless. One of the big controversies was whether it was a solvency crisis (bad assets) or a liquidity crisis (fine assets, but if everyone sells illiquid assets there's a fire sale problem). The US and Buffett bet it was a liquidity crisis, and they were proven right.",
"\"Your question points out how most fractional reserve banks are only a couple of defaults away from insolvency. The problem arises because of the terms around the depositors' money. When a customer deposits money into a bank they are loaning their money to the bank (and the bank takes ownership of the money). Deposit and savings account are considered \"\"on-demand\"\" accounts where the customer is told they can retrieve their money at any time. This is a strange type of loan, is it not? No other loan works this way. There are always terms around loans - how often the borrower will make payments, when will the borrower pay back the loan, what is the total time frame of the loan, etc.. The bank runs into problems because the time frame on the money they borrowed (i.e. deposits) does not match the time frame on the money they are lending.\"",
"\"The danger to your savings depends on how much sovereign debt your bank is holding. If the government defaults then the bank - if it is holding a lot of sovereign debt - could be short funds and not able to meet its obligations. I believe default is the best option for the Euro long term but it will be painful in the short term. Yes, historically governments have shut down banks to prevent people from withdrawing their money in times of crisis. See Argentina circa 2001 or US during Great Depression. The government prevented people from withdrawing their money and people could do nothing while their money rapidly lost value. (See the emergency banking act where Title I, Section 4 authorizes the US president:\"\"To make it illegal for a bank to do business during a national emergency (per section 2) without the approval of the President.\"\" FDR declared a banking holiday four days before the act was approved by Congress. This documentary on the crisis in Argentina follows a woman as she tries to withdraw her savings from her bank but the government has prevented her from withdrawing her money.) If the printing press is chosen to avoid default then this will allow banks and governments to meet their obligations. This, however, comes at the cost of a seriously debased euro (i.e. higher prices). The euro could then soon become a hot potato as everyone tries to get rid of them before the ECB prints more. The US dollar could meet the same fate. What can you do to avert these risks? Yes, you could exchange into another currency. Unfortunately the printing presses of most of the major central banks today are in overdrive. This may preserve your savings temporarily. I would purchase some gold or silver coins and keep them in your possession. This isolates you from the banking system and gold and silver have value anywhere you go. The coins are also portable in case things really start to get interesting. Attempt to purchase the coins with cash so there is no record of the purchase. This may not be possible.\"",
"It was both. CDOs also contributed. Unfortunately, when the bankers kept packing up their loans they lost track of the risk as did the financial institutions offering instruments to deleverage that risk. So when the subprime borrowers began to fail the institutions started getting hit with risk that they hadn't prepared for. Flippers and home owners who used their homes as ATMs then saw their home values crash and it all fell apart. We are seeing some of this again with owners getting more HELOCs but the real concern is with car loans, credit card and student loan debt.",
"\"If there was still money in the account when it was closed, the bank would have turned over the cash to the state where they operated. Search Google for \"\"unclaimed property <state name>\"\" for the unclaimed property department of the state. The state's website will show if there is money for you.\"",
"Yeah it was a mix between the issuing agencies and the credit agencies. If the credit agencies didnt rate them as AAA then the financial institutions would just go to the other agency. So there was a conflict of interest in rating them higher. There was mismanagement on both sides of the fence and when the CDOs started to default it created a forced selling environment where people HAD to sell their CDOs/stocks at a steep discount to get enough liquidity to pay their own mortgages.",
"\"What happened was that people would start an \"\"Internet\"\" company without any viable business plan, and investors would pour money. Any company with \"\".COM\"\" or \"\"eSomething\"\" or \"\"netXXX\"\" or whatever would get tons of money from investors, basically selling dreams of getting rich fast. The companies that flourished back than had often no sales and no income, yet they paid high salaries and provided very lucrative benefits to the employees. One of the examples is Mirabilis - company that invented the on-line messenger (ICQ), but provided free service and free products (there were no fees associated with using the ICQ messenger). They got bought for almost half a billion dollars when they had ZERO revenues, by AOL. AOL sold the company, ten years later, for less than 200 million dollars when at that time ICQ (or, as re-branded, AIM) was already providing revenue (from advertisements). Eventually, investors stopped pouring the money in (for various reasons, but amongst others the higher rates and the slower overall economy), and almost immediately companies started going out of business, and then it all blew up.\"",
"Most national banks are required by the regulations of their host countries to hold significant reserves in the form of government debt. A default would likely wipe out their capital and your common stock would become worthless. The common stock only has positive value today because of the option value based on the possibility the host country will evade a default.",
"\"It's tough to share exactly what happened. Go to yahoo and look at the chart for Cisco from 1990 to 2003 or so. From a split adjusted 8 cents a share, it peaked at just under $80 in March 2000, up by a factor of 1000. People were buying in thinking this stock would continue to rise at this pace, but logic says that's preposterous. By April of 2001, it was down to $14, 80% off its high, and later to drop below $10. This was a classic bubble and should be studied so you don't get caught in them. A book titled Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds was published in 1841, yes is still an interesting read. Bubbles in markets are not new, but can be recognized and avoided. Cisco at $80 had a market cap of $438B. Had it risen 1000 fold over another decade, it would have been worth $438T, but all the wealth in the US isn't even $75T, so something was wrong, very wrong. This is one story, one stock. A remarkable time. Yes, many companies went under, and the employees lost their jobs. And those who were heavy into the \"\"dotcom\"\" stocks lost as much as 80% (or more) of their wealth. Entire 401(k) accounts dropping this amount due to bad decisions. Those who bailed out in time survived, some doing better than others.\"",
"A bank is insolvent when it can no longer meet its short-term obligations. In this example, the bank is insolvent when depositors withdraw more cash than the bank can pay out. In this case, it's probably something in the range of $600-700k, because the bank can borrow money from other banks using assets as collateral. In the US, we manage this risk in a few ways. First, FDIC insurance provides a level of assurance that in a worst-case scenario, most depositors will have access to their money guaranteed by the government. This prevents bank panics and reduces the demand for cash. The risk that remains is the risk that you brought up in your scenario -- bad debt or investments that are valued inappropriately. We mitigate this risk by giving the Federal Reserve and in some instances the US Treasure the ability to provide nearly unlimited capital to get over short/mid-term issues brought on by the market. In cases of long-term, structural issues with the bank balance sheets, regulators like the FDIC, Federal Reserve and others have the ability to assume control of the bank and sell off its assets to other, stronger institutions. The current financial regime has its genesis in the bank panics of the 1890's, when the shift from an agricultural based economy (where no capital is available until the crops come in!) to an industrial economy revealed the weakness of the unregulated model where ad hoc groups of banks backed each other up. Good banks were being destroyed by panics until a trusted third party (JP Morgan) stepped in, committed capital and make personal guarantees.",
"\"In the US, this was the case during the 19th century. There was a system of \"\"subscriptions\"\" between banks, where larger banks backed the smaller banks to some extent. In trade, notes from distant banks were not accepted or discounted relative to known local banks, or silver/gold coinage. There were a number of problems with this system which came to a head during the Panic of 1907. During this crisis, a cascading series of banking failures was only stopped by the personal intervention of JP Morgan. Even when Morgan intervened, it was very difficult to make capital available in a way that avoided the panic. The subsequent creation of the Federal Reserve was a response to that crisis.\"",
"From mid 2007 to early 2009 the DJI went down about 50 %. This market setback won't happen on a single day or even a few weeks. Emergency funds should be in cash only. Markets could be closed for an unknown period of time. Markets where closed September 11 until September 17 in 2001.",
"It's quite the contrary. If there are mass failures of banks, then the money supply will collapse and there will be vicious deflation, increasing the value of money held as cash. It's only if governments print money to bail the banks out that there's a (small) risk of hyperinflation and the effective collapse of the currency.",
"\"Well you're clearly misinformed. Read \"\"When the music stopped\"\" - so many factors went into the crisis. JPM did NOT need the bailout money. Regarding all banks failing, I think the financial system as a whole would've taken a massive hit with letting Lehman fail and not stepping in but to say that \"\"all banks\"\" would've failed is inaccurate. No one really knows how extreme the fallout would've been without the cash surge.\"",
"[Here.](https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/) I'm pretty sick of the crying about the bailout. My libertarian friends just don't seem to grasp how much worse things would have been if we let them fail. No one seems to recall their history courses on the great depression, a bank run would probably have brought us to or knees for decades along with complete lack of trust that would have been instilled in an entire generation. Yes, the banks should have been punished, but that's a separate issue in my mind. They also should be held to higher capital requirements to ensure their ability to weather these rare events. But we need regulation BECAUSE we cannot allow them to fail and we need LARGE fines or heavy-handed indictments to enforce them rather than a slap on the wrist.",
"I'm in Argentina and they limit the daily withdrawals to 1000 pesos a day (about $220). The gov't just put limits on withdrawing dollars here, which is how Argentines have typically saved their money. The people are NOT happy.",
"this is a very important step. Sadly most businesses have already deals with Big Banks for salary payments. So much like the ubiquitous IE despite all the alternatives, Big Banks will still have their liquidity and addiction satisfied to continue gambling until someone says enough.",
"Bank have their own Capital, Deposits from Depositors and lend money to Borrowers. In a liquidity problem, it is typically that either the Borrowers are taking time to repay [they are not yet defaulters] or there is more pressure on withdrawals from Depositors or there is a short term of mismatch between deposits and loans ... in all these valid scenarios FED does lend out the banks to met these short terms obligations. Banks fail when the losses are actually booked in comparison to the overall Capital or loss would materialize ... for example the Mortgage crisis in US meant that quite a few Banks the actual loss had materialized or would have any ways materialized. In such situations the short term leading does not help and they would burn it out anyways as the borrowers are not paying back any time soon ...",
"Do some research on the Great Depression before you start spouting how insignificant the 2008 financial crisis was. I despise that the banks got the bailout, but you apparently have no idea how bad it would have gotten if they were permitted to fail in a cascade.",
"well, no, i just see some really huge numbers been thrown around, like Spain's banks will need several tens of Bn euros to be rescued... that's a huge amount of money, even if not a large share of the problem, a nation in trouble should not be saving the private sector's ass.",
"They were able, but unwilling to do so at the price they had originally agreed on. While that is still not a good sign by any means, and the airline might have a case against Santander, your title makes it sound as if the bank did not have enough funds to fund even a small Norwegian airlines purchase.",
"There is no generic answer and it would depend on case to case basis. CSD are built on strong foundation in the sense they would have very low cost base and generally would not go bankrupt. However if such a situation as CSD provide an essential role, the regulator, central bank and Government would all step in to prevent a total collapse. They would be forced merged with other entity or more capital raised or put under watch by Govt appointed trustee to settle issues so that there is least or No impact.",
"\"In the case of bank failures You are protected by FDIC insurance. At the time I wrote this, you are insured up to $250,000. In my lifetime, it has been as high as $1,000,000 and as low as $100,000. I attached a link, which is updated by FDIC. In the case of fraud It depends. If you read this story and are horrified (I was too), you know that the banking system is not as safe as the other answers imply: In February 2005, Joe Lopez, a businessman from Florida, filed a suit against Bank of America after unknown hackers stole $90,000 from his Bank of America account. The money had been transferred to Latvia. An investigation showed that Mr. Lopez’s computer was infected with a malicious program, Backdoor.Coreflood, which records every keystroke and sends this information to malicious users via the Internet. This is how the hackers got hold of Joe Lopez’s user name and password, since Mr. Lopez often used the Internet to manage his Bank of America account. However the court did not rule in favor of the plaintiff, saying that Mr. Lopez had neglected to take basic precautions when managing his bank account on the Internet: a signature for the malicious code that was found on his system had been added to nearly all antivirus product databases back in 2003. Ouch. But let's think about the story for a second - he had his money stolen because of online banking and he didn't have the latest antivirus/antimalware software. How safe is banking if you don't do online banking? In the case of this story, it would have prevented keyloggers, but you're still susceptible to someone stealing your card or account information. So: In the bank's defense, how does a bank not know that someone didn't wire money to a friend (which is a loss for good), then get some of that money back from his friend while also getting money back from the bank, which had to face the loss. Yes, it sucks, but it's not total madness. As for disputing charges, from personal experience it also depends. I don't use cards whatsoever, so I've never had to worry, but both of my parents have experienced banking fraud where a fake charge on their card was not reversed. Neither of my parents are rich and can't afford lawyers, so crying \"\"lawsuit\"\" is not an option for everyone. How often does this occur? I suspect it's rare that banks don't reverse the charges in fraudulent cases, though you will still lose time for filing and possibly filling out paperwork. The way to prevent this: As much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, there is no absolutely safe place to keep your money. Even if you bought metals and buried them in the ground, a drifter with a metal detector might run across it one day. You can take steps to protect yourself, but there is no absolute guarantee that these will work out. Account Closures I added this today because I saw this question and have only seen/heard about this three times. Provided that you get the cashier's check back safely, you should be okay - but why was this person's account closed and look at how much funds he had! From his question: In the two years I banked with BoA I never had an overdraft or any negative marks on my account so the only thing that would stick out was a check that I deposited for $26k that my mom left me after she passed. Naturally, people aren't going to like some of my answers, especially this, but imagine you're in an immediate need for cash, and you experience this issue. What can you do? Let's say that rent is on the line and it's $25 for every day that you're late. Other steps to protect yourself Some banks allow you to use a keyword or phrase. If you're careful with how you do this and are clever, it will reduce the risk that someone steals your money.\"",
"\"Some of it is very simple but almost all of it is very non-intuitive. Imagine that Donald Trump owns a lot of property that is valued at $1bn. So he puts that up as collateral to buy some gold worth $2bn dollars. A little while later the banks discover that the properties are only worth $100mm. In this case $900mm has suddenly disappeared and moreover the banks are in deep shit because the Donald owes them $2bn and has posted collateral worth $100mm. When they try to rough up Donald he tells them that instead if they go along with his ponzi scheme they might be able to sell his new $2bn property to someone else for $4bn, this way the banks will get their money bank and Donald will make a nice little profit. So the banks lend him some more money. This scheme only works until people start refusing to buy these properties at Donald's prices. This is a nutshell what has happened. Property prices were much higher than they should have been and Banks had derivatives which weren't worth as much as they claimed. When the market/people wised up to this fact the prices came crashing down and money \"\"disappeared\"\".\"",
"Stop defending banks. At the time of the 08 melt down, they opened up multiple ways for large financial institutions to borrow money either for collateral (usually shit assets) or with interest rates akin to free or near free. Do you know what that means? Free money. Borrow money for free, buy treasuries and profit. Who didn't have access? Those that didn't have the inside track in the Fed and in the upper levels of the U.S. government. That's why Lehman went under and Goldman, JPM, even GE (due to finance division) didn't go under. Far far too many people upvote pro corporate comments when they aren't even remotely accurate just because their worldview is that the world is just. How silly.",
"Doesnt mean that equity or even debt holders wouldn't lose their investment. Those money and banking texts are presently useless post GFC given the incredible moral hazard and how all of the traditional bankruptcy rules were ignored.",
"Banks loan out money they don't have to you to get you to pay them interest. It's all just computer bits. Papier maché would require that they actually have money. If everybody told BofA that they wanted to close their accounts and to get the money in cash, it would never be able to happen.",
"Rescuing the private banks has made very little difference. None of the countries in real trouble have large banking sectors. The majority of the problems has stemmed from the totally ridiculous public spending. Greece has a hilarious history of over spending. For example, their civil servants used to be paid for 14 months of the year. They also have comedy tax collection. According to there tax office there is only 324 swimming pools in the entire place..... a quick count on satellite reveals 1000s. Some data is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/world/europe/02evasion.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 In reality many nations werent ready for the euro in the first place. But to be clear, blaming the banks is like blaming a snowball for the sinking of the titanic. The numbers aren't even in the same league.",
"amen to that , too big too fail should have never even been pronounced. But again, some people are at fault, if people went to credit unions instead of banks in drove, banks would be forced to change their way at some point. Even get smaller instead of bigger to better serve the community its in...not so long ago you , you could have a loan at a local bank for your small business, nowadays with no collateral, you get squat. there is no risk to the lenders, and they manage to still fuck up ~!",
"So your argument is, all depository banks can do the functions of an investment bank, therefore all banks were responsible for the financial crisis? Awesome argument. Do tell me how citibank is the same as JP Morgan again. How are you this dense? Also, nothing I've said is false whereas everything you've said is.",
"One can't, this is a systemic problem and when One bank goes pop, it drags a couple down with it. While swaps should have worked to keep the system safe at one time, when money was real, they now act as anchors that drag the entire chain down because the volume of funny money debt is so great its just not ever getting paid back. Best bet is to burn the Fed down",
"You're getting the great recession and great depression confused. I'm talking about 2008, not nearly 100 years ago. I would like to know what country you live in because it's probably not Greece, Italy, or Spain. You would be singing a very different tune.",
"\"So let's say, as a counterfactual, that Obama did not bail out the banks: what would happen? The world economy would have collapsed. Every creditor and their funds to endless bankruptcy stays. All credit would have been frozen. No businesses would have been able to pay off their loans or pay their employees' salaries. The banks, sadly, were too big to fail because everyone and everything depended on them for funding. The issue is not the bailout, but the activites of the banks that forced the bailout. This is why all of the current legislative schemes being put into operation are looking at way to limit systemic risk to both prevent future catastophic bankruptcies and limit their impact on the credit markets. As a last note: notice how inflation did not significantly increase since the bailout, despite Bernanke printing trillions of dollars. Cleary, \"\"printing money\"\" has not caused harm in and of itself. Its only harm is reinforcing the too big to fail mentality. This can be cured, but by not bailing out the banks, we would have seen a catastophic collapse.\"",
"Were any of you guys at Disaster Recovery on Saturday? They were saying that the Arca backup had been in place for about 5 years and never tested. I think they closed for 2 days rather than try it to avoid another electronic disaster.",
"\"National City Bank did great on subprime. They bought First Franklin for around $100m, took millions out in profit for about a decade, and sold first franklin for $1b to Merrill Lynch. What killed NCB was home equity lines or credit, 2nd liens, which were given to high scoring conforming borrowers. But when the panic set in the media told people \"\"dont pay your mortgages, the government will bail you out\"\" and people stopped paying on their 2nds. Values dropped and in order to foreclose on a 2nd you have to buy out the 1st lien too... not possible. That killed the NCB balance sheet and the sharks in DC all but forced NCB to capitulate to PNC and be acquired for cheap.\"",
"Your quote: There's about 10 trillion in gold and about 2.8 trillion of US cash in the world. Neither of these is anywhere large enough to be used for all the transactions in the world. So how was it commercial banks could lend like crazy for home mortgages?? M1 remaind constant throughout the decade and years , if frac multiplier effect was the cause for m2, why wasn't it until the 2000s that m2 became exponential? Commercial Banks able to create credit and lend out of thin air to customers thanks to deregulation that caused m2 to explode. They didn't need no FED. They didin't need no reserves. They were able to act regardless of the FED. The FED responded to them, instead of the other way around. Before deregulation banks didn't bother creating too much credit loans coz it was too dangerous, they were mostly utilty banks. After deregulation, creation of exotic derivatives, low interest rates, and high speed internet globalized digital trading, they went crazy creating credit out of thin air coz it wasn't dangerous because they could sell the home loans.",
"Don't forget job. That's one of the things people in the lower classes lost. I was trying to figure out why there weren't mass firings at trading and accounting firms until the numbers started popping up. They had basically just liquidated what they had, bought at lower numbers, and are now reaping the profits. Too bad most people earning under $250k a year can't do that.",
"Thing is no-one followed the part of Glass-Steagall that everyone talks about; banks formed holding entities called bancs,banqs to do the same function. The key to the crisis was that there was no regulation of derivatives, credit scoring agencies lied, as well as the continued bailouts by Greenspan every time one of his market bubbles popped",
"Or at least I saw it do so with Bank of America.",
"My job didn't rely on the [EDIT] local economy. I worked in a bank that serviced nationwide loans for auto dealerships and other services. The fact that the bank owner one day decided that he wasn't making enough profit and was going to shut down the bank came as a surprise to everyone - including the bank president, it seems. So after that happened, then trying to find a job in a local economy that was tanking - yeah, it sucked. Then again, I had been living in Utah for years before, during, and after the Olympics, so that didn't factor as a variable into my work equation until after I was laid off.",
"Exactly. Or if you prefer, they were not acting *as* banks when doing so. (Well, at least by the definition I gave, obviously. If you prefer a different definition, you get a different answer. Although I'm not sure there really is a useful definition of banking that would cover the behaviour you described.)",
"You seem to think that stock exchanges are much more than they actually are. But it's right there in the name: stock exchange. It's a place where people exchange (i.e. trade) stocks, no more and no less. All it does is enable the trading (and thereby price finding). Supposedly they went into mysterious bankruptcy then what will happen to the listed companies Absolutely nothing. They may have to use a different exchange if they're planning an IPO or stock buyback, that's all. and to the shareholder's stock who invested in companies that were listed in these markets ? Absolutley nothing. It still belongs to them. Trades that were in progress at the moment the exchange went down might be problematic, but usually the shutdown would happen in a manner that takes care of it, and ultimately the trade either went through or it didn't (and you still have the money). It might take some time to establish this. Let's suppose I am an investor and I bought stocks from a listed company in NYSE and NYSE went into bankruptcy, even though NYSE is a unique business, meaning it doesn't have to do anything with that firm which I invested in. How would I know the stock price of that firm Look at a different stock exchange. There are dozens even within the USA, hundreds internationally. and will I lose my purchased stocks ? Of course not, they will still be listed as yours at your broker. In general, what will happen after that ? People will use different stock exchanges, and some of them migth get overloaded from the additional volume. Expect some inconveniences but no huge problems.",
"\"Someone has to hand out cash to the seller. Even if no physical money changes hands (and I've bought a house; I can tell you a LOT of money changes hands at closing in at least the form of a personal check), and regardless of exactly how the bank accounts for the actual disbursement of the loan, the net result is that the buyer has cash that they give the seller, and are now in debt to the bank for least that amount (but, they now have a house). Now, the bank probably didn't have that money just sitting in its vault. Money sitting in a vault is money that is not making more money for the bank; therefore most banks keep only fractionally more than the percentage of deposit balances that they are required to keep by the Feds. There are also restrictions on what depositors' money can be spent on, and loans are not one of them; the model of taking in money in savings accounts and then loaning it out is what caused the savings and loan collapse in the 80s. So, to get the money, it turns to investors; the bank sells bonds, putting itself in debt to bond holders, then takes that money and loans it out at a higher rate, covering the interest on the bond and making itself a tidy profit for its own shareholders. Banks lose money on defaults in two ways. First, they lose all future interest payments that would have been made on the loan. Technically, this isn't \"\"revenue\"\" until the interest is calculated for each month and \"\"accrues\"\" on the loan; therefore, it doesn't show on the balance sheet one way or the other. However, the holders of those bonds will expect a return, and the banks no longer have the mortgage payment to cover the coupon payments that they themselves have to pay bondholders, creating cash flow problems. The second, and far more real and damaging, way that banks lose money on a foreclosure is the loss of collateral value. A bank virtually never offers an unsecured \"\"signature loan\"\" for a house (certainly not at the advertised 3-4% interest rates). They want something to back up the loan, so if you disappear off the face of the earth they have a clear claim to something that can help them recover their money. Usually, that's the house itself; if you default, they get the house from you and sell it to recover their money. Now, a major cause of foreclosure is economic downturn, like the one we had in 2009 and are still recovering from. When the economy goes in the crapper, a lot of things we generally consider \"\"stores of value\"\" lose that value, because the value of the whatzit (any whatzit, really) is based on what someone else would pay to have it. When fewer people are looking to buy that whatzit, demand drops, bringing prices with it. Homes and real estate are one of the real big-ticket items subject to this loss of value; when the average Joe doesn't know whether he'll have a job tomorrow, he doesn't go house-hunting. This average Joe may even be looking to sell an extra parcel of land or an income property for cash, increasing supply, further decreasing prices. Economic downturn can often increase crime and decrease local government spending on upkeep of public lands (as well as homeowners' upkeep of their own property). By the \"\"broken window\"\" effect, this makes the neighborhood even less desirable in a vicious cycle. What made this current recession a double-whammy for mortgage lenders is that it was caused, in large part, by a housing bubble; cheap money for houses made housing prices balloon rapidly, and then when the money became more expensive (such as in sub-prime ARMs), a lot of those loans, which should never have been signed off on by either side, went belly-up. Between the loss of home value (a lot of which will likely turn out to be permanent; that's the problem with a bubble, things never recover to their peak) and the adjustment of interest rates on mortgages to terms that will actually pay off the loan, many homeowners found themselves so far underwater (and sinking fast) that the best financial move for them was to walk away from the whole thing and try again in seven years. Now the bank's in a quandary. They have this loan they'll never see repaid in cash, and they have this home that's worth maybe 75% of the mortgage's outstanding balance (if they're lucky; some homes in extremely \"\"distressed\"\" areas like Detroit are currently trading for 30-40% of what they sold for just before the bubble burst). Multiply that by, say, 100,000 distressed homes with similar declines in value, and you're talking about tens of billions of dollars in losses. On top of that, the guarantor (basically the bank's insurance company against these types of losses) is now in financial trouble themselves, because they took on so many contracts for debt that turned out to be bad (AIG, Fannie/Freddie); they may very well declare bankruptcy and leave the bank holding the bag. Even if the guarantor remains solvent (as they did thanks to generous taxpayer bailouts), the bank's swap contract with the guarantor usually requires them to sell the house, thus realizing the loss between what they paid and what they finally got back, before the guarantor will pay out. But nobody's buying houses anymore, because prices are on their way down; the only people who'd buy a house now versus a year from now (or two or three years) are the people who have no choice, and if you have no choice you're probably in a financial situation that would mean you'd never be approved for the loan anyway. In order to get rid of them, the bank has to sell them at auction for pennies on the dollar. That further increases the supply of cheap homes and further drives down prices, making even the nicer homes the bank's willing to keep on the books worth less (there's a reason these distresed homes were called \"\"toxic assets\"\"; they're poisonous to the banks whether they keep or sell them). Meanwhile, all this price depression is now affecting the people who did everything right; even people who bought their homes years before the bubble even formed are watching years of equity-building go down the crapper. That's to say nothing of the people with prime credit who bought at just the wrong time, when the bubble was at its peak. Even without an adjusting ARM to contend with, these guys are still facing the fact that they paid top dollar for a house that likely will not be worth its purchase price again in their lifetime. Even with a fixed mortgage rate, they'll be underwater, effectively losing their entire payment to the bank as if it were rent, for much longer than it would take to have this entire mess completely behind them if they just walked away from the whole thing, moved back into an apartment and waited it out. So, these guys decide on a \"\"strategic default\"\"; give the bank the house (which doesn't cover the outstanding balance of course) and if they sue, file bankruptcy. That really makes the banks nervous; if people who did everything right are considering the hell of foreclosure and bankruptcy to be preferable to their current state of affairs, the bank's main threat keeping people in their homes is hollow. That makes them very reluctant to sign new mortgages, because the risk of default is now much less certain. Now people who do want houses in this market can't buy them, further reducing demand, further decreasing prices... You get the idea. That's the housing collapse in a nutshell, and what banks and our free market have been working through for the past five years, with only the glimmer of a turnaround picking up home sales.\"",
"Since making loans isn't 'casino banking', I'm going to start a small, regional lending institution that just lends money to people to buy homes. I really want to open up home ownership to a larger group of people, maybe those who wouldn't qualify for traditional loans. I'm just not sure whether to call it Washington Federal or Countrywide Financial.",
"\"It's OK... you can just admit you don't fully understand what happened... Here's a quick run down: 1) Private banks (like Chase, Wells Fargo, etc.) start making bad loans. They do this intentionally because... 2) The bad loans are then bundled into what are called \"\"Mortgage Backed Securities\"\". 3) Ratings agencies like Standard and Poors rate these mortgage backed securities as AAA safe investments. Even though they know, and the banks know, they're junk. 4) Companies who don't (AIG) or can't (Fannie/Freddie) write sub prime mortgages are then sold bad mortgages as AAA rated investments. 5) The sales of investments are so popular and so profitable that the banks continue making more bad loans SOLELY so they can re-sell them as investments. 6) The laws preventing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from making sub prime loans are lifted and they start doing the same thing as everyone else, just before the collapse begins. For most of the time these hijinks were going on, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were actually prevented from taking part.\"",
"\"Government should have worked the same way. Use as hard terms as possible for \"\"too big to fail\"\" banks. If they can't take it and go bankrupt, purchase the liabilities and assets and run government owned bank next gradually selling stock next 10-15 years.\"",
"There were several incidences of cash shortages in the Danish system recently. On particular saturdays when the streets were bloated with shoppers, you could see the queues for the ATMs stretching for 40-50 yards, and people shaking their heads about why their cards didnt work in the shops. They have a separate national system to visa called Dankort which everyone is very proud of. But it is curiously prone to failures from time to time. Large cash transactions (over 10,000 DKK) are monitored and questioned verbally when withdrawn or deposited in banks. Interesting also how Danish banks are the most heavily leveraged in Europe...",
"\"What EU wanted to force Cyprus to do is to break the insurance contract the government has with the bank depositors. The parliament rightfully refused, and it didn't pass. In the EU, and Cyprus as part of it, all bank deposits are insured up to 100,000EUR by the government. This is similar to the US FDIC insurance. Thus, requiring the \"\"small\"\" (up to 100K) depositors to participate in the bank reorganization means that the government breaks its word to people, and effectively defaults. That is exactly what the Cyprus government wanted to avoid, the default, so I can't understand why the idea even came up. Depositors of more than 100k are not guaranteed against bank failures, and indeed - in Cyprus these depositors will get \"\"haircuts\"\". But before them, first come shareholders and bondholders who would be completely wiped out. Thus, first and foremost, those who failed (the bank owners) will be the first to pay the price. However, governments can default. This happened in many places, for example in Russia in the 90's, in Argentina in 2000's (and in fact numerous times during the last century), the US in the 1930's, and many other examples - you can see a list in Wikipedia. When government defaults on its debts, it will not pay some or all of them, and its currency may also be devaluated. For example, in Russia in 1998 the currency lost 70% of its value against the USD within months, and much of the cash at hands of the public became worthless overnight. In the US in 1933 the President issued an executive order forbidding private citizens keeping gold and silver bullions and coins, which resulted in dollar devaluation by about 30% and investors in precious metals losing large amounts of money. The executive order requiring surrender of the Treasury gold certificates is in fact the government's failure to pay on these obligations. While the US or Russia control their own currency, European countries don't and cannot devaluate the currency as they wish in order to ease their debts. Thus in Euro-zone the devaluation solutions taken by Russia and the US are not possible. Cyprus cannot devaluate its currency, and even if it could - its external debt would not likely to be denominated in it (actually, Russian debt isn't denominated in Rubles, that's why they forced restructuring of their own debt, but devaluating the currency helped raising the money from the citizens similarly to the US seizing the gold in 1930's). Thus, in case of Cyprus or other Euro-zone countries, direct taxes is the only way to raise money from the citizens. So if you're in a country that controls its own currency (such as the US, Russia, Argentina, etc) and especially if the debt is denominated in that currency (mainly the US) - you should be worried more of inflation than taxes. But if you're in the Euro-zone and your country is in troubles (which is almost any country in the zone) - you can expect taxes. How to avoid that? Deal with your elected officials and have them fix your economy, but know that you can't just \"\"erase\"\" the debt through inflation as the Americans can (and will), someone will have to pay.\"",
"Clawback Provision. Stock grants and options were either canceled or forfeited if they'd already been paid out. None of the execs became destitute because of it but the action was significant. Does anybody know how this compares to other cases of clawback?",
">Bush It didn't come out the banks committed fraud under Bush tho. Nor did it come out about the whole sub prime loan mess either. >they were trying every trick in the book in order to try and reinstil confidence in the stock market and US financial system in order to convince people to start lending money again and break the country out of a deflationary liquidity cycle I know, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have gone after the banks tho at the same time. One could argue tho that going after the banks and throwing the crooks in jail would also help install public confidence in the economy as those guys where no longer running things. >Today, even if Sears going boom tumbled a bunch of other commercial real estate firms and retail stores, it wouldn't suddenly make the banks insolvent in the short run. Totally missed the point here. Its much more has to do with who is president than anything else. Trump is gutting the government as much has possible to make it as ineffective as possible. He's going to give a pass on Eddie here.",
"Or they had too high overhead. If you can modernize and get the same output out of three facilities instead of 4, you do it. They would not have gone bankrupt in the first place if they made more money than they spent. :)",
"my question was pretty clear I thought. I news headlines currenty stating that to save the spanish banks right now it'll take several tens of billion euros, so just what fraction of the big problem are these private banks' bailouts?",
"\"Well, according to the chicken-littles out there, it was supposed to crash at the end of July with the introduction of FACTA's Global Intermediary Identification Numbers. Pay close attention to the future treasury auctions and the FedResInk's transition from market \"\"involvement\"\" to \"\"commitment\"\".\"",
"Of course; the generation Xers are those in the age range where many were approaching the time when they would, but had not yet, transferred the bulk of their retirement savings to lower risk investments. Anyone who hadn't yet transferred their retirement savings from any direct market funds got totally Effed in the A. Granted, some of this happened because people were simply banking on continual market rise. But a lot of these people simply got really bad advice from financial planners who looked and seemed totally qualified to advise, just as a lot of people got reassured from qualified sources that their adjustable rate mortgage on their million dollar home would be *no problem.*",
"Heh, Argentina's inflation numbers these past few years are [basically lies](http://en.mercopress.com/2012/02/02/imf-warn-argentina-on-lack-of-progress-in-addressing-inflation-data). The IMF data is based off of this data, so it doesn't prove what you think it proves. Not to say they haven't done okay, but when they've done well it's been purely because of China's demand for natural resources."
] |
[
"One place you might consider looking for answers is in case studies from Harvard Business School. When I was working an MBA, we studied the default of Argentina as part of our economics coursework. Other sources for your consideration might include:"
] |
8271
|
Income in zero-interest environment
|
[
"415511",
"376709"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"376709",
"46587",
"83330",
"196378",
"589515",
"414238",
"80793",
"267627",
"267010",
"465678",
"275925",
"404352",
"277548",
"61586",
"306130",
"346064",
"127689",
"273575",
"68404",
"322816",
"74668",
"147437",
"305539",
"230596",
"416188",
"164895",
"572340",
"118138",
"251146",
"547050",
"76562",
"211026",
"117875",
"382005",
"532515",
"33389",
"65179",
"62719",
"131527",
"72717",
"399823",
"32744",
"148335",
"32855",
"374400",
"506567",
"521641",
"513016",
"576688",
"44685",
"442241",
"73652",
"133486",
"42475",
"449745",
"25316",
"158363",
"110674",
"514003",
"36602",
"121108",
"27037",
"205163",
"441591",
"248853",
"264956",
"303293",
"111949",
"196291",
"87466",
"495864",
"25123",
"594959",
"493264",
"95890",
"112001",
"219345",
"589286",
"542667",
"264095",
"16626",
"203710",
"291949",
"259341",
"201275",
"272174",
"566190",
"508055",
"148541",
"354383",
"392182",
"546598",
"530548",
"61264",
"570546",
"314304",
"327240",
"168315",
"558005",
"274738"
] |
[
"\"anything that produces steady income will produce a \"\"real return\"\" (return above inflation) in a zero-interest rate environment: Note, however, that all of these will decline in value if interest rates rise.\"",
"As no one has mentioned them I will... The US Treasury issues at least two forms of bonds that tend to always pay some interest even when prevailing rates are zero or negative. The two that I know of are TIPS and I series bonds. Below are links to the descriptions of these bonds: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/tips/res_tips.htm http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ibonds/res_ibonds.htm",
"If interest rates are negative, a 0% load might still be profitable.",
"Precious metals, treasury bonds, real estate, etc. These are good investments that generally produce low income with low risk. In order to get the economy back to work we need capital to invest in riskier, but more productive endeavors.",
"You could buy debt/notes or other instruments that pay out periodically. Some examples are If there is an income stream you can discount the present value and then buy it/own the rights to income stream. Typically you pay a discounted price for the face value and then receive the income stream over time.",
"There are a few ideas: 1. Basic income allows consumers to keep spending. 2. Consumers spend money saved through new tech, at things that require lots of human labor. 3. The government pays business to take care of people. 4. Maybe businesses will be a new kind of entity , one that doesn't seek to make money, something new we'll think about. Maybe something like today's non-profits. 5. If consumers got $1B in salaries from businesses, and spent $1B in salaries at businesses, did businesses get anything from consumers ? maybe the money is just a fiction ,and we'll find some other fiction ?",
"I am not sure if these are available today in your country: but supposedly, back when Catholic countries similarly forbade usury, sinecures were invented to circumvent religious restrictions on finance. Meaning literally 'without care', sinecures were formally prestigious salary-paying jobs with few responsibilities. They were bought by the wealthy from the Church or State. The salaries for sinecures, accumulated over time, exceeded the initial purchase price. As such, some moderns consider sinecures usury in all but name.",
"Yes, and there are several ways, the safest is a high-yield savings account which will return about 1% yearly, so $35 per month. That's not extremely much, but better than nothing (you probably get almost zero interest on a regular checking account).",
"\"The math on this only works if the workers who are \"\"choosing no income at all\"\" are being paid by something else. In first world countries, humans cannot live (eat food or sleep in a bed, etc) without some sort of money. The only question is - what else is paying them? Government programs, friends, family support?\"",
"It depends whether you want to be technically compliant with the letter of the law or compliant with the underlying meaning. For instance, in some countries you can find shell companies that do nothing but deal in fixed income instruments (those that you want to avoid) and dividend stocks (those that you might or might not be allowed to use). You can buy stock of that shell company, which does not hand out dividends itself. Thereby, you transform interest and dividends into capital gains. These shell companies exist for fiscal reasons, the more risky capital gains are often less taxed than interest or dividends. This might technically solve your problem, but not really change anything in the underlying reality. P.S. Don't worry too much about missing compounding interest. The rates are incredibly low right now.",
"\"(Real) interest rates are so low because governments want people to use their money to improve the economy by spending or investing rather than saving. Their idea is that by consuming or investing you will help to create jobs that will employ people who will spend or invest their pay, and so on. If you want to keep this money for the future you don't want to spend it and interest rates make saving unrewarding therefore you ought to invest. That was the why, now the how. Inflation protected securities, mentioned in another answer, are the least risk way to do this. These are government guaranteed and very unlikely to default. On the other hand deflation will cause bigger problems for you and the returns will be pitiful compared with historical interest rates. So what else can be done? Investing in companies is one way of improving returns but risk starts to increase so you need to decide what risk profile is right for you. Investing in companies does not mean having to put money into the stock market either directly or indirectly (through funds) although index tracker funds have good returns and low risk. The corporate bond market is lower risk for a lesser reward than the stock market but with better returns than current interest rates. Investment grade bonds are very low risk, especially in the current economic climate and there are exchange traded funds (ETFs) to diversify more risk away. Since you don't mention willingness to take risk or the kind of amounts that you have to save I've tried to give some low risk options beyond \"\"buy something inflation linked\"\" but you need to take care to understand the risks of any product you buy or use, be they a bank account, TIPS, bond investments or whatever. Avoid anything that you don't fully understand.\"",
"I'd prefer having it (more or less) fluent at any time, if possible... And the Swiss National Bank (SNB) will do their darndest to make this a costly option. That's exactly the point of negative interest rates. They don't want to help you saving money. So you will have to choose what to give up: liquidity, or profitability. But for now, you still have alternatives. The way you described it one could think that all banks will soon start to charge all their clients. That's just a distortion of facts. If you are happy with a (close to) 0 income, you might consider opening multiple bank accounts. Many banks charge the negative interest only from certain thresholds (i.e. CHF 100k). Since you're clearly a Swiss resident, that's easy to do for you. If you don't want to give up making an income, then you have to sacrifice liquidity. There simply aren't any short term (less than 2-3 years) instruments in Swiss Franc that are both safe and yielding a positive income. Which means that you will have to take much more risk then you had with a savings account. Ask your advisor for an investment proposal, but also consider bank independent advisors.",
"\"Personally I would have a hard time \"\"locking up\"\" the money for that very little return. I would probably rather earn no interest in favor of the liquidity. However, you should find out what the early removal penalties are. If those are minimal and you are very confident that you will not need the money over the term period then its definitely better to earn something rather than nothing. If inflation is negative you aren't out as much not getting any interest as you would be normally. Consider that in 2014 US inflation was 0.8%. Online liquid savings accounts pay about 1%. so that's only .2% positive. In comparison at -.4% you are better off with no interest than a US person putting their money in a paying savings account. Keep in mind though that inflation can change month to month so just because June was negative doesn't mean the year will be that way. Not sure your ability to invest in the US market or what stable dividend payers may exist in Sweden.... You said you are risk averse, but it may be worth it to find a stable dividend paying fund. I like one called PFF, it pays a monthly dividend of 6% and over 5 years stock price is very stable. Of course this is quite a significant jump in risk because you can lose money if markets tank (PFF is down over 10 years quite a bit). Maybe splitting up the money and diversifying?\"",
"This does not really fit your liquidity requirement but consider buying a one or two room apartment to rent out with part of your savings. You will get income from it and small apartments sell quickly if you do need the money. This will help offset the negative interest from the rest. One downside is that other people have the same idea at the moment and the real estate prices are inflated somewhat.",
"The reason for these low interests is that the Japanese central bank is giving away money at negative interests to banks. Yes, negative. So, short of opening your own bank, you'll have to either choose less liquid investments or more risky ones. Get Japanese government bonds. Not a great interest, band not that liquid, but for a 5 years bond you'll do better than the bank can. Get Japanese corporate bonds. Still not great, and a bit more risky, it's better than nothing. Get a Japanese mutual fund. I can't recommend any though. Buy Japanese stock. Many Japanese stock have interesting kickbacks. For example if you buy enough stock of Book-Off you'll get some free books every month. it's risky though because I believe the next NIKKEI index crash is imminent.",
"This is a very interesting question. I'm going to attempt to answer it. Use debt to leverage investment. Historically, stock markets have returned 10% p.a., so today when interest rates are very low, and depending on which country you live in, you could theoretically borrow money at a very low interest rate and earn 10% p.a., pocketing the difference. This can be done through an ETF, mutual funds and other investment instruments. Make sure you have enough cash flow to cover the interest payments! Similar to the concept of acid ratio for companies, you should have slightly more than enough liquid funds to meet the monthly payments. Naturally, this strategy only works when interest rates are low. After that, you'll have to think of other ideas. However, IMO the Fed seems to be heading towards QE3 so we might be seeing a prolonged period of low interest rates, so borrowing seems like a sensible option now. Since the movements of interest rates are political in nature, monitoring this should be quite simple. It depends on you. Since interest rates are the opportunity cost of spending money, the lower the interest rates, the lower the opportunity costs of using money now and repaying it later. Interest rates are a market mechanism so that people who prefer to spend later can lend to people who prefer to spend now for the price of interest. *Disclaimer: Historically stocks have returned 10% p.a., but that doesn't mean this trend will continue indefinitely as we have seen fixed income outperform stocks in the recent past.",
"\"I think this is a good question with no single right answer. For a conservative investor, possible responses to low rates would be: Probably the best response is somewhere in the middle: consider riskier investments for a part of your portfolio, but still hold on to some cash, and in any case do not expect great results in a bad economy. For a more detailed analysis, let's consider the three main asset classes of cash, bonds, and stocks, and how they might preform in a low-interest-rate environment. (By \"\"stocks\"\" I really mean mutual funds that invest in a diversified mixture of stocks, rather than individual stocks, which would be even riskier. You can use mutual funds for bonds too, although diversification is not important for government bonds.) Cash. Advantages: Safe in the short term. Available on short notice for emergencies. Disadvantages: Low returns, and possibly inflation (although you retain the flexibility to move to other investments if inflation increases.) Bonds. Advantages: Somewhat higher returns than cash. Disadvantages: Returns are still rather low, and more vulnerable to inflation. Also the market price will drop temporarily if rates rise. Stocks. Advantages: Better at preserving your purchasing power against inflation in the long term (20 years or more, say.) Returns are likely to be higher than stocks or bonds on average. Disadvantages: Price can fluctuate a lot in the short-to-medium term. Also, expected returns are still less than they would be in better economic times. Although the low rates may change the question a little, the most important thing for an investor is still to be familiar with these basic asset classes. Note that the best risk-adjusted reward might be attained by some mixture of the three.\"",
"Last year was a great opportunity for dividend stocks and MLPs. I have a few which are earning 6-9% of my investment basis cost. Municipal bonds are a good value now. If you have the connections, passive investments in convenience franchises or other commercial property are a good income stream. A Dunkin Donuts used to be an amazing money printing machine.",
"\"This is a supplement to the additional answers. One way to generate \"\"passive\"\" income is by taking advantage of high interest checking / saving accounts. If you need to have a sum of liquid cash readily available at all times, you might as well earn the most interest you can while doing so. I'm not on any bank's payroll, so a Google search can yield a lot on this topic and help you decide what's in your best interest (pun intended). More amazingly, some banks will reward you straight in cash for simply using their accounts, barring some criteria. There's one promotion I've been taking advantage of which provides me $20/month flat, irrespective of my account balance. Again, I am not on anyone's payroll, but a Google search can be helpful here. I'd call these passive, as once you meet the promotion criteria, you don't need to do anything else but wait for your money. Of course, none of this will be enough to live off of, but any extra amount with minimal to zero time investment seems to be a good deal. (if people do want links for the claims I make, I will put these up. I just do not want to advertise directly for any banks or companies.)\"",
"I came up with a real way. I saw once the market be so dumb as to allow this to work. Inflation rate = 2.5%. Home interest rate = 3%. Tax deduction = 1%. Money spent on inflation-adjusted I bonds (at the time these paid 0% net, that is 2.5% gross). Result, .5% profit after accounting for inflation. The kicker: Uncle Sam's I bonds are tax free. Sure it's not possible today, but the rates occasionally drop low enough.",
"\"Due to the zero percent interest rate on the Euro right now you won't find any investment giving you 5% which isn't equivalent to gambling. One of the few investment forms which still promises gains without unreasonable risks right now seems to be real estate, because real estate prices in German urban areas (not so in rural areas!) are growing a lot recently. One reason for that is in fact the low interest rate, because it makes it very cheap right now to take a loan and buy a home. This increased demand is driving up the prices. Note that you don't need to buy a property yourself to invest in real estate (20k in one of the larger cities of Germany will get you... maybe a cardboard box below a bridge?). You can invest your money in a real estate fund (\"\"Immobilienfond\"\"). You then don't own a specific property, you own a tiny fraction of a whole bunch of different properties. This spreads out the risk and allows you to invest exactly as much money as you want. However, most real estate funds do not allow you to sell in the first two years and require that you announce your sale one year in advance, so it's not a very liquid asset. Also, it is still a risky investment. Raising real estate prices might hint to a bubble which might burst eventually. Financial analysts have different opinions about this. But fact is, when the European Central Bank starts to take interest again, then the demand for real estate property will drop and so will the prices. When you are not sure what to do, ask your bank for investment advise. German banks are usually trustworthy in this regard.\"",
"There many car loans at zero percent interest. Finance the car at zero percent, then take your money and invest it. If you want to be super safe buy a CD the same length as the car loan. 5 years you will get 2%. If you still want safety and a better return take up a asset allocation strategy that moves your cash to risky assets when the market is performing well, then to cash, bonds, or cds when the market under-performs. Now you have your car with a zero percent loan and you are making the return on the money instead of the car company.",
"\"When you say that the problem is \"\"high supply but no demand\"\" you are actually correct. Here's why: The phrase \"\"borrow/spend less, save more\"\" isn't an absolute law. It's more of a cautionary tale. Obviously, spending is an integral part of an economy: it accounts for at least 50% of every transaction! But the aphorism is getting at something other than admonishing people to not spend. The point of the saying is that interest rates should reflect savings rates. What it comes down to is the how the law of supply and demand applies to the relationship between savings and interest rates. Consider this thought experiment: in a world where everybody saves 50% of their income, what would happen to interest rates? Banks would have a glut of savings, relative to the population. Assuming demand remains constant, interest rates would go down: the price of borrowing goes down as the supply of money to be borrowed increases. Thus a corollary of the law of supply and demand is that as savings increase, interest rates tend to go down. So, as savings increase, the economic environment encourages capital improvements. Businesses can borrow at lower rates and increase long-term productive capacity. This is what the federal reserve has attempted to do by lowering the Fed Funds rate to near zero and by Operation Twist: increase economic activity through low borrowing costs. So, what's the problem? When interest rates are artificially low there are no savings to support the production later in time. A company that borrows at a 1% rate created by the feds can build a factory to make widgets, but it will have a hard time selling that widget to a population with a negative net worth. However, if the 1% rate is \"\"natural\"\", then the company should be fine: the savings of the population should support the production from his widget factory. For about 30 years we have experienced a credit boom in this country that was not created by excess savings. This trend couldn't continue forever. Look around you. At the end of the day, an economy is simply a group of people getting together to buy and sell stuff and services. Right now there is a lot of debt, and little cash. Who will be doing the buying?\"",
"First, what free market? What does that mean? Last I checked a lot of major banks, car manufacturers, oil, and food companies are subsidized. Second there's basically two options. Let people starve which will lead to riots. Or something like a basic income. However the problem with basic income is that it doesn't change the infinite growth paradigm which will be confronted by the finite planet.",
"\"True, absolutely safe are only death and taxes. Apparently [US treasuries](https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield) yield far less than 3,5-4%, but I guess that's as \"\"100% safe\"\" as it gets. However, best I could find while talking to various banks was a reverse convertible bond that yields 3,5% per year, tax excluded. Worst case scenario: 1) I got all my money back and gained 3,5% for one year. 2) after a few years, I find myself with pretty valuable shares and still cashed in the yearly 3,5%. I was wondering if I got lucky with that, or if there are better things out there and if yes, where I should look. Honestly, in the age of negative interests, I'm more than happy to get enough interest to counter inflation.\"",
"DRiPs come to mind as something that may be worth examining. If you take the Microsoft example, consider what would happen if you bought additional shares each year by re-investing the dividends and the stock also went up over the years. A combination of capital appreciation in the share price plus the additional shares purchased over time can produce a good income stream over time. The key is to consider how long are you contributing, how much are you contributing and what end result are you expecting as some companies can have larger dividends if you look at REITs for example.",
"If I have $100 and put it under the bed it will return 0%. Relatively good in a bear market and relatively bad in a bull market.",
"Right, so if a federal interest rate near 0 percent is not enough to stimulate the demand for those loans, then we have pretty much exhausted what we can do with monetary policy. So the only thing left is fiscal policy - raise spending or lower taxes",
"It's not pre-tax but you can consider some short term municipal bonds. The interest is tax free. I would keep to short term ones (1 year maturity), so that you aren't affected by big swings in interest rates and can get your money back within a year.",
"It's tough to borrow fixed and invest risk free. That said, there are still some interesting investment opportunities. A 4% loan will cost you 3% or less after tax, and the DVY (Dow high yielders) is at 3.36% but at a 15% favored rate, you net 2.76% if my math is right. So for .5%, you get the fruits of the potential rise in dividends as well as any cap gains. Is this failsafe? No. But I believe that long term, say 10 years or more, the risk is minimal.",
"Unfortunately I do not have much experience with European banks. However, I do know of ways to earn interest on bank accounts. CDs (Certificates of Deposit) are a good way to earn interest. Its basically a savings account that you cannot touch for a fixed rate of time. You can set it from an average of 6 months to 12 months. You can pull the money out early if there is an emergency as well. I would also look into different types of bank accounts. If you go with an account other than a free one, the interest rate will be higher and as long as you have the minimum amount required you should not be charged. Hope I was able to help!",
"It can be zero or negative given the current market conditions. Any money parked with treasury bonds is 100% risk free. So if I have a large amount of USD, and need a safe place to keep, then in today's environment even the banks (large as well) are at risk. So if I park my money with some large bank and that bank goes bankrupt, my money is gone for good. After a long drawn bankruptcy procedure, I may get back all of it or some of it. Even if the bank does not go bankrupt, it may face liquidity crises and I may not be able to withdraw when I want. Hence it's safer to keep it in Treasury bonds even though I may not gain any interest, or even lose a small amount of money. At least it will be very safe. Today there are very few options for large investors (typically governments and institutional investors.) The Euro is facing uncertainty. The Yuan is still regulated. There is not enough gold to buy (or to store it.) Hence this leads towards the USD. The very fact that USD is safe in today's environment is reflected in the Treasury rates.",
"If you are in an economy which has a decent liquid debt market (corporate bonds, etc.), then you may look into investing in AA or AA+ rated bonds. They can provide higher returns than bank deposits and are virtually risk-free. (Though in severe economic downturns, you can see defaults in even very high-rated bonds, leading to partial or complete loss of value however, this is statistically quite rare). You can make this investment through a debt mutual fund but please make sure that you read through the offer document carefully to understand the investment style of the mutual fund and their expense ratio (which directly affect your returns). In any case, it is always recommended to reach out to an investment adviser who is good with local tax laws to minimize taxes and maximize returns.",
"It depends on where you live and how you can think out of the box on earning little extra income on the side. If you live in North America and based on the needs in your city, you can try out these ideas. Here is what one of my friend has done, The family has two kids and the wife started a home day care as she was already taking care of two kids anyways. Of course, she had to be qualified and she took the relevant child care classes and got certified, which took six months. And she is managing 4 kids in addition to her two kids bringing in at least 2000$ per month in addition. And my friend started a part time property management business on the side, with one client. For example there is always work on real estate whether its going up or going down. You have to be involved locally to increase your knowledge on real estate. You can be a property manager for local real estate investors. If its going down, you can get involved in helping people sell and buy real estate. Be a connector, bring the buyers and sellers together.",
"Interest payments You can make loans to people and collect interest.",
"Not sure of your locality. In the USA, there are many options. There are many corporate bonds that pay interest monthly. You can invest in a handful of bonds, chosen so at least one of them pays interest each month. (Minimum investment requirements make this an expensive option) Unit Trusts made of bonds (a handful of bonds wrapped into a single fixed investment) usually pay monthly interest. As the bonds begin to mature, the interest payments shrink (but you begin to get principal payments which can be reinvested). Bond mutual funds and ETFs usually provide monthly dividends (that come from the interest and capital gains of the bonds held by the fund). Dividends are usually consistent, but not necessarily fixed. You can produce a monthly income from stocks in the same way as the above mentioned bond methods. Income can be consistent, but not fixed.",
"\"As others have said: unless you can find someone willing to make a zero-interest loan, the answer is no. If you can figure out how to turn a \"\"0% for first N months\"\" credit card offer onto a leveraged investment or something of that sort -- seems unlikely -- maybe.\"",
"This was called Financial repression by Edward S. Shaw and Ronald I. McKinnon from Stanford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_repression). Financial repression is the situation, when government is stealing from people, who rely heavily on saving, rather then on spending. Meaning that your saving rates will be a lot worse then inflation rate. Financial markets are artificially hot and interest rates artificially low (average historical interest rate is 10%). This could be a possible predictor state to hyper-inflation.",
"If you have no paycheck, I presume you are doing your own business. That is included. Also, that is only limited to business, Studies, personal growth and other things are different again. Oh, and if you can predict with high probability a high profit event in 5 years time, considering today's climate, I'm V.impressed. I'm relying on having as many basis as possible covered. It's a bit like a lottery (Though the odds are a lot better), the more tickets you have, the better your chances of hitting the big one.",
"I'm new to this, but how about putting a big part of your money into an MMA? I don't know about your country, but in Germany, some online banks easily offer as much as 2.1% pa, and you can access the money daily. If you want decent profit without risk this is a great deal, much better than most saving accounts.",
"I think it would be better to remove income from the equation for things people need to live. For everything else we need some kind of market. How that'll end up with automation, 3d printing, and ai sprinting towards market saturation is anybodies guess.",
"You are not missing something basic. Putting money in the bank will cost you in terms of purchasing power. The same thing has been true in the US and other places for a long time now. The real interest rate is negative--there is too much aggregate wealth being saved compared to the number of profitable lending opportunities. That means any truly risk-free investment will not make as much money as you will lose to inflation. If the real interest rate appears to be positive in your home country it means one of the following is happening: Capital controls or other barriers are preventing foreigners from investing in your home country, keeping the interest rate there artificially high Expected inflation is not being measured very accurately in your home country Inflation is variable and unpredictable in your home country, so investors are demanding high interest rates to compensate for inflation risk. In other words, bank accounts are not risk-free in your home country. If you find any securities that are beating inflation, you can bet they are taking on risk. Investing in risky securities is fine, but just understand that it's not a substitute for a risk-free bank account. Part of every interest rate is compensation for the time-value-of-money and the rest is compensation for risk. At present, the global time-value-of-money is negative.",
"Have you considered investing in real estate? Property is cheap now and you have enough money for several properties. The income from tenants could be very helpful. If you find it's not for you, you can also sell your property and recover your initial investment, assuming house prices go up in the next few years.",
"CDs or money market funds. Zero-risk for the CD and ultra-low risk for the money market account; better return than most savings accounts.",
"\"The problem is that every option comes with risk - as you note, if you put money in stocks, you could lose (and many stocks are overpriced). If you put money in bonds, you could lose (many bonds are overpriced). If you buy precious metals, they could fall further currently. If you hold cash, central banks might try to ban cash (we'll hear the typical \"\"This will never happen\"\" from financial advisers - and they'll be wrong). Cryptocurrencies are an option, but boy do they fluctuate, so there's risk here too. Those are options and all come with risks, and here's my preferred approach to handling negative interest rates:\"",
"\"You have a few options, none of which are trade off free: Apply for a credit card, and live off of that. Here, of course, you will go into debt, and there are minimums to pay. But, it will tide you over. In any case, you are getting unsecured credit, so your rates will probably be very, very high. You don't want to build up a lot of 20% per annum debt. An alternative to this would be to go to any bank and ask for an unsecured loan. Having no income, it will be difficult, though not necessarily impossible, to secure some funds. When I was in between houses, once, for example, I was able to borrow $30,000 in unsecured debt (to help me construct my new house!), just based on my income. Grant you, I paid it 2 months later, in order to avoid the 10% / year interest, but the point is that unsecured debt does exist. Credit Cards are easier to get. Arrange for personal financing through your parents or other relatives. If your parents can send you remittances, the terms will most likely be more generous. They know your credit and your true ability to repay. Just because they send you money doesn't mean you have to live with them. As a parent, I have a stake in ensuring my children's success. If I think that tiding them over briefly is in their best interest and mine, you better be sure I'll do it. A variation on this is Microfinance - something like Kiva. Here, if you can write up a story compelling enough to get finance, there are people who might lend you money. Kiva is normally directed towards poorer countries and entrepeneurs - but local variations exist. UPDATE: Google-backed 'LendingClub.com is far more appropriate to this situation than Kiva. Same general idea, but that's the vendor. Find freelance, contract, or light employment. Your concern about employment is justified - you don't want to be in a position where you are unable to travel to an interview because Starbucks or McDonalds will fire you if you don't show up for a shift. (Then again, do you really care if McDonald's lets you go?) As such, you need to find income that is less bound by schedule. Freelance work, in particular, will give you that freedom - assuming you have a skill you can trade. Likewise, short term contract work is equally flexible - usually. Finally, it may be easiest just to get temporary pickup work in a service capacity. In any event, doing something will be better than doing nothing. Who knows, you might want to be a manager / owner of a McDonalds some day. Wouldn't hurt to say, \"\"I started at the bottom.\"\"\"",
"Apart from some of the excellent things others say, you could borrow money in AUD and invest that in another currency (that's risky but interesting) if the AUD interest rate is low and the other countries interest rate is higher, you'll eventually win. Also, look at what John Paulson did in 2007, 2008... I wish I'd thought of that when I was in your position (predicting a housing crisis)",
"\"There's no such thing as true \"\"passive income.\"\" You are being paid the risk free rate to delay consumption (i.e., the super low rate you are getting on savings accounts and CDs) and a higher rate to bear risk. You will not find truly risk-free investments that earn more than the types of investments you have been looking at...most likely you will not keep up with inflation in risk-free investments. For a person who is very risk averse but wants to make a little more money than the risk-free rate, the solution is not to invest completely in slightly risky things. Instead the best thing you can do is invest partially in a fully diversified portfolio. A diversified portfolio (containing stocks, bonds, etc) will earn you the most return for the given amount of risk. If you want very little risk, put very little in that portfolio and keep the rest in your CDs. Put 90% of your money in a CD or something and the other 10% in stocks/bonds. Or choose a different percentage. You can also buy real assets, like real estate, but you will find yourself taking a different type of risk and doing a different type of work with those assets.\"",
"As observed above, 1.5% for 3 years is not attractive, and since due to the risk profile the stock market also needs to be excluded, there seems about 2 primary ways, viz: fixed income bonds and commodity(e,g, gold). However, since local bonds (gilt or corporate) are sensitive and follow the central bank interest rates, you could look out investing in overseas bonds (usually through a overseas gilt based mutual fund). I am specifically mentioning gilt here as they are government backed (of the overseas location) and have very low risk. Best would be to scout out for strong fund houses that have mutual funds that invest in overseas gilts, preferably of the emerging markets (as the interest is higher). The good fund houses manage the currency volatility and can generate decent returns at fairly low risk.",
"Borrowing money to pay living expenses will not last long. Also, banks and credit card agencies are very expert at detecting people who try to live off of debt (as you might expect) and they will cut you off completely as soon as they figure out what you are doing. As a general rule, if you go six months without paying a credit card or bank loan, you will be totally cut off from all sources of borrowing for at least 10 years and all your debt will be sold to collection agencies that will then start harassing you. Some collectors will sue you in a court of law and try to seize any assets you have, like a car. It is critical you find a source of income immediately.",
"A traditional bank is not likely to give you a loan if you have no source of income. Credit card application forms also ask for your current income level and may reject you based on not having a job. You might want to make a list of income and expenses and look closely at which expenses can be reduced or eliminated. Use 6 months of your actual bills to calculate this list. Also make a list of your assets and liabilities. A sheet that lists income/expenses and assets/liabilities is called a Financial Statement. This is the most basic tool you'll need to get your expenses under control. There are many other options for raising capital to pay for your monthly expenses: Sell off your possessions that you no longer need or can't afford Ask for short term loan help from family and friends Advertise for short term loan help on websites such as Kijiji Start a part-time business doing something that you like and people need. Tutoring, dog-walking, photography, you make the list and pick from it. Look into unemployment insurance. Apply as soon as you are out of work. The folks at the unemployment office are willing to answer all your questions and help you get what you need. Dip into your retirement fund. To reduce your expenses, here are a few things you may not have considered: If you own your home, make an appointment with your bank to discuss renegotiation of your mortgage payments. The bank will be more interested in helping you before you start missing payments than after. Depending on how much equity you have in your home, you may be able to significantly reduce payments by extending the life of the mortgage. Your banker will be impressed if you can bring them a balance sheet that shows your assets, liabilities, income and expenses. As above, for car payments as well. Call your phone, cable, credit card, and internet service providers and tell them you want to cancel your service. This will immediately connect you to Customer Retention. Let them know that you are having a hard time paying your bill and will either have to negotiate a lower payment or cancel the service. This tactic can significantly reduce your payments. When you have your new job, there are some things you can do to make sure this doesn't happen again: Set aside 10% of your income in a savings account. Have it automatically deducted from your income at source if you can. 75% of Americans are 4 weeks away from bankruptcy. You can avoid this by forcing yourself to save enough to manage your household finances for 3 - 6 months, a year is better. If you own your own home, take out a line of credit against it based on the available equity. Your bank can help you with that. It won't cost you anything as long as you don't use it. This is emergency money; do not use it for vacations or car repairs. There will always be little emergencies in life, this line of credit is not for that. Pay off your credit cards and loans, most expensive rate first. Use 10% of your income to do this. When the first one is paid off, use the 10% plus the interest you are now saving to pay off the next most expensive card/loan. Create a budget you can stick to. You can find a great budget calculator here: http://www.gailvazoxlade.com/resources/interactive_budget_worksheet.html Note I have no affiliation with the above-mentioned site, and have a great respect for this woman's ability to teach people about how to handle money.",
"The precise answer depends on the terms and conditions of the loan, and whether you can reasonably expect to meet them. For example, if you keep the loan, make no payments, there is a good chance that - eventually - you will trigger a clause in the contract, and suddenly be charged fees or a significant interest rate. If you don't need to pay anything for a time, odds are you will forget to monitor the loan (after all it is not costing you anything) and suddenly get hit with an unexpected expense. Most loan contracts are structured - by professionals - to benefit the loan provider. The purpose of a loan provider is to make a profit. They do that by encouraging you to pay more - up front, over the longer term, or both. Personally, I would never take out a zero-interest loan. It is specifically designed to appear like a gift from the loan provider, while actually (and almost covertly) costing more at some point. If I was in your position (i.e. if I had taken out such a loan) I'd pay off the loan as fast as possible. If you have more than one loan, however, prioritise by working out which actually costs you more over time. And pay the worst ones first. You'll have to look closely at the terms and conditions - possibly with the help of a professional - to work out which is actually work.",
"\"Keep in mind that the Federal Reserve Chairman needs to be very careful with his use of words. Here's what he said: It is arguable that interest rates are too high, that they are being constrained by the fact that interest rates can't go below zero. We have an economy where demand falls far short of the capacity of the economy to produce. We have an economy where the amount of investment in durable goods spending is far less than the capacity of the economy to produce. That suggests that interest rates in some sense should be lower rather than higher. We can't make interest rates lower, of course. (They) only can go down to zero. And again I would argue that a healthy economy with good returns is the best way to get returns to savers. So what does that mean? When he says that \"\"we can't make interest rates lower\"\", that doesn't mean that it isn't possible. He's saying that our demand for goods is lower than our ability to produce them. Negative interest would actually make that problem worse -- if I know that things will cost less in a month, I'm not going to buy anything. The Fed is incentivizing spending by lowering the cost of capital to zero. By continuing this policy, they are eventually going to bring on inflation, which will reduce the value of the currency -- which gives people and companies that are sitting on money an dis-incentive to continue hoarding it.\"",
"\"The interest rate offered by a bond is called the nominal interest rate. The so-called real interest rate is the nominal interest rate minus the rate of inflation. If inflation is equal to or greater than the nominal rate at any given time, the REAL interest rate is zero or negative. We're talking about a ten year bond. It's possible for the real interest rate to be negative for one or two years of the bond's life, and positive for eight or nine. On the other hand, if we have a period of rising inflation, as in the 1970s, the inflation rate will exceed the (original) interest rate in most years, meaning that the real interest rate on the ten year bond will be negative over its whole life. People lost \"\"serious\"\" money on bonds (and loans) in the 1970s. In such situations, the BORROWERS make out. That is, they borrow money at low rates, earn inflation (plus a little more) pay back inflated dollars, and pocket the difference. For them, the money is \"\"free.\"\"\"",
"Unfortunately, in this market environment your goal is not very realistic. At the moment real interest rates are negative (and have been for some time). This means if you invest in something that will pay out for sure, you can expect to earn less than you lose through inflation. In other words, if you save your $50K, when you withdraw it in a few years you will be able to buy less with it then than you can now. You can invest in risky securities like stocks or mutual funds. These assets can easily generate 10% per year, but they can (and do) also generate negative returns. This means you can and likely will lose money after investing in them. There's an even better chance that you will make money, but that varies year by year. If you invest in something that expects to make 10% per year (meaning it makes that much on average), it will be extremely risky and many years it will lose money, perhaps a lot of it. That's the way risk is. Are you comfortable taking on large amounts of risk (good chances of losing a lot of your money)? You could make some kind of real investment. $50K is a little small to buy real estate, but you may be able to find something like real estate that can generate income, especially if you use it as a down payment to borrow from the bank. There is risk in being a landlord as well, of course, and a lot of work. But real investments like that are a reasonable alternative to financial markets for some people. Another possibility is to just keep it in your bank account or something else with no risk and take $5000 out per year. It will only last you 10 years that way, but if you are not too young, that will be a significant portion of your life. If you are young, you can work and add to it. Unfortunately, financial markets don't magically make people rich. If you make a lot of money in the market, it's because you took a risk and got lucky. If you make a comfortable amount with no risk, it means you invested in a market environment very different from what we see today. --------- EDIT ------------ To get an idea of what risk free investments (after inflation) earn per year at various horizons see this table at the treasury. At the time of this writing you would have to invest in a security with maturity almost 10 years in order to break even with inflation. Beating it by 10% or even 3% per year with minimal risk is a pipe dream.",
"In the UK at least, we have Credit Unions. Credit Unions are not-for-profit organisations that don't pay interest on your balance, but instead give you a share of their profits at the end of the year (or at least my local branch do). This normally equates to around 1% of my balance.",
"Borrow the overpriced bond promising to repay the lender $1000 in one year. Sell the bond immediately for $960. Put $952.38 in the bank where the it will gain enough to be worth $1000 in one year. You have +$7.62 immediate cash flow. In one year repay the bond lender with the $1000 from the bank.",
"Reversing your math, I am assuming you have $312K to work with. In that case, I would simply shop around your local banks and/or credit unions and have them compete for your money and you might be quite surprised how much they are willing to pay. A couple of months ago, you would be able to get about 4.25% from Israel Bonds in Canada on 5 years term (the Jubilee product, with minimum investment of $25K). It's a bit lower now, but you should still be able to get very good rates if you shop around tier-2 banks or credit unions (who are more hungry for capital than the well-funded tier-1 banks). Or you could look at preferred shares of a large corporation. They are different from common shares in the sense they are priced according to the payout rate (i.e. people buy it for the dividend). A quick screen from your favorite stock exchange ought to find you a few options. Another option is commercial bonds. You should be able to get that kind of return from investment grade (BBB- and higher) bonds on large corporations these days. I just did a quick glance at MarketWatch's Bond section (http://cxa.marketwatch.com/finra/BondCenter/Default.aspx) and found AAA grade bonds that will yield > 5%. You will need to investigate their underlying fundamentals, coupon rate and etc before investing (second thought, grab a introduction to bonds book from Chapters first). Hope these helps.",
"How about placing the money in a safety deposit box at the same bank? This will probably work out cheaper than the loss due to negative rates. Although, I'm quite sure the banks won't like this idea.",
"1) Low-Interest Rate: Isn't the inflation rate currently (and over the last couple of years) also really low, around 2%? If you're saying the inflation rate is going to go back up, I'm curious as to your reasoning. I don't see any general decrease in the money supply in the near future, wages are stagnant, and GDP looks like it's trundling along at standard rates - however, with the Gini coefficient still rising, more and more of that production is finding its way into fewer and fewer hands that don't have a lot of incentive to re-invest it.",
"Tax won't be an issue. You have a personal tax free allowance of £7475 this coming year, so your first £7475 will be tax free. 1.09% is pretty abysmal (sorry - but we've wrecked the economy for you young fullas), so you'll only earn about £84 a month. Not as awesome as you were expecting I think. Would recommend getting advice on other means of generating an income with your 100k. Because if you bought a cheap flat (cheap enough to own without a mortgage), you could probably earn between £300-£400 a month fairly comfortably. (I'm not suggesting you become a landlord, just that interest rates currently suck)",
"Series I Savings Bonds would be another option that have part of their return indexed to inflation though currently they are yielding 1.64% through April 30, 2016 though some may question how well is that 3% you quote as an inflation rate. From the first link: Series I savings bonds are a low-risk savings product. While you own them they earn interest and protect you from inflation. You may purchase electronic I bonds via TreasuryDirect or paper I bonds with your IRS tax refund. As a TreasuryDirect account holder, you can purchase, manage, and redeem I bonds directly from your web browser. TIPS vs I Bonds if you want to compare these products that are rather safe in terms of avoiding a nominal loss. This would be where a portion of the funds could go, not all of them at once.",
"\"In practice No, not at zero. Banks currently have the ability to borrow at very low interest rates but not quite at zero. Using the Fed Funds Range as a metric we can see that recently (Nov 2015) the lower bound of the fed funds range was 0.05%. Fed funds are overnight lend/borrow transactions between banks (often between the federal home loan banks and other institutions) 0.05% is also the FED's current Reverse Repo Program rate (RRP), which is the rate at which certain counterparties can deposit cash with the FED overnight in exchange for collateral. The collateral (US Treasuries) is insurance against the FED defaulting, a very low risk considering the FED has the ability to create more US Dollars out of thin air. In theory the RRP rate should be a lower bound for the fed funds rate however in practice it is possible to see lower rates trade in the street. What do you mean by \"\"Third party institutions\"\"? Only banks of the highest credit quality are able to borrow at the lower bound of the Fed Funds range. These are usually large domestic banks like JP Morgan, Bank of NY etc... As credit quality decreases the rate at which they borrow increases. Currently Skandinavien, German, French banks have relatively good credit and borrow overnight money towards the lower part of the fed funds range. Italian, Spanish and smaller regional US banks have lesser credit quality and borrow at the higher end of the Fed Funds range. Institutions with lower credit quality would borrow at still higher rates.\"",
"''that WE THE PEOPLE did not become owners of the PUBLICLY TRADED companies.'' This statement is inaccurate. The government received stocks, corporate bonds and the likes for every company they helped during the last financial statement. One article I read even suggest that we made a return on our investment with the capital gains , dividend and interest we received. Also dividend is a form of income so you're not giving a new idea you are just changing a word. How would you calculate those dividend? With what money would you pay such a program?",
"The trend in ETFs is total return: where the ETF automatically reinvests dividends. This philosophy is undoubtedly influenced by that trend. The rich and retired receive nearly all income from interest, dividends, and capital gains; therefore, one who receives income exclusively from dividends and capital gains must fund by withdrawing dividends and/or liquidating holdings. For a total return ETF, the situation is even more limiting: income can only be funded by liquidation. The expected profit is lost for the dividend as well as liquidating since the dividend can merely be converted back into securities new or pre-existing. In this regard, dividends and investments are equal. One who withdraws dividends and liquidates holdings should be careful not to liquidate faster than the rate of growth.",
"Do you think those people at Sears made a decent wage within the last few decades? I certainly don't. If you want to talk about the changing envionment let's talk about Social security. The system used to be 30 workers to 1 retiree now its under 3:1 and soon to be under 2:1. There simply isnt enough production to keep up with growth, profit is shrinking in all but the most alchemical sectors. Clinging to dead or dying systems is one of the biggest obstacles to our future success and re-emergence as a healthy society. You say you are older, you have experience and wisdom. So what is the solution?",
"There are a number of ways and it all depends on your concentration and range of skills (or skills you're willing to develop). As for involving your wife ... things that can be done locally for neighbours is always a good idea. The most important thing is not to spend too much time or cash on anything that will take a long time to pay off. That excludes writing your own iPhone apps, for example, which would take long hours of development and much marketing (and luck) to be successful. Good luck and congrats.",
"There are alreayd solutions. Shorter working hours, increased leisure time. Sure people will have less money, but some have postulated that doing so will decrease the cost of living as a correlation, so things should be that much cheaper as well, plus the reduced costs associated with unemployment, and increased need for service industries to work with all the additional leisure time,.",
"MZM (or Money Zero Maturity) refers to the total amount of money that is immediately redeemable at par value on demand. It includes coins and currency in circulation, checking and saving accounts, and money market funds. Thus, MZM includes all financial instruments that can be freely accessed immediately without penalty or risks. The chart, as described by the above paragraph, excludes treasuries/federal debt, 401ks/IRAs, foreign investment, home loans, student loans, bonds and the stock market. Boomers are drawing down their savings accounts while most of GenX/millennials income is beholden to some form of debt for at least a decade or more. The chart is a vivid illustration of why the middle class is being hollowed out and why headline inflation has not manifested yet.",
"I beg to differ: Israel has an incredibly well managed central bank, and the usury market is wonderfully competitive. It's a shame Stanley Fischer has retired. His management is the case study in central bank management. Rates are low because inflation is low. The nominal rate is irrelevant to return because a 2% nominal return with 1% inflation is superior to a 5% nominal return with 9% inflation. A well-funded budget is the best first step, so now a tweak is necessary: excess capital beyond budgeting should be moved quickly to internationally diversified equities after funding, discounted and adjusted, longer term budgets. Credit will not pay the rate necessary for long term investment. Higher variance is the price to pay for higher returns.",
"So. You might be looking at the world of investing after tax deductions are gone. Buy index funds, or a few stable stocks of your choice. (Index funds have minimal turnover, so you won't realize as many uncontrollable tax events throughout the year). The top long-term capital gains rate is presently 15% (will it go up to 20% soon? who knows! it might. That's up to Congress and Obama, really.) If you can control when you realize it (say, in a year when you don't have a lot of other income) the tax consequences aren't toooo horrible. (It also helps if you live in a state that doesn't tax the gains themselves, e.g. not California?) Or buy real estate, if you don't own the house where you live already (and your lifestyle permits). You shouldn't expect impressive capital appreciation, but you don't have to pay tax on the imputed rent (the rent money you avoid paying by owning the place yourself).",
"Inflation is not applicable in the said example. You are better off paying 300 every month as the balance when invested will return you income.",
"\"I can think of one major income source you didn't mention, dividends. Rather than withdrawing from your pension pot, you can roll it over to a SIPP, invest it in quality dividend growth stocks, then (depending on your pension size) withdraw only the dividends to live on. The goal here is that you buy quality dividend growth stocks. This will mean you rarely have to sell your investments, and can weather the ups and downs of the market in relative comfort, while using the dividends as your income to live off of. The growth aspect comes into play when considering keeping up with inflation, or simply growing your income. In effect, companies grow the size of their dividend payments and you use that to beat the effects of inflation. Meanwhile, you do get the benefit of principle growth in the companies you've invested in. I don't know the history of the UK stock market, but the US market has averaged over 7% total return (including dividends) over the long term. A typical dividend payout is not much better than your annuity option though -- 3% to 4% is probably achievable. Although, looking at the list of UK Dividend Champion list (companies that have grown their dividend for 25 years continuous), some of them have higher yields than that right now. Though that might be a warning sign... BTW, given all the legal changes around buy-to-lets recently (increases stamp duty on purchase, reduction in mortgage interest deduction, increased paperwork burden due to \"\"right to rent\"\" laws, etc.) you want to check this carefully to make sure you're safe on forecasting your return.\"",
"To generate a passive income you need lots of TIME or MONEY, you are short of both. As other people have said, do whatever you can to reduce you spending and start saving. Don’t think “I work very hard, therefore I deserve xxx”, start thinking “x cost y hrs of work, is it truly worth it?” (Remember to consider your take home pay per hr, not you before tax pay!) What would it take to get paid more per hr in one of your jobs? Maybe investing a little time/money in training would increase your pay. Doing your job a little better can often lead to a good outcome. (I see from your profile that you are a new computer programmer; I assume that one of your jobs is programming, if so put your time and effort into it. As you become more skilful within a few years you will start earning more. Maybe even give up one of the other jobs by spending less so you can do better at programming) Then as your incomes goes up, don’t allow your spending to increase, save the additional money.",
"\"The answer to your question depends on what you mean when you say \"\"growth\"\". If you mean a literal increase in the aggregate market capitalization of companies, across the entire market, then, no, this sort of growth is not possible without concomitant economic growth. The reason why is that the market capitalization of each company is proportional to its gross revenue, and the sum of all revenue from selling \"\"final goods\"\" (i.e., things purchased and used by consumers) is, apart from a few technicalities, the definition of GDP. The exact multiplier might fluctuate up or down depending on investors' expectations about how sales will grow or decline going forward, but in a zero-growth economy this multiplier should be stable over the long run. It might, however, still fluctuate over the short term, but more about that in a minute. Note that all of this applies to aggregate growth across all firms. Individual firms can still grow, of course, but as they must do this by gaining market share from other companies such growth would be balanced by a decline for some other firm. Also, I've assumed zero net exports (that's one of the \"\"technicalities\"\" I mentioned above) because obviously you could have export-driven growth even if the domestic economy were stationary. However, often when people talk about \"\"growth\"\" in the market, what they really mean is \"\"return\"\". That is, how much does your investment earn for you. This isn't really the same thing as growth, but people often think of it that way, particularly in the saving phase of their investing career, when they are reinvesting their returns, and therefore their account balances are growing. It is possible to have a positive return, averaged across the market, even in a stationary economy. The reason why is that there are really only two things a firm can do with its net profits. One possibility is that it could invest it in growing the business. However, there is not much point in doing that in a stationary economy because by assumption no increase in aggregate consumption (and therefore, in the long run, aggregate production) are possible. Therefore, firms are left with only the second option, which is to pay them out to investors as dividends. Those dividends provide a return that is independent of economic growth. Would the stock market still be a good investment in such an economy? Yes. Well, sort of. The rate of return from firms' dividend payouts will depend on investors' demand (in aggregate) for returns on their investments. Stock prices will rise or fall, causing returns to respectively fall or rise, to find that level. If your personal desire for returns is lower than the average across the investing public, then the stock market would look like a good investment. If your desired return is higher than the average, then it will look like a poor investment. The marginal investor will, of course be indifferent. The practical upshot of this is that the people who invest in the stock market in this scenario will be precisely the ones for whom the stock market is a good investment, given their personal propensity to save and desire for returns, and so forth. Finally, you mentioned that in your scenario the GDP stagnation is due to declining population. I am less certain what this means for investment, but my first thought is that you would have a large retired population selling its investments to fund late-life consumption, and you would have a comparatively small (relative to history) working population buying those assets. This would lead to low asset prices, and therefore high rates of return. However, that's assuming that retirees need to sell assets to fund their retirement consumption. If the absolute returns on retirees' assets are large enough to fund their retirement consumption then you would wind up with relatively few sellers, resulting in high prices and therefore relatively low rates of return. It's not obvious to me which effect would dominate, and so it's hard to say whether or not the resulting returns would look attractive to the working-age population.\"",
"another point to consider is that as new jobs are created in services for example, they don't necessarily create as much value (and therefore income) as the old jobs that they are replacing this is one reason for our current economic structure, a tiny upper class and a majority of low-wage earners serving them",
"How would you compute the earnings for governments that are some of the main issuers of bonds and debt? When governments run deficits they would have a negative earnings ratio that makes the calculation quite hard to evaluate.",
"First thing's first: migrate your savings to an interest-bearing savings account (such as from Ally Bank). While it still lags behind inflation, 0.84% is still better than 0.00%. Short-term CDs are also an option. I've personally thought about experimenting with peer-to-peer lending, but a few thousand in savings isn't all that much in the grand scheme of things, and you don't want it tied up in a risky, speculative loan when you might need it the most. As the others have said, the general savings rules apply too: pay off high-interest debt, divert more money into your 401k (especially if you aren't hitting the match yet), then work on either whittling down other debts or saving more for a big purchase in the future.",
"There are strategies based on yields. Dogs of the Dow being a specific example while Miller Howard has a few studies around dividends that may be of use if you additional material. Selling off a portion of the holding can run into problems as how could one hold 10 shares, selling a non-zero whole number every year for over 20 years if the stock doesn't ever pay a dividend in additional shares or cash?",
"\"Your relatively young age and the current very low bond interest rates make annuities a very poor buy. And most of the other suggestions you have mentioned have very low diversification, which exposes you to imprudent risks. Buying shares for dividend income can solve the diversification problem by averaging out your totals as different shares change by different amounts. There is no really good solution to the problem of share price volatility except to ignore it: Take your dividends and pretty much ignore the bouncing around of the share price. They usually recover in a year or three. Owning shares of companies that reliably increase their dividend payouts is the only investment type that gives you both diversification and regularly increasing income to counteract inflation over the years. Read some investment books and consider consulting with a financial advisor who charges a fee for the advice. I.e., you don't want \"\"free\"\" advice.\"",
"\"Here's a number-crunching example of how the \"\"Zero interest rate\"\" offer is misleading. Suppose the offer is that a car \"\"costs $24,000.00 with zero percent financing over 24 months\"\" or as an alternative, \"\"$3,000.00 off for cash\"\". Ignore the hype: the quoted prices and the quoted interest rates. Look at what really happens to two people who take advantage of the two offers, One person hands over $21,000.00 cash, and leaves with the new car. The second promises to make 24 payments of $1000.00, one a month, starting in one month's time, and also leaves with the same make and model new car. The two people have received exactly the same benefit, so the two payment schemes must have the same value. A mortgage program will tell you that paying off a $21,000.00 loan by making 24 monthly payments of $1000.00 requires an interest rate of 1.10% a month, or an effective annual rate of 14.03%.\"",
"No, there isn't. There are a number of reasons that institutions buy these bonds but as an individual you're likely better off in a low-yield cash account. By contrast, there would be a reason to hold a low-yield (non-zero) bond rather than an alternative low-yield product.",
"This is called imputed income, which is generally not taxed in the US.",
"\"Some investment trusts have \"\"zero dividend preference shares\"\" which deliver all their gains as capital gains rather than income, even if the trust was investing in income yielding stocks. They've rather gone out of fashion after a scandal some years ago (~2000). Good 2014 article on them here includes the quote \"\"Because profits from zero dividend preference shares are taxed as capital gains, they can be used tax efficiently if you are smart about how you use your annual capital gains tax allowance.\"\"\"",
"I don't know much about paypal or bitcoin, but I can provide a little information on BTC(Paypal I thought was just a service for moving real currency). BTC has an exchange, in which the price of a bitcoin goes up and down. You can invest in to it much like you would invest in the stock market. You can also invest in equipment to mine bitcoins, if you feel like that is worthwhile. It takes quite a bit of research and quite a bit of knowledge. If you are looking to provide loans with interest, I would look into P2P lending. Depending on where you live, you can buy portions of loans, and receive monthly payments with the similiar risk that credit card companies take on(Unsecured debt that can be cleared in bankruptcy). I've thrown a small investment into P2P lending and it has had average returns, although I don't feel like my investment strategy was optimal(took on too many high risk notes, a large portion of which defaulted). I've been doing it for about 8 months, and I've seen an APY of roughly 9%, which again I think is sub-optimal. I think with better investment strategy you could see closer to 12-15%, which could swing heavily with economic downturn. It's hard to say.",
"For a time period as short as a matter of months, commercial paper or bonds about to mature are the highest returning investments, as defined by Benjamin Graham: An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative. There are no well-known methods that can be applied to cryptocurrencies or forex for such short time periods to promise safety of principal. The problem is that with $1,500, it will be impossible to buy any worthy credit directly and hold to maturity; besides, the need for liquidity eats up the return, risk-adjusted. The only alternative is a bond ETF which has a high probability of getting crushed as interest rates continue to rise, so that fails the above criteria. The only alternative for investment now is a short term deposit with a bank. For speculation, anything goes... The best strategy is to take the money and continue to build up a financial structure: saving for risk-adjusted and time-discounted future annual cash flows. After the average unemployment cycle is funded, approximately six or so years, then long-term investments should be accumulated, internationally diversified equities.",
"Unless you are a member of the federal reserve. Guaranteed 7% baby. Stocks and real estate during inflation, then liquidate and still get solid returns while everyone is grasping at 4%. Come back next cycle and do it again.",
"Credit products and securitized debt. Credit/debt is the flip side of equity but has less volatility. In today's investing environment people are not looking for a big return as much as less risk with a modest return. Another trend I think you will see is the disappearance of the wall between interest rate products/fixed income and credit products.",
"\"Your only real alternative is something like T-Bills via your broker or TreasuryDirect or short-term bond funds like the Vanguard Short-Term Investment-Grade Fund. The problem with this strategy is that these options are different animals than a money market. You're either going to subject yourself to principal risk or lose the flexibility of withdrawing the money. A better strategy IMO is to look at your overall portfolio and what you actually want. If you have $100k in a money market, and you are not going to need $100k in cash for the forseeable future -- you are \"\"paying\"\" (via the low yield) for flexibility that you don't need. If get your money into an appropriately diversified portfolio, you'll end up with a more optimal return. If the money involved is relatively small, doing nothing is a real option as well. $5,000 at 0.5% yields $25, and a 5% return yields only $250. If you need that money soon to pay tuition, use for living expenses, etc, it's not worth the trouble.\"",
"Any kind of savings account is a passive income stream.",
"\"This depends entirely on the kind of \"\"IT\"\" you're doing. A couple of examples to illuminate how wide the term is: To answer your core question: look beyond the title (\"\"IT\"\"), to the function you're providing to the bank, and ask if / how that function can generate money for the bank for better income possibilities; if the answer is \"\"none\"\", figure out which levers are closer to making money, and position yourself as such.\"",
"\"What about getting the saving account - \"\"Bausparen\"\" (~100EUR/month) which you can later use for credit to get better mortgage deal and to buy a flat for renting to others (Anlegerwohnung)?\"",
"Consider inflation. If you invest $10,000 today, you need to make a few hundred dollars interest just to make up for inflation - if there is 3% inflation then a change from $10,000 to $10,300 means you didn't actually make any money.",
"There are a number of UK banks that offer what passes for reasonable interest on an amount of cash held in their current accounts. I would suggest that you look into these. In the UK the first £1000 of bank or building society interest is paid tax-free for basic rate taxpayers (£500 for higher rate tax-payers) so if your interest income is below these levels then there is no point in investing in a cash ISA as the interest rate is often lower. At the moment Santander-123 bank account pays 1.5% on up to £20000 and Nationwide do 5% on up to £2500. A good source if information on the latest deals is Martin Lewis' Moneysaving Expert Website",
"0% bonds are desirable for some individuals. It depends on your situation. 0% bonds are usually sold well below par value (eg a 100$ face value bond for 2020 might sell for 90$ today) Hence, your gains will be CAPITAL GAINS. A similar investment paying interest would be taxed as INCOME, and smaller portion of capital gains. In many countries (US, Canada) Capital gains are taxed at a more favourable rate then income. This is especially true when holding these investments in corporations.",
"No, it doesn't. That would be true if somehow incomes were conserved, but they aren't. What's much more likely is that income growth becomes muted in the first world with the vast majority of income growth happening in developing economies. So, it doesn't require losing income, but it will mean constrained income growth in developed countries.",
"If you save money, invest in an education, start a business, refurbish your house, invest in technology by buying shares in a growing company, build something that can give you value long term, save money for your kids to inherit, postpone your spending, etc. it all accumulates and gives strong long term returns. These are the decisions we should encourage everyone to make, as it is these decisions that good countries are made from. You can rob the rich once, and then the richest and most productive people stop working and quickly all turns to shit, like every socialist experiment ever. I work hard and don't spend anything. At this rate I can likely retire in 10 years at 40 years old. Would be pretty pissed by then to have to share it with everyone who didn't work hard and didn't save and invest anything.",
"Assuming that the financial system broke down, not enough supply of essential commodities or food but there is political and administrative stability and no such chaos that threatens your life by physical attacks. The best investment would then be some paddy fields, land, some cows, chickens and enough clothing , a safe house to stay and a healthy life style that enables you to work for food and some virtue at heart and management skills to get people work for you on your resources so that they can survive with you (may be you earn some profit -that is up to your moral standards to decide, how much). It all begins to start again; a new Financial System has to be in place….!",
"Bank accounts? It is worse than that. People are afraid to invest in bank accounts. Did you see the bit when German government bonds hit a negative interest rate recently? (As in you buy a bond and in five years time the government promises to give nearly all of it back)",
"Or you could flip houses. i'm not sure where you live but hwere im from its not uncommon to buy a house for 5k or a duplex for 8k. put about 4k into it and charge about 600 rent. or put 4k into the 8k, thats 12k sell it for 20. if it takes a year that's a 66% return on your investment in one year. and its small risk. also, if it doesnt sell, youre still renting it out with month to month or 3-6 month leases."
] |
[
"Dividends. There are blue chip companies that have paid and raised their dividends for 20 or more years. As an example: Altria (MO). There are also ETFs that specialize in such stocks such as SDY.",
"\"anything that produces steady income will produce a \"\"real return\"\" (return above inflation) in a zero-interest rate environment: Note, however, that all of these will decline in value if interest rates rise.\""
] |
4116
|
Would the effects of an anticipated default by a nation be mostly symbolic?
|
[
"234674",
"109149"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"109149",
"453941",
"234674",
"249851",
"384694",
"472879",
"348862",
"581054",
"540553",
"186185",
"313306",
"312045",
"146003",
"598030",
"276846",
"400826",
"504661",
"443828",
"68966",
"110746",
"125438",
"169691",
"467529",
"452169",
"490042",
"240236",
"559885",
"124624",
"411061",
"170861",
"538582",
"36659",
"267554",
"421348",
"32064",
"122513",
"41312",
"479527",
"540516",
"145925",
"526114",
"373717",
"91702",
"65899",
"526384",
"514620",
"87436",
"467825",
"536866",
"417170",
"514697",
"152446",
"27429",
"252227",
"265275",
"392887",
"286846",
"312619",
"337014",
"475804",
"71204",
"546589",
"147799",
"354896",
"273387",
"341427",
"4854",
"302",
"59110",
"313706",
"148194",
"66882",
"393499",
"229310",
"309358",
"10399",
"367809",
"203231",
"593761",
"506780",
"171171",
"320059",
"266447",
"326109",
"318930",
"179822",
"218045",
"462668",
"437642",
"544337",
"518406",
"322582",
"3040",
"571713",
"591334",
"421978",
"530168",
"62185",
"418772",
"196086"
] |
[
"It's only symbolic if things continue as if nothing had happened. Once large segments of people start becoming poor, it ceases to be symbolic and starts becoming real. Will a Greek default be felt in the US? Hard to say, but probably not. Will it be felt in Greece? You bet it will.",
"I have been through default in Ukraine august 1998. That was a real nightmare. The financial system stopped working properly for 1 month, about 30% of businesses went bankrupt because of chain effect, significant inflation and devaluation of currency. So, it is better to be prepared, because this type of processes result in unpredictable situation.",
"It will affect Greeks as any bankruptcy affects the bankrupt. They already started reducing their welfare policies and government hand-outs. Default would mean that the government isn't able to meet its obligations. It's not only the external obligations, it's also the internal obligations - pensions, social security benefits, healthcare, public services, military (and the Greeks are in constant confrontation with the neighboring Turkey, with several armed conflicts throughout the years) - all that will get hit. Yes, they will get affected much more, definitely.",
"Patrick, This article points out three likely effects (direct and indirect) sovereign default can have on the individual: http://tutor2u.net/blog/index.php/economics/comments/the-sovereign-default-option-is-costly/ This looks at how a default may not look like a default - even if it is. But again, how defaults can impact the man in the street: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703323704574602030789251824.html The fascinating Argentine default is described in a blow-by-blow format here, including brief references to things like unemployment and personal savings: http://theinflationist.com/sovereign-default/argentine-sovereign-default-2002-argentina-financial-crisis Remember, though. Not all defaults are the same. And a modern-European country's default may look very different to what has occurred elsewhere.",
"\"No one's worrying about \"\"GFC II.\"\" A Greek default/exit would hurt banks, but not that much more than is already priced into the market. The capital most big banks have raised would be sufficient to deal with Greece contingency. The real damage would be to GDP figures.\"",
"Most national banks are required by the regulations of their host countries to hold significant reserves in the form of government debt. A default would likely wipe out their capital and your common stock would become worthless. The common stock only has positive value today because of the option value based on the possibility the host country will evade a default.",
"I imagine that it wouldn't affect consumer debt significantly. Individuals are separate entities from their government like how stockholders are separate entities from a corporation. It would probably make it harder for the country to raise money through bonds. Who wants to purchase bonds from a country that won't pay you back?",
"\"This is a speculative question and there's no \"\"correct\"\" answer, but there are definitely some highly likely outcomes. Let's assume that the United States defaults on it's debt. It can be guaranteed that it will lose its AAA rating. Although we don't know what it will drop to, we know it WILL be AA or lower. A triple-A rating implies that the issuer will never default, so it can offer lower rates since there is a guarantee of safety there.People will demand a higher yield for the lower perceived security, so treasury yield will go up. The US dollar, or at least forex rates, will almost certainly fall. Since US treasuries will no longer be a safe haven, the dollar will no longer be the safe currency it once was, and so the dollar will fall. The US stock market (and international markets) will also have a strong fall because so many institutions, financial or otherwise, invest in treasuries so when treasuries tumble and the US loses triple-A, investments will be hurt and the tendency is for investors to overreact so it is almost guaranteed that the market will drop sharply. Financial stocks and companies that invest in treasuries will be hurt the most. A notable exception is nations themselves. For example, China holds over $1 trillion in treasuries and a US default will hurt their value, but the Yuan will also appreciate with respect to the dollar. Thus, other nations will benefit and be hurt from a US default. Now many people expect a double-dip recession - worse than the 08/09 crisis - if the US defaults. I count myself a member of this crowd. Nonetheless, we cannot say with certainty whether or not there will be another recession or even a depression - we can only say that a recession is a strong possibility. So basically, let's pray that Washington gets its act together and raises the ceiling, or else we're in for bad times. And lastly, a funny quote :) I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection. - Warren Buffett\"",
"\"This question is different because you are asking for actual advice vs. a more academic, \"\"what if\"\" scenario. The answer that I'll give will be different, and similar to another recent question on a similar vein. Basically, if you're living in a European country that's effectively in default and in need of a bailout, the range of things that can happen is difficult to predict... the fate of countries like Ireland and Greece, whatever the scenario, will be economic and social upheaval. But, this isn't the end of the world either... it's happened before and will happen again. As an individual, you need to start investing defensively in a manner appropriate for your level of wealth. Things to think about: I'd suggest reading \"\"A Free Nation Deep in Debt: The Financial Roots of Democracy\"\"\"",
"Because US bonds have had the prior impression of absolute invincibility and safety that has helped the dollar become the world's reserve currency and the United States borrow essentially at will. For the people that care what S&P says, the aura of invincibility is broken and it is conceivable, in SOME universe, for the US to default on its debt. This is of little practical importance on its own, but it's yet another signpost on the road to Chinese or European economic hegemony.",
"In principle, a default will have no effect on your bank account. But if the US's credit rating is downgraded, the knock-on effects might cause some more bank failures, and if the debt ceiling is still in place then the FDIC insurance might not be able to pay out immediately.",
"\">more foreign capital would flow in More capital flowing in to a country that defaults on its payments? Hah, that's a good one! Brazil defaulted in the 1980s, the result was a lost decade of high unemployment and hyperinflation reaching upwards of 80% **per month**. Same with Argentina, only their hyperinflation was above 200% per month. There's nothing positive coming from breaking up with the world's monetary system, any positive results that you get could be obtained with much less suffering by doing whatever austerity measures you need in order to honor your debts. I'm Brazilian and had to go through that situation just as I was starting to work. Ironically, the labour party is now in power here and Brazil is now a net creditor internationally. AFTER the \"\"evil capitalists\"\" took power and privatized the state corporations the situation started to improve, and the labour party finally managed to be elected and now are reaping the fruits of all that they fought so hard against. I remember their slogans in the 1989 election campaign: \"\"the external debt is immoral and unpayable\"\", \"\"no to privatization\"\".\"",
"it will be far reaching. China sustains commodity levels, if China collapses it will take alongside the BRICs along with Australia and its neighbors both in South Asia and Central Asia. If China decides to sell its American bonds, it will affect America's debt issuing machine.",
"In theory, anything can happen, and the world could end tomorrow. However, with a reasonably sane financial plan you should be able to ride this out. If the government cannot or won't immediately pay its debt in full, the most immediate consequence is that people are going to be unwilling to lend any more money in future, except at very high rates to reflect the high risk of future default. Presumably the government has got into this state by running a deficit (spending more than they collect in tax) and that is going to have to come to an abrupt end. That means: higher taxes, public service retrenchments and restrictions of service, perhaps cuts to social benefits, etc. Countries that get into this state typically also have banks that have lent too much money to risky customers. So you should also expect to see some banks get into trouble, which may mean customers who have money on deposit will have trouble getting it back. In many cases governments will guarantee deposits, but perhaps only up to a particular ceiling like $100k. It would be very possible to lose everything if you have speculative investments geared by substantial loans. If you have zero or moderate debt, your net wealth may decrease substantially (50%?) but there should be little prospect of it going to zero. It is possible governments will simply confiscate your property, but I think in a first-world EU country this is fairly unlikely to happen to bank accounts, houses, shares, etc. Typically, a default has led to a fall in the value of the country's currency. In the eurozone that is more complex because the same currency is used by countries that are doing fairly well, and because there is also turbulence in other major currency regions (JPY, USD and GBP). In some ways this makes the adjustment harder, because debts can't be inflated down. All of this obviously causes a lot of economic turbulence so you can expect house prices to fall, share prices to gyrate, unemployment to rise. If you can afford it and come stomach the risk, it may turn out to be a good time to buy assets for the long term. If you're reasonably young the largest impact on you won't be losing your current savings, but rather the impact on your future job prospects from this adjustment period. You never know, but I don't think the Weimar Republic wheelbarrows-of-banknotes situation is likely to recur; people are at least a bit smarter now and there is an inflation-targeting independent central bank. I think gold can have some room in a portfolio, but now is not the time to make a sudden drastic move into it. Most middle class people cannot afford to have enough gold to support them for the rest of their life, though they may have enough for a rainy day or to act as a balancing component. So what I would do to cope with this is: be well diversified, be sufficiently conservatively positioned that I would sleep at night, and beyond that just ride it out and try not to worry too much.",
"It will be painful for the world, but not in the same way that the Western financial crisis of '08 was painful. This will mostly hurt China, as well as western companies whose marginal revenue and growth is dependent upon Chinese business.",
"There are many different things that can happen, all or some. Taking Russia and Argentina as precedence - you may not be able to withdraw funds from your bank for some period of time. Not because your accounts will be drained, but because the cash supply will be restricted. Similar thing has also happened recently in Cyprus. However, the fact that the governments of Russia and Argentina limited the use of cash for a period of time doesn't mean that the US government will have to do the same, it my choose some other means of restraint. What's for sure is that nothing good will happen. Nothing will probably happen to your balance in the bank (Although Cyprus has shown that that is not a given either). But I'm not so sure about FDIC maintaining it's insurance if the bank fails (meaning if the bank defaults as a result of the chain effect - you may lose your money). If the government is defaulting, it might not have enough cash to take over the bank deposits. After the default the currency value will probably drop sharply (devaluation) which will lead to inflation. Meaning your same balance will be worth much less than it is now. So there's something to worry about for everyone.",
"If you are actually referring to all the political rhetoric and posturing over the debt ceiling issue. That's a long ways from the US actually defaulting on paying debts. A lot of government offices might shut down, but I expect anyone holding US debt to be paid off. (they have the printing presses after all) If that's what you are referring to, based on the LAST time that the governement had to shut down because they didn't raise the debt ceiling, it won't be a big deal. Last time, no debt was defaulted on, a bunch of the less essential government offices shut down for a few days, and the stock market did a collective 'meh' over the whole thing. It was basically a non event. I've no reason to expect it will be different this time. (btw, where were all these republican budget cutters hiding when 10 years ago they started with a nearly balanced budget, and ended up blowing up the national debt by about 80% in 8 years time? (from roughly $6B to $11B) I wish they'd been screaming about the debt as much then as they are now. Not that there isn't ample blame to go around, and both sides have not been spending in ways that make a drunken sailor look like the paragon of a fiscal conservative, but to hear nearly any of them tell it, their party had nothing to do with taking us from a balanced budget to the highest burn rate ever while they were in control (with a giant financial crisis through in as pure 'bonus')",
"US or EU states are sovereigns which cannot go bankrupt. US states have defaulted in the 1840's, but in most of those cases creditors were eventually repaid in full. (I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that Indiana was an exception with regard to costs incurred building a canal system) The best modern example of a true near-default was New York City in the late 1970's. Although New York City isn't a state, the size and scope of its finances is greater than many US states. What happened then in a nutshell: Basically, a default of a major state or a city like NYC where creditors took major losses would rock the financial markets and make it difficult for all states to obtain both short and long term financing at reasonable rates. That's why these entities get bailed out -- if Greece or California really collapse, it will likely create a domino effect that will have wide reaching effects.",
"I believe the bigger overall risk is debt is going to become more expensive. Interest rates are going to increase. This added cost to consumers will slow down the economy. I don't believe it will be economic crisis but definitely will weeken our credit driven economy.",
"It depends on what actions the European Central Bank (ECB) takes. If it prints Euros to bail out the country then your Euros will decline in value. Same thing with a US state going bankrupt. If the FED prints dollars to bailout a state it will set a precedent that other states can spend carelessly and the FED will be there to bail them out by printing money. If you own bonds issued by the bankrupting state then you could lose some of your money if the country is not bailed out.",
"It would be very bad for the global economy. China trade partners would suffer too. It would probably play out as an uncontrolled domino-effect of bankruptcies, runs on the banks, then banks go under, then social unrest, then we profit enormously when things are at their very worst.",
"\"Usually when the government defaults, the currency gets devalued. So as a debtor, that's a good thing -- your debt gets devalued. The \"\"catch\"\" is that your income and buying power is also devalued. So unless you happen to own the type of assets that become more valuable during those circumstances (real property, farms, utilities, certain industrial things, etc) you're looking at tough times ahead.\"",
"Dollar is the lingua franca of the financial industry and unluckily it is the US currency. It is till today considered the most safest investment bet, that is why you have China possesing $3 trillion of US debt, as an investment albiet a very safe one. Financial investors get in queue to by US bonds the moment they are put up for sale. Because of the AAA rating the investors consider it to be safe at a specific rate. Now when you lower the credit rating you are indirectly asking the US government that you want a higher return(yield) on your investments. When you ask for higher yields, it translates into higher interest rates (money US would get for bonds issued decreases and so more bonds are issued). So you basically start looking at a slowdown in consumer spendings households and businesses. With already defaults, repossesions and lesser spending, the slowdown would increase manifold.",
"\"Please clarify your question. What do you mean by \"\"..loan in Greece\"\"? If you are referring to taking a mortgage loan to purchase residential property in Greece, there are two factors to consider: If the loan originates from a Greek bank, then odds are likely that the bank will be nationalized by the government if Greece defaults. If the loan is external (i.e. from J.P. Morgan or some foreign bank), then the default will certainly affect any bank that trades/maintains Euros, but banks that are registered outside of Greece won't be nationalized. So what does nationalizing mean for your loan? You will still be expected to pay it according to the terms of the contract. I'd recommend against an adjustable rate contract since rates will certainly rise in a default situation. As for property, that's a different story. There have been reports of violence in Greece already, and if the country defaults, imposes austerity measures, etc, odds are there will be more violence that can harm your property. Furthermore, there is a remote possibility that the government can attempt to acquire your private property. Unlikely, but possible. You could sue in this scenario on property rights violations but things will be very messy from that point on. If Greece doesn't default but just exits the Euro Zone, the situation will be similar. The Drachma will be weak and confidence will be poor, and unrest is a likely outcome. These are not statements of facts but rather my opinion, because I cannot peek into the future. Nonetheless, I would advise against taking a mortgage for property in Greece at this point in time.\"",
"\"Sovereign states borrow money explicitly in a two primary ways: A sovereign cannot be compelled to repay debt, and there isn't a judicial process like bankruptcy to erase debt. When sovereigns default, they negotiate new terms with creditors and pay back some fraction of the actual debt owed. They can also print money to repay debt, which has other nasty consequences. But, while a state cannot be compelled to repay a debt, creditors cannot be compelled to loan money to the state either! Any enterprise of sufficient size needs access to capital via loans to meet daily obligations in anticipation of revenue -- even when times are good. Defaulting makes borrowing impossible or expensive, and is avoided. Regarding using your military to avoid repaying debt... remember what Napoleon said: \"\"An army travels on its stomach\"\". Military campaigns are expensive... no borrowing ability means the soldiers don't get paid and the food, fuel and ammo don't get delivered. Smaller countries have other risks as well. Many nations are essentially forced to use US Dollars as a reserve currency, or are forced by the market to borrow money in a foreign currency. This creates a situation where any risk of non-payment results in a deep devaluation of the local currency. When your debt is denominated in dollars, these shifts can dramatically increase your debt obligations from a local currency point of view. You also run the risk that a larger or richer company will park warships in your harbor and seize assets as payment -- the US and Britain engaged in this several times during the 19th and 20th centuries. In general, not paying the bills has a cascading effect. Bad situations get worse, and they do so quickly.\"",
"\"The default scenario that we're talking about in the Summer of 2011 is a discretionary situation where the government refuses to borrow money over a certain level and thus becomes insolvent. That's an important distinction, because the US has the best credit in the world and still carries enormous borrowing power -- so much so that the massive increases in borrowing over the last decade of war and malaise have not affected the nation's ability to borrow additional money. From a personal finance point of view, my guess is that after the \"\"drop dead date\"\" disclosed by the Treasury, you'd have a period of chaos and increasing liquidity issues after government runs out of gimmicks like \"\"borrowing\"\" from various internal accounts and \"\"selling\"\" assets to government authorities. I don't think the markets believe that the Democrats and Republicans are really willing to destroy the country. If they are, the market doesn't like surprises.\"",
"No. Empirically no. The issue at hand has little to do with market confidence. This loss of confidence is the effect of the problem. It's cause is the result of a wholly inadequate fiscal transfer mechanism that is incapable of addressing demand shocks. While there are relevant political and ideological parameters worthy of analysis, they render themselves moot because of the structural constraints of monetary union. My two cents.",
"It's a failed state. The belief that people are going to hunker down in austerity and pay off national debt was always silly. Sucks for the bond holders, but all these people who bet against sovereign debt defaults have bet wrong.",
"One place you might consider looking for answers is in case studies from Harvard Business School. When I was working an MBA, we studied the default of Argentina as part of our economics coursework. Other sources for your consideration might include:",
"I did an analysis on this not too far back for work, and despite the headlines, I don't consider this to be too much of a macro risk yet (or if it ever will be). Perhaps a canaries in the coal mine kind of thing",
"Andrew Lilico has a likely scenario for when Greece defaults on its sovereign debt: What happens when Greece defaults. Here are a few things: Every bank in Greece will instantly go insolvent. The Greek government will nationalise every bank in Greece. The Greek government will forbid withdrawals from Greek banks. To prevent Greek depositors from rioting on the streets, Argentina-2002-style (when the Argentinian president had to flee by helicopter from the roof of the presidential palace to evade a mob of such depositors), the Greek government will declare a curfew, perhaps even general martial law. Greece will redenominate all its debts into “New Drachmas” or whatever it calls the new currency (this is a classic ploy of countries defaulting) The New Drachma will devalue by some 30-70 per cent (probably around 50 per cent, though perhaps more), effectively defaulting 0n 50 per cent or more of all Greek euro-denominated debts. As Megan McArdle says, there's more at the link, all depressing. I think you're focusing too much on Greece leaving the euro and not enough on why Greece would leave the euro. Greece would leave the euro precisely so that it could pay back its debt in a new currency worth less than valuable euros. The new currency will devalue, since that's the point of leaving. Along the way the government forces its citizens to take the new currency. The money they have in Greek banks will be converted to the new currency: The citizens don't have a choice to keep their euros.",
"Typically the debt is held by individuals, corporations and investment funds, not by other countries. In cases where substantial amounts are held by other countries, those countries are typically not in debt themselves (e.g. China has huge holdings of US Treasuries). If the debts were all cancelled, then the holders of the debt (as listed above) would lose out badly and the knock-on effects on the economy would be substantial. Also, governments that default tend to find it harder to borrow money again in the future.",
"The default of the country will affect the country obligations and what's tied to it. If you have treasury bonds, for example - they'll get hit. If you have cash currency - it will get hit. If you're invested in the stock market, however, it may plunge, but will recover, and in the long run you won't get hit. If you're invested in foreign countries (through foreign currency or foreign stocks that you hold), then the default of your local government may have less affect there, if at all. What you should not, in my humble opinion, be doing is digging holes in the ground or probably not exchange all your cash for gold (although it is considered a safe anchor in case of monetary crisis, so may be worth considering some diversifying your portfolio with some gold). Splitting between banks might not make any difference at all because the value won't change, unless you think that one of the banks will fail (then just close the account there). The bottom line is that the key is diversifying, and you don't have to be a seasoned investor for that. I'm sure there are mutual funds in Greece, just pick several different funds (from several different companies) that provide diversified investment, and put your money there.",
"Well i'm not saying it will be terrible, i could have said this wrong but it might be terrible. Dollar is not the international currency just in oil but mostly everything. Different countries uses dollar to trade, this is one of the core reasons of US economy being the strongest. US should not be tolerant about this sort of stuff since if this trend continuous it could be disastrous.",
"That might happen if this incident leads to a deflationary demand for consumer credit instruments in the US to approaching Third World penetration levels. Ironic, as the consumer credit industry is spending gigadollars trying to spark the same consumer credit frenzy in those countries. The demographics are already primed for turning away from consumer credit, as the Millennials are already increasingly predisposed against credit as they age.",
"I am going to add in an opinion here from the Wall Street Journal that I read this morning in What's at Stake in the Greek Vote, in light of current events and elections in Greece. The article claims that if the election results make it sound like a break from the Euro is imminent then ... we will see a full-fledged bank run. Greek banks would collapse ... The market exchange-rate would likely be two or three drachmas to the euro, which would double or triple the Greek price of imported goods within a few days. Prices of assets, including real-estate assets, would crumble. Those who moved their deposits abroad would be able to buy these assets cheaply, leading to a significant, regressive redistribution of Greek wealth. In short, you'd lose two-thirds of your savings unless you were storing them somewhere safe from the conversion. The article also predicts difficulty importing goods (other nations will demand to be paid in euro, not drachma) leading to disruption of trade and various supply shortages. I will note that the predictions here seem to be in opposition to some other advice here which suggests that real estate will be an effective hedge.",
"You must mean the current debt ceiling debacle. The meaning of it is: US government is constantly borrowing money (by issuing treasury bonds) and constantly repaying some of the bonds that come to maturity, and also has other obligations it has to meet by law all the time - such as Social Security checks, bonds interest, federal employees' salaries and pensions, etc. By law, total amount of money that can be borrowed at the same time is capped. That means, there can be situation where the government needs to borrow money to pay, say, interest on existing bonds, but can not, since the limit is reached. Such situation is called a default, since the government promised to pay the interest, but is unable to do so. That does not mean the government has no money at all and will completely collapse or couldn't raise money on the market if it were permitted by law to do so (currently, the market is completely willing to buy the debt issued by US government, and with interest that is not very high, though of course that may change). It also does not mean the economy ceases to function, dollars cease to have value or banks instantly go bankrupt. But if the government breaks its promises to investors, it has various consequences such as raising the costs of borrowing in the future. Breaking promises to other people - like Social Security recipients - would also look bad and probably hurt many of them. Going back to your bank account, most probably nothing would happen to the money you store there. Even if the bank had invested 100% of the money in US treasury bonds (which doesn't really happen) they still can be sold on the open market, even if with some discount in the event of credit rating downgrade, so most probably your account would not be affected. As stated in another answer, even if the fallout of all these calamities causes a bank to fail, there's FDIC and if your money is under insured maximums you'll be getting your money back. But if your bank is one of the big ones, nothing of the sort would happen anyway - as we have seen in the past years, government would do practically anything to not allow any big bank failures.",
"\"Sovereigns cannot go bankrupt. Basically, when a sovereign government (this includes nations and US States, probably political subdivisions in other countries as well) becomes insolvent, they default. Sovereigns with the ability to issue new currency have the option to do so because it is politically expedient. Sovereigns in default will negotiate with creditor committees to reduce payments. Creditors with debt backed by the \"\"full faith and credit\"\" of the sovereign are generally first in line. Creditors with debt secured by revenue may be entitled to the underlying assets that provide the revenue. The value of your money in the bank in a deposit account may be at risk due to currency devaluation or bank failure. A default by a major country would likely lock up the credit markets, and you may see yourself in a situation where money market accounts actually fall in value.\"",
"For now we can pay off our debt in United States dollars. If we lose our reserve currency status, we would have to pay it off with a different currency. If we continued printing money we would be debasing our currency against the new reserve currency, which would mean that after we took on too much debt we wouldn't really be able to pay our creditors back after exchanging our devalued currency for the new one on the international markets. We are lucky enough not to have to worry about this now. But I think OP was referring to all countries in these situations. Other countries don't have the luxury of just printing out massive amounts of money to pay off their debts. That is why I am saying that America has a very disillusioned view of reality when it comes to deficit spending. We wouldn't have that any more if the UN followed through with its suggestion to create a global reserve currency or reverted back to the gold standard (I don't think the second option is nearly as realistic but we never know).",
"Was already priced in. The market is smarter than ratings agencies that are fighting to stay relevant by trying to instill crisis mode on a global economy that is already very fragile. Their only announcements nowadays are on companies/nations that are on the front page of the global newswire. Almost seems like they want the global economy to tank on their information and ratings cuts. Too bad nobody really cares about the agencies anymore.",
"My own simple answer is that it will affect and reduce productivity (e.g. Zimbabwe). it will also cause inflation which mean that no one will want to work for production again.",
"There is no situation one can imagine in which the US defaults (beyond a day or three) on its obligations. The treasury can print money, and while it would be disastrous, 'monetizing' the debt would simply eliminate all outstanding debt at the risk of devaluing the dollar to hyperinflation levels.",
">It will be painful for the world, but not in the same way that the Western financial crisis of '08 was painful. This will mostly hurt China, as well as western companies whose marginal revenue and growth is dependent upon Chinese business. In other words, what goes around comes around.",
"Its highly unlikely to 'collapse', perhaps there will be managed defaults, yes, but there is no way they will let it collapse as a global depression would follow. If the euro collapses it will also bring down most of the global economy including the likes of China and the US (not to mention the Germans) and they are not going to let that happen. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6cf8ce18-2042-11e1-9878-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1y0lc0hy1 P.s. I am surprised we have not seen more suggestions of buying guns, land and building a commune.",
"What happens to consumer debt if a country defaults on its debt? Nothing, just as nothing happens to your debt when your neighbor defaults. If you have debts that have floating interest rates - those may (and probably will) hike. how will a debt default by a country affect government-backed loans such as mortgages and student loans? Those that are already closed will probably not be affected, as you've got the money already and signed the loan agreement. Those that are not closed - will probably be delayed or not funded at all. However, if any of the debts allows the debtor to request an early collection (which I think is rather rare on the consumer market) - someone else's default may lead to the debtor's request for the money earlier than expected.",
"Yea, but that coin would be worth shit ( They'll inflate their way out of debt) and there won't be anyone wanting to buy their bonds for a long time so they'll probably print more money. Also, everybody's savings will be gone. Going out of the Euro will put them in a worse financial climate than staying in and do austerity.",
"Every year stories like this come out. Every year the US does not default on its debt. We all should know by now that the US, as a financially sovereign nation that issues its own currency, cannot default on its debt. This fearmongering is just a click-baity waste of time, and yes, a waste of money.",
"\"These have the potential to become \"\"end-of-the-world\"\" scenarios, so I'll keep this very clear. If you start to feel that any particular investment may suddenly become worthless then it is wise to liquidate that asset and transfer your wealth somewhere else. If your wealth happens to be invested in cash then transferring that wealth into something else is still valid. Digging a hole in the ground isn't useful and running for the border probably won't be necessary. Consider countries that have suffered actual currency collapse and debt default. Take Zimbabwe, for example. Even as inflation went into the millions of percent, the Zimbabwe stock exchange soared as investors were prepared to spend ever-more of their devaluing currency to buy stable stocks in a small number of locally listed companies. Even if the Euro were to suffer a critical fall, European companies would probably be ok. If you didn't panic and dig caches in the back garden over the fall of dotcom, there is no need to panic over the decline of certain currencies. Just diversify your risk and buy non-cash (or euro) assets. Update: A few ideas re diversification: The problem for Greece isn't really a euro problem; it is local. Local property, local companies ... these can be affected by default because no-one believes in the entirety of the Greek economy, not just the currency it happens to be using - so diversification really means buying things that are outside Greece.\"",
"of course the value will be non zero however it would be very small, as all the countries would not leave at once... if its a piig holding the bag it would fall precipitously, if its a AAA (non france) it would go to 1.5 Its very path dependent on whom leaves when",
"\"The risk is that greece defaults on it's debts and the rest of the eurozone chose to punish it by kicking it out of the Eurozone and cutting off it's banks from ECB funds. Since the greek government and banks are already in pretty dire straits this would leave greece with little choice but to forciblly convert deposits in those banks to a \"\"new drachma\"\". The exchange rate used for the forced conversions would almost certainly be unfavorable compared to market rates soon after the conversion. There would likely be capital controls to prevent people pulling their money out in the runup to the forced conversion. While I guess they could theoretically perform the forced conversion only on Euro deposits this seems politically unlikely to me.\"",
"\"Is it not that bad? Depends how bad is bad. The problems causes by a government having large debt are similar to those caused by an individual having large debt. The big issue is: More and more of your income goes to paying interest on the debt, and is thus not available for spending on goods and services. If it gets bad enough, you find you cannot make payments, you start defaulting on loans, and then you have to make serious sacrifices, like selling your property to pay the debt. Nations have an advantage over individuals in that they can sometimes repudiate debt, i.e. simply declare that they are not going to pay. Lenders can then refuse to give them more money, but that doesn't get their original loans paid back. In theory other nations could send in troops to seize property to pay the loan, but this is a very extreme solution. Totally aside from any moral considerations, modern warfare is very expensive, it's likely the war would cost you more than you'd recover on the debt. How much debt is too much? It's hard to give a number, any more than one could give a \"\"maximum acceptable debt\"\" for an individual. American banks have a rule of thumb that they won't normally loan you money if your total debt payments would be more than 1/3 of your income. I've never come close to that, that seems awfully high to me. But, say, a young person just starting out so he's not making a lot of money, and he lives someplace with high housing prices, might find this painful but acceptable. Etc.\"",
"\"If the default happens through mass monetary inflation rather than openly (\"\"We're not paying interest on our bonds\"\") then make sure you pay off your house. There may not be a very long window to do so. If the currency becomes worthless, then it depends on what you have of value that would be accepted by the lender as payment. If you don't have anything, the lender will take it back, as they're probably entitled to on the notes.\"",
"\"Because the USA is the world's biggest economy - everybody in the world works with the USA (even if the american companies are not direct suppliers, they are surely somewhere in the supply chain). If USA credit rating is lower, that means american companies will find it harder to get loans to finance their business (i.e. the price of capital will be higher), and this will consequently lead to higher prices for partners of american companies, etc. This will certainly lead to slowdown of global economy. Plus, the lower credit rating also means that the USA govt. is less likely to pay off the debts (Chinese already stated they will diversify their bonds portfolio -i.e. they will start selling out american govt. bonds). This will lead to cuts in public sector in USA, less spending by the consumers, also probably less import from abroad and less travel which will affect - you get it - the \"\"RoW\"\". It's not by chance we have a saying in Europe, when USA sneezes, the rest of the world catches a flu!\"",
"\"The only party that can pay back a government bond is the government that issued it itself. In the case of Argentina, US vulture funds have won cases against it, but it has yet to pay. The best one can do to collect is to sue in a jurisdiction that permits and hope to seize the defaulted government's assets held in such jurisdiction. One could encourage another state to go to war to collect, but this is highly unlikely since a state that doesn't repay is probably a poor state with nothing much to loot; besides, most modern governments do not loot the conquered anymore. Such a specific eventuality hasn't happened in at least a lifetime, anyways. It is highly unlikely that any nation would be foolish enough to challenge the United States considering its present military dominance. It is rare for nations with medium to large economies to spurn their government obligations for long with Argentina as the notable exception. Even Russia became current when they spontaneously disavowed their government debt during the oil collapse of 1998. Countries with very small economies such as Zimbabwe are the only remaining nations that try to use their central banks to fund debt repayments if they even repay at all, but they quickly see that the destruction caused by hyperinflation neither helps with government debt nor excessive government expenditure. Nevertheless, it could be dangerous to assume that no nation would default on its debt for any period of time, and the effects upon countries with defaulted government debt show that it has far reaching negative consequences. If the US were to use its central bank to repay its government obligations, the law governing the Federal Reserve would have to be changed since it is currently mandated to \"\"maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates.\"\" The United States Treasury has no power over the Federal Reserve thus cannot force the Federal Reserve to betray its mandate by purchasing government debt. It should be noted that while Japan has a government debt twice its GDP, it also has a persistent slight deflation which has produced incredibly low interest rates, allowing it to finance government debt more easily, a situation the US does not enjoy. For now, the United States seems to be able to pay expenditures and finance at low interest rates. At what ratio of government debt to GDP that would cause interest rates to climb thus put pressure on the US's ability to repay does not seem to be well known.\"",
"I am going to clone an answer from another question that I wrote ;) and refer you to an article in the Wall Street Journal that I read this morning, What's at Stake in the Greek Vote, summarizing the likely outcome of the situation if a Euro exit looks likely after the election: ... we will see a full-fledged bank run. Greek banks would collapse ... The market exchange-rate would likely be two or three drachmas to the euro, which would double or triple the Greek price of imported goods within a few days. Prices of assets, including real-estate assets, would crumble. Those who moved their deposits abroad would be able to buy these assets cheaply, leading to a significant, regressive redistribution of Greek wealth. In short, you'd lose about two-thirds of your savings unless you were storing them somewhere safe from the conversion. The article also predicts difficulty importing goods (other nations will demand to be paid in euro, not drachma) leading to disruption of trade and various supply shortages.",
"I suppose they still could risk hyperinflation? Anyways, if they got their own currency that would probably be positive for their exports. Still, what are they going to export? Buying any raw materials would be super expensive with their devalued currency. What is your thought about their exporting with devalued currency?",
"A VAT means that the cost of goods in your country just went up by that VAT percentage. This would mostly effect how the poor and middle class spend their money which currently is very selective. Additional economy slow downs can generate another recession. That's what I understand, anyway. The numbers in this numbers game are very very important and is difficult to generate in theoretics.",
"\"Would the net effect *really* be worse, though? If everyone stopped paying back loans, and banks stopped lending, people would have to live within their means. Prices would fall, and nobody would be in debt slavery for the rest of their lives. As for allocating capital to new businesses, there would still be the option of a Kickstarter-like model, plus both private and public equity (and the rules could be changed so there could be more than 500 investors without being forced public). A lot of options currently on the table would disappear, sure, but on balance, would it actually be worse? As both government and Wall Street say it's bad, that seems to automatically suggest the opposite. There has been a push to make it a crime to walk away from a mortgage, even though banks get the house back! The fact that they desperately tried to paint it as \"\"morally wrong\"\" to walk away from a mortgage is a big red flag. In any case, this is all going to be reshuffled in the near future, because of automation. There won't be a need to borrow when your material needs are automatically met; and there won't be much of a point to promising your labor when machines are doing the jobs already. The transition to a post-scarcity economy over the next 20 years is going to be interesting.\"",
"\"Pension- and many \"\"low-risk\"\" investment funds may only invest in AAA-rated stocks and bonds. While the S&P rating alone doesn't imply that such funds must immediately disinvest in US bonds (Fitch and Moody's are holding), it does create the risk that the other rating agencies will follow suite and also lower the US rating. As the largest issuer of bonds, controller of the world's reserve currency, and with many emerging markets placing almost all their current account surpluses in US bonds, this risk change has implications everywhere. Some companies will already start disinvestment while some investors will start demanding higher interest returns in order to buy US bonds. It isn't yet a stampede, but the gates are now open. That said, S&P is simply reflecting the opinions of bond traders. Markets were already unstable long before the downrating. However, from the US perspective, it is a timely reminder to politicians that the global balance is shifting and that the US cannot count on incumbency to protect it from the disapproval of financial analysts.\"",
"If they default and try to stay in the Euro, they will be shut out of any chance of financing but they will be obliged to conduct business in a currency that they cannot afford. Their businesses will close, unemployment rise until they have no option to stay in the Euro. Instead of that, they will reissue the Peseta, Lira, Drachma, etc. and then devalue. That will allow their real estate, tourism and manufacturing to be very competitive. If they could stay in the Euro after default they would starve, but I don't think they could stay, even if they wanted to because they'd be expelled by Germany. Here is [Gonzalo Lira's suggestion as to how Spain should have already left the Euro](http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2012/04/will-there-be-corralito-in-spain.html)",
"Regarding the Summer of 2011 Crisis: There is NO reason that the United States cannot continue borrowing like it is just based on a particular ratio: Debt to GDP. The Debt to GDP ratio right now is around 100%, or 1:1. This means the US GDP is around $14 Trillion and its debt is also around $14 trillion. Other countries have higher debt:gdp ratios Japan - for instance - has a debt:gdp ratio of 220% Regarding a selloff of stocks, dollars and bonds: you have to realize that selling pressure on the dollar will make THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING increase. So commodities and stocks will skyrocket proportionally. The stockmarket can selloff faster than the dollar though. And both markets have circuit breakers that can attempt to curb quick selloffs. Effectiveness pending.",
"Icelandish and Irish Economies began to fail in 2008, Ireland was bailed out by the IMF and Britain, Iceland by the Germany and the IMF. Greek economy has essentially failed, and is at risk of being kicked out of the Euro currency by the Eurozone members. Spanish and Italian economies are faltering. Worst case scenario, everybody can't pay back money and keep accumulating debt, which would lead to a complete collapse of the European economy, resulting in a global economic meltdown. Germany currently are in control of al lot of countries debts (especially Ireland) which means that they will become the main players in decisions regarding the proliferation/faltering of the european economy in the future.",
"I'm worried that it's, as so many observers or commentators seem to be doing with these crises, pre-empting events. I do wish news reporters would stick to reporting the news, rather than panicking people by putting forward their view that something is going to happen, such as Greece exiting the euro and adopting a new currency. As with these things, expectations are key, and this is by no means helping.",
"If the government defaults on its debt, the holders of the debt get hung out to dry. You'll personally still owe just what you owed before, but the risk profile for the lender just shot up through the roof if the debt they hold is government-backed.",
"\">If we lose our reserve currency status, we would have to pay it off with a different currency. No, a debt that comes into being as dollar-denominated remains dollar-denominated. Reserve currency status doesn't change this. The advantage of having the reserve currency is that other countries have a strong motive to accumulate dollars. Because of this we can pay for our imports in dollars. If we no longer had the reserve currency we would lose the ability to run a persistent trade deficit without borrowing foreign currency to do so. To some extent this would self-correct. If foreigners no longer desired to hoard dollars, the flow of dollars back in to the US would bring down the trade deficit. Going forward, we'd have to \"\"live within our means\"\" with respect to foreign trade, funding imports with exports. Domestically every country that has its own currency, not just the US, can use that currency to fully fund its own domestic productive capacity. Printing money doesn't make a poor country rich but it does allow any country to fully realize its own potential. >Other countries don't have the luxury of just printing out massive amounts of money to pay off their debts. This is only true when a country borrows in a currency it doesn't issue. When a country spends in its own currency its policy space is constrained by inflation. To the extent any country uses, pegs to or borrows in someone else's currency that policy space is narrowed by the need to first borrow or earn that currency. >if the UN followed through with its suggestion to create a global reserve currency or reverted back to the gold standard The euro shows us where that road leads. Countries that give up monetary authority give up sovereignty and when they find themselves in a situation where the monetary policy they no longer control is at odds with their needs, their economies get torn apart. That's why one country, one currency is good policy. Stability and maximum policy space is achieved when fiscal authority, political legitimacy and monetary authority are consolidated at the same level. It's a three-legged stool that becomes a fragile balancing act when one leg is taken away. Also, there's a whole side discussion to be had on what the alternatives are to the dollar as a reserve currency. The dollar is in that position for a reason.\"",
"If you spoke in front of a group of people in 2001 about the possibility of be lowered, you would be written off as a kook. Now S&P is talking about a negative credit outlook -- scary stuff. It's scary because a base assumption in any risk model is that US Treasury debt is utterly reliable and comes with zero default risk. So publicly banding about the notion that US Treasury debt may be less the AAA in two years is a shock to the system and changes the way many people assess risk. It's also scary because Treasury debt is auctioned... will a spooked market still accept a measely 2.9% return for a 7 year T-Bill? But while the prospect of a credit downgrade is truly a bad thing, you also need to take the S&P statements with a grain of salt -- since being a named a villain during the mortgage implosion (these were the guys who declared junk mortgage securities as AAA), they now err on the side of doom and gloom. So while things are bad, they've been bad since the Bush administration was forced to put Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac on the government balance sheet to stave off a bank panic. The scary stuff about default in July due to the debt ceiling debate is not very credible at all. Unless the Republican House plans on dramatically slashing spending on Medicare, Defense or Social Security and have the votes to stick to that strategy, the debt ceiling will be raised after much ado. Politicians talk tough, but have a proven track record of creating financial problems tomorrow to fix electoral problems today.",
"Nominal. What you say is true, but I'm guessing it would be too complicated to modelate. Plus, a shareholder of a very large company would not necessarily experience said loss if he/she sells the stock in small chunks at a time.",
"Either way the govt is going to get to a breaking point and it's going to be shitty and miserable until they get there (and obviously when they get there it will get worse before it gets better). This bond trade just prolongs the shitty/miserableness even longer. Who knows how many more people will die from govt sponsored thugs and hunger because this trade pushed the breaking point out a few months/years?",
"Those government workers in Greece were just mooching off a corrupt system that was enabled by the blind pursuit of yield and the moral hazard of bailout expectations. They were way overpaid to do nothing but collect bribes and drink coffee all day. Good riddance. Greece is a poor agricultural country with some tourism and some shipping, and needs to go back to living within its means. Nobody is going to starve, and high unemployment was always the norm there until a few years ago - I lived there before the Euro, and they managed just fine despite high interest rates and inflation. Japan has had lost decades because its banks, like those in the west now, are practicing extend and pretend, so there hasn't been a proper flush of the system. The PIIGS should just flat out default and get it over with, rather than slowly default while giving up sovereignty. Even Germany would be better off if the PIIGS defaulted, since it is German taxpayers and savers who are going to pay for these bailouts. Let the banks fail, meaning let their equityholders and bondholders take losses - the depositors will be fine. The resulting lower asset prices will tempt risk capital back into the system, and life will go on. Bailouts just throw good money after bad and prop up corrupt banks and politicians. EDIT: Let me clarify about depositors making out fine. The banks' equityholders and bondholders take losses before depositors, who are insured anyway. In most cases, in Europe as in the US, the write-downs are not large enough to eat through this cushion before threatening depositors. Creditors were rewarded with higher interest for lending to these irresponsible banks, so they should take the hit rather than get made whole at taxpayer and saver (inflation) expense.",
"Currently many countries (and non-government bodies) hold dollars to facilitate trade. If the dollar is no longer used in their trade, then they no longer have a reason to hold those dollars. If every other country starts to dump their dollar holdings into the world currency markets, the number of dollars floating around in those market would shoot up. The massive supply increase of dollars (we're assuming these other countries are holding massive amounts of dollars) would lead to a large drop in value of the dollar - lots more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. Every purchase will become much more expensive for anyone still buying with dollars, including the American government trying to buy expensive military equipment - unless the US government also switches to using something else to purchase military supplies.",
"\"The result would be catastrophic. The almost-reserve currency would collapse which would produce a medium sized depression, perhaps same with with 2008-now, or even larger, since don't forget, that one was produced from a housing bubble existing in only a part of the american economy; imagine what would happen if almost the full size of the economy (Europe) would collapse, even if Europe isn't as much \"\"connected\"\". But reality here is, there's no chance to that. The real reason you hear those rumors is that America (along with minor partners like the British Sterling) want to bring down the Euro for medium-term benefit. e.g. Several economists get on Bloomberg announcing they are short selling the Euro. Irony is, all this is helping the Euro since selling and short-selling and selling and short-selling helps massively its liquidity. It's like several nay sayers actually making a politician famous with their spite.\"",
"\"Im not sure, but let me try. \"\"That person\"\" won't affect the value of currency, after two (or three) years (maybe months), agencies will report anomalies in country. Will be start the end of market. God bless FBI and NSA for prevent this. Actually, good \"\"hypothetical\"\" question.\"",
"Oh, you mean converting your money to that of a country whose public debt is [103% of GDP, instead of the 108% of your own?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt) That seems hardly an advancement, even more so considering that the public debt of the Eurozone as a whole is 82.5% of GDP. Greece is just 2% of the European economy, its default would not mean the collapse of the Euro.",
"Government default doesn't mean that all US money is immediately worthless. First, the bondholders will get stiffed. Following that, interest rates will shoot up (because the US is a bad credit risk at this point) and the government will monetize its ongoing expenses -- i.e., fire up the printing presses. If you're concerned about not having access to your money, start pulling out a little extra when you get cash at an ATM. Build it up over time until you have enough currency to weather through whatever emergency you envision with your bank account.",
"\"The biggest risk you have when a country defaults on its currency is a major devaluation of the currency. Since the EURO is a fiat currency, like almost all developed nations, its \"\"promise\"\" comes from the expectation that its union and system will endure. The EURO is a basket of countries and as such could probably handle bailing out countries or possibly letting some default on their sovereign debt without killing the EURO itself. A similar reality happens in the United States with some level of regularity with state and municipal debt being considered riskier than Federal debt (it isn't uncommon for cities to default). The biggest reason the EURO will probably lose a LOT of value initially is if any nation defaults there isn't a track record as to how the EU member body will respond. Will some countries attempt to break out of the EU? If the member countries fracture then the EURO collapses rendering any and all EURO notes useless. It is that political stability that underlies the value of the EURO. If you are seriously concerned about the risk of a falling EURO and its long term stability then you'd do best buying a hedge currency or devising a basket of hedge currencies to diversify risk. Many will recommend you buy Gold or other precious metals, but I think the idea is silly at best. It is not only hard to buy precious metals at a \"\"fair\"\" value it is even harder to sell them at a fair value. Whatever currency you hold needs to be able to be used in transactions with ease. Doesn't do you any good having $20K in gold coins and no one willing to buy them (as the seller at the store will usually want currency and not gold coins). If you want to go the easy route you can follow the same line of reasoning Central Banks do. Buy USD and hold it. It is probably the world's safest currency to hold over a long period of time. Current US policy is inflationary so that won't help you gain value, but that depends on how the EU responds to a sovereign debt crisis; if one matures.\"",
"Where are they going to get money from? Their bonds are worthless because they have no viable way of ever paying back debt so why would anyone lend money to them. You, and Keynes think that you can fuel debt with more debt, but all this does is build a massive debt bubble that has to pop at some point. This is exactly what these nations did for years and now are beginning to realize that they can no longer issue debt.",
"Assuming that's true, and giving you that EU countries are more interdependent than most, you're still massively overstating the effect of Greece's problems on the rest of the union. Yeah, it's a problem. Yeah, they'll all pay a bit for it. Still, the economy is nowhere near collapse because of it.",
"\"Global banks are without a doubt the new evil empires. They're buying debt for pennies on the dollar, because they know the risk of default/bankruptcy, yet they expect the IMF to do for international debt what W did for student loans. Wasn't Argentina also the country that had a vulture fund \"\"seize\"\" one of their naval vessels? Soon banks will have their own standing armies and naval fleets to exact asset forfeiture.\"",
"\"If you are afraid of your government defaulting, then you also have reason to fear that your country's so-called \"\"AAA\"\" corporate bonds might not be a safe investment. When governments default, they often do things like: In these scenarios, it is not predictable whether government bonds will suffer more or less than any particular corporate bonds. You might want to diversify into precious metals, foreign currencies, and/or foreign securities. For the most security, you might want to choose investment vehicles that your government would have a hard time confiscating. Of course, you will face currency fluctuation risks if you do so.\"",
"They wont let it collapse, they will devalue it over time to some effect via bailouts and borrowing. Invest in commodities so your cash retains its value, physical gold is always strong. Other currencies are an option but this is more of a gamble.",
"Well, fine, if people are unwilling to buy then Argentina will have dug their own grave. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to try. edit: I didn't say no one would be willing to lose more money. I said Argentina would likely have to pay a lot for the high risk.",
"There is a psychological aspect to this as well - especially when the title refers to fear. If a businessman takes on debt to support a known good business, people are generally more comfortable than when an unemployed guy is drowning in debt. There is a difference in perception - and it applies to nations as well.",
"I disagree. The question is leading, it presumes that backstopping the banks was a cause, not an effect, of poor government funding, which is absolutely insane. A country cannot be brought down by the financial sector, it's just not possible, not even where the country doesn't have monetary authority.",
"This is a junk article with a junk assumption. We have higher levels of debts today, but we have low rates of defaults. We don't have NINJA loans coming to an end in 6 months where the default rate suddenly doubles and triples. We don't have massive amounts of swaps against mortgages or even other forms of private debt skyrocketing. Moody's and S&P review process was totally revamped. If this article could get beyond basic theory and talk about specifics, it might be able to make a point, but instead it lost me after 2 paragraphs.",
"This has been alarmed on for years. From the explosion in housing cost and resulting debt, to loans being off-balance-sheet, to the high amounts of subsidization of industry (i.e. finished steel beams being delivered to countries for less than some pay for raw iron ore). There simply isn't a way of knowing how or if it will fall out, since the government is already putting controls in place. And it is even harder to tell because of the lack of transparency from the Chinese government.",
"To be more technical the Eurozone. UK is in the EU, but it's currency is fine. I hope you're not getting downvoted for the technicality. Greece can't print money, it makes default more likely and that's a result of the Euro. That's the core of the problem. Europe wanted a shared currency without a shared budgetary process, this was going to happen eventually.",
"\"What EU wanted to force Cyprus to do is to break the insurance contract the government has with the bank depositors. The parliament rightfully refused, and it didn't pass. In the EU, and Cyprus as part of it, all bank deposits are insured up to 100,000EUR by the government. This is similar to the US FDIC insurance. Thus, requiring the \"\"small\"\" (up to 100K) depositors to participate in the bank reorganization means that the government breaks its word to people, and effectively defaults. That is exactly what the Cyprus government wanted to avoid, the default, so I can't understand why the idea even came up. Depositors of more than 100k are not guaranteed against bank failures, and indeed - in Cyprus these depositors will get \"\"haircuts\"\". But before them, first come shareholders and bondholders who would be completely wiped out. Thus, first and foremost, those who failed (the bank owners) will be the first to pay the price. However, governments can default. This happened in many places, for example in Russia in the 90's, in Argentina in 2000's (and in fact numerous times during the last century), the US in the 1930's, and many other examples - you can see a list in Wikipedia. When government defaults on its debts, it will not pay some or all of them, and its currency may also be devaluated. For example, in Russia in 1998 the currency lost 70% of its value against the USD within months, and much of the cash at hands of the public became worthless overnight. In the US in 1933 the President issued an executive order forbidding private citizens keeping gold and silver bullions and coins, which resulted in dollar devaluation by about 30% and investors in precious metals losing large amounts of money. The executive order requiring surrender of the Treasury gold certificates is in fact the government's failure to pay on these obligations. While the US or Russia control their own currency, European countries don't and cannot devaluate the currency as they wish in order to ease their debts. Thus in Euro-zone the devaluation solutions taken by Russia and the US are not possible. Cyprus cannot devaluate its currency, and even if it could - its external debt would not likely to be denominated in it (actually, Russian debt isn't denominated in Rubles, that's why they forced restructuring of their own debt, but devaluating the currency helped raising the money from the citizens similarly to the US seizing the gold in 1930's). Thus, in case of Cyprus or other Euro-zone countries, direct taxes is the only way to raise money from the citizens. So if you're in a country that controls its own currency (such as the US, Russia, Argentina, etc) and especially if the debt is denominated in that currency (mainly the US) - you should be worried more of inflation than taxes. But if you're in the Euro-zone and your country is in troubles (which is almost any country in the zone) - you can expect taxes. How to avoid that? Deal with your elected officials and have them fix your economy, but know that you can't just \"\"erase\"\" the debt through inflation as the Americans can (and will), someone will have to pay.\"",
"\"This is a hard question to answer. Government debt and mortgages are loosely related. Banks typically use yields on government bonds to determine mortgage interest rates. The banks must be able to get higher rates from the mortgage otherwise they would buy government bonds. Your question mentions default so I'm assuming a country has reneged on its promise to pay either the principal or interest on government bonds. The main thing to consider is \"\"Who does not get their money?\"\". In other words, who does the government decide not to pay. This is the important part. The government will have some money so they could pay some bond holders. They must decide who to shaft. For example, let's look at who holds Greek government debt. Around 70% of Greek government debt is held outside Greece. See table below. The Greek government could decide to default only on the debt to foreign holders. In that case the banks in France and Switzerland would take the loss on their bonds. This could cause severe problems in France and Switzerland depending on the percentage of Greek bonds that make up the banks' assets. Greek banks would still face losses, however, since the price of their Greek bond holdings would drop sharply when the government defaults. Interestingly, the losses for the Greek banks may be smaller than the losses faced by the French and Swiss banks. This is usually the favored option chosen by government since the French and Swiss don't vote in Greece. Yields on Greek government bonds would rise dramatically. If your Greek mortgage is an adjustable rate mortgage then you could see some big adjustments upward. If you live in France or Switzerland then the bank that owns your mortgage may go under if Greece defaults. During liquidation the bank will sell their assets which includes mortgages and you will probably not notice any difference in your mortgage. As I stated earlier: this is a hard question to answer since the two financial instruments involved (bonds and mortgages) are similar but may or may not be related.\"",
"That's a loaded question. Economists can't even agree on an answer from a purely economic point of view. I will say this... I think that many people who are advocating radical cutbacks in spending (Republicans and Tea Partiers) are deluding themselves in two important ways: 1) That it's possible to balance the budget without raising revenues. I don't think very many economists agree with this premise. Even Paul Ryan's plan to balance the budget, should one take a hard look at the number, clearly show how impossible it is. There would either have to be tax hikes **OR** we slash the military to a fraction of its size now **AND** leave no money for pretty much anything else (like roads, highways, air traffic control, food safety inspections, education, farm subsidies, oil subsidies, etc.). 2) More importantly, I think there is an implicit and fundamental belief among right-wingers that the world will somehow stop what it's doing while the US balances its budget. The belief goes that, once we are fiscally healthy, we will remain a superpower and ruling the world like we have for 100 years. This is fundamentally wrong. I think most people, even Tea Partiers, fail to appreciate how fundamentally important America's debt has been to our history. We have essentially borrowed our way into power. Should the right win the day and put in place radical cuts in spending, America's economic, political, diplomatic, cultural, and military influence around the world will be among to go. The dollar will nosedive and so will our standards of living. Our GDP will not be able to support a a political economy that can maintain superpower status. Now, I do not mean to say that I do not agree with the right. From a purely economic point of view, they may very well be right. I'm not even sure there is an option. In fact, a part of me is ready to accept America becoming what France and the UK are now, still having relatively good standards of living but nowhere near the height of their historical powers. Maybe the world will be better for it. I just don't think Tea Partiers appreciate the ultimate result of what they want to see happen.",
"So ... how are you going to have a bank run if you got rid of cash? I suspect big investors will attempt (have already attempted?) to pull their cash, but regular people? Not like running to the ATM will do much good and I don't think they have offshore accounts. Excuse my naïveté, but that's the first thing that came to my mind...",
"Each country would have to go back to its own currency, or the rich countries would just kick the poor ones out of the EU. It would be bad for the poor countries, and the global economy would suffer, but it really wouldn't be a big deal.",
"I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to default. What I'm saying is that if they can't pay back their debts then they should default. The article makes it sound like Argentina deserves to be let off the hook and pay back only a portion of its debt. In the short term this seems appealing because the investors get back some of the money as opposed to none and Argentina gets to keep it's economy intact. However this sets a dangerous precedent in the long run because countries know they have this out and may issue bonds expecting not to pay the full amount. I think it is good that Argentina is being made an example of, this way countries will think twice before borrowing money they may not be able to pay back and will lead to more stability in the long run.",
"It is basically the same situation what US was when the crash happened. People took on debt without the means to pay, even with awful credit records. But the problem isn't the debt people take on themselves, but with the limited disposable income they have how efficiently can their debts be serviced. And how do banks who lend out money can recover their money. When banks lend money to all and sundry, they have to take care of defaults and that is when financial wizardry comes into play. In US people have the option to default on their debt and refinance it, so banks assumed default and tried to hedge their risks. If this is an option in Australia, be ready for a crash else not to worry about much. If banks continue lending expect higher inflation rates, higher interest rates and maybe a downgrade of bonds issued by the Australian government. Higher import costs and a boom in exports because of devalued Australian dollar.",
"It's all about risk. In 1990, expressing the idea of the US defaulting on debt payments would result in you being labelled as a crank. Yet in 2011, the President and Speaker of the House played chicken with the credit of the United States, and have a date to do it again in December 2011.",
"Looks like a hard call if they waived their immunity. However it seems a bad precedent to allow something like that to have effect. Won't a subsequent change of leadership occur with them renouncing the recklessness of the previous leadership? Then you have a US judge in the middle of this with pictures of kids starving and old people going without medical care. We work hard for the average Joe in other countries to have a good opinion of the US. American servicemen have been in harm's way for this. Why let Wall Street have its way here?",
"\"Story printed literally as the only thing that can hold on value to the currency.. OK so I'm printing unlimited money to pay off my debt, so hey debtor I can either give you this useless currency or I can't pay.. Japan is heading for default, their currency is only holding value because people have \"\"Hope\"\", the only reason for hope is because this article \"\"says\"\" people don't know.. They know ..\"",
"I was being sarcastic. Student loan crash is a major circle jerk in some Financial subs If anything, it's more likely to manifest itself as OP described. Economic growth is going to be lower is a substantial portion of the populus is servicing debt than consuming goods.",
"It's quite the contrary. If there are mass failures of banks, then the money supply will collapse and there will be vicious deflation, increasing the value of money held as cash. It's only if governments print money to bail the banks out that there's a (small) risk of hyperinflation and the effective collapse of the currency.",
"\"No shit. That crazy, ruthless republican notion that your credit rating shouldn't take a hit because you defaulted on the restructured home loan that you got when you defaulted on the *last* deal. Few people shed a tear for the borrowers who defaulted on jumbo ARM loans, but when a government does it we're all supposed to sit here and say \"\"that's ok. Take a mulligan\"\".\"",
"Equifax is big news for affected individuals but the company itself is neither very big, nor is it actually going out of business. So probably not big enough. Like I said it's not all doom and gloom. The economy isn't so fragile that something like this will immediately send it into recession."
] |
[
"It will affect Greeks as any bankruptcy affects the bankrupt. They already started reducing their welfare policies and government hand-outs. Default would mean that the government isn't able to meet its obligations. It's not only the external obligations, it's also the internal obligations - pensions, social security benefits, healthcare, public services, military (and the Greeks are in constant confrontation with the neighboring Turkey, with several armed conflicts throughout the years) - all that will get hit. Yes, they will get affected much more, definitely.",
"It's only symbolic if things continue as if nothing had happened. Once large segments of people start becoming poor, it ceases to be symbolic and starts becoming real. Will a Greek default be felt in the US? Hard to say, but probably not. Will it be felt in Greece? You bet it will."
] |
3829
|
Are all VISA cards connected with bank accounts?
|
[
"523850",
"291438"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"291438",
"428689",
"158965",
"367730",
"95257",
"417301",
"290788",
"241866",
"5607",
"509681",
"185434",
"510063",
"249505",
"575029",
"442435",
"395021",
"376353",
"111771",
"558611",
"489620",
"491793",
"333019",
"141579",
"89161",
"417455",
"219990",
"542783",
"446255",
"28074",
"335532",
"246688",
"456771",
"136139",
"513477",
"213370",
"311136",
"165995",
"211143",
"552607",
"521688",
"335859",
"36735",
"93454",
"432077",
"91927",
"399529",
"407870",
"296165",
"179820",
"523850",
"537323",
"507442",
"230961",
"123941",
"111891",
"346852",
"572796",
"480732",
"583890",
"246989",
"136427",
"444104",
"281129",
"369083",
"42340",
"122177",
"325713",
"196870",
"115548",
"196233",
"280699",
"289700",
"310207",
"362643",
"580240",
"142561",
"167202",
"144580",
"456679",
"597933",
"325904",
"72589",
"229354",
"443487",
"18403",
"428910",
"394928",
"326082",
"86702",
"414932",
"452540",
"229743",
"218579",
"481648",
"168283",
"277210",
"210716",
"239572",
"340620",
"495785"
] |
[
"Not necessarily. You can issue credit cards without a bank involved, although companies which do so may have additional legal complications, such as usury regulations. As an example, AmEx is a network which also issues cards themselves. The company is not a bank; they sold their banking subsidiary in 2007. It's also possible to get a bank-issued credit card without banking with that same company.",
"Is my understanding okay ? If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. Which is where the credit card company can add fees so you pay more and they make more money. Don't forget that in the credit case, you are borrowing money rather than using your own. Another thing that bothers me is that the credit card apparently has a rather low credit limit. If I wanted to buy something that costs $2500 but only have a credit limit of $1500, can I make a preemptive wire from my check account to the VISA account to avoid facing the limit ? If so, what is the point for the customer of having two accounts (and two cards for that matter...) ? If you were the credit card company, do you believe people should be given large limits first? There are prepaid credit cards where you could put a dollar amount on and it would reject if the balance gets low enough. Iridium Prepaid MasterCard would be an example here that I received one last year as I was involved in the floods in my area and needed access to government assistance which was given this way. Part of the point of building up a credit history is that this is part of how one can get the credit limits increased on cards so that one can have a higher limit after demonstrating that they will pay it back and otherwise the system could be abused. There may be a risk that if you prepay onto a credit card and then want to take back the money that there may be fees involved in the transaction. Generally, with credit cards the company makes money on the fees involved for transactions which may come from merchants or yourself as a cash advance on a credit card will be charged interest right away while if you buy merchandise in a store there may not be the interest charged right away.",
"If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. I have my back account (i.e. chequing account) and VISA account at/from the same bank (which, in my case, is the Royal Bank of Canada). I asked my bank to set up an automatic transfer, so that they automatically pay off my whole VISA balance every month, on time, by taking the money from my bank account. In that way I am never late paying the VISA so I never pay interest charges. IOW I use the VISA like a debit card; the difference is that it's accepted at some places where a debit card isn't (e.g. online, and for car rentals), and that the money is deducted from my bank account at the end of the month instead of immediately.",
"I think you'll find that a credit card does have an account number and sort code, I have had a Visa card previously and currently have a Mastercard. Both were paid by Direct Debit, and I could then transfer money to the account when I wanted to pay more than the minimum payment off. Check the introductory letter from the card provider, it should be on there, failing that, contact the provider and ask them for the details, how to pay, or a direct debit mandate for either the whole amount or the minimum amount.",
"ATM and Debit are not the same thing. ATM is a card that can only be used to withdraw money from the ATMs that belong to that bank (or participate in the same network). In some countries, ATM cards can be used for shopping if the merchant is equipped with an appropriate reader and is participating in an appropriate network. Debit card can be used for purchases in any store showing the appropriate (Visa/MC) logo, and withdraw money at any ATM showing the appropriate (Visa/MC or the ATM network that appears on the card) logo.",
"You should not open bank accounts just to get additional credit cards. You should be careful about carrying too many credit cards and incurring too much debt as you could find yourself in a situation whereby you may not be able to pay off your monthly interest, much less the principal balance. Credit cards are not insurance. With many years of experience under my belt I can tell you that the best approach is to live within (or below) your means and avoid carrying a balance on credit cards. I carry only one credit card (really a charge card) and I pay off the balance every month. Treat a credit card as a 30 day interest free loan and pay your balance off in full every month...as you progress through life you will save yourself a lot of heartache (and money) if you take this approach.",
"Visa and Mastercard offer a variety of benefits to their cardholders. It's all in the initial information that may come in one, two or more parcels describing the relationship the two of you are in. I can't enumerate the services, but it ranges from things like automatic rental car insurance to price matching. You'll really have to compare the product with your banks'.",
"With change in technology and regulations, quite a few clearing systems provide an ability to directly credit a credit card. In Europe Sepa transactions allow one to credit a credit card. The service would be offered by Local bank rather than Visa or Master Card",
"\"Here is how the Visa network works: A Visa transaction is a carefully orchestrated process. When a Visa account holder uses a Visa card to buy a pair of shoes, it’s actually the acquirer — the merchant’s bank — that reimburses the merchant for the shoes. Then, the issuer — the account holder’s bank — reimburses the acquirer, usually within 24 to 48 hours. Lastly, the issuer collects from the account holder by withdrawing funds from the account holder’s bank account if a debit account is used, or through billing if a credit account is used. I read this to mean the Merchant's Bank (the Acquirer Bank) gives the merchant the money within 2 days via the Card Issuer's Bank. The issuing bank is the one that provides the \"\"credit\"\" feature since that bank won't get reimbursed until the shopper's bill is paid (or perhaps even longer if the shopper carries a balance). You'll notice the Credit Card company (Visa/MC/etc) is only involved in the process as a way of passing messages. Of course they take a fee for this service so seller ultimately get's less than the buyer bought the shoes for.\"",
"You could get a prepaid Visa card. You don't need a bank account and at least here in Australia you just buy them over the counter at the post office. I believe the U.K. has a similar card: Travel Money Card Plus from the Post Office. The card requires a UK passport or driving license. Other European countries may have similar prepaid cards but may also require resident status and electronic identity / credit inquiry.",
"We have a pre-paid mastercard. This will only allow the spending up to the amount already paid into the card account. Visa Electron is a bank account linked debit card that will not allow the account to go overdrawn but this card type is getting quite rare.",
"Depends on your credit score. If you came from foreign country, you might not be having enough Credit Score. In that case, you have to go for Prepaid Credit Card offered by Banks. For prepaid credit card,you have to deposit certain amount of money which will act as your credit line.",
"Many businesses that accept regular VISA credit cards will not accept VISA purchase cards intended for corporate/gov purchasing departments and able to furnish a more detailed audit trail (purchase order #, lot #, etc.) than a regular credit card. Other merchants take ONLY VISA purchase cards.",
"\"My visa would put the goods on the current monthly balance which is no-interest, but the cash part becomes part of the immediate interest-bearing sum. There is no option for getting cash without paying immediate interest, except perhaps for buying something then immediately returning it, but most merchants will do a refund to the card instead of cash in hand. This is in New Zealand, other regions may have different rules. Also, if I use the \"\"cheque\"\" or \"\"savings\"\" options at the eftpos machine instead of the \"\"credit\"\" option, then I can have cash immediately, withdrawn from my account, with no interest charge. However the account has to have sufficient balance to do so.\"",
"From the business side of credit cards, Discover and American Express carry their own risk. AmEx has lent their logo to banks such as Bank of America (BofA) to use the AmEx transaction network, but the financial risk and customer service is provided by BofA. Visa and MasterCard let banks use their logo and process through their respective networks for a fee. The financial risk of fraud, non-payment from merchants, etc is the risk that the individual banks carry.",
"No. There's no inherent reason to link the place that you bank with any other financial service. There may occasionally be benefits; for instance you can sometime get lower rates on mortgages or loans by having a a checking account with an institution. Or perhaps it'll be easier for you to make a same-day payment on a credit account. There could be some negatives as well. If you fall behind on a loan account, the bank may take money from your savings/checking account to satisfy your debt. Choose a bank or CU that's convenient to you. Choose a credit card from whatever bank or CU provides you with the best benefits. If that credit card is coming from a CU that requires a savings account for membership, open a minimum balance savings account and apply for the product you're interested in. If your credit is as good as you claim, they'll be happy to offer you the credit card regardless of whether you do your day-to-day banking with them.",
"One possibility is to ask RBC to lend you some money (or more specifically, to lend you some more money): an overdraft, a personal loan, or whatever. To discuss this you should to talk to your personal banker (not a teller), probably by appointment: to explain why you want it, and how and when you expect repay it. You might (I don't know) say that you want the loan (or some of the loan) to pay off the Visa, and/or for the travel. If you've only just arrived in Canada, however, then I don't see why they should want to lend it to you (i.e. why they should think you're a good credit risk). Is there anyone else (e.g. an immigration sponsor or parent or employer) who might co-sign (a.k.a. guarantee) the loan? I have never had this issue before with any other credit cards but I got an RBC Visa in Canada In some countries (not Canada) a Visa behaves more like a debit card, i.e. you can only spend money you have in the account.",
"Yes, you can set up a PayPal or a Google Checkout account without a bank account linked to it. Neither PayPal nor Google Checkout requires you to link to a bank account. Both services provide for linking your payment account to a credit card instead.",
"If your debit card/ATM card is stolen or lost, someone else might be able to withdraw money from the checking account that it is tied to, or buy things with the card and have the money taken out of the checking account to pay the merchant. Subject to daily withdrawal limits imposed by your bank, a considerable amount of money could be lost in this way. At least in the US, debit or ATM cards, although they are often branded Mastercard or Visa, do not provide the same level of protection as credit cards for which the liability is limited to $50 until the card is reported as lost or stolen and $0 thereafter. Note also that the money in your savings account is safe, unless you have chosen an automatic overdraft protection feature that automatically transfers money from your savings account into the checking account to cover overdrafts. So that is another reason to keep most of your money in the savings account and only enough for immediately foreseeable needs in the checking account (and to think carefully before accepting automatic overdraft protection offers). These days, with mobile banking available via smartphones and the like, transferring money yourself from savings to checking account as needed might be a preferred way of doing things on the go (until the smartphone is stolen!)",
"For ATMs you should check if the ATM you're going to use accepts the network you're in. If the ATM has the same logo (it should probably have a whole bunch of logos) that is on your card - it should work. I have not encountered an ATM that wouldn't accept a VISA card in Europe, and I travel a lot.",
"Unlike MasterCard and Visa who only provide clearing service and tie up Banks to actually issue cards or POS terminals for merchants; Discover card operates more like American Express. It's a totally different network; cards and POS to merchants are directly offered by Discover Bank only. There is no other banks that issue this card.",
"You are right in saying that you cannot go over limit on (most) credit cards, however, with a debit card the majority of banks will extend an overdraft to you if your account goes overdrawn (less than 0). The amount of overdraft extended will depend on your credit rating and standing with the bank and may not be extended if they think that the amount is too large or that you are a credit risk. The drawbacks of overdrafts are that they are very expensive usually having a fixed fee for going into overdraft and charging a high rate of interest. If this overdraft has not been prearranged with the bank these costs are usually much higher.",
"\"Circa 2002-2005, I was able to successfully \"\"transfer\"\" a balance from a debit card linked to a bank account to a Bank of America Visa credit card. As an example, I could say do a balance transfer from the card XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX (which was a valid debit card number) to the credit card, and the funds would appear in the checking account within a few days, and also the balance on the credit card would go up the amount plus any balance transfer fee. I think they've sealed off that loophole years ago.\"",
"\"You ask about the difference between credit and debit, but that may be because you're missing something important. Regardless of credit/debit, there is value in carrying two different cards associated with two different accounts. The reason is simply that because of loss, fraud, or your own mismanagement, or even the bank's technical error, any card can become unusable for some period of time. Exactly how long depends what happened, but just sending you a new card can easily take more than one business day, which might well be longer than you'd like to go without access to any funds. In that situation you would be glad of a credit card, and you would equally be glad of a second debit card on a separate account. So if your question is \"\"I have one bank account with one debit card, and the only options I'm willing to contemplate are (a) do nothing or (b) take a credit card as well\"\", then the answer is yes, take a credit card as well, regardless of the pros or cons of credit vs debit. Even if you only use the credit card in the event that you drop your debit card down a drain. So what you can now consider is the pros and cons of a credit card vs managing an additional bank account -- unless you seriously hate one or more of the cons of credit cards, the credit card is likely to win. My bank has given me a debit card on a cash savings account, which is a little scary, but would cover most emergencies if I didn't have a credit card too. Of course the interest rate is rubbish and I sometimes empty my savings account into a better investment, so I don't use it as backup, but I could. Your final question \"\"can a merchant know if I give him number of debit or credit card\"\" is already asked: Can merchants tell the difference between a credit card and embossed debit card? Yes they can, and yes there are a few things you can't (or might prefer not to) do with debit. The same could even be said of Visa vs. Mastercard, leading to the conclusion that if you have a Visa debit you should look for a Mastercard credit. But that seems to be less of an issue as time goes on and almost everywhere in Europe apparently takes both or neither. If you travel a lot outside the EU then you might want to be loaded down with every card under the sun, and three different kinds of cash, but you'd already know that without asking ;-)\"",
"Many European countires allow you to an account for non-residents. You have to appear in the bank personally to open it, some of them even to get your own tax number for non-residents from the local government. I'm not sure if you get a Visa (Electron) chip card immediatelly or you have to wait for like 3 months before being issued one. I've heard that getting a tax number for non-residents and opening a bank account is easily done in one day in Brezice, Republic of Slovenia. They seem to have agile local bureaucracy and banks, since many pople from neighbouring (non-EU) countries (used to) come there to open an EU bank account. Funds can be transfered via Internet banking - US banks have that, do they? SWIFT and IBAN codes are used for international money transfer. But it takes some time (days!) for it to arrive to destination. Tansfers below $20000 per month or per transaction are considered normal, but for amouts above that the destination bank might ask you to explain the purpose, to prove it is not illegal. Some of them accept the explanaiton in writing (they forward it to the regulator that tracks such large transfers), some of them ask you to appear there in person for an interview and to sign a statement. Can't believe US banks are still issuing paing magnet stripe cards like it's still 1980s. I'd expect Europe to be 10 years behind USA in technology, but this seems to be a weird reverse. I've beed using Internet banking with one-time passwd tokens and TAN lists for almost 10 years, and chip cards exclusivley for over 5y. Can't remeber the last time I've seen mag stripe card only. American Express (event the regular green one) got the chip at least 5 years ago. And it is accepted regularly in Europe. Alegedly it's more popular in Europe (although Mastercard is a definite #1, with Visa close to that) that in USA.",
"CC always (applies only if you pay your balance in full). First you rack up points on your card, second if there is an unauthorized pull a Cc will help you a bank may or may not. As a general advice don't hand out your banking information like a credit card number. Now paying bills through the bank is a different matter. This advice applies to companies that would like to pull money from bank accounts. Never do that if Cc is an alternative.",
"Your chief problem seems to be that you're mixing Visa (credit cards) and Step2 (a European Automated Clearing House). Credit cards are primarily an American concept, but do work worldwide especially in travel&tourism industry. The Credit Card companies are financial institutions themselves and operate similar to international banks They're typically acting as intermediaries between the customer's bank and the retailer's bank, so this works even if those two banks have no existing agreements. This is expensive, though. Step2 is a cheaper European system which eliminates the middle man. It allows the consumer's bank to directly pay the retailer's bank. VISA is not a member of Step2.",
"\"Yes and No. There's always a \"\"fee\"\". The difference in credit vs debit usually determines how much that fee is and how it's paid. Each vendor who accepts the major credit card is under contract to pay for equipment and meet certain standards. The same is true for debt card transactions. How much the \"\"fee\"\" is can vary based on the contract the vendor has with MasterCard/Visa/AMEX. But in general most debt transactions go back to the bank who distributed the card.\"",
"\"As anecdotal experience, we have a credit account in my name as offered by bank's marketing before I could qualify by common rules for newcomers (I have an account there for years so they knew my history and reliability dynamics I guess), and my wife is subscribed as a secondary user to the same credit account with a separate card. So we share the same limits (e.g. max month usage/overdraft) and benefits (bank's discounts and bonuses when usage passes certain thresholds - and it's easier to gain these points together than alone) so in the end maintenance of the card costs zero or close to that on most months, while the card is in a program to get discounts from hundreds of shops and even offers a free or discounted airport lounge access in some places :) But the bonus program is just that - benefits come and go as global economics changes; e.g. we had free car assistance available for a couple of years but it is gone since last tariff update. Generally it is beneficial for us to do all transactions including rent etc. via these two credit cards to the same account, and then recharge its overdraft as salaries come in - we have an \"\"up to 50 days\"\" cooloff period (till 20th of next calendar month) with no penalties on having taken the loans - but if we ever did overstretch that, then tens of yearly percents would kick in. Using the card(s) for daily ops, there is a play on building up the credit history as well: while we don't really need the loans to get from month to month, it helps build an image in the face of credit organizations, which can help secure e.g. favorable mortgage rates (and other contract conditions) which are out of pocket money range :) I'd say it is not only a \"\"we against the system\"\" sort of game though, as it sort of trains our own financial discipline - every month we have (a chance) to go over our spendings to see what we did, and so we more regularly think about it in the end - so the bank probably benefits from dealing with more-educated less-random customers when it comes to the bigger loans. Regarding internet, we tend to trust more to a debit card which we populate with pocket money sufficient for upcoming or already placed (blocked) transactions. After all, a malicious shop can not sip off thousands of credit money - but only as much as you've pre-allocated there on debit.\"",
"In Canada, there are many stores that take debit (Interac) but don't take Visa or MasterCard. For example, a corner store. In the US the reverse is often true: every tiny place seems to take Visa or MasterCard, but not debit. A Visa debit card looks like a Visa card to the merchant. It therefore has the benefit of being usable at places that only take Visa. (Substitute MasterCard as necessary.) This benefit is very small in Canada, less so elsewhere. Meanwhile the money is actually coming out of your bank account just like a debit card, which therefore has the benefit that you're not borrowing money, can't accidentally overspend, and run no risk of incurring interest charges. It is also a way to get what appears to be a credit card when you can't qualify for credit. If you do the majority of your spending in Canada, you don't need a Visa or MasterCard debit card. Your regular debit card (Interac) will work fine for you. If you have a credit card anyway (from another bank or whatever) then again, you don't need a debit card that can pretend to be a credit card.",
"If you read the fine print in the Pricing & Terms section of that card, you'll see: By becoming a Visa Business Card cardmember, you agree that the card is being used only for business purposes and that the card is being issued to a public or private company including a sole proprietor or employees or contractors of an organization. So that card is a Chase-branded Visa card, and should be accepted anywhere other Visa cards are. Credit cards are normally either MasterCard or Visa, although many of them make that rather inconspicuous. The only major exceptions I know of are American Express and Discover. (And store cards that are only good at one particular store.)",
"Just to put in one more possibility: my credit card can have a positive balance, in which case I earn interest. If more money is due, it will automatically take that from the connected checking account. If that goes into negative, of course I have to pay interest. I chose (argued with the bank in order to get) only a small credit allowance. However, I'll be able to access credit allowance + positive balance. That allows me within a day or so to make larger amounts accessible, while the possible immediate damage by credit card fraud is limited at other times. Actually, the credit card pays more interest than the checkign account. Nevertheless, I don't keep high balance there because the risk of fraud is much higher for the credit card.",
"A credit card is not a bank account. It is, essentially, a contract to extend a line of credit on an as needed basis through a process accepted by the provider(purchase through approved vender, cash advance, etc). There is no mechanism for the bank to accept or hold a deposit. While most card issuers will simple retain the money for a period of up 30-60 days to apply toward transactions, I have had a card that actually charged a fee for having a negative balance in excess of $10 for more than 30 days(the fee was $10/month). So no you can not DEPOSIT money on any credit card. You need an account that accepts deposits to make a deposit.",
"Here's a simple answer: If your debit card has a visa or mc logo, it can be used as a 'credit card'. In order to do so, you shouldn't enter the pin, instead choose 'credit' and sign for it. Unlike a credit card, you can't spend money you don't have but like a credit card, your purchase is protected by the credit card company (visa/mc) and gives you privileges like zero fraud liability and purchase disputes. http://www.moneycone.com/should-you-sign-for-a-debit-card-purchase-or-use-your-pin/",
"Debit cards with the Visa or Mastercard symbol on them work technically everywhere where credit cards work. There are some limitations where the respective business does not accept them, for example car rentals want a credit card for potential extra charges; but most of the time, for day-to-day shopping and dining, debit cards work fine. However, you should read up the potential risks. A credit card gives you some security by buffering incorrect/fraudulent charges from your account, and credit card companies also help you reverse incorrect charges, before you ever have to pay for it. If you use a debit card, it is your money on the line immediately - any incorrect charge, even accidential, takes your money from your account, and it is gone while you work on reversing the charge. Any theft, and your account can be cleaned out, and you will be without money while you go after the thief. Many people consider the debit card risk too high, and don't use them for this reason. However, many people do use them - it is up to you.",
"\"Visa Electron should be usable in any ATM (and shop) that accepts Visa, especially if the ATM also contains the \"\"Plus\"\" logo. However, if it's (for example) the card issued by La Banque Postale (in French) there are quite low withdrawal and spending limits. These limits are over a period of the most recent seven days, so it can take a while before you can withdraw more. So maybe not suitable to transfer a significant amount to your CZK account. As an alternative to finding an ATM that might have a fee, you can maybe use it to buy something small, then get cashback from stores that offer that. As it's a debit card, it needs to check the balance in real-time, so there are reports of it being often declined if it can't get a fast response from the home bank. In other words, make sure you have an alternative.\"",
"If it is one of those debit cards you use just like a credit card without a PIN, I'd cancel it regardless of whatever you are trying to do with your finances. They just seem too dangerous to me. Unlike a credit card, if someone makes fraudulent purchases on a debit card the money is gone from your bank account until you resolve the issue with the issue. With a credit card, the BANK is out the money until it gets worked out. My brother once had his credit card number (not the card) stolen and the criminals emptied his bank account. Eventually the bank put the money back after an investigation, but it had two really nasty side effects: 1) Dozens of checks bounced. The bank refunded the bounced check fees, but not all of the stores would. 2) He had no money in his account until it was resolved. Luckily in his case they resolved it in a few days, but he was already making preparations to borrow money to pay his rent/bills.",
"In case the other ATM is visa enabled, many bank allows transfer to visa card through their ATM. More details about your banks are required for a very specific answer. I suppose both banks are Indian Bank, which bank ?",
"Visa and Mastercard are not consumer-oriented companies. They do not consider individual consumers as their direct clients, and do not sell directly to them. Instead, their clients are financial institutions who participate in their networks (which is what they're selling). The institutions target the individual consumers (merchants and credit card holders). American Express, for example, has a different business model. AX doesn't only sell network services to financial institutions, but also services to individual consumers. You can get a AX credit card/merchant account directly with AX, or through their client bank.",
"In most cases, the brand on the card, eg Visa or MasterCard, is a middleman. The company processes the transaction, transferring $xx from the bank to the seller, and telling the bank to debit the buyer's account. The bank is at risk, not the company transacting the purchase. What's interesting is that American Express started as both. My first Amex card, issued in 1979 (long expired, but in my box of memorabilia) had no bank. American Express offered a card that offered no extended credit, it was pay in full each month. Since then, Amex started offering extended credit, i.e. with annual interest, and minimum payments, and more recently, offering transaction processing for banks which take on the credit risk, essentially becoming very similar to MasterCard and Visa.",
"As has been stated, you don't need to actively bank with a credit union to apply for one of their credit cards. That said, one benefit to having account activity, and significant capital with a CU, is to increase the likelihood of having a larger credit line granted to you, when you do apply. If you are going to use the card sparingly however, then this is a non issue. That said, if you really want to maximize card benefits, then you want to look for cards with large sign up bonuses (e.g. Chase Sapphire, or Ink Bold if you have a business) and sign up exclusively for those bonuses. These cards offer rewards in excessive value of $1000 in travel services (hotels/plane tickets), or $500 cash back if you prefer straight cash back redemptions. If you prefer to keep it really simple, you can sign up for a cash back card, like the Amex Fidelity, which offers 2% cash back everywhere, with no annual fee (albeit the cash back is through their investment account, which you don't actually have to 'invest' with). Personally, I have the Penfed card, and use it exclusively for gas (5% cash back). I also have a Charles Schwab bank account, which I keep funded exclusively for ATM withdrawals (free ATM usage, worldwide, 100% fee reimbursement). I use the accounts exclusively for the benefit they provide me, and no more and have never had an issue. I also have 3 dozen other credit cards which I signed up for exclusively for the sign up bonus, but that's outside the scope of this question. I only mention it because you seem to believe it is difficult to get approved for a new credit line. If your credit is good however, you won't have a problem. For a small idea, of how to maximize credit card bonus categories, I would advise you read this. As mentioned in the article, its possible to get rewards almost everywhere you shop. In short, anytime you use cash, you are missing out on a multitude of benefits a credit card offers you (e.g. see the benefits of a visa signature card) in addition to points/cash back.",
"I keep one card just for monthly bills (power company,car loan, etc.). This one is unlikely to get hacked so I won't have to go change the credit card information on my monthly bills. I pay the credit card from my bank account. I just don't want a lot of businesses with direct access to my bank account.",
"Definitely not with gift cards and to a lesser degree not even with debit cards. For most transactions they work the same but you'll run into problems when dealing with situations where a hold is placed that's higher than the transaction amount. This is the norm with gas purchases--at the time you run the card you don't know how much gas you're going to pump so they put through an authorization for some fixed amount--say $75 or $100. If you do not have this much available it will fail and you can't use the card to purchase the gas. Unless you're living paycheck to paycheck the debit card should work in this case but the gift card very well might not. I've also seen this happen on a larger scale with a car rental. A co-worker only had a debit card--and the substantial hold the rental car place wanted to put on the card was unacceptable.",
"The post that you linked to saying that a pre-paid credit card is really a debit card is kind of right and kind of wrong. From your point of view, to get a $1000 pre-paid credit card, you need to hand over $1000. So nobody is giving any credit to you. You can only spend money that you actually own, like a debit card. For the merchant accepting your card, it is exactly like a credit card. He doesn't know what deals you had to make to get the card. The merchant just knows that up to some amount, he will receive money. So in that sense it is a credit card and will be accepted like a credit card.",
"Actually BofA never charged for their debit card usage. It was all heresy from the media because Wells Fargo and Chase Bank were actually charging their customers. As to your credit card, you know that you can close that at anytime and pay off whatever owing balance you have left with it still closed.",
"First of all, don't be rude-I'm trying to help here. Second, picture this scenario- a company manages an offshore oil rig. The employees by law have to be paid in a certain period of time. To send paper checks to the employees who work on the oil rig would cost thousands of dollars and the employees can't cash them anyways. Thus the company requires it's employees to have direct deposit. One of the employees can't or won't get a bank account (yes there are people like this). How do you pay him? A prepaid debit card solves this problem.",
"1.Charges or Fee: These are only applicable if you buy something use Credit Card and do not payback in time. Otherwise if you just have a Credit Card, most of them are free. There are some that charge annual fee. You will know when you apply for a card. 2a. Depoist Money [Voucher]: You can deposit money on your card account by check, or online transfer or by visiting the Bank Branch. I am not sure what Voucher you are talking about. You will have to find that out from the company that issued the voucher. 2b. Withdraw from ATM: Withdrwals are charged typically 5%, plus fixed Rs 50. Plus interest if you have not paid back in time. Are you are having excess money, there will be no interest charge. Check with the card on the exact charges. 3.Excess transfer to Bank: The excess can be transferred to Bank account by making a request to the Card Company and giving out the details. The Card Company would have a defined timeline for this. Most of the Banks that issue cards have a policy not to keep excess deposits longer. What you are trying to do it not a routine transaction and depends what you are trying to achieve.",
"\"Assuming the question is \"\"will they close it for inactivity (alone)\"\".. the answer is \"\"Nope\"\" ... unequivocally. Update: < My answer is geared to credit Cards issues by companies that deal in credit, not merchandise (i.e. store cards, retailer cards, etc). Retailers (like Amazon, etc), want to sell goods and are in the credit card business to generate sales. Banks and credit companies (about whom I am referring) make their money primarily on interest and secondarily on service charges (either point of use charged to the vendor that accepts payment, or fees charged to the user).> The only major issuer I will say that it might be possible is Discover, because I never kept a Discover card. I also don't keep department store cards, which might possibly do this; but I do doubt it in either of those cases too. My answer is based on Having 2 AMEX cards (Optima and Blue) and multiple other Visa/MC's that I NEVER use... and most of these I have not for over 10+ years. Since I am also presuming that you are also not talking about an account that charges a yearly or other maintenance fee.. Why would they keep the account open with the overhead (statements and other mailings,etc)? Because you MIGHT use it. You MIGHT not be able to pay it off each month. Because you MIGHT end up paying thousands in interest over many years. The pennies they pay for maintaining your account and sending you new cards with chip technology, etc.. are all worth the gamble of getting recouped from you! This is why sales people waste their time with lots of people who will not buy their product, even though it costs them time and money to prospect.. because they MIGHT buy. Naturally, there are a multitude of reasons for canceling a card; but inactivity is not one. I have no less than 10+ \"\"inactive\"\" cards, one that has a balance, and two I use \"\"infrequently\"\". I really would not mind if they closed all those accounts.. but they won't ;) So enjoy your AMEX knowing that your Visa will be there when you need/want it.. The bank that issues your Visa is banking on it! (presuming you don't foul up financially) Cheers!\"",
"Yes, but PayPal has limits. Depending on your annual transactions you might have a $$ limit each year unless you agree to tie to a bank account. In my case, I set up another checking account to link to, and keep a small amount there. Less than $200.",
"In the United States there are 3 main types of cards. There are organizations that push a credit card with their branding. They aren't a bank so they partner with a bank to offer the card. In the US many colleges and professional sports teams will market a credit card with the team or universities colors and logo. The bank handles the details and the team/university gets a flat fee or a portion of the fees. Many even have annual fees. They market to people who want to show their favorite team colors on their credit card, and are willing to pay extra. Some of these branded cards do come with extra perks: Free shipping, discounts on tickets, being able to buy tickets earlier. There are 4 other types of cards that have limited usage: What makes it confusing is that large business can actually turn a portion of the corporation into a bank. Walmart has been doing this, and so have casinos.",
"Alliant Credit Union has supplemental accounts, ING Direct has supplemental accounts as well as the poster above mentioned.",
"Does not a reloadable card purchased from a store meet your requirements? Note, however, that my memory is that if you buy such a card in the US it can't be used outside the US--to keep it from being used to take money out of the country.",
"Linking the card is primarily to give you (and Paypal) a fall-back option for funding your spending if your bank account doesn't have sufficient funds to process the charge. If the bank account has sufficient funds, it will work fine in many cases without a credit card. If you have both linked (bank and a credit card), Paypal will transfer funds immediately, as Paypal knows it has an option for getting the funds if the bank has insufficient funds. However, if you have no credit card linked or remove your only card: If you remove your only card and have a confirmed bank account, you’ll no longer be able to make instant bank payments. Instead they’ll be sent as eChecks, which take 3 to 4 working days to process. This may not matter in many cases, but it may delay things some. There may also be services who require immediate payment (and won't support PayPal if it's not immediate). There may also be some functional limitations. The one I see is primarily that some services that are geo-location-specific, Spotify for one example, use the credit card to verify that you are in a particular location (in Spotify's case, for licensing purposes). They don't seem to accept Paypal unless it's linked to a credit or debit card (even if it's verified via a bank account). I'm not sure if this is common with other services, but it's something to consider.",
"If his ATM card is operational and (assuming it is Visa/Mastercard), he can use it at grocery stores and get cashback. Typically, there is no charge for this service.",
"They are not as good of an option when compared to a card you open chosen based on features and rates. Get a card with a lower rate that can be used anywhere.",
"\"I don't think credit cards support depositing money into to begin with. Anyone could deposit money to a Credit Card acccount. All they need is your bank's name, Visa/Mastercard, and 16 digit number. It is done through the \"\"Pay Bills / Make Payments\"\" function in online banking. So tell me, what does it mean that PayPal will transfer the money to my VISA card You can use the new balance for spending via Credit Card, the effect is same as making a payment from your chequing account to credit card account. Will it simply just get transferred to my bank account by the local bank after that Some banks would refund the excess amount from your Credit Card to your Chequing Account after a while, but most don't. People keep credit balance on credit card to make a purchaes larger than credit limit. For example, if your credit limit is $1000, balance is $0, and you made $500 payment to the credit card, you can make a purchase of $1500 without asking for credit limit increase.\"",
"Need is a strong word. As far as merchants are concerned, if they accept, e.g., Visa credit, they will accept Visa Debit. The reverse is not necessarily true. Up until lately, Aldi would only accept debit cards (credit cards have higher merchant fees), and when I used to got to Sam's Club, they would accept Visa debit, but not credit (they had/have an exclusive deal with Discover for credit). So, yes, they can tell from the card number whether it's credit or debit. However, I've never heard of a case of the situation being biased against debit.* That said there are some advantages to having a credit card: ETA: I don't know how credit history works in the EU, but in the US having open credit accounts definitely does affect your credit score which directly affects what rate you can get for a mortgage. *ETA_2: As mentioned in the comments and another answer, car rentals will often require credit cards and not debit (Makes sense to me that they would want to make sure they can get their money if there is damage to the car). Many credit cards do include rental car insurance if you use it to pay for your rental, so that's another potential advantage for credit cards.",
"That's true, I concede that point. It wasn't the case in my case study, and I don't think it's the case with these gift cards, but I could be wrong, since I'm not an accountant, and I don't even have my Masters in Finance yet.",
"You'll have to call your credit card issuer and ask them. Generally, credit cards don't do bank transfers, since its not a bank account per se. But it may be in some cases that there's an underlying bank account over which your credit card is managed, and then they might be able to do something like that. But we won't know, only your card issuer will.",
"\"As others have stated, credit (signature required) is processed through their respective networks (Visa, MasterCard, Discover, or American Express). A \"\"debit\"\" card tied to your checking account, still go through the same credit network even though the funds are guaranteed from your checking rather than a free loan 30-60 days which has the potential to be unpaid. This type of debit card purchase may be eligible for a lower processing rate for less risk. Debit cards can also be processed through the debit network (PIN required, no signature). This is typically a straight fee such as $0.35. Fees vary, but let me give you a simple comparison: Say you are at the supermarket and buy $50 worth of groceries with a debit card with Visa logo. You are asked \"\"credit\"\" or \"\"debit\"\": At my supermarket, this is why I am given the option to enter my PIN first. If I want to pay by credit, I have to tap Cancel to process via credit signature.\"",
"\"A checking account almost never earns any significant interest. A checking accounts often does not have any limits in terms of how many times you can draw funds from it. A checking account often comes with a debit card allowing you to pay online, draw cash from an ATM machine etc. A savings accounts has much higher yields, so you should be getting a decent interest. Unfortunately in the current climate this is not always true (especially not with the big banks) so you may want to look into a high-yield savings account. A savings account is often limited in terms of number of transactions, meaning you can't constantly draw funds from it, it must be stable. A savings account often does not come with a debit card. No, a savings account should not be used for regular transactions. It's an account to park your money for a medium/long time. Understand that banks loan out the money in your savings account to third-parties, so if it would constantly fluctuate, they can't have this money available to others. In return of you parking your money with your bank, you should get a nice return (interest). Yes, but it's not common. Assuming you are from USA, passing banking data (account number and routing number) to third-parties is not safe. In Europe it's totally safe to share your account number to accept money. Depends, some banks do charge fees, some don't. Often there are fees when you're not using the account (no transactions), or when you don't have a certain minimum in an account. Assuming you are American (please specify this information clearly in future) I would look into an \"\"internet bank\"\", like Ally. They don't have many fees and they have an excellent high-yield savings account. They also give you a debit card. Disadvantage is that they don't have physical branches.\"",
"Or at least I saw it do so with Bank of America.",
"The T&C that comes with the card would usually tell you whether the card allows ATM withdrawal, though my experience with prepaid debit cards is that it usually does not. If that's the case, you have two options -",
"Their income is from the two sources you mentioned - they charge the merchants for each use, and they make interest money on people who carry a balance. This is one reason a lot of merchants will be willing to give you a discount if you pay cash - they don't have to give a portion to VISA or MasterCard. I wouldn't be able to speak to the relative proportions between the two income sources, but when many cards are at 30% interest for balances carried, and many people have tens of thousands of dollars owed on their cards, the interest income is not insignificant. They'll also charge interest immediately on cash advances. A few cards also make money off of annual fees, although I'd suspect this is not very much in the full scheme of things. The way to get the most out of a card, is to always pay it off fully at the end of each month.",
"Yes, overall, it is a big inconvenience to you. This same issue applies for those that for example, receive Social Security benefits (and perhaps other government cash benefits) on a pre-paid card (rather than direct deposit to a bank account). They allow a few ways to get cash from the card: You can get cash back (no fee) when you make a retail purchase. You could use the card for relatively small items you would purchase anyway, and get $100 or more back in cash each time. Every store/chain will have it's own limits on how much cash back they will allow per transaction. And, be careful, some stores charge a fee for cash back, but it's not at all common. If even these small purchases are an issue, you can then (presumably later) return the item you purchased without returning the cash-back you received (if the store allows returns/refunds). And, since a transaction with cash back is processed as a debit (rather than a credit), usually if you later return the purchased item, you will be refunded in cash (rather than a credit back to your card/account). Also, for other cards, sometimes you can go to a branch of the bank that issued the card and make a no fee withdraw, sometimes in cash and sometimes by check. This depends on the policy of the issuing bank, and the card account. Finally, most of this assumes that you are given a pin (or the opportunity to create one) with the card, because cash-back and ATM access requires a pin. And there are some banks/cards that don't allow any of this.",
"If PayPal won't accept the VCC number, then by definition you can't do this. If you want to know whether there's a way to get special permission or bypass that restriction... I'm afraid the right thing to do is ask PayPal. Yes, I know their customer support is awful, but this is a classic customer support question, and they know the internals of their system better than any of us possibly could.",
"There are 2 parties when we say credit card companies: The bank that gives you a card & VISA/Mastercard For a Bank the revenues generally come from: For VISA/Mastercard the revenue is from: P.S. Have not covered American express here but in short it is a combination of the above 2 models",
"You don't need credit cards but there are few benefits, if you pay them off right away I assume you do have a debit card, since sometimes (like unattended gas stations or shopping on the web) cash is not accepted.",
"There are three parties involved here: there's the store that issued you the card, then they have some bank that's actually handling the account, and there is some network (VISA, MasterCard, etc.) that the transactions go through. So one avenue to consider is seeing whether all three are aware of you canceling the card.",
"The truth is that Visa does not require a merchant to enter the cvv number before authorizing a transaction. The only information that is really needed is the credit card number and expiration date.",
"They represent two distict payment processing mechanisms that just happen to be available on one product. Rather like having dvi and hdmi on you laptop. Your account number and sort code relates to the bank account. Your long number, expiry and ccv relate to the card. It is perfectly possible and not uncommon to have two different cards on the same account, which would have their own card numbers etc. The BACS, CHAPS, DirectDebit and FasterPayments systems use the account numbers. These transactions are practically irreversible and work through the interbank transfer system and should be considered 'direct money transfers' - electronic cash. The long digits are used by Mastercard, Visa, AmEx etc and go through their own payment systems. These payments are 'indirect' and may or may not be reversible as the private payment network (visa etc) has some accountability. They work like electronic cheques. This is why debit card transactions can cause you to go overdrawn - you are writing a promise to pay from an account. It is up to the bank to block the card if you have no money, vs a CHAPS payment that checks the money is there before moving it. It is easier (but still hard) to recover money lost through Visa fraud than BACS. Credit cards have only the long number etc. While savings accounts (non-checking accounts) have only account numbers. Depending on where you are different laws will likely cover debit card vs money transfer payments. In the UK Direct debit guarantee is the most common protection on the BACS system, while standing orders and faster payments give you little legal power. Debit cards will give you some protection because the payment system stands between you and the bank account, so if you didn't make the transaction you should be able to reclaim the money ('card not present fraud'). If you did make the transaction but the vendor failed to supply or goods were faulty then a Chargeback system exists where you may also be able to reclaim. A bank transfer you make is irrecoverable and refund can only be claimed through court for faulty goods.",
"The laws of the United States of America require that the federal currency issued is accepted as legal tender for all goods and services anywhere within this country. One really has to wonder what the motivation behind this story is. VISA obviously knows that such a move is illegal. I am skeptical that there's any truth to the article at all.",
"Looks like you have three options: Outside of this you might need to look for a different type of account. Hope that helps.",
"In Finland, this happens all the time - it's all about having an official ID, they don't even ask your bank account number or the card. However, as no location was specified in the question, I guess it could be anything. The stronger the requirement for official personal id is in your country, the better odds you have with just using that. Where I live it is quite strong.",
"This would be exactly the sort of product that a thief would want, if they had got ahold of some account numbers and wanted to steal the money from those accounts, in a way that would let them spend it as conveniently as possible. That should explain why I think it's unlikely that any such product exists.",
"yes you can open bank account you should have a address in us and personally visit bank to deposite $1500 only to get you a debit card.you are required to maintain min balance of $1500 only. I have done it",
"Credit in debit way - the card simply functions like a debit card for that transaction - pulling cash from your checking account. No difference. You've simply discovered the fact that some banks are using the same piece of plastic for two functions, debit which draws funds directly from your checking, and credit which offers you time to pay a bill the comes in some time later. It's a personal choice.",
"I'm pretty sure it's merchant-dependent. If a credit card transaction doesn't go through, PayPal will automatically charge your bank account. Some merchants may want that extra insurance.",
"Debit card purchases without PIN are treated as credit card purchases by merchants, and that includes ID verification. In addition to the ways you mentioned, you can get a debit card in any grocery store and load it with cash, and these debit cards don't have a name imprinted on them. But then if you lose them - you may have troubles proving you did in fact lose them when you try to recover your money, as anyone can use them. Technically you can register them online and call in and request refunds for fraud losses just as any other debit/credit card in the US (with $50 deductible), but in practice it may be difficult. These cards have very high fees, and may not be accepted for rentals etc.",
"\"As for PC Mastercard like stated by @nullability, VISA Desjardins list the \"\"Pending Authorizations\"\" almost instantly (the time it's take to get back home) in AccesD (Their Web portal for managing accounts).\"",
"In addition to what has been said, gift cards with a credit card logo (which is what I am assuming you mean here) do not have an address associated with them. That means that if you try to use one at a merchant that users address verification (common in online purchases), the transaction will fail. In my experience with an American Express branded gift card, I was able to call the number on the back and they added an address to the card so that it would work. It seemed like this was a common and well known issue. Because the gift card is not associated with any person, no verification is needed to add that address, you can give them any address you want. Also I believe that the card numbers in use for gift cards are specific, that is you could tell that a card is a gift card based on the number alone. That means it is likely possible for a merchant to reject those gift cards while still accepting other cards from that network. This is likely for certain transactions. For example, a hotel or car rental agency requires a credit card for incidentals, and it's likely that the system itself will outright reject a gift card even if it has enough on it for the initial hold. As for debit cards, I think there are far fewer issues with acceptance, other than the aforementioned hold issues described in another answer.",
"This discussion indicates that the accounts are not reported to credit agencies, but the post is also over a year old, and who knows how reliable the information is (it's fairly well-traveled, though). It's based on one person calling up Trans Union and E-Trade and asking people directly.",
"Nothing happens. A bank is a business; your relationship with the bank doesn't change because your visa or immigration status changes. Money held in the account is still held in the account. Interest paid on the account is still taxable. And so on. If the account is inactive long enough, abandoned account rules may apply, but that still has nothing to do with your status.",
"Generally, credit card networks (as opposed to debit/ATM cards that may or may not have Visa/MC logos) have a rule that a merchant must accept any credit card with their logo. Visa rules for merchants in the US say it explicitly: Accept all types of valid Visa cards. Although Visa card acceptance rules may vary based on country specific requirements or local regulations, to offer the broadest possible range of payment options to cardholder customers, most merchants choose to accept all categories of Visa debit, credit, and prepaid cards.* Unfortunately the Visa site for China is in Chinese, so I can't find similar reference there. You can complain against a merchant who you think had violated Visa rules here. That said, its not a law, its a contract between the merchant processor and the Visa International organization, and merchants are known to break these rules here and there (most commonly - refusing to accept foreign cards, including in the US). Also, local laws may affect these contracts (for example, in the US it is legal to set minimum amount requirements when accepting credit cards). This only affects credit card processing, and merchants that don't accept credit cards may still accept debit cards since those work in different networks, under a different set of rules. Those who accept credit cards, are also required to accept debit cards (at least if used as credit).",
"CitiBank offers a chip card. It's not a chip and pin, but a chip and sign, however it worked well for my all transations. Just call and ask for a 'world credit card' with a chip. https://creditcards.citi.com/credit-cards/citi-thankyou-premier-card/",
"Definitely not. Credit cards only exist to suck you into the soulless corporate system. What you want to remember here is that you can't trust banks, so you'll want to convert all your savings into some durable asset, say, bitcoins for example, and then hoard them like Smaug until after the Fall.",
"This depends on if you're talking Secured credit card, or prepaid debit card. There is no separate category for secured credit cards in the IIN list; however, it is possible some of them are classified as debit cards (despite not being debit cards). You may want to check with the issuer to verify this (and you can check the IIN, or the first 6 digits of the card number, in the list I link to above to verify). However, prepaid debit cards are debit cards, and are less likely to be accepted for travel, rental car, hotel, etc. types of charges (where a hold, similar to a deposit, is charged to the account). This is one of the major differences between a prepaid card, such as the kind you top up at the grocer, and a secured credit card, where you deposit some money but separately pay back the amount you charge on the card (as a regular card). Secured cards are classified as credit cards, while prepaid cards are debit cards. As mhoran notes, it's possible your credit limit could be too low to allow a hotel, airline, or rental agency to allow a transaction, but otherwise it should be fine.",
"\"Although now there are \"\"welcome\"\" banking packages when I landed in 2008 I couldn't find any and Vancity gave me a secured visa nonetheless. Let me emphasize: I didn't have a credit history, score at all. I doubt this changed much. The bank has zero risk.\"",
"These are unrelated. If I subscribe to the paper and pay a month by check, they will just keep billing and delivering the paper. The virtual card would work for a service that will cancel when the billing attempt fails. i.e. A service that won't just keep active without being paid in advance.",
"As other answers and comments suggest you are trying to do something... odd to say the least. No one wants to use a credit card to finance a checking/current account because you are creating a debt on that credit card (unless you are in the odd situation where the card is in credit) that will immediately start accruing interest at a rate probably in excess of 10% per annum. That is not a clever thing to do. What you really need to do is find an account that one of you owns that has a positive balance and use an internet banking service to transfer part of that positive balance onto the debit card. The other solution is not to use the debit card at all but use the credit card to complete the purchases you are trying to manage with the debit card. The reason that BofA and AmEx customer support can't help you is that no one would ever do what you want to do; they would either move existing money from another account or ask for a bank loan.",
"If the checking account is in a FDIC insured bank or a NCUA insured Credit Union then you don't have to worry about what happens if the bank goes out of business. In the past the government has made sure that any disruption was minimal. The fraud issue can cause a bigger problem. If they get a hold of your debit card, they can drain your account. Yes the bank gives you fraud protection so that the most you can lose is $50 or $500; many even make your liability $0 if you report it in a timely manor. But there generally is a delay in getting the money put back in your account. One way to minimize the problem is to open a savings account,it also has the FDIC and NCUA coverage . The account may even earn a little interest. If you don't allow the bank to automatically provide an overdraft transfer from savings to checking account, then the most they can temporarily steal is your checking account balance. Getting a credit card can provide additional protection. It also limits your total losses if there is fraud. The bill is only paid once a month so if they steal the card or the number, they won't be able to drain the money in the bank account. The credit card, if used wisely can also start to build a positive credit file so that in a few years you can get a loan for a car or a place to live. Of course if they steal your entire wallet with both the credit and the debit card...",
"\"Yes, you can usually deposit/pay money into a credit card account in advance. They'll use it to pay any open debt; if there's money left over they'll carry it as a credit towards future changes. (\"\"Usually\"\" added in response to comments that some folks have been unable to do this -- though whether that was really policy or just limitation if web interface is unclear. Could be tested by simply sending them an overpayment as your next check and seeing whether they carry it as a credit or return the excess.)\"",
"\"GreenLight offers a paid service for $5 per month that requires an adult primary account holder, and then unlimited accounts, including minors, as part of that service. I saw no minimum age requirement (see section \"\"Minors as Sub-Account Cardholders\"\"). https://www.greenlightcard.com/index.html Disclaimer: I haven't tried this service\"",
"For me, it is mostly for the fraud protection. If I have a debit card and someone makes a fraudulent charge the money is removed from my bank account. From my understanding, I can then file a fraud complaint with the bank to recover my money. However, for some period of time, the money is missing from my bank account. I've heard conflicting stories of money being returned quickly while the complaint is undergoing investigation as well as money being tied up for several days/weeks. It may depend on the bank. With a credit card, it is the banks money that is tied up.",
"a typical debit card is subject to several limits:",
"ATM to ATM transfer is not possible. Do you mean to say account to account transfer using an ATM machine? Online transfer between account or between an account and credit card is possible. Almost every Bank offers Online transfers using Internet Banking. The person wishing to initiate a Debit must subscribe to Internet Banking. Once you login to Internet Banking, you would need to add beneficiary Account [account where you need to transfer funds]. Adding of Beneficiary at times takes a Day for the Beneficiary to be activated. Once the Beneficiary is activated, you can transfer funds. The funds are credited to Beneficiary account within 2 hrs. If the both the accounts are in same bank, then some Bank's ATM's [HDFC / Citi etc] allow you to transfer funds between account using the Bank's ATM.",
"On payWave transactions, the $100 limit applies per transaction, and your daily withdrawal limit doesn't usually apply - it's only for SAV/CHQ transactions and ATM withdrawals, and payWave transactions are counted as Credit transactions. So really, anything in your account is up for grabs. There are a couple of options as I see it. You should see if there's a option to get an old-style Maestro/Cirrus card, with no Visa/MasterCard scheme link. You might need to push for it, but you can probably do it. Failing that, you could see if you can open a linked savings account with no card access, and put most of your money in there, and transfer what you need into your transaction account. Something that may also be of interest: Visa's Zero Liability policy",
"It is possible, i've contacted different banks, and only one bank (Wells Fargo) didn't say that they need all members in person, but gave me a form which my colleague filled to authorize me to open an account.",
"I don't have an account with either of those CUs, but I do have membership at 2 different CUs. If they accept credit card payments online via transfer from another institution, there's no reason to move your money, unless there are other benefits (higher interest rates). All the CUs would likely require is membership ($5 deposit minimum?). If you were to get a card through Chase or Capital One, you wouldn't be expected to open a checking/savings account with them and transition over to those accounts.",
"I have a visa with Scotiabank and I purposefully keep a negative balance at times. The guy at the bank said it was a great idea. I have never received a cheque, nor do I want one. The reason is that it allows me to make quick purchases without having to worry about paying back and due dates. Only with large purchases do I allow myself to do that. I still check in with my account every once in a while just to make sure everything is all right. It allows for good money management and piece of mind. I have been doing it for a couple of years and have not been penalized at all. (Wouldn't really make sense to do so though.)"
] |
[
"In the United States there are 3 main types of cards. There are organizations that push a credit card with their branding. They aren't a bank so they partner with a bank to offer the card. In the US many colleges and professional sports teams will market a credit card with the team or universities colors and logo. The bank handles the details and the team/university gets a flat fee or a portion of the fees. Many even have annual fees. They market to people who want to show their favorite team colors on their credit card, and are willing to pay extra. Some of these branded cards do come with extra perks: Free shipping, discounts on tickets, being able to buy tickets earlier. There are 4 other types of cards that have limited usage: What makes it confusing is that large business can actually turn a portion of the corporation into a bank. Walmart has been doing this, and so have casinos.",
"Not necessarily. You can issue credit cards without a bank involved, although companies which do so may have additional legal complications, such as usury regulations. As an example, AmEx is a network which also issues cards themselves. The company is not a bank; they sold their banking subsidiary in 2007. It's also possible to get a bank-issued credit card without banking with that same company."
] |
6041
|
Most effective Fundamental Analysis indicators for market entry
|
[
"111091",
"425020",
"241308",
"81655"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"81655",
"425020",
"224695",
"254319",
"62417",
"258306",
"263464",
"542765",
"194240",
"96910",
"317803",
"180644",
"349567",
"5054",
"310476",
"69506",
"111091",
"226839",
"385949",
"528034",
"41687",
"590231",
"241308",
"108579",
"442897",
"490899",
"306189",
"129309",
"265314",
"148270",
"120288",
"481166",
"537020",
"142726",
"289298",
"434337",
"112701",
"171135",
"494171",
"137516",
"577585",
"170247",
"450740",
"88964",
"403870",
"432608",
"367391",
"571234",
"384583",
"480811",
"570664",
"561703",
"593521",
"115134",
"554653",
"517935",
"495165",
"428800",
"259145",
"185809",
"293999",
"148019",
"591230",
"94591",
"124254",
"297231",
"599043",
"123263",
"565827",
"281763",
"28590",
"472500",
"496921",
"9381",
"527120",
"278369",
"361976",
"221319",
"251002",
"398960",
"597295",
"115087",
"576214",
"301547",
"170379",
"70185",
"585447",
"110394",
"55002",
"8653",
"190264",
"469529",
"215659",
"541550",
"473581",
"49893",
"284165",
"129319",
"151104",
"567500"
] |
[
"Fundamental Analysis can be used to help you determine what to buy, but they won't give you an entry signal for when to buy. Technical Analysis can be used to help you determine when to buy, and can give you entry signals for when to buy. There are many Technical Indicator which can be used as an entry signal, from as simple as the price crossing above a moving average line and then selling when the price crosses back below the moving average line, to as complicated as using a combination of indicators to all line up for an entry signal to be valid. You need to find the entry signals that would suit your investing or trading and incorporate them as part of your trading plan. If you want to learn more about entry signals you are better off learning more about Technical Analysis.",
"I think by definition there aren't, generally speaking, any indicators (as in chart indicators, I assume you mean) for fundamental analysis. Off the top of my head I can't think of one chart indicator that I wouldn't call 'technical', even though a couple could possibly go either way and I'm sure someone will help prove me wrong. But the point I want to make is that to do fundamental analysis, it is most certainly more time consuming. Depending on what instrument you're investing in, you need to have a micro perspective (company specific details) and a macro perspective (about the industry it's in). If you're investing in sector ETFs or the like, you'd be more reliant on the macro analysis. If you're investing in commodities, you'll need to consider macro analysis in multiple countries who are big producers/consumers of the item. There's no cut and dried way to do it, however I personally opt for a macro analysis of sector ETFs and then use technical analysis to determine my entry and/or exit.",
"\"Below is just a little information on this topic from my small unique book \"\"The small stock trader\"\": The most significant non-company-specific factor affecting stock price is the market sentiment, while the most significant company-specific factor is the earning power of the company. Perhaps it would be safe to say that technical analysis is more related to psychology/emotions, while fundamental analysis is more related to reason – that is why it is said that fundamental analysis tells you what to trade and technical analysis tells you when to trade. Thus, many stock traders use technical analysis as a timing tool for their entry and exit points. Technical analysis is more suitable for short-term trading and works best with large caps, for stock prices of large caps are more correlated with the general market, while small caps are more affected by company-specific news and speculation…: Perhaps small stock traders should not waste a lot of time on fundamental analysis; avoid overanalyzing the financial position, market position, and management of the focus companies. It is difficult to make wise trading decisions based only on fundamental analysis (company-specific news accounts for only about 25 percent of stock price fluctuations). There are only a few important figures and ratios to look at, such as: perhaps also: Furthermore, single ratios and figures do not tell much, so it is wise to use a few ratios and figures in combination. You should look at their trends and also compare them with the company’s main competitors and the industry average. Preferably, you want to see trend improvements in these above-mentioned figures and ratios, or at least some stability when the times are tough. Despite all the exotic names found in technical analysis, simply put, it is the study of supply and demand for the stock, in order to predict and follow the trend. Many stock traders claim stock price just represents the current supply and demand for that stock and moves to the greater side of the forces of supply and demand. If you focus on a few simple small caps, perhaps you should just use the basic principles of technical analysis, such as: I have no doubt that there are different ways to make money in the stock market. Some may succeed purely on the basis of technical analysis, some purely due to fundamental analysis, and others from a combination of these two like most of the great stock traders have done (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen). It is just a matter of finding out what best fits your personality. I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of \"\"The small stock trader\"\")\"",
"I look at the following ratios and how these ratios developed over time, for instance how did valuation come down in a recession, what was the trough multiple during the Lehman crisis in 2008, how did a recession or good economy affect profitability of the company. Valuation metrics: Enterprise value / EBIT (EBIT = operating income) Enterprise value / sales (for fast growing companies as their operating profit is expected to be realized later in time) and P/E Profitability: Operating margin, which is EBIT / sales Cashflow / sales Business model stability and news flow",
"I look at the following ratios and how these ratios developed over time, for instance how did valuation come down in a recession, what was the trough multiple during the Lehman crisis in 2008, how did a recession or good economy affect profitability of the company. Valuation metrics: Enterprise value / EBIT (EBIT = operating income) Enterprise value / sales (for fast growing companies as their operating profit is expected to be realized later in time) and P/E Profitability: Operating margin, which is EBIT / sales Cashflow / sales Business model stability and news flow",
"Reading and analyzing financial statements is one of the most important tasks of Equity Analysts which look at a company from a fundamental perspective. However, analyzing a company and its financial statements is much more than just reading the absolute dollar figures provided in financial statements: You need to calculate financial ratios which can be compared over multiple periods and companies to be able to gauge the development of a company over time and compare it to its competitors. For instance, for an Equity Analyst, the absolute dollar figures of a company's operating profit is less important than the ratio of the operating profit to revenue, which is called the operating margin. Another very important figure is Free Cash Flow which can be set in relation to sales (= Free Cash Flow / Sales). The following working capital related metrics can be used as a health check for a company and give you early warning signs when they deviate too much: You can either calculate those metrics yourself using a spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) or use a professional solution, e.g. Bloomberg Professional, Reuters Eikon or WorldCap.",
"I'd recommend looking at fundamental analysis as well -- technical analysis seems to be good for buy and sell points, but not for picking what to buy. You can get better outperformance by buying the right stuff, and it can be surprisingly easy to create a formula that works. I'd check out Morningstar, AAII, or Equities Lab (fairly complicated but it lets you do technical and fundamental analysis together). Also read Benjamin Graham, and/or Ken Fisher (they are wildly different, which is why I recommend them both).",
"Using Fundamental and Technical Analysis together is actually a good idea for longer term trading of up to 6 months or longer. The whole idea behind trading with Technical Analysis is to increase the probabilities of a trade going in the desired direction by using uncorrelated indicators that produce the same signal to buy or sell at the same time. For example, you might use a Moving Average (MA) as a buy signal when the price falls for a few days, hits the MA and then reverses and starts moving back up. If however, you also include a Stochastic Oscillator (SO) to indicate when the stock is oversold (under 20%), and if the price rebounds from the MA average at the same time as the Stochastic is crossing over in the oversold position, then this may be a higher probability trade. If you also only trade stocks that are Fundamentally healthy (as fundamentally good stocks are more likely to go up than fundamentally bad stocks) then this might increase the probabilities again. Then if you only buy when the market as a whole is moving up, then this will increase your chances again. A few weeks ago at a seminar, the presenter totalled the men in the room to be 76 and the women in the room to be 8. He then asked what will most likely be the next person to walk in the room - a man or a woman? The statistics are on the side of a wan walking in next. This is what we try to do with Technical Analysis, increase our chances when we take a trade. Of course a woman could be the next person to walk in the room, just like any trade can go against you, and this is why we use money management and risk management and take a small loss when a trade does go against you. Lets look at an example where you could incorporate FA with TA to increase your chances of profits: Above is a candlestick chart of Select Harvest (SHV), the green line above the price is the perceived value, the pink line is the 40 day MA, the blue line is the EPS, and the white lines is the Stochastic Oscillator (above 80% being overbought and below 20% is oversold). From Feb 2015 to start of Aug 2015 the stock was uptrending, since then the price reversed and started to downtrend. The stock was determined to be fundamentally good early in 2015 with the perceived value gradually increasing and greater than the share price, and the EPS starting to increase regularly from mid April. Thus, as the stock is seen as fundamentally healthy any price reversal in the vicinity of the MA could be seen as a buy opportunity. In fact there where 2 such opportunities on 31st March and 11th June where price had reversed and rebounded off the MA whist the SO crossed over in or near the oversold area. The price did reverse and then rebounded off the MA again on 9th July, however the SO was not in or near the oversold area on this occasion, so not as high in probability terms. The price still rebounded and went up again, however another momentum indicator (not shown here) shows some bearish divergence in this case - so another reason to possibly keep away at this point in time. A good signal to get out of the trade, that is your stop loss has not already taken you out, is when the price breaks and closes below the MA line. This occurred on 7th August. So if we had bought on the first signal on 31st March for $7.41 and sold when the priced broke through the MA on 7th August for $11.76, we would have made a profit of approx. 59% in just over 4 months. If bought on the second signal on 11th June for $9.98 and again sold on 7th August for $11.76, we would have made about 18% in under 2 months. So the fundamentals, the Price (in relation to MA) and the SO where all lining up to provide two high probability trades. Of course you would need to incorporate you risk management (including stops) in case the price did not continue upwards after you bought. If the market is also moving up on the day of the signal this will further increase your chances. Unless you day trade, which I would avoid, a good way to enter your trades after a signal is to enter a stop buy order after market close to buy if the price moves above the high of the signal day. That way if the market and the stock open and move lower during the day after the signal you avoid entering the trade altogether. This can be incorporated as part of your risk management and trading rules. After the price broke down through the MA we can see that a downtrend commenced which is still current today (in fact I just took a short trade on this stock yesterday). We can also see that the perceived value, whilst still above the price, has reached a peak and is currently moving downwards and the EPS after being flat for a few months has just moved down for the first time in 10 months. So maybe the fundamentals are starting to waver a bit on this stock. It may be a good stock to continue shorting into the future. So basically you can continue using Fundamental Analysis to select which stocks to buy, place them in a watch-list, and then use Technical Analysis to determine when these stocks are starting to uptrend and use a combination of uncorrelated indicators to produce higher probability signals for when to enter your trades.",
"\"One idea: If you came up with a model to calculate a \"\"fair price range\"\" for a stock, then any time the market price were to go below the range it could be a buy signal, and above the range it could be a sell signal. There are many ways to do stock valuation using fundamental analysis tools and ratios: dividend discount model, PEG, etc. See Wikipedia - Stock valuation. And while many of the inputs to such a \"\"fair price range\"\" calculation might only change once per quarter, market prices and peer/sector statistics move more frequently or at different times and could generate signals to buy/sell the stock even if its own inputs to the calculation remain static over the period. For multinationals that have a lot of assets and income denominated in other currencies, foreign exchange rates provide another set of interesting inputs. I also think it's important to recognize that with fundamental analysis, there will be extended periods when there are no buy signals for a stock, because the stocks of many popular, profitable companies never go \"\"on sale\"\", except perhaps during a panic. Moreover, during a bull market and especially during a bubble, there may be very few stocks worth buying. Fundamental analysis is designed to prevent one from overpaying for a stock, so even if there is interesting volume and price movement for the stock, there should still be no signal if that action happens well beyond the stock's fair price. (Otherwise, it isn't fundamental analysis — it's technical analysis.) Whereas technical analysis can, by definition, generate far more signals because it largely ignores the fundamentals, which can make even an overvalued stock's movement interesting enough to generate signals.\"",
"\"Definition: Fundamental analysis involves analyzing financial statements and health, management and competitive advantages, and competitors and markets. Books are a great way to learn fundamental analysis but can be time consuming for something that really isn't very difficult. So the internet might be a better way to get started. When using fundamental analysis all you are doing is trying to figure out how much a company is worth. The vocabulary and huge range of acronyms can be intimidating but really its a fairly simple task. You can use (investopedia) for definitions and simple examples when you do not fully understand something. IE: (PEG) You can search for definitions using the search bar on the top right (google also is a good source to look for additional definitions). I recommend starting out by doing an independent analysis on a well known name such as Proctor & Gamble or Mcdonald's. Then you can compare your analysis to a professionals and see how they stack up. Books and Resources: Getting Started in Fundamental Analysis Fundamental Analysis For Dummies Fundamental analysis Wiki What Is Fundamental Analysis? - Video tut from Investopedia Fundamental Analysis: Introduction Step by Step example of fundamental analysis - It's a pretty in depth forum post. Side Notes: Personally when I first began using fundamental analysis I found it difficult to understand why something is considered undervalued or overvalued. I couldn't figure out who was the \"\"authority\"\" on saying this. Well in short the \"\"authority\"\" basically is the market. You can say you believe XYZ is undervalued but you are only proven correct if the market agrees with you over long period of time. Some key facts you should know: Many times a stock can be \"\"broken\"\" for many reasons. The price can go far beyond what would be considered a \"\"normal valuation\"\" (this is considered a bubble, e.g. the tech bubble of 1999-2000). It can also go far below a \"\"normal valuation\"\". In most cases these types of valuations are short lived and in the end a stock should return to \"\"normal valuation\"\" or at least this is the theory behind fundamental analysis.\"",
"\"Maria, there are a few questions I think you must consider when considering this problem. Do fundamental or technical strategies provide meaningful information? Are the signals they produce actionable? In my experience, and many quantitative traders will probably say similar things, technical analysis is unlikely to provide anything meaningful. Of course you may find phenomena when looking back on data and a particular indicator, but this is often after the fact. One cannot action-ably trade these observations. On the other hand, it does seem that fundamentals can play a crucial role in the overall (typically long run) dynamics of stock movement. Here are two examples, Technical: suppose we follow stock X and buy every time the price crosses above the 30 day moving average. There is one obvious issue with this strategy - why does this signal have significance? If the method is designed arbitrarily then the answer is that it does not have significance. Moreover, much of the research supports that stocks move close to a geometric brownian motion with jumps. This supports the implication that the system is meaningless - if the probability of up or down is always close to 50/50 then why would an average based on the price be predictive? Fundamental: Suppose we buy stocks with the best P/E ratios (defined by some cutoff). This makes sense from a logical perspective and may have some long run merit. However, there is always a chance that an internal blowup or some macro event creates a large loss. A blended approach: for sake of balance perhaps we consider fundamentals as a good long-term indication of growth (what quants might call drift). We then restrict ourselves to equities in a particular index - say the S&P500. We compare the growth of these stocks vs. their P/E ratios and possibly do some regression. A natural strategy would be to sell those which have exceeded the expected return given the P/E ratio and buy those which have underperformed. Since all equities we are considering are in the same index, they are most likely somewhat correlated (especially when traded in baskets). If we sell 10 equities that are deemed \"\"too high\"\" and buy 10 which are \"\"too low\"\" we will be taking a neutral position and betting on convergence of the spread to the market average growth. We have this constructed a hedged position using a fundamental metric (and some helpful statistics). This method can be categorized as a type of index arbitrage and is done (roughly) in a similar fashion. If you dig through some data (yahoo finance is great) over the past 5 years on just the S&P500 I'm sure you'll find plenty of signals (and perhaps profitable if you calibrate with specific numbers). Sorry for the long and rambling style but I wanted to hit a few key points and show a clever methods of using fundamentals.\"",
"Your question is a bit odd in that you are mixing long-term fundamental analysis signals which are generally meant to work on longer time frames with medium term trading where these fundamental signals are mostly irrelevant. Generally you would buy-and-hold on a fundamental signal and ride the short-term fluctuations if you believe you have done good analysis. If you would like to trade on the 2-6 month time scale you would need a signal that works on that sort of time scale. Some people believe that technical analysis can give you those kind of signals, but there are many, many, many different technical signals and how you would trade using them is highly dependent on which one you believe works. Some people do mix fundamental and technical signals, but that can be very complicated. Learning a good amount about technical analysis could get you started. I will note, though, that studies of non-professionals continuously show that the more frequently people trade the more on they underperform on average in the long term when compared with people that buy-and-hold. An aside on technical analysis: michael's comment is generally correct though not well explained. Say Bob found a technical signal that works and he believes that a stock that costs $10 dollars should be $11. He buys it and makes money two months later when the rest of the market figures out the right price is $11 and he sells at that price. This works a bunch of times and he now publishes how the signal works on Stack Exchange to show everyone how awesome he is. Next time, Bob's signal finds a different stock at $10 that should be $11, but Anna just wrote a computer program that checks that signal Bob published faster than he ever could. The computer program buys as much as it can in milliseconds until the price is $11. Bob goes to buy, but now it is too late the price is already $11 and he can't make any money. Eventually, people learn to anticipate/adjust for this signal and even Anna's algorithms don't even work anymore and the hunt for new signals starts again.",
"for buying: High PE, low debt, discount = win. a company with high debt (in relation to revenues and cash on hand) will have to pay interest and pay off the debt, stunting their growth. and just like a normal person, will barely be able to pay their bills and keep borrowing and might go bankrupt determining discount is just looking for a technical retracement to a support level or lower. (but if you dont enter at the support level, you most likely missed the best entry)",
"When fundamentals such as P/E make a stock look overpriced, analysts often point to other metrics. The PEG ratio, for example, can be applied to cast growth companies in a better light. Fundamental analysis is highly subjective. For further discussion on the pitfalls of fundamentals, I suggest A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel.",
"The Bible of fundamental analysis was written by Graham and Dodd, and is titled Security Analysis. If you don't know the name Benjamin Graham, Warren Buffet was his student and attribute his own success to Graham. If Security Analysis is a bit too intense for you, Graham also wrote The Intelligent Investor which is probably a better starting point.",
"Try to find the P/E ratio of the Company and then Multiply it with last E.P.S, this calculation gives the Fundamental Value of the share, anything higher than this Value is not acceptable and Vice versa.",
"\"Unfortunately, there is very little data supporting fundamental analysis or technical analysis as appropriate tools to \"\"time\"\" the market. I will be so bold to say that technical analysis is meaningless. On the other hand, fundamental analysis has some merits. For example, the realization that CDOs were filled with toxic mortgages can be considered a product of fundamental analysis and hence provided traders with a directional assumption to buy CDSs. However, there is no way to tell when there is a good or bad time to buy or sell. The market behaves like a random 50/50 motion. There are many reasons for this and interestingly, there are many fundamentally sound companies that take large dips for no reason at all. Depending on your goal, you can either believe that this volatility will smooth over long periods and that the market has generally positive drift. On the other hand, I feel that the appropriate approach is to remain active. You will be able to mitigate the large downswings by simply staying small and diversifying - not in the sense of traditional finance but rather looking for uncorrelated products. Remember, volatility brings higher levels of correlation. My second suggestion is to look towards products like options to provide a method of shaping your P/L - giving up upside by selling calls against a long equity position is a great example. Ground your trades with fundamental beliefs if need be, but use your tools and knowledge to combat risks that may create long periods of drawdown.\"",
"Are you implying that Amazon is a better investment than GE because Amazon's P/E is 175 while GE's is only 27? Or that GE is a better investment than Apple because Apple's P/E is just 13. There are a lot of other ratios to consider than P/E. I personally view high P/E numbers as a red flag. One way to think of a P/E ratio is the number of years it's expected for the company to earn its market cap. (Share price divided by annual earnings per share) It will take Amazon 175 years to earn $353 billion. If I was going to buy a dry cleaners, I would not pay the owner 175 years of earnings to take control of it, I'd never see my investment back. To your point. There is so much future growth seemingly built in to today's stock market that even when a company posts higher than expected earnings, the company's stock may take a hit because maybe future prospects are a little less bright than everyone thought yesterday. The point of fundamental analysis is that you want to look at a company's management style and financial strategies. How is it paying its debt? How is it accumulating the debt? How is it's return on assets? How is the return on assets trending? This way when you look at a few companies in the same market segment you may have a better shot at picking the winner over time. The company that piles on new debt for every new project is likely to continue that path in to oblivion, regardless of the P/E ratio. (or some other equally less forward thinking management practice that you uncover in your fundamental analysis efforts). And I'll add... No amount of historical good decision making from a company's management can prepare for a total market downturn, or lack of investor confidence in general. The market is the market; sometimes it's up irrationally, sometimes it's down irrationally.",
"All you have to do is ask Warren Buffet that question and you'll have your answer! (grin) He is the very definition of someone who relies on the fundamentals as a major part of his investment decisions. Investors who rely on analysis of fundamentals tend to be more long-term strategic planners than most other investors, who seem more focused on momentum-based thinking. There are some industries which have historically low P/E ratios, such as utilities, but I don't think that implies poor growth prospects. How often does a utility go out of business? I think oftentimes if you really look into the numbers, there are companies reporting higher earnings and earnings growth, but is that top-line growth, or is it the result of cost-cutting and other measures which artificially imply a healthy and growing company? A healthy company is one which shows year-over-year organic growth in revenues and earnings from sales, not one which has to continually make new acquisitions or use accounting tricks to dress up the bottom line. Is it possible to do well by investing in companies with solid fundamentals? Absolutely. You may not realize the same rate of short-term returns as others who use momentum-based trading strategies, but over the long haul I'm willing to bet you'll see a better overall average return than they do.",
"\"As other people have posted starting with \"\"fictional money\"\" is the best way to test a strategy, learn about the platform you are using, etc. That being said I would about how Fundamental Analysis works . Fundamental Analysis is the very basis of learning about an assets true value is priced. However in my humble opinion, I personally just stick with Index funds. In layman's terms Index Funds are essentially computer programs that buy or sell the underlying assets based on the Index they are associated with in the portion of the underlying index. Therefore you will usually be doing as good or as bad as the market. I personally have the background, education, and skillsets to build very complex models to do fundamental analysis but even I invest primarily in index funds because a well made and well researched stock model could take 8 hours or more and Modern Portfolio Theory would suggest that most investors will inevitably have a regression to the mean and have gains equal to the market rate or return over time. Which is what an index fund already does but without the hours of work and transaction cost.\"",
"\"Most markets around the world have been downtrending for the last 6 to 10 months. The definition of a downtrend is lower lows and lower highs, and until you get a higher low and confirmation with a higher high the downtrend will continue. If you look at the weekly charts of most indexes you can determine the longer term trend. If you are more concerned with the medium term trend then you could look at the daily charts. So if your objective is to try and buy individual stocks and try to make some medium to short term profits from them I would start by first looking at the daily charts of the index your stock belongs to. Only buy when the intermediate trend of the market is moving up (higher highs and higher lows). You can do some brief analysis on the stocks your interested in buying, and two things I would add to the short list in your question would be to check if earnings are increasing year after year. The second thing to look at would be to check if the earnings yield is greater than the dividend yield, that way you know that dividends are being paid out from current earnings and not from previous earning or from borrowings. You could then check the daily charts of these individual stocks and make sure they are uptrending also. Buy uptrending stocks in an uptrending market. Before you buy anything write up a trading plan and develop your trading rules. For example if price breaks through the resistance line of a previous high you will buy at the open of the next day. Have your money management and risk management rules in place and stick to your plan. You can also do some backtesting or paper trading to check the validity of your strategy. A good book to read on money and risk management is - \"\"Trade your way to Financial Freedom\"\" by Van Tharp. Your aim should not be to get a winner on every trade but to let your winners run and keep your losses small.\"",
"I like to look at Alpha, Beta, St. Dev., Sharpe Ratio, and R-Squared. It's also good to know how they work together. i.e.: Say you're comparing a fund to an index and the fund has a low beta, but the r-squared is low (<70 is low for my usage). The beta loses some significance in that instance. You want to be able to look at these 5 metrics, know what they mean on their own, and what they say about each other. Sorry if that was poorly worded, Mondays...",
"The three places you want to focus on are the income statement, the balance sheet, and cash flow statement. The standard measure for multiple of income is the P/E or price earnings ratio For the balance sheet, the debt to equity or debt to capital (debt+equity) ratio. For cash generation, price to cash flow, or price to free cash flow. (The lower the better, all other things being equal, for all three ratios.)",
"\"Although is not online, I use a standalone version from http://jstock.sourceforge.net It got drag-n-drop boxes, to let me design my own indicators. However, it only contain technical analysis information, not fundamental analysis information. It does come with tutorial http://jstock.sourceforge.net/help_stock_indicator_editor.html#indicator-example, on how to to build an indicator, to screen \"\"Stock which Its Price Hits Their 14 Days Maximum\"\"\"",
"I recall the name Martin Pring. As my fundamental analysis book from grad school was the work of Graham and Dodd titled Security Analysis, Pring was the author of the books I read on technical analysis. If you've not read his work, your education has a ways to go before you hit the tools.",
"all of these examples are great if you actually believe in fundamentals, but who believes in fundamentals alone any more? Stock prices are driven by earnings, news, and public perception. For instance, a pharma company named Eyetech has their new macular degeneration drug approved by the FDA, and yet their stock price plummeted. Typically when a small pharma company gets a drug approved, it's off to the races. But, Genetech came out said their macular degeneration drug was going to be far more effective, and that they were well on track for approval.",
"There are those who would suggest that due to the Efficient Market Hypothesis, stocks are always fairly valued. Consider, if non-professional posters on SE (here) had a method that worked beyond random chance, everyone seeking such a method would soon know it. If everyone used that method, it would lose its advantage. In theory, this is how stocks' values remain rational. That said, Williams %R is one such indicator. It can be seen in action on Yahoo finance - In the end, I find such indicators far less useful than the news itself. BP oil spill - Did anyone believe that such a huge oil company wouldn't recover from that disaster? It recovered by nearly doubling from its bottom after that news. A chart of NFLX (Netflix) offers a similar news disaster, and recovery. Both of these examples are not quantifiable, in my opinion, just gut reactions. A quick look at the company and answer to one question - Do I feel this company will recover? To be candid - in the 08/09 crash, I felt that way about Ford and GM. Ford returned 10X from the bottom, GM went through bankruptcy. That observation suggests another question, i.e. where is the line drawn between 'investing' and 'gambling'? My answer is that buying one stock hoping for its recovery is gambling. Being able to do this for 5-10 stocks, or one every few months, is investing.",
"\"I was wondering how \"\"future cash flows of the asset\"\" are predicted? Are they also predicted using fundamental and/or technical analysis? There are a many ways to forecast the future cash flows of assets. For example, for companies: It seems like calculating expected/required rate using CAPM does not belong to either fundamental or technical analysis, does it? I would qualify the CAPM as quantitative analysis because it's mathematics and statistics. It's not really fundamental since its does not relies on economical data (except the prices). And as for technical analysis, the term is often used as a synonym for graphical analysis or chartism, but quantitative analysis can also be referred as technical analysis. the present value of future cash flows [...] (called intrinsic price/value, if I am correct?) Yes you are correct. I wonder when deciding whether an asset is over/fair/under-valued, ususally what kind of price is compared to what other kind of price? If it's only to compare with the price, usually, the Net asset value (which is the book value), the Discount Cash flows (the intrinsic value) and the price of comparable companies and the CAPM are used in comparison to current market price of the asset that you are studying. Why is it in the quote to compare the first two kinds of prices, instead of comparing the current real price on the markets to any of the other three kinds? Actually the last line of the quote says that the comparison is done on the observed price which is the market price (the other prices can't really be observed). But, think that the part: an asset is correctly priced when its estimated price is the same as the present value of future cash flows of the asset means that, since the CAPM gives you an expected rate of return, by using this rate to compute the present value of future cash flows of the asset, you should have the same predicted price. I wrote this post explaining some valuation strategies. Maybe you can find some more information by reading it.\"",
"It is not so useful because you are applying it to large capital. Think about Theory of Investment Value. It says that you must find undervalued stocks with whatever ratios and metrics. Now think about the reality of a company. For example, if you are waiting KO (The Coca-Cola Company) to be undervalued for buying it, it might be a bad idea because KO is already an international well known company and KO sells its product almost everywhere...so there are not too many opportunities for growth. Even if KO ratios and metrics says it's a good time to buy because it's undervalued, people might not invest on it because KO doesn't have the same potential to grow as 10 years ago. The best chance to grow is demographics. You are better off either buying ETFs monthly for many years (10 minimum) OR find small-cap and mid-cap companies that have the potential to grow plus their ratios indicate they might be undervalued. If you want your investment to work remember this: stock price growth is nothing more than You might ask yourself. What is your investment profile? Agressive? Speculative? Income? Dividends? Capital preservation? If you want something not too risky: ETFs. And not waste too much time. If you want to get more returns, you have to take more risks: find small-cap and mid-companies that are worth. I hope I helped you!",
"The Art of Short Selling by Kathryn Stanley providers for many case studies about what kind of opportunities to look for from a fundamental analysis perspective. Typically things you can look for are financing terms that are not very favorable (expensive interest payments) as well as other constrictions on cash flow, arbitrary decisions by management (poor management), and dilution that doesn't make sense (usually another product of poor management). From a quantitative analysis perspective, you can gain insight by looking at the credit default swap rate history, if the company is listed in that market. The things that affect a CDS spread are different than what immediately affects share prices. Some market participants trade DOOMs over Credit Default Swaps, when they are betting on a company's insolvency. But looking at large trades in the options market isn't indicative of anything on its own, but you can use that information to help confirm your opinion. You can certainly jump on a trend using bad headlines, but typically by the time it is headline news, the majority of the downward move in the share price has already happened, or the stock opened lower because the news came outside of market hours. You have to factor in the short interest of the company, if the short interest is high then it will be very easy to squeeze the shorts resulting in a rally of share prices, the opposite of what you want. A short squeeze doesn't change the fundamental or quantitative reasons you wanted to short. The technical analysis should only be used to help you decide your entry and exit price ranges amongst an otherwise random walk. The technical rules you created sound like something a very basic program or stock screener might be able to follow, but it doesn't tell you anything, you will have to do research in the company's public filings yourself.",
"Technical Analysis assumes that the only relevant number(s) regarding a security is (are) price (and price momentum, price patterns, price harmonics, price trends, price aberrations, etc.). Technical is all based on price. Technical is not based on any of the fundamentals. Technical Analysis is for traders (speculators) not for long term investors. A long term investor is more concerned with the dividend payment history and such similar data as he makes his money from the dividend payments not from the changes in price (because he buys and holds, not buy low sell high).",
"The indication is based on the average Buy-Hold-Sell rating of a group of fundamental analysts. The individual analysts provide a Buy, Hold or Sell recommendation based on where the current price of the stock is compared to the perceived value of the stock by the analyst. Note that this perceived value is based on many assumptions by the analyst and their biased view of the stock. That is why different fundamental analysts provide different values and different recommendations on the same stock. So basically if the stock's price is below the analyst's perceived value it will be given a Buy recommendation, if the price is equal with the perceived value it will be given a Hold recommendation and if the price is more than the perceived value it will be given a Sell recommendation. As the others have said this information IMHO is useless.",
"I don't even know where to begin with how terrible this article is. Fundamental analysis is about analyzing the profitability of a company, technical analysis is very much the crystal ball strategy that he makes out fundamental to be. This is just an advertisement for his garbage trading program",
"Technical analysis is insufficient. You're halfway to figuring it out if you start to question why a 50 day moving average vs 200 vs 173. Invest in companies that are attractively valued vs. their sales/growth/divends/anythingelsereal",
"Where we’re going, we don’t need profits Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Print this page 15 SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 By: Alexandra Scaggs Simply put, earnings no longer reliably reflect changes in corporate value and are thus an inadequate driver of investment analysis. – Profs Feng Gu and Baruch Lev, in a paper for the CFA Institute’s Financial Analysts Journal Well then! This idea challenges the very heart of traditional equity-market investment analysis. The authors point out that legendary stock-picker Benjamin Graham spent hundreds of pages of his 1962 book on analysing and predicting earnings and other quarterly metrics. Earnings prediction is still central to most sell-side analysis as well. But if profits, EBITDA or sales were truly central for corporate valuation, wouldn’t markets punish regular loss-makers like Tesla and Amazon more severely? And wouldn’t there be a stronger return to predicting profits? The returns to such predictions have diminished over time, according to the authors of the paper, which might help explain the persistent underperformance by active fund managers. While the professors commit a minor chart crime below by starting the Y-axis at 1.5 per cent, it seems notable that potential gains were lower during the 2009 downturn than during the dot-com bust: The 30-year pattern of the gains from the earnings growth investment strategy is depicted in Figure 2. Again, the deterioration of gains from perfect growth prediction is evident. Clearly, the problem lies with reported earnings, not in the way investors use them. Simply put, earnings no longer reliably reflect changes in corporate value and are thus an inadequate driver of investment analysis. The decline in profits’ importance can be explained by a fundamental change in the way companies create value, they say. There are lots of names for the change: The information revolution, the rise of the knowledge economy, and so on. No matter what you call it, the idea is that modern production relies less on physical capital and more on intellectual capital. Accounting and financial analysis methods have failed to adapt to this change, they say. For example, companies are required to expense R&D and sales expenses immediately, while they can amortise expenses from capital investment and acquisitions (including intangibles) over time. They argue those rules penalise the important methods of modern value creation, since R&D costs create lasting returns from new products and SG&A expenses create lasting returns from new customers. Of course, one person’s “internally generated intangibles” can be another’s “overpaid salesforce”. But the difference in accounting treatment between those costs and acquired intangibles can make it difficult to compare within industries: Thus, a company pursuing an innovation strategy based on acquisitions will appear more profitable and asset rich than a similar enterprise developing its innovations internally. Consequently, reported earnings, assets, and market multiples (P/E, book-to-market ratio) cannot be compared within industries, and earnings definitely do not reflect intrinsic value creation. And as far as we can tell, the professors aren’t lobbying to start amortising all sales costs and executive compensation. Instead, they say we should stop looking at the consequences of corporate value creation — the quarterly reports — and start looking at its causes. They suggest financial analysis based on strategic assets, which are (1) rare, (2) difficult to imitate and (3) generate net benefits, like growth in a customer base or sales. There would be four steps to this type of analysis. From the paper, with our emphasis: 1. Taking inventory of strategic assets: Compiling a list of the major strategic assets of the enterprise; distinguishing between operating and dormant assets (e.g., patents under development or licensed out versus abandoned patents), active brands (enabling the charging of a premium product price) and brands in name only, or producing oil and gas properties and those under exploration versus inactive properties. Such inventory taking establishes the foundation—active strategic assets—of the company’s competitive advantage. 2. Enhancing strategic assets: Without continued investment and replenishment, even highly productive assets will wither on the vine (recall Dell). You should ask, Is the spending on R&D, technology purchases, customer acquisition, brand support, and employee training sufficient to maintain and grow the business? Cutting R&D or employee training to “make the numbers” clearly bodes ill for future growth. 3. Defending strategic assets: These assets are vulnerable to competition (from similar products), infringement, and technological disruption, raising the question of whether the company’s assets are adequately protected by continuous innovation, patent defensive walls, and litigation. A continuous loss of market share clearly indicates a failure to protect assets. 4. Asset deployment and value creation: Are the strategic assets, along with other company resources, optimally deployed to create value (e.g., retail outlets with increasing same-store sales)? And what is this value? Note that in our analysis, the measurement of the periodic value created is a byproduct rather than the focus of the analysis. We prefer to measure value created by cash flows to avoid the multiple managerial estimates embedded in earnings. In contrast to the cash flows generally used by analysts (EBITDA), however, we add to cash flows the company’s investments in value-creating strategic assets, such as R&D, IT, and unusual brand creation expenditures, which are not really operating cash outflows. Now, if we are living in a period of secular stagnation, this could be seen as an attempt to lower the bar to make up for lackluster capital investment. (One academic literature review we found on the topic of strategic assets only cites papers from around the time of the dot-com bubble. Fancy that!) What’s more, “defending strategic assets” can sound a lot like “maintaining monopoly power”, depending on the methods companies use in their defence. So an investment analysis focussed on strategic assets might also require more aggressive anti-trust regulation. But if you accept the idea that widespread adoption of the internet brought a fundamental and irreversible change in the drivers of growth, there are worse approaches to financial analysis you can take. There’s more detail and argument in the paper, which you can find here.",
"It sounds to me like you may not be defining fundamental investing very well, which is why it may seem like it doesn't matter. Fundamental investing means valuing a stock based on your estimate of its future profitability (and thus cash flows and dividends). One way to do this is to look at the multiples you have described. But multiples are inherently backward-looking so for firms with good growth prospects, they can be very poor estimates of future profitability. When you see a firm with ratios way out of whack with other firms, you can conclude that the market thinks that firm has a lot of future growth possibilities. That's all. It could be that the market is overestimating that growth, but you would need more information in order to conclude that. We call Warren Buffet a fundamental investor because he tends to think the market has made a mistake and overvalued many firms with crazy ratios. That may be in many cases, but it doesn't necessarily mean those investors are not using fundamental analysis to come up with their valuations. Fundamental investing is still very much relevant and is probably the primary determinant of stock prices. It's just that fundamental investing encompasses estimating things like future growth and innovation, which is a lot more than just looking at the ratios you have described.",
"Volume and prices are affected together by how folks feel about the stock; there is no direct relationship between them. There are no simple analysis techniques that work. Some would argue strongly that there are few complex analysis techniques that work either, and that for anyone but full-time professionals. And there isn't clear evidence that the full-time professionals do sufficiently better than index funds to justify their fees. For most folks, the best bet is to diversify, using low-overhead index funds, and simply ride with the market rather than trying to beat it.",
"\"You are probably going to hate my answer, but... If there was an easy way to ID stocks like FB that were going to do what FB did, then those stocks wouldn't exist and do that because they would be priced higher at the IPO. The fact is there is always some doubt, no one knows the future, and sometimes value only becomes clear with time. Everyone wants to buy a stock before it rises right? It will only be worth a rise if it makes more profit though, and once it is established as making more profit the price will be already up, because why wouldn't it be? That means to buy a real winner you have to buy before it is completely obvious to everyone that it is going to make more profit in the future, and that means stock prices trade at speculative prices, based on expected future performance, not current or past performance. Now I'm not saying past and future performance has nothing in common, but there is a reason that a thousand financially oriented websites quote a disclaimer like \"\"past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance\"\". Now maybe this is sort of obvious, but looking at your image, excluding things like market capital that you've not restricted, the PE ratio is based on CURRENT price and PAST earnings, the dividend yield is based on PAST publications of what the dividend will be and CURRENT price, the price to book is based on PAST publication of the company balance sheet and CURRENT price, the EPS is based on PAST earnings and the published number of shares, and the ROI and net profit margin in based on published PAST profits and earnings and costs and number of shares. So it must be understood that every criteria chosen is PAST data that analysts have been looking at for a lot longer than you have with a lot more additional information and experience with it. The only information that is even CURRENT is the price. Thus, my ultimate conclusive point is, you can't based your stock picks on criteria like this because it's based on past information and current stock price, and the current stock price is based on the markets opinion of relative future performance. The only way to make a good stock pick is understand the business, understand its market, and possibly understand world economics as it pertains to that market and business. You can use various criteria as an initial filter to find companies and investigate them, but which criteria you use is entirely your preference. You might invest only in profitable companies (ones that make money and probably pay regular dividends), thus excluding something like an oil exploration company, which will just lose money, and lose it, and lose some more, forever... unless it hits the jackpot, in which case you might suddenly find yourself sitting on a huge profit. It's a question of risk and preference. Regarding your concern for false data. Google defines the Return on investment (TTM) (%) as: Trailing twelve month Income after taxes divided by the average (Total Long-Term Debt + Long-Term Liabilities + Shareholders Equity), expressed as a percentage. If you really think they have it wrong you could contact them, but it's probably correct for whatever past data or last annual financial results it's based on.\"",
"Bloomberg Professional seems to be very popular. It provides any kind of data you can imagine. Analysis is a subjective interpretation of the data.",
"Good post - just to note to self to add my comments this weekend A couple thoughts that came to mind (sorry, was working on an idea this weekend): * When comparing companies, reviewing accounting policies in detail for any substantive differences. A notable example would be telecom companies who expense wireless subsidies vs. capitalizing them - obviously makes a large difference in a EBITDA-based * I always approach a company from a SOTP perspective... hidden assets or otherwise, many businesses have various segments, which if they can be reliably broken off, provide good insight into underlying op performance * If appropriate (i.e. will never be reinvested), tax-adjusting cash balances that are offshore * Cyclical industries, always compare on a mid-cycle basis * Dynamic schedules (i.e. at various prices) for dilutive instruments and proceeds thereof. For most large caps this is not relevant, but for certain industries it is much more popular (e.g. resource, tech)",
"Pivots Points are significant levels technical analysts can use to determine directional movement, support and resistance. Pivot Points use the prior period's high, low and close to formulate future support and resistance. In this regard, Pivot Points are predictive or leading indicators. There are at least five different versions of Pivot Points. I will focus on Standard Pivot Points here as they are the simplest. If you are looking to trade off daily charts you would work out your Pivot Points from the prior month's data. For example, Pivot Points for first trading day of February would be based on the high, low and close for January. They remain the same for the entire month of February. New Pivot Points would then be calculated on the first trading day of March using the high, low and close for February. To work out the Standard Pivot Points you use the High, Low and Close from the previous period (i.e. for daily charts it would be from the previous month) in the following formulas: You will now have 5 horizontal lines: P, R1, R2, S1 and S2 which will set the general tone for price action over the next month. A move above the Pivot Point P suggests strength with a target to the first resistance R1. A break above first resistance shows even more strength with a target to the second resistance level R2. The converse is true on the downside. A move below the Pivot Point P suggests weakness with a target to the first support level S1. A break below the first support level shows even more weakness with a target to the second support level S2. The second resistance and support levels (R2 & S2) can also be used to identify potentially overbought and oversold situations. A move above the second resistance level R2 would show strength, but it would also indicate an overbought situation that could give way to a pullback. Similarly, a move below the second support level S2 would show weakness, but would also suggest a short-term oversold condition that could give way to a bounce. This could be used together with a momentum indicator such as RSI or Stochastic to confirm overbought or oversold conditions. Pivot Points offer a methodology to determine price direction and then set support and resistance levels, however, it is important to confirm Pivot Point signals with other technical analysis indicators, such as candle stick reversal patterns, stochastic and general Support and Resistance Levels in the price action. These pivot points can be handy but I actually haven’t used them for trade setups and entries myself. I prefer to use candle sticks together with stochastic to determine potential turning points and then take out trades based on these. You can then use the Pivot Points Resistance and Support levels to help you estimate profit targets or areas to start becoming cautious and start tightening your stops. Say, for example, you have gone long from a signal you got a few days ago, you are now in profit and the price is now approaching R2 whilst the Stochastic is approaching overbought, you might want to start tightening your stop loss as you might expect some weakness in the price in the near future. If prices continue up you keep increasing your profits, if prices do reverse then you keep the majority of your existing profits. This would become part of your trade management. If you are after finding potential market turning points and take out trades based on these, then I would suggest using candlestick charting reversal patterns for your trade setups. The patterns I like to use most in my trading can be described as either the Hammer or One White Soldier for Bullish reversals and Shooting Star or One Black Crow for Bearish reversals. Below are diagrams of where to place your entries and exits on both Bullish and Bearish reversal patterns. Bullish Reversal Pattern So after some period of weakness in the price you would look for a bullish day where the price closes above the previous day’s high, you place your buy order here just before market close and place your initial stop just below the low of the day. You would apply this either for an uptrending stock where the price has retracted from or near the trendline or Moving Average, or a ranging stock where price is bouncing off the support line. The trade is reinforced if the Stochastic is in or near the oversold and crossing back upwards, volume on the up day is higher than volume on the down days, and the market as a whole is moving up as well. The benefit with this entry is that you are in early so you capture any bullish move up at the open of the next day, such as gaps. The drawbacks are that you need to be in front of your screen before market close to get your price close to the market close and you may get whipsawed if prices reverse at the open of the next day, thus being stopped out with a small loss. As the price moves up you would move your stop loss to just below the low of each day. Alternative Bullish Reversal Entry An alternative, entry would be to wait for after market close and then start your analysis (easier to do after market close than whilst the market is open and less emotions involved). Place a stop buy order to buy at the open of next trading day just above the high of the bullish green candle. Your stop is placed exactly the same, just below the low of the green bullish candle. The benefits of this alternative entry include you avoid the trade if the price reverses at the open of next day, thus avoiding a potential small loss (in other words you wait for further confirmation on the next trading day), and you avoid trading during market open hours where your emotions can get the better of you. I prefer to do my trading after market close so prefer this alternative. The drawback with this alternative is that you may miss out on bullish news prior to and at the next open, so miss out on some potential profits if prices do gap up at the open. This may also increase your loss on the trade if the prices gaps up then reverses and hits your stop on the same day. However, if you choose this method, then you will just need to incorporate this into your trading plan as potential slippage. Bearish Reversal Pattern So after some short period of strength in the price you would look for a bearish day where the price closes below the previous day’s low, you place your sell short order here just before market close and place your initial stop just above the high of the day. You would apply this either for an downtrending stock where the price has retracted from or near the trendline or Moving Average, or a ranging stock where price is bouncing off the resistance line. The trade is reinforced if the Stochastic is in or near the overbought and crossing back downwards, volume on the up day is higher than volume on the up days, and the market as a whole is moving down as well. The benefit with this entry is that you are in early so you capture any bearish move down at the open of the next day, such as gaps. The drawbacks are that you need to be in front of your screen before market close to get your price close to the market close and you may get whipsawed if prices reverse at the open of the next day, thus being stopped out with a small loss. As the price moves down you would move your stop loss to just above the high of each day. Alternative Bearish Reversal Entry An alternative, entry would be to wait for after market close and then start your analysis (easier to do after market close than whilst the market is open and less emotions involved). Place a stop sell short order to sell at the open of next trading day just below the low of the bearish red candle. Your stop is placed exactly the same, just above the high of the red bearish candle. The benefits of this alternative entry include you avoid the trade if the price reverses at the open of next day, thus avoiding a potential small loss (in other words you wait for further confirmation on the next trading day), and you avoid trading during market open hours where your emotions can get the better of you. I prefer to do my trading after market close so prefer this alternative. The drawback with this alternative is that you may miss out on bearish news prior to and at the next open, so miss out on some potential profits if prices do gap down at the open. This may also increase your loss on the trade if the prices gaps down then reverses and hits your stop on the same day. However, if you choose this method, then you will just need to incorporate this into your trading plan as potential slippage. You could also trade other candle stick patterns is similar ways. And with the long entries you can also use them to get into the market with longer term trend following strategies, you would usually just use a larger stop for longer term trading. To determine the size of your order you would use the price difference between your entry and your stop. You should not be risking more than 1% of your trading capital on any one trade. So if your trading capital is $20,000 your risk per trade should be $200. If you were looking to place your buy at 5.00 and had your initial stop at $4.60, you would divide $200 by $0.40 to get 500 stocks to buy. Using this form of money management you keep your losses down to a maximum of $200 (some trades may be a bit higher due to some slippage which you should allow for in your trading plan), which becomes your R-multiple. Your aim is to have your average win at 3R or higher (3 x your average loss), which will give you a positive expectancy even with a win ratio under 50%. Once you have written down your trading rules you can search stock charts for potential setups. When you find one you can backtest the chart for similar setup over the past few years. For each setup in the past jot down the prices you would have entered at, where you would have set your stop, work out your R, and go day by day, moving your stop as you go, and see where you would have been stopped out. Work out your profit or loss in terms of R for each setup and then add them up. If you get a positive R multiple, then this may be a good stock to trade on this setup. If you get a negative R multiple, then maybe give this stock a miss and look for the next setup. You can setup watch-lists of stocks that perform well for both long setups and short setups, and then trade these stocks when you get a new signal. It can take some time starting off, but once you have got your watch-lists for a particular setup, you just need to keep monitoring those stocks. You can create other watch-lists for other type of setups you have backtested as well.",
"I can think of a few simple and quick techniques for timing the market over the long term, and they can be used individually or in combination with each other. There are also some additional techniques to give early warning of possible turns in the market. The first is using a Moving Average (MA) as an indication of when to sell. Simply if the price closes below the MA it is time to sell. Obviously if the period you are looking at is long term you would probably use a weekly or even monthly chart and use a relatively large period MA such as a 50 week or 100 week moving average. The longer the period the more the MA will lag behind the price but the less false signals and whipsawing there will be. As we are looking long term (5 years +) I would use a weekly chart with a 100 week Exponential MA. The second technique is using a Rate Of Change (ROC) Indicator, which is a momentum indicator. The idea for timing the markets in the long term is to buy when the indicator crosses above the zero line and sell when it crosses below the zero line. For long term investing I would use a 13 week EMA of the 52 week ROC (the EMA smooths out the ROC indicator to reduce the chance of false signals). The beauty of these two indicators is they can be used effectively together. Below are examples of using these two indicators in combination on the S&P500 and the Australian S&P ASX200 over the past 20 years. S&P500 1995 to 2015 ASX200 1995 to 2015 If I was investing in an ETF tracking one of these indexes I would use these two indicators together by using the MA as an early warning system and maybe tighten any stop losses I have so that if the market takes a sudden turn downward the majority of my profits would be protected. I would then use the ROC Indicator to sell out completely out of the ETF when it crosses below zero or to buy back in when the ROC moves back above zero. As you can see in both charts the two indicators would have kept you out of the market during the worst of the downfalls in 2000 and 2008 for the S&P500 and 2008 for the ASX200. If there is a false signal that gets you out of the market you can quite easily get back in if the indicator goes back above zero. Using these indicators you would have gotten into the market 3 times and out of it twice for the S&P500 over a 20 year period. For the ASX200 you would have gone in 6 times and out 5 times, also over a 20 year period. For individual shares I would use the ROC indicator over the main index the shares belong to, to give an indication of when to be buying individual stocks and when to tighten stop losses and stay on the sidelines. My philosophy is to buy rising stocks in a rising market and sell falling stocks in a falling market. So if the ROC indicator is above zero I would be looking to buy fundamentally healthy stocks that are up-trending and place a 20% trailing stop loss on them. If I get stopped out of one stock then I would look to replace it with another as long as the ROC is still above zero. If the ROC indicator crosses below zero I would tighten my trailing stop losses to 5% and not buy any new stocks once I get stopped out. Some additional indicators I would use for individual stock would be trend lines and using the MACD as a momentum indicator. These two indicators can give you further early warning that the stock may be about to reverse from its current trend, so you can tighten your stop loss even if the ROC is still above zero. Here is an example chart to explain: GEM.AX 3 Year Weekly Chart Basically if the price closes below the trend line it may be time to close out the position or at the very least tighten up your trailing stop loss to 5%. If the price breaks below an established uptrend line it may well be the end of the uptrend. The definition of an uptrend is higher highs and higher lows. As GEM has broken below the uptrend line and has maid a lower low, all that is needed to confirm the uptrend is over is a lower high. But months before the price broke below the uptrend line, the MACD momentum indicator was showing bearish divergence between it and the price. In early September 2014 the price made a higher high but the MACD made a lower high. This is called a bearish divergence and is an early warning signal that the momentum in the uptrend is weakening and the trend could be reversing soon. Notice I said could and not would. In this situation I would reduce my trailing stop to 10% and keep a watchful eye on this stock over the coming months. There are many other indicators that could be used as signals or as early warnings, but I thought I would talk about some of my favourites and ones I use on a daily and weekly basis. If you were to employ any of these techniques into your investing or trading it may take a little while to learn about them properly and to implement them into your trading plan, but once you have done that you would only need to spend 1 to 2 hours per week managing your portfolio if trading long-term or about 1 hour per nigh (after market close) if trading more medium term.",
"If I knew a surefire way to make money in FOREX (or any market for that matter) I would not be sharing it with you. If you find an indicator that makes sense to you and you think you can make money, use it. For what it's worth, I think technical analysis is nonsense. If you're just now wading in to the FOREX markets because of the Brexit vote I suggest you set up a play-money account first. The contracts and trades can be complicated, losses can be very large and you can lose big -- quickly. I suspect FOREX brokers have been laughing to the bank the last couple weeks with all the guppies jumping in to play with the sharks.",
"Relative Strength Indicators are also trailing indicators. They are based on the number of recent upticks or downticks in an investment's price. (The size of a tick is quantized, and related to the investment's price.) By the time enough upticks have accumulated to generate a buy signal, the investment has already increased in price significantly. Similarly, by the time enough downticks have accumulated a to generate a sell signal, the investment has already dropped in price significantly. The theory of Relative Strength Indicators is based on the hope that moves found by these indicators are likely to continue after the signal is generated. But even if this is the case, someone who relies on these indicators will miss out on the first part of the move. Dorsey-Wright offers investment research based on the theory of Relative Strength Indicators. They offer investment vehicles based on this research. They also work with local investment advisors to develop custom back-tested strategies. They have published a white-paper, with references to others' research.",
"Fund performance at NAV (%) for latest quarter, YTD, and average annual total returns for 1, 3, 5, 10 years. P/E ratio (1 yr. forecast), P/B ratio, Beta, Sharpe ratio, Wtd. avg. market cap, fund assets. I guess I would want to calculate all these things based off of the data that I would be working with. I will assume I am working with daily fund values per share over 10+ years.",
"\"You cannot just read one book and some articles on Technical Analysis and some indicators and expect to be an expert and everything to just start falling into place and give you signals that will tell you when to buy and sell with precision and massive profits all the time. It is like someone reading a book on how to drive a car and then expecting to drive flawlessly the first time they sit in the driver's seat, or someone reading a book on brain surgery and expecting to be able to operate on a live patient the next day. It looks like you are using 3 or 4 indicators to get daily buy and sell signals on a daily chart for an EFT you're looking to hold for decades. So firstly you are using short term indicators for a long term outlook. You need to decide what timeframe you plan to hold your investments for and use chart periods and indicators that suit that timeframe. Secondly, each indicator can be used in a number of ways and the settings you use for each indicator can determine whether you get earlier or later signals. Also, you need to work out which indicators work well together and are complementary, compared to those that don't work well together and give conflicting signals. All this information will come together for you the more you read about and practice the art of Technical Analysis. If your timeframe is very long-term (decades) I would be using mainly a weekly chart, with a longer period MA, the ROC indicator and possibly some trend lines. Keep it simple. The price itself is very important too. You can determine when a trend is starting or has ended purely using the price. The definition of an uptrend is higher highs and higher lows, so on the weekly chart if there is a lower high followed by a lower low - this could be the end of the uptrend. If we get a lower low followed by a lower high - this again could be the end of the uptrend. These could be a good time to start getting cautious and maybe looking to sell. If you are using stop losses (which I recommend) this may be a good time to tighten your stops. Similarly, a downtrend is defined as lower lows and lower highs. If we get a higher low followed by a higher high it could be the end of the downtrend and maybe the start of an uptrend. This could be a good time to start getting ready to buy. You need to learn about how and where to set your buy and sell orders (including stops) and whether you wait for confirmation when you get a signal. All this takes some time, but the more you read, the more you attend live events and the more you practice the more they will become second nature. In order to get the best out of Technical Analysis you will need to learn, plan, practice and execute. A good book to help you prepare your trading plan is \"\"Smart Trading Plans\"\" by Justine Pollard. One of my favourite books is \"\"The Complete Trading Course - Price Patterns, Strategies, Setups, and Execution Tactics\"\" by Corey Rosenbloom. And another good book is \"\"Trade your Way to Financial Freedom\"\" by Van Tharp.\"",
"\"Strategy would be my top factor. While this may be implied, I do think it helps to have an idea of what is causing the buy and sell signals in speculating as I'd rather follow a strategy than try to figure things out completely from scratch that doesn't quite make sense to me. There are generally a couple of different schools of analysis that may be worth passing along: Fundamental Analysis:Fundamental analysis of a business involves analyzing its financial statements and health, its management and competitive advantages, and its competitors and markets. When applied to futures and forex, it focuses on the overall state of the economy, interest rates, production, earnings, and management. When analyzing a stock, futures contract, or currency using fundamental analysis there are two basic approaches one can use; bottom up analysis and top down analysis. The term is used to distinguish such analysis from other types of investment analysis, such as quantitative analysis and technical analysis. Technical Analysis:In finance, technical analysis is a security analysis methodology for forecasting the direction of prices through the study of past market data, primarily price and volume. Behavioral economics and quantitative analysis use many of the same tools of technical analysis, which, being an aspect of active management, stands in contradiction to much of modern portfolio theory. The efficacy of both technical and fundamental analysis is disputed by the efficient-market hypothesis which states that stock market prices are essentially unpredictable. There are tools like \"\"Stock Screeners\"\" that will let you filter based on various criteria to use each analysis in a mix. There are various strategies one could use. Wikipedia under Stock Speculator lists: \"\"Several different types of stock trading strategies or approaches exist including day trading, trend following, market making, scalping (trading), momentum trading, trading the news, and arbitrage.\"\" Thus, I'd advise research what approach are you wanting to use as the \"\"Make it up as we go along losing real money all the way\"\" wouldn't be my suggested approach. There is something to be said for there being numerous columnists and newsletter peddlers if you want other ideas but I would suggest having a strategy before putting one's toe in the water.\"",
"P/E ratio is useful but limited as others have said. Another problem is that it doesn't show leverage. Two companies in the same industry could have the same P/E but be differently leveraged. In that case I would buy the company with more equity and less debt as it should be a less risky investment. To compare companies and take leverage/debt into account you could use the EV/EBIT ratio instead. Its slightly more complicated to calculate and isn't presented by as many data sources though. Enterprise Value (EV) can be said to represent the value of the company if someone would buy it today and then pay off all its (interest bearing) debt. EV is essentially calculated like this: (Market Capitalization plus cash & cash equivalents) minus interest-bearing debt. This is then divided by EBIT (Earnings before interest and tax) to get the ratio. One drawback of this ratio though is that it can't be used for financials since their balance sheet pretty much consists of debt and the Enterprise Value therefore doesn't tell us very much. Also, like the P/E ratio it is dependent on fresh numbers. A balance sheet is just a glimpse of the companys financial situation on ONE DAY, and this could (and probably will, although not drastically for bigger companies) change to the next day.",
"No. The information you are describing is technical data about a stock's market price and trading volume, only. There is nothing implied in that data about a company's financial fundamentals (earnings/profitability, outstanding shares, market capitalization, dividends, balance sheet assets and liabilities, etc.) All you can infer is positive or negative momentum in the trading of the stock. If you want to understand if a company is performing well, then you need fundamental data about the company such as you would get from a company's annual and quarterly reports.",
"Knowing the answer to this question is generally not as useful as it may seem. The stock's current price is the consensus of thousands of people who are looking at the many relevant factors (dividend rate, growth prospects, volatility, risk, industry, etc.) that determine its value. A stock's price is the market's valuation of the cash flows it entitles you to in the future. Researching a stock's value means trying to figure out if there is something relevant to these cash flows that the market doesn't know about or has misjudged. Pretty much anything we can list for you here that will affect a stock's price is something the market knows about, so it's not likely to help you know if something is mispriced. Therefore it's not useful to you. If you are not a true expert on how important the relevant factors are and how the market is reacting to them currently (and often even if you are), then you are essentially guessing. How likely are you to catch something that the thousands of other investors have missed and how likely are you to miss something that other investors have understood? I don't view gambling as inherently evil, but you should be clear and honest with yourself about what you are doing if you are trying to outperform the market. As people become knowledgeable about and experienced with finance, they try less and less to be the one to find an undervalued stock in their personal portfolio. Instead they seek to hold a fully diversified portfolio with low transactions costs and build wealth in the long term without wasting time and money on the guessing game. My suggestion for you is to transition as quickly as you can to behave like someone who knows a lot about finance.",
"check pastsat-backtesting , backtesting tool, where one can can test on well known technical indicators without coding skills",
"I don't see balance sheet in what you're looking at, and I'd definitely suggest learning how to read a balance sheet and looking at it, if you're going to buy stock in a company, unless you know that the recommendations you're buying on are already doing that and you're willing to take that risk. Also, reading past balance sheets and statements can give you an idea about how accurate the company is with their predictions, or if they have a history of financial integrity. Now, if you're going the model portfolio route, which has become popular, the assumption that many of these stock buyers are making is that someone else is doing that for them. I am not saying that this assumption is valid, just one that I've seen; you will definitely find a lot of skeptics, and rightly so, about model portfolios. Likewise, people who trade based on what [Person X] does (like Warren Buffett or David Einhorn) are assuming that they're doing the research. The downside to this is if you follow someone like this. Yeah, oops. I should also point out that technical analysis, especially high probability TA, generally only looks at history. Most would define it as high risk and there are many underlying assumptions with reading the price movements by high probability TA types.",
"From my 15 years of experience, no technical indicator actually ever works. Those teaching technical indicators are either mostly brokers or broker promoted so called technical analysts. And what you really lose in disciplined trading over longer period is the taxes and brokerages. That is why you will see that teachers involved in this field are mostly technical analysts because they can never make money in real markets and believe that they did not adhere to rules or it was an exception case and they are not ready to accept facts. The graph given above for coin flip is really very interesting and proves that every trade you enter has 50% probability of win and lose. Now when you remove the brokerage and taxes from win side of your game, you will always lose. That is why the Warren Buffets of the world are never technical analysts. In fact, they buy when all technical analysts fails. Holding a stock may give pain over longer period but still that is only way to really earn. Diversification is a good friend of all bulls. Another friend of bull is the fact that you can lose 100% but gain any much as 1000%. So if one can work in his limits and keep investing, he can surely make money. So, if you have to invest 100 grand in 10 stocks, but 10 grand in each and then one of the stocks will multiply 10 times in long term to take out cost and others will give profit too... 1-2 stocks will fail totally, 2-3 will remain there where they were, 2-3 will double and 2-3 will multiply 3-4 times. Investor can get approx 15% CAGR earning from stock markets... Cheers !!!",
"How I understand it is: supply/demand affect price of stock negatively/positively, respectively. Correct. Volume is the amount of buying/selling activity in these stocks (more volume = more fluctuation, right?). Sort of. Higher volume means higher liquidity. That is, a stock that is traded more is easier to trade. It doesn't necessarily mean more fluctuation and in the real world, it often means that these are well-understood stocks with a high amount of analyst coverage. This tends towards these stocks not being as volatile as smaller stocks with less liquidity. Company revenue (and profit) will help an investor predict company growth. That is one factor in a stock price. There are certain stocks that you would buy without them making a profit because their future revenue looks potentially explosive. However, these stocks are very risky and are bubble-prone. If you're starting out in the share market, it's generally a good idea to invest in index funds (I am not a broker, my advice should not be taken as financial advice). These funds aggregate risk by holding a lot of different companies. Also, statistics have shown that over time, buying and holding index funds long term tends to dramatically outperform other investment strategies, particularly for people with low amounts of capital.",
"Other metrics like Price/Book Value or Price/Sales can be used to determine if a company has above average valuations and would be classified as growth or below average valuations and be classified as value. Fama and French's 3 Factor model would be one example that was studied a great deal using an inverse of Price/Book I believe.",
"I use and recommend barchart.com. Again you have to register but it's free. Although it's a US system it has a full listing of UK stocks and ETFs under International > London. The big advantage of barchart.com is that you can do advanced technical screening with Stochastics and RS, new highs and lows, moving averages etc. You're not stuck with just fundamentals, which in my opinion belong to a previous era. Even if you don't share that opinion you'd still find barchart.com useful for UK stocks.",
"\"What you're thinking of is more market making kind of activity, HFT algo's thrive on this; having information faster than anyone else. This type of activity could also likely be lumped into what is considered top-down analysis as opposed to bottom-up (which is what most mutual fund equity research involves). Again, the more important aspect is, what does the company you are applying to use! Top-down analysis means that you are forecasting the revenue drivers for a company using macro-economic analysis. For example, let's say I'm investing in Chinese cement manufacturer's, what implications does Chinese interest rate policy have on infra-structure expansion and how does that drive revenue for this specific company. I might then look at margins, etc. to get an EPS estimate. Part of this could fall into secular investing, too. Let's say I like LCD panel glass because of this consortium, I might take a look at 5 companies and then find the ones I think would benefit most from this. The problem with top-down is it tends not to be as much of a deep-dive, and its hard to pick individual companies because of it. Bottom-up tends to be more analytical and is what most pitches would be based around. The most important thing I'm not saying one is right or wrong, they are just different, and every investor has their own style. Bottom-up analysis, which would be closer to what an equity research analyst would be doing on the sell-side, is analyzing what bottom-line indicators drive revenue and how are those expanding. For example, lets say I'm looking at search providers (i.e. Baidu, Google, Yahoo, etc.) I'd be looking at Cost-Per-Thousand-Clicks (CPTC) and number of clicks on the website. Multiply the two and I get revenue (very simplified version) for clicks business. I might then also forecast other revenue driving segments and try to understand how they are growing/pricing at an individual segment level (i.e. business services or mobile advertising). I'd then break down costs/margins for each segment and forecast those out. I could then get a forward EPS, get a range of multiples I believe it could trade in (i.e. I think the multiple will trade up/down), to get a target price. Also, I would likely do a DCF analysis on forward earnings to get a \"\"fair market value,\"\" and then try to triangulate a price. I would also be looking at stuff like management teams and industry trends, too, but bottom line, I'm pitching a company because I think it is undervalued and will outperform competitors **in the long run**. This type of work tends to be more research oriented and is what most (not all) mutual funds use when analyzing companies. Since mutual funds tend to have longer holding periods (2-10 years), as opposed to short-term, it's harder to justify investing in a company only because it has a short-term catalyst. Anecdotally, it's also easier to present in a written thesis because the numbers tend to be more concrete and easier to forecast than top-down (which have wider target ranges). Your thought process that catalyst + industry context = market beating returns isn't wrong, it's just that every company thinks about investing differently, and it's important to tailor the report to that group's style.\"",
"Relative valuation is always my go to. Reason being i can make any company a buy or sell by changing assumptions such as growth rate, discount rate ect with a DCF. Still a great exercise to complete on all investments. Also an RV will help you pick the best out of the group (hopefully) rather than take a stance on whether you can actually predict the future inputs ( no one can)",
"\"Is evaluating stocks just a loss of time if the stock is traded very much? Not at all! Making sound investment decisions based on fundamental analysis of companies will help you to do decide whether a given company is right for you and your risk appetite. Investing is not a zero-sum game, and you can achieve a positive long-term (or short-term, depending on what you're after) outcome for yourself without compromising your ability to sleep at night if you take the time to become acquainted with the companies that you are investing in. How can you ensure that your evaluation is more precise than the market ones which consists of the evaluation of thousands of people and professionals? For the average individual, the answer is often simply \"\"you probably cannot\"\". But you don't have to set the bar that high - what you can do is ensure that your evaluation gives you a better understanding of your investment and allows you to better align it with your investment objectives. You don't have to beat the professionals, you just have to lose less money than you would by paying them to make the decision for you.\"",
"The study of technical analysis is generally used (sometimes successfully) to time the markets. There are many aspects to technical analysis, but the simplest form is to look for uptrends and downtrends in the charts. Generally higher highs and higher lows is considered an uptrend. And lower lows and lower highs is considered a downtrend. A trend follower would go with the trend, for example see a dip to the trend-line and buy on the rebound. Whilst a bottom fisher would wait until a break in the downtrend line and buy after confirmation of a higher high (as this could be the start of a new uptrend). There are many more strategies dealing with the study of technical analysis, and if you are interested you would need to find and learn about ones that suit your investment styles and your appetite for risk.",
"Check out http://garynorth.com if you have $15/month. Or at least subscribe to his free newsletters (Tip of the Week, Reality Check). Well worth it. He doesn't pay much attention to the US market indicators, except to note that people are about 20% poorer than they were 10 years ago. He looks at more basic indicators like M1, treasury rates, unemployment figures, etc. He recommended buying gold in 2001. He changed his recommended investment portfolio most recently about a couple of years ago (!) and it's done quite well.",
"Technical Analysis in general is something to be cognizant of, I don't use a majority of studies and consider them a waste of time. I also use quantitative analysis more so than technical analysis, and prefer the insight it gives into the market. The markets are more about predicting other people's behavior, psychology. So if you are trading an equity that you know retail traders love, retail traders use technical analysis and you can use their fabled channel reversals and support levels against them, as examples. Technical analysis is an extremely broad subject. So I suggest getting familiar, but if your historical pricing charts are covered in various studies, I would say you are doing it wrong. A more objective criticism of technical analysis is that many of the studies were created in the 1980s or earlier. Edges in the market do not typically last more than a few weeks. On the other side of that realization, some technical analysis works if everyone also thinks it will work, if everyone's charts say buy when the stock reaches the $90 price level and everyone does, the then stock will go higher. But the market makers and the actions of the futures markets and the actions of options traders, can undermine the collective decisions of retail traders using technical analysis.",
"No, and using a 37 year old formula in finance that is as simple as: should make it obvious technical analysis is more of a game for retail traders than investment advice. When it comes to currencies, there are a myriad of macroeconomic occurrences that do not follow a predictable timescale. Using indicators like RSI on any time frame will not magically illuminate broad human psychology and give you an edge. It is theoretically possible for a single public stock's price to be driven by a range of technical traders who all buy at RSI 30 and sell at RSI 70, after becoming a favorite stock on social media, but it is infinitely more likely for all market participants to have completely different goals.",
"P/E = price per earnings. low P/E (P/E < 4) means stock is undervalued.",
"It's impossible to determine which event will cause a major shift for a certain currency pair. However, this does not mean that it's not possible to identify events that are important to the overall market sentiment and direction. There are numerous sites that provide a calendar for upcoming and past events and their impact which is most of the time indicated as low, medium and high. Such sites are: Edit: I would like to add to that, that while these are major market movers, you cannot forget that they mainly provide a certain direction for the market but that it's not always clear in which direction the market will go. A recent and prime example of a major event that triggered opposite effects of what you would expect, is the ECB meeting that took place the 3rd of December. Due to the fact that the market already priced in further easing by the ECB the euro strengthened instead of weakening compared to the dollar. This strengthening happened even though the ECB did in fact adjust the deposit by 10 base points to -0.30 % and increased the duration of the QE. Taking above example into consideration it's important to always remember that fundamentals are hard to grasp and that it will take a while to make it a second nature and become truly successful in this line of trading. Lastly, fundamentals are only a part of the complete picture. Don't lose sight of support and resistance levels as well as price action to determine when and how to enter a trade.",
"To dig a little deeper, a number of analysts within (and without) Reuters are polled for their views on individual stocks and markets on buy-hold-sell. The individual analysts will be a varied bunch of fundamentalists, technical, quant and a mixture of the three plus more arcane methodologies. There may be various levels of rumors that aren't strong enough to be considered insider trading, but all of these will give an analyst an impression of the stock/market. Generally I think there isn't much value there, except from the point of view if you are a contrarian trader, then this will form a part of the input to your trading methodology.",
"Do a common size analysis to compare to its competitors. Also run a rqtio analysis to the industry. Explain the commonalities and differences as it pertains to the business. A lot of big banks publish research on public companies and where they're headed in terms of financials. They are usually published for a fee but you can sometimes find them for free online. It would be useful to talk about the current financial landscape like yellen, rate hikes etc if you wanna go there.",
"\"If you are looking for numerical metrics I think the following are popular: Price/Earnings (P/E) - You mentioned this very popular one in your question. There are different P/E ratios - forward (essentially an estimate of future earnings by management), trailing, etc.. I think of the P/E as a quick way to grade a company's income statement (i.e: How much does the stock cost verusus the amount of earnings being generated on a per share basis?). Some caution must be taken when looking at the P/E ratio. Earnings can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Revenue can be moved between quarters, assets can be depreciated at different rates, residual value of assets can be adjusted, etc.. Knowing this, the P/E ratio alone doesn't help me determine whether or not a stock is cheap. In general, I think an affordable stock is one whose P/E is under 15. Price/Book - I look at the Price/Book as a quick way to grade a company's balance sheet. The book value of a company is the amount of cash that would be left if everything the company owned was sold and all debts paid (i.e. the company's net worth). The cash is then divided amoung the outstanding shares and the Price/Book can be computed. If a company had a price/book under 1.0 then theoretically you could purchase the stock, the company could be liquidated, and you would end up with more money then what you paid for the stock. This ratio attempts to answer: \"\"How much does the stock cost based on the net worth of the company?\"\" Again, this ratio can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Asset values have to be estimated based on current market values (think about trying to determine how much a company's building is worth) unless, of course, mark-to-market is suspended. This involves some estimating. Again, I don't use this value alone in determing whether or not a stock is cheap. I consider a price/book value under 10 a good number. Cash - I look at growth in the cash balance of a company as a way to grade a company's cash flow statement. Is the cash account growing or not? As they say, \"\"Cash is King\"\". This is one measurement that can not be \"\"massaged\"\" which is why I like it. The P/E and Price/Book can be \"\"tuned\"\" but in the end the company cannot hide a shrinking cash balance. Return Ratios - Return on Equity is a measure of the amount of earnings being generated for a given amount of equity (ROE = earnings/(assets - liabilities)). This attempts to measure how effective the company is at generating earnings with a given amount of equity. There is also Return on Assets which measures earnings returns based on the company's assets. I tend to think an ROE over 15% is a good number. These measurements rely on a company accurately reporting its financial condition. Remember, in the US companies are allowed to falsify accounting reports if approved by the government so be careful. There are others who simply don't follow the rules and report whatever numbers they like without penalty. There are many others. These are just a few of the more popular ones. There are many other considerations to take into account as other posters have pointed out.\"",
"\"If you can afford the time and are looking for more deep, and fun, investment tips, check out http://gurufocus.com. Great for more fundamental analysis of \"\"Intelligent Investor\"\" type Benjamin Graham-style businesses. No use scatter-shooting the stock exchange hoping to find good value businesses. Even blue-chips have an increasingly uncertain future (except IMHO certain world dominators like KO, WMT, XO and MCD).\"",
"A general mutual fund's exact holdings are not known on a day-to-day basis, and so technical tools must work with inexact data. Furthermore, the mutual fund shares' NAV depends on lots of different shares that it holds, and the results of the kinds of analyses that one can do for a single stock must be commingled to produce something analogous for the fund's NAV. In other words, there is plenty of shooting in the dark going on. That being said, there are plenty of people who claim to do such analyses and will gladly sell you their results (actually, Buy, Hold, Sell recommendations) for whole fund families (e.g. Vanguard) in the form of a monthly or weekly Newsletter delivered by US Mail (in the old days) or electronically (nowadays). Some people who subscribe to such newsletters swear by them, while others swear at them and don't renew their subscriptions; YMMV.",
"There is a great 3rd party application out there that I use (I am a broker) along with my internal analysts and other 3rd party sources. VectorVest has a LOT of technical information, but is very easy to use. It will run any kind of screen you like, including low 52 week numbers. (No, I don't get anything for recommending them.)",
"\"Some companies have a steady, reliable, stream of earnings. In that case, a low P/E ratio is likely to indicate a good stock. Other companies have a \"\"feast or famine\"\" pattern, great earnings one year, no earnings or losses the following year. In that case, it is misleading to use a P/E ratio for a good year, when earnings are high and the ratio is low. Instead, you have to figure out what the company's AVERAGE earnings may be for some years, and assign a P/E ratio to that.\"",
"\"The hardest part seems to be knowing exactly when to sell the stock. Well yes, that's the problem with all stock investing. Reports come out all the time, sometimes even from very smart people with no motivation to lie, about expected earnings for this company, or for that industry. Whether those predictions come true is something you will only find out with time. What you are considering is using financial information available to you (and equally available to the public) to make investment choices. This is called 'fundamental analysis'; that is, the analysis of the fundamentals of a business and what it should be worth. It forms the basis of how many investment firms decide where to put their money. In a perfectly 'efficient' market, all information available to the public is immediately factored into the market price for that company's stock. ie: if a bank report states with absolute certainty (through leaked documents) that Coca-Cola is going to announce 10% revenue growth tomorrow, then everyone will immediately buy Coca-Cola stock today, and then tomorrow there would be no impact. Even if PwC is 100% accurate in its predictions, if the rest of the market agrees with them, then the price at the time of IPO would equal the future value of the cashflows, meaning there would be no gain unless results surpassed expectations. So what you are proposing is to take one sliver of the information available to the public (have you also read all publicly available reports on those businesses and their industries?), and using that to make a high risk investment. Are you going to do better than the investment firms that have teams of researchers and years of experience in the investment world? You can do quite well by picking individual stocks, but you can also lose a lot of money if you do it haphazardly. Be aware that there is risk in doing any type of investing. There is higher than average risk if you invest in equities ('the stock market'). There is higher risk still, if you pick individual stocks. There is yet even higher risk, if you pick small startup companies. There are some specific interesting side-elements with your proposal to purchase stock about to have an IPO - those are better dealt with in a separate question if you want more information; search this site for 'IPO' and you should find a good starting point. In short, the company about to go public will hire a firm of analysts who will try to calculate the best price the public will accept for an offering of shares. Stock often goes up after IPO, but not always. Sometimes the company doesn't even fill its full IPO order, adding a new type of risk to a potential investor, that the stock will drop on day 1. Consider an analogy outside the investing world: Let's say Auto Trader magazine prints an article that says \"\"all 2015 Honda Civics are worth $15,000 if they have less than 50,000 Miles.\"\" Assume you have no particular knowledge about cars. If you read this article, and you see an ad in the paper the next day for a Honda Civic with 40k miles, should you buy it for $14k? The answer is not without more research. And even if you determine enough about cars to find one for $14k that you can reasonably sell for $15k, there's a whole world of mechanics out there who buy and sell cars for a living, and they have an edge both because they can repair the cars themselves to sell for more, and also because they have experience to spot low-offers faster than you. And if you pick a clunker (or a stock that doesn't perform even when everyone expected it would), then you could lose some serious money. As with buying and selling individual stocks, there is money to be made from car trading, but that money gets made by people who really know what they're doing. People who go in without full information are the ones who lose money in the long run.\"",
"Been in tech research for quite some time through both '01 and '08, so I've seen different valuation metrics used at different times of the cycle. I agree 4Q forward is the norm but I do 6Q forward model and depending on verticals, P/E, P/S or EV/EBIDTA. And maybe DCF for sanity check. Usually SSS/MAU/subs are used w/ ARPU or turns/B:B to derive top line. Earnings is an easy number to pull from bbg but the descriptive quality of earnings is not as good as EBITDA or FCF especially some companies choose to talk about adjusted numbers only. Different strokes for different folks. I must admit that based on my valuation model both AMZN/NFLX are both hard pass due to their valuation. But I was in AMZN in PA from my quant model. Different strokes for different folks.",
"Yea read a few books or watch some videos on YouTube on fundamental analysis and try it using excel. It's probably not what you'll be doing if you get a degree in finance, and you might even end up in accounting like I did, but its a good place to start to see if you like it or not. It also exposes you to accounting, business, the politics of business, taxation, financial statements, EDGAR and all the other interesting and important stuff. You might want to pick up a study guide for the CPA exam BEC. Lots of very interesting stuff in there about business in general including how the board of directors works, and taxation. It's an awesome read.",
"\"Everything you are doing is fine. Here are a few practical notes in performing this analysis: Find all the primary filing information on EDGAR. For NYSE:MEI, you can use https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000065270&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=exclude&count=40 This is the original 10-K. To evaluate earnings growth you need per share earnings for the past three years and 10,11,12 years ago. You do NOT need diluted earnings (because in the long term share dilution comes out anyway, just like \"\"normalized\"\" earnings). The formula is avg(Y_-1+Y_-2+Y_-3) / is avg(Y_-10+Y_-11+Y_-12) Be careful with the pricing rules you are using, the asset one gets complicated. I recommend NOT using the pricing rules #6 and #7 to select the stock. Instead you can use them to set a maximum price for the stock and then you can compare the current price to your maximum price. I am also working to understand these rules and have cited Graham's rules into a checklist and worksheet to find all companies that meet his criteria. Basically my goal is to bottom feed the deals that Warren Buffett is not interested in. If you are interested to invest time into this project, please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vuFmoJDktMYtS64od2HUTV9I351AxvhyjAaC0N3TXrA\"",
"I love technical analysis, and use candlesticks as part of my technical analysis system for trading mutual funds in my 401K. However, I would never use a candlestick chart on its own. I use combination of candlesticks, 2 different EMAs, MACD, bollinger bands, RSI and hand drawn trend lines that I constantly tweak. That's about as much data input as I can handle, but it is possible to graph it all at once and see it at a glance if you have the right trading platform. My approach is very personal, not very aggressive, and took me years to develop. But it's fairly effective - 90% + of my trades are winners. The big advantage of technical analysis is that it forces you to create repeatable rules around which you base your trading. A lot of the time I have little attention at all on what fund I am trading or why it is doing well in that particular market condition. It's basically irrelevant as the technical system tells when to buy and sell, and stops you trying to second guess whether housing, chemicals, gold or asian tigers are is doing well right now. If you don't keep to your own rules, you have only yourself to blame. This keeps you from blaming the market, which is completely out of your control. I explain many of my trades with anotated graphs at http://neurotrade.blogspot.com/",
"Security Analysis(very difficult for beginners )& Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham. All about(book series by McGraw) on Stocks,Derivatives,Options,Futures,Market Timings. Reminiscence of a Stock Operator (Life of jesse Livermore). Memoirs , Popular Delusions and Madness of the Crowds by Charles Mackay. Basics of Technical analysis includig Trading Strategies via Youtube videos & Google. Also opt for Seeking alpha free version to learn about portfolio allocation under current scenario there will be few articles as it will ask for premium version if you love it then opt for it. But still these books will do.",
"When using the Stochastic Indicator your basic aim is to buy (go long) when the stochastic becomes oversold (goes below 20%) and then the %K line crosses above the %D line at a market low, and to sell (go short) when the stochastic becomes overbought (goes above 80%) and then the %K line crosses below the %D line at a market high. Other indicators or candlestick patters can also be used to further confirm the trade. Below is a chart of a trade I recently took on GUD.AX using the Slow Stochastic in combination with support and resistance levels as well as a candlestick pattern. When I conducted my stock search on the evening of 28th July 2015, GUD was one of the results from the search that I particularly liked. The Slow Stochastic had just made a crossover in the oversold area just as the price was bouncing off its recent lows at the support line. But what I really like about this opportunity was that there was also a bullish reversal candle (a Hammer) at this short term market bottom. The high for the day was $8.34, so I placed a stop buy order to buy the stock tomorrow if the price opened or moved above this high of today. So I would only buy if the stock hit or moved above $8.35 during the next days trading. So if the stock opened and stayed below the previous day's high I would not buy the stock and my order would be canceled at the end of the day. This is very important because it stops you from getting into trades that don't go in the direction you want. If this happens then you could check the chart again after market close to see if it is still worthwhile to place a new order for the next day. On the 29th July 2015 the stock did open higher at $8.42 (which is where my order got executed) and closed at $8.46. So I ended up buying slightly above my target price but it did move higher on the day, so a successful entry overall. I had placed my initial stop loss at $8.09 (just below the low of the previous day of $8.10). If the trade had gone against me in the following days the most I would have lost was 1% of my total account capital. My target for this trade was $9.86 (just below the resistance line near $10), which would represent a 5% gain against my total account capital (or approx. 16.7% gain on the trade). So my win to loss ratio was 5:1. As you can see from the chart, the next day gapped up at the open and prices continued moving up strongly during the day. The next day was a slightly negative day, and then a few days later, on the 5th August 2015 my target price of $9.86 was reached (with a high of $9.88 for that day), so my order was closed for a total profit of 16.7% on the face value of the trade. However, as I bought on margin (using CFDs) my actual profit on the initial margin I had invested was 167%. My total time in the trade was 7 days, and I spent about an hour in the evening doing my searches and placing my orders, then less than 10 minutes managing the trade each evening after market close. The stock did go up a bit further after my profit target was reached, but the day after that the price started to fall as the price hit the resistance line and the Slow Stochastic did a crossover in the overbought area. Overall, this was a very ideal trade and I was very happy with it. Not all my trades reach my profit targets and I may get stopped out at a smaller profit or I might make a small loss (as I move my stops up as the price moves up). The key to successful trading over the long term is to keep you losses small and let your profits run (with my longer term trend trading I don't have profit targets and let my profits run until I get stopped out, but with my shorter term trading I do use a profit target usually 5 or 6 times the size of my initial stop). If you have an average win to average loss ratio of 3:1 or higher and have a success rate of 50% winners you will make money over the long term.",
"From http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Business+Fundamentals The facts that affect a company's underlying value. Examples of business fundamentals include debt, cash flow, supply of and demand for the company's products, and so forth. For instance, if a company does not have a sufficient supply of products, it will fail. Likewise, demand for the product must remain at a certain level in order for it to be successful. Strong business fundamentals are considered essential for long-term success and stability. See also: Value Investing, Fundamental Analysis. For a stock the basic fundamentals are the second column of numbers you see on the google finance summary page, P/E ratio, div/yeild, EPS, shares, beta. For the company itself it's generally the stuff on the 'financials' link (e.g. things in the quarterly and annual report, debt, liabilities, assets, earnings, profit etc.",
"\"Please note that the following Graham Rating below corresponds to five years: Earnings Stability (100% ⇒ 10 Years): 50.00% Benjamin Graham - once known as The Dean of Wall Street - was a scholar and financial analyst who mentored legendary investors such as Warren Buffett, William J. Ruane, Irving Kahn and Walter J. Schloss. Buffett describes Graham's book - The Intelligent Investor - as \"\"by far the best book about investing ever written\"\" (in its preface). Graham's first recommended strategy - for casual investors - was to invest in Index stocks. For more serious investors, Graham recommended three different categories of stocks - Defensive, Enterprising and NCAV - and 17 qualitative and quantitative rules for identifying them. For advanced investors, Graham described various \"\"special situations\"\". The first requires almost no analysis, and is easily accomplished today with a good S&P500 Index fund. The last requires more than the average level of ability and experience. Such stocks are also not amenable to impartial algorithmic analysis, and require a case-specific approach. But Defensive, Enterprising and NCAV stocks can be reliably detected by today's data-mining software, and offer a great avenue for accurate automated analysis and profitable investment. For example, given below are the actual Graham ratings for International Business Machines Corp (IBM), with no adjustments other than those for inflation. Defensive Graham investment requires that all ratings be 100% or more. Enterprising Graham investment requires minimum ratings of - N/A, 75%, 90%, 50%, 5%, N/A and 137%. International Business Machines Corp - Graham Ratings Sales | Size (100% ⇒ $500 Million): 18,558.60% Current Assets ÷ [2 x Current Liabilities]: 62.40% Net Current Assets ÷ Long Term Debt: 28.00% Earnings Stability (100% ⇒ 10 Years): 100.00% Dividend Record (100% ⇒ 20 Years): 100.00% Earnings Growth (100% ⇒ 30% Growth): 172.99% Graham Number ÷ Previous Close: 35.81% Not all stocks failing Graham's rules are necessarily bad investments. They may fall under \"\"special situations\"\". Graham's rules are also extremely selective. Graham designed and backtested his framework for over 50 years, to deliver the best possible long-term results. Even when stocks don't clear them, Graham's rules give a clear quantifiable measure of a stock's margin of safety. Thank you.\"",
"I think it depends where you live in the world, but I guess the most common would be: Major Equity Indices I would say major currency exchange rate: And have a look at the Libors for USD and EUR. I guess the intent of the question is more to see how implicated you are in the daily market analysis, not really to see if you managed to learn everything by heart in the morning.",
"There are some economic signs as there are in all economic and business cycles, such as interest rates rising. However, a more effective way is to actually look at price action itself. The definition of an uptrend is higher highs followed by higher lows. The definition of a downtrend is lower lows followed by lower highs. So if you are looking to invest for the long term you can look at the weekly or even the monthly chart of the market say over the past 10, 15 or 20 years. Using these definitions on say the S&P500 if the price continues to make higher highs and higher lows then stay in the market. If the price makes a lower high than the previous high, then this is a warning sign that the trend may be about to end. The trend has not broken yet but it is a warning sign that it could be ending soon. If the price makes a higher low next followed by a higher high, then the trend continues and you just need to keep an eye on things. If, however, the price makes a lower low after the lower high this is a signal that the uptrend is over and you should get out of the market. If the price makes a lower low directly after a higher high, then be cautious and wait for confirmation that the uptrend is over. If you then get a lower high this is confirmation that the uptrend is over, you would then sell if prices drop below the previous low. If you invest in individual shares then you should keep an eye on the charts for the index and individual shares as well. The index chart will give you an indication if the uptrend is over for the whole market, then you can be more cautious in regards to the individual shares. You can then plan exit points on each individual share if their trends are broken too. If you have stop losses employed and the trend reverses on the index, this would be a good time to tighten your stop losses on individual shares. You can then buy back into the market when you determine that the downtrend is broken and prices start to show higher highs and higher lows again. Will there be occasions when the uptrend reverses and then after a short period starts trending up again, yes there might be, but the worse that will happen is that you pay a bit of extra brokerage to get out and then back into the market, and you might have to pay some capital gains tax on any profits made. But remember no one ever went broke making a profit. The most important thing to remember when investing is to conserve and protect your capital. I would rather pay some extra brokerage and some capital gains tax than see my portfolio drop by 50% or more, then take 5 years or more to recover. And remember, paying tax is a good thing, it means you made money. If you don't want to pay any tax it means you will never make any profits, because if you make profits you will have to pay tax one day.",
"\"To my knowledge, there's no universal equation, so this could vary by individual/company. The equation I use (outside of sentiment measurement) is the below - which carries its own risks: This equations assumes two key points: Anything over 1.2 is considered oversold if those two conditions apply. The reason for the bear market is that that's the time stocks generally go on \"\"sale\"\" and if a company has a solid balance sheet, even in a downturn, while their profit may decrease some, a value over 1.2 could indicate the company is oversold. An example of this is Warren Buffett's investment in Wells Fargo in 2009 (around March) when WFC hit approximately 7-9 a share. Although the banking world was experiencing a crisis, Buffett saw that WFC still had a solid balance sheet, even with a decrease in profit. The missing logic with many investors was a decrease in profits - if you look at the per capita income figures, Americans lost some income, but not near enough to justify the stock falling 50%+ from its high when evaluating its business and balance sheet. The market quickly caught this too - within two months, WFC was almost at $30 a share. As an interesting side note on this, WFC now pays $1.20 dividend a year. A person who bought it at $7 a share is receiving a yield of 17%+ on their $7 a share investment. Still, this equation is not without its risks. A company may have a solid balance sheet, but end up borrowing more money while losing a ton of profit, which the investor finds out about ad-hoc (seen this happen several times). Suddenly, what \"\"appeared\"\" to be a good sale, turns into a person buying a penny with a dollar. This is why, to my knowledge, no universal equation applies, as if one did exist, every hedge fund, mutual fund, etc would be using it. One final note: with robotraders becoming more common, I'm not sure we'll see this type of opportunity again. 2009 offered some great deals, but a robotrader could easily be built with the above equation (or a similar one), meaning that as soon as we had that type of environment, all stocks fitting that scenario would be bought, pushing up their PEs. Some companies might be willing to take an \"\"all risk\"\" if they assess that this equation works for more than n% of companies (especially if that n% returns an m% that outweighs the loss). The only advantage that a small investor might have is that these large companies with robotraders are over-leveraged in bad investments and with a decline, they can't make the good investments until its too late. Remember, the equation ultimately assumes a person/company has free cash to use it (this was also a problem for many large investment firms in 2009 - they were over-leveraged in bad debt).\"",
"Factset also provides a host of tools for analysis. Not many people know as they aren't as prevalent as Bloomberg. CapitalQ and Thomson Reuters also provide analysis tools. Most of the market data providers also provide analysis tools to analyze the data they and others provide.",
"I found a possible data source. It offers fundamentals i.e. the accounting ratios you listed (P/E, dividend yield, price/book) for international stock indexes. International equity indices based on EAFE definitions are maintained by Professor French of French-Fama fame, at Dartmouth's Tuck Business School website. Specifics of methodology, and countries covered is available here. MSCI is the data source. Historical time interval for most countries is from 1975 onward. (Singapore was one of the countries included). Obtaining historical ratios for international stock indices is not easily found for free. Your question didn't specify free though. If that is not a constraint, you may wish to check the MSCI Barra international stock indices also.",
"Before you go filling your head with useless information as there is way too much stuff out there on the stock market. First ask yourself a few questions: There is going to be a balance between the three... don't kid yourself. After you answer these questions find a trading strategy to get the returns you are looking for. Remember the higher returns you expect... the more time you have to put in. Find a trading strategy you like and that works for you. Ounce you have your strategy then find the stocks or ETF that work for that strategy.... Ignore everything else, it is designed to separate you from your money. Making money in the stock market is easy, don't let the media hype and negative people tell you any different. Find something that works for you and perfect it... stick to it.",
"Pick one stock (probably within Utilities) and know it well. Understand what it trades on (EV / EBITDA, P / E, P / Rev) and why. What are the typical margins for the industry? What are rev growth trends? What isn't priced in? I think studying one company deeply would be helpful Other things to look at would be how your fund is structured, what it's benchmark is, voting structure, and how ideas are sourced Good luck!",
"\"Your questions In the world of technical analysis, is candlestick charting an effective trading tool in timing the markets? It depends on how you define effective. But as a standalone and systematic strategy, it tends not to be profitable. See for example Market Timing with Candlestick Technical Analysis: Using robust statistical techniques, we find that candlestick trading rules are not profitable when applied to DJIA component stocks over 1/1/1992 – 31/12/2002 period. Neither bullish or bearish candlestick single lines or patterns provide market timing signals that are any better than what would be expected by chance. Basing ones trading decisions solely on these techniques does not seem sensible but we cannot rule out the possibility that they compliment some other market timing techniques. There are many other papers that come to the same conclusion. If used correctly, how accurate can they be in picking turning points in the market? Technical analysts generally fall into two camps: (i) those that argue that TA can't be fully automated and that interpretation is part of the game; (ii) those that use TA as part of a systematic investment model (automatically executed by a machine) but generally use a combination of indicators to build a working model. Both groups would argue (for different reasons) that the conclusions of the paper I quoted above should be disregarded and that TA can be applied profitably with the proper framework. Psychological biases It is very easy to get impressed by technical analysis because we all suffer from \"\"confirmation bias\"\" whereby we tend to acknowledge things that confirm our beliefs more than those that contradict them. When looking at a chart, it is very easy to see all the occurences when a certain pattern worked and \"\"miss\"\" the occurences when it did not work (and not missing those is much harder than it sounds). Conclusions\"",
"I use the forum seeking alpha. http://seekingalpha.com/",
"Read the Security Analysis. I believe if you read it completely, you will have a real good chance of succeeding at making good money. If you find the book hard to read just go through it and underline under the text as you read it.",
"\"You should read \"\"Financial Analysis for Management\"\" (Robert Higgins). It is short and explains things very simply from a high level perspective. This is especially valuable when you are explaining things to non-finance people. Also, an analyst will want to develop quick ways for making estimations. Don't get too caught up in the tiny details, although they are enticing for problem solvers (I've made some over-complicated models myself). In the process, know which direction your short cut is biased, check other people's short cuts, where's the bias? Understand it. Understand how it may affect the outcome. Is it material? This will develop your ability to understand models. BUILD MODELS. Pick up a 10-K. Build a simple model. Connect an Income Statement, Balance Sheet and Cash Flows. Update it, break it, fix it. Rinse & repeat.\"",
"To calculate you take the Price and divide it by the Earnings, or by the Sales, or by the Free Cash Flow. Most of these calculations are done for you on a lot of finance sites if the data is available. Such sites as Yahoo Finance and Google Finance as well as my personal favorite: Morningstar",
"The four points mentioned above (without reading the paper in greater detail) all emphasize modern day balance sheet analysis. We should not conflate that with earnings analysis all of a sudden are a thing of the past and no longer valuable.",
"Go to bankrate dot com. They will have a lot of metrics there that might give you an idea and rate each category. Capitalization and profitability metrics. May not be as granular as what you are looking for though.",
"About 10 years ago, I used to use MetaStock Trader which was a very sound tool, with a large number of indicators, but it has been a number of years since I have used it, so my comments on it will be out of date. At the time it relied upon me purchasing trading data myself, which is why I switched to Incredible Charts. I currently use Incredible Charts which I have done for a number of years, initially on the free adware service, now on the $10/year for EOD data access. There are quicker levels of data access, which might suit you, but I can't comment on these. It is web-based which is key for me. The data quality is very good and the number of inbuilt indicators is excellent. You can build search routines on the basis of specific indicators which is very effective. I'm looking at VectorVest, as a replacement for (or in addition to) Incredible Charts, as it has very powerful backtesting routines and the ability to run test portfolios with specific buy/sell criteria that can simulate and backtest a number of trading scenarios at the same time. The advantage of all of these is they are not tied to a particular broker.",
"So, first -- good job on making a thorough checklist of things to look into. And onto your questions -- is this a worthwhile process? Even independent of specific investing goals, learning how to research is valuable. If you decided to forgo investing in stocks directly, and chose to only invest in index funds, the same type of research skills would be useful. (Not to mention that such discipline would come in handy in other fields as well.) What other 80/20 'low hanging fruit' knowledge have I missed? While it may not count as 'low hanging fruit', one thing that stands out to me is there's no mention of what competition a company has in its field. For example, a company may be doing well today, but you may see signs that it's consistently losing ground to its competition. While that alone may not dissuade you from investing, it may give you something to consider. Is what I've got so far any good? or am I totally missing the point. Your cheat sheet seems pretty good to me. But a lot depends on what your goals are. If you're doing this solely for your education and experience, I would say you've done well. If you're looking to invest in a company that is involved in a field you're passionate about, you're on the right track. But you should probably consider expanding your cheat sheet to include things that are not 'low hanging fruit' but still matter to you. However, I'd echo the comments that have already been made and suggest that if this is for retirement investments, take the skills you've developed in creating your cheat sheet and apply that work towards finding a set of index funds that meet your criteria. Otherwise happy hunting!",
"yAnother potential tool for you would be a Monte Carlo Simulator. here's one http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Business+Fundamentals I know that past performance is no guarantee..... but I think it's in many cases not exactly a flawed tool, and especially with respect to money managers a good way to find good ones. If a manager has shown an ability over time to consistently beat the market, yes he might be due for a bad day, but you'd generally expect that they should be able to continue that trend. I'd apply the same logic to pundits. If their track record sucks, and they constantly seem to whipsaw you with their advice, why listen to them other than",
"Lipper publishes data on the flow of funds in / out of stock and bond funds: http://www.lipperusfundflows.com Robert Shiller works on stock market confidence indices that are published by Yale: http://som.yale.edu/faculty-research/our-centers-initiatives/international-center-finance/data/stock-market-confidence",
"Do your own research There are hundreds of places where people will give you all sorts of recommendations. There is as much noise in the recommendations as there is in the stock market itself. Become your own filter. You need to work on your own instinct. Pick a couple of sectors and a few stocks in each and study them. It is useful to know where the main indexes are going, but - unless you are trading the indexes - it is the individual sectors that you should focus on more."
] |
[
"\"Unfortunately, there is very little data supporting fundamental analysis or technical analysis as appropriate tools to \"\"time\"\" the market. I will be so bold to say that technical analysis is meaningless. On the other hand, fundamental analysis has some merits. For example, the realization that CDOs were filled with toxic mortgages can be considered a product of fundamental analysis and hence provided traders with a directional assumption to buy CDSs. However, there is no way to tell when there is a good or bad time to buy or sell. The market behaves like a random 50/50 motion. There are many reasons for this and interestingly, there are many fundamentally sound companies that take large dips for no reason at all. Depending on your goal, you can either believe that this volatility will smooth over long periods and that the market has generally positive drift. On the other hand, I feel that the appropriate approach is to remain active. You will be able to mitigate the large downswings by simply staying small and diversifying - not in the sense of traditional finance but rather looking for uncorrelated products. Remember, volatility brings higher levels of correlation. My second suggestion is to look towards products like options to provide a method of shaping your P/L - giving up upside by selling calls against a long equity position is a great example. Ground your trades with fundamental beliefs if need be, but use your tools and knowledge to combat risks that may create long periods of drawdown.\"",
"I think by definition there aren't, generally speaking, any indicators (as in chart indicators, I assume you mean) for fundamental analysis. Off the top of my head I can't think of one chart indicator that I wouldn't call 'technical', even though a couple could possibly go either way and I'm sure someone will help prove me wrong. But the point I want to make is that to do fundamental analysis, it is most certainly more time consuming. Depending on what instrument you're investing in, you need to have a micro perspective (company specific details) and a macro perspective (about the industry it's in). If you're investing in sector ETFs or the like, you'd be more reliant on the macro analysis. If you're investing in commodities, you'll need to consider macro analysis in multiple countries who are big producers/consumers of the item. There's no cut and dried way to do it, however I personally opt for a macro analysis of sector ETFs and then use technical analysis to determine my entry and/or exit.",
"The three places you want to focus on are the income statement, the balance sheet, and cash flow statement. The standard measure for multiple of income is the P/E or price earnings ratio For the balance sheet, the debt to equity or debt to capital (debt+equity) ratio. For cash generation, price to cash flow, or price to free cash flow. (The lower the better, all other things being equal, for all three ratios.)",
"Fundamental Analysis can be used to help you determine what to buy, but they won't give you an entry signal for when to buy. Technical Analysis can be used to help you determine when to buy, and can give you entry signals for when to buy. There are many Technical Indicator which can be used as an entry signal, from as simple as the price crossing above a moving average line and then selling when the price crosses back below the moving average line, to as complicated as using a combination of indicators to all line up for an entry signal to be valid. You need to find the entry signals that would suit your investing or trading and incorporate them as part of your trading plan. If you want to learn more about entry signals you are better off learning more about Technical Analysis."
] |
3694
|
Has anyone created a documentary about folks who fail to save enough for retirement?
|
[
"282442",
"204747"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"204747",
"311931",
"24907",
"282442",
"280163",
"276430",
"40821",
"222260",
"217069",
"400419",
"59427",
"409542",
"139026",
"101767",
"247132",
"115846",
"203470",
"399648",
"323089",
"383051",
"209390",
"97110",
"171741",
"518273",
"331132",
"108814",
"155899",
"526703",
"588029",
"42201",
"305946",
"387071",
"253692",
"273285",
"481028",
"94839",
"247177",
"334914",
"122333",
"337461",
"107520",
"385692",
"524501",
"516555",
"26799",
"445025",
"364331",
"287819",
"102395",
"227386",
"320320",
"234846",
"509237",
"280967",
"207643",
"463289",
"204171",
"588203",
"398731",
"340371",
"578160",
"367010",
"525322",
"563284",
"239313",
"404102",
"264956",
"590806",
"131851",
"482968",
"541729",
"583869",
"494790",
"142209",
"122946",
"116914",
"361329",
"581776",
"184243",
"176663",
"138283",
"327582",
"171144",
"467044",
"332337",
"444349",
"508972",
"50018",
"180185",
"595427",
"226867",
"152845",
"109828",
"511489",
"44961",
"457978",
"372641",
"295637",
"17467",
"217427"
] |
[
"\"Since your question was first posted, I happened to watch PBS FRONTLINE's The Retirement Gamble, about \"\"America's Retirement Crisis\"\" and the retirement industry. You can watch the entire episode online at the previous link, and it's also available on DVD. Here's a link to the episode transcript. Here's a partial blurb from a post at PBS that announced the episode: If you’ve been watching any commercial television lately, you are well aware that the financial services industry is very busy running expensive ads imploring us to worry about our retirement futures. Open a new account today, they say. They are not wrong that we should be doing something: America is facing a retirement crisis. One in three Americans has no retirement savings at all. One in two reports that they can’t save enough. On top of that, we are living longer, and health care costs, as we all know, are increasing. But, as I found when investigating the retirement planning and mutual funds industries in The Retirement Gamble, which airs tonight on FRONTLINE, those advertisements are imploring us to start saving for one simple reason. Retirement is big business — and very profitable. (... more... ) There's another related PBS FRONTLINE documentary from back in 2006, Can You Afford To Retire? You'll find a link on that page to watch the program online. Finally, I'm also aware of but haven't yet seen a new documentary called Broken Eggs: The Looming Retirement Crisis in America. Looks like it isn't available for online streaming or on DVD yet, but I expect it would be, eventually.\"",
"According to both Huffington Post and Investopedia: Trying to retire without any savings in the bank can be difficult, and that difficulty is compounded by other factors senior citizens need to keep in mind as they age, like health issues and mobility. If saving money is not possible for you, retirement doesn’t have to pass you by. There are plenty of government-assisted and nonprofit programs that can help you, such as the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, Medicare, senior housing help from Housing and Urban Development and other resources. Therefore, to answer your questions: Is this pretty much the destiny of everyone who cannot save for retirement? Yes, if you do not have help from family (or friends) then you have a chance of ending up homeless and/or on government assistance. Do most people really never retire? There are people who really will never retire. There are stories in the news about Walmart greeters or McDonald's cashiers who are in their 80s and 90s working because they need to support themselves. However, that's not the case for everyone. There's a greeter at my local Costco who is in her 80s and she works because she loves it (her career was in consulting and she doesn't have a lack of retirement money. She just really likes talking to people.). What really happens? I can't answer what really happens because I have never experienced it and don't know people that do. Therefore I have to go off of what the two articles have said.",
"nearly 30 percent of households headed by someone 55 or older have neither a pension nor any retirement savings. I don’t know what these people are going to do or what our country is able to do about it, but this is a black swan that’s staring us right in the face. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are going to run out of money. Try millions. We are headed back to the days before the New Deal.",
"To answer your question, Retirement Revolution may fit the bill to some extent. I'd also like to address some of the indirect assumptions that were made in your bullet points. I'm convinced that the best way to overcome this is not simply to hold down a good job with COLAs every year, max out your IRA accounts and 401(k)s, invest another 10-20% on top, and live off of the savings and whatever Social Security decides to pay you. Instead, the trick is to not retire -- to make a transition into an income-producing activity that can be done in the typical retirement years, hopefully one that is closer to one's calling (i.e., more fulfilling). This takes time, not money. If people just shut off the TV and spent the time building up a side business that has a high passive component, they'd stand a much better chance of not outliving their money.",
"If you are in poverty then I can understand. But every single middle class family who doesn't have savings deliberately made that choice. Hell, even their example is of some woman who decided that a huge house she no longer can afford (and most likely never could) was more important than starting a savings account.",
"\"There are so many people who did not save throughout their work careers largely because they had a safe and secure pension to count on. Many of these people turned down other more lucrative opportunities and gave generously from whatever saving they had. They did this because they had a state pension that they could count on. Apart from a tiny SS amount, the \"\"untouchable\"\" and thought-to-be, guaranteed pension was the only retirement plan. Suddenly and with no time to save money to replace pension shortfalls, their earnings could be greatly reduced, or completely wiped out. Tragic.\"",
"\"I'm afraid you have missed a few of the outcomes commonly faced by millions of Americans, so I would like to take a moment to discuss a wider range of outcomes that are common in the United States today. Most importantly, some of these happen before retirement is ever reached, and have grave consequences - yet are often very closely linked to financial health and savings. Not planning ahead long-term - 10-20+ years - is generally associated with not planning ahead even for the next few months, so I'll start there. The most common thing that happens is the loss of a job, or illness/injury that put someone out of work. 6 in 10 adults in the US have less than $500 in savings, so desperation can set in very quickly, as the very next paycheck will be short or missing. Many of these Americans have no other source of saved money, either, so it's not like they can draw on retirement savings, as they don't have that either. Even if they are able to get another job or recover enough to get back to work in a few weeks, this can set off a desperate cycle. Those who have lost their jobs to technical obsolescence, major economic downturns, or large economic changes are often more severely affected. People once making excellent, middle-class (or above) wages with full benefits find they cannot find work that pays even vaguely similarly. In the past this was especially common in heavy labor jobs like manufacturing, meat-packing, and so on, but more recently this has happened in financial sectors and real estate/construction during the 2008 economic events. The more resilient people had padding, switched careers, and found other options - the less resilient, didn't. Especially during the 1970s and 1980s, many people affected by large losses of earning potential became sufficiently desperate that they fell heavily (or lost their functioning status) into substance abuse, including alcohol and drugs (cocaine and heroine being especially popular in this segment of the population). Life disruption - made even more major by a lack of savings - is a key trigger to many people who are already at risk of issues like substance addiction, mental health, or any ongoing legal issues. Another common issue is something more simple, like loss of transportation that threatens their ability to hold their job, and a lack of alternatives available through support networks, savings, family, and public transit. If their credit is bad, or their income is new, they may find even disreputable companies turn them away, or even worse - the most disreputable companies welcome them in with high interest and hair-trigger repossession policies. The most common cycle of desperation I have seen usually starts with banking over-drafts, and its associated fees. People who are afraid and desperate start to make increasingly desperate, short-sighted choices, as tunnel-vision sets in and they are unable to consider longer-term strategy as they focus on holding on to what they have and survival. Many industries have found this set of people quite profitable, including high-interest \"\"check cashing\"\", payday loans, and title loans (aka legal loan sharks), and it is not rare that desperate people are encouraged to get on increasing cycles of loan amounts and fees that worsen their financial situation in exchange for short-term relief. As fees, penalties, and interest add up, they lose more and more of their already strained income to stay afloat. Banks that are otherwise reputable and fair may soon blacklist them and turn them away, and suddenly only the least reputable and most predatory places offer to help at all - usually with a big smile at first, and almost always with awful strings attached. Drugs and alcohol are often readily available nearby and their use can easily turn from recreational to addictive given the allure of the escapism it offers, especially for those made vulnerable by increasing stress, desperation, loss of hope, isolation, and fear. Those who have not been within the system of poverty and desperation often do not see just how many people actively work to encourage bad decision making, with big budgets, charm, charisma, and talent. The voices of reason, trying to act as beacons to call people to take care of themselves and their future, are all too easily drowned out in the roar of a smooth and enticing operation. I personally think this is one of the greatest contributions of the movement to build personal financial health and awareness, as so many great people find ever more effective ways of pointing out the myriad ways people try to bleed your money out of you with no real concern for your welfare. Looking out for your own well-being and not being taking in by the wide array of cons and bad deals is all too often fighting against a strong societal current - as I'm sure most of our regular contributors are all too aware! With increasing desperation often comes illegal maneuvers, often quite petty in nature. Those with substance abuse issues often start reselling drugs to others to try to cover lost income or \"\"get ahead\"\", with often debilitating results on long-term earning potential if they get caught (which can include cost barriers to higher education, even if they do turn their life around). I think most people are surprised by how little and petty things can quickly cycle out of control. This can include things like not paying minor parking or traffic tickets, which can snowball from the $10-70 range into thousands of dollars (due to non-payment often escalating and adding additional penalties, triggering traffic stops for no other reason, etc.), arrest, and more. The elderly are not exempt from this system, and many of America's elderly spend their latter years in prison. While not all are tied to financial desperation as I've outlined above, a deeper look at poverty, crime, and the elderly will be deeply disturbing. Some of these people enter the system while young, but some only later in life. Rather than homelessness being something that only happens after people hit retirement, it often comes considerably earlier than that. If this occurs, the outcome is generally quite a bit more extreme than living off social security - some just die. The average life expectancy of adults who are living on the street is only about 64 years of age - only 2 years into early retirement age, and before full retirement age (which could of course be increased in the next 10-20 years, even if life expectancy and health of those without savings don't improve). Most have extremely restricted access to healthcare (often being emergency only), and have no comforts of home to rest and recuperate when they become ill or injured. There are many people dedicated to helping, yet the help is far less than the problem generally, and being able to take advantage of most of the help (scheduling where to go for food, who to talk to about other services, etc) heavily depends on the person not already suffering from conditions that limit their ability to care for themselves (mental conditions, mobility impairments, etc). There is also a shockingly higher risk of physical assault, injury, and death, depending on where the person goes - but it is far higher in almost every case, regardless. One of the chief problems in considering only retirement savings, is it assumes that you'll only have need for the savings and good financial health once you reach approximately the age of 62 (if it is not raised before you get there, which it has been multiple times to-date). As noted above, if homelessness occurs and becomes longstanding before that, the result is generally shortened lifespan and premature death. The other major issue of health is that preventative care - from simple dentistry to basic self-care, adequate sleep and rest, a safe place to rejuvenate - is often sacrificed in the scrambling to survive and limited budget. Those who develop chronic conditions which need regular care are more severely affected. Diabetic and injury-related limb loss, as one example, are far more likely for those without regular support resources - homeless, destitute, or otherwise. Other posters have done a great job in pointing out a number of the lesser-known governmental programs, so I won't list them again. I only note the important proviso that this may be quite a bit less in total than you think. Social Security on average pays retired workers $1300 a month. It was designed to avoid an all-too-common occurrence of simple starvation, rampant homelessness, and abject poverty among a large number of elderly. No guarantee is made that you won't have to leave your home, move away from your friends and family if you live in an expensive part of the country, etc. Some people get a bit more, some people get quite a bit less. And the loss of family and friend networks - especially to such at-risk groups - can be incredibly damaging. Note also that those financially desperate will be generally pushed to take retirement at the minimum age, even though benefits would be larger and more livable if they delayed their retirement. This is an additional cost of not having other sources of savings, which is not considered by many. Well, yes, many cannot retire whether they want to or not. I cannot find statistics on this specifically, but many are indeed just unable to financially retire without considerable loss. Social Security and other government plans help avoid the most desperate scenarios, but so many aspects of aging is not covered by insurance or affordable on the limited income that aging can be a cruel and lonely process for those with no other financial means. Those with no savings are not likely to be able to afford to regularly visit children and grandchildren, give gifts on holidays, go on cruises, enjoy the best assistive care, or afford new technological devices to assist their aging (especially those too new and experimental to be covered by the insurance plans they have). What's worse - but most people do not plan for either - is that diminished mental and physical capacity can render many people unable to navigate the system successfully. As we've seen here, many questions are from adult children trying to help their elderly parents in retirement, and include aging parents who do not understand their own access to social security, medicaid/medicare, assistive resources, or community help organizations. What happens to those aging without children or younger friend networks to step in and help? Well, we don't really have a replacement for that. I am not aware of any research that quantifies just how many in the US don't take advantage of the resources they are fully qualified to make use of and enjoy, due to a lack of education, social issues (feeling embarrassed and afraid), or inability to organize and communicate effectively. A resource being available is not very much help for those who don't have enough supportive resources to make use of it - which is very hard to effectively plan for, yet is exceedingly common. Without one's own independent resources, the natural aging and end of life process can be especially harsh. Elderly who are economically and food insecure experience far heightened incidence of depression, asthma, heart attack, and heart failure, and a host of other maladies. They are at greater risk for elder-abuse, accidental death, life-quality threatening conditions developing or worsening, and more. Scare-tactics aren't always persuasive, and they do little to improve the lives of many because the people who need to know it most generally just don't believe it. But my hope here is that the rather highly educated and sophisticated audience here will see a little more of the harsher world that their own good decisions, good fortune, culture, and position in society shields them from experiencing. There is a downside to good outcomes, which is that it can cause us to be blind to just how extremely different is the experience of others. Not all experience such terrible outcomes - but many hundreds of thousands in the US alone - do, and sometimes worse. It is not helpful to be unrealistic about this: life is not inherently kind. However, none of this suggests that being co-dependent or giving up your own financial well-being is necessary or advised to help others. Share your budgeting strategies, your plans for the future, your gentle concerns, and give of your time and resources as generously as you can - within your own set budgets and ensuring your own financial well-being. And most of all - do not so easily give up on your family and friends, and count them as life-long hopeless ne'er-do-wells. Let's all strive to be good, kind, honest, and offer non-judgmental support and advice to the best of our ability to the people we care about. It is ultimately their choice - restricted by their own experiences and abilities - but need not be fate. People regularly disappoint, but sometimes they surprise and delight. Take care of yourself, and give others the best chance you can, too.\"",
"Yeah it was a great documentary. A real moral quest to expose the truth behind herbalife and pyramid schemes in general. So many people lost their life savings. You think people would have learned from Madoff's ponzi scheme...",
"\"I would look at the wording of the question. \"\"Expect\"\" does not necessarily mean that they plan to work until they die, or that they want to work until they die. \"\"Expect\"\" here likely means that they think they will have to work until they die - in particular, think that they will not be able to save up enough to retire. Thinking that you will have to work until you die doesn't mean you shouldn't save money - that's just giving up if you don't, right? Instead you save up money and hopefully you're one of the luckier ones.\"",
"\"Note that the quote distinguishes between \"\"all families\"\" and \"\"families with some savings\"\" - this just means there are so many families with less than 5k that they equal all those with savings above 5k. That might be because they are young and haven't started yet, or because it is just not a priority for them compared to food and rent. Nothing about the quote suggests that anyone believes once you've saved 5k, you're done. In fact since they show savings vs age, you can immediately see many people still have decades to save more. They may have 5k or less now, but they're not retiring now. How do you survive if you get to 65 and have nothing saved? There is some government money (social security) and many people sell their houses or get a reverse mortgage. Having equity in a house is not the same as having savings. And some older people live very frugally - they stop buying clothes, they stop redecorating their houses - while others live in flat out poverty. But you can't tell if that is their future from the fact they only had 5k saved when they were 32.\"",
"This is the short story: [Republic, Lost (my favorite version)](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxCo2bE9Gtk) [The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class](www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A) [Psywar](http://www.openfilm.com/videos/psywar) [Advertising & the Perfect Storm - Sut Jhally](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNy9s5qR4i0) [Lifting the Veil: Obama and the Failure of Capitalist Democracy](http://vimeo.com/20355767) Not to mention: [Stephen Bezruchka - Is America Driving You Crazy?](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5oJPRuFDIk) [James Hansen: Why I must speak out about climate change](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWInyaMWBY8) [The 11th Hour](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFLppW_JEmk)",
"This why economists hate people like OP: They only read headlines and abstracts. >Given the importance of low wealth at retirement in explaining low wealth late in life, this paper begins by exploring the factors that are associated with low saving before retirement. We pay particular attention to the links between education, health status, and wealth at age 65 and at the end of life. We examine the distribution of lifetime earnings, a key determinant of savings capacity, and calculate a “saving ratio,” the ratio of wealth at retirement to lifetime earnings. This ratio depends on a household’s saving 2 rate over the life course, as well as on the rate of return earned on this saving. We also present new evidence on how health and family status shocks affect the trajectory of wealth after retirement, and in particular how they affect the likelihood of reporting very low wealth at the end of life.",
"The only thing that comes to mind is a recent HBO Real Sports segment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDjkbgrgcmo) on a couple of NFL players who blew all of their money. Seeing how they've ended up might make the right impression, but given that your brother ran up $148K in debt, I'm not optimistic.",
"\"The abysmal stats on personal savings concern me the most. When push comes to shove, these people will vote to steal from those of us who made wise financial decisions and were responsible savers. Forced draw downs of 401k's before retirement age? Taxation on internal gains in retirement plans? \"\"Wealth\"\" taxes on retirement balances? It's coming in some form or another. Stay vigilant!\"",
"So don't retire. But plan like you will retire. I am sure that some billionaire put some money away into a pension, 401K, or IRA for their retirement when they were young. It turns out they never had to worry about outliving their money. The next few paragraphs use United States examples. What happens if you have to retire, but you never saved. All the matching funds you could have collected in a 401K are gone, they disappeared with every paycheck you didn't contribute. Every year you didn't contribute to an IRA can never be replayed. You gave up the magic of compounding, because you thought you would never want to retire. If you save but don't need it, you will have more money to play with as you cut back your hours to part time. If you skip all the plans that make it hard to spend the money until you are 59 1/2, you can still save, but it takes even more discipline to not spend it before you are old.",
"\"Work hard, be loyal, save your pennies and in the end? You get screwed. Employees not getting what they were promised is only part of the problem. The more important issue is the death of the average worker's faith in the Capitalist system. The \"\"American Dream\"\" is now a cruel joke. The bankers and right-wing wealthy are destroying America with their greed. And to anyone who would argue that it's the union that's to blame for being greedy, all I can do is point to the Pentagon budget and ask, \"\"Why is there plenty of money for useless war while Americans lose their homes? Criminals with degrees in economics and foolish politicians are stealing from us all. My hope is that \"\"we the people\"\" drive them all to Hell some day soon.\"",
"\"Social security and pensions make up a big part of it. You may want to look at the source of the data. If a person, has 5K at Vanguard, 5K at Fidelity and 100K at the bank; Fidelity will report on that person as having only 5K. Vanguard will do the same. The opening pitch of a life insurance salesman sometimes includes the \"\"100 man story\"\". Before retirement age: 26% of people will die, 54% will be broke, 5% will work, 4% will be secure, and 1% will be wealthy. Then they sell you life insurance which is a horrible product for retirement savings. If you further dig into this subject you will find a great disparity between the mean and median retirement savings. That is because many Americans have none, and those that do skew the average upward and have no where near mean or average. Its like this with other things in personal finance. For example those with actual credit card debt have much higher than the average. As those with none, or even no credit cards skew the average downward. In my opinion it is like this because of behavior. If one saved half of the average car payment over their working life in a growth stock mutual fund, they would make it to that 4% category. If they also had a good salary, kept debt to a minimum, and saved a healthy amount they would make it to that 1% category. It was a daily choice that was made many years prior to retirement.\"",
"\"And then failing at retirement because they had a fifth kid when they were in their late fifties and so they continue working even after they've \"\"retired.\"\" At leas that seems to be how it goes where I live. More people die than actually retire.\"",
"Social security was created with just such people in mind. It's a meager living, but it is an income stream that can be supplemented by Walmart greeter income. It probably isn't so dire that it leads to homelessness, but it might mean not having some of the other comforts that we take for granted.",
"Just like with any other issue, it is hard to find a documentary that isn't pushing one agenda or another. If you are willing to put some time into understanding the collapse the best place is at [your good old friend wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#Background_and_timeline_of_events)",
"Pensions are pretty much gone and likely to be drastically cut back where available for my generation. Every recession provides excuses to cut or freeze more of them. Who hasn't seen that compound interest infographic that shows investor A saving for retirement in the first decade of their career coming out ahead of investor B that starts a decade later and contributes for 25 years because of 'compound interest'? That doesn't work the same way when that first decade is a 'lost decade'. Investor A is always behind in that situation and must become investor C that contributes the whole time. Who hasn't see that average college grads that start their careers in a recession take a decade or more to catch up to the income of those that graduated into a recovery or boom? Who hasn't seen an odd money mentality of those who lived through the great depression? It clearly stuck with many people for the rest of their lives. My grandmother is 97 and is paranoid about running out of money. At her current burn rate she has over 20 years of savings left...",
"The difference is, outside of a small period in the 70s, this is the first time that events are converging that will very likely make it true. Short of the emergence of an industry that can economically support us for the next 20-30 years (which is essentially one part of what saved us during the 70s, with the computer revolution), the options that exist for Social Security are: 1. Increase benefits age. 2. Decrease payouts (either by nominally decreasing them, or de facto decreasing them by not keeping pace with inflation). 3. Print the money to pay back the IOUs that are the foundation of Social Security today (resulting in massively inflated money supply and lower purchasing power of the payouts). So while it might be true that this was discussed, because of the massive size of the system and the economic might of the United States, there was never really a threat of it actively impacting a generation until now. That aside, the Social Security argument was only one arm of the discussion. The Gen X generation, if the economy doesn't recover, is going to be the first generation to have to figure out what retirement means when your entire generation is lacking resources to support itself (compared against the WWI generation (savings, not possible now with inflation), the Greatest Generation (pensions, which are gone), and the Baby Boomers (401k and remnants of Social Security system)).",
"\"The thing you appear to neglect is that: Many people don't have a choice of when they retire. Another issue is that \"\"work 'til I die\"\" people are often 20-50 years old. If they changed their minds or were forced to retire (see above) or came to a realization later in life that they would like to retire, they've missed their chance. They've lost decades of compounding interest because they thought they knew everything in the world when they were 23. Forced retire savings hedges this 'common' mistake.\"",
"\"If you dig deeper and look at the original study, what's being measured is \"\"retirement-plan participation\"\": specifically, money in 401(k) plans and IRAs. This omits every other possible source of retirement money: things such as general savings, non-retirement investments, property ownership, pensions, etc. As an extreme example, I know someone who's retired with property worth a million dollars, another million dollars in stock, a pension providing thousands of dollars a month plus health insurance, and not one penny of what the study would consider \"\"retirement savings\"\". Yes, the average American family is under-prepared for retirement. But it's nowhere near as bad as the article makes it sound.\"",
"\"Did anyone in your family die and leave you to take care of kids you didn't bring into the world? Did a random accident leave you disabled in any way or maybe just in chronic pain? Did you have a loved one become disabled and unable to take care of themselves? No disrespect to working hard and saving your money. I agree with that. And I commend you for doing it. But \"\"Plan your life and live below your means\"\" is a mighty useless piece of advice to people who are having a tough time making ends meet - sometimes through not fault of their own.\"",
"The most obvious one these days is unexpected and extended unemployment. If you are living paycheck to paycheck, you are asking for trouble in this economy.",
"\"This article acts like it's the fault of the person for not making enough money to pay for rent, food, insurance, and gas - \"\"Surely if I just tried hard enough I could make $280,000 a year and put 30% of it into investments.\"\" No financial software is going to change the labor market.\"",
"Yep. My dad lost his (really high paying) job in 2009 and it took him 9 months to find it. They had to sell off a lot of stock to get through it, at a time when the stocks were half of what they were a year earlier. Now he's 64 and not even considering retiring before 70 or death, whichever comes first. I definitely believe that the death of the pension is going to be the worst thing for boomers. My generation never grew up with them - for us they're like a fairy tale. But many boomers grew up where nobody ever saved for retirement and always kicked the can down the road. SS is really only enough to keep seniors from starving to death, and not much more.",
"\"Let's pretend that the author of that article is not selling anything and is trying to help you succeed in life. I have nothing against sales, but that author is throwing out a lot of nonsense to sell his stuff and is creating a state of urgency so that people adopt this mindset. It's clever and it obviously works. From a pure time perspective, most people won't make enough money to run their own business and be as profitable as if they worked for a company. This is a reality that few want to acknowledge. If you invested in yourself and your career with the same discipline and urgency as an entrepreneur, most people would be better off at a company when you consider the benefits and the fact that employees have a full 7.5% of social security paid by their employer (entrepreneurs see the full 15% while employees don't). Why do I start here, because this author isn't telling you that the more people take his advice, the more their earnings will regress to the mean or below. In fact, most of my entrepreneur friends have to go back to work when their reality fails after they burn through their savings. 401ks are not a perfect system, but there are more 401k millionaires now than ever before this, and people who give the author's advice are always looking to avoid doing what they need to do - save for retirement. Most people I know sadly realize this in their 50s, when it's too late, and start trying to \"\"catch up.\"\" I don't blame the author for this, as he knows his article will appeal to younger people who don't have the wisdom to see that his advice hasn't been great for most. The reality is that for most people 401ks will provide tax advantaged savings that you can use when you're older; taxes will eat at your earnings, so these accounts really help. Finally, look at the article again especially the part you quote. He says inflation will carve out what you save, yet inflation is less than 2%. Where is he getting this from? In the past decade, we've seen numerous deflationary spirals and the market overall has come back from the fall in 2009. Again, this isn't \"\"good enough\"\" for this author, so buy his stuff to learn how to succeed! There have been numerous decades (50s,70s) that were much worse for investors than this past one.\"",
"Nothing for nothing, everyone is given the opportunity to roll their tax refund into an IRA at tax time. Given the EIC such there is little reason most low income families with children couldn't max out for a few years early on in a target retirement fund. But buying stuff is a much more popular option i guess. I do not know why learning math of money is not given more focus in school rather than other trivial things...",
"It's nearly always a good idea to save for your future, if you don't already have sufficient funds to see out the rest of your days. The hardest part of the saving decision is knowing exactly what portion of your funds to save. If we save too aggressively, we risk having an adverse impact on our everyday life and, of course, there's always the possibility that we'll never make it to old age. But if we don't save, we risk the prospect of a poverty stricken retirement. It's not always easy to find a balance. The best solution is to make so much money that we cannot possibly spend it all!",
"Only one plan is reliable - be offspring of boss. It's your failure if you didn't plan sufficiently. Failure is guaranteed, otherwise. (understand, I'm assuming you want to be paid a living wage. the other options already being proposed don't provide that function)",
"I've done it in smaller forms (I'm not OP) in video games. Particularly a video game called Call of Duty: Black Ops. There's a zombie mode in this game. Each time you shoot a zombie, you get 10 points pet bullet, 30 points per headshot. The zombies come in levels, with level 1 having 10 zombies. And each new level having more zombies. The kicker: with each new level, the zombies get stronger, and take more bullets to kill. Level 1, everyone starts with a handgun; this handgun becomes useless in later levels and you're required to buy better weapons with better firepower and more bullets. It's competitive while also being co-operative, like capitalism. There have been plenty of games where I let other players do the work for the first 10 levels. Almost all of those times, I end up never getting to their level and I'm always dying. (If you die, you don't respawn until the next round AND you lose some of your points, which means less bucks to get a better weapon). This creates a system where the rich get richer, and those that start late, never catch up. No matter how hard I work, what strategy I try, I never catch up to the levels of fiscal wealth that the other players do. And this is me actually knowing how to play and game the system (which usually involves not-spending points early in-game, and upgrading only in intervals according to level-needs and saving up for when you die). If I had more time and patience, it would make a great documentation.",
"if someone wants to retire, they can save up for it themselves. we're no longer the richest country in the world surrounded by a rest-of-the-world destroyed by world war II. big news. on average, people need to work to get by.",
"\"Statistics are often tough to grasp. Specifically, we need to understand the exact context and implication of the data and how it's presented. An example - I look at real estate sales data for a given town, and find that for the last 10 years, the average sale price has dropped, 3%/yr, every year for these 10. What can I conclude? Now, to your data. You don't mention age. When we look at this chart, combined with the next - The picture, while still bleak, is at least more clear. Nearly half of pre-retirees have no \"\"retirement\"\" savings. If that lower half is running close to zero, the average for the upper half is nearly twice the reported $164K. Even now, there are important bits going unaddressed. People who have had no access to retirement accounts, either through lack of company availability, or self-employeds who just ignored them, may very well have saved outside of retirement-labled accounts. You can see these graphs are tracking only 401(k), IRA, and Keogh accounts. Last, social security for the $30K earner will replace nearly half their working income at retirement, almost 65% if they work till 70. I don't advocate counting on SS for the entirety of one's retirement income, but the way SS benefits are structured, replacement benefits are far higher (as a percent) for lower wage workers, as the system intended. To conclude, median alone is too small a data point to be useful, in my opinion. This kind of information presented in these charts is far more preferable to get a fuller picture.\"",
"Why is it that people spend more time pricing their newest phone plan than their house, or educational costs. You see students going to law school who have never job shadowed a real lawyer to even see what reality looks like and have no idea the real job prospects. I'd feel bad, but it takes so little leg work and planning to keep yourself from self imposed financial doom.",
"I retired when I was 48 without financial worries and with enough money to travel and eat out whenever I want. The thought that I was making my salary and paying the taxes I did while other struggling to get by had to pay taxes at all was ridiculous to me. Especially when I had earned enough to stop paying into social security. That seemed doubly ridiculous. I'm happy for those who work longer because they want to, but for those who simply don't earn enough, this is so sad.",
"Of course; the generation Xers are those in the age range where many were approaching the time when they would, but had not yet, transferred the bulk of their retirement savings to lower risk investments. Anyone who hadn't yet transferred their retirement savings from any direct market funds got totally Effed in the A. Granted, some of this happened because people were simply banking on continual market rise. But a lot of these people simply got really bad advice from financial planners who looked and seemed totally qualified to advise, just as a lot of people got reassured from qualified sources that their adjustable rate mortgage on their million dollar home would be *no problem.*",
"I know an old retired Asian couple that each have 2 pensions. They worked from their teens and worked their asses off. The wife still works as a part time consultant because her second job was so specialized and she gets bored at home very easy. I saw their finances once and its just on a level I've never seen before or since. It's like they planned ~6 decades of their lives as teens and they stuck with the plan",
"Do you want to retire? If so, when? How long do you expect to live? How much per month in today's dollars do you want to have at your disposal when you reach that age? Once you've answered those questions, then you'll be in a better position to say whether you should be disappointed or not. But the fact that you don't know indicates that you haven't looked into these questions yet.",
"Interesting. The answer can be as convoluted/complex as one wishes to make it, or back-of-envelope. My claim is that if one starts at 21, and deposits 10% of their income each year, they will likely hit a good retirement nest egg. At an 8% return each year (Keep in mind, the last 40 years produced 10%, even with the lost decade) the 10% saver has just over 15X their final income as a retirement account. At 4% withdrawal, this replaces 60% of their income, with social security the rest, to get to nearly 100% or so replacement. Note - I wrote an article about Social Security Benefits, showing the benefit as a percent of final income. At $50K it's 42%, it's a higher replacement rate for lower income, but the replacement rate drops as income rises. So, the $5000 question. For an individual earning $50K or less, this amount is enough to fund their retirement. For those earning more, it will be one of the components, but not the full savings needed. (By the way, a single person has a standard deduction and exemption totaling $10150 in 2014. I refer to this as the 'zero bracket.' The next $8800 is taxed at 10%. Why go 100% Roth and miss the opportunity to fund these low or no tax withdrawals?)",
"\"The real betrayal is that the so-called education system can't be bothered to teach people anything useful. I had a \"\"bank book\"\" (savings account) in *fifth grade*. We learned to operate checking accounts in sixth, and compound interest the next year. What happened?\"",
"I've shown this video to people with more than 10 years experience in the finance industry, and even they have gotten something from it. It is a brilliant video, too good not to share. And if we are all the wiser, hopefully we can avoid this type of disaster from happening again. Thanks for the comments.",
"I wish I had started contributing to the pension fund offered by my employer sooner than it became compulsory. That is, I started working when I was 23 but did not contribute to the pension fund until I was 30 (the age at which it is compulsory to do so). I lost a lot of productive years in mid to late 90s, when the stocks were doing well. :-(",
"There has been an abundance of articles in recent years which make it fairly clear that many participants in the Social Security system-- especially those who have started contributing recently, and going forward from that-- will experience negative rates of return. In other words, they will put in more than they will get out. Some examples of such articles: Time Magazine: But it is now official: Social Security is a lousy investment for the average worker. People retiring today will be among the first generation of workers to pay more in Social Security taxes than they receive in benefits over the course of their lives, according to a new analysis by the Associated Press. That AP piece, referenced by Time: People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire. It's a historic shift that will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by The Associated Press. A piece which appeared in DailyFinance (includes a helpful graphic summary): 10 Myths About Social Security: Myth 4: Social Security Is a Good Deal for Today’s WorkersEven if there were no reduction in benefits or increase in taxes—an impossibility given Social Security’s looming financing shortfalls—Social Security is an extremely bad investment for most young workers. In fact, according to a study by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, most young workers will actually receive a negative return on their Social Security taxes— they will get less in benefits than they paid in taxes. Some studies indicate that a 30- year-old two-earner couple with average income will lose as much as $173,500. That actual loss does not even consider the opportunity cost, what workers might have earned if they had been able to invest their taxes in real assets that yield a positive return. In fact, a study by financial analyst William Shipman demonstrates that, if a 25-year-old worker were able to privately invest the money he or she currently pays in Social Security taxes, the worker would receive retirement benefits three to six times higher than under Social Security. Has that answered your question?",
"Isn't it clear to everyone that something that isn't measured by economists yet is going horribly wrong in the US since they started with the debt bing? I know so many people with no savings whatsoever and just hanging on.",
"So the same greedy Zillionaires who caused the majority of the problems are now telling us how we can pitch - work an extra 20 years - to ensure that their privileged positions will continue without too much disruption.",
"\"You're not alone; there's a quite a few good bloggers out there on the general theme of \"\"Financial independence, retire early\"\" (FIRE). While most of what they blog about is about the technical money side of savings & investments and living sustainably off accumulated wealth, they also all seem to have had to confront the \"\"OK, so what do I do now?\"\" side of things too at some point (and admit that the \"\"FI\"\" is way more important that the \"\"RE\"\"). A few to get you started (think these are all UK based except MMM):\"",
"You should be trying to save 10% of your income from an early age. You can live well now and enjoy life within your means now, instead of trying to keep up with the Jones. Do you need to live in a larger house (when you can't really afford it) because it is more comfortable or because you want to show it off in front of your family and friends? You can live and enjoy life and eat well now and still save enough to have a comfortable retirement, just spend your money now on the things you enjoy, not things you see others enjoying.",
"\"Financially speaking, you are absolutely right. But there are lots of conflicting messages out there that can't be boiled down to economics: EX: >\"\"Why aren't you giving your grandmother children before she dies?\"\" >\"\"I bought a house at 23. Why are you still renting?\"\" >\"\"Who is going to take care of your parents when we they get old?\"\" >\"\"If you don't have X by age Y, then there's something wrong with you\"\" Everyone had their own life, with their own circumstances. One person's formula for success might not work for others through no fault of their own. I have a very good friend who will never be successful in the eyes of her family until she is married with children. She works at Bank of China and makes a ton more than I do. This is not to mention all of the industries promoting *their* product as the benchmark for achieving life goals. From real estate to jewellery, these industries can't survive off of the super wealthy alone, and they don't care what poor decisions customers make so long as it's poor decisions buying their products. All I'm saying it's we shouldn't be blaming the deer for dying when the forest is covered in traps.\"",
"You can never depend ONLY on pension. You must get financial education and invest your money. I recommend you to read The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham...it's the bible of Warren Buffet. Besides, you don't need to be a Billionaire for retiring and be happy. I recommend you to get education in ETFs. I quote The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham p. 131. According to Ibboston Associates, the leading financial research firm, if you had invested $12,000 in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index at the beginning of september 1929, 10 years later you would have had only $7,223 left. But if you had started with a paltry $100 and simply invested another $100 every single month, then by August 1939, your money would have grown to $15,571! That's the power of disciplined buying-even in the face of the Great Depression and the worst bear market of all time. You are still young to make even bolder investments. But seriously you can never depend ONLY on pension. You won't regret learning how to invest your money, it doesn't matter if it's in the stock market, real state market, whatever market... Knowing what to do with your money is priceless. I hope this helps. Happy profits!",
">But on the bright side, the most common decade for people to start saving is in their 20s. Twice as many 30 to 49 year olds said they started saving in their 20s instead of their 30s, while the 50 to 64 age group was “only slightly more likely” to have started saving in their 20s over their 30s, according to the report, which surveyed 1,003 adults living in the continental U.S. So they are basing their analysis of how early people start saving purely by studying people in their 30s and 40s with those in their 50s and 60s. They don't compare either of those age groups with those in their 20s and 30s to see how things have changed?",
"A lot of poor money management, lack of adaptation to changing times...It's kind of ironic; the boomers were the protesters in the 60's, calling for freedom from the man, an open society, and shaking down the pillars of society, and yet now are the ones who are clinging to the very fabric of society they sought to tear apart. Stability was anathema to them when they were in their 20's, but now look at them...desperately attempting to get things back to 'the way they were'.",
"Invest in kids, not pension - they never inflate. Without kids your retirement will be miserable anyway. And with them you'll be good. Personally, I do not believe that that our current savings will be worth it in 30 years in these times.",
"There are a host of programs in the US to help low/no-income seniors: Many states discount property taxes for the elderly as well. Not a dream retirement, but plenty of people are provided for without having prepared for retirement whether due to poor decisions or unfortunate circumstances.",
"Wow, so many idiots. Everyone has a nice fancy car that costs $300/month and cable and fancy clothes, and half of them are in debt. Pathetic. No sympathy whatsoever. I live frugally, which is precisely why I have a large surplus.",
"Your Money or Your Life is a great book on this topic.",
"Adam Curtis also drew the parallel very articulately last year with his film Hypernormalization. [He captures the sense of sweeping alienation very well in this teaser, I think.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtjfoEvsR9w) [He did a interview on a neat podcast](https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-65-no-future-feat-adam-curtis-121216) too about his film, late capitalism, past art and media that covers systematic failure, and what sociologically might be expected as the system continues to fail. Check it out if you're into that kind of thing.",
"Saving for retirement is important. So is living within one's means. Also--wear your sunscreen every day, rain or shine, never stop going to the gym, stay the same weight you were in high school, and eat your vegetables if you want to pass for 30 when you are 50.",
"\"I haven't read the book and have no intention of reading it. This definitely looks like a forced savings plan with \"\"Whole Life Insurance\"\" as the theme – which is pretty bad for someone who is able to take care of his finances. It would be good for someone who is not very good with his finances and wants to be forced into savings, but then even for those people it would only help a little; there are enough clauses that would make things more bad for him. i.e. one can choose to take a loan, pay only interest etc. No book is going to help you build a savings habit. One has to realize and spend what is essential (it means not buying or doing tons of things) and putting quite a bit away for a rainy day. After this, comes investing wisely...\"",
"Retirement is a Fiction anyways. It is the carrot by which the class structured social construct prods people to take money out of Circulation and attempt to hold it for a later date, or leverage monies now for later. Retirement was a reward at times offered by some companies, but was not always the case. If you made the Company you worked for enough monies, they would offer a Retirement Package, or a productivity incentive for lower classed employees. Any Retirement packages that have been saved by the American Citizens are soon to be plundered by the US Government (once they figure out how to get away with it.) All for the sake of making the many equal with the few. Yet another way to penalize the productive working class, and kowtow to the unproductive yet voting non working class.",
"You are describing a situation that is different, than what the video presented. The video is mainly pointing out concentrated wealth. Sure, what you are doing to retire early is good. However, if you get to the point where you start to be a hoarder of wealth; then, you become part of the issue.",
"\"The same author wrote in that article “they have a trillion? Really?” But that’s what happens when ten million dollars compounds at 2% over 200 years. Really? 2% compounded over 200 years produces a return of 52.5X, multiply that by 10M and you have $525 million. The author is off by a factor of nearly 2000 fold. Let's skip this minor math error. The article is not about 401(k)s. His next line is \"\"The whole myth of savings is gone.\"\" And the article itself, \"\"10 Reasons You Have To Quit Your Job In 2014\"\" is really a manifesto about why working for the man is not the way to succeed long term. And in that regard, he certainly makes good points. I've read this author over the years, and respect his views. 9 of the 10 points he lists are clear and valuable. This one point is a bit ambiguous and falls into the overgeneraluzation \"\"Our 401(k) have failed us.\"\" But keep in mind, even the self employed need to save, and in fact, have similar options to those working for others. I have a Solo 401(k) for my self employment income. To be clear, there are good 401(k) accounts and bad. The 401(k) with fees above 1%/yr, and no matching, awful. The 401(k) I have from my job before I retired has an S&P index with .02%/yr cost. (That's $200/$million invested per year.) The 401(k) is not dead.\"",
"\"Definitions are in order: These definitions are important. Someone making 1,000,000 a year who spends all of it is poor. Someone who makes 500K, spends 450K a year and has three million in stocks and a paid-for million dollar home may be rich but they can't retire. They need another seven to eight million to retire. Someone with a million dollars in assets who makes 40K a year through their job, can be Financially Independent and retire. This last example is important. In The Millionaire Next Door the authors share their discovery that the average millionaire accumulated their wealth with just a working income of around 50K (the book is a bit dated so the number should be elevated if you adjust for inflation). Finance Independent is a strange thing to wrap your head around and people with high incomes often fall victim to misunderstanding it. When figuring out how much a person needs to accumulate for their \"\"nest egg\"\", their working income is not a direct variable. Their spending and savings rate are. A doctor making 500K, who spends 450K needs to work for 51 years if they are planning to keep spending 450K/year (adjusted for inflation) forever. Someone making 60K starting at age 21 who saves 18K (30%), could retire at 49. Someone with a truly low income and poor, say 30K and under and living in a old developed nation, investing will help them a bit. Say they save 10% of their income, by the time they reach 65 (the typical age federal retirement pensions begin), they'll have enough money to live off of in perpetuity and in comfort. They'll actually have a higher retirement income than income while they were working. But, it is challenging at those levels to save 10% of your net income. Events like your car randomly deciding to break down one day can destroy an entire year's saving.\"",
"I agree, i don’t think it was always like this. Here is a little story I was told about the coal miners in the Uk. Coal mining was massive industry in the uk for about 150 years, (its the reason the world ended up getting railways, symbiotically) the mines as usual was located in the poorer regions but they was good paying jobs for the working man, anyway along with the birth of the industrial revolution came unions and with unions came protection and in turn pensions. So together these minors saved and saved heavily, there pension pot swelled, unfortunately though the mining industry was hazardous one and these minors died young... anyway fast forward to the 70s Margret thatcher Ronald Regan, and the closure of mines. There was a lot less minors by then and a huge pension pot, every minor in the country could have stopped paying into the pension and retired before 50. Thatcher did not like this and neither did the wealthy bankers, so they stole it all and made new pension rules,",
"This is a good question and you seemed troubled by this and this person's choices in life. And that is the rub, they are choices. They know how to make them, they know the consequences, and they know how to work around them. Its a skill you probably don't have (and don't want to have). In the end they will survive. If you go to a fast food store in a popular retirement location you will see plenty of elderly people working. They might live in low income housing, receive some financial assistance, and utilize other charities such a food banks. They might depend on family and friends. There is also the ugly, it is not a fairy tale that some supplement their diets with pet food. There is of course social security. The amount is very low for most workers, but the amount is almost inconsequential. They would spend it all anyway and still be short despite the predictability of the income and a time frame with predictable expenses. Budgeting is a skill. So I have a friend that deals with this himself, and is helping an elder relation. He and his wife provide some help, but when it started there was a endless stream of requests. His policy now is: No more help unless he works out a budget with the person requesting help. I've used his ideas myself, and by using this it becomes clear on who is in actual need and who is just looking for the next handout. You can feel good about yourself for helping an actual needy person or guiltless say no.",
"Do you think those people at Sears made a decent wage within the last few decades? I certainly don't. If you want to talk about the changing envionment let's talk about Social security. The system used to be 30 workers to 1 retiree now its under 3:1 and soon to be under 2:1. There simply isnt enough production to keep up with growth, profit is shrinking in all but the most alchemical sectors. Clinging to dead or dying systems is one of the biggest obstacles to our future success and re-emergence as a healthy society. You say you are older, you have experience and wisdom. So what is the solution?",
"I'd like to make two points: To focus on your test case of Japan. You point out that about a third of them believe they'll work until they die. That means more than a majority of them believe they'll retire. In a democracy where a majority of people make decisions it is completely expected that the majority will dictate the policy. Of course there is fuzziness around that last statement because people who believe they'll retire could very well be of the mindset that they'll handle their retirement savings themselves rather than rely on government. Similarly some people that expect to work until they die might realize that there's a risk that they won't be able to. To focus on the case of government run pensions. The pension program that a government runs isn't like a private savings plan where its purpose is to get you a good rate of return. At best it's an insurance policy; more accurately it's just a tax and you should think of it this way. The reason you should think of it that way is several fold. One, if the pension fund is ever short, the government will make up the difference from the general fund. Two, the government can spend the money from the pension fund on other programs if the law changes which, over the course of a lifetime, is entirely possible. Three, no one has a legal right to withdraw their contributions directly. Four, the point of the program is to take care of old people so they aren't starving in the street. To do this, they take the money of the young and give it to to old people. The money you pay in doesn't go to investments of any sort, it goes directly to the elderly. Ultimately this is why you can't opt-out and why you should think of those contributions as a tax and not as savings.",
"wtf. look at that image. its supposed to show a horrible, disgusting, greedy, rich, 80-year-old unfairly hoarding money. but check it out -- the mattresses are old and cheap, bare like in a flophouse, and the bills are $1 and $5. statistically, i think being scared and hiding your fixed-income under a crappy mattress is a more accurate depiction of old age nowadays, than being a trillionaire and bathing in champagne. i realize this will be an unpopular thought. its very satisfying to have a group to blame for everything. its scary the extent to which we're being led to hate each other in groups =:-(",
"This question is likely to be voted closed as opinion-based. That said - In general people have become accustomed to instant gratification. They also have the media showing them luxury and are enticed every day to buy things they don't need. In the US, the savings rate is awfully low, but it's not just the lower 50%, it's 75% of people who aren't saving what they should. see http://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/working_papers/pfeffer-danziger-schoeni_wealth-levels.pdf for an interesting article on the topic of accumulated wealth.",
"\"Two suggestions: I don't know if you have them in South Africa, but here we have some TV reality shows where a credit consultant visits a family that is deeply in debt and advises them on how to get out of it. The advice isn't very sophisticated, but it does show the personal impact on a family and what is likely to happen to them in the future. \"\"All Maxed Out\"\" is the name of the one I remember. \"\"Till Debt Us Do Part\"\" is another, which focusses on married couples and the stress debt puts on a marriage. If you can find a similar one, loan him a few episodes. Alternatively, how about getting him to a professional debt counsellor?\"",
"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.nber.org/papers/w23839) reduced by 55%. (I'm a bot) ***** > There is strong persistence over time in the bottom tail of the wealth distribution, but the probability of having low wealth increases slowly with age after age 65. > Those with low lifetime earnings are much more likely to report low wealth at retirement, and to die with little wealth, than their higher-earning contemporaries. > The onset of a major medical condition and the loss of a spouse increase in the probability of falling into the low wealth category at advanced ages, although these factors appear to contribute to wealth decline for only a small fraction of those who had modest wealth at age 65 but low wealth at the time of death. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/72efsa/this_is_why_people_make_fun_of_economists_those/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~216369 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **wealth**^#1 **age**^#2 **low**^#3 **little**^#4 **Retirement**^#5\"",
"A lot of people don't, but some do and some of those give back in volunteering their time, knowledge, or expertise and sometimes the only way to do that is to retire with good savings. My granddad lived to 102 and he retired around 65, but he did nothing of any real substance for his community. He was kind and sort of funny and he loved me, but he wasted most of his life after retirement just watching tv.",
"As a 20 year old who has just started earning enough to save, I suggest showing them the different types of lifestyles they could live in the future if they started saving now versus what their life would be like if they didn't save at all. Try showing them actual dollar values as well so it's not just an arbitrary idea.",
"\"This is probably skewed, because most people see their credit-cards as \"\"emergency savings\"\". But the real problem happens that once you have an emergency, it turns into two. 1) *Emergency* 2) Maxed out credit-card emergency.\"",
"\"It's also not really anything new. For a several decades, a huge percentage of the population has been essentially living paycheck-to-paycheck, and with essentially zero cash savings to cover emergencies. It's possible that it is slightly worse now in the sense that -- with the pervasive use of credit & debit cards, etc -- few people deal in cash or change very often ... and so they don't even have the old proverbial \"\"piggy banks\"\" (or jars/bottles filled with end-of-day pocket-change) that they can raid for $50 or $100. *Oh, and THAT really has nothing to do with \"\"bubbles\"\".* --- EDIT: Plus another thought... just the other day there was an article crowing about how Millennials are \"\"saving for retirement\"\" in higher amounts and at earlier ages than prior generations -- if that is true, then a likely corollary would be that they are NOT engaged in plain old \"\"savings\"\" at the same rate -- i.e. what money they are \"\"stashing away\"\" is all heading to Wall Street, and is difficult to access in an emergency (and if they did access 401k savings, it would likely be as a \"\"loan\"\" -- rather than paying the early-withdrawal penalties & taxes).\"",
"The Money Girl (Quick and Dirty Tips for a richer life) Podcast is a pretty good source for this type of information. Some Recent Topics:",
"So my Question is this, in reality is investment in equities like the stock market even remotely resemble the type of growth one would expect if investing the same money in an account with compounding interest? Generally no as there is a great deal of volatility when it comes to investing in stocks that isn't well represented by simply taking the compounded annual growth rate and assuming things always went up and never went down. This is adding in the swings that the market will take that at times may be a bit of a rude surprise to some people. Are all these prognosticators vastly underestimating how much savers need to be socking away by overstating what is realistic in terms of growth in investment markets? Possibly but not probably. Until we know definitively what the returns are from various asset classes, I'm not sure I'd want to claim that people need to save a ton more. I'll agree that the model misses how wide the swings are, not necessarily that the averages are too low or overstated.",
"A person who always saves and appropriately invests 20% of their income can expect to have a secure retirement. If you start early enough, you don't need anything close to 20%. Now, there are many good reasons to save for things other than just retirement, of course. You say that you can save 80% of your income, and you expect most people could save at least 50% without problems. That's just unrealistic for most people. Taxes, rent (or mortgage payments), utilities, food, and other such mandatory expenses take far more than 50% of your income. Most people simply don't have the ability to save (or invest) 50% of their income. Or even 25% of their income.",
"\"If you're not convinced it's ineptitude - willful or otherwise - then ask yourself how life, property & casualty insurers, endowments, foundations, etc (in addition to the bevy of DB plans that are adequately funded) have managed to survive as long as they have. You should ask yourself: Was this just \"\"bad luck,\"\" beyond the control of managers? Or were these willful decisions by financial professionals, within the context of highly competitive industries, to divert resources elsewhere with the *hope* that taking a riskier path would ultimately pay off?\"",
"\"If one takes a slightly more expansive view of the word \"\"saving\"\" to include most forms of durable asset accumulation, I think the reason some do and most don't is a matter of a few factors, I will include the three that seem obvious to me: Education Most schools in the US where I live do not offer personal finance courses, and even when they do, there is no opportunity for a student to practice good financial habits in that classroom setting. I think a simple assignment that required students to track every penny that they spend over the period of a few months would help them open their eyes to how much money is spent on trivial things that they don't need. Perhaps this would be more effective in a university setting where the students are usually away from home and therefore more responsible for the spending that occurs on their own behalf. Beyond simple education about personal finances, most people have no clue how the various financial markets work. If they understood, they would not allow inflation to eat away at their savings, but that's a separate topic from why people do not save. Culture Since much of the education above isn't happening, children get their primary financial education from their parents. This means that those who are wealthy teach their children how to be wealthy, and those who are poor pass on their habits to children who often also end up poor. Erroneous ideas about consumption vs. investment and its economic effects also causes some bad policy encouraging people to live beyond their means and use credit unwisely, but if you live in a country where the average person expects to eat out regularly and trade in their automobiles as soon as they experienced their highest rate of depreciation, it can be hard to recognize bad financial behavior for what it is. Collective savings rates reflect a lot of individuals who are emulating each other's bad behavior. Discipline Even when someone is educated about finances, they may not establish good habits of budgeting regularly, tracking spending, and setting financial goals. For me, it helps to be married to someone who has similar financial goals, because we budget monthly and any major purchases (over $100 or so) must be agreed upon at the beginning of the month (with obvious exceptions for emergencies). This eliminates any impulsive spending, which is probably 90% of the battle for me. Some people do not need to account to someone else in order to spend wisely, but everyone should find a system that works for them and helps them to maintain some financial discipline.\"",
"SECTION | CONTENT :--|:-- Title | Deep Dive: Fixing Our Broken Food System Description | Making sure that everyone has access to safe, affordable, and healthy food, is a complex task. Consider the complicated production and distribution systems, both large and small, that need to balance environmental and labor concerns, with sometimes competing business priorities. Moving away from a system that incentivizes cheap, processed junk requires not only policy solutions, but creativity from both the private sector and the individual consumer. Failure to act has resulted in consequences... Length | 1:21:19 **** ^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^[Info](https://www.reddit.com/u/video_descriptionbot) ^| ^[Feedback](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=video_descriptionbot&subject=Feedback) ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)",
"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-29/who-s-left-out-of-401-k-nation) reduced by 50%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Only 45 percent of U.S. workers participate in an employer-sponsored retirement plan, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts. > Groups with the highest percentages of workers without access to a plan:Part-Timers: 56 percent, vs. 31 percent of full-timers without accessHispanics: 55 percent, vs. 32 percent for whites and 36 percent for blacksMillennials: 45 percent, vs. 30 percent of baby boomers and 35 percent of Gen Xers. > The Oregon IRA● OregonSaves starts on Oct. 15, initially targeting workers at 2,100 of the state&#039;s largest employers● Workers will save 5 percent of their incomes unless they opt out or adjust the percentage● About 200,000 self-employed workers will have the option to enroll by the end of 2018● 77 percent of workers who participated in a pilot program are opting to remain enrolled. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/73d3r4/whos_left_out_of_401k_nation/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~219383 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **percent**^#1 **workers**^#2 **plan**^#3 **retirement**^#4 **employer**^#5\"",
"Yes, quite easily, in fact. You left a lot of numbers out, so lets start with some assumptions. If you are at the median of middle income families in the US that might mean $70,000/year. 15% of that is an investment of $875 per month. If you invest that amount monthly and assume a 6% return, then you will have a million dollars at approximately 57 years old. 6% is a very conservative number, and as Ben Miller points out, the S&P 500 has historically returned closer to 11%. If you assumed an aggressive 9% return, and continued with that $875/month for 40 years until you turn 65, that becomes $4 million. Start with a much more conservative $9/hr for $18,720 per year (40 hours * 52 weeks, no overtime). If that person saved 14% of his/her income or about $219 per month from 25 to 65 years old with the same 9%, they would still achieve $1 million for retirement. Is it much harder for a poor person? Certainly, but hopefully these numbers illustrate that it is better to save and invest even a small amount if that's all that can be done. High income earners have the most to gain if they save and the most to lose if they don't. Let's just assume an even $100,000/year salary and modest 401(k) match of 3%. Even married filing jointly a good portion of that salary is going to be taxed at the 25% rate. If single you'll be hitting the 28% income tax rate. If you can max out the $18,000 (2017) contribution limit and get an additional $3,000 from an employer match (for a total monthly contribution of $1750) 40 years of contributions would become $8.2 million with the 9% rate of return. If you withdrew that money at 4% per year you would have a residual income of $300k throughout your retirement.",
"So if you manage to save enough to have a $40k/year source of income, you would want to tax it heavily so they are forced into poverty for the rest of their retirement life? I'd rather we just let people help themselves and not tax them into a bad spot so that we can help people",
"Title is overblown. FTA: > Citing the fine print on Social Security projected-income statements that explains by 2034 **there will only be enough money to meet 79% of the obligation**, Mr. Beagle tells clients between ages 50 and 60 to not count on more than 75% of their projected benefit Social security won't disappear. It might be cut by 20% to 25%, if Congress does nothing.",
"Well, if you worked in the United States you have social security, and medicare and medicaid in most cases as well. So you have a small amount of income to spend every month to cover your most basic living expenses, as well as your basic medical expenses. At least, that's the idea. In reality, it probably isn't anywhere near enough money for most to live comfortably. Also, there is a real fear that the US will have to inflate itself out of its debt to some extent in the future. This theory implies that the money retired individuals have saved or are receiving down the road could buy significantly less in the future than they expect. If you have the ability to put money away into an IRA or 401K early in your life, it will be greatly beneficial to do so. However, that is another issue I won't begin to discuss fully here. Edit since your question was restated after I typed my initial response, the final answer is: You will receive some assistance from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. You will most likely need to either continue working, draw on savings such as an IRA or 401k, or will need assistance from others. If none of those are options, you would most likely end up living in poverty or worse.",
"No, everyone has the ability to plan their life. Everyone. I grew up piss poor and black. Living below your means doesnt mean homelessness. It means buy groceries instead of eating out, pay $500 room rent vs $1200 apt. Sacrifice today for tomorrow",
"When you say: I am 48 and my husband is 54. We have approx. 60,000.00 left in our retirement accounts. We want to move our money into something so our money will grow. We've been looking at annunities. We've talked to 4 different advisors about what is best for us. Bad mistake, I am so overwhelmed with the differences they all have til I can't even think straight anymore. @Havoc P is correct: ...It's very likely that 60k is not nearly enough, and that making the right investment choices will make only a small difference. You could invest poorly and maybe end up with 50K when you retire, or invest well and maybe end up with 80-90k. But your goal is probably more like a million dollars, or more, and most of that will come from future savings. This is what a planner can help you figure out in detail. TL; DR Here is my advice:",
"\"It sounds like the kinds of planners you're talking to might be a poor fit, because they are essentially salespersons selling investments for a commission. Some thoughts on finding a financial planner The good kind of financial planner is going to be able to do a comprehensive plan - look at your whole life, goals, and non-investment issues such as insurance. You should expect to get a document with a Monte Carlo simulation showing your odds of success if you stick to the plan; for investments, you should expect to see a recommended asset allocation and an emphasis on low-cost no-commission (commission is \"\"load\"\") funds. See some of the other questions from past posts, for example What exactly can a financial advisor do for me, and is it worth the money? A good place to start for a planner might be http://napfa.org ; there's also a franchise of planners providing hourly advice called the Garrett Planning Network, I helped my mom hire someone from them and she was very happy, though I do think your results would depend mostly on the individual rather than the franchise. Anyway see http://www.garrettplanningnetwork.com/map.html , they do require planners to be fee-only and working on their CFP credential. You should really look for the Certified Financial Planner (CFP) credential. There are a lot of credentials out there, but many of them mean very little, and others might be hard to get but not mean the right thing. Some other meaningful ones include Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) which would be a solid investment expert, though not necessarily someone knowledgeable in financial planning generally; and IRS Enrolled Agent, which means someone who knows a lot about taxes. A CPA (accountant) would also be pretty meaningful. A law degree (and estate law know-how) is very relevant to many planning situations, too. Some not-very-meaningful certifications include Certified Mutual Fund Specialist (which isn't bogus, but it's much easier to get than CFP or CFA); Registered Investment Adviser (RIA) which mostly means the person is supposed to understand securities fraud laws, but doesn't mean they know a lot about financial planning. There are some pretty bogus certifications out there, many have \"\"retirement\"\" or \"\"senior\"\" in the name. A good question for any planner is \"\"Are you a fiduciary?\"\" which means are they legally required to act in your interests and not their own. Most sales-oriented advisors are not fiduciaries; they wouldn't charge you a big sales commission if they were, and they are not \"\"on your side\"\" legally speaking. It's a good idea to check with your state regulators or the SEC to confirm that your advisor is registered and ask if they have had any complaints. (Small advisors usually register with the state and larger ones with the federal SEC). If they are registered, they may still be a salesperson who isn't acting in your interests, but at least they are following the law. You can also see if they've been in trouble in the past. When looking for a planner, one firm I found had a professional looking web site and didn't seem sketchy at all, but the state said they were not properly registered and not in compliance. Other ideas A good book is: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 it's very approachable and you'd feel more confident talking to someone maybe with more background information. For companies to work with, stick to the ones that are very consumer-friendly and sell no-load funds. Vanguard is probably the one you'll hear about most. But T. Rowe Price, Fidelity, USAA are some other good names. Fidelity is a bit of a mixture, with some cheap consumer-friendly investments and other products that are less so. Avoid companies that are all about charging commission: pretty much anyone selling an annuity is probably bad news. Annuities have some valid uses but mostly they are a bad deal. Not knowing your specific situation in any detail, it's very likely that 60k is not nearly enough, and that making the right investment choices will make only a small difference. You could invest poorly and maybe end up with 50K when you retire, or invest well and maybe end up with 80-90k. But your goal is probably more like a million dollars, or more, and most of that will come from future savings. This is what a planner can help you figure out in detail. It's virtually certain that any planner who is for real, and not a ripoff salesperson, will talk a lot about how much you need to save and so forth, not just about choosing investments. Don't be afraid to pay for a planner. It's well worth it to pay someone a thousand dollars for a really thorough, fiduciary plan with your interests foremost. The \"\"free\"\" planners who get a commission are going to get a whole lot more than a thousand dollars out of you, even though you won't write a check directly. Be sure to convert those mutual fund expense ratios and sales commissions into actual dollar amounts! To summarize: find someone you're paying, not someone getting a commission; look for that CFP credential showing they passed a demanding exam; maybe read a quick and easy book like the one I mentioned just so you know what the advisor is talking about; and don't rush into anything! And btw, I think you ought to be fine with a solid plan. You and your husband have time remaining to work with. Good luck.\"",
"Italy has some real problems including a debt it can't pay without higher taxes or new sources of revenue. Looks like they are going to force the pension funds to buy their debt. I bet more governments follow their example and grab their people's assets. I remember when the democrats controlled the congress they held committee hearings on replacing 401k savings with a federal pension program. If they had done it, then it would have been worth $3.5 trillion in new money to the politicians. The people would have gotten another ponzi scheme like social security.",
"In Australia anyone thinking about retirement should be concentrating on superannuation. Contribution is compulsory (I think the current minimum contribution rate is 9.5% of salary) and both contributions and investment returns are very tax efficient. The Government site is quite comprehensive - http://www.australia.gov.au/topics/economy-money-and-tax/superannuation - have a read and come back with any specific questions.",
"\"She can't afford the house she's living in either. A $2,200 payment is about a $400K to well over half a million dollar home depending on her interest rate. Her housing costs should be at most 30% of her take home income, which is about $1,020 and would ***ONLY*** allow her to be able to afford to share a multi-bedroom apartment in Santa Cruz. Homes start in the $400K Range in that areas and go into the (tens of) millions of dollars. The $700/ month loan issue is bad but that house is going to be the final nail in the coffin the moment home repairs need to be done and she can't afford to do them. Personally I gave up trying to make the housing situation work out here in the Bay Area. My rent is jumping from $2,300 to $2,600 next month right over the hill in Santa Clara. I decided to buy a decent, modest, house in a great city the Midwest. Mortgage before property taxes and insurance is only $1,100. Out here in California it would be valued at an $800K to $900K home easily with close to a $5,500 mortgage payment. No thanks. If anything these articles are a good example of people playing fast and loose with their personal finances. The woman in the article is simply living beyond her means. Credit lets you pretend that you're of larger means than you really are for only so long. I made the choice to fund my retirement and pay off a home, rather than sunshine and close proximity to the beach. As the woman in the article mentioned: >\"\"I will be working *for as long as I'm employable*. I will never be able to retire, At her age it may not be very long until she finds herself unemployable. She's right about never retiring, she spent her retirement living some place she couldn't afford to live, while obtaining an education she couldn't afford to pay for.\"",
"Exactly. I have seen this kind of claim before and it smacks of BS. People have equity in their homes, CDs, IRAs, 401Ks, pensions, precious metals. Just because you don't keep money in a savings account doesn't mean you don't have access to money. Shoot, I've got $20K available in credit cards.",
"I don't know if I ever plan to retire, and I am fine with that. However, I would like to be financially secure enough to be able to do enjoyable part-time work or freelance work instead of having to worry about maintaining a career into my golden years. I just want to keep working to keep my mind and body sharp and not be isolated from society.",
"\"ConfirmedCynic, I also appreciate your opinion on this. You're right, families need to be more tight with each other and support more. There are plenty of families living together just to make ends meet. And it really sucks that college grads have to go live at home because they can't get a job with their degree or making shit for money. I don't know what you mean by \"\"serf\"\" (sorry for the ignorance) but I get the point. Anyone can build up a cash fund of some sort even if you make little money. It's all about priorities and willingness to work your ass off for what you want. Like I told the person above who commented, if you'd like to connect on social media and learn more about this topic, let me know and I'll give you my details. Have an awesome day! William\"",
"My parents hooked up at a highschool party when they were 17. I was born because they most definitely were not careful. That being said, when my mother met my stepdad when I was 3, we lived with him in his mom's house. He had just started as a cop and we were very poor for a very long time. The reason we were so poor was because my dad was investing the majority of his money. Investing in stocks, his pension anything he could. He worked graveyards for years. He eventually got a new job and when he retires in a few years, his pension and a handful of really good investments is going to net him just over a million dollars. So this whole article is kinda bullshit to me.",
"Saving some money for the future is a good idea. But how much to save is a tough question. I retired with a small fraction of what the experts said I would need. Three years later, I can confidently say I did not even need what I had saved.",
"\"Curtis' monologue fucked me up. I thought I wanted real change but after listening to him I realize I'm one of those with too much to lose even though it's not much at all in the material sense and as he put it, I \"\"just want to tweak it\"\" some. As he says, *real change* could be downright frightening. I'm 66 and if I didn't have an extended family who still depend on me I might be one that would feel there's not much to lose. I wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that every three letter agency in the govt had a hand in defusing OWS. I'm assuming you have, but just checking - have you watched Cutris' [\"\"The Century if the Self\"\"](http://thoughtmaybe.com/the-century-of-the-self/)?\"",
"\"Two typical responses to articles/surveys making such claims: **1. People use other forms of asset for emergency savings because interest rates are low - clearly false.** **2. People use other forms of saving than a saving account therefore such surveys as the X% can't handle a $500 emergency are wrong on their face - this is false the vast majority use a savings account.** I've chosen a topic that absolutely annoys the shit out of me every time it comes up, how people save their money. Every time this topic comes up about X% of americans can't come up with $Y dollars in an emergency or have less than $Z in savings someone inevitably chimes in with the linked response. I have *never* seen anyone attempt to source their hand waving response beyond their own anecdote, which is usually a thinly veiled brag about how financially savvy they are with their wealth. Perhaps people who have no assets, or crippling debt don't go out of their way to brag about it... I could link multiple reddit posts making a similar response, which I address with my own stock response about once every 1-2 months. Instead I've decided to expand with data from several other sources. This is the prototypical good/bad research problem. If you're asserting something, but qualify your statement with, \"\"I\"\"m sure we'd find...if we looked into...\"\" then you're doing it wrong. A good researcher or journalist doesn't put bullshit like that in their work because it's their job to actually look for sources of data; data which should exist with multiple government and independent groups. So let's get started (all data as recent as I could find, oldest source is for 2010): * [Most americans don't invest in the stock market](https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf) About 48.8% of americans owned publicly traded stock directly or indirectly, with a much smaller percent (13.8%) owning stock directly - pages 18 and 16 respectively. It's important to note the predominance of indirect ownership which suggests this is mostly retirement accounts. It's entirely possible people are irresponsible with their emergency savings, but I think it safe to say we should not expect people to *dip into their retirement accounts* for relatively minor emergency expenses. The reason is obvious, even if it covers the expense they now have to make up the shortfall for their retirement savings. This is further supported by the same source: >\"\"The value of assets held within IRAs and DC plans are among the most significant compo-nents of many families’ balance sheets and are a significant determinant of their future retirement security.\"\" Ibid (page 20, PDF page 20 of 41) There is also a break down of holdings by asset type on page 16, PDF page 16 of 41. * [This data is skewed by the top 10% who keep more of their wealth in different asset types.](http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) For a breakdown between the 1st, 10th, and 90th percentiles see **table 3.** So far it seems pretty hard to maintain a large percent of americans have their wealth stored outside of savings accounts, mattresses aside. * [Here's my original reply as to the breakdown of americans assets by type and percent holding.](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) Note this assumes people *have* assets. [Source for images/data.](https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html) Most people use savings accounts, with runner up falling to checking accounts. This will segue into our next topic which is the problem of unbanked/underbanked households. * [A large number of individuals have no assets; breaking down by asset types assumes people *have* assets in the first place.](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/) To quote the FDIC: >*\"\"Estimates from the 2015 survey indicate that 7.0 percent of households in the United States were unbanked in 2015. This proportion represents approximately 9.0 million households. An additional 19.9 percent of U.S. households (24.5 million) were underbanked, meaning that the household had a checking or savings account but also obtained financial products and services outside of the banking system.\"\"* That's right there are millions of households *so finance savvy* they don't even have banks accounts! Obviously it's because of low interest rates. Also, most people have a checking account as well as savings account, the percent with \"\"checking and savings\"\" was 75.8% while those with \"\"checking only\"\" were 22.2% (page 25, PDF page 31 of 88). It's possible in some surveys people keep all their money in checking, but given other data sources, and the original claim this fails to hold up. If the concern was interest rates it makes no sense to keep money in checking which seldom pays interest. This survey also directly addresses the issue of \"\"emergency savings\"\": > *\"\"Overall, 56.3 percent of households saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months.\"\"* (page 37, PDF page 43 of 88) Furthermore: >*\"\"Figure 7.2 shows that among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts:* **more than four in five (84.9 percent) kept savings in one of these accounts.** *About one in ten (10.5 percent) households that saved maintained savings in the home, or with family or friends.\"\"* Emphasis added. * [Why don't people have wealth in different asset classes? Well they don't save money.](http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/savings-rates-by-wealth-class.png) This is further supported by the OECD data: * [Americans \"\"currency and deposits\"\" are 13% vs 5.8% for \"\"securities and other shares\"\" as % of total financial assets.](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-financial-assets.htm) Additionally: * [Interest earning checking accounts: 44.6% of american households (second image)](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) * [\"\"Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used savings method followed by checking accounts...\"\" (page 7, PDF page 13 of 88)](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf) * ~70% saved for an emergency with a savings account vs ~24% who used checking. *Ibid.* In fairness the FDIC link does state *banked* americans were more likely to hold checking accounts than savings accounts (98% vs ~77% respectively) but that doesn't mean they're earning interest in their checking account. It's also worth noting median transaction account value was for 2013 (this is the federal reserve data) $4100.\""
] |
[
"To answer your question, Retirement Revolution may fit the bill to some extent. I'd also like to address some of the indirect assumptions that were made in your bullet points. I'm convinced that the best way to overcome this is not simply to hold down a good job with COLAs every year, max out your IRA accounts and 401(k)s, invest another 10-20% on top, and live off of the savings and whatever Social Security decides to pay you. Instead, the trick is to not retire -- to make a transition into an income-producing activity that can be done in the typical retirement years, hopefully one that is closer to one's calling (i.e., more fulfilling). This takes time, not money. If people just shut off the TV and spent the time building up a side business that has a high passive component, they'd stand a much better chance of not outliving their money.",
"\"Since your question was first posted, I happened to watch PBS FRONTLINE's The Retirement Gamble, about \"\"America's Retirement Crisis\"\" and the retirement industry. You can watch the entire episode online at the previous link, and it's also available on DVD. Here's a link to the episode transcript. Here's a partial blurb from a post at PBS that announced the episode: If you’ve been watching any commercial television lately, you are well aware that the financial services industry is very busy running expensive ads imploring us to worry about our retirement futures. Open a new account today, they say. They are not wrong that we should be doing something: America is facing a retirement crisis. One in three Americans has no retirement savings at all. One in two reports that they can’t save enough. On top of that, we are living longer, and health care costs, as we all know, are increasing. But, as I found when investigating the retirement planning and mutual funds industries in The Retirement Gamble, which airs tonight on FRONTLINE, those advertisements are imploring us to start saving for one simple reason. Retirement is big business — and very profitable. (... more... ) There's another related PBS FRONTLINE documentary from back in 2006, Can You Afford To Retire? You'll find a link on that page to watch the program online. Finally, I'm also aware of but haven't yet seen a new documentary called Broken Eggs: The Looming Retirement Crisis in America. Looks like it isn't available for online streaming or on DVD yet, but I expect it would be, eventually.\""
] |
6896
|
Selling high, pay capital gains, re-purchase later
|
[
"251704"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"376800",
"400730",
"390864",
"219762",
"343219",
"540292",
"522319",
"221715",
"501214",
"448659",
"514970",
"17184",
"23217",
"156092",
"178059",
"407602",
"38287",
"72677",
"561999",
"443354",
"581793",
"132111",
"257274",
"290317",
"377944",
"444405",
"468047",
"596518",
"190687",
"268423",
"423929",
"152960",
"55893",
"161155",
"521133",
"358602",
"483394",
"66834",
"187761",
"244061",
"304918",
"396030",
"12367",
"71601",
"474981",
"438666",
"292762",
"328073",
"261902",
"485424",
"75024",
"152719",
"303193",
"14364",
"571124",
"434252",
"416787",
"30070",
"207788",
"537212",
"207929",
"584917",
"481283",
"41130",
"379357",
"477851",
"102999",
"384667",
"345793",
"587689",
"250873",
"227064",
"476224",
"177798",
"196427",
"311782",
"5347",
"306460",
"422051",
"162804",
"322284",
"598460",
"431443",
"263751",
"144349",
"108433",
"536610",
"443451",
"264820",
"88540",
"456436",
"457059",
"529179",
"151037",
"251704",
"360576",
"169240",
"19144",
"427916",
"247902"
] |
[
"The top long-term capital gains tax rate will rise to 20% effective 1 Jan, 2011, unless Congress decides to do something about it before then. (Will they? Who knows!! There's been talk about it, but, well, it's Congress. They don't even know what they're going to do.) Anyway. The rules about when you can sell stock are mostly concerned with when you can realize a capital loss: if you sell a stock at a loss and then re-buy it for tax purposes within 30 days, it's a wash sale and not eligible for a deduction. However, I don't believe this applies to any stocks once you realize a gain - once you've realized the gain and paid your tax for it, it's all yours, locked in at whatever rate. Your replacement stock will be subject to short-term capital gains for the next year afterwards, and you might need to be careful with identifying the holding period on different lots of your stock, but I don't believe there will be any particular trouble. Please do not rely entirely on my advice and consult also with your tax preparer or lawyer. :) And the IRS documentation: Special Addendum for Nov/Dec 2012! Spoiler alert! Congress did indeed act: they extended the rates, but only temporarily, so now we're looking at tax hikes starting in 2013 instead, only the new top rate++ will be something like 23.8% on account of an extra 3.8% medicare tax on passive earnings (brought to you via Obamacare legislation). But the year and the rates' specifics aside, same thing still applies. And the Republican house and Democratic senate/President are still duking it out. Have fun. ++ 3.8% surtax applies to the lesser of (a) net investment income (b) income over $200,000 ($250k if married). 20% tax rate applies to people in the 15% income tax bracket for ordinary income or higher. Additional tax discounts for property held over 5 years may be available. Consult tax law and your favorite tax professional and prepare to be confused.",
"Yes. As long as the stock is in a taxable account (i.e. not a tax deferred retirement account) you'll pay gain on the profit regardless of subsequent purchases. If the sale is a loss, however, you'll risk delaying the claim for the loss if you repurchase identical shares within 30 days of that sale. This is called a wash sale.",
"I sold it at 609.25 and buy again at 608.75 in the same day If you Sold and bought the same day, it would be considered as intra-day trade. Profit will be due and would be taxed at normal tax brackets. Edits Best Consult a CA. This is covered under Indian Accounting Standard AG51 The following examples illustrate the application of the derecognition principles of this Standard. (e) Wash sale transaction. The repurchase of a financial asset shortly after it has been sold is sometimes referred to as a wash sale. Such a repurchase does not preclude derecognition provided that the original transaction met the derecognition requirements. However, if an agreement to sell a financial asset is entered into concurrently with an agreement to repurchase the same asset at a fixed price or the sale price plus a lender's return, then the asset is not derecognised. This is more relevant now for shares/stocks as Long Term Capital Gains are tax free, Long Term Capital Loss cannot be adjusted against anything. Short Term Gains are taxed differentially. Hence the transaction can be interpreted as tax evasion, professional advise is recommended. A simple way to avoid this situation; sell on a given day and buy it next or few days later.",
"In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-). In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.",
"You realise a capital gain as soon as you sell the stock. At that point, you will have to pay taxes on the profits when you fill in your tax return. The fact that you used the money to subsequently purchase other stocks is not relevant, unless you sell those stocks within the same tax year. For example, purchase $5000 of stock A in 2010. Sell for $6000 in 2010. Purchase $6000 of stock B in 2010. Sell stock B for $6500 in 2010. Purchase $6500 of stock C in 2010. Sell stock C for $7000 in 2011. You owe capital gains on ($6000 - $5000) + ($6500 - $6000) = $1500 for tax year 2010. You owe capital gains on ($7000 - $6500) = $500 for 2011.",
"Is this possible and will it have the intended effect? From the US tax perspective, it most definitely is and will. Is my plan not very similar to Wash Sale? Yes, except that wash sale rules apply for losses, not gains. In any case, since you're not a US tax resident, the US wash sale rules won't apply to you.",
"Firstly 795 is not even. Secondly - generally you would pay tax on the sale of the 122 shares, whether you buy them back or not, even one minute later, has nothing to do with it. The only reason this would not create a capital gains event is if your country (which you haven't specified) has some odd rules or laws about this that I, and most others, have never heard of before.",
"\"If you bought them, you can sell them. That does not preclude you from buying again later. You might get yourself into a situation where you need to account for a so-called \"\"wash sale\"\" on your taxes, but your broker should calculate that and report it on your 1099-B at the end of the year. There's nothing illegal about this though - It's just a required step in the accounting of capital gains for tax purposes.\"",
"This will work as intended, but there's another point to consider. In the US, the tax rate on proceeds from stock sales is higher for short term holdings, which are defined as held for less than one year. Both rates vary based on your income. Bracket numbers are for fiscal year 2014, filing as single. The difference between short and long term capital gains tax in the US is a minimum of ten percentage points, and works out to 15 percentage points on average. This is substantial. If you won't be reporting much income the year you move to the US (say because you only worked for a portion of the year) it is decidedly to your advantage to wait and sell the stocks in the US, to get that sweet 0% rate. At a minimum, you should hold the position for a year if you sell and rebuy, from a tax optimization perspective. Two caveats:",
"I'm not sure where people keep getting this idea, but I see it come up a lot. Anyway, you pay capital gains taxes when you sell an investment that has appreciated. It makes no difference when/if you reinvest the money or what you invest it in. If you are afraid of the tax burden you can minimize it by: 1) Selling a stock that you have held longer than a year to get the lower long-term rate. 2) Sell a stock that hasn't appreciated that much and therefore doesn't have a lot of gains to tax. 3) Sell a stock that's below purchase price (i.e. at a loss) to offset any short term gains.",
"You didn't mention a country, and precise rules will be different from country to country. The usual rules are: Shares that you didn't sell don't count. If you buy shares, there is no taxable gain until you sell them. When you sell shares, it is assumed that the shares you are selling are the last ones that you bought. In many places, if you sell shares, and buy the same shares back very quickly, the tax office may have rules to pretend you never sold the shares. For example in the UK, where a good amount of profit per year is tax free, you can't just sell enough shares to stay below your tax limit and then buy them back to take profits out of the shares you own. In your case, you made $30 profit on every share you sold, and that is what you will be taxed for in most countries. According to the rules of your country.",
"\"When a question is phrased this way, i.e. \"\"for tax purposes\"\" I'm compelled to advise - Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog. In theory, one can create a loss, up to the $3K, and take it against ordinary income. When sold, the gains may be long term and be at a lower rate. In reality, if you are out of the stock for the required 30 days, it will shoot up in price. If you double up, as LittleAdv correctly offers, it will drop over the 30 days and negate any benefit. The investing dog's water bowl is half full.\"",
"It was not 100% clear if you have held all of these stocks for over a year. Therefore, depending on your income tax bracket, it might make sense to hold on to the stock until you have held the individual stock for a year to only be taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Also, you need to take into account the Net Investment Income Tax(NIIT), if your current modified adjusted income is above the current threshold. Beyond these, I would think that you would want to apply the same methodology that caused you to buy these in the first place, as it seems to be working well for you. 2 & 3. No. You trigger a taxable event and therefore have to pay capital gains tax on any gains. If you have a loss in the stock and repurchase the stock within 30 days, you don't get to recognize the loss and have to add the loss to your basis in the stock (Wash Sales Rules).",
"I think what you're asking is, Can I buy 1000 shares of the stock at $1. For $1000. it goes up to $2, then sell 500 shares of the stock with proceeds of $1000, now having my original $1000 out of it, and still owning 500 shares. And that not create a taxable event. Since all I did was take my cost basis back out, and didn't collect any gains. And then I want to repeat that over and over. Nope, not in the USA anyway. Each sale is a separate taxable event. The first sale will have proceeds of $1000 and a cost basis of $500, with $500 of capital gains, and taxes owed at the time of that sale. The remaining stock will have a cost basis of $500 and proceeds of whatever you sell it for in the future. The next batch of stock will have a cost basis of whatever you pay for it. The only thing that works anything like the way you're thinking, is a Roth IRA... You can put your cost basis in, pull it back out, and put it back in again, all tax free. But every time your cost basis cycles in, that counts towed your contribution limits unless you do it fast enough to call it a rollover.",
"Elaborating on kelsham's answer: You buy 100 shares XYZ at $1, for a total cost of $100 plus commissions. You sell 100 shares XYZ at $2, for a total income of $200 minus commissions. Exclusive of commissions, your capital gain is $100 for this trade, and you will pay taxes on that. Even if you proceed to buy 200 shares XYZ at $1, reinvesting all your income from the sale, you still owe taxes on that $100 gain. The IRS has met this trick before.",
"Note that the rules around wash sales vary depending on where you live. For the U.S., the wash sale rules say that you cannot buy a substantially identical stock or security within 30 days (before or after) your sale. So, you could sell your stock today to lock in the capital losses. However, you would then have to wait at least 30 days before purchasing it back. If you bought it back within 30 days, you would disqualify the capital loss event. The risk, of course, is that the stock's price goes up substantially while you are waiting for the wash sale period. It's up to you to determine if the risk outweighs the benefit of locking in your capital losses. Note that this applies regardless of whether you sell SOME or ALL of the stock. Or indeed, if we are talking about securities other than stocks.",
"I don't believe in letting the tax tail wag the investing dog. You have a stock you no longer wish to hold for whatever reason? Sell it. But to sell a loser, hoping it doesn't rise by the time you wish to re-buy it in 30 days is folly. This effort may gain you $50 if done right. No, it's not worth it either way.",
"\"if you buy back the now ITM calls, then you will have a short term loss. That pair of transactions is independent, from a tax perspective, of your long position (which was being used as \"\"collateral\"\" in the very case that occurred). I can see your tax situation and can see the logic of taking a short term loss to balance a short term gain. Referring to D Stanley's answer, #2 and #3 are not the same because you are paying intrinsic value in the options and the skew in #2, whereas #3 has no intrinsic value. Of course, because you can't know the future, the stock price could move higher or lower between #2 and #3. #1 presumes the stock continues to climb.\"",
"\"You cannot get \"\"your investment\"\" out and \"\"leave only the capital gains\"\" until they become taxable at the long-term rate. When you sell some shares after holding them for less than a year, you have capital gains on which you will have to pay taxes at the short-term capital gains rate (that is, at the same rate as ordinary income). As an example, if you bought 100 shares at $70 for a net investment of $7000, and sell 70 of them at $100 after five months to get your \"\"initial investment back\"\", you will have short-term capital gains of $30 per share on the 70 shares that you sold and so you have to pay tax on that $30x70=$2100. The other $4900 = $7000-$2100 is \"\"tax-free\"\" since it is just your purchase price of the 70 shares being returned to you. So after paying the tax on your short-term capital gains, you really don't have your \"\"initial investment back\"\"; you have something less. The capital gains on the 30 shares that you continue to hold will become (long-term capital gains) income to you only when you sell the shares after having held them for a full year or more: the gains on the shares sold after five months are taxable income in the year of sale.\"",
"Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.",
"If you buy for $1 and sell $1 when the price goes to $2, you would have sold only half of your initial investment. So your investment would now be worth $2 and you sell $1 leaving $1 still in the market. This means you would have sold half your initial investment, making a profit of $0.50 on this half of your initial investment, and having to pay CGT on this amount.",
"\"Yes- you do not realize gains or losses until you actually sell the stock. After you sell the initial stocks/bonds you have realized the gain. When you buy the new, different stocks you haven't realized anything until you then sell those. There is one exception to this, called the \"\"Wash-Sale Rule\"\". From Investopedia.com: With the wash-sale rule, the IRS disallows a loss deduction from the sale of a security if a ‘substantially identical security' was purchased within 30 days before or after the sale. The wash-sale period is actually 61 days, consisting of the 30 days before and the 30 days after the date of the sale. For example, if you bought 100 shares of IBM on December 1 and then sold 100 shares of IBM on December 15 at a loss, the loss deduction would not be allowed. Similarly, selling IBM on December 15 and then buying it back on January 10 of the following year does not permit a deduction. The wash-sale rule is designed to prevent investors from making trades for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes.\"",
"\"There are ways to mitigate, but since you're not protected by a tax-deferred/advantaged account, the realized income will be taxed. But you can do any of the followings to reduce the burden: Prefer selling either short positions that are at loss or long positions that are at gain. Do not invest in stocks, but rather in index funds that do the rebalancing for you without (significant) tax impact on you. If you are rebalancing portfolio that includes assets that are not stocks (real-estate, mainly) consider performing 1031 exchanges instead of plain sale and re-purchase. Maximize your IRA contributions, even if non-deductible, and convert them to Roth IRA. Hold your more volatile investments and individual stocks there - you will not be taxed when rebalancing. Maximize your 401K, HSA, SEP-IRA and any other tax-advantaged account you may be eligible for. On some accounts you'll pay taxes when withdrawing, on others - you won't. For example - Roth IRA/401k accounts are not taxed at all when withdrawing qualified distributions, while traditional IRA/401k are taxed as ordinary income. During the \"\"low income\"\" years, consider converting portions of traditional accounts to Roth.\"",
"As JoeTaxpayer illustrated, yes you can. However, one thing to remember is that unless you live in a state with no state income tax, there may be state tax to pay on those gains. Even so, it's likely a good idea if you expect either your income (or the federal capital gains tax rate) to rise in the future.",
"Brokerage->Brokerage 13-16 The loss from the previous purchase will be added to the cost basis of the security for the second purchase. Since you sold it at a loss again it would increase your losses. Your loss from the first sale will be disallowed. Your loss will be added to the cost basis of the next purchase. Your gains will be taxed on the total of the cost basis which will reduce your gains. Which you will taxed 'less'. Your gains will be taxed. Your loss is allowed. You will be taxed on both. Wash Sales really only applies to losses. If you sell for gain, the tax man will be happy to take his share. From my understanding, it does not matter if it is IRA or Brokerage, the wash sale rule affects them all. Check this link: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02",
"Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.",
"Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax.",
"I was not able to find any authority for the opinion you suggest. Wash sale rules should, IMHO, apply. According to the regulations, you attribute the newly purchased shares to the oldest sold shares for the purposes of the calculation of the disallowed loss and cost basis. (c) Where the amount of stock or securities acquired within the 61-day period is less than the amount of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of, then the particular shares of stock or securities the loss from the sale or other disposition of which is not deductible shall be those with which the stock or securities acquired are matched in accordance with the following rule: The stock or securities acquired will be matched in accordance with the order of their acquisition (beginning with the earliest acquisition) with an equal number of the shares of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of. You can resort to the claim that you have not, in fact, entered into the contract within 30 days, but when you gave the instructions to reinvest dividends. I don't know if such a claim will hold, but to me it sounds reasonable. This is similar to the rules re short sales (in (g) there). In this case, wash sale rules will not apply (unless you instructed to reinvest dividends within the 30 days prior to the sale). But I'd ask a tax professional if such a claim would hold, talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state.",
"\"Assuming your investments aren't in any kind of tax-advantaged account (like an IRA), they are generally not tracked and you indeed may pay more taxes. What will likely change, however, is your cost basis. You only pay tax on the difference between the value of the investment when you sell it and its value when you bought it. There is no rule that says once you sell an investment and pay taxes on the gain, you will never again pay any taxes on any other investments you then buy with that money. If you own some investment, and it increases in value, and then you sell it, you had a capital gain and owe taxes (depending on your tax bracket, etc.). If you use the money to buy some other investment, and that increases in value, and then you sell it, you had another separate capital gain and again owe taxes. However, every time you sell, you only are subject to capital gains taxes on the gain, not the entire sale price. The value of the investment at the time you bought it is the cost basis. When you sell, you take the sale price and subtract the cost basis to find your gain, So suppose you bought $1000 worth of some ETF many years ago. It went up to $2000 and you sold it. You have $2000 in cash, but $1000 of that is your original money back, so your capital gain is $1000 and that is the amount on which you owe (or may owe) taxes. Suppose you pay 15% tax on this, as you suggest; that is $150, leaving you with $1850. Now suppose you buy another ETF with that. Your cost basis is now $1850. Suppose the investment now increases in value again to $2000. This time when you sell, you still have $2000 in cash, but this is now only $150 more than you paid, so you only owe capital gains taxes on that $150. (A 15% tax on that would be $22.50.) In that example you had one capital gain of $1000 and a second of $150 and paid a total of $172.50 in taxes (150 + 22.50). Suppose instead that you had held the original investment and it had increased in value to $2150 and you had then sold it. You would have a single capital gain of $1150 (2150 minus the original 1000 you paid). 15% of this would be the same $172.50 you paid under the other arrangement. So in essence you pay the same taxes either way. (This example is simplified, of course; in reality, the rate you pay depends on your overall income, so you could pay more if you sell a lot in a single year, since it could push you into a higher tax bracket.) So none of the money is \"\"tax exempt\"\", but each time you sell, you \"\"reset the counter\"\" by paying tax on your gain, and each time you buy, you start a new counter on the basis of whatever you pay for the investment. Assuming you're dealing with ordinary investment instruments like stocks and ETFs, this basis information is typically tracked by the bank or brokerage where you buy and sell them. Technically speaking it is your responsibility to track and report this when you sell an investment, and if you do complicated things like transfer securities from one brokerage to another you may have to do that yourself. In general, however, your bank/brokerage will keep track of cost basis information for you.\"",
"Yes, to change which stocks you owe you need to sell one and buy the other, which for tax purposes means taking the profit or loss accrued up to then. On the other hand this establishes a new baseline, so you will not be double-faced on those gains. It just makes a mess of this year's tax return, and forced you to set aside some if the money to cover that.",
"If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.",
"\"Summary of accepted answer: Your \"\"loss\"\" will not count as a loss (to the IRS). Which means no tax deduction for a \"\"short-term capital loss\"\" (on that sale). Instead, the IRS simply pretends like you had paid less for the stock to begin with.\"",
"Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.",
"Is wash rule applicable for this? No - because you made a gain on the sale. You paid $13,500 for the stock and sold it for $14,250. The wash rule prevents you from claiming a loss if you buy the same stock again within 30 days. You have no loss to claim, so the rule does not apply.",
"My broker offers a service to transfer the shares where you only pay commission once. Therefore say if standard commission is £10, then you don't end up paying £20 (10 for selling + 10 for buy back). You'll have to be okay with the spread though. Hope this helps.",
"The way the wash sale works is your loss is added to your cost basis of the buy. So suppose your original cost basis is $10,000. You then sell the stock for $9,000 which accounts for your $1,000 loss. You then buy the stock again, say for $8,500, and sell it for $9,000. Since your loss of $1,000 is added to your cost basis, you actually still have a net loss of $500. You then buy the stock again for say $10,500, then sell it for $9,500. Your $500 loss is added to your cost basis, and you have a net loss of $1,500. Since you never had a net gain, you will not owe any tax for these transactions.",
"What might make more sense is to 'capture' your losses. Sell out the funds you have, move into something else that is different enough that the IRS won't consider it a wash sale, and you can then use those losses to offset gains (you can even carry them forward) You would still be in the market, just having made a sort of 'sideways move'. A month or two later (once you are clear of wash sale rules) you could shift back to your original choices. (this answer presumes you are in the US, or somewhere that lets you use losses to offset gains)",
"\"It's impossibly difficult to time the market. Generally speaking, you should buy low and sell high. Picking 25% as an arbitrary ceiling on your gains seems incorrect to me because sometimes you'll want to hold a stock for longer or sell it sooner, and those decisions should be based on your research (or if you need the money), not an arbitrary number. To answer your questions: If the reasons you still bought a stock in the first place are still valid, then you should hold and/or buy more. If something has changed and you can't find a reason to buy more, then consider selling. Keep in mind you'll pay capital gains taxes on anything you sell that is not in a tax-deferred (e.g. retirement) account. No, it does not make sense to do a wash sale where you sell and buy the same stock. Capital gains taxes are one reason. I'm not sure why you would ever want to do this -- what reasons were you considering? You can always sell just some of the shares. See above (and link) regarding wash sales. Buying more of a stock you already own is called \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\". It's an effective method when the reasons are right. DCA minimizes variance due to buying or selling a large amount of shares at an arbitrary single-day price and instead spreads the cost or sale basis out over time. All that said, there's nothing wrong with locking in a gain by selling all or some shares of a winner. Buy low, sell high!\"",
"Wash sale applies. If you purchase shares within 30 days of that Feb 3 sell date, the wash sale kicks in, preventing the loss on that sale, and deferring it into the new shares.",
"The tax is only payable on the gain you make i.e the difference between the price you paid and the price you sold at. In your cse no tax is payable if you sell at the same price you bought at",
"If you do this, you own a stock worth $1, with a basis of $2. The loss doesn't get realized until the shares are sold. Of course, we hope you see the stock increase above that price, else, why do this?",
"No, you can not cheat the IRS. This question is also based on the assumption that the stock will return to $1 which isn't always a safe assumption and that it will continue to cycle like that repeatedly which is also likely a false assumption.",
"I think the simple answer to your question is: Yes, when you sell, that drives down the price. But it's not like you sell, and THEN the price goes down. The price goes down when you sell. You get the lower price. Others have discussed the mechanics of this, but I think the relevant point for your question is that when you offer shares for sale, buyers now have more choices of where to buy from. If without you, there were 10 people willing to sell for $100 and 10 people willing to buy for $100, then there will be 10 sales at $100. But if you now offer to sell, there are 11 people selling for $100 and 10 people buying for $100. The buyers have a choice, and for a seller to get them to pick him, he has to drop his price a little. In real life, the market is stable when one of those sellers drops his price enough that an 11th buyer decides that he now wants to buy at the lower price, or until one of the other 10 buyers decides that the price has gone too low and he's no longer interested in selling. If the next day you bought the stock back, you are now returning the market to where it was before you sold. Assuming that everything else in the market was unchanged, you would have to pay the same price to buy the stock back that you got when you sold it. Your net profit would be zero. Actually you'd have a loss because you'd have to pay the broker's commission on both transactions. Of course in real life the chances that everything else in the market is unchanged are very small. So if you're a typical small-fry kind of person like me, someone who might be buying and selling a few hundred or a few thousand dollars worth of a company that is worth hundreds of millions, other factors in the market will totally swamp the effect of your little transaction. So when you went to buy back the next day, you might find that the price had gone down, you can buy your shares back for less than you sold them, and pocket the difference. Or the price might have gone up and you take a loss.",
"\"And my CPA is saying no way, it will cost me many thousands in taxes and doesn't make any sense. I'd think so too. It looks like it converts from capitol gains at 14% to something else at about 35% Can be, if your gain under the Sec.1231 rules is classified as depreciation recapture. But, perhaps the buyers will be saving this way? Not your problem even if they were, which they aren't. I would not do something my CPA says \"\"no-way\"\" about. I sometimes prefer not doing some things my CPA says \"\"it may fly\"\" because I'm defensive when it comes to taxes, but if your CPA is not willing to sign something off - don't do it. Ever.\"",
"\"You have multiple issues buried within this question. First, we don't know your tax bracket. For my answer, I'll assume 25%. This simply means that in 2016, you'll have a taxable $37,650 or higher. The interesting thing is that losses and gains are treated differently. A 25%er's long term gain is taxed at 15%, yet losses, up to $3000, can offset ordinary income. This sets the stage for strategic tax loss harvesting. In the linked article, I offered a look at how the strategy would have resulted in the awful 2000-2009 decade producing a slight gain (1%, not great, of course) vs the near 10% loss the S&P suffered over that time. This was by taking losses in down years, and capturing long term gains when positive (and not using a carried loss). Back to you - a 15%er's long term gain tax is zero. So using a gain to offset a loss makes little sense. Just as creating a loss to offset the gain. The bottom line? Enjoy the loss, up to $3000 against your income, and only take gains when there's no loss. This advice is all superseded by my rule \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" For individual stocks, I would never suggest a transaction for tax purposes. You keep good stocks, you sell bad ones. Sell a stock to take a short term loss only to have it recover in the 30 day waiting period just once, and you'll learn that lesson. Learn it here for free, don't make that mistake at your own expense.\"",
"When you sell your primary residence, you are required to capitalize any loss or gain at that point; you do not carry over your loss or gain (as you might in an investment property). As such, the timing of the purchase of the next house is not relevant in this discussion: you gained however much you gained already. This changed from the other (rollover) method in 1997 (see this bankrate article for more details.) However, as discussed in IRS Tax Topic 701, you can exclude up to $250,000 (single or filing separately) or $500,000 (married filing jointly) of gain if it is your primary residence and meets a few requirements (mostly, that you owned it for at least 2 years in the past 5 years, and similarly used it as your main home for at least 2 years of the past 5 years). So given you reported 25% gain, as long as your house is under a million dollars or so, you're fine (and if it's over a million dollars, you probably should be paying a CPA for this stuff). For California state tax, it looks like it is the same (see this Turbotax forum answer for a good explanation and links to this California Franchise Tax Board guide which confirms it: For sale or exchanges after May 6, 1997, federal law allows an exclusion of gain on the sale of a personal residence in the amount of $250,000 ($500,000 if married filing jointly). The taxpayer must have owned and occupied the residence as a principal residence for at least 2 of the 5 years before the sale. California conforms to this provision. However, California taxpayers who served in the Peace Corps during the 5 year period ending on the date of the sale may reduce the 2 year period by the period of service, not to exceed 18 months.",
"Yes. On December 10, you have a wash sale. As long as you don't buy the stock back for 30 days after that, the wash is of no consequence. In other words, you don't have a wash issue if you don't own the stock for 30 days.",
"You don't have to wait. If you sell your shares now, your gain can be considered a capital gain for income tax purposes. Unlike in the United States, Canada does not distinguish between short-term vs. long-term gains where you'd pay different rates on each type of gain. Whether you buy and sell a stock within minutes or buy and sell over years, any gain you make on a stock can generally be considered a capital gain. I said generally because there is an exception: If you are deemed by CRA to be trading professionally -- that is, if you make a living buying and selling stocks frequently -- then you could be considered doing day trading as a business and have your gains instead taxed as regular income (but you'd also be able to claim additional deductions.) Anyway, as long as your primary source of income isn't from trading, this isn't likely to be a problem. Here are some good articles on these subjects:",
"\"The IRS rules are actually the same. 26 U.S. Code § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities In the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law), or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or securities, then no deduction shall be allowed... What you should take away from the quote above is \"\"substantially identical stock or securities.\"\" With stocks, one company may happen to have a high correlation, Exxon and Mobil come to mind, before their merger of course. With funds or ETFs, the story is different. The IRS has yet to issue rules regarding what level of overlap or correlation makes two funds or ETFs \"\"substantially identical.\"\" Last month, I wrote an article, Tax Loss Harvesting, which analyses the impact of taking losses each year. I study the 2000's which showed an average loss of 1% per year, a 9% loss for the decade. Tax loss harvesting made the decade slightly positive, i.e. an annual boost of approx 1%.\"",
"If you sold bought a call option then as you stated sold it to someone else what you are doing is selling the call you bought. That leaves you with no position. This is the case if you are talking about the same strike, same expiration.",
"Assuming that you have capital gains, you can expect to have to pay taxes on them. It might be short term, or long term capital gains. If you specify exactly which shares to sell, it is possible to sell mostly losers, thus reducing or eliminating capital gains. There are separate rules for 401K and other retirement programs regarding down payments for a house. This leads to many other issues such as the hit your retirement will take.",
"Buy it at the close. That way you won't lose money (even if marked to market) on the day.",
"As littleadv suggested, you are mixing issues. If you have earned income and are able to deduct an IRA deposit, where those actual dollars came from is irrelevant. The fact that you are taking proceeds from one transaction to deposit to the IRA is a booking entry on your side, but the IRS doesn't care. By the way, when you get that $1000 gain, the broker doesn't withhold tax, so if you take the entire $1000 and put it in the IRA, you owe $150 on one line, but save $250 elsewhere, and are still $100 to the positive on your tax return.",
"Yes, you would have to report the gain. It is not relevant that you traded the stock previously, you still made a profit on the trade-at-hand. Imagine if for some reason this type of trade were exempt. Investors could follow the short term swings of volatile stocks completely tax-free.",
"\"According to Wikipedia this is still a wash sale: In the USA wash sale rules are codified in \"\"26 USC § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities.\"\" Under Section 1091, a wash sale occurs when a taxpayer sells or trades stock or securities at a loss, and within 30 days before or after the sale:\"",
"You could use HBB and other similar funds that exchange distributions for capital gains. There's HXT and HXS which is Canada and US equity markets. The swap fee + mer is a little more than some funds except for HXT which is very cheap. There's a risk for long term holders that this may eventually get banned and you're forced to sell with a gain at the wrong time, but this won't matter much if you're planning on selling in a few years. You have to pay the capital gains tax eventually. Note, the tax on distributions is really a long term drag on performance and won't make a big difference in the short term.",
"What you are looking for is a 1031 exchange. https://www.irs.gov/uac/like-kind-exchanges-under-irc-code-section-1031 Whenever you sell business or investment property and you have a gain, you generally have to pay tax on the gain at the time of sale. IRC Section 1031 provides an exception and allows you to postpone paying tax on the gain if you reinvest the proceeds in similar property as part of a qualifying like-kind exchange. Gain deferred in a like-kind exchange under IRC Section 1031 is tax-deferred, but it is not tax-free. You may also sell your house for bitcoin and record the sales price on the deed with an equal or lesser amount that you bought it for.",
"I often sell covered calls, and if they are in the money, let the stock go. I am charged the same fee as if I sold online ($9, I use Schwab) which is better than buying back the option if I'm ok to sell the stock. In my case, If the option is slightly in the money, and I see the options are priced well, i.e. I'd do another covered call anyway, I sometimes buy the option and sell the one a year out. I prefer to do this in my IRA account as the trading creates no tax issue.",
"\"You have a sequence of questions here, so a sequence of answers: If you stopped at the point where you had multiple wins with a net profit of $72, then you would pay regular income tax on that $72. It's a short term capital gain, which does not get special tax treatment, and the fact that you made it on multiple transactions does not matter. When you enter your next transaction that takes the hypothetical loss the question gets more complicated. In either case, you are paying a percentage on net gains. If you took a two year view in the second case and you don't have anything to offset your loss in the second year, then I guess you could say that you paid more tax than you won in the total sequence of trades over the two years. Although you picked a sequence of trades where it does not appear to play, if you're going to pursue this type of strategy then you are likely at some point to run into a case where the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules apply, so you should be aware of that. You can find information on this elsewhere on this site and also, for example, here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02 Basically these rules require you to defer recording a loss under some circumstances where you have rapid wins and losses on \"\"substantially identical\"\" securities. EDIT A slight correction, you can take part of your losses in the second year even if you have no off-setting gain. From the IRS: If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the amount of the excess loss that you can claim on line 13 of Form 1040 to lower your income is the lesser of $3,000, ($1,500 if you are married filing separately)\"",
"Yes, the newly bought shares will have a long-term holding period, regardless of when you sell them. In addition, it's only a wash sale if you sold the first shares for a loss; it's not a wash sale if you sold them for a gain. Wikipedia mentions this: When a wash sale occurs, the holding period for the replacement stock includes the period you held the stock you sold. Example: You've held shares of XYZ for 10 years. You sell it at a loss but then buy it back within the wash sale period. When you sell the replacement stock, your gain or loss will be long-term — no matter how soon you sell it. Charles Schwab also mentions this: Here's a quick example of a wash sale. On 9/30/XX, you buy 500 shares of ABC at $10 per share. One year later the stock price starts to drop, and you sell all your shares at $9 per share on 10/4/XY. Two days later, on 10/6, ABC bottoms out at $8 and you buy 500 shares again. This series of trades triggers a wash sale. The holding period of the original shares will be added to the holding period of the replacement shares, effectively leaving you with a long-term position.",
"I agree, one should not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. The only question should be whether he'd buy the stock at today's price. If he wishes to own it long term, he keeps it. To take the loss this year, he'd have to sell soon, and can't buy it back for 30 days. If, for whatever reason, the stock comes back a bit, he's going to buy in higher. To be clear, the story changes for ETFs or mutual funds. You can buy a fund to replace one you're selling, capture the loss, and easily not run afoul of wash sale rules.",
"When you get into reading Revenue Rulings and Treasury Regulations - I'd suggest hiring a professional to do that for you. Especially since you also need to assure that the new stock does indeed qualify as QSBS. However, from the revenue ruling you quoted it doesn't sound like there's any other requirement other than reporting the subsequent purchase as a loss on your schedule D. I wouldn't know, however, if there are subsequent/superseding revenue rulings on the matter since 1998. Professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) would have the means and the ability to research this and give you a proper advice.",
"Eric is right regarding the tax, i.e. ordinary income on discount, cap gain treatment on profit whether long term or short. I would not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you would be a holder of the stock, hold on, if not, sell. You are considering a 10-15% delta on the profit to make the decision. Now. I hear you say your wife hasn't worked which potentially puts you in a lower bracket this year. I wrote Topping off your bracket with a Roth Conversion which would help your tax situation long term. Simply put, you convert enough Traditional IRA (or 401(k) money) to use up some of the current bracket you are in, but not hit the next. This may not apply to you, depending on whether you have retirement funds to do this. Note - The cited article offers numbers for a single person, but illustrates the concept. See the tax table for the marginal rates that would apply to you.",
"\"First, do you get charged a commission or other fee for reinvesting? Second, why would capital gains and dividends be grouped together? If the broker charges you for that run away. As Joe explained, it is done as a courtesy. Doesn't this mean if I sell the stock, the profit will be used to buy that stock right back? No, this is only the capital gains distributions of funds. Lastly, there are two additional checkbox options I was hoping somebody could explain: \"\"All equity positions currently held in this account\"\" and \"\"Future equity purchases, transfers, and deposits to this account\"\". \"\"All equity positions\"\" means your selection will be valid for all the positions you already have. \"\"Future positions\"\" means it will only affect future positions, not the ones you already have. For example: FOLLOW-UP: Looking around, some people suggest not doing this for taxable accounts because it complicates cost basis reporting. Is this a valid concern? Doesn't the brokerage handle that and send you the information when you sell the stock? Yes, because you end up with tons of positions and you need to track the cost basis for each. Brokers are required to report cost-basis on 1099-B now, so its less of a problem, but before 2011 you'd have 10's of positions each year (if you have a monthly dividend, for example) each with different cost basis, and you'd usually sell them all at once. Go figure the gain. So the new 1099-B reporting regulations help a little on this, but it only kicks in for everything starting of 2013 IIRC. Fortunately, for some investments (mutual funds, mainly) you may chose averaging, but it has drawbacks as well.\"",
"No, not screwed. This is just an artifact of the tax code and year end dividends. You paid a tax, and in return, got a higher basis. When you sell, you will have less profit, therefore less tax to pay than the guy who bought right after the dividend. You can call the fund company if you want to buy later this year. Once you understand the process, it might not bother you at all.",
"\"Just brainstorming here, but my gut feeling is it should be possible to sell your home to yourself with the sole purpose of resetting your basis. Taken at face value it feels illegal, but since I think we all would agree that you could sell your house to a third party and purchase the identical house next door for the same price (thus resetting your basis), why can't you purchase the same home right back? If one is legal, it seems odd for the other not to be. That being said, I have no idea how to legally do it. Perhaps you truly need a third party to step in which you sell it to, and then buy it back from them sometime in the future. Or perhaps you could start an LLC and have it purchase your home from you. Either way, I highly suggest finding an expert real estate attorney/accountant before attempting this, and don't be surprised if you get multiple opposite opinions. I suspect this is a gray area which will highly depend on how tax \"\"aggressive\"\" you are willing to be.\"",
">suffering, say, a potential 20% loss for business reasons can be preferable to creating a guaranteed, irreversible 37% loss due to state and federal LTCG taxes. You don't pay taxes on capital losses... In fact, you can write them off against future gains.",
"Where I am you pay annual taxes on a house, pay state and county transfer taxes when you buy/sell, and then have to pay capital gains the year you sell if it appreciated and you don't meet one of the exemptions. So I think your whole premise may be flawed.",
"\"Overall the question is one of a political nature. However, this component can have objective answers: \"\"What behavior is trying to be prevented?\"\" There are mechanisms by which capital gains can be deferred (1031 like-kind exchange, or simply holding a long position for years) or eliminated by the estate step up in basis. With these available, mechanisms that enable basis-reduction are ripe for abuse. On the other hand, if this truly bothers you then if you meet the IRS qualifications of a day trader, you may elect to use \"\"mark to market\"\" accounting, eliminating this entirely as a concern. Special rules for traders of securities\"",
"Yes, somebody could buy the shares, receive the dividend, and then sell the shares back. However, the price he would get when he sells the shares back is, ignoring other reasons for the price to change, exactly the amount he paid minus the dividend.",
"The best thing to do to avoid this is not to sell as you've described. What purpose does it solve? If you're speculating, set a price at which you want to cash out and put a limit order. If you're a long term investor, then unless something fundamental has changed - why would you sell?",
"You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain.",
"The market maker will always take it off your hands. Just enter a market sell order. It will cost you a commission to pull the loss into this year. But that's it.",
"\"Edited: Pub 550 says 30 days before or after so the example is ok - but still a gain by average share basis. On sale your basis is likely defaulted to \"\"average price\"\" (in the example 9.67 so there was a gain selling at 10), but can be named shares at your election to your brokerage, and supported by record keeping. A Pub 550 wash might be buy 2000 @ 10 with basis 20000, sell 1000 @9 (nominally a loss of 1000 for now and remaining basis 10000), buy 1000 @ 8 within 30 days. Because of the wash sale rule the basis is 10000+8000 paid + 1000 disallowed loss from wash sale with a final position of 2000 shares at 19000 basis. I think I have the link at the example: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2014_publink100010601\"",
"Capital gains tax is an income tax upon your profit from selling investments. Long-term capital gains (investments you have held for more than a year) are taxed significantly less than short-term gains. It doesn't limit how many shares you can sell; it does discourage selling them too quickly after buying. You can balance losses against gains to reduce the tax due. You can look for tax-advantaged investments (the obvious one being a 401k plan, IRA, or equivalent, though those generally require leaving the money invested until retirement). But in the US, most investments other than the house you are living in (which some of us argue isn't really an investment) are subject to capital gains tax, period.",
"If so, are there ways to reduce the amount of taxes owed? Given that it's currently December, I suppose I could sell half of what I want now, and the other half in January and it would split the tax burden over 2 years instead, but beyond that, are there any strategies for tax reduction in this scenario? One possibility is to also sell stocks that have gone down since you bought them. Of course, you would only do this if you have changed your mind about the stock's prospects since you bought it -- that is, it has gone down and you no longer think it will go up enough to be worth holding it. When you sell stocks, any losses you take can offset any gains, so if you sell one stock for a gain of $10,000 and another for a loss of $5,000, you will only be taxed on your net gain of $5,000. Even if you think your down stock could go back up, you could sell it to realize the loss, and then buy it back later at the lower price (as long as you're not worried it will go up in the meantime). However, you need to wait at least 30 days before rebuying the stock to avoid wash sale rules. This practice is known as tax loss harvesting.",
"If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.",
"No one can advise you on whether to hold this stock or sell it. Your carried losses can offset short or long term gains, but the long term losses have to be applied to offset long term gains before any remaining losses can offset short term gains. Your question doesn't indicate how long you have to hold before the short term gains become long term gains. Obviously the longer the holding period, the greater the risk. You also must avoid a wash sale (selling to lock in the gains/reset your basis then repurchasing within a month). All of those decisions hold risks that you have to weigh. If you see further upside in holding it longer, keep the investment. Don't sell just to try to maximize tax benefits.",
"Yes, rebalancing with new money avoids capital gains taxes and loads (although if you're financially literate enough to be thinking about rebalancing techniques, I'm surprised to hear that you're invested in funds with loads). On the other hand, if it's taking you years to rebalance, then: (a) you are not rebalancing anywhere near frequently enough. Rebalancing should be something you do every 6 months or 1 year, such that it would take only a few weeks or maybe a month of new investment to get back in balance. (b) you will be out-of-balance for quite a long time, while the whole point of the theory of rebalancing is to always be mathematically prepared for swings in the market. Any time spent out of balance represents that much more risk that an unexpected market move can seriously hurt your portfolio. You should weigh the time it will take you to rebalance the long way (i.e. the risk cost of not rebalancing immediately) vs. the taxes and fees involved in rebalancing quickly. If you had said that it would take you only a couple weeks or a month to rebalance the long way, I would say that the long way is fine. But the prospect of spending years without a balanced portfolio seems far more costly to me than any expenses you might incur rebalancing quickly. Since it's almost the end of the calendar year, have you considered doing two quick rebalances, one this year, and another in January? That way half of the tax consequences would happen in April, and the other half not until the next April, giving you plenty of time to scrounge up the money. Also, even if you have no capital losses this year with which to offset some of your expected capital gains, you would have all of next year to harvest some losses against next year's half of the rebalancing gains.",
"the difference would be taxes... Lets say you have two lots, one with a 10 dollar gain, and one with a 20 dollar gain. And lets say you decide to sell one lot this year, and the other lot in 10 years. AND, lets say that it turns out the stock price is exactly the same in ten years as it is when you sell the first lot. In all likelyhood, you'll have more income, and therefore you are likely to be in a different marginal tax rate. If you believe that you're more likely to pay more taxes in 10 years, then sell the lot with the higher gain now. If you believe you're more likely to pay more taxes now, then sell the lot with the lower gain now.",
"\"You have to calculate the total value of all shares and then ask yourself \"\"Would I invest that amount of money in this stock?\"\" If the answer is yes, then only sell what you need to sell. Take the $3k loss against your income, if you have no other gains. If you would not invest that amount of cash in that stock, then sell it all right now and carry forward the excess loss every year. Note at any point you have capital gains you can offset all of them with your loss carryover (not just $3k).\"",
"Did you read what I wrote? I sold some stock for a gain, that's a taxable event. Are you trying to say I just shouldn't have sold it? Do you understand investing at all? And the second point is moot, I still had to pay the tax, having write offs doesn't change the fact that my taxes were higher(more importantly that they would have been much higher if I couldn't take advantage of capital gains.)",
"\"If the investments are in a non-retirement, taxable account, there's not much you can do to avoid short-term capital gains if you sell now. Ways to limit short-term capital gains taxes: Donate -- you can donate some of the stock to charity (before selling it). Transfer -- you can give some of the stock to, say, a family member in a lower tax bracket. But there are tons of rules, gift limits, and won't work for little kids or full time students. They would still pay taxes at their own rate. Protect your gains by buying puts. Wait it out until the long-term capital gains rate kicks in. This allows you to lock in your gains now (but you won't benefit from potential future appreciation.) Buying puts also costs $, so do the ROI calculation. (You could also sell a call and buy a put at the same time and lock in your gains for certain, but the IRS often looks at that as locking in the short-term capital gain, so be careful and talk to a tax professional if you are considering that method.) Die. There's a \"\"step-up\"\" basis on capital gains for estates. source: http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/30/avoid-capital-gains-tax-anschutz-personal-finance-baldwin-tax-strategy.html\"",
"I guess the answer lies in your tax jurisdiction (different countries tax capital gains and income differently) and your particular tax situation. If the price of the stock goes up or down between when you buy and sell then this counts for tax purposes as a capital gain or loss. If you receive a dividend then this counts as income. So, for instance, if you pay tax on income but not on capital gains (or perhaps at a lower rate on capital gains) then it would pay you to sell immediately before the stock goes ex-dividend and buy back immediately after thereby making a capital gain instead of receiving income.",
"Depends on what you are, an investor or a speculator. An investor will look at an 'indefinite' investment period. A speculator will be after a fast buck. If you are an investor, buy your stock once as that will cost less commissions. After all, you'll sell your stock in 10, 15, 20 years.",
"While it may not be your preferred outcome, and doesn't eliminate the income, in the event you find yourself in the path described here you have a way to defer gains to the future. but I would then want to buy another house as a rental If you sell this house and buy another investment property (within strict time windows: 45 days to written contract and closed in 180 days), you can transfer your basis and defer your gains via what is called a 1031 like-kind exchange",
"\"The wash sale rule only applies when the sale in question is at a loss. So the rule does not apply at all to your cases 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16, which all start with a gain. You get a capital gain at the first sale and then a separately computed gain / loss at the second sale, depending on the case, BUT any gain or loss in the IRA is not a taxable event due to the usual tax-advantaged rules for the IRA. The wash sale does not apply to \"\"first\"\" sales in your IRA because there is no taxable gain or loss in that case. That means that you wouldn't be seeking a deduction anyway, and there is nothing to get rolled into the repurchase. This means that the rule does not apply to 1-8. For 5-8, where the second sale is in your brokerage account, you have a \"\"usual\"\" capital gain / loss as if the sale in the IRA didn't happen. (For 1-4, again, the second sale is in the IRA, so that sale is not taxable.) What's left are 9-10 (Brokerage -> IRA) and 13-14 (Brokerage -> Brokerage). The easier two are 13-14. In this case, you cannot take a capital loss deduction for the first sale at a loss. The loss gets added to the basis of the repurchase instead. When you ultimately close the position with the second sale, then you compute your gain or loss based on the modified basis. Note that this means you need to be careful about what you mean by \"\"gain\"\" or \"\"loss\"\" at the second sale, because you need to be careful about when you account for the basis adjustment due to the wash sale. Example 1: All buys and sells are in your brokerage account. You buy initially at $10 and sell at $8, creating a $2 loss. But you buy again within the wash sale window at $9 and sell that at $12. You get no deduction after the first sale because it's wash. You have a $1 capital gain at the second sale because your basis is $11 = $9 + $2 due to the $2 basis adjustment from wash sale. Example 2: Same as Example 1, except that final sale is at $8 instead of at $12. In this case you appear to have taken a $2 loss on the first buy-sell and another $1 loss on the second buy-sell. For taxes however, you cannot claim the loss at the first sale due to the wash. At the second sale, your basis is still $11 (as in Example 1), so your overall capital loss is the $3 dollars that you might expect, computed as the $8 final sale price minus the $11 (wash-adjusted) basis. Now for 9-10 (Brokerage->IRA), things are a little more complicated. In the IRA, you don't worry about the basis of individual stocks that you hold because of the way that tax advantages of those accounts work. You do need to worry about the basis of the IRA account as a whole, however, in some cases. The most common case would be if you have non-deductable contributions to your traditional IRA. When you eventually withdraw, you don't pay tax on any distributions that are attributable to those nondeductible contributions (because you already paid tax on that part). There are other cases where basis of your account matters, but that's a whole question in itself - It's enough for now to understand 1. Basis in your IRA as a whole is a well-defined concept with tax implications, and 2. Basis in individual holdings within your account don't matter. So with the brokerage-IRA wash sale, there are two questions: 1. Can you take the capital loss on the brokerage side? 2. If no because of the wash sale, does this increase the basis of your IRA account (as a whole)? The answer to both is \"\"no,\"\" although the reason is not obvious. The IRS actually put out a Special Bulletin to answer the question specifically because it was unclear in the law. Bottom line for 9-10 is that you apparently are losing your tax deduction completely in that case. In addition, if you were counting on an increase in the basis of your IRA to avoid early distribution penalties, you don't get that either, which will result in yet more tax if you actually take the early distribution. In addition to the Special Bulletin noted above, Publication 550, which talks about wash sale rules for individuals, may also help some.\"",
"How do you know the shares will go up after you buy? The ultimate risk in your scenario is that you buy at a peak, and then that peak is never reached again. Over time, stock markets go up [more or less because there is a net increase in the overall production of the economy as time goes on]. However, you won't experience much of that gain, because you will be selling only after tiny amounts of profit have been achieved. So your upside is low, your plan is capital-expensive [because it requires you to have significant amount of cash available to make the initial purchase], and your downside [though unlikely] has massive risk.",
"\"An investment is sold when you sell that particular stock or fund. It doesn't wait until you withdraw cash from the brokerage account. Whether an investment is subject to long term or short term taxes depends on how long you held that particular stock. Sorry, you can't get around the higher short term tax by leaving the money in a brokerage account or re-investing in something else. If you are invested in a mutual fund, whether it's long or short term depends on when you buy and sell the fund. The fact that the fund managers are buying and selling behind your back doesn't affect this. (I don't know what taxes they have to pay, maybe you really are paying for it in the form of management fees or lower returns, but you don't explicitly pay the tax on these \"\"inner\"\" transactions.) Your broker should send you a tax statement every year giving the numbers that you need to fill in to the various boxes of your income tax form. You don't have to figure it out. Of course it helps to know the rules. If you've held a stock for 11 1/2 months and are planning to sell, you might want to consider waiting a couple of weeks so it becomes a long term capital gain rather than short term and thus subject to lower tax.\"",
"One such strategy I have heard for those who have this opportunity is to purchase the maximum allowed. When the window to sell opens, sell all of your shares and repurchase the most you can with the amount you gained (or keep an equivalent to avoid another transaction fee). This allows you to buy at a discount, and spread out the risk by investing elsewhere. This way you are really only exposing yourself to lose money which you wouldn't have had access to without the stock discount.",
"The 'same day rule' in the UK is a rule for matching purposes only. It says that sales on any day are matched firstly with purchases made on the same day for the purposes of ascertaining any gain/loss. Hence the phrase 'bed-and-breakfast' ('b&b') when you wish to crystalise a gain (that is within the exempt amount) and re-establish a purchase price at a higher level. You do the sale on one day, just before the market closes, which gets matched with your original purchase, and then you buy the shares back the next day, just after the market opens. This is standard tax-planning. Whenever you have a paper gain, and you wish to lock that gain out of being taxed, you do a bed-and-breakfast transaction, the idea being to use up your annual exemption each and every year. Of course, if your dealing costs are high, then they may outweigh any tax saved, and so it would be pointless. For the purpose of an example, let's assume that the UK tax year is the same as the calendar year. Scenario 1. Suppose I bought some shares in 2016, for a total price of Stg.50,000. Suppose by the end of 2016, the holding is worth Stg.54,000, resulting in a paper gain of Stg.4,000. Question. Should I do a b&b transaction to make use of my Stg.11,100 annual exemption ? Answer. Well, with transaction costs at 1.5% for a round-trip trade, suppose, and stamp duty on the purchase of 0.5%, your total costs for a b&b will be Stg1,080, and your tax saved (upon some future sale date) assuming you are a 20% tax-payer is 20%x(4,000-1,080) = Stg584 (the transaction costs are deductible, we assume). This does not make sense. Scenario 2. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg60,000 by end-2016. Answer. The total transaction costs are 2%x60,000 = 1,200 and so the taxable gain of 10,000-1,200 = 8,800 would result in a tax bill of 20%x8,800 = 1,760 and so the transaction costs are lower than the tax to be saved (a strict analysis would take into account only the present value of the tax to be saved), it makes sense to crystalise the gain. We sell some day before the tax year-end, and re-invest the very next day. Scenario 3. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg70,000 by end-2016. Answer. The gain of 20,000 less costs would result in a tax bill for 1,500 (this is: 20%x(20,000 - 2%x70,000 - 11,100) ). This tax bill will be on top of the dealing costs of 1,400. But the gain is in excess of the annual exemption. The strategy is to sell just enough of the holding to crystallise a taxable gain of just 11,100. The fraction, f%, is given by: f%x(70,000-50,000) - 2%xf%x70,000 = 11,100 ... which simplifies to: f% = 11,100/18,600 = 59.68%. The tax saved is 20%x11,100 = 2,220, versus costs of 2%x59.58%x70,000 = 835.52. This strategy of partial b&b is adopted because it never makes sense to pay tax early ! End.",
"\"There are different schools of thought. You can ask the IRS - and it would not surprise me if you got different answers on different phone calls. One interpretation is that a put is not \"\"substantially identical\"\" to the disposed stock, therefore no wash is triggered by that sale. However if that put is exercised, then you automatically purchase the security, and that is identical. As to whether the IRS (or your brokerage firm) recognizes the identical security when it falls out of an option, I can't say; but technically they could enforce it because the rule is based on 30 days and a \"\"substantially identical\"\" stock or security. In this interpretation (your investor) would probably at least want to stay out of the money in choosing a strike price, to avoid exercise; however, options are normally either held or sold, rather than be exercised, until at or very close to the expiration date (because time value is left on the table otherwise). So the key driver in this interpretation would be expiration date, which should be at least 31 days out from the stock sale; and it would be prudent to sell an out of the money put as well, in order to avoid the wash sale trigger. However there is also a more unfavorable opinion - see fairmark.com/capgain/wash/wsoption.htm where they hold that a \"\"deep in the money\"\" option is an immediate trigger (regardless of exercise). This article is sage, in that they say that the Treasury (IRS) may interpret an option transaction as a wash if it's ballpark to being exercisable. And, if the IRS throws paper, it always beats each of paper, rock and scissors :( A Schwab article (\"\"A Primer on Wash Sales\"\") says, if the CUSIPs match, bang, wash. This is the one that they may interpret unfavorably on in any case, supporting Schwab's \"\"play it safe\"\" position: \"\"3. Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities...\"\" . This certainly nails buying a call. As to selling a put, well, it is at least conceivable that an IRS official would call that a contract to buy! SO it's simply not a slam dunk; there are varying opinions that you might describe as ranging from \"\"hell no\"\" to \"\"only if blatant.\"\" If you can get an \"\"official\"\" predetermination, or you like to go aggressive in your tax strategy, there's that; they may act adversely, so Caveat Taxfiler!\"",
"The idea is you would also have a cash allowance in the portfolio originally - say 25%. So in this scenario, 375K in stock and 125k in cash. and assuming the goal is 1K increase in stock value you would buy 38.5K of stock at the now lower price.",
"Disallowed losses due to the wash sale rule are added to the basis of the repurchased shares. In your example, on day two you paid $0.70 per share. Then the disallowed $0.30 loss from the previous day gets added to the basis, making your total basis $1.00 per share. When you sell at the end of the day for $1.00 per share, your net gain/loss is zero. Furthermore, you can recapture disallowed losses by selling the last lot of ABC, completely divesting yourself of all holdings in ABC for at least 31 days. Even if that last lot was a loss, when taking into account the increased basis from previously disallowed wash sale losses, you can claim the loss fully on this last, non-wash sale.",
"Ignoring brokerage fees and the wash-sale rule (both of which are hazardous to your health), and since the 15% LTCG tax is only on the gain, the stock would have to drop 15% of the gain in price since you originally purchased it.",
"Expenses matter. At the back end, retirement, the most often quoted withdrawal rate is 4%. How would it feel to be paying 1/4 of each years' income to fees, separate from the taxes due, separate from whether the market is up or down? Kudos to you for learning this lesson so early. Your plan is great, and while I often say 'don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog' being mindful of the tax hit in any planned transaction is worthwhile. Selling and moving enough funds to stay at 0% is great, a no-brainer, as they say. Selling more depends on the exact numbers involved. Do a fake return, and see how an extra $1000/$2000 etc, worth of fund sale impacts the taxes. It will depend on how much gain there is for each $XXX of fund. Say you are up 25%, So $1000 has $200 of gain. 15% of $200 is $30. A 1%/yr fee cost you $10/yr, so it's worth waiting till January to sell the next shares of the fund. Keep in mind, the 'test' return will still have the 2013 rates and brackets, I suggest this only as an estimating tool.",
"You can keep the cash in your account as long as you want, but you have to pay a tax on what's called capital gains. To quote from Wikipedia: A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price. It is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price, resulting in a financial gain for the investor.[1] Conversely, a capital loss arises if the proceeds from the sale of a capital asset are less than the purchase price. Thus, buying/selling stock counts as investment income which would be a capital gain/loss. When you are filing taxes, you have to report net capital gain/loss. So you don't pay taxes on an individual stock sale or purchase - you pay tax on the sum of all your transactions. Note: You do not pay any tax if you have a net capital loss. Taxes are only on capital gains. The amount you are taxed depends on your tax bracket and your holding period. A short term capital gain is gain on an investment held for less than one year. These gains are taxed at your ordinary income tax rate. A long term capital gain is gain on an investment held for more than one year. These gains are taxed at a special rate: If your income tax rate is 10 or 15%, then long term gains are taxed at 0% i.e. no tax, otherwise the tax rate is 15%. So you're not taxed on specific stock sales - you're taxed on your total gain. There is no tax for a capital loss, and investors sometimes take profits from good investments and take losses from bad investments to lower their total capital gain so they won't be taxed as much. The tax rate is expected to change in 2013, but the current ratios could be extended. Until then, however, the rate is as is. Of course, this all applies if you live in the United States. Other countries have different measures. Hope it helps! Wikipedia has a great chart to refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States.",
"The key point is from the penultimate sentence in your second paragraph: for which you have already paid taxes When you receive a dividend or realise a capital gain, you get taxed on that then, and you shouldn't have to pay taxes on it again in future. So the cost basis gets adjusted to reflect that.",
"You can buy and sell stocks, if you like. You'll have to pay taxes on any profits. And short-term is speculating, not investing, and has high risk",
"If you buy puts, there are no guaranteed proceeds though. If you short against the box, you've got immediate proceeds with a nice capital loss if it doesn't work out. Conversely, you could write a covered call, take the contract proceeds, and write off the long position losses. Nobody ever factors tax consequences into the equation here."
] |
[
"Ignoring brokerage fees and the wash-sale rule (both of which are hazardous to your health), and since the 15% LTCG tax is only on the gain, the stock would have to drop 15% of the gain in price since you originally purchased it."
] |
4484
|
Has the likelihood of getting a lower interest rate by calling & asking been reduced by recent credit card regulations?
|
[
"33990"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"33990",
"478461",
"408375",
"220710",
"563030",
"109125",
"569056",
"264341",
"2519",
"390598",
"433933",
"272890",
"149780",
"437143",
"487776",
"340287",
"166442",
"326905",
"294199",
"481898",
"596957",
"113651",
"295893",
"116243",
"344203",
"495028",
"164605",
"560821",
"171473",
"300660",
"336659",
"450830",
"479827",
"382551",
"136040",
"232797",
"165619",
"172128",
"149252",
"180838",
"299030",
"534472",
"277003",
"16277",
"591714",
"99279",
"220168",
"578885",
"579472",
"431296",
"173929",
"389627",
"213489",
"268849",
"402728",
"266659",
"379892",
"265427",
"289966",
"564709",
"115935",
"2460",
"1766",
"59352",
"510345",
"132006",
"544781",
"328821",
"401678",
"145220",
"134906",
"336725",
"88637",
"150167",
"590384",
"61235",
"477720",
"125497",
"450372",
"426954",
"366215",
"397175",
"472527",
"385746",
"497672",
"108514",
"141459",
"508510",
"414387",
"32985",
"345447",
"333391",
"493638",
"217030",
"246402",
"255171",
"534158",
"571246",
"592379",
"201982"
] |
[
"\"I don't know that this can actually be answered objectively. Maybe it can with some serious research. (Read: data on what the issuers have been doing since the law went into affect.) Personally, I think the weak economy and general problems with easy credit are a bigger issue than the new rules. Supposedly, there is evidence that card issuers are trying to make up for the lost income due to the new regulations with higher fees. I believe that your credit rating and history with the issuer is a larger factor now. In other words, they may be less likely to lower your rate just to keep you as a customer or to attract new customers. According to The Motley Fool, issuers dropped their riskiest customers as a result of the new regulations. Some say that new laws simply motivated the issuers to find new ways to \"\"gouge\"\" their customers. Here are two NYTimes blog posts about the act: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/what-the-credit-card-act-means-for-you/ http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/the-effects-of-the-credit-card-act/ As JohnFx states, it does not hurt to ask.\"",
"\"No. That's pretty unlikely. Card issuers typically base your rate on your credit score. Paying down debt reduces your percent of available credit used, and improves your score until you are in the 1-20% range. That's optimum. To this issuer, you are one of a million customers, there's no emotion in this, just numbers to them. For what it's worth, if a card issuer raises your rate, you are permitted to \"\"not accept\"\" the rate, stop using the card for new charges, and pay at the current rate. Of course this doesn't apply to zero interest deals, only to increases to your regular rate.\"",
"\"Since I can't vote up the answer yet, I will agree with it here. I find the best tactic when you call is to tell them you have an offer in hand and will use it if they don't match the rate exactly or discount it enough to save you the trouble of going through the process of a balance transfer. So if they balk and say \"\"No,\"\" then walk and go (to the in hand offer). Just remember, the worst they can say is \"\"No.\"\" If you don't even bother to ask, it's as if you did and they said \"\"No,\"\" as either scenario leaves you with the same result: an unchanged interest rate.\"",
"\"Sometimes you need to do more than ask to have your rating reduced. You need to make it in their best interest (no pun intended) to do it. Find the lowest rate card and then tell the others you want to transfer your balance to that card and close the account (don't do it, it is an empty threat). I guarantee they will transfer you to a retention agent who will give you a better deal. From their perspective your current offer is getting 19% interest instead of 22%, why would they do that without some motivation? With the approach described above their options are get 19% interest instead of 0% interest. It is all about negotiation and the \"\"Retention agents\"\" have the most leverage to do so.\"",
"Why not just get another credit card and transfer the balance? Many of them will give you special perks like x months of no interest for doing so. Also, once you call to actually cancel the card you will see for sure whether they really have any power to negotiate rates. From their perspective 15% APR is more than 0%APR which is what they'd get if they lose your business.",
"\"Usually you need to switch accounts. Lower rate cards usually offer less generous benefits. I'd advise looking at the charts on credit card rates in the back of a magazine like \"\"Money\"\" or \"\"Kiplingers\"\".\"",
"I feel like this has nothing to do with income, and as such RMDs will not really help or harm you. After a person passes, credit card companies are unlikely to collect any outstanding balance. Debts cannot be inherited, however, assets can be made to stand for debts. Many assets pass to heirs without the probate process and in some cases all of them pass this way. This leaves creditors with nothing and having to write off the balance. Even if assets do pass through probate heirs may dispute the creditors. In that case credit card balances may not be high enough justify hiring a lawyer to fight for payment; or, if they do the judge may be unsympathetic and offer nothing or pennies on the dollar. The bottom line is that they probably see you, or your demographic, as a poor credit risk and reduced their exposure by lowering your limit. While that is not what they told you, they probably have to carefully structure what they say to avoid any discrimination claims.",
"Will having a lower credit limit, which I will still never reach, negatively impact my ability to get a mortgage in future? This would increase your utilization, the percentage of your total available credit that you use at any one time. Because it decreases the divisor, your total available credit, while not changing the dividend, the amount of your credit that you use. In the United States, you generally want utilization to be between 8% and 30%. So if this increases your utilization, it could hurt your credit score (or if your utilization is low enough, possibly help it). I do not know if the rule is the same in the United Kingdom or not, but this site claims that it is at least similar. 22% is an OK utilization, assuming you have no other debt. But a utilization of 17% is closer to 8% and may be better. It may be worth calling them to keep your credit limit where it is if they don't ask too much from you.",
"\"The first thing I'd do is to find out your credit (FICO) score. If you have a good one, try to get another card with a lower rate. Then call up the lender, point to your good score, and your alternatives. If you have a bad score, do nothing. \"\"Let sleeping dogs lie.\"\"\"",
"Since recent changes to credit scoring (July 2017) it may not be necassary to do this, as more emphasis is placed on having a timely payment history and less emphasis is placed on having a low credit utilization ratio. Using what’s known as trended data is the biggest change. The phrase means credit scores will take into account the trajectory of a borrower’s debts on a month-to-month basis. In fact, having a low credit utilization ratio may even negatively effect you (if your available credit line value is high): ... VantageScore will now mark a borrower negatively for having excessively large credit card limits, on the theory that the person could run up a high credit card debt quickly. Those who have prime credit scores may be hurt the most, since they are most likely to have multiple cards open. But those who like to play the credit card rewards program points game could be affected as well. source",
"I agree with JoeTaxpayer that you will be better off in the end if you can just not use your card you are better off in the long run. That said if you are determined to get a card you can control go to a credit union or local bank. Most of them will give you the credit limit you want. This may provide you with a card that you can make use of but know that you can not go wild. The down side is most of these will not be reward cards but my local credit union gave me a 7% card where my Chase card is at 18%(was 5% before the changes to credit card regulations).",
"The answer to your question is no. Your credit rating is the way creditors let each other know whether you are in a good position and have a strong tendency to repay your debts, not whether you are an easy target for making money on interest and penalties associated with failing to repay debts in full. The fact that you make your payments on time will definitely not lower your credit rating. While the banks are not making as much money on you as they would if you carried a balance, they are also not spending a lot of money on you, nor losing a lot of money on people like you failing to repay debts. The transactions charged to the retailers cover the costs of operating your card and then a little bit. That is enough to make you worth keeping as a customer. They are happy with your arrangement. The formula for credit rating computation is proprietary, but we know what the factors are overall. Making payments on time consistently is a positive, not a negative factor. However, they do look at the number of cards and overall mix of cards and other types of debt. For example, if you have a very large amount of credit capacity in your cards and no mortgage, that could possibly be a negative. If you have opened some of those accounts recently, it could be a negative. If you have a larger number credit cards than they think is good, that could be a negative. There are other things as well that could be bringing your score down. Probably worth it to take a look. If you want to get an idea of what factors are adding positively and negatively to your credit score, I'd encourage you to visit CreditKarma.com, Quizzle.com, or another source intended to help you understand and improve your credit rating.",
"Of course your situation is very hurtful at a personal level, and I sympathize. I just don't get your point about being driven further into debt? It would seem that with a lower credit score you are prevented from taking on more debt. That can absolutely be hurtful especially to someone who runs a business that relies on short term credit. As for why they do this, they do it to reduce their risk - they don't want to lend more money, they are afraid that you will lose your job and default. Of course it is not as personal as I am writing it, not for you (they don't target you personally - they target your credit profile) and not for them (it is a matter of how the market views the debt and how much they can trade on such debt, not what they want to do personally). As for the TARP bailouts not releasing enough credit - this is reality. Goverment always thinks it can influence the situation more than it actually can. In order to unfreeze credit there needs to be a growing economy that makes the risk look acceptable. No amount of Goverment nudging will really change that more than marginally. By the way, legislation like this (forcing credit card companies to not raise their rates) can lead to credit restrictions. By artifically forcing the rates down the risk has to be ballanced somewhere - so it will be ballanced by lowering credit lines or by other means. Like any price control, if you restrict the price, it causes shortages. Intrest rates are the price of credit.",
"This bit of marketing, like the zero-percent introductory rates some banks offer, is intended to make you more willing to carry a balance, and they're hoping you'll continue that bad habit after the rate goes back up. If you don't think you'll be tempted by the lower rate, yhere's no reason not to accept (unless there's something in the fine print that changes your agreement in other ways; read carefully). But as you say, there's no reason to accept ir either. I'd ignore it.",
"Between half a year and a year should be enough to improve your interest rates drastically on car loan refinance. Make sure that your new credit card has already been reported to the agencies, and that the credit/debt ratio is lower than 30% on your revolving (credit card) accounts. That also means that you shouldn't carry too much balance, even if the APR is 0%.",
"\"With that credit rating you should have no trouble getting a rate in that range. I have a similar credit score and my credit union gave me a car loan at 1.59%. No haggling required. In regards to your question, I think you have it backwards. They are more likely to give you a good rate on a high balance than a low one. Think about it from the bank's perspective... \"\"If I give you a small sale, will you give me a discount?\"\" This is the question you are asking. Their profit is a factor of how much you borrow and the interest rate. Low rate=less profit, low financing amount = less profit. The deal you proposed is a lose-lose for them.\"",
"Because people are going deeper into debt and filing for bankruptcy more often, there is more risk on behalf of the credit company. Therefore, they limit their risk by lower limits and increasing interest. For every person that goes bankrupt, there might be 10 that pay that new higher interest rate, thereby netting a profit even though they lost out completely on the one customer. The recent legislation limited how and under what circumstance rate are adjusted and raised, but not forbidden. As for the fact that these banks took tax money under the idea (we all thought) I see two points of view. We never should have had the credit we did, so they are correcting and you (like me and millions of others) are suffering for their prior mistakes. It is an honest attempt to correct the system for long term stability even if we suffer in the short term. We gave them tax money, they need to not screw us over. In response to the still frozen credit markets I would suggest penalty taxes to companies that do not lend. Penalties to companies that do not modify mortgages. The second you take government money is the last second a you are entitled to a profit of anything. Furthermore, we the people bought you and we the people get to decide your salary. The bottom line is there is truth in both statements. Things are totally screwed up right now because we ALL made mistakes in the past trying to get a bigger profit or own a bigger house. There are those among us who didn't make a mistake, and those among us who made nothing but mistakes. As a society, we have to pay the piper either way. The best thing you can do now is pay down your debts, live simply and spend your money wisely.",
"\"No. Credit card companies will typically not care about your individual credit card account. Instead they look either at a \"\"package\"\" of card accounts opened at roughly the same time, or of \"\"slices\"\" of cardholder accounts by credit rating. If an entire package's or slice's balance drops significantly, they'll take a look, and will adjust rates accordingly (often they may actually decrease rates as an incentive to increase you use of the card). Because credit card debt is unstructured debt, the bank cannot impose an \"\"early payment penalty\"\" of any kind (there's no schedule for paying it off, so there's no way to prove that they're missing out on $X in interest because you paid early). Generally, banks don't like CC debt anyway; it's very risky debt, and they often end up writing large balances off for pennies on the dollar. So, when you pay down your balance by a significant amount, the banks breathe a sigh of relief. The real money, the stable money, is in the usage fees; every time you swipe your card, the business who accepted it owes the credit card company 3% of your purchase, and sometimes more.\"",
"Just call your credit union and ask if they will let you refinance at the lower rate. If they won't, then just increase your payment every month so that your car is paid off early (in 36 months instead of 60). You won't get the lower rate, but since your loan will be paid early, you'll be saving interest anyway.",
"\"The best way I know of to get the interest rate lowered is to call the credit card company and simply ask. Typically if a credit card company thinks you will leave them for another company they will be willing to work with you. There is also the option of transfering some of the higher interest debt to one of the lower interest credit cards. It sounds like you have your friend on the right track by focusing all extra money on the credit card with the highest interest rate. Then after that one is paid off send all extra to the next highest one and so on. The classic \"\"snowball\"\" effect.\"",
"Can you reduce your interest rate? Talk to the lender. Maybe. Probably not. The rate reflects their perception of how much of a risk they're taking with the loan. But if all you're borrowing is $2000, the savings that you might get out of any adjustment to the rate is not going to be all that significant. Sure, it would be nice, but it's not going to be enough to make or break your decision to buy this car. The big savings will be that you're paying interest on a much smaller loan, which means you can reduce your payments and/or pay it off more quickly. REMINDER: NEVER TALK TO AN AUTO DEALER ABOUT FINANCING UNTIL AFTER THE PRICE OF THE CAR HAS BEEN NAILED DOWN -- otherwise they will raise the purchase price to cover the cost of offering you an apparently cheap loan.",
"You should pay things off every month. You don't want to be paying 10%-25% interest if you don't have to. If you regularly use you card, the credit agencies can't tell the difference. The way it works is that every month, they send the credit agencies your current balance and if you paid the last bill on time. There is nothing that indicates if this is a standing balance, or if you charged all of it since the last payment. Any business that you legitimately owe a debt to can report that to the credit agencies. Not all of them do. This includes utilities, cell phone companies, landlords, etc. If any of them report overdue items it will show up on your credit report, and your credit card company can use that to raise you interest rate. Some cards will automatically raise you credit limit. They are basically looking to make money fro you. If you often charge near the limit, and pay the minimum balance each month, they may raise your limit to get you to charge more, and pay more interest. You can also call them and ask. They have some internal rules to decide if, based on your history with them and your credit history, if you are a good risk.",
"Yes there is regulation in place see here Quote from the page Instant-access savings accounts As with current accounts, if a bank is to reduce the interest rate on an instant-access savings account it generally has to give two months’ notice. Other savings accounts To change the interest rate on other savings accounts, such as those with a notice period and cash ISAs, a bank should give you reasonable notice that it intends to make a ‘material reduction’. A reduction is consider to be ‘material’ if you have £500 or more in your account and the interest rate falls by more than 0.25% at one time or by 0.5% or more over 12 months. This should give you enough time to move your money to another account, without penalty, if you are not happy with the reduced rate.",
"Your credit score is definitely affected by the age of your credit accounts, so if you frequently close one card and open another new one, you're adversely affecting the overall average age of accounts. This is something to consider and whether it is worth what you're trying to achieve. Sometimes, if you're a good customer and are insistent enough, you can simply call your credit card company and use the threat of closing your account in favor of another card that offers something attractive to get your current bank to sweeten its incentives to keep your business. I know many people who've done this with real success, and they spare themselves the hassle of obtaining a new card and suffering the short term consequences on their credit report. This might be an avenue worth trying before you just close the account and move on. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"A) The Credit Rating Agencies only look at the month-end totals that are on your credit card, as this is all they ever get from the issuing bank. So a higher usage frequency as described would not make any direct difference to your credit rating. B) The issuing bank will know if you use the credit with the higher frequency, but it probably has little effect on your limit. Typically, after two to three month, they reevaluate your credit limit, and it could go up considerably if you never overdrew (and at this time, it could indirectly positively affect your credit rating). You could consider calling the issuing bank after two month and try to explain the history a bit and get them to increase the limit, but that only makes sense if your credit score has recovered. Your business paperwork could go a long way to convince someone, if you do so well now. C) If your credit rating is still bad, you need to find out why. It should have normalized to a medium range with the bad historic issues dropped.",
"For people with attempted to achieve credit rating coming from a huge rely or perhaps organized credit score card issuer then you can discover how complicated its to get authorised. They generally interest some kind of credit score, when you need a low interest rate quote and additional returns after that your credit score has to be excellent.",
"No. There is no guarantee that credit card issuing banks will always use 0% introductory rates to entice anyone.",
"Note that having the money in your savings/investments may impress the bank as much as, or more than, paying down this commitment. I would not advise rushing into an action that arguably reduces you financial options; it isn't likely to help.",
"While technically true, a card issuer can cancel your card for almost any reason they want, it's highly unlikely they'll cancel it because you pay your bills! There are many, many people out there that pay their bills in full every month without ever paying a cent in credit card interest. I wouldn't ever purposefully incur any interest on a credit card. Related anecdote: I used to have a credit card that I only used for gas purchases because they gave 5% off for fuel. The issuer eventually discontinued the program (I assume because people like me took advantage of it.) So while they didn't cancel my card, the bonus eventually went away. I miss that card. My conclusion: if you can take advantage of promotional rates, by all means, go for it. You don't owe them any favors. Enjoy it as long as it lasts.",
"Go where your money is treated best. If you can lower your APR, great. It should help a little bit with getting a mortgage if you can reduce your payment. Your debt-to-income ratio would go down.",
"Except for the fact that canceling credit cards will hurt your credit, either by increasing your utilization ratio or decreasing the length of your credit lines if you cancel the oldest card, which makes it that much harder to get the good interest rates available on other loans.",
"\"The bottom line is that you are kind of a terrible customer for them. Granted you are far better than one that does not pay his bills, but you are (probably) in the tier right above that. Rewards cards are used to lure the unorganized into out of control interest rates and late payments. These people are Capital One's, and others, best customers. They have traded hundreds of dollars in interest payments for a couple of dollars in rewards. The CC company says: \"\"YUMMY\"\"! You, on the other hand, cut into their \"\"meager\"\" profits from fees collected from your transactions. Why should they help you make more money? Why should they further cut into your profits? Response to comment: Given your comment I think the bottom line is a matter of perspective. You seem like a logical, altruistic type person who probably seeks a win-win situation in business dealings. This differs from CC companies they operate to seek one thing: enslavement. BTW the \"\"terrible customer\"\" remark should be taken as a compliment. After you get past the marketing lies you begin to see what reward programs and zero percent financing is all about. How do most people end up with 21%+ interest rates? They started with a zero percent balance loan, and was late for a payment. Reward cards work a bit differently. Studies show that people tend to spend about 17% more when they use a reward card. I've caught myself ordering an extra appetizer or beer and have subsequently stopped using a reward card for things I can make a decision at the time of purchase. For people with tight budgets this leads to debt. My \"\"meager\"\" profits paragraph makes sense when you understand the onerous nature of CC companies. They are not interested in earning 2% on purchases (charge 3% and give back 1%) for basically free money. You rightly see this as what should be a win-win for all parties involved. Thus the meager in quotation marks. CC companies are willing to give back 1% and charge 3% if you then pay 15% or more on your balance. Some may disagree with me on the extracting nature of CC companies, but they are wrong. I like him as an actor, but I don't believe Samuel Jackson's lines.\"",
"I once called Amex to cancel a card with an annual fee. Instead, they were able to give me a different card with no fee. They were happy to do it. Of course, Amex has fantastic customer service, while Capital One is not known for it. But, its worth a five minute call, and you will retain your good score.",
"Doubtful. But even if it does, it would be by a minuscule amount and would be a temporary bump. I find it hard to believe that such a small and short term impact on your credit would outweigh the savings in interest charges.",
"No. Getting more credit lowers your credit utilization ratio (if you don't use it), which raises your credit rating, this can also be done by asking for a higher limit on your existing credit card. Also, there is a chance that the company you got your first card from won't pull your credit a second time when they go to the underwriter. As any extensions of credit lower your credit score, although the credit utilization ratio is weighted more heavily.",
"No. The intro rate is a gambit by the bank - they accept losing money in the short term but expect to gain money in the long term when your intro is over and you (hopefully) start paying interest. There's not much in it for them if you never get around to paying interest. Same can be said for people who close the card after their intro period, but that's different - the bank is correctly expecting that most people won't bother.",
"The length of time you have established credit does improve your credit score in the long run. As long as you can avoid paying interest, you might see if you can get a card with cash back rewards. I have one from Citi that sends me a $50 check every so often when I have enough rewards built up.",
"\"Read the terms carefully. With promotional offers, if you do anything \"\"bad\"\", the promotion is terminated and you immediately revert to either your normal rate or a penalty rate. \"\"Bad\"\" includes things like: making a late payment, going over your limit, paying less than the minimum payment, etc. I wouldn't sweat the potential credit score impacts. These promotions are pretty much the best deals that you can get for an unsecured loan.\"",
"To answer the specific question of whether you can get the bill reduced without hurting your credit, yes, as long as the bill never goes to collections, there's no reason it should ever show up on your credit report. Will they reduce your bill without sending it to collections first? Maybe. All you can do is ask.",
"\"I don't know of a guideline to how often you can ask for an increase. You can ask as often as you like. As for consequences, refer to Is there a downside to asking for a credit increase?, where the consensus is that, aside from a possible (temporary) hard pull on your credit report, there's probably no risk to asking. Depending on your credit score/history, and especially in the current economy, you may get \"\"no\"\" as an answer most often. You can try talking to your card's Credit Department or even Customer Retention Department as they may have more leverage. They may say yes or no or that they need to review your account. When you do ask for an increase, I would make sure to ask if there will be a hard pull on your report, if there is any cost or downside to applying, and to make sure that this would be an increase to your current credit line, not a new account.\"",
"There are lots of things to consider in addition to your questions. The rules changed in the US recently. I think you mean you will save more money. Your interest rate isn't likely to go up, but your principle will, so you will earn more interest income than before. I would wager it won't be a significant amount however. You can certainly earn a reward, either cash back, points, miles or something else. BUT the sticking point with earning things with your card is harder than before. Due to rules changes, merchants can now recuperate the fees they pay for accepting your credit card. Rewards cards have a higher fee than non-rewards cards (because banks aren't in charities). So now, depending on the merchant's choice, you could see a higher cost paying with a credit card (or a debit card) and that cost could wipe out your reward. And if your card has a fee, it has always been true that you need to evaluate the annual fee to confirm the benefit is more than paying for the fee. Additional advantages to credit cards",
"No. I have several that I haven't used in a year or so (legacy of the time when they gave you money to sign up :-)), and credit rating's something over 800 last I checked.",
"If you're looking for cause-effect, applying for another card won't matter at all if you're not paying any interest, or not looking to get another installment loan for which the rate you get depends on your credit rating. If you are looking to get another installment loan, then having more credit at your disposal might hurt a small amount. I wouldn't want to cancel your oldest card. The GEMB card looks like a good candidate if you want to cancel because you're not using it, and it's a relatively new card.",
"The only time the utilization percentage makes a difference is when the data is being pulled for a credit check. During the months leading up to the loan application through the settlement date of the loan keeping this percentage low makes sense. The number reported is the current value of the ratio not an average. You can pre-fund the credit card but don't go overboard. If you keep a negative balance (lets say they owe you $100) for a few months they may decide to send you a check for the balance they owe you.",
"The two factors that will hurt you the most is the age of the credit account, and your available credit to debt ratio. Removing an older account takes that account out of the equation of calculating your overall credit score, which can hurt significantly, especially if that is the only, or one of just a couple, of open credit lines you have available. Reducing your available credit will make your current debt look bigger than what it was before you closed your account. Going over a certain percentage for your debt to available credit can make you look less favorable to lenders. [As stated above, closing a credit card does remove it from the credit utilization calculation which can raise your debt/credit ratio. It does not, however; affect the average age of credit cards. Even closed accounts stay on your credit report for ten years and are credited toward average age of cards. When the closed credit card falls off your report, only then, will the average age of credit cards be recalculated.] And may I suggest getting your free credit report from https://www.annualcreditreport.com . It's the only place considered 'official' to receive your free annual credit report as told by the FTC. Going to other 3rd party sites to pull your credit report can risk your information being traded or sold. EDIT: To answer your second point, there are numerous factors that banks and creditors will consider depending on the type of card you're applying for. The heavier the personal rewards (cash back, flyer miles, discounts, etc.) the bigger the stipulation. Some factors to consider are your income to debt ratio, income to available credit ratio, number of revolving lines of credit, debt to available credit ratio, available credit to debt ratio, and whether or not you have sufficient equity and/or assets to cover both your debt and available credit. They want to make sure that if you go crazy and max out all of your lines of credit, that you are capable of paying it all back in a sufficient amount of time. In other words, your volatility as a debt-consumer.",
"An inquiry to your credit report is a slight ding and lasts 2 years. I'd suggest that if you are playing the bonus game you watch your score closely, and if it drops below the level you'd like to maintain, hold off a while. Credit Karma offers a good simulation to show the impact of inquiries, utilization, new accounts, etc.",
"I can think of one short-term solution: lower your debt-to-credit ratio. Even if you pay off your credit card before the due date, the balance you owe is registered as a debt on your credit score for that statement period. If you pay off your balance before the statement period closes, the amount will be zero. Debt-to-credit ratio is one of highest impact factors used in computing the credit score. The dip from the hard pull should be only temporary. Additionally, there are different FICO scoring models that lenders use, which can provide significant variance. Once your score is in the mid 700s, however, that and sufficient income should be sufficient for a prime-rate loan, credit card, or other service for which the credit score is relevant.",
"The key word you are looking for is that you want to refinance the loan at a lower rate. Tell banks that and ask what they can offer you.",
"\"Several events will always result in a reduction of your score, including: These will show up in the short term, but I don't think it's worth $40 per year in perpetuity to avoid this. These aren't serious \"\"black marks\"\" in the same category as missing payments, carrying too much debt, or foreclosures/evictions, etc. These effects are designed to signal issuers when someone acquires a large amount of credit in a very short period of time, which may indicate a greater risk. If your credit is good and you are using your other cards responsibly, closing the card (given the annual fee) would not cause me great concern if it were me. Since you are so much better of a risk than you likely were in college, you can also call Capital One, ask to speak with a supervisor, and ask them to drop the fee and increase your credit limit. They should be able to easily verify that you meet the requirements for other types of preferred cards they offer, and they should be willing to offer you improved terms rather than losing your business. It is very possible they simply haven't re-evaluated your risk since you initially applied. Also, remember that these types of effects determine only a portion of your overall score. Activity is also a major component. Rather than leaving an unused card open for history and debt-to-limit purposes only, I would also recommend having some minimum level of activity, such as an automatic bill payment, on each card you carry. The effect of using your cards over time will have a significant positive effect on your score. Best of luck!\"",
"Approximately Yes. However as you are paying more, the interest accrused would be less.",
"My recommendation is to not ask for a credit increase, but just increase the utilization of one card if you have multiple cards, and decrease the utilization of the others, and continue paying off all cards in full each month. In a few months, you will likely be offered a credit increase by the card that is getting increased use. The card company that is getting the extra business knows that you are paying off big bills each month and keeping your account in good standing, and they will likely offer you a credit increase all by themselves because they want to keep your business. If no offer is forthcoming, you can call the card company and ask for a credit increase. If they refuse, tell them that you will be charging very little on the card in the future (or even canceling your card, though that will cause a hit on your credit score) because of their refusal, and switch your high volume to a different card.",
"Your score is real-time, updating every time new data hits the reporting agencies. Dilip is correct, go over 20%, and it will hit the report, but then the score returns to normal after the next bill shows a sub-20% utilization. Say your average spending is $1000, but your limit is $5000. There's no harm in asking for a small increase in the limit, or simply pay a bit toward the bill before the statement is cut. The bill and reported balance will be lower and your score, unaffected.",
"> The rate given was discounted since we originally discussed this option at the start of your loan process of **which you had agreed to.** Did you, in fact, make an oral representation agreeing to this? Either way, they are bound by the terms of the loan agreement / note. If the loan documentation does not give them the ability to unilaterally change the interest rate at their discretion (you would be a fool to have signed such a document, and your lawyer would have been a fool to have allowed you to sign such a document), they are on the hook. However, there are certain exceptions to this rule of contract law (excluding oral representations not memorialized within the terms of the contract) and your lawyer should advise you regarding the same. That's the legal answer. The business answer is that you are letting pride cloud your judgment. If you don't care, don't piss off your mortgage lender, because there may come a time when you depend on their goodwill. Also, you're looking for /r/personalfinance.",
"Look for offers for 0% (or low) APR on balance transfers. It is more likely to get a promotional APR on balance transfer, than to lower the APR you already have. Of course, try to pay off the balance as long as you're in the period of the promotion, because otherwise you'll end up paying the high rate again. If you cannot get such an offer (low credit etc) - then just try to pay off ASAP and start rebuilding your credit, not much workarounds there. BTW: When you consider the balance transfer promotions - look at 3 things: The promotion period - when it ends, so that you'd know how much time you have to pay it off. The balance transfer fee - usually the balance transfer itself is not free, and you pay 3-5% on the transfer. If you have 0% APR for 12 months, it makes it effectively 5% APR (for the 5% fee), if the period is lesser - the APR is higher. Take that into the account. The APR after the promotion, in case you can't pay off in that time frame.",
"My card keeps a separate 'cash advance' limit, that's lower than the regular rate. I believe balance transfers also trigger that limit and (much higher) interest rate.",
"If you are planning to get new cards, it is probably best to open the accounts as soon as possible to start establishing a history of good credit use. You might also wish to open multiple accounts so that future lines will have less of an impact on your average age of open credit lines. Since you will probably have higher interest rates it is also advisable never to carry a balance on any of your newly acquired cards. This will prevent a recurrence of the problems you are now trying to recover from.",
"From what I have heard on Clark Howard if you pay your balance off before the statement's closing date it will help your utilization score. He has had callers confirm this but I don't have first hand knowledge for this to be true. Also this will take two months to make the difference. So it will be boarder line if you will get the benefit in time. Sign up for credit karma if you like. You can get suggestions on how to help your score.",
"> Next time you call your bank (or credit card company), ask them some pointed questions: Do you have a financial or data sharing agreement with Equifax? If so, why? Next time you are deciding WHICH bank to use, preferably for a significant relationship (ie million dollar + loan, business relationship, etc), you ask them then. A bank teller has no power. If you are already a customer, they don't care. No one gets bonuses for customer retention, bonuses are for new business. That's when people will care about your questions.",
"You can always cancel the card and close this account. Consider switching to a bank that has better customer service. Closing accounts typically gets a lot of attention and it's fairly likely they will contact you to reconsider and so you'll have a chance to air your grievances. Whether they have anything to offer that would cause you to stay is for you to decide.",
"Politicians are for sale and regulations are useless when they are not enforced. Community banks and credit unions have to comply or get hammered by the state and federal governments. The mega banks soldier on under an utterly feckless and corrupt congress. People should never pay fees or credit card interest, pay off their loans, and get out from under banker's thumbs. They are giant impoverishing machines.",
"\"The real answer is to talk to the bank. In the case of the last car loan I got, the answer is \"\"no\"\". When I asked them about rates, they gave me a printed sheet that listed the loan rates they offered based on how old the car was, period. I forget the exact numbers but it was like: New car: 4%, 1 year old: 4.5%, 2-3 years old 5%, etc. I suspect that at most banks these days, it's not up to the loan officer to come up with what he considers reasonable terms for a loan based on whatever factors you may bring up and he agrees are relevant. The bank is going to have a set policy, under these conditions, this is the rate, and that's what you get. So if the bank includes the size of the down payment in their calculations, then yes, it will be relevant. If they don't, than it won't. The thing to do would be to ask your bank. If you're only borrowing $2000, and you've managed to save up $11,000, I'd guess you can pay off the $2,000 pretty quickly. So as Keshlam says, the interest rate probably isn't all that important. If you can pay it off in a year, then the difference between 5% and 1% is only $80. If you're buying a $13,000 car, I can't imagine you're going to agonize over $80. BTW I've bought two cars in the last few years with about half the cost in cash and putting the rest on my credit card. (One for me and one for my daughter.) Then I paid off the credit card in a couple of months. Sure, the interest rate on a credit card is much higher than a car loan, but as it was only for a few months, it made very little real difference, and it took zero effort to arrange the loan and gave me total flexibility in the repayment schedule. Credit card companies often offer convenience checks where you pay like 3% or so transaction fee and then 0% interest for a year or more, so it would just cost the 3% up front fee.\"",
"Credit scoring has changed recently and the answer to this question will have slightly changed. While most points made here are true: But now (as of July 2017) it is possible having a large available credit balance can negatively effect your credit score directly: ... VantageScore will now mark a borrower negatively for having excessively large credit card limits, on the theory that the person could run up a high credit card debt quickly. Those who have prime credit scores may be hurt the most, since they are most likely to have multiple cards open. But those who like to play the credit card rewards program points game could be affected as well. source",
"Bank A only care about the credit limit at Bank B when determining the maximum amount of credit they will grant you. In theory you might be able to convince them that by cancelling the other card they should increase the limit on their card. Of course since you owe too much money to do a balance transfer before the cancelling of a card you will need them increase the limit first. They will have to decide if your income, credit usage history, credit core, and age of your account with them justifies the increase. I don't think you have a good plan for using the increased debt, it is way to risky. But if you have enough income to save 3K a month you might be a good candidate for a higher credit limit.",
"This shows the impact of the inquiries. It's from Credit Karma, and reflects my inquiries over the past two years. In my case, I refinanced 2 properties and the hit is after this fact, so my score at 766 is lower than when approved. You can go to Credit Karma and see how your score was impacted. If in fact the first inquiry did this, you have cause for action. In court, you get more attention by having sufficient specific data to support your claim, including your exact damages.",
"Some things to keep in mind: •Having multiple cards can help, just make sure not to borrow more than you need. •The amount of time you have had your credit cards is important. •Make sure you're not getting a lot of hard inquiries on your credit. Hopefully these will help!",
"By reducing your debt you will increase your borrowing capability which will only increase your credit score. But before you start worrying about your credit score as JoeTaxpayer says I would first stop paying 18+% to the bank.",
"The old underwriting standards were 28% home debt to income ratio and 33% consumer debt to income ratio. Consumer debt is calculated based on minimum payments. Now, most models are revised upwards... I believe 33/38 is more common today. As long as you are current on the accounts, closing credit or store revolving accounts will have little or no bearing. Just leave them dormant... there is no positive result from closing accounts that have no balance. Having low or no balances has NO negative impact on your credit score. Low balances are NOT red flags to lenders. Period. Here's a quote from Fair Issac: It's just not true that you can have too much available credit. That by itself is never a negative with the score. Sometimes the things you do to get too much can be a problem, such as opening a bunch of new accounts, but for the most part, that's just kind of an old wives' tale. The major drivers of credit scoring are: To improve your prospects for getting a mortgage, you should be reducing your spending and focusing 60/40 on saving for a down payment and paying down that $15k credit card, respectively. Having cash for a down payment is critical to your buying power, as zero-down loans aren't widely available in 2011, and a large downpayment will allow you to eliminate or reduce the time you are paying PMI. PMI reduces your buying power, and is a big waste of money.",
"\"I wrote How Old is Your Credit Card? some time ago. The answer is yes, this helps the credit score, but this factor, age of accounts, is pretty minimal. Grabbing deals, as you did, I'm actually down to a \"\"C\"\" for this part of my score, but still maintain a 770 score.\"",
"When in doubt, call (the card issuer) and ask. Ask if you overpay your current bill if the overpayment becomes available credit and tell them why you are asking. It can go either way.",
"If you've got the money to pay off your credit cards, do it. Today, if possible. There is no need to pay another penny of interest to them. They may or may not cancel your cards. That is up to them. We can't know what will trigger an individual bank to cancel your card. The answers you got on your other question offer some speculation on why some banks might cancel, but this is not something banks reveal. Anything you do on your own to try to keep the cards open is just a guess, and may or may not succeed. But ask yourself: why do you want to keep these cards? Is it for the convenience of the card? I agree that credit cards (paid in full monthly) are convenient, but when they start costing you money, they aren't worth it anymore, in my opinion. Debit cards have most of the same conveniences of credit cards, and are free. If it is for emergencies, I recommend instead building up an emergency cash fund. That way, if an emergency arises, you won't be forced to borrow money at high credit card interest rates. If the reason you want to hang on to the credit card is so you can spend more than you have, then you will find yourself in the same situation again. If I were you, I would pay off the cards ASAP. If the banks cancel your cards, just switch to a debit card and be thankful that you are no longer continuously leaking money to the banks.",
"Lower risk of having to fight to get their money back, obviously. That's what credit rating is supposed to predict. Paying your bills on time, and paying off the balance in full every month, are different questions. They want to know that you will make the minimum payments at least, and that you will eventually pay back the loan. Compare that with subprime and/or loan sharks, where the assumption is that being late or defaulting is more common, and interest rates are truly obscene in order to make a profit despite that.",
"You owe $10k at 18% and borrow an additional $10k at 0. When you pay back $10k, they are likely to apply it to the zero rate money and you are out 2%. Your question has merit, but as others say, the devil is I'm the details. You should read the fine print. My credit card checks forbid drawing a check payable to myself. I need to pay another account, in my case easy to 'pay' my HELOC, then draw the funds.",
"Clark Howard suggests you hop your cards. Get your new card now and when you have it, dump the card with the high fees. The age of your accounts has some impact on your credit rating, but unless you have a major purchase coming up and your score is teetering, I would take the score hit to save money on the card.",
"I was in the same chicken and egg situation regarding credit cards. I did two things: Now that I have recent good credit history, Capital One has offered to raise my limit. I assume that it is because my credit score has improved and I can probably now switch to a credit card that doesn't have an annual fee.",
"\"Short answer: No, not normally. Long Answer: It depends on the contract. If the 14% is some sort of special offer, with conditions, then if you violate those conditions, they can jack you up to whatever the 'normal' rate is. But outside of that condition, I can't see any reason why they would wish to penalize you for making a payment. You will note that there is no \"\"maximum\"\" payment on the bill. Secondly, even if they do jack up the rate to 28%, you're still better off paying $70 on 3000, than you are paying ~120 on 10k. Then tell them where to stick their card and get a new one.\"",
"There is nothing called free lunch. The 2% fee indirectly covers the cost of funds and in effect would be a personal loan. Further the repayment period would typically be 3 months and roughly would translate into 7-9% loan depending of repayment schedule etc. There is no harm in trying to get the fee waived, however one thing can lead to another and they may even go and do an credit inquiry etc, so be cautious.",
"Yes. You can pay towards your credit card before the actual bill becomes due every month. However, your credit usage ratio does not get sent to credit reporting agencies exactly on the day of your bill; this data can be sent to the agencies any day of the month. So, keep your balance low at all times throughout the month, not just right before your statement closing date.",
"\"I too am a full-monthly-statement-balance payer and I received a balance transfer offer from my credit-card company. This one was quite different from many others that I have read about on this forum. I could do a balance transfer for any amount up to $X from another credit card, or use the enclosed \"\"checks\"\" to pay some other (non-credit-card) bills, and I would not have to pay any interest for 12 months on the amount thus borrowed. But, There would be a 2% service charge on the amount I was borrowing. This amount would be billed on the next monthly statement, and it would have to be paid in full by the due date of that month's payment, that is, within the 25-day grace period allowed for payment of monthly statements. Else, interest would start being charged on the unpaid part of the service charge at the usual humongous rate of H% per month. If I had not paid the previous month's balance in full, I would be charged interest at H% per month on the service charge starting from Day One; no free ride till the due date of the next month's statement. Of course, the balance carried over from last month would also be charged interest at H%. If I had paid last month's bill in full, but there were any other charges (purchases) during the current month, then unless the entire amount due, this month's purchases plus service charge and that \"\"interest-free-for-twelve-months loan\"\" balance was paid off within the 25-day grace period, my purchases would be deemed unpaid and would start being charged interest. In short, the only way to avoid paying interest on the amount borrowed was to start with a card showing a $0 balance due on the previous month's statement, not make any charges on that card for a whole year, and pay off that 2% service charge within the grace period. It might also have required that one-twelfth of that interest-free loan be repaid each month, but I had stopped reading the offer at this point and filed it in the round circular file. In short, while @JoeTaxpayer's tale of how \"\"As a pay-in-full user, I've used the zero rate to throw $20K at the 5.25% mortgage\"\" is undoubtedly how things worked once, it is not at all clear that they still work that way. At least, they don't work that way for me. Heck, once upon a time, for a period of about 3 months, you could earn 1.5% interest per month from the credit card company by overpaying your credit card bill considerably. Their computers then just \"\"added on\"\" 1.5% interest by multiplying your credit balance -$X by 1.015 and so you got 1.5% per month interest from the credit card company. The credit card agreements (and the software!) got changed in a hurry, and nowdays all credit-card agreements state in the fine print that if you overpay your bill, you don't earn any interest on the overpayment.\"",
"Much money is made by creditors on the transaction value of a client in addition to interest value. Knowing that, I pay off all my cards every month, have never made a late payment, and get a number of offers every year for reward type cards. Don't ever be worried about paying off your card in full, just be sure you're using your card and that you pay on time, every time.",
"\"I'm not sure that OP was asking if he/she personally should have more available credit, so I will answer the other interpretation: should that particular card have a higher limit? The answer is \"\"no.\"\" The range varies vastly by issuer. Starting limits vary widely from issuer to issuer even with identical credit histories. Some issuers never automatically increase the limit, some periodically conduct account reviews to determine if an increase is warranted. Some like to see higher spending habits each month. Personally, my cards range from $500 to $25000, and the high and low extremes are the same age. You can search for tips on how often to request increases for your particular card, or what kind of spending habits the issuer prefers. An important note: You do not need to carry a balance to make the issuer happy. You never need to pay a cent in credit card interest.\"",
"Do you have any legal options? Not really. Citi is under no obligation to refinance your loan on your terms. But that goes both ways, and you are under no obligation to refinance with Citi! Get more quotes from another lender. It'll feel really good when you find a lender that wants your business. You might get a better deal. And think how good it will feel to cut ties with Citi!",
"See if the bank has other credit cards they offer. Many banks have multiple ones: some cards have great benefits, others do not; some cards have high rates, some do not; some cards are secured, some do not. If they have a card that you like ask them to switch you to the card you want. They should be able to do so very easily. Your card number will change, but they will treat it is a replacement so that your credit score will not take a hit during the switch. It may be possible to get them to waive the annual fee, but most won't because each card type they offer are separate products so they only allow you to pick one of their options. If they don't have a card to your liking apply for a card from anther bank that has the benefits and annual fees (zero) that you are looking for. It may be that the new card will start with a lower limit, but it will increase over time, especially as you shift more of your business to the new card. When you cancel the old card before the next year rolls around you will take a small short hit to your credit score, but that is ok.",
"Yep, basically no loans for me for at least two years and new credit cards are at a higher interest rate then I'm comfortable with. That's fine. I have two cars that are fully paid for, just paid off one credit card last week and will have the other one paid off before the end of the year. And I have a savings account with a positive balance. All of this happened by moving to a different house where my rent is $1,500 per month cheaper than I was paying on a house.",
"That all makes sense, but all of those things are the responsibility of the cardholder. If you want to pay off your balance, anything quoted would obviously not include any transaction yet to post. The problem is a creditor refusing to give the balance AND refusing to take a payment for an amount over the previous statement balance. This is essentially forcing the customer to pay more interest after they declare their intent to pay the full amount. Good points, but I don't believe those were factors in this case.",
"Depending on your credit score you might be able to balance transfer to a lower rate. Credit is still cheap, with a good credit score you should be able to get ~ 6%, maybe even lower if you go through a credit union. Given you return is 13% (!!) I would not divert money from that.",
"Before we were married my wife financed a car at a terrible rate. I think it was around 20%. When trying to refinance it the remaining loan was much larger than the value of the car, so no one was interested in refinancing. I was able to do a balance transfer to a credit card around 10%. This did take on a bit of risk, which almost came up when the car was totaled in an accident. Fortunately the remaining balance was now less than the value of the car, otherwise I would have been stuck with a credit card payment and no vehicle.",
"It will be considered 'unused credit'. I have tried it yeas ago. They just report zero usage.",
"If you hadn't done it already cut up the cards. Don't close the accounts because it could hurt your credit score even more. Switching some or all of the CC debt onto low rate cards, or a debt consolidation loan is a way that some people use to reduce their credit card payments. The biggest risk is that you become less aggressive with the loan payback. If you were planning on paying $800 in minimum payments,plus $200 extra each month; then still pay $1000 with the new loan and remaining credit cards. Another risk is that you start overusing the credit card again, because you have available credit on the card that was paid off with the loan. The third risk, which you haven't proposed, occurs when people switch unsecured credit card dept, to a secured 2nd mortgage debt. This then puts the family home at risk.",
"No, they won't cancel it because you pay your card on time. When a company offers a promotion like that they are banking on making money on average, not in every case. On average including all the benefits including transaction fees, deals for partnering with best buy, etc. Of course some people pay their credit card in full each month and never incur interest charges. However, credit card companies more than cover that with other people who aren't responsible. If it wasn't worth while they would end the card program or change it.",
"This can make a difference of a few points. When your balance is reported on a monthly basis to the bureaus that current balance is used to determine your utilization. Keeping it paid down will help in this case. If you are monitoring your credit regularly, you can see what time of the month your balance is reported and pay before then (just make sure you include enough padding to be sure your payment clears before the reporting date--normally only a business day or so, but weekends can throw it all off).",
"Historically, it did work. I had a friend who had a dozen credit cards during college, and every few weeks he would move his balances around among the cards with balance transfers (all with a touch tone phone). Unfortunately for you, banks figured that game out and added fees for balance transfers that are applied at the time of the transfer.",
"You are on the right path. Especially for the fact that you are paying the highest rate card with highest priority. As long as your credit score will not stop you from getting the credit union loan, this is a great idea. It will turn the highest rate card(s) into something more reasonable and let you continue to attack principal instead of mostly paying interest.",
"I think the question relates to the discussion here: http://clarkhoward.com/liveweb/shownotes/2010/10/05/19449/ It was always the case that merchants could discount purchases made with cash. What wasn't allowed is allowing the merchant to charge extra for credit card transactions (presumably to cover the fees the merchants pay). These fees usually carry a flat fee per transaction, plus around 2% of the purchase price. What also wasn't allowed was them to refuse any credit transactions. People could charge a pack of gum, even if the fees put that transaction in the red. What's allowed according to this new development is different levels of discounting for different credit cards. Somewhat related to this discussion is another development that happened this summer: merchants now have the ability to refuse credit card transactions of less than $10. Here's my feeling on all of this. I think we'll see merchants imposing minimum credit transaction amounts before we see them monkeying at the 1-2% level on pricing for different types of credit cards. My feeling is that they'd be wise not to change anything, even though they can. Refusing transactions (or charging more for others) is going to come as a unpleasant shock to enough people that they may take their business elsewhere.",
"\"Speaking from personal experience: I have had a credit card canceled for exactly this reason. It's happened to me three times, with two different providers (NatWest and Nationwide). After the third instance I stopped bothering to even carry a credit card. It's worth noting that all three were \"\"free\"\" cards in the sense that I paid no flat fee or subscription to get the cards. The only way the issuer could make a profit on them was through interest. I was also not a frequent user, carrying the card for convenience more than anything else, although I did make purchases on all three. So it's certainly a possibility. But I live in the UK and I'm guessing most of your other respondents do not. It may be a practice that's more common here than in the US. That might even explain the origin of the rumour.\"",
"While you're asking about a particular bank, I'll give my opinion of this in general. I think a $12,000 household income is pretty low to be given credit. The risk to the bank is certainly higher than if the income were at that $35,000 level. They can use this to differentiate what they offer for perks, and if they ever collateralize the debt of these cards, it's a clearly defined demographic.",
">Umm actually asking to be refinanced at a lower rate IS asking them to forgive/give up part of the mortgage. Either my knowledge of finance is wrong or how interest rates work is wrong if that statement is true. Here is why your statement is not true: * The interest rate is money the bank makes on the loan. For example, say you buy a home valued at $250,000, put 10% down and your interest rate is 5% for 30 years. Well now you've got a mortgage ($225,000) that you pay $1,207.85 monthly. Now expand this out to 30 years, which means you'll make 360 payments for a total balance of $434,825.5. So even though you have a mortgage of $225,000 and your home is only valued at $250,000 due to the interest rate on that loan, you will be giving the bank $209,825.5 in profit for that $225,000 loan. Refinancing the loan at a lower rate is not debt forgiveness or a write off. >Peoples greed in getting themselves into upside down mortgages are why we have problems, not the banks not helping them out enough. Actually it's the bank's greed which is wanting to keep the homeowner at the higher interest rate because it will make them more money over the long run. If the bank was to reduce the interest rate on the loan, they would be reducing their potential profits. And now you know why I support non profit banks.",
"2% is a very low interest rate; you can do much better by investing your new found money on a 2 year CD, or short term bonds. You could pay the 0% card according to the terms as well. Therefore, considering the low rates of your cards, you should check into some safe investments with guaranteed return rates.",
"To confirm: you say you have credit card debt of $18,000 with min. repayment of $466.06, plus on top of this you are also paying off a car loan and another personal loan. From my calculations if your monthly interest on your credit card is $237, the interest on your credit card should be about 15.8% p.a. Is this correct? Balance Transfer If you did a balance transfer of your $18,000 to a new credit card with 0% for 14 months and keep your repayments the same ($466) you would have saved yourself a bit over $3020 in interest over those 14 months. Your credit card balance after 14 months would be about $11,471 (instead of $14,476 with your current situation). If your interest after the 14 months went back to 15.8% you would be able to pay the remaining $11,471 in 2.5 more years (keeping repayments at $466), saving 10 months off your repayments and a total of $4,781 in interest over 3 years and 8 months. The main emphasis here is that you are able to keep your repayments at least the same so you are able to pay off the debt quicker, and that your interest rate on the new credit card after the 14 months interest free is not more than your current interest rate of 15.8%. Things you should be careful about if you take this path: Debt Consolidation In regards to a Debt Consolidation for your personal loan and credit card (and possibly your car loan) into a single lower interest rate loan can be a good idea, but there are some pitfalls you should consider. Manly, if you are taking out a loan with a lower interest rate but a longer term to pay it off, you may end up paying less in monthly repayments but will end up paying more interest in the long run. If you do take this course of action try to keep your term to no longer than your current debt's terms, and try to keep your repayments as high as possible to pay the debt off as soon as possible and reduce any interest you have to pay. As you already have you credit card and personal loan with CBA talk to them to see what kind of deal they can give you. Again be wary of the fine print and read the PDS of any products you are thinking of getting. Refer to ASIC - Money Smart website for more valuable information you should consider before taking out any debt consolidation. Other Action You Can Take If you are finding that the repayments are really getting out of hand and no one will help you with any debt consolidation or reducing your interest rates on your debts, as a last resort you can apply for a Part 9 debt agreement. But be very careful as this is an alternative to bankruptcy, and like bankruptcy a debt agreement will appear on your credit file for seven years and your name will be listed on the National Personal Insolvency Index forever. Further Assistance and Help If you have trouble reading any PDS, or want further information or help regarding any issues I have raised or any other part of your financial situation you can contact Centrelink's Financial Information Service. They provide a free and confidential service that provides education and information on financial and lifestyle issues to all Australians.",
"\"FICO SCORING http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/art/chart_fico.gif This is from the PBS Frontline show \"\"Secret History of the Credit Card.\"\" Getting rid of one card won't immediately trash your score, nor will it be by the full impact (15%) of credit history. If there's no fee, I'd buy gas once per quarter with it. If there is a fee, I'd check my FICO score and if I can afford to lose 20 or so points for a time, I'd go for it.\"",
"Take the consolidation loan and pay it off. Don't close the card. Opening a new account will have no bearing on your mortgage a year or two down the road. Keep paying on time -- that will make a big difference! JohnFX's suggestion to open a new card and do a transfer is a great idea if you have good credit. Just read the fine print -- most cards charge a 3-5% transfer fee and some cards accrue interest if you don't pay within the promotional period."
] |
[
"\"I don't know that this can actually be answered objectively. Maybe it can with some serious research. (Read: data on what the issuers have been doing since the law went into affect.) Personally, I think the weak economy and general problems with easy credit are a bigger issue than the new rules. Supposedly, there is evidence that card issuers are trying to make up for the lost income due to the new regulations with higher fees. I believe that your credit rating and history with the issuer is a larger factor now. In other words, they may be less likely to lower your rate just to keep you as a customer or to attract new customers. According to The Motley Fool, issuers dropped their riskiest customers as a result of the new regulations. Some say that new laws simply motivated the issuers to find new ways to \"\"gouge\"\" their customers. Here are two NYTimes blog posts about the act: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/what-the-credit-card-act-means-for-you/ http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/the-effects-of-the-credit-card-act/ As JohnFx states, it does not hurt to ask.\""
] |
721
|
What are “upstream investments” and “downstream investments” in this context?
|
[
"496225"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"496225",
"303041",
"160372",
"276955",
"324665",
"366626",
"318347",
"535300",
"220230",
"355360",
"250397",
"495165",
"475405",
"157101",
"105849",
"597503",
"402757",
"209838",
"583234",
"343675",
"442005",
"118191",
"292609",
"176230",
"521589",
"548705",
"72054",
"512381",
"513502",
"221206",
"189680",
"14488",
"432881",
"391590",
"206556",
"187293",
"98681",
"209917",
"569874",
"509064",
"329930",
"512609",
"16670",
"415329",
"589957",
"182226",
"243019",
"481522",
"107519",
"100250",
"230733",
"250354",
"76640",
"73854",
"9161",
"573417",
"419735",
"460230",
"259317",
"62456",
"15272",
"417062",
"403755",
"239714",
"540919",
"160454",
"243079",
"248677",
"456814",
"428657",
"507292",
"338532",
"333623",
"106155",
"196173",
"89084",
"748",
"306571",
"264473",
"142779",
"549763",
"327997",
"208977",
"524949",
"35865",
"397757",
"347122",
"392212",
"177231",
"589507",
"507012",
"518721",
"332846",
"32043",
"411870",
"189298",
"125981",
"526681",
"134055",
"407612"
] |
[
"Upstream is into businesses that supply the original business; downstream is into businesses that make use of the original product. So in that description, what they are saying is that the original business received products from plantations and sent products to manufacturing. This is also called vertical integration. Meaning that they are diversifying along their supply chain so that they control more of it. This is in contrast with horizontal integration, where they move into new products that either compete with the existing products or which are entirely separate. In general, the upside of vertical integration is that a company is less reliant on suppliers (and intermediate consumers) and has more control over its supply chain. The downside is that they have less opportunity to partner with other companies in the same supply chain, as they compete with them. Some companies are better at managing to do both. For example, Amazon.com has integrated fulfillment and sales. But partners can still do their own fulfillment and/or sales, choosing how much to send out to Amazon. If you are investing in individual stocks, integrated companies can be problematic in that they cut across diversification areas. So they can be harder to balance with other stocks. You can either buy plantations, transport, and manufacturing together or not buy at all. If your investment strategy says to increase plantations and reduce manufacturing, this can be difficult to implement with an integrated company. Of course, everyone else has the same problem, which can lead to integrated companies being undervalued. So they may be an opportunity as a value stock.",
"\"Not specifically a \"\"stream\"\", but there are royalty companies that operate based on a similar concept. With a royalty, a party will pay upfront to a another party, usually a product manufacturer, oil & gas producer, or miner, and in return they will receive a percentage of the proceeds from the sale of the goods. For example, Company A owns 100 sections of land which carry mineral rights and they would like to drill on the land to produce oil & gas. However, Company A does not have the capital to produce the resource. Company B, a royalty company, agrees to provide upfront capital to Company A in return for a royalty, sometimes fixed, sometimes sliding scale based on other factors. The royalty is calculated based on a percentage of the sales proceeds that Company A receives from the sale of their oil & gas production. In this way, royalty companies act similarly to streaming companies, where they provide upfront capital and in return receive a cash flow stream that is dependant on another party's actions. What is different is that the selling price is not fixed. Instead, it is the % of proceeds that is fixed, at least in the short term. In Canada, PrairieSky Royalty and Freehold Royalties do exactly this.\"",
"Merging? If anything the opposite is happening. Oil companies are moving in the opposite direction, separating their upstream (extraction) and downstream (refining) aspects. ConoccoPhillips just did this and others will follow. Refining isn't very profitable and involves lots of danger, red tape and headaches. I look forward to the people who complained about the evils of mergers and vertical integration now complaining about how spinnoffs are the new evilest thing ever.",
"Reading the descriptions on Amazon.com it appears Investments is a graduate text and Elements of Investments is the undergraduate version of the text.",
"Trends in the upstream and the downstream areas of monoclonal antibody production are encouraging, and should provide help in holding down the costs of these very expensive biological molecules. As indicated in this report, the large expansion in the use of disposables in upstream and downstream unit operations of the production chain is underway.",
"For an investor , I understand its a higher return on investment; but I was wondering if an investor is actually investing in the minerals, or the means of delivery such as ports, rail, trucks, roads, etc; or is that abstracted away",
"\"In most cases, startups are growth companies. That's because they are founded with an idea and a little money. Outside investors are paying for a piece of the founders' \"\"idea,\"\" and the hope that the idea will make a little money grow into a lot of money. There are exceptions. Startups in hard assets companies such as real estate and oil and gas are value investments. That is, they take \"\"ideas\"\" that are solidly proven, so you are getting a lot of \"\"house\"\" or oil drilling equipment for your money. Unlike the standard startup, you're not paying for the \"\"idea.\"\"\"",
"Simply put, expansionary capex is seen as an investment and maintenance capex is seen as a cost. In terms of valuation, free cash flow will not include expansionary capex because you are valuing the company as its current business. It's important to note that this approach will usually undervalue companies with strong investment opportunities. Also, like /u/scarletham said, please edit out the identifying information to avoid any disclosure problems.",
"So let's talk about the nation scale which is what the equation savings = investments is referring to. In that context, does an investment merely mean the purchase of a financial asset or an investment in some physical asset or productive capital? I like to think of investment as building a factory, developing land, or spending money on R&D. But in the economic sense, merely transforming cash into a financial asset like treasuries is also considered investment, correct? As a matter of fact, just merely leaving cash in a deposit account can technically be counted towards investment? Am I understanding this correctly or am I fundamentally missing something?",
"\"Top down approach needed when bottom-up approach of markets leads to periods of high unemployment Imagine a chart that starts with one point at the top and breaks it down into the details by the time you get to the bottom. People can read this chart either from the top and go down or from the bottom and go up. Wikipedia does have articles on Top-down and bottom-up design if you want more detail than I give here. Top down refers to the idea of starting at a high level and then working down to get into the details. For example, in planning a vacation, one could start with what continent to go, then which country, then which cities in that country and so forth. Thus, the idea here would be to start with macroeconomic trends and then create a strategy to fix this as the other way is what created the problem. The idea of taking a subject or system and breaking it down into individual pieces would be another way to state this. Bottom up refers to the idea of starting with the details and then build up to get a general idea. To use the vacation example again, this is starting with the cities and then building up to build the overall itinerary. Within political circles you may here of \"\"grassroots\"\" efforts where citizens will form groups to gain influence. This would be an example of bottom up since it is starting with the people. The idea of taking individual components and putting them together to build up something would be another way to state this. The statement is saying that a completely different style of approach will be necessary than the one that created the problem here.\"",
"\"Money is a tool. Here is an \"\"oversimplified\"\" order of investments:\"",
"\"What you're thinking of is more market making kind of activity, HFT algo's thrive on this; having information faster than anyone else. This type of activity could also likely be lumped into what is considered top-down analysis as opposed to bottom-up (which is what most mutual fund equity research involves). Again, the more important aspect is, what does the company you are applying to use! Top-down analysis means that you are forecasting the revenue drivers for a company using macro-economic analysis. For example, let's say I'm investing in Chinese cement manufacturer's, what implications does Chinese interest rate policy have on infra-structure expansion and how does that drive revenue for this specific company. I might then look at margins, etc. to get an EPS estimate. Part of this could fall into secular investing, too. Let's say I like LCD panel glass because of this consortium, I might take a look at 5 companies and then find the ones I think would benefit most from this. The problem with top-down is it tends not to be as much of a deep-dive, and its hard to pick individual companies because of it. Bottom-up tends to be more analytical and is what most pitches would be based around. The most important thing I'm not saying one is right or wrong, they are just different, and every investor has their own style. Bottom-up analysis, which would be closer to what an equity research analyst would be doing on the sell-side, is analyzing what bottom-line indicators drive revenue and how are those expanding. For example, lets say I'm looking at search providers (i.e. Baidu, Google, Yahoo, etc.) I'd be looking at Cost-Per-Thousand-Clicks (CPTC) and number of clicks on the website. Multiply the two and I get revenue (very simplified version) for clicks business. I might then also forecast other revenue driving segments and try to understand how they are growing/pricing at an individual segment level (i.e. business services or mobile advertising). I'd then break down costs/margins for each segment and forecast those out. I could then get a forward EPS, get a range of multiples I believe it could trade in (i.e. I think the multiple will trade up/down), to get a target price. Also, I would likely do a DCF analysis on forward earnings to get a \"\"fair market value,\"\" and then try to triangulate a price. I would also be looking at stuff like management teams and industry trends, too, but bottom line, I'm pitching a company because I think it is undervalued and will outperform competitors **in the long run**. This type of work tends to be more research oriented and is what most (not all) mutual funds use when analyzing companies. Since mutual funds tend to have longer holding periods (2-10 years), as opposed to short-term, it's harder to justify investing in a company only because it has a short-term catalyst. Anecdotally, it's also easier to present in a written thesis because the numbers tend to be more concrete and easier to forecast than top-down (which have wider target ranges). Your thought process that catalyst + industry context = market beating returns isn't wrong, it's just that every company thinks about investing differently, and it's important to tailor the report to that group's style.\"",
"\"In general, small cap stocks are exposed to more downside during recessions and when credit is tight, because it is more difficult for small companies to raise capital, and minor variations in cash flow have a bigger impact. Coming out of recessions or when credit is cheap, small companies generally perform better than larger companies. In the depths of recession, small companies with good cash flow are often great value investments, as analysts and institutional investors \"\"punish\"\" the entire class of smallcap companies.\"",
"Companies in their earliest stages will likely not have profits but do have the potential for profits. Thus, there can be those that choose to invest in companies that require capital to stay in business that have the potential to make money. Venture Capital would be the concept here that goes along with John Bensin's points that would be useful background material. For years, Amazon.com lost money particularly for its first 6 years though it has survived and taken off at times.",
"I don't really see it that way. Both kinds of companies are trying to maximize return on investment. Both play a vital role in the economy. And private equity companies like Bain that do a little of both blur the line even further.",
"You're last paragraph sums up what I mean exactly. Businesses will continue to make investments that try think make sense. Taxes have an pact on what makes sense. This combo is what we should be discussing. Thanks for adding to the conversation.",
">In the economic sense, investments really has nothing to do with capital or business investments then does it? Congratulations, you just figured out why monetarists and Keynesians are wrong. What actually matters is the quality of the investments that the money is making. An excess of currency won't create growth if the currency is invested in a derivative contract, since this is a zero-growth investment. A shortfall in currency won't always kill the economy, if rational investments are made (2nd half of the 19th century in the United States). On the other hand, [infrastructure](https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/060320a/forum.cfm) generally offers a much higher return on invested capital than the private market. So you see China's economy growing quickly for several decades due to investing in the right class of assets. This is the same thing the United States did to become an economic superpower: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-American-school-of-economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_(economic_plan)",
"The short answer is that you would want to use the net inflow or net outflow, aka profit or loss. In my experience, you've got a couple different uses for IRR and that may be driving the confusion. Pretty much the same formula, but just coming at it from different angles. Thinking about a stock or mutual fund investment, you could project a scenario with an up-front investment (net outflow) in the first period and then positive returns (dividends, then final sale proceeds, each a net inflow) in subsequent periods. This is a model that more closely follows some of the logic you laid out. Thinking about a business project or investment, you tend to see more complicated and less smooth cashflows. For example, you may have a large up-front capital expenditure in the first period, then have net profit (revenue less ongoing maintenance expense), then another large capital outlay, and so on. In both cases you would want to base your analysis on the net inflow or net outflow in each period. It just depends on the complexity of the cashflows trend as to whether you see a straightforward example (initial payment, then ongoing net inflows), or a less straightforward example with both inflows and outflows. One other thing to note - you would only want to include those costs that are applicable to the project. So you would not want to include the cost of overhead that would exist even if you did not undertake the project.",
"It is. The outstanding value is the net cash flow, but it will always be higher than cash outflow due to a constant growth rate/expected return. I was slightly confused when my manager told me to find the IRR before and after cash inflows (the whole life of the investment). Especially as IRR after cash inflows is higher than the former.",
"In the economic cycle we are are going through the crashing of the monoliths - corporate and political - mass extinction events . As far as investment is concerned where the money can be made is with the small to medium sized businesses - progressive evolution - these will pick up the business from the crashed corporates .",
"> From what I hear and know you sell when you're up and buy when it's down. That *is* how profit is attained. However, if you're looking to *invest,* both buy and sell decisions should be made after extensive research and, generally, there should be some time between the two offsetting transactions. If you personally decide to *trade*, which is more often and less likely to succeed (per se), that's up to you.",
"\"Hmm... Maybe I somewhat misunderstood your question then. Yes, trade deficits/surpluses are really the core of the country-level \"\"investment\"\". But yes, it maters what they *do* with it, which is **why** so many countries put any excesses into US treasuries. Going back to \"\"personal\"\" finance, if they pay down higher interest debt with their trade surplus, *great*; if they have no debt and can issue local currency (in PF land, \"\"take out a loan\"\") for under 2%, *great*; If not... **Not** so great. \"\"Saving\"\" money that costs over 2% isn't an investment, it's nothing but a loan disguised as one.\"",
"The risk of the particular share moving up or down is same for both. however in terms of mitigating the risk, Investor A is conservative on upside, ie will exit if he gets 10%, while is ready to take unlimited downside ... his belief is that things will not go worse .. While Investor B is wants to make at least 10% less than peak value and in general is less risk averse as he will sell his position the moment the price hits 10% less than max [peak value] So it more like how do you mitigate a risk, as to which one is wise depends on your belief and the loss appetite",
"Let us consider the risks in the investment opportunities: Now, what are the returns in each of the investment: What are the alternatives to these investments, then?",
"Something you invest in has the ability to grow in value. So examples of investments would be buying stocks, bonds, currencies, commodities. Buying your house or a piece of real estate can be considered an investment because the house/property will hopefully be worth more as time passes. So the act of paying down a mortgage really isn't an investment.",
"This investment strategy may have tax advantages. In some countries, income received from dividends is taxed as income, whereas profits on share trades are capital gains. If you have already exceeded your tax-free income limit for the year, but not your capital gains tax allowance, it may be preferable to make a dealing profit rather than an investment income. These arrangements are called a bed-and-breakfast.",
"\"Dividend-paying securities generally have predictable cash flows. A telecom, electric or gas utility is a great example. They collect a fairly predictable amount of money and sells goods at a fairly predictable or even regulated markup. It is easy for these companies to pay a consistent dividend since the business is \"\"sticky\"\" and insulated by cyclical factors. More cyclic investments like the Dow Jones Industrial Average, Gold, etc are more exposed to the crests and troughs of the economy. They swing with the economy, although not always on the same cycle. The DJIA is a basket of 30 large industrial stocks. Gold is a commodity that spikes when people are faced with uncertainty. The \"\"Alpha\"\" and \"\"Beta\"\" of a stock will give you some idea of the general behavior of a stock against the entire market, when the market is trending up and down respectively.\"",
"\"> can I use venture like that in a financial context, or does it refer specifically to venture capital? Yes, any business is a \"\"venture\"\" so to speak. > so they would receive a smaller return, yes? POSSIBLY yes. Mezzanine investors are, well, \"\"middle\"\" investors. They're beyond seed and venture capital, but before more \"\"late-stage\"\" private investment. That doesn't *necessarily* mean they're \"\"after a seed or venture capital investment.\"\" It can mean that, or it can simply mean the business is a little more advanced than a pure idea, or pre-revenue, etc. Let's say a company is pre-destined to get to $100m in value IF it can secure funding. Naturally, later investors will have a smaller return. Of course, private investments are generally for smaller, younger companies, and thus are more risky, so an investor can still *lose* value in a private equity investment. > Is mezzanine investing particularly profitable? Yes, absolutely. You have to understand, with investments in private equity, firms and individuals are often looking for a *multiple* of their investment (i.e. if an investor invests $1m, they expect $2m, $3m, etc. back). This is not necessarily for all levels of private equity, but many levels will attempt this. Generally the idea (as far as I'm aware) is a 20% IRR (which means that generally, the investment grows by 20% *compounding* yearly). > Secondly, why is dilution so important further down the road? Is it to do with valuation? Absolutely. Let's think of our example earlier, where you, me, and Joe each own 33% at $300 total value. If suddenly another company wants to buy ALL of our equity for $600, then we're all pretty happy. Each of us will get $200. HOWEVER, let's say Joe hadn't come along. If that other company *then* made an offer for $600, we'd both get *$300* for the company. There's some other things about dilution too, such as the possible loss of control, but we'll save that for later. > Finally, at what point would a company aim to meet an IPO? Is it case specific, or is there a general understanding of the \"\"best time\"\"? It's VERY case specific. In *most* cases, depending on the industry, the company will be relatively a bit older, have both revenue and profitability, and a history of operations. In some cases, companies like this will choose to *never* go IPO (such as the Big 4 auditing firms, for one, among others). There are, of course, exceptions. Many smaller pharmacueticals are *pre-revenue* and are traded on the market. Tesla is getting revenue, but *not profitable* and it's on the markets as well. These are, naturally, riskier investments, but at least you've got liquidity to help a bit with that. When a private equity (PE) firm is looking to exit (sell their stake) through an IPO, they will try to engineer the company to be as attractive as possible to public investors. In fact, many PE firms will stipulate specific terms, and possibly get control of the company from the owner, when they initially invest. But there's a lot that goes into it. Perhaps /u/wreckingcru or /u/Seraphinic can go into a bit more detail on PE exits as while it's my chief interest and my career goal, it's not quite where I'm at *yet.*\"",
"\"Thank you for the in-depth, detailed explanation; it's refreshing to see a concise, non verbose explanation on reddit. I have a couple of questions, if that's alright. Firstly, concerning mezzanine investors. Based on my understanding from Google, these people invest after a venture has been partially financed (can I use venture like that in a financial context, or does it refer specifically to venture capital?) so they would receive a smaller return, yes? Is mezzanine investing particularly profitable? It sounds like you'd need a wide portfolio. Secondly, why is dilution so important further down the road? Is it to do with valuation? Finally, at what point would a company aim to meet an IPO? Is it case specific, or is there a general understanding of the \"\"best time\"\"? Thank you so much for answering my questions.\"",
"\"The opposite of a cost is an investment. Buying a car is an expense, usually a sunk cost, whereas purchasing real-estate, e.g. productive farmland, is an investment. (Some investments are wasting assets, as the value decreases over time, but they are still investments with market value, not costs.) \"\"Sunk cost\"\" isn't a fallacy. It just means an expenditure that one cannot expect to recoup. The action item is, \"\"Don't throw good money after bad.\"\" The opposite of a sunk cost is an investment.\"",
"\"This is an example from another field, real estate. Suppose you buy a $100,000 house with a 20 percent down payment, or $20,000, and borrow the other $80,000. In this example, your \"\"equity\"\" or \"\"market cap\"\" is $20,000. But the total value, or \"\"enterprise value\"\" of the house, is actually $100,000, counting the $80,000 mortgage. \"\"Enterprise value\"\" is what a buyer would have to pay to own the company or the house \"\"free and clear,\"\" counting the debt.\"",
"Depending on the improvement, you have to amortize or depreciate it over time, which effectively allows you to write off the value over a period of years, even if you pay for it all up front. This messes with cash flow, which is different than profitability, but when you span the write off over five or ten years, the distinction between cash flow and profitability for a private, self funded company is irrelevant. If the money ain't there, the money ain't there. Operating capital is life blood. Taxes also alter the ROI equation of the investment, since you don't keep all the money you put in. Way over simplified example: Lets say I close out the year with some arbitrary profit - ten million bucks - in my war chest. 3.5 could go to taxes. I also know that my supplier can't handle my volume for next year while the season is hot, so I'd like to buy inventory in the off season. Last year I sold 6.5 mill worth of stuff from this supplier, but I estimate I could sell 9-10 mill if I didn't have availability problems. If I buy 9-10 mill in inventory, I can't pay taxes. If I pay taxes, I can't buy enough to grow next year. Sure, COGS is a deductible expense, but the expense isn't realized until the inventory is sold, which won't be until long after these taxes are due. I now have taxes interfering with my expansion, even though eventually I can write that off. Now lets look at the manufacturer - sure he could expand his capacity and make more money, but he has to deduct the 5 mill machine he needs over twenty years (or ten or whatever) while the purchase price needs to be made today. This year he's gonna pay tax on 90 or 95% of the money he used to buy that machine, which would eat into the money he needs to buy raw materials to fill orders he already has. Of course, the real world is much more complicated, and you can leverage leasing agreements and purchasing terms to alleviate this to some extent, but I wanted to illustrate a point. I hope my extremely simplified example communicated what I mean. Does that make sense?",
">90% of it goes into some investment, like shares or hedge funds, and so out of the real economy. Seeing comments like this get upvoted really makes me suspicious about the grasp people here have on economics. Investments and such are very much a part of the real economy. The point is to increase production and optimize distribution, not maximize swaps of dollars. An investment is money you give to a company so they can do something. Hopefully that money makes them more productive.",
"Starting with the basics, you have the sell side (investment banks, Goldman Sachs) and the buy side (asset managers, Blackrock). The buy side are the clients of the sell side, directing trade flow through banks and using their research and taking part in origination and new issues. Basically both are currently under structural pressure from passive investing combined with new technology and regulation (MIFID 2 in Europe).",
"\"Every investment comes with a risk. There is also a bit of speculation involved. In there is an anticipation that one expects the value to go up in normal course of events. By your definition \"\"If I buy this equipment, I could produce more widgets, or sell more widgets,\"\" as an investment. Here again there is an anticipation that the widgets you sell will give you more return. If you are investing in stock/share, you are essentially holding a small portion of value in company and to that extent you are owining some equipment that is producing some widget .... Hence when you are purchasing Stocks, it would be looked as investment if you have done your home work and have a good plan of how you want to invest along with weiging the risk involved. However if you are investing only for the purpose of making quick bucks following so called hot tips, then you are not investing but speculating.\"",
"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/july/global-energy-investment-fell-for-a-second-year-in-2016-as-oil-and-gas-spending-c.html) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Global energy investment fell by 12% in 2016, the second consecutive year of decline, as increased spending on energy efficiency and electricity networks was more than offset by a continued drop in upstream oil and gas spending, according to the International Energy Agency&#039;s annual World Energy Investment report. > Global energy investment amounted to USD 1.7 trillion in 2016, or 2.2% of global GDP. For the first time, spending on the electricity sector around the world exceeded the combined spending on oil, gas and coal supply. > The United States saw a sharp decline in oil and gas investment, and accounted for 16% of global spending. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6nqnvn/july_global_energy_investment_fell_for_a/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~168423 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **energy**^#1 **investment**^#2 **spender**^#3 **year**^#4 **Global**^#5\"",
"There are lots of thing that people will pay for if you wait long enough. I don't know that I would consider them investments, but they go up in value.",
"Upvote for the lengthy and clear explanation. I was economics major and I still like to follow economics 15 years later and i agree with your points. But I wonder if your username doesn't detract from your comment visibility by egging on down voters.",
"\"Oh, I've gotten the \"\"massive upside\"\" in writing - you get 10,000 shares of this thing! Just sign here! But then it turns out that they can water those shares down whenever they want, or of course they're worth nothing when the thing tanks. The fact that it's a pretty sophisticated game is not always obvious, especially to those who are new to it.\"",
"I recommend you two things: I like these investments because they are not high risk. I hope this helps.",
"\"I would undoubtedly sell the investments if they are positive, maybe even a little negative. That's what non-retirement investments are for, building wealth to spend, give, etc. Flipping things may put it in perspective. Would you borrow money or liquidate your emergency fund in order to invest in mutual funds? If you can completely ignore risk then this MAY make sense. Let's say if you could borrow money at 3.75% and had a \"\"guaranteed\"\" investment return of 7.5% and a \"\"guaranteed\"\" source of income (job). But mutual funds (stocks, bonds) aren't even guaranteed to make money and they most definitely can lose and lose big. Also, I hope your job isn't in any way tied to the oil industry. On the other hand, if you take a loan and fall on hard times you can liquidate your mutual funds to get out of the bind, but you are at the mercy of the market and the worth of your investments at that point. So it may come down to whether you want to choose when to spend your investments, when they are up or at some future date when they may be worth much less (or much more).\"",
"I work for an investment group in Central Asia in private equity/project investment. We use SPV and collateralized convertible loans to enter a project, we issue the loan at our own commercial bank. For each industry, the exact mechanisms vary. In most outcomes, we end up in control of some very important part of the business, and even if we have minority shares on paper, no decision is made w/o our approval. For example, we enter cosntruction projects via aquisiton of land and pledging the land as equity for an SPV, then renting it to the project operator. Basically, when you enter a business, be in control of the decisions there, or have significant leverage on the operations. Have your own operating professionals to run it. Profit.",
"\"This is what is called \"\"weasel words\"\". They're trying to put some authority into their ad, but since they don't have any - they're putting meaningless words that sound important. Monetary policy is the state/central bank policy to control the supply of the available currency. Cannot think of a way to connect it to private investments.\"",
"\"One thing that's often overlooked is that cash reserves are also a long-term investment. Anything can be a long-term investment if it's expected to appreciate or pay interest/dividends. So it's not either/or. Stocks are but one way to do long-term investments. Having said that, taking on less debt for a consumer good is never a bad idea. Your primary residence is a consumer good, regardless of those who would say that \"\"your home is your biggest investment.\"\" So, there's my vote for a larger down-payment. Beyond that, a couple of outside-the-box comments:\"",
"In a situation like this, I presume you'd invest in the child company if you thought that the child company would increase in value at a higher rate than the parent. You'd invest in the parent company if you thought the parent company would perform well as a whole, but you did not want to assume the risk of an individual company underneath it. Say the child company is worth 100 million, and the parent company is worth 500 million. You've invested a sum of money in the child company. The child company performs very well, and increases in value by, say, 20 million. As the parent company owns the child, we could say it also increases in value by roughly 20 million. The difference is proportional - Your investment in the child sees a 20% gain in value, whereas your investment in the parent sees a 4% gain in total value, as in this example the parent company, which owns nearly 100% of the child company, is worth 5x more and thus proportionally sees 1/5 the increase in value, due to it being worth more as a whole. Think of it similarly to a mutual fund or ETF that invests in many different stocks on the market. As the market does well, that mutual fund or ETF does well, too. As the mutual fund is made up of many individual stocks, one stock performing very well, say at a 10-20% increase in value, does not raise the value of the ETF or mutual fund by 10-20%. The etf / mutual fund will perform slightly better (Assuming all other components remain equal for this example), but only proportionally to the fraction of it that's made up of the stock that's performing well.",
"Not sure of the question here if by IPO(initial public offering) you mean private company then: A company can invest its excess money into other companies, to earn returns. Also a company that is private can attract private investment if the sector is doing well on publicly traded markets. Finally a company can diversify away risk, by holding shares of a company that would benefit in the event of a disruption in their own industry.",
"You are right. This is an oil and gas construction company. Honestly speaking, I have very little information concerning their procedures for hiring and interviewing candidates. The only thing I know is that they have a department of financial analysis and modeling. As you said, that lacks specifics. I would be more interested in development in corporate finance.",
"Early stage investors by their nature prefer opportunities which are disruptive to existing technologies. They look for a ‘big idea’ in a relatively small but rapidly expanding market. They don’t tend to be attracted to marginal improvements which yield marginal returns. They’re in the business of betting on the nature of the next new world.",
"There are many reasons but perhaps the most telling is that these small foreign companies usually have not experienced diminishing marginal returns. This means they grow faster, which means higher returns for investment. However a lack of infrastructure, and of political and economic stability, make these investments risky!",
"\"These people used the money they received to invest in their business enterprises. As we all know, investments of the wealthy \"\"trickle down\"\" to the poor. If that money had actually gone to poor people they would have spent it on drink and gambling. These people should be commended, not punished.\"",
"\"Classic investing guru Benjamin Graham defines \"\"An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and an adequate return.\"\" He contrasts this with speculation which is anything else (no thorough analysis, no safety of principal, or no adequate return). The word \"\"adequate\"\" is important, since it contrasts adequate returns with those that are either lower than needed or higher than necessary to reach your goals.\"",
"\"Well, this sub is generally pretty darn good. Among us are investment bankers, private equity analysts, valuation analysts, portfolio managers, traders, brokers, bachelors, masters, and doctorate students, etc. We're helpful, though sometimes snarky, and have an exceedingly low tolerance for bullshit. I love it here. And while your logic is sound, we can actually explore private equity directly, as while private and public equity are related, they are different enough to study separately, in my opinion. Private equity deals with private companies. By definition, these investments are illiquid (they cannot be easily sold like public stocks), and unmarketable (there is no ready market to trade these investments, like stock). They are generally held for longer time periods. At its earliest stage, private equity is synonymous with \"\"initial investment\"\" or \"\"seed funding.\"\" This includes (if we are maybe slightly liberal with our definition), the initial investment an entrepreneur makes into his business. At this stage, friends and family, angel investors and venture capital are present. At different points of a company lifecycle, different financiers become interested/applicable (mezzanine investors, etc.). The investment made into a company allocates a certain percentage of the ownership of the company to the investor in exchange for cash (usually). This cash is used to cover expenses and take on capital projects. The goal of these investments is to directly make the company (and its value, and thus the investor's value) grow. At some points in time, a new investor will show up and either invest directly in the company (same as before) or buy another investor's holding in the company (in which case, cash goes to *that specific investor* and *not* the company). At every stage of investment leading up to IPO, the deals are negotiated between the parties. The results of a given negotiation determines the value of that company's equity. For example, if I pay you $100 for 50% of your company, the company's implied worth is $200. If two days later, Joe comes and offers to buy 33% of the company for $100, the Company is worth $300. (Special note: these percentages are assumed to be the allocation of equity **after** the deal. In this last case, the ownership of your company would be 33% you, 33% me, and 33% Joe. This illustrates something called *dilution,* which is very important to investors as it effects their eventual potential payoff later down the road, along with some other things). At this point, do you have any questions?\"",
"Investment baking is a financial organization which would underwrite for government sectors and corporations that would issue securities like bonds and treasury bills.Apart from these, they also offer services to companies and individual clients in matters of financial solutions, advisory services.",
"Investing is when you seek to make money from owning things. Making money from owning things is economic rent. > Investing is a valid practice that helps new businesses and, by extension, society as a whole. Investing has good and bad effects. The good is that useful capital is created. The bad is that rent is created. Corporate tax cuts are a disaster. It's increasing the bad part of investment with a net negative effect on the good part.",
"What do you think happens when cash gets paid out to investors? People don't just collect the cash and stuff it in their mattress. They reinvest it, sometimes in other giant corporations, sometimes in start-ups, sometimes in government bonds. Some of it goes to fund R&D elsewhere, some of it goes to fund building bridges and roads, some of it goes toward buying houses. Ultimately, how much goes to each piece of the pie depends on the attractiveness of each opportunity. If there are a lot of good R&D projects that would generate good returns, people will invest in them.",
"I don't know what you are asking. Can you give me an example of what fits the question? That you use phrases like profit extraction make me think we have a different assumption base, so I think we have to find common syntactic ground before we can exchange ideas in a meaningful way. I would like to do so, though, so I hope you respond.",
"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://ssir.org/up_for_debate/article/impact_investing) reduced by 97%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The rapid growth of the field of impact investing has been accompanied by questions about how to assess impact, and concerns about potentially unrealistic expectations of simultaneously achieving social impact and market-rate returns. > We introduce three basic parameters of impact: enterprise impact, investment impact, and nonmonetary impact. > An enterprise can have impact in several ways, two of which are fundamental: product impact is the impact of the goods and services produced by the enterprise; operational impact is the impact of the enterprise&#039;s management practices on its employees&#039; health and economic security, its effect on jobs or other aspects of the well-being of the community in which it operates, or the environmental effects of its supply chain and operations. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6fc8zu/social_financial_gains_positive_externalities_of/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~136645 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **impact**^#1 **investment**^#2 **investor**^#3 **social**^#4 **enterprise**^#5\"",
"Market capitalization is one way to represent the value of the company. So if a company has 10 million shares, which are each worth $100, then the company's market capitalization is 1 billion. Large cap companies tend to be larger and more stable. Small cap companies are smaller, which indicates higher volatility. So if you want more aggressive investments then you may want to invest in small cap companies while if you lean on the side of caution then big cap companies may be your friend.",
"Moreover the fact that they're simply invested in two of the biggest emerging market ETFs which preform well with global stability but are overall kinda risky long term goes to show that it's not some unheard of success. As you said, the proving ground will be whether they can make money in a down economy, where it's much harder to find profitable investments. Perhaps they'll switch to bonds and commodities.",
"So your dollar never leaves America until it leaves for an investment - which would be FDI. If you sent the dollar home to Mexico, that’s a remittance current account flow. Then later, you want to use that dollar for a housing investment in Mexico, it’s just domestic investment. If you move to the US, I believe that’s another remittance flow (though it might even be a service flow because the bank is the one moving the dollar!). Then to invest in Mexico you need to go through an FDI channel.",
"\"Buying shares back is an indication that the company has nothing better to do with their money. True. However, buying the shares back is essentially moving money around, the firms (or individuals) they buy from, will invest their money differently. Mergers and acquisitions are productive though. The idea is that you combine things to work more efficiently. For example, a small startup might have a great product but not a lot of infrastructure or cash. So the big guys with both buy em up. Or, big companies might have redundant expenditures in infrastructure or employees, and by merging they can produce more efficiently. The term you keep using \"\"real economy\"\" is a strange one. The above parties are part of the real economy. Really. What, may I ask, is your education in economics? What books have you read on the subject, classes taken, jobs worked, podcasts listened to, etcetera, that are giving you these ideas?\"",
"I'm not looking to contradict a fact. I'm contradicting the view that the fact is bad. It's not. Investors need an incentive to keep investing, in the short and long term. If, for example, pharma companies were to invest only in R&D, which is a high risk, high reward, long term prospect, it'd be exposed to only one kind of risk which is open to a single risk-factor materialising, at which point the entire equity will be wiped off in one single sweep. At the end of the day, all businesses have to create share holder value, in the short and long term. The only contemporary exceptions are StartUps like Amazon and Uber. And we know from Dotcom Bust, Yahoo, etc that this is hardly a tenable strategy.",
"\"1) When it says \"\"an investment or mutual fund\"\", is a mutual fund not an investment? If no, what is the definition of an investment? A mutual fund is indeed an investment. The article probably mentions mutual funds separately from other investments because it is not uncommon for mutual funds to give you the option to automatically reinvest dividends and capital gains. 2) When it says \"\"In terms of stocks\"\", why does it only mention distribution of dividends but not distribution of capital gains? Since distributions are received as cash deposits they can be used to buy more of the stock. Capital gains, on the other hand, occur when an asset increases in value. These gains are realized when the asset is sold. In the case of stocks, reinvestment of capital gains doesn't make much sense since buying more stock after selling it to realize capital gains results in you owning as much stock as you had before you realized the gains. 3) When it says \"\"In terms of mutual funds\"\", it says about \"\"the reinvestment of distributions and dividends\"\". Does \"\"distributions\"\" not include distributions of \"\"dividends\"\"? why does it mention \"\"distributions\"\" parallel to \"\"dividends\"\"? Used in this setting, dividend and distribution are synonymous, which is highlighted by the way they are used in parallel. 4) Does reinvestment only apply to interest or dividends, but not to capital gain? Reinvestment only applies to dividends in the case of stocks. Mutual funds must distribute capital gains to shareholders, making these distributions essentially cash dividends, usually as a special end of year distribution. If you've requested automatic reinvestment, the fund will buy more shares with these capital gain distributions as well.\"",
"\"I have heard that investing more money into an investment which has gone down is generally a bad idea*. \"\"Throwing good money after bad\"\" so to speak. This is over simplified statement to explain the concept. What is essentially says is; Say I hold stocks of XYZ; 100 units worth say USD 1000. This has lost me x% [say 50%]. The general tendency is to buy 100 more units in anticipation / hope that the price will go up. This is incorrect. However on case to case basis, this maybe the right decisions. On a periodic basis [or whenever you want to invest more money]; say you have USD 1000 and did not have the stock of XYZ, will you buy this at current price and outlook of the company. If the answer is Yes, hold the stock [or buy more], if the answer is no sell the stock at current market price and take the loss. The same applies when the price has appreciated. If you have USD 1000; given the current price and future outlook, will you buy the specific stock. If yes, hold the stock [or buy more], if answer is no sell the stock and book profit. Off-course I have not overlaid the various other considerations when buying stocks like diversification, risk profiles of individual stocks / segments, tax implications etc that are also essential even if you decide to buy or sell specific stock.\"",
"The highest growth for an investment has historically been in stocks. Investing in mature companies that offer dividends is great for you since it is compound growth. Many oil and gas companies provide dividends.",
"\"I think it's an argument for Keynesian economic policy, basically an abridged version of this paragraph from the Wikipedia article: Keynesian economists often argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which require active policy responses by the public sector, in particular, monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government, in order to stabilize output over the business cycle. \"\"private sector decisions\"\" are bottom-up: millions of businesses and individuals make economic decisions and \"\"the economy\"\" is the sum of what they do. \"\"monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government\"\" are top-down: central institutions implement measures that are intended to have a positive effect (such as reducing unemployment) on millions of individuals.\"",
"\"Funny thing is I've sat in on conference calls where I've hear managers start the call saying the performance this month/year/week/day has not been as strong because they are \"\"waiting for the top down approach to pay off\"\" and then on the same call they praise their own 'bottom up approach that no one else uses' I think the only thing you forgot to mention so far is 'smart beta'\"",
"Speculation means putting your money on a hunch that some event may occur, depending on current circumstances and some future circumstances. So either you win huge or lose a lot. Investment is a conscious decision made on well defined research and grounded on good reasons i.e. economy, industry, company reports etc. Here is a link on wikipedia with more details on Speculation.",
"\"The \"\"c.\"\" is probably circa, or \"\"about.\"\" Regulatory settlements is in blue because it's negative; the amount is in parentheses, which indicates a loss. WB and CB might be wholesale banking and commercial banking? BAU probably means \"\"business as usual\"\" or things that don't directly apply to the project. Incremental investment is the additional cash a company puts towards its long-term capital assets. FX is probably foreign exchange.\"",
"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2017/06/12/Public-Investment-Scaling-up-and-Debt-Sustainability-The-Case-of-Energy-Sector-Investments-44943) reduced by 50%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMF management. > This paper proposes a bottom-up approach to assess large public investments that are potentially self-financing and reflect their impact in macro-fiscal projections that underpin the IMF&#039;s Debt Sustainability Analysis Framework. > Using the case of energy sector investments in Caribbean countries, the paper shows how to avoid biases against good projects that pay off over long horizons and ensure that transformative investments are not sacrificed to myopic assessments of debt sustainability risks. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6gydz6/imfpublic_investment_scalingup_and_debt/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~142844 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **IMF**^#1 **investment**^#2 **paper**^#3 **debt**^#4 **sustainability**^#5\"",
"I'm making up an event with my school sponsored by the local building society. I need this for a presentation which I will be performing in front of the Chief Executive. What do companies invest in when you want them to sponsor you?",
"They are actually both undergraduate texts; however, Investments is FAR more complex. Essentials of Investments really waters down the statistical and mathematical notation while Investments does not. Investments also has an entire section (4-5 chapters) called options, futures, and other derivatives while Essentials of Investments does not. [Of course, if you want to learn about options, futures, and other derivatives, there is a seminal book by John Hull with that exact title.] That notwithstanding, neither book is sophisticated enough to be considered a true graduate school textbook in quantitative investment theory. No grad schools worth their salt are going to rely too heavily on Investments in a specialized finance curriculum. It's a great book to start out, though.",
"\"It's just a guess, as I'm from the UK and am unfamiliar with the term \"\"investment\"\" mortgage but is it one where you are buying the property in order to rent it out, and make money from it, rather than to live in? In the UK we call those \"\"buy to let\"\" mortgages and one of the main differences is that you have to have a higher deposit to get that type.\"",
"Lets say the hurdle rate for this company is 10% and the current return on assets is 8%. A linear increase in revenue and earnings would actually destroy some value as projects that have a 9% return are accepted even though they destroy value for the shareholder. hope this helps!",
"Suppose I purchase $10,000 worth of a particular share today. If the person(s) I am purchasing the shares from paid $9,000 for those shares, then I replacing their $9,000 investment with my $10,000 investment. This is a net inflow of $1,000 into the market. Similarly, if the person(s) I am purchasing the shares from paid $11,000 for those shares, then their $11,000 investment is being replace by my $10,000 investment. This is a net outflow of $1,000 out of the market. The aggregate of all such inflows and outflows in the net inflow/outflow into the market over a given period of time. (Here we are ignoring the effects of new share issues.)",
"Diversification is a risk-mitigation strategy. When you invest in equities, you generally get a higher rate of return than a fixed income investment. But you have risks... a single company's market value can decline for all sorts of reasons, including factors outside of the control of management. Diversification lets you spread risk and concentrate on sectors that you feel offer the best value. Investing outside of your currency zone allows you to diversify more, but also introduces currency risks, which require a whole other level of understanding. Today, investing in emerging markets is very popular for US investors because these economies are booming and US monetary policy has been weakening the dollar for some time. A major bank failure in China or a flip to a strong dollar policy could literally implode those investments overnight. At the end of the day, invest in what you understand. Know the factors that can lower your investment value.",
"...is investing in a business you believe in a bad strategy? I'm not saying you're going to be right with your investment (obviously your judgment is coming into play), but you make it sound like it's a terrible way to do things. Is it?",
"Gold is not really an investment at all, because it doesn't generate an income. It's only worth money because people think it's worth money (it has some industrial uses, but most gold is used as a store of value and not for industrial purposes), not because of its income stream.",
"Now days, startup business owners are so desperate for tapping into the billions of pounds hovering around various establishments that they will definitely go to greater lengths for getting or presenting their business plan to the top investor. This kind of continuous bombardment might frustrate several investors to certain extent that they will never want to listen about those specific organizations again. Venture capitals might also invest in various startup businesses beyond pitches of their own research thematic into industries or sectors where they consider disorderly organizations can materialize too. Know More",
"I think there is some confusion. I am saying I don’t understand. Not that “the point is not understandable”. I make these comments in hopes that someone can educate me. Yet I’m downvoted and criticized and receive none of the info I was curious about. Is there a sub that discusses economics as opposed to shouting down people that have questions as having bad logic? Could you help me phrase my lack of understanding in a way that conforms to the expected decorum on this subreddit?",
"Invest in solid companies, not in esoteric products built on sand. The problem is with finance, not with real economy: oil companies make money, mobile phone companies make money, airlines make money...",
"\"The recommendation is not to make the investment. In general, a company does not have to sell their shares to you or allow you to become an investor, because, as you have stated, it is a private company not quoted on the stock market. If everyone were trustworthy, you could buy the tools for $11000 -- so that you own the tools -- and sign a lease of the tools to the company whereby they pay you $X/month. The lease should be reviewed by a lawyer before it is signed, and perhaps give the buyer the right to demand back the tools at any time. However, even this arrangement is very risky, because the \"\"company\"\" could simply steal or damage the tools and disappear. It is not an investment that I would make, because it sounds too good to be true. $2800/mo steady cash flow for $11,000 invested. No, I don't think so. The following information may also be useful, either to you, or future readers: If you still want to make this investment, then you should know that: The offering for sale of shares by companies located in the USA is subject to a wild array of complex laws. This is true in many other countries as well. These laws, called securities laws or regulations, can require certain disclosures, require that investors have a high net worth so that they can afford to lose the money or conduct their own investigations and legal actions, or require that the investors know the company founders personally, and can prohibit or limit resale by the buyer/investor. Promoters who say you can still invest and are ignoring or disobeying the securities laws are being at least negligent, but more likely are dishonest and probably criminal. Even if you trust in the investment, can you trust negligent managers to do a good job executing that investment? What about dishonest managers? What about criminals and thieves?\"",
"Hedging - You have an investment and are worried that the price might drop in the near future. You don't want to sell as this will realise a capital gain for which you may have to pay capital gains tax. So instead you make an investment in another instrument (sometimes called insurance) to offset falls in your investment. An example may be that you own shares in XYZ. You feel the price has risen sharply over the last month and is due for a steep fall. So you buy some put option over XYZ. You pay a small premium and if the price of XYZ falls you will lose money on the shares but will make money on the put option, thus limiting your losses. If the price continues to go up you will only lose the premium you paid for the option (very similar to an insurance policy). Diversification - This is when you may have say $100,000 to invest and spread your investments over a portfolio of shares, some units in a property fund and some bonds. So you are spreading your risks and returns over a range of products. The idea is if one stock or one sector goes down, you will not lose a large portion of your investment, as it is unlikely that all the different sectors will all go down at the same time.",
"If you buy a stock and it goes up, you can sell it and make money. But if you buy a stock and it goes down, you can lose money.",
"Just reading your comment more it is so far off topic. Investor rationality is so far off topic. The outside investor made a decision to invest already. The owner is being forced make investment decisions. Noting in the article is talking about taking those choices away. There should be a separate sub for people like who want to make off topic challenges of capitalism. It's disruptive. I can't make a comment with debating every assumption endlessly.",
"\"I actually think it's you who are missing a grasp of economics. Don't confuse investments in existing companies with investments that actually boost the economy. If I drop $100,000 into Microsoft stock, and someone else sells it, I am just putting money into their pocket. It doesn't boost the economy. If we all dump our money into the stock market it just increases the prices and \"\"value\"\" of the stocks. The only real investors (as in contributing directly to economic growth and productivity) are angel investors, entrepreneurs, and people who invest in IPOs.\"",
"Mismanaged companies are a commodity that can be turned into profitable companies. Companies like Bain invest in companies that would probably go bankrupt otherwise, shuffle things around (usually firing some people, sometimes a lot), and sell the company to someone now that it's profitable at an exorbitant rate. I don't like many investors outsource to China, but when a private equity firm gets involved with your company, those jobs don't have long to begin with.",
"From my memory of CFA Level 2 accounting: * If Company A buys 50% or more of company B, they must consolidate 100% of Company B on their financial statements. The % of the business they don't own is multiplied by net income every year, and the resulting number is added to minority interest on the balance sheet. * If Company A buys more than 20% but less than 50%, use the equity method of accounting. This involves creating an asset for the purchase price paid for the stake in Company B. The asset increases in value by dividends received, that's it. * If Company A buys 20% or less, the investment is held in Marketable securities or something similar on the balance, and is marked-to-market.",
"\"> You bring up the Feds but that confounds the issue because now we have to talk about monetary policy, taxation is fiscal policy If the goal is for more investments, you have to account for loans and money supply. Far more investment is done on issued bonds than on retained profits. >the firm has more money they are going to spend it somewhere That's an oversimplification... they'll spend to maximize profit, not to grow GDP. The two are related, but the first isn't always optimal to the second... if a firm captures monopoly, that's bad for GDP. The examples in the link are relevant in that context. They're only a part of the economy (\"\"92 publicly held U.S. corporations that reported a U.S. profit every year from 2008 through 2015\"\"). They're a non-trivial portion of the economy, and represent a large share of who will benefit from reducing corporate taxes. So when you say: >In general lowering taxes increases capital investment regardless of the investment rate The counter point is that... no the investment rate matters. If spending those taxes produces a higher investment rate, you have to adjust policy accordingly. To know that you have to estimate the investment rate from a marginal reduction in taxes, and compare to the investment rate resulting form your marginal fiscal program spending increase. Saying that \"\"lowering taxes increases investment\"\" is insufficient, in the same sense that saying \"\"infrastructure spending increases investment\"\" is insufficient.\"",
"International equity are considered shares of companies, which are headquartered outside the United States, for instance Research in Motion (Canada), BMW (Germany), UBS (Switzerland). Some investors argue that adding international equities to a portfolio can reduce its risk due to regional diversification.",
"I took a look at their cash flow and they spent 3 billion buying back shares and another 3 billion just last year in capex. That is 6 billion right there. I'm not sure what that capex was supposed to buy but it appears they aren't getting much of a payoff.",
"\"Unless you are buying a significant value of your goods in USD then the relative strength of USD versus your local currency will have little to no effect on what the value of your investments is worth to you. In fact only (de|in)flation will effect your purchasing power. If your investments are in your local currency and your future expenses (usage of the returns on the investments) will be in your local currency FX has no effect. To answer your question, however, since all investments involve flows of money there can be no investment (other than perhaps gold which is really a form of currency) that isn't bound to at least one currency. In general investments are expected to be valued against the investor's home currency (I tend to call it \"\"fund currency\"\" as I work with hedge funds) as the return on the investment will be paid out in the fund currency and returns will be compared on the same basis. If investments are to be made internationally then it is necessary to reduce, or \"\"hedge\"\" the exchange rate risk. This is normally done using FX swaps or futures that allow an exchange rate in the future to be locked in today. Far from being unbound from FX moves these derivatives are closely bound to any moves but crucially are bound in the opposite direction to the hoped for FX move. an example of this would be if I'm investing 100GBP (my local currency) in a US company XYZ corp which I expect to do well. Suppose I get 200USD for my 100GBP and so buy 1 * 200USD shares in XYZ. No matter what happens to XYZ stock any move in GBP/USD will affect my P&L so I buy a future that allows me to exchange 200USD for 100GBP in 6 month's time. If GBP rises I can sell the future and make money on both the higher exchange rate and the increase in XYZ corp. If GBP falls I can keep the future until maturity and exchange the 200USD from XYZ corp for 100GBP so I only take the foreign exchange hit on any profits. If I expect my profits to be 10USD I can even buy futures such that I can lock in the exchange rate for 110USD in 6 months so that I will lose even less of my profit from the exchange rate move.\"",
"\"A house is a funny kind of investment. Normally when you invest, you do it to make money. The return on a house, though, isn't principally real money, it's the imputed rent - money that you would have needed to pay to rent the house. The thing about this imputed rent is that you consume it right away. Getting a bigger house and putting more money into it doesn't save you any money, it's just a way to consume more \"\"house\"\" - so, unlike regular investing, it's not really responsible and doesn't contribute to your financial well-being.\"",
"\"People borrow money all the time to buy a house. Banks will lend money on one (up to 80%, sometimes more), because they consider it an \"\"investment.\"\" If you own a large company and want to expand, a bank or bond issuer will first look at what you plan to do with the money, like build new factories, or whatever. Based on their experience, they may judge that you will earn enough money to pay them back. If you don't, they may \"\"repossess\"\" your factories and sell them to someone who can pay. As protection, you may be asked to \"\"mortgage\"\" your existing company to protect the lenders of the new money. If you don't pay back the money, the lenders get not only your new \"\"factories\"\" but also your existing company.\"",
"A recent survey conducted in Australia shows that although their mining sector is enjoying a boom, services sector is in an opposite condition. Most of the contraction was caused by a decline in new orders among the various players in the services sector while sales and prices also fell. Just 2 out of 9 sub-sectors (namely, personal and recreational services and finance and insurance) included in the survey has grown during the month. The increased activity in the mining sector is not positively affecting the remaining sectors of the local market. The chief executive of the Australian Industry Group (AI Group) said that the contraction in the services industry just shows how narrow is its base of development in the broad market. Several stability in financial states abroad in a period of few months will be favorable for allowing consumer and business confidence to improve, resulting in a gradual increase in spending. More than half of the world’s mining acquisitions in 2011 has involved projects located in US, Australia and Canada. Other buyers include China, India, Russia and Brazil, all of which increased their acquisitions by 42% since 2006. In terms of gold, the average deal is valued at USD 41 million where a premium is almost 50%. Propelling the lucrative market is Australia with 15%, United States with 14% and Canada with 49%. Considering the bigger picture of the industry, PwC seems to be expecting that this year will see record M&A valuations and volumes in the mining sector worldwide. According to the company, sovereign wealth funds tend to have more advantage in winning transactions because of their low cost of capital. PwC is assuming that non-miners like sovereign wealth funds, large pension funds and private equity might reassess their approach to the industry and begin to participate more in M&A.",
"> Does it make sense to calculate the IRR based on the outstanding value of the project, or just use the cash flows paid out? What is the outstanding value of the project based on? I'm guessing it is the PV of net cash flow? The timing of each cash outflow (i.e. investment) is crucial to calculating a proper IRR because of time value of money. Putting in $x each year for 49 years will give you a different figure from putting in $49x in the first year and zero for the next 48 years because a larger figure is tied up for a longer time period.",
"You can find out the general types of investments by reading the public corporation 10-Q report that is filed with the SEC it can be accessed via the EDGAR system. It will not tell you what securities they have, but it does identify the short term and long term investments categories and their value.",
"As mentioned, dividends are a way of returning value to shareholders. It is a conduit of profit as companies don't legitimately control upward appreciation in their share prices. If you can't wrap your head around the risk to the reward, then this simply means you partially fit the description for a greater investment risk profile, so you need to put down Warren Buffett's books and Rich Dad Poor Dad and get an investment book that fits your risk profile.",
"That's not the problem here. The problem here is that monetarists and Keynesians don't differentiate between what you actually invest in. Their equations literally state that a bridge to relieve congestion in New York will produce the same growth as the Bridge to Nowhere. Unbelievable bullshit when put in the correct terms.",
"Yes, all the upsides, none of the downsides. I always say if I released 200 million gallons of oil in the Gulf Of Mexico, by accident OR on purpose, I would have gone to jail for a long time. BP did this and didn't go to jail. None of the execs were locked up, they not stopped from participating in the economy (as I would have been on the account I would be in jail), nothing but a fine. A small fine at that, for the damage they did. They are more important than the citizens in this greedy country."
] |
[
"Upstream is into businesses that supply the original business; downstream is into businesses that make use of the original product. So in that description, what they are saying is that the original business received products from plantations and sent products to manufacturing. This is also called vertical integration. Meaning that they are diversifying along their supply chain so that they control more of it. This is in contrast with horizontal integration, where they move into new products that either compete with the existing products or which are entirely separate. In general, the upside of vertical integration is that a company is less reliant on suppliers (and intermediate consumers) and has more control over its supply chain. The downside is that they have less opportunity to partner with other companies in the same supply chain, as they compete with them. Some companies are better at managing to do both. For example, Amazon.com has integrated fulfillment and sales. But partners can still do their own fulfillment and/or sales, choosing how much to send out to Amazon. If you are investing in individual stocks, integrated companies can be problematic in that they cut across diversification areas. So they can be harder to balance with other stocks. You can either buy plantations, transport, and manufacturing together or not buy at all. If your investment strategy says to increase plantations and reduce manufacturing, this can be difficult to implement with an integrated company. Of course, everyone else has the same problem, which can lead to integrated companies being undervalued. So they may be an opportunity as a value stock."
] |
4103
|
What causes US Treasury I bond fixed interest to increase?
|
[
"440270"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"182249",
"180958",
"127434",
"29073",
"74287",
"379492",
"466315",
"169309",
"519470",
"215189",
"60486",
"567749",
"494053",
"372657",
"515042",
"214710",
"107097",
"367137",
"237317",
"577578",
"54638",
"307380",
"482415",
"440270",
"189761",
"183531",
"235522",
"256663",
"544020",
"286679",
"61346",
"314745",
"412682",
"42847",
"87398",
"583897",
"357103",
"538898",
"364411",
"285064",
"211026",
"327556",
"65648",
"395111",
"274818",
"296420",
"460755",
"130727",
"406926",
"31581",
"586930",
"379615",
"373013",
"578983",
"8901",
"393791",
"144177",
"76965",
"202500",
"582553",
"305061",
"563092",
"127082",
"370086",
"207779",
"104160",
"419986",
"212732",
"343",
"62876",
"483218",
"306197",
"462697",
"130201",
"451923",
"401952",
"316132",
"598764",
"468178",
"13228",
"2085",
"257716",
"596914",
"112659",
"591967",
"19691",
"480318",
"287716",
"97729",
"411966",
"248133",
"304679",
"220720",
"400646",
"135352",
"212975",
"363817",
"72237",
"531117",
"68966"
] |
[
"No, the interest payments you receive do not change. To help avoid confusion, it is better to call those payments the coupons of the bond. Each treasury note or bond is issued with a certain coupon that remains fixed throughout its whole life. However, as the general level of bank interest rates change maybe because the FED is moving its deposit rate for banks, the value of the treasury bond will change. At maturity it will always be worth its face value, but at any time before that its price will depend on the general level of interest rates in the country. Because of the way a bond is structured, it is usually possible to convert the bond's price into a yield, which is usually a percentage like 3% or sometwhere near the current level of general interest rates. But don't be confused, this yield is just an alternative way of stating the current price of the treasury bond, and it changes as the prices of the bond changes. It is not the coupon that is changing, but the yield.",
"Yes, the interest rate on a Treasury does change as market rates change, through changes in the price. But once you purchase the instrument, the rate you get is locked in. The cashflows on a treasury are fixed. So if the market rate increase, the present value of those future cashflows decreases, so the price of the treasury decreases. If you buy the bond after this happens, you would pay a lower price for the same fixed cashflows, hence you will receive a higher rate. Note that once you purchase the treasury instrument, your returns are locked in and guaranteed, as others have mentioned. Also note that you should distinguish between Treasury Bills and Treasury Bonds, which you seem to use interchangeably. Straight from the horse's mouth, http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/products.htm: Treasury Bills are short term securities with maturity up to a year, Treasury Notes are medium term securities with maturity between 1 and 10 years, and Treasury Bonds are anything over 10 years.",
"You’ve really got three or four questions going here… and it’s clear that a gap in understanding one component of how bonds work (pricing) is having a ripple effect across the other facets of your question. The reality is that everybody’s answers so far touch on various pieces of your general question, but maybe I can help by integrating. So, let’s start by nailing down what your actual questions are: 1. Why do mortgage rates (tend to) increase when the published treasury bond rate increases? I’m going to come back to this, because it requires a lot of building blocks. 2. What’s the math behind a bond yield increasing (price falling?) This gets complicated, fast. Especially when you start talking about selling the bond in the middle of its time period. Many people that trade in bonds use financial calculators, Excel, or pre-calculated tables to simplify or even just approximate the value of a bond. But here’s a simple example that shows the math. Let’s say we’ve got a bond that is issued by… Dell for $10,000. The company will pay it back in 5 years, and it is offering an 8% rate. Interest payments will only be paid annually. Remember that the amount Dell has promised to pay in interest is fixed for the life of the bond, and is called the ‘coupon’ rate. We can think about the way the payouts will be paid in the following table: As I’m sure you know, the value of a bond (its yield) comes from two sources: the interest payments, and the return of the principal. But, if you as an investor paid $14,000 for this bond, you would usually be wrong. You need to ‘discount’ those amounts to take into account the ‘time value of money’. This is why when you are dealing in bonds it is important to know the ‘coupon rate’ (what is Dell paying each period?). But it is also important to know your sellers’/buyers’ own personal discount rates. This will vary from person to person and institution to institution, but it is what actually sets the PRICE you would buy this bond for. There are three general cases for the discount rate (or the MARKET rate). First, where the market rate == the coupon rate. This is known as “par” in bond parlance. Second, where the market rate < the coupon rate. This is known as “premium” in bond parlance. Third, where the market rate > coupon rate. This is known as a ‘discount’ bond. But before we get into those in too much depth, how does discounting work? The idea behind discounting is that you need to account for the idea that a dollar today is not worth the same as a dollar tomorrow. (It’s usually worth ‘more’ tomorrow.) You discount a lump sum, like the return of the principal, differently than you do a series of equal cash flows, like the stream of $800 interest payments. The formula for discounting a lump sum is: Present Value=Future Value* (1/(1+interest rate))^((# of periods)) The formula for discounting a stream of equal payments is: Present Value=(Single Payment)* (〖1-(1+i)〗^((-n))/i) (i = interest rate and n = number of periods) **cite investopedia So let’s look at how this would look in pricing the pretend Dell bond as a par bond. First, we discount the return of the $10,000 principal as (10,000 * (1 / 1.08)^5). That equals $6,807.82. Next we discount the 5 equal payments of $800 as (800* (3.9902)). I just plugged and chugged but you can do that yourself. That equals $3,192.18. You may get slightly different numbers with rounding. So you add the two together, and it says that you would be willing to pay ($6,807.82 + $3,192.18) = $10,000. Surprise! When the bond is a par bond you’re basically being compensated for the time value of money with the interest payments. You purchase the bond at the ‘face value’, which is the principal that will be returned at the end. If you worked through the math for a 6% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, you would see that it’s “premium”, because you would pay more than the principal that is returned to obtain the bond [10,842.87 vs 10,000]. Similarly, if you work through the math for a 10% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, it’s a ‘discount’ bond because you will pay less than the principal that is returned for the bond [9,241.84 vs 10,000]. It’s easy to see how an investor could hold our imaginary Dell bond for one year, collect the first interest payment, and then sell the bond on to another investor. The mechanics of the calculations are the same, except that one less interest payment is available, and the principal will be returned one year sooner… so N=4 in both formulae. Still with me? Now that we’re on the same page about how a bond is priced, we can talk about “Yield To Maturity”, which is at the heart of your main question. Bond “yields” like the ones you can access on CNBC or Yahoo!Finance or wherever you may be looking are actually taking the reverse approach to this. In these cases the prices are ‘fixed’ in that the sellers have listed the bonds for sale, and specified the price. Since the coupon values are fixed already by whatever organization issued the bond, the rate of return can be imputed from those values. To do that, you just do a bit of algebra and swap “present value” and “future value” in our two equations. Let’s say that Dell has gone private, had an awesome year, and figured out how to make robot unicorns that do wonderful things for all mankind. You decide that now would be a great time to sell your bond after holding it for one year… and collecting that $800 interest payment. You think you’d like to sell it for $10,500. (Since the principal return is fixed (+10,000); the number of periods is fixed (4); and the interest payments are fixed ($800); but you’ve changed the price... something else has to adjust and that is the discount rate.) It’s kind of tricky to actually use those equations to solve for this by hand… you end up with two equations… one unknown, and set them equal. So, the easiest way to solve for this rate is actually in Excel, using the function =RATE(NPER, PMT, PV, FV). NPER = 4, PMT = 800, PV=-10500, and FV=10000. Hint to make sure that you catch the minus sign in front of the present value… buyer pays now for the positive return of 10,000 in the future. That shows 6.54% as the effective discount rate (or rate of return) for the investor. That is the same thing as the yield to maturity. It specifies the return that a bond investor would see if he or she purchased the bond today and held it to maturity. 3. What factors (in terms of supply and demand) drive changes in the bond market? I hope it’s clear now how the tradeoff works between yields going UP when prices go DOWN, and vice versa. It happens because the COUPON rate, the number of periods, and the return of principal for a bond are fixed. So when someone sells a bond in the middle of its term, the only things that can change are the price and corresponding yield/discount rate. Other commenters… including you… have touched on some of the reasons why the prices go up and down. Generally speaking, it’s because of the basics of supply and demand… higher level of bonds for sale to be purchased by same level of demand will mean prices go down. But it’s not ‘just because interest rates are going up and down’. It has a lot more to do with the expectations for 1) risk, 2) return and 3) future inflation. Sometimes it is action by the Fed, as Joe Taxpayer has pointed out. If they sell a lot of bonds, then the basics of higher supply for a set level of demand imply that the prices should go down. Prices going down on a bond imply that yields will go up. (I really hope that’s clear by now). This is a common monetary lever that the government uses to ‘remove money’ from the system, in that they receive payments from an investor up front when the investor buys the bond from the Fed, and then the Fed gradually return that cash back into the system over time. Sometimes it is due to uncertainty about the future. If investors at large believe that inflation is coming, then bonds become a less attractive investment, as the dollars received for future payments will be less valuable. This could lead to a sell-off in the bond markets, because investors want to cash out their bonds and transfer that capital to something that will preserve their value under inflation. Here again an increase in supply of bonds for sale will lead to decreased prices and higher yields. At the end of the day it is really hard to predict exactly which direction bond markets will be moving, and more importantly WHY. If you figure it out, move to New York or Chicago or London and work as a trader in the bond markets. You’ll make a killing, and if you’d like I will be glad to drive your cars for you. 4. How does the availability of money supply for banks drive changes in other lending rates? When any investment organization forms, it builds its portfolio to try to deliver a set return at the lowest risk possible. As a corollary to that, it tries to deliver the maximum return possible for a given level of risk. When we’re talking about a bank, DumbCoder’s answer is dead on. Banks have various options to choose from, and a 10-year T-bond is broadly seen as one of the least risky investments. Thus, it is a benchmark for other investments. 5. So… now, why do mortgage rates tend to increase when the published treasury bond yield rate increases? The traditional, residential 30-year mortgage is VERY similar to a bond investment. There is a long-term investment horizon, with fixed cash payments over the term of the note. But the principal is returned incrementally during the life of the loan. So, since mortgages are ‘more risky’ than the 10-year treasury bond, they will carry a certain premium that is tied to how much more risky an individual is as a borrower than the US government. And here it is… no one actually directly changes the interest rate on 10-year treasuries. Not even the Fed. The Fed sets a price constraint that it will sell bonds at during its periodic auctions. Buyers bid for those, and the resulting prices imply the yield rate. If the yield rate for current 10-year bonds increases, then banks take it as a sign that everyone in the investment community sees some sign of increased risk in the future. This might be from inflation. This might be from uncertain economic performance. But whatever it is, they operate with some rule of thumb that their 30-year mortgage rate for excellent credit borrowers will be the 10-year plus 1.5% or something. And they publish their rates.",
"When you buy a bond - you're giving a loan to the issuer. The interest rate on the bond is the interest rate on the loan. Usually (and this is also the case with the treasury bonds), the rate is fixed for the term of the loan. Thus, if the market rate for similar loans a year later is higher, the rate for the loan you gave - remains the same.",
"\"If you buy a long term bond with long term fixed interest rate, and then the interest rates increase, your bond is worth less. That's not a problem, because over the years the value of the bond will go back to its nominal value. If you have a bond that doesn't pay out annually but increases its value every year, you will get exactly the amount of cash when it pays out that you expected. The problem is that if for 20 years interest rates were 8% while your bond only paid 4%, then you will have such an amount of inflation that the cash you get is worth much less than you hoped. You may have hoped that your bond would be worth \"\"one year average salary\"\", but it may be only worth \"\"six months of average salary\"\", even if the dollar amount is exactly what you expected.\"",
"yield on a Treasury bond increases This primarily happens when the government increases interest rates or there is too much money floating around and the government wants to suck out money from the economy, this is the first step not the other way around. The most recent case was Fed buying up bonds and hence releasing money in to the economy so companies and people start investing to push the economy on the growth path. Banks normally base their interest rates on the Treasury bonds, which they use as a reference rate because of the probability of 0 default. As mortgage is a long term investment, so they follow the long duration bonds issued by the Fed. They than put a premium on the money lent out for taking that extra risk. So when the governments are trying to suck out money, there is a dearth of free flowing money and hence you pay more premium to borrow because supply is less demand is more, demand will eventually decrease but not in the short run. Why do banks increase the rates they loan money at when people sell bonds? Not people per se, but primarily the central bank in a country i.e. Fed in US.",
"Why does the rising price of a bond pushes it's yield down? The bond price and its yield are linked; if one goes up, the other must go down. This is because the cash flows from the bond are fixed, predetermined. The market price of the bond fluctuates. Now what if people are suddenly willing to pay more for the same fixed payments? It must mean that the return, i.e. the yield, will be lower. Here we see that risk associated with the bonds in question has skyrocketed, and thus bonds' returns has skyrocketed, too. Am I right? The default risk has increased, yes. Now, I assume that bonds' price is determined by the market (issued by a state, traded at the market). Is that correct? Correct, as long as you are talking about the market price. Then who determines bonds' yields? I mean, isn't it fixed? Or - in the FT quote above - they are talking about the yields for the new bonds issued that particular month? The yield is not fixed - the cash flows are. Yield is the internal rate of return. See my answer above to your first question.",
"The price of a bond goes up when yields go down. For example, you purchase a 5% bond today for $100 and the very next day the same bond is being offered with a rate of 10%. Will you be able to sell you bond for the $100 you paid? No, you must compete with the 10% bonds being sold so you will have to sell your bond for less than the $100 you paid to compete with the new bonds being sold. Thus, bond prices are inversely related to bond yields. The 20-year index you cited tracks bond prices and bond prices have gone up over the last 10 years which means bond yields have gone down. Why have bond prices gone up? Demand. More investors are moving their savings into bonds. Why? I believe there a couple of reasons. One, US Treasuries are thought to be one of the safest investments. With the financial crisis and increased stock market volatility (see chart below) more investors are allocating more of their portfolios to safer investments. Two, a large portion of the US population is approaching retirement (see chart below). These folks are not interested in watching their retirement portfolios potentially shrink in the stock market so they move into bonds.",
"Is your question academic curiosity or are you thinking of buying bonds? Be aware that bond interest rates are near all-time lows, and if interest rates were to rise, the prices of bonds could fall. Those buying bonds today are taking unusually large risk of capital loss.",
"\"All of the other answers here are accurate, but (I think) are missing the point as to the question, which rests on how Bonds work in the first place. The bond specifies a payback AMOUNT and DATE. Let's say it is $10,000 and one year from today. If you buy that today for $9900, your yield will be 1%. If you buy it today for $11,000, your yield will be less than 0% (please don't make me do the math - it's just under negative 1%). You might be willing to pay that 1% (rather than receive 1%) for the certainty that you will definitely get your money back. The combined actions of all the people who may be willing to pay a little more or a little less for the safety of a US Treasury Bond is what people call \"\"the Market.\"\" Market forces (generally, investor confidence) will drive the price up and down, which affects the yield. All the other stuff - coupons and inflation and whatnot - all of that only makes sense if you understand that you aren't buying a rate of return, you are buying a payback amount and date.\"",
"\"On a longer time scale, the plot thickens: It almost looks random. A large drop in real rates in the mid-70s, a massive spike in the early 80s, followed by a slow multi-decade decline. The chaos doesn't seem to be due to interest rates. They steadily climbed and steadily fell: All that's left is inflation: First, real rates should be expected to pay a moderate rate, so nominal rates will usually be higher than inflation. However, interest rates are very stable over long time periods while inflation is not. Economists call this type of phenomenon \"\"sticky pricing\"\", where the price, interest rates in this case, do not change much despite the realities surrounding them. But the story is a little more complicated. In the early 1970s, Nixon had an election to win and tried to lessen the impacts of recession by increasing gov't spending, not raising taxes, and financing through the central bank, causing inflation. The strategy failed, but he was reelected anyways. This set the precedent for the hyperinflation of the 1970s that ended abruptly by Reagan at the beginning of his first term in the early 1980s. Again, interest rates remained sticky, so real rates spiked. Now, the world is not growing, almost stagnating. Demand for equity is somewhat above average, but because corporate income is decelerating, and the developed world's population is aging, demand for investment income is skyrocketing. As demand rises, so does the price, which for an investor is a form of inverse of the interest rate. Future demand is probably best answered by forecasters, and the monetarist over and undertones still dominating the Federal Reserve show that they have finally learned after 100 years that inflation is best kept \"\"low and stable\"\": But what happens if growth in the US suddenly spikes, inflation rises, and the Federal Reserve must sell all of the long term assets it has bet so heavily on quickly while interest rates rise? Inflation may not be intended, but it is not impossible.\"",
"The US Treasury is not directly/transactionally involved, but can affect the junk bond market by issuing new bonds when rates rise. Since US bonds are considered completely safe, changes in yield will affect low quality debt. For example, if rates rose to levels like 1980, a 12% treasury bond would drive the prices of junk bonds issued today dramatically lower. Another price factor is likelihood of default. Companies with junk credit ratings have lousy balance sheets, so negative economic conditions or tight short term debt markets can result in default for many of these companies. Whether bonds in a fund are new issues or purchased on the secondary market isn't something that is very relevant to the individual investor. The current interest rate environment is factored into the market already via prices of bonds.",
"Bond prices move inversely to their yields. So when you sell bonds and create a supply side deluge, bond prices will fall. Since bond prices are falling, yields go up. (The dollar amount that the bond pays out is the same. It's simply that since the bond price has fallen, that dollar amount paid out expressed in percentage terms of the bond price has risen).",
"\"Let's talk interest rates on your junk bonds. Even after all that the US has been through (and is still going through), the United States dollar is widely regarded as one of the safest safe havens for your money. As such it serves as a de facto baseline against which all other investments can be measured, the bar everyone has to pass: if you could earn 4% on a 5-year US Treasury bond, or earn 4% on anything else over the next 5 years, you pick the Treasury bond. In many ways this means that the interest rate on a Treasury bond is the closest single measure we have to the price of money all by itself. If someone is loaning you money, they could be loaning it to the Treasury instead; they are losing out by making this loan to you, and must charge you at least this rate just to break even. But most people/governments/countries aren't as credit-worthy as the US Treasury. A few are (the US treasury isn't magical, after all, just really good at what it does), but generally they are not. There is a possibility when loaning money to these entities that you will not get your money back. That is risk. All entities have some risk (even the US treasury!), and some have more than others; \"\"junk bonds\"\" have a somewhat elevated level of this risk. Now, you don't just take a risk on for free (unless you're being charitable or something, but I hope you can find better beneficiaries of charity than the average junk bond). You need to be compensated for that risk. Lenders will demand compensation commensurate with that risk - or they will just walk away without making any loans or buying any bonds because it's not worth it. The difference between the interest rate on a US Treasury bond and the interest rate on another bond, such as a junk bond, is the risk premium - the cost of carrying that risk. Therefore you can see that the interest rate on a junk bond is the price of money plus the risk premium. Now, the Federal Reserve adjusts the price of money from time to time, by buying and selling US Treasury bonds until the price is something they like. This means that one component of interest rate on a junk bond is the interest rate on the US Treasury bond, and it is effectively controlled by the Federal Reserve (through that layer of indirection). The other component of the interest rate on a junk bond is the risk premium. It's not generally possible to know in advance whether or not some company will actually default. People have to guess, and decide how comfortable they are taking that risk. This means that risk is more expensive (and interest rates are higher) when they think the companies in question are going through some hard times, and risk will also be more expensive when people decide that they can't take as many risks (perhaps they've already lost some money and need to take additional steps to protect the rest). It's definitely very hard for an individual to decide what the risk on a particular bond is. The good news is that you generally don't have to. There are a bunch of rich jerks, hedge funds, retirement funds, insurance companies, and other investment entities out there who spend all day looking at things like bonds, trying to estimate the risk. Their willingness to exploit minuscule differences between the interest rate on a bond and the real risk means that the average bond on the market will be fairly priced, according to what all those people think. Plenty of them can still be wrong, mind you (cf. mortgage-backed securities) but in the general case the price of any security reflects all the information everyone in the world has on it on average, so if you're wrong you're in good company. When you buy a nice diversified bond fund, you have access to a bunch of bonds at a pretty-standard price. So that's interest rates for you. But you asked about prices. As it turns out, they're the same thing! - just expressed slightly differently. One way or another a bond is essentially meant to be a stream of payments worth a certain amount in the end - this is why you'll hear them referred to sometimes as a \"\"fixed-income security\"\". The interest rate is essentially the difference between the price you pay now, and the value you receive later, except expressed as a rate. Technically, you could structure the bonds differently (e.g. does the bond pay little bits of interest as you go along, or just pay one big lump sum in the end?) but you can use Math to convert between these two situations, and figure out how much money is worth which when, so it doesn't really matter. Anyway. This means that rising interest rates means lower bond prices on bonds you already own (and falling interest rates means higher bond prices). So if the Federal Reserve increases interest rates, the face value of your bond funds will fall. Also, if people think that the companies issuing the bonds are too risky, the face value of those bonds will also fall. (You were probably expecting the latter effect, though.) Mind you, you will still get the same amount of future money out of them as you would otherwise: that's why they're fixed-income securities. However, a higher interest rate means \"\"I can get more money in the future for less money now\"\", and so people will be willing to pay you less for your bond in the present. This is known as interest rate risk. It is higher on longer term bonds, because those have more time to earn interest.\"",
"The government has expenditures, part of which includes interest expense on debt. The government first pays with your taxes, the remainder, which varies between a few billion to tens of billions to sometimes hundreds of billions of dollars, is called the deficit. The government takes out loans, called US Treasury Bonds, to pay the deficiet. The interest payments on this new debt is added to the interest expenditure the government pays every year.",
"\"I'll answer your question, but first a comment about your intended strategy. Buying government bonds in a retirement account is probably not a good idea. Government bonds (generally) are tax advantaged themselves, so they offer a lower interest rate than other types of bonds. At no tax or reduced tax, many people will accept the lower interest rate because their effective return may be similar or better depending, for example, on their own marginal tax rate. In a tax-advantaged retirement account, however, you'll be getting the lower interest without any additional benefit because that account itself is already tax-advantaged. (Buying bonds generally may be a good idea or not - I won't comment on that - but choose a different category of bonds.) For the general question about the relationship between the Fed rate and the bond rate, they are positively correlated. There's not direct causal relationship in the sense that the Fed is not setting the bond rate directly, but other interest bearing investment options are tied to the Fed rate and many of those interest-bearing options compete for the same investor dollars as the bonds that you're reviewing. That's at a whole market level. Individual bonds, however, may not be so tightly coupled since the creditworthiness of the issuing entity matters a lot too, so it could be that \"\"bond rates\"\" generally are going up but some specific bonds are going down based on something happening with the issuer, just like the stock market might be generally going up even as specific stocks are dropping. Also keep in mind that many bonds trade as securities on a secondary market much like stocks. So I've talked about the bond rate. The price of the bonds themselves on the secondary market generally move opposite to the rate. The reason is that, for example, if you buy a bond at less than face value, you're getting an effective interest rate that's higher because you get the same sized incremental payments of interest but put less money into the investment. And vice versa.\"",
"QE is artificial demand for bonds, but as always when there are more buyers than sellers the price of anything goes up. When QE ends the price of bonds will fall because everyone will know that the biggest buyer in the market is no longer there. So price of bonds will fall. And therefore the interest rate on new bonds must increase to match the total return available to buyers in the secondary market.",
"Imagine that the existing interest rate is 5%. So on a bond with face value of 100, you would be getting a $5 coupon implying a 5% yield. Now, if let's say the interest rates go up to 10%, then a new bond issued with a face value of 100 will give you a coupon of $10 implying a 10% yield. If someone in the bond market buys your bond after interest price adjustment, in order to make the 10% yield (which means that an investor typically targets at least the risk-free rate on his investments) he needs to buy your bond at $50 so that a $5 coupon can give a 10% yield. The reverse happens when interest rates go down. I hope this somewhat clears the picture. Yield = Coupon/Investment Amount Update: Since the interest rate of the bond does not change after its issuance, the arbitrage in the interest rate is reflected in the market price of the bond. This helps in bringing back the yields of old bonds in-line with the freshly issued bonds.",
"A large number of bond holders decide to sell their bonds. If they all decide to do this at the same time then there will be a large supply of bonds being sold in the market. This will drive down the price of the bonds which will increase yields. Why do bond yields move inversely to bond prices? You purchase a $100 bond today that yields 5%. You spent $100. The very next day the same bonds are being sold with a yield of 10%. If you wanted to sell your bond to someone you would have to sell it so it competed with the new bonds being sold. You could not sell it for $100 which is what you paid for it. You would have to sell it for less than the $100 you paid for it in order for it to have the equivalent yield of the new bonds being sold with a 10% yield. This is why bond yields move inversely to bond prices. Why does rising yields increase the cost of borrowing? If someone is trying to sell new bonds they will have to sell bonds that compete with the yields of the current bonds already in the market. If yields are rising on the existing bonds then the issuer of the new bonds will have to pay higher interest rates to offer equivalent yields on the new bonds. The issuer is now paying more in interest making it more expensive to borrow money. What are the incentives for the bond vigilante to sell his/her bonds? One reason a bond holder will sell his/her bonds is they believe inflation will outpace the yield on the bond they are holding. If a bond yields 3% and inflation is at 5% then the bond holder is essentially losing purchasing power if they continue to hold onto the bond. Another reason to sell would be if the bond holder has doubts in the ability of the issuer to repay the interest and/or principal of the bond.",
"\"The federal funds rate is one of the risk-free short-term rates in the economy. We often think of fixed income securities as paying this rate plus some premia associated with risk. For a treasury security, we can think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) The term premium is a bit extra the bond pays because if you hold a long term bond, you are exposed to interest rate risk, which is the risk that rates will generally rise after you buy, making your bond worth less. The relation is more complex if people have expectations of future rate moves, but this is the general idea. Anyway, generally speaking, longer term bonds are exposed to more interest rate risk, so they pay more, on average. For a corporate bond, we think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) + (default premium) where the default premium is some extra that the bond must pay to compensate the holder for default risk, which is the risk that the bond defaults or loses value as the company's prospects fall. You can see that corporate and government bonds are affected the same way (approximately, this is all hand-waving) by changes in the fed funds rate. Now, that all refers to the rates on new bonds. After a bond is issued, its value falls if rates rise because new bonds are relatively more attractive. Its value rises if rates on new bonds falls. So if there is an unexpected rise in the fed funds rate and you are holding a bond, you will be sad, especially if it is a long term bond (doesn't matter if it's corporate or government). Ask yourself, though, whether an increase in fed funds will be unexpected at this point. If the increase was expected, it will already be priced in. Are you more of an expert than the folks on wall-street at predicting interest rate changes? If not, it might not make sense to make decisions based on your belief about where rates are going. Just saying. Brick points out that treasuries are tax advantaged. That is, you don't have to pay state income tax on them (but you do pay federal). If you live in a state where this is true, this may matter to you a little bit. They also pay unnaturally little because they are convenient for use as a cash substitute in transactions and margining (\"\"convenience yield\"\"). In general, treasuries just don't pay much. Young folk like you tend to buy corporate bonds instead, so they can make money on the default and term premia.\"",
"\"According to Wikipedia, Treasury bills mature in 1 year or less to a fixed face value: Treasury bills (or T-Bills) mature in one year or less. Regular weekly T-Bills are commonly issued with maturity dates of 28 days (or 4 weeks, about a month), 91 days (or 13 weeks, about 3 months), 182 days (or 26 weeks, about 6 months), and 364 days (or 52 weeks, about 1 year). Treasury bills are sold by single-price auctions held weekly. The T-bills (as Wikipedia says, like zero-coupon bonds) are actually sold at a discount to their face value and mature to their face value. They do not return any interest before the date of maturity. Because the amount earned is fixed at purchase, \"\"return\"\" is a more accurate term than \"\"rate\"\" when referring to a specific T-bill. The \"\"rate\"\" is the difference between this return and the discount value you purchased it at. So, yes, your rate of return is guaranteed. T-notes (1-10 year) and T-bonds (20-30 year) also have an interest rate guaranteed, but have coupon payments (usually every 6 months), paying out a fixed amount of interest on the principal. (See more info on the same Wikipedia page.) Because those bonds are not compounding the interest it pays out, but instead paying out every 6 months, you'd have to purchase new securities to create a compound return, changing your rate of return over time slightly as the rates for new treasury securities changes.\"",
"The NYSE 20 Year Plus Treasury Bond Index (AXTWEN) is a multiple-security fixed income index that aims to track the total returns of the long-term 20 year and greater maturity range of the U.S. Treasury bond market. The index constituent bonds are weighted by their relative amounts outstanding.One cannot directly invest in an Index. Index Bond Maturities 24 to 27 Years 20.36% /27 to 29 Years 79.64% Index Duration 17.47 Years An oversimplification of how bonds value changes as rates change is they are inversely related based on the duration of the bond. Think of duration as the time-weighted average of all the coupons and the final payment. In this case, a drop in rates of about 1% will cause a rise in value of about 17.4%. Long term rates took a drop in the last year.",
"Long term gov't bonds fluctuate in price with a seemingly small interest rate fluctuation because many years of cash inflows are discounted at low rates. This phenomenon is dulled in a high interest rate environment. For example, just the principal repayment is worth ~1/3, P * 1/(1+4%)^30, what it will be in 30 years at 4% while an overnight loan paying an unrealistic 4% is worth essentially the same as the principal, P * 1/(1+4%)^(1/365). This is more profound in low interest rate economies because, taking the countries undergoing the present misfortune, one can see that their overnight interest rates are double US long term rates while their long term rates are nearly 10x as large as US long term rates. If there were much supply at the longer maturities which have been restrained by interest rates only manageable by the highly skilled or highly risky, a 4% increase on a 30% bond is only about a 20% decline in bond price while a 4% increase on a 4% bond is a 50% decrease. The easiest long term bond to manipulate quantitatively is the perpetuity where p is the price of the bond, i is the interest payment per some arbitrary period usually 1 year, and r is the interest rate paid per some arbitrary period usually 1 year. Since they are expressly linked, a price can be implied for a given interest rate and vice versa if the interest payment is known or assumed. At a 4% interest rate, the price is At 4.04%, the price is , a 1% increase in interest rates and a 0.8% decrease in price . Longer term bonds such as a 30 year or 20 year bond will not see as extreme price movements. The constant maturity 30 year treasury has fluctuated between 5% and 2.5% to ~3.75% now from before the Great Recession til now, so prices will have more or less doubled and then reduced because bond prices are inversely proportional to interest rates as generally shown above. At shorter maturities, this phenomenon is negligible because future cash inflows are being discounted by such a low amount. The one month bill rarely moves in price beyond the bid/ask spread during expansion but can be expected to collapse before a recession and rebound during.",
"The Fed is trying to keep the money supply growing at a rate just slightly faster than the increase in the total production in the economy. If this year we produced, say, 3% more goods and services than last year, than they try to make the money supply grow by maybe 4% or 5%. That way there should be a small rate of inflation. They are trying to prevent high inflation rates on one hand or deflation on the other. When the interest rate on T-bills is low, banks will borrow more money. As the Fed creates this money out of thin air when banks buy a T-bill, this adds money to the economy. When the interest rate on T-bills is high, banks will borrow little or nothing. As they'll be repaying older T-bills, this will result in less growth in the money supply or even contraction. So the Feds change the rate when they see that economic growth is accelerating or decelerating, or that the inflation rate is getting too high or too low.",
"Imagine a $1,000 face value bond paying 10% interest semi-annually. That means every 6 months there is $50 being paid. Now, if the price of that bond doubled to $2,000, what is the yield? It is still paying $50 every 6 months but now sports a 5% yield as the price went up a great deal. Similarly, if the price of the bond was cut in half to $500, now it is yielding 20% because it is still paying out the $50 every 6 months. The dollar figure is fixed. What percentage of the price it is can vary and that is why there is the inverse relationship between prices and yields. Note that the length of the bond isn't mentioned here where while usually longer bonds will have higher yields, there can be inverted yield curves as well as calls on some bonds. Also, inflation-indexed and convertible bonds could have different calculations used as principal adjustments or possible conversion to stock can change a perception on the overall return.",
"The literal answer to your question 'what determines the price of an ETF' is 'the market'; it is whatever price a buyer is willing to pay and a seller is willing to accept. But if the market price of an ETF share deviates significantly from its NAV, the per-share market value of the securities in its portfolio, then an Authorized Participant can make an arbitrage profit by a transaction (creation or redemption) that pushes the market price toward NAV. Thus as long as the markets are operating and the APs don't vanish in a puff of smoke we can expect price will track NAV. That reduces your question to: why does NAV = market value of the holdings underlying a bond ETF share decrease when the market interest rate rises? Let's consider an example. I'll use US Treasuries because they have very active markets, are treated as risk-free (although that can be debated), and excluding special cases like TIPS and strips are almost perfectly fungible. And I use round numbers for convenience. Let's assume the current market interest rate is 2% and 'Spindoctor 10-year Treasury Fund' opens for business with $100m invested (via APs) in 10-year T-notes with 2% coupon at par and 1m shares issued that are worth $100 each. Now assume the interest rate goes up to 3% (this is an example NOT A PREDICTION); no one wants to pay par for a 2% bond when they can get 3% elsewhere, so its value goes down to about 0.9 of par (not exactly due to the way the arithmetic works but close enough) and Spindoctor shares similarly slide to $90. At this price an investor gets slightly over 2% (coupon*face/basis) plus approximately 1% amortized capital gain (slightly less due to time value) per year so it's competitive with a 3% coupon at par. As you say new bonds are available that pay 3%. But our fund doesn't hold them; we hold old bonds with a face value of $100m but a market value of only $90m. If we sell those bonds now and buy 3% bonds to (try to) replace them, we only get $90m par value of 3% bonds, so now our fund is paying a competitive 3% but NAV is still only $90. At the other extreme, say we hold the 2% bonds to maturity, paying out only 2% interest but letting our NAV increase as the remaining term (duration) and thus discount of the bonds decreases -- assuming the market interest rate doesn't change again, which for 10 years is probably unrealistic (ignoring 2009-2016!). At the end of 10 years the 2% bonds are redeemed at par and our NAV is back to $100 -- but from the investor's point of view they've forgone $10 in interest they could have received from an alternative investment over those 10 years, which is effectively an additional investment, so the original share price of $90 was correct.",
"\"It is important to distinguish between cause and effect as well as the supply (saving) versus demand (borrowing) side of money to understand the relationship between interest rates, bond yields, and inflation. What is mean by \"\"interest rates\"\" is usually based on the officially published rates determined by the central bank and is referenced to the overnight lending rate for meeting reserve requirements. In practice, what the means is, (for example) in the United States the Federal Reserve will have periodic meetings to determine whether to leave this rate alone or to raise or lower the rate. The new rate is generally determined by their assessment of current and forecast national and global economic conditions and factors in the votes of the various Regional Federal Reserve Presidents. If the Fed anticipates economic weakness they will tend to lower and keep rates lower, while when the economy seems to be overheated the tendency will be to raise rates. Bond yields are also based on the expectation of future economic conditions, but as determined by market participants. At times the market will actually \"\"lead\"\" the Fed in bidding bond prices up or down, while at other times it will react after the Fed does. However, ignoring the varying time lag the two generally will track each other because they are really the same thing. The only difference is the participants which are collectively determining what the rates/yields are. The inverse relationship between interest rates and inflation is the main reason for fluctuating rates in the first place. The Fed will tend to raise rates to try to slow inflation, and lower rates when it feels inflation is too low and economic growth should be stimulated. Likewise, when the economy is doing poorly there is both little inflationary pressure (driving interest rates down both in terms of what savers can accept to keep ahead of inflation and at) and depressed levels of borrowing (reduced demand for money, driving down rates to try to balance supply and demand), and the opposite is true when the economy is booming. Bond yields are thus positively correlated to inflation because during periods of high inflation savers won't want to invest in bonds that don't provide them with an acceptable inflation adjusted yield. But high interest rates tend to have the effect or reining in inflation because it gets more costly for borrowers and thus puts a damper on new economic activity. So to summarize,\"",
"Bonds can increase in price, if the demand is high and offer solid yield if the demand is low. For instance, Russian bond prices a year ago contracted big in price (ie: fell), but were paying 18% and made a solid buy. Now that the demand has risen, the price is up with the yield for those early investors the same, though newer investors are receiving less yield (about 9ish percent) and paying higher prices. I've rarely seen banks pay more variable interest than short term treasuries and the same holds true for long term CDs and long term treasuries. This isn't to say it's impossible, just rare. Also variable is different than a set term; if you buy a 10 year treasury at 18%, that means you get 18% for 10 years, even if interest rates fall four years later. Think about the people buying 30 year US treasuries during 1980-1985. Yowza. So if you have a very large amount of money you will store it in bonds as its much less likely that the US treasury will go bankrupt than your bank. Less likely? I don't know about your bank, but my bank doesn't owe $19 trillion.",
"When the inflation rate increases, this tends to push up interest rates because of supply and demand: If the interest rate is less than the inflation rate, then putting your money in the bank means that you are losing value every day that it is there. So there's an incentive to withdraw your money and spend it now. If, say, I'm planning to buy a car, and my savings are declining in real value, then if I buy a car today I can get a better car than if I wait until tomorrow. When interest rates are high compared to inflation, the reverse is true. My savings are increasing in value, so the longer I leave my money in the bank the more it's worth. If I wait until tomorrow to buy a car I can get a better car than I would be able to buy today. Also, people find alternative places to keep their savings. If a savings account will result in me losing value every day my money is there, then maybe I'll put the money in the stock market or buy gold or whatever. So for the banks to continue to get enough money to make loans, they have to increase the interest rates they pay to lure customers back to the bank. There is no reason per se for rising interest rates to consumers to directly cause an increase in the inflation rate. Inflation is caused by the money supply growing faster than the amount of goods and services produced. Interest rates are a cost. If interest rates go up, people will borrow less money and spend it on other things, but that has no direct effect on the total money supply. Except ... you may note I put a bunch of qualifiers in that paragraph. In the United States, the Federal Reserve loans money to banks. It creates this money out of thin air. So when the interest that the Federal Reserve charges to the banks is low, the banks will borrow more from the Feds. As this money is created on the spot, this adds to the money supply, and thus contributes to inflation. So if interest rates to consumers are low, this encourages people to borrow more money from the banks, which encourages the banks to borrow more from the Feds, which increases the money supply, which increases inflation. I don't know much about how it works in other countries, but I think it's similar in most nations.",
"No citation, but I once read the average holding period of a 30 yr treasury is 8 hours. A rise in the rate by just .1% will drop the value by just under 2% wiping out nearly a full year's gains. With 29 years to go the value of the 3% bond will be worth $981 if the rate were then 3.1% It's at 3.16% the bond would drop to exactly $970 after the year, i.e. you've gotten no return at all. I view this as pretty high risk.",
"Is it true that due the to the increase in interest rates that inflation is likely to increase as well? It is typically the reverse where inflation causes interest rates to rise. Interest rates fundamentally reflect the desire for people to purchase future goods over present day goods. If I loan money to someone for 5 years I lose the ability to use that money. In order to entice me to loan the money the borrower would have to offer me an incentive, that is, they would have to give me additional money at the end of that 5 years. This additional money is the interest rate and it reflects the desire of people to spend money in the future versus the present day. If offered the same amount of money today versus 5 years from now almost everyone would chose to take the money now. Money in the present is more valuable than the same amount of money in the future. Interest rates would still exist even with a currency that could not be printed. I would still prefer to have the currency today than in the future. If the currency is continually devalued (i.e. the issuer is printing more of the currency) than borrowers may charge additional interest to compensate for the loss in purchasing power when they make a loan. Also, it is hard to compare interest rates and inflation. Inflation is very difficult to calculate. New products and services, as well as ever changing consumer desires, continually change the mixture of goods in the market so it is nearly impossible to compare a basket of goods today to a basket of goods 5, 10, 20, or 30 years ago.",
"He didn't lock in a growth rate of 4%. He locked in a yield of 4%. That's the amount the bond pays in interest on his original investment each year. If he just spends that money the bond will continue to pay 4% each year, but there's no growth. In order to get growth he has to reinvest the interest as it comes in; if he puts it into bonds, the return on that new money, and hence the growth, depends on the prevailing interest rate at the time that the interest is paid. That interest rate can be higher or lower than the original 4%; there's no connection between the two.",
"\"1.65% is the annualized interest rate. If it is pail semi-annually, you'd get 8.23 every 6 months. And yes, if the YC is upward sloping, it means that 30 years t-bills pay higher interest. Thats a premium they pay for having your money locked in for a long time. It makes sense if you consider that they'd pay you that rate (say 2%) for the next 30 years. If for some reason interest rates in 25 years from now are like 15-20% (like they were 25 years ago) and inflation around the same rate, you'd still only be making 2%, on top of bleeding purchasing power of your initial investment. That's why long-term bonds require a premium. That being said, sometimes you get an \"\"inverted yield curve\"\", where yield's fall with the longer maturities. Look that up.\"",
"The federal reserve loans the US government dollars. The Federal reserve is NOT owned by the government, it is a private banking institution. So the US has to get capital from investor to borrow those dollars. Printing more dollars makes the dollars less valuable, and at the same time the investments less attractive unless there is a higher rate of interest attached to it.",
"I am currently trying out some variations (moving terms around ...) of the formula for the present value of money The relationship between yield and price is much simpler than that. If you pay £1015 for a bond and its current yield is 4.69%, that means you will receive in income each year: 4.69% * £1015 = £47.60 The income from the bond is defined by its coupon rate and its face value, not the market value. So that bond will continue to pay £47.60 each year, regardless of the market price. The market price will go up or down according to the market as a whole, and the credit rating of the issuer. If the issuer is likely to default, the market price goes down and the yield goes up. If similar companies start offering bonds with higher yields, the market price goes down to make the bond competitive in the market, again raising yield. So if the yield goes up to 4.87%, what is the price such that 4.87% of that price is £47.60? £47.60 / 4.87% = £977.48 Another way to think of it: if the yield goes up from 4.69% to 4.87%, then yield has increased by a factor of: 4.87% / 4.69% = 1.0384 Consequently, market price must decrease by the same factor: £1015 / 1.0384 = £977.48",
"Look at this question here. In my answer there, I put a link to an Investopedia article about the bond prices. Keep in mind that speculating over a short term period is pretty dangerous, even with the Treasury notes, and the prices may be affected temporary but greatly by the ordeals like the latest Republican shenanigans in Washington.",
"\"My answer is specific to the US because you mentioned the Federal Reserve, but a similar system is in place in most countries. Do interest rates increase based on what the market is doing, or do they solely increase based on what the Federal Reserve sets them at? There are actually two rates in question here; the Wikipedia article on the federal funds rate has a nice description that I'll summarize here. The interest rate that's usually referred to is the federal funds rate, and it's the rate at which banks can lend money to each other through the Federal Reserve. The nominal federal funds rate - this is a target set by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve at each meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). When you hear in the media that the Fed is changing interest rates, this is almost always what they're referring to. The actual federal funds rate - through the trading desk of the New York Federal Reserve, the FOMC conducts open market operations to enforce the federal funds rate, thus leading to the actual rate, which is the rate determined by market forces as a result of the Fed's operations. Open market operations involve buying and selling short-term securities in order to influence the rate. As an example, the current nominal federal funds rate is 0% (in economic parlance, this is known as the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB)), while the actual rate is approximately 25 basis points, or 0.25%. Why is it assumed that interest rates are going to increase when the Federal Reserve ends QE3? I don't understand why interest rates are going to increase. In the United States, quantitative easing is actually a little different from the usual open market operations the Fed conducts. Open market operations usually involve the buying and selling of short-term Treasury securities; in QE, however (especially the latest and ongoing round, QE3), the Fed has been purchasing longer-term Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities (MBS). By purchasing MBS, the Fed is trying to reduce the overall risk of the commercial housing debt market. Furthermore, the demand created by these purchases drives up prices on the debt, which drives down interest rates in the commercial housing market. To clarify: the debt market I'm referring to is the market for mortgage-backed securities and other debt derivatives (CDO's, for instance). I'll use MBS as an example. The actual mortgages are sold to companies that securitize them by pooling them and issuing securities based on the value of the pool. This process may happen numerous times, since derivatives can be created based on the value of the MBS themselves, which in turn are based on housing debt. In other words, MBS aren't exactly the same thing as housing debt, but they're based on housing debt. It's these packaged securities the Fed is purchasing, not the mortgages themselves. Once the Fed draws down QE3, however, this demand will probably decrease. As the Fed unloads its balance sheet over several years, and demand decreases throughout the market, prices will fall and interest rates in the commercial housing market will fall. Ideally, the Fed will wait until the economy is healthy enough to absorb the unloading of these securities. Just to be clear, the interest rates that QE3 are targeting are different from the interest rates you usually hear about. It's possible for the Fed to unwind QE3, while still keeping the \"\"interest rate\"\", i.e. the federal funds rate, near zero. although this is considered unlikely. Also, the Fed can target long-term vs. short-term interest rates as well, which is once again slightly different from what I talked about above. This was the goal of the Operation Twist program in 2011 (and in the 1960's). Kirill Fuchs gave a great description of the program in this answer, but basically, the Fed purchased long-term securities and sold short-term securities, with the goal of twisting the yield curve to lower long-term interest rates relative to short-term rates. The goal is to encourage people and businesses to take on long-term debt, e.g. mortgages, capital investments, etc. My main question that I'm trying to understand is why interest rates are what they are. Is it more of an arbitrary number set by central banks or is it due to market activity? Hopefully I addressed much of this above, but I'll give a quick summary. There are many \"\"interest rates\"\" in numerous different financial markets. The rate most commonly talked about is the nominal federal funds rate that I mentioned above; although it's a target set by the Board of Governors, it's not arbitrary. There's a reason the Federal Reserve hires hundreds of research economists. No central bank arbitrarily sets the interest rate; it's determined as part of an effort to reach certain economic benchmarks for the foreseeable future, whatever those may be. In the US, current Fed policy maintains that the federal funds rate should be approximately zero until the economy surpasses the unemployment and inflation benchmarks set forth by the Evans Rule (named after Charles Evans, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, who pushed for the rule). The effective federal funds rate, as well as other rates the Fed has targeted like interest rates on commercial housing debt, long-term rates on Treasury securities, etc. are market driven. The Fed may enter the market, but the same forces of supply and demand are still at work. Although the Fed's actions are controversial, the effects of their actions are still bound by market forces, so the policies and their effects are anything but arbitrary.\"",
"The Fed sets the overnight borrowing costs by setting its overnight target rate. The markets determine the rates at which the treasury can borrow through the issuance of bonds. The Fed's actions will certainly influence the price of very short term bonds, but the Fed's influence on anything other than very short term bonds in the current environment is very muted. Currently, the most influential factor keeping bond prices high and yields low is the high demand for US treasuries coming from overseas governments and institutions. This is being caused by two factors : sluggish growth in overseas economies and the ongoing strength of the US dollar. With many European government bonds offering negative redemption yields, income investors see US yields as relatively attractive. Those non-US economies which do not have negative bond yields either have near zero yields or large currency risks or both. Political issues such as the survival of the Euro also weigh heavily on market perceptions of the current attractiveness of the US dollar. Italian banks may be about to deliver a shock to the Eurozone, and the Spanish and French banks may not be far behind. Another factor is the continued threat of deflation. Growth is slowing around the world which negatively effects demand. Commodity prices remain depressed. Low growth and recession outside of the US translate into a prolonged period of near zero interest rates elsewhere together with renewed QE programmes in Europe, Japan, and possibly elsewhere. This makes the US look relatively attractive and so there is huge demand for US dollars and bonds. Any significant move in US interest rates risks driving to dollar ever higher which would be very negative for the future earning of US companies which rely on exports and foreign income. All of this makes the market believe that the Fed's hands are tied and low bond yields are here for the foreseeable future. Of course, even in the US growth is relatively slow and vulnerable to a loss of steam following a move in interest rates.",
"Im not sure if its normal/sensical/healthy, and that is kind of opinion based. But there is a reason for it. Certain rules and regulations passed recently are causing companies or institutions to shift to bonds from cash. Fidelity, for example, is completely converting its $100 billion dollar cash fund to short term bills. Its estimated that over $2 trillion that is now in cash may be converted to bills, and that will obviously put upward preasure on the price of them. The treasury is trying to issue more short term debt to balance out the demand. read more here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/money-funds-clamor-for-short-term-treasurys-1445300813",
"Fundamentally interest rates reflect the time preference people place on money and the things money can buy. If I have a high time preference then I prefer money in my hand versus money promised to me at some date in the future. Thus, I will only loan my money to someone if they offer me an incentive which would be an amount of money to be received in the future that is larger than the amount of money I’m giving the debtor in the present (i.e. the interest rate). Many factors go into my time preference determination. My demand for cash (i.e. my cash balance), the credit rating of the borrower, the length of the loan, and my expectation of the change in currency value are just a few of the factors that affect what interest rate I will loan money. The first loan I make will have a lower interest rate than the last loan, ceteris paribus. This is because my supply of cash diminishes with each loan which makes my remaining cash more valuable and a higher interest rate will be needed to entice me to make additional loans. This is the theory behind why interest rates will rise when QE3 or QEinfinity ever stops. QE is where the Federal Reserve cartel prints new money to purchase bonds from cartel banks. If QE slows or ends the supply of money will stop increasing which will make cash more valuable and higher interest rates will be needed to entice creditors to loan money. Note that increasing the stock of money does not necessarily result in lower interest rates. As stated earlier, the change in value of the currency also affects the interest rate lenders are willing to accept. If the Federal Reserve cartel deposited $1 million everyday into every US citizen’s bank account it wouldn’t take long before lenders demanded very high interest rates as compensation for the decrease in the value of the currency. Does the Federal Reserve cartel affect interest rates? Yes, in two ways. First, as mentioned before, it prints new money that is loaned to the government. It either purchases the bonds directly or purchases the bonds from cartel banks which give them cash to purchase more government bonds. This keeps demand high for government bonds which lowers the yield on government bonds (yields move inverse to the price of the bond). The Federal Reserve cartel also can provide an unlimited amount of funds at the Federal Funds rate to the cartel member banks. Banks can borrow at this rate and then proceed to make loans at a higher rate and pocket the difference. Remember, however, that the Federal Reserve cartel is not the only market participant. Other bond holders, such as foreign governments and pension funds, buy and sell US bonds. At some point they could demand higher rates. The Federal Reserve cartel, which currently holds close to 17% of US public debt, could attempt to keep rates low by printing new money to buy all existing US bonds to prevent the yield on bonds from going up. At that point, however, holding US dollars becomes very dangerous as it is apparent the Federal Reserve cartel is just a money printing machine for the US government. That’s when most people begin to dump dollars en masse.",
"It can be zero or negative given the current market conditions. Any money parked with treasury bonds is 100% risk free. So if I have a large amount of USD, and need a safe place to keep, then in today's environment even the banks (large as well) are at risk. So if I park my money with some large bank and that bank goes bankrupt, my money is gone for good. After a long drawn bankruptcy procedure, I may get back all of it or some of it. Even if the bank does not go bankrupt, it may face liquidity crises and I may not be able to withdraw when I want. Hence it's safer to keep it in Treasury bonds even though I may not gain any interest, or even lose a small amount of money. At least it will be very safe. Today there are very few options for large investors (typically governments and institutional investors.) The Euro is facing uncertainty. The Yuan is still regulated. There is not enough gold to buy (or to store it.) Hence this leads towards the USD. The very fact that USD is safe in today's environment is reflected in the Treasury rates.",
"\"You are asking multiple questions here, pieces of which may have been addressed in other questions. A bond (I'm using US Government bonds in this example, and making the 'zero risk of default' assumption) will be priced based on today's interest rate. This is true whether it's a 10% bond with 10 years left (say rates were 10% on the 30 yr bond 20 years ago) a 2% bond with 10 years, or a new 3% 10 year bond. The rate I use above is the 'coupon' rate, i.e. the amount the bond will pay each year in interest. What's the same for each bond is called the \"\"Yield to Maturity.\"\" The price adjusts, by the market, so the return over the next ten years is the same. A bond fund simply contains a mix of bonds, but in aggregate, has a yield as well as a duration, the time-and-interest-weighted maturity. When rates rise, the bond fund will drop in value based on this factor (duration). Does this begin to answer your question?\"",
"Increasing rates from .75% to 1% is an attempt to control debt. The new 1% rate drives down demand for bonds based on the old .75% rate and drives down demand for stocks who have decrease profit because they pay more interest on debt. This is the federal reserves primary tool controling inflation. 1% is what the banks pay to borrow money, they base their lending rates on this 1% figure. If a person can guarantee a .75% return on money borrowed at 1%, they will opt to save and instead lend their money out at 1%.",
"The 10yr bond pays coupons semi annually. The yield % is what you would get annually if you hold the bond to full term. The coupon payment won't be exactly 1.65%/2 because of how bond pricing and yields work. The yield commonly quoted does not tell you how much each interest payment is. You have to look at the price and coupon of a specific individual bond. The rate you see is the market equilibrium yield at the present. Example, I offer two different people two different bonds. Joe buys a 10yr bond paying 5% coupons semi annually at a par value of $1000. I charge him $1000. Bob wants to buy a 10yr bond paying 10% coupons semi annually at a par value of $1000. I charge him $1500 for this. The yield is similar between the two (not equal due to math details but lets assume). So at the end of 10 yrs, the two have roughly the same total amount of $. Bob's paid more each year but he paid more up front. This is why the federal govt can issue bonds with diff coupons and the market prices them so the yield rises/falls to the market clearing yield.",
"Let's say today you buy the bond issued by StateX at 18$. Let's say tommorow morning the TV says that StateX is going towards default (if it happens it won't give you back not even the 18$ you invested). You (and others that bought the same bond like you) will get scared and try to sell the bond, but a potential buyer won't buy it for 18$ anymore they will risk maximum couple of bucks, therefor the price of your bond tomorrow is worth 2$ and not 18 anymore. Bond prices (even zero coupon ones) do fluctuate like shares, but with less turbolence (i.e. on the same period of time, ups and downs are smaller in percentage compared to shares) EDIT: Geo asked in the comment below what happens to the bond the FED rises the interest. It' very similar to what I explained above. Let's say today you buy the bond just issued by US treasury at 50$. Today the FED rewards money at 2%, and the bond you bought promised you a reward of 2% per year for 10 years (even if it's zero coupon, it will give you almost the same reward of one with coupons, the only difference is that it will give you all the money back at once, that is when the bond expires). Let's say tommorow morning the TV says that FED decided to rise the interest rates, and now on it lends money rewarding a wonderful 4% to investors. US treasury will also have to issue bonds at 4%. You can obviously keep your bond until expiration (and unless US goes default you will get back all your money until the last cent), but if you decide to sell your bond, you will find out that people won't be willing to pay 50$ anymore because on the market they can now buy the same type of bond (for the same period of time, 10 years) that give them 4% per year and not a poor 2% like yours. So people will be willing to pay maximum 40$ for your bond or less.",
"It depends a lot on your investment period and the quality of the bonds that you want to invest. For example, if you want to invest until the maturity of the bonds, and the bonds are very safe (i.e. they are not expected to default), it does not matter that the interest rate rise. That is because at the maturity of the bond it will converge to its maturity value which will be independent of the change of the interest rates (although on the middle of the life the price of the bond will go down, but the coupon should remain constant -unless is a floating coupon bond-). An option could be to invest in an ETF with short term bonds (e.g. 1 year) with AAA credit rating (high quality, so very low default rate). It won't yield much, but is more than 0% if you hold it until maturity.",
"From Indian context, there are a number of factors that are influencing the economic condition and the exchange rate, interest rate etc. are reflection of the situation. I shall try and answer the question through the above Indian example. India is running a budget deficit of 4 odd % for last 6-7 years, which means that gov.in is spending more than their revenue collection, this money is not in the system, so the govt. has to print the money, either the direct 4% or the interest it has to pay on the money it borrows to cover the 4% (don't confuse this with US printing post 2008). After printing, the supply of INR is more compared to USD in the market (INR is current A/C convertible), value of INR w.r.t. USD falls (in simplistic terms). There is another impact of this printing, it increases the money supply in domestic market leading to inflation and overall price rise. To contain this price rise, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) increases the interest rates and increases Compulsory Reserve Ratio (CRR), thus trying to pull/lock-up money, so that overall money supply decreases, but there is a limit to which RBI can do this as overall growth rate keeps falling as money is more expensive to borrow to invest. The above (in simplistic term) how this is working. However, there are many factors in economy and the above should be treated as it is intended to, a simplistic view only.",
"\"The answer is yes. And the reason is if today's interest rates are lower than the interest rate (coupon) at which the bond was issued. The bond's \"\"lifetime value\"\" is 100 cents on the dollar. That's the principal repayment that the investor will get on the maturity date. But suppose the bond's coupon rate is 4% while today's interest rate is 3%. Then, people who bought the bond at 100 would get 4% on their money, while everyone else was getting 3%. To compensate, a three year bond would have to rise to almost 103 so that the so-called yield to maturity\"\" would be 3%. Then there would be a \"\"capital loss\"\" (from almost 103 to 100) that would exactly offset the extra interest, that is 1% \"\"more\"\" for three years. If today's interest rates are negative (as they were from time to time in the 1930s, and in the present decade), the \"\"negative\"\" interest rates will prevent the buyer from getting the \"\"lifetime value\"\" (as defined by the OP) of principal plus interest over the original life of the bond. This happens in a \"\"flight to quality\"\" situation, where people are willing to take a (small) capital loss on Treasuries in order to prevent a large possible loss from bank failures like those that took place in 2008.\"",
"For safety. If something catastrophic happens to your bank and your money is in there you will lose any not covered by FDIC. So if you have a very large amount of money you will store it in bonds as its much less likely that the US treasury will go bankrupt than your bank. I also literally just posted this in another thread: Certain rules and regulations penalize companies or institutions for holding cash, so they are shifting to bonds and bills. Fidelity, for example, is completely converting its $100 billion dollar cash fund to short term bills. Its estimated that over $2 trillion that is now in cash may be converted to bills, and that will obviously put upward preasure on the price of them. The treasury is trying to issue more short term debt to balance out the demand. read more here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/money-funds-clamor-for-short-term-treasurys-1445300813",
"When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that.",
"Possibly but not necessarily, though that can happen if one looks at the US interest rates in the late 1970s which did end with really high rates in the early 1980s. Generally interest rates are raised when inflation picks up as a way to bring down inflation.",
"The 1-yr bond has a higher interest rate, but it's only guaranteed for a year. This means it is subject to reinvestment risk. Suppose you're investing in 1981. Which sounds better? I've not looked up the precise interest rates but I'm guessing the former option leaves you with more money in 1991. It should be no surprise that investors were willing to pay more for it++, even if they couldn't have been totally sure in advance. :) (++ Remember, a bond is like a coupon for a certain percentage off of future-money. If the coupon offers you fewer percent off, you're paying more present-money for each dollar of future-money you buy.)",
"I assume you're looking for advice, not an actual guaranteed-to-appreciate answer, yes? If you believe Treasury bonds will increase as fast as inflation, that may be the way to go.",
"The yield on treasury bond indicates the amount of money anyone at can make at virtually zero risk. So lets say banks have X [say 100] amount of money. They can either invest this in treasury bonds and get Y% [say 1%] interest that is very safe, or invest into mortgage loans [i.e. lend it to people] at Y+Z% [say at 3%]. The extra Z% is to cover the servicing cost and the associated risk. (Put another way, if you wanted only Y%, why not invest into treasury bonds, rather than take the risk and hassle of getting the same Y% by lending to individuals?) In short, treasury bond rates drive the rate at which banks can invest surplus money in the market or borrow from the market. This indirectly translates into the savings & lending rates to the banks' customers.",
"Virtually zero risk of default; safety; diversification; guaranteed fixed income albeit very low; portfolio diversifier so it reduces total volatility; plus yields might drop even lower thus increasing the price of the bond. Very unlikely given how obscenely low yields already are but still possible. I thought nobody would ever buy a 10yr @ 3% and now look, rates are almost half as much and those 3% bonds are worth a lot more now on the secondary market. Timing the bond market is really hard.",
"\"Its because of the economic uncertainty in the world. They are the \"\"risk-free\"\" investment as it is an almost guaranteed return if you exclude inflation and US gov't defaulting. A lot of people are afraid to invest elsewhere given the current economic climate. The yield on bonds is also low due to government intervention. Quantitative easing 1 and 2 and operation twist has forced yield this low, as that is what the government wants.\"",
"\"If you owned a bank how would you invest the bank's money? Typically banks are involved in loaning out money to businesses, people, and government at a higher interest rate then what they are paying to depositors. This is the spread and how they make money. If the bank determines that the yields on government bonds is more attractive then loaning the money out to businesses and people then the bank will purchase government bonds. It can also decide the other way. In this manner the mortgage and bond markets are always competing for capital and tend to offer very similar yields. Certain banks have the unique privilege of being able to borrow money from the FED at the Federal Funds rate and use this money to purchase government debt or loan it out to other banks or purchase other debt products. In this manner you see a high correlation between the FED funds rate, mortgage rates, and treasury yields. Other political factors include legislation that encourages mortgage lending (see Community Reinvestment Act) where banks may not have made the loans without said legislation. In short, keep your eye on the FED and ask yourself: \"\"Does the FED want rates to rise?\"\" and \"\"Can the US government afford rising rates?\"\" The answer to these two questions is no. However, the FED may be pressured to \"\"stop the presses\"\" if inflation becomes unwieldy and the FED actually starts to care about food and energy prices. So far this hasn't been the case.\"",
"Yeah my question was just out of curiosity. Though I do wonder, given that bond prices are so low, they inevitably will have to go up right? So why does anyone bother to buy them in the first place?",
"That 0.625% is the annual interest rate you'll receive. It is paid out in two, semi-annual payments. That is, every six months you'll receive a check for roughly 0.3125%. https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/prod_tnotes_glance.htm",
"Very rarely would an investor be happy with a 4% yield independent of anything else that might happen in the future. For example, if in 3 years for some reason or other inflation explodes and 30 year bond yields go up to 15% across the board, they would be kicking themselves for having locked it up for 30 years at 4%. However, if instead of doing that the investor put their money in a 3 year bond at 3% say, they would have the opportunity to reinvest in the new rate environment, which might offer higher or lower yields. This eventually leads fixed income investors to have a bond portfolio in which they manage the average maturity of their bond portfolio to be somewhere between the two extremes of investing it all in super short term/ low yield money market rates vs. super long term bonds. As they constantly monitor and manage their maturing investments, it inevitably leads them to managing interest rate risk as they decide where to reinvest their incremental coupons by looking at the shape of the yield curve at the time and determining what kind of risk/reward tradeoffs they would have to make.",
"\"The rate of the bond is fixed. But there is a risk known as \"\"interest rate risk\"\". Basically, if you have a 2 percent bond and market rates are 4 percent, you'll have to offer your bond at a discount or nobody would buy it. So if you ever needed to sell it, you'd lose a bit of money.\"",
"\"Since you want to know exactly what \"\"yield\"\" means, let's get all the details of the security down first. Treasury Bills are 0-1 year and do not pay interest/coupons. The yield comes from buying the T-Bill at a discount. For example, you buy a T-Bill for $99 and it pays $100 when it matures, and the yield over that holding period is 1/99. When people talk about \"\"yield\"\" they are generally talking about annualized yield unless stated otherwise. Treasury Notes are 2-10 years. They pay interest semi-annually. Treasury Bonds are 20-30 years and they also pay interest semi-annually. Again, \"\"yield\"\" is typically the annualized yield, or the two semi-annual interest payments added together (without compounding). These have interest payments so they are typically sold at par. They may trade a premium/discount afterwards. TIPS pay a constant coupon rate, but the principal is adjusted up and down with inflation.\"",
"Actually, bond prices are technically high right now, so if and when rates theoretically go up in the future, bond prices will fall. The past 25 years for bonds have been great with falling interest rates, but it's not likely going to continue with rates not able to go any lower.",
"FYI, I am assuming you are an individual investor.. The rates on the website may change, if the government decides so. Anyway it is a UK government website, so it would reflect the changes immediately.",
"tl,dr: I-bonds do not fit well into most personal finance plans. First the questions (succinct reference): I like your thought process weighing your liquidity and risk versus your return. This is very important. However, I think you might be sidetracked a bit by I-Bonds. I-Bonds are not generally good for personal investment as they are not marketable when necessary, have redemption penalties and hold lower overall yields in general. Finally, they are significantly harder to trade as you can buy and hold a TIPS ETF and get exposure to all maturities and get the current competitive rate all in one purchase. Inflation protection is in general an interesting problem. While inflation-protected bonds sound like they are great for inflation protection (after all it is in the name), they may not be the best instruments for long/medium term protection. It is really important to remember that inflation protected bonds have significantly lower returns and one form of inflation protection is to just have more money in the future. TIPS really protect against large inflation changes as normal bonds have the future expected inflation already baked in their higher rates. Also, when you own a stock you own part of a company and inflation will increase the value of the company relative to the inflated currency. Foreign stocks can give even more protection if you think inflation in your local currency is going to be higher then the foreign currency. Stocks in the past have had significantly higher return overall than inflation protected bonds but have higher risk as well. As a medium term, low-risk portfolio, it is worth looking into some combination of TIPS, normal bonds and a small to medium allocation of local/foreign stocks all done through low-fee mutual funds or index ETFs.",
"I'll get to my answer in a moment, but first need to put focus on the two key components of bond prices: interest rates and credit risk. Suppose that the 10-year treasury has a coupon of 2% per year (it would be paid as 1% twice per year, in reality). If you own one contract of the bond which we suppose has a so-called face-value of $100, then this contract will over the ten years pay you a total of $20 in coupons, then $100 at redemption. So $120 in total. Would you therefore buy this 10-year treasury bond for $120, or more, or less? Well, if there were bank accounts around which were offering you an interest rate of 2% per year fixed for the next 10 years, then you could alternatively generate $120 from just $100 deposited now (if we assume that the interest paid is not put back in the account to earn 2% per year). Consequently, a price of $100 for the treasury would seem about right. However, suppose that you are not very confident that the banks that offer these accounts will even be around in 10 years time, maybe they will fail before that and you'll never get your money back. Then you might say to yourself that the above calculation is mathematically right, but not really a full representation of the different risks. And you conclude that maybe treasuries should be a bit more expensive, because they offer better credit risk than bank deposits. All of this just to show that the price of bonds is a comparative valuation of rates and credit: you need to know the general level of interest rates available in other investment products (even in stocks, I'd say), you need to have a feel for how much credit risk there is in the different investment products. Most people think that 'normally' interest rates are positive, because we are so familiar with the basic principle that: if I lend you some money then you need to pay me some interest. But in a world where everyone is worried about bank failures, people might prefer to effectively 'deposit' our savings with the US treasury (by buying their bonds) than to deposit their savings in the local bank. The US treasury will see this extra demand and put up the prices of their bonds (they are not stupid at the US treasury, you know!), so maybe the price of the 10-year treasury will go above $120. It could, right? In this scenario, the implied yield on the 10-year treasury is negative. There you go, yields have gone negative because of credit risk concerns.",
"AAA bonds are safe, as far as the principal goes. If you buy long term bonds today (at very low rates) and the interest rate goes up to 10% in 5 years, the current value of the bonds will decrease. But if you hold the bonds till maturity, you will almost certainly (barring MBS scenarios) get the expected principal and interest on the bonds. If you decide to sell a long-term bond before it matures, it will probably be worth less than you paid for it if interest rates have risen since you bought it.",
"The people who bought when interest rates were higher, do they get anything out of it? The present value just went up of their Bonds just went up, but it probably evened out to the 3% they were going to get right? Do they make more money selling the bond now, or holding on to it till maturity in PV terms?",
"The only reason I can think of would be if you were convinced that you couldn't hold on to your money. Treasury Bonds are often viewed as very safe investments, and often used in some situations where cash isn't appropriate.. Also, they typically have a somewhat patriotic theme, helping your country to grow. In addition, many people don't really pay attention to the rate of the bonds, but are just investing in them. The more people investing in them, the lower the yields become. But the bottom line is, I would invest in a savings account any day over a negative interest rate... And it looks like I'm in good company as well, a quick study of reports seems to indicate that these are a very bad investment...",
"\"So with any debt, be it a loan or a bond or anything else, you have two parts, the principal and the interest. The interest payment is calculated by applying the interest % to the principal. Most bonds are \"\"bullet bonds\"\" which means that the principle remains completely outstanding for the life of the bond and thus your interest payments are constant throughout the life of the bond (usually paid semi-annually). Typically part of the purpose of these is to be indefinitely refinanced, so you never really pay the principal back, though it is theoretically due at expiration. What you are thinking of when you say a loan from a bank is an amortizing loan. With these you pay an increasing amount of the principal each period calculated such that your payments are all exactly the same (including the final payment). Bonds, just like bank loans, can be bullet, partially amortizing (you pay some of the principle but still have a smaller lump sum at the end) and fully amortizing. One really common bullet structure is \"\"5 non-call 3,\"\" which means you aren't allowed to pay the principle down for the first three years even if you want to! This is to protect investors who spend time and resources investing in you!\"",
"The generic representative of interest rates is the 10 year treasury bond rate. (USA). As an approximation most other interest rates do tend to move up and down with the treasury rate, but with more or less sensitivity. Another prominently discussed interest rate is the short term loan rate established by the Federal Reserve for loans it makes to banks.",
"I have been charting the CPI reported inflation rate vs . the yeald on the 10-year T-note. Usually, the two like to keep pace with each other. Sometimes the T-note is a bit higher than the inflation rate, sometimes the inflation rate is a bit higher than the T-note yeald. One does not appear to follow the other, but (until recently) the two do not diverge from each other by much. But all that changed recently and I am without an explanation as to why. Inflation dropped to zero (or a bit negative) yet the yeald on the 10-year T-note seemed to seek 2%. Edit: If you give this response a downvote then please be kind enough to explain why in a comment. Edit-2: CPI and 10-year T-note are what I have tracked, and continue to track. If you do not like my answer then provide a better one, yourself.",
"\"that would imply that a 30Y US Treasury bond only yields 2.78%, which is nonsensically low. Those are annualized yields. It would be more precise to say that \"\"a 30Y US Treasury bond yields 2.78% per year (annualized) over 30 years\"\", but that terminology is implied in bond markets. So if you invest $1,000 in a 30-year T-bond, you will earn roughly 2.78% in interest per year. Also note that yield is calculated as if it compounded, meaning that investing in a 30-year T-bind will give you a return that is equivalent to putting it in a savings account that earns 1.39% interest (half of 2.78%) every 6 months and compounds, meaning you earn interest on top of interest. The trade-off for these low yields is you have virtually no default risk. Unlike a company that could go bankrupt and not pay back the bond, the US Government is virtually certain to pay off these bonds because it can print or borrow more money to pay off the debts. In addition, bonds in general (and especially treasuries) have very low market risk, meaning that their value fluctuates much less that equities, even indicies. S&P 500 indices may move anywhere between -40% and 50% in any given year, while T-bonds' range of movement is much lower, between -10% and 30% historically).\"",
"The only reason I can think of is that the bonds are bought automatically by some investment pools, groups or institutions. That will stop very quickly once the management finds some other place to put the money.",
"It is my understanding that banks pay less than the going rate on savings accounts and require that the person who takes out a loan pay more than the going rate. That is how the bank gets its money. Usually the going rate is affected by the current inflation rate (but that has not been true for the last few weeks). So that means that, typically, the money you have in the bank is, gradually, losing purchasing power as the bank typically pays you less than the inflation rate. So if you want your money to keep pace with inflation (or do a bit better) then you should buy bonds.",
"\"In general, yes. If interest rates go higher, then any existing fixed-rate bonds - and hence ETFs holding those bonds - become less valuable. The further each bond is from maturity, the larger the impact. As you suggest, once the bonds do mature, the fund can replace them at a market price, so the effect tails off. The bond market has a concept known as \"\"duration\"\" that helps reason about this effect. Roughly, it measures the average time from now to each payout of the bond, weighted by the payout. The longer the duration, the more the price will change for a given change in interest rates. The concept is just an approximation, and there are various slightly different ways of calculating it; but very roughly the price of a bond will reduce by a percentage equal to the duration times the increase in interest rates. So a bond with a duration of 5 years will lose 5% of its value for a 1% rise in interest rates (and of course vice-versa). For your second question, it really depends on what you're trying to achieve by diversifying - this might be best as a different question that gives more detail, as it's not very related to your first question. Short-term bonds are less risky. But both will lose value if the underlying company is in trouble. Gilts (government bonds) are less risky than corporate bonds.\"",
"\"Of course it can. This is a time value of money calculation. If I knew the maturity date, or current yield to maturity I'd be able to calculate the other number and advise how much rates need to rise to cause the value to drop from 18 to 17. For a 10 year bond, a rise today of .1% will cause the bond to drop about 1% in value. This is a back of napkin calculation, finance calculators offer precision. edit - when I calculate present value with 34 years to go, and 5.832% yield to maturity, I get $14.55. At 5.932, the value drops to $14.09, a drop of 3.1%. Edit - Geo asked me to show calculations. Here it goes - A) The simplest way to calculate present value for a zero coupon bond is to take the rate 5.832%, convert it to 1.05832 and divide into the face value, $100. I offer this as the \"\"four function calculator\"\" approach, so one enters $100 divided by 1.05832 and repeat for the number of years left. A bit of precision is lost if there's a fractional year involved, but it's close. The bid/ask will be wider than this error introduced. B) Next - If you've never read my open declaration of love for my Texas Instruments BA-35 calculator, here it is, again. One enters N=34 (for the years) FV = 100, Rate = 5.832, and then CPT PV. It will give the result, $14.56. C) Here is how to do it in Excel - The numbers in lines 1-3 are self evident, the equation in cell B4 is =-PV(B3/100,B1,0,B2) - please note there are tiny differences in the way to calculate in excel vs a calculator. Excel wants the rate to be .05832, so I divided by 100 in the equation cell. That's the best 3 ways I know to calculate present value. Geo, if you've not noticed, the time value of money is near and dear to me. It comes into play for bonds, mortgages, and many aspect of investing. The equations get more complex if there are payments each year, but both the BA-35 and excel are up to it.\"",
"I know that assets like bonds have prices that have an inverse relationship with interest rates, but what other assets do as well? I'm a bit new to finance and all that so I'm trying to learn. Would real estate prices be high as well? If so, why?",
"\"A paper EE series US Savings Bond is what is called a zero-coupon bond: you buy it at a discount from the face value (50% discount for US Savings Bonds), and it earns interest though you don't get the interest as cash (that you could invest elsewhere). Instead, the interest earned increases the redemption value of the bond -- the money that you will receive if you take the bond to your bank to cash it in before the maturity date. When the bond finally matures, its redemption value has increased to the full face value. The maturity date for paper EE series US Savings Bonds issued in May 1995 is 17 years. Now, with zero-coupon bonds in general, the IRS requires that the interest earned each year be reported as interest income even though you did not receive any cash income, and tax is due on the interest (unless it is a tax-free municipal bond or the bond is held in a tax-deferred investment such as an IRA or 401(k) plan). However, there is a special exemption for EE Series US Savings Bonds in that the owner has the option of not declaring the interest each year but instead reporting all the accumulated interest as interest income in the year of redemption. (Most people choose this option). It is not capital gains as you would like to be. So, if your grandfather paid $11K$ for EE series US Savings Bonds in May 1995, the face value of the bonds he received was $22K, and, assuming that your grandfather followed typical practice, the bonds were worth $22K in May 2012, and $11K interest income needed to be declared that year. This matches up pretty well with the amount the IRS told him was interest income on which he had to pay income tax (though the year is off by 3). Now, your grandfather died in 2008, and what happened to the bonds depends on in whose name(s) the bonds were registered (e.g. was your father named as the survivor on the bond), or, if your grandfather was the sole owner, how your grandfather's estate was handled (the interest accrued till your grandfather died belonged to the estate). Note also that EE series bonds continue to earn interest in years 18 through 30 after they mature, but at maturity, the interest rate is reset by the Treasury, usually to the long-term interest rate which has been very small over the past many years. So, the interest earned in 2012-2015 when your father effectively redeemed the bond is small enough that the \"\"approximately $11K\"\" could be construed as covering $11.3K consisting of $11K of interest before maturity and $300 interest (at about 1% per annum) over the three-year post maturity period. The $100 interest earned by you for the current year sounds about right too. All in all, it might be the case that your grandfather bought the bonds in his name, your father's name, and your name (were you very young in 1995?), your father and you inherited the bonds in 2008, and then your father removed your grandfather's name from the bonds in 2015, thus transferring the bonds to his name and yours in 2015, and soon thereafter removed his name, transferring the bonds into your name alone. As to why 2015 and not 2008 when your grandfather passed away, did you turn 21 in 2015 (twenty years after the bonds were bought)?\"",
"Now sweetums . .its the Fed that buys US treasuries to keep the Yield down . . .wait but how can that be? How can the Fed be the biggest holder of US treasuries . . .that would be like sucking your own dick . . .but hey . .its good for the economy Its a good thing we have bred fucking Morons or the dollar might go into hyper inflation if Americans knew how to add",
"In a secular bull market, strong investor sentiment drives prices higher, as participants, over time, are net buyers. Secular markets are typically driven by large-scale national and worldwide events... demographic/ population shifts, governmental policies... bear market periods occur within the longer interval, but do not reverse the trend. There are still many reasons to buy the long bond, despite the lack of yield (nearly flat term structure of interest rates). Despite the recent credit ratings agency downgrades of U.S. sovereign risk, the T-bond offers greater relative security than many alternatives. If Germany were NOT part of the EU, its government bonds would be issued by the Bundesbank, denominated in Deutsche Marks. German government bonds would probably be a better choice than the U.S. Treasury's 30-year bond. Long-term maturity U.S. Treasuries are in demand by investment and portfolio managers because:",
"Basically, they all do. The relationship is much more dynamic with stocks but corporate financing costs increase, return requirements increase (risk free rate goes up). Same with real estate. Commodity demand is correlated with economic activity, which is correlated with interest rates, although not perfectly. The most important factor is, a higher risk free rate increases the discount rate, which reduces asset values",
"There's two competing forces at work, and they are at work worldwide. Banks can get money from several sources: Through inter-bank borrowing and from raising capital. Capital can come from from selling assets, stock offerings, deposits, etc. The money the banks get from depositors is capital. In the United States, the Federal Reserve regulates the amount of capital that banks must maintain. If there was no requirement for capital then there would be zero demand for capital at an interest rate above the inter-bank offering rate. As capital requirements have risen, banks are allowed to make less loans given a certain amount of capital. That has caused an increased demand for capital from depositors. As described in this Federal Reserve ruling, effective January 1st, 2014 the Federal Reserve is again raising capital requirements. As you can see here money can be borrowed, in the United States, at .0825% (100 - 99.9175). Currently interest rates paid to borrowers are quite high compared to prevailing inter-bank rates. They could see more upward pressure given the fact that banks will be forced to maintain an increased amount of capital for a given amount of loans.",
"Yes, if you want income and are willing to commit to hold a bond to maturity, you can hold the bond, get the scheduled payments, and get your principal returned at the end. US Savings Bonds are non-marketable (you cannot trade them, but can redeem early) bonds designed for this purpose. The value of a marketable bond will vary over its lifetime as interest rates change and the bond matures. If you buy a 30 year US Treasury bond at par value (100) on September 1, 2011, it yielded 3.51%. If rates fall, the value of your bond will increase over 100. If rates rise, the value will decrease below 100. How much the value changes depends on the type of bond and the demand for it. But if your goal is to buy and hold, you don't need to worry about it.",
"But the notes are always called at par, no? So you have a fixed yield which depends on the coupon and price you bought it at. I still don't see how the company doing better than expected changes the yield on your investment.",
"Notes and Bonds sell at par (1.0). When rates go up, their value goes down. When rates go down, their value goes up. As an individual investor, you really don't have any business buying individual bonds unless you are holding them to maturity. Buy a short-duration bond fund or ETF.",
"IMHO bonds are not a good investment at this present time, nor generally. Appreciate for a moment that the yield of an investment is DIRECTLY related to the face/trading value. If a thing (bond/stock) trades for $100 and yields 3%, it pays $3. In the case of a bond, the bond doesn't pay a % amount, it pays a $ amount. Meaning it pays $3. SO, for the yield to rise, what has to happen to the trading price? It has to decrease. As of 2013/14 bonds are trading at historically LOW yields. The logical implication of this is if a bond pays a fixed $ amount, the trading price of the bond has to have increased. So if you buy bonds now, you will see a decrease in its face value over the long term. You may find the first tool I built at Simple Stock Search useful as you research potential investments.",
"Are you trolling? It's been declining for 100 years. It's called inflation, and the guys in charge of the currency supply seem to think it's a good thing. Further the only way the government is ever going to pay this debt off is if we continue to see inflation for decades.",
"You can look at TIPS (which have some inflation protection built in). Generally short term bonds are better than long if you expect rates to rise soon. Other ways that you can protect yourself are to choose higher yield corporate bonds instead of government bonds, or to use foreign bonds. There are plenty of bond funds like Templeton Global or ETFs that offer such features. Find one that will work for you.",
"\"The most fundamental observation of bond pricing is this: Bond price is inversely proportional to bond yields When bond yields rise, the price of the bond falls. When bond yields fall, the price of the bond rises. Higher rates are \"\"bad\"\" for bonds. If a selloff occurs in the Russian government bond space (i.e. prices are going down), the yield on that bond is going to increase as a consequence.\"",
"Russia has become more risky as an investment, thus investors, basically the market, wants to be paid more for investing in or owning those bonds. As yields go up, prices go down. So right now you can buy a low priced Russian bond with a high yield because the market views the risk involved as higher than risks involved in other similar securities.",
"Supply and demand for a particular bond may be such that the market price exceeds the par value for the bond at maturity. This is when you get a negative yield. Especially when volatility is high, people will actually pay money to park it in treasuries for an amount of time. But when compared to a > 25% vol in the equities market over that same period, taking a 5% or less hit doesn't sound nearly as bad!",
"Keep in mind there are a couple of points to ponder here: Rates are really low. With rates being so low, unless there is deflation, it is pretty easy to see even moderate inflation of 1-2% being enough to eat the yield completely which would be why the returns are negative. Inflation is still relatively contained. With inflation low, there is no reason for the central banks to raise rates which would give new bonds a better rate. Thus, this changes in CPI are still in the range where central banks want to be stimulative with their policy which means rates are low which if lower than inflation rates would give a negative real return which would be seen as a way to trigger more spending since putting the money into treasury debt will lose money to inflation in terms of purchasing power. A good question to ponder is has this happened before in the history of the world and what could we learn from that point in time. The idea for investors would be to find alternative holdings for their cash and bonds if they want to beat inflation though there are some inflation-indexed bonds that aren't likely appearing in the chart that could also be something to add to the picture here.",
"\"Can it be so that these low-interest rates cause investors to take greater risk to get a decent return? With interest rates being as low as they are, there is little to no risk in banking; especially after Dodd-Frank. \"\"Risk\"\" is just a fancy word for \"\"Will I make money in the near/ long future.\"\" No one knows what the actual risk is (unless you can see into the future.) But there are ways to mitigate it. So, arguably, the best way to make money is the stock market, not in banking. There is a great misallocation of resources which at some point will show itself and cause tremendous losses, even maybe cause a new financial crisis? A financial crisis is backed on a believed-to-be strong investment that goes belly-up. \"\"Tremendous Losses\"\" is a rather grand term with no merit. Banks are not purposely keeping interest rates low to cause a financial crisis. As the central banks have kept interest rates extremely low for a decade, even negative, this affects how much we save and borrow. The biggest point here is to know one thing: bonds. Bonds affect all things from municipalities, construction, to pensions. If interest rates increased currently, the current rate of bonds would drop vastly and actually cause a financial crisis (in the U.S.) due to millions of older persons relying on bonds as sources of income.\"",
"But it also can't be 1.46%, because that would imply that a 30Y US Treasury bond only yields 2.78%, which is nonsensically low. The rates are displayed as of Today. As the footnote suggests these are to be read with Maturities. A Treasury with 1 year Maturity is at 1.162% and a Treasury with 30Y Maturity is at 2.78%. Generally Bonds with longer maturity terms give better yields than bonds of shorter duration. This indicates the belief that in long term the outlook is positive.",
"Well, people have been saying interest rates have to go up for years now and have been wrong so far. Also there is an opportunity cost in waiting to buy - if another five years passes with nothing happen, you earn 0% on checking accounts, but at least earn 1.65% per year or so on your 10y bond.",
"Interest rates can't remain this low. It's like having extremely low blood pressure. When you raise the rates, banks are incented to loan money and that movement of capital is good for the economy. It forces us to become savers instead of spenders, and our pensions, 401ks, social security are all getting killed by not being able to use debt to get safer stable returns. Interest rates have to come back up.",
"No that is your implicit return if you hold it to maturity per year. That yield is quoted per annum. You will receive semi-annual payments base on the coupon of whatever off the run 10yr you buy. If your coupon is 2% then you will receive $10 bi-yearly. Mind you, buying a 10 year in this environment will yield a negative real return, meaning after inflation over 10 years you will have your entire principal back, but inflation adjusted it will have less purchasing power than today, meaning there isn't enough yield to make the purchase worth it. Also about your upward slope question, yes the 30 will yield more than the 2,5,7,10. This is because longer time means more risk. Will in the future the USA be perceived as near riskless? There is also interest rate risk, and liquidity risk.",
"\"First, your professor should learn proper grammar. Should be, \"\"Why **do**....\"\" Second, it looks like you're dealing with synthetic securities. You can create a synthetic T-Bill by doing a combination of long/short calls/puts. But ignore all that. Just think about this without the technical jargon. We know that the risk free rate is typically what T-Bills are yielding right? And we know that since options are inherently more risky than US government debt, investors will demand a higher interest rate to compensate them for the risk. So, as the risk free rate increases, the value of a call will move the same direction, otherwise investors would stop dealing with call options and would instead buy safer, less-risky \"\"riskless\"\" investments. It's not really an options question, just one of basic finance, risk, understanding of interest rates, etc.\"",
"I believe the bigger overall risk is debt is going to become more expensive. Interest rates are going to increase. This added cost to consumers will slow down the economy. I don't believe it will be economic crisis but definitely will weeken our credit driven economy."
] |
[
"The Fed is trying to keep the money supply growing at a rate just slightly faster than the increase in the total production in the economy. If this year we produced, say, 3% more goods and services than last year, than they try to make the money supply grow by maybe 4% or 5%. That way there should be a small rate of inflation. They are trying to prevent high inflation rates on one hand or deflation on the other. When the interest rate on T-bills is low, banks will borrow more money. As the Fed creates this money out of thin air when banks buy a T-bill, this adds money to the economy. When the interest rate on T-bills is high, banks will borrow little or nothing. As they'll be repaying older T-bills, this will result in less growth in the money supply or even contraction. So the Feds change the rate when they see that economic growth is accelerating or decelerating, or that the inflation rate is getting too high or too low."
] |
988
|
Where should I invest my savings?
|
[
"226053",
"107688"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"65006",
"531965",
"266239",
"194080",
"571218",
"94680",
"518664",
"580313",
"144114",
"117875",
"464297",
"450228",
"312359",
"591909",
"4044",
"448890",
"35971",
"331623",
"460457",
"74283",
"239459",
"391605",
"133935",
"337341",
"234979",
"509064",
"54190",
"180429",
"285185",
"223872",
"36190",
"4153",
"161230",
"328691",
"302448",
"377166",
"388252",
"52190",
"351109",
"425793",
"46967",
"522874",
"59394",
"60093",
"157972",
"421535",
"6666",
"2393",
"451782",
"280530",
"477295",
"245616",
"80033",
"144304",
"425234",
"292991",
"224816",
"457122",
"278197",
"151394",
"19591",
"235972",
"18200",
"326019",
"332064",
"433371",
"32855",
"167446",
"280204",
"78893",
"581635",
"118065",
"532179",
"318873",
"356987",
"82482",
"576736",
"441518",
"576890",
"390556",
"41356",
"322591",
"569528",
"576688",
"320675",
"371176",
"362250",
"412586",
"229623",
"110674",
"211767",
"162668",
"114520",
"272174",
"116213",
"479769",
"282483",
"285812",
"14748",
"470692"
] |
[
"There are quite a few options. Suggest you put a mix of things and begin investing into Mutual Funds.",
"First, as Dheer mentioned above, there is no right answer as investment avenues for a person is dicteted by many subjective considerations. Given that below a few of my thoughts (strictly thoughts): 1) Have a plan for how much money you would need in next 5-7 years, one hint is, do you plan you buy a house, car, get married ... Try to project this requirement 2) Related to the above, if you have some idea on point 1, then it would be possible for you to determine how much you need to save now to achieve the above (possibly with a loan thrown in). It will also give you some indication as to where and how much of your current cash holding that you should invest now 3) From an investment perspective there are many instruments, some more risky some less. The exact mix of instruments that you should consider is based on many things, one among them is your risk apetite and fund requirement projections 4) Usually (not as a rule of thumb) the % of savings corresponding to your age should go into low risk investments and 100-the % into higher risk investment 5) You could talk to some professional invetment planners, all banks offer the service Hope this helps, I reiterate as Dheer did, there is truely no right answer for your question all the answers would be rather contextual.",
"If you need the money in the short-term, you want to invest in something fairly safe. These include saving accounts, CDs, and money market funds from someplace like Vanguard. The last two might give you a slightly better return than the local branch of a national bank.",
"I was asking myself the exact same thing. And i have come to the conclusion that most of your money should be invested, In index etfs and maybe some bond etfs too. If Inflation is about 2% and the interest you make in a savings account is less than 1%. Your actually loosing money in a savings account. Keep a few thousand bucks in your savings account and the majority invested and working for you.",
"Congratulations! You're making enough money to invest. There are two easy places to start: I recommend against savings accounts because they will quite safely lose your money: the inflation rate is usually higher than the interest rate on a savings account. You may have twice as much money after 50 years, but if everything costs four times as much, then you've lost buying power. If, in the course of learning about investing, you'd like to try buying individual stocks, do it only with money you wouldn't mind losing. Index funds will go down slightly if one of the companies in that index fails entirely, but the stock of a failed company is worthless.",
"A savings account is your best bet. You do not have the time frame to mitigate/absorb risks. The general guideline for investment is 5 years or more. As you state you are no where near close to that time frame.",
"The big question is whether you will be flexible about when you'll get that house. The overall best investment (in terms of yielding a good risk/return ratio and requiring little effort) is a broad index fund (mutual or ETF), especially if you're contributing continuously and thereby take advantage of cost averaging. But the downside is that you have some volatility: during an economic downturn, your investment may be worth only half of what it's worth when the economy is booming. And of course it's very bad to have that happening just when you want to get your house. Then again, chances are that house prices will also go down in such times. If you want to avoid ever having to see the value of your investment go down, then you're pretty much stuck with things like your high-interest savings account (which sounds like a very good fit for your requirements.",
"you should invest in a range of stock market indexes. Ex : Dow jones, S&P500, Nasdaq and keep it there until you are ready to retire. I'm invested half in SLYV and SLYG (S&P600 small cap value and S&P600 small cap growth; Respectively). It brings on average between 8-13% a year (since 1971). This is not investment advice. Talk to your broker before doing this.",
"As you are in UK, you should think in terms of Tax Free (interest and accumulated capital gains) ISA type investments for the long term AND/OR open a SIPP (Self Invested Pension Plan) account where you get back the tax you have paid on the money you deposit for your old age. Pensions are the best bet for money you do not need at present while ISAs are suitable for short term 5 years plus or longer.",
"If you are in an economy which has a decent liquid debt market (corporate bonds, etc.), then you may look into investing in AA or AA+ rated bonds. They can provide higher returns than bank deposits and are virtually risk-free. (Though in severe economic downturns, you can see defaults in even very high-rated bonds, leading to partial or complete loss of value however, this is statistically quite rare). You can make this investment through a debt mutual fund but please make sure that you read through the offer document carefully to understand the investment style of the mutual fund and their expense ratio (which directly affect your returns). In any case, it is always recommended to reach out to an investment adviser who is good with local tax laws to minimize taxes and maximize returns.",
"If you have money and may need to access it at any time, you should put it in a savings account. It won't return much interest, but it will return some and it is easily accessible. If you have all your emergency savings that you need (at least six months of income), buy index-based mutual funds. These should invest in a broad range of securities including both stocks and bonds (three dollars in stocks for every dollar in bonds) so as to be robust in the face of market shifts. You should not buy individual stocks unless you have enough money to buy a lot of them in different industries. Thirty different stocks is a minimum for a diversified portfolio, and you really should be looking at more like a hundred. There's also considerable research effort required to verify that the stocks are good buys. For most people, this is too much work. For most people, broad-based index funds are better purchases. You don't have as much upside, but you also are much less likely to find yourself holding worthless paper. If you do buy stocks, look for ones where you know something about them. For example, if you've been to a restaurant chain with a recent IPO that really wowed you with their food and service, consider investing. But do your research, so that you don't get caught buying after everyone else has already overbid the price. The time to buy is right before everyone else notices how great they are, not after. Some people benefit from joining investment clubs with others with similar incomes and goals. That way you can share some of the research duties. Also, you can get other opinions before buying, which can restrain risky impulse buys. Just to reiterate, I would recommend sticking to mutual funds and saving accounts for most investors. Only make the move into individual stocks if you're willing to be serious about it. There's considerable work involved. And don't forget diversification. You want to have stocks that benefit regardless of what the overall economy does. Some stocks should benefit from lower oil prices while others benefit from higher prices. You want to have both types so as not to be caught flat-footed when prices move. There are much more experienced people trying to guess market directions. If your strategy relies on outperforming them, it has a high chance of failure. Index-based mutual funds allow you to share the diversification burden with others. Since the market almost always goes up in the long term, a fund that mimics the market is much safer than any individual security can be. Maintaining a three to one balance in stocks to bonds also helps as they tend to move in opposite directions. I.e. stocks tend to be good when bonds are weak and vice versa.",
"Never invest money you need in the short term. As already suggested, park your money in CDs.",
"There are many considerations before deciding on the best place for your funds: How liquid do you need the funds to be? If this is for an emergency fund I would keep at least some in an account that you have instant access to, What is your risk (volatility) tolerance? Would you be OK with the value dropping by as much as 30% in a year knowing that over time you'll probably earn 8-12% on it? If not, then equity funds or other stock investments are probably not the best move for you. Do you need the funds now or are they for long-term (retirement) savings? Are you eligible to fund an IRA? That would defer your taxes until you withdraw the funds from the account, but there are age restrictions that you must heed to avoid penalties. Are CDs a good idea? They do pay decent interest, but in return for that you lock up your funds for a set period of time. All that to say that there are many facets to determining the best place for your funds. If you provide more specifics you can get a more specific answer.",
"As stated in the comments, Index Funds are the way to go. Stocks have the best return on investment, if you can stomach the volatility, and the diversification index funds bring you is unbeatable, while keeping costs low. You don't need an Individual Savings Account (UK), 401(k) (US) or similar, though they would be helpful to boost investment performance. These are tax advantaged accounts; without them you will have to pay taxes on your investment gains. However, there's still a lot to gain from investing, specially if the alternative is to place them in the vault or similar. Bear in mind that inflation makes your money shrink in real terms. Even a small interest is better than no interest. By best I mean that is safe (regulated by the financial authorities, so your money is safe and insured up to a certain amount) and has reasonable fees (keeping costs low is a must in any scenario). The two main concerns when designing your portfolio are diversification and low TER (Total Expense Ratio). As when we chose broker, our concern is to be as safe as we possibly can (diversification helps with this) and to keep costs at the bare minimum. Some issues might restrict your election or make others seem better. Depending on the country you live and the one of the fund, you might have to pay more taxes on gains/dividends. e.g. The US keeps some of them if your country doesn't have a special treaty with them. Look for W-8Ben and tax withholding for more information. Vanguard and Blackrock offer nice index funds. Morningstar might be a good place for gathering information. Don't trust blindly the 'rating'. Some values are 'not rated' and kick ass the 4 star ones. Again: seek low TER. Not a big fan of this point, but I'm bound to mention it. It can be actually helpful for sorting out tax related issues, which might decide the kind of index fund you pick, and if you find this topic somewhat daunting. You start with a good chunk of money, so it might make even more sense in your scenario to hire someone knowledgeable and trustworthy. I hope this helps to get you started. Best of luck.",
"Just to offer another alternative, consider Certificates of Deposit (CDs) at an FDIC insured bank or credit union for small or short-term investments. If you don't need access to the money, as stated, and are not willing to take much risk, you could put money into a number of CDs instead of investing it in stocks, or just letting it sit in a regular savings/checking account. You are essentially lending money to the bank for a guaranteed length of time (anywhere from 3 to 60 months), and therefore they can give you a better rate of return than a savings account (which is basically lending it to them with the condition that you could ask for it all back at any time). Your rate of return in CDs is lower a typical stock investment, but carries no risk at all. CD rates typically increase with the length of the CD. For example, my credit union currently offers a 2.3% APY on a 5-year CD, but only 0.75% for 12 month CDs, and a mere 0.1% APY on regular savings/checking accounts. Putting your full $10K deposit into one or more CDs would yield $230 a year instead of a mere $10 in their savings account. If you go this route with some or all of your principal, note that withdrawing the money from a CD before the end of the deposit term will mean forfeiting the interest earned. Some banks may let you withdraw just a portion of a CD, but typically not. Work around this by splitting your funds into multiple CDs, and possibly different term lengths as well, to give you more flexibility in accessing the funds. Personally, I have a rolling emergency fund (~6 months living expenses, separate from all investments and day-to-day income/expenses) split evenly among 5 CDs, each with a 5-year deposit term (for the highest rate) with evenly staggered maturity dates. In any given year, I could close one of these CDs to cover an emergency and lose only a few months of interest on just 20% of my emergency fund, instead of several years interest on all of it. If I needed more funds, I could withdraw more of the CDs as needed, in order of youngest deposit age to minimize the interest loss - although that loss would probably be the least of my worries by then, if I'm dipping deeply into these funds I'll be needing them pretty badly. Initially I created the CDs with a very small amount and differing term lengths (1 year increments from 1-5 years) and then as each matured, I rolled it back into a 5 year CD. Now every year when one matures, I add a little more principal (to account for increased living expenses), and roll everything back in for another 5 years. Minimal thought and effort, no risk, much higher return than savings, fairly liquid (accessible) in an emergency, and great peace of mind. Plus it ensures I don't blow the money on something else, and that I have something to fall back on if all my other investments completely tanked, or I had massive medical bills, or lost my job, etc.",
"As always with investments, it depends on your risk adversity. I don't want to repeat the content of hundreds of recommendations here, so just the nutshell: (For qualified investments,) the more risk you are willing to take, the more returns you'll get. The upper end is the mutual funds and share market, where you have long-term expectations of 8 - 10 % (and corresponding risks of maybe +/- 50% per year), the lower end is a CD, where you can expect little to no interest, corresponding to little to no risk. Investing in shares/funds is not 'better' than investing in CDs, it is different. Not everybody likes financial roller-coasters, and some people mainly consider the high risk, which gives them sleepless nights; while others just consider the expected high long-term gains as all that counts. Find out what your personal risk adversity is, and then pick accordingly.",
"Dividend reinvestment plans are a great option for some of your savings. By making small, regular investments, combined with reinvested dividends, you can accumulate a significant nest egg. Pick a medium to large cap company that looks to be around for the foreseeable future, such as JNJ, 3M, GE, or even Exxon. These companies typically raise their dividends every year or so, and this can be a significant portion of your long term gains. Plus, these programs are usually offered with miniscule fees. Also, have a go at the interest rate formulas contained in your favorite spreadsheet application. Calculate the FutureValue of a series of payments at various interest rates, to see what you can expect. While you cannot depend on earning a specific rate with a stock investment, a basic familiarity with the formula can help you determine a rate of return you should aim for.",
"**I would encourage you to clear all your debts and remain debt free, then you can consult a financial manager-for investing purposes that fits your needs and goals. There are so many investment vehicles out, but the best of all is in real estate which requires lots of money. For your case I would prefer money market funds. If don't have time for a specialist you just walk into any stock broker and invest in those shares from well established companies with strong fundamentals. Buy them when undervalued but with long term goals. Ask the stock broker about bonds and other ways that the government purposes for domestic borrowings. Etc.",
"In my mind, when looking at a five year period you have a number of options. You didn't specify where you are based, which admittedly makes it harder, to give you good advice. If you are looking for an investment that can achieve large gains, equities are impossible to ignore. By investing in an index fund or other diverse asset forms (such as mutual funds), your risk is relatively minimal. However there has historically been five year periods where you would lose/flatline your money. If this was to be the case you would likely be better off waiting more than five years to buy a house, which would be frustrating. When markets rebound, they often do it hard. If you are in a major economy, taking something like the top 100 of your stock market is a safe bet, although admittedly you would have made terrible returns if you invested in the Polish markets. While they often achieve lower returns than equity investments, they are generally considered safer - especially government issued bonds. If you were willing to sacrifice returns for safety, you must always consider them. This is an interesting new addition, and I can't comment on the state of it in the United States, however in Europe we have a number of platforms which do this. In the UK, for example you can achieve ~7.3% returns YoY using sites like Funding Circle. If you invest in a diverse range of businesses, you have minimal risk from and individual company not paying. Elsewhere in Europe (although not appropriate for me as everything I do is denominated in Sterling), you can secure 12% in places like Georgia, Poland, and Estonia. This is a very good rate and the platforms seem reputable, and 'guarantee' their loans. However unlike funding circle, they are for consumer loans. The risk profile in my mind is similar to that of equities, but it is hard to say. Whatever you do, you need to do your homework, and ensure that you can handle the level of risk offered by the investments you make. I haven't included things like Savings accounts in here, as the rates aren't worth bothering with.",
"May I suggest putting it in a Roth IRA ($5,500 per year. Right now you can contribute to both 2015 and 2016 so that's $11K.)? Based on your description it sounds like your tax rate is very low, so it is awesome to put it away now and avoid taxes later on any gains you make on it. You can use Roth IRA money to pay for college, a home, or retirement. Within your Roth IRA, any of the investment options mentioned here will work. For example, CD's or money market accounts if you just want it to grow in a pretty much savings-account-like manner. You could also buy diversified mutual funds or have some fun buying individual stocks with some of it. I'm sorry to say that in the current market conditions you are not going to find a completely safe, cash-like investment or account that makes your money grow substantially. To do that you have to bear risk by buying risky stuff like stocks.",
"As you have already good on your retirement kitty. Assuming you have a sufficient cash for difficult situations, explore the options of investing in Shares and Mutual Funds. As you are new to Stock Market, begin slowly by investing into Mutual Funds and ETF for precious metals. This will help you understand and give you confidence on markets and returns. Real estate is a good option, the down side being the hassle of getting rental and the illiquid nature of the investment.",
"\"Should I invest the money I don't need immediately and only withdraw it next year when I need it for living expenses or should I simply leave it in my current account? This might come as a bit of a surprise, but your money is already invested. We talk of investment vehicles. An investment vehicle is basically a place where you can put money and have it either earn a return, or be able to get it back later, or both. (The neither case is generally called \"\"spending\"\".) There are also investment classes which are things like cash, stocks, bonds, precious metals, etc.: different things that you can buy within an investment vehicle. You currently have the money in a bank account. Bank accounts currently earn very low interest rates, but they are also very liquid and very secure (in the sense of being certain that you will get the principal back). Now, when you talk about \"\"investing the money\"\", you are probably thinking of moving it from where it is currently sitting earning next to no return, to somewhere it can earn a somewhat higher return. And that's fine, but you should keep in mind that you aren't really investing it in that case, only moving it. The key to deciding about an asset allocation (how much of your money to put into what investment classes) is your investment horizon. The investment horizon is simply for how long you plan on letting the money remain where you put it. For money that you do not expect to touch for more than five years, common advice is to put it in the stock market. This is simply because in the long term, historically, the stock market has outperformed most other investment classes when looking at return versus risk (volatility). However, money that you expect to need sooner than that is often recommended against putting it in the stock market. The reason for this is that the stock market is volatile -- the value of your investment can fluctuate, and there's always the risk that it will be down when you need the money. If you don't need the money within several years, you can ride that out; but if you need the money within the next year, you might not have time to ride out the dip in the stock market! So, for money that you are going to need soon, you should be looking for less volatile investment classes. Bonds are generally less volatile than stocks, with government bonds generally being less volatile than corporate bonds. Bank accounts are even less volatile, coming in at practically zero volatility, but also have much lower expected rates of return. For the money that you need within a year, I would recommend against any volatile investment class. In other words, you might take whichever part you don't need within a year and put in bonds (except for what you don't foresee needing within the next half decade or more, which you can put in stocks), then put the remainder in a simple high-yield deposit-insured savings account. It won't earn much, but you will be basically guaranteed that the money will still be there when you want it in a year. For the money you put into bonds and stocks, find low-cost index mutual funds or exchange-traded funds to do so. You cannot predict the future rate of return of any investment, but you can predict the cost of the investment with a high degree of accuracy. Hence, for any given investment class, strive to minimize cost, as doing so is likely to lead to better return on investment over time. It's extremely rare to find higher-cost alternatives that are actually worth it in the long term.\"",
"\"I have money to invest. Where should I put it? Anyone who answers with \"\"Give it to me, I'll invest it for you, don't worry.\"\" needs to be avoided. If your financial advisor gives you this line or equivalent, fire him/her and find another. Before you think about where you should put your money, learn about investing. Take courses, read books, consume blogs and videos on investing in stocks, businesses, real estate, and precious metals. Learn what the risks and rewards are for each, and make an informed decision based on what you learned. Find differing opinions on each type of investment and come to your own conclusions for each. I for example, do not understand stocks, and so do not seriously work the stock market. Mutual funds make money for the folks selling them whether or not the price goes up or down. You assume all the risk while the mutual fund advisor gets the reward. If you find a mutual fund advisor who cannot recommend the purchase of a product he doesn't sell, he's not an advisor, he's a salesman. Investing in business requires you either to intimately understand businesses and how to fund them, or to hire someone who can make an objective evaluation for you. Again this requires training. I have no such training, and avoid investing in businesses. Investing in real estate also requires you to know what to look for in a property that produces cash flow or capital gains. I took a course, read some books, gained experience and have a knowledgeable team at my disposal so my wins are greater than my losses. Do not be fooled by people telling you that higher risk means higher reward. Risks that you understand and have a detailed plan to mitigate are not risks. It is possible to have higher reward without increasing risk. Again, do your own research. The richest people in the world do not own mutual funds or IRAs or RRSPs or TFSAs, they do their own research and invest in the things I mentioned above.\"",
"I recommend investing in precious metals like gold, considering the economic cycle we're in now. Government bonds are subject to possible default and government money historically tends to crumble in value, whereas gold and the metals tend to rise in value with the commodies. Stocks tend to do well, but right now most of them are a bit overvalued and they're very closely tied to overvalued currencies and unstable governments with lots of debt. I would stick to gold right now, if you're planning on investing for more than a month or so.",
"There is no rule of thumb (although some may suggest there is). Everybody will have different goals, investment preferences and risk tolerances. You need to figure this out by yourself by either education yourself in the type of investments you are interested in or by engaging (and paying for) a financial advisor. You should not be taking advice from others unless it is specifically geared for your goals, investment DNA and risk tolerance. The only advice I would give you is to have a plan (whether you develop it yourself or pay a financial advisor to develop one). Also, don't have all your savings sitting in cash, as long-term you will fall behind the eight ball in real returns (allowing for inflation).",
"I recommend you two things: I like these investments because they are not high risk. I hope this helps.",
"Personally, I invest in mutual funds. Quite a bit in index funds, some in capital growth & international.",
"Money you need in less than 5 years should be saved not invested. The only place I would be comfortable the money would be a money market account or Certificate of Deposit (CD). I usually go for the money market account because they pay at or close to CD rates and there are no restrictions on getting to the money. However in this case I might choose a CD to keep me from being tempted to borrow some of it for something else. But even after typing that I still think I would put it in a money market, because if interest rates rise they rise in the money market but not the CD, and I just don't think interest can go much lower.",
"\"First of all, congratulations on saving some money. So many people these days do not even get that far. As far as investments, what is best for you depends heavily on your: Here is a quick summary of types of assets that are likely available to you, and my thoughts on why they may or may not be a good fit for your situation. Cash Equivalents Cash Equivalents are highly liquid, meaning you can get cash for them on fairly short notice. In particular, Money Markets and Certificates of Deposit (CDs) are also considered very safe when issued by a bank, as they are often insured against loss by the government up to a certain amount (this varies quite a lot by country within Europe, see the Wikipedia article here for additional detail. Please note that in the case of a CD, you are usually unable to get access to your money for the length of the investment period, which is usually a short period of time such as 3 months, 6 months, or 1 year. This is a good choice if you may need your money back on short notice, and your main goal is to preserve your principal. However, the returns tend to be very low and often do not keep pace with inflation, meaning that over several years, you may lose \"\"real\"\" purchasing power, even if you don't lose nominal value in your account. Special Note on Cash Equivalents If the money you want to invest is also your Emergency Fund, or you do not have an Emergency Fund, I would highly recommend Cash Equivalents. They will provide the highest level of Liquidity along with a short Time Horizon so that you can get your money as needed in the case of unforeseen expenses such as if your car breaks down. Debt Debt investments include government and corporate bonds. They are still considered relatively safe, as the issuer would need to default (usually this means they are in bankruptcy) in order for you not to be paid back. For example, German bonds have been considered safer than Greek bonds recently based on the underlying strength of the government. Unlike Cash Equivalents, these are not guaranteed against loss, which means that if the issuer defaults, you could lose up to 100% of your investment. Bonds have several new features you will need to consider. One is interest rate risk. One reason bonds perform better than cash equivalents is that you are taking on the risk that if interest rates rise, the fixed payments the bond promises will be worth less, and the face value of your bond will fall. While most bonds are still very Liquid, this means that if you need to sell the bond before it matures, you could lose money. As mentioned earlier, some bonds are riskier than others. Given that you are looking for a low-risk investment, you would want to select a bond that is considered \"\"invesment grade\"\" rather than a riskier \"\"junk\"\" bond. Debt investments are a good choice if you can afford to do without this money for a few years, and you want to balance safety with somewhat better returns than Cash Equivalents. Again though, I would not recommend investing in Debt until you have also built up a separate Emergency Fund. If you do choose to invest in bonds, I recommend that you diversify your risks by investing in a bond fund, rather than in just one company's or government's debt. This will reduce the likelihood that you will experience a catastrophic loss. Ownership Ownership assets includes stocks and other assets such as real estate and precious metals such as gold. While these investments can have high returns, in your situation I would strongly recommend that you not invest in these types of investments, for the following reasons: For these reasons, debt is considered a safer investment than equity for any particular company, government, or the market as a whole. Ownership assets are a good choice for people who have a high Risk Tolerance, long Time Horizon, low Liquidity needs, and will not be bothered by larger potential changes in the value of the investment at any given time. Special Note on Gold I would consider Gold a very risky investment and not a good fit for you at the moment based on what you've shared in your question. Gold is considered \"\"safe\"\" in the sense that people believe that if the economy goes into recession, depression, or collapses entirely, gold will continue to be valuable. In a post-apocalyptic world where paper money became worthless, it is still a good bet that gold will always be considered valuable within human society as a store of value. That being said, the price of gold fluctuates almost entirely based on how bad people think things are going to get. Think about the difference between gold and a company like Coca-Cola. Would you like to own 100% of Coca-Cola? Of course, because you know there is a very good chance that people will continue to spend money all over the world on their products. On the other hand, gold itself produces no products, no sales, no profits, and no cash flow. As such, if you buy gold, you are really making a speculative bet that gold will be in higher demand tomorrow than it is today. You are buying an asset (the gold) rather than part of a company's equity or debt that is designed to throw off payments to its investors in the form of bond payments or dividends. So, if people decide next year that things are improving, it is possible that gold could lose value, given that gold prices are at historically high levels. Gold could be a good choice for someone who has a large, well-diversified investment portfolio, and who is looking for a hedge to protect against inflation and other risks that they have taken on via their other investments. I hope that is helpful - best of luck in your choices. Let us know what you decide!\"",
"Lets imagine two scenarios: 1) You make 10.4k (40% of total income) yearly contributions to a savings account that earns 1% interest for 10 years. In this scenario, you put in 104k and earned 5.89k in interest, for a total of 109.9k. 2) You make the same 10.4k yearly contribution to an index fund that earns 7% on average for 10 years. In this scenario you put in the same 104k, but earned 49.7k in interest*, for a total of 153.7k. The main advantage is option 1) has more liquidity -- you can get the money out faster. Option 2) requires time to divest any stocks / bonds. So you need enough savings to get you through that divestment period. Imagine another two scenarios where you stop earning income: 1-b) You stop working and have only your 109.9k principal amount in a 1% savings account. If you withdraw 15.6k yearly for your current cost of living, you will run through your savings in 7 years. 2-b) You stop working and have only 20k (2 years of savings) in savings that earns 1% with 153.7k in stocks that earns 7%. If you withdraw your cost of living currently at 15.6k, you will run through your investments in 15 years and your savings in 2 years, for a total of 17 years. The two years of income in savings is extremely generous for how long it starts the divestment process. In summary, invest your money. It wasn't specified what currency we are talking about, but you can easily find access to an investment company no matter where you are in the world. Keep a small amount for a rainy day.",
"First of all I recommend reading this short e-book that is aimed at young investors. The book is written for American investors but they same rules apply with different terms (e.g. the equivalent tax-free savings wrappers are called ISAs in the UK). If you don't anticipate needing the money any time soon then your best bet is likely a stocks and share ISA in an aggressive portfolio of assets. You are probably better off with an even more aggressive asset allocation than the one in the book, e.g. 0-15% bond funds 85-100% equity funds. In the long term, this will generate the most income. For an up-to-date table of brokers I recommend Monevator. If you are planning to use the money as a deposit on a mortgage then your best bet might be a Help to Buy ISA, you'll have to shop around for the best deals. If you would rather have something more liquid that you can draw into to cover expenses while at school, you can either go for a more conservative ISA (100% bond funds or even a cash ISA) or try to find a savings account with a comparable interest rate.",
"Congratulations on being in such good financial state. You have a few investment choices. If you want very low risk, you are talking bonds or CDs. With the prime rate so low, nobody is paying anything useful for very low risk investments. However, my opinion is that given your finances, you should consider taking on a little more risk. A good step is a index fund, which is designed to mirror the performance of a stock index such as the S&P 500. That may be volatile in the short-term, but is likely to be a good investment in the longer term. I am not a fan of non-index mutual funds; in general the management charge makes them a less attractive investment. The next step up is investing in individual stocks, which can provide very big gains or very big losses. The Motley fool site (www.fool.com) has a lot of information about investing overall.",
"This is a bit of an open-ended answer as certain assumptions must be covered. Hope it helps though. My concern is that you have 1 year of university left - is there a chance that this money will be needed to fund this year of uni? And might it be needed for the period between uni and starting your first job? If the answer is 'yes' to either of these, keep any money you have as liquid as possible - ie. cash in an instant access Cash ISA. If the answer is 'no', let's move on... Are you likely to touch this money in the next 5 years? I'm thinking house & flat deposits - whether you rent or buy, cars, etc, etc. If yes, again keep it liquid in a Cash ISA but this time, perhaps look to get a slightly better interest rate by fixing for a 1 year or 2 year at a time. Something like MoneySavingExpert will show you best buy Cash ISAs. If this money is not going to be touched for more than 5 years, then things like bonds and equities come into play. Ultimately your appetite for risk determines your options. If you are uncomfortable with swings in value, then fixed-income products with fixed-term (ie. buy a bond, hold the bond, when the bond finishes, you get your money back plus the yield [interest]) may suit you better than equity-based investments. Equity-based means alot of things - stocks in just one company, an index tracker of a well-known stock market (eg. FTSE100 tracker), actively managed growth funds, passive ETFs of high-dividend stocks... And each of these has different volatility (price swings) and long-term performance - as well as different charges and risks. The only way to understand this is to learn. So that's my ultimate advice. Learn about bonds. Learn about equities. Learn about gilts, corporate bonds, bond funds, index trackers, ETFs, dividends, active v passive management. In the meantime, keep the money in a Cash ISA - where £1 stays £1 plus interest. Once you want to lock the money away into a long-term investment, then you can look at Stocks ISAs to protect the investment against taxation. You may also put just enough into a pension get the company 'match' for contributions. It's not uncommon to split your long-term saving between the two routes. Then come back and ask where to go next... but chances are you'll know yourself by then - because you self-educated. If you want an alternative to the US-based generic advice, check out my Simple Steps concept here (sspf.co.uk/seven-simple-steps) and my free posts on this framework at sspf.co.uk/blog. I also host a free weekly podcast at sspf.co.uk/podcast (also on iTunes, Miro, Mixcloud, and others...) They were designed to offer exactly that kind of guidance to the UK for free.",
"It really is dependent upon your goals. What are your short term needs? Do you need a car/clothing/high cost apartment/equipment when you start your career? For those kinds of things, a savings account might be best as you will need to have quick access to cash. Many have said that people need two careers, the one they work in and being an investor. You can start on that second career now. Open up some small accounts to get the feel for investing. This can be index funds, or something more specialized. I would put money earmarked for a home purchase in funds with a lower beta (fluctuation) and some in index funds. You probably would want to get a feel for what and where you will actually be doing in your career prior to making a leap into a home purchase. So figure you have about 5 years. That gives you time to ride out the waves in the market. BTW, good job on your financial situation. You are set up to succeed.",
"$23,000 Student Loans at 4% This represents guaranteed loss. Paying this off quickly is a conservative move, while your other investments may easily surpass 4% return, they are not guaranteed. Should I just keep my money in my savings account since I want to keep my money available? Or are there other options I have that are not necessarily long term may provide better returns? This all depends on your plans, if you're just trying to keep cash in anticipation of the next big dip, you might strike gold, but you could just as easily miss out on significant market gains while waiting. People have a poor track record of predicting market down-turns. If you are concerned about how exposed to market risk you are in your current positions, then you may be more comfortable with a larger cash position. Savings/CDs are low-interest, but much lower risk. If you currently have no savings (you titled the section savings, but they all look like retirement/investment accounts), then I would recommend focusing on that first, getting a healthy emergency fund saved up, and budgeting for your car/house purchases. There's no way to know if you'd be better off investing everything or piling up cash in the short-term. You have to decide how much risk you are comfortable with and act accordingly.",
"You should evaluate where to put your money based on when you need-by-date is. If you need it in the next 5 years, I'd essentially keep it in cash or no-risk savings accounts/cds, money market accounts, etc. If you need it further than 5 years from now, invest for the future with some form of asset allocation that matches your risk tolerance. Research asset allocation and decide how to divide amongst different types of investments. **Retirement accounts have earnings requirements and maximum contribution limits.",
"\"(Congrats on earning/saving $3K and not wanting to blow it all on immediate gratification!) I currently have it invested in sector mutual funds but with the rise and fall of the stock market, is this really the best way to prepare long-term? Long-term? Yes! However... four years is not long term. It is, in fact, borderline short term. (When I was your age, that was incomprehensible too, but trust me: it's true.) The problem is that there's an inverse relationship between reward and risk: the higher the possible reward, the greater the risk that you'll lose a big chunk of it. I invest that middle-term money in a mix of junk high yield bond funds and \"\"high\"\" yield savings accounts at an online bank. My preferences are HYG purchased at Fidelity (EDIT: because it's commission-free and I buy a few hundred dollars worth every month), and Ally Bank.\"",
"How's your savings and emergency fund? Everyone should have an emergency fund that will last them 6 months, and the goal should be two years' worth. This should be in an easily accessible account, such as a savings or money market account at your bank (you could consider CDs, but unless you're laddering them there will be penalties to get at the money). Once you've got 6 months' worth saved, the next thing to focus on is a tax advantaged retirement account. Only when you've maxed out your contributions (and the tax benefits) should you consider other investments. After all, those tax benefits are free money from Uncle Sam :)",
"Lets make some assumptions. You are not close to retirement. You have no other debts. You have a job. You have no big need for the money. You should invest that. Do not invest with a bank, they are not as competitive on fees as a brokerage account. You can get specific answers that are different from every person, (so you should dig in and research a lot more if you care (and you should). Personally, I would suggest you open an account with one of the low cost providers. Then, with that new investment account, put your money into a target retirement account. File your statements away and tend to it once a year. (Make sure it is there, that you can access it, that nothing alarming is going on). You certainly have enough to start an investment account. If you want to get more into it, ask a phone adviser what you should open. Finally, before you start investing, make sure you follow the advice of radix07 and have no debt, saving the most you can for retirement. A rule of thumb is your money will double every 72 months. Congratulations, you are a saver. Investing isn't for you as the risk of investing is in conflict with your desire to preserver you money. Open a savings account or high interest checking account with a credit union, online only or local community bank. Shop around no the web for the highest interest. Don't get your hopes up though, the highest rate you see (that doesn't have strings attached) won't be much here late summer of 2012.",
"What you choose to invest in depends largely on your own goals and time horizon. You state that your time horizon is a few decades. Most studies have shown that the equity market as a whole has outperformed most other asset types (except perhaps property in some cases) over the long term. The reason that time horizon is important is that equities are quite volatile. Who knows whether your value will halve in the next year? But we hope that over the longer term, things come out in the wash, and tomorrow's market crash will recover, etc. However, you must realize that if your goals change, and you suddenly need your money after 2 years, it might be worth less in two years than you expect.",
"I would suggest you to put your money in an FD for a year, and as soon as you get paid the interest, start investing that interest in a SIP(Systematic investment plan). This is your safest option but it will not give you a lot of returns. But I can guarantee that you will not lose your capital(Unless the economy fails as a whole, which is unlikely). For example: - you have 500000 rupees. If you put it in a fixed deposit for 1 year, you earn 46500 in interest(At 9% compounded quarterly). With this interest you can invest Rs.3875(46500/12) every month in an SIP for 12 months and also renew your FD, so that you can keep earning that interest.So at the end of 10 years, you will have 5 lacs in your FD and Rs. 4,18,500 in your SIP(Good funds usually make 13-16 % a year). Assuming your fund gives you 14%, you make: - 1.) 46500 at 14% for 9 years - 1,51,215 2.)8 years - 1,32,645 3.) 7 years - 1,16,355 4.) 6 years - 1,02,066 5.) 5 years - 89,531 6.) 4 years - 78,536 7.) 3 years - 68891 8.) 2 years 60,431 9.) 1 year - 53010 Total Maturity Value on SIP = Rs, 8,52,680 Principal on FD = Rs 5,00,000 Interest earned on 10th year = Rs. 46,500 Total = Rs. 13,99,180(14 lacs). Please note: - Interest rates and rate of return on funds may vary. This figure can only be assumed if these rates stay the same.:). Cheers!",
"Thats a very open question, Depends on the risk you are willing to take with the money, or the length of time you are willing sit on it, or if you have a specific goal like buying a house. Some banks offer high(ish) rate savings accounts http://www.bankaccountsavings.co.uk/calculator with a switching bonus that could be a good start. (combining the nationwide flexdirect and regular saver) if you want something more long term - safe option is bonds, medium risk option is Index funds (kind of covers all 3 risks really), risky option is Stocks & shares. For these probably a S&S ISA for a tax efficient option. Also LISA or HtB ISA are worth considering if you want to buy a house in the future.",
"\"Invest in a high quality dividend paying group of stocks. Look up \"\"stock aristocrats\"\" to find longterm quality stocks that have regularly increased their dividends for over 20'years. 10'years is a safe period of time to invest in stocks. If you had bought stocks at their hight in 2007 and kept them through the 40% decline thru 2008 and 2009 and held on to them for 10 years until 2017, you would have earned a 40 % increase from when you purchased them. That is pretty much a worst case scenerio. If you had invested in dividend paying stocks and had earned an additional 2.5% per year, you would have exceeded your 5% goal. The lifetime yearly return of the stock market is 10%. Time is the only downside, but with ten years, you are almost certainly immune.\"",
"What you put that money into is quite relevant. It depends on how soon you will need some, or all, of that money. It has been very useful to me to divide my savings into three areas... 1) very short term 'oops' funds. This is for when you forget to put something in your budget or when a monthly bill is very high this month. Put this money into passbook savings. 2) Emergency funds that are needed quite infrequently. Used for such things as when you go to the hospital or an appliance breaks down. Put this money in higher yeald savings, but where it can be accessed. 3) Retirement savings. Put this money into a 401-K. Never draw on it till you retire. Make no loans against it. When you change jobs roll over into a self-directed IRA and invest in an ETF that pays dividends. Reinvest the dividend each month. So, like I said, where you put that money depends on how soon you will need it.",
"I would put this money to a high-interest savings account. It will not earn you too much, but it will save it from inflation.",
"There is no absolute answer to this as it depends on your particular situation, but some tips: As to investing versus saving, you need to do some of both: Be careful about stockpiling too much in bank accounts. Inflation will eat that money up over time to the tune of 3-4%/year. You are young and have a longer investment horizon for retirement, take advantage of that and accept a little more risk while you can.",
"People have asked a lot of good questions about your broader situation, tolerance for risk, etc, but I'm going to say the one-size-fits-most answer is: split some of your monthly savings (half?) into the VEU Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US ETF and some into VTI Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF. This can be as automatic and hassle-free as the money market deposit and gives a possibility of getting a better return, with low costs and low avoidable risk.",
"\"If you don't want to take any risk and you want your money to be liquid, then the best place to \"\"invest\"\" such money is in an insured bank deposit, such as a high interest savings account. However, you aren't likely to find a savings account interest rate that comes close to that charged by your mortgage, so the better decision from a numbers perspective is to pay down more on your mortgage or other debt. Paying down your debt has almost no risk, but has a better payoff than simply saving the money in a bank account. However, if you choose to pay down more debt, I suggest you still keep aside enough cash to have an adequate emergency fund. Since you want safety and liquidity, don't expect high returns from such money.\"",
"Investing in mutual funds, ETF, etc. won't build a large pool of money. Be an active investor if your nature aligns. For e.g. Invest in buying out a commercial space (on bank finance) like a office space and then rent it out. That would give you better return than a savings account. In few years time, you may be able to pay back your financing and then the total return is your net return. Look for options like this for a multiple growth in your worth.",
"Most people carry a diversity of stock, bond, and commodities in their portfolio. The ratio and types of these investments should be based on your goals and risk tolerance. I personally choose to manage mine through mutual funds which combine the three, but ETFs are also becoming popular. As for where you keep your portfolio, it depends on what you're investing for. If you're investing for retirement you are definitely best to keep as much of your investment as possible in 401k or IRAs (preferably Roth IRAs). Many advisers suggest contributing as much to your 401k as your company matches, then the rest to IRA, and if you over contribute for the IRA back to the 401k. You may choose to skip the 401k if you are not comfortable with the choices your company offers in it (such as only investing in company stock). If you are investing for a point closer than retirement and you still want the risk (and reward potential) of stock I would suggest investing in low tax mutual funds, or eating the tax and investing in regular mutual funds. If you are going to take money out before retirement the penalties of a 401k or IRA make it not worth doing. Technically a savings account isn't investing, but rather a place to store money.",
"Look at the aristocrat dividend paying stocks (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500_Dividend_Aristocrats). These all pay dividends and have consistently outperformed the S&P 500 - 10.6% vs 7.4% the last ten years. While stocks should not be generally considered for short-term investing, I personally think the market is showing a general up trend for the next few years. Also, the dividends add an additional buffer. Because you would be making regular monthly investments, you should choose a fund that invests in aristocrat stocks so you can set up an automatic depost.",
"\"First off, the answer to your question is something EVERYONE would like to know. There are fund managers at Fidelity who will a pay $100 million fee to someone who can tell them a \"\"safe\"\" way to earn interest. The first thing to decide, is do you want to save money, or invest money. If you just want to save your money, you can keep it in cash, certificates of deposit or gold. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. For example, gold tends to hold its value over time and will always have value. Even if Russia invades Switzerland and the Swiss Franc becomes worthless, your gold will still be useful and spendable. As Alan Greenspan famously wrote long ago, \"\"Gold is always accepted.\"\" If you want to invest money and make it grow, yet still have the money \"\"fluent\"\" which I assume means liquid, your main option is a major equity, since those can be readily bought and sold. I know in your question you are reluctant to put your money at the \"\"mercy\"\" of one stock, but the criteria you have listed match up with an equity investment, so if you want to meet your goals, you are going to have to come to terms with your fears and buy a stock. Find a good blue chip stock that is in an industry with positive prospects. Stay away from stuff that is sexy or hyped. Focus on just one stock--that way you can research it to death. The better you understand what you are buying, the greater the chance of success. Zurich Financial Services is a very solid company right now in a nice, boring, highly profitable business. Might fit your needs perfectly. They were founded in 1872, one of the safest equities you will find. Nestle is another option. Roche is another. If you want something a little more risky consider Georg Fischer. Anyway, what I can tell you, is that your goals match up with a blue chip equity as the logical type of investment. Note on Diversification Many financial advisors will advise you to \"\"diversify\"\", for example, by investing in many stocks instead of just one, or even by buying funds that are invested in hundreds of stocks, or indexes that are invested in the whole market. I disagree with this philosophy. Would you go into a casino and divide your money, putting a small portion on each game? No, it is a bad idea because most of the games have poor returns. Yet, that is exactly what you do when you diversify. It is a false sense of safety. The proper thing to do is exactly what you would do if forced to bet in casino: find the game with the best return, get as good as you can at that game, and play just that one game. That is the proper and smart thing to do.\"",
"People in the United States in the mid-2000's thought that real estate was safe. Then they discovered that when the bubble burst the value of their house dropped 10 to 50%. Then they realized that they couldn't sell, even if they had the cash to make the lender whole. Some lost their houses to foreclosure, others walked away and took massive hits to their wealth and credit scores. When it is hard or impossible to sell, that means you can't move to where the jobs are. While it is possible to make money in real estate, treating your house as an investment vehicle means that you are putting not only all your eggs into one basket; you are also living in the basket. In general you should assume that all investment involves risk. So if you are trying to avoid all chances of losing money then the safest form of investment is via your bank account and government bonds. Your national government has a program to insure bank accounts, you need to understand the rules for that program, including types of accounts and amounts. You should also look into your national programs for retirement accounts, to make sure you are investing for the long term. Many people invest via the stock market or the bond market. These investments are not guaranteed, though there may be some protection for fraud. The more specific your investments (individual companies) the more time you need to invest in research and tracking. Many investors do so via mutual funds or Exchange Traded Funds, this involves less of a time investment because you are paying the management comp nay for the fund to do that research for all their investors.",
"Buy a home. A home is the first and best investment, u can own a home with as little as 3% down and as u pay for your living u pay it off.....also banks will always give you equity loans in case you need your money",
"US government bonds and bonds issued by companies with a safe track record and consistently high ratings, for the past years, by credit agencies. But the time line of your investment, which is quite short, maybe a factor of choosing the right bonds. If you are not going to touch the money then CD maybe an option or an interest bearing savings account.",
"As mentioned in the other answer, you can't invest all of your money in one slightly risky place, and to receive a significant return on your investment, you must take on a reasonable amount of risk, and must manage that risk by diversifying your portfolio of investments. Unfortunately, answers to this question will be somewhat opinion and experience-based. I have two suggestions, however both involve risk, which you will likely experience in any situation. Peer to Peer Lending In my own situation, I've placed a large sum of money into peer-to-peer lending sites, such as LendingClub. LendingClub specifically advertises that 98% of its user base that invests in 100 notes or more of relatively equal size receive positive returns, and I'm sure you'll see similar statements in other similarly established vendors in this area. Historical averages in this industry can be between 5-7%, you may be able to perform above or below this average. The returns on peer to peer lending investments are paid out fairly frequently, as each loan you invest in on the site pays back into your account every time the recipient of the loan makes a payment. If you invest in small amounts / fractions of several hundred loans, you're receiving several small payments throughout the month on various dates. You can withdraw any money you have received back that hasn't been invested, or money you have in the account that hasn't been invested, at any time for personal spending. However, this involves various risks, which have to be considered (Such as someone you've loaned money to on the site defaulting). Rental Property / Property itself I'm also considering purchasing a very cheap home, and renting it out to tenants for passive income. This is something I would consider a possibility for you. On this front, you have the savings to do the same. It would be possible for you to afford the 20% downpayment on a very low cost home (Say, $100,000 or less up to $200,000 depending on your area), but you'd need to be able to pay for the monthly mortgage payment until you had a tenant, and would need to be able to afford any on-going maintenance, however ideally you'd factor that into the amount you charged tenants. You could very likely get a mortgage for a place, and have a tenant that pays you rent that exceeds the amount you pay for the mortgage and any maintenance costs, earning you a profit and therefore passive income. However, rental properties involve risks in that you might have trouble finding tenants or keeping tenants or keeping the property in good shape, and it's possible the property value could decrease. One could also generalize that property is a somewhat 'safe' investment, in that property values tend to increase over time, and while you may not significantly over-run inflation's increase, you may be able to get more value out of the property by renting it out in the mean time. Additional Note on Credit You mention you have a credit card payment that you're making, to build credit. I'd like to place here, for your reference, that you do not need to carry a balance to build credit. Having active accounts and ensuring you don't miss payments builds your history. To be more specific, your history is based off of many different aspects, such as: I'm sure I missed a couple of things on this front, you should be able to find this information with some research. Wanted to make sure you weren't carrying a balance simply due to the common myth that you must do so to build credit. Summary The items mentioned above are suggestions, but whatever you choose to invest in, you should carefully spread out / diversify your portfolio across a variety of different areas. It would not be advisable to stick to just one investment method (Say, either of the two above) and not also invest in stocks / bonds or other types of investments as well. You can certainly decide what percentage of your portfolio you want to invest in different areas (for instance X% of assets in Stocks/bonds, Y% in real-estate, etc), but it does make the most sense to not have all of your eggs in one basket.",
"Littleadv has given you excellent general advice, but to my mind, the most important part of it all and the path which I will strongly recommend you follow, is the suggestion to look into a mutual fund. I would add even more strongly, go to a mutual fund company directly and make an investment with them directly instead of making the investment through a brokerage account. Pick an index fund with low expenses, e.g. there are S&P 500 index funds available with expenses that are a fraction of 1%. (However, many also require minimum investments on the order of $2500 or $3000 except for IRA accounts). At this time, your goal should be to reduce expenses as much as possible because expenses, whether they be in brokerage fees which may be directly visible to you or mutual fund expenses which are invisible to you, are what will eat away at your return far more than the difference between the returns of various investments.",
"\"For a two year time frame, a good insured savings account or a low-cost short-term government bond fund is most likely the way I would go. Depending on the specific amount, it may also be reasonable to look into directly buying government bonds. The reason for this is simply that in such a short time period, the stock market can be extremely volatile. Imagine if you had gone all in with the money on the stock market in, say, 2007, intending to withdraw the money after two years. Take a broad stock market index of your choice and see how much you'd have got back, and consider if you'd have felt comfortable sticking to your plan for the duration. Since you would likely be focused more on preservation of capital than returns during such a relatively short period, the risk of the stock market making a major (or even relatively minor) downturn in the interim would (should) be a bigger consideration than the possibility of a higher return. The \"\"return of capital, not return on capital\"\" rule. If the stock market falls by 10%, it must go up by 11% to break even. If it falls by 25%, it must go up by 33% to break even. If you are looking at a slightly longer time period, such as the example five years, then you might want to add some stocks to the mix for the possibility of a higher return. Still, however, since you have a specific goal in mind that is still reasonably close in time, I would likely keep a large fraction of the money in interest-bearing holdings (bank account, bonds, bond funds) rather than in the stock market. A good compromise may be medium-to-high-yield corporate bonds. It shouldn't be too difficult to find such bond funds that can return a few percentage points above risk-free interest, if you can live with the price volatility. Over time and as you get closer to actually needing the money, shift the holdings to lower-risk holdings to secure the capital amount. Yes, short-term government bonds tend to have dismal returns, particularly currently. (It's pretty much either that, or the country is just about bankrupt already, which means that the risk of default is quite high which is reflected in the interest premiums demanded by investors.) But the risk in most countries' short-term government bonds is also very much limited. And generally, when you are looking at using the money for a specific purpose within a defined (and relatively short) time frame, you want to reduce risk, even if that comes with the price tag of a slightly lower return. And, as always, never put all your eggs in one basket. A combination of government bonds from various countries may be appropriate, just as you should diversify between different stocks in a well-balanced portfolio. Make sure to check the limits on how much money is insured in a single account, for a single individual, in a single institution and for a household - you don't want to chase high interest bank accounts only to be burned by something like that if the institution goes bankrupt. Generally, the sooner you expect to need the money, the less risk you should take, even if that means a lower return on capital. And the risk progression (ignoring currency effects, which affects all of these equally) is roughly short-term government bonds, long-term government bonds or regular corporate bonds, high-yield corporate bonds, stock market large cap, stock market mid and low cap. Yes, there are exceptions, but that's a resonable rule of thumb.\"",
"Diversity of risk is always a good idea. The cheapest equity-based investment (in terms of management costs) is some form of tracker or indexed fund. They're relatively low risk and worth putting in a fixed amount for long-term investment. I agree with Ngu Soon Hui, you're going to need a lot of cash if you decide to start your own business. You may have to cover a significant amount of time without an income and you don't want all your cash tied up. However, putting all your money into one business is not good risk management. Keep some savings where they can be a lifeline, should you need it.",
"Based on your question, I am going to assume your criterion are: Based on these, I believe you'd be interested in a different savings account, a CD, or money market account. Savings account can get you up to 1.3% and money market accounts can get up to 1.5%. CDs can get you a little more, but they're a little trickier. For example, a 5 year CD could get up to 2%. However, now you're money is locked away for the next few years, so this is not a good option if this money is your emergency fund or you want to use it soon. Also, if interest rates increase then your money market and savings accounts' interest rates will increase but your CD's interest rate misses out. Conversely, if interest rates drop, you're still locked into a higher rate.",
"I recommend an online savings account. The money is more liquid without early withdrawal fees and frequently you can get a visa/mastercard check card to access the funds. Looking at interest rates, ING is currently paying 1.10% and bankrate reports the best interest rate in the country on a 1 year CD is 1.33%. The .23% difference is not enough to convince me to invest in CDs at a fixed rate vs. an online savings account at a variable rate when we are at (or near) the bottom of CD/savings interest rates.",
"\"You have several options depending on your tolerance for risk. Certainly open an investment account with your bank or through any of the popular discount brokerage services. Then take however much money you're willing to invest and start earning some returns! You can split up the money into various investments, too. A typical default strategy is to take any money you won't need for the long term and put it in an Index Fund like the S&P 500 (or a European equivalent). Yes, it could go down, especially in the short term, but you can sell shares at any time so you're only 2-3 days away at any time from liquidity. Historically this money will generate a positive return in the long run. For smaller time frames, a short-term bond fund often gives a slightly better return than a money market account and some people (like me!) use short-term bond funds as if it were a money market account. There is a very low but real risk of having the fund lose value. So you could take a certain percentage of your money and keep it \"\"close\"\" in a bond fund. Likewise, you can sell shares at any time, win or lose and have the cash available within a couple days.\"",
"The best thing is to diversify across multiple currencies. USD and EUR seem reliable. But not 100% reliable to keep all your investments in this types of currencies. Invest part of your savings in USD, part - in EUR, and part in your home country's currency. Apart from investing I recommend you to have certain sum in cash and certain on your bank account.",
"I'm surprised nobody else has suggested this yet: before you start investing in stocks or bonds, buy a house. Not just any house, but the house you want to live in 20 years from now, in a place where you want to live 20 years from now - but you also have to be savvy about which part of the country or world you buy in. I'm also assuming that you are in the USA, although my suggestion tends to apply equally anywhere in the world. Why? Simple: as long as you own a house, you won't ever have to pay rent (you do have to pay taxes and maintenance, of course). You have a guaranteed return on investment, and the best part is: because it's not money you earn but money you don't have to spend, it's tax free. Even if the house loses value over time, you still come out ahead. And if you live abroad temporarily, you can rent out the house and add the rent to your savings (although that does make various things more complicated). You only asked for options, so that is mine. I'll add some caveats. OK, now here are the caveats:",
"It looks like you need a lot more education on the subject. I suggest you pick up a book on investing and portfolio management to get a first idea. Dividend yields are currently way below 5% on blue chips. Unlike coupons from fixed income instruments (which, in the same risk category, pay a lot less), dividend yields are not guaranteed and neither is the invested principal amount. In either case, your calculation is far away from reality. Sure, there are investments (such as the mentioned direct investments in companies or housings in emerging economies) that can potentially earn you two digit percentage returns. Just remember: risk always goes both ways. A higher earning potential means higher loss potential. Also, a direct investment is a lot less liquid than an investment on a publicly quoted high turnover market place. If you suddenly need money, you really don't want to be pressed to sell real estate in an emerging market (keyword: bid ask spread). My advice: the money that you can set aside for the long term (10 years plus), invest it in stock ETFs, globally. Everything else should be invested in bond funds or even deposits, depending on when you will need the access. As others have pointed out, consider getting professional advice.",
"BrenBarn did a great job explaining your options so I won't rehash any of that. I know you said that you don't want to save for retirement yet, but I'm going to risk answering that you should anyway. Specifically, I think you should consider a Roth IRA. When it comes to tax advantaged retirement accounts, once the contribution period for a tax year ends, there's no way to make up for it. For example in 2015 you may contribute up to $5,500 to your IRA. You can make those contributions up until tax day of the following year (April 15th, 2016). After that, you cannot contribute money towards 2015 again. So each year that goes by, you're losing out on some potential to contribute. As for why I think a Roth IRA specifically could work well for you: I'm advocating this because I think it's a good balance. You put away some money in a retirement account now, when it will have the most impact on your future retirement assets, taking advantage of a time you will never have again. At a low cost custodian like Vanguard, you can open an IRA with as little as $1,000 to start and choose from excellent fund options that meet your risk requirements. If you end up deciding that you really want that money for a car or a house or beer money, you can withdraw any of the contributions without fear of penalty or additional tax. But if you decide you don't really need to take that money back out, you've contributed to your retirement for a tax year you likely wouldn't have otherwise, and wouldn't be able to make up for later when you have more than enough to max out an IRA each year. I also want to stress that you should have a liquid emergency fund (in a savings or checking account) to deal with unexpected emergencies before funding something like this. But after that, if you have no specific goal for your savings and you don't know for sure you'll actually need to spend it in the near future, funding a Roth IRA is worth considering in my opinion.",
"CDs or money market funds. Zero-risk for the CD and ultra-low risk for the money market account; better return than most savings accounts.",
"I would put about a month's worth of expenses in the highest-paying savings account that you find convenient to access. For the rest, I recommend Ally's High-Yield CDs — specifically, the 5-year option. Normally 5 years would be way too long to commit short-term savings to a CD. However, the Ally CDs allow you to break them for a penalty of only two months worth of interest. If you look at the graph below (from when the rates were 3.09% APY), you can see the effective interest rate at every possible time you break the CD early. Doing the math, if you can keep your savings in the account for at least four months, it will outperform any other current FDIC-backed investment that I am aware of, for the length of time the money was invested. (credit: MyMoneyBlog)",
"Putting the money in a bank savings account is a reasonably safe investment. Anything other than that will come with additional risk of various kinds. (That's right; not even a bank account is completely free of risk. Neither is withdrawing cash and storing it somewhere yourself.) And I don't know which country you are from, but you will certainly have access to your country's government bonds and the likes. You may also have access to mutual funds which invest in other countries' government bonds (bond or money-market funds). The question you need to ask yourself really is twofold. One, for how long do you intend to keep the money invested? (Shorter term investing should involve lower risk.) Two, what amount of risk (specifically, price volatility) are you willing to accept? The answers to those questions will determine which asset class(es) are appropriate in your particular case. Beyond that, you need to make a personal call: which asset class(es) do you believe are likely to do better or less bad than others? Low risk usually comes at the price of a lower return. Higher return usually involves taking more risk (specifically price volatility in the investment vehicle) but more risk does not necessarily guarantee a higher return - you may also lose a large fraction of or even the entire capital amount. In extreme cases (leveraged investments) you might even lose more than the capital amount. Gold may be a component of a well-diversified portfolio but I certainly would not recommend putting all of one's money in it. (The same goes for any asset class; a portfolio composed exclusively of stocks is no more well-diversified than a portfolio composed exclusively of precious metals, or government bonds.) For some specifics about investing in precious metals, you may want to see Pros & cons of investing in gold vs. platinum?.",
"Contrary to most other advise given here, I'd recommend (in your situation) not to invest in stock (yet). There are some 'hidden' cost to investing that will eat your profit and in the end, that's why you are investing. Banks will charge for buying, selling and maintaining stock as well as for cashing dividends. Depending on which bank or intermediary these costs will rise. So, my advise is to start playing with stock creating a virtual portfolio and track that. Just as duffbeer says, start saving. Also look at my answer here.",
"\"Okay. Savings-in-a-nutshell. So, take at least year's worth of rent - $30k or so, maybe more for additional expenses. That's your core emergency fund for when you lose your job or total a few cars or something. Keep it in a good savings account, maybe a CD ladder - but the point is it's liquid, and you can get it when you need it in case of emergency. Replenish it immediately after using it. You may lose a little cash to inflation, but you need liquidity to protect you from risk. It is worth it. The rest is long-term savings, probably for retirement, or possibly for a down payment on a home. A blended set of stocks and bonds is appropriate, with stocks storing most of it. If saving for retirement, you may want to put the stocks in a tax-deferred account (if only for the reduced paperwork! egads, stocks generate so much!). Having some money (especially bonds) in something like a Roth IRA or a non-tax-advantaged account is also useful as a backup emergency fund, because you can withdraw it without penalties. Take the money out of stocks gradually when you are approaching the time when you use the money. If it's closer than five years, don't use stocks; your money should be mostly-bonds when you're about to use it. (And not 30-year bonds or anything like that either. Those are sensitive to interest rates in the short term. You should have bonds that mature approximately the same time you're going to use them. Keep an eye on that if you're using bond funds, which continually roll over.) That's basically how any savings goal should work. Retirement is a little special because it's sort of like 20 years' worth of savings goals (so you don't want all your savings in bonds at the beginning), and because you can get fancy tax-deferred accounts, but otherwise it's about the same thing. College savings? Likewise. There are tools available to help you with this. An asset allocation calculator can be found from a variety of sources, including most investment firms. You can use a target-date fund for something this if you'd like automation. There are also a couple things like, say, \"\"Vanguard LifeStrategy funds\"\" (from Vanguard) which target other savings goals. You may be able to understand the way these sorts of instruments function more easily than you could other investments. You could do a decent job for yourself by just opening up an account at Vanguard, using their online tool, and pouring your money into the stuff they recommend.\"",
"You can expect about a 7% return when investing in the general market if your horizon is ten years or more. The market fluctuates, which means that you should be absolutely fine with losing 10% or more of your invested money during this period. You say yourself that: I have been setting aside money (...) into a savings account earmarked for that purpose (repairs/maintenance) so that I don't have to take out loans. It's obvious from your question that the purpose of this money is not savings, this is money that you are already investing, not in stocks or bonds but in your house. While this money sits around, of course you could put it into the market and hope that it grows. It all depends on your horizon, which in your case sounds like about 1 year. Is that long enough to be fairly sure you will make a profit? From what I've written so far, hopefully you can gather that the answer is no. If you choose to invest $6,000 but you need that money back in one year, you need to be aware of the risk that you'll instead end up with $5,400 or even less. Your options are then to: If you're asking for personal advice, my opinion would be this: you're already investing in your house. The housing market, like most markets, fluctuate. Whether you like it or not, you're already a victim (or benefactor) of this value fluctuation. The difference is that a house is something you'll live in for a long time (probably), that will give you daily joy in a way stocks and bonds won't. Of course, saving up money and investing them is always a good idea anyway. You should still save a small amount every month and put it into low/medium risk bonds, in my opinion.",
"A CDIC-insured high-interest savings bank account is both safe and liquid (i.e. you can withdraw your money at any time.) At present time, you could earn interest of ~1.35% per year, if you shop around. If you are willing to truly lock in for 2 years minimum, rates go up slightly, but perhaps not enough to warrant loss of liquidity. Look at GIC rates to get an idea. Any other investments – such as mutual funds, stocks, index funds, ETFs, etc. – are generally not consistent with your stated risk objective and time frame. Better returns are generally only possible if you accept the risk of loss of capital, or lock in for longer time periods.",
"One of the things I would suggest looking into is peer-to-peer lending. I do lendingclub.com, but with a lot less money, and have only done it a short period of time. Still my return is about 13%. In your case you would probably have to commit to about 3.5 years to invest your money. Buy 3 year notes, and as they are paid off pull the money out and put into a CD or money market.. They sell notes that are 3 or 5 year and you may not want to tie your money up that long.",
"\"Depends on your definition of \"\"secure\"\". The most \"\"secure\"\" investment from a preservation of principal point of view is a non-tradable, general obligation government bond. (Like a US or Canadian savings bond.) Why? There is no interest rate risk -- you can't lose money. The downside is that the rate is not so good. If you want returns and a reasonably high level of security, you need a diversified portfolio.\"",
"You should talk to a financial fiduciary (make sure they are a fiduciary, not all planners are) about investing your money. Even ultra safe investments such as treasury bonds will beat the 1% interest rate offered by your savings account (the yield on the 5 year treasury is currently around 2%).",
"I agree that best is subjective and will not give investment advice. However, the tax deductible part can be dealt with quite swiftly. If you need tax deductibility right now, at the expense of later, put it into an RSP account. If you don't need tax deductibility right now, put it into a TFSA. Assuming you have room in either of these vehicles, I would suggest using just an RSP or TFSA cash savings account for now at ING Direct. Three reasons: You get the immediate benefit of having put it somewhere, and in the case of the RSP, an immediate tax deductibility. You don't have to worry about rushing into a specific investment and can give yourself time to figure out your goals and portfolio composition. (Read about the Couch Potato portfolio for a starting point.) You can transfer your money from them for free and still keep it registered in whichever plan it is in. The last point is the most important for my suggestion. The ability to quickly park the cash in a registered account and to move it for free using the appropriate form at a later date. Most places have a sneaky transfer-out fee. ING may not be the only place that doesn't, but I haven't looked into many other places about this. You might find something else that works the same way. And please, don't ever use GIC and high return in the same sentence.",
"\"A good question -- there are many good tactical points in other answers but I wanted to emphasize two strategic points to think about in your \"\"5-year plan\"\", both of which involve around diversification: Expense allocation: You have several potential expenses. Actually, expenses isn't the right word, it's more like \"\"applications\"\". Think of the money you have as a resource that you can \"\"pour\"\" (because money has liquidity!) into multiple \"\"buckets\"\" depending on time horizon and risk tolerance. An ultra-short-term cushion for extreme emergencies -- e.g. things go really wrong -- this should be something you can access at a moment's notice from a bank account. For example, your car has been towed and they need cash. A short-term cushion for emergencies -- something bad happens and you need the money in a few days or weeks. (A CD ladder is good for this -- it pays better interest and you can get the money out quick with a minimal penalty.) A long-term savings cushion -- you might want to make a down payment on a house or a car, but you know it's some years off. For this, an investment account is good; there are quite a few index funds out there which have very low expenses and will get you a better return than CDs / savings account, with some risk tolerance. Retirement savings -- $1 now can be worth a huge amount of money to you in 40 years if you invest it wisely. Here's where the IRA (or 401K if you get a job) comes in. You need to put these in this order of priority. Put enough money in your short-term cushions to be 99% confident you have enough. Then with the remainder, put most of it in an investment account but some of it in a retirement account. The thing to realize is that you need to make the retirement account off-limits, so you don't want to put too much money there, but the earlier you can get started in a retirement account, the better. I'm 38, and I started both an investment and a retirement account at age 24. They're now to the point where I save more income, on average, from the returns in my investments, than I can save from my salary. But I wish I had started a few years earlier. Income: You need to come up with some idea of what your range of net income (after living expenses) is likely to be over the next five years, so that you can make decisions about your savings allocation. Are you in good health or bad? Are you single or do you have a family? Are you working towards law school or medical school, and need to borrow money? Are you planning on getting a job with a dependable salary, or do you plan on being self-employed, where there is more uncertainty in your income? These are all factors that will help you decide how important short-term and long term savings are to your 5-year plan. In short, there is no one place you should put your money. But be smart about it and you'll give yourself a good head start in your personal finances. Good luck!\"",
"I would personally suggest owning Mutual Funds or ETF's in a tax sheltered account, such as a 401k or an IRA, especially Roth options if available. This lets you participate in the stock market while ensuring that you have diversified portfolio, and the money is managed by an expert. The tax sheltered accounts (or tax free in the case of Roth accounts) increase your savings, and simplify your life as you don't need to worry about taxes on earnings within those accounts, as long as you leave the money in. For a great beginner's guide see Clark's Investment Guide (Easy).",
"\"From what you say, a savings account sounds like the most appropriate option. (Of course you should keep your checking account too to use for day-to-day expenses, but put money that you want to sock away into the savings account.) The only way to guarantee you won't lose money and also guarantee that you can take the money out whenever you want is to put your money in a checking or savings account. If you put it in a savings account you will at least earn some paltry amount of interest, whereas with a checking account you wont. The amount of interest you earn with only a few hundred (or even a few thousand) dollars will be miniscule, but you know that the nominal value of your money won't go down. The real value of your money will go down, because the interest you're earning will be less than inflation. (That is, if you put $1000 in, you know there will be at least $1000 in there until you take some out. But because of inflation, that $1000 won't buy as much in the future as it does today, so the effective buying power of your money will go down.) However, there's no way to avoid this while keeping your money absolutely safe from loss and maintaining absolute freedom to take it out whenever you want. To address a couple of the alternatives you mentioned: It's good that you're thinking about this now. However, you shouldn't worry unduly about \"\"getting the most out of your money\"\" at this stage. As you said, you have $400 and will soon be making $200/week. In other words, two weeks after your job starts, you'll have earned as much as your entire savings before you started the job. Even if all your cash \"\"went down the drain\"\", you'd make it up in two weeks. Of course, you don't want to throw your money away for nothing. But when your savings are small relative to your income, it's not really worth it to agonize over investment choices to try to get the maximum possible return on your investment. Instead, you should do just what you seem to be doing: prioritize safety, both in terms of keeping your money in a safe account, and try to save rather than spending frivolously. In your current situation, you can double your savings in one month, by working at your part-time job. There's no investment anywhere there that can even come close to that. So don't worry about missing out on some secret opportunity. At this stage, you can earn far more by working than you can by investing, so you should try to build up your savings. When you have enough that you are comfortable with more risk, then you will be in a position to consider other kinds of investments (like stock market index funds), which are riskier but will earn you better returns in the long run.\"",
"Deposit it in a business savings account. The following below show you some options you can choose from. Next you can invest it in the market i.e. shares, bonds etc. If you have a more risky side, can go for peer to peer lending. If you are feeling really lucky and want to invest in the long term, then buy a property as a buy-to-let landlord. There are loads of options, you only need to explore.",
"This is a very open ended question with no concrete answer as it depends on your personal situation. However, for starters I would suggest picking up a copy of The Investment Answer. It's a very light read, less than 100 pages, but it has some amazingly simple yet very concrete advice on investing and answers a lot of common questions (like yours).",
"Savings accounts with 8% APY? Unheard of these days. You're lucky if you find one at 1%. You should use checking and savings accounts only to hold an emergency fund (6 to 12 months of living expenses), or money that you will need in 2 years or so. The rest, invest in stocks and bonds.",
"As observed above, 1.5% for 3 years is not attractive, and since due to the risk profile the stock market also needs to be excluded, there seems about 2 primary ways, viz: fixed income bonds and commodity(e,g, gold). However, since local bonds (gilt or corporate) are sensitive and follow the central bank interest rates, you could look out investing in overseas bonds (usually through a overseas gilt based mutual fund). I am specifically mentioning gilt here as they are government backed (of the overseas location) and have very low risk. Best would be to scout out for strong fund houses that have mutual funds that invest in overseas gilts, preferably of the emerging markets (as the interest is higher). The good fund houses manage the currency volatility and can generate decent returns at fairly low risk.",
"You should never take advice from someone else in relation to a question like this. Who would you blame if things go wrong and you lose money or make less than your savings account. For this reason I will give you the same answer I gave to one of your previous similar questions: If you want higher returns you may have to take on more risk. From lowest returns (and usually lower risk) to higher returns (and usually higher risk), Bank savings accounts, term deposits, on-line savings accounts, offset accounts (if you have a mortgage), fixed interest eg. Bonds, property and stock markets. If you want potentially higher returns then you can go for derivatives like options or CFDs, FX or Futures. These usually have higher risks again but as with any investments some risks can be partly managed. What ever you decide to do, get yourself educated first. Don't put any money down unless you know what your potential risks are and have a risk management strategy in place, especially if it is from advice provided by someone else. The first rule before starting any new investment is to understand what your potential risks are and have a plane to manage and reduce those risks.",
"First, you need to understand the difference in discussing types of investments and types of accounts. Certificate of Deposits (CDs), money market accounts, mutual funds, and stocks are all examples of types of investments. 401(k), IRA, Roth IRA, and taxable accounts are all examples of types of accounts. In general, those are separate decisions to make. You can invest in any type of investment inside any type of account. So your question really has two different parts: Tax-advantaged retirement accounts vs. Standard taxable accounts FDIC-insured CDs vs. at-risk investments (such as stock mutual funds) Retirement accounts are special accounts allowed by the federal government that allow you to delay (or, in some cases, completely avoid) paying taxes on your investment. The trade-off for these accounts is that, in general, you cannot access any of the money that you put into these accounts until you get to retirement age without paying a steep penalty. These accounts exist to encourage citizens to save for their own retirement. Examples of retirement accounts include 401(k) and IRAs. Standard taxable accounts have no tax advantages, but no restrictions, either. You can put money in and take money out whenever you like. However, anything that your investment earns is taxable each year. Inside any of these accounts, you can invest in FDIC-insured bank accounts, such as savings accounts or CDs, or you can invest in any number of non-insured investments, including money market accounts, bonds, mutual funds, stocks, precious metals, etc. Something you need to understand about investing in general is that your potential returns are directly related to the amount of risk that you take on. Investing in an insured investment, which is guaranteed by the government to never lose its value, will result in the lowest potential investment returns that you can get. Interest-bearing savings accounts are currently paying less than 1% interest. A CD will get you a slightly higher interest rate in exchange for you agreeing not to withdraw your money for a period of time. However, it takes a long time for your investments to grow with these investments. If you are earning 1%, it takes 72 years for your investment to double. If you are willing to take some risk, you can earn much more with your investments. Bonds are often considered quite safe; with a bond, you loan money to a government or corporation, and they pay you back with interest. The risk comes from the possibility that the government or corporation won't pay you back, so it is important to choose a bond from an entity that you trust. Stocks are shares in for-profit companies. Your potential investment gain is unlimited, but it is risky, as stocks can go down in value, and companies can close. However, it is important to note that if you take the largest 500 stocks together (S&P 500), the average value has consistently gone up over the long term. In the last 35 years, this average value has gone up about 11%. At this rate, your investment would double in less than 7 years. To avoid the risk of picking a losing stock, you can invest in a mutual fund, which is a collection of stocks, bonds, or other investments. The idea is that you can, with one investment, invest in many stocks, essentially earning the average performance of all the stocks. There is still risk, as the market can be down as a whole, but you are insulated from any one stock being bad because you are diversified. If you are investing for something in the long-term future, such as retirement, stock mutual funds provide a good rate of return at an acceptably-low level of risk, in my opinion.",
"No, don't bother. You need to decide what you are saving for, and how much risk you are prepared to take. It would make sense if you wanted the money only in x years, and couldn't afford to lose say 20% or more if the stock market crashed the day before you needed the cash. Typically if you are about to retire and buy an annuity, you want to protect your capital. This isn't you. At 28, you might be saving for a wedding, a deposit on a house, possibly for school fees, or for eventual retirement. It doesn't sound like you need to get back exactly 24k in July 2022. Keep the 6 months expenses in accounts that you can withdraw from at short notice. Some of this in a current account, some might be in a savings account that doesn't pay interest if you make withdrawals. After that, I'd stick most of the rest in stock market tracker funds, but you might go for actively managed funds instead (ask another question and take professional advice, there will presumably be local tax considerations too), and add in most of your monthly savings too. These should beat the 2.3% over the 5 years, and you can liquidate them easily if you want to buy a house. If there is a recession and a stock market dip, you presumably have the flexibility to hold on to them longer for the economy to recover. And if you are intending to buy a house, then a recession will probably also involve a fall in house prices, so the loss in your savings will be somewhat balanced by the drop in the purchase price of your house. Of course, the worst case scenario is a severe downturn where you lose your job, are unemployed for a considerable period of time, burn through your emergency fund, and need to sell shares at a considerable loss to meet your expenses. You might have family or dependents that you can borrow from or would need to support, which would change your tolerance for risk. Having money locked away for 5 years in this scenario is even worse. So if you don't want to put all your non-emergency savings into the stock market, you still want to choose something that is accessible at a slightly lower interest rate. But ultimately it sounds like you can afford to lose some of your savings, and the probability is that you will be rewarded with much better returns than 2.3% over 5 years.",
"If you will leave the money invested for a good long while (years) then dividend paying stocks would be appropriate. There are many that pay yields of 3 to 4 percent, which you can take as income or reinvest to compound the growth. There is a lot of good analysis of stocks (and mutual funds that specialize in dividend paying stocks) at Morningstar.com",
"As @mbhunter says, make sure you pay off any debt you have first. Then, it's a good idea to keep some or all of your savings as an emergency fund. If you use every last dime to pay for a house, you'll have no cushion available when something breaks down. The most common recommendation I've seen is to have 3-6 months worth of expenses as an emergency fund. Once you have that, then you can start saving for your down payment. As @Victor says, try to find the best interest rate you can for that money, but I wouldn't invest it in any kind of stock or bond product, because your need for it is too short term. Safety is more important than growth given your time frame. When you're ready to invest, make sure you learn all you can. You don't want to invest in something you don't understand, because that's how you get ripped off. You can be reading and talking to people while you're saving for your house so that, when the time comes, you'll have a pretty good idea of what you want to do for investments.",
"Reversing your math, I am assuming you have $312K to work with. In that case, I would simply shop around your local banks and/or credit unions and have them compete for your money and you might be quite surprised how much they are willing to pay. A couple of months ago, you would be able to get about 4.25% from Israel Bonds in Canada on 5 years term (the Jubilee product, with minimum investment of $25K). It's a bit lower now, but you should still be able to get very good rates if you shop around tier-2 banks or credit unions (who are more hungry for capital than the well-funded tier-1 banks). Or you could look at preferred shares of a large corporation. They are different from common shares in the sense they are priced according to the payout rate (i.e. people buy it for the dividend). A quick screen from your favorite stock exchange ought to find you a few options. Another option is commercial bonds. You should be able to get that kind of return from investment grade (BBB- and higher) bonds on large corporations these days. I just did a quick glance at MarketWatch's Bond section (http://cxa.marketwatch.com/finra/BondCenter/Default.aspx) and found AAA grade bonds that will yield > 5%. You will need to investigate their underlying fundamentals, coupon rate and etc before investing (second thought, grab a introduction to bonds book from Chapters first). Hope these helps.",
"There are lot of options. I personally avoid keeping money in bank accounts and invest in one of the funds. It's just my personal opinion, you can ask your Ulamas",
"\"You'd want the money to be \"\"liquid\"\" and ready for you to use when tax time comes around. You also don't want to lose \"\"principal\"\", i.e. if you put it into stocks and have the value of what you put in be less than what you invested—which is possible—when you need the money, again, at tax time. That doesn't leave you with many good choices or an amazingly good way to profit from investing your savings that you put aside for taxes. CDs are steady but will not give you much interest and they have a definite deposit timeframe 6 months, 1 yr, 2 yrs and you can't touch it. So, the only reasonable choice you have left is an interest bearing checking or savings account with up to 1% interest (APR)—as of this writing Ally Bank offers 1% interest in an online interest savings acct.—which will give you some extra money on your deposits. This is what I do.\"",
"\"First, you don't state where you are and this is a rather global site. There are people from Canada, US, and many other countries here so \"\"mutual funds\"\" that mean one thing to you may be a bit different for someone in a foreign country for one point. Thanks for stating that point in a tag. Second, mutual funds are merely a type of investment vehicle, there is something to be said for what is in the fund which could be an investment company, trust or a few other possibilities. Within North America there are money market mutual funds, bond mutual funds, stock mutual funds, mutual funds of other mutual funds and funds that are a combination of any and all of the former choices. Thus, something like a money market mutual fund would be low risk but quite likely low return as well. Short-term bond funds would bring up the risk a tick though this depends on how you handle the volatility of the fund's NAV changing. There is also something to be said for open-end, ETF and closed-end funds that are a few types to consider as well. Third, taxes are something not even mentioned here which could impact which kinds of funds make sense as some funds may invest in instruments with favorable tax-treatment. Aside from funds, I'd look at CDs and Treasuries would be my suggestion. With a rather short time frame, stocks could be quite dangerous to my mind. I'd only suggest stocks if you are investing for at least 5 years. In 2 years there is a lot that can happen with stocks where if you look at history there was a record of stocks going down about 1 in every 4 years on average. Something to consider is what kind of downside would you accept here? Are you OK if what you save gets cut in half? This is what can happen with some growth funds in the short-term which is what a 2 year time horizon looks like. If you do with a stock mutual fund, it would be a gamble to my mind. Don't forget that if the fund goes down 10% and then comes up 10%, you're still down 1% since the down will take more.\"",
"For a time period as short as a matter of months, commercial paper or bonds about to mature are the highest returning investments, as defined by Benjamin Graham: An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative. There are no well-known methods that can be applied to cryptocurrencies or forex for such short time periods to promise safety of principal. The problem is that with $1,500, it will be impossible to buy any worthy credit directly and hold to maturity; besides, the need for liquidity eats up the return, risk-adjusted. The only alternative is a bond ETF which has a high probability of getting crushed as interest rates continue to rise, so that fails the above criteria. The only alternative for investment now is a short term deposit with a bank. For speculation, anything goes... The best strategy is to take the money and continue to build up a financial structure: saving for risk-adjusted and time-discounted future annual cash flows. After the average unemployment cycle is funded, approximately six or so years, then long-term investments should be accumulated, internationally diversified equities.",
"You can open Savings Bank Account with some Banks that offer better interest rate. Note there would be restriction on number of withdrawals in quarter. There are better interest rates if you lock in for 90+ days. The other option to explore is to open a Demat / Brokrage account and invest in liquid funds. Note depending on various factors it may or may not suite your requirements.",
"I recommend you consider a Roth IRA. Invest it as others here suggest, safely, CDs, money market,etc. You can put in $5000/yr. When you spend, use this last, there is no penalty to withdraw the deposits. But if you make it through grad school without needing it, you'll have great start on your retirement savings.",
"In general, investors with a long period of time until they would need to withdraw the cash are best off holding mostly equities. While the dividends that equities would return are less than the interest you would get in peer-to-peer lending, over long periods of time not only do you get the dividends from equity investment but the value of the stock will grow faster than interest on loans. The higher returns from stocks, however, comes with more risk of big downturns. Many people pull their investments out of stocks right after crashes which really hurts their long term returns. So, in order to get the benefit of investing in stocks you need to be strong enough to continue to hold the stocks through the crash and into the recovery. As for which stocks to invest in, generally it is best to invest in low-fee index funds/etfs where you own a broad collection of stocks so that if (when) any one stock goes bust that your portfolio does not take much damage. Try to own both international and domestic stocks to get good diversification. The consensus recommends adding just a little bit of REITs and bonds to your investments, but for someone at 25 it might not be worth it yet. Warren Buffett had some good thoughts on index investing.",
"As others have noted, you can do better than a checking or savings account. If you're going to invest emergency money, the vehicle you put it into should be: Liquid - Wherever you put it, you should be able to quickly cash it out. Highly liquid exchange traded products are good for this. Low volatility/drawdowns - If you need at least 6 months of your paycheck to cover you in the event of an emergency, you don't want to park it in a portfolio that can potentially lose 30% value. Insured - Your investments should have SIPC coverage (protection against losses resulting from failure on part of broker). Moderate/Steady Growth - If the emergency fund doesn't grow, you'll need to continually pump money into it. My 'steady growth' portfolio is majorly allocated to fixed income. Within that, a major portion is allocated to high yielding instruments. Over the past 10 years, it's seen at least a 7% annualized return.",
"\"That's great that you have saved up money. You are ahead of your peers. I would advise against investing in an index fund. The attraction of the idea is that you will get the same return as the base item. For example, an index fund of gold would supposedly give you the same return as if you bought gold. In reality this is not true. The return of an index fund is always significantly below the return of the underlying commodity. Your best strategy is to invest in something you know and understand. There are two books that can help you learn how to do this: \"\"One Up on Wall Street\"\" by Peter Lynch and \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin Graham. Buying, reading and following the guidance in these two books is your best investment of time and money.\"",
"Edit: I a in the United States, seek advice from someone who is also in Australia. I am getting about 5.5% per year by investing in a fund (ticker:PGF) that, in turn, buys preferred stock in banks. Preferred stock acts a bit like a bond and a bit like a stock. The price is very stable. However, a bank account is FDIC insured (in the USA) and an investment is not. I use the Reinvestment program at Scottrade so that the monthly dividends are automatically reinvested with no commission. However I do not know if this is available outside of the United States. Investing yealds greater returns but exposes you to greater risk. You have to know your risk tolerance."
] |
[
"Basically the first thing you should do before you invest your money is to learn about investing and learn about what you want to invest in. Another thing to think about is that usually low risk can also mean low returns. As you are quite young and have some savings put aside you should generally aim for higher risk higher return investments and then when you start to reach retirement age aim for less risky lower return investments. In saying that, just because an investment is considered high risk does not mean you have to be exposed to the full risk of that investment. You do this by managing your risk to an acceptable level which will allow you to sleep at night. To do this you need to learn about what you are investing in. As an example about managing your risk in an investment, say you want to invest $50,000 in shares. If you put the full $50,000 into one share and that share price drops dramatically you will lose a large portion of your money straight away. If instead you spent a maximum of $10,000 on 5 different shares, even if one of them falls dramatically, you still have another 4 which may be doing a lot better thus minimising your losses. To take it one step further you might say if anyone of the shares you bought falls by 20% then you will sell those shares and limit your losses to $2000 per share. If the worst case scenario occurred and all 5 of your shares fell during a stock market crash you would limit your total losses to $10,000 instead of $50,000. Most successful investors put just as much if not more emphasis on managing the risk on their investments and limiting their losses as they do in selecting the investments. As I am not in the US, I cannot really comment whether it is the right time to buy property over there, especially as the market conditions would be different in different states and in different areas of each state. However, a good indication of when to buy properties is when prices have dropped and are starting to stabilise. As you are renting at the moment one option you might want to look at is buying a place to live in so you don't need to rent any more. You can compare your current rent payment with the mortgage payment if you were to buy a house to live in. If your mortgage payments are lower than your rent payments then this could be a good option. But whatever you do make sure you learn about it first. Make sure you spend the time looking at for sale properties for a few months in the area you want to buy before you do buy. This will give you an indication of how much properties in that area are really worth and if prices are stable, still falling or starting to go up. Good luck, and remember, research, research and more research. Even if you are to take someone elses advice and recommendations, you should learn enough yourself to be able to tell if their advice and recommendations make sense and are right for your current situation.",
"Since you mention the religion restriction, you should probably look into the stock market or funds investing in it. Owning stock basically means you own a part of a company and benefit from any increase in value the company may have (and 'loose' on decreases, provided you sell your stock) and you also earn dividends over the company's profit. If you do your research properly and buy into stable companies you shouldn't need to bother about temporary market movements or crashes (do pay attention to deterioration on the businesses you own though). When buying stocks you should be aiming for the very long run. As mentioned by Victor, do your research, I recommend you start it by looking into 'value stocks' should you choose that path."
] |
2264
|
Personal Tax Return software for Linux?
|
[
"534454",
"412819"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"534454",
"412819",
"144894",
"32199",
"148104",
"192083",
"55601",
"76782",
"587792",
"231923",
"398805",
"419245",
"171856",
"218986",
"145650",
"273071",
"332855",
"361908",
"470319",
"244104",
"151554",
"599842",
"365721",
"404564",
"210707",
"34338",
"287398",
"554114",
"179420",
"557861",
"200683",
"597681",
"590375",
"261378",
"214610",
"57175",
"399631",
"328863",
"592309",
"585356",
"480924",
"347590",
"184549",
"196432",
"546782",
"45090",
"494808",
"12987",
"365689",
"591130",
"277583",
"218067",
"239484",
"476632",
"112045",
"528589",
"302616",
"362933",
"570636",
"380474",
"157751",
"566698",
"278702",
"333681",
"505341",
"253210",
"467508",
"90290",
"480749",
"57707",
"259530",
"128752",
"141511",
"552106",
"417400",
"341960",
"595090",
"318260",
"320610",
"288438",
"395483",
"113060",
"325235",
"509365",
"90348",
"313012",
"184559",
"255695",
"23747",
"120523",
"122768",
"60803",
"529790",
"402174",
"344236",
"222380",
"432417",
"444300",
"111511",
"123384"
] |
[
"TurboTax online works via Firefox (i.e. it is a cloud-based service.) I don't think any downloaded software is available directly for Linux.",
"\"I used H&R Block this year 2013 to do my 2012 taxes and it was a snap! Ubuntu 12.10 with Firefox 20 and everything worked great! Although it is not listed as one of the \"\"supported\"\" platforms, Firefox breezed through the application without any problems. I used the deluxe version of H&R to calculate my mortgage and home business deductions, but I would guess any of the H&R versions work.\"",
"If you would like to use linux I suggest you to use KMyMoney http://kmymoney2.sourceforge.net/ It is based on gnucash but it is easier to use IMO",
"It's been a long time since I've used MS Money and/or Quickbooks (never Quicken), but I've used GnuCash over the past year or so. It works, but it does suffer from some usability problems. Some of the UI is clunky. Data entry sequences are a little harder than they should be. Reports could be a little prettier. But overall it does work, and it's the best I've found on linux. (I would definitely appreciate pointers to something better.)",
"I don't like keeping my tax information online. Personally, I buy TaxCut from Amazon for $25-30. I store my info securely on resources under my control. Call me a luddite or a weirdo, but I also file using paper, because I don't see the advantage of paying for the privilege of saving the government time and money.",
"It's not just the US based mailing address for registration or US based credit-card or bank account: even if you had all these, like I do, you will find that these online filing companies do not have the infrastructure to handle non-resident taxes. The reason why the popular online filing companies do not handle non-resident taxes is because: Non-residents require a different set of forms to fill out - usually postfixed NR - like the 1040-NR. These forms have different rules and templates that do not follow the usual resident forms. This would require non-trivial programming done by these vendors All the NR forms have detailed instructions and separate set of non-resident guides that has enough information for a smart person to figure out what needs to be done. For example, check out Publication 519 (2011), U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens. As a result, by reading these most non-residents (or their accountants) seem to figure out how the taxes need to be filed. For the remaining others, the numbers perhaps are not significant enough to justify the non-trivial programming that need to be done by these vendors to incorporate the non-resident forms. This was my understanding when I did research into tax filing software. However, if you or anyone else do end up finding tax filing software that does allow non-resident forms, I wil be extremely happy to learn about them. To answer your question: you need to do it yourself or get it done by someone who knows non-resident taxes. Some people on this forum, including me for gratis, would be glad to check your work once you are done with it as long as you relieve us of any liability.",
"I use KMyMoney in Linux. They distribute a Mac version too. Plus, it is free!",
"I use http://moneydance.com/ it has Mac, Windows and Linux versions and works well for my needs.",
"GnuCash is a free and open-source option.",
"I have used TurboTax successfully for a couple of years. In addition to things already mentioned, it has some forums where you can get some simple questions answered (with complex ones it's always better to consult the professional) and it can import some data from your salary provider if you're lucky (some companies are supported, some aren't) - then you save time on filling out W2s, and can allow you to track your donations with sister site ItsDeductible.com, compare data with last year, etc. Not sure how desktop software compares. So far I didn't see any downsides except for, of course, the fact that your information is available online. But in our times most companies offer online access to earnings statements, etc., anyway, and so far the weakest link for the financial information has proven to be retailers, not tax preparers.",
"\"Does her dad still have the records from those tax years? If so, I would suggest using those as a basis and if they're complete, just filing them directly. If we're talking about software recommendations, I would suggest GenuTax as it allows for completing returns all the way back to 2003 without buying separate versions. Alternatively, there are some no-cost options. See the Wikipedia entry Comparison of Canadian-tax preparation software for personal use. Look both at the \"\"Price\"\" column and at the \"\"Freebies\"\" column. You should start at 2006 and move forward so you can keep track of carry-forward amounts. I'm assuming your girlfriend had no balance owing from those years as she was a student so there's no penalty to worry about.\"",
"Best Linux software is PostBooks. It is full double entry, but there is definitely a learning curve. For platform-agnostic, my favorite is Xero, which is web-based. It is full double entry balance sheet, the bank reconciliation is a pleasure to use, and they are coming out with a US version this summer. Easy to use and does everything I need.",
"Turbotax online is one of the best web applications I've ever used. It's incredibly seamless and you don't even realize you're using a browser instead of an installed desktop application. I like it because Turbotax will store your old returns for you, and prepopulate fields based upon prior year returns. It's a fantastic service.",
"\"You don't have to hire a tax consultant, there is a number of companies who sell software (installable or web-based) that helps you do it by asking for all relevant data interview-style. These typically cost between 15 and 25 EUR. I'm not sure whether any of them are available in English, but if you can read German well, you should be OK. taxback.com is in English, but to be honest it looks a bit dodgy to me. Now for your questions: are there some tricky fields (lines) that after filling in my taxes will be counted higher? This is rare, at least for employees you nearly always get something back. are there some tricky fields (lines) that after filling in my taxes could be counted lower? Not in general. Marriage is mentioned below, and otherwise it's all about individual deductibles. Ah, one important factor: if you have investment income and have not filed a Freistellungsauftrag with your bank, you can get some of the taxes by filling out the \"\"Anlage KAP\"\" form with data you got in the Jahressteuerbescheinigung from your bank. are there some flat-rates (Pauschals) that I could get advantage from? Absolutely. As an employee, the biggest factor is the Werbungskostenpauschale of (I think currently) 1000 EUR for general work-related expenses, which will be accepted without proof. If your expenses are higher than that and you file individual expenses, there are flat rates for work-related moving and for commuting distance. is it better to give a tax return together with my wife (who was only a girlfriend in 2013 living with me in one household) or to give it separately? It's not possible to do a joint tax filing for the time before your marriage. What you should consider is to apply for a different tax class from now on, if one of you earns significantly more than the other. when separately, do I have to fill her information in my tax return or can I just pretend there is nobody else in my apartment? As far as taxes are concerned, unmarried roommates are treated completely separately with one exception: only one of you can deduct service charges included in your rent. You have to get a Nebenkostenabrechnung from your landlord, and service charges, i.e. janitor, gardener, etc. should be marked separately. But this may not be worth bothering with, usually it results in a tax return of maybe 15 EUR. is there any guide in English that could be of help with filling in the tax return form? I couldn't find anything that looked really useful in a short search.\"",
"\"Moneydance is a commercial application that is cross-platform. Written in Java, they run and are supported on Windows, Mac and Linux. They integrate with many financial institutions and for those that it cannot, you can import a locally downloaded file. I have used it for several years on my Mac, but have no company affiliation. I'm not sure if by saying \"\"Unix\"\" software you meant FOSS of some kind, but good luck in any case.\"",
"Mint has worked fairly well for tracking budgets and expenses, but I use GnuCash to plug in the holes. It offers MSFT$ like registers; the ability to track cash expenses, assets, and liabilities; and the option to track individual investment transactions. I also use GnuCash reports for my taxes since it gives a clearer picture of my finances than Mint does.",
"\"Regardless of the source of the software (though certainly good to know), there are practical limits to the IRS 1040EZ form. This simplified tax form is not appropriate for use once you reach a certain level of income because it only allows for the \"\"standard\"\" deduction - no itemization. The first year I passed that level, I was panicked because I thought I suddenly owed thousands. Switching to 1040A (aka the short form) and using even the basic itemized deductions showed that the IRS owed me a refund instead. I don't know where that level is for tax year 2015 but as you approach $62k, the simplified form is less-and-less appropriate. It would make sense, given some of the great information in the other answers, that the free offering is only for 1040EZ. That's certainly been true for other \"\"free\"\" software in the past.\"",
"I prefer TaxAct. I find it simpler to use and more helpful in helping answer the questionnaire. I have a fairly complex tax return and it handles it just fine.",
"I second the vote for GnuCash. It runs on Linux, Windows, and Mac. It is double-entry accounting, so there is a little bit of a learning curve, but it sounds like you should probably have something a little more powerful than Mint for your situation.",
"If you've been using TurboTax, let me suggest a compromise: Let TTax fill out the forms, but then print them out and go through it again by hand. If you don't get the same numbers, investigate why. If you do, you can probably conclude that you could do it by hand if you really want to, especially if you have the previous year's returns as a reference. (I've gone through every version of this from before personal tax software existed thru hand-constructed spreadsheets to commercial software and e-filing (federal only; I refuse to pay for something that reduces THEIR work). I can't use the free online version -- my return's got complications it won't handle -- and I'm uncomfortable putting that much data on a machine I don't control, so I'm still buying software each year. I COULD save the money, but it's worth a few bucks to me to make the process less annoying.) Late edit: Note that a self-constructed spreadsheet is one answer to the annoyance of pencil and paper -- you're still doing all the data manipulation yourself, but you're recording HOW you manipulated it as you go, and if numbers change you don't have to redo all the work. And it avoids raw math errors. It does require that you enter all the formulas rather than just their results, and figuring out how to express some things in stylesheet form can be a nuisance, but it isn't awful... and once you've done it (assuming you got it right) updating it for the next year is usually not hard unless you've introduced a completely new set of issues.",
"Given your needs, GNUcash will do swimmingly. I've used it for the past 3 years and while it's a gradual learning process, it's been able to resolve most stuff I've thrown at it. Schedule bills and deposits in the calendar view so I can keep an eye on cash flow. GNUcash has scheduled payments and receipts and reconcilation, should you need them. I prefer to keep enough float to cover monthly expenses in accounts rather than monitor potential shortfalls. Track all my stock and mutual fund investments across numerous accounts. It pulls stock, mutual and bond quotes from lots of places, domestic and foreign. It can also pull transaction data from your brokers, if they support that. I manually enter all my transactions so I can keep control of them. I just reconcile what I entered into Quicken based on the statements sent to me. I do not use Quicken's bill pay There's a reconciliation mode, but I don't use it personally. The purpose of reconcilation is less about catching bank errors and more about agreeing on the truth so that you don't incur bank fees. When I was doing this by hand I found I had a terrible data entry error rate, but on the other hand, the bayesian importer likes to mark gasoline purchases from the local grocery store as groceries rather than gas. I categorize all my expenditures for help come tax time. GNUcash has accounts, and you can mark expense accounts as tax related. It also generates certain tax forms for you if you need that. Not sure what all you're categorizing that's helpful at tax time though. I use numerous reports including. Net Worth tracking, Cash not is retirement funds and total retirement savings. Tons of reports, and the newest version supports SQL backends if you prefer that vs their reports.",
"Fill out the form manually, using last year's return as an example of how to report these gains. Or experiment with one of the low-priced tax programs; I've been told that they are available for as little as $17, and if your alternative is doing it manually, spending a bit of time checking their results isn't a huge problem. Or run the basic TTax, and tell it to add the appropriate forms manually. It supports them, it just doesn't have the interview sections to handle them. (@DanielCarson's answer has more details about that.) Or...",
"I am no expert on the situation nor do I pretend to act like one, but, as a business owner, allow me to give you my personal opinion. Option 3 is closest to what you want. Why? Well: This way, you have both the record of everything that was done, and also IRS can see exactly what happened. Another suggestion would be to ask the GnuCash maintainers and community directly. You can have a chat with them on their IRC channel #gnucash, send them an email, maybe find the answer in the documentation or wiki. Popular software apps usually have both support people and a helpful community, so if the above method is in any way inconvenient for you, you can give this one a try. Hope this helps! Robert",
"I have used turbo tax for years. Apart from the snafu in 2014, I have had no problem using deluxe, and I have lots of asset sales to report. I prefer form mode anyway. I can import the data from my broker, and I can e-file with no problem. So the only thing I'm missing is the support. I can usually find answers to questions on the web, anyway.",
"The best way to answer this question is to try. GnuCash is free, so setting it up and giving it a go shouldn't be too hard. After all, what really matters is how helpful the program is for your purposes. One aspect of personal finance that stops me from jumping to GnuCash/KMyMoney/MoneyDance is the ability to download transactions from my financial institutions. Last time I checked, the process was somewhat involved and support was limited for a handful of banks. Because of that, I decided to stick with MS Money (and once Microsoft dropped the ball, with Quicken). I am sure things are better these days, but I am still not comfortable with trusting my finances to something new and unproven. I still remember how painful it was several years ago, when some bug in MS Money caused occasional mess-up of the reconciliation state for the American Express credit cards.",
"\"If you live outside the US, then you probably need to deal with foreign tax credits, foreign income exclusions, FBAR forms (you probably have bank account balances enough for the 10K threshold) , various monsters the Congress enacted against you like form 8939 (if you have enough banking and investment accounts), form 3520 (if you have a IRA-like local pension), form 5471 (if you have a stake in a foreign business), form 8833 (if you have treaty claims) etc ect - that's just what I had the pleasure of coming across, there's more. TurboTax/H&R Block At Home/etc/etc are not for you. These programs are developed for a \"\"mainstream\"\" American citizen and resident who has nothing, or practically nothing, abroad. They may support the FBAR/FATCA forms (IIRC H&R Block has a problem with Fatca, didn't check if they fixed it for 2013. Heard reports that TurboTax support is not perfect as well), but nothing more than that. If you know the stuff well enough to fill the forms manually - go for it (I'm not sure they even provide all these forms in the software though). Now, specifically to your questions: Turbo tax doesn't seem to like the fact that my wife is a foreigner and doesn't have a social security number. It keeps bugging me to input a valid Ssn for her. I input all zeros for now. Not sure what to do. No, you cannot do that. You need to think whether you even want to include your wife in the return. Does she have income? Do you want to pay US taxes on her income? If she's not a US citizen/green card holder, why would you want that? Consider it again. If you decide to include here after all - you have to get an ITIN for her (instead of SSN). If you hire a professional to do your taxes, that professional will also guide you through the ITIN process. Turbo tax forces me to fill out a 29something form that establishes bonafide residency. Is this really necessary? Again in here it bugs me about wife's Ssn Form 2555 probably. Yes, it is, and yes, you have to have a ITIN for your wife if she's included. My previous state is California, and for my present state I input Foreign. When I get to the state tax portion turbo doesn't seem to realize that I have input foreign and it wants me to choose a valid state. However I think my first question is do i have to file a California tax now that I am not it's resident anymore? I do not have any assets in California. No house, no phone bill etc If you're not a resident in California, then why would you file? But you might be a partial resident, if you lived in CA part of the year. If so, you need to file 540NR for the part of the year you were a resident. If you have a better way to file tax based on this situation could you please share with me? As I said - hire a professional, preferably one that practices in your country of residence and knows the provisions of that country's tax treaty with the US. You can also hire a professional in the US, but get a good one, that specializes on expats.\"",
"\"I would advise against \"\"pencil and paper\"\" approach for the following reasons: You should e-file instead of paper filing. Although the IRS provides an option of \"\"Fillable Forms\"\", there's no additional benefit there. Software ensures correctness of the calculations. It is easy to make math errors, lookup the wrong table It is easy to forget to fill a line or to click a checkbox (one particular checkbox on Schedule B cost many people thousands of dollars). Software ask you questions in a \"\"interview\"\" manner, and makes it harder to miss. Software can provide soft copies that you can retrieve later or reuse for amendments and carry-overs to the next year, making the task next time easier and quicker. You may not always know about all the available deductions and credits. Instead of researching the tax changes every year, just flow with the interview process of the software, and they'll suggest what may be available for you (lifetime learners credit? Who knows). Software provides some kind of liability protection (for example, if there's something wrong because the software had a bug - you can have them fix it for you and pay your penalties, if any). It's free. So why not use it? As to professional help later in life - depending on your needs. I'm fully capable of filling my own tax returns, for example, but I prefer to have a professional do it since I'm not always aware about all the intricacies of taxation of my transactions and prefer to have a professional counsel (who also provides some liability coverage if she counsels me wrong...). Some things may become very complex and many people are not aware of that (I've shared the things I learned here on this forum, but there are many things I'm not aware of and the tax professional should know).\"",
"Free File is not software by the IRS. Free File is actually a partnership between the IRS and the Free File Alliance, a group of tax software companies. The software companies have all agreed to provide a free version of their tax software for low-income taxpayers. According to the Free File Alliance FAQ, the Alliance was formed in 2002 as part of a Presidential initiative to improve electronic access to government. You can read all the excruciating details of the formal agreement (PDF) between the IRS and the Alliance, but basically, the participating software companies get exposure for their products and the possibility of up-selling services, such as state tax return software.",
"For double entry bookkeeping, personal or small business, GnuCash is very good. Exists for Mac Os.",
"You should consider Turbocash. It's a mature open-source project, installed locally (thick client).",
"I generally concur with your sentiments. mint.com has 'hack me' written all over it. I know of two major open source tools for accounting: GNUCash and LedgerSMB. I use GNUCash, which comes close to meeting your needs: The 2.4 series introduced SQL DB support; mysql, postgres and sqlite are all supported. I migrated to sqlite to see how the schema looked and ran, the conclusion was that it runs fine but writing direct sql queries is probably beyond me. I may move it to postgres in the future, just so I can write some decent reports. Note that while it uses HTML for reporting, there is no no web frontend. It still requires a client, and is not multi-user safe. But it's probably about the closest to what you what that still falls under the heading of 'personal finance'. A fork of SQL Ledger, this is postgreSQL only but does have a web frontend. All the open source finance webapps I've found are designed for small to medium busineses. I believe it should meet your needs, though I've never used it. It might be overkill and difficult to use for your limited purposes though. I know one or two people in the regional LUG use LedgerSMB, but I really don't need invoicing and paystubs.",
"I have not used Quicken; I've used GnuCash exclusively. It feels a bit rough with the UI: Balancing that, the data is stored in a gzip-compressed xml file. The compression is also optional, so you can save it as a plain xml file. This means that you have some hope of recovery if you wind up with a corrupted file. (And for programmer-types, you could keep it in source control for additional peace of mind.) My wife and I have been using it for several years now, and has worked well for us. LWN.net had a pair of Grumpy Editor reviews on personal finance software here and here which would be worth reading.",
"I suggest you to test AlauxSoft Accounts and Budget. This software is a money-like. There is a freeware and a shareware (24 EUR). You will find its at http://www.alauxsoft.com Best regards, Michel ALAUX.",
"hledger is a free software, cross-platform double-entry accounting tool I've been working on for a while. It has command-line and web-based interfaces to your local data, and some other interesting features. There's also ledger (http://wiki.github.com/jwiegley/ledger/) which is command-line only. These are.. different, but worth a look for some folks.",
"\"As I have said before on this site, I personally use Moneydance. They have Mac, Linux and Windows support, and recently added an iOS mobile version that syncs with the desktop. I have only used the Mac \"\"desktop\"\" version, and it seems to function well, but have not tried the other platforms, nor the iOS version. I have no company affiliation, but am a (mostly) happy user. :-)\"",
"I have been using http://moneydance.com/ for several years now. Works pretty well for me. Another one is http://www.iggsoftware.com/ibank/ I have not used it other than a five minute play session. Looks more mac-ish than Moneydance, but that's all I know.",
"For tax year 2014, TurboTax Deluxe no longer supports Schedule D.* TurboTax Premier is required if you need to use Schedule D. Alternatively, H&R Block Tax Software Deluxe will handle Schedule D at a fraction of the cost of TurboTax Premier. Update: Beginning with tax year 2015, TurboTax has reversed their disastrous decision and put the functionality back into Deluxe, making it once again an acceptable choice for the OP's situation. See this answer for more details. H&R Block Deluxe still handles this at less cost. * Technically**, TurboTax Deluxe does include Schedule D and other schedules in what they call form mode; however, if you decide to use them, TurboTax Deluxe cripples itself, eliminating many of the features on this chart that you may have gotten used to, such as interview guidance and e-file. ** See https://xkcd.com/1475/",
"\"Assuming you file state tax returns, you shouldn't buy Basic. Ever. Your choice is probably between the \"\"Premier\"\" version and the \"\"Business and Home\"\" version. Price difference is insignificant (I have a comparison on my blog, including short descriptions as to who might find each version useful the most). The prices have gone down significantly, since when I wrote the article, its cheaper now.\"",
"Like most software it's about what you put in to them. We use ProSeries software which is like TurboTax but $4500 with no questions. I would do your taxes on online and then have a professional do them. You then can ask any questions you may have to better understanding of what's going on. Only take copies of your documents because some unprofessional places will try to keep them. Do this each time something big changes in your life, you have a baby, buy a house or start a business. May cost more but could save you thousands in the long run. I have been doing taxes professionally for 7 years.",
"\"In the U.S., Form 1040 is known as the tax return. This is the form that is filed annually to calculate your tax due for the year, and you either claim a refund if you have overpaid your taxes or send in a payment if you have underpaid. The form is generally due on April 15 each year, but this year the due date is April 18, 2016. When it comes to filing your taxes, there are two questions you need to ask yourself: \"\"Am I required to file?\"\" and \"\"Should I file?\"\" Am I required to file? The 1040 instructions has a section called \"\"Do I have to file?\"\" with several charts that determine if you are legally required to file. It depends on your status and your gross income. If you are single, under 65, and not a dependent on someone else's return, you are not required to file if your 2015 income was less than $10,300. If you will be claimed as a dependent on someone else's return, however, you must file if your earned income (from work) was over $6300, or your unearned income (from investments) was over $1050, or your gross (total) income was more than the larger of either $1050 or your earned income + $350. See the instructions for more details. Should I file? Even if you find that you are not required to file, it may be beneficial to you to file anyway. There are two main reasons you might do this: If you have had income where tax has been taken out, you may have overpaid the tax. Filing the tax return will allow you to get a refund of the amount that you overpaid. As a student, you may be eligible for student tax credits that can get you a refund even if you did not pay any tax during the year. How to file For low income tax payers, the IRS has a program called Free File that provides free filing software options.\"",
"There isn't one. I haven't been very happy with anything I've tried, commercial or open source. I've used Quicken for a while and been fairly happy with the user experience, but I hate the idea of their sunset policy (forced upgrades) and using proprietary format for the data files. Note that I wouldn't mind using proprietary and/or commercial software if it used a format that allowed me to easily migrate to another application. And no, QIF/OFX/CSV doesn't count. What I've found works well for me is to use Mint.com for pulling transactions from my accounts and categorizing them. I then export the transaction history as a CSV file and convert it to QIF/OFX using csv2ofx, and then import the resulting file into GNUCash. The hardest part is using categories (Mint.com) and accounts (GnuCash) properly. Not perfect by any means, but certainly better than manually exporting transactions from each account.",
"Since you are living in India and earning income not from salary, you must file your tax return under ITR4(Profits or Gains of Business or Profession). You can do it online on IncomeTax India eFiling website, step by step guide available here.",
"YNAB runs on Mac, Win, and Linux.",
"It has a bit of a learning curve, but I like GNU Cash. (And since it open source, it's free!)",
"You could also switch to CreditKarma to file taxes, it's 100% free and just launched. I'm not affiliated with them, just bringing up an alternative.",
"It might not be leniency for first time payers, but they do have programs, some federal some local, that help the poor and elderly complete their tax forms. There are also programs that allow the poor to file electronically for free. For most people the first time they file their taxes they are using the EZ form. Which is rather easy to do, even without the use of either web based or PC based software. The software tools all ask enough questions on the EZ forms to allow the user to know with confidence when their life choices have made it advantageous to use the more complex forms. The web versions of the software allow the taxpayer to start for free, thus reducing their initial investment for the software to zero. Because the first time filer is frequently a teenager the parents are generally responsible for proving that initial guidance. The biggest risk for a young taxpayer might be that the first year that itemizing deductions might be advantageous. They might never consider it, so they over pay. Or they discover in April that if they had only kept a receipt from a charity six months ago they could deduct the donation, so they are tempted to claim the donation without proof. Regarding leniency and assistance there is an interesting tax credit. The Earned Income Tax Credit. it gives a Tax credit to the working poor. They alert people that they need to Check Your Eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit They know that significant numbers of taxpayers fail to claim it. EITC can be a boost for workers who earned $50,270 or less in 2012. Yet the IRS estimates that one out of five eligible taxpayers fails to claim their EITC each year. The IRS wants everyone who is eligible for the credit to get the credit that they’ve earned. The rules for getting the credit are simple, all the information needed to claim it is already on the basic tax forms, but you have to know that you need a separate form to get the credit. But instead of making the credit automatic they say: If you use IRS e-file to prepare and file your tax return, the software will guide you and not let you forget this important step. E-file does the work and figures your EITC for you! and then : With IRS Free File, you can claim EITC by using brand name tax preparation software to prepare and e-file your tax return for free. It's available exclusively at IRS.gov/freefile. Free help preparing your return to claim your EITC is also available at one of thousands of Volunteer Income Tax Assistance sites around the country. To find the volunteer site nearest to you, use the VITA locator tool on IRS.gov. But if you don't use free file you might never know about the form. Apparently it escapes 20% of the people who could claim it.",
"Interesting. When you say DIY you mean pencil and paper. For most of us the choice came down to using a professional vs using the software. Your second bullet really hits the point. The tax return is a giant spreadsheet with multiple cells depending on each other. Short of building my own spreadsheet to perform the task, I found the software, at $30-$50, to be the happy medium between the full DIY and the Pro at $400+. With a single W2, and no other items, the form is likely just a 1040-EZ, and there shouldn't be any recalculating so long as you have the data you need. Pencil/paper is fine. There's no exact time to say go with the software, except, perhaps, when you realize there are enough fields to fill out where the recalculating might be cumbersome, or the need to see the exact tax bracket has value for you. You are clearly in the category that can fill out the one form. At some point, you might have investment income (Schedule D) enough mortgage interest to itemize deductions (Schedule A) etc. You'll know when it's time to go the software route. Keep in mind, there are free online choices from each of the tax software providers. Good for simple returns up to a certain level. Thanks to Phil for noting this in comments. I'll offer an anecdote exemplifying the distinction between using the software as a tool vs having a high knowledge of taxes. I wrote an article The Phantom Tax Zone, in which I explained how the process of taxing Social Security benefits at a certain level created what I called a Phantom Tax Rate. I knew that $1000 more in income could cause $850 of the benefit to be taxed as well, but with a number of factors to consider, I wanted to create a chart to show the tax at each incremental $1000 of income added. Using the software, I simply added $1000, noted the tax due, and repeated. Doing this by hand would have taken a day, not 30 minutes. For you, the anecdote may have no value, Social Security is too far off. For others, who in March are doing their return, the process may hold value. Many people are deciding whether to make their IRA deposit be pre-tax or the Post tax Roth IRA. The software can help them quickly see the effect of +/- $1000 in income and choose the mix that's ideal for them.",
"Unfortunately, if your taxes are too complicated for the 1040EZ form, then your tax situation is effectively unique and you need to try both options and see for yourself which one is better. If you do your taxes yourself, you may be more likely to do a more thorough job in digging everything up. You might even find that you can deduct some things that you hadn't thought of before. On the other hand, whenever I've gone to a tax professional, it's always been pretty much an all-or-nothing proposal. You sit down with them and hand them your records, they ask a couple simple questions, and they either give you your completed tax return on-the-spot or they have you come back in a week for a brief review of the final numbers. If they don't prepare your return on-the-spot, you can usually send additional items later on if you think of something that you forgot the first time around, but for the most part it's still a one-time shot. That said, I'm beginning to think the difference in monetary cost of completing even a mildly complex tax return is going to be insignificant, and the main factors to consider are the value of your own time and how much of the tax code you want to learn (because, in my experience, the software always refers to additional IRS forms or codes that are not automated in the software). In theory, your tax return should be the same regardless of whether you have a tax professional do your taxes or, if you do them yourself, which software you use. Given the same inputs, you should get about the same outputs. Even though that theory doesn't always hold exactly true, all the options should get you in the same ballpark--close enough that it doesn't make much difference in the grand scheme of things, unless your tax return is done incorrectly (e.g., you choose the wrong filing status or forget to take a major deduction). Suppose you're married and you or your spouse is a partner in an LLC. Maybe a tax professional wants to charge you $500 for your tax return (this will vary based on your circumstances). You could alternatively buy the tax software for $40-$300 and spend 20+ hours navigating through the interviews and reviewing tax codes for the decisions and worksheets that are not automated in the software. Depending on how much time you personally have to spend on the tax return, one option might be better than the other. Maybe you have to pay your in-house accounting person to use the tax software, or you have to pay an employee to cover for you while you use the software. Keep in mind that the tax professional and the tax software are probably deductible, whereas your time may not be. In the end, even if you save money up front, it might be a wash on the following year's tax return, especially after you consider the uncompensated time that you could have spent with your family, on your business.",
"No, GnuCash doesn't specifically provide a partner cash basis report/function. However, GnuCash reports are fairly easy to write. If the data was readily available in your accounts it shouldn't be too hard to create a cash basis report. The account setup is so flexible, you might actually be able to create accounts for each partner, and, using standard dual-entry accounting, always debit and credit these accounts so the actual cash basis of each partner is shown and updated with every transaction. I used GnuCash for many years to manage my personal finances and those of my business (sole proprietorship). It really shines for data integrity (I never lost data), customer management (decent UI for managing multiple clients and business partners) and customer invoice generation (they look pretty). I found the user interface ugly and cumbersome. GnuCash doesn't integrate cleanly with banks in the US. It's possible to import data, but the process is very clunky and error-prone. Apparently you can make bank transactions right from GnuCash if you live in Europe. Another very important limitation of GnuCash to be aware of: only one user at a time. Period. If this is important to you, don't use GnuCash. To really use GnuCash effectively, you probably have to be an actual accountant. I studied dual-entry accounting a bit while using GnuCash. Dual-entry accounting in GnuCash is a pain in the butt. Accurately recording certain types of transactions (like stock buys/sells) requires fiddling with complicated split transactions. I agree with Mariette: hire a pro.",
"MoneyDance Is the way to go. I've been using it for years and it works well. It keeps getting better, and best of all, it's completely cross platform! Mac, Windows and linux!",
"Good tax people are expensive. If you are comfortable with numbers and computers, you can do it better yourself.",
"Here's a link with comparison of various online and offline PF software: http://personalfinancesoftwarereviews.com/compare-personal-finance-software/",
"The short answer is that there are no great personal finance programs out there any more. In the past, I found Microsoft Money to be slick and feature rich but unfortunately it has been discontinued a few years ago. Your choices now are Quicken and Mint along with the several open-source programs that have been listed by others. In the past, I found the open source programs to be both clunky and not feature-complete for my every day use. It's possible they have improved significantly since I had last looked at them. The biggest limitation I saw with them is weakness of integration with financial service providers (banks, credit card companies, brokerage accounts, etc.) Let's start with Mint. Mint is a web-based tool (owned by the same company as Quicken) whose main feature is its ability to connect to nearly every financial institution you're likely to use. Mint aggregates that data for you and presents it on the homepage. This makes it very easy to see your net worth and changes to it over time, spending trends, track your progress on budgets and long-term goals, etc. Mint allows you to do all of this with little or no data entry. It has support for your investments but does not allow for deep analysis of them. Quicken is a desktop program. It is extremely feature rich in terms of supporting different types of accounts, transactions, reports, reconciliation, etc. One could use Quicken to do everything that I just described about Mint, but the power of Quicken is in its more manual features. For example, while Mint is centred on showing you your status, Quicken allows you to enter transactions in real-time (as you're writing a check, initiating a transfer, etc) and later reconciles them with data from your financial institutions. Link Mint, Quicken has good integration with financial companies so you can generally get away with as little or as much data entry as you want. For example, you can manually enter large checks and transfers (and later match to automatically-downloaded data) but allow small entries like credit card purchases to download automatically. Bottom line, if you're just looking to keep track of where you are at, try Mint. It's very simple and free. If you need more power and want to manage your finances on a more transactional level, try Quicken (though I believe they do not have a trial version, I don't understand why). The learning curve is steep although probably gentler than that of GnuCash. Last note on why Mint.com is free: it's the usual ad-supported model, plus Mint sells aggregated consumer behaviour reports to other institutions (since Mint has everyone's transactions, it can identify consumer trends). If you're not comfortable with that, or with the idea of giving a website passwords to all your financial accounts, you will find Quicken easier to accept. Hope this helps.",
"\"Rob - I'm sorry your first visit here has been unpleasant. What you are asking for is beyond the capability of most software. If you look at Fairmark.com, you find the standard deduction for married filing joint is $12,200 in 2012, and $12,400 in 2013. I offer this anecdote to share a 'deduction' story - The first year I did my MIL's taxes, I had to explain that she didn't have enough deductions to itemize. Every year since, she hands me a file full of paper substantiating medical deductions that don't exceed 7.5% of her income. In turn, I give her two folders back, one with the 5 or so documents I needed, and the rest labeled \"\"trash\"\". Fewer than 30% of filers itemize. And a good portion of those that do, have no question that's the right thing to do. e.g. my property tax is more than the $12K, so anything else I have that's a deduction adds right to the number. It's really just those people who are at the edge that are likely frustrated. I wrote an article regarding Standard Deduction vs Itemizing, in which I describe a method of pulling in one's deductible expenses into Odd years, reducing the number in Even years, to allow a bi-annual itemization. If this is your situation, you'll find the concept interesting. You also ask about filing status. Think on this for a minute. After pulling in our W2s (TurboTax imports the data right from ADP), I do the same for our stock info. The stock info, and all Schedule A deductions aren't assigned a name. So any effort to split them in search of savings by using Married Filing Separate, would first require splitting these up. TurboTax has a 'what-if' worksheet for this function, but when the 'marriage penalty' was lifted years ago, the change in status had no value. Items that phaseout over certain income levels are often lost to the separate filer anyway. When I got married, I found my real estate losses each year could not be taken, they accumulated until I either sold, or until our income dropped when the Mrs retired. So, while is respect your desire for these magic dials within the software, I think it's fair to say they would provide little value to most people. If this thread stays open, I'd be curious if anyone can cite an example where filing separately actually benefits the couple.\"",
"You will need Premier, since it is the first one to include Schedule E. Deluxe used to support Schedule E for investments, but not anymore. Most taxpayers know Schedule E as the schedule used for rentals, but you're going to need it to report your S-Corp income.",
"Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_accounting_software, in particular the rows with a market focus of 'personal'. This is probably one of the more complete lists available, and shows if they are web-based (like Mint) or standalone (like Quicken or Microsoft Money).",
"There are sites in India that offer this, http://www.intuit.in/ is one such site. Apart from this some banks like ICICI offer this to limited extent.",
"\"Actually, if you don't care about paying a bit more, either hire an accountant and dump the paper on them, or (may be cheaper but a bit more work) spring for tax software. Modern tax programs can often download most of your data directly. If you don't care about claiming deductions you can skip a lot of the rest. I'm perfectly capable of doing my taxes on paper or in a spreadsheet... but I spring for tax software every year because I find it a _LOT more pleasant. Remember that most of the complexity does come from policies intended to reduce your taxes. When you call for simplification, you may not like the result. It's better than it was a decade or two ago. I used to joke that the battle cry of the next revolution would be \"\"No Taxation Without Proper Instructions!\"\"\"",
"I have used TurboTax for years with no problems. I clicked on the TaxAct link in an ad and decided to see if there was much different. Using the free version of Taxact, and inputting the exact same information, my federal taxes came out with a $1500 difference while my state taxes (NJ) came out almost identically. I rechecked my inputs twice and could find no typos in either program. While I would make out better with the TaxAct program in my wallet, I find the detailed questioning and directions in TurboTax to be superior. Somehow I am thinking that TaxAct has missed something but I can't figure out what. And the only way to actually print out your forms with TaxAct is to get the paid version, so comparing the final forms side bybside isn't a free option.",
"GnuCash—Great for the meticulous who want to know every detail of their finances. Pros: Cons:",
"A desktop application that has the same features (although as already stated, nothing will be identical but if you are looking for functionality then certainly there will be) and pretty simple to use was Microsoft Money, however, Microsoft stopped supporting it with newer versions and while the existing versions will work, I still use mine, there will be no future updates. I like the interface, its simple to use and has all the features you want. They abandoned it in favor of Intuit's Quicken but personally I am not a fan of the Quicken interface. They still had a more extensive and probably too much for the average user application called Office Accounting, but they abandoned future updates and supports on that in favor of Intuit's Quickbooks. Again, I am not a fan of the interface but they are very feature rich including invoicing and payroll, again overkill for the average user. They still have the Small Business Accounting in the form of Microsoft Dynamics, but that is utterly overkill for personal use. I generally don't trust online or cloud based accounting solutions like Mint or even Quicken online because I don't trust my information security to some third party without knowing how they are securing it and what will happen to me if/when they are leaked due to breach. So I like to keep everything local to myself and that's a good move for you, you should do that. It seems at the moment the market standard without much competition is Quicken for personal use and Quickbooks for small business. I would recommend you start with Quicken and if your needs increase in the future, you can easily transfer into Quickbooks to scale up as they are fully compatible with each other. Check it out here and compare their products to see what works best for your needs.",
"\"Are you sure that TurboTax Deluxe won't be able to handle your capital gains? When TurboTax removed this functionality from their Deluxe product in 2015 (for tax year 2014), sales plummeted, and they realized that the enormous effective price increase was a colossal mistake. The following year, I understand that they put back all the functionality back into Deluxe, and as far as I know it is still there today. Deluxe should be able to handle capital gains and Schedule D. Premier offers additional guidance, but if you already know what you want to do, Deluxe should be able to handle everything. Full disclosure: I was one of the people angered by the TurboTax money grab. I returned my copy of TurboTax that year and purchased H&R Block software instead, which did everything that TurboTax used to do at a lower cost. I still use H&R Block software, and have no desire to go back to TurboTax. It wasn't simply \"\"marketing folk trying to differentiate the 3 (main) levels of product\"\" as @JoeTaxpayer said in a comment, it was the management trying to take advantage of their high market share by steeply raising the prices. They underestimated their customers. You mention not wanting to lose the value of the $30 you spent on a feature with TurboTax. I'm not sure which feature/add-on you are talking about, but does it make sense to overpay for something annually just to avoid losing $30 in the past?\"",
"You can try Wave Accounting. Its a free software for Small Business and web-based. http://waveaccounting.com/",
"I did my own taxes previously using both H&R Block Tax Cut and TurboTax. When I had a simple return and was single, it worked great. Once I got married it was a little more complicated. When I started a small side business, I switched to an accountant. He does a great job of adjusting deductions between my wife and I and filing separately. This minimizes the amount of taxes we have to pay. It has been a few years since I used the software, but I did not see the ability to easily make adjustments like that.",
"Normally you could either head down to the office supply store and pick up a copy of a tax program, or you could head over to the IRS office and pick up the instructions and forms. However, in your case you should be talking to a tax lawyer. The unfiled taxes are bad enough but you own a business outside the USA and most likely have bank accounts also. That brings you into the realm of FATCA.",
"This may not exactly answer your question but, as a small business owner, I would highly recommend having a professional handle your taxes. It is worth the money to have it done correctly rather than doing something wrong and getting audited or worse having penalties assessed and owing more than you thought would be possible. I would recommend this especially if this is how you make your primary income, you can always write it off as a business expense.",
"I haven't used it in years, but look at GnuCash. From the site, one bullet point under Feature Highlights:",
"I think you're making a mistake. If you still want to make this mistake (I'll explain later why I think its a mistake), the resources for you are: IRS.GOV - The IRS official web site, that has all the up-to-date forms and instructions for them, guiding publications and the relevant rules. You might get a bit overwhelmed through. Software programs - TurboTax (Home & Business for a sole propriator or single member LLC, Business for more complicated business), or H&R Block Business (only one version that should cover all) are for your guidance. They provide tips and interactive guidance in filling in all the raw data, and produce all the forms filled for you according to the raw data you entered. I personally prefer TurboTax, I think its interface is nicer and the workflow is more intuitive, but that's my personal preference. I wrote about it in my blog last year. Both also include plug-ins for the state taxes (If I remember correctly, for both the first state is included in the price, if you need more than 1 state - there's extra $30-$40 per state). Your state tax authority web site (Minnesota Department of Revenue in your case). Both Intuit and H&R Block have on-line forums where people answer each others questions while using the software to prepare the taxes, you might find useful information there. As always, Google is your friend. Now, why I think this is a mistake. Mistakes that you make - will be your responsibility. If you use the software - they'll cover the calculation mistakes. But if you write income in a wrong specification or take a wrong deduction that you shouldn't have taken - it will be on your head and you're the one to pay the fines and penalties for that. Missed deductions and credits - CPA's (should) know about all the latest deductions and credits that you or your business might be entitled to. They also (should) know which one got canceled and you shouldn't be continuing taking them if you had before. Expenses - there are plenty of rules of what can be written off as an expense and how. Some things should be written off this year, others over several years, for some depreciation formula should be used, etc etc. Tax programs might help you with that, but again - mistakes are your responsibility. Especially for the first time and for the newly formed business, I think you should use a (good!) CPA. The CPA should take responsibility over your filing. The CPA should provide guarantee that based on the documents you provided, he filled all the necessary forms correctly, and will absorb all the fees and penalties if there's an audit and mistakes were found not because you withheld information from your CPA, but because the CPA made a mistake. That costs money, and that's why the CPA's are more expensive than using a program or preparing yourself. But, the risk is much higher, especially for a new business. And after all - its a business expense.",
"You will not be able to continue filing with TurboTax if you invest in foreign funds. Form 8261 which is required to report PFIC investments is not included. Read the form instructions carefully - if you don't feel shocked and scared, you didn't understand what it says. The bottom line is that the American Congress doesn't want you do what you want to do and will punish you dearly.",
"\"Depending on what you need to explain, you can submit your electronic return without the supplemental information and subsequently mail a Form 8453 with the additional information. This is helpful for form 8489, for example, where you need to list every transaction reported by your stock broker on a 1099-B. See https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8453.pdf for more details on this form. If the information you need to submit an attachment for doesn't follow one of the options on that form, you will likely need to file a paper return or use a paid tax preparation service/application. Limitations of FreeFile are explained here, along with a list of forms that are available: https://www.irs.gov/uac/List-of-Available-Free-File-Fillable-Forms The \"\"Attaching Statements\"\" and \"\"Write-in information\"\" sections seem like they might apply to your situation. Attaching Statements - If you need to add statements and you can't use Form 8453, U.S. Individual Income Tax Transmittal for an IRS e-file Return, to mail that information, you will not be able to use this program to efile your return Identity Protection PIN's (IP PIN) - This program only supports the entry of a Primary taxpayer's IP PIN. If the spouse or dependents have an IP PIN, you cannot use this program to efile the return. Writing In Information - Your ability to \"\"write in\"\" additional information to explain an entry is generally limited to the 1040 forms and some of the more frequently submitted forms. If you need to write in additional information on a form, other than the 1040 series, you may not be able to use this program to efile your tax return. E-filing Forms - To efile forms, (except Form 4868) they must be attached to a 1040 series form (1040, 1040A or 1040EZ). Form Limitations - There may be Known Limitations of forms you plan to complete. Please review them. A form limitation may keep you from completing or e-filing your return.\"",
"Gnucash uses aqbanking, so I'd suggest looking at aqbanking to see if it will do what you want. It seems to be actively developed (as of 26.2.2011), but the main page is in German and my German is a bit rusty... You might also try asking on the gnucash-users list.",
"This form is due March 15. This year, the 15th is Saturday, so the deadline is Monday March 17th. Keep in mind, the software guys would have two choices, wait until every last form is finalized before releasing, or put the software out by late November when 80%+ are good to go. Nothing is broken in this process. Keep in mind that there are different needs depending on the individual. I like to grab a copy in early December, and have a preliminary idea of what my return with look like. I'll also know if I'll owe so much that I should send in a quarterly tax payment. The IRS isn't accepting any return until 1/31 I believe, so you've lost no time. When you open the program, it usually ask to 'phone home' and update. In a couple weeks, all should be well. (Disclosure - I have guest posted on tax issues at both TurboTax and H&R Block's blogs. The above are my own views.)",
"Largely it comes down to the complexity of your return (likely relatively simple if it's your first time filing) and your comfort level with using software. More complex returns would include filing business claims, handling stocks and investments, special return forms, etc. One benefit to most of the software options out there such as TurboTax, HR Block, and Tax Slayer, are that they are free to use and you only pay when you're ready to file. You could give them a shot to see how easy/difficult they are and if you feel overwhelmed, then contact a CPA (whose time won't be free). Also remember that those HR Block seasonal places that open up are not CPA's, but are temps hired and trained to use the software that you would find online. You didn't indicate they were an option, but I like to point that out to those who might not know otherwise. My opinion would be to use one of the online options because of cost and their ease of use. They also allow you to take your time and save your progress, so you can start using it and go ask questions/do research on your own time.",
"Mint.com is a fantastic free personal finance software that can assist you with managing your money, planning budgets and setting financial goals. I've found the features to be more than adequate with keeping me informed of my financial situation. The advantage with Mint over Microsoft Money is that all of your debit/credit transactions are automatically imported and categorized (imperfectly but good enough). Mint is capable of handling bank accounts, credit card accounts, loans, and assets (such as cars, houses, etc). The downsides are:",
"I wrote a small Excel-based bookkeeping system that handles three things: income, expenses, and tax (including VAT, which you Americans can rename GST). Download it here.",
"To start with, I should mention that many tax preparation companies will give you any number of free consultations on tax issues — they will only charge you if you use their services to file a tax form, such as an amended return. I know that H&R Block has international tax specialists who are familiar with the issues facing F-1 students, so they might be the right people to talk about your specific situation. According to TurboTax support, you should prepare a completely new 1040NR, then submit that with a 1040X. GWU’s tax department says you can submit late 8843, so you should probably do that if you need to claim non-resident status for tax purposes.",
"If you have complicated taxes (own a business, many houses, you are self employed, you are a contractor, etc etc) a person can make the most of your situation. If you are a w-2 single job, maybe with a family, the programs are going to be so close to spot on that the extra fees aren't worth it. I would never bother using HR Block or Liberty or those tax places that pop up. Use the software, or in my state sometimes municipalities put on tax help days at the library to assist in filling out the forms. If you have tough taxes, get a dedicated professional based on at least a few recommendations.",
"\"Besides money and time lost, it is pretty clear that most tax advisors are not well versed in non-resident taxes. It seems that their main clients are either US residents or H1B workers (who are required to file as residents). I share your pain on this one. In fact, even for H1B/green card holders or Americans with income/property abroad vast majority of advisers will make mistakes (which may become quite costly). IRS licensing exams for EA/RTRP do not include a single question on non-resident taxation or potential issues, let alone handling treaties. Same goes for the AICPA unified CPA exam (the REG portion of which, in part, deals with taxes). I'm familiar with the recent versions of both exams and I am very disappointed and frustrated by that lack of knowledge requirement in such a crucial area (I am not a licensed tax preparer now though). That said, the issue is very complicated. I went through several advisers until I found the one I can trust to know her stuff, and while at it happened to learn quite a lot about the US tax code (which doesn't make me sleep any better by the least). It is my understanding that preparing a US tax return for a foreign person without a mistake is impossible, but the question is how big is the mistake you're going to make. I had returns prepared by solo working advisers where I found mistakes as ridiculous as arithmetic calculation errors (fired after two seasons), and by big-4 firms where I found mistakes that cost me quite a lot (although by the time I figured that they cost me significant amounts, it was too late to sue or change; fired after 2 seasons as well). As you can see, it is relevant to me as well, and I do not do my own tax returns. I usually ask for the conservative interpretations from my adviser, IRS is very aggressive on enforcement and the penalties, especially on foreigners are draconian (I do not know if it ever went through a judicial review, as I believe some of these penalties are unconstitutional under the 8th amendment, but that's my personal opinion). Bottom line - its hard to find a decent tax adviser, and that's why the good ones are expensive. You get what you pay for. How do I go about locating a CPA/EA who is well versed in non-resident taxes located in the Los Angeles area (Orange County area is not too far away either) These professionals are usually active in large metropolitan areas with a lot of foreigners. You should be able to find decent professionals in LA/OC, SF Bay, Seattle, New York, Boston, and other cities and metropolises attracting foreigners. Also, look for those working in the area of a major university. Specific points: If I find none, can I work with a quaified person who lives in a different state and have him file my taxes on my behalf (electronically or via scans going back and forth) Yes. But that person my have a problem representing you in California (in case you're audited), unless he's an EA (licensed by the Federal government, can practice everywhere) or is licensed as a CPA or Attorney by the State of California. Is there a central registry of such quaified people I can view (preferably with reviews) - akin to \"\"yellow pages\"\" IRS is planning on opening one some time this year, but until then - not really. There are some commercial sites claiming to have that, but they're using the FOIA access to the IRS and states' listings, and may not have updated information. They definitely don't have updated license statuses (or any license statuses) or language/experience information. Wouldn't trust them.\"",
"\"Uh, have you tried google docs? Start off simple. Other than that, for the moment I use GNUCash. Some day I might try to write my own, but for now it works well enough. I have a number of scheduled transactions in GNUCash, and it records them days in advance. You talk about \"\"I should have how much money\"\", but GNUCash offers a slightly better format: Future Minimum Balance. If you want to know whether you can spend money in an account without triggering a chain reaction, that's the number you want. Being web-based so that it can be accessed from any OS. GNUCash is cross platform, with Windows, OSX and Linux clients. It also supports mysql/postgres database backends, so while it's not \"\"Web based\"\", you can keep your data \"\"in the cloud\"\".\"",
"I typed my information into both last year, and while they were not exactly the same, they were within $10 of each other. For my simple 2009 taxes they were not different in any meaningful way.",
"\"Whether you do decide to go with a tax advisor or not, be sure to do some research on your own. When we moved to the US about 5 years ago, I did find the taxes here pretty complicated and confusing. I went ahead and read up all different tax documents and did some calculations of my own before hiring a CPA (at that point, I just wanted a second opinion to make sure I got the calculations right). However, when the office of the CPA was finished with my taxes, I found they had made a mistake! When I went back to their office to point it out, the lady just shrugged, corrected her numbers on the form and said \"\"You seem to know a lot about this stuff already. Why are you here?\"\" I swore to never use them again - not this particular CPA at least. Now, I am not saying all CPAs are the same - some of them are pretty darn good at their job and know what they are doing. All I am saying is it helps to be prepared and know some basic stuff. Just don't go in all blind. After all, they are also humans prone to mistakes and your taxes are your liability in the end. My suggestion is to start with a good tool that supports tax filing for non-residents. Most of them provide a step-by-step QA based tool. As you go through the steps, Google each question you don't understand. It may take more time than hiring a tax advisor directly but in the end it will all be worth it.\"",
"so far the only thing that I can think of that would make me want to go with H&R Block is the guarantee that they offer ( for a fee ) that says they will help you if you are ever audited for a tax return that you filed through them, but I think that is given for both the software and the in person tax preparation. so I guess if you like to ask lots of questions and get the answers nearly immediately I would go with an in person tax preparation person, if they can't answer all your questions then that is something else to think about all together.",
"Instead of gnucash i suggest you to use kmymoney. It's easier",
"I started my business about 4 years ago. I heard bad things about Quickbooks for Mac so I steered clear. I used an open source program called GnuCash and it does a good job. It's free and fairly easy to set up.",
"You will be liable to pay the tax For the 2017 year of assessment (1 March 2016 - 28 February 2017) if you earned less than R75 000 you will not have to pay any tax The annual budget speach is this week and the new tax rates will be released but most likely that R75 000 will increase to R78 000+- so if you earn less than that tax would not even be applicable on you, Should you earn in a tax year more than R75 000 then would be able to do your own tax return and payments via E-Filling on SARS's website : http://www.sarsefiling.co.za/ But if you earn less than R350 000 then you don't have to submit a tax return, but there is nothing that stops you from submitting one if you feel that you want to. You can use https://www.taxtim.com/za/ to help you with other questions you might have. You can potentially bring down your tax-able income by showing a loss in capital value of your equipment that you purchased that is now worth less than it was when you initially purchased it, but these are all things you should discuss with a tax practitioner, I am not entirely sure how you will show a loss in capital value as a sole-proprietor, that is what you will be since you are not a company.",
"\"You are not the only one with this problem. When Intuit changed their pricing and services structure in 2015 a lot of people got angry, facing larger fees and having to go through an annoying upgrade just to get the same functionality (such as Schedule D, capital gains). You have several options: (1) Forget Turbo Tax and just use paper forms. That is what I do. Paper is reliable. (2) Use forms mode in Turbo Tax. Of course, that may be even more complicated than simply filing out paper forms. (3) Use a different service. If your income is below $64,000 the IRS has a free electronic filing service. Other online vendors have full taxes services for less than Turbo Tax. (4) Add the amount to ordinary income. Technically, as long as you report the income, you cannot be penalized, so if you add the capital gain to your ordinary income, then you have paid taxes on the income. Even if they send you a letter, you can send an answer that you added it to ordinary income and that will satisfy them. Of course you pay a higher rate on your $26 if you do that. (5) If you are in the 15% or below income bracket you are exempt from capital gains, and you can omit it. Don't believe the nervous Nellies who say the IRS will burn your house down if you don't report $26 in capital gains. Penalties are assessed on the percentage of TAXES you did not pay (0.5% penalty per month). Since 0.5% of $0 is $0 your penalty is $0. The IRS knows this. The IRS does not send out assessment letters for $0. (6) Even if you are above the 15% bracket, there is likelihood it is still a no-tax situation (see 5 above). (7) Worst case scenario: you are making a million dollars per year and you omit your $26 capital gains from your return. The IRS will send you an assessment letter for about $10. You can then send them a separate check or money order to pay it. In all honesty I have omitted documented tax items, like taxable interest, that the IRS knows about many times and never gotten an assessment letter. Once I made a serious math error on my return and they sent me an assessment letter, which I just paid, end of story. And that was for a lot more than $26. The technical verbiage for something like this in IRS lingo is CP-2000, underreported income. As you can see from this official IRS web page, basically what they do is guess how much they think you owe and send you a bill. Then you pay it. If you do so in time, you don't even get a 0.5% interest penalty on your $6.75 owed or whatever it is. (8) Go hog wild. As long as you are risking an assessment on your $26, why not go hog wild and just let the IRS compute all your taxes for you? Make a copy of your income statements, then mail them to the IRS with a letter that says, \"\"Hi, I am Mr. Odinson, my SSN is XXX-XX-XXXX. My address is XYZ. I am unable to compute my taxes due to a confused state of mind. I am hereby requesting a tax assessment for the 2016 tax year.\"\" Make sure you sign and date the letter. In all probability they will compute the full assessment and send you a bill (or refund).\"",
"I've done my taxes using turbotax for years and they were not simple, Schedule C (self-employed), rental properties, ESPP, stock options, you name it. It's a lot of work and occasionally i did find bugs in TurboTax. ESPP were the biggest pain surprisingly. The hardest part is to get all the paperwork together and you'd have to do it when you hire an accountant anyway. That said this year i am using an accountant as i incorporated and it's a whole new area for me that i don't have time to research. Also in case of an audit i'd rather be represented by a pro. I think the chance of getting audited is smaller when a CPA prepares your return.",
"It depends on the person. i will take turbo tax over any mediocre or poor accountant ANY DAY. You get consistent, accurate tax preparation with the software (desktop - not the online version) I was in a housing rental partnership with my brothers and one of them insisted on using his accountant... what a mistake. I have been using turbo tax for 10+ years and have always been happy. It handles my non trivial situation with ease: I am happy with it but have to admit I don't have a good accountant to compare it to. I see no reason to go to an accountant except for planning purposes. Just for tax prep it is more than worth it and more than you will need.",
"\"IRS Pub 554 states (click to read full IRS doc): \"\"Do not file a federal income tax return if you do not meet the filing requirements and are not due a refund. ... If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, you must file a return if your gross income for the year was at least the amount shown on the appropriate line in Table 1-1 below. \"\" You may not have wage income, but you will probably have interest, dividend, capital gains, or proceeds from sale of a house (and there is a special note that you must file in this case, even if you enjoy the exclusion for primary residence)\"",
"I have fairly simple tax returns and my experience was that TurboTax software produced roughly the same result as human accountant and costs much less. The accountant was never able to find any deductions that the program couldn't find. Of course, if you have business, etc. you probably need an accountant to help you navigate all the rules, requirements, etc. But for simple enough cases I found that the additional pay is not justified.",
"Advantage of filing online (at least with TurboTax) is that they keep a record of your prior year taxes on their servers. Also, you could fill some stuff out at work, and then go home and continue where you left off. You also wouldn't have to mess with installing software. File online.",
"Your employer pays the expected (but estimated) taxes for you. So the chances are you don't own more; but that might be different if you have other sources of income that he doesn't know about (interest on savings or a side-job or whatever). Also, you could have deductions that reduce the taxes you owe, which he again doesn't know, so you overpay. If you don't file, you don't get them back. Most tax software companies offer free usage of their tool for standard filings, and you can use it to find out your tax situation, and then buy the tool only when you want to file. If you use one of those, you can type in all your data, and depending on the result, decide to buy it and file right away. Note that if it turns out you owe taxes, you must file (and pay), but of course you can do it manually instead of buying the tool. If it turns out you get money back, it is your decision to file - you probably don't care for a small amount, but if you get 1000 $ back, you might want to file - again, buying the software of doing it manually.",
"Buxfer is a personal-finance web app which you might like. It's not open-source. But at least none of your complaints about financeworks.intuit.com apply to Buxfer. Buxfer offers a piece of software you can download to your own PC, called Firebux. This macro-recording software provides automation that helps you download statements and upload them to Buxfer. So you never have to give Buxfer any of your bank or brokerage usernames or passwords. Buxfer and Firebux are both free of charge. Wesabe, another personal-finance web app, also used to offer data-uploader software, but Wesabe has now gone out of business.",
"I use GnuCash which I really like. However, I've never used any other personal finance software so I can't really compare. Before GnuCash, I used an Excel spreadsheet which works fine for very basic finances. Pros Cons",
"\"A few practical thoughts: A practical thing that helps me immensely not to loose important paperwork (such as bank statements, bills, payroll statement, all those statements you need for filing tax return, ...) is: In addition to the folder (Aktenordner) where the statements ultimately need to go I use a Hängeregistratur. There are also standing instead of hanging varieties of the same idea (may be less expensive if you buy them new - I got most of mine used): you have easy-to-add-to folders where you can just throw in e.g. the bank statement when it arrives. This way I give the statement a preliminary scan for anything that is obviously grossly wrong and throw it into the respective folder (Hängetasche). Every once in a while I take care of all my book-keeping, punch the statements, file them in the Aktenordner and enter them into the software. I used to hate and never do the filing when I tried to use Aktenordner only. I recently learned that it is well known that Aktenordner and Schnellhefter are very time consuming if you have paperwork arriving one sheet at a time. I've tried different accounting software (being somewhat on the nerdy side, I use gnucash), including some phone apps. Personally, I didn't like the phone apps I tried - IMHO it takes too much time to enter things, so I tend to forget it. I'm much better at asking for a sales receipt (Kassenzettel) everywhere and sticking them into a calendar at home (I also note cash payments for which I don't have a receipt as far as I recall them - the forgotten ones = difference ends up in category \"\"hobby\"\" as they are mostly the beer or coke after sports). I was also to impatient for the cloud/online solutions I tried (I use one for business, as there the archiving is guaranteed to be according to the legal requirements - but it really takes far more time than entering the records in gnucash).\"",
"I like Quicken for personal use, and they have a small business edition if you don't want to move into QuickBooks.",
"Use buxfer.com. It's available in India and most of the features are free.",
"\"Read up on filing an \"\"amended tax return\"\". Essentially you'll fill out the entire return as it should have been originally, then fill out form 1040X stating what has changed (and pay the additional tax due if needed). According to TurboTax's website, they have partnered with Sprintax for non-resident tax prep. I am not vouching for the service; just offering it as information.\"",
"\"To report backdoor Roth IRA contributions in TurboTax, you have to fill in two completely separate places: After you fill out #1, your \"\"taxes\"\" will seem to increase, but go back down when you fill out #2, if you fill it out correctly. You have to make sure to answer all the questions literally, in order to correctly calculate the basis from the previous year. Unfortunately, this is one of the things that's easier to do by hand (just filling out Form 8606) than using one of these software products. Backdoor Roth IRA is one of those things \"\"the average Joe\"\" doesn't do, so the software product doesn't optimize for it.\"",
"\"It comes down to the resolution you want to have on your personal finances. A package like GNUCash allows you to easily answer questions like \"\"Exactly how much do I spend on interest per month/year/decade.\"\" Same with pretty much any other expense, liability or asset you have whether it be taxes, utilities, your home equity or your net worth. The other tools you mention are nice, and certainly convenient, but they tend to lump things together in broad strokes and omit many categories altogether (taxes). Ultimately by having such a fine grained accounting tool, you can target small or large things to better budget your money. Another thing a package like GNUCash provides is a single, private place to consolidate all of your finances. This is nice for things like net worth and asset accounts that you might not want to give a company access to. Finally, GNUcash in particular helps normal people think like accountants. Rather than lump everything into 'income' and 'expenses', once you start using GNUCash you'll start thinking in terms of equity, liabilities, net-worth and assets in addition to income and expenses. This gives me a much more accurate view of my finances and helps me better target areas for improvement. In short, it helps me to see the broader picture which helps me to keep my eye on the prize - which of course is to not have to worry about money at all.\""
] |
[
"TurboTax online works via Firefox (i.e. it is a cloud-based service.) I don't think any downloaded software is available directly for Linux.",
"\"I used H&R Block this year 2013 to do my 2012 taxes and it was a snap! Ubuntu 12.10 with Firefox 20 and everything worked great! Although it is not listed as one of the \"\"supported\"\" platforms, Firefox breezed through the application without any problems. I used the deluxe version of H&R to calculate my mortgage and home business deductions, but I would guess any of the H&R versions work.\""
] |
9668
|
Do stock option prices predicate the underlying stock's movement?
|
[
"13260",
"42438",
"111768"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"111768",
"453582",
"455611",
"421311",
"13260",
"42438",
"223687",
"315748",
"181924",
"46291",
"416286",
"158717",
"525390",
"252558",
"394066",
"57800",
"501559",
"451613",
"291327",
"207253",
"195392",
"387767",
"205411",
"311153",
"70443",
"581315",
"118520",
"105775",
"511861",
"428399",
"484778",
"236176",
"328794",
"591229",
"25080",
"577062",
"78769",
"533132",
"172691",
"525213",
"22426",
"103952",
"18805",
"415281",
"477011",
"352700",
"109678",
"433471",
"72694",
"471289",
"236504",
"570046",
"467463",
"117177",
"542586",
"43497",
"431946",
"300104",
"247005",
"186869",
"478469",
"366717",
"512914",
"388571",
"9832",
"192721",
"26462",
"290568",
"351833",
"502164",
"548067",
"97942",
"247870",
"399043",
"531117",
"112701",
"135798",
"131989",
"74839",
"50726",
"61853",
"143655",
"50798",
"329527",
"544506",
"65900",
"574732",
"194561",
"16292",
"533727",
"541991",
"220147",
"414088",
"371205",
"176699",
"196939",
"499344",
"445771",
"580920",
"565150"
] |
[
"Option prices can predict the range of movement of the underlying, but not if the underlying is going up or down. An option price gives an implied volatility for an underlying . That IV number helps predict a range for the underlying price over the next few days,months, upto a year.",
"\"Investopedia explains how a stock split impacts the stock's options: Each option contract is typically in control of 100 shares of an underlying security at a predetermined strike price. To find the new coverage of the option, take the split ratio and multiply by the old coverage (normally 100 shares). To find the new strike price, take the old strike price and divide by the split ratio. Say, for example, you own a call for 100 shares of XYZ with a strike price of $75. Now, if XYZ had a stock split of 2 for 1, then the option would now be for 200 shares with a strike price of $37.50. If, on the other hand, the stock split was 3 for 2, then the option would be for 150 shares with a strike price of $50. So, yes, a 2 for 1 stock split would halve the option strike prices. Also, in case the Investopedia article isn't clear, after a split the options still control 100 shares per contract. Regarding how a dividend affects option prices, I found an article with a good explanation: As mentioned above, dividends payment could reduce the price of a stock due to reduction of the company's assets. It becomes intuitive to know that if a stock is expected to go down, its call options will drop in extrinsic value while its put options will gain in extrinsic value before it happens. Indeed, dividends deflate the extrinsic value of call options and inflate the extrinsic value of put options weeks or even months before an expected dividend payment. Extrinsic value of Call Options are deflated due to dividends not only because of an expected reduction in the price of the stock but also due to the fact that call options buyers do not get paid the dividends that the stock buyers do. This makes call options of dividend paying stocks less attractive to own than the stocks itself, thereby depressing its extrinsic value. How much the value of call options drop due to dividends is really a function of its moneyness. In the money call options with high delta would be expected to drop the most on ex-date while out of the money call options with lower delta would be least affected. If a stock is expected to drop by a certain amount, that drop would already have been priced into the extrinsic value of its put options way beforehand. This is what happens to put options of dividend paying stocks. This effect is again a function of options moneyness but this time, in the money put options raise in extrinsic value more than out of the money put options. This is because in the money put options with delta of close to -1 would gain almost dollar or dollar on the drop of a stock. As such, in the money put options would rise in extrinsic value almost as much as the dividend rate itself while out of the money put options may not experience any changes since the dividend effect may not be strong enough to bring the stock down to take those out of the money put options in the money. So, no, a dividend of $1 will not necessarily decrease an option's price by $1 on the ex-dividend date. It depends on whether it's a call or put option, and whether the option is \"\"in the money\"\" or \"\"out of the money\"\" and by how much.\"",
"Volatility typically decreases when stocks rise except pending news events or fast markets. It has a great impact of the premium of the option.",
"What it means is that the stock has already moved down. Options and other derivatives follow the price of the underlying they are not a precursor to what the underlying is going to do. In other words, the price of a derivative is derived from the underlying.",
"Options reflect expectations about the underlying asset, and options are commonly priced using the Black-Scholes model: N(d1) and N(d2) are probability functions, S is the spot (current) price of the asset, K is the strike price, r is the risk free rate, and T-t represents time to maturity. Without getting into the mathematics, it suffices to say that higher volatility or expectation of volatility increases the perceived riskiness of the asset, so call options are priced lower and put options are priced higher. Think about it intuitively. If the stock is more likely to go downwards, then there's an increased chance that the call option expires worthless, so call options must be priced lower to accommodate the relative change in expected value of the option. Puts are priced similarly, but they move inversely with respect to call option prices due to Put-Call parity. So if call option prices are falling, then put option prices are rising (Note, however, that call prices falling does not cause put prices to rise. The inverse relationship exists because of changes in the underlying factors and how pricing works.) So the option action signifies that the market believes the stock is headed lower (in the given time frame). That does not mean it will go lower, and option traders assume risk whenever they take a particular position. Bottom line: gotta do your own homework! Best of luck.",
"Options are an indication what a particular segment of the market (those who deal a lot in options) think will happen. (and just because people think that, doesn't mean it will) Bearing in mind however that people writing covered-calls may due so simply as part of a strategy to mitigate downside risk at the expense of limiting upside potential. The presence of more people offering up options is to a degree an indication they are thinking the price will fall or hold steady, since that is in effect the 'bet' they are making. OTOH the people buying those options are making the opposite bet.. so who is to say which will be right. The balance between the two and how it affects the price of the options could be taken as an indication of market sentiment (within the options market) as to the future direction the stock is likely to take. (I just noticed that Blackjack posted the forumula that can be used to model all of this) To address the last part of your question 'does that mean it will go lower' I would say this. The degree to which any of this puts actual pressure on the stock of the underlying instrument is highly debatable, since many (likely most) people trading in a stock never look at what the options for that stock are doing, but base their decision on other factors such as price history, momentum, fundamentals and recent news about the company. To presume that actions in the options market would put pressure on a stock price, you would need to believe that a signficant fraction of the buyers and sellers were paying attention to the options market. Which might be the case for some Quants, but likely not for a lot of other buyers. And it could be argued even then that both groups, those trading options, and those trading stocks, are both looking at the same information to make their predictions of the likely future for the stock, and thus even if there is a correlation between what the stock price does in relation to options, there is no real causality that can be established. We would in fact predict that given access to the same information, both groups would by and large be taking similar parallel actions due to coming to similar conclusions regarding the future price of the stock. What is far MORE likely to pressure the price would be just the shear number of buyers or sellers, and also (especially since repeal of the uptick rule) someone who is trying to actively drive down the price via a lot of shorting at progressively lower prices. (something that is alleged to have been carried out by some hedge fund managers in the course of 'bear raids' on particular companies)",
"You will tend to find as options get closer to expiry (within 2 months of expiry) they tend to be traded more. Also the closer they are to being in the money they more they are traded. So there tends to be more demand for these options than long dated ones that are far out of the money. When there is this higher demand there is less need for a market maker to step in to assure liquidity, thus there should be no effect on the underlying stock price due to the high demand for options. I would say that market makers would mainly get involved in providing liquidity for options way out of the money and with long periods until expiry (6+ months), where there is little demand to start with and open interest is usually quite low.",
"When dividend is announced the stock and option price may react to that news, but the actual payout of the dividend on the ex-dividend date is what you probably are referring to. The dividend payout affects the stock price on the ex-dividend date as the stock price will drop by the amount of paid out dividend (not taking into account other factors). This in turn drives the prices of all options. The amount of change in the option price for this event is not only dependent the dividend payout, but also on how far these are in our out of the money and what there time to expiration is. The price of a call option that is far out of the money would react less than the price of a put that would be far in the money. Therefore I would argue that these two will not necessarily offset each other.",
"Option prices are computed by determining the cost of obtaining the option returns using a strategy that trades the underlying asset continuously. It sounds like what you are describing is rapidly trading the option in order to obtain returns similar to those of the stock. The equality goes both ways. If the option is appropriately priced, then a strategy that replicates stock returns using the option will cost the same as buying the stock. Because you can't trade continuously, you won't actually be able to replicate the stock return, and it may seem like you are making arbitrage profit (puts may seem abnormally expensive), but you do so by bearing tail risk (i.e., selling puts loses more money than owning the associated stock if an unusually bad event occurs).",
"Think of it this way: 1) You buy 1k in call options that will let you buy 100k of stock when they expire in the money in a year. 2) You take the 99k you would have spent on the stock and invest it in a risk free savings account. 3) Assume the person who sold you the call, immediately hedges the position by buying 100k of stock to deliver when the options expire. The amount of money you could make on risk free interest needs to be comparable to the premium you paid the option writer for tying up their capital, or they wouldn't have made the trade. So higher risk free rates would mean a higher call price. NOTE: The numbers are not equal because of the risk in writing the option, but they will move the same direction.",
"So, this isn't always the case, but in the example provided the option is most likely in the money or near the money since the delta is nearly 1 - indicating that a $1 move in the underlying results in a $0.92 move in the option - this will happen when the expiration is very far out or the option is in the money. As expiration gets closer, movements in the underlying become more pronounced in the options because the probability of the stock price moving from its current position is lower. As the probability of the stock price moving goes down, the delta of in the money options approaches 100, eventually reaching 100 at expiration. Another way to word this is that the premium on in the money options shrinks as expiration approaches and the intrinsic value of the option increases as percentage of total value so that movements in the underlying stock price become a greater influence on the option price - hence a greater delta. Again, if the option is out of the money, this is not the case.",
"It is a fool's errand to attribute abnormal option volume or volatility to any meaningful move in the stock. One side of the chain is frequently more expensive than the other. The relationship between historical volatility and implied volatility is dubious at best, and also a big area of study.",
"\"A company has 100,000 shares and 100,000 unexercised call options (company issued). Share price and strike price both at $1. What country is this related to? I ask because, in the US, most people I know associate a \"\"call\"\" option with the instrument that is equivalent to 100 shares. So 100,000 calls would be 10,000,000 shares, which exceeds the number of shares you're saying the company has. I don't know if that means you pulled the numbers out of thin air, or whether it means you're thinking of a different type of option? Perhaps you meant incentive stock options meant to be given to employees? Each one of those is equivalent to a single share. They just aren't called \"\"call options\"\". In the rest of my answer, I'm going to assume you meant stock options. I assume the fact that these options exist will slow any price increases on the underlying shares due to potential dilution? I don't think the company can just create stock options without creating the underlying shares in the first place. Said another way, a more likely scenario is that company creates 200,000 shares and agrees to float 50% of them while reserving the other 50% as the pool for incentive employee stock. They then choose to give the employees options on the stock in the incentive pool, rather than outright grants of the stock, for various reasons. (One of which is being nice to the employees in regards to taxes since there is no US tax due at grant time if the strike price is the current price of the underlying stock.) An alternative scenario when the company shares are liquidly traded is that the company simply plans to buy back shares from the market in order to give employees their shares when options are exercised. In this case, the company needs the cash on hand, or cash flow to take money from, to buy those shares at current prices. Anyway, in either case, there is no dilution happening WHEN the options get exercised. Any dilution happened before or at the time the options were created. Meaning, the total number of shares in the company was already pre-set at an earlier time. As a result, the fact that the options exist in themselves will not slow price changes on the stock. However, price changes will be impacted by the total float of shares in the company, or the impact to cash flow if the company has to buy shares to redeem its option commitments. This is almost the same thing you're asking about, but it is technically different as to timing. If this is the case, can this be factored into any option pricing models like black-scholes? You're including the effect just by considering the total float of shares and net profits from cash flow when doing your modelling.\"",
"In principle, the stock price should see no change in the days leading up to an earnings announcement, and then at the moment of the announcement, the stock price should move in the direction of the earnings surprise (relative to the market's belief of what earnings were going to be). In practice, stock prices tend to drift a little in the direction of the surprise shortly before the announcement and the associated price jump. This could be because smart investors were able to replicate the computations to predict the announcement or because information gets illegally leaked ahead of the announcement. So I guess your bullet point B is a likely scenario. Note that hedging activity in the options market will not affect stock price one way or another. Options transfer risk from one party to another but net to zero. Intense hedging activity may be able to push up the price of options (increasing the implied volatility), but it shouldn't affect the price of a stock one way or the other. For this reason, bullet point A is not the case. Note that price behavior after the announcement is also interesting: it seems to take some time to reach the correct price instead of jumping directly to it as economists would predict. This phenomenon is known as post earnings announcement drift.",
"\"More perspective on whether buying the stock (\"\"going long\"\") or options are better. My other answer gave tantalizing results for the option route, even though I made up the numbers; but indeed, if you know EXACTLY when a move is going to happen, assuming a \"\"non-thin\"\" and orderly option market on a stock, then a call (or put) will almost of necessity produce exaggerated returns. There are still many, many catches (e.g. what if the move happens 2 days from now and the option expires in 1) so a universal pronouncement cannot be made of which is better. Consider this, though - reputedly, a huge number of airline stock options were traded in the week before 9/11/2001. Perversely, the \"\"investors\"\" (presumably with the foreknowledge of the events that would happen in the next couple of days) could score tremendous profits because they knew EXACTLY when a big stock price movement would happen, and knew with some certainty just what direction it would go :( It's probably going to be very rare that you know exactly when a security will move a substantial amount (3% is substantial) and exactly when it will happen, unless you trade on inside knowledge (which might lead to a prison sentence). AAR, I hope this provides some perspective on the magnitude of results above, and recognizing that such a fantastic outcome is rather unlikely :) Then consider Jack's answer above (his and all of them are good). In the LONG run - unless one has a price prediction gift smarter than the market at large, or has special knowledge - his insurance remark is apt.\"",
"\"Okay, I'm going to give you my opinion based on experience; not any technical understanding. The options - by themselves - are pretty meaningless in terms of determining their value. The business plan going forward, their growth expectations, the additional options to be authorized, the additional preferred stock offers they anticipate, even current estimated value of the company are some of the pieces of data you will be needing. I also want to say something cynical, like \"\"to hell with the stock options give me cold hard\"\" but that's just me. (My experience two-times so far has shown stock options to be worth very very little.)\"",
"It will be similar to what you have said -- the options price will adjust accordingly following a stock split - Here's a good reference on different scenarios - Splits, Mergers, Spinoffs & Bankruptcies also if you have time to read Characteristics & Risks of Standardized Options",
"Having stock options means that you have worked for and rightfully earned a part of the company's capital appreciation. Takeover of the company would indicate someone is interested in the company (something should be valuable). It would be unwise to not strike before the period lapses since the strike price is always lower than market price and takeovers generally increases stock values ... it is capital gains all the way my friend. Good luck. *observations not in professional capacity. pls consult a professional for investment related advice.",
"Option liquidity and underlying liquidity tend to go hand in hand. According to regulation, what kinds of issues can have options even trading are restricted by volume and cost due to registration with the authorities. Studies have shown that the introduction of option trading causes a spike in underlying trading. Market makers and the like can provide more option liquidity if there is more underlying and option liquidity, a reflexive relationship. The cost to provide liquidity is directly related to the cost for liquidity providers to hedge, as evidenced by the bid ask spread. Liquidity providers in option markets prefer to hedge mostly with other options, hedging residual greeks with other assets such as the underlying, volatility, time, interest rates, etc because trading costs are lower since the two offsetting options hedge most of each other out, requiring less trading in the other assets.",
"According to this article: With an all-stock merger, the number of shares covered by a call option is changed to adjust for the value of the buyout. The options on the bought-out company will change to options on the buyer stock at the same strike price, but for a different number of shares. Normally, one option is for 100 shares of the underlying stock. For example, company A buys company B, exchanging 1/2 share of A for each share of B. Options purchased on company B stock would change to options on company A, with 50 shares of stock delivered if the option is exercised. This outcome strongly suggests that, in general, holders of options should cash out once the takeover is announced, before the transactions takes place. Since the acquiring company will typically offer a significant premium, this will offer an opportunity for instant profits for call option holders while at the same time being a big negative for put option holders. However, it is possible in some cases where the nominal price of the two companies favours the SML company (ie. the share prices of SML is lower than that of BIG), the holder of a call option may wish to hold onto their options. (And, possibly, conversely for put option holders.)",
"Here is the answer for #3 from my brokerage: Your math is correct. Typically, option traders never take delivery of the stock simply to then turn around and sell it at the higher price that the stock is trading at. You wold always expect the option to have a higher value that simply selling the stock at market price. There are many factors involved in options pricing and the math behind it is quite complicated, but unless it is right at expiration, the option will have a higher price than the stock itself.",
"Stock prices are indeed proportional to supply and demand. The greater the demand for a stock, the greater the price. If they are, would this mean that stock prices completely depend on HOW the public FEELS/THINKS about the stock instead of what it is actually worth? This is a question people have argued for decades. Literature in behavioral finance suggests that investors are not rational and thus markets are subject to wild fluctuation based on investor sentiment. The efficient market theory (EMT) argues that the stock market is efficient and that a stock's price is an accurate reflection of its underlying or intrinsic value. This philosophy took birth with Harry Markovitz's efficient frontier, and Eugene Fama is generally seen as the champion of EMT in the 1960's and onward. Most investors today would agree that the markets are not perfectly efficient, and that a stock's price does not always reflect its value. The renowned professor Benjamin Graham once wrote: In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run it is a weighing machine. This suggests that prices in the short term are mainly influenced by how people feel about the stock, while in the long run the price reflects what it's actually worth. For example, people are really big fans of tech stocks right now, which suggests why LinkedIn (stock: LNKD) has such a high share price despite its modest earnings (relative to valuation). People feel really good about it, and the price might sustain if LinkedIn becomes more and more profitable, but it's also possible that their results won't be absolutely stellar, so the stock price will fall until it reflects the company's fundamentals.",
"In addition to all these great answers, check out the Wikipedia entry on options. The most important thing to note from their definition is that an option is a derivative (and nothing about any derivative is simple). Because it is a derivative, increases or decreases in the price of the underlying stock won't automatically result in the same amount of change in the value of the option.",
"The short answer to your question is yes. Company performance affects stock price only through investors' views. But note that selling for higher and lower prices when the company is doing well or poorly is not an arbitrary choice. A stock is a claim on the future cash flows of the firm, which ultimately come from its future profits. If the company is doing well, investors will likely expect that there will large cash flows (dividends) in the future and be willing to pay more to hold it (or require more to sell it). The price of a stock is equal what people think the future dividends are worth. If market participants started behaving irrationally, like not reacting to changes in the expected future cash flows, then arbitrageurs would make a ton of money trading against them until the situation was rectified.",
"Intuitive? I doubt it. Derivatives are not the simplest thing to understand. The price is either in the money or it isn't. (by the way, exactly 'at the money' is not 'in the money.') An option that's not in the money has time value only. As the price rises, and the option is more and more in the money, the time value drops. We have a $40 stock. It makes sense to me that a $40 strike price is all just a bet the stock will rise, there's no intrinsic value. The option prices at about $4.00 for one year out, with 25% volatility. But the strike of $30 is at $10.68, with $10 in the money and only .68 in time premium. There's a great calculator on line to tinker with. Volatility is a key component of options trading. Think about it. If a stock rises 5%/yr but rarely goes up any more or less, just steady up, why would you even buy an option that was even 10% out of the money? The only way I can describe this is to look at a bell curve and how there's a 1/6 chance the event will be above one standard deviation. If that standard deviation is small, the chance of hitting the higher strikes is also small. I wrote an article Betting on Apple at 9 to 2 in which I describe how a pair of option trades was set up so that a 35% rise in Apple stock would return 354% and Apple had two years to reach its target. I offer this as an example of options trading not being theory, but something that many are engaged in. What I found curious about the trade was that Apple's volatility was high enough that a 35% move didn't seem like the 4.5 to 1 risk the market said it was. As of today, Apple needs to rise 13% in the next 10 months for the trade to pay off. (Disclosure - the long time to expiration was both good and bad, two years to recover 35% seemed reasonable, but 2 years could bring anything in the macro sense. Another recession, some worldwide event that would impact Apple's market, etc. The average investor will not have the patience for these long term option trades.)",
"You are missing a few variables from your calculation, particularly implied volatility. Even so it does not look like it would be too great a predictor even if incorporated. You should focus on calculating the option price at a different point in time (with a different underlying price) instead of using a total position value as that can be done afterwards. I programmed and use the standard Black-Scholes model to calculate expected returns. There are many tools online to help you without doing the programming or calculations yourself.",
"In short, yes. Implied volatility will capture any expected upcoming material announcements. There is also supply/demand impact bundled in which may inflate an option price, and by extension increase implied volatility. OTM and ITM options are particularly predisposed to this phenomenon -- which is of course at odds with the traditional BS model assumptions -- the result is referred to as the volatility smile. Implied volatility is quoted as an annualised measure but isn't necessarily an annual value -- it will correspond to the option time period.",
"You can't know. It's not like every stock has options traded on it, so until you either see the options listed or a company announcement that option will trade on a certain date, there's no way to be sure.",
"http://dailyfinance.com Enter a stock ticker, then click on the Chain link to the left. Then, click on the option tickers to see their charts. EDIT: the site has changed, and there are no more option charts. So why are option charts so tough to find? Options are derivatives of the stock. Option prices are defined by a formula. The inputs are stock pricxe, strike, days to expiration, dividend, risk-free interest rate, and volatility. Volatility is the only thing that cannot be easily looked up. With a Black-Scholes calculator, and some reasonable volatility selections, it's possible to make your own fairly accurate option chart. I don't think it's very enlightening, though. The interesting things are: the stock price movement (as always), and the nature of option pricing behavior in general (understanding how the formula represents crowd behavior).",
"An option gives you the option rather than the obligation to buy (or sell) the underlying so you don't have to exercise you can just let the option expire (so long it doesn't have an automatic expiry). After expiration the option is worthless if it is out of the money but other than that has no hangover. Option prices normally drop as the time value of the option decays. An option has two values associated with it; time value and exercise value. Far out of the money (when the price of the underlying is far from the strike price on the losing side) options only have time value whereas deep in the money options (as yours seems to be) has some time value as well as the intrinsic value of the right to buy (sell) at a low (high) price and then sell (buy) the underlying. The time value of the option comes from the possibility that the price of the underlying will move (further) in your favour and make you more money at expiry. As expiry closes it is less likely that there will be a favourable mood so this value declines which can cause prices to move sharply after a period of little to no revaluing. Up to now what I have said applies to both OTC and traded options but exchange traded options have another level of complexity in their trading; because there are fewer traders in the options market the size of trade at which you can move the market is much lower. On the equities markets you may need to trade millions of shares to have be substantial enough to significantly move a price, on the options markets it could be thousands or even hundreds. If these are European style options (which sounds likely) and a single trading entity was holding a large number of the exchange traded options and now thinks that the price will move significantly against them before expiry their sell trade will move the market lower in spite of the options being in the money. Their trade is based on their supposition that by the time they can exercise the option the price will be below the strike and they will lose money. They have cashed out at a price that suited them and limited what they will lose if they are right about the underlying. If I am not correct in my excise style assumption (European) I may need more details on the trade as it seems like you should just exercise now and take the profit if it is that far into the money.",
"\"There are a few reason why the stock price decreases after a dividend is paid: What's the point of paying a dividend if the stock price automatically decreases? Don't the shareholders just break even? Companies have to do something with their profits. They beholden to their shareholders to make them money either by increasing the share value or paying dividends. So they have the choice between reinvesting their profits into the company to grow the business or just handing the profits directly to the owners of the business (the shareholders). Some companies are as big as they want to be and investing their profits into more capital offers them diminishing returns. These companies are more likely to pay dividends to their shareholders. I assume the price of the stock \"\"naturally\"\" increases over the year to reflect the amount of the dividend payment. This is kind of a vague question but then doesn't it make it difficult to evaluate the fluctuations in stock price (in the way that you would a company that doesn't pay a dividend)? It depends on the company. The price may recover the dividend drop... could take a few days to a week. And that dependings on the company's performance and the overall market performance. With respect to options, I assume nothing special happens? So say I bought $9 call options yesterday that were in the money, all of a sudden they're just not? Is this typically priced into the option price? Is there anything else I need to know about buying options in companies that pay dividends? What if I had an in-the-money option, and all of a sudden out of nowhere a company decides to pay a dividend for the first time. Am I just screwed? One key is that dividends are announced in advance (typically at least, if not always; not sure if it's required by law but I wouldn't be surprised). This is one reason people will sometimes exercise a call option early, because they want to get the actual stock in order to earn the dividend. For \"\"out of the ordinary\"\" large cash dividends (over 10% is the guideline), stock splits, or other situations an option can be adjusted: http://www.888options.com/help/faq/splits.jsp#3 If you have an options account, they probably sent you a \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" booklet. It has a section discussing this topic and the details of what kinds of situations trigger an adjustment. A regular pre-announced <10% dividend does not, while a special large dividend would, is what I roughly get from it. That \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" is worth reading by the way; it's long and complicated, but well, options are complicated. Finally, do all companies reduce their stock price when they pay a dividend? Are they required to? I'm just shocked I've never heard of this before. The company doesn't directly control the stock price, but I do believe this is automatic. I think the market does this automatically because if they didn't, there would be enough people trying to do dividend capture arbitrage that it would ultimately drive down the price.\"",
"In the first case, if you wish to own the stock, you just exercise the option, and buy it for the strike price. Else, you can sell the option just before expiration, it will be priced very close to its in-the-money value.",
"\"There are two components of option valuation, the value that's \"\"in the money\"\" and the \"\"time value.\"\" In the case of the $395 put, that option was already in the money and it will move less than the stock price by a bit as there will still be some time value there. $22.52 is intrinsic value (the right word for 'in the money') and the rest is time. The $365 strike is still out of the money, but as jldugger implied, the chance of it going through that strike is better as it's $6.66 closer. Looking at the options chain gives you a better perspective on this. If Apple went up $20 Monday, and down $20 Tuesday, these prices would be higher as implied volatility would also go higher. Now, I'd hardly call a drop of under 2% \"\"tanking\"\" but on the otherhand, I'd not call the 25% jump in the option price skyrocketing. Options do this all the time. Curious what prompted the question, are you interested in trading options? This stock in particular?\"",
"I would make a change to the answer from olchauvin: If you buy a call, that's because you expect that the value of call options will go up. So if you still think that options prices will go up, then a sell-off in the stock may be a good point to buy more calls for cheaper. It would be your call at that point (no pun intended). Here is some theory which may help. An options trader in a bank would say that the value of a call option can go up for two reasons: The VIX index is a measure of the levels of implied volatility, so you could intuitively say that when you trade options you are taking a view on two components: the underlying stock, and the level of the VIX index. Importantly, as you get closer to the expiry date this second effect diminishes: big jumps up in the VIX will produce smaller increases in the value of the call option. Taking this point to its limit, at maturity the value of the call option is only dependent on the price of the underlying stock. An options trader would say that the vega of a call option decreases as it gets closer to expiry. A consequence of this is that if pure options traders are naturally less inclined to buy and hold to expiry (because otherwise they would really just be taking a view on the stock price rather than the stock price & the implied volatility surface). Trading options without thinking too much about implied volatities is of course a valid strategy -- maybe you just use them because you will automatically have a mechanism which limits losses on your positions. But I am just trying to give you an impression of the bigger picture.",
"When volatility is higher, the option is more likely to end up in-the-money. Moreover, when it ends up in-the-money, it is likely to be over the strike price by a greater amount. Consider a call option. With high volatility, moves in the stock price are big - both up moves and down moves. If the stock moves up by a lot, the call option holder will benefit greatly. On the other hand, when the stock moves down, below a certain point the option holder does not care how big a down move the stock has. His downside is limited. Hence, the value of the option is increased by high volatility. I know everyone who searches this is looking for this answer. Bump so people are able to get this concept instead of looking all over the web for it.",
"Historical volatility of a stock is going to be based on past performance, basically its current trend. That can be useful, but really is no indication of how it will perform in the future. Especially with a big swing in the market. Now if you're talking about implied volatility (IV) of an options contract, that's a little different. IV is derived from an option’s price and shows what the market “implies” about the stock’s volatility in the future. Thus it is based on the actions of active traders and market makers. So, it gives you a bit more insight into what's going on, but at times has less to do with fundamentals. I guess a good way to think of IV based on options contracts is as an educated opinion, of the market as a whole, with regards to how much that stock could likely move over a period of time (options expiration). Also note that IV represents the potential for a stock to move, but it does not forecast direction. I don't know of any studies off the top of my head, but I'm sure there have been plenty.",
"The question is always one of whether people think they can reliably predict that the option will be a good bet. The closer you get to its expiration, the easier it is to make that guess and the less risk there is. That may either increase or decrease the value of the option.",
"\"All else being equal, you should look for more volatile (riskier) stocks. Technically, it was all time value - the entire value of an \"\"out of the money\"\" option is time value. What's confusing is that time value is affected by numerous variables, only one of which is time. The reason volatility is the one to look at is that all the rest are likely already intuitive to you, or are too minor an influence to worry about: Current risk-free interest rates and a stock's dividend payout during the life of the option affect the value of the call, but are usually minor infulences. (Higher interest rates makes call values higher, and higher dividend yield makes call values lower.) Longer time to expiration will increase the value of the call, but you're pretty likely already focused on that. The strike price's proximity to the current price affects the call's value - agreeing to sell a stock 5% above current levels will pay more than agreeing to sell it 10% above current levels - but again, this is likely obvious to you. Volatility, or the percent by which the stock is likely to move up or down on a given day, is almost certainly the variable that's not already obvious. Stocks that jump all over the place have higher volatility than those that move more predictably. The reason that options (calls and puts) cost more on higher volatility names is that options' payout is asymmetrical. In the case of calls, the option holder gets all the upside, but none of the downside, other than what they paid for the opotion. If one stock goes up or down $5 every day, and another goes up or down $20 every day and you could pay some fixed amount to get that stock's upside, but not have any exposure to its downside, other than that fixed amount, you'd pay more for the one that pays you $20 or $0 than you would for the one that pays you $5 or $0. That's why higher volatility (meaning larger daily moves) makes optimum prices higher.\"",
"Market price of a stock typically trades in a range of Price/Earnings Ratio (P/E ratio). Or in other words, price of a stock = Earnings * P/E ratio Because of this direct proportionality of stock price with earnings, stock prices move in tandem with earnings.",
"An option, by definition, is a guess about the future value of the stock. If you guess too aggressively, you lose the purchase price of the option; if you guess too conservatively, you may not take the option or may not gain as much as you might have. You need to figure out what you expect to happen, and how confident you are about it, against the cost of taking the option -- and be reasonably confident that the change in the stock's value will be at least large enough to cover the cost of buying into the game. Opinion: Unless you're comfortable with expectation values and bell curves around them, it's significantly easier to lose money on options than to profit on them. And I'm not convinced that even statisticians can really do this well. I've always been told that the best use for options is hedging an investment you've already made; treating them as your primary bet is gambling, not investment.",
"Out of the money options often have the biggest changes in value, when the stock moves upward. This person could also gain, by the implied (underlying) volatility of the stock rising if it moves erratically to either side. Still seems to be a very risky game, given only 4 days to expiry.",
"Since it's not a public company it would be difficult for anyone to value these options or predict their future value without a lot more details on the finances of the firm. Once the firm goes public you can use the Black Shoales equation to get a present value for the options. And once they've got several months of trading data you can get a very rough estimate the future stock price with it's beta. But with individual stocks predicting future values can really be a crapshoot.",
"The CBOE had a great article on this. I will search for it and edit. The normal dividends are not adjusted. Which is why you see early exercise of just out of the money options sometimes. To get that dividend. A special dividend, say a $50 stock with $1/yr dividend but now has a $3 one time dividend would likely result in an option strike adjustment.",
"I agree that high volatility just means the underlying stock price fluctuates more, and it does not imply if the stock is going up or down. But a high volatility in the price of an underlying also means that there is a higher chance that the underlying price could reach extreme prices (albeit in either direction). However, if you purchased a call option then if the underlying price reached an extremely high value, then you will be richly rewarded. But if the underlying price reached an extremely low value, you won't lose any more than the initial premium that you paid. There is no additional risk on your side, it's capped to the premium that you paid for the call option. It's this asymmetric outcome (Heads - I win, Tails - I don't lose) combined with high volatility that means that call options will increase in value when the underlying price becomes more volatile. If the optionality wasn't there then the price wouldn't be related to the volatility of the underlying. But that would be called a Future or a Forward :-)",
"When you can exercie your option depends on your trading style. In the american options trading style (the most popular) you're allowed to exercice your options and make profit (if any) whenever you want before the expiration date. Thus, the decision of exercising your option and make a profit out of it does not rely only on the asset price. The reason is, you already paid for the premium to get the option. So, if taken into account the underlying price AND your premium, your investment is profitable then you can exercice your contract anytime.",
"It depends how deep in the money it is, compared to the dividend. Even an in the money call has some time premium. As the call holder, if I exercise instead of selling the call, I am trading the potential for a dividend, which I won't receive, for getting that time premium back by selling. Given the above, you'll notice a slight distortion in options pricing as a dividend date approaches, as the option will reflect not just the time premium, but the fact that exercising with grab the dividend. Edit to address your comment - $10 stock, $9 strike, 50 cent div. If the option price is high, say $2, because there's a year till expiration, exercising makes no sense. If it's just $1.10, I gain 40 cents by exercising and selling after the dividend.",
"This depends entirely on what the market guesses the news will be and how much of that guess has already been factored into the price. There is no general answer beyond that. Note that this explains the apparently paradoxical responses where a stock good down on good news (the market expected better) or up on bad news (the market expected worse).",
"I understand the question, I think. The tough thing is that trades over the next brief time are random, or appear so. So, just as when a stock is $10.00 bid / $10.05 ask, if you place an order below the ask, a tick down in price may get you a fill, or if the next trades are flat to higher, you might see the close at $10.50, and no fill as it never went down to your limit. This process is no different for options than for stocks. When I want to trade options, I make sure the strike has decent volume, and enter a market order. Edit - I reworded a bit to clarify. The Black–Scholes is a model, not a rigid equation. Say I discover an option that's underpriced, but it trades under right until it expires. It's not like there's a reversion to the mean that will occur. There are some very sophisticated traders who use these tools to trade in some very high volumes, for them, it may produce results. For the small trader you need to know why you want to buy a stock or its option and not worry about the last $0.25 of its price.",
"\"If the strike price closest to the underlying has high open interest, the options expiration is a bigger event. For instance: stock is at $20 w/ average volume of 100,000 shares per day. 20 strike has 1000 open interest. In this example the stock will \"\"most likely\"\" pin at 20 if we were expiring tomorrow. As u prob know, long calls at 19.90 close, turn into stock....long puts at 20.10 turn into short stock. Option pros (high % of volume) dont want to be short or long after expiration. Long call holders will sell above 20 to hedge, and long put holders will buy below 20. 1000 open interest is equivalent to 100,000 shares. That's the same amount as the average volume. Stock can't really move until after expiration. If I am long 10 $20 calls, and short 1000 shares I am flat going into expiration.....unless the stock gets smoked and now I am synthetically long a put....Short stock + long call= Long Put Then watch out cause it was artificially locked down.\"",
"Should go up, because people want to buy stock in company doing well. A company could be complete shit. But if Trump said, everyone buy this stock, it's going to save the seconded amendment and outlaw abortion. That shit would go through the fucking roof.",
"What you have to remember is that Options are derivatives of another asset like stocks for example. The price of the Option is derived from the price of the underlying. If the underlying is a stock for example, as the price of the stock moves up and down during the trading day, so will the Market Maker's fair value for the Option. As Options are usually less liquid than the underlying stock, Market Makers are usually more active in 'Providing a Market' with Options. Thus if you place a limit order half way between the current Bid and Ask and the underlying stock price moves towards your limit order, the Market Maker will do their job and 'Provide a Market' at that price, thus executing your order.",
"An option gives you the legal right to buy stock. However, you cannot exercise a stock option unless you have the ability to buy the stock. In the United States, securities not fully registered with the SEC for public sale cannot be purchased except by qualified investors.",
"Typically the settlement price for a financial instrument (such as AAPL stock) underlying a derivative contract is determined from the average price of trading in that instrument during some short time window specified by the exchange offering the derivative. (Read the fine print on your contract to learn the exact date and time of that settlement period.) Because it's in an exchange's best interest to appear as fair as possible, the exchange will in general pick a high-volume period of time -- such as the close of trading on the expiry date -- in which to determine the settlement price. Now, the expiry date/time may be different from the last time at which the option can be traded, which may be different from the underlying settlement time. For example, most US equity options currently expire on the Saturday following the third Friday of the month, whereas they can last be traded at end-of-day on the third Friday of the month, and the settlement period may be at a slightly different time on the third Friday of the month. (Again, read the contract to know for sure.) Moreover, your broker may demand to know whether you plan to exercise the option at an even earlier date/time. So, to answer your question: After-hours trading can only affect the settlement price of an underlying instrument if the exchange in question decides that the settlement period should happen during after-hours trading. But since no exchange that wants to stay in business would possibly do that, the answer is no. Contract expiry time, contract exercise time, final contract trading time, and underlying settlement time may all fall at different dates/times. The important one for your question is settlement time.",
"I've had stock options at two different jobs. If you are not getting a significant ownership stake, but rather just a portion of options as incentive to come work there, I would value them at $0. If you get the same salary and benefits, but no stock options at another company and you like the other company better, I'd go to the other company. I say this because there are so many legal changes that seem to take value from you that you might as well not consider the options in your debate. That being said, the most important question I'd want to know is what incentive does the company have to going public or getting bought? If the company is majority owned by investors, the stock options are likely to be worth something if you wait long enough. You are essentially following someone else's bet. If the company is owned by 2 or 3 individuals who want to make lots of money, they may or may not decide to sell or go public.",
"No can't make quick bucks. It depends very much on what the strike price was. Dividends which are below 10% of the market value of the underlying stock, would be deemed to be ordinary dividends and no adjustment in the Strike Price would be made for ordinary dividends. For extra-ordinary dividends, above 10% of the market value of the underlying security, the Strike Price would be adjusted. Refer more at NSE India Edit: The Nifty consists of 50 stocks. The largest one has weight of around 8%. So 10% on this will only translate to .8% on index.",
"The general rule with stock options is that it's best to wait until expiration to exercise them. The rationale depends on a few factors and there are exceptions. Reasons to wait: There would be cases to exercise early: Tax implications should be checked with a professional advisor specific to your situation. In the employee stock option plans that I have personally seen, you get regular income tax assessed between exercise price and current price at the time you exercise. Your tax basis is then set to the current price. You also pay capital gains tax when you eventually sell, which will be long or short term based on the time that you held the stock. (The time that you held the options does not count.) I believe that other plans may be set up differently.",
"At the higher level - yes. The value of an OTM (out of the money) option is pure time value. It's certainly possible that when the stock price gets close to that strike, the value of that option may very well offer you a chance to sell at a profit. Look at any OTM strike bid/ask and see if you can find the contract low for that option. Most will show that there was an opportunity to buy it lower at some point in the past. Your trade. Ask is meaningless when you own an option. A thinly traded one can be bid $0 /ask $0.50. What is the bid on yours?",
"\"It depends on the volatility of the underlying stock. But for \"\"normal\"\" levels of volatility, the real value of that option is probably $3.50! Rough estimates of the value of the option depending on volatility levels: Bottom line: unless this is a super volatile stock, it is trading at $3.50 for a reason. More generally: it is extremely rare to find obvious arbitrage opportunities in the market.\"",
"I would say that the answer is yes. Investors may move on purchasing a stock as a result of news that a stock is set to pay out their dividend. It would be interesting to analyze the trend based on a company's dividend payouts over 10 or so years to see what/how this impacts the market value of a given company.",
"A lot may depend on the nature of a buyout, sometimes it's is for stock and cash, sometimes just stock, or in the case of this google deal, all cash. Since that deal was used, we'll discuss what happens in a cash buyout. If the stock price goes high enough before the buyout date to put you in the money, pull the trigger before the settlement date (in some cases, it might be pulled for you, see below). Otherwise, once the buyout occurs you will either be done or may receive adjusted options in the stock of the company that did the buyout (not applicable in a cash buyout). Typically the price will approach but not exceed the buyout price as the time gets close to the buyout date. If the buyout price is above your option strike price, then you have some hope of being in the money at some point before the buyout; just be sure to exercise in time. You need to check the fine print on the option contract itself to see if it had some provision that determines what happens in the event of a buyout. That will tell you what happens with your particular options. For example Joe Taxpayer just amended his answer to include the standard language from CBOE on it's options, which if I read it right means if you have options via them you need to check with your broker to see what if any special exercise settlement procedures are being imposed by CBOE in this case.",
"Power Options is one such example of what you seek, not cheap, but one good trade will recover a year's fee. There's a lot you can do with the stock price alone as most options pricing will follow Black Scholes. Keep in mind, this is a niche, these questions, while interesting to me, generate little response here.",
"It depends completely on the current order book for that security. There is literally no telling how that buy order would move the price of a stock in general.",
"Stock price is an indicator about the health of the company. Increased profits (for example) will drive the stock price up; excessive debt (for example) will drive it down. The stock price has a profound effect on the company overall: for example, a declining share price will make it hard to secure credit, attract further investors, build partnerships, etc. Also, employees are often holding options or in a stock purchase plan, so a declining share price can severely dampen morale. In an extreme case, if share prices plummet too far, the company can be pressured to reverse-split the shares, and (eventually) take the company private. This recently happened to Playboy.",
"\"Number 2 cannot occur. You can buy the call back and sell the stock, but the broker won't force that #2 choice. To trade options, you must have a margin account. No matter how high the stock goes, once \"\"in the money\"\" the option isn't going to rise faster, so your margin % is not an issue. And your example is a bit troublesome to me. Why would a $120 strike call spike to $22 with only a month left? You've made the full $20 on the stock rise and given up any gain after that. That's all. The call owner may exercise at any time. Edit: @jaydles is right, there are circumstances where an option price can increase faster than the stock price. Options pricing generally follows the Black-Scholes model. Since the OP gave us the current stock price, option strike price, and time to expiration, and we know the risk free rate is <1%, you can use the calculator to change volatility. The number two scenario won't occur, however, because a covered call has no risk to the broker, they won't force you to buy the option back, and the option buyer has no motive to exercise it as the entire option value is time premium.\"",
"A rising tide lifts all ships Most (but not all) stocks trend along with the general market. Some trend right along with the market (and have a beta at, or very near, one) some follow the Market, but are less sensitive (having a beta of less than one). Some are hypersensitive (and would have a beta of greater than one). Beta defined So most of the day to day movement of a stock is because the general market is moving (in the same direction). Of course, exceptional news about the company would cause its price to move independent of the general market. But more often than not the price of a stock moves just because the rest of the market is moving.",
"It's an artifact of risk-neutral pricing, but the intuition is this: A call option can be viewed as a levered equity position - meaning, you can get the same exposure by borrowing money and buying the stock. Say you can buy some call options for $150 with a position delta of 1 (so it looks just like the stock). You could also buy the stock outright for $1000 (by borrowing $850 at the risk-free rate and using your $150 cash). If the risk-free rate rises, your cost of carry on the stock position increases. In the case of the call option, the change in price can be viewed as the cost of *leverage* increasing.",
"Should go up because of a company is doing better than the market previously expected it to do, the implication is that it's undervalued at the current price and you buy now you're getting it for less than what it's worth. If Trump was wrong, then the stock would trade up for a bit before ultimately finishing up where it started when the market realises there's nothing in what he said.",
"\"At my soon to be legendary Stock Options Cafe, I recently wrote an article \"\"Betting On Apple at 9 to 2.\"\" It described a trade in which a 35% move in a stock over a fixed time (2 years) would result in a 354% gain in one's bet. In this case, the options serve to create remarkable leverage for speculators. In general, option help provide liquidity and extend the nature of the risk/reward curve. There are option trades that range from conservative (e.g. a 'covered call') to wildly speculative, as the one I described above.\"",
"\"I strongly suggest you read up the Option Greeks. You can be right about a stocks price movement and still not make money b/c other factors come into play from time or volatility. For a \"\"free\"\" option hedge you can look at collars. Buying puts and selling calls to offset the debit you pay for the transaction. Ex: AAPL is 115, You buy the 110 puts and sell the 120 calls. This gives you a collar around he current price. Your hedged below 110 and can still participate in upside move to 120. Also look into time value. Time decays exponentially in the last 30 days. If you are long this hurts you, if you are short(selling) this is good. Be sure to take this into account. Delta: relation of the option to the underlying stock move on a .01-1 scale, .50 is \"\"normal.\"\" Deep in the money options have higher deltas. It is possible other factors can offset this delta move. This is why people will lose money on earnings plays even though they are right. EX: Say you buy an AAPL call at 120, earnings comes out and the stock goes to 121. Even though you are \"\"in the money\"\" your contract may still have less value than what you paid because of VOLATILITY collapse. The market place knows earnings move a stock and that is factored into the price of the options expected volatility. As mentioned watch out for dividend dates. Always be aware of dividend dates and earnings dates and if your contract is going to cover one of these events. Interest rates have an effect as well but since the Fed has near 0 rates there is little impact at the present. Though this could certainly change if the fed starts raising rates. Research the Black Scholes Pricing model. Whenever you trade always think about what the other guys is thinking. Sometimes we forget their is someone else on the other side of my trade that thinks essentially the exact opposite of me. Its a zero sum game. As far as choosing strikes you can look at calculating the At THe money straddle to see if the options are \"\"cheap\"\" [stock Price * Implied Volatility (for 30, 60, 90 days Depending on your holding period)* Sq root of days to expiration] / 19 (which is sq root of days/yr) Add and subtract this number to the current stock price to give you an approximate 1 standard deviation of expected price movement. Keeping with our example. AAPL at 115, lets say your formula spits out a 6; therefore price range is expected to be 109 to 121 for the time period. Helpful for selling options, I would sell the 122 call or the 108 puts. Hope this helps. Start small and get a feel for things.\"",
"I am very surprised no one mentioned the Stock Repair Option Strategy which has real benefits and is one of the mainstream Option Strategies. Quote: Who Should Consider Using the Stock Repair Strategy? In a nutshell, you are buying call options with current strike price (at-the-money) and sell call options with higher strike price (out-of-the-money), all with the same expiry dates. The only reason to also sell call options here is to recover your premium paid for the other call options. If you are comfortable paying that premium, you just buy the call options without selling the others. In case your stock will rise moderately to a price between the two strike prices, your call option will rise together with your stock, so you will be faster to recover your money. This is the main reason it is called Repair. If you have sold any call options, as the price rises, you have to be careful when it reaches the strike price of the options sold, as from there on you will begin incurring losses. It is however exactly the lucky outcome you were hoping for, your stock is higher, and you can buy back those loss making options - then or shortly before. If you didn't sell any options and payed your premium, you don't need to worry at all at this stage. WARNING It should be noted that the Stock Repair Strategy offers no protection for your stock price further falling down. In that case all those options will expire worthless or you can sell back the ones your bought but likely not for much. In order to have the downside protection for your stock, there are other strategies, the simplest one being buying a Put Option at-the-money or slightly lower. That will effectively cut your possible losses to the Option Premium (which is the main use of that option). Again, if you hate to pay that premium, you can offset it by selling other options that you either hope won't be exercised or take steps to protect you against those.",
"No, it means what it says. Prices change, hence price of the derivative can go down even if the price of the underlying doesn't change (e.g. theta decay in options).",
"It might, but it also might not. The Board of Directors gets to decide whether and how much dividends are paid to stockholders. So this will vary from company to company and may change over time. I suggest you ask the person making the offer. That said: It looks like they offered you OPTIONS, not Shares. An option is just the right to buy stock at a given price in the future. It is extremely unlikely that you would be entitled to any dividends since you don't have an ownership stake, just a potential to be a shareholder.",
"No, if you are trading options to profit solely off the option and not own the underlying, you should trade it away because it costs more to exercise:",
"Par value of common stock is essentially a historical artifact; it is a price at which the company will redeem shares directly. If common stock has any par value at all, it is always so low that no one would ever redeem, preferring to sell in the market at a better price. Par is obviously much more relevant to debt securities than equities. So you do need a strike price. ljwobker's letter is a typical one, in that companies often make the strike price for granted options a formula based on the market price of the stock at the time of the grant, say 100% of market or 110% of market. But you will obviously need to find out what strike your company is offering.",
"\"First, your professor should learn proper grammar. Should be, \"\"Why **do**....\"\" Second, it looks like you're dealing with synthetic securities. You can create a synthetic T-Bill by doing a combination of long/short calls/puts. But ignore all that. Just think about this without the technical jargon. We know that the risk free rate is typically what T-Bills are yielding right? And we know that since options are inherently more risky than US government debt, investors will demand a higher interest rate to compensate them for the risk. So, as the risk free rate increases, the value of a call will move the same direction, otherwise investors would stop dealing with call options and would instead buy safer, less-risky \"\"riskless\"\" investments. It's not really an options question, just one of basic finance, risk, understanding of interest rates, etc.\"",
"Volume and prices are affected together by how folks feel about the stock; there is no direct relationship between them. There are no simple analysis techniques that work. Some would argue strongly that there are few complex analysis techniques that work either, and that for anyone but full-time professionals. And there isn't clear evidence that the full-time professionals do sufficiently better than index funds to justify their fees. For most folks, the best bet is to diversify, using low-overhead index funds, and simply ride with the market rather than trying to beat it.",
"\"It depends on how big the dilution is. Could be a good trade. Do the math yourself, many times nobody else has as all the employees think they are going to get rich because \"\"options\"\" :)\"",
"based on my understanding of your query...well you need to understand ATM and ITM options. The delta and gamma factor specifically. Usually delta of ATM is around 0.5 while ITM option is above than that say 0.6 or 0.8 or 0.9 and deep ITM is very close to 1. for every movement of 1 buck the ITM will move say 1.6, ATM 0.5 and OTM 0.3 approx Say a ABC stock price is Rs. 300 so if you check option chart you try to see which one is closer. Suppose you find strikeprice of 320 / 300 / 280. So 320 is ITM, 300 is ATM and 280 is OTM for call options. So will the delta value (e.g 0.66 / 0.55 / 0.35). So suppose if stock price rise by 7% i.e Rs. 321 then strikeprice will rise simultaneously. Say ATM CE300 is rs.10 it will start rising by 0.55 i.e. Rs.10.55. The moment the share price move from Rs.300 to Rs.320 your ATM will turn to ITM. Now the tricker part if you buy OTM and the share price rise by 15% your OTM will now become ITM and your profit will roll around 100% to 120% approx. Hope it answers your query",
"The option is exercised. The option is converted into shares. That is an optional condition in closing that contract, hence why they are called options.",
"\"people are willing to pay higher premiums for options when stocks go down. Obviously the time value and intrinsic value and interests rates of the option doesn't change because of this so the miscalculation remainder is priced into the implied volatility part of the formula. Basically, anything that suggests the stock price will get volatile (sharp moves in either direction) will increase the implied volatility of the option. For instance, around earnings reports, the IV in both calls and puts in the nearest expiration dates are very high. When stocks go down sharply, the volatility is high because some people are buying puts for protection and others are buying calls because they think there will be a rebound move in the other direction. People (the \"\"sleep-at-night\"\" investors, not the derivatives traders ;) ) tend to be calm when stocks are going up, and fearful when they are going down. The psychology is important to understand and observe and profit from, not to quantitatively prove. The first paragraph should be your qualitative answer\"",
"\"But what happen if the stock price went high and then go down near expiry date? When you hold a short (sold) call option position that has an underlying price that is increasing, what will happen (in general) is that your net margin requirements will increase day by day. Thus, you will be required to put up more money as margin to finance your position. Margin money is simply a \"\"good faith\"\" deposit held by your broker. It is not money that is debited as cash from the accounting ledger of your trading account, but is held by your broker to cover any potential losses that may arise when you finally settle you position. Conversely, when the underlying share price is decreasing, the net margin requirements will tend to decrease day by day. (Net margin is the net of \"\"Initial Margin\"\" and \"\"Variation Margin\"\".) As the expiry date approaches, the \"\"time value\"\" component of the option price will be decreasing.\"",
"\"An option is a financial instrument instrument that gives you the right, but not the obligation, to do some transaction in the future at a given price. An employee stock option is a kind of \"\"call option\"\" -- it gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy the stock at a certain price (the \"\"exercise price\"\", usually set as the price of the stock when the option was granted). The idea is that you would \"\"exercise\"\" the option (buy the stock at the given price as provided by the option), if the value of the stock is higher than the exercise price, and not if it is lower. The option is gifted to you. But that does not mean you get any stock. If and when you choose to exercise the option, you would buy the stock with your own money. At what time you can exercise the option (and how many shares you can exercise at a given time) will be specified in the agreement. Usually, you can only exercise a particular share after it has \"\"vested\"\" (according to some vesting schedule), and you lose the ability to exercise after you no longer work for the company (plus perhaps a grace period), or after the option expires.\"",
"/u/NotMyRealFaceBook As a sniff test, I threw the following assumptions into a Black-Scholes options pricing calculator: * Stock Price and Strike Price = $200 * Valuation date = 10/31/2017 * Expiration date = 10/29/2027 (European style - no early exercise) * Volatility = 20% (on the low end for a tech. company - but again see the non-log-normal assumption point above) * Interest rate = 4% (on the high end - which means the option seller is over-charging you) * Dividend yield = 0% The calculator's theoretical call option price results in $82. Unless the company in question has a materially skewed upside given today's starting valuation, my opinion is the options you are offered are being priced via a Black-Scholes model and are over-priced.",
"The problem with predicting with accuracy what a stock price will do in any given situation is that there are two main factors that affect a stocks price. The first factor is based somewhat in math as it takes into account numbers such as supply and demand, earnings per share, expected earnings, book value, debt ratio and a wide variety of other numbers. You can compile all those numbers into a variety of formulas and come up with a rational estimate of what the stock should sell for. This is all well and good and if the market were entirely rational it would rarely make news because it would be predictable and boring. This is where our second factor throws a wrench in the works. The second factor affecting stock price is emotional. There are many examples of people's emotions affecting stock price but if you would like a good example look up the price fluctuations of Apple (AAPL) after their last couple earnings reports. Numerically their company looks good, their earnings were healthy, their EPS is below average yet their price fell following the report. Why is that? There really isn't a rational reason for it, it is driven by the emotions behind unmet expectations. In a more general sense sometimes price goes down and people get scared and sell causing further decline, sometimes people get excited and see it as opportunity to buy in and the price stabilizes. It is much more difficult to anticipate the reaction the market will have to people's emotional whims which is why predicting stock price with accuracy is near impossible. As a thought along the same line ask yourself this question; if the stock market were entirely rational and price could be predicted with accuracy why is there such a wide range of available strike prices available in the options market? It seems that if stock price could be predicted with anything remotely reassembling accuracy the options market need a much smaller selection of available strike prices.",
"according to me it's the news about a particular stock which makes people to buy or sell it mostly thus creates a fluctuation in price . It also dependents on the major stock holder.",
"\"With options you pay for a premium which relates to the expected (so-called \"\"implied\"\" volatility). With futures, there is no assumption about the volatility of an underlying stock. In general, when trading options you trade the direction and future expected volatility of an underlying while futures are directional trades only.\"",
"\"As JoeTaxpayer says, there's a lot you can do with just the stock price. Exploring that a bit: Stock prices are a combination of market sentiment and company fundamentals. Options are just a layer on top of that. As such, options are mostly formulaic, which is why you have a hard time finding historical option data -- it's just not that \"\"interesting\"\", technically. \"\"Mostly\"\" because there are known issues with the assumptions the Black-Scholes formula makes. It's pretty good, and importantly, the market relies on it to determine fair option pricing. Option prices are determined by: Relationship of stock price to strike. Both distance and \"\"moneyness\"\". Time to expiration. Dividends. Since dividend payments reduce the intrinsic value of a company, the prospect of dividend payments during the life of a call option depresses the price of the option, as all else equal, without the payments, the stock would be more likely to end up in the money. Reverse the logic for puts. Volatility. Interest rates. But this effect is so tiny, it's safe to ignore. #4, Volatility, is the biggie. Everything else is known. That's why option trading is often considered \"\"volatility trading\"\". There are many ways to skin this cat, but the result is that by using quoted historical values for the stock price, and the dividend payments, and if you like, interest rates, you can very closely determine what the price of the option would have been. \"\"Very closely\"\" depending on your volatility assumption. You could calculate then-historical volatility for each time period, by figuring the average price swing (in either direction) for say the past year (year before the date in question, so you'd do this each day, walking forward). Read up on it, and try various volatility approaches, and see if your results are within a reasonable range. Re the Black-Scholes formula, There's a free spreadsheet downloadable from http://optiontradingtips.com. You might find it useful to grab the concept for coding it up yourself. It's VBA, but you can certainly use that info to translate in your language of choice. Or, if you prefer to read Perl, CPAN has a good module, with full source, of course. I find this approach easier than reading a calculus formula, but I'm a better developer than math-geek :)\"",
"There is no chance the deal will complete before option expiration. Humana stock will open Monday close to the $235 buyout price, and the options will reflect that value. $40 plus a bit of time value, but with just 2 weeks to expiration, not much.",
"I asked a friend and he gave me a good explanation, so I'm just gonna paste it here for others: There is a simple and a complex answer depending on how much you want to understand the pricing dynamic of options. LEAPs don't react 1:1 with a stock move because the probability of your option being in the money at expiry is still very much up in the air so you basically don't get full credit for a move in the stock this far out from expiry. The more complex answer involves a discussion of option 'greeks'. Delta, Gamma, Theta, Vega, and Rho are variables that affect the pricing of all options. The key greek in this case is Delta because it describes mathematically the expected move of an option as a ratio vs changes in stock price. For put options the ratio is -1 to 0 where -1 is direct correlation between stock price and option price and 0 is no correlation. The Delta increases as an option gets deeper in the money and also as it gets closer to expiry and reflects the probability of the option expiring in the money. For your option contract the current Delta is -0.5673 so -3.38 * -0.5673 = 1.9 which is close. Also keep in mind that that strike price had a last trade at 12:03 when the stock was at 13.3 and the current ask price is 22.30 so the last price isn't a true reflection of the market value. As for the other greeks, Gamma is a reflection of volatility in the sense that it affects the rate of change of Delta as price and time changes. Theta is the value of the time component of the option and is expressed as the expected time decay per day. The problem is that the time premium is really some arbitrary number that the market maker seems to be able to change at will without justification and it can fluctuate wildly over short periods of time and I think this may explain some of the discrepancy. If you bought the options when AAPL was $118.68 a couple weeks ago (option price of $18.85) and now AAPL is at $112.34 and the Delta over that time averaged at -0.55 then your expected option price would be $22.34 (($118.68 - $112.34) * 0.55 + 18.85 = $22.34) so you lost around $0.24 in time premium or 'Theta burn' over the last 2 weeks assuming it opens trading around 22.1 on Monday. Your broker should have information about the option contract greeks somewhere. For my platform I have to put the cursor over top of the option contract for it to show me the greeks. If your broker doesn't have this then you can get it from nasdaq.com. This is another reason that I only invest in deep in the money LEAPs because the time premium is much much lower than near the money and also because delta is much higher so if I want to trade out of it early I don't feel like I'm getting ripped off not getting paid for a stock price move. For example look at the Jan 17 175 put. The Delta is -0.9 and the time premium is only $0-1 depending if you are looking at the bid or ask. The only downside is expected returns are lower for deep in the money contracts and they are expensive to buy.",
"\"First, to mention one thing - better analysis calls for analyzing a range of outcomes, not just one; assigning a probability on each, and comparing the expected values. Then moderating the choice based on risk tolerance. But now, just look at the outcome or scenario of 3% and time frame of 2 days. Let's assume your investable capital is exactly $1000 (multiply everything by 5 for $5,000, etc.). A. Buy stock: the value goes to 103; your investment goes to $1030; net return is $30, minus let's say $20 commission (you should compare these between brokers; I use one that charges 9.99 plus a trivial government fee). B. Buy an call option at 100 for $0.40 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). This is a more complicated. To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 100 call, $0 in and out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 100 call, $3 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.40 to $3.20. Since you bought 2500 share options for $1000, the gain would be 2500 times 2.8 = 7000. C. Buy an call option at 102 for $0.125 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 102 call, $2 out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 102 call, $1 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.125 to $ 1.50. Since you bought 8000 share options for $1000, the gain would be 8000 times 1.375 = 11000. D. Same thing but starting with a 98 call. E. Same thing but starting with a 101 call expiring 60 days out. F., ... Etc. - other option choices. Again, getting the numbers right for the above is an advanced topic, one reason why brokerages warn you that options are risky (if you do your math wrong, you can lose. Even doing that math right, with a bad outcome, loses). Anyway you need to \"\"score\"\" as many options as needed to find the optimal point. But back to the first paragraph, you should then run the whole analysis on a 2% gain. Or 5%. Or 5% in 4 days instead of 2 days. Do as many as are fruitful. Assess likelihoods. Then pull the trigger and buy it. Try these techniques in simulation before diving in! Please! One last point, you don't HAVE to understand how to evaluate projected option price movements if you have software that does that for you. I'll punt on that process, except to mention it. Get the general idea? Edit P.S. I forgot to mention that brokers need love for handling Options too. Check those commission rates in your analysis as well.\"",
"As a general principle the stock price on the stock market is controlled by an agreement between buyers and sellers. Some initial observations on this stock So, my take on this is one/more of the following My suspicion is the latter.",
"Options granted by an employer to an employee are generally different that the standardized options that are traded on public stock option exchanges. They may or may not have somewhat comparable terms, but generally the terms are fairly different. As a holder of an expiring employee option, you can only choose to exercise it by paying the specified price and receiving the shares, or not. It is common that the exercise system will allow you to exercise all the shares and simultaneously sell enough of the acquired shares to cover the option cost of all the shares, thus leaving you owning some of the stock without having to spend any cash. You will owe taxes on the gain on exercise, regardless of what you do with the stock. If you want to buy publicly-traded options, you should consider that completely separately from your employer options other than thinking about how much exposure you have to your company situation. It is very common for employees to be imprudently overexposed to their company's stock (through direct ownership or options).",
"Can someone please explain how traders and investors use this price difference to trade? People use the price difference for small arbitrage between the futures and spot markets, where the larger spreads are reflected in the options markets. The spread in the options market dictates the VIX which many investors also use in their decision making process. And most importantly how the futures market affects subsequent moves in the stock market? The futures market effects the stock market where large contract holders move the entire futures price. This causes reactionary moves amongst all of the aforementioned arbitragers, who are hedged between the futures and spot markets. With the /ES this is reflected down to actual individual stocks based on their weightings in the S&P 500 index. Many of those stocks have smaller companies that are also linked to them, such as a widget manufacturer for a gigantic ACME corporation listed in the S&P 500.",
"\"Alrighty. So your question is, how confident are people that FB stock will close above a certain price at a certain time. A \"\"call\"\" option contract allows you to buy shares in the future at a certain price. FB calls are available for March of 2013. The number in the \"\"strike\"\" column is the price you can buy FB stock at on the given date. Let's take the \"\"33.00\"\" strike. This allows you to buy FB shares at $33 each next March. If at that time it turns out they're worth $50 each, you can buy them at $33, then immediately sell them on the open market for $50, making money. The person selling you the option knows that there's a chance the price will be above $33 in March, so he's going to charge you a few bucks to cover that possibility. In this case, he's charging you $5.30 (as of me writing this). So, you can have the option to buy FB shares at $33 each for $5.30. This means the guy selling you the option is reasonably confident that in March, FB stock will be at or under $38.50, otherwise he'd lose money when you exercised the option. Therefore, $38.50 is the option market's best guess as to the highest FB stock will be going for in March.\"",
"Yes, the stock price drops on official listing. But what gonna happen on first trade after the dividend date, is up to the market. The market is the market, the rules are the rules. I saw prices going up more than once just after the dividend date, exactly because people think will be cheaper. Market doesn't always follow rules.",
"In an ideal world Say on 24th July the share price of Apple was $600. Everyone knows that they will get the $ 2.65 on 16th August. There is not other news that is affecting the price. You want to go in and buy the shares on 16th Morning at $600 and then sell it on 17th August at $600. Now in this process you have earned sure shot $2.65/- Or in an ideal world when the announcement is made on 24th July, why would I sell it at $600, when I know if I wait for few more days I will get $2.65/- so i will be more inclined to sell it at $602.65 /- ... so on 16th Aug after the dividend is paid out, the share price will be back to $600/- In a real world, dividend or no dividend the share price would be moving up or down ... Notice that the dividend amount is less than 1% of the stock price ... stock prices change more than this percentage ... so if you are trying to do what is described in paragraph one, then you may be disappointed as the share price may go down as well by more than $2.65 you have made",
"\"The correlation I heard most about in economics/finance was that stock prices and bond yields were negatively correlated; as the stock market does better, bond yields fall (company's doing well as evidenced by stocks, so it's a good credit risk, so YTM of its bonds on the market goes down). The correlation, if any, between the stock and futures market should be visible in the actual price histories. Index prices may be useful, but what's more likely is that various future prices have correlation with various companies' stocks. Where the future reflects the price of a raw material that is a significant cost of goods sold for a company, you'll see these two move inversely to each other in the short term. I think that if there is a causative relationship here, its that futures prices influence stock prices, not the other way around. The futures market generally represents the cost side of a consumer goods producer's bottom line. The stock market represents its profits. As futures go up, profit expectations go down, putting pressure on stock prices. Industries that deal in services, or in other types of goods, can still be affected because a rise in the cost of something consumers need will cause them to spend less on other things which affects margins in those other areas. So, in the short and medium term, when the futures market goes up the stock market sees a dip, and vice versa. However, companies adapt; they can put upward pressure on prices for their goods to restore their desired margins, usually by slowly increasing them to prevent sticker shock (though elasticity of demand plays a part; the more we need something no matter what it costs, the faster prices can increase). To maintain costs, they can make things cheaper using less expensive materials (more plastic, less steel). They can restructure production processes (translated: move factories offshore, or at least to \"\"right-to-work\"\" states with less union strength) to save costs elsewhere. All of these reduce costs and thus increase profits, but take time to implement. Many of these things reduce direct costs, reducing demand for the commodity and causing the futures prices to go back down. So, over the long term, these differences even out, and it's down to the things that affect the entire market (inflation, consumer/investor confidence, monetary policy).\"",
"Changes in implied volatility are caused by many things, of course, and it is tough to isolate the effect you are describing, but let's try to generalize for a moment. Implied volatility is generally a measure of how much expect uncertainty there is about the future price of the stock. Uncertainty generally is higher in periods including earnings announcements because it is significant new information about the company's fortunes can make for significant changes in the price. However, you could easily have the case where the earnings are good and for some reason the market is very certain that the earnings will be good and near a certain level. In that case the price would rise, but the implied volatility could well be lower because the market believes that there will be no significant new information in the earnings announcement.",
"Here are some significant factors affect the company stock price performance: Usually, profitability is known to the public through the financial statements; it won't be 100% accurate and people would also trade the stock with the price not matching to the true value of the firm. Still there are dozens of other various reasons exist. People are just not behaving as rational as what the textbook describes when they are trading and investing.",
"Matthew - what was the stock price and strike price of the option when you did this? I've never seen an at-the-money strike with only a month to run have a price 25% of the underlying stock. Jaydles covers the variables really well in his answer."
] |
[
"Options reflect expectations about the underlying asset, and options are commonly priced using the Black-Scholes model: N(d1) and N(d2) are probability functions, S is the spot (current) price of the asset, K is the strike price, r is the risk free rate, and T-t represents time to maturity. Without getting into the mathematics, it suffices to say that higher volatility or expectation of volatility increases the perceived riskiness of the asset, so call options are priced lower and put options are priced higher. Think about it intuitively. If the stock is more likely to go downwards, then there's an increased chance that the call option expires worthless, so call options must be priced lower to accommodate the relative change in expected value of the option. Puts are priced similarly, but they move inversely with respect to call option prices due to Put-Call parity. So if call option prices are falling, then put option prices are rising (Note, however, that call prices falling does not cause put prices to rise. The inverse relationship exists because of changes in the underlying factors and how pricing works.) So the option action signifies that the market believes the stock is headed lower (in the given time frame). That does not mean it will go lower, and option traders assume risk whenever they take a particular position. Bottom line: gotta do your own homework! Best of luck.",
"Options are an indication what a particular segment of the market (those who deal a lot in options) think will happen. (and just because people think that, doesn't mean it will) Bearing in mind however that people writing covered-calls may due so simply as part of a strategy to mitigate downside risk at the expense of limiting upside potential. The presence of more people offering up options is to a degree an indication they are thinking the price will fall or hold steady, since that is in effect the 'bet' they are making. OTOH the people buying those options are making the opposite bet.. so who is to say which will be right. The balance between the two and how it affects the price of the options could be taken as an indication of market sentiment (within the options market) as to the future direction the stock is likely to take. (I just noticed that Blackjack posted the forumula that can be used to model all of this) To address the last part of your question 'does that mean it will go lower' I would say this. The degree to which any of this puts actual pressure on the stock of the underlying instrument is highly debatable, since many (likely most) people trading in a stock never look at what the options for that stock are doing, but base their decision on other factors such as price history, momentum, fundamentals and recent news about the company. To presume that actions in the options market would put pressure on a stock price, you would need to believe that a signficant fraction of the buyers and sellers were paying attention to the options market. Which might be the case for some Quants, but likely not for a lot of other buyers. And it could be argued even then that both groups, those trading options, and those trading stocks, are both looking at the same information to make their predictions of the likely future for the stock, and thus even if there is a correlation between what the stock price does in relation to options, there is no real causality that can be established. We would in fact predict that given access to the same information, both groups would by and large be taking similar parallel actions due to coming to similar conclusions regarding the future price of the stock. What is far MORE likely to pressure the price would be just the shear number of buyers or sellers, and also (especially since repeal of the uptick rule) someone who is trying to actively drive down the price via a lot of shorting at progressively lower prices. (something that is alleged to have been carried out by some hedge fund managers in the course of 'bear raids' on particular companies)",
"Option prices can predict the range of movement of the underlying, but not if the underlying is going up or down. An option price gives an implied volatility for an underlying . That IV number helps predict a range for the underlying price over the next few days,months, upto a year."
] |
4571
|
HSBC Hong Kong's “Deposit Plus” Product: What is it, and what strategies to employ?
|
[
"496857",
"282392",
"213824"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"213824",
"496857",
"6426",
"316645",
"562489",
"150080",
"272021",
"249265",
"427086",
"136018",
"350681",
"238833",
"332832",
"212970",
"533201",
"156793",
"103748",
"276321",
"39997",
"549654",
"523960",
"520952",
"499333",
"116213",
"282392",
"12781",
"515974",
"35153",
"63075",
"489278",
"514003",
"430689",
"555995",
"130422",
"475541",
"248243",
"543153",
"95246",
"307082",
"583918",
"41356",
"524615",
"76786",
"509073",
"237273",
"534471",
"542608",
"1907",
"443391",
"510469",
"259786",
"532179",
"72131",
"495093",
"480827",
"207391",
"151394",
"415394",
"201103",
"113929",
"5323",
"47946",
"61924",
"362468",
"557201",
"469652",
"384968",
"311116",
"499354",
"311866",
"466217",
"597261",
"267627",
"131635",
"392980",
"463568",
"504951",
"581514",
"425479",
"558007",
"527597",
"269226",
"168137",
"162616",
"76562",
"181657",
"110674",
"319961",
"478330",
"263852",
"433744",
"61264",
"15631",
"531292",
"510989",
"484997",
"40241",
"387886",
"106078",
"61235"
] |
[
"\"HSBC Hong Kong's “Deposit Plus” Product\"\" the same as \"\"Dual Currency Product\"\" . it's Currency link Sell base Currency Call / Alternative Currency Put FX Option It's not protected by the Deposit Insurance System in HK You can search Key Word \"\"Dual Currency Product\"\" & \"\"Dual Currency Investment\"\" & \"\"Dual Currency Deposit\"\" The only one of the world's foreign exchange structured product book 『雙元貨幣產品 Dual Currency Product』 ISBN 9789574181506\"",
"\"HSBC, Hang Seng, and other HK banks had a series of special savings account offers when I lived in HK a few years ago. Some could be linked to the performance of your favorite stock or country's stock index. Interest rates were higher back then, around 6% one year. What they were effectively doing is taking the interest you would have earned and used it to place a bet on the stock or index in question. Technically, one way this can be done, for instance, is with call options and zero coupon bonds or notes. But there was nothing to strategize with once the account was set up, so the investor did not need to know how it worked behind the scenes... Looking at the deposit plus offering in particular, this one looks a little more dangerous than what I describe. See, now we are in an economy of low almost zero interest rates. So to boost the offered rate the bank is offering you an account where you guarantee the AUD/HKD rate for the bank in exchange for some extra interest. Effectively they sell AUD options (or want to cover their own AUD exposures) and you get some of that as extra interest. Problem is, if the AUD declines, then you lose money because the savings and interest will be converted to AUD at a contractual rate that you are agreeing to now when you take the deposit plus account. This risk of loss is also mentioned in the fine print. I wouldn't recommend this especially if the risks are not clear. If you read the fine print, you may determine you are better off with a multicurrency account, where you can change your HK$ into any currency you like and earn interest in that currency. None of these were \"\"leveraged\"\" forex accounts where you can bet on tiny fluctuations in currencies. Tiny being like 1% or 2% moves. Generally you should beware anything offering 50:1 or more leverage as a way to possibly lose all of your money quickly. Since you mentioned being a US citizen, you should learn about IRS form TD F 90-22.1 (which must be filed yearly if you have over $10,000 in foreign accounts) and google a little about the \"\"foreign account tax compliance act\"\", which shows a shift of the government towards more strict oversight of foreign accounts.\"",
"With reference to the UK: Structured deposits should not be confused with structured products. Structured deposits are often, quite simple deposit accounts. You place your money into what is essentially a deposit account, and are therefore guaranteed not to lose your capital as with any other deposit account. The attraction is that you could earn more than you would in a normal deposit account, often around double, due to indirect exposure to the markets. Another benefit is that structured deposits can form part of your annual cash ISA allowance, so the returns can be tax free. These products are popular with those who have savings which they are happy to deposit away for between 3 and 6 years, and are looking for better rates of return than standard cash ISAs or savings accounts. The main drawback is that you may not receive anything other than your original deposit. That poses a minimal risk if your savings are earning less than 1% currently. See my article at financialandrew.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/fed-up-with-low-returns-from-cash-isas.html for a more rounded overview of the structured deposits.",
"\"Say we are in 'normal times.' Passbook rates are 5% or so. Longer rates, 6-7%. I offer you a product with these terms, for $10,000 I will return a \"\"Guaranteed\"\" $10,000 in 6 years and based on the stock market, 1% for every 2% the S&P is up beyond 10% at maturity. As the seller of this product, I take $6666, and buy a fixed investment, 6 years at 7% in treasuries will return the $10000. Really. I then take the $3334 and buy out of the money calls on the S&P each year to capture the gains, if any, and to deliver on my promise. This is one example of a structured deposit offering. They can have nearly any terms one can imagine. Tied to any product. S&P, Crude Oil, Gold. Whatever.\"",
"\"Your decision about which of these investments to make is going to depend on how long you expect to leave the money in the account. For example, based on the figures you give us, if you think you are going to want to withdraw the money in three months or less then you should chose the savings account. For ten months or more you should choose the Fixed Deposit. (As Michael Kjorling says, \"\"flexible to withdraw at any time\"\" does not mean you won't pay penalties for withdrawing early that's why you shouldn't choose the longer term deposits if you want to withdraw earlier). That's the simplest approach. The trouble of course is that you don't necessarily know how long you are going to leave the money in. If you are saving for a house, and you know you won't want to buy in the next year, the 12 month deposit looks good. But what if your car suddenly needs repairs? You would have to withdraw that money early and pay the penalties, and it turns out you would have been better of putting it in the savings account. A good approach is:\"",
"I recall similar strategies when (in the US) interest rates were quite a bit higher than now. The investment company put 75% or so into into a 5 year guaranteed bond, the rest was placed in stock index options. In effect, one had a guaranteed return (less inflation, of course) of principal, and a chance for some market gains especially if it went a lot higher over the next 5 years. The concept is sound if executed correctly.",
"Given that you are starting with a relatively small amount, you want a decent interest rate, and you want flexibility, I would consider fixed deposit laddering strategy. Let's say you have ₹15,000 to start with. Split this in to three components: Purchase all of the above at the same time. 30 days later, you will have the first FD mature. If you need this money, you use it. If you don't need it, purchase another 90-day fixed deposit. If you keep going this way, you will have a deposit mature every 30 days and can choose to use it or renew the fixed deposit. This strategy has some disadvantages to consider: As for interest rates, the length of the fixed deposit in positively related to the interest rate. If you want higher interest rates, elect for longer fixed deposit cycles.For instance, when you become more confident about your financial situation, replace the 30, 60, 90 day cycle with a 6, 12, 18 month cycle The cost of maintaining the short term deposit renewals and new purchases. If your bank does not allow such transactions through on line banking, you might spend more time than you like at a bank or on the phone with the bank You want a monthly dividend but this might not be the case with fixed deposits. It depends on your bank but I believe most Indian banks pay interest every three months",
"\"There are two reasons you would get a higher yield for savings accounts: either because it is not guaranteed by a national deposit insurance fund (CDIC I presume in Canada), or you have to hold it for a longer term. Money Market Accounts are insured in the U.S. and are also very liquid since you can debit from it any time. Because of this, they offer much lower rates of interest than comparable products. If you look at the savings products such as the 1.50% momentum savings account offered by ScotiaBank, you actually have to hold a $5000 balance and not make any debit from it for 90 days in order to get the extra 0.75% that would get you to 1.50%. Essentially this is roughly equivalent to offering you a 1.50% GIC with a 0.75% withdrawal penalty fee, but simply presented in more \"\"positive\"\" terms. As for the Implicity Financial Financial 1.75% offering, it looks like it is not insured by the CDIC.\"",
"Banks are not your friends, they are not performing services for you because they like you. They are a business, and they make money by borrowing money from you at low interest and loaning it out at higher interest. They are trying to persuade you to deposit more money (however briefly) in their bank so they can loan out more money. They are probably also counting on the fact that most folks won't go to the trouble of setting up accounts at multiple banks with the interlocking automatic transfers, in order to meet the required deposit threshold. That lets them save on the interest payments to consumers that are individually tiny, but significant in the aggregate.",
"\"The \"\"Yield Pledge\"\" looks like a marketing promise to me. It may well be true, but I'm not sure it's useful. As you say, it's currently not the best account out there. If those extra $24 per $10000 are really important to you, why not do your own analysis? Put the money in the highest interest account you can find, and then every three months survey the accounts available and, if it isn't still the highest, transfer the funds to the one that is. Personally I wouldn't put that much effort in for $24, but you may be different.\"",
"It depends on how much your time is worth. Those interest rates from that amount of money will not generate anything convenient. And the effort you make to fulfill the requirements can possibly turn into an overhead cost to getting that $34 a month. For instance, lets say you make $20/hour but you spent an hour trying to figure out how their billpay works. Suddenly not worth it. And if that interest rate is only granted up to $10k, then the compounding effects will be nullified because they won't even grant that same interest rate once the money starts to grow. Hope that helps.",
"I would suggest a high interest checking account if you qualify, or if you don't, an Investor's Deposit Account (IDA).",
"Your plan will probably work. I speak from past experience approx 5-10 years ago, when Lloyds used to offer tiered interest of up to 4% on £5000 in their Vantage accounts. It was allowed for an individual person to have up to three Vantage accounts. The criteria for obtaining the headline interest rates were simply: What I, and many others, did was to set up three Vantage accounts, call them A, B, and C, and a standing order on each to transfer minimum amount + £1 on the same day each month in this manner: This satisfied the letter of conditions, though perhaps not the spirit. Most importantly it satisfied the bank, and all three accounts received that headline interest rate. These days banks have got a little wiser to this and have started including the 'set up n direct debits' condition, which makes this a more time-consuming system to arrange - you must assign your various bills across your accounts - but I believe that the overall plan still works. They don't care where the money comes from, or whether it stays - just that it comes in. Enough people get it wrong that they don't have to worry about the few who get it perfectly right (see also: how 0% balance transfer offers can be profitable...)",
"It's a regular savings account and I don't think there is a 'catch'. Just keep in mind that the transfer to and from the account can take a couple of days (yes, I've actually got one of their savings accounts).",
"I strongly urge you against this despite the fact that you may enjoy lucrative interest rates in the short run. Considering the reckless usage of deposits and other public monies to build buildings just to claim that gdp is high (they count the cost of real estate as investment not their final sales as the rest of the world does), all depositors in Chinese banks stand to lose or at least have their funds frozen (since all credit funding the real estate building comes from the banks and taxes & land seizures to a lesser degree). China's reckless building: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm7rOKT151Y East Asian Crisis (Chapters 11 & 12): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/lo/story/ch_menu_03.html This can be prolonged if they open their financial system to outside funding, but that will also amplify the effect.",
"According to my calculations, you always lose money on group B. x = average monthly balance Income for a year = 0.015 * (12 * x) = 0.18 * x Cost of funds for one month = 0.04 * x Cost of funds for one year = 12 * (0.04 * x) = 0.48 * x Profit? at end of year = income_for_year - cost_of_funds_for_one_year = (0.18 * x) - (0.48 * x) = forever loss",
"\"As is so often the case, there is an asterisk next to that 2.5% interest offer. It leads you to a footnote which says: Savings Interest Rate Offer of 2.5% is available between January 1, 2015 and March 31, 2015 on all net new deposits made between January 1, 2015 and March 31, 2015 to a maximum of $250,000.00 per Account registration. You only earn 2.5% interest on deposits made during those three months. Also, on the full offer info page, it says: During the Offer Period, the Bank will calculate Additional Interest on eligible net new deposits and: All interest payments are ineligible for the purposes of calculating Additional Interest and will not be calculated for the purposes of determining eligible daily balances. In other words, any interest paid into an Applicable Account, including Additional Interest, will not be treated as a new deposit for subsequently calculating Additional Interest payments. I couldn't totally parse out all the details of the offer from their legalese, but what it sounds like is you will earn 2.5% interest on money that you deposit into the account during those three months. Any interest you accrue during that time will not count as a deposit in this sense, and so will not earn 2.5% compounded returns. The \"\"During the Offer Period\"\" qualification also makes it sound like this extra interest will only be paid during the three months (presumably at a 2.5% annualized rate, but I can't see where it actually says this). So essentially you are getting a one-time bonus for making deposits during a specific three-month period. The account doesn't really earn 2.5% interest in the normal sense. The long-term interest rate will be what it normally is for their savings accounts, which this page says is 1.05%.\"",
"I think your approach of looking exclusively at USD deposits is a prudent one. Here are my responses to your questions. 1) It is highly unlikely that a USD deposit abroad be converted to local currency upon withdrawal. The reason for offering a deposit in a particular currency in the first place is that the bank wants to attract funds in this currency. 2) Interest rate is a function of various risks mostly supply and demand, central bank policy, perceived risk etc. In recent years low-interest rate policy as led by U.S., European and Japanese central banks has led particularly low yields in certain countries disregarding their level of risk, which can vary substantially (thus e.g. Eastern Europe has very low yields at the moment in spite of its perceived higher risk). Some countries offer depository insurance. 3) I would focus on banks which are among the largest in the country and boast good corporate governance i.e. their ownership is clean and transparent and they are true to their business purpose. Thus, ownership is key, then come financials. Country depository insurance, low external threat (low war risk) is also important. Most banks require a personal visit in order to open the account, thus I wouldn't split much further than 2-3 banks, assuming these are good quality.",
"I think your understanding is correct as far as you describe, but you don't mention a critical detail to me. You also imply some penalty details for early withdrawal / cancellation but you don't state those terms in detail. Where and when is the interest paid? Does it go into the same CD for compounding? Does it get paid to another account? The description does say that it is priced at par, so we at least know that the interest doesn't have to be stuck unpaid within the CD until maturity, but it also means you don't necessarily get compounding at the CD rate. Without knowing where the interest goes, and if it's available for compounding, be careful in how you compare it to other CDs / savings accounts. A compoundable structure might be a better option, even at a lower APY.",
"Overall I think it sounds like it's worth it. It's hard to find that high of a rate on a checking account these days. It looks like you're looking at this bank, and I can see they have a few more requirements that seem a little tedious: If you don't do these things every month, then you lose the great interest rate. If you can think of an easy way to jump through these hoops and not forget, then it's probably worth it. For example, if you routinely eat out for lunch or buy a morning coffee, you can use that card to pay for it. Set yourself a recurring reminder in your calendar or smartphone to remind you to login to the online banking site. Ultimately, since this is an emergency fund, it's a good idea to keep it nice and liquid in a checking account. You're not likely going to find many other options that will give you a better (and safe) return and still keep your funds available for when you need them. In summary, it sounds like a good idea to me so long as you think you can reliably jump through their hoops.",
"I have worked for BNP (BNP PARIBAS) a french bank. From my experience it is the easiest sale to make when working for a bank. Because saving is sold as a long term investment your client is not likely to close the account any time soon. From this product on you could open a broker account if the client wants to take more risks ( yhea yet another sale). If the client is very keen on no risks, there are insurance products (they make plenty of money from insurance) or callable investments that you can propose. Retail banking works by attracting a maximum number of people and selling them a maximum amount of product. To answer you question is it profitable? I am sure it is not ( right now your savings account costs the bank money because of super low rates in the EU). I think it is all about increasing or maintaining market-share that you see some banks offering some cash just for opening an account. At the moment we have to sell credit cards to people that is where banks make good money. If you would like me to go more in depth on a specific subject i mentioned here just ask. Hope it helped.",
"\"This type of structured product is called a capital protection product. It's like an insurance product - where you give up some upside for protection against losses in certain cases. From the bank's perspective they take your investment, treat it as an \"\"interest-free loan\"\" and buy derivatives (like options) that give them an expected return greater then They make their money: With this product, you are giving up some potential upside in order to protect against losses (other than catastrophic losses if the lower index drops by 50% or more). What's the catch? There's not really a catch. It's a lot like insurance, you might come out ahead (e.g. if the market goes down less than 50%), but you might also give up some upside. The bank will sell enough of these in various flavors to reduce their risk overall (losses in your product will be covered by gains in another). Note that this product won't necessarily sell for $1,000. You might have to pay $1,100 (or $1,005, or whatever the bank can get people to buy them for) for each note whenever it's released. That's where the gain or loss comes into play. If you pay $1,100 but only get $1,000 back because the index didn't go up (or went down) you'd have a net loss of $100. It's subtle, but it is in the prospectus: The estimated value of the notes is only an estimate determined by reference to several factors. The original issue price of the notes will exceed the estimated value of the notes because costs associated with selling, structuring and hedging the notes are included in the original issue price of the notes. These costs include the selling commissions, the projected profits, if any, that our affiliates expect to realize for assuming risks inherent in hedging our obligations under the notes and the estimated cost of hedging our obligations under the notes.\"",
"I decided to try this in order to get a feel of it. As far as the interest rates are concerned, it works. You can set it up and forget about holding time as long as the rates and positions stay within a range. The problem is that currency volatility turns the interest paid for shorting USD/JPY into noise at best. And if you look to past performance over a year... Let's just say there is a reason they pay you to hold NZD. So, unless you think buying NZD/USD is a good idea to begin with, you should put your money elsewhere.",
"You can open Savings Bank Account with some Banks that offer better interest rate. Note there would be restriction on number of withdrawals in quarter. There are better interest rates if you lock in for 90+ days. The other option to explore is to open a Demat / Brokrage account and invest in liquid funds. Note depending on various factors it may or may not suite your requirements.",
"15-19% gains also includes 15-19% and greater losses. They may not be required to disclose that to you in Hong Kong. If it isn't a leveraged account then that isn't too bad. Hong Kong is a nice jurisdiction, The US Federal Government is the only person you don't hide your assets from - but they dont want anything - so just report the accounts as commanded and you'll be A-Okay.",
"\"The most important thing to look at is the FDIC insurance. Savings accounts are covered. Money markets - not necessarily. Online savings accounts provide rates of ~1%. Look at American Express, Ally, Capitol One, ING Direct, E*Trade, etc. The \"\"pledge\"\" basically brings EverBank into the same list, as they all have similar rates. Being top 5% of competitive accounts is not that hard, because there are thousands of banks around, you know. 0.76 is not the highest rate available. American Express currently give 1% on their savings account. Re moving the money a lot - depends on the amounts, but when the rates were higher, I moved around a lot. Now, it just doesn't worth the trouble, although I would move for 0.25%.\"",
"One issue which I don't see addressed in the answers so far is how to structure bank accounts to get the highest return possible. What you're describing sounds like a certificate of deposit (CD): 'ranging from 1% for 9 months to 2.3% for 5 years' There is a concept which was once more common called a CD Ladder, which still allows you to access your money, while also giving you the highest interest rate offered by the bank. To set one up you divide your account into 5 equal parts, then open 5 CDs with different periods (1-5 years). Each time a new CD matures (once a year), you purchase another 5 year CD with those funds, plus any new money you want to save. Thus you're getting a higher and higher rate, until all of your accounts are earning the 5 year CD rate, and you're never more than a year away from getting money out of the account if a need comes up.",
"\"So, if I understand the investment program here: You have $100 of tax withheld from your salary at the end of Jan, Feb, Mar... until December. This withholding is in excess of the expected tax for the year. You use the appropriate H&R Block product to file your taxes, and H&R Block gets your refund of $1200 on March 1st. H&R Block adds 10& and give you e-cards for $1320 On the face of it, this represents a return of 15.19% per year, compounded monthly. However, there are a few wrinkles that might make the scheme less inviting: You'll get a receipt for miscellaneous income from H&R Block, and pay tax on the \"\"earnings\"\". The quoted return is only realized if you can use the e-cards immediately. If they sit around for a while, then they aren't earning any interest. If you sell them for cash at a discount (if you even can!) then this reduces the return. If you don't cash them at all, they're a total loss. This offer was announced on Jan 15, 2015. So you can't go back and put it in place for 2014. And if you set it up for withholding in 2015, is there any guarantee that it the same offer will be in place when filing in 2016?\"",
"IMO this means one of two things: the bank thinks that 3 months from now, the interest rates it plans to offer will be lower than 1%; after 180 days, it will go up again. the bank needs more short-term cash than mid-term cash right now, so it offers you a better deal. In either case, it is unlikely that your 90 day intrest rate will be available 90 days from now, and most likely it will be below 1% unless the bank yet again needs short-term cash from its customers. With those proposed rates, I would go for half in 90 days and half in 270 days. Disclaimer: am no economist, just spent a lot of time the past year fretting over the same kind of questions. Feel free to tell me where I'm wrong if you think I am.",
"The deposit insurance isn't provided by the bank; it's provided by the Singapore Deposit Insurance Corporation (SDIC). In the event that the bank fails or is declared insolvent, the SDIC will pay deposit holders their total balance in all accounts with that bank, up to S$50,000. If you hold S$60,000 in all of your insured accounts, you'll only receive S$50,000 if the bank fails. The SDIC provides an example page with sample calculations, and this is exactly what they show. If you deposit an amount greater than $S50,000, it's only insured up to S$50,000. So does it mean one should open multiple accounts under different banks to spread the money around and maintain only S$50,000 in one deposit account? This is one option. The calculations page I linked to above gives this reminder: Deposits are not insured separately in each branch office of a DI Scheme member i.e. all your eligible accounts maintained with different branches of a DI Scheme member are aggregated and insured up to S$50,000. This seems like common sense, but it's important to remember that if you open an account with two branch offices of Bank A, your deposits are aggregated and insured up to S$50,000. The SDIC insurance is per institution (called a Deposit Insurance Member), not per branch. If you hold S$45,000 in each branch office, for a total of S$90,000, you're still only insured up to S$50,000 for that bank. If you want to spread out your accounts between multiple banks, make sure they're different banks, not just different branches. Another option, if it applies to you, is to open a joint account with your spouse. In the FAQ page, the SDIC gives this example under point 14: if you and your husband have a joint account with S$70,000, and you have a separate account of S$20,000, your total deposits of S$55,000 will be covered to the maximum of S$50,000. The deposit of $S70,000 is split evenly between the spouses, so in the eyes of the SDIC, each are holding S$35,000. Then, the husband's additional S$20,000 is added to S$35,000 for a total of S$50,000. This is then insured up to S$50,000 as usual. I'm sure there are other options specific to Singapore that I'm not aware of; if you're well above the limit, i.e. holding millions of dollars, I'm sure a professional accountant in Singapore could guide you further.",
"How about placing the money in a safety deposit box at the same bank? This will probably work out cheaper than the loss due to negative rates. Although, I'm quite sure the banks won't like this idea.",
"Sure, you'd make an $8.33 during that first month with little extra risk. Sounds like free money, right? (Assuming no hidden fees in the fine print.) I don't know that the extra money is worth the time you will spend monitoring the account, especially after inflation claims its share of your pie. If you're going to use leverage to invest, you should probably pick an investment that will return at a much higher rate. If you can get an unsecured line of credit at 1%, there aren't a lot of downsides. Hopefully interest rates don't rise high enough to eat your earnings, but if they do, you can always liquidate your investments and pay the remainder of the loan.",
"\"From the banks point of view the point of a current account like this is to get you as a regular customer. They want to be your \"\"main bank\"\", the bank you interact with the most, the bank you turn to first when you need financial products and services, the bank whose advertising you see every time you log into online banking or walk into a branch. The bank knows that if they just offer the unprofitablly high interest rate or other perks with no strings attatched that people will open the account and dump a bunch of savings in it but won't actually move their financial life over, their old bank will still be their main bank. So they attatch strings like a required minimum deposit, a minimum number of direct debits and similar. These have minimal effect on people actually using the account as their main current account while being a pain for people trying to game the system. Of course as you point out it is still possible to game the system but they don't need to make gaming the system impossible, they just need to make it inconvianiant enough that most people won't bother.\"",
"GIC perhaps? These would be quite similar to Certificates of Deposit where one is agreeing to lock up their money for a term and be paid a percentage for doing so. There are various kinds as some may be linked to market returns in some cases and others are just simple interest.",
"\"As RonJohn points out, direct deposit is something very different. What's going on here is that they are trying to exclude the \"\"customers\"\" that open the account simply for the premium and then close it again as soon as the terms of the offer have been met. Most people have only one regular source of direct deposit money, either their paycheck or a retirement check. This acts to make it hard for them to simply take the offer and run.\"",
"It is FDIC insured, there is no catch .. a few banks offer above 1% APY. Alliant and Ally come to my mind. Terms & Conditions",
"You are losing something - interest on your deposit. That money you are giving to the bank is not earning interest so you are losing money considering inflation is eating into it.",
"These products are real, but they aren't risk free: 1) The bank could go under in that time. (Are the investments FDIC insured?) 2) Your money is locked up for 5 years, probably with either no way to get it back out or a stiff penalty for early withdrawal, so you risk having a better investment opportunity come along and not having the liquidity to take advantage of it. 3) If the market does go down and you get 100% of your principal back, the endless ratchet of inflation practically guarantees that $10K will be worth less 5 years from now than it is today, so you risk losing purchasing power even if you're not losing any nominal quantity of money. It's still a fairly low-risk investment option, particularly if it's tied to something that you have reason to believe will increase in value significantly faster than inflation in the next 5 years.",
"I'd have a look at Capital One's Online account too, they've got 1.35% interest rate with 10% bonus if you have over $15k deposited. It is still low like all interest rates, but at least it is on top (or at least close)!",
"\"Ultimately you are as stuck as all other investors with low returns which get taxed. However there are a few possible mitigations. You can put up to 15k p.a. into a \"\"normal\"\" ISA (either cash or stocks & shares, or a combination) if your target is to generate the depost over 5 years you should maximise the amount you put in an ISA. Then when you come to buy, you cash in that part needed to top up your other savings for a deposit - i.e. keep the rest in for long term savings. The help to buy ISA might be helpful, but yes there is a limit on the purchase price which in London will restrict you. Several banks are offering good interest on limited sums in current accounts - Santander is probably the best you can get 3% (taxed) on up to 20K - this is a good \"\"safe\"\" return. Just open a 123 Account, arrange to pay out a couple of DDs and pay in £500 a month (you can take the £500 straight out again). I think Lloyds and TSB also offer similar but on much smaller ammounts. Be warned this strategy taken to the limit will involve some complexity checking your various accounts each month. After that you will end up trading better returns for greater risk by using more volatile stock market investments rather than cash deposits.\"",
"Deposit it in a business savings account. The following below show you some options you can choose from. Next you can invest it in the market i.e. shares, bonds etc. If you have a more risky side, can go for peer to peer lending. If you are feeling really lucky and want to invest in the long term, then buy a property as a buy-to-let landlord. There are loads of options, you only need to explore.",
"The 1.09% is per year, not per month, so you will be getting about 1K per year just for sitting around on your backside. Some important things. It is almost certain that you can earn a better interest rate elsewhere, if you are prepared to leave your 100K untouched. For example, even in Natwest you can earn 3.2% over the next year if you buy a fixed rate bond. For 100K that is certainly worth looking at. Or maybe put 90K in a fixed rate bond and leave 10K in an instant access account. Taxes should not be a problem since you can earn around 7K before you start paying taxes. However be aware that in the UK most bank accounts deduct tax at source. That means they send the tax they think you should have paid to the government, and you then have to claim it back from them. Accounts for young people may work differently. Ask your bank.",
"\"Provide you are willing to do a bit of work each month, you should apply for a \"\"rewards checking\"\" account. Basically these accounts require you to set up direct deposit (can be any amount and your employer can easily deposit $25 into one account and the rest into another if you like). They also require you to use your debit card attached to the account (probably about 10 times per month). Check out the list on the fatwallet finance forum. Right now the best accounts are earning over 4%.\"",
"\"Yup. It's totally legit and it is not a money market account. Though interest rates are so low across the board, this is about as high as savings accounts get and so it is called a \"\"high-yield savings account\"\". A number of banks offer these. There are different offerings nation-wide versus local/state. I would use this compare tool at DepositAccounts.com to find them and the blog is very good with updates and trends. Here are some well advertised accounts: If you don't already have a rewards checking account, get one of those first. DepositAccounts.com will direct you to these as well. A reasonable interest rate on rewards checking is 2.5% and up. So much better. The only catches are reasonable - online statements, direct deposit or autopay, and use your debit card 10 or 12 times a month for any transaction amount (groceries, coffee, gas - easy). The other major thing I would consider when opening any account is where you live and the current accounts you have. If you have an AMEX card already, just use their savings account. That way you have unified accounts, faster transfers, your personal information isn't spread thinly around all different banks, you have more leverage with the company as a \"\"long-standing customer\"\", etc. As far as using a bank in the state where you live, it simplifies taxes. Two more things: I would always choose a credit union over a bank (and many have excellent rewards checking accounts). If you use Mint, Yodlee, or other financial software, make sure the potential new bank integrates with that service.\"",
"Anybody that offers a bigger return than a deposit claiming 100% safe is a fraud. There is always a risk: Yes, you can gain 30% in a year, but nobody can guarantee that you'll repeat that gain the next. My own experience (and I do take risks), one year I go up, the next year I go down...",
"This sounds a lot like an Equity-indexed Annuity. They date from about 1996 (there is a bit of skepticism about them, as they are tricky to understand for the typical investor). For instance, an equity indexed annuity pays a portion of the gain in an index (like S&P 500) when the stock market rises, and guarantees you won't lose if it falls. In an arbitrage sense, it is roughly equivalent to buying a mixture of bonds and index (call) options. There are a lot of complicated 'tweaks' on these, such as annual ratchet/annual reset, interest caps, etc. There is quite a bit of debate about whether they are too good to be true, so I'd read a few articles with pros and cons before buying one. These are also commonly called FIA (Fixed indexed annuities).",
"The main risk I see to this plan is with a late payment to your credit card. For a variety of reasons, some outside your control, you could end up with a late payment on the CC and a +18% interest rate making your arbitrage attempts unprofitable. You sense that this is risky, and it derives from placing short-term risk on a long term asset. Your interest rate is high for the current market. What kind of things can you do reduce that rate? What kind of things can you do to reduce your principle? Those kind of things represent far less risk and accomplish the same goal.",
"For this scheme to work, you would require an investment with no chance of a loss. Money market accounts and short-term t-bills are about your only options. The other thing is that you will need to be very careful to never miss the payment date. One month's late charges will probably wipe out a few months' profit. The only other caveat, which I'm sure you've considered, is that having your credit maxed out will hurt your credit score.",
"\"I'll start by saying accounts that require a certain number of transactions are a horrible place to put any savings and, in fact, I'd stay away all together. However, you've asked a lot of questions here and are clearly more in-tune with this topic than most. If I was young again and just starting to try to pile some money together, I would absolutely chase the highest interest rates by taking advantage of accounts like this. If you have the discipline to hit the transaction counts and maintain the minimum balance AND leave your savings funds alone, do it. If for a single second you think you'll go out one Friday night and blow your emergency fund, put it somewhere else. I used to keep really elaborate spreadsheets of my spending and savings with goals set and progress charts, etc. I see the argument that the transaction count is not worth the gain in interest, but you've said you're not dealing with big numbers and 5% of $5,000 is about $255 after a year. It's not a lot but it's 5x more than a \"\"normal\"\" no transaction hoops high-yield savings account; you get five years of interest each year. So, yes, this is an amount of money you could probably generate by frequenting starbucks less, but presumably you're already doing that. Obviously you would keep this to an upper account balance of $5,000 and put the rest in a vanilla high-yield savings; then when administering the transactions becomes too much work close the account.\"",
"Is this the smart thing to do? You're essentially borrowing money at 2.7% to keep it in your bank account. No, that is not a smart financial decision. Pay the difference in cash and replenish your savings with the $1,100 a month. Some other notes:",
"First of all, I agree with both the conclusion in the question and Ganesh’s answer – avoid funds or stockmarket based instruments, given the short timescale and need to draw an income. However I think looking at savings accounts only is missing a trick. At the moment there are several current accounts that pay >2% interest on balances the size of which you’re proposing. The list of which accounts are offering which rates / conditions at which point in time will vary, so here is a link to a good source of regularly updated information: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/savings-loophole There are some conditions, but the best interest rate on offer (that isn't limited to one year) appears to be 3% – much better than the leading instant access savings account.",
"A CDIC-insured high-interest savings bank account is both safe and liquid (i.e. you can withdraw your money at any time.) At present time, you could earn interest of ~1.35% per year, if you shop around. If you are willing to truly lock in for 2 years minimum, rates go up slightly, but perhaps not enough to warrant loss of liquidity. Look at GIC rates to get an idea. Any other investments – such as mutual funds, stocks, index funds, ETFs, etc. – are generally not consistent with your stated risk objective and time frame. Better returns are generally only possible if you accept the risk of loss of capital, or lock in for longer time periods.",
"Since you are talking about a small firm, for the long term, it would be advisable to invest your money into the expansion - growth, diversification, integration - of your business. However, if your intention is to make proper use of your earnings in the short term, a decent bank deposit would help you to increase the credit line for your business with the benefit of having a high enough liquidity. You can also look at bonds and other such low risk instruments to protect your assets.",
"For maximum liquidity of an emergency fund, having demand deposits and fixed deposits would be the best, as they are the most liquid instruments around. If you invest in other higher yielding instruments they would be less liquid, so it's a tradeoff and you've got to decide for yourself what's best given your requirements.",
"So basically, if you have a large savings account and are not investing... (because banks are actually a very poor way to get returns on capital), they will invest it for you... The take home I'm getting is... invest your money, and leave it out of the banks.",
"It's really not possible to know what your best investment strategy is without knowing more about you, which isn't the place of a site like this. However I'll make some general comments about insurance policies as savings. Insurance policies are extremely inflexible. They lay down specific payments, and specific returns that you will get back. However typically if you don't follow the shcedule of payments laid down, you will lose almost all the benefit of the investment. Since you say you are a beginner, I'll assume you are young too. Maybe in a few years you will want to buy a house, or a nice car, or get married, or put money into some other investment opportunity. If you are committed to making insurance policy payments you will have less available for the other things you want to do. Related to this is the 'estimated returns'. You say the 'nonguaranteed bonus is around 3.75%-5.25%'. But because an insurance policy locks you in, if it turns out that it's the low end of that - or worse - you can't get out, even if other investments are outperforming it.",
"Based on your question, I am going to assume your criterion are: Based on these, I believe you'd be interested in a different savings account, a CD, or money market account. Savings account can get you up to 1.3% and money market accounts can get up to 1.5%. CDs can get you a little more, but they're a little trickier. For example, a 5 year CD could get up to 2%. However, now you're money is locked away for the next few years, so this is not a good option if this money is your emergency fund or you want to use it soon. Also, if interest rates increase then your money market and savings accounts' interest rates will increase but your CD's interest rate misses out. Conversely, if interest rates drop, you're still locked into a higher rate.",
"\"I've looked around for a while and found one at Broadway Federal Bank. I opened one up last year and will most likely be renewing it if the rates stay fairly competitive. Here are the features: I think it's a great alternative to a savings account because the ability to withdraw at any time defeats the purpose of \"\"saving\"\". By getting penalized to withdraw with this CD, you are discouraged from withdrawing and hence, actually save. The biggest downside is that they are a fairly small community bank and only have branches in Los Angeles. They also only have three branches in total and do not have ATM's that you can make deposits into aside from the ones outside of their branches.However, you can open an account online and and make electronic deposits. Hope this helps.I included their website below. www.broadwayfederalbank.com\"",
"There is No penalty CD at Ally currently at 1.2%. Looks like you can withdraw the money any time. Never used it myself",
"You can also consider getting GICs which offer early redemption - ING has pretty decent ones. Early redemption offers poorer interest than savings account, but if you go the full term the interest rates are better than savings account.",
"Since returning of capital is the most important, I would go to bankrate.com and find either an online bank savings account or MMA account. By going to bankrate.com, you can find higher rates. Sometimes you can find rates that are higher than a CD and are still FDIC insured. I've found ally bank's raise your rate 2 year CD to always have the best rate. In addition, if rates go up, you are able to raise the rate to the current rate.",
"I think the main question is whether the 1.5% quarterly fee is so bad that it warrants losing $60,000 immediately. Suppose they pull it out now, so they have 220000 - 60000 = $160,000. They then invest this in a low-cost index fund, earning say 6% per year on average over 10 years. The result: Alternatively, they leave the $220,000 in but tell the manager to invest it in the same index fund now. They earn nothing because the manager's rapacious fees eat up all the gains (4*1.5% = 6%, not perfectly accurate due to compounding but close enough since 6% is only an estimate anyway). The result: the same $220,000 they started with. This back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests they will actually come out ahead by biting the bullet and taking the money out. However, I would definitely not advise them to take this major step just based on this simple calculation. Many other factors are relevant (e.g., taxes when selling the existing investment to buy the index fund, how much of their savings was this $300,000). Also, I don't know anything about how investment works in Hong Kong, so there could be some wrinkles that modify or invalidate this simple calculation. But it is a starting point. Based on what you say here, I'd say they should take the earliest opportunity to tell everyone they know never to work with this investment manager. I would go so far as to say they should look at his credentials (e.g., see what kind of financial advisor certification he has, if any), look up the ethical standards of their issuers, and consider filing a complaint. This is not because of the performance of the investments -- losing 25% of your money due to market swings is a risk you have to accept -- but because of the exorbitant fees. Unless Hong Kong has got some crazy kind of investment management market, charging 1.5% quarterly is highway robbery; charging a 25%+ for withdrawal is pillage. Personally, I would seriously consider withdrawing the money even if the manager's investments had outperformed the market.",
"\"You've asked eleven different questions here. Therefore, The first thing I'd recommend is this: Don't panic. Seek answers to your questions systematically, one at a time. Search this site (and others) to see if there are answers to some of them. You're in good shape if for no other reason than you're asking these when you're young. Investing and saving are great things to do, but you also have time going for you. I recommend that you use your \"\"other eight hours per day\"\" to build up other income streams. That potentially will get you far more than a 2% deposit. Any investment can be risky or safe. It depends on both your personal context and that of the larger economy. The best answers will come from your own research and from your advisors (since they will be able to see where you are financially, and in life).\"",
"\"I've never heard of a loan product like that. Yes, if they keep the funds in an account, it is no risk to the bank, but they would essentially need to go through the loan process twice for the same loan: when you pick a house, they need to reevaluate everything, along with appraising and approving the house. Even if you did find a bank that would do this for you, there are a few problems with this scheme. You would be paying interest before you have a need for this money, negating the savings you might achieve if the interest rates go up. In addition, your \"\"balance\"\" will go down as \"\"payments\"\" are deducted from your loan, and when you finally find a home to buy, you might not have enough for the house you want. You'll need to borrow more than you need, which will further negate any possible savings. It is impossible to know how fast rates will climb. If I were you, I would stick to saving for your down payment, and just get the best rate you can when you are ready to buy. Another potential idea for you is to lock an interest rate. When you apply for a mortgage, the interest rate is often locked for as much as 60 days, to protect the borrower in the event that the rates go up. You could ask the bank if you can pay a fee to lock the rate even longer. I don't know if that is possible or not. And, of course, the fee would eat into your potential savings.\"",
"So if someone would invest 14000 credits on 1st April 2016, he'd get monthly dividend = ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) × (1 - 1.42 ÷ 100) = 44.459 credits, right? One would get ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) = 45.1 is what you would get. The expenses are not to be factored. Generally if a scheme has less expense ratio, the yield is more. i.e. this has already got factored in 0.0451. If the expense ratio was less, this would have been 0.05 if expense ration would have been more it would have been 0.040. Can I then consider the bank deposit earning a higher income per month than the mutual fund scheme? As the MIP as classified as Hybrid funds as they invest around 30% in equities, there is no tax on the income. More so if there is a lock-in of 3 years. In Bank FD, there would be tax applicable as per tax brackets.",
"HSBC exchange spread between HKD and USD was 483 bps (1 bps is 0.0001) on their 24 hours exchange network a few weeks ago when I checked. It is very high for a pair of linked currencies which has very little fluctuation. One should expect less than 5 bps or even 1 bps. I did my currency conversion at a US brokerage which can take HKD currency and then I was able to pick the time/rate and amount I like to make the conversion. Basically, the currency pair runs within a tight band and you just need to buy USD with HKD at the time when it is near the edge of the band to your advantage. There is usually no fee on currency conversion. They make money through the spread. HSBC premier allows you to wire free among countries. I forget whether they offer tighter spread or not. Rob was right on about the cost of transferring money overseas. The majority of the cost is in the conversion, not the wiring.",
"First of all, look for a savings account with a decent interest rate. Online banks are good at offering those, and you can transfer your money back and forth from the checking account with a couple of business days' delay. ING Direct offers 1.1% APY right now - lame, but much better than nearly-nothing. If you'd like a little nicer rate of return you should also consider putting some of the money (the part you need least) in a short- or intermediate-term bond ETF or mutual fund. You can sell them quite readily, they pay more interest than a savings account, and because of the shorter maturities involved the interest rate risk is limited. (That's the one that makes your bonds less valuable now because the rates went up after you bought them.) I have some NYSE:BIV that's yielding 3.8% or so.",
"\"Here's a hack for getting the \"\"free\"\" checking that requires direct deposit. Some effort to set up, but once everything is in place, it's all autopilot. (If your transfer into savings is higher than your transfer out of savings, you'll build up a nice little stash over time.) I don't know if there are deposit amounts or frequencies that you must have to qualify for the free account, if these are public or secret, or if this works everywhere. If anyone else has experience using this kind of hack, please leave a comment.\"",
"I concur with the answers above - the difference is about the risk. But in this particular case I find the interest level implausible. 11% interest on deposits in USD seems very speculative and unsustainable. You can't guarantee such return on investment unless you engage in drug trade or some other illegal activity. Or it is a Ponzi scheme. So I would suspect that the bank is having liquidity problems. Which bank is it, by the way? We had a similar case in Bulgaria with one bank offering abnormal interest on deposits in EUR and USD. It went bust - the small depositors were rescued by the local version of FDIC but the large ones were destroyed.",
"it means that 20% of my closing balance each day will be added up over the course of a month and then given once the month is over. Yes apart from the typo 0.20% of every day balance. The rate itself is quoted for a year, so for a day it will be (Px0.20)/(100x365). Where P = The principal amount of every day. The credits will be every month-end. For leap year will be 366. Check with your Bank quite a few Banks still use the old convention of 360 days in year.",
"Deposit accounts lists savings rates for most of the online banks that offer savings accounts. Select one of the accounts with higher interest and you'll earn more on your money that you can with a savings account at Wells Fargo. You can transfer the money from Wells Fargo to one of the online lenders using electronic funds transfer. If you plan to invest the money, you should consider what the purpose is long-term. If you don't plan on needing it for ~5 years or so you could consider a bond fund from Vanguard. Understand that while, this would be low risk, you could still lose money and this doesn't provide the same level of safety as a bank savings account from Wells Fargo or one of the online banks.",
"I would refrain from commenting on market timing strategy, but please don't park extra AUD cash in IB. Park cash in your local bank high interest savings, and get a Margin account at IB. When you want to pull the trigger, use margin loan to buy stocks immediately, then transfer cash from local bank to IB afterwards.",
"Yes, and there are several ways, the safest is a high-yield savings account which will return about 1% yearly, so $35 per month. That's not extremely much, but better than nothing (you probably get almost zero interest on a regular checking account).",
"\"Like Dheer said, the demand for shorter term money is greater than for longer term money, precisely because the banks don't want to have to pay big interest rates for long periods. Banks borrow short term and lend long term - so they take money from you for one year, and lend it away as a 20 year mortgage. After a year, they take money for another year. Since short term rates tend to be higher than longer term rates, they make money off the \"\"spread\"\" (or the different between the rate they lend and the rate they borrow). In this scenario, banks should pay higher for longer term deposits, but overall banks realize that interest rates will go up and down, and they don't want to lock the \"\"up\"\" for a longer term. Since banks believe that rates will come down in the 1-2 year period, they offer good rates only till the 1 year period and disincentivize longer term deposits by offering lower rates. If you look at the interbank or money markets, trading of very short term bulk money shows that for the 10-15 day periods, the interest rates being offered are 10% or so, while for one year it's just 9.5%. The market believes that interest rates will go down in the one year time frame - but you never really know since this is just a bunch of people that believe so. Eventually, if rates continue to go up, the demand at the longer term will also go up, because it will become obvious that the rate pressure continues to be strong. If you do want higher rates for the long term, check out State bank of India bonds that are currently trading on the NSE (you can buy them if you have a brokerage account) They are just about as safe as SBI Fixed Deposits, and the rate being offered is around 9.3%, for a 10-15 year term. Hope that helps!\"",
"\"Your plan as proposed will not work, because it goes against how banks make money. Banks make money in two ways: (1) Fees [including account fees, investment advice fees, mortgage application fees, etc.]; and (2) Interest Rate Spread. They borrow money for x%, and they lend it out for x+y%. In a simple form, someone gives the bank a deposit, and earns 1%. The bank turns around to the next person in line and loans the money to them for 4%. You are asking them to turn the interest rate spread into a cost instead of their main source of profit: You are asking the bank to borrow money from another person paying them 1.2% interest, and then loan the money to you, paying you 0.6% interest and keeping 0.6% for themselves. The bank would lose money doing this. Technically yes, you can borrow from a bank and invest it in something earning above the 4% interest they will charge you. You can then pay the bank's interest off of your earnings, and make some profit for yourself. BUT this carries an inherent risk: If your investment loses money, you still owe the bank, effectively increasing the negative impact of your investment. This tactic is called \"\"Leveraging\"\"; you can look it up on this site or on google. It is not something you should do if you do not fully understand the risks you are taking on. Given that you are asking this question, I would suggest tactfully that you are not yet well informed enough to make this sort of investment. You run serious risk of losing everything if you over-leverage (assuming the banks will even lend you money in the first place).\"",
"if I open current accounts with all these institutions, will they know if I move money between them, i.e. from the one I pay my salary to, to the next, to the next etc. Of course they will know. After all you will provide the account numbers for transferring the money. Regarding the intent of transfer they don't care. They only care the about the amount coming in regularly. refuse to give me the rates and bonuses I want For this I will go through their terms and conditions and you should do it. Check for any excluded conditions. Read between the lines. But check on what amount will you be getting the interest. Most of these accounts pay interest daily and on the amount in the account in a day. So you might not be generating much of an interest in those accounts if you don't have a substantial balance.",
"\"The type of savings account your are referring to is an \"\"Instant Access\"\" account which offers little or no interest in savings. To solve your problem I would suggest opening a higher interest Current Account, there are several on the market which offer equivalent rates of interest as an Instant Access account but still allow access via a debit card. Usually there are requirements for a regular salary transfer into the account or a minimum balance to qualify for interest. Banks that are well know for offering high interest Current Accounts include Nationwide, Santander, TSB and most of the build societies.\"",
"In this type of strategy profit is made when the shares go down as your main position is the short trade of the common stock. The convertible instruments will tend to move in about the same direction as the underlying (what it can be converted to) but less violently as they are traded less (lower volatility and lower volume in the market on both sides), however, they are not being used to make a profit so much as to hedge against the stock going up. Since both the bonds and the preference shares are higher on the list to be repaid if the company declares bankruptcy and the bonds pay out a fixed amount of interest as well, both also help protect against problems that may occur with a long position in the common stock. Essentially the plan with this strategy is to earn fixed income on the bonds whilst the stock price drops and then to sell both the bonds and buy the stock back on the market to cover the short position. If the prediction that the stock will fall is wrong then you are still earning fixed income on the debt and are able to convert it into stock at the higher price to cover the short sale eliminating, or reducing, the loss made on the short sale. Effectively the profit here is made on the spread between the price of the bond, accounting for the conversion price, and the price of the stock and that fixed income is less volatile (except usually in the junk market) than stock.",
"\"As you're saving up for an expenditure instead of investing for the long run, I would stay away from any sort of \"\"parking facility\"\" where you run the risk of not having the principal protected. The riskier investments that would potentially generate a bigger return also carry a bigger downside, ie you might not be able to get the money back that you put in. I'd shop around for a CD or a MMA/regular savings account with a half-decent interest rate. And yes, I'm aware that the return you might get is probably still less than inflation.\"",
"Ok, so A > B = $3, and A < B = $4.25, so A gets + $1.25 which they use towards their debt? Can you buy interest rate swaps from a brokerage? Can individuals enter into swaps, and bet rates will go higher?",
"You don't mention how much money you are talking about but one option is to use reward checking accounts that are FDIC/NCUA insured. They pay 3-4% interest but generally have a few requirements such as 10-12 debit card transactions and sometimes require direct deposit as well as a limit of 10-50k deposits earning the top rate.",
"\"In personal finance, most of your success is determined by personal habit rather than financial savvy. Getting in the habit of making regular deposits to your savings account will have a much larger effect on your situation than worrying about which account pays the highest interest rate (particularly as neither one of them matches the current inflation rate, which is over 3%). So go ahead and put your money in a savings account, but not because of the interest or safety, but because it's a \"\"savings\"\" account.\"",
"During my time in the UK I've never seen saving bonds or other term deposit accounts that were not denominated in GBP. The obvious downside of converting the money into GBP would be that you're adding currency risk to the whole scenario. If the EUR appreciates against the GBP, you'll have to make up for that too, just to keep your nominal capital intact.",
"No free lunch You cannot receive risk-free interest on more money than you actually put down. The construct you are proposing is called 'Carry Trade', and will yield you the interest-difference in exchange for assuming currency risk. Negative expectation In the long run one would expect the higher-yielding currency to devalue faster, at a rate that exactly negates the difference in interest. Net profit is therefore zero in the long run. Now factor in the premium that a (forex) broker charges, and now you may expect losses the size of which depends on the leverage chosen. If there was any way that this could reliably produce a profit even without friction (i.e. roll-over, transaction costs, spread), quants would have already arbitraged it away. Intransparancy Additionaly, in my experience true long-term roll-over costs in relation to interest are a lot harder to compute than, for example, the cost of a stock transaction. This makes the whole deal very intransparant. As to the idea of artificially constructing a USD/USD pair: I regret to tell you that such a construct is not possible. For further info, see this question on Carry Trade: Why does Currency Carry Trade work?",
"Unfortunately I do not have much experience with European banks. However, I do know of ways to earn interest on bank accounts. CDs (Certificates of Deposit) are a good way to earn interest. Its basically a savings account that you cannot touch for a fixed rate of time. You can set it from an average of 6 months to 12 months. You can pull the money out early if there is an emergency as well. I would also look into different types of bank accounts. If you go with an account other than a free one, the interest rate will be higher and as long as you have the minimum amount required you should not be charged. Hope I was able to help!",
"\"You should look at the opportunity cost for your money (i.e. what kind of return it could generate otherwise). We took advantage of these types of offer (zero interest for x months) in the past with the goal to redirect the money to the mortgage (it was 7.5% back then) and we made sure we don't get hosed by the surprisingly high interest rate by having a big reminder in the bulletin board in the kitchen to make sure we pay off the money before the interest rate kicks in. So we basically reduced our interest on the mortgage during that period. Oh - we use an all-in-one account (Manulife One) so that was real nice. I would stay away from those \"\"interest-deferred\"\" offers - it's totally not worth it.\"",
"Reversing your math, I am assuming you have $312K to work with. In that case, I would simply shop around your local banks and/or credit unions and have them compete for your money and you might be quite surprised how much they are willing to pay. A couple of months ago, you would be able to get about 4.25% from Israel Bonds in Canada on 5 years term (the Jubilee product, with minimum investment of $25K). It's a bit lower now, but you should still be able to get very good rates if you shop around tier-2 banks or credit unions (who are more hungry for capital than the well-funded tier-1 banks). Or you could look at preferred shares of a large corporation. They are different from common shares in the sense they are priced according to the payout rate (i.e. people buy it for the dividend). A quick screen from your favorite stock exchange ought to find you a few options. Another option is commercial bonds. You should be able to get that kind of return from investment grade (BBB- and higher) bonds on large corporations these days. I just did a quick glance at MarketWatch's Bond section (http://cxa.marketwatch.com/finra/BondCenter/Default.aspx) and found AAA grade bonds that will yield > 5%. You will need to investigate their underlying fundamentals, coupon rate and etc before investing (second thought, grab a introduction to bonds book from Chapters first). Hope these helps.",
"\"These good rates all tend to be \"\"on up to $X\"\" where X is some low'ish number that could require multiple accounts. They often also come with other strings, like set up automatic deposits/withdrawals, and use debit card at least 15 times per month. The two you mention have these flaws, whether or not it's worth it depends on if you are happy to meet those requirements and how big your emergency fund is. Personally, I'd rather get rewards on a credit card than use a debit card, and I don't want to open a bunch of accounts, so I have a boring savings account with a pretty low interest rate for my emergency fund. It's liquid, earns some interest, and I don't have to think about it.\"",
"\"Building on the excellent explanation by \"\"Miichael Kjörling\"\": Why would you rather \"\"term deposit\"\" your money in a bank and only earn interest of certain percentage but not not invest in stocks / real state and other opportunities where you will not only earn much higher dividends / profit but will have an opportunity for capital gains, multiple times like Apple's last 4 years(AAPL) ?? This is all down to risk / reward and risk taking. More risk = More profit opportunities / More Losses ( More Headache) Less risk(Govt BONDS) = Less profit / Less Losses (peace of mind)\"",
"Unless you have insider information (ILLEGAL!!!) don't go high risk over this time frame. It makes about as much sense as betting on the horses. Stick it in a 3 or 6 month GIC at the pathetic rates the banks are giving.",
"I do this, and as you say the biggest downside is not having a separate account for your savings. If you're the type of person who struggles with restraint this is not for you. On the other hand this type of account gives more interest than any other type of US Checking or Savings account I've seen, so you will benefit from the interest.",
"There are a number of UK banks that offer what passes for reasonable interest on an amount of cash held in their current accounts. I would suggest that you look into these. In the UK the first £1000 of bank or building society interest is paid tax-free for basic rate taxpayers (£500 for higher rate tax-payers) so if your interest income is below these levels then there is no point in investing in a cash ISA as the interest rate is often lower. At the moment Santander-123 bank account pays 1.5% on up to £20000 and Nationwide do 5% on up to £2500. A good source if information on the latest deals is Martin Lewis' Moneysaving Expert Website",
"I think the key thing is flexibility - the money is not tied in with the offset mortgage. If you find a better investment, you can always take some of it out and put it towards that instead. Once it matures, if there is nothing good to reinvest in, then it can go back into the offset mortgage. Once you have had money in the offset account, even if you take it out, you have already (irreversibly) saved money on your mortgage. Right now you would be pressed to find an instant access ISA with a rate higher than 1.5%, so if you need immediate access, then the offset account seems good. On the other hand, for retirement, you might be saving longer term, and then you can get an ISA rate of 3%, currently, which may be better for a part of the money (or perhaps the upcoming Lifetime ISA with 25% yearly bonus may make sense for part of the money), if you do not need easy access to all of it. As Dilip says, this assumes you want safe investments.",
"Banks in certain countries are offering such facility. However I am not aware of any Bank in Hungary offering this. So apart from maintaining a higher amount in HUF, there by reducing the costs [and taking the volatility risks]; there aren't many options.",
"As long as you can be trusted with a Credit Card i find that if you have a setup that uses three accounts: 1. your Credit Card, 2. 2. a high interest internet account (most of these accounts don’t have fees), 3. a savings account. The Method that works for me is: 1st i calculate my fixed monthly bills i.e Rent and utilities and then transfer it into my high interest account. for the month whenever i make a purchase i transfer the money into the high interest account ( this way I can keep a running balance of what money I have left to spend in the month. Then when the Credit Card bill comes I transfer the money out of the high interest account across to pay off the Credit Card ( this way you generate interest on the money which you would have spent throughout the month and still maintain $0 of interest from the Credit Card) over a year you can generate at least enough money in interest to go out for dinner on one of free flights!",
"To add on to Sharkbat, it's pretty much FX-forward arb free. Three choices: 1. Invest at US LIBOR 2. Convert to XYZ at spot, invest at XYZ LIBOR, convert back to USD from XYZ 1 year later. 3. Same as #2 but you had an 1 year FX forward (XYZ to USD) #1 and #3 should have the same effect otherwise there'd be arbitrage. FX rates/forwards are off LIBOR (typically). #2 is not risk-free as Sharkbat says - there's FX risk in the final XYZ->USD transaction.",
"\"You understood it pretty right. Every fiscal year (which runs from April 6 year Y to April 5 year Y+1), you can deposit a total GBP15k (this number is subject to an annual increase by HMRC) into your ISAs. You can open 2 new ISA every year but the amount deposited to those ISAs shall not excess GBP15k in total. From the 2016/17 tax year some ISAs now permit you to replace any funds you have withdrawn, without using up your allowance. It used to be that if you deposited GBP15K and then withdrew GBP5K, you could not pay in to that ISA again within that tax year as you had already used your full allowance. Under new Flexible ISA rules this would be allowed providing you replace the funds in the same ISA account and within the same tax year (strongly recommend that you check the small prints related to your account to make sure this is he case). Any gains and losses on the investments held in the ISA accounts are for you to take. i.e. If you make investment gains of GBP5K this does not reduces your allowance. You will still be able to deposit GBP15k (or whatever HMRC increases that number to) in the following year. You are also allowed to consolidate your ISAs. You can ask bank A to transfer the amount held into an ISA with bank held with bank B. This is usually done by filling a special form with the bank that will held the money post transactions. Again here be very careful. DO NOT withdraw the money to transfer it yourself as this would count against the GBP15K limit. Instead follow the procedures from the bank. Finally if you don't use your allowance for a given year, you cannot use it during the following year. i.e. if you don't deposit the GBP15K this year, then you cannot deposit GBP30K next year. NB: I used the word \"\"deposit\"\". It does not matter to HMRC if the money get invested or not. If you are in a rush on April 4th, just make sure the money is wired into the ISA account by the 5th. No need to rush and make bad investment decision. You can invest it later. Hope it helps\"",
"You have stumbled upon a classic trading strategy known as the carry trade. Theoretically you'd expect the exchange rate to move against you enough to make this a bad investment. In reality this doesn't happen (on average). There are even ETFs that automate the process for you (and get better transaction costs and lending/borrowing rates than you ever could): DBV and ICI.",
"The interest in your account is usually calculated based on the average monthly balance. What the bank will do is try to figure out how much money did you have on average over the month and give you interest on that amount. For example, if you had 10k on deposit and took it out half way through the month, you will still receive interest on about 5k, based on a monthly rate. What I would do is read in detail your agreement with the bank to figure out if your interest is based on an average annual balance and is paid at the end of the year or if it is based on a different measurement. Also, I would be very careful if this is a CD account, since they will have early withdrawal fees. Hope this helps.",
"There is nothing called free lunch. The 2% fee indirectly covers the cost of funds and in effect would be a personal loan. Further the repayment period would typically be 3 months and roughly would translate into 7-9% loan depending of repayment schedule etc. There is no harm in trying to get the fee waived, however one thing can lead to another and they may even go and do an credit inquiry etc, so be cautious."
] |
[
"\"HSBC, Hang Seng, and other HK banks had a series of special savings account offers when I lived in HK a few years ago. Some could be linked to the performance of your favorite stock or country's stock index. Interest rates were higher back then, around 6% one year. What they were effectively doing is taking the interest you would have earned and used it to place a bet on the stock or index in question. Technically, one way this can be done, for instance, is with call options and zero coupon bonds or notes. But there was nothing to strategize with once the account was set up, so the investor did not need to know how it worked behind the scenes... Looking at the deposit plus offering in particular, this one looks a little more dangerous than what I describe. See, now we are in an economy of low almost zero interest rates. So to boost the offered rate the bank is offering you an account where you guarantee the AUD/HKD rate for the bank in exchange for some extra interest. Effectively they sell AUD options (or want to cover their own AUD exposures) and you get some of that as extra interest. Problem is, if the AUD declines, then you lose money because the savings and interest will be converted to AUD at a contractual rate that you are agreeing to now when you take the deposit plus account. This risk of loss is also mentioned in the fine print. I wouldn't recommend this especially if the risks are not clear. If you read the fine print, you may determine you are better off with a multicurrency account, where you can change your HK$ into any currency you like and earn interest in that currency. None of these were \"\"leveraged\"\" forex accounts where you can bet on tiny fluctuations in currencies. Tiny being like 1% or 2% moves. Generally you should beware anything offering 50:1 or more leverage as a way to possibly lose all of your money quickly. Since you mentioned being a US citizen, you should learn about IRS form TD F 90-22.1 (which must be filed yearly if you have over $10,000 in foreign accounts) and google a little about the \"\"foreign account tax compliance act\"\", which shows a shift of the government towards more strict oversight of foreign accounts.\"",
"15-19% gains also includes 15-19% and greater losses. They may not be required to disclose that to you in Hong Kong. If it isn't a leveraged account then that isn't too bad. Hong Kong is a nice jurisdiction, The US Federal Government is the only person you don't hide your assets from - but they dont want anything - so just report the accounts as commanded and you'll be A-Okay.",
"\"HSBC Hong Kong's “Deposit Plus” Product\"\" the same as \"\"Dual Currency Product\"\" . it's Currency link Sell base Currency Call / Alternative Currency Put FX Option It's not protected by the Deposit Insurance System in HK You can search Key Word \"\"Dual Currency Product\"\" & \"\"Dual Currency Investment\"\" & \"\"Dual Currency Deposit\"\" The only one of the world's foreign exchange structured product book 『雙元貨幣產品 Dual Currency Product』 ISBN 9789574181506\""
] |
4844
|
How to read bond yield quotes? What do the time, coupon, price, yield, and time mean?
|
[
"275257",
"192193"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"275257",
"101580",
"301062",
"192193",
"152265",
"211308",
"395111",
"208934",
"446214",
"563092",
"111033",
"290562",
"156477",
"367137",
"87398",
"215189",
"189761",
"14061",
"272093",
"222924",
"466315",
"182249",
"501838",
"416513",
"144557",
"72237",
"581318",
"30324",
"127434",
"260676",
"403826",
"86636",
"415738",
"45468",
"139015",
"453480",
"135352",
"412682",
"519470",
"327556",
"423384",
"304153",
"256631",
"130695",
"573239",
"64130",
"37234",
"394702",
"86318",
"408610",
"312893",
"198732",
"198465",
"256950",
"289291",
"538278",
"466995",
"272318",
"523140",
"286226",
"379445",
"510839",
"316132",
"38586",
"166394",
"235522",
"462697",
"37959",
"550648",
"368848",
"237317",
"138213",
"574777",
"583913",
"23564",
"29073",
"34688",
"535697",
"83381",
"170752",
"411966",
"379615",
"304679",
"402112",
"137262",
"517279",
"474705",
"443689",
"534721",
"372657",
"518860",
"215486",
"517961",
"338150",
"591967",
"228668",
"493605",
"480318",
"574011",
"245117"
] |
[
"The 1 month and 1 year columns show the percentage change over that period. Coupon (coupon rate) is the amount of interest paid on the bond each period (as specified on the coupon itself. Price is the normalised price of the bond; the price of taking a position of $100 worth of the principal in the bond. Yield is the interest rate that you would receive by buying at that price (this is the inverse of the price). The time is the time of the quote presented.",
"\"The short of it is that bonds are valued based on a fundamental concept of finance called the \"\"time value of money\"\". Stated simply, $100 one year from now is not the same as $100 now. If you had $100 now, you could use it to make more money and have more than $100 in a year. Conversely, if you didn't invest it, the $100 would not buy as much in a year as it would now, and so it would lose real value. Therefore, for these two benefits to be worth the same, the money received a year from now must be more than $100, in the amount of what you could make with $100 if you had it now, or at least the rate of inflation. Or, the amount received now could be less than the amount recieved a year from now, such that if you invested this lesser amount you'd expect to have $100 in a year. The simplest bonds simply pay their face value at maturity, and are sold for less than their face value, the difference being the cost to borrow the cash; \"\"interest\"\". These are called \"\"zero-coupon bonds\"\" and they're around, if maybe uncommon. The price people will pay for these bonds is their \"\"present value\"\", and the difference between the present value and face value determines a \"\"yield\"\"; a rate of return, similar to the interest rate on a CD. Now, zero-coupon bonds are uncommon because they cost a lot. If I buy a zero-coupon bond, I'm basically tying up my money until maturity; I see nothing until the full bond is paid. As such, I would expect the bond issuer to sell me the bond at a rate that makes it worth my while to keep the money tied up. So basically, the bond issuer is paying me compound interest on the loan. The future value of an investment now at a given rate is given by FV = PV(1+r)t. To gain $1 million in new cash today, and pay a 5% yield over 10 years, a company or municipality would have to issue $1.629 million in bonds. You see the effects of the compounding there; the company is paying 5% a year on the principal each year, plus 5% of each 5% already accrued, adding up to an additional 12% of the principal owed as interest. Instead, bond issuers can offer a \"\"coupon bond\"\". A coupon bond has a coupon rate, which is a percentage of the face value of the bond that is paid periodically (often annually, sometimes semi-annually or even quarterly). A coupon rate helps a company in two ways. First, the calculation is very straightforward; if you need a million dollars and are willing to pay 5% over 10 years, then that's exactly how you issue the bonds; $1million worth with a 5% coupon rate and a maturity date 10 years out. A $100 5% coupon bond with a 10-year maturity, if sold at face value, would cost only $150 over its lifetime, making the total cost of capital only 50% of the principal instead of 62%. Now, that sounds like a bad deal; if the company's paying less, then you're getting less, right? Well yes, but you also get money sooner. Remember the fundamental principle here; money now is worth more than money later, because of what you can do with money between now and later. You do realize a lower overall yield from this investment, but you get returns from it quickly which you can turn around and reinvest to make more money. As such, you're usually willing to tolerate a lower rate of return, because of the faster turnaround and thus the higher present value. The \"\"Income Yield %\"\" from your table is also referred to as the \"\"Flat Yield\"\". It is a very crude measure, a simple function of the coupon rate, the current quote price and the face value (R/P * V). For the first bond in your list, the flat yield is (.04/114.63 * 100) = 3.4895%. This is a very simple measure that is roughly analogous to what you would expect to make on the bond if you held it for one year, collected the coupon payment, and then sold the bond for the same price; you'd earn one coupon payment at the end of that year and then recoup the principal. The actual present value calculation for a period of 1 year is PV = FV/(1+r), which rearranges to r = FV/PV - 1; plug in the values (present value 114.63, future value 118.63) and you get exactly the same result. This is crude and inaccurate because in one year, the bond will be a year closer to maturity and will return one less coupon payment; therefore at the same rate of return the present value of the remaining payout of the bond will only be $110.99 (which makes a lot of sense if you think about it; the bond will only pay out $112 if you bought it a year from now, so why would you pay $114 for it?). Another measure, not seen in the list, is the \"\"simple APY\"\". Quite simply, it is the yield that will be realized from all cash flows from the bond (all coupon payments plus the face value of the bond), as if all those cash flows happened at maturity. This is calculated using the future value formula: FV = PV (1+r/n)nt, where FV is the future value (the sum of the face value and all coupon payments to be made before maturity), PV is present value (the current purchase price), r is the annual rate (which we're solving for), n is the number of times interest accrues and/or is paid (for an annual coupon that's 1), and t is the number of years to maturity. For the first bond in the list, the simple APY is 0.2974%. This is the effective compound interest rate you would realize if you bought the bond and then took all the returns and stuffed them in a mattress until maturity. Since nobody does this with investment returns, it's not very useful, but it can be used to compare the yield on a zero-coupon bond to the yield on a coupon bond if you treated both the same way, or to compare a coupon bond to a CD or other compound-interest-bearing account that you planned to buy into and not touch for its lifetime. The Yield to Maturity, which IS seen, is the true yield percentage of the bond in time-valued terms, assuming you buy the bond now, hold it to maturity and all coupon payments are made on time and reinvested at a similar yield. This calculation is based on the simple APY, but takes into account the fact that most of the coupon payments will be made prior to maturity; the present value of these will be higher because they happen sooner. The YTM is calculated by summing the present values of all payments based on when they'll occur; so, you'll get one $4 payment a year from now, then another $4 in two years, then $4 in 3 years, and $104 at maturity. The present value of each of those payments is calculated by flipping around the future value formula: PV = FV/(1+r)t. The present value of the entire bond (its current price) is the sum of the present value of each payment: 114.63 = 4/(1+r) + 4/(1+r)2 + 4/(1+r)3 + 104/(1+r)4. You now have to solve for r, which is difficult to isolate; the easiest way to find the rate with a computer is to \"\"goal seek\"\" (intelligently guess and check). Based on the formula above, I calculated a YTM of .314% for the first bond if you bought on Sept 7, 2012 (and thus missed the upcoming coupon payment). Buying today, you'd also be entitled to about 5 weeks' worth of the coupon payment that is due on Sept 07 2012, which is close enough to the present day that the discounted value is a rounding error, putting the YTM of the bond right at .40%. This is the rate of return you'll get off of your investment if you are able to take all the returns from it, when you receive them, and reinvest them at a similar rate (similar to having a savings account at that rate, or being able to buy fractional shares of a mutual fund giving you that rate).\"",
"Yield is almost always the mean rate of return. Then 1.65% yield means that you will see that rate of return inclusive of any coupons. The way I like think of is that yield is the discount rate used to value the instrument at market value. DONT CONFUSE THE COUPON RATE WITH YIELD. Those are two completely separate things.",
"\"The first thing that it is important to note here is that the examples you have given are not individual bond prices. This is what is called the \"\"generic\"\" bond price data, in effect a idealised bond with the indicated maturity period. You can see individual bond prices on the UK Debt Management Office website. The meaning of the various attributes (price, yield, coupon) remains the same, but there may be no such bond to trade in the market. So let's take the example of an actual UK Gilt, say the \"\"4.25% Treasury Gilt 2019\"\". The UK Debt Management Office currently lists this bond as having a maturity date of 07-Mar-2019 and a price of GBP 116.27. This means that you will pay 116.27 to purchase a bond with a nominal value of GBP 100.00. Here, the \"\"nominal price\"\" is the price that HM Treasury will buy the bond back on the maturity date. Note that the title of the bond indicates a \"\"nominal\"\" yield of 4.25%. This is called the coupon, so here the coupon is 4.25%. In other words, the treasury will pay GBP 4.25 annually for each bond with a nominal value of GBP 100.00. Since you will now be paying a price of GBP 116.27 to purchase this bond in the market today, this means that you will be paying 116.27 to earn the nominal annual interest of 4.25. This equates to a 3.656% yield, where 3.656% = 4.25/116.27. It is very important to understand that the yield is not the whole story. In particular, since the bond has a nominal value of GBP100, this means that as the maturity date approaches the market price of the bond will approach the nominal price of 100. In this case, this means that you will witness a loss of capital over the period that you hold the bond. If you hold the bond until maturity, then you will lose GBP 16.27 for each nominal GBP100 bond you hold. When this capital loss is netted off the interest recieved, you get what is called the gross redemption yield. In this case, the gross redemption yield is given as approximately 0.75% per annum. NB. The data table you have included clearly has errors in the pricing of the 3 month, 6 month, and 12 month generics.\"",
"\"Like all financial investments, the value of a bond is the present value of expected future cash flows. The Yield to Maturity is the annualized return you get on your initial investment, which is equivalent to the discount rate you'd use to discount future cash flows. So if you discount all future cashflows at 6% annually*, you can calculate the price of the bond: So the price of a $1,000 bond (which is how bond prices are typically quoted) would be $1,097.12. The current yield is just the current coupon payment divided by the current price, which is 70/1,097.12 or 6.38% Question 3 makes no sense, since the yield to maturity would be the same if you bought the bond at market price Question 4 talks about a \"\"sale\"\" date which makes me think that it assumes you sold the bond on the coupon date, but you'd have to know the sale price to calculate the rate of return.\"",
"Say you buy a bond that currently costs $950, and matures in one year, at $1000 face value. It has one coupon ($50 interest payment) left. The coupon, $50, is 50/950 or 5.26%, but you get the face value, $1000, for an additional $50 return. This is why the yield to maturity is higher than current yield. If the maturity were in two years, the coupons still provide 5.26%, and the extra 1000/950 is another 5.26% over 2 years, or (approx) 2.6%/yr compounded, for a total YTM of 7.86%. This is a back-of envelope calculation, the real way to calculate is with a finance calculator. Entering PV (present value) FV (future value) PMT (coupon payment(s)) and N (number of periods). With no calculator or spreadsheet, my estimate will be pretty close.",
"The 10yr bond pays coupons semi annually. The yield % is what you would get annually if you hold the bond to full term. The coupon payment won't be exactly 1.65%/2 because of how bond pricing and yields work. The yield commonly quoted does not tell you how much each interest payment is. You have to look at the price and coupon of a specific individual bond. The rate you see is the market equilibrium yield at the present. Example, I offer two different people two different bonds. Joe buys a 10yr bond paying 5% coupons semi annually at a par value of $1000. I charge him $1000. Bob wants to buy a 10yr bond paying 10% coupons semi annually at a par value of $1000. I charge him $1500 for this. The yield is similar between the two (not equal due to math details but lets assume). So at the end of 10 yrs, the two have roughly the same total amount of $. Bob's paid more each year but he paid more up front. This is why the federal govt can issue bonds with diff coupons and the market prices them so the yield rises/falls to the market clearing yield.",
"Unless stated otherwise, these terms apply to all bonds. The par value or face value of a bond refers to the value of the bond when it's redeemed at maturity. A bond with a par value of $10,000 simply means that if you purchase the bond and hold it until the maturity date specified in the contract, you receive $10,000. The purchase price, however, is exactly that: it's what you paid for the bond. Bonds may sell below, at, or above par. Continuing the example from above, if you paid $9,800 for a bought a bond with a $10,000 par value, you bought the bond below par. A bond selling below par is said to be selling at a discount. For bonds selling above bar, they're selling at a premium. If the purchase price and the par value are the same, the bond is selling at par. These terms apply to callable bonds only, which are bond contracts that allow the issuer of the bond (in the case of municipal bonds, the institution or agency who created the contract) to buy back from bond holders at a given date (the call date) and at a given price (the call price) before the bond reaches maturity and pays the holder the full par value. Yes, the coupon rate is essentially the interest paid. It's usually represented as a percent of the par value, so if the $10,000 in the example above had a 5% coupon rate, this means that it paid out 0.05 * 10,000 = $500 each year. Usually, this payment is made as two semi-annual payments of $250. Some bonds are zero-coupon bonds, which means exactly what you would think; they don't make any coupon payments. U.S. Treasury Bills are one example of a zero-coupon bond. All of these factors are linked, because the coupon rate, callable provisions, and par value, along with the overall economic environment, can affect the purchase price of a bond.",
"\"What is a bond price? A bond is an asset, and like any tradeable asset it has a price. If I hold $10K face value of a certain GM bond, then I would be willing to sell it at some price, which may be more or less than $10K. Whoever is willing to sell it for the lowest amount determines the price. The price is determined by the market, just as all prices are. It's what you can sell a bond for. Bond prices may be quoted in various funny ways, like as a discount or premium relative to the face value or as a premium over a treasury, but at the end it all should be converted to how much you have to pay today. In this case, it's how much you would pay today to get a set of future coupon and principal payments. What is Yield to Maturity? A bond is a contract entitling you to a certain set of predefined cash flows. If you take that set of cash flows and discount them using a single rate at all maturities such that the discounted value is equal to the price, the single rate you have identified is the YTM. Mathematically, this is the same as finding the IRR (internal rate of return) of some set of cash flows. In this case the cash flows are the coupons and principal repayment. Other bond concepts. Note that the other aspects of a bond, like maturity, coupon rate, and face value, are immutably written into the bond contract. All they do is define what payments the bond entitles the owner to. They don't say how much someone would pay today in order to be entitled to those payments. One can't know how much a future payment is worth without discounting. If you know the appropriate discount rate at every relevant maturity, you could calculate the fair price of a bond. That's the other direction. YTM looks at the market price and associated cash flows and imputes what single discount rate would make that price fair. What is YTM good for? Recall what I said about IRR above. Why would anyone want to know what discount rate equates the cash flows of a project to its cost? Because it's an easy way to summarize how profitable the project is expected to be. YTM is a quick way to summarize the yield one would get on a bond if they were to buy it today and hold to maturity. If one bond has a higher YTM than another, than heuristically we believe it pays out more and should be associated with greater risk if the market is working properly. It can be used to compare bonds or to look at how changes in bond prices are affecting expected yields. Ask yourself, how would you compare two different bonds with different maturities and coupon rates? Which one is riskier or more profitable? The simplest way to summarize this information is with the yield to maturity. YTM is used frequently enough that when you just say a bond's \"\"yield,\"\" people will assume you are talking about its yield to maturity. What is YTM not good for? One thing to be wary of is using YTM as a discount rate. It looks like a discount rate but it works for that bond and that bond only. In reality each individual coupon payment has a true discount rate, and the discount rate at each horizon is different from each other horizon. Those are true discount rates that can be applied to any cash flow of similar risk to get the right price. We can think of YTM as some kind of average of those discount rates that produces the correct price for that bond only. You should never use it for discounting something else.\"",
"\"Since you want to know exactly what \"\"yield\"\" means, let's get all the details of the security down first. Treasury Bills are 0-1 year and do not pay interest/coupons. The yield comes from buying the T-Bill at a discount. For example, you buy a T-Bill for $99 and it pays $100 when it matures, and the yield over that holding period is 1/99. When people talk about \"\"yield\"\" they are generally talking about annualized yield unless stated otherwise. Treasury Notes are 2-10 years. They pay interest semi-annually. Treasury Bonds are 20-30 years and they also pay interest semi-annually. Again, \"\"yield\"\" is typically the annualized yield, or the two semi-annual interest payments added together (without compounding). These have interest payments so they are typically sold at par. They may trade a premium/discount afterwards. TIPS pay a constant coupon rate, but the principal is adjusted up and down with inflation.\"",
"\"Bonds are valued based on all of this, using the concept of the \"\"time value of money\"\". Simply stated, money now is worth more than money later, because of what you can do with money between now and later. Case in point: let's say the par value of a bond is $100, and will mature 10 years from this date (these are common terms for most bonds, though the U.S. Treasury has a variety of bonds with varying par values and maturation periods), with a 0% coupon rate (nothing's paid out prior to maturity). If the company or government issuing the bonds needs one million dollars, and the people buying the bonds are expecting a 5% rate of return on their investment, then each bond would only sell for about $62, and the bond issuer would have to sell a par value of $1.62 million in bonds to get its $1m now. These numbers are based on equations that calculate the \"\"future value\"\" of an investment made now, and conversely the \"\"present value\"\" of a future return. Back to that time value of money concept, money now (that you're paying to buy the bond) is worth more than money later (that you'll get back at maturity), so you will expect to be returned more than you invested to account for this time difference. The percentage of rate of return is known as the \"\"yield\"\" or the \"\"discount rate\"\" depending on what you're calculating, what else you take into consideration when defining the rate (like inflation), and whom you talk to. Now, that $1.62m in par value may be hard for the bond issuer to swallow. The issuer is effectively paying interest on interest over the lifetime of the bond. Instead, many issuers choose to issue \"\"coupon bonds\"\", which have a \"\"coupon rate\"\" determining the amount of a \"\"coupon payment\"\". This can be equated pretty closely with you making interest-only payments on a credit card balance; each period in which interest is compounded, you pay the amount of interest that has accrued, to avoid this compounding effect. From an accounting standpoint, the coupon rate lowers the amount of real monies paid; the same $1m in bonds, maturing in 10 years with a 5% expected rate of return, but with a 5% coupon rate, now only requires payments totalling $1.5m, and that half-million in interest is paid $50k at a time annually (or $25k semi-annually). But, from a finance standpoint, because the payments made in the first few years are worth more than the payments made closer to and at maturity, the present value of all these coupon payments (plus the maturity payout) is higher than if the full payout happened at maturity, and so the future value of the total investment is higher. Coupon rates on bonds thus allow a bond issuer to plan a bond package in less complicated terms. If you as a small business need $1m for a project, which you will repay in 10 years, and during that time you are willing to tolerate a 5% interest rate on the outstanding money, then that's exactly how you issue the bonds; $1 million worth, to mature in 10 years and a 5% coupon rate. Now, whether the market is willing to accept that rate is up to the market. Right now, they'd be over the moon with that rate, and would be willing to buy the bonds for more than their face value, because the present value would then match the yield they're willing to accept (as in any market system, you as the seller will sell to the highest bidder to get the best price available). If however, they think you are a bad bet, they'll want an even higher rate of return, and so the present value of all coupon and maturity payments will be less than the par value, and so will the purchase price.\"",
"Edited to incorporate the comments elsewhere of @Atkins Assuming, (apparently incorrectly) that duration is time to maturity: First, note that the question does not mention the coupon rate, the size of the regular payments that the bond holder will get each year. So let's calculate that. Consider the cash flow described. You pay out 1015 at the start of Year #1, to buy the bond. At the end of Years #1 to #5, you receive a coupon payment of X. Also at the end of Year #5, you receive the face value of the bond, 1000. And you are told that the pay out equals the money received, using a time value of money of 4.69% So, if we use the date of maturity of the bond as our valuation date, we have the equation: Maturity + Future Value of coupons = Future value of Bond Purchase price 1000 + X *( (1 + .0469)^5-1)/0.0469 = 1015 * 1.0469^5 Solving this for X, we obtain 50.33; the coupon rate is 5.033%. You will receive 50.33 at the end of each of the five years. Now, we can take this fixed schedule of payments, and apply the new yield rate to the same formula above; only now, the unknown is the price paid for the bond, Y. 1000 + 50.33 * ((1 + 0.0487)^5 - 1) / .0487 = Y * 1.0487^5 Solving this equation for Y, we obtain: Y = 1007.08",
"This is pretty basic question, but my head is confused :( If you buy a $1000 bond with 5% interest rate, so it would be $1050 at maturity what does it mean? * you will be paid the interest in coupons (paid in coupons until it totals $50) and at maturity paid $1000 (in one large single payment) * you get paid the full value in coupons ($1050 split by multiple coupons) Any other explanations of how a bond works are welcome, most of the stuff I could find was about what yield is, not how the bond actually works.",
"Imagine that the existing interest rate is 5%. So on a bond with face value of 100, you would be getting a $5 coupon implying a 5% yield. Now, if let's say the interest rates go up to 10%, then a new bond issued with a face value of 100 will give you a coupon of $10 implying a 10% yield. If someone in the bond market buys your bond after interest price adjustment, in order to make the 10% yield (which means that an investor typically targets at least the risk-free rate on his investments) he needs to buy your bond at $50 so that a $5 coupon can give a 10% yield. The reverse happens when interest rates go down. I hope this somewhat clears the picture. Yield = Coupon/Investment Amount Update: Since the interest rate of the bond does not change after its issuance, the arbitrage in the interest rate is reflected in the market price of the bond. This helps in bringing back the yields of old bonds in-line with the freshly issued bonds.",
"I am currently trying out some variations (moving terms around ...) of the formula for the present value of money The relationship between yield and price is much simpler than that. If you pay £1015 for a bond and its current yield is 4.69%, that means you will receive in income each year: 4.69% * £1015 = £47.60 The income from the bond is defined by its coupon rate and its face value, not the market value. So that bond will continue to pay £47.60 each year, regardless of the market price. The market price will go up or down according to the market as a whole, and the credit rating of the issuer. If the issuer is likely to default, the market price goes down and the yield goes up. If similar companies start offering bonds with higher yields, the market price goes down to make the bond competitive in the market, again raising yield. So if the yield goes up to 4.87%, what is the price such that 4.87% of that price is £47.60? £47.60 / 4.87% = £977.48 Another way to think of it: if the yield goes up from 4.69% to 4.87%, then yield has increased by a factor of: 4.87% / 4.69% = 1.0384 Consequently, market price must decrease by the same factor: £1015 / 1.0384 = £977.48",
"\"All of the other answers here are accurate, but (I think) are missing the point as to the question, which rests on how Bonds work in the first place. The bond specifies a payback AMOUNT and DATE. Let's say it is $10,000 and one year from today. If you buy that today for $9900, your yield will be 1%. If you buy it today for $11,000, your yield will be less than 0% (please don't make me do the math - it's just under negative 1%). You might be willing to pay that 1% (rather than receive 1%) for the certainty that you will definitely get your money back. The combined actions of all the people who may be willing to pay a little more or a little less for the safety of a US Treasury Bond is what people call \"\"the Market.\"\" Market forces (generally, investor confidence) will drive the price up and down, which affects the yield. All the other stuff - coupons and inflation and whatnot - all of that only makes sense if you understand that you aren't buying a rate of return, you are buying a payback amount and date.\"",
"Imagine a $1,000 face value bond paying 10% interest semi-annually. That means every 6 months there is $50 being paid. Now, if the price of that bond doubled to $2,000, what is the yield? It is still paying $50 every 6 months but now sports a 5% yield as the price went up a great deal. Similarly, if the price of the bond was cut in half to $500, now it is yielding 20% because it is still paying out the $50 every 6 months. The dollar figure is fixed. What percentage of the price it is can vary and that is why there is the inverse relationship between prices and yields. Note that the length of the bond isn't mentioned here where while usually longer bonds will have higher yields, there can be inverted yield curves as well as calls on some bonds. Also, inflation-indexed and convertible bonds could have different calculations used as principal adjustments or possible conversion to stock can change a perception on the overall return.",
"From InvestingAnswers, the price of a bond is equal to the present value of its future cash flows, as shown in the following formula: Where: By induction, this is equivalent to: or, using more familiar formulae, it is equivalent to the formula for the present value of an ordinary annuity to represent the coupon payments, plus a term for the discounted value at maturity: For example, a 10 year semiannual bond with coupon payment 10%, priced at 1095 with maturity value 1000. Solving for r yields 0.0428332 or 4.28% semi-annually. (8.75% per annum) The solution can be found by plotting or using a solver, which many pocket calculators have. Plot of p as a function of r, intersecting with p = 1095 when r = 0.0428 Checking on Investopedia",
"\"Yes, the \"\"effective\"\" and \"\"market\"\" rates are interchangeable. The present value formula will help make it possible to determine the effective interest rate. Since the bond's par value, duration, and par interest rate is known, the coupon payment can be extracted. Now, knowing the price the bond sold in the market, the duration, and the coupon payment, the effective market interest rate can be extracted. This involves solving large polynomials. A less accurate way of determining the interest rate is using a yield shorthand. To extract the market interest rate with good precision and acceptable accuracy, the annual coupon derived can be divided by the market price of the bond.\"",
"If the market rate and coupon were equal, the bond would be valued at face value, by definition. (Not 100% true, but this is an exercise, and that would be tangent to this discussion). Since the market rate is higher than the coupon rate, the value I am willing to pay drops a bit, so my return is the same as the market rate. This can be done by hand, a time value of money calculation for each payment. Discount by the years till received at the market rate to get the present value for each payment, and sum up the numbers. The other way is to use a finance calculator and solve for rate. The final payment of $10,000 (ignore final coupon just now) is $10,000/(1.1^5). In other words, that single chunk of cash is worth 10% less if it's one year away, (1.1)^2 if 2 years away, etc. Draw a timetable with each payment and divide by 1.1 for each year it's away from present. If the 9% coupon is really 4.5% twice a year, it's $450 in 6 month intervals, and each 6 mo interval is really 5% you discount. Short durations like this can be done by hand, a 30 year bond with twice a year payments is a pain. Welcome to Money.SE.",
"Why does the rising price of a bond pushes it's yield down? The bond price and its yield are linked; if one goes up, the other must go down. This is because the cash flows from the bond are fixed, predetermined. The market price of the bond fluctuates. Now what if people are suddenly willing to pay more for the same fixed payments? It must mean that the return, i.e. the yield, will be lower. Here we see that risk associated with the bonds in question has skyrocketed, and thus bonds' returns has skyrocketed, too. Am I right? The default risk has increased, yes. Now, I assume that bonds' price is determined by the market (issued by a state, traded at the market). Is that correct? Correct, as long as you are talking about the market price. Then who determines bonds' yields? I mean, isn't it fixed? Or - in the FT quote above - they are talking about the yields for the new bonds issued that particular month? The yield is not fixed - the cash flows are. Yield is the internal rate of return. See my answer above to your first question.",
"No, the interest payments you receive do not change. To help avoid confusion, it is better to call those payments the coupons of the bond. Each treasury note or bond is issued with a certain coupon that remains fixed throughout its whole life. However, as the general level of bank interest rates change maybe because the FED is moving its deposit rate for banks, the value of the treasury bond will change. At maturity it will always be worth its face value, but at any time before that its price will depend on the general level of interest rates in the country. Because of the way a bond is structured, it is usually possible to convert the bond's price into a yield, which is usually a percentage like 3% or sometwhere near the current level of general interest rates. But don't be confused, this yield is just an alternative way of stating the current price of the treasury bond, and it changes as the prices of the bond changes. It is not the coupon that is changing, but the yield.",
"Yield can be thought of as the interest rate you would receive from that investment in the form of a dividend for stocks or interest payments on a bond. The yield takes into account the anticipated amount to be received per share/unit per year and the current price of the investment. Of course, the yield is not a guaranteed return like a savings account. If the investment yield is 4% when you buy, it can drop in value such that you actually lose money during your hold period, despite receiving income from the dividend or interest payments.",
"Yield is the term used to describe how much income the bond will generate if the bond was purchased at a particular moment in time. If I pay $100 for a one year, $100 par value bond that pays 5% interest then the bond yields 5% since I will receive $5 from a $100 investment if I held the bond to maturity. If I pay $90 for the same one year bond then the bond yields 17% since I will receive $15 from a $90 investment if I held the bond to maturity. There are many factors that affect what yield creditors will accept: It is the last bullet that ultimately determines yield. The other factors feed into the creditor’s desire to hold money today versus receiving money in the future. I desire money in my hand more than a promise to receive money in the future. In order to entice me to lend my money someone must offer me an incentive. Thus, they must offer me more money in the future in order for me to part with money I have. A yield curve is a snapshot of the yields for different loan durations. The x-axis is the amount of time left on the bond while the y-axis is the yield. The most cited yield curve is the US treasury curve which displays the yields for loans to the US government. The yield curve changes while bonds are being traded thus it is always a snapshot of a particular moment in time. Short term loans typically have less yield than longer term loans since there is less uncertainty about the near future. Yield curves will flatten or slightly invert when creditors desire to keep their money instead of loaning it out. This can occur because of a sudden disruption in the market that causes uncertainty about the future which leads to an increase in the demand for cash on hand. The US government yield curve should be looked at with some reservation however since there is a very large creditor to the US government that has the ability to loan the government an unlimited amount of funds.",
"Okay let's try this a different way. Completely forget about what the bond is with. Here is how a bond works: * You get paid interest for holding the bond (5% interest means a coupon of $50 assuming one coupon a year) * At the end of the bond term (maturity) you get paid $1000. In your scenario, you get paid the $50 as an interest payment and the $1000 final payment. If you only had the bond for one year, your total payment will be $1050. Try drawing a timeline to visualise it a bit better",
"No that is your implicit return if you hold it to maturity per year. That yield is quoted per annum. You will receive semi-annual payments base on the coupon of whatever off the run 10yr you buy. If your coupon is 2% then you will receive $10 bi-yearly. Mind you, buying a 10 year in this environment will yield a negative real return, meaning after inflation over 10 years you will have your entire principal back, but inflation adjusted it will have less purchasing power than today, meaning there isn't enough yield to make the purchase worth it. Also about your upward slope question, yes the 30 will yield more than the 2,5,7,10. This is because longer time means more risk. Will in the future the USA be perceived as near riskless? There is also interest rate risk, and liquidity risk.",
"The idea is correct; the details are a little off. You need to apply it to the actual cash flow the bond would create. The best advice I can give you is to draw a time-line diagram. Then you would see that you receive £35 in 6 months, £35 in 12 months, £35 in 18 months, and £1035 in 24 months. Use the method you've presented in your question and the interest rate you've calculated, 3% per 6 months, to discount each payment the specified amount, and you're done. PS: If there were more coupons, say a 20 year quarterly bond, it would speed things up to use the Present Value of an Annuity formula to discount all the coupons in one step...",
"\"The time value of money is very important in understanding this issue. Money today is worth more than money next year, two years from now, etc. It's a well understood economics concept, and well worth reading about if you have some, well, time. Not only is money literally worth more now than later due to inflation, but there is the simple fact that, assuming you have money for the purpose of doing something, being able to do that thing today is better than doing that same thing tomorrow. \"\"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush\"\" gets to this rather directly; having it now is better than probably having it later. Would you rather have a nice meal tonight, or eat beans and rice tonight and then have the same nice meal next year? That's why interest exists, in part: you're offered some money now, for more money later; or in the case of buying a bond, you're offered more money later for some money now. The fact that people have different discount rates for money later is why the loan market can exist: people with more money than they can use now have a lower discount for future money than people who really need money right now (to buy a house, to pay their rent, whatever). So when choosing to buy a bond, you look at the money you're going to get, both over the short term (the coupon rate) and the long term (the face value), and you consider whether $80 now is worth $100 in 20 years, plus $2 per year. For some people it is - for some people it isn't, and that's why the price is as it is ($80). Odds are if you have a few thousand USD, you're probably not going to be interested in this - or if you have a very long term outlook; there are better ways to make money over that long term. But, if you're a bank needing a secure investment that won't lose value, or a trust that needs high stability, you might be willing to take that deal.\"",
"You’ve really got three or four questions going here… and it’s clear that a gap in understanding one component of how bonds work (pricing) is having a ripple effect across the other facets of your question. The reality is that everybody’s answers so far touch on various pieces of your general question, but maybe I can help by integrating. So, let’s start by nailing down what your actual questions are: 1. Why do mortgage rates (tend to) increase when the published treasury bond rate increases? I’m going to come back to this, because it requires a lot of building blocks. 2. What’s the math behind a bond yield increasing (price falling?) This gets complicated, fast. Especially when you start talking about selling the bond in the middle of its time period. Many people that trade in bonds use financial calculators, Excel, or pre-calculated tables to simplify or even just approximate the value of a bond. But here’s a simple example that shows the math. Let’s say we’ve got a bond that is issued by… Dell for $10,000. The company will pay it back in 5 years, and it is offering an 8% rate. Interest payments will only be paid annually. Remember that the amount Dell has promised to pay in interest is fixed for the life of the bond, and is called the ‘coupon’ rate. We can think about the way the payouts will be paid in the following table: As I’m sure you know, the value of a bond (its yield) comes from two sources: the interest payments, and the return of the principal. But, if you as an investor paid $14,000 for this bond, you would usually be wrong. You need to ‘discount’ those amounts to take into account the ‘time value of money’. This is why when you are dealing in bonds it is important to know the ‘coupon rate’ (what is Dell paying each period?). But it is also important to know your sellers’/buyers’ own personal discount rates. This will vary from person to person and institution to institution, but it is what actually sets the PRICE you would buy this bond for. There are three general cases for the discount rate (or the MARKET rate). First, where the market rate == the coupon rate. This is known as “par” in bond parlance. Second, where the market rate < the coupon rate. This is known as “premium” in bond parlance. Third, where the market rate > coupon rate. This is known as a ‘discount’ bond. But before we get into those in too much depth, how does discounting work? The idea behind discounting is that you need to account for the idea that a dollar today is not worth the same as a dollar tomorrow. (It’s usually worth ‘more’ tomorrow.) You discount a lump sum, like the return of the principal, differently than you do a series of equal cash flows, like the stream of $800 interest payments. The formula for discounting a lump sum is: Present Value=Future Value* (1/(1+interest rate))^((# of periods)) The formula for discounting a stream of equal payments is: Present Value=(Single Payment)* (〖1-(1+i)〗^((-n))/i) (i = interest rate and n = number of periods) **cite investopedia So let’s look at how this would look in pricing the pretend Dell bond as a par bond. First, we discount the return of the $10,000 principal as (10,000 * (1 / 1.08)^5). That equals $6,807.82. Next we discount the 5 equal payments of $800 as (800* (3.9902)). I just plugged and chugged but you can do that yourself. That equals $3,192.18. You may get slightly different numbers with rounding. So you add the two together, and it says that you would be willing to pay ($6,807.82 + $3,192.18) = $10,000. Surprise! When the bond is a par bond you’re basically being compensated for the time value of money with the interest payments. You purchase the bond at the ‘face value’, which is the principal that will be returned at the end. If you worked through the math for a 6% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, you would see that it’s “premium”, because you would pay more than the principal that is returned to obtain the bond [10,842.87 vs 10,000]. Similarly, if you work through the math for a 10% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, it’s a ‘discount’ bond because you will pay less than the principal that is returned for the bond [9,241.84 vs 10,000]. It’s easy to see how an investor could hold our imaginary Dell bond for one year, collect the first interest payment, and then sell the bond on to another investor. The mechanics of the calculations are the same, except that one less interest payment is available, and the principal will be returned one year sooner… so N=4 in both formulae. Still with me? Now that we’re on the same page about how a bond is priced, we can talk about “Yield To Maturity”, which is at the heart of your main question. Bond “yields” like the ones you can access on CNBC or Yahoo!Finance or wherever you may be looking are actually taking the reverse approach to this. In these cases the prices are ‘fixed’ in that the sellers have listed the bonds for sale, and specified the price. Since the coupon values are fixed already by whatever organization issued the bond, the rate of return can be imputed from those values. To do that, you just do a bit of algebra and swap “present value” and “future value” in our two equations. Let’s say that Dell has gone private, had an awesome year, and figured out how to make robot unicorns that do wonderful things for all mankind. You decide that now would be a great time to sell your bond after holding it for one year… and collecting that $800 interest payment. You think you’d like to sell it for $10,500. (Since the principal return is fixed (+10,000); the number of periods is fixed (4); and the interest payments are fixed ($800); but you’ve changed the price... something else has to adjust and that is the discount rate.) It’s kind of tricky to actually use those equations to solve for this by hand… you end up with two equations… one unknown, and set them equal. So, the easiest way to solve for this rate is actually in Excel, using the function =RATE(NPER, PMT, PV, FV). NPER = 4, PMT = 800, PV=-10500, and FV=10000. Hint to make sure that you catch the minus sign in front of the present value… buyer pays now for the positive return of 10,000 in the future. That shows 6.54% as the effective discount rate (or rate of return) for the investor. That is the same thing as the yield to maturity. It specifies the return that a bond investor would see if he or she purchased the bond today and held it to maturity. 3. What factors (in terms of supply and demand) drive changes in the bond market? I hope it’s clear now how the tradeoff works between yields going UP when prices go DOWN, and vice versa. It happens because the COUPON rate, the number of periods, and the return of principal for a bond are fixed. So when someone sells a bond in the middle of its term, the only things that can change are the price and corresponding yield/discount rate. Other commenters… including you… have touched on some of the reasons why the prices go up and down. Generally speaking, it’s because of the basics of supply and demand… higher level of bonds for sale to be purchased by same level of demand will mean prices go down. But it’s not ‘just because interest rates are going up and down’. It has a lot more to do with the expectations for 1) risk, 2) return and 3) future inflation. Sometimes it is action by the Fed, as Joe Taxpayer has pointed out. If they sell a lot of bonds, then the basics of higher supply for a set level of demand imply that the prices should go down. Prices going down on a bond imply that yields will go up. (I really hope that’s clear by now). This is a common monetary lever that the government uses to ‘remove money’ from the system, in that they receive payments from an investor up front when the investor buys the bond from the Fed, and then the Fed gradually return that cash back into the system over time. Sometimes it is due to uncertainty about the future. If investors at large believe that inflation is coming, then bonds become a less attractive investment, as the dollars received for future payments will be less valuable. This could lead to a sell-off in the bond markets, because investors want to cash out their bonds and transfer that capital to something that will preserve their value under inflation. Here again an increase in supply of bonds for sale will lead to decreased prices and higher yields. At the end of the day it is really hard to predict exactly which direction bond markets will be moving, and more importantly WHY. If you figure it out, move to New York or Chicago or London and work as a trader in the bond markets. You’ll make a killing, and if you’d like I will be glad to drive your cars for you. 4. How does the availability of money supply for banks drive changes in other lending rates? When any investment organization forms, it builds its portfolio to try to deliver a set return at the lowest risk possible. As a corollary to that, it tries to deliver the maximum return possible for a given level of risk. When we’re talking about a bank, DumbCoder’s answer is dead on. Banks have various options to choose from, and a 10-year T-bond is broadly seen as one of the least risky investments. Thus, it is a benchmark for other investments. 5. So… now, why do mortgage rates tend to increase when the published treasury bond yield rate increases? The traditional, residential 30-year mortgage is VERY similar to a bond investment. There is a long-term investment horizon, with fixed cash payments over the term of the note. But the principal is returned incrementally during the life of the loan. So, since mortgages are ‘more risky’ than the 10-year treasury bond, they will carry a certain premium that is tied to how much more risky an individual is as a borrower than the US government. And here it is… no one actually directly changes the interest rate on 10-year treasuries. Not even the Fed. The Fed sets a price constraint that it will sell bonds at during its periodic auctions. Buyers bid for those, and the resulting prices imply the yield rate. If the yield rate for current 10-year bonds increases, then banks take it as a sign that everyone in the investment community sees some sign of increased risk in the future. This might be from inflation. This might be from uncertain economic performance. But whatever it is, they operate with some rule of thumb that their 30-year mortgage rate for excellent credit borrowers will be the 10-year plus 1.5% or something. And they publish their rates.",
"\"What exactly is \"\"Call Protection\"\"? Is \"\"NO\"\" normal for a CD? A \"\"callable\"\" cd (or one without protection can be revoked before maturity by the issuer. For example, if interest rates drop they might recall the CD since they can borrow money at a lower rate. A callable CD should offer a better return in exchange for this. Is \"\"first coupon date\"\" the first time it actually pays interest? Yes. Given that the first coupon date is in 6 months, and it's semiannual, is it fair to assume that this pays every six months? Yes Given that the maturity date is 9/29/2025, this is really a 15-year CD, right? It depends. CDs can be resold on the market. So it is AT LEAST a 15 year CD. It could also be a 20 year CD originally issued in 2005. What does \"\"Price (Ask)\"\" mean? It says 100 - does that mean you buy in chunks of $100? Yes. More accurately, they are $100 per CD. What is \"\"Yield to Worst (Ask)\"\"? Is this the worst yield that this CD will return? The lowest potential yield that can be received on a bond without the issuer actually defaulting. 3.25% is the best yield I've seen from something as stable as a CD. Would it be silly, though, to lock money up in an investment like this for 15 years? There is no way to really say without a crystal ball. If you aren't willing to accept more risk and think that interest rates will remain at these historic lows for a long while, then it is probably a good deal. If you think interest rates are due to go up substantially, then it is probably smarter to ladder your investments in shorter term CDs. In investment circles this is known as \"\"Interest Rate Risk\"\"\"",
"For bonds bought at par (the face value of the bond, like buying a CD for $1000) the payment it makes is the same as yield. You pay $1000 and get say, $40 per year or 4%. If you buy it for more or less than that $1000, say $900, there's some math (not for me, I use a finance calculator) to tell you your return taking the growth to maturity into account, i.e. the extra $100 you get when you get the full $1000 back. Obviously, for bonds, you care about whether the comp[any or municipality will pay you back at all, and then you care about how much you'll make when then do. In that order. For stocks, the picture is abit different as some companies give no dividend but reinvest all profits, think Berkshire Hathaway. On the other hand, many people believe that the dividend is important, and choose to buy stocks that start with a nice yield, a $30 stock with a $1/yr dividend is 3.3% yield. Sounds like not much, but over time you expect the company to grow, increase in value and increase its dividend. 10 years hence you may have a $40 stock and the dividend has risen to $1.33. Now it's 4.4% of the original investment, and you sit on that gain as well.",
"**Using your Time Value of Money functions on your calculator** N = 3x2 = 6 PV = -914 PMT = (.16 x 1000)/2 = 80 FV = 1000 Compute I/Y Or **Step by step calculations** 1) Compute the PV of **(FV of Bond)**1000 in **(3x2)**6 periods at **(16%/2)**8% with no payments 2) Compute the PV of an Annuity of **(.16/2x1000)**$80 payments over **(3x2)**6 periods with an interest rate of **(16%/2)**8% and 0 Future Value 3) Combine the values from Steps 1 and 2",
"In this case the market interest rate is the discount rate that sets equal the market price (current value) of the bond to its present value. To find the market interest rate which is also referred to as promised yield YTM you would have solve for the interest rate in the bond price formula A market price of bond is the sum of discounted coupons and the terminal value of the bond. Most spreadsheet programs and calculators have a RATE function that makes possible finding this market interest rate. First see this for finding a coupon paying bond price The coupon payments are discounted so is the par value of the bond and sum of such discounts is the market price of the bond. The TVM functions in Excel and calculators make this possible using the following equation Let us take your data, 9% $100,000 coupon with 5 years remaining to maturity with market interest rate of 10%. Bonds issued in the US mostly pay two coupons per year. Thus we are finding the present value of 10 coupons each worth $4500 and par value of $100,000. The semi-annual market interest rate is 10%/2 or 5% The negative sign indicate money going out of hand Now solving for RATE is only possible using numerical methods and the RATE function is programmed using Newton-Raphson method to find one of the roots of the bond price equation. This rate will be the periodic rate in this case semi-annual rate which you have to multiply by 2 to get the annual rate. Do remember there is a difference between annual nominal rate and an annualized effective rate. To find the market interest rate If you don't have Excel or a financial calculator then you may opt to use my version of these financial functions in this JavaScript library tadJS",
"A bond fund has a 5% yield. You can take 1/.05 and think of it as a 20 P/E. I wouldn't, because no one else does, really. An individual bond has a coupon yield, and a YTM, yield to maturity. A bond fund or ETF usually won't have a maturity, only a yield.",
"The spot curve (or yield curve) demonstrates the different yields at which bonds of differing maturities are being purchased. When the yield curve is upward sloping, longer maturity bonds are being purchased at higher yields. When it's downward sloping, longer maturity bonds are purchased at lower yields. Keep in mind that yield is inversely related to price, so that a high-yield bond will be at a lower price and vice versa. The spot curve can also be used to determine the forward curve. This is based on the concept that an investor, given two options with identical cash flows, will be indifferent in what to purchase (i.e. their prices should be equal). To learn more about this, stay here in /r/finance. To learn anything about your actual question, try /r/personalfinance.",
"\"When we calculate the realized yield of a bond, we assume the coupons are invested at an interest rate. I assume it is some kind of vehicle that guarantees a return, thinking it is government bond, savings account or something. Investing in a benchmark bond index might be risky though for this \"\"interest rate\"\".\"",
"But it also can't be 1.46%, because that would imply that a 30Y US Treasury bond only yields 2.78%, which is nonsensically low. The rates are displayed as of Today. As the footnote suggests these are to be read with Maturities. A Treasury with 1 year Maturity is at 1.162% and a Treasury with 30Y Maturity is at 2.78%. Generally Bonds with longer maturity terms give better yields than bonds of shorter duration. This indicates the belief that in long term the outlook is positive.",
"\"1.65% is the annualized interest rate. If it is pail semi-annually, you'd get 8.23 every 6 months. And yes, if the YC is upward sloping, it means that 30 years t-bills pay higher interest. Thats a premium they pay for having your money locked in for a long time. It makes sense if you consider that they'd pay you that rate (say 2%) for the next 30 years. If for some reason interest rates in 25 years from now are like 15-20% (like they were 25 years ago) and inflation around the same rate, you'd still only be making 2%, on top of bleeding purchasing power of your initial investment. That's why long-term bonds require a premium. That being said, sometimes you get an \"\"inverted yield curve\"\", where yield's fall with the longer maturities. Look that up.\"",
"Is your question academic curiosity or are you thinking of buying bonds? Be aware that bond interest rates are near all-time lows, and if interest rates were to rise, the prices of bonds could fall. Those buying bonds today are taking unusually large risk of capital loss.",
"\"You are asking multiple questions here, pieces of which may have been addressed in other questions. A bond (I'm using US Government bonds in this example, and making the 'zero risk of default' assumption) will be priced based on today's interest rate. This is true whether it's a 10% bond with 10 years left (say rates were 10% on the 30 yr bond 20 years ago) a 2% bond with 10 years, or a new 3% 10 year bond. The rate I use above is the 'coupon' rate, i.e. the amount the bond will pay each year in interest. What's the same for each bond is called the \"\"Yield to Maturity.\"\" The price adjusts, by the market, so the return over the next ten years is the same. A bond fund simply contains a mix of bonds, but in aggregate, has a yield as well as a duration, the time-and-interest-weighted maturity. When rates rise, the bond fund will drop in value based on this factor (duration). Does this begin to answer your question?\"",
"It won't be worth $1050 at maturity. You are not accounting for tym. So to see the 'worth: of a bond you will need it's yield (5%) and the current market rate of a similar bond. Then just use the bond valuation formula to solve (on mobilw so can't explain further/better) sorry",
"I wrote one to check against the N3 to N6 bonds: http://capitalmind.in/2011/03/sbi-bond-yield-calculator/ Things to note:",
"Negative coupons are not the same as a negative yield. A $1000 bond that you purchase, at a premium, for $2100 that produces 10 annual coupons of $100 and a redemption of $1000 has a real, positive coupon ($100). The holder of the bond gets this coupon, and the maturity value However, you get back less than your initial investment. There is no growth; the original investment shrinks, or has a negative growth rate. Most mortgage or bond calculators choke on this situation...",
"Since you are trying to compare corporate bonds that have a defined coupon over the specified time of the bond. Why not use a simple Net Present Value (NPV) calculation. Refer: Net Present Value (NPV) You could use the discounting factor as the current repo rate of your central bank. As I said, this would be a simple fast measure (not considering risk rating of the bonds, inflation and other considerations). Take a notional 1000 as invetment in each instrument and calculate the NPV, higher it is better the investment. Another method, in terms of percentage return would be Internal rate of Return (IRR). Though the calcualtionis a bit more complicated, it would give you a percentage figure. Note, the above 2 measures are used when the cashflow over the time period is known. It will not work for instruments where the cashflow/value over different time are not known. Like stocks.",
"The SEC 30-Day Yield you're seeing is a standardized yield calculation set out by the Securities & Exchange Commission. It can be useful for comparing bond funds, but it doesn't guarantee what you'll actually earn from a fund. IMPORTANT: The SEC 30-day yield represents a bond fund's returns from the previous 30 days expressed as an annual percentage of the current fund price — yes, an annual percentage. In other words, don't expect 1.81% return on your money every 30 days! Such a return is too-good-to-be-true return in today's low rate environment. 1.81% per year? More reasonable. Even then, the 1.81% you see is merely an estimate, one based on assumptions, of what you might expect to earn if you keep your money in place for the next year. The estimate is based on the assumptions that: These aren't reliable assumptions. BIV's price does fluctuate. You are not promised to get your principal back with a bond fund. Only an individual bond promises your principal back, and only at maturity. So, earning $181 on $10,000 invested for a full year while taking on interest-rate and other risks might not be worth the trouble of putting your money in a brokerage account. You'll need to transfer the money in and out, and there are potential trading fees to take into account. (How much to buy/sell units?) An FDIC-insured high interest savings account makes more sense.",
"\"Even though the article doesn't actually use the word \"\"discount\"\", I think the corresponding word you are looking for is \"\"premium\"\". The words are used quite frequently even outside of the context of negative rates. In general, bonds are issued with coupons close to the prevailing level of interest rates, i.e. their price is close to par (100 dollar price). Suppose yields go up the next day, then the price moves inversely to yields, and that bond will now trade at a \"\"discount to par\"\" (less than 100 dollar price). And vice versa, if yields went down, prices go up, and the bond is now at a \"\"premium to par\"\" (greater than 100 dollar price)\"",
"Usually the market. I'm a company issuing a 5-year bond with 5% coupon payments. It goes on the market to whoever is willing to pay the most for it. The prices that those investors pay implies what the required yield is. For instance, if they're willing to pay exactly face value for the bond, then that shows they have a required return of (in this case) 5%. Paying more or less for the bond implies a require rate less than or greater than 5%, with the exact amounts derivable with basic algebra. The same principle can be applied to any other asset.",
"Duration is the weighted average time until all the cash flows of a fixed income security are received. There are a few different measures of duration but generally, duration measures the sensitivity of the price of a fixed income asset to a change in the yield of that asset. If you're familiar with calculus, duration is the first derivative of price with respect to yield. Convexity is the sensitivity of the duration of bond with respect to changes in yield, or the second derivative. The first chart [here](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/convexity.asp#axzz1x4F075zM) will help. Convexity measures the curvature of the blue or pink line, the steeper the curve the higher the convexity. The more cash flows there are in a bond (higher or more frequent coupon) the lower the duration, because you are receiving more of your investment earlier as opposed to later (think time value of money). If a bond has one cash flow, meaning you get paid back only at maturity (zero coupon) then any changes in interest rates will have a greater impact on the price of the bond since you are discounting only one cash flow in the future. Think of buying a bond with no coupons and a 5% yield that matures in 5 years, or a bond with similar yield and maturity buy pays a coupon. If interest rates rise, the zero coupon bond's price will fall more than the bond with coupons. Why? Because if you own the zero coupon bond you have to wait 5 years to get your money back and reinvest it at the higher rate, while if you have the bond that pays coupons you can reinvest those incremental cash flows at the higher rate, even though at purchase they had the same yield and maturity. These are both tough concepts that took me a fair amount of time to really understand. If you're investing in bonds or any fixed income asset, these topics are crucial to understanding interest rate risk.",
"\"The CBOE states, in an investor's guide to Interest Rate Options: The Options’ Underlying Values Underlying values for the option contracts are 10 times the underlying Treasury yields (rates)— 13-week T-bill yield (for IRX), 5-year T-note yield (for FVX), 10-year T-note yield (for TNX) and 30-year T-bond yield (for TYX). The Yahoo! rate listed is the actual Treasury yield; the Google Finance and CBOE rates reflect the 10 times value. I don't think there's a specific advantage to \"\"being contrary\"\", more likely it's a mistake, or just different.\"",
"\"Google is a poor example since it doesn't pay a dividend (and doesn't expect to), so let's use another example with easy numbers. Company X has a stock price of $100, and it pays a quarterly dividend (many companies do). Let's assume X pays a dividend of $4. Dividends are always quoted in annual terms, as is dividend yield. When a company says that they pay \"\"quarterly dividends,\"\" it means that the company pays dividends every quarter, or every 3 months. BUT, if a company has a $4 dividend, you will not receive $4 every quarter per share. You will receive $4/4 = $1 per share, every quarter. So over the course of a fiscal year, or 4 quarters, you'll get $1 + $1 + $1 + $1 = $4 per share, which is the annual dividend. The dividend yield = annual dividend/stock price. So in this case, company X's div. yield will be $4/$100 * 100 = 4%. It's important to note that this is the annual yield. To get the quarterly yield, you must divide by 4. It's also important to note that the yield fluctuates based on stock price, but the dividend payment stays constant unless the company states an announcement. For a real world example, consider Intel Corp. (TICKER: INTC) http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=INTC The share price is currently $22.05, and the dividend is $0.84. This makes the annual yield = $0.84/$22.05 * 100 = 3.80%. Intel pays a quarterly dividend, so you can expect to receive $0.21 every quarter for every share of Intel that you own. Hope that clears it up!\"",
"With the formula you are using you assume that the issued bond (bond A) is a perpetual. Given the provided information, you can't really do more than this, it's only an approximation. The difference could be explained by the repayment of the principal (which is not the case with a perpetual). I guess the author has calculated the bond value with principal repayment. You can get more insight in the calculation from the excel provided at this website: http://breakingdownfinance.com/finance-topics/bond-valuation/fixed-rate-bond-valuation/",
"\"A (very) simplified bond-pricing equation goes thus: Fair_Price: {Face_Value * (1 + Interest - Expected_Market_Return) ^ (Years_To_Maturity)} * P(Company_Will_Default_Before_Maturity) To reiterate, that is a very simplified model. But it allows us to demonstrate the 3 key factors that drive \"\"Fair\"\" Value: The interest relative to the current market rate. If your AAA bond yields 1%, but an equally-good AAA bond currently sells at 3% in the market, then the \"\"Equivalent\"\" value is the face value minus 2% (1% - 3%) for every year to maturity. Years to maturity. Because 1) is multiplied for every year to maturity, longer-dated bonds are more sensitive to changes in market rates. If your bond yields 2% less than market but matures in a year, then it's worth $98, but if it matures in 56 years, then it's only worth 0.98^56 = $32. Conversely, if your bond yields more than the market rate, then its' price will be greater than face value. The company might default on the debt. If a Bond has a \"\"Fair\"\" Value of $100, but you think there's a 50% chance that the company will default, then it's only worth $50. In fact, it can be worth even less because getting paid on a defaulted bond can often take time and/or money and/or lawyers. In your case, because your bond matures in 56 years but yields ~5% (well above the current market rate), for it to be below Face value implies a strong probability of default, or a strong belief that market returns will be above 5% over the next 56 years.\"",
"The duration of a bond tells you the sensitivity of its price to its yield. There are various ways of defining it (see here for example), and it would have been preferable to have a more precise statement of the type of duration we should assume in answering this question. However, my best guess (given that the duration is stated without units) is that this is a modified duration. This is defined as the percentage decrease in the bond price for a 1% increase in the yield. So, change in price = -price x duration (as %) x change in yield (in %) For your duration of 5, this means that the bond price decreases by a relative 5% for every 1% absolute increase in its yield. Using the actual yield change in your question, 0.18%, we find: change in price = -1015 x 5% x (4.87 - 4.69) = -9.135 So the new price will be 1015 - 9.135 = £1005.865",
"Bonds have multiple points of risk: This is part of the time value of money chapter in any finance course. Disclaimer - Duff's answer popped up as I was still doing the bond calculations. Similar to mine but less nerdy.",
"\"The name of the Gilt states the redemption date, but not the original issue date. A gilt with 8.75% yield and close to its redemption date may have been issued at a time when interest rates were indeed close to 8.75%. For example in the early 1990s, the UK inflation rate was about 8%. One reason for preferring high or low coupon gilts is the trade off between capital gains and income, and the different taxation rules for each. If you buy a gilt and hold it to its maturity date, you know in advance the exact price that it will be redeemed for (i.e. £100). You may prefer to take a high level of income now, knowing you will make a capital loss in future (which might offset some other predictable capital gain for tax purposes) or you may prefer not to take income that you don't need right now, and instead get a guaranteed capital gain in future (for example, when you plan to retire from work). Also, you can use the change in the market value of gilts as a gamble or a hedge against your expectation of interest rate changes in future, with the \"\"government guaranteed\"\" fallback position that if your predictions are wrong, you know exactly what return you will get if you hold the gilts to maturity. The same idea applies to other bond investments - but without the government guarantee, of course.\"",
"\"A title such as \"\"5% Treasury Gilt 2020\"\" expresses the nominal yield. In other words, 5% is the yield you will receive if you are able to buy the Gilt at the nominal (issue) price of GBP100. Of course, you will not be able to buy such a Gilt in today's market for the nominal price of GBP100. It will be trading at a considerable premium and therefore, if you hold it until maturity you will realise a capital loss to offset the relatively high income you have received. Here is an example. The \"\"8% June 2021 Gilt\"\" has a coupon of 8%. To purchase a GBP100 nominal Gilt in today's market will cost you GBP135.89. Thus, you will pay 135.89 to receive GBP8.00 income annually. This represents a 5.88% yield (8/135.89 = 5.88%). That sounds pretty good. However, if you hold the Gilt until maturity you will only receive GBP100 on redemption and therefore you will experience a capital loss GBP35.89 on each Gilt purchased. When this capital loss is taken into account it means that the 5.88% yield you are receiving as income will be offset by the capital loss so that you have earned the equivalent of 0.757% annually. You can of course sell the Gilt before its 2021 maturity date, however as the maturity date gets closer the market price will get closer to the GBP100 nominal value and you will again face a capital loss. There's no free ride in the markets. 5 year Gilts currently have a redemption yield of about 0.75%, while 10 year Gilts currently have a redemption yield of about 1.15%. You may also wish to note that buying Gilts in the open market requires a minimum purchase of GBP10,000 nominal value. However, you can purchase small Gilt holdings through the post office.\"",
"What you have to remember is you are buying a piece of the company. Think of it in terms of buying a business. Just like a business, you need to decide how long you are willing to wait to get paid back for your investment. Imagine you were trying to sell your lemonade stand. This year your earnings will be $100, next year will be $110, the year after that $120 and so on. Would you be willing to sell it for $100?",
"Those are the expected yields; they are not guaranteed. This was actually the bread and butter of Graham Newman, mispriced bonds. Graham's writings in the Buffett recommended edition of Securities Analysis are invaluable to bond valuation. The highest yielder now is a private subsidiary of Société Générale. A lack of financial statements availability and the fact that this is the US derivatives markets subsidiary are probably the cause of the higher rates. The cost is about a million USD to buy them. The rest will be similar cases, but Graham's approach could find a diamond; however, bonds are big ticket items, so one should expect to pay many hundreds of thousands of USD per trade.",
"G spread - you have a 5.5 year bond, you take your yield minus the yield on the 5.5y point (interpolated) of the benchmark sovereign curve. Think of G = Government. I Spread - same as G Spread but you use the relevant Swap Curve. E.g. USD bond, compare against the USD Swaps curve. I = interpolated. Z Spread - stands for zero volatility curve spread. You strip the swaps curve to get zero rates (i.e. Zero coupon rates for each tenor), then find the constant spread on top of each part of the curve's zero rates to arrive at your bond's yield. In G and I Spread, you're basically discounting the bond's cash flows using one rate (i.e. The interpolated yield on the curve). With Z Spread, you're discounting using the entire portion of the curve that's relevant to your bond's maturity.",
"Risk is reduced but isn't zero The default risk is still there, the issuer can go bankrupt, and you can still loose all or some of your money if restructuring happens. If the bond has a callable option, the issuer can retire them if conditions are favourable for the issuer, you can still loose some of your investment. Callable schedule should be in the bond issuer's prospectus while issuing the bond. If the issuer is in a different country, that brings along a lot of headaches of recovering your money if something goes bad i.e. forex rates can go up and down. YTM, when the bond was bought was greater than risk free rate(govt deposit rates) Has to be greater than the risk free rate, because of the extra risk you are taking. Reinvestment risk is less because of the short term involved(I am assuming 2-3 years at max), but you should also look at the coupon rate of your bond, if it isn't a zero-coupon bond, and how you invest that. would it be ideal to hold the bond till maturity irrespective of price change It always depends on the current conditions. You cannot be sure that everything is fine, so it pays to be vigilant. Check the health of the issuer, any adverse circumstances, and the overall economy as a whole. As you intend to hold till maturity you should be more concerned about the serviceability of the bond by the issuer on maturity and till then.",
"\"The fundamental concept of the time value of money is that money now is worth more than the same amount of money later, because of what you can do with money between now and later. If I gave you a choice between $1000 right now and $1000 in six months, if you had any sense whatsoever you would ask for the money now. That's because, in the six months, you could use the thousand dollars in ways that would improve your net worth between now and six months from now; paying down debt, making investments in your home or business, saving for retirement by investing in interest-bearing instruments like stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc. There's absolutely no advantage and every disadvantage to waiting 6 months to receive the same amount of money that you could get now. However, if I gave you a choice between $1000 now and $1100 in six months, that might be a harder question; you will get more money later, so the question becomes, how much can you improve your net worth in six months given $1000 now? If it's more than $100, you still want the money now, but if nothing you can do will make more than $100, or if there is a high element of risk to what you can do that will make $100 that might in fact cause you to lose money, then you might take the increased, guaranteed money later. There are two fundamental formulas used to calculate the time value of money; the \"\"future value\"\" and the \"\"present value\"\" formulas. They're basically the same formula, rearranged to solve for different values. The future value formula answers the question, \"\"how much money will I have if I invest a certain amount now, at a given rate of return, for a specified time\"\"?. The formula is FV = PV * (1+R)N, where FV is the future value (how much you'll have later), PV is the present value (how much you'll have now), R is the periodic rate of return (the percentage that your money will grow in each unit period of time, say a month or a year), and N is the number of unit periods of time in the overall time span. Now, you asked what \"\"compounding\"\" is. The theory is very simple; if you put an amount of money (the \"\"principal\"\") into an investment that pays you a rate of return (interest), and don't touch the account (in effect reinvesting the interest you earn in the account back into the same account), then after the first period during which interest is calculated and paid, you'll earn interest on not just the original principal, but the amount of interest already earned. This allows your future value to grow faster than if you were paid \"\"simple interest\"\", where interest is only ever paid on the principal (for instance, if you withdrew the amount of interest you earned each time it was paid). That's accounted for in the future value formula using the exponent term; if you're earning 8% a year on your investment, then after 1 year you'll have 108% of your original investment, then after two years you'll have 1.082 = 116.64% (instead of just 116% which you'd get with simple interest). That .64% advantage to compounding doesn't sound like much of an advantage, but stay tuned; after ten years you'll have 215.89% (instead of 180%) of your original investment, after 20 you'll have 466.10% (instead of 260%) and after 30 your money will have grown by over 1000% as opposed to a measly 340% you'd get with simple interest. The present value formula is based on the same fundamental formula, but it's \"\"solved\"\" for the PV term and assumes you'll know the FV amount. The present value formula answers questions like \"\"how much money would I have to invest now in order to have X dollars at a specific future time?\"\". That formula is PV = FV / (1+R)N where all the terms mean the same thing, except that R in this form is typically called the \"\"discount rate\"\", because its purpose here is to lower (discount) a future amount of money to show what it's worth to you now. Now, the discount rate (or yield rate) used in these calculations isn't always the actual yield rate that the investment promises or has been shown to have over time. Investors will calculate the discount rate for a stock or other investment based on the risks they see in the company's financial numbers or in the market as a whole. The models used by professional investors to quantify risk are rather complex (the people who come up with them for the big investment banks are called \"\"quants\"\", and the typical quant graduates with an advanced math degree and is hired out of college with a six-figure salary), but it's typically enough for the average investor to understand that there is an inherent risk in any investment, and the longer the time period, the higher the chance that something bad will happen that reduces the return on your investment. This is why the 30-year Treasury note carries a higher interest rate than the 10-year T-note, which carries higher interest than the 6-month, 1-year and 5-year T-bills. In most cases, you as an individual investor (or even an institutional investor like a hedge fund manager for an investment bank) cannot control the rate of return on an investment. The actual yield is determined by the market as a whole, in the form of people buying and selling the investments at a price that, coupled with the investment's payouts, determines the yield. The risk/return numbers are instead used to make a \"\"buy/don't buy\"\" decision on a particular investment. If the amount of risk you foresee in an investment would require you to be earning 10% to justify it, but in fact the investment only pays 6%, then don't buy it. If however, you'd be willing to accept 4% on the same investment given your perceived level of risk, then you should buy.\"",
"\"Just to confirm, you don't pay interest when holding a bond, the issuer of the bond pays you interest. The idea of calculating \"\"present value\"\" is as you suggest. You discount future payments using an appropriate rate. These future payments include both the coupon payments you receive through the life of the bond and the principal repayment at the maturity of the bond - each should be discounted from the due date of the payment to today's date. A typical rate to use would be the interest you yourself could earn by investing elsewhere (this gives you some idea of how much it would cost to get those payments another way), or perhaps some standard rate, for example the interbank rates such as LIBOR or FEDFUNDS.\"",
"\"Of course it can. This is a time value of money calculation. If I knew the maturity date, or current yield to maturity I'd be able to calculate the other number and advise how much rates need to rise to cause the value to drop from 18 to 17. For a 10 year bond, a rise today of .1% will cause the bond to drop about 1% in value. This is a back of napkin calculation, finance calculators offer precision. edit - when I calculate present value with 34 years to go, and 5.832% yield to maturity, I get $14.55. At 5.932, the value drops to $14.09, a drop of 3.1%. Edit - Geo asked me to show calculations. Here it goes - A) The simplest way to calculate present value for a zero coupon bond is to take the rate 5.832%, convert it to 1.05832 and divide into the face value, $100. I offer this as the \"\"four function calculator\"\" approach, so one enters $100 divided by 1.05832 and repeat for the number of years left. A bit of precision is lost if there's a fractional year involved, but it's close. The bid/ask will be wider than this error introduced. B) Next - If you've never read my open declaration of love for my Texas Instruments BA-35 calculator, here it is, again. One enters N=34 (for the years) FV = 100, Rate = 5.832, and then CPT PV. It will give the result, $14.56. C) Here is how to do it in Excel - The numbers in lines 1-3 are self evident, the equation in cell B4 is =-PV(B3/100,B1,0,B2) - please note there are tiny differences in the way to calculate in excel vs a calculator. Excel wants the rate to be .05832, so I divided by 100 in the equation cell. That's the best 3 ways I know to calculate present value. Geo, if you've not noticed, the time value of money is near and dear to me. It comes into play for bonds, mortgages, and many aspect of investing. The equations get more complex if there are payments each year, but both the BA-35 and excel are up to it.\"",
"What you want is the distribution yield, which is 2.65. You can see the yield on FT as well, which is listed as 2.64. The difference between the 2 values is likely to be due to different dates of updates. http://funds.ft.com/uk/Tearsheet/Summary?s=CORP:LSE:USD",
"\"The answer to almost all questions of this type is to draw a diagram. This will show you in graphical fashion the timing of all payments out and payments received. Then, if all these payments are brought to the same date and set equal to each other (using the desired rate of return), the equation to be solved is generated. In this case, taking the start of the bond's life as the point of reference, the various amounts are: Pay out = X Received = a series of 15 annual payments of $70, the first coming in 1 year. This can be brought to the reference date using the formula for the present value of an ordinary annuity. PLUS Received = A single payment of $1000, made 15 years in the future. This can be brought to the reference date using the simple interest formula. Set the pay-out equal to the present value of the payments received and solve for X I am unaware of the difference, if any, between \"\"current rate\"\" and \"\"rate to maturity\"\" Finding the rate for such a series of payments would start out the same as above, but solving the resulting equation for the interest rate would be a daunting task...\"",
"\"It is important to distinguish between cause and effect as well as the supply (saving) versus demand (borrowing) side of money to understand the relationship between interest rates, bond yields, and inflation. What is mean by \"\"interest rates\"\" is usually based on the officially published rates determined by the central bank and is referenced to the overnight lending rate for meeting reserve requirements. In practice, what the means is, (for example) in the United States the Federal Reserve will have periodic meetings to determine whether to leave this rate alone or to raise or lower the rate. The new rate is generally determined by their assessment of current and forecast national and global economic conditions and factors in the votes of the various Regional Federal Reserve Presidents. If the Fed anticipates economic weakness they will tend to lower and keep rates lower, while when the economy seems to be overheated the tendency will be to raise rates. Bond yields are also based on the expectation of future economic conditions, but as determined by market participants. At times the market will actually \"\"lead\"\" the Fed in bidding bond prices up or down, while at other times it will react after the Fed does. However, ignoring the varying time lag the two generally will track each other because they are really the same thing. The only difference is the participants which are collectively determining what the rates/yields are. The inverse relationship between interest rates and inflation is the main reason for fluctuating rates in the first place. The Fed will tend to raise rates to try to slow inflation, and lower rates when it feels inflation is too low and economic growth should be stimulated. Likewise, when the economy is doing poorly there is both little inflationary pressure (driving interest rates down both in terms of what savers can accept to keep ahead of inflation and at) and depressed levels of borrowing (reduced demand for money, driving down rates to try to balance supply and demand), and the opposite is true when the economy is booming. Bond yields are thus positively correlated to inflation because during periods of high inflation savers won't want to invest in bonds that don't provide them with an acceptable inflation adjusted yield. But high interest rates tend to have the effect or reining in inflation because it gets more costly for borrowers and thus puts a damper on new economic activity. So to summarize,\"",
"\"that would imply that a 30Y US Treasury bond only yields 2.78%, which is nonsensically low. Those are annualized yields. It would be more precise to say that \"\"a 30Y US Treasury bond yields 2.78% per year (annualized) over 30 years\"\", but that terminology is implied in bond markets. So if you invest $1,000 in a 30-year T-bond, you will earn roughly 2.78% in interest per year. Also note that yield is calculated as if it compounded, meaning that investing in a 30-year T-bind will give you a return that is equivalent to putting it in a savings account that earns 1.39% interest (half of 2.78%) every 6 months and compounds, meaning you earn interest on top of interest. The trade-off for these low yields is you have virtually no default risk. Unlike a company that could go bankrupt and not pay back the bond, the US Government is virtually certain to pay off these bonds because it can print or borrow more money to pay off the debts. In addition, bonds in general (and especially treasuries) have very low market risk, meaning that their value fluctuates much less that equities, even indicies. S&P 500 indices may move anywhere between -40% and 50% in any given year, while T-bonds' range of movement is much lower, between -10% and 30% historically).\"",
"FINRA lets you view recent trades, but as stated in the other answer bonds are illiquid and often do not trade frequently. Therefore recent trades prices are only a rough estimate of the current price that would be accepted. http://finra-markets.morningstar.com/BondCenter/Default.jsp",
"Mortgage rates tend to track the yield on the 10-year Treasury note. The CBOE Interest Rate 10-Year T-Note, TNX, is a security directly related to this rate. Divide the CBOE price of TNX by 10 to get the yield. One can also track the 10Y T-Note yield at yahoo finance using ticker symbol (^TNX). One can also track the 10Y T-Note yield at yahoo finance using ticker symbol (^TNX).",
"What you're referring to is the yield. The issue with these sorts of calculations is that the dividend isn't guaranteed until it's declared. It may have paid the quarterly dividend like clockwork for the last decade, that does not guarantee it will pay this quarter. Regarding question number 2. Yield is generally an after the fact calculation. Dividends are paid out of current or retained earnings. If the company becomes hot and the stock price doubles, but earnings are relatively similar, the dividend will not be doubled to maintain the prior yield; the yield will instead be halved because the dividend per share was made more expensive to attain due to the increased share price. As for the calculation, obviously your yield will likely vary from the yield published on services like Google and Yahoo finance. The variation is strictly based on the price you paid for the share. Dividend per share is a declared amount. Assuming a $10 share paying a quarterly dividend of $0.25 your yield is: Now figure that you paid $8.75 for the share. Now the way dividends are allocated to shareholders depends on dates published when the dividend is declared. The day you purchase the share, the day your transaction clears etc are all vital to being paid a particular dividend. Here's a link to the SEC with related information: https://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm I suppose it goes without saying but, historical dividend payments should not be your sole evaluation criteria. Personally, I would be extremely wary of a company paying a 40% dividend ($1 quarterly dividend on a $10 stock), it's very possible that in your example bar corp is a more sound investment. Additionally, this has really nothing to do with P/E (price/earnings) ratios.",
"A large number of bond holders decide to sell their bonds. If they all decide to do this at the same time then there will be a large supply of bonds being sold in the market. This will drive down the price of the bonds which will increase yields. Why do bond yields move inversely to bond prices? You purchase a $100 bond today that yields 5%. You spent $100. The very next day the same bonds are being sold with a yield of 10%. If you wanted to sell your bond to someone you would have to sell it so it competed with the new bonds being sold. You could not sell it for $100 which is what you paid for it. You would have to sell it for less than the $100 you paid for it in order for it to have the equivalent yield of the new bonds being sold with a 10% yield. This is why bond yields move inversely to bond prices. Why does rising yields increase the cost of borrowing? If someone is trying to sell new bonds they will have to sell bonds that compete with the yields of the current bonds already in the market. If yields are rising on the existing bonds then the issuer of the new bonds will have to pay higher interest rates to offer equivalent yields on the new bonds. The issuer is now paying more in interest making it more expensive to borrow money. What are the incentives for the bond vigilante to sell his/her bonds? One reason a bond holder will sell his/her bonds is they believe inflation will outpace the yield on the bond they are holding. If a bond yields 3% and inflation is at 5% then the bond holder is essentially losing purchasing power if they continue to hold onto the bond. Another reason to sell would be if the bond holder has doubts in the ability of the issuer to repay the interest and/or principal of the bond.",
"\"The real question is what does FT mean by \"\"Eurozone Bond\"\". There is no central European government to issue bonds. What they seem to be quoting is the rate for German Bunds. Germany has a strong economy with a manageable debt load, which means it is a safe Euro denominated investment. Bunds are in high demand across the Eurozone, which drives their price up, and their yield down. Greek 10yr bonds, which are Euro denominated, are yielding over 8%.\"",
"Here is one from a Bloomberg partnership, it is free. To get the end of day prices, you may need some programming done. PM me if you need help with that. Getting bond quotes and general information about a bond issue is considerably more difficult than researching a stock or a mutual fund. A major reason for this is that there is not a lot of individual investor demand for the information; therefore, most bond information is available only through higher level tools that are not accessible to the average investor. Read more: Where can I get bond market quotes? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/bondquote.asp#ixzz3wXVwv3s5",
"\"Month to date For the month to date (MTD), the price on Feb 28th is $4.58 and the price on March 16th is $4.61 so the return is which can be written more simply as The position is 1000 shares valued at $4580 on Feb 28th, so the profit on the month to date is Calendar year to date For the calendar year to date (YTD), the price on Dec 31st is $4.60 and the price on Feb 28th is $4.58 so the return to Feb 28th is The return from Feb 28th to March 16th is 0.655022 % so the year to date return is or more directly So the 2011 YTD profit on 1000 shares valued at $4600 on Dec 31st is Year to date starting Dec 10th For the year to date starting Dec 10th, the starting value is and the value on Dec 31st is 1000 * $4.60 = $4600 so the return is $4600 / $4510 - 1 = 0.0199557 = 1.99557 % The year to date profit is therefore Note - YTD is often understood to mean calendar year to date. To cover all the bases state both, ie \"\"calendar YTD (2011)\"\" and \"\"YTD starting Dec 10th 2010\"\". Edit further to comment For the calendar year to date, with 200 shares sold on Jan 10th with the share price at $4.58, the return from Dec 31st to Jan 10th is The return from Jan 10th to Feb 28th is The return from Feb 28th to March 16th is The profit on 1000 shares from Dec 31st to Jan 10th is $4600 * -0.00434783 = -$20 The profit on 800 shares from Jan 10th to Feb 28th is zero. The profit on 800 shares from Feb 28th to March 16th is So the year to date profit is $4.\"",
"\"The libor swap rates show the fixed rate you would have to pay if you entered into a swap agreement where you received the floating 3-month libor rate. From the link in your question: Two Year: 0.478 Three Year: 0.549 Five Year: 0.842 For example, if I wanted to enter into a two year interest rate swap I would have to pay a fixed rate of 0.478 % for two years and in return I would receive interest payments based on the 3-month LIBOR rate (currently 0.4551 %). My interest payments would be fixed while the money I received from the swap would be variable based on the 3-month libor rate. \"\"Mid-market\"\" refers to the value halfway between highest bid and the lowest offer. Semi-annual means the swap settles interest payments every 6 months.\"",
"When you buy a bond - you're giving a loan to the issuer. The interest rate on the bond is the interest rate on the loan. Usually (and this is also the case with the treasury bonds), the rate is fixed for the term of the loan. Thus, if the market rate for similar loans a year later is higher, the rate for the loan you gave - remains the same.",
"\"The bond funds should tell you their duration. My 401(k) has similar choices, and right now, I'm at the short maturity, i.e. under 1 year. The current return is awful, but better than the drop the longer term funds will experience as rates come back up. Not quite mathematically correct, but close enough, \"\"duration\"\" gives you the time-weighted average maturity in a way that tells you how the value responds to a rate change. If a fund has a 10 year duration, a .1% rate rise will cause the fund value to drop 1.0%.\"",
"It means a 3% return on the value of the stock. If a stock has a $10 share price, the dividend would be $0.30. Normally though, the dividends are announced as a fixed amount per share, because the share price fluctuates. If a percentage were announced, then the final cost would not be known as the share priced could change radically before the dividend date.",
"\"Hey guys I have a quick question about a financial accounting problem although I think it's not really an \"\"accounting\"\" problem but just a bond problem. Here it goes GSB Corporation issued semiannual coupon bonds with a face value of $110,000 several years ago. The annual coupon rate is 8%, with two coupons due each year, six months apart. The historical market interest rate was 10% compounded semiannually when GSB Corporation issued the bonds, equal to an effective interest rate of 10.25% [= (1.05 × 1.05) – 1]. GSB Corporation accounts for these bonds using amortized cost measurement based on the historical market interest rate. The current market interest rate at the beginning of the current year on these bonds was 6% compounded semiannually, for an effective interest rate of 6.09% [= (1.03 × 1.03) – 1]. The market interest rate remained at this level throughout the current year. The bonds had a book value of $100,000 at the beginning of the current year. When the firm made the payment at the end of the first six months of the current year, the accountant debited a liability for the exact amount of cash paid. Compute the amount of interest expense on these bonds for the last six months of the life of the bonds, assuming all bonds remain outstanding until the retirement date. My question is why would they give me the effective interest rate for both the historical and current rate? The problem states that the firm accounts for the bond using historical interest which is 10% semiannual and the coupon payments are 4400 twice per year. I was just wondering if I should just do the (Beginning Balance (which is 100000 in this case) x 1.05)-4400=Ending Balance so on and so forth until I get to the 110000 maturity value. I got an answer of 5474.97 and was wondering if that's the correct approach or not.\"",
"And this is why we calculate actual yield and not just coupons. Nobody pays par for high yield notes. If the company performs well, the price of your note goes up and you can realize a gain when is called or your sell it. High yield works exactly like equity, and in a lot of cases it's better because it spits out cash in the meantime. I'm not even allowed to call the interest I get on my HY notes as interest. All realized gain.",
"\"The most fundamental observation of bond pricing is this: Bond price is inversely proportional to bond yields When bond yields rise, the price of the bond falls. When bond yields fall, the price of the bond rises. Higher rates are \"\"bad\"\" for bonds. If a selloff occurs in the Russian government bond space (i.e. prices are going down), the yield on that bond is going to increase as a consequence.\"",
"The 1-yr bond has a higher interest rate, but it's only guaranteed for a year. This means it is subject to reinvestment risk. Suppose you're investing in 1981. Which sounds better? I've not looked up the precise interest rates but I'm guessing the former option leaves you with more money in 1991. It should be no surprise that investors were willing to pay more for it++, even if they couldn't have been totally sure in advance. :) (++ Remember, a bond is like a coupon for a certain percentage off of future-money. If the coupon offers you fewer percent off, you're paying more present-money for each dollar of future-money you buy.)",
"Supply and demand for a particular bond may be such that the market price exceeds the par value for the bond at maturity. This is when you get a negative yield. Especially when volatility is high, people will actually pay money to park it in treasuries for an amount of time. But when compared to a > 25% vol in the equities market over that same period, taking a 5% or less hit doesn't sound nearly as bad!",
"a smaller spread indicates a flat yield curve, which means banks and investors are uncertain about future economic conditions (like the current environment). When the spread widens and the curve becomes upward sloping (considered a normal yield curve), investors expect future growth and minimal inflation. Longer term rates increase as investors demand a higher yield in return for lending their money for a longer period of time. Increase demand for credit (industries expanding) also drive up longer term rates. A negative spread indicates an inverted yield curve and investors believe the economy is overheating and interest rates will fall. Investors pull money out of the stock market and into long term bonds (raising the price, lowering the yield) while companies stop borrowing, reducing the demand for credit and lower the cost, or interest rate, on a loan. Keep in mind central banks determine short term rates, so inverted curves are rare in the sense the market perceives uncertainty and rushes to safety (bonds) before the central bank reacts and lowers short term rates.",
"Public Securities Association Standard Prepayment Model is what the acronym psa stands for. My understanding is that it allows for adjustments in monthly pre-payment amounts, which will then affect the yield of the bond. Not really sure what the most important bond measure would be... but if I had to guess I'd say its the mechanical bond price/ bond yield relationship. Yields go down, prices go up and vice versa.",
"\"If the time horizon is not indicated, this is just a \"\"fair price\"\". The price of the stock, which corresponds with the fair value of the whole company. The value, which the whole business is worth, taking into consideration its net income, current bonds yield, level of risk of the business, perspective of the business etc.. The analyst thinks the price will sooner or later hit the target level (if the price is high, investors will exit stocks, if the price is cheap, investors will jump in), but no one knows, how much time will it take.\"",
"\"Time Value of Money - The simple calculation for this is FV = PV * (1+r)^N which reads The Future Value is equal to the Present Value times 1 plus the interest rate multiplied by itself by the number of periods that will pass. A simple way to look at this is that if interest rates were 5%/yr a dollar would be worth (1.05)^N where N is the number of years passing. The concept of compound interest cannot be separated from the above. Compounding is accounting for the interest on the interest that has accrued in prior periods. If I lend you a dollar at 6% simple interest for 30 years, you would pay me back $1 + $1.80 or $2.80. But - 1.06^30 = 5.74 so that dollar compounded at 6% annually for 30 years is $5.74. Quite a difference. Often, the time value of money is discussed in light of inflation. A dollar today is not the same dollar as 30 years ago or 30 years hence. In fact, inflation has eroded the value of the dollar by a factor of 3 over the past 30 years. An average item costing $100 would now cost $300. So when one invests, at the very least they try to stay ahead of inflation and seek additional return for their risk. One quirk of compounding is the \"\"rule of 72.\"\" This rule states that if you divide the interest rate into the number 72 the result is the number of years to double. So 10% per year will take about 7.2 years to double, 8%, 9 years, etc. It's not 100% precise, but a good \"\"back of napkin\"\" calculation. When people talk about the total payments over the thirty year life of a mortgage, they often ignore the time value of money. That payment even ten years from now has far less value than the same payment today.\"",
"\"The author is using an approximation to what you have exactly, which is called a \"\"true\"\" time-weighted rate of return. You have expressed the total time-weighted return for the period in question. In order to express this as an annual rate, you may annualize it by adding one, raising to the 1/y power, and subtracting one again, for a period of y years. The alternative to a time-weighted return is a money-weighted return, which is actually another name for the internal rate of return.\"",
"No. Bonds don't work like that. When you buy a bond, you buy pieces of notional at a price. 1K denotes the amount you would get back at maturity (+ coupons), So the smallest piece size would be 1k. I've even seen 50K plus but thats for more illiquid products....",
"\"Let's talk interest rates on your junk bonds. Even after all that the US has been through (and is still going through), the United States dollar is widely regarded as one of the safest safe havens for your money. As such it serves as a de facto baseline against which all other investments can be measured, the bar everyone has to pass: if you could earn 4% on a 5-year US Treasury bond, or earn 4% on anything else over the next 5 years, you pick the Treasury bond. In many ways this means that the interest rate on a Treasury bond is the closest single measure we have to the price of money all by itself. If someone is loaning you money, they could be loaning it to the Treasury instead; they are losing out by making this loan to you, and must charge you at least this rate just to break even. But most people/governments/countries aren't as credit-worthy as the US Treasury. A few are (the US treasury isn't magical, after all, just really good at what it does), but generally they are not. There is a possibility when loaning money to these entities that you will not get your money back. That is risk. All entities have some risk (even the US treasury!), and some have more than others; \"\"junk bonds\"\" have a somewhat elevated level of this risk. Now, you don't just take a risk on for free (unless you're being charitable or something, but I hope you can find better beneficiaries of charity than the average junk bond). You need to be compensated for that risk. Lenders will demand compensation commensurate with that risk - or they will just walk away without making any loans or buying any bonds because it's not worth it. The difference between the interest rate on a US Treasury bond and the interest rate on another bond, such as a junk bond, is the risk premium - the cost of carrying that risk. Therefore you can see that the interest rate on a junk bond is the price of money plus the risk premium. Now, the Federal Reserve adjusts the price of money from time to time, by buying and selling US Treasury bonds until the price is something they like. This means that one component of interest rate on a junk bond is the interest rate on the US Treasury bond, and it is effectively controlled by the Federal Reserve (through that layer of indirection). The other component of the interest rate on a junk bond is the risk premium. It's not generally possible to know in advance whether or not some company will actually default. People have to guess, and decide how comfortable they are taking that risk. This means that risk is more expensive (and interest rates are higher) when they think the companies in question are going through some hard times, and risk will also be more expensive when people decide that they can't take as many risks (perhaps they've already lost some money and need to take additional steps to protect the rest). It's definitely very hard for an individual to decide what the risk on a particular bond is. The good news is that you generally don't have to. There are a bunch of rich jerks, hedge funds, retirement funds, insurance companies, and other investment entities out there who spend all day looking at things like bonds, trying to estimate the risk. Their willingness to exploit minuscule differences between the interest rate on a bond and the real risk means that the average bond on the market will be fairly priced, according to what all those people think. Plenty of them can still be wrong, mind you (cf. mortgage-backed securities) but in the general case the price of any security reflects all the information everyone in the world has on it on average, so if you're wrong you're in good company. When you buy a nice diversified bond fund, you have access to a bunch of bonds at a pretty-standard price. So that's interest rates for you. But you asked about prices. As it turns out, they're the same thing! - just expressed slightly differently. One way or another a bond is essentially meant to be a stream of payments worth a certain amount in the end - this is why you'll hear them referred to sometimes as a \"\"fixed-income security\"\". The interest rate is essentially the difference between the price you pay now, and the value you receive later, except expressed as a rate. Technically, you could structure the bonds differently (e.g. does the bond pay little bits of interest as you go along, or just pay one big lump sum in the end?) but you can use Math to convert between these two situations, and figure out how much money is worth which when, so it doesn't really matter. Anyway. This means that rising interest rates means lower bond prices on bonds you already own (and falling interest rates means higher bond prices). So if the Federal Reserve increases interest rates, the face value of your bond funds will fall. Also, if people think that the companies issuing the bonds are too risky, the face value of those bonds will also fall. (You were probably expecting the latter effect, though.) Mind you, you will still get the same amount of future money out of them as you would otherwise: that's why they're fixed-income securities. However, a higher interest rate means \"\"I can get more money in the future for less money now\"\", and so people will be willing to pay you less for your bond in the present. This is known as interest rate risk. It is higher on longer term bonds, because those have more time to earn interest.\"",
"One reason that a bond can be significantly less than face value is because people are seeking better investments elsewhere, so for example if a bond doesn't mature for another 10 years, that 20% increase in face value isn't very attractive when compared to say leaving your money in the stock market for 10 years. Another reason could be that the credit-worthiness of the issuer has collapsed and people expect that there is a fairly good chance they are not going to make the payment. This could be what you would see if for example it was a one year time until maturity, but it has a value of 40% of the face value. There is a risk, because they can simply not pay. For example people who bought Greek bonds.",
"Dividend prices are per share, so the amount that you get for a dividend is determined by the number of shares that you own and the amount of the dividend per share. That's all. People like to look at dividend yield because it lets them compare different investments; that's done by dividing the dividend by the value of the stock, however determined. That's the percentage that the question mentions. A dividend of $1 per share when the share price is $10 gives a 10% dividend yield. A dividend of $2 per share when the share price is $40 gives a 5% dividend yield. If you're choosing an investment, the dividend yield gives you more information than the amount of the dividend.",
"\"To understand the Twist, you need to understand what the Yield Curve is. You must also understand that the price of debt is inverse to the interest rate. So when the price of bonds (or notes or bills) rises, that means the current price goes up, and the yield to maturity has gone down. Currently (Early 2012) the short term rate is low, close to zero. The tools the fed uses, setting short term rates for one, is exhausted, as their current target is basically zero for this debt. But, my mortgage is based on 10yr rates, not 1 yr, or 30 day money. The next step in the fed's effort is to try to pull longer term rates down. By buying back 10 year notes in this quantity, the fed impacts the yield at that point on the curve. Buying (remember supply/demand) pushes the price up, and for debt, a higher price equates to lower yield. To raise the money to do this, they will sell short term debt. These two transactions effectively try to \"\"twist\"\" the curve to pull long term rates lower and push the economy.\"",
"Perfect super clear, thank you /u/xlct2 So it is like you buy a bond for $X, start getting interest, sell bond for $X :) I was thinking there could be a possibility of a bond working like a loan from a bank, that you going paying as time goes by :D",
"But the notes are always called at par, no? So you have a fixed yield which depends on the coupon and price you bought it at. I still don't see how the company doing better than expected changes the yield on your investment.",
"Yes those are really yields. A large portion of the world has negative yielding bonds in fact. This process has been in motion for the past 10 years for very specific reasons. So congratulations on discovering the bond market.",
"In the strictest sense, there are bills,notes, and bonds, named when issued based on their time to maturity. Even though it's called a bond ETF it may have a duration short enough to be made of T-bills, less than a year to maturity. Simply put, for bonds, risk comes from the duration, time to maturity.",
"IMHO bonds are not a good investment at this present time, nor generally. Appreciate for a moment that the yield of an investment is DIRECTLY related to the face/trading value. If a thing (bond/stock) trades for $100 and yields 3%, it pays $3. In the case of a bond, the bond doesn't pay a % amount, it pays a $ amount. Meaning it pays $3. SO, for the yield to rise, what has to happen to the trading price? It has to decrease. As of 2013/14 bonds are trading at historically LOW yields. The logical implication of this is if a bond pays a fixed $ amount, the trading price of the bond has to have increased. So if you buy bonds now, you will see a decrease in its face value over the long term. You may find the first tool I built at Simple Stock Search useful as you research potential investments.",
"\"Negative Yields on Bonds is opposite of Getting profit on your investment. This is some kind of new practice from world wide financial institute. the interest rate is -0.05% for ten years. So a $100,000 bond under those terms would be \"\"discounted\"\" to $100,501, give or take. No, actually what you are going to get out from this investment is after 10 years when this investment is mature for liquidation, you will get return not even your principle $100,000 , but ( (Principle $100,000) minus (Negative Yields @ -0.05) Times ( 10 Years ) ) assume the rates are on simple annual rate. Now anyone may wander why should someone going to buy this kind of investment where I am actually giving away not only possible profit also losing some of principle amount! This might looks real odd, but there is other valid reason for issuing / investing on such kind of bond. From investor prospective: Every asset has its own 'expense' for keeping ownership of it. This is also true for money/currency depending on its size. And other investment possibility and risk factor. The same way people maintain checking account with virtually no visible income vs. Savings account where bank issue some positive rate of interest with various time factor like annually/half-yearly/monthly. People with lower level of income but steady on flow choose savings where business personals go for checking one. Think of Millions of Ideal money with no secure investment opportunity have to option in real. Option one to keeping this large amount of money in hand, arranging all kind of security which involve extra expense, risk and headache where Option two is invest on bond issued by Government of country. Owner of that amount will go for second one even with negative yields on bonds where he is paying in return of security and risk free grantee of getting it back on time. On Issuing Government prospective: Here government actually want people not to keep money idle investing bonds, but find any possible sector to invest which might profitable for both Investor + Grater Community ultimately country. This is a basic understanding on issue/buy/selling of Negative interest bearing bond on market. Hope I could explain it here. Not to mention, English is not my 1st language at all. So ignore my typo, grammatical error and welcome to fix it. Cheers!\"",
"The dividend yield can be used to compare a stock to other forms of investments that generate income to the investor - such as bonds. I could purchase a stock that pays out a certain dividend yield or purchase a bond that pays out a certain interest. Of course, there are many other variables to consider in addition to yield when making this type of investment decision. The dividend yield can be an important consideration if you are looking to invest in stocks for an income stream in addition to investing in stocks for gain by a rising stock price. The reason to use Dividend/market price is that it changes the dividend from a flat number such as $1 to a percentage of the stock price, which thus allows it to be more directly compared with bonds and such which return a percentage yeild."
] |
[
"The 1 month and 1 year columns show the percentage change over that period. Coupon (coupon rate) is the amount of interest paid on the bond each period (as specified on the coupon itself. Price is the normalised price of the bond; the price of taking a position of $100 worth of the principal in the bond. Yield is the interest rate that you would receive by buying at that price (this is the inverse of the price). The time is the time of the quote presented.",
"\"The first thing that it is important to note here is that the examples you have given are not individual bond prices. This is what is called the \"\"generic\"\" bond price data, in effect a idealised bond with the indicated maturity period. You can see individual bond prices on the UK Debt Management Office website. The meaning of the various attributes (price, yield, coupon) remains the same, but there may be no such bond to trade in the market. So let's take the example of an actual UK Gilt, say the \"\"4.25% Treasury Gilt 2019\"\". The UK Debt Management Office currently lists this bond as having a maturity date of 07-Mar-2019 and a price of GBP 116.27. This means that you will pay 116.27 to purchase a bond with a nominal value of GBP 100.00. Here, the \"\"nominal price\"\" is the price that HM Treasury will buy the bond back on the maturity date. Note that the title of the bond indicates a \"\"nominal\"\" yield of 4.25%. This is called the coupon, so here the coupon is 4.25%. In other words, the treasury will pay GBP 4.25 annually for each bond with a nominal value of GBP 100.00. Since you will now be paying a price of GBP 116.27 to purchase this bond in the market today, this means that you will be paying 116.27 to earn the nominal annual interest of 4.25. This equates to a 3.656% yield, where 3.656% = 4.25/116.27. It is very important to understand that the yield is not the whole story. In particular, since the bond has a nominal value of GBP100, this means that as the maturity date approaches the market price of the bond will approach the nominal price of 100. In this case, this means that you will witness a loss of capital over the period that you hold the bond. If you hold the bond until maturity, then you will lose GBP 16.27 for each nominal GBP100 bond you hold. When this capital loss is netted off the interest recieved, you get what is called the gross redemption yield. In this case, the gross redemption yield is given as approximately 0.75% per annum. NB. The data table you have included clearly has errors in the pricing of the 3 month, 6 month, and 12 month generics.\""
] |
4981
|
Where can I find open source portfolio management software?
|
[
"45218",
"247894",
"102684"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"45218",
"102684",
"259463",
"296401",
"587792",
"51721",
"232736",
"144894",
"590375",
"200683",
"557861",
"91671",
"212384",
"404911",
"55845",
"76782",
"239484",
"55601",
"196432",
"529790",
"483564",
"436437",
"145650",
"480924",
"552106",
"277544",
"320610",
"75063",
"171409",
"261378",
"114599",
"210707",
"467508",
"169008",
"216327",
"214610",
"247894",
"81865",
"492735",
"57175",
"108579",
"71553",
"218067",
"591130",
"419171",
"64293",
"314826",
"309969",
"109483",
"20844",
"442591",
"273071",
"211503",
"476138",
"241416",
"226628",
"339509",
"224154",
"580778",
"136621",
"432417",
"528589",
"32199",
"374518",
"314303",
"281322",
"188695",
"100057",
"143020",
"380474",
"431945",
"193805",
"81657",
"373620",
"88417",
"470319",
"465971",
"312260",
"157751",
"151554",
"129681",
"419245",
"538787",
"484730",
"484354",
"507835",
"597681",
"483168",
"232244",
"47923",
"20994",
"308991",
"274462",
"468501",
"55498",
"17284",
"259530",
"3855",
"305758",
"299016"
] |
[
"Take a look at this: http://code.google.com/p/stock-portfolio-manager/ It is an open source project aimed to manage your stock portfolio.",
"\"I've just recently launched an open source wealth management platform - wealthbot.io ... \"\"Webo\"\" is mostly targeted at RIA's to help the manage multiple portfolios, etc. Take a look at the demo at demo.wealthbot.io, you'll also find links to github, etc. there. It's a rather involved project, but if you are looking for use cases of rebalancing, portfolio accounting, custodian integration, tax loss harvesting, and many other features available at some of the popular robo-advisors, you might find it interesting.\"",
"Check the Financial section in this list of Open Source Software",
"Google Portfolio does the job: https://www.google.com/finance/portfolio You can add transaction data, view fundamentals and much more.",
"GnuCash is a free and open-source option.",
"I found that an application already exists which does virtually everything I want to do with a reasonable interface. Its called My Personal Index. It has allowed me to look at my asset allocation all in one place. I'll have to enter: The features which solve my problems above include: Note - This is related to an earlier post I made regarding dollar cost averaging and determining rate of returns. (I finally got off my duff and did something about it)",
"Do you have a broker? Any online brokerage (TD Ameritrade, E*Trade, Scott Trade, etc) offer the functionality that you want. If you're not interested in opening a brokerage account, you can search for threads here related to stock market simulation, since most of those services also provide the features that you want. If you do you have a physical broker at some firm, contact him/her and ask about the online tools that the brokerage offers. Almost all of them have portfolio management tools available to clients.",
"If you would like to use linux I suggest you to use KMyMoney http://kmymoney2.sourceforge.net/ It is based on gnucash but it is easier to use IMO",
"I suggest you to test AlauxSoft Accounts and Budget. This software is a money-like. There is a freeware and a shareware (24 EUR). You will find its at http://www.alauxsoft.com Best regards, Michel ALAUX.",
"I generally concur with your sentiments. mint.com has 'hack me' written all over it. I know of two major open source tools for accounting: GNUCash and LedgerSMB. I use GNUCash, which comes close to meeting your needs: The 2.4 series introduced SQL DB support; mysql, postgres and sqlite are all supported. I migrated to sqlite to see how the schema looked and ran, the conclusion was that it runs fine but writing direct sql queries is probably beyond me. I may move it to postgres in the future, just so I can write some decent reports. Note that while it uses HTML for reporting, there is no no web frontend. It still requires a client, and is not multi-user safe. But it's probably about the closest to what you what that still falls under the heading of 'personal finance'. A fork of SQL Ledger, this is postgreSQL only but does have a web frontend. All the open source finance webapps I've found are designed for small to medium busineses. I believe it should meet your needs, though I've never used it. It might be overkill and difficult to use for your limited purposes though. I know one or two people in the regional LUG use LedgerSMB, but I really don't need invoicing and paystubs.",
"You should consider Turbocash. It's a mature open-source project, installed locally (thick client).",
"Perhaps you should use your own tracking software, such as GnuCash, Quicken, Mint, or even Excel. The latter would work given you say you're manually putting in your transactions. There's lots of pre-done spreadsheets for tracking investments if you look around. I'm hoping that a web search gets you help on migrating transaction data, but I've yet to run into any tools to do the export and import beyond a manual effort. Then again, I haven't checked for this lately. Not sure about your other questions, but I'd recommend you edit the question to only contain what you're asking about in the subject.",
"You can try manager.io. It has a desktop, cloud and server edition that should fit your needs.",
"Google Finance will do all the bullet points in your list and a few more. The only drawback is that you have to enter ALL buy and sell manually. It has an import feature, but it does not work with all trading software. http://www.google.com/finance Let me know if it works. Also, yahoo.com/finance has a good tool, but I still like better Google's application.",
"If you have enough assets at T Rowe Price, you get what I think is a scaled back version of the portfolio tracker for free.",
"I use http://moneydance.com/ it has Mac, Windows and Linux versions and works well for my needs.",
"The short answer is that there are no great personal finance programs out there any more. In the past, I found Microsoft Money to be slick and feature rich but unfortunately it has been discontinued a few years ago. Your choices now are Quicken and Mint along with the several open-source programs that have been listed by others. In the past, I found the open source programs to be both clunky and not feature-complete for my every day use. It's possible they have improved significantly since I had last looked at them. The biggest limitation I saw with them is weakness of integration with financial service providers (banks, credit card companies, brokerage accounts, etc.) Let's start with Mint. Mint is a web-based tool (owned by the same company as Quicken) whose main feature is its ability to connect to nearly every financial institution you're likely to use. Mint aggregates that data for you and presents it on the homepage. This makes it very easy to see your net worth and changes to it over time, spending trends, track your progress on budgets and long-term goals, etc. Mint allows you to do all of this with little or no data entry. It has support for your investments but does not allow for deep analysis of them. Quicken is a desktop program. It is extremely feature rich in terms of supporting different types of accounts, transactions, reports, reconciliation, etc. One could use Quicken to do everything that I just described about Mint, but the power of Quicken is in its more manual features. For example, while Mint is centred on showing you your status, Quicken allows you to enter transactions in real-time (as you're writing a check, initiating a transfer, etc) and later reconciles them with data from your financial institutions. Link Mint, Quicken has good integration with financial companies so you can generally get away with as little or as much data entry as you want. For example, you can manually enter large checks and transfers (and later match to automatically-downloaded data) but allow small entries like credit card purchases to download automatically. Bottom line, if you're just looking to keep track of where you are at, try Mint. It's very simple and free. If you need more power and want to manage your finances on a more transactional level, try Quicken (though I believe they do not have a trial version, I don't understand why). The learning curve is steep although probably gentler than that of GnuCash. Last note on why Mint.com is free: it's the usual ad-supported model, plus Mint sells aggregated consumer behaviour reports to other institutions (since Mint has everyone's transactions, it can identify consumer trends). If you're not comfortable with that, or with the idea of giving a website passwords to all your financial accounts, you will find Quicken easier to accept. Hope this helps.",
"I use KMyMoney in Linux. They distribute a Mac version too. Plus, it is free!",
"It has a bit of a learning curve, but I like GNU Cash. (And since it open source, it's free!)",
"Buxfer is a personal-finance web app which you might like. It's not open-source. But at least none of your complaints about financeworks.intuit.com apply to Buxfer. Buxfer offers a piece of software you can download to your own PC, called Firebux. This macro-recording software provides automation that helps you download statements and upload them to Buxfer. So you never have to give Buxfer any of your bank or brokerage usernames or passwords. Buxfer and Firebux are both free of charge. Wesabe, another personal-finance web app, also used to offer data-uploader software, but Wesabe has now gone out of business.",
"I have no idea if Wikivest can handle options, but I've been pretty satisfied with it as a portfolio visualization tool. It links automatically with many brokerage accounts, and has breakdowns by both portfolio and individual investment levels.",
"The software you provided as an example won't teach you much about investing. The most important things of investing are: These are the only free lunches in investing. Allocation tells you how much expected return (and also how much risk) your portfolio has. Diversification is the only way to reduce risk without reducing return; however, just note that there is market risk that cannot be eliminated with diversification. Every penny you save on costs and taxes is important, as it's guaranteed return. If you were to develop e.g. software that calculates the expected return of a portfolio when given allocation as an input, it could teach you something about investing. Similarly, software that calculates the average costs of your mutual fund portfolio would teach you something about investing. But sadly, these kinds of software are uncommon.",
"\"Moneydance is a commercial application that is cross-platform. Written in Java, they run and are supported on Windows, Mac and Linux. They integrate with many financial institutions and for those that it cannot, you can import a locally downloaded file. I have used it for several years on my Mac, but have no company affiliation. I'm not sure if by saying \"\"Unix\"\" software you meant FOSS of some kind, but good luck in any case.\"",
"There isn't one. I haven't been very happy with anything I've tried, commercial or open source. I've used Quicken for a while and been fairly happy with the user experience, but I hate the idea of their sunset policy (forced upgrades) and using proprietary format for the data files. Note that I wouldn't mind using proprietary and/or commercial software if it used a format that allowed me to easily migrate to another application. And no, QIF/OFX/CSV doesn't count. What I've found works well for me is to use Mint.com for pulling transactions from my accounts and categorizing them. I then export the transaction history as a CSV file and convert it to QIF/OFX using csv2ofx, and then import the resulting file into GNUCash. The hardest part is using categories (Mint.com) and accounts (GnuCash) properly. Not perfect by any means, but certainly better than manually exporting transactions from each account.",
"Mint.com is a fantastic free personal finance software that can assist you with managing your money, planning budgets and setting financial goals. I've found the features to be more than adequate with keeping me informed of my financial situation. The advantage with Mint over Microsoft Money is that all of your debit/credit transactions are automatically imported and categorized (imperfectly but good enough). Mint is capable of handling bank accounts, credit card accounts, loans, and assets (such as cars, houses, etc). The downsides are:",
"I currently use Moneydance on my Mac. Before that I had used Quicken on a PC until version 2007. It is pretty good, does most simple investment stuff just fine. It can automatically download prices for regular stocks. Mutual funds I have to input by hand.",
"\"Uh, have you tried google docs? Start off simple. Other than that, for the moment I use GNUCash. Some day I might try to write my own, but for now it works well enough. I have a number of scheduled transactions in GNUCash, and it records them days in advance. You talk about \"\"I should have how much money\"\", but GNUCash offers a slightly better format: Future Minimum Balance. If you want to know whether you can spend money in an account without triggering a chain reaction, that's the number you want. Being web-based so that it can be accessed from any OS. GNUCash is cross platform, with Windows, OSX and Linux clients. It also supports mysql/postgres database backends, so while it's not \"\"Web based\"\", you can keep your data \"\"in the cloud\"\".\"",
"This is what I used during my MBA. My biggest complaint is that it is not a database for analytic (it pulls from a database). I hear think or swim has the capability to extract data and offers a free version - anyone know if that is true?",
"\"I use \"\"Money Manager Ex\"\" which is a Windows application I use on PC to log my transactions and for simple statistic. They have two versions, simple standlone application and self-hosted web app.\"",
"hledger is a free software, cross-platform double-entry accounting tool I've been working on for a while. It has command-line and web-based interfaces to your local data, and some other interesting features. There's also ledger (http://wiki.github.com/jwiegley/ledger/) which is command-line only. These are.. different, but worth a look for some folks.",
"You can try SplashMoney. It works on many platforms, including iPhone, iPod and Mac, but also Palm OS, Android, Blackberry and windows. I've been using it —since more than two years now— with my old Palm OS PDA and it works great. As I work mainly with Linux, I've tested very few times its synchronization with its desktop companion running on windows.",
"The best way to answer this question is to try. GnuCash is free, so setting it up and giving it a go shouldn't be too hard. After all, what really matters is how helpful the program is for your purposes. One aspect of personal finance that stops me from jumping to GnuCash/KMyMoney/MoneyDance is the ability to download transactions from my financial institutions. Last time I checked, the process was somewhat involved and support was limited for a handful of banks. Because of that, I decided to stick with MS Money (and once Microsoft dropped the ball, with Quicken). I am sure things are better these days, but I am still not comfortable with trusting my finances to something new and unproven. I still remember how painful it was several years ago, when some bug in MS Money caused occasional mess-up of the reconciliation state for the American Express credit cards.",
"I haven't used it in years, but look at GnuCash. From the site, one bullet point under Feature Highlights:",
"Yodlee's Moneycenter is the system that powered Mint.com before Intuit bought them. It works great for managing accounts in a similar fashion to Mint. They have a development platform that might be worth checking out.",
"I don't think any open source trading project is going to offer trial or demo accounts. In fact, I'm not clear on what you mean by this. Are you looking for some example data sets so you can see how your algorithm would perform historically? If you contact whatever specific brokers that you'd like to interface with, they can provide things like connection tests, etc., but no one is going to let you do live trades on a trial or demo basis. For more information about setting this sort of thing up at home, here's a good link: < http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~abrock/algotrading/index.html >. It's not Python specific, but should give you a good idea of what to do.",
"\"As I have said before on this site, I personally use Moneydance. They have Mac, Linux and Windows support, and recently added an iOS mobile version that syncs with the desktop. I have only used the Mac \"\"desktop\"\" version, and it seems to function well, but have not tried the other platforms, nor the iOS version. I have no company affiliation, but am a (mostly) happy user. :-)\"",
"Have you looked into GnuCash? It lets you track your stock purchases, and grabs price updates. It's designed for double-entry accounting, but I think it could fit your use case.",
"This is going to be a bit of a shameless plug, but I've build a portfolio tracking website to track your portfolio and be able to share it (in read-only mode) as well. It is at http://frano.carelessmusings.com and currently in beta. Most portfolio trackers are behind a login wall and thus will lack the sharing function you are looking for. Examples of these are: Yahoo Finance, Google Finance, Reuters Portfolios, MorningStart Portfolios, and many others. Another very quick and easy solution (if you are not trading too often) is a shared google docs spreadsheet. Gdocs has integration with google finance and can retrieve prices for stocks by symbol. A spreadsheet can contain the following: Symbol, Quantity, Avg. Buy Price, Price, P/L, P/L% and so on. The current price and P/L data can be functions that use the google finance API. Hope this helps, and if you check out my site please let me know what you think and what I could change.",
"I have been using Acemony http://www.mechcad.net/products/acemoney/ for a couple of years now and extremely happy with it. Very simple and intuitive to use. The best part is - life-long free upgrades",
"I have been using http://moneydance.com/ for several years now. Works pretty well for me. Another one is http://www.iggsoftware.com/ibank/ I have not used it other than a five minute play session. Looks more mac-ish than Moneydance, but that's all I know.",
"\"Although is not online, I use a standalone version from http://jstock.sourceforge.net It got drag-n-drop boxes, to let me design my own indicators. However, it only contain technical analysis information, not fundamental analysis information. It does come with tutorial http://jstock.sourceforge.net/help_stock_indicator_editor.html#indicator-example, on how to to build an indicator, to screen \"\"Stock which Its Price Hits Their 14 Days Maximum\"\"\"",
"You may refer to project http://jstock.sourceforge.net. It is open source and released under GPL. It is fetching data from Yahoo! Finance, include delayed current price and historical price.",
"Here's a link with comparison of various online and offline PF software: http://personalfinancesoftwarereviews.com/compare-personal-finance-software/",
"MoneyDance Is the way to go. I've been using it for years and it works well. It keeps getting better, and best of all, it's completely cross platform! Mac, Windows and linux!",
"It's a tech buzzword. OK I'm being a bit glib. A Wealth Management Platform is a software system designed to help people track their investment portfolios and research new investments. Sometimes, trusts and small investment firms will use these platforms as well but they will often have more specialized separate systems for portfolio tracking and research. There is a large variety of platforms out there all trying to be the best platform for you... or someone else. Some will have websites and be open to all with money and some will be applications and only target some types of investors. Some will have robo-advising (Wealthfront), a human adviser (Merrill) or have none at all. Some will have nice graphical tools to track your portfolio or great research tools or both (I try not to recommend products on this site). Some can be designed to nudge you into their ideology (Vanguard). All, though, have a technology team behind them to make investing easier for you (or their investment advisers) or to sell you their products. You get the picture.",
"In the related Should I have separate savings accounts for various savings goals? I discovered the open source Budgeter courtesy of Richard Donkin. Budgeter accomplishes my aim with a minimum of fuss, and I have found it to be quite usable despite the author's self deprecating comments to the contrary. The chart below was built in about 10 minutes, half the time it's taken to write this post. Budgeter doesn't feature handy abilities like CSV/OFX importing or scheduled transactions, which would mean a fair bit of work for bringing in historical data, and it's expressly not designed for accounting or bookkeeping. However for the focussed application of tracking savings across multiple bucket categories and accounts I think it well worth evaluating.",
"\"Mint.com does this quite well. The graph views of your budgets, investments, debts, and other aspects of your financial life can be shown in gestalt, or on a per-account basis (at least, it does for me). See the investment \"\"how it works\"\" page for more information. \"\"Find out whether you're beating the market–or it's beating you. Compare your portfolio to market benchmarks, and instantly see your asset allocation across all your investment accounts: 401k, mutual funds, brokerage accounts, even IRAs.\"\"\"",
"\"My answer is Microsoft Excel. Google \"\"VBA for dummies\"\" (seriously) and find out if your brokerage offers an 'API'. With a brief understanding of coding you can get a spreadsheet that is live connected to your brokers data stream. Say you have a spreadsheet with the 1990 value of each in the first two columns (cells a1 and b1). Maybe this formula could be the third column, it'll tell you how much to buy or sell to rebalance them. then to iterate the rebalance, set both a2 and b2 to =C1 and drag the formula through row 25, one row for each year. It'll probably be a little more work than that, but you get the idea.\"",
"Update: I am now using another app called toshl and I am very satisfied with it. In fact, I am a paying customer. It is web based, but it has clients for iPhone, Android and Windows Phone as well. Another one, I tried is YNAB. Did you consider trying an online app? I am using Wesabe and I am happy with it. I found it much better these web-based ones because I can access my data from anywhere.",
"In all honesty, the best solution I've come across is Microsoft's now defunct Money.",
"You can use www.mint.com for most of your requirements. It works great for me, it's free and I'd say is secure. Hosting that kind of service just for your will be time-consuming and not necessarily more secure than most of the stuff that is readily available out there. Good luck.",
"Mint has worked fairly well for tracking budgets and expenses, but I use GnuCash to plug in the holes. It offers MSFT$ like registers; the ability to track cash expenses, assets, and liabilities; and the option to track individual investment transactions. I also use GnuCash reports for my taxes since it gives a clearer picture of my finances than Mint does.",
"I would investigate mint.com further. Plenty of people have written off using them because Intuit purchased them, but that seems like cutting of your nose to spite your face. I think mint.com is worth it for its Trends functionality alone, not to mention its automatic categorization of your purchases, reminders when bills are due, notifications of increased credit card interest rates, and overdraft notices. I don't think mint.com schedules bills & deposits, but it tracks stocks & mutual fund investments and compares your portfolio returns against Dow Jones, S&P 500, or NASDAQ if you wish. I'm not sure I see the advantage of manual transaction entry, but you can add cash or check transactions manually. As I mentioned earlier, automated categorization is a great feature. In addition, you can tag certain transactions as reimbursable or tax-related. If the primary feature you're interested in is stock quotes, maybe something like Yahoo Finance or Google Finance will be enough.",
"I still don't see the point of this software; rebalancing frequently is a waste of money (through fees). If you invest in index funds, you don't have to rebalance at all--effectively, the fund is doing it for you, and since they can generally trade more efficiently than individual investors can, that's a win. The Coverdell ESA is a great example. There's a maximum contribution amount, just as there are for almost any tax-exempt account. A decent financial adviser could help you plan how much to contribute to which accounts, at what time, and when you can/should start to withdraw from them.",
"You might like https://planwise.com/index.htm",
"Hey Sheehan, I believe Schwab provides this info. None of the online free portfolio managers I know of gives you this info. The now defunct MS Money used to have this. The best thing to do is to use a spreadsheet. Or you could use the one I use. http://www.moneycone.com/did-you-beat-the-market-mr-investor/ . (disclaimer: that's my blog)",
"no offense, but clicking through to that guys blog and fund page he seems like a charlatan and a snake oil salesman. It's not surprising that he doesn't like asset manager software because he himself is an asset manager. the software is trying to replace him. He doesn't make money by beating the market... he makes money by convincing others that he can... he is exactly the type of person that the original article is warning against investing with.",
"Money Dashboard and Love Money look like two best options out there now that Kublax closed their doors. Mint were making noises last year about spreading to UK/Canada, but I've not heard anything new about that.",
"https://moneycenter.yodlee.com/ You can link your bank accounts, credit cards, trading accounts etc at Yodlee. These will be updated automatically if you share your username and password from your existing financial institutions. You also have the option of creating manual accounts. You will have to manually add/update transactions.",
"\"I've tried Mint, and I've tried Quicken. Now, I think Quicken is an annoying, crashy little piece of software, but it is also quite capable; overall I think it has the features you want. You can enter your bills, broken down by category, in advance. You can enter your paychecks, broken down by category (gross income, federal income tax, state income tax, social security, SDI, transfers to tax-protected 401(k) account, etc) in advance. You can enter in your stock trades and it can tell you how much you'll need to end up paying in capital gains taxes. You can even enter in your stock option vesting schedule in advance (it's a royal pain because you can't go back and change anything without deleting everything, but you can do it). It'll forecast your bank account balance in all of your bank accounts in advance with a shiny chart. It'll even model your loans, if you set it up right. I didn't do too much with the \"\"budgeting\"\" tools per se, but the account-balances-daily features sound like the closest thing to what you're looking for that's likely to exist. The only thing that's a trifle tricky is that transfers from one account to another may take multiple days (hello, ACH) and you'll have to decide whether to record them at departure or arrival.\"",
"Use buxfer.com. It's available in India and most of the features are free.",
"Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_accounting_software, in particular the rows with a market focus of 'personal'. This is probably one of the more complete lists available, and shows if they are web-based (like Mint) or standalone (like Quicken or Microsoft Money).",
"It's been a long time since I've used MS Money and/or Quickbooks (never Quicken), but I've used GnuCash over the past year or so. It works, but it does suffer from some usability problems. Some of the UI is clunky. Data entry sequences are a little harder than they should be. Reports could be a little prettier. But overall it does work, and it's the best I've found on linux. (I would definitely appreciate pointers to something better.)",
"\"Unfortunately I don't think any of the online personal finance applications will do what you're asking. Most (if not all) online person finance software uses a combination of partnerships with the banks themselves and \"\"screen scraping\"\" to import your data. This simplifies things for the user but is typically limited to whenever the service was activated. Online personal finance software is still relatively young and doesn't offer the depth available in a desktop application (yet). If you are unwilling to part with historical data you spent years accumulating you are better off with a desktop application. Online Personal Finance Software Pros Cons Desktop Personal Finance Software Pros Cons In my humble opinion the personal finance software industry really needs a hybrid approach. A desktop application that is synchronized with a website. Offering the stability and tools of a desktop application with the availability of a web application.\"",
"Mint.com is a web app with an iPhone (and Android) app. Also, You Need A Budget appears to support all three.",
"For Mac it's definitely iFinance.",
"hledger fits your criteria, have you tried it ? Here's the web interface.",
"You can easily build a Google Sheet spreadsheet to track what you want as Sheet has a 'googlefinance()' function to look-up the same prices and data you can enter and track in a Google Finance portfolio, except you can use it in ways you want. For example, you can track your purchase price at a fixed exchange rate, track the current market value as the product of the stock's price times the floating exchange rate, and then record your realized profit and loss using another fixed exchange rate. You don't have to record the rates either, as googlefinance() func is able to lookup prices as of a particular date. You can access Google Sheet through a web browser or Android app.",
"I want to mention I've found 2 options for more powerful tools that can be used to manage asset allocation: Advantages/Disadvantages: Vanguard Morningstar X-ray I hope this helps others struggling with asset allocation.",
"GnuCash—Great for the meticulous who want to know every detail of their finances. Pros: Cons:",
"Egg. Haven't used it personally. I can do a lot with excel itself, but that is a personal choice. Sometime ago Kublax existed but I read somewhere it went bust.",
"\"I think that any ETF is \"\"open source\"\" -- the company issues a prospectus and publishes the basket of stocks that make up the index. The stuff that is proprietary are trading strategies and securities or deriviatives that aren't traded on the open market. Swaps, venture funds, hedge funds and other, more \"\"exotic\"\" derivatives are the things that are closed. What do you mean by \"\"open source\"\" in this context?\"",
"\"Usually you gotta build those tools for yourself :P, you can usually build em in excel as its fairly easy and sort to see what is the most profitable, you can code most of the heavy lifting in excel, monte carlo/\"\"complex\"\" methods you probably won't even need... I'm a strong proponent of R however what you're doing is not that complex.... edit: I accidently a word.\"",
"I spent a while looking for something similar a few weeks back and ended up getting frustrated and asking to borrow a friend's Bloombterg. I wish you the best of luck finding something, but I wasn't able to. S&P and Morningstar have some stuff on their site, but I wasn't able to make use of it. Edit: Also, Bloomberg allows shared terminals. Depending on how much you think as a firm, these questions might come up, it might be worth the 20k / year",
"\"I've just started using Personal Capital (www.personalcapital.com) after seeing the recommendation at several places. I believe it gives you what you want to see, but I don't think you can back populate it with old information. So if you log in and link accounts today, you'll have it going forward. I only put in my investment accounts as I use another tool to track my day-to-day spending. I use Personal Capital to track my investment returns over time. How did my portfolio compare to S&P 500, etc. And here is a shot of the \"\"You Index\"\" which I think is close to what you are looking for:\"",
"I second the vote for GnuCash. It runs on Linux, Windows, and Mac. It is double-entry accounting, so there is a little bit of a learning curve, but it sounds like you should probably have something a little more powerful than Mint for your situation.",
"I had the same problem and was looking for a software that would give me easy access to historical financial statements of a company, preferably in a chart. So that I could easily compare earnings per share or other data between competitors. Have a look at Stockdance this might be what you are looking for. Reuters Terminal is way out of my league (price and complexity) and Yahoo and Google Finance just don't offer the features I want, especially on financials. Stockdance offers a sort of stock selection check list on which you can define your own criterion’s. Hence it makes no investment suggestions but let's you implement your own investing strategy.",
"Yodlee will also work. I asked a similar question (and provided answers) here. Thrive, so far, is the best in my opinion. Their tech support is top notch and their UI is far superior to Yodlee's (which provides the backend for Mint).",
"A desktop application that has the same features (although as already stated, nothing will be identical but if you are looking for functionality then certainly there will be) and pretty simple to use was Microsoft Money, however, Microsoft stopped supporting it with newer versions and while the existing versions will work, I still use mine, there will be no future updates. I like the interface, its simple to use and has all the features you want. They abandoned it in favor of Intuit's Quicken but personally I am not a fan of the Quicken interface. They still had a more extensive and probably too much for the average user application called Office Accounting, but they abandoned future updates and supports on that in favor of Intuit's Quickbooks. Again, I am not a fan of the interface but they are very feature rich including invoicing and payroll, again overkill for the average user. They still have the Small Business Accounting in the form of Microsoft Dynamics, but that is utterly overkill for personal use. I generally don't trust online or cloud based accounting solutions like Mint or even Quicken online because I don't trust my information security to some third party without knowing how they are securing it and what will happen to me if/when they are leaked due to breach. So I like to keep everything local to myself and that's a good move for you, you should do that. It seems at the moment the market standard without much competition is Quicken for personal use and Quickbooks for small business. I would recommend you start with Quicken and if your needs increase in the future, you can easily transfer into Quickbooks to scale up as they are fully compatible with each other. Check it out here and compare their products to see what works best for your needs.",
"Given your needs, GNUcash will do swimmingly. I've used it for the past 3 years and while it's a gradual learning process, it's been able to resolve most stuff I've thrown at it. Schedule bills and deposits in the calendar view so I can keep an eye on cash flow. GNUcash has scheduled payments and receipts and reconcilation, should you need them. I prefer to keep enough float to cover monthly expenses in accounts rather than monitor potential shortfalls. Track all my stock and mutual fund investments across numerous accounts. It pulls stock, mutual and bond quotes from lots of places, domestic and foreign. It can also pull transaction data from your brokers, if they support that. I manually enter all my transactions so I can keep control of them. I just reconcile what I entered into Quicken based on the statements sent to me. I do not use Quicken's bill pay There's a reconciliation mode, but I don't use it personally. The purpose of reconcilation is less about catching bank errors and more about agreeing on the truth so that you don't incur bank fees. When I was doing this by hand I found I had a terrible data entry error rate, but on the other hand, the bayesian importer likes to mark gasoline purchases from the local grocery store as groceries rather than gas. I categorize all my expenditures for help come tax time. GNUcash has accounts, and you can mark expense accounts as tax related. It also generates certain tax forms for you if you need that. Not sure what all you're categorizing that's helpful at tax time though. I use numerous reports including. Net Worth tracking, Cash not is retirement funds and total retirement savings. Tons of reports, and the newest version supports SQL backends if you prefer that vs their reports.",
"Out Of The Dark OOTD is a budgeting and personal money management web app that does not require you to give out access to your bank accounts or even your personal identity. It's a great tool for people with no financial experience with features like Cash Put-Aside and the Credit Card Debt Terminator and it has tons of instant guides explaining how to use every feature. You can check it out at myootd.org.",
"Best Linux software is PostBooks. It is full double entry, but there is definitely a learning curve. For platform-agnostic, my favorite is Xero, which is web-based. It is full double entry balance sheet, the bank reconciliation is a pleasure to use, and they are coming out with a US version this summer. Easy to use and does everything I need.",
"I'm using iBank on my Mac here and that definitely supports different currencies and is also supposed to be able to track investments (I haven't used it to track investments yet, hence the 'supposed to' caveat).",
"Sounds like you are a candidate for stock trading simulators. Or just pick stocks and use Yahoo! or Google finance tools to track and see how you do. I wouldn't suggest you put real money into it. You need to learn about research and timing and a bunch of other topics you can learn about here. I personally just stick to life cycle funds that are managed products that offer me a cruise control setting for investing.",
"Yea a guy built it of a program called paradox 12 years ago. We paid about $100,000 for it then. We do about 25 million in sales between the two of us, so we are small in terms of people, but we are very large in our industry. We have been in business for 30 years. I have been looking through thatmorons suggestions, I think these are excellent places to start.",
"Most businesses have some sort of software to manage their client data. Most of these various software and/or services are industry specific. Black Diamond seems to be a client management tool targeting investment advisers. From the black diamond site Reach an unparalleled level of productivity and transform your client conversations. You don't need one of these unless you're a professional investment adviser with so many clients you can't track them yourself or need more robust reporting or statement generation tools. For your purposes most regular brokers, Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard, TD, etc, have more than enough tools for the retail level investor. They have news feeds, security analysis papers, historical data, stock screeners, etc. You, a regular retail investor doesn't need to buy special software, your broker will generally provide these things as part of the service.",
"I have not used Quicken; I've used GnuCash exclusively. It feels a bit rough with the UI: Balancing that, the data is stored in a gzip-compressed xml file. The compression is also optional, so you can save it as a plain xml file. This means that you have some hope of recovery if you wind up with a corrupted file. (And for programmer-types, you could keep it in source control for additional peace of mind.) My wife and I have been using it for several years now, and has worked well for us. LWN.net had a pair of Grumpy Editor reviews on personal finance software here and here which would be worth reading.",
"\"There is a site that treats you like a fund manager in the real market, Marketoracy, http://marketocracy.com/. Each user is given 1 million in cash. You can have multiple \"\"mutual funds\"\", and the site allows use to choose between two types of strategies, buy/sell, short/cover. Currently, options are not supported. The real value of the site is that users are ranked against each other (of course, you can op out of the rankings). This is really cool because you can determine the real worth of your returns compared to the rest of investors across the site. A couple years back, the top 100 investors were invited to come on as real mutual fund managers - so the competition is legitimate. Take a look at the site, it's definitely worth a try. Were there other great sites you looked at?\"",
"I have been using bearsofts money app, both in mac and iOS. I think only down side with this apps is you need to buy them separately. http://ibearmoney.com/money-mac.html",
"Being new does not allow me yet to vote on your question, but what a good question it is. We share our opinion in separating finances in our very well going mariage. Currently I have found a sort of okay solution in two websites. These are http://www.yunoo.nl and http://www.moneytrackin.com/. You can actually tag spendings with multiple tags. I don't like the idea that the data is on a remote server, but since I have not found a proper local software solution, I just naively trust their promise that your data is save. Then again our financial situation is not that special.",
"\"This functionality is widely available, not only on brokerage sites, but also financial management and even financial information sites. For instance, two of the latter are Google Finance and Yahoo Finance. If you are logged in, they let you create \"\"portfolios\"\" listing your stocks and, optionally, the size of your holdings in that stock (which you don't need if you are just \"\"watching\"\" a stock). Then you can visit the site at any time and see the current valuations.\"",
"\"Quicken. I am in the same situation. I've tried mint.com and switched back to Quicken because i want to know how much money i'll have in my accounts in 2 weeks, 4 weeks, etc. I have to admit though, quicken is getting worse and worse every year. Can't really say i \"\"recommend\"\" it.\"",
"I would suggest that you try ClearCheckbook. It is kind of like Mint, but you can add and remove things (graphs, features, modules) to make it as simple or diverse as you need it to be. It should be a workable solution for simply tracking both income and expenses, yet it will also provide extra features as needed. There is a free option as well as a paid option with added features. I have not used ClearCheckbook before, but according to their features page it looks like you may have to upgrade to the paid option if you want to have complete tagging/custom field flexibility.",
"You should definitively check boobank. It's not a bank !, but a framework that helps people to create quick interface modules to any bank so you don't have to use your web browser anymore with them. Actually, there is already an honest list of modules to access a few banks (I guess these banks are all french banks for now), but contributing a module seems easy and reading other contributed modules should constitute a good start. So boobank can work with any bank provided the interface with the bank is written.",
"\"For anyone who'd like to know a little more: Basically, I'm curious about \"\"newer\"\" styles of portfolio optimization. We all know and love the classic Markowitz Mean-Variance optimization model. Gather your assets, optimize weights based on minimizing variance and maximizing return, plot your capital allocation line, find your Sharpe Ratio portfolio. [(In case anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about, check this out, it is a very common technique still used quite widely today)](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/efficientfrontier.asp) However, the Markowitz model makes a couple of huge assumptions, one of them being that asset returns roughly follow a normal distribution. Since this is not always the case, new models for risk management and optimization have emerged, starting with Value at Risk, and more recently, [Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR).](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conditional_value_at_risk.asp) You can also draw an efficient frontier for CVaR portfolios [using fairly complicated linear programming techniques, as first outlined in this very influential paper.](http://www.ise.ufl.edu/uryasev/files/2011/11/CVaR1_JOR.pdf) Fortunately, these days, the techniques are widely available in Python and Matlab packages. For further discussion, what are your thoughts on the Markowitz model? Do you have a preferred portfolio optimization method?\"",
"MoneyDashboard or XeroPersonal are similar sites to Mint.com MoneyDashboard is planning on releasing an Android App XeroPersonal is also in development of an Android App For more details about the differences between the two apps, see this Web App question",
"Gnucash uses aqbanking, so I'd suggest looking at aqbanking to see if it will do what you want. It seems to be actively developed (as of 26.2.2011), but the main page is in German and my German is a bit rusty... You might also try asking on the gnucash-users list.",
"You could try looking for a UK implementation of http://www.yodlee.com/ : Google tells me that http://www.lovemoney.com/ ( http://www.yodlee.com/2010_1_20.html ) is one such service. I use ANZ money manager - an Australian implementation of Yodlee and find it very useful. I wouldn't use Yodlee directly though (http://money-watch.co.uk/7197/uk-pfm-tool-review-yodlee-moneycenter) those T&Cs don't sound great.",
"I use Yahoo Finance to plot my portfolio value over time. Yahoo Finance uses SigFig to link accounts (I've linked to Fidelity), which then allows you to see you exact portfolio and see a plot of its historical value. I'm not sure what other websites SigFig will allow you to sync with, but it is worth a try. Here is what the plot I have looks like, although this is slightly out of date, but still gives you an idea of what to expect.",
"This site should help you to accomplish what you are looking for: https://www.quantopian.com"
] |
[
"Take a look at this: http://code.google.com/p/stock-portfolio-manager/ It is an open source project aimed to manage your stock portfolio.",
"Have you looked into GnuCash? It lets you track your stock purchases, and grabs price updates. It's designed for double-entry accounting, but I think it could fit your use case.",
"\"I've just recently launched an open source wealth management platform - wealthbot.io ... \"\"Webo\"\" is mostly targeted at RIA's to help the manage multiple portfolios, etc. Take a look at the demo at demo.wealthbot.io, you'll also find links to github, etc. there. It's a rather involved project, but if you are looking for use cases of rebalancing, portfolio accounting, custodian integration, tax loss harvesting, and many other features available at some of the popular robo-advisors, you might find it interesting.\""
] |
3033
|
Tax consequences of changing state residency?
|
[
"571430",
"265866"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"571430",
"486965",
"598227",
"130649",
"265866",
"60281",
"149692",
"357129",
"424175",
"182217",
"218730",
"294738",
"588591",
"56506",
"110862",
"535918",
"559150",
"41922",
"457455",
"300133",
"309923",
"387010",
"32610",
"565007",
"239052",
"44955",
"248651",
"313392",
"454494",
"66262",
"456968",
"159983",
"347186",
"380254",
"129852",
"140428",
"419953",
"102287",
"177575",
"526714",
"411043",
"571131",
"137856",
"382558",
"121551",
"327199",
"417388",
"367562",
"162467",
"479141",
"95724",
"385310",
"495827",
"243939",
"125472",
"124856",
"303287",
"202340",
"98079",
"585562",
"478195",
"270396",
"207531",
"438666",
"236612",
"427631",
"282958",
"483942",
"240066",
"596973",
"503651",
"229397",
"59317",
"506368",
"131382",
"435830",
"72135",
"457338",
"394059",
"71232",
"501734",
"86621",
"430240",
"449610",
"268423",
"113451",
"114102",
"232282",
"103590",
"468047",
"187196",
"22425",
"5762",
"29817",
"34338",
"250559",
"324210",
"43508",
"465135",
"371094"
] |
[
"It also depends on where you work. If you move your home and your job then the date you establish residency in the new state is the key date. All income before that date is considered income for state 1, and all income on or after that date is income for state 2. If there is a big difference in income you will want to clearly establish residency because it impacts your wallet. If they had the same rates moving wouldn't impact your wallet, but it would impact each state. So make sure when going from high tax state to low tax state that you register your vehicles, register to vote, get a new drivers license... It becomes more complex if you move your home but not your job. In that case where you work might be the deciding factor. Same states have agreed that where you live is the deciding factor; in other cases it is not. For Virginia, Maryland, and DC you pay based on where you live if the two states involved are DC, MD, VA. But if you Live in Delaware and work in Virginia Virginia wants a cut of your income tax. So before you move you need to research reciprocity for the two states. From Massachusetts information for Nonresident and Part-Year Resident Income, Exemptions, Deductions and Credits Massachusetts gross income includes items of income derived from sources within Massachusetts. This includes income: a few questions later: Massachusetts residents and part-year residents are allowed a credit for taxes due to any other jurisdiction. The credit is available only on income reported and taxed on a Massachusetts return. Nonresidents may not claim the taxes paid to other jurisdiction credit on their Massachusetts Form 1-NR/PY. The credit is allowed for income taxes paid to: The credit is not allowed for: taxes paid to the U.S. government or a foreign country other than Canada; city or local tax; and interest and penalty paid to another jurisdiction. The computation is based on comparing the Massachusetts income tax on income reported to the other jurisdiction to the actual tax paid to the other jurisdiction; the credit is limited to the smaller of these two numbers. The other jurisdiction credit is a line item on the tax form but you must calculate it on the worksheet in the instruction booklet and also enter the credit information on the Schedule OJC. So if you move your house to New Hampshire, but continue to work in Massachusetts you will owe income tax to Massachusetts for that income even after you move and establish residency in New Hampshire.",
"This sort of involves personal finance, and sort of not. But it's an interesting question, so let's call it on topic? Short answer: yes. Long answer: it depends who's asking. If you're trying to qualify for in-state tuition, for example, you need to have been in state for a certain amount of time. For tax purposes, the first year you move to a new state you need to file part-time resident returns in your previous and current state of residency",
"You may get some advice here, but you REALLY need to talk to a tax adviser who is familiar with the laws of both states, or possible two, one from each state. There is a significant amount of money on the line here, not just tax but penalties and interest if you get this wrong. Once you get it figured out, you probably will be able to take care of it yourself in the future, but make sure that it gets done right initially.",
"I suggest you talk to a New York-licensed tax adviser (EA or NY-licensed CPA). New York is very aggressive when it comes to residency determination, and given your facts and circumstances you may end up being considered NY resident despite relocating to Florida. If you maintain a studio in NY, I'd say 99% chance is that you remain NY resident for the whole year (but verify with a professional).",
"I did the reverse several years ago, moving from NH to MA. You will need to file Form 1-NR/PY for 2017, reporting MA income as a part-year residence. I assume you will need to report the April capital gain on your MA tax return, as you incurred the gain while a MA resident. (I am not a lawyer or tax professional, so I don't want to state anything about this as a fact, but I would be very surprised if moving after you incurred the gain would have any affect on where you report it.)",
"It's not so much about time but about intent. If your intent is to move there permanently, it would be when you arrive in the state for the purposes of living there (i.e. not from a while before that when you went to check a place out or for an interview). I believe that most (if not all) states expect you to get a Driver's License from that state within 30-days of moving there. Something like a Driver's License or State ID would be proof of your residency. These things vary greatly from state to state, so you'd have to research particular states. Or find someone who's done that already. A bit of searching, specifically for Texas, brought me to this forum thread: If you / he wish to establish residency here -- here being Texas -- get a Texas Driver's License and Voter Registration here. Government issued ID with a Texas address is pretty much bulletproof defense against being found to be a resident of elsewhere. Your battle, if there is one, will not be with Texas, but with your present home of record state and/or local government if there are income taxes associated with having been a resident there during the tax year. Which brings up the other question: You would need to make sure that California does not have some provision that would cause you issues. (This isn't so much a case of income from a company in the state as it about capital gains, but it is still prudent to check.)",
"One thing to consider besides what rules Oregon has, is what rules your old state have. Of course the lack of income tax in Nevada means that most people are trying to convince their new state they are still a resident of Nevada. You are a full-year Oregon resident if you live in Oregon all year. You are also a full-year Oregon resident, even if you live outside Oregon, if all of the following are true: Part-year resident: You are a part-year resident if you moved into or out of Oregon during the tax year. The requirement for financial life means that you should: change all your Nevada banks to Oregon banks; Change all your mail to Oregon; Sell any property or end any leases you have in Nevada. Or course you need to research the rules for in state college tuition, death with dignity if any apply to you. In border areas you must be careful to establish residency for children to attend public schools. Some families try to cheat to get their children into a better school.",
"Driver's license isn't relevant. If NYS considers you a part-year resident, they assess income tax on a pro rata basis. NY is broke now, so expect them to be really obnoxious about it if you make a lot of money. California probably has a similar policy. If you really make a lot of money, the demands of the states in these matters are insane. I've read of cases where a state has actually demanded that an individual provide documentation of their in-/out-of-state status for every day of the year!",
"It is not a question of where you have your driver's license. It is a question of the states' tax related residency rules. (Though a driver's license can be a part of that question.) Since you likely have a residence in NYC and so can prove residency through a lease, bills, etc., you probably have to file as a NYS/NYC resident. I do have to question your maintaining a California driver's license if you are not a resident. If you are attempting to maintain dual-residency, look into both states' residency rules to see if you are liable for taxes in both states. California seems particularly picky about these types of situations, probably due to concerns that you may be trying to circumvent California taxes. That said, it usually revolves around income in the state. Of course, if you maintain residency in California as well, the argument can be made that you owe some taxes due to the fact that you take advantage of state services. (E.g. you drive on California roads.) I suggest you consult a tax professional knowledgeable in these issues to sort out the details.",
"\"Depends. If you can choose where to relocate to, then I second the \"\"no income tax\"\" states. But even of these chose wisely, some have no income taxes at all, others have taxes on some kinds of income. Some don't have neither individual nor corporate taxes, some tax businesses in some ways. Some compensate with higher property taxes, others compensate with higher sales taxes. On the other hand, you might prefer states with income taxes but no sales taxes. It can happen if your current income is going to be low, but you'll be spending your savings. If you don't have a choice (for example, your employer wants you to move closer to their office), then you're more limited. Still, you can use the tax break on moving expenses (read the fine print, there are certain employment requirements), and play with the state taxes (if you're moving to a state with less/no taxes - move earlier, if its the other way - move later). Check out for cities that have income taxes. In some states it cannot happen by law (for example, in California only the state is allowed to collect income taxes), in others it is very common (Ohio comes to mind). Many things to consider in New York. New York City has its own income tax (as well as Yonkers, as far as I remember these are the only ones in the State of New York). So if you want to save on taxes in NYS but live close to the city, consider White Plains etc. If you work in NYC its moot, you're going to pay city taxes anyway. That is also true if you live in NJ but work in the city, so tax-wise it may be more efficient not to live across state lines from your place of work.\"",
"\"Most (if not all states) in the US are only interested in source income. If you worked in that state they want to tax it. Many states have reciprocity agreements with neighboring states to exempt income earned when a person works in lets say Virginia, but lives in a state that touches Virginia. Most states don't consider interest and dividends for individuals as source income. They don't care where the bank or mutual fund branch is located, or headquartered.If it is interest from a business they will allocate it to the state where the business is located. If you may ask you to allocate the funds between two states if you move during the year, but most people will just divide the interest and dividends based on the number of days in each state unless there is a way to directly allocate the funds to a particular state. Consider this: Where is the money when it is in a bank with multiple branches? The money is only electronic, and your actual \"\"$'s\"\" may be in a federal reserve branch. Pension funds are invested in projects all over the US.\"",
"Residents pay tax on all of the income they receive during the calendar year from all sources, so you'll at least need to file and pay New York state income taxes on this money regardless. I can't answer whether you'll need to file and pay Colorado state income tax on this money as well. Generally speaking, you need to file a return for each state in which you live, receive income, or have business interests. If you are required to file a Colorado state income tax return, however, you can claim a credit for taxes paid to another state on your New York state income tax return using form IT-112-R (see the form and instructions).",
"Unfortunately, you are required, but most states do have agreements with neighboring states that let the states share the collected taxes without the person having to pay double taxes. So being as this is your first tax return in your current situation, you might be wise to have a professional fill it out for you this year and then next year you can use it as a template. Additionally, I really would like to see someone challenge this across state lines taxation in court. It sure seems to me that it is a inter-state tariff/duty, which the state's are expressly forbidden from doing in the constitution.",
"You're most likely required to file in both for 2013 - since you've lived in both. From 2014 and on you're definitely a NY resident (since you're renting a place there and live there), and you may very well continue being NJ resident (since you're essentially continue being domiciled there). I suggest talking to a EA/CPA licensed in NY and NJ to try and see what you can do to avoid being resident in both the states, or see if it is at all an issue other than filing everything double.",
"\"For Non-Resident filers, New York taxes New York-sourced income. That includes: real or tangible personal property located in New York State (including certain gains or losses from the sale or exchange of an interest in an entity that owns real property in New York State); services performed in New York State; a business, trade, profession, or occupation carried on in New York State; and a New York S corporation in which you are a shareholder (including installment income from an IRC 453 transaction). There are some exclusions as well. It is all covered in the instructions to form IT-203. However, keep in mind that \"\"filing\"\" as non-resident doesn't make you non-resident. If you spend 184 days or more in New York State, and you have a place to stay there - you are resident. See definitions here. Even if you don't actually live there and consider yourself a CT resident.\"",
"\"What would be the best strategy to avoid paying income taxes on the sale after I move to another US state? Leaving the US and terminating your US residency before the sale closes. Otherwise consider checking your home country's tax treaty with the US. In any case, for proper tax planning you should employ a licensed tax adviser - an EA, CPA or an attorney licensed in your State (the one you'd be when the sale closes). No-one else is legally allowed to provide you tax advice on the matter. Because the company abroad is befriended, I have control over when (and e.g. in how many chunks) the earnings of the sale flow into my LLC. So I can plan where I live when that money hits my US account. I'm not familiar with the term \"\"befriended\"\" in this context, but form what I understand your description - its a shell corporation under your own control. This means that the transfer of money between the corporation and your LLC is of no consequence, you constructively received the money when the corporation got it, not the LLC. Your fundamental misunderstanding is that there's importance to when the money hits your US bank account. This is irrelevant. The US taxes your worldwide income, so it is taxed when you earn it, not when you transfer it into the country (as opposed to some other countries, for example India or the UK). As such, in your current scheme, it seems to me that you're breaking the US tax law. This is my personal impression, of course, get a professional advice from a licensed tax professional as I defined earlier.\"",
"Generally this gets corrected when you file returns for both States -- one owes you some refund, and younowe some money to the other. Multistate tax returns are their own special kettle of worms, so you might want to consider hiring a pro to straighten this out -- their software has some tools personal packages don't.",
"This would be no different than asking if you can live in one state and earn a paycheck, then move to another state with a lower tax rate before your tax bill is due so you can save on your taxes for that income. Answer -- No The tax on lottery winnings is based on the state where the lottery was held, because for legal purposes that's where the winnings are considered to have been earned for taxation purposes. Also, changing where you live after earning money does not change your tax liability at all. You still owe the state where the money was earned the tax that is due. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"It essentially works the same. Some states don't have any income taxes at all (like Florida or Wyoming), some only tax income derived in the state, and some tax worldwide income (like New York or California), similarly to the Federal income taxes. However, if you're living abroad (i.e.: you're a citizen or resident of a foreign country and you live there), you're not considered resident by most of the states (check with your state for specific definitions) for most, if not all, the time of your residency abroad. In such case - you don't pay state taxes, only Federal. You have to remember that foreign income exclusion doesn't apply to the income from your 401k, so you pay the taxes as if you're in the US. You can not use foreign taxes credit as well (but depending on the tax treaty with the country you're moving to, your 401k income might not be taxable there). In some cases you may end up with double taxation: US will tax your 401k income as you're a US citizen and the income is derived from the US sources, and the foreign country will tax the income based on its own laws. This is not a tax advice, and this answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.",
"Both states will want to tax you. Your tax home is where you maintain a domicile, are registered to vote, etc. and you will probably want to keep this as MA since you state that MA is your permanent residence and you are staying in a rented place in PA. But be careful about voter registration; that is one of the items that can be used to determine your state of residence. OK, so if you and your spouse are MA residents, you should file jointly as residents in MA and as nonresidents in PA. Do the calculations on the nonresident return first, and then the calculations on the resident return. Typically, on a nonresident tax return, the calculations are effectively the following: Report all your income (usually AGI from the Federal return). Call this $X. Compute the PA state tax due on $X. Note that you follow the rules for nonresidents in doing this, not the calculations used by PA residents. Call the amount of tax you computed as $Y. What part of the total income $X is attributable to PA sources? If this amount is $Z, then you owe PA $Y times (Z/X). On the resident return in MA, you will likely get some credit for the taxes paid to PA, and this will reduce your MA tax burden. Usually the maximum credit is limited to the lesser of actual tax paid to PA and what you would have had to pay MA for the same income. As far as withholding is concerned, your employer in PA will withhold PA taxes as if you are a PA resident, but you can adjust the amount via the PA equivalent of IRS Form W4 so as to account for any additional tax that might be due because you will be filing as a nonresident. Else you can pay estimated taxes via the PA equivalent of IRS Form 1040ES. Similarly, your wife can adjust her withholding to account for the MA taxes that you will owe on the joint income, or you can pay estimated taxes to MA too. Note that it is unlikely that your employer in Pennsylvania will withhold Massachusetts taxes (and send them to Massachusetts) for you, e.g. if it is a ma-and-pa store, but there may be special deals available if your employer does business in both states, i.e. is a MA-and-PA store.",
"Selling one fund and buying another will incur capital gains tax on the sale for the amount of the gain. I'm not aware of any sort of exemption available due to you moving out of the country. However, long-term capital gains for low-tax-bracket taxpayers is 0%. As long as your total income including the gains fits within the 15% regular tax bracket, you don't pay any long-term capital gains. Options for you that I see to avoid taxes are: Note that even if you do sell it all, it's only the amount of gains that would take your income over the 15% normal tax bracket that would be taxed at the long-term rate of 15%, which may not end up being that much of a tax hit. It may be worth calculating just how bad it would be based on your actual income. Also note that all I'm saying here is for US federal income taxes. The state you most recently lived in may still charge taxes if you're still considered a resident there in some fashion, and I don't know if your new home's government may try to take a cut as well.",
"\"New York will want to you to pay taxes on income from \"\"New York sources\"\". I'm not sure what this means to a freelance web developer. If your wife is doing freelance web development under the same business entity as she did in New York (ie. a New York sole proprietor, corporation, etc), you probably do need to file. From nonresident tax form manual: http://tax.ny.gov/pdf/2011/inc/it203i_2011.pdf If you were a nonresident of New York State, you are subject to New York State tax on income you received from New York State sources in 2011. If you were a resident of New York State for only part of 2011, you are subject to New York State tax on all income you received while you were a resident of the state and on income you received from New York State sources while you were a nonresident. To compute the amount of tax due, use Form IT-203, Nonresident and Part-Year Resident Income Tax Return. You will compute a base tax as if you were a full-year resident, then determine the percentage of your income that is subject to New York State tax and the amount of tax apportioned to New York State.\"",
"\"It depends on the rules in the specific places you stay. Specific places being countries or states. Some states may consider pension payments to be taxable income, others may not. Some may consider presence for X days to constitute residency, X days may be 60 days in a calendar year whether or not those days are continuous. It doesn't matter so much where your mailbox or mail handling service is located, it matters: You may owe taxes in more than one place. Some states will allow you to offset other states' taxes against theirs. Some states in the US are really harsh on income taxes. It's my understanding that if you own real estate in New York, all of your income, no matter the source, is taxable income in New York whether or not you were ever in the state that year. Ultimately, you can't just put up your hand and say, \"\"that's my tax domicile so I'm exempt from all your taxes.\"\" There is no umbrella US regulation on this topic, the states determine who they consider to be residents and how those residents are to be taxed. While it's possible you may be considered a resident of multiple states and owe income taxes in multiple states, it's equally possible that you won't meet the residency criteria for any state regardless of whether or not that state has an income tax. The issue you face, as addressed in @Jay's answer, Oklahoma will consider you a resident of OK until you have established residency somewhere else.\"",
"\"In this scenario the date of income is the date on which the contract has been signed, even if you received the actual money (settlement) later. Regardless of the NY special law for residency termination - that is the standard rule for recognition of income during a cash (not installments) sale. The fact that you got the actual money later doesn't matter, which is similar to selling stocks on a public exchange. When you sell stocks through your broker on a public exchange - you still recognize the income on the day of the sale, not on the day of the settlement. This is called \"\"the Constructive Receipt doctrine\"\". The IRS publication 538 has this to say about the constructive receipt: Constructive receipt. Income is constructively received when an amount is credited to your account or made available to you without restriction. You need not have possession of it. If you authorize someone to be your agent and receive income for you, you are considered to have received it when your agent receives it. Income is not constructively received if your control of its receipt is subject to substantial restrictions or limitations. Once you signed the contract, the money has essentially been credited to your account with the counter-party, and unless they're bankrupt or otherwise insolvent - you have no restrictions over it. And also (more specifically for your case): You cannot hold checks or postpone taking possession of similar property from one tax year to another to postpone paying tax on the income. You must report the income in the year the property is received or made available to you without restriction. Timing wire transfer is akin to holding and not depositing a check, from this perspective. So unless there was a restriction that was lifted after you moved out of New York, I doubt you can claim that you couldn't have received it before moving out, i.e.: you have, in fact, constructively received it.\"",
"You will pay taxes in both states!!! Where you bought the ticket as soon as you claim it. and your residence state at the end of the year! Its called state Income Tax.",
"Transferring money you own from one place to another pretty much never has tax implications. It might have other implications, including requirement to report it. Being a US citizen has tax implications, including the requirement to file US tax forms for the rest of eternity.",
"Many states have a simple method for assessing income tax on nonresidents. If you have $X income in State A where you claim nonresident status and $Y income overall, then you owe State A a fraction (X/Y) of the income tax that would have been due on $Y income had you been a resident of State A. In other words, compute the state income tax on $Y as per State A rules, and send us (X/Y) of that amount. If you are a resident of State B, then State B will tax you on $Y but give you some credit for taxes paid to State A. Thus, you might be required to file a State A income tax return regardless of how small $X is. As a practical matter, many commercial real-estate investments are set up as limited partnerships in which most of the annual taxable income is a small amount of portfolio income (usually interest income that you report on Schedule B of Form 1040), and the annual bottom line is lots of passive losses which the limited partners report (but do not get to deduct) on the Federal return. As a result, State A is unlikely to come after you for the tax on, say, $100 of interest income each year because it will cost them more to go after you than they will recover from you. But, when the real estate is sold, there will (hopefully) be a big capital gain, most of which will be sheltered from Federal tax since the passive losses finally get to be deducted. At this point, State A is not only owed a lot of money (it knows nothing of your passive losses etc) but, after it processes the income tax return that you filed for that year, it will likely demand that you file income tax returns for previous years as well.",
"California is very aggressive when it comes to determining residency. While you have a legitimate defense, I suggest talking with a California-licensed CPA or EA practicing in California, which are experienced in dealing with the FTB residency audits.",
"It sounds like you do. You earn money in NC, so that's where it is going to be taxed first.",
"According to the Colorado form CY104PN, Colorado taxes income earned while working in or being a resident of the State of Colorado. Assuming you never set foot in the State of Colorado, I read it as if you will only be liable to pay taxes in the State of New York (on all of your income, of course). You can get a more reliable opinion from a Colorado-licensed CPA.",
"However, you might have to pay taxes on capital gains if these stocks were acquired during your prior residency.",
"I am assuming you are asking for Tax purposes. In Oregon, there is a distinction between Full-Year and Partial-Year residency for Tax purposes. You are most likely considered a Partial-Year resident since you moved into the state last year. However, there are also special conditions under which you might be considered a Full-Year resident, so check out the state's tax residency rules here",
"Tax liability in US: You would need to determine if you are a resident alien or non resident alien. Resident alien are taxed normally as per US citizens. For the annual remuneration you have quoted it would be in the range of 25%. Refer http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm To determine if you are resident alien or non resident alien, you need to be present for certain period in US. There is also an exemption even if you meet this you can still be treated as non resident alien if your tax home is outside US [India in this case] Refer to the link for details to determine your category, the durations are for number of days in financial year, hence it matters when you are in US and the exact durations. http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html Also note that if you are assessed as resident alien, even the income from India will be taxed in US unless you declare there is no income in India. Tax liability in India: The tax liability in India would be depending on your NRI status. This again is tied to the financial year and the number of days you are in country. While the year you are going out of India you need to be away for atleast 183 days for you be considred are NRI. So if you are treated as Indian resident, you would have to pay tax in India on entire income. In the worst case, depending on the period you travel and the dates you travel, you could get classified as citizen in US as well as India and have to pay tax at both places. India and US do not have a dual tax avoidance treaty for individuals. Its there for certain category like small business and certain professions like teacher, research etc.",
"It turns out that in this special case for New York, they have a law that says that if you are changing your filing status from resident to nonresident, you must use the accrual method for calculating capital gains. So in this case, the date on the papers is the important one.",
"\"If you haven't been a US resident (not citizen, different rules apply) at the time you sold the stock in Europe but it was inside the same tax year that you moved to the US, you might want to have a look at the \"\"Dual Status\"\" part in IRS publication 519.\"",
"You might need to check yes... but I would check out New York's nonresident income tax requirements... My guess is yes if you meet the requirements, but I am not an expert nor do I work in the accounting or legal field. Check out New York's nonresident tax page explaination",
"If you are going to be trying clever stuff with taxes in different place, you probably need a professional. Different countries definitely have different laws on the subject. For example (several years ago) the UK considered you absent from the UK for tax purposes from the day you left, provided you were gone for a year, whereas Canada didn't charge you tax as long as you were not in the country for six months in the year. A carefully timed move enabled me to not pay tax at all for six months because I wasn't resident anywhere. Also it was irrelevant whether I intended to stay or not.",
"\"I'm assuming that by saying \"\"I'm a US resident now\"\" you're referring to the residency determination for tax purposes. Should I file a return in the US even though there is no income here ? Yes. US taxes its residents for tax purposes (which is not the same as residents for immigration or other purposes) on worldwide income. If yes, do I get credits for the taxes I paid in India. What form would I need to submit for the same ? I am assuming this form has to be issued by IT Dept in India or the employer in India ? The IRS doesn't require you to submit your Indian tax return with your US tax return, however they may ask for it later if your US tax return comes under examination. Generally, you claim foreign tax credits using form 1116 attached to your tax return. Specifically for India there may also be some clause in the Indo-US tax treaty that might be relevant to you. Treaty claims are made using form 8833 attached to your tax return, and I suggest having a professional (EA/CPA licensed in your State) prepare such a return. Although no stock transactions were done last year, should I still declare the value of total stocks I own ? If so what is an approx. tax rate or the maximum tax rate. Yes, this is done using form 8938 attached to your tax return and also form 114 (FBAR) filed separately with FinCEN. Pay attention: the forms are very similar with regard to the information you provide on them, but they go to different agencies and have different filing requirements and penalties for non-compliance. As to tax rates - that depends on the types of stocks and how you decide to treat them. Generally, the tax rate for PFIC is very high, so that if any of your stocks are classified as PFIC - you'd better talk to a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about how to deal with them. Non-PFIC stocks are dealt with the same as if they were in the US, unless you match certain criteria described in the instructions to form 5471 (then a different set of rules apply, talk to a licensed tax adviser). I will be transferring most of my stock to my father this year, will this need to be declared ? Yes, using form 709. Gift tax may be due. Talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). I have an apartment in India this year, will this need to be declared or only when I sell the same later on ? If there's no income from it - then no (assuming you own it directly in your own name, for indirect ownership - yes, you do), but when you sell you will have to declare the sale and pay tax on the gains. Again, treaty may come into play, talk to a tax adviser. Also, be aware of Section 121 exclusion which may make it more beneficial for you to sell earlier.\"",
"If you're an American, and willing to give up citizenship, good luck to you. Otherwise, Uncle Sam still wants his due -- Americans are responsible for paying taxes on income earned anywhere on earth, regardless of their residence.",
"An update for anyone looking this up, I am still working through all the details but I can answer the question as far as Stack Exchange will go. In this situation the answer and processes involved greatly differs based on the personal circumstances of the person asking the question. Best to seek qualified tax advice than relying only on a forum as they are able to be more accurate and descriptive than any reply that you might receive.",
"Although I am not a tax professional, and in this case you would be better off with a professional advice, my understanding (at least of Arizona, New York and California individual tax regulations that I've been dealing with) is that you only pay taxes in the state in which you're domiciled. Lottery winnings are payed by States/State-run corporations and as such sourced to the State that pays it. Buying a ticket in SC links you to the lottery run in that State, even if you live in another. You'll be claiming your winnings in SC, not in NC, and the winnings will be sourced to SC, not NC. As such SC will be taxing them. NC will be taxing them as well, since you're NC resident.",
"\"Look into the definition of \"\"primary residence\"\" for your jurisdiction(s). In some states, living in the home for 183 days qualifies it as your primary residence for the entire year.\"",
"I suspect you will need to consult with a tax professional on this one. In New York you would need to continue to file returns even if you did no business there until the partnership is dissolved. But I have no idea if Cali has anything rules like that. I would suspect since the partnership is on going the answer is no. Even though you plan no further business in Cali the potential exists that you could return there(even if only in theory).",
"\"Short Answer: You're going to end up paying taxes on it. Despite the home being your primary residence, you don't meet the ownership test, and it isn't noted that you have had a change in employment, health, or other unforeseen circumstances that are \"\"forcing\"\" you to sell. Otherwise, you could qualify for a reduced maximum exclusion that might allow you to walk away without owing taxes, or with a reduced tax bill. You can't even do a 1031 exchange to re-invest into a new primary residence. You should check with a tax professional to see what adjustments you can make to the cost basis of the property to minimize your reported net profits. During the 5-year period prior to the sale, you must have: These periods do not necessarily have to coincide (You don't to live in it as your main house for 2 consecutive years, just 2 years worth of time of the last 5).\"",
"\"You owe taxes to the state where you earned the income, and also to the state where you physically live. Most, maybe all, states have laws that let you claim credits for taxes paid to other states so that you're not paying double taxes by living in one state while working in another. Most states have deals with all their neighboring states so that you only have to file taxes in one. For example, I live in Michigan, and Michigan borders Ohio. Lots of people who live near the border live in one state but work in the other. So the two have a deal that anyone who lives in Michigan but works in Ohio just has to file a Michigan tax return and pay Michigan taxes, and anyone who lives in Ohio and works in Michigan just has to pay Ohio taxes. Oh, I should note that these adjacent state deals apply only to employment income, not business income. If you own a business in another state, you'll still have to file taxes in that state. You still should get tax credits in your residence state. In general the fact that you use a server in another state doesn't make you liable for taxes in that state. I understand that New York says that if you work from home and the company headquarters is in New York, you have to pay New York taxes. Maybe there are a few other states who do this. But just because a server is in their state? I've never heard of this. If I order business supplies that are shipped from a warehouse in Arizona, that doesn't make me liable for Arizona income taxes, etc. You are legally a \"\"resident\"\" of the state where you actually live. If you have a home and live in it most of the time, then you are a resident of the state where that home is. A \"\"home\"\" doesn't have to be a house. It could be an apartment, an RV that you live in in a trailer park, a tent, etc. If you don't own any sort of fixed home and you travel around a lot, this could be tricky. You mentioned Oklahoma. Oklahoma defines \"\"resident\"\" as follows: An Oklahoma resident is a person domiciled in this state for the entire tax year. “Domicile” is the place established as a person’s true, fixed, and permanent home. It is the place you intend to return whenever you are away (as on vacation abroad, business assignment, educational leave or military assignment). A domicile, once established, remains until a new one is adopted. (https://www.ok.gov/tax/documents/511NRPkt-14.pdf) I'm not sure that that clears things up for you. You can't just pick a state with low taxes and claim that as your residence. No way is the state where you actually live going to accept that. If you are in an ambiguous situation, like you spend 6 months per year in state A and 6 months in state B and you have no fixed home in either -- maybe you stay at motels or live in your minivan -- you might get away with picking the state with the most favorable tax laws as your residence. But if you spend 7 months in state A and 5 months in state B, state A will almost surely claim you are a resident and owe them taxes. If you regularly wander the country, never spend more than a few days in any one place, and rarely come back to the same place twice, then you have a complicated situation and you probably need to talk to a tax lawyer.\"",
"Are you talking about domicile? An LLC is treated differently than a corporation in the terms of citizenship of the law. An LLC is a citizen of whichever state it's members (shareholders) are citizens. I would recommend you just spend the money on a business attorney to ensure that all the t's are crossed correctly so it doesn't end up costing you more later on.",
"The 401(k) contribution is Federal tax free, when you make the contribution, and most likely State too. I believe that is true for California, specifically. There was a court case some years ago about people making 401(k) or IRA contributions in New York, avoiding the New York state income tax. Then they moved to Florida (no income tax), and took the money out. New York sued, saying they had to pay the New York income tax that had been deferred, but the court said no. So you should be able to avoid California state income tax, and then later if you were to move to, for example, Texas (no income tax), have no state income tax liability. At the Federal level, you will have different problems. You won't have the money; it will be held by the 401(k) trustee. When you try to access the money (cash the account out), you will have to pay the deferred taxes. Effectively, when you remove the money it becomes income in the year it is removed. You can take the money out at any time, but if you are less than 59 1/2 at the time that you take it, there is a 10% penalty. The agreement is that the Feds let you defer paying the tax because it is going to finance your retirement, and they will tax it later. If you take it out before 59 1/2, they figure you are not retired yet, and are breaking your part of the agreement. Of course you can generally leave the money in the 401(k) plan with your old employer and let it grow until you are 59.5, or roll it over into another 401(k) with a new employer (if they let you), or into an IRA. But if you have returned to your own country, having an account in the U.S. would introduce both investment risk and currency risk. If you are in another country when you want the money, the question would be where your U.S. residence would be. If you live in California, then go to, say France, your U.S. residence would still be California, and you would still owe California income tax. If you move from California to Texas and then to France, your U.S. residence would be Texas. This is pretty vague, as you might have heard in the Rahm Emanual case -- was he a resident of Chicago or Washington, D.C.? Same problem with Howard Hughes who was born in Texas, but then spent most his life in California, then to Nevada, then to Nicaragua, and the Bahamas. When he died Texas, California and Nevada all claimed him as a resident, for estate taxes. The important thing is to be able to make a reasonable case that you are a resident of where ever you want to be -- driver's license, mailing address, living quarters, and so on.",
"I can only answer about the U.S. For question 2, I believe the answer is no. If you are a non-resident alien for tax purposes, then only income connected to the U.S. is reported as income on the tax return. Unless there were any non-deductible contributions to your pre-tax IRAs, when you convert to Roth IRA, the entire amount of the conversion is added to your income. So the tax consequence is the same as if you had that much additional U.S. income. If you are a non-resident alien with no other income in the U.S., then the income you have to report on your U.S. tax return will basically consist of the conversion. Non-resident aliens do not have a standard deduction. However, all people have a personal exemption. If we take 2013 as an example, the exemption is $3900 per person. We will assume that you will file as single or married filing separately (non-resident aliens cannot file as married filing jointly). The first $3900 of income is covered by the exemption, and is not counted in taxable income. For single and MFS, the next $8925 of income is taxed at 10%, then next $27325 of income is taxed at 15%, and so on. So if you convert less than the personal exemption amount every year ($3900 in 2013), then in theory you do not pay any taxes. If you convert a little bit more, then some of the conversion will be taxed at 10%, etc.",
"Canadian departure tax is implemented as a deemed sale gains proceeds taxation. Check here for details. What it means is that you're taxed on the difference between your FMV on the date of terminating residency and your Canadian cost basis (FMV when you acquired residency, or regular cost basis if you acquired the assets while being resident of Canada). It doesn't matter if you actually withdraw the money or not, it has no significance. You'll have to pay the tax either way.",
"No. You owe taxes in the state you made the money. So unless you can convince the lottery company to retroactively move to Puerto Rico or such, you can't. As others said, if you win, that should not be your worries..",
"You won't be paying any taxes for income generated in the US as long as you are not-resident in India. You pay US taxes. You can file a null return in India just in case (all zeroes). If you have any income in India - bank deposits in your name, house rental income and so on - that needs to be declared and tax needs to be paid in India.",
"Let me restate question for clarity. Facts: Question: Are there any taxes for this transaction? Answer: (Added improvements provided by Eric) Generally No. Generally, it is not considered income until you sell and the sale price is greater than the purchase price. But with currency differences, there is an additional complication, section 988 rules apply. It could result in ordinary income or loss.",
"\"Its not for US citizens - its for US residents. If the US considers you as a tax resident - you'll be treated the same as a US citizen, regardless of your immigration status. The question is very unclear, since it is not mentioned whether your US sourced income \"\"from the Internet\"\" is sales in the US, sales on-line, services you provide, investments, or what else. All these are treated differently. For some kinds of US-sourced income you should have paid taxes in the US already, regardless of where you physically reside. For others - not. In any case, if you become US tax resident, you'll be taxed on your worldwide income, not only the $10K deposited in the US bank account. ALL of your income, everywhere in the world, must be declared to the US government and will be taxed. You should seek professional advice, before you move to the US, in order to understand your responsibilities, liabilities and rights. I suggest looking for a EA/CPA licensed in California and experienced with taxation of foreigners (look for someone in the SF or LA metropolitan areas). Keep in mind that there may be a tax treaty between the US and your home country that may affect your Federal (but not California) taxes.\"",
"This taxation guide may be helpful in sorting out some of your questions. I'm not entirely versatile with UK tax, so my answer will stay broad. I think the answer may be to consult a professional advisor. You may become non-resident but remain UK domiciled. Everybody has exactly one domicile and it is essentially their permanent home (the place where they intend to one day return and live. The test is based on your intent - do you intend to return to the UK or do you intend to make another land your permanent home? Simply traveling about the world will not establish a new domicile for you. So you may owe some taxes on your worldwide income or capital gains while a UK-domiciled non-resident, as suggested here. If it helps, the UK tax residence rules are listed by HMRC online. If your business is a corporation, there's a different analysis. You may also want to refer to the UK-BVI tax treaty. HMRC offers a tax residence calculator to help sort your residence, if you plan to return often.",
"Multistate Impact of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 In general, states with rolling conformity will follow this change. States with specific date conformity will continue to follow the date of conformity currently in effect and will not follow the change. A few states may have their own QSBS rules and will not conform to or be impacted by this provision of the Act. The chart that follows summarizes these principles as applied to the enumerated states: STATE: QSBS Exclusion Conformity: California statutes refer to the IRC QSBS provisions but modify and limit their applicability, and would not be impacted by this provision of the Act. However, California’s provisions were ruled unconstitutional in recent litigation and the California Franchise Tax Board has recently taken the position that gain exclusions and deferrals will be denied for all open tax years. Florida Florida does not impose an income tax on individuals and therefore this provision of the Act is inapplicable and will have no impact. Illinois Due to its rolling conformity, Illinois follows this provision of the Act. Because New York effectively provides for rolling conformity to the IRC, through reference to federal adjusted gross income as the state starting point, New York effectively follows this provision of the Act. Texas does not impose an income tax on individuals",
"Why not just leave it as is and register as foreign entity in New Mexico? You won't avoid the gross receipts tax, but other than that - everything stays as is. Unless Illinois has some taxes that you would otherwise not pay - just leave it there.",
"Where you earn your money makes no difference to the IRS. Citizen/permanent resident means you pay income tax. To make matters worse given your situation it's virtually certain you have unreported foreign bank accounts--something that's also an important issue.",
"\"It depends on how long you stay and where you earn your income. You can be a US resident for tax purposes even if you are not for immigration purposes. The \"\"substantive presence test\"\" probably applies to you: You will be considered a United States resident for tax purposes if you meet the substantial presence test for the calendar year. To meet this test, you must be physically present in the United States (U.S.) on at least: https://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Substantial-Presence-Test There are some exceptions to this test, and tax treaties may also apply. See IRS Publication 519 for more information.\"",
"A couple of thoughts. Tax benefits are the usual reasons to decide on one residency or another. International tax law is complex, and it's probably best to consult a professional. Certainly without knowing which the other country is I would not want to hazard a guess. If he is really not going to be taxed on the other country, residing there would seem sensible. But... In Canada residency for tax purposes is established for an entire year. If you are resident for more than six months your salary for the year is taxable. Conversely if you are present for less than six months you are not taxable. (This may have changed - it's been twenty years since I did this.) The other issue is healthcare. If you are not resident in Ontario you are not eligible for free healthcare, I believe. He might have to purchase supplemental insurance if he returns occasionally.",
"\"New York State is one of a few states that will go after telecommuter taxes (such that some people may end up paying double tax even if they don't live in NY). There are a few ways that you can avoid this. If you NEVER come to NY for work, and your employer can stipulate that your position is only available to be filled remotely, you will likely be covered. But there are a myriad of factors relating to this such as whether the employer reimburses you for your home office and whether you keep \"\"business records\"\" at your office. Provided you can easily document the the factors in TSB-M-06(5)I, you shouldn't have to pay NYS taxes. (source: I've worked with a NYS tax attorney as an employer to deal with this exact scenario).\"",
"My state (Oregon) doesn't give me credit for all the federal taxes I pay so I get taxed by the state for money I never received. Now both will, fun. With this policy it would be worth it to move my family to a red state and start turning it blue.",
"Quick, move to the state where the ticket was bought. Set up a resident and then claim the prize. Then, move back home, if you want. IMO But both states will still try to make a claim for the tax money, if you give them a reason to try. They have nothing else to do, but look for revenue.",
"There are just too many variables here... Will you legally be considered a permanent resident from the moment you move? Will you work from home as a contractor or as an employee? Those are not questions you can answer yourself, they really depend on your circumstances and how the tax authorities will look at them. I strongly encourage you to speak to an advisor. Very generally spoken, at your place of residence you pay taxes for your worldwide income, at the place of your work base (which is not clear if this really would be Turkey) you pay taxes on the income generated there. If it's one and the same country, it's simple. If not, then theoretically you pay twice. However, most countries have double taxation treaties to avoid just that. This usually works so that the taxes paid abroad (in Turkey) would be deducted from your tax debt at your place of residence. But you might want to read the treaty to be sure how this would be in your specific case (all treaties are publicly available), and you should really consider speaking to a professional.",
"When you sell your primary residence, you are required to capitalize any loss or gain at that point; you do not carry over your loss or gain (as you might in an investment property). As such, the timing of the purchase of the next house is not relevant in this discussion: you gained however much you gained already. This changed from the other (rollover) method in 1997 (see this bankrate article for more details.) However, as discussed in IRS Tax Topic 701, you can exclude up to $250,000 (single or filing separately) or $500,000 (married filing jointly) of gain if it is your primary residence and meets a few requirements (mostly, that you owned it for at least 2 years in the past 5 years, and similarly used it as your main home for at least 2 years of the past 5 years). So given you reported 25% gain, as long as your house is under a million dollars or so, you're fine (and if it's over a million dollars, you probably should be paying a CPA for this stuff). For California state tax, it looks like it is the same (see this Turbotax forum answer for a good explanation and links to this California Franchise Tax Board guide which confirms it: For sale or exchanges after May 6, 1997, federal law allows an exclusion of gain on the sale of a personal residence in the amount of $250,000 ($500,000 if married filing jointly). The taxpayer must have owned and occupied the residence as a principal residence for at least 2 of the 5 years before the sale. California conforms to this provision. However, California taxpayers who served in the Peace Corps during the 5 year period ending on the date of the sale may reduce the 2 year period by the period of service, not to exceed 18 months.",
"If you already filed the DC return, you can try and wait with filing the NJ return until you get the answer from DC. You can file an extension request with the NJ division of taxation here. Or, you can file without claiming the credit, and worst case amend later and claim it if DC refuse to refund. I find it highly unlikely that DC will decide that a person staying for a couple of months over the year in hotels will count as a resident.",
"In addition to having separate income for federal and state tax purposes, things can get really complicated if you ever have capital gains and losses. Suppose you sell taxable stocks for a loss of $5000, and meanwhile, have capital gains of $1000 in your HSA. From the federal perspective, the gains in the HSA don't exist, so you deduct $3000 of the loss, and then carry over the remaining $2000. However, from the state perspective, $1000 of the capital loss went to canceling out the gains in the HSA. Therefore, you only carry over $1000. Assuming you continue to have losses and gains, this will carry on forever. You'll have to track completely independent sets of gains and losses and carryover losses for federal and state purposes forever, even if you no longer use the HSA. Therefore, I'd recommend not investing HSA proceeds at all if you live in a state that doesn't recognize HSAs. It's just too complicated to be worth it, especially since your provider won't track any of this for you.",
"As a nonresident sole proprietor or partnership You are not a sole proprietor or a member of a legal partnership. You are an employee for a corporation. Does the nature of your work require you to be present in New York regularly? If you are in New York for personal reasons, you are simply telecommuting. You must pay taxes personally for your W-2 income, but your business entity never moved from Wyoming. If this were not true, companies would have to pay corporate income tax to every state in which they have a telecommuter. For example, I live in Florida but telecommute to a company in Michigan. Does my employer pay Florida business tax? Of course not. Your business would only owe New York if the nature of the business requires a consistent and regular business presence in New York, such as maintaining an office for a portion of every year so clients could see you.",
"This depends on the state law. In case of the State of New York - these are the criteria for sourcing the NY income: As a sole proprietor or partnership, your New York source income includes: Business activities As a nonresident sole proprietor or partnership, you carry on a business, trade, profession, or occupation within New York State if you (or your business): As you can see, the qualification depends on the way you do business, and the amount of business transactions you have in New York. If it is not clear to you - talk to a CPA/EA licensed to practice in the State of New York to give you an advice.",
"I'm not sure why you think that it matters that the distribution goes to an S-Corp vs an individual tax payer. You seem to think it has any relevance to your question, but it doesn't. It only confuses your readers. The situation is like this: LLC X is deriving income in State #2. It has two members (I and S) residents of State #1. Members I and S pay all their taxes to State #1, and don't pay taxes to State #2. State #2 audited member I and that member now needs to pay back taxes and penalties to State #2 on income derived from that State. Your question: Does that mean that member S should be worried, since that member was essentially doing the exact same thing as member I? My answer: Yes.",
"Register in Nevada. It's a no brainer. I understand that it's not a great deal of money, but if you can save several hundred dollars per year, why not? It's the same amount (actually probably less) of paperwork to register in Nevada.",
"You cannot deduct anything. Since you're actually moving, your tax home will move with you. You can only deduct the moving expenses (actual moving - packing, shipping, and hotels while you drive yourself there).",
"\"I would suggest reading through page 1 of the Arizona Nonresident form instructions at the web address below: https://www.azdor.gov/Portals/0/ADOR-forms/TY2015/10100/10177_inst.pdf To quote: \"\"You are subject to Arizona income tax on all income derived from Arizona sources. If you are in this state for a temporary or transitory purpose or did not live in Arizona but received income from sources within Arizona during 2015, you are subject to Arizona tax. Income from Arizona sources includes the following: ...the sale of Arizona real estate...\"\"\"",
"This depends on the nature of the income. Please consult a professional CPA for specific advise.",
"I believe I have to pay taxes in US since it is a US broker. No, not at all. The fact that the broker is a US broker has nothing to do with your tax liabilities. You should update the banks and the broker with your change of status submitting form W8-BEN to them. Consult a tax professional proficient with Indo-US tax treaty as to what you should put in part II. The broker might withhold some of your income and remit it as taxes to the IRS based on what you put in W8-BEN and the type of income, but you can have it refunded (if it exceeds your liability) by submitting a tax return (form 1040-NR). You do have to pay tax in India, based on the Indian tax law, for your profits in the US. Consult with an Indian tax accountant on that. If I'm not mistaken, there are also currency transfer restrictions in India that you should be aware of.",
"If you move money - you don't need to pay any taxes. If the money was not there before and magically appeared at some point and now you want to move it - you'll have to explain a thing or two to the IRS and FinCEN. Generally, if you're a green card holder - you pay taxes on your worldwide income. So if you have a foreign account that earns interest - that interest is taxable to you in the US. In the year you earned it, not in the year you moved the money to the US. There are also reporting requirements (FBAR notably, and others). If you haven't filed FBAR with regards to the accounts which you now want to move, and especially if that also includes unreported income (interest and other) - you may find yourself in a very deep s#!t. Sorry, very deep troubles. Talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). A proper consultation is warranted, if you haven't had one already. You might need a tax attorney.",
"\"Please Note: Before taking any steps towards a transaction involving possible capital gains tax exclusions, please consult your CPA, attorney or tax advisor. I am not a CPA or Tax Advisor. Since you have only lived in it 11 months, you don't meet the \"\"use test\"\" for full exclusion. However, even if you haven't lived in it that long, you may be able to exclude some of the gains due to a \"\"unforeseen circumstance\"\", not just because you wanted to move. You say you are \"\"ready for a change\"\" and so that means it's an arbitrary decision, not a forced one. To calculate the partial exclusion, take the number of months you lived there before the sale and divide it by 24. (11/24 = 0.45). So for an unmarried person, you can exclude up to $250,000. Multiply that by .45 and you get $112,500. If your profit after everything is taken out is only $35,000 then you can exclude that from capital gains because it is less than $112,500. All that being said, you will need documentation in case you get audited. For more information, see IRS Publication 551, Basis of Assets, and look for the section on real property. See also this IRS Tax Topic on Sale of Your Home\"",
"Yes, you do. Since you've been a green card holder since the beginning of the year - your whole worldwide income for the whole year is taxable in the US. You can take credit for the taxes paid in the UK (use form 1116) to reduce your US tax liability.",
"Based on these dates in your question: Going back over my records, I was able to recall the following: Maryland realized recently that on the 2009 Federal 1040 Form you stated that on December 31 2009 you liven in Maryland. They are wondering where the state tax form is. DC, MD and VA due to reciprocity collect income tax based on where you live not where you work. So when you moved in August 2009 and again in August 2010 you needed to file new state versions of the W4. The fact you did or didn't submit to your employer a correct state W-4 is not directly related, because you would owe the tax regardless. The W-4 just makes sure that something close to the correct amounts are withheld and sent to the appropriate state capital. I seem to remember something about not having to pay Maryland state taxes since I not only lived in the state for less than 6 months but also did not work in the state. The reciprocity between DC, MD and VA says that Maryland gets the money because that is where you lived. The last time I had to do a part year the law was that they would forgive a half a month. In other words if you move in late December or early January you could ignore that small time period and avoid having to file in two states. In some cases people argue that some short term moves were never meant to be permanent. You might be able to claim that except the fact that your 2009 federal tax form you most likely claimed you lived in Maryland. The next issue is time and money. If Maryland says you owe them money for that time period, and if they still have the ability to force you to pay it; This is where the issue of correct state W-4 comes in. If the money during the period you lived in Maryland was sent to Virginia, you should have had that money refunded by Richmond in the spring of 2010. But if there was no W-4 filed with your employer that would mean that Maryland didn't get any money for 2009. If you didn't tell Richmond you moved in 2009 they may not have refunded everything because they thought you lived there all year. Because of the time that has passed it may be too late to fix your Virginia filing, so they may not refund you excess payment to them. Maryland is interested in calculating how much you should have paid them in 2009. They are only looking at what you told the feds you made, and they may be assuming that you lived there the whole year. But until you file correctly that have no ability to calculate what you really owe. You need professional advice. You need to know what they can and can't collect. You also need to know what you can and can't get back from Richmond. And since it also may impact your filings for 2010 you will want to get that resolved at the same time.",
"\"You'll need to read carefully the German laws on tax residency, in many European (and other) tax laws the loss of residency due to absence is conditioned on acquiring residency elsewhere. But in general, it is possible to use treaties and statuses so that you end up not being resident anywhere, but it doesn't mean that the income is no longer taxed. Generally every country taxes income sourced to it unless an exclusion applies, so if you can no longer apply the treaty due to not being a resident - you'll need to look for general exclusions in the tax law. I don't know how Germany taxes scholarships under the general rules, you'll have to check it. It is possible that they're not taxed. Many people try to raise the argument of \"\"I'm not a resident\"\" to avoid income taxes altogether on earnings on their work - this would not work. But with a special kind of income like scholarship, which may be exempt under the law, it may. Keep in mind, that the treaty has \"\"who is or was immediately before visiting a Contracting State a resident of the other Contracting State\"\" language in some relevant cases, so you may still apply it in the US even if no longer resident in Germany.\"",
"Nice idea, but you will have a potential problem. State lawmakers have already considered this option: I looked at this site: Saving for college because it include info for on all the plans. For Illinois it discuses income tax recapture. Effective January 1, 2007, rollovers from this plan to an out-of-state program are included in Illinois taxable income to the extent of prior Illinois deductions. Effective January 1, 2009, nonqualified distributions from this plan are included in Illinois taxable income to the extent of prior Illinois deductions. Most of the states have similar wording. When looking up the law the key word is recapture. The reason why there is no recapture provision at the federal level is that there is no tax deduction on contributions. The 10% penalty make it less likely that somebody would want to have nonqualified distributions. If a state gives a tax deduction in the year of the contribution they want to demand that tax deduction back if the funds are not used for educational purposes. Generally there are of course provisions for scholarships, death, and disability.",
"Staying out of India for a certain duration on a year (financial year) deems one to be considered NRI (non-resident Indian). NRIs are not taxed under Indian tax law as they are deemed subject to the resident country tax laws, so for NRI there is no tax liability in India. For your specific case, you could consult a Charted Accountant (CA) and he/she will be able to tell you exactly after looking at your financial data.",
"Residents of Canada must pay Canadian income tax on their worldwide income (source: Wikipedia). However, there is a tax treaty between the U.S. and Canada; I haven't read it, but my guess is that it will allow you to claim a tax credit in Canada for the capital gains tax you have paid to the U.S.",
"Yes. Here's the answer to this question from oregon.gov: 3. I am moving into Oregon. What income will be taxed by Oregon? As an Oregon resident, you are taxed on ALL income regardless of the source of the income. This includes, but is not limited to: You may need to pay estimated taxes if you don't have Oregon withholding on your income.",
"Thanks for your input. > Are you talking about domicile? Nope, **domestication**. See #2 [here]. I've seen that term on a few places on the web. I am a single-member LLC. I think I'll probably get a biz attorney. Do you think it matters whether the attorney is within the state I currently reside as opposed to the one I'm moving to?",
"Yes, to change which stocks you owe you need to sell one and buy the other, which for tax purposes means taking the profit or loss accrued up to then. On the other hand this establishes a new baseline, so you will not be double-faced on those gains. It just makes a mess of this year's tax return, and forced you to set aside some if the money to cover that.",
"If you're not a NY (tax) resident, then as long as you're not physically present in New York - you do not owe NY taxes on compensation for your services. But that is if you're a 1099 contractor/employee. If you're a partner/shareholder in a partnership/LLC/S-Corp registered or conducting business in New York, and that company pays you money - you do owe NY taxes. See this page of the NY revenue agency for more details.",
"You can do that, you aren't missing anything. It is supposed to be punishment, but as you are moving to a European country your non-penalized income would likely be taxed higher as is. I don't have info on whether you will be taxed a second time by the European country.",
"This question came up again (Living in Florida working remotely - NY employer withholds NYS taxes - Correct or Incorrect?) and the poster on the new version didn't find the existing answers to be adequate, so I'm adding a new answer. NYS will tax this income if the arrangement is for the convenience of the employee. If the arrangement is necessary to complete the work, then you should have no NYS tax. New York state taxes all New York-source salary and wage income of nonresident employees when the arrangement is for convenience rather than by necessity (Laws of New York, § 601(e), 20 NYCRR 132.18). Source: http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2009/jun/20091371.html Similar text can also be found here: http://www.koscpa.com/newsletter-article/state-tax-consequences-telecommuting/ The NYS tax document governing this situation seems to be TSB-M-06(5)I. I looked at this page from NYS that was mentioned in the answer by @littleadv. That language does at first glance seem to lead to a different answer, but the ruling in the tax memo seems to say that if you're out of state only for your convenience then the services were performed in NYS for NYS tax purpose. From the memo: However, any allowance claimed for days worked outside New York State must be based upon the performance of services which of necessity, as distinguished from convenience, obligate the employee to out-of- state duties in the service of his employer.",
"Having a large state return also means that there is a potential income tax liability created at the federal level for the following year, as the situation resulted from the deduction of more on one's federal return than should have been deducted. The state refund is treated as federal income in the year it is refunded. http://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/is-my-state-tax-refund-taxable-and-why-90/",
"Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax.",
"I have a little experience with this. My home state of Wisconsin was on this list until 2011. The thing to remember is that these states simply do not recognize the HSA. What this means is that there are no state income tax advantages to the account, and no state tax penalties, either. Here are the implications: When you invest in a taxable account, your broker in many cases keeps track of cost basis for you. However, when you invest inside an HSA, your HSA custodian will generally not keep track of any of this, because it is not normally needed. Therefore, you need to keep track of any cost basis yourself, and when you sell, calculate the capital gain or loss on your state return. In my opinion, the HSA is a good deal even if your state does not recognize it. The tax-free savings/investing is a great deal, even if only on your Federal taxes. The state return will be a little more complicated, but the savings you get on your federal return are worth it. In my situation, our family spends the money in the HSA on medical expenses fast enough that we don't invest it in anything other than an interest-bearing savings account. Therefore, we didn't have to worry about capital gains inside our HSA, and only had to add contributions and earnings to our state income. I am very glad that our state now recognizes the HSA.",
"\"From IRS Publication 970 Tax Benefits for Education Note: Qualified tuition programs (QTPs) are also called \"\"529 plans.\"\" Changing the Designated Beneficiary There are no income tax consequences if the designated beneficiary of an account is changed to a member of the beneficiary's family. See Members of the beneficiary's family , earlier. Members of the beneficiary's family. For these purposes, the beneficiary's family includes the beneficiary's spouse and the following other relatives of the beneficiary. regarding ownership changes: Rollovers Any amount distributed from a QTP isn't taxable if it is rolled over to another QTP for the benefit of the same beneficiary or for the benefit of a member of the beneficiary's family (including the beneficiary's spouse). An amount is rolled over if it is paid to another QTP within 60 days after the date of the distribution. Don't report qualifying rollovers (those that meet the above criteria) anywhere on Form 1040 or 1040NR. These aren't taxable distributions. Example. When Aaron graduated from college last year, he had $5,000 left in his QTP. He wanted to give this money to his younger brother, who was in junior high school. In order to avoid paying tax on the distribution of the amount remaining in his account, Aaron contributed the same amount to his brother's QTP within 60 days of the distribution. So it appears that as far as the IRS in concerned the rollover could be done to change ownership as long as the beneficiary was in the same family. It is possible that there could be a state tax issue with the change of ownership, if it changed from a plan in state A to one in state B; and state A treated the original contributions as a tax deduction. So check the guidelines for the specific 529 plan.\"",
"\"I believe you have to file a tax return, because state tax refund is considered income effectively connected with US trade or business, and the 1040NR instructions section \"\"Who Must File\"\" includes people who were engaged in trade or business in the US and had a gross income. You won't end up having to pay any taxes as the income is less than your personal exemption of $4050.\"",
"\"You may be considered a resident for tax purposes. To meet the substantial presence test, you must have been physically present in the United States on at least: 31 days during the current year, and 183 days during the 3 year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before. To satisfy the 183 days requirement, count: All of the days you were present in the current year, and One-third of the days you were present in the first year before the current year, and One-sixth of the days you were present in the second year before the current year. If you are exempt, I'd check that ending your residence in Germany doesn't violate terms of the visa, in which case you'd lose your exempt status. If you are certain that you can maintain your exempt status, then the income would definitively not be taxed by the US as it is not effectively connected income: You are considered to be engaged in a trade or business in the United States if you are temporarily present in the United States as a nonimmigrant on an \"\"F,\"\" \"\"J,\"\" \"\"M,\"\" or \"\"Q\"\" visa. The taxable part of any U.S. source scholarship or fellowship grant received by a nonimmigrant in \"\"F,\"\" \"\"J,\"\" \"\"M,\"\" or \"\"Q\"\" status is treated as effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States. and your scholarship is sourced from outside the US: Generally, the source of scholarships, fellowship grants, grants, prizes, and awards is the residence of the payer regardless of who actually disburses the funds. I would look into this from a German perspective. If they have a rule similiar to the US for scholarships, then you will still be counted as a resident there.\"",
"\"If you live outside the US, then you probably need to deal with foreign tax credits, foreign income exclusions, FBAR forms (you probably have bank account balances enough for the 10K threshold) , various monsters the Congress enacted against you like form 8939 (if you have enough banking and investment accounts), form 3520 (if you have a IRA-like local pension), form 5471 (if you have a stake in a foreign business), form 8833 (if you have treaty claims) etc ect - that's just what I had the pleasure of coming across, there's more. TurboTax/H&R Block At Home/etc/etc are not for you. These programs are developed for a \"\"mainstream\"\" American citizen and resident who has nothing, or practically nothing, abroad. They may support the FBAR/FATCA forms (IIRC H&R Block has a problem with Fatca, didn't check if they fixed it for 2013. Heard reports that TurboTax support is not perfect as well), but nothing more than that. If you know the stuff well enough to fill the forms manually - go for it (I'm not sure they even provide all these forms in the software though). Now, specifically to your questions: Turbo tax doesn't seem to like the fact that my wife is a foreigner and doesn't have a social security number. It keeps bugging me to input a valid Ssn for her. I input all zeros for now. Not sure what to do. No, you cannot do that. You need to think whether you even want to include your wife in the return. Does she have income? Do you want to pay US taxes on her income? If she's not a US citizen/green card holder, why would you want that? Consider it again. If you decide to include here after all - you have to get an ITIN for her (instead of SSN). If you hire a professional to do your taxes, that professional will also guide you through the ITIN process. Turbo tax forces me to fill out a 29something form that establishes bonafide residency. Is this really necessary? Again in here it bugs me about wife's Ssn Form 2555 probably. Yes, it is, and yes, you have to have a ITIN for your wife if she's included. My previous state is California, and for my present state I input Foreign. When I get to the state tax portion turbo doesn't seem to realize that I have input foreign and it wants me to choose a valid state. However I think my first question is do i have to file a California tax now that I am not it's resident anymore? I do not have any assets in California. No house, no phone bill etc If you're not a resident in California, then why would you file? But you might be a partial resident, if you lived in CA part of the year. If so, you need to file 540NR for the part of the year you were a resident. If you have a better way to file tax based on this situation could you please share with me? As I said - hire a professional, preferably one that practices in your country of residence and knows the provisions of that country's tax treaty with the US. You can also hire a professional in the US, but get a good one, that specializes on expats.\"",
"\"This is why California tax code is even more messed up than the Federal - they take the Federal and then add some. Or remove. Or mix up. Whether your brokerage will send 1099 or not is up to the brokerage. Its a Federal requirement. California may require them to send it out for CA residents, or may not. They may adhere to the FTB, or may not. It doesn't matter to you. You'll have to keep track of the interest and dividends received, cost basis for the securities, etc etc., just as any other brokerage account. You cannot rely solely on the information on the 1099 anyway, since it doesn't include many things you have to take into account for your Federal tax return as well, wash sales (inter-brokerage) being the most obvious example. As to what happens when you're 65 - you'll have to keep track, again, of all the taxes paid, and track your California basis in the account, and your Federal basis in the account, and they will not be the same. Reconciliation time again when you get there. What a mess. If you move to another state - the taxes you paid to CA are \"\"lost\"\". Similarly, if you move in to California, all the gains prior to moving in are not taxed by California. Whatever happens after - is taxed by CA as if it was a regular investment account.\"",
"This question is about PROPERTY acquired before becoming a resident of the US. If you bought property before you were a resident, and sold it after you were a resident, then you pay capital gains tax on the whole thing. Just see if it qualifies for long term capital gains tax treatment, because it is a substantially lower tax rate. You either have a tax event or you don't, and there's nothing wrong with an audit to prove that, so don't worry too much about it (unless you have a legitimate reason to be worried). Simply having what YOU perceive as a lot of money, doesn't make the possible lack of taxes more or less serious. If he has things that have declined in value, he can sell them at a loss this year and buy identical assets immediately. This is called tax harvesting and creates a loss that can offset capital gains tax.",
"\"The examples you provide in the question are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the brokerage is or where is the company you own stocks in. For a fairly standard case of an non-resident alien international student living full time in the US - your capital gains are US sourced. Let me quote the following text a couple of paragraphs down the line you quoted on the same page: Gain or loss from the sale or exchange of personal property generally has its source in the United States if the alien has a tax home in the United States. The key factor in determining if an individual is a U.S. resident for purposes of the sourcing of capital gains is whether the alien's \"\"tax home\"\" has shifted to the United States. If an alien does not have a tax home in the United States, then the alien’s U.S. source capital gains would be treated as foreign-source and thus nontaxable. In general, under the \"\"tax home\"\" rules, a person who is away (or who intends to be away) from his tax home for longer than 1 year has shifted tax homes to his new location upon his arrival in that new location. See Chapter 1 of Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses I'll assume you've read this and just want an explanation on what it means. What it means is that if you move to the US for a significant period of time (expected length of 1 year or more), your tax home is assumed to have shifted to the US and the capital gains are sourced to the US from the start of your move. For example: you are a foreign diplomat, and your 4-year assignment started in May. Year-end - you're not US tax resident (diplomats exempt), but you've stayed in the US for more than 183 days, and since your assignment is longer than 1 year - your tax home is now in the US. You'll pay the 30% flat tax. Another example: You're a foreign airline pilot, coming to the US every other day flying the airline aircraft. You end up staying in the US 184 days, but your tax home hasn't shifted, nor you're a US tax resident - you don't pay the flat tax. Keep in mind, that tax treaties may alter the situation since in many cases they also cover the capital gains situation for non-residents.\"",
"\"After more searching for how the US might treat such an attempt to \"\"rollover\"\" the funds, I found this: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/am2008009.pdf So, it seems it is impossible to do without US tax consequences.\"",
"This is a common occurrence, I know people who moved and then only remember the next spring during tax season that they never filed a new state version of a W-4. Which means for 3 or 4 months in the new year money is sent to the wrong state capital, and way too much was sent the previous year. In the spring of 2016 you should have filed a non-resident tax form with Michigan. On that form you would specify your total income numbers, your Michigan income numbers, and your other-state income numbers; with Michigan + other equal to total. That should have resulted in getting all the state taxes that were sent to Michigan returned. It is possible that the online software is unable to complete the non-resident tax form. Not all forms and situations can be addressed by the software. So you may need to fill out paper forms. You should be able to find what you need on the state of Michigan website for 2015 Taxes. A quick read shows that you will probably need the Michigan 1040, schedule 1 and Schedule NR You may run into an issue if your license, car registration, voter registration, and other documentation point to you being a resident for the part of the year you earned that income. That means you will have to submit Form 3799 Statement to Determine State of Domicile You want to do this soon because there are deadlines that limit how far back you can files taxes. The state may also get tax information from the IRS and could decide that all your income from 2015 should have applied to them, so they will be sending you a tax bill plus penalties for failure to file."
] |
[
"It also depends on where you work. If you move your home and your job then the date you establish residency in the new state is the key date. All income before that date is considered income for state 1, and all income on or after that date is income for state 2. If there is a big difference in income you will want to clearly establish residency because it impacts your wallet. If they had the same rates moving wouldn't impact your wallet, but it would impact each state. So make sure when going from high tax state to low tax state that you register your vehicles, register to vote, get a new drivers license... It becomes more complex if you move your home but not your job. In that case where you work might be the deciding factor. Same states have agreed that where you live is the deciding factor; in other cases it is not. For Virginia, Maryland, and DC you pay based on where you live if the two states involved are DC, MD, VA. But if you Live in Delaware and work in Virginia Virginia wants a cut of your income tax. So before you move you need to research reciprocity for the two states. From Massachusetts information for Nonresident and Part-Year Resident Income, Exemptions, Deductions and Credits Massachusetts gross income includes items of income derived from sources within Massachusetts. This includes income: a few questions later: Massachusetts residents and part-year residents are allowed a credit for taxes due to any other jurisdiction. The credit is available only on income reported and taxed on a Massachusetts return. Nonresidents may not claim the taxes paid to other jurisdiction credit on their Massachusetts Form 1-NR/PY. The credit is allowed for income taxes paid to: The credit is not allowed for: taxes paid to the U.S. government or a foreign country other than Canada; city or local tax; and interest and penalty paid to another jurisdiction. The computation is based on comparing the Massachusetts income tax on income reported to the other jurisdiction to the actual tax paid to the other jurisdiction; the credit is limited to the smaller of these two numbers. The other jurisdiction credit is a line item on the tax form but you must calculate it on the worksheet in the instruction booklet and also enter the credit information on the Schedule OJC. So if you move your house to New Hampshire, but continue to work in Massachusetts you will owe income tax to Massachusetts for that income even after you move and establish residency in New Hampshire.",
"I did the reverse several years ago, moving from NH to MA. You will need to file Form 1-NR/PY for 2017, reporting MA income as a part-year residence. I assume you will need to report the April capital gain on your MA tax return, as you incurred the gain while a MA resident. (I am not a lawyer or tax professional, so I don't want to state anything about this as a fact, but I would be very surprised if moving after you incurred the gain would have any affect on where you report it.)"
] |
7512
|
understanding the process/payment of short sale dividends
|
[
"191060"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"222320",
"13631",
"487329",
"298284",
"51205",
"503056",
"202960",
"251394",
"73286",
"486974",
"501931",
"126479",
"71511",
"480949",
"503780",
"549528",
"568166",
"127316",
"584128",
"255978",
"241425",
"36251",
"587689",
"115553",
"263088",
"517577",
"332901",
"345400",
"281841",
"196939",
"474512",
"232932",
"365627",
"354136",
"350317",
"294810",
"180733",
"41675",
"42521",
"233248",
"550410",
"409432",
"107045",
"554853",
"456470",
"229936",
"238903",
"191060",
"333339",
"480160",
"521604",
"317711",
"1034",
"195977",
"444562",
"33208",
"545491",
"149696",
"315345",
"484778",
"289120",
"49966",
"518393",
"3118",
"204388",
"248853",
"305983",
"596518",
"39407",
"391752",
"256295",
"152960",
"295082",
"308693",
"580985",
"292559",
"185020",
"404487",
"595796",
"118663",
"566205",
"513258",
"226264",
"217006",
"379357",
"259450",
"311214",
"120434",
"433210",
"189874",
"118786",
"265159",
"133196",
"138795",
"368848",
"137465",
"263751",
"527636",
"480808",
"206442"
] |
[
"\"In the USA there are two ways this situation can be treated. First, if your short position was held less than 45 days. You have to (when preparing the taxes) add the amount of dividend back to the purchase price of the stock. That's called adjusting the basis. Example: short at $10, covered at $8, but during this time stock paid a $1 dividend. It is beneficial for you to add that $1 back to $8 so your stock purchase basis is $9 and your profit is also $1. Inside software (depending what you use) there are options to click on \"\"adjust the basis\"\" or if not, than do it manually specifically for those shares and add a note for tax reviewer. Second option is to have that \"\"dividednd payment in lieu paid\"\" deducted as investment expence. But that option is only available if you hold the shorts for more than 45 days and itemize your deductions. Hope that helps!\"",
"The answer provide by @mbhunter is correct, however there are contexts, shorting in spot market and carrying the position over settlement usually does not entail payment of dividend to the broker, one of the reason being post ex-date the price of the share downward adjusts to the extent of the dividend, so practically if you have shorted at 100 and post ex-date (assuming a dividend of 2 and no movement of the stock price), the price would slide to 98, the party who longed the stock @ 100 now is sitting on a price of 98 and received a dividend of 2 which equates to 100. The above is also contextual to the law of the country governing the exchange and the security exchange board regulations.",
"Well, if the short seller has to pay the dividend out of their pocket, what happens to the dividend the company paid out ?? Sounds like there are 2 divdends floating around, the short's, and the company's, but only 1 share of stock.",
"When you short a stock and the stock goes ex-div. you have to pay out an amount equal to the dividend. So in your example, GG would short the stock at $10.00, buy back at $9.00 and be charged $1.00 for the dividend. Net effect $0.00.",
"Here's what Investopedia says about payouts for ex-dividend stocks: A stock trades ex-dividend on or after the ex-dividend date (ex-date). At this point, the person who owns the security on the ex-dividend date will be awarded the payment, regardless of who currently holds the stock. After the ex-date has been declared, the stock will usually drop in price by the amount of the expected dividend. Read more: Ex-Dividend Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/ex-dividend.asp#ixzz4Nl4J3s4k I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"It's a short sale. See these for good overviews: http://www.realtor.org/library/library/fg335 http://homebuying.about.com/od/4closureshortsales/a/shortsalebasics.htm You'll want input from your lawyer and accountant (assuming the lender says they would accept such a sale). Best of luck - sounds like this could be a great opportunity for you if it all comes together. DO NOT talk to a realtor.",
"No. You shorted the stock so you are not a shareholder. If you covered your short, again you are not a shareholder as you statement of account must show. You cannot participate in the net settlement fund.",
"The capital gain is either short-term or long-term and will be indicated on the 1099-DiV. You pay taxes on this amount as the capital gain was received in a taxable account (assuming since you received a 1099-DIV). More info here: https://www.mutualfundstore.com/brokerage-account/capital-gains-distributions-taxable",
"Share prices fall when dividends are paid out because the paid dividend (cash out) actually reduces the value of the company. Usually the share price falls by the amount of the dividend payment.",
"Generally speaking, each year, mutual funds distribute to their shareholders the dividends that are earned by the stocks that they hold and also the net capital gains that they make when they sell stocks that they hold. If they did not do so, the money would be income to the fund and the fund would have to pay taxes on the amount not distributed. (On the other hand, net capital losses are held by the fund and carried forward to later years to offset future capital gains). You pay taxes on the amounts of the distributions declared by the fund. Whether the fund sold a particular stock for a loss or a gain (and if so, how much) is not the issue; what the fund declares as its distribution is. This is why it is not a good idea to buy a mutual fund just before it makes a distribution; your share price drops by the per-share amount of the distribution, and you have to pay taxes on the distribution.",
"I believe this depends on the broker's policies. For example, here is Vanguard's policy (from https://personal.vanguard.com/us/whatweoffer/stocksbondscds/brokeragedividendprogram): Does selling shares affect a distribution? If you sell the entire position two days or more before the dividend-payable date, your distribution will be paid in cash. If, however, you sell an entire position within the two day time frame of the security's payable date, the dividend will be reinvested, resulting in additional shares. Selling these subsequent shares will require another sell order, which will incur additional commission charges. Dividends which would have been reinvested into less than one whole share will be automatically liquidated into cash. If you want to guarantee you receive no fractional shares, I'd call your broker and ask whether selling stock ABC on a particular date will result in the dividend being paid in shares.",
"\"Preferred dividends and common dividends are completely separate transactions. There's not a single \"\"dividend\"\" payment that is split between preferred and common shares. Dividends on preferred shares are generally MUCH higher than common dividends, and are generally required by the terms of the preferred shares, again unlike common dividends, which are discretionary.\"",
"\"You have to be the owner of record before the ex-dividend date, which is not the same day as the date the dividend is paid. This also implies that if you sell on or after the ex-dividend date, you'll still get the dividend, even if you no longer own the stock. Keep in mind, also, that the quoted price of the stock (and on any open orders that are not specifically marked as \"\"do not reduce\"\") on its ex-dividend date is dropped by the amount of the dividend, first thing in the morning before trading starts. If you happen to be the first order of the day, before market forces cause the price to move, you'll end up with zero gain, since the dividend is built into the price, and you got the same value out of it -- the dividend in cash, and the remaining value in stock. As pointed out in the comments (Thanks @Brick), you'll still get a market price for your trade, but the price reduction will have had some impact on the first trade of the day. Source: NYSE Rule 118.30 Also, remember that the dividend yield is expressed in annualized terms. So a 3% yield can only be fully realized by receiving all of the dividend payments made by the company for the year. You can, of course, forget about individual companies and just look for dividends to create your own effective yield over time. But, see the final point... Finally, if you keep buying and selling just to play games with the dividends, you're going to pay far more in transaction fees than you will earn in dividends. And, depending on your individual circumstances, you may end up paying more in capital gains taxes.\"",
"\"It is true, as farnsy noted, that you generally do not know when stock that you're holding has been loaned by your broker to someone for a short sale, that you generally consent to that when you sign up somewhere in the small print, and that the person who borrows has to make repay and dividends. The broker is on the hook to make sure that your stock is available for you to sell when you want, so there's limited risk there. There are some risks to having your stock loaned though. The main one is that you don't actually get the dividend. Formally, you get a \"\"Substitute Payment in Lieu of Dividends.\"\" The payment in lieu will be taxed differently. Whereas qualified dividends get reported on Form 1099-DIV and get special tax treatment, substitute payments get reported on Form 1099-MISC. (Box 8 is just for this purpose.) Substitute payments get taxed as regular income, not at the preferred rate for dividends. The broker may or may not give you additional money beyond the dividend to compensate you for the extra tax. Whether or not this tax difference matters, depends on how much you're getting in dividends, your tax bracket, and to some extent your general perspective. If you want to vote your shares and exercise your ownership rights, then there are also some risks. The company only issues ballots for the number of shares issued by them. On the broker's books, however, the short sale may result in more long positions than there are total shares of stock. Financially the \"\"extra\"\" longs are offset by shorts, but for voting this does not balance. (I'm unclear how this is resolved - I've read that the the brokers essentially depend on shareholder apathy, but I'd guess there's more to it than that.) If you want to prevent your broker from loaning out your shares, you have some options:\"",
"\"Dividend rate is \"\"dividend per share\"\" over a specified time period, usually a year. So in the first example, if the company paid a $1/share dividend over the year before the stock dividend the shareholder would receive $100, while if it paid the $1/share the year after the stock dividend the shareholder would receive $105. The company could have achieved the same thing by paying total dividends of $1.05/share, which is what the last phrase of the last quoted paragraph is saying. Here's an Investopedia page on dividend rate. Also, what you're calling \"\"payout ratio\"\" is really \"\"dividend yield\"\". \"\"Payout ratio\"\" is how much of the company's net earnings are paid out in dividends. That's all in the US, I could see the terms being used differently outside the US.\"",
"\"Dividends are declared by the board of directors of a corporation on date A, to stock holders of record on date B (a later date). These stockholders then receive the declared dividend on date C, the so-called payment date. All of these dates are announced on the first (declaration) date. If there is no announcement, no dividend will be paid. The stock typically goes down in price by approximately the amount of the dividend on the date it \"\"goes ex,\"\" but then moves in price to reflect other developments, including the possibility of another declaration/payment, three months hence. Dividends are important to some investors, especially those who live on the income. They are less important to investors who are out for capital gains (and who may prefer that the company reinvest its money to seek such gains instead of paying dividends). In actual fact, dividends are one component of \"\"total\"\" or overall return. The other component is capital gains, and the sum of the two represents your return.\"",
"You could hold a long position in some company XXXX and then short your own shares (assuming your broker will let you do that). The dividend that would have gone to you would then go to whoever is holding the shares you short sold. You just don't get a dividend. If you're going to short in a smart way... do it on a stock you otherwise believe in, but use it to minimize the pull-backs on the way up.",
"The issue for you seems to be the sequence of events. Presumably, there will be a gain in the fund. In one year, you have a fund worth $100,000 and the $8500 your netted from the $10,000 dividend. (Dividends are taxed at 15% for most of us. If your taxable income is under $38K single, it's $0) An $8500 net return for the year. Now, if there were no initial dividend, and at the end of a full year, your $100K grew to $110K, and then gave you the $10K dividend, you might not be so unhappy. Even on day 2, you now have a fund worth $90K with a basis of $100K, and the promise of future dividends or cap gains. When you sell, the first $10K of gain from this point will effectively be tax free due to this quick drop. To directly answer the last few sentences, dividends and cap gains are different. And different still, for the way a fund processes them.",
"Vanguard (and probably other mutual fund brokers as well) offers easy-to-read performance charts that show the total change in value of a $10K investment over time. This includes the fair market value of the fund plus any distributions (i.e. dividends) paid out. On Vanguard's site they also make a point to show the impact of fees in the chart, since their low fees are their big selling point. Some reasons why a dividend is preferable to selling shares: no loss of voting power, no transaction costs, dividends may have better tax consequences for you than capital gains. NOTE: If your fund is underperforming the benchmark, it is not due to the payment of dividends. Funds do not pay their own dividends; they only forward to shareholders the dividends paid out by the companies in which they invest. So the fair market value of the fund should always reflect the fair market value of the companies it holds, and those companies' shares are the ones that are fluctuating when they pay dividends. If your fund is underperforming its benchmark, then that is either because it is not tracking the benchmark closely enough or because it is charging high fees. The fact that the underperformance you're seeing appears to be in the amount of dividends paid is a coincidence. Check out this example Vanguard performance chart for an S&P500 index fund. Notice how if you add the S&P500 index benchmark to the plot you can't even see the difference between the two -- the fund is designed to track the benchmark exactly. So when IBM (or whoever) pays out a dividend, the index goes down in value and the fund goes down in value.",
"Short sellers have to pay interest on the borrowings to the shareholders. Although many times brokers don't pass on these earnings to the shareholders, this is the exchange.",
"> It's been years since my finance classes, but it seems to me the best course of action after selling the property and paying corporate taxes would be to reinvest the money at the corporate level to then pay out dividends rather than pay each of the 3 shareholders out and have us then pay personal tax on a large amount. Full disclaimer, no one here is, or is acting in capacity as, a tax accountant or lawyer. My understanding is as follows (assuming you're in the US): 1. The C-Corp owns the property. If you sell the property, the *corporation* will receive the proceeds of that sale. IF a capital gain is recognized, *the corporation* will pay the appropriate tax rate. That rate is, apparently, the same as normal income. 2. If you then issue a dividend with the proceeds of that sale, you are actually NOT reinvesting the proceeds, you're distributing them to shareholders. Shareholders will *then* need to pay tax on the dividends at their personal rates *as income.* If you reinvest the cash, it will stay in the business. It will not go directly to shareholders. The cash will need to be invested somewhere else within the company. You will get hit with taxes regardless at least once. If you distribute to shareholders, those proceeds will be taxed twice. Example: Both Cases: Sale Proceeds: $100 Less Corporate Tax of 35%: $35 After-Tax Proceeds: $65 _______________________________________________________________ IF DISTRIBUTED: Distributed to Shareholders: $65 Less Income Taxes at 25%: $16.25 After-Tax Distribution to Shareholders: $48.75 ____________________________________________________________ IF RETAINED: No distributions. Retained Earnings: +$65 Cash: +$65 Book Value of Equity: +$65 Shareholder Wealth Increase: $65",
"\"To Many question and they are all treated differently. I was wondering how the logistics of interest and dividend payments are handled on assets , such as mortgages, bonds, stocks, What if the owner is some high-frequency algorithm that buys and sells bonds and stocks in fractions of a second? When the company decides to pay dividends, does it literally track down every single owner of that stock and deposit x cents per share in that person's bank account? (This sounds absolutely absurd and seems like it would be a logistical nightmare). In Stocks, the dividends are issued periodically. The dividend date is declared well in advance. As on end of the day on Dividend date, the list of individuals [or entities] who own the stock is available with the Stock-Exchange / Registrar of the companies. To this list the dividends are credited in next few days / weeks via banking channel. Most of this is automated. What if the owner is some high-frequency algorithm that buys and sells bonds and stocks in fractions of a second? On bonds, things work slightly differently. An Bond is initially issued for say 95 [discount of 5%] and payment of 100 after say 5 years. So when the person sells it after an year, he would logically look to get a price of 96. Of course there are other factors that could fetch him a price of 94.50 or 95.50. So every change in ownership factors in the logical rate of interest. The person who submits in on maturity gets 100. For the homeowner, I'm assuming he / she still makes mortgage payments to the initial bank they got the mortgage from, even if the bank no longer \"\"owns\"\" the mortgage. In this case, does the trader on the secondary market who owns the mortgage also come back to that bank to collect his interest payment? This depends on how the original financial institution sells the mortgage to new institutions. Generally the homeowner would keep paying initial financial institution and they would then take a margin and pay the secondary investor. If this was collateral-ized as Mortgage backed security, it is a very different story.\"",
"Yes, somebody could buy the shares, receive the dividend, and then sell the shares back. However, the price he would get when he sells the shares back is, ignoring other reasons for the price to change, exactly the amount he paid minus the dividend.",
"No, the dividends can't be exploited like that. Dividends settlement are tied to an ex-dividend date. The ex-dividend, is the day that allows you to get a dividend if you own the stock. Since a buyer of the stock after this date won't get the dividend, the price usually drop by the amount of the dividend. In your case the price of a share would lose $2.65 and you will be credited by $2.65 in cash such that your portfolio won't change in value due to the dividend. Also, you can't exploit the drop in price by short-selling, as you would be owing the dividend to the person lending you the stock for the short sale. Finally, the price of the stock at the ex-dividend will also be affected by the supply and demand, such that you can't be precisely sure of the drop in price of the security.",
"Keep in mind the ex-dividend date is different from the payable date (the day the dividend is paid). That means the market price will already have adjusted lower due to the dividend. Short answer: you get the lower price when reinvesting. So here's Vanguard's policy, it should be similar to most brokers: When reinvesting dividends, Vanguard Brokerage Services combines the cash distributions from the accounts of all clients who have requested reinvestment in the same security, and then uses that combined total to purchase additional shares of the security in the open market. Vanguard Brokerage will attempt to purchase the reinvestment shares by entering a market order at the market opening on the payable date. The new shares are divided proportionately among the clients' accounts, in whole and fractional shares rounded to three decimal places. If the total purchase can't be completed in one trade, clients will receive shares purchased at the weighted average price paid by Vanguard Brokerage Services.",
"You sold all shares? The potential wash sale effect goes away after 30 days from the dividend date. Selling all shares of a stock where a wash existed effectively negates the wash and you can take the loss.",
"It is the first time I encounter redemption programme and I would like to know what are my options here You can hold on to the shares and automatically receive 2.25 SEK per share some time after 31-May; depending on how fast the company and its bank process the payouts. Alternatively you can trade in the said window for whatever the market is offering. how is this different from paying the dividend? I don't know much about Sweden laws. Structuring this way may be tax beneficial. The other benefit in in company's books the shareholders capital is reduced. can I trade these redemption shares during these 2 weeks in May? What is the point of trading them if they have fixed price? Yes you can. If you need money sooner ... generally the price will be discounted by few cents to cover the interest for the balance days.",
"Why? Balance sheet is balance sheet, why is it complicated? Bank shareholders get dividends in exactly the same way as any other company shareholders do: the company ends up with net profits, which the board of directors decides to distribute to shareholders based on certain amount per share. If at all. Not all the profits are distributed, and in fact - there are companies who don't distribute dividends at all. Apple, for example, hasn't ever distributed dividends until very very recently.",
"\"The amount, reliability and frequency of dividends paid by an ETF other than a stock, such as an index or mutual fund, is a function of the agreement under which the ETF was established by the managing or issuing company (or companies), and the \"\"basket\"\" of investments that a share in the fund represents. Let's say you invest in a DJIA-based index fund, for instance Dow Diamonds (DIA), which is traded on several exchanges including NASDAQ and AMEX. One share of this fund is currently worth $163.45 (Jan 22 2014 14:11 CDT) while the DJIA itself is $16,381.38 as of the same time, so one share of the ETF represents approximately 1% of the index it tracks. The ETF tracks the index by buying and selling shares of the blue chips proportional to total invested value of the fund, to maintain the same weighted percentages of the same stocks that make up the index. McDonald's, for instance, has an applied weight that makes the share price of MCD stock roughly 5% of the total DJIA value, and therefore roughly 5% of the price of 100 shares of DIA. Now, let's say MCD issued a dividend to shareholders of, say, $.20 per share. By buying 100 shares of DIA, you own, through the fund, approximately five MCD shares, and would theoretically be entitled to $1 in dividends. However, keep in mind that you do not own these shares directly, as you would if you spent $16k buying the correct percentage of all the shares directly off the exchange. You instead own shares in the DIA fund, basically giving you an interest in some investment bank that maintains a pool of blue-chips to back the fund shares. Whether the fund pays dividends or not depends on the rules under which that fund was set up. The investment bank may keep all the dividends itself, to cover the expenses inherent in managing the fund (paying fund management personnel and floor traders, covering losses versus the listed price based on bid-ask parity, etc), or it may pay some percentage of total dividends received from stock holdings. However, it will virtually never transparently cut you a check in the amount of your proportional holding of an indexed investment as if you held those stocks directly. In the case of the DIA, the fund pays dividends monthly, at a yield of 2.08%, virtually identical to the actual weighted DJIA yield (2.09%) but lower than the per-share mean yield of the \"\"DJI 30\"\" (2.78%). Differences between index yields and ETF yields can be reflected in the share price of the ETF versus the actual index; 100 shares of DIA would cost $16,345 versus the actual index price of 16,381.38, a delta of $(36.38) or -0.2% from the actual index price. That difference can be attributed to many things, but fundamentally it's because owning the DIA is not the exact same thing as owning the correct proportion of shares making up the DJIA. However, because of what index funds represent, this difference is very small because investors expect to get the price for the ETF that is inherent in the real-time index.\"",
"In an ideal world Say on 24th July the share price of Apple was $600. Everyone knows that they will get the $ 2.65 on 16th August. There is not other news that is affecting the price. You want to go in and buy the shares on 16th Morning at $600 and then sell it on 17th August at $600. Now in this process you have earned sure shot $2.65/- Or in an ideal world when the announcement is made on 24th July, why would I sell it at $600, when I know if I wait for few more days I will get $2.65/- so i will be more inclined to sell it at $602.65 /- ... so on 16th Aug after the dividend is paid out, the share price will be back to $600/- In a real world, dividend or no dividend the share price would be moving up or down ... Notice that the dividend amount is less than 1% of the stock price ... stock prices change more than this percentage ... so if you are trying to do what is described in paragraph one, then you may be disappointed as the share price may go down as well by more than $2.65 you have made",
"\"In the US, and in most other countries, dividends are considered income when paid, and capital gains/losses are considered income/loss when realized. This is called, in accounting, \"\"recognition\"\". We recognize income when cash reaches our pocket, for tax purposes. So for dividends - it is when they're paid, and for gains - when you actually sell. Assuming the price of that fund never changes, you have this math do to when you sell: Of course, the capital loss/gain may change by the time you actually sell and realize it, but assuming the only price change is due to the dividends payout - it's a wash.\"",
"\"In the case of mutual funds, Net Asset Value (NAV) is the price used to buy and sell shares. NAV is just the value of the underlying assets (which are in turn valued by their underlying holdings and future earnings). So if a fund hands out a billion dollars, it stands to reason their NAV*shares (market cap?) is a billion dollars less. Shareholder's net worth is equal in either scenario, but after the dividend is paid they are more liquid. For people who need investment income to live on, dividends are a cheap way to hold stocks and get regular payments, versus having to sell part of your portfolio every month. But for people who want to hold their investment in the market for a long long time, dividends only increase the rate at which you have to buy. For mutual funds this isn't a problem: you buy the funds and tell them to reinvest for free. So because of that, it's a prohibited practice to \"\"sell\"\" dividends to clients.\"",
"\"If a stock is trading for $11 per share just before a $1 per share dividend is declared, then the share price drops to $10 per share immediately following the declaration. If you owned 100 shares (valued at $1100) before the dividend was declared, then you still own 100 shares (now valued at $1000). Generally, if the dividend is paid today, only the owners of shares as of yesterday evening (or the day before maybe) get paid the dividend. If you bought those 100 shares only this morning, the dividend gets paid to the seller (who owned the stock until yesterday evening), not to you. You just \"\"bought a dividend:\"\" paying $1100 for 100 shares that are worth only $1000 at the end of the day, whereas if you had just been a little less eager to purchase right now, you could have bought those 100 shares for only $1000. But, looking at the bright side, if you bought the shares earlier than yesterday, you get paid the dividend. So, assuming that you bought the shares in timely fashion, your holdings just lost value and are worth only $1000. What you do have is the promise that in a couple of days time, you will be paid $100 as the dividend, thus restoring the asset value back to what it was earlier. Now, if you had asked your broker to re-invest the dividend back into the same stock, then, assuming that the stock price did not change in the interim due to normal market fluctuations, you would get another 10 shares for that $100 dividend making the value of your investment $1100 again (110 shares at $10 each), exactly what it was before the dividend was paid. If you didn't choose to reinvest the dividend, you would still have the 100 shares (worth $1000) plus $100 cash. So, regardless of what other investors choose to do, your asset value does not change as a result of the dividend. What does change is your net worth because that dividend amount is taxable (regardless of whether you chose to reinvest or not) and so your (tax) liability just increased.\"",
"\"This answer is applicable to the US. Similar rules may hold in some other countries as well. The shares in an open-ended (non-exchange-traded) mutual fund are not traded on stock exchanges and the \"\"market\"\" does not determine the share price the way it does for shares in companies as brokers make offers to buy and sell stock shares. The price of one share of the mutual fund (usually called Net Asset Value (NAV) per share) is usually calculated at the close of business, and is, as the name implies, the net worth of all the shares in companies that the fund owns plus cash on hand etc divided by the number of mutual fund shares outstanding. The NAV per share of a mutual fund might or might not increase in anticipation of the distribution to occur, but the NAV per share very definitely falls on the day that the distribution is declared. If you choose to re-invest your distribution in the same fund, then you will own more shares at a lower NAV per share but the total value of your investment will not change at all. If you had 100 shares currently priced at $10 and the fund declares a distribution of $2 per share, you will be reinvesting $200 to buy more shares but the fund will be selling you additional shares at $8 per share (and of course, the 100 shares you hold will be priced at $8 per share too. So, you will have 100 previous shares worth only $800 now + 25 new shares worth $200 for a total of 125 shares at $8 = $1000 total investment, just as before. If you take the distribution in cash, then you still hold the 100 shares but they are worth only $800 now, and the fund will send you the $200 as cash. Either way, there is no change in your net worth. However, (assuming that the fund is is not in a tax-advantaged account), that $200 is taxable income to you regardless of whether you reinvest it or take it as cash. The fund will tell you what part of that $200 is dividend income (as well as what part is Qualified Dividend income), what part is short-term capital gains, and what part is long-term capital gains; you declare the income in the appropriate categories on your tax return, and are taxed accordingly. So, what advantage is there in re-investing? Well, your basis in those shares has increased and so if and when you sell the shares, you will owe less tax. If you had bought the original 100 shares at $10 and sell the 125 shares a few years later at $11 and collect $1375, you owe (long-term capital gains) tax on just $1375-$1200 =$175 (which can also be calculated as $1 gain on each of the original 100 shares = $100 plus $3 gain on the 25 new shares = $175). In the past, some people would forget the intermediate transactions and think that they had invested $1000 initially and gotten $1375 back for a gain of $375 and pay taxes on $375 instead. This is less likely to occur now since mutual funds are now required to report more information on the sale to the shareseller than they used to in the past. So, should you buy shares in a mutual fund right now? Most mutual fund companies publish preliminary estimates in November and December of what distributions each fund will be making by the end of the year. They also usually advise against purchasing new shares during this period because one ends up \"\"buying a dividend\"\". If, for example, you bought those 100 shares at $10 on the Friday after Thanksgiving and the fund distributes that $2 per share on December 15, you still have $1000 on December 15, but now owe taxes on $200 that you would not have had to pay if you had postponed buying those shares till after the distribution was paid. Nitpickers: for simplicity of exposition, I have not gone into the detailed chronology of when the fund goes ex-dividend, when the distribution is recorded, and when cash is paid out, etc., but merely treated all these events as happening simultaneously.\"",
"Generally, ETFs and mutual funds don't pay taxes (although there are some cases where they do, and some countries where it is a common case). What happens is, the fund reports the portion of the gain attributed to each investor, and the investor pays the tax. In the US, this is reported to you on 1099-DIV as capital gains distribution, and can be either short term (as in the scenario you described), long term, or a mix of both. It doesn't mean you actually get a distribution, though, but if you don't - it reduces your basis.",
"I remember my Finance Professor at b-school answering this question: The next moment the dividend is paid the total market cap is decreased by the amount paid This makes sense as cash leaves company, the value of the company is decreased by exactly the same amount. To summarise: the moment you paid dividend, the value of the stock is decreased by the same amount.",
"\"This is what is called \"\"stock dividend\"\". In essence the company is doing a split, the difference is in financial accounting and shouldn't concern you much as an individual investor. \"\"Fully paid up\"\", in this context, probably means \"\"unconditioned\"\", aka fully vested.\"",
"The Paragraph talks about dividends given by Mutual Funds. Say a fund has NAV of $ 10, as the value of the underlying security grows, the value of the fund would also grow, lets say it becomes $ 12 in 2 months. Now if the Mutual Fund decides to pay out a dividend of $ 1 to all unit holder, then post the distribution of dividend, the value of the Fund would become to $ 11. Thus if you are say investing on 1-April and know that dividends of $1 would be paid on 5-April [the divided distribution date is published typically weeks in advance], if you are hoping to make $1 in 5 days, that is not going to happen. On 6-April you would get $1, but the value of the fund would now be $11 from the earlier $12. This may not be wise as in some countries you would ending up paying tax on $1. Even in shares, the concept is similar, however the price may get corrected immediately and one may not actually see it going down by $1 due to market dynamics.",
"\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \"\"otherwise\"\" is substantial and far-ranging.\"",
"(I'm assuming the tag of United-states is accurate) Yes, the remaining amount is tax free -- at the current price. If you sell at exactly the original price, there is no capital gain, no capital loss. So you've already payed the taxes. If you sell and there is a capital gain of $3000, then you will pay taxes on the $3000. If 33% is your marginal tax rate, and if you held the stock for less than a year, then you will keep $7000 and pay taxes of $1000. Somehow, I doubt your marginal tax rate is 33%. If you hold the stock for a year after eTrade sold some for you to pay taxes, then you will pay 15% on the gain -- or $450. eTrade sold the shares to pay the taxes generated by the income. Yes, those shares were considered income. If you sell and have a loss, well, life sucks. However, if you sell something else, you can use the loss to offset the other gain. So if you sell stock A for a loss of $3000, and sell stock B at a gain of $4000, then you pay taxes on the net of $1000.",
"No, the expense ratio would be something you wouldn't be charged. If you bought shares of the ETF long, then the dividends are usually reduced by the expense ratio if you wanted to know where to find that charge in general. You would have to make up for any dividends the underlying stocks as part of general shorting since the idea is that once you buy to put back the shares, it has to appear as if they weren't missing in the first place. No, the authorized participant would handle changes to the underlying structure if needed.",
"Also keep in mind that most REITs have high dividend yields. If you short, you are responsible for payment of the dividend to the party you are borrowing the shares from. This can add costs to your position over time. Short REITS for a long time period is not necessarily an optimal strategy.",
"Rich's answer captures the basic essence of short selling with example. I'd like to add these additional points: You typically need a specially-privileged brokerage account to perform short selling. If you didn't request short selling when you opened your account, odds are good you don't have it, and that's good because it's not something most people should ever consider doing. Short selling is an advanced trading strategy. Be sure you truly grok selling short before doing it. Consider that when buying stock (a.k.a. going long or taking a long position, in contrast to short) then your potential loss as a buyer is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero) and your potential gain unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're lucky!) Whereas, with short selling, it's reversed: Your loss can be unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're unlucky!) and your potential gain is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero.) The proceeds you receive from a short sale – and then some – need to stay in your account to offset the short position. Brokers require this. Typically, margin equivalent to 150% the market value of the shares sold short must be maintained in the account while the short position is open. The owner of the borrowed shares is still expecting his dividends, if any. You are responsible for covering the cost of those dividends out of your own pocket. To close or cover your short position, you initiate a buy to cover. This is simply a buy order with the intention that it will close out your matching short position. You may be forced to cover your short position before you want to and when it is to your disadvantage! Even if you have sufficient margin available to cover your short, there are cases when lenders need their shares back. If too many short sellers are forced to close out positions at the same time, they push up demand for the stock, increasing price and deepening their losses. When this happens, it's called a short squeeze. In the eyes of the public who mostly go long buying stock, short sellers are often reviled. However, some people and many short sellers believe they are providing balance to the market and preventing it sometimes from getting ahead of itself. [Disambiguation: A short sale in the stock market is not related to the real estate concept of a short sale, which is when a property owner sells his property for less than he owes the bank.] Additional references:",
"\"The Cash Credit from Unsettled Activity occurs because AGG issued a dividend in the past week. Since you purchased the ETF long enough before the record date (June 5, 2013) for that trade to settle, you qualified for a dividend. The dividend distribution was $0.195217/share for each of your six shares, for a total credit of $1.17 = 6 * 0.195217. For any ETF, the company's website should tell you when dividends are issued, usually under a section titled \"\"Distributions\"\" or something similar. If you look in your Fidelity account's History page, it should show an entry of \"\"Dividend Received\"\", which confirms that the cash credit is coming from a dividend distribution. You could look up your holdings and see which one(s) recently issued a dividend; in this case, it was AGG.\"",
"What is a dividend? Essentially, for every share of a dividend stock that you own, you are paid a portion of the company’s earnings. You get paid simply for owning the stock! For example, let’s say Company X pays an annualized dividend of 20 cents per share. Most companies pay dividends quarterly (four times a year), meaning at the end of every business quarter, the company will send a check for 1/4 of 20 cents (or 5 cents) for each share you own. This may not seem like a lot, but when you have built your portfolio up to thousands of shares, and use those dividends to buy more stock in the company, you can make a lot of money over the years. The key is to reinvest those dividends! Source: http://www.dividend.com/dividend-investing-101/what-are-dividend-stocks/ What is an ex dividend date Once the company sets the record date, the ex-dividend date is set based on stock exchange rules. The ex-dividend date is usually set for stocks two business days before the record date. If you purchase a stock on its ex-dividend date or after, you will not receive the next dividend payment. Instead, the seller gets the dividend. If you purchase before the ex-dividend date, you get the dividend. Source: https://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm That said, as long as you purchased the stock before 6/4/17 you are entitled to the next dividend. If not, you'll get the following one after that.",
"The money is paid to investors who bought those mortgage backed securities. The company that services those loans is responsible for making sure the money is paid to the right investors",
"The sale of shares on vesting convolutes matters. In a way similar to how reinvested dividends are taxed but the newly purchased fund shares' basis has to be increased, you need to be sure to have the correct per share cost basis. It's easy to confuse the total RSU purchase with the correct numbers, only what remained. The vesting stock is a taxable event, ordinary income. You then own the stock at that cost basis. A sale after that is long or short term and the profit is the to extent it exceeds that basis. The fact that you got these shares in 2013 means you should have paid the tax then. And this is part two of the process. Of course the partial sale means a bit of math to calculate the basis of what remained.",
"\"I would suggest the following rationale : This appears to be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, however, you can bet that this is how things are handled. As to who receives the dividend you have payed, this will be whoever the counter-party (or counter-parties) are that were assigned the exercise. EDIT Looking at the Dec16 SPY options, we see that the expiry date is 23 Dec. Therefore, your options have been exercised prior to expiry. The 3AM time stamp is probably due to the \"\"overnight batch processing\"\" of your brokers computer system. The party exercising the options will have chosen to exercise on the day prior to ex-dividend in order to receive the dividends.\"",
"\"4) Finally, do all companies reduce their stock price when they pay a dividend? Are they required to? There seems to be confusion behind this question. A company does not set the price for their stock, so they can't \"\"reduce\"\" it either. In fact, nobody sets \"\"the price\"\" for a stock. The price you see reported is simply the last price that the stock was traded at. That trade was just one particular trade in a whole sequence of trades. The price used for the trade is simply the price which the particular buyer and particular seller agreed to for that particular trade. (No agreement, well then, no trade.) There's no authority for the price other than the collection of all buyers and sellers. So what happens when Nokia declares a 55 cent dividend? When they declare there is to be a dividend, they state the record date, which is the date which determines who will get the dividend: the owners of the shares on that date are the people who get the dividend payment. The stock exchanges need to account for the payment so that investors know who gets it and who doesn't, so they set the ex dividend date, which is the date on which trades of the stock will first trade without the right to receive the dividend payment. (Ex-dividend is usually about 2 days before record date.) These dates are established well before they occur so all market participants can know exactly when this change in value will occur. When trading on ex dividend day begins, there is no authority to set a \"\"different\"\" price than the previous day's closing price. What happens is that all (knowledgeable) market participants know that today Nokia is trading without the payment 55 cents that buyers the previous day get. So what do they do? They take that into consideration when they make an offer to buy stock, and probably end up offering a price that is about 55 cents less than they would have otherwise. Similarly, sellers know they will be getting that 55 cents, so when they choose a price to offer their stock at, it will likely be about that much less than they would have asked for otherwise.\"",
"Dividend is a payment which is paid by the company after getting profit or interest is plus paid amount which we get on our income.we can pick up the dividend as a form of interest on our investment",
"This is how capital shares in split capital investment trusts work they never get any dividend they just get the capital when the company is wound up",
"This really comes down to tax structuring (which I am not an expert on), for public companies the acquiror almost always pays for the cash to prevent any taxable drawdown of overseas accounts, dividend taxes suck, etc. For a private company, first the debt gets swept, then special dividend out - dividends received by the selling corporate entity benefit from a tax credit plus it reduces the selling price of the equity, reducing capital gains taxes.",
"\"What you are describing is a very specific case of the more general principle of how dividend payments work. Broadly speaking, if you own common shares in a corporation, you are a part owner of that corporation; you have the right to a % of all of that corporation's assets. The value in having that right is ultimately because the corporation will pay you dividends while it operates, and perhaps a final dividend when it liquidates at the end of its life. This is why your shares have value - because they give you ownership of the business itself. Now, assume you own 1k shares in a company with 100M shares, worth a total of $5B. You own 0.001% of the company, and each of your shares is worth $50; the total value of all your shares is $50k. Assume further that the value of the company includes $1B in cash. If the company pays out a dividend of $1B, it will now be only worth $4B. Your shares have just gone down in value by 20%! But, you have a right to 0.001% of the dividend, which equals a $10k cash payment to you. Your personal holdings are now $40k worth of shares, plus $10k in cash. Except for taxes, financial theory states that whether a corporation pays a dividend or not should not impact the value to the individual shareholder. The difference between a regular corporation and a mutual fund, is that the mutual fund is actually a pool of various investments, and it reports a breakdown of that pool to you in a different way. If you own shares directly in a corporation, the dividends you receive are called 'dividends', even if you bought them 1 minute before the ex-dividend date. But a payment from a mutual fund can be divided between, for example, a flow through of dividends, interest, or a return of capital. If you 'looked inside' your mutual fund you when you bought it, you would see that 40% of its value comes from stock A, 20% comes from stock B, etc etc., including maybe 1% of the value coming from a pile of cash the fund owns at the time you bought your units. In theory the mutual fund could set aside the cash it holds for current owners only, but then it would need to track everyone's cash-ownership on an individual basis, and there would be thousands of different 'unit classes' based on timing. For simplicity, the mutual fund just says \"\"yes, when you bought $50k in units, we were 1/3 of the year towards paying out a $10k dividend. So of that $10k dividend, $3,333k of it is assumed to have been cash at the time you bought your shares. Instead of being an actual 'dividend', it is simply a return of capital.\"\" By doing this, the mutual fund is able to pay you your owed dividend [otherwise you would still have the same number of units but no cash, meaning you would lose overall value], without forcing you to be taxed on that payment. If the mutual fund didn't do this separate reporting, you would have paid $50k to buy $46,667k of shares and $3,333k of cash, and then you would have paid tax on that cash when it was returned to you. Note that this does not \"\"falsely exaggerate the investment return\"\", because a return of capital is not earnings; that's why it is reported separately. Note that a 'close-ended fund' is not a mutual fund, it is actually a single corporation. You own units in a mutual fund, giving you the rights to a proportion of all the fund's various investments. You own shares in a close-ended fund, just as you would own shares in any other corporation. The mutual fund passes along the interest, dividends, etc. from its investments on to you; the close-ended fund may pay dividends directly to its shareholders, based on its own internal dividend policy.\"",
"Dividends are supposed to be paid from company profits (in the current or previous financial years), there are nuances around what profits mean from country to country, but the link is the UK definition from the HMRC. Profits from previous financial years are commonly called retained earnings. There are a few items around this",
"Do you realise that the examples you have given are for stock splits not for dividends, that is why the date payable is before the ex-date for the split. The payments for the split occur on 30th June and the first day the stock trades with the new split is on the next trading day, being the ex-date, 1st July.",
"The dividend goes into the IRA (either reinvested automatically or remains as cash until you invest it, per your choice). You're not taxed on this dividend (IRA is a taxed-deferred account - you're taxed on the distributions, but not on the capital gains within the account).",
"\"How is that possible?? The mutual fund doesn't pay taxes and passes along the tax bill to shareholders via distributions would be the short answer. Your basis likely changed as now you have bought more shares. But I gained absolutely nothing from my dividend, so how is it taxable? The fund has either realized capital gains, dividends, interest or some other form of income that it has to pass along to shareholders as the fund doesn't pay taxes itself. Did I get screwed the first year because I bought into the fund too late in the year? Perhaps if you don't notice that your cost basis has changed here so that you'll have lower taxes when you sell your shares. Is anyone familiar with what causes this kind of situation of receiving a \"\"taxable dividend\"\" that doesn't actually increase the account balance? Yes, I am rather familiar with this. The point to understand is that the fund doesn't pay taxes itself but passes this along. The shareholders that hold funds in tax-advantaged accounts like 401ks and IRAs still get the distribution but are shielded from paying taxes on those gains at that point at time. Is it because I bought too late in the year? No, it is because you didn't know the fund would have a distribution of that size that year. Some funds can have negative returns yet still have a capital gains distribution if the fund experiences enough redemptions that the fund had to sell appreciated shares in a security. This is part of the risk in having stock funds in taxable accounts. Or is it because the fund had a negative return that year? No, it is because you don't understand how mutual funds and taxes work along with what distribution schedule the fund had. Do I wait until after the distribution date this year to buy? I'd likely consider it for taxable accounts yes. However, if you are buying in a tax-advantaged account then there isn't that same issue.\"",
"In a (not Roth) IRA, withdrawals are generally already taxed as regular income. So there should be no tax disadvantage to earning payment in lieu of dividends. It's possible that there is an exception for IRAs but I was unable to find one and I cannot see the reason for one since the dividend tax rate is usually lower than the income tax rate (which is why some company owners elect to receive part of the company profits via dividend rather than all through their salary).",
"The price of a share of a mutual fund is its Net Asset Value (nav). Before the payout of dividends and capital gain distribution, the fund was holding both stock shares and cash that resulted from dividends and capital gains. After the payout, a share only holds the stock. Therefore once the cash is paid out the NAV must drop by the same amount as was paid out per share. Thus of course assumes no other activity or valuation changes of the underlying assets. Regular market activity will obscure what the payout does to the NAV.",
"\"There are a few reason why the stock price decreases after a dividend is paid: What's the point of paying a dividend if the stock price automatically decreases? Don't the shareholders just break even? Companies have to do something with their profits. They beholden to their shareholders to make them money either by increasing the share value or paying dividends. So they have the choice between reinvesting their profits into the company to grow the business or just handing the profits directly to the owners of the business (the shareholders). Some companies are as big as they want to be and investing their profits into more capital offers them diminishing returns. These companies are more likely to pay dividends to their shareholders. I assume the price of the stock \"\"naturally\"\" increases over the year to reflect the amount of the dividend payment. This is kind of a vague question but then doesn't it make it difficult to evaluate the fluctuations in stock price (in the way that you would a company that doesn't pay a dividend)? It depends on the company. The price may recover the dividend drop... could take a few days to a week. And that dependings on the company's performance and the overall market performance. With respect to options, I assume nothing special happens? So say I bought $9 call options yesterday that were in the money, all of a sudden they're just not? Is this typically priced into the option price? Is there anything else I need to know about buying options in companies that pay dividends? What if I had an in-the-money option, and all of a sudden out of nowhere a company decides to pay a dividend for the first time. Am I just screwed? One key is that dividends are announced in advance (typically at least, if not always; not sure if it's required by law but I wouldn't be surprised). This is one reason people will sometimes exercise a call option early, because they want to get the actual stock in order to earn the dividend. For \"\"out of the ordinary\"\" large cash dividends (over 10% is the guideline), stock splits, or other situations an option can be adjusted: http://www.888options.com/help/faq/splits.jsp#3 If you have an options account, they probably sent you a \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" booklet. It has a section discussing this topic and the details of what kinds of situations trigger an adjustment. A regular pre-announced <10% dividend does not, while a special large dividend would, is what I roughly get from it. That \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" is worth reading by the way; it's long and complicated, but well, options are complicated. Finally, do all companies reduce their stock price when they pay a dividend? Are they required to? I'm just shocked I've never heard of this before. The company doesn't directly control the stock price, but I do believe this is automatic. I think the market does this automatically because if they didn't, there would be enough people trying to do dividend capture arbitrage that it would ultimately drive down the price.\"",
"\"I held shares in BIND Therapeutics, a small biotechnology company on the NASDAQ that was liquidated on the chapter 11 auction block in 2016. There were sufficient proceeds to pay the debts and return some cash to shareholders, with payments in 2016 and 2017. (Some payments have yet to occur.) The whole process is counter-intuitive and full of landmines, both for tax preparation & planning and receiving payments: Landmine 0: Some shareholders will sell in a panic as soon as the chapter 11 is announced. This would have been a huge mistake in the case of BIND, because the eventual liquidation payments were worth 3 or so times as much as the share price after chapter 11. The amount of the liquidation payments wasn't immediately calculable, because the company's intellectual property had to be auctioned. Landmine 1: The large brokerages (Vanguard, Fidelity, TDA, and others) mischaracterized the distributions to shareholders on form 1099, distributed to both shareholders and the IRS. The bankruptcy trustee considered this to be their responsibility. According to the tax code and to the IRS website, the liquidation is taxed like a sale of stock, rather than a dividend. \"\"On the shareholder level, a complete liquidation can be thought of as a sale of all outstanding corporate stock held by the shareholders in exchange for all of the assets in that corporation. Like any sale of stock, the shareholder receives capital gain treatment on the difference between the amount received by the shareholder in the distribution and the cost or other basis of the stock.\"\" Mischaracterizing the distributions as dividends makes them wrongly ineligible to be wiped out by the enormous capital loss on the stock. Vanguard's error appeared on my own 1099, and the others were mentioned in an investor discussion on stocktwits. However, Geoffrey L Berman, the bankruptcy trustee stated on twitter that while the payments are NOT dividends, the 1099s were the brokers' responsibility. Landmine 2: Many shareholders will wrongly attempt to claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, or they may have failed to understand the law in time for proper tax planning for tax year 2016. It does not matter that the company's BINDQ shares were cancelled in 2016. According to the IRS website \"\"When a shareholder receives a series of distributions in liquidation, gain is recognized once all of the shareholder's stock basis is recovered. A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received.\"\" In particular, shareholders who receive the 2017 payment will not be able to take a capital loss for tax year 2016 because the liquidation wasn't complete. Late discovery of this timing issue no doubt resulted in an end-of-year underestimation of 2016 overall capital gains for many, causing a failure to preemptively realize available capital losses elsewhere. I'm not going to carefully consider the following issues, which may or may not have some effect on the timing of the capital loss: Landmine 3: Surprisingly, it appears that some shareholders who sold their shares in 2016 still may not claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, because they will receive a liquidation distribution in 2017. Taken at face value, the IRS website's statement \"\"A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received\"\" appears to apply to shareholders of record of August 30, 2016, who receive the payouts, even if they sold the shares after the record date. However, to know for sure it might be worth carefully parsing the relevant tax code and treasury regs. Landmine 4: Some shareholders are completely cut out of the bankruptcy distribution. The bankruptcy plan only provides distributions for shareholders of record Aug 30, 2016. Those who bought shares of BINDQ afterwards are out of luck. Landmine 5: According to the discussion on stocktwits, many shareholders have yet to receive or even learn of the existence of a form [more secure link showing brokers served here] required to accept 2017 payments. To add to confusion there is apparently ongoing legal wrangling over whether the trustee is able to require this form. Worse, shareholders report difficulty getting brokers' required cooperation in submitting this form. Landmine 6: Hopefully there are no more landmines. Boom. DISCLAIMER: I am not a tax professional. Consult the tax code/treasury regulations/IRS publications when preparing your taxes. They are more trustworthy than accountants, or at least more trustworthy than good ones.\"",
"The exchanges artificially push the price of the stock down on the ex-div date. Often the impact of paying the dividend is absorbed by the ebb and flow of trading in the stock later in the day by the market. I think this was noticable with Nokia because the company is in poor shape and the stock has plunged recently. Dividends are a great way for companies to return value to shareholders. The trend for many companies, particularly growth stocks is to reinvest profits to grow the company. Former growth stocks like Microsoft like to just sit on billions of dollars and do nothing with it.",
"Your dividend should show up in one of a few methods: (1) Cash in your trading account (2) A check mailed to you (3) A deposit to a linked bank account (4) As additional new shares in the stock, as the result of a DRIP setup.",
"Dividends are normally paid in cash, so don't generally affect your portfolio aside from a slight increase to 'cash'. You get a check for them, or your broker would deposit the funds into a money-market account for you. There is sometimes an option to re-invest dividends, See Westyfresh's answer regarding Dividend Re-Investment Plans. As Tom Au described, the dividends are set by the board of directors and announced. Also as he indicated just before the 'record' date, a stock which pays dividends is worth slightly more (reflecting the value of the dividend that will be paid to anyone holding the stock on the record date) and goes down by the dividend amount immediately after that date (since you'd now have to hold the stock till the next record date to get a dividend) In general unless there's a big change in the landscape (such as in late 2008) most companies pay out about the same dividend each time, and changes to this are sometimes seen by some as 'indicators' of company health and such news can result in movement in the stock price. When you look at a basic quote on a ticker symbol there is usually a line for Div/yeild which gives the amount of dividend paid per share, and the relative yeild (as a percentage of the stock price). If a company has been paying dividends, this field will have values in it, if a company does not pay a dividend it will be blank or say NA (depending on where you get the quote). This is the easiest way to see if a company pays a dividend or not. for example if you look at this quote for Google, you can see it pays no dividend Now, in terms of telling when and how much of a dividend has been paid, most financial sites have the option when viewing a stock chart to show the dividend payments. If you expand the chart to show at least a year, you can see when and how much was paid in terms of dividends. For example you can see from this chart that MSFT pays dividends once a quarter, and used to pay out 13 cents, but recently changed to 16 cents. if you were to float your mouse over one of those icons it would also give the date the dividend was paid.",
"You likely received the shares as ordinary income for services of $10k, since they withheld taxes at granting. Separately, you likely had a short term capital loss on sale of $2k, since your holding period seems to have been under one year.",
"The trend in ETFs is total return: where the ETF automatically reinvests dividends. This philosophy is undoubtedly influenced by that trend. The rich and retired receive nearly all income from interest, dividends, and capital gains; therefore, one who receives income exclusively from dividends and capital gains must fund by withdrawing dividends and/or liquidating holdings. For a total return ETF, the situation is even more limiting: income can only be funded by liquidation. The expected profit is lost for the dividend as well as liquidating since the dividend can merely be converted back into securities new or pre-existing. In this regard, dividends and investments are equal. One who withdraws dividends and liquidates holdings should be careful not to liquidate faster than the rate of growth.",
"According to Active Equity Management by Zhou and Jain: When a stock pays dividend, the adjusted price in Yahoo makes the following adjustment: Let T be the ex-dividend date (the first date that the buyers of a stock will not receive the dividend) and T-1 be the last trading day before T. All prices before T are adjusted by a multiplier (C_{T-1} - d_T)/C_{T-1}, where C_{T-1} is the close price at T-1 and d_T is the dividend per share. This, of course means that the price before T decreases.",
"I was not able to find any authority for the opinion you suggest. Wash sale rules should, IMHO, apply. According to the regulations, you attribute the newly purchased shares to the oldest sold shares for the purposes of the calculation of the disallowed loss and cost basis. (c) Where the amount of stock or securities acquired within the 61-day period is less than the amount of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of, then the particular shares of stock or securities the loss from the sale or other disposition of which is not deductible shall be those with which the stock or securities acquired are matched in accordance with the following rule: The stock or securities acquired will be matched in accordance with the order of their acquisition (beginning with the earliest acquisition) with an equal number of the shares of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of. You can resort to the claim that you have not, in fact, entered into the contract within 30 days, but when you gave the instructions to reinvest dividends. I don't know if such a claim will hold, but to me it sounds reasonable. This is similar to the rules re short sales (in (g) there). In this case, wash sale rules will not apply (unless you instructed to reinvest dividends within the 30 days prior to the sale). But I'd ask a tax professional if such a claim would hold, talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state.",
"Do all/most unit trusts have equalisation policy? It is really that some value of the fund is given to the investor, so the fund value goes down by that much per unit. It depends on the type of mutual funds. For example, there are growth type mutual funds that do not give any dividend and the total value of the fund is reflected in its price. Do the companies whose stocks we owned directly apply equalisation policy on their dividends as well? Why not? As far a stock price is concerned, it usually decrease by the same amount of the dividend payout at ex-date, so in effect, the market in a way does the equalization, the company directly does not do it.",
"After searching a bit and talking to some investment advisors in India I got below information. So thought of posting it so that others can get benefited. This is specific to indian mutual funds, not sure whether this is same for other markets. Even currency used for examples is also indian rupee. A mutual fund generally offers two schemes: dividend and growth. The dividend option does not re-invest the profits made by the fund though its investments. Instead, it is given to the investor from time to time. In the growth scheme, all profits made by the fund are ploughed back into the scheme. This causes the NAV to rise over time. The impact on the NAV The NAV of the growth option will always be higher than that of the dividend option because money is going back into the scheme and not given to investors. How does this impact us? We don't gain or lose per se by selecting any one scheme. Either we make the choice to get the money regularly (dividend) or at one go (growth). If we choose the growth option, we can make money by selling the units at a high NAV at a later date. If we choose the dividend option, we will get the money time and again as well as avail of a higher NAV (though the NAV here is not as high as that of a growth option). Say there is a fund with an NAV of Rs 18. It declares a dividend of 20%. This means it will pay 20% of the face value. The face value of a mutual fund unit is 10 (its NAV in this case is 18). So it will give us Rs 2 per unit. If we own 1,000 units of the fund, we will get Rs 2,000. Since it has paid Rs 2 per unit, the NAV will fall from Rs 18 to Rs 16. If we invest in the growth option, we can sell the units for Rs 18. If we invest in the dividend option, we can sell the units for Rs 16, since we already made a profit of Rs 2 per unit earlier. What we must know about dividends The dividend is not guaranteed. If a fund declared dividends twice last year, it does not mean it will do so again this year. We could get a dividend just once or we might not even get it this year. Remember, though, declaring a dividend is solely at the fund's discretion; the periodicity is not certain nor is the amount fixed.",
"If you sell your home and it has equity, meaning the price you sell at is higher than the mortgage remaining on the property, then the money the purchaser pays you for the propery goes to pay off the remaining mortgage and any other fees owing (including commissions), and any balance left over (equity) is what you receive from the sale.",
"\"Summary of accepted answer: Your \"\"loss\"\" will not count as a loss (to the IRS). Which means no tax deduction for a \"\"short-term capital loss\"\" (on that sale). Instead, the IRS simply pretends like you had paid less for the stock to begin with.\"",
"Dividends indicate that a business is making more profit than it can effectively invest into expansion or needs to regulate cash-flow. This generally indicates that the business is well established and has stabilized in a dominant market position. This can be contrasted against businesses that: Dividends are also given preferential tax treatment. Specifically, if I buy a stock and sell it 30 days later, I will be taxed on the capital gains at the regular income rate (typically 25-33%), but the dividends would be taxed at the lower long-term capital gains rate (typically 15%).",
"1) What's the point of paying a dividend if the stock price automatically decreases? Don't the shareholders just break even? When the company earns cash beyond what is needed for expenses, the value of the firm increases. As a shareholder, you own a piece of that increased value as soon as the company earns it. When the dividend is paid, the value of the firm decreases, but you break even on the dividend transaction. The benefit to you in holding the company's shares is the continually increasing value, whether paid out to you, or retained. Be careful not to confuse the value of the firm with the stock price. The stock price is ever-changing, in the short-term driven mostly by investor emotion. Over the long term, by far the largest effect on stock price is earnings. Take an extreme, and simplistic example. The company never grows or shrinks, earnings are always the same, there is no inflation :) , and they pay everything out in dividends. By the reasoning above, the firm value never changes, so over the long-term the stock price will never change, but you still get your quarterly dividends.",
"Looks like the result got decided recently, with a little uncertainty about exactly how much is the total allowed claims: http://www.wilmingtontrust.com/gmbondholders/plan_disclosure.html http://www.wilmingtontrust.com/gmbondholders/pdf/GUC_Trust_Agreement.pdf They give the following example: Accordingly, pursuant to Section 5.3 of the GUC Trust Agreement, a holder of a Disputed Claim in the Amount of $2,000,000 that was Allowed in the amount of $1,000,000 (A) as of the end of the first calendar quarter would receive: Corresponding to the Distribution to the Holders of Initial Allowed Claims: Corresponding to the First Quarter Distribution to Holders of Units: Total:",
"The benefit is not in taxes. When you sell a portion of your stock, you no longer have a portion of your stock. When you get a dividend, you still have a portion of your stock. Dividends are distributed from the net profits of a company and as such usually don't affect its growth/earning potential much (although there may be cases when they do). So while the price takes a temporary dip due to the distribution, you're likely to get the same dividends again next year, if the company continues being similarly profitable. If you sell a portion of your stock, at some point you'll end up with no more stocks to sell.",
"\"Dividends are paid based on who owns the security on a designated day. If a particular security pays once per year, you hold 364 days and sell on the day before the \"\"critical\"\" day, you get no dividend. This is not special to 401(k) or to DRIP. It's just how the system works. The \"\"critical\"\" day is the day before the posted ex-dividend date for the security. If you own at the end of that day, you get the dividend. If you sell on that day or before, you do not. Your company changing providers is not in itself relevant. The important factor is whether you can still hold your same investments in the new plan. If not, you will not get the dividend on anything that you currently hold but \"\"sell\"\" due to the change in providers. If you can, then you potentially get the dividend so long as there's no glitch in the transition. Incidentally, it works the other way too. You might end up getting a dividend through the new plan for something that you did not hold the full year.\"",
"A short sale will be pretty bad for your credit report. It will linger for 7 years. This may ruin your opportunity to buy in the new area. On the other hand you need to run the numbers, the last I looked into this, the bank will look at rent and discount it by 25%. So the shortfall of $800/mo (after adjustment) will reduce your borrowing power if you rent it out. In general this is the idea. You rent for a year, and buy into the new area. If you short sell after this, while your credit is trashed, you still have your new home, and $50K less debt. (Disclaimer - There are those who question the ethics of this, a willing short sale. I am offering a purely business answer and making no judgment either way. I owed $90K on a condo where others were selling for $20K. I paid until it came up enough that a lump sum got me out upon sale. The bank got its money in full) An article on the differences between foreclosure and short sale.",
"The Brokerage firm will purchase shares for the dividend paid in a omnibus account for the security of the issuer and then they will distribute fractional shares among all their clients that chose Div Reinvest. They will only have to buy 1 extra share to account for the fractional portion of what they allocate. The structure of the market does not permit trading of fractional shares. There is generally not any impact to the market place for Div Reinvest with the exception of certain securities that pay large dividends that are not liquid. sometimes this occurs in preferred securities where a large amount of Div reinvestment could create a large market order that has market impact. Most brokers place market orders for the opening on the day following the payment of the dividend. When you sell the fractional portion same process as full shares are sold into the market and the fractional if traded between you and the brokers omnibus account. if it creates a full share for the broker (omnibus has .6 shares and you sell him .5 they would likely flip that out to the street with the full share portion of your order. This would not have impact to outstanding shares and all cost are operational and with the broker handling the Div reinvestment service.",
"\"OK, I found this filing by JCI on the SEC website: U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Distribution to U.S. Holders For U.S. federal income tax purposes, the distribution will not be eligible for treatment as a tax-free distribution by Johnson Controls with respect to its stock. Accordingly, the distribution will be treated as a taxable distribution by Johnson Controls to each Johnson Controls shareholder in an amount equal to the fair market value of the Adient ordinary shares received by such shareholder (including any fractional shares deemed received and any Adient ordinary shares withheld on account of any Irish withholding taxes), determined as of the distribution date (such amount, the \"\"Distribution Amount\"\"). The Distribution Amount received by a U.S. holder will be treated as a taxable dividend to the extent of such U.S. holder's ratable share of current or accumulated earnings and profits of Johnson Controls for the taxable year of the distribution (as determined under U.S. federal income tax principles). Any portion of the Distribution Amount that is treated as a dividend will not be eligible for the dividends-received deduction allowed to corporations under the Code. My broker's 1099-B form tells me that I received a Qualified Dividend from JCI on 10/31/2016 of $512.44, which would be equivalent to $45.349 valuation of ADNT as of the spinoff date for my 11.3 shares (before the 0.3 shares were sold as cash-in-lieu) .\"",
"\"I'm not a financial expert, but saying that paying a $1 dividend will reduce the value of the stock by $1 sounds like awfully simple-minded reasoning to me. It appears to be based on the assumption that the price of a stock is equal to the value of the assets of a company divided by the total number of shares. But that simply isn't true. You don't even need to do any in-depth analysis to prove it. Just look at share prices over a few days. You should easily be able to find stocks whose price varied wildly. If, say, a company becomes the target of a federal investigation, the share price will plummet the day the announcement is made. Did the company's assets really disappear that day? No. What's happened is that the company's long term prospects are now in doubt. Or a company announces a promising new product. The share price shoots up. They may not have sold a single unit of the new product yet, they haven't made a dollar. But their future prospects now look improved. Many factors go into determining a stock price. Sure, total assets is a factor. But more important is anticipated future earning. I think a very simple case could be made that if a stock never paid any dividends, and if everyone knew it would never pay any dividends, that stock is worthless. The stock will never produce any profit to the owner. So why should you be willing to pay anything for it? One could say, The value could go up and you could sell at a profit. But on what basis would the value go up? Why would investors be willing to pay larger and larger amounts of money for an asset that produces zero income? Update I think I understand the source of the confusion now, so let me add to my answer. Suppose that a company's stock is selling for, say, $10. And to simplify the discussion let's suppose that there is absolutely nothing affecting the value of that stock except an expected dividend. The company plans to pay a dividend on a specific date of $1 per share. This dividend is announced well in advance. Everyone knows that it will be paid, and everyone is extremely confidant that in fact the company really will pay it -- they won't run out of money or any such. Then in a pure market, we would expect that as the date of that dividend approaches, the price of the stock would rise until the day before the dividend is paid, it is $11. Then the day after the dividend is paid the price would fall back to $10. Why? Because the person who owns the stock on the \"\"dividend day\"\" will get that $1. So if you bought the stock the day before the dividend, the next day you would immediately receive $1. If without the dividend the stock is worth $10, then the day before the dividend the stock is worth $11 because you know that the next day you will get a $1 \"\"refund\"\". If you buy the stock the day after the dividend is paid, you will not get the $1 -- it will go to the person who had the stock yesterday -- so the value of the stock falls back to the \"\"normal\"\" $10. So if you look at the value of a stock immediately after a dividend is paid, yes, it will be less than it was the day before by an amount equal to the dividend. (Plus or minus all the other things that affect the value of a stock, which in many cases would totally mask this effect.) But this does not mean that the dividend is worthless. Just the opposite. The reason the stock price fell was precisely because the dividend has value. BUT IT ONLY HAS VALUE TO THE PERSON WHO GETS IT. It does me no good that YOU get a $1 dividend. I want ME to get the money. So if I buy the stock after the dividend was paid, I missed my chance. So sure, in the very short term, a stock loses value after paying a dividend. But this does not mean that dividends in general reduce the value of a stock. Just the opposite. The price fell because it had gone up in anticipation of the dividend and is now returning to the \"\"normal\"\" level. Without the dividend, the price would never have gone up in the first place. Imagine you had a company with negligible assets. For example, an accounting firm that rents office space so it doesn't own a building, its only tangible assets are some office supplies and the like. So if the company liquidates, it would be worth pretty much zero. Everybody knows that if liquidated, the company would be worth zero. Further suppose that everyone somehow knows that this company will never, ever again pay a dividend. (Maybe federal regulators are shutting the company down because it's products were declared unacceptably hazardous, or the company was built around one genius who just died, etc.) What is the stock worth? Zero. It is an investment that you KNOW has a zero return. Why would anyone be willing to pay anything for it? It's no answer to say that you might buy the stock in the hope that the price of the stock will go up and you can sell at a profit even with no dividends. Why would anyone else pay anything for this stock? Well, unless their stock certificates are pretty and people like to collect them or something like that. Otherwise you're supposing that people would knowingly buy into a pyramid scheme. (Of course in real life there are usually uncertainties. If a company is dying, some people may believe, rightly or wrongly, that there is still hope of reviving it. Etc.) Don't confuse the value of the assets of a company with the value of its stock. They are related, of course -- all else being equal, a company with a billion dollars in assets will have a higher market capitalization than a company with ten dollars in assets. But you can't calculate the price of a company's stock by adding up the value of all its assets, subtracting liabilities, and dividing by the number of shares. That's just not how it works. Long term, the value of any stock is not the value of the assets but the net present value of the total future expected dividends. Subject to all sorts of complexities in real life.\"",
"Imagine you have a bank account with $100 in it. You are thinking about selling this bank account, so ask for some bids on what it's worth. You get quotes of around $100. You decide to sell it, but before you do, you take $50 out of it to have in cash. Would you expect the market to still pay $100 for the account? The dividend is effectively the cash being withdrawn. The stock had on account a large amount of cash (which was factored into it's share price), it moved that cash out of it's account (to its shareholders), and as a result the stock instantly becomes priced lower as this cash is no longer part of it, just as it is in the bank account example.",
"CHN is a Closed-End Fund. CHN actually pays out three types of distributions: In the case of CHN, they appear to be paying yearly. The most recent dividend, with exdate of 18 Dec 2014, consisted of $3.4669 of Long-term capital gains and $0.2982 cash dividend. Prior to that, the dividend with exdate of 19 Dec 2013 consisted of $2.8753 long-term capital gains and $0.4387 cash dividend. For a standard dividend yield you typically would not expect short-term and long-term capital events to be included in a yield calculation, as these events really only occur in relation to a fund rebalancing (changing its investments) and are not really due to the actual performance of the fund in any way. Most free sites that provide dividend information do not make a distinction on the dividend type. Data source: Premium Data Full Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Premium Data/Norgate.",
"Am I correct in understanding that a Scrip Dividend involves the issue of new shares instead of the purchase of existing shares? Yes. Instead of paying a cash dividend to shareholders, the company grants existing shareholders new shares at a previously determined price. This allows shareholders who join the program to obtain new shares without incurring transaction costs that would normally occur if they purchased these shares in the market. Does this mean that if I don't join this program, my existing shares will be diluted every time a Scrip Dividend is paid? Yes, because the number of shares has increased, so the relative percentage of shares in the company you hold will decrease if you opt-out of the program. The price of the existing shares will adjust so that the value of the company is essentially unchanged (similar to a stock split), but the number of outstanding shares has increased, so the relative weight of your shares declines if you opt out of the program. What is the benefit to the company of issuing Scrip Dividends? Companies may do this to conserve their cash reserves. Also, by issuing a scrip dividend, corporations could avoid the Advanced Corporation Tax (ACT) that they would normally pre-pay on their distributions. Since the abolition of the ACT in 1999, preserving cash reserves is the primary reason for a company to issue scrip dividends, as far as I know. Whether or not scrip dividends are actually a beneficial strategy for a company is debatable (this looks like a neat study, even though I've only skimmed it). The issue may be beneficial to you, however, because you might receive a tax benefit. You can sell the scrip dividend in the market; the capital gain from this sale may fall below the annual tax-free allowance for capital gains, in which case you don't pay any capital gains tax on that amount. For a cash dividend, however, there isn't a minimum taxable amount, so you would owe dividend tax on the entire dividend (and may therefore pay more taxes on a cash dividend).",
"No, not screwed. This is just an artifact of the tax code and year end dividends. You paid a tax, and in return, got a higher basis. When you sell, you will have less profit, therefore less tax to pay than the guy who bought right after the dividend. You can call the fund company if you want to buy later this year. Once you understand the process, it might not bother you at all.",
"How is the current mortgage payment broken out? I have a mortgage on a rental property with a payment of $775, but $600 is principal. If I were at breakeven on a sale or a bit underwater, I'd be better off just holding still, the tenant paying the loan down over $7000/year. You question is a good one, but a good answer would require more details. A bank may not agree to a short sale on an investment property, especially since there's a second property to go after. I'm not making a judgement, just saying, it's not a slam-dunk to just short sell it.",
"To follow up on Quid's comment, the share classes themselves will define what level of dividends are expected. Note that the terms 'common shares' and 'preferred shares' are generally understood terms, but are not as precise as you might believe. There are dozens/hundreds of different characteristics that could be written into share classes in the company's articles of incorporation [as long as those characteristics are legal in corporate law in the company's jurisdiction]. So in answering your question there's a bit of an assumption that things are working 'as usual'. Note that private companies often have odd quirks to their share classes, things like weird small classes of shares that have most of the voting rights, or shares with 'shotgun buyback clauses'. As long as they are legal clauses, they can be used to help control how the business is run between various shareholders with competing interests. Things like parents anticipating future family infighting and trying to prevent familial struggle. You are unlikely to see such weird quirks in public companies, where the company will have additional regulatory requirements and where the public won't want any shock at unexpected share clauses. In your case, you suggested having a non-cumulative preferred share [with no voting rights, but that doesn't impact dividend payment]: There are two salient points left related to payout that the articles of incorporation will need to define for the share classes: (1) What is the redemption value for the shares? [This is usually equal to the cost of subscribing for the shares in the first place; it represents how much the business will need to pay the shareholder in the event of redemption / recall] (2) What is the stated dividend amount? This is usually defined at a rate that's at or a little above a reasonable interest rate at the time the shares are created, but defined as $ / share. For example, the shares could have $1 / share dividend payment, where the shares originally cost $50 each to subscribe [this would reflect a rate of payment of about 2%]. Typically by corporate law, dividends must be paid to preferred shares, to the extent required based on the characteristics of the share class [some preferred shares may not have any required dividends at all], before any dividends can be paid to common shares. So if $10k in dividends is to be paid, and total preferred shares require $15k of non-cumulative dividends each year, then $0 will be paid to the common shares. The following year, $15k of dividends will once again need to be paid to the preferred shares, before any can be paid to the common shares.",
"I think the first step is to contact Carnival Investor Relations. They can give you information about what attempts they have made to pay dividends since the address has changed. There may be some hoops that you have to jump through to get the funds, but the simple answer is to call them and find out.",
"\"EPS is often earnings/diluted shares. That is counting shares as if all convertible securities (employee stock options for example) were converted. Looking at page 3 of Q4 2015 Reissued Earnings Press Release we find both basic ($1.13) and diluted EPS ($1.11). Dividends are not paid on diluted shares, but only actual shares. If we pull put this chart @ Yahoo finance, and hovering our mouse over the blue diamond with a \"\"D\"\", we find that Pfizer paid dividends of $0.28, $0.28, $0.28, $0.30 in 2015. Or $1.14 per share. Very close to the $1.13, non-diluted EPS. A wrinkle is that one can think of the dividend payment as being from last quarter, so the first one in 2015 is from 2014. Leaving us with $0.28, $0.28, $0.30, and unknown. Returning to page three of Q4 2015 Reissued Earnings Press Release, Pfizer last $0.03 per share. So they paid more in dividends that quarter than they made. And from the other view, the $0.30 cents they paid came from the prior quarter, then if they pay Q1 2016 from Q4 2015, then they are paying more in that view also.\"",
"The market is not stupid. It realises that a company is worth less after paying out dividends than before paying them. (It's obvious, since that company has just given out part of its earnings.) So after a company pays out dividends, its stock price normally drops approximately by the amount paid. Therefore if you buy, get the dividend, and immediately sell, under normal conditions you won't make any profit.",
"I wrote about this in another answer: You can sell the scrip dividend in the market; the capital gain from this sale may fall below the annual tax-free allowance for capital gains, in which case you don't pay any capital gains tax on that amount. For a cash dividend, however, there isn't a minimum taxable amount, so you would owe dividend tax on the entire dividend (and may therefore pay more taxes on a cash dividend). Since you haven't sold the shares in the market yet, you haven't earned any income on the shares. You don't owe taxes on the scrip until you sell the shares and earn capital gains on them. HMRC is very explicit about this, in CG33800: It is quite common for a company, particularly a quoted company, to offer its shareholders the option of receiving additional shares instead of a cash dividend. The expression `stock or scrip dividend' is used to describe shares issued in such circumstances. The basic position under tax law is that when a company makes a bonus issue of shares no distribution arises, and the bonus issue of shares is not income for tax purposes in the hands of the recipient. Obviously, if this is an issue for you, talk to a tax professional to make sure you get it right.",
"The HMRC website says: Stock dividends are treated as income by virtue of CTA10/S1049, and taxable as savings income under Chapter 5 of Part 4 of ITTOIA05 (sections 409 to 414). ITTOIA05 is the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, and says: 409 Charge to tax on stock dividend income (1) Income tax is charged on stock dividend income. (2) In this Chapter “stock dividend income” means the income that is treated as arising under section 410. 411 Income charged (1) Tax is charged under this Chapter on the amount of stock dividend income treated for income tax purposes as arising in the tax year. (2) That amount is the cash equivalent of the share capital on the issue of which the stock dividend income arises (see section 412), grossed up by reference to the dividend ordinary rate for the tax year.",
"Dividends are not paid immediately upon reception from the companies owned by an ETF. In the case of SPY, they have been paid inconsistently but now presumably quarterly.",
"\"I'd agree that this can seem a little unfair, but it's an unavoidable consequence of the necessary practicality of paying out dividends periodically (rather than continuously), and differential taxation of income and capital gains. To see more clearly what's going on here, consider buying stock in a company with extremely simple economics: it generates a certain, constant earnings stream equivalent to $10 per share per annum, and redistributes all of that profit as periodic dividends (let's say once annually). Assume there's no intrinsic growth, and that the firm's instrinsic value (which we'll say is $90 per share) is completely neutral to any other market factors. Under these economics, this stock price will show a \"\"sawtooth\"\" evolution, accruing from $90 to $100 over the course of a year, and resetting back down to $90 after each dividend payment. Now, if I am invested in this stock for some period of time, the fair outcome would be that I receive an appropriately time-weighted share of the $10 annual earnings per share, less my tax. If I am invested for an exact calendar year, this works as I'd expect: the stock price on any given day in the year will be the same as it was exactly one year earlier, so I'll realise zero capital gain, but I'll have collected a $10 taxed dividend along the way. On the other hand, what if I am invested for exactly half a year, spanning a dividend payment? I receive a dividend payment of $10 less tax, but I make a capital loss of -$5. Overall, pre-tax, I'm up $5 per share as expected. However, the respective tax treatment of the dividend payment (which is classed as income) and the capital gains is likely to be different. In particular, to benefit from the \"\"negative\"\" taxation of the capital loss I need to have some positive capital gain elsewhere to offset it - if I can't do that, I'm much worse off compared to half the full-year return. Further, even if I can offset against a gain elsewhere the effective taxation rates are likely to be different - but note that this could work for or against me (if my capital gains rate is greater than my income tax rate I'd actually benefit). And if I'm invested for half a year, but not spanning a dividend, I make $5 of pure capital gains, and realise a different effective taxation rate again. In an ideal world I'd agree that the effective taxation rate wouldn't depend on the exact timing of my transactions like this, but in reality it's unavoidable in the interests of practicality. And so long as the rules are clear, I wouldn't say it's unfair per se, it just adds a bit of complexity.\"",
"What you're referring to is the yield. The issue with these sorts of calculations is that the dividend isn't guaranteed until it's declared. It may have paid the quarterly dividend like clockwork for the last decade, that does not guarantee it will pay this quarter. Regarding question number 2. Yield is generally an after the fact calculation. Dividends are paid out of current or retained earnings. If the company becomes hot and the stock price doubles, but earnings are relatively similar, the dividend will not be doubled to maintain the prior yield; the yield will instead be halved because the dividend per share was made more expensive to attain due to the increased share price. As for the calculation, obviously your yield will likely vary from the yield published on services like Google and Yahoo finance. The variation is strictly based on the price you paid for the share. Dividend per share is a declared amount. Assuming a $10 share paying a quarterly dividend of $0.25 your yield is: Now figure that you paid $8.75 for the share. Now the way dividends are allocated to shareholders depends on dates published when the dividend is declared. The day you purchase the share, the day your transaction clears etc are all vital to being paid a particular dividend. Here's a link to the SEC with related information: https://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm I suppose it goes without saying but, historical dividend payments should not be your sole evaluation criteria. Personally, I would be extremely wary of a company paying a 40% dividend ($1 quarterly dividend on a $10 stock), it's very possible that in your example bar corp is a more sound investment. Additionally, this has really nothing to do with P/E (price/earnings) ratios.",
"I'm fairly convinced there is no difference whatsoever between dividend payment and capital appreciation. It only makes financial sense for the stock price to be decreased by the dividend payment so over the course of any specified time interval, without the dividend the stock price would have been that much higher were the dividends not paid. Total return is equal. I think this is like so many things in finance that seem different but actually aren't. If a stock does not pay a dividend, you can synthetically create a dividend by periodically selling shares. Doing this would incur periodic trade commissions, however. That does seem like a loss to the investor. For this reason, I do see some real benefit to a dividend. I'd rather get a check in the mail than I would have to pay a trade commission, which would offset a percentage of the dividend. Does anybody know if there are other hidden fees associated with dividend payments that might offset the trade commissions? One thought I had was fees to the company to establish and maintain a dividend-payment program. Are there significant administrative fees, banking fees, etc. to the company that materially decrease its value? Even if this were the case, I don't know how I'd detect or measure it because there's such a loose association between many corporate financials (e.g. cash on hand) and stock price.",
"I guess the answer lies in your tax jurisdiction (different countries tax capital gains and income differently) and your particular tax situation. If the price of the stock goes up or down between when you buy and sell then this counts for tax purposes as a capital gain or loss. If you receive a dividend then this counts as income. So, for instance, if you pay tax on income but not on capital gains (or perhaps at a lower rate on capital gains) then it would pay you to sell immediately before the stock goes ex-dividend and buy back immediately after thereby making a capital gain instead of receiving income.",
"You only have to hold the shares at the opening of the ex-dividend date to get the dividends. So you can actually sell the shares on ex-dividend date and still get the dividends. Ex-dividend date occurs before the record date and payment date, so you will get the dividend even if you sold before the record date.",
"Let me answer by parts: When a company gives dividends, the share price drops by the dividend amount. Not always by that exact amount for many different reasons (e.g. there are transaction costs if you reinvest, dividend taxes, etc). I have tested that empirically. Now, if all the shareholders choose to reinvest their dividends, will the share price go back up to what it was prior to the dividend? That is an interesting question. The final theoretical price of the company does not need to be that. When a company distributes dividends its liquidity diminish, there is an impact on the balance sheet of the company. If all investors go to the secondary market and reinvest the dividends in the shares, that does not restore the cash in the balance sheet of the company, hence the theoretical real value of the company is different before the dividends. Of course, in practice there is not such a thing as one theoretical value. In reality, if everybody reinvest the dividend, that will put upward pressure over the price of the company and, depending on the depth of the offers, meaning how many orders will counterbalance the upward pressure at the moment, the final price will be determined, which can be higher or lower than before, not necessarily equal. I ask because some efts like SPY automatically reinvest dividends. So what is the effect of this reinvestment on the stock price? Let us see the mechanics of these purchases. When a non distributing ETF receives cash from the dividends of the companies, it takes that cash and reinvest it in the whole basket of stocks that compose the index, not just in the companies that provided the dividends. The net effect of that is a small leverage effect. Let us say you bought one unit of SPY, and during the whole year the shares pay 2% of dividends that are reinvested. At the end of that year, it will be equivalent to having 1.02 units of SPY.",
"\"It is important to remember that the stock price in principle reflects the value of the company, so the market cap should drop upon issuance of the the dividend. However, the above reasoning neglects to consider taxes, which make the question a bit more interesting. The key fact is that different investors are going to get taxed on the dividend to varying degrees, ranging from 20% for qualified dividends in the USA for a high-income individual in a taxable account (and even worse for non-qualified dividends) to 0% for tax-exempt nonprofits, retirement accounts, and low-income individuals. The high-tax investors are going to be a bit averse to paying tax on that dividend, whereas the tax-free investors are not. Hence in a tax-rational market the tax-free investors are going to be the ones buying right before a dividend and the tax-paying investors will be buying right afterwards. Tax-exempt investors could in principle make some amount of money buying dividends to keep them off the tax-paying investors' books. (Of course, the strategy could backfire if too many people did it all at once.) That said, the tax-payers have the tax disincentive to prevent them from fully exploiting the opposite strategy of selling just before a dividend. In particular, they are subject to capital gains tax when they sell at a profit (unless they have enough compensating capital losses), and it is to their after-tax profit to defer taxation by not trading. That said, the stock market has well-known irrationality when it comes to considering tax consequences, so logic based on assumed rationality of the market does not always apply to the extent one would expect. The foremost example of tax-irrationality is the so-called \"\"dividend paradox\"\", which basically states that corporations should favor stock buybacks (or perhaps loan repayment) to the complete exclusion of dividends because capital gains are taxed less harshly than dividends in a variety of ways, some of which are subtle: 1) Historically (although not currently in the USA for qualified dividends) the tax rate was higher for dividends. (In Canada, for example, dividends are taxed at twice the rate of capital gains.) 2) If you die holding appreciated stock then you (meaning your heirs) completely escape US the capital gains tax on the accrual during your lifetime. 3) Capital gains tax can be deferred by simply not selling. In comparison to dividends, this is roughly equivalent to getting a tax-free loan from the government which is invested for profit and paid at a later date after inflation has eaten away at the real value of the loan. For example, if all your stock investments increase by 10%/year but you sell every year, in a high-tax bracket situation you're total after-tax return will be only 8% per year. In contrast, if you hold the same investments for many many years and then sell, your total return will be nearly 10% per year, because you only pay 20% once (at the end). 4) A capital gain can often be neutralized by a capital loss in another stock, so that no tax results. If you loose money on a stock that is paying dividends, you're still going to have to pay tax on that dividend. There are companies that borrow money to pay out that taxable-dividend each quarter, which seems like gross tax malpractice on the part of the CFO. (If the dividend paradox doesn't make sense, first consider the case that you owned ALL the shares of a company. It wouldn't matter to you at all on a pre-tax basis whether you got a $1000 company buyback or a $1000 dividend, because after the buyback/dividend you'd still own the entire company and $1000. The number of shares would be reduced, but objecting that you owned fewer shares after the buyback would be like saying you have become shorter if your height is measured in inches rather than centimeters.) [Of course, in the case of many shareholders you can get burned by failing to sell into the buyback when the share price is too high, but that is another matter.]\""
] |
[
"\"I would suggest the following rationale : This appears to be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, however, you can bet that this is how things are handled. As to who receives the dividend you have payed, this will be whoever the counter-party (or counter-parties) are that were assigned the exercise. EDIT Looking at the Dec16 SPY options, we see that the expiry date is 23 Dec. Therefore, your options have been exercised prior to expiry. The 3AM time stamp is probably due to the \"\"overnight batch processing\"\" of your brokers computer system. The party exercising the options will have chosen to exercise on the day prior to ex-dividend in order to receive the dividends.\""
] |
810
|
Can I open a bank account in the US remotely? Will I pay taxes for the money on it?
|
[
"30596"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"142561",
"346134",
"275846",
"311358",
"496015",
"386941",
"120036",
"281045",
"46386",
"495827",
"463222",
"588327",
"582551",
"30596",
"80609",
"484535",
"251063",
"158169",
"131382",
"83758",
"300705",
"35079",
"163831",
"20283",
"395782",
"205719",
"9084",
"161962",
"298638",
"274359",
"287540",
"536483",
"226568",
"510485",
"585947",
"287896",
"417455",
"401454",
"272944",
"579313",
"574711",
"452983",
"472094",
"295822",
"506368",
"84310",
"514687",
"293295",
"70907",
"479663",
"43217",
"459967",
"95724",
"410543",
"570639",
"36606",
"295250",
"586455",
"294359",
"310103",
"446647",
"72375",
"41914",
"192366",
"592133",
"504612",
"554700",
"437584",
"239572",
"386160",
"522578",
"378024",
"251370",
"340857",
"526847",
"75568",
"17378",
"9158",
"340661",
"172872",
"561695",
"30996",
"377357",
"417286",
"184908",
"593197",
"360770",
"231814",
"331384",
"360973",
"478408",
"311028",
"71338",
"303287",
"219673",
"464449",
"436818",
"262485",
"232211",
"344928"
] |
[
"yes you can open bank account you should have a address in us and personally visit bank to deposite $1500 only to get you a debit card.you are required to maintain min balance of $1500 only. I have done it",
"Your bank doesn't care about your immigration status, it cares about your tax status. You're a US tax resident and will open a US-resident account, not an international account (regardless of where the money comes from).",
"You can open an account in US without having SSN. You need to be physically present to open the account.",
"See this website. In my opinion you should physically exist there to open your account.The bank needs to fulfill all requirements such as checking your identity, taking your signatures for future transactions etc. However, there might be some exceptions as Banking industry works pretty much on personal relations and money power. Also check these links: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=722141 http://askville.amazon.com/open-bank-account-abroad/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=7004217 and http://www.talkgold.com/forum/r18761-.html",
"Opening Bank Account in US without physically being present is difficult. I'm having number of clients in USA to pay for my work, but I’m really confused to get money from my clients to my saving bank account. You can get money via PayPal or if they are repeat customers, ask them to send via remittance services like Money2India or Remit2India etc.",
"To answer my own question, at least to the extent of my understanding. Here the IRS says that all income for a foreign person from a US-based company is taxable with 30%. Here the IRS says that this tax should be withhold at source by whomever pays you. In case there is a tax treaty with the country, the tax can even be waived in the US. Of course, if you don't declare it in your home country, the US bank could probably give information requested by the home country authorities. For the other two cases (when there's no US party involved) I can't find anything on the IRS website, which kind of make sense. If I am using an account in the US just to receive and send money shouldn't imply any tax. Thanks to @litteadv for pointing me into the right direction.",
"No you won't. Germany taxes income, not bank accounts. Note that this changes immediately when your bank account makes interest - you will owe taxes on this interest. However, chances are you won't get a bank account. Without residency or income, typically the banks wouldn't give you an account. Feel free to try, though.",
"\"The answer is, unfortunately, along the lines of \"\"it depends\"\". It does depend a little on the bank - I've had a US bank account for years before moving to the US, and I didn't have an SSN or any status when I opened the account. What I did have however was an address in the US that they could send the statements to, and proof that I was living abroad (oh, and US citizen wife that had an account with the same bank). Not all banks will open a bank account for a foreigner with no status in the US, but it is generally possible. You will have to check with several banks and basically have paperwork showing your foreign address and proof of id (passport, possibly a drivers license as well).\"",
"Do I need to declare it to IRS? The account? No. You do need to file a form W8-BEN with the bank though and make sure you maintain the correct information on it (it has your address there, so if you move - update it). Your account may be frozen until the form is provided, especially if it has activity on it. The 2-nd and 3-rd scenario would come as a result of some freelancing activity done while I am out of the US (definitely would qualify for Non-Resident Alien status). This you do have to report to the IRS. I'm guessing the payer is in the US, and would not know that you're a foreigner. In this case you're liable for taxes (if the payer knows you're a foreigner - they must withhold the taxes on your behalf). The payer will report payments to the IRS, so you have to submit your own tax return for a match. If there's activity on your account that might be suspicious, it will be reported to money laundering unit in the US Treasury Department, that may come after you through the treaties the US might have with your home country (tax treaty, extradition treaty, etc).",
"\"Its not for US citizens - its for US residents. If the US considers you as a tax resident - you'll be treated the same as a US citizen, regardless of your immigration status. The question is very unclear, since it is not mentioned whether your US sourced income \"\"from the Internet\"\" is sales in the US, sales on-line, services you provide, investments, or what else. All these are treated differently. For some kinds of US-sourced income you should have paid taxes in the US already, regardless of where you physically reside. For others - not. In any case, if you become US tax resident, you'll be taxed on your worldwide income, not only the $10K deposited in the US bank account. ALL of your income, everywhere in the world, must be declared to the US government and will be taxed. You should seek professional advice, before you move to the US, in order to understand your responsibilities, liabilities and rights. I suggest looking for a EA/CPA licensed in California and experienced with taxation of foreigners (look for someone in the SF or LA metropolitan areas). Keep in mind that there may be a tax treaty between the US and your home country that may affect your Federal (but not California) taxes.\"",
"Royal Bank in Canada can open an account for you in the US through RBC (the US affiliate to Royal Bank of Canada) I think it's called RBC Access USA.",
"The United States taxes nonresident aliens on two types of income: First, a nonresident alien who is engaged in a trade or business in the United States is taxed on income that is effectively connected with that trade or business. Second, certain types of U.S.-source payments are subject to income tax withholding. The determination of when a nonresident alien is engaged in a U.S. trade or business is highly fact-specific and complex. However, keeping assets in a U.S. bank account should not be treated as a U.S. trade or business. A nonresident alien's interest income is generally subject to U.S. federal income tax withholding at a rate of 30 percent under Section 1441 of the tax code. Interest on bank deposits, however, benefit from an exception under Section 1441(c)(10), so long as that interest is not effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business. Even though no tax needs to be withheld on interest on a bank deposit, the bank should still report that interest each year to the IRS on Form 1042-S. The IRS can then send that information to the tax authority in Brazil. Please keep in mind that state and local tax rules are all different, and whether interest on the bank deposits is subject to state or local tax will depend on which state the bank is in. Also, the United States does tax nonresident aliens on wages paid from a U.S. company, if those wages are treated as U.S.-source income. Generally, wages are U.S.-source income if the employee provides services while physically present in the United States. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but they depend on the amount of wages and other factors that are specific to the employee's situation. This is an area where you should really consult with a U.S. tax advisor before the employment starts. Maybe your company will pay for it?",
"You cannot open an account in USA unless you have an address to provide to the bank in USA, You need ID, such as US Driver's License.",
"Answering for US tax only: The bank account makes absolutely zero difference. If you are not a US national and not resident in the US, but earn income from a US employer/client/customer, generally that income is not subject to US tax (no matter where it is banked). However there are (complicated) exceptions, particularly if you are considered to be operating a 'trade or business' in the US or US real estate is involved. Start at https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/nonresident-aliens and proceed through pub 519 if you have time to spend. I do not know (or answer) about Argentinian taxes. Whether you can find a US bank that wants to open and maintain an account for a foreigner (which is extra paperwork and regulation for them) is a different Q, that is already asked and answered: B1/B2 visas do not allow you to work, but that isn't really in scope of money.SX and belongs over on travel.SX (or expatriates.SX for longer stay); https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/25416/work-as-freelancer-while-tourist-in-us-for-an-already-existing-us-client seems to cover it.",
"Can you get a bank account in the US? Yes. Can you get a bank account with a specific bank in the US? That depends on the bank. There's more paperwork involved, and not all banks offer the service. I would guess that the big retail banks (US Bank, Bank of America, JP Morgan / Chase, et al) are most likely to, but they are also the ones with the worst reputations for customer service.",
"Opening account in foreign bank is possible, but you must have strong proofs you use it for legitimate purposes. More chances to get an account if you visit Europe and able to stay, for example, for a week, to visit bank in person and wait for all the checks and approvals. Also keep in mind that there will be deposit/withdraw limits and fees applicable, that are significantly stricter and larger for non-EU citizen. In my opinion, if your amounts are not large, it might not worth it. If amounts are large, you might consider business account rather than personal, as is the example of strong proof I meant.",
"There are several major US banks including Bank of America, citi and Banco Popular that will open an account for people without a SSN. Most will require an in branch visit to open the account. As some one else mentioned American Express will open accounts in other countries based on an existing relationship or at least they used to.",
"Speaking from experience, yes (this was 9 years ago though and may have changed due to stricter laws). I lived in London and was moving to NYC and wanted to have a functioning bank account upon arrival. I banked in London with HSBC and asked them if they could set me up. They connected me with the right people in the US and after many forms I had a fully functional US bank account with a foreign address and without having a social security number - and I was (am) just your average person. You will most likely not be able to get a credit card through them because of lack of credit history (unless you are ridiculously rich or go for a secured credit card), but a debit card should be possible.* My advice is to talk to your local bank and see if they can help you, although it will help if they operate in the US. Good luck! *I have heard from various expats that American Express may be willing to issue cards in the states based on their existing relation with clients in other countries, but I digress. If you have an Amex in Switzerland or Sweden I would recommend talking to them.",
"If you move money - you don't need to pay any taxes. If the money was not there before and magically appeared at some point and now you want to move it - you'll have to explain a thing or two to the IRS and FinCEN. Generally, if you're a green card holder - you pay taxes on your worldwide income. So if you have a foreign account that earns interest - that interest is taxable to you in the US. In the year you earned it, not in the year you moved the money to the US. There are also reporting requirements (FBAR notably, and others). If you haven't filed FBAR with regards to the accounts which you now want to move, and especially if that also includes unreported income (interest and other) - you may find yourself in a very deep s#!t. Sorry, very deep troubles. Talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). A proper consultation is warranted, if you haven't had one already. You might need a tax attorney.",
"If you are a US resident (not necessarily citizen) then yes, you do have to pay capital gains taxes on any capital gains, including interest from assets oversees (like interest from a savings account). Additionally you have to report all your foreign bank accounts according to FATCA (https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/foreign-account-tax-compliance-act-fatca).",
"Yes you can. I'm a foreigner who uses a tourist visa to enter America and Bank of America opened a checking account for me. I had to go into the branch with my passport and a driving license and it was opened with $100. You do need to give a US address so statements can be sent out but that's about it.",
"Each country will have different rules. I can only speak about the Netherlands. There, there are two options as a resident to open an account. You needed a BSN (Dutch ID number) or a strong reference from an international company sponsoring your residence there at a bank branch that dealt frequently with foreign customers. It was not possible to open an account as a nonresident although high wealth customers probably get special treatment. Recent US reporting requirements have made European banks very unwilling to deal with US people. I have received a letter from my Dutch bank saying they will continue my current products but not offer me anything new. If I call the bank, the normal staff cannot see anything about my accounts. I need to call a special international department even for mundane questions.",
"HSBC will open you an account in the UK while you are still in the US. You can transfer your money before you leave the US. Your credit report and cards can also be transferred with HSBC, I think they have a mastercard. You can keep all your accounts in the US, and use online banking.",
"As an Indian resident you can open an Resident Foreign Currency Account, i.e. an USD account. This facility is provided by all major banks. I am not sure if PayPal would transfer money to these accounts or would convert. The alternative is to give this account number along with other Bank details to the company in US and ask them to send money via remittance services.",
"They will not open an account if you come in wanting to open an account for a third party. Your sister will have to do it herself. Assuming she has a SSN and credit history to verify her identity, she'll easily be able to do it online, and use whatever address she wants to send mail to (she can have separate mailing and residence addresses). There are also Israeli institutions who provide investment accounts to Israelis with ability to trade in the US. That might be easier for her than having an account in the US and filing tax returns in Israel every year. Unless she evades taxes in Israel, that is...",
"First, yes, your LLC has to file annual taxes to the US government. All US companies do, regardless of where their owners live. Second, you will also probably be liable to personally file a return in the US and unless the US has a tax treaty with India (which I don't believe it does) you may end up paying taxes on your same income to both countries. Finally, opening a US bank account as a foreign citizen can be very tricky. You need to talk to a US accountant who is familiar with Indian & US laws.",
"You can open a NRE account or a NRO account online before you leave the US and transfer the bulk of your money into it. After returning to India, your tax status will be RNOR (Resident but Not Ordinarily Resident) and you can keep the NRE and NRO accounts for several years (three?) and can do whatever you like with the money in them: transfer the money to ordinary (resident) savings accounts, or reconvert back to US dollars for payment of any outstanding bills (e.g. credit card bills) or US taxes for 2017 etc. Don't forget to close your US bank account before you leave. Many banks allow opening of NRE and NRO accounts on-line, though some paperwork needs to be sent in (e.g. copies of passport pages, signature cards etc). In most cases, one month is more than enough time to complete these formalities.",
"I think if you transfer money from your account in Germany to your account in Canada you don't have to pay any taxes. However if you get any interest on your deposits, you probably have to pay tax (and probably in Canada) regardless where the account is.",
"Your sister-in-law should know that anybody, US citizen or not, can open a US bank account. She should do that and then pay her 20k fee to the company. I'm a Canadian citizen and I have a US bank account and I don't even live nor work in the United States. I only use it when I travel for leisure and order online. This looks like a scam, but if you know well your sister-in-law, it may not be.",
"The data provided in your question is irrelevant. The data that you provided in the comments (that you're physically present in the US while doing the work) is the only relevant information needed to answer your question. You will need to pay taxes in the US for the earnings. The company invoicing the US client will also need to pay taxes in the US for its earnings from these invoices. You can transfer between bank accounts and deposit whatever you want anywhere you want, no-one cares (with respect to the US taxes, check with Indian tax accountant about Indian requirements).",
"I still have my bank account active in usa. Can my company legally deposit my salary in my bank account? Of course they can. Where they deposit is of no consequence (in the US, may be in India). It is who they deposit it for that matters. You need to file form W8 with the company, and they may end up withholding portion of that pay for IRS. You'll need to talk to a tax adviser in India about how to report the income back at home, and you may need to talk to a tax adviser in the US about what to do if the company does indeed remit withholding from your earnings.",
"Normal high street accounts certainly are available to non-residents. I have several, and I haven't been resident in the UK for fourteen years. However you do need to open them before you leave. They need identification. Once you have one open, the same bank should be able to open other accounts by mail. The disadvantage of course is that you will pay tax on your earnings, and while you can claim it back that's an unnecessary piece of work if you don't have other UK earnings. I would take the risk of an offshore account, assuming it's with a big reputable bank - the kind that are going to be bailed out if there is another collapse. An alternative might be a fixed term deposit. You lock up your money for three years, and you get it back plus a single interest payment at the end of three years. You would pay nothing in tax while you were gone, but the whole interest amount would be taxable when you got back.",
"\"It is unusual to need a consultant to open a bank account for you, and I would also be concerned that perhaps the consultant could take the money and do nothing, or continue to demand various sums of money for \"\"expenses\"\" like permits, licenses, identity check, etc. until you give up. Some of the more accepted ways to open a bank account are: A: Call up an established bank and follow their instructions to open a personal account . Make sure you are calling on a real bank, one that has been around a while. Hints: has permanent locations, in the local phone book, and has shares traded on a national stock exchange. Call the bank directly, don't use a number given to you by a 3rd party consultant, as it may be a trick... Discuss on the phone and find out if you can open an account by mail or if you need to visit in person. B: Create a company or branch office in the foreign country, assuming this is for business or investing. and open an account by appointing someone (like a lawyer or accountant or similar professional) in the foreign country to represent the company to open an account in person. If you are a US citizen, you will want to ask your CPA/accountant/tax lawyer about the TD F 90-22.1 Foreign Account Bank Report form, and the FATCA Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. There can be very large fines for not making the required reports. The requirements to open a bank account have become more strict in many countries, so don't be surprised if they will not open an account for a foreigner with no local address, if that is your situation.\"",
"Depending what country you are from, there may be better alternatives to transfer money internationally. Opening a bank account is complicated, costs money, and international bank transfers are remarkably expensive.",
"Legally if you are NRI for tax purposes, then you are required to convert all your Savings Account into NRO accounts. For tax purposes it be advisable to open an NRE account. Depending on the Banks policy you can convert the account into NRO by submitted a scanned copy of passport along with the Visa page. You can transfer money from US to any Account in India [Savings/Current/NRO/NRE] using xoom or any other remittance services remit2india, money2india etc.",
"I regularly transfer money from the US to Europe, and have found a simple US check a pretty useful way (if you are not in a hurry): you write a US dollar based check to yourself, and deposit it to a bank in your new location (which implies you open an account in France, yes). It takes some days (somedays 7 days), and then the money will be deposited. The local bank will convert it (so you can walk around and pick a bank that has a rate concept that pleases you, before you open the account), and there will be no fees on the US side (which means you can get every last dollar out of the account). Also, you have the control over how much you pull when - you can write yourself as many checks as you like (assuming you took your checkbook). This was the best rate I could get, considering that wire transfers cost significant fees. There are probably other options. If you are talking serious money (like 100 k$ or more), there will better ways, but most banks will be eager to help you with that. Note that as long as you make interest income in the US, you are required to file taxes in the US; your visa status and location don't matter.",
"Many European countires allow you to an account for non-residents. You have to appear in the bank personally to open it, some of them even to get your own tax number for non-residents from the local government. I'm not sure if you get a Visa (Electron) chip card immediatelly or you have to wait for like 3 months before being issued one. I've heard that getting a tax number for non-residents and opening a bank account is easily done in one day in Brezice, Republic of Slovenia. They seem to have agile local bureaucracy and banks, since many pople from neighbouring (non-EU) countries (used to) come there to open an EU bank account. Funds can be transfered via Internet banking - US banks have that, do they? SWIFT and IBAN codes are used for international money transfer. But it takes some time (days!) for it to arrive to destination. Tansfers below $20000 per month or per transaction are considered normal, but for amouts above that the destination bank might ask you to explain the purpose, to prove it is not illegal. Some of them accept the explanaiton in writing (they forward it to the regulator that tracks such large transfers), some of them ask you to appear there in person for an interview and to sign a statement. Can't believe US banks are still issuing paing magnet stripe cards like it's still 1980s. I'd expect Europe to be 10 years behind USA in technology, but this seems to be a weird reverse. I've beed using Internet banking with one-time passwd tokens and TAN lists for almost 10 years, and chip cards exclusivley for over 5y. Can't remeber the last time I've seen mag stripe card only. American Express (event the regular green one) got the chip at least 5 years ago. And it is accepted regularly in Europe. Alegedly it's more popular in Europe (although Mastercard is a definite #1, with Visa close to that) that in USA.",
"\"I'm pretty sure that the banks here will only allow a joint account with either all citizens or all \"\"foreign resident\"\" or tourists. You may be able to do something with Leumi since they have a US branch in NYC. What many people do (who are US citizens) is open a bank account either at a physical branch or online and then it can be managed all online. Make sure no monthly balance fees or atm fees etc. If you need to transfer money most banks will \"\"buy\"\" a US check (I have done this with Leumi) or you can go to the ATM and pull out a few thousand shekel from the USA account and deposit it right back into the Israeli account. My wife and I did this when we first arrived. Discount Bank seemed to have no fees for pulling money out and a good USD/ILS rate. Just make sure you don't have foreign transaction fees / high rates on the US account. If you need to deposit checks for him you can use the remote deposit feature and just take a picture. בהצלחה!\"",
"\"Although there are occasional cases where simply moving money between countries results in a tax liability - for example a \"\"non-domiciled\"\" UK resident using the \"\"remittance basis\"\" - this is not the case in your situation. In general it would be extremely rare for non-residents of a country to be taxed on bringing money into that country, as it would be bad for tourism which most countries want to encourage. The requirement to declare large sums of money on entry is primarily so that the authorities can detect money laundering, rather than tax. Note that you will have to pay US tax on any interest you earn on that US bank account.\"",
"In addition to the other answers, Harris Bank (now owned by BMO) allows Canadians living in Canada to open accounts, perhaps they consider other countries as well. They have excellent customer service.",
"It can be done, but I believe it would be impractical for most people - i.e., it would likely be cheaper to fly to Europe from other side of the world to handle it in person if you can. It also depends on where you live. You should take a look if there are any branches or subsidiaries of foreign banks in your country - the large multinational banks most likely can open you an account in their sister-bank in another country for, say, a couple hundred euro in fees.",
"With the recent drive in AML [Anti Money Laundering], quite a few countries being signatories; the central banks in almost all countries[that matter] have put in stronger KYC guidelines. This means you will not be able to remotely open a Bank Account in Thailand. More info at below links http://www.bangkokbank.com/BANGKOKBANK/PERSONALBANKING/SPECIALSERVICES/FOREIGNCUSTOMERS/Pages/Openinganaccountnew.aspx http://www.samuifinder.com/en/koh-samui-info/money-in-thailand/bank-account-thailand/",
"The US requires its (tax) residents to report foreign accounts if the balances (on all the accounts together) are $10K or more at any given day during the year. This is done through the FBAR system. In addition, you obviously need to report this income on your US tax return and pay taxes. If the balances on your foreign accounts exceed specific threshold, your tax return should also include form 8938. If you report everything and pay the taxes due - you can keep the money wherever you want and transfer it between your accounts as you may see fit. If you don't - the US government may come after you with huge penalties, and the Dubai bank may freeze your account. Its easy to become US tax resident. Stay in the US for more than half a year in a row - and here you are. Subject to the US taxation. Even if you're not a US citizen or green card holder, or at all illegal. Some immigration statuses may grant you an exemption, but none that allows you working for your Dubai employer, so I'm assuming you're a US tax resident.",
"Stripe Atlas helps with this. They form US companies for foreign solo entrepreneurs and get them US bank accounts. Another thing to remember with banks though, it doesn't matter what the compliance documents say, money talks. So your troubles will more likely stem from the amount of money you need to put in banks, more so than what the rules are.",
"I believe I have to pay taxes in US since it is a US broker. No, not at all. The fact that the broker is a US broker has nothing to do with your tax liabilities. You should update the banks and the broker with your change of status submitting form W8-BEN to them. Consult a tax professional proficient with Indo-US tax treaty as to what you should put in part II. The broker might withhold some of your income and remit it as taxes to the IRS based on what you put in W8-BEN and the type of income, but you can have it refunded (if it exceeds your liability) by submitting a tax return (form 1040-NR). You do have to pay tax in India, based on the Indian tax law, for your profits in the US. Consult with an Indian tax accountant on that. If I'm not mistaken, there are also currency transfer restrictions in India that you should be aware of.",
"After that I moved to the Middle East on March 23rd, 2015 As an NRI, one should not hold any Savings account. Please have this converted to NRO Account. Additionally it is advised that you open an NRE account. Both these can be done remotely. If I transfer money from here to a non NRE/NRO account then is it taxable? Assuming its income earned when you are NRI, it is not taxable. However if there is audit enquiry you would need to have sufficient proof to back that this income is earned during your period as NRI and hence not taxable. As indicate above, holding a savings account when you are NRI is a breach of FEMA regulation. I have been getting mail from myITreturns.com to file income tax returns. Since I am considered as NRI, do I have to fill any non return form online? If there is a source of income in India, interest on savings account etc, it is taxable and you would need to file appropriate returns. Even if you have zero income, it is safe to file a NIL return. For the year 2014 do I have to file income tax returns? For the financial year 1st April 2014 to 31st March 2015, you are still a resident Indian for tax purposes. You should have filed the return by June 2015 if there was tax due, else by March 2016. If you have not done so, please do this ASAP and regularise it.",
"If you have an SSN and foreign passport - it's all you need to open account, so just open it and order a checkbook. It will take some time before they will issue it but most probably they'll give you some checks to use till that very moment. So basically you should: Also I strongly suggest you to open two accounts - one would be for you and one for rent exclusively. The thing is that check could be cashed any time and it's pretty annoying exercise to keep that in mind.",
"Will it possible that they will credit my salary in my India bank account from US as normal process, If i work for them from here? There is no issue for an US based company to pay you a salary in India. You can get funds in your own savings account. You need to calculate and pay taxes on your own.",
"AFAIU, you don't need pay any taxes for you amount in NRE account since this amount is already taxed. I also think, you do not need to pay taxes on the interest earned on NRE account. However, you need to disclose the amount in your Indian Bank(s), if at any point of time, exceed $10K (When converted from INR to $). This is FBAR. Sending money to non-NRE account would come under Indian Tax scanner. For instance, if your parents use that money to pay EMIs or any huge purchase, then that might cause an issue. Most of the times, these type of purchases go unnoticed. However, the party who is taking money, may ask for source, especially if its a financial institution or Govt bodies. Also, for non-NRE accounts, you need to pay taxes and on interest earned. Hope this helps!",
"\"I have three savings accounts that are currently open in India in different banks. Is it legal to have savings accounts open while I am in the US? If you are NRI [from what you have stated you are], you cannot hold a \"\"Savings\"\" account in India. Please have the accounts converted as NRO at the earliest. It is a simple matter of contacting Bank and completing formalities with some paperwork. do I have to declare this fact in the tax filings in US given that my tax is already deducted? Yes, interest would be taxable in US. Does my father have to declare the additional deposits? No. Edit to reply to comment: RBI Economic Times\"",
"There's no requirement of US citizenship to open a bank account in the US. Any person, citizen or not, can do that. I don't know where this assumption of yours come from, but it is false. So the easiest solution is to open a bank account for your nephew next time he visits the US and get him an ATM card from that account. You can then deposit money to that account as much as you want (beware of the gift tax consequences). If he doesn't want to travel to the US and cannot open a US bank account remotely from Russia (which is probably the case), then follow the @BrenBarn's suggestion: have him open a bank account in Russia and just wire money there. Having a foreigner tapping freely into your own personal bank account may cause legal issues both with regards to gift tax and money laundering provisions that require you to certify that the money on the account is yours only. Also, check if there's an issue for a Russian resident to have control over foreign accounts (there's definitely such an issue for a US resident, Russians are generally not far behind when it comes to government oppression).",
"If you only need to buy stuff online you could consider using paypal perhaps? If you really need an bank account, you could also look at an offshore bank account, HSBC has accounts in multiple currencies, but you will need to be eligible (have a ton of money and provide some documentation).",
"You won't be paying any taxes for income generated in the US as long as you are not-resident in India. You pay US taxes. You can file a null return in India just in case (all zeroes). If you have any income in India - bank deposits in your name, house rental income and so on - that needs to be declared and tax needs to be paid in India.",
"As a relatively recent nonimmigrant visa holder (O1), I was able to open an ETrade brokerage account without problems. I have full tax residence in the USA so have an SSN, and a credit history so it was no problem. Later, as a greencard holder, I opened IRA accounts with them, too. Again, there were no issues as I had all the information that the IRS paperwork required at hand.",
"\"Transferring the money or keeping it in US does has no effect on taxes. Your residency status has. Assuming you are Resident Alien in US for tax purpose and have paid the taxes to IRS and you are \"\"Non-Resident\"\" Indian for tax purposes in India as you are more than 182 outside India. How would it effect my Tax in US and India If you are \"\"Non-Resident\"\" in India for tax purposes, there is no tax liability of this in India. I have transferred an amount of approx 15-20k$ to Indian Account (not NRE) By RBI regulation, if you are \"\"Non-Resident\"\" then you should get your savings account converted to \"\"NRO\"\". You may not may not choose to open an NRE account. To keep the paper work clear it helps that you open an NRE account in India. Any investment needed ? Where do i need to declare if any ? These are not relevant. Note any income generated in India, i.e. interest in Savings account / FDs / Rent etc; taxes need to be paid in India and declared in US and taxes paid in US as well. There is some relief under DTAA. There are quite a few question on this site that will help you clarify what needs to be done.\"",
"it just depends on your situation and sometimes accounting can't fix that. by mentor pays 35% even though he only goes back to the USA to visit. I go back less than 30 days a year so I can claim I'm a foreign resident but if all my income is in the USA I'm screwed. I can't even route my income through my wife who has never stepped foot in the USA because we must claim whatever she makes. US tax laws are so bad that it takes a lot just to get an account with HSBC in Hong Kong",
"set up a US company (WY is cheap and easy), go south and open a personal and business bank account, ask for the itin form. file for the itin. set up your EIN for the company. get a credit card for both. pay some mail forwarding service with it. file for taxes in the next year using your itin. prepaid cards do not link to your tax id",
"I don't think so in your case. Unless the account generates so much interest income that it became reportable (I don't know the exact limit, but I think it's in the hundreds if not thousands of dollars, you might get a 1099 form if it generates over $10 of interest income, but you don't have to file taxes if your overall income is too low anyways). The US does not typically tax assets, only income. There are some states (Florida is the only one I can think of) that has odd tax treatment of intangible assets, but I doubt that would apply in your case. If this were a large enough amount, usually over $10,000, it might trigger some reporting requirements (possibly by your home country).",
"\"I think you will find it hard to do. There are money laundering regulations which require you to provide proof of address when opening an account. I don't know for certain if they require an UK address, but even if they don't, it's very likely that individual banks etc will require that. I doubt that they will view you as a profitable customer for them, since you would not be using the account as your \"\"main\"\" account. Although having a job isn't a legal requirement, in practice I think it's the only way you can get an account without having been resident in the country for a while. My company employs a significant number of people from abroad and they typically need support from the company to open an account when they first move. One thing you could investigate is opening an account with some international bank with branches both in Hungary and the UK, and asking them to arrange the UK account for you. One example of such a bank is HSBC. However such banks will typically charge you a significant amount for the privilege - for example with HSBC you need a \"\"premier account\"\" to get this kind of service.\"",
"\"It's generally not possible to open a business account in the UK remotely. It's even difficult (near impossible) for a non-resident (even if a citizen) to open a business or personal bank account while visiting the UK. A recent report says that it may be possible to open an account via Barclays Offshore in the Isle of Man. This requires a large deposit, and probably lots of paperwork and fees (most offshore locations have stricter \"\"know your customer\"\" rules than major countries). Note that while the Isle of Man is inside the UK banking system (for sort codes, account numbers), it is a separate territory that doesn't have the same deposit guarantees as the UK. There is no legal reason why a UK company has to bank within the UK banking system, although many companies paying the company would expect it or require it, and an account in anything other than sterling would complicate the accounts. It could have an account in your home country. It's not even a legal requirement that the company has an account in its own name at all. Some people use a (separate) personal account for this purpose. There are plenty of reasons why this is a bad idea (for example it's unclear who/what owns the money in the account, and can give the appearance of director's loans), but it's a work-around. Most inbound electronic payments only require a sort code and account number, the account owner name is not checked. The UK does have a much simpler and cheaper company registry than most European countries, but the near-impossibility of opening a bank account for a business in the UK as a non-resident has made it an unsuitable place to register a small international company.\"",
"I want to send some money to Indian in my saving account but I haven't any NRO/NRE account. It is advisable to Open an NRE account. As an NRI you cannot hold a savings account. Please have this converted into NRO account ASAP. Process or Transaction charges or Tax (levied by Indian bank) on money what I'll send to my saving account in India. I know the process or transaction charges (applied by UK banks) from UK to India. There will be a nominal charge levied by banks in India. If you use dedicated Remittance services [Most Leading Indian Banks offer this], these are mostly free. Is there any limit to get rid off tax? Nope there isn't any limit. This depends on service provider. What types of paper work I'll need to do for showing that income is sent from UK after paying tax. If you transfer to NRE account. There is no paperwork required. It is implicit. If not you have to establish that the funds are received from outside India, keep copies of the transfer request initiated, debits to the Bank Account in UK, your salary slips, Passport stamps etc.",
"\"I think your best bet here would be HSBC. They will provide the required currencies, credit/debit cards, and very easy to use online banking transfers. This includes an online \"\"Global Account View\"\" which features all of your accounts on a single screen and allows you to \"\"drag and drop\"\" money between accounts. Regarding fees, I suspect you will need to be a \"\"Premier Account\"\" holder in order to avoid any fees imposed on transactions such as money transfers and exchanging money between currencies. In my experience HSBC offers extremely good exchange rates when exchanging \"\"large\"\" amounts of money ( greater than $10,000 / GBP 5,000 ). Exchanging small amounts will carry a larger spread but still much better than most banks offer. In my experience, exchanging GBP 5000 will have a spread of about 0.50-to-0.75 percent, while exchanging more than GBP10,000 will have a spread of as little as 0.10-to-0.20 percent. In order to qualify for a \"\"Premier Account\"\", if my memory of HSBC UK serves me correctly, you will need to have at least GBP 50,000 net across all of your HSBC managed accounts, including stockbroking and other investment accounts. In order to open a banking Swiss account, you will need to travel to Switzerland and apply in person. You cannot open a foreign bank account remotely. With a foreign investment account, I believe you can open accounts remotely. For example, I opened an account with Fidelity Switzerland using my Fidelity UK account directly from the UK, however obviously Fidelity does not provide banking services so this is not of interest to you. The simplest thing to do is to visit your local HSBC branch and discuss it with them in person. Other UK banks, such as Barclays, will also provide such services, but in my experience they are not as competitive on fees.\"",
"No, in your situation it is not possible. Mostly, only three types of accounts are available to individuals: So, a complete foreigner can open account in India, only if he is working in India, a type of Savings account, and that account too will be linked to his resident status. If he leaves work, he needs to close this account. Edit: There are business accounts, and current accounts, but those are available only to businesses. Further read at SBI gives a good snapshot",
"The idea is to positively identify you with properly issued government ID. If you show up with your passport, visa, and another form of government-issued identification which the banker can recognize and use (for example - international driver's license, a US-State driver's license, EU internal ID, etc) - it will be quick and painless. Usually, at least two distinct forms of identification are required from foreigners: passport and something else, and not the visa stamped in a passport, that just shoes to show your status upon your W9/W8 requirements may be based. You'll probably be asked for a TIN before any payments are made to you by the bank. If you don't have anything credible to show as your identification it will be equally quick and painless, except that you'd be leaving without a bank account. If your identity cannot be established properly there and then - they will not serve you.",
"\"As a general proposition, no, you do not need to report money transfers into the US. If a transaction exceeds $10,000 then the bank must report it anyway. Note that \"\"structuring\"\" your transactions to avoid a $10,000 deposit is illegal, so be careful if you are moving lots of money. As a general rule, no, transferring your own individual money from a foreign account to a US account does not incur taxes. Only lawyers are authorized to practice law in the US. They should generally be bar licensed in the state of practice. Certified public accountants can assist you with tax preparation and return positions, though tax lawyers may be necessary for some situations or for formal tax opinions. Be sure to use an experienced advisor to file your tax returns and information reporting.\"",
"You can apply for Foreign currency accounts. But they aren't saving accounts by any means, but more like current accounts. Taking money out will involve charges. You have to visit the bank website to figure out what all operations can be performed on your account. Barclays and HSBC allow accounts in foreign currency. Other banks also will be providing the same services. Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person Depends on country by country. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Get yourself a trading account and invest in foreign markets i.e. equities, bonds etc. But all in all be ready for the foreign exchange risks involved in denominating assets in multiple currencies.",
"Depending on your income/savings level and who you work for (if you work for a big company check with an HSBC Premier advisor, they may waive the requirements), you may qualify for an HSBC Premier account, which can allow you to open accounts in different countries and transfer money between them without a fee. You can also get a Premier account without meeting the requirements if you are willing to pay a monthly fee, but I doubt that will be worth it in the long run for what you need (worth doing the math though if you travel frequently). NOTE: There may be similar offerings from other banks, but this is just the only one I'm aware of.",
"There's no law that prohibits a US citizen or US LPR from holding an account abroad, at least in a country that's not subject to some sort of embargo, so I don't see how it could affect your wife's chances of getting US citizenship when she's eligible. As mentioned by other posters, you'll have to file FBAR if the money you have in all your accounts abroad exceeds $10k at any point of the year and if the account pays any interest, you'll have to tell the IRS about the interest paid and (if applicable) taxes you paid on the interest income abroad.",
"It is possible, i've contacted different banks, and only one bank (Wells Fargo) didn't say that they need all members in person, but gave me a form which my colleague filled to authorize me to open an account.",
"India does allow Resident Indians to open USD accounts. Most leading National and Private Banks offer this. You can receive funds and send funds subject to some norms.",
"Assuming your tax status in India is Non-Resident. The funds are deposited in an NRE account, there is nothing that needs to be done. If you have any income in India, then you would need to file a tax return.",
"\"If it is planned, then one can get a Bankers Check payable overseas; if destination is known. 1.) What will happen to the money? It will eventually go to Government as escheating. Unlcaimed.org can help you trace the funds and recover it. 2.) Will the banks close the accounts? 3.) After how much time will the banks close the accounts? Eventually Yes. If there is no activity [Note the definition of activity is different, A credit interest is not considered as activity, a authentic phone call / correspondence to change the address or any servicing request is considered activity] for a period of One year, the account is classified as \"\"Dormant\"\". Depending on state, after a period of 3-5 years, it would be inactive and the funds escheated. i.e. handed over to Government. 4.) Is there anything else to do? Any ideas? Before leaving? Try keeping it active by using internet banking or credit / debit cards linked to the account. These will be valid activities. 5.) Is there any way to send a relative to the US with any kind of paper of power, to unfreeze the accounts? 6.) The banks say they would need a power of attorney, but does that person actually need to be an attorney in the US, or can it simply be a relative WITH a paper (a paper that says power of attorney) or what is a power of attorney exactly, is it an actual attorney person, or just a paper? 7.) Is there any other way to unfreeze the accounts? Although I can confirm first hand; I think there would be an exception process if a person cannot travel to the Bank. It could even be that a person is in some remote state, not well etc and can't travel in person. I think if you are out of country, you could walk-in to an US embassy and provide / sign relevant documents there and get it attested. Although for different purpose, I know a Power of Attorney being created in other country and stamped / verified by US embassy and sent it over to US. This was almost a decade back. Not sure about it currently.\"",
"If the funds are in NRE account, then there is no issue. You just instruct your bank in India to transfer. If your tax status in India is Non-Resident Indian, you should not be holding a normal Savings bank account. Under the liberalized remittance scheme you can transfer upto 2,50,000 USD per year. You would need to instruct your bank in India to initiate a international wire transfer. The FAQs are here",
"Well first off, I would advice you to do this research yourself. You should not base your selection off someone's opinion such as mines. With that being said, these are some factors I suggest you consider and research before talking to an offshore bank account: Now, when opening an offshore account most offshore banks do not require you to be present at all. You can open an account simply by calling them or filling out their application online. However, be prepared to provide them with some information to verify who you are and the nature of your business such as a notarized passport along with other various forms of information that they may require. Just think of what your local bank requires is generally what they will ask as well. Here is a compiled list of offshore bank accounts to consider: These banks overall have a range between $0 - $1 million (domestic currency) minimum deposits. Most of them ranging from $1000-$5000. It all depends on the type of account, the nature of the account, and the business associated with the account.",
"I had this problem when I finished my job in Canada in Sept 2013. You'll likely have to open the account in person in Canada, at least if you don't already have a relationship with a broker there. DO NOT go to Virtual Brokers. They told me that my US citizenship was no problem, but right before I left Canada to double check. It wasn't until I asked specifically which US states they were licensed in that they realized they were licensed in NO US STATES. They told me that they'd freeze my account when I left. I then moved my (former) pension to a locked-in RRSP at BMO. As of September 2010 BMO could handle residents of most US states, but it took some tooth pulling to get the list out of them. However, after I flew to the USA, BMO called to demand more ID. My account was frozen until I flew back to Canada in person just to show ID. Annoyed, I closed the BMO account and moved it to TD Waterhouse. TD waterhouse can handle accounts for residents of all the US states EXCEPT Virginia, Louisiana, and Nebraska. (I only got the complete list of exceptions when I made my first trade, since the guys at the trading desk are much more knowledgeable about such things than the guys in the branch.) TD was extremely friendly about my USA citizenship/residence. (Many Canadian brokers simply won't accept US residents, at least as of the end of 2013.) Whichever broker you choose, BRING LOTS MORE ID than they require. Insist that they zerox it all. Make sure to include your social security card. You don't want them to demand more ID after you've left the country, like BMO did. They may even make such a move simply to get rid of US customers, because the FATCA is a pain for foreign banks.",
"Here's the real reason OKPay (actually the banks they interface with) won't accept US Citizens. The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act Congress passed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) in 2010 without much fanfare. One reason the act was so quiet was its four-year long ramp up; FATCA did not really take effect until 2014. Never before had a single national government attempted, and so far succeeded in, forcing compliance standards on banks across the world. FATCA requires any non-U.S. bank to report accounts held by American citizens worth over $50,000 or else be subject to 30% withholding penalties and possible exclusion from U.S. markets. By mid-2015, more than 100,000 foreign entities had agreed to share financial information with the IRS. Even Russia and China agreed to FATCA. The only major global economy to fight the Feds is Canada; however it was private citizens, not the Canadian government, who filed suit to block FATCA under the International Governmental Agreement clause making it illegal to turn over private bank account information. Read more: The Tax Implications of Opening a Foreign Bank Account | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/102915/tax-implications-opening-foreign-bank-account.asp#ixzz4TzEck9Yo Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook",
"In regards to your 1st question, if you are a US resident (according to IRS rules) and you have any foreign bank accounts, then you need to file a FBAR form for every year in which any of these accounts has more than $10,000. This is the way that IRS keeps track of substantial amounts of money kept by US residents in foreign accounts.",
"I believe that tax will be withheld (at 30%?) on dividends paid to non-residents. You can claim it back if your country has a tax treaty with the USA, but you will need to file. You probably also need to file a W-series withholding form (eg a W9-BEN). Interesting question. I would like to hear a more definitive answer.",
"Unless you started a bank or other kind of a financial institution (brokerage, merchant processor, etc etc), the page you linked to is irrelevant. That said, there's enough in the US tax code for you to reconsider your decision of not living in the US, or at least of being a shareholder of a foreign company. Your compliance costs are going to go through the roof. If you haven't broken any US tax laws yet (which is very unlikely), you may renounce your citizenship and save yourself a lot of money and trouble. But in the more likely case of you already being a criminal with regards the US tax law, you should probably get a proper tax advice from a US-licensed CPA/EA who's also proficient in the Japanese-American tax treaty and expats' compliance issues resolution.",
"This person must pay taxes in both the overseas country and in the U.S. This is unusual; generally, only the U.S. demands this. Depending on the specific country, he would likely not be taxed twice as the U.S. generally recognises tax paid in a different country. Note there are some gotchas, though. For example, although Canada has a generally higher tax scheme than the U.S., you may still end up owing tax if you use the Tax-Free Savings Account system in Canada, as that is not recognised in the U.S. As to whether or not this person should form a company, that is far too broad a question. It's going to depend in large part on the tax situations of the countries involved. This person needs to consult an accountant specialising in this situation. That is, on personal versus business tax and on tax involving U.S. citizens. Yes, this person can and indeed must file and pay taxes in the U.S., from outside the U.S.",
"\"The short answer is that there is no US tax due if all you are doing is moving assets held abroad to the US. Whether you are a \"\"returning\"\" US citizen (or will continue your residence in the Philippines) is not relevant to this. The long answer is that you may be liable for a lot of other fines and taxes if you have not been doing any of several things correctly. As a US citizen, you are required to declare your worldwide income on your US income tax returns. Have you been filing US income tax returns during your time abroad? and have you been declaring the income that you have received from non-US sources each year? This includes wages, interest, dividends, capital gains, rental income from real estate, gambling income, lottery winnings, Nobel prizes, everything. If you have been paying income tax to other countries on this income, then it is generally possible to get a deduction for this tax payment from the income that will be taxed by the US (or a credit for the tax payment against your US Federal income tax liability) depending on the existence of tax treaties or (when the US Senate refuses to approve a tax treaty) a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between the US and other countries. In some cases, foreign earned income up to a certain limit is not taxed by the US at all. Even if you have been filing US income tax returns correctly, and can thus account for the $45,000 in your savings account, or you received that money as a gift or inheritance and can account for it on that basis, have you been filing reports with the US Treasury since the year when the total value of all your foreign bank accounts and other financial assets (stocks and bonds etc but not real estate) first exceeded $10,000? In prior years, this was a matter of filling out and submitting Form TD F 90-22.1 but more recently (since 2010?), you need to fill out and submit FinCEN Form 114. Have you been submitting the required documentation all along? Note that there are severe penalties for failure to fine FinCEN Form 114, and these penalties do not get waived by tax treaties. In summary, you might (or you might not) have several other tax or legal issues to worry about than just taxes on the transfer of your money from the Philippines to the US.\"",
"There are no legal restrictions on doing this. If you're living in the UK, just open an account like any other resident of the UK would.",
"\"UPDATE: Unfortunately Citibank have removed the \"\"standard\"\" account option and you have to choose the \"\"plus\"\" account, which requires a minimum monthly deposit of 1800 sterling and two direct debits. Absolutely there is. I would highly recommend Citibank's Plus Current Account. It's a completely free bank account available to all UK residents. http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/bankingproducts/currentaccounts/sterling/plus/index.htm There are no monthly fees and no minimum balance requirements to maintain. Almost nobody in the UK has heard of it and I don't know why because it's extremely useful for anyone who travels or deals in foreign currency regularly. In one online application you can open a Sterling Current Account and Deposit Accounts in 10 other foreign currencies (When I opened mine around 3 years ago you could only open up to 7 (!) accounts at any one time). Citibank provide a Visa card, which you can link to any of your multi currency accounts via a phone call to their hotline (unfortunately not online, which frequently annoys me - but I guess you can't have everything). For USD and EUR you can use it as a Visa debit for USD/EUR purchases, for all other currencies you can't make debit card transactions but you can make ATM withdrawals without incurring an FX conversion. Best of all for your case, a free USD cheque book is also available: http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/international/eurocurrent.htm You can fund the account in sterling and exchange to USD through online banking. The rates are not as good as you would get through an FX broker like xe.com but they're not terrible either. You can also fund the account by USD wire transfer, which is free to deposit at Citibank - but the bank you issue the payment from will likely charge a SWIFT fee so this might not be worth it unless the amount is large enough to justify the fee. If by any chance you have a Citibank account in the US, you can also make free USD transfers in/out of this account - subject to a daily limit.\"",
"Meagrely transferring money within your own accounts doesn't result in any tax, however legally once you are an NRI you cannot operate a savings account at all as per Reserve Bank Guidelines found here One option is for you to transfer to a joint account held by a close relative of yours with you and this would be tax free in India.",
"No, you don't. But you do need to file FBAR to report your foreign accounts if you have $10K or more at any given day in all of them combined, when you're a US resident. You need to file FBAR annually by the end of June (note: it must be received by FinCEN by the end of June, but nowadays you file it electronically anyway).",
"\"Can the companies from USA give job to me (I am from New Zealand)? Job as being employee - may be tricky. This depends on the labor laws in New Zealand, but most likely will trigger \"\"nexus\"\" clause and will force the employer to register in the country, which most won't want to do. Instead you can be hired as a contractor (i.e.: being self-employed, from NZ legal perspective). If so, what are the legal documents i have to provide to the USA for any taxes? If you're employed as a contractor, you'll need to provide form W8-BEN to your US employer on which you'll have to certify your tax status. Unless you're a US citizen/green card holder, you're probably a non-US person for tax purposes, and as such will not be paying any tax in the US as long as you work in New Zealand. If you travel to the US for work, things may become tricky, and tax treaties may be needed. Will I have to pay tax to New Zealand Government? Most likely, as a self-employed. Check how this works locally. As for recommendations, since these are highly subjective opinions that may change over time, they're considered off-topic here. Check on Yelp, Google, or any local NZ professional review site.\"",
"India and the United States have a tax treaty, so if you pay tax in the United States, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PAY TAX IN INDIA OR VICE VERSA. Your father in law can wire the money back to your US bank account if you provide him with your routing number and swift code. He might be charged a little fee depending on the amount he is sending(It is usually Rs.1000/-), but once the money comes back it is absolutely tax free. If it is a lot of money, you might get an inquiry, but assuming you have already payed taxes on it, it should reflect on your W2, so you do not have to pay any further taxes. Cheers!",
"It looks like your best option is to go with an online broker. There are many available. Some of them won't let you open an account online as a foreign national but will allow you to open one through the mail. See more about that http://finance.zacks.com/can-nonus-citizen-trade-us-stocks-9654.html Also keep in mind that you will need to pay taxes on any capital gains made through selling http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p519.pdf",
"I agree with Joe, having the money deposited to the US bank account may land you in trouble. Technically, a US business paying a foreigner must withhold 30% of the payment, unless a tax treaty says otherwise. The US business should do that based on your W8-BEN/W8-ECI form that you should have given to the business before being paid. I'm guessing, that by paying to your US bank account, you (and your American counterpart) are trying to avoid this withholding. That may cause trouble for both of you. I would suggest you talking to a professional (EA/CPA licensed in the State where the business is located) and having the situation resolved ASAP. You may not be liable for the US taxes at all, but because of incorrectly reporting the income/expense - you and the US business may end up paying way more than the $0 you otherwise would have, in penalties.",
"Go to the states on vacation. Get a virtual (or friend's) address. Get an ITIN from the IRS. Open a bank account. Get a secured credit card on your next trip from Capital One – add as much money as you can afford. One year later, you should have a decent credit score.",
"\"My employer decided to pay my salary in India after I submit a form W-8BEN. This means that the wages / salary is deemed accrued for work from India. Hence your employer need not withhold and pay taxes on this wage in US. Is this payment taxable in the States since I am staying outside of States? Should I declare this income to IRS in case if I go back to the States later this year? No tax is due as the work is done outside on US. If you go back this would be similar to as you had gone first. Depending on your \"\"tax residency status\"\" you would have to declare all assets. If my US employer wires my US salary to my NRE account is that taxable in India? This is still taxable in India. It is advised that you have the funds transferred into a regular savings account. Please note you have to pay taxes in advance as per prescribed due dates in Sept, Dec, March. how does the Indian tax man identify if it is a taxable income and not just the regular remittance. This question is off topic here. Whether income taxes finds out about this is irrelevant. By law one is required to pay taxes on income earned in India.\"",
"It is fine to receive payments into Indian Savings Bank account. There are no restriction on deposits. There are only restrictions on number of withdrawls in a quarter. A Current[a.k.a Checking] account makes it easier to manage. You haven't asked about tax, but I you may already know you would need to pay taxes irrespective of whether you got the money in Savings or Current account. Edit: Any individual can open a Current Account on individual's name. There is no restriction. There are multiple aspects to determine whether the activity you are doing is a service as defined by the Service Tax Rules. Please consult a CA to guide you. For less than 5K INR he would not only advice you but also do everything required to file taxes.",
"I am from India. I visited US 6-8 times on business VISA and then started 2 Member LLC. Myself and My wife as LLC Members. We provide Online Training to american students from India. Also Got EIN number. Never employed any one. Do i need to pay taxes? Students from USA pays online by Paypal and i am paying taxes in India. Do i need to pay Taxes in US? DO i need to file the Tax returns? Please guide me. I formed LLC in 2010. I opened an Office-taken Virtual office for 75 USD per month to open LLC in 2010. As there is physical virtual address, am i liable for US taxes? All my earning is Online, free lancing.",
"Where you earn your money makes no difference to the IRS. Citizen/permanent resident means you pay income tax. To make matters worse given your situation it's virtually certain you have unreported foreign bank accounts--something that's also an important issue.",
"Of course you can. My assumption is you are/will be in UK. I am a student from outside the UK and I am about to start studying at a UK university/college/school. How do I choose which bank is best for me? You should be able to open a ‘basic bank account’ with a number of different banks. A ‘basic bank account’ provides easy access to banking facilities for adults in the UK. Additionally, some banks offer a bank account tailored specifically for your needs as an international student. There is a table on pages 6 & 7 of this leaflet that has a list of basic accounts and other accounts that may be suitable along with brief descriptions of some of their features. Most banks don’t ask you to pay in any money to open a basic account. You should look around to see which bank and account suit you best and then visit the local branch of the bank you have chosen. You may also be able to get other types of account, as detailed in the next section. Please speak to a bank Go through the source I have linked. It is a bit old, but has relevant information for you. SOURCE",
"If you can make the trip to BC yourself, I'd recommend opening an account with TD Canada Trust. They allow non-citizens to make accounts — apparently the only Canadian bank to do so. The customer service is great and they have a good online banking site that will allow you to manage it from the US. If you have an account with TD Bank in the US, it's also very easy to set up a TD Canada account through them that will be linked on their online site (though you will still have separate logins for both and manage them separately). I've done the reverse as a Canadian living in the US. You can set it up over the phone; their Cross-Border Banking number is listed here. They also offer better currency conversion rates than their standard ones when you do a cross-border transfer. You could also look into HSBC as well. They operate in Washington as well as across the border in BC. If you can't open a CAD account locally, they can help you open and manage one in Canada from the US. It may or may not require having a small business account instead of a personal account.",
"I want to transfer around $2000 to another bank account (which is under my name ) in India. As much as I know you cannot instruct to transfer money from your travel card to a Bank Account. You can withdraw cash at ATM or swipe it. On return you can encash the balance. Will this have any tax implications? The money provided to you by the company is meant as an allowance for your expense in US. As per law any money you save and not spend has to be declared as additional income and taxes paid accordingly. Is there any difference if I send it to my parents account? There is no difference if you transfer the funds to your account or to your parents accounts or keep the cash. If you haven't spent the allowance, its additional benefit and taxable.",
"No you will have no problems. It's been fourteen years since I've lived in the UK and I've had no trouble with my UK bank accounts in that time. They have happily mailed me statements and new cards abroad for all that time, and I've deposited cheques by mailing them to the branch. Online banking takes care of almost everything else. The only thing I wasn't able to do from abroad was open a new account, because of anti money-laundering regulations. Even that may be possible if you presented the right kind of ID when you opened the original account - mine predated the regulations. Most UK banks will also offer 'offshore' banking for non-residents in which interest is not deducted at source.",
"The following are my opinion based upon research/analysis. Since this involves Taxation rules, suggest you consult a Tax attorney for their views. a. Yes. You can transfer any any amount of dollars to your NRE account without paying any additional taxes. b. Since you have passed Substantial Presence test, you will be categorized Resident Alien. You need to disclose the interest earned on your NRE account. This amount will be clubbed with your total income in US. You would have to add this interest income in your total income and calculate tax thereon. C. Transferring money to Parents? Answer is Yes /No. You need to elaborate on this further. Advantage of parking money in NRE account is that you can repatriate money in dollars any time you want. Assuming you need to buy a house or further education , this would be useful. Incase you don't have any of those goals, Yes you can transfer money to your Parent if they are in need of funds. d. Any transfer above $14000 will attract gift taxes. This $14000 is the overall limit for a Tax payee. Incase you transfer $14000 for each parent, then it comes to $28000. There are chances that IRS may raise a Redflag that you are circumventing the limit by splitting the recipients. e. Only when you transfer more than $14000, you need to report and pay the gift tax.",
"\"Wyoming is a good state for this. It is inexpensive and annual compliance is minimal. Although Delaware has the best advertising campaign, so people know about it, the reality is that there are over 50 states/jurisdictions in the United States with their own competitive incorporation laws to attract investment (as well as their own legislative bodies that change those laws), so you just have to read the laws to find a state that is favorable for you. What I mean is that whatever Delaware does to get in the news about its easy business laws, has been mimicked and done even better by other states by this point in time. And regarding Delaware's Chancery Court, all other states in the union can also lean on Delaware case law, so this perk is not unique to Delaware. Wyoming is cheaper than Delaware for nominal presence in the United States, requires less information then Delaware, and is also tax free. A \"\"registered agent\"\" can get you set up and you can find one to help you with the address dilemma. This should only cost $99 - $200 over the state fees. An LLC does not need to have an address in the United States, but many registered agents will let you use their address, just ask. Many kinds of businesses still require a bank account for domestic and global trade. Many don't require any financial intermediary any more to receive payments. But if you do need this, then opening a bank account in the United States will be more difficult. Again, the registered agent or lawyer can get a Tax Identification Number for you from the IRS, and this will be necessary to open a US bank account. But it is more likely that you will need an employee or nominee director in the United States to go in person to a bank and open an account. This person needs to be mentioned in the Operating Agreement or other official form on the incorporation documents. They will simply walk into a bank with your articles of incorporation and operating agreement showing that they are authorized to act on behalf of the entity and open a bank account. They then resign, and this is a private document between the LLC and the employee. But you will be able to receive and accept payments and access the global financial system now. A lot of multinational entities set up subsidiaries in a number of countries this way.\""
] |
[
"Answering for US tax only: The bank account makes absolutely zero difference. If you are not a US national and not resident in the US, but earn income from a US employer/client/customer, generally that income is not subject to US tax (no matter where it is banked). However there are (complicated) exceptions, particularly if you are considered to be operating a 'trade or business' in the US or US real estate is involved. Start at https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/nonresident-aliens and proceed through pub 519 if you have time to spend. I do not know (or answer) about Argentinian taxes. Whether you can find a US bank that wants to open and maintain an account for a foreigner (which is extra paperwork and regulation for them) is a different Q, that is already asked and answered: B1/B2 visas do not allow you to work, but that isn't really in scope of money.SX and belongs over on travel.SX (or expatriates.SX for longer stay); https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/25416/work-as-freelancer-while-tourist-in-us-for-an-already-existing-us-client seems to cover it."
] |
2513
|
How does revenue shared with someone else go into my tax return in Canada?
|
[
"82344"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"82344",
"527318",
"527776",
"378414",
"156444",
"427442",
"430728",
"259602",
"392484",
"294187",
"252273",
"61438",
"552255",
"103668",
"407378",
"577703",
"431676",
"106673",
"99448",
"327826",
"155648",
"176054",
"546277",
"184698",
"188220",
"189887",
"188167",
"93638",
"235266",
"282844",
"596289",
"113871",
"496947",
"2718",
"406042",
"466718",
"435405",
"34767",
"128861",
"115584",
"385121",
"353004",
"314200",
"318388",
"576362",
"512151",
"59317",
"281803",
"218460",
"328853",
"228445",
"243949",
"254151",
"227334",
"224665",
"257988",
"409230",
"197546",
"526714",
"345219",
"352266",
"185626",
"130934",
"109546",
"377621",
"576218",
"510692",
"465106",
"393354",
"432550",
"316932",
"445052",
"580213",
"316951",
"31793",
"243503",
"64672",
"406235",
"80664",
"9353",
"34887",
"411063",
"15270",
"290045",
"179144",
"150219",
"4992",
"439502",
"599336",
"553332",
"396056",
"471257",
"390368",
"484799",
"51621",
"130631",
"149516",
"434351",
"159709",
"267158"
] |
[
"Generally, report your $150,000. If/when the the tax collectors notice the anomaly, they'll attempt to contact you to remedy it. I can't speak for Canada, but in the US, it's pretty orderly. The IRS requests additional information or proof and only open it up into a full blown audit if the suspect wrongdoing. In your case, you could show a business agreement detailing the revenue split proving you correctly reported. This is only for your consideration. I strongly recommending finding and keeping a professional tax advisor.",
"Assuming you have registered your activities as partnership and receiving this money as Individual, you need to show this under Schedule OS, 1d [other income]. this will be under the ITR-2 [tab CG-OS] XLS tax preparation utility given by Tax Department. The XLS can be found at https://incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in/portal/individual_huf.do If the funds you are receiving are large [more than say Rs 500,000] then suggest you incorporate a partnership firm or company, there are quite a few exceptions you can claim lowering you tax outgo. The fact that you are transferring funds to your partners can be an issue incase you get audited. You would need to have sufficient evidence to show that the money paid was for services rendered directly and not your income. It would be easier if you create a partnership or have the client directly pay to them. Again if the sum is small its fine, as the sum becomes large, it would get noticed by the tax authorities.",
"For tax purposes you will need to file as an employee (T4 slips and tax withheld automatically), but also as an entrepreneur. I had the same situation myself last year. Employee and self-employed is a publication from Revenue Canada that will help you. You need to fill out the statement of business activity form and keep detailed records of all your deductible expenses. Make photocopies and keep them 7 years. May I suggest you take an accountant to file your income tax form. More expensive but makes you less susceptible to receive Revenue Canada inspectors for a check-in. If you can read french, you can use this simple spreadsheet for your expenses. Your accountant will be happy.",
"If you have an actual legal entity (legal partnership) that is jointly owned by you and your partner, then the partnership receives the money, and the partnership then sends money to you and your partner. Each of you will pay tax on your share. It's possible that the partnership itself may have to pay taxes. If you are not following that procedure in terms of actual money flow - for example if the royalties are paid into your personal account instead of a partnership account - then you may have trouble convincing the tax authorities that this is the legal situation. If this is a small amount of money then you may be better off just paying the taxes.",
"\"It's pretty easy. In the Interview Setup for Ufile, check the box for \"\"Self-employment business income\"\". Then during the process of filling everything out, you'll get a Self-Employment screen. It'll ask for the name of your business, but just put your own name since you don't have one. For the 6-digit classification code, click the ? button and look through the list for the industry that best matches the one for whom you wrote the technical report. Or you can go with 711500: Independent artists, writers and performers. It doesn't really matter that much so don't worry if it's a poor match. It will also ask you for your income and expenses. I don't know exactly what costs you might have incurred to write your report, but you can likely claim a very tiny amount of \"\"home office\"\" expenses. Costs like rent (or mortgage interest + property tax), utilities, and home insurance can be claimed, but they have to be pro-rated for the time you were actually doing the work, and are based on the amount of space you used for the work. For example, if you paid $1000 rent and $200 utilities for the month in which the work was done, and it took you 20 of the 31 days in that month to actually do the work, and you used a room that makes up about 10% of the square footage of your home, then you can claim: $1200 * 20/31 * 0.1 = $77.42 for your home office expenses. If you also used that room for non-business purposes during that time, then you reduce it even further. Say, if the room was also used for playing video games 50% of the time, then you'd only claim $38.71\"",
"There are two parts in this 1042-S form. The income/dividends go into the Canada T5 form. There will be credit if 1042-S has held money already, so use T2209 to report too.",
"\"What do you mean by \"\"Canadian income\"\"? Was it income paid to you as wages for the job you did in the US? Or rental/interest income in Canada? If the former - then it doesn't go to NEC, it goes to the main part of the return. If the latter - it doesn't appear on your NR return at all. Yes, it is to validate your residency status. It has no other effect on your taxes.\"",
"I can't give you a specific answer because I'm not a tax accountant, so you should seek advice from a tax professional with experience relevant to your situation. This could be a complicated situation. That being said, one place you could start is the Canada Revenue Agency's statement on investment income, which contains this paragraph: Interest, foreign interest and dividend income, foreign income, foreign non-business income, and certain other income are all amounts you report on your return. They are usually shown on the following slips: T5, T3, T5013, T5013A To avoid double taxation, Canada and the US almost certainly have a foreign tax treaty that ensures you are only taxed in your country of residence. I'm assuming you're a resident of Canada. Also, this page states that: If you received foreign interest or dividend income, you have to report it in Canadian dollars. Use the Bank of Canada exchange rate that was in effect on the day you received the income. If you received the income at different times during the year, use the average annual exchange rate. You should consult a tax professional. I'm not a tax professional, let alone one who specializes in the Canadian tax system. A professional is the only one you should trust to answer your question with 100% accuracy.",
"You would report the overall income on your T1 general income tax return, and use form T2125 to report income and expenses for your business. Form T2125 is like a mini income-statement where you report your gross revenue and subtract off expenses. Being able to claim legitimate expenses as a deduction is an important tax benefit for businesses big and small. In terms of your second question, you generally need to register for a business number at least once you cross the threshold for GST / HST. If you earn $30,000/year (or spread over four consecutive quarters) then charging GST / HST is mandatory; see GST/HST Mandatory registration. There are other conditions as well, but the threshold is the principal one. You can also register voluntarily for GST / HST even if you're below that threshold; see GST/HST Voluntary registration. The advantage of registering voluntarily is that you can claim input tax credits (ITC) on any GST that your business pays, and remit only the difference. That saves your business money, especially if you have a lot of expenses early on. Finally, in terms of Ontario specifically (saw that on your profile), you might want to check out Ontario Sole Proprietorship. There are specific cases in which you need to register a business: e.g. specific types of businesses, or if you plan on doing business under a name other than your own. Finally, you may want to consider whether incorporating might be better for you. Here's an interesting article that compares Sole Proprietorship Versus Incorporation. Here's another article, Choosing a business structure, from the feds.",
"It should be reported as Miscellaneous Income. Congratulations for wanting to report this income.",
"Assuming that you don't own the business, it would seem to apply. The CRA says: If you were a resident of Quebec on December 31, 2016, and you did not have a business with a permanent establishment outside Quebec, your refundable Quebec abatement is 16.5% of the basic federal tax on line 55 of Schedule 1. If you had income from a business (including income you received as a limited or non-active partner) and the business has a permanent establishment outside Quebec, or you were not a resident of Quebec on December 31, 2016, and the business has a permanent establishment in Quebec, use Form T2203, Provincial and Territorial Taxes for 2016 - Multiple Jurisdictions, to calculate your abatement. For people whose income isn't coming from businesses they own, this seems quite clear.",
"Consult with a CPA in your local community, since determining how your income is reported is dependent on how it was earned, and how much it was and other factors. The details are personal, should not be shared on the internet, and don't affect the way we can answer this question. A CPA might be able to help you with some other advice. Things like how to structure your expenses to minimize tax burden, while staying within the rules.",
"The loss for B can be used to write off the gain for A. You will fill out a schedule 3 with cost base and proceeds of disposition. This will give you a $0 capital gain for the year and an amount of $5 (50% of the $10 loss) you can carry forward to offset future capital gains. You can also file a T1-a and carry the losses back up to 3 years if you're so inclined. It can't be used to offset other income (unless you die). Your C and D trades can't be on income account except for very unusual circumstances. It's not generally acceptable to the CRA for you to use 2 separate accounting methods. There are some intricacies but you should probably just use capital gains. There is one caveat that if you do short sales of Canadian listed securities, they will be on income account unless you fill out form T-123 and elect to have them all treated as capital gains. I just remembered one wrinkle in carrying forward capital losses. They don't reduce your capital gains anymore, but they reduce your taxable income. This means your net income won't be reduced and any benefits that are calculated from that (line 236), will not get an increase.",
"I would deduct all the other payments out as subcontractors, but I typically have all the paperwork and entities set up to make that applicable. In Turbotax I do this with as subcontracting expense under my business entity, but for the IRS the categories of the deductions do not matter This isn't tax advice, it is what I would do, and how I would defend it under an audit. Everyone else that was paid also needs to report it. The lack of reciprocal filing (you deducted income paid to someone else, the person did not report that income, or reported it in a different way) is a number one thing to trigger IRS scrutiny. Although accurate, you need to be aware that you are shifting the tax burden away from yourself, by deducting it.",
"I am not a lawyer or a tax accountant, but from the description provided it sounds to me like you have created two partnerships: one in which you share 50% of Bob's revenue, and another in which you share 50% of the revenue from the first partnership. If this is the case, then each partnership would need to file form K-1 and issue a copy to the partners of that partnership. I think, but I'm not sure, that each partnership would need an Employer Identification Number (EIN; you can apply for and receive these online with the IRS). You would only pay tax on the portion of profits that are assigned to you on the K-1. (If you've accidentally created a partnership without thinking through all the ramifications, you probably want to straighten this out. You can be held liable for the actions of your partners.) On the other hand, if your contract with Bob explicitly makes you a contractor and not a partner, then Bob should probably be issuing a 1099 to you. Similarly for you and Joe -- if your contract with Joe makes him a subcontractor, then you may need to get an EIN and issue him a 1099 at the end of the year. The money you pay to Joe is a business expense, and would be deducted from the profits you show on your Schedule C. In my opinion, it would be worth the $200 fee paid to a good CPA to make sure you get this right.",
"No, it will show on the LLC tax return (form 1065), in the capital accounts (schedules K-1, L and M-2), attributed to your partner.",
"In Canada, it is similarly taxed as CQM states. Mining is considered business income and you need to file a T1 form. Capital appreciation is no different than treating gains from stock.",
"This sounds like a rental fee as described in the instructions for the 1099-MISC. Enter amounts of $600 or more for all types of rents, such as any of the following. ... Non-Employee compensation does not seem appropriate because you did not perform a service. You mention that your tax-preparer brought this up. I think you will need to consult with a CPA to receive a more reliable opinion. Make sure to bring the contract that describes the situation with you. From there, you may need to consult a tax attorney, but the CPA should be able to help you figure out what your next step is.",
"\"Apparently box 39 does not receive half of box 38 if \"\"The price of the share or unit is less than its fair market value when the agreement was made.\"\" - the last point in paragraph 110(1)(d): *http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/pyrll/bnfts/fnncl/scrty/stckpt03-eng.html#dspst The employee can claim a deduction under paragraph 110(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act if all of the following conditions are met:\"",
"You only need to report INCOME to the IRS. Money which you are paying to a landlord on behalf of someone else is not income.",
"\"If you business is incorporated, it's up to the two of you how to do it. Typically, you will have the company write cheques (or make transfers, whatever) to each of the humans: If you want to say that each of you gets a salary of 80% of the revenue you bring in, and then tweak things with bonuses, you can. If one of you is contributing more to marketing and awareness and less to revenue, then you may prefer to pay you each the same even though the revenue you bring are different. It's up to you - it's quite literally your business. When you're not incorporated, then for tax purposes you split the income and the expenses according to your ownership share. If that doesn't seem fair to you, then a partnership is probably not as useful to you as being incorporated. In general, it's better to be incorporated once you're past any initial phase in which the business is losing money for tax purposes (acquiring depreciable assets) and the partners have taxable income from elsewhere (day jobs, or at least income from the earlier part of the year before starting the business.) I would recommend that the \"\"partnership\"\" phase of the business be very short. Get incorporated and get a shareholder agreement.\"",
"Firstly if your Partnership makes less than $20,000 in revenue (before expenses are applied), then you cannot claim any net losses from the Partnership against your other income. However, you still need to include the Partnership details in your Tax Return showing your portion on the net loss, and you will also be required to submit a separate Tax Return for the Partnership showing the net losses. Any net losses from the Partnership will be carried forward to future tax years and can be used as a deduction against your Partnership Income when and if it does start to make a profit.",
"Note: This is not professional tax advice. If you think you need professional tax advice, find a licensed professional in your local area. What are the expected earnings/year? US$100? US$1,000? US$100,000? I would say if this is for US$1,000 or less that registering an EIN, and consulting a CPA to file a Partnership Tax return is not going to be a profitable exercise.... all the earnings, perhaps more, will go to paying someone to do (or help do) the tax filings. The simplest taxes are for a business that you completely own. Corporations and Partnerships involve additional forms and get more and more and complex, and even more so when it involves foreign participation. Partnerships are often not formal partnerships but can be more easily thought of as independent businesses that each participants owns, that are simply doing some business with each other. Schedule C is the IRS form you fill out for any businesses that you own. On schedule C you would list the income from advertising. Also on schedule C there is a place for all of the business expenses, such as ads that you buy, a server that you rent, supplies, employees, and independent contractors. Amounts paid to an independent contractor certainly need not be based on hours, but could be a fixed fee, or based on profit earned. Finally, if you pay anyone in the USA over a certain amount, you have to tell the IRS about that with a Form 1099 at the beginning of the next year, so they can fill out their taxes. BUT.... according to an article in International Tax Blog you might not have to file Form 1099 with the IRS for foreign contractors if they are not US persons (not a US citizen or a resident visa holder).",
"\"You can list it as other income reported on line 21 of form 1040. In TurboTax, enter at: - Federal Taxes tab (Personal in Home & Business) - Wages & Income -“I’ll choose what I work on” Button Scroll down to: -Less Common Income -Misc Income, 1099-A, 1099-C. -The next screen will give you several choices. Choose \"\"Other reportable Income\"\". You will reach a screen where you can type a description of the income and the amount. Type in the amount of income and categorize as Tutoring.\"",
"Profits and losses in a partnership, LLC or S-corp are always reported proportional to the share of ownership. If you have a 30% share in a partnership, you will report 30% of the profit (or loss) of the respective tax year on your personal return. If you look at Part II, section J of your K-1, it should show your percentage of ownership in the entity. All numbers in Part III should reflect the amount of your share (not the entity's total amounts, which will be on Form 1065 for a partnership):",
"\"You're a partnership. You should ask the money to be paid to the partnership. You'll have to fill partnership income tax return (form 1065) and each of you will get a K-1 schedule with your own personal portion of the income. For example, you're Adam, Ben and Clara. You work together on a project and are being paid. You get a check for $300 issued to \"\"Adam, Ben and Clara, DBA ABC Partnership\"\". You don't have to have a DBA, it just makes it easier to show you as a single entity. You then deposit the check to an account you set up for your partnership, and from that account you transfer $100 to each of you. Year end, you file form 1065, showing $300 income, and attach K-1 for each of the partners showing $100 income. That $100 income will flow to your individual tax returns. The overhead here is setting up a partnership account, potentially making a DBA, and filing the extra tax return. That's the proper way to do it, especially if it is something you're going to do regularly. For a one-time thing, one of you can get paid, report it as income on his/her Schedule C, and issue 1099 to the rest of you for your parts, and deduct the amount as his/her expense. Here, the overhead is Schedule C for each of you (instead of Schedule E if handling it as a partnership), extra 1099 forms (instead of 1065 and K-1s), and a risk of one partner defrauding the others (depends on how much you trust each other). With proper documentation, each of these is equally legal, and tax-wise the costs are the same (i.e.: either way you pay the same taxes). With partnership the overhead is a bit more expensive (DBA+1065 extra cost), but in the long term it will make your life easier if you do this kind of thing regularly. You may want to consider setting up your partnership as a LLC/LLP (depending on what your State allows), but that would require State paperwork and potentially more fees.\"",
"\"Do not use a shared bank account. One of you can cash/deposit the check in your personal account and then either pay the others in the group cash or write them a check. You open yourself up to many, many problems sharing a bank account and/or money. Treat it like a business as far as income goes, but I would not recommend any type of formal business, LLC, partnership, sole proprietorship, etc. For federal taxes, you just keep track of how much \"\"you\"\" personally are paid and report that at the end of the year as income, most likely on a 1040EZ 1040SE, along with any other income you have.\"",
"You need to clarify with Bob what your agreement is. If you and Bob are working together on these jobs as partners, you should get a written partnership agreement done by a lawyer who works with software industry entity formation. You can legally be considered a partnership if you are operating a business together, even if there is nothing in writing. The partnership will have its own tax return, and you each will be allocated 50% of the profits/losses (if that's what you agree to). This amount will be reported on your own individual 1040 as self-employment income. Since you have now lost all the expense deductions you would have taken on your Schedule C, and any home office deduction, it's a good idea to put language in the partnership agreement stating that the partnership will reimburse partners for their out-of-pocket expenses. If Bob is just hiring you as a contractor, you give him your SSN, and he issues you a 1099, like any other client. This should be a situation where you invoice him for the amount you are charging. Same thing with Joe - figure out if you're hiring him as an independent contractor, or if you have a partnership. Either way, you will owe income and self-employment tax on your profits. In the case of a partnership, the amount will be on the K-1 from the partnership return. For an independent contractor who's operating as a sole proprietor, you report the income you invoiced for and received, and deduct your expenses, including independent contractors that you hired, on your Schedule C. Talk to your tax guy about quarterly estimated payments. If you don't have a tax guy, go get one. Find somebody people in your city working in your industry recommend. A good tax person will save you more money than they cost. IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.",
"In the general case if you have income coming in from a foreign source you need to declare it on your Canadian tax form, and nominally pay tax on it. However Canada has a tax agreement with the UK to ensure that you are not taxed twice. You also declare how much tax you have paid to the UK, and that is deducted from your Canadian tax bill. You may need to consult a tax professional, or maybe just read the Revenue Canada website to get the details. If you are holding this money for a friend, then you may find that this does not count as income to you. If you are getting it transferred to you in Canada, and then immediately passed on to your friend, it probably doesn't count as income (though again a tax professional will probably be helpful). This would mean you don't have to pay Canadian tax. But it's also a bummer because you've paid UK tax, which you might also have avoided, and you can't get that back without a lot of form filling. If this is going to be an ongoing situation, and the amount is significant, then you might look at getting your friend's money (and any you have in a UK account yourself) transferred to an offshore account, where UK tax is not automatically deducted. Most UK banks will do this for non-UK residents.",
"If you have non Residency status in Canada you don't need to file Canadian tax return. To confirm your status you need to contact Canada Revenue (send them letter, probably to complete some form).",
"\"Your income and expenses for the business should be independent of HST. That is, if you charged somebody 100 + 13 HST, you have revenue of 100. You're going to send the 13 to the government later, it's not part of your revenue. If you go out and buy something for 10 + 1.30 HST, you record 10 as an expense. You're going to take the 1.3 off the 13 you would have sent the government, it's not part of your expenses. And so on. I am not sure what you mean by \"\"HST compensation\"\" but if it came from the government, and it needs to be declared as income, there will be information to that end in the letter that comes with the cheque. (For example, if they pay you interest on your refund, the letter reminds you to include that money in next year's income.)\"",
"I would just take $2000 and multiply by your marginal tax rate, weight that between the 5 other people according to their share of the prize money and ask them to give you that. From your question it seems like you all have a good working relationship, I'm sure the other partners would agree to that. I think it's the simplest solution that is also fair and equitable. Basically, you pay the tax on 2000 and they pay you back for their share of the tax. Much easier than trying to pass it through your tax return for 5 separate people for a minimal amount of $'s. In hindsight, the best way to do it would have been to 1099 the person with the lowest marginal tax rate for the year to minimize the total tax paid on the 2000. Probably only would've been a few dollars difference but still the most efficient way to do it.",
"You send the proper form to the other person for the amount you gave him, and file it as your business expense on your Schedule C.",
"The Canada Revenue Agency does indeed put out just the guide you want. It's at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/rc4070/rc4070-e.html - you should always take a good look at URLs to make sure they're really from the government and not from some for-profit firm that will charge you to fill out forms for free services. It covers ways to structure your business (probably a sole proprietor in your case), collecting and submitting GST or HST, sending in payroll remittances (if you pay yourself a T4 salary), and income tax including what you can deduct. It's a great place to start and you can use it as a source of keywords if you want to search for more details.",
"Are the amounts in those boxes taxes that have already been removed? Yes. If they are, how do I report these totals? When I entered the information from the 1099-MISC, it only asked for the total, and didn't ask for (what I thought were) the taxes already taken out. It should appear on your 1040 line 64 (and similar line on your State tax return). If the program doesn't ask for all the 1099 fields (which is stupid), you can add it as additional taxes paid in the Credits section, somewhere in the area where they ask about estimated payments etc.",
"\"From the poster's description of this activity, it doesn't look like he is engaged in a business, so Schedule C would not be appropriate. The first paragraph of the IRS Instructions for Schedule C is as follows: Use Schedule C (Form 1040) to report income or loss from a business you operated or a profession you practiced as a sole proprietor. An activity qualifies as a business if your primary purpose for engaging in the activity is for income or profit and you are involved in the activity with continuity and regularity. For example, a sporadic activity or a hobby does not qualify as a business. To report income from a nonbusiness activity, see the instructions for Form 1040, line 21, or Form 1040NR, line 21. What the poster is doing is acting as a nominee or agent for his members. For instance, if I give you $3.00 and ask you to go into Starbucks and buy me a pumpkin-spice latte, you do not have income or receipts of $3.00, and you are not engaged in a business. The amounts that the poster's members are forwarding him are like this. Money that the poster receives for his trouble should be reported as nonbusiness income on Line 21 of Form 1040, in accordance with the instructions quoted above and the instructions for Form 1040. Finally, it should be noted that the poster cannot take deductions or losses relating to this activity. So he can't deduct any expenses of organizing the group buy on his tax return. Of course, this would not be the case if the group buy really is the poster's business and not just a \"\"hobby.\"\" Of course, it goes without saying that the poster should document all of this activity with receipts, contemporaneous emails (and if available, contracts) - as well as anything else that could possibly be relevant to proving the nature of this activity in the event of an audit.\"",
"\"(Insert the usual disclaimer that I'm not any sort of tax professional; I'm just a random guy on the Internet who occasionally looks through IRS instructions for fun. Then again, what you're doing here is asking random people on the Internet for help, so here goes.) The gigantic book of \"\"How to File Your Income Taxes\"\" from the IRS is called Publication 17. That's generally where I start to figure out where to report what. The section on Royalties has this to say: Royalties from copyrights, patents, and oil, gas, and mineral properties are taxable as ordinary income. In most cases, you report royalties in Part I of Schedule E (Form 1040). However, if you hold an operating oil, gas, or mineral interest or are in business as a self-employed writer, inventor, artist, etc., report your income and expenses on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040). It sounds like you are receiving royalties from a copyright, and not as a self-employed writer. That means that you would report the income on Schedule E, Part I. I've not used Schedule E before, but looking at the instructions for it, you enter this as \"\"Royalty Property\"\". For royalty property, enter code “6” on line 1b and leave lines 1a and 2 blank for that property. So, in Line 1b, part A, enter code 6. (It looks like you'll only use section A here as you only have one royalty property.) Then in column A, Line 4, enter the royalties you have received. The instructions confirm that this should be the amount that you received listed on the 1099-MISC. Report on line 4 royalties from oil, gas, or mineral properties (not including operating interests); copyrights; and patents. Use a separate column (A, B, or C) for each royalty property. If you received $10 or more in royalties during 2016, the payer should send you a Form 1099-MISC or similar statement by January 31, 2017, showing the amount you received. Report this amount on line 4. I don't think that there's any relevant Expenses deductions you could take on the subsequent lines (though like I said, I've not used this form before), but if you had some specific expenses involved in producing this income it might be worth looking into further. On Line 21 you'd subtract the 0 expenses (or subtract any expenses you do manage to list) and put the total. It looks like there are more totals to accumulate on lines 23 and 24, which presumably would be equally easy as you only have the one property. Put the total again on line 26, which says to enter it on the main Form 1040 on line 17 and it thus gets included in your income.\"",
"The HMRC website would explain it better to you. There is a lot of factors and conditions involved, so refer to the HMRC website for clarification. If your question had more details, it could have been easy to pinpoint the exact answer. Do I declare the value of shares as income Why would you do that ? You haven't generated income from that yet(sold it to make a profit/loss), so how can that be declared as income.",
"Such activity is normally referred to as bartering income. From the IRS site - You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 and Amended Returns for information on filing an amended return.",
"\"Putting them on line 10 is best suited for your situation. According to Quickbooks: Commissions and Fees (Line 10) Commissions/fees paid to nonemployees to generate revenue (e.g. agent fees). It seems like this website you are using falls under the term \"\"nonemployees\"\".\"",
"\"Books would be considered Personal-Use Property according to Canada's income tax laws. The most detailed IT I was able to find is IT-332R, which says: GAINS AND LOSSES 3. A gain on the disposition of personal-use property is normally a capital gain within the meaning of paragraph 39(1)(a). Where the property is a principal residence, the gain > is computed under paragraph 40(2)(b) or (c). 4. Under subparagraph 40(2)(g)(iii), a loss on a disposition of personal-use property, other than listed personal property, is deemed to be nil. [...] This part of the bulletin indicates that a gain might be considered a capital gain - not income. However, you don't get to book a loss as a capital loss. This is the first hint that your book sale - which is actually an exempt capital loss - shouldn't go on your tax return unless it's one of the \"\"listed\"\" items: LISTED PERSONAL PROPERTY 7. Listed personal property is defined in paragraph 54(e) to mean personal-use property that is all or any portion of, or any interest in or right to, any (a) print, etching, drawing, painting, sculpture, or other similar work of art, (b) jewellery, (c) rare folio, rare manuscript, or rare book, (d) stamp, or (e) coin. So unless you're selling rare books, the disposition (sale) of them is essentially exempt as income, regardless of whether you sold it at a profit or at a loss. If it is rare, then you might be able to consider it a capital loss, which doesn't help you much unless you had other capital gains, but you can carry over capital losses to future years. There's also a newer IT related to hobbies and \"\"collecting\"\" items, IT-334R2. This one says: 11. In order for any activity or pursuit to be regarded as a source of income, there must be a reasonable expectation of profit. Where such an expectation does not exist (as is the case with most hobbies), neither amounts received nor expenses incurred are included in the income computation for tax purposes and any excess of expenses over receipts is a personal or living expense, the deduction of which is denied by paragraph 18(1)(h). On the other hand, if the hobby or pastime results in receipts of revenue in excess of expenses, that fact is a strong indication that the hobby is a venture with an expectation of profit; if so, the net income may be taxable as income from a business. The current version of IT-504, Visual Artists and Writers, discusses the concept of \"\"a reasonable expectation of profit\"\" in greater detail. Where a hobby consists of collecting personal-use property or listed personal property, dispositions should be accounted for as described in the current version of IT-332, Personal-Use Property. (emphasis mine) In other words, if it's not the type of thing where you'd make a tax deduction when you bought it in the first place, then you clearly don't need to report it as income when you sell it. Just to be absolutely clear here: The fact that you are selling them at a loss is not actually what's important here. What's important is that, if the books aren't collectibles, then you would have had no expectation of profit. If you did have that expectation then you could have made a tax deduction when you first purchased them. So in this case, it is probably not necessary for you to report the income; however, for the benefit of other readers, in some cases you might need to report it under \"\"other income\"\" or book it as a capital gain/loss, depending on what those personal items are and whether or not you made a net profit.\"",
"Set up a company or partnership. Generally what you describe is a classic partnership. In the US - the partnership itself is not taxed (as opposed to a corporation), and each partner is taxed separately on the distributions. That is, the partners as a whole will be taxed on the income of one, if it is distributed through the partnership. Exactly what you want. Do consult with a tax adviser familiar with the Federal and the State laws with the specifics of setting it up and managing it, maybe you'll get a better advice from a professional (which I am not, of course).",
"If you received shares as part of a bonus you needed to pay income tax on the dollar valuse of those shares at the time you received them. This income tax is based on the dollar value of the bonus and has nothing to do with the shares. If you have since sold these shares you will need to report any capital gain or loss you made from their dollar value when you received them. If you made a gain you would need to pay capital gains tax on the profits (if you held them for more than a year you would get a discount on the capital gains tax you have to pay). If you made a loss you can use that capital loss to reduce any other capital gains in that income year, reduce any other income up to $3000 per year, or carry any additional capital loss forward to future income years to reduce any gains or income (up to $3000 per year) you do have in the future.",
"According to the government website, the answer appears to be no in terms of personal income. However you may want to anyway to start creating RRSP contribution room as well as possibly qualify for GST/HST credit. If your business is registered you are going to be required to file a tax return for it (and if it is a sole proprietorship then you would be required to file a T1 regardless). When all is said and done, it seems that it's probably better to file rather than not file; even if you pay no income tax at least you are sure you won't receive a nasty letter from Revenue Canada in the future :)",
"Before answering specific question, you are liable to pay tax as per your bracket on the income generated. I work with my partner and currently we transfer all earning on my personal bank account. Can this create any issue for me? If you are paying your partner from your account, you would need to maintain proper paperwork to show the portion of money transferred is not income to you. Alternatively create a join Current Account. Move funds there and then move it to your respective accounts. Which sort off account should be talk and by whose name? Can be any account [Savings/Current]. If you are doing more withdrawls open Current else open Savings. It does not matter on whos name the account is. Paperwork to show income matters from tax point of view. What should we take care while transfering money from freelance site to bank? Nothing specific Is there any other alternative to bank? There is paypal etc. However ultimately it flows into a Bank Account. What are other things to be kept in mind? Keep proper record of actual income of each of you, along with expenses. There are certain expenses you can claim from income, for example laptop, internet, mobile phone etc. Consult a CA he will be able to guide and it does not cost much.",
"Just from my own experience (I am not an accountant): In addition to counting as 'business income' (1040 line 12 [1]) your $3000 (or whatever) will be subject to ~15% self-employment tax, on Schedule SE. This carries to your 1040 line ~57, which is after all your 'adjustments to income', exemptions, and deductions - so, those don't reduce it. Half of the 15% is deductible on line ~27, if you have enough taxable income for it to matter; but, in any case, you will owe at least 1/2 of the 15%, on top of your regular income tax. Your husband could deduct this payment as a business expense on Schedule C; but, if (AIUI) he will have a loss already, he'll get no benefit from this in the current year. If you do count this as income to you, it will be FICA income; so, it will be credited to your Social Security account. Things outside my experience that might bear looking into: I suspect the IRS has criteria to determine whether spousal payments are legit, or just gaming the tax system. Even if your husband can't 'use' the loss this year, he may be able to apply it in the future, when/if he has net business income. [1] NB: Any tax form line numbers are as of the last I looked - they may be off by one or two.",
"This depends on the nature of the income. Please consult a professional CPA for specific advise.",
"The amount earned is taxable. It needs to shown as income from other sources. Although the last date for paying Advance tax is over [15 March], there is still time to pay Self-Assessment tax till 15 June. If the tax amount due is less than 10,000/- there is no penalty. If the tax is more than Rs 10,000/- there is penalty at the rate of 1% per month from March, and if the amount of tax exceeds 40% of the total tax, there will be additional 1% interest from December. The tax can be paid online via your Banks website or using the Income Tax website at https://onlineservices.tin.egov-nsdl.com/etaxnew/tdsnontds.jsp The form to be used is 280. You can use the Income tax website to calculate and file your tax returns at https://incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in/ or use the services of a CA. Edit: If the income is less than expenses, you need not pay tax. Maintain proper records [receipts] of income and expenses, if possible use a different Bank account so that they remain different from your main account. The tax to be paid depending on your income slab. The additional income needs to added to you salary. The tax and slabs will be as per this. There is no distinction on this amount. Its treated as normal income. All Tax for the given year has to be paid in advance. i.e. for Tax year 2013-14, 30% of total tax by 15-Sept, Additional 30% [total 60%] by 15-Dec and Balance by 15-Mar. Read Page 3 and page 10 of http://incometaxindia.gov.in/Archive/Taxation_Of_Salaried_Employees_18062012.pdf",
"\"This may be closed as not quite PF, but really \"\"startup\"\" as it's a business question. In general, you should talk to a professional if you have this type of question, specifics like this regarding your tax code. I would expect that as a business, you will use a proper paper trail to show that money, say 1000 units of currency, came in and 900 went out. This is a service, no goods involved. The transaction nets you 100, and you track all of this. In the end you have the gross profit, and then business expenses. The gross amount, 1000, should not be the amount taxed, only the final profit.\"",
"Its best you start this venture as a Business entity. Whatever the customer pays you is your income. Whatever you pay to the hotel will be your expenses. Apart from this there will be other expenses. So essentially difference between your income and expense will be the profit of the entity and tax will be on the profit. If you do not want to start an Business entity and pay as an individual then please add the country tag, depending on the country there may different ways to account for the funds.",
"Yes, you have to file a tax return in Canada. Non residents that have earned employment income in Canada are required to file a Canadian personal income tax return. Usually, your employer will have deducted sufficient taxes from your pay-cheques, resulting in a tax refund upon filing your Canadian tax return. You will also receive a tax credit on your US tax return for taxes paid in Canada.",
"There are a few different ways to organize this, but mostly I think you need to talk to a lawyer. The 50/50 split thing should be in writing along with a bunch of other issues. You could have one of you doing a sole proprietorship where the other person is a contractor that receives half of all revenues/profits. The person that owns the sole proprietorship may be entitled to deduct certain costs of running the entity. The other person would then be 1099'd his share of revenues. You could set up a partnership, again legal paperwork is necessary. You could also setup an S-Corp, where each of you is a 50% owner. You could also setup an LLC that is organized as any of the above. I would only do this if you can self fund some additional tax preparation costs. Figure about $600/year at a minimum. There are a lot of options with a sole proprietorship being the easiest. Your first step on the new venture would be to apply for an EIN (free), and then opening a business bank account. Good luck.",
"\"If you receive a 1099-MISC from YouTube, that tells you what they stated to the IRS and leads into most tax preparation software guided interviews or wizards as a topic for you to enter. Whether or not you have a 1099-MISC, this discussion from the IRS is pertinent to your question. You could probably elect to report the income as a royalty on your copyrighted work of art on Schedule E, but see this note: \"\"In most cases you report royalties in Part I of Schedule E (Form 1040). However, if you ... are in business as a self-employed writer, inventor, artist, etc., report your income and expenses on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040).\"\" Whether reporting on Schedule E or C is more correct or better for your specific circumstances is beyond the advice you should take from strangers on the internet based on a general question - however, know that there are potentially several paths for you. Note that this is revenue from a business, so if you paid for equipment or services that are 100% dedicated to your YouTubing (PC, webcam, upgraded broadband, video editing software, vehicle miles to a shoot, props, etc.) then these are a combination of depreciable capital investments and expenses you can report against the income, reducing the taxes you may owe. If the equipment/services are used for business and personal use, there are further guidelines from the IRS as to estimating the split. These apply whether you report on Sch. E, Sch. C, or Sch C-EZ. Quote: \"\"Self-Employment Income It is a common misconception that if a taxpayer does not receive a Form 1099-MISC or if the income is under $600 per payer, the income is not taxable. There is no minimum amount that a taxpayer may exclude from gross income. All income earned through the taxpayer’s business, as an independent contractor or from informal side jobs is self-employment income, which is fully taxable and must be reported on Form 1040. Use Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship) to report income and expenses. Taxpayers will also need to prepare Form 1040 Schedule SE for self-employment taxes if the net profit exceeds $400 for a year. Do not report this income on Form 1040 Line 21 as Other Income. Independent contractors must report all income as taxable, even if it is less than $600. Even if the client does not issue a Form 1099-MISC, the income, whatever the amount, is still reportable by the taxpayer. Fees received for babysitting, housecleaning and lawn cutting are all examples of taxable income, even if each client paid less than $600 for the year. Someone who repairs computers in his or her spare time needs to report all monies earned as self-employment income even if no one person paid more than $600 for repairs.\"\"\"",
"If your landlord is OK with you subletting your apartment - then that's all that the landlord has to do with that. It doesn't really matter if the landlord is a private person or a publicly trade corporation/fund. No relevance at all. As to your own reporting - you're receiving rent. That is income to you. You can deduct the portion of your expenses (including rent) attributable to the area you rent out. All this goes to your Schedule E. Any positive remainder becomes your taxable income. Any deduction must be substantiated (i.e.: you'll have to keep all the receipts for all the expenses you used for the deduction for as long as the tax year is open, which is at least the next 3 years after filing).",
"\"Can I deduct the money that I giving to my team mates from the taxes that I pay? If yes, how should I record the transaction? Why? Why are you giving money to your team mates? That's the most important question, and any answer without taking this into account is not full. You would probably have to talk to a professional tax adviser (a CPA/EA licensed in your state) about the details, but in general - you cannot deduct money you give someone just because you feel like it. Moreover, it may be subject to an additional tax - the gift tax. PS: We don't have any partnership or something similar, it is just each of us on his own. Assuming you want to give your team mates money because you developed the project together - then you do in fact have a partnership. In order to split the income properly, you should get a tax ID for the partnership, and issue a 1065 and K-1 for each team mate. In most states, you don't need to \"\"register\"\" a partnership with the state. Mere \"\"lets do things together\"\" creates a partnership. Otherwise, if they work for you (as opposed to with you in the case above), you can treat it as your own business income, and pay your team mates (who are now your contractors/employees) accordingly. Be careful here, because the difference between contractor and employee in tax law is significant, and you may end up being on the hook for a lot of things you're not aware of. Bottom line, in certain situation you cannot deduct, in others you can - you have to discuss it with a professional. Doing these things on your own without fully understanding what each term means - is dangerous, and IRS doesn't forgive for \"\"honest mistakes\"\".\"",
"\"Yes you can add it there. You can also add it to the \"\"gross receipt line\"\". Note that you do not have to list where it came from, just the total.\"",
"On the revenue only. This amount of 10$ will be considered as interest and fully taxable. It will not be a capital gain. But why would you decide to declare it as an income? 100$ is insignificant. If you lend small amount to friends it cannot be considered a lending business.",
"One of the triggers for audit is when the IRS can't match 1099 income to the tax return. Whoever got the 1099 in her name should include that income on her return.",
"An update for anyone looking this up, I am still working through all the details but I can answer the question as far as Stack Exchange will go. In this situation the answer and processes involved greatly differs based on the personal circumstances of the person asking the question. Best to seek qualified tax advice than relying only on a forum as they are able to be more accurate and descriptive than any reply that you might receive.",
"I'm not familiar with Canadian taxes, but had your question been written about the United States, I'd advise you to at least consult for a couple of hours with an accountant. Taxes are complex, and the cost of making a mistake generally exceeds the cost of getting professional advice.",
"Canada doesn't tax non-residents on income earned/incurred outside of Canada. So, your sister should start with this page to determine the residency status. If she is indeed determined to be non-resident - she should look here to see her obligations. If all she earns she earns outside of Canada - her obligations will be very little, if at all. This is similar to almost any other country in the world, with the notable exception of the United States of America. US citizens are taxed regardless of their residency status, everywhere in the world on worldwide income (unless tax treaty says otherwise).",
"If thinking about it like a business you normally only pay taxes on Net income, not gross. So Gross being all the money that comes in. People giving you cash, checks, whatever get deposited into your account. You then pay that out to other people for services, advertisement. At the end of the day what is left would be your 'profit' and you would be expected to pay income tax on that. If you are just an individual and don't have an LLC set up or any business structure you would usually just have an extra page to fill out on your taxes with this info. I think it's a schedule C but not 100%",
"Do I pay tax to the US and then also pay it in India for my income, or does my American partner, who holds 15% of the monthly income, pay tax in the US for his income? Of course you do, what kind of question is this? You have income earned in the US by a US entity, and the entity is taxed. Since LLC is a disregarded entity - the tax shifts to you personally. You should file form 1040NR. You should also talk to a tax professional who's proficient in the Indo-US tax treaty, since it may affect your situation.",
"I'm not sure I am fully understanding the nuance of your question, but based on your answer in the comments you and your business are not separate legal entities. So your income is the full $70K, there is no distinct business to have income. If you clarify your question to include why you want to know this I might be able to give a more meaningful answer for your situation.",
"Your home doesn't belong to the partnership, it belongs to you. So you can (if qualified) deduct home office usage as a business expense on your individual tax return. Same goes to your partner. Similarly any other unreimbursed expense.",
"If the money comes to you, then it's income. If the money goes out from you, it's an expense. You get to handle the appropriate tax documentation for those business transactions. You may also have the pleasure of filing 1099-MISC forms for all of your blogging buddies if you've paid them more than $600. (Not 100% sure on this one.) I was in a blog network that had some advertising deals, and we tried to keep the payments separate because it was cleaner that way. If I were you, I'd always charge a finder's fee because it is extra work for you to do what you're doing.",
"\"Depending on the nature of the expenses, you will enter them under Deductions, on lines 9 through 20. Did you rent an office? Add the rental expense to line 13. Fee for a business license? Line 14. Everything else that doesn't fall into any specific category goes on line 20 (You'll need to attach a small statement that breaks out the expense categories, e.g. office supplies, phone, legal fees, etc.) Expenses that are entered in the Income section are costs directly related to sales, such as merchant fees that you pay to a bank if you take payments by credit card. Since you said the partnership has \"\"zero money coming in,\"\" I assume that it currently has no revenues, so all the fields in the Income section would be zero.\"",
"Yes, you still need to pay income tax on your capital gain regardless of whether you converted your USD proceeds back into CAD. When you calculate your gains for tax purposes, you'll need to convert all of your gains to Canadian dollars. Generally speaking, CRA will expect you to use a historical USD to CAD exchange rate published by the Bank of Canada. At that page, notice the remark at right: Are the Exchange Rates Shown Here Accepted by Canada Revenue Agency? Yes. The Agency accepts Bank of Canada exchange rates as the basis for calculations involving income and expenses that are denominated in foreign currencies.",
"It's fine - if you are an employee, you will normally have all taxes deducted by the employer, and won't even need to complete a tax return. Even if you do, all the figures will be on the P60 you get at the end of the year. If that's your only income, it's pretty easy to do. Remember, your taxes and your girlfriends are totally separate. It also doesnt matter where the money goes - you could be paid in cash or into any account, it's the fact that you earn it makes it taxable.",
"It is ordinary income to you. You should probably talk to a California licensed CRTP/EA/CPA, but I doubt they'll say anything different. You would probably ask them whether you can treat some of it as a refund of rent paid, but I personally wouldn't feel comfortable with that.",
"As a sole trader you would fill out an Individual Tax Return and complete the Business and Professional Items Section P1 to P19, then enter the amounts from that section into Item 15 in the Supplementary Section of the Tax Return. Any business income as a sole trader will be included into your taxable income for the year together with other sources of income you may have earned in the same income year. Whether you get a tax refund will depend on the amount of taxable income you make, the amount of tax you have already paid in instalments throughout the year, and any tax deductions and tax offsets you can claim.",
"He has included this on Schedule D line 1a, but I don't see any details on the actual transaction. It is reported on form 8949. However, if it is fully reported in 1099-B (with cost basis), then you don't have to actually detail every position. Turbotax asked me to fill in individual stock sales with proceeds and cost basis information. ... Again, it seems to be documented on Schedule D in boxes 1a and 8a. See above. I received a 1099-Q for a 529 distribution for a family member. It was used for qualified expenses, so should not be taxable. Then there's nothing to report. I believe I paid the correct amounts based on my (possibly flawed) understanding of estimated taxes. His initial draft had me paying a penalty. I explained my situation for the year, and his next draft had the penalties removed, with no documentation or explanation. IRS assesses the penalty. If you volunteer to pay the penalty, you can calculate it yourself and pay with the taxes due. Otherwise - leave it to the IRS to calculate and assess the penalty they deem right and send you a bill. You can then argue with the IRS about that assessment. Many times they don't even bother, if the amounts are small, so I'd suggest going with what the CPA did.",
"\"It would appear that you are not actually \"\"equal\"\" partners. You have differently valued interests and those values fluctuate based on individual performance. The TurboTax advice is simplified for entities that don't track interests relative to partner inputs. IRC § 704(a), partner's distributive share is set by the partnership agreement, and § 704(b), failing an allocation by the agreement it is set by the partner's interest in the partnership. But note § 704(b)(2), which prevents blatant tax-rigging in the partnership agreement.\"",
"The details of any bank accounts are irrelevant. If you're self-employed, you submit your tax return to HMRC at some point after the end of tax year. HMRC then tell you how much tax you owe and when payment is due, and you then pay it. HMRC don't have access to your bank accounts. Note that interest earned on a bank account is treated as taxable income, and banks normally automatically pay the tax due on your behalf, at the basic rate of 20%. If you're self-employed, you need to declare this income on your tax return. And in the case of a joint account, that interest is treated as being split equally.",
"Depends whom the 1099 was issued to. If it was issued to your corporation - then its your corporation's income, not yours. Why would it go to your tax return? Your corporation and you are two separate legal entities. You will have to file the 1120S, whether you have corporate income or not, it has to be filed each year. So why make a mess of your reporting and not just report the corporation income on its return and your personal income on your own return? If you no longer use the corporation and all the 1099's are issued to you personally, then just dissolve it so that you won't have to file an empty 1120S every year and pay additional fees for maintaining it.",
"You do actually have some profits (whatever is left from donations). The way it goes is that you report everything on your Schedule C. You will report this: Your gross profits will then flow to Net Profit (line 31) since you had no other expenses (unless you had some other expenses, like paypal fees, which will appear in the relevant category in part II), and from line 31 it will go to your 1040 for the final tax calculation.",
"\"Income code 09 is dividends, so yes - it is the same as line 1 of the US form 1099-DIV. 1a or 1b however depends on whether the requirements for qualified dividends are met. If they're met - its 1b, if not - 1a. These are treated and taxed differently. See here on what are the qualification requirements. Note that Canada has a tax treaty with the US making Canadian corporations \"\"qualified foreign corporations\"\".\"",
"Assuming the funds are being transferred for his treatment, Yes it should be added to your income and taxed at the bracket you fall into. This is same as a person walking into your clinic and paying you cash/cheque/credit card to get treated.",
"By the time you've earned the income, it is basically too late to decide who it belongs to[*]. If the assets belong to one person, income from those assets must be declared by that person. If you earn interest on a shared account, you must declare 50% of it each. And so on. (If you're tempted to fudge it bear in mind that banks report to the ATO about interest paid and account ownership.) I don't think Family Tax Benefits are taxable income, but I don't get them myself so I don't know. What you can do is think about how you want things arranged going forward. That means making a prediction about who will have the higher income; it sounds like that's going to be you, and she will be working at most part time. Therefore she should hold anything that generates taxable income (bank accounts etc) and you should hold anything that generates losses (negatively-geared investments, charitable deductions, etc). You could look into making a voluntary super contribution into her account which (imbw) will be deductible for you and get it into a lower-tax area. If you're earning on the order of $30k per annum in interest you're looking at paying $11500 tax on it if it's in your name vs $5k if it's in hers, so it's not a moot point. $420k in cash is arguably quite a lot, and perhaps you want to look at putting some of it into a low-cost balanced managed fund, such as those from Vanguard. That will be somewhat more tax effective, though less stable. If you're looking to buy a new house within a few years perhaps cash is the best place for it. [*] One kind-of exception is that if you have a family trust, the trust can decide at the end of the year to whom it will distribute its income. However, you still have to decide to establish a trust in advance.",
"How would I go about doing this? Are there any tax laws I should be worried about? Just report it as a regular sale of asset on your form 8949 (or form 4797 if used for trade/business/rental). It will flow to your Schedule D for capital gains tax. Use form 1116 to calculate the foreign tax credit for the taxes on the gains you'd pay in India (if any).",
"\"Paying yourself through a corporation requires an analysis of a variety of issues. First, a salary paid to yourself creates RRSP contribution room as well as CPP contributions. Paying yourself a dividend achieves neither of those. By having a corporation, you will have to file a corporate (T2) tax return. The corporation is considered a separate legal entity from you. As an individual, you will still need to file a personal (T1) tax return. Never just \"\"draw\"\" money out of a corporation. This can create messy transactions involving loans to shareholders. Interest is due on these amounts and any amounts not paid within one calendar year are considered as wages by Canada Revenue and would need to be reported as income on your next T1 return. You should never withhold EI premiums as the sole owner of a corporation. You are considered exempt from these costs by CRA. Any amounts that have been remitted to CRA can be reclaimed by submitting a formal request. The decision on whether to take a salary or dividends normally requires some detailed analysis. Your accountant or financial advisor should be able to assist in this matter.\"",
"Through your question and then clarification through the comments, it looks like you have a U.S. LLC with at least two members. If you did not elect some other tax treatment, your LLC will be treated as a partnership by the IRS. The partnership should file a tax return on Form 1065. Then each partner will get a Schedule K-1 from the partnership, which the partner should use to include their respective shares of the partnership income and expenses on their personal Forms 1040. You can also elect to be taxed as an S-Corp or a C-Corp instead of a partnership, but that requires you to file a form explicitly making such election. If you go S-Corp, then you will file a different form for the company, but the procedure is roughly the same - Income gets passed through to the owners via a Schedule K-1. If you go C-Corp, then the owners will pay no tax on their own Form 1040, but the C-Corp itself will pay income tax. As far as whether you should try to spend the money as business expense to avoid paying extra tax - That's highly dependent on your specific situation. I'd think you'd want to get tailored advice for that.",
"Your freelance income will not qualify you for the work-from-home deductions, for that you would need a T2200 form signed by your employer. But, you are allowed to be self employed as a sole-proprietorship while still being an employee of another company. If you take that route, you'll be able to write-off even more expenses than those you linked to. Things like a portion of your internet bill can be claimed, for example. But note that these deductions would only apply to offset the self-employment income, so if you're not earning very much from the freelance work, it might not be worth all the hassle. Filing taxes when self-employed is definitely more complicated, and many people will get professional tax preparation help - at least for the first time.",
"You should get a 1099-MISC for the $5000 you got. And your broker should send you a 1099-B for the $5500 sale of Google stock. These are two totally separate things as far as the US IRS is concerned. 1) You made $5000 in wages. You will pay income tax on this as well as FICA and other state and local taxes. 2) You will report that you paid $5000 for stock, and sold it for $5500 without holding it for one year. Since this was short term, you will pay tax on the $500 in income you made. These numbers will go on different parts of your tax form. Essentially in your case, you'll have to pay regular income tax rates on the whole $5500, but that's only because short term capital gains are treated as income. There's always the possibility that could change (unlikely). It also helps to think of them separately because if you held the stock for a year, you would pay different tax on that $500. Regardless, you report them in different ways on your taxes.",
"There might be a problem. Some reporting paperwork will have to be done for the IRS, obviously, but technically it will be business income zeroed out by business expense. Withholding requirements will shift to your friend, which is a mess. Talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA) about these. But the immigration may consider this arrangement as employment, which is in violation of the visa conditions. You need to talk to an immigration attorney.",
"\"We will bill our clients periodically and will get paid monthly. Who are \"\"we\"\"? If you're not employed - you're not the one doing the work or billing the client. Would IRS care about this or this should be something written in the policy of our company. For example: \"\"Every two months profits get divided 50/50\"\" They won't. S-Corp is a pass-through entity. We plan to use Schedule K when filing taxes for 2015. I've never filled a schedule K before, will the profit distributions be reflected on this form? Yes, that is what it is for. We might need extra help in 2015, so we plan to hire an additional employee (who will not be a shareholder). Will our tax liability go down by doing this? Down in what sense? Payroll is deductible, if that's what you mean. Are there certain other things that should be kept in mind to reduce the tax liability? Yes. Getting a proper tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to explain to you what S-Corp is, how it works, how payroll works, how owner-shareholder is taxed etc etc.\"",
"Yes, this extra income would be taxed at your marginal rate because it is increasing your total income. This does not necessarily apply to all income, however. Capital gains are taxed at a different rate. Depending on the amount of extra work, you may wish to consider setting up a corporation. Corporations are taxed entirely differently. This would also give you the opportunity to write off far more of your expenses, but be aware of double taxation. Investopedia has a good article on double taxation. The issue is that the corporation must pay taxes on the revenue and then, when you take out the money either as salary or dividends, you personally will pay tax. It may leave you better off, even with the double taxation. Dividends are taxed at a lower rate than your marginal tax rate, generally. And you can write off much more inside a corporation. If considering this, talk to an accountant and discuss your expected revenue from consulting. The accountant should be able to quantify the costs and benefits.",
"Citizenship matter for US reporting, but not for Canadian taxes. If you are an American resident then you need only worry about US taxes and rules. s",
"Generally for tax questions you should talk to a tax adviser. Don't consider anything I write here as a tax advice, and the answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. Does IRS like one payment method over other or they simply don't care as long as she can show the receipts? They don't care as long as she withholds the taxes (30%, unless specific arrangements are made for otherwise). She should withhold 30% of the payment and send it to the IRS. The recipient should claim refund, if the actual tax liability is lower. It's only consulting work at the moment, so most of the communication is done over phone. Should they start engaging in written communication to keep records of the work done? Yes, if she wants it to be a business expense. Is it okay to pay in one go to save money-transferring fees? Can she pay in advance? Again, she can do whatever she wants, but if she wants to account for it on her tax returns she should do it the same way she would pay any other vendor in her business. She cannot use different accounting methods for different vendors. Basically, she has not outsourced work in previous years, and she wants to avoid any red flags. Then she should start by calling on her tax adviser, and not an anonymous Internet forum.",
"Note the above is only for shares. There are different rules for other assets like House, Jewellery, Mutual Funds, Debt Funds. Refer to the Income Tax guide for more details.",
"My company did not have income of $1000 and have a $500 expense Why not? Your company received $1000 from you, and based on its agreement with the other company - transferred out half of it. How does it not translate to having $1000 income and $500 expense? When I run a report I want to see that my business has $500 of income not $1000 with a $500 expense You can write in your reports whatever you want, but if you want to see the real picture, then that is exactly what you should be expecting. That said, transferring money from yourself to your company is generally not considered income. You can have it booked as owner's equity, or a owner's loan if the company is required to repay. Unless you're paying to your company for some services provided or assets transferred, that is.",
"Here's a description. The relevant discussion for tax year 2010 starts on page 22 of the 1040 instructions.",
"As a sole proprietor, the tax liability of your business is calculated based on combining your business income with your personal income together. It is good advice to keep all personal and business financial matters separate. This makes it easier to prove to the IRS that all your business expenses are actually business related. In this case however, the two items [tax payment for personal income vs tax payment for business income] are inseparable. What you can do, however, for your own personal records, is calculate how much of your tax payment relates to your business. I wouldn't get complicated about this; I would simply take the net income of your business as a % of your taxable income, and multiply that against your tax payment. ie: if your business net income is $10,000, and your total taxable income is $50,000, and you paid $6,000 in taxes, I would record that 20% of the $6k was related to business income. If you have a separate bank account for your sole proprietorship, you could make a transfer to your personal account of $1,200, and then make the $6k payment from your personal account. Remember that tax payments for either your sole proprietorship and your personal income will be treated the same: federal tax payments are not tax deductible, and state tax payments are tax deductible, whether they were paid for your sole proprietorship or the rest of your personal income. So even though this method is simplistic [for example, it doesn't factor in that different investment income types earned personally will have a lower rate than your sole proprietorship income], any difference wouldn't have an impact on any future tax liability. This would only be for your own personal record keeping.",
"Since you are not (yet) legally married, he is a stranger to you and strictly speaking you don't need to worry about the tax impact of his income yet. File on your income alone. That said, you may have to address the money transfer aspect at a later date as banks are getting skittish around money laundering regulations. It's really best if he has his own account for this, especially given you are not married. The worst case scenario is that his income gets frozen due to money laundering regulations and the deposits in your account get treated as (unreported) monetary gifts to you. Again, you should be able to argue out of this but separate accounts make it much easier to do so.",
"I know nothing about this, but found this link which suggests for H&R Block specifically: I kept searching and I found the section. It's at the end in the Credits section under 'other backup withholding'. Hopefully this helps someone else in the future.",
"\"In the US you are not required to have a corporation to use business expenses to offset your income. The technical term you need is \"\"deducting business expenses\"\", and in matters of taxes it's usually best to go straight to the horse's mouth: the IRS's explanations Deducting Business Expenses Business expenses are the cost of carrying on a trade or business. These expenses are usually deductible if the business operates to make a profit. What Can I Deduct? Cost of Goods Sold, Capital Expenses, Personal versus Business Expenses, Business Use of Your Home, Business Use of Your Car, Other Types of Business Expenses None of this requires any special incorporation or tax arrangements, and are a normal part of operating a business. However, there is a bit of a problem with your scenario. You said you \"\"invested\"\" into a business, but you mentioned buying specific things for the business which is not generally how one accounts for investment. If you are not an owner/operator of the business, then the scenario is not so straight-forward, as you can't simply claim someone else's business expenses as your own because you invested in it. Investments are taxed differently than expenses, and based upon your word choices I'm concerned that you could be getting yourself into a bit of a pickle. I would strongly advise you to speak with a professional, such as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), to go over your current arrangement and advise you on how you should be structuring your ongoing investment into this shared business. If you are investing you should be receiving equity to reflect your ownership (or stock in the company, etc), and investments of this sort generally cannot be deducted as an expense on your taxes - it's just an investment, the same as buying stock or CDs. If you are just buying things for someone else's benefit, it's possible that this could be looked upon as a personal gift, and you may be in a precarious legal position as well (where the money is, indeed, just a gift). And gifts of this sort aren't deductible, either. Depending on how this is all structured, it's possible that you should both consider a different form of legal organization, such as a formal corporation or at least an official business partnership. A CPA and an appropriate business attorney should be able to advise you for a nominal (few hundred dollars, at most) fee. If a new legal structure is advisable, you can potentially do the work yourself for a few hundred dollars, or pay to have it done (especially if the situation is more complex) for a few hundred to a few thousand. That's a lot less than you'd be on the hook for if this business is being accounted for improperly, or if either of your tax returns are being reported improperly!\"",
"\"So the main reason that you aren't getting answers is that the question is not really answerable on this site without putting a lot of details about the expenses of your company online. Even then you will need someone who specializes in Canadian taxes to go through those details to be sure. Most of those people feel like they should be paid a decent amount per hour to go through the details. That being said, I dealt with a similar question for my contract work company by just taking a couple weekends and calculating the taxes myself on estimated numbers. It was time consuming but not really that hard. I thought I might have to buy software, but all I needed was a small calculator. Along the way I learned a few details that helped me lower my overall tax exposure. I found that Neil was generally correct that you are \"\"taxed on profits\"\" but it is worth doing the taxes yourself because the details can really matter.\"",
"You can and are supposed to report self-employment income on Schedule C (or C-EZ if eligible, which a programmer likely is) even when the payer isn't required to give you 1099-MISC (or 1099-K for a payment network now). From there, after deducting permitted expenses, it flows to 1040 (for income tax) and Schedule SE (for self-employment tax). See https://www.irs.gov/individuals/self-employed for some basics and lots of useful links. If this income is large enough your tax on it will be more than $1000, you may need to make quarterly estimated payments (OR if you also have a 'day job' have that employer increase your withholding) to avoid an underpayment penalty. But if this is the first year you have significant self-employment income (or other taxable but unwithheld income like realized capital gains) and your economic/tax situation is otherwise unchanged -- i.e. you have the same (or more) payroll income with the same (or more) withholding -- then there is a 'safe harbor': if your withholding plus estimated payments this year is too low to pay this year's tax but it is enough to pay last year's tax you escape the penalty. (You still need to pay the tax due, of course, so keep the funds available for that.) At the end of the first year when you prepare your return you will see how the numbers work out and can more easily do a good estimate for the following year(s). A single-member LLC or 'S' corp is usually disregarded for tax purposes, although you can elect otherwise, while a (traditional) 'C' corp is more complicated and AIUI out-of-scope for this Stack; see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/business-structures for more.",
"\"ITR1 or ITR2 needs to be filed. Declare the income through freelancing in the section \"\"income from other sources\"\"\"",
"\"The issues are larger than taxes. If one of you receives the check, then breaks off 25% of it for themselves and sends three checks out to each of you that will be indicated on that person's taxes. You three will then all recognize your portion of the income on your taxes and it's all settled. It's no big deal, it's a bit rag-tag but it'll get the job done. I've done little ad-hoc partnership work with people this way and it's not a problem. This is why you should really be more formal. What if this entity contracting you guys sues you? Who has the liability, if only one of you was paid? What if the money is sent to one of you and that person dies before paying you? What if you all get another client? What if this contracting entity has another project? The partnership needs to have the liability. The partnership needs to receive the money. The partnership needs to be named on whatever contract you all sign. The partnership can be a straight partnership, or maybe the four of you take a 25% stake in an LLC or Inc arrangement. Minimally, you should sit down with your partners so everyone knows everyone else's responsibilities, and you should write it all down. It probably sounds like overkill, and I'm sure your partners are you buddies and \"\"we're tight and nothing bad could come between us.\"\" I've done some partnership work with more than one friend, we've always been fine. Some ventures are successful, some aren't; I'm still very good friends with all of them. Writing things down manages expectations and when money starts moving around, everyone is happier when everyone has a solid expectation of who gets what.\""
] |
[
"Generally, report your $150,000. If/when the the tax collectors notice the anomaly, they'll attempt to contact you to remedy it. I can't speak for Canada, but in the US, it's pretty orderly. The IRS requests additional information or proof and only open it up into a full blown audit if the suspect wrongdoing. In your case, you could show a business agreement detailing the revenue split proving you correctly reported. This is only for your consideration. I strongly recommending finding and keeping a professional tax advisor."
] |
5045
|
Why are we taxed on revenue and companies on profit?
|
[
"264554"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"123170",
"264554",
"471700",
"421760",
"110515",
"380454",
"129355",
"527037",
"323111",
"440061",
"476980",
"272820",
"205547",
"225380",
"158086",
"216783",
"79397",
"420846",
"419488",
"470879",
"84528",
"551831",
"6891",
"377741",
"111967",
"286383",
"46819",
"484231",
"158136",
"169432",
"509346",
"233462",
"408983",
"381405",
"102823",
"272028",
"299567",
"188742",
"98524",
"528584",
"137903",
"458423",
"116222",
"541163",
"272585",
"487525",
"280367",
"193490",
"195904",
"501307",
"320774",
"37506",
"89007",
"479718",
"151763",
"105849",
"217731",
"52579",
"347010",
"120521",
"520146",
"33764",
"334105",
"531395",
"199746",
"273998",
"64868",
"91076",
"120649",
"202767",
"111339",
"169613",
"181333",
"503114",
"67203",
"14488",
"502249",
"202645",
"423416",
"597909",
"254375",
"148490",
"159322",
"254509",
"228503",
"392926",
"295988",
"508305",
"235470",
"229061",
"97540",
"49557",
"509081",
"177217",
"182168",
"590565",
"188485",
"275758",
"332574",
"338700"
] |
[
"Revenue does not equal income. Income is, more or less, synonymous with profit. It is the amount of money earned after expenses. A corporation is taxed on its revenue after its deductible expenses have been removed, the same as a person is. It's kind of double taxation, but it's kind of the same argument as saying that payroll taxes in addition to income taxes are double taxation. Also of note: taxes on dividends are lower than normal taxes because of this double taxation.",
"\"I pay taxes on revenue. You do have the ability to deduct expenses, though it's not as comprehensive as what companies can do: These figures apply to everybody, so those that earn more get taxed more on thee additional income in each bracket (meaning the first $100,000 of taxable income is taxed the same for everybody at one rate, the next $100,000 at a different rate, etc.) So you do get to deduct personal expenses and get taxed on \"\"profit\"\" - but since the vast majority of people don't keep detailed records of what they spend, it's much simpler just to use blanket deduction amounts for everyone. Companies have much more detailed systems in place to track and categorize expenses, so it's easier to just tax on net profit. Plus, the corporate tax rate is much higher than the average individual tax rate - would you trade more deductions for a higher tax rate?\"",
"If corporations are people, why do persons have to pay tax on their revenues (personal income) while corporations only pay tax on their profits (operating income). If corporations are people, then everyone should pay taxes the same way - either on their revenues, or their profits. We shouldn't be discriminating. Boy, if a person could only pay taxes on their profits (savings), instead of their revenues (personal income), it'd be a whole new ballgame.",
"Almost any kind of tax will cause market distortions; if market distortions discourage activities which would have produced wealth, society will lose out not only on the money which was taken by the tax, but also on the wealth which could have been, but wasn't, produced. If those setting tax policy seek to maximize the amount of revenue that is made available for each dollar that the tax costs society, taxing money which is being used to produce more wealth will go against that goal. Further, most of the things that companies do with their money to produce wealth end up generating taxable income for someone. If a company deducts from its taxes the money it pays to an employee who then has to pay taxes on that money, the government ends up collecting about the same taxes as it would collect if the company didn't hire the employee (and thus didn't take the deduction). The effects of taxes on markets should be one of the most important factors considered when setting tax policy; if one tax would cost society $1.05 for every dollar raised, and another would cost society $5.00 for every dollar raised, a wise policy would favor the first over the second. Unfortunately, politics often dominates over economic rationality.",
"The way I see it, corporation tax is not fundamentally different from VAT. They are both a tax on revenue minus expenses, just what those expenses are is different. I think the main advantage of corporation tax is that it allows capital expenditure to be spread over several years, although as I said this makes it more complicated (and I believe that there are some capital allowances for VAT as well). One advantage of VAT is that sales in one country are taxed in that country before the money can be sent abroad. It seems simple and fair to split the tax burden between jurisdictions according to how many sales were made in each.",
"Think about it from a more pragmatic POV -- on what basis would you levy taxes on money that is lost? If your house were robbed, should you have to pay taxes based on the money stolen from you? What if your car breaks down? Income in its simplest form is revenue - cost of goods sold. So if I buy a car for $10,000 and sell it to you for $8,000, I have negative income.",
"\"The tax system in general, and income tax in particular, is used for several purposes at once. One of those purposes is to raise money to run the government. It isn't the only purpose of income tax, and income tax isn't the only source of money to run the government. Try a thought experiment: let's say it costs $10,000 per person per year to run the government. (It might actually cost far more or far less, that's not the point.) A super simple tax system would just ask each person for $10,000. But such a system isn't fair. Some people don't even earn $10,000 so they are literally not able to pay that. Some people, who earn a lot, can easily afford to pay more. So a still-pretty simple approach asks each person to pay a particular percentage of their income, and the hope is that this will add up to enough to run the government. This still doesn't feel fair to everyone - 10% of your income is hard to find when you're spending it all on rent and food, and easy to find when you have way more than you \"\"need\"\". So many countries have what's called a \"\"progressive\"\" system of income tax where you pay no tax on the first X of your income, then a small percentage on the next Y, a larger percentage on the next Z and so on. But you asked about business profit. Some places don't tax business profits at all - they just collect income taxes on people once the money reaches them as salary or dividends. Other places do. Just as a person who doesn't earn any income can't send the government money, a business that spent more on expenses than it brought in as revenue can't send the government money either. So the tax is on profit. That seems fairer to most people anyway. Things then get even more complicated for both business and personal income taxes because the government uses the system to encourage certain behaviours and to help people facing hard times. If you want to encourage people to get training and move into higher paying jobs, you might make tuition tax deductible. Most countries give a tax deduction for each small child you have. This isn't because people with children use less of the services government provides, is it? Instead it's an acknowledgement that people with children generally have less money to spend. Or an encouragement to have children, or something. Tax motivations are complicated. If you charged all businesses a flat tax regardless of whether they were making or losing money, people might be hesitant to start companies that lose money at first. There might be less entrepreneurship in that country. If instead you only tax profits, it feels fairer and more people are likely to join in. So that's what most governments do. Is the imaginary business owner who is not turning a profit somehow getting a free ride? They are still paying tax. If they took any salary for themselves, there was personal income tax on that. Everything the company bought, it paid sales tax on. There may have been excise taxes and such in other things they bought. The economic activity of the business has been driving the wheel of the local economy and spinning off some taxes at various levels that whole time. Whether the business itself is chipping in some corporate income tax too may not end up being particularly relevant. Example: a sole proprietor has revenue of $100,000 and spends $10,000 on supplies and such. If the salary to the owner is $89,000 the company has a $1000 profit which it pays tax on. If the salary to the owner is $91,000 the company has a $1000 loss and doesn't pay tax (and may be able to use the loss to reduce taxes in a future year.) So what? The owner is paying personal income tax on roughly $90,000. The government is getting the support it needs. Yes, some owners do all the \"\"encouraged\"\" things so that some income is not taxed either in the business or the personal sphere. That is presumably what the government wanted when it set those things up as deductions. Making charitable contributions, hiring new employees, building new facilities ... essentially the government is paying the business to do those things because they're good for the country. The overall government budget (funded by personal and corporate income tax along with sales tax, excises taxes etc) is supposed to achieve certain goals which include roads and schools but also job creation and the like. This is one of the ways they do that.\"",
"There is more than one kind of tax. It is a little confusing because in reality the tax revenues collected by the Government aren't earmarked to a particular usage based on where they came from, usually. Well, the Gov't often CLAIMS they do, but for all practical matters it all goes in a big bucket. So just because a business or individual isn't paying income taxes doesn't mean they aren't paying anything for the use of Government furnished infrastructure/services. You are limiting the scope of your question to Income Taxes, which are taxes paid on profits to a business or individual. It makes perfect sense that you wouldn't pay a tax on something you didn't get. However, you aren't considering taxes that ARE being paid even by a company that isn't profitable. For example consumption taxes, employment taxes, and other fees. That same company paid sales tax on all the supplies it purchased, and probably collected/paid sales taxes on anything it sold. To take one of your examples, it paid for its share of using the roads through Government imposed taxes on fuel. Don't worry about the Government. They know how to get theirs. They might not pull it from your right pocket, but they will make sure to get it from the left.",
"They should be (and are) taxed the corporate rate on the 10 cents. The company they purchased the coffee grounds from will pay taxes on the 90 cents. The other alternative you suggested would put an end to most commercial activity. Very few businesses could sustain a 35% (of revenue) penalty to their margins. Society would collapse.",
"It appears to me that the tax code gives significant advantages to being a corporation as opposed to being a person due to the relative ease of legal tax avoidance. As an individual, avoiding taxes is much harder than it is for a corporation. I mean, why can't I claim my deficit last year as an operating loss and use it to offset my taxes? I mean suppose I had to borrow money to afford food, that's pretty vital to my business (staying alive) operations. Why can't I offset my income with my borrowing like a corporation can?",
"Businesses do not pay income tax on money that they pay out as salary to their employees. Businesses generally only pay income tax on profit. Profit is the money that comes in (revenue) minus the business expenses. Payroll to the employees is a deductible business expense.",
"\"In the UK, I could start my own business - either as a self-employed person, or by starting a company. With a company, the company might have £50,000 income, £5,000 cost, and pay me a £45,000 salary. In that case the company has no profit and pays no taxes, but I personally pay income tax. Or I could pay myself any salary I like, say £20,000 salary, so I pay tax on £25,000 profit and £20,000 salary. The state actually gets less money in total if I set my salary so the company makes a profit. If I'm self employed, income minus cost is my profit and I pay taxes on that. If I don't make profit, I pay no tax. Unfortunately, I also wouldn't have any money to buy food, pay the rent, and so on and so on. I'd have the same income and pay the same taxes as someone who is unemployed. There are \"\"businesses\"\" that are just run for the enjoyment of the owner and don't make profit. Rich guy buys a farm and starts breeding race horses, that kind of thing. In that case, there is zero difference between a guy breeding race horses and calling it a \"\"business\"\" and another guy breeding race horses and calling it a hobby. Neither makes money and neither pays taxes.\"",
"Agreed which is why an income tax is a bad idea. Personally I'm in favor of property taxes as a way to fund government. It is a much more objective measure and easy for the government's to confiscate if taxes remain unpaid.",
"\"> Taxing wealth is an easy idea, but I don't think it can ever work. Wealth is too easily hidden, transformed, or revalued. You should Google the effective corporate tax rates. It's much much easier to hide corporate profits or find loopholes than to tax individual income. Also, your allegory about Kleenex makes zero sense whatsoever. These aren't things the \"\"owners\"\" would normally consume, of course not. However, that's a super weird way to define a business. I trust a sole proprietor that stocks vending machines wouldn't \"\"consume\"\" all these beverage products on their own, but a business works that way. A corporation isn't its own entity, it is actively managed by people hired by the shareholders. It doesn't make its own decisions, it isn't a self-perpetuating machine. Why do we tax it as if it does? Tax income for people. Making the argument people will find loopholes is just as ludicrous. Corporations find tax loopholes anyway, but I find it pretty ridiculous to think \"\"we can't make that a law because people will break it\"\". Then make it so people can't break it. As it stands, it's easier to find loopholes and write-offs as a corporation than an individual anyway, and the consequences as a corporation are insignificant to shareholders if they do get caught Taxing individual wealth isn't the easy idea. Double-taxing an arbitrary intermediary is.\"",
"I guess. I just think it's stupid to think there's no difference between a corporation and it's owners. Once an organization of any kind reaches a certain size it becomes bigger than any shareholders, and consumes different types of public goods than any individual would. Kleenex uses different public goods than if all the shareholders just owned paper mills and paper stores in local towns, so it has a different kind of public contribution obligation. I understand that principle that corporate income and dividends are theoretically the same thing, so shouldn't be taxed twice. I get the concept. But it just seems like another excuse to shift more income to people who own, rather than people who work. I support more money going to people who work for a living, not invest.",
"I agree that the surface explanation is that expenses used to generate income are deducted, however there clearly is a double standard in how is applied. For example I cannot deduct my car even though I use it primarily for commuting to work (I would consider that income generation), yet companies are allowed to deduct corporate jets. I can't deduct meals when I ate out with professional acquainted where much of the conversations are related to my profession and so directly relevant to my income, yet businesses can claim sending their executives to a country club because business was discussed or it was a team building excise. Etc etc.",
"\"What do you mean by 'make'? I am in the US, but I'm sure it's typical that any business has a \"\"bottom line\"\", the profit after all costs including paper losses for things like depreciation. This is then taxed, either at the business level or to the individual. The individual's person expenses don't come into play, unless those expenses are tied to the business, e.g. Some kind of function at their house which includes clients/customers.\"",
"\"Your wages are an expense to your employer and are therefore 100% tax deductible in the business income. The company should not be paying tax on that, so your double-tax scenario, as described, isn't really correct. [The phrase \"\"double taxation\"\" with respect to US corporations usually comes into play with dividends. In that case, however, it's the shareholders (owners) that pay double. The answer to \"\"why?\"\" in that case can only be \"\"because it's the law.\"\"]\"",
"Corporations are taxed on their profits. Multinational corporations can report their profits in any country they have operations, regardless of where they made the sale. In other words, it's impossible to nail down exactly where a company 'made it's money'. So the US doesn't try, we just tax them on earnings everywhere, minus taxes paid elsewhere. edit for clarity",
"So how is it that American citizens working overseas get taxed, but American companies holding profits overseas don't? Or foreign companies making profits within the US for that matter. I don't really think we should be protectionist, but I do think corporations should be paying a fair share of taxes needed to support infrastructure, social and legal framework.",
"\"Tax US corporate \"\"persons (citizens)\"\" under the same regime as US human persons/citizens, i.e., file/pay taxes on all income earned annually with deductions for foreign taxes paid. Problem solved for both shareholders and governments. [US Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad - Filing Requirements](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad-filing-requirements) >If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien living or traveling outside the United States, **you generally are required to file income tax returns, estate tax returns, and gift tax returns and pay estimated tax in the same way as those residing in the United States.** Thing is, we know solving this isn't the point. It is to misdirect and talk about everything, but the actual issues, i.e., the discrepancy between tax regimes applied to persons and the massive inequality it creates in tax responsibility. Because that would lead to the simple solutions that the populace need/crave. My guess is most US human persons would LOVE to pay taxes only on what was left AFTER they covered their expenses.\"",
"> if a company paid taxes on what profits were created within a countries borders, that would be a fairly accurate method of calculating every country's fair percent of revenue from that company That's exactly what I said in the post you originally replied to.",
"Were capital gains taxes not lower, companies would have an incentive to minimize the portion of the value they create that materializes as capital gains. They would do this by using more debt financing (since interest is deductible) than equity financing. This would have a destabilizing effect on the economy. Low capital gains taxes help encourage investment over spending. This is believed to improve economic growth. Given these factors, it is generally believed that the current capital gains tax rate is very close to the optimal rate. That is, a higher tax rate would not result in greater tax revenue. Bluntly, a higher income tax rate on earned income does not really discourage people from working harder and earning more money. But a higher rate on capital gains does discourage investment. Essentially, it's because investment is more discretionary.",
"\"Incremental profit, not revenue. If the incremental profit I project from an additional hire is greater than the cost. Taxes drive the cost up and the profit down, depending on the tax. Saying \"\"I will hire no matter what taxes are levied against me\"\" is just as ridiculous as saying \"\"I will not hire if one cent is levied against me\"\". At the end of the day, profits are the source of future expansion and investment (we are not publicly traded). Taxes effectively reduce the amount we have left to invest. They do not reduce this amount to zero, but they do reduce it. You are right to imply that I want the business to grow constantly, but that requires investment of actual money before the top or bottom line impact happens, months or years in advance. Sometimes, you take a risk that doesn't pan out, and that money is gone forever. Sometimes it develops into a profitable segment of the business. In wither case, taxes reduce the chunk of change we can use for this kind of activity. I sense latent hostility in your phrasing, but I hope I am wrong. It feels like you are accusing me of making a profit, but I openly admit to making a profit. I do not view this as something bad. It is profitability that allows me to increase salary and benefit levels for employees, try to continually improve working conditions, invest in new equipment, spend on r&amp;d to make better products, and of course increase my personal income. I try to align the way in which i make money personally with constantly making customers and employees happier. Happy customers means more revenue and happy employees means better processes, better ideas, and more profit. I don't view this as bad, and I hope I read emotion into your comment that you did not mean. If so, I apologize in advance, but if you did mean to be hostile, I hope you at least understand where I am coming from now. Edit: grammar\"",
"How is not different? You want to retire early; hence, you will save what you deem necessary to retire early. On the other hand, if you turn your retirement savings into capital gains; that's good. Nonetheless, if you start to earn capital gains that is detrimental to the economic value of the state; then, your taxes should be at higher rate to compensate for that. Everyone encourages business; rarely anyone would encourage a monopoly. Earning wealth is good business, hoarding wealth is a monopoly.",
"Because companies (big or small) only pay taxes on *profits* rather than *revenues*. It can't be any other way, really, because of the $5 you pay for the big mac, most of that goes to pay suppliers and employees and only perhaps $0.50 would be profit. But that fact also opens up all sorts of loopholes. For example, a US company can license a patent from a Cayman Islands company, and make yearly payments. Thus, the US company no longer has any profits, and all of that money winds up in the Caymans. That's a trivial example, but there's an entire industry dedicated to doing this shit. I'd be impressed if you could craft any law that banned this without also banning legitimate international commerce.",
"\"Perhaps in a pendantic sense, it is useless. But likewise the number of people that work for them is irrelevant here as well. What matters is the portion of GDP generated across company size, and the means by which some of that is recaptured by the people to (a) repay for the investment in the economic infrastructure that allowed the companies to make that money in the first place, and (b) invest in future infrastructure that is of benefit to companies, ultimately all of which is done for the purposes of betterment of the people of the country. The relevance then is what portion of the GDP is generated by which while size category of business. If we just take large versus small and medium enterprise (SME), with the boundary being 500 employees or fewer, and we excluding farming (which the stats seem to universally do), U.S. GDP is generated by [50.7% non-farm SMEs](http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11f0027m/11f0027m2011070-eng.pdf) (compared to 54.7% in Canada). They also appear to employ more than 50% of all private workers. Of additional importance is the dynamic effect. That is, if large companies can grow faster because of lower effective taxation, that means SMEs will tend to fall further and further behind not out of a fair and open marketplace, but because of unfair taxation. Generally speaking, the reverse is preferred. Because diversity of competition brings huge value for innovation (the same as in crop breeding techniques), as well as the poor economic performance of monopolies and oligopolies, you want to hinder large companies from becoming too large and instead break them up in to many smaller components. Hence incentives should work the reverse of the above, meaning larger companies should be paying a higher percentage tax than the SMEs, not to mention the \"\"too big to fail\"\" problem, and all for the good of the people.\"",
"You’re conflating deductions with expenses, which are different. Revenue is all money collected. Income is revenue minus the sum of expenses and deductions and exemptions. You’re also treating direct subsidies as the only form of subsidisation, which would make the word “direct” superfluous, while ignoring indirect subsidies, which include deductions. And, no, not every business takes deductions and certainly not while simultaneously complaining (or standing idly by while others complain) about subsidies.",
"\"The current tax regime? Not sure if you are being serious or facetious, but: [US Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad - Filing Requirements](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad-filing-requirements) >If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien living or traveling outside the United States, **you generally are required to file income tax returns, estate tax returns, and gift tax returns and pay estimated tax in the same way as those residing in the United States.** In contrast, corporations don't pay taxes on profits earned abroad until repatriation [here](http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/14/news/economy/corporate-taxes-inversion/index.html), [here](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/business/economy/corporate-tax-report.html), [here](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-apple-profits/). So guess what they NEVER do? This is why literally every large US multi-national corporate \"\"person\"\" pays next to nothing in taxes. It is quite obvious that this is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of tax law. That simple fix would wipe out massive amounts of government debt and force multi-national corporations and their shareholders to become engaged stake holders in the efficiency of government. But if, unlike W-2 paid human counterparts, you can dodge all taxation, \"\"Who cares if the government is using funds efficiently?\"\" That is incentive to actually game the system to force the government into wasteful spending because the subsequent fallout of increased taxation and/or failure of the state can be dodged without consequence.\"",
"\"That's the problem with capitalism. It doesn't seem to recognize any conservation principle. People may be employees when they're working, but when they're off the clock, they're customers. Maybe not at the same place where they work, but at some other business somewhere else. As a whole, businesses must pay employees in income what they expect to receive from customers in revenue. Otherwise the economic \"\"circle of life\"\" ends. What we've been seeing for decades however is business taking ever larger pieces of the pie, while employees/customers see their incomes wither. This is where government comes in. Taxation of the wealthiest individuals is the economic pump which takes the accumulated wealth and puts it back into circulation.\"",
"What do you think of the argument that corporations shouldn't pay any tax, since investors pay tax on the dividends, and if the corporations paid too, that would be double taxation? Of course, not all corporate income goes to pay dividends. Much of the rest is deducted as business expense. Is there some corporate income which should properly be taxed?",
"The difference is when the companies can make their own loop holes via legislation that they propose and get passed. You can make a law that only effects only one company or circumstance. Apple could sponsor a law that allows a 5% tax rate on companies that run digital downloads, sell over 5 flat screen devices, incorporated in Northern California and named after a fruit.",
"There are many reasons, which other answers have already discussed. I want to emphasize and elaborate on just one of the reasons, which is that it avoids double taxation, especially on corporate earnings. Generally, for corporations, its earnings are already taxed at around 40% (for the US - including State income taxes). When dividends are distributed out, it is taxed again at the individual level. The effect is the same when equity is sold and the distribution is captured as a capital gain. (I believe this is why the dividend and capital gain rates are the same in the US.) For a simplistic example, say there is a C Corporation with a single owner. The company earns $1,000,000 before income taxes. It pays 400,000 in taxes, and has retained earnings of $600,000. To get the money out, the owner can either distribute a dividend to herself, or sell her stake to another person. Either choice leads to $600,000 getting taxed at another 20%~30% or so at the individual level (depending on the State). If we calculate the effective rate, it is above 50%! Many people invest in stock, including mutual funds, and the dividends and capital gains are taxed at lower rates. Individual tax returns that contain no wage income often have very low average tax rates for this reason. However, the investments themselves are continuously paying out their own taxes, or accruing taxes in the form of future tax liability.",
"> The fact remains that the very wealthy and very large corporations are structured so that they don't pay that particular type of tax. Going to have to stop you right there. Most Fortune 500 companies pay a LOT of tax. Additionally, they get targeted for audits quite a bit because of their size and complexity. But at the end of the day, if it shows a net profit on their income statement, they're generally paying tax. Individual tax law is quite a bit different and not my current area of expertise, though I did prepare individual tax returns before I started working for the government and I can say that there are quite a few more provisions for avoiding tax for an individual. Regardless, if you're playing by the rules, there can be a variety of reasons why your 'effective rate' is lower. A progressive scale for capital gains will just lead to high-income individuals transferring the form of income to something else.",
">Hate to break it to you but it's the republican policies of deregulation and tax cuts we can't afford that got us this shit sandwich. Not even close. 1.1Trillion/year deficit is NOT related to taxes, it's related to increased spending while yes, tax revenues fall a bit. But you don't take actions that will make tax revenues fall more. Putting additional burdens on companies doesnt yield more tax revenue. If it did, why not tax them at 90%? But then guess what happens along that chart curve? There are no companies left. How much in additional taxes could we take in? 100 billion conservatively? Ok genius, what about the other $1 Trillion/year? WE SPEND TOO MUCH! >Really? Seems to me like a person living paycheck to paycheck would actually have a very good idea of what it's like to live on the edge of bankruptcy Except for most people close to bankruptcy they never had any capital to begin with. They lived pay check to pay check, using credit cards, buying houses, buying cars. Businesses must keep a MUCH larger cushion of liquid capital and assets and must plan YEARS in advance. ---very few individuals do this or ever will. The only correlation is that more and more liabilities are not meeting income. Except when an individual goes bankrupt it's mostly on them. If a company goes bankrupt it can effect hundreds or thousands of employees AND the company. An indivdual going bankrupt won't then bankrupt their creditors or vendors but a company going bankrupt very well could. I don't know if you knew this, but the United States itself is bankrupt.... We can't meet liabilities with the current income. That doesn't mean increased taxes to increase income. It means reducing liabilities and creating an envionment where those who bring in the revenue can expand. What we're talking about here is companies receiving additional burdens, not less, thus there is an incentive to decrease liabilities where possible, sell or close if necessary.",
"More likely I miswrote. Yes, we're talking about capital gains. But who, outside of the moneyed elite, have enough capital gains to incur substantial taxes? Many don't and never will despite how hard they work or how productive they are. Also, doesn't taxing income more than capital gains discourage production? I always hear how high capital gains tax discourages investment and growth.",
"The business may not have paid any direct tax towards profit. However it would have paid tons of indirect tax like Sales tax / Service tax on the goods / services rendered. The raw material that he has purchased from vendors [leading to demand] would have been taxed. The salary he has paid [hence employees paying personal tax] So essentially even from a loss making venture, the Govt has received enough tax money.",
"Both US GAAP and IFRS are accrual basis frameworks. 99.9% of businesses report under those frameworks (or their local gaaps, but still accrual based). Usually it's public sector entities which are cash-basis in my experience. Anyway, accrual basis has more to do with revenue recognition, not taxation, so that's not really relevant here. The value date of an invoice (ie in which moment it becomes taxable) depends on tax legislation (which sets the rules to determine the so called date of taxable event), not so much on accounting principles. In many cases taxable rules are intertwined with cash collection/payment, however, to prevent creative accounting for tax evasion purposes. For example, provisions for various uncertain future events might be required by accounting rules, but the corresponding expenses are generally not deductible for tax purposes (so you won't be able to deduct them until the event actually occurs and you pay).",
"Companies straddle the line between being public and private, given that people in our society are basically required to have jobs to survive, and those are largely provided by companies. I don't think they should be treated exactly the same as a private individual. >Let the whiny left begin their foolishness ... Oh, wait... You didn't actually want to have a conversation. Never mind.",
"In order to grow the way they do without recording profits, they need to find costs (or cut prices). The revenue is turning over because it's being paid out all over the place. Either those companies are running on razor thin margins, or they're paying taxes. There's also payroll taxes for the 270,000 workers.",
"Couldn't you say the reverse, the lower investors are taxed, the more willing they are to invest into risky investments like sub-prime mortgages? Edit: I think the major point John is trying to get across is that their are a myriad of factors that motivate people, profit is one of them, but not the only one. And this business/financial culture thrives on and breeds people who's sole motivate is profit. Not helping the world, or creating something interesting, or feeding children, or creating a better quality of life for society, but pure profit above all else. So if profit is your only motivation for anything, then having a 3% greater tax rate is completely uncalled for.",
"\"It makes little sense from that perspective. The owners are the \"\"very large\"\" consumers of public goods such as National defense, not the legal entity that the owners make in order to create wealth. And you can't tax dividends any more than any other capital gains made within the corporation, otherwise the corporation would be stupid to ever disperse dividends instead of buying back shares. Tax the rich their due share on the profits they made after investing, or just set up a progressive consumption tax that taxes the rich for what they spend. I don't care. Just don't over-tax people for doing things you actually want them to do, like re-invest.\"",
"What makes you think corporations don't have to pay sales taxes or property taxes (or excise taxes, or environmental impact fees or fuel taxes or any of a million other taxes that we all end up paying) even if they lose money that year?",
"That's a weak excuse. What other companies in other countries pay in tax is irrelevant after profit. Competition already took place to garner that cash. US companies should want to pay taxes in their country and the government should invest it in this country. Hell of a dream huh? Cash is useless sitting in tax havens.",
">Why not give extra tax breaks for the sale of stock purchased during a public offering (since that goes to helping the company) but not for secondhand (less necessary) trading Because secondary trading determines how easy it is for companies to raise additional money and it also allows the company to manipulate private vs publicly held stakes in their company. >Should we give big tax breaks to people who lend businesses money? There's a difference between lending money and investing in a corporation. Furthermore the income tax code when it comes to lending money via bonds is a complete mess. Corporate bond coupons are taxed like regular income (although the principal return is, of course, tax free). Federal and munis are taxed differently. There is also the advantage that you do get a tax break in the event of default, so any additional risk you take on has some marginal tax benefits.",
"The companies give jack shit about what the taxpayers have to pay. They only lower their own expenses. Without collective bargaining power, and forcing competing companies to have the same expenses, the employees will quite simply be screwed. Systems setup by the government on the other hand supply both. Also, what about those without earned income... What do people deserve if they do not (currently or ever) contribute to the economy? In part it depends on what kind of society one wants to live in, I guess, and whether the people are willing to keep the government functioning for the common good.",
"In finance, a lot say corporate tax is the original sin. Corporate taxes make debt financing more attractive, so every company's debt ratio is much higher than it would be if there were no corporate tax, which makes them more vulnerable to shocks in cashflow and at higher risk of default in a downturn. A slight downturn can snowball into a larger one because companies are so heavily debt financed they end up unable to service their debt, and end up in worse situations than if they were more equity financed. Subsequently, banks become much more important in the economy because everyone is more leveraged, and more company value is tied up in bank/debt balances. Of course, the voting public doesn't generally want to lower the corporate tax rate; because the general population believes this is how they get their pound of flesh out of corporate america -- however that is rarely the case.",
"Most companies want to grow. In order to grow, you need to do better than just breaking even. If you want to keep hiring, or building new facilities, you'd probably want to retain some of your earnings year over year. That's just one reason. Shareholders also want to see a higher return on their investment; dividends are paid out of retained earnings, rather than expensed in the calculation of profits. Decreasing profits decreases retained earnings, which pisses off shareholders. I'm sure someone else can expand on this or fill in any other holes. Edit: Someone please correct me if I'm off base here. My comment is a bit confusing at times. For instance, tax expense is included in the calculation of book income, but not taxable income, and this comment deals with both.",
"I agree in principle, but only if taxes on dividends once distributed are like 75%. Corporations are very large consumers of public goods such as National defense, and a corporate income tax makes sense from that perspective.",
">Going to have to stop you right there. Most Fortune 500 companies pay a LOT of tax. Additionally, they get targeted for audits quite a bit because of their size and complexity. But at the end of the day, if it shows a net profit on their income statement, they're generally paying tax. True, but they make an effort to create a structure that compartmentalizes profits and maximizes expense. Income tax is a real thing, but it's not the primary vehicle of taxation that some people think it it. They pay more in other taxes, like payroll, social security and other kinds of tax. >A progressive scale for capital gains will just lead to high-income individuals transferring the form of income to something else. You're probably right.",
"\"One is a choice the other is not. While they are both liabilities on the balance sheet, in the real world they are quite different. We do not feel as much ownership over our money that goes to interest payments as we do over our tax payments. Taxes pay for our government and the services it provides. Interest, on the other hand, is what we pay in order to have a bank loan us money. Similar to paying for a good or service obtained from some other business, we do not feel we have a say in what the bank does with that money. If we disapprove of a business' practices, we stop doing business with them; assuming there are other choices. We can not practically avoid dealing with our government. We certainly feel that we should have a say in what is done with our tax money. I doubt there is anyone in the world that completely approves of their government's spending. It is very easy to feel marginalized with regard to our tax payments. For example, some people feel resentment because their taxes fund the welfare rolls. All that said, I believe there is little overlap between the two groups. It seems to me that you are referring to those with large amounts of high interest (e.g. credit card) debt. I doubt that a large percentage of them are scouring the tax laws, looking for deductions and loopholes. If they had that mindset, they would also be working hard to get out of the hole they are in. In summary, we choose to pay a financial adviser, to take out a loan or to obtain a credit card. We do not choose to pay taxes. Since taxes are supposed to pay for our government and things which should benefit everyone, we want a say in what is done with it. This is also the case because it is forced on us. (\"\"Fine son, I'll lend you some money, but I don't want you buying cigarettes with it.\"\") Since our say is limited and we likely will not approve of everything our government does, we want to exert what control we do have: reduce our payments as best we can.\"",
"I think companies should be able to reduce their tax burden to zero as long as they produce a net benefit to their host country. Taxes for corporations should be ways of influence and reducing cost of having the business in the country due to externalities like pollution and influence things like against outsourcing.",
"Im pretty sure its a moral application of the forceful basis of taxation. And most people get rich by providing goods and services, or via investing in goods in services. The rest, the hyperwealthy banksters, international weapons/ death merchants, wall street, fraudsters, the-good-ole-boys-network, etc... that was via government, and its probably not a good idea to give them more. Pay your taxes, please. I dont want them to ruin your life.",
"In Sri Lanka, this is the normal practice. We, employees are free from the burden of paying tax for the income we get as a salary. Because that part is been taken care of by the company/employer.",
"Let's take your argument to its logical conclusion. Let's say there is a company that uses infrastructure of UK, Germany, France, US, Japan, Italy and Spain (because it's a global multinational). Corporate taxes in these countries are 19%, 29.65%, 33% (for large companies), 35%, 32.1%, 27.9% and 25%. Now according to your logic, each of these countries should tax the company's profits. Such a company in your world would pay more in taxes than it makes in profits (tax rate > 100%).",
"I don't really see it that way. Both kinds of companies are trying to maximize return on investment. Both play a vital role in the economy. And private equity companies like Bain that do a little of both blur the line even further.",
"Yeah, having a $1B profit is a necessity. If only we could increase company profit to $1.5B by lowering taxes, those $500M would trickle down for sure. Company execs and shareholders are just greedy enough to pocket all the profits for themselves at the current tax level, but with a lower tax level they would share the additional proceeds fairly with those on the bottom. Right now we have: Profit - taxes = greed --> nothing left for increased wages While we could have: Profit - (taxes / 2) > greed --> money left for increasing wages",
"No. Revenue is the company's gross income. The stock price has no contribution to the company's income. The stock price may be affected when the company's income deviates from what it was expected to be.",
"One of the reasons, apart from historical, is that different people have different tax liabilities which the employer may not be aware of. For example, in the US we don't pay taxes in source on investment income, and there are many credits and deductions that we can't take. So if I have a child and some interest income from my savings account - employer's withholding will not match my actual tax liability. There are credits for children, additional taxes for the interest, and the actual tax brackets vary based on my marital status and filing options I chose. So even the same family of two people married will pay different amounts in taxes if they chose to file separate tax returns for each, than if they chose to file jointly on one tax return. For anyone who've lived anywhere else, like you and me, this system is ridiculously complex and inefficient, but for Americans - that works. Mainly for the reason of not knowing anything better, and more importantly - not wanting to know.",
"I am guessing that you don't understand that even a 100% tax bracket doesn't actually equal you paying 100% of your profits in taxes. This is why the use, while having a 35%messaging corporate tax rate, only sees less than 20% in an average effective corporate tax rate... In the same vein, if a company paid taxes on what profits were created within a countries borders, that would be a fairly accurate method of calculating every country's fair percent of revenue from that company and the amount of infrastructure that were utilized by that company within that country's borders. And it still wouldn't add up to anywhere near 100% of that company's net profits...",
"This actually makes sense, although it's about twice as complicated as any concept I've seen laid out in a business, rather than economics context, so it's no surprise that people (as you say) get it wrong. Also, it emphasizes that corporate taxation is not exactly an easy thing to deal with.",
"\"There is *some* merit to it, in that [federal gross receipts are largely uncorrelated with tax rates](https://i0.wp.com/wichitaliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/top-federal-personal-income-tax-rates-tax-receipts-2014-02.png). There are two somewhat perverse consequences of that fact - First, raising taxes **doesn't** raise revenues, meaning we can't actually pay for \"\"moar free stuff from Uncle Sam!\"\" merely by adding an offsetting tax increase. And second, raising taxes on group-X (ie, the rich) to make them pay their \"\"fair\"\" share flat-out *doesn't work*, it's effectively just kicking them in the balls because we grudge them for having more money than we do. Now, as to whether or not lowering taxes really encourages companies to hire more and pay better - That's an entirely separate issue from whether or not it's revenue neutral from the perspective of the federal government. Fortunately, we have a recent historical example - Reagan did exactly that, which ushered in a period of corporate greed and erosion of workers' rights not seen since the end of the days of the Robber Barons. So on the front-end, Trump's not wrong; on the back end, he's trying to sell us unicorn farts.\"",
"Not true at all, one is a hard to calculate double tax that stifles growth and adds weird, usually unexpected, incentives into the market, and the other taxes wealth. Even the bluest economist should support an end to corporate tax, because it becomes a way to tax lower-class citizens higher than they would without it. Every middle-class family has a 401k or other IRA which is being taxed due to corporate taxes. Corporate taxes also are passed on to low wage consumers, depending on the elasticity.",
"Mostly we invest in companies to make money. The money can be paid to as in the form of dividends that are a share of the profit. Or the company can convince enough people that it will make a lot higher profit next year, so its stock prices increases. Clearly a company that reinvests its 20% profit from one shop to open an 2nd shop is doing well and is a good investment. But, But, But... we only have the companies word for it! A dividend paying company finds it a lot harder to hide bad news for long, as it will not have the money in the bank to pay the dividends.",
"Taxes are part of the social contract. Deal with it. Or move to Somalia. Also, capital (aka, the rich) continues to capture more and more income and wealth, while labor stagnates. Interestingly, this correlates with our economic stagnation. Could be something to that.",
"\"Companies often provide cafeteria, or catering services, to employees tax-free at subsidized rates. I'll use \"\"cafeteria\"\" as an illustration. The IRS says that in order to avoid lunch being taxed as income, the employees must pay the \"\"direct costs\"\" of the lunch, food and labor. In addition to those costs, cafeterias add two more items to come up with the total tab; \"\"overhead,\"\" (the cost of renting the space), and of course, profit. The company can waive the last two, and charge employees only materials and labor. That's why subsidized cafeteria food can cost as little as half of what it would cost elsewhere.\"",
"Its one of the main points. Transfer pricing includes discretionary decisions and is part of BEPS. Its also completely unnecessary: Pay taxes on revenue in country earned/sold. Get tax credits/refunds in country were spending is made. The reason why already profitable companies consider BEPS/tax arbitrage for HQ locations is because they get discretionary power over accounting profit allocation. Tax policy should serve the society though, and this proposal encourages the spending that benefits society. Its the usual case that the right answer is different than that being lobbied for.",
"Not charging taxes on a money losing investment or business is much more than humanitarian it is common sense. In general money that is used to invest has already been taxed as income or inheritance to the person making the investment so taxing that money again not just the profit would provide a disincentive for people to invest. Which would be bad for economic growth over the medium and long term. As far as taxing a money losing businesses goes, most businesses don't make money in their couple of years and adding further tax burdens would be counter productive because it would provide a major hurdle for people wanting to start a business. Other have already mentioned that the money losing operation likely paid indirect taxes as well. Small businesses provide a majority of the economic growth and innovation. So in short additional taxes on money losing investments and businesses would be both foolish and shortsighted.",
"The company will have to pay 20% tax on its profits. Doesn't matter how these profits are earned. Profits = Income minus all money you spend to get the income. However, you can't just take the profits out of the company. The company can pay you a salary, on which income tax, national insurance, and employer's national insurance have to be paid at the usual rate. The company can pay you a dividend, on which tax has to be paid. And the company can pay money into the director's pension fund, which is tax free. Since the amount of company revenue can be of interest, I'd be curious myself what the revenue of such a company would be. And if the company makes losses, I'm sure HMRC won't allow you to get any tax advantages from such losses.",
"So, my econ 101 class taught me that a business operating at a point where revenue equals cost is successful. Failing is when costs are too high, and above that is profit. As a society, we've chose to tax profits, not revenue. The fact that many of Amazon's vendors (FedEx, ups, companies they buy hardware from, etc) are profitable and paying taxes on profits they wouldn't have without Amazon says something about the overall value they bring to the economy. Also, states collect sales tax on good sold. EU countries collect VAT. And all countries collect capital gains when shares change hands. The fact that there's low turnover in shares isn't really a problem.",
"Enormous revenue, not profits. Profits would be taxed. Doesn't seem like a problem to me. You can't spend money without realizing the profits - it's wealth on paper. (You can do interesting things like use it for donations to offset current income, as an individual. Or use it as collateral for transactions without actually selling it and realizing the gains.)",
"\"You mean to tell me that everyone doesn't pay his/her fair share?! Please say it isn't so. :) Therein lies the welfare state: Tax the rich more heavily to subsidize the poor, and hobble the rich's ability to do so on their own accord. In any case, though, in the United States, if you make any money whatsoever, that usually counts as income, and can hence be taxed. Here's the IRS' definition of gross income. Pretty all-inclusive, isn't it? Businesses are allowed to deduct expenses to count against their income, but if one has more expenses than income year after year, (a) this is the road to financial ruin, and (b) the IRS puts an end to the tax losses after enough years of failing to show a profit. So, sure, if a businessperson doesn't have any income, then they're technically using the roads, etc., \"\"for free,\"\" but unless the businessperson wants to live off the land and the kindness of strangers, he'd better turn a profit eventually. Then he'll be taxed.\"",
"\"The cost of the tax may be transferred directly to the costumers but how many times have you heard people who support these taxes say \"\"ABC company has had $XXXX profit, They should be able to afford this small tax increase.\"\" Most people don't understand economics.\"",
"\"Its more than just \"\"taxes\"\" it's increased company funding for medical insurance, work comp insurance, disability insurance, etc etc. There are many many top line liabilities that contribute to the final bottomline. All of the laypeople on here can say, oh there's such a huge revenue or gross profit and not know the details of the net net profit.\"",
"Timing differences would still all come out in the wash. Might reduce it one year but over a few years it's essentially the same. It's becoming harder to create situations where big timing differences can apply. And generally (although not in every case) companies are seeing the bad press associated with not paying taxes and are being relatively less aggressive than in the past. There's a lot too it but I get annoyed by people saying companies only make donations to avoid tax. I've posted on it before and it's a silly view.",
"Depending on the improvement, you have to amortize or depreciate it over time, which effectively allows you to write off the value over a period of years, even if you pay for it all up front. This messes with cash flow, which is different than profitability, but when you span the write off over five or ten years, the distinction between cash flow and profitability for a private, self funded company is irrelevant. If the money ain't there, the money ain't there. Operating capital is life blood. Taxes also alter the ROI equation of the investment, since you don't keep all the money you put in. Way over simplified example: Lets say I close out the year with some arbitrary profit - ten million bucks - in my war chest. 3.5 could go to taxes. I also know that my supplier can't handle my volume for next year while the season is hot, so I'd like to buy inventory in the off season. Last year I sold 6.5 mill worth of stuff from this supplier, but I estimate I could sell 9-10 mill if I didn't have availability problems. If I buy 9-10 mill in inventory, I can't pay taxes. If I pay taxes, I can't buy enough to grow next year. Sure, COGS is a deductible expense, but the expense isn't realized until the inventory is sold, which won't be until long after these taxes are due. I now have taxes interfering with my expansion, even though eventually I can write that off. Now lets look at the manufacturer - sure he could expand his capacity and make more money, but he has to deduct the 5 mill machine he needs over twenty years (or ten or whatever) while the purchase price needs to be made today. This year he's gonna pay tax on 90 or 95% of the money he used to buy that machine, which would eat into the money he needs to buy raw materials to fill orders he already has. Of course, the real world is much more complicated, and you can leverage leasing agreements and purchasing terms to alleviate this to some extent, but I wanted to illustrate a point. I hope my extremely simplified example communicated what I mean. Does that make sense?",
"The person I was responding to didn't say they aren't making a profit, and he didn't say they aren't generating any revenue. He said they don't make money, which is ambiguous. Saying a company isn't making any profit has a clear meaning. Saying a company isn't generating revenue has a clear meaning. Saying a company isn't making any money does not. It could imply the company is not generating any revenue at all, or that it's not realizing a profit from the revenue that it is generating. I'm not sure how you read my original comment and come away with the idea that I don't understand the difference between profit and revenue when that was specifically the point I was making.",
"For stocks, bonds, ETF funds and so on - Taxed only on realised gain and losses are deductible from the gain and not from company's income. Corporate tax is calculated only after all expenses have been deducted. Not the other way around. Real estate expenses can be deducted because of repairs and maintenance. In general all expenses related to the operation of the business can be deducted. But you cannot use expenses as willy nilly, as you assume. You cannot deduct your subscription to Playboy as an expense. Doing it is illegal and if caught, the tours to church will increase exponentially. VAT is only paid if you claim VAT on your invoices. Your situation seems quite complicated. I would suggest, get an accountant pronto. There are nuances in your situation, which an accountant only can understand and help.",
"Saving Fortune 500 companies hundreds of millions to billions a year and a small company a few thousand. Who's paying for the shortfall to the IRS? The reality is a small business probably make $0 profit because the owner pays himself out, or has enough employees that the (company) makes a profit saving a few grand doesn't do anything. You know what would help? The 1 trillion profit the Fortune 500 make a year, take half. Give energy companies 0% interest loans to pay off their nuclear plants and reduce energy costs for 320 million Americans by a large amount. Take the remainder and the following 3 years and refinance mortgages at 0% interest starting from the smallest to largest loans. 4 years high taxes on large corporations I just bailed out the middle class and helped the poor with 100% retuned to the IRS.",
"So raise taxes on individuals and eliminate business taxes? The government still has to pay for things eventually. The big thing the US pays for that other countries don't is our massive, most-expensive-in-the-world military, which can take up roughly half our budget, sometimes even more depending on how active we are abroad. That includes paying for current wars, preparing for future wars, and serving the veterans of past wars. We defend other countries through alliances like NATO and bilateral agreements. For that, we need a higher tax rate. We can tax individuals or businesses.",
"So your complaining taxing stocks, hurt stock holders who make more money because they hold stock that gets paid from people's payouts? How about that stock holder stop being a whiny bitch because the pennies a stock he lost because other people's stock was taxed, created thousands of jobs that put 50k a year into their bank.",
"Okays, so the prices we pay for goods and services aren't set by our income levels. Why should taxes be any different? Surely they should be set by the benefits we receive from the community as measured by the market? That's what LVT is and does.",
"> Why would the companies pay more So that we, the taxpayer, don't have to. Taxpayers shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing corporate wages by providing necessary services that an employee should be able to buy via earned income.",
"I'll address one part of your question: There are other taxes that companies pay as well, such as income tax, but don't charge to the customer as a fee. So, why are gross receipts taxes charged to the customer? Things like income tax can't be passed on to the consumer in a direct way, because there's no fixed relationship between the amount of the tax and the price of an individual product. Income tax is paid on taxable income, which will incorporate deductions for the costs the company incurred to do business. So the final amount of corporate income tax can depend on things unrelated to the price of goods sold, like whether the business decided to repave their parking lot. Gross receipts taxes, by definition, are charged on the total amount of money taken in, so every dollar you spend on an item at the store will be subject to the gross receipts tax, and hence will cost the business 7 cents (or X% where X is the tax rate). This means there is a direct link between the price you pay for an individual item and the tax they pay on that transaction. The same is true for sales taxes, which are also often added at the time of sale. Of course, businesses could roll all of these into the posted price as well. The reason they don't is to get their foot in the door and make the price seem lower: you're more likely to buy something if you see it for the low, low, one-time-only price of $99.99, act now, save big, and then find out you owe an extra $7 at the register than if you saw $107 on the price tag.",
"Much of this inequality would be reduced if we moved from income taxation to a wealth/asset tax. We could exempt a person's main residence and retirement savings (similar to the way we do now with the home mortgage deduction and capital gains exemption and with IRAs). This would also obviate the need for a separate capital gains tax.",
"> You could raise the tax rates to 99% and still collect less tax revenue than if they are at a reasonable rate. It is funny how Republicans insist raising taxes produces no more revenue and then insist lowering taxes saves people money.",
"There's an economic reason you don't want to tax income differently than capital gains. Capital gains are created by taking risk, and encouraging risk is encouraging entrepreneurial spirit, which as a country you want to inncentivize. However, after a certain amount of money is made via capital gains the rate should approach income, but never equal it.",
"And they also benefit the most for all the infrastructure that makes both their business and their customer base possible. You don't earn money if nobody can afford your products, you can't make and ship products without reliable logistics, energy sources, and communications.",
"how is it double taxation when you didn't start off with that extra $100? it's double taxation if they taxed you on the total amount you pulled out of the market, not the profit you made. explain the math on your last part, please.",
"> If a business operates in the US, makes money here, has physical infrastructure and employees here, and utilizes our infrastructure I don't see how you can say that the US doesn't deserve any of that. For fuck's sake, this isn't rocket science. Taxes made on profits from goods and services sold in the U.S. are ALREADY taxed in the U.S. We are talking about profits from GE making engines in Germany and selling to the EU.",
">All tax is income tax, as if you haven't got the income, you can't pay it. This is a pretty apt simplification. I find that most land value tax advocates are either trying to engineer the demographics of property ownership or spiteful against people who own more than they themselves do.",
"\"This is ridiculous. Of course some companies don't pay taxes each year. Off the top of my head, NOL's (net operating losses) can be carried forward 20 years and will definitely reduce tax liability. For that matter, a loss during any year prevents paying income tax (though sales, property, ad valorem and other taxes may apply). Other companies may get capital credits, green credits, or other subsidies that might prevent a tax liability. None of these indicate that a corporation is getting away with anything. The IRS is a lot better at its job than most people think. The point is, you can't look at any individual year and make an accurate assessment of a company's (or even an individual's) tax burden. It's completely dishonest reporting. Source: I'm a state tax auditor, and my job is to make sure corporations pay what they are supposed to. EDIT: additionally, 2010 was the heart of the recession for a lot of companies. There were a LOT of corporations that took losses that year. So to say that \"\"GE took in 14.2 billion and paid no taxes\"\" is misleading: you have to say WHY they paid no taxes or you're just blowing hot air. Taxes are assessed on **income**, not **revenue**. There is a big difference.\"",
"looks like the US tax system needs an overhaul. You cant charge yourself arbitrary amounts to even out your bottom line. Wel you and I cant, but apparently we just need to make more money to do so....thanks BK for showing me the way!!",
"Irrelevant to the question. Regardless what is used for the tax base, we would still have the same debate but with much larger anti-taxation sentiments. Supply side Jesus either works or doesn't and shifting the federal revenue sources to the income taxes does not change it.",
"It's not quite clear what you are asking, so I'll answer a few possible interpretations. Businesses pay taxes on their profits. So if your business took a million pounds in revenue (e.g. sold a million pounds worth of stuff) then you would subtract (roughly speaking) everything the business spent on making and selling that stuff, and pay taxes only on the profit. VAT however is a different matter, and you would have to pay VAT on all of that income (technically the VAT portion isn't even income - it's tax you are forced to collect on behalf of the government). If your business made a million pounds pounds profit, it would pay tax on all of that million (subject to what a tax accountant can do to reduce that, which ought to be considerable). You can't subtract your personal living expenses like that. However the company can pay you a salary, which counts as an expense and the company doesn't pay tax on that. You might also take some money from the company as dividends. Both salary and dividends count as personal income to yourself, and you will need to pay personal income tax on them. As for the Ferrari, it depends on whether you can justify it as a business expense. A lot of companies provide cars for their employees so that they can use them for business - however you have to be able to show that IS for business, otherwise they are taxed like salary. The rules for company cars are quite complicated, and you would need an accountant. If this is a real rather than hypothetical situation, definitely get a tax accountant involved.",
"Increasing demand, the price people are willing to pay, will also increase profits, leading to the virtuous cycle you describe. The government spending tax dollars, also leads to growth. The 2 sides balance out. The difference between CEO pay and employee pay is that employees spend their money, while CEOs save money. So by taxing profits, money is put back into the economy.",
"Meanwhile, income tax is still based on the premise that the government owns your income (property). The government owns all of it and decides how much you get to keep. This is theft based on force. Meanwhile, Gary Johnson wants to end all income taxes including business income taxes and replace it with a federal consumption tax. Doesn't anyone want freedom?",
"High taxes and tax breaks have done. Tax breaks can only be accessed if you can essentially afford a descent accountant. For that to makes sense you need to earn a large amount of money. So proportionally the middle classes end up paying the most tax and gets the least for it.",
"I'm implying that the wealthiest among is, including corporations, have been paying less in taxes than at anytime in recent history. And still, the rich are getting an ever larger share to to income/wealth. Progressive taxation is a good thing.",
"It sounds like something is getting lost in translation here. A business owner should not have to pay personal income tax on business expenses, with the caveat that they are truly business expenses. Here's an example where what you described could happen: Suppose a business has $200K in revenue, and $150K in legitimate business expenses (wages and owner salaries, taxes, services, products/goods, etc.) The profit for this example business is $50K. Depending on how the business is structured (sole proprietor, llc, s-corp, etc), the business owner(s) may have to pay personal income tax on the $50K in profit. If the owner then decided to have the business purchase a new vehicle solely for personal use with, say, $25K of that profit, then the owner may think he could avoid paying income tax on $25K of the $50K. However, this would not be considered a legitimate business expense, and therefore would have to be reclassified as personal income and would be taxed as if the $25K was paid to the owner. If the vehicle truly was used for legitimate business purposes then the business expenses would end up being $175K, with $25K left as profit which is taxable to the owners. Note: this is an oversimplification as it's oftentimes the case that vehicles are partially used for business instead of all or nothing. In fact, large items such as vehicles are typically depreciated so the full purchase price could not be deducted in a single year. If many of the purchases are depreciated items instead of deductions, then this could explain why it appears that the business expenses are being taxed. It's not a tax on the expense, but on the income that hasn't been reduced by expenses, since only a portion of the big ticket item can be treated as an expense in a single year."
] |
[
"\"I pay taxes on revenue. You do have the ability to deduct expenses, though it's not as comprehensive as what companies can do: These figures apply to everybody, so those that earn more get taxed more on thee additional income in each bracket (meaning the first $100,000 of taxable income is taxed the same for everybody at one rate, the next $100,000 at a different rate, etc.) So you do get to deduct personal expenses and get taxed on \"\"profit\"\" - but since the vast majority of people don't keep detailed records of what they spend, it's much simpler just to use blanket deduction amounts for everyone. Companies have much more detailed systems in place to track and categorize expenses, so it's easier to just tax on net profit. Plus, the corporate tax rate is much higher than the average individual tax rate - would you trade more deductions for a higher tax rate?\""
] |
2318
|
F1 student and eBay selling tax
|
[
"428533"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"428533",
"411825",
"584074",
"33287",
"355959",
"382295",
"245011",
"299211",
"599876",
"496036",
"449816",
"272425",
"127004",
"561273",
"103758",
"343477",
"313361",
"172652",
"549272",
"529565",
"417866",
"310190",
"290265",
"454951",
"451929",
"251649",
"133701",
"218460",
"244061",
"392484",
"385121",
"374264",
"489679",
"82344",
"377547",
"123287",
"451020",
"20888",
"198692",
"15553",
"166977",
"154774",
"215437",
"89611",
"43508",
"303078",
"569993",
"11021",
"28764",
"281803",
"445298",
"218498",
"365456",
"78632",
"77618",
"182989",
"557647",
"385320",
"527776",
"466442",
"5762",
"427202",
"452899",
"223170",
"237785",
"90348",
"541682",
"355369",
"590775",
"294187",
"231841",
"495827",
"397340",
"357820",
"352266",
"172457",
"283505",
"124505",
"196321",
"427017",
"418630",
"245753",
"9353",
"72135",
"352136",
"316925",
"466718",
"130934",
"95724",
"293404",
"185999",
"69306",
"360629",
"123693",
"318388",
"493160",
"319158",
"405777",
"132780",
"542022"
] |
[
"\"If you have income - it should appear on your tax return. If you are a non-resident, that would be 1040NR, with the eBay income appearing on line 21. Since this is unrelated to your studies, this income will not be covered by the tax treaties for most countries, and you'll pay full taxes on it. Keep in mind that the IRS may decide that you're actually having a business, in which case you'll be required to attach Schedule C to your tax return and maybe pay additional taxes (mainly self-employment). Also, the USCIS may decide that you're actually having a business, regardless of how the IRS sees it, in which case you may have issues with your green card. For low income from occasional sales, you shouldn't have any issues. But if it is something systematic that you spend significant time on and earn significant amounts of money - you may get into trouble. What's \"\"systematic\"\" and how much is \"\"significant\"\" is up to a lawyer to tell you.\"",
"\"In simple terms, it is a business operation when it becomes a profit-making enterprise. It is a grey area, but there is a difference between selling occasional personal items on eBay and selling for profit. I would imagine the sort of considerations HM Revenue & Customs would take into account are the size of your turnover, the extent to which you are both buying and selling, and whether you are clearly specialising in one particular commodity as opposed of disposing of unwanted presents or clearing the loft. http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/When-does-eBay-selling-become-taxable-/10000000004494855/g.html I don't believe that you selling your personal camera gear will be taxable, but as the link says, it is a grey area. They also recommend to do this It's far better than having to deal with an investigation a few years down the line. When it comes to completing your tax return, there is a section which is headed \"\"other income\"\", and it is here where you will enter the net earnings from the web business. \"\"Net\"\" here means your additional income, less all expenses associated with it. If you are still worried I would always encourage people to take a cautious approach and discuss their position with HMRC via its helpline on 08454 915 4515.\"",
"There are no clear guidelines. If you are selling as individual, then what ever profit you make gets added to your overall income as you pay tax accordingly. This is true for sole proprietor or partnership kind of firms. If you are registered as a Company, the profits are taxed as business income. There may be VAT and other taxes. Please consult a CA who can guide you in specifics as for eCommerce, there is no defined law and one has to interpret various other tax laws.",
"As Victor says, you pay tax on net profit. If this is a significant source of income for you, you should file quarterly estimated tax payments or you're going to get hit with a penalty at the end of the year.",
"If the items you sold are items you previously bought for a higher price, the money you get selling them is not income, as you are taking a loss. However, you cannot deduct such losses. If you sell anything for more than what you paid for, the difference is a gain and is taxable. See this IRS web site for the explanation: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/tax-tips-for-online-auction-sellers",
"Since you were a nonresident alien student on F-1 visa then you will be considered engaged in a trade or business in the USA. You must file Form 1040NR. Here is the detailed instruction by IRS - http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Taxation-of-Nonresident-Aliens",
"\"Income generated from online sales is not considered \"\"passive income\"\", so you need to be authorized to work in the U.S. Those without work authorization can acquire passive income (through investments, lending, competition/contest earnings, etc.) In order to sell products on eBay (the description you've given leads me to believe that this is operated as a business), you need to be authorized to work in the U.S., and register a business. See:\"",
"\"-Alain Wertheimer I'm a hobbyist... Most (probably all) of those older items were sold both prior to my establishing the LLC This is a hobby of yours, this is not your business. You purchased all of these goods for your pleasure, not for their future profit. The later items that you bought after your LLC was establish served both purposes (perks of doing what you love). How should I go about reporting this income for the items I don't have records for how much I purchased them for? There's nothing you can do. As noted above, these items (if you were to testify in court against the IRS). \"\"Losses from the sale of personal-use property, such as your home or car, aren't tax deductible.\"\" Source Do I need to indicate 100% of the income because I can't prove that I sold it at a loss? Yes, if you do not have previous records you must claim a 100% capital gain. Source Addition: As JoeTaxpayer has mentioned in the comments, the second source I posted is for stocks and bonds. So at year begin of 2016, I started selling what I didn't need on eBay and on various forums [January - September]. Because you are not in the business of doing this, you do not need to explain the cost; but you do need to report the income as Gross Income on your 1040. Yes, if you bought a TV three years ago for a $100 and sold it for $50, the IRS would recognize you earning $50. As these are all personal items, they can not be deducted; regardless of gain or loss. Source Later in the year 2016 (October), I started an LLC (October - December) If these are items that you did not record early in the process of your LLC, then it is reported as a 100% gain as you can not prove any business expenses or costs to acquire associated with it. Source Refer to above answer. Refer to above answer. Conclusion Again, this is a income tax question that is split between business and personal use items. This is not a question of other's assessment of the value of the asset. It is solely based on the instruments of the IRS and their assessment of gains and losses from businesses. As OP does not have the necessary documents to prove otherwise, a cost basis of $0 must be assumed; thus you have a 100% gain on sale.\"",
"You are in business for yourself. You file Schedule C with your income tax return, and can deduct the business expenses and the cost of goods sold from the gross receipts of your business. If you have inventory (things bought but not yet sold by the end of the year of purchase), then there are other calculations that need to be done. You will have to pay income tax as well as Social Security and Medicare taxes (both the employee's share and the employer's share) on the net profits from this business activity.",
"You should add it to all the other income and continue paying taxes as you would on your Irish salary. That is true for both the US and the Irish sides of the equation. In case you didn't know - your Irish earnings are taxable in the US, since the US taxes all of your income. Your Amazon.com earnings are taxable in Ireland since that's where you earned it. You can use the FEIE/FTC as appropriate on your US tax return to reduce your tax liability, but all of your income should be reported.",
"Yes, you do. Depending on your country's laws and regulations, since you're not an employee but a self employed, you're likely to be required to file some kind of a tax return with your country's tax authority, and pay the income taxes on the money you earn. You'll have to tell us more about the situation, at least let us know what country you're in, for more information.",
"I'm assuming you're in the United States for this. I highly recommend getting a CPA to help you navigate the tax implications. Likely, you'll pay taxes as a sole proprietor, on top of any other income you made. Hopefully you kept good records because you'll be essentially paying for the profits, but you'll need to show the revenue and expenditures that you had. If you have any capital expenditures you may be able ton amortize them. But again, definitely hire a professional to help you, it will be well worth the cost.",
"\"I doubt it. In the States you would only owe tax if you sold such an item at a profit. \"\"garage sales\"\" aren't taxable as they are nearly always common household items and sale is more about clearing out one's attic/garage than about profit. Keep in mind, if I pay for a book, and immediately sell it for the same price, there's no tax due, why would tax be due if I sell for a loss?\"",
"13 or 30, the only real difference is that as a minor, you are claimed as a dependent on your parent's return, so you don't have you own exemption. But you do have a standard deduction of $6300 when it comes to earned income. Yes, you'll pay taxes, federal, state, and tax for social security. There's nothing wrong with paying taxes. In fact, I hope you have to pay a small fortune in tax! That would mean you've made a large fortune, and after taxes, still got to keep a good chunk of it. If your income is minimal, you'll actually pay very little in taxes, not enough to even think about wanting to give away what you can sell.",
"Typically, a transfer of money isn't taxed in and of itself. If they send you $1000 and you send them goods, your profit is what would be taxed, not the full amount sent to you. You need to keep track of all money you spend to acquire the goods, and all money coming in, so you can declare the profit you've made as income. Your question appears to be less about personal finance, and more about running a small business.",
"I will not pay any taxes in the Us, since I am not working for an US company What you will or will not pay is up to you of course, but you definitely should pay taxes in the US, as you're working in the US. Since you mentioned being from Japan, I'll also suggest checking whether you're allowed to perform any work in the US under the conditions of your visa. If you're a F1/J1 student - you'll be breaking the immigration law and may be deported. You might be liable for taxes in Germany, as well, and also in Japan. I'll have to edit this to allow people who downvoted the answer without knowing the legal requirements to change their vote. F1 student cannot be a contractor without a valid EAD. Period. There's no doubt about it and legal requirements are pretty clear. Anyone who claims that you wouldn't be breaking the terms of your visa is wrong. Note, I'm neither a lawyer nor a tax professional, for definite advice talk to a professional.",
"\"If this is truly hobby income (you do not intend to operate as a business and don't have a profit motive) then report the income on Line 21 (\"\"other income\"\") of form 1040. If this is a business, then the income and expenses belong on a Schedule C to form 1040. The distinction is in the treatment of profits and losses - your net profits on a business are subject to self-employment tax, while hobby income is not. Net losses on a business are deductible against other income; net losses on a hobby are miscellaneous itemized deductions in the \"\"2%\"\" box on Schedule A. From a tax point of view, selling apps and accepting donations are different. Arguably, donations are gifts; gifts are not taxable income. The hobby/business and income/gift distinctions are tricky. If the dollar amounts are small, nobody (including the IRS) really cares. If you start making or losing a lot of money, you'll want to get a good tax person lined up who can help you decide how to characterize these items of income and expens, how to put them on your return, and how to defend the return on audit if necessary.\"",
"Sorry, no, any time you sell for a profit you owe tax.",
"The money you will be bringing to the US will be classified as your own money, and will not be taxable. The proceeds from the sale are taxable to you, probably as capital gains. The fact that you kept the proceeds out of the US is irrelevant for that purpose (it is relevant for FBAR/FATCA etc). Since you had no basis in the property, all the proceeds are taxable to you at the time of the sale and should be reported on your tax return.",
"Yes. This income would be reported on schedule SE. Normally, you will not owe any tax if the amount is less than $400. Practically, $100 in a garage sale is not why the IRS created the form SE. I wouldn't lose sleep over keeping track of small cash sales over the course of a year. However, if you have the information I'm not going to tell you not to report it.",
"\"Payment gateways such as Square do not normally withhold tax. It is up to you to pay the appropriate tax at tax time. That having been said, Square does report your payments to the IRS on a form 1099-K if your payments are large enough. According to Square, you'll get a 1099-K from them if your total payments for the year add up to $20,000 AND more than 200 transactions. Whether or not they report on a 1099-K, you are required to pay the appropriate taxes on your income. So now the question becomes, \"\"Do I have to pay income tax on the proceeds from my garage sale?\"\" And the answer to that question is usually not. When you sell something that you previously purchased, if you sell it for more than you paid for it, you have a capital gain and need to pay tax on that. However, generally you sell things in a garage sale at a loss, meaning that there is no tax due. If you make more than $20,000 at your garage sale and the IRS gets a 1099-K, the IRS might be curious as to how you did that with no capital gain. So if you sell any big ticket items (a bulldozer, for example), you should keep a record of what you paid for it, so you can show the loss to the IRS in the event of an audit.\"",
"If treaties are involved for something other than exempting student wages on campus, you shouldn't do it yourself but talk to a licensed US tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) who's well-versed in the specific treaty. Double taxation provisions generally mean that you can credit the foreign tax paid to your US tax liability, but in the US you can do that regardless of treaties (some countries don't allow that). Also, if you're a US tax resident (or even worse - a US citizen), the royalties related treaty provision might not even apply to you at all (see the savings clause). FICA taxes are generally not part of the income tax treaties but totalization agreements (social security-related taxes, not income taxes). Most countries who have income tax treaties with the US - don't have social security totalization agreements. Bottom line - talk to a licensed professional.",
"\"TL;DR - my understanding of the rules is that if you are required to register for GST (earning more than $75k per annum), you would be required to pay GST on these items. To clarify firstly: taxable income, and goods and services tax, are two different things. Any income you receive needs to be considered for income tax purposes - whether or not it ends up being taxable income would be too much to go into here, but generally you would take your expenses, and any deductions, away from your income to arrive at what would generally be the taxable amount. An accountant will help you do this. Income tax is paid by anyone who earns income over the tax free threshold. By contrast, goods and services tax is a tax paid by business (of which you are running one). Of course, this is passed on to the consumer, but it's the business that remits the payment to the tax office. However, GST isn't required to be charged and paid in all cases: The key in your situation is first determining whether you need to register for GST (or whether indeed you already have). If you earn less than $75,000 per year - no need to register. If you do earn more than that through your business, or you have registered anyway, then the next question is whether your items are GST-free. The ATO says that \"\"some education courses [and] course materials\"\" are GST-free. Whether this applies to you or not I'm obviously not going to be able to comment on, so I would advise getting an accountant's advice on this (or at the very least, call the ATO or browse their legal database). Thirdly, are your sales connected with Australia? The ATO says that \"\"A sale of something other than goods or property is connected with Australia if ... the thing is done in Australia [or] the seller makes the sale through a business they carry on in Australia\"\". Both of these appear to be true in your case. So in summary: if you are required to register for GST, you would be required to pay GST on these items. I am not a financial advisor or a tax accountant and this is not financial advice.\"",
"\"Does the money lending between us need to be reported in our tax reports? No. Will he be taxed more because of lending the money to me? Yes. Will I be taxed more because of borrowing the money from him? No. How shall we report it so as to minimize our taxes? You cannot. What is reported on your tax returns is the income. A loan is not an income, so nothing gets reported. However, when you repay the loan, assuming it has interest, the lender has income: the interest. Interest income is reported on schedule B of the regular (1040/1040A) tax return (or, in the case of non-resident for tax purposes, on line 9 of 1040NR). It is taxed as ordinary income, and since you're both foreigners - the lender should look into the treaty provisions that might be relevant. Generally it is not exempt from taxable income based on treaty exemptions for students (which is only for earned income), but there might be other rules in the treaty regarding interest income. If there's no (fair market or higher) interest, then there's \"\"assumed\"\" interest at the IRS mandated rates, which is considered a gift. If it amounts to more than the yearly gift exemption, the lender may be liable for gift tax (depending on the lender's and your status, and again - see treaties). \"\"Loan\"\" without an obligation to repay and without actual repaying will also be considered a gift for tax purposes. If the lender has no intentions of having the loan repaid (i.e.: making a gift), it will be better to pay your tuition bills instead of actually giving you the money: tuition is exempt from gift tax. Talk to a CPA/EA licensed in your state for a proper tax advice on this issue.\"",
"\"There's a couple of considerations here. Firstly, would this activity count as \"\"trading\"\". If you're trading you are legally required to register as self-employed. The line between a hobby activity and trading can be blurred but a key feature is whether you're aiming to make a profit (whether you manage it or not!). Secondly are you actually making any money? Even if what you're doing counts as self-employment, self-employed people pay tax on the profits they make from their activities, not on the total amount of money they take in. If you spend all the money you take in on keeping the server running then you're not making any profit so there's nothing to pay tax on.\"",
"\"The Form 1040 (U.S. tax return form) Instructions has a section called \"\"Do You Have To File?\"\". Below a certain income, you are not required to file a tax return and pay any tax. This amount of income at which you are required to file depends on several things, including your dependency status (you are a dependent of your parents), your marital status, and other factors. The instructions have charts that show what these numbers are. You would fall under Chart B. Assuming that you are under age 65, unmarried, and not blind, you only have to file when you reach the following conditions: Your unearned income was over $1,050. Your earned income was over $6,300. Your gross income was more than the larger of— $1,050, or Your earned income (up to $5,950) plus $350. (Note: Income from YouTube would count as \"\"earned income\"\" for the purposes above.) However, if you are producing your own videos and receiving revenue from them, you are technically self-employed. This means that the conditions from Chart C also apply, which state: You must file a return if any of the five conditions below apply for 2015. As a self-employed person, you can deduct business expenses (expenses that you incur in producing your product, which is this case is your videos). Once your revenue minus your expenses reach $400, you will need to file an income tax return.\"",
"As JoeTaxpayer has mentioned, please consult a lawyer and CA. In general you would have to pay tax on the profit you make, in the example on this 10% you make less of any expenses to run the business. depending on how you are incorporating the business, there would be an element of service tax apart from corporate tax or income tax.",
"\"This may be closed as not quite PF, but really \"\"startup\"\" as it's a business question. In general, you should talk to a professional if you have this type of question, specifics like this regarding your tax code. I would expect that as a business, you will use a proper paper trail to show that money, say 1000 units of currency, came in and 900 went out. This is a service, no goods involved. The transaction nets you 100, and you track all of this. In the end you have the gross profit, and then business expenses. The gross amount, 1000, should not be the amount taxed, only the final profit.\"",
"The tax is only payable on the gain you make i.e the difference between the price you paid and the price you sold at. In your cse no tax is payable if you sell at the same price you bought at",
"You would report the overall income on your T1 general income tax return, and use form T2125 to report income and expenses for your business. Form T2125 is like a mini income-statement where you report your gross revenue and subtract off expenses. Being able to claim legitimate expenses as a deduction is an important tax benefit for businesses big and small. In terms of your second question, you generally need to register for a business number at least once you cross the threshold for GST / HST. If you earn $30,000/year (or spread over four consecutive quarters) then charging GST / HST is mandatory; see GST/HST Mandatory registration. There are other conditions as well, but the threshold is the principal one. You can also register voluntarily for GST / HST even if you're below that threshold; see GST/HST Voluntary registration. The advantage of registering voluntarily is that you can claim input tax credits (ITC) on any GST that your business pays, and remit only the difference. That saves your business money, especially if you have a lot of expenses early on. Finally, in terms of Ontario specifically (saw that on your profile), you might want to check out Ontario Sole Proprietorship. There are specific cases in which you need to register a business: e.g. specific types of businesses, or if you plan on doing business under a name other than your own. Finally, you may want to consider whether incorporating might be better for you. Here's an interesting article that compares Sole Proprietorship Versus Incorporation. Here's another article, Choosing a business structure, from the feds.",
"\"Books would be considered Personal-Use Property according to Canada's income tax laws. The most detailed IT I was able to find is IT-332R, which says: GAINS AND LOSSES 3. A gain on the disposition of personal-use property is normally a capital gain within the meaning of paragraph 39(1)(a). Where the property is a principal residence, the gain > is computed under paragraph 40(2)(b) or (c). 4. Under subparagraph 40(2)(g)(iii), a loss on a disposition of personal-use property, other than listed personal property, is deemed to be nil. [...] This part of the bulletin indicates that a gain might be considered a capital gain - not income. However, you don't get to book a loss as a capital loss. This is the first hint that your book sale - which is actually an exempt capital loss - shouldn't go on your tax return unless it's one of the \"\"listed\"\" items: LISTED PERSONAL PROPERTY 7. Listed personal property is defined in paragraph 54(e) to mean personal-use property that is all or any portion of, or any interest in or right to, any (a) print, etching, drawing, painting, sculpture, or other similar work of art, (b) jewellery, (c) rare folio, rare manuscript, or rare book, (d) stamp, or (e) coin. So unless you're selling rare books, the disposition (sale) of them is essentially exempt as income, regardless of whether you sold it at a profit or at a loss. If it is rare, then you might be able to consider it a capital loss, which doesn't help you much unless you had other capital gains, but you can carry over capital losses to future years. There's also a newer IT related to hobbies and \"\"collecting\"\" items, IT-334R2. This one says: 11. In order for any activity or pursuit to be regarded as a source of income, there must be a reasonable expectation of profit. Where such an expectation does not exist (as is the case with most hobbies), neither amounts received nor expenses incurred are included in the income computation for tax purposes and any excess of expenses over receipts is a personal or living expense, the deduction of which is denied by paragraph 18(1)(h). On the other hand, if the hobby or pastime results in receipts of revenue in excess of expenses, that fact is a strong indication that the hobby is a venture with an expectation of profit; if so, the net income may be taxable as income from a business. The current version of IT-504, Visual Artists and Writers, discusses the concept of \"\"a reasonable expectation of profit\"\" in greater detail. Where a hobby consists of collecting personal-use property or listed personal property, dispositions should be accounted for as described in the current version of IT-332, Personal-Use Property. (emphasis mine) In other words, if it's not the type of thing where you'd make a tax deduction when you bought it in the first place, then you clearly don't need to report it as income when you sell it. Just to be absolutely clear here: The fact that you are selling them at a loss is not actually what's important here. What's important is that, if the books aren't collectibles, then you would have had no expectation of profit. If you did have that expectation then you could have made a tax deduction when you first purchased them. So in this case, it is probably not necessary for you to report the income; however, for the benefit of other readers, in some cases you might need to report it under \"\"other income\"\" or book it as a capital gain/loss, depending on what those personal items are and whether or not you made a net profit.\"",
"I am not an accountant, but I do run a business in the UK and my understanding is that it's a threshold thing, which I believe is £2,500. Assuming you don't currently have to submit self assessment, and your additional income from all sources other than employment (for which you already pay tax) is less than £2,500, you don't have to declare it. Above this level you have to submit self assessment. More information can be found here I also find that HMRC are quite helpful - give them a call and ask.",
"Yes you need to pay taxes in India. Show this as other income and pay tax according to your tax bracket. Note you need to pay the taxes quarterly if the net tax payable is more than 10,000.",
"Generally, report your $150,000. If/when the the tax collectors notice the anomaly, they'll attempt to contact you to remedy it. I can't speak for Canada, but in the US, it's pretty orderly. The IRS requests additional information or proof and only open it up into a full blown audit if the suspect wrongdoing. In your case, you could show a business agreement detailing the revenue split proving you correctly reported. This is only for your consideration. I strongly recommending finding and keeping a professional tax advisor.",
"\"As a minor you certainly can pay tax, the government wants its cut from you just like everyone else :-) However you do get the personal allowance like everyone else, so you won't have to pay income tax until your net income reaches £10,800 (that's the figure for the tax year from April 2015 to April 2016, it'll probably change in future years). Once you're 16, you will also have to pay national insurance, which is basically another tax, at a lower threshold. The current rates are £2.80/week if you are making £5,965 a year or more, and also 9% on any income above £8,060 (up to £42,385). Your \"\"net income\"\" or \"\"profits\"\" are the income you receive minus the expenses you have to support that income. Note that the expenses must be entirely for the \"\"business\"\", they can't be for personal things. The most important thing to do immediately is to start keeping accurate records. Keep a list of the income you receive and also the expenses you pay for hardware etc. Make sure you keep receipts (perhaps just electronic ones) for the expenses so you can prove they existed later. Keep track of that net income as the year goes on and if it starts collecting at the rate you'd have to pay tax and national insurance, then make sure you also put aside enough money to pay for those when the bill comes. There's some good general advice on the Government's website here: https://www.gov.uk/working-for-yourself/what-you-need-to-do In short, as well as keeping records, you should register with the tax office, HMRC, as a \"\"sole trader\"\". This should be something that anyone can do whatever their age, but it's worth calling them up as soon as you can to check and find out if there are any other issues. They'll probably want you to send in tax returns containing the details of your income and expenses. If you're making enough money it may be worth paying an accountant to do this for you.\"",
"This is taxed as ordinary income. See the IRC Sec 988(a)(1). The exclusion you're talking about (the $200) is in the IRC Sec 988(e)(2), but you'll have to read the Treasury Regulations on this section to see if and how it can apply to you. Since you do this regularly and for profit (i.e.: not a personal transaction), I'd argue that it doesn't apply.",
"\"Its is considered a \"\"hobby\"\" income, and you should be reporting it on the 1040 as taxable income. The expenses (what you pay) are hobby expenses, and you report them on Schedule A (if you itemize). You can only deduct the hobby expenses to the extent of your hobby income, and they're subject to the 2% AGI threshold.\"",
"If you're waiting for Apple to send you a 1099 for the 2008 tax season, well, you shouldn't be. App Store payments are not reported to the IRS and you will not be receiving a 1099 in the mail from anyone. App Store payments are treated as sales commissions rather than royalties, according to the iTunes Royalty department of Apple. You are responsible for reporting your earnings and filing your own payments for any sums you have earned from App Store. – https://arstechnica.com/apple/2009/01/app-store-lessons-taxes-and-app-store-earnings The closest thing to sales commissions in WA state seems to be Service and Other Activities described at http://dor.wa.gov/content/FileAndPayTaxes/BeforeIFile/Def_TxClassBandO.aspx#0004. When you dig a little deeper into the tax code, WAC 458-20-224 (Service and other business activities) includes: (4) Persons engaged in any business activity, other than or in addition to those for which a specific rate is provided in chapter 82.04 RCW, are taxable under the service and other business activities classification upon gross income from such business. - http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=458-20-224 I am not a lawyer or accountant, so caveat emptor.",
"It is unlikely that UK tax will be due on the money -- see here: Foreign students usually don’t pay UK tax on foreign income or gains, as long as they’re used for course fees or living costs But if the UK doesn't tax you on the money then double-taxation agreements probably won't apply, and so any Italian tax due will be payable.",
"A student on F1 working under the conditions of the OPT program is exempt from FICA taxes. Once you switch to H1b - you no longer have the exemption. You can use form 8316 and form 843 to request the refund, if the employer cannot or will not refund the withholding. Employer is the first stop, but keep in mind that you have 3 years at most to request the refund after filing the tax returns for the year in question (or when they should have been filed, if you didn't). Detailed instructions here.",
"If you sell through an intermediate who sets up the shop for you, odds are they collect and pay the sales tax for you. My experience is with publishing books through Amazon, where they definitely handle this for you. If you can find a retailer that will handle the tax implications, that might be a good reason to use them. It looks like Etsy uses a different model where you yourself are responsible for the sales tax, which requires you to register with your state (looks like this is the information for New York) and pay the taxes yourself on a regular basis; see this link for a simple guide. If you're doing this, you'll need to keep track of how much tax you owe from your sales each month, quarter, or year (depending on the state laws). You can usually be a sole proprietor, which is the easiest business structure to set up; if you want to limit your legal liability, or work with a partner, you may want to look into other forms of business structure, but for most craftspeople a sole proprietorship is fine to start out with. If you do a sole proprietorship, you can probably file the income on a 1040 Schedule C when you do your personal taxes each year.",
"For case 1, there is no tax due as you sold the book for less than your cost basis. If you had sold for more than $100, then you would have had a profit. For case 2, that depends on the value of the gift card with respect to the value of your fare. Most likely that gift card is less than the cost of the fare. And in that case it would generally be treated as a reduction in the purchase price. The same way that rebates and cash back on credit card are treated. Note if for some reason a 1099 was generated that would change the situation and you would need to consult a tax professional. Since that would indicate that the other party to the transaction had a different view of the situation.",
"This is taxable in India. You need to declare the income and pay taxes accordingly",
"In the USA, you probably owe Self Employment Tax. The cutoff for tax on this is 400$. You will need to file a tax return and cover the medicaid expenses as if you were both the employer and employee. In addition, if he earns income from self-employment, he may owe Self-Employment Tax, which means paying both the employee’s and employer's share of Social Security and Medicaid taxes. The trigger for Self Employment Tax has been $400 since 1990, but the IRS may change that in the future. Also see the IRS website. So yes, you need to file your taxes. How much you will pay is determined by exactly how much your income is. If you don't file, you probably won't be audited, however you are breaking the law and should be aware of the consequences.",
"\"The examples you provide in the question are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the brokerage is or where is the company you own stocks in. For a fairly standard case of an non-resident alien international student living full time in the US - your capital gains are US sourced. Let me quote the following text a couple of paragraphs down the line you quoted on the same page: Gain or loss from the sale or exchange of personal property generally has its source in the United States if the alien has a tax home in the United States. The key factor in determining if an individual is a U.S. resident for purposes of the sourcing of capital gains is whether the alien's \"\"tax home\"\" has shifted to the United States. If an alien does not have a tax home in the United States, then the alien’s U.S. source capital gains would be treated as foreign-source and thus nontaxable. In general, under the \"\"tax home\"\" rules, a person who is away (or who intends to be away) from his tax home for longer than 1 year has shifted tax homes to his new location upon his arrival in that new location. See Chapter 1 of Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses I'll assume you've read this and just want an explanation on what it means. What it means is that if you move to the US for a significant period of time (expected length of 1 year or more), your tax home is assumed to have shifted to the US and the capital gains are sourced to the US from the start of your move. For example: you are a foreign diplomat, and your 4-year assignment started in May. Year-end - you're not US tax resident (diplomats exempt), but you've stayed in the US for more than 183 days, and since your assignment is longer than 1 year - your tax home is now in the US. You'll pay the 30% flat tax. Another example: You're a foreign airline pilot, coming to the US every other day flying the airline aircraft. You end up staying in the US 184 days, but your tax home hasn't shifted, nor you're a US tax resident - you don't pay the flat tax. Keep in mind, that tax treaties may alter the situation since in many cases they also cover the capital gains situation for non-residents.\"",
"\"After doing a little research, I was actually surprised to find many internet resources on this topic (including sites from Intuit) gave entirely incorrect information. The information that follows is quoted directly from IRS Publication 929, rules for dependents First, I will assume that you are not living on your own, and are claimed as a \"\"dependent\"\" on someone else's tax return (such as a parent or guardian). If you were an \"\"emancipated minor\"\", that would be a completely different question and I will ignore this less-common case. So, how much money can you make, as a minor who is someone else's dependent? Well, the most commonly quoted number is $6,300 - but despite this numbers popularity, this is not true. This is how much you can earn in wages from regular employment without filing your own tax return, but this does not apply to your scenario. Selling your products online as an independent game developer would generally be considered self-employment income, and according to the IRS: A dependent must also file a tax return if he or she: Had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified church-controlled organization that is exempt from employer social security and Medicare taxes, or Had net earnings from self-employment of at least $400. So, your first $400 in earnings triggers absolutely no requirement to file a tax return - blast away, and good luck! After that, you do not necessarily owe much in taxes, however you will need to file a tax return even if you owe $0, as this was self-employment income. If you had, for instance, a job at a grocery store, you could earn up to $6,300 without filing a return, because the store would be informing the IRS about your employment anyway - as well as deducting Medicare and Social Security payments, etc. How much tax will you pay as your income grows beyond $400? Based upon the IRS pages for Self-Employment Tax and Family Businesses, while you will not likely have to pay income tax until you make $6,300 in a year, you will still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes after the first $400. Roughly this should be right about 16% of your income, so if you make $6000 you'll owe just under $1000 (and be keeping the other $5000). If your income grows even more, you may want to learn about business expense deductions. This would allow you to pay for things like advertisement, software, a new computer for development purposes, etc, and deduct the expenses out of your income so you pay less in taxes. But don't worry - having such things to wonder about would mean you were raking in thousands of dollars, and that's an awfully good problem to have as a young entrepreneur! So, should you keep your games free or try to make some money? Well, first of all realize that $400 can be a lot harder to make when you are first starting in business than it probably sounds. Second, don't be afraid of making too much money! Tax filing software - even totally free versions - make filing taxes much, much easier, and at your income level you would still be keeping the vast majority of the money you earn even without taking advantage of special business deductions. I'd recommend you not be a afraid of trying to make some money! I'd bet money it will help you learn a lot about game development, business, and finances, and will be a really valuable experience for you - whether you make money or not. Having made so much money you have to pay taxes is not something to be afraid of - it's just something adults like to complain about :) Good luck on your adventures, and you can always come back and ask questions about how to file taxes, what to do with any new found wealth, etc!\"",
"\"Are you in the US? One thing you can do is prepay taxes at a rate of a 1.8% fee. Much lower than paypal. I would do this on what is \"\"left over\"\". Here are somethings that I would tend to do in your case: Those are some of the things I would be looking at. Do you care to share the details of your offer?\"",
"You need to register as self-employed with HMRC (it is perfectly fine to be self-employed and employed by an employer at the same time, in exactly your kind of situation). Then, when the income arrives you will need to declare it on your yearly tax return. HMRC information about registering for self-employment and declaring the income is here: https://www.gov.uk/working-for-yourself/overview There's a few extra hoops if your clients are outside the UK; the detail depends on whether they are in the EU or not. More details about this are here: https://www.gov.uk/online-and-distance-selling-for-businesses/selling-overseas .",
"You would report it as business income on Schedule C. You may be able to take deductions against that income as well (home office, your computer, an android device, any advertising or promotional expenses, etc.) but you'll want to consult an accountant about that. Generally you can only take those kinds of deductions if you use the space or equipment exclusively for business use (not likely if it's just a hobby). The IRS is pretty picky about that stuff.",
"The amount earned is taxable. It needs to shown as income from other sources. Although the last date for paying Advance tax is over [15 March], there is still time to pay Self-Assessment tax till 15 June. If the tax amount due is less than 10,000/- there is no penalty. If the tax is more than Rs 10,000/- there is penalty at the rate of 1% per month from March, and if the amount of tax exceeds 40% of the total tax, there will be additional 1% interest from December. The tax can be paid online via your Banks website or using the Income Tax website at https://onlineservices.tin.egov-nsdl.com/etaxnew/tdsnontds.jsp The form to be used is 280. You can use the Income tax website to calculate and file your tax returns at https://incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in/ or use the services of a CA. Edit: If the income is less than expenses, you need not pay tax. Maintain proper records [receipts] of income and expenses, if possible use a different Bank account so that they remain different from your main account. The tax to be paid depending on your income slab. The additional income needs to added to you salary. The tax and slabs will be as per this. There is no distinction on this amount. Its treated as normal income. All Tax for the given year has to be paid in advance. i.e. for Tax year 2013-14, 30% of total tax by 15-Sept, Additional 30% [total 60%] by 15-Dec and Balance by 15-Mar. Read Page 3 and page 10 of http://incometaxindia.gov.in/Archive/Taxation_Of_Salaried_Employees_18062012.pdf",
"\"AFAIK, there are two kinds of taxes your web freelancing income may be subject to in Quebec: On the income taxes: The net income you realize from your web freelancing activities would be considered taxable income. Assuming you are not operating as an incorporated business, you would need to declare the freelancing income on both your federal and provincial tax returns. You should be able to deduct certain costs related to your business – for instance, if you paid for software, hosting, domain name registration, etc. That is, only the profit from your business would be subject to income tax. With income and expenses arising from self-employment, you may want to use a professional to file your taxes. On the sales taxes: You may also need to charge federal GST and provincial QST (Quebec Sales Tax) on your services: You must enroll and charge GST and QST once you exceed the \"\"small supplier\"\" revenue threshold of $30,000 measured over four consecutive quarters. (You can still choose to enroll for GST/QST before you reach that amount, but over that amount enrollment becomes mandatory. Some businesses enroll before the threshold is reached so they can claim input tax credits for tax paid on expenses, but then there's more paperwork – one reason to perhaps avoid enrolling until necessary.) In Quebec, the Ministère du Revenu du Québec administers both GST (on behalf of the federal government) as well as provincial QST. Be sure to also check out their informative booklet, Should I Register with Revenu Quebec? (PDF). See also General Information Concerning the QST and the GST/HST (PDF).\"",
"I believe the answer is no, since your income from royalties and app sales would fall under FDAP income. (another conformation of this would be the fact that Apple and Google requested a W8-BEN form from you and not a W8-ECI form) Generally, All income EXCEPT FDAP income (fixed or determinable annual or periodical income) are ECI income. FDAP income includes income from interest, rent, dividends etc. IRS link to a list of all Income classified under FDAP below:- https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fixed-determinable-annual-periodical-fdap-income https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/iw8eci.pdf (page 3 - under effectively connected income)",
"There are quite a few questions as to how you are recording your income and expenses. If you are running the bakery as a Sole Proprietor, with all the income and expense in a business account; then things are easy. You just have to pay tax on the profit [as per the standard tax bracket]. If you running it as individual, you are still only liable to pay tax on profit and not turnover, however you need to keep a proper book of accounts showing income and expense. Get a Accountant to do this for you there are some thing your can claim as expense, some you can't.",
"As an F1 student, I have been investing (and occasionally buying and selling within few weeks) for several years, and I have never had problems (of course I report to IRS gains/losses every year at tax time). On the other hand, the officer in charge of foreign students at my school advised me to not run ads on a website and make a profit. So, it seems to me that investing is perfectly legit for a F1 student, as it's not considered a business activity. That's obviously my personal understanding, you may want to speak with an immigration attorney to be on the safe side.",
"\"Believe it or not, unless you directly contact an accountant with experience in this field or a lawyer, you may have a tough time getting a direct answer from a reputable source. The reason is two fold. First, legally defining in-game assets is exceptionally difficult from a legal/taxation stand point. Who really owns this data? You or the company that has built the MMO and manages the servers containing all of the data? You can buy-and-sell what is effectively \"\"data\"\" on their servers but the truth is, they own the code, the servers, the data, your access rights, etc. and at any point in time could terminate everything within their systems. This would render the value of your accounts worthless! As such, most countries have overwhelmingly avoided the taxation of in-game \"\"inventory\"\" because it's not really definable. Instead, in game goods are only taxed when they are exchanged for local currency. This is considered a general sale. There may be tax codes in your region for the sale of \"\"digital goods\"\". Otherwise, it should be taxed as sale a standard good with no special stipulations. The bottom line is that you shouldn't expect to find much reliable information on this topic, on the internet. Law's haven't been welled defined, regarding in-game content worth and taxing of sales and if you want to know how you should pay your taxes on these transactions, you need to talk to a good accountant, a lawyer or both.\"",
"Since you say 1099, I'll assume it's in the US. :) Think of your consulting operation as a small business. Businesses are only taxed on their profits, not their revenues. So you should only be paying tax on the $700 in the example you gave. Note, though, that you need to be sure the IRS thinks you're a small business. Having a separate bank account for the business, filing for a business license with your local city/state, etc are all things that help make the case that you're running a business. Of course, the costs of doing all those things are business expenses, and thus things you can deduct from that $1000 in revenue at tax time.",
"Depending on what software you use. It has to be reported as a foreign income and you can claim foreign tax paid as a foreign tax credit.",
"I do NOT know the full answer but I know here are some important factors that you need to consider : Do you have a physical location in the United States? Are you working directly from Canada? With a office/business location in the United States your tax obligation to the US is much higher. Most likely you will owe some to the state in which your business is located in Payroll Tax : your employer will likely want to look into Payroll tax, because in most states the payroll tax threshold is very low, they will need to file payroll tax on their full-time, part-time employees, as well as contractor soon as the total amount in a fiscal year exceeds the threshold Related to No.1 do you have a social security number and are you legally entitled to working in the States as an individual. You will be receiving the appropriate forms and tax withholding info Related to No.3 if you don't have that already, you may want to look into how to obtain permissions to conduct business within the United States. Technically, you are a one person consulting service provider. You may need to register with a particular state to obtain the permit. The agency will also be able to provide you with ample tax documentations. Chances are you will really need to piece together multiple information from various sources to resolve this one as the situation is specific. To start, look into consulting service / contractor work permit and tax info for the state your client is located in. Work from state level up to kick start your research then research federal level, which can be more complex as it is technically international business service for Canada-US",
"For tax purposes you will need to file as an employee (T4 slips and tax withheld automatically), but also as an entrepreneur. I had the same situation myself last year. Employee and self-employed is a publication from Revenue Canada that will help you. You need to fill out the statement of business activity form and keep detailed records of all your deductible expenses. Make photocopies and keep them 7 years. May I suggest you take an accountant to file your income tax form. More expensive but makes you less susceptible to receive Revenue Canada inspectors for a check-in. If you can read french, you can use this simple spreadsheet for your expenses. Your accountant will be happy.",
"\"Income from a hobby is tax exempt under Dutch law. To consider whether it's hobby, a few rules are applied such as: How much time do you spend on the activity? And is the hourly wage low? Obviously, having a boss is a sure sign of it not being a hobby. The typical example is making dolls and selling them on a crafts fair. If you travel the country and sell each weekend on a different fair, that's a lot of time. If you only sell them on the fair in your home town, it's a hobby. Situation 3 is the most difficult. If you just happened to luck out, it's still a hobby. If you spent significant time to improve the value of your holdings, e.g. by trading in-game, then it might be seen as work. In the latter case, you simply file it as \"\"income from other sources, not yet taxed\"\". For the purpose of determining income from a hobby, you may deduct actual expenses. So, in your case they'd look at the net income of $-1000, which is not unusual for a hobby. It wouldn't be any different if you took up horse riding, decided that you didn't like it, and sell your horse at a loss.\"",
"\"I believe you have to file a tax return, because state tax refund is considered income effectively connected with US trade or business, and the 1040NR instructions section \"\"Who Must File\"\" includes people who were engaged in trade or business in the US and had a gross income. You won't end up having to pay any taxes as the income is less than your personal exemption of $4050.\"",
"If i am not wrong, any business activities such should be declared on Year End Tax filing. If your friend is going to own that website either it is commercial or nonprofit, he has to declare in the year end taxation.",
"If your gross income is only $3000, then you don't need to file: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf That said, pay careful attention to: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxpayers-living-abroad You should be reporting ALL income, without regard to WHERE you earned it, on your US taxes. Not doing so could indeed get you in trouble if you are audited. Your level of worry depends on how much of the tax law you are willing to dodge, and how lucky you feel.",
"Since your YouTube income is considered self-employment income and because you probably already made more than $400 in net income (after deducting expenses from the $4000 you've received so far), you will have to pay self-employment tax and file a return. This is according to the IRS's Publication 17 (2016), Your Federal Income Tax, so assumes the same rules for 2016 will remain in effect for 2017: You are self-employed if you: Carry on a trade or business as a sole proprietor, Are an independent contractor, Are a member of a partnership, or Are in business for yourself in any other way. Self-employment can include work in addition to your regular full-time business activities, such as certain part-time work you do at home or in addition to your regular job. You must file a return if your gross income is at least as much as the filing requirement amount for your filing status and age (shown in Table 1-1). Also, you must file Form 1040 and Schedule SE (Form 1040), Self-Employment Tax, if: Your net earnings from self-employment (excluding church employee income) were $400 or more, or You had church employee income of $108.28 or more. (See Table 1-3.) Use Schedule SE (Form 1040) to figure your self-employment tax. Self-employment tax is comparable to the social security and Medicare tax withheld from an employee's wages. For more information about this tax, see Pub. 334, Tax Guide for Small Business. I'd also note that your predicted income is getting close to the level where you would need to pay Estimated Taxes, which for self-employed people work like the withholding taxes employers remove their employees paychecks and pay to the government. If you end up owing more than $1000 when you file your return you could be assessed penalties for not paying the Estimated Taxes. There is a grace period if you had to pay no taxes in the previous year (2016 in this case), that could let you escape those penalties.",
"As you have indicated, the 1042-S reflects no income or withholding. As such, you are not required to file a US tax return unless you have other income from the US. Gains on stocks are not reported until realized upon sale. FYI, your activity does not fit the requirements of being engaged in a trade or business activity. While the definition is documented in several places of the Code, I have attached Publication 519 which most accurately represents the application to your situation as you have described it. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p519/ch04.html#en_US_2016_publink1000222308",
"You will be liable to pay the tax For the 2017 year of assessment (1 March 2016 - 28 February 2017) if you earned less than R75 000 you will not have to pay any tax The annual budget speach is this week and the new tax rates will be released but most likely that R75 000 will increase to R78 000+- so if you earn less than that tax would not even be applicable on you, Should you earn in a tax year more than R75 000 then would be able to do your own tax return and payments via E-Filling on SARS's website : http://www.sarsefiling.co.za/ But if you earn less than R350 000 then you don't have to submit a tax return, but there is nothing that stops you from submitting one if you feel that you want to. You can use https://www.taxtim.com/za/ to help you with other questions you might have. You can potentially bring down your tax-able income by showing a loss in capital value of your equipment that you purchased that is now worth less than it was when you initially purchased it, but these are all things you should discuss with a tax practitioner, I am not entirely sure how you will show a loss in capital value as a sole-proprietor, that is what you will be since you are not a company.",
"If you are paid by foreigners then it is quite possible they don't file anything with the IRS. All of this income you are required to report as business income on schedule C. There are opportunities on schedule C to deduct expenses like your health insurance, travel, telephone calls, capital expenses like a new computer, etc... You will be charged both the employees and employers share of social security/medicare, around ~17% or so, and that will be added onto your 1040. You may still need a local business license to do the work locally, and may require a home business permit in some cities. In some places, cities subscribe to data services based on your IRS tax return.... and will find out a year or two later that someone is running an unlicensed business. This could result in a fine, or perhaps just a nice letter from the city attorneys office that it would be a good time to get the right licenses. Generally, tax treaties exist to avoid or limit double taxation. For instance, if you travel to Norway to give a report and are paid during this time, the treaty would explain whether that is taxable in Norway. You can usually get a credit for taxes paid to foreign countries against your US taxes, which helps avoid paying double taxes in the USA. If you were to go live in Norway for more than a year, the first $80,000/year or so is completely wiped off your US income. This does NOT apply if you live in the USA and are paid from Norway. If you have a bank account overseas with more than $10,000 of value in it at any time during the year, you owe the US Government a FinCEN Form 114 (FBAR). This is pretty important, there are some large fines for not doing it. It could occur if you needed an account to get paid in Norway and then send the money here... If the Norwegian company wires the money to you from their account or sends a check in US$, and you don't have a foreign bank account, then this would not apply.",
"It means you must pay federal (and possibly state) tax on any income you produce in America -- including Internet and mail-order sales. Tax treaties may keep you from having to pay tax on it again in your own country, or may not.",
"In Australia, any income you earn is taxable despite where it came from. Using your example your taxable income is $70,000. Keep in mind that with a business even as a sole trader any business expenses that contribute to the earning of your business income is deductible, reducing the final amount of tax you'll have to pay. The ATO website has lots of good information and examples to look at including tax rates. If your total income is pushing into a higher tax bracket over 30c tax per $1 earned, it may be worth looking at shifting your business to operate under a company structure that just has a fixed tax rate around 30c per $1. That said, for me, I don't want the paperwork overhead of a company yet so I'm running my side business as a sole trader too. I'd rather do that and keep it easy for now while my business gets profitable that waste time on admin structures for tax reasons even if in the shortterm it may mean slightly higher tax. In the end, you only pay tax on profit (income minus expenses) as opposed to raw/gross income. For more info there are good books in the bookshops or local library (to read free) on starting a business on the side while still working. They discuss these issues too.",
"It should be reported as Miscellaneous Income. Congratulations for wanting to report this income.",
"Any commercially distributed product needs to be taxed. Depending on country of residence and distribution, legislation varies widely, therefore the best place to ask would be your local small business counsel or even your local taxation office. Depending on the size of your business, you might need a license to sell them in the first place anyway and that comes with its own set of prerequisites.",
"\"Its not for US citizens - its for US residents. If the US considers you as a tax resident - you'll be treated the same as a US citizen, regardless of your immigration status. The question is very unclear, since it is not mentioned whether your US sourced income \"\"from the Internet\"\" is sales in the US, sales on-line, services you provide, investments, or what else. All these are treated differently. For some kinds of US-sourced income you should have paid taxes in the US already, regardless of where you physically reside. For others - not. In any case, if you become US tax resident, you'll be taxed on your worldwide income, not only the $10K deposited in the US bank account. ALL of your income, everywhere in the world, must be declared to the US government and will be taxed. You should seek professional advice, before you move to the US, in order to understand your responsibilities, liabilities and rights. I suggest looking for a EA/CPA licensed in California and experienced with taxation of foreigners (look for someone in the SF or LA metropolitan areas). Keep in mind that there may be a tax treaty between the US and your home country that may affect your Federal (but not California) taxes.\"",
"So, my question is what is the limit below which I don't have to pay taxes while trading. I just invested $10. Do I have to pay taxes for this too? what are the slabs? Any income is subject to tax. That said, investing $10 will probably not generate much of income, even at the discount brokers most of it will be wasted on commissions... I am also having an assistantship. So is holding two sources of income legitimate? Thanks You can have as many sources of income as you want. Working is what is restricted when you're on a student visa. As long as you don't open a business as a day trader or start working for someone trading stocks - you're fine.",
"As far as taxes are concerned, if your income is €10 to €20 a month, the Finanzamt doesn't even want to hear from you. To be on the safe side, give them a call and you will probably be told that there is a minimum amount, and if your revenue is below that you don't have to do anything. As far as VAT (MwSt) is concerned: You can only deduct it from VAT that you would have to pay to the government. If you are supposed to pay €100 VAT to the government, you can deduct up to €100 VAT paid to suppliers. If you don't pay VAT, you can't deduct it.",
"Canada doesn't tax non-residents on income earned/incurred outside of Canada. So, your sister should start with this page to determine the residency status. If she is indeed determined to be non-resident - she should look here to see her obligations. If all she earns she earns outside of Canada - her obligations will be very little, if at all. This is similar to almost any other country in the world, with the notable exception of the United States of America. US citizens are taxed regardless of their residency status, everywhere in the world on worldwide income (unless tax treaty says otherwise).",
"You would be required to report it as self-employment income and pay tax accordingly. It's up to you to keep proper records (like a receipt book, for example), especially when it comes to cash. If you can't prove exactly how much you earned and the government decides to guess the amount for you then you won't like the outcome!",
"If your net profit is $0, then no, you will not owe income tax as a result of providing this service. But there's a lot more to consider than just that... Before you begin you'll need to decide if this is a business or a hobby. Based on the fact that you don't intend to make a profit, you are probably going to be calling it a hobby for tax purposes. Regardless of whether it is a business or a hobby, since you will be accepting payments from people, you will need to report the income on your tax return. As both a business and a hobby you can deduct all of your expenses to bring your profit down to $0. (Assuming all the expenses are legitimate business/hobby expenses.) The main differences between business and hobby are: If you choose to run as a business you'll likely save quite a bit of money by avoiding the 2% rule, and also by being able to deduct any non-specific-customer expenses and take a loss. Be careful though that you don't go too many years with a business loss or the IRS may re-classify it as a hobby, which may include an audit. If you decide to run as a business you may need to charge a little more than just expenses to attempt to turn a profit, or at least break even.",
"Being a tax professional, my understanding is that the threshold limit is a single limit for all your source(s) of income. Now many people who already draw salary which is liable to tax, develop application for mobile and generate some income. Such income is liable to tax, if along with other income they exceed the threshold limit. Income will have surely related expenses. And the expenses which are related to earning of the income are allowed to be deducted.",
"\"What theyre fishing for is whether the money was earned in the U.S. It's essentially an interest shelter, and/or avoiding double taxation. They're saying if you keep income you make outside the US in a bank inside the US, the US thanks you for storing your foreign money here and doesn't tax the interest (but the nation where you earned that income might). There is no question that the AirBNB income is \"\"connected with a US trade or business\"\". So your next question is whether the fraction of interest earned from that income can be broken out, or whether IRS requires you to declare all the interest from that account. Honestly given the amount of tax at stake, it may not be worth your time researching. Now since you seem to be a resident nonresident alien, it seems apparent that whatever economic value you are creating to earn your salary, is being performed in the United States. If this is for an American company and wages paid in USD, no question, that's a US trade or business. But what if it's for a Swedish company running on Swedish servers, serving Swedes and paid in Kroner to a Swedish bank which you then transfer to your US bank? Does it matter if your boots are on sovereign US soil? This is a complex question, and some countries (UK) say \"\"if your boots are in our nation, it is trade/income in our nation\"\"... Others (CA) do not. This is probably a separate question to search or ask. To be clear, the fact that your days as a teacher or trainee do not count toward residency, is a separate question from whether your salary as same counts as US income.\"",
"\"You can report it as \"\"hobby\"\" income, and then you won't be paying self-employment taxes. You can also deduct the blog-related expenses from that income (subject to the 2% limit though). See this IRS pub on the \"\"hobby\"\" income.\"",
"\"Most states that have income tax base their taxes on the income reported on your federal return, with some state-specific adjustments. So answering your last question first: Yes, if it matters for federal, it will matter for state (in most cases). For estimating the tax liability, I would not use the effective rate but rather use the rate for your highest tax bracket and apply that to your estimated hobby income, assuming that you primary job income won't be wildly higher or lower than last year. As @keshlam noted in a comment, this income is coming on top of whatever else you earn, so it will be taxed at your top rate. Finally, I'd check again whether this is really \"\"hobby\"\" income or if it is \"\"self-employment\"\" income. Self-employment income will be subject to self-employment tax, which comes on top of the regular income tax.\"",
"Yes, You will have to pay the taxes at least initially but you'll most probably get a refund when you will file returns depending upon the amount and tax brackets in the UK.",
"How would I go about doing this? Are there any tax laws I should be worried about? Just report it as a regular sale of asset on your form 8949 (or form 4797 if used for trade/business/rental). It will flow to your Schedule D for capital gains tax. Use form 1116 to calculate the foreign tax credit for the taxes on the gains you'd pay in India (if any).",
"Yes, you do. Since you've been a green card holder since the beginning of the year - your whole worldwide income for the whole year is taxable in the US. You can take credit for the taxes paid in the UK (use form 1116) to reduce your US tax liability.",
"First of all, consult an accountant who is familiar with tax laws and online businesses. While most accountants know tax laws, fewer know how to handle online income like you describe although the number is growing. Right now, since you're a minor, this complicates things a bit. That's why you'll need a tax accountant to come up with the best business structure to use. You'll need to keep your own records to estimate your quarterly taxes. At the amount you're making, you'll want to do this since you'll pay a substantial penalty at the end of the year if you don't. You can use a small business accounting software package for this or just track everything using Excel or the like. As long as taxes are paid, you won't go to jail. But you need to pay them along with any penalties by April 15, 2013. If you don't do this, then the IRS will want to have a 'discussion' with you.",
"HMRC may or may not find out about it; the risks and penalties involved if they do find out make it unwise not to just declare it and pay the tax on it. Based on the fact you asked the question, I am assuming that you currently pay all your tax through PAYE and don't do a tax return. You would need to register for Self Assessment and complete a return; this is not at all difficult if your tax situation is straightforward, which it sounds like yours is. Then you would owe the tax on the additional money, at whatever applicable rate (which depends on how much you earn in your main job, the rate tables are here: https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates/current-rates-and-allowances ). If it truly is a one off you could simply declare it on your return as other income, but if it is more than that then you would need to look at setting up as Self Employed - there is some good advice on the differences here: http://www.brighton-accountants.com/blog/tax-self-employment-still-employed/ : Broadly, you are likely to be running a business if you have a regular, organised activity with a profit motive, which continues for at least a few months. If the work is one-off, or very occasional (say, a few times per year), or not very organised, or of very low value (say, under £2,000 per year), then it might qualify as casual income. If you think it is beyond the definition of casual income then you would also need to pay National Insurance, as described in the previous link, but otherwise the tax treatment would be the same.",
"\"From the poster's description of this activity, it doesn't look like he is engaged in a business, so Schedule C would not be appropriate. The first paragraph of the IRS Instructions for Schedule C is as follows: Use Schedule C (Form 1040) to report income or loss from a business you operated or a profession you practiced as a sole proprietor. An activity qualifies as a business if your primary purpose for engaging in the activity is for income or profit and you are involved in the activity with continuity and regularity. For example, a sporadic activity or a hobby does not qualify as a business. To report income from a nonbusiness activity, see the instructions for Form 1040, line 21, or Form 1040NR, line 21. What the poster is doing is acting as a nominee or agent for his members. For instance, if I give you $3.00 and ask you to go into Starbucks and buy me a pumpkin-spice latte, you do not have income or receipts of $3.00, and you are not engaged in a business. The amounts that the poster's members are forwarding him are like this. Money that the poster receives for his trouble should be reported as nonbusiness income on Line 21 of Form 1040, in accordance with the instructions quoted above and the instructions for Form 1040. Finally, it should be noted that the poster cannot take deductions or losses relating to this activity. So he can't deduct any expenses of organizing the group buy on his tax return. Of course, this would not be the case if the group buy really is the poster's business and not just a \"\"hobby.\"\" Of course, it goes without saying that the poster should document all of this activity with receipts, contemporaneous emails (and if available, contracts) - as well as anything else that could possibly be relevant to proving the nature of this activity in the event of an audit.\"",
"Do I pay tax to the US and then also pay it in India for my income, or does my American partner, who holds 15% of the monthly income, pay tax in the US for his income? Of course you do, what kind of question is this? You have income earned in the US by a US entity, and the entity is taxed. Since LLC is a disregarded entity - the tax shifts to you personally. You should file form 1040NR. You should also talk to a tax professional who's proficient in the Indo-US tax treaty, since it may affect your situation.",
"You won't be paying any taxes for income generated in the US as long as you are not-resident in India. You pay US taxes. You can file a null return in India just in case (all zeroes). If you have any income in India - bank deposits in your name, house rental income and so on - that needs to be declared and tax needs to be paid in India.",
"\"This is what this sounds like to me: https://www.thebalance.com/having-a-garage-sale-or-yard-sale-what-to-do-first-399030 also: http://blogs.hrblock.com/2012/07/25/garage-sale-money-does-the-irs-need-to-know/ Selling a personal item at a loss is generally not a taxable event. You cannot report it as a loss, and the IRS can't tax a transaction like that. If you really want to include these as sales as part of your LLC, you'll probably have to pay tax if you list it as income. I'm just confused as to why you'd want to do that, if you know that you're selling these particular items at a loss, and you also know that you have no documentation for them. I just wouldn't report anything you sold at a loss and treat it as \"\"garage sale items\"\" separate from your business.\"",
"You're not physically present in the US, you're not a US citizen, you're not a green card holder, and you don't have a business that is registered in the US - US laws do not apply to you. You're not in any way under the US jurisdiction. Effectively connected income is income effectively connected to your business in the US. You're not in the US, so there's nothing to effectively connect your income to. Quote from the link: You usually are considered to be engaged in a U.S. trade or business when you perform personal services in the United States. You ask: If I form an LLC or C corp am I liable for this withholding tax? If you form a legal entity in a US jurisdiction - then that entity becomes subjected to that jurisdiction. If you're physically present in the US - then ECI may become an issue, and you also may become a resident based on the length of your stay.",
"Most US states have rules that go something like this: You will almost certainly have to pay some registration fees, as noted above. Depending on how you organize, you may or may not need to file a separate tax return for the business. (If you're sole proprietor for tax purposes, then you file on Schedule C on your personal Form 1040.) Whether or not you pay taxes depends on whether you have net income. It's possible that some losses might also be deductible. (Note that you may have to file a return even if you don't have net income - Filing and needing to pay are not the same since your return may indicate no tax due.) In addition, at the state level, you may have to pay additional fees or taxes beyond income tax depending on what you sell and how you sell it. (Sales tax, for example, might come into play as might franchise taxes.) You'll need to check your own state law for that. As always, it could be wise to get professional tax and accounting advice that's tailored to your situation and your state. This is just an outline of some things that you'll need to consider.",
"\"Do I need to pay taxes in India in this scenario? For India tax purposes, you would still qualify as \"\"Resident Indian\"\". As a resident Indian you have to pay taxes on Global income. It is not relevant whether you transfer the money back to India to keep in US. The income is generated and taxable. Depending on your contract, presumably you are working as a free lance; certain expenses are allowed to be deducted from your income, for example if you purchase equipment to help carry out the work, stay / entertainment costs, etc. Consult a professional CA who should be able to guide you on what is eligible and what is not. The balance along with your other income will be taxed as per tax brackets. There is exemption for certain category of workers, mostly in entertainment industry where such income is not taxable. This does not apply to your case.\"",
"There is a moral and legal obligation to file the earnings. Not doing so is tax fraud. You should keep a ledger or some record of your earnings, helpful guidelines here. Records are required by the CRA: According to the law, your responsibilities include: (source) You could get in trouble if one of your pupils report the expense at their tax filing, and the CRA finds no matching statement on your filing report. Tutoring are eligible for tax credit in case of disability: Tutoring services that are supplementary to the primary education of a person with a learning disability or an impairment in mental functions, and paid to a person in the business of providing these services to individuals who are not related to the person. A medical practitioner must certify in writing that these services are necessary. So if one of your pupils fall under that provision, you will get tax trouble sooner or later. Bottom line: start making records now, and report your earnings. Collect your tax as any lawful citizen is required to.",
"According to the government website, the answer appears to be no in terms of personal income. However you may want to anyway to start creating RRSP contribution room as well as possibly qualify for GST/HST credit. If your business is registered you are going to be required to file a tax return for it (and if it is a sole proprietorship then you would be required to file a T1 regardless). When all is said and done, it seems that it's probably better to file rather than not file; even if you pay no income tax at least you are sure you won't receive a nasty letter from Revenue Canada in the future :)",
"\"That's a tricky question and you should consult a tax professional that specializes on taxation of non-resident aliens and foreign expats. You should also consider the provisions of the tax treaty, if your country has one with the US. I would suggest you not to seek a \"\"free advice\"\" on internet forums, as the costs of making a mistake may be hefty. Generally, sales of stocks is not considered trade or business effectively connected to the US if that's your only activity. However, being this ESPP stock may make it connected to providing personal services, which makes it effectively connected. I'm assuming that since you're filing 1040NR, taxes were withheld by the broker, which means the broker considered this effectively connected income.\"",
"Of course you're reportable to the IRS. Your income is someone's expense, they'll report it if required. What you're probably asking is whether you need to pay any taxes in the US. If you're neither US citizen nor a green card holder, and you don't step foot to the US - you will probably not need to pay taxes there.",
"(do I need to get a W9 from our suppliers)? Will PayPal or Shopify send me a 1099k or something? Do not assume that you'll get paperwork from anyone. Do assume that you have to generate your own paperwork. Ideally you should print out some kind of record of each transaction. Note that it can be hard to view older transactions in PayPal, so start now. If you can't document something, write up a piece of paper showing the state of the world to the best of your knowledge. Do assume that you need separate receipts for each expenditure. The PayPal receipt might be enough (but print it in case the IRS wants to see it). A receipt from the vendor would be better (again, print it if it is online now). A CPA is not strictly necessary. A CPA is certified (the C in CPA) to formally audit the books of a corporation. In your case, any accountant would be legally sufficient. You still may want to use a CPA, as the certification, while technically unnecessary, still demonstrates knowledge. You may otherwise not be in a position to evaluate an accountant. A compromise option is to go to a firm that includes a CPA and then let them assign you to someone else to process the actual taxes. You are going to have to fill out some business tax forms. In particular, I would expect a schedule C. That's where you would show revenues and expenses. You may well have to file other forms as well.",
"First - get a professional tax consultation with a NY-licensed CPA or EA. At what point do I need to worry about collecting sales taxes for the city and state of New York? Generally, from the beginning. See here for more information on NYS sales tax. At what point do I need to worry about record-keeping to report the income on my own taxes? From the beginning. Even before that, since you need the records to calculate the costs of production and expenses. I suggest starting recording everything, as soon as possible. What sort of business structures should I research if I want to formalize this as less of a hobby and more of a business? You don't have to have a business structure, you can do it as a sole proprietor. If you're doing it for-profit - I suggest treating it as a business, and reporting it on your taxes as a business (Schedule C), so that you could deduct the initial losses. But the tax authorities don't like business that keep losing money, so if you're not expecting any profit in the next 3-4 years - keep it reported as a hobby (Misc income). Talk to a licensed tax professional about the differences in tax treatment and reporting. You will still be taxed on your income, and will still be liable for sales tax, whether you treat it as a hobby or as a business. Official business (for-profit activity) will require additional licenses and fees, hobby (not-for-profit activity) might not. Check with the local authorities (city/county/State).",
"You need to set your status as self-employed the day you started online work. If that date is a little ambiguous (as is usually the case with online business), you can start with the day you first made any money. Yes, you can deduct expenses from your revenue. But you have to be sure that the expenses were purely business related. This is how it goes: You inform HMRC about the day you started work. HMRC will assign you a UTR (Unique Tax Reference) number. Depending on how much you make you might or might not need to pay Class 2 NI contributions. You'll need to tell HMRC how much you expect to earn in the current tax year. Finally, you'll need to complete a Self-Assessment at the end of the tax year. I highly recommend setting up a business banking account. Here is a link that discusses being part-time self-employed in the UK."
] |
[
"\"If you have income - it should appear on your tax return. If you are a non-resident, that would be 1040NR, with the eBay income appearing on line 21. Since this is unrelated to your studies, this income will not be covered by the tax treaties for most countries, and you'll pay full taxes on it. Keep in mind that the IRS may decide that you're actually having a business, in which case you'll be required to attach Schedule C to your tax return and maybe pay additional taxes (mainly self-employment). Also, the USCIS may decide that you're actually having a business, regardless of how the IRS sees it, in which case you may have issues with your green card. For low income from occasional sales, you shouldn't have any issues. But if it is something systematic that you spend significant time on and earn significant amounts of money - you may get into trouble. What's \"\"systematic\"\" and how much is \"\"significant\"\" is up to a lawyer to tell you.\""
] |
6612
|
If I have a lot of debt and the housing market is rising, should I rent and slowly pay off my debt or buy and roll the debt into a mortgage?
|
[
"254454",
"205522",
"322900"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"301192",
"254454",
"290584",
"540811",
"290900",
"245810",
"205522",
"502594",
"365715",
"84931",
"198442",
"299536",
"433171",
"85745",
"300554",
"151482",
"343917",
"302951",
"91504",
"286466",
"445887",
"60981",
"148299",
"321877",
"516578",
"150893",
"352178",
"187724",
"29271",
"32177",
"443852",
"164059",
"470388",
"127601",
"68640",
"343674",
"431811",
"130734",
"344740",
"317945",
"426215",
"42749",
"473865",
"62694",
"92038",
"393002",
"167943",
"14083",
"108486",
"289594",
"148259",
"115408",
"438073",
"389916",
"285525",
"562934",
"284818",
"100683",
"475192",
"120156",
"69641",
"475629",
"266649",
"513499",
"556072",
"498236",
"116755",
"74497",
"180192",
"28060",
"514550",
"491923",
"47230",
"252737",
"101363",
"34893",
"574585",
"565514",
"514279",
"527810",
"216384",
"293083",
"248013",
"81950",
"192540",
"446646",
"417964",
"459705",
"361126",
"278801",
"322804",
"520430",
"123971",
"451849",
"412365",
"483285",
"439459",
"158838",
"560710",
"156301"
] |
[
"My opinion is to hold off. I don't see housing market rising anytime soon, possibly even going lower, so you don't have to worry about getting in before it rises. Pay off the credit card debt, maybe even earlier if possible, then that flexibility will be there, the divorce proceedings may have an end in sight, and therefore you'll know more about any outcomes from that. The economy is still shaky, the flexibility of renting may come in real handy.",
"\"The only way to \"\"roll\"\" debt into a home purchase is to have sufficient down payment. Under the \"\"new\"\" lending rules that took effect in Canada earlier this year, you must have at least 5% of the purchase price as a down payment. If you have $60,000 in additional debt, the total amount of mortgage still cannot be greater than 95% of the purchase price. Below is an example. Purchase price of home $200,000. Maximum mortgage $190,000 (95% of purchase price) Total outside debt $60,000 That means the mortgage (other than the current debt of $60k) can only be $130,000 This means you would need a down payment of $70,000. Also keep in mind that I have not included any other legal fees, real estate commissions, etc in this example. Since it is safe to assume that you do not have $70k available for a down payment, renting and paying down the debt is likely the better route. Pay off the credit card(s) first as they have the higher interest amount. Best of luck!\"",
"There may be specific answers that can be determined based on the interest rates, amounts, tax provisions, etc. But I'm here to tell you... It is much easier (i.e., less stressful) to own a home when you have less debt. Pay off any and every debt you can before purchasing a home because there will always be something requiring you to spend money once you own one.",
"\"Forget, for the moment, which will pay off most over the long term. Consider risk exposure. You've said that you (hypothetically) have \"\"little or no money\"\": that's the deal-breaker. From a risk-management perspective, your investment portfolio would be better off diversified than with 90% of your assets in a house. Consider also the nature of the risk which owning a house exposes you to: Housing prices are generally tied to the state of the economy. If the local economy crashes, not only could you lose your job, but you could lose a good part of the value of your house... and still owe a lot on your loan. (You also might not be able to move as easily if you found a new job somewhere else.) You should almost certainly rent until you're more financially stable and could afford to pay the new mortgage for a year (or more) if you suddenly lost your job. Then you can worry more about maximizing your investments' rate of return.\"",
"It is a lot easier to make money when you are not in debt. If you can sell the apartment, get rid of your existing mortgage and buy the new house outright, that is probably the best course of action.",
"Because it appears you have in the neighborhood of 30 years remianing on your mortgage for the first house, If you can sell it you will likely be better off in the end. While renting has the potential for greater income it is a business. And like any business there are risks, expenses, and work required to make it successful. There will be times where you can not find a renter immediately and will be responsible for making both payments, maintaining both houses, the insurance(which for an owner is higher for a rental property than a domicile), and paying the applicable taxes. You need to look at your best and worst case numbers. If your best case numbers leave you in the hole 300/month then that is not the sort of business you want to run. Your investment should build your savings and retirement funds not deplete them. Further you are more likely to fall between your best and worst case scenerios. So you need to be able to thrive at that level. If something in the middle is going to take you into bankruptcy then sell the property. If you are not willing to put the time into your business that it will need (My rental home took about 10-30 hours a month despite renters being responsible for basic upkeep and maintenance. Finally your plan B: A home with 800k value will have higher costs and higer expenses and maintenance. If the 800k home is the home you and your family needs then by all means go for it. But if it can do just as well in the 450k Home then go there. Pay the home off early by making the payments you would be making for the 800k home. In this way you pay less in total cost of the home and set your self up for the greatest chance of success. Once that home is paid off the break even point for renting goes way down as well. So the rental option could be in the future. I would just aviod it now if possible.",
"What you propose is to convert unsecured debt into secured debt. Conversion of unsecured debt into secured debt is not generally a good idea (several reasons). The debt you currently owe does not have assets securing the debt, so the creditor knows they are exposed to risk, and may be more willing to negotiate or relax terms on the debt, should you encounter problems. When you provide an asset to secure debt, you lose freedom to sell that asset. When you incur debt their is usually a spending problem that needs to be corrected, which is typically not fixed when a refinance solution is used. You do not mention interest rate, which would be one benefit to conversion of unsecured to secured debt, so you probably are not gaining adequate benefit from the conversion strategy. This strategy is often contemplated using 'cash-out' refinancing to borrow against a home you already own, and the (claimed) benefit is often to lower the interest rate on the debt. Your scenario is more complicated in that you have not purchased the home (yet). Though it may be a good idea to purchase a home, that choice depends on a different set of considerations (children, job stability, rental vs. buy costs, lifestyle, expected appreciation, etc) from how to best handle a large debt (income vs. expenses, how to increase income or reduce expenses, lifestyle, priorities, etc). Another consideration is that you already have a problem with the large debt owed to one (set of) creditor(s), and you have a plan which would shift the risk/exposure to another (set of) creditor(s) who may have been less complicit in accruing the original debt. Was the debt incurred jointly during the marriage, and something you accepted responsibility to repay? You mention that you make great income, and you specify one expense (rent), but you neither provided the amount of income, total of all your expenses, nor your free cash flow amount, nor any indication of percentages spent on rent, essential expenses, lifestyle, nor amount available to retire debt. Since you did not provide specifics, we can take a look at three scenarios, scenario #1, $4000/month income scenario #1, $6000/month income scenario #1, $8000/month income Depending upon your income and choices, you might have < $500/month to pay towards debt, or as much as $3000/month to pay towards debt, and depending upon interest rate (which OP did not provide), this debt could take < 2 years to pay or > 5 years to pay. Have you accepted the responsibility for the debt? It will be a tough task to repay the debt. And you will learn that debt comes with a cost as you repay it. One problem people often encounter when they refinance debt is they have not changed the habits which produced the debt. So they often continue their spending habits and incur new unsecured debt, landing them back in the same problem position, but with the increased secured debt combined with additional new unsecured debt. Challenge yourself to repay a specific portion of the debt in a specific time, and consider ways to reduce your expenses (and/or increase your income) to provide more money to repay the debt quicker. As you also did not disclose your assets, it is hard to know whether you could repay a portion of the debt from assets you already own. It makes sense to sell assets that have a low (or zero) return to repay debt that has a high interest rate. Perhaps you have substantial assets that you are reluctant to sell, but that you could sell to repay a large part of the debt?",
"One extremely important aspect that must be taken into consideration is the state of the housing market. If prices are rising it will probably be a false economy to delay your house purchase. Say you pay off a £5,000 student loan, thus delaying your house purchase another year you could well end up forking out an extra £10,000 on the mortgage due to the rise in house prices. Of course, if the housing market is falling then, without a doubt, pay off the student debt.",
"If it is US, you need to take tax implications into account. Profit taken from sale of your home is taxable. One approach would be to take the tax hit, pay down the student loans, rent, and focus any extra that you can on paying off the student loans quickly. The tax is on realized gains when you sell the property. I think that any equity under the original purchase price is taxed at a lower rate (or zero). Consult a tax pro in your area. Do not blindly assume buying is better than renting. Run the numbers. Rent Vs buy is not a question with a single answer. It depends greatly on the real estate market where you are, and to a lesser extent on your personal situation. Be sure to include maintenance and HOA fees, if any, on the ownership side. Breakeven time on a new roof or a new HVAC unit or an HOA assessment can be years, tipping the scales towards renting. Include the opportunity cost by including the rate of return on the 100k on the renting side (or subtracting it on the ownership side). Be sure to include the tax implications on the ownership side, especially taxes on any profits from the sale. If the numbers say ownership in your area is better, then try for as small of a mortgage as you can get in a growing area. Assuming that the numbers add up to buying: buy small and live frugally, focus on increasing discretionary spending, and using it to pay down debt and then build wealth. If they add up to renting, same thing but rent small.",
"\"Let's look at basics. Your 340K mortgage amortized over 25 years at 3.5% is going to cost you $1700 in payments - almost exactly your rent. You won't be paying out less. You will in fact be paying out more, because you are now liable for more insurance, and any repairs will have to be paid for by you, not the landlord. So don't do this to save money. Figures from here. Don't forget that it is extremely likely that interest rates will go up in the next few years. 7% is not unlikely. Can you afford it if your payments double? You can get a fixed rate mortgage, but they are going to cost you much more than 3.5% for more than a couple of years. Don't be fooled by the 'pay yourself' argument for getting a mortgage. in the first few years almost all of your payments is interest, not paying down the principal. You are just switching from paying a landlord to paying a bank. There are huge advantages to waiting until you have a good down payment before buying a house. People with a big down payment get better interest rates, and don't need to pay as much CMHC insurance. You will be less at risk if the price of your house drops. Also ask yourself if you are sure you will be in your house for five years - if not, even real estate agents would usually admit you shouldn't buy. The truck payment shouldn't be an issue, as long as you are sure you can service both truck and mortgage payments. Nor is $600 in credit card debt significant in the big scheme. I would probably put any spare cash towards a down payment. It reduces your interest rate (possibly), some expenses with regard to your mortgage, and your risk if you have to sell and your house value has dropped. You might like to look at the government of Canada website \"\"Rent or buy\"\". It's down right now so I can't give you a link. I'll edit it in when it's back up. EDIT:Turns out it's offline for 'updating'. Here's the link.\"",
"\"The best answer for you is going to depend completely on your financial goals. Do you want to be debt free? Are you comfortable with the risks of long-distance rentals? Do you have good resources to take care of any issues where the properties are at? You can't directly compare the returns of risky investments versus the risk-free \"\"return\"\" of paying off debt. The expected return of the property might be higher that the interest on the loan, but when you incorporate risk, there's a decent chance that you'll make less money on the property than you pay on the loan. Other things to consider: Another way to think about it is: If you did not have the debt or the houses, Would you borrow money at 4% (or whatever your student loan is at) to buy a rent house in Arizona?\"",
"I can probably rent the house out for about $1,600. If sell now I can get 180k at the most. My mortgage will be $1,800 with tax and insurance. If I use the 180k to pay off the house, I can refinance the loan for a lower interest rate too. I think I know what I want to do but just need a second opinion. Thanks btw",
"You're halfway done with the debt elimination. Keep up the good work. The student loan debt will get in your way a couple of ways when you look to finance a house. First, your debt to income ratio will be higher than without the debt, so you'll be able to qualify for a smaller loan with the debt than without. Second, you'll have the student loan payments in addition to your mortgage. This may wear on you. I'd look for ways to make extra money to knock out those student loan debts ASAP. The rates aren't horrible. That, and I think there is still some time before the housing market bottoms out, so you don't need to rush into the house. If you can handle the entire debt load (student loans + mortgage) then if you save up for the down payment, that money isn't being used to pay down your student loans, and paying your students loans off won't get any easier when you get a mortgage on top of that.",
"There are two components to any non-trivial financial decision: Assuming that all things remain equal, borrowing money at a low rate while investing for a higher return is a no-brainer. The problem is, all things do not remain equal. For example: I think that you need to assess your position and preferences. I'd err on the side of being in less debt.",
"Personally I would hold off on buying a house until you have the credit card paid down even more or paid off completely so that it is one less bill you have to worry about and once it is paid off you free up that much more money to maintain the home. Likewise, you also have a lot of variables right now and the resolution of those variables will affect how much you can afford in the way of a home. The less surprises the better. As I'm sure you know, being a home owner can be quite expensive and if something ends to be repaired then you have to pay for it out of your own pocket, at least when you are renting that falls onto someone else. Likewise, unless you are confident that the market has bottomed out by you, you might find that you are underwater on the mortgage once everything is said and done. If you want to start making process towards buying a home though, you could check to see if any of the local banks or credit unions have some sort of savings program where you get higher interest rates in exchange for designating the savings for the down payment on a mortgage. Likewise, you could just find a high yield savings account and start making automatic transfers into it every month.",
"the total principal is also dropping - you mean you're paying it down, right? All else the same, if you found a house whose payments are less than rent, and planned to stay long term, buying can make sense. But let's not forget the other costs and risks. How badly do you want to be a homeowner? Adding image from another post here: This shows that housing prices have fallen below the long term trend line and equilibrium level.",
"The main point to consider is that your payments toward your own home replace your rent. Any house or apartment you buy will have changes in value; the value is generally going slowly up, but there is a lot of noise, and you may be in a low phase at any time, and for a long time. So seeing it as an investment is not any better than buying share or funds, and it has a much worse liquidity (= you cannot as easily make it to cash when you want to), and not in parts either. However, if you buy for example a one-room apartment for 80000 with a 2% mortgage, and pay 2% interest = 1600 plus 1% principal = 800, for a total of 2400 per year = 200 per month, you are paying less than your current rent, plus you own it after 30 years. Even if it would be worth nothing after 30 years, you made a lot of money by paying half only every month, and it probably is not worthless. You need to be careful not to compare apples with oranges - if you buy a house for 200000 instead, your payments would be higher than your rent was, but you would be living in your house, not in a room. For most people, that is worth a lot. You need to put your own value to that; if you don't care to have a lot more space and freedom, the extra value is zero; if you like it, put a price to it. With current interest rates, it is probably a good idea for most people to buy a house that they can easily afford instead of paying rent. The usual rules should be considered - don't overstretch yourself, leave some security, etc. Generally, it is rather difficult to buy an affordable house instead of renting today and not saving a lot of money in the process, so I would say go for it.",
"Gonna have to think about this one yourself. How much is the old house worth if you sell it? How much can you rent it out for? If you can sell it for a decent amount, you might be able to pay off the current house completely, save yourself nearly 200k in interest, and maybe end up with a bit more cash. If you can rent it for a high amount, it might be worth doing that and you could possibly use that and get more money than what the interest is. Just gotta weigh up your options, find out what you can get for the house if you rent or sell.",
"You are weighting a certain cost of the mortgage interest versus the possible gain of the value of the house. Take the interest you pay per month and divide it by the current value of the house. Say your interest is 3% of the value of the house (may be more or less depending on the balance owed and the interest rate of your mortgage). Say the average appreciation in your area is also 3%. But that means that there's only a 50% chance that the actual appreciation will be more than that (assuming the odds are equal either way), and there's a 50% change that you'll be worse off. Generally, trading a risk-free loss for a risky gain of equal size is not a good investment; you generally can find better average returns on risky investments, so your best bet is to sell now and pay of the mortgage.",
"Gosh don't do either! Unless you are fully funding you ROTH accounts and even then I wouldn't do it. Those interest rates are free money. You are giving away the best bargain in the history of home mortgages. Don't you think you can make more than 4% on your money invested? Don't you think in 5 years you will be able to make 4% on bond/cd's/ and other low risk investments? Don't forget money you pay in the 2020's on beyond to your mortgage are inflationary dollars. Do you think that money will be more valuable in the 20's and beyond? I don't. Roths are free money too. Think if you put 11k in there a year how much would you have at the end of it tax free. There is a reason you can only put $5,500 in them, they are too good a deal tax wise to let people put too much in there. Think about this my parents bought their home in 1967 their mortgage was $170 a month. Inflation hits and the interest they are paying at 8%! mind you, it was still a laughable amount of money each month for mortgage payment from 1977 and on. Also I bought a $450,000 house 38 months ago. Instead of putting down 180 I put down 80 I let the other 100k in my investment account and moved 5.5k over to Roth every year. I now have a roth worth $38k and an investment account worth $105k. I made 40k on my money those three years and the 38k is tax free! If you don't believe me call the help line at clarkhoward.com Get over the emotional need to be debt free and make a logical finical choice. I am begging you to think about this. This post could save you tens of thousands of dollars. Let me put it one more way. 100k in debt with 100k in investments is debt free living. Especially when you debt is under 4% and a tax write off.",
"\"I'm a little confused on the use of the property today. Is this place going to be a personal residence for you for now and become a rental later (after the mortgage is paid off)? It does make a difference. If you can buy the house and a 100% LTV loan would cost less than 125% of comparable rent ... then buy the house, put as little of your own cash into it as possible and stretch the terms as long as possible. Scott W is correct on a number of counts. The \"\"cost\"\" of the mortgage is the after tax cost of the payments and when that money is put to work in a well-managed portfolio, it should do better over the long haul. Don't try for big gains because doing so adds to the risk that you'll end up worse off. If you borrow money at an after-tax cost of 4% and make 6% after taxes ... you end up ahead and build wealth. A vast majority of the wealthiest people use this arbitrage to continue to build wealth. They have plenty of money to pay off mortgages, but choose not to. $200,000 at 2% is an extra $4000 per year. Compounded at a 7% rate ... it adds up to $180k after 20 years ... not exactly chump change. Money in an investment account is accessible when you need it. Money in home equity is not, has a zero rate of return (before inflation) and is not accessible except through another loan at the bank's whim. If you lose your job and your home is close to paid off but isn't yet, you could have a serious liquidity issue. NOW ... if a 100% mortgage would cost MORE than 125% of comparable rent, then there should be no deal. You are looking at a crappy investment. It is cheaper and better just to rent. I don't care if prices are going up right now. Prices move around. Just because Canada hasn't seen the value drops like in the US so far doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. If comparable rents don't validate the price with a good margin for profit for an investor, then prices are frothy and cannot be trusted and you should lower your monthly costs by renting rather than buying. That $350 per month you could save in \"\"rent\"\" adds up just as much as the $4000 per year in arbitrage. For rentals, you should only pull the trigger when you can do the purchase without leverage and STILL get a 10% CAP rate or higher (rate of return after taxes, insurance and other fixed costs). That way if the rental rates drop (and again that is quite possible), you would lose some of your profit but not all of it. If you leverage the property, there is a high probability that you could wind up losing money as rents fall and you have to cover the mortgage out of nonexistent cash flow. I know somebody is going to say, \"\"But John, 10% CAP on rental real estate? That's just not possible around here.\"\" That may be the case. It IS possible somewhere. I have clients buying property in Arizona, New Mexico, Alberta, Michigan and even California who are finding 10% CAP rate properties. They do exist. They just aren't everywhere. If you want to add leverage to the rental picture to improve the return, then do so understanding the risks. He who lives by the leverage sword, dies by the leverage sword. Down here in the US, the real estate market is littered with corpses of people who thought they could handle that leverage sword. It is a gory, ugly mess.\"",
"So if I understand your plan right, this will be your situation after the house is bought: Total Debt: 645,000 Here's what I would do: Wait until your house sells before buying a new one. That way you can take the equity from that sale and apply it towards the down payment rather than taking a loan on your retirement account. If something happens and your house doesn't sell for as mush as you think it will, you'll lose out on the gains from the amount you borrow, which will more than offset the interest you are paying yourself. AT WORST, pay off the 401(k) loan the instant your sale closes. Take as much of the remaining equity as you can and start paying down student loans. There are several reasons why they are a higher priority than a mortgage - some are mathematical, some are not. Should I look to pay off student loans sooner (even if I refi at a lower rate of 3.5% or so), or the mortgage earlier ... My thoughts are that the student loans follow me for life, but I can always sell and buy another home So you want this baggage for the rest of your life? How liberating will it be when you get that off your back? How much investing are you missing out on because of student loan payments? What happens if you get lose your license? What if you become disabled? Student loans are not bankruptable, but you can always sell the asset behind a mortgage or car loan. They are worse than credit card debt in that sense. You have no tangible asset behind it and no option for forgiveness (unless you decide to practice in a high-need area, but I don't get the sense that that's your path). The difference in interest is generally only a few payment' worth over 15 years. Is the interest amortized the same as a 15 year if I pay a 30 year mortgage in 15 years? Yes, however the temptation to just pay it off over 30 years is still there. How often will you decide that a bigger car payment, or a vacation, or something else is more important? With a 15-year note you lock in a plan and stick to it. Some other options:",
"\"So here are some of the risks of renting a property: Plus the \"\"normal\"\" risk of losing your job, health, etc., but those are going to be bad whether you had the rental or not, so those aren't really a factor. Can you beat the average gain of the S&P 500 over 10 years? Probably, but there's significant risk that something bad will happen that could cause the whole thing to come crashing down. How many months can you go without the rental income before you can't pay all three mortgages? Is that a risk you're willing to take for $5,000 per year or less? If the second home was paid for with cash, AND you could pay the first mortgage with your income, then you'd be in a much better situation to have a rental property. The fact that the property is significantly leveraged means that any unfortunate event could put you in a serious financial bind, and makes me say that you should sell the rental, get your first mortgage paid down as soon as possible, and start saving cash to buy rental property if that's what you want to invest in. I think we could go at least 24 months with no rental income Well that means that you have about $36k in an emergency fund, which makes me a little more comfortable with a rental, but that's still a LOT of debt spread across two houses. Another way to think about it: If you just had your main house with a $600k mortgage (and no HELOC), would you take out a $76k HELOC and buy the second house with a $200k mortgage?\"",
"Having someone else paying you rent is always going to be the better deal financially. The question is, what does $450k buy in the neighborhood in which you want to live, vs $800k? I'm going to assume you can afford either option (buying a $450k home and not selling, or an $800k home and selling your current one) whether someone's paying you rent or not. Let's make up some numbers here; a $450k home, financed 80/20 (360k principal) at 4% for 30 years will cost you about $1720 in P&I payments per year (plus escrows such as RE taxes, PMI, and homeowners insurance where applicable). An $800k home financed 80/20 (640k principal) at 4% for 30yr will give you payments of about $3,055/mo before taxes and insurance. So, the worst case overall is that you buy a 450k home in the new neighborhood and are not, at any given time, collecting rent on the old property. That would (assuming the mortgage terms on both home loans were comparable) cost you $3440/mo and you'd be living in a $450k home in a neighborhood where 450k may not buy a home as nice as the one you moved out of. The question as I stated above is this; assuming you had a reliable tenant in your home for the entire remaining life of the loan on your current home, which is more acceptable to you: buying $450k of home (which might be a downgrade in sqft or amenities) and paying $2020 in P&I, or paying about a grand more ($3055/mo) for a much nicer home in the new location? Strictly from a money perspective, the renter is going to be the best option, IF you get reliable tenancy for the entire life of the mortgage on that house; you'll be paying $2020/mo for 30 years, which is $727,200, to end up with $950k of total home value (plus adjustments for actual home value appreciation/depreciation). That's the only way you'll come out ahead on any mortgage; have someone else pay most of it for you. If you don't rent, the $800k home will cost you $1,099,800, while two $450k homes will cost you $1,454,400. The percentage of home value over total payments for the 800k home would be 72% (you will have paid 137% of the value of the home), while you will have paid 153% of the value of two 450k homes.",
"By paying off 50K in debts now, you'll have 50K less to invest in your new house. That means that you'll have a mortgage that's 50K higher. So, it's trading one debt for another. This means you should be comparing the T&Cs for the two. The most obvious is the interest rate. That's slightly tricky for your future mortgage, as 20% money down may affect the mortgage interest rate. The easiest way is to calculate the raw $ interests you'd pay in both cases. Besides interest, there are more conditions. Some debts may include life insurance, which has a definite value in your case. It would be hard to compare those here, you'd have to do so yourself",
"\"I would strongly consider renting; as homes are often viewed by people as \"\"investments\"\" but in reality they are costs, just like renting. The time-frame for return is so long, the interest rate structure in terms of your mortgage payments; if you buy, you must be prepared to and willing to stay at minimum 7-10 years; because anything can happen. Hot markets turn cold. Or stale, and just the closing costs will cause it be less advantageous to renting. Before buying a property, ask yourself does it meet these 5 criteria: IDEAL I - Income; the property will provide positive cash flow through renters. D - Depreciation; tax savings. E - Equity; building equity in the property- the best way is through interest only loans. There is NO reason to pay any principle on any property purchase. You do 5 year interest only loans; keep your payments low; and build equity over time as the property price rises. Look how much \"\"principle\"\" you actually pay down over the first 7 years on a 30 year mortgage. Virtually Nil. A - Appreciation - The property will over time go up in value. Period. There is no need to pay any principle. Your Equity will come from this... time. L - Leverage; As the property becomes more valuable; you will have equity stake, enabling you to get higher credit lines, lines of equity credit, to purchase more properties that are IDEA. When you are RICH, MARRIED, and getting ready for a FAMILY, then buy your home and build it. Until then, rent, it will keep your options open. It will keep your costs low. It will protect you from market downturns as leases are typically only 1 year at most. You will have freedom. You will not have to deal with repairs. A new Water Heater, AC unit, the list goes on and on. Focus on making money, and when you want to buy your first house. Buy a duplex; rent it out to two tenants, and make sure it's IDEAL.\"",
"\"that would deprive me of the rental income from the property. Yes, but you'd gain by not paying the interest on your other mortgage. So your net loss (or gain) is the rental income minus the interest you're paying on your home. From a cash flow perspective, you'd gain the difference between the rental income and your total payment. Any excess proceeds from selling the flat and paying off the mortgage could be saved and use later to buy another rental for \"\"retirement income\"\". Or just invest in a retirement account and leave it alone. Selling the flat also gets rid of any extra time spent managing the property. If you keep the flat, you'll need a mortgage of 105K to 150K plus closing costs depending on the cost of the house you buy, so your mortgage payment will increase by 25%-100%. My fist choice would be to sell the flat and buy your new house debt-free (or with a very small mortgage). You're only making 6% on it, and your mortgage payment is going to be higher since you'll need to borrow about 160k if you want to keep the flat and buy a $450K house, so you're no longer cash-flow neutral. Then start saving like mad for a different rental property, or in non-real estate retirement investments.\"",
"Since then I wanted to move out of this house because the property taxes are so high and the mortgage payment is a killer. As I understand this is a property jointly owned by your parents and you. As they are not living staying in the house, you have taken over the mortgage payments for this house along with any other maintenance. If you move out of this house; the rent is expected to cover the cost of maintenance and mortgage payments. Are we better of staying in Jersey where our family and friends are? This is an individual decision. It is not just family and friends, but also schooling of kids, penitentially if you change jobs would it also entail changing residence as the workplace would be more near from current home than the new home. I want to convince my wife to make this move because it will save us at least 800 month, but she fails to see how buying a second home is financially sound because we have to lose our savings and we have to pay interest on our second home. There are quite a few posts on first-time-home-buyer Some question like this one and this one and this one are good reads. There are historically times when the Mortgage EMI becomes equal or less than Rent paid. In such times it is good to buy home, than pay rent. Otherwise quite a few invest advisor's mention that fools buy house and wise live in it. There are advantages to buying as well advantages to renting. There is no simple answer and it depends on multitude of factors.",
"Just general advice but you should pay off your credit cards and car loans before buying a house. Or you may be able to add some extra on to the mortgage to pay off your credit card and car debt right away. Credit card interest rates can be ten times the interest rates on mortgages and car loans are not far behind. The sooner you get them paid off completely the sooner you will have enough money for mortgage payments.",
"If you can borrow for an asset that gives you income that's more than the cost of carrying the debt, then go for it. But the kinds of debts you have now aren't those kinds of debt, so get rid of them.",
"\"Short answer: NO. Do NOT buy a house. Houses are a \"\"luxury\"\" good (see Why is a house not an investment?). Although the experience of the early 2000s seemed to convince most people otherwise, houses are not an investment. Historically, it has usually been cheaper to rent, because owning a house has non-pecuniary benefits such as the ability to change things around to exactly the way you like them. Consult a rent vs. buy calculator for your area to see if your area is exceptional. I also would not rely on the mortgage interest deduction for the long term, as it seems increasingly likely the Federal government will do away with it at some point. The first thing you must do is eliminate your credit card and other debts. Try to delay paying your lawyers and anyone else who is not charging you interest (or threatening to harm you in other ways) as long as possible. Save enough money to maintain your current standard of living for 6 months should you lose your job, then put the rest in your 401(k). Another word of advice: learn to live with less. Your kids do not need separate bedrooms. Hopefully one day the time will come when you can afford a larger house, but it should not be your highest priority. You and your kids will all be worse off in the end should you have unexpected financial difficulties and you have overextended yourself to buy a house. Now that your credit score is up, see if you can renegotiate your credit card loans or negotiate a new loan with lower interest.\"",
"BLUF: Continue renting, and work toward financial independence, you can always buy later if your situation changes. Owning the house you live in can be a poor investment. It is totally dependent on the housing market where you live. Do the math. The rumors may have depressed the market to the point where the houses are cheaper to buy. When you do the estimate, don't forget any homeowners association fees and periodic replacement of the roof, HVAC system and fencing, and money for repairs of plumbing and electrical systems. Calculate all the replacements as cost over the average lifespan of each system. And the repairs as an average yearly cost. Additionally, consider that remodeling will be needful every 20 years or so. There are also intangibles between owning and renting that can tip the scales no matter what the numbers alone say. Ownership comes with significant opportunity and maintenance costs and is by definition not liquid, but provides stability. As long as you make your payments, and the government doesn't use imminent domain, you cannot be forced to move. Renting gives you freedom from paying for maintenance and repairs on the house and the freedom to move with only a lease to break.",
"The rent versus buy question is a deeply personal one in which your personal desires for a living space need to be carefully combined with what makes economic sense. Do you want your own place with all the joys of having it be yours and all the pains of having to handle all the maintenance and be the one ultimately responsible? Have you tried living for a few months putting aside the amount required for not only a mortgage payment but the taxes and insurance on a house/condo in your price range to see if you can really afford it? You can use a real estate website such as trulia to see the assessments of some for sale homes and figure out tax values. The average home insurance in the US is around $900/year if I remember right - more for homes that are more expensive and less for less expensive ones, with flooding and other hazards as a factor. Make sure you can afford to pay for all these items. From a financial perspective realize that you'll always be spending money on your living space. Even if you pay for a house with cash you will be paying property tax and maintenance and would be wise to continue paying for insurance. The value of the house at that point is, as contributor fennec often says, the rent you aren't paying. I personally don't recommend trying to time the market. You can't predict the future - will real estate in your area be a double dip or has it bottomed and is it going up? What you can do is buy a home only when you are sure that you can deal with its relative lack of liquidity by staying there for a long time. Five years is usually a reasonable minimum. There is a way that I recommend figuring out if it is likely bad financial decision to buy, and that's by looking at a financial comparison of renting versus buying. In some cases even with the bursting of the bubble it is still a bad deal to buy. DC went from renting being more cost effective to buying, but San Francisco is one area where buying is still not necessarily the best choice. To figure out what the case is for your area, look at the New York Times rent versus buy calculator. Find a home for rent on craigslist similar to what you'd look to buy. Find a home for sale on one of the MLS aggregator sites that represents something you think you'd like. Plug in the numbers. Figure out how many years you'd have to stay in your purchase for it to be a good deal. In the likely event that the calculator says buy, start saving if that's what you really want. You're never going to be able to absolutely guarantee that you won't be upside down. What you can control is getting as much principal in that house as you can. The more you have, the less likely you will be upside down. Build a down payment now, reap the rewards later.",
"Peace of mind is the key to your question. Just before the US housing bust of 2007, I had someone try to convince me to take all the equity from my house which was overvalued in an overheated market. The idea was to put that money in the stock market for a bigger return than the interest on the house. Many people did that and found themselves out of jobs as the economy crashed. Unfortunately, they couldn't sell their homes because they owed more than they were worth. I never lost a night of sleep over the money I didn't make in the stock market. I did manage to trade up to a house twice the size by buying another when the housing market bottomed out, but waiting for a market recovery to sell the smaller house. The outcome of my good fortune is a very nice house with no mortgage worth about 1/3 of my total net worth. That's probably a larger percentage than most money managers would recommend, but it is steadily decreasing because now, all the money that would go to a mortgage payment instead gets deposited in retirement accounts, and it still has 30 years to grow before I start drawing it down. I almost don't remember the burden of a mortgage hanging over my head each month. Almost.",
"What does your cash flow look like? If you can comfortably afford to pay the extra cost and ride out the mortgage, it can be a nice investment. Better if you can manage the property yourself and are somewhat handy. Realize you should be able to raise rents over time so that it is cash flow even eventually. If cash flow is tight, sell it and re-fi your current place",
"I would advise against this. My main reason for saying so is that you are in a time of major transition, and transition equals uncertainty. What if the new job turns out to be a bad one, and at the same time the house is more difficult to rent out than you expect? That seems like a situation that would be worse than the sum of its parts. Some other things to consider: first, if you want to buy a house where your new job is located, you will not be able to borrow as much for that house. This is especially important if you are moving to a city with a very high Cost of Living. Second, your margin on the rental doesn't sound like it would leave much room for profit. A $100 difference between your mortgage and your rent amount will be eaten up very quickly through property management fees and maintenance. If the value of the house does not rise like you expect, that could mean you put in a lot of effort for very little or no gain. Finally, this will require a good deal of time management. Between relocating, closing on this house, and beginning a new job, it sounds like you'll have a lot going on. This may not concern you much, but it's still worth considering.",
"The mathematically correct answer is to invest, because you'll get a higher rate of return. I think that answer is bunk -- owning your home free and clear is a huge burden lifted off of your shoulders. You're at an age where you may find a new job, business, personal or other opportunities will be easier to take advantage of without that burden.",
"If you can get a mortgage with 10% downpayment and the seller will accept (some may want at least 20% downpayment for whatever reasons) and with PMI it still lower than your rent, sounds like it's a good idea to buy now. Of course this assumes that the money you'd be otherwise saving for 20% downpayment will be used to pay off a mortgage faster.",
"\"Buying now with a mortgage gets you: Waiting to buy with all cash gets you: These are also some of the pros or cons for the rent or buy dilemma that Paul mentioned in comments to the OP. This is a very complex, multi-faceted question, that would not respond well to being put into any equation or financial model. Most people answer the question with \"\"buy the home now with a mortgage\"\" if they can pay for the down payment. This is why the mortgage industry exists. The people who would want to finance now rather than buy with all cash later would not only be analyzing the question in terms of financial health but also in terms of general well being. They might consider the tremendous pride that comes with home ownership and living under a roof of one's own. Who can say that those people are wrong?\"",
"\"Whether or not you choose to buy is a complicated question. I will answer as \"\"what you should consider/think about\"\" as I don't think \"\"What should I do\"\" is on topic. First off, renting tends to look expensive compared to mortgages until you factor in the other costs that are included in your rent. Property taxes. These are a few grand a year even in the worst areas, and tend to be more. Find out what the taxes are ahead of time. Even though you can often deduct them (and your interest), you're giving up your standard deduction to do so - and with the low interest regime currently, unless your taxes are high you may not end up being better off deducting them. Home insurance. This depends on home and area, but is at least hundreds of dollars per year, and could easily run a thousand. So another hundred a month on your bill (and it's more than renter's insurance by quite a lot). Upkeep costs for the property. You've got a lot of up-front costs (buy a lawnmower, etc. types of things) plus a lot of ongoing costs (general repair, plumbing breaks, electrical breaks, whatnot). Sales commission, as Scott notes in comments. When you sell, you're paying about 6% commission; so you won't be above water, if housing prices stay flat, until you've paid off 6% of your loan value (plus closing costs, another couple of percent). You hit the 90% point on a 15 year about year 2, but on a 30 year you don't hit it until about year 5, so you might not be above water when you want to sell. Risk of decrease in value. Whenever you buy property, you take on the risk of losing value as well as the potential of gaining value. Don't assume that because prices are going up they will continue to; remember that a lot of investors are well aware of possible profits from rising prices and will be buying (and driving prices up) themselves. 2008 was a shock to a lot of people, even in areas where it seemed like prices should've still gone up; you never know what's going to happen. If you buy a house for 20% or so down, you have a bit of a safety net (if it drops 10-20% in value, you're still above water, though you do of course lose money), while if you buy it for 0% down and it drops 20% in value, you won't be able to sell (at all) for years. All that together means you should really take a hard look at the costs and benefits, make a realistic calculation including all actual costs, and then make a decision. I would not buy simply because it seems like a good idea to not pay rent. If you're unable to make any down payment, then you're also unable to deal with the risks in home ownership - not just decrease in value, but when your pipe bursts and ruins your basement, or when the roof needs a replacement because a tree falls on it. Yes, home insurance helps, but not always, and the deductible will still get you. Just to have some numbers: For my area, we pay about $8000 a year in property taxes on a $280k house ($200k mortgage), $1k a year in home insurance, so our escrow payment is about $750 a month. A 15 year for $200k is about $1400 a month, so $2200 or so total cost. We do live in a high property tax area, so someone in lower tax regimes would pay less - say 1800-1900 - but not that cheap. A 30 year would save you 500 or so a month, but you're still not all that much lower than rent.\"",
"\"Understand your own risk tolerance and discipline. From Moneychimp we can see different market results - This is a 15 year span, containing what was arguably one of the most awful decades going. A full 10 year period with a negative return. Yet, the 15 year return was a 6.65% CAGR. You'd net 5.65% after long term cap gains. Your mortgage is likely costing ~4% or 3% after tax (This is not applicable to my Canadian friends, I understand you don't deduct interest). In my not so humble opinion, I'd pay off the highest rate debts first (unlike The David followers who are happy to pay off tens of thousands of dollars in 0% interest debt before the large 18% debt) and invest at the highest rate I'd get long term. The problem is knowing when to flip from one to the other. Here's food for thought - The David insists on his use of the 12% long term market return. The last 100 years have had an average 11.96% return, but you can't spend average, the CAGR, the real compound rate was 10.06%. Why would he recommend paying off a sub 3% loan while using 12% for his long term planning (All my David remarks are not applicable to Canadian members, you all probably know better than to listen to US entertainers)? I am retired, and put my money where my mouth is. The $200K I still owe on my mortgage is offset by over $400K in my 401(k). The money went in at 25%/28% pretax, has grown over these past 20 years, and comes out at 15% to pay my mortgage each month. No regrets. Anyone starting out now, and taking a 30 year mortgage, but putting the delta to a 15 year mortgage payment into their 401(k) is nearly certain to have far more in the retirement account 15 years hence than their remaining balance on the loan, even after taxes are considered. Even more if this money helps them to get the full matching, which too many miss. All that said, keep in mind, the market is likely to see a correction or two in the next 15 years, one of which may be painful. If that would keep you up at night, don't listen to me. If a fixed return of 4% seems more appealing than a 10% return with a 15% standard deviation, pay the mortgage first. Last - if you have a paid off house but no job, the town still wants its property tax, and the utilities still need to be paid. If you lose your job with $400K in your 401(k)/IRA but have a $200K mortgage, you have a lot of time to find a new job or sell the house with little pressure from the debt collectors. (To answer the question in advance - \"\"Joe, at what mortgage rate do you pay it off first?\"\" Good question. I'd deposit to my 401(k) to grab matching deposits first, and then if the mortgage was anywhere north of 6%, prioritize that. This would keep my chances at near 100% of coming out ahead.)\"",
"\"I recommend reading What's the catch in investing in real estate for rent? and making a list of expenses. You have a known expense, the rent, and the assumption that it will rise a bit each year. If not each year, eventually the landlord will bump it, and on average, the rent should track inflation. The buy side is the complete unknown, especially to us here. The mortgage and taxes are just the beginning. My ongoing issue in the buy/rent debate is that it's easy to buy \"\"too big\"\" or at least far bigger that what you are renting. One extreme - a couple moves from their one bedroom apartment into their purchased 3BR home with far more space than they ever use. No need to paint the full picture of numbers, the house is a money pit, and they live for the house. Other end - Couple already renting a nice sized home, and they buy a similar one. They rent out the two spare bedrooms for 5 years until they have kids and want their privacy back. They bought smart, for less than market price, and from day one, the mortgage was lower than the rent they paid. By year 5, having sent the extra income to pay down the mortgage, they've paid down half the loan. As the kids come along, they refi to a new 30 yr fixed at 3.5%, and the payment is tiny compared to the rest of their budget. Simply put, the ratio of house price to rent for that same house is not a constant. When the ratio is high, it's time to rent. When it swings very low, it's worth considering a purchase. But the decision is never clear until every detail is known. The time may be perfect, and the day after you close, you lose your job, or in a good scenario, get a raise and are relocated. Just because you bought low yesterday, doesn't mean the market will pay you a good price today, it takes time for out-of-whack pricing to come back to normal. A simple question? Maybe. But we first need a lot of details to help you understand what you are considering.\"",
"\"Respectfully, I am of the opinion that you are mixing issues. Paying a mortgage off early vs investing is a question that's been well discussed at Money.SE. If you project a higher tax adjusted return on the investments than your current mortgage rate, invest. Else, pay the mortgage down. If the rent covers the mortgage, you can maintain the investing. It doesn't matter for this discussion if the rent produces a profit, so long as all expenses are covered. Renting aside, in the US, now, my mortgage is 3.5%. 2.6% after taxes. So long as I expect a return well above this level long term, I'll stay investing, and let the mortgage die its slow death. Another decade or so. I'm sorry I can offer a formula, it's \"\"less\"\" \"\"about the same\"\" or \"\"more.\"\" The mortgage is fixed, right? But the market return is unknown.\"",
"\"I'd probably say \"\"buy\"\" for most situations. Unless you have a long-term lease, you're going to be saddled with elastic/rising rents if the market tightens up, while with a purchase you usually have fixed expenses (with the exception of property taxes/condo fees) and you are gaining equity. As I've gotten older, the prospect of moving is more and more daunting. The prospect of being essentially kicked out of my home when the landlord decides to sell the property or raise the rent is a turn-off to me.\"",
"\"When you compare the costs of paying your current mortgage with the rental income from the flat, you're not really comparing like with like. Firstly, the mortgage payments are covering both interest and capital repayments, so some of the 8k is money that is adding to your net worth. Secondly, the value of the flat (130k) is much more than the outstanding mortgage (80k) so if you did sell the flat and pay off the mortgage, you'd have 50k left in cash that could be invested to provide an income. The right way to compare the two options is to look at the different costs in each scenario. Let's assume the bigger house will cost 425k as it makes the figures work out nicely. If you buy the bigger house with a bigger mortgage, you will need to borrow 50k more so will end up with a mortgage of 130k, and you will still have the 8k/year from the flat. Depending on your other income, you might have to pay tax on the 8k/year - e.g. at 40% if you're a higher-rate taxpayer, leaving you with 4.8k/year. If you sell the flat, you'll have no mortgage repayments to make and no income from the flat. You'll be able to exactly buy the new house outright with the 50k left over after you repay the mortgage, on top of your old house. You'd also have to pay some costs to sell the flat that you wouldn't have to with the bigger mortgage, but you'd save on the costs of getting a new mortgage. They probably aren't the same, but let's simplify and assume they are. If anything the costs of selling the flat are likely to be higher than the mortgage costs. Viewed like that, you should look at the actual costs to you of having a 130k mortgage, and how much of that would be interest. Given that you'll be remortgaging, at current mortgage rates, I'd expect interest would only be 2-3%, i.e around 2.5k - 4k, so significantly less than the income from the flat even after tax. The total payment would be more because of capital repayment, but you could easily afford the cashflow difference. You can vary the term of the mortgage to control how much the capital repayment is, and you should easily be able to get a 130k mortgage on a 425k house with a very good deal. So if your figure of 8k rent is accurate (considering void periods, costs of upkeep etc), then I think it easily makes sense to get the bigger house with the bigger mortgage. Given the tax impact (which was pointed out in a comment), a third strategy may be even better: keep the flat, but take out a mortgage on it in exchange for a reduced mortgage on your main house. The reason for doing it that way is that you get some tax relief on the mortgage costs on an investment property as long as the income from that property is higher than the costs, whereas you don't on your primary residence. The tax relief used to just be at the same tax rate you were paying on the rental income, i.e. you could subtract the mortgage costs from the rental income when calculating tax. It's gradually being reduced so it's just basic rate tax relief (20%) even if you pay higher-rate tax, but it still could save you some money. You'd need to look at the different mortgage costs carefully, as \"\"buy-to-let\"\" mortgages often have higher interest rates.\"",
"Easy answer -- pay down your debt. Why easy? Because you can't afford the house. The other posters mentioned it; I'll tackle it too: Your $1445/month mortgage payment estimation is just that - mortgage only. Why haven't you included home insurance or taxes? According to that last graphic, those are $1930 and $1910 per year. That adds $320 to your monthly cost. $1445 + $320 = $1765/month. More than what you're paying in rent, and you say you have little enough left over after that. And that's not counting CMHC insurance like Chris W. Rea mentioned, or maintenance, which is something renters always underestimate. I know I did. And don't even get me started on the fact that the (currently super low) interest rate is fixed for only 5 years. I know you really, really want to buy a house, and you really want to stay in that expensive area you live in. And you're trying hard to make the numbers work. But the fact is, you're setting yourself up for bankruptcy. Realistically, you have these options: 1) stay in the area, forget buying for the foreseeable future, continue renting, pay down debt and then save for a proper down payment 2) stay in the area, but make a smaller, cheaper place work 3) move to a cheaper location 4) figure out how to make more money. That's it. Sorry to be blunt; this is the reality.",
"is it a smart thing for an entry level employee with a basic pay to buy a property on debt ? This is opinion based and can't be conclusively answered by others. Only you can make the choice. Their reasoning is that, since I am paying for their house rent right now(I have been doing this ever since I got into graduate school), I could divert it to pay for the loan while getting a property in return If I understand this, you are currently NRI [as you are working in Japan], you would like to take a home loan in India and buy a property in India. In the current scenario, the EMI towards home loan do not equate to the Rent as property prices have gone up in most places. In 2002 - 2007, there was a time of low interest rates and low property prices, that along with tax breaks made it cheaper to buy than rent. Also note that since you are NRI, you do not get any income tax rebate on interest paid. If you buy please ensure that all the EMI's are paid from NRE account. This would in future help you repatriate funds out of India, if you plan to sell the house. But I am scared of getting into debt so early in my career. If I commit myself like that, it might make me less courageous in making career changes till I finish paying off that debt. This is a valid concern, if you need to pursue further studies, or take a break for a change in career, it would make it difficult. Also note there are additional costs of buying a house, apart from EMI, there property tax, if you staying in society, a monthly maintenance etc.",
"\"A person can finance housing expenses in one of two ways. You can pay rent to a landlord. Or you can buy a house with a mortgage. In essence, you become your own landlord. That is, insta the \"\"renter\"\" pays an amount equal to the mortgage to insta the \"\"landlord,\"\" who pays it to the bank to reduce the mortgage. Ideally, your monthly debt servicing payments (minus tax saving on interest) should approximate the rent on the house. If they are a \"\"lot\"\" more, you may have overpaid for the house and mortgage. The advantage is that your \"\"rent\"\" is applied to building up equity (by reducing the mortgage) in your house. (And mortgage payments are tax deductible to the extent of interest expense.) At the end of 30 years, or whatever the mortgage term, you have \"\"portable equity\"\" in the form a fully paid house, that you can sell to move another house in Florida, or wherever you want to retire. Sometimes, you will \"\"get lucky\"\" if the value of the house skyrockets in a short time. Then you can borrow against your appreciation. But be careful, because \"\"sky rockets\"\" (in housing and elsewhere) often fall to earth. But this does represent another way to build up equity by owning a house.\"",
"\"Note: I am making a USA-assumption here; keep in mind this answer doesn't necessarily apply to all countries (or even states in the USA). You asked two questions: I'm looking to buy a property. I do not want to take a risk on this property. Its sole purpose is to provide me with a place to live. How would I go about hedging against increasing interest rates, to counter the increasing mortgage costs? To counter increasing interest rates, obtaining a fixed interest rate on a mortgage is the answer, if that's available. As far as costs for a mortgage, that depends, as mortgages are tied to the value of the property/home. If you want a place to live, a piece of property, and want to hedge against possible rising interest rates, a fixed mortgage would work for these goals. Ideally I'd like to not lose money on my property, seeing as I will be borrowing 95% of the property's value. So, I'd like to hedge against interest rates and falling property prices in order to have a risk neutral position on my property. Now we have a different issue. For instance, if someone had opened a fixed mortgage on a home for $500,000, and the housing value plummeted 50% (or more), the person may still have a fixed interest rate protecting the person from higher rates, but that doesn't protect the property value. In addition to that, if the person needed to move for a job, that person would face a difficult choice: move and sell at a loss, or move and rent and face some complications. Renting is generally a good idea for people who (1) have not determined if they'll be in an area for more than 5-10 years, (2) want the flexibility to move if their living costs rises (which may be an issue if they lose wages), (3) don't want to pay property taxes (varies by state), homeowner's insurance, or maintenance costs, (4) enjoy regular negotiation (something which renters can do before re-signing a lease or looking for a new place to live). Again, other conditions can apply to people who favor renting, such as someone might enjoy living in one room out of a house rather than a full apartment or a person who likes a \"\"change of scenes\"\" and moves from one apartment to another for a fresh perspective, but these are smaller exceptions. But with renting, you have nothing to re-sell and no financial asset so far as a property is concerned (thus why some real estate agents refer to it as \"\"throwing away money\"\" which isn't necessarily true, but one should be aware that the money they invest in renting doesn't go into an asset that can be re-sold).\"",
"\"If it was me, I would sell the house and use the proceeds to work on/pay off the second. You don't speak to your income, but it must be pretty darn healthy to convince someone to lend you ~$809K on two homes. Given this situation, I am not sure what income I would have to have to feel comfortable. I am thinking around 500K/year would start to make me feel okay, but I would probably want it higher than that. think I can rent out the 1st house for $1500, and after property management fees, take home about $435 per month. That is not including any additional taxes on that income, or deductions based on repair work, etc. So this is why. Given that your income is probably pretty high, would something less than $435 really move your net worth needle? No. It is worth the reduction in risk to give up that amount of \"\"passive\"\" income. Keeping the home opens you up to all kinds of risk. Your $435 per month could easily evaporate into something negative given taxes, likely rise in insurance rates and repairs. You have a great shovel to build wealth there is no reason to assume this kind of exposure. You will become wealthy if you invest and work to reduce your debt.\"",
"IMO student loans are junk debt that should be dealt with as soon as possible. Buying a house comes with risks and expenses (repairs, maintenance, etc) and dealing with a student loan at the same time just makes it tougher. Personally, I would try to pay off at least a few of the loans first.",
"You are very young, you make a huge amount of money, and you have (from what information you provide) very little debt. If you simply want to buy a house for whatever reason, sure, but be honest with yourself about why you want to buy it. I see a lot of people who think they're doing it for smart financial reasons, but then when I ask them about their pension savings and credit card debts and so on, there is no evidence that they are actually the kind of person who makes decisions for smart financial reasons. If you want a house because that seems like the thing that people do, maybe you could think more about what you actually want. If your concern is putting your money to work for you (you seem to dislike that you pay rent each month and after that month you don't have anything to show for your money, except of course that you didn't spent the last month living on the streets), you can do a lot better than getting a mortgage. For example, living frugally you should be able to dump 50k a year into investments; if you did that for a few years, you could reasonably expect the return to cover your rent and bills in a surprisingly small number of years (a lot less than a 25 year mortgage). Your question seems to be starting from the position that you should buy a house. You're asking if you should buy it now, or wait. You are rich enough now (and if your earnings keep going up, will be even more rich in a few years) that you should perhaps question your need to buy a house. With your kind of money, at this stage of your life, you can do a lot better.",
"\"Condensed to the essence: if you can reliably get more income from investing the cost of the house than the mortgage is costing you, this is the safest leveraged investment you'll ever make. There's some risk, of course, but there is risk in any financial decision. Taking the mortgage also leaves you with far greater flexibility than if you become \"\"house- rich but cash-poor\"\". (Note that you probably shouldn't be buying at all if you may need geographic flexibility in the next five years or so; that's another part of the liquidity issue.) Also, it doesn't have to be either/or. I borrowed half and paid the rest in cash, though I could have taken either extreme, because that was the balance of certainty vs.risk that I was comfortable with. I also took a shorter mortgage than I might have, again trading off risk and return; I decided I would rather have the house paid off at about the same time that I retire.\"",
"\"First, let me mention that the reasons mentioned this far for renting are excellent ones. But, I disagree. Second, I would like to mention that I'm just a regular Joe, not an accountant, or a realtor. That said, I was in a similar situation not that long ago. I ended up renting, but I wish I hadn't. You should check out the \"\"offers\"\" in your area. You seem like you're willing to compromise on a more standard, or older home. If that is the case and you are willing to \"\"settle\"\" for an older town-home, or something similar, it might be in your best interest to do so. In my area for instance, the urban areas are becoming a bit crowded. This is good news for the people who already own homes in those urban areas, but bad news for people who are looking to rent an apartment (which tend to be located in urban areas) or buy a house in these urban areas. The reason I say that is simple; there is only one thing there will never be more of: land. If people are moving into these areas, and there is limited room to build structures, the demand is going up while the supply is unable to keep up. This means an increase in prices. BUT, this can also be used to your advantage. As the demand for those urban areas goes up, the rural areas around the urban areas are likely to be subsidized. For instance, near me, if you're willing to be 20 minutes from the nearest Walmart and you have a 550+ credit score and a stable income, you're able to acquire a government subsidized loan with 0% down. (I would recommend dropping at least SOMETHING, however, if possible.) Apartments of the size your family is going to require are going to be expensive. People who own apartment buildings are looking to make the most money per square foot. This means most apartment complexes are going to be filled with 1-2 bedroom apartments, but have very few if any 3+ bedroom apartments. (Again, this is my general experience, but it may be different where you're living.) I suspect the apartment your family is going to need is going to end up being very expensive, especially if people are moving into your town. You might consider trying to get a lower-quality house as apposed to a rare and large apartment for a few pretty obvious reasons: Don't misunderstand me, though. A lot of people get infatuated with the idea of being a home owner, and end up getting into something they will never be able to maintain, and if that happens it's something that's going to follow you for the rest of your life. As for your student loans, if you NEED to and you qualify you can apply for hardship. This would mean that you don't have to pay anything, or pay a reduced rate for some arbitrary approved amount of time, or until some arbitrary circumstance is met. However, do not take this lightly. While doing this might not necessarily accrue interest (depending on whether or not your loans were subsidized or unsubsidized and a host of other factors it might actually halt interest) these loans will follow you even into bankruptcy. Meaning if you get your student loans postponed and end up losing the house anyway, you have to make a fresh start with a bankruptcy AND student loans on your back. Furthermore, you can't count your chickens before they hatch, and neither will the banks. A big part of qualifying for a loan is your proof of income. If you haven't had that steady job for 6 months to a year or more, you're going to have a tough time getting a loan. Suppose your wife-to-be DOES start making that income...it's still not going to make a difference to the banks until they can say that it's not just a month long fling. Last, after reading all this I want to tell you that I am BIAS. I happened to miss the opportunity I'm explaining to you now, and that affects what I think you should do in this situation. Weigh the options carefully and objectively. Talk to your fiance. Talk to your friends, parents, anyone who is close with you. Come to an educated decision, rather than the decision that might be more exciting, or the one you WISH you could take. Good luck.\"",
"When I bought my own place, mortgage lenders worked on 3 x salary basis. Admittedly that was joint salary - eg you and spouse could sum your salaries. Relaxing this ratio is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are now. You are shrewd (my view) to realise that buying is better than renting. But you also should consider the short term likely movement in house prices. I think this could be down. If prices continue to fall, buying gets easier the longer you wait. When house prices do hit rock bottom, and you are sure they have, then you can afford to take a gamble. Lets face it, if prices are moving up, even if you lose your job and cannot pay, you can sell and you have potentially gained the increase in the period when it went up. Also remember that getting the mortgage is the easy bit. Paying in the longer term is the really hard part of the deal.",
"Congratulations on saving up $75,000. That requires discipline and tenacity. There are a lot of factors that would go into making your decision. First and foremost is the security of the income stream you have now. Being leveraged during times of hardship is not a pleasant experience. Unexpected job losses can and do happen. Only you can determine how secure your and your spouse's situation is. Second, I would consider the job market in the location that you live. If you live in a small town it will be hard to find income levels like you have now. Rental properties are additional ties to an area. Are you happy in the area in which you live? If you were laid off are there opportunities in the same area. Being a long distance landlord is again not a pleasant experience. I can throw being forced to sell to relocate at a reduced price into this same bucket. Third, you need to have 3 to 6 months of expenses saved for emergencies. This is in addition to having no consumer debt (credit cards, car loans, student loans). $75,000 feels like a lot. Life can throw you curve balls. You need to be prepared for them because of the fundamental nature of Murphy's Law. If you were to be a landlord you should err closer to the six month end of the scale. I own two rentals and can speak to people being late a given month, heating and air problems, plumbing issues, washers and dryers breaking, weather related issues, and even a tenant leaving behind for truckloads of trash. Over 20 years I guess I have seen it all. A rental agency will only act as a minor buffer. Fourth, your family situation is important. I personally save 10% of my income for my child's education. If you haven't started doing so or have different feelings on what you might contribute think about it before any financial move. Fifth, any mortgage payment you are making should be 25% or less than your take home pay for a 15 year fixed rate mortgage. Anything less than 20% down and you start burning up money on PMI insurance. 'House Poor' is a term for people that make high incomes but have too much being spent for housing. It is the cause of a lot of financial stress. Sixth, you need to save for retirement. The absolute minimum I recommend is 15% of your income. Even if the match is 6% you should invest the full 15% making it 21%. Social Security is a scary thing and depending on it is not wise. I think your income still qualifies you for contributions to a Roth IRA. If you aren't personally contributing 15% do so before making a move. There is an old joke that homeless people who have a 0 net worth often are richer than people driving fancy cars and living in fancy houses. Ultimately no one can tell you the right answer. Every situation is unique. You have a complex tapestry to your financial life that no else one knows.",
"You sound like you're in enviable shape. This is good. Look for deals. There are tons of people in over their heads (unlike yourself) and they'll be foreclosed on if they don't get out. You're in a position to buy from a distressed seller. Assuming your credit rating is good, you can get a good loan for the balance. Time is on your side. Don't rush. Look for a great deal. My feeling is that the deals will only get better for the next year or two.",
"\"For the vast majority, \"\"buying\"\" a house via a mortgage is not an investment. I use quotes around buying because from a technical perspective you don't own anything until you've paid it off; this is often an important point that people forget. It's highly unlikely you'll make more on it than the amount you put into it (interest, repairs, etc). Even with relatively low interest rates. The people who successfully invest in homes are those that use actual cash (not borrowed) to buy a home at well below market value. They then clean it up and make enough repairs to make it marketable and sell it shortly there after. Sometimes these people get hosed if the housing market tumbles to the point that the home is now worth less than the amount they put into it. This is especially problematic if they used bank loans to get the process going. They were actually the hardest hit when the housing bubble popped several years ago. Well, them and the people who bought on interest only loans or had balloon payments. Whereas the people who use a mortgage are essentially treating it like a bank account with a negative interest rate. For example, $180k loan on a 30 yr fixed at 4% will mean a total payout of around $310k, excluding normal repairs like roofs, carpet, etc. Due to how mortgage's work, most of the interest is collected during the first half of the loan period. So selling it within 2 to 5 years is usually problematic unless the local housing market has really skyrocketed. Housing markets move up and down all the time due to a hundred different things completely out of your control. It might be a regional depression, weather events, failed large businesses, failed city/local governments, etc. It could go up because businesses moved in, a new highway is built, state/local taxes decline, etc. My point is, homes are not long term investments. They can be short term ones, but only in limited circumstances and there is a high degree of risk involved. So don't let that be a driving point of your decision. Instead you need to focus on other factors. Such as: what is really going on with the house you are currently in? Why would they lose it? Can you help out, and, should you help out? If things are precarious, it might make more sense to sell that home now and everyone move into separate locations, possibly different rentals or apartments. If they are foreclosed on then they will be in a world of financial hurt for a long time. If we ignore your parents situation, then one piece of advice I would give you is this: Rent the cheapest apartment you can find that is still a \"\"safe\"\" place to live in. Put every dollar you can into some type of savings/investment that will actually grow. Stay there for 5+ years, then go pay cash for a nice home. Making $75k a year while single means that you don't need much to live on. In other words, live extremely cheap now so you can enjoy a fantastic living experience later that is free from financial fear. You should be able to put $30k+ per year aside going this route. edit: A bit of support data for those that somehow think buying a home on a mortgage is somehow a good investment: Robert Shiller, who won a Nobel prize in economics and who predicted the bursting of the housing bubble, has shown that a house is not a good investment. Why? First, home prices (adjusted for inflation) have been virtually unchanged for the past 100 years. (link 1, link 2) Second, after you add in the costs of maintenance alone then those costs plus what you've paid for the home will exceed what you get out of it. Adding in the cost of a mortgage could easily double or even triple the price you paid which makes things even worse. Maintenance costs include things like a new roof, carpet/flooring, water heater, appliances, etc. Yes, a home might cost you $100k and you might sell it for $200k after 15 years. However during that time you'll likely replace the roof ($10k to $20k), replace appliances ($2k to $5k), water heater ($1k), carpet/flooring ($5k to $20k), paint ($3k to $6k), and mortgage related costs (~$60k - assuming 30 yr fixed @4%). So your \"\"costs\"\" are between $180k and $200k just on those items. There are many more that could easily escalate the costs further. Like a fence ($5k+), air conditioner ($5k+), windows, etc. The above is assuming the home actually appreciates in value faster than inflation: which they historically haven't over the long term. So you have to consider all of the costs ultimately paid to purchase and maintain the home vs the costs of renting during the same time period. Point is: do your research and be realistic about it. Buying a home is a huge financial risk.\"",
"I'd suggest taking all the money you have saved up and putting in a mutual fund and hold off on buying a rental property until you can buy it outright. I know it seems like this will take forever, but it has a HUGE advantage: I know it seems like it will take forever to save up the money to buy a property for cash, but in the long run, its the best option by far.",
"IMHO you are in no position to buy a home. If it was me, I'd payoff the student loans, pay off the car, get those credit card balances to zero (and keep them there), and save up at least 10K (as an emergency fund) before even considering buying a home. Right now you have no wiggle room. A relatively minor issue with a purchased home can send you right back into trouble financially. You may be eager to buy, but your finances say different. Take some time to get your finances on track then think about buying. You can make a really good long term financial decision with no risk: pay off those credit cards and keep them paid off. That is a much smarter decision then buying a home at this point in your life.",
"From a slightly different perspective, in my experience of buying a house you will find some unexpected costs due repairs that need to be made which were overlooked during the home inspection etc. You will need some financial cushion to fall back onto for these unexpected costs so for that reason alone I'd try to pay off as much of the credit card debt as I can.",
"Paying off your student loan before buying a house is certainly a great risk reduction move for you. It will lower your debt to income ratio allowing your mortgage approval to go easier and it will free up more of your dollars to pay for the many miscellaneous projects that come with buying a house. I think that if you are considering paying off your student loan before buying a house that means that your student loans are an amount you can fathom paying off and that you are motivated to be rid of your student loan debt. Go for it and pay off your student loan.",
"The simple answer is that you are correct. You should not purchase a house until you are financially stable enough to do so. A house is an asset that you must maintain, and it can be expensive to do so. Over the long term, you will generally save money by purchasing. However, in any given year you may spend much more money than a similar rental situation - even if the rent is higher than your mortgage payment. If you are financially stable with good cash savings or investments plus a 20% down payment, then anytime is a good time to buy if that is part of your financial plan. As of now in 2016, is is safe to assume that mortgage rates would/should not get back to 10%? Does this mean that one should always buy a house ONLy when mortgage rates are low? Is it worth the wait IF the rates are high right now? The mortgage rates are not the primary driver for your purchase decision. That might be like saying you should buy everything on sale at Target... because it's on sale. Don't speculate on future rates. Also, keep in mind that back when rates were high, banks were also giving much better savings/CD rates. That is all connected. Is refinancing an option on the table, if I made a deal at a bad time when rates are high? You need to make sure you get a loan that allows it. Always do a break-even analysis, looking at the money up-front you spend to refi vs the savings-per-year you will get. This should give you how many years until the refi pays for itself. If you don't plan on being in the house that long, don't do it. How can people afford 10% mortgage? Buying a house they can afford, taking into consideration the entire payment+interest. It should be a reasonable amount of your monthly income - generally 25% or less. Note that this is much less than you will be 'approved' for by most lenders. Don't let good rates suck you into a deal you will regret. Make sure you have the margin to purchase and maintain a home. Consider where you want to be living in 5 years. Don't leave so little financial breathing room that any bump will place you at risk of foreclosure. That said, home ownership is great! I highly recommend it.",
"If interest rates have gone up, don't sell when you move. Refinance to lock in a low rate and rent out your current house when you move. Let the rent pay your new mortgage.",
"It depends what rate mortgage you can get for any extra loans... If you remortgage you are likely to get a rate of 3.5-4%... depending who you go with. With deposit accounts in the UK maying around 1% (yes, you can get more by tying it up for longer but not a huge amount more) clearly you're better off not having a mortgage rather than money in the bank. Does your 8k income allow for tax? If it does, you are getting 6% return on the money tied up in the flat. If you are getting 6% after tax on the invested money, that's way better than you would get on any left over cash paid into an investment. Borrowing money on a mortgage would cost you less than 6%... so you are better off borrowing rather than selling the flat. If you are getting 6% before tax... depending on your tax rate... it probably makes very little difference. You'd need to work out how much an extra 80k mortgage would cost you, how much the 50k on deposit would earn you and how much you make after tax. There is a different route. Set up a mortgage on the rental flat. You can claim the interest payment off the flat's income... reduce your tax bill so the effective mortgage rate on the flat would be less than what you could get with a mortgage on the new house. Use the money from the flat's mortgage to finance the difference in house price. In fact from a tax view, you may be better off having a mortgage free house and maxing out the mortgage on the flat so you can write off as much as possible against your tax bill. All of the above assume ... that the flat is rented all the time. The odd dry spell on the flat could influence the sums a lot. All of the above assume that your cash flow works whichever route you choose. As no-one on stack exchange has all of the numbers for your specific circumstances it may be worth talking to a tax accountant. They could advise you properly, knowing the numbers, which makes the best sense for you in terms of overall cost, cash flow, risk and so on.",
"\"I disagree. I believe money should be invested, not spent. Investing is something you should do as early as possible, even (especially) before incurring personal debt, such as cars, houses, student loans, etc. As Warren Buffet says, delaying investment until you are all paid up, is like saving sex for your old age. Remember that you are considering an investment, not another expense. The only consideration is whether or not the property will be cashflow-positive, i.e. \"\"does it make more in rent than it costs to maintain?\"\". If it is, buy it. You can use the income to pay off those debts faster, and at the end you will still have the income stream. Second, it makes no sense to use all your cash when the bank is willing to lend you money. There is nothing wrong with debt, as long as it is attached to an asset, i.e. something that makes more money than it costs. If you have that much cash, buy several apartment buildings, hire a management company, and retire.\"",
"I wouldn't buy a house at this time. Your credit card debt is the most expensive thing you have. Which is to say that you want to get rid of it as soon as possible. The lawyer isn't cheap, and your personal situation is not fully resolved. Congratulations on paying off the IRS, and getting up the 401k to 17.5k. Take care of the two things in paragraph 1, first,and then think about buying a house. You're doing too much good work to have it possibly be derailed by home payments.",
"Yes, one is certainly better than the other. Which one depends on your priorities and the interest and tax rates on your student loan, your savings, and your (future) mortgage plus how much you can afford to save and still enjoy the lifestyle you want as well as how soon you want to move out. Basically, you havn't given enough information.",
"I also am paying roughly twice as much in rent as a mortgage payment would be on the type of house I have been looking at, so I'd really like to purchase a house if possible. Sounds like I need to rain on your parade a bit: there's a lot more to owning a house than the mortgage. Property tax, insurance, PMI, and maintenance are things that throw this off. You'll also be paying more interest than normal given your recent credit history. It's still possible that buying is better than renting, but one really should run the detailed math on this. For example, looking at houses around where I live, insurance, property tax and special assessments over the course of a year roughly equal the mortgage payments annually. You probably won't be able to get a loan just yet. If you've just started your new job it will take a while to build a documentable income history sufficient for lenders. But take heart! As you take the next year to save up a down payment / build up an emergency fund you'll discover that credit score improves with time. However, it's crucial that you don't do anything to mess with the score. Pay all your bills on time. Don't take out a car loan. Don't close your old revolving accounts. But most of all, don't worry. Rent hurts (I rent too) but in many parts of the US owning hurts more, as your property values fall. A house down the street from my dear old mother has been on the market for several months at a price 33 percent lower than her most recent appraisals. I'm comfortable waiting until markets stabilize / start rising before jumping on real estate.",
"That is a decision you need to make, but some of the pros and cons you could consider to help your decision making include: Pros: If bought at the right time in the property cycle and in a good growth area, it can help you grow your net worth much quicker than having money in the bank earning near zero interest. You would be replacing rent payments with mortgage payments and if your mortage payments are less than your current rent you will have additional money to pay for any expenses on the property and have a similar cashflow as you do now. You will be able to deduct your interest payments on the mortgage against your income if you are in the USA, thus reducing the tax you pay. You will have the security of your own house and not have to worry about moving if the landlord wants you out after your lease expires. Cons: If bought in a bad area and at the top of the property cycle you may never make any capital gains on the property and in fact may lose money on it long term. If the mortgage payments are more than your current rent you may be paying more especially at the start of your mortgage. If you buy a house you are generally stuck in one spot, it will be harder to move to different areas or states as it can cost a lot of money and time to sell and buy elsewhere, if renting you can generally just give notice and find a new place to rent. Property maintenance costs and taxes could be a drain on your finances, especially if the mortgage repayments are more than your current rent. If your mortgage payments and property expenses are way more than your current rent, it may reduce what you could be investing in other areas to help increase your net worth.",
"\"I'm in my 40's, and fully paid off the mortgage early. My ex would have preferred that I'd given it to her as spending money instead. It can be said that since interest rates after year 2000 went down not up, I am a mug to have paid off early when perhaps I could have just bought more stuff like everyone else does. I looked at the 1970 to 1990 average interest rate; about 10%, and thought that it would be imprudent to have a big debt which would be crippling at 10 or 15% interest rates, so I paid it off while I could. A factor to consider is how you expect your own income to change over the next decade. If you work in shops, call centres, taxi driving, import warehousing, language translation, news writing, or anything which can be offshored or automated, then either the expectation of your salary diminishes towards the worldwide typical, or if it goes below £7.50 per hour typical then your employer goes bust. Or blags a subsidy. That is, I am a pessimist and would pay off early while possible. I don't know chinese for \"\"he's not here\"\" to say to the debt collector.\"",
"One advantage of paying down your primary residence is that you can refinance it later for 10-15 years when the balance is low. Refinancing a rental is much harder and interest rates are often higher for investors. This also assumes that you can refinance for a lower rate in the nearest future. The question is really which would you rather sell if you suddenly need the money? I have rental properties and i'd rather move myself, than sell the investments (because they are income generating unlike my own home). So in your case i'd pay off primary residence especially since the interest is already higher on it (would be a harder decision if it was lower)",
"Never buy a house unless you really want to buy that house. If you want to buy a rental, look around and find the right rental to buy; saving a few hundred on moving costs isn't a good reason to buy the wrong property at the wrong price.",
"Does this plan make sense mathematically? - No not really. The housing market can be fairly volatile (depending on your location), and it is really a good market for buying right now. You're going to make 1 or 2% on your money over the next year and risk paying 10% more for the house (or more). Even if you had a loan at 5% - that would be 5% of what you still owe, not the full value of the house. Does it make sense in terms of the common rules about paying a mortgage off early? - Yes, though make sure you have at least 80% of the house value so you don't get nailed with PMI (which may have a fixed duration). Is there a better strategy that I am overlooking? - Yes, investigate buying a house now. I'm not saying rush into it - shop around and find a really good deal. Get a 15-year mortgage (or less) and put what you're able to down (maybe 80% down). You can then payoff the mortgage over the next year or two and not have the risk of the volatility of the market raising the prices on houses and you getting less for your money.",
"It isn't always clear cut that you should pay off a debt at all, particularly a mortgage. In simple terms, if you are making a better return than what the bank is charging you, and the investment meets your risk criteria, then you should not pay back the debt. In the UK for example, mortgage rates are currently quite low. Around 2.5 - 3% is typical at the moment. On the other hand, you might reasonably expect a long run average return of around 9 - 11% on property (3 - 5% rental yield, and the rest on capital gains). To make the decision properly you need take into account the following:",
"3 years ago I wrote Student Loans and Your First Mortgage in response to this exact question by a fellow blogger in my state. What I focused on was the way banks qualify you for a loan, a percentage for the housing cost, and a higher number that also comprises all other debt. If the goal is speed-to-purchase, you make minimum payments on the student loan, and save for the $100K downpayment as fast as you can. The question back to you is whether the purchase is your priority, and how debt averse you are. I'd caution, if you work for a company with a matched 401(k), I'd still deposit to the match, but no more. Personal finance is just that, personal. We don't know your entire situation, your current rental expenses vs your total condo cost when you buy. If you are in a location where renting costs far more than your cost of ownership, Ben might change his mind a bit. If the reverse is true, you're living a college student's lifestyle with a room costing $400/mo sharing a house with friends, I'll back off and say to pay the loan and save until you can't tolerate the situation. You'll find there are few situations that have a perfect answer without having all the details.",
"Debt creates risk. Plain and simple. Comparing interest rates of debt vs. possible investing. To me, it is all meaningless. When you are in debt, you options are limited. If you are not in debt, you have more freedom. To me, it is a no brainer. Become debt free ASAP.",
"The $3K includes property tax, right? It looks like the mortgage alone will be about $2150 or so. If your (cal) state tax is enough to put you into itemized deductions, your mortgage and property tax are a write off, and the $3k will actually be closer to the $2K you are considering for rent. The wild card as I see it is that your budget is so tight that any unforeseen expenses will be charged. As a long time homeowner, I know these expenses sometime appear to be high, and regular, despite their random nature. The money earmarked for credit card payments will go a long way to cover the tight budget you seem to have. This and your decreasing support makes this look tight but not impossible. The condition of the house would make or break the deal, in my opinion.",
"Quick pay off the student loans. You have 140K in savings with a combined salary of 170K. You are looking to make money with the 140K, so just pay off the loans. It will turn your monthly loan payments in to a stream of money that can be used to save money for the next house. Assume: The rest of the 700K needed for a 1.5 Million dollar house has to come from savings and the profit from selling the first house. If the house sells for loan balance +300K you still need 400K in savings. Turning 140K into 400K in 5 years will funneling a large amount of your income into savings or excellent returns. Of course there is no way to predict return or what will happen to the market. If you don't sell the first home, you can rent the house. You either hope that the rental you charge allows you a positive cash flow. Or you hope that the house appreciates in value, so you hold on to it even if the rental income is a little below break even. Of course some keep the house because they can't sell it. In your case the equity might be more important for you to purchase the next house.",
"If you expect a significant increase in future income, then you should wait until that future income is assured, and then buy based on that decision. Buying more house than you can afford is what caused you to have to sell; you don't want to do that again. Instead of buying more house now, buy the right house for what you have now. Better yet, though, you might rent instead of buying until the future income comes onboard. Then you can get the best of both worlds - you get to buy the house you can afford in a year or two, but also don't overspend your income.",
"\"Having convinced myself that there is no point of paying someone's else mortgage Somewhat rhetorical this many years later, but I expect some other kid forcefed the obsession with propping up the housing market might be repeating the nonsense about \"\"paying someone else's mortgage\"\" and read this. Will you be buying your own farm to grow your own food, or are you happy with people using the money you spend on food for a mortgage? How about clothes? Will you be weaving your own clothes because you don't want money you spend on clothes to pay someone else's mortgage? What's special about the money you pay for rent that you get annoyed at how someone else spends it? Don't get a mortgage just because you don't like the idea of how other people might spend the money that's no longer yours after you pay them with it. As an aside, at your age with your income and no debt, you could be sensibly investing a lot of money. If you did that for five years, you'd be in a much better position that you would be tying yourself to whatever current scheme the UK is using to desperately prop up house prices.\"",
"Your calculations are good as far as they go, but there are lots of other factors and pros and cons to each decision. Yes, you should certainly compare the monthly rent to what your mortgage payments would be, as you have done. Yes, you should consider how long you might live there. If you do move out, how difficult will it be to sell the house, given market conditions in your area? If you try to rent it, how difficult is it to find a tenant, and what rent could you expect to receive? Speaking of moving out and renting the place: Who will manage the property and do maintenance? Would you still be close enough to do this yourself? Would you be willing and able to spend the time? Or would you have to hire someone? Also, what if the tenant does not pay the rent? How difficult is it to evict someone in your area? Speaking from personal experience, I own a rental property in Ohio, and the law says you can evict someone with 3 days notice. But in practice they don't just leave, so then you have to take them to court. It takes months to get a court date and months longer before the police actually show up to order them out of the house. And you have to pay the lawyer and court fees. In that time they're living in your property rent free. In my case one tenant also totally trashed the place and stole everything that wasn't nailed down -- I had to spend $13,000 on repairs to a house worth a fraction of what you're talking about. Being a landlord is NOT just a matter of sitting back and collecting rent checks: there's a fair amount of work and a lot of risk. What do you have to pay the realtor, and what other closing costs would you have to pay? Where I live, realtors typically charge 6 to 7%. You may also have to pay for an appraisal, title search, and bunch of other little fees. Mortgage interest is deductible on your federal income taxes. Rent is not. If you own and something needs to be repaired, you have to pay for it. If you rent, the landlord has to pay for it. If you own, you can do pretty much what you like with the property -- subject to zoning ordinances and building codes and maybe homeowners association rules, but you should have a pretty good amount of leeway. If you want to install ceiling fans or remodel the kitchen or add a deck, it's up to you. If you're renting, it's up to the landlord to decide what you can do to the property. And if he agrees to let you do some upgrade, when you're done, it belongs to him. With a condo, you are not usually responsible for exterior maintenance, like mowing the lawn and trimming the bushes and washing the outer walls. With a house, you are. You might pay someone to do this, which adds to the cost, or you might do it yourself, which takes time. Insurance on a condo or aparment is much less than insurance on a house. In my area, anyway. You should investigate those costs. If you buy, eventually you own the place and don't have to pay a mortgage any more. If you rent, you continue to pay forever. (Even if you don't live in the same house forever, as long as you don't take a terrible loss when you sell you should then have some money left over to apply to the next house, so you are still building equity.) Some of these pros and cons are easily quantifiable. Others are probabilities, like how likely is it that your water heater will fail?, and how long is it likely to take to find a buyer if you want to sell? And others are pretty subjective.",
"When looking at buying and selling, you really need to look at the overall picture for the short term. What would the closing cost be? Would you pay a buyers agent, or use the sellers? Loan generation fees? All of these would add up, and would affect you timeline adversely. You are currently comparing you rent, versus your plain mortgage and taxes. You're missing the losses you could possibly incur, if you do not stay int he home for the long term. You also have to rememberer the possibility of the property not renting long term, can you swing two mortgages? Or a mortgage and a rent check?",
"As everyone is saying, this depends on a lot of variables. However... I had my dad help me with the downpayment on my house. In my case, the cost of mortgage payment and all maintenance expenses is still lower than paying rent. If I sell my house and walk away from the closing office with just $1 then I've still come out ahead compared to renting. The New York Times has a fantastic tool figure out if it's a good idea to buy vs. rent. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html?_r=0 It's asks all the relevant questions, and then it tells you how cheap rent would have to be make it the better option.",
"\"My suggestion would be to do the math. That is the best advice you can get when considering any investment. There are other factors you haven't considered, too... like the fact that interest rates are at extremely low levels right now, so borrowing money is relatively cheap. If you're outside the US though, that may be less of a consideration as the mortgage lending institutions in Europe only tend to give 5-year locks on loan rates without requiring a premium. You may be somewhere else in the world. You will probably struggle to do the actual math about the probability of the market going down or up, but what you can do is this: Figure out what it would cost you to cash out the investments. You say your balance is $53,000 in various items. (Congrats! That's a nice chunk of money.) But with commissions and taxes and etc., it may reduce the value of your investments by 10% - 25% when you try to cash out those investments. Paying $3,000 to get that money out of the investments is one thing... but if you're sending $10,000 to the tax man when you sell this all off, that changes the economics of your investments a LOT. In that case you might be better off seeing what happens if the markets correct by 10%... you'd still have more than if you sold out and paid major taxes. Once you know your down payment, calculate the amount of property you could afford. You know your down payment could be somewhere around $50,000 after taxes and other items... At an 80:20 loan-to-value ratio that's about $250,000 of a property that you can qualify for, assuming you could obtain the loan for $200,000. What could you buy for that? Do some shopping and figure out what your options are... Once you have two or three potential properties, figure out the answer to \"\"What would the property give you?\"\" Is it going to be rented out? Are you going to live there? Both? If you're living in it, then you come out ahead if the costs for the mortgage debt and the ongoing maintenance and repairs are less than what you currently pay in rent. Figure out what you pay right now to put a roof over your head. Will the place you could buy need repairs? Will you pay more on a mortgage for $200,000 USD (in your local currency) than what you currently do for housing? Don't even factor in the possible appreciation of a house you inhabit when you're making this kind of investment decision... it could just as easily burn down as go up in value. If you would rent it, what kind of rental would that be? Long-term rental? Expect to pay for other people to break your stuff. Short-term rental? You can collect more money per tenant per day, but you'll end up with higher vacancy rates. And people still break your stuff. But do the math and see if you could collect enough in rent from a tenant (person or business or whatever the properties are you could buy) to cover the amount you are paying in debt, plus what you would pay in taxes (rent is income), plus what you would need for maintenance, plus insurance. IF the numbers make sense, then real estate can be a phenomenally lucrative investment. I own some investment properties myself. It is a great hedge against inflation (you can raise rents when contracts lapse... usually) and it is an excellent way to own a tangible item. But if you don't know the numbers and exactly how it would make you better off than sitting and hoping that the markets go up, because they generally do over time, then don't take the jump.\"",
"Definitely don't borrow from your 401K. If you quit or get laid off, you have to repay the whole amount back immediately, plus you are borrowing from your opportunity cost. The stock market should be good at least through the end of this year. As one of the commentators already stated, have you calculated your net savings by reducing the interest rate? You will be paying closing costs and not all of these are deductible (only the points are). When calculating the savings, you have to ask yourself how long you will be hanging on the property? Are you likely to be long term landlords, or do you have any ideas on selling in the near future? You can reduce the cost and principal by throwing the equivalent of one to two extra mortgage payments a year to get the repayment period down significantly (by years). In this way, you are not married to a higher payment (as you would be if you refinanced to a 15 year term). I would tend to go with a) eat the appraisal cost, not refinance, and b) throw extra money towards principal to get the term of the loan to be reduced.",
"Don't do it. I would sell one of my investment houses and use the equity to pay down your primary mortgage. Then I would refinance my primary mortgage in order to lower the payments.",
"Pay it off....I've only ever paid interest on mortgages to buy the houses I've lived in (I paid both mortgages of years ahead of schedule) & as a result my credit rating's way above average, I use credit cards for everything, pay 'em off in full every month unless I'm paid not to (currently have around 8,000 sitting interest free while the cash earns 6% elsewhere). Life's sweet if you understand the system. Hell if you don't. Keep saving...",
"Here is something that should help your decision: Currently you are 57, suppose that means that you will still work for 10 years, and then be retired for another 20 before you sell the house. Your retirement account is nearly flat, so you will have to support yourself with your own income. If there are no surprises, you and your wife could expect to earn 1.16 million over the next 10 years. There will be interest on your savings, but also inflation, so to simplify I will ignore both. That means you will have an average of 40k (gross?) per year available to live from during the next 30 years. If you get a mortgage where you only pay nett 3% interest (no payback of the loan), that would cost you 6k per year on interest (based on 350k-150k), if you also want to pay back the 200k difference within 30 years, it would totally be close to 13k in annual interest+payback. Now consider whether you would rather live on 40k per year in your current place, or on a lower amount in a bigger place. Personally I would not choose to make a 200k investment at this point, perhaps after trying to live on a budget for a while. (This has the additional benefit that you can even build some cash reserve before buying anything.)",
"\"I am going to respond to a very thin sliver of what's going on. Skip ahead 4 years. When buying that house, is it better to have $48K in the bank but a $48K student loan, or to have neither? That $48K may very well be what it would take to put you over the 20% down payment threshhold thus avoiding PMI. Banks let you have a certain amount of non-mortgage debt before impacting your ability to borrow. It's the difference between the 28% for the mortgage, insurance and property tax, and the total 38% debt service. What I offer above is a bit counter-intuitive, and I only mention it as you said the house is a priority. I'm answering as if you asked \"\"how do I maximize my purchasing power if I wish to buy a house in the next few years?\"\"\"",
"Unfortunately, what you are finding is that your past decisions to take on debt have limited your choices now. Learn from this fact and choose not to go further into debt. Your condo will become a burden if you don't have the liquid funds to maintain the property, keep the mortgage current, and hedge against any other significant life events. You already have almost no financial margin. These steps will almost guarantee that you will enjoy your house and have a worry/stress free experience. You make plenty of money for you to complete this cycle in a handful of years and be ready to buy. Also, don't give yourself false either/or choices. You have options. Our apartment is way too small for just the two of us, much less a child. We'd have to move before we had a child and we'd like to live in our own house when we do. Not true. Rent a cheaper apartment further outside the city, which will also be larger. It probably won't be as nice as the one you have now. Buy a car for cash under $5000. It is a sacrifice for few years while you work for your dream home. You already know this is a bad decision. Continuing down this path will leave you with the same frustrations 10 years from now. Good Luck!",
"The new payment on $172,500 3.5% 15yr would be $1233/mo compared to $1614/mo now (26 bi-weekly payments, but 12 months.) Assuming the difference is nearly all interest, the savings is closer to $285/mo than 381. Note, actual savings are different, the actual savings is based on the difference in interest over the year. Since the term will be changing, I'm looking at cash flow, which is the larger concern, in my opinion. $17,000/285 is 60 months. This is your break even time to payoff the $17000, higher actually since the $17K will be accruing interest. I didn't see any mention of closing costs or other expenses. Obviously, that has to be factored in as well. I think the trade off isn't worth it. As the other answers suggest, the rental is too close to break-even now. The cost of repairs on two houses is an issue. In my opinion, it's less about the expenses being huge than being random. You don't get billed $35/mo to paint the house. You wake up, see too many spots showing wear, and get a $3000 bill. Same for all high cost items, Roof, HVAC, etc. You are permitted to borrow 50% of your 401(k) balance, so you have $64K in the account. I don't know your age, this might be great or a bit low. I'd keep saving, not putting any extra toward either mortgage until I had an emergency fund that was more than sufficient. The fund needs to handle the unexpected expenses as well as the months of unemployment. In general, 6-9 months of these expenses is recommended. To be clear, there are times a 401(k) loan can make sense. I just don't see that it does now. (Disclaimer - when analyzing refis there are two approaches. The first is to look at interest saved. After all, interest is the expense, principal payments go right to your balance sheet. The second is purely cash flow, in which case one might justify a higher rate, and going from 15 to 30 years, but freeing up cash that can be better deployed. Even though the rate goes up say 1/2%, the payment drops due to the term. Take that savings and deposit to a matched 401(k) and the numbers may work out very well. I offer this to explain why the math above may not be consistent with other answers of mine.)",
"You're in the same situation I'm in (bought new house, didn't sell old house, now renting out old house). Assuming that everything is stable, right now I'd do something besides pay down your new mortgage. If you pay down the mortgage at your old house, that mortgage payment will go away faster than if you paid down the one on the new house. Then, things start to get fun. You then have a lot more free cash flow available to do whatever you like. I'd tend to do that before searching for other investments. Then, once you have the free cash flow, you can look for other investments (probably a wise risk) or retire the mortgage on your residence earlier.",
"\"The general answer is: \"\"it depends on how long you want to live there\"\". Here is a good calculator to figure it out: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html Basically, if you plan to move in a few years, then renting makes more sense. It is a lot easier to move from an apartment when your lease is up versus selling a house, which can be subject to fluctuations in the real-estate market. As an example, during the real estate bubble, a lot of \"\"young professional\"\" types bought condos and town homes instead of renting. Now these people are married with kids, need to move somewhere bigger, but they can't get rid of their old place because they can't sell it for what they still owe. If these people had rented for a few years, they would be in a better position financially. (Many people fell for the mantra \"\"If you are renting, you are throwing your money away\"\", without looking at the long-term implications.) However, your question is a little unique, because you mentioned renting for the rest of your life, and putting the savings into an investment, which is a cool idea. (Thinking outside the box, I like it.) I'm going to assume you mean \"\"rent the same place for many years\"\" versus \"\"moving around the country every few years\"\". If you are staying in one place for a long time, I am going to say that buying a house is probably a better option. Here's why: So what about investing? Let's look at some numbers: So, based on the above, I say that buying a house is the way to go (as long as you plan to live in the same place for several years). However, if you could find a better investment than the Dow, or if mortgage interest rates change drastically, things could tip in another direction. Addendum: CrimsonX brought up a good point about the costs of owning a house (upkeep and property taxes), which I didn't mention above. However, I don't think they change my answer. If you rent, you are still paying those costs. They are just hidden from you. Your landlord pays the contractor or the tax man, and then you pay the landlord as part of your rent.\"",
"Paying down your mortgage now will decrease the total cost of your home loan and the time period for which your loan lasts. Even if you trade up in that time period, you will be that much closer to being free of house payments. Owning your home outright gives you a significant amount of freedom to consider less lucrative and more personally fulfilling career options- especially if your work environment becomes unpleasant. It can also help you weather the storm of a job loss more easily (though you should also build an emergency fund). Homes are depreciating, illiquid assets with significant transaction fees. It is wise to get a starter home that meets your current needs and move up to a home that better meets your needs as you mature. However, getting on the status treadmill and buying large showy homes that generally exceed the utility that you get out of them is expensive, a poor investment, and often impairs the ability to generate long term wealth.",
"\"Remember that the rental market and the property market are markets. For any given location and level of quality, if it were a clearly superior choice to buy over rent, then more people would buy, and less would rent, driving prices down for rentals. The value of \"\"owning\"\" as opposed to paying rent and never owning is priced into that, at least at locations and levels of quality where owning is a possibility (and that is nearly always a possibility, even at very low levels of quality). This is true even disregarding your personal circumstances, unless you're looking in an area that has a lot of people like you (San Francisco, perhaps). Given your personal circumstances, you have strong incentives to be on the renting side, unless there are major pressures on the housing market that cause property to be far cheaper than it should. This was true in 2009-2011, but is mostly not true anymore (though some areas have yet to fully come out of the crash).\"",
"Paying off the debt is low-risk, low-reward. You're effectively guaranteed a 4% return. If you buy a mutual fund, you're going to have to take some risk to have a decent chance of getting better than 4% and change return in the long run, which probably means a fund that invests primarily in stocks. Buying a stock mutual fund is high-risk, high reward, especially when you're in significant debt. On the other hand, 4% and change is very low-interest. If you wanted to buy stocks on margin, financing stock investments directly with debt, you'd pay a heck of a lot more. Bottom line: It comes down to your personal risk tolerance.",
"\"Here is the thing if in 2020-2040 you can buy CD's that pay 4% then you would kick yourself for paying your mortgage early and costing you a no risk 1% revenue on your money. Think about this? You have a 4% mortgage that is costing you less than 3% after tax deduction\"\" in 2025 you are buying 10 year notes at 7% which is not out of the question. You will be making 4% on your money with virtually no risk. Personally I agree with JoeTaxpayer. I have gone a step further and done so with two houses and I netted myself over 20 grand in 30 months. So in short you have to ask yourself \"\"Can I make more than 3% on my money?\"\"\"",
"\"The New York Times offer a remarkably detailed Buy vs Rent calculator. You enter - From all of this, it advises the break-even rent, when monetarily, it's equal. I'd suggest you keep a few things in mind when using such a tool. Logic, common sense, and a Nobel prize winner named Robert Shiller all indicate that housing will follow inflation over the long term. Short term, even 20 years, the graphs will hint at something else, but the real long term, the cost of housing can't exceed inflation. The other major point I'd add is that I see you wrote \"\"We rent a nice house.\"\" Most often, people are looking to buy what they feel they can't easily rent. Whether it's the yard, room number or sizes, etc. This also leads to the purchase of too big a house. You can find that you can afford the extra bedroom, family room in addition to living room, etc, and then buy a house 50% bigger than what you need or planned on. In my opinion, getting the smallest house you can imagine living in, no bigger than what you live in now, and plan to get on a faster than 30 year repayment. Even with transaction costs, in 10 years, you'll have saved enough to make the bump up to a larger house if you wish.\"",
"You didn't answer my questions above, but the biggest factor if the two interest rates are similar is what it will cost you for mortgage insurance if you do not include a 20% down-payment on your next house purchase. I would take the extra money from the proceeds of the other sale to get to a 15-year loan on your next house, then put all of your extra money into paying down the student loans ahead of the 7 year schedule."
] |
[
"\"The only way to \"\"roll\"\" debt into a home purchase is to have sufficient down payment. Under the \"\"new\"\" lending rules that took effect in Canada earlier this year, you must have at least 5% of the purchase price as a down payment. If you have $60,000 in additional debt, the total amount of mortgage still cannot be greater than 95% of the purchase price. Below is an example. Purchase price of home $200,000. Maximum mortgage $190,000 (95% of purchase price) Total outside debt $60,000 That means the mortgage (other than the current debt of $60k) can only be $130,000 This means you would need a down payment of $70,000. Also keep in mind that I have not included any other legal fees, real estate commissions, etc in this example. Since it is safe to assume that you do not have $70k available for a down payment, renting and paying down the debt is likely the better route. Pay off the credit card(s) first as they have the higher interest amount. Best of luck!\"",
"What you propose is to convert unsecured debt into secured debt. Conversion of unsecured debt into secured debt is not generally a good idea (several reasons). The debt you currently owe does not have assets securing the debt, so the creditor knows they are exposed to risk, and may be more willing to negotiate or relax terms on the debt, should you encounter problems. When you provide an asset to secure debt, you lose freedom to sell that asset. When you incur debt their is usually a spending problem that needs to be corrected, which is typically not fixed when a refinance solution is used. You do not mention interest rate, which would be one benefit to conversion of unsecured to secured debt, so you probably are not gaining adequate benefit from the conversion strategy. This strategy is often contemplated using 'cash-out' refinancing to borrow against a home you already own, and the (claimed) benefit is often to lower the interest rate on the debt. Your scenario is more complicated in that you have not purchased the home (yet). Though it may be a good idea to purchase a home, that choice depends on a different set of considerations (children, job stability, rental vs. buy costs, lifestyle, expected appreciation, etc) from how to best handle a large debt (income vs. expenses, how to increase income or reduce expenses, lifestyle, priorities, etc). Another consideration is that you already have a problem with the large debt owed to one (set of) creditor(s), and you have a plan which would shift the risk/exposure to another (set of) creditor(s) who may have been less complicit in accruing the original debt. Was the debt incurred jointly during the marriage, and something you accepted responsibility to repay? You mention that you make great income, and you specify one expense (rent), but you neither provided the amount of income, total of all your expenses, nor your free cash flow amount, nor any indication of percentages spent on rent, essential expenses, lifestyle, nor amount available to retire debt. Since you did not provide specifics, we can take a look at three scenarios, scenario #1, $4000/month income scenario #1, $6000/month income scenario #1, $8000/month income Depending upon your income and choices, you might have < $500/month to pay towards debt, or as much as $3000/month to pay towards debt, and depending upon interest rate (which OP did not provide), this debt could take < 2 years to pay or > 5 years to pay. Have you accepted the responsibility for the debt? It will be a tough task to repay the debt. And you will learn that debt comes with a cost as you repay it. One problem people often encounter when they refinance debt is they have not changed the habits which produced the debt. So they often continue their spending habits and incur new unsecured debt, landing them back in the same problem position, but with the increased secured debt combined with additional new unsecured debt. Challenge yourself to repay a specific portion of the debt in a specific time, and consider ways to reduce your expenses (and/or increase your income) to provide more money to repay the debt quicker. As you also did not disclose your assets, it is hard to know whether you could repay a portion of the debt from assets you already own. It makes sense to sell assets that have a low (or zero) return to repay debt that has a high interest rate. Perhaps you have substantial assets that you are reluctant to sell, but that you could sell to repay a large part of the debt?",
"\"Buy and Hope is a common investment strategy. It's also one that will keep you poor. Instead of thinking about saving money to put against a credit card or line of credit using your own job and hard-earned dollars, why not use someone else's money? If you have enough of a down payment for a property of your own, consider a duplex, triplex, or 4-plex where you live in one of the units. Since you will be living there you only need 5% down as opposed to 20% down if you do not live there. This arrangement gives you a place to live while you have other people paying your mortgage and other debts. If done properly, you can find a place that is cash-flow positive so you basically live rent-free. This all assumes you have a down payment and a bank that will work with you. Your best bet is to discuss your situation with a mortgage broker. They know all the rules, and which banks have the best deal for you. A mortgage broker works on your behalf and is paid by the lending institution, not you. There are various caveats with this strategy, and they all revolve around knowing what to do and how to execute the plan. I suggest Googling Robert Kiyosaki and reading \"\"Rich Dad Poor Dad\"\" before taking this journey. He offers a number of free and paid seminars that teach people how to purchase real estate and make it pay. I have taken the free evening seminar and the $500 weekend seminar on how to purchase properties and make money with them. Note that I have no affiliation with Kiyosaki, and I do find his methods to work.\""
] |
3125
|
Claiming mileage allowances, what are the rules/guidelines?
|
[
"89008"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"89008",
"540395",
"18539",
"134794",
"34810",
"5587",
"146388",
"245122",
"76618",
"154931",
"362069",
"236122",
"397608",
"239019",
"544381",
"405412",
"297241",
"51491",
"18850",
"263259",
"434846",
"324911",
"401551",
"97719",
"514145",
"447231",
"174714",
"216077",
"417981",
"192843",
"173212",
"446984",
"241085",
"288537",
"476173",
"263485",
"571062",
"295509",
"103405",
"421301",
"339488",
"467781",
"147624",
"62869",
"324513",
"350839",
"479542",
"364938",
"31144",
"356884",
"116934",
"111157",
"503651",
"510144",
"555102",
"24421",
"541809",
"131451",
"280538",
"298009",
"140966",
"384187",
"565157",
"231990",
"205423",
"588253",
"451005",
"460180",
"55200",
"331981",
"589416",
"2528",
"562777",
"282115",
"402327",
"571711",
"140977",
"106265",
"12140",
"214143",
"410128",
"196463",
"163693",
"183612",
"101543",
"100280",
"248761",
"12729",
"338348",
"81328",
"457013",
"144221",
"124507",
"240643",
"531442",
"264659",
"299002",
"531578",
"271436",
"200603"
] |
[
"I believe so (that you can, not that you are greedy) I run my own business and, generally speaking, am 'charging' my company 40p per mile as per the quote above. I did not know about the ability to claim the shortfall, as it is not relevant to me, but it makes perfect sense and I'm sure that a phone call to HMRC will help you understand how to claim. As for the greedy question - personally I think that laws are there for a reason (both ways) so if there's money to be claimed - there's no reason not to do so, unless of course the hassle is greater than the potential gain. One last note - not sure exactly what the rules around this are, but I know that the allowance is not applicable for one's general commute and so if you're travelling to the same place over 40% of the time for more than two years you are no longer allowed to claim these miles.",
"Alright, IRS Publication 463: Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses Business and personal use. If you use your car for both business and personal purposes, you must divide your expenses between business and personal use. You can divide your expense based on the miles driven for each purpose. Example. You are a sales representative for a clothing firm and drive your car 20,000 miles during the year: 12,000 miles for business and 8,000 miles for personal use. You can claim only 60% (12,000 ÷ 20,000) of the cost of operating your car as a business expense Obviously nothing helpful in the code. So I would use option 1, weight the maintenance-related mileage by the proportion of business use. Although if you use your car for business a lot (and perhaps have a spouse with a car), an argument could be made for 3. So I would consider my odds of being audited (even lower this year due to IRS budget cuts) and choose 1 or 3. And of course never throw anything away until you're room temperature.",
"Here are the general guidelines on what you should report and pay - but the overall rule is that if it's not a business-related cost then you can't claim it. In your example, a client meeting may warrant a claim for 'entertaining clients' which could be claimed as a business cost - but buying yourself a coffee to get out of the house isn't a business cost.",
"I spoke to HMRC and they said #1 is not allowable but #2 is. They suggested using either their published exchange rates or I could use another source. I suggested the Bank of England spot rates and that was deemed reasonable and allowable.",
"\"I'm going to look just at purchase price. Essentially, you can't always claim the whole of the purchase price (or 95% your case) in the year (the accounting period) of purchase, but you get a percentage of the value of the car each year, called writing down allowance, which is a capital allowance. It is similar to depreciation, but based on HRMC's own formula. In fact, it seems you probably can claim 95% of the purchase price, because the value is less than £1000. The logic is a bit involved, but I hope you can understand it. You could also claim simplified expenses instead, which is just based on a rate per mile, but you can't claim both. Note, by year I mean whatever your account period is. This could be the normal financial year, but you would probably have a better idea about this. See The HMRC webpage on this for more details. The big idea is that you record the value of any assets you are claiming writing down allowance on in one of a number of pools, that attract the same rate of writing down allowance, so you don't need to record the value of each asset separately. They are similar to accounts in accounting, so they have an opening balance, and closing balance. If you use an asset for personal use, it needs a pool to itself. HRMC call that a single asset pool. So, to start with, look at the Business Cars section, and look at the Rates for Cars section, to determine the rate you can claim. Each one links to a further article, which gives more detail if you need it. Your car is almost certainly in the special rate category. Special rate is 8% a year, main rate is 18%, and First year allowance is essentially 100%. Then, you look at the Work out what you can claim article. That talks you through the steps. I'll go through your example. You would have a pool for your car, which would end the account period before you bought the vehicle at zero (step 1). You then add the value of the car in the period you bought it (Step 2). You would reduce the value of the pool if you dispose of it in the same year (Step 3). Because the car is worth less than £1,000 (see the section on \"\"If you have £1,000 or less in your pool\"\"), you would normally be able to claim the whole value of the pool (the value of the car) in the first accounting period, and reduce the value of the pool to zero. As you use the car for personal use, you only claim 95% of the value, but still reduce the pool to zero. See the section on \"\"Items you use outside your business\"\". This £1000 is adjusted if your accounting period lasts more or less than 12 months. Once the pool is down to zero that it you don't need to think about it any more for tax purposes, apart from if you are claiming other motoring expenses, or if you sell it. It gets more complicated if the car is more expensive. I'll go through an example for a car worth £2,000. Then, after Step 3, on the year of purchase, you would reduce the value of the pool by 8%, and claim 95% of the reduction. This would be a 160 reduction, and 95%*160 = 152 claim, leaving the value of 1860 in the pool. You then follow the same steps for the next year, start with 1840 in the pool, reduce the value by 8%, then claim 95% of the reduction. This continues until you sell or dispose of the car (Step 3), or the value of the pool is 1000 or less, then you claim all of it in that year. Selling the car, or disposing of the car is discussed in the Capital allowances when you sell an asset article. The basic idea is that if you have already reduced the value of the pool to zero, the price you sell the car for is added you your profits for that year (See \"\"If you originally claimed 100% of the item\"\"), if you still have anything in the pool, you reduce the value of the pool by the sale value, and if it reduces to below zero (to -£200, say), you add that amount (£200, in this case), to your profits. If the value is above zero, you keep applying writing down allowances. In your case, that seems to just means if you sell the car in the same year you buy it, you claim the difference (or 95% of it) as writing down allowance, and if you do it later, you claim the purchase price in the year of purchase, and add 95% of the sale price to your profits in the year you sell it. I'm a bit unclear about starting \"\"to use it outside your business\"\", which doesn't seem to apply if you use it outside the business to start with. You can claim simplified expenses for vehicles, if you are a sole trader or partner, but not if you claim capital allowances (such as writing down allowances) on them, or you include a separate expense in your accounts for motoring expenses. It's a flat rate of 45p a mile for the first 10,000 miles, and 25p per mile after that, for cars, and 24p a mile for motorcycles. See the HRMC page on Simplifed Mileage expenses for details. For any vehicle you decide to either claim capital allowances claim running costs separately, or claim simplified mileage expenses, and \"\"Once you use the flat rates for a vehicle, you must continue to do so as long as you use that vehicle for your business.you have to stick with that decision for that vehicle\"\". In your case, it seems you can claim 95% of the purchase price in the accounting period you buy it, and if you sell it you add 95% of the sale price to your profits in that accounting period. It gets more complicated if you have a car worth more than £1000, adjusted for the length of the accounting period. Also, if you change how you use it, consult the page on selling selling an asset, as you may have disposed of it. You can also use simplified mileage expenses, but then you can't claim capital allowances, or claim running costs separately for that car. I hope that makes sense, please comment if not, and I'll try to adjust the explanation.\"",
"Source on GOV.UK You may be able to get tax back for some of the bills you have to pay because you have to work at home on a regular basis. You can only claim for things to do with your work, eg business telephone calls or the extra cost of gas and electricity for your work area. You can’t claim for things that you use for both private and business use, eg rent or broadband access. You don’t need to provide records for claims of up to £4 per week (£18 per month). For claims over £4 per week you’ll need to provide evidence of what you’ve spent. Claims up to £2,500 You must claim using a Self Assessment tax return if you already fill one in. If you don’t already fill in a Self Assessment tax return, and your allowable expenses are under £2,500 for the tax year, fill in form P87 and send it to the address on the form. If you’ve made a successful claim in a previous tax year and your expenses are less than £1,000 (or £2,500 for professional fees and subscriptions), you may be able to make your claim by phone. Claims over £2,500 You must claim using a Self Assessment tax return.",
"You've got two options. Deduct the business portion of the depreciation and actual expenses for operating the car. Use the IRS standard mileage rate of $.575/mile in 2015. Multiply your business miles by the rate to calculate your deduction. Assuming you're a sole proprietor you'll include a Schedule C to your return and claim the deduction on that form.",
"Talk to a tax professional. The IRS really doesn't like the deduction, and it's a concept (like independent contractors) that is often not done properly. You need to, at a minimum, have records, including timestamped photographs, proving that: Remember, documentation is key, and must be filed and accessible for a number of years. Poor record keeping will cost you dearly, and the cost of keeping those records is something that you need to weigh against the benefit.",
"\"Some of the 45,000 might be taxable. The question is how was the stipend determined. Was it based on the days away? The mile driven? The cities you worked in? The IRS has guidelines regarding what is taxable in IRS Pub 15 Per diem or other fixed allowance. You may reimburse your employees by travel days, miles, or some other fixed allowance under the applicable revenue procedure. In these cases, your employee is considered to have accounted to you if your reimbursement doesn't exceed rates established by the Federal Government. The 2015 standard mileage rate for auto expenses was 57.5 cents per mile. The rate for 2016 is 54 cents per mile. The government per diem rates for meals and lodging in the continental United States can be found by visiting the U.S. General Services Administration website at www.GSA.gov and entering \"\"per diem rates\"\" in the search box. Other than the amount of these expenses, your employees' business expenses must be substantiated (for example, the business purpose of the travel or the number of business miles driven). For information on substantiation methods, see Pub. 463. If the per diem or allowance paid exceeds the amounts substantiated, you must report the excess amount as wages. This excess amount is subject to income tax with-holding and payment of social security, Medicare, and FUTA taxes. Show the amount equal to the substantiated amount (for example, the nontaxable portion) in box 12 of Form W-2 using code “L\"\"\"",
"The best way to do this is to pay for the entire car, including gas, insurance, and repairs, from S-corp funds, then meticulously track how many miles are used for personal and how many miles for business. If you pay with S-corp funds, you will claim the personal miles as a taxable benefit from the S-corp on your personal return. The S-corp can then claim all the expenses and depreciation on the vehicle, reducing the S-corp's tax liability.",
"\"The short answer is yes you can, but you have to make sure you do it correctly. If you are employed by a tech company that does contract work at a separate location and you don't get reimbursed by your employer for travel expenses, you can claim the mileage between your home and location B as a business expense, but there's a catch - you have to subtract the mileage between your home and location A (your employer). So if it's 20 miles from your house to your employer (location A), and 30 miles from your house to the business you're contracting at (location B), you can only claim 10 miles each way (so 20 miles total). Obviously if the distance to location B is closer than your employer (location A), you're out of luck. You will have to itemize to take this deduction, by filling out a Schedule A for itemized deductions and Form 2106 to calculate how much of a deduction for travel expenses you can take. Google \"\"should i itemize\"\", if you're unsure whether to take the Standard Deduction or Itemize. Sources:\"",
"The answer on the Canadian Government's website is pretty clear: Most employees cannot claim employment expenses. You cannot deduct the cost of travel to and from work, or other expenses, such as most tools and clothing. However, that is most likely related to a personal vehicle. There is a deduction related to Public Transportation: You can claim cost of monthly public transit passes or passes of longer duration such as an annual pass for travel within Canada on public transit for 2016. The second sleeping residence is hard to justify as the individual is choosing to work in this town and this individual is choosing to spent the night there - it is not currently a work requirement. As always, please consult a certified tax professional in your country for any final determinations on personal (and corporate) tax laws and filings.",
"I contacted Stephen Fishman, J.D., the author of Home Business Tax Deductions, to let him know that this question was missing from his book. He was kind enough to send a reply. My original phrasing of the question: If your car is used for both business and personal use, and you deduct via the actual expense method, do trips to the mechanic, gas station, and auto parts store to service or repair the car count as business miles, personal miles, or part-business-part-personal miles? What about driving the newly-purchased car home from the dealership? And his response: Good question. I can find nothing about this in IRS publication or elsewhere. However, common sense would tell us that the cost of driving to make car repairs should be deductible. If you use your car for business, it is a business expense, just like transporting any other piece of business equipment for repairs is a business expense. This should be so whether you use the standard mileage rate or actual expense method. You should probably reduce the amount of your deduction by the percentage of personal use of the car during the year. The same goes for driving a car home from the dealer.",
"There is an IRS mandated rate for mileage reimbursement. I believe it's currently $0.55/mile. That covers gas, wear and tear, insurance, etc. Not sure if they'd use that, but it's not like reimbursing people for driving their own car is a new problem to be solved.",
"\"Can she claim deductions for her driving to and from work? Considering most people use their cars mostly to commute to/from work, there must be limits to what you can consider \"\"claimable\"\" and what you can't, otherwise everyone would claim back 80% of their mileage. No, she can't. But if she's driving from one work site to another, that's deductible whether or not either of the work sites is her home office. Can she claim deductions for her home office? There's a specific set of IRS tests you have to meet. If she meets them, she can. If you're self-employed, reasonably need an office, and have a place in your house dedicated to that purpose, you will likely meet all the tests. Can I claim deductions for my home office, even though I have an official work place that is not in my home? It's very hard to do so. The use of your home office has to benefit your employer, not just you. Can we claim deductions for our home internet service? If the business or home office uses them, they should be a deductible home office expense in some percentage. Usually for generic utilities that benefit the whole house, you deduct at the same percentage as the home office is of the entire house. But you can use other fractions if more appropriate. For example, if you have lots of computers in the home office, you can deduct more of the electricity if you can justify the ratio you use. Run through the rules at the IRS web page.\"",
"Since you are using the percentage method to determine the home/business use split, I would think that under most circumstances the distance driven to get your car from the dealership to home, and from home to mechanic and back would be less than 1% of the total miles driven. This is an acceptable rounding error. When refueling, I typically do that on my way to another destination and therefore it's not something I count separately. If your miles driven to attend to repair/refueling tasks are more than 1% of the total miles driven, split them as you feel comfortable in your above examples. I'd calculate the B/P percentages as total miles less maintenance miles, then apply that split to maintenance miles as well.",
"\"In the normal course of events, you should receive a separate check for the amount of the purchase, and that amount should not be included in your wages as shown on your W-2 statement. If the amount is included on your paycheck, it should still be listed separately as a non-taxable item, not as part of wages paid. In other words, the IRS should not even be aware that this money was paid to you, there is no need to list the amount anywhere on your income tax return, and if you are paranoid about the matter, staple the stub attached to the reimbursement to a copy of your bank statement showing that you deposited the money into your account and save it in your file of tax papers for the year, just in case the IRS audits you and requires you to document every deposit in your checking account. The amount is a business expense that is deductible on your employer's tax return, and your employer is also required to keep documentation that the employee expense reimbursement plan is running as per IRS rules (i.e., the employer is not slipping money to you \"\"under the table\"\" as a reimbursement instead of paying you wages and thus avoiding the employer's share of FICA taxes etc) and that is why your employer needs the store receipt, not a hand-written note from you, to show the IRS if the IRS asks. You said you paid with \"\"your own cash\"\" but in case this was not meant literally and you paid via credit card or debit card or check, then any mileage award, or points, or cash back for credit card use are yours to keep tax-free, and any interest charges (if you are carrying a revolving balance or paid through your HELOC) or overdraft or bounced check fees are yours to pay.\"",
"You cannot deduct expenses directly. However, your employer may participate in programs to allow you to make a pretax deduction capped at $255 per month to pay for certain commuting expenses. For personal car commuters the main category is to pay for parking. IRS guidelines Qualified Transportation Benefits This exclusion applies to the following benefits. A ride in a commuter highway vehicle between the employee's home and work place. A transit pass. Qualified parking. Qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement. You may provide an employee with any one or more of the first three benefits at the same time. However, the exclusion for qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement isn't available in any month the employee receives any of the other qualified transportation benefits.",
"The IRS Guidance pertaining to the subject. In general the best I can say is your business expense may be deductible. But it depends on the circumstances and what it is you want to deduct. Travel Taxpayers who travel away from home on business may deduct related expenses, including the cost of reaching their destination, the cost of lodging and meals and other ordinary and necessary expenses. Taxpayers are considered “traveling away from home” if their duties require them to be away from home substantially longer than an ordinary day’s work and they need to sleep or rest to meet the demands of their work. The actual cost of meals and incidental expenses may be deducted or the taxpayer may use a standard meal allowance and reduced record keeping requirements. Regardless of the method used, meal deductions are generally limited to 50 percent as stated earlier. Only actual costs for lodging may be claimed as an expense and receipts must be kept for documentation. Expenses must be reasonable and appropriate; deductions for extravagant expenses are not allowable. More information is available in Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses. Entertainment Expenses for entertaining clients, customers or employees may be deducted if they are both ordinary and necessary and meet one of the following tests: Directly-related test: The main purpose of the entertainment activity is the conduct of business, business was actually conducted during the activity and the taxpayer had more than a general expectation of getting income or some other specific business benefit at some future time. Associated test: The entertainment was associated with the active conduct of the taxpayer’s trade or business and occurred directly before or after a substantial business discussion. Publication 463 provides more extensive explanation of these tests as well as other limitations and requirements for deducting entertainment expenses. Gifts Taxpayers may deduct some or all of the cost of gifts given in the course of their trade or business. In general, the deduction is limited to $25 for gifts given directly or indirectly to any one person during the tax year. More discussion of the rules and limitations can be found in Publication 463. If your LLC reimburses you for expenses outside of this guidance it should be treated as Income for tax purposes. Edit for Meal Expenses: Amount of standard meal allowance. The standard meal allowance is the federal M&IE rate. For travel in 2010, the rate for most small localities in the United States is $46 a day. Source IRS P463 Alternately you could reimburse at a per diem rate",
"I looked at Publication 463 (2014), Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses for examples. I thought this was the mot relevant. No regular place of work. If you have no regular place of work but ordinarily work in the metropolitan area where you live, you can deduct daily transportation costs between home and a temporary work site outside that metropolitan area. Generally, a metropolitan area includes the area within the city limits and the suburbs that are considered part of that metropolitan area. You cannot deduct daily transportation costs between your home and temporary work sites within your metropolitan area. These are nondeductible commuting expenses. This only deals with transportation to and from the temporary work site. Transportation expenses do not include expenses you have while traveling away from home overnight. Those expenses are travel expenses discussed in chapter 1 . However, if you use your car while traveling away from home overnight, use the rules in this chapter to figure your car expense deduction. See Car Expenses , later. You will also have to consider the cost of tolls of the use of a trailer if those apply.",
"\"When I have a question about my income taxes, the first place I look is generally the Giant Book of Income Tax Information, Publication 17 (officially called \"\"Your Federal Income Tax\"\"). This looks to be covered in Chapter 26 on \"\"Car Expenses and Other Employee Business Expenses\"\". It's possible that there's something in there that applies to you if you need to temporarily commute to a place that isn't your normal workplace for a legitimate business reason or other business-related travel. But for your normal commute from your home to your normal workplace it has this to say: Commuting expenses. You cannot deduct the costs of taking a bus, trolley, subway, or taxi, or of driving a car between your home and your main or regular place of work. These costs are personal commuting expenses. You cannot deduct commuting expenses no matter how far your home is from your regular place of work. You cannot deduct commuting expenses even if you work during the commuting trip.\"",
"\"Suppose that I work from home, but do not qualify for a business use of home deduction. As I understand it, this means I cannot deduct trips from home to another work location (e.g., going to a client's home or office to do work there). I do not think this is true. You cannot deduct trips to your main business location, i.e.: you cannot deduct trips to your office or client's location if this is your main client and you routinely work on-site. However, if you only visit your clients on occasion for specific events while doing your routine work at home - you can definitely deduct those trips. The deduction of the home usage itself has nothing to do with it. However, there's a different reason they refer to pub 587. Your home must qualify as principal place of business (even if it doesn't qualify for deduction). The qualifications of \"\"principal place of business\"\" are described in pub 587. \"\"if for some personal reason you do not go directly from one location to the other, you cannot deduct more than the amount it would have cost you to go directly from the first location to the second.\"\" What is not clear to me is what exactly is deductible if there are significant time gaps (within a single day) between trips to different clients. You got it right. What this quote means is that if you have client A and client B, and you drive from A to B - you can only deduct the travel between A and B, nothing else. I.e.: if you have 2 hours to kill and you take a trip to the mall - you cannot deduct the mileage attributable to that trip. You only deduct the actual distance between A and B as it would be had you driven from A to B directly. The example you cite re first client being considered as the place of business is for the case where your home doesn't qualify as principal place of business. In this case you start counting miles from your first client, and only for direct trips from client to client. If you only have 1 client in that day, tough luck, nothing to deduct. Also, it's not clear whether stopoffs between clients would really be \"\"personal reasons\"\", since the appointment times are often set by the client, so it's not as if the delay between A and B was just because I felt like it; there was never the option of going directly from A to B. That's what is called \"\"facts and circumstances\"\". You can argue that you had enough time between meetings to go back to your home office to continue working. The IRS agent auditing you (and you're likely to get audited) will consider that. Maybe will accept it. Maybe not. If I had a gap like that described above, I could save on my taxes by going to the park or a hamburger stand instead of going home between A and B But then you wouldn't be at home, so why would it be \"\"principal place of business\"\" if you're not there? Boom, lost deduction for the trip to the first client. I suggest you talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). You're dealing with deductions that are considered \"\"red flags\"\" for the IRS. I.e.: many people believe that these deductions (business use of your home/car) trigger audits. To substantiate business use of your car you need to keep very good track of your travels (literally travel log, they sell them at Staples), and make sure to distinguish between personal travel and business travel, keep proofs that the meetings took place (although keeping a log is a requirement, it can be backdated/faked, so if audited - the IRS will want to see more than your own documentation). A good tax adviser will educate you on all these rules, and also clarify the complexities you were asking about here. I'm not a tax adviser, so don't rely on this answer when you're preparing your tax return or responding to the IRS audit. In your edit you ask this: Specifically, what I'm wondering is whether it is possible for a home to qualify as a \"\"principal place of business\"\" for purposes of deducting car expenses but not for the home office deduction. The answer is yes. Deductibility is determined by exclusivity of use, among other things. But the fact that you manage your business from your kitchen doesn't make your kitchen any less of a principal place of business. It is non-deductible because you also cook your dinners there, but it is still, nonetheless, your principal place of business. The Pub 587 which I linked to has these qualifications: Your home office will qualify as your principal place of business if you meet the following requirements. You use it exclusively and regularly for administrative or management activities of your trade or business. You have no other fixed location where you conduct substantial administrative or management activities of your trade or business. As you see, exclusivity of the usage of your home area is not a requirement here. The \"\"exclusively and regularly\"\" in the quote refers to your business not using any other location, and managing it from home regularly. I.e.: if you manage your business a day in a year - that's not enough for it to be considered principal. If you manage your business from your office and your home - you cannot consider home as principal.\"",
"If you want to be safe, only claim deductions for which you have a receipt. This explanation may help.",
"\"Disclaimer: This should go without saying, but this answer is definitely an opinion. (I'm pretty sure my current accountant would agree with this answer, and I'm also pretty sure that one of my past accountants would disagree.) When I started my own small business over 10 years ago I asked this very same question for pretty much every purchase I made that would be used by both the business and me personally. I was young(er) and naive then and I just assumed everything was deductible until my accountant could prove otherwise. At some point you need to come up with some rules of thumb to help make sense of it, or else you'll drive yourself and your accountant bonkers. Here is one of the rules I like to use in this scenario: If you never would have made the purchase for personal use, and if you must purchase it for business use, and if using it for personal use does not increase the expense to the business, it can be fully deducted by the business even if you sometimes use it personally too. Here are some example implementations of this rule: Note about partial expenses: I didn't mention partial deductions above because I don't feel it applies when the criteria of my \"\"rule of thumb\"\" is met. Note that the IRS states: Personal versus Business Expenses Generally, you cannot deduct personal, living, or family expenses. However, if you have an expense for something that is used partly for business and partly for personal purposes, divide the total cost between the business and personal parts. You can deduct the business part. At first read that makes it sound like some of my examples above would need to be split into partial calulations, however, I think the key distinction is that you would never have made the purchase for personal use, and that the cost to the business does not increase because of allowing personal use. Partial deductions come into play when you have a shared car, or office, or something where the business cost is increased due to shared use. In general, I try to avoid anything that would be a partial expense, though I do allow my business to reimburse me for mileage when I lend it my personal car for business use.\"",
"Be prepared to drive another 500 km to prove your claim. If you file your claims, normally you should claim interest at the bank rate on savings bank accounts. However, in most such situations, the rate is specified in the law. If not, your claim will not be entertained in a normal way. You may to file a suit for recovery of interest. Keep us posted on your progress.",
"You don't say what country you live in. If it's the U.S., the IRS has very specific rules for business use of a car. See, for starters at least, http://www.irs.gov/publications/p463/ch04.html. The gist of it is: If you use the car 100% for business purposes, you NEVER use it to drive to the grocery store or to your friend's house, etc, then it is a deductible business expense. If you use a car party for business use and partly for personal use, than you can deduct the portion of the expense of the car that is for business use, but not the portion that is for personal use. So basically, if you use the car 75% for business purposes and 25% for personal use, you can deduct 75% of the cost and expenses. You can calculate the business use by, (a) Keeping careful records of how much you spent on gas, oil, repairs, etc, tracking the percentage of business use versus percentage of personal use, and then multiplying the cost by the percentage business use and that is the amount you can deduct; or (b) Use the standard mileage allowance, so many cents per mile, which changes every year. Note that the fact that you paid for the car from a business account has absolutely nothing to do with it. (If it did, then everyone could create a small business, open a business account, pay all their bills from there, and all their personal expenses would magically become business expenses.) Just by the way: If you are going to try to stretch the rules on your taxes, business use of a car or personal computer or expenses for a home office are the worst place to do it. The IRS knows that cars and computers are things that can easily be used for either personal or business purposes and so they keep a special eye out on these.",
"\"When you pay the flight, hotel, conference attendance fees of $100: When you repay the credit card debt of $100: When you receive the gross salary of $5000: Your final balance sheet will show: Your final income statement will show: Under this method, your \"\"Salary\"\" account will show the salary net of business expense. The drawback is that the $4900 does not agree with your official documentation. For tax reporting purposes, you report $5000 to the tax agency, and if possible, report the $100 as Unreimbursed Employee Expenses (you weren't officially reimbursed). For more details see IRS Publication 529.\"",
"Food is almost never a valid expense. Reason for it is simple - if you were not conducting business you would have to eat too. Ad 1. I don't see why travel in that case would not be a valid expense, as the only reason for you to travel there is for business reasons. Ad 2. Unlikely as there is a duality of purpose. So while part of it may be business, you are also getting personal benefit from the visit (coffee/cakes etc) so that generally is a no. Ad 3. No, while you can claim for entertainment of employees (to sensible extends), that doesn't work when entertaining clients. Ad 4. If any part of the trip is for leisure then you cannot claim it as business expense, sorry! If there is any duality of use then it's not a business expense. And food, as always, is a no go.",
"\"While the question is very localized, I'll answer about the general principle. My main question is with how far away it is (over 1000 miles), how do I quantify the travel expenses? Generally, \"\"necessary and ordinary\"\" expenses are deductible. This is true for business and also true for rentals. But what is necessary and what is ordinary? Is it ordinary that a landlord will manage the property 1000 miles away by himself on a daily basis? Is it ordinary for people to drive 1000 miles every week? I'd say \"\"no\"\" to both. I'd say it would be cheaper for you to hire a local property manager, thus the travel expense would not be necessary. I would say it would be cheaper to fly (although I don't know if its true to the specific situation of the OP, but as I said - its too localized to deal with) rather than drive from Texas to Colorado. If the OP thinks that driving a thousand miles is indeed ordinary and necessary he'll have to justify it to the IRS examiner, as I'm sure it will be examined. 2 trips to the property a year will be a nearly 100% write-off (2000 miles, hotels, etc). From what I understood (and that is what I've been told by my CPA), IRS generally allows 1 (one) trip per year per property. If there's an exceptional situation - be prepared to justify it. Also, keep all the receipts (like gas, hotel, etc.... If you claim mileage but in reality you took a flight - you'll get hit hard by the IRS when audited). Also while I'm up there am I allowed to mix business with pleasure? You cannot deduct personal (\"\"pleasure\"\") expenses, at all. If the trip is mainly business, but you go out at the evening instead of staying at the hotel - that's fine. But if the trip is \"\"business\"\" trip where you spend a couple of hours at your property and then go around having fun for two days - the whole trip may be disallowed. If there's a reasonable portion dedicated to your business/rental, and the rest is pleasure - you'll have to split some of the costs and only deduct the portion attributed to the business activities. You'll have to analyze your specific situation, and see where it falls. Don't stretch the limits too much, it will cost you more on the long run after all the audits and penalties. Can I also write off all travel involved in the purchase of the property? Although, again, the \"\"necessary and ordinary\"\" justification of such a trip is arguable, lets assume it is necessary and ordinary and generally justified. It is reasonable to expect you to go and see the property with your own eyes before the closing (IMHO, of course, I'm not an authority). Such an expense can be either business or investment expense. If its a business expense - its deductible on schedule C. If its an investment expense (if you do buy the property), its added to the cost of the property (capitalized). I'm not a tax adviser or a tax professional, and this is not a tax advice. This answer was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding any tax related penalties that may be imposed on you or any other person under the Internal Revenue Code. You should seek a professional consultation with a CPA/Attorney(tax) licensed in your State(s) or a Federally licensed Enrolled Agent (EA).\"",
"\"Reimbursements for business expenses are generally not taxable, but the commute from home to the job and back is not considered business travel and if they're paying for that it is taxable income. I don't think carpooling changes that, but I am not a tax lawyer or accountant. The rest of your questions seem to be company policy issues. There is no \"\"should\"\" here. You aren't required to pick up the other guys, but he isn't required to reimburse those miles (or employ you) so think carefully about your priorities before pushing back. Never invoke what thou canst not banish.\"",
"\"I would say to only bother keeping the ones you know you'll use for itemized deductions. This includes any unreimbursed business expenses and vehicle licensing fees. There are a lot of other itemized tax deductions possible, but those are two common ones. Also, keep track of your business mileage (mileage before and after the trip, and commuting doesn't count as \"\"business mileage\"\"). You may also want to keep receipts of all out-of-state purchases if your state is one of those that tries to collect state tax on out-of-state purchases. Ensure your supported charities are 501(c)(3), and they'll give you a receipt at the end of the year. Don't bother keeping fast food or gas receipts (unless they're business expenses).\"",
"The relevant IRS publication is pub 463. Note that there are various conditions and exceptions, but it all starts with business necessity. Is it necessary for you to work from the UK? If you're working from the UK because you wanted to take a vacation, but still have to work, and would do the same work without being in the UK - then you cannot deduct travel expenses. It sounds to me like this is the case here.",
"You are going to have to talk to your benefits office to understand all the deadlines and rules for their program. While the IRS does enforce the law, there are enough local variations in the rules to make it quite complex. The first thing you need to know is the source of the funds: the employer or the employee. Then you need to know the deadline for applying for the program, how you specify the monthly expenses in advance, and when the funds expire. The way you pay for commuting and parking makes a difference: per-ride on the subway, van pool, monthly transit pass; daily parking at a lot, monthly hang tag, or at meter; These options determine how to expend the funds and how they give you the funds. You can't get money for missed months. So you need to know what you have to do in October to get money for November.",
"Be ruthlessly meticulous about the IRS regulations for deducting a home office. If it's allowed, it's allowed.",
"Yes, you can. That the books were purchased from abroad is irrelevant: you incurred an expense in the course of earning your income. If the books are expensive (>$300 per set iirc) you will need to deprecate them over a reasonable life time rather than claiming the entire amount up front. It doesn't matter whether what you got was a VAT Invoice; as long as you have some reasonable documentation of the expense you're ok.",
"IRS pub 521 has all the information you need. Expenses reimbursed. If you are reimbursed for your expenses and you use the cash method of accounting, you can deduct your expenses either in the year you paid them or in the year you received the reimbursement. If you use the cash method of accounting, you can choose to deduct the expenses in the year you are reimbursed even though you paid the expenses in a different year. See Choosing when to deduct, next. If you deduct your expenses and you receive the reimbursement in a later year, you must include the reimbursement in your income on Form 1040, line 21 This is not unusual. Anybody who moves near the end of the year can have this problem. The 39 week time test also can be an issue that span over 2 tax years. I would take the deduction for the expenses as soon a I could, and then count the income in the later year if they pay me back. IF they do so before April 15th, then I would put them on the same tax form to make things easier.",
"If this is a business expense - then this is what is called reimbursement. Reimbursement is usually not considered as income since it is money paid back to you for an expense you covered for your employer with your after-tax money. However, for reimbursement to be considered properly executed, from income tax stand point, there are some requirements. I'm not familiar with the UK income tax law specifics, but I reason the requirements would not differ much from places I'm familiar with: before an expense is reimbursed to you, you should usually do this: Show that the expense is a valid business expense for the employer benefit and by the employer's request. Submit the receipt for reimbursement and follow the employer's procedure on its approval. When income tax agent looks at your data, he actually will ask about the £1500 tab. You and you'll employer will have to do some explaining about the business activity that caused it. If the revenue agent is not satisfied, the £750 that is paid to you will be declared as your income. If the required procedures for proper reimbursement were not followed - the £750 may be declared as your income regardless of the business need. Have your employer verify it with his tax accountant.",
"This answer is assuming you're in the US, which apparently you're not. I doubt that the rules in the EU are significantly different, but I don't know for sure. In case of an IRS control, is it ok to say that I regularly connect remotely to work from home although in the work contract it says I must work at client's office? No. Are there any other ways I can prove that this deduction is valid? No. You can't prove something is valid when its not. You can only deduct home office expense if it is used exclusively for your business, and your bedroom obviously is not.",
"Only if your work on the side is making you at least £60,000 profit a year. The overheads are just not worth it if you make less. Working as a sole trader, you can still claim for expenses incurred in the course of your business. You can also claim a percentage of your computer costs, even though you may use the computer for gaming. This is not unreasonable as the computer is necessary for your work. The Inland Revenue accept the fact that some assets are part work-related. In your case, as a web and mobile phone developer, I expect the percentage to be at least half, if not a lot more. If you need to travel in the course of your work you can claim a percentage for your car. You can include other small expenses such as telephone, stationery, electricity etc but don't go overboard. The important point to remember is that you must be able to defend the expenses claimed as work-related, so long as you can do this there is no problem. Remember to keep good records of all your expenses. This is on-going throughout the year and is much more work than filling out your tax return. The software on the IR self-assessment site is excellent, so it's conceivable that you may not need an accountant if you are prepared to do your own tax return. However, if you feel unsure employ an accountant initially and take it from there.",
"\"Worksheets/ Documentation: (From my experience filing my business deductions through several tax preparers.) Keep all your calculations, but only submit the calculations and worksheets requested by the tax form. Most travel deductions are just a category total. If the IRS wants more info, it will ask for it. Information from the book Home Business Tax Deductions (from Nolo) (2012): Traveling with kids: In chapter 9 (\"\"Leaving Town: Business Travel\"\"), in the section \"\"Taking People With You\"\", it specifically discusses your situation. Paraphrasing, it says that you can deduct the amount any eligible expenses would have cost you if you were traveling without your kids. So, you can deduct the cost the smaller hotel room that you and your wife would have normally rented if you were alone. How your side trips affect your business deductions: According to the book, since you spent 50% or more of your time on business activities while traveling in the U.S.: Deducting meals shared with your kids: You can deduct meals as either entertainment or travel expenses. I would recommend you buy one of Nolo's books on deductions, as it goes into much more detail than I do here.\"",
"Tax regulations vary from country to country - some permitting more deductions, some less - but here are a few guidelines. As regards the home-office: As regards the deductions: Think of it like this: in order to have space for a home-office you needed a bigger home. That leads to increased rates, heating, insurance and so on. Many tax regulators recognise that these are genuine expenses. The alternative is to rent a separate office and incur greater expenses, leading to increased deductions and less overall tax paid (which won't finance the deficit). The usual test for deductions is: was the expense legitimately incurred in the pursuit of revenue? The flexibility permitted will vary by tax authority but you can frequently deduct more than you expected.",
"I would talk to your HMRC tax office they do have guidance on this issue here http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/working/intro/employed-selfemployed.htm",
"\"The decision whether this test is or is not met seems to be highly dependent on the specific situation of the employer and the employee. I think that you won't find a lot of general references meeting your needs. There is such a thing as a \"\"private ruling letter,\"\" where individuals provide specific information about their situation and request the IRS to rule in advance on how the situation falls with respect to the tax law. I don't know a lot about that process or what you need to do to qualify to get a private ruling. I do know that anonymized versions of at least some of the rulings are published. You might look for such rulings that are close to your situation. I did a quick search and found two that are somewhat related: As regards your situation, my (non-expert) understanding is that you will not pass in this case unless either (a) the employer specifies that you must live on the West Coast or you'll be fired, (b) the employer would refuse to provide space for you if you moved to Boston (or another company location), or (c) you can show that you could not possibly do your job out of Boston. For (c), that might mean, for example, you need to make visits to client locations in SF on short-notice to meet business requirements. If you are only physically needed in SF occasionally and with \"\"reasonable\"\" notice, I don't think you could make it under (c), although if the employer doesn't want to pay travel costs, then you might still make it under (a) in this case.\"",
"This very topic was the subject of a question on workplace SE https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/8996/what-can-relocation-assistance-entail TL/DR; From tax publication 521 - Moving expenses table regarding how to report IF your Form W-2 shows... your entire reimbursement reported as wages in box 1 AND you have... moving expenses THEN... file Form 3903 showing all allowable expenses,* but do not show any reimbursements. There are tax implications Covered in tax publication 521 - Moving expenses and Employers tax guide to Fringe Benefits related to moving expenses. From the Employers View: Moving Expense Reimbursements This exclusion applies to any amount you directly or indirectly give to an employee, (including services furnished in kind) as payment for, or reimbursement of, moving expenses. You must make the reimbursement under rules similar to those described in chapter 11 of Publication 535 for reimbursement of expenses for travel, meals, and entertainment under accountable plans. The exclusion applies only to reimbursement of moving expenses that the employee could deduct if he or she had paid or incurred them without reimbursement. However, it does not apply if the employee actually deducted the expenses in a previous year. Deductible moving expenses. Deductible moving expenses include only the reasonable expenses of: Moving household goods and personal effects from the former home to the new home, and Traveling (including lodging) from the former home to the new home. Deductible moving expenses do not include any expenses for meals and must meet both the distance test and the time test. The distance test is met if the new job location is at least 50 miles farther from the employee's old home than the old job location was. The time test is met if the employee works at least 39 weeks during the first 12 months after arriving in the general area of the new job location. For more information on deductible moving expenses, see Publication 521, Moving Expenses. Employee. For this exclusion, treat the following individuals as employees. A current employee. A leased employee who has provided services to you on a substantially full-time basis for at least a year if the services are performed under your primary direction or control. Exception for S corporation shareholders. Do not treat a 2% shareholder of an S corporation as an employee of the corporation for this purpose. A 2% shareholder is someone who directly or indirectly owns (at any time during the year) more than 2% of the corporation's stock or stock with more than 2% of the voting power. Treat a 2% shareholder as you would a partner in a partnership for fringe benefit purposes, but do not treat the benefit as a reduction in distributions to the 2% shareholder. Exclusion from wages. Generally, you can exclude qualifying moving expense reimbursement you provide to an employee from the employee's wages. If you paid the reimbursement directly to the employee, report the amount in box 12 of Form W-2 with the code “P.” Do not report payments to a third party for the employee's moving expenses or the value of moving services you provided in kind. From the employees view: The not be included as income the expenses must be from an accountable plan: Accountable Plans To be an accountable plan, your employer's reimbursement arrangement must require you to meet all three of the following rules. Your expenses must have a business connection – that is, you must have paid or incurred deductible expenses while performing services as an employee of your employer. Two examples of this are the reasonable expenses of moving your possessions from your former home to your new home, and traveling from your former home to your new home. You must adequately account to your employer for these expenses within a reasonable period of time. You must return any excess reimbursement or allowance within a reasonable period of time. Also what is interesting is the table regarding how to report IF your Form W-2 shows... your entire reimbursement reported as wages in box 1 AND you have... moving expenses THEN... file Form 3903 showing all allowable expenses,* but do not show any reimbursements.",
"You can deduct this if the main purpose of the trip is to attend the seminar. Travel expenses relating to the attendance at conferences, seminars and other work-related events are deductible to the extent that they relate to your income-producing activities. You will need to apportion your travel expenses where you undertake both work-related and private activities. Travel costs to and from the location of the work-related event will only be deductible where the primary purpose of the travel was to attend the event. Accommodation, food and other incidental costs must be apportioned between work-related and private activities taking into account the types of activities that you did on the day you incurred the cost. You might like to consider in advance what you would tell them if they questioned this - for instance you might say (if they are true):",
"A computer is a special case because the IRS thinks that you might be using it for personal applications. You may need to keep a log, or be able to state that you also have another computer for non-business use. That said, if your schedule C shows a small profit then you don't need to itemize expenses, just state the total.",
"A per diem payment is a cost of doing business for the company, not for you. They can claim it (probably); you can't (definitely).",
"It looks like you can. Take a look at these articles: http://www.googobits.com/articles/1747-taking-an-itemized-deduction-for-job-expenses.html http://www.bankrate.com/finance/money-guides/business-expenses-that-benefit-you.aspx http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tax_tips/tax_planning/employment.html But of course, go to the source: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p529/ar02.html#en_US_publink100026912 From publication 529: You can deduct certain expenses as miscellaneous itemized deductions on Schedule A (Form 1040 or Form 1040NR). You can claim the amount of expenses that is more than 2% of your adjusted gross income. You figure your deduction on Schedule A by subtracting 2% of your adjusted gross income from the total amount of these expenses. Your adjusted gross income is the amount on Form 1040, line 38, or Form 1040NR, line 36. I hope that helps. Happy deducting!",
"The regulations you're talking about (TR 1.263) are going into effect starting tax year 2016, so for purchases you made last year they're (kindof...) irrelevant. Kindof, because the IRS promises to not audit those that qualify under the regulations even if they use it before it goes into effect, but it doesn't legally have to. Since the regulations are new, I suggest you talk to a licensed professional who'd explain them to you and interpret them with regards to your specific situation. From my brief read, you can expense under these rules things that you would otherwise capitalize, with the $500 limit to the invoice. Meaning, if you bought a computer paying $500, which you use 50% for your business - you can expense $250. The benefit, comparing to the Sec. 179, is that you're not limited to new items, nor are you limited to business revenue. Otherwise, it looks like the applicability is similar. As I said - talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State), since these rules are new and untested, and you should probably have a professional provide guidance. I'm not such a professional.",
"If the UK is similar to Australia then you would not claim a virtual rent for the business portion but instead could claim a portion of the house expenses such as electricity use, property taxes, and yes a portion of the mortgage, and any repairs or renovations done to the work areas of the house. However, you should keep in mind that if you sell the place you may have to pay CGT on the portion you were claiming for business use.",
"Yes, you can deduct from your taxable profits (almost) any expenses incurred in the course of your business. See here for HMRC's detailed advice on the subject. The fact that you have salaried PAYE employment as well makes no difference.",
"Unfortunately this is something that should have been determined prior to the book tour. Your tax advisor or accountant could have assisted you in making sure you collected the documentation you needed. You are going to have to sit down with your advisor with the documentation you have and determine what you can prove.",
"You cannot deduct anything. Since you're actually moving, your tax home will move with you. You can only deduct the moving expenses (actual moving - packing, shipping, and hotels while you drive yourself there).",
"\"I'm assuming that you're in the US. In that case, the answer is that it depends on how your company set up its reimbursement plan. The IRS recognizes \"\"accountable\"\" and \"\"nonaccountable\"\" plans. Accountable plans have to meet certain requirements. Anything else is nonaccountable. If you are reimbursed according to an accountable plan, this is not income and should not be reported to the IRS at all. If you are reimbursed under a nonaccountable plan, then this is income but you might be able to get a deduction on your tax return if you itemize. Most established companies have accountable plans for normal business expenses. More detail from IRS: http://www.tax.gov/TaxabilityCertainFringeBenefits/pdf/Accountable_v_Nonaccountable_Plans_Methods_of_Reimbursing_Employees_for_Expense.pdf\"",
"\"Allowances are calculated as your total deductions divided by the tax year's personal exemptions. As mentioned above it is a multiplier. For 2015 the standard deduction for a married couple filing jointly is $12,600 and each of you gets 1 personal exemption ($4,000 in 2015). That's a total of $12,600 + 2*($4,000) or $20,600. Divide this by the personal exemption and you get roughly 5 allowances. Now say your employer offers health insurance and a 401(k) plan. Your total health insurance (or \"\"cafeteria\"\" contributions) are $2,000 for the year, and your total 401(k) plan contributions are $6,000 for the year. This would give an additional $2,000 + $6,000 = $8,000 divided by $4,000 = 2 allowances. Thus you would file with 7 allowances. Note that tax credits are not included in the allowance calculation. That is because they do not affect your taxable income but rather directly reduce your taxes due.\"",
"The Canada Revenue Agency describes in detail here what information businesses must generally include on their invoices so that GST/HST registrants can claim Input Tax Credits (ITCs) for the expenses. Quote: Sales invoices for GST/HST registrants You have to give customers who are GST/HST registrants specific information on the invoices, receipts, contracts, or other business papers that you use when you provide taxable goods and services. This information lets them support their claims for input tax credits (ITCs) or rebates for the GST/HST you charged. [...] The page quoted continues with a table describing what, specifically, needs to be on a sales invoice based on the total amount of the invoice; the requirements differ for: total sale under $30, total sale between $30 to $149.99, and total sale $150 or more. For the total sale under $30 category, the only things a sales invoice must contain to support an ITC claim are (1) the provider's business name, (2) the invoice date, and (3) the total amount paid/payable. i.e. When the total sale is under $30, there is no requirement for any GST/HST amount to be indicated separately, nor for a business number to be present on the invoice. Hence, IMHO (and I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer), if your Uber rides are for $30 or less, then you shouldn't expect a GST/HST number anyway, and a simple invoice as described should be enough for you to claim your ITCs. Whether or not the provider is registered in fact for GST/HST is beside the point. For amounts over $30, you need a bit more. While the page above specifies that the provider's business number should be included beginning with the next level of total sales, there are exceptions to those rules described at another page mentioned, Exceptions to invoice requirements, that specifically apply to the taxi/limousine case. Quote: Exceptions to invoice requirements GST/HST registrants are required to keep the necessary documentation to support their claim for ITCs and rebates. In certain circumstances the documentation requirements have been reduced. [...] For taxi or limousine fares your books and records must show: So at a minimum, for fare in excess of $30 total, you should ask the driver to note either (a) the amount of GST/HST charged, or (b) a statement that the fare includes GST/HST. The driver's business number need not be specified. Consequently, if your receipt for a ride in excess of $30 does not contain any such additional information with respect to GST/HST, then I would expect the receipt does not satisfy the CRA's requirements for supporting your ITC claim. i.e. Keep your individual rides under $30 each, or else get a better receipt from the driver when it is above that amount. p.s. It should go without saying, but your rides, of course, must be considered reasonable business expenses in order to qualify for GST/HST ITCs for your business. Receipts for rides of a personal nature are not eligible, so be sure to maintain proper records as to the business purpose and destination for each ride receipt so claimed.",
"\"No, your business cannot deduct your non-business expenses. You can only deduct from your business income those reasonable expenses you paid in order to earn income for the business. Moreover, for there to be a tax benefit, your business generally has to have income (but I expect there are exceptions; HST input tax credits come to mind.) The employment income from your full-time job wouldn't count as business income for your corporation. The corporation has nothing to do with that income – it's earned personally, by you. With respect to restaurant bills: These fall under a category known as \"\"meals & entertainment\"\". Even if the expense can be considered reasonable and business-related (e.g. meeting customers or vendors) the Canada Revenue Agency decided that a business can only deduct half of those kinds of expenses for tax purposes. With respect to gasoline bills: You would need to keep a mileage and expense log. Only the portion of your automobile expenses that relate to the business can be deducted. Driving to and from your full-time job doesn't count. Of course, I'm not a tax professional. If you're going to have a corporation or side-business, you ought to consult with a tax professional. (A point on terminology: A business doesn't write off eligible business expenses — it deducts them from business income. Write off is an accounting term meaning to reduce the value of an asset to zero. e.g. If you damaged your car beyond repair, one could say \"\"the car is a write-off.\"\")\"",
"\"For example, for my employer I received a signing bonus, and a \"\"relocation lump sum\"\" separate from that signing bonus. The relocation lump sum is taxed and will appear as income on my W-2, and I can spend it on anything I want. That said, should the relocation lump sum count towards the entry quoted above in Form 3903, or would it be considered the same as any other bonus; thus allowing me to take a full deduction for all of my deductible travel expenses? The signing bonus and relocation lump sum will appear as regular income on your W-2. You can think of the relocation bonus as something to cover the pain and suffering the cost of moving, without needing to send in receipts. Lets assume that you meet the distance and time tests, so there is potential to save money on your taxes. Lets also put your actual moving expenses as $2500. If you have valid moving expenses the IRS will allow you to use them to reduce your AGI. So now you can reduce your AGI by the $2500. Enter the total amount your employer paid you for the expenses listed on lines 1 and 2 that is not included in box 1 of your Form W-2 (wages). This amount should be shown in box 12 of your Form W-2 with code P. My question is: what exact payments from your employer should be entered here? I realize that you can just write the number you get in box 12 with code P on your W-2, but I'm curious how they come up with this number. In some cases the company will reimburse you your moving expenses up to a maximum of $x. For example a maximum of $1000 That means you submit receipts for those expenses and they give you a check or add it to your next paycheck. The check will either be for the amount on your receipts or the maximum amount, whichever is smaller. In this situation with actual expenses of $2500 and a reimbursement of $1000 you can reduce your AGI by $1500.\"",
"In some circumstances losses from self-employment can be offset against total income and/or capital gains. If this applies to you may be able to claim back some of the tax taken by PAYE from your day job. You can also to some extent carry the loss backwards into previous tax years or forward into the next one if you can't use it fully this year. HMRC have some information available on the current rules: When you can claim losses You can claim: But You can’t claim:",
"\"VAT = Value Added Tax (as an Aussie think \"\"GST\"\") This is applicable in Britain. Basically, if you were in Britain, and if you could claim VAT as a deduction, that invoice is not sufficient proof to make the claim. But you're in Oz so it doesn't apply to you in any case. For work-related deductions like book purchases, see http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/00216829.htm&pc=001/002/068/001/002&mnu=&mfp=&st=&cy=1 Issues such as the books being second hand or purchased online are not cited in the instructions as relevant/limiting factors. In fact, if you really want to get into the nitty gritty, you could claim the work-related proportion of your internet access fees as a deduction (question D5 instructions, above, cover that as well).\"",
"You can only deduct (with the 2% AGI threshold) expenses that: You've actually incurred. I.e.: you actually paid for equipment or services provided and can show receipts for the payment. At the request of the employer. I.e.: you didn't just decide on your own to buy a new book or take a class, your employer told you to. With business necessity. I.e.: it was in order for you to do your job. And you were not reimbursed by your employer. I.e.: you went somewhere and spent your after tax money on something employer explicitly told you to pay for, and you didn't get reimbursed for that. From your story - these conditions don't hold for you. As I said in the comments - I strongly suggest you talk to a lawyer. Your story just doesn't make any sense, and I suspect your employer is doing something very fishy here.",
"Aside from the fact that probably nobody is ever going to come and ask for that proof unless your amounts get five digits (or you're unlucky), if you never before reimbursed yourself, your old tax declarations would clearly show that. You can't prove a negative, so the only potential is that you had reimbursements before, and an audit might ask you to prove that the new ones are not duplicates of those. In this case, if you have other receipts / proof for all those other reimbursements, they are obviously not duplicates.",
"No. Regular W2 employees cannot deduct housing or transportation costs related to their employment. However, in the US, many employers offer Parking and/or Transit FSA programs which are usually collectively referred to a Commuter Benefits FSA programs, this is particularly common among larger employers with locations in major metropolitan cities. Under Commuter benefits FSAs employees can defer up to $255 per month from their gross pay, tax-free, for parking and/or transit expenses. Eligible expenses include things like bus and train passes or parking at a train or bus station. These are money-in/money-out arrangements so expenses can only be claimed against contributions that have been made, unlike a Health FSA. Though, like a health FSA, contributions are subject to use-it or lose-it provisions. These programs must be sponsored by the employer for an employee to take advantage of them though. Some jurisdictions mandate that employers above a certain threshold must offer commuter benefits.",
"\"If you are a telecommuter and in good terms with your employer, then all you need is contact your employer and explain your situation. Ask them for a short letter that indicates: \"\"1. they require you to work from a privately rented office (or from a home office for those who prefer working from home), 2. this is one of the terms of your employment, and, 3. they will not reimburse you for this expense.\"\" With this letter in your hand, you satisify both the \"\"convenience of employer\"\" test AND the deduction of the rent for your private office as a unreimbursed employee expense. The IRS cannot expect your employer to open an office branch in your city just for your sake, nor can they expect you to commute to your employer's city for work, which is an impossiblity considering the distance. Additionally, the IRS cannot \"\"force\"\" telecommuters to work from home. The key is to get a letter from your employer. You'd be surprised how easily they are willing to write such letter for you.\"",
"Transit FSAs have $255 limits for each of {parking, public transit} per month, considered on a monthly basis separately; and that limit applies both to funding and to claims. You may fund your transit FSA with up to $255 per month for each purpose. You may withdraw up to $255 per month for each purpose. The amounts each month don't have to match, but they do need to each be under the maximum. Any amount you spend over $255 for either parking or public transit would need to be funded with post-tax money. Most transit FSAs have a mechanism for adding a credit card to the account to allow this to be seamless and on-demand (as opposed to be declared in advance). You can change your deduction each month, up to the limit your benefits provider permits (for me for example, I can choose up to the 10th of the prior month what to do). This differs from health care FSAs, which are annual in nature, and must be entirely defined during open enrollment - but as they have annual limits, would allow you to use the full amount even when employed for only half the year.",
"I'm not a tax advisor, but I've done freelance work, so... If any of your side-business revenue is reported on a 1099, you're now a business owner, which is why Schedule C must be filled out. As a business owner, minimum wage doesn't apply to you. All revenue is income to you, and you owe taxes on the profit, after subtracting legitimate (verifiable) business expenses. You'll want to talk to a real tax advisor if you're going to start expensing mileage, part of your house (if you use a home office), etc. Don't forget that you'll owe self-employment tax (the employer's half of your payroll tax). You can't save money on business taxes by paying yourself a wage and then counting it as an expense to the business. You'll definitely want to talk to a tax expert if you start playing around with finances as an (the) owner of the business. Income that is not reported on a 1099 should be reported as hobby income.",
"The IRS has a calculator for this purpose.",
"Be careful about your hard and fast rules. I'm flying first class in November because it was $1000 cheaper than flying coach, as bizarre as that sounds. I don't really know why the airline was pricing tickets the way they were (though the time I booked was when a hurricane was about to hammer florida + puerto rico and airlines were gouging people) because the tickets were for the exact same flight and there were very few seats reserved. At best I would suggest you say that public employees / union reps should fly the most inexpensive option (though I'm sure the scenario I encountered doesn't happen often).",
"As I understand it... Generally housing can't be considered a business expense unless taken at your employer's explicit direction, for the good of the business rather than the employee. Temporary assignment far enough from you home office that commuting or occasional hotel nights are impractical, maybe. In other words, if they wouldn't be (at least theoretically) willing to let you put it on an expense account, you probably can't claim it here.",
"Keep this rather corny acronym in mind. Business expenses must be CORN: As other posters have already pointed out, certain expenses that are capital items (computers, furniture, etc.) must be depreciated over several years, but you have a certain amount of capital items that you can write off in the current tax year.",
"Any deductable expense will reduce your taxable income not your tax payable. Your Example 1 above is correct and gives you 100% deduction. It is like having a business where your sales are $100,000 and your expenses in making the sales is $40,000. The expenses are your tax deductions and reduce your profits on which you pay tax on to $60,000. If your Example 2 was correct then the situation above would change that you would pay say $30,000 tax on $100,000 sales, then apply your deductions (or expenses) of $40,000 so that you would pay no tax at all and in fact get $10,000 back in your return. In this case the government would not be collecting any taxes but paying out returns to everyone. Your Example 2 is absolutly incorrect.",
"This is essentially a reimbursement of your expense. Since you can deduct the expense, the fact that the reimbursement is taxable doesn't affect you much. You deduct your home office expenses on your annual tax return using form 8829. See the IRS site for more details. If you're asking about the UK tax, there may be some other considerations, but from the US tax perspective it is (nearly) a wash.",
"There is no law that requires you to have a separate bank account for your business, or to pay all expenses from a business bank account. It is a GOOD IDEA to have a separate bank account and pay all business expenses from that account and all personal expenses from your personal account, because that makes sorting out what is what much simpler, both in case of an audit and for your own accounting. Whether a particular expenditure is a deductible business expense has nothing to do with what account you pay it from. If you pay advertising expenses for your business from your personal account, that's still (almost certainly) a deductible business expense. If you buy groceries from your business account, that's almost certainly not a deductible business expense. In your case, there are all kinds of rules about when and how much travel is deductible.",
"I suggest that you use your own judgement on this. You can assign a reasonable percentage since it is impossible to monitor the hours using those assets. Example: 40 personal and 60 for business. It's really your call. I also suggest that you should be conservative on valuing the assets. Record the assets at it's lowest value. This is one of the most difficult scenarios in making your own financial statements. You can also use this approach, i will record the assets at its original cost then use a higher depreciation rate or double declining method of depreciation. If the assets have a depreciation rate of 20% per year (useful life of 5 years), i will make it 30%. the other 10% will add more expense and helps you not to overstate your Financial Statement. You can also use the residual value of the asset, but if you do this, you should figure out the reliable amount. I understand that this is not for tax reporting purposes. Therefore, there's no harm if you overstate your Financial statement. And even if you overstate, you can still adjust the cost of the asset. Along the way (in the middle of the year or year end), you will figure out the cost of the asset if it's over valued once the financial statement is done.",
"\"The P11D is a record of the total benefits you've received in a tax year that haven't been taxed in another way, a bit like the P60 is a record of the total pay and tax you've paid in a tax year. Note that travel for business purposes shouldn't be taxable, and if that's what's being reported on the P11D you may need to make a claim for tax relief to HMRC to avoid having to pay the tax. I'm not sure whether it's normal for such expenses to be reported there. HMRC will normally collect that tax by adjusting your tax code after the P11D is issued, so that more tax is taken off your future income. So you don't need to do anything, as it'll be handled automatically. As to how you know it's accurate, if you have any doubts you'd need to contact your former employer and ask them to confirm the details. In general you ought to know what benefits you actually received so should at least be able to figure out if the number is plausible. If your \"\"travel\"\" was a flight to the USA, then probably it was. If it was a bus ticket, less so :-) If you fill in a tax return, you'll also have to report the amount there which will increase the tax you owe/reduce your refund. You won't be charged twice even if your tax code also changes, as the tax return accounts for the total amount of tax you've already paid. For travel benefits, the exact treatment in relation to tax/P11Ds is summarised here.\"",
"I'm not an expert, but here's my $0.02. Deductions for business expenses are subject to the 2% rule. In other words, you can only deduct that which exceeds 2% of your AGI (Adjusted Gross Income). For example, say you have an AGI of $50,000, and you buy a laptop that costs $800. You won't get a write-off from that, because 2% of $50,000 is $1,000, and you can only deduct business-related expenses in excess of that $1,000. If you have an AGI of $50,000 and buy a $2,000 laptop, you can deduct a maximum of $1,000 ($2,000 minus 2% of $50,000 is $2,000 - $1,000 = $1,000). Additionally, you can write off the laptop only to the extent that you use it for business. So in other words, if you have an AGI of $50,000 and buy that $2,000 laptop, but only use it 50% for business, you can only write off $500. Theoretically, they can ask for verification of the business use of your laptop. A log or a diary would be what I would provide, but I'm not an IRS agent.",
"Yes, legitimate, documented, expenses are written off against that income.",
"Being a professional auditor and accountant, deduction against expenses are claimed in the year in which expenses has been incurred. It has no relationship with when it is paid. For example, we may buy on credit does not mean that they will be allowed in the period in which it is paid. This is against the fundamental accounting principles.",
"Housing plus transportation should be about 40%, according to your given rule of thumb, and that's where yours are, so I think you're okay. Guidelines are not rules, and must be related to one's individual circumstances. That said, double-check that your transportation expenses are really zero.",
"\"You're getting paid by the job, not by the hour, so I don't see why you think the employer is obligated to pay you for the drive time. The only way that might be true, as far as I can see, is if he were avoiding paying you minimum wage by structuring your employment this way. It looks like to me you're over the minimum wage based on what you wrote. At maximum \"\"unpaid\"\" drive time (59 min each way) and maximum length of job (4 hours as you stated it), gives your minimum hourly rate of $8.83/hr. The federal minimum wage is currently $7.25/hr, so you're over that. A quick search online suggests that NV does have a higher minimum at $8.25/hr under some conditions, but you're still over that too. The fact that you're required to pick-up the helpers and that you have a company car at home probably does mean that you're \"\"on the clock\"\" from the moment that you leave your house, but, again, you're not actually being paid by the clock. As long as no other law is being broken (and it appears from your telling that there isn't), then the employer can set any policy for how to compute the compensation that he wants. Regarding taxes, the employer probably has no discretion there. You're making what you're making, and the employer needs to tax it in total. Since you're driving a company vehicle from home, I don't think that you're entitled to any reimbursement (vs. wages) that would not be taxed unless maybe you pay for gas yourself. The gas money, if applicable, should be reimbursable as a business expense and that generally would not be taxed.\"",
"In Canada I think you'd do it as a % of square footage. For example: Then you can count 20% of the cost of the of renting the apartment as a business expense. I expect that conventions (i.e. that what's accepted rather than challenged by the tax authorities) may vary from country to country.",
"As a general rule, you must choose between a mileage deduction or an actual expenses deduction. The idea is that the mileage deduction is supposed to cover all costs of using the car. Exceptions include parking fees and tolls, which can be deducted separately under either method. You explicitly cannot deduct insurance costs if you claim a mileage deduction. Separately, you probably won't be able to deduct the deductible for your car as a casualty loss. You first subtract $100 from the deductible and then divide it by your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) from your tax return. If your deductible is over 10% of your AGI, you can deduct it. Note that even with a $1500 deductible, you won't be able to deduct anything if you made more than $14,000 for the year. For most people, the insurance deductible just isn't large enough relative to income to be tax deductible. Source",
"\"In 2013, an allowance/exemption is like saying, \"\"Please don't tax $3,900 this year.\"\" So 8 allowances is $31K not taxed. It doesn't wipe out your tax withholding. Circular E will show you the exact amount they'll withhold based on the allowances you claim. Keep in mind, the withholding is run-rated. i.e. it assumes a full year of work. If you had no income for the first 6 months of the year, you will actually still have too much withheld even though the number is right for the full year, starting 2014.\"",
"Assuming you buy the services and products beforehand and then provide them to your clients. Should the cost of these products and services be deducted from my declared income or do I include them and then claim them as allowable expenses? You arrive at your final income after accounting for your incomings and outgoings ? regularly buys products and services on behalf of clients These are your expenses. invoice them for these costs after These are your earnings. These are not exactly allowable expenses, but more as the cost of doing your business, so it will be deducted from your earnings. There will be other business expenses which you need to deduct from your earnings and then you arrive at your income/profit. So before you arrive at your income all allowable expenses have been deducted. include on my invoices to clients VAT if you charge VAT. Any charges you require them to pay i.e. credit card charges etc. You don't need to inform clients about any costs you incur for doing your business unless required by law. If you are unsure about something browse the gov.uk website or obtain the services of an accountant. Accounting issues might be costly on your pocket if mistakes are committed.",
"\"No, you can't deduct any of that. What they're talking about is a flexible spending plan, otherwise known as \"\"Use it or lose it\"\" money. You choose to put pre-tax dollars into a restricted fund. This money is not taxed, in fact technically, it's not even income. You can only spend out of that fund to buy parking, tolls, transit tickets, things like that. Any money not used for those purposes in a suitable time period evaporates. Gone, and irrecoverable. You can't even take the loss as a tax deduction! You have to set this account up with your employer. You can't just dig up your old transit and parking receipts and stick those on your Schedule A. Take 3 people. As you can see, Fran is shooting herself in the foot. This is where these plans can go wrong.\"",
"The answer is simple. You can generally claim a deduction for an expense if that expense was used to derive an income. Most business expenses are used to derive profits and income, most individual expenses are not. Of course social policy sometimes gets in the way and allows for deductions where they usually wouldn't be allowed. Regarding the interest on a mortgage being deductible whilst the principal isn't, that is because it is the interest which is the annual expense. By the way deductions for mortgage interest in the USA for a house you live in is only allowed due to social policy, as there is no income (rent) being produced here, unlike with an investment property.",
"You can claim a deduction only if all of your business is conducted from the home, i.e. your home is your principal place of business - not just if you work from home sometimes. The CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) has pretty strict guidelines listed here, but once you're sure you qualify for a deduction, the next step would be to determine what portion of your home qualifies. You cannot attempt to deduct your entire mortgage simply because you run your business out of your home. The portion of your mortgage and other related & allowable home expense deductions has to be pro-rated to be equal to or less than the portion of your home you use for business. Simply put, if your business is operated out of a 120 sq-ft self-contained space, and your home's total square-footage is 2400 sq-ft, you can deduct 5% of your expenses (120/2,400 = 0.05). Hope this helps!",
"No, you can't claim personal expenses as business expenses. What is the alternative to paying someone to do your chores? Letting the chores go undone. How does it affect your business if your household chores go undone? It doesn't; it only affects your personal life--that's why they are personal expenses.",
"Nice try. No. If you were in the music industry, you might have a case. Depending on the exact job, certain things related to music would be a business expense. I don't see how this would pass an audit as it really is unrelated to the work you do.",
"From HMRC Note that the rule is when a person becomes entitled to payment of earnings. This is not necessarily the same as the date on which an employee acquires a right to be paid. For example, an employee's terms of service may provide for the employee to receive a bonus for the year to 31 December 2004, payable on 30 June 2005 if the employee is still in the service of the employer on 31 December 2004. If the condition is satisfied the employee becomes entitled to a payment on 31 December 2004 but is only entitled to payment of it on 30 June 2005. So PAYE applies to it on 30 June 2005 and it is assessable for 2005/06. The date that matters is the date the employee is entitled to be paid the bonus. But why are you worried about paying tax. That is your employer's responsibility and they will do it for you. Ask you firm's finance department also for further clarification. HMRC are not an organization to mess with, they will tie up your life in knots.",
"Unless you're running a self-employed business with a significant turnover (more than £150k), you are entitled to use cash basis accounting for your tax return, which means you would put the date of transactions as the payment date rather than the billing date or the date a debt is incurred. For payments which have a lag, e.g. a cheque that needs to be paid in or a bank transfer that takes a few days, you might also need to choose between multiple payment dates, e.g. when you initiated the payment or when it took effect. You can pick one as long as you're consistent: You can choose how you record when money is received or paid (eg the date the money enters your account or the date a cheque is written) but you must use the same method each tax year.",
"Go through the IRS Publication 521. Generally, relocation assistance is given either as : or",
"The general rule is: Generally, in order to claim a business deduction for your home, you must use part of your home exclusively and regularly: Exclusively seems to be the toughest standard and I do not know exactly how strict the IRS's interpretation is. Working in your living room where you regularly watch TV and have people over on the weekends would seem to fail that test. A separate room with your computer in it would pass it. If it was your only computer and you regularly played online games with it, that would seem to be a grey area. The IRA booklet covering this area is here http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p587.pdf I know people that have rented rooms in other places or made use of rental offices for this purpose.",
"\"Legally: gods know. I would strongly recommend asking the Law asre of Stack Exchange to advise on that. Practically: What's the worst that happens? They audit, you say \"\"Yeah, I could probably have claimed these deductions but I didn't want to; is that a problem?\"\", they decide and either nothing happens or they issue you the unwanted refunnd. They aren't going to fine you for overpaying. Unless this would expose something criminal -- or you're a public figure and it would be embarassing -- this strikes me as falling firmly within the bounds of \"\"no harm, no foul\"\".\"",
"\"According to this post on TurboTax forums, you could deduct it as an \"\"Unreimbursed Employee\"\" expense. This would seem consistent with the IRS Guidelines on such deductions: An expense is ordinary if it is common and accepted in your trade, business, or profession. An expense is necessary if it is appropriate and helpful to your business. An expense does not have to be required to be considered necessary. Office rent is not listed explicitly among the examples of deductible unreimbursed employee expenses, but this doesn't mean it's not allowed. Of course you should check with a tax professional if you want to be sure.\"",
"It will come down the percentage of time you use a specific area in your home. For each business you will be asked to first designate a percentage of your home you use for that business, then the percentage of time you use it. The space for both businesses might be the same, but the percentage of use would not. You could not claim 100% for both businesses. The combined petcentage of use could not exceed 100%.",
"IRS Publication 463 is a great resource to help you understand what you can and can't deduct. It's not a yes/no question, it depends on the exact company use, other use, and contemporaneous record keeping.",
"\"It depends on what the \"\"true\"\" reason for the trip is. If you decide to deduct the trip as a business expense, then during an audit you will be asked why you had to go there. If there was nothing accomplished via the travel (that is, you worked from the hotel, met with no clients, visited no tradeshows, etc) then the expense is unlikely to be allowed. Yes, on a business trip you can do sightseeing if you wish (though you can't deduct any sightseeing specific expenses, like admission to a tourist attraction), but if you are just working while on vacation, then the trip itself is not deductible, since there was no business benefit to traveling in the first place.\"",
"Pub 527 my friend. It gets depreciated. Table 1-1 on page 5.",
"It only matters for purposes of the dependent, so if you are clearly at 50%, then you don't need to calculate this cost. If it is close to not being 50%, then you will have to allocate between your sister and mother. To calculate support costs, you can of course include the costs incurred for transportation, per Pub 17 p 34. If you and your sister have an arrangement where she uses the car and in exchange she shoulders extra costs for your mother, then that's legitimately your expense for your mother (as long as this is a true agreement, then it was money she owed you but paid directly to the vendors and creditors that you would have paid). Note that there is a simpler avenue. If your sister agrees that you will claim your mother as dependent, and nobody else provides any substantial support (10%+ of costs), then she can just agree that it's you who will claim her. If you like, such an agreement may be attached to your taxes, possibly using Form 2120. As a general rule, though, you do not need to use 2120 or any other agreement, nor submit any support calculations. If your sister verbally agrees that she hasn't and won't claim your mother, then it's unlikely to cause any problems. Her signed agreement not to claim your mother is merely the most conservative possible documentation strategy, but isn't really necessary. See Pub 17, p 35 on Multiple Support Agreements for more info."
] |
[
"I believe so (that you can, not that you are greedy) I run my own business and, generally speaking, am 'charging' my company 40p per mile as per the quote above. I did not know about the ability to claim the shortfall, as it is not relevant to me, but it makes perfect sense and I'm sure that a phone call to HMRC will help you understand how to claim. As for the greedy question - personally I think that laws are there for a reason (both ways) so if there's money to be claimed - there's no reason not to do so, unless of course the hassle is greater than the potential gain. One last note - not sure exactly what the rules around this are, but I know that the allowance is not applicable for one's general commute and so if you're travelling to the same place over 40% of the time for more than two years you are no longer allowed to claim these miles."
] |
3767
|
What should I be doing to protect myself from identity theft?
|
[
"368679",
"153922",
"392060",
"520395",
"320246"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"368679",
"340601",
"320246",
"587778",
"171510",
"48422",
"517428",
"90632",
"328743",
"125204",
"320183",
"5334",
"485528",
"45387",
"271472",
"392060",
"44847",
"581889",
"79763",
"326315",
"520395",
"519155",
"359039",
"92463",
"40830",
"97686",
"41465",
"538217",
"151465",
"234852",
"522462",
"516413",
"428332",
"132636",
"122617",
"423809",
"388076",
"575713",
"275418",
"158285",
"453025",
"264701",
"9325",
"425672",
"554573",
"509108",
"130466",
"56878",
"298729",
"177491",
"129034",
"452540",
"311906",
"280667",
"519644",
"324833",
"352446",
"249960",
"294128",
"538086",
"260580",
"18388",
"599799",
"452405",
"537068",
"18373",
"265453",
"229276",
"100443",
"165995",
"504785",
"390446",
"191012",
"415680",
"221125",
"418020",
"118102",
"123601",
"115890",
"129352",
"580080",
"551747",
"488379",
"14466",
"427535",
"229803",
"427051",
"193559",
"219990",
"431682",
"30477",
"95860",
"204825",
"148348",
"458374",
"402581",
"499090",
"280140",
"84673",
"311325"
] |
[
"\"Here are a handful of measures I take myself: I check my credit reports once in a while and look for anything out of the ordinary. If somebody calls me on the telephone claiming to be from my bank or credit card company, utility, etc. I ask for their number, check it, and call them back. I don't give personal information to people merely claiming to be from a place I do business with. I never fill out ballots for free contests. Most of the time these are scams. When I get a call telling me \"\"you won a free cruise\"\" for a ballot I supposedly filled out at the mall, I say they're lying through their teeth. For excitement, I'll sometimes buy a lotto ticket instead. I'm careful when I surf the web. I don't give my personal information to web sites I can't trust. If they look the least bit shady, I'm out. Also, I use different passwords at different web sites. I avoid using a password from a public terminal, but when I must, I change my password soon after. I'm careful when I download software. I don't install anything I didn't get from a trusted source. I pay for software when necessary, so finding a trusted source is not hard. But, I've heard of people who – to save a buck – would download a pirated application from a shady warez site only to be \"\"gifted\"\" a trojan horse key logging or other spyware along with it. When I no longer need a bill, receipt, statement, etc. or any document containing personal information, I shred it, and I use a shredder that does a micro-cut, not just a strip- or cross-cut. The micro-cut remains go in the green bin with wet and yucky organic waste. When I no longer need a hard drive, I use a secure wiping tool like Darik's Boot & Nuke before reusing. If the drive isn't worth reusing, I'll wipe first then take apart with my Torx screwdriver. Once I have the drive platter, I scratch the heck out of it. Remains go to the community recycling depot. That's all I can think of right now; I probably missed a few :-) So, what do others do? I'm curious, too.\"",
"Freeze your credit. No one can open new accounts in your name if your credit is frozen. How do I freeze my credit? This is good advice even if your identity isn't stolen. There is a cost, but it is very effective.",
"I believe the answer is that to protect yourself it is good to get credit protection so you will be notified when new credit is taken in your name. Also, you can use http://www.annualcreditreport.com/ to look at your credit report. HINT: While you do that, and while you are in the TransUnion report, you will have the option to DISPUTE adverse items. I always suggest that people dispute everything adverse. That puts the onus on the other parties to produce evidence to TransUnion within 30 days attesting to the validity of the adverse item. You would be surprised how many will simply drop off your report after doing that. Everybody should do this Here is a direct address for TransUnion: https://dispute.transunion.com/dp/dispute/landingPage.jsp ==> Once the disputes are finalized, the results get communicated to the other two bureaus. It is amazing how well it works. It can raise your credit score significantly. It really helps to watch your credit report yourself, and also to get whatever protection is offered that may help protect you against others opening new accounts in your name.",
"Freezing your credit should be the default configuration. EDIT: More info on Why. Basically you're adding a password to your credit report access. https://www.privacyrights.org/consumer-guides/identity-theft-monitoring-services 4. Is there a low-cost alternative to monitoring services? The best low-cost alternative to credit monitoring services is a security freeze. A security freeze locks your credit files at the three credit reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion) until you unlock your file with a password or PIN. The freeze stops new accounts from being established by imposters because potential creditors are not able to check your credit report or credit score, the standard procedure when financial accounts are opened. Any potential creditors’ requests for access to your credit files will be denied. However, a security freeze cannot stop misuse of your existing bank or credit accounts. You still must check the monthly statements on your current accounts for any erroneous charges or debits. Generally, you will pay no more than $30 for a lifetime of security freeze protection. In some circumstances (identity theft victims and senior citizens in some states), this protection may be free. With a security freeze, your credit reports cannot be seen by prospective creditors, insurance companies, landlords, utilities, or for employment screening. However, you may lift the freeze when necessary to allow a company to check your credit report. This is easily done by means of a password. It is important to realize that a security freeze does not prevent existing creditors from seeing your credit report. While a security freeze may be the best available deterrent to new account fraud, it may not be the best solution for everyone. It can be cumbersome for individuals who frequently apply for credit, are contemplating a new mortgage, or who plan to change jobs. On the other hand, a security freeze is particularly well-suited for seniors who are no longer in the market for new credit. And a freeze provides protection for individuals affected by data breaches involving Social Security numbers, as well as victims of identity theft or mail theft. For a more complete discussion of the pros and cons of security freezes, read this report in Consumer Reports. Brian Krebs' post How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Embrace the Security Freeze is a primer on what you can do to avoid becoming a victim of identity theft. Fees, supporting documentation, and procedures for placing a security freeze vary from state to state and among the three credit reporting agencies. The web sites of each of the credit reporting agencies provide state-specific instructions for placing a security freeze. The websites of each of the credit reporting agencies provide state-specific instructions for placing a security freeze. Equifax Experian TransUnion",
"While everything can be fixed in the end, and you can usually get all your money back, recovering from identity theft can take months or years. In the meantime, these are some of the things which you might not be able to do: In addition, you could face the following events: For all that, checking your credit report / score once or twice a year is probably enough. If you're planning on a major purchase, though, you should get a copy of your full credit report from all three major bureaus (Equifax, Transunion and Experian) a few months ahead of time. Even if everything on them is kosher, having that information on hand will give you a leg up when you go for financing.",
"If anyone hasn't done this yet, all three companies have waived the fees. I just did it and a couple weeks ago, I set up an account with the Social Security Administration where you can get notified any time someone is trying to use your social security number. There's two-step authentication as well.",
"The bottom line is to keep most of your money in accounts with no check privileges and to not give the account numbers for these accounts to anyone. Keep just enough in your checking account for the checks you are going to write.",
"What can I do to make sure it won't happen? Who is the right person to report this to? (apparently, the police can't make sure that it won't be used for identity theft) You want to contact any one of the credit bureaus and put a fraud alert on your account. Once you contact one, they automatically contact the other bureaus for you. As part of this, they should send you a credit report. Review it carefully and note any items that are not yours. You'll then need to dispute any items that are a result of this identity theft. You may be required to file a police report regarding the stolen identity, but if you filed one for your stolen wallet, that may be sufficient. If the person who stole your wallet wants to steal your identity, it may be months before it shows up on your credit report. Make it a practice to regularly check your credit reports. How do I check at any given time whether my identity was stolen? Unfortunately, there is no easy way to check if your identity was stolen. The most common way is to check your credit report, but that only checks things that are reported to the credit reporting bureaus. If they use your information to start an account with a utility company at a rental house that typically won't go on your credit report until they are substantially delinquent. If they use your information to check into a hospital, that information typically won't show up on your credit report until the hospital sends the bill to collections. I've had a case where the identity theft happened at Chase, but was never reported on my credit. So my credit report was clear, but Chase disallowed me from banking with them because the identity thief had delinquent accounts with Chase that for whatever reason were not reported to the bureaus. How likely is it that it will be used in any form of identity theft? My gut feeling is that someone who snatches a wallet and immediately runs up the credit cards isn't looking to steal identities, but rather for a quick score. I don't know if there are statistics that back up my hunch.",
"I should add that it's a good defensive measure in case your information gets hacked, as mine likely has. You need to do it with all three agencies, and it costs five of ten dollars. Equifax has waived the Dee.",
"I can't address the psychology of trust involved in your question, but here are some common sense guidelines for dealing with your issue. Make sure you know who you are talking to. Call the company you need to speak to via a publicly available phone number. An email or something you got in a letter might be from a different source. If you use a website, you should be sure you are on the correct website. Keep careful records. Make good notes of each phone call and keep all emails and letters forever. Note the time, name and/or ID of the person you spoke to and numbers called in addition to keeping notes on what actions should be done. Keep your faxing transmission receipts and shipping tracking numbers too. If you are nervous, ask them why they want the info. The fraud department should be able to explain it to you. For example, they probably want your social because that is how your credit report is identified. If they are going to fix a credit report, they will need a social. It is doubtful they would have a good explanation why they need your mother's maiden name. Ask for secure transmission, or confirm they have it. Postal mail isn't so secure, but I'll go out on a limb and say most fax machines today are not really fax machines, but software that deals in PDFs. At some point you will have to realize you will have to transmit something. No method is perfect, but you can limit your exposure. Help them do their jobs. If you are (understandably) nervous, consider their motivations: corporate profit. BUT that could very well mean not running afoul of the law and (with any luck) treating customers the best way they know to earn business. If you stymy the fraud department, how can they help you? If the ID theft was serious enough, document your issue for future law enforcement so you getting pulled over for speeding doesn't result in you going to jail for whatever crime the other person did. Perhaps the fraud department you are dealing with can assist there. Finally, while you work with fraud departments to clear up your name and account, work on the other end to limit future damage. Freeze your credit. See if you bank or credit card have monitoring. Use CreditKarma.com or a similar if you cannot find a free service. (Please don't ever pay for credit monitoring.)",
"Read your bill, question things that don't look familiar. People who steal credit card numbers don't bother to conceal themselves well. So if you live in Florida, and all of the sudden charges appear in Idaho, you should investigate. Keeping charge slips seems counter-productive to me. I already know that I bought gasoline from the station down the street, a slip of paper whose date may or may not align with the credit card bill is not very useful. The half-life for a stolen card is hours. So you tend to see a bunch of charges appearing quickly. If someone is stealing $20 a week from you over an extended period of time, the theif is probably someone you live or work with, and paper slips won't help you there either.",
"Sign up for alerts. Everytime you use your card, you'll get an alert. That way if there is an unauthorized transaction, you'll know right away. The alerts can also tell you what amount was charged - since this happens right away, the last last cc transaction is fresh in your memory and any overcharges can be easily detected. Has saved me more times than I can remember!",
"I had a scare recently and now I carry all my passwords around in my wallet. It is a titanic pain in the ass but if a cracker gets one password and you use it a lot they can own you so fast. Also, google 2-step authorization. Another enormous PITA but so much more secure.",
"The best we can do in the Equifax case is freeze (not lock) our credit files at the credit bureaus and use the free annual credit reports via FTC.GOV. Unfreezing is an extra step one would have to go through before opening a new credit line, renting a new place, getting utilities hooked up, etc. But the freeze (versus the lock) essentially makes one’s data worthless to the credit reporting agencies.",
"\"I have some experience with this. I have had fraudulent charges appear on my credit card statement and had to change my card number several times, despite (I believe) no carelessness on my part. Every time that this has happened, I have never lost a penny due to fraud on my credit card. The bank has ultimately removed the fraudulent charges in every instance. Given this, you'd think the consumer doesn't need to worry about this at all. But it seems like credit card companies beg to differ. Yes, because although I have never lost a penny to fraud, the bank (or the merchant) loses money every time it happens. The $0 liability protects you; the card security measures protect the bank. But... why should a consumer ever bother worrying about these in the first place, when he knows he legally can't be held responsible for fraudulent charges? What exactly is this new \"\"peace of mind\"\" that he supposedly gets by (say) using features like virtual account numbers that he doesn't already have? Although you shouldn't end up out any money when this happens, it is an inconvenience. The bank will cancel your card and issue you a new number. It may take a few days for you to receive your new card. If you have another card to use, this isn't a big deal. If you are out of state the day before you need to check out of a hotel and return a rental car with no backup credit card (as I have been), it is a big deal. (In my case, I had to have the credit card company talk to the hotel to give them the new card number, and they were able to overnight me a new credit card so I could get home. I now make sure I carry a backup credit card.) Should a consumer put any effort into worrying about this at all? (Why?) In my opinion, it makes sense to be careful what you do with your credit card number, if only to avoid the inconvenience. Don't type your credit card number into an e-mail message, for example, and only use it on websites that you trust. That having been said, it is not worth it to be paranoid about it, either. No matter how careful you are, eventually you will probably use it at a store that gets hacked, or your card will get skimmed somewhere, and you'll need to get a new credit card number. The best way to protect yourself is to make sure that you go over your credit card statement each month and look for any fraudulent charges that the bank didn't catch.\"",
"Every 90 days add an Initial Fraud Alert to each of the 3 major credit bureaus.",
"Here is what I did and what I sent to my daughter... Here is how to freeze your credit with the three reporting companies. 1. TransUnion (easiest and free). Go to https://freeze.transunion.com. If the site is down, you may have to try later (like late at night). You will have to register on the site to do this. I think on this one you need to also give them your previous address. 2. Equifax (not so easy, but works online), costs $10 [note your cost may vary depending on your State]. Go to https://www.freeze.equifax.com. You will have to register. I think this the one does not require the previous address (because you have been in at our location for more than 2 years) even though there is a section for it. 3. Experian (toughest one to get done, website is currently broken), costs $10 [note your cost may vary depending on your State]. You will need to do it by phone (takes 12-15 mins to get through the menus). Call 888-397-3742. Note there are LONG silent periods, so do not hang up. If they do disconnect you, it should be right at the beginning, and you just have to call back. You will need to have your credit card number ready to enter at the end (and you need to key in the digits fairly quickly, do not pause once you start entering them), and it will ask for a four-digit expiration date (for example, Aug 2019 is 0819) on the card.",
"First thing to do when you notice a credit card fraud is to call the respective banks who issues the credit card and most banks immediately (as far as my experience goes - twice) they will cancel the credit card and issue a new card with different number. Your credit card account will remain the same, no effect on credit score as the account is still active, its just the credit card number is changed. If you are more concerned about Identity Theft, there are two further options you can pursue. Place a Fraud Alert : Ask 1 of the 3 credit reporting companies to put a fraud alert on your credit report. They must tell the other 2 companies. An initial fraud alert can make it harder for an identity thief to open more accounts in your name. The alert lasts 90 days but you can renew it. - as per Federal Trade Commission Credit Freeze : If you’re concerned about identity theft, those reported mega-data breaches, or someone gaining access to your credit report without your permission, you might consider placing a credit freeze on your report. - as per Federal Trade Commission",
"Keep a list of your accounts, banks, life insurance policies, location of your will, etc, and make sure two people you trust know where you keep that list. Review and update the list at least once a year. This way if something happens to you, your next of kin will have an easier time locating your financial details and final wishes. And having a list also means you won't forget about any of your accounts.",
"Keep Your Passwords Updated - Passwords are at the core of hacking. Hackers either try to hack your password or exploit some other vulnerability to gain access to passwords, so make sure that all your passwords are completely random and not simple like 123456 or password. Log on http://tellemgrodypr.com/",
"\"I've received letters notifying me of data breaches in the past. In the end, I've never signed up for the offered protection service, figuring if \"\"they\"\" can hack Target or ADP or the IRS, they can hack anybody, like... Equifax. And now Equifax has been hacked. My family's Social Security Numbers were stolen from a hospital database. I think that information, plus public information was used to gain further data from the IRS FAFSA tool. (we got a letter from the IRS). Ultimately, fraudsters used whatever data they had to file a tax return with the IRS and with the Cali FTB (we don't and never have lived in California). We got letters from both, and managed to stop the fraud before it really impacted us...other than having to file a paper tax form this past tax season. Anyway... in a world where Equifax gets hacked: the only solution is: I don't bother with the crazy password schemes you talk about... I have a few different passwords I use, but most my investment accounts use the same username and password. It's all about risk. Bruce Schneier says the same thing. The amount to spend on security should depend on what you're trying to protect. I don't care much if somebody gets into my google account, because I have a google account just because I have to. I barely use it at all. Similarly my yahoo account. My yahoo account uses my \"\"insecure password\"\", and my investment accounts use my \"\"secure password\"\". Credit Card info? Meh. Unless they get into the credit card company database, which undoubtedly has my Social Security Number, it's not that big of a deal. Yeah, they can make fraudulent charges, but there are legal protections, so in theory I can't be out any money. So think this way: what's the risk, and what's the appropriate level of effort to take to mitigate that risk.\"",
"\"Do so. It's a bit insulting that you need to pay the very entity that fucked you to **start** protecting you, but that's a reality of life. And to add insult to injury, the very info stolen is the *same* info needed to reset your freeze PIN... *But*, at least they'll send you physical mail letting you know \"\"you\"\" changed your PIN. Do it. If not for the fact that these worthless bastards are allowed to charge us in the *first* place, a credit freeze should be the **default** situation. It won't hurt your credit, and *might* prevent someone from opening an account in your name without you knowing about it. / And if I didn't make it obvious, invest in \"\"torches and pitchforks\"\".\"",
"If your debit card has no fraud protection then you need to find a different bank, many debit cards include it. Even with fraud protection, I don't like to keep excess money in the checking account, so I have checking and savings accounts with an online bank. I can transfer money from savings to checking instantly, 6 times per month, which allows me to keep only what is needed in the checking account. Many online banks have a better overdraft policy as well, where you simply pay a small amount of interest on the over-drawn amount, rather than a set ~$35 overdraft fee, or a $20 fee for them to automatically transfer money from your savings account. I've heard of, but not made use of threshold-based fraud alerts or two-factor approval, which you can set up so that any purchase in excess of $N triggers the need for additional approval via your phone.",
"\"Contact your bank immediately, if you haven't done so already. They will almost certainly have some sort of \"\"fraud hotline\"\" which can take appropriate action.\"",
"Next time you are with your son, have him request a credit freeze. The choice is his, of course.",
"Ask your bank to write a letter asserting that you have $xxxxx on deposit with them, on their letterhead? Though realistically, the chance of your getting hit with identity theft In this situation, when you presumably know exactly who you're dealing with, are vanishingly small.",
"I use another solution: debit card with an account kept empty most of the time and another account in the same bank without any card. I keep the money on the second card-less account, and when I want to buy something, I instantly transfer the appropriate amount to the account with the card and pay. That way money is on the account tied to a debit card only for a minute before payment, and normally it is empty - so even if someone would try to fraudulently use my card number - I don't care - the transaction will be rejected. I think its the perfect solution - no fraud possible, and I don't have to worry about possibly having to bother calling my bank and requesting a chargeback, which is stressful and a waste of time and harmful to peace of mind (what if they refuse the chargeback)? I prefer to spend a minute before each transaction to transfer the money between the two accounts, and that time is not a waste, because I use it to reconsider the purchase - which prevents impulse-buying.",
"I would keep the letter in a file for follow-up, and I would do what you are already planning to do and wait to see what shows up on the credit report. If this does reflect an identity theft attempt, chances are that others will follow, so vigilance is key here. If there is a hard credit check, then you can dispute that on your credit report. If there is not a hard credit check, there is nothing further this credit card company can do to help you anyway.",
"Close your card, now. Let your credit card provider / bank know about the situation. Never, ever ever, give out your password. Not to a friend, not to your bank and not even to your cat.",
"\"I would use a \"\"virtual credit card\"\" which is basically a fake card that cannot be charged. http://credit-card-generator.2-ee.com/q_virtual-credit-card-generator.htm\"",
"You check your 401(k) retirement account, making sure your portfolio is carefully balanced. You scan your bank and credit card statements from time to time to verify the charges. These are things responsible people do. >But there’s a good chance you’ve spent time recently on a chore you didn’t sign up for: finding out if hackers possibly stole information about you from Equifax Inc., That's where you're wrong, kiddo. Why would I need to freeze my credit? Because someone else was stupid? Ah, hahaha, ha. nope.",
"\"Monitoring all three is good practice. That way, you will be notified as soon as there is a hard pull on any of your reports. Most financial institutions only pull one of your three reports to open new credit. If you're only monitoring one, you won't be alerted to new accounts until about a month passes and they are reported to all three. By this time, restoration will be much, much more difficult than if you called the financial institution immediately to say \"\"that's not me!\"\"\"",
"\"Also, do not trust anyone who phones you up. If someone phones up, claiming to be your bank, and trying to \"\"sort out this situation\"\"; how do you know it's your bank? You've given the scammer your phone number - it could be the scammer calling. Only discuss this with someone at the bank when you have phoned them.\"",
"Debit cards are the dumbest development ever. I now have a piece of plastic that allows any yahoo to cause me to bounce my mortgage. Great. Throw away the debit card. Use a credit card and exercise some self control. Take out a sufficient amount of cash to cover your weekly incidental expenses under $50. If you want something that costs more than $50, wait a week and use the credit card. You'll find that using cash at places like the convenience store or gas station will cause you to not spend $3 for a slim jim, lotto ticket, donut or other dumb and unnecessary item.",
"\"If any creditor thinks they're going to put their fuck up on my \"\"identity\"\" they got on another thing coming. I will not waste my time clearing up my credit score, I will not waste my time electronically verifying my identity, they will see a certified letter, and then they'll see me personaly in a court room.\"",
"Since we seem to be discussing credit score and credit history interchangeably, if I can add credit report as the third part of the puzzle, I have another point. Your credit score and credit report can be effective tools to notice identity theft or fraud in your name. Keeping track of your report will allow you to not only protect your good name (which is apparently in dispute here) but also those businesses who ultimately end up paying for the stolen goods or services.",
"You can dial the phone systems of the credit reporting agencies directly to put a freeze on your credit report account. The phone systems require quick responses or the systems will fail you out, but **this work is relatively quick** and probably easier than trying to do this on the websites that try to re-direct you to buying credit monitoring services. Here are the phone entries you will make as a guide for the phone menu of each of the credit reporting agencies: **Transunion** 888-909-8872: enter zip code press 3 to add freeze enter social security number enter date-of-birth as 8 digits MMDDYYYY enter house number from street address then # key choose a 6 digit security code credit card number for $10 charge 4 digit expiration date of credit card MMYY **Equifax** 800-685-1111: press 3 to select freezes press 1 to continue say your state then 1 to confirm enter social security number then 1 to confirm enter house number from street address then # key, then 1 to confirm press 1 to select a freeze there will be a long pause at this point but when the bot comes back it goes very fast. Write down the 10-digit pin provided XXXXXXXXXX then later, Write down the 10-digit confirmation number provided XXXXXXXXX. Press * to repeat both until you have it correct **Experian** 888 397 3742 press 2 for freeze press 2 for freeze press 1 for add freeze press 2 for no fraud report enter social security number then # key then 1 to confirm enter date-of-birth as 8 digits MMDDYYYY then 1 to confirm enter zip code then # key enter house number from street address then # key press 2 for not blind press 1 to pay by credit card wait through list of charges by state select credit card type 1 for mastercard, 2 for visa, 3 for american express, 4 for discover enter credit card #, then 1 to confirm 4 digit expiration date of credit card then # key MMYY# Cross-posted this from the megathread in r/personalfinance.",
"@ Daniel Anderson shared interesting insights. In my research I learned a few things Some interesting data on fraud trends AFP Payments Fraud and Control Survey 2016 As a consumer, at the very least I'd improve awareness of I'd also learn about basic types of fraud And for the techies out there, I'd recommend learning about layered security (There's no way the customer service is going to talk about this)",
"\"I agree it seems insulting to pay the credit reporting agencies, but I have no choice at this point. I'd rather pay the small fee per each of them, to freeze accounts, then have thousands stolen. My husband has excellent credit and also we have a rather substantial savings account, that his info could give \"\"would be\"\" identity thieves access too. This whole situation is messed up, and unacceptable! For one, no one EVER gave these credit reporting agencies access to their info, it's just a \"\"give in\"\" being born here. And for two, no one asked for their information to be kept in insecure databases. Higher standards need to be implemented. My poor 72 year old father is outraged when I tell him his info is online. He says, \"\"I don't use the Internet!!! How can it be there?!?!\"\" (Poor old soul lol) I just said, \"\"well dad, it is, whether you use it, or like it or not. It's there\"\" I just need to make sure we are taking the correct steps to protect ourselves. Honestly, I am not finance savvy. This is why I'm asking here in this sub. Thank you for responding, and thanks to anyone else who may offer any advice. I'm not terrified, but I'm definitely miffed...\"",
"I would worry more about identity theft than your credit score at first. I would want an explanation of how it happened and confirm that no one has used it. I don't think it will be too big of a deal on your credit in the longer term.",
"If it's just an ordinary credit card I'd think he could merely dispute the charges, since he's saying they 'created' (which I presume means applied for and received) a card, it should not affect his accounts directly. And especially since application details may be bogus, he should be able to prove it was not him. Even if they got HIS credit card number, he should be able to dispute those charges that are not his, especially if they went to a different address, or were charged someplace (like another city) where he was not present at that time. OTOH, if they created a DEBIT card that was linked to his bank account somehow, well then, that could be a lot more difficult to recover from, but even then, if it's not his signature that was used to apply for the card, or on any charges that had to be signed for etc, he should be able to dispute it and get the bank to put the money back in his account since it will be a case of forgery etc. The big problem with ID theft is people tend to ruin your credit rating, and you end up having to fend off bill collectors etc. The primary thing it costs you (speaking from experience of having checks stolen and forged using a fake drivers license) is the TIME and hassle of getting everything straightened out and put right. In my case it took a few hours at the credit union, and all the money was back, in a new account (the old one having been closed) when I left. Dealing with all the poor merchants that were taken, and with bill collectors on the other hand took months. but I never once in the process needed 'quick money' from anyone. So the need for 'quick money' seems a bit doubtful. I'd want a lot more details of exactly why he needs money from you. Refer your friend to this Federal Trade Commission site and make sure he takes the steps listed, and especially pays attention to the parts about keeping notes of every single person he talks with, including name, date, time, and pertinent details of the conversation. If he has some idea HOW this happened (as in a robbery) then report it to the proper authorities, and insist on getting a case number. talking with bill collectors is the worst, just trying to get ahold of them when they send you letters (and talk to a person, not a recorded number with instructions on how to pay them) is sometimes nearly impossible (google was my friend) and a lot of times they didn't want to back off till I gave them the case number with the police, that somehow magically made it 'real' to them and not just my telling them a story.",
"Dont just complain about it on the internet. Write and call your reps to demand federal protections at the credit information level rather than the derivative personal credit card level that doesnt even cover small business which employs most Americans. It doesnt even require increased compliance due to AML/KYC requirements and many of the interrelated systems for banks being designated core infrastructure for the financial system. Besides the fact that even banks should want this because who is going to foot the bill on a bunch of bad loans that arent even to the bank itself when the taxpayer likely cant even handle a [$10 incidental?](http://www.businessinsider.com/emergency-expenses-work-survey-2017-5)",
"I generally only carry my debit card and a small amount of cash. On payday most of my money goes into a bills account, so I only have enough in the main account for a few days regular spending. This means if I want to buy anything I need to make a transfer from my bills account. If I really need to I can transfer the money instantly this over the phone or the web, but it cuts down greatly on the impulse purchases as I have to go through a process to get hold of the money. As an aside this approach would probably help if I got mugged or lost the wallet as they wouldn't get much cash or be able to use my card for very long.",
"I use online banking and bill pay for all accounts where I can control when and how much is paid, where I push the funds out. The bills from those companies that want to be allowed to reach into my account and pull money automatically (e.g. my Chase mortgage) I simply will not enroll - they get a paper check in the mail. There is no way I am giving these cocksucker criminals *permission* to take money out of my accounts.",
"The biggest reason to protect your credit card number is for your personal convenience. Replacing cards, even if there is no immediate dollar-consequence, is time consuming, so there IS a cost unless you do not assign value to your time. Additionally, repeated fraud may cause your financial institution to decide you're an above-average fraud risk and close your account. This costs more time and credit checks, etc., to apply for a new card.",
"\"One trick is to make all purchases end in a particular number of your choosing, say \"\"3\"\". From now on, all restaurant meals,gas purchases, and anything in your control, end them in 3. When you glance at the bill, you can skip these charges, and look carefully at the rest. It's not 100%, as you couldn't easily impact supermarket charges and many others, but it's half of my routine charges.\"",
"\"How can I make sure? You can't make sure. Here is what is promised: (Obviously things have to be done in this order). Here is what will actually happen: The only way to \"\"make sure\"\" is to give all the information and watch the money disappear from your account. I advise against that.\"",
"DO contact the bank immediately. Many of them may be able to help you but have time limits, if you wait too long they can't cancel it. They might not, but it's always worth trying. In addition, set alerts on your son's account, if over $X amount of money is spent it will alert you. For example if he spends more than $100, you'll get an email and you can verify with him.",
"\"I completely agree with @littleadv in favor of using the credit card and dispute resolution process, but I believe there are more important details here related to consumer protection. Since 1968, US citizens are protected from credit card fraud, limiting the out-of-pocket loss to $50 if your card is lost, stolen, or otherwise used without your permission. That means the bank can't make you pay more than $50 if you report unauthorized activity--and, nicely, many credit cards these days go ahead and waive the $50 too, so you might not have to pay anything (other than the necessary time and phone calls). Of course, many banks offer a $50 cap or no fees at all for fraudulent charges--my bank once happily resolved some bad charges for me at no loss to me--but banks are under no obligation to shield debit card customers from fraud. If you read the fine print on your debit card account agreement you may find some vague promises to resolve your dispute, but probably nothing saying you cannot be held liable (the bank is not going to lose money on you if they are unable to reverse the charges!). Now a personal story: I once had my credit card used to buy $3,000 in stereo equipment, at a store I had never heard of in a state I have never visited. The bank notified me of the surprising charges, and I was immediately able to begin the fraud report--but it took months of calls before the case was accepted and the charges reversed. So, yes, there was no money out of my pocket, but I was completely unable to use the credit card, and every month they kept on piling on more finance fees and late-payment charges and such, and I would have to call them again and explain again that the charges were disputed... Finally, after about 8 months in total, they accepted the fraud report and reversed all the charges. Lastly, I want to mention one more important tool for preventing or limiting loss from online purchases: \"\"disposable\"\", one-time-use credit card numbers. At least a few credit card providers (Citibank, Bank of America, Discover) offer you the option, on their websites, to generate a credit card number that charges your account, but under the limits you specify, including a maximum amount and expiration date. With one of these disposable numbers, you can pay for a single purchase and be confident that, even if the number were stolen in-transit or the merchant a fraud, they don't have your actual credit card number, and they can never charge you again. I have not yet seen this option for debit card customers, but there must be some banks that offer it, since it saves them a lot of time and trouble in pursuing defrauders. So, in short: If you pay with a credit card number you will not ever have to pay more than $50 for fraudulent charges. Even better, you may be able to use a disposable/one-time-use credit card number to further limit the chances that your credit is misused. Here's to happy--and safe--consumering!\"",
"Have you considered a service that allows you to generate credit card numbers on the fly? DoNotTrackMe allows you to generate a CC number on the fly, for a specific amount. If the vendor tries to charge more, it will fail. If it gets stolen, it's useless. I don't know the specific fees off hand, but they have an annual fee for the feature. Still, for the protection, doesn't seem like a bad way to go. Note: I have no affiliation with DNTM, I'm just a very happy user of their email protection products. The Masked Cards faq is here.",
"Have you checked to see if anything else went missing? Walmart says that because I was not the original purchaser of the gift card, they could not help me directly Just to build on what @littleadv already gave you, my personal experience on this is that none of the companies that you'll likely be dealing with in a situation like this will be falling over themselves to help you out. Unless it also helps them for some reason, or if they're compelled by consumer laws. If you think you should be protected from this sort of thing happening, feel free to reference the FCRA to see if you might get any consumer protections. But just from what you've said here, it doesn't sound like you do. So if anything else went missing (or even if not), it might have been someone working for Citi, who may have had access to more of your personal information than just your card. ID theft is unfortunately common, as a fairly easy crime to commit, a hard one to protect yourself against, and a very hard one to prosecute. When did you last check your credit report?",
"If the checking account is in a FDIC insured bank or a NCUA insured Credit Union then you don't have to worry about what happens if the bank goes out of business. In the past the government has made sure that any disruption was minimal. The fraud issue can cause a bigger problem. If they get a hold of your debit card, they can drain your account. Yes the bank gives you fraud protection so that the most you can lose is $50 or $500; many even make your liability $0 if you report it in a timely manor. But there generally is a delay in getting the money put back in your account. One way to minimize the problem is to open a savings account,it also has the FDIC and NCUA coverage . The account may even earn a little interest. If you don't allow the bank to automatically provide an overdraft transfer from savings to checking account, then the most they can temporarily steal is your checking account balance. Getting a credit card can provide additional protection. It also limits your total losses if there is fraud. The bill is only paid once a month so if they steal the card or the number, they won't be able to drain the money in the bank account. The credit card, if used wisely can also start to build a positive credit file so that in a few years you can get a loan for a car or a place to live. Of course if they steal your entire wallet with both the credit and the debit card...",
"You might want to consider how much effort mitigating this risk is worth. For example, having homeowner's insurance and sufficient documentation of your valuables is probably enough to satisfy your fears if they are based on simply losing your property. In the end is there really any benefit in living like you don't have money in an effort to keep people stealing it from you? That said, One piece of good advice I have heard for how to avoid encouraging robbers is to avoid putting boxes for expensive items (e.g. electronics) out by the trash until the morning they pick it up. No need to advertise that you just bought a super expensive home-theater system.",
"ICANN will protect you from theft but it might take months to sort out. I think the best ur gonna get is a registrar that supports 2fa. Setup auto pay of course and make sure registrar emails are valid/monitored. Why not just hand the domains yourself and charge them double.",
"Wrong sub. You're looking for /r/personalfinance >will freezing just that credit report hurt them in any way? No, but it will help prevent an identity thief from wrecking your credit. >Can I still get a loan with only one of the three frozen? Depends, but yes. You should freeze your credit at all 5 credit bureaus for personal financial protections.",
"I had exactly the same need and I ended up using BillGuard and I like it. At the end of the day, it sends an alert where I need to review all the transactions - takes hardly 5seconds and I am on top of all transactions. From the last 1yr I have found 1 fraudulent and 2 duplicate charge using billguard. Didn't really save a ton of money but its useful to understand how you use your credit card. Don't work for or promoting the app, its just useful.",
"Here's an unconventional approach: If you really need the money you can always call the bank or go to one of their branches and get new login credentials after some kind of formal process like proving that you are in fact the account holder. Since it will be a hassle to get the credentials you will not do it if it's not necessary. In germany the banks all use transaction authentication numbers (TAN) that you need to authorize a transfer. If there is such a thing in UK you can just throw the TAN list away. This way you can still check your savings balance but you cannot transfer the money without requesting a new TAN list which takes time and effort.",
"In most cases of fraud, your liability is limited to $50 if you report it within certain number of days (I think 2). After that the liability grows to something like $500. You are covered even if your negligence has caused the breach. In addition VISA guarantees credit cards - in most cases you have 0 liability. Finally checking & savings accounts are FDIC insured up to $250,000 in case the bank goes bankrupt. The $250,000 is a total for all accounts at the given bank. It's up to you to report and ask for refund though and sometimes you have to jump through hoops to get it but usually it's fairly straightforward and it usually takes only 2 or 3 days.",
"\"> Every credit card has a space on the back for a signature. And for decades, retailers would check the signature on your ID ... This worked for a long time, until retailers ... For decades, retailers never compared signatures on credit cards to the person's signature. Impractical and not even worth it as anyone can copy a signature on a card. Neither do banks bother to check for signature. They don't even have a \"\"signature on-file\"\" anymore. Try it! Deposit a check or buy with a credit card and scribble something unrelated as a signature! The deposit or credit card transaction will go through. I guarantee you that! **Please try it! Let me know if it did not work!** I know what I am talking about because I deal with credit cards a lot, professionally, in IT. The only sure thing is to ask for a PIN. But, alas, credit cards use a chip, so if I steall your card, I can buy with it with no problems. But not if I still your ATM card - I don't know your PIN. The PIN is in your head and I can't get it. The credit card companies don't really care.\"",
"If you see something that looks like a sales pitch, be skeptical, even if they sound informed, say things which resonate with your concerns and promise to alleviate your problems. Watch out in particular for people who pontificate about matters which are tangentially related to the investment (e.g. populist anti-Wall-Street sentiment). Beware limited-time opportunities, offers, and discounts. I'm specifically talking about your email pitches, Motley Fool. They're shameful. Remember you're allowed to change your mind and go back on something that you've said a few minutes ago. If anyone tries to trick you into agreeing to go along with them by taking what something you've said and manipulating it, or uses logic to demonstrate that you must buy something based on things you've said, tell them you're not comfortable, head for the door and don't look back. Don't be afraid of embarrassment or anything like that. (You can investigate whether your position is in fact logically consistent later.) Run away from anyone who resents or deprecates the notion of a second opinion. Don't ever go along with anything that seems shady: it may be shadier than you know. Some people thought Bernie Maddoff was doing some front-running on the side; turns out it was a Ponzi scheme. (Likewise the Ponzi scheme that devastated Albania's economy was widely suspected of being dirty, but people suspected more of a black-market angle.) Beware of anyone who is promising stability and protection. Insurance companies can sell you products (especially annuities) which can deliver it, but they're very expensive for what you get. Don't buy it unless you seriously need it.",
"\"Definitely this. The fact that it's termed \"\"identity theft\"\" is a great PR spin for banks. Someone else is attempting transactions while fraudulently claiming to be you. You did not lose your identity or even a piece of it. You are still fully you. You are not even involved in the fraudulent transaction! It's a transaction between the bank and the fraudster, and the bank has agreed to some action you did not authorize. They should be responsible for cleanup.\"",
"You should pull your credit report from all the credit reporting agencies annually to make sure only the accounts you know of are being reported.",
"Honestly, if you're going to restrict the online payment on your card over this, you may as well just restrict it permanently. Because this is definitely not the only time anyone has had an opportunity to retrieve the information on your card. There isn't really that much information on there - anyone taking more than a cursory look could in theory remember it and use it. We're talking waiters and checkout chicks, anytime you've given your card to anyone really. Banks know this. Credit card numbers are not really secure. They factor this in. And they have software for fraud detection - looking at large or unusual transactions and transactions in foreign countries etc. Of course it's not fool proof, but the best thing you can do isn't to cripple your card, but just be a little bit more diligent about checking your statements, making sure the transactions make sense. Some banks also allow you to set up an alert system so anytime any transactions occur you are notified immediately.",
"I went to the bank with my friends and told them that I saw the money in my account, that it's not mine, and that they should investigate and send it back to wherever it came from Right thing to do. Did you give this in writing? Do you have a stamped copy of the letter from Bank that they accepted your complaint? he has been calling with different phone number threatening me, saying that he will kill me, he will make sure I don't return to my country alive, and all. Lodge a formal police complaint. And also I have not heard from the bank at all. What should I do? Ensure that all your communication and follow-up is in writing. Even email is fine. But periodically send this via certified post with tracking number. Even when you call up the bank, keep a track of calls. After a day or two, send a email saying further to calls 1, calls 2, calls 3 etc you are still awaiting a response from Bank. Even after face to face visits, record all your follow-up and periodically send via email and after few email take a print of everything [even if its 10 pages] and send via certified mail. The reason it is very important to have a written trail is if things go wrong, Law enforcement can accuse you to be part of fraud/scam. It will be difficult to establish you were the one who complained about it. If not too difficult, change you phone numbers. Yes definitely open the new Bank Account; and don't give this to a random stranger on Internet.",
"Yes, those numbers are all that is needed to withdraw funds, or at least set online payment of bills which you don't owe. Donald Knuth also faced this problem, leading him to cease sending checks as payment for finding errors in his writings.",
"Some (most) credit cards have a way to get a one-time use number. If that is an available option for one of your cards, that is probably the way to do the very risky transaction. These numbers can be good for only one purchase, or for multiple purchases with a single vendor. This will limit your exposure because they won't have access to your entire account. Also review your fraud protections with your credit card. With the single use number, it won't matter if you use the electronic form or the email. Just make sure you keep the confirmation email or a screen capture of the form.",
"\"With regard to your edit (although I didn't downvote): one way to reduce the security risk is to separate the payment from the ability to drain your account. A considerable part of the security risk is inherent in giving people a number which is directly linked to a bank account where you keep all your money. If you don't want that risk, don't do that. Instead of (or in addition to) trying to reduce the chance of fraud, you can reduce the impact of fraud, even if it occurs, by not paying for things using the details of an account where you have all your money. Trying to protect against fraud while keeping all your money in the account is sort of like carrying around thousands of dollars in cash in your wallet and then worrying about how to defend against robbery. Yes, you can carry a weapon or hire a bodyguard, but it's probably simpler to just not carry that much money in the first place. You already mentioned one solution with your option #1, which is to just keep a small amount of money in a separate account and use that for online payments. Assuming you can easily transfer money in and out of this account via online banking, this effectively is what you say you want in your edit: you log in to your bank online, but rather than \"\"informing it\"\" you're about to make a payment, you just transfer money in. You'll probably have to keep a small amount of money in the account to keep it open, but if this is an important issue for you, that shouldn't be that big a deal. Another solution is a credit card. With a credit card, you simply make the payment online. In the US, if the merchant (or someone else stealing the info) makes fraudulent charges, the credit card company assumes the liability and the consumer suffers only the inconvenience of having to get a new card issued. I don't know what the UK laws are regarding credit vs. debit fraud, but some sites I found seem to suggest that credit cards have fraud protection in the UK as well. This is probably worth looking into if you are concerned about fraud.\"",
"Looking to buy a house soon, but I want to do this as well to safeguard my credit. Should I still go through with it even though I need lenders to be able to get to my info? Or rather, say I have it locked, then unlock it for the lenders... do I need to repeat this process and pay $10 x 3 again?",
"If you are the main account holder I would try contacting your bank directly, some of them have very accommodating services for this kind of thing. You might even consider going in person if you have a local branch, this might just make communicating easier. They will probably go over your recent transactions with you to identify the fraudulent ones. You might do this first by yourself if you have an online account. Once you identify the fraudulent purchases they will probably take a week or two to investigate/process and reimburse you. But do NOT just close the account and forget about it- first off closing an account that is close to $2,000 in debt probably isn't even possible. Second, if you forgot about it for a long time and just let you credit take a hit you could end up really paying for it(in the form of higher interest payments) later in life when you try to get anything financed like car or house or even student loans for college. And make no mistake that can amount to *maaany* thousands of dollars more than you would otherwise pay over the course of a loan. So don't damage your credit if you can avoid it. Long story short, banks have special departments to handle this kind of thing, so work with your bank. See how that goes, if you run into hangups you may need to bring your parents into the loop. Good luck!",
"If it is one of those debit cards you use just like a credit card without a PIN, I'd cancel it regardless of whatever you are trying to do with your finances. They just seem too dangerous to me. Unlike a credit card, if someone makes fraudulent purchases on a debit card the money is gone from your bank account until you resolve the issue with the issue. With a credit card, the BANK is out the money until it gets worked out. My brother once had his credit card number (not the card) stolen and the criminals emptied his bank account. Eventually the bank put the money back after an investigation, but it had two really nasty side effects: 1) Dozens of checks bounced. The bank refunded the bounced check fees, but not all of the stores would. 2) He had no money in his account until it was resolved. Luckily in his case they resolved it in a few days, but he was already making preparations to borrow money to pay his rent/bills.",
"In such a situation, is it really safe to give financial info to a person who does not encrypt it? Encryption only helps to an extent. i.e. during transmission of data or during brute force makes it more difficult to get the real data. However you concern is more of staff using this data, which encryption will not help much as they would be able to decrypt and see the data. In what ways could it be misused? This depends on the type of data. The financial data can be used to hack into your accounts if other bits of info are known. i.e. most of the times on Telephone requests; say putting card on hold, requesting balance on account, etc; only your address, mother maiden name, last few transaction details are asked. Some critical requests need more ID proofs; so generally not of concern. The other misuse would be selling this to marketing companies, so that you can be bombarded with sales pitch for anything and everything. The PAN and other ID documents are becoming more prone to mis-use. i.e. give a copy of PAN to open fraudulent accounts etc. A good practise would be to mark every copy of ID proof you give with the purpose as to why its given and a date. This would make the ID proof stale to an extent. If she is not going to encrypt it, should I ask her to delete all my old data and then create a new profile for my communication with her; the new profile not being my name, but a fake name? The regulations would not allow her to create fake accounts and may lead to issues and as such any recognised financial advisor would not allow this to be done. Quite a few countries have regulations for financial advisor's that need to be adhered to.",
"If you're worried about the account number just take a statement and black out the account number with a Sharpie or the like. That is if the account number even appears on it, these days it often doesn't.",
"Recovering after a card number has been stolen is a nuisance; you need to wade through determining which charges are and aren't legit, update the records of anyone who legitimately has your card on file, not have the card available until the replacement reaches you, etc. And you may be on the hook for the first $50 of the loss, if I remember correctly, unless (as mentioned) the bank waives that. Plus the risk that the card could be the first step in a larger identity theft attempt. And not everyone is so blase' about the bank losing money. Those costs get passed on to us, remember. And some of us actually respect our banks or credit unions. Certainly cards come with some consumer protection, otherwise nobody who thought about this would want to use them. But it's still worth exercising reasonable care to keep the problem from arising.",
"Is it a bank account or something? If so, talk to yor bank. Usually they could give you your money back, as long as you have proof that you have been hacked. Otherwise, ring their after hours number so that they could cancel/lock all your accounts. Hope that helps.",
"This one. Change it to something you can remember but is still not similar to any of your other passwords, because they still may have access. Actually, you should probably just start using different passwords for every site you use, LinkedIn has 100 million customers and they aren't salting? It means you can't trust any company right now.",
"If you are just trying to curb impulse spending I'd suggest the following: 1) Set up a separate bank account for your savings - Do not order checks or a debit card for this account. 2) Get your employer to split your paycheck to put the saving amount in the new account (most employers will do this) The trick to avoid impulse spending is to make it a chore to get at the money. With the above arrangement you would have to physically go to the bank, fill out a withdrawal slip and get cash. This way you still can access the money in an emergency, but it forces you to plan things out better.",
"\"In Frank Abagnale's book \"\"Art of the Steal\"\" the author talks about how to set up a bank account for safe wire transfers. He recommends setting up an account at your regular bank and specifying that money can be transferred into that account from another bank, and out to your regular account only. You are then free to give the necessary transfer information to whomever you want, knowing full well they can't take money out. This guy should know what he's talking about since he's an ex-confidence man legitimately working as an American security consultant.\"",
"The use of an old address would make me suspect that your data was stolen from some database you had registered to long ago with the old address. I would think that contacting your credit rating firm and the credit card company is urgent.",
"I don't believe there is such a process. My observation (i.e. my opinion) is that banks will have a level of security walls appropriate to the cost vs risk they experience. Since as Frazell says, your liability is limited for this type of fraud, you personally bear little if any risk. If this fraud were common enough that the cost of your proposal outweighed the expense, they would implement it. On a similar note. Credit card fraud can be reduced ten fold if a PIN were required for all purchases. The 3 digits on the back helps prove the card is there, and you just didn't steal the from 16 digits, but a 6-8 digit PIN required at point of sale would be tough for the thief to guess. How much software to do this would cost, I don't know, but the idea is brilliant, even if it's mine. 10 fold reduction, if not 100 fold. (Any bank guys reading?)",
"Buy gold, real coins not paper. And do not keep it in a bank.",
"SpecKK's answer is excellent, I've only got two things to add: When your creditors change your account number, make sure to update your online information. You're not sending back a coupon, so it's up to you to make sure it has the new number and gets posted to the correct account. If your bank supports it, give the creditors good labels/nicknames. If you have names that are similar, it's easy to send a payment to the wrong place -- this may not be easy to detect and is a hassle to straighten out.",
"\"You would be facilitating identity theft. You would be risking people who disagree with your approach thinking you're foolish. Are you really going to gain enough from this decision to offset the risks? Can't you do the same thing with much less detail or a \"\"fantasy\"\" account?\"",
"The thing is that we never asked for these services. The banks and the merchants did. These companies build profiles **against** you to provide your credit info to any creditor who asks. Then they bill you so that they will not hand out your identity to criminals for a period of time. Great fucking system.",
"Checking account holders must be aware that when you order bank checks online, you will be required to provide some sensitive personal and financial information. When I order my checks online, I make sure to think about the consequences of providing the information being demanded. Considering that identity theft remains the top threat for checking account holders, it would be wise to pause for a moment before submitting the information.",
"Buy one and use it but never spend more than you can pay off at the end of the month. Also, remember that the length of credit affects your rating too, so don't go canceling cards and/or getting new ones every time a new gimmick comes along.",
"You're right that someone who, say, photographed the front of your card at the store could use it to make some online purchases. Schemes like Visa's 3-D Secure provide additional online security by having you enter your password on the issuer's website, but they aren't common yet in the US. But as littleadv says, you as the cardholder generally aren't liable for fraud (except $50 in some cases). Just be sure to check your statement monthly and notify the issuer of any fraud within 60 days. To issuers, fraud losses are fairly predictable, and the cost is acceptable.",
"Friendly reminder for everyone to not reuse passwords across sites. For most people, the best solution is to use a program to remember their passwords. Personally, I'm a fan of [KeePass](http://keepass.info/), which is open source and allows you to use very high encryption. It has a password generator to create very random passwords for whatever requirements various sites have. Plugins allow KeePass to auto-fill fields in your browser. And if you put the database in your dropbox, you can access your passwords from your phone or another computer easily. It was a bit of a pain to get set up (4 or 5 hours of resetting passwords, which I spread over 2 days), but now I'm never going back. It's so much easier.",
"That should obscure your name and home address fairly well.",
"CC always (applies only if you pay your balance in full). First you rack up points on your card, second if there is an unauthorized pull a Cc will help you a bank may or may not. As a general advice don't hand out your banking information like a credit card number. Now paying bills through the bank is a different matter. This advice applies to companies that would like to pull money from bank accounts. Never do that if Cc is an alternative.",
"One can never be too cautious when when choosing a financial adviser. For example, has the company your adviser claims to represent ever been sanctioned by the local financial authorities? Does your adviser reside in the country in which he purports to operate? Have you thoroughly researched his background? It is also important to bear in mind what venues a company uses for advertising - if the company resorts to advertising by spamming, then their overall business practices are likely unethical and this could lead to trouble down the line. Finally, one should also research how the company's clientele has been built up. Was it through word of mouth or was the client data acquired by other means?",
"1) It sounds like you don't have a credit card, good. Take our ATM card and freeze it in a block of ice. Leave it in the freezer. 2) Get on a budget. A budget is a plan to spend your money. The best plans are those that are made ahead of time. For the record, budgeting is a skill and you will probably be bad at it for the first few times. 3) Withdraw cash from the bank account that you will need for the week. Once that money is gone, you are done spending until the next week. If you are still having trouble with this do it daily. Let's say you budget 300 for the month's spending. Go to the bank, take out 10 each day. You can carry money over from day-to-day, but never take out more. You can never spend more than you have because your ATM is in ice. 4) Find a friend who is good with money. Ask them to help you by giving guidance and oversight.",
"one should run their personal business like a company. I walked away from major credit card debt three years ago. soon the debt will be effectively gone forever, I having paid nothing. Fuckers should have negotiated. eat shit big banks.",
"\"Much of what you're asking will not be disclosed for obvious security reasons, so don't be surprised when call center people say they \"\"don't know\"\". They may actually not know, but even if they did, they'd be fired if they were to say anything. Nothing could be a touchier subject than online security for the financial institutions. I don't know of reliable sources for the data you're asking about, and I don't know the banks or other firms would release it. For a bank to talk about its incidence rates of fraud would be unusual, because none of these institutions wants to appear \"\"less safe\"\" than their competitors. If there's any information out there then it's going to be pretty vague. None of these institutions wants the \"\"bad guys\"\" to know what their degree of success is against one bank versus any other. I hope that makes sense. The smaller banks usually piggyback their data on the networks of the larger financial institutions, so they are as secure (as a general rule) as the larger banks' networks they're running on. Also, your transactions on your credit cards are not generally handled directly by your bank anyway, unless it's one of the big heavyweights like Chase or Bank of America. All transactions run through merchant processors, who act as intermediaries between merchants and the banks, and those guys are pretty damned good at security. I've met some of the programmers, and they're impressive to me (I've been a programmer for 35 years and can't put a finger on these guys!). Most banks require that you must provide proof of identity when opening an account, and that ID must me the standards of the \"\"USA Real ID Act\"\". Here's an excerpt from the Department of Homeland Security website on what Real ID is: Passed by Congress in 2005, the REAL ID Act enacted the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation that the Federal Government “set standards for the issuance of sources of identification, such as driver's licenses.” The Act established minimum security standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards and prohibits Federal agencies from accepting for official purposes licenses and identification cards from states that do not meet these standards. States have made considerable progress in meeting this key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and every state has a more secure driver’s license today than before the passage of the Act. In order for banks to qualify for FDIC protection, they must comply with the Real ID standards when opening accounts. As with any business (especially online), the most effective way to minimize fraud is vigilant monitoring of data. Banks and other online financial entities have become very adept at pattern analysis and simply knowing where and what to look for when dealing with their customers. There are certainly sophisticated measures which are kept carefully out of the public eye for doing this, and obviously they're good at it. They have to be, right? There's no way to completely eliminate fraud -- too much incentive exists for the \"\"bad guys\"\" to not constantly search for new ways to run their schemes, and the good guys will always be at the disadvantage, because there's no way to anticipate everything anyone might come up with. Just look at online viruses and malware. Your antivirus software can only deal with what it knows about, and the bad guys are always coming up with some new variant that gets past the filters until the antivirus maker learns of it and comes up with a way to deal with it. Your question's a good one to ponder, and I wouldn't want to be the chief of internet security for a bank or online institution, because I'd lay awake at night pondering when the call's going to come that we finally ran out of luck! (grin) I hope this was helpful. Good luck!\"",
"Just don't buy any kind of paper and you will be fine :-) And don't forget most of these 'blue-chip companies' sell marketing garbage which have no real market. Finally, make all decissions slooooowly and after extensive research.",
"In addition to @mhoran_psprep answer, and inspired by @wayne's comment. If the bank won't let you block automatic transfers between accounts, drop the bank like a hot potato They've utterly failed basic account security principles, and shouldn't be trusted with anyone's money. It's not the bank's money, and you're the only one that can authorize any kind of transfer out. I limit possible losses through debit and credit cards very simply. I keep only a small amount on each (~$500), and manually transfer more on an as needed basis. Because there is no automatic transfers to these cards, I can't lose everything in the checking account, even temporarily.",
"I was a victim of this. I'm not sure who got my routing and account number off my check, but someone subscribed to Playboy.com using my bank account information. Luckily it was only for about $30 and the bank refunded my money. However, it was a mess in that I had to open a new checking account and keep the other one open until all checks cleared. The bank was extremely helpful and monitored the account to make sure only the checks I told them about were processed. I then had to close the old account. This is why I believe checks are much less secure than credit cards or debit cards. A paper check can lay on someone's desk for anyone to pick up or write the information down off of it. I avoid checks if at all possible. For things like Craig's list, I would try to use PayPal or some other intermediate processing service.",
"I agree. I pulled my free reports (by going to ftc.gov first to get link to the truly free reports). The Equifax data was out of date. Didn't bother trying to correct it. As I don't need any new credit lines, I just put a security freeze on my records at all four bureaus. Makes my data virtually worthless to any potential identity their, and (best of all) nearly worthless to the bureaus.",
"The first thing you need to know is that getting a new social security number will not erase your credit history. In fact, using a name change or a social security number change to get out of debt is considered fraud in most jurisdictions and you can be arrested for it. As soon as you are issued a new social security number, your old number and new number are linked in the government and credit bureau files. Everything that was on your old credit report will appear on your new credit report. The second big thing to know is if you suspect that your social security number has been used fraudulently in regards to credit, stop reading this right now, immediately call one of the three major credit bureaus (Experian, TransUnion, or Equifax), and place what's called an initial fraud alert. You only need to call one of the three. The one you call will notify the other two. This places a flag on your credit file at all three bureaus which says that your identity may have been stolen and any financial institution which is processing an application for credit should immediately contact you at the phone number you provide. The alert is good for 90 days and you can renew it as many times as you wish. I suggest using TransUnion as your one call because I've called them when my identity was stolen, and they're automated system is very well designed. Now that that is out of the way... you said that they have your email address, but it is very unusual for people to be contacted by email for a debt. In fact, I would automatically disregard any emails about debts. Every legitimate financial institution I've ever come across will either call you or send mail to your last known address. Regarding what's being reported on your credit report, you need to type a letter to each credit bureau which is reporting the information telling them who you are and that you are disputing this information on your report. Mail it to the bureaus by certified mail with return receipt. Under United States law they are required to verify the information on your report, if you dispute it, and remove the information if they are unable to verify it. In many cases, it's too much of a hassle and the bureaus just remove the information. The other thing I'll leave you with is that you said you've only had credit in the past six months. Six months is not enough time to build an adequate credit profile. You really need to be strategic about your credit score. Every time you apply for credit, it drags the score just a little bit lower. Your question wasn't really about building credit, so I'll spare you the novel on that, but I would encourage you to seek out one of the many resources which are readily available online. I am not an attorney. This is not legal advice. You should consult with an attorney who is licensed to practice law in your particular jurisdiction.",
"ACH transfers are reversible and traceable. So what's stopping them is the ease and the speed with which they would be caught. When you give a check - you have to provide some information to the payee so that they could cash it. You can't withhold the bank or the account number - how would they charge you? So it has to be on it, and if it is on it - it can be put on any other (fake) check. That is why checks come also with your signature, and are always available for you to inspect when they're cashed. If you notice something out of the ordinary (check you didn't give? ACH transfer you didn't authorize?) on your statement - it is your responsibility to notify the bank within X period of time (60 days, I think) of the statement, and it will be dealt with. So the best way to protect yourself would be to keep an eye on your account and verify that the transactions that you see are all authorized, and do it frequently. Keeping large amounts of cash on your checking account is never a good idea, regardless. Also, since checks are inherently unsafe - try to only give checks to people you trust, and use bill-pay or credit cards with anyone else.",
"What is the minimum information someone would need to know about me to wire money out of my brokerage account? In today's world, there could be sufficient info on the statement that can be coupled with info available in other sources and together this info in wrong hands could be an issue. I should probably encrypt the drive. Yes it does make sense"
] |
[
"\"Here are a handful of measures I take myself: I check my credit reports once in a while and look for anything out of the ordinary. If somebody calls me on the telephone claiming to be from my bank or credit card company, utility, etc. I ask for their number, check it, and call them back. I don't give personal information to people merely claiming to be from a place I do business with. I never fill out ballots for free contests. Most of the time these are scams. When I get a call telling me \"\"you won a free cruise\"\" for a ballot I supposedly filled out at the mall, I say they're lying through their teeth. For excitement, I'll sometimes buy a lotto ticket instead. I'm careful when I surf the web. I don't give my personal information to web sites I can't trust. If they look the least bit shady, I'm out. Also, I use different passwords at different web sites. I avoid using a password from a public terminal, but when I must, I change my password soon after. I'm careful when I download software. I don't install anything I didn't get from a trusted source. I pay for software when necessary, so finding a trusted source is not hard. But, I've heard of people who – to save a buck – would download a pirated application from a shady warez site only to be \"\"gifted\"\" a trojan horse key logging or other spyware along with it. When I no longer need a bill, receipt, statement, etc. or any document containing personal information, I shred it, and I use a shredder that does a micro-cut, not just a strip- or cross-cut. The micro-cut remains go in the green bin with wet and yucky organic waste. When I no longer need a hard drive, I use a secure wiping tool like Darik's Boot & Nuke before reusing. If the drive isn't worth reusing, I'll wipe first then take apart with my Torx screwdriver. Once I have the drive platter, I scratch the heck out of it. Remains go to the community recycling depot. That's all I can think of right now; I probably missed a few :-) So, what do others do? I'm curious, too.\"",
"\"http://annualcreditreport.com gives you free access to your 3 credit bureau records. (Annual, not \"\"free\"\". The \"\"free\"\" guys will try to sell you something.)\"",
"Every 90 days add an Initial Fraud Alert to each of the 3 major credit bureaus.",
"\"I've received letters notifying me of data breaches in the past. In the end, I've never signed up for the offered protection service, figuring if \"\"they\"\" can hack Target or ADP or the IRS, they can hack anybody, like... Equifax. And now Equifax has been hacked. My family's Social Security Numbers were stolen from a hospital database. I think that information, plus public information was used to gain further data from the IRS FAFSA tool. (we got a letter from the IRS). Ultimately, fraudsters used whatever data they had to file a tax return with the IRS and with the Cali FTB (we don't and never have lived in California). We got letters from both, and managed to stop the fraud before it really impacted us...other than having to file a paper tax form this past tax season. Anyway... in a world where Equifax gets hacked: the only solution is: I don't bother with the crazy password schemes you talk about... I have a few different passwords I use, but most my investment accounts use the same username and password. It's all about risk. Bruce Schneier says the same thing. The amount to spend on security should depend on what you're trying to protect. I don't care much if somebody gets into my google account, because I have a google account just because I have to. I barely use it at all. Similarly my yahoo account. My yahoo account uses my \"\"insecure password\"\", and my investment accounts use my \"\"secure password\"\". Credit Card info? Meh. Unless they get into the credit card company database, which undoubtedly has my Social Security Number, it's not that big of a deal. Yeah, they can make fraudulent charges, but there are legal protections, so in theory I can't be out any money. So think this way: what's the risk, and what's the appropriate level of effort to take to mitigate that risk.\"",
"I believe the answer is that to protect yourself it is good to get credit protection so you will be notified when new credit is taken in your name. Also, you can use http://www.annualcreditreport.com/ to look at your credit report. HINT: While you do that, and while you are in the TransUnion report, you will have the option to DISPUTE adverse items. I always suggest that people dispute everything adverse. That puts the onus on the other parties to produce evidence to TransUnion within 30 days attesting to the validity of the adverse item. You would be surprised how many will simply drop off your report after doing that. Everybody should do this Here is a direct address for TransUnion: https://dispute.transunion.com/dp/dispute/landingPage.jsp ==> Once the disputes are finalized, the results get communicated to the other two bureaus. It is amazing how well it works. It can raise your credit score significantly. It really helps to watch your credit report yourself, and also to get whatever protection is offered that may help protect you against others opening new accounts in your name."
] |
9643
|
Is there any public data available to determine an ETF's holdings?
|
[
"112208"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"295993",
"591558",
"71230",
"112208",
"448908",
"193805",
"357685",
"155351",
"524050",
"367071",
"347523",
"43245",
"582636",
"324197",
"373620",
"391291",
"346345",
"387980",
"386299",
"224765",
"237066",
"103987",
"517935",
"92593",
"450256",
"423841",
"188855",
"420476",
"161411",
"314898",
"147282",
"526377",
"530938",
"227324",
"571620",
"119819",
"86281",
"125981",
"559105",
"580133",
"31516",
"480748",
"474745",
"222974",
"558286",
"146076",
"285466",
"276983",
"511385",
"270539",
"89591",
"348347",
"124900",
"247759",
"391215",
"130188",
"202329",
"441155",
"548596",
"519652",
"471322",
"201714",
"14461",
"403870",
"136283",
"105717",
"46211",
"324697",
"576184",
"475640",
"575018",
"38863",
"161041",
"281841",
"485054",
"64881",
"357979",
"170379",
"482399",
"110163",
"577090",
"24269",
"409995",
"56292",
"172840",
"241928",
"558924",
"347315",
"49111",
"171831",
"146780",
"168347",
"534323",
"431459",
"94477",
"434799",
"493321",
"161722",
"487074",
"226628"
] |
[
"ETFs are legally required to publicly disclose their positions at every point in time. The reason for this is that for an ETF to issue shares of ETF they do NOT take cash in exchange but underlying securities - this is called a creation unit. So people need to know which shares to deliver to the fund to get a share of ETF in exchange. This is never done by retail clients, however, but by nominated market makers. Retail persons will normally trade shares only in the secondary market (ie. on a stock exchange), which does not require new shares of the ETF to be issued. However, they do not normally make it easy to find this information in a digestible way, and each ETF does it their own way. So typically services that offer this information are payable (as somebody has to scrape the information from a variety of sources or incentivise ETF providers to send it to them). If you have access to a Bloomberg terminal, this information is available from there. Otherwise there are paid for services that offer it. Searching on Google for ETF constituent data, I found two companies that offer it: See if you can find what you need there. Good luck. (etfdb even has a stock exposure tool freely available that allows you to see which ETFs have large exposure to a stock of your choosing, see here: http://etfdb.com/tool/etf-stock-exposure-tool/). Since this data is in a table format you could easily download it automatically using table parsing tools for your chosen programming language. PS: Don't bother with underlying index constituents, they are NOT required to be made public and index providers will normally charge handsomely for this so normally only institutional investors will have this information.",
"Generally, the answer to the availability of holdings of a given mutual fund on a daily basis is no. Thus, an API is non-existent. The reasons for the lack of transparency on a daily basis is that it could/would impact the portfolio managers ability to trade. While this information would not necessarily permit individuals from front running the fund manager's trades, it does give insight in to the market outlook and strategy the fund is employing. The closest you'll be able to get to obtaining a list of holdings is by reading the most recent annual report and the quarterly filings each fund is required to file with the SEC.",
"\"Assuming that the ETF is tracking an index, is there a reason for not looking at using details on the index? Typically the exact constituents of an index are proprietary, and companies will not publish them publicly without a license. S&P is the heavyweight in this area, and the exact details of the constituents at any one time are not listed anywhere. They do list the methodology, and announcements as to index changes, but not a full list of actual underlying constituents. Is there a easy way to automatically (ie. through an API or something, not through just reading a prospectus) get information about an ETF's underlying securities? I have looked for this information before, and based on my own searches, in a word: no. Index providers, and providers of APIs which provide index information, make money off of such services. The easiest way may be to navigate to each provider and download the CSV with the full list of holdings, if one exists. You can then drop this into your pipeline and write a program to pull the data from the CSV file. You could drop the entire CSV into Excel and use VBA to automagically pull the data into a usable format. For example, on the page for XIU.TO on the Blackrock site, after clicking the \"\"All Holdings\"\" tab there is a link to \"\"Download holdings\"\", which will provide you with a CSV. I am not sure if all providers look at this. Alternatively, you could write the ETF company themselves.\"",
"You can check the website for the company that manages the fund. For example, take the iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (IBB). iShares publishes the complete list of the fund's holdings on their website. This information isn't always easy to find or available, but it's a place to start. For some index funds, you should just be able to look up the index the fund is trying to match. This won't be perfect (take Vanguard's S&P 500 ETF (VOO); the fund holds 503 stocks, while the S&P 500 index is comprised of exactly 500), but once again, it's a place to start. A few more points to keep in mind. Remember that many ETF's, including equity ETF's, will hold a small portion of their assets in cash or cash-equivalent instruments to assist with rebalancing. For index funds, this may not be reflected in the index itself, and it may not show up in the list of holdings. VOO is an example of this. However, that information is usually available in the fund's prospectus or the fund's site. Also, I doubt that many stock ETF's, at least index funds, change their asset allocations all that frequently. The amounts may change slightly, but depending on the size of their holdings in a given stock, it's unlikely that the fund's manager would drop it entirely.",
"This ETFchannel.com page shows which ETFs hold Wells Fargo and you can search other stocks the get the same information on that site. This the same information for Google This even tells you what percentage of an ETF is a particular stock. Be warned that this site is not entirely free. You will be limited to 6 pages in 6 hours unless you pay for a subscription. Additionally ETFdb.com offers a similar tool.",
"\"I think that any ETF is \"\"open source\"\" -- the company issues a prospectus and publishes the basket of stocks that make up the index. The stuff that is proprietary are trading strategies and securities or deriviatives that aren't traded on the open market. Swaps, venture funds, hedge funds and other, more \"\"exotic\"\" derivatives are the things that are closed. What do you mean by \"\"open source\"\" in this context?\"",
"The big websites, Yahoo and the like, only give the 10 biggest positions of any fund. Download the annual report of the fund, go to page 18, you will find the positions on the 31st of December. However the actual positions could be different. The same applies to all funds. You need the annual report.",
"\"The full holdings will be listed in the annual report of the fund, obviously the holdings would only be completely accurate as of the date of the reporting. This is the most recent annual report for FMAGX. I got it from my Schwab research section under \"\"All Fund Documents\"\" but I'm sure you can find it other ways. When I use google to search for \"\"fmagx annual report\"\" this link was the first result.\"",
"Regulators? SEC, in the US. Its public records for public companies.",
"Look at morningstar holdings.It will list the top 25 holdings and their current price.This will give you a good idea of the intra-day price of the fund.",
"according to the SEC: Shareholder Reports A mutual fund and a closed-end fund respectively must provide shareholders with annual and semi-annual reports 60 days after the end of the fund’s fiscal year and 60 days after the fund’s fiscal mid-year. These reports contain updated financial information, a list of the fund’s portfolio securities, and other information. The information in the shareholder reports will be current as of the date of the particular report (that is, the last day of the fund’s fiscal year for the annual report, and the last day of the fund’s fiscal mid-year for the semi-annual report). Other Reports A mutual fund and a closed-end fund must file a Form N-Q each quarter and a Form N-PX each year on the SEC’s EDGAR database, although funds are not required to mail these reports to shareholders. Funds disclose portfolio holdings on Form N-Q. Form N-PX identifies specific proposals on which the fund has voted portfolio securities over the past year and discloses how the fund voted on each. This disclosure enables fund shareholders to monitor their funds’ involvement in the governance activities of portfolio companies. which means that sixty days after the end of each quarter they will tell you what they owned 60 days ago. This makes sense; why would they want to tell the world what companies they are buying and selling.",
"For mine, that info's in the quarterly reports... and in the prospectus, which you should be looking at before you put money into the fund.",
"You can follow the intra-day NAV of an ETF, for instance SPY, by viewing its .IV (intra-day value) ticker which tracks it's value. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=spy http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^SPY-IV Otherwise, each ETF provider will update their NAV after business each day on their own website. https://www.spdrs.com/product/fund.seam?ticker=spy",
"\"My knowledge relates to ETFs only. By definition, an ETF's total assets can increase or decrease based upon how many shares are issued or redeemed. If somebody sells shares back to the ETF provider (rather than somebody else on market) then the underlying assets need to be sold, and vice-versa for purchasing from the ETF provider. ETFs also allow redemptions too in addition to this. For an ETF, to determine its total assets, you need to you need to analyze the Total Shares on Issue multipled by the Net Asset Value. ETFs are required to report shares outstanding and NAV on a daily basis. \"\"Total assets\"\" is probably more a function of marketing rather than \"\"demand\"\" and this is why most funds report on a net-asset-value-per-share basis. Some sites report on \"\"Net Inflows\"\" is basically the net change in shares outstanding multiplied by the ETF price. If you want to see this plotted over time you can use a such as: http://www.etf.com/etfanalytics/etf-fund-flows-tool which allows you to see this as a \"\"net flows\"\" on a date range basis.\"",
"I spent a while looking for something similar a few weeks back and ended up getting frustrated and asking to borrow a friend's Bloombterg. I wish you the best of luck finding something, but I wasn't able to. S&P and Morningstar have some stuff on their site, but I wasn't able to make use of it. Edit: Also, Bloomberg allows shared terminals. Depending on how much you think as a firm, these questions might come up, it might be worth the 20k / year",
"Yes it is true. The US based companies have to meet the requirements placed on them by the US government. The agency with all these reports is the Security and Exchange Commission. They run the EDGAR system to hold all those required reports The SEC’s EDGAR database provides free public access to corporate information, allowing you to quickly research a company’s financial information and operations by reviewing registration statements, prospectuses and periodic reports filed on Forms 10-K and 10-Q. You also can find information about recent corporate events reported on Form 8-K but that a company does not have to disclose to investors. EDGAR also provides access to comment and response letters relating to disclosure filings made after August 1, 2004, and reviewed by either the Division of Corporation Finance or the Division of Investment Management. On May 22, 2006, the staffs of the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Investment Management began to use the EDGAR system to issue notifications of effectiveness for Securities Act registration statements and post-effective amendments, other than those that become effective automatically by law. These notifications will be posted to the EDGAR system the morning after a filing is determined to be effective. As pointed out by Grade 'Eh' Bacon: Other countries may require different types of information to be reported to the public, in particular, financial statements. To find the financial statements released for a particular company, you can go to the appropriate stock exchange, or often simply the company's corporate website.",
"If you want to go far upstream, you can get mutual fund NAV and dividend data from the Nasdaq Mutual Fund Quotation Service (MFQS). This isn't for end-users but rather is offered as a part of the regulatory framework. Not surprisingly, there is a fee for data access. From Nasdaq's MFQS specifications page: To promote market transparency, Nasdaq operates the Mutual Fund Quotation Service (MFQS). MFQS is designed to facilitate the collection and dissemination of daily price, dividends and capital distributions data for mutual funds, money market funds, unit investment trusts (UITs), annuities and structured products.",
"\"If you want the answer from the horse's mouth, go to the website of the ETF or mutual find, and the expense ratio will be listed there, both on the \"\"Important Information\"\" part of the front page, as well as in the .pdf file that you click on to download the Prospectus. Oh wait, you don't want to go the fund's website at all, just to a query site where you type in something like VFINX. hit SEARCH, and out pops the expense ratio for the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund? Well, have you considered MorningStar?\"",
"\"I used to use etfconnect before they went paid and started concentrating on closed end funds. These days my source of information is spread out. The primary source about the instrument (ETF) itself is etfdb, backed by information from Morningstar and Yahoo Finance. For comparison charts Google Finance can't be beat. For actual solid details about a specific ETF, would check read the prospectus from the managing firm itself. One other comment, never trust a site that \"\"tells you\"\" which securities to buy. The idea is that you need sources of solid information about financial instruments to make a decision, not a site that makes the decision for you. This is due to the fact that everyone has different strategies and goals for their money and a single site saying buy X sell Y will probably lead you to lose your money.\"",
"\"An ETF does not track any one individual stock. It \"\"is a marketable security that tracks an index, a commodity, bonds, or a basket of assets like an index fund.\"\" Check out this link to learn more about ETFs. The easiest way see what ETF tracks a stock is to determine what sector and industry that company is in and find some ETF that trade it. The ETF will likely trade that stock, assuming that its market cap and exchange it trades on fits within the parameters of the ETF.\"",
"There are multiple places where you can see this. Company house website On any financial news website, if you have access e.g. TESCO on FT On any 3rd party website which supply information on companies e.g. TESCO on Companycheck An observation though, FT lists down more shareholders for me than Companycheck as I pay for FT.",
"You can use www.etfdb.com and search on geography.",
"I use and recommend barchart.com. Again you have to register but it's free. Although it's a US system it has a full listing of UK stocks and ETFs under International > London. The big advantage of barchart.com is that you can do advanced technical screening with Stochastics and RS, new highs and lows, moving averages etc. You're not stuck with just fundamentals, which in my opinion belong to a previous era. Even if you don't share that opinion you'd still find barchart.com useful for UK stocks.",
"Edgar Online is the SEC's reporting repository where public companies post their forms, these forms contain financial data Stock screeners allow you to compare many companies based on many financial metrics. Many sites have them, Google Finance has one with a decent amount of utility",
"You can go to the required company's website and check out their investor section. Here is an example from GE and Apple.",
"You can get this information through Bloomberg, but it's a paid service.",
"\"Save the effort. For personal finance purpose, just use the simple tools. For example, if you like P&G very much but you want to diversify with ETF, use: http://etfdb.com/stock/PG/ https://www.etfchannel.com/finder/?a=etfsholding&symbol=PG Pick a ETF with highest weighting. Replace \"\"PG\"\" in the link with other tickers.\"",
"\"If by \"\"most public companies\"\" you mean ALL public companies. Heck, even some non-public companies have to file 10-Ks. OP, I'd avoid any exchange-based list (a public company may be de-listed, for example) and go right to the source: Edgar.\"",
"\"For US equities, Edgar Online is where companies post their government filings to the SEC. On Google Finance, you would look at the \"\"SEC filings\"\" link on the page, and then find their 10K and 10Q documents, where that information is listed and already calculated. Many companies also have these same documents posted on their Investor Relations web pages.\"",
"If you're researching a publicly traded company in the USA, you can search the company filings with the SEC. Clicking 'Filings' should take you here.",
"Yes, it depends on the fund it's trying to mirror. The ETF for the S&P that's best known (in my opinion) is SPY and you see the breakdown of its holdings. Clearly, it's not an equal weighted index.",
"You can buy the data and process it on your own. http://www.nyxdata.com/Data-Products/Daily-TAQ",
"The company that runs the fund (Vanguard) on their website has the information on the general breakdown of their investments of that fund. They tell you that as of July 31st 2016 it is 8.7% emerging markets. They even specifically list the 7000+ companies they have purchased stocks in. Of course the actual investment and percentages could [change every day]. Vanguard may publish on this Site, in the fund's holdings on the webpages, a detailed list of the securities (aggregated by issuer for money market funds) held in a Vanguard fund (portfolio holdings) as of the most recent calendar-quarter-end, 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter, except for Vanguard Market Neutral Fund (60 calendar days after the end of the calendar quarter), Vanguard index funds (15 calendar days after the end of the month), and Vanguard Money Market Funds (within five [5] business days after the last business day of the preceding month). Except with respect to Vanguard Money Market Funds, Vanguard may exclude any portion of these portfolio holdings from publication on this Site when deemed in the best interest of the fund.",
"They can rebalance and often times at a random manager's discretion. ETF's are just funds, and funds all have their own conditions, read the prospectus, thats the only source of truth.",
"The three sites mentioned in the second link are all professional trading workstations, not public web sites. There may not be free quotes available.",
"\"You seem to be assuming that ETFs must all work like the more traditional closed-end funds, where the market price per share tends—based on supply and demand—to significantly deviate from the underlying net asset value per share. The assumption is simplistic. What are traditionally referred to as closed-end funds (CEFs), where unit creation and redemption are very tightly controlled, have been around for a long time, and yes, they do often trade at a premium or discount to NAV because the quantity is inflexible. Yet, what is generally meant when the label \"\"ETF\"\" is used (despite CEFs also being both \"\"exchange-traded\"\" and \"\"funds\"\") are those securities which are not just exchange-traded, and funds, but also typically have two specific characteristics: (a) that they are based on some published index, and (b) that a mechanism exists for shares to be created or redeemed by large market participants. These characteristics facilitate efficient pricing through arbitrage. Essentially, when large market participants notice the price of an ETF diverging from the value of the shares held by the fund, new units of the ETF can get created or redeemed in bulk. The divergence quickly narrows as these participants buy or sell ETF units to capture the difference. So, the persistent premium (sometimes dear) or discount (sometimes deep) one can easily witness in the CEF universe tend not to occur with the typical ETF. Much of the time, prices for ETFs will tend to be very close to their net asset value. However, it isn't always the case, so proceed with some caution anyway. Both CEF and ETF providers generally publish information about their funds online. You will want to find out what is the underlying Net Asset Value (NAV) per share, and then you can determine if the market price trades at a premium or a discount to NAV. Assuming little difference in an ETF's price vs. its NAV, the more interesting question to ask about an ETF then becomes whether the NAV itself is a bargain, or not. That means you'll need to be more concerned with what stocks are in the index the fund tracks, and whether those stocks are a bargain, or not, at their current prices. i.e. The ETF is a basket, so look at each thing in the basket. Of course, most people buy ETFs because they don't want to do this kind of analysis and are happy with market average returns. Even so, sector-based ETFs are often used by traders to buy (or sell) entire sectors that may be undervalued (or overvalued).\"",
"You can use the Securities Exchange Commission's EDGAR search engine to search all available SEC related filings. https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html Top tip: use the fast search on the right to search for the company ticker rather than by company name.",
"You can find out the general types of investments by reading the public corporation 10-Q report that is filed with the SEC it can be accessed via the EDGAR system. It will not tell you what securities they have, but it does identify the short term and long term investments categories and their value.",
"If you are refering to company's financial reports and offerings, the required source for companies to disclose the information is the SGX website (www.sgx.com) under the Company Disclosure tab. This includes annual statements for the last 5 years, prospectus for any shares/debentures/buy back/etc which is being offered, IPO offers and shareholders meetings. You may also find it useful to check the Research section of the SGX website where some of the public listed companies have voluntarily allowed independent research firms to monitor their company for a couple of years and produce a research report. If you are referring to filings under the Companies Act, these can be found at the Accounting and Regulatory Authority (ACRA) website (www.acra.gov.sg) and you can also purchase extracts of specific filings under the ACRA iShop. To understand the Singapore public listing system and the steps to public listing, you may find it useful to purchase one of the resource documents available for Singapore law, finance, tax and corporate secretaryship which are sold by CCH (www.cch.com.sg). Specifically for public listing the Singapore Annotated Listing Manual may help. It is common practice for companies here to employ law firms and research firms to do the majority of this research instead of doing it themselves which I one of the reasons this information is online but perhaps not so visible. I hope I have understood your question correctly!",
"I think Infochimps has what you are looking for: NYSE and NASDAQ.",
"You can take a look at EDGAR (Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval), a big database run by the SEC where all companies, foreign and domestic, are required to file registration statements, periodic reports, and other forms electronically.",
"\"The list of the public companies is available on the regulatory agencies' sites usually (for example, in the US, you can look at SEC filings). Otherwise, you can check the stock exchange listings, which show all the public companies traded on that exchange. The shareholders, on the other hand, are normally not listed and not published. You'll have to ask the company, and it probably won't tell you (and won't even know them all as many shares are held in the \"\"street name\"\" of the broker).\"",
"Investopedia laid out the general information of tax treatment on the ETF fund structures as well as their underlying asset classes: http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0213/how-tax-treatments-of-etfs-work.aspx",
"It really depends on the hedge fund, my hedge fund gives back all rebates for routes that are public knowledge back to the client. Also the rebate is based on the route, not the stock, so it may not offset all expenses on each ETFs. Most of the BATS IEX and other routes have public websites where you can get the infos on what are the rebates for each.",
"The websites of the most publicly traded companies publish their quarterly and annual financials. Check the investor relations sections out at the ones you want to look at.",
"\"Publicly traded companies files 10-Ks with the SEC, searchable on the EDGAR system. If you want basic financial statement info then look for 10-Ks that are marked \"\"Interactive Data\"\", as for those the SEC has broken everything out by statement into standard formats. You could also use marketwatch which puts everything in financial statements into the same or as similar of categories as it can to make it easier to compare companies.\"",
"Like others have said, mutual funds don't have an intraday NAV, but their ETF equivalents do. Use something like Yahoo Finance and search for the ETF.IV. For example VOO.IV. This will give you not the ETF price (which may be at a premium or discount), but the value of the underlying securities updated every 15 seconds.",
"You haven't looked very far if you didn't find index tracking exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on the Toronto Stock Exchange. There are at least a half dozen major exchange-traded fund families that I'm aware of, including Canadian-listed offerings from some of the larger ETF providers from the U.S. The Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) maintains a list of ETF providers that have products listed on the TSX.",
"Your ETF will return the interest as dividends. If you hold the ETF on the day before the Ex-Dividend date, you will get the dividend. If you sell before that, you will not. Note that at least one other answer to this question is wrong. You do NOT need to hold on the Record date. There is usually 2 days (or so) between the ex-date and the record date, which corresponds to the number of days it takes for your trade to settle. See the rules as published by the SEC: http://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm",
"The ETF supply management policy is arcane. ETFs are not allowed to directly arbitrage their holdings against the market. Other firms must handle redemptions & deposits. This makes ETFs slightly costlier than the assets held. For ETFs with liquid holdings, its price will rarely vary relative to the holdings, slippage of the ETF's holdings management notwithstanding. This is because the firms responsible for depositing & redeeming will arbitrage their equivalent holdings of the ETF assets' prices with the ETF price. For ETFs with illiquid holdings, such as emerging markets, the ETF can vary between trades of the holdings. This will present sometimes large variations between the last price of the ETF vs the last prices of its holdings. If an ETF is shunned, its supply of holdings will simply drop and vice versa.",
"I am mostly interested in day to day records, and would like the data to contain information such as dividend payouts, and other parameters commonly available, such as on : http://finviz.com/screener.ashx ... but the kind of queries you can do is limited. For instance you can only go back two years.",
"\"Here are some approaches you may value: Wolfram Alpha This is a search engine with a difference. It literally is connected to thousands of searchable databases, including financial databases. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=list+of+public+companies+ Just keep clicking the \"\"more\"\" button until you have them all.You can also get great company specific information there: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=NYSE%3ADIS&lk=1&a=ClashPrefs_*Financial.NYSE%3ADIS- Just keep clicking the \"\"more\"\" button until you have them all.Then the company it'self will have great information for investors too: [http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/investors][3] (Just keep clicking the \"\"more\"\" button until you have them all.) Regards, Stephen\"",
"\"On BlackRock's XIN page under Key Facts it says the number of holdings as 1. Looking at the top 10 holdings shows EFA as the number 1 holding with a 101% weighting. XIN is \"\"iShares MSCI EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)\"\", so it takes the underlying component and hedges it to CAD. The underlying component is an ETF itself, EFA, so they only need to hold that one component (since that is the MSCI EAFE Index ETF). How is it possible to hold over 100%? Take a look at the full list of holdings. While EFA is the only underlying security (e.g. ETF, Stock, Bond, et.c), the remaining holdings (looks to be 133 remaining holdings) are cash positions. Some of those positions are negative for hedge purposes. Because of this, the total value of the portfolio is less than the position of EFA itself (since total value is EFA plus a bunch of negative entries); because the total value is less than EFA itself, EFA has a > 100% weighting.\"",
"Bond information is much tougher to get. Try to find access to a Bloomberg terminal. Maybe you have a broker that can do the research for you, maybe your local university has one in their business school, maybe you know someone that works for a bank/financial institution or some other type of news outlet. Part of the reason for the difference in ease of access to information is that bond markets are dominated by institutional investors. A $100 million bond issues might be 90% owned by 10-20 investors (banks, insurance co's, mutual funds, etc.) that will hold the bonds to maturity and the bonds might trade a few times a month/year. On the other hand a similar equity offering may have several hundred or thousand owners with daily trading, especially if it's included in an active stock index. That being said, you can get some information on Fidelity's website if you have an account, but I think their junk data is limited. Good luck with the hunt.",
"Index funds: Some of the funds listed by US SIF are index funds. ETFs: ETFdb has a list, though it's pretty short at the moment.",
"ETFs trade on specific exchanges. If your broker deals with those exchanges, you should have access to the ETF. If your broker does not deal with that exchange, then you will not have access through that broker. This is different than, say, mutual funds, which don't trade on the exchanges are proprietary to certain brokerages or financial institutions.",
"The S&P report (aka STARS report) for each company has 10 years of financial data. These reports are available free at several online brokers (like E-Trade) if you have an account with the brokerage.",
"Schedule 13D (or the abbreviated version, schedule 13G) would be the most likely place to find this info. When a person or group of persons acquires beneficial ownership of more than 5% of a voting class of a company’s equity securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, they are required to file a Schedule 13D with the SEC. Schedule 13D reports the acquisition and other information within ten days after the purchase. Any material changes in the facts contained in the schedule require a prompt amendment. You can find the Schedules 13D for most publicly traded companies in the SEC’s EDGAR database. A 1% change in the amount of ownership is considered material.",
"For months prior to going public a company has to file financial documents with the SEC. These are available to the public at www.sec.gov on their Edgar database. For instance, Eagleline is listed as potentially IPOing next week. You can find out all the details of any IPO including correspondence between the company and the SEC on Edgar. Here's the link for Eagleline (disclaimer, I have not investigated this company. It is an example only) https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001675776&owner=exclude&count=40 The most important, complex, and thorough document is the initial registration statement, usually an S-1, and subsequent amendments that occur as a result of new information or SEC questions. You can often get insight into a new public company by looking at the changes that have occurred in amendments since their initial filings. I highly advise people starting out to first look at the filings of companies they work for or know the industry intimately. This will help you to better understand the filings from companies you may not be so familiar with. A word of caution. Markets and company filings are followed by very large numbers of smart people experienced in each business area so don't assume there is fast and easy money to be made. Still, you will be a bit ahead if you learn to read and understand the filings public companies are required to make.",
"I've seen this tool. I'm just having a hard time finding where I can just get a list of all the companies. For example, you can get up to 100 results at a time, if I just search latest filings for 10-K. This isn't really an efficient way to go about what I want.",
"You can use a tool like WikiInvest the advantage being it can pull data from most brokerages and you don't have to enter them manually. I do not know how well it handles dividends though.",
"Ohhhh. Well thank you for that info. I know I could've Googled it all and while I'm a sticker for doing your own research, it's nice to hear it from someone in the know. Gotta pass on knowledge to those who don't know. Is it cheap to buy an ETF?",
"For a company listed on NASDAQ, the numbers are published on NASDAQ's site. The most recent settlement date was 4/30/2013, and you can see that it lists 27.5 million shares as held short. NASDAQ gets these numbers from FINRA member firms, which are required to submit them to the exchange twice a month: Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date.",
"Fund performance at NAV (%) for latest quarter, YTD, and average annual total returns for 1, 3, 5, 10 years. P/E ratio (1 yr. forecast), P/B ratio, Beta, Sharpe ratio, Wtd. avg. market cap, fund assets. I guess I would want to calculate all these things based off of the data that I would be working with. I will assume I am working with daily fund values per share over 10+ years.",
"\"Yahoo Finance: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=VFINX+Profile Under \"\"Management Information\"\"\"",
"Yes, http://shares.telegraph.co.uk/stockscreener/ has what you're looking for.",
"You can access financial statements contained within 10K and 10Q filings using Last10K.com's mobile app: Last10K.com/mobile Disclosure: I work for Last10K.com",
"One of the key things to look for is trading volume. I think the price spread will be better on high volume ETFs, which means you'll be able to sell for more when the time comes. Check Google or Yahoo finance for those stats.",
"Dow Jones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_components_of_the_Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average NASDAQ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASDAQ-100 (scroll down) S&P Tricky. From what I can find, you need to be in Harvard Business School, a member of CRSP, or have access to Bloomberg's databases. S&P did have the info available years ago, but no longer that I can find.",
"All mutual funds disclose their investments, funds are large cap only or midcsp etc. So it depends on what funds you choose.",
"Yup. What I wanted to know was where they are pulling it up from. Have casually used Google finance for personal investments, but they suck at corp actions. Not sure if they provide free APIs, but that would probably suck too! :D",
"You won't be able to know the trading activity in a timely, actionable method in most cases. The exception is if the investor (individual, fund, holding company, non-profit foundation, etc) is a large shareholder of a specific company and therefore required to file their intentions to buy or sell with the SEC. The threshold for this is usually if they own 5% or greater of the outstanding shares. You can, however, get a sense of the holdings for some of the entities you mention with some sleuthing. Publicly-Traded Holding Companies Since you mention Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway is an example of this. Publicly traded companies (that are traded on a US-based exchange) have to file numerous reports with the SEC. Of these, you should review their Annual Report and monitor all filings on the SEC's website. Here's the link to the Berkshire Hathaway profile. Private Foundations Harvard and Yale have private, non-profit foundations. The first place to look would be at the Form 990 filings each is required to file with the IRS. Two sources for these filings are GuideStar.org and the FoundationCenter.org. Keep in mind that if the private foundation is a large enough shareholder in a specific company, they, too, will be required to file their intentions to buy or sell shares in that company. Private Individuals Unless the individual publicly releases their current holdings, the only insight you may get is what they say publicly or have to disclose — again, if they are a major shareholder.",
"ETF is essentially a stock, from accounting perspective. Treat it as just another stock in the portfolio.",
"\"The amount, reliability and frequency of dividends paid by an ETF other than a stock, such as an index or mutual fund, is a function of the agreement under which the ETF was established by the managing or issuing company (or companies), and the \"\"basket\"\" of investments that a share in the fund represents. Let's say you invest in a DJIA-based index fund, for instance Dow Diamonds (DIA), which is traded on several exchanges including NASDAQ and AMEX. One share of this fund is currently worth $163.45 (Jan 22 2014 14:11 CDT) while the DJIA itself is $16,381.38 as of the same time, so one share of the ETF represents approximately 1% of the index it tracks. The ETF tracks the index by buying and selling shares of the blue chips proportional to total invested value of the fund, to maintain the same weighted percentages of the same stocks that make up the index. McDonald's, for instance, has an applied weight that makes the share price of MCD stock roughly 5% of the total DJIA value, and therefore roughly 5% of the price of 100 shares of DIA. Now, let's say MCD issued a dividend to shareholders of, say, $.20 per share. By buying 100 shares of DIA, you own, through the fund, approximately five MCD shares, and would theoretically be entitled to $1 in dividends. However, keep in mind that you do not own these shares directly, as you would if you spent $16k buying the correct percentage of all the shares directly off the exchange. You instead own shares in the DIA fund, basically giving you an interest in some investment bank that maintains a pool of blue-chips to back the fund shares. Whether the fund pays dividends or not depends on the rules under which that fund was set up. The investment bank may keep all the dividends itself, to cover the expenses inherent in managing the fund (paying fund management personnel and floor traders, covering losses versus the listed price based on bid-ask parity, etc), or it may pay some percentage of total dividends received from stock holdings. However, it will virtually never transparently cut you a check in the amount of your proportional holding of an indexed investment as if you held those stocks directly. In the case of the DIA, the fund pays dividends monthly, at a yield of 2.08%, virtually identical to the actual weighted DJIA yield (2.09%) but lower than the per-share mean yield of the \"\"DJI 30\"\" (2.78%). Differences between index yields and ETF yields can be reflected in the share price of the ETF versus the actual index; 100 shares of DIA would cost $16,345 versus the actual index price of 16,381.38, a delta of $(36.38) or -0.2% from the actual index price. That difference can be attributed to many things, but fundamentally it's because owning the DIA is not the exact same thing as owning the correct proportion of shares making up the DJIA. However, because of what index funds represent, this difference is very small because investors expect to get the price for the ETF that is inherent in the real-time index.\"",
"You can get this data from a variety of sources, but likely not all from 1 source. Yahoo is a good source, as is Google, but some stock markets also give away some of this data, and there's foreign websites which provide data for foreign exchanges. Some Googling is required, as is knowledge of web scraping (R, Python, Ruby or Perl are great tools for this...).",
"There are a whole host of types of filings. Some of them are only relevant to companies that are publicly traded, and other types are general to just registered corps in general. ... and many more: http://reportstream.io/explore/has-form Overall, reading SEC filings is hard, and for some, the explanations of those filings is worth paying for. Source: I am currently trying to build a product that solves this problem.",
"Wikipedia has a fairly detailed explanation of ETFs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund",
"Factset also provides a host of tools for analysis. Not many people know as they aren't as prevalent as Bloomberg. CapitalQ and Thomson Reuters also provide analysis tools. Most of the market data providers also provide analysis tools to analyze the data they and others provide.",
"\"Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out. ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price. Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS. Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100 The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share) I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point. Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other \"\"relations\"\" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of \"\"VWAP +\"\" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other \"\"sponsorship\"\" of ETF's interests including helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc. Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?\"",
"Your best bet is to just look at comparative balance sheets or contact the company itself. Otherwise, you will need access to a service like PrivCo to get data.",
"http://www.euroinvestor.com/exchanges/nasdaq/macromedia-inc/41408/history will work as DumbCoder states, but didn't contain LEHMQ (Lehman Brother's holding company). You can use Yahoo for companies that have declared bankruptcy, such as Lehman Brothers: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=LEHMQ&a=08&b=01&c=2008&d=08&e=30&f=2008&g=d but you have to know the symbol of the holding company.",
"\"Companies absolutely know who ALL their shareholders are. Ownership is filed on Form 3/4 and in 10-Q/Ks. Look there. Guidelines for required disclosure are as follows: 1) Individuals must disclose when their ownership exceeds 5%; 2) Non-individual legal entities (read: companies; e.g. a hedge fund) must disclose when their ownership exceeds 10% (Form 13-F); and 3) All Officers and Directors Notice the word \"\"required.\"\" For example, a entity (individual/company) may file \"\"confidentiality letter\"\" (which allows them to delay disclosing ownership) with the SEC as they are building a position. So at any given point in time the information that is publicaly available may not be \"\"up-to-date.\"\" And in all cases beneficial owner(ship).\"",
"The ETF price quoted on the stock exchange is in principle not referenced to NAV. The fund administrator will calculate and publish the NAV net of all fees, but the ETF price you see is determined by the market just like for any other security. Having said that, the market will not normally deviate greatly from the NAV of the fund, so you can safely assume that ETF quoted price is net of relevant fees.",
"\"Edgar Online has this information for companies under SEC regulations and they are reported in \"\"Form 4\"\" so that should help guide your search\"",
"In general you cannot. Once the security is no longer listed on the exchange - it doesn't have to provide information to the exchange and regulators (unless it wants to be re-listed). That's one of the reasons companies go private - to keep their (financial and other) information private. If it was listed in 1999, and is no longer listed now - you can dig through SEC archives for the information. You can try and reach out to the company's investors' relations contact and see if they can help you with the specific information you're looking for.",
"The portfolio manager at Value Research Online does this very nicely. It tracks the underlying holdings of each fund, yielding correct calculations for funds that invest across the board. Take a look at the screenshot from my account: If you have direct equity holdings (e.g., not through a mutual fund), that too gets integrated. Per stock details are also visible.",
"As keshlam said, an ETF holds various assets, but the level of diversification depends on the individual ETF. A bond ETF can focus on short term bonds, long term bonds, domestic bonds, foreign bonds, government bonds, corporate bonds, low risk, high risk, or a mixture of any of those. Vanguard Total International Bond ETF (BNDX) for instance tries to be geographically diverse.",
"They're all in one place. The OCC provides: http://www.optionsclearing.com/webapps/flex-reports",
"\"http://www.interactivedata.com -> reference data No, it's not free. Nor would I consider it \"\"high quality\"\". For free data, try the Yahoo Finance API. The data you want is there, though you may need to calculate some of the fields yourself. Once you have your application working with free data you will be in a good position to evaluate whether it's worth it to shift to more detailed non-free data.\"",
"Sure, Yahoo Finance does this for FREE.",
"This amazing site will answer all your data questions. You will need some patience and willingness to spend to get the data that you want. A lot of data is available for free too` https://www.quandl.com/",
"I was going to comment above, but I must have 50 reputation to comment. This is a question that vexes me, and I've given it some thought in the past. Morningstar is a good choice for simple, well-organized financial histories. It has more info available for free than some may realize. Enter the ticker symbol, and then click either the Financials or the Key Ratios tab, and you will get 5-10 years of some key financial stats. (A premium subscription is $185 per year, which is not too outrageous.) The American Association of Individual Investors (AAII) provides some good histories, and a screener, for a $29 annual fee. Zacks allows you to chart a metric like EPS going back a long ways, and so you can then click the chart in order to get the specific number. That is certainly easier than sorting through financial reports from the SEC. (A message just popped up to say that I'm not allowed to provide more than 2 links, so my contribution to this topic will end here. You can do a search to find the Zacks website. I love StackExchange and usually consult it for coding advice. It just happens to be an odd coincidence that this is my first answer. I might even have added that aside in a comment, but again, I can't comment as of yet.) It's problem, however, that the universe of free financial information is a graveyard of good resources that no longer exist. It seems that eventually everyone who provides this information wants to cash in on it. littleadv, above, says that someone should be paid to organize all this information. However, think that some basic financial information, organized like normal data (and, hey, this is not rocket science, but Excel 101) should be readily available for free. Maybe this is a project that needs to happen. With a mission statement of not selling people out later on. The closest thing out there may be Quandl (can't link; do a search), which provides a lot of charts for free, and provides a beautiful and flexible API. But its core US fundamental data, provided by Sharadar, costs $150 per quarter. So, not even a basic EPS chart is available there for free. With all of the power that corporations have over our society, I think they could be tabulating this information for us, rather than providing it to us in a data-dumb format that is the equivalent of printing a SQL database as a PDF! A company that is worth hundreds of billions on the stock market, and it can't be bothered to provide us with a basic Excel chart that summarizes its own historical earnings? Or, with all that the government does to try to help us understand all of these investments, they cannot simply tabulate some basic financial information for us? This stuff matters a great deal to our lives, and I think that much of it could and should be available, for free, to all of us, rather than mainly to financial professionals and those creating glossy annual reports. So, I disagree that yet another entity needs to be making money off providing the BASIC transparency about something as simple as historical earnings. Thank you for indulging that tangent. I know that SE prides itself on focused answers. A wonderful resource that I greatly appreciate.",
"Since the vast majority of fund managers/big investors run private entities, it's not possible to track their performance. It's possible to look at what they are holding (that's never real-time information) and emulate their performance.",
"I don't know of any free API's for these data, but I'll provide what information I can. Compiling all of this information from the EDGAR system and exposing an interface to it requires a fair amount of work and maintenance, so it's usually market data companies that have the motivation and resources to provide such interfaces. I know of a few options that may or may not be close to what you're looking for. The SEC provides FTP access to the EDGAR system. You could download and parse the text files they provide. Yahoo Finance provides summary files of financial statements (e.g., GOOG) as well as links to the full statements in the EDGAR system. Once again, parsing may be your only option for these data. Xignite, a proprietary market data provider, provides a financial statement API. If you need these data for a commercial application, you could contact them and work something out. (Frankly, if you need these data for a commercial application, you're probably better off paying for the data) The Center for Research into Security Prices provides data from financial statements. I believe it's also exposed through several of their API's. As with most financial data, CRSP is sort of a gold standard, although I haven't personally used their API to fetch data from financial statements, so I can't speak for it specifically. This answer on StackOverflow mentions the quantmod R package and mergent. I can't vouch for either of those options personally. Unfortunately, you'll probably have to do some parsing unless you can find a paid data provider that's already compiled this information in a machine-readable format.",
"Usually, you can buy ETFs through brokerages. I looked at London to see if there's any familiar brokerage names, and it appears that the address below is to Fidelity Investments Worldwide and their site indicates that you can buy securities. Any brokerage, in theory, should allow you to invest in securities. You could always call and ask if they allow you to invest in ETFs. Some brokerages may also allow you to purchase securities in other countries; for instance, some of the firms in the U.S. allow investors to invest in the ETF HK:2801, which is not a U.S. ETF. Many countries have ETF securities available to local and foreign investors. This site appears to help point people to brokers in London. Also, see this answer on this site (a UK investor who's invested in the U.S. through Barclays).",
"\"I'm trying to understand how an ETF manager optimized it's own revenue. Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out. ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price. Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS. Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100 The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share) I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point. Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other \"\"relations\"\" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of \"\"VWAP +\"\" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other \"\"sponsorship\"\" of ETF's interests including helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc. Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?\"",
"\"There are several such \"\"lists.\"\" The one that is maintained by the company is called the shareholder registry. That is a list that the company has given to it by the brokerage firms. It is a start, but not a full list, because many individual shareholders hold their stock with say Merrill Lynch, in \"\"street name\"\" or anonymously. A more useful list is the one of institutional ownership maintained by the SEC. Basically, \"\"large\"\" holders (of more than 5 percent of the stock) have to register their holdings with the SEC. More to the point, large holders of stocks, the Vanguards, Fidelitys, etc. over a certain size, have to file ALL their holdings of stock with the SEC. These are the people you want to contact if you want to start a proxy fight. The most comprehensive list is held by the Depositary Trust Company. People try to get that list only in rare instances.\"",
"Have you tried their site? Some places may have portions available though also beware that some companies may charge for some of their research pieces.",
"Ya, that's a lot of data - especially considering your relative lack of experience and the likely fact that you have no idea what to do with what you're given. How do you even know you need minute or tick-based bid-ask data? You can get a lot more than OHLC/V/Split/Dividend. You can get: * Book Value; * Dividend information (Amount, yield, ex date, pay date); * EBITDA; * EPS (current AND estimates); * Price/sales ratio; * Price/book value; * Price/earnings ratio; * PEG ratio; * Short ratio; * Market cap. Among other things, all for free.",
"Hey Sheehan, I believe Schwab provides this info. None of the online free portfolio managers I know of gives you this info. The now defunct MS Money used to have this. The best thing to do is to use a spreadsheet. Or you could use the one I use. http://www.moneycone.com/did-you-beat-the-market-mr-investor/ . (disclaimer: that's my blog)"
] |
[
"You can check the website for the company that manages the fund. For example, take the iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (IBB). iShares publishes the complete list of the fund's holdings on their website. This information isn't always easy to find or available, but it's a place to start. For some index funds, you should just be able to look up the index the fund is trying to match. This won't be perfect (take Vanguard's S&P 500 ETF (VOO); the fund holds 503 stocks, while the S&P 500 index is comprised of exactly 500), but once again, it's a place to start. A few more points to keep in mind. Remember that many ETF's, including equity ETF's, will hold a small portion of their assets in cash or cash-equivalent instruments to assist with rebalancing. For index funds, this may not be reflected in the index itself, and it may not show up in the list of holdings. VOO is an example of this. However, that information is usually available in the fund's prospectus or the fund's site. Also, I doubt that many stock ETF's, at least index funds, change their asset allocations all that frequently. The amounts may change slightly, but depending on the size of their holdings in a given stock, it's unlikely that the fund's manager would drop it entirely."
] |
3683
|
Can I trust the Motley Fool?
|
[
"276975",
"185909",
"454501",
"565016",
"522713",
"105973"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"276975",
"105973",
"408995",
"47812",
"565016",
"522713",
"301739",
"185909",
"131381",
"98457",
"65208",
"522486",
"192912",
"417128",
"23047",
"484055",
"303754",
"538086",
"154177",
"350344",
"396208",
"269233",
"531781",
"561703",
"157038",
"268584",
"500338",
"488928",
"229607",
"428848",
"93463",
"502091",
"8653",
"370194",
"129319",
"276778",
"566720",
"526015",
"496921",
"343760",
"17604",
"22578",
"411176",
"347404",
"484011",
"565827",
"36679",
"122590",
"420746",
"437994",
"502353",
"584523",
"148348",
"13621",
"458529",
"297456",
"491491",
"235772",
"375290",
"38910",
"288997",
"19343",
"171135",
"148684",
"281724",
"106239",
"103969",
"57671",
"519167",
"460643",
"315568",
"57954",
"201914",
"526822",
"228100",
"211291",
"257214",
"525207",
"258020",
"474885",
"218285",
"339509",
"75613",
"225545",
"77652",
"151437",
"472051",
"35871",
"536345",
"67968",
"396179",
"229254",
"40227",
"233187",
"31224",
"286567",
"484437",
"54916",
"184338",
"113587"
] |
[
"The Motley Fool is generally regarded as relatively legit, at least in that they're not likely to do anything outright fraudulent and they definitely have reasonably in-depth content to provide you. The Motley Fool makes a fair amount of money off the subscriptions, though, and they do hawk them quite violently. If I didn't have a generally good opinion of them to begin with, I'd have been completely put off as well. It's pretty shameful. I don't think it's worth hundreds of dollars a year, but then again, I don't look at investing as a second career like the Fool likes to suggest, either.",
"\"I would personally beware of the Motley Fool. Their success is based largely on their original investment strategy book. It had a lot of good advice in it, but it pushed a strategy called \"\"The Foolish Four\"\" which was an investing strategy. Since it was based on a buy-and-hold method with 18-month evaluation intervals, it was not a get-rich-quick scheme. However, its methods were validated through data mining and subsequently turned out to be not so good. At least they admit this: http://www.fool.com/ddow/2000/ddow001214.htm\"",
"I would recommend looking at The Motley Fool.",
"The Fools have a range of advice from common-sense to speculative, aimed at different audiences (one hopes). As always, don't take anyone's word for it; think it through and decide whether the risk/reward ratio is really in your favor and how much you can afford to risk. They're good on the basics, but the more advanced they get, the more risk there is that they've got it wrong. That last is true of any advisor unless they have information that the rest of us don't. You can learn some things from their explanations of their reasoning without necessarily taking their conclusions as gospel.",
"\"I've had a MF Stock Advisor for 7 or 8 years now, and I've belong to Supernova for a couple of years. I also have money in one of their mutual funds. \"\"The Fool\"\" has a lot of very good educational information available, especially for people who are new to investing. Many people do not understand that Wall Street is in the business of making money for Wall Street, not making money for investors. I have stayed with the Fool because their philosophy aligns with my personal investment philosophy. I look at the Stock Advisor picks; sometimes I buy them, sometimes I don't, but the analysis is very good. They also have been good at tracking their picks over time, and writing updates when specific stocks drop a certain amount. With their help, I've assembled a portfolio that I don't have to spend too much time managing, and have done pretty well from a return perspective. Stock Advisor also has a good set of forums where you can interact with other investors. In summary, the view from the inside has been pretty good. From the outside, I think their marketing is a reflection of the fact that most people aren't very interested in a rational & conservative approach to investing in the stock market, so MF chooses to go for an approach that gets more traffic. I'm not particularly excited about it, but I'm sure they've done AB testing and have figured out what way works the best. I think that they have had money-back guarantees on some of their programs in the past, so you could try them out risk free. Not sure if those are still around.\"",
"\"Not sure how I came across the Motley Fool blog in the first instance, but found the writing style refreshing - then along came some free advice on ASX share prospects, then the next day and email expounding the benefits I would get by joining up for two years at 60% off if I hit the button \"\"now\"\", getting in at ground floor on the next technology stock rocket - I replied: \"\"What a hard sell - why wouldn't I apply the age old adage of \"\" If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is\"\" Their reply was; \"\"Thanks for your note. The honest answer is that despite people knowing they should do something to help themselves prepare for their financial futures, few actually do it. We find these messages actually work in getting people to hit 'yes', much better than an understated email that just says 'here are our results and our philosophy - let us know if you're interested', unfortunately. Yours Foolishly\"\" So I have put some of these recommendations onto a watch list, time will tell.\"",
"These advertisements try to take advantage of the short term memory loss of older people. If you keep an old person watching long enough they will forget why they started watching in the first place. Yet they trust themselves and assume that it was for a good reason. So the long winded salespitch succeeds with older people who tend to have more money to invest anyway. Yes, I think that Motley Fool has jumped the shark.",
"Upselling you is how they make money. That's the price of the free content. Test their recommendations. Pretend to buy the stocks they say. How do they do? Do they ever say to sell the stocks after their buy recommendations? There are lots and lots of opinions out there. I doubt people really hear about the good ones because (a) the good ones have paid newsletters and/or (b) the good ones aren't telling a soul because they're absolutely cleaning it up. Warren Buffett doesn't announce his intentions. He's been buying for a while before anyone finds out.",
"\"Out of your seven recommendations one is up 14%, one up 6%, four are either even or down slightly and one is down a whopping 40%. This reminds me of a recommendation earlier in the year provided by The Motley Fool to buy XRO.AX when it was around the $40 mark. I had a quick look at it and thought \"\"gee there is no way I am buying those shares\"\". Now they are just below $15. See the chart below: You have just learnt a valuable lesson by testing these recommendations without your real money - never trust investment recommendations from analysts (or anyone else). Get yourself educated so you understand what analysts are talking about and you can make a decision for yourself. Better still learn about technical analysis so you can decide for yourself whether it is the right time to buy or sell.\"",
"\"You need to understand how various entities make their money. Once you know that, you can determine whether their interests are aligned with yours. For example, a full-service broker makes money when you buy and sell stocks. They therefore have in interest in you doing lots of buying, and selling, not in making you money. Or, no-fee financial advisors make their money through commissions on what they sell you, which means their interests are served by selling you those investments with high commissions, not the investments that would serve you best. Financial media makes their money through attracting viewers/readers and selling advertising. That is their business, and they are not in the business of giving good advice. There are lots of good investments - index funds are a great example - that don't get much attention because there isn't any money in them. In fact, the majority of \"\"wall street\"\" is not aligned with your interests, so be skeptical of the financial industry in general. There are \"\"for fee\"\" financial advisors who you pay directly; their interests are fairly well aligned with yours. There is a fair amount of good information at The Motley Fool\"",
"\"If by \"\"can we trust the analyst recommendations\"\" you mean \"\"are they right 100% of the time\"\" the answer is absolutely no. Analysts are human and make mistakes, some more than others. There are many stories of \"\"superstar managers\"\" that make killings for several straight years, then have a few bad years and lose it all back. However, don't take \"\"you can't trust them\"\" to mean that they are nefarious in some way. While there may be some that recommend stocks for selfish purposes, I suspect that the vast majority are just going off what information they have, and can't predict market behavior or future performance with perfect accuracy. Look at many analysts' recommendations. Do your own analysis. If you're still not comfortable buying individual stocks, then don't buy them. Buy index funds if you are satisfied with market returns, or other mutual funds if you want to invest in specific sectors. Or at the very least make sure you are sufficiently diversified so that you don't lose your entire investment by one bad decision. One rule of thumb is to not have more than 10% of your entire portfolio in any one company.\"",
"\"They aren't necessarily trustworthy. Many institutions claim to have a \"\"Chinese Wall\"\" between their investment banking arms and analysis arms. In practice, these walls have sometimes turned out to be entirely imaginary. That is, analysis is published with an eye to what is good for their investment banking business. One of the most notorious cases of this was Henry Blodget, an analyst with Merrill Lynch during the dot-com bubble. Blodget became a star analyst after he correctly predicted Amazon would hit $400/share within a year. However some of his later public analysis dramatically conflicted with his private comments. Famously when he started covering GoTo.com, rating it as \"\"neutral to buy\"\", he was asked \"\"What's so interesting about Goto except banking fees????\"\" Blodget replied, \"\"nothin\"\". Eventually he was permanently banned from the securities industry.\"",
"The motley fool is one of the best places. Other good communities are Yahoo Finance, Seeking Alpha, and Investors Place. I also recently created a chat room connected to this site to discuss stocks/funds/etc. with other money.stackexchange users. http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/263/investing",
"\"For learning about finances my main two financial resources are this site, and the Motley Fool. My secondary sources are keeping up with columns by my favourite economic journalists - in the press in the US, Australia, England, and India. Regarding your comment about feeling green on the basics despite the reading - you're not alone. I've been interested in financials for better than 10 years, but there are a lot of questions on this site where I say to myself, \"\"I've no idea of what the answer could be, what are our resident experts saying?\"\" Having said that, there are some topics where I feel as though I can weigh in - and they tend to be where I have a little book knowledge and a lot of personal experience.\"",
"Anyone who claims they can consistently beat the market and asks you to pay them to tell you how is a liar. This cannot be done, as the market adjusts itself. There's nothing they could possibly learn that analysts and institutional investors don't already know. They earn their money through the subscription fees, not through capital gains on their beat-the-market suggestions, that means that they don't have to rely on themselves to earn money, they only need you to rely on them. They have to provide proof because they cannot lie in advertisements, but if you read carefully, there are many small letters and disclaimers that basically remove any liability from them by saying that they don't take responsibility for anything and don't guarantee anything.",
"\"I know nothing about the guy, but I think the \"\"premium\"\" products (Penny stock recommendations, a newsletter devoted to earning 12% per year, every year, etc) sold by his firm speak for themselves.\"",
"If anyone could reliably pick winners, they could make more money by investing in those winners than by selling their advice. Generally, when someone sends you unsolicited hype about stocks, that's because they're trying to pump the price up so they can dump their own shares before it collapses again. Also note that, these days, it's remarkably easy to run the scam where you sell half your customers buy advice and the other half sell advice on the same stock. Each time, some of the customers drop out in disgust (half, minus whoever decides to give you another chance) and the rest pay you for the next iteration. You can make a lot of money before you run out of suckers. That, all by itself, is good reason to be skeptical about anyone who doesn't publish their full history so it can be audited for such shenanigans.",
"If you see something that looks like a sales pitch, be skeptical, even if they sound informed, say things which resonate with your concerns and promise to alleviate your problems. Watch out in particular for people who pontificate about matters which are tangentially related to the investment (e.g. populist anti-Wall-Street sentiment). Beware limited-time opportunities, offers, and discounts. I'm specifically talking about your email pitches, Motley Fool. They're shameful. Remember you're allowed to change your mind and go back on something that you've said a few minutes ago. If anyone tries to trick you into agreeing to go along with them by taking what something you've said and manipulating it, or uses logic to demonstrate that you must buy something based on things you've said, tell them you're not comfortable, head for the door and don't look back. Don't be afraid of embarrassment or anything like that. (You can investigate whether your position is in fact logically consistent later.) Run away from anyone who resents or deprecates the notion of a second opinion. Don't ever go along with anything that seems shady: it may be shadier than you know. Some people thought Bernie Maddoff was doing some front-running on the side; turns out it was a Ponzi scheme. (Likewise the Ponzi scheme that devastated Albania's economy was widely suspected of being dirty, but people suspected more of a black-market angle.) Beware of anyone who is promising stability and protection. Insurance companies can sell you products (especially annuities) which can deliver it, but they're very expensive for what you get. Don't buy it unless you seriously need it.",
"\"Their analysts are actually pretty bright. Remember, they downgraded Facebook before the IPO. However, it doesn't stop the sheep from buying the stock. It's just like those subprime mortgages that pretty much said \"\"THIS IS CRAP\"\" all over the prospectus, and people still brought it.\"",
"Whether or not I trust them depends entirely on the personal finance application. In the cases of Mint and Quicken, I would trust both. Always make sure to do plenty of research before submitting any personal information to any source.",
"To evaluate any advice, this lists some of the things to consider: There are good advisors out there. There are also Bernie Madoffs who give the entire industry a black eye. In the end, the best path is to educate yourself, read as much as you can before you invest. Better to lose a bit by staying out of the market than to lose it all by getting scammed.",
"\"The risk is that the \"\"free\"\" service may be supporting itself by steering customers to products which part a sales commission, or that are products of the company/bank that employees then, rather than those which are actually best for the customer. If you go in with a skeptical outlook, watching for this sort of conflict of interest, it's possible they might be useful. But that's not exactly a glowing recommendation... If they try to tell you that insurance is an investment, or if they recommend anything other than low-fee index funds without an extremely good reason, run.\"",
"\"Yes, I did. I won't deny it. But, as I said in my original post - \"\"I don't know much about this subject [finances]\"\". Well, that's why I came here to ask a question. I don't know what \"\"trusted\"\" sources are in this field - it's not as if there are real scientific journals in this field as in biology (my profession). So... is this a problem in your view?\"",
"I don't see balance sheet in what you're looking at, and I'd definitely suggest learning how to read a balance sheet and looking at it, if you're going to buy stock in a company, unless you know that the recommendations you're buying on are already doing that and you're willing to take that risk. Also, reading past balance sheets and statements can give you an idea about how accurate the company is with their predictions, or if they have a history of financial integrity. Now, if you're going the model portfolio route, which has become popular, the assumption that many of these stock buyers are making is that someone else is doing that for them. I am not saying that this assumption is valid, just one that I've seen; you will definitely find a lot of skeptics, and rightly so, about model portfolios. Likewise, people who trade based on what [Person X] does (like Warren Buffett or David Einhorn) are assuming that they're doing the research. The downside to this is if you follow someone like this. Yeah, oops. I should also point out that technical analysis, especially high probability TA, generally only looks at history. Most would define it as high risk and there are many underlying assumptions with reading the price movements by high probability TA types.",
"It is only wise to invest in what you understand (ala Warren Buffet style). Depending on how much money you have, you might see fit to consult a good independent financial advisor instead of seeking advice from this website. A famous quote goes: “Those who say, do not know. Those who know, do not say”",
"\"I'm another programmer, I guess we all just like complicated things, or got here via stackoverflow. Obligatory tedious but accurate point: Investing is not personal finance, in fact it's maybe one of the less important parts of it. See this answer: Where to start with personal finance? Obligatory warning for software developer type minds: getting into investing because it's complicated and therefore fun is a really awful idea from a financial perspective. Or see behavioral finance research on how analytical/professional/creative type people are often terrible at investing, while even-tempered practical people are better. The thing with investing is that inaction is better than action, tried and true is better than creative, and simple is better than complicated. So if you're like me and many programmers and like creative, complicated action - not good for the wallet. You've been warned. That said. :-) Stuff I read In general I hate reading too much financial information because I think it makes me take ill-advised actions. The actions I most need to take have to do with my career and my spending patterns. So I try to focus on reading about software development, for example. Or I answer questions on this site, which at least might help someone out, and I enjoy writing. For basic financial news and research, I prefer Morningstar.com, especially if you get the premium version. The writing has more depth, it's often from qualified financial analysts, and with the paid version you get data and analysis on thousands of funds and stocks, instead of a small number as with Motley Fool newsletters. I don't follow Morningstar regularly anymore, instead I use it for research when I need to pick funds in a 401k or whatever. Another caveat on Morningstar is that the \"\"star ratings\"\" on funds are dumb. Look at the Analyst Picks and the analyst writeups instead. I just flipped through my RSS reader and I have 20-30 finance-related blogs in there collecting unread posts. It looks like the only one I regularly read is http://alephblog.com/ which is sort of random. But I find David Merkel very thoughtful and interesting. He's also a conservative without being a partisan hack, and posts frequently. I read the weekly market comment at http://hussmanfunds.com/ as well. Most weeks it says the market is overvalued, so that's predictable, but the interesting part is the rationale and the other ideas he talks about. I read a lot of software-related blogs and there's some bleed into finance, especially from the VC world; blogs like http://www.avc.com/ or http://bhorowitz.com/ or whatever. Anyway I spend most of my reading time on career-related stuff and I think this is also the correct decision from a financial perspective. If you were a doctor, you'd be better off reading about doctoring, too. I read finance-related books fairly often, I guess there are other threads listing ideas on that front. I prefer books about principles rather than a barrage of daily financial news and questionable ideas. Other than that, I keep up with headlines, just reading the paper every day including business-related topics is good enough. If there's some big event in the financial markets, it'll show up in the regular paper. Take a class I initially learned about finance by reading a pile of books and alongside that taking the CFP course and the first CFA course. Both are probably equivalent to about a college semester worth of work, but you can plow through them in a couple months each if you focus. You can just do the class (and take the exam if you like), without having to go on and actually get the work experience and the certifications. I didn't go on to do that. This sounds like a crazy thing to do, and it kind of is, but I think it's also sort of crazy to expect to be competent on a topic without taking some courses or otherwise getting pretty deep into the material. If you're a normal person and don't have time to take finance courses, you're likely better off either keeping it super-simple, or else outsourcing if you can find the right advisor: What exactly can a financial advisor do for me, and is it worth the money? When it's inevitably complex (e.g. as you approach retirement) then an advisor is best. My mom is retiring soon and I found her a professional, for example. I like having a lot of knowledge myself, because it's just the only way I could feel comfortable. So for sure I understand other people wanting to have it too. But what I'd share from the other side is that once you have it, the conclusion is that you don't have enough knowledge (or time) to do anything fancy anyway, and that the simple answers are fine. Check out http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 Investing for fun isn't investing for profit Many people recommend Motley Fool (I see two on this question already!). The site isn't evil, but the problem (in my opinion) is that it promotes an attitude toward and a style of investing that isn't objectively justifiable for practical reasons. Essentially I don't think optimizing for making money and optimizing for having fun coexist very well. If investing is your chosen hobby rather than fishing or knitting, then Motley Fool can be fun with their tone and discussion forums, but other people in forums are just going to make you go wrong money-wise; see behavioral finance research again. Talking to others isn't compatible with ice in your decision-making veins. Also, Motley Fool tends to pervasively make it sound like active investing is easier than it is. There's a reason the Chartered Financial Analyst curriculum is a few reams of paper plus 4 years of work experience, rather than reading blogs. Practical investing (\"\"just buy the target date fund\"\") can be super easy, but once you go beyond that, it's not. I don't really agree with the \"\"anyone can do it and it's not work!\"\" premise, any more than I think that about lawyering or doctoring or computer programming. After 15 years I'm a programming expert; after some courses and a lot of reading, I'm not someone who could professionally run an actively-managed portfolio. I think most of us need to have the fun part separate from the serious cash part. Maybe literally distinct accounts that you keep at separate brokerages. Or just do something else for fun, besides investing. Morningstar has this problem too, and finance.yahoo.com, and Bloomberg, I mean, they are all interested in making you think about investing a lot more than you ought to. They all have an incentive to convince you that the latest headlines make a difference, when they don't. Bottom line, I don't think personal finance changes very quickly; the details of specific mutual funds change, and there's always some new twist in the tax code, but the big picture is pretty stable. I think going in-depth (say, read the Chartered Financial Analyst curriculum materials) would teach you a lot more than reading blogs frequently. The most important things to work on are income (career) and spending (to maximize income minus spending). That's where time investment will pay off. I know it's annoying to argue the premise of the question rather than answering, but I did try to mention a couple things to read somewhere in there ;-)\"",
"I've used Wikinvest before and think that's close to what you're looking for - but in Wiki-style rather than forums. Otherwise, I agree with CrimsonX that The Motley Fool is a good place to check out.",
"Promotion of any stock should be treated with extreme suspicion, since the purpose is generally to make money for the promoter, not to inform the public.",
"True on the second point. It is information based. My bad. With regard to the first point, I don't think he's Jesus returned. He makes plenty of mistakes but he does provide the return record of a very disparate group of investors following the same method. That method may not work anymore (hard to say) but I think it does. I'm obviously a true believer. With respect to third point, I don't think you were being a dick. Enjoyed the debate. Thanks for the perspective",
"I dig the entire stable of Motley Fool podcasts. Motley Fool Money and Market Foolery are pretty fun and Industry Focus can offer some interesting insight. I also enjoy the marketplace podcast with Kai Ryssdal. However some of the human interest pieces can stray farther from finance than I would like.",
"They've pretty much shot any credibility they possessed. Follow the money.",
"It is a publicly traded company. My interest is more in their motivation for instituting the new policy. *I* expect the stock to go up, I'm not being told that by someone else. Thanks for looking out though :)",
"I use the forum seeking alpha. http://seekingalpha.com/",
"Yes, the entire financial system is based on trust. As we have seen repeatedly, even the ratings agencies can be wrong and in collusion. You need to understand what products have any insurance/contingency/recourse if things don't go as planned. A lot of people were surprised when they found out SIPC didn't ensure futures when MF Global declared bankruptcy last fall.",
"yAnother potential tool for you would be a Monte Carlo Simulator. here's one http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Business+Fundamentals I know that past performance is no guarantee..... but I think it's in many cases not exactly a flawed tool, and especially with respect to money managers a good way to find good ones. If a manager has shown an ability over time to consistently beat the market, yes he might be due for a bad day, but you'd generally expect that they should be able to continue that trend. I'd apply the same logic to pundits. If their track record sucks, and they constantly seem to whipsaw you with their advice, why listen to them other than",
"You have received much good advice, but based on 53 years investing and the first 25 getting my nose bloodied and breaking even I very strongly offer the following. Before doing so let me first offer this caveat: I am not questioning your broker or the advice, but it is only valuable to you if history proves correct. No one, not even Bernanke can predict how stock will perform in the future. Maybe if he sees a depression. My advice to someone new to stock investing is to purchase a index fund from a discount broker, e.g. Fidelity or Vanguard, and then study the market and economics. The Wall Street Journal and the web are my favorites. I started with a hell of a lot less than you have saved, I would not turn $200K over to anyone until you know exactly the risk and cost involved. Also, I wouldn't depend on one person or firm to advise or manage my money. I like to balance one against the other. I do not recall different firms recommending the same stocks. One must remember everyone in the business of recommending stock or any investment is selling something and must be compensated. That's how they earn a living.",
"If being gainfully employed while having my investments grow in value over the last five years makes me a fool then I'm glad to be one. Thanks for sharing your opinion and contribution to reasonable discourse.",
"The Motley Fool's How to Invest How To Invest Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor The Intelligent Investor If you like The Intelligent Investor then try Benjamin's Security Analysis. But that one is not a beginner book.",
"\"The hardest part seems to be knowing exactly when to sell the stock. Well yes, that's the problem with all stock investing. Reports come out all the time, sometimes even from very smart people with no motivation to lie, about expected earnings for this company, or for that industry. Whether those predictions come true is something you will only find out with time. What you are considering is using financial information available to you (and equally available to the public) to make investment choices. This is called 'fundamental analysis'; that is, the analysis of the fundamentals of a business and what it should be worth. It forms the basis of how many investment firms decide where to put their money. In a perfectly 'efficient' market, all information available to the public is immediately factored into the market price for that company's stock. ie: if a bank report states with absolute certainty (through leaked documents) that Coca-Cola is going to announce 10% revenue growth tomorrow, then everyone will immediately buy Coca-Cola stock today, and then tomorrow there would be no impact. Even if PwC is 100% accurate in its predictions, if the rest of the market agrees with them, then the price at the time of IPO would equal the future value of the cashflows, meaning there would be no gain unless results surpassed expectations. So what you are proposing is to take one sliver of the information available to the public (have you also read all publicly available reports on those businesses and their industries?), and using that to make a high risk investment. Are you going to do better than the investment firms that have teams of researchers and years of experience in the investment world? You can do quite well by picking individual stocks, but you can also lose a lot of money if you do it haphazardly. Be aware that there is risk in doing any type of investing. There is higher than average risk if you invest in equities ('the stock market'). There is higher risk still, if you pick individual stocks. There is yet even higher risk, if you pick small startup companies. There are some specific interesting side-elements with your proposal to purchase stock about to have an IPO - those are better dealt with in a separate question if you want more information; search this site for 'IPO' and you should find a good starting point. In short, the company about to go public will hire a firm of analysts who will try to calculate the best price the public will accept for an offering of shares. Stock often goes up after IPO, but not always. Sometimes the company doesn't even fill its full IPO order, adding a new type of risk to a potential investor, that the stock will drop on day 1. Consider an analogy outside the investing world: Let's say Auto Trader magazine prints an article that says \"\"all 2015 Honda Civics are worth $15,000 if they have less than 50,000 Miles.\"\" Assume you have no particular knowledge about cars. If you read this article, and you see an ad in the paper the next day for a Honda Civic with 40k miles, should you buy it for $14k? The answer is not without more research. And even if you determine enough about cars to find one for $14k that you can reasonably sell for $15k, there's a whole world of mechanics out there who buy and sell cars for a living, and they have an edge both because they can repair the cars themselves to sell for more, and also because they have experience to spot low-offers faster than you. And if you pick a clunker (or a stock that doesn't perform even when everyone expected it would), then you could lose some serious money. As with buying and selling individual stocks, there is money to be made from car trading, but that money gets made by people who really know what they're doing. People who go in without full information are the ones who lose money in the long run.\"",
"I don't get why people insist on listening to cable tv to buy their stocks or any list. I remember one time a old lady was about to invest a good chunk of money in AOL because a broker said to do it. *face palm.*",
"Forecasting prices to the level of accuracy they purport is a fool's errand. Sell side analysts are there to get you to buy something, not to make you money. If they truly believed their analysis was significantly better than anyone else's in the market, they would trade on their own analysis. No one ever got rich by following analyst recommendations. Don't believe me? Track the buy/sell recommendations in a spreadsheet for 50+ stocks. I would be shocked if you significantly outperformed the market.",
"Be cognizant of your own limitations when approaching this material. I've dealt with lawyers, doctors, engineers and other highly intelligent people from other disciplines, who then try to learn about companies and the stock market. Their own arrogance and assumption that they can just learn anything *quickly* ends up hurting them. It can take years and real classical training of finance to understand this material with any depth. Someone is wrong (a fool) in every trade. There is someone who is going to make money and lose money. Odds are the fool is you.",
"Part of the real problem with Trump and his supporters is that they don't believe anything, regardless of the source. nearly 100% of scientists agree that the climate is warming due to human activity, but they still question it. 100% of biologists accept evolution and still the trump crowd don't accept it. Is this media bias site perfect...? of course not. But it rings true, is checked by multiple sources, and is maintained by media reviewers. It may be the only reliable source. But, I also quoted Forbes.",
"And who do you trust to sell you a quality product? Someone so enamored with a company they will take a pay cut just to work with it, and only it? Or someone working for respectable living, just like you, who has several alternative choices in stock.",
"Like a dog staring at a bone, I just cannot keep myself from jumping on this. Distrust and caution are the parents of security. - Benjamin Franklin That, in a nutshell, explains my view on mint.com and any other such service.",
"\"If you can afford the time and are looking for more deep, and fun, investment tips, check out http://gurufocus.com. Great for more fundamental analysis of \"\"Intelligent Investor\"\" type Benjamin Graham-style businesses. No use scatter-shooting the stock exchange hoping to find good value businesses. Even blue-chips have an increasingly uncertain future (except IMHO certain world dominators like KO, WMT, XO and MCD).\"",
"\"There are raters of stock and bond funds of which Morningstar's is the best. Standard and Poor's and Value line offer reports that aren't quite as good. If you are able to read and understand these reports yourself, you don't need a professional. Such help is necessary for people who are \"\"rank beginners\"\" in investments.\"",
"What you found is that when your were on website X on day y when you clicked on the link they told you to buy 7 stocks and you performed an experiment, but the values went down. Somebody else on website A on day B saw a lightly different list, they may have been flat. But if you were on website W on day D that list hit the jackpot. Which of the three decided that the people running the ad knew what they were talking about? They could have tailored the list based on the nature of the website. Sports and recreation ones on ESPN, high tech on a computer focus site. They could have varied the size of the lit, they could have varied the way they described their analysis. They could have even varied the name of the expert to make it sound familiar or authoritative. What you found was a marketing plan. It may have been a scam, or it may have been just a way to try and convince you they know what they were doing. If you clicked on the wrong list, they probably lost you as a potential customer, unless you can convince yourself that they were close, and deserve a second look....",
"\"If there's indeed no reason to trust GS, i.e. those are just guides then the question is: Why do investors seem to care? Because there's a reason to trust. You're just reading the bottom line - the target price range. More involved investors read the whole report, including the description of the current situation, the premises for the analysis, the expectations on the firm's performance and what these expectations are based on, the analysis of how the various scenarios might affect the valuation, and the evaluation of chances of these scenarios to occur. You don't have to trust everything and expect it to be 100% correct, analysts are not prophets. But you do have an option of reading their reports and critically analyzing their conclusions. What you suspect GS of doing (\"\"I tend to believe those guys just want themselves a cheap buy price a few days before Q2 earnings release\"\") is a criminal offence.\"",
"If anyone offers you guaranteed better than average returns, run. They are either lying to you or to themselves. (Claiming that they will try to beat the market is more credible, but that becomes a matter of whether there is any reason to believe that they'll succeed.) If anyone sends you an unsolicited stock tip, run. They wouldn't be doing so if it wasn't an attempt to manipulate you or the market or both. Most likely its a pump-and-dump attempt.",
"Yes. It's terrible with terrible advice such as insider trading. The insider trading is really the only advice that's not common knowledge such as buy assets not liabilities and pay yourself first. There is nothing in this book that would help anyone become wealthy. In fact is stated that education and savings will not make you rich. Which may be true but those two should never be discounted! This guy is a scam artist and made his millions from the book and nothing else.",
"Well, my experience says otherwise. I ran a micro hedge fund with just 100k... my prime broker and at least one other offered me information (what is the freakin term they used? Uggh). I heard from another micro hedge fund that they received good info from him. As stated earlier, I would never trade on such info though.",
"Just don't buy any kind of paper and you will be fine :-) And don't forget most of these 'blue-chip companies' sell marketing garbage which have no real market. Finally, make all decissions slooooowly and after extensive research.",
"\"I read Rich Dad, Poor Dad and I must say, found a lot of value in it. And I like to think I have a very good understanding of finance - both personal and corporate. Econ major, have worked at several major brokerages dispensing financial advice for a living, including at my current employer. But I do remember, back in 2005, when I read Kiyosaki's book, signing up to be contacted by a \"\"Rich Dad Coach\"\" - or something like that. Basically, some guy at the Rich Dad company who would be a financial mentor or sorts. Long story short, the Rich Dad Coach asked for my credit score, which was high, and proceeded to recommend that I max out my credit to buy a house to flip in \"\"1-2 months.\"\" Now, it's true that it could have worked. But was it good advice? Fucking hell no it wasn't. And I think he wanted 5k to coach me through the process. I could have made money doing it, even with paying him 5k, but SPECULATING by taking out personal lines of credit is not consistent with anything in the Rich Dad book. Showed me right there that while the book's advice may be good, that organization was just out to make a buck at the readers' expense.\"",
"\"Though @mehassee mentioned it in a comment, I would like to emphasize the point that the financial planner (CFP) you talked to said that he was a fiduciary. A fiduciary has an obligation to act in your best interests. According to uslegal.com, \"\"When one person does agree to act for another in a fiduciary relationship, the law forbids the fiduciary from acting in any manner adverse or contrary to the interests of the client, or from acting for his own benefit in relation to the subject matter\"\". So, any of these Stack Exchange community members may or may not have your best interest at heart, but the financial advisor you talked to is obligated to. You have to decide for yourself, is it worth 1% of your investment to have someone legally obligated to have your best financial interest in mind, versus, for example, someone who might steer you to an overpriced insurance product in the guise of an investment, just so they can make a buck off of you? Or versus wandering the internet trying to make sense of conflicting advice? In my opinion, a fiduciary (registered CFP) is probably the best person to answer your questions.\"",
"I know you can't buy in your sector. My point was merely that if you believed you were so good at your job you would quit and trade on your own analyses. I genuinely believe most analysts try their best and put forth legitimate analyses. The problem is that most believe they're smarter than they are :)",
">it's a racket. *shrug* Aren't they all? Some are better than others. Carlton Sheets, Robert Kiyosaki, Suzie Orman, etc. Even Dave Ramsey, arguably the best of the bunch, hawks books and seminars frequently. But isn't business school also a racket? Isn't most education?",
"Don't ever, ever, ever let someone else handle your money, unless you want somebody else have your money. Nobody can guarantee a return on stocks. That's utter bullshit. Stock go up and down according to market emotions. How can your guru predict the market's future emotions? Keep your head cool with stocks. Only buy when you are 'sure' you are not going to need the money in the next 10 years. Buy obligations before stocks, invest in 'defensive' stocks before investing in 'aggressive' stocks. Keep more money in obligations and defensive stock than in aggressive stocks. See how you can do by yourself. Before buying (or selling) anything, think about the risks, the market, the expert's opinion about this investment, etc. Set a target for selling (and adjust the target according to the performance of the stock). Before investing, try to learn about investing, really. I've made my mistakes, you'll make yours, let's hope they're not the same :)",
"and this is a sure sign that their advice is worthless.. if their research was worth the paper that it is written on, they would be using that research to make money trading, instead of trying to sell their research to their clients. how many times have we said that traders that can trade will trade, but that traders that can not trade, they will teach. and the fact that they are charging so much for their research should be a sign or an indication that there is perhaps a sense of desperation in this organization to quickly raise some money quickly and desperately. people that dont really know where the treasure is buried at will sell treasure maps.. people that do know where the treasure is buried will dig for buried treasure.",
"\"Lol. I once had to listen to someone who tried to convince me that I could gain 6% a year, risk free by investing in the financial institution he represented, while pitching something pre formatted he obviously didn't understand. Because of that and the sort of \"\"cult vibe\"\" I got from them I never returned. But my bad, see, I could have been rich right now.\"",
"\"There is no free lunch. \"\"Free\"\" can cost you a small fortune over time. If you wish to sit through a free pitch you may as well go to a time share seminar. Just keep your hands in your pocket and don't sign anything. In the end, you will be best served spending the time it will take to learn to manage your own money. Short term, spend a few hundred dollars and find a fee only planner who will give you general advice. My disdain for the \"\"bank guy\"\" goes back to an overheard conversation. An older woman, in her 70s was asking about investing in T-bills vs the bank CD. T-bills were a bit higher yield at the time. The banker stated that the CD was FDIC insured,but T-bills were not. This was decades ago, but I remember it as if it were yesterday.\"",
"I've found Pragmatic Capitalism very helpful.",
"\"You are probably going to hate my answer, but... If there was an easy way to ID stocks like FB that were going to do what FB did, then those stocks wouldn't exist and do that because they would be priced higher at the IPO. The fact is there is always some doubt, no one knows the future, and sometimes value only becomes clear with time. Everyone wants to buy a stock before it rises right? It will only be worth a rise if it makes more profit though, and once it is established as making more profit the price will be already up, because why wouldn't it be? That means to buy a real winner you have to buy before it is completely obvious to everyone that it is going to make more profit in the future, and that means stock prices trade at speculative prices, based on expected future performance, not current or past performance. Now I'm not saying past and future performance has nothing in common, but there is a reason that a thousand financially oriented websites quote a disclaimer like \"\"past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance\"\". Now maybe this is sort of obvious, but looking at your image, excluding things like market capital that you've not restricted, the PE ratio is based on CURRENT price and PAST earnings, the dividend yield is based on PAST publications of what the dividend will be and CURRENT price, the price to book is based on PAST publication of the company balance sheet and CURRENT price, the EPS is based on PAST earnings and the published number of shares, and the ROI and net profit margin in based on published PAST profits and earnings and costs and number of shares. So it must be understood that every criteria chosen is PAST data that analysts have been looking at for a lot longer than you have with a lot more additional information and experience with it. The only information that is even CURRENT is the price. Thus, my ultimate conclusive point is, you can't based your stock picks on criteria like this because it's based on past information and current stock price, and the current stock price is based on the markets opinion of relative future performance. The only way to make a good stock pick is understand the business, understand its market, and possibly understand world economics as it pertains to that market and business. You can use various criteria as an initial filter to find companies and investigate them, but which criteria you use is entirely your preference. You might invest only in profitable companies (ones that make money and probably pay regular dividends), thus excluding something like an oil exploration company, which will just lose money, and lose it, and lose some more, forever... unless it hits the jackpot, in which case you might suddenly find yourself sitting on a huge profit. It's a question of risk and preference. Regarding your concern for false data. Google defines the Return on investment (TTM) (%) as: Trailing twelve month Income after taxes divided by the average (Total Long-Term Debt + Long-Term Liabilities + Shareholders Equity), expressed as a percentage. If you really think they have it wrong you could contact them, but it's probably correct for whatever past data or last annual financial results it's based on.\"",
"\"duffbeer's answers are reasonable for the specific question asked, but it seems to me the questioner is really wanting to know what stocks should I buy, by asking \"\"do you simply listen to 'experts' and hope they are right?\"\" Basic fundamental analysis techniques like picking stocks with a low PE or high dividend yield are probably unlikely to give returns much above the average market because many other people are applying the same well-known techniques.\"",
"I don't know, they focus solely on debt as if it's the reason for the recession. And then they say we should reduce spending and raise taxes, as if that would really help the economy. At least they acknowledge that it would have to happen gradually, but they act like any and all debt is terrible. Plus, you know, it's Business Insider asking us to put aside politics, which is pretty funny.",
"\"> Forecasting prices to the level of accuracy they purport is a fool's errand. Sell side analysts are there to get you to buy something, not to make you money. > If they truly believed their analysis was significantly better than anyone else's in the market, they would trade on their own analysis. > No one ever got rich by following analyst recommendations. > Don't believe me? Track the buy/sell recommendations in a spreadsheet for 50+ stocks. I would be shocked if you significantly outperformed the market. Only partly right. Sell side price targets are bullshit. Literally everyone knows this. The reason there is value isn't because of their predictions but because of everything else. [Here's another professional's opinion as well:](http://www.reddit.com/r/investing/comments/27dokr/aapl_proves_wall_street_is_nuts/chzy78s?context=3) > If we're talking about sell-side institutional analysts, then this is not necessarily correct. It's just that the retail sector seems to only give a shit about the forecasts/conclusions (\"\"ohhh DB says buy xyz with target of xx.xx!\"\"). This goes to show how ignorant retail is when it comes to what the actual value of sell-side research reports are. > Sell-side research isn't valuable for buy-side because of the recommendations.. those are in fact the most ignored aspect of published research. It's valuable for buy-side because of the content. Sell-side analysts do the bullshit grind in investigating underlying information (such as visits to operational endeavors and clawing together bulk data). Buy side uses this underlying accrued data to formulate their own conclusions.\"",
"frankly, it's got very good advice. It teaches you how to look at your purchases of assets and determine which are truly investments (2nd home rented out) vs those that are not (the ones you live in, don't count on appreciation). Gives you a very simple but very clear method of accounting your expenses for becoming financially independent. Things that are simple and you probably know but he puts it in a way that allows you to focus on it more clearly. However, it is not a get rich quick scheme. It doesn't tell you which gimmicks to become rich, just how to manage your investments clearly. His later books are all a money grab and you can see him start to drift to the dark side of greed.",
"\"Are you saying they're all just a bunch of hacks trying to monetize fear instead of actually providing sound financial advice? Are you further suggesting that they were nowhere to be found in 07, yet now that the country is in a poor financial state, they're trying to grab headlines? Are you saying that even though they all claim they \"\"predicted\"\" the housing crisis there is no conclusive evidence suggesting that any of them actually did so? Oh wait, I guess I said that.\"",
"\"If it's an active stock, the Yahoo message boards are inhabited by some clueful people. But the signal-to-noise ratio is relatively low, and there are a lot of \"\"interesting\"\" characters who inhabit the boards as well.\"",
"This fortune article is referenced in his either 2003 or 2004 annual report in which he does say that the market will not likely return much in the future and generally talks numbers. I am also a value investor, such that I can be in this environment and believe there is a bit of value in knowing where you think the market is headed but the real value is in underwriting each deal. In long, I agree with you",
"A cautionary tale: About 25 years ago I decided that I should try my hand at investing in some technology companies. I was in the computer biz but decided that I might suffer from myopia there, so I researched some medical startups. And I did some reasonably good research, given the available resources (the Internet was quite primitive). I narrowed things down to 4-5 companies, studying their technology plans, then researched their business plans and their personnel. In the end I picked a drug company. Not only did it have a promising business plan, but it had as it's CEO a hotshot from some other company, and the BOD was populated buy big names from tech companies and the like. AND the company had like $2 of cash for every $1 of outstanding share value, following their recent IPO. So I sold a bit of stock I had in my employer and bought like $3000 worth of this company. Then, taking the advice I'd seen several places, I forgot about it for about 6 months. When I went back to look their stock value had dropped a little, and the cash reserves were down about 20%. I wasn't too worried. 6 months later the cash was down 50%. Worrying a little. After I'd had the stock for about 2 years the stock price was about 10% of what I'd paid. Hardly worth selling, so I hung on for awhile longer. The company was eventually sold to some other company and I got maybe $50 in stock in the new company.",
"It's quite alright, it's been over a decade since he passed so I'm not particularly sensitive about it any more. I'll have a look at investopedia, but what I'm mainly interested in is private equity. I wanted to ask directly about that, but I feel that I need a frame of reference to understand what's going on. As in, I doubt I'd be able to really get private equity without first having an understanding of public trading. Is this subreddit really that reputable? I've learned to not really trust reddit, for the most part. Is there some kind of curation here?",
"They didn't have a website when they started out. The entire business model was just the email. It's seriously worth the free subscription. Try it and unsub if you don't like it. Or don't. No skin off my back.",
"okay, I was thinking of an investment advisor. I believe in not doing it alone too. But i don't believe in just one more person. Investing advisors, tax advisors, business and law. I don't go to an advisor bc I can't balance my monthly budget and also want to save, you know. Questions more like, highest growth sectors, diversified strategies, etc. And right, they wouldn't get fired bc their client is still happy, (even though their losing money during a record bull market). Guy must be a good sales man. I'd just want to know that my advisors performance is decent relative to the market. But again, I'm not handing over checks to people, only speaking with them. edit: Yes, the average person should worry about making their kids soccer games and shit, not necessarily the markets and what their investment is worth in 30yrs",
"It is a scam organization praying on fear of the simple minded. The facts Edelson presents are not accurate - http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2006/ia-2525.pdf",
"This scamming sack of garbage is just whoring their referral link in any subreddit they can find. Absolute spam, don't use their link. If you would like to invest through Robinhood, they're a fine company, just don't help this asshole.",
"They have had a lot of fraud/unethical issues, which is why Jon Cryan was brought in to try and fix them up. He has been doing a good job and very few if any fraud issues have been perpetrated since he stepped in (they have been fined for past abuses during his tenure, but he's definitely improving the company).",
"In the intro to the Big Short, the author talks about how he wrote liars poter to steer people away from wall street, but in the end it became a manual for how to work there. I am not trying to steer you away, or towards anything except the facts. If you want to do well in something, the best idea is to understand it; warts and all.",
"Right there with you. It drives me crazy watching those commercials with the cute talking babies telling the average person they can take control of their own future and open a trading account. A few months ago I met someone at a bar who worked customer support for a large company with lots of individual traders. I asked him what percentage of his client accounts actually made money and he guessed only a few. The company got paid either way (commissions). What a scam.",
"I can too which is why i'm semi wary. They're just in it to sign as much people up as possible because if they find winners they can make money. But at the same time if you can do well you can make good money as well. It's not like they're taking my money in fees or whatnot.",
"I'd go to specialist community web sites such as The Motley Fool and read their investing articles, and their forums, and everything. You cannot get enough information and advice to get going, as it is really easy to think investing is easy and returns are guaranteed. A lot of people found that out in 2008 and 2000! For example, they have a 'beginners portfolio' that will teach you the very basics of investing (though not necessarily what to invest in)",
"no offense, but clicking through to that guys blog and fund page he seems like a charlatan and a snake oil salesman. It's not surprising that he doesn't like asset manager software because he himself is an asset manager. the software is trying to replace him. He doesn't make money by beating the market... he makes money by convincing others that he can... he is exactly the type of person that the original article is warning against investing with.",
"No. 1) Everyone should cultivate the ability to see the ridiculous in themselves and in their situation. 2) When you properly verify information, the original source no longer matters 3) There is no Media I feel I can trust right now, so I might as well indulge in Media I enjoy. I just need to verify information before I act on it.",
"How do you tell the 'good' from the 'bad' when 90% isn't good stuff? Why bother with (and make reference to) a source that's so bad- 90% of the time - they're full of shit? Mackitus is right: Warning- ZeroHedge post.",
"\"The markets are not as information efficient as some might have you believe. But on the contrary, looking up what the aggregate professional analysts have said is also part of \"\"doing your homework\"\"\"",
"To complement farnsy's answer, I want to warn people against market prediction scams. If they give uniformly distributed buy/sell predictions to 256 people, one of them will get eight correct predictions in a row. They are trading a few cents of Amazon server time for 3% of your capital.",
"It's a matter of opinion. As a general rule, my advice is to take charge of your own investments. Sending money to someone else to have them invest it, though it is a common practice, seems unwise to me. This particular fund seems especially risky to me, because there is no known portfolio. Normally, real estate investment trusts (REITs) have a specific portfolio of known properties, or at least a property strategy that you know going in. Simply handing money over to someone else with no known properties, or specific strategy is buying a pig in a poke.",
"Yes. I would recommend. I wasn't a big fan of the conspiracy theory angle. I ignored that but I leave that up to you. But everything else in the book is very good. Good explanations on money and what bailouts really do etc.",
"\"Stock recommendations and price history are an unwise way to invest. People that recommend stocks are usually compensation for recommending it. They are paid directly by third parties, that can be paid in shares, they can simply own the stock themselves and if the stock goes up they can sell it to new investors at a higher price (or even a lower price, they may not actually care) Price history does not tell you a complete picture, what kind of price history are you even looking at: \"\"this stock went up, let me buy now at the very top and hope it goes higher, am I too late\"\" \"\"this stock went down let me avoid it\"\" if you don't know why, what, who, when, assets, debt, etc, you shouldn't be buying the stock.\"",
"As someone who works on the sell side, I can tell you you're partially right. Yes, we do make money off of trades (so just getting people to trade gets the company money) but we do try to be right. We like to look at overall trends with growth projections and earnings estimates, and (as long as the analyst isn't a bad one) will try to get the right answer. Often, we try to present different angles to the research and aren't afraid to go out on a limb--so that you'll read it. We like being right though. The reason we like to be right and make people understand that we know what is going on is simple: a company won't respect research if it's bullshit. And that goes for trading and buy side firms, but also from the companies involved in the research. For an investment bank, a large chunk (often over 50%) of revenue comes from M&A deals, and often a company will choose to do a deal with companies they know will give a good value-that come's from their first experience with the company-equity research. So yes, we don't like to beat up on companies, but we do want to be right. If the analyst has that bad a rate of success, he's probably pretty bad or you're looking at an industry where nobody saw some huge shift coming. Edit: Oh, and analysts can't buy or sell any company in their sector (I think this is industry-wide, not just my firm)",
"Those are all predictions. To the core. With anything, I'd consider the source carefully before taking any kind of advice. If it's from a financial magazine, who advertises with them? What are they selling? How well do they recognize which side of the bread is buttered? That, and I'd get a lot of advice, see how it matches with your goals, and choose. All of that being said, you do have time to recover should you blow it.",
"Yeah, it can be a scam. Lots of unscrupulous companies try to generate commissions by encouraging frequent trading - I can't recall the term they use right now, but I don't like to use these people for advice. My bank has 100 free trades per year for each account, which is more than enough for me to never pay a commission.",
"Nothing beats statistics like that found on Morning Star, Yahoo or Google Finance. When you are starting out, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Pick a couple of mutual funds with good track records and start there. Keep in mind the financial press, to some degree, has a vested interest in having their readership chase the next hot thing. So while sites like Seeking Alpha, Kiplingers, or Money do provide some good advice, there is also an element that placates their advertisers. The only peer-to-peer lending I would consider is Lending Club. However, you are probably better off in the long run investing in mutual funds. One way to get involved in individual stocks without getting burned is to participate in Dividend Reinvestment Plans (DRIPs). Companies that have them tend to be very well established, and they are structured to discourage trading. Buying is easy, dividend reinvestment is easy, dividend payouts are easy; but, starting and selling is kind of a pain. That is a good thing.",
"There's a sizable community of people and fiscal advisers who advocate not managing the money at all. Set your passive investor friend with automatic bank draft into a simple three/four fund portfolio of low cost index funds and never never ever trade. See https://www.bogleheads.org/RecommendedReading.php You might be able to beat the stock market for a few years, but probably not over the long term. Most mutual fund professionals don't. Playing with your own money is one thing: playing with other people's money is a whole other ball game.",
"Putting 64% of a portfolio in gold and silver is pretty reckless from an investing standpoint. That being said, if he really did buy most of the stocks in 2002, he's probably made a good deal of money off these picks.",
"I recommend that people think for themselves and get a multitude of counselors. The more you understand about what drives the prices of various assets, the better. Getting to good advice for a particular person depends on the financial picture for that person. For example, if they have a lot of consumer debt, then they probably would be better off paying off the debt before investing, as earning 5% (say) in the stock market year over year will be eaten up by the 18%+ they may be paying on their credit cards. Here's a starter list of the types of information that would be better to have in order to get fair investment advice.",
"My personal experience tells me that nearly 100% of people who approach you have their own interests in mind. Things you searched yourself will be more beneficial.",
"\"Others have covered this pretty well, but as someone who once worked for the company that allows Stansberry to publish, let me confirm that their business is about getting you to buy into the financial worldview they promote so that they can sell you more and more \"\"newsletters\"\" and \"\"services\"\". Nothing else. It's a marketing company, and Stansberry is nothing more than a copywriter.\"",
"\"Good ones, no there are not. Go to a bookstore and pick up a copy of \"\"The Intelligent Investor.\"\" It was last published in 1972 and is still in print and will teach you everything you need to know. If you have accounting skills, pick up a copy of \"\"Security Analysis\"\" by Benjamin Graham. The 1943 version was just released again with a 2008 copyright and there is a 1987 version primarily edited by Cottle (I think). The 1943 book is better if you are comfortable with accounting and the 1987 version is better if you are not comfortable and feel you need more direction. I know recent would seem better, but the fact that there was a heavy demand in 2008 to reprint a 1943 book tells you how good it is. I think it is in its 13th printing since 2008. The same is true for the 72 and 87 book. Please don't use internet tutorials. If you do want to use Internet tutorials, then please just write me a check now for all your money. It will save me effort from having to take it from you penny by penny because you followed bad advice and lost money. Someone has to capture other people's mistakes. Please go out and make money instead. Prudence is the mother of all virtues.\"",
"\"My favorite line: \"\"Companies should generate enough profits to justify the price that shareholders are willing to pay for its shares. Once shareholders are no longer willing to pay up for those profits, they should invest that money elsewhere.\"\" This person loses all credibility right here.\""
] |
[
"The Motley Fool is generally regarded as relatively legit, at least in that they're not likely to do anything outright fraudulent and they definitely have reasonably in-depth content to provide you. The Motley Fool makes a fair amount of money off the subscriptions, though, and they do hawk them quite violently. If I didn't have a generally good opinion of them to begin with, I'd have been completely put off as well. It's pretty shameful. I don't think it's worth hundreds of dollars a year, but then again, I don't look at investing as a second career like the Fool likes to suggest, either.",
"Upselling you is how they make money. That's the price of the free content. Test their recommendations. Pretend to buy the stocks they say. How do they do? Do they ever say to sell the stocks after their buy recommendations? There are lots and lots of opinions out there. I doubt people really hear about the good ones because (a) the good ones have paid newsletters and/or (b) the good ones aren't telling a soul because they're absolutely cleaning it up. Warren Buffett doesn't announce his intentions. He's been buying for a while before anyone finds out.",
"Hmm.. hey bro, not personal, but is what comes to mind: I guess my answer will be highly down voted... =P",
"\"I've had a MF Stock Advisor for 7 or 8 years now, and I've belong to Supernova for a couple of years. I also have money in one of their mutual funds. \"\"The Fool\"\" has a lot of very good educational information available, especially for people who are new to investing. Many people do not understand that Wall Street is in the business of making money for Wall Street, not making money for investors. I have stayed with the Fool because their philosophy aligns with my personal investment philosophy. I look at the Stock Advisor picks; sometimes I buy them, sometimes I don't, but the analysis is very good. They also have been good at tracking their picks over time, and writing updates when specific stocks drop a certain amount. With their help, I've assembled a portfolio that I don't have to spend too much time managing, and have done pretty well from a return perspective. Stock Advisor also has a good set of forums where you can interact with other investors. In summary, the view from the inside has been pretty good. From the outside, I think their marketing is a reflection of the fact that most people aren't very interested in a rational & conservative approach to investing in the stock market, so MF chooses to go for an approach that gets more traffic. I'm not particularly excited about it, but I'm sure they've done AB testing and have figured out what way works the best. I think that they have had money-back guarantees on some of their programs in the past, so you could try them out risk free. Not sure if those are still around.\"",
"\"Not sure how I came across the Motley Fool blog in the first instance, but found the writing style refreshing - then along came some free advice on ASX share prospects, then the next day and email expounding the benefits I would get by joining up for two years at 60% off if I hit the button \"\"now\"\", getting in at ground floor on the next technology stock rocket - I replied: \"\"What a hard sell - why wouldn't I apply the age old adage of \"\" If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is\"\" Their reply was; \"\"Thanks for your note. The honest answer is that despite people knowing they should do something to help themselves prepare for their financial futures, few actually do it. We find these messages actually work in getting people to hit 'yes', much better than an understated email that just says 'here are our results and our philosophy - let us know if you're interested', unfortunately. Yours Foolishly\"\" So I have put some of these recommendations onto a watch list, time will tell.\"",
"\"I would personally beware of the Motley Fool. Their success is based largely on their original investment strategy book. It had a lot of good advice in it, but it pushed a strategy called \"\"The Foolish Four\"\" which was an investing strategy. Since it was based on a buy-and-hold method with 18-month evaluation intervals, it was not a get-rich-quick scheme. However, its methods were validated through data mining and subsequently turned out to be not so good. At least they admit this: http://www.fool.com/ddow/2000/ddow001214.htm\""
] |
5241
|
Mortgage vs. Cash for U.S. home buy now
|
[
"376123",
"234286",
"322157",
"344740",
"27489"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"344740",
"281675",
"111184",
"234286",
"504479",
"273735",
"210972",
"107350",
"78518",
"438073",
"27693",
"445887",
"108924",
"475634",
"376123",
"444148",
"507151",
"28060",
"269368",
"485008",
"503988",
"553718",
"170471",
"178501",
"314163",
"63883",
"332159",
"175305",
"122382",
"158922",
"178496",
"236704",
"133735",
"317945",
"261382",
"4739",
"265477",
"439942",
"42604",
"201968",
"309420",
"540592",
"130734",
"564638",
"290631",
"22483",
"552299",
"543365",
"470388",
"319702",
"406243",
"415329",
"116017",
"117838",
"105634",
"116617",
"59147",
"533789",
"125986",
"537721",
"272634",
"42430",
"244254",
"202290",
"100039",
"453305",
"279229",
"72734",
"455952",
"64400",
"315972",
"168703",
"580809",
"379859",
"374731",
"426211",
"511317",
"290584",
"150893",
"358137",
"390447",
"100483",
"284153",
"157190",
"284818",
"167356",
"538062",
"224057",
"255414",
"293083",
"49069",
"559014",
"127601",
"232944",
"62694",
"187724",
"39716",
"361687",
"79378",
"81950"
] |
[
"\"Buying now with a mortgage gets you: Waiting to buy with all cash gets you: These are also some of the pros or cons for the rent or buy dilemma that Paul mentioned in comments to the OP. This is a very complex, multi-faceted question, that would not respond well to being put into any equation or financial model. Most people answer the question with \"\"buy the home now with a mortgage\"\" if they can pay for the down payment. This is why the mortgage industry exists. The people who would want to finance now rather than buy with all cash later would not only be analyzing the question in terms of financial health but also in terms of general well being. They might consider the tremendous pride that comes with home ownership and living under a roof of one's own. Who can say that those people are wrong?\"",
"Using cash to purchase a home allows you access to certain deals that mortgage buyers cannot take advantage of. These are typically distressed properties and need to be moved off the books quickly. Think of things like foreclosures and auctions. This does not mean that it gives you an advantage with every house on the market. While you may be able to close quickly, with cash, some buyers may choose to wait for the (presumably) higher offers of mortgage buyers. There are complications to purchasing in cash then mortgaging to replace that cash. Namely, how was that cash invested? If one were in mutual funds or stocks, with the money, one will have to pay capital gains tax on any profit. If those investments increase in value, during the time the money is tied up, what do you do then? Do you buy at the higher value or hold it back and dollar cost average it in?",
"\"If you mortgage after the fact you will usually pay an extra .25% higher on the interest rate because a \"\"cash out\"\" refinance is treated as riskier than a new home purchase mortgage. You might save enough on the purchase price of the home with a cash offer to make that higher interest rate worth it, but in most cases, if you are planning to hold the loan for a long time, it's best to get that mortgage at the time of purchase. You might be able to get the same deal with an offer that says you will pay cash if there are any problems getting the loan approved.\"",
"\"If you are investing in a mortgage strictly to avoid taxes, the answer is \"\"pay cash now.\"\" A mortgage buys you flexibility, but at the cost of long term security, and in most cases, an overall decrease in wealth too. At a very basic level, I have to ask anyone why they would pay a bank a dollar in order to avoid paying the government 28 - 36 cents depending on your tax rate. After all, one can only deduct interest- not principal. Interest is like rent, it accrues strictly to the lender, not equity. In theory the recipient should be irrelevant. If you have a need to stiff the government, go ahead. Just realize you making a banker three times as happy. Additionally the peace of mind that comes from having a house that no banker can take away from you is, at least for me, compelling. If I have a $300,000 house with no mortgage, no payments, etc. I feel quite safe. Even if my money is tied up in equity, if a serious situation came along (say a huge doctors bill) I always have the option of a reverse mortgage later on. So, to directly counter other claims, yes, I'd rather have $300k in equity then $50k in equity and $225k in liquid assets. (Did you notice that the total net worth is $25k less? And that's even before one considers the cash flow implication of a continuing mortgage. I have no mortgage, and I'm 41. I have a lot of net worth, but the thing that I really like is that I have a roof over my head that no on e can take away from me, and sufficient savings to weather most crises). That said, a mortgage is not about total cost. It is about cash flow. To the extent that a mortgage makes your cash flow situation better, it provides a benefit- just not one that is quantifiable in dollars and cents. Rather, it is a risk/reward situation. By taking a mortgage even when you have the cash, you pay a premium (the interest rate) in order to have your funds available when you need it. A very simple strategy to calculate and/or minimize this risk would be to invest the funds in another investment. If your rate of return exceeds the interest rate minus any tax preference (e.g. 4% minus say a 25% deduction = 3%), your money is better off there, obviously. And, indeed, when interest rates are only 4%, it may may be possible to find that. That said, in most instances, a CD or an inflation protected bond or so won't give you that rate of return. There, you'd need to look at stocks- slightly more risky. When interest rates are back to normal- say 5 or 6%, it gets even harder. If you could, however, find a better return than the effective interest rate, it makes the most sense to do that investment, hold it as a hedge to pay off the mortgage (see, you get your security back if you decide not to work!), and pocket the difference. If you can't do that, your only real reason to hold the cash should be the cash flow situation.\"",
"Good question. If a person has a choice, it is probably better to pay cash. But not always. If your large pile of cash can earn more being invested than cost of the interest to borrow a similar large pile of cash, it is beneficial to get a mortgage. Otherwise pay cash. EXAMPLE: A house costs $100,000. I have $100,000 in extra money. I can invest that at 5% per year, and I can borrow an additional $100,000 at 2% per year. Since I can make more on my pile of cash than it costs to borrow another pile of cash, borrowing is better. Compound interest is the most powerful force on the planet according to Albert Einstein (maybe). That isn't likely for most people though. Here is the results from some online financial calculators. http://www.calcxml.com/do/hom03 Borrowing $100,000 with 2% interest for 30 years will cost a total of $148.662. You get $100,000, but it cost you $48,662 to do it. http://www.calcxml.com/do/sav07 Saving $100,000 in a bank account with an interest rate of %5 will be worth $432,194 in 30 years. By not spending the money you will earn $332,194 over the course of 30 years. So if you can invest at 5% and borrow at 2% you will end up with $283,532 more than if you didn't. It is a pretty extreme example, and financial advisers make a lot of money figuring out the complex nature of money to make situations like that possible.",
"First, who is saying that it is a better option? In general it is best to pay cash for things when you can. I think the reality is that for most people owning a house would be very difficult without some sort of financing. That said, one argument for financing a house these days even if you could afford to pay cash is that the interest rates are very low. For a 30-year fixed loan you can borrow money under 4.5% APR with decent credit. If you are willing to accept even a little risk you could almost certainly invest that same money and get a return higher than 4.5%. With the US mortgage interest tax deduction the numbers are even more favorable for financing. Those rates look even more attractive when you consider you are paying for the house with today's dollars and paying back the loan with dollars from up to 30 years in the future, which will be worth much less.",
"\"Getting a mortgage for the interest write-off is like buying packs of baseball cards for the gum. That said, I'd refer you to The correct order of investing as much of that question really overlaps with this. This question boils down to priorities, the best use of the funds. There are those who suggest that a mortgage brings risk. Of course it does, just not for the borrower, the risk is borne by the lender. Risk comes from lack of liquidity. Say your girlfriend buys the house with cash, and leaves little reserve. She loses her job, and it's great that she has no mortgage. But she does have every other cost life brings, including a tax bill that can turn into a house getting foreclosed on. The details that you didn't disclose are those needed to look at the rest of the \"\"priorities\"\" list. A fully funded 401(k) with appropriate balance, and no other debt? And a 1 year emergency fund? I wouldn't argue against buying the house with cash. No real savings and passing on the 401(k) matched deposit? I'd think carefully about the longterm impact of the cash purchase.\"",
"The common opinion is an oversimplification at best. The problem with buying a house using cash is that it may leave you cash-poor, forcing you to take out a home equity loan at some point... which may be at a higher rate than the mortgage would have been. On the other hand, knowing that you have no obligation to a lender is quite nice, and many folks prefer eliminating that source of stress. IF you can get a mortgage at a sufficiently low rate, using it to leverage an investment is not a bad strategy. Average historical return on the stock market is around 8%, so any mortgage rate lower than that is a relatively good bet and a rate MUCH lower (as now) is that much better a bet. There is, of course, some risk involved and the obligation to make mortgage payments, and your actual return is reduced by what you're paying on the mortage... but it's still a pretty good deal. As far as investment vehicles: The same answers apply as always. You want a rate of return higher than what you're paying on the mortgage, preferably market rate of return or better. CDs won't do it, as you've found. You're going to have to increase the risk to increase the return. That does mean picking and maintaining a diversified balance of investments and investment types. Working with index funds makes diversifying within a type easy, but you're probably going to want both stocks and bonds, rebalancing between them when they drift too far from your desired mix. My own investments are a specific mix with one each of bond fund, large cap fund, small cap fund, REIT, and international fund. Bonds are the biggest part of that, since they're lowest risk, but the others play a greater part in producing returns on the investments. The exact mix that would be optimal for you depends on your risk tolerance (I'm classified as a moderately aggressive investor), the time horizon you're looking at before you may be forced to pull money back out of the investments, and some matters of personal taste. I've been averaging about 10%, but I had the luxury of being able to ride out the depression and indeed invest during it. Against that, my mortgage is under 4% interest rate, and is for less than 80% of the purchase price so I didn't need to pay the surcharge for mortgage insurance. In fact, I borrowed only half the cost of the house and paid the rest in cash, specifically because leveraging does involve some risk and this was the level of risk I was comfortable with. I also set the duration of the loan so it will be paid off at about the same time I expect to retire. Again, that's very much a personal judgement. If you need specific advice, it's worth finding a financial counselor and having them help you run the numbers. Do NOT go with someone associated with an investment house; they're going to be biased toward whatever produces the most income for them. Select someone who is strictly an advisor; they may cost you a bit more but they're more likely to give you useful advice. Don't take my word for any of this. I know enough to know how little I know. But hopefully I've given you some insight into what the issues are and what questions you need to ask, and answer, before making your decisions.",
"There are several factors that you need to consider: If you have already decided on the house. Did you prequalify for the mortgage loan - If so, did you lock in the rate. If you have not already done than your research is still valid. Consider two calculators first - Affordability + Mortgage calculator Advice : If you can afford to pay 20% down then please do, Lesser monthly mortgage payment, you can save approx 400 $ per month, the above calculator will give you an exact idea. If you can afford go for 15 years loan - Lower interest rate over 2-5 years period. Do not assume the average ROI will + 8-10%. It all depends on market and has variable factors like city, area and demand. In terms of Income your interest payment is Tax deductible at the end of the year.",
"\"Condensed to the essence: if you can reliably get more income from investing the cost of the house than the mortgage is costing you, this is the safest leveraged investment you'll ever make. There's some risk, of course, but there is risk in any financial decision. Taking the mortgage also leaves you with far greater flexibility than if you become \"\"house- rich but cash-poor\"\". (Note that you probably shouldn't be buying at all if you may need geographic flexibility in the next five years or so; that's another part of the liquidity issue.) Also, it doesn't have to be either/or. I borrowed half and paid the rest in cash, though I could have taken either extreme, because that was the balance of certainty vs.risk that I was comfortable with. I also took a shorter mortgage than I might have, again trading off risk and return; I decided I would rather have the house paid off at about the same time that I retire.\"",
"I'd pay cash. Car loans are amortized, so sometimes you can get upside-down on the loan between 18-30 months because you are pre-paying interest. This can get you into trouble if you get into an accident. Given the low rate and the type of car you're buying, you're probably fine either way.",
"\"I'm a little confused on the use of the property today. Is this place going to be a personal residence for you for now and become a rental later (after the mortgage is paid off)? It does make a difference. If you can buy the house and a 100% LTV loan would cost less than 125% of comparable rent ... then buy the house, put as little of your own cash into it as possible and stretch the terms as long as possible. Scott W is correct on a number of counts. The \"\"cost\"\" of the mortgage is the after tax cost of the payments and when that money is put to work in a well-managed portfolio, it should do better over the long haul. Don't try for big gains because doing so adds to the risk that you'll end up worse off. If you borrow money at an after-tax cost of 4% and make 6% after taxes ... you end up ahead and build wealth. A vast majority of the wealthiest people use this arbitrage to continue to build wealth. They have plenty of money to pay off mortgages, but choose not to. $200,000 at 2% is an extra $4000 per year. Compounded at a 7% rate ... it adds up to $180k after 20 years ... not exactly chump change. Money in an investment account is accessible when you need it. Money in home equity is not, has a zero rate of return (before inflation) and is not accessible except through another loan at the bank's whim. If you lose your job and your home is close to paid off but isn't yet, you could have a serious liquidity issue. NOW ... if a 100% mortgage would cost MORE than 125% of comparable rent, then there should be no deal. You are looking at a crappy investment. It is cheaper and better just to rent. I don't care if prices are going up right now. Prices move around. Just because Canada hasn't seen the value drops like in the US so far doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. If comparable rents don't validate the price with a good margin for profit for an investor, then prices are frothy and cannot be trusted and you should lower your monthly costs by renting rather than buying. That $350 per month you could save in \"\"rent\"\" adds up just as much as the $4000 per year in arbitrage. For rentals, you should only pull the trigger when you can do the purchase without leverage and STILL get a 10% CAP rate or higher (rate of return after taxes, insurance and other fixed costs). That way if the rental rates drop (and again that is quite possible), you would lose some of your profit but not all of it. If you leverage the property, there is a high probability that you could wind up losing money as rents fall and you have to cover the mortgage out of nonexistent cash flow. I know somebody is going to say, \"\"But John, 10% CAP on rental real estate? That's just not possible around here.\"\" That may be the case. It IS possible somewhere. I have clients buying property in Arizona, New Mexico, Alberta, Michigan and even California who are finding 10% CAP rate properties. They do exist. They just aren't everywhere. If you want to add leverage to the rental picture to improve the return, then do so understanding the risks. He who lives by the leverage sword, dies by the leverage sword. Down here in the US, the real estate market is littered with corpses of people who thought they could handle that leverage sword. It is a gory, ugly mess.\"",
"Unless you are getting better than a 2.95% return on that money market account. Pay cash. That's the purely logical way to make the decision. However if it were me I'd pay cash anyway just because I like the idea of not owing money and having the hassle of dealing with a payment every month.",
"For Option 2 - do you really think you can guarantee an average return of 8% here. Historical returns are no guarantee of future returns. Even if you could get higher returns for option 2 than the interest rate on the mortgage, are you able to cover all the additional fees with the PMI in placing such a low down payment? The wiser choice in my opinion would be to chose option 1.",
"\"I'm in the \"\"big mortgage\"\" camp. Or, to put this another way - what would you be happier to have in 15 years? A house that is worth $300,000, or $50,000 of equity in a house and $225,000 in the bank? I would much rather have the latter; it gives me so many more options. (the numbers are rough; you can figure it out yourself based on the current interest rate you can get on investments vs the cost of mortgage interest (which may be less if you can deduct the mortgage interest)).\"",
"The reason for borrowing instead of paying cash for major renovations should be the same for the decision about whether to borrow or pay cash for the home itself. Over history, borrowing using low, tax-deductible interest while increasing your retirement contributions has always yielded higher returns than paying off mortgage principal over the long term. You should first determine how much you need to save for retirement, factor that into your budget, then borrow as much as needed (and can afford) to live at whatever level of home you decide is important to you. Using this same logic, if interest rates are low enough, it would behoove you to refinance with cash out leveraging the cash to use as additional retirement savings.",
"I would go with the family route if I was you. And i think many other people would if they were fortunate to have such a great option. This will allow you to move faster when your trying to buy a new house because you can easily get a mortage if you see a stellar deal. Also you can establish credit in much cheaper ways than paying the 4% or so on a mortgage. finance a car that you have the money to buy because the interest rates are much lower .9% and you build the credit while paying less interest. Or even better, try and make most of your purchases on a 0 fee credit card and every 6-8 months get a new credit card to have multiple lines of ongoing credit. to use the mortage to establish credit isnt worth the 4% hit in wealth that it offers. now mind you if your options were to buy the house with your own money outright or get a mortgage i would say get the mortgage because the added leverage would help your investments beat the market most years . figure if you get 6% an average portfolio each year and you can write off the taxes on your mortgage you will be ahead by more than 2%",
"That is a decision you need to make, but some of the pros and cons you could consider to help your decision making include: Pros: If bought at the right time in the property cycle and in a good growth area, it can help you grow your net worth much quicker than having money in the bank earning near zero interest. You would be replacing rent payments with mortgage payments and if your mortage payments are less than your current rent you will have additional money to pay for any expenses on the property and have a similar cashflow as you do now. You will be able to deduct your interest payments on the mortgage against your income if you are in the USA, thus reducing the tax you pay. You will have the security of your own house and not have to worry about moving if the landlord wants you out after your lease expires. Cons: If bought in a bad area and at the top of the property cycle you may never make any capital gains on the property and in fact may lose money on it long term. If the mortgage payments are more than your current rent you may be paying more especially at the start of your mortgage. If you buy a house you are generally stuck in one spot, it will be harder to move to different areas or states as it can cost a lot of money and time to sell and buy elsewhere, if renting you can generally just give notice and find a new place to rent. Property maintenance costs and taxes could be a drain on your finances, especially if the mortgage repayments are more than your current rent. If your mortgage payments and property expenses are way more than your current rent, it may reduce what you could be investing in other areas to help increase your net worth.",
"Pay cash for the house but negotiate at least a 4% discount. You already made your money without having to deal with long term unknowns. I don't get why people would want invest with risk when the alternative are immediate realized gains.",
"Except for unusual tax situations your effective interest rate after taking into account the tax deduction will still be positive. It is simply reduced by your marginal rate. Therefore you will end up paying more if the house is financed than if it is bought straight out. Note this does not take into account other factors such as maintaining liquidity or the potential for earning a greater rate of return by investing the money that would otherwise be used to pay for the house",
"Reasons for no: In your first sentence you say something interesting: rates low - prices high. Actually those 2 are reversely correlated, imagine if rates would be 5% higher-very few people could buy at current prices so prices would drop. Also you need to keep in mind the rate of inflation that was much higher during some periods in the US history(for example over 10% in the 1980) so you can not make comparisons just based on the nominal interest rate. Putting all your eggs in one basket. If you think real estate is a good investment buy some REITs for 10k, do not spend 20% of your future income for 20 years. Maintenance - people who rent usually underestimate this or do not even count it when making rent vs mortgage comparisons. Reasons for yes: Lifestyle decision - you don't want to be kicked out of your house, you want to remodel... Speculation - I would recommend against this strongly, but housing prices go up and down, if they will go up you can make a lot of money. To answer one of questions directly: 1. My guess is that FED will try to keep rates well bellow 10% (even much lower, since government can not service debts if interest rates go much higher), but nobody can say if they will succeed.",
"Your wealth will go up if your effective rate after taxes is less than the inflation rate. That is, if your interest rate is R and marginal tax rate is T, then you need R*(1-T) to be less than inflation to make a loan worth it. Lately inflation has been bouncing around between 1% and 1.8%. Let's assume a 25% tax rate. Is your interest rate lower than between 1.3% and 2.4%? If not, don't take out a loan. Another thing to consider: when you take out a loan you have to do a ton of extra stuff to make the lender happy (inspections, appraisals, origination charges, etc.). These really add up and are part of the closing costs as well as the time/trouble of buying a house. I recently bought my house using 100% cash. It was 2 weeks between when I agreed to a price to when the deal was sealed and my realtor said I probably saved about $10,000 in closing costs. I think she was exaggerating, but it was a lot of time and money I saved. My final closing costs were only a few hundred, not thousands, of dollars. TL;DR: Loans are for suckers. Avoid if possible.",
"Well, it really doesn't make sense to pay for either in cash. For these purchases, unless you're super wealthy, you won't be paying it in full. If you were to pay in full, then I don't see any practical point to withdraw that money in cash.",
"I would not claim to be a personal expert in rental property. I do have friends and family and acquaintances who run rental units for additional income and/or make a full time living at the rental business. As JoeTaxpayer points out, rentals are a cash-eating business. You need to have enough liquid funds to endure uncertainty with maintenance and vacancy costs. Often a leveraged rental will show high ROI or CAGR, but that must be balanced by your overall risk and liquidity position. I have been told that a good rule-of-thumb is to buy in cash with a target ROI of 10%. Of course, YMMV and might not be realistic for your market. It may require you to do some serious bargain hunting, which seems reasonable based on the stagnant market you described. Some examples: The main point here is assessing the risk associated with financing real estate. The ROI (or CAGR) of a financed property looks great, but consider the Net Income. A few expensive maintenance events or vacancies will quickly get you to a negative cash flow. Multiply this by a few rentals and your risk exposure is multiplied too! Note that i did not factor in appreciation based on OP information. Cash Purchase with some very rough estimates based on OP example Net Income = (RENT - TAX - MAINT) = $17200 per year Finance Purchase rough estimate with 20% down Net Income = (RENT - MORT - TAX - MAINT) = $7500 per year",
"Advantages of buying: With every mortgage payment you build equity, while with rent, once you sign the check the money is gone. Eventually you will own the house and can live there for free. You can redecorate or remodel to your own liking, rather than being stuck with what the landlord decides is attractive, cost-effective, etc. Here in the U.S. there are tax breaks for homeowners. I'm not sure if that's true in U.K. Advantages of renting: If you decide to move, you may be stuck paying out a lease, but the financial penalty is small. With a house, you may find it difficult to sell. You may be stuck accepting a big loss or having to pay a mortgage on the empty house while you are also paying for your new place. When there are maintenance issues, you call the landlord and it's up to him to fix it. You don't have to come up with the money to pay for repairs. You usually have less maintenance work to do: with a house you have to mow the lawn, clear snow from the driveway, etc. With a rental, usually the landlord does that for you. (Not always, depends on type of rental, but.) You can often buy a house for less than it would cost to rent an equivalent property, but this can be misleading. When you buy, you have to pay property taxes and pay for maintenance; when you rent, these things are included in the rent. How expensive a house you can afford to buy is not a question that can be answered objectively. Banks have formulas that limit how much they will loan you, but in my experience that's always been a rather high upper bound, much more than I would actually be comfortable borrowing. The biggest issue really is, How important is it to you to have a nice house? If your life-long dream is to have a big, luxurious, expensive house, then maybe it's worth it to you to pour every spare penny you have into the mortgage. Other people might prefer to spend less on their house so that they have spare cash for a nice car, concert tickets, video games, cocaine, whatever. Bear in mind that if you get a mortgage that you can just barely afford, what do you do if something goes wrong and you can't afford it any more? What if you lose your job and have to take a lower-paying job? What if some disaster strikes and you have some other huge expense? Etc. On the flip side, the burden of a mortgage usually goes down over time. Most people find that their incomes go up over time, between inflation and growing experience. But the amount of a mortgage is fixed, or if it varies it varies with interest rates, probably bouncing up and down rather than going steadily up like inflation. So it's likely -- not at all certain, but likely -- that if you can just barely afford the payment now, that in 5 or 10 years it won't be as big a burden.",
"It's six of one a half dozen of another. Investing the cash is a little more risky. You know exactly what you'll get by paying down your mortgage. If you have a solid emergency fund it's probably most advisable to pay down your mortgage. If your mortgage is 3% and your investment makes 3.5% you're talking about a taxable gain of 0.5% on the additional cash. Is that worth it to you? Sure, the S&P has been on a tear but remember, past results are not a guarantee of future performance.",
"I'd put the 20% down, close on the house, live in it for a year, and save the difference. If you find your cash flow is fine, run a calculation and start on a program of prepaying a bit of principal each month as an extra payment. If you study how amortization works, you'll understand that an extra payment of about 1/6 the amount due will knock off a full payment at the end. This is how a 30 year mortgage starts out. Meanwhile, you should keep in mind, it's easy to prepay the mortgage, but there's really no getting it back. So, before letting go of your money, I'd do a few things; I may be stating the obvious, but consider - No matter how low the payment on your mortgage, a payment is due each and every month until it's paid off. You put 80% down, take a 10 year mortgage, you still have payments for 10 years. You want to insure yourself against needing to sell in a hurry if you both lose your jobs, so whatever you put down, I'd recommend a healthy emergency account, 9-12 months worth of expenses.",
"Mortgage rates are at record lows. The 30 yr fixed is now below 4%, if you are in the 25% bracket and itemize (state income tax, property tax, donations, easy to pass the minimum) it costs you 3% post tax. This is the rate of long term inflation, effectively making this money free. You are likely to be able to average a far greater return than this mortgage is costing you. These rates may last another year or two, but long term, they are an anomaly. ETFs such as DVY (the Dow high dividend stocks) are yielding over 3.75%, 3.2% after the 15% cap gain tax. i.e. you get a small positive return, and the potential for capital gains. If this ETF rises just 3%/yr it's all profit above your cost of money. That said, there are those who sleep better with a paid in full house, regardless of the rate. To that extreme, I've read those who make paying their mortgage a priority ahead of funding their matched 401(k). While I can guess what the market will return, but can't know what will actual happen, it's foolish to skip one's match. They reason that the market can crash, I reply the 401(k) has to have a short term fund, money market or T-bill type returns, but a 100% match is a no-brainer. Using an estimated 4% for the 30 and 3.5% for the 15, the payment on the 15 yr mortgage will be 50% higher, $1430 (15yr) for $200K vs $955 for the 30. How does this play in your budget? Do you have an adequate emergency fund? Are you funding your retirement plan at a decent level? In the end, there is no right answer, just what's right for you. Understanding the rest of your financial picture will get you more detailed advice. Not knowing your situation limits the answers. Edit 6/30/2015 - When I wrote this answer, the DVY was trading at $48.24. $100,000 invested would have given off $3187/yr after a 15% dividend tax rate. At $75/share now, the $100,000 investment would be worth $155,472 and yielding $5597 for a net $4757 after tax. The choice to go DVY would have been profitable from the start, with room now for a 35% crash before losing any money.",
"Which is generally the better option (financially)? Invest. If you can return 7-8% (less than the historical return of the S&P 500) on your money over the course of 25 years this will outperform purchasing personal property. If you WANT to own a house for other reason apart from the financial benefits then buy a house. Will you earn 7-8% on your money, there is a pretty good chance this is no because investors are prone to act emotionally.",
"I just read through all of the answers to this question and there is an important point that no one has mentioned yet: Oftentimes, buying a house is actually cheaper than renting the identical house. I'm looking around my area (suburbs of Chicago, IL) in 2017 and seeing some houses that are both for sale and for rent, which makes for an easy comparison. If I buy the house with $0 down (you can't actually put $0 down but it makes the numerical comparison more accurate if you do), my monthly payment including mortgage (P+I), taxes, insurance, and HOA, is still $400 less than the monthly rent payment. (If I put 20% down it's an even bigger savings.) So, in addition to the the tax advantages of owning a home, the locked in price that helps you in an economy that experiences inflation, and the accumulated equity, you may even have extra cash flow too. If you were on the fence when you would have had to pay more per month in order to purchase, it should be a no-brainer to buy if your monthly cost is lower. From the original question: Get a loan and buy a house, or I can live for the rest of my life in rent and save the extra money (investing and stuff). Well, you may be able to buy a house and save even more money than if you rent. Of course, this is highly dependent on your location.",
"\"As the answer above states, future inflation mitigates \"\"unwise\"\" for a longer term mortgage, at least in financial-only terms. But consider that, if you lose your ability to make payments for long enough time ANYTIME during term, the lending institution has a right to repossess, leaving you with NOTHING or worse for all the maintenance you've had to do. You can never know, but eleven years into my mortgage, I lost enough of my income for just long enough time to have to sell for just enough to pay the remainder of the mortgage and walk away with empty pockets. To help clarify understanding even better, contrast the 30-yr mortgage with the other extreme: save up and own from day one. When I did the math a few years ago, buying with a 30-year mortgage would cost cumulatively almost 3 times the real house value in mortgage payments with never the freedom to suspend payments when I might need to. Being a freedom-loving American, I determined to buy a house with cash. DON'T FORGET that mortgageable properties are over-priced just because buyers less wise than you are so willing to borrow to buy them, so I decided to buy some fixer-upper that no bank would lend on. I found such a fixer-upper, paid cash, never have to worry about repossession by a lender, can continue to save up for my dream home which I'll own a lot sooner, and will have a nice increase in house value while I fix it up to help get me there, and NO INSURANCE PAYMENTS to some insurer who'll tell me what I can't do with MY property. Let the next buyer of your fixed-up, paid-off house pay YOU the over-priced amount they are willing to pay just because THEY can get that 30-year mortgage, and you enjoy the freedom to dream and adjust your budget to the needs of the moment and end up with a house in 30 years (15, more realistically) that is 2.5 times more valuable. And keep from fighting with your spouse over finances in the meantime.\"",
"A few things to keep in mind. A 90% mortgage is $76,500, PMI for 10% down is $76,500/2300 = $33/mo. This, plus $557 is still lower than your rent. I'd take the 15 since you want to get rid of that PMI as soon as you can. Often the bank will require the PMI be removed only after the regularly scheduled payments have gotten you to 20% equity, prepayments mat not count. This may have changed recently. Check to be sure. Even in 5 years, you'll save compared to the rent, and from this point, odds are it will increase in value. I'd not count on any tax deduction. Your standard deduction is $11,400. Even at the higher rate, you'd have $3200 in interest, property tax can't be over $2000. You have an easy tax return, I'd say. Good luck. UPDATE - it's now 2016 - The standard deduction is $12,600 for a couple. With the interest maybe at $3200, and property tax at $2000, curious why any other readers would think the OP would be itemizing.",
"To give the seller cash at the closing, you will need to borrow the money ahead of time, which means a mortgage is out. A bank will only make a mortgage if they get the deed. Therefore, you will have to borrow a different way, such as through a more-expensive home equity loan.",
"\"Whether or not you choose to buy is a complicated question. I will answer as \"\"what you should consider/think about\"\" as I don't think \"\"What should I do\"\" is on topic. First off, renting tends to look expensive compared to mortgages until you factor in the other costs that are included in your rent. Property taxes. These are a few grand a year even in the worst areas, and tend to be more. Find out what the taxes are ahead of time. Even though you can often deduct them (and your interest), you're giving up your standard deduction to do so - and with the low interest regime currently, unless your taxes are high you may not end up being better off deducting them. Home insurance. This depends on home and area, but is at least hundreds of dollars per year, and could easily run a thousand. So another hundred a month on your bill (and it's more than renter's insurance by quite a lot). Upkeep costs for the property. You've got a lot of up-front costs (buy a lawnmower, etc. types of things) plus a lot of ongoing costs (general repair, plumbing breaks, electrical breaks, whatnot). Sales commission, as Scott notes in comments. When you sell, you're paying about 6% commission; so you won't be above water, if housing prices stay flat, until you've paid off 6% of your loan value (plus closing costs, another couple of percent). You hit the 90% point on a 15 year about year 2, but on a 30 year you don't hit it until about year 5, so you might not be above water when you want to sell. Risk of decrease in value. Whenever you buy property, you take on the risk of losing value as well as the potential of gaining value. Don't assume that because prices are going up they will continue to; remember that a lot of investors are well aware of possible profits from rising prices and will be buying (and driving prices up) themselves. 2008 was a shock to a lot of people, even in areas where it seemed like prices should've still gone up; you never know what's going to happen. If you buy a house for 20% or so down, you have a bit of a safety net (if it drops 10-20% in value, you're still above water, though you do of course lose money), while if you buy it for 0% down and it drops 20% in value, you won't be able to sell (at all) for years. All that together means you should really take a hard look at the costs and benefits, make a realistic calculation including all actual costs, and then make a decision. I would not buy simply because it seems like a good idea to not pay rent. If you're unable to make any down payment, then you're also unable to deal with the risks in home ownership - not just decrease in value, but when your pipe bursts and ruins your basement, or when the roof needs a replacement because a tree falls on it. Yes, home insurance helps, but not always, and the deductible will still get you. Just to have some numbers: For my area, we pay about $8000 a year in property taxes on a $280k house ($200k mortgage), $1k a year in home insurance, so our escrow payment is about $750 a month. A 15 year for $200k is about $1400 a month, so $2200 or so total cost. We do live in a high property tax area, so someone in lower tax regimes would pay less - say 1800-1900 - but not that cheap. A 30 year would save you 500 or so a month, but you're still not all that much lower than rent.\"",
"Quite honestly, with the current interest rates, you're better off getting a loan, putting the cash into some top performing equity funds and paying down on the loan. If for some reason you're in need of the capital, the stocks are going to be much more liquid. Being debt free is a good thing, but there is also a right way to leverage yourself. At the end of the day though, and despite what anyone on this site tells you, you need to run the numbers, make the long term projections to determine what's the best route to take.",
"\"Some pros and cons to renting vs buying: Some advantages of buying: When you rent, the money you pay is gone. When you buy, assuming you don't have the cash to buy outright but get a mortgage, some of the payment goes to interest, but you are building equity. Ultimately you pay off the mortgage and you can then live rent-free. When you buy, you can alter your home to your liking. You can paint in the colors you like, put in the carpet or flooring you like, heck, tear down walls and alter the floor plan (subject to building codes and safety consideration, of course). If you rent, you are usually sharply limited in what alterations you can make. In the U.S., mortgage interest is tax deductible. Rent is not. Property taxes are deductible from your federal income tax. So if you have, say, $1000 mortgage vs $1000 rent, the mortgage is actually cheaper. Advantages of renting: There are a lot of transaction costs involved in buying a house. You have to pay a realtor's commission, various legal fees, usually \"\"loan origination fees\"\" to the bank, etc. Plus the way mortgages are designed, your total payment is the same throughout the life of the loan. But for the first payment you owe interest on the total balance of the loan, while the last payment you only owe interest on a small amount. So early payments are mostly interest. This leads to the conventional advice that you should not buy unless you plan to live in the house for some reasonably long period of time, exact amount varying with whose giving the advice, but I think 3 to 5 years is common. One mitigating factor: Bear in mind that if you buy a house, and then after 2 years sell it, and you discover that the sale price minus purchase price minus closing costs ends up a net minus, say, $20,000, it's not entirely fair to say \"\"zounds! I lost $20,000 by buying\"\". If you had not bought this house, presumably you would have been renting. So the fair comparison is, mortgage payments plus losses on the resale compared to likely rental payments for the same period.\"",
"\"It depends on what your plans for the future are.. Taking out a loan is not a bad thing if it is at a good rate and under good terms and you are sure you can handle the payments. If you buy the car with cash you may be giving up the opportunity to later get a great rate on that $8k. However, you are probably not utilizing that $20k to make as much interest as you'd then be paying if you did take the $8k on loan. Since you say \"\"house fund\"\" I assume you are saving to make a down payment on a new house. If you plan to buy that house within the next 6 months the hard pulls on your credit report from applying for the car loan will probably ding your credit score for the next 6 months which might cost you on your mortgage rate. However, if you don't plan to buy for a few more years and if you've never had a car payment before then the auto loan would actually be adding diversity to your credit history and in the long run would help your score. Another factor to consider is the loan-to-value ratio you are shooting for. LTV affects the interest rate, requirements for private mortgage insurance, etc.. Mortgage rates are at an all-time low and lower than auto-rates, so depending on the terms of the house purchase that $8k might be better spent on the car than the house. In short, if you want to buy the house soon (rates are loooow, market is a buyer's market), and you need that $8k to get a better mortgage rate or prevent you from being required to buy PMI you should probably put it toward the house. Otherwise you should probably put it toward the car. Last piece of advice. If you absolutely must buy a house and a car in the same short time-frame, do them both on the same day so that your credit score is not dinged before applying for one or the other. With mortgages this may be difficult considering the longer closing procedures, but try to time it so that your credit is getting checked by the mortgage broker and the auto lender on the same day.\"",
"Two cases: You take the credit and reinvest the cash equivalent (be it a savings account or otherwise), yielding you the x% at virtually zero risk. Unless of course you consider possibility of your own negligence a risk (in case of missed payments, etc.). You pay by cash and have the peace of mind at the cost of that x%. The ultimate decision depends on which you value more - the $ you get from x%, or the peace of mind.",
"I don't have a solid data-backed answer, but this is too lengthy for a comment. I've read that on average, about 1-2% is what you can get as a cash discount on a home purchase, all else being equal, but no hard data to back that. In certain situations it makes sense for a cash discount to be much greater than that, for instance, if the seller is in a hurry to close and your cash offer has no inspection clause. Similarly, if a house has been re-listed after a sale fell through you might get a greater cash-discount, or if an owner just over-values the advantages of a cash-offer. Anecdotally, I had a neighbor take a cash offer 5% below asking and they had multiple offers at asking, they took the cash offer so they could close faster (15 days). Also, I've lost out to a cash offer, also at 5% below asking, and they also had a short-closing period and no-inspection, my offer was over asking on that one, so total cash discount > 5%. There can be more volatility in the luxury home market, but I wouldn't guess that changes the cash vs financed evaluation much. Would love to see if anyone finds a good source, but even if they do, an average is only so helpful.",
"\"When you refinance, there is cost (guess: around $2000-$3000) to cover lawyers, paperwork, surveys, deed insurance, etc. etc. etc. Someone has to pay that cost, and in the end it will be you. Even if you get a \"\"no points no cost\"\" loan, the cost is going to be hidden in the interest rate. That's the way transactions with knowledgeable companies works: they do business because they benefit (profit) from it. The expectation is that what they need is different from what you need, so that each of you benefits. But, when it's a primarily cash transaction, you can't both end up with more money. So, unless value will be created somewhere else from the process (and don't include the +cash, because that ends up tacked onto the principle), this seems like paying for financial entertainment, and there are better ways to do that.\"",
"Also keep in mind that with an all-cash offer, they get their money now and not spread over X-many years, which means they can reinvest it now rather than piece meal across the term of whatever the loan would be. (Presuming the bank would be financing the house themselves.) Additionally, with an all-cash offer, there end to be fewer lawyers at the table, fewer parties total, so the process can generally proceed faster.",
"First, I assume you understand that 'Cash Offer' doesn't mean you really show up with cash (in a duffel bag...), but is an expression that designates that you don't need a mortgage approval, but have the money in your accounts. The advantages for the seller are With both cases depending on the seller's situation, there can't be a generic answer, and the 'discount' will be all over the place between zero and several percent.",
"If you can get a mortgage with 10% downpayment and the seller will accept (some may want at least 20% downpayment for whatever reasons) and with PMI it still lower than your rent, sounds like it's a good idea to buy now. Of course this assumes that the money you'd be otherwise saving for 20% downpayment will be used to pay off a mortgage faster.",
"I would lean towards making a smaller down payment and hanging onto savings for flexibility. Questions to think about: If you have enough cash that you can make a huge down payment and still have all the other bases covered, then it comes down to your risk tolerance and personal style. You can almost definitely build a portfolio that will beat your mortgage rate on average over the long term, but with more risk and volatility. Heck, you could make a 20% down payment on another house and rent it out.",
"Morpheus, I think you are approaching this question the wrong way. The interest rate is not the most important consideration; you also need to consider the other characteristics of the investment. Money in a bank account is very liquid; you can do anything you want with it. Equity in a house is very illiquid; it is hard and expensive to access. Let's say you have $25,000 to either go towards a bigger downpayment or to invest. What happens if you lose your job? If you have $25,000 in the bank, you have a lot of flexibility; you can pay a mortgage for a number of months, or you could use it to relocate. If you put the money in the house, you cannot access it at all; without a job you can't refi or get a home equity loan. Your only recourse would be to sell the house, which might not be possible if there are systemic issues (such as the ones in the real estate crash). Even if you can refi or get a home equity loan, you will have to pay fees. My advice is to put the money somewhere else. If your term is long (say, 10 years or so), I would put the money in an index fund.",
"\"Pay cash. You have the cash to pay for it now, but God forbid something happen to you or your wife that requires you to dip into that cash in the future. In such an event, you could end up paying a lot more for your home theater than you planned. The best way to keep your consumer credit card debt at zero (and protect your already-excellent credit) is to not add to the number of credit cards you already have. At least in the U.S., interest rates on saving accounts of any sort are so low, I don't think it's worthwhile to include as a deciding factor in whether not you \"\"borrow\"\" at 0% instead of buying in cash.\"",
"Whether it is better to buy or to rent depends on several factors. Most of them are fairly uncertain, but calculations can be made to see how they play out in the long-term for insight into their impact. The results below are made on the basis that both the buyer and the tenant spend the same amount, in this case $1,480.03 per month. The buyer pays his mortgage and when it's all paid for he switches to investing $1,480.03 per month at the fund deposit rate. Meanwhile the tenant pays rent and invests whatever remains from $1,480.03 per month at the fund deposit rate. The amount $1,480.03 is set by the mortgage case and used by buyer and tenant for equal comparison. Taking some hopefully not too unrealistic rate estimates, these are the calculation inputs:- (All percentages are expressed as effective annual rates) Plot of buyer's and tenant's accumulated assets over time The simulation extends for twice the term of the mortgage. If the investment fund can return 7% and a $900 rental is comparable to a $300,000 house then there isn't much of a compelling case either way. Lowering the expected fund return shows a different picture. Sticking with the 5.0% fund return, lowering the rent brings the tenant's asset accumulation closer to the buyer's. If there is a particular set of inputs you would like to see plotted I'm sure I could add another example to this post. There is also an interactive version of the calculation which you can find via this page. However, unlike the examples above which include a deposit and grant, it just explores the simple case of a 100% mortgage. The aim is just to see how rate variations affect asset value over time.",
"\"In most cases of purchases the general advice is to save the money and then make the purchase. Paying cash for a car is recommended over paying credit for example. For a house, getting a mortgage is recommended. Says who? These rules of thumb hide the actual equations behind them; they should be understood as heuristics, not as the word of god. The Basics The basic idea is, if you pay for something upfront, you pay some fixed cost, call it X, where as with a loan you need to pay interest payments on X, say %I, as well as at least fixed payments P at timeframe T, resulting in some long term payment IX. Your Assumption To some, this obviously means upfront payments are better than interest payments, as by the time the loan is paid off, you will have paid more than X. This is a good rule of thumb (like Newtonian's equations) at low X, high %I, and moderate T, because all of that serves to make the end result IX > X. Counter Examples Are there circumstances where the opposite is true? Here's a simple but contrived one: you don't pay the full timeframe. Suppose you die, declare bankruptcy, move to another country, or any other event that reduces T in such a way that XI is less than X. This actually is a big concern for older debtors or those who contract terminal illnesses, as you can't squeeze those payments out of the dead. This is basically manipulating the whole concept. Let's try a less contrived example: suppose you can get a return higher than %I. I can currently get a loan at around %3 due to good credit, but index funds in the long run tend to pay %4-%5. Taking a loan and investing it may pay off, and would be better than waiting to have the money, even in some less than ideal markets. This is basically manipulating T to deal with IX. Even less contrived and very real world, suppose you know your cash flow will increase soon; a promotion, an inheritance, a good market return. It may be better to take the loan now, enjoy whatever product you get until that cash flows in, then pay it all off at once; the enjoyment of the product will make the slight additional interest worth it. This isn't so much manipulating any part of the equation, it's just you have different goals than the loan. Home Loan Analysis For long term mortgages, X is high, usually higher than a few years pay; it would be a large burden to save that money for most people. %I is also typically fairly low; P is directly related to %I, and the bank can't afford to raise payments too much, or people will rent instead, meaning P needs to be affordable. This does not apply in very expensive areas, which is why cities are often mostly renters. T is also extremely long; usually mortgages are for 15 or 30 years, though 10 year options are available. Even with these shorter terms, it's basically the longest term loan a human will ever take. This long term means there is plenty of time for the market to have a fluctuation and raise the investments current price above the remainder of the loan and interest accrued, allowing you to sell at a profit. As well, consider the opportunity cost; while saving money for a home, you still need a place to live. This additional cost is comparable to mortgage payments, meaning X has a hidden constant; the cost of renting. Often X + R > IX, making taking a loan a better choice than saving up. Conclusion \"\"The general advice\"\" is a good heuristic for most common human payments; we have relatively long life spans compared to most common payments, and the opportunity cost of not having most goods is relatively low. However, certain things have a high opportunity cost; if you can't talk to HR, you can't apply for jobs (phone), if you can't get to work, you can't eat (car), and if you have no where to live, it's hard to keep a job (house). For things with high opportunity costs, the interest payments are more than worth it.\"",
"The rent versus buy question is a deeply personal one in which your personal desires for a living space need to be carefully combined with what makes economic sense. Do you want your own place with all the joys of having it be yours and all the pains of having to handle all the maintenance and be the one ultimately responsible? Have you tried living for a few months putting aside the amount required for not only a mortgage payment but the taxes and insurance on a house/condo in your price range to see if you can really afford it? You can use a real estate website such as trulia to see the assessments of some for sale homes and figure out tax values. The average home insurance in the US is around $900/year if I remember right - more for homes that are more expensive and less for less expensive ones, with flooding and other hazards as a factor. Make sure you can afford to pay for all these items. From a financial perspective realize that you'll always be spending money on your living space. Even if you pay for a house with cash you will be paying property tax and maintenance and would be wise to continue paying for insurance. The value of the house at that point is, as contributor fennec often says, the rent you aren't paying. I personally don't recommend trying to time the market. You can't predict the future - will real estate in your area be a double dip or has it bottomed and is it going up? What you can do is buy a home only when you are sure that you can deal with its relative lack of liquidity by staying there for a long time. Five years is usually a reasonable minimum. There is a way that I recommend figuring out if it is likely bad financial decision to buy, and that's by looking at a financial comparison of renting versus buying. In some cases even with the bursting of the bubble it is still a bad deal to buy. DC went from renting being more cost effective to buying, but San Francisco is one area where buying is still not necessarily the best choice. To figure out what the case is for your area, look at the New York Times rent versus buy calculator. Find a home for rent on craigslist similar to what you'd look to buy. Find a home for sale on one of the MLS aggregator sites that represents something you think you'd like. Plug in the numbers. Figure out how many years you'd have to stay in your purchase for it to be a good deal. In the likely event that the calculator says buy, start saving if that's what you really want. You're never going to be able to absolutely guarantee that you won't be upside down. What you can control is getting as much principal in that house as you can. The more you have, the less likely you will be upside down. Build a down payment now, reap the rewards later.",
"One other point to consider is that cash offers often include no contingencies. That is, the offer comes in and if the seller signs then the deal is done, without any chance that the buyer backs out. As you can imagine, this is an attractive option in some situations.",
"\"I've found that once people \"\"fall in love\"\" with a home or the idea of a home, there's little chance they will chance course. I'd implore you to do some reading about individuals and families trapped in an underwater mortgage and having lost a job -- now they can't move for work, and they can't refinance or sell. In short, they are trapped and will be foreclosed upon (or, at best, will short-sell). If you want to play knife-catcher (e.g., trying to buy an asset while its value is falling) then at least don't go in blind or kid yourself about the risks. Of course, many folks believe the housing market has bottomed - if that's true then there's no harm in waiting 6 or 12 months and verifying that premise. At most, you'll lose a couple of points in equity. On the other hand, you may well discover that all is not well, and suddenly you can \"\"afford\"\" even \"\"more\"\" house. It is not hyperbole to say that the housing market in the USA has financially destroyed millions of people -- be careful out there especially as Europe comes unglued.\"",
"\"One thing that's often overlooked is that cash reserves are also a long-term investment. Anything can be a long-term investment if it's expected to appreciate or pay interest/dividends. So it's not either/or. Stocks are but one way to do long-term investments. Having said that, taking on less debt for a consumer good is never a bad idea. Your primary residence is a consumer good, regardless of those who would say that \"\"your home is your biggest investment.\"\" So, there's my vote for a larger down-payment. Beyond that, a couple of outside-the-box comments:\"",
"In the United States Short-term capital gains are taxed at rates similar to regular income which is 25% if you make less than $91,000 and 28% if you make more than that but less than $190,000. If you make more than $190,000 then the rate is 33%. If you hold the stock for a year or more than the tax rate is 15%, unless your income is less than $33,000 in which case there is no tax on long-term gains. As a general rule, the way to make money is to stay out of debt, so I cannot advise you to assume a mortgage. Financially you are better off investing your money. Much like you I bought a house with a mortgage using about $30,000 in a down payment about 20 years ago and I paid it off a few years ago. If I had to do it over again, I would have bought a shack (a steel building) for $30,000 and lived in that and invested my income. If I had done that, I would be about $500,000 richer today than I am now.",
"There is a fundamental flaw in this statement: For example, a home bought cash $100,000 would have to be sold $242,726.247 30 years later just to make up with inflation, and that would be a 0% return. You forgot to deduct rent from your monthly carrying costs. That changes the calculations significantly. Your calculations are valid ONLY if you were to buy a house, and let it sit empty, which is unlikely. Either you are going to live in it, and save yourself $1000 a month in rent, or, you are going to rent it out to someone, and earn an income of $1000 a month. Either way, you're up $1000 a month and this needs to be included.",
"Risk. That's it. No guarantees on the fund performance, while the mortgage has a guaranteed return of -3%. I'm doing this very thing. Money is cheap, I think it's wise to take advantage of it, assuming your exercise proper risk management.",
"Possible (unlikely) reasons: But usually, yeah, if you can pay cash, you should.",
"Answers to this your question break down along a few lines regarding opportunity costs of tying up a significant chunk of your salary and assets in one piece of property, as opposed to other things you'd like to do with your life. The 30 year standard mortgage was invented in the 30's as part of FDR's new deal to make housing affordable to more people, while relieving the strain on the market of foreclosed homes from ~10 year interest only balloon mortgages (sound familiar?). The 30 year term tends to follow the career of the average American of that era, allowing them to pay the house off and live out the remainder of their lives there at a lower cost. Houses are depreciating assets because they wear out over time. Their greatest investment value is a place to live. The appreciation on a home comes from the real estate it sits on and the community the property is located in. Value is determined by desirability of the house and community in their current state, and the supply of property in the area. This value can only be extracted when you sell the home. This partially answers your last question noting that you shouldn't buy a really expensive building for investment value. We've learned in recent years that there are no long term guarantees of property value either, because land and communities can decrease in value due to unemployment, over supply, crime, pollution, etc. Only buy as much home as you will need in the next decade or so, in a place that you will like living over that time period, and don't consider it much of an investment. I will tell you to get a fifteen year fixed rate mortgage since it's readily available at lower rates and has a significantly lower total purchase price than the standard 30 years. The monthly payment difference isn't that great, and anyone who looks at the monthly payment as opposed to the total costs, your priorities and the opportunity costs shouldn't be trusted for financial advice. I don't like debt. There are psychological benefits to being free from the bondage and drain of a long term mortgage on your finances. The biggest argument for paying off your home quickly is freedom to pursue other desires with all of your salary and the assets you have available to you. Some financial advisers will tell you to keep your mortgage costs under 25% of your income, so that you can actually live off the money you make. I would also recommend paying at least enough into your 401k to get the company match and fully funding your Roth IRA. I'd also have an emergency fund to cover at least 6 months of expenses, including this mortgage in case you lose your job. A 15 or 20 year mortgage will give you breathing room to take care of these other priorities, and you can overpay on almost any mortgage to decrease the principal and finish in a shorter time period (make sure to get a mortgage that allows prepayment) . More financially savvy people may tell you to take the 30 year mortgage and invest the difference. Especially with mortgage rates around 4%, this is a very cheap way to increase your purchasing power and total assets. Most people lack the investment prowess and self discipline to make this plan pay off. There are even fewer guarantees regarding markets and investments than property. This also is a way of diversifying your total assets to protect against loss of value in your home. This approach has backfired for thousands of people who are underwater on their homes. This problem is often compounded by job loss forcing you to move, or increasing your commute, making your home less desirable for you. Some people will tell you to maintain the mortgage for the tax credit. This fails a basic math test since you only get about a quarter of the money (depending on your tax rate) that you are paying in interest back from the government. The rest of the money goes to bank at no gain to you. This approach is basically a taxpayer subsidized decrease of your 4% interest payment to a 3% interest payment (assuming you have ~ $5000 in other deductions), and only pays off if you can successfully invest the money at a rate somewhat greater than 3%.",
"Keep in mind, this is a matter of preference, and the answers here are going to give you a look at the choices and the member's view on the positive/negative for each one. My opinion is to put 20% down (to avoid PMI) if the bank will lend you the full 80%. Then, buy the house, move in, and furnish it. Keep track of your spending for 2 years minimum. It's the anti-budget. Not a list of constraints you have for each category of spending, but a rear-view mirror of what you spend. This will help tell you if, in the new house, you are still saving well beyond that 401(k) and other retirement accounts, or dipping into that large reserve. At that point, start to think about where kids fit into your plans. People in million dollar homes tend to have child care that's 3-5x the cost the middle class has. (Disclosure - 10 years ago, our's cost $30K/year). Today, your rate will be about 4%, and federal marginal tax rate of 25%+, meaning a real cost of 3%. Just under the long term inflation rate, 3.2% over the last 100 years. I am 53, and for my childhood right through college, the daily passbook rate was 5%. Long term government debt is also at a record low level. This is the chart for 30 year bonds. I'd also suggest you get an understanding of the long term stock market return. Long term, 10%, but with periods as long as 10 years where the return can be negative. Once you are at that point, 2-3 years in the house, you can look at the pile of cash, and have 3 choices. We are in interesting times right now. For much of my life I'd have said the potential positive return wasn't worth the risk, but then the mortgage rate was well above 6-7%. Very different today.",
"Cash price is $22,500. Financed, it's the same thing (0% interest) but you pay a $1500 fee. 1500/22500 = 6.6%. Basically the APR for your loan is 1.1% per year but you are paying it all upfront. Opportunity cost: If you take the $22,500 you plan to pay for the car and invested it, could you earn more than the $1500 interest on the car loan? According to google, as of today you can get 1 year CD @ 1.25% so yes. It's likely that interest rates will be going up in medium term so you can potentially earn even more. Insurance cost: If you finance you'll have to get comprehensive insurance which could be costly. However, if you are planning to get it anyway (it's a brand new car after all), that's a wash. Which brings me to my main point: Why do you have $90k in a savings account? Even if you are planning to buy a house you should have that money invested in liquid assets earning you interest. Conclusion: Take the cheap money while it's available. You never know when interest rates will go up again.",
"Lets do the math, using your numbers. We start off with $100K, a desire to buy a house and invest, and 30 years to do it. Scenario #1 We buy a house for $100K mortgage at 5% interest over 30 years. Monthly payment ends up being $536.82/month. We then take the $100K we still have and invest it in stocks, earning an average of 9% annually and paying 15% taxes. Scenario #2 We buy a house for our $100K cash, and then, every month, we invest the $536.82 we would have paid for the mortgage. Again, investments make 9% annually long term, and we pay 15% taxes. How would it look in 30 years? Scenario #1 Results: 30 years later we would have a paid off house and $912,895 in investments Scenario #2 Results: 30 years later we would have a paid off house and $712,745 in investments Conclusion: NOT paying off your mortgage early results in an additional $200,120 in networth after 30 years. That's 28% more. Therefore, not paying off your mortgage is the superior scenario. Caveats/Notes/Things to consider Play with the numbers yourself:",
"\"The advantage of using a mortgage is that you pay for a house at TODAY's price, using TOMORROW's money. Your question suggests that you rightly observed that it was not a good idea around 2006 (the last peak in housing). That was when prices were at their maximum, and had nowhere to go but down. Some experts think that house prices STILL have further to go on the downside. Meanwhile, wages have been going nowhere during that time. This phenomenon seems to happen about every 40 years or so, the 1930s, the 1970s, and around 2010. At MOST other times, say the 1980s, houses are likely to go up for the \"\"foreseeable\"\" future. At those times, you want to buy the house at \"\"today's\"\" price, then pay for it in future dollars when you are earning more money. The irony is that what most people observe as teenagers is usually the wrong thing to do when they are, say, forty. In 2035, it will probably make sense to have a large mortgage in a bull housing market, which is the opposite of what you observed around 2010. So a better rule is to do at age 40 what made sense about the time you were born (in your case, perhaps the 1990s). Whereas the people born in the early 1970s that got \"\"caught\"\" recently, observed the bull market of the 1980s and 1990s in THEIR teens and twenties, rather than the bear market of the 1970s that took place about the time they were born.\"",
"Imagine a married couple without a mortgage, but live in a house fully paid for. They pay state income taxes, and property tax, and make charitable deductions that together total $12,599. That is $1 below the standard deduction for 2015, therefore they don't itemize. Now they decide to get a mortgage: $100,000 for 30 years at 4%. That first year they pay about $4,000 in interest. Now it makes sense to itemize. That $4,000 in interest plus their other deductions means that if they are in the 25% bracket they cut their tax bill by $1,000. These numbers will decrease each year. If they have a use for that pile of cash: such as a new roof, or a 100% sure investment that is guaranteed make more money for them then they are losing in interest it makes sense. But spending $4,000 to save $1,000 doesn't. Using the pile of cash to pay off the new mortgage means that the bank is collecting $4,000 a year so you can send $1,000 less to Uncle Sam.",
"The thing with your last option is that the cash-out mortgage is treated differently than purchase mortgage, with regards to taxes. Specifically, tax deduction is limited to $100K mortgage instead of $1M (or a bit higher even). Other than that - you've covered your options, and its up to you to decide what to do.",
"If you have a family member with sufficient funds to lend, you might consider writing a deed that gives them a percentage of ownership in the property in exchange for a loan, then you could later take a mortgage to pay back that loan and purchase that percentage of the property back. If it was me, I would probably just pay cash and try to get a home equity line of credit for emergency funds once I started working again. All the money I would have paid into a mortgage, and perhaps more--I would invest to rebuild the investment account as quickly as possible.",
"I Usually would not say this but if you can just put down 20% I would do that and get a 15 year mortgage. The rates are so low on 15 year mortgage that you should be able to make more than the 3% in the market per year and make some money. I wouldn't be surprised if for 1/2 of the term of your loan you will be able to make that just in interest. Basically I have done this for my house and my rental properties. So I have put my money where my mouth is on this. I have made over 9% each of the last three years which has made me $12,000 dollars above and beyond over what I would have paid in interest per year. So it a decision that net me $36,000 for doing nothing. Now the market is going to be down some of those years so lets see how it works out but I have history on my side. Its not about timing the market its about time in the market. And 15 years in the market is a pretty safe bet albeit not as safe as just dumping you money in the mortgage.",
"\"No magic answers here. Housing is a market, and the conditions in each local market vary. I think impact on cash flow is the best way to evaluate housing prices. In general, I consider a \"\"cheap\"\" home to cost 20% or less of your income, \"\"affordable\"\" between 20-30% and \"\"not affordable\"\" over 30%. When you start comparing rent vs. buy, there are other factors that you need to think about: Renting is an easy transaction. You're comparing prices in a market that is usually pretty stable, and your risk and liability is low. The \"\"cost\"\" of the low risk is that you have virtually no prospects of recouping any value out of the cash that you are laying out for your home. Buying is more complex. You're buying a house, building equity and probably making money due to appreciation. You need to be vigilant about expenses and circumstances that affect the value of your home as an investment. If you live in a high-tax state like New York, an extra $1,200 in property taxes saps over $16,000 of buying (borrowing) power from a future purchaser of your home. If your HOA or condo association is run by a pack of idiots, you're going to end up paying through the nose for their mistakes. Another consideration is your tastes. If you tend to live above your means, you're not going to be able to afford necessary maintenance on the house that you paid too much for.\"",
"The financial reasons, beyond simply owning your home outright, are: You're no longer paying interest. Yes, the interest is tax-deductible in the U.S. (though not in Canada), but the tax savings is a percentage of a percentage; if you paid, say, $8000 in interest last year, at the 25% marginal rate you effectively save $2000 off your taxes. But, if you paid off your home and had that $8000 in your pocket, you'd pay the $2000 in taxes but you'd have $6000 left over. Which is the better deal? In Canada, the decision gets even easier; you pay taxes on the interest money either way, so you're either spending the $8000 in interest, lost forever as cost of capital, or on other things. Whatever you're earning is going into your own pocket, not the bank's. Similar to the interest, but also including principal, a home you own outright is a mortgage payment you don't have to make. You can now use that money, principal and interest, for other things. Whether these advantages outweigh those of anything else you could do with a few hundred grand depends primarily on the rate of return. If you got in at the bottom of the mortgage crisis (which is pretty much right now) and got a rate in the 3-4% range, with no MIP or other payment on top, then almost anything you can do with the amount you'd need to pay off a mortgage principal would get you a better rate of return. However, you'll need some market savvy to avoid risks. In most cases when someone has pretty much any debt and a big wad of cash they're considering how to spend, I usually recommend paying off the debt, because that is, in effect, a risk-free way to increase the net rate of return on your total wealth and income. Balancing debt with investments always carries with it the risk that the investment will fail, leaving you stuck with the debt. Paying the debt on the other hand will guarantee that you don't have to pay interest on that outstanding amount anymore, so it's no longer offsetting whatever gains you are making in the market on your savings or future investments.",
"A bank selling a foreclosed property would negotiate a lower cash deal, I doubt it would be that extreme, 130 vs 100. An individual seller may give up $10K to save time and get his next home closed as well, but again, I suspect it would be rare to find that large a delta.",
"Applying for a mortgage is a bit of paperwork, but not too bad of an experience. Rates are pretty tight, if one lender were more that 1/4% lower than another, they'd be inundated with applications. Above a certain credit score, you get the 'best' rate, a search will show you the rates offered in your area. If you are a first time buyer, there are mortgages that might benefit you. If you are a vet (for non-native English readers, a veteran who served in the US armed forces, not a veterinarian, who is an animal doctor) there are mortgages that offer low-to-no down payment with attractive rates. Yes, avoid PMI, it's a crazy penalty on your overall expense of home purchase. If banks qualify you for different amounts, it shouldn't be a huge difference, a few percent variation. But, the standard ratios are pretty liberal even today, and getting the most you'd qualify for is probably too much. Using the standard 28/36% ratios, a bank will qualify you for 4X your income as a loan. e.g you make $50K, they'll lend you $200K. This is a bit too much in my opinion. If you come up short, you are really looking to borrow too much, and should probably wait. If you owe a bit on loans, it should squeeze in between those two ratios, 28/36. But I wouldn't borrow on a credit line to add to the purchase, that's asking for trouble.",
"Whenever you put less than 20% down, you are usually required to pay private mortgage insurance (PMI) to protect the lender in case you default on your loan. You pay this until you reach 20% equity in your home. Check out an amortization calculator to see how long that would take you. Most schedules have you paying more interest at the start of your loan and less principal. PMI gets you nothing - no interest or principal paid - it's throwing money away in a very real sense (more in this answer). Still, if you want to do it, make sure to add PMI to the cost per month. It is also possible to get two mortgages, one for your 20% down payment and one for the 80%, and avoid PMI. Lenders are fairly cautious about doing that right now given the housing crash, but you may be able to find one who will let you do the two mortgages. This will raise your monthly payment in its own way, of course. Also remember to factor in the costs of home ownership into your calculations. Check the county or city website to figure out the property tax on that home, divide by twelve, and add that number to your payment. Estimate your homeowners insurance (of course you get to drop renters insurance, so make sure to calculate that on the renting side of the costs) and divide the yearly cost by 12 and add that in. Most importantly, add 1-2% of the value of the house yearly for maintenance and repair costs to your budget. All those costs are going to eat away at your 3-400 a little bit. So you've got to save about $70 a month towards repairs, etc. for the case of every 10-50 years when you need a new roof and so on. Many experts suggest having the maintenance money in savings on top of your emergency fund from day one of ownership in case your water heater suddenly dies or your roof starts leaking. Make sure you've also estimated closing costs on this house, or that the seller will pay your costs. Otherwise you loose part of that from your down payment or other savings. Once you add up all those numbers you can figure out if buying is a good proposition. With the plan to stay put for five years, it sounds like it truly might be. I'm not arguing against it, just laying out all the factors for you. The NYT Rent Versus Buy calculator lays out most of these items in terms of renting or buying, and might help you make that decision. EDIT: As Tim noted in the comments below, real monthly cost should take into account deductions from mortgage interest and property tax paid. This calculator can help you figure that out. This question will be one to watch for answers on how to calculate cost and return on home buying, with the answer by mbhunter being an important qualification",
"You may be in a situation where buying is preferred, especially because you can enter the market in a strong position - with a 20% down payment. If you have the financial ability to assume the risk of owning, you may be better off. I would consider two things. Renting is purchasing a service. You are buying the flexibility to move with minimum hassle and the landlord is assuming the risk of owning the asset (property). They will make money on you, like any service provider. Buying is purchasing an asset. You are buying the underlying asset and assume all the risks associated with it. This is large, unforeseen maintenance, fees, taxes, depreciation, etc... Some of these risks were passed to you as a renter, but some were not. Just like purchasing $400k in stock, if you have to sell when the market is down, you lose big. You win if you can hold. Unlike a stock, real estate will eat your cash in taxes and repairs unless it is rented. If you are willing to be a long-distance landlord, this may work out. Understand that property management fees will eat into your rent income and being long-distance will give more potential for a bad tenant to ruin your property value. These and other factors (e.g. vacancy rate) will increase your risk of loss and should be considered. Some of this will be your preference, since you will spend much more time dealing with buying/selling/property management as opposed to a more clean rental situation. Is this hassle worth the savings? For many, yes; others, no. Finally, I hope this calculator can help clarify some of the financial aspects for you. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html?_r=0 Good Luck!",
"I wouldn't call it apples and oranges. This is literally an opportunity cost calculation. You can safely assume S&P500 will perform at least 11% over any 10 year period. Since failing companies are delisted and replaced with new growing companies, the market should continue to grow. No, it's not guaranteed. Lets use an aggressive number for inflation, 4%, leaving a 7% ROR estimate for S&P500. I assume OP has better credit than me, assume a rate around 3.5%. So it looks like net 3.5% ROR. The PMI erases that. You have to continue paying it until you pay off the loan. Put 20% down, get a 15 year fixed at lowest rate. Pay it off quicker.",
"Depending on the state you live in paying interest on a mortgage opens up other tax deduction options: Real estate taxes, Car tax, donations. See schedule A http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sa.pdf The shocking bottom line is that it never works to your advantage in the short term. Owning your house: But there are big risks, ask anybody stuck with a house they can't sell. But it doesn't scale. You spend 10K more to save 2.5K in taxes. Buy because you want to, not to reduce taxes.",
"I think you're missing a couple of things. First - why do you think its a reverse mortgage? More likely than not its a regular mortgage - home equity loan. If so, if they expect the stock market to rise significantly more than the amount of interest they pay on the loan - then its a totally sensible course of action. Second - the purchase in cash only to take out a loan later can definitely be a sensible way to do things. For example, if the seller wants to close fast, or if there are competing offers where not having a contingency is the tipping point. Another reason might be purchasing in an entity name (for example holding the title as an LLC), and in this case it is easier to get a loan if you already have the house, since the banks see the owner's actual commitment and not just promises.",
"Unless the taxes are above 3000 per year it looks like a good deal to buy (the 30 year mtg) You could also consider getting the 30 year loan and add additional principal to your payments. It looks like your PMI might be about $50 per month. You will get to deduct over $3000 in interest payments the first year as well as the real estate taxes. Depending on your tax rate that might be something like $100 per month or so of incentive to chose buying over renting. The big issue to consider is the risk of big ticket items to repair. You should keep a fund for this kind of thing... water heater, roof, fridge, cesspool, etc. good luck",
"If you need / want the car, I would get the car. Without car payments you can save your money again to get the house. Moreover, I wouldn't want to be saddled with payments to the mortgage and car loan at the same time. Lastly, a car is a more temporary possession (10 years) vs a house (30+) years so shopping around for the house longer while you save money is a good thing. I know you want to buy while prices are low, but I personally think it is more important to get a house that you want to live in later than settle for a cheap one you get a deal on now.",
"The best way to get cash from retirement is to not do it. Leave the retirement savings alone. Start saving for house down payment. Look for ways to squirrel away money for that down payment. Consider payment plus insurance, taxes, and maintenance costs. If all that comes in less than a rental, you're probably better off buying. Most likely it will not. Make sure that when you go to buy, you have 20% down, AND an emergency fund that will cover you for 3 months of expenses at the new, higher, rate. Hint, that'll probably be in excess of 10k based on a single person with a 1.5-2k a month mortgage, plus utilities and food. And as a home owner, you will have a lot of things for which that emergency fund will come in handy. It's a matter of when, not if. Consider, 5k for a new roof, 6k for a hvac system, 1.5k for exterior paint, 500 for the plumber, 750 for pest control, 250 to have the tree removed that fell in a storm. 1000 for a new fridge. 500 for a new water heater. 1200 for washer and dryer. ALL of these are periodic costs, and they all able to fail before they're supposed to.",
"There may be specific answers that can be determined based on the interest rates, amounts, tax provisions, etc. But I'm here to tell you... It is much easier (i.e., less stressful) to own a home when you have less debt. Pay off any and every debt you can before purchasing a home because there will always be something requiring you to spend money once you own one.",
"\"I would strongly consider renting; as homes are often viewed by people as \"\"investments\"\" but in reality they are costs, just like renting. The time-frame for return is so long, the interest rate structure in terms of your mortgage payments; if you buy, you must be prepared to and willing to stay at minimum 7-10 years; because anything can happen. Hot markets turn cold. Or stale, and just the closing costs will cause it be less advantageous to renting. Before buying a property, ask yourself does it meet these 5 criteria: IDEAL I - Income; the property will provide positive cash flow through renters. D - Depreciation; tax savings. E - Equity; building equity in the property- the best way is through interest only loans. There is NO reason to pay any principle on any property purchase. You do 5 year interest only loans; keep your payments low; and build equity over time as the property price rises. Look how much \"\"principle\"\" you actually pay down over the first 7 years on a 30 year mortgage. Virtually Nil. A - Appreciation - The property will over time go up in value. Period. There is no need to pay any principle. Your Equity will come from this... time. L - Leverage; As the property becomes more valuable; you will have equity stake, enabling you to get higher credit lines, lines of equity credit, to purchase more properties that are IDEA. When you are RICH, MARRIED, and getting ready for a FAMILY, then buy your home and build it. Until then, rent, it will keep your options open. It will keep your costs low. It will protect you from market downturns as leases are typically only 1 year at most. You will have freedom. You will not have to deal with repairs. A new Water Heater, AC unit, the list goes on and on. Focus on making money, and when you want to buy your first house. Buy a duplex; rent it out to two tenants, and make sure it's IDEAL.\"",
"why not ask a fee only financial adviser? Contact a local adviser and ask how much they will charge to work through the process. The options aren't as complex as they seem. The general idea is to first figure out what you can afford each month. This is a generally straight forward calculation. Then figure out the costs that are specific to your area, e.g property taxes. Figure out how much of a down payment /closing costs you can gather. Then start with your local bank or credit union. The number of options for mortgages will not be as complex if you already know how much you can afford and how much cash you can bring to the transaction. A simple table can be easily created based on what you can afford each month, how much cash you have, and the rates currently available. The bank will have a way to estimate the costs of each option as part of the required disclosures. Another source of good info can be a highly regarded local real estate agent. Focus on one that will represent you as a purchaser. They want you to be able to buy a house. While they do have a bias, they want a commission, most of it is eliminated if you know how much you can afford before you meet with them. They will know all the government programs that can make the monthly costs or closing costs cheaper.",
"\"Pre-edit, Pete mentioned that he feels real estate agents would (a) like you to buy as much house as you afford, and (b) would love to show you three houses and have you choose one. As a real estate agent myself, I believe his warnings were understated. As with any industry, there are good and bad people. Agents are paid to move houses. If the median US home is under $200K, and commissions average say 5%, the $10,000 to be gained is split between the buyer brokerage and selling agent. The $5000 to each is then shared with 'the house.' So, this sale would net me $2500, gross. Move one a week, and the income is great, one per month, not so much. Tire kickers will waste an agent's time for a potential decision to wait another year and continue renting. Their obligation is to tell you the truth, but not to offer financial advice. Remember the mortgage crisis? It seems the banks and brokers aren't watching out for you either. They will tell you what they'll lend you, but not what you can afford. These numbers are worlds apart. I strongly recommend a 20% downpayment. The FHA PMI calculator shows that a 90% LTV (i.e. a 10% downpayment) for a $100K house will cost you $1200/yr in PMI. Think about this. For the $10,000 that you didn't put down, you are paying an extra $1200 each year. This is on top of the interest, so even at 5%, that last $10,000 is costing nearly 17%. If you can't raise that $10K (or whatever 10% is on that house) in cheaper funds, you should hold off. Using the 401(k) loan for this purpose is appropriate, yet emotionally charged. As if suck loans are written by the devil himself. \"\"Buy the biggest house you can\"\"? No. I have a better idea. Buy the smallest place you can tolerate. I have a living room (in addition to family room) that has been used 3 times in 20 years. A dining room we actually use. Twice per year. When your house is 50% too big, you pay 50% more property tax, more utility bills, and more maintenance. Closing costs, commission, etc, isn't cheap, but the lifetime cost of living in a too-big house is a money pit.\"",
"I'd stick with 20% down. Truth is - we don't know enough about you. Are you single and staying that way? How is your retirement savings doing? As others asked, any other debt? You can put 20% down, take a breath and see how it's going. I did just that, the 20%. We then had a baby, and 5 nanny-years to pay for. When she was gone, all that money went to the mortgage, and after refinancing (with no points no closing) we have 7 years to go. Just under 20 years beginning to end. During that time we've saved for college (just about fully funded) and for retirement (both with matched 401(k) accounts). Remember, if you lose your job, a house with a lower mortgage means nothing when there's still the next payment due. But that cushion of cash can be handy.",
"With the calculator in hand (Excel :) you should follow this advise and save a bundle. 1) Calculate how much you are willing to spend per month. 2) Take the longest (in years) mortgage you can find and cheepest (Euribor+0,2% is better than Euribor+1%). 3) Save the amount you are not spending on your mortgage. Whenever the mortgage cost changes (once a year), calculate whether you get more interests on your savings or on a down payment (look at the total cost). Then decide if you make a down payment or keep on saving. My 0,02€ We took a 20 year mortgage and blindly payed every time we'd have 3K€. We payed our house in 6 years. The total cost of the mortgage was way down this way. However, the above theory has a better yield overall.",
"I sold my house and had been in the market looking for a replacement house for over 6 months after I sold it. I found someone willing to give me a short term, 3 month lease, with a month to month after that, at an equitable rate, as renters were scarcer than buyers.By the time I found a house, there were bidding wars as surplus had declined (can be caused seasonally), and it was quite difficult to get my new house. However, appraisers help this to a degree because whatever the seller wants, is not necessarily what they get, even if you offer it. I offered $10k over asking just to get picked out of the large group bidding on the house. Once the appraisal came in at $10k below my offer, I was able to buy the house at what I expected. Of course I had to be prepared if it came in higher, but I did my homework and knew pretty much what the house was worth. The mortgage is the same as the lease I had, the house is only 10 years' old and has a 1 year warranty on large items that could go wrong. In the 3 months I've been in the house, I have gained nearly $8k in equity....and will have a tax writeoff of about $19,000 off an income off a salary of $72,000, giving me taxable income of $53,000... making by tax liability go down about $4600. If I am claiming 0 dependents I will get back about $5,000 this year versus breaking even.",
"You sound like you're in enviable shape. This is good. Look for deals. There are tons of people in over their heads (unlike yourself) and they'll be foreclosed on if they don't get out. You're in a position to buy from a distressed seller. Assuming your credit rating is good, you can get a good loan for the balance. Time is on your side. Don't rush. Look for a great deal. My feeling is that the deals will only get better for the next year or two.",
"I think the logic in your example demonstrates it is silly to make a decision for tax benefits alone. Saving 75 is much preferred to a cash outflow of 100 less tax savings of 25. To answer your question, paying mortgage interest represents the fee for the cheapest money most people will ever access, which in itself is a benefit (e.g. renting vs buying). The benefits are maximized when the aggregate of appreciation, inflation, tax savings exceeds total interest expense.",
"\"I'm a \"\"new\"\" (last 2 years) homeowner. For me, at least, benefits of owning far outweigh renting. $8000 tax credit for the first time homebuyer, a massive deduction every year for your tax return, the option to rent out rooms to offset the large majority of my mortgage payment, and the real estate trend indicating that the value of my house *should* increase over time. I think that if one has the means to buy in the current environment rather than renting, they certainly should. You get no return on your money if you rent.\"",
"There is a 3rd option: take the cash back offer, but get the money from a auto loan from your bank or credit union. The loan will only be for. $22,500 which can still be a better deal than option B. Of course the monthly payment can make it harder to qualify for the mortgage. Using the MS Excel goal seek tool and the pmt() function: will make the total payment equal to 24K. Both numbers are well above the rates charged by my credit union so option C would be cheaper than option B.",
"Buying a house may save you money compared with renting, depending on the area and specifics of the transaction (including the purchase price, interest rates, comparable rent, etc.). In addition, buying a house may provide you with intangibles that fit your lifestyle goals (permanence in a community, ability to renovate, pride of ownership, etc.). These factors have been discussed in other answers here and in other questions. However there is one other way I think potential home buyers should consider the financial impact of home ownership: Buying a house provides you with a natural 'hedge' against possible future changes in your cost of living. Assume the following: If these two items are true, then buying a home allows you to guarantee today that your monthly living expenses will be mostly* fixed, as long as you live in that community. In 2 years, if there is an explosion of new residents in your community and housing costs skyrocket - doesn't affect you, your mortgage payment [or if you paid cash, the lack of mortgage payment] is fixed. In 3 years, if there are 20 new apartment buildings built beside you and housing costs plummet - doesn't affect you, your mortgage payment is fixed. If you know that you want to live in a particular place 20 years from now, then buying a house in that area today may be a way of ensuring that you can afford to live there in the future. *Remember that while your mortgage payment will be fixed, other costs of home ownership will be variable. See below. You may or may not save money compared with rent over the period you live in your house, but by putting your money into a house, you have protected yourself against catastrophic rent increases. What is the cost of hedging yourself against this risk? (A) The known costs of ownership [closing costs on purchase, mortgage interest, property tax, condo fees, home insurance, etc.]; (B) The unknown costs of ownership [annual and periodic maintenance, closing costs on a future sale, etc.]; (C) The potential earnings lost on your down payment / mortgage principal payments [whether it is low-risk interest or higher risk equity]; (D) You may have reduced savings for a long period of time which would limit your ability to cover emergencies (such as medical costs, unexpected unemployment, etc.) (E) You may have a reduced ability to look for a better job based on being locked into a particular location (though I have assumed above that you want to live in a particular community for an extended period of time, that desire may change); and (F) You can't reap the benefits of a rental market that decreases in real dollars, if that happens in your market over time. In short, purchasing a home should be a lifestyle-motivated decision. It financially reduces some the fluctuation in your long-term living costs, with the trade-off of committed principal dollars and additional ownership risks including limited mobility.",
"Your calculations are good as far as they go, but there are lots of other factors and pros and cons to each decision. Yes, you should certainly compare the monthly rent to what your mortgage payments would be, as you have done. Yes, you should consider how long you might live there. If you do move out, how difficult will it be to sell the house, given market conditions in your area? If you try to rent it, how difficult is it to find a tenant, and what rent could you expect to receive? Speaking of moving out and renting the place: Who will manage the property and do maintenance? Would you still be close enough to do this yourself? Would you be willing and able to spend the time? Or would you have to hire someone? Also, what if the tenant does not pay the rent? How difficult is it to evict someone in your area? Speaking from personal experience, I own a rental property in Ohio, and the law says you can evict someone with 3 days notice. But in practice they don't just leave, so then you have to take them to court. It takes months to get a court date and months longer before the police actually show up to order them out of the house. And you have to pay the lawyer and court fees. In that time they're living in your property rent free. In my case one tenant also totally trashed the place and stole everything that wasn't nailed down -- I had to spend $13,000 on repairs to a house worth a fraction of what you're talking about. Being a landlord is NOT just a matter of sitting back and collecting rent checks: there's a fair amount of work and a lot of risk. What do you have to pay the realtor, and what other closing costs would you have to pay? Where I live, realtors typically charge 6 to 7%. You may also have to pay for an appraisal, title search, and bunch of other little fees. Mortgage interest is deductible on your federal income taxes. Rent is not. If you own and something needs to be repaired, you have to pay for it. If you rent, the landlord has to pay for it. If you own, you can do pretty much what you like with the property -- subject to zoning ordinances and building codes and maybe homeowners association rules, but you should have a pretty good amount of leeway. If you want to install ceiling fans or remodel the kitchen or add a deck, it's up to you. If you're renting, it's up to the landlord to decide what you can do to the property. And if he agrees to let you do some upgrade, when you're done, it belongs to him. With a condo, you are not usually responsible for exterior maintenance, like mowing the lawn and trimming the bushes and washing the outer walls. With a house, you are. You might pay someone to do this, which adds to the cost, or you might do it yourself, which takes time. Insurance on a condo or aparment is much less than insurance on a house. In my area, anyway. You should investigate those costs. If you buy, eventually you own the place and don't have to pay a mortgage any more. If you rent, you continue to pay forever. (Even if you don't live in the same house forever, as long as you don't take a terrible loss when you sell you should then have some money left over to apply to the next house, so you are still building equity.) Some of these pros and cons are easily quantifiable. Others are probabilities, like how likely is it that your water heater will fail?, and how long is it likely to take to find a buyer if you want to sell? And others are pretty subjective.",
"A loan with modest interest is better than paying by cash if there are better alternatives for investment. For example, suppose you are buying a house. Consider two extremes: a) you pay the house entirely by cash, b) the entire buy is financed by the bank. Historically, real (subtracting inflation) house prices (at least in the U.S.) have not risen at all in the long run, and investing all of your own capital in this way may not be optimal. Notice that we are looking at a situation where one is buying a house and living in it in any case. Rent savings are equal in cases a) and b). If instead you were buying a house not for yourself, but as a separate investment for renting out, then you would receive rent. In the case a), the real return on your capital will be zero, whereas in case b), you can invest the cash in e.g. the stock market and get, on average, 7% (the stock market has yielded a 7% real return annually including dividends) annually minus the bank's interest rate. If the interest is lower than 7%, it may be profitable to take the loan. Of course, the final decision depends on your risk preferences.",
"I would put down 12% and pay PMI. Either way, you are taking out a loan, with payments against 88% of the value of the home. I assume the mortgage note would be either 15 or 30 years and the 401k loan would be less (5? 10?). If you take out an 88% mortgage loan and pay it off at the same pace you would have paid the 401k loan, you'll be down to 80% LTV quickly and PMI will stop. If the housing market rebounds and your house appreciates, you'll be at 80% LTV quickly. If you change jobs/lose jobs your mortgage will be unaffected. PMI is an easily quantifiable risk that is worth paying in this case. Contrasted with the 401k loan, the job loss/job change risk is great. It isn't just if you lose your job. Maybe you'll find a great opportunity with a great company that has a 401k plan that doesn't allow loans. Will you forgo taking that job because of your 401k loan?",
"Peace of mind is the key to your question. Just before the US housing bust of 2007, I had someone try to convince me to take all the equity from my house which was overvalued in an overheated market. The idea was to put that money in the stock market for a bigger return than the interest on the house. Many people did that and found themselves out of jobs as the economy crashed. Unfortunately, they couldn't sell their homes because they owed more than they were worth. I never lost a night of sleep over the money I didn't make in the stock market. I did manage to trade up to a house twice the size by buying another when the housing market bottomed out, but waiting for a market recovery to sell the smaller house. The outcome of my good fortune is a very nice house with no mortgage worth about 1/3 of my total net worth. That's probably a larger percentage than most money managers would recommend, but it is steadily decreasing because now, all the money that would go to a mortgage payment instead gets deposited in retirement accounts, and it still has 30 years to grow before I start drawing it down. I almost don't remember the burden of a mortgage hanging over my head each month. Almost.",
"It may be possible to get more cash than you currently have. For example, If you have $200,000, you could buy a distressed property for $150,000, spend $50,000 on renovations, get it appraised for $300,000 and then cash out refi $240,000 (keeping 20% equity to avoid MIPs) to invest. This would be analogous to flipping a house for yourself. Normally flippers buy a house for cheap, then sell it to someone else for way more than their total outlay in purchase + improvements. The only difference here is there's no 3rd party - you stay in the house and essentially buy it from yourself with the mortgage.",
"\"I'd probably say \"\"buy\"\" for most situations. Unless you have a long-term lease, you're going to be saddled with elastic/rising rents if the market tightens up, while with a purchase you usually have fixed expenses (with the exception of property taxes/condo fees) and you are gaining equity. As I've gotten older, the prospect of moving is more and more daunting. The prospect of being essentially kicked out of my home when the landlord decides to sell the property or raise the rent is a turn-off to me.\"",
"Since then I wanted to move out of this house because the property taxes are so high and the mortgage payment is a killer. As I understand this is a property jointly owned by your parents and you. As they are not living staying in the house, you have taken over the mortgage payments for this house along with any other maintenance. If you move out of this house; the rent is expected to cover the cost of maintenance and mortgage payments. Are we better of staying in Jersey where our family and friends are? This is an individual decision. It is not just family and friends, but also schooling of kids, penitentially if you change jobs would it also entail changing residence as the workplace would be more near from current home than the new home. I want to convince my wife to make this move because it will save us at least 800 month, but she fails to see how buying a second home is financially sound because we have to lose our savings and we have to pay interest on our second home. There are quite a few posts on first-time-home-buyer Some question like this one and this one and this one are good reads. There are historically times when the Mortgage EMI becomes equal or less than Rent paid. In such times it is good to buy home, than pay rent. Otherwise quite a few invest advisor's mention that fools buy house and wise live in it. There are advantages to buying as well advantages to renting. There is no simple answer and it depends on multitude of factors.",
"As weird as it seems, 5 years is not a long term investment. Furthermore investing is about accepting risk. Based on your criteria for the alternative to a down payment, I think your only choice is to make the larger down payment. If however, you were willing to invest that money for the long term (in a retirement account or an educational account for example) then I would definitely encourage you to invest. I think the chance that a long term investment in a diversified investment account will exceed 3.25% is pretty high. However, that is only my opinion, and I am not clairvoyant, so your let your personal tolerance to risk be your guide. But again, based on the way you asked it, down payment all the way. Your time frame means you are not an investor. Therefore your only option for risk free storage of money is an FDIC insured account, which might pay a little less than 1% for the next 5 years. A bigger down payment will have a 3.25% return in this case. In that order. #4 and #5 could be swapped if the interest rate on the loans is really low.",
"Don't let the tail of credit score wag the dog of prudent financial planning. If you have a sufficient emergency fund in addition to the car cost, then buying the car for cash is to my mind a better plan. But if the car purchase would deplete your emergency fund, then I'd go for the loan. Cash in hand gives you optionality that can be very valuable when things go wrong. And credit will be withdrawn at exactly the most painful moment.",
"\"1) Don't buy a house as an investment. Buy a house because you've reached the point in your life where you don't expect to move in the next five years and you'd prefer to own a house (with its advantages/disadvantages) than to rent (with its advantages/disadvantages). Thinking of houses primarily as investments is what caused the housing bubble, crash, and Great Recession. 2) Before buying a house for cash, look at the available mortgage interest rates versus market rate of return. Owning the house outright is slightly lower stress, but using the house as the basis for a \"\"leveraged investment\"\" may be financially wiser. (I compromised; I paid 50% down and took a mortgage for the other 50%.) 3) 1 year is short-term. Your money doesn't belong in the market if you're going to need it in the short term. If you really intend to pull it back out that soon, I'd stick with CD/money-market kinds of instruments. 4) Remember that while a house is illiquid, it is possible to take out home equity loans... so money you put into a house isn't completely inaccessible. You just can't move elsewhere as easily.\"",
"As everyone is saying, this depends on a lot of variables. However... I had my dad help me with the downpayment on my house. In my case, the cost of mortgage payment and all maintenance expenses is still lower than paying rent. If I sell my house and walk away from the closing office with just $1 then I've still come out ahead compared to renting. The New York Times has a fantastic tool figure out if it's a good idea to buy vs. rent. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html?_r=0 It's asks all the relevant questions, and then it tells you how cheap rent would have to be make it the better option."
] |
[
"\"I'm in the \"\"big mortgage\"\" camp. Or, to put this another way - what would you be happier to have in 15 years? A house that is worth $300,000, or $50,000 of equity in a house and $225,000 in the bank? I would much rather have the latter; it gives me so many more options. (the numbers are rough; you can figure it out yourself based on the current interest rate you can get on investments vs the cost of mortgage interest (which may be less if you can deduct the mortgage interest)).\"",
"\"If you are investing in a mortgage strictly to avoid taxes, the answer is \"\"pay cash now.\"\" A mortgage buys you flexibility, but at the cost of long term security, and in most cases, an overall decrease in wealth too. At a very basic level, I have to ask anyone why they would pay a bank a dollar in order to avoid paying the government 28 - 36 cents depending on your tax rate. After all, one can only deduct interest- not principal. Interest is like rent, it accrues strictly to the lender, not equity. In theory the recipient should be irrelevant. If you have a need to stiff the government, go ahead. Just realize you making a banker three times as happy. Additionally the peace of mind that comes from having a house that no banker can take away from you is, at least for me, compelling. If I have a $300,000 house with no mortgage, no payments, etc. I feel quite safe. Even if my money is tied up in equity, if a serious situation came along (say a huge doctors bill) I always have the option of a reverse mortgage later on. So, to directly counter other claims, yes, I'd rather have $300k in equity then $50k in equity and $225k in liquid assets. (Did you notice that the total net worth is $25k less? And that's even before one considers the cash flow implication of a continuing mortgage. I have no mortgage, and I'm 41. I have a lot of net worth, but the thing that I really like is that I have a roof over my head that no on e can take away from me, and sufficient savings to weather most crises). That said, a mortgage is not about total cost. It is about cash flow. To the extent that a mortgage makes your cash flow situation better, it provides a benefit- just not one that is quantifiable in dollars and cents. Rather, it is a risk/reward situation. By taking a mortgage even when you have the cash, you pay a premium (the interest rate) in order to have your funds available when you need it. A very simple strategy to calculate and/or minimize this risk would be to invest the funds in another investment. If your rate of return exceeds the interest rate minus any tax preference (e.g. 4% minus say a 25% deduction = 3%), your money is better off there, obviously. And, indeed, when interest rates are only 4%, it may may be possible to find that. That said, in most instances, a CD or an inflation protected bond or so won't give you that rate of return. There, you'd need to look at stocks- slightly more risky. When interest rates are back to normal- say 5 or 6%, it gets even harder. If you could, however, find a better return than the effective interest rate, it makes the most sense to do that investment, hold it as a hedge to pay off the mortgage (see, you get your security back if you decide not to work!), and pocket the difference. If you can't do that, your only real reason to hold the cash should be the cash flow situation.\"",
"\"There are a number of reasons I'm in agreement with \"\"A house that is worth $300,000, or $50,000 of equity in a house and $225,000 in the bank.\"\" So, the update to the first comment should be \"\"A paid off house worth $300K, or a house with $150K equity and $275K in the retirement account.\"\" Edit - On reflection, an interesting question, but I wonder how many actually have this choice. When a family budgets for housing, and uses a 25% target, this number isn't much different for rent vs for the mortgage cost. So how, exactly do the numbers work out for a couple trying to save the next 80% of the home cost? A normal qualifying ration allows a house that costs about 3X one's income. A pay-in-full couple might agree to be conservative and drop to 2X. Are they on an austerity plan, saving 20% of their income in addition to paying the rent? Since the money must be invested conservatively, is it keeping up with house prices? After 10 years, inflation would be pushing the house cost up 30% or so, so is this a 12-15 year plan? I'm happy to ignore the tax considerations. But I question the math of the whole process. It would seem there's a point where the mortgage (plus expenses) add up to less than the rent. And I'd suggest that's the point to buy the house.\"",
"\"Buying now with a mortgage gets you: Waiting to buy with all cash gets you: These are also some of the pros or cons for the rent or buy dilemma that Paul mentioned in comments to the OP. This is a very complex, multi-faceted question, that would not respond well to being put into any equation or financial model. Most people answer the question with \"\"buy the home now with a mortgage\"\" if they can pay for the down payment. This is why the mortgage industry exists. The people who would want to finance now rather than buy with all cash later would not only be analyzing the question in terms of financial health but also in terms of general well being. They might consider the tremendous pride that comes with home ownership and living under a roof of one's own. Who can say that those people are wrong?\"",
"I wondered about this problem too, so I looked into the maths and made this app :- http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/BuyOrRentInvestmentReturnCalculator/ (It uses the free Wolfram computable-document format (CDF) Player.) If you try it out you can see what conditions favour renting vs buying. My own conclusion was to aim to buy a property outright upon reaching retirement age, if not sooner. Example This example compares buying a £400,000 house with renting for £1,000 a month while depositing equivalent amounts (in savings) to total the same monthly outgoings as the buyer. Mortgage rate, deposit rate, property appreciation and rent inflation can be variously specified. The example mortgage term is 20 years. As you can see the buyer and renter come out about even after the mortgage term, but the buyer comes off better after that, (having no more mortgage to pay). Of course, the rent to live in a £400,000 house would probably be more than £1,000 but this case shows an equivalence point."
] |
4394
|
Transfer $50k to another person's account (in California, USA)
|
[
"336045",
"441582"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"132693",
"93386",
"553205",
"524752",
"431462",
"313141",
"427119",
"99102",
"131774",
"196365",
"242359",
"512621",
"299963",
"150903",
"366954",
"357738",
"154417",
"291923",
"305907",
"259021",
"183880",
"466943",
"344335",
"270339",
"302893",
"343744",
"394899",
"334061",
"246095",
"526817",
"426216",
"157548",
"131164",
"589616",
"86273",
"385344",
"444962",
"219444",
"116684",
"385102",
"336045",
"291486",
"60020",
"412258",
"507701",
"120312",
"318474",
"98196",
"405797",
"467641",
"443795",
"476550",
"530879",
"97010",
"214024",
"25989",
"80657",
"466317",
"251370",
"120760",
"359952",
"319265",
"308837",
"319435",
"217046",
"521555",
"308665",
"185146",
"428696",
"281000",
"320012",
"48840",
"73663",
"338898",
"462050",
"21488",
"472629",
"449279",
"489070",
"264934",
"308125",
"293653",
"286935",
"69171",
"210853",
"282744",
"309269",
"408043",
"347624",
"413078",
"456773",
"445690",
"322838",
"425419",
"478781",
"210855",
"573071",
"173482",
"361580",
"441582"
] |
[
"First, you'll need to find a service that can handle transferring that amount of money, whether it's using a bank, or wire transferring service. Any major Wall Street bank (Wells Fargo, Chase, Bank of America, etc.) should be able to handle it. You could also use services such as Western Union. As for your legal and tax obligations, according to Western Union: Individuals in Canada and the U.K. don’t have any tax considerations, unless international payments are received as income or in the form of capital gains. Only then must they report it on their income taxes, says Ilyas Patel, director at Ilyas Patel Chartered Certified Accountants based in Preston, U.K., and the director of Tax Expert, a tax advice website. To that end, when considering their tax obligations, individuals should take care to look into the reporting requirements on foreign income or gifts ranging up to a certain amount. For example, in the U.S., the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires individuals who receive more than $100,000 U.S. dollars from a foreign source to report it on a Form 3520. “You may not owe taxes on the money, but it informs the IRS that you received it,” Gragg says, stressing the importance of consulting with a professional. “They’re looking for certain terrorist activities and other illegal activity.” Due to the large sum of money your transferring, it would be in your best interest to speak with a banker (maybe even a lawyer or CPA) about this.",
"If you are looking to transfer money to another person in the US, you can do do with no tax consequence. The current annual gift limit is $14k per year per person, so for example, my wife and I can gift $56k to another couple with no tax and no forms. For larger amounts, there is a lifetime exclusion that taps into your $5M+ estate tax. It requires submitting a form 709, but just paperwork, no tax would be due. This is the simplest way to gift a large sum and not have any convoluted tracking or structured loan with annual forgiveness. One form and done. (If the sum is well over $5M you should consider a professional to guide you, not a Q&A board)",
"The liabilities are the same regardless of the route, besides tax evasion schemes such as handing the money to her as cash. Taxes will run up to half of the amount. The best routes are: Western union, moneygram, and similar services- about 2k You are allowed to gift 14k tax free. You can increase this amount by sending to multiple trusted people. See here. https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Tax-Planning-and-Checklists/The-Gift-Tax-Made-Simple/INF12127.html The gifter pay taxes, the giftee does not- unless the gifter fails to pay. Let me know which route you prefer. If you do a bank transfer then you will have to work that out with your bank. If you chose to do a wire transfer, yes. Yes, if it's no more than about $2000.",
"The banks are required to file Currency Transaction Reports (CTR) to the IRS for aggregate transfers of over $10k. They file Suspicious Activity Reports for suspicious activity with an aggregate value of over $5,000 to the US Treasury. You're probably ok for what you're doing provided you aren't doing to regularly, but I would consider looking into alternate means of transferring funds such as a check to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Also, you should be able to call your bank to do a one time ACH transfer for up to $100k with minimal fees.",
"If it's always the same person: Open a second account, with them as the account holder. Get them a debit card for that account. To move money, do an inter-account transfer from yours to theirs. Fast, low to no fee, simple. (For a while I had a second credit card on my account for this purpose -- the other person was a trustworthy family member -- but a debit card on its own account is cleaner and much less risky.)",
"He can do an internet bank transfer from his/her account to yours, a direct deposit at a branch of your bank, use PayPal, which should allow such an amount or similar methods. $7000 is not considered a large amount these days and should be quite easy to execute in a number of ways.",
"There's no tax on wire transfer, but it would be easier on everyone if he would wire himself from his own account. Withdrawing money, depositing to your account and then wiring back to him may raise some flags with FinCEN and IRS with questions about money laundering or gift taxes. Why do you want to complicate things?",
"Since your question is very particular on the details, I'm assuming you did your research. Unfortunately you won't get a better answer here than what you've found on the Internet already. This is not a clear-cut situation as the situation you're describing has been a source to some confusion. Mainly, the question is whether the US bank account is a tangible asset or not. To the best of my knowledge, this has not yet been settled, so I suggest going to a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in the US) who'd advise you the best course of action. I think it would be safer to transfer the money directly from the foreign account to the US beneficiary (although even then, if the IRS decides to start digging, it may claim that you're essentially disguising a transfer from a US account, so I suggest talking to a professional before doing anything). In any case, the US recipient will need to report the gift (if it is $100K or more) using the form 3520 with his/her tax return.",
"The lifetime limit would be very peculiar. The question for the IRS is, whether this is a gift of some sorts, which is why they become interested at some point. In the US, you as the giftor would have to pay the taxes. The bank might inquire too, due to money laundering issues. The bank will anyhow report transactions above a certain size to the IRS. As long as you are sending money to yourself, you should be fine, as this is clearly not a gift. If you send it to 3rd person, then this is either for a service, in this case you need a bill or is a gift, in which case you require to pay gift taxes.",
"There are two (main) ways of transferring large sums of money between banks in such a situation. 1) Have your bank mail a cashier's check. They may or may not charge you for this (some banks charge up to $6, the bank I work at doesn't charge at all). You have to wait for the check to go through the mail, but it usually takes just a few days. 2) Wire the money. This could cost $50 or more in combined fees (usually around $30 to send and $20 to receive), but you get same day credit for the funds. The limits to online transfers are in place to protect you, so that if someone gets into your account the amount of damage they can do is limited. If you need those limits lifted temporarily, check with your bank about doing so - they may be willing to adjust them for you for a brief period (a day or two).",
"Bank-to-Bank wire transfer would be the best option. Dollar is going up nowadays, so if he brought the money not so long ago he might even earn the cost of the transfers back through the difference of the exchange rates. Re the IRS - they don't care. Same goes to the Israeli Tax Authority. What you and your friend need to show, if asked, is the paper trail. I.e.: if he brought you the $10K in cash - that may be an issue unless he kept all the receipts for getting it. But for such a low amount you can always resort to claiming it is a gift from you, in this case.",
"Gift tax is not an issue here. If a U.S. Person were to receive the wire transfer for me, and then immediately transfer the money to me This is a classic money laundering/scamming technique. You and your friend may end up talking to the FBI, not the IRS.",
"Just a regular bank transfer. Call your US bank and ask for wire transfer instructions. I've transferred money like that from US to Europe and back a few times. Usually fees were in low two digits ($15-$30), but depending on your bank account a sending and receiving side may charge a fee.",
"Use a remitting service such as Ria Money Transfer. Almost all these services allow you to transfer upto $2999 at a time. So, you would be able to transfer the entire amount of $4500 within 2 business days(There is a monthly limit too, but it will definitely be more than $4500). There are no fees to use these services, but they do scrape off a bit on the currency rate. As of today you are getting 624 GBP for $1000 whereas the market rate is $641.95. You still save roughly $17 and 4 transactions, which adds up to more than $100. Here is a link to Ria's website. Other services, include Xoom, Western Union, Money Dart and Money Gram.",
"Although I have not tried, you can check out the Western Union Money Transfers. http://www.westernunion.com/WUCOMWEB/staticMid.do?method=load&pagename=serviceToBank",
"No fees: Write a check. Deposit it into the other bank.",
"XE.com will do an ACH transfer for no fee, and they'll give you a better exchange rate than your bank. I use them for converting CAD/USD.",
"There are a few standard ways: One thing to keep in mind is that you'll usually be charged a wire and/or service fee for the tranfer.",
"To transfer US$30,000 from the USA to Europe, ask your European banker for the SWIFT transfer instructions. Typically in the USA the sending bank needs a SWIFT code and an account number, the name and address of the recipient, and the amount to transfer. A change of currency can be made as part of the transfer. The typical fee to do this is under US$100 and the time, under 2 days. But you should ask (or have the sender ask) the bank in the USA about the fees. In addition to the fee the bank may try to make a profit on the change of currency. This might be 1-2%. If you were going to do this many times, one way to go about it is to open an account at Interactive Brokers, which does business in various countries. They have a foreign exchange facility whereby you can deposit various currencies into your account, and they stay in that currency. You can then trade the currencies at market rates when you wish. They are also a stock broker and you can also trade on the various exchanges in different countries. I would say, though, they they mostly want customers already experienced with trading. I do not know if they will allow someone other than you to pay money into your account. Trading companies based in the USA do not like to be in the position of collecting on cheques owed to you, that is more the business of banks. Large banks in the USA with physical locations charge monthly fees of $10/mo or more that might be waived if you leave money on deposit. Online banks have significantly lower fees. All US banks are required to follow US anti-terrorist and anti-crime regulations and will tend to expect a USA address and identity documents to open an account with normal customers. A good international bank in Europe can also do many of these same sorts of things for you. I've had an account with Fortis. They were ok, there were no monthly fees but there were fees for transactions. In some countries I understand the post even runs a bank. Paypal can be a possibility, but fees can be high ~3% for transfers, and even higher commissions for currency change. On the other hand, it is probably one of the easiest and fastest ways to move amounts of $1000 or less, provided both people have paypal accounts.",
"\"The wire is probably the quick way to go. There may be a lower cost method through an international bank like Citi or HSBC. If you are a US resident or have a \"\"substantial presence\"\" in the United States, the IRS may be interested in the origins of your money.\"",
"The safest, quickest and cheapest option would be to do a wire transfer from your HK account to an account in a US bank. You can contact HSBC and ask them if it would be cheaper if the US bank account is at HSBC as well, but I doubt it would be a significant saving. Check the rates in HK about a wire transfer, in the US, on the receiving side, the fees are not dependent on the amount and are about $10-$15 per occurrence (shop around).",
"There is not any fraud involved. Anybody can gift money to another person.",
"Taxes Yes. You haven't indicated why the transfer is being made. If it is without any reason, it would attract a Gift Tax. legal liability It would definitely be investigated to see if Money Laundering or any other illegal activities is happening. If things are in order you have nothing to worry. charges Normally none. Your Bank can confirm better. friend of mine Are you sure he is a friend and this is not some kind of scam ... it typically starts of with you will get huge money and then calls like its stuck with RBI you need to paysome one to fast track or any such stories to get money out of you.",
"If it's always the same person, you could open a joint account. Then fees are avoided altogether. How fast the funds are available depends on what you deposit. Cash is immediate.",
"If you can provide evidence that you are the person who opened the account (which may be as simple as providing your signature, since this isn't really different from asking for a bank check or inter-bank transfer or ATM-network transfer), there should be no problem. Contact your bank and ask them what information they need to provide.",
"My brother is worried as in US a transaction of more than 10K can be flagged by IRS. Transactions may be flagged to IRS or any other regulators as required. If the intent is correct, there is nothing wrong, your Brother would have to establish that it was for legit reason. Will it be safe to transfer through wire to wire Transfer or is there any other alternatives All legit transfer mechanism would have the same reporting regulation. There is no one better than other method. As stated earlier, if the purpose is bonafide, there shouldn't be anything to worry about.",
"Do an semi-online transfer. I had a similar situation where i had to transfer 5K USD to a commercial entity. You can request the publisher to give you their bank account details. You will need the SWIFT code of the bank( SWIFT code is a international code that each bank gets to transfer money) You will need bank account number, account name, bank address, address of the publisher. Then just walk into your bank with the above details. Note that you will have to visit a branch in your city that allows forex transfers. They will give you a set of forms to fill up. The above details will be needed to fill up these forms In addition to the above, you will be asked to fill up a purpose code maintained by RBI. This code is used by RBI to understand the reason why you are transferring the money. The bank will provide you with a sheet which will have these codes and explanation of these codes. Read through the codes and in case of any questions ask the bank officials to help Tip: If you have accounts with any private sector banks, please approach them. Public sector banks will give you tough time Hope this helps! Regards, Ravi",
"I have taken to using the service TransferWise. I have found them to be faster and cheaper and easier than using SWIFT, given the US Banking's... antiquated system of doing things. I've made dozens of transfers between my international accounts with TransferWise over the past 18 months. Some of them very large and some of them tiny, and even when there's been an issue (I once wrote an offensive joke in my narration for the transfer and they noticed) they have handled it respectfully and quickly. Prior to transferring money to US accounts, I used the SWIFT system - but SWIFT has a pretty spotty record in the US. Some banks you can do it all online but other banks, as Dheer mentioned, you have to go into the bank and sometimes find a senior staff member before you can find someone who even knows what SWIFT is.",
"Open an account for yourself at this credit union: https://www.alliantcreditunion.org/ Very easy to qualify and they have free service to send money directly to your dad's bank account overnight.",
"You mentioned depositing the check and then sending a personal check. Be sure to account for time, since any deposit over $10,000 the money will be made available in increments, so it may take 10-14 days to get the full amount in your account before you could send a personal check. I would not recommend this option regardless, but if you do, just a heads up.",
"Most Banks allow to make an international transfer. As the amounts is very small, there is no paperwork required. Have your dad walk into any Bank and request for a transfer. He should be knowing your Bank's SWIFT BIC, Name and Address and account number. Edit: Under the liberalised remittance scheme, any individual can transfer upto 1 million USD or eq. A CA certificate is required. Please get in touch with your bank in India for exact steps",
"Dwolla looks to be a great option. But it requires users to have an account there (Free to sign up). And there rates are absolutely amazing. Free for transactions under $10 $0.25 to receive money on transactions over $10",
"As the college education is very costly, I want to send USD 25,000 to him as a gift. What is the procedure and what Indian and American tax laws are involved ? This transaction will be treated as gift. As per Indian law you can transfer unlimited amount to your close relative [son-in-law/grandchildren/daughter/etc]. In US the gift tax is on donor, as you are no US citizen you are not bound by this. As your son-in-law/grandchildren are US citizens, there is no tax to them. Your son-in-law may still need to declare this in Form 3250 or such relevant returns. Under the Liberalized remittance scheme [Refer Q3], you can transfer upto USD 250,000 per year. There maybe some forms that you need to fill. Ask your Bank. If the amount is more than USD 25,000 a CA certificate along with 15CA, 15CB need to be filled. Essentially the CA certifies that taxes on the funds being transferred have already been paid to Govt of India. Can I send money to him directly or to his father who is submitting tax returns in USA? This does not make any difference in India. Someone else may answer this question if it makes a difference in US.",
"Ask them to send a SWIFT payment [aka International Wire]. You would need to give them your bank details, essentially Bank Account, Bank Name & Address, SWIFT BIC, etc. Almost all Public Sector Bank and all leading Private scetor banks are members of SWIFT and can give you a the SWIFT BIC. If you are not sure about other party, it would be wise to open a new account and give the details of this account rather than your normal account.",
"\"See \"\"Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement prohibited.\"\" You absolutely run the risk of the accusation of structuring. One can move money via check, direct transfer, etc, all day long, from account to account, and not have a reporting issue. But, cash deposits have a reporting requirement (by the bank) if $10K or over. Very simple, you deposit $5000 today, and $5000 tomorrow. That's structuring, and illegal. Let me offer a pre-emptive \"\"I don't know what frequency of $10000/X deposits triggers this rule. But, like the Supreme Court's, \"\"We have trouble defining porn, but we know it when we see it. And we're happy to have these cases brought to us,\"\" structuring is similarly not 100% definable, else one would shift a bit right.\"\" You did not ask, but your friend runs the risk of gift tax issues, as he's not filing the forms to acknowledge once he's over $14,000.\"",
"Chase has a limit of $500,000 per day. A banker should be able to help you determine any immediate tax liabilities that will arise as a direct result of the transaction. You may wish to consult with a tax professional about any indirect implications the transfer may have. This transaction will be reported to the government but assuming that you are not involved in any illegitimate activities the likelihood of the US government taking any action on the notice is incredibly low. I have heard of 7 and 14 day holds being placed on out of character transfers but if you are buying property you should work with your bank to help facilitate. Bankers understand the business and can help you avoid any appearances of impropriety that the government flags. Should your account be flagged, I would retain a lawyer immediately. If you feel you have a reason to be concerned, then I would contact a lawyer in the US and Thailand before initiating the transfer. As they say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.",
"Many banks offer online payment. He can add a payee and just type your name and address in. The bank will mail the check out if they cannot deliver payment electronically. Edit: Recently I came across this (Citibank Global Transfer), you and your friend should see if your bank offers a similar service. Citibank requires both of you to have an account with them.",
"Transfer it as International wire, there will be some fees. Check with your Bank in Turkey. Turkey has not yet joined SEPA, else this would have been a low cost alternative.",
"The easiest and cheapest way I can think of is the online bill pay service that most banks use. It's free for both of you; regardless of what the bank has to go through to get the payment to its destination, they generally eat the costs. You can use this to pay anyone from your rent to your electric company to your cousin Vinnie. However, I do not think that a business checking account has this feature. Instead, most corporate cash accounts typically have an ACH service attached to them, where for some small, fixed fee like 25 to 50 cents per transaction, they will accept transfer requests in an ACH format. This is how your electric company does auto-debit (if you let them), and how banks do online bill pay to most corporate payees; they, and their bank account numbers, would be verified by and kept on file with each bank that moved a substantial volume of money to this payee.",
"Let's define better the situation and then analyze it: Start with: End with: Process: So B has the same amount of money, just in a different bank account, but A and C changed states. A now doesn't have money, and C does, as the result of the transaction between A, B and C. The gift tax issue I see is the transfer of money from A (you) to C (your brother). If you're a US tax resident then you have $14K exemption from gift tax per person per year. £20K is more than that, so it will be subject to the tax. The fact that a third person was involved as an intermediary is irrelevant - for the purpose of gift tax there's no distinction between using a bank for transfers or a private party. Keep in mind that paying tuition directly to the institution on behalf of your brother may help you mitigate your gift tax liability - tuition payment made on behalf of your brother is exempt from gift tax. But it has to be made directly to the institution, it cannot pass through your brother.",
"A non-cash transaction will not be a problem. The bank will have to fill out federal paperwork if there are large amounts of cash involved. This is to stop the underground economy. This can even extend to non-banks. If you were to walk into a car dealer or some other stores and hand them a bag of cash they will also report it. You can do what you propose without having to transfer any money between accounts. Your girlfriend can put the furniture and landscaping on her credit card, or write checks to the stores or companies. Based on the number of questions on this site regarding how to transfer funds between banks and accounts, the mechanics of the transfer is the hard part. Resist the urge to use cash to make the transfer. That will require paperwork. Many people find that the old standard of using checks to transfer funds is easy, safe and quick.",
"Regular wire transfer from bank to bank would be the easiest, safest, and likely the cheapest (next to carrying cash over the border) method. Get the SWIFT info from the US bank you want the many land in (I believe all of the ones you mentioned support SWIFT wire transfers), and give it to your family in China. They'll have to find a local bank that supports SWIFT out-going transfers (might not be as easy as in the US) and send it out from there. Other, more expensive, options would be Western Union/MoneyGram. Or carrying cash over the border, which in these amounts can trigger some questioning from the authorities.",
"I prefer to use a Foreign Exchange transfer service. You will get a good exchange rate (better than from Paypal or from your bank) and it is possible to set it up with no transfer fees on both ends. You can use an ACH transfer from your US bank account to the FX's bank account and then a SEPA transfer in Europe to get the funds into your bank account. Transfers can also go in the opposite direction (Europe to USA). I've used XE's service (www.xe.com) and US Forex's service (www.usforex.com). Transferwise (www.transferwise.com) is another popular service. US Forex's service calls you to confirm each transfer. They also charge a $5 fee on transfers under $1000. XE's service is more convenient: they do not charge fees for small transfers and do not call you to confirm the tramsfer. However, they will not let you set up a free ACH transfer from US bank accounts if you set up your XE account outside the US. In both cases, the transfer takes a few business days to complete. EDIT: In my recent (Summer 2015) experience, US Forex has offered slightly better rates than XE. I've also checked out Transferwise, and for transfers from the US it seems to be a bit of a gimmick with a fee added late in the process. For reference, I just got quotes from the three sites for converting 5000 USD to EUR:",
"Can I wire transfer money from the my NRO account in India to my checking account in the USA? Yes you can. However there is some paperwork you need to follow. As per FEMA [Foreign Exchange Management Act], any transfer by individuals outside of India need the 15CA & 15CB form. The 15CB is from a CA to state that taxes have been paid on the funds being transferred. The limit is 1 million USD per year. Read more at Liberalized Remittance Scheme and here. Any limit on the amount and do I have to report this to IRS or any other legal formality? Assuming you were already declaring the funds held in Banks outside of US in your regular IRS filings, there is no other formality.",
"PayPal. Or even Western Union or MoneyGram. Despite their fees, there is a reason those companies are still in business.",
"Like for example I use transferwise to send $x to my dad's account in India, would it show my name as the depositor ? That would depend from bank to bank, it may or may not show your name. Would it be considered as income for my dad ? Assuming your parents are Indian Residents for tax purposes. No. It would be considered as Gift. Gifts between father and son are tax free in India and there is no limit. Any special care/precaution to take before using such services ? Not really. Just to be safe, keep a copy of the transfer instruction / details of debit to you account etc, so that if there is enquiry you have all the data handy. Edit: Clarifying the comment, if you are Resident Alien in US for tax purposes, you would be liable to Gift Tax [Not your parents as they are Indian Residents and would follow Indian tax rules]. As per IRS the liability of Gift tax is on Donor subject to limit of $14000 per year per Donee. So you and your wife can gift your father and mother $14000 each. i.e. $56000 each year. Anything more will be taxable or can be reduced from the overall estate limit.",
"I can't speak to New Zealand law, but under US law, it's not a gift, so there is no tax. But there are some practical considerations. How good a relationship do you have with the banks on each end of the transfer? Transfers in the neighborhood of USD$10,000 are automatically considered suspicious and the banks are required to take extra steps to ensure you are not laundering the proceeds of criminal activity, funding terrorism, evading taxes, etc. You will have to fill out quite a bit of paperwork.",
"\"Within Canada, to send money to a friend online, you'd typically use the Interac e-Transfer service offered by most Canadian banks & credit unions. Here's a list of those that support it. My bank charges $1.50 to send money via Interac e-Transfer, and zero to receive. Charges are likely to vary by bank. FWIW, Interac is a not-for-profit organization & network founded about 30 years ago by some major Canadian banks to facilitate ATM, debit, and other electronic financial transactions within Canada. It's also possible at some banks to set up another person's bank account as a \"\"personal payee\"\" — at which point the account becomes available as a bill payment candidate in your online banking. I know at least three of the \"\"Big Five\"\" banks have this functionality. I use it at my own bank, but only for payees who also bank at my institution, and I'm not sure if it works between banks. You'll need to ask your candidate banks if they have such a feature, and whether it costs anything. The nice thing about the \"\"personal payee\"\" functionality is that, at least at my bank, there's no cost, so for recurring transfer scenarios it can keep costs down. To send payments outside of Canada, wire transfers remain an option – but doing so through a Canadian bank may be expensive. There exist some non-bank wire transfer providers that have more competitive fees and exchange rates. PayPal remains an option as well.\"",
"Not sure I understand your question correctly, but you could use ACH to transfer funds between banks without a fee (most banks don't charge, the big ones might, for outgoing). The downside of course is that an ACH takes 2 to 5 days depending on both the originating and receiving banks. A wire is instantaneous but there is always a fee.",
"You can use xoom.com or western union. They are both pretty much the same, as they do not charge any fees but take a cut of 0.7-0.8% on every dollar. However, there is a minimum and maximum limit of sending money. If you want to transfer more, you can wire money in through a financial institution such as Wells Fargo or Chase bank or look to see if there is a State bank of India around you. I am quite sure that they charge $15 plus 0.20-0.30% on every dollar( The last time I used it). Hope this helps.",
"Incoming is often free except from overseas... I've never found a bank offering free international wire transfers. Is this coming from a foreign country or another part of the USA? If it is from a foreign country, at some banks (HSBC, perhaps) you can get US$ checks for US payments, at a lower cost than a wire transfer but you have to be careful because the exchange rate might be different. If the transfers occur wholly within the USA there is really no good reason to use wire transfer if you can avoid it. ACH is usually free and is the same way direct deposit works. Use that, or if it is within a family (like for college) you could even use postdated checks.",
"Can I transfer directly from my US saving account to their Axis bank in India? Yes you can. any kind of tax my parents need to pay? No. From you parents point of view, its a Gift from their daughter and would come under the provisions of Gift Tax [and Not Income Tax]. Gifts from specified relatives [Daughter /sons /parent /siblings] is tax free. It would make sense to keep some paper work around this, for example a simple letter stating that this is a Gift, specify the amount, the date of transfer, the amount actually credited, details of the credit [Bank Statement]. If there is a scrutiny by income tax, it would ease things. any kind of tax I need to pay? In India NO. In US I am assuming your have already paid tax hence no tax.",
"Most definitely all wire transfer above a significant amount would be flagged as a suspicious transaction. Nevertheless, as long you provide the Final beneficiary information (name and account number), the bank will process the remittance.",
"\"I have heard that I can give 10k as a gift in cash for my aunt to take on the plane. Please don't, for her own safety. Don't know when was the last you've been to Russia, but that's not a place to walk around with $10K in cash in your pocket. For the rest, the 20k, I am not sure what is the best course of action. Would something like Western Union, Paypal or Bank Wire Transfer be the best course of action? Wire transfer would be the safest option. Would there be tax implications for me as well? Depends on where you are tax resident and where you are a citizen. Some countries have \"\"gift tax\"\", but most don't. If you're a US tax resident, then you're subject to US gift tax rules. Your gifts are taxable if they exceed $14K per year per person. So your $30K to your mom is taxable. But your $10K to your mom, $10K to your dad and $10K to your aunt is not. You cannot however control what they do with it.\"",
"Call Wells Fargo or go to a branch. Tell them what you're trying to accomplish, not the vehicle you think you should use to get there. Don't tell them you want to ACH DEBIT from YOUR ACCOUNT of YOUR MONEY. Tell them you apparently need a paperless transaction sent to this and that account at this and that bank. See if they offer a solution.",
"You might investigate Paypal if it is available to both of you. the International Transfers page on their site has a way to find out what sort of fee's they would charge you. It might be a lot simpler and easier than doing wire transfers or dealing with banks etc.",
"I want to transfer about 60 Lakhs INR from my NRO account in India to my US bank account Yes you can. However there is some paperwork you need to follow. As per FEMA [Foreign Exchange Management Act], any transfer by individuals outside of India need the 15CA & 15CB form. The 15CB is from a CA to state that taxes have been paid on the funds being transferred. The limit is 1 million USD per year. Read more at Liberalized Remittance Scheme and here. What is the best way to transfer it with minimum fees/taxes Assuming you were already declaring the funds held in Banks outside of US in your regular IRS filings, there is no other formality. Question on Minimum fees service recommendation is out of scope on this site. Outward remittance can only be done by Bank Transfer.",
"buy a cashiers check with the cash (a CRT will be nec if over 10 K) and deposit the cashiers check",
"If the funds are in NRE account, then there is no issue. You just instruct your bank in India to transfer. If your tax status in India is Non-Resident Indian, you should not be holding a normal Savings bank account. Under the liberalized remittance scheme you can transfer upto 2,50,000 USD per year. You would need to instruct your bank in India to initiate a international wire transfer. The FAQs are here",
"I would certainly hope to make the transfer by wire - the prospect of popping cross the border with several million dollars in the trunk seems... ill fated. I suppose I'm asking what sort of taxes, duties, fees, limits, &c. would apply Taxes - None. It is your money, and you can transfer it as you wish. You pay taxes on the income, not on the fact of having money. Reporting - yes, there's going to be reporting. You'll report the origin of the money, and whether all the applicable taxes have been paid. This is for the government to avoid money laundering. But you're going to pay all the taxes, so for transfer - you'll just need to report (and maybe, for such an amount, actually show the tax returns to the bank). Fees - shop around. Fees differ, like any other product/service costs on the marketplace.",
"Essentially you can send a Check by mail, you brother deposits into Bank account. It costs very little, the time required would be around 1-2 months. You can do International Wire [Via SWIFT] it would reach in few days, fees are high. You can use specialized remittance services like Money2india, remit2india, or western union etc. The fees are low and generally funds reach in a week.",
"Other than the options pointed out by MoneyOne, I would like to add one more. If the bank that you want to transfer money from has bill pay facility, then you can send yourself a check for the required amount. Then you could deposit this check in the bank where you want to money transferred. I do agree that this is a long way method of transferring money between banks, but this is the only way to do it if your (From) bank doesn't allow bank to bank transfers for your (To) bank or charges you money for each transfer. Normally, most banks give you access to bill pay facility free of charge if you use online banking. I also believe that you could even use it with a savings account, but don't quote me on that. Also, I do know that Bank Of America has started accepting checks through their ATMs, so if your (To) bank does something similar, you would not even need to go to a physical branch.",
"You would probably be better off wiring the money from your US account to your French account. That IMHO is the cheapest and safest way. It doesn't matter much which bank to use, as it will go through the same route of SWIFT transfer, just choose the banks with the lowest fees on both sides, shop around a little.",
"I use XE.com for almost the same purpose. They have free transfer options, such as ACH withdrawals and deposits. I normally do a online bill payment through my international bank to XE, and have them deposit it in the US via ACH. It takes 1-3 business days, and there's no fee beyond their small percentage (about 1.25%) on top of the exchange rate.",
"\"Simplest is probably international bank transfer. If you don't like those, I had a friend who would buy travelers cheques, endorse them and write in large \"\"Only pay to the order of ****\"\" then send them by mail. Very difficult for anyone other than the recipient to cash, very low fees, and there next day if you send it overnight mail.\"",
"Have his bank put the money on a gift card or gift cards and have somebody send them to you in the mail. In fact, if you are going to spend the money online all you need is the numbers and codes from the card to spend the money. If you have more time have the bank send you a cashiers check or money order.",
"\"You can wire the money to the university. If your friend is a registered student, then they will have an account at the school. Contact the school directly and ask for the \"\"bursar's office\"\" (assuming it is an English speaking school). The bursar will tell you how to wire the money so that it reaches the proper account. Normally, you will wire to a general university account at a bank and the memo on the wire will include the student's account number. Your friend can wire money to your account at your bank. Go to your bank and ask them for the procedure. By the way, there is a 90% chance your \"\"friend\"\" will not pay you back.\"",
"The best, cheapest and safe way is to wire transfer that money from their Bank Account to yours. Ask your bank about information regarding inbound international wire transfer and provide those details to your dad. About how much amounts can he do so : if the amount is more than $10K, you need to provide enough information about where the money is coming from, sources and other legal details. Whatever way you chose, never do transfers in small chunks (which is called structuring), to avoid the legal hassle - as that might result in more issues and every bank has checks in place to find out this way of structuring. I would suggest wire transfer all the money, through proper channel, through the banks. It's better to pay some fees, follow the law and live peacefully than to go through some improper channels to avoid paltry fees and get into serious issues.",
"I would recommend wire transfer. I was in your position some years ago, and the US$ cheque took 6 weeks to clear. Wire transfer fees are generally a few tens of pounds, depending on the banks involved.",
"From an India tax point of view your father can gift you unlimited amount of money and the transfer would be under Gift Tax act. As per the act there is NO tax on this transaction. I does not matter if you get yourself added into the joint account or not. From a US tax point of view, this transfer would come under gift tax, however in US the gift tax is applicable on the Donor [i.e. your father]. As your father is not a US Citizen the provisions are not applicable to him. Edit Under the liberalized remittance scheme, an individual can transfer upto USD 1 million every year. A CA certificate is required certifying that the taxes on the funds have been paid. Your Bank would be able to guide you on the exact process.",
"There is a startup targeted specifically to serve you for the situation you describe: - http://peertransfer.com There are other methods. CurrencyFair is one service that might help: - http://currencyfair.com And, there is bitcoin. Because it is new yet, there aren't very liquid markets where bitcoins are exchanged for Rupees or Yuan at decent rates at the present. Once you receive bitcoins transferred to you however, those funds are easily transferred to your B Of A account (using Dwolla to send via ACH to your bank). - https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Buying_bitcoins",
"You don't have much choice other than to open an account in your business name, then do a money transfer, as @DJClayworth says. You will not without providing your name and street address and possibly other information that you may consider to be of a private nature. This is due to laws about fraud, money laundering and consumer protection. I'm not saying that's what you have in mind! But without accountability of the sort provided by names and street addresses, banks would be facilitating crimes of many sorts, which is why regulatory agencies enforce disclosure requirements.",
"Anyone who has that kind of money to blow probably has a CPA with a power of attorney who could provide such a service. I don't have that kind of money but I do have a CPA with a POA who would gladly charge me and arm and a leg to deliver money to me.",
"Unfortunately, I can't simply write a check. Why not? Getting a certified check or a money draft from your original bank would be the safest way of transferring money. You can also get it wired directly -- talk to your new bank and see if they can get something set up for you.",
"\"The easiest and least expensive way of doing this, similar to the answer from Randy Coulman, is to write a check and deposit it into the Canadian Institution. Since this transfer is between accounts you own the easiest thing to do is to do a deposit by mail. Contact your current institution on where you would need to mail your deposit to. You can then write yourself a check on the US bank and mail it to the Canadian bank; be sure to write \"\"For Deposit Only\"\" along with your account number (and Branch Number for Canada) on the back. This is the slowest, but cheapest method. An alternative option is to use Wire Transfers, but they can be very costly (you'll usually incur a fee when sending and when receiving). I only recommend them when you need the money in the account fast (they are usually settled within an hour).\"",
"Take a look at Transferwise. I find them good for currency conversions and paying people in India from a US bank account.",
"You could use a money transfer service like Western Union or the equivalent.",
"If bank B has a transfer limit set, you bet that there is a nice reason for that. Either risk of fraud, liability, client preferences, profiling, credit scoring, etc, etc. For a bank, the cost of denying something [1] is way lower than the potential damages and liabilities of allowing something to go through. Regarding your concerns for the ACH, here is the summarized transaction walkthrough source: An Originator– whether that’s an individual, a corporation or another entity– initiates either a Direct Deposit or Direct Payment transaction using the ACH Network. ACH transactions can be either debit or credit payments and commonly include Direct Deposit of payroll, government and Social Security benefits, mortgage and bill payments, online banking payments, person-to-person (P2P) and business-to-business (B2B) payments, to name a few. Instead of using paper checks, ACH entries are entered and transmitted electronically, making transactions quicker, safer and easier. The Originating Depository Financial institution (ODFI) enters the ACH entry at the request of the Originator. The ODFI aggregates payments from customers and transmits them in batches at regular, predetermined intervals to an ACH Operator. ACH Operators (two central clearing facilities: The Federal Reserve or The Clearing House) receive batches of ACH entries from the ODFI. The ACH transactions are sorted and made available by the ACH Operator to the Receiving Depository Financial Institution (RDFI). The Receiver’s account is debited or credited by the RDFI, according to the type of ACH entry. Individuals, businesses and other entities can all be Receivers. Each ACH credit transaction settles in one to two business days, and each debit transaction settles in just one business day, as per the Rules. Take heed of this like: The Originator initiates a direct deposit/payment transaction. In your scenario, the originator would be B. But since the transaction amount is higher than the limit, B would not even initiate the ACH transaction. The request would be denied. So the transaction would look like this: [1] Usually this cost comes down to just the processing costs of the denied transaction (and it is rather fail-fast like). For the other parties involved it may have additional costs (missed deadlines, penalties for not fulfilling an obligation, fines, etc), but for the bank that is irrelevant.",
"He cannot get money from someone else account. Your US resident friend in New York can send money to your Indian friend in Atlanta via Western Union which has presence in almost every corner of the US. Most definitely in the city of Atlanta. Your Indian friend can receive the Western Union transfer, in cash, within minutes after the friend in New York sends it. Here's the site for location search. The sender doesn't need to go anywhere, can send online, so your New York friend doesn't even need to waste much time. In fact - you don't need to bother your friend in New York, you can send it online yourself (assuming you're American/have US bank account). In order to receive the money, your Indian friend will obviously need a proper identification (i.e.: passport).",
"\"There is no \"\"reason why this cannot be done\"\", but you can tell your friend that these actions are officially shady in the eyes of the US government. Any bank transactions with a value of $10,000 or more are automatically reported to the government as a way to prevent money laundering, tax evasion, and other criminal shenanigans. \"\"Structuring\"\" bank deposits to avoid this monetary limit is a crime in and of itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_transaction_report\"",
"You didn't specify where in the world you account is - ScotiaBank operates in many countries. However, for large amounts where there is a currency conversion involved, you are almost guaranteed to be better off going to a specialist currency broker or payments firm, rather than using a direct method with your bank (such as a wire transfer). Based on my assumption that your account is in Canada, one provider who I have personally used with success in transferwise, but the best place to compare where is the best venue for you is https://www.fxcompared.com In the off chance that this is an account with Scotiabank in the United States, any domestic payment method such as a domestic wire transfer should do the job perfectly well. The fees don't matter for larger amounts as they are a single fee versus a percentage fee like you see with currency conversions.",
"After transferring, do we need to file any forms to IRS regarding money transfer? Not immediately. Do we need to file any forms in US as part of tax returns for this transfer? In case the recipient and the sender are not the same person, the recipient must attach form 3520A to his/her tax return. If you are transferring between your own accounts - you're good to go. However, this NRE account must have been reported on your FBAR and form 8938 attached to your tax return. Do we need to inform my local bank in USA regarding the transfer in advance? You probably want to confirm the transfer instructions with them (SWIFT instructions, routing info, etc).",
"If you’re concerned about transferring USD, I can’t really help you there. But if you’re looking to transfer wealth, I believe that’s where something like Bitcoin could help you. In fact a small or nonexistent processing fee is one of Bitcoin’s biggest strengths as a currency. Off the top of my head, I believe BitPay has services that would suit your needs. And if you’re worried about the volatility of Bitcoin, you can always convert it straight to USD just so you can avoid service fees!",
"Wire transfers are the best method. Costs can vary from $10 to $100 or more, depending on the banks and countries involved. There's rarely any saving using the same bank, although HSBC may have reduced charges if you have Premier accounts in both countries (for a one-off transaction, it may not be worth the effort to open an account). However, that cost is insignificant compared to your possible losses on the currency exchange. Assuming your money is currently in Hong Kong Dollars (HKD), it will need to be converted to US Dollars (USD). One place where it could be converted is at your Hong Kong bank. You'll get their retail rate. Make sure you are aware of the rate they will use, and any fees, in advance. Expect to pay around 2-3% from the mid-market rate (the rate you see quoted online, which doesn't fluctuate much for HKD-USD as the currencies are linked). Another place where the currency could be converted is at your US bank. You really don't get any control over that if it arrives as HKD and is then automatically converted into your USD. The rate and fees could be quite poor, especially if it is a minor US bank that has to deal with anther bank for foreign currency. For amounts of this size, it's worthwhile using a specialist currency conversion company instead. Currency Fair in Ireland is one. It's a peer-to-peer exchange that is generally the best deal (at least for the currency pairs I use). You wire the money to them, do the exchange on their site at a rate that is much closer to 0.5% from the midrate, then the money is transferred out by wire for a few dollars. Adds a few days to the process, but will possibly save you close to US$1000. Another established option is Currency Online in New Zealand. There are probably also specialist currency exchange companies in Hong Kong. The basic rule is, don't let the banks exchange currencies at rates that suit them, use a third party that offers a better rate and lower fees.",
"Check with Lawyer and CA who deals with international laws. It maybe illegal in Saudi Arabia. From India tax point of view, any credits into NRE account is not taxable. However credits to friends/family will be treated as GIFT and friends/family will be liable to pay a gift tax if such transfer are more than Rs 50,000/- per year. Although FEMA does not prohibit explicitly such arrangement, these look like round about way of moving money and can be investigated.",
"If you trust the other party, an international bank wire would be the quickest, easiest, and cheapest option. It is the standard way to pay for something overseas from the United States. Unfortunately, in most cases, they are not reversible. I don't believe Paypal is an option for an amount that large. Escrow companies do exist, but you would have to research those on a case by case basis to see if any fit the criteria for your transaction and the countries involved. I'll also add: If it were me, and there was no way to get references or verify the person's identity and intent to my satisfaction, then I would probably consider hopping on a plane. For that amount of money, I would verify the person and items are legitimate, in person, and then wire the money.",
"Yes it should be a ACH or other electronic transfer. However, it not unusual to have checks sent for large amounts in corporate banking. Large companies don't give large checks to tellers, they have it sent to a lockbox. However, lockboxes are suited for payment of invoices and I never heard of a billion dollar invoice. edit: Also, I believe that some of the bailouts were done in checks, but honestly I'm not 100% on that.",
"A handful of well-known banks in the United States are part of the clearXchange network, which allows customers of those banks to move money amongst them. The clearXchange service is rebranded differently by each member bank. For example, Chase calls it QuickPay, while Wells Fargo calls it SurePay, and Capital One calls it P2P Payments. To use clearXchange, the sender's bank must be part of the network. The recipient isn't required to be in the network, though if they are it makes things easier, as no setup is required on the recipient's end in that case. Otherwise, they must sign up on the clearXchange site directly. From what I can tell, most payments are fee-free within the network. I have repeating payments set up with Chase's QuickPay, and they do not charge fees.",
"The best would be to find someone in that country to make a payment on behalf of you. Other option is to use remittance services like Western union. It allows transfers to bank Account in Poland. You can fund by debiting your Card or Bank Account in US. If you debit your Card, there may be some fees as it would be treated as Cash Advance.",
"Most US banks allow to initiate wire transfers online. (I do it regularly with BoA and JPMorgan-Chase) Once you have your account details in Germany, you log on to your US account, set it up, and initiate the transfer; that should go through within one day. The exchange ratio is better than anything you would get buying/selling currency (paper cash money), no matter where you do it. Chase takes a fee of 40$ per online transaction; BoA 45$. The receiving bank might or might not take additional fees, they should be lower though (I have experienced between 0€ and 0.35%). Therefore, it is a good idea to bundle your transfers into one, if you can.",
"Give a cheque. You can. Your friend would have to deposit this in a Bank that does this service. Not all Banks offer this service in US. It generally would take 1-3 months for the funds to reach. Give a dollar-denominated cheque You can NOT write check on a Rupee account and put USD. You can definitely buy a USD Draft generally payable in the US. There would be some charge for you here and send it by courier, post. It would get paid into your friends account in about a week. Do a SWIFT transfer Yes you can. You may need to walk into a Branch and fill up forms. If the amount is more than specified limit a CA certificate is required. Am I correct in understanding Yes Use my ATM card in the US Yes you can. Specialised money transfer services like Western Union Transfer money out of India is not allowed by Money Transfer services",
"US bank deposits over $10K only need to be reported to FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network- a bureau of the US Department of Treasury) if the deposits are made in cash or other money instruments where the source cannot be traced (money orders, traveler checks, etc). Regular checks and wires don't need to be reported because there is a clear bank trail of where the money came from. If your family member is giving you money personally (not from a business) from a bank account which is outside of the US, then you only need to report it if the amount is over $100K. Note, you would need to report that regardless of whether the money was deposited into your US bank account, or paid directly to your credit cards on your behalf, and there are stiff penalties if you play games to try to avoid reporting requirements. Neither deposit method would trigger any taxable income for the scenario you described.",
"How much amount can we transfer from India to the USA? Is the limit per year? As I understand your father in law is Indian Citizen and his tax paid earnings need to be transferred outside of India. Under the Liberalized Remittance Scheme by RBI, one can transfer upto 2,50,000 USD. Please check with your Bank for the exact paperwork. A form 15CA and 15CB [by CA] are required to establish taxes have been paid. What documents we have to present to the bank? See above. Should money be transferred to company's account(Indian Company) to USA company? or can be transferred to my husband's account. Transfer of funds by a Indian Company to US Company has some restrictions. Please check with CA for details. If you father in law has sold the Indian Company and paid the taxes in India; he can transfer the proceeds to his son in US as per the Liberalized Remittance Scheme. Can they just gift the whole amount to my husband? What will be the tax implication on my husband's part in USA and on my father in law in India. The whole amount can be gifted by your father in law to your husband [his son]. There is no tax implication in India as being an Indian resident, gift between close relatives is tax free. There is no tax implication to your husband as he is a US Citizen and as per gift tax the person giving the gift should be paying the applicable taxes. Since the person gifting is not US Citizen; this is not applicable.",
"The simplest thing to do is still one of the oldest: Write a check. If you don't have a checking account, you can still probably enter the payment in your bank's online bill pay - In this case they will send him a paper check. There's an irrational desire these days to avoid checks at all costs, which I don't understand. There's a time and place for electronic transfers and there's no doubt they're often very useful. This is probably not one of those cases, however, since neither you nor your friend are set up for it.",
"\"Yes, many banks offer such a service. Often such payments can be made through their \"\"bill pay\"\" interface. You log in to your account on the bank's website, enter the recipient's routing and account numbers, and off you go. You could ask your bank whether they offer this. If not, you could change banks to one that does.\"",
"A large biller is registered and can initiate an ACH Debit to your account based on the Account Number and the Routing number. He assumes responsibility and completes the due diligence of obtaining a written mandate / permission / authorization from you. There are other legal process where by you get a Power of Attorney that would allow you to transact on behalf of someone. The key point you seem to be missing is that one can ONLY transact from ones account either by walking into the Bank / ATM, or by writing a check. There are other options as well to transact.",
"do I have to pay any tax? Technically this would be treated as Gift from non relatives and taxes as per gift tax rules. There is a limit of Rs 50,000 per year to receive funds from non-relatives. Note if the amount becomes Rs 50,001 then the entire Rs 50,001 is taxable. If you are again giving this money to your friend, then your friend is also liable to pay Gift Tax on the money received. It is best recommended that you have your friend open an account.",
"Is there a limit on how much I can send? Can I send $100K plus? No. Yes. What is the most appropriate way to send money - international wire? Is there international-wire limit restrictions I need to be aware of? Yes. No. Is there any tax obligation should I be aware of when sending money home? If you're a US tax resident (which, as a US citizen, you are), you should be aware of gift tax rules. You'll probably want to talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) and/or attorney, to understand the ramifications in full. If my family can return my money back in future, great, if not I really don't care, but when (if) I get my money back, will I have to pay taxes on bringing my own money back into US? No. But if you're giving it as a loan - you'll get paid interest which is taxable income to you. Is there anything else do I need to be aware of? The rules of the country which you're sending the money to.",
"Puerto Rico: Last I checked, the Puerto Rico banking system wasn't materially different than working within the US - though some Continental US banks exclude US Territories like Guam and Puerto Rico or charge more when dealing with them. I'm not certain as to why. However, most banks don't see them any differently than a regular US bank. Regarding Wire Transfers (WT): $35 for an ad-hoc WT within the US and Puerto Rico is for the most part average. Wires cost money for the convenience of quick clearing and guaranteed funds. If you have a business/commercial account where you are doing this regularly and paying a monthly fee for a WT service, $10 - $15 each may be expected. I had a business account with US Bank where I paid $15 a month for a WT transfer service and reoccurring template (always went to the same account - AMEX in this case) and the transfers were only $15 each. But, a WT as a general rule, especially when it's only a once a month thing from a personal account, will cost around $25 - $35 in the US and Puerto Rico. As others have said, you can simply mail a personal check just as you would in the US. Many people choose to use Money Orders for Puerto Rico as they can be cashed at the post office (I believe there is an amount limit though). ACH: If you want even easier, I would use ACH. Banks in Puerto Rico use this ACH (Automatic Clearing House) system as we do in the Continental US. It will take a little longer than WT, but as you said - this is fine. Not all US Banks offer free ACH, but a number of them do. Last I checked, Citibank and USAA where among them. Banks like, BAC charges a small fee. Much smaller than a WT! This post may be useful to you: What's the difference between wire transfer and ACH?",
"It will not be a problem; people regularly move larger sums. It will be reported to law authorities as large enough to be potentially of interest, but since you can explain it that's fine."
] |
[
"A non-cash transaction will not be a problem. The bank will have to fill out federal paperwork if there are large amounts of cash involved. This is to stop the underground economy. This can even extend to non-banks. If you were to walk into a car dealer or some other stores and hand them a bag of cash they will also report it. You can do what you propose without having to transfer any money between accounts. Your girlfriend can put the furniture and landscaping on her credit card, or write checks to the stores or companies. Based on the number of questions on this site regarding how to transfer funds between banks and accounts, the mechanics of the transfer is the hard part. Resist the urge to use cash to make the transfer. That will require paperwork. Many people find that the old standard of using checks to transfer funds is easy, safe and quick.",
"It will not be a problem; people regularly move larger sums. It will be reported to law authorities as large enough to be potentially of interest, but since you can explain it that's fine."
] |
2204
|
What's an economic explanation for why greeting cards are so expensive?
|
[
"280056",
"4066",
"174363",
"424523",
"271514",
"50809",
"374030",
"83922"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"424523",
"374030",
"271514",
"174363",
"83922",
"4066",
"280056",
"50809",
"155564",
"364619",
"145485",
"248826",
"138112",
"366753",
"280478",
"219313",
"566878",
"168679",
"34366",
"371633",
"41963",
"498886",
"216494",
"465602",
"334097",
"424503",
"421017",
"479111",
"515534",
"316491",
"488303",
"437392",
"205563",
"135123",
"370091",
"67676",
"206494",
"548319",
"344118",
"124649",
"253304",
"590161",
"302835",
"319700",
"260638",
"311289",
"69337",
"572313",
"156180",
"25701",
"395353",
"445598",
"32328",
"297694",
"21467",
"449523",
"57217",
"282286",
"49671",
"225951",
"235958",
"36201",
"27634",
"314738",
"35128",
"209188",
"60529",
"75616",
"505763",
"442382",
"87546",
"108459",
"273837",
"317073",
"437796",
"176343",
"61706",
"36321",
"322441",
"354565",
"561570",
"309019",
"439106",
"15792",
"382591",
"9055",
"473387",
"560757",
"142779",
"15643",
"83081",
"20240",
"11888",
"590617",
"454408",
"34388",
"331686",
"375019",
"363371",
"27921"
] |
[
"\"We generally speak of the \"\"elasticity of demand\"\". Greeting cards are expensive because they can be. We buy them in a sentimentally weakened state, and we do not buy them by the tonne. There is also the concept of \"\"Market Segmentation\"\", but not so much. Essentially the price is determined by finding the \"\"point of pain\"\" and winding it back a little. So people will pay $5 for a card. They will not (generally) pay $5,000 unless there is a good reason (vanity ?). Why sell them for $2 ? The customers who baulk at $5 tend not to even have $2. (Market segmentation again). In short the price is always going to need to be set before the point where demand rolls off sharply, to maximise profit.\"",
"As one answer points out, people buying greeting cards care little about whether they cost 25 cents or $5. Those are both small amounts of money and it's not something you buy often---also people feel the need to spend money because it's a gift. On the supplier side, it should be noted that the cost of cards has little to do with the paper they are printed on. There is an expectation that cards are new and unique...something the buyer and recipient have never seen. So they have writers and graphic designers constantly cranking out a large variety of cards and replacing existing cards with new ones, of which only a small number get sold before they move to the next model. Relatively speaking, there is a lot of human effort per thousand cards sold. Then of course there is the real estate they occupy in the store (disproportionate to a bunch of pieces of paper) and other retail, marketing, and distribution costs. I'm not saying margins are particularly thin, but if they were crazy high we probably would see more entry as you suggest.",
"\"It'll all about the marketing. If you don't get a \"\"real\"\" greeting card for that important birthday or anniversary or whatever, the recipient may thing you're being cheap for using a card you printed out yourself. So you pay $6 for a card because you feel like you have to. Hallmark advertises with those sappy TV commercials for a very good reason. The margins on the product are sky-high, and they spend a good chunk of that money on marketing the product. Perfume is the same way: super cheap to make, low barrier to entry, and the popular ones command a high price.\"",
"I actually have a bit of experience with the supplier side of this. Having worked with other people attempting to get the business launched, I can shed a bit of insight. The primary reason for the pricing is that there simply isn't enough competition to warrant dropping the price any lower than it already is. Large companies such as Hallmark will typically buy card designs at 5% of the card's selling price. With their existing distribution network, this makes bringing in new and varied designs much easier for large companies that are already well established. Having talked with such designers in the past, someone working full time producing designs makes on average 30-60k annually from this, which is worth it to someone who doesn't want to jump through the hoops of actually getting into the business independently. The primary issue stifling competition is actually getting your product into stores. There are topics here that I cannot discuss due to NDA, but I can break down the overall outline for you: You need to start with a large number of designs, with enough variety that companies think could sell well. If you bring a handful of designs with you, no company is going to take your business venture seriously enough. You need to find a company that can stamp out a large production process for you. The company is going to need to be nice enough to take smaller purchase orders on the magnitude of several hundred cards, but also be capable of scaling that production to several hundreds of thousands of cards very quickly. For cards specifically, most companies want you to ship custom racks with your cards. Some companies may provide their own racks for stocking your product, but not all of them will. This will also cost a lot of money up front. You need to find a buyer for a company you want to sell your product to. This is important, and what killed our original business plans. Think Wal-Mart, Target, or even CVS Pharmacy. These big companies are going to have people who's entire job is to buy new products to put on their shelves. This is where networking is key, you need to find people with connections to these buyers if you're not already well established with them. You will also likely fail several times, either getting outright ignored, or through a broker that can't meet expectations. For example, we had a broker that introduced us to a buyer for a large store chain, and after several months of work we found out that this broker was just pulling our strings. Typically a company will want to test your product in a handful of stores to see if it will sell. For example, Target may want to test your product in 100-200 stores over 3 months and expect your product to sell at a minimum rate. Finally, you need to be able to scale your production. Suddenly you'll be asked to go from supplying 100 stores to supplying 1,800 stores with a deadline in 2 weeks. Buyers will even turn you down at this point if they don't think you can meet the production. All of this work takes at least a year, and typically takes several years to go from an initial product to having your product in every store. Without breaking the numbers down too much, we could make a profit of ~$1.60 for every $3 card that sold. That number doesn't cover the cost of racks and other overhead, that's just the per-card profit. Even then, people are more likely to go view the Hallmark or other big-name cards over your offering. Only when another company becomes a big powerhouse to be competitive will these companies be forced to drop their prices.",
"It cost a lot of money to pay the poet to make wording, designers/photographers to make the post-cards and miscellaneous staff (Executives, HR, shareholders etc.) These cost are thrown onto the buyers.",
"Why do people buy them when they would be cheap to make for themselves? Convenience. While you could easily find some pictures and lay them out with a sentiment, buy some card stock, print in colour, trim it, and perhaps glue on some glitter or whatnot, and then find an envelope that fits it, it's likely to take you an hour or more to do so. And you'll invest far more than $6 on your printer and various inventories. I made cards for my kids- we had construction paper, glitter, coloured markers etc and there was no need for an envelope. But most people will find it quicker and simpler to buy one fully assembled. The cost of the online ones is weird I agree. Perhaps people are also not confident they can compose a good greeting? Why do stores stock $6 cards that they buy for $3 (retail markup is 50-100% and I'm sure it's closer to 100% for cards) when a different supplier might provide them for $2? Well, even if such a supplier existed, I'm sure the store would be happy to sell for $6 still (see: people buy them) so there would be no consumer impact. A store that sells cards for $5 isn't going to siphon customers from elsewhere because most of us just don't buy cards often enough for it to matter. Why does nobody become that supplier who will sell them cheaper? Selling stuff is more expensive than making stuff, and getting your product into retail stores is hard. Hard means time and time means money and all of that contributes more to the card price than the ink and paper do. That said, dollar stores sell cards, for a dollar typically, and people do buy them. I find they have less colours and the artwork is cruder. Perhaps you even get what you pay for when it comes to design, layout, printing etc.",
"Competition, or actually lack of competition, mostly due to a demand curve that has minimal change due to price. You would buy the equivalent, cheaper option if it was available, but the store has little interest in offering multiple, competing options that would drive their same store revenue down. And the competing stores (Grocery, Department, Drug, Card) have similar overhead costs (floor space, lights, personnel). Most carry the cards for incremental revenue, and observe little advantage to lower price for a card (customers seldom buy more cards due to a lower price). Thus they mark the price to what (most) customers are willing to pay. You may choose to shop the various stores and find the one that has a (slightly) better pricing for cards, and then stop at that store when you want to buy a card. But many cards are sold as an incremental purchase as part of a larger shopping trip (convenience), as the customer combines trips (reduce the time spent shopping, albeit not reducing the money spent).",
"(At least in the UK) a company named Card Factory has been very successful in undercutting the competition using the classic pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap strategy with less glamorous high-street locations than 'traditional' stores. Interestingly it doesn't seem to have spawned either competition at their price point or lowered the general prices for greetings cards even in low-margin businesses like supermarkets. A quick glance at their annual report suggests they're doing reasonably well with this approach.",
"\"With all due respect to economics everywhere and the armchair economist. I think they overlook one very basic fact. The alternative to buying popcorn at the cinema is buying it cheaper at the store, or making your own and bringing it to the cinema. Cinemagoing is something you tend to do with a date (and sometimes your friends) and who wants to look cheap to their date (and perhaps their spouse/friends) bringing popcorn to the cinema? This \"\"cheapo-gentlemens\"\" effect together with convenience is probably the reason why popcorn can remain so expensive at cinemas.\"",
"For the record, I would never believe any major media outlet when it comes to a complex economic evaluation. I hope you wouldn't either. The article mentions that people are sending less mail. Maybe you're not old enough to remember sending letters, but people used to do it a lot.",
"You had excellent point how **costs of production** can affect price. Final_J explained already how value differs from this. It's good to remember that cost, price and value are separate things. Usually cost < price < value for trade to happen. Money is the best metrics we have, but it doesn't give really good picture of neither, costs or value. I really kept myself as a smart dude about a year ago, for understanding what you just told us here. I like the way you think.",
"John R. Lott, Jr. and Russell D. Roberts argue that popcorn in movie theaters has a price commensurate with its much higher cost. See also Lott's criticism of the Gil and Hartmann paper.",
"if rent, health care, college, doctor fees, drug prescription fees, lawyer fees, car repair mechanic fees weren't so expensive, then Americans would be living the good life, enjoying cheap deflationary books on Amazon and the no-change-in-price-for-the-last-decade prices of electronics, cars, and consumer goods from Wal-mart and newegg.",
"Suppose that the fixed overhead costs of delivering a service, not related to the actual volume of sales, are $50 million per year. Suppose the variable costs on top are $100 per customer per year. Suppose further that 1% of the population buys the service. In the US, 3.2 million people buy the service, and it costs $116 per person to deliver it ($100 plus $50 million divided by 3.2 million). In Australia, 230,000 people buy it, and it costs $317 per person per year to deliver it ($100 plus $50 million divided by 230,000). The larger your market, the cheaper everything is, and Australia is a very small market compared with the USA, the EU, China or India.",
"In the theater, it's a person who can afford to buy expensive pop corn, cause he can buy the expensive movie ticket too... Also sitting at one place will make him feel hungry and buy something to eat... So maximum chances are that in the theater, that guy is your potential customer... Otherwise if the popcorn seller is somewhere outside the theater, they may charge you less. That's because of a different target audience... They would be targeting anyone who comes near the theater, who would not be willing to pay for expensive snacks or movie tickets... So very few customers around will be actually potential customers... To maximize their profits, they will keep the prices low and supply as much as they can... I know this is going against the normal Price Elasticity of Demand and Supply graph, but if the prices are low there will be high demand, so if the PED is more than 1, the supplier should supply as much as they can, to maximize profits... Its all based on the target audience... That's what I think should be the case of expensive popcorn in movie theaters...",
"They raised the minimum wage in my state. Guess what? Businesses are closing, especially bars and restaurants. There are roughly half the number of bars than there were five years ago. When you make the product too expensive people stop buying. That is not a difficult concept. Businesses around here became too expensive. There are always options, from DIY to going without. When something becomes too expensive, people stop buying. This isn't some economic theory, *businesses are actually closimg.*",
"Same thing happened in the college degree market. When fewer people were obtaining degrees a degree nearly guaranteed a better paying future. But as more and more people go after degrees the price has skyrocketed while the pay has not. In fact many positions that didn't used to even require a degree are now requiring degrees without any more pay than what used to get paid for the non-degree employee. [It Takes a B.A. to Find a Job as a File Clerk](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/business/college-degree-required-by-increasing-number-of-companies.html) >ATLANTA —The college degree is becoming the new high school diploma: the new minimum requirement, albeit an expensive one, for getting even the lowest-level job. Meanwhile this is [productivity growth relative to wages](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/US_productivity_and_real_wages.jpg). This is capital returns (durable capital [not liquid capital (PDF)](https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/gsb/files/jmp_simcha-barkai.pdf)) relative to [wage returns](http://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2012/12/06/Andrew_Smithers_chart_blog_main_horizontal.JPG). This is because markets don't set the price of labor. Bargaining power sets the price of labor. And that bargaining power is a function of politics, not markets.",
"One explanation is that movie patrons are considering their total willingness to pay for the movie experience so that if the ticket price plus the market price of popcorn is less than their willingness to pay (WTP), the theater has an opportunity to extract more consumer surplus by charging higher than market prices for the popcorn (that is, price discrimination). There is a working paper on the subject by Gill and Hartmann (2008), the abstract of which reads: Prices for goods such as blades for razors, ink for printers and concessions at movies are often set well above cost. Theory has shown that this could yield a profitable price discrimination strategy often termed “metering.” The idea is that a customer’s intensity of demand for aftermarket goods (e.g. the concessions) provides a meter of how much the customer is willing to pay for the primary good (e.g. admission). If this correlation in tastes for the two goods is positive, a high price on the aftermarket good allows firms to extract a greater total price (admissions plus concessions) from higher type customers. This paper develops a simple aggregate model of discrete-continuous demand to motivate how this correlation can be tested using simple regression techniques and readily available firm data. Model simulations illustrate that the regressions can be used to predict whether aftermarket prices should be above, below or equal to their marginal cost. We then apply the approach to box-office and concession data from a chain of Spanish theaters and find that high priced concessions do extract more surplus from customers with a greater willingness to pay for the admission ticket. Locay and Rodriquez (1992) make a similar argument in a JPE article. They essentially argue that purchases of things like movie tickets are made by groups; once individuals are constrained by the group's choice, the firm has additional market power: We present models in which price discrimination in the context of a two-part price can occur in some competitive markets. Purchases take place in groups, which choose which firms to patronize. While firms are perfectly competitive with respect to groups, they have some market power over individual consumers, who are constrained by their groups' choices. We find that firms will charge an entry fee that is below marginal cost, and the second part of the price is marked up above marginal cost. The markup not only is positive but increases with the quality of the product. The quote you are looking for is similar, and again attributes the discrepancy to price discrimination. From the Armchair Economist (p. 159): The purpose of expensive popcorn is not to extract a lot of money from customers. That purpose would be better served by cheap popcorn and expensive movie tickets. Instead, the purpose of expensive popcorn is to extract different sums from different customers. Popcorn lovers, who have more fun at the movies, pay more for their additional pleasure. That is, some people like popcorn more than others. The latter idea is that the movie experience for popcorn lovers is worth more than the sum of its parts: that a movie ticket + popcorn is worth more than either of them separately for some people.",
"I think a labor management issue explains the high cost of popcorn. Some weeks theaters are loaded with patrons and other weeks there are many fewer patrons. If popcorn were priced so that most patrons bought some the theater manager would have to have lots of employees to sell popcorn on the really busy days. The manager would have to cover the cost of wages on the slow days. A simple solution would be to adjust employee hours. To a certain extent I suspect this is done. If you look at the situation from the standpoint of the employee being sent home early or being told not to work tomorrow or, perhaps for the next week because the theater has a bunch of bombs, is not a good situation. A job in popcorn sales is probably not a high paying job so the employees may just quit and they may do this, not by giving notice, but rather by not showing up for a scheduled shift. The result of this is that managers determine the maximum number of employees they can hire if there theater has low drawing movies and they set the price of popcorn so that when the theater is filled this number of employees will not be overwhelmed by patron buying popcorn. At least not to the extent that the start of the movie has to be delayed.",
">The only explanation I can imagine is that production costs are too high. I think this is precisely it. It costs too much to produce in the us, so production is outsourced. Given that many people are payed based on working in production jobs, outsourcing leads to less money. So eventually, the US will lose money until the point where production in the US is cheap enough to bring it back. But anyway, my point was that interpretation of Keynesian economics by a few people does not mean that Keynesian economics are wrong. These people may simply have an interest in not mentioning the exporting of production jobs. In which point they would be willfully manipulating the paradigm.",
"Thank you, finally somebody else who is able to explain this basic premise. It's odd how many people operate on the assumption that businesses operate on a margin so thin that every $1 of increased cost must be added to the product price. It just bears no resemblance to reality...",
"While many answers correctly cite the effect of monopoly power.... there is a cost issue that no one has yet posted. I first recall seeing this cost effect in a managerial econ textbook, perhaps Ivan Png's. The theater must clean up the popcorn mess. The sales of popcorn elsewhere does not usually include the costs of disposal because that cost is not borne by the vendor. In a theater the cost of disposal -- which is a variable cost depending on the amount and type of foodstuff sold -- is borne by the vendor, who must pay employees to clean up between shows and at the end of the night. While most people are responsible with popcorn, there is a long tail of more and more costly messes left by the customer... and if the theater shirks the cost of cleaning the messes then rats with long tails will bite into future customer demand for tickets. Whether this cost effect is as large as the monopoly power effect and the synergy in willingness-to-pay between entertainment and refreshments is not clear. All of these effects may be in operation.",
"Exactly. A fundamental principle of economics is that purchases are only so valuable, and when the price increases beyond that value, they are no longer needed. If someone has calculated that these people will costs millions, while only returning thousands, there is clearly no point in hiring them. It is exactly like considering private jet in the millions, when thousands of dollars of commercial airfare would do. There is no real reason to own the jet either. It is still fun to dream about owning a private jet. You might remark about buying one if they were cheaper. But, realistically, it is not needed given the costs. It is also fun to dream about growing your business, and tell others that you would grow your business with cheaper people, but it's not needed given the costs.",
"\"Ahh okay thanks. The economic terms and lessons are coming back to me lol. I guess in the end it was a question on profit margins based on time. And god no the sandwiches are way better quality than Subway. Maybe I'll go get Subway to remind myself why I stopped eating it... Guess it's my fault for using small numbers. I was just thinking like gourmet PB&J deep-fried and coated in sugar for $3.00. Had one at some \"\"friend's\"\" bakery last week and can't stop thinking about how crunchy but gooey it was for $3.00... They weren't on the menu but my buddy gets bored working at his bakery and made me that glorified donut with PB&J filling. No regrets :) actually I guess I should've used donuts as the example and not sandwiches. Oh well too late.\"",
"Its not going off at a tangent. You need to be fully grounded in healthcare in order to understand it. If you are grounded in economic abstraction you will never understand it, because it is not like any other economic activity. If you treat it like a business, it will be very expensive because it deals with the most precious thing that people have, their lives.",
"Exactly what kind of regulations are you talking about here? Regulation in the form of licensing for doctors and lawyers is one thing, but what are you implying in regulation stopping competition for other types of business? As for the profit, I would say there are a lot of contributing factors, Globalization being a big one. Edit: No need to downvote, just asking for clarification...",
"This sort of thinking is one of the problems with economics. It's way too simplistic, and unrepresentative of how a company works. No company increases the price of a product because they hired a more expensive employee, unless said employee is dead weight. It might be a process engineer, that right now costs the company a bit more, but 12 months down the line will improve production efficiency by at least the value of his salary. And if they improve it more, by say 200% of their salary? Product price stays the same, he gets a pat on his back from the boss, and the company increases it's profits. And what usually happens when you nickel-and-dime your employees? They lose engagement and interest, or worst, they hire a shit employee for a shit salary and get little to no benefit from hiring.",
"Completely wrong again. The starving man is starving because has no money. The man who does not fear lack of food has more money to buy better quality eggs. The well fed man thus has a higher willingness to pay for eggs. Mothers affection has no quantifiable economic value or bearing. What you're describing is a category change, a concept completely different from the matter at hand. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/13/156737801/the-cost-of-free-doughnuts-70-years-of-regret",
"> Ideas have no inherit value, so they can't be cheap or expensive I really don't know where you get this idea. This comment shows some ignorance of how business works, and doesn't give me much confidence in the value of your upcoming suggestions.",
"All that is an issue with non competitive market. My premise was that in capitalism, not in crony capitalism nor in heavily regulated so that it is non competitive or high in market barrier. Way to solve non competitive market due to crony capitalism or too heavily regulated market usually is not more regulation. That makes it worse. Role of regulation is to factor in extranality, promote transparency and such. Not inflate wages of people who don't deserve it",
"Oversimplifying the market into very basic supply and demand doesn’t reflect the way real markets behave. Your example of apple pickers fails to take in to consideration supply from regions where labor costs are significantly lower. If apples grown in the US cost $15 a bag consumers would just buy imported apples that cost significantly less. The result could be US apple farmers are no longer able to compete in the market.",
"\"To add to Jason's answer; a further mechanism is that of monopoly rents which you mention in your question. Movie theatres are often in shopping complexes (which themselves may offer a particular cinema exclusivity), or physically remote from each other, making price comparison more difficult. Different companies may not offer the same movies (similar to the way phone companies offer difficult-to-compare contract pricing). Once you've paid for your movie ticket, if you're suddenly thirsty or peckish, the theatre is the only place selling snacks. Many theatres (including film theatres) discourage (or refuse) patrons from consuming products purchased elsewhere on site. A sense of \"\"capture\"\" is reinforced with ticket collection at the entrance or some form of barrier (inside vs outside the cordon). A theatre can thus capture their patrons and then leverage that access in order to discriminate amongst the higher-paying consumers mentioned by Jason.\"",
"\"Smartphones? Really? How about a lack of work and a scarcity of disposable income? Currently the US unemployment rate is at 4.2%, below the mark for \"\"full employment\"\" and *well* below where upwards wage pressure should be forming. At the same time, the participation rate is also moribund, dithering around the 60% mark. At this point, there should be so much wage pressure that an argument over minimum wage should be moot, as even the corner McD's should be offering $15 an hour just to get people to notice the help wanted sign, and yet it isn't happening. Why? Because there are no jobs. \"\"But the BLS says there are 6.2 million jobs available!\"\" you say. Yes, and they've said so since July. This is called churn, and it's the same jobs being offered over and over again to people who stay for a month and move on. The low inflation is due to one thing: Normal, everyday people have no money to spend, there is no real economic growth, there is no wage pressure. All the money is locked up in financial markets, making more wealth, but producing nothing. \"\"But look at all the smartphones that exist today\"\" that replaced flip phones that replaced wall phones. Sure, everything is cheaper: It has to be, or else no one could afford it.\"",
"It's called economics, buddy. Supply and demand. That's why IT wages are a lot higher than those in, say, the textile industry. Won't bother explaining it because I think you already understand this but just don't like it.",
"Oil adds to the costs because it takes man-hours to pump and refine that oil. Materials add to the costs because someone has to put the hours to mine them. Bad weather adds to the costs because someones job is now more difficult and it takes more hours. It forms a kind of net, and at the end of the day everything is just man hours (+ some percentage as profit/taxes). Land is probably the only exception here as it's quite purely priced by supply and demand. And there are no labor involved in producing it. (actually it's kind of ridiculous that it's possible to own land, against just renting it from government) “Buy land, they're not making it anymore” - Mark Twain",
"\"Nobel laureate economist, Paul Krugman, wrote a piece many moons ago about economic expansion and money supply. As an illustration of how money supply affects the economy, he used the example of a baby-sitting co-op. While simplistic, it provides an easy to grasp notion of how printing money and restricting it (e.g. by pegging the currency to gold reserves) can affect the economy. Here is an excerpt from his webpage ( http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/howfast.html ): \"\"With the decline of the traditional extended family, in which relatives were available to take care of children at need, many parents in the United States have sought alternative arrangements. A popular scheme is the baby-sitting coop, in which a group of parents agree to help each other out on a reciprocal basis, with each parent serving both as baby-sitter and baby-sittee. Any such coop requires rules that ensure that all members do their fair share. One natural answer, at least to people accustomed to a market economy, is to use some kind of token or marker system: parents \"\"earn\"\" tokens by babysitting, then in turn hand over these tokens when their own children are minded by others. For example, a recently formed coop in Western Massachusetts uses Popsicle sticks, each representing one hour of babysitting. When a new parent enters the coop, he or she receives an initial allocation of ten sticks. This system is self-regulating, in the sense that it automatically ensures that over any length of time a parent will put in more or less the same amount of time that he or she receives. It turns out, however, that establishing such a token system is not enough to make a coop work properly. It is also necessary to get the number of tokens per member more or less right. To see why, suppose that there were very few tokens in circulation. Parents will want on average to hold some reserve of tokens - enough to deal with the possibility that they may want to go out a few times before they have a chance to babysit themselves and earn more tokens. Any individual parent can, of course, try to accumulate more tokens by babysitting more and going out less. But what happens if almost everyone is trying to accumulate tokens - as they will be if there are very few in circulation? One parent's decision to go out is another's opportunity to babysit. So if everyone in the coop is trying to add to his or her reserve of tokens, there will be very few opportunities to babysit. This in turn will make people even more reluctant to go out, and use up their precious token reserves; and the level of activity in the coop may decline to a disappointingly low level. The solution to this problem is, of course, simply to issue more Popsicle sticks. But not too many - because an excess of popsicle sticks can pose an equally severe problem. Suppose that almost everyone in the coop has more sticks than they need; then they will be eager to go out, but reluctant to babysit. It will therefore become hard to find babysitters - and since opportunities to use popsicle sticks will become rare, people will become even less willing to spend time and effort earning them. Too many tokens in circulation, then, can be just as destructive as too few.\"\" -- Paul Krugman, 1997 (accessed webpage 2010).\"",
">People don't think critically about what they're getting for the money- they just see a huge check written weekly. In at least a few industries, the people have a point about the product. Huge amounts of that money disappears into a black hole of government and administration at exorbant costs. Let's look at medical education for example. It's completely unnecessary for doctors to get a bachelor's, but they have to anyway because AAMC requires it. Then, they have to attend a four-year medical school, at least half of which could be done at home with $2,000 worth of E-books and computer programs. The end result is about $150,000 of utterly unnecessary loans and subsidies per doctor. After medical education, there's medical practice, which is anything but efficient. Let's look at taxis. For decades, supply was artifically restricted by the medallion system. You know what happened next. Construction. I don't even want to talk about this one - it's *that* bad. We *do* have an enormous problem of *extremely* inflated costs in many, many upstream industries. Daycare is absolutely one of them.",
"> there is literally no reason to conclude their prices would change proportionally to minimum wage. So if I as a producer know you have more money available and that you can now afford to pay more for my product and that you will pay more for my product I dont charge you more? Neat",
"\"Baseball cards don't pay dividends. But many profitable companies do just that, and those that don't could, some day. Profits & dividends is where your analogy falls apart. But let's take it further. Consider: If baseball cards could somehow yield a regular stream of income just for owning them, then there might be yet another group of people, call them the Daves. These Daves I know are the kind of people that would like to own baseball cards over the long term just for their income-producing capability. Daves would seek out the cards with the best chance of producing and growing a reliable income stream. They wouldn't necessarily care about being able to flip a card at an inflated price to a Bob, but they might take advantage of inflated prices once in a while. Heck, even some of the Steves would enjoy this income while they waited for the eventual capital gain made by selling to a Bob at a higher price. Plus, the Steves could also sell their cards to Daves, not just Bobs. Daves would be willing to pay more for a card based on its income stream: how reliable it is, how high it is, how fast it grows, and where it is relative to market interest rates. A card with a good income stream might even have more value to a Dave than to a Bob, because a Dave doesn't care as much about the popularity of the player. Addendum regarding your comment: I suppose I'm still struggling with the best way to present my question. I understand that companies differ in this aspect in that they produce value. But if stockholders cannot simply claim a percentage of a company's value equal to their share, then the fact that companies produce value seems irrelevant to the \"\"Bobs\"\". You're right – stockholders can't simply claim their percentage of a company's assets. Rather, shareholders vote in a board of directors. The board of directors can decide whether or not to issue dividends or buy back shares, each of which puts money back in your pocket. A board could even decide to dissolve the company and distribute the net assets (after paying debts and dissolution costs) to the shareholders – but this is seldom done because there's often more profit in remaining a going concern. I think perhaps what you are getting hung up on is the idea that a small shareholder can't command the company to give net assets in exchange for shares. Instead, generally speaking, a company runs somewhat like a democracy – but it's each share that gets a vote, not each shareholder. Since you can't redeem your shares back to the company on demand, there exists a secondary market – the stock market – where somebody else is willing to take over your investment based on what they perceive the value of your shares to be – and that market value is often different from the underlying \"\"book value\"\" per share.\"",
"I don’t think you know what is right or wrong. This is the third time you’ve called me out, and the third time you were mistaken. The starving man is starvinf because he lacks food. Give him a million dollars in the middle of Antarctica, and he will still starve. These false equivalences you have presented above are where so many of our problems come from. People forget the value of reality over currency. The Mother’s affection does have monetary value. It just isn’t so easily quantifiable. See: Psychiatrists and Psychologists. They make money off these issues. The financial value can be seen in the correction of the consequences from lack of affection. To PAY for affection, trust, loyalty, so many of the “social” properties we rely on, though, negates some or all of their value. You assume so many rules that just aren’t supported by reality. Your economic theories seem to fail when faced with the nuances of reality, especially those economics has ignored. That’s my opinion, anyway.",
"\"It's called extracting consumer surplus. Basically I have a bunch of movie goers (who have paid a lot for their tickets). Some of them don't like popcorn, and some do. Of the people in the latter group, there are some who are willing to pay a lot for it. That's partly because I have a select group (rich movie goers) and partly because some of these people would be willing to pay more for popcorn with a movie than without. If I were just selling \"\"popcorn,\"\" I'd have to charge a competitive price. But I'm really selling movies, which have more than covered my costs (rent, heat, etc.) So my costs of selling popcorn are less than that of a non-movie popcorn seller, and I don't really \"\"need\"\" to sell it. Ironically, it means that I can \"\"take my chances\"\" and sell a relatively small amount at a high price, thereby maximizing my UNIT profit. I don't mind having people NOT buy popcorn because I've already made my profit from them with the movie. From the point of view of the consumer, most consumers see popcorn as an \"\"afterthought.\"\" They will seldom think, \"\"I can buy popcorn $2.00 cheaper at Theater A than Theater B, and there's a 20 percent chance that I will want to buy popcorn, so Theater A is 40 cents ($2.00*.20) cheaper than Theater B.\"\" Instead, most make the decision to buy the popcorn after they've arrived at Theater B, because it as \"\"impulse item.\"\" And even if they do the \"\"40 cents\"\" calculation, Theater B might be selected because other factors (convenience, location, etc.) outweigh the 40 cent extra cost of popcorn (purchased \"\"sometimes\"\"). Put another way, the cost of popcorn is (usually) heavily discounted because of its \"\"remoteness\"\" to other facets of the decision.\"",
"That broad figure is rather useless on its own. People buy mostly things they need right away. A useful analysis would a multi-variable one, graphing 3-way correlations of: - price - profit margin - average half-life of the product Maybe across a few separated categories, online vs brick-and-mortar, normalised towards the median and 3 standard deviations on each variable. These would be some neat graphs if only the data was available.",
"I think because that high price and the fact that you anyway have a limited time to buy it before the movie starts maximizes their revenue.",
"Useless junk is cheap as hell and everyone can afford. Rent/mortgage and healthcare? They're the killers. I would really rather be able to afford a roof over my head and a doctors visit than a new electronic. But I guess it is what it is.",
"That's the gas station 7/11 and the like. But not the bodegas and other inner-city grocery stores that charge 3x the normal price for (often crappy) bread and eggs because there aren't many competitors when you live out on Avenue Q in Brooklyn, or in Northern, KY but don't have a car.",
"This is how mints make money. They sell limited runs of items at a price significantly higher than their manufacturing cost. Some buyers hope that the scarce nature of the item will cause others to value it higher than the initial offer price but also some people just like to have them.",
"> Economics is not hard science. Thousands of researches and books written on the topic, and you summed it all in one sentence. Brilliant...you are unbelievable, the depth of your ignorance knows no bounds. This country is being ruined by people like you.",
"> Economists like Paul Krugman seem to believe that everything can be fixed by increasing demand, but they totally ignore the costs of production. There exists plenty of demand in the US economy right now, but the cooper has died, the barrels must be brought from China. Out of curiosity, what is the real world equivalent to the cooper? You name none.",
"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://promarket.org/rise-market-power-decline-labors-share/) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** > A new paper argues that the decline of both the labor and capital shares, as well as the decline in low-skilled wages and other economic trends, have been aided by a significant increase in markups and market power. > A new paper by Jan De Loecker and Jan Eeckhout echoes these results, arguing that the decline of both the labor and capital shares, as well as the decline in low-skilled wages and other economic trends, have been aided by a significant increase in markups and market power. > In recent years, a growing body of literature has linked the rise of market power to several adverse economic trends, such as the decline in new business start-ups, diminishing competition, and rising income inequality. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6u9l6e/the_rise_of_market_power_and_the_decline_of/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~192969 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **Markup**^#1 **Loecker**^#2 **market**^#3 **increase**^#4 **decline**^#5\"",
"It could be a sunk cost. If you buy 5 gallons of vegetable oil it costs $50. Until you use up all the vegetable oil you dollars are tied up and cannot be spent on popcorn or any other good. So weigh if the convenience is more important than having the cash on hand for other purchases is another factor to consider",
"There's nothing really there to comprehend. Cost and demand are inversely proportional. Boosting demand has the same effect as reducing costs. Actually, there is something to comprehend. People will use the appeal of central economic planning to funnel money to their pet projects. Regardless of what that project is, the allocation of resources to it by artificial means throws off equilibrium in the entire economy.",
"It seems like you would want the work done that is necessary for society to be less expensive. For instance, without food I am dead, so someone growing food is very important. But if it takes up 100% of my income, then that means a society where the majority of people are growing food and doing nothing else.",
"Fundamentally these are my opinions I am expressing. Even though I try to remain as factual as possible, and have significantly modified my opinion over the years as a result of apparently factual information, it's still technically just opinion. > My view is not so much that labour and finance capital returns need to be balanced (although that is probably a great thing to aim for), but that creation of wealth/capital needs to be intrinsically linked with the creation of real value. By the way, when I say capital it's not generally just finance capital, but all operational capital goods. Which includes factories and all means of production. A certain amount of financing is needed to keep it operational, and more is needed to increase the means of production to grow overall wealth. Have you ever heard of the [Bowley's law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowley%27s_law)? Basically you can't really push this ratio very far. If consumer demand dries up then production will get cut back to meat demand. Overproduction of stuff they can't sell is not what they are in business for. Likewise, is demand exceeds the capacity of production to keep up it pushes inflation, which drives up cost to reduce demand. So this ratio remains very nearly a constant. Even though this ratio was at historic highs in the 1970s, and historic lows today. What happens when you artificially dry up labor returns, through excessive supply side policies, is that demand for production falls. Hence production is cut back to meet that demand. This of course reduces employment and increases job competition, which puts more downward on wages exacerbating the situation. Only once labor cost fall low enough it effectively subsidizes inefficient production methods which limits the falling wages at a reduced overall productivity. Note that this is under present circumstances, not those of the 1970s. This adaptive matching between production and demand insures that the Bowley ratio is never too far off of its historical averages, even if productivity is driven well below its potential. More or less the same effect occurs for the opposite reason if capital return ratios are too low. Though with opposite effects on the inflation rate and such. When consumer demand is high enough capital will pay whatever labor cost is required to meet that demand, so long as it remains profitable enough, i.e., they get a reasonable ratio of the market return. Consumer demand with sufficient capital profit margins is what drives full employment, not the sheer volume of capital returns as present policies essentially assume. Yet you can't have a broad based consumer demand, to drive employment, without sufficient labor returns, as those labor returns is what finances that demand needed to drive employment. So not only does labour and capital returns need to be balanced. Economics does NOT allow it to be unbalanced, at least for long. Even if balancing requires the economy to shrink, productivity to fall, etc., that is exactly what it will do to remain balanced. No choice given, no matter how draconian the regulations to force it. This is true under purely agrarian economies of the past, pure communism, and even ecology. This is why I am a capitalist, because nature gives me no choice. But acceptance of that fact does not require me to have an ounce of tolerance for cronyism. The only thing we can do is not push this balance in either direction to destructive levels. Because destruction is what will happen for the balance to remain. Because so much of our productive capacity has been in productivity gains since the 1990s, and wages and demand have as yet not matched these productivity gains, we have a huge latent wealth capacity that continues to grow as we fail to take advantage of it. So far our supply side policies haven't so much destroyed wealth and productivity. Rather it has prevented us from seeing the potential gains from the latent productivity growth from technologies over the few decades. --- The last part you mention about wealth/capital needing to be intrinsically linked with the creation of real value. You are absolute 100% entirely correct. Perhaps even more than you know. Ever heard of planned obsolescence, or [The Light Bulb Conspiracy](http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/light-bulb-conspiracy/)? That link is a documentary on the issue that will make you mad. We could almost certainly pay a flat 90% tax rate on everything and still not come close to what this issue cost us. That's not the only means this issue imposes cost, but it is extreme. Of course just because an appliance still works doesn't mean people will not replace it with newer better models. But the trash pile insures there is a much more limited secondary market for poorer people. Consumption debt cost is also a far bigger issue than people recognize. Debt to finance capital goods for production is fine, as this feeds productivity and wealth in a manner that sustains itself even as the debt is paid. Consumption debt is an entirely different beast. Creating a significant section of the population that feeds on peoples income without producing a thing. Only to let allow people to consume income they haven't earned yet. This generally falls under the category of rent seeking behavior. Yeah, the lack real value creation turns my stomach. That people will knowingly spend money on temporary non-essential novelties and such is all fine and dandy, but underhandedly renting our base appliances for a certain number of uses is outrageous in my book.",
"Value is one area where economic theories tend to diverge and the (very) basic schools of thought both have excellent points in their favor. You've identified both here; one being that economic value can always be determined by net labor* or at least cost of inputs and the other being that economic value does not exist in and of itself and that only a market can determine value. In some ways it is just a question of world-view as much as anything but the concepts of natural prices or innate worth are difficult to argue against. At the same time, without exchange the concept of value has little meaning. So, as usual, it is some sophistry mixed with some sense. Both have elements of truth and both are considerably more complex than they seem at first. Interestingly though, neither seems to work very well as predictive models despite providing the basis for some incredibly complex and interesting mathematical workups. * Note that net labor is the sum of ALL labor involved and is incredibly difficult to quantify accurately.",
"There is a much simpler explanation. Resources unlike human labor are scarce. As we use up resources the price for these resources rises. In an effort to keep prices low, wages are not increased. This leads to effectively less spending income. Automation and advancement only slow the process. Labor is in no short supply, the price of labor will continue to fall in order to keep the price of final goods lower.",
"\"Wiki: consumer surplus - \"\"Consumer surplus is the difference between the maximum price a consumer is willing to pay and the actual price they do pay....The aggregate consumers' surplus is the sum of the consumer's surplus for all individual consumers.\"\" Efficient production provides MORE product at LOWER prices, thus the difference between 'willing to pay' amount and 'actual price' is increased, plus as more product is produced, more people enjoy the benefit, so the aggregate consumer surplus is increased simply by increasing the number of consumers.\"",
"I'm kind of shocked that no formal behavioral modeling has been proposed as an explanation yet. One such model would be steep (hyperbolic, quasi-hyperbolic) discounting. Consumers would rather pay for popcorn later than for an expensive movie ticket now. For instance, consumers might when purchasing the ticket see a low value of popcorn and view the ticket price as the whole price because they do not predict purchasing popcorn. Then when entering the theater, the present value of popcorn is very high and they purchase it. There might therefore be a market for a commitment device (such as a popcornless theater) to make the appropriate decision ex-ante. Another commitment device that seems to be practiced is when individuals sneak their own popcorn into the theater. They may not actually want the popcorn, but by bringing their own they ensure they do not purchase the theater's.",
"\"It seems this will be very much driven by price discrimination. If there are some customers who will pay up to $100, sell at that; and if there are others who'll pay $1 sell at that price. For instance you see computer games, which have zero marginal cost of production, sold at \"\"normal new release\"\" prices, at premium prices with a special box or doo-dad, and at discount prices once the game is a bit old.\"",
"Harvesting fresh produce is labor intensive and that costs money. As it is fresh produce is harvested using quasi-slave labor in North America, China and other parts of the world to keep prices down. Wanna know why a watermelon costs $40 in Japan and $3 in the USA? Guess which country pays legal citizens living wages to harvest produce...",
"De Beers is the company most cited as the near monopoly. They used to own a massive chunk of the diamond supply and intentionally restricted that supply to increase the price. In recent decades, new sources of diamonds have reduced the De Beers' singular grip. They still have a large share though. Video about this from Adam Ruins Everything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5kWu1ifBGU it turns out this ancient tradition [of giving diamonds rings for engagements] was invented less than a century ago by the De Beers Diamond Corporation... in 1938, the De Beers Diamond cartel launched a massive ad campaign, claiming that the only way for a real man to show his love is with an expensive hunk of crystallized carbon, and we bought that shit. It continues The only reason diamonds are even expensive is that De Beers has a global monopoly on diamond mining and they artificially restrict the supply, to jack the prices up. Because of this artificial supply restriction, the resale value of diamonds are quite low.",
"That's actually way too much money for some people to spend on a single newspaper subscription. They cost about the same as Netflix or Amazon Prime, but provide significantly lower value. They are competing with the rest of the internet and TV, so they need to price themselves accordingly.",
"> there is a very strong relationship between the amounts written on the checks and the worth of that product or service to the person with the pen ...and the *ability to pay* of the person with the pen. Someone who generates a lot of value for lower- and middle-class customers could easily make less money than someone who generates a little bit of value for upper-class customers.",
"Their argument is that if prices start dropping, people won't buy stuff because they think the prices will keep going down? Aside from the fact that if prices go down, the cost to produce things also goes down, this is patently untrue. Look at gas. When prices are down, do people drive less because they think prices will keep going down?",
"I'll try. First forget everything OP said (your point? yay!). Gold has value because it is stamped with a value on the front (say, 10 denarius). This coin can then be used to pay taxes to Rome. The value of the coin is the stamp value, not the value of the underlying gold. The seignorage is the difference in price between the underlying metal and the marked value. Because the coin has a very valuable use (paying taxes) that the metal doesn't have, the government gets to keep the difference between value and coin price. Paper dollars are just like gold coins with a higher seignorage value.",
"\"That has not been disproved. What the quote means is \"\"when [workers as a collective] earn more, [businesses as a collective] get more customers\"\". It's impossible to disprove this, because it's like a kind of economic tautology. It's like, if I give you five one dollar bills, how many five dollars will you have. What you mean to argue is that that's spacious, because the real world is more complicated.\"",
"It noone buys your product b/c you price it too high you wont make any money. Time owns cameras. They can buy a jar and put coins in it. They bought this out of convenience. This is not a Pulitzer prize winning photo and it was priced accordingly.",
"This is the damaged goods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crippleware) setting in economics. It makes perfect sense from the manufacturing point of view, since is damn expensive to have lines dedicated for different products. I don't know if I agree with it, but it is good business to do so. Is the same principle of paying more to have a better seat in an airplane, is the same service but with better conditions and service.",
"Excellent explanation. Upvote to you sir. I would like to add something: How do we know how many bushels of apples is worth a chunk of deer meat? You did not touch on the concept of value. The way I see it, value is related to the human energy required to procure a specific good. For example: it takes a man all day to find a nugget of gold, while it take another man all day to pick 20 bushels of apples. Because gold is scarce, it is worth a lot of apples: it has a high value. At it's core, value is assigned based on the amount of human labor required to acquire a good or service. For example: Many years ago there may have been an equal number of bears and skunks. However, it would take many brave hunters with bows and arrows to kill a bear, while any hunter could kill a skunk solo. Thus, even though they had the same scarcity, a bear hide would be more valuable because the human labor required was greater. Many economics classes simply say value depends on supply and demand. However, if something is in low supply and high demand, it is BECAUSE it takes so much human effort to procure. If it did not take large amounts of human labor, everyone would sell said item and the value would drop. What is your take on this? do you have a better explanation for value?",
"Because people trade currency in exchange for goods and services. They can easily prevent competition by violent means or by having control of the market through market share. Price can be controlled by the threat of super low prices in order to drive out competing businesses.",
"I should have said 'insane inflation related to rising costs versus wages'. It used to be that wage inflation outpaced product inflation. It's been in reverse for some time, which only exacerbates the problem as it continues. I'm aware in the manner our economy works some matching or reversal should be expected, but we've been in a downward spiral for the better part of 30 years.",
"That's some really fucking stupid reasoning. Cost of production has no bearing on how much something is worth. That's why a fashion brand can sell a t-shirt they made for 5 bucks for 200 and an unsuccessful business will manufacture stuff and then sell it at a loss hoping to break even in the future. Anyone could invent a crypto coin that costs 1 billion to mint one. Doesn't mean it's worth 1 billion if nobody is willing to pay that for it. It means if you spent 1 billion making one, you're a moron.",
"The cost of the popcorn is simply the hidden extension of the price the consumer pays for the movie ticket. Similar to the tips in the restaurant. And movie theaters do not compete by lowering the unit price. Instead to maintain the revenue per customer they try to offer more value - bigger screen, better sound, more comfortable seats, etc. That is why the price of the popcorn just like the price of the ticket itself does not go down in the competitive market.",
"More money doesn't make people richer in the sense that if the govt gave every citizen a $1 they would all still have the same amount of wealth and purchasing power, but their nominal value in dollar terms would be $1 higher. Money is just the denominator in exchange, so lets say a bicycle is $100 and a scooter is $200, you know that 2 bikes equals 1 scooter. So printing $100 for people to each buy a bicycle will just make the price of bikes go up, and they'll end up costing much more than $100, so no real wealth has been created. The main problem that I think you're trying to identify i that we've had an over-expansion of credit by central banks around the world. The scarcity of credit is a good thing because it forces only the best, most productive ideas to be allowed to be undertaken. If a bank only has $10 to loan, and business man A can use that to have a return of 50%, business man B can have 25%, and business man C can have 5%, then the obvious choice is to give the loan to business man A because he is using the resources most productively, and depending on the details of his business model, is the least risky person to loan to (ie the bank is most assured he will be able to pay his money back). But with central banks controlling interest rates, and reserve requirements for banks, the banks can lever themselves up and lend out much more money than they've taken in. After all if a bank can finance its reserves with low interest rates, but make additional money from increased lending, then they are incentivised to seek higher profits. Especially with the FDIC insuring everyone's bank deposits. So now businessmen A, B and C all get their loans and are able to start their businesses, but they're all in the same line of work and need to utilize the same resources. So now instead of just businessman A buying materials he has two other buyers looking to utilize a scarce amount of resources. The price of those resources is now higher since supply is limited but demand has tripled. So now businessman A can only make 40% through his business, B can make 5% and businessman C loses money in his venture. A and B pay their loan back but C is unable to. Ignoring interest, for the sake of simplicity, the bank has essentially broken even. Before leveraging up they loaned out $10 and got back $10. After leveraging they loaned out $30 and got back 20. So the problem you're seeing is excessive credit permitting ventures to be undertaken that should not have been allowed to be. The problem is interest rates that are not set by the market, but by a centralized bureau who couldn't possibly have enough information to determine what the cost of financing should be.",
"Good post. I remember about ten years ago TV wall mounts started at about $300CAD for a cheap one, and people couldn't buy them fast enough. I remember thinking at the time that a basic metal shop could pump them out for just a few dollars. One guy could probably make 10+ every hour. Oh well - lesson learned I guess.",
"Cute conspiratorial story. A cabal of evil grocery store owners set up a sprawling and risky supply chain overseas so they can pay more for their products for the express purpose of paying their employees market wages for their labor? Grocery store workers are not underpaid. If they were, they could walk across the street and make more money at a competitor. So if the profit margins are fat on the supplier side, somehow competition would come in there either? You can't have it both ways. The vast majority of food products sold in grocery stores in North America are grown, manufactured and sold right here in North America. There's no way to explain it away - the grocery store market is viciously competitive and profit margins are slim.",
"Because the population of NYC was shy of 7 million in the 1930s, now it's over 8.5. If government weren't corrupt, they would have issued new medallions to meet the demands of a growing city. But they were invariably entrenched with and thus beholden to the monopoly they created, so did nothing while medallion prices skyrocketed over a million dollars. Remember that a medallion is an artificial shortage and a barrier to entry.",
"Here's one reason that's being overlooked in answers so far. (@ChrisInEdmonton, this is for your comment on @Chad's answer.) How do credit card companies make money? Sure, there's interest charges, but those are offset significantly by the cost of borrowing money, and by people defaulting on their debt / entering bankruptcy. The other way they make money is by processing transactions. They get a cut of whatever you buy. If you're a high-income person, and you're going to process a lot of expenditures with this credit card, your business is worth more. They will be willing to bribe you with things like cash-back, frequent flier miles, and insurance on your auto rentals, so that they can be your #1 go-to card. (This works in concert with the way that some credit card vendors with richer clientele overall - American Express - get to charge higher merchant fees for access to these customers' wallets. But that was mentioned in other answers.) If you're not a high-income person, your business is worth less. If you go somewhere asking for credit, they're going to try and give you a card which will earn them the most money - which probably isn't the one where they give you back 50% of their transaction fee in rewards. It's a calculated risk, since they still have to compete against cash, debit cards, and all the other credit card companies, so they don't have you totally over a barrel, but you shouldn't expect as many freebies, either.",
"When someone charges, it means that person fix the price you pay. Australia is part of the Indonesian continent. It is an island in the South Pacific ocean. In the price of an item, you include the shipping cost. It is more expensive by plane because the cost of the kerozen is higher than the cost of diesel for ships. Accident can happen, so you have to include in price the cost of the insurance.",
"I know! Granted they're made in Italy, not China, so you're supporting a collapsing economy ^_^ The thing is, the retailers won't budge. Perhaps an economist has determined that their business model is more sustainable if they keep their inflated prices rather than compete for the business.",
"Good point on gym memberships. I've known people who pay $5 per month at the gym but never go because they don't feel like they are wasting too much money. Now compare that with someone who's paying $40 or more, they want to get their money's worth so they go more often.",
"The problem is a little deeper than that. What you are witnessing is a change in the economy, a transformation so to say. Many people in society are unaware of this, the unadapted as I call them. Check this if you curious about this transformation, I believe its a good thing. https://www.cityxcape.com/secret-spots/2017/10/15/battle-of-ideas",
"The initial price tag might be more expensive, but if those wages are more likely to stay in the economy, then I wonder how much that value offsets the cost? Illegals tend to keep what they need and send the rest to their families in another country.",
"No, it's not extremely profitable, not even close. There are so many better investments you could make with better ROI. The reason people pay that much is because they are an asset that can resold, inherited, or used as collateral for a loan.",
"sure it is they are saving on distribution and paper costs so they pass the savings onto you with increased costs. so what it is a joy to read. thats also a little less than half the price of my cable. thats retarded.",
"It is much simpler than any of that. People who make money have a greater capacity to pay their bills. Credit card companies make money off of people who can afford to pay several hundred dollars a month in interest charges. If you only make 500 a month you can not afford to pay 200 in interest. So their cost of doing business with you is higher. These cards are issued to make money. And they make their money off of people paying 12-29% interest on their 5k+ credit limits they have nearly maxed.",
"Drugs, and medicine in general, are most certainly not inelastic. There is competition from less expensive analogs, and, unfortunately, nothing. There is always an optimum price as long as there is a marketplace. If we want cheaper drugs then we ought to reform patents (in a real sense) and lower barriers to competition. Medical companies are obviously lowering their ethical safeguards for selling drugs cheap when they don't have to so that can't be relied upon anymore.",
"Wait I'm confused maybe you can explain I'm in the federal reserve and I buy a hundred pounds of coin material for 180 dollars. I put that material into a magic penny machine and get a hundred pounds of pennies. My hundred pounds of pennies will now have a value of 100 dollars. I had a hundred pounds of mass worth $180 and now have a hundred pounds of mass worth $100. Where did the 80 dollars go?",
"This is basically saying that it's not possible to make more than some not-so-large amount without taking for yourself part of what several other people produce, yes? How does that fit with the very high profits per a employee numbers that some companies have?: http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-profitable-employees-companies",
"I think there is some confusion. I am saying I don’t understand. Not that “the point is not understandable”. I make these comments in hopes that someone can educate me. Yet I’m downvoted and criticized and receive none of the info I was curious about. Is there a sub that discusses economics as opposed to shouting down people that have questions as having bad logic? Could you help me phrase my lack of understanding in a way that conforms to the expected decorum on this subreddit?",
"\">How does \"\"doing business in\"\" something increase its value? By this logic, all businesses should be successful. When you work, you are creating value. Even if your business fails within the first year, there's still all the value you have created such as: hiring handypeople to fix up your businessplace, hiring people to work at your business, buying office supplies, etc. Just because you didn't profit off of your business doesn't mean that other people didn't. >you're basically saying \"\"Things are currently like X, therefore things should (and would) be like X under a different legal structure.\"\" How do you think the concept of money came about? >I can't take this line of argument seriously, I'm sorry. Why not? This is the reason that hedge fund managers and CEOs pay so little in taxes...most / all of their compensation is in stocks and bonds, taxed as investment income. If you were paid in gold, i'm sure you could claim the same. >You're emotionally invested in a fiat paper standard. That's sillie: i'm emotionally invested in a gift economy. I *accept* a fiat paper standard.\"",
"Sorry, you're in /r/business. Please refrain from corking the pitchforks - these important folks have got the whole world figured out already, and coincidentally it all coincides with what they already believed to be true. Everything is the fault of global financial crises and hysterical predictions about the future are key to our very survival as a society. Nothing could possibly be due to simple, inane market forces.",
"It's meaningful because we as a society have collectively decided that they are. It's all imaginary value, just like fiat money. That and in our capitalist society it is yet another product you are *forced to buy* or risk not having access to even a semblance of a decent life. It's a pretty good racket if I do say so myself.",
"No surprises here. Maybe the author has forgotten that we're still in a depression with high unemployment and 99% of the population has less money. Families have a limited entertainment budget and more product categories vying for their money. This isn't rocket science.",
"Lol and a company spending more than they need to on labor is reality? Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Ill be sure to run all future thoughts I have by you to ensure that fit into your 'reality'.",
"I know this is the rule in general but what about things like De Beers diamond company artificially inflating the price of diamonds? From what I've read there are lots and lots of diamonds in storage but they control the flow. Couldn't this tactic work with other products/commodities using the right marketing campaigns?",
"Inefficiency is about time spent producing. If money funnels towards producing rather than (example) gambling, even if producing costs more the money is removed from gambling economy to producing economy. And if people increase production and speed due to better pay, it's more efficient. It's never that simple, but it's an important point.",
"It's because true competition does not exist in the movie theater business. If you wanted to open up a competing theater whose competitive advantage was cheaper popcorn, you couldn't do it - the studios would never give you rights to screen popular new release movies. I know this because there are indie movie theaters that constantly struggle to acquire screening rights, because the Regals and AMCs of the world work hard to maintain their monopoly by having exclusive licensing deals with studios. Effectively, studios and a couple major theater chains have gotten together and agreed to fix the price of popcorn. So if you want cheaper popcorn, there are theaters where you'll find it - you just won't be watching Hollywood blockbuster new releases while you're eating it.",
"Some economist please ELI5 what I’m missing here. In the equities market, it is considered an economic benefit when exchanges settle trades in smaller increments. When we went from eighths to decimal, for example. How is that direction into smaller divisible units different from facilitating trade with pennies for economic goods?",
"Bush tax cuts and similarly. We no longer believe that the wealthy have to play by the rules. We perpetuate this notion because too many believe they too will be captains of great wealth. The wealthy in turn have invested in emerging markets like china or commodities like gold. Basically its being horded by the wealthy and banks. In a fixed money system like monopoly what happens? Someone wins and gets all the money. With inflation at least they are making more money so that eventually a huge withdrawl of cash from the system is healed. Because Monopoly was meant to be a cautionary tale of oligarchy.",
"\"If that's the case, why not *lower* the minimum wage? That would instantly make US companies more profitable and make US a great target for foreign investment. Both labor costs are cut down, and as you say, rent and everything will immediately drop. Companies free up a lot of capital for expansion and we can quickly gain 100% employment, as anyone can have a job at say, $1/hour. A lot of interesting innovation would have to happen to sell food affordable for a $1/hour work. I'm thinking artificially flavored cardboard burgers. Organic and eco friendly: imagine, the packaging IS the meal. I call this the \"\"trickle up\"\" theory, or \"\"economic regurgitation\"\".\""
] |
[
"Competition, or actually lack of competition, mostly due to a demand curve that has minimal change due to price. You would buy the equivalent, cheaper option if it was available, but the store has little interest in offering multiple, competing options that would drive their same store revenue down. And the competing stores (Grocery, Department, Drug, Card) have similar overhead costs (floor space, lights, personnel). Most carry the cards for incremental revenue, and observe little advantage to lower price for a card (customers seldom buy more cards due to a lower price). Thus they mark the price to what (most) customers are willing to pay. You may choose to shop the various stores and find the one that has a (slightly) better pricing for cards, and then stop at that store when you want to buy a card. But many cards are sold as an incremental purchase as part of a larger shopping trip (convenience), as the customer combines trips (reduce the time spent shopping, albeit not reducing the money spent).",
"Why do people buy them when they would be cheap to make for themselves? Convenience. While you could easily find some pictures and lay them out with a sentiment, buy some card stock, print in colour, trim it, and perhaps glue on some glitter or whatnot, and then find an envelope that fits it, it's likely to take you an hour or more to do so. And you'll invest far more than $6 on your printer and various inventories. I made cards for my kids- we had construction paper, glitter, coloured markers etc and there was no need for an envelope. But most people will find it quicker and simpler to buy one fully assembled. The cost of the online ones is weird I agree. Perhaps people are also not confident they can compose a good greeting? Why do stores stock $6 cards that they buy for $3 (retail markup is 50-100% and I'm sure it's closer to 100% for cards) when a different supplier might provide them for $2? Well, even if such a supplier existed, I'm sure the store would be happy to sell for $6 still (see: people buy them) so there would be no consumer impact. A store that sells cards for $5 isn't going to siphon customers from elsewhere because most of us just don't buy cards often enough for it to matter. Why does nobody become that supplier who will sell them cheaper? Selling stuff is more expensive than making stuff, and getting your product into retail stores is hard. Hard means time and time means money and all of that contributes more to the card price than the ink and paper do. That said, dollar stores sell cards, for a dollar typically, and people do buy them. I find they have less colours and the artwork is cruder. Perhaps you even get what you pay for when it comes to design, layout, printing etc.",
"I actually have a bit of experience with the supplier side of this. Having worked with other people attempting to get the business launched, I can shed a bit of insight. The primary reason for the pricing is that there simply isn't enough competition to warrant dropping the price any lower than it already is. Large companies such as Hallmark will typically buy card designs at 5% of the card's selling price. With their existing distribution network, this makes bringing in new and varied designs much easier for large companies that are already well established. Having talked with such designers in the past, someone working full time producing designs makes on average 30-60k annually from this, which is worth it to someone who doesn't want to jump through the hoops of actually getting into the business independently. The primary issue stifling competition is actually getting your product into stores. There are topics here that I cannot discuss due to NDA, but I can break down the overall outline for you: You need to start with a large number of designs, with enough variety that companies think could sell well. If you bring a handful of designs with you, no company is going to take your business venture seriously enough. You need to find a company that can stamp out a large production process for you. The company is going to need to be nice enough to take smaller purchase orders on the magnitude of several hundred cards, but also be capable of scaling that production to several hundreds of thousands of cards very quickly. For cards specifically, most companies want you to ship custom racks with your cards. Some companies may provide their own racks for stocking your product, but not all of them will. This will also cost a lot of money up front. You need to find a buyer for a company you want to sell your product to. This is important, and what killed our original business plans. Think Wal-Mart, Target, or even CVS Pharmacy. These big companies are going to have people who's entire job is to buy new products to put on their shelves. This is where networking is key, you need to find people with connections to these buyers if you're not already well established with them. You will also likely fail several times, either getting outright ignored, or through a broker that can't meet expectations. For example, we had a broker that introduced us to a buyer for a large store chain, and after several months of work we found out that this broker was just pulling our strings. Typically a company will want to test your product in a handful of stores to see if it will sell. For example, Target may want to test your product in 100-200 stores over 3 months and expect your product to sell at a minimum rate. Finally, you need to be able to scale your production. Suddenly you'll be asked to go from supplying 100 stores to supplying 1,800 stores with a deadline in 2 weeks. Buyers will even turn you down at this point if they don't think you can meet the production. All of this work takes at least a year, and typically takes several years to go from an initial product to having your product in every store. Without breaking the numbers down too much, we could make a profit of ~$1.60 for every $3 card that sold. That number doesn't cover the cost of racks and other overhead, that's just the per-card profit. Even then, people are more likely to go view the Hallmark or other big-name cards over your offering. Only when another company becomes a big powerhouse to be competitive will these companies be forced to drop their prices.",
"\"We generally speak of the \"\"elasticity of demand\"\". Greeting cards are expensive because they can be. We buy them in a sentimentally weakened state, and we do not buy them by the tonne. There is also the concept of \"\"Market Segmentation\"\", but not so much. Essentially the price is determined by finding the \"\"point of pain\"\" and winding it back a little. So people will pay $5 for a card. They will not (generally) pay $5,000 unless there is a good reason (vanity ?). Why sell them for $2 ? The customers who baulk at $5 tend not to even have $2. (Market segmentation again). In short the price is always going to need to be set before the point where demand rolls off sharply, to maximise profit.\"",
"\"It'll all about the marketing. If you don't get a \"\"real\"\" greeting card for that important birthday or anniversary or whatever, the recipient may thing you're being cheap for using a card you printed out yourself. So you pay $6 for a card because you feel like you have to. Hallmark advertises with those sappy TV commercials for a very good reason. The margins on the product are sky-high, and they spend a good chunk of that money on marketing the product. Perfume is the same way: super cheap to make, low barrier to entry, and the popular ones command a high price.\"",
"(At least in the UK) a company named Card Factory has been very successful in undercutting the competition using the classic pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap strategy with less glamorous high-street locations than 'traditional' stores. Interestingly it doesn't seem to have spawned either competition at their price point or lowered the general prices for greetings cards even in low-margin businesses like supermarkets. A quick glance at their annual report suggests they're doing reasonably well with this approach.",
"As one answer points out, people buying greeting cards care little about whether they cost 25 cents or $5. Those are both small amounts of money and it's not something you buy often---also people feel the need to spend money because it's a gift. On the supplier side, it should be noted that the cost of cards has little to do with the paper they are printed on. There is an expectation that cards are new and unique...something the buyer and recipient have never seen. So they have writers and graphic designers constantly cranking out a large variety of cards and replacing existing cards with new ones, of which only a small number get sold before they move to the next model. Relatively speaking, there is a lot of human effort per thousand cards sold. Then of course there is the real estate they occupy in the store (disproportionate to a bunch of pieces of paper) and other retail, marketing, and distribution costs. I'm not saying margins are particularly thin, but if they were crazy high we probably would see more entry as you suggest.",
"It cost a lot of money to pay the poet to make wording, designers/photographers to make the post-cards and miscellaneous staff (Executives, HR, shareholders etc.) These cost are thrown onto the buyers."
] |
4071
|
If our economy crashes, and cash is worthless, should i buy gold or silver
|
[
"129875"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"505136",
"291862",
"328556",
"502634",
"135113",
"473965",
"470357",
"97964",
"302010",
"129352",
"308332",
"354858",
"53538",
"474187",
"57907",
"213561",
"235322",
"514417",
"369470",
"435307",
"226090",
"171228",
"136860",
"554018",
"427411",
"281234",
"17652",
"110360",
"369563",
"337341",
"464078",
"483295",
"436899",
"182195",
"51585",
"135524",
"524142",
"168315",
"87520",
"55985",
"104741",
"435118",
"36066",
"501456",
"238786",
"289175",
"51043",
"374669",
"541982",
"575359",
"181574",
"240996",
"362102",
"170594",
"566669",
"475539",
"264898",
"196596",
"265108",
"109585",
"443397",
"487980",
"10578",
"163359",
"446972",
"317429",
"356259",
"282501",
"351362",
"305274",
"240628",
"255769",
"330020",
"178693",
"412781",
"30352",
"449469",
"296516",
"595349",
"460398",
"399751",
"487817",
"11230",
"506780",
"100792",
"209635",
"465430",
"234889",
"194279",
"239459",
"462618",
"426771",
"75650",
"36582",
"453625",
"66219",
"83316",
"1168",
"88698",
"380061"
] |
[
"Gold is money. If fiat money fails, only physical assets will count. Gold has been an historic store of wealth. Silver is also historically a good thing to possess when governmental systems fail. Don't buy paper gold, it is based on illusion. No one knows what will happen this time, but fiat money will likely fail again, as it has many times. Good luck to you for at least trying to prepare, you are an inspiriation.",
"The issue with holding gold or silver is the liquidity of the asset. How are you going to unload on thousands of dollars of silver when you want to buy something? I dont think there will be hyperinflation period. It will be slow and solved politically eventually. If the dollar collapsed we would be in deep trouble. Investing in guns would likely be more profitable than silver and gold and in the anarchy you'd better believe someone will try to take your stash.",
"In the 2008 housing crash, cash was king. Cash can make your mortgage payment, buy groceries, utilities, etc. Great deals on bank owned properties were available for those with cash. Getting a mortgage in 2008-2011 was tough. If you are worried about stock market crashing, then diversification is key. Don't have all your investments in one mutual fund or sector. Gold and precious metals have a place in one's portfolio, say 5-10 percent as an insurance policy. The days of using a Gold Double Eagle to pay the property taxes are largely gone, although Utah does allow it. The biggest lesson I took from the crash is you cant have too much cash saved. Build up the rainy day fund.",
"\"Buying gold, silver, palladium, copper and platinum. The first two I am thinking about new currencies. The last three for the perpetual need for the metals in industry. I also have invested in Numismatic coins. They are small portable and easy to hide around the house. I only collect silver coins, so even if the world really blows up and numismatics goes out the window, I can depend on them forming a barter system through the content value of the silver. The problem with collectable items is that they are easy to see. For example, a nice painting just shouts out \"\"steal me!\"\". I don't buy large gold coins. As long as the coin is below 1/4 Oz gold I collect it. If the dollar does finaly collapse, to be honest it will be so bad that I think weapons will be order of the day. Do I think it will collapse...nah never.\"",
"\"If the \"\"crash\"\" you worry about is a dissolution of the euro, then the main thing you should concern yourself with is liquidity. For that, purchase the most highly liquid gold ETF or futures contract, whichever is more appropriate for the total amount of money involved. Any other way and you will lose a significant chunk of your assets to transaction costs. If, on the other hand, the \"\"crash\"\" you were concerned about were the total collapse of the world economy, and people around the world abandon all paper currencies and resort to barter as a method of trade, then I can see buying several small pieces being a rational strategy, although then I would also question whether you were a sane individual.\"",
"People normally hold precious metals as a protection against the whole system going down: massive inflation, lawlessness, etc. If our whole government and financial system broke completely and we returned to a barter economy, then holding silver would likely turn out to be a good thing. However, precious metals are not very good hedges against individual calamity, like losing your job. They are costly and inconvenient to sell and the price of these metals fluctuates wildly, so you could end up wanting to sell just when the metal isn't worth much. I'd say having some precious metal isn't unreasonable, but it should not make up a major portion of one's total net worth. If you want protection against normal problems, especially as a person of limited means, start with an emergency savings account and paying down debt. That way fixed costs will be less likely to turn an unfortunate turn of events into a personal catastrophe.",
"Taking into account your POV I would recommend mostly goods that will be harder to obtain, precious metals (not only gold) and forex (although the forex aproach depends on some other country not having troubles with it's own economy which in a world as interconnected as ours by internet and all the new technologies doesn't seem likely) i highly recommend silver which is cheaper than gold and is stable enough in the long term",
"Technically, you could improve your odds in this hypothetical pre-apocolyptic economy by diversifying your digital and tangible precious-metal-commodity portfolio by going in with gold, silver, platinum, palladium, and others. That being said I'm not sure if one can access tangible stores of all these metals...",
"Gold and silver are for after the crisis, not during. Gold and silver are far more likely to be able to be exchanged for things you need, since they are rare, easily divided, etc. Getting land away from where the crap is happening is also good, but it's more than that. Say you have land somewhere. How will the locals view you if you move there to hunker down only when things go bad? They won't really trust you, and you'll inherit a new set of problems. Building relationships in an off-the-beaten-path area requires a time investment. Investing in lifestyle in general is good. Lifestyle isn't just toys, but it's privacy, peace of mind, relationships with people with whom you can barter skills, as well as the skills you might think you'd need to do more than just get by in whatever scenario you envision. For the immediate crisis, you'd better have the things you'll need for a few months. Stores probably won't be supplied on any regular basis, and the shelves will be bare. Trying to use gold or silver during the crisis just makes you a target for theft. With regard to food, it's best to get acclimated to a diet of what you'd have on hand. If you get freeze-dried food, eat it now, so that it's not a shock to your system when you have to eat it. (Can you tell I've been thinking about this? :) )",
"Buy gold, real coins not paper. And do not keep it in a bank.",
"I'm all-in on hard silver, a small portion is stored at my house for emergency expenditures and the vast majority is in a high-security vault in Canada. That was actually the cheapest place I could find for long-term storage and insurance, which happened to be off-shore. It could turn out to be beneficial to be off-shore though. In the 1930s gold became illegal to privately own its very possible they could do the same this time, although they didn't in 1979. Oil is too high in volume to reasonably store. Gold isn't as undervalued as silver, which I could spend a full day talking about. But to sum it up in a few points: there is less silver than there is gold, gold has a premium for jewelry which will likely go down in a crash even though you will still see gains, silver is the second most used commodity besides oil, less people are in the know about it, silver prices were actually higher than gold a few times in the past century, simply measuring the dow in silver will show it's further below the historical average compared to gold. I'll stop there, but I could go on though on silver if people want. Real-estate is still very expensive from the 2008 recession, traditionally mortgages are $1.05 per dollar you would spend on renting the same property. Currently real-estate is at like $1.25+ I believe, It peaked at about $1.95. I rent, to save money, which you can spend on other assets. If one's willing to move to another state for lower taxes, they definitely should. Employment is going to be harder to come by, and they should get as much out of it as possible as they can. If they don't save enough, they could end up just using their entire savings during the whole thing if they can't find a job, in which case at the end you'd never know they knew it was going to happen. Overall I don't think this crash is going to be like the great depression. I don't feel compelled to store food and buy a generator or anything. I believe the living will be *easier* than it were to live in the 90s for those who are invested in assets. Everything is going to be on sale, meanwhile their wealth will be increasing. Depending on how much they own it could be increasing faster than they need to spend it. Sounds like the life to me. But with that said those without real assets, especially the lower class, will be unemployed and living on food stamps. Perhaps even the food stamps making more people leave the dollar and the economy. This actually might not be a prediction and is what happening already. But I don't believe anybody, in america at least, will be starving. In the 30s we had not mastered industry farming yet and we had the *dustbowl* to make things worse. Crime though, I'd own a gun. The protesters are here already, and I think we are just passing the half-way point right now, they will get angrier. I don't know enough about taxes to know the best country or place to store to combat taxes. Maybe someone else can chime in. I'm in canada to avoid high insurance and storage fees. And for careful selection of primary residence, In the long haul I'd rent a small apartment, as small and cheap as possible. In a safe neighborhood, but not so much secluded that a single grocery store or gas station going out of business could ruin it.",
"As the fed liquidates their fiat, the stock market will go down to zero and bonds will evaporate as their denominated in worthless paper. [The government is going to come for people's gold and seize assets](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/mark-faber-i-am-convinced-whole-derivatives-market-will-cease-exist-and-will-go-zero) Guns and canned goods are the only safe investments from here forward.",
"Silver and gold are money. They always have been. When the Euro collapses (soon) and dollar inflation enters the steep part of the parabolic curve of death please remember this conversation. Please remember that by trying to look smart you didn't invest in gold and silver.",
"Hyperinflation doesn't mean armaggedon. There have been hundreds of fiat currencies that have ended in hyperinflation i.e. wiemar republic (which the germans fully recovered from in less than 10 years before trying to take over europe). Most all pawn shops buy gold/silver, especially during hyperinflation will people be buying gold/silver. You can't have hyperinflation without demand of commodities going through the roof, that is the driver of inflation. When this happens you can be gauranteed people will buy your gold/silver. In the Wiemar republic, some people bought gold/silver for 1/10,000,000 what they sold it for. But they still lost 99% of their value because the mark still devalued another 1,000,000 times. Because of this, many people aren't even looking to sell it, until they absolutely need it's value. I.e. it's a piggy bank. The best way to deal with a gold/silver stash is to hide it, you can't steal what you can't find. There's a reason pirates are famous for burying their stuff, when they don't have the law on their side.",
"I don't even think that much is true, in a downturned market we see deflation. Things go on sale, prices drop, that's deflation. But the elephant in the room is that the gov't can't let deflation happen or their debt becomes harder to pay off. So after/during a downturn the government goes into hyperinflation mode. To me, gold/silver aren't a hedge against the dollar they are a hedge against the inevitable decline of the dollar which isn't going to stop until we change monetary policy. Graph the dollar's value in the past 100 years, it's the biggest crash in history. Now ask yourself if the dollar was a stock, would you want to own it with that record? 100 years of declination. Sell your dollars, find a real currency.",
"\"Because most of the posters have disparaged the pursuit of silver without a reflection upon what you wrote in the question - your concern about Hungary and its government, I'll weigh in it. In a stable and solid political and economic environment, this advice against silver would be generally correct. As you commented, though, this has not been the case and thus it is difficult for some to understand this. Given your concerns, here's a question to reflect upon - what can the government of Hungary not confiscate? Or what have they not confiscated in the past? If silver is on that list, then very few people here will understand because statements like, To be honest, I think a lot of people on this site are doing you a disservice by taking your idea as seriously as they are, are completely predicated on an environment that has been relatively stable over the years. I know my fellow Americans (and some Europeans) don't get this, but some countries have seen disasters - for instance, Brazil has been hyperinflation even when interest rates with insane interest rates (over 1000%). So this answer won't be popular, but depending on your environment, silver may be an excellent choice. If the government of Hungary has confiscated silver in the past (or you suspect they might), though, I'd stay far away from it. In reading and listening to people in these environments, citizens typically want something the government does want to take inventory of that tend to hold their value or rise during times of crisis. Most Americans (if they were honest) really can't relate to this and the few that can would agree. Another popular item to have, which doesn't physically exist, is a rare, but valuable skill that will be needed in a crisis. For instance, being highly skilled at negotiation and knowing the right people both come in handy at difficult times. Can you pay for learning or increasing those skill sets now? Never forget that self-investment can go far. And as a financial note and word of advice from someone who's been a financial adviser for over half a decade, a good financial adviser always seeks to get the person's information before providing advice and almost never says that a particular choice is always bad or always good; I would seldom say that a person should do one thing and it will always be good advice because that may not work in their country/state/environment/situation/etc. As they say in the SQL Server community - \"\"it depends\"\" and that holds true for finance. In the long run, those items which we may not think of as good investments or stores of value may end up having their day. To paraphrase Solomon, \"\"There's a time and place for everything under the sun.\"\" Even in my short life, I've witnessed a period of gold and silver routing the stock market and the stock market routing gold and silver. I suspect I'll see both again if I live a few more decades. tl;dr\"",
"Best thing to do is convert your money into something that will retain value. Currency is a symbol of wealth, and can be significantly devalued with inflation. Something such as Gold or Silver might not allow you to see huge benefit, but its perhaps the safest bet (gold in particular, as silver is more volatile), as mentioned above, yes you do pay a little above spot price and receive a little below spot when and if you sell, but current projections for both gold and silver suggest that you won't lose money at least. Safe bet. Suggesting it is a bad idea at this time is just silly, and goes against the majority of advisers out there.",
"\"Invest in other currencies and assets that have \"\"real\"\" value. And personally I don't count gold as something of real value. Of course its used in the industry but besides that its a pretty useless metal and only worth something because everybody else thinks that everybody thinks its worth something. So I would buy land, houses, stocks, ...\"",
"I recently finished reading a book that you may be interested in based on your question, The Ultimate Suburban Survivalist Guide. The author begins with a discussion of why he thinks the US economy and currency could collapse. It gets a little scary. Then he goes into great detail on commodities, specifically gold. The rest of the book is about what you can be doing to prepare yourself and your family to be more self sufficient. To answer your question, I do anticipate problems with US currency in the future and plan to put some money in gold if the price dips.",
"I wonder this myself. If an economic apocalypse actually came to pass, owning a bunch of gold bars - or shares in gold bars held somewhere else - isn't going to help you eat, or keep you from freezing to death. The most valuable goods will be those with some utility - food, water, clothing, medicine, ammunition. I think the financiers and their pornographers at WSJ forget that their entire world - and everything of value, power, and consequence within it - will cease to exist if the power goes out.",
"If you believe you can time the crash, then We all know what comes after a crash… just as we know what comes after the doom, we just don’t know when….",
"Weather events and aging infrastructure. Cash will buy gasoline, food and water when there is no power or telephone connectivity to process ATMs and credit cards.",
"\"Generally speaking, so-called \"\"hard assets\"\" (namely gold or foreign currency), durable goods, or property that produces income is valuable in a situation where a nation's money supply is threatened. Gold is the universal hard asset. If you have access to a decent market, you can buy gold as bullion, coins and jewelry. Small amounts are valuable and easy to conceal. The problem with gold is that it is often marked up alot... I'm not sure how practical it is in a poor developing nation. A substitute would be a \"\"harder\"\" currency. The best choice depends on where you live. Candidates would be the US Dollar, Euro, Australian Dollar, Yen, etc. The right choice depends on you, the law in your jurisdiction, your means and other factors.\"",
"\"Well I disagree with the economists who claim Bitcoin can't (or wouldn't) be a currency. As far as I'm concerned, Bitcoin is the best-established digital \"\"unit of account\"\", and in the event of a Dollar/Euro crisis you are likely to see some entrepreneurs figure out ways to speed its adoption. I don't own any Bitcoin now, and I wouldn't put more than 15% of my total portfolio in it, simply because it's not possible to predict if something like that would catch on. But I own a ton of silver (about 20% of which is physical and the other 80% is via Sprott's ETF). I also don't own physical gold, but I own a lot of Swiss Francs, which in my view are a good proxy for gold and a safe haven given the fact Switzerland owns so much gold-per-capita. You get the benefits of gold AND a captive, skilled tax-livestock. Soros indicated recently he thinks the Euro won't last much longer than a few months. I'm always amazed by how the elite can push things off, though. So I hold about 50% of my savings as cash USD. In the event of market turmoil (you'll know it when you see it, like 2008) you can use this to scoop up some cheap stocks and gold/silver coins. Don't beat yourself up over missing opportunities, though. The main thing is just to steer clear of government bonds and the stock market. If you do that, you're going to come out in the top 20% over the next few years.\"",
"The points given by DumbCoder are very valid. Diversifying portfolio is always a good idea. Including Metals is also a good idea. Investing in single metal though may not be a good idea. •Silver is pretty cheap now, hopefully it will be for a while. •Silver is undervalued compared to gold. World reserve ratio is around 1 to 11, while price is around 1 to 60. Both the above are iffy statements. Cheap is relative term ... there are quite a few metals more cheaper than Silver [Copper for example]. Undervalued doesn't make sense. Its a quesiton of demand and supply. Today Industrial use of Silver is more widespread, and its predecting future what would happen. If you are saying Silver will appreciate more than other metals, it again depends on country and time period. There are times when even metals like Copper have given more returns than Silver and Gold. There is also Platinum to consider. In my opinion quite a bit of stuff is put in undervalued ... i.e. comparing reserve ratio to price in absolute isn't right comparing it over relative years is right. What the ratio says is for every 11 gms of silver, there is 1 gm of Gold and the price of this 1 gm is 60 times more than silver. True. And nobody tell is the demand of Silver 60 times more than Gold or 11 times more than Gold. i.e. the consumption. What is also not told is the cost to extract the 11 gms of silver is less than cost of 1 gm of Gold. So the cheapness you are thinking is not 100% true.",
"\"Look at a broader diversification. Something like: For physical gold, I'd look at a mix of gold coins and bullion. Study the pricing model for coins -- you'll probably find that the spreads on small coins make them too expensive. There are a few levels of risk with storing in a vault -- the practical risk is that your government will close banks in the event of a panic, and your money will be inaccessible. You need to balance that risk with the risk to your personal security that comes with having lots of gold or cash in your home. My recommendation is to avoid wasting time on the \"\"Mad Max\"\" scenarios. If the world economy collapses into utter ruin, we're all screwed. A few gold coins won't do much for you.\"",
"How would gold have protected you during the 2007/8 crisis? In no way, shape or form. The ways to protect yourself at any time are: Boring, huh?",
"Less than 2 1/2% of all US currency actually exists. The rest is digital entries. In a financial crisis you'll need lots of rare cash. Twenty dollar bills are the best choice. Stash as many as you can afford to. Best to stash in a anchored security safe. And for goodness sakes, don't tell anyone.",
"If you want to speculate on gold price you should always buy an ETF/ETC (Exchange Traded Commodity). The reasons are simple: Easy to buy and sell (one mouse click) Cheap to buy and sell (small bank commission), compared to buy real gold (always 6 to 12% comission to the local shop when you buy and when you sell), see this one it's one cheap gold buy/sell shop I found on the internet But if you sometimes feel unsecure that you might one day loose everything due to a major economy collapse event (like an armageddon), or not to have enough money in bad periods or during retirment, and it makes you feel better to know you buried 999 Gold Sovereign in your house backyard (along with a rifle as suggested in comments), then just buy them and live an happy life (as long as you hide your gold in good ways and write a good treasury map).",
"I recommend investing in precious metals like gold, considering the economic cycle we're in now. Government bonds are subject to possible default and government money historically tends to crumble in value, whereas gold and the metals tend to rise in value with the commodies. Stocks tend to do well, but right now most of them are a bit overvalued and they're very closely tied to overvalued currencies and unstable governments with lots of debt. I would stick to gold right now, if you're planning on investing for more than a month or so.",
"\"1) link? 2) It doesn't matter if they can or do, what matters is if they are *investing* (not trading) in it *more* than banks are investing in businesses. If that is the case (it is) then businesses as a whole will see the inflation first, and commodities will be playing catchup the entire time, but mostly when the investments hit recession. I will invest in the market again after they lose their mal-invested value, In historical terms the best time was to invest in them was 1980, 1938 and 1900, and the best time to get out was 1929 1960's and 2000. But to bet against them right now, with the dollar, is meaningless because the FED is deflating the currency as they go down, so it's like running on a treadmill. By holding silver I am essentially short the market, only difference is instead of holding a devaluing currency (cash) I'm holding a real money which is increasing in value. There's nothing simpler than \"\"investing\"\" in commodities for the long-term, people lose when they are making monthly/daily trades in them. Anyone who bought and held on to gold in 2000 did it for $300, and they've made infinitely more than the majority of people investing in blue chips (because they've lost value) and much more than those who invested in bonds. And that trend isn't going to stop unless the government lets the dollar deflate in which case the dollar will come to gold instead of the other way around. Until they are in equilibrium again. Historically the dow has an average of being 2 ounces of gold, peaking at 50 and trophing at .5. If it hits .5 again like it has everytime this occurs in the past. Then either gold will be $20000 or the dow will be 4000. You pick.\"",
"\"Invest in gold. Maybe will not \"\"make\"\" money but at least preserve the value.\"",
"\"I think that its ok to keep your \"\"emergency fund\"\" money in cash in your home. By emergency fund, I mean $1,000-2,500, that doesn't get touched. There are risks. You have a risk that the money will be stolen, or be wholly or partially destroyed, or even lost if you stash it somewhere and forget. You're also not going to earn interest. So go for it. But keep your emergency funds in cash -- if you want to buy silver and gold, that's fine...you need to treat them as commodity investments.\"",
"why should i have to make something with my cash? i'll fuking hold it and face losing a few percentage of purchasing power. i'd rather have liquity in these peril times. besides, people that held cash in 2008 had a once in a life time buying opportunity when all assets fell 60-90%.",
"I agree with buying gold, as this is truly the worldwide currency and will only increase in value if the Euro fails. The only issue will be if your country confiscates all citizen's gold ( it has happened many times throughout history. As for ETFs, be careful because unless you purchase these in terms of other currencies (I am assuming you aren't), than the ETF you own is still in terms of Euros, making the whole investment worthless if you are trying to avoid Euro currency risk.",
"\"Since you are going to be experiencing a liquidity crisis that even owning physical gold wouldn't solve, may I suggest bitcoins? You will still be liquid and people anywhere will be able to trade it. This is different from precious metals, whereas even if you \"\"invested\"\" in gold you would waste considerable resources on storage, security and actually making it divisible for trade. You would be illiquid. Do note that the bitcoin currency is currently more volatile than a Greek government bond.\"",
"I'm going to go the contrarian route and suggest you stay completely out of the stock market for the foreseeable future. We're entering a period of time this country and world has never seen before. Our country is broke / insolvent. We are printing money to buy our own debt. This is beyond stupid. It will destroy us, just like it did Germany in the 1920's. Many states are on the verge of bankruptcy. The only thing stopping them is a constitutional issue. California, Illinois, Michigan, New York etc. are all broke. They are billions in debt and massive underfunding of pensions. More than a half-dozen European countries are on the verge of financial implosion. The Euro is just as bad off as our dollar. There are extremely powerful forces at work bent on destroying this country and the US dollar, to usher in a One World Government and financial system. IMO, buy as much gold and silver has you can. Not necessarily as an investment vehicle. I would do it as a survival vehicle. And, I don't mean gold/silver stocks. I mean you buy gold/silver and you take physical possession.",
"Assuming that the financial system broke down, not enough supply of essential commodities or food but there is political and administrative stability and no such chaos that threatens your life by physical attacks. The best investment would then be some paddy fields, land, some cows, chickens and enough clothing , a safe house to stay and a healthy life style that enables you to work for food and some virtue at heart and management skills to get people work for you on your resources so that they can survive with you (may be you earn some profit -that is up to your moral standards to decide, how much). It all begins to start again; a new Financial System has to be in place….!",
"Things earned can be easily taken away in a time of crisis with the flick of a pen, you are probably better off preparing yourself by means of being self-sufficent, independant, capable and skilled in a profession that is likely to be in demand regardless of the crisis at hand. Bad things will happen to you, it might be the stock market or the rise of hyper-intelligent bunnies, a good investor would say diversify your risk and be prepared for anything.",
"Generally, you need something that goes up over time during periods of index decline, but otherwise holds some value. Historically, people tend to use gold for that purpose. But with gold also set up for possible declines, that raises questions. Silver has dropped a bit more than gold in terms of percentages. If you think the downward motion will be in the form of sudden jumps, you can look at putting some of your money in puts away from the current price, but you can easily wind up paying too much for this protection. In the case of a deflation, most things lose value vs. money, and you want all cash. These things might already be obvious. I don't think there is a clear answer to your question. But if the future were clear, the present market could possibly anticipate and adjust... one reason the future of the market always seems a bit murky.",
"\"Like Jeremy T said above, silver is a value store and is to be used as a hedge against sovereign currency revaluations. Since every single currency in the world right now is a free-floating fiat currency, you need silver (or some other firm, easily store-able, protect-able, transportable asset class; e.g. gold, platinum, ... whatever...) in order to protect yourself against government currency devaluations, since the metal will hold its value regardless of the valuation of the currency which you are denominating it in (Euro, in your case). Since the ECB has been hesitant to \"\"print\"\" large amounts of currency (which causes other problems unrelated to precious metals), the necessity of hedging against a plummeting currency exchange rate is less important and should accordingly take a lower percentage in your diversification strategy. However, if you were in.. say... Argentina, for example, you would want to have a much larger percentage of your assets in precious metals. The EU has a lot of issues, and depreciation of hard assets courtesy of a lack of fluid currency/capital (and overspending on a lot of EU governments' parts in the past), in my opinion, lessens the preservative value of holding precious metals. You want to diversify more heavily into precious metals just prior to government sovereign currency devaluations, whether by \"\"printing\"\" (by the ECB in your case) or by hot capital flows into/out of your country. Since Eurozone is not an emerging market, and the current trend seems to be capital flowing back into the developed economies, I think that diversifying away from silver (at least in overall % of your portfolio) is the order of the day. That said, do I have silver/gold in my retirement portfolio? Absolutely. Is it a huge percentage of my portfolio? Not right now. However, if the U.S. government fails to resolve the next budget crisis and forces the Federal Reserve to \"\"print\"\" money to creatively fund their expenses, then I will be trading out of soft assets classes and into precious metals in order to preserve the \"\"real value\"\" of my portfolio in the face of a depreciating USD. As for what to diversify into? Like the folks above say: ETFs(NOT precious metal ETFs and read all of the fine print, since a number of ETFs cheat), Indexes, Dividend-paying stocks (a favorite of mine, assuming they maintain the dividend), or bonds (after they raise the interest rates). Once you have your diversification percentages decided, then you just adjust that based on macro-economic trends, in order to avoid pitfalls. If you want to know more, look through: http://www.mauldineconomics.com/ < Austrian-type economist/investor http://pragcap.com/ < Neo-Keynsian economist/investor with huge focus on fiat currency effects\"",
"\"The goldbug crowd over on ZeroHedge's comments seem fond of reminding everyone that, while they might have bought and owned some gold in the past, they don't have it any more because they actually lost it all in a lake in \"\"a tragic boating accident\"\". And who's going to prove otherwise? For that group, who are convinced cash (\"\"fiat paper\"\") will at some point be worthless, the stockmarket will evaporate, the highest grade bonds will default and bank accounts and other personal assets will be subject to confiscation and \"\"bail in\"\"... general bug-out apocalypse in other words... having a \"\"secret stash\"\" of high-value physical assets is obviously quite important and reassuring and presumably totally \"\"worth it\"\".\"",
"I use to play marbles at school. Marbles were like gold the more you had the richer you were. They were a scarce commodity only a few in circulation. Once I secured a wealth of marbles I realized they were of little real value. They were only of illusory value. As long as we all were deceived into believe they had value they I was rich. Sure marble could be used to make marble floors ;) they were lovely to look at, and every one wanted them. Then one day, I discovered the emperor had no clothes. Wow, the day that everyone sees the true value of gold, what a stock market crash that will be. I tried to avoid gold as much as possible, but this is hard to do in todays stock market. My solace is that we will all be in the same golden (Titanic) boat, only I hope to limit my exposure as much as possible. Anyone want a gold watch for a slice of bread?",
"Gold is a good investment when central bank money printers can’t take their thumbs off the print button. Over the last 3 years the US Federal Reserve printed a ton of dollars to bail out banks and to purchase US federal debt. Maybe I should exchange my dollars for euros? The European Central Bank (ECB) is following the FED plan and printing money to buy Greek, Italian, and now Spanish bonds. This, indirectly, is a bailout of French and German banks. Maybe I should exchange my euros for yen? The Bank Of Japan (Japan’s central bank) is determined not to let the yen rise against other currencies so they too are printing money to keep the yen weak. Maybe I should exchange my yen for swiss francs? The Swiss National Bank (Switzerland’s central bank) is also determined not to let the franc rise against other currencies so they too are printing money. You quickly begin to realize that your options are dwindling for places to put your money where the government central bank isn’t working hard to dilute your savings. Physical gold is also a good investment for several other situations: What situations would lead to a drop in gold prices? What are the alternatives? Silver has traditionally been used more as money than gold. Silver is usually used for day-to-day purchases while gold is used for savings.",
"\"Your #1 problem is the Government both in it's form as a taxation outfit and as a 'law and order' outfit. You'd be very surprised at how fast a bank seizes your bank account in response to a court order. Purchase 100 Mexican 50 Peso Gold (1.2 oz/ea). These coins are cheap (lowest cost to get into) and will not be reportable on sale to taxing authorities. That money is out of the banking system and legal system(s). Do not store them in a bank! You need to find a tax strategist, probably a former IRS agent / CPA type. With the rest remaining money... There's an old saying, Don't fight the Fed. As well as \"\"The trend is your friend\"\". So, the Fed wants all savers fully invested right now (near 0 interest rates). When investing, I find that if you do exactly opposite what you think is the smart thing, that's the best thing. Therefore, it follows: 1) Don't fight the Fed 2) Do opposite of smart 3) Do: Fight the Fed (and stay 100% out of the market and in cash) We're looking like Japan so could remain deflationary for decades to come. Cash is king...\"",
"If it gets bad enough that banks start failing, you probably will have a hard time accessing overseas accounts. That's real SHTF stuff. If so, lighters and toilet paper are probably the best investment you can make besides canned and dried food. Update: Complete breakdown of society is far more likely than the paranoid fantasy of Trump establishing an authoritarian government. The general population would rise up and you would find the civil unrest portion to be important. As for lighters and toilet paper, think about it for a minute. If you've got a case of food in cans but no way to heat them, would you trade a can for a lighter? Two cans? And toilet paper would be worth its weight in gold after about 2 months. If you really want to be a prepper, seeds, medicine, are all good things, but the really important thing to have is skills. Know how to hunt, clean an animal, tend a garden, clean and dress a wound. Having gold and diamonds would be a decent hedge for a fraction of your investments.",
"This kid gives a good summary of the silver market as it currently stands, and why you should own the physical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAK9ohz9h7M But yes, you will do well to have bank accounts in China and Switzerland, diversifying into yuan and francs... and also jurisdictionally diversifying.",
"You are really tangling up two questions here: Q1: Given I fear a dissolution of the Euro, is buying physical gold a good response and if so, how much should I buy? I see you separately asked about real estate, and cash, and perhaps other things. Perhaps it would be better to just say: what is the right asset allocation, rather than asking about every thing individually, which will get you partial and perhaps contradictory answers. The short answer, knowing very little about your case, is that some moderate amount of gold (maybe 5-10%, at most 25%) could be a counterbalance to other assets. If you're concerned about government and market stability, you might like Harry Browne's Permanent Portfolio, which has equal parts stocks, bonds, cash, and gold. Q2: If I want to buy physical gold, what size should I get? One-ounce bullion (about 10 x 10 x 5mm, 30g) is a reasonably small physical size and a reasonable monetary granularity: about $1700 today. I think buying $50 pieces of gold is pointless: However much you want to have in physical gold, buy that many ounces.",
"> and you can't buy anything with them not true at all. gold converts to ANY/EVERY currency in the world look, I don't care what you do. your question was how to make $500 into more. my answer is one answer. but I encourage you to [follow the price of gold and silver](http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/gold/) from time to time (weekly?) to see the path I predicted here are two videos to help you learn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvBCDS-y8vc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRphHg87uSc",
"First question: Any, probably all, of the above. Second question: The risk is that the currency will become worth less, or even worthless. Most will resort to the printing press (inflation) which will tank the currency's purchasing power. A different currency will have the same problem, but possibly less so than yours. Real estate is a good deal. So are eggs, if you were to ask a Weimar Germany farmer. People will always need food and shelter.",
"Depends what kind of expenses you intend to use this money for. If you plan to buy housing in the future (eg you're saving a deposit), then you need to ensure that the value doesn't deteriorate relative to the value of the housing you are likely to buy - so you could buy a Residential REIT, or buy some investment property. If you expect to use this money for food, then you should buy suitable assets (eg Wheat futures, etc). Link the current asset to the future expense, and you will be fine. If you buy Gold, then you are making a bet that Gold will retain its value compared to the thing you want to purchase in future. It doesn't matter what the price of Gold does in $US.",
"If you want to use that money and maybe don't have the time to wait a few years if things should go bad, than you will definitely want to hold a good bunch of your money in the currency you buy most stuff with (so in most cases the currency of the country you live in) even if it is more volatile.",
"First is storage which is a big and a detrimental headache. Security is another big headache. Investing in precious metal has always been an investment opportunity in the countries in the east i.e. India and China because of cultural reason and due to absence of investment opportunities for the less fortunate ones. It isn't the case so in the West. Secondly what is the right an opportune moment is open to question. When the worlwide economy is up and running, that is probably the time to buy i.e. people would like to put money in use rather than store. The saying goes the other way when the economy is stagnating. Then there is also the case of waiting out the bad periods to sell your gold and silver. If you do want to buy precious metals then use a service like BullionVault, rather than doing those yourself. It takes care of the 2 big headaches, I mentioned earlier.",
"You might want to just keep it in cash. For one step further you could do an even split of USD, EUR and silver. USD hedges against loss of value in the euro, precious metal hedges against a global financial problem. Silver over gold because of high gold:silver ratio is high. You could lose money this way. There are some bad things that can happen that will make your portfolio fall, but there are also many bad things that can happen that would result in no change or gain. With careful trades in stocks and even more aggressive assets, you could conceivably see large returns. But since you're novice, you won't be able to make these trades, and you'll just lose your investment. Ordinarily, novices can buy an S&P ETF and enjoy decent return (7-8% annual on average) at reasonable risk, but that only works if you stay invested for many years. In the short term, S&P can crash pretty badly, and stay low for a year or more. If you can just wait it out, great (it has always recovered eventually), but if some emergency forces you to take the money out you'd have to do so at a big loss. Lately, the index has shown signs of being overvalued. If you buy it now, you could luck out and be 10-15% up in a year, but you could also end up 30% down - not a very favorable risk/reward rate. Which is why I would hold on to my cash until it does crash (or failing that, starts looking more robust again) and then think about investing.",
"If the US economy crashes at all suddenly, the global economy goes with it. In that case, yes, the postapocalyptic scenarios may be the best answer. But that's got so low a probability of happening that you'd be a fool to invest in it. If you really feel the need, consider investing in the companies which supply those activities. The big winners in the California gold rush were the general stores that sold supplies to the speculators.",
"\"Nobody can give you a definitive answer. To those who suggest it's expensive at these prices, [I'd point to this chart](http://treo.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a6002285970c014e8c39f2c3970d-850wi) showing the price of gold versus the global money supply over the past decade or so. It's not conclusive, but it's evidence that gold tracks the money supply relatively well. There might be a bit of risk premium baked in that it would shed in a stable economy, but that premium is unknowable. It's also (imo) probably worth the protection it provides. In an inflationary scenario (Euro devaluation) gold will hold its buying power very well. It also fares well in a deflationary environment, just not quite as well as holding physical currency. Note that in such an environment, bank defaults are a big danger: that 50k might only be safe under your mattress (rather than in a fractionally reserved bank account). If you're buying gold, certificates aren't exactly a bad option, although there still exists the counterparty risk of the agent storing your gold, as well as political risk of the nation where it's being held. Buying physical bullion ameliorates these risks, but then you face the problem of protecting it. Safe deposit boxes, a home safe, or burying it in your backyard are all possible options. The merits of each, I'll leave as an exerice to the reader. Foreign currency might be a little bit better than the Euro, but as we've seen in the past year or so, the Swiss Franc has been devalued to match the Euro in the proverbial \"\"race to the bottom\"\". It's probably not much better than another fiat currency. I don't know anything about Norway. Edit: Depending on your time horizon, my personal opinion would be to put no less than 5-10% of your savings in a hard store of value (e.g. gold, silver, platinum). Depending on your risk appetite, you could probably stand to put a lot more into it, especially given the Eurozone turmoil. Of course, as with anything else, your mileage may vary, past performance does not guarantee future results, this is not investment advice, seek professional medical help if you experience an erection lasting longer than four hours.\"",
"I think it is because people have realized that the paper gold (and silver) is pretty much worthless, and that gold in hand (physical gold) is where it is at. I do not pretend to be a goldbug speculator. I just know that over selling paper, eventually has to bottom out, once people start to ask for delivery of their assets, and realize they are not going to get anything for their investments.",
"\"The benefit of having gold to trade is that there is almost always someone that will take gold when the fiat currency is in trouble. The potential downfall of doing this is that when people think the fiat currency is in trouble, they tend to buy up gold, thus driving up the price. This means that you get less gold for each hour of work you perform (deer-haunch, basket of apples, etc.). Even more, if the financial crisis is limited to only one fiat currency, you have a situation where that fiat currency devalues but others can gain in value as people try to sell their old currency for the new standard currency. If people also sell their gold to buy up this currency, that lowers the price of gold in that currency. For example, let us assume that gold was 1000 dollars an ounce and 1000 euros an ounce. Suddenly, people start thinking that the euro is in trouble, so they start buying gold. The law of supply and demand kicks in (more buyers, same supply, so higher prices) and gold is suddenly worth 2000 dollars and 2000 euros an ounce. If you start buying at this point, you get half as much gold as the person who bought in the beginning. Suddenly, the euro collapses. Stores that used to take euros start demanding dollars. Suddenly, it costs 20,000 euros for an ounce of gold but an ounce of gold will only get you 1,000 dollars since everyone is selling their gold to get dollars. The people who buy gold in the \"\"panic\"\" end up losing half the value of their money if not more. The \"\"speculators\"\" that bought gold at $1,000, sold it at $2,000, and bought it back at $1,000 now have all their gold back plus the $1,000 the other people lost.\"",
"edited you's to they's and I's =) Further, I'm not ballsy enough to go all out on this. I actually am slightly in debt buying silver. But in a hyper-inflation event credit is cheap to pay off. If one was confident enough they could hypothetically go into silver on large margin and pay it off quite easily after the hyperinflation occured. Much like what the government is doing with it's debt. At that point you are betting the government will continue doing what it is for a long while though. Just a thought.",
"Not at the current price. Take a look at historical charts going back five years. When the meltdown occurred in 2008, gold price took a big dip due to deleveraging, etc. I would expect the same to happen again with the current crisis.",
"You mean in response to OP? Investors should buy physical gold and silver, and wait out the storm. The US Bond market is negative when you factor in inflation, that's a bubble that's going to burst eventually. Riding the gold horse will keep you high and dry. But if you mean in response to Fearan? I would say that the way to reduce income inequality is to stop all the market distortions and malinvestment due to regulations. The countries with the most income disparity are the ones with the most regulations.",
"The collapse of the US economic system is one of the many things I am preparing for. To answer the how, me personally I am doing some investing in gold and silver. However I am investing more in the tools, goods and gear that will help me be independent of the system around me. In short nothing will change for me if the US dollar goes belly up. A book I recommend is Possum Living (http://www.possumliving.net/). Other than that I am investing in trade goods such as liquor, cigarettes, medical supplies.",
"Gold is a risky and volatile investment. If you want an investment that's inflation-proof, you should buy index-linked government bonds in the currency that you plan to be spending the money in, assuming that government controls its own currency and has a good credit rating.",
"I think what the person meant to say is that Gold is not a one stop solution. There's nothing wrong with having Gold in an otherwise diversified portfolio but you need to be aware about the potential downsides: The problem with gold is that its value nowadays depends mainly on investor confidence, or the lack of it (actual demand for gold cannot explain the rise in value gold had after the crisis). If people are afraid the world and currencies with it will go to hell, the gold price will go up. Why? Because if currencies seize to exist, Gold will still be accepted. It can replace currencies. What many people tend to forget: let's consider the extreme example and currencies really cease to exist and all hell breaks lose. What good are gold bars at the bank, or even at home, for that matter? You'll be better off with gold coins to use in barter and to pay off marauders. But that's not about investing anymore, that's survivalism.",
"\"Most of the answers here reflect a misunderstanding of what gold actually is from a financial perspective. I'll answer your question by asking two questions, and I do challenge you to stop and think about what we mean when we say \"\"cash\"\" or \"\"unit of exchange\"\" because without understanding those, you will completely miss this answer. In 1971, the DXY was 110. For people who don't know, the DXY is the US Dollar Index - it weighs the strength of the US Dollar relative to other currencies. Hey look, it's a pretty graph of the DXY's history. In 1971, gold was $35 an ounce. The DXY is 97 today. Gold is $1170 an ounce today. Now the questions: If shares of Company A in 1971 were $10 a share, but now are $100 a share and some of this is because the company has grown, but some of it is because of inflation and the DXY losing value, what would the value of the company be if it was held in grams of gold and not dollars? Benjamin Graham, who influenced Warren Buffett, is a \"\"supposed\"\" critic of gold, yet what percent of his life were we not on a gold standard? In his day, the dollar was backed by gold - why would you buy gold if every dollar represented gold. Finally, consider how many US Dollars exist, and how few metric tonnes of gold exist (165,000). Even Paul Volcker admitted that a new gold standard would be impossible because the value of gold, if we did it today, would put gold in the $5000-$10000 range - which is absurd: To get on a gold standard technically now, an old fashioned gold standard, and you had to replace all the dollars out there in foreign hands with gold, God the price, you buy gold, because the price of gold would have to be enormous. So, you're all left hoping the Federal Reserve figures how to get us all out of this mess without causing trouble, otherwise, let me just kindly say, you WILL realize the value of gold then. As the old saying goes, \"\"A fool and his money are soon parted.\"\" I could be wrong, but I'd say that those who've been buying gold since 1971 for their \"\"cash holdings\"\" (not index funds) aren't the suckers.\"",
"I apply what you term 'money' to the word 'commodity'. And I agree with littleadv, you are just selling us your perspective on (such things as) precious metals. What I want you to think about is these truths: When used as currency gold just has two values: utility value and currency value. I hold it is better to separate the two. There is not enough gold in the earth to represent the value in aggregate economies of the world. Trying to go back to the gold standard would only induce an unimaginable hyperinflation in gold. Recent years shows that gold does not retain value. See the linked chart.",
"Precious metals also tend to do well during times of panic. You could invest in gold miners, a gold or silver ETF or in physical bullion itself.",
"I assume you've looked into gold as an asset class (which is considered to be a good diversifier in your portfolio at about 5% of investments) because there are a lot of opinions around about that. But in terms of physical vs paper gold investment, my experience has been that they'll absolutely kill you on fees if you're not careful. I had a broker try and charge me $80/oz. They do it in the margins though, so they'll just sell at say $1,350 but buy at $1,200. Just make sure you either know the market price when you walk in and stick to your guns or lock in a price ahead of time.",
"In 2008, 10 year treasuries were up 20.1%, to gold's 4.96%. Respectfully, if I were certain if a market drop, I'd just short the market, easily done by shorting SPY or other index ETFs. If you wish to buy gold, the easiest and least expensive way is to buy an ETF, GLD to be specific. It trades like a stock, for what that's worth. There are those who would suggest this is not like buying gold, it's just 'paper'. I believe otherwise. It's a non leveraged, fully backed ETF. I try not to question other's political or religious beliefs or as it pertains to this ETF, their conspiracy theories.",
"Cash would be the better alternative assuming both stocks take a major hit in ALL categories AND the Fed raise rates at the same time for some reason. Money market funds that may have relatively low yields at the moment would likely be one of the few securities not to be repriced downward as interest rates rising would decrease bond values which could be another crash as I could somewhat question how broad of a crash are you talking here. There are more than a few different market segments so that while some parts may get hit really hard in a crash, would you really want to claim everything goes down? Blackrock's graphic shows in 2008 how bonds did the best and only it and cash had positive returns in that year but there is something to be said for how big is a crash: 20%, 50%, 90%?",
"Reddit doesn't have a ton of resources to offer you as you learn about where to invest, you want to start reading up on actual investing sites. You might start with Motley Fool, StockTwits, Seeking Alpha, Marketwatch, etc. I agree with hipster's take, if all countries are going to keep printing money and expanding their debts and craziness, gold has a bright future. Land, petroleum, commodities, and precious metals have an intrinsic worth that will still be there regardless of what currencies are doing, versus bonds which are merely promises to pay, which will be paid off in devalued money, or stocks which are just promises of future earnings. Think about spreading your risk in a few different places, one chunk here, one chunk there. Some people in the US now are big on dividend paying stocks in lieu of bonds which only pay a percent, which is negative return after inflation. Some people buy 'royalty trust' units, which throw off income from oil leases as dividends. You might want to park a portion in a different currency, but dollar funds aren't going to pay interest and Switzerland plans to keep devaluing its currency as people keep bidding the price up. I don't know if you are allowed to buy CEF, a bullion-backed fund out of Canada in your country, but that's one way to own gold & silver. But with the instability out there, you might prefer a bit of the real thing stashed in a safe place. Or if you have a bit of family land, maybe just be sure you can pay the taxes to keep it; or pursue any other way to own 'real stuff' that will still be worth something after all hell breaks loose.",
"Transfer your savings to a dollar-based CD. Or even better, buy some gold on them.",
"\"If it were me, I would convert it to cash and keep it in a liquid account. The assumption that silver will increase in value is misguided. From 1985 to 2002, it was flat. It's gone up and been far more volatile since then, and there has been significant declines which could eat at the stability of an emergency fund. Precious metals are speculation, not investing. They do not create wealth. Investing is typically considered too volatile for an emergency fund, more so keeping the money in metals. Making it more difficult to get to, like keeping it in a separate account might also fight against frivolous or accidental spending. Also there tends to be high transaction costs when liquidating metals. I found the best way is to use eBay. After some further comments and clarification here I suspect you are dealing with something else. Namely, the \"\"white picket fence\"\". Again, this is supposition, but perhaps she envisions the two of you married and hosting a dinner party using the passed down silver. This could be a strong emotional bond, and as such it could trump the logical arguments. Keeping it as an emergency fund: foolish. You helping her keep it because you are planning a life together: smart.\"",
"I'd like to provide ideas other than gold, stocks, property, bonds on how to prepare for a severe crisis. My suggestions below may even make your life more happy now.",
"I think precious metals as an investment might set one up for disappointment. Why does it seem to continually decline despite the variance? As many have noted, there isn't much productive use for precious metals, and no major wars are taking place, so they aren't being used as currency substitutes, not to mention that more is being pulled out of the ground every day. The real reason why this graph shows silver to decline in real value over time is because its using a suboptimal price index. An optimal one would most likely show a stable price over the long run. Silver is a great speculation if one can determine with high confidence the direction.",
"I like precious metals and real estate. For the OP's stated timeframe and the effects QE is having on precious metals, physical silver is not a recommended short term play. If you believe that silver prices will fall as QE is reduced, you may want to consider an ETF that shorts silver. As for real estate, there are a number of ways to generate profit within your time frame. These include: Purchase a rental property. If you can find something in the $120,000 range you can take a 20% mortgage, then refinance in 3 - 7 years and pull out the equity. If you truly do not need the cash to purchase your dream home, look for a rental property that pays all the bills plus a little bit for you and arrange a mortgage of 80%. Let your money earn money. When you are ready you can either keep the property as-is and let it generate income for you, or sell and put more than $100,000 into your dream home. Visit your local mortgage broker and ask if he does third-party or private lending. Ask about the process and if you feel comfortable with him, let him know you'd like to be a lender. He will then find deals and present them to you. You decide if you want to participate or not. Private lenders are sometimes used for bridge financing and the loan amortizations can be short (6 months - 5 years) and the rates can be significantly higher than regular bank mortgages. The caveat is that as a second-position mortgage, if the borrower goes bankrupt, you're not likely to get your principal back.",
"Gold and Silver have gone up massively as the dollar has devalued. Roosevelt actually did confiscate gold, you were required to sell it to the federal Reserve. I would stay away from nusimatics or other overpriced vehicles for gold but the underlying statements are true.",
"If the market has not crashed but you know it will, sell short or buy puts. If the market has crashed, buy equities while they are cheap. If you don't know if or when it will crash hold a diversified portfolio including stocks, bonds, real estate, and alternatives (gold, etc).",
"Diversify, diversify, diversify. Gold, USD, Swiss Franc and one thing that hasn't really been mentioned yet: equities. Yes, they may go down if the recession gets worse but at the end of the day you have a claim to a company. That's a physical asset. It's also a hedge against inflation/devaluation just like foreign currencies and precious metals. Make sure that you invest in companies that actually produce something that will always be needed though. I.e. Siemens, Novartis, Caterpillar etc. NOT the Zyngas and Facebooks of the world!",
"A somewhat provocative (but not unserious) proposal: Rent, don't buy a house to live in. In 2007/8, the thing that got many people in deep trouble is their mortgage. It's not a productive investment but a speculative bet on what was in fact a bubble and a class of assets that is notoriously slow to recover after a slump. Before thinking about your savings or buying into silly ideas about gold, you should realise that as a middle class worker, the biggest risk after a crisis is losing your job. Renting your accommodation means being able to downgrade or move very quickly and not being forced to sell a house at the worse possible time. If you really do need to liquidate some of your investments at a bad time, having a more diversified portfolio means that you are not losing everything to meet some short-term obligations. Assuming you're in the US, this means forgoing some nice tax advantages that might be too tempting to resist (I'm not so I am basing this on what I read on this site) but, bubbles aside, there is nothing that makes real estate a particularly good investment as such, especially if you also live in the house you're buying. You might very well come out on top but you expose yourself to several risks and are less prepared to face a crisis.",
"\"Gold is not an investment. Gold is a form of money. It and silver have been used as money much longer than paper. Paper money is a relatively recent invention (less than 350 years old) with a horrible track record of preserving wealth. When I exchange my paper US dollars for gold I'm exchanging one form of money for another. US dollars, or US Federal Reserve Notes to be more precise, can be printed ad nauseam by one bank that is totally private and is never audited. Keeping all of your savings in US dollars is ignoring history, it is believing the US Federal Reserve has your best interest in mind, it is hoping that somehow things will be different this time, it is believing that the US dollar will somehow magically be the first fiat currency to last a person's lifetime. TIPS may seem like a good hedge against inflation. However, the government offering TIPS is also the same government that is calculating the inflation rate used to adjust TIPS. What a great deal. If you do some research you discover that the method for calculating the consumer price index is always \"\"modified\"\" since it is always found to over estimate inflation. It is never found to under estimate inflation. Imagine that. Here is a chart showing the inflation rate as if it were calculated the same way as it was calculated in 1980. Buying any government debt is also a way to guarantee you or your children will be taxed in the future since the government will have to obtain the money from someone to pay back bonds. It's like voting for future taxes.\"",
"Investing $100k into physical gold (bars or coins) is the most prudent option; given the state of economic turmoil worldwide. Take a look at the long term charts; they're pretty self explanatory. Gold has an upward trend for 100+ years. http://www.goldbuyguide.com/price/ A more high risk/high reward investment would be to buy $100k of physical silver. Silver has a similar track record and inherent benefits of gold. Yet, with a combination of factors that could make it even more bull than gold (ie- better liquidity, industrial demand). Beyond that, you may want to look at other commodities such as oil and agriculture. The point is, this is troubled times for worldwide economies. Times like this you want to invest in REAL things like commodities or companies that are actually producing essential materials.",
"\"To be honest, I think a lot of people on this site are doing you a disservice by taking your idea as seriously as they are. Not only is this a horrible idea, but I think you have some alarming misunderstandings about what it means to save for retirement. First off, precious metals are not an \"\"investment\"\"; they are store of value. The old saying that a gold coin would buy a suit 300 years ago and will still buy a suit today is pretty accurate. Buying precious metals and expecting them to \"\"appreciate\"\" in the future because they are \"\"undervalued\"\" is just flat-out speculation and really doesn't belong in a well-planned retirement account, unless it's a very small part for the purposes of diversification. So the upshot to all of this is the most likely outcome is you get zero return after inflation (maybe you'll get lucky or maybe you'll be very unlucky). Next you would say that sure, you're giving up some expected return for a reduction in risk. But, you've done away with diversification which is the most effective way to minimize risk... And I'm not sure what scenario you're imagining that the stock market or any other reasonable investment doesn't make any returns. If you invest in a market wide index fund, then the expected return is going to be roughly in proportion with productivity gains. To say that there will be no appreciation of the stock market over the next 40 years is to say that technological progress will stop and/or we will have large-scale economic disruptions that will wipe out 40 years of progress. If that happens, I would say it's highly questionable whether silver will actually be worth anything at all. I'd rather have food, property, and firearms. So, to answer your question, practically any other retirement savings plan would be better than the one that you currently outlined, but the best plan is just to put your money in a very low-cost index fund at Vanguard and let it sit until you retire. The expense ratios are so stupidly small, that it's not going to meaningfully affect your return.\"",
"They wont let it collapse, they will devalue it over time to some effect via bailouts and borrowing. Invest in commodities so your cash retains its value, physical gold is always strong. Other currencies are an option but this is more of a gamble.",
"Not a day goes by that someone isn't forecasting a collapse or meteoric rise. Have you read Ravi Batra's The Great Depression of 1990? The '90s went on to return an amazing 18.3%/yr compound growth rate for the decade. (The book sells for just over $3 with free Amazon shipping.) In 1987, Elaine Garzarelli predicted the crash. But went years after to produce unremarkable results. Me? I saw that 1987 was up 5% or so year on year (in hindsight , of course), and by just staying invested, I added deposits throughout the year, and saw that 5% return. What crash? Looking back now, it was a tiny blip. You need to be diversified in a way that one segment of the market falling won't ruin you. If you think the world is ending, you should make peace with your loved ones and your God, no investment advice will be of any value. (Nor will gold for that matter.)",
"\"If you were asking if you should buy silver for an emergency fund, I'd say no. But, you already have it... Note: I wrote most of the below under the assumption that this is silver bullion coins/bars; it didn't occur to me till the end that it could be jewelry. Both of you have good arguments for your points of view. Breaking it down: Her points 1. A very good point. And while she may not be irresponsible, maybe the invisibility of it is good for her psychology? It's her's, so her comfort is important here. 2. Good. Make sure it's explicitly listed on the policy. 3. Bad. I think it will as well, at least the long run. But, this is not a good reason for an emergency fund -- the whole point of which is to be stable in case of emergencies. 4. Good. Identity theft is a concern, though unless her info is already \"\"out there\"\", it's insufficient for the emergency fund. And besides, she could keep cash. Your points 1. Iffy. On the one hand, you're right. On the other hand, Cyprus. It is good to remember that money in accounts is in someone else's control, not yours, as the Cypriots found out to their chagrin. And of course, it can't happen here, but that's what they thought too. There is value in having some hard assets physically in your control. Think of it as an EMERGENCY emergency fund. Cash works too, but precious metals are better for these mega-upheaval scenarios. Again, find out how having such an EMERGENCY fund would make her feel. Does having that give her some comfort? A gift from a family member of this much silver leads me to assume that her family might have a little bit of a prepper culture. If so, then even if she is not a prepper herself, she may derive some comfort from having it, just in case -- it'll be baked into her background. Definitely a topic to discuss with her. 2. Excellent point. This is precisely why you want your emergency fund in some form of cash. 3. Bad. You can walk into any pawn shop and sell it in a heartbeat. Or you can send it in to a company and have cash in days. 4. Bad. If you know a savings account that pays 3%-4%, please, please, please tell me where it is so I can get one. Fact is, all cash instruments pay negligible interest now, and all such savings are being eroded by inflation. 5. Maybe. There is value to looking at your net worth this way, but my experience has been that those that do take it way too far. I think there's more value at looking at allocation within a few broad \"\"buckets\"\" -- emergency fund, savings (car, house, college, etc), and retirement fund. If this is to be an EMERGENCY fund, as per point #1, then you should look at it as its own bucket (and maybe add a little cash too). Another thought to add: This is a gift from a family member -- they gave her a lot of silver. Of course it's your SO's now, and she can do whatever she wants with it, but how would the family member react if she did liquidate it? If that family member is a prepper, and gave her this with the emotional desire to see her prepped, they may be upset if she sold it. It just occurred to me this may be jewelry. Your SO may not have sentimental attachment to it, but what about the family member's sentiments? They may not like to see family silver they loving maintained and passed on casually discarded for mere cash by your SO. Another thing to discuss with her. Wrap up Generally, you are right about not keeping a 6 month emergency fund in silver. But there are other factors to consider here. There's also the fact that it's already bought -- the cost of buying (paying over market) has already been taken. Edit -- so it's silverware Ah, so it's silverware. Well, scratch everything, except how the family member feels about, which now looms large. This doesn't have much value as an emergency fund. Nor really as an investment. If you did keep it as an investment, think of it as an investment in collectibles/art, less so in precious metals. If no one will get upset, I'd say pick out the nicest set to keep for special occasions, and sell the rest. Find out first if it has collectible or historical value. It may be worth far more than the pure weight in silver. Ebay might be the way to go to sell it.\"",
"I would strongly recommend investing in assets and commodities. I personally believe fiat money is losing its value because of a rising inflation and the price of oil. The collapse of the euro should considerably affect the US currency and shake up other regions of the world in forex markets. In my opinion, safest investment these days are hard assets and commodities. Real estate, land, gold, silver(my favorite) and food could provide some lucrative benefits. GL mate!",
"if you bought gold in late '79, it would have taken 30 years to break even. Of all this time it was two brief periods the returns were great, but long term, not so much. Look at the ETF GLD if you wish to buy gold, and avoid most of the buy/sell spread issues. Edit - I suggest looking at Compound Annual Growth Rate and decide whether long term gold actually makes sense for you as an investor. It's sold with the same enthusiasm as snake oil was in the 1800's, and the suggestion that it's a storehouse of value seems nonsensical to me.",
"\"I find it interesting that you didn't include something like [Total Bond Market](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBMFX), or [Intermediate-Term Treasuries](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBIIX), in your graphic. If someone were to have just invested in the DJI or SP500, then they would have ignored the tenants of the Modern Portfolio Theory and not diversified adequately. I wouldn't have been able to stomach a portfolio of 100% stocks, commodities, or metals. My vote goes for: 1.) picking an asset allocation that reflects your tolerance for risk (a good starting point is \"\"age in bonds,\"\" i.e. if you're 30, then hold 30% in bonds); 2.) save as if you're not expecting annualized returns of %10 (for example) and save more; 3.) don't try to pick the next winner, instead broadly invest in the market and hold it. Maybe gold and silver are bubbles soon to burst -- I for one don't know. I don't give the \"\"notion in the investment community\"\" much weight -- as it always is, someday someone will be right, I just don't know who that someone is.\"",
"As you have already good on your retirement kitty. Assuming you have a sufficient cash for difficult situations, explore the options of investing in Shares and Mutual Funds. As you are new to Stock Market, begin slowly by investing into Mutual Funds and ETF for precious metals. This will help you understand and give you confidence on markets and returns. Real estate is a good option, the down side being the hassle of getting rental and the illiquid nature of the investment.",
"\"If you think your cash will buy fewer goods in the future due to inflation, are there goods you will want or need in the future that you can purchase now? I think the cost of storage would need to be less than the inflation in price for this to make sense. If you used commodity trading there may not actually be a storage cost but likely some fees involved that would need to be weighed against the expected inflation. Basically if \"\"things\"\" are going to cost more in the future, making your cash worth less, can you convert cash into \"\"things\"\" before prices escalate?\"",
"The problem I have with gold is that it's only worth what someone will pay you for it. To a degree that's true with any equity, but with a company there are other capital resources etc that provide a base value for the company, and generally a business model that generates income. Gold just sits there. it doesn't make products, it doesn't perform services, you can't eat it, and the main people making money off of it are the folks charging a not insubstantial commission to sell it to you, or buy it back. Sure it's used in small quantities for things like plating electrical contacts, dental work, shielding etc. But Industrial uses account for only 10% of consumption. Mostly it's just hoarded, either in the form of Jewelry (50%) or 'investment' (bullion/coins) 40%. Its value derives largely from rarity and other than the last few years, there's no track record of steady growth over time like the stock market or real-estate. Just look at what gold prices did between 10 to 30 years ago, I'm not sure it came anywhere near close to keeping pace with inflation during that time. If you look at the chart, you see a steady price until the US went off the gold standard in 1971, and rules regarding ownership and trading of gold were relaxed. There was a brief run up for a few years after that as the market 'found its level' as it were, and you really need to look from about 74 forward (which it experienced its first 'test' and demonstration of a 'supporting' price around 400/oz inflation adjusted. Then the price fluctuated largely between 800 to 400 per ounce (adjusted for inflation) for the next 30 years. (Other than a brief sympathetic 'Silver Tuesday' spike due to the Hunt Brothers manipulation of silver prices in 1980.) Not sure if there is any causality, but it is interesting to note that the recent 'runup' in price starts in 2000 at almost the same time the last country (the Swiss) went off the 'gold standard' and gold was no longer tied to any currency (or vise versa) If you bought in '75 as a hedge against inflation, you were DOWN, as much as 50% during much of the next 33 years. If you managed to buy at a 'low' the couple of times that gold was going down and found support around 400/oz (adjusted) then you were on average up slightly as much as a little over 50% (throwing out silver Tuesday) but then from about '98 through '05 had barely broken even. I personally view 'investments' in gold at this time as a speculation. Look at the history below, and ask yourself if buying today would more likely end up as buying in 1972 or 1975? (or gods forbid, 1980) Would you be taking advantage of a buying opportunity, or piling onto a bubble and end up buying at the high? Note from Joe - The article Demand and Supply adds to the discussion, and supports Chuck's answer.",
"As the value of a currency declines, commodities, priced in that currency, will rise. The two best commodities to see a change in would be oil and gold.",
"You stumbled on your second paragraph when you said gold is debt. It's not. It is an asset you can hold in your hand that has zero counterparty risk. Didn't read the rest because if you fell over so early, it's likely I'd be here all day correcting the rest of it.",
"Are you going to South Africa or from? (Looking on your profile for this info.) If you're going to South Africa, you could do worse than to buy five or six one-ounce krugerrands. Maybe wait until next year to buy a few; you may get a slightly better deal. Not only is it gold, it's minted by that country, so it's easier to liquidate should you need to. Plus, they go for a smaller premium in the US than some other forms of gold. As for the rest of the $100k, I don't know ... either park it in CD ladders or put it in something that benefits if the economy gets worse. (Cheery, ain't I? ;) )",
"If you know the market will crash, you could opt for going short. However, if you think this is too risky, not investing at all is probably your best move. In case of crises, correlation go up and almost all assets go down.",
"Always a good time to buy gold. Think less in terms of commodities, more in terms of true money that can not be inflated out of existence. Buy it as cheap as you can, hold it for as long as possible. The historical graphs never lie and it proves time and time again its a good store of value. I would never think of it in terms of a speculative bet though. If it does reward you, its because the global currency system is broken. I think its broken, it may reward you. But never expect it to reward you. In the short term (2-3 years), the gold price can be manipulated. In the long term (10 years) less so.",
"All of our paper ways are safe; if they go away this society has much bigger problems than what your retirement account is worth. I more or less understand the idea of being backed by the full faith of the government to mean that the government will be around for my entire lifetime. It is my opinion that everybody who suggests we invest in gold, whiskey, nickels (or to a lesser extent real estate) because the value of money is going to go away, are interested in survival in a Mad Mad apocalyptic world. I very much doubt we get there, and if we did everybody who planned for it wasted their time. Therefore, invest in the traditional methods that are frequently discussed here. Then invest in our society, then make sure you vote from a learned position to keep our society on track with sensible leaders who are above reproach.",
"This is a long term investment but can be very useful during tough times. Be prepared not only to take but to give as well. Moreover:",
"\"A good time to invest in gold WAS about ten years ago, when it had reached a 20-year bottom around $300 an ounce. That's when I was buying (gold stocks, not physical gold). Since then, it's gone up 5-6 times in ten years. It might continue to go up of course, but it also has long way down to go, because it has come up \"\"too far, too fast.\"\" I have since sold my gold stocks. Alternatives to gold include other metals such as silver and copper (which actually belong in the same chemical family) as well as platinum and palladium. But they, too, have run up a lot in price over the past ten years.\""
] |
[
"Neither. Food, fuel, and tools. Books on how to make and use basic tools -- the books published for farmers who want to kluge their own solutions might be helpful. Heck, help defend a library; it will be beyond price as soon as things settle out a bit. Having skills like blacksmithing and knowing how to teach could go a long way. SF really has explored this in better detail than we could possibly cover here."
] |
7145
|
Are there “buy and hold” passively managed funds?
|
[
"81458",
"17923",
"116865"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"17923",
"116865",
"454596",
"551590",
"41625",
"379311",
"311527",
"503725",
"594442",
"301580",
"550783",
"599701",
"34986",
"330743",
"367960",
"81458",
"327237",
"14185",
"248158",
"297290",
"358704",
"172703",
"452939",
"18303",
"172569",
"27930",
"202805",
"288409",
"100341",
"576008",
"7208",
"135453",
"403977",
"566429",
"435746",
"402306",
"338315",
"7969",
"344511",
"29502",
"579319",
"462984",
"220602",
"523331",
"341544",
"298350",
"90858",
"545760",
"220486",
"115517",
"391215",
"135646",
"415511",
"505597",
"171669",
"475640",
"445322",
"129070",
"155242",
"315126",
"429929",
"275334",
"135596",
"52589",
"458244",
"591909",
"9465",
"231195",
"479420",
"315627",
"580733",
"385955",
"387492",
"241996",
"524525",
"34925",
"138383",
"3279",
"231863",
"528518",
"312406",
"387277",
"221990",
"568624",
"122679",
"400196",
"62966",
"544236",
"304398",
"322725",
"416839",
"31779",
"424131",
"346474",
"99568",
"65587",
"243931",
"384983",
"120133",
"264740"
] |
[
"Passive implies following an index. Your question seems to ask about a hypothetical fund that starts, say, as an S&P fund, but as the index is adjusted, the old stocks stay in the fund. Sounds simple enough, but over time, the fund's performance will diverge from the index. The slight potential gain from lack of cap gains will be offset by the fund being unable to market itself. Keep in mind, the gains distributed each year are almost exclusively long term, taxed at a favorable rate.",
"\"They pretty much already have what you are looking for. They are called Unit Investment Trusts. The key behind these is (a) the trust starts out with a fixed pool of securities. It is completely unmanaged and there is no buying or selling of the securities, (b) they terminate after a fixed period of time, at which time all assets are distributed among the owners. According to Investment Company Institute, \"\"securities in a UIT are professionally selected to meet a stated investment objective, such as growth, income, or capital appreciation.\"\" UITs sell a fixed number of units at one-time public offering. Securities in a UIT do not trade actively, rather, UITs use a strategy known as buy-and-hold. The UIT purchases a certain amount of securities and holds them until its termination date. Holdings rarely change throughout the life of the trust so unit holders know exactly what they're investing in, and the trust lists all securities in its prospectus. Unit trusts normally sell redeemable units - this obligates the trust to re-purchase investor's units at their net asset value at the investors request.\"",
"\"There still is some buying and selling to do in a passively-managed fund. The stocks might pay dividends. If the fund manager didn't reinvest these dividends, the fund would begin to accumulate a cash position, which would cause it to stray from being an index fund. Stocks come and go from an index as well; if the fund is to maintain a composition that matches a particular index, this must be taken into account as well. The role of the manager is to ensure that the fund maintains the composition that it was intended to replicate. It doesn't involve as much \"\"stock picking\"\" that active managers do. The manager has less leeway as to what s/he buys and sells, but there still is work involved.\"",
"\"From http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ , Lots of sensible advisers will tell you to buy index funds, but importantly, the advice is not simply \"\"buy index funds.\"\" There are at least two other critical details: 1) asset allocation across multiple well-chosen indexes, maintained through regular rebalancing, and 2) dollar cost averaging (or, much-more-complex-but-probably-slightly-better, value averaging). The advice is not to take your single lump sum and buy and hold a cap-weighted index forever. The advice is an investment discipline which involves action over time, and an initial choice among indexes. An index-fund-based strategy is not completely passive, it involves some active risk control through rebalancing and averaging. If you'd held a balanced portfolio over the last ten years and rebalanced, and even better if you'd dollar cost averaged, you'd have done fine. Your reaction to the last 10 years incidentally is why I don't believe an almost-all-stocks allocation makes sense for most people even if they're pretty young. More detail in this answer: How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? I think some index fund advocacy and books do people a disservice by focusing too much on the extra cost of active management and why index funds are a good deal. That point is true, but for most investors, asset allocation, rebalancing, and \"\"autopilotness\"\" of their setup are more important to outcome than the expense ratio.\"",
"\"Oddly enough, in the USA, there are enough cost and tax savings between buy-and-hold of a static portfolio and buying into a fund that a few brokerages have sprung up around the concept, such as FolioFN, to make it easier for small investors to manage numerous small holdings via fractional shares and no commission window trades. A static buy-and-hold portfolio of stocks can be had for a few dollars per trade. Buying into a fund involves various annual and one time fees that are quoted as percentages of the investment. Even 1-2% can be a lot, especially if it is every year. Typically, a US mutual fund must send out a 1099 tax form to each investor, stating that investors share of the dividends and capital gains for each year. The true impact of this is not obvious until you get a tax bill for gains that you did not enjoy, which can happen when you buy into a fund late in the year that has realized capital gains. What fund investors sometimes fail to appreciate is that they are taxed both on their own holding period of fund shares and the fund's capital gains distributions determined by the fund's holding period of its investments. For example, if ABC tech fund bought Google stock several years ago for $100/share, and sold it for $500/share in the same year you bought into the ABC fund, then you will receive a \"\"capital gains distribution\"\" on your 1099 that will include some dollar amount, which is considered your share of that long-term profit for tax purposes. The amount is not customized for your holding period, capital gains are distributed pro-rata among all current fund shareholders as of the ex-distribution date. Morningstar tracks this as Potential Capital Gains Exposure and so there is a way to check this possibility before investing. Funds who have unsold losers in their portfolio are also affected by these same rules, have been called \"\"free rides\"\" because those funds, if they find some winners, will have losers that they can sell simultaneously with the winners to remain tax neutral. See \"\"On the Lookout for Tax Traps and Free Riders\"\", Morningstar, pdf In contrast, buying-and-holding a portfolio does not attract any capital gains taxes until the stocks in the portfolio are sold at a profit. A fund often is actively managed. That is, experts will alter the portfolio from time to time or advise the fund to buy or sell particular investments. Note however, that even the experts are required to tell you that \"\"past performance is no guarantee of future results.\"\"\"",
"Now company A has been doing ok for couple of weeks, but then due to some factors in that company its stock has been tanking heavily and doesn't appear to have a chance to recover. In this kind of scenario, what does happen? In this scenario, if that company is included in the index being tracked, you will continue holding until such time that the index is no longer including that company. Index funds are passively managed because they simply hold the securities contained in the index and seek to keep the allocations of the fund in line with the proportions of the index being tracked. In an actively managed fund the fund manager would try to hedge losses and make stock/security picks. If the manager thought a particular company had bad news coming maybe they would offload some or all the position. In an index fund, the fund follows the index on good days and bad and the managers job is to match the asset allocations of the index, not to pick stocks.",
"Just find a low cost S&P 500 index fund, and spend your time reading The Great Mutual Fund Trap instead of wasting your time and money picking actively managed funds.",
"In a word, yes. You can buy very low cost index ETFs, like VTI, VEA, BND, FBND and rebalance in proportion to your age and risk tolerance. Minimal management and low cost.",
"\"In the UK, one quirky option in this area (OK, admittedly it's not a passive) is the \"\"Battle Against Cancer Investment Trust\"\" (BACIT). Launched in 2012, it's basically a fund-of-funds where the funds held charge zero management charges or performance fees to the trust, but the trust then donates 1% of NAV to charity each year (half to cancer research, investors decide the other half).\"",
"By definition, actively managed funds will underperform passive index funds as a whole. Or more specifically: The aggregate performance of all actively managed portfolio of publicly-tradable assets will have equal performance to those of passively managed portfolios. Which taken with premise two: Actively managed funds will charge higher fees than passively managed funds Results in: In general, lower-fee investment vehicles (e.g. passive index investments) with broad enough diversification to the desired risk exposure will outperform higher-fee options But don't take my wonkish approach, from a more practical perspective consider:",
"I would stay away from the Actively Managed Funds. Index funds or the asset allocation funds are your best bet since they have the lowest fees. What is your risk tolerance? How old are you? I would suggest reading:",
"No I get that. But if you don’t want risk, then buy bonds. Long term an S&P Index has very low risk. On the other hand, actively managed funds have fees that take out a ton of the gain that could be had. I don’t have time to look for the study but I read recently that 97% of actively managed funds were outperformed by S&P Indexes after fees. Now I don’t know about you but I think the risk of not picking a top 3% fund is probably higher than the safe return of index’s.",
"When you look at managed funds the expense ratios are always high. They have the expense of analyzing the market, deciding where to invest, and then tracking the new investments. The lowest expenses are with the passive investments. What you have noticed is exactly what you expect. Now if you want to invest in active funds that throw off dividends and capital gains, the 401K is the perfect place to do it, because that income will not be immediately taxable. If the money is in a Roth 401K it is even better because that income will never be taxed.",
"There are fund of funds,e.g. life cycle funds or target retirement funds, that could cover a lot of these with an initial investment that one could invest into for a few years and then after building up a balance large enough, then it may make sense to switch to having more control.",
"\"I think you are asking about actively managed funds vs. indexes and possibly also vs. diversified funds like target date funds. This is also related to the question of mutual fund vs. ETF. First, a fund can be either actively managed or it can attempt to track an index. An actively managed fund has a fund manager who tries to find the best stocks to invest in within some constraints, like \"\"this fund invests in large cap US companies\"\". An index fund tries to match as closely as possible the performance of an index like the S&P 500. A fund may also try to offer a portfolio that is suitable for someone to put their entire account into. For example, a target date fund is a fund that may invest in a mix of stocks, bonds and foreign stock in a proportion that would be appropriate to someone expecting to retire in a certain year. These are not what people tend to think of as the canonical examples of mutual funds, even though they share the same legal structure and investment mechanisms. Secondly, a fund can either be a traditional mutual fund or it can be an exchange traded fund (ETF). To invest in a traditional mutual fund, you send money to the fund, and they give you a number of shares equal to what that money would have bought of the net asset value (NAV) of the fund at the end of trading on the day they receive your deposit, possibly minus a sales charge. To invest in an ETF, you buy shares of the ETF on the stock market like any other stock. Under the covers, an ETF does have something similar to the mechanism of depositing money to get shares, but only big traders can use that, and it's not used for investing, but only for people who are making a market in the stock (if lots of people are buying VTI, Big Dealer Co will get 100,000 shares from Vanguard so that they can sell them on the market the next day). Historically and traditionally, ETFs are associated with an indexing strategy, while if not specifically mentioned, people assume that traditional mutual funds are actively managed. Many ETFs, notably all the Vanguard ETFs, are actually just a different way to hold the same underlying fund. The best way to understand this is to read the prospectus for a mutual fund and an ETF. It's all there in reasonably plain English.\"",
"\"Usually, the amswer to \"\"why sell it\"\" is \"\"to maintain the specific distribution balance, or to track the index, that this fund was designed to offer.\"\" A \"\"buy and hold\"\" fund could only buy when users are actively putting money into it. That limits their ability to follow those approaches. And I think there would be problems msking withdrawls/redeptions \"\"fair\"\", in terms of what shares are sold and how the costs for selling them are distributed, that don't arise for a single buy-and-hold investor. If you're willing to accept the limitations of the former, and can overcome the latter, it's an interesting idea... But note that one of the places index funds save money is that, since the composition of indexes changes rately, they are already operating mostly in buy-and-hold mode.It's unclear how much your variant would save. Worth exploring in greater depth, though. I think.\"",
"The short answer to your question is yes. Index funds are about the easiest and most efficient diversified way to invest your money. Vanguard's are among the cheapest and best. Be aware, though, that passive income doesn't mean you do nothing for your money. In the case of investing, what you are doing is bearing risk. That is, you are being paid (on average) to put your money in a situation where you may lose money. If you keep your eye on the long-term prize, then when (not if) you sustain losses in your investment account, you will have the patience to leave the money in there. I'm a little confused by your wording about increasing your salary. Normally we think of index funds as a way to increase our wealth. If you are making new investments, presumably you have more salary than you need right now. Normal index funds will reinvest dividends automatically, so you will see the value of your investments rise but will not see any cash flows per se unless you are selling your holdings. If you want actual cash coming out of your investment, you can use ETF's to achieve the same type of investment and treat the dividends as a supplement to your income. Note, however, that some gains in your ETF will be in the form of capital gains and some will be dividends. Think more like 2% year per in dividend payments and the rest in capital gains. If your objective is to save for retirement, please consider investing through an IRA, Roth IRA, or through your 401(k). No need to give uncle sam a gift from your hard-earned money.",
"Your link is pointing to managed funds where the fees are higher, you should look at their exchange traded funds; you will note that the management fees are much lower and better reflect the index fund strategy.",
"No. That's the point of a passive strategy: you maintain a more or less constant mix of assets and don't try to figure out what's going to move where.",
"\"There is a lot of interesting information that can be found in a fund's prospectus. I have found it very helpful to read books on the issue, one I just finished was \"\"The Boglehead's Guide to Investing\"\" which speaks mostly on mutual and index funds. Actively managed funds mean that someone is choosing which stocks to buy and which to sell. If they think a stock will be \"\"hot\"\" then they buy it. Research has shown that people cannot predict the stock market, which is why many people suggest index based funds. An index fund generally tracks a group of companies. Example: an index fund of the S&P 500 will try to mimic the returns that the S&P 500 has. Overall, managed funds are more expensive than index funds because the fund manager must be paid to manage it. Also, there is generally more buying and selling so that also increases the tax amount you would owe. What I am planning on doing is opening a Roth IRA with Vanguard, as their funds have incredibly low fees (0.2% on many). One of the most important things you do before you buy is to figure out your target allocation (% of stocks vs % of bonds). Once you figure that out then you can start narrowing down the funds that you wish to invest in.\"",
"Placing bets on targeted sectors of the market totally makes sense in my opinion. Especially if you've done research, with a non-biased eye, that convinces you those sectors will continue to outperform. However, the funds you've boxed in red all appear to be actively managed funds (I only double-checked on the first.) There is a bit of research showing that very few active managers consistently beat an index over the long term. By buying these funds, especially since you hope to hold for decades, you are placing bets that these managers maintain their edge over an equivalent index. This seems unlikely to be a winning bet the longer you hold the position. Perhaps there are no sector index funds for the sectors or focuses you have? But if there were, and it was my money that I planned to park for the long term, I'd pick the index fund over the active managed fund. Index funds also have an advantage in costs or fees. They can charge substantially less than an actively managed fund does. And fees can be a big drag on total return.",
"No, some of Vanguard's funds are index funds like their Total Stock Market Index and 500 Index. In contrast, there are funds like Vanguard PRIMECAP and Vanguard Wellington that are actively managed. There are index funds in both open-end and exchange-traded formats. VTI is the ticker for Vanguard's Total Stock Market ETF while VTSMX is an open-end mutual fund format. VOO would be the S & P 500 ETF ticker while VFINX is one of the open-end mutual fund tickers, where VIIIX has a really low expense ratio but a pretty stiff minimum to my mind. As a general note, open-end mutual funds will generally have a 5 letter ticker ending in X while an ETF will generally be shorter at 3 or 4 letters in length.",
"\"I actually love this question, and have hashed this out with a friend of mine where my premise was that at some volume of money it must be advantageous to simply track the index yourself. There some obvious touch-points: Most people don't have anywhere near the volume of money required for even a $5 commission outweigh the large index fund expense ratios. There are logistical issues that are massively reduced by holding a fund when it comes to winding down your investment(s) as you get near retirement age. Index funds are not touted as categorically \"\"the best\"\" investment, they are being touted as the best place for the average person to invest. There is still a management component to an index like the S&P500. The index doesn't simply buy a share of Apple and watch it over time. The S&P 500 isn't simply a single share of each of the 500 larges US companies it's market cap weighted with frequent rebalancing and constituent changes. VOO makes a lot of trades every day to track the S&P index, \"\"passive index investing\"\" is almost an oxymoron. The most obvious part of this is that if index funds were \"\"the best\"\" way to invest money Berkshire Hathaway would be 100% invested in VOO. The argument for \"\"passive index investing\"\" is simplified for public consumption. The reality is that over time large actively managed funds have under-performed the large index funds net of fees. In part, the thrust of the advice is that the average person is, or should be, more concerned with their own endeavors than they are managing their savings. Investment professionals generally want to avoid \"\"How come I my money only returned 4% when the market index returned 7%? If you track the index, you won't do worse than the index; this helps people sleep better at night. In my opinion the dirty little secret of index funds is that they are able to charge so much less because they spend $0 making investment decisions and $0 on researching the quality of the securities they hold. They simply track an index; XYZ company is 0.07% of the index, then the fund carries 0.07% of XYZ even if the manager thinks something shady is going on there. The argument for a majority of your funds residing in Mutual Funds/ETFs is simple, When you're of retirement age do you really want to make decisions like should I sell a share of Amazon or a share of Exxon? Wouldn't you rather just sell 2 units of SRQ Index fund and completely maintain your investment diversification and not pay commission? For this simplicity you give up three basis points? It seems pretty reasonable to me.\"",
"Dogma always disappoints. The notion that an index fund is the end-all, be-all for investing because the expense ratios are low is a flawed one. I don't concern myself with cost as an independent factor -- I look for the best value. Bogle's dogma lines up with his business, so you need to factor that in as well. Vendors of any product spend alot of time and money convincing you that unique attributes of their product are the most important thing in the world. Pre-crash, the dogmatics among us were bleating about how Fixed-date Retirement Funds were the new paradigm. Where did they go?",
"There are hundreds if not thousands of index funds and ETFs in the EU, far too many to enumerate here. It's worth pointing out that Vanguard themselves operate in the UK. The minimum investment if you go direct to Vanguard is £100,000, but you can make smaller investments through a number of fund platforms.",
"Also, when they mean SP500 fund - it means that fund which invests in the top 500 companies in the SP Index, is my understanding correct? Yes that is right. In reality they may not be able to invest in all 500 companies in same proportion, but is reflective of the composition. I wanted to know whether India also has a company similar to Vanguard which offers low cost index funds. Almost all mutual fund companies offer a NIFTY index fund, both as mutual fund as well as ETF. You can search for index fund and see the total assets to find out which is bigger compared to others.",
"I just read the article and I'm not sure if the calculation is flawed. When they look at the single stocks. Do they always reinvest the dividends to the same stock? That would be quite unusual behaviour I think. An investor who uses the buy and hold strategy might have a bunch of companies which won't exist anymore in 20 or 30 years e.g. coal plants. While many stocks are a good investment now. Reinvesting all the dividends for decades is obviously a bad decision for a large portion of the stocks. Maybe I misunderstood the article. But what do you guys think?",
"You could certainly look at the holdings of index funds and choose index funds that meet your qualifications. Funds allow you to see their holdings, and in most cases you can tell from the description whether certain companies would qualify for their fund or not based on that description - particularly if you have a small set of companies that would be problems. You could also pick a fund category that is industry-specific. I invest in part in a Healthcare-focused fund, for example. Pick a few industries that are relatively diverse from each other in terms of topics, but are still specific in terms of industry - a healthcare fund, a commodities fund, an REIT fund. Then you could be confident that they weren't investing in defense contractors or big banks or whatever you object to. However, if you don't feel like you know enough to filter on your own, and want the diversity from non-industry-specific funds, your best option is likely a 'socially screened' fund like VFTSX is likely your best option; given there are many similar funds in that area, you might simply pick the one that is most similar to you in philosophy.",
"According to my research one only needs £5000 to invest in this fund. However, it also has a sales charge of 4% with an annual charge of 1.75%. If this is short term money, you would have to have a fairly high return to break even.",
"Buying the right shares gives higher return. Buying the wrong ones gives worse return, possibly negative. The usual recommendation, even if you have a pro advising you, is to diversify most of your investments to reduce the risk, even though that may reduce the possible gain. A mutual fund is diversification-in-a-can. It requires little to no active maintenance. Yes, you pay a management fee, but you aren't paying per-transaction fees every time you adjust your holdings, and the management costs can be quite reasonable if you pick the right funds; minimal in the case of computer-managed (index) funds. If you actively enjoy playing with stocks and bonds and are willing/able to accept your failures and less-than-great choices as part of the game, and if you can convince yourself that you will do better this way, go for it. For those of us who just want to deposit out money, watch it grow, and maybe rebalance once a year if that, index funds are a perfectly good choice. I spend at least 8 hours a day working for my money; the rest of the time, I want my money to work for me. Risk and reward tend to be proportional to each other; when they aren't, market prices tend to move to correct that. You need to decide how much risk you're comfortable with, and how much time and effort and money you're willing to spend managing that risk. Personally, I am perfectly happy with the better-than-market-rate-of-return I'm getting, and I don't have any conviction that I could do better if I was more involved. Your milage will vary. If folks didn't disagree, there wouldn't be a market.",
"Some other suggestions: Index-tracking mutual funds. These have the same exposure as ETFs, but may have different costs; for example, my investment manager (in the UK) charges a transaction fee on ETFs, but not funds, but caps platform fees on ETFs and not funds! Target date funds. If you are saving for a particular date (often retirement, but could also be buying a house, kids going to college, mid-life crisis motorbike purchase, a luxury cruise to see an eclipse, etc), these will automatically rebalance the investment from risk-tolerant (ie equities) to risk-averse (ie fixed income) as the date approaches. You can get reasonably low fees from Vanguard, and i imagine others. Income funds/ETFs, focusing on stocks which are expected to pay a good dividend. The idea is that a consistent dividend helps smooth out volatility in prices, giving you a more consistent return. Historically, that worked pretty well, but given fees and the current low yields, it might not be smart right now. That said Vanguard Equity Income costs 0.17%, and i think yields 2.73%, which isn't bad.",
"As other posters have pointed out, many other potential factors at play here besides value, but that said, a huge part of my long-term money that I don't want to manage myself is in actively managed EM funds.",
"I'd say neither. Index Funds mimic whatever index. Some stocks that are in the index are good investment opportunities, others not so much. I'm guessing the Bond Index Funds do the same. As for Gold... did you notice how much gold has risen lately? Do you think it will keep on rising like that? For which period? (Hint: if your timespan is less than 10 years, you really shouldn't invest). Investing is about buying low, and selling high. Gold is high, don't touch it. If you want to invest in funds, look at 4 or 5 star Morningstar rated funds. My advisors suggest Threadneedle (Lux) US Equities DU - LU0096364046 with a 4 star rating as the best American fund at this time. However, they are not favoring American stocks at this moment... so maybe you should stay away from the US for now. Have you looked at the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries?",
"If liquidity and cost are your primary objectives, Vanguard is indeed a good bet. They are the walmart of finance and the absolute best at minimizing fees and other expenses. Your main portfolio holding should be VTI, the total stock market fund. Highly liquid and has the lowest fees out there at 0.05%. You can augment this with a world-minus-US fund if you want. No need to buy sector or specific geography funds when you can get the whole market for less. Add some bond funds and alternative investments (but not too much) if you want to be fully diversified.",
"The top ten holdings for these funds don't overlap by even one stock. It seems to me they are targeting an index for comparison, but making no attempt to replicate a list of holdings as would, say, a true S&P index.",
"It's incredibly difficult to beat the market, especially after you're paying out significant fees for managed funds. The Bogleheads have some good things going for them on their low cost Vanguard style funds. The biggest winners in the financial markets are the people collecting fees from churn or setting up the deals which take advantage of less sophisticated/connected players. Buy, Hold and Forget has been shown as a loser as well in this recession. Diversifying and re-balancing however takes advantage of market swings by cashing out winners and buying beaten down stocks. If you take advantages of general market highs and lows (without worrying about strict timing) every few months to re-balance, you buy some protection from crashes in any given sector. One common guideline is to use your age as the percentage of your holdings that are in cash equivalents, rather than stocks. At age 28, at least 28% of my account should be in bonds, real estate, commodities, etc. This should help guide your allocation and re-balancing strategy. Finally, focusing on Growth and Income funds may give you a better shot at above S&P returns, but it's wise to hold a small percentage in the S&P 500 as well.",
"> mostly-passive funds consisting of a sufficiently diverse array of holdings with historically* low volatility > 3.Market it with excessive jargon to impress laymen A quantitative-based global strategy with a wide coverage of asset classes that exhibit returns robustness and high inverted-alpha*. Uses the cutting edge of artificial intelligence to synthetically replicate index portfolios that maximizes benchmark correlation. ^^*Defined ^^as ^^1/alpha, ^^as ^^alpha ^^-> ^^0 ^^then ^^inverted ^^alpha ^^-> ^^infinity.",
"If you don't want to pay much attention to your investments, target date funds -- assuming you find one (like Vanguard's) with no management fees beyond those acquired from the underlying funds -- are usually a great choice: when the target date is far off, they invest almost entirely (usually 90% or so) in (mutual funds that in turn consist of many) stocks, with the remainder in bonds; as the date gets closer, the mix is automatically shifted to more bonds and less stocks (i.e. less risk, but less potential return too).",
"“Burt Malkiel is still the high priest of passive investing,” said Jakub Jurek, vice president for research at Wealthfront. “To be absolutely clear, we’re not stock pickers. There are decades of research on active investors, which show they underperform.” So ... not really straying, just promoting a somewhat more sophisticated model based on algos (robo-investors?)",
"You pay taxes on any gains you make after selling, so if you buy and hold you won't pay taxes (and you should hold for more than a year so that it gets taxed at the long-term rate, not the short-term rate). I like ETFs, there are some good ones Vanguard offers that are fairly broad, or you can use something like www.Betterment.com which invests in a diversified portfolio of ETFs (and includes things like automatic re-balancing and tax-loss harvesting).",
"There many asset allocation strategies to chose from that beat lifestyle funds. For example: Relative Strength Asset Allocation keeps your money in Stocks when stocks perform well, bonds when they outperform stocks, and cash when both bonds and stocks are under-performing. The re-allocation happens on a monthly basis.",
"\"Vanguard has a Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund. Their web page says \"\"Some individuals choose investments based on social and personal beliefs. For this type of investor, we have offered Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund since 2000. This low-cost fund seeks to track a benchmark of large- and mid-capitalization stocks that have been screened for certain social, human rights, and environmental criteria. In addition to stock market volatility, one of the fund’s other key risks is that this socially conscious approach may produce returns that diverge from those of the broad market.\"\" It looks like it would meet the qualifications you require, plus Vanguard funds usually have very low fees.\"",
"The idea with passive investing in ETFs is to eliminate the all important firm specific risk. I agree with him that it surely creates a herd mentality and might over/understate the fundamental prices for individual stocks. If fund managers could consistently maintain alpha, lower their 2/20, and not shutdown when they can't reach their high water mark, then maybe investors might come back to them. As it stands now, the money goes where it can get the best return with only market risk to worry about.",
"Current evidence is that, after you subtract their commission and the additional trading costs, actively managed funds average no better than index funds, maybe not as well. You can afford to take more risks at your age, assuming that it will be a long time before you need these funds -- but I would suggest that means putting a high percentage of your investments in small-cap and large-cap stock indexes. I'd suggest 10% in bonds, maybe more, just because maintaining that balance automatically encourages buy-low-sell-high as the market cycles. As you get older and closer to needing a large chunk of the money (for a house, or after retirement), you would move progressively more of that to other categories such as bonds to help safeguard your earnings. Some folks will say this an overly conservative approach. On the other hand, it requires almost zero effort and has netted me an average 10% return (or so claims Quicken) over the past two decades, and that average includes the dot-bomb and the great recession. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance, of course, but the point is that it can work quite well enough.",
"Index funds, like IBB, generally lack active management, which equates to lower expenses. This is simply because the target index, the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index in the case of IBB, is composed of known quantities. This means there won't be stock pickers or analysts constantly swapping holdings, increasing the turnover rate of the portfolio and increasing capital gains; costs that are offset by higher expense ratios in more actively managed funds.",
"\"Index funds may invest either in index components directly or in other instruments (like ETFs, index options, futures, etc.) which are highly correlated with the index. The specific fund prospectus or description on any decent financial site should contain these details. Index funds are not actively managed, but that does not mean they aren't managed at all - if index changes and the fund includes specific stock, they would adjust the fund content. Of course, the downside of it is that selling off large amounts of certain stock (on its low point, since it's being excluded presumably because of its decline) and buying large amount of different stock (on its raising point) may have certain costs, which would cause the fund lag behind the index. Usually the difference is not overly large, but it exists. Investing in the index contents directly involves more transactions - which the fund distributes between members, so it doesn't usually buy individually for each member but manages the portfolio in big chunks, which saves costs. Of course, the downside is that it can lag behind the index if it's volatile. Also, in order to buy specific shares, you will have to shell out for a number of whole share prices - which for a big index may be a substantial sum and won't allow you much flexibility (like \"\"I want to withdraw half of my investment in S&P 500\"\") since you can't usually own 1/10 of a share. With index funds, the entry price is usually quite low and increments in which you can add or withdraw funds are low too.\"",
"\"First, consider what causes taxes to apply to a mutual fund, index or actively managed. Dividends and capital gains are generally what will be distributed to shareholders given the nature of a mutual fund since the fund itself doesn't pay taxes. For funds held in IRAs or other tax-advantaged accounts, this isn't a concern and thus people may not have this concern for those situations which can account for a lot of investing situations as people may have 401(k)s and IRAs that hold their investments rather than taxable accounts. Second, there can be tax-managed funds so there can be cases where a fund is managed with taxes in mind that is worth noting here as what is referenced is a \"\"Dummies\"\" link that is making a generalization. For taxable accounts, it may make more sense to have a tax-managed fund rather than an index fund though I'd also argue to be careful of asset allocation as to maintain a purity of style can require selling of stocks that grow too big and thus trigger capital gains,e.g. small-cap and mid-cap funds that can't hold onto the winners as they would become mid-cap and large-cap instead of representing the proper asset class. A FUND THAT PLAYED IT SAFE--AND WAS SORRY would be a Businessweek story from 1998 of an actively managed fund that went mostly to cash and missed the rise of the stock market at that time if you want a specific example of what an actively managed fund can do that an index fund often cannot do. The index fund is to track the index and stay nearly all invested all the time.\"",
"Fire your fund manager. There are several passive funds that seek to duplicate the S&P 500 Index returns. They have lower management fees, which will make returns lower than S&P, and they have less risk by following a broadly diversified strategy (versus midcap growing stocks). There's also ETFs, but evidence is growing that they're not as safe as hoped. But here's the deal: the S&P has been on a tear lately. It could be overvalued and what looks like a good investment could start falling again. A possible alternative would be one of the Lifetime funds that seek to perform portfolio adjustment with a retirement decade target; they're fairly new which mostly means nobody knows how they screw you over yet. In theory, this decade structure means the brokerage can execute trading cash for stocks, stocks for bonds, and bonds for cash in house.",
"\"You cannot actually buy an index in the true sense of the word. An index is created and maintained by a company like Standard and Poor's who licenses the use of the index to firms like Vanguard. The S&P 500 is an example of an index. The S&P 500 \"\"index includes 500 leading companies\"\", many finical companies sell products which track to this index. The two most popular products which track to indexes are Mutual Funds (as called Index Funds and Index Mutual Funds) and Exchange Traded Funds (as called ETFs). Each Index Mutual Fund or ETF has an index which it tracks against, meaning they hold securities which make up a sample of the index (some indexes like bond indexes are very hard to hold everything that makes them up). Looking at the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Mutual Fund (ticker VFINX) we see that it tracks against the S&P 500 index. Looking at its holdings we see the 500-ish stocks that it holds along with a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow for people buying and sell shares. If we look at the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (ticker VOO) we see that it also tracks against the S&P 500 index. Looking at its holdings we see they are very similar to the similar Index Mutual Fund. Other companies like T. Rowe Price have similar offering. Look at the T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 Fund (ticker PREIX) its holdings in stocks are the same as the similar Vanguard fund and like the Vanguard fund it also holds a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow. The only real difference between different products which track against the same index is in the expense ratio (fees for managing the fund) and in the small differences in the execution of the funds. For the most part execution of the funds do not really matter to most people (it has a very small effect), what matters is the expense (the fees paid to own the fund). If we just compare the expense ratio of the Vanguard and T. Rowe Price funds we see (as of 27 Feb 2016) Vanguard has an expense ratio of 0.17% for it Index Mutual Fund and 0.05% for its ETF, while T. Rowe Price has an expense ratio of 0.27%. These are just the fees for the funds themselves, there are also account maintenance fees (which normally go down as the amount of money you have invested at a firm go up) and in the case of ETFs execution cost (cost to trade the shares along with the difference between the bid and ask on the shares). If you are just starting out I would say going with the Index Mutual Fund would easier and most likely would cost less over-all if you are buying a small amount of shares every month. When choosing a company look at the expense ratio on the funds and the account maintenance fees (along with the account minimals). Vanguard is well known for having low fees and they in fact were the first to offer Index Mutual Funds. For more info on the S&P 500 index see also this Investopedia entry on the S&P 500 index. Do not worry if this is all a bit confusing it is to most people (myself included) at first.\"",
"At a risk of stating the obvious: a passive portfolio doesn't try to speculate on such matters.",
"Index funds: Some of the funds listed by US SIF are index funds. ETFs: ETFdb has a list, though it's pretty short at the moment.",
"Yeah, that's what I do, just buy the indices and forget it. My portfolio is so boring it's elegant, and makes money too. 4.5% YTD and 5.9% in 2016, not bad for a 30/70 stock bond split for this 70-year-old. Oh, did I tell you my costs are .06%! I am enjoying the freedom of my retirement.",
"Dividends. There are blue chip companies that have paid and raised their dividends for 20 or more years. As an example: Altria (MO). There are also ETFs that specialize in such stocks such as SDY.",
"\"The iShares Barclays Aggregate Bond - ticker AGG, is a ETF that may fit the bill for you. It's an intermediate term fund with annual expenses of .20%. It \"\"seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index\"\"\"",
"Fair, but to the first point, taking action on the climate change/stranded asset risk would disqualify the fund as a passive investment. Half the point of passive funds is to take that part of risk out of the equation - poor investment decisions - and rely on the average S&P500 performance instead. I get the second point, though I question whether that point has validity until activist investors are in significant, which is a long way off.",
"All mutual funds disclose their investments, funds are large cap only or midcsp etc. So it depends on what funds you choose.",
"I think you can do better than the straight indexes. For instance Vanguard's High Yield Tax Exempt Fund has made 4.19% over the past 5 years. The S&P 500 Index has lost -2.25% in the same period. I think good mutual funds will continue to outperform the markets because you have skilled managers taking care of your money. The index is just a bet on the whole market. That said, whatever you do, you should diversify. List of Vanguard Funds",
"You could use a stock-only ISA and invest in Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). ETFs are managed mutual funds that trade on open exchanges in the same manner as stocks. This changes the specific fund options you have open to you, but there are so many ETFs at this point that any sector you want to invest in is almost certainly represented.",
"You have to look at the market conditions and make decisions based on them. Ideally, you may want to have 30% of your portfolio in bonds. But from a practical point of view, it's probably not so smart to invest in bond funds right at this moment given the interest rate market. Styles of funds tend to go into and out of style. I personally do asset allocation two ways in my 457 plan (like a 401k for government workers): In my IRA, I invest in a portfolio of 5-6 stocks. The approach you take is dependent on what you are able to put into it. I invest about 10 hours a week into investment related research. If you can't do that, you want a strategy that is simpler -- but you still need to be cognizant of market conditions.",
"\"Here is my simplified take: In any given market portfolio the market index will return the average return on investment for the given market. An actively managed product may outperform the market (great!), achieve average market performance (ok - but then it is more expensive than the index product) or be worse than the market (bad). Now if we divide all market returns into two buckets: returns from active investment and returns from passive investments then these two buckets must be the same as index return are by definition the average returns. Which means that all active investments must return the average market return. This means for individual active investments there are worse than market returns and better then market returns - depending on your product. And since we can't anticipate the future and nobody would willingly take the \"\"worse than market\"\" investment product, the index fund comes always up on top - IF - you would like to avoid the \"\"gamble\"\" of underperforming the market. With all these basics out of the way: if you can replicate the index by simply buying your own stocks at low/no costs I don't see any reason for going with the index product beyond the convenience.\"",
"While it is certainly easy to manage single fund, I am not sure it's the right strategy. It's been proven again and again that portfolio diversification is key to long term gains in wealth. I think your best option is to invest in low cost index funds and ETFs. While rebalancing your portfolio is hard, it is vastly simpler if your portfolio only has ETFs.",
"If you are looking for an index index fund, I know vanguard offers their Star fund which invests in 11 other funds of theirs and is diversified across stocks, bonds, and short term investments.",
"This might be better suited to r/personalfinance but if you're looking to invest I'd say start with an index fund. The MER's (fees) for most other mutual funds take too heavy a chunk of returns to be worth it in a market where actively managed funds are either underperforming of performing at par with passive funds. Additionally if these are your first investments, make sure you're doing it with investment goals in mind. Is this money you're saving for short, medium, or long term? For medium and long term investing make sure you're doing it through a tax efficient instrument like an IRA or 401k.",
"See if any of the funds they offer are index funds, which will generally have MUCH lower fees and which seem to perform as well as any of the actively managed funds in the same categories.",
"\"'Buy and Hold' Is Still a Winner: An investor who used index funds and stayed the course could have earned satisfactory returns even during the first decade of the 21st century. by By Burton G. Malkiel in The Wall Street Journal on November 18, 2010: \"\"The other useful technique is \"\"rebalancing,\"\" keeping the portfolio asset allocation consistent with the investor's risk tolerance. For example, suppose an investor was most comfortable choosing an initial allocation of 60% equities, 40% bonds. As stock and bond prices change, these proportions will change as well. Rebalancing involves selling some of the asset class whose share is above the desired allocation and putting the money into the other asset class. From 1996 through 1999, annually rebalancing such a portfolio improved its return by 1 and 1/3 percentage points per year versus a strategy of making no changes.\"\" Mr. Malkiel is a professor of economics at Princeton University. This op-ed was adapted from the upcoming 10th edition of his book \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street,\"\" out in December by W.W. Norton. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608623469465624.html\"",
"As stated in the comments, Index Funds are the way to go. Stocks have the best return on investment, if you can stomach the volatility, and the diversification index funds bring you is unbeatable, while keeping costs low. You don't need an Individual Savings Account (UK), 401(k) (US) or similar, though they would be helpful to boost investment performance. These are tax advantaged accounts; without them you will have to pay taxes on your investment gains. However, there's still a lot to gain from investing, specially if the alternative is to place them in the vault or similar. Bear in mind that inflation makes your money shrink in real terms. Even a small interest is better than no interest. By best I mean that is safe (regulated by the financial authorities, so your money is safe and insured up to a certain amount) and has reasonable fees (keeping costs low is a must in any scenario). The two main concerns when designing your portfolio are diversification and low TER (Total Expense Ratio). As when we chose broker, our concern is to be as safe as we possibly can (diversification helps with this) and to keep costs at the bare minimum. Some issues might restrict your election or make others seem better. Depending on the country you live and the one of the fund, you might have to pay more taxes on gains/dividends. e.g. The US keeps some of them if your country doesn't have a special treaty with them. Look for W-8Ben and tax withholding for more information. Vanguard and Blackrock offer nice index funds. Morningstar might be a good place for gathering information. Don't trust blindly the 'rating'. Some values are 'not rated' and kick ass the 4 star ones. Again: seek low TER. Not a big fan of this point, but I'm bound to mention it. It can be actually helpful for sorting out tax related issues, which might decide the kind of index fund you pick, and if you find this topic somewhat daunting. You start with a good chunk of money, so it might make even more sense in your scenario to hire someone knowledgeable and trustworthy. I hope this helps to get you started. Best of luck.",
"If the ship is sinking, switching cabins with your neighbor isn't necessarily a good survival strategy. Index funds have sucked, because frankly just about everything has sucked lately. I still think it is a viable long term strategy as long as you are doing some dollar cost averaging. You can't think about long term investing as a steady climb up a hill, markets are erratic, but over long periods of time trend upwards. Now is your chance to get in near the ground floor. I can completely empathize that it is painful right now, but I am a believer in market efficiency and that over the long haul smart money is just more expensive (in terms of fees) than set-it-and-forget it diversified investments or target funds.",
"I am not interested in watching stock exchange rates all day long. I just want to place it somewhere and let it grow Your intuition is spot on! To buy & hold is the sensible thing to do. There is no need to constantly monitor the stock market. To invest successfully you only need some basic pointers. People make it look like it's more complicated than it actually is for individual investors. You might find useful some wisdom pearls I wish I had learned even earlier. Stocks & Bonds are the best passive investment available. Stocks offer the best return, while bonds are reduce risk. The stock/bond allocation depends of your risk tolerance. Since you're as young as it gets, I would forget about bonds until later and go with a full stock portfolio. Banks are glorified money mausoleums; the interest you can get from them is rarely noticeable. Index investing is the best alternative. How so? Because 'you can't beat the market'. Nobody can; but people like to try and fail. So instead of trying, some fund managers simply track a market index (always successfully) while others try to beat it (consistently failing). Actively managed mutual funds have higher costs for the extra work involved. Avoid them like the plague. Look for a diversified index fund with low TER (Total Expense Ratio). These are the most important factors. Diversification will increase safety, while low costs guarantee that you get the most out of your money. Vanguard has truly good index funds, as well as Blackrock (iShares). Since you can't simply buy equity by yourself, you need a broker to buy and sell. Luckily, there are many good online brokers in Europe. What we're looking for in a broker is safety (run background checks, ask other wise individual investors that have taken time out of their schedules to read the small print) and that charges us with low fees. You probably can do this through the bank, but... well, it defeats its own purpose. US citizens have their 401(k) accounts. Very neat stuff. Check your country's law to see if you can make use of something similar to reduce the tax cost of investing. Your government will want a slice of those juicy dividends. An alternative is to buy an index fund on which dividends are not distributed, but are automatically reinvested instead. Some links for further reference: Investment 101, and why index investment rocks: However the author is based in the US, so you might find the next link useful. Investment for Europeans: Very useful to check specific information regarding European investing. Portfolio Ideas: You'll realise you don't actually need many equities, since the diversification is built-in the index funds. I hope this helps! There's not much more, but it's all condensed in a handful of blogs.",
"Mutual funds buy (and sell) shares in companies in accordance with the policies set forth in their prospectus, not according to the individual needs of an investor, that is, when you invest money in (or withdraw money from) a mutual fund, the manager buys or sells whatever shares that, in the manager's judgement, will be the most appropriate ones (consistent with the investment policies). Thus, a large-cap mutual fund manager will not buy the latest hot small-cap stock that will likely be hugely profitable; he/she must choose only between various large capitalization companies. Some exchange-traded funds are fixed baskets of stocks. Suppose you will not invest in a company X as a matter of principle. Unless a mutual fund prospectus says that it will not invest in X, you may well end up having an investment in X at some time because the fund manager bought shares in X. With such an ETF, you know what is in the basket, and if the basket does not include stock in X now, it will not own stock in X at a later date. Some exchange-traded funds are constructed based on some index and track the index as a matter of policy. Thus, you will not be investing in X unless X becomes part of the index because Standard or Poor or Russell or somebody changed their minds, and the ETF buys X in order to track the index. Finally, some ETFs are exactly like general mutual funds except that you can buy or sell ETF shares at any time at the price at the instant that your order is executed whereas with mutual funds, the price of the mutual fund shares that you have bought or sold is the NAV of the mutual fund shares for that day, which is established based on the closing prices at the end of the trading day of the stocks, bonds etc that the fund owns. So, you might end up owning stock in X at any time based on what the fund manager thinks about X.",
"Note that many funds just track indexes. In that case, you essentially don't have to worry about the fund manager making bad decisions. In general, the statistics are very clear that you want to avoid any actively managed fund. There are many funds that are good all-in-one investments. If you are in Canada, for example, Canadian Couch Potato recommends the Tangerine Investment Funds. The fees are a little high, but if you don't have a huge investment, one of these funds would be a good choice and appropriate for 100% of your investment. If you have a larger investment, to the point that Tangerine's MER scares you a little, you still may well look at a three or four fund (or ETF) portfolio. You may choose to use an actively-managed fund even though you know there's virtually no chance it'll beat a fund that just tracks an index, long-term. In that case, I'd recommend devoting only a small portion of your portfolio to this fund. Many people suggest speculating with no more than 10% of your combined investment. Note that other people are more positive on actively-managed funds.",
"I think the dividend fund may not be what youre looking for. You mentioned you want growth, not income. But I think of dividend stocks as income stocks, not growth. They pay a dividend because these are established companies that do not need to invest so much in capex anymore, so they return it to shareholders. In other words, they are past their growth phase. These are what you want to hold when you have a large nest egg, you are ready to retire, and just want to make a couple percent a year without having to worry as much about market fluctuations. The Russel ETF you mentioned and other small caps are I think what you are after. I recently made a post here about the difference between index funds and active funds. The difference is very small. That is, in any given year, many active ETFs will beat them, many wont. It depends entirely on the market conditions at the time. Under certain conditions the small caps will outperform the S&P, definitely. However, under other conditioned, such as global growth slowdown, they are typically the first to fall. Based on your comments, like how you mentioned you dont want to sell, I think index funds should make up a decent size portion of your portfolio. They are the safest bet, long term, for someone who just wants to buy and hold. Thats not to say they need be all. Do a mixture. Diversification is good. As time goes on dont be afraid to add bond ETFs either. This will protect you during downturns as bond prices typically rise under slow growth conditions (and sometimes even under normal conditions, like last year when TLT beat the S&P...)",
"\"Comparing index funds to long-term investments in individual companies? A counterintuitive study by Jeremy Siegel addressed a similar question: Would you be better off sticking with the original 500 stocks in the S&P 500, or like an index fund, changing your investments as the index is changed? The study: \"\"Long-Term Returns on the Original S&P 500 Companies\"\" Siegel found that the original 500 (including spinoffs, mergers, etc.) would do slightly better than a changing index. This is likely because the original 500 companies take on a value (rather than growth) aspect as the decades pass, and value stocks outperform growth stocks. Index funds' main strength may be in the behavior change they induce in some investors. To the extent that investors genuinely set-and-forget their index fund investments, they far outperform the average investor who mis-times the market. The average investor enters and leaves the market at the worst times, underperforming by a few percentage points each year on average. This buying-high and selling-low timing behavior damages long-term returns. Paying active management fees (e.g. 1% per year) makes returns worse. Returns compound on themselves, a great benefit to the investor. Fees also compound, to the benefit of someone other than the investor. Paying 1% annually to a financial advisor may further dent long-term returns. But Robert Shiller notes that advisors can dissuade investors from market timing. For clients who will always follow advice, the 1% advisory fee is worth it.\"",
"\"There are probably 3-4 questions here. Diversification - A good index, a low cost S&P fund or ETF can serve you very well. If you add an extended market index or just go with \"\"Total market\"\", that might be it for your stock allocation. I've seen people with 5 funds, and it didn't take much analysis to see the overlap was so significant, that the extra 4 funds added little, and 2 of the 5 would have been it. If you diversify by buying more ETFs or funds, be sure to see what they contain. If you can go back in time, buy Apple, Google, Amazon, etc, and don't sell them. Individual stocks are fun to pick, but unless you put in your homework, are tough to succeed at. You need to be right at the buy side, and again to know if, and when, to sell. I bought Apple, for example, long ago, pre-last few splits. But, using responsible a approach, I sold a bit each time it doubled. Has I kept it all through the splits, I'd have $1M+ instead of the current $200K or so of stock. Can you tell which companies now have that kind of potential for the future? The S&P has been just about double digit over 60 years. The average managed fund will lag the S&P over time, many will be combined with other funds or just close. Even with huge survivor bias, managed funds can't beat the index over time, on average. Aside from a small portion of stocks I've picked, I'm happy to get S&P less .02% in my 401(k). In aggregate, people actually do far worse due to horrific timing and some odd thing, called emotions.\"",
"A single fund that reflects the local currency would be an index fund in the country. Look for mutual funds which provide for investing on the local stock index. The fund managers would handle all the portfolio balancing for you.",
"Loads of financial advisors advise holding index funds they may advise other things as well, but low fee index funds are a staple portfolio item. I can't speak to the particulars of Canada, but in the US you would just open a brokerage account (or IRA or SEP IRA in the case of a small business owner) and buy a low cost S&P index ETF or low/no fee/commission S&P index mutual fund. There's no magic to it. Some examples in no particular order are, Vanguard's VOO, Schwab's SWPPX, and iShares' IVV. There are also Canadian index equities like Vanguard's VCN and iShare's XIC.",
"One thing to note before buying bond funds. The value of bonds you hold will drop when interest rates go up. Interest rates are at historical lows and pretty much have nowhere to go but up. If you are buying bonds to hold to maturity this is probably not a major concern, but for a bond fund it might impair performance if things suddenly shift in the interest rate market.",
"Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund. An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments. The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios. Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities. Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs. Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund. For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment). Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER). Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number. For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral). See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page. Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF. Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds. Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free. Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs. Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general.",
"Most mutual funds underperform the stock market. Of those that over-perform, much of the performance can be attributed to dumb luck. Most mutual funds exist to generate fees from you, rather than make you wealthy. In my opinion, if you want to invest in one, choose a no-load index fund, and you will outperform most other funds. Better still get some good financial education and learn to manage your funds/investments yourself.",
"\"The \"\"ideal world\"\" index fund of any asset class is a perfect percentage holding of all underlying assets with immediate rebalancing that aligns to every change in the index weighting while trading in a fully liquid market with zero transaction costs. One finance text book that describes this is Introduction to Finance: Markets, Investments, and Financial Management, see chapter 11. Practically, the transaction costs and liquidity make this unworkable. There are several deviations between what the \"\"ideal world algorithm\"\" (\"\"the algorithm\"\") says you should do and what is actually done. Each of these items addresses a real-world solution to various costs of managing a passive index fund. (And they are good solutions.) However, any deviation from the ideal index fund will have a risk. An investor evaluating their choices is left to pick the lowest fees with the least deviation from the ideal index fund. (It is customary to ignore whether the results are in excess or deficit to the ideal). So your formula is: This is also described in the above book.\"",
"Buy and hold doesn't have an exact definition, as far as I know. In my opinion, it's offered as a contrast to those who trade too frequently, or panic every time the market drops 2%. For the general market, e.g. your S&P index holdings. You sell to rebalance to your desired asset allocation. As a personal example, at 50, I was full up invested, 95%+ in stocks. When my wife and I were retired (i.e. let go from company, but with no need to go back to work) I started shifting to get to a more sane allocation, 80/20. The ideal mix may be closer to 60/40. Also, there are times the market as a whole is overvalued as measure by P/E and/or CAPE, made popular by Nobel Prize winning Robert Shiller. During these times, an allocation shift might make sense. For the individual stocks, you had best have a strategy when you buy. Why did you buy XYZ? Because they had promise, decent company with a good outlook for their product? Now that they are up 300%, can they keep gaining share or expand their market? Sometimes you can keep raising the bar, and keep a company long term, really long. Other times, the reason you bought no longer applies, they are at or above the valuation you hoped to achieve. Note - I noticed from another question, the OP is in the UK. I answer this my from US centric view, but it should still apply to OP in general. The question was not tagged UK when I replied.",
"This is the chart going back to the first full year of this fund. To answer your question - yes, a low cost ETF or Mutual fund is fine. Why not go right to an S&P index? VOO has a .05% expense. Why attracted you to a choice that lagged the S&P by $18,000 over this 21 year period? (And yes, past performance, yada, yada, but that warning is appropriate for the opposite example. When you show a fund that beat the S&P short term, say 5 years, its run may be over. But this fund lagged the S&P by a significant margin over 2 decades, what makes you think this will change?",
"ETFs are just like any other mutual fund; they hold a mix of assets described by their prospectus. If that mix fits your needs for diversification and the costs of buying/selling/holding are low, it's as worth considering as a traditional fund with the same mix. A bond fund will hold a mixture of bonds. Whether that mix is sufficiently diversified for you, or whether you want a different fund or a mix of funds, is a judgement call. I want my money to take care of itself for the most part, so most of the bond portion is in a low-fee Total Bond Market Index fund (which tries to match the performance of bonds in general). That could as easily be an ETF, but happens not to be.",
"American Century has their Heritage Fund: https://www.americancentury.com/sd/mobile/fund_facts_jstl?fund=30 It has a good track record. Here are all the mutual funds from American Century: https://www.americancentury.com/content/americancentury/direct/en/fund-performance/performance.html A mutual fund is a good wayway to go as it is not subject to fluctuations throughout the day whereas an ETF is.",
"Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Are they? Maybe not all the time! If you had invested in an index fund tracking the S&P500 at the start of 2000 you would still be behind in terms of capital appreciation when taking inflation into considerations. Your only returns in 13.5 years would have been any dividends you may have received. See the monthly chart of the S&P500 below. Diversification can be good for your overall returns, but diversification simply for diversification sake is as you said, a way of reducing your overall returns in order of smoothing out your equity curve. After looking up indexes for various countries the only one that had made decent returns over a 13.5 year period was the Indian BSE 30 index, almost 400% over 13.5 years, although it also has gone nowhere since the end of 2007 (5.5 years). See monthly chart below. So investing internationally (especially in developing countries when developed nations are stagnating) can improve your returns, but I would learn about the various international markets first before plunging straight in. Regarding investing in an Index fund vs direct investment in a select group of shares, I did a search on the US markets with the following criteria on the 3rd January 2000: If the resulting top 10 from the search were bought on 3rd January 2000 and held up until the close of the market on the 19th June 2013, the results would be as per the table below: The result, almost 250% return in 13.5 years compared to almost no return if you had invested into the whole S&P 500 Index. Note, this table lists only the top ten from the search without screening through the charts, and no risk management was applied (if risk management was applied the 4 losses of 40%+ would have been limited to a maximum of 20%, but possibly much smaller losses or even for gains, as they might have gone into positive territory before coming back down - as I have not looked at any of the charts I cannot confirm this). This is one simple example how selecting good shares can result in much better returns than investing into a whole Index, as you are not pulled down by the bad stocks.",
"For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.",
"Almost all major no-load mutual fund families allow you to do the kind of thing you are talking about, however you may need an initial investment of between $1000 to $3000 depending on the fund. Once you have it however, annual fee's are usually very little, and the fees to buy that companies funds are usually zero if it's a no-load company (Vanguard, TRowPrice, etc) With the larger companies that means you have a pretty large selection of funds, but generally EACH fund has a minimum initial purchase, once that's met then you can buy additional amounts in small quantities without a problem. For someone on a smaller budget, many low cost brokers (ETrade as mentioned by Litteadv, Scottrade as mentioned by myself in another similar question today) allow you to start with smaller initial balances and have a small selection of funds or ETF's that you can trade from without commission. In the case of Scottrade, they have like 15 ETF's that you can trade comission free. Check with the various low cost brokerages such as ETrade, Scottrade, and TDAmeritrade, to see what their policies are, and what if any funds/ETF's they allow you to trade in without commissions. Keep in mind that for Mutual funds, there may still be a fund minimum initial investment that applies, be sure to check if that is the case or not. The lack of any minimum investment makes ETF's a slightly more attractive option for someone who doesn't have the 'buy in' that many funds require.",
"when investing in index funds Index fund as the name suggests invests in the same proportion of the stocks that make up the index. You can choose a Index Fund that tracks NYSE or S&P etc. You cannot select individual companies. Generally these are passively managed, i.e. just follow the index composition via automated algorithms resulting in lower Fund Manager costs. is it possible to establish an offshore company Yes it is possible and most large organization or High Net-worth individuals do this. Its expensive and complicated for ordinary individuals. One needs and army of International Tax Consultants / International Lawyers / etc but do I have to pay taxes from the capital gains at the end of the year? Yes Canada taxes on world wide income and you would have to pay taxes on gains in Canada. Note depending on your tax residency status in US, you may have to pay tax in US as well.",
"Basically, no. Selecting an actively managed fund over a low-fee index fund means paying for the opportunity to possibly outperform the index fund. A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel argues that the best general strategy for the average investor is to select the index fund because the fee savings are certain. Assuming a random walk means that any mutual fund may outperform the index in some years, but this is not an indication that it will overall. Unless you have special information about the effectiveness of the bank fund management (it's run by the next Warren Buffett), you are better off in the index fund. And even Warren Buffett suggests you are probably better off in the index fund: This year, regarding Wall Street, Buffett wrote: “When trillions of dollars are managed by Wall Streeters charging high fees, it will usually be the managers who reap outsized profits, not the clients. Both large and small investors should stick with low-cost index funds.”",
"Determine an investment strategy and that will likely answer this for you. Different people have different approaches and you need to determine for yourself what buy and sell criteria you want to have. Again, depending on the strategy there can be a wide range here as some may trade index funds though this can backfire in some cases. In others, there can be a lot of buy and hold if one finds an index fund to hold forever which depending on the strategy is possible. Returns can vary widely as an index can be everything from buying gold stocks in Russia to investing in short-term Treasuries as there are many different indices as any given market can have an index which could be stocks, bonds, a combination of the two or something else in some cases so please consider asset allocation, types of accounts, risk tolerance and time horizon in making decisions or consider using a financial planner to assist in drawing up a plan with allocations and how frequently you want to rebalance as my suggestion here.",
"In the past 10 years there have been mutual funds that would act as a single bucket of stocks and bonds. A good example is Fidelity's Four In One. The trade off was a management fee for the fund in exchange for having to manage the portfolio itself and pay separate commissions and fees. These days though it is very simple and pretty cheap to put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs that would represent a balanced portfolio. Whats even more interesting is that large online brokerage houses are starting to offer commission free trading of a number of ETFs, as long as they are not day traded and are held for a period similar to NTF mutual funds. I think you could easily put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs to trade on Fidelity or TD Ameritrade commission free, and one that would represent a nice diversified portfolio. The main advantage is that you are not giving money to the fund manager but rather paying the minimal cost of investing in an index ETF. Overall this can save you an extra .5-1% annually on your portfolio, just in fees. Here are links to commission free ETF trading on Fidelity and TD Ameritrade.",
"Most funds keep a certain amount in cash at all times to satisfy outflows. Net inflows will simply be added to the cash balance while net outflows subtract. When the cash gets too low for the manager's comfort level (depends on the typical pattern of net inflows and outflows, as well as anticipated flows based on recent performance), the manager will sell some of his least favorite holdings, and when the cash gets too high he will buy some new holdings or add to his favorite existing holdings. A passive fund works similarly, except the buys/sells are structured to minimize tracking error.",
"Vanguard offers an index fund. Their FTSE Social Index Fund. For more information on it, go here.",
"You do not need to have 'high net value', and yes, you can invest in it. Typically, fund companies require a minimum investment, that could be 100, it could be a 1000. 5000 should be enough for 99.9 % of all funds for an initial investment. What you need is an investment company that manages the account for you. I cannot name those for your country, but they should be easy to find (companies like IMG, and Fidelity might serve your country). You then open an account with the company of your choice, transfer the money, and tell them which fund it shall go in; all this is possible online. You can also go to see an agent in person, and he will fill the forms for you, and handle all the action, but he might take a fee for it.",
"I'm looking for ways to geared to save for retirement, not general investment. Many mutual fund companies offer a range of target retirement funds for different retirement dates (usually in increments of 5 years). These are funds of funds, that is, a Target 2040 Fund, say, will be invested in five or six different stock and bond mutual funds offered by the same company. Over the years and as the target date approaches closer, the investment mix will change from extra weight given to stock mutual funds towards extra weight being given to bond mutual funds. The disadvantage to these funds is that the Target Fund charges its own expense ratio over and above the expense ratios charged by the mutual funds it invests in: you could do the same investments yourself (or pick your own mix and weighting of various funds) and save the extra expense ratio. However, over the years, as the Target Fund changes its mix, withdrawing money from the stock mutual funds and investing the proceeds into bond mutual funds, you do not have to pay taxes on the profits generated by these transactions except insofar as some part of the profits become distributions from the Target Fund itself. If you were doing the same transactions outside the Target Fund, you would be liable for taxes on the profits when you withdrew money from a stock fund and invested the proceeds into the bond fund.",
"\"The majority (about 80%) of mutual funds are underperforming their underlying indexes. This is why ETFs have seen massive capital inflows compared to equity funds, which have seen significant withdrawals in the last years. I would definitively recommend going with an ETF. In addition to pure index based ETFs that (almost) track broad market indexes like the S&P 500 there are quite a few more \"\"quant\"\" oriented ETFs that even outperformed the S&P. I am long the S&P trough iShares ETFs and have dividend paying ETFs and some quant ETFS on top (Invesco Powershares) in my portfolio.\"",
"Some index funds offer lower expense ratios to those who invest large amounts of money. For example, Vanguard offers Admiral Shares of many of its mutual funds (including several index funds) to individuals who invest more than $50K or $100K, and these Shares have lower expense ratios than the Investor shares in the fund. There are Institutional Shares designed for investments by pension plans, 401k plans of large companies etc which have even lower expenses than Admiral Shares. Individuals working for large companies sometimes get access to Institutional Shares through their 401k plans. Thus, there is something to gained by investing in just one index fund (for a particular index) that offers lower expense ratios for large investments instead of diversifying into several index funds all tracking the same index. Of course, this advantage might be offset by failure to track the index closely, but this tracking should be monitored not on a daily basis but over much longer periods of time to test whether your favorite fund is perennially trailing the index by far more than its competitors with larger expense ratios. Remember that the Net Asset Value (NAV) published by each mutual fund after the markets close already take into account the expense ratio.",
"\"This has been answered countless times before: One example you may want to look at is DGRO. It is an iShares ETF that many discount brokers trade for free. This ETF: offers \"\"exposure to U.S. stocks focused on dividend growth\"\".\"",
"\"You mentioned three concepts: (1) trading (2) diversification (3) buy and hold. Trading with any frequency is for people who want to manage their investments as a hobby or profession. You do not seem to be in that category. Diversification is a critical element of any investment strategy. No matter what you do, you should be diversified. All the way would be best (this means owning at least some of every asset out there). The usual way to do this is to own a mutual or index fund. Or several. These funds own hundreds or thousands of stocks, so that buying the fund instantly diversifies you. Buy and hold is the only reasonable approach to a portfolio for someone who is not interested in spending a lot of time managing it. There's no reason to think a buy-and-hold portfolio will underperform a typical traded portfolio, nor that the gains will come later. It's the assets in the portfolio that determine how aggressive/risky it is, not the frequency with which it is traded. This isn't really a site for specific recommendations, but I'll provide a quick idea: Buy a couple of index funds that cover the whole universe of investments. Index funds have low expenses and are the cheapest/easiest way to diversify. Buy a \"\"total stock market\"\" fund and a \"\"total bond fund\"\" in a ratio that you like. If you want, also buy an \"\"international fund.\"\" If you want specific tickers and ratios, another forum would be better(or just ask your broker or 401(k) provider). The bogleheads forum is one that I respect where people are very happy to give and debate specific recommendations. At the end of the day, responsibly managing your investment portfolio is not rocket science and shouldn't occupy a lot of time or worry. Just choose a few funds with low expenses that cover all the assets you are really interested in, put your money in them in a reasonable-ish ratio (no one knows that the best ratio is) and then forget about it.\"",
"I quite like the Canadian Couch Potato which provides useful information targeted at investors in Canada. They specifically provide some model portfolios. Canadian Couch Potato generally suggests investing in indexed ETFs or mutual funds made up of four components. One ETF or mutual fund tracking Canadian bonds, another tracking Canadian stocks, a third tracking US stocks, and a fourth tracking international stocks. I personally add a REIT ETF (BMO Equal Weight REITs Index ETF, ZRE), but that may complicate things too much for your liking. Canadian Couch Potato specifically recommends the Tangerine Streetwise Portfolio if you are looking for something particularly easy, though the Management Expense Ratio is rather high for my liking. Anyway, the website provides specific suggestions, whether you are looking for a single mutual fund, multiple mutual funds, or prefer ETFs. From personal experience, Tangerine's offerings are very, very simple and far cheaper than the 2.5% you are quoting. I currently use TD's e-series funds and spend only a few minutes a year rebalancing. There are a number of good ETFs available if you want to lower your overhead further, though Canadians don't get quite the deals available in the U.S. Still, you shouldn't be paying anything remotely close to 2.5%. Also, beware of tax implications; the website has several articles that cover these in detail.",
"There is the iShares Jantzi Social Index Fund."
] |
[
"\"Usually, the amswer to \"\"why sell it\"\" is \"\"to maintain the specific distribution balance, or to track the index, that this fund was designed to offer.\"\" A \"\"buy and hold\"\" fund could only buy when users are actively putting money into it. That limits their ability to follow those approaches. And I think there would be problems msking withdrawls/redeptions \"\"fair\"\", in terms of what shares are sold and how the costs for selling them are distributed, that don't arise for a single buy-and-hold investor. If you're willing to accept the limitations of the former, and can overcome the latter, it's an interesting idea... But note that one of the places index funds save money is that, since the composition of indexes changes rately, they are already operating mostly in buy-and-hold mode.It's unclear how much your variant would save. Worth exploring in greater depth, though. I think.\"",
"Passive implies following an index. Your question seems to ask about a hypothetical fund that starts, say, as an S&P fund, but as the index is adjusted, the old stocks stay in the fund. Sounds simple enough, but over time, the fund's performance will diverge from the index. The slight potential gain from lack of cap gains will be offset by the fund being unable to market itself. Keep in mind, the gains distributed each year are almost exclusively long term, taxed at a favorable rate.",
"\"They pretty much already have what you are looking for. They are called Unit Investment Trusts. The key behind these is (a) the trust starts out with a fixed pool of securities. It is completely unmanaged and there is no buying or selling of the securities, (b) they terminate after a fixed period of time, at which time all assets are distributed among the owners. According to Investment Company Institute, \"\"securities in a UIT are professionally selected to meet a stated investment objective, such as growth, income, or capital appreciation.\"\" UITs sell a fixed number of units at one-time public offering. Securities in a UIT do not trade actively, rather, UITs use a strategy known as buy-and-hold. The UIT purchases a certain amount of securities and holds them until its termination date. Holdings rarely change throughout the life of the trust so unit holders know exactly what they're investing in, and the trust lists all securities in its prospectus. Unit trusts normally sell redeemable units - this obligates the trust to re-purchase investor's units at their net asset value at the investors request.\""
] |
776
|
Can saving/investing 15% of your income starting age 25, likely make you a millionaire?
|
[
"467044",
"583640",
"597247",
"124027",
"592680",
"10440",
"127263",
"332373",
"220127",
"597880",
"496899",
"591516"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"124027",
"10440",
"467044",
"332373",
"191148",
"184243",
"519798",
"365285",
"143591",
"418281",
"133102",
"389028",
"107520",
"552303",
"592680",
"583640",
"5673",
"563284",
"110681",
"260837",
"59965",
"26487",
"81343",
"434869",
"439605",
"584531",
"41960",
"591516",
"599075",
"597880",
"319760",
"271818",
"554833",
"417787",
"101902",
"520597",
"575876",
"95282",
"249055",
"597247",
"220127",
"360018",
"449745",
"448511",
"333059",
"423083",
"524912",
"59394",
"35680",
"73811",
"62794",
"85681",
"374266",
"10665",
"320320",
"435932",
"509565",
"336661",
"175679",
"328157",
"169232",
"431775",
"591705",
"519856",
"336950",
"136862",
"414124",
"575929",
"468010",
"213435",
"228315",
"464843",
"82627",
"579380",
"47184",
"367415",
"293179",
"480402",
"431203",
"115118",
"581776",
"511945",
"113457",
"413266",
"434395",
"480128",
"109061",
"496899",
"223872",
"141464",
"383102",
"499348",
"57844",
"545414",
"194363",
"188750",
"314840",
"332064",
"558382",
"38269"
] |
[
"Yes, becoming a millionaire is a reasonable goal. Saving 15% of your income starting at age 25 and investing in the stock market will likely get you there. The CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) of the S&P 500 over the last 35 years has been about 11%. (That 35 years includes at least two fairly serious crashes.) You may get more or less than that number in the future, but let's guess that you'll average 9%. Let's say that you begin with nothing invested, and you start investing $100 per week at age 25. (If your annual income is $35,000, that is about 15% of your income.) You decide to invest your money in an S&P 500 index mutual fund. 35 years from now when you are 60 years old, you would be a millionaire ($1.2 Million, actually). You may earn less than the assumed 9%, depending on how the stock market does. However, if you stick with your 15% investment amount throughout your whole career, you'll most likely end up with more, because your income will probably increase during your career. And you will probably be working past age 60, giving your investments time to earn even more.",
"I see a lot of answers calculcating with incomes that are much higher than yours, here is something for your situation: If you would keep your current income for the rest of your life, here is approximately how things would turn out after 40 years: All interest is calculated relative to the amount in your portfolio. Therefore, lets start with 1 dollar for 40 years: With your current income, 15% would be 82.5 dollar. At 12% this would over 40 years get you almost 1 million dollar. I would call a required return of more than 12% not 'likely'. The good news, is that your income will likely increase, and especially if this happens fast things will start to look up. The bad news is, that your current salary is quite low. So, it basically means that you need to make some big jumps in the next few years in order to make this scenario likely. If you can quickly move your salary towards ranges that are more common in the US, then 15% of your income can build up to a million before you retire. However, if you just follow gradual growth, you would need to get quite lucky to reach a million. Note that even if reaching a million appears unlikely, it is probably still a good idea to save!",
"Yes, quite easily, in fact. You left a lot of numbers out, so lets start with some assumptions. If you are at the median of middle income families in the US that might mean $70,000/year. 15% of that is an investment of $875 per month. If you invest that amount monthly and assume a 6% return, then you will have a million dollars at approximately 57 years old. 6% is a very conservative number, and as Ben Miller points out, the S&P 500 has historically returned closer to 11%. If you assumed an aggressive 9% return, and continued with that $875/month for 40 years until you turn 65, that becomes $4 million. Start with a much more conservative $9/hr for $18,720 per year (40 hours * 52 weeks, no overtime). If that person saved 14% of his/her income or about $219 per month from 25 to 65 years old with the same 9%, they would still achieve $1 million for retirement. Is it much harder for a poor person? Certainly, but hopefully these numbers illustrate that it is better to save and invest even a small amount if that's all that can be done. High income earners have the most to gain if they save and the most to lose if they don't. Let's just assume an even $100,000/year salary and modest 401(k) match of 3%. Even married filing jointly a good portion of that salary is going to be taxed at the 25% rate. If single you'll be hitting the 28% income tax rate. If you can max out the $18,000 (2017) contribution limit and get an additional $3,000 from an employer match (for a total monthly contribution of $1750) 40 years of contributions would become $8.2 million with the 9% rate of return. If you withdrew that money at 4% per year you would have a residual income of $300k throughout your retirement.",
"As others have shown, if you assume that you can get 6% and you invest 15% of a reasonable US salary then you can hit 1 million by the time you retire. If you invest in property in a market like the UK (where I come from...) then insane house price inflation will do it for you as well. In 1968 my parents bought a house for £8000. They had a mortgage on it for about 75% of the value. They don't live there but that house is now valued at about £750,000. Okay, that's close to 60 years, but with a 55 year working life that's not so unreasonable. If you assume the property market (or the shares market) can go on rising forever... then invest in as much property as you can with your 15% as mortgage payments... and watch the million roll in. Of course, you've also got rent on your property portfolio as well in the intervening years. However, take the long view. Inflation will hit what a million is worth. In 1968, a million was a ridiculously huge amount of money. Now it's 'Pah, so what, real rich people have billions'. You'll get your million and it will not be enough to retire comfortably on! In 1968 my parents salaries as skilled people were about £2000 a year... equivalent jobs now pay closer to £50,000... 25x salary inflation in the time. Do that again, skilled professional salary in 60 years of £125000 a year... so your million is actually 4 years salary. Not being relentlessly negative... just suggesting that a financial target like 'own a million (dollars)' isn't a good strategy. 'Own something that yields a decent amount of money' is a better one.",
"If your take-home salary after taxes etc is 35K / year, and you say you will be able to save at most 40% of that, you will need to find something that pays 2.75% to reach one million in 40 years*. However, these numbers can chance dramatically depending on your specific circumstances. If you're just starting your career, 40 years of saving is not impossible. If you're in the middle or nearing the end, you will have dramatically less time to achieve your goals. *40% of 35000 is 14000 saved per year, at an interest of 2.75% compounded annually, you will reach 1000000 after roughly 40 years.",
"A person who always saves and appropriately invests 20% of their income can expect to have a secure retirement. If you start early enough, you don't need anything close to 20%. Now, there are many good reasons to save for things other than just retirement, of course. You say that you can save 80% of your income, and you expect most people could save at least 50% without problems. That's just unrealistic for most people. Taxes, rent (or mortgage payments), utilities, food, and other such mandatory expenses take far more than 50% of your income. Most people simply don't have the ability to save (or invest) 50% of their income. Or even 25% of their income.",
"\"Not at all. The Millionaire Next Door offers a book full of anecdotes on couples that earned money and saved their way to being millionaires. I believe about 1/3 or so had businesses, but the rest were employed and simply saved wisely. $3860/yr saved for 40 years at 8% will return $1M. Adjust the numbers to hit a million sooner or reach a higher goal. The Author might be accused of survey bias. This is the phenomenon of studying the final results without looking at the pool of people years prior. Little Adv' is correct that while 1/3 of millionaires may have gotten that way by starting a business, that says nothing about how many businesses need to start to find the one millionaire that resulted. I view the book more as a lesson of \"\"spend beneath your means\"\" and focus on his anecdotes of the dual income couples who saved their way to this status. If you are in no rush, get this book from your library and spend the few hours to read it. In response to my Friend Dilip's comment, MoneyChimp offers a good look at compound growth (for the S&P) over time. The 40 years ending 2012, which obviously include the 'lost decade,' returned a CAGR of 9.78%. Not to be confused with the average 11.43%. When I pull the numbers for each year's return and apply an annual $3860 deposit, the 40 years ends with $2.2M. A 1% fee, or 1% lower return resulted in $1.6M. If 8% isn't conservative, of course you can run the numbers you wish. The 40 years contained both a lost decade and two great ones. Will the 3 decades post-lost average to get the Quad-Decade period to 8%+? I don't know.\"",
"Rule of thumb: To retire with a yearly income of $X, you need to save $(20*X) -- in other words, the safe assumption is that you'll average 4% returns on your stabilized savings/investments. In the case of retiring with a $50k passive pretax income, that means you need savings of $1M by the time you retire. If you want the $50,000 to be real post-tax spendable dollars, and your savings aren't in something like a Roth 401k or Roth IRA, increase that proportionately to account for taxes. How you get there depends on what you start with, how much you put into it every year, how you invest it and how many years you have before your retirement date. Passive investment alone will not do it unless you start with a lot of money; passive ongoing investment may depending on how much you can make yourself save when. To find out whether any specific plan will do what you need, you have to work with real numbers.",
"There's a bit of working backwards that's required. This is a summary of a spreadsheet I wrote which helps to get to the answer. What you see here is that at age 25, one might have saved about a half year's salary, assuming they worked 5 years. The numbers grow exponentially to at 65, about 15 years salary saved. This will allow a withdrawal of about 60% final income each year using the 4% guideline. More will come from Social Security in the States to get closer to 100%. The sheet start with assumptions, a 10% per year rate of saving, and an 8% annual return. Salary is assumed to rise 3% per year. One can choose their age, enter their current numbers and their own assumptions. I had to include some numbers and at the time, 8% seemed reasonable. Not so sure today. What I do like is the concept of viewing savings in terms of 'years salary' as this leads to replacement rate. Will $1M be enough for you? Only you can answer that. But the goal of 80-100% replacement income is reasonable and this sheet can be used to understand the goals along the way. (note, the uploaded sheet had 15% saving rate, not the 10 I thought. I used 15 to show a 10% saving along with a 5% match to one's 401(k). Those interested are welcome to enter their own numbers. The one objection I've seen is the increase to salary. Increases tend to be higher in the first 20 than the second, or so I'm told.)",
"\"I argued for a 15% rule of thumb here: Saving for retirement: How much is enough? Though if you'll let me, I'd refine the argument to: use a rule of thumb to set your minimum savings, then use Monte Carlo to stress-test and look at any special circumstances, and make a case to save more. You're right that the rule of thumb bakes in tons of assumptions (great list btw). A typical 15%-works scenario could include: If any of those big assumptions don't apply to you (or you don't want to rely on them) you'd have to re-evaluate. It sounds like you're assuming 4-5% investment returns? As you say that's probably the big difference, 4-5% is lower than most would assume. 6-7% (real return) is maybe a middle-of-the-road assumption and 8% is maybe an unrealistic one. Many of the assumptions you list (such as married/kids, cost of living, spouse's income, paying for college) can maybe be bundled up into one assumption (percentage of income you will spend). Set a percentage budget and as you go along, stay within your means by sacrificing as required. Also smooth out income across layoffs and things by having an emergency fund. By staying on-budget as you go you can remove some of the unpredictability. The reason I think the rule of thumb is still good, despite the assumptions, is that I don't think a \"\"more accurate\"\" number based on a lot of unpredictable guesses is really better; and it may even be harmful if you use it to justify saving less, or even if you use it to save far too much. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_bias Many (most?) important assumptions are not predictable: investment returns, health care inflation, personal health, lifestyle creep (changing spending needs/desires), irrational investment behavior. I agree with you that for many scenarios and people, 15% will not be enough, though it's a whole lot more than most save already. In particular, low investment returns over your time horizon will make 15% insufficient, and some argue that low investment returns over the coming 30 years are likely. Without a doubt, 20% or more is safer than 15%. Do consider that \"\"saving enough\"\" is not a binary thing. If you save only 15% and it turns out that doesn't completely replace your income, it's not like you're out on the street; you might have to retire a few years later, or downsize your house, or something, but perhaps that isn't a catastrophe. There's a very personal question about how much to sacrifice now for less risk of sacrifice in the future. Maybe I'd better qualify \"\"not a binary thing\"\": some savings rates (certainly, anything less than 10%), make major sacrifices pretty likely... so in that sense there is a binary distinction between \"\"plausible plan\"\" and \"\"denial.\"\" Also, precise assumptions and calculations get a lot more useful as you approach retirement age. You can pretty much answer the question \"\"is it reasonable to retire right now?\"\" or \"\"could I retire in 5 years?\"\" (though with a retirement that could last 30 years, plenty of unknowns will remain even then). I think at age 20 or 30 though, just saving 15% (20% if you're conservative), and not spending too much time on a speculative analysis would be a sound decision. That's why I like the rule of thumb. Analysis paralysis (saving nothing or near-nothing) is the real danger early in one's career. Any plausible percentage is fine as long as you save. As your life unfolds and you see what happens, you can refine and correct, adjusting your savings rate, moving your retirement age around, spending a little less or more. The important thing earlier in life is to just get in the right ballpark.\"",
"Yes, you can indeed become rich by investing even small amounts over time. Let's say that you begin with nothing invested, and you start investing $100 per week. Suppose you choose to put your money in an S&P 500 index mutual fund. The CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) of the S&P 500 over the last 35 years has been about 11%. (That 35 years includes at least two fairly serious crashes.) You may get more or less than that number in the future, but let's guess that you'll average 9%. 35 years from now, you would be a millionaire ($1.2 Million, actually). This math works out for anyone, no matter who your parents are, where you are from, where you went to school, etc. Yes, you have a better chance of becoming wealthy the more you invest, the longer you have to stay invested, and the better choices you make in your investments. By starting early, you will maximize your time invested, which allows you the flexibility to be more conservative in your investments and to invest smaller amounts. But for those with a shorter time to invest, it is still doable for most people. Get your financial life under control by eliminating your debt, setting a household budget, and investing for the future.",
"Even with a good investment strategy, you cannot expect more than 8-10% per year in average. Reducing this by a 3% inflation ratio leaves you with 5 - 7%, which means 15k$ - 21k$. Consider seriously if you could live from that amount as annual income, longterm. If you think so, there is a second hurdle - the words in average. A good year could increase your capital a bit, but a bad year can devastate it, and you would not have the time to wait for the good years to average it out. For example, if your second year gives you a 10% loss, and you still draw 15k$ (and inflation eats another 3%), you have only 247k$ left effectively, and future years will have to go with 12k$ - 17k$. Imagine a second bad year. As a consequence, you either need to be prepared to go back to work in that situation (tough after being without job for years), or you can live on less to begin with: if you can make it on 10k$ to begin with (and do, even in good years), you have a pretty good chance to get through your life with it. Note that 'make it with x' always includes taxes, health care, etc. - nothing is free. I think it's possible, as people live on 10k$ a year. But you need to be sure you can trust yourself to stay within the limit and not give in and spent more - not easy for many people.",
"Interesting. The answer can be as convoluted/complex as one wishes to make it, or back-of-envelope. My claim is that if one starts at 21, and deposits 10% of their income each year, they will likely hit a good retirement nest egg. At an 8% return each year (Keep in mind, the last 40 years produced 10%, even with the lost decade) the 10% saver has just over 15X their final income as a retirement account. At 4% withdrawal, this replaces 60% of their income, with social security the rest, to get to nearly 100% or so replacement. Note - I wrote an article about Social Security Benefits, showing the benefit as a percent of final income. At $50K it's 42%, it's a higher replacement rate for lower income, but the replacement rate drops as income rises. So, the $5000 question. For an individual earning $50K or less, this amount is enough to fund their retirement. For those earning more, it will be one of the components, but not the full savings needed. (By the way, a single person has a standard deduction and exemption totaling $10150 in 2014. I refer to this as the 'zero bracket.' The next $8800 is taxed at 10%. Why go 100% Roth and miss the opportunity to fund these low or no tax withdrawals?)",
"There's no magic. Usually these models set out to replace 60-65% of your gross income in retirement. For example, if you: You'll retire with about $850k. That will let you generate an income stream of around 55k for your expected lifespan. Is 15% the right answer for you? No idea -- it depends on what you want, how you invest, and what you can afford.",
"I'll offer another answer, using different figures. Let's assume 6% is the rate of return you can expect. You are age 25, and plan to retire at age 65. If you have $0 and want $1M at retirement, you will need to put away $524.20/month, or $6,290.40/year, which is 15% of $41,936. So $41,936 is what you'd need to make per year in order to get to your target. You can calculate your own figures with a financial calculator: 480 months as your term (or, adjust this to your time horizon in months), .486755% as your interest (or, take your assumed interest rate + 1 to the 1/12th power and subtract 1 to convert to a monthly interest rate), 0 as your PV, and $1M as your FV; then solve for PMT.",
"It depends on how much you save, how much your savings earns each year. You can model it with a very simple spreadsheet: Formula view: You can change this simple model with any other assumptions you wish to make and model. This spreadsheet presumes that you only make $50,000/year, never get a raise, that your savings earns 6% per year and that the market never has a crash like 2008. The article never states the assumptions that the author has made, and therefore we can't honestly determine how truthful the author is. I recommend the book Engineering Your Retirement as it has more detailed models and goes into more details about what you should expect. I wrote a slightly more detailed post that showed a spreadsheet that is basically what I use at home to track my retirement savings.",
"\"I wrote a spreadsheet (<< it may not be obvious - this is a link to pull down the spreadsheet) a while back that might help you. You can start by putting your current salary next to your age, adjust the percent of income saved (14% for you) and put in the current total. The sheet basically shows that if one saves 15% from day one of working and averages an 8% return, they are on track to save over 20X their final income, and at the 4% withdrawal rate, will replace 80% of their income. (Remember, if they save 15% and at retirement the 7.65% FICA /medicare goes away, so it's 100% of what they had anyway.) For what it's worth, a 10% average return drops what you need to save down to 9%. I say to a young person - try to start at 15%. Better that when you're 40, you realize you're well ahead of schedule and can relax a bit, than to assume that 8-9% is enough to save and find you need a large increase to catch up. To answer specifically here - there are those who concluded that 4% is a safe withdrawal rate, so by targeting 20X your final income as retirement savings, you'll be able to retire well. Retirement spending needs are not the same for everyone. When I cite an 80% replacement rate, it's a guess, a rule of thumb that many point out is flawed. The 'real' number is your true spending need, which of course can be far higher or lower. The younger investor is going to have a far tougher time guessing this number than someone a decade away from retiring. The 80% is just a target to get started, it should shift to the real number in your 40s or 50s as that number becomes clear. Next, I see my original answer didn't address Social Security benefits. The benefit isn't linear, a lower wage earner can see a benefit of as much as 50% of what they earned each year while a very high earner would see far less as the benefit has a maximum. A $90k earner will see 30% or less. The social security site does a great job of giving you your projected benefit, and you can adjust target savings accordingly. 2016 update - the prior 20 years returned 8.18% CAGR. Considering there were 2 crashes one of which was called a mini-depression, 8.18% is pretty remarkable. For what it's worth, my adult investing life started in 1984, and I've seen a CAGR of 10.90%. For forecasting purposes, I think 8% long term is a conservative number. To answer member \"\"doobop\"\" comment - the 10 years from 2006-2015 had a CAGR of 7.29%. Time has a way of averaging that lost decade, the 00's, to a more reasonable number.\"",
"\"Definitions are in order: These definitions are important. Someone making 1,000,000 a year who spends all of it is poor. Someone who makes 500K, spends 450K a year and has three million in stocks and a paid-for million dollar home may be rich but they can't retire. They need another seven to eight million to retire. Someone with a million dollars in assets who makes 40K a year through their job, can be Financially Independent and retire. This last example is important. In The Millionaire Next Door the authors share their discovery that the average millionaire accumulated their wealth with just a working income of around 50K (the book is a bit dated so the number should be elevated if you adjust for inflation). Finance Independent is a strange thing to wrap your head around and people with high incomes often fall victim to misunderstanding it. When figuring out how much a person needs to accumulate for their \"\"nest egg\"\", their working income is not a direct variable. Their spending and savings rate are. A doctor making 500K, who spends 450K needs to work for 51 years if they are planning to keep spending 450K/year (adjusted for inflation) forever. Someone making 60K starting at age 21 who saves 18K (30%), could retire at 49. Someone with a truly low income and poor, say 30K and under and living in a old developed nation, investing will help them a bit. Say they save 10% of their income, by the time they reach 65 (the typical age federal retirement pensions begin), they'll have enough money to live off of in perpetuity and in comfort. They'll actually have a higher retirement income than income while they were working. But, it is challenging at those levels to save 10% of your net income. Events like your car randomly deciding to break down one day can destroy an entire year's saving.\"",
"Short answer: Not likely. Long answer: As a rule of thumb, over the long run if you are generating 20% compounded returns on your money consistently, you are doing very good. Since in the average case your 10k would compound to $61.4k YoY, you are very unlikely to be rich in a decade starting with 10k.",
"\"I think your very long list of possible assumptions makes a tacit point of your own: to state \"\"15%\"\" as a general value is bogus. I think, in most cases, the \"\"15%\"\" is merely a popular meme. To give any fixed number or percentage of income saved is insufficient without expanding things in the way you show. Therefore, a formula, in which at least a handful of variables can be plugged into it, seems like the right approach. (And this is what is being discussed here with the Monte Carlo method).\"",
"The stock market at large has about a 4.5% long-term real-real (inflation-fees-etc-adjusted) rate of return. Yes: even in light of the recent crashes. That means your money invested in stocks doubles every 16 years. So savings when you're 25 and right out of college are worth double what savings are worth when you're 41, and four times what they're worth when you're 57. You're probably going to be making more money when you're 41, but are you really going to be making two times as much? (In real terms?) And at 57, will you be making four times as much? And if you haven't been saving at all in your life, do you think you're going to be able to start, and make the sacrifices in your lifestyle that you may need? And will you save enough in 10 years to live for another 20-30 years after retirement? And what if the economy tanks (again) and your company goes under and you're out of a job when you turn 58? Having tons of money at retirement isn't the only worthy goal you can pursue with your money (ask anyone who saves money to send kids to college), but having some money at retirement is a rather important goal, and you're much more at risk of saving too little than you are of saving too much. In the US, most retirement planners suggest 10-15% as a good savings rate. Coincidentally, the standard US 401(k) plan provides a tax-deferred vehicle for you to put away up to 15% of your income for retirement. If you can save 15% from the age of 20-something onward, you probably will be at least as well-off when you retire as you are during the rest of your life. That means you can spend the rest on things which are meaningful to you. (Well, you should also keep around some cash in case of emergencies or sudden unemployment, and it's never a good idea to waste money, but your responsibilities to your future have at least been satisfied.) And in the UK you get tax relief on your pension contribution at your income tax rate and most employers will match your contributions.",
"If you set a savings amount now and leave it totally fixed you're likely to massively undershoot or overshoot. What is more likely is that you will adjust either your savings or your retirement expectations as things go along. If it turns out you have $10M (2010 dollars) at age 50 perhaps you'll retire early, and if you have $10k perhaps you'll buckle down and work much longer or save much more. So I think what you are looking for is an assurance that if you budget to save x% of your salary over n years, and you get an after-inflation after-tax return of y% pa, you will eventually be able to retire on an income equivalent to z% of your working income. It's pretty easy to calculate that through a future-value formula. For instance, one set of values that works is saving 20% of income, 5% real return, 30 years = final income of 66% of working income. Or save half your income and within 14 years you can retire and keep spending the amount you were previously spending. Resist the temptation to crank up the assumed return until you get the value you want. I think it would be great hubris to try to make this very precise. Yes, probably you will get raises, of course there are taxes to take into account (probably higher while you're saving), inflation and returns will vary from year to year, et. You can guess at them. But they'll change, and there are bigger things that are unpredictable: your personal life, your health, the economic future of your career or industry. I reckon this simple formula is about as good as you will get.",
"\"I disagree with the selected answer. There's no one rule of thumb and certainly not simple ones like \"\"20 cents of every dollar if you're 35\"\". You've made a good start by making a budget of your expected expenses. If you read the Mr. Money Mustache blogpost titled The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement, you will understand that it is usually a mistake to think of your expenses as a fixed percentage of your income. In most cases, it makes more sense to keep your expenses as low as possible, regardless of your actual income. In the financial independence community, it is a common principle that one typically needs 25-30 times one's annual spending to have enough money to sustain oneself forever off the investment returns that those savings generate (this is based on the assumption of a 7% average annual return, 4% after inflation). So the real answer to your question is this: UPDATE Keats brought to my attention that this formula doesn't work that well when the savings rates are low (20% range). This is because it assumes that money you save earns no returns for the entire period that you are saving. This is obviously not true; investment returns should also count toward your 25-times annual spending goal. For that reason, it's probably better to refer to the blog post that I linked to in the answer above for precise calculations. That's where I got the \"\"37 years at 20% savings rate\"\" figure from. Depending on how large and small x and y are, you could have enough saved up to retire in 7 years (at a 75% savings rate), 17 years (at a 50% savings rate), or 37 years! (at the suggested 20% savings rate for 35-year olds). As you go through life, your expenses may increase (eg. starting a family, starting a new business, unexpected health event etc) or decrease (kid wins full scholarship to college). So could your income. However, in general, you should negotiate the highest salary possible (if you are salaried), use the 25x rule, and consider your life and career goals to decide how much you want to save. And stop thinking of expenses as a percentage of income.\"",
"\"It is difficult to become a millionaire in the short term (a few years) working at a 9-to-5 job, unless you get lucky (win the lottery, inheritance, gambling at a casino, etc). However, if you max out your employer's Retirement Plan (401k, 403b) for the next 30 years, and you average a 5% rate of return on your investment, you will reach millionaire status. Many people would consider this \"\"easy\"\" and \"\"automatic\"\". Of course, this assumes you are able to max our your retirement savings at the start of your career, and keep it going. The idea is that if you get in the habit of saving early in your career and live modestly, it becomes an automatic thing. Unfortunately, the value of $1 million after 30 years of inflation will be eroded somewhat. (Sorry.) If you don't want to wait 30 years, then you need to look at a different strategy. Work harder or take risks. Some options:\"",
"The investments he's chosen are well diversified. You can argue the details, but it's a low-fee, low-risk plan that's simple to implement, which makes it better than what 95%+ of people do. Starting saving early is also a great idea. Now for the bad news. $1mm is not enough to retire on. It can't generate $80k / year without significant risk, and even if it could, those investment gains would be taxable. The general rule of thumb is that you should have 25x your annual expenses saved when you retire, a bit more if you want to retire early at 50. Don't forget that inflation means $1mm in 24 years will not have the same purchasing power it does today.",
"One strategy to consider is a well-diversified index fund of equities. These have historically averaged 7-8% real growth. So withdrawing 3% or 4% yearly under that growth should allow you to withdraw 30+ years with little risk of drawing down all your capital. As a bonus you're savings target would come down from $10 million to $2.5 million to a little under $3.5 million.",
"You're ignoring inflation. Even if we assume the ECB sticks to its 2% inflation target, and your salary only rises in line with inflation, you will be saving considerably more in forty years' time than you are today. In fact, an interest rate of 2% and an inflation rate of 2% make the sums exceptionally easy. You need to save €25,000 per year in 2057 euros to be a millionaire by 2057, which is €11,322 in 2017 euros. Challenging, but achievable. Of course, you'll only be a millionaire in 2057 euros, which will be worth less than half as much as a euro is worth right now.",
"I just want to point out a couple of things, and I do not have enough reputation to comment. Saving 50% is totally possible. I know people saving 65%. For more see here EDIT: Let me repeat that 4% it the maximum you can assume if you want to be sure to have at least that return in the long term. It's not the average, it's the minimum, the value you can expect and plan with. Just to reinforce the claim, I can cite Irrational Exuberance of Robert Schiller, who explicitly says, on page 135 of the 2015 edition, that from January 1966 to January 1992 the real annual return was just 4.1%. Sure, this does not matter so much if you are investing all the way through, but it's still a 26 year period.",
"I don't have a reference, but I think it depends on when you entered the workforce: If you finished school at age 24, your primary goals are to pay down expensive debt and to save up enough for a down payment. So essentially not much. Maybe $5k to $10k at the most. On the other hand if you entered the workforce at age 20, with no debts and no significant expenses, it should have been easy to sock away 20% of your income for 6 years, so $40k to $50k would be reasonable. The difference is that the first person's income earning potential should be higher, so eventually they'd be able to make up the difference and pass them.",
"If by being a millionaire you mean dollar millionaire then I doubt that it is really that easy in Pakistani context. At present the exchange rate is 107 Pakistani rupees per US dollar so even with this exchange rate, to have a million US dollars means having 107 million rupees of wealth. Now with this maths in mind you can very well calculate how much possible it is for an average 25 years old Pakistani to have that much wealth. And by the time you have 107 million Pakistani rupees of wealth the exchange rate against the US dollar would have only gone up against Pakistani currency. That article which you have mentioned makes calculations in US context and dollar terms. However if you talk only in terms of your country's context then being a millionaire means having 1 million rupees of wealth and that is something which is quite achievable with your salary and within very short span of time.",
"Great question and great of you to be paying attention to this. Right now having the ability to save $2K per year might seem very out of reach. However with the right career path and by paying attention to personal finance saving 2K per month will become possible sooner than you may think. As a student you are already investing in your future, by building your greatest wealth building tool: your income. Right now concentrate on that. If you have extra money throw it in a boring old savings account and don't touch it other than emergencies. An emergency is defined as something that will preclude you from completing your education. It is not paying for the latest xbox game/skateboard/once in a lifetime trip. An important precursor to investing is having an emergency fund that sits in a boring old savings account earning almost nothing. Think of it as an insurance policy that prevents you from liquidating your investments in case of and emergency. Emergencies often come during economic downturns. If you have to liquidate your investment to cover these times then you will lock in negative returns. Once you are done with school, moved into a place of your own, and have your first job you will have a nice start on your emergency fund. Then you can start investing. Doing it in the right order you will be amazed how quickly your savings can accumulate. I'd be shooting for that 2 million by the time you are 40, not 65.",
"You can. Almost anybody (barring medical issues) can, the drudgery will be intense and utterly soul sucking. Sure fire formula: Spend very little, save everything and put down down payments on rental houses. It will eventually get you millions even if everything goes very wrong after 30 years. It should work out into the millions somewhere between 15-25 years.",
"Pete, 25 years of inflation looks like 100% to me with back of napkin math. $220K will feel like $110K. In today's dollars, can you live on $110K? (Plus whatever Social Security you'll get)? My concern from what you wrote, if I'm reading it correctly, is that you have this great income, but relatively low savings until now. From the recent question Building financial independence I offered a guide to savings as it compares to income. Even shifted 5 years for a later start, and scaled for a 70-75% replacement ratio, you should be at 2X (or $440K) by now. That's not a criticism, but an observation that you've been spending at a nice clip so far. The result is less saving, of course, but also a need for a higher replacement ratio. Last, a 10% return for the next 25 years may be optimistic. I'm not forecasting doom or gloom, just a more reasonable rate of return, and wouldn't plan to see higher than 7-8% for purposes of planning. If I am wrong, (and if so, we can both laugh all the way to the bank) you can always scale back savings in 10-15 years. Or retire earlier. Note: Pete's question asks about a 40 year old working till 65, but the comment below has him 48 and planning to work until 62. 14 years of $45K deposits total less than $700K. Even at 10%, it wouldn't grow to much more than $2M, let alone $5M.",
"Start as early as possible and you will want to kiss your younger self when you get to retirement age. I know you (and everyone else at that age) thinks that they don't make enough to start saving and leans towards waiting until you get established in your career and start making better money. Don't put it off. Save some money out of each paycheck even if it is only $50. Trust me, as little as you make now, you probably have more disposable income than you will when you make twice as much. Your lifestyle always seems to keep up with your income and you will likely ALWAYS feel like you don't have money left over to save. The longer you wait, the more you are going to have to stuff away to make up for that lost time you could have been compounding your returns as shown in this table (assuming 9.4 percent average gain annually, which has been the average return on the stock market from 1926-2010). I also suggest reading this article when explains it in more detail: Who Wants to be a millionaire?",
"Assuming you max-out your Roth IRA with $5000 in inflation-adjusted contributions every year from 25-65, your balance at age 65 will depend on the post-inflation return you get in the account. Assuming you withdraw 4% per year after that, here is what your income will be: (All numbers are in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars.) If your post-inflation return is zero - if you buy treasury bonds, money-market accounts, or something like that - you'll have a simple $5000 * 40 = $200,000, which will give you an income of around $8000 per year. If you get a 3% post-inflation return - e.g. fairly safe Muni bonds, corporate bonds, and boring stocks - you'll approximately double your money to around $393,000, giving you an income of over $15,000 per year. If you get a 6% return - e.g. more aggressive stocks and more risk-taking - you'll approximately double your money again to over $825,000. A 4% withdrawal rate will give you an income of around $33,000 per year. Stocks have historically returned around inflation + 8% - that will get you over $1.4 million - and an annual income of over $56,000 per year. So, yes, it is feasible to retire on nothing but a maxed-out Roth IRA.",
"Lets assume you put the max of 5000 per year in a Roth IRA. You have your home and all other debt paid off, and your investment earns 10%, a few points below the market average. You will have $822,470 at 65, 1005K at 67 that you can draw on tax free. It is a fairly tidy sum and should keep you from working as the greeter in WalMart. This kind of return should be expected from most mutual funds, and you could invest some time in reading about how to pick good returning funds. An index fund, which shadows a market index, should have that kind of return. And yes that is 10% per year. In investing it is about momentum. I too write software for a living, and would suggest you should be able to contribute about double that amount and still be comfortable. That would set you up for a pretty comfortable post-work life style. You understand the value of building passive income. Traditionally that is accomplished through dividends of reliable companies, but are now accomplished a variety of ways. Keep in mind the way you are asking this question opens you to many scams.",
"Market rate of return averages about 8% annually (sometimes more, sometimes less or negative). To get 30k monthly -- even taking that as pretax -- you're talking about 360k yearly. Divide that by 0.08 and you need to have savings of 4.5 million--- and really you should double that for safety.. Tl;dr: forget it. Added thought: If you really have $20k/month coming in, you really have no business asking the Internet for advice. Hire a professional financial advisor (not a broker, someone who is paid a flat fee for their expertise and has no incentives to give you less-than-optimal advice). . The money they will save/make for you will more than pay for their hire.",
"\"Contribute as much as you can. When do you want to retire and how much income do you think you'll need? A $1M portfolio yielding 5% will yield $50,000/year. Do some research about how to build a portfolio... this site is a good start, but check out books on retirement planning and magazines like Money and Kiplinger. If you don't speak \"\"money\"\" or are intimidated by investing, look for a fee-based financial advisor whom you are comfortable with.\"",
"Yes, it's possible. However, it's not likely, at least not for most people. Earning a million is not that difficult, but when you talk about billions that's an entirely different story. I think the key point that you're missing is leverage. It's common knowledge that Warren Buffett likes to have a huge cash warchest at his disposal and does not soak himself in debt. However, in his early years Buffett did not get to where he's at by investing only his own money. He ran what was basically a hedge fund and leveraged other peoples' money in the market. This magnified his returns quite substantially. If you look at Buffett's investments, you'll notice that he had a handful of HUGE wins in his portfolio and many more just mediocre success stories. Not everything he invested in turned to gold, but his portfolio was rocketed by the large wins that continued to compound over many years because he held them for so long. Also, consider the fact that Buffett's wealth is largely measured in Berkshire stock. This stock is a reflection of anticipated future earnings by the company. There's no way that alone could turn $10k in 1950 into $50B today... could it? Why not? Take the two founders of Google for example, they became billionaires in short order when Google had it's IPO and basically started in a garage with very little cash. Of course, they didn't do this by buying and selling shares. There are many paths to earnings enormous sums of money like the people you're talking about, but one characteristic that the richest people in society seem to have in common is that they all own their own companies.",
"Millionaire, Shmillionaire! Let's do this calculation Bruno Mars style (I wanna be a Billionaire...) If my calculations are correct, in the above scenario, at age 80, you would have more than a billion in the bank, after taxes.",
"\"Other people have already demonstrated the effect of compound interest to the question. I'd like to add a totally different perspective. Note that the article says if you can follow this simple recipe throughout your working career, you will almost certainly beat out most professional investors [...] you'll likely accumulate enough savings to retire comfortably. (the latter point may be the more practical mark than the somewhat arbitrary million (rupees? dollars?) My point here is that the group of people who do put away a substantial fraction of their (lower) early wages and keep them invested for decades show (at least) two traits that will make a very substantial difference to the average (western) person. They may be correlated, though: people who are not tempted or able to resist the temptation to spend (almost) their whole income may be more likely to not touch their savings or investments. (In my country, people like to see themselves as \"\"world champions in savings\"\", but if you talk to people you find that many people talk about saving for the next holidays [as opposed to saving for retirement].) Also, if you get going this way long before you are able to retire you reach a relative level of independence that can give you a much better position in wage negotiations as you do not need to take the first badly paid job that comes along in order to survive but can afford to wait and look and negotiate for a better job. Psychologically, it also seems to be easier to consistently keep the increase in your spending below the increase of your income than to reduce spending once you overspent. There are studies around that find homeowners on average substantially more wealthy than people who keep living in rental appartments (I'm mostly talking Germany, were renting is normal and does not imply poverty - but similar findings have also been described for the US) even though someone who'd take the additional money the homeowner put into their home over the rent and invested in other ways would have yielded more value than the home. The difference is largely attributed to the fact that buying and downpaying a home enforces low spending and saving, and it is found that after some decades of downpayment homeowners often go on to spend less than their socio-economic peers who rent. The group that is described in this question is one that does not even need the mental help of enforcing the savings. In addition, if this is not about the fixed million but about reaching a level of wealth that allows you to retire: people who have practised moderate spending habits as adults for decades are typically also much better able to get along with less in retirement than others who did went with a high consumption lifestyle instead (e.g. the homeowners again). My estimate is that these effects compound in a way that is much more important than the \"\"usual\"\" compounding effect of interest - and even more if you look at interest vs. inflation, i.e. the buying power of your investment for everyday life. Note that they also cause the group in question to be more resilient in case of a market crash than the average person with about no savings (note that market crashes lead to increased risk of job loss). Slightly off topic: I do not know enough how difficult saving 50 USD out of 50 USD in Pakistan is - and thus cannot comment whether the savings effort called for in the paper is equivalent/higher/lower than what you achieve. I find that trying to keep to student life (i.e. spending that is within the means of a student) for the first professional years can help kick-starting a nest egg (European experience - again, not sure whether applicable in Pakistan).\"",
"Ramsey promotes Growth mutual funds and says he can screen out examples of good funds with a solid history of 10% returns in a couple of minutes on Morningstar. The 12% in the video is fairly unrealistic, but 10% or 8% are realistic, especially when you buy into the market every month at all levels rather than chasing winners (buying high). At 10% you will still get $3 million in 40 years, and at 8% you'll get $1.5 million. You need to make sure you include reinvestment of dividends as well as mere price appreciation in these calculations of returns on investment. So yes, you could probably drive really nice cars this way without breaking the bank. Like any financial endeavor, this requires hard work, patience and discipline. The actual work in this case would be fairly minimal in comparison to the patience and discipline: If you get really lucky, you might end up with millions of dollars 40 years from now. If a health disaster, job loss, children's college, etc. strikes then you it might save you from financial ruin. Both are better than the rat race I agree his predictions are too rosy, but this ad is an emotional sales pitch designed to change goals and behavior. Compare it to the psychology and unrealistic claims in some of the auto commercials you see on TV.",
"Unfortunately, in this market environment your goal is not very realistic. At the moment real interest rates are negative (and have been for some time). This means if you invest in something that will pay out for sure, you can expect to earn less than you lose through inflation. In other words, if you save your $50K, when you withdraw it in a few years you will be able to buy less with it then than you can now. You can invest in risky securities like stocks or mutual funds. These assets can easily generate 10% per year, but they can (and do) also generate negative returns. This means you can and likely will lose money after investing in them. There's an even better chance that you will make money, but that varies year by year. If you invest in something that expects to make 10% per year (meaning it makes that much on average), it will be extremely risky and many years it will lose money, perhaps a lot of it. That's the way risk is. Are you comfortable taking on large amounts of risk (good chances of losing a lot of your money)? You could make some kind of real investment. $50K is a little small to buy real estate, but you may be able to find something like real estate that can generate income, especially if you use it as a down payment to borrow from the bank. There is risk in being a landlord as well, of course, and a lot of work. But real investments like that are a reasonable alternative to financial markets for some people. Another possibility is to just keep it in your bank account or something else with no risk and take $5000 out per year. It will only last you 10 years that way, but if you are not too young, that will be a significant portion of your life. If you are young, you can work and add to it. Unfortunately, financial markets don't magically make people rich. If you make a lot of money in the market, it's because you took a risk and got lucky. If you make a comfortable amount with no risk, it means you invested in a market environment very different from what we see today. --------- EDIT ------------ To get an idea of what risk free investments (after inflation) earn per year at various horizons see this table at the treasury. At the time of this writing you would have to invest in a security with maturity almost 10 years in order to break even with inflation. Beating it by 10% or even 3% per year with minimal risk is a pipe dream.",
"The compound annual growth rate of the S&P 500 over the last 20 years is in excess of 7% annually. http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm Several index funds mirror the S&P 500 such as, but not limited to SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust. An annual growth rate of 7% on a $5,000,000 portfolio implies gains of $350,000 per year, every year investing passively. Most of us can live reasonably well on $350,000 per year! I will argue that the chances of all 500 companies in the S&P 500 going bankrupt or nearly so at once is slight and less likely than the same for Google.",
"If you are looking to begin living off the money now, then Dheer's answer is correct - it is not possible. However, if you are looking to grow that money (and potentially additional money added at later dates), then you could make this work. 250 a month corresponds to 3000 per year. A first approximation is that you will need a diversified portfolio of 20-25x that amount (60k-75k) to get the required return. This approximation is based on the rule of thumb for how much life insurance to buy. Therefore you need to determine how to grow the 4k you currently have into 60-75k. These numbers, however, are not adjusted for inflation. In the US I would like put the long term inflation adjust diversified market return at 4% per year (your money doubles about every 18 years). So your best approach if you have time is a diversified portfolio with rebalancing and adding additional money each year.",
"\"I get the sense that this is a \"\"the world is unfair; there's no way I can succeed\"\" question, so let's back up a few steps. Income is the starting point to all of this. That could be a job (or jobs), or running your own business. From there, you can do four things with your income: Obviously Spend and Give do not provide a monetary return - they give a return in other ways, such as quality of life, helping others, etc. Save gives you reserves for future expenses, but it does not provide growth. So that just leaves Invest. You seem to be focused on stock market investments, which you are right, take a very long time to grow, although you can get returns of up to 12% depending on how much volatility you're willing to absorb. But there are other ways to invest. You can invest in yourself by getting a degree or other training to improve your income. You can invest by starting a business, which can dramatically increase your income (in fact, this is the most common path to \"\"millionaire\"\" in the US, and probably in other free markets). You can invest by growing your own existing business. You can invest in someone else's business. You can invest in real estate, that can provide both value appreciation and rental income. So yes, \"\"investment\"\" is a key aspect of wealth building, but it is not limited to just stock market investment. You can also look at reducing expenses in order to have more money to invest. Also keep in mind that investment with higher returns come with higher risk (both in terms of volatility and risk of complete loss), and that borrowing money to invest is almost always unwise, since the interest paid directly reduces the return without reducing the risk.\"",
"\"What percent of my salary should I save? is tightly coupled with its companion, What size “nest egg” should my husband and I have, and by what age? Interestingly, Mr.Christer's answer, 10%, is the number that plugs into the equation that I reference. Jay's 25X rule is part of this. We start with the assumption that one's required income at retirement will be 80% of their pre-retirement income. That's high by some observations, low by others. A quick look at the expenses that go away in retirement - The above can total 35-40% It would be great if it ended there, but there are costs that go up. The above extra spending is tough to nail down, after all, you knew what you spent, and what's going away, but the new items? Crapshoot. (For non-native speakers - this refers to a game with dice, meaning a random event) Again, referencing Mr Christer's answer \"\"financial planners whom you could pay to give you a very accurate number,\"\" I'm going to disagree with that soundbyte. Consider, when retirement is 30 years away, you don't know much If I can offer an analogy. I once had the pleasure of hearing Jim Lovell (The astronaut played by Tom Hanks in Apollo 13) give a speech. He said that for the first 99% of the trip to the moon, they simply aimed ahead of their target, never directly at the moon. In this manner, I suggest that with so many variables, accuracy is impossible, it's a moving target. Start young, take the 10% MrC offered, and keep saving. Every few years, stop and see if you are on target, if not, bump the number a bit. Better to turn 50 and find that after a good decade you've reached your number and can drop your savings to a minimum, perhaps just to capture a 401(k) match, than to turn 50 and realize you've undersaved and need to bump to an unsustainable level. Imagine planning ahead in 1999. You've seen 2 great decades of returns, and even realizing that 18%/yr couldn't continue, you plan for a below average 7%, this would double your 1999 balance in 10 years. Instead you saw zero return. For a decade. In sum, when each variable has an accuracy of +/-50% you are not going to combine them all and get a number with even 10% accuracy (as if MrC were wrong, but the pro would tell you 11% is right for you?). This is as absurd as packaging up a bunch of C rated debt, and thinking that enough of this paper would yield a final product that was AAA.\"",
"\"Invest in a high quality dividend paying group of stocks. Look up \"\"stock aristocrats\"\" to find longterm quality stocks that have regularly increased their dividends for over 20'years. 10'years is a safe period of time to invest in stocks. If you had bought stocks at their hight in 2007 and kept them through the 40% decline thru 2008 and 2009 and held on to them for 10 years until 2017, you would have earned a 40 % increase from when you purchased them. That is pretty much a worst case scenerio. If you had invested in dividend paying stocks and had earned an additional 2.5% per year, you would have exceeded your 5% goal. The lifetime yearly return of the stock market is 10%. Time is the only downside, but with ten years, you are almost certainly immune.\"",
"Yes, you should be saving for retirement. There are a million ideas out there on how much is a reasonable amount, but I think most advisor would say at least 6 to 10% of your income, which in your case is around $15,000 per year. You give amounts in dollars. Are you in the U.S.? If so, there are at least two very good reasons to put money into a 401k or IRA rather than ordinary savings or investments: (a) Often your employer will make matching contributions. 50% up to 6% of your salary is pretty common, i.e. if you put in 6% they put in 3%. If either of your employers has such a plan, that's an instant 50% profit on your investment. (b) Any profits on money invested in an IRA or 401k are tax free. (Effectively, the mechanics differ depending on the type of account.) So if you put $100,000 into an IRA today and left it there until you retire 30 years later, it would likely earn something like $600,000 over that time (assuming 7% per year growth). So you'd pay takes on your initial $100,000 but none on the $600,000. With your income you are likely in a high tax bracket, that would make a huge difference. If you're saying that you just can't find a way to put money away for retirement, may I suggest that you cut back on your spending. I understand that the average American family makes about $45,000 per year and somehow manages to live on that. If you were to put 10% of your income toward retirement, then you would be living on the remaining $171,000, which is still almost 4 times what the average family has. Yeah, I make more than $45,000 a year too and there are times when I think, How could anyone possibly live on that? But then I think about what I spend my money on. Did I really need to buy two new computer printers the last couple of months? I certainly could do my own cleaning rather than hiring a cleaning lady to come in twice a month. Etc. A tough decision to make can be paying off debt versus putting money into an investment account. If the likely return on investment is less than the interest rate on the loan, you should certainly concentrate on paying off the loan. But if the reverse is true, then you need to decide between likely returns and risk.",
"Excellent responses so far. Because I am a math guy, I wanted to stress the power of compounding. It's great that you are thinking about saving and your future when you are so young. Definitely be displined about your saving and investing. You would be surprised how just a small amount can compound over the years. For example, if you were to start with $5000 and contribute $100 per month. Assuming that you can get 5% ROR (hard in today's world but shouldn't be down the road), your final principal after 28 years (when you are 50 years old) will be over $90,000, which of only $38,000 is what you contributed yourself. The rest is interest. You can play with the numbers here: http://www.math.com/students/calculators/source/compound.htm",
"\"I realize that \"\"a million dollars\"\" is a completely arbitrary figure, but it's one people fixate on. Perhaps folks just meant it's getting easier because inflation has made it a far less lofty sum than when the word \"\"millionaire\"\" was coined. Your point is correct - it' relatively easier as the 1 million dollar nowadays is no where as valuable as compared in the old days after the inflation adjustment. However the way to achieve that is easier said than done: The most possible way is to run your own business (assuming you will make profit). For most of the people running a job to earn a living - the job income is the biggest factor. Being extremely frugal wouldn't help much if you don't maximize your income potential. Earning a million dollar through investment? How much capitals are you able to invest in? 5k? 50k? 500k? I see no way to earn 1 million with 5k from investment, I wouldn't call it easy. This again depends on your income. With better income of course you could dedicate a larger portion to investment, without exposing too much risk and having to affect your way of life. (3) Invest some part of your income over a long period of time and let the stock market do the work I'd say this is more geared towards beating the inflation and earn a few extra bucks instead of getting very rich (this is being very relative). Just a word of cautions, the mindset of investment being the shortcut to wealth is very dangerous and often leads to speculative behavior.\"",
"The 3.7% annual increase is probably a little high. Current averages are about 2.8-3%. This leads to the final numbers being a bit inflated, but it still gets the point across. I know too many people my age that aren't invested, yet have not insignificant savings.",
"It's important to have both long term goals and milestones along the way. In an article I wrote about saving 15% of one's income, I offered the following table: This table shows savings starting at age 20 (young, I know, so shift 2 years out) and ending at 60 with 18-1/2 year's of income saved due to investment returns. The 18-1/2 results in 74% of one's income replaced at retirement if we follow the 4% rule. One can adjust this number, assuming Social Security will replace 30%, and that spending will go down in retirement, you might need to save less than this shows. What's important is that as a starting point, it shows 2X income saved by age 30. Perhaps 1X is more reasonable. You are at just over .5X and proposing to spend nearly half of that on a single purchase. Financial independence means to somehow create an income you can live on without the need to work. There are many ways to do it, but it usually starts with a high saving rate. Your numbers suggest a good income now, but maybe this is only recently, else you'd have over $200K in the bank. I suggest you read all you can about investments and the types of retirement accounts, including 401(k) (if you have that available to you), IRA, and Roth IRA. The details you offer don't allow me to get much more specific than this.",
"\"The standard interpretation of \"\"can I afford to retire\"\" is \"\"can I live on just the income from my savings, never touching the principal.\"\" To estimate that, you need to make reasonable guesses about the return you expect, the rate of inflation, your real costs -- remember to allow for medical emergencies, major house repairs, and the like when determining you average needs, not to mention taxes if this isn't all tax-sheltered! -- and then build in a safety factor. You said liquid assets, and that's correct; you don't want to be forced into a reverse mortgage by anything short of a disaster. An old rule of thumb was that -- properly invested -- you could expect about 4% real return after subtracting inflation. That may or may not still be correct, but it makes an easy starting point. If we take your number of $50k/year (today's dollars) and assume you've included all the tax and contingency amounts, that means your nest egg needs to be 50k/.04, or $1,250,000. (I'm figuring I need at least $1.8M liquid assets to retire.) The $1.5M you gave would, under this set of assumptions, allow drawing up to $60k/year, which gives you some hope that your holdings would mot just maintain themselves but grow, giving you additional buffer against emergencies later. Having said that: some folks have suggested that, given what the market is currently doing, it might be wiser to assume smaller average returns. Or you may make different assumptions about inflation, or want a larger emergency buffer. That's all judgement calls, based on your best guesses about the economy in general and your investments in particular. A good financial advisor (not a broker) will have access to better tools for exploring this, using techniques like monte-carlo simulation to try to estimate both best and worst cases, and can thus give you a somewhat more reliable answer than this rule-of-thumb approach. But that's still probabilities, not promises. Another way to test it: Find out how much an insurance company would want as the price of an open-ended inflation-adjusted $50k-a-year annuity. Making these estimates is their business; if they can't make a good guess, nobody can. Admittedly they're also factoring the odds of your dying early into the mix, but on the other hand they're also planning on making a profit from the deal, so their number might be a reasonable one for \"\"self-insuring\"\" too. Or might not. Or you might decide that it's worth buying an annuity for part or all of this, paying them to absorb the risk. In the end, \"\"ya pays yer money and takes yer cherce.\"\"\"",
"You can never depend ONLY on pension. You must get financial education and invest your money. I recommend you to read The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham...it's the bible of Warren Buffet. Besides, you don't need to be a Billionaire for retiring and be happy. I recommend you to get education in ETFs. I quote The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham p. 131. According to Ibboston Associates, the leading financial research firm, if you had invested $12,000 in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index at the beginning of september 1929, 10 years later you would have had only $7,223 left. But if you had started with a paltry $100 and simply invested another $100 every single month, then by August 1939, your money would have grown to $15,571! That's the power of disciplined buying-even in the face of the Great Depression and the worst bear market of all time. You are still young to make even bolder investments. But seriously you can never depend ONLY on pension. You won't regret learning how to invest your money, it doesn't matter if it's in the stock market, real state market, whatever market... Knowing what to do with your money is priceless. I hope this helps. Happy profits!",
"\"I wrote Retirement Savings Ratio some time ago and 15% seemed the sweet spot. The 15% is 10% saved and 5% match, in my mind. The reason I link is to show a spreadsheet that shares my approach to the analysis. You list a huge number of things to think about, all great. I'm near Duff's view although I shoot for 20X final income so 4% of that is an 80% replacement. There's nothing magic about 80. If social security exists, it actually drops the required 80 from you to the 60 or so Duff lists, so we align. The 'problems' with my sheet - no one gets exact 3% raises for 43 years, so one can go in and change that, maybe higher early on, then slow it down. Returns are 8% every year, so one must go to the sheet or their own plan and reassess how they are doing each year. Disclosure - we are now at 14X our income with a goal of 25 to replace 100%. So we need a cumulative 80% growth (as in S&P at 2500) or the years of deposits to get there. I am nearing 50. Let me pick one of your questions - \"\"Your expenses go down at retirement, stay the same, or go up?\"\" - this is the $64K question. the 80% is an average guess. The general assumption is in this range. If we downsized right after the kid goes to college, we could retire on far less. So, to wrap up, online calculators and spreadsheets only go so far. Your questions are dead on. A planner should ask every one of these questions before assuming any ratio. Edit - on re-read I am blown away by the list of questions you have here. It's great. And it shows how there's risk no matter what.\"",
"It is worth noting first that Real Estate is by no means passive income. The amount of effort and cost involved (maintenance, legal, advertising, insurance, finding the properties, ect.) can be staggering and require a good amount of specialized knowledge to do well. The amount you would have to pay a management company to do the work for you especially with only a few properties can wipe out much of the income while you keep the risk. However, keshlam's answer still applies pretty well in this case but with a lot more variability. One million dollars worth of property should get you there on average less if you do much of the work yourself. However, real estate because it is so local and done in ~100k chunks is a lot more variable than passive stocks and bonds, for instance, as you can get really lucky or really unlucky with location, the local economy, natural disasters, tenants... Taking out loans to get you to the million worth of property faster but can add a lot more risk to the process. Including the risk you wouldn't have any money on retirement. Investing in Real Estate can be a faster way to retirement than some, but it is more risky than many and definitely not passive.",
"Well, sorry to hear about your struggles! For your question, $15,000 is sadly not enough money to build a career on investing for yourself, if you’re referring to the stock market. Unfortunately you need I believe $25,000 to even have a day trading account, plus the best investors in the world probably net 5-10% which is only tops $2,500 per year! On the other hand, $15,000 maybe you could use an FHA loan and buy a small condo that you could renovate and flip. FHA lenders only require 3.5% down plus closing costs. I would need more information on what type of investing you’re referring to.",
"Put in the maximum you can into the 401(k), the limit should be $16,500 so long as the highly compensated rules don't kick in. Since you cannot deduct the traditional IRA, it's a great option to deposit to a traditional IRA and immediately convert that balance to a Roth account. That puts you at $21,500/yr saved, nearly 18%. There's nothing stopping you from investing outside these accounts. A nice ETF with low expenses, investing in a stock index (I am thinking SPY for the S&P 500) is great to accumulate long term.",
"Assume you will need to retire with a few million in the bank to maintain an average lifestyle. I had an analysis done for me (at 33) that shows my family, to keep it up lifestyle will need to have 3.4MM in the bank so in retirement I can draw down enough cash. This number reflects inflation. Now that you are 18, if you make consistent but small savings you will achieve that financial stability. Try to make it automatic so you aren't tempted to spend. There is more you can do but since you have such an early start, you can do less than most people and still have plenty. Even thought it is great you are thinking about it, don't forget to be young, move around lots and have fun. Just pay yourself first and have fun second. Also, thank whoever guided you to this point. If you did it all on your own, be proud.",
"A good general rule is to save 15% of your income for retirement. As for where you put it: Put as much as it takes to maximize your employer match into your 401(k), but no more. The employer match is free money, and you can't beat free money If you still haven't put in 15%, put the rest into a Roth IRA. By historical standards, taxes are pretty low today. They are almost certainly going to be higher in retirement, especially since you likely won't have the deductions in retirement that you may have now (kids, mortgage, etc). If you've maxed our the allowed contribution for your Roth and still haven't saved 15%, put the rest in a traditional IRA.",
"In addition to the other excellent answers here, check out Mr. Money Mustache's site, it's based in the US but the basics still hold here in the UK. Another great site is the Monevator which is UK based and gives some great information on passive investing. Well done on getting to this point at your age - you've got plenty of time for the miracle of compound interest to work for you. EDIT: Once you have any existing debts paid off, take a look at passive/index investing. This could be a good way to make your £150 work for you by capturing the gains of the stock market. Invest it long-term (buy and hold) to make the most of the compound interested effect and over time that money will become something substantial - especially if you can increase payments over time as your income increases. You could also look at reducing your outgoings as recommended on the Mustache site linked above so you can increase your monthly investment amount.",
"I would focus first on maxing out your RRSPs (or 401k) each year, and once you've done that, try to put another 10% of your income away into unregistered long term growth savings. Let's say you're 30 and you've been doing that since you graduated 7 years ago, and maybe you averaged 8% p.a. return and an average of $50k per year salary (as a round number). I would say you should have 60k to 120k in straight up investments around age 30. If that's the case, you're probably well on your way to a very comfortable retirement.",
"One opinion related to savings is to save 30% of your take home salary every month, split the amount into two parts depending on your age (29) one part would be 30% of 30% and another 70% of 30%. Take the 70% and buy blue chip stock and take the 30% and buy govt. bonds. Each 10 years adjust the percentages at 40, 40% on bonds and 60% on stock. Only cash out on the day you retire, otherwise ignore all market/economic movements. With this and the statutory savings (employment retirement) you should be ok.",
"The usual, but controversial, answer to this question is a 4% withdrawal rate. This means a net worth of ($5000 * 12 months ) / 4%, i.e., $1,500,000 If you want to play with the numbers, based on historical data, you can use the FIRECalc simulator.",
"\"One common rule of thumb: you can probably get 4% or better returns on your investments ('\"\"typical market rate of return is 8%, derate to allow for inflation and off years). Figure out what kind of income you will want in retirement and divide by 0.04 to get the savings you need to accumulate to support that. This doesn't allow for the fact that your needs are also going to increase with inflation; you can make a guess at that and use an inflated needs estimate. Not sophisticated, not precise, but it's a quick and dirty ballpark estimate. And sometimes it's surprisingly close to what a proper model would say.\"",
"10% seems to be a little bit too optimistic, but 5%-8% annually on average is doable. 1% is way too little, you're doing something wrong, unless you mean real return (i.e.: after adjustment for inflation), and even then it's not too high. At any given year it may be easy or difficult, but the point is that we're talking about long term averages. For example, if you look at the DJI for the last 30 years, you'll see a rise of 1300% (give or take), which annually is ~40%. In the last 3 years the rise is even steeper, but in the last week - it is negative. So it depends on your time line and the way you manage your investments. You've got to balance between stocks and bonds and cash, but even if you park your money in cash you can get more than 1% right now (Capitol One on-line savings is 1.15%), and that's with the lowest rates ever, so getting 1% over time does mean that you're doing something wrong IMHO.",
"Deposit $3,500 each month in a brokerage account and invest that money across a handful of diversified index funds. Rebalance those investments every quarter. The hard part is coming up with $3,500 each month; this is where your budget comes in.",
"Start as soon as you can and make your saving routine. Start with whatever you feel comfortable with and be consistent. Increase that amount with raises, income gains, and whenever you want.",
"\"The power of compounding interest and returns is an amazing thing. Start educating yourself about investing, and do it -- there are great Q&As on this site, numerous books (I recommend \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\", tools for small investors (like Sharebuilder.com) and other resources out there to get you started. Your portfolio doesn't need to include every dime you have either. But you do need to develop the discipline to save money -- even if that savings is $20 while you're in school. How you split between cash/deposit account savings and other investment vehicles is a decision that needs to make sense to you.\"",
"If you want to retire in 7 years at age 35 and only currently have 150k, and you need to ask this question of how to invest your money (risk free), then you will not be retiring at age 35 nor buying your house. It is possible to do (but not risk free - in fact you will need to take quite a bit of risk) but you would need to have a detailed plan about how you would go about to achieve this goal, what assets you would be investing in, and what risk management you would have in place. If you have to ask this question all you have is a goal but no plan. You probably will need to do plenty of research in the types of investment you prefer and develop a plan to take you to your destination. This could take you a year or 10 years, depending on how motivated you are in acheiving your goals.",
"At 1.4 Million, you can definately afford a professional advisor who would give you the best advice taking into account all your goals and risk appetite.",
"To get rich in a short time, it's more likely what you want to do is go into business. You could go into a non-investment business such as opening a restaurant or starting a tech company, of course. Warren Buffett was working in investing, which is quite a bit different than just buying stocks: The three ways to get rich investing I can think of are: I think the maximum real (after-inflation) return you can really count on over a lot of years is in the 5-6% range at most, maybe less. Here's a post where David Merkel argues 3-4% (assuming cash interest is close to zero real return): http://alephblog.com/2009/07/15/the-equity-premium-is-no-longer-a-puzzle/ At that rate you can double every 10-15 years. Any higher rate is probably risking much lower returns. I often post this argument against that on investment questions: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ Agree with you that lots of people seem to think they can make up for not saving money by picking a winning investment. Lots of people also use the lottery as a retirement strategy. I'm not sure this is totally irrational, if for some reason someone just can't save. But I'm sure it will fail for almost all the people who try it.",
"If your goal is to have a 400K net worth, in 11 years, and you invest 2144 the entire time you will need a rate of return of at least 6.4%. This is assuming that you have zero net worth now and it does not consider your house. Obviously the house will be worth some amount, and the mortgage balance will go down. However, it cannot really be calculated with the details provided. It seems like your risk tolerance is low. You may want to head over to Bogleheads.org and look into their asset allocation model. They typically site about a 7% compounded growth rate which will more than meet your goals. They probably have information for European investors that map to the funds that we use here in the US. Keep in mind, during this time you will likely receive raises, if you start out assuming you will hit the 400-500k mark, and stick to the plan, you will likely blow that goal away. Also keep in mind the three legs to wealth building: giving some, spending some, and investing some. Your question is addressing the investing portion make sure you are also enjoying your money by spending some on yourself; and, others benefit from your prosperity. Giving to causes you deem worthy is a key component to wealth building that is often overlooked by those interested in investing.",
"Establish good saving and spending habits. Build up your savings so that when you do buy a car, you can pay cash. Make spending decisions, especially for housing, transportation and entertainment, that allow you to save a substantial portion of your income. The goal is to get yourself to a place where you have enough net worth that the return on your assets is greater than the amount you can earn by working. (BTW, this is basically what I did. I put my two sons through top colleges on my dime and retired six years ago at the age of 56).",
"If you are going to work on making as much money as humanly possible, then you ought to consider investing in the market. [Compound Stock Earnings](http://www.compoundstockearnings.com) agrees that investing in stocks is a fantastic technique to acquire prosperity on your own. Believe it or not, it’s the greatest source of wealth in the history of the world. For that reason, you need to ensure that you get started at the earliest opportunity.",
"For a young person with good income, 50k sitting in a savings account earning nothing is really bad. You're losing money because of inflation, and losing on the growth potential of investing. Please rethink your aversion to retirement accounts. You will make more money in the long run through lower taxes by taking advantage of these accounts. At a minimum, make a Roth IRA contribution every year and max it out ($5500/yr right now). Time is of the essence! You have until April 15th to make your 2014 contribution! Equities (stocks) do very well in the long run. If you don't want to actively manage your portfolio, there is nothing wrong (and you could do a lot worse) than simply investing in a low-fee S&P 500 index fund.",
"Your attitude is great, but be careful to temper your (awesome) ambition with a dose of reality. Saving is investing is great, the earlier the better, and seeing retirement at a young age with smooth lots of life's troubles; saving is smart and we all know it. But as a college junior, be honest with yourself. Don't you want to screw around and play with some of that money? Your first time with real income, don't you want to blow it on a big TV, vacation, or computer? Budget out those items with realistic costs. See the pros and cons of spending that money keeping in mind the opportunity cost. For example, when I was in college, getting a new laptop for $2000 (!) was easily more important to me than retirement. I don't regret that. I do regret buying my new truck too soon and borrowing money to do it. These are judgment calls. Here is the classic recipe: Adjust the numbers or businesses to your personal preferences. I threw out suggestions so you can research them and get an idea of what to compare. And most importantly of all. DO NOT GET INTO CREDIT CARD DEBT. Use credit if you wish, but do not carry a balance.",
"James, money saved over the long term will typically beat inflation. There are many articles that discuss the advantage of starting young, and offer: A 21 year old who puts away $1000/yr for 10 years and stops depositing will be ahead of the 31 yr old who starts the $1000/yr deposit and continues through retirement. If any of us can get a message to our younger selves (time travel, anyone?) we would deliver two messages: Start out by living beneath your means, never take on credit card debt, and save at least 10%/yr as soon as you start working. I'd add, put half your raises to savings until your rate is 15%. I can't comment on the pension companies. Here in the US, our accounts are somewhat guaranteed, not for value, but against theft. We invest in stocks and bonds, our funds are not mingled with the assets of the investment plan company.",
"\"For what it's worth, the distribution I'm currently using is roughly ... with about 2/3 of the money sitting in my 401(k). I should note that this is actually considered a moderately aggressive position. I need to phone my advisor (NOT a broker, so they aren't biased toward things which are more profitable for them) and check whether I've gotten close enough to retirement that I should readjust those numbers. Could I do better? Maybe, at higher risk and higher fees that would be likely to eat most of the improved returns. Or by spending far more time micromanaging my money than I have any interest in. I've validated this distribution using the various stochastic models and it seems to work well enough that I'm generally content with it. (As I noted in a comment elsewhere, many of us will want to get up into this range before we retire -- I figure that if I hit $1.8M I can probably sustain my lifestyle solely on the income, despite expected inflation, and thus be safely covered for life -- so this isn't all that huge a chunk of cash by today's standards. Cue Daffy Duck: \"\"I'm rich! I'm wealthy! I'm comfortably well off!\"\" -- $2M, these days, is \"\"comfortably well off.\"\")\"",
"So my Question is this, in reality is investment in equities like the stock market even remotely resemble the type of growth one would expect if investing the same money in an account with compounding interest? Generally no as there is a great deal of volatility when it comes to investing in stocks that isn't well represented by simply taking the compounded annual growth rate and assuming things always went up and never went down. This is adding in the swings that the market will take that at times may be a bit of a rude surprise to some people. Are all these prognosticators vastly underestimating how much savers need to be socking away by overstating what is realistic in terms of growth in investment markets? Possibly but not probably. Until we know definitively what the returns are from various asset classes, I'm not sure I'd want to claim that people need to save a ton more. I'll agree that the model misses how wide the swings are, not necessarily that the averages are too low or overstated.",
"You asked some direct questions, here are some direct answers: 10% of your salary is a popular rule of thumb. An IRA account is something to consider, you can open one with any of the major discount brokers and select an S&P 500 index fund for your investment. You can let it sit. That's the beauty of an index fund, it simply matches the market and you don't have to worry about trying to beat the market because you ARE the market! The average annual return for the S&P 500 Index has been around 10% (since inception). That's no guarantee, and some years are more or less and up or down. Over the long run, it goes up.",
"I believe the following formula provides a reasonable approximation. You need to fill in the following variables: The average annual return you need on investing the 15% = (((MP5 - MP20) * 12) + (.0326 * .95 * PP / Y)) / (PP *.15) Example assuming an interest rate of 4% on a 100K home: If you invest the $15K you'll break even if you make a 9.86% return per year on average. Here's the breakdown per year using these example numbers: Note this does not consider taxes.",
"For a more philosophical way to approach this, consider money saved as the opposite of money owed: This philosophy works for things which you may be able to borrow for (computer, car, house), but also for things you can't borrow for (retirement, giving to your kids, etc.). As others have mentioned, the 10% suggestion is for retirement, but the actual number depends on your lifestyle. As you can see in this chart, saving 10% of your income means you'll need to work for 51.4 years.",
"With a 1/4 million you should be looking at staying fully invested and doing income draw down you can safely take 3 or 4 % Basing your retirement income 100% on cash investments is very risky I can remember when inflation hit 15% in the UK and it has been at similar levels in the usa around 14% in 79.",
"The Finance functions in spreadsheet software will calculate this for you. The basic functions are for Rate, Payment, PV (present value), FV (Future value), and NPER, the number of periods. The single calculation faces a couple issues, dealing with inflation, and with a changing deposit. If you plan to save for 30 years, and today are saving $500/mo, for example, in ten years I hope the deposits have risen as well. I suggest you use a spreadsheet, a full sheet, to let you adjust for this. Last, there's a strange effect that happens. Precision without accuracy. See the results for 30-40 years of compounding today's deposit given a return of 6%, 7%, up to 10% or so. Your forecast will be as weak as the variable with the greatest range. And there's more than one, return, inflation, percent you'll increase deposits, all unknown, and really unknowable. The best advice I can offer is to save till it hurts, plan for the return to be at the lower end of the range, and every so often, re-evaluate where you stand. Better to turn 40, and see you are on track to retire early, than to plan on too high a return, and at 60 realize you missed it, badly. As far as the spreadsheet goes, this is for the Google Sheets - Type this into a cell =nper(0.01,-100,0,1000,0) It represents 1% interest per month, a payment (deposit) of $100, a starting value of $0, a goal of $1000, and interest added at month end. For whatever reason, a starting balance must be entered as a negative number, for example - =nper(0.01,-100,-500,1000,0) Will return 4.675, the number of months to get you from $500 to $1000 with a $100/mo deposit and 1%/mo return. Someone smarter than I (Chris Degnen comes to mind) can explain why the starting balance needs to be entered this way. But it does show the correct result. As confirmed by my TI BA-35 financial calculator, which doesn't need $500 to be negative.",
"In addition to what others have said, I think it is important to consider that government retirement assistance (whatever it is called in each instance) is basically a promise that can be revoked. I talked to a retired friend of mine just yesterday and we got onto that subject; she mentioned that when she was young, the promise was for 90% of one's pay, paid by the government after retiring. It is very different today. Yes, you can gamble that you won't need the saved money, and thus decide not to save anything. What then if you do end up needing the money you did not set aside, but rather spent? You are just now graduating college, and assuming of course that you get a decently-paying job, are likely going to have loads more money than you are used to. If you make an agreement with yourself to set aside even just 10-15% of the difference in income right from the start, that is going to grow into a pretty sizable nest egg by the time you approach retirement age. Then, you will have the option of continuing to work (maybe part-time) or quitting in a way you would not have had otherwise. Now I'm going to pull numbers out of thin air, but suppose that you currently have $1000/month net, before expenses, and can get a job that pays $1800/month net starting out. 10-15% of the difference means you'll be saving around $100/month for retirement. In 35 years, assuming no return on investment (pessimistic, but works if returns match inflation) and no pay rises, that will still be over $40K. That's somewhere on the order of $150/month added to your retirement income for 25 years. Multiply with whatever inflation rate you think is likely if you prefer nominal values. It becomes even more noticable if you save a significant fraction of the additional pay; if you save 1/3 of the additional money (note that you still effectively get a 50% raise compared to what you have been living on before), that gives you a net income of $1500/month instead of $1800 ($500/month more rather than $800/month more) which grows into about $110K in 35 years assuming no return on investment. Nearly $400 per month for 25 years. $100 per week is hardly chump change in retirement, and it is still quite realistic for most people to save 30% of the money they did not have before.",
"The really simple answer is that compound interest is compound not linear. Money invested for longer earns more interest, and the sooner you start investing, the longer it has to earn interest. These ideas come out of pension investment where 65 is the usual retirement age and what you invest in the 1st ten years of your pension (or any other compound interest fund) accounts for over 50% of what you will get out. 25 to 65 is forty years and $100 invested at 7% for 40 years is $1400. $100 invested every year for 40 years the pot would be worth just under $20,000. At 30 years, it would be worth under $10,000, and at 20 years it would be worth only $4099. If you double your investment amount every 10 years you would have invested $15700, and the pot would be worth $45,457. Do exactly the same but starting at 35 instead of 25 and your pot would only be worth $14,200.",
"Lets imagine two scenarios: 1) You make 10.4k (40% of total income) yearly contributions to a savings account that earns 1% interest for 10 years. In this scenario, you put in 104k and earned 5.89k in interest, for a total of 109.9k. 2) You make the same 10.4k yearly contribution to an index fund that earns 7% on average for 10 years. In this scenario you put in the same 104k, but earned 49.7k in interest*, for a total of 153.7k. The main advantage is option 1) has more liquidity -- you can get the money out faster. Option 2) requires time to divest any stocks / bonds. So you need enough savings to get you through that divestment period. Imagine another two scenarios where you stop earning income: 1-b) You stop working and have only your 109.9k principal amount in a 1% savings account. If you withdraw 15.6k yearly for your current cost of living, you will run through your savings in 7 years. 2-b) You stop working and have only 20k (2 years of savings) in savings that earns 1% with 153.7k in stocks that earns 7%. If you withdraw your cost of living currently at 15.6k, you will run through your investments in 15 years and your savings in 2 years, for a total of 17 years. The two years of income in savings is extremely generous for how long it starts the divestment process. In summary, invest your money. It wasn't specified what currency we are talking about, but you can easily find access to an investment company no matter where you are in the world. Keep a small amount for a rainy day.",
"\"I'd encourage you to use rules of thumb and back-of-the-envelope. Here are some ideas that could be useful: The problem with any kind of detailed calculations is the number of unknowns: There are some really complex calculators out there, for example see ESPlanner (http://www.esplanner.com/) (caution: horrible user interface, but seemed to work), that will include all kinds of factors and run monte carlo and the whole thing. But in my opinion, it's just as good or better to say save at least 15% of income until you have 25x what you spend, or some other such rule of thumb. Here's my little blog post on savings and investing fwiw: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ Another note, there's sort of an \"\"ideology of how to live\"\" embedded in any retirement recommendation, and you might want to take the time to reflect on that and consciously choose. A book on this topic is Your Money or Your Life by Robin & Dominguez, http://www.amazon.com/Your-Money-Life-Transforming-Relationship/dp/0143115766 which is a sort of radical \"\"you should save everything possible to achieve financial independence as early as possible\"\" argument. I didn't go for their plan, but I think it's thought-provoking. A newer book that may be more appealing is called The Number and it's about your question exactly. It's more designed to get you thinking, while Your Money or Your Life has a particular answer in mind. Both have some math and some rules of thumb, though they aren't focused on that. A kind of general takeaway from these books might be: first think about your expenses. What are you trying to accomplish in life, how would you like to spend your time? And then ask how much money you absolutely need to accomplish that, and focus on accomplishing your goals, spending your time (as much as you can) on what you'd like to spend it on. I'm contrasting this with a generic recommendation to save enough to spend 80% of your income in retirement, which embeds this idea that you should spend as much as possible every year, before and after you retire. Lots of people do like that idea, but it's not a law of the universe or something, it's just one popular approach.\"",
"\"I am pretty sure you could find a number of financial planners whom you could pay to give you a very accurate number, but the rule of thumb I like best is Save a dime of every dollar. 10% (Savings means save for retirement, not vacations.) Here is a nice article from radio personality Clark Howard with some adjustments based on your age: Saving for retirement later in life? If you're getting started saving for retirement later in life, the dime out of every dollar rule won't cut it for you. So for you, The Baltimore Sun has crunched the following numbers: Jayraj has a particularly good and just as simple bit of math. https://money.stackexchange.com/a/30751/91 Your retirement and financial planning should not end with a flat percentage. In fact, the chances that any simple math formula is adequate are very low. My percentages (or Jayraj's simple math) are only starting places. If you are at the point where you are asking \"\"where do I start\"\", starting with this super easy no-brainer approach is great because the key is starting and doing it.\"",
"For your base question, yes. (Barring some major collapse-of-civilization event, but in that case you're screwed anyway :-)) On the individual points: 1) Depends on whether you choose to invest in index-type funds (where profit is mainly expected from price appreciation), or more value-based investing. But either or a mix of the two (my own choice) should show returns above inflation, over the long term. 2) Yes, in the US anyway. You can invest a few hundred dollars at a time, and (with good companies like Vanguard & T. Rowe Price) there are no transaction fees, either for investing or for redeeming. 3) Long-term, it's crash-proof IF you have the self-discipline not to panic-sell at market lows. In my case, my total fund valuation dropped around 40% in '08. I didn't sell anything (and in fact tried to cut spending and invest more), and now I have nearly double what I had before the crash. Bottom line is that it has worked for me. After ~30 years of investing this way without being fanatic about it, I have enough that I could live moderately without working for the rest of my life. Not - and this is where I part company with MMM and most of the FIRE community - that I'd ever want to actually retire. But my modest financial independence gives me the freedom to work at things I like, rather than because I'm worrying about paying bills.",
"In 1929 the Dow Jones Industrial Average peaked at roughly 390 just prior to the Great Depression. It did not return to that level again until 25 years later in 1954. 25 years is a long time to go without any returns, especially if you are a retiree. There is no easy answer with investing. Trying to time the tops and bottoms is widely regarded as a foolhardy endeavor, but whenever you invest you expose yourself to the possibility of this scenario. The only thing I highly recommend is not to base your decision on the historical returns from 1975 to 2000 that the other answers have presented. These returns can be explained by policy changes that many are coming to understand are unsustainable. The growth of our debt, income inequality, and monetary manipulation by central banks are all reasons to be skeptical of future returns.",
"I have a $2500 Roth IRA that I set up 40 years ago...it is worth about $2600. I keep it around for this exact talking point. Compound interest at .1% is outstripped by inflation. I have put away $18k a year in a 401 for 30 years now. It is worth just under $800k. The bankers took the excess with their 2% fee and the GFC. Its all in Vanguard now I cleared +$5m in medium and high end residential real estate in the same period. The first 18 years was sleeping on floors and having cardboard boxes as furniture. Sad really.",
"You can't get there from here. This isn't the right data. Consider the following five-year history: 2%, 16%, 32%, 14%, 1%. That would give a 13% average annual return. Now compare to -37%, 26%, 15%, 2%, 16%. That would give a 4% average annual return. Notice anything about those numbers? Two of them are in both series. This isn't an accident. The first set of five numbers are actual stock market returns from the last five years while the latter five start three years earlier. The critical thing is that five years of returns aren't enough. You'd need to know not just how you can handle a bull market but how you do in a bear market as well. Because there will be bear markets. Also consider whether average annual returns are what you want. Consider what actually happens in the second set of numbers: But if you had had a steady 4% return, you would have had a total return of 21%, not the 8% that would have really happened. The point being that calculating from averages gives misleading results. This gets even worse if you remove money from your principal for living expenses every year. The usual way to compensate for that is to do a 70% stock/30% bond mix (or 75%/25%) with five years of expenses in cash-equivalent savings. With cash-equivalents, you won't even keep up with inflation. The stock/bond mix might give you a 7% return after inflation. So the five years of expenses are more and more problematic as your nest egg shrinks. It's better to live off the interest if you can. You don't know how long you'll live or how the market will do. From there, it's just about how much risk you want to take. A current nest egg of twenty times expenses might be enough, but thirty times would be better. Since the 1970s, the stock market hasn't had a long bad patch relative to inflation. Maybe you could squeak through with ten. But if the 2020s are like the 1970s, you'd be in trouble.",
"\"Ok, since you asked, I'll explain. If you are middle class in the US, that means you make more money than 90% of the world's population (maybe even more than 90%). You just have to save more than what you spend and invest instead of spending on credit. In 30 years you will have enough money to live very comfortably. You just have to have the commitment and the focus to do it. When you reach 50 you'll have enough money to be considered rich, ie. your house paid for, a nice savings account, investments, retirement accounts and no debt. I've been \"\"preaching\"\" this for a long time and none of my friends/family wanted to listen. Read \"\"[The Wealthy Barber](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealthy_Barber)\"\" for more if you are curious. ***Edit, provided a link.\"",
"Depends on how you go about it. I'm in my mid 30s with 3 houses that are about $450,000 in the black. By the time I'm 50 they will be paid off (mostly by other people's rent) and I project I'll be sitting on about $1.7mil in assets with $40,000 annually in cash flow. Not a bad position to be in really.",
"It looks like you need a lot more education on the subject. I suggest you pick up a book on investing and portfolio management to get a first idea. Dividend yields are currently way below 5% on blue chips. Unlike coupons from fixed income instruments (which, in the same risk category, pay a lot less), dividend yields are not guaranteed and neither is the invested principal amount. In either case, your calculation is far away from reality. Sure, there are investments (such as the mentioned direct investments in companies or housings in emerging economies) that can potentially earn you two digit percentage returns. Just remember: risk always goes both ways. A higher earning potential means higher loss potential. Also, a direct investment is a lot less liquid than an investment on a publicly quoted high turnover market place. If you suddenly need money, you really don't want to be pressed to sell real estate in an emerging market (keyword: bid ask spread). My advice: the money that you can set aside for the long term (10 years plus), invest it in stock ETFs, globally. Everything else should be invested in bond funds or even deposits, depending on when you will need the access. As others have pointed out, consider getting professional advice.",
"\"This post may be old anyhow here's my 2 cents. Real world...no. Compounding is overstated. I have 3 mutual funds, basically index funds, you can go look them up. vwinx, spmix, spfix in 11 years i've made a little over 12,000 on 50,000 invested. That averages 5%. That's $1,200 a year about. Not exactly getting rich on the compounding \"\"myth?\"\". You do the math. I would guess because overly optimistic compounding gains are based on a straight line gains. Real world...that aint gonna happen.\"",
"\"It really depends a lot on you and how much time you are putting into it. Since you're saying you want your money to work for you I'm going to assume you want as little hassle as possible. A few general tips: Save a fixed percentage of your monthly income Don't try to save \"\"whenever you have money left over\"\", you will just end up spending it somehow. Invest long term - don't trade Don't try to beat the market - it will just take up too much time and statistically you will end up making less. Hedge If you invest in the company/industry you work in, you will be double screwed if the sector drops (lose job + savings at the same time). Optimally you should invest in something that will benefit when the company you work for is doing bad. Pay off high interest debt Usually debt will have a higher interest than any safe investment you can make. Spend money to save/make money Sometimes the best investment you can make is on stuff that will save you money in the long run. Like buy an apartment close to work (less transport costs) or get a more expensive car that will save you money on gas, insurance etc.\""
] |
[
"Yes, quite easily, in fact. You left a lot of numbers out, so lets start with some assumptions. If you are at the median of middle income families in the US that might mean $70,000/year. 15% of that is an investment of $875 per month. If you invest that amount monthly and assume a 6% return, then you will have a million dollars at approximately 57 years old. 6% is a very conservative number, and as Ben Miller points out, the S&P 500 has historically returned closer to 11%. If you assumed an aggressive 9% return, and continued with that $875/month for 40 years until you turn 65, that becomes $4 million. Start with a much more conservative $9/hr for $18,720 per year (40 hours * 52 weeks, no overtime). If that person saved 14% of his/her income or about $219 per month from 25 to 65 years old with the same 9%, they would still achieve $1 million for retirement. Is it much harder for a poor person? Certainly, but hopefully these numbers illustrate that it is better to save and invest even a small amount if that's all that can be done. High income earners have the most to gain if they save and the most to lose if they don't. Let's just assume an even $100,000/year salary and modest 401(k) match of 3%. Even married filing jointly a good portion of that salary is going to be taxed at the 25% rate. If single you'll be hitting the 28% income tax rate. If you can max out the $18,000 (2017) contribution limit and get an additional $3,000 from an employer match (for a total monthly contribution of $1750) 40 years of contributions would become $8.2 million with the 9% rate of return. If you withdrew that money at 4% per year you would have a residual income of $300k throughout your retirement.",
"It depends on how much you save, how much your savings earns each year. You can model it with a very simple spreadsheet: Formula view: You can change this simple model with any other assumptions you wish to make and model. This spreadsheet presumes that you only make $50,000/year, never get a raise, that your savings earns 6% per year and that the market never has a crash like 2008. The article never states the assumptions that the author has made, and therefore we can't honestly determine how truthful the author is. I recommend the book Engineering Your Retirement as it has more detailed models and goes into more details about what you should expect. I wrote a slightly more detailed post that showed a spreadsheet that is basically what I use at home to track my retirement savings.",
"Millionaire, Shmillionaire! Let's do this calculation Bruno Mars style (I wanna be a Billionaire...) If my calculations are correct, in the above scenario, at age 80, you would have more than a billion in the bank, after taxes.",
"Yes, becoming a millionaire is a reasonable goal. Saving 15% of your income starting at age 25 and investing in the stock market will likely get you there. The CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) of the S&P 500 over the last 35 years has been about 11%. (That 35 years includes at least two fairly serious crashes.) You may get more or less than that number in the future, but let's guess that you'll average 9%. Let's say that you begin with nothing invested, and you start investing $100 per week at age 25. (If your annual income is $35,000, that is about 15% of your income.) You decide to invest your money in an S&P 500 index mutual fund. 35 years from now when you are 60 years old, you would be a millionaire ($1.2 Million, actually). You may earn less than the assumed 9%, depending on how the stock market does. However, if you stick with your 15% investment amount throughout your whole career, you'll most likely end up with more, because your income will probably increase during your career. And you will probably be working past age 60, giving your investments time to earn even more.",
"I'll offer another answer, using different figures. Let's assume 6% is the rate of return you can expect. You are age 25, and plan to retire at age 65. If you have $0 and want $1M at retirement, you will need to put away $524.20/month, or $6,290.40/year, which is 15% of $41,936. So $41,936 is what you'd need to make per year in order to get to your target. You can calculate your own figures with a financial calculator: 480 months as your term (or, adjust this to your time horizon in months), .486755% as your interest (or, take your assumed interest rate + 1 to the 1/12th power and subtract 1 to convert to a monthly interest rate), 0 as your PV, and $1M as your FV; then solve for PMT.",
"I see a lot of answers calculcating with incomes that are much higher than yours, here is something for your situation: If you would keep your current income for the rest of your life, here is approximately how things would turn out after 40 years: All interest is calculated relative to the amount in your portfolio. Therefore, lets start with 1 dollar for 40 years: With your current income, 15% would be 82.5 dollar. At 12% this would over 40 years get you almost 1 million dollar. I would call a required return of more than 12% not 'likely'. The good news, is that your income will likely increase, and especially if this happens fast things will start to look up. The bad news is, that your current salary is quite low. So, it basically means that you need to make some big jumps in the next few years in order to make this scenario likely. If you can quickly move your salary towards ranges that are more common in the US, then 15% of your income can build up to a million before you retire. However, if you just follow gradual growth, you would need to get quite lucky to reach a million. Note that even if reaching a million appears unlikely, it is probably still a good idea to save!",
"The article links to William Bernstein’s plan that he outlined for Business Insider, which says: Modelling this investment strategy Picking three funds from Google and running some numbers. The international stock index only goes back to April 29th 1996, so a run of 21 years was modelled. Based on 15% of a salary of $550 per month with various annual raises: Broadly speaking, this investment doubles the value of the contributions over two decades. Note: Rebalancing fees are not included in the simulation. Below is the code used to run the simulation. If you have Mathematica you can try with different funds. Notice above how the bond index (VBMFX) preserves value during the 2008 crash. This illustrates the rationale for diversifying across different fund types.",
"As others have shown, if you assume that you can get 6% and you invest 15% of a reasonable US salary then you can hit 1 million by the time you retire. If you invest in property in a market like the UK (where I come from...) then insane house price inflation will do it for you as well. In 1968 my parents bought a house for £8000. They had a mortgage on it for about 75% of the value. They don't live there but that house is now valued at about £750,000. Okay, that's close to 60 years, but with a 55 year working life that's not so unreasonable. If you assume the property market (or the shares market) can go on rising forever... then invest in as much property as you can with your 15% as mortgage payments... and watch the million roll in. Of course, you've also got rent on your property portfolio as well in the intervening years. However, take the long view. Inflation will hit what a million is worth. In 1968, a million was a ridiculously huge amount of money. Now it's 'Pah, so what, real rich people have billions'. You'll get your million and it will not be enough to retire comfortably on! In 1968 my parents salaries as skilled people were about £2000 a year... equivalent jobs now pay closer to £50,000... 25x salary inflation in the time. Do that again, skilled professional salary in 60 years of £125000 a year... so your million is actually 4 years salary. Not being relentlessly negative... just suggesting that a financial target like 'own a million (dollars)' isn't a good strategy. 'Own something that yields a decent amount of money' is a better one.",
"\"Other people have already demonstrated the effect of compound interest to the question. I'd like to add a totally different perspective. Note that the article says if you can follow this simple recipe throughout your working career, you will almost certainly beat out most professional investors [...] you'll likely accumulate enough savings to retire comfortably. (the latter point may be the more practical mark than the somewhat arbitrary million (rupees? dollars?) My point here is that the group of people who do put away a substantial fraction of their (lower) early wages and keep them invested for decades show (at least) two traits that will make a very substantial difference to the average (western) person. They may be correlated, though: people who are not tempted or able to resist the temptation to spend (almost) their whole income may be more likely to not touch their savings or investments. (In my country, people like to see themselves as \"\"world champions in savings\"\", but if you talk to people you find that many people talk about saving for the next holidays [as opposed to saving for retirement].) Also, if you get going this way long before you are able to retire you reach a relative level of independence that can give you a much better position in wage negotiations as you do not need to take the first badly paid job that comes along in order to survive but can afford to wait and look and negotiate for a better job. Psychologically, it also seems to be easier to consistently keep the increase in your spending below the increase of your income than to reduce spending once you overspent. There are studies around that find homeowners on average substantially more wealthy than people who keep living in rental appartments (I'm mostly talking Germany, were renting is normal and does not imply poverty - but similar findings have also been described for the US) even though someone who'd take the additional money the homeowner put into their home over the rent and invested in other ways would have yielded more value than the home. The difference is largely attributed to the fact that buying and downpaying a home enforces low spending and saving, and it is found that after some decades of downpayment homeowners often go on to spend less than their socio-economic peers who rent. The group that is described in this question is one that does not even need the mental help of enforcing the savings. In addition, if this is not about the fixed million but about reaching a level of wealth that allows you to retire: people who have practised moderate spending habits as adults for decades are typically also much better able to get along with less in retirement than others who did went with a high consumption lifestyle instead (e.g. the homeowners again). My estimate is that these effects compound in a way that is much more important than the \"\"usual\"\" compounding effect of interest - and even more if you look at interest vs. inflation, i.e. the buying power of your investment for everyday life. Note that they also cause the group in question to be more resilient in case of a market crash than the average person with about no savings (note that market crashes lead to increased risk of job loss). Slightly off topic: I do not know enough how difficult saving 50 USD out of 50 USD in Pakistan is - and thus cannot comment whether the savings effort called for in the paper is equivalent/higher/lower than what you achieve. I find that trying to keep to student life (i.e. spending that is within the means of a student) for the first professional years can help kick-starting a nest egg (European experience - again, not sure whether applicable in Pakistan).\"",
"If by being a millionaire you mean dollar millionaire then I doubt that it is really that easy in Pakistani context. At present the exchange rate is 107 Pakistani rupees per US dollar so even with this exchange rate, to have a million US dollars means having 107 million rupees of wealth. Now with this maths in mind you can very well calculate how much possible it is for an average 25 years old Pakistani to have that much wealth. And by the time you have 107 million Pakistani rupees of wealth the exchange rate against the US dollar would have only gone up against Pakistani currency. That article which you have mentioned makes calculations in US context and dollar terms. However if you talk only in terms of your country's context then being a millionaire means having 1 million rupees of wealth and that is something which is quite achievable with your salary and within very short span of time.",
"The really simple answer is that compound interest is compound not linear. Money invested for longer earns more interest, and the sooner you start investing, the longer it has to earn interest. These ideas come out of pension investment where 65 is the usual retirement age and what you invest in the 1st ten years of your pension (or any other compound interest fund) accounts for over 50% of what you will get out. 25 to 65 is forty years and $100 invested at 7% for 40 years is $1400. $100 invested every year for 40 years the pot would be worth just under $20,000. At 30 years, it would be worth under $10,000, and at 20 years it would be worth only $4099. If you double your investment amount every 10 years you would have invested $15700, and the pot would be worth $45,457. Do exactly the same but starting at 35 instead of 25 and your pot would only be worth $14,200.",
"I just want to point out a couple of things, and I do not have enough reputation to comment. Saving 50% is totally possible. I know people saving 65%. For more see here EDIT: Let me repeat that 4% it the maximum you can assume if you want to be sure to have at least that return in the long term. It's not the average, it's the minimum, the value you can expect and plan with. Just to reinforce the claim, I can cite Irrational Exuberance of Robert Schiller, who explicitly says, on page 135 of the 2015 edition, that from January 1966 to January 1992 the real annual return was just 4.1%. Sure, this does not matter so much if you are investing all the way through, but it's still a 26 year period."
] |
689
|
Receive credit card payment sending my customer details to a credit card processing company?
|
[
"411044"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"63366",
"411551",
"19275",
"434320",
"553418",
"363655",
"103120",
"176742",
"446932",
"184924",
"169980",
"346793",
"467647",
"234148",
"476142",
"589692",
"204288",
"278667",
"250166",
"421803",
"587580",
"560294",
"48404",
"24260",
"131177",
"567201",
"104079",
"328760",
"430377",
"235808",
"509650",
"508211",
"107327",
"521688",
"381068",
"569987",
"411044",
"589616",
"18373",
"107763",
"409797",
"283698",
"123038",
"463829",
"241866",
"180582",
"172127",
"386095",
"195852",
"569026",
"402902",
"347637",
"346495",
"234852",
"595633",
"25906",
"428730",
"5607",
"325042",
"178290",
"365561",
"186621",
"314679",
"492578",
"474050",
"91724",
"298729",
"172192",
"452544",
"316228",
"507701",
"174292",
"297535",
"481063",
"405252",
"5658",
"463130",
"305997",
"284173",
"116684",
"139802",
"244318",
"377521",
"290687",
"93582",
"20670",
"250815",
"321199",
"410243",
"594414",
"367730",
"428689",
"548035",
"346852",
"124341",
"437373",
"589773",
"278430",
"414405",
"266493"
] |
[
"It depends on what provider they are using to process your charge and if it's through a website, a phone application or a desktop application. For example, if they build a desktop application with Authorize.net, the desktop application will take your information in, and then make a webservice call with it to a secure authorize.net processing platform. Something similar is true for FirstData. However, if they are using PayPal to process your request, you are routed to a paypal site to make the charge, then the funds are sent to the merchant. As for what is returned that also depends on the provider and the application. If you are using a website it's likely an XML response with all the information they provide upon a transaction attempt. If it's a desktop application they may just hand the cc info off to a library which processes the charge and then returns specific confirmed or denied flags. So to be totally honest without knowing the exact situation in which you are charging your card, it's impossible to know. For all you know they are putting your credit card information in a database unencrypted and then charging them all at the end of the week in one giant batch. If you are able to find out whom they are using as a credit card processing provider then you can look for that companies developer documentation. It will provide you with all the information you are looking for including examples.",
"Yes, but note that some credit card companies let you create virtual cards--you can define how much money is on them and how long they last. If you're worried about a site you can use such a card to make the payment, then get rid of the virtual number so nobody can do dirty deeds with it. In practice, however, companies that do this are going to get stomped on hard by the credit card companies--other than outright scams it basically does not happen. (Hacking is another matter--just pick up the newspaper. It's not exactly unusual to read of hackers getting access to credit card information that they weren't supposed to have access to in the first place.) So long as you deal with a company that's been around for a while the risk is trivial.",
"\"Do not store credit cards on your servers! You will get into HUGE trouble if they get stolen. Instead, the whole credit card transaction should be done in a \"\"frame\"\" on a web that is handle by a credit card processor you chose. Once the transaction is finished, you get a code for the credit card number (masked credit card number) that no-one can convert back to a credit card number (except the processor). When you need to charge more or give refund, you use that code to tell the processor what credit card to make the charges/credits to.\"",
"The mode of payment mentioned by your bank is called the ACH(Automatic Clearing House) which means that anyone(Trusted payment gateway owners like banks themselves) can process payments. There can be a fraud declared against any payment that you have made and you can get every single penny back. This amount can not be withdrawn in cash at all. However for your situation I would suggest that you ask your bank to block any transactions above the amount of a specific sum, this way they will require your authorization to finalize the payment. You should feel safe after this. Also no one can access any other account apart from the one whose details you are giving out so do not worry about this guy(or anyone else for that matter) to be able to access your other accounts. Hope this helps. (I have experience in payment gateways so I do understand these procedures.) Cheers!!",
"\"The service processors are providing is absorbing the risk. The flow goes, roughly (and I say roughly because it's a complicated process): 1. You swipe/insert your card at Bob's House of Eatery and get charged $10 for a bucket of ramen or something. 2. The device you swipe your card in, (\"\"a terminal\"\") encodes the card number, amount, and some other transaction details and contacts a \"\"Payment Gateway\"\". 3. The gateway decodes the blob of data, and is responsible for determining the issuing financial institution (\"\"Chase\"\", \"\"US Bank\"\", etc.). 4. The gateway contacts the above and asks, \"\"Can card # 555.. charge $10?\"\" 5. The gateway also sends this answer to the processor. 5. The processor _immediately_ proxies that yes/no back to the merchant's terminal. 6. The processor, having a transaction ID, and a yes/no, sends the response to the merchant's systems so your receipt can be printed or order processed, and so on. 7. Meanwhile, the processor has a transaction ID and is busy figuring out things like interchange fees. The amount depends on a whole host of things, and almost everyone involved in the process wants their cut -- the bank, the gateway, the processor, and it all depends on the type of card, customer, rewards, and so on. 8. At the end of the day, week, whatever, the processor collects money from the issuing financial institution and is responsible for giving the right amount -- less fees -- to the merchant. The processor here also absorbs the risk and costs for things like chargebacks, as almost everyone in that chain (gateway, issuing bank) want their pound of flesh for a chargeback, and often the processor doesn't pass that full cost on to the merchant and instead does some risk analysis to determine if they think this merchant is going to be okay to do business with. That's what you're paying for.\"",
"You would need to setup a company (even if it's just a sole proprietorship, in the US) to be able to apply for a true merchant account. And thus have a terminal; either real or virtual in your home or business. However, many services such as paypal allow you to accept credit cards (both online and with a card reader) and when the customer is billed it appears as paypal + your account name. So you essentially have the benefits of a merchant account, without having to set one up.",
"Your best bet is to use a payment processor that charges ONLY a fixed monthly fee and not a fee per transaction.",
"\"Personally, I would just dispute this one with your CC. I had a situation where a subscription I had cancelled the prior year was billed to me. I called up to have a refund issued, they couldn't find me in their system under three phone numbers and two addresses. The solution they proposed was \"\"send us your credit card statement with the charge circled,\"\" to which I responded \"\"there's no way in hell I'm sending you my CC statement.\"\" Then I disputed the charge with the CC bank and it was gone about two days later. I partially expect to have the same charge appear next year when they try to renew my non-existent subscription again. Now, whether or not this is a normal practice for the company, or just a call center person making a good-faith but insecure attempt to solve your problem is irrelevant. Fact of the matter is, you tried to resolve this with the merchant and the merchant asked for something that's likely outside the bounds of your CC Terms and Conditions; sending your entire number via email. Dispute it and move on. The dispute process exists for a reason.\"",
"I used to work for a online payment posting company. Anytime a payment is made via Credit Card to a company that does not have PCI DSS(aka the ability/certification to store credit card information) there is a MD5 checksum(of the confirmation code, not the Credit Card information) that get sent to the company from the processor(billing tree, paypal, etc). The company should be able to send this information back to the processor in order to refund the payment. If the company isn't able to do this, to be honest they shouldn't be taking online credit card payments. And by all means do not send your credit card information in an email. As said above, call the company's customer service line and give them the info to credit your account.",
"Here's one option: Telephone is a lower-tech yet relatively more secure means for transmitting your payment information when a secure web site isn't available. And yet another option: You could send them an encrypted email, but this would require tools (e.g. GPG), setup (public keys), and expertise on their end which they are unlikely to already have. However, ChrisInEdmonton raised a good point in his comment. How can you consider them to be a reputable seller when they don't take basic precautions to protect customers' payment information online? The seller may with good faith charge your card the correct amount and deliver the goods that you expect, but how will they protect your credit card information once in their hands? Would you trust their internal systems if they can't even set up an HTTPS web site?",
"Canadians can email or text each other money through Interac. It is fast - the longest it's ever taken for me is 20 minutes, often it's less - and secure. You don't need to know each other's banking details or even real names. I've used this to send money to my children, each of whom uses a different bank than I do, and they've used it to send money to friends to pay for concert tickets and the like. You add a security question so if someone else got to the email or text first, they wouldn't get the money. I also get an email once the transfer has gone through, so I know they got it. Some banks limit this to $1000 a day, mine to $3000. Typically there is no fee for the recipient and $1 or $2 for the sender. A dollar on $1000 is way better than a 2 or 3% cc processing fee. But even for $30, a dollar is like 3% and you didn't need to apply for anything or set anything up, and your customers don't need a credit card or to trust you with their credit card details. I keep meeting people who don't know about this. Everyone with a Canadian bank account and an email address or smartphone should know about it.",
"While I've never used the service, there's also Amazon Flexible Payments Services (AFPS): (emphasis below is mine) Amazon Flexible Payments ServiceTM (Amazon FPS) is the first payments service designed from the ground up for developers. It is built on top of Amazon’s reliable and scalable payments infrastructure and provides developers with a convenient way to charge Amazon’s tens of millions of customers (with their permission, of course!). Amazon customers can pay using the same login credentials, shipping address and payment information they already have on file with Amazon. [...] Considering Amazon.com is an e-commerce heavyweight, it might be worth a look.",
"All the items listed are required for International Wire transfer. In wrong hands this info along with other info can cause issues. Most of the times you trust the person with this info and hence is less cause to worry. So the key is if you don't trust, don't give the details. Use alternatives like; Best open an account for receiving funds. Share the details, once the funds are received move it to an account where the details have not been shared. Alternatively paypal or other such services can help.",
"The answer: don't use your actual card number. Some banks offer virtual credit card numbers (services like Apple Pay are functionally the same). Bank of America's virtual cards work like this: The virtual card number is different from your actual card number, so the merchant never sees your real card number. In fact, the merchant cannot even tell that you are using a virtual card. You can set the maximum amount to be charged. You can set the expiration date from 2 to 12 months. Once the merchant has made a charge on that virtual card, only THAT MERCHANT can make any further charges on that same virtual card. It is not possible to discover the real card number from the virtual card number. So the result is that your risk is reduced to the merchant not delivering the order, or charging too much (but not over the limit you set). There is nothing to be stolen since your real info never goes over the internet, and once a merchant has used the virtual card once, no other merchant can use it. Other banks may have virtual cards which have fewer features. The only DISadvantage of this is that you have to go to the bank's website whenever you want to make a purchase from a new merchant. But you don't have to worry about them stealing your real credit card information.",
"\"These are services that facilitate using credit cards. So whatever vulnerabilities there may be, your risk is limited to your liability to the credit card issuer. Usually, this means no liability whatsoever, and the most significant risk is the inconvenience of re-issuing the compromised card. Some card issuers separate the \"\"Pay\"\" service account from your main account so that even that risk is mitigated - the number exposed is only used for that specific service and doesn't compromise your actual physical card.\"",
"There is nothing called best; Depending on the amounts there are several options and each will cost some money. If your business is still small customers are individuals try PayPal it will be easy for everyone. The other options are accepting Credit Card, you would need to set-up card gateway on your website etc Simple wire transfer, it will cost more both for your customers and to you.",
"I am not aware of a version of Interac available in the U.S., but there are alternative ways to receive money: Cheque. The problem with mailed cheques is that they take time to deliver, and time to clear. If you ship your wares before the cheque has cleared and the cheque is bad, you're out the merchandise. COD. How this works is you place a COD charge on your item at the post office in the amount you charge the customer. The post office delivers the package on the other end when the customer pays. The post office pays you at the time you send the package. There is a fee for this, talk to your local post office or visit the Canada Post website. Money order. Have your U.S. customers send an International Money Order, not a Domestic Money Order. Domestic money orders can only be cashed at a U.S. post office. The problem here is again delivery time, and verifying your customer sent an International Money Order. It can be a pain to have to send back a Domestic Money Order to a customer explaining what they have to do to pay you, even more painful if you don't catch the error before shipping your wares. Credit Card. There are a number of companies offering credit card processing that are much cheaper than a bank. PayPal, Square, and Intuit are three such companies offering these services. After I did my investigations I found Square to be the best deal for me. Please do your own research on these companies (and banks!) and find out which one makes the most sense for you. Some transaction companies may forbid the processing of payment for e-cig materials as they my be classed as tobacco.",
"There are different ways of credit card purchase authorizations. if some choose less secure method it's their problem. Merchants are charged back if a stolen card is used.",
"Definitely push for a check, they may not do anything nefarious with your credit card number however someone else may be able to read the email before it gets to its final destination. It's never safe to give out credit card number in a less than secure interface. Also, if this is a well known company, then the person interacting with you should know better than to ask for your information through email.",
"If it is a well known company that wants to give you a refund, I would not worry about giving them your credit card number. However, I would never type my credit card number into an e-mail message. E-mail messages are very insecure, and can be read by many people along its way to the destination. They also can be archived in many places, meaning that your number will continue to be posted out there for someone to grab in the future. If you need to give this company your credit card number, do it over the phone. Having said that, ultimately you are not generally responsible for fraudulent charges if your card number is stolen and misused. I've had so many fraudulent charges, despite my being relatively careful with my number, that I don't really worry much anymore about losing my number. I just check my statement for false charges, and when they happen, the bank cancels the charge and issues me a new number. It has happened to either my wife or I maybe 5 times over the last two years.",
"\"Your credit card limit is nothing more than a simple number. When you purchase something, the merchant receives a number (i.e. the amount of the transaction) from your card company (e.g. Visa) in their bank account, and that number is subtracted from your limit (added to your balance). The amount is recorded, and isn't changed, so that's how they get the \"\"exact\"\" amount you paid. Transferring a number is easier than the retailer having to wait for cash to get from you to your card company to them. Moving numbers around is the basis of the modern financial system. And yes, it is always a risk to let someone else have your credit card number. An untrustworthy company/person may use it to charge you without your permission, or if they have your full details they could use it as if they were you. With a reputable retailer like Amazon, the main risk is data theft: If a security hole is found in Amazon's system, someone could steal your credit card info and misuse it.\"",
"Thanks for the info! It seems the consolidation option is the best; switching to the new merchant services provider and getting the discount from our POS on gift card software Can you give me a but more info about the customer loyalty/marketing info?",
"It depends on the seller. If the seller wants, they can collect the information from you and send it to the payment gateway. In that case, they of course have everything that you provide at some point. They are not supposed to keep the security code, and there are rules about keeping the credit card number safe. The first four digits of the credit card number often indicate the bank, although smaller banks may share. But for example a Capital One card would indicate the bank. Other sellers work through a payment gateway that collects the information. Even there, the seller may collect most of the information first and send it to the gateway. In particular, the seller may collect name, email, phone, and address information. And in general the gateway will reveal that kind of information. They will not give the seller credit card info other than the name on the card, expiration date, and possible last four digits. They may report if the address matches the card's billing address (mismatched addresses may mean fraud). Buying through someone like PayPal can provide the least information. For a digital good, PayPal can only expose the buyer's name (which may be a business name) and email (associated with the payment account). However PayPal still has the other information and may expose it under legal action (e.g. if the credit card transaction is reversed or the good sold is illegal). And even PayPal will expose the shipping address for physical goods that require shipping.",
"No. PayPal payments are credited to a PayPal account. PayPal doesn't let you pay arbitrary banks or credit cards, that defeats the purpose of PayPal and there are other services which can do that cheaper or with less hassle. You need to find another mutually available and satisfactory option with your client.",
"Get the cash you need to expand your business! Free information. Call Now. 866-334-8705. Our goal: Helping small companies rebuild in this economy through private lending. We are looking for business owners that want to save money on their credit card processing or begin accepting credit cards. Grow your business now with a Merchant Cash Advance. Funding of 100 - 300% of your monthly sales, no points or upfront fees! No fixed monthly payment! Payment is automatically collected through credit card sales. We have partnered with several processors and other service providers to ensure the ability to offer Credit Card Processing with the lowest possible rates and fees for processing and funding in the industry. We also offer Gift Cards and Loyalty Programs to help you with repeat business. Call 866-334-8705 and mention Agent #22104 to speak to one of our knowledgeable representatives that can give you a quote today. http://agent.vendorsmerchantnetwork.com/22104 Our goal is to develop a custom tailored structure for your particular business' needs and desires. This enables you to process in the most cost efficient manner available in the industry! Features 24/7 Customer Support Lowest Processing Rates in the Industry Free Terminal Reprogram No Termination Fee In addition, even in this difficult economic time, we offer Merchant Cash Advances to qualified applicants! DON'T WAIT TO GET THE MONEY YOU NEED TO EXPAND YOUR BUISNESS! CALL US TODAY!",
"\"A bona-fide company never needs your credit card details, certainly not your 3-digit-on-back-of-card #, to issue a refund. On an older charge, they might have to work with their merchant provider. But they should be able to do it within the credit card handling system, and in fact are required to. Asking for details via email doesn't pass the \"\"sniff test\"\" either. To get a credit card merchant account, a company needs to go through a security assessment process called PCI-DSS. Security gets drummed into you pretty good. Of course they could be using one of the dumbed-down services like Square, but those services make refunds ridiculously easy. How did you come to be corresponding on this email address? Did they initially contact you? Did you find it on a third party website? Some of those are fraudulent and many others, like Yelp, it's very easy to insert false contact information for a business. Consumer forums, even moreso. You might take another swing at finding a proper contact for the company. Stop asking for a cheque. That also circumvents the credit card system. And obviously a scammer won't send a check... at least not one you'd want! If all else fails: call your bank and tell them you want to do a chargeback on that transaction. This is where the bank intervenes to reverse the charge. It's rather straightforward (especially if the merchant has agreed in principle to a refund) but requires some paperwork or e-paperwork. Don't chargeback lightly. Don't use it casually or out of laziness or unwillingness to speak with the merchant, e.g. to cancel an order. The bank charges the merchant a $20 or larger investigation fee, separate from the refund. Each chargeback is also a \"\"strike\"\"; too many \"\"strikes\"\" and the merchant is barred from taking credit cards. It's serious business. As a merchant, I would never send a cheque to an angry customer. Because if I did, they'd cash the cheque and still do a chargeback, so then I'd be out the money twice, plus the investigation fee to boot.\"",
"If Apple uses the customer's bank's prefix, then the bank gets the charge sent directly to themselves and Apple is not a payment intermediary Yes as part of adding a Card to Apple Pay, the details are sent over to issuing Bank along with device details and other info. Based on verification, the Bank sends a DAN[Device Account Number] and other codes. After you show your phone at Point of Sale, DAN gets transmitted. This is similar as Card Number getting transmitted, there is additional info encoded. Visa then sends this back to Issuing Bank and based on DAN the actual card is charged. So yes Apple doesn't know your Card Number once it gets the DAN. it's entirely possible that organized-criminals could devise even harder-to-find NFC skimmers Right now criminals have found the easy step ... as part of set-up Apple Pay sends info the Issuing Bank to Verify. If you are frequent user of iTunes and have used the same card for years, etc, its auto approved. Else they use alternative method, i.e. call the customer, etc. It is easy here to spawn. I get card details, no need to spend time in duplicating stuff [mag or chip]. Just try registering on Apply Pay, some one less experienced from Customer Service calls up and I am approved. Use this for few places and then just delete this card and add a new one. As Apply Pay doesn't store my card, they don't know new from old ...",
"Yes, they're referring to the credit card dispute (chargeback) process. In the case of dispute, credit card company will refund/freeze your charge so you don't have to pay until the dispute is resolved (or at all, if resolved in your favor). If the dispute is resolved in your favor, your credit card company will charge back the merchant's service provider which in turn will charge back (if it can) the merchant itself. So the one taking the most risk in this scenario is the merchant provider, this is why merchants that are high risk pay significantly higher fees or get dropped.",
"As a general premise: In most of the online transactions in case of dispute the benefit of doubt is given to the customer. IE if the customer refuses to pay and claims that its not his transaction, the card company reverses the charges and does not pay the merchant (or recovers if its already paid). There are many types of online vendors who use a variety of methods to ensure that they are not at loss. Some of these are:",
"Get the cash you need to expand your business. Free information. Call Now. 866-334-8705. Our goal: Helping small companies rebuild in this economy through private lending. We are looking for business owners that want to save money on their credit card processing or begin accepting credit cards. Grow your business now with a Merchant Cash Advance. Funding of 100 - 300% of your monthly sales, no points or upfront fees. No fixed monthly payment. Payment is automatically collected through credit card sales. We have partnered with several processors and other service providers to ensure the ability to offer Credit Card Processing with the lowest possible rates and fees for processing and funding in the industry. We also offer Gift Cards and Loyalty Programs to help you with repeat business. Call 866-334-8705 and mention Agent #22427 to speak to one of our knowledgeable representatives that can give you a quote today. http://agent.vendorsmerchantnetwork.com/22427",
"\"While I agree with Ben a lot I feel like his answer is really poor here. You do not call a number to give your credit card information out for a refund. That is ridiculous. Just from his answer - he has had 5 cases of fraud lately - you should know that you shouldn't follow this advice. I personally don't ever give my credit card number over the phone, unless it is the very very very last resort. It is not just about money and safety but it is about time. Every time that you give your number out over the phone there is a chance that the employee on the other end (by either scam or legitimate business) will use or sell your info. So you need to determine if the time saved by doing a transaction over the phone is worth hours/days of your time if your card has a fraud issue. And note that fraud sometimes is easily negated, but if done smartly can be hard to prove via a quick call or email to card company. What should you do? Tell company that you will simply get the refund through your credit card company. And if we go back to time element... You fill out form on card website. Card company goes back to vendor and says - \"\"Why are you asking for card numbers via email?\"\" Card company either cancels vendor contract or more likely helps them understand the technology available so they don't have to do this. Therefore that quick form that you filled out will now keep this company from bugging you again. By going through their archaic \"\"systems\"\" you are enabling their behavior.\"",
"\"File a John Doe lawsuit, \"\"plaintiff to be determined\"\", and then subpoena the relevant information from Mastercard. John Doe doesn't countersue, so you're pretty safe doing this. But it probably won't work. Mastercard would quash your subpoena. They will claim that you lack standing to sue anyone because you did not take a loss (which is a fair point). They are after the people doing the hacking, and the security gaps which make the hacking possible. And how those gaps arise among businesses just trying to do their best. It's a hard problem. And I've done the abuse wars professionally. OpSec is a big deal. You simply cannot reveal your methods or even much of your findings, because that will expose too much of your detection method. The ugly fact is, the bad guys are not that far from winning, and catching them depends on them unwisely using the same known techniques over and over. When you get a truly novel technique, it costs a fortune in engineering time to unravel what they did and build defenses against it. If maybe 1% of attacks are this, it is manageable, but if it were 10%, you simply cannot staff an enforcement arm big enough - the trained staff don't exist to hire (unless you steal them from Visa, Amex, etc.) So as much as you'd like to tell the public, believe me, I'd like to get some credit for what I've done -- they just can't say much or they educate the bad guys, and then have a much tougher problem later. Sorry! I know how frustrating it is! The credit card companies hammered out PCI-DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards). This is a basic set of security rules and practices which should make hacking unlikely. Compliance is achievable (not easy), and if you do it, you're off the hook. That is one way Amy can be entirely not at fault. Example deleted for length, but as a small business, you just can't be a PCI security expert. You rely on the commitments of others to do a good job, like your bank and merchant account salesman. There are so many ways this can go wrong that just aren't your fault. As to the notion of saying \"\"it affected Amy's customers but it was Doofus the contractor's fault\"\", that doesn't work, the Internet lynch mob won't hear the details and will kill Amy's business. Then she's suing Mastercard for false light, a type of defamtion there the facts are true but are framed falsely. And defamation has much more serious consequences in Europe. Anyway, even a business not at fault has to pay for a PCI-DSS audit. A business at fault has lots more problems, at the very least paying $50-90 per customer to replace their cards. The simple fact is 80% of businesses in this situation go bankrupt at this point. Usually fraudsters make automated attacks using scripts they got from others. Only a few dozen attacks (on sites) succeed, and then they use other scripts to intercept payment data, which is all they want. They are cookie cutter scripts, and aren't customized for each site, and can't go after whatever personal data is particular to that site. So in most cases all they get is payment data. It's also likely that primary data, like a cloud drive, photo collection or medical records, are kept in completely separate systems with separate security, unlikely to hack both at once even if the hacker is willing to put lots and lots of engineering effort into it. Most hackers are script kiddies, able to run scripts others provided but unable to hack on their own. So it's likely that \"\"none was leaked\"\" is the reason they didn't give notification of private information leakage. Lastly, they can't get what you didn't upload. Site hacking is a well known phenomenon. A person who is concerned with privacy is cautious to not put things online that are too risky. It's also possible that this is blind guesswork on the part of Visa/MC, and they haven't positively identified any particular merchant, but are replacing your cards out of an abundance of caution.\"",
"Online payment service providers should allow you to agree to payments from customers and secure your company against scams. To fight against innovative scammers, you need to take additional safety measures in defending your business. Improving your payment security should be a concern to website associated with scams",
"In most cases, the brand on the card, eg Visa or MasterCard, is a middleman. The company processes the transaction, transferring $xx from the bank to the seller, and telling the bank to debit the buyer's account. The bank is at risk, not the company transacting the purchase. What's interesting is that American Express started as both. My first Amex card, issued in 1979 (long expired, but in my box of memorabilia) had no bank. American Express offered a card that offered no extended credit, it was pay in full each month. Since then, Amex started offering extended credit, i.e. with annual interest, and minimum payments, and more recently, offering transaction processing for banks which take on the credit risk, essentially becoming very similar to MasterCard and Visa.",
"You can consider opening accounts either in Paypal or Google Wallet. In this way, you link your bank information to these accounts and the only information you need to provide your tenant is your e-mail id. Its safe and in this scenario -- just money transfer through bank account, there is no fee either for the sender (your tenant) or the receiver (you).",
"Generally if there are enough details, they would match this up with your loan account and pass appropriate credit. The worst that can happen is; In either case, watch your Loan account statement and it should show you the credit. If this does not then ask the company and they should be able to trace it and rectify. Under no scenario you would lose money.",
"Yes, there are a bunch. I have used Paypal and it worked quite nicely. I see endless ads these days for Square, a tiny card reader that you plug into a smartphone that lets you swipe the card. (With Paypal you have to type in the credit card number.)",
"Ask them to send a SWIFT payment [aka International Wire]. You would need to give them your bank details, essentially Bank Account, Bank Name & Address, SWIFT BIC, etc. Almost all Public Sector Bank and all leading Private scetor banks are members of SWIFT and can give you a the SWIFT BIC. If you are not sure about other party, it would be wise to open a new account and give the details of this account rather than your normal account.",
"Some (most) credit cards have a way to get a one-time use number. If that is an available option for one of your cards, that is probably the way to do the very risky transaction. These numbers can be good for only one purchase, or for multiple purchases with a single vendor. This will limit your exposure because they won't have access to your entire account. Also review your fraud protections with your credit card. With the single use number, it won't matter if you use the electronic form or the email. Just make sure you keep the confirmation email or a screen capture of the form.",
"\"Another option is to set up an accoutn with Western Union Bill Payment Solutions, where your customer could go to one of their locations and pay in cash and then the cash is transferred to your account. See \"\"Walk in Cash Payments\"\" on their site.\"",
"I don't know of any and it is unlikely that you will be able to find one. Most credit card processors charge a flat fee plus percentage. The flat fee is typically in the 35 cent range making the cost of doing business, in the manner you are suggesting, astronomical. Also what you are suggesting is contrary to best practices as hosting services, and many other industries, offer deep discounts when making a single payment for an extended period of time. This is not very helpful, but I think it is unrealistic to find what you are suggesting.",
"Typically there are several parties involved: (Sometimes one company plays multiple roles; for example AmEx is a network and an issuer.) When a merchant charges a card and the issuer approves it, money is transferred from the issuer to the acquirer to the merchant. This settlement process takes some time, but generally is completed within a day. Of course, most cardholders pay on a monthly basis. The issuer must use their own funds in the mean time. If the cardholder defaults, the issuer takes the loss.",
"There's no such service. The Israeli Credit Cards law is such that it will be very easy to defraud credit card issuers if such service was available. Check with the postal company if they allow doing it through their bank account, although their online service was horrible last time I checked. This is obviously country-dependent as laws differ from place to place.",
"\"Your biggest risk with a vendor like this is not that your Credit Card Number will be stolen in transit, it is that it will be stolen from the vendor. I agree with @mhoran that using a one-time number is the best plan, provided you have a bank that offers such numbers. Bank of America calls it \"\"Shop Safe\"\" while Citibank calls it \"\"Virtual Account Numbers\"\". I think Discover card has something similar, but less useful, in that they aren't really one-time use, and I think American Express discontinued their service. AFAIK no one else offers anything like it. If you can't get a one-time number, then I was going to suggest buying a Visa gift card, until I put together the fact that you are making a purchase in Asia and the gift cards are not authorized for international payments (due to PATRIOT act restrictions). Visa does offer the V.me service which might help, but I doubt your vendor participates (or would even be allowed to participate) if they don't offer a secure order form. You can open a pre-paid Visa card account, which is probably what I'd do. You can buy pre-paid Visa cards the same way you buy Visa gift cards, the difference being you have to register the pre-paid cards (thanks, PATRIOT act) before you can use them. But it's not that big a deal to register one, you just fill out the online form your your SSN etc and you're good to go. Load it up with enough money to cover your purchase and the FX fees and then cut it up.\"",
"With change in technology and regulations, quite a few clearing systems provide an ability to directly credit a credit card. In Europe Sepa transactions allow one to credit a credit card. The service would be offered by Local bank rather than Visa or Master Card",
"Cristina from Avangate :) Well, most of your shoppers will not even know that you outsource online purchase activity to a payment provider, unless the solution you select, is not capable to integrate with the look and feel on your business. If talking about Avangate, I can share some insights that our clients buyers usually appreciate: 1. Geographical Location - translated payment pages based on IP that present also the price in local currency and allow them to pay with a local payment method, if available (ex. Brazil - credit card with instalments - Portuguese); 2. Financial Support - specific area, called myAccount, where shoppers can track relevant info about how to renew/upgrade or get in contact with the merchant; 3. Taxes and VAT management - if you are targeting both B2C and B2B customers, the possibility of getting an invoice that can be presented for accounting/bookkeeping is very important. Should you be interested in having a more detailed discussion, make sure to get in touch with me - I'll be happy to chat :) cristina.rotari@avangate.com",
"There are rules and regulations as to how the credit card information must be stored, and I assume Square adhere to these rules. The point is that the barber doesn't need to see your credit card at all, and doesn't have to keep its number for keeping tabs, you only share the information with Square and they remit payments to everyone else. This is very similar to Paypal, Amazon and Google checkout systems, except that Square combine it with physical card processing.",
"I have only been comfortable using my credit unions online bill payment system where the service they use already has the target in the database. When I enter the name of the company and the zip code from the bill, the system responds with the address that matches what is on the bill. In most cases the money is not sent via mail, but it is sent electronically. This eliminates the case of somebody finding the check. Though electronic delivery doesn't guarantee that I didn't type the wrong account number. When adding a new target, I like to pick those that also have an online system that I can check in a few days to make sure the money was received and properly credited. Recently a company failed to credit my account in a timely manner, my credit union actually noticed that the payment hadn't been cashed, and alerted me. I asked the credit union about mistakes, either by me or by them. They claimed that the payment is treated like any other check, and that if there was a problem the money could be pulled back, and my account credited with the funds. Your bank should have a disclosure document stating the risks and protections with the service.",
"It's possible the recipient of the payment is not setup to receive funds form PayPal from a credit card, too.",
"I don't see a way that this would make matters worse than just giving them the credit card info... Except that it would make abusing the card easier at some other site (or the bank) if they have a similar (unreasonably weak) security-by-photo test. Still, I'd strongly recommend you use a separate card for this so you can cancel it without disrupting your other credit card uses. (Actually I'd strongly recommend not doing business with folks who have already demonstrated questionable ethics, but you seem to have made that decision.)",
"\"Abine has a product for iOS and Android (and desktop), now called called Blur, that provides credit card masking (alias credit card numbers), along with other privacy services. It's subscription-based. I've used it successfully for a number of transactions over the past year or so. To the merchant, you supply any name, Abine's address, and the specific masked credit card number and code. You can create any number of masked cards with different credit amounts, and the charges show up on your real card statement as \"\"Abine, Inc.\"\".\"",
"I used square in the past for personal yard sale and they did not transfer balance to my bank acct because they told me it was against their policy and I had to have a business license that they could either refund the credit cards i process or keep the money. So they kept it I never got it back. I don't recommend anybody to use square.",
"\"Can you tell me please, is it really hard to make international wire transfer for payment my job and can i resolve this problem without using third party services? This is mostly a barrier, the form at times is quite complicated. For Russia, one has to enter \"\"Purpose of remittance\"\" ... at times select intermediate banks, give BIC and other details. This can become unnerving to people who are not used to it. The other option you can try is set-up a credit card gateway and get funds via cards.\"",
"\"I would use a \"\"virtual credit card\"\" which is basically a fake card that cannot be charged. http://credit-card-generator.2-ee.com/q_virtual-credit-card-generator.htm\"",
"Typically, a direct debit is set up by the company who will be receiving the money, not by you or your bank. So you need to contact your credit card company, and ask them to set up the direct debit.",
"\"To avoid nitpicks, i state up front that this answer is applicable to the US; Europeans, Asians, Canadians, etc may well have quite different systems and rules. You have nothing to worry about if you pay off your credit-card statement in full on the day it is due in timely fashion. On the other hand, if you routinely carry a balance from month to month or have taken out cash advances, then making whatever payment you want to make that month ASAP will save you more in finance charges than you could ever earn on the money in your savings account. But, if you pay off each month's balance in full, then read the fine print about when the payment is due very carefully: it might say that payments received before 5 pm will be posted the same day, or it might say before 3 pm, or before 7 pm EST, or noon PST, etc etc etc. As JoeTaxpayer says, if you can pay on-line with a guaranteed day for the transaction (and you do it before any deadline imposed by the credit-card company), you are fine. My bank allows me to write \"\"electronic\"\" checks on its website, but a paper check is mailed to the credit-card company. The bank claims that if I specify the due date, they will mail the check enough in advance that the credit-card company will get it by the due date, but do you really trust the USPS to deliver your check by noon, or whatever? Besides the bank will put a hold on that money the day that check is cut. (I haven't bothered to check if the money being held still earns interest or not). In any case, the bank disclaims all responsibility for the after-effects (late payment fees, finance charges on all purchases, etc) if that paper check is not received on time and so your credit-card account goes to \"\"late payment\"\" status. Oh, and my bank also wants a monthly fee for its BillPay service (any number of such \"\"electronic\"\" checks allowed each month). The BillPay service does include payment electronically to local merchants and utilities that have accounts at the bank and have signed up to receive payments electronically. All my credit-card companies allow me to use their website to authorize them to collect the payment that I specify from my bank account(s). I can choose the day, the amount, and which of my bank accounts they will collect the money from, but I must do this every month. Very conveniently, they show a calendar for choosing the date with the due date marked prominently, and as mhoran_psprep's comment points out, the payment can be scheduled well in advance of the date that the payment will actually be made, that is, I don't need to worry about being without Internet access because of travel and thus being unable to login to the credit-card website to make the payment on the date it is due. I can also sign up for AutoPay which takes afixed amount/minimum payment due/payment in full (whatever I choose) on the date due, and this will happen month after month after month with no further action necessary on my part. With either choice, it is up to the card company to collect money from my account on the day specified, and if they mess up, they cannot charge late payment fees or finance charge on new purchases etc. Also, unlike my bank, there are no fees for this service. It is also worth noting that many people do not like the idea of the credit-card company withdrawing money from their bank account, and so this option is not to everyone's taste.\"",
"quid has expressed some of the disadvantages with this approach, but there is another. Vendors will not want to give you any goods you buy with your credit card until they are sure they will get the money. With your suggested approach buying something with a credit card now looks like: No vendor is going to stand for this for even moderate sized transactions, so in reality they will just decline your card if you have this facility enabled.",
"\"Here is how the Visa network works: A Visa transaction is a carefully orchestrated process. When a Visa account holder uses a Visa card to buy a pair of shoes, it’s actually the acquirer — the merchant’s bank — that reimburses the merchant for the shoes. Then, the issuer — the account holder’s bank — reimburses the acquirer, usually within 24 to 48 hours. Lastly, the issuer collects from the account holder by withdrawing funds from the account holder’s bank account if a debit account is used, or through billing if a credit account is used. I read this to mean the Merchant's Bank (the Acquirer Bank) gives the merchant the money within 2 days via the Card Issuer's Bank. The issuing bank is the one that provides the \"\"credit\"\" feature since that bank won't get reimbursed until the shopper's bill is paid (or perhaps even longer if the shopper carries a balance). You'll notice the Credit Card company (Visa/MC/etc) is only involved in the process as a way of passing messages. Of course they take a fee for this service so seller ultimately get's less than the buyer bought the shoes for.\"",
"@Jeremy Using CVV doesn't decrease the transaction cost. I know this because I have quotes for CC transactions and the cost/transaction doesn't depend on using CVV. That said we don't plan to use CVV because we sell insurance and the likelihood that someone who steals CC will buy insurance is very low.",
"Sounds questionable to me. If there is no way around this I would suggest opening a new account with only the minimum balance necessary and sending them the debit card associated with that account. If anything goes wrong then the amount of damage they can do will be limited. I would definitely be looking for other options though. Maybe they can just mail you a check or something?",
"If you've agreed to pay the money, then you owe them whether they have a valid credit card number of yours or not. If they want to report your debt to a collections agency and/or credit bureau, they can. Which would suck for you. It may not be that likely over $9.99 or whatever, but my point is that it's still a small risk even with a temporary card number.",
"\"I wouldn't trust \"\"about.com\"\"; they're based on grabbing content from other places and are entirely unreliable. You can use the money transfer on PayPal, or transfer through a bank. I wouldn't give my bank account details to complete strangers, though. But that's me, with my distrust of the human kind.\"",
"There are 3 entities in a credit card transaction; Typically when you swipe for 100, the merchant only gets around 97.5. The 2.5 is divided amongst the 3 entities, roughly around 0.5 for the Merchant Bank, around 0.5 for the Card Network and a lions share to Issuing Bank of around 1.5 The reason Issuing Bank gets large share is because they take the risk and provide the credit to customer. Typically the Issuing Bank would pay the Merchant bank via the Card Network the money in couple of days. So the Merchant Bank is not out of funds. The Issuing Bank on the other hand would have given you a credit of say 10 to 50 days depending on when you made the transaction and when the payment is due. On an average 30 days of credit. So roughly the Acquiring Bank is lending money at the rate of 18%. It is from this money the Issuing Bank would give out rewards, which is typically less than 1%. Also in cases where say Merchant Bank and the Issuing Bank are same, Bank would make money on both the legs of transaction and hence launch co-branded cards with better rewards. The above numbers are illustrative and actual practices vary from Bank to Bank to card Network to Country Related question at How do credit card companies make profit?",
"So, my questions: Are payment cards provide sufficient security now? Yes. If so, how is that achieved? Depending on your country's laws, of course. In most places (The US and EU, notably), there's a statutory limit on liability for fraudulent charges. For transactions when the card is not present, proving that the charge is not fraudulent is merchants' task. Why do online services ask for all those CVV codes and expiration date information, if, whenever you poke the card out of your wallet, all of its information becomes visible to everyone in the close area? What can I do to secure myself? Is it? Try to copy someones credit card info next time you're in the line at the local grocery store. BTW, some of my friends tend to rub off the CVV code from the cards they get immediately after receiving; nevertheless, it could have already been written down by some unfair bank employee. Rubbish.",
"Set him up to take credit cards just as a convenience thing, and he can advertise that he accepts all major credit cards. I've been helping my mother set up farmers to do this at the Farmer's Market she manages. [Squareup](https://squareup.com/) is ridiculously easy to set up. You just need a smart phone (iphone or android based) and one of their little square reader thingies that fit into the audio jack, an email, and bank account routing info. Set up time is ten minutes the first day, 3 minutes once the confirmation info is accounted for. You can buy the readers at Walgreens...Best Buy...lots of random places, and Squareup reimburses you the $10 cost of the reader so it ends up being free. I made a test account and I was able to receive funds directly into my bank account within about 4 days.",
"I got $26,000/month for Group B. If they spend $26,000 that gives $390 in fees. It will take on average 1.5 months for them to pay the credit card company. With a monthly cost of funds of .04 divide that by 12 and multiply by 1.5, to get a .5% cost for every dollar of customer B spending on cost of funds. This leads to a $130 cost for a total profit of $260. I'm sorry for the lost job. Things like that happen to lots of people. As long as you're still alive, there's always going to be more opportunities. Most people only notice a tiny percentage of the opportunities that come their way, and even fewer take advantage of them.",
"\"I completely agree with @littleadv in favor of using the credit card and dispute resolution process, but I believe there are more important details here related to consumer protection. Since 1968, US citizens are protected from credit card fraud, limiting the out-of-pocket loss to $50 if your card is lost, stolen, or otherwise used without your permission. That means the bank can't make you pay more than $50 if you report unauthorized activity--and, nicely, many credit cards these days go ahead and waive the $50 too, so you might not have to pay anything (other than the necessary time and phone calls). Of course, many banks offer a $50 cap or no fees at all for fraudulent charges--my bank once happily resolved some bad charges for me at no loss to me--but banks are under no obligation to shield debit card customers from fraud. If you read the fine print on your debit card account agreement you may find some vague promises to resolve your dispute, but probably nothing saying you cannot be held liable (the bank is not going to lose money on you if they are unable to reverse the charges!). Now a personal story: I once had my credit card used to buy $3,000 in stereo equipment, at a store I had never heard of in a state I have never visited. The bank notified me of the surprising charges, and I was immediately able to begin the fraud report--but it took months of calls before the case was accepted and the charges reversed. So, yes, there was no money out of my pocket, but I was completely unable to use the credit card, and every month they kept on piling on more finance fees and late-payment charges and such, and I would have to call them again and explain again that the charges were disputed... Finally, after about 8 months in total, they accepted the fraud report and reversed all the charges. Lastly, I want to mention one more important tool for preventing or limiting loss from online purchases: \"\"disposable\"\", one-time-use credit card numbers. At least a few credit card providers (Citibank, Bank of America, Discover) offer you the option, on their websites, to generate a credit card number that charges your account, but under the limits you specify, including a maximum amount and expiration date. With one of these disposable numbers, you can pay for a single purchase and be confident that, even if the number were stolen in-transit or the merchant a fraud, they don't have your actual credit card number, and they can never charge you again. I have not yet seen this option for debit card customers, but there must be some banks that offer it, since it saves them a lot of time and trouble in pursuing defrauders. So, in short: If you pay with a credit card number you will not ever have to pay more than $50 for fraudulent charges. Even better, you may be able to use a disposable/one-time-use credit card number to further limit the chances that your credit is misused. Here's to happy--and safe--consumering!\"",
"I don't at all agree that it violates Square terms of service. But having said that, it's a bloody expensive way to do things. Square charges beaucoup fees, that more than obliterate any kind of points you might earn. Only for emergencies, should one do this.",
"PayPal does charge a premium, both for sending and receiving. Here's how you find their rates:",
"\"The thing to look at is PayPal's \"\"PayPal.me\"\" service, which is a pretty neat little item. When you sign up for a PayPal.me account (totally free), you create a unique username. So for example, my PayPal.me account name is DanCAnderson. I can give someone the following web link to send me $500: http://paypal.me/DanCAnderson/500 If you click the link above, you'll see what the user sees (my company name is Salt River Networks, Inc.). I gave a live link so you can see the working example of it (no need for anyone to send money! chuckle). I can change the amount by simply changing the value at the end of the URL. When they go to that link, they see a landing page with your name on it and the amount to send to you, then they go through the normal process of paying via PayPal. It's a pretty neat service, and I've used to it bill a few clients for work I've done by emailing that link to them rather than going through the whole PayPal procedure.\"",
"PayPal. Or even Western Union or MoneyGram. Despite their fees, there is a reason those companies are still in business.",
"I think the answer to this must differ from country to country. I have lived in several countries where the normal everyday way of making a payment is to instruct my bank to transfer the money to the recipient's account. Of course this means I must know his name, SC and account number – but this is an accepted part of the system; businesses routinely display that information on invoices and correspondence. It is simply not regarded as confidential. DumbCoder's comment suggests that if he has that information he can take money from my account without my permission – in other words, my bank will pay money out of my account on someone else's request, without my authority. Is this correct? In which country or countries can this happen? (I must go there quickly and begin stealing people's money.)",
"If you are regularly taking payments of $10,000 I'm very surprised you aren't already set up to accept credit card payments. If you are going to be doing this much in the future it would be a good thing to investigate. Some other options might be:",
"\"It's been a short while since I sold on eBay, but I had a feedback rating of about 4,500 so I've done a lot of transactions. The trump card is, and always will be, the buyer's ability to contact their credit card company and reverse the charges. PayPal has no policy to stop this even though they claim to \"\"vigorously defend Sellers from chargebacks\"\" on their website. You will lose this case 100% of the time. I don't see how that will change if you have your own terminal. The Buyer can still reverse the charges. Since you know the card number maybe you can contact his credit card company but it's probably not going to do much. I've found PayPal is more Seller friendly in terms of PayPal claims. For example, the customer has a duty to pay postage to return the product and that's a cost for him. You also have things like online tracking which shows delivery and PayPal has an IP log to see where the payments are coming from. That helped me when a buyer claimed that someone else made the payment. Because people often break into someone's house and make PayPal payments for them....heh. You really just need to use PayPal. You'll get more customers and better prices and it will offset the losses from scammers. Also, about 99% of buyers are honest people. Consider the scammers a cost of doing business and keep making money off of the good Buyers. If you're just pissed off that people actually scammed you, get over it. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. It's just part of doing business on eBay.\"",
"ACH, Paypal, Amazon Pay are all other options that can be used. ACH is cheapest for the merchant but it is a bit of a pain for the customer to setup (aka adds friction to our sales process, which is *very* bad). Paypal and Amazon Pay both cost a bit more than regular credit cards for the merchant. Google Wallet is free but not available unless you are a sole proprietor or an individual, which is is useless for businesses. So yeah, other options are either difficult or more expensive.",
"Surprisingly accurate. Are you in the industry? I usually see wildly incorrect info about processing online. (I work in processing.) Only part not quite correct: >At the end of the day, week, whatever, the processor collects money from the issuing financial institution and is responsible for giving the right amount -- less fees -- to the merchant. The acquiring bank/processor actually fronts money to the merchant (typically within 1-2 days.) The issuing bank later reimburses the acquiring bank/processor, less interchange fees. The processor then deducts the interchange fee amount and their markup from the merchant's account, making themselves whole from the original money fronting and getting their profit. That's why there's risk to processors when it comes to chargebacks. If a transaction is fraudulent, the issuing bank isn't going to give them money for it, but they've already given money to the merchant. So they need to be able to recoup it from the merchant or they'll be out that money. But yeah, definitely a service, and it's odd that people often argue that it isn't.",
"I would strongly advise that you do not use Western Union or any other wire transfer service for any money transfer, unless you personally know and trust the recipient of your funds, and the method by which you can communicate the details of the transaction. As was mentioned, wire transfers are irreversible and very difficult to trace to ensure the actual recipient got the funds. In some countries and situations, literally anyone can show up at any Western Union location, correctly recite the details of the transaction (which is proof enough they are the intended recipient) and receive the cash. If the vendor accepts PayPal, then simply set up a PayPal account, linked to your credit card, and pay the vendor that way. This can be done 100% online, assuming you have a valid card.",
"\"Many people do not know that bank online bill paying services are not provided directly by the bank. Banks often \"\"farm out\"\" this task to third party providers of bill paying services. These services in turn may farm out the customer service function to agents in foreign countries. These customer service agents have access to your account number, social security number, and your balance. This means that people have your personal information in countries where you have no rights and where security is not good and where enemies of your nation can easily access that information.\"",
"Buy a prepaid gift card, such as a MasterCard or Visa gift card. You can find them at the grocery store, a pharmacy, or your local bank. Provide this on their online form. If anyone steals your gift card information, you will have already used the funds for your purchase and there is no further risk to you.",
"The easiest and cheapest way I can think of is the online bill pay service that most banks use. It's free for both of you; regardless of what the bank has to go through to get the payment to its destination, they generally eat the costs. You can use this to pay anyone from your rent to your electric company to your cousin Vinnie. However, I do not think that a business checking account has this feature. Instead, most corporate cash accounts typically have an ACH service attached to them, where for some small, fixed fee like 25 to 50 cents per transaction, they will accept transfer requests in an ACH format. This is how your electric company does auto-debit (if you let them), and how banks do online bill pay to most corporate payees; they, and their bank account numbers, would be verified by and kept on file with each bank that moved a substantial volume of money to this payee.",
"For people who frequently submit payments via PayPal, you may want to try and negotiate with them to use Paypal mass payments. Although the mass payment program is designed to send small amounts to many people, you can process payment batches of 1 transaction. In the CA mass payment fees (paid by sender) are 2% capped at 1.25 CAD To CA and US. International payments are 2% capped at 24.00 CAD. No fees for receiver. A business PayPal account is required to enable mass payments. When I mention this to customers, many are unaware Paypal's mass payment program exists! https://merchant.paypal.com/ca/cgi-bin/?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=merchant/mass_pay",
"You'll need to check PayPal's terms of service for that first question. I would imagine you could, as my wife and I both have personal PayPal accounts listed at the same address. When you receive money, the senders will only see the (full) name on your account, the amount, and the transaction ID. If you set up a business account, the name on your account will be replaced with the company name. Your mailing address will not be made visible. Yes, PayPal provides an export option of your transaction history. For reference: If your volume greater than $20,000 across 200 or more transactions, then they'll be issuing a 1099-K form, anyway. That depends on the payment method. Bank transfers are instant, where cards require a settlement delay. PayPal provides buyer protection, so I'd be very dutiful in logging all of your work done to provide proof of completion, in case someone disputes a payment. Disputes can take place up to 45 days from the date of the transaction. Chargebacks can take place 120 days or more after the transaction (depends on the card network).",
"I'd consider this offer. Keep in mind, any time you write a check, there's the information he's asking for. If it makes you feel comfortable, use the small balance account, or set up a 4th one you'll use for these incoming deposits only.",
"I would suggest opening a new account (credit card and bank) for just your business. This protects you in multiple ways, but is no bigger burden for you other than carrying another card in your wallet. Then QB can download the transactions from your website and reconciling is a cinch. If you got audited, you'd be in for a world of pain right now. From personal experience there are a few charges that go unnoticed that reconciling finds every month at our business. We have a very strict process in place, but some things slip through the cracks.",
"Jesus this is a horribly written and unnecessarily long article. Could be summed up in 3 paragraphs, and honestly, credit card processing fees isn't some conspiracy. I'd guess that most people who use credit cards are aware this is how visa and MasterCard make money. This article is written like it's for 14 year olds.",
"\"•Have you had any problems with bills not being paid? NO •If you had issues, were they addressed satisfactorily? Answer: A big issue that blindsided me: With my bank, the funds come out of my account right away, but the actual payment is done through a third-party service. On my bank's online site it appears that the payment has been made, but that does not necessarily mean that the intended recipient has cashed it. Looking online at my credit union's site is useless, because all I can tell is that the payment has been sent. The only way to verify payment is to contact the intended recipient. Or I may telephone the online bill pay representative at my bank/credit union, who has access to the third party service. If I do nothing, after 90 days, the check is void, at which time the third party service notifies the bank/credit union and the funds will eventually end up back in my account. I learned this today, after a third-party paper check to a health care provider was returned to me via mail by the recipient (because insurance had already paid and I did not owe them anything). The money was in the hands of the third-party service, not in my account, nor that of my credit union nor the recipient. At first my credit union told me that I would have to contact the third-party service myself and work it out. I said \"\"NO WAY\"\" and the credit union did get the money back into account the same day. This is a sweet deal for the third party, who has my money interest-free anywhere from a few days to three months. And risk-free as well, because the money goes directly from my account to the third party service.\"",
"According to PayPal, if he or she used a credit or debit card, then yes.",
"\"When you buy something with your credit card, the store pays a fee to the credit card company, typically a base fee of 15 to 50 cents plus 2 to 3% of the purchase. At least, that's what it was a few years back when I had a tiny business and I wanted to accept credit cards. Big chain stores pay less because they are \"\"buying in bulk\"\" and have negotiating power. Just because you aren't paying interest doesn't mean the credit card company isn't making money off of you. In fact if you pay your monthly bill promptly, they're probably making MORE off of you, because they're collecting 2 or 3% for a month or less, instead of the 1 to 2% per month that they can charge in interest. The only situation I know where you can get money from a credit card company for free is when they offer \"\"convenience checks\"\" or a balance transfer with no up-front fee. I get such an offer every now and then. I presume the credit card company does that for the same reason that stores give out free samples: they hope that if you try the card, you'll continue using it. To them, it's a marketing cost, no different than the cost of putting an ad on television.\"",
"Short of canceling the card, you could just report the card as lost and ask for a new card number on the same account. Another option is to just make a note to look for the charge and keep disputing it. It has been a while since I did credit card processing at my business, but I think the company gets dinged if too many customers dispute charges and kicks them into a higher fee schedule with the credit card company.",
"\"Here's an excerpt from VISA's Card Acceptance Guidelines for Visa Merchants (PDF) The merchant name is the single most important factor in cardholder recognition of transactions. Therefore, it is critical that the merchant name, while reflecting the merchant’s “Doing Business As” (DBA) name, also be clearly identifiable to the cardholder. This can minimize copy requests resulting from unrecognizable merchant descriptors. Merchant applications typically list the merchant name as the merchant DBA. This may differ from the legal name (which can represent the corporate owner or parent company), and may differ from the owner’s name which, for sole proprietorships, may reflect the business owner. I think that the key statement above is \"\"Therefore, it is critical that the merchant name [...] be clearly identifiable to the cardholder.\"\" Since this merchant was not clearly identifiable to the cardholder, they are in breach of a critical point in these guidelines. This is from VISA, but I would assume that all other major credit cards would have similar guidelines for their merchants. However keep in mind that these are \"\"guidelines\"\", and not (necessarily) rules.\"",
"I think you'll find that a credit card does have an account number and sort code, I have had a Visa card previously and currently have a Mastercard. Both were paid by Direct Debit, and I could then transfer money to the account when I wanted to pay more than the minimum payment off. Check the introductory letter from the card provider, it should be on there, failing that, contact the provider and ask them for the details, how to pay, or a direct debit mandate for either the whole amount or the minimum amount.",
"Is my understanding okay ? If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. Which is where the credit card company can add fees so you pay more and they make more money. Don't forget that in the credit case, you are borrowing money rather than using your own. Another thing that bothers me is that the credit card apparently has a rather low credit limit. If I wanted to buy something that costs $2500 but only have a credit limit of $1500, can I make a preemptive wire from my check account to the VISA account to avoid facing the limit ? If so, what is the point for the customer of having two accounts (and two cards for that matter...) ? If you were the credit card company, do you believe people should be given large limits first? There are prepaid credit cards where you could put a dollar amount on and it would reject if the balance gets low enough. Iridium Prepaid MasterCard would be an example here that I received one last year as I was involved in the floods in my area and needed access to government assistance which was given this way. Part of the point of building up a credit history is that this is part of how one can get the credit limits increased on cards so that one can have a higher limit after demonstrating that they will pay it back and otherwise the system could be abused. There may be a risk that if you prepay onto a credit card and then want to take back the money that there may be fees involved in the transaction. Generally, with credit cards the company makes money on the fees involved for transactions which may come from merchants or yourself as a cash advance on a credit card will be charged interest right away while if you buy merchandise in a store there may not be the interest charged right away.",
"The only people who should know my online bank password are me & my spouse. Forget it, I won't share that sensitive information with any other company. I might as well give a blank check! Besides, don't banks require people to keep their username & password & PIN private? I signed an agreement to that effect, I think! So even if I did find the online services compelling enough to try, I would want to check with my own bank first & ask them if it's OK to give my password to somebody else. I wonder what they would say to that!!",
"\"I don't think credit cards support depositing money into to begin with. Anyone could deposit money to a Credit Card acccount. All they need is your bank's name, Visa/Mastercard, and 16 digit number. It is done through the \"\"Pay Bills / Make Payments\"\" function in online banking. So tell me, what does it mean that PayPal will transfer the money to my VISA card You can use the new balance for spending via Credit Card, the effect is same as making a payment from your chequing account to credit card account. Will it simply just get transferred to my bank account by the local bank after that Some banks would refund the excess amount from your Credit Card to your Chequing Account after a while, but most don't. People keep credit balance on credit card to make a purchaes larger than credit limit. For example, if your credit limit is $1000, balance is $0, and you made $500 payment to the credit card, you can make a purchase of $1500 without asking for credit limit increase.\"",
"You should check with the Office of Student Affairs (or equivalent) at your University to see if you can accept Credit Cards. Many will only allow you to accept student organization dues paid in cash, check, or money order. Many universities will also provide your organization with basic operating funds, if you request it. Your first point of contact should be your faculty adviser, though. Your best bet would be to just use cash. Learn where the nearest ATMs are. If you are set on using credit cards, set up a PayPal account and just use it to reimburse the person who fronts the money (cover the markup). Everyone will have to have a PayPal account set up, linked to their credit card. You can avoid fees by using a bank account. If you're so inclined, you can set up a Business account and have a PayPal Debit Card, but you'll want to check with your adviser / University by-laws to see if you're allowed. Don't expect any of these to work as website implementations. As you're a University group, you will undoubtedly be meeting in person such that an exchange of cash/check/money order would be trivial In short, you'll need to check into the rules of your University. Credit cards generally carry processing fees, charged to the merchant, which (on its own) carries some tax implications.",
"Here is a simple answer: Most merchants do not charge customers, but you can.",
"Verify the signature against what? You are going to have a pad of paper and ask the customer to sign and compare it for every charge? Also, FYI, per the credit card companies, you need just to check if the signature is on the card. They do NOT(!) ask you to compare signatures.",
"I am the vendor and I pay the 2 to 3%, not the customer. And I will pay it with a smile on my face. It's either that or deal with cash or other payment methods that are a) difficult/expensive or b) not possible because I am an online merchant. I would *like* the fees to be lower but right now pretty much every other method is either difficult, expensive or both. They know what they are doing. EDIT: Merchants like debit cards. They have the cheapest interchange rate. Reward cards are the most expensive - where do you think your 1% cash back comes from? :)",
"\"Most people are aware of the existence of merchant processing fees. If this really bothers anyone: * Get a rewards credit card * Pay the bill off in full every month * Redeem your points for cash back You've now recovered a good portion of the fees back and have still had the convenience of not carrying cash and all of the other random \"\"benefits\"\" (extended warranty, travel protection, etc) cards carry these days. Some of the programs with 5% cash back will put more back in your pocket than what the fees are since they generally run around 2-4%.\"",
"As a merchant I can tell you that the only thing the bank gets from me. Is the total amount and a category for my business. No detail, not ever."
] |
[
"Yes, there are a bunch. I have used Paypal and it worked quite nicely. I see endless ads these days for Square, a tiny card reader that you plug into a smartphone that lets you swipe the card. (With Paypal you have to type in the credit card number.)"
] |
4756
|
What is the formula for the Tesla Finance calculation?
|
[
"340254"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"123395",
"340254",
"168238",
"2768",
"50912",
"16051",
"295861",
"349611",
"7540",
"26846",
"446454",
"361069",
"19999",
"299563",
"534552",
"293501",
"106310",
"90916",
"465059",
"266397",
"150813",
"262070",
"94630",
"10882",
"209238",
"584231",
"373226",
"213393",
"325435",
"254245",
"445348",
"418516",
"575524",
"353042",
"557967",
"308195",
"395128",
"19613",
"131696",
"445290",
"214446",
"203670",
"86636",
"341930",
"313171",
"445593",
"297385",
"193783",
"36405",
"597653",
"373133",
"215659",
"472646",
"245648",
"509942",
"302420",
"82479",
"210958",
"217363",
"270233",
"280805",
"217222",
"266319",
"372777",
"75715",
"220176",
"179733",
"224057",
"548718",
"260569",
"573899",
"379299",
"132950",
"65578",
"255252",
"228343",
"403872",
"449511",
"265678",
"235314",
"242903",
"536681",
"18939",
"520217",
"125986",
"563732",
"480128",
"516631",
"419855",
"31019",
"300412",
"321647",
"409434",
"162519",
"204917",
"134110",
"568220",
"507656",
"181032",
"83987"
] |
[
"The formula you need is: M = (r * PV) / (1 - ((1+r)^(-n))) M = monthly payment ($350) r = interest per period (7.56% / 12) = 0.63% n = number of periods (36 months) PV = present value, or here, your max loan amount given M Therefore: $350 = (0.63% * PV) / (1 - ((1+0.63%)^(-36))) The denominator on the right ends up equal to ~ 0.2025 when you do the math in your calculator. Carry that over to the by multiplying both sides of the equation by 0.2025 This results in $70.82 = 0.63% * PV Divide $70.82 by 0.63% to get PV = $11,242 (roughly). Hope this helps explain it algebraically!!",
"From here The formula is M = P * ( J / (1 - (1 + J)^ -N)). M: monthly payment RESULT = 980.441... P: principal or amount of loan 63963 (71070 - 10% down * 71070) J: monthly interest; annual interest divided by 100, then divided by 12. .00275 (3.3% / 12) N: number of months of amortization, determined by length in years of loan. 72 months See this wikipedia page for the derivation of the formula",
"Here is the derivation of the formula, with The loan is equal to the sum of the repayments discounted to present value.",
"They use an amortization table like can be found Here. The Forumula is not that complex where: A = payment Amount per period P = initial Principal (loan amount) r = interest rate per period n = total number of payments or periods You will need to add 50 to the A to account for the payment fee amount though.",
"This is more a question for /r/personalfinance, but I'll answer it anyways. Just use the RATE formula in excel. =RATE(numperiods,monthly payment,amount financed)*12 Just make sure the number of periods is in months, the payment is negative, and to multiply the whole thing by 12 to get the annual interest rate.",
"The formula for determining the number of payments (months) you'll need to make on your loan is: where i=monthly interest rate (annual rate / 12), A=loan amount (principal), and P=monthly payment. To determine the total interest that you will pay, you can use the following formula: where P=monthly payment, N=number of payments (from above formula), and A=loan amount (principal). A quick example: using the numbers in the screenshot above ($10,000 loan, $500 monthly payment, 10% APR), the number of payments ends up to be 21.97 (which means that payment number 22 is slightly less than the rest). In the second formula, you take that number times your $500 payment and determine that you have paid $10,984.81 over the course of the entire loan period. Subtracting the principal, you have paid $984.81 in total interest. On your spreadsheet, the function you are looking for is NPER: NPER(rate, payment_amount, present_value, [future_value, end_or_beginning]) rate - The interest rate. (This should be the monthly rate, or the annual rate divided by 12.) payment_amount - The amount of each payment made. (For a loan payment, this should be a negative number.) present_value - The current value of the annuity. (The initial principal of the loan) future_value - [ OPTIONAL ] - The future value remaining after the final payment has been made. (This should be 0, the default if omitted.) end_or_beginning - [ OPTIONAL - 0 by default ] - Whether payments are due at the end (0) or beginning (1) of each period.",
"If you're able to pop this data into excel you can quickly calculate the solution. Every one of these problems boils down to 'Interest Rate', 'Term', 'Payment', 'Present Value', and 'Future Value' (FV will typically be zero). Excel has a formula to calculate any of these components based off of the other inputs. In this case, the given information is: Interest Rate: 7.56% Term: 36 Months Monthly PMT: $350 Present Value: ? You can use the =PV() formula and input the other known values. One caveat is that you'll need to adjust the interest rate to account for the monthly compounding. So, the formula would be =PV(.0063,36,-350). This gives a result of $11,242, which is the amount you'd be able to borrow. [All of these can also be solved on the TI-84+, but I don't have my old calculator on me to walk through the steps] To calculate the total interest paid, you would then find out how much you'll be paying over the life of the loan. If your monthly payment is $350 for 36 months, the total amount you'd pay is $12,600 ($350*36). Subtract the $11,242 calculated in step one, and you are left with $1,358 worth of interest. Hope that makes sense. Let me know if you want me to go over any of the steps in more detail. As a former finance student, I would highly recommend locking down the TVM functions, as they will pop up quite often throughout your schooling/career. Best of luck!",
"I would like to know how they calculated such monthly payment The formula is: Your values would come out to be: r = (1+3.06/(100*365))^31-1=0.002602 (converting your annual percentage to a monthly rate equivalent of daily compounded interest) PV = 12865.57 n = 48 Inserting your values into the formula: P = [r*(PV)]/[1-(1+r)^(-n)] P = [0.002602*(12865.57)]/[1-(1.002602)^(-48)] P = 285.47",
"Easier to copy paste than type this out. Credit: www.financeformulas.net Note that the present value would be the initial loan amount, which is likely the sale price you noted minus a down payment. The loan payment formula is used to calculate the payments on a loan. The formula used to calculate loan payments is exactly the same as the formula used to calculate payments on an ordinary annuity. A loan, by definition, is an annuity, in that it consists of a series of future periodic payments. The PV, or present value, portion of the loan payment formula uses the original loan amount. The original loan amount is essentially the present value of the future payments on the loan, much like the present value of an annuity. It is important to keep the rate per period and number of periods consistent with one another in the formula. If the loan payments are made monthly, then the rate per period needs to be adjusted to the monthly rate and the number of periods would be the number of months on the loan. If payments are quarterly, the terms of the loan payment formula would be adjusted accordingly. I like to let loan calculators do the heavy lifting for me. This particular calculator lets you choose a weekly pay back scheme. http://www.calculator.net/loan-calculator.html",
"\"By the sounds of things, you're not asking for a single formula but how to do the analysis... And for the record you're focusing on the wrong thing. You should be focusing on how much it costs to own your car during that time period, not your total equity. Formulas: I'm not sure how well you understand the nuts and bolts of the finance behind your question, (you may just be a pro and really want a consolidated equation to do this in one go.) So at the risk of over-specifying, I'll err on the side of starting at the very beginning. Any financial loan analysis is built on 5 items: (1) # of periods, (2) Present Value, (3) Future Value, (4) Payments, and (5) interest rate. These are usually referred to in spreadsheet software as NPER, PV, FV, PMT, and Rate. Each one has its own Excel/google docs function where you can calculate one as a function of the other 4. I'll use those going forward and spare you the 'real math' equations. Layout: If I were trying to solve your problem I would start by setting up the spreadsheet up with column A as \"\"Period\"\". I would put this label in cell A2 and then starting from cell A3 as \"\"0\"\" and going to \"\"N\"\". 5 year loans will give you the highest purchase value w lowest payments, so n=60 months... but you also said 48 months so do whatever you want. Then I would set up two tables side-by-side with 7 columns each. (Yes, seven.) Starting in C2, label the cells/columns as: \"\"Rate\"\", \"\"Car Value\"\", \"\"Loan Balance\"\", \"\"Payment\"\", \"\"Paid to Interest\"\", \"\"Principal\"\", and \"\"Accumulated Equity\"\". Then select and copy cells C2:I2 as the next set of column headers beginning in K2. (I usually skip a column to leave space because I'm OCD like that :) ) Numbers: Now you need to set up your initial set of numbers for each table. We'll do the older car in the left hand table and the newer one on the right. Let's say your rate is 5% APR. Put that in cell C1 (not C3). Then in cell C3 type =C$1/12. Car Value $12,000 in Cell D3. Then type \"\"Down Payment\"\" in cell E1 and put 10% in cell D1. And last, in cell E3 put the formula =D3*(1-D$1). This should leave you with a value for the first month in the Rate, Car Value, and Loan Balance columns. Now select C1:E3 and paste those to the right hand table. The only thing you will need to change is the \"\"Car Value\"\" to $20,000. As a check, you should have .0042 / 12,000 / 10,800 on the left and then .0042 / 20,000 / 18,000 on the right. Formulas again: This is where spreadsheets become amazing. If we set up the right formulas, you can copy and paste them and do this very complicated analysis very quickly. Payment The excel formula for Payment is =PMT(Rate, NPER, PV, FV). FV is usually zero. So in cell F3, type the formula =PMT(C3, 60, E3, 0). Obviously if you're really doing a 48 month (4 year) loan then you'll need to change the 60 to 48. You should be able to copy the result from cell F3 to N3 and the formula will update itself. For the 60 months, I'm showing the 12K car/10.8K loan has a pmt of $203.81. The 20K/18K loan has a pmt of 339.68. Interest The easiest way to calculate the interest is as =E3*C3. That's (Outstanding Loan Balance) x (Periodic Interest Rate). Put this in cell G4, since you don't actually owe any interest at Period 0. Principal If you pay PMT each month and X goes to interest, then the amount to principal is \"\"PMT - X\"\". So in H4 type =-F3 - G3. The 'minus' in front of F3 is because excel's PMT function returns a negative amount. If you want to, feel free to type \"\"=-PMT(...)\"\" for the formula that's actually in F3. It's your call. I get 159 for the amount to principal in period 1. Accumulated Equity As I mentioned in the comment, your \"\"Equity\"\" comes from your initial Loan-to-Value and the accumulated principal payments. So the formula in this cell should reflect that. There are a variety of ways to do this... the easiest is just to compare your car's expected value to your loan balance every time. In cell I3, type =(D3-E3). That's your initial equity in the car before making any payments. Copy that cell and paste it to I4. You'll see it updates to =(D4-E3) automatically. (Right now that is zero... those cells are empty, but we're getting there) The important thing is that as JB King pointed out, your equity is a function of accumulated principal AND equity, which depreciates. This approach handles those both. Finishing up the copy-and-paste formulas I know this is long, but we're almost done. Rate // Period 1 In cell C4 type =C3. Payment // Period 1 In cell F4 type =F3. Loan Balance // Period 1 In cell E4 type =E3-H4. Your loan balance at the end of period is reduced by the principal you paid. I get 10,641. Car Value // Period 1 This will vary depending on how you want to handle depreciation. If you ignore it, you're making a major error and it's not worth doing this entire analysis... just buy the prettiest car and move on with life. But you also don't have to get it scientifically accurate. Go to someplace like edmunds.com and look up a ballpark. I'm using 4% depreciation per year for the old (12K) car and 7% for the newer car. However, I pulled those out of my ass so figure out what's a better ballpark. In G1 type \"\"Depreciation\"\" and then put 4% in H1. In O1 type \"\"Depreciation\"\" and then 7% in P1. Now, in cell D4, put the formula =D3 * (1-(H$1/12)). Paste formulas to flesh out table As a check, your row 4 should read 1 / .0042 / 11,960 / 10,641 / 203.81 / 45 / 159 / 1,319. If so, you're great. Copy cells C4:I4 and paste them into K4:Q4. These will update to be .0042 / 19,883 / 17,735 / 339.68 / 75 / 265 / 2,148. If you've got that, then copy C4:Q4 and paste it to C5:C63. You've built a full amortization table for your two hypothetical loans. Congratulations. Making your decision I'm not going to tell you what to decide, but I'll give you a better idea of what to look at. I would personally make the decision based on total cost to own during that time period, plus a bit of \"\"x-factor\"\" for which car I really liked. Look at Period 24, in columns I and Q. These are your 'equities' in each car. If you built the sheet using my made-up numbers, then you get \"\"Old Car Equity\"\" as 4,276. \"\"New Car Equity\"\" is 6,046. If you're only looking at most equity, you might make a poor financial decision. The real value you should consider is the cost to own the car (not necessarily operate it) during that time... Total Cost = (Ending Equity) - (Payment x 24) - (Upfront Cash). For your 'old' car, that's (4,276) - (203.81 * 24) - (1,200) = -1,815.75 For the 'new' car, that's (6,046) - (339.68 * 24) - (2,000) = -4,106.07. Is one good or bad? Up to you to decide. There are excel formulas like \"\"CUMPRINC\"\" that can consolidate some of the table mechanics, but I assumed that if you're here asking you would have gotten stuck running some of those. Here's the spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ah0weE0QX65vdHpCNVpwUzlfYjlTY2VrNllXOS1CWUE#gid=1\"",
"The monthly repayments of the initial $ 300,000 loan can be calculated using this formula: source: Finance Formulas The monthly payment is It is not readily apparent how the formula works, but it is derived by induction from this summation, in which the sum of the discounted future payments are set equal to the present value of the loan: For the second part of the question, reinvestments are stopped after 9 months, after four investments of $ 26,374.77 * 3 = $ 79,124.31. And presumably each loan is repaid in 3 years, since 45 - 9 = 36 months. Calculating the repayments for these loans: The total returned for all four loans is:",
"Happy to help. I always recommend you try and solve these types of problems by hand over financial calculators so that you can get a feel for how terms in the equation relate to one another. That's important while you're studying/learning. But for work--by all means you should use the fastest method, which is probably excel.",
"You need the Present Value, not Future Value formula for this. The loan amount or 1000 is paid/received now (not in the future). The formula is $ PMT = PV (r/n)(1+r/n)^{nt} / [(1+r/n)^{nt} - 1] $ See for example http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/financial/loan-calculator.php With PV = 1000, r=0.07, n=12, t=3 we get PMT = 30.877 per month",
"If it's number of years and the interest is per-annum the formula is the same as the normal one. this should work on most hand-held calculators.",
"The calculation can be made on the basis that the loan is equal to the sum of the repayments discounted to present value. (For more information see Calculating the Present Value of an Ordinary Annuity.) With Deriving the loan formula from the simple discount summation. As you can see, this is the same as the loan formula given here. In the UK and Europe APR is usually quoted as the effective interest rate while in the US it is quoted as a nominal rate. (Also, in the US the effective APR is usually called the annual percentage yield, APY, not APR.) Using the effective interest rate finds the expected answer. The total repayment is £30.78 * n = £1108.08 Using a nominal interest rate does not give the expected answer.",
"\"Taking the last case first, this works out exactly. (Note the Bank of England interest rate has nothing to do with the calculation.) The standard loan formula for an ordinary annuity can be used (as described by BobbyScon), but the periodic interest rate has to be calculated from an effective APR, not a nominal rate. For details, see APR in the EU and UK, where the definition is only valid for effective APR, as shown below. 2003 BMW 325i £7477 TYPICAL APR 12.9% 60 monthly payments £167.05 How does this work? See the section Calculating the Present Value of an Ordinary Annuity. The payment formula is derived from the sum of the payments, each discounted to present value. I.e. The example relates to the EU APR definition like so. Next, the second case doesn't make much sense (unless there is a downpayment). 2004 HONDA CIVIC 1.6 i-VTEC SE 5 door Hatchback £6,999 £113.15 per month \"\"At APR 9.9% [as quoted in advert], 58 monthly payments\"\" 58 monthly payments at 9.9% only amount to £5248.75 which is £1750.25 less than the price of the car. Finally, the first case is approximate. 2005 TOYOTA COROLLA 1.4 VVTi 5 door hatchback £7195 From £38 per week \"\"16.1% APR typical, a 60 month payment, 260 weekly payments\"\" A weekly payment of £38 would imply an APR of 14.3%.\"",
"A lease payment is composed of an interest portion (borrowed money) and depreciation amount (purchase - residual). The Monthly payment is then Monthly Interest Cost + Monthly Depreciation Cost The Money Factor is used to estimate the amount of interest due in a single month of a lease so you can figure out the monthly payment. If you are borrowing $100,000 then over the entire loan of repayment from a balance of $100,000 to a balance of $0, the average amount you owed was $50,000 (1/2 of principal). You are repaying this loan monthly (1/12 of a year) and percents are expressed as decimals (1/100). 6 * 1/2 (for principal) * 1/12 (for monthly) * 1/100 (to convert percentage from 6% to .06) = 6 * 1/2400. 2400 is the product of 3 consecutive conversion (1/2 * 1/12 * 1/100) to convert from an interest rate to a money factor. 6/2400 = Money factor of 0.0025 which can be multiplied against the total amount being borrowed to know what the monthly interest would roughly equal. Some Money Factor info: https://www.alphaleasing.com/resources/articles/MoneyFactor.asp",
"As my business partner likes to say, *don't bark at a barking dog*, it's just not worth it. The unfortunate thing about finance is people who *know what something is* thinks that's the same as *knowing something*. It's become pretty absurd at this point with everyone I've interacted with in the industry over the years. And everyone all too defensive of whatever it is they think they know. Tesla does not earn an accounting profit. Absent any adjustments, they are negative cash flow as well. But it's one of those rare cases where adjustments absolutely have to be made - as they are material. The business relies heavily on outside capital but a lot of it is the result of growth/capex decisions, as opposed to ones made for survival. We don't have the same set of books that capital providers get from Tesla - the ones that show you what you're looking for in this argument - but I can assure they do clear a net positive cash at this time in their history, before their aggressive expansion plans are put into effect. We have a cool facebook community that I help run. 2,000 people or so. Used to get into the weeds on stuff like this, but lately they've all been infected by crypto. I sort of just sit on the sidelines now. That is your true job security - your competition getting attracted to shiny things.",
"The 1.140924% is calculated by taking 13.69%/12 = 1.140924%. Dividing this number by 100 gives you the answer 1.140924 / 100 = .01140924. When dealing with decimals it's important to remember the relationship between a decimal and a percent. 1% = .01 To return .01 to a percent you must multiple that number by 100. So .01 x 100 = 1% In order to get a decimal from a percent, which is what is used in calculations, you must divide by 100. So, here if we are trying to calculate how much interest you are paying each month we can do this: 9800 * .1369 = $1341.62 (interest you will pay that year IF the principal balance never changed) 1341.62 / 12 = ~111.81 Now, month two 9578.34 * .1369 = 1311.274746 1311.274746 / 12 = 109.28 In order to get your monthly payments (which won't change) for the life of the loan, you can use this formula: Monthly payment = r(PV) / (1-(1+r)^-n) Where: r= Interest Rate (remember if calculating monthly to do .1369/12) PV= Present Value of loan n=time of loan ( in your case 36 since we are talking monthly and 12*3 = 36) from here we get: [(.1369/12)*9800]/(1-(1+.1369/12)^-36) = $333.467 when rounding is $333.47 As far as actual applied interest rate, I'm not even sure what that number is, but I would like to know once you figure out, since the interest rate you're being charged is most definitely 13.69%.",
"Its kind of a dumb question because no one believes that you can earn 8% in the short term in the market, but for arguments sake the math is painfully easy. Keep in mind I am an engineer not a finance guy. So the first payment will earn you one month at 8%, the second, two. In effect three months at 8% on 997. You can do it that way because the payments are equal: 997 * (.08 /12) *3 = earnings ~= 20 So with the second method you pay: 997 * 3 - 20 = 2971",
"Tesla has over $8B in depreciated PP&E on the books, and long-term debt and capital leases approx. $7B prior to the debt issuance. Depending on the priority of claim on the $1.5B of new issuance, taking a position on the bonds might have some decent security on liquidated Tesla assets.",
"This is a clear example of annuities, where you are trying to find Net Present Value (NPV). To find a quick solution you can use the excel function (=NPV). Solving it without excel is slightly more complicated. You have to use the annuities formula: (Payment/rate) * (1 - 1/(1+r)^n ) This formula can be written in many different ways, this is one of the simplest. So how do we translate that to your problem? For the first option: -5000/0.04 * (1 - 1/(1.04^2 ) = -9430.47 If you haven't made this years 5000 payment you have to subtract this years 5000, so option 1 would equal -14430,47. Option 2 is similar -2000/0.04 (1 - 1/(1.04^10 ) = -16221.79 WAIT! You also have to subtract the initial cost so option 2 is -36221.79 So in essence, option 1 is better (but you will have to buy a machine sooner or later). Part 2 (discount rate = 12%) is for you to understand the importance of high rates in long periods of time (like option 2's 10 years) EDIT: For clearer formulas. Also made a mistake calculating option 2",
"This looks correct to me, for simple interest. If you are dealing with compound interest, the formula would be: So, A = 500000(1+0.036/365)^(30), or 501,481.57, or an interest of 1481.57, assuming the 3.6% is the annual nominal interest rate and it is compounded daily. Note that you are ignoring the depreciation and also ignoring the percentage of customers who will forfeit their debt in the 30 - 60 day period.",
"http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-q2-loss-narrower-estimates-113042878.html >Including the impact of Model S revenues deferred due to lease accounting, top line jumped 89.9% to $769.3 million in the quarter from $405.1 million a year ago. Revenues, however, lagged the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $802 million. >The year-over-year revenue growth was driven by higher vehicle deliveries. Tesla delivered 7,579 cars in the second quarter, surpassing the guidance of 7,500 deliveries and increasing more than 17% over the first quarter of 2014. The automaker also benefited from initiation of the delivery of powertrains to Daimler AG (DDAIF) for the Mercedes-Benz B Class Electric Drive, although the winding down of electric powertrain components sales to Toyota Motor Corp. (TM) for the RAV4 EV is hurting revenues. >Gross profit, including the impact of Model S gross profit deferred due to lease accounting and stock-based compensation expenses, amounted to $213.0 million in second-quarter 2014, against $100.5 million in the year-ago quarter. >Revenues (on a reported basis) from Automotive sales, jumped to $768.2 million in the quarter from $401.5 million a year ago. Reported revenues from Development services (producing electric vehicle powertrain components and systems for other automobile manufacturers) slumped to $1.1 million from $3.6 million a year ago. >Financial Position >Tesla had cash and cash equivalents of $2.7 billion as of Jun 30, 2014, compared with $845.9 million as Dec 31, 2013. Long-term debt was $2.4 billion as of Jun 30, 2014, versus $586.3 million as of Dec 31, 2013. >Cash flow from operating activities amounted to $57.1 million in the first half of 2014, compared with $28.8 million in the year-ago period. Capital expenditures increased to $317.0 million from $98.2 million in the first half of 2013. >Gigafactory Update >Tesla has signed a formal agreement with Panasonic Corp. (PCRFY) for partnership in the Gigafactory. Under the agreement, Panasonic will invest in production equipment for the manufacture of lithium-ion battery cells, while Tesla will invest in land, buildings and utilities for the Gigafactory as well as production equipment for battery module and pack production. Moreover, Tesla will be responsible for the management of the Gigafactory. Other partners will also be involved in the Gigafactory for manufacture of the required precursor materials. >In June, Tesla broke ground for the potential construction of the Gigafactory near Reno, NV. While the location of the Gigafactory has not been decided yet, Tesla is planning to hold ground-breaking ceremony for the factory at three sites to avoid any delay in construction. Construction work will begin at one of the three sites by the end of the year and will be wrapped up by 2017. >Outlook >Tesla expects to record a marginal adjusted profit in the third quarter of 2014. Production volume in the third quarter of 2014 is expected to be 9,000 cars, up 2.7% from 8,763 cars produced in the second quarter of 2014. This includes the impact of the two-week production shutdown at the Fremont factory for the transition to the new final assembly line, which is expected to result in production loss of about 2,000 cars in the third quarter. However, due to the enhanced factory capacity, Tesla expects production volume to increase to an average of 1,000 cars per week in the fourth quarter of 2014 from 800 cars at present. >Further, vehicle deliveries are expected to increase to 7,800 in the third quarter of 2014 from 7,579 cars in the second quarter. However, deliveries are expected to be lower than production due to increase in the number of vehicles in transit. Tesla also plans to lease about 300 vehicles in North America in the third quarter, which is expected to increase further in the fourth quarter. Further, the automaker anticipates to deliver more than 35,000 vehicles globally in 2014, up 55% over 2013. >Adjusted automotive gross margin, excluding ZEV credits, is expected to increase to 28% by the end of 2014. The company believes that declining parts prices and economies of scale will benefit its gross margin. >Operating expenses are expected to increase in the third quarter of 2014. The company believes that research and development expenses will increase 20% sequentially in the quarter. Selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses are projected to rise 15%. >Capital expenses for the year are expected to range between $750 million and $950 million, up from the previous projection of $650–$850 million. Tesla is investing heavily in increasing production capacity, development of Model S and Model X, the Gigafactory construction and expansion of sales, service and Supercharger infrastructure. Increasing revenue, increasing sales, increasing gross profits, increasing margins = increasing investments into the company for exponential growth. Baby you've never been risk taking in your life before?",
"The general concept is that your money will grow at an accelerating rate because you start getting interest paid on your returns in addition to the original investment. As a simple example, assume you invest $100 and get 10% interest per year paid annually. -At the end of the first year you have your $100 + $10 interest for a total of $110. -So you start the second year with $110 and so 10% would be $11 for a total of $121. -The third year you start with $121 so 10% would be $12.10 for a total of $133.10 See how the amount it goes up each year increases? If we were talking a higher initial amount or a larger number of years that can really add up. That is essence is compound interest. Most of the complicated looking formulas you see out there for compound interest are just shortcuts so you don't have to iteratively go through the above exercise a bunch of times to find out how much you would have after some number of years. This formula tells you how much you would have(A) after a certain number of years(t) at a given interest rate(r) assuming they pay interest n times per year, for example you would use 12 for n if it paid interest monthly instead of yearly. P represents the amount you started out with. If you keep investing monthly (as shown in your example) instead of just depositing it and letting it sit, you have to use a more complicated formula. Finance people refer to this as calculating the future value of an annuity. That formula looks like this: A = PMT [((1 + r)N - 1) / r] x (1+r) A : Is the amount you would have at the end of the time period. N : The number of compounding periods (months if you get interest calculated monthly) PMT : The total amount you are putting in each period (N) r: Just like before, the interest rate you are getting paid. Be sure to adjust this to a monthly number if N represents months (divide APR by 12)* *Most interest rates are quoted as APR, which is the annualized interest rate not counting compounding. Don't confuse this with APY, which has compounding built into it and is not appropriate for use in this formula. Inserting your example: r (monthly interest rate) = 15% APR / 12 = .0125 n = 30 years * 12 months/year = 360 months A = $150 x [((1 + .0125)360 - 1) / .0125] x (1+.0125) A = $1,051,473.09 (rounded)",
"What is the formula for calculating the total cost of a loan with extra payments towards the principal? The formula you require is the standard one for calculating the time to repay. With larger repayments the time to completely repay the loan is reduced. Where The total cost of the loan is then n * d. Explanation & Calculation The formula for a loan is derived from the sum of the cash flows discounted to present value being equal to the principal. For further info see the section here titled: Calculating the Present Value of an Ordinary Annuity The summation can be reduced to a closed form by induction: Rearranging for d and n With the OP's figures The original monthly repayment is $1,006.96 Adding $200 each month ... With the higher repayment the loan is repaid in 257.36 months instead of 360. (Of course a bank would simply take a reduced payment in month 258, but the amounts work out the same.) The saving is $51,882.37 Addendum If the repayments increase was made part-way through the term of the loan the summation and formula would be Where Then For example, if for the first ten years the payments are $1,006.96 and for the remaining time the repayments are $1,206.96 The loan is completely repaid in 302.528 months. The saving is Plotting over a range of m months:",
"Illustrating with a shorter example: Suppose I deposit 1,000 USD. Every year I deposit another 100 USD. I want to know how much money will be on that savings account in 4 years. The long-hand calculation is Expressed with a summation And using the formula derived from the summation (as shown by DJohnM) So for 20 years Note in year 20 (or year 4 in the shorter example) the final $100 deposit does not have any time to accrue interest before the valuation of the account.",
"\"Electric does make a difference when considering whether to lease or buy. The make/model is something to consider. The state you live in also makes a difference. If you are purchasing a small electric compliance car (like the Fiat 500e), leasing is almost always a better deal. These cars are often only available in certain states (California and Oregon), and the lease deals available are very enticing. For example, the Fiat 500e is often available at well under $100/mo in a three-year lease with $0 down, while purchasing it would cost far more ($30k, minus credits/rebates = $20k), even when considering the residual value. If you want to own a Tesla Model S, I recommend purchasing a used car -- the market is somewhat flooded with used Teslas because some owners like to upgrade to the latest and greatest features and take a pretty big loss on their \"\"old\"\" Tesla. You can save a lot of money on a pre-owned Model S with relatively low miles, and the battery packs have been holding up well. If you have your heart set on a new Model S, I would treat it like any other vehicle and do the comparison of lease vs buy. One thing to keep in mind that buying a Model S before the end of 2016 will grandfather you into the free supercharging for life, which makes the car more valuable in the future. Right now (2016/2017) there is a $7500 federal tax credit when buying an electric vehicle. If you lease, the leasing company gets the credit, not you. The cost of the lease should indirectly reflect this credit, however. Some states have additional incentives. California has a $2500 rebate, for example, that you can receive even if you lease the vehicle. To summarize: a small compliance car often has very good reasons to lease. An expensive luxury car like the Tesla can be looked at like any other lease vs buy decision, and buying a used Model S may save the most money.\"",
"Even if Tesla ends up breaking even or taking a small loss on their cars, they will still end up in the black selling batteries. Tesla wants people to believe they're a car company, and people have fallen for it. They are not though; they're a battery company. They will be making loads selling their batteries, not only to auto makers, but though Solar city as well.",
"What's the present value of using the payment plan? In all common sense the present value of a loan is the value that you can pay in the present to avoid taking a loan, which in this case is the lump sum payment of $2495. That rather supposes the question is a trick, providing irrelevant information about the stock market. However, if some strange interpretation is required which ignores the lump sum and wants to know how much you need in the present to pay the loan while being able to make 8% on the stock market that can be done. I will initially assume that since the lender's APR works out about 9.6% per month that the 8% from the stock market is also per month, but will also calculate for 8% annual effective and an 8% annual nominal rate. The calculation If you have $x in hand (present value) and it is exactly enough to take the loan while investing in the stock market, the value in successive months is $x plus the market return less the loan payment. In the third month the loan is paid down so the balance is zero. I.e. So the present value of using the payment plan while investing is $2569.37. You would need $2569.37 to cover the loan while investing, which is more than the $2495 lump sum payment requires. Therefore, it would be advisable to make the lump sum payment because it is less expensive: If you have $2569.37 in hand it would be best to pay the lump sum and invest the remaining $74.37 in the stock market. Otherwise you invest $2569.37 (initially), pay the loan and end up with $0 in three months. One might ask, what rate of return would the stock market need to yield to make it worth taking the loan? The APR proposed by the loan can be calculated. The present value of a loan is equal to the sum of the payments discounted to present value. I.e. with ∴ by induction So by comparing the $2495 lump sum payment with $997 over 3 x monthly instalments the interest rate implied by the loan can be found. Solving for r If you could obtain 9.64431% per month on the stock market the $x cash in hand required would be calculated by This is equal to the lump sum payment, so the calculated interest is comparable to the stock market rate of return. If you could gain more than 9.64431% per month on the stock market it would be better to invest and take the loan. Recurrence Form Solving the recurrence form shows the calculation is equivalent to the loan formula, e.g. becomes v[m + 1] = (1 + y) v[m] - p where v[0] = pv where In the final month v[final] = 0, i.e. when m = 3 Compare with the earlier loan formula: s = (d - d (1 + r)^-n) / r They are exactly equivalent, which is quite interesting, (because it wasn't immediately obvious to me that what the lender charges is the mirror opposite of what you gain by investing). The present value can be now be calculated using the formula. Still assuming the 8% stock market return is per month. If the stock market yield is 8% per annum effective rate and if it is given as a nominal annual yield, 8% compounded monthly",
"This calculation arrives at the correct answer. However, it uses the formula for an annuity due. This means the payments are made at the beginning of the month and the last month of the 10 year period has interest accrued. See the section, Calculating the Future Value of an Annuity Due. The rate is given as an effective rate. with In Excel, =FV((1+0.12)^(1/12)-1,120,3500,0,1)",
"\"I am trying to set up a formula that will find interest-rate behind first pencil sheets at car dealerships. I am not a car finance expert so I need someone who is intimate with how these loans really work. The points of data I get at first pencil are: 1) Amount Financed 2) Period 3) Monthly Payment The data I need to extrapolate: 1) Rate in percentile so that I can compare to my bank's offer. I have tried this and many other stock \"\"find rate\"\" formulas with no accurate results: R=(A/P^(1/n)-1)n\"",
"Given the following variables Where b[n + 1] = b[n] (1 + r) - w and b[0] = s then b[n] = ((1 + r)^n (r s - w) + w)/r For example, illustrating with some figures. The balances in the first four quarters (n = 1, 2, 3, 4) are Check As per the Excel formula provided by OneTruDragonGirl £670.27",
"This investment does not have a payback period as the net present value of your investment is negative. Your investment requires an initial cash outlay of $40,000 followed by annual savings of $2060 for the next 20 years. Your discount rate is 5% at which the NPV is $-14327.85 as calculated below by using this JavaScript financial functions library tadJS that is based on a popular tadXL add-in for Excel 2007, 2010 and 2013.",
"You're looking for the amortization calculation. This calculation is essentially solving for the series of cash flows that will yield a zero balance after the specified term, at the given rate for a loan amount. Once you have solved for the payment amount, you can add additional principal amount to each payment period and see the interest payments and time to zero balance drop.",
"The credits go to the buyers. TSLA's profit margin does not take into account any emissions credits. They did receive a nice big loan, and then they paid it back years early + interest. Currently their sales per square foot is twice of apple, and can increase demand at will. The federal tax credit to buyers being phased out will most likely be offset by reductions in battery cost when the time comes anyway. Do you also feel that the Model 3 will not happen? That car is the reason for the battery factory 'side show'.",
"\"To calculate the balance (not just principal) remaining, type into your favorite spreadsheet program: It is important that the periods for \"\"Periods\"\" and \"\"Rate\"\" match up. If you use your annual rate with quarterly periods, you will get a horribly wrong answer. So, if you invest $1000 today, expect 6% interest per year (0.5% interest per month), withdraw $10 at the end of each month, and want to know what your investment balance will be 2 years (24 months) from now, you would type: And you would get a result of $872.84. Or, to compute it manually, use the formula found here by poster uart: This is often taught in high-school here as a application of geomentric series. The derivation goes like this. Using the notation : r = 1 + interest_rate_per_term_as_decimal p = present value a = payment per term eot1 denotes the FV at end of term 1 etc. eot1: rp + a eot2: r(rp + a) + a = r^2p + ra + a eot3: r(r^2p + ra + a) + a = r^3p + r^2a + ra + a ... eotn: r^np + (r^(n-1) + r^(n-2) + ... 1)a = p r^n + a (r^n - 1)/(r-1) That is, FV = p r^n + a (r^n - 1)/(r-1). This is precisely what exel [sic] computes for the case of payments made at the end of each term (payment type = 0). It's easy enough to repeat the calculations as above for the case of payments made at the beginning of each term. This won't work for changing interest rates or changing withdrawal amounts. For something like that, it would be better for you (if you don't want online calculators) to set up a table in a spreadsheet so you can adjust different periods manually.\"",
"You should use the Gordon Growth model, but you are using the wrong rate. required return = rf + market premium x Beta rm = 0,12, premium = 0,08 --> rf = 0,04 thus rr = 0.04 + 0.08 * 1.5 = 0.16 then you get $15/(0.16-0.05) = $136,36",
"The short answer is you'd be much better off paying up front in this case. The present value of $2,500 plus 12 $500 monthly payments is $8,128 at a 12% discount rate, which is much higher then the $6,000 you could pay now. The long answer is how you get that present value. How can I use time value of money to find the present value of money if I choose to go with option A? First of all, I'd question your discount rate. A 12% discount rate means that you can safely reinvest the money that you're not spending today at a 12% annual (1% monthly) rate, which seems very high. Normally for short-term spending decisions you'd use a risk-free rate, which would be closer to 1%-2%. However, to discount at 1% monthly you'd just divide each monthly payment by 1 plus the discount rate raised to the power of the number of periods until each payment. So the total is which is $8,127.54 You could also use the NPV function in Excel. It seems like to get an accurate answer the calculation of the interest rate should take into account compounding period as well? Correct, and in the example above the compounding is assumed to be monthly since that's the periodicity of the cash flows. You could calculate it with a different compounding period but it gets much more complicated and probably wouldn't make a significant difference. The discount rate does take compounding into effect, meaning if you saved the $5,628 (the PV of $8,128 minus the $2,500 initial payment), you'd earn 1% interest on $5,628 the first month, $5,128 plus that interest the second month, etc.",
"The question states :- Our insurance company is offering a 30% discount on an $8200/year commercial policy, if we install sprinklers. The insurance is paid in two installments. ... This appears to mean six-monthly payments, so I'll make some comparison calculations using six-monthly loan repayments to keep things simple. Without the loan or sprinklers the insurance costs $4100 every six months. Using this loan payment formula, the calculation below shows, with the 30% discounted insurance, sprinkler maintenance and loan repayment, you would be paying $4655.28 every six months. The discount required to break even is 43.5%. I.e. rearranging the equation :- Alternatively, with the discount of 30% you would break even if the six-monthly repayment amount was $1030. Solving the payment equation for s gives an equation for the loan :- So with the 30% discount you would break even if the loan required was $25989. Checking by back-calculating the periodic payment amount, a :- Likewise we can keep the loan at $40000 and solve for t to find the break-even loan term :- (Note, in this formula Log denotes the natural logarithm.) Now we can set some values :- So with break-even payments the $40000 loan is paid off in just under 65.5 years. I.e. checking :- This just beats the $4100 cost of proceeding without the sprinklers. Notes If your loan repayment was monthly it would reduce the cost of the loan slightly. The periodic interest rate is calculated from the APR according to the method used in the EU and in some cases in US. The calculations above were run using Mathematica.",
"R = I ^ P R = return (2 means double) I = (Intrest rate / 100) + 1 [1.104 = 10.4%] P = number of periods (7 years) 2 = 1.104 ^ 7 (you double your money in seven years with a yearly Intrest rate of 10.4%) I = R^(1/P) 1.104 = 2^(1/7) P = log(R) / log(I) 7 = log(2) / log(1.104)",
"\"Using the fact that you'd save $160/mo by spending $7000, I'd look at it this way - If I were to lend you the $7000 at 12%/yr, $160 would pay it off in 58 months. At 18%/yr, 72 months or just 6 years. You can run spreadsheets to get breakeven scenarios, and mhoran is on track with his answer, but breakeven is just one point to consider. Beyond that date, it's free money. My approach is to look at it with a question - \"\"How much interest could I afford to pay to make that monthly savings worthwhile?\"\"\"",
"**Using your Time Value of Money functions on your calculator** N = 3x2 = 6 PV = -914 PMT = (.16 x 1000)/2 = 80 FV = 1000 Compute I/Y Or **Step by step calculations** 1) Compute the PV of **(FV of Bond)**1000 in **(3x2)**6 periods at **(16%/2)**8% with no payments 2) Compute the PV of an Annuity of **(.16/2x1000)**$80 payments over **(3x2)**6 periods with an interest rate of **(16%/2)**8% and 0 Future Value 3) Combine the values from Steps 1 and 2",
"This is a present value calculation, which excel or any financial calculator can handle. N = 300 (months) %i = 5/12 or .05/12 depending on the program/calculator PMT = $5000 (the monthly payment) FV = 0 (you want to end at zero balance) This calculates a PV (present value of $855,300) Chad had it right, but used a calculator that didn't offer the PV function, so he guessed and changed numbers til the answer was clear. user379 makes a good point, but why start inflation calculations at 65, and not now? You look like you're in your 30's, so there's 30 years of inflation, and $60K/yr in today's value will need to be closer to $150K/yr, given about 30 years of 3% inflation.",
"Probably more if the interest rate is above 0%. If it's too much, just pay span the payments longer, or get a cheaper car. Nice thing, assuming you keep it bone stock (or even tastefully modded, or even fully modded), you'll have no problem selling to some rich teenager. They hold their value.",
"Well, what you are asking is EMI, which comes to 30.78 in your case. The formula you are applying is of compounding a value, which is completely different. In EMI, person keeps paying money every month or any other period as specified. This amount is firstly allocated towards the interest for the period and the balance for principal amount. So, in effect principal keeps decreasing and subsequently interest thereon. Also, since, interest is getting paid every time it becomes due, compounding actually do not happen at all. In the case of compounding, interest gets applied at certain interval, but do not get paid. So, in effect every time when interest gets applied, it applies on complete Principal outstanding as well as interest unpaid. Hence, this complete amount gets payable at the end. In this case, total amount payable is obviously high, because of 2 reasons: 1. Since, Principal gets unpaid during whole period, you are paying interest on complete amount for complete period. 2. You will be paying interest on interest (compounding of interest) since you are not paying it as it is becoming due. Hence, both are different. You need to find EMI calculator or EMI formula, to achieve your purpose. EDIT: The formula for calculating EMI: Assuming a loan of Rs. 1 lakh at 9 % per annum, repayable in 15 years, the EMI calculation using the formula will be: EMI = (1,00,000 × 0.0075) × [(1 + 0.0075) 180 ÷ {(1+0.0075) 180 } - 1] = 750 × [3.838 ÷ 2.838] = 750 × 1.35236 = 1,014",
"Your company wants to raise $25,000,000 for a new project, but flotation costs are incurred by issuing securities (underwriting, legal fees, etc) First you must determine how much of the $25,000,000 is going to be debt and equity. The company's target D/E ratio is 50% (or .50). For every $0.50 of debt raised they want to raise $1.00 in equity. $1.00 + $0.50 = $1.50 $0.50/$1.50 = 1/3 debt, that leaves the equity portion being 2/3. $25,000,000 * (1/3) = $8,333,333.33 (DEBT) and $25,000,000 * (2/3) = $16,666,666.67 (EQUITY) Using the Weighted Average Cost then you would do something like this: = (1/3) * .04 + 2/3 * .12 = .09333333 =$25,000,000/(1-.093333) = $27,573,529.40",
"For this, the internal rate of return is preferred. In short, all cash flows need to be discounted to the present and set equal to 0 so that an implied rate of return can be calculated. You could try to work this out by hand, but it's practically hopeless because of solving for roots of the implied rate of return which are most likely complex. It's better to use a spreadsheet with this capability such as OpenOffice's Calc. The average return on equity is 9%, so anything higher than that is a rational choice. Example Using this simple tool, the formula variables can easily be input. For instance, the first year has a presumed cash inflow of $2,460 because the insurance has a 30% discount from $8,200 that is assumed to be otherwise paid, a cash inflow of $40,000 to finance the sprinklers, a cash outflow of $40,000 to fund the sprinklers, a $400 outflow for inspection, and an outflow in the amount of the first year's interest on the loan. This should be repeated for each year. They can be input undiscounted, as they are, for each year, and the calculator will do the rest.",
"Damn, helpful Harry above me. So, in general, when compounding the value of an investment, if you're seeing an annualized interest rate of 4%, and the interest compounds monthly (or n number of times per year), you're going to multiply the Principal P by the growth rate (the interest rate), adjusted for the number of periods that your investment grows in a year. P_end = P * (1 + 0.04/n)^(n * t), where n = number of periods, and t = number of years. If the interest compounds annually, you earn P *(1.04), if it compounds monthly, you earn (1 + 0.04/12)^(12 * 1). Apply this logic to discounting future cash flows to their net present value. When discounting future cash flows, you're essentially determing the opportunity cost of now being unable to put your investment elsewhere and earning that corresponding interest (discount) rate. Thus, you would discount $1000 by (1 + 0.08/12)^1, and $2000, $3000 in a similar fashion. Then, as icing on the cake, sum up to get your cumulative net present value. Please let me know if any portion of my explanation is unclear; I would be happy to elaborate!",
"The price-earnings ratio is calculated as the market value per share divided by the earnings per share over the past 12 months. In your example, you state that the company earned $0.35 over the past quarter. That is insufficient to calculate the price-earnings ratio, and probably why the PE is just given as 20. So, if you have transcribed the formula correctly, the calculation given the numbers in your example would be: 0.35 * 4 * 20 = $28.00 As to CVRR, I'm not sure your PE is correct. According to Yahoo, the PE for CVRR is 3.92 at the time of writing, not 10.54. Using the formula above, this would lead to: 2.3 * 4 * 3.92 = $36.06 That stock has a 52-week high of $35.98, so $36.06 is not laughably unrealistic. I'm more than a little dubious of the validity of that formula, however, and urge you not to base your investing decisions on it.",
"Tesla can't be valued, and its earning this year are completely irrelevant. Will it ever sell 1M+ annual vehicles? Even if one day 10M annual electric vehicles will be made, there is no guarantee that Tesla will maintain a majority share. No guarantee that Tesla will acquire or prevent the patents that allows them the share. I can appreciate respect for Musk though. Betting for or against Tesla is like betting on the 2017 Kentucky Derby today based seeing a few promising newborn fawns.",
"To calculate you take the Price and divide it by the Earnings, or by the Sales, or by the Free Cash Flow. Most of these calculations are done for you on a lot of finance sites if the data is available. Such sites as Yahoo Finance and Google Finance as well as my personal favorite: Morningstar",
"Using the standard loan formula with 21% APR nominal, compounded weekly. Calculate an adjusted loan start value by adding 31 - 7 = 24 extra days of daily interest (by converting the nominal compounded weekly rate to a daily rate). For details see Converting between compounding frequencies Applying the standard formula r (pv)/(1 - (1 + r)^-n) = 189.80 So every weekly payment will be 189.80 Alternatively Directly arriving at the same result by using the loan formula described here, The extension x is 31 - 7 = 24 daily fractions of an average week (where 7 daily fractions of an average week equal one average week). As before, the weekly payment will be 189.80 Both methods are effectively the same calculation.",
"It's not compound interest. It is internal rate of return. If you have access to Excel look up the XIRR built-in function.",
"Dealhoud, You are on the right path but this is actually an Equivalent annual cost problem. You have to take it a step further and divide the NPV by the Annuity factor. You need to calculate the annuity factor and divide the investment by that amount. Annuity Factor = (1-(1/(1+r)^n )) /r We know the annual cost of the the current forklift = $5K. We need to figure out the Equivalent annual cost of the new forklift. Investment / Annuity Factor + annual Cost = EAC. Therefore $20K / (1 - (1/(1.04^10 )) / 0.04 = $2,465.82 + annual Maintenance = $4,465.82 therefore it makes sense to replace the old machine.",
"\"A real simple definition or analogy of present Value would be the \"\"Principal\"\" or \"\"Loan Amount\"\" being lent and the future value as being returning the Principal along with cost of borrowing The (1+i)^n is the interest you earn on present value The (i+i)^-n is the interest you pay on future value The first one is the FVIF or future value of a $1 The second one is the PVIF or present value of a $1 Both these interest factors assume interest is paid annually, if the interest payment is made more often within the payment year then interest factors look this way m is the frequency of interest payment, the higher this frequency the more of interest you pay or earn and you pay or earn the most interest when compounding occurs on each small fraction of time This entails here e is the Euler's e Thus the interest factors turn to this The preceeding examples only considered a single repayment at future date. Now if you were obliged to make periodic loan repayments say in amount of $1 for n number of periods. Then the present value of all such periodic payment is the \"\"Principal\"\" or amount you borrowed. This is the sum of discounted periodic payments as if we replace 1/1+i with x then this turns out to be geometric series of the form This simplifies to replacing (1/1+i) for x we get which is the present value of periodic payment in amount of $1 The future value of periodic payments in amount of $1 can be arrived at multiplying the PVIFA by (1+i)^n giving Once again the interest is compounded per annum and for intra-year compounding you would have to at first find the annual effective yield AEY to use as the effect rate is the PVIFA and FVIFA calculation for continuous compounding All the calculation discussed thus far did not take inflation into consideration, if we were to adjust the amounts for a growth of g% then the present value of a $1 would be as follow Once again you would have to use AEY if compounding frequency of interest is intra-year Now assume that each loan repayment increases or decreases by an extra amount Q per period. To find the present value of series of payments P that increase or decrease per period by an amount Q we would do the following calculations Here and All of these calculations have been available in tadXL add-in for finance and incrementally being offered as JavaScript financial functions library tadJS. Please note that the tad series of the financial functions library for various environments such as Excel, JavaScript, PHP, Ruby, Microsoft.net and others are property of the author writing this post. All of these libraries except one for Excel are available for FREE for public use. And the future value of such payments with increments may be found by multiplying the PV by (1+i)^n as follows Here\"",
"Too calculate these values, information contained in the company's financial statements (income, balance, or cashflow) will be needed along with the price. Google finance does not maintain this information for BME. You will need to find another source for this information or analyze another another symbol's financial section (BAC for example).",
"\"This article feels like a project by an editor to see how well his new hire can write a \"\"finance\"\" article. Low hanging fruit: explain Tesla's junk rating compared to Ford's. The conclusion I was hoping he reached, which is my belief, is that Musk flys to close to the sun trying to balance expansion and debt with cash flows and revenue. If they fail Ford's the best positioned car manufacturer in my opinion. Sure, the Volvo's of the world are going all electric, but that's not what makes Tesla appealing in my opinion. They're a tech company masked as a car company. Ford is a car company trying to pivot to a tech company. Electric isn't the future, the vehical cloud is. Someone has to make these cars. Google or apple won't. Ford will hopefully build and service their own.\"",
"\"The system of comparison and calculation of insurance rates seems completely and utterly flawed to me. Why would you group cars from different manufacturers together by arbitrarily defined factors such as weight and size? It is perfectly possible to have a big, heavy car with very low claims, while a small car can have a lot more claims. The response provided by Tesla seems similarly moronic. They claim that their car is being compared to the wrong types of car, but even if that were the case - *so what*? If the other cars you are being compared to are too cheap/slow/small, then you have obviously been assigned to the wrong group, and should be in another group with the bigger, more expensive cars, which I would gather are even more expensive to insure, and thus your car should be more expensive to insure. If an insurance company is providing insurance to 1000 Volvo XC 90 drivers and 1000 Tesla Model S drivers and they get 100 claims from the Volvo drivers costing them a total of $ 200,000, while they get 150 claims from the Tesla drivers totaling $ 300,000 during the same time period, obviously the Tesla should be 50 % more expensive to insure. That is literally how car insurance works. Here in Germany, every model of car is assigned a unique identifier (\"\"Typschlüsselnummer\"\", roughly translates as \"\"type number\"\" or \"\"type identifier\"\"). Insurance companies track which cars their clients own, and report condensed claims statistics for each model back to a central service provider, which then assigns an insurance group (Typklasse) to each car for each type of insurance (there are distinct, independent groups for liability, partial and comprehensive coverage) depending on the actual, measured per-car expenditures experienced by the insurance companies over the previous year. The insurance companies then feed that data back into their systems for their rate calculations.\"",
"\"The \\^ symbol means exponentiation. You're multiplying by 216 instead. So rephrasing that in Excel functions (without just using \"\"=FV(0.004308,216,-175)\"\"), you'd have \"\"=((POWER(1.004308,216)-1)/0.004308)*175\"\". Note that I originally mentioned the difference between .004308 and 0.0517/12 because it makes roughly a $2.56 difference in the answer.\"",
"Some things you missed in your analysis: How will financing change your insurance costs? I.e. what is the difference between the insurance that you would buy for yourself and what they require? Note that it is possible that your insurance preferences are more stringent than the financing company's. If so, this isn't a big deal. But what's important is to consider if that's true. Because if you'd prefer to drive with only the legal minimum insurance and they insist that you have full coverage with no more than a $1000 deductible, that's a significant difference. Remember that you don't have $22.5k for six years. You have an average of $10.5k (($22.5k + -$1500)/2) for six years. Because you make payments ($24k) throughout. So you start with $22.5k and subtract $333.33 a month until you reach -$1500. That neglects both investment gains and potential losses. It's not the $333 payment that will freak out mortgage companies. It's the $24k debt. But that's offset by your $22.5k in assets at the beginning. And the car of course counts as an asset, albeit at lower than its sale value. I.e. from the bank's perspective, paying $22.5k for a car out of savings is almost as bad as borrowing $24k for a car. Both reduce your net worth. Watch out for hidden fees. In particular, 0% interest can often change into higher interest under certain circumstances. If we assume a 7% return for the six years, that's about $1400 the first year and less each year after. Perhaps $4500 over six years. But you aren't going to get a 7% return if you keep $24,000 in a bank account in case you have to pay off the loan. Instead, you'll get more like 1%, less than inflation. Even five year Certificates of Deposit are only about 2%, right around inflation (1.9% for previous twelve months). You can't keep the $24,000 in a securities account and be sure that it will be there when you need it. If the market crashes tomorrow, your $24,000 might be worth $12,000 instead. You'd have to throw in extra money from elsewhere. Instead of making $4500 at the cost of $1500, you'd have paid $25,500 for $12,000. Not a good deal. So for your plan to work, that $24,000 needs to be in an account that won't fall in value. You either need to compromise on the idea of a separate account that is always there when you need it, or you have to accept rather low returns. Personally, I would prefer not to have the debt and not to pay extra on the insurance. But that's me. The potential investment returns are not worth it to me. If you give up the separate account, you can make a few thousand dollars more. But your risk is higher.",
"The equation is the same one used for mortgage amortization. You first want to calculate the PV (present value) for a stream of $50K payments over 20 years at a10% rate. Then that value is the FV (future value) that you want to save for, and you are looking to solve the payment stream needed to create that future value. Good luck achieving the 10% return, and in knowing your mortality down to the exact year. Unless this is a homework assignment, which need not reflect real life. Edit - as indicated above, the first step is to get that value in 20 years: The image is the user-friendly entry screen for the PV calculation. It walks you though the need to enter rate as per period, therefore I enter .1/12 as the rate. The payment you desire is $50K/yr, and since it's a payment, it's a negative number. The equation in excel that results is: =PV(0.1/12,240,-50000/12,0) and the sum calculated is $431,769 Next you wish to know the payments to make to arrive at this number: In this case, you start at zero PV with a known FV calculated above, and known rate. This solves for the payment needed to get this number, $568.59 The excel equation is: =PMT(0.1/12,240,0,431769) Most people have access to excel or a public domain spreadsheet application (e.g. Openoffice). If you are often needing to perform such calculations, a business finance calculator is recommended. TI used to make a model BA-35 finance calculator, no longer in production, still on eBay, used. One more update- these equations whether in excel or a calculator are geared toward per period interest, i.e. when you state 10%, they assume a monthly 10/12%. With that said, you required a 20 year deposit period and 20 year withdrawal period. We know you wish to take out $4166.67 per month. The equation to calculate deposit required becomes - 4166.67/(1.00833333)^240= 568.59 HA! Exact same answer, far less work. To be clear, this works only because you required 240 deposits to produce 240 withdrawals in the future.",
"The equation for the payment is This board does not support Latex (the number formatting code) so the above is an image, the code is M is the payment calculated, n is the number of months or periods to pay off, and i is the rate per period. You can see that with i appearing 3 times in this equation, it's not possible to isolate to the form i=.... so a calculator will 'guess,' and use, say, 10%. It then raises or lowers the rate until the result is within the calculator's tolerance. I've observed that unlike other calculations, when you hit the button to calculate, a noticeable time lag occurs. I hope I haven't read too much into your question, it seemed to me this was what you asked.",
"\"Yeah, exactly. The difference is that Ferrari is making money. EDIT: to clarify... - Ferrari sells a niche product to a boutique customer-base willing to pay a premium in terms of both price and purchasing difficulty for exclusive, super-premium cars that are manufactured to artisan standards with little or no regard for cost-efficiency or price-to-value ratio, etc. People buying Ferrari are not looking for a \"\"sensible deal\"\", they are people who can afford to pay for something special, rare, and uncompromising. Tesla is in a similar market-position. - Ferrari actually makes money selling their cars. They do a low-volume boutique business, and charge prices that reflect a low volume of artisan-made specialty product. I am sure that certain special-order customers have to wait some time for delivery, but I drive by a Ferrari dealership every day on my way to work that has maybe 50 Ferraris sitting in a lot, that you can drive off with same-day, if you want. You can literally drive up, test-drive, and buy one tomorrow (if you have the scratch). OTOH... - Teslas are cheaper than Ferraris, but they are still deep into the super-premium price category. They are well outside the \"\"value-proposition\"\" customer-base. They are also (perhaps even more than Ferrari), in a market segment without meaningful competition. There are several super-premium 2-seaters in the $100-200k price range, but I suspect most Tesla shoppers are not mostly comparing them against Porsches or Vipers or Benzes. The all-electric supercar market is not a highly competitive one. - There is massive demand for Teslas, as is evidenced by the extremely thin used market, the year-plus-long wait list, and all that in the face of extremely customer-unfriendly sales/distribution and almost zero marketing... That is, people are waiting up in 18-month long lines to buy cars that they can't inspect at a local dealership, have no way to test-drive, and often have never even seen in person, and they are putting down cash deposits to do so, in amounts that could buy some pretty nice sports cars for the deposit alone. Moreover, it's not like Tesla buyers are going to change their minds and get a Chevy Volt or Honda Insight instead (although they might get both). This is any startups wet-dream: - You have a product that is not only already in production, but that you have been shipping for several years-- you *know* the tooling, manufacturing, support, and delivery costs, because you have actually been *doing it* for *years.* - You not only have no issues whatsoever with regards to building a customer-base, you already have paying customers and genuine orders *already booked* through 2014, more than you can keep up with. - You have a product with massive demand and almost non-existent price-pressure. You've got orders booked over a year out at asking price with virtually zero marketing or advertising, most customers buying site-unseen purely based on concept and reputation, and your customers are paying super-premium prices with no direct competitor alternative. This is a goldmine. This is the kind of thing that business-school textbooks tell you never happens. Rational-market theory says it's impossible to have a big-ticket product offering with essentially unlimited demand and zero meaningful competition. Moreover, this is happening in an environment where the business is not only receiving direct gov't subsidies, but where borrowing costs are close to negative in real dollars. A going concern with booked orders and guaranteed revenue through 2014 should, if anything, be *borrowing from banks to buy back equity*, not selling equity to raise capital. If Tesla needs to raise capital, then something is seriously wrong with the underlying business. As in, wrong enough that its current sales are not only un-profitable, but that currently-booked future sales will continue to be un-profitable for the foreseeable future (otherwise they could just borrow). You can plead \"\"startup\"\" when you have a small customer base but a great concept. You can plead \"\"startup\"\" when you first start shipping product in small quantities at low prices. But you can't plead \"\"startup\"\" when you have been shipping a product for years, and when you have customer-orders booked years out, at full asking price, with no meaningful price or product-competition.\"",
"I have found a good explanation here: http://www.contracts-for-difference.com/Financing-charge.html Financing is calculated by taking the overall position size, and multiplying it by (LIBOR + say 2%) and then dividing by 365 x the amount of days the position is open. For instance, the interest rate applicable for overnight long positions may be 6% or 0.06. To calculate how much it would cost you to hold a long position for X number of days you would need to make this 'pro rata' meaning that you would need to divide the 0.06 by 365 and multiply it by X days and then multiply this by the trade size. So for example, for a trade size of $20,000, held for 30 days, the interest cost would be about $98.6. It is important to note that due to financing, long positions held for extended periods can reduce returns.",
"The periodic rate (here, the interest charged per month), as you would enter into a finance calculator is 9.05%. Multiply by 12 to get 108.6% or calculate APR at 182.8%. Either way it's far more than 68%. If the $1680 were paid after 365 days, it would be simple interest of 68%. For the fact that payment are made along the way, the numbers change. Edit - A finance calculator has 5 buttons to cover the calculations: N = number of periods or payments %i = the interest per period PV = present value PMT = Payment per period FV= Future value In your example, you've given us the number of periods, 12, present value, $1000, future value, 0, and payment, $140. The calculator tells me this is a monthly rate of 9%. As Dilip noted, you can compound as you wish, depending on what you are looking for, but the 9% isn't an opinion, it's the math. TI BA-35 Solar. Discontinued, but available on eBay. Worth every cent. Per mhoran's comment, I'll add the spreadsheet version. I literally copied and pasted his text into a open cell, and after entering the cell shows, which I rounded to 9.05%. Note, the $1000 is negative, it starts as an amount owed. And for Dilip - 1.0905^12 = 2.8281 or 182.8% effective rate. If I am the loanshark lending this money, charging 9% per month, my $1000 investment returns $2828 by the end of the year, assuming, of course, that the payment is reinvested immediately. The 108 >> 182 seems disturbing, but for lower numbers, even 12% per year, the monthly compounding only results in 12.68%",
"I have answered your question in detail here https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12396422/apr-calculation-formula The annuity formula in FDIC document is at first finding PVIFAD present value annuity due factor and multiplying it with annuity payment and then dividing it by an interest factor of (1+i) to reduce the annuity to an ordinary annuity with end of period payments They could have simply used PVIFA and multiplying it with annuity payment to find the present value of an ordinary annuity In any case, you should not follow the directions in FDIC document to find interest rate at which the present value of annuity equals the loan amount. The method they are employing is commonly used by Finance Professors to teach their students how to find internal rate of return. The method is prone to lengthy trial and error attempts without having any way of knowing what rate to use as an initial guess to kick off the interest rate calculations So this is what I would suggest if you are not short on time and would like to get yourself familiar with numerical methods or iterative techniques to find internal rate of return There are way too many methods at disposal when it comes to finding interest rates some of which include All of the above methods use a seed value as a guess rate to start the iterative calculations and if results from successive calculations tend to converge within a certain absolute Error bound, we assume that one of the rates have been found as there may be as many rates as the order of the polynomial in this case 36 There are however some other methods that help find all rates by making use of Eigenvalues, but for this you would need a lengthy discourse of Linear Algebra One of the methods that I have come across which was published in the US in 1969 (the year I was born :) ) is called the Jenkins Traub method named after the two individuals who worked jointly on finding a solution to all roots of a polynomial discarding any previous work on the same subject I been trying to go over the Jenkins Traub algorithm but am having difficulty understanding the complex nature of the calculations required to find all roots of the polynomial In summary you would be better of reading up on this site about the Newton Raphson method to find IRR",
"There is a 3rd option: take the cash back offer, but get the money from a auto loan from your bank or credit union. The loan will only be for. $22,500 which can still be a better deal than option B. Of course the monthly payment can make it harder to qualify for the mortgage. Using the MS Excel goal seek tool and the pmt() function: will make the total payment equal to 24K. Both numbers are well above the rates charged by my credit union so option C would be cheaper than option B.",
"If you are using an Excel, the Function PV should be able to easily calculate this. Excel Formulae PV = (Rate,Nper,Pmt,Fv,Type) Where Rate: Rate of return. In this case you can use Inflation or assumed rate that would cost you. Say 3-5%. Note the Rate has to be for Nper. i.e. in Nper if you are counting yearly payments, then rate is yearly, if you are counting as monthly, then the rate should be monthly. NPer: Number of periods. If yearly in your case it would be 20. If Monthly 20*12, if Quarterly 20*4 etc. Pmt: Expected Payments for Nper. If you are saying 20 million over 20 years, it would be 1 million per year. Fv and Type can be blank So assuming a rate of 3%, and yearly payments of 1 million over 20 years. PV = $14,877,474.86 [It would show negative, just ignore the sign]",
"In this case, it looks like the interest is simply the nominal daily interest rate times number of days in the period. From that you can use a spreadsheet to calculate the total payment by trial and error. With the different number of days in each period, any formula would be very complicated. In the more usual case where the interest charge for each period is the same, the formula is: m=P*r^n*(r-1)/(r^n-1) where * is multiplication ^ is exponentiation / is division (Sorry, don't know if there's a way to show formulas cleanly on here) P=original principle r=growth factor per payment period, i.e. interest rate + 100% divided by 100, e.g. 1% -> 1.01 n=number of payments Note the growth factor above is per period, so if you have monthly payments, it's the rate per month. The last payment may be different because of rounding errors, unequal number of days per period, or other technicalities. Using that formula here won't give the right answer because of the unequal periods, but it should be close. Let's see: r=0.7% times an average of 28.8 days per period gives 20.16% + 1 = 1.2016. n=5 P=500 m=500*1.2016^5*(1.2016-1)/(1.2016^5-1) =167.78 Further off than I expected, but ballpark.",
"The formula you're looking for is Thus, from 3% p.a. you get ca. 0.247% per month. However, as you see 0.25% is a good approximation (generally, small rates give good approximation).",
"You could create your own spreadsheet of Cash Flows and use the XIRR function in Excel: The formula is:",
"> 1)What is the formula to turn the annualized rate into a monthly rate? What do you *think* it is? > 2)What is the formula to find out the NPV of monthly cash flows? Same one as usual. Remember, value can only be summed if it's *at the same point in time.* > For example, if I get $1000, $2000, and $3000 in months 1, 2, and 3, how do I calculate how much each of those are equal to as a present value if the annual discount rate is 8%? Think it through.",
"There is one basic principle to apply here: to compare money paid at different times, all the amounts must be compounded or discounted to the same point in time. In this case, the moment of the initial $225,000 loan is convenient. At that moment, you get $225,000 You then make 30 payments on the 40% mortgage. The amount of these payments has to be calculated; they're paying off a $90,000 mortgage with 30 monthly payments at a monthly rate of 0.5% Finally, you make 30 payments of an amount X, starting one month after the 40% mortgage ends. So far we've just listed the amount and time of all the payments back and forth. A time-line type diagram is a huge help here. Finally, use compound interest and annuity formulas to bring all the payments to the starting point, using an interest rate of 1% a month! Equate money in with money out and solve for X",
"Here are my re-run figures. Not counting capital gains taxes, I calculate you need to be making 1.875% per annum or 0.155% per month on your $8,000 investment to break-even on the loan. It's interesting that the return you need to gain to break-even is less than the interest you're paying, even with commission. It happens because the investment is gaining a return on an increasing amount while the load is accruing interest on a decreasing amount. Ref. r, logarithmic return",
"Wow I honestly hope this is your first ever finance class. Anyway this isn't even finance, the only thing here finance related are the terms. It's really an algebra problem. Which is 1,312,500/x = 2 soooo find X. X = 656250 so 131,250 in notes payable. If you don't know what to do know to find the quick ratio, then change majors",
"Article is 1 paragraph long and does not answer the question in the headline. Just states the fact that Tesla bonds are higher yield. I was hoping to be able to read speculation as to why bond investor's are valuing them this way.",
"\"Have to side with the other guy here. You're stating the findings of a student run fund as fact. \"\"They're significantly overvalued\"\", for instance. And then there's comments like \"\"the capital structure is way to much debt\"\", which expose you as, well, not knowing what you're talking about. There's nothing wrong with being highly leveraged. In fact, it's necessary for companies like Tesla, in the industry they operate, to achieve growth and nail down the market.\"",
"Tesla is losing money due to crazy capex setting up the Model 3 production line (>$2B). [Their gross margin for the S and X is ~25%](https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2017/08/03/tesla-beats-estimates-forecasts-attractive-margins-on-model-3/#32c3d21f2d53) and the same is expected for the Model 3. They have an order backlog of $18B that is still growing. That doesn't look like a company in trouble.",
"The MWRR that you showed in your post is calculated incorrectly. The formula that you use... ($15,750 - $15,000 - $4,000) / ($15,000 + 0.5 x $4,000) Translates into a form of the DIETZ formula of (EMV-BMV-C)/(BMV + .5 x C) The BMV is the STARTING balance. And as a matter of fact, the starting balance was NOT 15,000. It was IN FACT 11,000. See, the starting value for a month MUST BE the ending value of the prior month. So the BMV of 11,000 would give you the correct answer. Because if you added 4,000 at the start of the month (on day 1), it would have to have been ADDED to the 11,000 of the PRIOR month's ENDING value. Make sense? That would also mean that the addition of 4000 to the 11000 would imply that you started day 1 with 11,000. Make sense? Summary: When doing the calculations, you may use the ending value on the last day of the month to get your EMV. BUT YOU MAY NOT take the ending value on day 1 to get the BMV. That simply can not make sense since you already added a bunch of money during the day. Think about it. Davie",
"Using the following loan equations where and With the balance b[n] in period n given by Applying the OP's figures Check & demonstration Switching to $96 payment every 10 days, with 365.2422 days per year Paying $96 every 10 days saves $326.85 and pays the loan down 2.68 months quicker.",
"I'm calculating that to about a 7% apr, which given loan rates available today seems a bit high. I wouldn't get too caught up on what that equates to over the life of the loan. There are a lot of forces in play over a 30 year period, namely the time value of money. 30 years from now a dollar will be less valuable in real terms due to the forces of inflation. At 2% per year in inflation today's $1 will be worth about $0.55 in 30 years.",
"Average rates of return usually assume compounding, so your formula would be for annual compounding ,or for continuous compounding.",
"Let's break this into two parts, the future value of the initial deposit, and the future value of the payments: D(1 + i)n For the future value of the payments A((1+i)n-1) / i) Adding those two formulas together will give you the amount of money that should be in your account at the end. Remember to make the appropriate adjustments to interest rate and the number of payments. Divide the interest rate by the number of periods in a year (four for quarterly, twelve for monthly), and multiply the number of periods (p) by the same number. Of course the monthly deposit amount will need to be in the same terms. See also: Annuity (finance theory) - Wikipedia",
"Cash price is $22,500. Financed, it's the same thing (0% interest) but you pay a $1500 fee. 1500/22500 = 6.6%. Basically the APR for your loan is 1.1% per year but you are paying it all upfront. Opportunity cost: If you take the $22,500 you plan to pay for the car and invested it, could you earn more than the $1500 interest on the car loan? According to google, as of today you can get 1 year CD @ 1.25% so yes. It's likely that interest rates will be going up in medium term so you can potentially earn even more. Insurance cost: If you finance you'll have to get comprehensive insurance which could be costly. However, if you are planning to get it anyway (it's a brand new car after all), that's a wash. Which brings me to my main point: Why do you have $90k in a savings account? Even if you are planning to buy a house you should have that money invested in liquid assets earning you interest. Conclusion: Take the cheap money while it's available. You never know when interest rates will go up again.",
"Take a look at apple. It has no debt. So the ev is basically mkt cap - cash. Also remember market cap is the float * share price nothing else. Obviously share price takes into account the assets of the firm into perpituituy but the way you phrased it, adding debt , didnt sound quite right to me. We remove cash since someone buying a company isn't going to pay for your cash. In the transaction cash is distributed to share holders then the company is sold.",
"The Finance functions in spreadsheet software will calculate this for you. The basic functions are for Rate, Payment, PV (present value), FV (Future value), and NPER, the number of periods. The single calculation faces a couple issues, dealing with inflation, and with a changing deposit. If you plan to save for 30 years, and today are saving $500/mo, for example, in ten years I hope the deposits have risen as well. I suggest you use a spreadsheet, a full sheet, to let you adjust for this. Last, there's a strange effect that happens. Precision without accuracy. See the results for 30-40 years of compounding today's deposit given a return of 6%, 7%, up to 10% or so. Your forecast will be as weak as the variable with the greatest range. And there's more than one, return, inflation, percent you'll increase deposits, all unknown, and really unknowable. The best advice I can offer is to save till it hurts, plan for the return to be at the lower end of the range, and every so often, re-evaluate where you stand. Better to turn 40, and see you are on track to retire early, than to plan on too high a return, and at 60 realize you missed it, badly. As far as the spreadsheet goes, this is for the Google Sheets - Type this into a cell =nper(0.01,-100,0,1000,0) It represents 1% interest per month, a payment (deposit) of $100, a starting value of $0, a goal of $1000, and interest added at month end. For whatever reason, a starting balance must be entered as a negative number, for example - =nper(0.01,-100,-500,1000,0) Will return 4.675, the number of months to get you from $500 to $1000 with a $100/mo deposit and 1%/mo return. Someone smarter than I (Chris Degnen comes to mind) can explain why the starting balance needs to be entered this way. But it does show the correct result. As confirmed by my TI BA-35 financial calculator, which doesn't need $500 to be negative.",
"I might be missing something, but I always understood that leasing is about managing cash-flow in a business. You have a fixed monthly out-going as opposed to an up-front payment. My accountant (here in Germany) recommended: pay cash, take a loan (often the manufactures offer good rates) or lease - in that order. The leasing company has to raise the cash from somewhere and they don't want to make a loss on the deal. They will probably know better than I how to manage that and will therefore be calculating in the projected resale value at the end of the leasing period. I can't see how an electric car would make any difference here. These people are probably better informed about the resale value of any type of car than I am. My feeling is to buy using a loan from the manufacturer. The rates are often good and I have also got good deals on insurance as a part of that package. Here in Germany the sales tax (VAT) can be immediately claimed back in full when the loan deal is signed.",
"Yeah, infinite - or 8 years (whichever comes first). So, not infinite at all. By any stretch of the imagination. What a dishonest policy. Tesla should be ashamed. The word 'infinite' is in there - ONLY - to mislead people. That's shameful. Of course, everyone here has a raging hard-on for Tesla - so I expect that ***I'll*** be the one to get your downvotes (not Tesla) for this disgusting act.",
"Fairly straightforward to match the result from the calculator soup link. There is a formula to calculate n from the future value s (using natural logs) In Excel This was derived as shown To calculate n from the inflation-adjusted future value si requires using a solver since an algebraic formula cannot be formulated. As demonstrated Calculations done using Mathematica 7.",
"It's easiest to get your payment from the PMT function in Excel or Google Sheets. So a $100,000 30 year mortgage at 3% looks like this: The basic calculation is pretty simple. You take the annual interest rate, say 3%, divided by 12, times the existing principal balance: The idea is that borrowers would like to have a predictable payment. The earlier payments are proportionally more interest than principal than later payments are but that's because there is much more principal outstanding on month 1 than on month 200.",
"\"You'd have to look at the terms of the loan to be sure, but if the interest compounds weekly then you'd have to calculate the effect of 3 compounding periods, then compute for weekly payments. The balance after 3 weeks would be: Using Excel's PMT function for that principal balance, I get a weekly payment of $189.48. If the interest doesn't compound, the principal balance will be about $8888.37 and the weekly payment would be $189.85. Note, however, that the terms of the loan could be completely customized, so you'd need to be sure that the payment and the amortization schedule make sense to you before you agree to the loan. Since the interest is very high, I suspect this is a \"\"no credit needed\"\" car loan which are notorious for unfavorable (to the borrower) terms.\"",
"TWRR = (2012Q4 x 2013Q1 x 2013Q2) ^ (1/3) = ?? (1.1 * .809 * 1.29) ^ (1/3) = 1.047 or 4.7% return. No imaginary numbers needed. But. Your second line there is wrong $15,750 - $15,000 - $4,000 ? The $15K already contains the $4k, why did you subtract it again? This a homework problem?",
"\"Numbers: Estimate you still owe around 37000 (48500 - 4750, 5% interest, 618 per month payment). Initial price, down payment, payments made - none of these mean anything. Ask your lender, \"\"What is the payoff of the current loan?\"\" Next, sell or trade the current vehicle. Compare to the amount owed. Any shortfall has to be repaid, out of pocket, or in some cases added to the price of the new car and included in the principal of the new loan. You cannot calculate how much you still owe the way you have, because it totally ignores interest. Advice on practicality: Don't do this. You will be upside down even worse on the new car from the instant you drive off the lot. Sell the current vehicle, find a way to pay the difference - one that doesn't involve financing. Cut your losses on the upside down vehicle. Then purchase a new vehicle. I'm in the \"\"Pay cash for gently used\"\" school, YMMV. Another option is to go to your bank. Refinance your car now to get a lower interest rate. Pay as much of the principal as you can. Keep that car until it is paid off. Then you will not be upside down. If you're asking how to use the estimator on the webpage. Put the payoff in the downpayment as a negative and the trade in value in the trade in spot. Expect the payment to go up significantly. Another opinion that might be practical advice. Nothing we say here will convince your financially responsible spouse that this is a good idea.\"",
"\"This formula is not calculating \"\"Earnings\"\". Instead, it is calculating \"\"Free Cash Flow from Operations\"\". As the original poster notes, the \"\"Earnings\"\" calculation subtracted out depreciation and amortization. The \"\"Free Cash Flow from Operations\"\" adds these values back, but for two different reasons:\"",
"So, the price-earnings ratio is price over earnings, easy enough. But obviously earnings are not static. In the case of a growing company, the earnings will be higher in the future. There will be extra earnings, above and beyond what the stock has right now. You should consider the future earnings in your estimate of what the company is worth now. One snag: Those extra earnings are future money. Future-money is an interesting thing, it's actually worth less than present-money- because of things like inflation, but also opportunity cost. So if you bought $100 in money that you'll have 20 years from now, you'd expect to pay less than $100. (The US government can sell you that money. It's called a Series EE Savings Bond and it would cost you $50. I think. Don't quote me on that, though, ask the Treasury.) So you can't compare future money with present-money directly, and you can't just add those dollars to the earnings . You need to compute a discount. That's what discounted cash-flow analysis is about: figuring out the future cash flow, and then discounting the future figuring out what it's worth now. The actual way you use the discount rate in your formula is a little scarier than simple division, though, because it involves discounting each year's earnings (in this case, someone has asserted a discount of 11% a year, and five years of earnings growth of 10%). Wikipedia gives us the formula for the value of the future cash flow: essentially adding all the future cash flows together, and then discounting them by a (compounded) rate. Please forgive me for not filling this formula out; I'm here for theory, not math. :)",
"The solution is x = 8.92. This assumes that Chuck's six years of deposits start from today, so that the first deposit accumulates 10 years of gain, i.e. 20*(1 + 0.1)^10. The second deposit gains nine years' interest: 20*(1 + 0.1)^9 and so on ... If you want to do this calculation using the formula for an annuity due, i.e. http://www.financeformulas.net/Future-Value-of-Annuity-Due.html where (formula by induction) you have to bear in mind this is for the whole time span (k = 1 to n), so for just the first six years you need to calculate for all ten years then subtract another annuity calculation for the last four years. So the full calculation is: As you can see it's not very neat, because the standard formula is for a whole time span. You could make it a little tidier by using a formula for k = m to n instead, i.e. So the calculation becomes which can be done with simple arithmetic (and doesn't actually need a solver).",
"A payment of $224 at 7.2% interest will pay off a $33000 mortgage in 30 years. Unfortunately, I'm on cold medicine so guessing was the only way I got to the answer, but I guessed right on the first try :). However, if you like algebra: The following formula is used to calculate the fixed monthly payment (P) required to fully amortize a loan of L dollars over a term of n months at a monthly interest rate of c. [If the quoted rate is 6%, for example, c is .06/12 or .005]. P = L[c(1 + c)n]/[(1 + c)n - 1]",
"\"The new Tesla car with exchangeable battery means that the battery is not owned by you. How can the batteries owned (and paid) by you if every time you exchange them with batteries of unknown past, owners and quality? If you want to insist to own your batteries and charge them at home, then, yes, you will have to pay for your set of batteries, but then why would you exchange YOUR batteries for another set with unknown past and owners? Let me explain it in a different way: Nobody pays their share of the cost of the expensive Electric infrastructure needed to supply their home with electricity. You just pay as you consume. Yes, part of what you pay is to cover the costs of the infrastructure, but big consumers of electricity (factories and businesses) covered much more of that than the individual home owner. Yes, electric car batteries are expensive but you don't need to pay for them if the arrangement is \"\"pay as you go\"\". With conventional car, would you like to pay $1000s of Dollars for huge tank and fill it with gas, so you don't have to \"\"pay as you go\"\"? Also, if we exchange batteries as we go, we don't need such expensive batteries. They can be cheaper (not cheapest) batteries that have less range.\"",
"Thanks for showing me that. I can see it now. I have always used my formula, and even a senior at another company confirmed the way I calculated the returns. Luckily, I do not work with that manager, and he has his own model, and so do I. But he was pretty cool about it when I asked about his calculations."
] |
[
"From here The formula is M = P * ( J / (1 - (1 + J)^ -N)). M: monthly payment RESULT = 980.441... P: principal or amount of loan 63963 (71070 - 10% down * 71070) J: monthly interest; annual interest divided by 100, then divided by 12. .00275 (3.3% / 12) N: number of months of amortization, determined by length in years of loan. 72 months See this wikipedia page for the derivation of the formula"
] |
6121
|
What are my best options if I don't have a lot of credit lines for housing loans?
|
[
"394460",
"289231"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"118491",
"289231",
"193506",
"573276",
"272279",
"490443",
"395721",
"180214",
"67066",
"482638",
"336053",
"231688",
"407401",
"39495",
"394460",
"452562",
"352339",
"385343",
"468104",
"407017",
"415425",
"544107",
"455952",
"555101",
"386668",
"491350",
"123991",
"412142",
"513256",
"227485",
"268034",
"91471",
"178007",
"596272",
"352908",
"486334",
"2860",
"61014",
"322900",
"202290",
"553955",
"537716",
"360872",
"459419",
"490258",
"312361",
"115862",
"22807",
"510345",
"434437",
"395957",
"290325",
"228548",
"123733",
"422084",
"277815",
"78176",
"257644",
"158646",
"27073",
"70029",
"307767",
"27681",
"96666",
"434266",
"82472",
"505580",
"540959",
"542461",
"358137",
"432116",
"40888",
"66431",
"526477",
"563380",
"371758",
"584278",
"194838",
"47441",
"57392",
"329504",
"65659",
"507151",
"400083",
"212563",
"107980",
"592780",
"20958",
"478230",
"75747",
"586647",
"570318",
"24567",
"324386",
"496819",
"284818",
"566480",
"495431",
"292038",
"155374"
] |
[
"Your only option might be finding a seller-financed property with a motivated seller who is willing to take the risk of loaning you money. However, be prepared to pay a hefty rate on that loan if you can even pull it off.",
"The short answer is, with limited credit, your best bet might be an FHA loan for first time buyers. They only require 3.5% down (if I recall the number right), and you can qualify for their loan programs with a credit score as low as 580. The problem is that even if you were to add new credit lines (such as signing up for new credit cards, etc.), they still take time to have a positive effect on your credit. First, your score takes a bit of a hit with each new hard inquiry by a prospective creditor, then your score will dip slightly when a new credit account is first added. While your credit score will improve somewhat within a few months of adding new credit and you begin to show payment history on those accounts, your average age of accounts needs to be two years or older for the best effect, assuming you're making all of the payments on time. A good happy medium is to have between 7 and 10 credit lines on your credit history, and to make sure it's a mix of account types, such as store cards, installment loans, and credit cards, to show that you can handle various types of credit. Be careful not to add TOO much credit, because it affects your debt-to-income ratio, and that will have a negative effect on your ability to obtain mortgage financing. I really suggest that you look at some of the sites which offer free credit scores, because some of them provide great advice and tips on how to achieve what you're trying to do. They also offer credit score simulators, which can help you understand how your score might change if, for instance, you add new credit cards, pay off existing cards, or take on installment loans. It's well worth checking out. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"One possible route is to try to have no credit. This is different than bad credit. If you build up a good downpayment (20%), a number of banks would do manual underwriting for you.",
"If you're in the US, you have some no down payment options, but you still need some closing costs money, that can potentially be negotiated with the seller. There are fha loans which have very low down payment options, 80/20 loans which are 100% coverage, hud assistance on fha to get a 100% loan. Your 401k can be leveraged into the loan as 35% collateral paying 7% interest on a traditional no recourse loan. These options are available with a work history and if you're not taking on more debt than you can pay with 30% salary. Finding an angel investor will be harder than working with the bank, they have much less room for risk. It's easier to find a current landlord and asking about a rent to own, though, this will be more expensive than a mortgage. To be honest though, most people are in a rush to be house poor, living on the edge of affordability. I don't know your situation, but I do know that rushing into things can be very expensive in the long run.",
"What options do I have? Realistically? Get a regular full time job. Work at it for a year or so and then see about buying a house. That said, I recently purchased a decent home. I am self-employed and my income is highly erratic. Due to how my clients pay me, my business might go a couple months with absolutely no deposits. However, I've been at this for quite a few years. So, even though my business income is erratic, I pay myself regularly once a month. In order to close the deal with the mortgage company I had to provide 5 years worth of statements on my business AND my personal bank accounts. Also I had about a 30% down payment. This gave the bank enough info to realize that I could absolutely make the payments and we closed the deal. I'd say that if you have little to no actual financial history, don't have a solid personal income and don't have much of a down payment then you probably have no business buying a house at this point. The first time something goes wrong (water heater, ac, etc) you'll be in a world of trouble.",
"Why not just do an FHA loan? The minimum credit score is 580, and you can sometimes even go lower than that. Another alternative is to consider a rent-to-own agreement with his landlord, since it sounds like if he doesn't buy he'd continue renting there anyway.",
"\"It is your choice to have \"\"insignificant income\"\", and that has consequences. One is that you cannot borrow money to purchase a home independent of your credit score. In order to purchase a home you must also have the ability to repay in addition to a good history. IMHO your question suggest that you have a unrealistic outlook on life. If you cannot come up with 10K, how can you afford a home? What happens when the HVAC system goes out? While I certainly hope you meet and exceed your goals, you can change your whole world by simply getting a job at a fast food restaurant. When you are not working you can then do the entrepreneurship thing. Life is often a choice of priorities. If you choose to \"\"back-burner\"\" the entrepreneur dream, for a time, and choose to focus on earning the best possible wage. Then perhaps you could afford to purchase a place of your own.\"",
"If you put down 80% of the purchase price for a house, you can very likely get a loan with few problems. After all, people with credit scores in the mid-500 range can get loans with 20% down. My question would be this -- if you actually had $400,000 then why not just buy a $400,000 house? If the goal is to improve your credit then if you buy a house for cash, you can then take out a home equity loan and make the payments, which would greatly improve your credit.",
"Keep in mind that credit takes time to build. Your best short-term solution is to save enough cash to put enough of a down-payment that the lower loan-to-value ratio outweighs the lack of credit history. If there's enough equity to ensure that the bank will get their money back if they have to foreclose, you will have a better chance of securing financing. In addition, the stability and consistency of your employment may also be a factor that makes it difficult for you to get a loan without a substantial down-payment. Finally, don't ignore the risk present in resting a property that you have a loan on. Make sure you have a plan in place to pay your payments if the other half goes unrented for several months, or you risk losing the entire property. My advice is to rent somewhere else for enough time that you can save up a lot of cash to purchase a duplex rather than getting in a rush and doing something unwise (like apply for a bunch of credit cards you don't need).",
"For alternative financing, pursue a line of credit or a Home Equity Line of Credit. (From the comments of @ChrisInEdmonton and @littleadv on the original question)",
"\"There are a few of ways to do this: Ask the seller if they will hold a Vendor Take-Back Mortgage or VTB. They essentially hold a second mortgage on the property for a shorter amortization (1 - 5 years) with a higher interest rate than the bank-held mortgage. The upside for the seller is he makes a little money on the second mortgage. The downsides for the seller are that he doesn't get the entire purchase price of the property up-front, and that if the buyer goes bankrupt, the vendor will be second in line behind the bank to get any money from the property when it's sold for amounts owing. Look for a seller that is willing to put together a lease-to-own deal. The buyer and seller agree to a purchase price set 5 years in the future. A monthly rent is calculated such that paying it for 5 years equals a 20% down payment. At the 5 year mark you decide if you want to buy or not. If you do not, the deal is nulled. If you do, the rent you paid is counted as the down payment for the property and the sale moves forward. Find a private lender for the down payment. This is known as a \"\"hard money\"\" lender for a reason: they know you can't get it anywhere else. Expect to pay higher rates than a VTB. Ask your mortgage broker and your real estate agent about these options.\"",
"With bad credit but good income, I would simply save a large down payment. You're much more likely to get a mortgage with 25% down and a history of recently saving that 25% to show.",
"First step, pull a copy of your credit report, and score. You should monitor that score and do what you can to bring it up. Your chances are far better if (a) you first save a sizable downpayment, and (b) go with a local bank that doesn't just write the mortgage and sell it. Better still, go to that local bank and inquire about REO (real estate owned by the bank) property. These are properties they foreclosed on and depending how they are carrying them, you might find decent opportunities. As a matter of logic, a local bank that owns these specific properties (as compared to debt pools where big banks have piles of paper owned fractionally) are more willing to get a new owner in and paying a new loan. Congrats on the new, higher, income. I'd suggest you first build the emergency fund before the downpayment fund. Let us know how it goes.",
"Ben already covered most of this in his answer, but I want to emphasize the most important part of getting a loan with limited credit history. Go into a credit union or community bank and talk to the loan officer there in person. Ask for recommendations on how much they would lend based on your income to get the best interest rate that they can offer. Sometimes shortening the length of the loan will get you a lower rate, sometimes it won't. (In any case, make sure you can pay it off quickly no matter the term that you sign with.) Each bank may have different policies. Talk to at least two of them even if the first one offers you terms that you like. Talking to a loan officer is valuable life experience, and if you discuss your goals directly with them, then they will be able to give you feedback about whether they think a small loan is worth their time.",
"\"Rather than trying to indirectly game your credit score, I would instead shop around and see if there are other lenders that will pre-qualify you with your credit the way it is today. BofA and other large banks can be very formulaic in how they qualify loans; a local bank or credit union may be more willing to bend the traditional \"\"rules\"\" and pre-qualify you. I'm thinking about using FHA. If you can put 20% down then a conventional mortgage will likely be cheaper than an FHA loan since FHA loans have mortgage insurance built-in while conventional mortgages typically don't require it if you borrow less than 80% of the house's value. I would shop around before jumping to an FHA loan.\"",
"It depends on your equity(assets - liabilities). If you have a lot of equity, banks will be happy to lend you money because they now they can always seize your assets. If you don't have a lot of equity another option is to go to hard money lenders. They charge high rates and some of them lend-to-own, but is an option. And consider what Pete said, you might be a little optimistic.",
"It's worthwhile to try and find a better minimum down-payment. When I bought my home, I got an FHA loan, which drastically reduced the minimum down-payment required (I think the minimum is 3% under FHA). Be aware that any down-payment percentage under 20% means that you'll have to pay for private mortgage insurance (PMI) as part of your monthly mortgage. Here's a good definition of it. Part of the challenge you're experiencing may be that banks are only now exercising the due diligence with borrowers for mortgages that they should have been all along. I hope you're successful in finding the right payment. Getting a mortgage to reduce your spending on housing relative to rent is a wise move. In addition to fixing your monthly costs at a consistent level (unlike rent, which can rise for reasons you don't control), the mortgage interest deduction makes for a rather helpful tax benefit.",
"\"How would having a 20% down payment change the conversation for you? And who are you looking to get a mortgage from? If you go to a local community bank or credit union, you might have a better chance explaining your situation and having them take that into account rather than going to one of the mega-banks (Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo, etc) who may only look at your FICO score when making a lending decision. The thing to keep in mind is \"\"how much of a risk are you to the lending institution?\"\" If you have a strong down payment 15% to 20%, you will be a much better candidate. Bear in mind, anything less than 20% down will require PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance, which I think runs a certain dollar amount per $1k you have borrowed). If you have a strong downpayment, and the only debts you have are your student loans (which will be paid off in five years anyway), then you are far less risky than someone in a similar situation with more debt.\"",
"I'll write this up as a more formal answer, here. I'd suggest looking into a Home Equity Line of Credit, or HELOC. You didn't mention in your question how much equity you have in the home, but assuming at least 20%, you might be able to open a HELOC with a line of $40,000. My experience is that you can do 50% of your equity, but depends on the bank. Here are a few notes that are generally in play with HELOC's (YMMV, so be sure to know the specifics before signing on the line) Doing this, at least when we did 8 years ago, did not subject us to PMI. There are certainly plenty of things to research, but it sounds like you're pretty astute based on how you're evaluating the financial side of this endeavor. There are no guarantees in real estate. Houses could be selling like crazy now, but in 6 months they might not. It certainly sounds like that's a lower risk in your area, but you never know what might happen. If you're taking on this extra line of credit, make sure that it's something you could afford should the worst case scenario happen. Equity loans are also available. This is a more traditional fixed-rate loan rather than line of credit, so you'd be looking at set monthly payments rather than the flexibility of paying interest only when you need to. There's a brief write-up on the differences here. I have also heard of a construction loan, which falls into the same category as the aforementioned options, but I can't speak to today's market on those.",
"Getting the line of credit would likely be a bit easier than the loan but realistically the best option is getting a mortgage through an Indian bank. With a long term mortgage your monthly payments would be a small portion of your income (maybe as low as $500) so currency fluctuations are likely to be minor blips that you can avoid by sending a few thousand to hold as a cushion for when exchange is unfavorable. Edit: Please be advised that mortgages work differently throughout the world. While 10% down may be standard in the US, in India 40-50% down seems to be the norm.",
"She can find a landlord that doesn't do credit checks. Maybe on Craigslist? She may end up paying more, have a bigger security deposit, etc. She can get someone else (not you) to sit her down and explain to her frankly that she's messing things up for herself and her children by being a poor manager of her finances. As her credit score improves, more opportunities will open up for her. Co-signing the loan is an option, but I do think you're wise not to do that.",
"Used car dealers will sometimes deliberately issue high-interest-rate subprime loans to folks who have poor credit. But taking that kind of risk on a mortgage, when you aren't also taking profit out of the sale, really isn't of interest to anyone who cares about making a profit. There might be a nonprofit our there which does so, but I don't know of one. Fix your credit before trying to borrow.",
"Applying for a mortgage is a bit of paperwork, but not too bad of an experience. Rates are pretty tight, if one lender were more that 1/4% lower than another, they'd be inundated with applications. Above a certain credit score, you get the 'best' rate, a search will show you the rates offered in your area. If you are a first time buyer, there are mortgages that might benefit you. If you are a vet (for non-native English readers, a veteran who served in the US armed forces, not a veterinarian, who is an animal doctor) there are mortgages that offer low-to-no down payment with attractive rates. Yes, avoid PMI, it's a crazy penalty on your overall expense of home purchase. If banks qualify you for different amounts, it shouldn't be a huge difference, a few percent variation. But, the standard ratios are pretty liberal even today, and getting the most you'd qualify for is probably too much. Using the standard 28/36% ratios, a bank will qualify you for 4X your income as a loan. e.g you make $50K, they'll lend you $200K. This is a bit too much in my opinion. If you come up short, you are really looking to borrow too much, and should probably wait. If you owe a bit on loans, it should squeeze in between those two ratios, 28/36. But I wouldn't borrow on a credit line to add to the purchase, that's asking for trouble.",
"You need to get yourself a credit card, and use it regularly and also repay on time. This will help increase your credit score. Hope you have a regular job which is bringing in money every month, but having just this isnt enough, get a credit card.",
"These are the things to focus on... do not put yourself in debt with a car, there are other better solutions. 1) Get a credit card (Unless you already have one) -Research this and get the best cash back or points card you can get at the best rate. - Start with buying gas and groceries every month do not run the balance up. - Pay the card off every single month. (THIS IS IMPORTANT) - Never carry a balance above 25% of your credit limit. - Every 8 months or so call your credit card company and ask for a credit line increase. They should be able to do this WITHOUT pulling your credit you are only looking for the automatic increment that they can automatically approve. This will help increase your available credit and will help keep your credit utilization low. Only do this is you are successfully doing the other bullet points above. 2) Pay all of your bills on time, this includes everything from water, electricity, phone bill, etc. never be late. Setup automatic payments if you can. 3) Minimize the number of hard credit inquiries. -This is particularly important when you are looking for your mortgage lender. Do not let them pull your credit automatically. You should be able to provide them your credit score and other information and get quotes from those lenders. Do not let them tell you then can't do this... they can. 4)Strategically plan when you close a credit line, closing them will do two things, lower your credit limit often times increasing your credit utilization, and it may hurt your average age of credit. Open one credit card and keep it forever. *Note: Credit Karma is a great tool, you should check your score monthly and see how your efforts are influencing your score. I also like Citi credit cards because they will provide you monthly with your FICO Score which Credit Karma will only provide TransUnion and Equifax. This is educational information and you should consider talking to a banker/lender who can also give you more detailed instructions on how to get your credit improved so that they can approve you for a loan. Many people can get their score above 720 in 1-2 years time going from no credit doing the steps described above. It does take time be patient and don't fall for gimmicks.",
"I am sorry for your troubles, but impressed with your problem solving skills. Keep going, things will get better. Your best hope is to find a place that does manual underwriting. If they do computer generated stuff, then you will be kicked for sure. If you can show 20% down, and have some savings, and have some history of paying bills, then you might be approved. Here in Florida, RP Funding still does manual underwriting. Another one that is mentioned is Church Hill mortgage. Also you might check with local credit unions. Of course your best bet to be approved is to be open and state upfront the challenges. You have to find someone that has the ability to think, has the ability to see passed the challenges, and has the authority to do so.",
"\"Banks are currently a lot less open to 'creative financing' than they were a few years ago, but you may still be able to take advantage of the tactic of splitting the loan into two parts, a smaller 'second mortgage' sometimes called a 'purchase money second' at a slightly higher interest rate for around 15-20% of the value, and the remaining in a conventional mortgage. Since this tactic has been around for a long time, it's not quite in the category of the shenanegans they were pulling a few years back, so has a lot more potential to still be an option. I did this in for my first house in '93 and again in '99 when I moved to a larger home after getting married. It allowed me to get into both houses with less than 20% down and not pay PMI. This way neither loan is above 80% so you don't have to pay PMI. The interest on the second loan will be higher, but usually only a few percent, and is thus usually a fraction of what you were paying for the PMI. (and it's deductible from your taxes) If you've been making your payments on time and have a good credit rating, then you might be able to find someone who would offer you such a deal. You might even be able to get a rate for your primary that is down in the low 4's depending on where rates are today and what your credit rating is like. If you can get the main loan low enough, even if the other is like say 7%, your blended rate may still be right around 5% If you can find a deal like this, it's also great material to use to negotiate with your current lender \"\"either help me get the PMI off this loan or I'm going to refinance.\"\" Then you can compare what they will offer you with what you can get in a refinance and decide what makes the most sense for you. On word of warning, when refinancing, do NOT get sucked into an adjustable rate mortgage. If you are finding life 'tight' right now with house payments and all, the an ARM could be highly seductive since they often offer a very low initial rate.. however then invariably adjust upwards, and you could suddenly find yourself with a monster payment far larger than what you have now. With low rates where they are, getting a conventional fixed rate loan (or loans in the case of the tactic being discussed here) is the way to go.\"",
"One thing I would look into is getting a fixed rate home equity loan for a short term. Not a line of credit, but a home equity loan. The main benefit is they typically offer no closing costs. You can get a very low rate provided you move the loan into first position (replace your current mortgage). I know someone who got a 7 year fixed Home Equity Loan, from Regions Bank, for 2.62% no closing costs.",
"One of the other things you could do to improve your score would be along the lines of what Pete said in his answer, but using the current financial climate to your advantage. I'm not sure what interest rates are available to you in the UK, but I currently have 4 lines of credit aside from my house. One is a credit card I use for every day purchases and like you pay off immediately with every statement. The other three are technically credit cards, however all three were used to make purchases with 0% financing. The one was for a TV I bought that even gave me 5% off if I pay it off within 6 months. That cash has been sitting in my savings since the day I bought it. I'm making regular payments on all three, but not having to pay any interest. My credit score dropped 25 points with the one as it was an elective medical expense (Visian eye surgery), so for the time the balance is near my credit limit. However, that will bounce back up as the balance lowers. My score was also able to take that hit and still be very high. If you don't have 0% (or very close) available, your better bet would be to follow the other suggestions about saving for a sizable down payment, or other every day expenses like a cell phone.",
"No, it is never impossible to get credit so long as there are no price controls or quotas. In most of the United States, the impetus for housing is so strong that it's one sector of credit that has nearly no price regulation, price in this case being interest rates. Corporate banks will not touch you now because Dodd-Frank now makes them liable to you and investors if you default on the mortgage. Also, Fannie & Freddie, who ultimately finance most mortgages in the US now require banks to buy back loans if they fail, so banks are only financing the most creditworthy. All is not lost because markets are like rivers if not fully dammed: they find a way through. In your case, you can get a fully-financed mortgage if you're willing to pay interest rates probably double what you could otherwise get in the market with good credit. If the foreclosure process is quick and benefits the lender more in your state, the interest rate will be even lower. Your creditors will most likely be individuals you find at mortgage investment clubs and religious institutions. If you shop around, you'll be surprised at how low a rate you might get. Also, since the cost of your prospective home is so low, it's very easy for an investor flush with cash and few investments to take a flier on a mother committed to her children who only needs $50,000. The FHA has been vastly expanded, and since your individual credit is clean, there may be a chance to get financing through it, but be prepared for red tape.",
"Some options: See if the seller will sell to you on Contract. With a significant down payment the seller may be willing to sell you the condo on contract. This fill in the year or so you will probably need to go from contractor to full time employee with enough time on the job to get a mortgage. Keep Shopping. Be up front with the lenders with the problems you are running into and see if any of them can find you a solution. You may need to take a higher rate in the short term but hopefully you can refinance in a few years to a more reasonable rate. Check with a local bank or credit union. Many times local banks or CU's will finance high demand properties that may be out of favor with the super banks that have no ties to your community. These banks sometimes realize that just because the standard spreadsheet says this is a bad risk the reality is the specific property you are interested in is not the risk that it appears on paper. You will have to find a bank that actually retains its mortgages as many local banks have become agents that just sell mortgages to the mortgage market. Talk to a Realtor. If you are not using one now it may be time to engage one. They can help you navigate these bumps and steer you towards lenders that are more amenable to the loan you need.",
"\"My credit Union has a \"\"credit builder\"\" loan, they loan $1000 and put it in a savings account you cant withdraw from and take out automatic payments. That would be better, the whole point of credit is on time payments, but my lender told me the effects on credit would be minimum. Probably best for those with no credit history.\"",
"Depends on where we are in the credit cycle. When banks are scared like in 07 to 11, good luck. Now (13), they'll probably start begging you. There are more regulations that prevent it now, but they'll probably be eased as they usually are during good times. If the banks won't help you, private investors might. Just find your local mortgage investor club.",
"These are your options: Unfortunately this will not be a quick process. You should note that until a potential lender goes through a detailed review of your finances you have only been pre-qualified. This is not as good as pre-approved. With pre-qualified they are basing the determination on what you told them, not what you can prove. Because you are aware of your short period of continuous employment you are best to be completely honest with a potential lender. That way you don't run into problems 30 days down the road when they realize the issue. The home seller will not be happy; and there was time and money wasted on down payments, credit checks, home inspections, and appraisals. In the US in most markets while there is a significant risk that a particular house will not be available in 5 months, there is a very slight risk that a neighborhood will not be available in 5 months.",
"You might also want to talk directly to a bank. If your credit report is clean, they may have some discretion in making the loan. Note - the 'normal' fully qualified loan has two thresholds, 28% (of monthly income) for housing costs, 36% for all debt servicing. A personal, disclosed loan from a friend/family which is not secured against the house, would count as part of the other debt, as would a credit card. While I don't recommend using a credit card for this purpose, the debt fits in that 28-36 gap. As Kevin points out below, not all paths are equally advisable. Nor are rules of thumb always true. Not having the OP's full details, income, assets, price of house, etc, this is just a list of things to consider. The use of a 401(k) loan in the US can be a great idea for some, bad mistake for others. This format doesn't make it easy to go into great detail, and I'm sure the 401(k) loan issue has been asked and answered in other questions. With respect to Kevin, if he wrote 'usually', I'd agree, but never say 'never.'",
"Obviously the only way to have good credit is by owing money, and making payments as scheduled. To do this I would do everything I could to place all of your required expenses on a credit card. This can include paying rent, food, transportation, etc. These are all payments that you already make, but simply move then through a different payment vehicle. It sounds like at this time you may not have a credit card that allows you to do this, but I would watch out for those cards that come in via mail with all kinds of special deals. While you have not mentioned if you have any of this, make sure that you keep up with your past debt and negotiate repayment if needed. Once your credit improves, you should begin to see doors opening that are problems now.",
"\"I'm not aware that any US bank has any way to access your credit rating in France (especially as you basically don't have one!). In the US, banks are not the only way to get finance for a home. In many regions, there are plenty of \"\"owner financed\"\" or \"\"Owner will carry\"\" homes. For these, the previous owner will provide a private mortgage for the balance if you have a large (25%+) downpayment. No strict lending rules, no fancy credit scoring systems, just a large enough downpayment so they know they'll get their money back if they have to foreclose. For the seller, it's a way to shift a house that is hard to sell plus get a regular income. Often this mortgage is for only 3-10 years, but that gives you the time to establish more credit and then refinance. Maybe the interest rate is a little higher also, but again it's just until you can refinance to something better (or sell other assets then pay the loan off quick). For new homes, the builders/developers may offer similar finance. For both owner-will-carry and developer finance, a large deposit will trump any credit rating concerns. There is usually a simplified foreclosure process, so they're not really taking much of a risk, so can afford to be flexible. Make sure the owner mortgage is via a title company, trust company, or escrow company, so that there's a third party involved to ensure each party lives up to their obligations.\"",
"There are loan options for those in your situation. It is very common. I am a licensed loan officer nmls 1301324 and have done many loans just like this. Your schooling is counted as your work history Contrary to popular belief. We want to write loans and guidelines are easing. Banks are a different story and their loan officers aren't licensed. If you talk to a bank you aren't getting an educated loan officer. They also have what are called overlays that make guidelines stricter.",
"\"Buy and Hope is a common investment strategy. It's also one that will keep you poor. Instead of thinking about saving money to put against a credit card or line of credit using your own job and hard-earned dollars, why not use someone else's money? If you have enough of a down payment for a property of your own, consider a duplex, triplex, or 4-plex where you live in one of the units. Since you will be living there you only need 5% down as opposed to 20% down if you do not live there. This arrangement gives you a place to live while you have other people paying your mortgage and other debts. If done properly, you can find a place that is cash-flow positive so you basically live rent-free. This all assumes you have a down payment and a bank that will work with you. Your best bet is to discuss your situation with a mortgage broker. They know all the rules, and which banks have the best deal for you. A mortgage broker works on your behalf and is paid by the lending institution, not you. There are various caveats with this strategy, and they all revolve around knowing what to do and how to execute the plan. I suggest Googling Robert Kiyosaki and reading \"\"Rich Dad Poor Dad\"\" before taking this journey. He offers a number of free and paid seminars that teach people how to purchase real estate and make it pay. I have taken the free evening seminar and the $500 weekend seminar on how to purchase properties and make money with them. Note that I have no affiliation with Kiyosaki, and I do find his methods to work.\"",
"If you have a family member with sufficient funds to lend, you might consider writing a deed that gives them a percentage of ownership in the property in exchange for a loan, then you could later take a mortgage to pay back that loan and purchase that percentage of the property back. If it was me, I would probably just pay cash and try to get a home equity line of credit for emergency funds once I started working again. All the money I would have paid into a mortgage, and perhaps more--I would invest to rebuild the investment account as quickly as possible.",
"Does your business have a loan or overdraft with a bank? If so that bank will be much more likely to offer you a personal mortgage if you can show them a solid business plan and your profits for each year. Other than that make sure you have a perfect credit rating, use Experian to iron out any small things that might get in the way.",
"Others have covered the usual vehicles for getting money out of a property. There's another category of home loan called a hard money loan. It would take a lot of inquiries to find a hard money loan given your needs, but chances are its doable. The terms can be onerous, and hard money lenders don't mess around when it comes to foreclosing after a few missed payments. It's an off-the-radar industry and the private lenders and specialized trustees operate together with strike-force precision. Trustees normally should be trust-able by borrower and lender, but in the case I describe below, one man owned the small company that lent, and the small company that acted as trustee. Borrower beware. Yet, if your credit score and income are dismal, but your home equity is great, hard money is the only way to borrow against your home. In making hard money loans, lenders don't consider your credit score or income, just how much equity is in the property. I daresay they hope you'll default. They don't always hang onto the loans. If you look like a payer instead of someone they can foreclose on, they might sell the loan to someone who wants a stable monthly income. You don't know a thing about that person. A Cautionary Tale: *Check out HankandHelen.blogspot.com for a currently-unfolding saga, in which an elderly couple's grandson convinced them to let him take title to their house, borrow against it, invest the proceeds, and share the profits. It didn't work that way. He went through hard-money lenders. He borrowed $360,000 and then $65,000. Those were mysteriously paid off (total mystery at this point), and he borrowed $47,000. About a year later, he lost the house by defaulting the $47,000 loan. He was only about $2000 behind in payments when the trustee issued a notice of default, followed by a notice of sale. The trustee put the place up for auction, which didn't require a court order: that's the way it is in California and many western states, and a few others. The hard money lender bought the loan at auction for $83,000, and a home worth about $800,000 no longer belonged to the grandson. A fundraiser brought in about $120,000 and the couple bought a mobile home in a mobile home park. The acre of land and swimming pool they used to own will be for sale soon, or possibly demolished for a mansion to be built. (House in the area go for about $2.5M when improved with very large, new houses.)* I poke around PropertyShark.com when I see a house bought cheaply at a foreclosure auction. Quite often the (former) borrower had inherited the house, treated it like a piggy bank, defaulted, and boom--no more house. It never makes sense to put a house at risk for a small amount like $5000. If you can't pay those credit card bills, the lenders can hound you and maybe get a court order to extract something from your checking account every month, but they can't take your belongings. When you sign a deed of trust or mortgage, you're giving a third party the right to kick you out of your home and take possession of it. You don't have any say in the matter. You might go to court, and say whatever you feel like saying, but if you owe many payments and can't pay them immediately, you're very likely to be out of luck. Someone mentioned paying off credit card balances with the highest interest rates first. That's done by throwing whatever cash you have at them while paying the minimum on the lower-rate balances. That's financially sound, but there's a technique that turns out to be more motivating for some, which is attacking the lowest balance first. It leads to the quickest reduction in the number payments you're required to make every month, and quickly lets you add the money you were applying to the smallest balance to the payment you make on the next-smallest balance. (Close each card as you pay it off if you don't want to accumulate debt again.) P.S. I don't know what your home's feed is, so I didn't address that. If it's some kind of rental income, every lender I have encountered credits 75% of the current monthly rent toward your gross income. They assume there will be vacancies and other costs.",
"what are my options for raising the funds? Assuming you have decent credit, you can either mortgage your home or apply for a land loan in order to purchase the land. Since both your home and the land have value, either one can act as collateral in case you default on your loan. Land loans tend to have a higher interest rate and down payment, however. This is because banks see land loans as a riskier investment since it's easier for you to walk away from an empty plot of land than your own home.",
"The loan you will just have to get by applying to a bunch of banks or hiring someone (a broker) to line up bank financing on your behalf for a point on the loan. FHA is for your first house that you live in and allows you to get 97.5% loan to cost financing. That isn't for investment properties. However, FHA loans do exist for multifamily properties under section 207/223F. Your corporations should be SPEs so they don't affect each other. In the end, its up to you if you think it makes sense for all the single family homes to be in one portfolio. May make it easier to refi if you put all the properties in a cross collateralized pool for the bank to lend against. There is also no requirement for how long a corporation has been in existence for a loan. The loan has a claim on the property so it's pretty safe. So long as you haven't committed fraud before, they won't care about credit history.",
"\"When I first purchased my home six years ago, I was able to get into a Bank of America First Time Homebuyer program that required no down payment and no PMI. While I hope you find a lower initial payment, the banks have tightened their requirements so that buyers have \"\"more skin in the game\"\" so to speak. Exotic loan options coupled with the subprime mortgage crisis caused the housing bubble to burst. Now banks are being very selective about who they provide a mortgage. The other things you need to look at are interest rate and terms. Do you feel you will be in the home for the next 30 years? Have you considered a 15 year mortgage? Shop around. PMI used to have a bad connotation (at least it did when I bought my home six years ago), but I feel now that it would have been worthwhile for the banks and the economy in the long run had banks required buyers to utilize PMI.\"",
"I would suggest talking to your parents about potentially co-signing on the loan with you. Just make sure that you are the primary holder of the loan. Sure, there is some risk for your parents, but they know you better than anyone so let them make the decision if they want to help you or not. If for some reason they can't help you, such as they've declared bankruptcy, then following the other answers' advice is the way to go.",
"My experience with owning a home is that its like putting down roots and can be like an anchor holding you to an area. Before considering whether you can financially own a home consider some of the other implications. Once you own it you are stuck for awhile and cannot quickly move away like you can with renting. So if a better job opportunity comes up or your employer moves you to another office across town that doubles your commute time, you'll be regretting the home purchase as it will be a barrier to moving to a more convenient location. I, along with my fiancée and two children, are being forced to move out of my parents home ASAP. Do not rush buying a home. Take your time and find what you want. I made the mistake once of buying a home thinking I could take on some DIY remodeling to correct some features I wasn't fond of. Life intervenes and finding extra time for DIY house updates doesn't come easy, especially with children. Speaking of children, consider the school district when buying a home too. Often times homes in good school districts cost more. If you don't consider the school district now, then you may be faced with a difficult decision when the kids start school. IF you are confident you won't want to move anytime soon and can find a house you like and want to jump into home ownership there are some programs that can help first time buyers, but they can require some effort on your part. FHA has a first time buyer program with a 3.5% down payment. You will need to search for a lender that offers FHA loans and work with them. FHA covers this program by charging mortgage insurance every month that's part of your house payment. Fannie Mae has the HomeReady program where first time home buyers can purchase a foreclosed home from their inventory for as little as 3% down and possibly get up to 3% from the seller to apply toward closing costs. Private mortgage insurance (PMI) is required with this program too. Their inventory of homes can be found on the https://www.homepath.com/ website. There is also NACA, which requires attending workshops and creating a detailed plan to prove you're ready for homeownership. This might be a good option if they have workshops in your area and you want to talk with someone in person. https://www.naca.com/about/",
"Genius answer: Don't spend more than you make. Pay off your outstanding debts. Put plenty away towards savings so that you don't need to rely on credit more than necessary. Guaranteed to work every time. Answer more tailored to your question: What you're asking for is not realistic, practical, logical, or reasonable. You're asking banks to take a risk on you, knowing based on your credit history that you're bad at managing debt and funds, solely based on how much cash you happen to have on hand at the moment you ask for credit or a loan or based on your salary which isn't guaranteed (except in cases like professional athletes where long-term contracts are in play). You can qualify for lower rates for mortgages with a larger down-payment, but you're still going to get higher rate offers than someone with good credit. If you plan on having enough cash around that you think banks would consider making you credit worthy, why bother using credit at all and not just pay for things with cash? The reason banks offer credit or low interest on loans is because people have proven themselves to be trustworthy of repaying that debt. Based on the information you have provided, the bank wouldn't consider you trustworthy yet. Even if you have $100,000 in cash, they don't know that you're not just going to spend it tomorrow and not have the ability to repay a long-term loan. You could use that $100,000 to buy something and then use that as collateral, but the banks will still consider you a default risk until you've established a credit history to prove them otherwise.",
"Some things to keep in mind: •Having multiple cards can help, just make sure not to borrow more than you need. •The amount of time you have had your credit cards is important. •Make sure you're not getting a lot of hard inquiries on your credit. Hopefully these will help!",
"You need a cosigner. Someone prepared to repay the mortgager if you should fail to. Needless to say this is going to have to be someone who knows you and trusts you very much. One way is to find someone prepared to share a house with you. Buy a bigger house than you would otherwise need. You would own half each, and the sharing agreement would specify that if one of you defaulted on their payments the other would get a larger share according to how much extra they end up paying. The other way is to find a silent partner, who doesn't live there. They put up no money unless you actually default. They would almost certainly have to be part owners, but you can structure the agreement so that you end up with the whole house if you succeed in paying off the mortgage, or miss no payments until you sell. Parents sometimes do this for their kids.",
"Possible? Sure. The question is where do you plan on going to get the money and how well can you shop around to find the best rate for the loan. Banks and credit unions would be one option but I'd be curious as to how well do you know the various routes you could take.",
"Have you considered social lending (for example: Lending Club)?",
"\"Your goals are excellent. I really admire your thoughts and plans, and I hold you in high esteem. Good credit is indeed an important thing to have, and starting young is THE smart idea with respect to this. I see that you have as a goal the purchase of a home. Indeed, another fine ambition. (Wow, you are a different breed from what I normally encounter on the internet; that's for sure !) Since this won't happen overnight, I would encourage you to think about another option. At this point in your life you have what few people have: options, and you have lots of them. The option I would like to suggest you consider is the debt free life. This does NOT mean life without a credit card, nor does it mean living with ones parents all their days. In its simplest form, it means that you don't owe anybody anything today. An adapted form of that; with the reality of leases and so on, is that you have more immediate cash in the bank than you have contractual responsibilities to pay others. e.g., if the rent on a place is X, and the lease is 12 months, then you don't sign until you have 12X in the bank. That's the idea. If there is anything good that these past 10 years of recession and financial disasters have provided us as a nation, it is a clear picture presented to our young people that a house is not a guaranteed way to riches. Indeed, I just learned this week of another couple, forced out by foreclosure again. Yes, in the 1970s and 1980s the formula which anyone could follow was to take a mortgage on a single family house; just about any house in any community; and ten years later double your money, while (during those ten years) paying about the same (and in a few years, actually less) amount of money as you would for an apartment with about half the space. Those days were then, not now, and I seriously doubt that I will ever see them again in my lifetime. You might, at your age, one day. In the mean time, I would like to suggest that you think about that word options again; something that you have that I don't. If your mind is made up for certain that a house is the one and only thing you want, okay; this does not apply. During this time of building your credit (we're talking more than a year) I would like to encourage you to look at some of the other options that are out there waiting for you; such as... I also encourage you to take a calculator and a spreadsheet (I would be surprised if there is no freeware out there to do this with a few clicks) and compare the past 30 years of various investments. For example... It is especially educational if you can see line charts, with the ups and downs along the way. One last thing; about the stock market, you have an option (I love that word when people your age are actually thinking) called \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\". If you are not aware of this concept, just ask and I will edit this post (although I'm confident it has been explained by others far better than myself on this very site). Hit just about any solid stock market investment (plain old mutual fund, even with a load, and it will still work) and I believe you'll see what I'm trying to get across. Still, yes, you need a roof, and a young person should clearly plan on leaving parents in a healthy and happy way; so again, if the house is the one and only goal, then go for it kid (uhm, \"\"kid\"\", if you're still under 18). All the best. Do remember that you will be fixing the pipes, not the maintenance guy.\"",
"First step is to see if you have any family members which can co-sign for you so you can get a credit card, then from there as you pay off the credit cards payments you can slowly build credit. However, since you don't have any previous credit history it'll be a slow process. I think that would be a good first step in the right direction. Alternatively, you can see if close relatives such as your parents can help pay for a financial advisor who can help you much better with issues like these",
"sheegaon's reply looks fine to me, a HELOC can usually be set up for a minimal ($50?) fee, and is currently a pretty low rate, mine is 2.5%. If this doesn't appeal to you, my other suggestion is a 401(k) loan. While this is usually a last resort and 'not' recommended, a short term use may make sense. The rate is low, and you can pay in back in full after moving into the new house.",
"You have a few options and sometimes challenges help us improve our situation. First, you can not borrow to buy a car. Reducing the massive depreciation that cars undergo will help you be wealthier. It is hard to find a good use car that you can buy for cash, but it will play out best for your finances in the long run. If your heart is set on borrowing, I would encourage you to go to the bank/credit union where you have your checking account. They will see your history of deposits and may grant you a loan based on that. Also you are likely to get a better deal from the bank than from the car dealer. Thirdly, you can simply go to your employer's HR department and ask them. Surely someone has applied for a loan during the company's history. What did they do for them?",
"Take the long term view. Build up the cash. Once you have enough cash in the bank, you don't need a credit score. With 6 months living expenses in the bank after paying 20% down on a small house, he should have no issues getting a reasonably priced mortgage. However, if he waited just a bit longer he might buy the same house outright with cash. When I ran the computations for myself many years ago, it would have taken me half as long to save the money and pay cash for my home as it did for me to take a mortgage and pay it off.",
"I notice that a lot happened four months ago. You were denied credit twice. Your income went up from $20k to $60k. I'm wondering if you were denied credit based on your $20k income. Since you couldn't provide proof of your income I wonder if they used $0 for your income. Debt to income ratio is one significant factor included in the credit score calculation. You may not have a lot of debt, but if you don't have any income even a few hundred dollars on a credit card would throw your debt to income ratio into a panic. I'm assuming that your change from $20k to $60k income involved a change of jobs. Perhaps now you can provide proof of income. You would certainly need to do that before being approved for a mortgage. Well that's my two cents about what may (or may not) have gone wrong last time. As for what to do next I would agree that the most helpful thing you could do is check your credit score and fix any errors that might negatively impact your credit score. (There might also be non-errors that need addressed such as open credit accounts that you thought you had closed.) When building credit history, time is on your side. If you just go on living your life and paying your bills promptly, your credit will slowly climb to an acceptable level. Unfortunately in the time frame you mentioned (~1 year) there isn't really enough time to build it significantly. You bring up a valid point about credit applications reducing your credit score. Of course, that effect is somewhat minimal and temporary (2 yrs according to the thread linked to above). But again 1 year is not enough to recover. If you're considering applying for additional credit as a means to improve your credit score it may be too late to reap the benefits before your mortgage application. Of course if you could pay off any debts, that would help your debt to income ratio. But it would also reduce any house down payment you could save up and thereby increase the amount of your mortgage. Better just save those pennies (or preferably Washingtons and Benjamins) to put toward a down payment.",
"There may be a third option. The bank gives you the first mortgage of 80%, and a second, maybe a HELOC, for that missing 5%. This way, you get the lower rate and the money they'd charge you for PMI goes to paying down the second loan. Alternately, do you have any other sources to tap to bridge this small gap? A 401(k) loan perhaps? The rate willbe low, and for home purchase, a 10 yr payback. If these aren't viable options, I agree that taking the PMI route while tracking the balance is the way to go.",
"If you are putting down less than 20% expect to need to pay PMI. When you first applied they should have described you a group of options ranging from minimal to 20% down. The monthly amounts would have varied based on PMI, down payment, and interest rate. The maximum monthly payment for principal, interest, taxes, and insurance will determine the maximum loan you can get. The down payment determines the price of the house above the mortgage amount. During the most recent real estate bubble, lenders created exotic mortgage options to cover buyers who didn't have cash for a down-payment; or not enough income for the principal and interest, or ways to sidestep PMI. Many of these options have disappeared or are harder to get. You need to go back to the bank and get more information on your different options, or find a lender broker who will help you.",
"This is almost exactally what the BK attorneys I work with have always said. If you have trouble offer a larger down payment. . . . that is the point of the down payment after all. You do sometimes have better luck with renting from individual people rather than larger corporately owned rentals. There are options out there.",
"I would like to establish credit history - have heard it's useful to gain employment and makes it easy to rent an apartment? Higher credit scores will make it easier with landlords, that's true. As to employment - they do background checks, which means that they usually won't like bad things, but won't care about the good things or no things (they'll know you're a foreigner anyway). Is it safe to assume that this implies I have no history whatsoever? Probably, but you can verify pulling through AnnualCreditReport, don't go around giving your personal information everywhere. Is taking out a secured loan the only way for me? No, but it's one of the easiest. Better would be getting a secured Credit Card, not loan. For loan you'll have to pay interest, for a credit card (assuming you pay off all your purchases immediately) you will only pay the credit card fees (for secured credit cards they charge ~$20-100 yearly fees, so do shop around, the prices vary a lot!). If you're using it wisely, after a year it will be converted to a regular credit card and the collateral will be returned to you with interest (which is actually very competitive, last I heard it was around 2%, twice as much as the online savings accounts). As to a secured loan - you'll be paying 4% to CU for your own money. Doesn't make any sense at all for me. For credit cards you'll at least get some value for your money - convenience, additional fraud protection, etc. The end result will be the same. Usually the credit starts to build up after ~6-12 months (that's why after a year your secured CC will be converted to a regular one). Make sure to have the statement balance in the range of 10-30% of your credit limit, to get the best results. Would it make much better sense to wait till I get a job (then I would have a fixed monthly salary and can apply for a regular CC directly) You can apply, but you'll probably be rejected. As I mentioned in another answer elsewhere, the system in the US is such that you're unable to get credit if you don't already have credit. Which is kindof a magic circle, which you can break with the secured credit card as the least costly solution.",
"You have 2 out of 3 (income and good credit). That is usually a pass where I work. The job longevity may factor in if they are strict. As for pay stubs, can you get a letter from your employer stating your start date and annual pay? Offer letters work just as well.",
"You could look into refinancing with a bank or credit union. But to weed out options quickly, use a service like LendingTree, which can vet multiple options for you a whole lot more quickly than you could probably do yourself. (I don't work for, or get any benefit from LendingTree.) Whatever you do, try to do all the applying within a short span of time, as to not negatively affect your credit score (read here) by creating extraneous inquiries. Then again, if your credit sucks, you might not qualify for a re-fi. If you are turned down, make your payments on time for six months or so, and try again.",
"You should look into a home equity line of credit: A home equity line of credit (often called HELOC and pronounced HEE-lock) is a loan in which the lender agrees to lend a maximum amount within an agreed period (called a term), where the collateral is the borrower's equity in his/her house. Because a home often is a consumer's most valuable asset, many homeowners use home equity credit lines only for major items, such as education, home improvements, or medical bills, and choose not to use them for day-to-day expenses.",
"\"It's rarely advisable to pay interest for something you can afford with cash. Just because you have no credit or loan history doesn't mean you aren't credit worthy. When applying for loans or credit, the lending institutions look at your credit report, not just your credit score. There are lots of things that show up on the reports they receive including (but not limited to): Right now, so many people are focused on their credit score, they're taking on unnecessary debt and potentially losing money in the long run. Yes, having a higher credit score will ultimately be beneficial, but your score will start growing naturally as you live your life. Unless of course you can and do pay for everything with cash. The concept of monitoring your score and striving to get it as high as possible is being shoved down our throats by advertisers at the moment. Don't fall for it. Rather than taking out a loan, which will cost you money in interest and actually show up as a closed account once it's paid off, you might be better served by applying for a credit card and using it sparingly just to start getting that credit history together. (Add usual \"\"don't spend more than you can pay back\"\" mantra here). Get a card with no annual fee and maybe some cash back options, and use it as the auto-payment for a utility if possible. You build credit history, increase your score, and it doesn't cost you any more than you'd be paying anyways. With regards to the investment question: With little to no credit history, you're not going to be approved for a loan with a low enough interest rate anyways. Think double digits. With a co-signer, you'll get a better rate, but then you need a co-signer. I don't know the exact math, but in today's market I'd say you'd need a loan interest rate of 2% or lower for investing to be worth thinking about. I believe this answer helps clarify the loan to invest math: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/26193/30798\"",
"In planning to buy a house, and sort out how to handle the costs of some initial renovations, I've been considering using Lowes and Home Depot credit cards (hopefully this will count differently than the typical credit cards I think you're referring to): http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ContentView?pn=Credit_Center&langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053 http://www.lowes.com/cd_Credit+Card+Accounts+from+Lowes_781778798_ You should definitely read the fine print first, as the interest rates can shoot up after the first 6 months if you don't pay the balance in full on some of them. Also, Lowes has a project card that gives you the 6 month no interest (only a minimum payment), and you don't have to pay off the full balance at the end. This one even has more reasonable rates, so this could be a good way to go.",
"Credit history is built over time, so paying this loan off immediately wouldn’t do much if anything for you. Best thing to do is to start with a low limit credit card and pay it off every month. You’ll build favorable history and avoid interest. Check r/personalfinance for more advice.",
"I'm assuming that when you sell the house you expect to be able to pay off these loans. In that case you need a loan that can be paid off in full without penalty, but has as low an interest rate as possible. My suggestions:",
"why not ask a fee only financial adviser? Contact a local adviser and ask how much they will charge to work through the process. The options aren't as complex as they seem. The general idea is to first figure out what you can afford each month. This is a generally straight forward calculation. Then figure out the costs that are specific to your area, e.g property taxes. Figure out how much of a down payment /closing costs you can gather. Then start with your local bank or credit union. The number of options for mortgages will not be as complex if you already know how much you can afford and how much cash you can bring to the transaction. A simple table can be easily created based on what you can afford each month, how much cash you have, and the rates currently available. The bank will have a way to estimate the costs of each option as part of the required disclosures. Another source of good info can be a highly regarded local real estate agent. Focus on one that will represent you as a purchaser. They want you to be able to buy a house. While they do have a bias, they want a commission, most of it is eliminated if you know how much you can afford before you meet with them. They will know all the government programs that can make the monthly costs or closing costs cheaper.",
"Typically Banks look for a steady source of income or savings based on which they issue a credit card. If you can't show that build a cash balance and show it. For Example if you have an PPF account with say SBI, they issue you a card with a limit of around 50% of the balance in PPF. No other documentation is required. Similarly if you have Fixed Deposits for a large amount quite a few Banks would give you a Credit Card. My wife has a credit card because she had a good balance [around 100,000 INR] for around a year, the Bank kept calling her and offered her a card.",
"If you are not banking with a credit union, open an account. Speak with a person there an explain you are wanting to build your credit history. They will likely have a product designed for the purpose. Also, to agree with duffbeer703, why is your score so low at this point? Make sure your three credit reports do not have anything incorrect on them and challenge wrong items. If everything is fine on the report, you just to have more credit and use it for a longer period of time. I presume you are building credit for a large purchase such as a house. Please be very careful with borrowing money and do your best to avoid carrying balances.",
"A better idea if applicable is to borrow 50K (max allowed) to buy a house and pay interest to yourself instead of a bank. And none of that origination and closing fees lost to the lender",
"\"So you work, and give a small irregular amount to you parents. You live with very low expenses. Assuming you make a bit below the average salary in the UK, you should be able to save around £1000. If you found a part time job could you save double? I bet you could. So why do you need credit? Why do you need a credit score? Having poor or no credit can be remedied by having a large down payment. Essentially the bank asks, if this person could afford the payment of this loan why have they not been saving the money? You could save the money and either buy the thing(s) you desire with cash (the smartest), or put 50% down. Putting 50% or more down turns you into a good credit risk despite having no credit history. In case you missed it: why not just save the money and buy it for cash? Why have compounding interest working against you? Why do you want to work for the bank? Making the interest payments on loans in order to build a credit score is just silly. It is an instance of a \"\"tail wagging the dog\"\".\"",
"I second the suggestions for your local credit union and asking co-workers who might also be in the process of a home purchase. Additionally, you want to educate yourself as much as possible so that you can ask questions about the calculations responsible for the differences. I got different values starting from the various online automatic quotes all the way through to the GFE and it was not obvious to me. You can also sign-up for free workshops for first time home buyers, though most of the material will be a breeze it helps you get worksheets going and lists going for documentation that you need to gather. You might want to start at the HUD site and explore. Especially the Borrower's Rights. The cost booklet was very helpful for me to interpret the GFE, but honestly I didn't appreciate it the first time it was handed to me. Finally, you might meet qualifications to take advantage of FHA programs; the waitlists discourage everyone including the loan brokers, but you want to at least be aware of programs that can help.",
"There are a few loan programs that grant exceptions to bankruptcy requirements in the event of extenuating circumstances that can be proven to be outside of your control (i.e. massive medical bills that you used bankruptcy to settle, etc.) however, in order to make the case for this exemption, you would need to make a strong case for your solvency, shown the ability to re-establish your credit reputation since the discharge of your bankruptcy, and would almost certainly have to go through a bank that offers manual underwriting. Additionally, if you are Native American, the HUD-184 program is a great option for your situation as it allows for a wide latitude in terms of underwriter discretion and is always manually underwritten as there is no automated underwriting system developed for the loan program. There are several great lenders that offer nationwide financing (as long as you're in a HUD-184 eligible area) and would be a great potential solution if you meet the qualifying parameter of being Native American.",
"Sorry, I don't think a bounty is the issue here. You seem to understand LTV means the bank you are talking to will lend you 60% of the value of the home you wish to purchase. You can't take the dollars calculated and simply buy a smaller house. To keep the numbers simple, you can get a $600K mortgage on a $1M house. That's it. You can get a $540K mortgage on a $900K house, etc. Now, 60% LTV is pretty low. It might be what I'd expect for rental property or for someone with bad or very young credit history. The question and path you're on need to change. You should understand that the 'normal' LTV is 80%, and for extra cost, in the form of PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance) you can even go higher. As an agent, I just sold a home to a buyer who paid 3% down. The way you originally asked the question has a simple answer. You can't do what you're asking.",
"Anything is possible. I bought a house in as the market was dropping and all the lenders were scared. I think i put down less than 10% and I think even more like about 5%. The tricky thing was finding a lender. Ultimately I used a local credit union. A few things to note though:",
"Your credit score is really bad, and it's highly unlikely anyone will be willing to give you a mortgage, especially if you still have bad debt showing up on your credit report. What would help? Well, clearing off any bad debt would be a good place to start. Ideally, you want to get your credit rating up above 680, though that may be optimistic here. Note, though, that bad debt falls off your credit report after a while. Exactly how long depends on your province. Note that making partial payment, or even just acknowledging the debt, will reset the 'timer', however. I mention this, though, because you mention some of your debt is from 5 or 6 years ago. It may be just about to fall off. It would also help if you can show that your credit is so bad because of mistakes from a number of years ago, but you've been making payments and staying on top of all debts for the past few years, if that's the case. Also, it would help if you had a reasonable downpayment. 20% minimum, but you'll be a lower credit risk if you are able to put down 50 - 75%. You could also consider having someone with good credit co-sign the mortgage. Note that most people will not be willing to do this, as they take on substantial financial risk. All that said, there are some institutions which specialise in dealing with no credit or bad credit customers. You pay more fees and will pay a vastly higher interest rate, but this may be a good option for you. Check out mortgage brokers specialising in high-risk clients. You can also consider a rent-to-own, but almost all the advice I've ever seen say to avoid these if you can. One late payment and you may lose all the equity you think you've been building up. Note that things may be different if you are moving from the U.S. to Canada, and have no credit history in Canada. In that case, you may have no credit rather than bad credit. Most banks still won't offer you a mortgage in this case, but some lenders do target recent immigrants. Don't rule out renting. For many people, regardless of their credit rating, renting is a better option. The monthly payments may be lower, you don't need a downpayment, you don't have to pay realtor and legal fees (and pay again if you need to move). A couple of sites provide more information on how your credit rating affects your possibility of getting a mortgage, and how to get mortgages with bad credit: http://mortgages.ca/credit-score-needed-mortgage-canada/ and http://mortgages.ca/mortgage-solutions/new-to-canada-financing/, along with http://www.ratehub.ca/mortgage-blog/2013/11/how-to-get-a-mortgage-with-bad-credit/",
"But cash talks. If you can save yourself a grand or two a month in mortgage overpayment, and have the cash for 1st and last month's rent plus deposit, a job or two, etc. That crap means more than a credit score. Plus don't rent from people you can't talk to about with what is going on in your life. My personal credit has always been shit (because the morality associated with debt is complete bullshit) since my 20s and I have never had a problem renting, because I let my landlords know I am human and that paying rent on time and in full is my top bill to pay. People are beginning to realize that FICO scores are pretty meaningless in this Lesser Depression. e: prepositional indifference",
"\"There is no guarantee improvements will raise the appraised value. You also don't want your property tax appraisal to go up if you can avoid it. Since you are talking on the order of $10k I'll assume you're only a few thousand dollars more from getting to 20%. That said, any schemes you might come up with like refinancing or second line of credit will probably cost more in fees than they are worth, unless you can get a much nicer interest rate. Figure out how long you plan to stay there, Evaluate your options (do nothing, principal reduction, refinance for 30, 15, or even an ARM) and figure out your bottom line by comparing everything in a spreadsheet One more thing: if you do pay a substantial amount of extra principal, you can ask the lender to \"\"rebalance\"\" which will correct the minimum monthly payment to your remaining term. This will likely incur a fee, but could be helpful in an emergency\"",
"I work in banking for the private bank division for a major bank as a banker. I have been helping clients with these types of transactions for years. I believe that large transactions like this are best left to the big boys. That is where the talented bankers/loan officers/underwriters are, and that is the type of transaction they specialize in. I know for a fact that your credit union will not be able to suit your needs, and a smaller bank will be tough to deal with. I wouldn't worry at all about the credit pulls as much as picking a rock solid bank with lots of experiences doing these kinds of deals. That is my 2 cents, albeit a little bit biased, but it is also coming from experience. History with the bank definitely matters, but what business you can bring to the bank along with the lending (deposits, 401k management, personal investments, business services, etc) matter just as much and can make or break the approval/decline or even the terms being favorable or not favorable to your company.",
"I would go with the family route if I was you. And i think many other people would if they were fortunate to have such a great option. This will allow you to move faster when your trying to buy a new house because you can easily get a mortage if you see a stellar deal. Also you can establish credit in much cheaper ways than paying the 4% or so on a mortgage. finance a car that you have the money to buy because the interest rates are much lower .9% and you build the credit while paying less interest. Or even better, try and make most of your purchases on a 0 fee credit card and every 6-8 months get a new credit card to have multiple lines of ongoing credit. to use the mortage to establish credit isnt worth the 4% hit in wealth that it offers. now mind you if your options were to buy the house with your own money outright or get a mortgage i would say get the mortgage because the added leverage would help your investments beat the market most years . figure if you get 6% an average portfolio each year and you can write off the taxes on your mortgage you will be ahead by more than 2%",
"I don't know that FHA loans have better rates than conventional loans. I've never heard that and some quick googling didn't yield anything (please correct me if I'm wrong). So if you have the necessary down payment to get a conventional loan, I'm not sure I see any benefit for looking at FHA loans. I think the only benefit outside of a low down payment is the ability to (possibly) get a loan with a lower credit score.",
"At an income of $95K you are on the edge of qualify for $500,000 mortgage (once you have a down payment). Yes the fastest way to qualify for a $500,000 condo is to save for a down payment. I am suggesting that might not be the best long term financial plan. You are only going to qualify for a 30 year term. You still have a student loan where interest is not tax deductible. You have put you yourself in a long term debt position and if you lose your job a potential cash flow problem with a risk of losing the condo. Since you are living at home I would go after that student debt. Looks like you could pay it off in like a year. I don't know prices in you area but maybe go in at less than $500,000 for your first home.",
"\"Have you tried registering for social housing? Rent prices through social housing are typically cheaper than on the free market. You might be able to jump to the front of the waiting list due to your wife's unexpected handicap. See this link: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/huurwoning/sociale-huurwoning-huren To more directly answer your question: I don't think there is any limitation on how your family needs to get the money to lend it to you. They could lookinto a personal loan (persoonlijke lening), but they might not be able to borrow enough. The Netherlands does not have a direct equivalent of a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC), but your family could potentially get a second mortgage (tweede hypotheek) on their house in order to get the money to lend you. However, be aware that this is a very risky endeavor. There are lots of unknowns that could leave you unable to pay or your family unable to pay. Receiving the money as a gift with the intention to repay it but no formal agreement in place may also leave you and your family in a difficult position. I would encourage you to visit a mortgage advisor together to discuss scenarios. Note that one possible option you may want to explore is a \"\"family mortgage\"\" (familiehypotheek). This is just a fancy way of saying that your family can act as (one of) your mortgage lenders. You and your family must comply with all relevant rules and regulations to do this, including them charging you interest and them reporting certain things to the tax authorities. Vereniging Eigen Huis has details on how to set such a mortgage up and how to manage the required reporting: https://www.eigenhuis.nl/webwinkel/hypotheekservice/familiehypotheek/\"",
"How realistic is it that I will be able to get a home within the 250,000 range in the next year or so? Very unlikely in the next year. The debt/income ratio isn't good enough, and your credit score needs to show at least a year of regular payments without late or default issues before you can start asking for mortgages in this range. You don't mention how long you've been employed at these incomes, this can also count against you if you haven't both been employed for a full year at these incomes. They will look even more unfavorably on the employment situation if they aren't both full time jobs, although if you have a full year's worth of paychecks showing the income is regular then that might mitigate the full time/part time issue. next year or so? If you pay down your high interest debt (car, credit cards), and maintain employment (keep your check stubs and tax returns, the loan officer will want copies), then there's a slight chance. And, from this quick snap shot of our finances, does it look like we would be able to qualify for a USDA loan? Probably not. Mostly for the same reasons - the only time a USDA loan helps is when you would be able to get a regular loan if you had the down payment. Even with an available down payment of 50k, you wouldn't be able to get a regular loan, therefore it's unlikely that you'd qualify for a USDA loan. If you are anxious to get into a house, choose something much smaller, in the 100k-150k range. It would improve your debt/loan ratio enough that you might then qualify for a USDA loan. However, I think you'd still have issues if you haven't both been employed at this rate of income for at least a year, and have made regular payments on all your debts for at least a year. I'll echo what others have suggested, though, strengthen your credit, eliminate as much of your high interest debt as you can (car, credit cards), and keep your jobs for a year or two. Start a savings plan so you can contribute a small down payment - at least 3-5% of the desired home price - when you are in a better position to buy. During this time keep track of your paycheck stubs, you may need them to prove income over the time period your loan officer will request. Note that even with a USDA loan you still have to pay closing costs, and those can run several thousand dollars, so don't expect to be able to come to the table with no cash. Lastly, there's good reason to be very conservative regarding house cost and size. If you can, consider buying the house as if you only had the 46k per year. Move the debt to the person making the lower income, and if you buy the house in the name of the person only making 46k per year, then the debt/loan ratio looks very positive. Further it may be that the credit history of that person is better, and the employment history is better. If one of you has better history in these ways, then you might have a better chance if only one of you buys the house. Banks can't tell you about this, but it does work. Keep in mind, though, that if you two part ways it could be very unhappy since one would be left with all the debt and the house would be in the other's name. Not a great situation to be in, so make sure that you both carefully consider the risks associated with the decisions made.",
"Yes, but should you be even trying to get a mortgage if you can't aford at least a 5% deposit? Prove you do want the house by doing without a new car for a few years...",
"Sorry to hear about your difficult circumstances. Secured Credit Card You may want to suggest a secured credit card. These are credit cards that are backed by a deposit that she would place with the credit issuer. The card issuer provides a line of credit backed by the deposit, with a credit limit not greater than the deposit. In this way, the card issuer is not putting any of their own money at risk. These cards are often used by students or high-risk borrowers to establish credit, and function like a normal credit card. This may be a good option for her to establish a history of handling credit responsibly. Given all of the activity you described, it's very likely the process of rehabilitating her credit will take a number of years. I would strongly recommend that you not assist her in placing the deposit for a secured credit card. If she can't put aside enough money for a deposit (often $500 or less), it's unlikely she'll be able to set aside the money to pay her card statements each month. Best of luck - I hope things work out well.",
"I’ve been in the mortgage business for nearly 15 years. Your question is sort of multi-faceted and I’m surprised by some of these answers I’ve read! Anyway, I digress. Yes, you can be denied even if you have money for a down payment. One of the BIGGEST factors lenders are now required to take into account when approving mortgages now is a person’s “Ability to Repay.” Whether your traditional mortgages like Conventional, FHA, USDA, or VA loans, or even an “in-house” mortgage from a local bank —either way, the lender MUST be able to verify someone’s ability to repay. Your issue is that you won’t have any verifiable income until May. A couple people have answered correctly in that 1) if you have a firm offer letter that can be verified with the employer, and 2) you can use your education/college to substitute for a two year work history as long as you’re graduating with and working in the same line of work. Some programs require proof of 30 days of pay history once you actually start earning paychecks; some programs will use the offer letter as long as you will start earning paychecks within a certain number of days after the note date (basically when the payments start). Also I’m making the assumption that there is some sort of credit history that can be verified. Most lenders want at least a couple of accounts reporting a history just to show good use of credit and showing that you can manage your finances over a longer period of time. Just about every lender has some sort of minimum FICO score requirement. I hope this helps. If you have questions, just reply in a comment.",
"\"Your headline question \"\"How do you find best mortgage without damaging credit score?\"\" has a simple answer. If you have all your ducks in a row, and know what you are doing, you will get qualified. If you are like a recent client of mine, low FICO, low downpayment, random income, you might have issues. If your self-prequalification is good, you are in control, go find the best rate/ total cost, no need to put in multiple applications. If, for some reason you do, FICO sees that you are shopping for a single loan, and you are not dinged.\"",
"I'm not sure about your first two options. But given your situation, a variant of option three seems possible. That way you don't have to throw away your appraisal, although it's possible that you'll need to get some kind of addendum related to the repairs. You also don't have your liquid money tied up long term. You just need to float it for a month or two while the repairs are being done. The bank should be able to preapprove you for the loan. Note that you might be better off without the loan. You'll have to pay interest on the loan and there's extra red tape. I'd just prefer not to tie up so much money in this property. I don't understand this. With a loan, you are even more tied up. Anything you do, you have to work with the bank. Sure, you have $80k more cash available with the loan, but it doesn't sound like you need it. With the loan, the bank makes the profit. If you buy in cash, you lose your interest from the cash, but you save paying the interest on the loan. In general, the interest rate on the loan will be higher than the return on the cash equivalent. A fourth option would be to pay the $15k up front as earnest money. The seller does the repairs through your chosen contractor. You pay the remaining $12.5k for the downpayment and buy the house with the loan. This is a more complicated purchase contract though, so cash might be a better option. You can easily evaluate the difficulty of the second option. Call a different bank and ask. If you explain the situation, they'll let you know if they can use the existing appraisal or not. Also consider asking the appraiser if there are specific banks that will accept the appraisal. That might be quicker than randomly choosing banks. It may be that your current bank just isn't used to investment properties. Requiring the previous owner to do repairs prior to sale is very common in residential properties. It sounds like the loan officer is trying to use the rules for residential for your investment purchase. A different bank may be more inclined to work with you for your actual purchase.",
"is it really so important to have good credit with so much collateral Yes it is important to have good credit, the bank may not lend or may charge higher for bad credit. If you were to default the bank will get all that equity so You are missing the fundamental. Bank cannot take more than what they are owed. When they take possession of house, they auction it. Take what was due from the sale and return any surplus to the owner. This entire process takes time and hence bank wants to avoid giving loan to someone who they feel is risky. Edit: There are different aspects of risk that the bank factors.",
"\"Living in one unit of a multi-family while renting out the others, although not without its risks, can be a viable (if gradual) way to build wealth. It's been rebranded recently as \"\"house hacking\"\", but the underlying mechanics have been around for many years (many cities in the Northeast in particular remain chock full of neighborhoods of 3-family homes built and used for exactly that purpose for decades, though now frequently sub-divided into condos). It's true you'd need to borrow money, but there are a number of reasons why it's certainly at least worth exploring (which is what you seem to be asking -- should you bother doing the homework -- tl;dr: yes): And yes, you would be relying on tenants to meet your monthly expenses, including a mortgage bill that will arrive whether the other units are vacant or not. But in most markets, rental prices are far less volatile than home prices (from the San Francisco Federal Reserve): The main result from this decomposition is that the behavior of the price-rent ratio for housing mirrors that of the price-dividend ratio for stocks. The majority of the movement of the price-rent ratio comes from future returns, not rental growth rates. (Emphasis added) It's also important to remember that rental income must do more than just cover your mortgage -- there's lots of other expenses associated with a rental property, including insurance, taxes, maintenance, vacancy (an allowance for the periods when the property will be empty in between tenants), reserves for capital improvements, and more. As with any investment, it's all about whether the numbers work. (You mentioned not being interested in the \"\"upkeep work\"\", so that's another 8-10% off the top to pay for a property manager.) If you can find a property at an attractive price, secure financing on attractive terms, and can be reasonably confident that it will rent in the ballpark of 1.5-2% of the purchase price, then it might be a fine choice for you, assuming you are willing and able to handle the work of being a landlord -- something worth at least as much of your research time as the investment itself. It sounds like you're still a ways away from having enough for even an FHA down payment, which gives you a great opportunity to find and talk with some local folks who already manage rental properties in your area (for example, you might look for a local chapter of the national Real Estate Investment Association), to get a sense of what's really involved.\"",
"\"Let me summarize your question for you: \"\"I do not have the down payment that the lender requires for a mortgage. How can I still acquire the mortgage?\"\" Short answer: Find another lender or find more cash. Don't overly complicate the scenario. The correct answer is that the lender is free to do what they want. They deem it too risky to lend you $1.1M against this $1.8M property, unless they have $700k up front. You want their money, so you must accept their terms. If other lenders have the same outlook, consider that you cannot afford this house. Find a cheaper house.\"",
"You sound like you're in enviable shape. This is good. Look for deals. There are tons of people in over their heads (unlike yourself) and they'll be foreclosed on if they don't get out. You're in a position to buy from a distressed seller. Assuming your credit rating is good, you can get a good loan for the balance. Time is on your side. Don't rush. Look for a great deal. My feeling is that the deals will only get better for the next year or two.",
"Here are some (not all) things that can help overcome a low credit score: Getting a new job may actually hurt unless it's a substantial increase in income. Banks usually look at salary going back 2 years, and look for consistent, maintainable income. If you just got a new job that pays more, the bank may conservatively assume that it may not last.",
"\"There are services that deal specifically with these situations, boostcredit101.com is one I've personally had a good experience with though there are plenty out there. What they do is add you as an authorized user to a credit card with a high limit, low balance, and perfect payment history. This \"\"boosts\"\" for about 30 days while you remain listed as a user on that account, which allows you to qualify for your own card or other kind of loan in that time and helps you start rebuilding your credit. I've even heard of people doing this to qualify for a home loan, though the home loan industry is typically aware of this \"\"trick\"\".\"",
"Contrary to popular belief, you can build your credit (if that is important to you) without paying a penny in interest. This is done through the responsible use of credit cards, paying the bill in full each month without accruing any interest charges. If I were you, I would pay off the loan today, if possible. After that, if you decide you need to build up your credit, apply for a credit card. If you have difficulty with that, you can get a small secured credit card or retail store credit card until you have enough history to get a regular credit card.",
"I'm confused why you think you need a $450k house. That seems extremely high in today's market except perhaps in certain major urban locations. If you're going to live in suburbia or a smaller town/city, you should be able to find a nice 3br house for well under $300k. Before you rule out buying a house, I'd spend some time researching the real estate listings in your area, foreclosures, properties owned by bankruptcy court, etc. - you might be surprised to find a great home for as low as $150-200k. Of course if you live in a place where what I'm saying is completely off-base, please disregard my answer."
] |
[
"\"Rather than trying to indirectly game your credit score, I would instead shop around and see if there are other lenders that will pre-qualify you with your credit the way it is today. BofA and other large banks can be very formulaic in how they qualify loans; a local bank or credit union may be more willing to bend the traditional \"\"rules\"\" and pre-qualify you. I'm thinking about using FHA. If you can put 20% down then a conventional mortgage will likely be cheaper than an FHA loan since FHA loans have mortgage insurance built-in while conventional mortgages typically don't require it if you borrow less than 80% of the house's value. I would shop around before jumping to an FHA loan.\"",
"The short answer is, with limited credit, your best bet might be an FHA loan for first time buyers. They only require 3.5% down (if I recall the number right), and you can qualify for their loan programs with a credit score as low as 580. The problem is that even if you were to add new credit lines (such as signing up for new credit cards, etc.), they still take time to have a positive effect on your credit. First, your score takes a bit of a hit with each new hard inquiry by a prospective creditor, then your score will dip slightly when a new credit account is first added. While your credit score will improve somewhat within a few months of adding new credit and you begin to show payment history on those accounts, your average age of accounts needs to be two years or older for the best effect, assuming you're making all of the payments on time. A good happy medium is to have between 7 and 10 credit lines on your credit history, and to make sure it's a mix of account types, such as store cards, installment loans, and credit cards, to show that you can handle various types of credit. Be careful not to add TOO much credit, because it affects your debt-to-income ratio, and that will have a negative effect on your ability to obtain mortgage financing. I really suggest that you look at some of the sites which offer free credit scores, because some of them provide great advice and tips on how to achieve what you're trying to do. They also offer credit score simulators, which can help you understand how your score might change if, for instance, you add new credit cards, pay off existing cards, or take on installment loans. It's well worth checking out. I hope this helps. Good luck!"
] |
7925
|
Can I sell a stock immediately?
|
[
"318185",
"251100",
"503912",
"310636",
"402482",
"438974"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"438974",
"584291",
"310636",
"332243",
"581579",
"124188",
"502607",
"318185",
"364588",
"538743",
"119161",
"328073",
"591436",
"179520",
"407602",
"315205",
"296475",
"503912",
"418937",
"102237",
"121465",
"221715",
"460937",
"503505",
"560273",
"339875",
"361238",
"301985",
"467176",
"376800",
"434596",
"547460",
"109422",
"466143",
"551286",
"400730",
"540799",
"93231",
"568200",
"253866",
"292159",
"28314",
"327080",
"293389",
"263751",
"181158",
"28685",
"12367",
"272091",
"878",
"336399",
"547553",
"219762",
"501214",
"345368",
"314391",
"447651",
"449280",
"331521",
"130303",
"250873",
"144349",
"490620",
"313437",
"443804",
"573600",
"89460",
"303448",
"40702",
"211509",
"44461",
"41468",
"507108",
"458546",
"317365",
"165917",
"501931",
"367873",
"165548",
"318903",
"344065",
"455168",
"476224",
"98302",
"352415",
"120082",
"582562",
"394454",
"189920",
"379994",
"182930",
"99857",
"402593",
"185583",
"144685",
"517577",
"5573",
"498885",
"480691",
"427916"
] |
[
"Yes you can, provided if buyers are available. Normally high liquidty stocks can be sold at market prices a little higher or lower.",
"You should not have to wait 3 days to sell the stock after purchase. If you are trading with a cash account you will have to wait for the sale to settle (3 business days) before you can use those funds to purchase other stock. If you meet the definition of a pattern day trader which is 4 or more day trades in 5 business days then your brokerage will require you to have a minimum of $25,000 in funds and a margin account.",
"You can*, if the market is open, in a normal trading phase (no auction phase), works, and there is an existing bid or offer on the product you want to trade, at the time the market learns of your order. Keep in mind there are 2 prices: bid and offer. If the current bid and current offer were the same, it would immediately result in a trade, and thus the bid and offer are no longer the same. Market Makers are paid / given lower fees in order to maintain buy and sell prices (called quotes) at most times. These conditions are usually all true, but commonly fail for these reasons: Most markets have an order type of market order that says buy/sell at any price. There are still sanity checks put in place on the price, with the exact rules for valid prices depending on the stock, so unless it's a penny stock you won't suddenly pay ten times a stock's value. *The amount you can buy sell is limited by the quantity that exists on the bid and offer. If there is a bid or offer, the quantity is always at least 1.",
"You have to wait for three (business) days. That's the time it takes for the settlement to complete and for the money to get to your account. If you don't wait - brokers will still allow you to buy a new stock, but may limit your ability to sell it until the previous sale is settled. Here's a FAQ from Schwab on the issue.",
"\"For any large company, there's a lot of activity, and if you sell at \"\"market\"\" your buy or sell will execute in seconds within a penny or two of the real-time \"\"market\"\" price. I often sell at \"\"limit\"\" a few cents above market, and those sell within 20 minutes usually. For much smaller companies, obviously you are beholden to a buyer also wanting that stock, but those are not on major exchanges. You never see whose buy order you're selling into, that all happens behind the curtain so to speak.\"",
"Yes, on the settlement the stock is yours to sell with no risk of freeride or day trading applying.",
"No, Mark is right, if you place a market order there will always be someone to buy or sell at the market price. Only if you place a limit order on the price can it not sell or be bought. Just research on your computer and you will find your answer. You must be specify about open order or limit order when asking.",
"You have no guarantees. The stock may last have traded at $100 (so, the market price is $100), but is currently in free-fall and nobody else will be willing to buy it for any more than $80. Or heck, maybe nobody will be willing to buy it at all, at any price. Or maybe trading on this stock will be halted. Remember, the market price is just what the stock last traded at. If you put in a 'market order', you are ordering your broker to sell at the best available current price. Assuming someone's willing to buy your stock, that means you'll sell it. But if it last traded at $100, this doesn't guarantee you'll sell at anything close to that.",
"\"Yes. I heard back from a couple brokerages that gave detailed responses. Specifically: In a Margin account, there are no SEC trade settlement rules, which means there is no risk of any free ride violations. The SEC has a FAQ page on free-riding, which states that it applies specifically to cash accounts. This led me to dig up the text on Regulation T which gives the \"\"free-riding\"\" rule in §220.8(c), which is titled \"\"90 day freeze\"\". §220.8 is the section on cash accounts. Nothing in the sections on margin accounts mentions such a settlement restriction. From the Wikipedia page on Free Riding, the margin agreement implicitly covers settlement. \"\"Buying Power\"\" doesn't seem to be a Regulation T thing, but it's something that the brokerages that I've seen use to state how much purchasing power a client has. Given the response from the brokerage, above, and my reading of Regulation T and the relevant Wikipedia page, proceeds from the sale of any security in a margin account are available immediately for reinvestment. Settlement is covered implicitly by margin; i.e. it doesn't detract from buying power. Additionally, I have personally been making these types of trades over the last year. In a sub-$25K margin account, proceeds are immediately available. The only thing I still have to look out for is running into the day-trading rules.\"",
"\"There needs to be a buyer of the shares you are offering. There are a lot of feature rich options for buying and selling. I don't understand them all in depth, but for example on TD Ameritrade here are some of the order types \"\"Limit\"\", \"\"Market\"\", \"\"Stop Market\"\", \"\"Stop Limit\"\", \"\"Trailing Stop %\"\", \"\"Trailing Stop $\"\". This web page will explain the different order types https://invest.ameritrade.com/cgi-bin/apps/u/PLoad?pagename=tutorial/orderTypes/overview.html Stock with a higher volume will allow your trade to execute faster, since there are more frequent trades than stocks with lower volume. (UPDATE: More specifically, not more frequent trades, but more shares changing hands.) I'm a bit of a noob myself, but that's what I understand.\"",
"Brokerage firms must settle funds promptly, but there's no explicit definition for this in U.S. federal law. See for example, this article on settling trades in three days. Wikipedia also has a good write-up on T+3. It is common practice, however. It takes approximately three days for the funds to be available to me, in my Canadian brokerage account. That said, the software itself prevents me from using funds which are not available, and I'm rather surprised yours does not. You want to be careful not to be labelled a pattern day trader, if that is not your intention. Others can better fill you in on the consequences of this. I believe it will not apply to you unless you are using a margin account. All but certainly, the terms of service that you agreed to with this brokerage will specify the conditions under which they can lock you out of your account, and when they can charge interest. If they are selling your stock at times you have not authorised (via explicit instruction or via a stop-loss order), you should file a complaint with the S.E.C. and with sufficient documentation. You will need to ensure your cancel-stop-loss order actually went through, though, and the stock was sold anyway. It could simply be that it takes a full business day to cancel such an order.",
"You don't have to wait. If you sell your shares now, your gain can be considered a capital gain for income tax purposes. Unlike in the United States, Canada does not distinguish between short-term vs. long-term gains where you'd pay different rates on each type of gain. Whether you buy and sell a stock within minutes or buy and sell over years, any gain you make on a stock can generally be considered a capital gain. I said generally because there is an exception: If you are deemed by CRA to be trading professionally -- that is, if you make a living buying and selling stocks frequently -- then you could be considered doing day trading as a business and have your gains instead taxed as regular income (but you'd also be able to claim additional deductions.) Anyway, as long as your primary source of income isn't from trading, this isn't likely to be a problem. Here are some good articles on these subjects:",
"You can purchase stock immediately in the open market on the day of the IPO when market opens. Below link gives you more information. http://finance.zacks.com/buy-ipo-stock-3903.html",
"Your question is unanswerable as you haven't provided enough information. I.e. If those shares cost $1000 and you have $50000 ( or any number above $1000) of cash available in the account then you can't possibly free ride. I think your understanding of the free ride rule is incorrect. Basically what this rule is stating is that you have to have the cash when the trade is placed in order to settle the trade. Otherwise you are taking on margin (which you can't do in a cash account). So at order entry you have to have the cash to cover the purchase so it's able to be settled. If you do, no problem and you can sell that stock before trade settlement. There is no law that says you have to hold it past trade settlement. However, you cannot spend the same dollar more than once before it settles. This site does a good job explaining this more throughly with examples: http://www.invest-faq.com/articles/trade-day-free-ride.html",
"Note that the rules around wash sales vary depending on where you live. For the U.S., the wash sale rules say that you cannot buy a substantially identical stock or security within 30 days (before or after) your sale. So, you could sell your stock today to lock in the capital losses. However, you would then have to wait at least 30 days before purchasing it back. If you bought it back within 30 days, you would disqualify the capital loss event. The risk, of course, is that the stock's price goes up substantially while you are waiting for the wash sale period. It's up to you to determine if the risk outweighs the benefit of locking in your capital losses. Note that this applies regardless of whether you sell SOME or ALL of the stock. Or indeed, if we are talking about securities other than stocks.",
"\"Depends on your account. If you have a margin account, then you can \"\"withdraw\"\" the margin, and it will get paid off/settled on T+3. However if it's a cash account then you will most likely need to wait. Call your broker and ask, each broker has different rules.\"",
"No, you cannot. The cash settlement period will lock up your cash depending on the product you trade. Three business days for stocks, 1 business day for options, and you would need waaaaaay more than $5,000 to trade futures.",
"If you place a market order, you are guaranteed to sell your stock unless the stock is in a trading halt. A market order does not guarantee the price you sell the stock at. If you place a market order, even if the stock is very illiquid a market maker will guarantee a market, but will not guarantee a price.",
"\"A market sell order will be filled at the highest current \"\"bid\"\" price. For a reasonably liquid stock, there will be several buy orders in line, and the highest bid must be filled first, so there should a very short time between when you place the order and when it is filled. What could happen is what's called front running. That's when the broker places their own order in front of yours to fulfill the current bid, selling their own stock at the slightly higher price, causing your sale to be filled at a lower price. This is not only unethical but illegal as well. It is not something you should be concerned about with a large broker. You should only place a market order when you don't care about minute differences between the current ask and your execution price, but want to guarantee order execution. If you absolutely have to sell at a minimum price, then a limit order is more appropriate, but you run the risk that your limit will not be reached and your order will not be filled. So the risk is a tradeoff between a guaranteed price and a guaranteed execution.\"",
"An instant 15% profit sounds good to me, so you can't go wrong selling as soon as you are able. Here are a couple other considerations: Tax implications: When you sell the stock, you have to pay taxes on the profit (including that 15% discount). The tax rate you pay is based on how long you wait to sell it. If you wait a certain amount of time (usually 2 years, but it will depend on your specific tax codes) before you sell, you could be subject to lower tax rates on that profit. See here for a more detailed description. This might only apply if you're in the US. Since you work for the company, you may be privy to a bit more information about how the company is run and how likely it is to grow. As such, if you feel like the company is headed in the right direction, you may want to hold on the the stock for a while. I am generally wary of being significantly invested in the company you work for. If the company goes south, then the stock price will obviously drop, but you'll also be at risk to be laid off. As such you're exposed much more risk than investing in other companies. This is a good argument to sell the stock and take the 15% profit.* * - I realize your question wasn't really about whether to sell the stock, but more for when, but I felt this was relevant nonetheless.",
"\"Securities clearing and settlement is a complex topic - you can start by browsing relevant Wikipedia articles, and (given sufficient quantities of masochism and strong coffee) progress to entire technical books. You're correct - modern trade settlement systems are electronic and heavily streamlined. However, you're never going to see people hand over assets until they're sure that payment has cleared - given current payment systems, that means the fastest settlement time is going to be the next business day (so-called T+1 settlement), which is what's seen for heavily standardized instruments like standard options and government debt securities. Stocks present bigger obstacles. First, the seller has to locate the asset being sold & make sure they have clear title to it... which is tougher than it might seem, given the layers of abstraction/virtualization involved in the chain of ownership & custody, complicated in particular by \"\"rehypothecation\"\" involved in stock borrowing/lending for short sales... especially since stock borrow/lending record-keeping tends to be somewhat slipshod (cf. periodic uproar about \"\"naked shorting\"\" and \"\"failure to deliver\"\"). Second, the seller has to determine what exactly it is that they have sold... which, again, can be tougher than it might seem. You see, stocks are subject to all kinds of corporate actions (e.g. cash distributions, spin-offs, splits, liquidations, delistings...) A particular topic of keen interest is who exactly is entitled to large cash distributions - the buyer or the seller? Depending on the cutoff date (the \"\"ex-dividend date\"\"), the seller may need to deliver to the buyer just the shares of stock, or the shares plus a big chunk of cash - a significant difference in settlement. Determining the precise ex-dividend date (and so what exactly are the assets to be settled) can sometimes be very difficult... it's usually T-2, except in the case of large distributions, which are usually T+1, unless the regulatory authority has neglected to declare an ex-dividend date, in which case it defaults to standard DTC payment policy (i.e. T-2)... I've been involved in a few situations where the brokers involved were clueless, and full settlement of \"\"due bills\"\" for cash distributions to the buyer took several months of hard arguing. So yeah, the brokers want a little time to get their records in order and settle the trade correctly.\"",
"\"If you bought them, you can sell them. That does not preclude you from buying again later. You might get yourself into a situation where you need to account for a so-called \"\"wash sale\"\" on your taxes, but your broker should calculate that and report it on your 1099-B at the end of the year. There's nothing illegal about this though - It's just a required step in the accounting of capital gains for tax purposes.\"",
"It depends on the broker. The one I use (Fidelity) will allow me to buy then sell or sell then buy within 3 days even though the cash isn't settled from the first transaction. But they won't let me buy then sell then buy again with unsettled cash. Of course not waiting for cash to settle makes you vulnerable to a good faith violation.",
"Futures are immediate settlement, and your money is available as soon as you close out your position.",
"yes, there does need to be demand. on heavily traded stocks, there is no reason to be concerned. on thinly traded equities, you will want to check the market depth before placing a sell. the company is likely not the one that is buying your shares on the open market.",
"I would never use a market order. Some brokerages have an approval process your short-sale goes through before going to market. This can take some time. So the market prices may well be quite different later. Some brokerages use a separate account for short sales, so you must get their approval for the account before you can do the trade. I like the listing of shares available for shorting the Interactive Brokers has but I have experienced orders simply going into dead-air and sitting there on the screen, not being rejected, not going to market, not doing anything --- even though the shares are on the list.",
"Yes You could write a covered call and the stock gets called away at the price + premium. You could convince someone to buy it regardless of the market price.",
"Stock trades are always between real buyers and real sellers. In thinly-traded small stocks, for example, you may not always be able to find a buyer when you want to sell. For most public companies, there is enough volume that individual investors can just about always fill their market orders.",
"You can sell as many shares as you want. The only issue will be the fees attached to low dollar trades. I would recommend a site with no fee for the first 20 trades. If you plan to be a frequent trader I would recommend getting a stable rate ($10 for every transaction). If your plan is to trade in low quantities then maybe a variable rate (1% of all fades) might be better suited.",
"The top long-term capital gains tax rate will rise to 20% effective 1 Jan, 2011, unless Congress decides to do something about it before then. (Will they? Who knows!! There's been talk about it, but, well, it's Congress. They don't even know what they're going to do.) Anyway. The rules about when you can sell stock are mostly concerned with when you can realize a capital loss: if you sell a stock at a loss and then re-buy it for tax purposes within 30 days, it's a wash sale and not eligible for a deduction. However, I don't believe this applies to any stocks once you realize a gain - once you've realized the gain and paid your tax for it, it's all yours, locked in at whatever rate. Your replacement stock will be subject to short-term capital gains for the next year afterwards, and you might need to be careful with identifying the holding period on different lots of your stock, but I don't believe there will be any particular trouble. Please do not rely entirely on my advice and consult also with your tax preparer or lawyer. :) And the IRS documentation: Special Addendum for Nov/Dec 2012! Spoiler alert! Congress did indeed act: they extended the rates, but only temporarily, so now we're looking at tax hikes starting in 2013 instead, only the new top rate++ will be something like 23.8% on account of an extra 3.8% medicare tax on passive earnings (brought to you via Obamacare legislation). But the year and the rates' specifics aside, same thing still applies. And the Republican house and Democratic senate/President are still duking it out. Have fun. ++ 3.8% surtax applies to the lesser of (a) net investment income (b) income over $200,000 ($250k if married). 20% tax rate applies to people in the 15% income tax bracket for ordinary income or higher. Additional tax discounts for property held over 5 years may be available. Consult tax law and your favorite tax professional and prepare to be confused.",
"In general stock markets are very similar to that, however, you can also put in limit orders to say that you will only buy or sell at a given price. These sit in the market for a specified length of time and will be executed when an order arrives that matches the price (or better). Traders who set limit orders are called liquidity (or price) makers as they provide liquidity (i.e. volume to be traded) to be filled later. If there is no counterparty (i.e. buyer to your seller) in the market, a market maker; a large bank or brokerage who is licensed and regulated to do so, will fill your order at some price. That price is based on how much volume (i.e. trading) there is in that stock on average. This is called average daily volume (ADV) and is calculated over varying periods of time; we use ADV30 which is the 30 day average. You can always sell stocks for whatever price you like privately but a market order does not allow you to set your price (you are a price taker) therefore that kind of order will always fill at a market price. As mentioned above limit orders will not fill until the price is hit but will stay on book as long as they aren't filled, expired or cancelled.",
"You can't sell options if you don't have margin account (except covered call). You can't trade futures if you don't have margin account. Everything is immediate when you have margin account. (Including stocks) Margin account is not subject to freeriding rules, but is subject to Pattern Day Trader rules.",
"No, you cannot withdraw the money until settlement day. Some brokers will allow you to trade with unsettled funds, but you cannot withdraw it until it is settled. Think about it, when you buy stock you have to pay for them by T+3, so if you sell you actually don't receive the funds until T+3.",
"Will there be a scenario in which I want to sell, but nobody wants to buy from me and I'm stuck at the brokerage website? Similarly, if nobody wants to sell their stocks, I will not be able to buy at all? You're thinking of this as a normal purchase, but that's not really how US stock markets operate. First, just because there are shares of stock purchased, it doesn't mean that there was real investor buyer and seller demand for that instrument (at that point in time). Markets have dedicated middlemen called Market Makers (NASDAQ) or Specialists (NYSE), who are responsible to make sure that there is always someone to buy or sell; this ensures that all instruments have sufficient liquidity. Market Makers and specialists may decide to lower their bid on a stock based on a high number of sellers, or raise their ask for a high number of buyers. During an investor rush to buy or sell an instrument (perhaps in response to a news release), it's possible for the Market Maker / specialist to accumulate or distribute a large number of shares, without end-investors like you or I being involved on both sides of the same transaction.",
"The person may just want to get out of that position in order to buy a different stock, he or she feels may go up faster. There is really a lot of reasons.",
"Yes. As long as the stock is in a taxable account (i.e. not a tax deferred retirement account) you'll pay gain on the profit regardless of subsequent purchases. If the sale is a loss, however, you'll risk delaying the claim for the loss if you repurchase identical shares within 30 days of that sale. This is called a wash sale.",
"When there are no buyers, you can't sell your shares, and you'll be stuck with them until there is some interest from other investors. In this link describes clearly: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/03/053003.asp",
"quid's answer explains the settlement period well. However, it should be noted that you can avoid the settlement period by opening a margin account. Any specific broker like Schwab may or may not offer margin accounts. Margin accounts allow you to borrow money to avoid the settlement period or to buy more securities than you can actually afford. Note that if you buy more securities than you can afford using margin, you expose yourself to losses potentially larger than your initial investment. If you fund your account with $50,000 and use margin to purchase $80,000 of stock which then drops in value by 80% you will have lost $64,000 and owe the broker $14,000 plus fees.",
"New to investing... when I buy/sell a stock can I buy/sell at the exact market price whenever I'd like or is there more to it? Does there need to be a demand for when I'm trying to sell or am I just forcing the company to buy back my shares? Sorry if confusing/rookie question",
"Your math shows that you bought an 'at the money' option for .35 and when the stock is $1 above the strike, your $35 (options trade as a contract for 100 shares) is now worth $100. You knew this, just spelling it out for future readers. 1 - Yes 2 - An execute/sell may not be nesesary, the ooption will have time value right until expiration, and most ofter the bid/ask will favor selling the option. You should ask the broker what the margin requirement is for an execute/sell. Keep in mind this usually cannot be done on line, if I recall, when I wanted to execute, it was a (n expensive) manual order. 3 - I think I answered in (2), but in general they are not identical, the bid/ask on options can get crazy. Just look at some thinly traded strikes and you'll see what I mean.",
"\"Scenario 1 - When you sell the shares in a margin account, you will see your buying power go up, but your \"\"amount available to withdraw\"\" stays the same until settlement. Yes, you can reallocate the same day, no need to wait until settlement. There is no margin interest for this scenario. Scenario 2 - If that stock is marginable to 50%, and all you have is $10,000 in that stock, you can buy another $10,000. Once done, you are at 50% margin, exactly.\"",
"It's important to understand that, in general, security transactions involve you and a relatively unknown entity with your broker standing in the middle. When you sell through Schwab, Schwab needs to receive the funds from the other side of the transaction. If Schwab gave you access to the funds immediately, it would essentially be a loan until the transaction settles after funds and securities change hands. If Schwab made funds available to you as soon as they were received, it might still be two days until the money is received; because the other side also has three days. Guaranteed one day settlement would have to include receipt of funds from the buyer in one day and Schwab can't control that. You need to remember this transaction likely includes at least one party in addition to you and Schwab. Here's the SEC page related to the three day settlement period, About Settling Trades in Three Days: T+3",
"The T+3 settlement date only affects cash accounts. In a cash account, you need to wait until the T+3 settlement date for your funds to be available to make your next trade. But if you convert your cash account into a margin account, then you do not need to wait until the T+3 settlement date for your next trade - your broker will allow you to make another trade immediately.",
"\"This is the sad state of US stock markets and Regulation T. Yes, while options have cleared & settled for t+1 (trade +1 day) for years and now actually clear \"\"instantly\"\" on some exchanges, stocks still clear & settle in t+3. There really is no excuse for it. If you are in a margin account, regulations permit the trading of unsettled funds without affecting margin requirements, so your funds in effect are available immediately after trading but aren't considered margin loans. Some strict brokers will even restrict the amount of uncleared margin funds you can trade with (Scottrade used to be hyper safe and was the only online discount broker that did this years ago); others will allow you to withdraw a large percentage of your funds immediately (I think E*Trade lets you withdraw up to 90% of unsettled funds immediately). If you are in a cash account, you are authorized to buy with unsettled funds, but you can't sell purchases made on unsettled funds until such funds clear, or you'll be barred for 90 days from trading as your letter threatened; besides, most brokers don't allow this. You certainly aren't allowed to withdraw unsettled funds (by your broker) in such an account as it would technically constitute a loan for which you aren't even liable since you've agreed to no loan contract, a margin agreement. I can't be sure if that actually violates Reg T, but when I am, I'll edit. While it is true that all marketable options are cleared through one central entity, the Options Clearing Corporation, with stocks, clearing & settling still occurs between brokers, netting their transactions between each other electronically. All financial products could clear & settle immediately imo, and I'd rather not start a firestorm by giving my opinion why not. Don't even get me started on the bond market... As to the actual process, it's called \"\"clearing & settling\"\". The general process (which can generally be applied to all financial instruments from cash deposits to derivatives trading) is: The reason why all of the old financial companies were grouped on Wall St. is because they'd have runners physically carting all of the certificates from building to building. Then, they discovered netting so slowed down the process to balance the accounts and only cart the net amounts of certificates they owed each other. This is how we get the term \"\"bankers hours\"\" where financial firms would close to the public early to account for the days trading. While this is all really done instantly behind your back at your broker, they've conveniently kept the short hours.\"",
"I guess the answer lies in your tax jurisdiction (different countries tax capital gains and income differently) and your particular tax situation. If the price of the stock goes up or down between when you buy and sell then this counts for tax purposes as a capital gain or loss. If you receive a dividend then this counts as income. So, for instance, if you pay tax on income but not on capital gains (or perhaps at a lower rate on capital gains) then it would pay you to sell immediately before the stock goes ex-dividend and buy back immediately after thereby making a capital gain instead of receiving income.",
"\"You will almost certainly be able to sell 10,000 shares at once. The question is a matter of price. If you sell \"\"at market\"\" then you may get a lower price for each \"\"batch\"\" of the stock sold (one person buys 50, another buys 200, another buys 1000 etc) at varying prices. Will you be able to execute a single order to sell them all at the same price at the same time? Nobody can say, and it's not really a function of the company size. The exchange has what's called \"\"open interest\"\" which roughly correlates to how many people have active orders in at a given price. This number is constantly changing alongside the bid and ask (particularly for active stocks). So let's say you have 10,000 shares and you want to sell them for $100 each. What you need is at least 10,000 in open interest at $100 bid to execute. By contrast let's say you issue a limit order at $100 for 10,000 shares. Your ask will stay outstanding at that price and you'll be filled at that price if there are enough buyers. I you have a limit sell order at $100 for 10,000 shares the strike price of the stock cannot go to $100.01 until all of your sell orders are filled.\"",
"if I put a limit sell at $22.00 now, will it not sell until it's at $22.00 and I will continue to keep the stock? Basically yes. But note that brokers generally don't allow such limit orders to persist indefinitely. The default may even be that they're only valid until the end of the day, and usually the maximum validity is 30 or 60 days.",
"I think the simple answer to your question is: Yes, when you sell, that drives down the price. But it's not like you sell, and THEN the price goes down. The price goes down when you sell. You get the lower price. Others have discussed the mechanics of this, but I think the relevant point for your question is that when you offer shares for sale, buyers now have more choices of where to buy from. If without you, there were 10 people willing to sell for $100 and 10 people willing to buy for $100, then there will be 10 sales at $100. But if you now offer to sell, there are 11 people selling for $100 and 10 people buying for $100. The buyers have a choice, and for a seller to get them to pick him, he has to drop his price a little. In real life, the market is stable when one of those sellers drops his price enough that an 11th buyer decides that he now wants to buy at the lower price, or until one of the other 10 buyers decides that the price has gone too low and he's no longer interested in selling. If the next day you bought the stock back, you are now returning the market to where it was before you sold. Assuming that everything else in the market was unchanged, you would have to pay the same price to buy the stock back that you got when you sold it. Your net profit would be zero. Actually you'd have a loss because you'd have to pay the broker's commission on both transactions. Of course in real life the chances that everything else in the market is unchanged are very small. So if you're a typical small-fry kind of person like me, someone who might be buying and selling a few hundred or a few thousand dollars worth of a company that is worth hundreds of millions, other factors in the market will totally swamp the effect of your little transaction. So when you went to buy back the next day, you might find that the price had gone down, you can buy your shares back for less than you sold them, and pocket the difference. Or the price might have gone up and you take a loss.",
"If you know you have picked a bad stock, the sooner you sell the better. There is a tendency to hold a bad stock in the hope that it will pick up again. Most of us fall into this trap. The best way one needs to look at things are;",
"Will there be a scenario in which I want to sell, but nobody wants to buy from me and I'm stuck at the brokerage website? Similarly, if nobody wants to sell their stocks, I will not be able to buy at all? Yes, that is entirely possible.",
"Yes, via a margin account, one can trade or transfer on unsettled funds. These are tight regulations that begin with the Federal Reserve, extend to FINRA, and downward. In a cash account, this is not possible. Since speed is a necessity, a margin account can actually be approved nearly instantly.",
"\"Most of the investors who have large holdings in a particular stock have pretty good exit strategies for those positions to ensure they are getting the best price they can by selling gradually into the volume over time. Putting a single large block of stock up for sale is problematic for one simple reason: Let's say you have 100,000 shares of a stock, and for some reason you decide today is the day to sell them, take your profits, and ride off into the sunset. So you call your broker (or log into your brokerage account) and put them up for sale. He puts in an order somewhere, the stock is sold, and your account is credited. Seems simple, right? Well...not so fast. Professionals - I'm keeping this simple, so please don't beat me up for it! The way stocks are bought and sold is through companies known as \"\"market makers\"\". These are entities which sit between the markets and you (and your broker), and when you want to buy or sell a stock, most of the time the order is ultimately handled somewhere along the line by a market maker. If you work with a large brokerage firm, sometimes they'll buy or sell your shares out of their own accounts, but that's another story. It is normal for there to be many, sometimes hundreds, of market makers who are all trading in the same equity. The bigger the stock, the more market makers it attracts. They all compete with each other for business, and they make their money on the spread between what they buy stock from people selling for and what they can get for it selling it to people who want it. Given that there could be hundreds of market makers on a particular stock (Google, Apple, and Microsoft are good examples of having hundreds of market makers trading in their stocks), it is very competitive. The way the makers compete is on price. It might surprise you to know that it is the market makers, not the markets, that decide what a stock will buy or sell for. Each market maker sets their own prices for what they'll pay to buy from sellers for, and what they'll sell it to buyers for. This is called, respectively, the \"\"bid\"\" and the \"\"ask\"\" prices. So, if there are hundreds of market makers then there could be hundreds of different bid and ask prices on the same stock. The prices you see for stocks are what are called the \"\"best bid and best ask\"\" prices. What that means is, you are being shown the highest \"\"bid\"\" price (what you can sell your shares for) and the best \"\"ask\"\" price (what you can buy those shares for) because that's what is required. That being said, there are many other market makers on the same stock whose bid prices are lower and ask prices are higher. Many times there will be a big clump of market makers all at the same bid/ask, or within fractions of a cent of each other, all competing for business. Trading computers are taught to seek out the best prices and the fastest trade fills they can. The point to this very simplistic lesson is that the market makers set the prices that shares trade at. They adjust those prices based (among other factors) on how much buying and selling volume they're seeing. If they see a wave of sell orders coming into the system then they'll start marking down their bid prices. This keeps them from paying too much for shares they're going to have to find a buyer for eventually, and it can sometimes slow down the pace of selling as investors and automated systems notice the price decline and decide to wait to sell. Conversely, if market makers see a wave of buy orders coming into the system, they'll start marking their ask prices up to maximize their gains, since they're selling you shares they bought from someone else, presumably at a lower price. But they typically adjust their prices up or down before they actually fill trades. (sneaky, eh?) Depending on how much volume there is on the shares of the company you're selling, and depending on whether there are more buyers than sellers at the moment, your share sell order may be filled at market by a market maker with no real consequence to the share's price. If the block is large enough then it's possible it will not all sell to one market maker, or it might not all happen in one transaction or even all at the same price. This is a pretty complex subject, as you can see, and I've cut a LOT of corners and oversimplified much to keep it comprehensible. But the short answer to your question is -- it depends. Hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-). In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.",
"This will work as intended, but there's another point to consider. In the US, the tax rate on proceeds from stock sales is higher for short term holdings, which are defined as held for less than one year. Both rates vary based on your income. Bracket numbers are for fiscal year 2014, filing as single. The difference between short and long term capital gains tax in the US is a minimum of ten percentage points, and works out to 15 percentage points on average. This is substantial. If you won't be reporting much income the year you move to the US (say because you only worked for a portion of the year) it is decidedly to your advantage to wait and sell the stocks in the US, to get that sweet 0% rate. At a minimum, you should hold the position for a year if you sell and rebuy, from a tax optimization perspective. Two caveats:",
"\"If you sell a stock you don't own, it's called a short sale. You borrowed the shares from an owner of the stock and eventually would buy to close. On most normal shares, you can hold a short position indefinitely, but there are some shares that have a combination of either a small float or too high a short position that shares to short are not available. This can create a \"\"short squeeze\"\" where shorts are burned by being forced to buy the stock back. Last - when you did this, you should have instructed the broker that you were \"\"selling to open\"\" or \"\"selling short.\"\" In the old days, when people held stock certificates, you were required to send the certificate in when you sold. Today, the broker should know that wasn't your intention.\"",
"A lot can happen to a stock's price in 1 hour and especially 30 days. Not allowing investors to back out of if they desire would be a bad idea. These HFT firms operate on milliseconds. Requiring investors to hold for even just 1-5 seconds would be a major blow to the industry.",
"Is the remaining amount tax free? As in, if the amount shown (which I can sell) on etrade is $5000 then if I sell the entire shares will my bank account be increased by $5000? The stocks they sell are withholding. So let's say you had $7000 of stock and they sold $2000 for taxes. That leaves you with $5000. But the actual taxes paid might be more or less than $2000. They go in the same bucket as the rest of your withholding. If too much is withheld, you get a refund. Too little and you owe them. Way too little and you have to pay penalties. At the end of the year, you will show $7000 as income and $2000 as withheld for taxes from that transaction. You may also have a capital gain if the stock increases in price. They do not generally withhold on stock sales, as they don't necessarily know what was your gain and what was your loss. You usually have to handle that yourself. The main point that I wanted to make is that the sale is not tax free. It's just that you already had tax withheld. It may or may not be enough.",
"\"You seem to have it right. You will be selling what's known as a covered call. When you sell the call, you enter it as \"\"sell to open\"\" and the system should see that you own the stock. You need to be approved for options trading, not all accounts are. As far as this particular trade goes - No, the stock doesn't necessarily get called away the day it's in the money, but it can be. If the stock closes just in the money around the time of expiration are you ok will selling it for the strike price? Remember, the option buyer is taking a small risk, the cost of this option, hoping the stock will go far above that price.\"",
"Buy and sell orders always include the price at which you buy/sell. That's how the market prices for stocks are determines. So if you want to place a buy order at 106, you can do that. When that order was fulfilled and you have the stock, you can place a sell order at 107. It will be processed as soon as someone places a buy order at 107. Theoretically you can even place sell orders for stocks you haven't even bought yet. That's called short selling. You do that when you expect a stock to go down in the future. But this is a very risky operation, because when you mispredict the market you might end up owing more money than you invested. No responsible banker will even discuss this with you when you can not prove you know what you are doing.",
"The core issue is to understand what 'selling a share' means. There is no special person or company that takes the share from you; you are selling on the open market. So your question is effectively 'can I find a guy on the street that buys a 10$-bill for 11$ ?' - Well, maybe someone is dumb enough, but chances are slim.",
"The best thing to do to avoid this is not to sell as you've described. What purpose does it solve? If you're speculating, set a price at which you want to cash out and put a limit order. If you're a long term investor, then unless something fundamental has changed - why would you sell?",
"Depends on what you are, an investor or a speculator. An investor will look at an 'indefinite' investment period. A speculator will be after a fast buck. If you are an investor, buy your stock once as that will cost less commissions. After all, you'll sell your stock in 10, 15, 20 years.",
"You sell any investment because you need to do something else with the money -- rebalance your investments, buy something, pay off a debt....",
"I have been careful here to cover both shares in companies and in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Some information such as around corporate actions and AGMs is only applicable for company shares and not ETFs. The shares that you own are registered to you through the broker that you bought them via but are verified by independent fund administrators and brokerage reconciliation processes. This means that there is independent verification that the broker has those shares and that they are ring fenced as being yours. The important point in this is that the broker cannot sell them for their own profit or otherwise use them for their own benefit, such as for collateral against margin etc.. 1) Since the broker is keeping the shares for you they are still acting as an intermediary. In order to prove that you own the shares and have the right to sell them you need to transfer the registration to another broker in order to sell them through that broker. This typically, but not always, involves some kind of fee and the broker that you transfer to will need to be able to hold and deal in those shares. Not all brokers have access to all markets. 2) You can sell your shares through a different broker to the one you bought them through but you will need to transfer your ownership to the other broker and that broker will need to have access to that market. 3) You will normally, depending on your broker, get an email or other message on settlement which can be around two days after your purchase. You should also be able to see them in your online account UI before settlement. You usually don't get any messages from the issuing entity for the instrument until AGM time when you may get invited to the AGM if you hold enough stock. All other corporate actions should be handled for you by your broker. It is rare that settlement does not go through on well regulated markets, such as European, Hong Kong, Japanese, and US markets but this is more common on other markets. In particular I have seen quite a lot of trades reversed on the Istanbul market (XIST) recently. That is not to say that XIST is unsafe its just that I happen to have seen a few trades reversed recently.",
"If the stock has low liquidity, yes there could be times when there are no buyers or sellers at a specific price, so if you put a limit order to buy or sell at a price with no other corresponding sellers or buyers, then your order may take a while to get executed or it may not be executed at all. You can usually tell if a stock has low liquidity by the small size of the average daily volume, the lack of order depth and the large size of the gap between bids and offers. So if a stock for example has last sale price of $0.50, has a highest bid price of $0.40 and a lowest offer price of $0.60, and an average daily volume of 10000 share, it is likely to be very illiquid. So if you try to buy or sell at around the $0.50 mark it might take you a long time to buy or sell this stock at this price.",
"The first moment of trading usually occurs even later than that. It may take a few hours to balance the current buy/sell orders and open the stock. Watch CNBC when a hot IPO is about to open and you'll see the process in real time. If you miss it, look at a one day Yahoo chart to see when the open occurred.",
"You put in a market order when you want to sell to whomever raises their hand first. It results in the fastest possible liquidation of your stock. It's appropriate when you need to sell now, regardless of price. An example of when to use it: It's 3:55 PM, the market's going to close in 5 minutes and you need to sell some stocks to make some kind of urgent payment elsewhere. If instead you have a limit order in place, you might not reach the limit price before the market closes, and you'll still own the stock, which might not be what you want.",
"buy above the current price in the stock market You can do that, but what is the purpose to do so ? Brokers take the limit price of your order as the highest price you are going to pay. So if an order can be fulfilled below the limit they will do so. can I sell below the current price You can put in a order to do so. But what I have seen with my current broker is that the order never reached the market and wasn't executed at all. The broker might have some safeguards or process in place to stop me from doing so. Not sure how other brokers deal with it.",
"Yes, if there is liquidity you can sell your option to someone else as a profit. This is what the majority of option trading volume is used for: speculative trading with leverage.",
"\"This is actually a very complicated question. The key reading in this area is a seminal paper by Almgren & Chriss, \"\"Optimal Execution of Portfolio Transactions\"\" (2000). They show that there's a tradeoff between liquidating your portfolio faster and knowing the value with more certainty, versus liquidating more slowly (and likely for a higher price) but with less certainty. So for example, if you sold your entire position right now, you would know almost certainly how much you would get for the position. Or, you could sell off your position more slowly, and likely get more money, but you would have less certainty about how much you would get. The paper is available online at http://www.courant.nyu.edu/~almgren/papers/optliq.pdf\"",
"\"Yes, you could buy a stock on the day of its IPO. I'm a college student, and I wonder if I can buy stock from a company right after it finishes its IPO? Yes, you can. However, unless you are friends or family of an employee, chances are you'll be paying a higher price than you think as there is generally a fair bit of hype on most IPOs that allows some people to \"\"flip them\"\" which means someone is buying at a higher price. If I am not allowed to buy its stocks immediately after they go on sell, how long do I have to wait? Generally I'd wait until the hype dies down as if you look at most historical IPOs the stock could be bought cheaper later but that's just my perspective. And also who are allowed to buy the stocks at the first minute they are on sell? Anyone but keep in mind that while an IPO may be priced at $x, the initial trades may be a few times that value and the stock may come down over time. Facebook could be an example to consider of a company that had an IPO at one price and then came down for a little while on its chart over the past couple of years.\"",
"The obvious thing would happen. 10 shares change owner at the price of $100. A partially still open selling order would remain. Market orders without limits means to buy or sell at the best possible or current price. However, this is not very realistic. Usually there is a spread between the bid and the ask price and the reason is that market makers are acting in between. They would immediately exploit this situation, for example, by placing appropriately limited orders. Orders without limits are not advisable for stocks with low trading activity. Would you buy or sell stuff without caring for the price?",
"You are better off just placing a market order if you want to buy or sell straight away and avoid the queues. A market order will guarantee the purchase or sale of your shares, but it won't guarantee the price.",
"If the share is listed on a stock exchange that creates liquidity and orderly sales with specialist market makers, such as the NYSE, there will always be a counterparty to trade with, though they will let the price rise or fall to meet other open interest. On other exchanges, or in closely held or private equity scenarios, this is not necessarily the case (NASDAQ has market maker firms that maintain the bid-ask spread and can do the same thing with their own inventory as the specialists, but are not required to by the brokerage rules as the NYSE brokers are). The NYSE has listing requirements of at least 1.1 million shares, so there will not be a case with only 100 shares on this exchange.",
"\"Most of the time* you're selling to other investors, not back to the company. The stock market is a collection of bid (buy offers) and asks (sell offers). When you sell your stock as a retail investor at the \"\"market\"\" price you're essentially just meeting whatever standing bid offers are on the market. For very liquid stocks (e.g. Apple), you can pretty much always get the displayed price because so many stocks are being traded. However during periods of very high volatility or for low-volume stocks, the quoted price may not be indicative of what you actually pay. As an example, let's say you have 5 stocks you're trying to sell and the bid-side order book is 2 stocks for $105, 2 for $100, and 5 for $95. In this scenario the quoted price will be $105 (the best bid price), but if you accept market price you'll settle 2 for 105, 2 for 100, and 1 for 95. After your sell order goes through, the new quoted price will be $95. For high volume stocks, there will usually be so many orders near the midpoint price ($105, in this case) that you won't see any price slippage for small orders. You can also post limit orders, which are essentially open orders waiting to be filled like in the above example. They ensure you get the price you want, but you have no way to guarantee they'll be filled or not. Edit: as a cool example, check out the bitcoin GDAX on coinbase for a live example of what the order book looks like for stocks. You'll see that the price of bitcoin will drift towards whichever direction has the less dense order book (e.g. price drifts upwards when there are far more bids than asks.)\"",
"You could always maintain a limit order to sell at a price you're comfortable with.",
"I believe this depends on the broker's policies. For example, here is Vanguard's policy (from https://personal.vanguard.com/us/whatweoffer/stocksbondscds/brokeragedividendprogram): Does selling shares affect a distribution? If you sell the entire position two days or more before the dividend-payable date, your distribution will be paid in cash. If, however, you sell an entire position within the two day time frame of the security's payable date, the dividend will be reinvested, resulting in additional shares. Selling these subsequent shares will require another sell order, which will incur additional commission charges. Dividends which would have been reinvested into less than one whole share will be automatically liquidated into cash. If you want to guarantee you receive no fractional shares, I'd call your broker and ask whether selling stock ABC on a particular date will result in the dividend being paid in shares.",
"According to Regulation T, you can make as many day trade (round trip) stock purchases using a cash account as long as you have the funds to cover each and every round trip sale. However, the funds generated from the sales cannot be used again to purchase new stocks until the settlement period (T-2 or T-3) is over. For example, say you have $10000 dollars in your cash account and no securities. You buy 1000 shares of XYZ stock in the morning at one dollar per share and you sell the stock 30 minutes later because it went up say by 50 cents. According to Regulation T, you cannot use the money generated from the sale of your 1000 shares until after the settlement date. However, you can use the remaining $9000 dollars in your account to execute other trades just as the first trade. You can do this as many times as you want as long as you have funds available to pay for the transaction the same day it's executed. The only thing to worry about and that isn't clear, is, what happens if you perform this action more than 3 times in a week? Does it mean that your cash account now becomes a margin account subject to margin account rules because you executed more than three round trip trades in a five day rolling period?",
"Although this is possible with many brokers, it's not advisable. In many cases you may end up with both trades executed at the same time. This is because during the opening, the stock might spike up or down heavily, bid/ask spread widens, and both of your orders would get picked up, resulting in an instant loss. Your best bet is to place the stop manually sometime after you get filled.",
"If the company has a direct reinvestment plan or DRIP that they operate in house or contract out to a financial company to administer, yes. There can still be transaction fees, and none of these I know of offer real time trading. Your trade price will typically be defined in the plan as the opening or closing price on the trade date. Sometimes these plans offer odd lot sales at a recent running average price which could provide a hundred dollar or so arbitrage opportunity.",
"Here's how this works in the United States. There's no law regarding your behavior in this matter and you haven't broken any laws. But your broker-dealer has a law that they must follow. It's documented here: The issue is if you buy stock before your sell has settled (before you've received cash) then you're creating money where before none existed (even though it is just for a day or two). The government fears that this excess will cause undue speculation in the security markets. The SEC calls this practice freeriding, because you're spending money you have not yet received. In summary: your broker is not allowed to loan money to an account than is not set-up for loans; it must be a margin account. People with margin account are able to day-trade because they have the ability to use margin (borrow money). Margin Accounts are subject to Pattern Daytrading Rules. The Rules are set forth by FINRA (The Financial Industry Reporting Authority) and are here:",
"\"Yes! What you are describing is an \"\"off-exchange\"\" trade and can be done using stock certificates. Here, you will privately negotiate with the seller on a price and delivery details. That is the old-school way to do it. Many companies (about 20% of the S&P 500) will not issue paper certificates and you may run a hefty printing fee up to $500 (source: Wikipedia, above). Other other type of private-party transactions include a deal negotiated between two parties and settled immediately or based on a future event. For example, Warren Buffet created a deal with Goldman Sachs where Warren would have the choice to purchase GS shares in the future at a certain price. This was to be settled with actual shares (rather than cash-settled). Ignoring that he later canceled this agreement, if it were to go through the transaction would still have been handled by a broker transferring the shares. You can purchase directly from a company using a direct stock purchase plan (SPP). Just pick up the phone, ask for their investor relations and then ask if they offer this option. If not, they will be glad for your interest and look into setting it up for you.\"",
"The market maker will always take it off your hands. Just enter a market sell order. It will cost you a commission to pull the loss into this year. But that's it.",
"How come when I sell stocks, the brokerage won't let me cash out for three days, telling me the SEC requires this clearance period for the transaction to clear, but they can swap shit around in under a second? Be interesting to see what would happen if *every* transaction wasn't cleared until the closing bell.",
"\"Not minutes, but hours. The \"\"ex-dividend\"\" date is the deadline for acquiring a stock to receive a dividend. If you hold a stock at the beginning of this day, you will receive the dividend. So you could buy a stock right at the end of the day on the day before the ex-dividend date, and sell it the next day (on the ex-dividend date), and you would get your dividend. See this page from the SEC for more information. The problem with this strategy, however, is that the value of the stock typically drops by the same amount as the dividend on that day. If you take a look at the historical price of the stock you are interested in, you'll see this. Of course, it makes sense why: a seller knows that selling before the date results in a loss of the dividend, so they want a higher price to compensate. Likewise, a buyer on or after the date knows that the dividend is already gone, so they want to pay a lower price.\"",
"ML is a brokerage firm. Tell them to sell. If you can't or don't know how to do it on-line - call them and do it over the phone. Your citizenship might come in effect when tax are withheld, you need to fill form W8-BEN if you haven't done so yet. If US taxes are withheld, you can file 1040NR to request refund, or get it credited against your local tax liabilities.",
"Your broker should be able to answer this. Many brokers will buy it from you for the cost of a commission, if there's no legit buyer.",
"\"First a quick terminology correction: I believe you're proposing selling 10,000 shares of the stock of a company, not \"\"10,000 stocks\"\". When you sell, you need to decide whether you're selling for a specific minimum price or just selling for whatever price you can get. If you set a specific lower limit on asking price, then if people aren't interested at that price it doesn't sell. Which may mean you sell only a few shares, or none if your asking price isn't considered reasonable. If you want to sell independent of price, then as you begin to flood the market with your shares, the price you get per additional share may decline until it finds a buyer. What that lower limit is will depend on what people think the stock is currently worth. This is one of the many complications I don't want to deal with, which is why I stick with index funds.\"",
"\"That amount of shares is too low to create \"\"ripples\"\" in the market. Usually you don't specify the price to sell the stock, unless you are personally on the floor trading the securities. And even then, with a volume of $50,000 it would just mean you threw away $45,000. For most people it would mean setting a $5 sell order, and the broker would understand that as \"\"sell this security so long the price is above $5\"\". When you get to the trading volume required to influence the price, usually you are also bound by some regulations banning some moves. One of them is the Pump and Dump, and even if you are suggesting the opposite, it might be in preparation of this scam. Also, the software used for High Frequency Trading (what all the cool kids[a] in Wall Street are using these days) employ advanced (and proprietary) heuristics to analyze the market and make thousands of trades in a short interval of time. On HTF's speed: Decisions happen in milliseconds, and this could result in big market moves without reason. So a human trader attempting to manipulate the market versus these HTF setups, would be like a kid in a tricile attempting to outrun the Flash (DC comics). [a] Cool Kid: not really kids, more like suited up sharks. Money-eating sharks.\"",
"You say: Every time it seems the share price dips. Does it? Have you collected the data? It may just be that you are remembering the events that seem most painful at the time. To move the market with your trade you need to be dealing in a large amount of shares. Unless the stock is illiquid (e.g most VCT in the UK), I don’t think you are dealing in that large a number; if you were then you would likely have access to a real time feed of the order book and could see what was going on.",
"\"As previously answered, the solution is margin. It works like this: You deposit e.g. 1'000 USD at your trading company. They give you a margin of e.g. 1:100, so you are allowed to trade with 100'000 USD. Let's say you buy 5'000 pieces of a stock at $20 USD (fully using your 100'000 limit), and the price changes to $20.50 . Your profit is 5000* $0.50 = $2'500. Fast money? If you are lucky. Let's say before the price went up to 20.50, it had a slight dip down to $19.80. Your loss was 5000* $0.2 = 1'000$. Wait! You had just 1000 to begin with: You'll find an email saying \"\"margin call\"\" or \"\"termination notice\"\": Your shares have been sold at $19.80 and you are out of business. The broker willingly gives you this credit, since he can be sure he won't loose a cent. Of course you pay interest for the money you are trading with, but it's only for minutes. So to answer your question: You don't care when you have \"\"your money\"\" back, the trading company will always be there to give you more as long as you have deposit left. (I thought no one should get margin explained without the warning why it is a horrible idea to full use the ridiculous high margins some broker offer. 1:10 might or might not be fine, but 1:100 is harakiri.)\"",
"\"Assuming you are referring to macro corrections and crashes (as opposed to technical crashes like the \"\"flash crash\"\") -- It is certainly possible to sell stocks during a market drop -- by definition, the market is dropping not only because there are a larger number of sellers, but more importantly because there are a large number of transactions that are driving prices down. In fact, volumes are strongly correlated with volatility, so volumes are actually higher when the market is going down dramatically -- you can verify this on Yahoo or Google Finance (pick a liquid stock like SPY and look at 2008 vs recent years). That doesn't say anything about the kind of selling that occurs though. With respect to your question \"\"Whats the best strategy for selling stocks during a drop?\"\", it really depends on your objective. You can generally always sell at some price. That price will be worse during market crashes. Beyond the obvious fact that prices are declining, spreads in the market will be wider due to heightened volatility. Many people are forced to sell during crashes due to external and / or psychological pressures -- and sometimes selling is the right thing to do -- but the best strategy for long-term investors is often to just hold on.\"",
"how does the trading company know which one I want to sell? It doesn't need to know. You just sell one. From taxation point of view depending on the country / tax jurisdiction, it can be only be FIFO or specific stock.",
"The question seems to be from the point of view actual sales and not its impact on one's taxation. In case you just want to sell, why brokers will respond differently each times. Either there may be issues with ownership and/or the company whose shares it is? In case you feel that the issues lies with brok",
"One other issue you may face is when the company announces poor financial results and begins to tank, you will not be able to sell until the US market open and could incur a lot of pain.",
"You sold all shares? The potential wash sale effect goes away after 30 days from the dividend date. Selling all shares of a stock where a wash existed effectively negates the wash and you can take the loss.",
"Exact rules may be different depending on the size of the investor, the specific broker, and the country. For both the US and Canada, short sales occur only through one's margin account. And shares that are borrowed for shorting only come from a margin account. Shares held in a cash account are not available for shorting. From Wikipedia Short (finance) - The speculator instructs the broker to sell the shares and the proceeds are credited to his broker's account at the firm upon which the firm can earn interest. Generally, the short seller does not earn interest on the short proceeds and cannot use or encumber the proceeds for another transaction. As with many questions, I'd suggest you contact your broker for the exact details governing your account.",
"Thank you for replying. I'm not sure I totally follow though, aren't you totally at mercy of the liquidity in the stock? I guess I'm havinga hard time visualizing the value a human can add as opposed to say vwapping it or something. I can accept that you're right, just having a difficult time picturing it",
"As stock prices have declined, the net worth of people has come down. Imagine owning a million shares of a stock worth $100/share. This is worth $100,000,000. Now, if the stock is suddenly trading at $50/share then some would say you have lost $50,000,000. The value of the stock is less. The uncertainty is always there as there are differences between one day's close and another day's open possibly. The sale price is likely to be near the last trade is what is being used here. If you place a market order to sell your stock, the price may move between the time the order is placed and when it is filled. There are limit orders that could be used if you want to control the minimum price you get though you give up that the order has to be filled as otherwise people could try to sell shares for millions of dollars that wouldn't work out well.",
"You can buy and sell stocks, if you like. You'll have to pay taxes on any profits. And short-term is speculating, not investing, and has high risk"
] |
[
"You have no guarantees. The stock may last have traded at $100 (so, the market price is $100), but is currently in free-fall and nobody else will be willing to buy it for any more than $80. Or heck, maybe nobody will be willing to buy it at all, at any price. Or maybe trading on this stock will be halted. Remember, the market price is just what the stock last traded at. If you put in a 'market order', you are ordering your broker to sell at the best available current price. Assuming someone's willing to buy your stock, that means you'll sell it. But if it last traded at $100, this doesn't guarantee you'll sell at anything close to that.",
"In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.",
"If you place a market order, you are guaranteed to sell your stock unless the stock is in a trading halt. A market order does not guarantee the price you sell the stock at. If you place a market order, even if the stock is very illiquid a market maker will guarantee a market, but will not guarantee a price.",
"You can*, if the market is open, in a normal trading phase (no auction phase), works, and there is an existing bid or offer on the product you want to trade, at the time the market learns of your order. Keep in mind there are 2 prices: bid and offer. If the current bid and current offer were the same, it would immediately result in a trade, and thus the bid and offer are no longer the same. Market Makers are paid / given lower fees in order to maintain buy and sell prices (called quotes) at most times. These conditions are usually all true, but commonly fail for these reasons: Most markets have an order type of market order that says buy/sell at any price. There are still sanity checks put in place on the price, with the exact rules for valid prices depending on the stock, so unless it's a penny stock you won't suddenly pay ten times a stock's value. *The amount you can buy sell is limited by the quantity that exists on the bid and offer. If there is a bid or offer, the quantity is always at least 1.",
"You can always trade at bid or ask price (depending if you are selling or buying). Market price is the price the last transaction was executed at so you may not be able to get that. If your order is large then you may not even be able to get bid/ask but should look at the depth of the order book (ie what prices are other market participants asking for and what is the size of their order). Usually only fast traders will trade at bid/ask, those who believe the price move is imminent. If you are a long term trader you can often get better than bid or ask by placing a limit order and waiting until a market participant takes your offer.",
"Yes you can, provided if buyers are available. Normally high liquidty stocks can be sold at market prices a little higher or lower."
] |
3771
|
Best way to buy Japanese yen for travel?
|
[
"521712",
"128471",
"488948",
"198349",
"217683",
"49601"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"521712",
"128471",
"511647",
"16348",
"495826",
"470369",
"262266",
"361475",
"490384",
"408373",
"488948",
"280593",
"20180",
"311349",
"440469",
"480917",
"218307",
"572925",
"254257",
"407559",
"72464",
"152695",
"362035",
"210587",
"29790",
"493569",
"291229",
"40338",
"294957",
"418900",
"493198",
"276102",
"393211",
"221239",
"515156",
"389056",
"385090",
"380241",
"355344",
"486681",
"41138",
"507983",
"217683",
"292490",
"213537",
"324546",
"257256",
"351497",
"329746",
"539734",
"149341",
"143922",
"388260",
"333041",
"227714",
"126899",
"587711",
"397897",
"294613",
"501157",
"591323",
"439779",
"310521",
"313775",
"580169",
"357023",
"154417",
"174601",
"126565",
"210678",
"204677",
"319435",
"269043",
"3366",
"28636",
"212464",
"174406",
"221760",
"373223",
"207882",
"179527",
"223652",
"416975",
"187606",
"98851",
"259021",
"263174",
"509681",
"252038",
"151286",
"60020",
"576025",
"320012",
"307477",
"446449",
"236031",
"379170",
"556711",
"568013",
"309538"
] |
[
"Unless you need extremely large sums of money, I suggest you use an ATM or look for a credit card that has no foreign transaction fees (rare). AFAIK, it's not possible for a retail buyer to purchase currency at the current exchange rate quoted online. You are always going to be paying some spread above that, and the ATM gets you the closest. You could also try to use a bank that has branches in your country and Japan (like HSBC) and do your banking there. Then you likely wouldn't have to pay as much in fees (and possibly could draw on your account in Japan).",
"You don't. When you get to Japan, use your ATM card to withdraw local currency. My bank (ETrade) doesn't charge me int'l fees.",
"\"This page from TripAdvisor may be of interest. Look at what fees are charged on your ATM cards and credit cards, and consider overpaying your credit card so you have a credit balance that you can draw on for cash \"\"advances\"\" from ATMs that will dispense in local currency. Depending on what fees your bank charges, you may get a better rate than the forex cash traders at the airport. Edit: Cards may not always have the best rate. I recently heard from a traveler who was able to use a locally but not globally dominant currency to buy cash of a major currency at a shopping mall (with competitive forex traders) at rates even better than the mid-market rates posted at xe.com and similar places; I don't think you'll have that experience going from Australia to Malaysia (but another traveler reading this might have a different pair). In my experience the card rates are slightly worse than those and the airport forex traders significantly worse.\"",
"When I traveled to Germany, I found it was much better to get cash at ATMs and use credit cards. The exchange rate was better than exchanging dollars for Euros at an exchange center. Just make sure you have enough cash to get from the airport to whereever your are traveling. The airport exchange rates were terrible.",
"Well first of all which Asian currency are you talking about,why i ask is because some Asian currencies are not fully convertible.So a bank may not accept them. So first you need to find out if they are fully convertible or not,if not then the best thing you can do is find a travel agent who have tourist packages to that country and they will buy,as they can later sell it to people going to that country.",
"I have heard it recommended on the money radio shows to get a little walking around money in the local currency at your local bank, but look for a credit card that offers low or no fees for international usage. The credit card company will do all the monetary conversions for you for a smaller fee.",
"A proper commercial bank will charge lower fees for currency exchange than most other banks .. and banks will charge less than places that just do currency exchange. Actually, I've usually found that the best way to get currency is to use the atm/credit-card networks and withdraw money from my own bank.",
"Atm machine and my Credit Union account. Low fees (often zero, if the machine is on any of the same networks) and decent exchange rate, and no need to carry cash or traveler's checks to be exchanged. Alternatively, pay by credit card, though there is a foreign transaction fee on that.",
"Wiring is the best way to move large amounts of money from one country to another. I am sure Japanese banks will allow you to exchange your Japanese Yen into USD and wire it to Canada. I am not sure if they will be able to convert directly from JPY to CND and wire funds in CND. If you can open a USD bank account in Canada, that might make things easier.",
"I suggest opening a Credit Card that doesn't charge Foreign currency conversion fees. Here is the list of cards without such a fee, Bankrate's Foreign transaction fee credit card chart",
"Have you tried calling a Forex broker and asking them if you can take delivery on currency? Their spreads are likely to be much lower than banks/ATMs.",
"Typically, withdrawing cash from an ATM once abroad gives you the best exchange rate, but check if your bank imposes ATM withdrawal fees. This works well for all major currencies, such as GBP, Euro, Yen, AUD. I've also withdrawn Croatian kunas, Brazilian reais and Moroccan dirhams without any trouble. In Southeast Asia, it may be a different story. Thai ATMs, for example, reportedly impose a surcharge of about $5.",
"Find a good commercial bank in the us, or almost any bank in Canada, and exchange cash. Or use an ATM card in Canada; the surcharge is often minimal. (Check with your bank before traveling). You may or may not get a good exchange rate from your hotel desk; some view it as a courtesy, others as a service. You may be able to simply pay with American cash, near the border, but check the exchange rate. Or, for small amounts, you can simply not worry about whether you're getting the best possible exchange rate or not. I visit Canada periodically, and I use a mix of these solutions. Including that last one.",
"I can't speak for India, but for US travelers abroad, using an ATM card that reimburses transaction fees is usually the most convenient and cheapest way to obtain foreign cash. There are several banks and brokerages that offer these types of ATM cards in the US. The exchange rate is competitive and because the fees are reimbursed it's cheaper and easy than going to a bank or kiosk to exchange currencies. I don't know if you can get accounts/cards like this in India that reimburse ATM fees. For purchases, using a credit card is fine, too. Some cards charge a foreign transaction fee of ~1%, some don't. The credit card I use most of the time does charge a 1% transaction fee, but I get 2% back in rewards so I still don't mind using it when traveling.",
"That's actually a really good idea... I might start getting like a hundred every payday or something. A friend of mine said that you can use cash machines that just use the current exchange rate with seemingly no commission... seems a bit too good to be true if you ask me",
"To address the travelers checks question: waste of time and money. I did this years ago, the fees were outrageous, it was a hassle to find some place to cash them, and in the end you're carrying cash anyway. Otherwise do what orokusaki said.",
"\"Many years ago you used to be able to purchase \"\"currency packs\"\" that were combined bundles of currencies from western Europe based on the number of days you would be spending in each country. The exchange rates on these were very favorable and they had minimal surcharges. With the rise of the euro I doubt these bundles are still available as I haven't seen them myself in about 10 years.\"",
"You might want to see this question and its answers. If it was me, I'd prefer to exchange the currency in Germany. Why? When you are in the US you will be on vacation. It does not seem fun to spend vacation time in a bank.",
"You could get a Multi-Currency Cash Passport which has no transaction fees for deposits or withdrawals. (You can pick one up at Australia Post.) This allows you to load it with money now in US dollars. The exchange rate is locked in at the time you load it to the card. When you're in the USA, just use that card or get the cash out from an ATM so you can deposit it into a US bank. To see the exchange rate they charge, you can scroll to the very bottom of their Fees and Limits page at there's a nice little table you can compare with. Otherwise, they've got a calculator tool.",
"I think I would simply find a friendly local who is willing to Paypal you for cash.",
"The last time I checked (more than a year ago), Wells Fargo had the best rates and they provide next day delivery. They also have international ATMs in New York City.",
"Use an exchange traded fund ETF, namely SPDR MSCI Japan EUR Hdg Ucits ETF. It is hedged and can be bought in the UK by this broker State Street Global Advisors on the London Stock Exchange LSE. Link here. Article on JAPAN ETF hedged in Sterling Pound here.",
"My experience (from European countries, but not Portugal specifically) is that it's better to change in the European country, as many banks will give you US $ as a matter of course, while in the US (insular place that it is), it can be rather difficult to find a place to exchange money outside an international airport. In fact, I have a few hundred Euros left from my last trip, several years ago. Expected to make another trip which didn't come off, and haven't found a place to exchange them. PS: Just for information's sake, at the time I was working in Europe, and found that by far the easiest way to transfer part of my salary back home was to get $100 bills from my European bank. Another way was to withdraw money from an ATM, as the US & European banks were on the same network. Unfortunately the IRS put a stop to that, though I don't know if it was all banks, or just the particular one I was using. Might be worth checking, though.",
"I live in europe but have been paid in usd for the last few years and the best strategy I've found is to average in and average out. i.e. if you are going in August then buy some Euro every few weeks until you go. At least this way you mitigate the risk involved somewhat.",
"\"You could convert your Australia cash to US dollars in cash now through a Foreign Currency provider like Travelex or UAE Exchange. To convert to USD cash right now, here's the rate you're looking at with both providers: The downside with either converting to cash now, or getting a \"\"cash passport\"\" like my other answer is you're not earning any interest on your cash. Alternate Option Anther idea is to just leave your cash in an Australian bank earning interest, and get credit card that has no Annual Fee and Free Foreign Currency Conversions. That way, use that credit card to make purchases while in the USA, and the currency conversion will happen at the time of the transaction using the credit card issuer's Bid/Offer spread. This is what I do. The credit card I use in the Bank West Platinum Zero Mastercard. Just make sure you pay the full amount off the card when the bill comes (not the minimum) to avoid paying any interest on the card's balance. The current conversion they give for a USD transaction is:\"",
"Update, 2013: this product is no longer available. As of December 1, 2010, Travelex announced a product, the Travelex Cash Passport, which is chip-and-pin protected. You can buy it in the US and then load it up with either Euros or British Pounds. There are a few things to know about this: Right now, it is not available online at the Travelex website. You must purchase it in person at participating Travelex retail locations. I bought mine right downstairs from the Stack Overflow world headquarters! The fees that Travelex charges for foreign currency transactions will take your breath away. I purchased a £300 card for $547.15, which comes out to a 15% service charge. Travelex will give you better rates if you purchase larger amounts. There is a further 3% fee if you use a credit card (I used a debit card to avoid this). Think long and hard about whether to load it with Pounds or Euros. They charged me 5.5% above the interbank exchange rate to spend my Pound card in Euros. You get two cards, which is very convenient. You can refill the card on the web. Due to the high fees, the Chip and PIN Cash Passport is not a good idea for everyday transactions, for getting cash from an ATM, and certainly not for paying for big-ticket items like hotels. You're going to want to reserve it for purchasing things from those automated kiosks in Europe (especially gas stations, ticket machines in train stations, and toll booths) that will not work with a standard magnetic stripe card. The card worked perfectly buying tickets on the tube in London. I haven't had a chance to check it out in other countries.",
"\"The other option apart from the above which I feel is quite good is \"\"Travel Card\"\" [also called Forex Card] issued in USD. These cards are like prepaid debit cards. They are available from almost quite a few Indian Banks like HDFC / ICICI / UTI. The limit for students is around 100 K USD per year. http://www.hdfcbank.com/personal/cards/prepaid_cards/forexplus_card/pre_forex_elg.htm The card can be reloaded by any amount [i think the minimum is USD 100] by visiting the Branch or certain Forex agents. There loading fee is INR 75. The Fx is typical Card Rate prevailing on the day. In US this card can be used as a credit card for almost everything [I have used this without any hassel]. Avoid using the card for blocking anything [at Hotel for room booking, or initial block at car rentals]. Although its mentioned that there is a withdrawl fees, i was never charged anything for withdrawls. The card comes with an internet based login to monitor account balance and transactions. Any unused funds can be withdrawn in India. The payment will be make in INR.\"",
"\"If you are going to keep your US bank account for any period of time, the very best option I know of is to withdraw Euros from an atm using your US card once you are in Germany. I draw on my US account regularly (I'm in Munich) and always get the going \"\"mid market\"\" exchange rate, which is better than what you get from a currency conversion service, transfer agency, or bank transfer, and there are no fees from the atm or my bank for the currency conversion or withdrawal. Of course you should check with your bank to verify their rules and fees for atm use internationally. It would also be wise to put a travel advisory on your account to be sure your transaction is not denied because you are out of country.\"",
"The supposed cheapest way to do this is via a website like: https://transferwise.com/en They claim to have the best exchange rates compared to banks but I have never used them. If you do use them could you let us know in the comments as to how good they are?",
"Be careful of transferring through the large banks. They may say no/low fees, but they hide their cut in the spread, or worsen the exchange rate, to their favor. Try: - http://fxglobaltransfer.oanda.com/",
"You havent indicated the duration of your visit. The best way to do this is carry GBP. Exchange this into local currencies in the Thailand/Indonesia. Do not convert at Airport as the rates are bad. Go around shopping for rates. Most of the malls have tons of delears, bargain hard to get a good price. For hotel stay, most of the hotels in Thailand/Indonesia charge you a USD rate for room. You can check with them, if so its better to get a Pre-paid USD card or even if you swipe your regular card, you would get a decent rate for USD-GBP. The other option to make hotel payments is using Travellers cheques.",
"A currency broker will give you the closest rate to the interbank rate. Retail banks and money transfer companies take a spread (the difference between the interbank rate and the rate that they charge you) that is significantly higher than a broker. So search for a broker and get quotes for the amount you wish to transfer.",
"Just tell your bank where you're going so they don't lock your account, and then take your Visa, and take enough cash to survive if something happens to your Visa account (sometimes banks lock them anyways out of idiocy). I usually take about 600 bucks cash for a week excursion (enough for food and a shack, or a mansion if you're in Asia). I figure, I'm carrying my passport which is worth thousands to criminals abroad around my neck. Why worry about carrying a little cash. As far as the Visa goes, just make sure your bank doesn't charge enormous fees for currency conversion. As far as carrying the local currency goes. I don't recommend it. Just figure out the conversion rate, and you'll save about 5% of your money from fees converting to and from. If you're going to Russia, do convert your currency first.",
"You can convert your money at a money transfer office at an airport.",
"There are peer to peer services these days which work by trying to match someone who wants to convert currency X to currency Y with other people who want to convert Y to X. Obviously this works better with major currencies. They tend to give you the midmarket interbank rate banks use to trade with each less their commission of 1-2%. Banks can charge up to 5% and use different rates for buying and selling. Transfers may take a day or two, although you may be able to do it faster if you pay extra. Transferwise, CurrencyFair and MidPoint are examples of such services though there are many others. Here's a link to a newspaper article with more details.",
"Most banks should give them. I exchange all the time.",
"The right answer to this question really depends on the size of the transfer. For larger transfers ($10k and up) the exchange rate is the dominant factor, and you will get the best rates from Interactive Brokers (IB) as noted by Paul above, or OANDA (listed by user6714). Under $10k, CurrencyFair is probably your best bet; while the rates are not quite as good as IB or OANDA, they are much better than the banks, and the transaction fees are less. If you don't need to exchange the currency immediately, you can put in your own bids and potentially get better rates from other CurrencyFair users. Below $1000, XE Trade (also listed by user6714) has exchange rates that are almost as good, but also offers EFT transfers in and out, which will save you wire transfer fees from your bank to send or receive money to/from your currency broker. The bank wire transfer fees in the US can be $10-$30 (outgoing wires on the higher end) so for smaller transfers this is a significant consideration you need to look into; if you are receiving money in US, ING Direct and many brokerage accounts don't charge for incoming wires - but unless you have a commercial bank account with high balances, expect to spend $10-$20 minimum for outgoing. European wire transfer fees are minimal or zero in most cases, making CurrencyFair more appealing if the money stays in Europe. Below $100, it's rarely worth the effort to use any of the above services; use PayPal or MoneyBookers, whatever is easiest. Update: As of December 2013, CurrencyFair is temporarily suspending operations for US residents: Following our initial assessment of regulatory changes in the United States, including changes arising from the Dodd-Frank Act, CurrencyFair will temporarily withdraw services for US residents while we consider these requirements and how they impact our business model. This was a difficult and very regretful decision but we are confident we will be able to resume services in the future. The exact date of re-activation has not yet been determined and may take some time. We appreciate your patience and will continue communicating our status and expected return.",
"You can do this via many online FOREX brokers. All you need to do is set up and fund an account with them and then trade via their online platform. Some examples of brokers that do this are:",
"I did some empirical research, comparing the exchange rates for wire transfers vs. the exchange rates for ATM withdrawals. With my bank, wire transfers typically take a 4% float off the exchange rate. ATM withdrawals seem to take just over 2%. And ATM withdrawals don't have a wire transfer fee, as long as I'm withdrawing from a branch of the same bank (overseas). The only problem with ATM withdrawals is the daily limit. As far as I can see, Tor's answer above has it completely backwards, at least with my bank, ATM withdrawals are a much better value. Do the research yourself...call the bank you're going to transfer from and find out what their current exchange rate is. Compare it to the current spot rate (e.g. XE.com) to determine how much of a cut the bank is taking. Then, if you can, withdraw some cash from the foreign location with your ATM card and see how much of the original currency is deducted from your account. In this way you can empirically discover for yourself the better rate.",
"One way is to wire transfer large amounts. If you transfer $5,000 at one go, that $50 fee works out to 1%, same as the $5 on a $500 ATM withdrawal (and ATM fees, hidden and explicit, tend to be higher than $5). The downside is exchange rate risk (taking more money at one go exposes you to that day's rate, good or bad, vs taking it in multiple chunks). If you're American, you also have to report large transfers and foreign balances on your taxes. Shopping around for a good home bank (with low wire & foreign ATM fees), is quite important.",
"I used MoneyCorp - they typically charge you approximately 2% on top of the official exchange rate. You would probably need to declare that in your home country - I do not know Pakistan rules so can't help there.",
"I'm an Australian who just got back from a trip to Malaysia for two weeks over the New Year, so this feels a bit like dejavu! I set up a 28 Degrees credit card (my first ever!) because of their low exchange rate and lack of fees on credit card transactions. People say it's the best card for travel and I was ready for it. However, since Malaysia is largely a cash economy (especially in the non-city areas), I found myself mostly just withdrawing money from my credit card and thus getting hit with a cash advance fee ($4) and instant application of the high interest rate (22%) on the money. Since I was there already and had no other alternatives, I made five withdrawals over the two weeks and ended up paying about $21 in fees. Not great! But last time I travelled I had a Commonwealth Bank Travel Money Card (not a great idea), and if I'd used that instead on this trip and given up fees for a higher exchange rate, I would have been charged an extra $60! Presumably my Commonwealth debit card would have been the same. This isn't even including mandatory ATM fees. If I've learned anything from this experience and these envelope calculations I'm doing now, it's these:",
"When I went on vacation to London a few years ago, I looked around at banks with ATM deals with UK banks. I found that B of A had a deal with a UK bank that you could use their ATMs to take out money from your US account for practically no fees. So the week or so before I left, I opened an account at B of A, put a bunch of money in it, and used the B of A debit card during my trip as much as possible.",
"If you wanted to spend money in another country, a specialist credit card would be the most cost-effective way. Near-spot exchange rate, zero-loading, no/low ATM fees. Likewise a pre-paid debit card would also allow for money transfer across borders. If this is the right situation, FOREX trading platforms are overkill to achieve a valid solution.",
"in my experience no-cash transactions are the best deal. Take your Portuguese credit card, get some cash ($60) for emergencies. Only pay with your credit card. It's much cheaper because it's all virtual. The best would be to set up an American bank account and transfer the money there. You can also get Paypal account, they offer credit cards too. The virtual banks, credit unions are the best option because they don't charge you for transactions. They don't have expenses with keeping actual money. Find some credit Union that accepts foreigners and take it from there. You can exchange your money on the airport because it's in tax free zone. I recommend the country of the currency since they sell you their 'valuts' and you are buying dollars. Not selling Euros... Make sure to find out what is the best deal.",
"At any instant, three currencies will have exchange rates so if I know the rate between A and B, and B to C, the A to C rate is easily calculated. You need X pounds, so at that moment, you are subject to the exchange rate right then. It's not a deal or bargain, although it may look better in hindsight if the currencies move after some time has passed. But if a currency is going to depreciate, and you have the foresight to know such things, you'd already be wealthy and not visiting here.",
"Have you tried TransferWise. They offer nice cross currency transfers with really low rates.",
"see http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/cheap-travel-money if you are in the UK wishing to go on holiday outside of the uk",
"MoneysavingExpert has a regularly updated page about the best cards to use outside the UK. At the moment Halifax has a good credit card but you will pay interest on the cash withdrawal. I have a FairFX pre-paid card but that requires a UK address for the card delivery (at least) and can be topped up online from a UK bank account.",
"My experience is from travelling in Central Europe and Germany, so I've dealt with much smaller amounts of money, but the general principles are the same. Many Visa-brand ATM cards allow you to withdraw money from European ATMs for a 1% fee (plus any fees the bank may charge, my bank charged zero fee) in local currency. Even if the bank charges a 2-3% fee, the combined max 4% fee is going to be a lot smaller than most currency exchange places will offer. There are a lot of exchange offices that are built to scam tourists out of their money. We had no choice but to use one that ended up taking around 10% of the exchanged money (luckily we were only exchanging a small amount of currency). Call your bank and ask what their fees are, and if they are large, find a bank with small or zero fees and move your accounts there. Be sure to notify your bank that you are going to be travelling for an extended time in a foreign country. Literally any ATM (Geldautomat) accepted our card (thank you VISA). We literally walked off the plane with some USD and no foreign currency, and were able to stop at an ATM right outside our hotel (the taxi had a card reader, as most in Munich did). If you have a source of income secured within the country (which I am hoping you do if you will be living there) you could live off of your income, and use your USD to pay off things like credit card bills. Get a Travel Rewards Credit Card (or similar card that offers no foreign transaction fees or free currency transfers). Use this card for anything and everything you can, and pay it with a transfer from your US bank account. Under this method you'll probably have to convert some currency, but you can do so from an ATM easily enough.",
"\"I'd recommend an online FX broker like XE Trade at xe.com. There are no fees charged by XE other than the spread on the FX conversion itself (which you'll pay anywhere). They have payment clearing facilities in several countries (including UK BACS) so provided you're dealing with a major currency it should be possible to transfer money \"\"free\"\" (of wire charges at least). The FX spread will be much better than you would get from a bank (since FX is their primary business). The additional risk you take on is settlement risk. XE will not pay the sterling amount to your UK bank account until they have received the Euro payment into their account. If XE went bankrupt before crediting your UK account, but after you've paid them your Euros - you could lose your money. XE is backed by Custom House, which is a large and established Canadian firm - so this risk is very small indeed. There are other choices out there too, UKForex is another that comes to mind - although XE's rates have been the best of those I've tried.\"",
"I would like to avoid this, so what I'm thinking about is to open a bank account abroad, and use Transferwise to transfer my HUF to that account. Do you think this makes sense? It does make sense. The challange is to find a Bank that will allow you to open an account online. Are there any more effective way to save money? Try prepaid cards. You should be able to get these from normal Banks in Hungary or other reputed financial institutions. You will have a visibility of the rates and it would be one time conversion.",
"Yes, one such provider is: https://www.fxcompared.com/ They allow you to compare a number of foreign currency providers, and take into account all of the fees and spreads, and give you a simple number which you can use to compare them - the amount of foreign currency you get for your domestic currency.",
"An addition to the other answers more than a real answer I suspect. Note that fees are not the only way that you pay for foreign exchange; where no foreign exchange fee is charged the issuer makes it back by giving an appalling spread on the rate. Be very careful not to go for a card that has no fees but an exorbitant spread. I personally would open a CAD denominated account in Canada and convert a larger amount into that account when CAD is historically weak. The spreads will be better that way but don't attempt to use it to mitigate exchange rate risk or to trade the two currencies for profit as that way madness and penury lie.",
"The location that you are purchasing from is not really relevant. If you use either a Visa or MasterCard to make a payment in a foreign currency of any kind then your payment will automatically use Visa/MasterCard's FX platform. Whilst fees can vary between issuers, the fee is generally fixed at 2.5%. There are occasionally credit card issuers who have special deals to remove these fees, but they tend to come and go and availability will depend on your country of residence. The only real way to avoid the fee is to get access to a debit or credit card denominated in the currency you wish to use for your purchase. This is often achievable for USD or EUR, but much harder for smaller currencies. You would have to try contacting a bank in that country to see if they would open an account for you or attempting to purchase a pre-paid credit card online.",
"Try looking at Transferwise. They have low fees and often beat the banks. They (broadly speaking) work by finding people who need to convert money the other way round and then just push money around in the respective local currency.",
"I've been using xetrade for quite awhile, also used nzforex (associated with ozforex / canadian forex, probably ukforex as well) -- xetrade has slightly better rates than I've gotten at nzforex, so I've been using them primarily. That said, I am in the process of opening an account at CurrencyFair, because it appears that I'll be able to exchange money at better rates there. (XETrade charges me 1.5% off the rate you see at xe.com -- which is the FX conversion fee I believe -- there are no fees other than the spread charged). I think the reason CurrencyFair may be able to do better is because the exchange is based on the peer-to-peer trade, so you could theoretically get a deal better than xe.com. I'll update my answer here after I've been using CurrencyFair for awhile, and let you know. They theoretically guarantee no worse than 0.5% though (+ $4.00 / withdrawal) -- so I think it'll save me quite a bit of money.",
"\"I've done exactly what you say at one of my brokers. With the restriction that I have to deposit the money in the \"\"right\"\" way, and I don't do it too often. The broker is meant to be a trading firm and not a currency exchange house after all. I usually do the exchange the opposite of you, so I do USD -> GBP, but that shouldn't make any difference. I put \"\"right\"\" in quotes not to indicate there is anything illegal going on, but to indicate the broker does put restrictions on transferring out for some forms of deposits. So the key is to not ACH the money in, nor send a check, nor bill pay it, but rather to wire it in. A wire deposit with them has no holds and no time limits on withdrawal locations. My US bank originates a wire, I trade at spot in the opposite direction of you (USD -> GBP), wait 2 days for the trade to settle, then wire the money out to my UK bank. Commissions and fees for this process are low. All told, I pay about $20 USD per xfer and get spot rates, though it does take approx 3 trading days for the whole process (assuming you don't try to wait for a target rate but rather take market rate.)\"",
"In your position I would use one of the existing Polish currency exchange platforms (you can find a list here: http://jakikantor.pl). A few of them have bank accounts in Britain so the exchange rate will be close to market price.",
"\"I've been doing a bunch of Googling and reading since I first posed this question on travel.SE and I've found an article on a site called \"\"thefinancebuff.com\"\" with a very good comparison of costs as of September 2013: Get the Best Exchange Rate: Bank Wire, Xoom, XE Trade, Western Union, USForex, CurrencyFair by Harry Sit It compares the following methods: Their examples are for sending US$10,000 from the US to Canada and converting to Canadian dollars. CurrencyFair worked out the cheapest.\"",
"\"The catch with any exchange service is that you're going to involve some sort of business and they're going to want to get paid for their service. These services all come with their own exchange rates, fees, waiting periods, or requirements to even use said service. Commonly, pros towards one of those comes at the cost of another— e.g. fast transfers have higher fees or worse exchange rates. Over the past few months I needed a service and ended up using USForex. Since you're going from CAD to USD, you'd likely need to use CanadianForex. Pros: Cons: Overall, this option was far better than the $97.00 I was quoted from WesternUnion; or the $25.00-45.00 I was quoted from BMO Harris, which would have required I open a saving account with them. I wasn't provided a clean exchange rate between these two to know how all three compared. The only bit of advice I can say with any service is compare exchange rates. If you're transferring more than a few hundred dollars, the exchange rate can be seen as a \"\"hidden\"\" fee when it's unreasonably low. I'm not affiliated with or accommodated by any of the exchange services mentioned.\"",
"I want to shop in the currency that will be cheapest in CAD at any given time. How do you plan to do this? If you are using a debit or credit card on a CAD account, then you will pay that bank's exchange rate to pay for goods and services that are billed in foreign currency. If you plan on buying goods and services from merchants that offer to bill you in CAD for items that are priced in foreign currency (E.g. buying from Amazon.co.uk GBP priced goods, but having Amazon bill your card with equivalent CAD) then you will be paying that merchant's exchange rate. It is very unlikely that either of these scenarios would result in you paying mid-market rates (what you see on xe.com), which is the average between the current ask and bid prices for any currency pair. Instead, the business handling your transaction will set their own exchange rate, which will usually be less favorable than the mid-market rate and may have additional fees/commission bolted on as a separate charge. For example, if I buy 100 USD worth of goods from a US vendor, but use a CAD credit card to pay, the mid-market rate on xe.com right now indicates an equivalent value of 126.97 CAD. However the credit card company is more likely to charge closer to 130.00 CAD and add a foreign transaction fee of maybe $2-3, or a percentage of the transaction value. Alternatively, if using something like Amazon, they may offer to bill the CAD credit card in CAD for those 100 USD goods. No separate foreign transaction fee in this case, but they are still likely to exchange at the less favorable 130.00 rate instead of the mid-market rates. The only way you can choose to pay in the cheapest equivalent currency is if you already have holdings of all the different currencies. Then just pay using whichever currency gets you the most bang for your buck. Unless you are receiving payments/wages in multiple currencies though, you're still going to have to refill these accounts periodically, thus incurring some foreign transaction fees and being subject to the banker's exchange rates. Where can I lookup accurate current exchange rates for consumers? It depends on who will be handling your transaction. Amazon will tell you at the checkout what exchange rate they will apply if you are having them convert a bill into your local currency for you. For credit/debit card transactions processed in a different currency than the attached account, you need to look at your specific agreement or contact the bank to see which rate they use for daily transactions (and where you can obtain these rates), whether they convert on the day of the transaction vs. the day it posts to your account, and how much they add on ($ and/or %) in fees and commission.",
"While in the UK and travelling to Europe, I heard of the FairFX euro card from the website Money Supermarket (affiliate link which waives the sign-up fee). The link also includes many other alternative prepaid euro cards which may be better suited for your uses. The FairFX card is available in both GBP and EUR, and both products come with chip and pin. They also charge relatively little as compared to most bank cards (no currency conversion on use, $2~ withdrawal charges from ATM). I generally had a good experience with this card, and was able to purchase items both in person as well as online using it.",
"Everbank has offered accounts in foreign currencies for a while. https://www.everbank.com/currencies Takes a while to get it setup; and moving cash in and out is via wire transfer. Also you need to park $5K in USD in a money market account; which you use as a transfer point.",
"If I understand TransferWise’s Supported Countries page correctly, you could use their service. I believe it should be cheaper than having the bank convert. I've been very happy with the service and use it regularly.",
"Everbank just charges a 1% currency conversion fee for foreign ATM transactions. Unfortunately they don't seem to document this on their web site, but a call to customer services should confirm (A family member confirmed with them in the past and I also have personal experience while traveling). It appears About.com also reviewed a few last spring. While many places do only take cash, for larger transactions (such as lodging) I'd recommend considering carrying one of the credit cards that don't pass through the network charge for a net 0% (such as Capital One mentioned in another answer).",
"XE.com will do an ACH transfer for no fee, and they'll give you a better exchange rate than your bank. I use them for converting CAD/USD.",
"Your bank will convert it (taking a fee for that, of course). It might be delayed some days so it can clear (2-3 days).",
"\"You can find lots of answers to this question by googling. I found at least five pages about this in 30 seconds. Most of these pages seem to say that if you must convert cash, converting it in the destination country is probably better, because you are essentially buying a product (in this case, dollars), and it will cheaper where the supply is greater. There are more dollars in the USA than there are in Portugal, so you may be able to get them cheaper there. (Some of those pages mention caveats if you're trying to exchange some little-known currency, which people might not accept, but this isn't an issue if you're converting euros.) Some of those pages specifically recommend against airport currency exchanges; since they have a \"\"captive audience\"\" of people who want to convert money right away, they face less competition and may offer worse rates. Of course, the downside of doing the exchange in the USA is that you'll be less familiar with where to do it. I did find some people saying that, for this reason, it's better to do it in your own country where you can shop around at leisure to find the best rate. That said, if you take your time shopping around, shifts in the underlying exchange rate in the interim could erase any savings you find. It's worth noting, though, that the main message from all these pages is the same: don't exchange cash at all if you can possibly avoid it. Use a credit card or ATM card to do the exchange. The exchange rate is usually better, and you also avoid the risks associated with carrying cash.\"",
"If you want to convert more than a few thousand dollars, one somewhat complex method is to have two investment accounts at a discount broker that operations both in Canada and the USA, then buy securities for USD on a US exchange, have your broker move them to the Canadian account, then sell them on a Canadian exchange for CAD. This will, of course, incur trading fees, but they should be lower than most currency conversion fees if you convert more than a few thousand dollars, because trading fees typically have a very small percentage component. Using a currency ETF as the security to buy/sell can eliminate the market risk. In any case, it may take up to a week for the trades and transfer to settle.",
"Several possibilities come to mind: Several online currency-exchange brokers (such as xe.com and HiFx) offer very good exchange rates and no wire transfer fees (beyond what your own bank might charge you). Get French and American accounts at banks that are part of the Global ATM alliance: BNP Paribas in France and Bank of America in the USA. This will eliminate the ATM fee. Get an account at a bank that has branches in both countries. I've used HSBC for this purpose.",
"I use XE.com for almost the same purpose. They have free transfer options, such as ACH withdrawals and deposits. I normally do a online bill payment through my international bank to XE, and have them deposit it in the US via ACH. It takes 1-3 business days, and there's no fee beyond their small percentage (about 1.25%) on top of the exchange rate.",
"If you are restricting yourself to Scotiabank (Both retail banking and iTrade), your choices are pretty limited. If you are exchanging more than CAD$25,000 to EUR without margin, you can call Scotiabank and ask for a quote with much lower spread than the published snapshots. The closest ETF that you are talking about is RWE.B on TSX, which is First Asset MSCI Europe Low Risk Weighted ETF (Unhedged). You will be exposed to huge equity market risk and you should do it only if you intend to hold it for 3-5 years. Another way of exchanging cash is without opening an account is through a currency exchange broker (search “toronto currency exchange” for relevant companies). First you send an email asking for a quote for the amount you wanted, then you send the CAD to them via cheque, and they would convert to EUR and deposit it to your EUR account at Scotiabank (retail banking). This method costs around 0.7% compared to 2.5% charged by Scotiabank. An example of these brokers is Interchange Currency Exchange in Toronto. If you are hedging more than 125000 EUR, the proper method is to open an account that supports trading Currency Futures on Globex (US CME group). You can long Euro/Canadian Dollar Futures on margin. The last method is to open an account at Interactive Brokers, put CAD in it, then borrow more CAD to buy EUR. This method costs a few dollars upon trading and the spread is negligible. You need to pay 2.25% per year margin interest through.",
"The best would be to spend the money in US dollars. Order something from eBay/Amazon, even for resale, or pay someone in the US for services that you don't care where they're coming from, etc.",
"The easiest way is to walk over to any Bank that deals with Foreign Exchange or go to any Western union Money Transfer agencies, they will take the Euro and give you Indian Rupees. Passport is not required, but a proof of identity is required. Banks will also ask you question as to how you got the money, as long as you are able to answer them you will get the money. There would also be local Jewellary stores that would convert the money. If you are dealing with them be sure you have check the rates with few before going into the deal.",
"Yes, there is indeed a great alternative for all European residents: getting a Revolut account. Revolut is a fully-online bank who's main benefits include the lack of fees (with some limits) and a great exchange rate for all currency operations (better than what you would get at any brick and mortar bank in Europe). In your particular scenario it would work as following: This is what I personally use to handle a salary in EUR while living in Czech Republic. Things might change in the future once they run out of investor money, but for now it's the only solution I know for converting currencies without a loss.",
"The best way to do this would be to exchange the funds into USD and wire the funds to your bank account in the US. It is up to you whether you want to hold USD or Euros. Depends if you plan to invest money in the US.",
"If you are exchanging money for travel then you should not have to pay any capital gains on any exchange that is in your favour. Exchanging currency for travel is different from trading currencies for an attempt at making profits.",
"There is (at least) one service that allows you to convert USD, GBP and EUR at the interbank spot rate, and make purchases using a prepaid MasterCard in many more currencies (also at the interbank rate). They currently don't charge any fees (as of September 2015). You could use your US prepaid card to fund your account with Revolut and then spend them in your local currency (HRK?) without fees (you can check the current USD/HRK rate with their currency calculator); you can also withdraw to non-EUR SEPA-enabled bank accounts, but then your bank would charge you for the necessary currency conversion (both by fees and their exchange rate). If you have a bank account in EUR, you could alternatively convert your USD balance to EUR and then withdraw that to your EUR bank account. If your US prepaid card has a corresponding bank account which can be used for ACH direct debit or domestic wire transfers (ask the issuer if you are unsure), TransferWise or a similar service might also be an option; they allow you to fund a transaction using one of those methods and then credit an account in",
"Actually What you Can do here, Deposit the money to someones account who has an Account in abroad and Linked to Master Card. Or Another option is You can take help from two banks Standard Chartard or HSBC, they provide RFCD Account, which is a Dollar Account and International Cards which you can use in abroad.",
"If S&P crashes, these currencies will appreciate. Note that the above is speculation, not fact. There is definitely no guarantee that, say, the CHF/CAD currency pair is inversely linked to the performance of the US stock market when measured in USD, let alone to the performance of the US stock market as measured in CAD. How can a Canadian get exposure to a safe haven currency like CHF and JPY? I don't want a U.S. dollar denominated ETF. Three simple options come to mind, if you still want to pursue that: Have money in your bank account. Go to your bank, tell them that you want to buy some Swiss francs or Japanese yen. Walk out with a physical wad of cash. Put said wad of cash somewhere safe until needed. It is possible that the bank will tell you to come back later as they might not have the physical cash available at the branch office, but this isn't anything really unusual; it is often highly recommended for people who travel abroad to have some local cash on hand. Contact your bank and tell them that you want to open an account denominated in the foreign currency of your choice. They might ask some questions about why, there might be additional fees associated with it, and you'll probably have to pay an exchange fee when transferring money between it and your local-currency-denominated accounts, but lots of banks offer this service as a service for those of their customers that have lots of foreign currency transactions. If yours doesn't, then shop around. Shop around for money market funds that focus heavily or exclusively on the currency area you are interested in. Look for funds that have a native currency value appreciation as close as possible to 0%. Any value change that you see will then be tied directly to the exchange rate development of the relevant currency pair (for example, CHF/CAD). #1 and #3 are accessible to virtually anyone, no large sums of money needed (in principle). Fees involved in #2 may or may not make it a practical option for someone handling small amounts of money, but I can see no reason why it shouldn't be a possibility again in principle.",
"Maintain your U.S. bank accounts. Use xe.com to transfer money back and forth.",
"There are no flat fees but typically banks and money exchangers will use a the current market rate, up to the minute for some powerful exchangers. They then add a little on top depending on many variables. Those variables can be related to the quantity of currency that organization holds, the average amount they hold, the market trend for that currency, the stability of the currency, the location of that currency exchange, etc. As for the one stop shop for currency exchange providers, you can try moneysupermarket.com Hope that helps.",
"Unless you want to invest a lot of time into learning about ForEx, I think the best time to convert is whenever it's most practical for you. This is because, as some of the comments say, no one knows when which currency will go up and down. Unless something major happens, you're unlikely to gain/lose a huge amount within a year. Whatever you do, try to avoid converting the money twice (NZ - AUS - GBP) and I'd suggest a provider like Transferwise for actually transferring the money, instead of using your bank (its usually cheaper).",
"Well, one way I avoid all exchange fees is to trade currency with an individual. There's no trick, though. Just find a friend or family member on the other side of the border who wants your USD or your CAD, look up the exchange rate for the day, and hand over the money (or write each other checks). It's win-win because both sides are getting a good deal with no fees.",
"\"The wire is probably the quick way to go. There may be a lower cost method through an international bank like Citi or HSBC. If you are a US resident or have a \"\"substantial presence\"\" in the United States, the IRS may be interested in the origins of your money.\"",
"US banks are often helpless with international checks, so I would recommend to do a wire transfer instead. Otherwise you might end up being in the US with no money and a worthless piece of paper in your hand. First, set up your european account to allow wire transfers to the US, if that needs any action. Speak to someone in the bank in person, to make sure you can later initiate such a transfer remotely/online. After travelling, set up your US account, and then remote trigger a wire transfer. Costs are relatively small, for example with Postbank you pay less than 30 $, and get the bank currency exchange ratio (which is much better than the exchange ratio for paper money). The wire transfer cost is partly proportional to the amount, and partly constant, so don't split it in many pieces - make one larger transfer.",
"You could get a prepaid Visa card. You don't need a bank account and at least here in Australia you just buy them over the counter at the post office. I believe the U.K. has a similar card: Travel Money Card Plus from the Post Office. The card requires a UK passport or driving license. Other European countries may have similar prepaid cards but may also require resident status and electronic identity / credit inquiry.",
"While in London for a month about a year ago, I had similar issues. I ended up getting a prepaid chip-and-pin card that was filled with cash. I don't remember the retailer that sold me this, but I figure it'll give you something to start your search.",
"You take it to a bank or Foregn Exchange agent and exchange it for your rupees (I assume this is your national currency). They will exchange it at the current exchange rate and some may charge you fee for doing it.",
"I prefer to use a Foreign Exchange transfer service. You will get a good exchange rate (better than from Paypal or from your bank) and it is possible to set it up with no transfer fees on both ends. You can use an ACH transfer from your US bank account to the FX's bank account and then a SEPA transfer in Europe to get the funds into your bank account. Transfers can also go in the opposite direction (Europe to USA). I've used XE's service (www.xe.com) and US Forex's service (www.usforex.com). Transferwise (www.transferwise.com) is another popular service. US Forex's service calls you to confirm each transfer. They also charge a $5 fee on transfers under $1000. XE's service is more convenient: they do not charge fees for small transfers and do not call you to confirm the tramsfer. However, they will not let you set up a free ACH transfer from US bank accounts if you set up your XE account outside the US. In both cases, the transfer takes a few business days to complete. EDIT: In my recent (Summer 2015) experience, US Forex has offered slightly better rates than XE. I've also checked out Transferwise, and for transfers from the US it seems to be a bit of a gimmick with a fee added late in the process. For reference, I just got quotes from the three sites for converting 5000 USD to EUR:",
"Cheaper and faster are usually mutually exclusive. If you want faster, nothing is faster than cash. I would recommend using an ATM to withdraw cash from your USD account as Florints and then use as appropriate. If you want cheaper, then the cheapest currency conversion commonly available is foreign exchange / transfer services like OFX / XE Trade / Transferwise. Turn around time on these can be as little as a business day or two but more commonly takes a few business days, but they typically offer the best currency exchange rates at the lowest cost. If you must make regular payments to 3rd parties, you can set these services up to send the converted currency to a 3rd party rather than back to your own account.",
"There is a startup targeted specifically to serve you for the situation you describe: - http://peertransfer.com There are other methods. CurrencyFair is one service that might help: - http://currencyfair.com And, there is bitcoin. Because it is new yet, there aren't very liquid markets where bitcoins are exchanged for Rupees or Yuan at decent rates at the present. Once you receive bitcoins transferred to you however, those funds are easily transferred to your B Of A account (using Dwolla to send via ACH to your bank). - https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Buying_bitcoins",
"Thanks for your reply! I presume then if I don't convert back (say I spend everything) then it's much the same. So my main consideration should be whether I think the currency will increase or decrease in my time away if I'm converting back",
"In addition to TransferWise that @miernik answered with and that I successfully used, I found CurrencyFair which looks to be along similar lines and also supports US$.",
"India is better as the exchange rate conversion will be better. In the US, banks or exchange rate converters do not hold much INR and likely to quote a much worse rate. Best way is to open HSBC premier accounts in both US and India and use their global transfers as in premier accounts the conversion rates are usually decent. HSBC Premier also has good tools to link two accounts, so the process would be transparent. Best conversion rates are given by Middle East banks or FX converters due to the large number of Indians working there, but I suspect opening a bank account in Dubai might not be feasible.",
"A 2.5% fee is standard, and you're not likely to avoid a transaction fee when withdrawing cash from an ATM. You'd do better to get foreign currency before leaving the US, or to use a credit card abroad. Capital One has a credit card with no fee on foreign-currency purchases, for example. Another option is to open a bank account in the foreign currency, if you go to a particular country often enough to make it worthwhile.",
"One way you can accomplish this is on a cruise ship. Most cruise ships have casinos, and most will allow you to sign out chips at the casino cage. You can then exchange the chips for cash. The chips that were signed for are resolved as room charges. Those room charges can be charged to a CC. Those signed for chips are rolled into the total room charges and are thus not treated as a cash advance. The cost of the cruise not with standing, you could earn money in that form. Step off the boat, deposit cash in the bank, and send a check to the CC company. All that being said, it is an cheap and safe way to get cash while you are traveling in that method.",
"Transferwise gives an excellent exchange rate and very minimal costs. They save on costs by not actually changing any money; your money goes to someone else in the US, and the Canadia dollars you want come from someone else in Canada. No money changes currency or crosses borders, there is no bank transfer fee (assuming that domestic bank transfers, inside the country, are free), and they give an excellent exchange rate (very nearly the spot rate, I find; far better than many rates I find online for sending money across the border). I sent money from the UK to Japan with it last week, at a fixed fee of about three US dollars (I was charged in GBP, obviously). About one tenth the cost of an international bank transfer. I just double-checked; at about midday on the fifth of October 2016, they gave me a rate of 130.15 JPY per 1 GBP, and then charged me two GBP to transfer the money. The rate that day, according to xe.com, varied between 130.7 and 132 ; basically, I don't think I could have got a better deal pretty much anywhere. As I type, this very second, they offer 1.33 CAD for 1 USD , and google tells me that this very second, the exchange rate is 1.33 CAD for 1 USD - transferwise is giving the spot price. I don't think you'll get a better rate anywhere else.",
"You can use Norbet's Gambit to convert between USD and CAD either direction. I have never personally done this, but I am planning to convert some CAD to USD soon, so I can invest in USD index funds without paying the typical 2% conversion fee. You must be okay with waiting a few days for the trades to settle, and okay with the fact that the exchange rate will almost certainly change before you sell the shares in the opposite currency. The spread on DLR.TO is about 0.01% - 0.02%, and you also have brokerage commissions and fees. If you use a discount broker the commissions and fees can be quite low. EG. To transfer $5000 USD to CAD using Questrade, you would deposit the USD into a Questrade account and then purchase ~500 units of DLR.U.TO , since it is an ETF there is no commission on the purchase. Then you request that they journal the shares over to DLR.TO and you sell them in CAD (will have about a $5 fee in CAD, and lose about $1 on the spread) and withdraw. The whole thing will have cost you $6 CAD, in lieu of ~$100 you would pay if you did a straightforward conversion with a 2% exchange fee. The difference in fees scales up as the amount you transfer increases. Someone has posted the chat log from when they requested their shares be journaled from DLR.TO to DLR.U.TO here. It looks like it was quite straightforward. Of course there is a time-cost, and the nuisance of signing up for an maintaining an account with a broker if you don't have one already. You can do it on non discount-brokers, but it will only be worth it to do it with a larger amount of money, since the commissions are larger. Note: If you have enough room to hold the CAD amount in your TFSA and will still have that much room at the end of the calendar year, I recommend doing the exchange in a TFSA account. The taxes are minimal unless the exchange rate changes drastically while your trades are settling (from capital gains or losses while waiting a few days for the trades to settle), but they are annoying to calculate, if you do it often. Warning if you do it in a TFSA be sure not to over contribute. Every time you deposit counts as a contribution and your withdrawals don't count against the limit until the next calendar year."
] |
[
"Unless you need extremely large sums of money, I suggest you use an ATM or look for a credit card that has no foreign transaction fees (rare). AFAIK, it's not possible for a retail buyer to purchase currency at the current exchange rate quoted online. You are always going to be paying some spread above that, and the ATM gets you the closest. You could also try to use a bank that has branches in your country and Japan (like HSBC) and do your banking there. Then you likely wouldn't have to pay as much in fees (and possibly could draw on your account in Japan).",
"You don't. When you get to Japan, use your ATM card to withdraw local currency. My bank (ETrade) doesn't charge me int'l fees.",
"Have you tried calling a Forex broker and asking them if you can take delivery on currency? Their spreads are likely to be much lower than banks/ATMs.",
"\"Check whether you're being charged a \"\"Cash advance\"\" fee with your withdrawals, because it's being withdrawn from your credit card account. If that's happening to you, then having a positive balance on your credit card account will dramatically reduce the fees. Quoting from my answer to a similar question on Travel Stack Exchange: It turns out that even though \"\"Cash advance fee - ATM\"\" has \"\"ATM\"\" in it, it doesn't mean that it's being charged by the ATM you're withdrawing from. It's still being charged by the bank of your home country. And depending on your bank, that fee can be minimized by having a positive balance in your credit card account. This isn't just for cards specially marketed at globehoppers and globeshoppers (mentioned in an answer to a similar question), but even for ordinary credit cards: Help minimise and avoid fees An administrative charge of 2% of the value of the transaction will apply to each cash advance made on your card account, where your account has a negative (debit) balance after the transaction has been posted to it. A minimum charge of $2.50 and a maximum charge of $150 will apply in these circumstances. Where your account has a positive (credit) balance after the transaction has been posted to it, a charge of $2.50 will apply to the transaction. Any such charge will appear on your credit card statement directly below the relevant cash advance. A $2.50 charge if your account is positive, versus $20 if the account is negative? That's a bit of a difference!\"",
"When I went on vacation to London a few years ago, I looked around at banks with ATM deals with UK banks. I found that B of A had a deal with a UK bank that you could use their ATMs to take out money from your US account for practically no fees. So the week or so before I left, I opened an account at B of A, put a bunch of money in it, and used the B of A debit card during my trip as much as possible.",
"I already commented the best existing answers, however let me note a couple of other things. Some of my friends in the past have wanted to do one of the following:"
] |
2994
|
Work on the side for my wife's company
|
[
"419319",
"318491",
"569145"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"569145",
"512151",
"419319",
"265527",
"587611",
"562780",
"329810",
"179144",
"588253",
"548291",
"599684",
"86474",
"406789",
"164392",
"434906",
"360925",
"153541",
"280788",
"445846",
"105543",
"315552",
"91882",
"469601",
"241807",
"480287",
"399882",
"4992",
"316925",
"527776",
"108062",
"98629",
"133235",
"318491",
"484799",
"18647",
"236375",
"75195",
"414737",
"11021",
"37900",
"599336",
"265397",
"194899",
"377335",
"511651",
"24323",
"590775",
"93638",
"355513",
"257249",
"172457",
"241660",
"388078",
"382908",
"194955",
"558832",
"474433",
"175889",
"433766",
"134941",
"470066",
"60238",
"233897",
"20036",
"334902",
"127347",
"352120",
"250640",
"353004",
"431010",
"393354",
"427202",
"576362",
"107817",
"328853",
"5840",
"87102",
"460721",
"114835",
"523564",
"266099",
"468741",
"560380",
"564453",
"536849",
"442142",
"303293",
"423625",
"292351",
"407378",
"160313",
"102507",
"422436",
"129503",
"373059",
"103405",
"441568",
"584218",
"454184",
"569455"
] |
[
"Depending on how much freelance work we're talking about you could set up a limited company, with you and your wife as directors. By invoicing all your work through the limited company (which could have many other benefits for you, an accountant/advisor would... well, advise...) it's the company earning the money, not you or her personally. You can then pay your wife up to £10,000 per year (as of writing this) without income tax kicking in. You would probably have to pay yourself a small amount to minimise exposure to HMRC's snooping, but possibly not... as far as I'm aware the rules do not state anything about working for free, for yourself - and I wouldn't worry about the ethics, you're already paying plenty into HMRC's bank account through your day job! Some good information here if you're interested: https://www.whitefieldtax.co.uk/web/psc-guide/pscguide-how-does-it-all-work-in-practice-salaries-and-dividends/",
"Just from my own experience (I am not an accountant): In addition to counting as 'business income' (1040 line 12 [1]) your $3000 (or whatever) will be subject to ~15% self-employment tax, on Schedule SE. This carries to your 1040 line ~57, which is after all your 'adjustments to income', exemptions, and deductions - so, those don't reduce it. Half of the 15% is deductible on line ~27, if you have enough taxable income for it to matter; but, in any case, you will owe at least 1/2 of the 15%, on top of your regular income tax. Your husband could deduct this payment as a business expense on Schedule C; but, if (AIUI) he will have a loss already, he'll get no benefit from this in the current year. If you do count this as income to you, it will be FICA income; so, it will be credited to your Social Security account. Things outside my experience that might bear looking into: I suspect the IRS has criteria to determine whether spousal payments are legit, or just gaming the tax system. Even if your husband can't 'use' the loss this year, he may be able to apply it in the future, when/if he has net business income. [1] NB: Any tax form line numbers are as of the last I looked - they may be off by one or two.",
"My understanding (I am not a lawyer or tax expert) is that you are not allowed to work for free, but you can pay yourself minimum wage for the hours worked. There are probably National Insurance implications as well but I don't know. The main thing is, though, that if HMRC think that you've set up this system as a tax avoidance scheme then they're allowed to tax you as though all the income had been yours in the first place. If you are considering such a setup I would strongly advise you to hire a qualified small business accountant who will be familiar with the rules and will be able to advise you on what is and is not possible / sensible. Falling outside the rules (even inadvertently) leaves you liable to a lot of hassle and potentially fines etc.",
"\"The real question you're asking is how you can work for your business. You cannot. Whether your \"\"friend\"\" pays you or not is entirely irrelevant. Claiming your work-related earnings as interest/dividend will make it also a tax fraud, in addition to the immigration violation (i.e.: not only deportation but also potentially jail time).\"",
"\"The cost of paying tax should be considered an additional financial expense, and the administrative burden of filing those taxes should be considered an additional labour 'expense'. Simplified, your question is asking how to determine whether these additional expenses are 'worth' it. There are many ways to calculate what your time is 'worth'. Consider two situations where you may consider picking up additional part time work at minimum wage: 1) If you are working 80 hours a week at a stressful but high-paying job, working another 5 hours a week at minimum wage would likely not be worth your time [both because you already make 'a lot' of money, and also because your time is limited and therefore precious]. 2) If you are working 20 hours a week at minimum wage, then another 5 hours a week at the same job would likely be worth your time [both because it would increase your income by 25%, and also because it would not put a heavy strain on your light schedule]. These two extreme examples highlight the inferred principle that I think generally applies to weigh such decisions: Competes with: In your specific example, the actual 'work' component will happen regardless of the money aspect. That is, your wife will be providing these services regardless. So your question is essentially \"\"would it be worth it for my wife to make $5k, given that she would pay tax on that money and would bear the burden of administrating the tax filings etc.?\"\" We can't answer this directly, because it relates to what your wife values. If doing this would make the activity (which is otherwise just a hobby) an unwanted chore, then it may not be worth the post-tax income. If doing this would not impact her enjoyment of the teaching, but would add on an unwanted ~1 hour / week of paperwork, is it worth spending 50 hours over the course of the year, to earn $5k? I assume the answer then would be \"\"yes\"\".\"",
"Yes, absolutely she can. I come across small businesses from sole props to corps and llc who have their spouses employed. One thing to note is that the business won't need Workers Comp insurance if you're the only employee, if you hire anyone else you will need it.",
"\"I agree with some of the points of the other answers but why not avoid all the guesswork? I highly recommend you not charge him now. Wait until the end of the year when you have much more information about both of your companies and then you can run the numbers both ways and decide if it would benefit you (collectively). If either of your businesses runs on a cash basis and you decide to invoice, just make sure the check is deposited before Dec 31. Update: If you want to do this for 2016, at least your husband's business would have to be using an accrual basis (since it's too late to take the deduction on a cash basis). Simply run the numbers both ways and see if it helps you. If it doesn't help enough to warrant it for 2016 you could rerun the numbers near the end of 2017 to see if it helps then. Diclaimer: I think it's OK to do this type of manipulation for the scenario you described since you have done (or are doing) the work and you are charging a reasonable fee, but realize that you shouldn't manipulate the amount of the invoice, or fabricate invoices. For example, you shouldn't ever think about such things as: \"\"If I invoice $50K instead of $3K, will that help us?\"\"\"",
"There might be a problem. Some reporting paperwork will have to be done for the IRS, obviously, but technically it will be business income zeroed out by business expense. Withholding requirements will shift to your friend, which is a mess. Talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA) about these. But the immigration may consider this arrangement as employment, which is in violation of the visa conditions. You need to talk to an immigration attorney.",
"I'm not a tax advisor, but I've done freelance work, so... If any of your side-business revenue is reported on a 1099, you're now a business owner, which is why Schedule C must be filled out. As a business owner, minimum wage doesn't apply to you. All revenue is income to you, and you owe taxes on the profit, after subtracting legitimate (verifiable) business expenses. You'll want to talk to a real tax advisor if you're going to start expensing mileage, part of your house (if you use a home office), etc. Don't forget that you'll owe self-employment tax (the employer's half of your payroll tax). You can't save money on business taxes by paying yourself a wage and then counting it as an expense to the business. You'll definitely want to talk to a tax expert if you start playing around with finances as an (the) owner of the business. Income that is not reported on a 1099 should be reported as hobby income.",
"Wait. You started a company and contracted it with the company you currently work for? I don’t know why but for some reason this sends up a legal red flag to me. I have no idea, but maybe double check that there isn’t any violations in this arrangement... or just never tell them.",
"\"What they are doing is wrong. The IRS and the state might not be happy with what they are doing. One thing you can ask for them to do is to give you a credit card for business and travel expenses. You will still have to submit receipts for expenses, but it will also make it clear to the IRS that these checks are not income. Keep the pay stubs for the year, or the pdf files if they don't give you a physical stub. Pay attention to the YTD numbers on each stub to make sure they aren't sneaking in the expenses as income. If they continue to do this, ask about ownership of the items purchased, since you will be paying the tax shouldn't you own it? You can in the future tell them \"\"I was going to buy X like the customer wanted, but I just bought a new washer at home and their wasn't enough room on the credit card. Maybe next month\"\"\"",
"Normally when thinking about whether it's worth it to start a small business, the biggest factor is your time. There's a big difference between spending 10 hours to make a profit of $50 vs spending 1 hour to make a profit of $50. Your scenario is quite different though, in that you suggest your wife is considering teaching for free instead of accepting payment. In this case the time factor almost goes away, since if you accept payment there is very little extra time involved for depositing checks, tracking income, and filling out some extra forms come tax time. From a financial point of view there is no reason to turn down the money if people are willing to pay it. There may be other reasons to prefer doing it for free, but taxes, Social Security payments, and the small extra effort to run the business wouldn't normally be among those reasons. I don't know what your reasons for possibly preferring to do it for free are, but an alternative option to consider is to donate all of her income to charity.",
"\"Littleadv is incorrect because receiving a 1099 means she will be taxed self-employment tax on top of federal income taxes. Your employer will automatically withhold 7.65% of payroll taxes as they pay you each paycheck and then they'll automatically pay the other half of your payroll tax (an additional 7.65%) to bring it to a total of 15.3%. In other words, because your wife is technically self employed, she will owe both sides of payroll tax which is 15.3% of $38k = $5,800 on TOP of your federal income tax (which is the only thing the W-4 is instructing them about what amount to withhold). The huge advantage to a 1099, however, is that she's essentially self-employed which means ALL of the things she needs to run her business are deductible expenses. This includes her car, computer, home office, supplies, sometimes phone, gas, maintenance, travel expenses, sometimes entertainment, etc - which can easily bring her \"\"income\"\" down from $38k to lets say $23k, reducing both her federal income tax AND self-employment tax to apply to $15k less (saving lets say 50% of $15k = $7.5k with federal and self employment because your income is so high). She is actually supposed to pay quarterly taxes to make up for all of this. The easy way to do this is each quarter plug YOUR total salary + bonus and the tax YOU have paid so far (check your paystubs) into TurboTax along with her income so far and all of her expenses. This will give you how much tax you can expect to have left to owe so far--this would be your first quarter. When you calculate your other quarters, do it the exact same way and just subtract what you've already paid so far that year from your total tax liability.\"",
"\"You should be aware that the IRS considers all gifts of cash or cash equivalents from an employer (the partnership in this case) to an employee (your husband in this case) to be wages, regardless of what the transfer is called by either party, or how it is transferred. I'd strongly recommend that you review IRS publications 535 and 15-B, which are linked in my response to the question that littleadv referred to above. I would also recommend speaking with a lawyer, as in this case, you have knowledge of the income and would not be able to claim an \"\"innocent spouse\"\" provision if he is convicted of tax evasion/fraud. Good luck.\"",
"I read, however, that if the company's assets are not kept separate from our assets then if we got sued, the corporate veil would be pierced. This whole venture would be to give us additional income so my wife could watch our daughter and have an income.",
"With your income so high, your marginal tax rate should be pretty easy to determine. You are very likely in the 33% tax bracket (married filing jointly income range of $231,450 to $413,350), so your wife's additional income will effectively be taxed at 33% plus 15% for self-employment taxes. Rounding to 50% means you need to withhold $19,000 over the year (or slightly less depending on what business expenses you can deduct). You could use a similar calculation for CA state taxes. You can either just add this gross additional amount to your withholdings, or make an estimated tax payment every quarter. Any difference will be made up when you file your 2017 taxes. So long as you withhold 100% of your total tax liability from last year, you should not have any underpayment penalties.",
"\"First, filing status. If you and your wife are legally married, you should be filing your tax returns as married, either jointly or separately. In the US, \"\"head of household\"\" has a specific meaning and is for unmarried people who are supporting one or more relatives, per the IRS. If you are working full-time and your wife is not, then likely you will file a joint return, including all your income and all the expenses for your wife's business. So yes, the losses in her business will offset your income. Depending on how complex things are, you may want to hire a professional to help with your taxes. The rules for what can and cannot be deducted as a business expense can be opaque.\"",
"\"Are you working for a company that offers a Dependent Care Account? You may be able to withhold up to $5000/yr pre tax for care for you child. If you cover more than half her expenses, she is your dependent. You can't \"\"double dip.\"\" If she is your dependent, she cannot be the care provider for purposes of the DCAS, see Pub 503 top of p7 \"\"Payments to Relatives or Dependents.\"\" How do you think a business would change your situation? The DCA is a small tax break, if you have no business now, this break isn't something that should drive this.\"",
"As 'anonymous' already mentioned, I think the correct answer is to go see an accountant. That said, if you are already have to fill in a tax return anyway (ie, you're already a high rate taxpayer) then I don't see why it should be an issue if you just told HMRC of your additional profit via your tax return. I never was in the situation of being employed with a side business in the UK, only either/or, but my understanding is that registering as self employed is probably more suitable for someone who doesn't PAYE already. I might be wrong on this as I haven't lived in the UK for a couple of years but an accountant would know the answer. Of course in either case, make sure that you keep each an every scrap of paper to do with your side business.",
"So long as you don't hate what you are doing, I'd say the price is somewhere in the neighborhood of $100-200 year of income to be worth the bookkeeping. I'd only say more than that if you have a ridiculously complex tax situation, you have an irrational hatred of filling out a few forms once a year, or if you just have such a stupidly large amount of money that even having a few hundred dollars a year to donate to people in desperate need just doesn't mean anything to you. Or if you are under special income limits and just a few dollars of income would put you in a bad situation (like a loss of medical benefits, etc). The reason is actually quite simple: the taxes aren't really that hard or time consuming. I've handled three self-employment businesses in my life, and unless you are trying to itemize every last dollar of business deductions and expenses, or you really want to scrape out every last cent from minor deductions that require considerable extra paperwork, it's a few extra forms on your taxes. Most of the extra taxes are as a percentage, so it reduces the benefits, but really not by much. You don't have to make it extra complicated if the extra complexity doesn't give you a big payoff in benefit. I would suggest you pick the simplest imaginable possible system for accounting for this, so that you might only spend an extra few hours per year on the books and taxes. Don't keep $10 sheet music receipts if you feel it's a burden to try to itemize expenses, etc. Instead, the decision should be if you (or in this case your wife) would enjoy doing it, and bringing in money can just be nice in it's own way. I'd suggest she keep some out for little extra niceties, earmark some for feel-good charitable giving, and then of course sock away the rest. Don't let extra income be an unnecessary burden that prevents you from getting it in the first place.",
"Sounds you need to read up on S corp structures. I think this would benefit you if you generate income even after you physically stopped working which is incomes from membership fees, royalties % of customer revenue, middle man etc... Under the Scorp, you as the sole member must earn a wage that fair and at current market value. You pay social security and Medicare on this wage. The interesting thing here is that an Scorp can pay out earning dividends without having to pay payroll taxes but the catch is that you, as the sole employee must earn a fair wage. As for paying the other member you may want to look into 1099 contract work plus a finders fee. The 1099 hourly wage does not require you to pay Medicare and SS. The common fee I'm used to is 5% of gross invoice. Then you would pay her an hourly wage. The company then bills these hours multiplied by 2 or 3 (or whatever you think is fair) to the client. Deduct expenses from this and that's your profit. Example. Contractor brings Client A which is estimated as a 100 hour project with $100 cost in supplies and requires 2 hours of your time @ $40/hr. You quote 100 hours @ $50 to client, client agrees and gives you down payment. You then present the contract work to your contractor, they complete the work in 100 hours and bill you at $25. You pay your contractor 2500 plus the 5% ($250) and your company earns $2070 (5000 - 2500 - 100-80) And you'll earn $80 minus the payroll tax. Then at the end of the quarter or year or however you want to do earning payouts your LLC- Scorp will write you a check for $2070 or whatever earning % you want to take. This is then taxed at your income tax bracket. One thing to keep in mind is what is preventing this other person from becoming your competition? A partnership would be great motivation to try and bring in as much work under the LLC. But if you start shafting people then they'll just keep the work and cut you out.",
"Does your wife perform solo or in association with other actor/actresses and other volunteers? The latter arrangement sounds more like an unincorporated association or a partnership, which might be a bit freer to match the revenue and expenses. By grinding through the proper procedures, it might be possible to get official non-profit status for it, as well. Ask a professional.",
"Here's an answer received elsewhere. Yes, it looks like you have a pretty good understanding the concept and the process. Your wife's income will be so low - why? If she is a full-time student in any of those months, you may attribute $250 x 2 children worth of income for each of those months. Incidentally, even if you do end up paying taxes on the extra $3000, you won't be paying the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare (7.65%) or state disability on those funds. So you still end up saving some tax money. No doubt, there's no need to remind you to be sure that you submit all the valid receipts to the administrator in time to get reimbursed. And a must-have disclaimer: Please be advised that, based on current IRS rules and standards, any advice contained herein is not intended to be used, nor can it be used, for the avoidance of any tax penalty that the IRS may assess related to this matter. Any information contained in this email, whether viewed or subsequently printed, cannot be relied upon as qualified tax and accounting advice. ... Any information contained in this email does not fall under the guidelines of IRS Circular 230.",
"This is tax fraud, plain and simple. I recently wrote an article The Step Transaction Doctrine, in which I explain that a series of events may each be legal, but aggregate to one transaction and the individual steps are ignored. In this case, it goes beyond that, by accepting $5/mo you are already outside the tax code. As littleadv noted, you can't work for a legitimate business for free and not expect to have some kind of issue. The $14K/yr gift isn't a bona fide gift, but ties to that work.",
"If you or she can't answer this or don't have access to someone who can, then I fear for the business. That said, it really depends on where you are and how your business is incirporared, but I can't think of any law prohibiting it where I am. I was an employee of my dad's business as soon as I was legal.",
"If you're doing a little paid work on the side I would think twice about setting up a limited company due to the expense and administrative overhead. A limited company has a couple of benefits (assets and liabilities of the company are separate from your personal assets and liabilities, which I see as a big bonus) but it's not worth it for a few hundred or even a couple of thousand a year. You can get a lot of the tax benefits simply by working as a sole trader (and you'd have to do a tax return every year) as you're still able to deduct any expenditure incurred in the process of your side business from the income and thus lower your taxes on it. You'd also want to make sure that you have a separate bank account for the side business so you don't mix it with your personal accounts (makes it easier to admin). Just keep in mind that this is for expenses wholly incurred in the process of doing business - try to claim on a PC that also doubles as a gaming rig might be an issue :). You're best off discussing this with an accountant who can talk you through the various alternatives and advise if it's worth the headache.",
"Yes, this extra income would be taxed at your marginal rate because it is increasing your total income. This does not necessarily apply to all income, however. Capital gains are taxed at a different rate. Depending on the amount of extra work, you may wish to consider setting up a corporation. Corporations are taxed entirely differently. This would also give you the opportunity to write off far more of your expenses, but be aware of double taxation. Investopedia has a good article on double taxation. The issue is that the corporation must pay taxes on the revenue and then, when you take out the money either as salary or dividends, you personally will pay tax. It may leave you better off, even with the double taxation. Dividends are taxed at a lower rate than your marginal tax rate, generally. And you can write off much more inside a corporation. If considering this, talk to an accountant and discuss your expected revenue from consulting. The accountant should be able to quantify the costs and benefits.",
"HMRC may or may not find out about it; the risks and penalties involved if they do find out make it unwise not to just declare it and pay the tax on it. Based on the fact you asked the question, I am assuming that you currently pay all your tax through PAYE and don't do a tax return. You would need to register for Self Assessment and complete a return; this is not at all difficult if your tax situation is straightforward, which it sounds like yours is. Then you would owe the tax on the additional money, at whatever applicable rate (which depends on how much you earn in your main job, the rate tables are here: https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates/current-rates-and-allowances ). If it truly is a one off you could simply declare it on your return as other income, but if it is more than that then you would need to look at setting up as Self Employed - there is some good advice on the differences here: http://www.brighton-accountants.com/blog/tax-self-employment-still-employed/ : Broadly, you are likely to be running a business if you have a regular, organised activity with a profit motive, which continues for at least a few months. If the work is one-off, or very occasional (say, a few times per year), or not very organised, or of very low value (say, under £2,000 per year), then it might qualify as casual income. If you think it is beyond the definition of casual income then you would also need to pay National Insurance, as described in the previous link, but otherwise the tax treatment would be the same.",
"For tax purposes you will need to file as an employee (T4 slips and tax withheld automatically), but also as an entrepreneur. I had the same situation myself last year. Employee and self-employed is a publication from Revenue Canada that will help you. You need to fill out the statement of business activity form and keep detailed records of all your deductible expenses. Make photocopies and keep them 7 years. May I suggest you take an accountant to file your income tax form. More expensive but makes you less susceptible to receive Revenue Canada inspectors for a check-in. If you can read french, you can use this simple spreadsheet for your expenses. Your accountant will be happy.",
"It depends on the finances involved, but particularly if you're not billing anything right now and may have no revenue this year, it's probably a good idea to bill his company. This is in part because some deductions or other tax treatments are only allowed if you have revenue and/or income. The biggest example I can think of is the Solo 401k - you can only contribute up to your self employed income. If you're planning to contribute to one (and you should, they're amazingly powerful tools for saving for retirement and for reducing your tax burden), you will have to have some revenue in order to have something to pay yourself with. I don't believe you have to charge him, though, if it makes more tax sense not to (for example, if his business is operating at a loss and cannot benefit from expensing it, but you'd then have to pay taxes on your own income from it).",
"This isn't complicated. You either pay her a full wage and take the cost on your end or you pay her less of a wage and give her equity. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. It's called greed. As long as you are aware of your stance feel free to screw her over as much as you're comfortable with.",
"\"Do I understand correctly, that we still can file as \"\"Married filing jointly\"\", just add Schedule C and Schedule SE for her? Yes. Business registration information letter she got once registered mentions that her due date for filing tax return is January 31, 2016. Does this prevent us from filing jointly (as far as I understand, I can't file my income before that date)? IRS sends no such letters. IRS also doesn't require any registration. Be careful, you might be a victim to a phishing attack here. In any case, sole proprietor files a regular individual tax return with the regular April 15th deadline. Do I understand correctly that we do not qualify as \"\"Family partnership\"\" (I do not participate in her business in any way other than giving her money for initial tools/materials purchase)? Yes. Do I understand correctly that she did not have to do regular estimated tax payments as business was not expected to generate income this year? You're asking or saying? How would we know what she expected? In any case, you can use your withholding (adjust the W4) to compensate.\"",
"\"In the US, you'd run the risk of being accused of fraud if this weren't set up properly. It would only be proper if your wife could show that she were involved, acting as your agent, bookkeeper, etc. Even so, to suggest that your time is billed at one rate but you are only paid a tiny fraction of that is still a high risk alert. I believe the expression \"\"if it quacks like a duck...\"\" is pretty universal. If not, I'll edit in a clarification. note -I know OP is in UK, but I imagine tax collection is pretty similar in this regard.\"",
"Since you are not (yet) legally married, he is a stranger to you and strictly speaking you don't need to worry about the tax impact of his income yet. File on your income alone. That said, you may have to address the money transfer aspect at a later date as banks are getting skittish around money laundering regulations. It's really best if he has his own account for this, especially given you are not married. The worst case scenario is that his income gets frozen due to money laundering regulations and the deposits in your account get treated as (unreported) monetary gifts to you. Again, you should be able to argue out of this but separate accounts make it much easier to do so.",
"One possibility that I use: I set up an LLC and get paid through that entity. Then I set up a payroll service through Bank of America and set up direct deposit so that it is free. I pay myself at 70% of my hourly rate based on the number of hours I work, and the payroll service does all the calculations for me and sets up the payments to the IRS. Typically money is left over in my business account. When tax time rolls around, I have a W2 from my LLC and a 1099 from the company I work for. I put the W2 into my personal income, and for the business I enter the revenue on the 1099 and the payroll expenses from paying myself; the left over in the business account is taxed as ordinary income. Maybe it's overkill, but setting up the LLC makes it possible to (a) set up a solo 401(k) and put up to $51k away tax-free, and (b) I can write off business expenses more easily.",
"Okay I will asap. And yes, to getting the business off the ground. I've done all the marketing and will be for some time to come. Not just sweaty hands, but also ideas that shape our marketing strategies and also bringing in loyal customers that I personally know who are going to be consistent with us. But I'll talk to a lawyer and have that figured out. I just dont want to get screwed over and I'm new to this being only 19 so.",
"I have a very similar situation doing side IT projects. I set up an LLC for the business, created a separate bank account, and track things separately. I then pay myself from the LLC bank account based on my hours for the consulting job. (I keep a percentage in the LLC account to pay for expenses.) I used to do my taxes myself, but when I created this arrangement, I started having an accountant do them. An LLC will not affect your tax status, but it will protect you from liability and make things more accountable come tax time.",
"\"You do not need to inform your employer of your additional activity, but it is your responsibility not to work for more than 48 hours per week as long as you are an employee. So if you are working 38 hours for your employer, you may not work for yourself for more than 10 hours. It is, however, not so easy in practice to draw the line between work and a hobby, as long as you are not being paid by the hour. The main reason to present your employer with an addition to your work contract is to make it legally very clear that he holds no intentions to claim copyright to your work. He may attempt to do something funky like claim your home computer is, in fact, a work computer because you used it once a month to work from home, and your work contract may contain a paragraph that all work performed on a work computer results in copyright ownership for your employer. I have no idea how likely this is in practice, but this is the reason I know is commonly given as legal advice to have a contract. So the normal contract you present your employer with says: In order to earn user contribution money from a website, you need to register as a sole proprietor (Gewerbeanmeldung) and pay trade tax (Gewerbesteuer) and sales tax (Umsatzsteuer, alternatively you claim small trade exception, Kleingewerbe), which also makes a tax return mandatory. I would guess, however, (and this is not legal advice in any way, just my guess), that a couple of contributions towards server cost in a strictly non-profit endeavor is not commercial (\"\"gewerblich\"\") at all but private, in the same way that you may write an invoice to someone you sold your old bike to, or a kid may get paid to mow someone's lawn. Based on that guess, my non-legal-advice recommendation is to take the contributions and do nothing else, as long as the amount is nowhere near breaking even if you count your work input.\"",
"You need to register as self-employed with HMRC (it is perfectly fine to be self-employed and employed by an employer at the same time, in exactly your kind of situation). Then, when the income arrives you will need to declare it on your yearly tax return. HMRC information about registering for self-employment and declaring the income is here: https://www.gov.uk/working-for-yourself/overview There's a few extra hoops if your clients are outside the UK; the detail depends on whether they are in the EU or not. More details about this are here: https://www.gov.uk/online-and-distance-selling-for-businesses/selling-overseas .",
"Congratulations to you and good luck and good health with the baby. I had a friend in a similar situation, and I told him that he could do quite well by putting out the word to an upper-middle-class neighborhood that he was available to setup routers, home networks, etc. I suggested that he could start at a low enough wage that people would see the beneficial tradeoff to having him come over for a few hours versus doing it themselves. After a few months, he hired someone to take the extra work he was receiving, and directed the more routine requests his employee. He had a full-time job plus all the extra work he wanted. Most people who hire him simply want someone they would trust in their home, and his service spread by word-of-mouth. He also got to meet many people who liked him and were impressed by his work ethic, resulting in many good connections if he ever wanted to pursue other employment. My friend was an IT professional, the best support person at our tech-heavy firm, so he wasn't giving his time away. He did enjoy doing it, and he did enjoy the extra money. On an hourly basis, especially once he added the assistant, he was making more on the side than he did at his job. However, I believe he did start lower than that. Good luck!",
"Generally for tax questions you should talk to a tax adviser. Don't consider anything I write here as a tax advice, and the answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. Does IRS like one payment method over other or they simply don't care as long as she can show the receipts? They don't care as long as she withholds the taxes (30%, unless specific arrangements are made for otherwise). She should withhold 30% of the payment and send it to the IRS. The recipient should claim refund, if the actual tax liability is lower. It's only consulting work at the moment, so most of the communication is done over phone. Should they start engaging in written communication to keep records of the work done? Yes, if she wants it to be a business expense. Is it okay to pay in one go to save money-transferring fees? Can she pay in advance? Again, she can do whatever she wants, but if she wants to account for it on her tax returns she should do it the same way she would pay any other vendor in her business. She cannot use different accounting methods for different vendors. Basically, she has not outsourced work in previous years, and she wants to avoid any red flags. Then she should start by calling on her tax adviser, and not an anonymous Internet forum.",
"\"Get some professional accounting help. You're going to have to pay for everything out of the fee you charge: taxes, retirement, health care, etc. You'll be required to pay quarterly. I don't think you should base your fee on what \"\"this\"\" company will pay as a full-time employee, but what you can expect in your area. They're saving a lot of money not going through an established employment firm and essentially, making you create your own. There are costs to setting up and maintaining a company. They have less risk hiring you because there are no unemployment consequences for letting you go. Once you're hired, they'll probably put you on salary, so you can forget about making more money if you work over 40 hrs. IMHO - there have to be better jobs in your area than this one.\"",
"\"You can do either a 1099 or a W-2. There is no limitations to the number of W-2s one can have in reporting taxes. Problems occur, with the IRS, when one \"\"forgets\"\" to report income. Even if one holds only one job at a time, people typically have more than one W-2 if they change jobs within the year. The W-2 is the simplest way to go and you may want to consider doing this if you do not intend to work this side business into significant income. However, a 1099 gig is preferred by many in some situations. For things like travel expenses, you will probably receive the income from these on a 1099, but you can deduct them from your income using a Schedule C. Along these lines you may be able to deduct a wide variety of other things like travel to and from the client's location, equipment such as computers and office supplies, and maybe a portion of your home internet bill. Also this opens up different retirement contributions schemes such as a simplified employee pension. This does come with some drawbacks, however. First your life is more complicated as things need to be documented to become actual business expenses. You are much more likely to be audited by the IRS. Your taxes become more complicated and it is probably necessary to employee a CPA to do them. If you do this for primary full time work you will have to buy your own benefits. Most telling you will have to pay both sides of social security taxes on most profits. (Keep in mind that a good account can help you transfer profits to dividends which will allow you to be taxed at 15% and avoid social security taxes.) So it really comes down to what you see this side gig expanding into and your goals. If you want to make this a real business, then go 1099, if you are just doing this for a fes months and a few thousand dollars, go W-2.\"",
"\"Employers are not supposed to give cash gifts to their employees, even if you try to call it a \"\"gift\"\" for tax purposes. Presumably, the reason your wife's employer gave her cash was to be nice and save her taxes on that amount. Her employer already paid tax on that money so that your wife doesn't have to. If she plans to declare it anyway, then she should instead give it back and ask for it to be added to the W2 as an end of year bonus. This way her employer could then deduct the payment and pay her a larger amount of money. (The additional amount would be approximately their tax rate minus about 7.45% for FICA.) In fact, if your wife's tax rate is more than 15% lower than her employer's, then this is actually mathematically best for both parties.\"",
"Possible alternative: In my case, the part-time locksmithing is a small enough portion of my I come that I just submit it as hobby income, rather than trying to track it as a separate entity.",
"\"The personal checks may be due to their bank not issuing the company checks yet and there may also not be a payroll system in place at this time. So far as the W2's are concerned you should probably ask the owner if they plan on distributing them to the employees. If the owner has no interest in making you proper \"\"on the books employees\"\" let them know that they should probably be paying you in cash so that if the IRS comes you wont be tied to it. Obviously working in cash (off the books) has its drawbacks (no rights or protections) and benefits (no taxes).\"",
"In Australia, any income you earn is taxable despite where it came from. Using your example your taxable income is $70,000. Keep in mind that with a business even as a sole trader any business expenses that contribute to the earning of your business income is deductible, reducing the final amount of tax you'll have to pay. The ATO website has lots of good information and examples to look at including tax rates. If your total income is pushing into a higher tax bracket over 30c tax per $1 earned, it may be worth looking at shifting your business to operate under a company structure that just has a fixed tax rate around 30c per $1. That said, for me, I don't want the paperwork overhead of a company yet so I'm running my side business as a sole trader too. I'd rather do that and keep it easy for now while my business gets profitable that waste time on admin structures for tax reasons even if in the shortterm it may mean slightly higher tax. In the end, you only pay tax on profit (income minus expenses) as opposed to raw/gross income. For more info there are good books in the bookshops or local library (to read free) on starting a business on the side while still working. They discuss these issues too.",
"You need to clarify with Bob what your agreement is. If you and Bob are working together on these jobs as partners, you should get a written partnership agreement done by a lawyer who works with software industry entity formation. You can legally be considered a partnership if you are operating a business together, even if there is nothing in writing. The partnership will have its own tax return, and you each will be allocated 50% of the profits/losses (if that's what you agree to). This amount will be reported on your own individual 1040 as self-employment income. Since you have now lost all the expense deductions you would have taken on your Schedule C, and any home office deduction, it's a good idea to put language in the partnership agreement stating that the partnership will reimburse partners for their out-of-pocket expenses. If Bob is just hiring you as a contractor, you give him your SSN, and he issues you a 1099, like any other client. This should be a situation where you invoice him for the amount you are charging. Same thing with Joe - figure out if you're hiring him as an independent contractor, or if you have a partnership. Either way, you will owe income and self-employment tax on your profits. In the case of a partnership, the amount will be on the K-1 from the partnership return. For an independent contractor who's operating as a sole proprietor, you report the income you invoiced for and received, and deduct your expenses, including independent contractors that you hired, on your Schedule C. Talk to your tax guy about quarterly estimated payments. If you don't have a tax guy, go get one. Find somebody people in your city working in your industry recommend. A good tax person will save you more money than they cost. IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.",
"\"I'm no lawyer and no expert, so take my remarks as entertainment only. Also see this question. If you have a U.S. SSN which is eligible for work, they may be able to pay you on 1099 basis with your SSN as a sole proprietor, unless they have some personal reason for avoiding that. So perhaps try asking about that specifically. HR policies can be weird and tricky, maybe a nudge in the right direction will help. Not What You Asked: regardless, I might recommend you register as an LLC and get an EIN (sort of SSN for companies) for a variety of reasons. It's called a \"\"limited liability\"\" company for a reason. You may also have an easier time reaping various business-related rewards, like writing off expenses. If you do so, consider a state with no income tax like Wyoming. (Or, for convenience sake, WA if you live in BC, or maybe NH if you live in Ontario.. etc.)\"",
"It is definitely legal and will be accounted by the IRS as earned income.",
"You would be required to report it as self-employment income and pay tax accordingly. It's up to you to keep proper records (like a receipt book, for example), especially when it comes to cash. If you can't prove exactly how much you earned and the government decides to guess the amount for you then you won't like the outcome!",
"I guess I am trying to avoid making her a partner, which creates the struggle of how to compensate her. Having her be a partner is pretty straightforward - she would get an agreed % of any business, mine or hers. Not sure I want/need to do that.....but maybe it's the only way?",
"\"Another factor you may want to consider is insurance, if your wife is at their house as a friend who happens to be teaching the kid to play and the kid falls off their chair and hurts them self that is rather different to your wife being brought in to the house as a contractor and an injury occurring during an activity that she was supervising. I am in a similar situation and I have a $5 million public liability policy, which costs about $300 per year. So if her income is likely to be less than that she may be better off \"\"helping a friend learn\"\" rather than \"\"providing tutoring services\"\". There may also be legal requirements, I am required to apply for government checks every few years in order to operate a business that involves working with children.\"",
"Can I work on 1099 from my own company instead of on W2? The reason is on W2 I can't deduct my commute, Health Insurance and some other expenses while on 1099 I think I can able do that. Since I am going to client place to work not at my own office, I am not sure whether I should able to do that or not. If you have LLC, unless you elected to tax it as a corporation, you need neither 1099 nor W2. For tax purposes the LLC is disregarded. So it is, from tax perspective, a sole proprietorship (or partnership, if multiple members). Being a W2 employee of your own LLC is a bad idea. For all these above expenses, which can I use company's debit/credit card or I need to use only my personal debit/credit card? It would be better to always use a business account for business purposes. Doesn't matter much for tax per se, but will make your life easier in case of an audit or a legal dispute (limited liability protection may depend on it). If I work on 1099, I guess I need to file some reasonable taxes on quarterly basis instead of filing at year end. If so, how do I pay my tax on quarterly basis to IRS? I mean which forms should I file and how to pay tax? Unless you're a W2 employee, you need to do quarterly estimate payments using form 1040-ES. If you are a W2 employee (even for a different job, and even if it is not you, but your spouse with whom you're filing jointly) - you can adjust your/spouse's withholding using form W4 to cover the additional tax liability. This is, IMHO, a better way than paying estimates. There are numerous questions on this, search the site or ask another one for details.",
"Do not mix personal accounts and corporate accounts. If you're paid as your self person - this money belongs to you, not the corporation. You can contribute it to the corporation, but it is another tax event and you should understand fully the consequences. Talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). If they pay to you personally (1099) - it goes on your Schedule C, and you pay SE taxes on it. If they pay to your corporation, the corporation will pay it to you as salary, and will pay payroll taxes on it. Generally, payroll through corporation will be slightly more expensive than regular schedule C. If you have employees/subcontractors, though, you may earn money which is not from your own performance, in which case S-Corp may be an advantage.",
"I would say you can file your taxes on your own, but you will probably want the advice of an accountant if you need any supplies or tools for the side business that might be tax deductible. IIRC you don't have to tell your current employer for tax reasons (just check that your contract doesn't state you can't have a side job or business), but I believe you'll have to tell HMRC. At the end of the year you'll have to file a tax return and at that point in time you'll have to pay the tax on the additional earnings. These will be taxed at your highest tax rate and you might end up in a higher tax bracket, too. I'd put about 40% away for tax, that will put you on the safe side in case you end up in the high tax bracket; if not, you'll have a bit of money going spare after paying your taxes.",
"Check out personal finance. But, my guess is no. Given you are married and you were prepared to contribute $x out of the entire family pot, why don't they just contribute $x from their portion of the entire family pot? Net effect should be similar or identical. (I'm not an accountant nor married, so enjoy the grain of salt).",
"They are already indirectly paying these expenses. They should be built into your rates. The amount per job or per hour needs to cover what would have been your salary, plus the what would have been sick, vacation, holidays, health insurance, life insurance, disability, education, overhead for office expenses, cost of accountants...and all taxes. In many companies the general rule of thumb is that they need to charge a customer 2x the employees salary to cover all this plus make a profit. If this is a side job some of these benefits will come from your main job. Some self employed get some of these benefits from their spouse. The company has said we give you money for the work you perform, but you need to cover everything else including paying all taxes. Depending on where you live you might have to send money in more often then once a year. They are also telling you that they will be reporting the money they give you to the government so they can claim it as a business expense. So you better make sure you report it as income.",
"First, request that you complete a tax return. On this tax return, you will complete both the employed and self employed sections. This will give you a total income and tax liability. You will already have paid some tax via PAYE, but you will have to pay additional tax for any other income. For future years there is the option, depending on amount, to collect extra tax through PAYE to cover the other earnings. If it is likely to be the same for the next few years, this may be a better option than paying a lump sum. The tax return is now mostly online, and not too bad if your affairs are otherwise simple. The hardest part will be keeping a good record of your other earnings. Remember that you have to keep these records for seven years in case HMRC ever want to audit them, and it's a good idea to have a separate account for the income, or some other way of easily identifying it.",
"Would it be worth legitimizing his business or is it too late at this point? To be blunt, you're asking if we recommend that he stop breaking the law. The answer is obviously yes, he should be declaring his income. And it would probably benefit him to get on the same page as his employer (or client) so they can both start obeying the law together. Once he's filed a tax return for 2016 that would certainly help his cause as far as a lender is concerned, and as soon as he can provide some recent pay stubs (or paid invoices) he should be ready to move forward on the mortgage based on that additional income.",
"You said your mother-in-law lives with you. Does she pay rent, or are you splitting the cost of housing? That would also have to figured into the equation. If you had a business you would now have to declare the expense on your business taxes. This would also then be income for her, which she would have to account for on her taxes. Remember there are both state and federal taxes involved. Regarding expenses like diapers. If the MIL had the business she could deduct them as a business expense. If you have the business it would greatly complicate the taxes. Your business would be essentially covering your personal expenses. If your MIL was not a business the cost of diapers would be paid by you regardless of the working situation of you and your spouse. To claim the tax credit: You must report the name, address, and taxpayer identification number (either the social security number, or the employer identification number) of the care provider on your return. If the care provider is a tax-exempt organization, you need only report the name and address on your return. You can use Form W-10 (PDF), Dependent Care Provider's Identification and Certification, to request this information from the care provider. If you do not provide information regarding the care provider, you may still be eligible for the credit if you can show that you exercised due diligence in attempting to provide the required information. The IRS will be looking for an income tax form from your MIL that claims the income. Getting too cute with the babysitting situation, by starting a business just for the purpose of saving money on taxes could invite an audit. Also it is not as if you just claim 3000 and you are good to go. You can only claim a percentage of the expenses based on the household AGI, the more the make the more you have to have in expenses to get the full 3000 credit, which mil cause more taxes for your MIL. Plus the whole issue with having to pay social security and other taxes on a household employee. It might be best to skip the risk of the audit. Claiming your MIL as a dependent might just be easier.",
"I've been in the workforce for a little over 20 years. This sounds like one of the situations that starts out as a nice little bonus, but ends with me holding the bag and wishing I never would've gotten involved.",
"> Is it legal to do this? What if it's a shareholder, lets say, a 20% owner of a company who has their own real estate business as their primary focus, but get most of their income from a set hourly wage from the company they partly own, plus dividends? To elaborate on this, let's say that the person in question is never involved in the business in any way shape or form except that they own a % share.. They get paid $40 per hour as a W2 employee, plus dividends, yet they contribute to nothing. I guess it's more of an ethics question, but if that's illegal please let me know. :)",
"That's really not something that can be answered based on the information provided. There are a lot of factors involved: type of income, your wife's tax bracket, the split between Federal and State (if you're in a high bracket in a high income-tax rate State - it may even be more than 50%), etc etc. The fact that your wife didn't withdraw the money is irrelevant. S-Corp is a pass-through entity, i.e.: owners are taxed on the profits based on their personal marginal tax rates, and it doesn't matter what they did with the money. In this case, your wife re-invested it into the corp (used it to pay off corp debts), which adds back to her basis. You really should talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to learn how S-Corps work and how to use them properly. Your wife, actually, as she's the owner.",
"There is no reason for you to open a firm. However, it will help you, if you operate separate bank account for business and personal purposes. You can run your business as proprietorship business. Your inward remittance is your income. You can deduct payment made to your colleagues as salary. You should pay them by way of cheques or bank transfer only. You are also entitled to deduct other business expenses provided you keep proper receipt of the same such as broadband connection charges, depreciation on equipment and more importantly, rent on your house. If your total receipt from such income exceeds INR 60,00,000 you will need to withhold tax on payment made to your colleagues as also subject to audit of your accounts. If you want to grow your business, suggest you should take an Import / Export Code in your own name. You can put any further question in this regard.",
"From your comment: My salary through 7/31 could pass for an annual salary for the industry. I suppose that’s relevant? That information would certainly be relevant if you were the owner since the beginning of the year. If that were the case then I would say you'd be fine skipping the salary for the rest of the year. It would be equivalent to simply front-loading your salary. However, since you didn't own any part of the company during the time you received the salary, I believe you should think of that salary as if it came from an entirely different company. This means that during the 5 months you owned the company you will have taken $0 in salary, and I believe that would not be reasonable if this job is your main source of income. As a side note, regarding this statement you made: During this time, I'd like to avoid the employer half of FICA taxes incurred by paying myself through payroll. You'd actually be avoiding both the employer and employee portion of FICA, since both sides of FICA are paid for employee compensation. FICA is not paid by either side on company profits.",
"\"In almost all cases, gifts from employers are considered taxable compensation, based on the employer-employee nature of the relationship. Furthermore, cash gifts are always considered to be intended as wages, regardless of how you receive the money. Furthermore, regardless of whether you expect to receive anything in return (such as contractual consideration) or whether the amounts are large enough to be declared as taxable personal gifts, it is likely that the IRS would consider these payments to be \"\"disguised wages\"\", as these payments would fail several tests that the IRS uses to determine whether benefits provided by the employer are non-taxable, including: I'd recommend reviewing IRS publication 535 here, as well as publication 15-B here for more on what constitutes taxable wages & benefits. It seems very unlikely to me that you could make a persuasive legal defense in which you claimed to be working full-time for $60.00 per year and just happened to be receiving large personal gifts of $130,000.00. In my opinion it seems much more likely that these payments would be found to be taxable wages for services rendered.\"",
"With a limited company, you'll have to pay yourself a salary through PAYE. With income from your other job taking you over the higher-rate threshold, you should inform HMRC of this and get a tax code of DO for the second job, meaning 40% tax (and also both employer's and employee's National Insurance) will be deducted from the whole amount of the salary. See here. Dividends should be like any other dividend -- you won't pay extra tax when you receive them, but will have to declare them on your tax return and pay the tax later. See the official information here. You'll get a £5,000 tax allowance for dividends, but they'll still count as income for purposes of hitting the higher-rate threshold. I think in practice this means the first £5,000 will be tax-free, and the rest will be taxed at 32.5%. But note that you have to pay yourself at least the minimum wage as salary, not as dividend. I can't see IR35 being an issue. However, I'm not a professional, and this situation is complicated enough to need professional advice. Talk to an accountant or a tax advisor.",
"Set up a company or partnership. Generally what you describe is a classic partnership. In the US - the partnership itself is not taxed (as opposed to a corporation), and each partner is taxed separately on the distributions. That is, the partners as a whole will be taxed on the income of one, if it is distributed through the partnership. Exactly what you want. Do consult with a tax adviser familiar with the Federal and the State laws with the specifics of setting it up and managing it, maybe you'll get a better advice from a professional (which I am not, of course).",
"\"To take a different tack from qdot - it is advice. Maybe good, maybe bad. In the early 1990s I did exactly what you are intending to do and was stunned at the expenses involved in maintaining the company - primarily the accounting costs. This would have all been different if I'd been making a lot more money out of the situation, but the work was on the side, a few hours a week here and there, and I closed the \"\"business\"\" after just one year. Probably broke even on the deal, but certainly did not come out in front. I'd also strongly recommend you take a look at issues like basic book keeping, claiming VAT, setting up corporate bank accounts, and the like. Whether it is \"\"not a lot of work\"\" is purely a personal thing - some folks breeze through it all, some hate it. Time Is Money. My 0.02.\"",
"It's fine - if you are an employee, you will normally have all taxes deducted by the employer, and won't even need to complete a tax return. Even if you do, all the figures will be on the P60 you get at the end of the year. If that's your only income, it's pretty easy to do. Remember, your taxes and your girlfriends are totally separate. It also doesnt matter where the money goes - you could be paid in cash or into any account, it's the fact that you earn it makes it taxable.",
"If i am not wrong, any business activities such should be declared on Year End Tax filing. If your friend is going to own that website either it is commercial or nonprofit, he has to declare in the year end taxation.",
"Before answering specific question, you are liable to pay tax as per your bracket on the income generated. I work with my partner and currently we transfer all earning on my personal bank account. Can this create any issue for me? If you are paying your partner from your account, you would need to maintain proper paperwork to show the portion of money transferred is not income to you. Alternatively create a join Current Account. Move funds there and then move it to your respective accounts. Which sort off account should be talk and by whose name? Can be any account [Savings/Current]. If you are doing more withdrawls open Current else open Savings. It does not matter on whos name the account is. Paperwork to show income matters from tax point of view. What should we take care while transfering money from freelance site to bank? Nothing specific Is there any other alternative to bank? There is paypal etc. However ultimately it flows into a Bank Account. What are other things to be kept in mind? Keep proper record of actual income of each of you, along with expenses. There are certain expenses you can claim from income, for example laptop, internet, mobile phone etc. Consult a CA he will be able to guide and it does not cost much.",
"You should look into an LLC. Its a fairly simple process, and the income simply flows through to your individual return. It will allow you to deduct supplies and other expenses from that income. It should also protect you if someone sues you for doing shoddy work (even if the work was fine), although you would need to consult a lawyer to be sure. For last year, it sounds like your taxes were done wrong. There are very, very few ways that you can end up adding more income and earning less after taxes. I'm tempted to say none, but our tax laws are so complex that I'm sure you can do it somehow.",
"Its best you start this venture as a Business entity. Whatever the customer pays you is your income. Whatever you pay to the hotel will be your expenses. Apart from this there will be other expenses. So essentially difference between your income and expense will be the profit of the entity and tax will be on the profit. If you do not want to start an Business entity and pay as an individual then please add the country tag, depending on the country there may different ways to account for the funds.",
"One thing to look into is if there is an extra fee for covering a spouse under you plan, if she is covered under her own employer's plan. I know that my wife's company charges around $100-$200 a year if I was to be covered under her plan, since I am eligible for the coverage where I work. As far as tax issues, there shouldn't be any. I think the choice comes down to the coverage offered by both plans.",
"If you are in the US and a regular employee, this will have to show up on your year-end W2 form as income. If it doesn't, there is some funky accounting business going and you should probably consult a professional for advice.",
"\"Assuming you are paying into and eligible to collect regular Employment Insurance benefits for the job in question, I don't see how owning a side business would, by itself, affect your ability to participate in the workshare program. Many people own dormant businesses ($0 revenue / $0 income), or businesses with insignificant net income (e.g. a small table at the flea market, or a fledgling web-site with up-front costs and no ad revenue, yet ;-) I think what matters is if your side business generated income substantial enough to put you over a certain threshold. Then you may be required to repay a portion of the EI benefits received through the workshare program. On this issue, I found the following article informative: How to make work-sharing work for you, from the Globe & Mail's Report on Business site. Here's a relevant quote: \"\"[...] If you work elsewhere during the agreement, and earn more than an amount equal to 40% of your weekly benefit rate, that amount shall be deducted from your work sharing benefits payable that week. [...]\"\" The definitive source for information on the workshare program is the Service Canada web site. In particular, see the Work-Sharing Applicant Guide, which discusses eligibility criteria. Section IV confirms the Globe article's statement above: \"\"[...] Earnings received in any week by a Work-Sharing participant, from sources other than Work-Sharing employment, that are in excess of an amount equal to 40% or $75 (whichever is greater) of the participant's weekly benefit rate, shall be deducted from the Work-Sharing benefits payable in that week. [...]\"\" Finally, here's one more interesting article that discusses the workshare program: Canada: Employment Law @ Gowlings - March 30, 2009.\"",
"If you are being paid money in exchange for services that you are providing to your cousin, then that is income, are legally you are required to declare it as self-employment income, and pay taxes when you file your tax return (and if you have a significant amount of self-employment income, you're supposed make payments every quarter of your estimated tax liability. The deposit itself will not be taxed, however.",
"\"While she can certainly get an LLC or EIN, it isn't necessarily required or needed. She can file as a sole-proprietor on her (or your joint) taxes by filling out a schedule-C addition to the 1040. Any income or losses will pass through to your existing income situation (from W-2's and such). The general requirement for filing as a business in this regard has nothing to do with any minimum income, revenue, or size. It is simply the intent to treat it as a business, and unlike a hobby, the overall intent to earn a profit eventually. If you're currently reporting the 1099-MISC income, but not deducting the expenses, this would be a means for you to offset the income with the expenses you mentioned (and possibly other legitimate ones). There is no \"\"2% AGI\"\" restriction for schedule-C.\"",
"I would have thought that if you are doing it in your own time using your own resources it really has nothing to do with your current employer, so there is really no need at all to keep it from them. By being open and transperant you might even get some business from your work mates.",
"If you want to subcontract some of your excess work to somebody else, you better be in business! While some kinds of employees (e.g. commissioned salespeople) are permitted to deduct some expenses on their income tax, generally only a real business can deduct wages for additional employees, or the cost of services provided by subcontractors. Do you invoice your clients and charge HST (GST)? Or do you tell your clients each pay period how many hours you worked and they compensate you through their payroll system like everybody else that walks through the door? If you're not invoicing and charging HST (GST) (assuming you exceed the threshold, and if you have too much work, you probably do!), then perhaps your clients are treating you as an employee – by default – and withholding taxes, CPP, and EI so they don't get in trouble? After all, Canada Revenue Agency is likely to consider any person providing a service to a company to be an employee unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary, and when there isn't enough evidence, it's the company paying for the services that would be on the hook for unpaid taxes, CPP, and EI. Carefully consider what form of business you are operating, or were intending to operate. It's essential for your business to be structured appropriately if you want to hire or subcontract. You ought to be either self-employed as a sole proprietor, or perhaps incorporated if it makes more sense to your situation. Next, act accordingly. For instance, it's likely that your business should be taking care of the source deductions, CPP, and EI. In fact, self-employed individuals shouldn't even be paying into EI – an independent contractor wouldn't qualify to make an EI claim if they lost a contract. As an independent, one doesn't have a job, one has a business, and EI doesn't cover the business itself, only the employees that the business deals with at arm's length. As a business owner, you would be considered non-arms-length, and exempt from EI. Growing your business in the way that you are suggesting is an important enough a step that you should seek professional advice in advance. Find a good accountant that deals with self-employed individuals & small businesses and run all this by him. He should be able to guide you accordingly. Find a lawyer, too. A lawyer can guide you on how to properly subcontract others while protecting you and your business. Finally, be mindful of what it is you agreed to in your contract with your client: Do they expect all services to be performed by you, personally? Even if it wasn't written down who exactly would be performing the services, there may be an assumption it's you. Some negotiation may be in order if you want to use subcontractors.",
"It is generally best to avoid such situations. Any credits to your accounts need to be explained to tax authorities whenever they enquire. This cannot be treated as income as you did not work in exchange for the amount. It can be treated by tax authorities as GIFT. Gift upto certain amount is tax free. Beyond the amount its taxable. Gifts from close relatives has not amount limit and is tax free. Whenever the scrutiny happens, if you can convince the tax authorities that the action was more for convenience, it maybe fine.",
"It will depend on how much you expect to earn this way, and whether you expect the company to become profitable soon. Has the company just not made a profit yet, or has it actually made a significant loss that your invoices would just be offsetting? If you're earning over £10,000 per year then invoicing through the company is preferable. Above that level, you'd be taking money from the company as dividends after paying 20% corporation tax with no other tax to pay on your personal tax return. As a sole trader you'd be paying 20% income tax and 9% NI. (Note however that the company can only pay dividends from profits, which is a problem if there are significant losses to offset.) Below £10,000, there's little difference. Through the company, you can take a salary of £7956 per year without paying any income tax or NI. With the new £2000 discount on employers' NI you could then take salary up to £10,000 and just pay 12% employee's NI. As a sole trader, you pay 9% Class 4 NI over £7956 and a fixed £143 per year for Class 2 NI. Paying 9% rather than 12% saves you £60, but then you add the £143. In practice the company would work out more expensive at this level because you'll probably want to pay an accountant to deal with the payroll for you. Having the company repay your £2000 from the invoices doesn't really save any tax if the company will become profitable in the future. You don't pay any tax now since the money you receive isn't income, and the company doesn't pay any tax if the extra £2000 of revenue doesn't put it back in profit. However, if the company is profitable next year then it will have an extra £2000 of profit that would otherwise have been offset against this year's loss, and you do end up paying 20% corporation tax on the £2000. You could still have the company repay the loan in order to delay the tax liability, but it's not really tax free money. Loaning additional money to the company has no tax benefit, you just give the company £1000 and get your original £1000 back later. You pay no tax and neither does the company, but it was your money in the first place.",
"\"I've done various side work over the years -- computer consulting, writing, and I briefly had a video game company -- so I've gone through most of this. Disclaimer: I have never been audited, which may mean that everything I put on my tax forms looked plausible to the IRS and so is probably at least generally right, but it also means that the IRS has never put their stamp of approval on my tax forms. So that said ... 1: You do not need to form an LLC to be able to claim business expenses. Whether you have any expenses or not, you will have to complete a schedule C. On this form are places for expenses in various categories. Note that the categories are the most common type of expenses, there's an \"\"other\"\" space if you have something different. If you have any property that is used both for the business and also for personal use, you must calculate a business use percentage. For example if you bought a new printer and 60% of the time you use it for the business and 40% of the time you use it for personal stuff, then 60% of the cost is tax deductible. In general the IRS expects you to calculate the percentage based on amount of time used for business versus personal, though you are allowed to use other allocation formulas. Like for a printer I think you'd get away with number of pages printed for each. But if the business use is not 100%, you must keep records to justify the percentage. You can't just say, \"\"Oh, I think business use must have been about 3/4 of the time.\"\" You have to have a log where you write down every time you use it and whether it was business or personal. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of business use of cars and computers, because these are things that are readily used for personal purposes. If you own a copper mine and you buy a mine-boring machine, odds are you aren't going to take that home to dig shafts in your backyard. But a computer can easily be used to play video games or send emails to friends and relatives and lots of things that have nothing to do with a business. So if you're going to claim a computer or a car, be prepared to justify it. You can claim office use of your home if you have one or more rooms or designated parts of a room that are used \"\"regularly and exclusively\"\" for business purposes. That is, if you turn the family room into an office, you can claim home office expenses. But if, like me, you sit on the couch to work but at other times you sit on the couch to watch TV, then the space is not used \"\"exclusively\"\" for business purposes. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of home office deductions. I've never tried to claim it. It's legal, just make sure you have all your ducks in a row if you claim it. Skip 2 for the moment. 3: Yes, you must pay taxes on your business income. If you have not created an LLC or a corporation, then your business income is added to your wage income to calculate your taxes. That is, if you made, say, $50,000 salary working for somebody else and $10,000 on your side business, then your total income is $60,000 and that's what you pay taxes on. The total amount you pay in income taxes will be the same regardless of whether 90% came from salary and 10% from the side business or the other way around. The rates are the same, it's just one total number. If the withholding on your regular paycheck is not enough to cover the total taxes that you will have to pay, then you are required by law to pay estimated taxes quarterly to make up the difference. If you don't, you will be required to pay penalties, so you don't want to skip on this. Basically you are supposed to be withholding from yourself and sending this in to the government. It's POSSIBLE that this won't be an issue. If you're used to getting a big refund, and the refund is more than what the tax on your side business will come to, then you might end up still getting a refund, just a smaller one. But you don't want to guess about this. Get the tax forms and figure out the numbers. I think -- and please don't rely on this, check on it -- that the law says that you don't pay a penalty if the total tax that was withheld from your paycheck plus the amount you paid in estimated payments is more than the tax you owed last year. So like lets say that this year -- just to make up some numbers -- your employer withheld $4,000 from your paychecks. At the end of the year you did your taxes and they came to $3,000, so you got a $1,000 refund. This year your employer again withholds $4,000 and you paid $0 in estimated payments. Your total tax on your salary plus your side business comes to $4,500. You owe $500, but you won't have to pay a penalty, because the $4,000 withheld is more than the $3,000 that you owed last year. But if next year you again don't make estimated payment, so you again have $4,000 withheld plus $0 estimated and then you owe $5,000 in taxes, you will have to pay a penalty, because your withholding was less than what you owed last year. To you had paid $500 in estimated payments, you'd be okay. You'd still owe $500, but you wouldn't owe a penalty, because your total payments were more than the previous year's liability. Clear as mud? Don't forget that you probably will also owe state income tax. If you have a local income tax, you'll owe that too. Scott-McP mentioned self-employment tax. You'll owe that, too. Note that self-employment tax is different from income tax. Self employment tax is just social security tax on self-employed people. You're probably used to seeing the 7-whatever-percent it is these days withheld from your paycheck. That's really only half your social security tax, the other half is not shown on your pay stub because it is not subtracted from your salary. If you're self-employed, you have to pay both halves, or about 15%. You file a form SE with your income taxes to declare it. 4: If you pay your quarterly estimated taxes, well the point of \"\"estimated\"\" taxes is that it's supposed to be close to the amount that you will actually owe next April 15. So if you get it at least close, then you shouldn't owe a lot of money in April. (I usually try to arrange my taxes so that I get a modest refund -- don't loan the government a lot of money, but don't owe anything April 15 either.) Once you take care of any business expenses and taxes, what you do with the rest of the money is up to you, right? Though if you're unsure of how to spend it, let me know and I'll send you the address of my kids' colleges and you can donate it to their tuition fund. I think this would be a very worthy and productive use of your money. :-) Back to #2. I just recently acquired a financial advisor. I can't say what a good process for finding one is. This guy is someone who goes to my church and who hijacked me after Bible study one day to make his sales pitch. But I did talk to him about his fees, and what he told me was this: If I have enough money in an investment account, then he gets a commission from the investment company for bringing the business to them, and that's the total compensation he gets from me. That commission comes out of the management fees they charge, and those management fees are in the same ballpark as the fees I was paying for private investment accounts, so basically he is not costing me anything. He's getting his money from the kickbacks. He said that if I had not had enough accumulated assets, he would have had to charge me an hourly fee. I didn't ask how much that was. Whew, hadn't meant to write such a long answer!\"",
"I suggest to start charging slightly more than needed to cover expenses. All you need is to show profit. It doesn't have to be significant - a couple of hundred of dollars of consistent yearly profit should suffice to show a profitable business. Then you can deduct on Schedule C all the related expenses. The caveat is that the profit (after the deduction of the expenses will be a bit smaller) will be subject to not only income tax but also the self-employment tax. But at least you'll pay tax on profit that is not entirely phantom. I remember suggesting you getting a professional consultation on this matter a while ago. You should really do that - talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state, it may be well worth the $100-200 fee they'll charge for the consultation (if at all...).",
"There are a number of ways and it all depends on your concentration and range of skills (or skills you're willing to develop). As for involving your wife ... things that can be done locally for neighbours is always a good idea. The most important thing is not to spend too much time or cash on anything that will take a long time to pay off. That excludes writing your own iPhone apps, for example, which would take long hours of development and much marketing (and luck) to be successful. Good luck and congrats.",
"\"I would suggest you pay quarterly. Or, if you prefer, do the extra withholding. Don't wait until the end of the year. My experience is that of having a day job with freelance work on the side. I've spent a few years just freelancing, and I paid quarterly as requested to avoid the penalties. Now that I have a good day job again, my freelancing is just a small part of my income, and so I end up with a net return and no longer have to pay quarterly. You shouldn't wait until the end of the year to pay. This is assuming your wife is bringing in a decent income. The only scenario where you would want to wait is if her income is only a small amount (such as my wife's plans for an Etsy store). To the IRS, it doesn't really make a difference whether you withhold extra or pay quarterly. Of those two choices, my preference is to pay quarterly - it's easy to set up calendar reminders on the quarterly payment dates, which are always the same. I did the same as bstpierre when estimating my payments: just take last year's tax (for the business) and divide by 4 (adjusting for any obvious situational differences). That's usually close enough. Paying quarterly instead of via withholding means you get to hold on to your money (on average) for 6 weeks longer. Granted, that doesn't mean much with today's interest rates, but it's something. You may prefer the simpler accounting for withholding, though - you can \"\"set and forget\"\".\"",
"These earnings will likely have tax implications, depending on where in the world you are. So, your budget concerns not nearly as important as having an honest conversation about money with your husband. Better for him to be mad about the truth than to continue the lie, and potentially have this become a much larger legal, not just marital, problem.",
"I am not a lawyer or a tax accountant, but from the description provided it sounds to me like you have created two partnerships: one in which you share 50% of Bob's revenue, and another in which you share 50% of the revenue from the first partnership. If this is the case, then each partnership would need to file form K-1 and issue a copy to the partners of that partnership. I think, but I'm not sure, that each partnership would need an Employer Identification Number (EIN; you can apply for and receive these online with the IRS). You would only pay tax on the portion of profits that are assigned to you on the K-1. (If you've accidentally created a partnership without thinking through all the ramifications, you probably want to straighten this out. You can be held liable for the actions of your partners.) On the other hand, if your contract with Bob explicitly makes you a contractor and not a partner, then Bob should probably be issuing a 1099 to you. Similarly for you and Joe -- if your contract with Joe makes him a subcontractor, then you may need to get an EIN and issue him a 1099 at the end of the year. The money you pay to Joe is a business expense, and would be deducted from the profits you show on your Schedule C. In my opinion, it would be worth the $200 fee paid to a good CPA to make sure you get this right.",
"First, the SSN isn't an issue. She will need to apply for an ITIN together with tax filing, in order to file taxes as Married Filing Jointly anyway. I think you (or both of you in the joint case) probably qualify for the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, if you've been outside the US for almost the whole year, in which cases both of you should have all of your income excluded anyway, so I'm not sure why you're getting that one is better. As for Self-Employment Tax, I suspect that she doesn't have to pay it in either case, because there is a sentence in your linked page for Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident that says However, you may still be treated as a nonresident alien for the purpose of withholding Social Security and Medicare tax. and since Self-Employment Tax is just Social Security and Medicare tax in another form, she shouldn't have to pay it if treated as resident, if she didn't have to pay it as nonresident. From the law, I believe Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident is described in IRC 6013(g), which says the person is treated as a resident for the purposes of chapters 1 and 24, but self-employment tax is from chapter 2, so I don't think self-employment tax is affected by this election.",
"Do Alice and Bob have to figure out the fair market value of their services and report that as income or something? Yes, exactly that. See Topic 420. Note that if the computer program is for Bob's business, Bob might be able to deduct it on his taxes. Similarly, if the remodeling is on Alice's business property, she might be able to deduct it. There might also be other tax advantages in certain circumstances.",
"\"You're right about your suspicions. I'm not a professional (I suggest you talk to a real one, a one with CPA, EA or Attorney credentials and license in your State), but I would be very cautious in this case. The IRS will look at all the facts and circumstances to make a claim, but my guess would be that the initial claim would be for this to be taxable income for your husband. He'd have to prove it to be otherwise. It does seem to be related to his performance, and I doubt that had they not known him through his employment, they'd give him such a gift. I may be wrong. So may be an IRS Revenue Officer. But I'd bet he'd think the same. Did they give \"\"gifts\"\" like that to anyone else? If they did - was it to other employees or they gave similar gifts to all their friends and family? Did those who gave your husband a gift file a gift tax return? Had they paid the gift tax? Were they principles in the partnership or they were limited partners (i.e.: not the ones with authority to make any decision)? Was your husband instrumental in making their extraordinary profit, or his job was not related to the profits these people made? These questions are inquiring about the facts and circumstances of the transaction. Based on what he can find out, and other potential information, your husband will have to decide whether he can reasonably claim that it was a gift. Beware: unreasonable claims lead to equally unreasonable penalties and charges. IRS and your State will definitely want to know more about this transaction, its not an amount to slide under the radar. This is not a matter where you can rely on a free opinions written by amateurs who don't know the whole story. You (or, rather, your husband) are highly encouraged to hire a paid professional - a CPA, EA (enrolled agent) or tax attorney with enough experience in fighting gift vs income characterization issues against the IRS (and the State, don't forget your State). An experienced professional may be able to identify something in the facts and the circumstances of the situation that would lead to reducing the tax bill or shifting it to the partners, but it is not something you do on your own.\"",
"\"You're conflating LLC with Corporation. They're different animals. LLC does not have \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" designations, those are just for corporations. I think what you're thinking about is electing pass through status with the IRS. This is the easiest way to go. The company can pay you at irregular intervals in irregular amounts. The IRS doesn't care about these payments. The company will show profit or loss at the end of the year (those payments to you aren't expenses and don't reduce your profit). You report this on your schedule C and pay tax on that amount. (Your state tax authority will have its own rules about how this works.) Alternatively you can elect to have the LLC taxed as a corporation. I don't know of a good reason why someone in your situation would do this, but I'm not an accountant so there may be reasons out there. My recommendation is to get an accountant to prepare your taxes. At least once -- if your situation is the same next year you can use the previous year's forms to figure out what you need to fill in. The investment of a couple hundred dollars is worthwhile. On the question of buying a home in the next couple of years... yes, it does affect things. (Pass through status? Probably doesn't affect much.) If all of your income is coming from self-employment, be prepared for hassles when you are shopping for a mortgage. You can ask around, maybe you have a friendly loan officer at your credit union who knows your history. But in general they will want to see at least two years of self-employment tax returns. You can plan for this in advance: talk to a couple of loan officers now to see what the requirements will be. That way you can plan to be ready when the time comes.\"",
"No, as a director normally you can't. As a director of a Limited company, all those payments should be accounted for as directors' remuneration and have been subject to PAYE and NIC, even if you are self-employed. Currently there is no legislation which prevents a director from receiving self-employment income from a company in which he is a director, however the default position of HMRC's is that all the payments derived from the directorship are subject to PAYE. In other words, it's possible only invoice from an unconnected business or in a consultancy role that's not directly related to the trade of business. But it really depends on the circumstances and the contracts in place. Sources: Monsoon at AAT forum, David Griffiths at UKBF, Paula Sparrow and Abutalib at AW More sources: If a person does other work that’s not related to being a director, they may have an employment contract and get employment rights. Source: Employment status as director at Gov.uk In principle, it is possible for an employee or office holder to tender for work with their employer outside their normal duties, in circumstances where that individual will not be providing service as an employee or office holder but as a self-employed contractor. Where there is any doubt about whether service is provided constitutes employment or self-employment, see the Employment Status Manual (ESM). Source: Section 62 ITEPA 2003 at HMRC",
"Only if your work on the side is making you at least £60,000 profit a year. The overheads are just not worth it if you make less. Working as a sole trader, you can still claim for expenses incurred in the course of your business. You can also claim a percentage of your computer costs, even though you may use the computer for gaming. This is not unreasonable as the computer is necessary for your work. The Inland Revenue accept the fact that some assets are part work-related. In your case, as a web and mobile phone developer, I expect the percentage to be at least half, if not a lot more. If you need to travel in the course of your work you can claim a percentage for your car. You can include other small expenses such as telephone, stationery, electricity etc but don't go overboard. The important point to remember is that you must be able to defend the expenses claimed as work-related, so long as you can do this there is no problem. Remember to keep good records of all your expenses. This is on-going throughout the year and is much more work than filling out your tax return. The software on the IR self-assessment site is excellent, so it's conceivable that you may not need an accountant if you are prepared to do your own tax return. However, if you feel unsure employ an accountant initially and take it from there.",
"manage the company properly. If you aren't much aware about company rules and regulation or tax matters, get an accountant so that you don't mess up later. better off paying my self a dividend of 100% profit or as an employee? That depends on how much salary you intend to pay yourself, your dividend or how much business expenses you will incur while running the business. Generally speaking you are better off paying your self a minimum salary and pay the rest as dividends. But check out the dividend tax and the income tax you might need to pay and compare which situation you are better off. If you have a partner, using the dividend way will reduce your NI outgoes. ethical and legal? Ethically the dividend way might burn your conscience but it is perfectly legal way of doing things.",
"To be honest I don't know how any of this work in the US so my answer will be of very limited value to yourself, I suspect, but when it comes to the UK if you're going to get the same pay gross either way than being independent makes very little sense. Running your own business is hassle, is generally more risky (although possibly not in your case) and costs money. Some of the most obvious costs are the added NI, probably the need for an accountant, at around £1200 p/a for basic accountancy service, you are obliged by law to have liability insurance and you probably want professional indemnity insurance, this will be around £600 p/a minmum, and so on and so forth. On top of that, oficially anyway, as a contractor, you really shouldn't be getting any benefits from the client, and so health insurance, company car, even parking are all meant to be arranged by, and paid by, your company, and can't (or rather - shouldn't) be charged to the client. So - I would say - if you're seriously thinking about setting up a consultancy company, and this client is first of many - set up a company, but take into account the sums you need to earn. If you're really thinking about employment - be an employee.",
"I'm not sure how this gets entered in TurboTax, but this income from the company should be included in the Schedule C (or C-EZ) Line 1 Gross Receipts total, along with all of your 1099-MISC income from your business and any other income that your business took in. You don't need a 1099 from them, and the IRS doesn't care (at least from your perspective) if you got a 1099 or not; in fact, they probably expect you to have some non-1099 income. We don't know why the company chose not to issue 1099 forms, but luckily it isn't your concern. You can fill out your tax return properly without it. Note: This answer assumes that you didn't have any tax withheld from your checks from this company. If you did have tax withheld, you'll need to insist on a 1099 to show that.",
"Work on your own site is certainly not relevant here, that's just a part of your trade, not a service you provided to yourself. The business received the benefit of that work, not you. Suppose your business sold televisions. If you took a TV from stock for your own lounge, that would be included in this box because you have effectively paid yourself with a TV rather than cash. If you take a TV from stock to use as a demo model, that's part of your trade and not goods you have taken out of the business for your own use. For services provided to your dad it's less clear. As Skaty said, it depends whether it's your business providing the service, or you personally. If you gave your dad a free TV then it would be clear that you have effectively paid yourself with another TV and then given it to your dad as a gift. With services it's less clear whether you're receiving services from the business for free. You might consider how it would be treated by your employer if you weren't self-employed. If you were just applying your skills to help your dad in your free time, your employer wouldn't care. If you used your employer's equipment or facilities, or hosted his site on a server that your employer pays for, your employer would be more likely to discipline you for effectively stealing services from them, as they would if you took a TV from their warehouse for him."
] |
[
"My understanding (I am not a lawyer or tax expert) is that you are not allowed to work for free, but you can pay yourself minimum wage for the hours worked. There are probably National Insurance implications as well but I don't know. The main thing is, though, that if HMRC think that you've set up this system as a tax avoidance scheme then they're allowed to tax you as though all the income had been yours in the first place. If you are considering such a setup I would strongly advise you to hire a qualified small business accountant who will be familiar with the rules and will be able to advise you on what is and is not possible / sensible. Falling outside the rules (even inadvertently) leaves you liable to a lot of hassle and potentially fines etc.",
"\"In the US, you'd run the risk of being accused of fraud if this weren't set up properly. It would only be proper if your wife could show that she were involved, acting as your agent, bookkeeper, etc. Even so, to suggest that your time is billed at one rate but you are only paid a tiny fraction of that is still a high risk alert. I believe the expression \"\"if it quacks like a duck...\"\" is pretty universal. If not, I'll edit in a clarification. note -I know OP is in UK, but I imagine tax collection is pretty similar in this regard.\"",
"Depending on how much freelance work we're talking about you could set up a limited company, with you and your wife as directors. By invoicing all your work through the limited company (which could have many other benefits for you, an accountant/advisor would... well, advise...) it's the company earning the money, not you or her personally. You can then pay your wife up to £10,000 per year (as of writing this) without income tax kicking in. You would probably have to pay yourself a small amount to minimise exposure to HMRC's snooping, but possibly not... as far as I'm aware the rules do not state anything about working for free, for yourself - and I wouldn't worry about the ethics, you're already paying plenty into HMRC's bank account through your day job! Some good information here if you're interested: https://www.whitefieldtax.co.uk/web/psc-guide/pscguide-how-does-it-all-work-in-practice-salaries-and-dividends/"
] |
9929
|
Investing in commodities, pros and cons?
|
[
"266323",
"568006"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"266323",
"568006",
"591757",
"598322",
"363899",
"338048",
"379140",
"160030",
"387273",
"368674",
"94408",
"209349",
"72930",
"504089",
"332924",
"307675",
"498176",
"445198",
"85349",
"483734",
"426771",
"270223",
"233223",
"7391",
"66453",
"427890",
"117451",
"512827",
"348927",
"429106",
"172814",
"162767",
"551811",
"56027",
"427819",
"144002",
"110465",
"409777",
"113070",
"88698",
"556936",
"155245",
"75650",
"196596",
"328919",
"174002",
"68645",
"285648",
"145313",
"480598",
"233635",
"494814",
"324273",
"172946",
"334436",
"525929",
"153179",
"464078",
"318558",
"463451",
"163359",
"515024",
"251843",
"598807",
"212162",
"89084",
"105790",
"107869",
"233821",
"221795",
"208916",
"470759",
"210257",
"149153",
"488546",
"60001",
"250028",
"545859",
"97081",
"485791",
"542051",
"346188",
"480879",
"528475",
"239459",
"308809",
"362102",
"396738",
"121334",
"128953",
"60175",
"327271",
"507284",
"200093",
"1103",
"237956",
"52504",
"69308",
"36534",
"67022"
] |
[
"The main advantage of commodities to a largely stock and bond portfolio is diversification and the main disadvantages are investment complexity and low long-term returns. Let's start with the advantage. Major commodities indices and the single commodities tend to be uncorrelated to stocks and bonds and will in general be diversifying especially over short periods. This relationship can be complex though as Supply can be even more complicated (think weather) so diversification may or may not work in your favor over long periods. However, trading in commodities can be very complex and expensive. Futures need to be rolled forward to keep an investment going. You really, really don't want to accidentally take delivery of 40000 pounds of cattle. Also, you need to properly take into account roll premiums (carry) when choosing the closing date for a future. This can be made easier by using commodities index ETFs but they can also have issues with rolling and generally have higher fees than stock index ETFs. Most importantly, it is worth understanding that the long-term return from commodities should be by definition (roughly) the inflation rate. With stocks and bonds you expect to make more than inflation over the long term. This is why many large institutions talk about commodities in their portfolio they often actually mean either short term tactical/algorithmic trading or long term investments in stocks closely tied to commodities production or processing. The two disadvantages above are why commodities are not recommended for most individual investors.",
"Another disadvantage is the inability to value commodities in an accounting sense. In contrast with stocks, bonds and real estate, commodities don't generate cash flows and so any valuation methodology is by definition speculative. But as rhaskett notes, there are diversification advantages. The returns for gold, for instance, tend to exhibit low/negative correlation with the performance of stocks. The question is whether the diversification advantage, which is the primary reason to hold commodities in a multi-asset class portfolio through time, overcomes the disadvantages? The answer... maybe.",
"\"As Dilip has pointed out in the comment, investing in commodities is to either delivery or Buy. Lets say you entered into buying \"\"X\"\" quantities of Soybeans in November, contract is entered into May. In November, if the price is higher than what you purchased for, you can easily sell this, and make money. If in November, the price is lower than your contract price, you have an option to sell it at loss. If you don't want to sell it at loss, you are supposed to take the physical shipment [arrange for your own transport] and store it in warehouse. Although there are companies that will allow you to lease their warehouse, it very soon becomes more loss making proposition. By doing this you can HOLD onto as long as you want [or as long as the good survive and don't rot] It makes sense for a large wholesaler to enter into Buy contracts as he would be like to get known prices for at least half the stock he needs. Similarly large farmers / co-operative societies need to enter into Sell contracts so that they are safeguarded against price fluctuations.\"",
"Well, if you are going long on a future option, you would not have to risk as much capital. I am interested in commodities, but I want to trade it more conservatively. But I do want to learn about them before I dive in, just so there are no surprises.",
"The problem with commodities is that they don't produce income. With a stock or bond, even if you never sold it to anyone or it wasn't publicly traded, you know you can collect the money the company makes or collect interest. That's a quantifiable income from the security. By computing the present value of that income (cf. http://blog.ometer.com/2007/08/26/money-math/) you can have at least a rough sense of the value of the stock or bond investment. Commodities, on the other hand, eat income (insurance and storage). Their value comes from their practical uses e.g. in manufacturing (which eventually results in income for someone); and from psychological factors. The psychological factors are inherently unpredictable. Demand due to practical uses should keep up with inflation, since in principle the prices on whatever products you make from the commodity would keep up with inflation. But even here there's a danger, because it may be that over time some popular uses for a given commodity become obsolete. For example this commodity used to be a bigger deal than now, I guess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankincense. The reverse is also possible, that new uses for a commodity drive up demand and prices. To the extent that metals such as silver and gold bounce around wildly (much more so than inflation), I find it hard to believe the bouncing is mostly due to changes in uses of the metals. It seems far more likely that it's due to psychological factors and momentum traders. To me this makes metals a speculative investment, and identifying a bubble in metals is even harder than identifying one in income-producing assets that can more easily be valued. To identify a bubble you have to figure out what will go on in the minds of a horde of other people, and when. It seems safest for individual investors to just assume commodities are always in a bubble and stay away. The one arguable reason to own commodities is to treat them as a random bouncing number, which may enhance returns (as long as you rebalance) even if on average commodities don't make money over inflation. This is what people are saying when they suggest owning a small slice of commodities as part of an asset allocation. If you do this you have to be careful not to expect to make money on the commodities themselves, i.e. they are just something to sell some of (rebalance out of) whenever they've happened to go up a lot.",
"Here are some pros and cons. Note the list is not comprehensive, but should be a good start. Pros: Alternative to Fiat Money supply - it is an international currency and can be thought of as a protection against having your money in dollars or pounds for example. Some people think that it will eventually replace fiat money supply. This is unlikely to happen any time soon. Move money anywhere - Anyone who has an internet connection can download a wallet and receive bitcoins. Route into Altcoin market - A lot of money is being made in alternative cyrptocurrencies such as etherium, often the best way to buy these is with Bitcoin. Potential massive gains - Bitcoin has gone from 1 dollar 7 years ago to over 2000 dollars, some think it may go even much higher in the future. Fixed money supply - Fixed cap of bitcoins, there will never be more than a fixed amount (unless code changes) which is one reason why it has gained so much value. Secrecy - Some cryptocurrencies are anonymous - which means you can hide your wealth and move it about. Negatives: Storage of bitcoins - If you hold your wallet on your computer and lose it without a backup, you have lost everything. If you hold it on an online exchange and they go down/something bad happens you could lose it. Regulation is in its infancy. There is also a pro here - if you have access to your wallet then no one can freeze your account like a bank potentially could. Tax/Legal implications - Legislation against bitcoins could occur and can cause issues for users. Tax implications can be confusing and an issue. Massive swings - price can go up massively and also down massively - it is not currently a stable investment. Negative ties - Some people associate bitcoin with money laundering and buying drugs - slightly unfairly as it is nothing you can't do with cash (and cash doesn't have a permanent record of your transaction) - but it does have this negative connotation. Summary. Could be worth investing in bitcoin, could potentially make good gains. Could also lose everything or get in trouble with authorities if they suspect you of financial crime. I wouldn't invest anything you couldn't afford to lose and I would be mindful of the risks.",
"Oil as a commodity or investing in oil companies as a stock? As a commodity, I'd recommend none. The article Commodities – They Have (Almost) No Place in Your Portfolio and The Case Against Commodities explain why commodities are not good investments.",
"I would recommend that go through some forums where commodities topics be discussed so that if you have some issues related any point in commodities investment you will easily get your question sort out.",
"Look into commodities futures & options. Unfortunately, they are not trivial instruments.",
"> Taking rough rice as an example, there are millions (if not billions) of people who eat rice to survive. People will always need oil to fuel their cars. People will always need electricity. Commodity values are unlikely to go to 0, I agree. The fact you think this is super-relevant suggests to me you have not fully grasped the nature of the commodities futures markets. > I don't like to be too risky You are looking at getting into extremely risky securities. > I guess what I am trying to do is look into things that allow me to profit, regardless of where equities are going. Many men have died searching for the holy grail. Speculating in these markets is not for the faint of hearts, let alone for the risk-averse. > I have gone as far as to look through OTC ADRs to find some foreign value, and I found nothing. There are plenty of funds offering lots of exposure to international equities, which seem well-geared toward the individual investor.",
"comments discuss investing in potato futures. Learn / ready about commodity trading or commodity futures. An investopedia article How To Invest In Commodities is a good start. There are quite a few commodities offered for normal trade or as futures. Potatos may not be offered on quite a few exchanges. Found some here Investing in commodities is fraught with quite a bit of risk, some like you have already pointed out. Of course you can't eat all and have to sell.",
"\"I'll take a stab at this question and offer a disclosure: I recently got in RING (5.1), NEM (16.4), ASX:RIO (46.3), and FCX (8.2). While I won't add to my positions at current prices, I may add other positions, or more to them if they fall further. This is called catching a falling dagger and it's a high risk move. Cons (let's scare everyone away) Pros The ECB didn't engage in as much QE as the market hoped and look at how it reacted, especially commodities. Consider that the ECB's actions were \"\"tighter\"\" than expected and the Fed plans to raise rates, or claims so. Commodities should be falling off a cliff on that news. While most American/Western attention is on the latest news or entertainment, China has been seizing commodities around the globe like crazy, and the media have failed to mention that even with its market failing, China is still seizing commodities. If China was truly panicked about its market, it would stop investing in other countries and commodities and just bail out its own country. Yet, it's not doing that. The whole \"\"China crisis\"\" is completely oversold in the West; China is saying one thing (\"\"oh no\"\"), but doing another (using its money to snap up cheap commodities). Capitalism works because hard times strengthen good companies. You know how many bailouts ExxonMobil has received compared to Goldman Sachs? You know who owns more real wealth? Oil doesn't get bailed out, banks do, and banks can't innovate to save their lives, while oil innovates. Hard times strengthen good companies. This means that this harsh bust in commodities will separate the winners from the losers and history shows the winners do very well in the long run. Related to the above point: how many bailouts from tax payers do you think mining companies will get? Zero. At least you're investing in companies that don't steal your money through government confiscation. If you're like me, you can probably find at least 9 people out of 10 who think \"\"investing in miners is a VERY BAD idea.\"\" What do they think is a good idea? \"\"Duh, Snapchat and Twitter, bruh!\"\" Then there's the old saying, \"\"Be greedy when everyone's fearful and fearful when everyone's greedy.\"\" Finally, miners own hard assets. Benjamin Graham used to point this out with the \"\"dead company\"\" strategy like finding a used cigarette with one more smoke. You're getting assets cheap, while other investors are overpaying for stocks, hoping that the Fed unleashes moar QE! Think strategy here: seize cheap assets, begin limiting the supply of these assets (if you're the saver and not borrowing), then watch as the price begins to rise for them because of low supply. Remember, investors are part owners in companies - take more control to limit the supply. Using Graham's analogy, stock pile those one-puff cigarettes for a day when there's a low supply of cigarettes. Many miners are in trouble now because they've borrowed too much and must sell at a low profit, or in some cases, must lose. When you own assets debt free, you can cut the supply. This will also help the Federal Reserve, who's been desperately trying to figure out how to raise inflation. The new patriotic thing to do is stimulate the economy by sending inflation up, and limiting the supply here is key.\"",
"One reason why you may have gotten this advice is that stocks have an expected real return over time, while commodities do not. Therefore, when gambling on individual stocks, odds are in your favor that they will ultimately go up over time. You may do better or worse than the market as a whole, but they will likely go up as the whole market, on average, rises over time. Commodities, on the other hand, have no expected real return. It is more zero-sum. In fact, after costs, a real loss should be expected on average, making gambling in here more risky.",
"-I understand. If the option expires and you paid a premium of let's say $20, then you loose it. I will still have to read more obviously. If there are other ways to play the commodities market in a safer way, I am more than willing to look into it. -I understand futures and options on futures are more risky than stocks. What I am getting at is it is less risky COMPARED to regular futures. Compared to the available choices, this seems like the safest. I understand I can loose all the money I invest/speculate with. But loosing $10 (or whatever the price of said commodity options are), is still better than loosing thousands. I agree though I should do my do diligence. -What I am getting at is obviously certain things are correlated with bull or bear markets (gold bear, growth stocks bull). If you can use a combination of assets, you can have some that are winners, while some will be down. I don't expect one asset to be a super asset. -But most the stocks are overvalued, and are overrated. I have found several stocks that I am invested in (MGM Macau, Lippo Mall, and Whiting Trust II). I am also in gold, silver, small Riyal position, and Norwegian Kroner.",
"\"I recommend avoiding trading directly in commodities futures and options. If you're not prepared to learn a lot about how futures markets and trading works, it will be an experience fraught with pitfalls and lost money – and I am speaking from experience. Looking at stock-exchange listed products is a reasonable approach for an individual investor desiring added diversification for their portfolio. Still, exercise caution and know what you're buying. It's easy to access many commodity-based exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on North American stock exchanges. If you already have low-cost access to U.S. markets, consider this option – but be mindful of currency conversion costs, etc. Yet, there is also a European-based company, ETF Securities, headquartered in Jersey, Channel Islands, which offers many exchange-traded funds on European exchanges such as London and Frankfurt. ETF Securities started in 2003 by first offering a gold commodity exchange-traded fund. I also found the following: London Stock Exchange: Frequently Asked Questions about ETCs. The LSE ETC FAQ specifically mentions \"\"ETF Securities\"\" by name, and addresses questions such as how/where they are regulated, what happens to investments if \"\"ETF Securities\"\" were to go bankrupt, etc. I hope this helps, but please, do your own due diligence.\"",
"Let's ask another question: Why do you buy X at price $Y? Here are some answers: Now, another question: Are you guaranteed to get at least $Y worth of value when you buy X? Of course not! A lot of things can happen. Your car can be a lemon. Your pedigreed Dachshund can get run over by a snowblower. Or, the prices of the underlying commodity or security can go against your futures contract. You can raise your chances of getting appropriate value out of X by doing your homework and hedging your risk. The more homework you do, the less of a gamble you're taking.",
"Would you also suggest some stock with interesting returns and risks? Because i tried with FB, GS, JNJ, MCD, F and the have low returns in the last 5 years, so when you compare them to commodities you don't see so much difference in stdev and returns.",
"Pro: - Faces less redemption pressure and hence the Fund Manager can focus more on long term gains rather than immediate gains. - Works well in emerging markets. - Less churn out in case the market falls sharply, there by making more money in long run. Cons: - No additional money to invest/take advantage of market situation. - Less liquid for investor as he is locked in for a period.",
"There are a number of ways trading stocks is easier than commodities: But the main and most important reason is that over long periods stocks in general will tend to outperform inflation as you are investing money in enterprises that generally try to become more productive over time. Whereas commodities in the long term tend to rise only at the pace of inflation (this is kind of the definition of inflation actually). So even uninformed investors that pick stocks at random will generally do better than someone doing the same in commodities even before the higher commodities trading fees are taken into account. Also your orange example may be harder than you think. Once the news that a drought is an issue the price of oranges will almost immediately change well before the oranges come to market! So unless you can predict the drought before anyone else can you won't be able to make money this way.",
"Gold since the ancient time ( at least when it was founded) has kept its value. for example the french franc currency was considered valuable in the years 1400~ but in 1641 lost its value. However who owned Gold back then still got value. The advantage of having gold is you can convert it to cash easily in the world. it hedges against inflation: it is value rise when inflation happend. Gold has no income,no earnings. its not like a stock or a bond. its an alternative way to store value the Disadvantages of investing in Gold Gold doesnt return income , needs physical storage and insurance, Capital gains tax rates are higher on most gold investments. the best way to invest gold when there is inflation is expected. source",
"The problem I have with gold is that it's only worth what someone will pay you for it. To a degree that's true with any equity, but with a company there are other capital resources etc that provide a base value for the company, and generally a business model that generates income. Gold just sits there. it doesn't make products, it doesn't perform services, you can't eat it, and the main people making money off of it are the folks charging a not insubstantial commission to sell it to you, or buy it back. Sure it's used in small quantities for things like plating electrical contacts, dental work, shielding etc. But Industrial uses account for only 10% of consumption. Mostly it's just hoarded, either in the form of Jewelry (50%) or 'investment' (bullion/coins) 40%. Its value derives largely from rarity and other than the last few years, there's no track record of steady growth over time like the stock market or real-estate. Just look at what gold prices did between 10 to 30 years ago, I'm not sure it came anywhere near close to keeping pace with inflation during that time. If you look at the chart, you see a steady price until the US went off the gold standard in 1971, and rules regarding ownership and trading of gold were relaxed. There was a brief run up for a few years after that as the market 'found its level' as it were, and you really need to look from about 74 forward (which it experienced its first 'test' and demonstration of a 'supporting' price around 400/oz inflation adjusted. Then the price fluctuated largely between 800 to 400 per ounce (adjusted for inflation) for the next 30 years. (Other than a brief sympathetic 'Silver Tuesday' spike due to the Hunt Brothers manipulation of silver prices in 1980.) Not sure if there is any causality, but it is interesting to note that the recent 'runup' in price starts in 2000 at almost the same time the last country (the Swiss) went off the 'gold standard' and gold was no longer tied to any currency (or vise versa) If you bought in '75 as a hedge against inflation, you were DOWN, as much as 50% during much of the next 33 years. If you managed to buy at a 'low' the couple of times that gold was going down and found support around 400/oz (adjusted) then you were on average up slightly as much as a little over 50% (throwing out silver Tuesday) but then from about '98 through '05 had barely broken even. I personally view 'investments' in gold at this time as a speculation. Look at the history below, and ask yourself if buying today would more likely end up as buying in 1972 or 1975? (or gods forbid, 1980) Would you be taking advantage of a buying opportunity, or piling onto a bubble and end up buying at the high? Note from Joe - The article Demand and Supply adds to the discussion, and supports Chuck's answer.",
"I know I can not trade futures realistically (I never claimed I could). All I wanted was some exposure to commodities. If I could just trade many of these things in an ETF like GLD or XLV, I would have done that. On the topic of margin, I appreciate your explaining that to me. I admit readily that I could never invest in futures straight, but I would like to get into commodities and other types of investments. I have tried to look for value in the market, but I have not found many things I would put my money in. I have gone as far as to look through OTC ADRs to find some foreign value, and I found nothing. I just want to be able to trade in any market, and I would consider shorting, but I don't like to be too risky. I want to go long on positions, and it seemed like commodities may be a good speculation to LOOK INTO. Taking rough rice as an example, there are millions (if not billions) of people who eat rice to survive. People will always need oil to fuel their cars. People will always need electricity. So I guess what I am trying to do is look into things that allow me to profit, regardless of where equities are going. The only thing I want to do is trade the options of the futures, not the actual futures themselves. I hope I did not confuse you. If I can earn even $20 from buying an option at a lower price and selling higher, it would allow me to have a greater breadth of tools to use when the market may be overvalued.",
"Do not buy any commodity tracking ETF without reading and understanding the prospectus. Some of these things get exposure to the underlying commodity via swaps or other hocus-pocus derivatives, so you're really buying credit obligations from some bank. Others are futures based, and you need to understand your potential upside AND downside. If you think that oil prices are going to continue to rise, you should look into sector funds, or better yet individual stocks that are in the oil or associated businesses. Alternatively, look at alternative investments like natural gas producers or pipeline operators.",
"Well, if you only own the option, you are only limited to loosing the premium. With futures, at least with the brokers I talked to, most of the time you need to sign a margin contract just to trade futures. I don't want to go into debt, and I don't think I would do too well to be fairly honest. I am a college student, and want to limit my risk, and so just trading the option would help me get access to the commodity markets without having to get margin like many brokers want me to do. I am not trying to do any hedging or anything (which I am aware you can do). All I want to do is do an inflation trade, and I believe commodities are the best way. To me honest, if I had my way I would just buy and hold, and that is the strategy I want to emulate closest, even though I know I can't hold it forever. Basically, I want to avoid debt, but still trade commodities.",
"\"The pros and cons of investing in a closed end fund both stem from the fact that the price per share is likely to differ from the net asset value (NAV) of the underlying assets. That could work to your advantage if the fund is selling for LESS than NAV, or at a discount. Then you get the \"\"benefit of the bargain\"\" and hope to sell the shares in the future for \"\"par\"\" or even a premium (MORE than NAV). On the other hand, if you buy such a fund at a premium, you stand to have a RELATIVE loss if the value of the fund goes back to par (or a discount) compared to NAV. That's because a closed end fund has a FIXED number of shares, with the assets continually being reinvested. In essence, you are \"\"buying out\"\" an existing shareholder of the fund at a price determined by supply and demand. This differs from an OPEN end fund, in which your contribution creates NEW shares (all other things being equal). Then the fund, has to invest YOUR money (and charges you a fee for the service) on exactly a pro rata basis with other investors in the fund, meaning that you will enter and exit such a fund at \"\"par.\"\" In either case, your return depends mainly on the performance of the underlying assets. But there are premium/discount issues for investing in a closed end fund.\"",
"\"The difficulty with investing in mining and gold company stocks is that they are subject to the same market forces as any other stocks, although they may whether those forces better in a crisis than other stocks do because they are related to gold, which has always been a \"\"flight to safety\"\" move for investors. Some investors buy physical gold, although you don't have to take actual delivery of the metal itself. You can leave it with the broker-dealer you buy it from, much the way you don't have your broker send you stock certificates. That way, if you leave the gold with the broker-dealer (someone reputable, of course, like APMEX or Monex) then you can sell it quickly if you choose, just like when you want to sell a stock. If you take delivery of a security (share certificate) or commodity (gold, oil, etc.) then before you can sell it, you have to return it to broker, which takes time. The decision has much to do with your investing objectives and willingness to absorb risk. The reason people choose mutual funds is because their money gets spread around a basket of stocks, so if one company in the fund takes a hit it doesn't wipe out their entire investment. If you buy gold, you run the risk (low, in my opinion) of seeing big losses if, for some reason, gold prices plummet. You're \"\"all in\"\" on one thing, which can be risky. It's a judgment call on your part, but that's my two cents' worth.\"",
"Your question is a moving target. And my answer will be subject to revision. I disagree with the votes to close, as you are asking (imho) what role commodities and specifically oil, play in one's asset allocation. Right? How much may be opinion, but there's a place to ask if. I'm looking at this chart, and thinking, long term, the real return is zero. The discussion regarding gold has been pretty exhausted. For oil, it's not tough to make the case that it will fluctuate, but long term, there's no compelling reason to believe its price will rise any faster than inflation over the really long term.",
"As with most strategies there are pros and cons associated with this approach: Advantages of using LEAPS: Disadvantages of using LEAPS: Read more about it in great detail on my blog: http://www.thebluecollarinvestor.com/leaps-and-covered-call-writing-2/",
"The main advantage and disadvantage I can see in a scenario like this are - how savvy and good an investor are you? It's a good way to create below-market average returns if you're not that good at investing and returns way above market average if you are...",
"Our company does a lot of research on the self-directed IRA industry. We also provide financial advice in this area. In short, we have seen a lot in this industry. You mentioned custodian fees. This can be a sore spot for many investors. However, not all custodians are expensive, you should do your research before choosing the best one. Here is a list of custodians to help with your research Here are some of the more common pros and cons that we see. Pros: 1) You can invest in virtually anything that is considered an investment. This is great if your expertise is in an area that cannot be easily invested in with traditional securities, such as horses, private company stock, tax liens and more. 2) Control- you have greater control over your investments. If you invest in GE, it is likely that you will not have much say in the running of their business. However, if you invest in a rental property, you will have a lot of control over how the investment should operate. 3) Invest in what you know. Peter lynch was fond of saying this phrase. Not everyone wants to invest in the stock market. Many people won't touch it because they are not familiar with it. Self-directed IRAs allow you to invest in assets like real estate that you know well. Cons: 1) many alternative investments are illiquid. This can present a problem if you need to access your capital for withdrawals. 2) Prohibited transactions- This is a new area for many investors who are unfamiliar with how self-directed IRAs work 3) Higher fees- in many cases, the fees associated with self-directed IRA custodians and administrators can be higher. 4) questionable investment sponsors tend to target self-directed IRA owners for fraudulent investments. The SEC put out a good PDF about the risks of fraud with self-directed IRAs. Self Directed IRAs are not the right solution for everyone, but they can help certain investors focus on the areas they know well.",
"\"I'm really surprised more people didn't recommend UGA or USO specifically. These have been mentioned in the past on a myriad of sites as ways to hedge against rising prices. I'm sure they would work quite well as an investment opportunity. They are ETF's that invest in nearby futures and constantly roll the position to the next delivery date. This creates a higher than usual expense ratio, I believe, but it could still be a good investment. However, be forewarned that they make you a \"\"partner\"\" by buying the stock so it can mildly complicate your tax return.\"",
"I am going to. Like I said I have not traded options much in general, but I can see a lot of potential in derivatives in general, and it makes me kind of grin. In the case of commodities, the advantages are really apparent. The only problem I see with stock options is that they expire, and thus if you are more long term bull on a stock, it would be harder. But for things like commodities, that are shorter term any ways and require margin, it makes a lot of sense IMO. I could see how you could gain a larger diversification through options (being able to bet on Russell 2000, S&P, etc. ) or esoteric markets (electricity). I will look up that book that you mentioned. Thanks man.",
"gold is incredibly volatile, I tried spreadbetting on it. During the month of its highest gain, month beginning to month end, I was betting it would go up - and I still managed to lose money. It went down so much, that my stop loss margin would kick in. Don't do things with gold in the short term its a very small and liquid market. My advice with gold, actually buy some physical gold as insurance.",
"As with everything else, it's a question of trade-offs. Pros For Buying In Bulk Cons For Buying In Bulk Inventory cost. You need to purchase more shelving/cupboards to stock the goods. This is a real cost. The psychological effect of having more means you are more likely to use more, thus costing you more. Deflation of the cost of the item should occur over time in a well-functioning market economy. A $10 item today might be $9.50 in one year in real terms. There is a real opportunity cost associated with overbuying. Granted, an extra $100 in your bank account won't be earning too much if you have to spend it one month later, but it does mean you have less financial independence for that month. Risk of spoilage. There is a nonzero risk that your goods could be ruined by flood/fire/toddler/klutz damage. You need to decide which of these pros and cons are more important to you. Financially, you should only buy what you need between shopping trips. In reality the convenience of holding goods in storage for when you need them may outweigh the costs.",
"There is none, whatever sector you invest in will be subject to cyclical market difficulties, however alpha can be generated from two sources: Timing and selection. Its much easier to get the timing done over a long period of time.",
"1) The risks are that you investing in financial markets and therefore should be prepared for volatility in the value of your holdings. 2) You should only ever invest in financial markets with capital that you can reasonably afford to put aside and not touch for 5-10 years (as an investor not a trader). Even then you should be prepared to write this capital off completely. No one can offer you a guarantee of what will happen in the future, only speculation from what has happened in the past. 3) Don't invest. It is simple. Keep your money in cash. However this is not without its risks. Interest rates rarely keep up with inflation so the spending power of cash investments quickly diminishes in real terms over time. So what to do? Extended your time horizon as you have mentioned to say 30 years, reinvest all dividends as these have been proven to make up the bulk of long term returns and drip feed your money into these markets over time. This will benefit you from what is known in as 'dollar cost averaging' and will negate the need for you to time the market.",
"\"Consider that there are some low-probability, high-impact risk factors involved with property management. For example, an old house has lead paint and may have illegal modifications, unknown to you, that pose some hazard. All of your \"\"pros\"\" are logical, and the cons are relatively minor. Just consult an attorney to look for potential landmines.\"",
"I would not argue if its more difficult, its different, and it much depends what kind of stocks you refer to, i take large caps as example. The players are different. Companies and even govts may hedge in the commodities (futures) market while in big caps this and other entities mainly invest. (Of course there’s HFT in large caps too). Futures often come with way higher leverage, lower spread and less commissions than stocks attracting retail and institutional speculators/HFT. Another big difference is that commodity prices react to all kind of news events (Stocks do too, but not that much and frequent), this kind of reactions big caps only do on earnings or on news directly affecting the company. Commodities are much more volatile on geo economic / political news events. This combined with higher leverage & HFT produces astounding moves. To sum it up, the players are different and act different than in large stocks, liquidity may be another thing.",
"The drawback is not knowing when prices have reached a level where you are comfortable getting back in. Someone who got out at S&P 1500 before the crash of '08 was very happy. But did they get back in at 666 or just watch the market come back 3X from that level? The S&P returned 10.46% from Jan '87 till Dec '14. I wonder how many traders got in and out just right to beat that number? Bottom line is that even the pro's acknowledge that timing the market is basically impossible, so why try?",
"This is a long term investment but can be very useful during tough times. Be prepared not only to take but to give as well. Moreover:",
"\"Over on Quantitative Finance Stack Exchange, I asked and answered a more technical and broader version of this question, Should the average investor hold commodities as part of a broadly diversified portfolio? In short, I believe the answer to your question is that gold is neither an investment nor a hedge against inflation. Although many studies claim that commodities (such as gold) do offer some diversification benefit, the most credible academic study I have seen to date, Should Investors Include Commodities in Their Portfolios After All? New Evidence, shows that a mean-variance investor would not want to allocate any of their portfolio to commodities (this would include gold, presumably). Nevertheless, many asset managers, such as PIMCO, offer funds that are marketed as \"\"real return\"\" or \"\"inflation-managed\"\" and include commodities (including gold) in their portfolios. PIMCO has also commissioned some research, Strategic Asset Allocation and Commodities, claiming that holding some commodities offers both diversification and inflation hedging benefits.\"",
"\"I agree with you, but both are bad. What happens with fractional reserve banking is inflation, but this inflation isn't distributed evenly across all the markets, those who the banks lend to are who see the inflation first I.e. the Dow. But nobody gets a loan to buy commodities, so these lag in the inflation. When a recession hits the banks slow their loaning while the commodities play catch-up. During this period it makes more sense to \"\"invest\"\" in commodities than in the majority of businesses. So in an effort to make capital \"\"available\"\" you've created an entire community of investors investing in an unproductive sector for just as long as you had them hyper-investing in productive sectors. Net zero gain, with a decade of time lost. I wont ever believe we need frac reserve lending to have a bank, especially when the bank collapses the currency every 30-50 years. If someone's to loan money they should do it with their own money, with approval, or somehow prevent 2-3-10 people from racing to the same reserve.\"",
"As the value of a currency declines, commodities, priced in that currency, will rise. The two best commodities to see a change in would be oil and gold.",
"\"The benefit of having gold to trade is that there is almost always someone that will take gold when the fiat currency is in trouble. The potential downfall of doing this is that when people think the fiat currency is in trouble, they tend to buy up gold, thus driving up the price. This means that you get less gold for each hour of work you perform (deer-haunch, basket of apples, etc.). Even more, if the financial crisis is limited to only one fiat currency, you have a situation where that fiat currency devalues but others can gain in value as people try to sell their old currency for the new standard currency. If people also sell their gold to buy up this currency, that lowers the price of gold in that currency. For example, let us assume that gold was 1000 dollars an ounce and 1000 euros an ounce. Suddenly, people start thinking that the euro is in trouble, so they start buying gold. The law of supply and demand kicks in (more buyers, same supply, so higher prices) and gold is suddenly worth 2000 dollars and 2000 euros an ounce. If you start buying at this point, you get half as much gold as the person who bought in the beginning. Suddenly, the euro collapses. Stores that used to take euros start demanding dollars. Suddenly, it costs 20,000 euros for an ounce of gold but an ounce of gold will only get you 1,000 dollars since everyone is selling their gold to get dollars. The people who buy gold in the \"\"panic\"\" end up losing half the value of their money if not more. The \"\"speculators\"\" that bought gold at $1,000, sold it at $2,000, and bought it back at $1,000 now have all their gold back plus the $1,000 the other people lost.\"",
"This conversation is about energy futures, not generic securities. A moderately wealthy dilettante without a background in the subject is at an extreme disadvantage - since as a trader your edge is being able to identify market inefficiencies and profit from them, it's difficult to imagine being able to do this in a market you do not understand.",
"Gold is a commodity. It has a tracked price and can be bought and sold as such. In its physical form it represents something real of signifigant value that can be traded for currency or barted. A single pound of gold is worth about 27000 dollars. It is very valuable and it is easily transported as opposed to a car which loses value while you transport it. There are other metals that also hold value (Platinum, Silver, Copper, etc) as well as other commodities. Platinum has a higher Value to weight ratio than gold but there is less of a global quantity and the demand is not as high. A gold mine is an investement where you hope to take out more in gold than it cost to get it out. Just like any other business. High gold prices simply lower your break even point. TIPS protects you from inflation but does not protect you from devaluation. It also only pays the inflation rate recoginized by the Treasury. There are experts who believe that the fed has understated inflation. If these are correct then TIPS is not protecting its investors from inflation as promised. You can also think of treasury bonds as an investment in your government. Your return will be effectively determined by how they run their business of governing. If you believe that the government is doing the right things to help promote the economy then investing in their bonds will help them to be able to continue to do so. And if consumers buy the bonds then the treasury does not have to buy any more of its own.",
"\"> Well, if you only own the option, you are only limited to loosing the premium. With futures, at least with the brokers I talked to, most of the time you need to sign a margin contract just to trade futures. I don't want to go into debt, and I don't think I would do too well to be fairly honest. This isn't how margin works. Your broker would demand more money before coming back to you. > I am a college student, and want to limit my risk Yet you're talking about things that are very risky, and that you don't take seriously. > To me honest, if I had my way I would just buy and hold, and that is the strategy I want to emulate closest Why aren't you buying and holding equities funds? Why not have your way? > Basically, I want to avoid debt, but still trade commodities. \"\"Margin\"\" in futures isn't a loan. It's the fraction of the value of a contract you actually pay. There's no borrowing involved. If you want less risk, don't get the maximum you can, but rather have cash reserves. You do not sound like you are in a position to be investing in these sorts of instruments at all.\"",
"Don't really know much about futures but I'll give you a couple of options: Assuming that you are just looking around right now about currency investing, are you sure (I mean, really sure) that you want to do it?",
"No matter how promising the gold market is, investing in gold bars still has risks. For this reason, before you buy gold bars, make sure you have carefully studied the ins and outs of this investment. Know where, when, why and how to buy gold bar assets. Know the common pitfalls of investing in gold bars and do all that you can to avoid them.",
"Bad question. Even people choosing a 401k strategy have to choose risk over reward. But looking at this simply, if you take a 10 year chart of Gold, you will not find any other stock or commodity that could have been invested in that would have provided you with the same results with as little volatility over this time period. http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au3650nys.gif",
"\"As proposed: Buy 100 oz of gold at $1240 spot = -$124,000 Sell 1 Aug 2014 Future for $1256 = $125,600 Profit $1,600 Alternative Risk-Free Investment: 1 year CD @ 1% would earn $1240 on $124,000 investment. Rate from ads on www.bankrate.com \"\"Real\"\" Profit All you are really being paid for this trade is the difference between the profit $1,600 and the opportunity for $1240 in risk free earnings. That's only $360 or around 0.3%/year. Pitfalls of trying to do this: Many retail futures brokers are set up for speculative traders and do not want to deal with customers selling contracts against delivery, or buying for delivery. If you are a trader you have to keep margin money on deposit. This can be a T-note at some brokerages, but currently T-notes pay almost 0%. If the price of gold rises and you are short a future in gold, then you need to deposit more margin money. If gold went back up to $1500/oz, that could be $24,400. If you need to borrow this money, the interest will eat into a very slim profit margin over the risk free rate. Since you can't deliver, the trades have to be reversed. Although futures trades have cheap commissions ~$5/trade, the bid/ask spread, even at 1 grid, is not so minimal. Also there is often noisy jitter in the price. The spot market in physical gold may have a higher bid/ask spread. You might be able to eliminate some of these issues by trading as a hedger or for delivery. Good luck finding a broker to let you do this... but the issue here for gold is that you'd need to trade in depository receipts for gold that is acceptable for delivery, instead of trading physical gold. To deliver physical gold it would likely have to be tested and certified, which costs money. By the time you've researched this, you'll either discover some more costs associated with it or could have spent your time making more money elsewhere.\"",
"Bloomberg Commodity Index is one you check out. [link](https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/BCOM:IND) Oil does have a heavier weighting though (around 20% through Brent and WTI iirc) so while things like aluminium, gold, corn etc are up for the year BCOM is down YTD. Still a decent broad-based index for you to consider.",
"Excel Pros: Cons:",
"If you buy a gold brick and put it in a pillow, after one year you still have one gold brick. People may value it more than before or less then before, but it's still the one gold brick you had. If you buy a cow and put it on a pasture, after one year you have a fatter cow and plenty of milk. You now have more of the cow and milk you didn't have before. Now that's an investment.",
"I wouldn't use it to take leverage unless you don't mind loosing your entire investment (this is a possibility as shares are already quite volatile). However, you don't have to take leverage and still trade CFDs. Benefits of doing so: Disadvantages:",
"It all depends on the liquidity of your investments some examples: You can mitigate only the risk that you can control. It is always good to have:",
"Its the relative leverage available to retail traders between the two. In the US one can trade equities with 2:1 leverage while with commodities the leverage can go much higher. Combine this with the highly volatile nature of commodities, and it makes losing BIG too easy for the average trader.",
"\"1) link? 2) It doesn't matter if they can or do, what matters is if they are *investing* (not trading) in it *more* than banks are investing in businesses. If that is the case (it is) then businesses as a whole will see the inflation first, and commodities will be playing catchup the entire time, but mostly when the investments hit recession. I will invest in the market again after they lose their mal-invested value, In historical terms the best time was to invest in them was 1980, 1938 and 1900, and the best time to get out was 1929 1960's and 2000. But to bet against them right now, with the dollar, is meaningless because the FED is deflating the currency as they go down, so it's like running on a treadmill. By holding silver I am essentially short the market, only difference is instead of holding a devaluing currency (cash) I'm holding a real money which is increasing in value. There's nothing simpler than \"\"investing\"\" in commodities for the long-term, people lose when they are making monthly/daily trades in them. Anyone who bought and held on to gold in 2000 did it for $300, and they've made infinitely more than the majority of people investing in blue chips (because they've lost value) and much more than those who invested in bonds. And that trend isn't going to stop unless the government lets the dollar deflate in which case the dollar will come to gold instead of the other way around. Until they are in equilibrium again. Historically the dow has an average of being 2 ounces of gold, peaking at 50 and trophing at .5. If it hits .5 again like it has everytime this occurs in the past. Then either gold will be $20000 or the dow will be 4000. You pick.\"",
"\"You may be thinking about this the wrong way. The yield (Return) on your investment is effectively the market price paid to the investor for the amount of risk assumed for participating. Looking at the last few years, many including myself would have given their left arm for a so-called \"\"meager return\"\" instead of the devastation visited on our portfolios. In essence, higher return almost always (arguably always) comes at the cost of increased risk. You just have to decide your risk profile and investment goals. For example, which of the following scenarios would you prefer? Investment Option A Treasuries, CD's Worst Case: 1% gain Best Case 5% gain Investment option B Equities/Commodities Worst Case: 25% loss Best Case: 40% gain\"",
"10% is way high unless you really dedicate time to managing your investments. Commodities should be a part of the speculative/aggressive portion of your portfolio, and you should be prepared to lose most or all of that portion of your portfolio. Metals aren't unique enough to justify a specific allocation -- they tend to perform well in a bad economic climate, and should be evaluated periodically. The fallacy in the arguments of gold/silver advocates is that metals have some sort of intrinsic value that protects you. I'm 32, and remember when silver was $3/oz, so I don't know how valid that assertion is. (Also recall the 25% price drop when the CBOE changed silver's margin requirements.)",
"I think what the person meant to say is that Gold is not a one stop solution. There's nothing wrong with having Gold in an otherwise diversified portfolio but you need to be aware about the potential downsides: The problem with gold is that its value nowadays depends mainly on investor confidence, or the lack of it (actual demand for gold cannot explain the rise in value gold had after the crisis). If people are afraid the world and currencies with it will go to hell, the gold price will go up. Why? Because if currencies seize to exist, Gold will still be accepted. It can replace currencies. What many people tend to forget: let's consider the extreme example and currencies really cease to exist and all hell breaks lose. What good are gold bars at the bank, or even at home, for that matter? You'll be better off with gold coins to use in barter and to pay off marauders. But that's not about investing anymore, that's survivalism.",
"Instead of buying in bulk, I invest the money in equity mutual funds, for an expected return of 12%, which is more than inflation. So, I make more returns. But at the cost of a slight risk, which I'm comfortable with.",
"\"You're \"\"onto\"\" something. Investing in real estate was not a bad idea about 10-15 years ago, when stocks were high, and real estate was not. On the other hand, by about 2006, BOTH stocks and real estate were high, and should have been avoided. And around 1980, both were LOW, and should have been bought. I expand this construct to include gold and oil. Around 2005, these were relatively low, and should have been bought over stocks and real estate. On the other hand, ALL FOUR are high right now, and offer comparable dangers.\"",
"Pros: Cons: Before the housing bubble the conventional wisdom was to buy as much home as you could afford, thereby borrowing as much you can afford. Because variable rates lead to lower mortgages, they were preferred by many as you could buy more house. This of course lead to many people losing their home and many thousands of dollars. A bubble is not necessary to trigger a chain of events that can lead to loss of a home. If an interest only borrower is late on a payment, this often triggers a rate increase. Couple that with some other things that can happen negatively, and you are up $hit's creek. IMO it is not wise.",
"PROS: Price stability, confidence in the market, manipulation of money supply for direct monetary policy transmission, not having politicians conduct short sighted policy so they can get reelected, etc. CONS: No checks/balances, few people control of the largest economy in the world, not democratic",
"Diversification is a risk-mitigation strategy. When you invest in equities, you generally get a higher rate of return than a fixed income investment. But you have risks... a single company's market value can decline for all sorts of reasons, including factors outside of the control of management. Diversification lets you spread risk and concentrate on sectors that you feel offer the best value. Investing outside of your currency zone allows you to diversify more, but also introduces currency risks, which require a whole other level of understanding. Today, investing in emerging markets is very popular for US investors because these economies are booming and US monetary policy has been weakening the dollar for some time. A major bank failure in China or a flip to a strong dollar policy could literally implode those investments overnight. At the end of the day, invest in what you understand. Know the factors that can lower your investment value.",
"Investing in commodities is iffy in the best of times. Potash already has expectations priced in, so I prefer to play CNI, the railroad doing most of the hauling. Uranium? No. Uranium has been touted for a decade or more without results. Thorium is the preferable future nuclear fuel, and there is lots of it.",
"I commented about oil in response to u/timothyblomfield. I know way more about oil than any other commodities. But steel is another heavily scrutinized commodity. All the talk of China importing illegal steel, people losing steel jobs, etc. Commodities become important like this when international politics become involved.",
"I consider speculation to be a security purchase where the point is to sell it to someone for a higher price. Day-trading is completely speculative. I consider Investment to be a purchase you make for its underlying value. You are buying it at that price because you believe the present value of the future payments is higher than the price you are paying. I may sell an investment if a higher price is offered than I think it's worth, or if the business situation changes, but I don't plan on it. Hedging is a third type of security purchase, where you are decreasing your overall risk. If you are a hog farmer, selling hog futures on the CME is hedging, because it locks in the amount you get per hog, regardless of what the price of hogs does. Commodities markets only have hedgers and speculators. Investors don't make sense, it doesn't have an underlying value.",
"There are several problems with your reasoning: if I buy one share of GOOGLE now for $830, I could have $860 within the end of tonight -- totally possible and maybe even likely. You can do the same thing with 1,000,000 shares of google, and it's just as likely to go down as go up. if I were to invest $1,000.00 in gold to have $1,000.00 worth of gold, it's no different than keeping $1,000.00 in cash It's VERY different. Gold can be just as volatile as stocks, so it certainly is different as just keeping it in cash. Benefits of a larger portfolio:",
"\"I took a course in forex trading for 3 months. I also studied financial markets in the Uni. I have been saving in order to start investing but I face the same question. I have gathered some advantages and disadventages that I would like to know your opinion. Forex market is more liquid, its more easy to identify what makes the currency change and to \"\"predict\"\" it. For small investors its an intraday trading. The risk is huge but the return can be also huge. Stocks are for long term investements. Its difficult to have a bigger return unless you know something that others dont. Its more difficult to predict price change since its easier to anyone influence it. The risk is less.\"",
"A lot of people probably don't agree with him, but Warren Buffett has some great quotes on why he doesn't invest in gold: I will say this about gold. If you took all the gold in the world, it would roughly make a cube 67 feet on a side…Now for that same cube of gold, it would be worth at today’s market prices about $7 trillion dollars – that’s probably about a third of the value of all the stocks in the United States…For $7 trillion dollars…you could have all the farmland in the United States, you could have about seven Exxon Mobils, and you could have a trillion dollars of walking-around money…And if you offered me the choice of looking at some 67 foot cube of gold and looking at it all day, and you know me touching it and fondling it occasionally…Call me crazy, but I’ll take the farmland and the Exxon Mobils. And his classic quote: [Gold] gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head.",
"\"As with ANY investment the first answer is....do not invest in any that you do not fully understand. ETF's are very versatile and can be used for many different people for many different parts of their portfolio, so I don't think there can be a blanket statement of \"\"this\"\" one is good or bad for all.\"",
"In most markets, there are fixed fees known as commissions. For instance, with a retail broker in the stock market, you can expect every trade to cost you $7.00 as an example, it is $7.00 regardless of if you place a trade for $25 or $25,000. You will see that just opening the trade, with a smaller amount, will eat up all of your profits and a majority of your capital, but if you opened the trade with more capital through the investment group, then the $7.00 commission will be much less of a tax on your trade. Basically, the only advantage is that the tax of commissions will be less if you have a larger account, if the commission is a fixed dollar value, which is not always true either. regardless, at $25 per month, not many markets will be accessible. There is also the possible educational aspect of investing with a group of people, or it can simply be clashing ideals.",
"Recommended? There's really no perfect answer. You need to know the motivations of the participants in the markets that you will be participating in. For instance, the stock market's purpose is to raise capital (make as much money as possible), whereas the commodities-futures market's purpose is to hedge against producing actual goods. The participants in both markets have different reactions to changes in price.",
"Yes, from the point-of-view to the end speculator/investor in stocks, it is ludicrous to take on liabilities when you don't have to. That's why single-stock options are far more liquid than single-stock futures. However, if you are a farmer with a huge mortgage depending upon the chaos of agricultural markets which are extremely volatile, a different structure might appeal to you. You could long your inputs while shorting your outputs, locking in a profit. That profit is probably lower than what one could expect over the long run without hedging, but it will surely be less volatile. Here's where the advantage of futures come in for that kind of structure: the margin on the longs and shorts can offset each other, forcing the farmer to have to put up much less of one's own money to hedge. With options, this is not the case. Also, the gross margin between the inputs rarely fluctuate to an unmanageable degree, so if your shorts rise faster than your longs, you'll only have to post margin in the amount of the change in the net of the longs and shorts. This is why while options on commodities exist to satisfy speculators, futures are the most liquid.",
"Generally speaking, you want to find goods and services that are inelastic and also require oil as a cost. Oil company stocks make record profits when oil is high, because direct demand for oil is relatively inelastic. Profit margins of oil competition should also go up, as this creates inflation in general, as people seek alternatives to the inelastic demand.",
"Very interesting. I would like to expand beyond just precious metals and stocks, but I am not ready just to jump in just yet (I am a relatively young investor, but have been playing around with stocks for 4 years on and off). The problem I often find is that the stock market is often too overvalued to play Ben Graham type strategy/ PE/B, so I would like to expand my knowledge of investing so I can invest in any market and still find value. After reading Jim Rogers, I was really interested in commodities as an alternative to stocks, but I like to play really conservative (generally). Thank you for your insight. If you don't mind, I would like to add you as a friend, since you seem quite above average in the strategy department.",
"Here's a start at a high level: I have a few friends who have made a killing on GLD, and write options to make money off of the investment without incurring the capital gains penalties for selling. That's a little out of my comfort zone though.",
"The only problem with writing puts is that you need to buy the futures, and at the moment at least that is what I am trying to avoid (trying to be as frugal with my investing dollars). I will however consider that strategy, since it does make sense.",
"There are many ways of investing either directly or indirectly in oil: all of these options are ways to invest in an expected change in the price of oil at various degrees of directness and risk profiles. Investing in derivative or derivative-like products such as futures and CFDs is very risky and requires a good degree of sophisticated knowledge to manage.",
"\"If there's one thing the futures markets don't lack, it's leverage. It's more than even most of the most aggressive investors use. Trading options might make more sense for some investors, but I can't think of how this would be \"\"a safer way\"\" compared to owning actual futures contracts, even at relatively high leverage.\"",
"> The only problem I see with stock options is that they expire You're on to something: the reason why some prefer to write (sell) options instead of buying. Neutral to bullish on crude oil? Sell puts on /CL at 90-95% probability OTM. You keep your money if the underlying moves up or does nothing, within the days to expiration.",
"\"This is an old post I feel requires some more love for completeness. Though several responses have mentioned the inherent risks that currency speculation, leverage, and frequent trading of stocks or currencies bring about, more information, and possibly a combination of answers, is necessary to fully answer this question. My answer should probably not be the answer, just some additional information to help aid your (and others') decision(s). Firstly, as a retail investor, don't trade forex. Period. Major currency pairs arguably make up the most efficient market in the world, and as a layman, that puts you at a severe disadvantage. You mentioned you were a student—since you have something else to do other than trade currencies, implicitly you cannot spend all of your time researching, monitoring, and investigating the various (infinite) drivers of currency return. Since major financial institutions such as banks, broker-dealers, hedge-funds, brokerages, inter-dealer-brokers, mutual funds, ETF companies, etc..., do have highly intelligent people researching, monitoring, and investigating the various drivers of currency return at all times, you're unlikely to win against the opposing trader. Not impossible to win, just improbable; over time, that probability will rob you clean. Secondly, investing in individual businesses can be a worthwhile endeavor and, especially as a young student, one that could pay dividends (pun intended!) for a very long time. That being said, what I mentioned above also holds true for many large-capitalization equities—there are thousands, maybe millions, of very intelligent people who do nothing other than research a few individual stocks and are often paid quite handsomely to do so. As with forex, you will often be at a severe informational disadvantage when trading. So, view any purchase of a stock as a very long-term commitment—at least five years. And if you're going to invest in a stock, you must review the company's financial history—that means poring through 10-K/Q for several years (I typically examine a minimum ten years of financial statements) and reading the notes to the financial statements. Read the yearly MD&A (quarterly is usually too volatile to be useful for long term investors) – management discussion and analysis – but remember, management pays themselves with your money. I assure you: management will always place a cherry on top, even if that cherry does not exist. If you are a shareholder, any expense the company pays is partially an expense of yours—never forget that no matter how small a position, you have partial ownership of the business in which you're invested. Thirdly, I need to address the stark contrast and often (but not always!) deep conflict between the concepts of investment and speculation. According to Seth Klarman, written on page 21 in his famous Margin of Safety, \"\"both investments and speculations can be bought and sold. Both typically fluctuate in price and can thus appear to generate investment returns. But there is one critical difference: investments throw off cash flow for the benefit of the owners; speculations do not. The return to the owners of speculations depends exclusively on the vagaries of the resale market.\"\" This seems simple and it is; but do not underestimate the profound distinction Mr. Klarman makes here. (and ask yourself—will forex pay you cash flows while you have a position on?) A simple litmus test prior to purchasing a stock might help to differentiate between investment and speculation: at what price are you willing to sell, and why? I typically require the answer to be at least 50% higher than the current salable price (so that I have a margin of safety) and that I will never sell unless there is a material operating change, accounting fraud, or more generally, regime change within the industry in which my company operates. Furthermore, I then research what types of operating changes will alter my opinion and how severe they need to be prior to a liquidation. I then write this in a journal to keep myself honest. This is the personal aspect to investing, the kind of thing you learn only by doing yourself—and it takes a lifetime to master. You can try various methodologies (there are tons of books) but overall just be cautious. Money lost does not return on its own. I've just scratched the surface of a 200,000 page investing book you need to read if you'd like to do this professionally or as a hobbyist. If this seems like too much or you want to wait until you've more time to research, consider index investing strategies (I won't delve into these here). And because I'm an investment professional: please do not interpret anything you've read here as personal advice or as a solicitation to buy or sell any securities or types of securities, whatsoever. This has been provided for general informational purposes only. Contact a financial advisor to review your personal circumstances such as time horizon, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, and asset allocation strategies. Again, nothing written herein should be construed as individual advice.\"",
"As you have already good on your retirement kitty. Assuming you have a sufficient cash for difficult situations, explore the options of investing in Shares and Mutual Funds. As you are new to Stock Market, begin slowly by investing into Mutual Funds and ETF for precious metals. This will help you understand and give you confidence on markets and returns. Real estate is a good option, the down side being the hassle of getting rental and the illiquid nature of the investment.",
"Problems with shorting 1. The price could become even more insanely high. 2. The stock you borrowed could be recalled leaving you sitting on a loss. 3. High borrowing costs. 4. Potentially limited loss potential e.g. when a takeover is announced, or when the company has a windfall, or fraudulently announces phony good news. Shorting could still be useful as a niche 10% of your portfolio; the risk is limited that way. Also high short interest tend to make me look a bit harder before buying.",
"First is storage which is a big and a detrimental headache. Security is another big headache. Investing in precious metal has always been an investment opportunity in the countries in the east i.e. India and China because of cultural reason and due to absence of investment opportunities for the less fortunate ones. It isn't the case so in the West. Secondly what is the right an opportune moment is open to question. When the worlwide economy is up and running, that is probably the time to buy i.e. people would like to put money in use rather than store. The saying goes the other way when the economy is stagnating. Then there is also the case of waiting out the bad periods to sell your gold and silver. If you do want to buy precious metals then use a service like BullionVault, rather than doing those yourself. It takes care of the 2 big headaches, I mentioned earlier.",
"I own a gold mine and my cost of producing an ounce of gold is $600. Less than that, I lose money, anything over is profit. Today, at $1500, I sell futures to match my production for the next 2 years. I'm happy to lock in the profit. If gold goes to $3000, well, too bad, but if it drops to $500, I can still sell it for the $1500 as I mine it. I suppose I could also close out the contracts at a profit and still shut the mines down, but the point is illustrated.",
"consider capital requirements and risk timeframes. With options, the capital requirements are far smaller than owning the underlying securities with stops. Options also allow one to constrain risk to a timeframe of ones own choosing (the expiration date of the contract). If you own or are short the underlying security, there is no time horizon.",
"Maybe a bit under the radar for the average/amateur investor, but I love 'em. Started trading them in college.. I love the variety of strategies one can employ, and risk management is easier (to me) than going long or short the underlying in many cases. Pick up Hull's text on Futures, Options and Derivatives for your starter reading, then pick an economic sector that makes the most sense to you and learn it. For me, it was ag crops - corn, wheat and soybeans. Keep learning the mechanics of trading this asset class and paper trade for as long as you can.",
"If you've decided to ignore the sound advice re: oil company stocks, and you want something directly linked to the price of oil, do the following: Understand that oil producers would like avoid the risk of a price drop, and oil consumers (refiners, electric utilities, etc.) would like to avoid the risk of a price rise. Understand that you are about to assume their risk.",
"\"I do not know anything about retail investing in India, since I am in the US. However, there are a couple of general things to keep in mind about gold that should be largely independent of country. First, gold is not an investment. Aside from a few industrial uses, it has no productive value. It is, at best, a hedge against inflation, since many people feel more comfortable with what they consider \"\"real\"\" money that is not subject to what seems to be arbitrary creation by central banks. Second, buying tiny amounts of gold as coin or bullion from a retail dealer will always involve a fairly significant spread from the commodity spot price. The spot price only applies to large transactions. Retail dealers have costs of doing business that necessitate these fees in order for them to make a profit. You must also consider the costs of storing your gold in a way that mitigates the risk of theft. (The comment by NL7 is on this point. It appeared while I was typing this answer.) You might find this Planet Money piece instructive on the process, costs, and risks of buying gold bullion (in the US). If you feel that you must own gold as an inflation hedge, and it is possible for residents of India, you would be best off with some kind of gold fund that tracks the price of bullion.\"",
"Very likely this refers to trading/speculating on leverage, not investing. Of course, as soon as you put leverage into the equation this perfectly makes sense. 2007-2009 for example, if one bought the $SPX at its highs in 2007 at ~$1560.00 - to the lows from 2009 at ~$683.00 - implicating that with only 2:1 leverage a $1560.00 account would have received a margin call. At least here in Europe I can trade index CFD's and other leveraged products. If i trade lets say >50:1 leverage it doesn’t take much to get a margin call and/or position closed by the broker. No doubt, depending on which investments you choose there’s always risk, but currency is a position too. TO answer the question, I find it very unlikely that >90% of investors (referring to stocks) lose money / purchasing power. Anyway, I would not deny that where speculators (not investors) use leverage or try to trade swings, news etc. have a very high risk of losing money (purchasing power).",
"Below is a list of rules that will help you to decide what types of products you should be investing in:",
"Investing only in one industry may be problematic as it is highly correlated. There are factor outside your (or anyones) knowledge which may affect all the industry: If you are familiar with the industry it may happen that you work in that (ignore rest of paragraph if this is not the case). In such case you are likely to have problems at work (frozen salary, no bonus, position terminated) and you need to liquidate the investments at that point (see many advice regarding ESPP). Depending on your field you may have some inside knowledge so even if you would took a position without it you may need to somehow prove it. On the other hand diversifying the investment might reduce the volatility of investment. Rise in oil will cause problems for air industry but will be a boom for oil industry etc. In this way you smooth the grow of the investments. Investing part of portfolio into specific industry may make more sense. It still possibly worth to avoid it at the beginning investor may have trouble to beat the market (for example according to behavioural economics you are exposed to various biases, or if markets are efficient then prices most likely already take into account any information you may have). (I'm still new to all this so it's mostly based on what I read rather then any personal experience. Also a standard disclaimer that this is not an investment, or any other, advice and I'm not licensed financial advisor in any jurisdiction)",
"To add to this, that risk is really only a problem if you don't have the cash flow to service the debt. If the surplus dips but your ultimately profitable on whatever trade you made, you're okay. If you default, you're not okay. Volitility relative to loan term effectively.",
"(After seeing your most recent comment on the original question, it looks like others have answered the question you intended, and described the extreme difficulty of getting the timing right the way you're trying to. Since I've already typed it up, what follows answers what I originally thought your question was, which was asking if there were drawbacks to investing entirely in money market funds to avoid stock volatility altogether.) Money market funds have the significant drawback that they offer low returns. One of the fundamental principles in finance is that there is a trade-off between low risk and high returns. While money market funds are extremely stable, their returns are paltry; under current market conditions, you can consider them roughly equivalent to cash. On the other hand, though investing in stocks puts your money on a roller coaster, returns will be, on average, substantially higher. Since people often invest in order to achieve personal financial stability, many feel naturally attracted to very stable investments like money market funds. However, this tendency can be a big mistake. The higher returns of the stock market don't merely serve to stoke an investor's greed, they are necessary for achieving most people's financial goals. For example, consider two hypothetical investors, saving for retirement over the course of a 40-year career. The first investor, apprehensive Adam, invests $10k per year in a money market fund. The second investor, brave Barbara, invests $10k per year in an S&P 500 index fund (reinvesting dividends). Let's be generous and say that Adam's money market fund keeps pace with inflation (in reality, they typically don't even do that). At the end of 40 years, in today's money, Adam will have $10,000*40 = $400,000, not nearly enough to retire comfortably on. On the other hand, let's assume that Barbara gets returns of 7% per year after inflation, which is typical (though not guaranteed). Barbara will then have, using the formula for the future value of an annuity, $10,000 * [(1.07)^40 - 1] / 0.07, or about $2,000,000, which is much more comfortable. While Adam's strategy produces nearly guaranteed results, those results are actually guaranteed failure. Barbara's strategy is not a guarantee, but it has a good chance of producing a comfortable retirement. Even if her timing isn't great, over these time scales, the chances that she will have more money than Adam in the end are very high. (I won't produce a technical analysis of this claim, as it's a bit complicated. Do more research if you're interested.)",
"Like @chirs, I'm of the opinion that you might want to buy more. I've done this a couple of times, price dropped a bunch, and I said, heck, I bought some last week, and this week I can get twice as much stock for about the same price. Brought down my average cost per share, and when the company was taken private, I actually didn't lose money - unlike some other people I know, who only bought at one price, watched the drop, and held on awaiting a recovery (which didn't happen in time before the big money swooped in on it). But to do this, you need to keep cash reserves (that, like @afforess says, you can afford to lose all of) on hand, awaiting buying opportunities. This, too, is a cost - an opportunity cost.",
"\"Generally investing in index-tracking funds in the long term poses relatively low risk (compared to \"\"short term investment\"\", aka speculation). No-one says differently. However, it is a higher risk than money-market/savings/bonds. The reason for that is that the return is not guaranteed and loss is not limited. Here volatility plays part, as well as general market conditions (although the volatility risk also affects bonds at some level as well). While long term trend may be upwards, short term trend may be significantly different. Take as an example year 2008 for S&P500. If, by any chance, you needed to liquidate your investment in November 2008 after investing in November 1998 - you might have ended up with 0 gain (or even loss). Had you waited just another year (or liquidated a year earlier) - the result would be significantly different. That's the volatility risk. You don't invest indefinitely, even when you invest long term. At some point you'll have to liquidate your investment. Higher volatility means that there's a higher chance of downward spike just at that point of time killing your gains, even if the general trend over the period around that point of time was upward (as it was for S&P500, for example, for the period 1998-2014, with the significant downward spikes in 2003 and 2008). If you invest in major indexes, these kinds of risks are hard to avoid (as they're all tied together). So you need to diversify between different kinds of investments (bonds vs stocks, as the books \"\"parrot\"\"), and/or different markets (not only US, but also foreign).\"",
"The obvious risk is that you might buy at a time when the market is particularly high. Of course, you won't know that is the case until afterwards. A common way to reduce that risk is dollar cost averaging, where you buy gradually over a period of time."
] |
[
"The main advantage of commodities to a largely stock and bond portfolio is diversification and the main disadvantages are investment complexity and low long-term returns. Let's start with the advantage. Major commodities indices and the single commodities tend to be uncorrelated to stocks and bonds and will in general be diversifying especially over short periods. This relationship can be complex though as Supply can be even more complicated (think weather) so diversification may or may not work in your favor over long periods. However, trading in commodities can be very complex and expensive. Futures need to be rolled forward to keep an investment going. You really, really don't want to accidentally take delivery of 40000 pounds of cattle. Also, you need to properly take into account roll premiums (carry) when choosing the closing date for a future. This can be made easier by using commodities index ETFs but they can also have issues with rolling and generally have higher fees than stock index ETFs. Most importantly, it is worth understanding that the long-term return from commodities should be by definition (roughly) the inflation rate. With stocks and bonds you expect to make more than inflation over the long term. This is why many large institutions talk about commodities in their portfolio they often actually mean either short term tactical/algorithmic trading or long term investments in stocks closely tied to commodities production or processing. The two disadvantages above are why commodities are not recommended for most individual investors.",
"Another disadvantage is the inability to value commodities in an accounting sense. In contrast with stocks, bonds and real estate, commodities don't generate cash flows and so any valuation methodology is by definition speculative. But as rhaskett notes, there are diversification advantages. The returns for gold, for instance, tend to exhibit low/negative correlation with the performance of stocks. The question is whether the diversification advantage, which is the primary reason to hold commodities in a multi-asset class portfolio through time, overcomes the disadvantages? The answer... maybe."
] |
6683
|
Who are the sellers for the new public stocks?
|
[
"592187",
"77631"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"77631",
"592187",
"282565",
"239502",
"89533",
"100546",
"243115",
"99472",
"258563",
"287858",
"3495",
"320472",
"193312",
"451898",
"498752",
"558703",
"584836",
"21975",
"518242",
"553896",
"481339",
"169548",
"544172",
"475700",
"351055",
"68094",
"242040",
"482739",
"229119",
"529402",
"540799",
"337049",
"575554",
"90519",
"436536",
"132180",
"491644",
"571001",
"361843",
"48569",
"561205",
"386364",
"130303",
"5685",
"21189",
"493438",
"188776",
"496921",
"471247",
"386278",
"535110",
"566553",
"111773",
"313414",
"58686",
"195455",
"400841",
"547553",
"301985",
"119505",
"334162",
"189979",
"151132",
"48564",
"357706",
"499154",
"568526",
"568200",
"432727",
"386398",
"415684",
"13732",
"153559",
"200894",
"162612",
"407911",
"548596",
"371293",
"349147",
"105129",
"308814",
"497811",
"185583",
"25763",
"313919",
"201731",
"200832",
"484105",
"573079",
"46833",
"584135",
"369998",
"25195",
"261522",
"238517",
"137478",
"348673",
"502713",
"434596",
"560273"
] |
[
"\"Usually the big institution that \"\"floats\"\" the stock on the market is the one to offer it to you. The IPO company doesn't sell the stock itself, the big investment bank does it for them. IPO's shareholders/employees are generally not allowed to sell their shares at the IPO until some time passes. Then you usually see the sleuth of selling.\"",
"\"In an IPO the seller is the Company selling new shares. Some of the IPOs also include something called \"\"secondary\"\" sales which are existing holders selling at the same time at the IPO price. But that is a but more unusual. And as someone noted, the $68 is the price paid for the people who bought at the IPO (the aggregate group usually called the syndicate). The $85 is the price that it is trading at once there is trading in the open market. People that are able to get into the syndicate to buy the stock at $68 sometimes quickly sell if the price is much higher when trading starts. This is called \"\"flipping\"\" the stock. Hedge funds do this much more often than institutional buyers like Fidelity.\"",
"A company typically goes public in order to bring in additional capital. In an IPO, the company (through its officials) will typically do so by issuing additional shares, and offering to sell those to investors. If they did not do that, then there would be no net capital gain for the company; if person A sells share in company C to person B, then company C does not benefit directly from the exchange. By issuing and selling additional shares, the total value of all stock in the company can increase. Being publicly traded also greatly increases the confidence in the valuation of the company, as a consequence of the perfect market theory. There is nothing in this that says that initial investors (cofounders, employees, etc.) need to sell their shares in the process. They might choose to do so, or they might not; or they might be prevented from doing so by terms of any agreements that they have signed or by insider trading laws. Compare What happens to internal stock when a company goes public? Depending on specifics, it might be reasonable for the company to perform a share split prior to the initial public offering. That, however, doesn't affect the total value of the shares, only the price per share.",
"In order: A seller of the stock (duh!). You don't know who or why this stock was sold. It could be any reason, and is of no concern of yours. It doesn't matter. Investors (pension funds, hedge funds, individual investors, employees, management) sell stock for many reasons: need cash, litigation, differing objectives, sector rotation, etc. To you, this does not matter. Yes, it does affect stock market prices: If you were not willing to buy that amount of shares, and there were no other buyers at that price, the seller would likely choose to lower the price offered. By your purchase, you are supporting the price.",
"underwriters aren't subject to lock-up. They actually don't hold anything. They oversell at IPO, with their short position covered by the green shoe (an option from the company). If the deal does well, the underwriters exercise the green shoe to cover their short. If the deal runs into some pressure, they step in to support the price by buying back shares... thereby covering their short. So they are doing price support in the early days of a deal, but it is almost always paid for by the company granting them an option. But the underwriters aren't taking stock. Correct that typically all insiders and existing investors are expected to sign-up a lock-up.",
"\"A company doesn't offer up 100% of its shares to the market. There's a float amount of varying significance, maybe 30% of the shares are put up for public offer. Generally some amount of current shareholders will pledge some or all of their shares for offer to the public. This may be how the venture capital, private equity or other current investors cash out their initial investment. The company may issue new shares in order to raise money for some initiative. It may be a combination of existing shares and new. Additionally, a company may hold some \"\"treasury shares\"\" on its balance sheet. In this instance fluctuations in the share price directly affect the health of the balance sheet. As far as incentive goes, stock options to management and C-Suite employees keep everyone interested in an increasing stock price.\"",
"Investment banks don't have to buy anything. If they don't think the stock is worth buying - they won't. If they think it is - others on the secondary market will probably think so too. Initial public offering is offering to the public - i.e.: theoretically anyone can participate and purchase stocks. The major investment firms are not buying the stocks for themselves - but for their clients who are participating in this IPO. I, for example, receive email notifications from my brokerage firm each time there's another IPO that they have access to, and I can ask the brokerage to buy stocks from the IPO on my behalf. When that happens - they don't buy the stocks themselves and then sell to me. No, what happens is that I buy a stock, through them, and they charge me a commission for the service. Usually IPO participation commissions are higher than regular trading commissions. Most of the time those who purchase stocks at IPO are institutional investors - i.e.: mutual funds, pension plans, investment banks for their managed accounts, etc. Retail investors would probably not participate in the IPO because of the costs, limited access (not all the brokerage firms have access to all the IPOs), and the uncertainty, and rather purchase the stocks later on a secondary market.",
"\"Check your broker's IPO list. Adding a new stock to a stock exchange is called \"\"Initial Public Offering\"\" (IPO), and most brokers have a list of upcoming IPO's in which their clients can participate.\"",
"Should do it through a limit auction book. Management and shareholders pre ipo submit sealed limit sell orders. Buyers submit sealed limit buy orders, nobody can see where the price is going. At 9AM, the price is calculated and whomever fills get filled and ta da everyone is trading at 9:30 when the market is open.",
"The original investors and founders own them. Think about it this way - When you hear that an IPO priced at $10 opened at $50, is that 'good or 'bad'? Of course, it depends who you are. If you are the guy that got them at $10, you're happy. If you are the founder of the company, you are thinking the banker you paid to determine a market price for the IPO failed. Big. He blew it, basically as you just sold your company for 20% of the perceived value. But, instead of selling all the shares, just sell, say, 5%. Now, the IPO opening price is just a way to understand the true value of your company while keeping 95% of the upside once the market settles down to a regular trading pattern. You can slowly sell these shares into the market or you can use them as cash to take over other companies by buying with these shares instead of actual cash. Either way, the publicly traded shares should trade based on the total value of the company and the fraction they represent.",
"When a company IPOs the underwriters sell a given percentage on IPO day and shortly thereafter. Whatever is sold on IPO day trades freely. Insiders, employees and investors who bought before the IPO only sell a percentage of their shares on IPO day. They all also agree to 'lock up' the remainder for a period of time, so that not everyone is rushing to the exits right away. Well, if you're an employee you don't per-se agree, it's just how your stock options are setup and you don't really have a say in the matter.",
"\"In the case of an \"\"initial public offering\"\", the brokers underwriting the share issue will look at the current earnings being generated by the company and compare these to those of other competitor companies already listed in the stock market. For example, if a new telephone company is undertaking an initial public offering, then the share price of those telephone companies which are already traded on the stock market will serve as a reference for how much investors will be willing to pay for the new company's shares. If investors are willing to pay 15 times earnings for telecom shares, then this will be the benchmark used in determining the new share price. In addition, comparative growth prospects will be taken into account. Finally, the underwriter will want to see a successful sale, so they will tend to \"\"slightly under price\"\" the new shares in order to make them attractive. None of this is an exact science and we often see shares trading at a large premium to the initial offer price during the first few days of trading. More often that not, prices then settle down to something closer to the offer price. The initial price spike is usually the result of high demand for the shares by investors who believe that past examples of a price spike will repeat with this initial public offering. There will also usually be high demand for the new shares from funds that specialise in shares of the type being issued. In the case of a \"\"rights issue\"\", where an existing publicly traded company wishes to raise capital by issuing new shares, the company will price the new shares at a significant discount to the current market price. The new shares will be initially offered to existing shares holders and the discounted price is intended to encourage the existing shareholders to exercise their \"\"rights\"\" since the new shares may have the effect of diluting the value of their shares. Any shares which are not purchased by existing share holder will then be offered for sale in the market.\"",
"NYSE and Nasdaq are secondary markets where stocks are bought or sold. The process of creating new stocks via IPO or private placements etc are called Private Market.",
"\"Discussing individual stocks is discouraged here, so I'll make my answer somewhat generic. Keep in mind, some companies go public in a way that takes the shares that are held by the investment VCs (venture capitalists) and cashes them out of their positions, i.e. most if not all shares are made public. In that case, the day after IPO, the original investors have their money, and, short of the risk of being sued for fraud, could not care less what the stock does. Other companies float a small portion up front, and retain the rest. This is a way of creating a market and valuing the company, but not floating so many shares the market has trouble absorbing it. This stock has a \"\"Shares Outstanding\"\" of 2.74B but has only floated 757.21M. The nearly 2 billion shares held by the original investors certainly impact their wallets with how this IPO went. See the key statistics for the details.\"",
"After a company goes public, if it wants to raise more money, then it does this by secondary public offering or rights issue. In subscription rights issue gives the right to existing share holders to buy new shares at equal proportion. So if every one buys, they maintain the same percentage of ownership. Generally the pricing is at discount to current market price. Not sure why the price is high, unless the price for this stock fell sharply recently.",
"\"When you buy a share of stock, you are almost always buying from someone who previously purchased that share and now wants to sell it. The money -- minus broker's fee -- goes to that other investor, which may be a person, a company (rarely the company that issued the stock, but that will occasionally be the case), an investment fund, the \"\"market maker\"\" for that stock (websearch for definition of that term), or anyone else. They owned a small percentage of the company; you bought it from them and gave them the money for it, just as you would buy anything else. You don't know or care who you bought from; they don't know or care who they sold to; the market just found a buyer and seller who could agree on the price. There are a very few exceptions to that. The company may repurchase some of its own shares and/or sell them again, depending on its own financial needs and obligations. For example, my own employer has to purchase its own shares periodically so it has enough on hand to sell to employees at a slight discount through the Employee Stock Ownership Program. But you generally don't know that's who you're selling to; it happens like any other transaction. And during the Initial Public Offering, if you're lucky/privileged enough to get in on the first wave of purchases, you're buying from the investment bank that's managing this process ... though that's an almost vanishingly rare case for \"\"retail\"\" investors like us; we're more likely to get the shares after someone has already pushed the price up a bit. But really, when you buy a share the money goes to whoever you bought it from, and that's all you can know or need to know.\"",
"The reason a company creates more stock is to generate more capital so that this can be utilized and more returns can be generated. It is commonly done as a follow on public offer. Typically the funds are used to retire high cost debts and fund future expansion. What stops the company from doing it? Are Small investors cheated? It's like you have joined a car pool with 4 people and you are beliving that you own 1/4th of the total seats ... so when most of them decide that we would be better of using Minivan with 4 more persons, you cannot complain that you now only own 1/8 of the total seats. Even before you were having just one seat, and even after you just have one seat ... overall it maybe better as the ride would be good ... :)",
"\"In an IPO (initial public offering) or APO (additional public offering) situation, a small group of stakeholders (as few as one) basically decide to offer an additional number of \"\"shares\"\" of equity in the company. Usually, these \"\"shares\"\" are all equal; if you own one share you own a percentage of the company equal to that of anyone else who owns one share. The sum total of all shares, theoretically, equals the entire value of the company, and so with N shares in existence, one share is equivalent to 1/Nth the company, and entitles you to 1/Nth of the profits of the company, and more importantly to some, gives you a vote in company matters which carries a weight of 1/Nth of the entire shareholder body. Now, not all of these shares are public. Most companies have the majority (51%+) of shares owned by a small number of \"\"controlling interests\"\". These entities, usually founding owners or their families, may be prohibited by agreement from selling their shares on the open market (other controlling interests have right of first refusal). For \"\"private\"\" companies, ALL the shares are divided this way. For \"\"public\"\" companies, the remainder is available on the open market, and those shares can be bought and sold without involvement by the company. Buyers can't buy more shares than are available on the entire market. Now, when a company wants to make more money, a high share price at the time of the issue is always good, for two reasons. First, the company only makes money on the initial sale of a share of stock; once it's in a third party's hands, any profit from further sale of the stock goes to the seller, not the company. So, it does little good to the company for its share price to soar a month after its issue; the company's already made its money from selling the stock. If the company knew that its shares would be in higher demand in a month, it should have waited, because it could have raised the same amount of money by selling fewer shares. Second, the price of a stock is based on its demand in the market, and a key component of that is scarcity; the fewer shares of a company that are available, the more they'll cost. When a company issues more stock, there's more shares available, so people can get all they want and the demand drops, taking the share price with it. When there's more shares, each share (being a smaller percentage of the company) earns less in dividends as well, which figures into several key metrics for determining whether to buy or sell stock, like earnings per share and price/earnings ratio. Now, you also asked about \"\"dilution\"\". That's pretty straightforward. By adding more shares of stock to the overall pool, you increase that denominator; each share becomes a smaller percentage of the company. The \"\"privately-held\"\" stocks are reduced in the same way. The problem with simply adding stocks to the open market, getting their initial purchase price, is that a larger overall percentage of the company is now on the open market, meaning the \"\"controlling interests\"\" have less control of their company. If at any time the majority of shares are not owned by the controlling interests, then even if they all agree to vote a certain way (for instance, whether or not to merge assets with another company) another entity could buy all the public shares (or convince all existing public shareholders of their point of view) and overrule them. There are various ways to avoid this. The most common is to issue multiple types of stock. Typically, \"\"common\"\" stock carries equal voting rights and equal shares of profits. \"\"Preferred stock\"\" typically trades a higher share of earnings for no voting rights. A company may therefore keep all the \"\"common\"\" stock in private hands and offer only preferred stock on the market. There are other ways to \"\"class\"\" stocks, most of which have a similar tradeoff between earnings percentage and voting percentage (typically by balancing these two you normalize the price of stocks; if one stock had better dividends and more voting weight than another, the other stock would be near-worthless), but companies may create and issue \"\"superstock\"\" to controlling interests to guarantee both profits and control. You'll never see a \"\"superstock\"\" on the open market; where they exist, they are very closely held. But, if a company issues \"\"superstock\"\", the market will see that and the price of their publicly-available \"\"common stock\"\" will depreciate sharply. Another common way to increase market cap without diluting shares is simply to create more shares than you issue publicly; the remainder goes to the current controlling interests. When Facebook solicited outside investment (before it went public), that's basically what happened; the original founders were issued additional shares to maintain controlling interests (though not as significant), balancing the issue of new shares to the investors. The \"\"ideal\"\" form of this is a \"\"stock split\"\"; the company simply multiplies the number of shares it has outstanding by X, and issues X-1 additional shares to each current holder of one share. This effectively divides the price of one share by X, lowering the barrier to purchase a share and thus hopefully driving up demand for the shares overall by making it easier for the average Joe Investor to get their foot in the door. However, issuing shares to controlling interests increases the total number of shares available, decreasing the market value of public shares that much more and reducing the amount of money the company can make from the stock offering.\"",
"\"There are two kinds of engagements in an IPO. The traditional kind where the Banks assume the risks of unsold shares. Money coming out of their pockets to hold shares no one wants. That is the main risk. No one buying the stock that the bank is holding. Secondly, there is a \"\"best efforts\"\" engagement. This means that bank will put forth its best effort to sell the shares, but will not be on the hook if any don't sell. This is used for small cap / risky companies. Source: Author/investment banker\"",
"Some brokers have a number of shares they can offer their customers, but the small guy will get 100, not as many as they'd like. In the Tech bubble of the late 90's I was able to buy in to many IPOs, but the written deal from the broker is that you could not sell for 30 days or you'd be restricted from IPO purchases for the next 90. No matter what the stock opened at, there were a fair number of stocks thay were below IPO issue price after 30 days had passed. I haven't started looking at IPOs since the tech flameout, but had I gotten in to LinkedIn it would have been at that $45 price. Let's see if it stays at these levels after 30 days. Edit - This is the exact cut/paste from my broker's site : Selling IPO Shares: While XXX customers are always free to sell shares purchased in a public offering at any time, short holding periods of less than 31 calendar days will be a factor in determining whether XXX allocates you shares in future public offerings. Accordingly, if you sell IPO shares purchased in a public offering within 30 calendar days of such purchase, you will be restricted from participating in initial and secondary public offerings through XXX for a period of 3 months. (I deleted the broker name) I honestly don't know if I'd have gotten any LI shares. Next interesting one is Pandora.",
"There's an odd anomaly that often occurs with shares acquired through company plans via ESPP or option purchase. The general situation is that the share value above strike price or grant price may become ordinary income, but a sale below the price at day the shares are valued is a capital loss. e.g. in an ESPP offering, I have a $10 purchase price, but at the end of the offering, the shares are valued at $100. Unless I hold the shares for an additional year, the sale price contains ordinary W2 income. So, if I see the shares falling and sell for $50, I have a tax bill for $90 of W2 income, but a $50 capital loss. Tax is due on $90 (and for 1K shares, $90,000 which can be a $30K hit) but that $50K loss can only be applied to cap gains, or $3K/yr of income. In the dotcom bubble, there were many people who had million dollar tax bills and the value of the money netted from the sale couldn't even cover the taxes. And $1M in losses would take 300 years at $3K/yr. The above is one reason the lockup date expiration is why shares get sold. And one can probably profit on the bigger companies stock. Edit - see Yelp down 3% following expiration of 180 day IPO lock-up period, for similar situation.",
"Your impression about banks and bankers is very wrong. Wall street banks can and often do lose in transactions. In fact, banks go bankrupt and/or require massive bailouts to survive because they sometimes lose a ton of money. The business of investment banking often involves bearing risk for customers, which, by definition, means they lose some of the time. Generally the risks they take on individual transactions are not large enough to bring the whole bank down, but sometimes they are. Banking is a job like any other, except that it has more risk than most. Anyway, to your point, how do underwriters make money on shares that fall in value before the sale? On the commission. The issuing company will normally pay the investment bank a percentage of the funds raised in the offering, regardless of the price. Of course, it's possible for the bank to still lose money if their contract stipulates a minimum price and they are not able to meet it. In that case, the bank may lose on that offering, contradicting your preconceived notion. By the way, one other question implicit in your post: Why was the secondary offering considered bad news? If the CEO and other insiders have private information that indicates that the stock is overvalued, then doing a secondary offering at the inflated price will greatly enrich them. Because this happens some times, investors are wary about secondary offerings. This makes companies that would otherwise do a secondary offering shy away from it, even if shares are not overpriced. Therefore if a company is doing a secondary offering, the market is likely to worry that the stock is overvalued even at a reduced price.",
"Did you see the I don't know part, as in, I don't know what the right solution? The ups were probably from people like me, who aren't experts in the market either, but still see a fundamental disconnect between what's happening now and what the presumed purpose of the market was claimed to be - a funds raising mechanism for companies.",
"Underwriters cannot win. If the stock goes down, people blame them for overpricing and fleecing the investors. If the stock goes up, people blame them for underpricing and fleecing the company. They are playing both sides, so one side is likely to be more happy than the other side. They are bankers, so people will always find a reason to hate them.",
"Thanks for the link. The way I interpretet is like this: IPOs are underpriced to make sure they will sell all the shares to the market, avoiding lose of face. (short term andslide 4) But that doesn't mean it is a good investment in the long run, because these companies have their reasons to go public, and one of those reasons could be that they think the market is overpricing stocks (long term and slide 5) There are of course other reasons, one of them to finance the business. By the way, I think the data is heavily skewed because of the dotcom crash, but interesting nonetheless.",
"Depending on your perspective of it, I can see reasons for and against this idea. Only with the benefit of hindsight can one say how wise or unwise it is to do so. Earlier in my career, I invested and lost it all. Understand if you do buy when would you be able to sell, do you have to have an account with the underwriter, what fees may there be in having such an account, and would there be restrictions on when you could sell.",
"Oh woohooo . . .and its all a great investment AAA . .you have to buy and when we do . .it goes straight down because we find the biggest seller was Morgan and Stanley Yah. . .we know that game really well now . .always buy the good news Build some fucking public toilets",
"\"There is one other factor that I haven't seen mentioned here. It's easy to assume that if you buy a stock, then someone else (another stock owner) must have sold it to you. This is not true however, because there are people called \"\"market makers\"\" whose basic job is to always be available to buy shares from those who wish to sell, and sell shares to those who wish to buy. They could be selling you shares they just bought from someone else, but they also could simply be issuing shares from the company itself, that have never been bought before. This is a super oversimplified explanation, but hopefully it illustrates my point.\"",
"Market Watch has an IPO calender with details of upcoming IPOs that should provide most of the information you need.",
"It depends a large part on your broker's relationship with the issuing bank how early you can participate in the IPO round. But the nature of the stock market means the hotter the stock and the closer to the market (away from the issuing bank) you have to buy the higher the price you'll pay. The stock market is a secondary market, meaning the only things for sale are shares already owned by someone. As a result, for a hot stock the individual investor will have to wait for another investor (not the issuing bank) to trade (sell) the stock.",
"When there are no buyers, you can't sell your shares, and you'll be stuck with them until there is some interest from other investors. In this link describes clearly: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/03/053003.asp",
"Say I am an employee of Facebook and I will be able to sell stares at enough of a profit to pay of my mortgage and have enough money left to cover my living costs for many years. I also believe that there is a 95% chance that the stock price will go up in the next few years. Do I take a 5% risk, when I can transform my life without taking any risk? (The USA tax system as explained by JoeTaxpayer increases the risk.) So you have a person being very logical and selling stocks that they believe will go up in value by more than any other investment they could have. It is called risk control. (Lot of people will know the above; therefore some people will delay buying stock until Lock Up expiration day hoping the price will be lower on that day. So the price may not go down.)",
"Selling stock means selling a portion of ownership in your company. Any time you issue stock, you give up some control, unless you're issuing non-voting stock, and even non-voting stock owns a portion of the company. Thus, issuing (voting) shares means either the current shareholders reduce their proportion of owernship, or the company reissues stock it held back from a previous offering (in which case it no longer has that stock available to issue and thus has less ability to raise funds in the future). From Investopedia, for exmaple: Secondary offerings in which new shares are underwritten and sold dilute the ownership position of stockholders who own shares that were issued in the IPO. Of course, sometimes a secondary offering is more akin to Mark Zuckerberg selling some shares of Facebook to allow him to diversify his holdings - the original owner(s) sell a portion of their holdings off. That does not dilute the ownership stake of others, but does reduce their share of course. You also give up some rights to dividends etc., even if you issue non-voting stock; of course that is factored into the price presumably (either the actual dividend or the prospect of eventually getting a dividend). And hopefully more growth leads to more dividends, though that's only true if the company can actually make good use of the incoming funds. That last part is somewhat important. A company that has a good use for new funds should raise more funds, because it will turn those $100 to $150 or $200 for everyone, including the current owners. But a company that doesn't have a particular use for more money would be wasting those funds, and probably not earning back that full value for everyone. The impact on stock price of course is also a major factor and not one to discount; even a company issuing non-voting stock has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the interest of those non-voting shareholders, and so should not excessively dilute their value.",
"\"IPO is \"\"Initial Public Offering\"\". Just so you know. The valuations are done based on the company business model, intellectual property, products, market shares, revenues and profits, assets, and future projections. You know, the usual stuff. Yes, it is. And very frequently done. In fact, I can't think of any company that is now publicly traded, that didn't start this way. The first investor, the one who founds the company, is the first one who invests in it after raising the capital (even if it is from his own bank account to pay the fees for filing the incorporation papers). What is the difference between \"\"normal\"\" investor and \"\"angel\"\"? What do you refer to as \"\"angel\"\"? How is it abnormal to you? Any investor can play a role, depending on the stake he/she has in the company. If the stake is large enough - the role will be significant. If the stake is the majority - the investor will in fact be able major decisions regarding the company. How he bought the stocks, whether through a closed offering, initial investment or on a stock exchange - doesn't matter at all. You may have heard of the term \"\"angels\"\" with regards to high-tech start up companies. These are private investors (not funds) that invest their own money in start ups at very early stages. They're called \"\"angels\"\" because they invest at stages at which it is very hard for entrepreneurs to raise money: there's no product, no real business, usually it is a stage of just an idea or a patent with maybe initial prototype and some preliminary business analysis. These people gamble, in a sense, and each investment is very small (relatively to their wealth) - tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes a hundred or two thousands, and they make a lot of these. Some may fail and they lose the money, but those that succeed - bring very high returns. Imagine investing 10K for 5% stake at Google 15 years ago. Those people are as investors as anyone else, and yes, depending on their stake in the company, they can influence its decisions.\"",
"Whenever a large number of shares to be sold hit the market at the same time the expectation is that the price for each share will drop. The employees in a normal market would be expected to sell some of their shares at the first opportunity. Because during the dot com boom some companies employees were able to become millionaires, every employee at a tech IPO hopes to be richly rewarded. If the long term prospects of the stock price are viewed by the employees as a continuous path up, then the percentage of shares that will hit the market is low. They do want some instant cash, but want the bulk of the shares to capture future growth. The more dismal the long term price lookout is, the greater the percentage of shares that will hit the market. The general consensus is that as each of the Lock Ups expires a significant percentage of shares will be sold, and the price will suffer a short term drop.",
"\"Will the investment bank evaluate the worth of my company more than or less than 50 crs. Assuming the salvage value of the assets of 50 crs (meaning that's what you could sell them for to someone else), that would be the minimum value of your company (less any outstanding debts). There are many ways to calculate the \"\"value\"\" of a company, but the most common one is to look at the future potential for generating cash. The underwriters will look at what your current cash flow projections are, and what they will be when you invest the proceeds from the public offering back into the company. That will then be used to determine the total value of the company, and in turn the value of the portion that you are taking public. And what will be the owner’s share in the resulting public company? That's completely up to you. You're essentially selling a part of the company in order to bring cash in, presumably to invest in assets that will generate more cash in the future. If you want to keep complete control of the company, then you'll want to sell less than 50% of the company, otherwise you can sell as much or as little as you want.\"",
"Underwriters get blamed for underpriced IPOs, management for overpriced. People tend to target their opprobrium at whomever benefits the most, whether that opprobrium is fair or not. Kind of silly because the real discussion should be about how to find a new way of doing IPOs that actually works.",
"An Initial Public Offering (IPO), is the perfect first marketing of shares by the secretly purchased company to the public. The companies going public hick finance through IPO's for working capital, debt repayment, acquisitions, and a manager of other uses. If you want to learn the fundamental of the IPO best site is W3Teachers.com. For more INFO. visit :-http://www.w3teachers.com/IPO/IPO-DASHBOARD",
"A company generally sells a portion of its ownership in an IPO, with existing investors retaining some ownership. In your example, they believe that the entire company is worth $25MM, so in order to raise $3MM it is issuing stock representing 12% of the ownership stake (3/25), which dilutes some or all of the existing stockholders' claims.",
"Most businesses want to grow, and there are a variety of ways to raise the money needed to hire new employees and otherwise invest in the business to increase the rate of that growth. You as a stock holder should hope that management is choosing the least expensive option for growth. Some of the options are debt, selling equity to venture capitalists, or selling equity on the open market (going public). If they choose debt, they pay interest on that debt. If they choose to sell equity to venture capitalists, then your shares get diluted, but hopefully the growth makes up for some of that dilution. If they choose to go public, dilution is still a concern, but the terms are usually a little more favorable for the company selling because the market is so liquid. In the US, current regulations for publicly traded companies cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $1M/year, so that's the rule of thumb for considering whether going public makes sense when calculating the cost of fundraising, but as mentioned, regulations make it less advantageous for executives who choose to sell their shares after the company goes public. (They can't sell when good spot prices appear.) Going public is often considered the next step for a company that has grown past the initial venture funding phase, but if cash-flow is good, plenty of companies decide to just reinvest profits and skip the equity markets altogether.",
"Let's clarify some things. Companies allow for the public to purchase their shares through Initial Public Offering (IPO) (first-time) and Seasoned Public Offering (SPO) (all other times). They choose however many shares they want to issue depending on the amount of capital they want to raise. What this means is that the current owners give up some ownership % in exchange for cash (usually). In the course of IPOs and SPOs, it can happen that the public will not buy all shares if there is very little interest, but I would assume that the more probable scenario if very little interest is present is that the shares' value would take a big drop on their issuance date from the proposed IPO/SPO price. After those shares are bought by the public, they are traded on Exchanges which are a secondary and (mostly) do not affect the underlying company. The shares are exchanged from John Doe to Jane Doe as John Doe believes the market value for those shares will take a direction that Jane Doe believes in the opposite. Generally speaking, markets will find an equilibrium price where you can reasonably easily buy-sell securities as the price is not too far from what most participants in the market believe it should be. In cases where all participants agree on the direction (most often in case of a crash) it can be hard to find a party to make a trade with. Say a company just announced negative news with long-lasting effects on the business there will be a surge in sell orders with very few buyers. If you are willing to buy, you will likely very easily find a trading partner but if you are trying to sell instead then you will have to compete for the lowest price against all other sellers. All that to say that in such cases, while shares are technically sellable / purchasable, the end result can be that no shares are purchasable.",
"Who determines company value at IPO? The Owners based on the advice from Lead Bankers and other Independent auditors who would determine the value of the company at the time of listing. At times instead of determining a fixed price a range is given [lower side and higher side]. The Market participants [FI / Institutional Investor Segments] then decide the price by bidding at an amount. There are multiple aspects in play that help stabalize the IPO and roles of various parties. A quick read of question with IPO tag is recommended Edits: Generally at a very broad level, one of the key purpose of the IPO is to either encash Owner equity [Owner wants some profits immediately] or Raise additional Capital. More often it is a mix of both. If the price is too low, one loose out on getting the true value, this would go to someone else. If the price is too high, then it may not attract enough buyers or even there are buyers, there is substantial -ve sentiment. This is not good for the company. Read the question From Facebook's perspective, was the fall in price after IPO actually an indication that it went well? This puts determining the price of IPO more in the realm of art than science. There are various mechanism [Lead bankers, Institutional Investors, Underwriters] the a company would put in place to ensure the IPO is success and that itself would moderate the price to realistic level. More often the price is kept slightly lower to create a positive buzz about the stock.",
"The core issue is to understand what 'selling a share' means. There is no special person or company that takes the share from you; you are selling on the open market. So your question is effectively 'can I find a guy on the street that buys a 10$-bill for 11$ ?' - Well, maybe someone is dumb enough, but chances are slim.",
"A consortium of investment banks go on a road show to their clients to see who's interested at which price in the IPO. The arrange this price through various financial models to determine the market value of the company. The banks price the offering deliberately low to ensure a pop on the open of trading to send a positive signal to the market. This is their story at least, IPOs mispriced on the low side result in less money for the company making the offering. I think a better way to perform an IPO is the way google did the theirs; a reverse auction. This is the same way the treasury sells bonds and definitely would put more money in the companies and less in the banks. Unfortunately the banks don't love the idea and you need a lot of clout to get them to change their minds.",
"\"I'll skip the \"\"authorizing....\"\" and go right to uses of new shares: Companies need stock as another liquid asset for a variety of purposes, and if not enough stock is available, then may be forced to the open market to acquire, either by exchanging cash or taking on debt to get the cash.\"",
"A Company start with say $100. Lets say the max it can borrow from bank is $100 @ $10 a year as Interest. After a years say, On the $200 the company made a profit of $110. So it now has total $310 Option 1: Company pays back the Bank $100 + $10. It further gave away the $100 back to shareholders as dividends. The Balance with company $100. It can again start the second year, borrow from Bank $100 @ 10 interest and restart. Option 2: Company pays back the Bank $100 + $10. It now has $200. It can now borrow $200 from Bank @ $20. After a year it makes a profit of $250. [Economics of scale result $30 more] Quite a few companies in growth phase use Option 2 as they can grow faster, achieve economies of scale, keep competition at bay, etc Now if I had a share of this company say 1 @ $1, by end of first year its value would be $2, at the end of year 2 it would be $3.3. Now there is someone else who wants to buy this share at end of year 1. I would say this share gives me 100% returns every year, so I will not sell at $2. Give me $3 at the end of first year. The buyer would think well, if I buy this at $3, first year I would notionally get $.3 and from then on $1 every year. Not bad. This is still better than other stocks and better than Bank CD etc ... So as long as the company is doing well and expected to do well in future its price keeps on increasing as there is someone who want to buy. Why would someone want to sell and not hold one: 1. Needs cash for buying house or other purposes, close to retirement etc 2. Is balancing the portfolio to make is less risk based 3. Quite a few similar reasons Why would someone feel its right to buy: 1. Has cash and is young is open to small risk 2. Believes the value will still go up further 3. Quite a few similar reasons",
"Companies need to go public before you can buy their shares on a public stock exchange, but all companies have shares, even if there's only one share. And anyone who owns those shares can give them to whoever they like (there are generally restrictions on selling shares in unlisted companies to unsophisticated investors, but not on giving them away).",
"\"The hardest part seems to be knowing exactly when to sell the stock. Well yes, that's the problem with all stock investing. Reports come out all the time, sometimes even from very smart people with no motivation to lie, about expected earnings for this company, or for that industry. Whether those predictions come true is something you will only find out with time. What you are considering is using financial information available to you (and equally available to the public) to make investment choices. This is called 'fundamental analysis'; that is, the analysis of the fundamentals of a business and what it should be worth. It forms the basis of how many investment firms decide where to put their money. In a perfectly 'efficient' market, all information available to the public is immediately factored into the market price for that company's stock. ie: if a bank report states with absolute certainty (through leaked documents) that Coca-Cola is going to announce 10% revenue growth tomorrow, then everyone will immediately buy Coca-Cola stock today, and then tomorrow there would be no impact. Even if PwC is 100% accurate in its predictions, if the rest of the market agrees with them, then the price at the time of IPO would equal the future value of the cashflows, meaning there would be no gain unless results surpassed expectations. So what you are proposing is to take one sliver of the information available to the public (have you also read all publicly available reports on those businesses and their industries?), and using that to make a high risk investment. Are you going to do better than the investment firms that have teams of researchers and years of experience in the investment world? You can do quite well by picking individual stocks, but you can also lose a lot of money if you do it haphazardly. Be aware that there is risk in doing any type of investing. There is higher than average risk if you invest in equities ('the stock market'). There is higher risk still, if you pick individual stocks. There is yet even higher risk, if you pick small startup companies. There are some specific interesting side-elements with your proposal to purchase stock about to have an IPO - those are better dealt with in a separate question if you want more information; search this site for 'IPO' and you should find a good starting point. In short, the company about to go public will hire a firm of analysts who will try to calculate the best price the public will accept for an offering of shares. Stock often goes up after IPO, but not always. Sometimes the company doesn't even fill its full IPO order, adding a new type of risk to a potential investor, that the stock will drop on day 1. Consider an analogy outside the investing world: Let's say Auto Trader magazine prints an article that says \"\"all 2015 Honda Civics are worth $15,000 if they have less than 50,000 Miles.\"\" Assume you have no particular knowledge about cars. If you read this article, and you see an ad in the paper the next day for a Honda Civic with 40k miles, should you buy it for $14k? The answer is not without more research. And even if you determine enough about cars to find one for $14k that you can reasonably sell for $15k, there's a whole world of mechanics out there who buy and sell cars for a living, and they have an edge both because they can repair the cars themselves to sell for more, and also because they have experience to spot low-offers faster than you. And if you pick a clunker (or a stock that doesn't perform even when everyone expected it would), then you could lose some serious money. As with buying and selling individual stocks, there is money to be made from car trading, but that money gets made by people who really know what they're doing. People who go in without full information are the ones who lose money in the long run.\"",
"The purpose is to go public but also to generate more wealth. The real money comes when market values you at a price more than your cash flow. If a company brings in $1000 of cash flow, then that is what the employees and owners have to distribute among themselves. But if they are likely to increase to $2000 next and $4000 next year and they go public then the stock will do well. In this case, the promoters and employees with options/RSUs will benefit as well. The increased visibility is also very useful. Look at Google or FB. They didn't need the IPO proceed when they went public. They had enough cash from their business but then they would only have $1-10 billion a year. But due to the IPO their investors and employees have a huge net worth. Basically, with just a small % of shares in the public you can value the company at a high price valuing in the future cash flows (with a discount rate etc.). So instead of realizing the profit over the next 15 years, you get to enjoy it right away.",
"how do they turn shares into cash that they can then use to grow their business? Once a Company issues an IPO or Follow-On Public Offer, the company gets the Money. Going over the list of question tagged IPO would help you with basics. Specifically the below questions; How does a company get money by going public in an IPO? Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market? Why would a stock opening price differ from the offering price? From what I've read so far, it seems that pre-IPO an investment bank essentially buys the companies public shares, and that bank then sells them on the open market. Is the investment bank buying 100% of the newly issued public shares? And then depositing the cash equivalent into the companies bank account? Additionally, as the stock price rises and falls over the lifetime of the company how does that actually impact the companies bank balance? Quite a bit on above is incorrect. Please read the answers to the question tagged IPO. Once an IPO is over, the company does not gain anything directly from the change in shareprice. There is indirect gain / loss.",
"Let’s turn this round. Now what if the only people willing to own part of company are doing it due to the expectation that they will make money in the short term form the company….",
"The other answer has some good points, to which I'll add this: I believe you're only considering a company's Initial Public Offering (IPO), when shares are first offered to the public. An IPO is the way most companies get a public listing on the stock market. However, companies often go to market again and again to issue/sell more shares, after their IPO. These secondary offerings don't make as many headlines as an IPO, but they are typical-enough occurrences in markets. When a company goes back to the market to raise additional funds (perhaps to fund expansion), the value of the company's existing shares that are being traded is a good indicator of what they may expect to get for a secondary offering of shares. A company about to raise money desires a higher share price, because that will permit them to issue less shares for the amount of money they need. If the share price drops, they would need to issue more shares for the same amount of money – and dilute existing owners' share of the overall equity further. Also, consider corporate acquisitions: When one company wants to buy another, instead of the transaction being entirely in cash (maybe they don't have that much in the bank!), there's often an equity component, which involves swapping shares of the company being acquired for new shares in the acquiring company or merged company. In that case, the values of the shares in the public marketplace also matter, to provide relative valuations for the companies, etc.",
"There are different types of agreements. Sometimes an underwriter will simply try to find buyers. Other times an underwriter will guarantee that all shares will be sold at some price. If this is the case and they do not find enough buyers, the underwriter will buy the remaining shares.",
"I'm going to have to take you to task for this post. If someone is incapable of determining the implied current P/E in the IPO price then they should not be buying stocks. You cannot blame Wall Street for the greed and stupidity of the public.",
"That's the problem with IPOs. Professionals are very bad at valuing companies, particularly prospectively. That's Daniel Kahneman's whole point about how no one beats the market. Yet, we expect the same types of professionals who can't beat the market to set the price for the market.",
"\"The company gets the proceeds from the sales of shares on the open market. If a company is selling 1,000,000 shares at $12/share then they will receive $12,000,000 from the underwriter minus some fees that the underwriter will collect. The part that ties into valuation is to consider what percentage is the company selling of itself that is coming from its own holdings. If the company is putting out 10% of its shares in the IPO from treasury holdings on a $10B valuation then it will get $1B minus the fees I'd suspect. Where I worked in late 1990s/early 2000s had an IPO where the underwriter did a bridge loan and the IPO so that the company didn't get all the money raised but did get enough to run operations for a while before ending operations. Public Offering notes that after an IPO other offerings would be called \"\"seasoned equity offering\"\" that may or may not be dilutive as they could come from new or existing shares.\"",
"Is it normal for such transactions to create new outstanding shares? Yes a company can create new shares or a Majority share holder can sell some of his stake or it can be a mix of both. how will this news affect the short-term and long-term price of the company's stock? This is opinion based and not apt for this site. It can be positive or negative depending on how the market reacts to the news.",
"\"Most of the investors who have large holdings in a particular stock have pretty good exit strategies for those positions to ensure they are getting the best price they can by selling gradually into the volume over time. Putting a single large block of stock up for sale is problematic for one simple reason: Let's say you have 100,000 shares of a stock, and for some reason you decide today is the day to sell them, take your profits, and ride off into the sunset. So you call your broker (or log into your brokerage account) and put them up for sale. He puts in an order somewhere, the stock is sold, and your account is credited. Seems simple, right? Well...not so fast. Professionals - I'm keeping this simple, so please don't beat me up for it! The way stocks are bought and sold is through companies known as \"\"market makers\"\". These are entities which sit between the markets and you (and your broker), and when you want to buy or sell a stock, most of the time the order is ultimately handled somewhere along the line by a market maker. If you work with a large brokerage firm, sometimes they'll buy or sell your shares out of their own accounts, but that's another story. It is normal for there to be many, sometimes hundreds, of market makers who are all trading in the same equity. The bigger the stock, the more market makers it attracts. They all compete with each other for business, and they make their money on the spread between what they buy stock from people selling for and what they can get for it selling it to people who want it. Given that there could be hundreds of market makers on a particular stock (Google, Apple, and Microsoft are good examples of having hundreds of market makers trading in their stocks), it is very competitive. The way the makers compete is on price. It might surprise you to know that it is the market makers, not the markets, that decide what a stock will buy or sell for. Each market maker sets their own prices for what they'll pay to buy from sellers for, and what they'll sell it to buyers for. This is called, respectively, the \"\"bid\"\" and the \"\"ask\"\" prices. So, if there are hundreds of market makers then there could be hundreds of different bid and ask prices on the same stock. The prices you see for stocks are what are called the \"\"best bid and best ask\"\" prices. What that means is, you are being shown the highest \"\"bid\"\" price (what you can sell your shares for) and the best \"\"ask\"\" price (what you can buy those shares for) because that's what is required. That being said, there are many other market makers on the same stock whose bid prices are lower and ask prices are higher. Many times there will be a big clump of market makers all at the same bid/ask, or within fractions of a cent of each other, all competing for business. Trading computers are taught to seek out the best prices and the fastest trade fills they can. The point to this very simplistic lesson is that the market makers set the prices that shares trade at. They adjust those prices based (among other factors) on how much buying and selling volume they're seeing. If they see a wave of sell orders coming into the system then they'll start marking down their bid prices. This keeps them from paying too much for shares they're going to have to find a buyer for eventually, and it can sometimes slow down the pace of selling as investors and automated systems notice the price decline and decide to wait to sell. Conversely, if market makers see a wave of buy orders coming into the system, they'll start marking their ask prices up to maximize their gains, since they're selling you shares they bought from someone else, presumably at a lower price. But they typically adjust their prices up or down before they actually fill trades. (sneaky, eh?) Depending on how much volume there is on the shares of the company you're selling, and depending on whether there are more buyers than sellers at the moment, your share sell order may be filled at market by a market maker with no real consequence to the share's price. If the block is large enough then it's possible it will not all sell to one market maker, or it might not all happen in one transaction or even all at the same price. This is a pretty complex subject, as you can see, and I've cut a LOT of corners and oversimplified much to keep it comprehensible. But the short answer to your question is -- it depends. Hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"Stock trades are always between real buyers and real sellers. In thinly-traded small stocks, for example, you may not always be able to find a buyer when you want to sell. For most public companies, there is enough volume that individual investors can just about always fill their market orders.",
"Yes, that is correct. There is no limit. An initial public offering of common stock by a company means that these shares remain outstanding for as long as the company wishes. The exceptions are through corporate actions, most commonly either",
"Here is an example for you. We have a fictional company. It's called MoneyCorp. Its job is to own money, and that's all. Right now it owns $10,000. It doesn't do anything special with that $10,000 - it stores it in a bank account, and whenever it earns interest gives it to the shareholders as a dividend. Also, it doesn't have any expenses at all, and doesn't pay taxes, and is otherwise magic so that it doesn't have to worry about distractions from its mathematical perfection. There are 10,000 shares of MoneyCorp, each worth exactly $1. However, they may trade for more or less than $1 on the stock market, because it's a free market and people trading stock on the stock market can trade at whatever price two people agree on. Scenario 1. MoneyCorp wants to expand. They sell 90,000 shares for $1 each. The money goes in the same bank account at the same interest rate. Do the original shareholders see a change? No. 100,000 shares, $100,000, still $1/share. No problem. This is the ideal situation. Scenario 2: MoneyCorp sells 90,000 shares for less than the current price, $0.50 each. Do the original shareholders lose out? YES. It now has something like $55,000 and 100,000 shares. Each share is now worth $0.55. The company has given away valuable equity to new shareholders. That's bad. Why didn't they get more money from those guys? Scenario 3: MoneyCorp sells 90,000 shares for more than the current price, $2 each, because there's a lot of hype about its business. MoneyCorp now owns $190,000 in 100,000 shares and each share is worth $1.90. Existing shareholders win big! This is why a company would like to make its share offering at the highest price possible (think, Facebook IPO). Of course, the new shareholders may be disappointed. MoneyCorp is actually a lot like a real business! Actually, if you want to get down to it, MoneyCorp works very much like a money-market fund. The main difference between MoneyCorp and a random company on the stock market is that we know exactly how much money MoneyCorp is worth. You don't know that with a real business: sales may grow, sales may drop, input prices may rise and fall, and there's room for disagreement - that's why stock markets are as unpredictable as they are, so there's room for doubt when a company sells their stock at a price existing shareholders think is too cheap (or buys it at a price that is too expensive). Most companies raising capital will end up doing something close to scenario 1, the fair-prices-for-everyone scenario. Legally, if you own part of a company and they do something a Scenario-2 on you... you may be out of luck. Consider also: the other owners are probably hurt as much as you are. Only the new shareholders win. And unless the management approving the deal is somehow giving themselves a sweetheart deal, it'll be hard to demonstrate any malfeasance. As an individual, you probably won't file a lawsuit either, unless you own a very large stake in the company. Lawsuits are expensive. A big institutional investor or activist investor of some sort may file a suit if millions of dollars are at stake, but it'll be ugly at best. If there's nothing evil going on with the management, this is just one way that a company loses money from bad management. It's probably not the most important one to worry about.",
"I didn't say only the IPO I just said public offerings. Trades between secondary investors would be taxed at a higher level. I also understand the difference between loaning money to a company and investing in equity. Personally I think that loans are underused in today's investment world because people are too focused on getting the most out of the few big winners.",
"\"First, keep in mind that there are generally 2 ways to buy a corporation's shares: You can buy a share directly from the corporation. This does not happen often; it usually happens at the Initial Public Offering [the first time the company becomes \"\"public\"\" where anyone with access to the stock exchange can become a part-owner], plus maybe a few more times during the corporations existence. In this case, the corporation is offering new ownership in exchange for a price set the corporation (or a broker hired by the corporation). The price used for a public offering is the highest amount that the company believes it can get - this is a very complicated field, and involves many different methods of evaluating what the company should be worth. If the company sets the price too low, then they have missed out on possible value which would be earned by the previous, private shareholders (they would have gotten the same share % of a corporation which would now have more cash to spend, because of increased money paid by new shareholders). If the company sets the price too high, then the share subscription might only be partially filled, so there might not be enough cash to do what the company wanted. You can buy a share from another shareholder. This is more common - when you see the company's share price on the stock exchange, it is this type of transaction - buying out other current shareholders. The price here is simply set based on what current owners are willing to sell at. The \"\"Bid Price\"\" listed by an exchange is the current highest bid that a purchaser is offering for a single share. The \"\"Ask Price\"\" is the current lowest offer that a seller is offering to sell a single share they currently own. When the bid price = the ask price, a share transaction happens, and the most recent stock price changes.\"",
"\"This was a \"\"bought deal\"\" by the 2 investment banks running the book. They had a legal obligation to fund the IPO, they reneged. They will get sued and probably settle out of court. Either way, a black mark on their reputation.\"",
"What prevents a company from doing secondary public stock offerings on regular basis? The primary goal of a company doing secondary public offering is to raise more funds, that can be utilized for funding the business. If no funding is needed [i.e. company has sufficient funds, or no expansion plans], this funding creates a drag and existing shareholder including promoters loose value. For example with the current 100 invested, the company is able to generate say 125 [25 as profit]. If additional 100 is taken as secondary public offering, then with 200, the company should mark around 250, else it looses value. So if the company took additional 100 and did not / is not able to deploy in market, on 200 they still make 25 as profit, its bad. There are other reasons, i.e. to fight off hostile acquisition or dilute some of promoters shares etc. Thus the reasons for company to do a secondary PO are few and doing it often reduces the value for primary share holders as well as minority share holders.",
"\"The offering price is what the company will raise by selling the shares at that price. However, this isn't usually what the general public sees as often there will be shows to drive up demand so that there will be buyers for the stock. That demand is what you see on the first day when the general public can start buying the stock. If one is an employee, relative or friend of someone that is offered, \"\"Friends and Family\"\" shares they may be able to buy at the offering price. Pricing of IPO from Wikipedia states around the idea of pricing: A company planning an IPO typically appoints a lead manager, known as a bookrunner, to help it arrive at an appropriate price at which the shares should be issued. There are two primary ways in which the price of an IPO can be determined. Either the company, with the help of its lead managers, fixes a price (\"\"fixed price method\"\"), or the price can be determined through analysis of confidential investor demand data compiled by the bookrunner (\"\"book building\"\"). Historically, some IPOs both globally and in the United States have been underpriced. The effect of \"\"initial underpricing\"\" an IPO is to generate additional interest in the stock when it first becomes publicly traded. Flipping, or quickly selling shares for a profit, can lead to significant gains for investors who have been allocated shares of the IPO at the offering price. However, underpricing an IPO results in lost potential capital for the issuer. One extreme example is theglobe.com IPO which helped fuel the IPO \"\"mania\"\" of the late 90's internet era. Underwritten by Bear Stearns on November 13, 1998, the IPO was priced at $9 per share. The share price quickly increased 1000% after the opening of trading, to a high of $97. Selling pressure from institutional flipping eventually drove the stock back down, and it closed the day at $63. Although the company did raise about $30 million from the offering it is estimated that with the level of demand for the offering and the volume of trading that took place the company might have left upwards of $200 million on the table. The danger of overpricing is also an important consideration. If a stock is offered to the public at a higher price than the market will pay, the underwriters may have trouble meeting their commitments to sell shares. Even if they sell all of the issued shares, the stock may fall in value on the first day of trading. If so, the stock may lose its marketability and hence even more of its value. This could result in losses for investors, many of whom being the most favored clients of the underwriters. Perhaps the best known example of this is the Facebook IPO in 2012. Underwriters, therefore, take many factors into consideration when pricing an IPO, and attempt to reach an offering price that is low enough to stimulate interest in the stock, but high enough to raise an adequate amount of capital for the company. The process of determining an optimal price usually involves the underwriters (\"\"syndicate\"\") arranging share purchase commitments from leading institutional investors. Some researchers (e.g. Geoffrey C., and C. Swift, 2009) believe that the underpricing of IPOs is less a deliberate act on the part of issuers and/or underwriters, than the result of an over-reaction on the part of investors (Friesen & Swift, 2009). One potential method for determining underpricing is through the use of IPO Underpricing Algorithms. This may be useful for seeing the difference in that \"\"theglobe.com\"\" example where the offering price is $9/share yet the stock traded much higher than that initially.\"",
"\"When an IPO happens, the buyers pay some price (let's say $20 per share) and the seller (the company) receives a different price ($18.60). Who paid the commission? Well, the commission caused a spread between buyer and seller. It doesn't matter who technically pays the commission because it costs both parties. In an IPO, the company technically pays the commission, but they use buyers' money to do it and the buyer must pay more than he/she would if there was no commission. The same thing happens when you buy a home. Technically the seller pays both realtors' commissions but it came from money the buyer gave the seller and the commissions pushed up the price, so didn't the buyer pay the commission? They both did. The second paragraph suggests that if the investment bankers act as a simple broker, buying public securities instead of newly issued shares for their clients, then the commissions will be much lower. Obviously. I wonder if this is really the right interpretation, though, as no broker charges 4% to a large client for this service. I would need more context to be sure that's what's meant. The gyst is that IPOs generate a lot of money for the investment bankers who act as intermediaries. If you are participating in the transaction, that money is in some way coming out of your pocket, even if it doesn't show up as a \"\"brokerage fee\"\" on your statement.\"",
"New to investing... when I buy/sell a stock can I buy/sell at the exact market price whenever I'd like or is there more to it? Does there need to be a demand for when I'm trying to sell or am I just forcing the company to buy back my shares? Sorry if confusing/rookie question",
"\"Shares sold to private investors are sold using private contracts and do not adhere to the same level of strict regulations as publicly traded shares. You may have different classes of shares in the company with different strings attached to them, depending on the deals made with the investors at the time. Since public cannot negotiate, the IPO prospectus is in fact the investment contract between the company and the public, and the requirements to what the company can put there are much stricter than private sales. Bob may not be able to sell his \"\"special\"\" stocks on the public exchange, as the IPO specifies which class of stock is being listed for trading, and Bob's is not the same class. He can sell it on the OTC market, which is less regulated, and then the buyer has to do his due diligence. Yes, OTC-sold stocks may have strings attached to them (for example a buy back option at a preset time and price).\"",
"$38 was the IPO price. This was price per share for those investors who bought directly from the underwriters (Morgan Stanley, etc.) $42.06 was the first secondary market price, the price at which two private parties first exchanged the shares on an exchange, in this case NASDAQ.",
"\"Well, they don't \"\"make\"\" money in the sense of income, but they receive money in exchange for shares of stock (more of the company is owned by the public). The Warrant entitles the holder to purchase stock directly from the company at a fixed price. It is very much like an open-market call option, but instead of the option holder buying stock from a third party (which does not affect the company at all), the holder buys it directly from the company, increasing the number of shares outstanding, and the proceeds go directly to the company. If the holders do not exercise the warrants, the company does not receive any cash, but they also don't issue any new shares.\"",
"\"Also, in the next sentence, what is buyers commission? Is it referring to the share holder? Or potential share holder? And why does the buyer get commission? The buyer doesn't get a commission. The buyer pays a commission. So normally a buyer would say, \"\"I want to buy a hundred shares at $20.\"\" The broker would then charge the buyer a commission. Assuming 4%, the commission would be So the total cost to the buyer is $2080 and the seller receives $2000. The buyer paid a commission of $80 as the buyer's commission. In the case of an IPO, the seller often pays the commission. So the buyer might pay $2000 for a hundred shares which have a 7% commission. The brokering agent (or agents may share) pockets a commission of $140. Total paid to the seller is $1860. Some might argue that the buyer pays either way, as the seller receives money in the transaction. That's a reasonable outlook. A better way to say this might be that typical trades bill the buyer directly for commission while IPO purchases bill the seller. In the typical trade, the buyer negotiates the commission with the broker. In an IPO, the seller does (with the underwriter). Another issue with an IPO is that there are more parties getting commission than just one. As a general rule, you still call your broker to purchase the stock. The broker still expects a commission. But the IPO underwriter also expects a commission. So the 7% commission might be split between the IPO underwriter (works for the selling company) and the broker (works for the buyer). The broker has more work to do than normal. They have to put in the buyer's purchase request and manage the price negotiation. In most purchases, you just say something like \"\"I want to offer $20 a share\"\" or \"\"I want to purchase at the market price.\"\" In an IPO, they may increase the price, asking for $25 a share. And they may do that multiple times. Your broker has to come back to you each time and get a new authorization at the higher price. And you still might not get the number of shares that you requested. Beyond all this, you may still be better off buying an IPO than waiting until the next day. Sure, you pay more commission, but you also may be buying at a lower price. If the IPO price is $20 but the price climbs to $30, you would have been better off paying the IPO price even with the higher commission. However, if the IPO price is $20 and the price falls to $19.20, you'd be better off buying at $19.20 after the IPO. Even though in that case, you'd pay the 4% commission on top of the $19.20, so about $19.97. I think that the overall point of the passage is that the IPO underwriter makes the most money by convincing you to pay as high an IPO price as possible. And once they do that, they're out of the picture. Your broker will still be your broker later. So the IPO underwriter has a lot of incentive to encourage you to participate in the IPO instead of waiting until the next day. The broker doesn't care much either way. They want you to buy and sell something. The IPO or something else. They don't care much as to what. The underwriter may overprice the stock, as that maximizes their return. If they can convince enough people to overpay, they don't care that the stock falls the day after that. All their marketing effort is to try to achieve that result. They want you to believe that your $20 purchase will go up to $30 the next day. But it might not. These numbers may not be accurate. Obviously the $20 stock price is made up. But the 4% and 7% numbers may also be inaccurate. Modern online brokers are very competitive and may charge a flat fee rather than a percentage. The book may be giving you older numbers that were correct in 1983 (or whatever year). The buyer's commission could also be lower than 4%, as the seller also may be charged a commission. If each pays 2%, that's about 4% total but split between a buyer's commission and a seller's commission.\"",
"You are assuming the price increase will continue. The people selling are assuming that the price increase will not continue. Ultimately that's what a share transaction is: one person would rather have the cash at a particular price / time, and one person would rather have the share.",
"By definition, an IPO'd stock is publicly traded, and you can buy shares if you wish. There's often an excitement on the first day that doesn't carry over to the next days or weeks. The opening price may be well above the IPO price, depending on that demand.",
"You go public to raise money, to invest in the business and/or pay off the existing shareholders. It's really as simple as that. The advantage of being public is that your shares can easily be bought and sold, and so you can issue and sell new ones and your existing shareholders can sell out if they want to. The disadvantage is that you are much more tightly regulated, with more disclosure requirements, and also that you are exposed to much more pressure from your shareholders to maintain and increase your share price.",
"Rather than take anyone's word for it (including and especially mine) you need to do think very carefully about your company; you know it far better than almost anyone else. Do you feel that the company values its employees? If it values you and your immediate colleagues then its likely that it not only values its other employees but also its customers which is a sign that it will do well. Does the company have a good relationship with its customers? Since you are a software engineer using a web stack I assume that it is either a web consultancy or has an e-commerce side to it so you will have some exposure to what the customers complain about, either in terms of bugs or UX difficulties. You probably even get bug reports that tell you what customer pain points are. Are customers' concerns valid, serious and damaging? If they are then you should think twice about taking up the offer, if not then you may well be fine. Also bear in mind how much profit is made on each item of product and how many you can possibly sell - you need to be able to sell items that have been produced. Those factors indicate how the future of the company looks currently, next you need to think about why the IPO is needed. IPOs and other share offerings are generally done to raise capital for the firm so is your company raising money to invest for the future or to cover losses and cashflow shortfalls? Are you being paid on time and without issues? Do you get all of the equipment and hiring positions that you want or is money always a limiting factor? As an insider you have a better chance to analyse these things than outsiders as they effect your day-to-day work. Remember that anything in the prospectus is just marketing spiel; expecting a 4.5 - 5.3% div yield is not the same as actually paying it or guaranteeing it. Do you think that they could afford to pay it? The company is trying to sell these shares for the maximum price they can get, don't fall for the hyped up sales pitch. If you feel that all of these factors are positive then you should buy as much as you can, hopefully far more than the minimum, as it seems like the company is a strong, growing concern. If you have any concerns from thinking about these factors then you probably shouldn't buy any (unless you are getting a discount but that's a different set of considerations) as your money would be better utilized elsewhere.",
"For months prior to going public a company has to file financial documents with the SEC. These are available to the public at www.sec.gov on their Edgar database. For instance, Eagleline is listed as potentially IPOing next week. You can find out all the details of any IPO including correspondence between the company and the SEC on Edgar. Here's the link for Eagleline (disclaimer, I have not investigated this company. It is an example only) https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001675776&owner=exclude&count=40 The most important, complex, and thorough document is the initial registration statement, usually an S-1, and subsequent amendments that occur as a result of new information or SEC questions. You can often get insight into a new public company by looking at the changes that have occurred in amendments since their initial filings. I highly advise people starting out to first look at the filings of companies they work for or know the industry intimately. This will help you to better understand the filings from companies you may not be so familiar with. A word of caution. Markets and company filings are followed by very large numbers of smart people experienced in each business area so don't assume there is fast and easy money to be made. Still, you will be a bit ahead if you learn to read and understand the filings public companies are required to make.",
"Anti-Facebook circlejerk continues. Where were these articles before it went public ? It makes it seem like bad for common investors when in reality they couldn't even get in on the stock. It was the institutional funds and connected investors who bought the stock at 38. The common market actually was the one that didn't support the stock once it went public. If anyone, it's the institutional funds that got screwed.",
"\"What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? I imagine supply would outweigh demand and the stock would fall. Yes this is the case. Every large \"\"Sell\"\" order results in price going down and every large \"\"Buy\"\" order results in price going up. Hence typically when large orders are being executed, they are first negotiated outside for a price and then sold at the exchange. I am not talking about Ownership change event. If a company wants a change in ownership, the buyer would be ready to pay a premium over the market price to get controlling stake.\"",
"\"The reason to go public is to get money. Not to be snarky, but your question is like asking, \"\"Why should a company try to sell its products, when if they just piled them up in a warehouse they wouldn't have to worry about shipping and customer complaints and collecting sales tax?\"\" The answer, of course, is because they want the money. Sure, there are disadvantages to going public, like more regulation, required financial disclosures, and having to answer to stockholders. That's the price you pay for accepting money from people. They're not going to give you money for nothing.\"",
"Great for Facebook but why does a company like Sun Microsystems or FedEx sell stock? In order to reach quarterly goals a publicly traded company has to make sure they stay in the black every quarter by cutting cutting cutting cost which may not be good for a long term goal of investing in new ideas or processes.",
"I work in finance and this is something we have never seen before. They lost their insider commitments about a day before the deal was supposed to price but CS pushed it through anyways. Definitely going to be some lawsuits on this one.",
"The question seems to be from the point of view actual sales and not its impact on one's taxation. In case you just want to sell, why brokers will respond differently each times. Either there may be issues with ownership and/or the company whose shares it is? In case you feel that the issues lies with brok",
"It's impossible to know for sure, which I'm sure you know, but paying these large debts all at once will leave very little assets in comparison to what they had. Issuing new shares like this is called dilution which means the price will be forced downward because the same (or in this case less) net earnings must be divided by more shares outstanding. A secondary offering almost always lowers stock price. http://wiki.fool.com/What_Happens_to_the_Share_Price_When_New_Shares_Are_Issued%3F",
"NASDAQ provides a very good IPO calendar as well for US listings.",
"\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-16/a-crazy-stock-market-is-punishing-sellers) reduced by 92%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Even Richard Thaler, who won a Nobel Prize last week for explaining how irrationality drives financial markets, said on Bloomberg Television he couldn&#039;t understand why stocks keep going up now. > Almost as quickly, the markets roared back and jolted investors out of their crisis-era fatalism. > The hazards of market timing were illustrated by a Bank of America Corp. study last year, which showed that missing the very end of a bull market often means missing a quarter of its gains. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/76t6ni/a_crazy_stock_market_is_punishing_sellers/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~229377 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **market**^#1 **investor**^#2 **More**^#3 **stock**^#4 **new**^#5\"",
"Thanks to the other answers, I now know what to google for. Frankfurt Stock Exchange: http://en.boerse-frankfurt.de/equities/newissues London Stock Exchange: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/statistics/new-issues-further-issues/new-issues-further-issues.htm",
"The people who cause this sort of sell-off immediately are mostly speculators, short-term day-traders and the like. They realize that, because of the lowered potential for earnings in the future, the companies in question won't be worth as much in the future. They will sell shares at the elevated price, including sometimes shares that they borrow for the explicit purpose of selling (short selling), until the share price is more reasonable. Now, the other question is why the companies in question won't sell for as much in the future: Even if every other company in the world looks less attractive all at once (global economic catastrophe etc) people have other options. They could just put the money in the bank, or in corporate bonds, or in mortgage bonds, or Treasury bonds, or some other low-risk instrument, or something crazy like gold. If the expected return on a stock doesn't justify the price, you're unlikely to find someone paying that price. So you don't actually need to have a huge sell-off to lower the price. You just need a sell-off that's big enough that you run out of people willing to pay elevated prices.",
">Suppose they had priced it at $25 and limited the number of shares they would have gotten less money but they'd also be looking at a massively successful pop on their share price. ...which would've benefited them how, exactly? Sell a share for $38 and it drops to $25, the company gets $38. Sell a share for $25 and it goes to $150, the company gets $25.",
"One more scenario is when the company already has maturing debt. e.g Company took out a debt of 2 billion in 2010 and is maturing 2016. It has paid back say 500 million but has to pay back the debtors the remaining 1.5 billion. It will again go to the debt markets to fund this 1.5 billion maybe at better terms than the 2010 issue based on market conditions and its business. The debt is to keep the business running or grow it. The people issuing debt will do complete research before issuing the debt. It can always sell stock but that results in dilution and affects shareholders. Debt also affects shareholders but when interest rates are lower, companies tend to go to debt markets. Although sometimes they can just do a secondary and be done with it if the float is low.",
"\"I personally think that this is how IPOs are going to work going forward. Company ownership trading will happen behind closed doors, then the hype is built in the limelight way above expectations, then the over valued IPO will drop allowing the backroom deal makers to cash out of the company, The problem isn't social networking, it is \"\"the next big thing\"\" mindset of Wall Street\"",
"It depends. If the investor bought newly-issued shares or treasury shares, the company gets the money. If the investor bought shares already held by the owner, the owner gets the money. A 100% owner can decide how to structure the sale. Yet, the investor may only be willing to buy shares if the funds increase the company's working capital.",
"\"If you participate in an IPO, you specify how many shares you're willing to buy and the maximum price you're willing to pay. All the investors who are actually sold the shares get them at the same price, and the entity managing the IPO will generally try to sell the shares for the highest price they can get. Whether or not you actually get the shares is a function of how many your broker gets and how your broker distributes them - which can be completely arbitrary if your broker feels like it. The price that the market is willing to pay afterward is usually a little higher. To a certain extent, this is by design: a good deal for the shares is an incentive for the big (million/billion-dollar) financiers who will take on a good bit of risk buying very large positions in the company (which they can't flip at the higher price, because they'd flood the market with their shares and send the price down). If the stock soars 100% and sticks around that level, though, the underwriting bank isn't doing its job very well: Investors were willing to give the company a lot more money. It's not \"\"stealing\"\", but it's definitely giving the original owners of the company a raw deal. (Just to be clear: it's the existing company's owners who suffer, not any third party.) Of course, LinkedIn was estimated to IPO at $30 before they hiked it to $45, and plenty of people were skeptical about it pricing so high even then, so it's not like they didn't try. And there's a variety of analysis out there about why it soared so much on the first day - fewer shares offered, wild speculative bubbles, no one could get a hold of it to short-sell, et cetera. They probably could have IPO'd for more, but it's unlikely there was, say, $120/share financing available: just because one sucker will pay the price doesn't mean you can move all 7.84 million IPO shares for it.\"",
"Like others have already said, it may cause an immediate dip due to a large and sudden move in shares for that particular stock. However, if there is nothing else affecting the company's financials and investors perceive no other risks, it will probably bounce back a bit, but not back to the full value before the shares were issued. Why? Whenever a company issues more stock, the new shares dilute the value of the current shares outstanding, simply because there are now more shares of that stock trading on the market; the Earnings Per Share (EPS) Ratio will drop since the same profit and company value has to be spread across more shares. Example: If a company is valued at $100 dollars and they have 25 shares outstanding, then the EPS ratio equates to $4 per share (100/25 = 4). If the company then issues more shares (stock to employees who sell or keep them), let's say 25 more shares, then shares outstanding increase to 50, but the company's value still remains at $100 dollars. EPS now equates to $2 per share (100/50 = 2). Now, sometimes when shareholders (especially employees...and especially employees who just received them) suddenly all sell their shares, this causes a micro-panic in the market because investors believe the employees know something bad about the company that they don't. Other common shareholders then want to dump their holdings for fear of impending collapse in the company. This could cause the share price to dip a bit below the new diluted value, but again if no real, immediate risks exist, the price should go back up to the new, diluted value. Example 2: If EPS was at $4 before issuing more stock, and then dropped to $2 after issuing new stock, the micro-panic may cause the EPS to drop below $2 and then soon rebound back to $2 or more when investors realize no actual risk exists. After the dilution phase plays out, the EPS could actually even go above the pre-issuing value of $4 because investors may believe that since more stock was issued due to good profits, more profits may ensue. Hope that helps!",
"The U.S. treasury sells Treasury Bonds directly to consumers at: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/",
"No. Not directly. A company issues stock in order to raise capital for building its business. Once the initial shares are sold to the public, the company doesn't receive additional funds from future transactions of those shares of stock between the public. However, the company could issue more shares at the new higher price to raise more capital.",
"We're in DotCom Bubble 2. Groupon's release is a great example that despite all the smoke surrounding these technology companies and all the analysts suggesting they're not worth these amounts, people are ready to buy it anyway. But keep in mind profits are made on these turds whether the price goes up OR down. Savvy investors know these stocks are shit. They'll make huge profits on the inevitable price decline after it goes public. Those are the guys you want managing your retirement funds and nest eggs. We've been down this path a decade ago and millions of investors choose to ignore it. Let them buy this garbage up. The smart will profit massively off those failures. They were warned before, they're warned now, so fuck 'em when they're wiped out. They earned it.",
"The goal of a good IPO underwriter is to set the price such that it brings as much money as possible to the company. * Too low: Early stock flippers get the money that should be going to the company. * Too high: Not all the stock gets sold. By that definition, **Facebook should be recorded as the most successful IPO of all time**. The problem is investors have gotten used to incompetent and/or corrupt underwriters that set the price too low. The company gets screwed, but the underwriter’s buddies make some quick cash on the flip.",
"In general stock markets are very similar to that, however, you can also put in limit orders to say that you will only buy or sell at a given price. These sit in the market for a specified length of time and will be executed when an order arrives that matches the price (or better). Traders who set limit orders are called liquidity (or price) makers as they provide liquidity (i.e. volume to be traded) to be filled later. If there is no counterparty (i.e. buyer to your seller) in the market, a market maker; a large bank or brokerage who is licensed and regulated to do so, will fill your order at some price. That price is based on how much volume (i.e. trading) there is in that stock on average. This is called average daily volume (ADV) and is calculated over varying periods of time; we use ADV30 which is the 30 day average. You can always sell stocks for whatever price you like privately but a market order does not allow you to set your price (you are a price taker) therefore that kind of order will always fill at a market price. As mentioned above limit orders will not fill until the price is hit but will stay on book as long as they aren't filled, expired or cancelled.",
"yes, there does need to be demand. on heavily traded stocks, there is no reason to be concerned. on thinly traded equities, you will want to check the market depth before placing a sell. the company is likely not the one that is buying your shares on the open market."
] |
[
"\"In an IPO the seller is the Company selling new shares. Some of the IPOs also include something called \"\"secondary\"\" sales which are existing holders selling at the same time at the IPO price. But that is a but more unusual. And as someone noted, the $68 is the price paid for the people who bought at the IPO (the aggregate group usually called the syndicate). The $85 is the price that it is trading at once there is trading in the open market. People that are able to get into the syndicate to buy the stock at $68 sometimes quickly sell if the price is much higher when trading starts. This is called \"\"flipping\"\" the stock. Hedge funds do this much more often than institutional buyers like Fidelity.\"",
"\"Usually the big institution that \"\"floats\"\" the stock on the market is the one to offer it to you. The IPO company doesn't sell the stock itself, the big investment bank does it for them. IPO's shareholders/employees are generally not allowed to sell their shares at the IPO until some time passes. Then you usually see the sleuth of selling.\""
] |
10246
|
Understanding the T + 3 settlement days rule
|
[
"512984",
"77573"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"156029",
"370635",
"293389",
"327080",
"406974",
"176717",
"226984",
"93231",
"11927",
"340263",
"332243",
"28314",
"121465",
"562458",
"584291",
"119161",
"506374",
"89506",
"315205",
"449623",
"271920",
"98302",
"499849",
"344065",
"446887",
"206140",
"460937",
"364588",
"109422",
"338727",
"505223",
"572822",
"336399",
"266767",
"240098",
"592796",
"296475",
"367873",
"36193",
"283698",
"224259",
"77016",
"512984",
"540285",
"49127",
"469497",
"179520",
"586759",
"392403",
"593445",
"431507",
"384892",
"350080",
"123632",
"591809",
"512947",
"132167",
"273142",
"155616",
"152689",
"402726",
"73723",
"552586",
"152719",
"358837",
"542932",
"525337",
"282499",
"79453",
"313437",
"64025",
"511385",
"292159",
"597401",
"254279",
"444562",
"182930",
"49285",
"503505",
"450371",
"124188",
"213938",
"13631",
"221664",
"273937",
"5607",
"264800",
"200879",
"315555",
"137418",
"513827",
"166721",
"239632",
"461133",
"416789",
"78139",
"23387",
"6503",
"127559",
"191060"
] |
[
"That is the standard set by most securities exchanges: T+3 : trades complete three days after the bargain has been struck.",
"During the settlement period, the buyer transfers payment to the seller and the seller transfers ownership to the buyer. This is really a holdover from the days when so much of stock trading was done by individual human traders, and computers were still not a huge part of the operation. Back then, paper tickets for trades exchanged hands, and the time period was actually 5 days, so 3 days is an improvement. A settlement period was necessary for everyone to figure out their trades and do what was necessary to make the settlements happen, so it was not always a quick process, mainly because of smaller trading firms that didn't have technology to help them along. Nowadays, technology makes settlements easy, and they usually occur at the end of the trading day. The trading firms sum up their trades, figure out who they owe, and send lump sum settlements to the counterparties to their trades. If anything, the 3-day period may just be used now to let parties verify trades before settling. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"\"This is the sad state of US stock markets and Regulation T. Yes, while options have cleared & settled for t+1 (trade +1 day) for years and now actually clear \"\"instantly\"\" on some exchanges, stocks still clear & settle in t+3. There really is no excuse for it. If you are in a margin account, regulations permit the trading of unsettled funds without affecting margin requirements, so your funds in effect are available immediately after trading but aren't considered margin loans. Some strict brokers will even restrict the amount of uncleared margin funds you can trade with (Scottrade used to be hyper safe and was the only online discount broker that did this years ago); others will allow you to withdraw a large percentage of your funds immediately (I think E*Trade lets you withdraw up to 90% of unsettled funds immediately). If you are in a cash account, you are authorized to buy with unsettled funds, but you can't sell purchases made on unsettled funds until such funds clear, or you'll be barred for 90 days from trading as your letter threatened; besides, most brokers don't allow this. You certainly aren't allowed to withdraw unsettled funds (by your broker) in such an account as it would technically constitute a loan for which you aren't even liable since you've agreed to no loan contract, a margin agreement. I can't be sure if that actually violates Reg T, but when I am, I'll edit. While it is true that all marketable options are cleared through one central entity, the Options Clearing Corporation, with stocks, clearing & settling still occurs between brokers, netting their transactions between each other electronically. All financial products could clear & settle immediately imo, and I'd rather not start a firestorm by giving my opinion why not. Don't even get me started on the bond market... As to the actual process, it's called \"\"clearing & settling\"\". The general process (which can generally be applied to all financial instruments from cash deposits to derivatives trading) is: The reason why all of the old financial companies were grouped on Wall St. is because they'd have runners physically carting all of the certificates from building to building. Then, they discovered netting so slowed down the process to balance the accounts and only cart the net amounts of certificates they owed each other. This is how we get the term \"\"bankers hours\"\" where financial firms would close to the public early to account for the days trading. While this is all really done instantly behind your back at your broker, they've conveniently kept the short hours.\"",
"The T+3 settlement date only affects cash accounts. In a cash account, you need to wait until the T+3 settlement date for your funds to be available to make your next trade. But if you convert your cash account into a margin account, then you do not need to wait until the T+3 settlement date for your next trade - your broker will allow you to make another trade immediately.",
"\"TLDR: Why can't banks give me my money? We don't have your money. Who has my money? About half a dozen different people all over the world. And we need to coordinate with them and their banks to get you your money. I love how everyone seems to think that the securities industry has super powers. Believe me, even with T+3, you won't believe how many trades fail to settle properly. Yes, your trade is pretty simple. But Cash Equity trades in general can be very complicated (for the layman). Your sell order will have been pushed onto an algorithmic platform, aggregated with other sell order, and crossed with internal buy orders. The surplus would then be split out by the algo to try and get the best price based on \"\"orders\"\" on the market. Finally the \"\"fills\"\" are used in settlement, which could potentially have been filled in multiple trades against multiple counterparties. In order to guarantee that the money can be in your account, we need 3 days. Also remember, we aren't JUST looking at your transaction. Each bank is looking to square off all the different trades between all their counter parties over a single day. Thousands of transactions/fills may have to be processed just for a single name. Finally because, there a many many transactions that do not settle automatically, our settlements team needs to co-ordinate with the other bank to make sure that you get your money. Bear in mind, banks being banks, we are working with systems that are older than I am. *And all of the above is the \"\"simplest\"\" case, I haven't even factored in Dark Pools/Block trades, auctions, pre/post-market trading sessions, Foreign Exchange, Derivatives, KYC/AML.\"",
"\"The T+3 \"\"rule\"\" relates only to accounting and not to trading. It does not prevent you from day trading. It simply means that the postings in you cash account will not appear until three business days after you have executed a trade. When you execute a trade and the order has been filled, you have all of the information you need to know the cash amounts that will hit your account three business days later. In a cash account, cash postings that arise from trading are treated as unsettled (for three days), but this does not mean that these funds are available for further trading. If you have $25,000 in your account on day 1, this does not mean that you will be able to trade more than $25,000 because your cash account has not yet been debited. Most cash accounts will include an item detailing \"\"Cash available for trading\"\". This will net out any unsettled business transacted. For example, if you have a cash account balance of $25,000 on day one, and on the same day you purchase $10,000 worth of shares, then pending settlement in your cash account you will only have $15,000 \"\"Cash available for trading\"\". Similarly, if you have a cash balance of $25,000 on day one, and on the same day you \"\"day trade\"\", purchasing $15,000 and selling $10,000 worth of shares, then you will have the net of $20,000 \"\"Cash available for trading\"\" ($20,000 = $25,000 - $15,000 + $10,000). If by \"\"prop account\"\" you mean an account where you give discretion to a broker to trade on your behalf, then I think the issues of accounting will be the least of your worries. You will need to be worried about not being fleeced out of your hard earned savings by someone far more interested in lining their own pockets than making money for you.\"",
"\"The settlement date for any trade is the date on which the seller gets the buyer's money and the buyer gets the seller's product. In US equities markets the settlement date is (almost universally) three trading days after the trade date. This settlement period gives the exchanges, the clearing houses, and the brokers time to figure out how many shares and how many dollars need to actually be moved around in order to give everyone what they're owed (and then to actually do all that moving around). So, \"\"settling\"\" a short trade is the same thing as settling any other trade. It has nothing to do with \"\"closing\"\" (or covering) the seller's short position. Q: Is this referring to when a short is initiated, or closed? A: Initiated. If you initiate a short position by selling borrowed shares on day 1, then settlement occurs on day 4. (Regardless of whether your short position is still open or has been closed.) Q: All open shorts which are still open by the settlement date have to be reported by the due date. A: Not exactly. The requirement is that all short positions evaluated based on their settlement dates (rather than their trade dates) still open on the deadline have to be reported by the due date. You sell short 100 AAPL on day 1. You then cover that short by buying 100 AAPL on day 2. As far as the clearing houses and brokers are concerned, however, you don't even get into the short position until your sell settles at the end of day 4, and you finally get out of your short position (in their eyes) when your buy settles at the end of day 5. So imagine the following scenarios: The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 2. Since your (FINRA member) broker has been told to report based on settlement date, it would report no open position for you in AAPL even though you executed a trade to sell on day 1. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 3. Your sell still has not settled, so there's still no open position to report for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 4. Your sell has settled but your buy has not, so the broker reports a 100 share open short position for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 5. Your sell and buy have both settled, so the broker once again has no open position to report for you. So, the point is that when dealing with settlement dates you just pretend the world is 3 days behind where it actually is.\"",
"quid's answer explains the settlement period well. However, it should be noted that you can avoid the settlement period by opening a margin account. Any specific broker like Schwab may or may not offer margin accounts. Margin accounts allow you to borrow money to avoid the settlement period or to buy more securities than you can actually afford. Note that if you buy more securities than you can afford using margin, you expose yourself to losses potentially larger than your initial investment. If you fund your account with $50,000 and use margin to purchase $80,000 of stock which then drops in value by 80% you will have lost $64,000 and owe the broker $14,000 plus fees.",
"You set it based on liquidity management. Cash drag is one of the reasons actively managed funds underperform. The longer your settlement date, the less cash you have to hold because you can take three days to liquidate positions to redeem. So it's a convenience vs performance question.",
"\"The American \"\"Security Exchange Commission\"\" has imposed a rule upon all stock trading accounts. This rule is \"\"Regulation-T\"\". This rule specifies that stock trading accounts must be permitted three days after the termination of a trade to settle the account. This is just fancy lingo to justify the guarantee that the funds are either transferred out of your account to another persons (the person that made money), or the money flows into your account. A \"\"Day Trader's\"\" account avoids the hassle because you're borrowing money from your broker to trade with and circumvent Reg-T. It's technically not how long you hold the trade that determines if you're a day trader, or not. It's your accounts liquidity and your credit worthiness.\"",
"You have to wait for three (business) days. That's the time it takes for the settlement to complete and for the money to get to your account. If you don't wait - brokers will still allow you to buy a new stock, but may limit your ability to sell it until the previous sale is settled. Here's a FAQ from Schwab on the issue.",
"It's important to understand that, in general, security transactions involve you and a relatively unknown entity with your broker standing in the middle. When you sell through Schwab, Schwab needs to receive the funds from the other side of the transaction. If Schwab gave you access to the funds immediately, it would essentially be a loan until the transaction settles after funds and securities change hands. If Schwab made funds available to you as soon as they were received, it might still be two days until the money is received; because the other side also has three days. Guaranteed one day settlement would have to include receipt of funds from the buyer in one day and Schwab can't control that. You need to remember this transaction likely includes at least one party in addition to you and Schwab. Here's the SEC page related to the three day settlement period, About Settling Trades in Three Days: T+3",
"\"Securities clearing and settlement is a complex topic - you can start by browsing relevant Wikipedia articles, and (given sufficient quantities of masochism and strong coffee) progress to entire technical books. You're correct - modern trade settlement systems are electronic and heavily streamlined. However, you're never going to see people hand over assets until they're sure that payment has cleared - given current payment systems, that means the fastest settlement time is going to be the next business day (so-called T+1 settlement), which is what's seen for heavily standardized instruments like standard options and government debt securities. Stocks present bigger obstacles. First, the seller has to locate the asset being sold & make sure they have clear title to it... which is tougher than it might seem, given the layers of abstraction/virtualization involved in the chain of ownership & custody, complicated in particular by \"\"rehypothecation\"\" involved in stock borrowing/lending for short sales... especially since stock borrow/lending record-keeping tends to be somewhat slipshod (cf. periodic uproar about \"\"naked shorting\"\" and \"\"failure to deliver\"\"). Second, the seller has to determine what exactly it is that they have sold... which, again, can be tougher than it might seem. You see, stocks are subject to all kinds of corporate actions (e.g. cash distributions, spin-offs, splits, liquidations, delistings...) A particular topic of keen interest is who exactly is entitled to large cash distributions - the buyer or the seller? Depending on the cutoff date (the \"\"ex-dividend date\"\"), the seller may need to deliver to the buyer just the shares of stock, or the shares plus a big chunk of cash - a significant difference in settlement. Determining the precise ex-dividend date (and so what exactly are the assets to be settled) can sometimes be very difficult... it's usually T-2, except in the case of large distributions, which are usually T+1, unless the regulatory authority has neglected to declare an ex-dividend date, in which case it defaults to standard DTC payment policy (i.e. T-2)... I've been involved in a few situations where the brokers involved were clueless, and full settlement of \"\"due bills\"\" for cash distributions to the buyer took several months of hard arguing. So yeah, the brokers want a little time to get their records in order and settle the trade correctly.\"",
"It is possible but unlikely. Securities firms would prefer never to settle externally; rather, they prefer to wait until the liabilities can be netted. They are forced to make and take payment in three business days. The reason why is because settlement is costly in the same way as any other business would prefer to build trade credit instead of taking or making payment rapidly. The only circumstance where a financial firm would wish to take full delivery is when a counterparty is no longer trusted to be solvent.",
"You should not have to wait 3 days to sell the stock after purchase. If you are trading with a cash account you will have to wait for the sale to settle (3 business days) before you can use those funds to purchase other stock. If you meet the definition of a pattern day trader which is 4 or more day trades in 5 business days then your brokerage will require you to have a minimum of $25,000 in funds and a margin account.",
"Brokerage firms must settle funds promptly, but there's no explicit definition for this in U.S. federal law. See for example, this article on settling trades in three days. Wikipedia also has a good write-up on T+3. It is common practice, however. It takes approximately three days for the funds to be available to me, in my Canadian brokerage account. That said, the software itself prevents me from using funds which are not available, and I'm rather surprised yours does not. You want to be careful not to be labelled a pattern day trader, if that is not your intention. Others can better fill you in on the consequences of this. I believe it will not apply to you unless you are using a margin account. All but certainly, the terms of service that you agreed to with this brokerage will specify the conditions under which they can lock you out of your account, and when they can charge interest. If they are selling your stock at times you have not authorised (via explicit instruction or via a stop-loss order), you should file a complaint with the S.E.C. and with sufficient documentation. You will need to ensure your cancel-stop-loss order actually went through, though, and the stock was sold anyway. It could simply be that it takes a full business day to cancel such an order.",
"Another explanation is that they keep your money three days to make money with it, because they can. The other reasons might have been valid 100 years ago, and no bank would voluntarily cut that down until forced by law. Example: In Europe, bank to bank transfers used to take three days, until a law forced them to give next day, and suddenly it was possible.",
"Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_gateway There is essentially a lead time between when the transaction is made and when it is settled, 2-3 business days is the lead time for settlement. The link explains the process step-by-step",
"\"Depends on your account. If you have a margin account, then you can \"\"withdraw\"\" the margin, and it will get paid off/settled on T+3. However if it's a cash account then you will most likely need to wait. Call your broker and ask, each broker has different rules.\"",
"Hello, I was curious if anyone had any insight as to why some mutual funds had different settlement dates than others. I've seen many funds that settle T+1 and some that are T+2 and yet others that are even longer than that. Just curious what is going on behind the scenes that could cause the variation in settlement times. I've looked on investopedia, my broker's website and other google related searches and couldn't find an answer. If anyone had a link or experience with this I would appreciate the information.",
"\"In the United States, regulation of broker dealer credit is dictated by Regulation T, that for a non-margin account, 100% of a trade must be funded. FINRA has supplemented that regulation with an anti-\"\"free rider\"\" rule, Rule 4210(f)(9), which reads No member shall permit a customer (other than a broker-dealer or a “designated account”) to make a practice, directly or indirectly, of effecting transactions in a cash account where the cost of securities purchased is met by the sale of the same securities. No member shall permit a customer to make a practice of selling securities with them in a cash account which are to be received against payment from another broker-dealer where such securities were purchased and are not yet paid for. A member transferring an account which is subject to a Regulation T 90-day freeze to another member firm shall inform the receiving member of such 90-day freeze. It is only funds from uncleared sold equities that are prohibited from being used to purchase securities. This means that an equity in one's account that is settled can be sold and can be purchased only with settled funds. Once the amount required to purchase is in excess of the amount of settled funds, no more purchases can be made, so an equity sold by an account with settled funds can be repurchased immediately with the settled funds so long as the settled funds can fund the purchase. Margin A closed position is not considered a \"\"long\"\" or \"\"short\"\" since it is an account with one loan of security and one asset of security and one cash loan and one cash liability with the excess or deficit equity equal to any profit or loss, respectively, thus unexposed to the market, only to the creditworthiness of the clearing & settling chain. Only open positions are considered \"\"longs\"\" or \"\"shorts\"\", a \"\"long\"\" being a possession of a security, and a \"\"short\"\" being a liability, because they are exposed to the market. Since unsettled funds are not considered \"\"longs\"\" or \"\"shorts\"\", they are not encumbered by previous trades, thus only the Reg T rules apply to new and current positions. Cash vs Margin A cash account cannot purchase with unsettled funds. A margin account can. This means that a margin account could theoretically do an infinite amount of trades using unsettled funds. A cash account's daily purchases are restricted to the amount of settled funds, so once those are exhausted, no more purchases can be made. The opposite is true for cash accounts as well. Unsettled securities cannot be sold either. In summation, unsettled assets can not be traded in a cash account.\"",
"How come when I sell stocks, the brokerage won't let me cash out for three days, telling me the SEC requires this clearance period for the transaction to clear, but they can swap shit around in under a second? Be interesting to see what would happen if *every* transaction wasn't cleared until the closing bell.",
"\"They're taking advantage of float. Like so many things in the financial world today, this practice is a (strictly legal) fraud. When you make the transaction, the money is available immediately, for reasons that should be intuitively obvious to anyone who's ever used PayPal. It doesn't take 3 minutes for the broker to get that money, let alone 3 days. But if they can hold on to that money instead of turning it over to you, they can make money from it for themselves, putting money that rightfully belongs to you to work for them instead, earning interest on short-term loans, money market accounts, etc. The SEC mandates that this money must be turned over to you within 3 days so it should not surprise anyone that that's exactly how long the \"\"we have to wait for it to clear\"\" scam runs for. Even if it doesn't seem like very much money per transaction, for a large brokerage with hundreds of thousands of clients, all the little bits add up very quickly. This is why they feel no need to compete by offering better service: offering poor service is making them a lot of money that they would lose by offering better service.\"",
"Here's how this works in the United States. There's no law regarding your behavior in this matter and you haven't broken any laws. But your broker-dealer has a law that they must follow. It's documented here: The issue is if you buy stock before your sell has settled (before you've received cash) then you're creating money where before none existed (even though it is just for a day or two). The government fears that this excess will cause undue speculation in the security markets. The SEC calls this practice freeriding, because you're spending money you have not yet received. In summary: your broker is not allowed to loan money to an account than is not set-up for loans; it must be a margin account. People with margin account are able to day-trade because they have the ability to use margin (borrow money). Margin Accounts are subject to Pattern Daytrading Rules. The Rules are set forth by FINRA (The Financial Industry Reporting Authority) and are here:",
"This is one of the things that central banks do. For example, see here for a full description of how the Bank of England manages settlements of inter-bank transactions.",
"from what I learnt in au and limited to au banking system ( very much like other western countries), banks settle their transfers ( inter banks) 4pm afternoon. Those transactions are like everyday between accounts, person to person, person to vendor(not credit cards), vendors to vendors( small businesses) etc. as for large transactions banks use check accounts( yes banks themselves have check account for each other). Check accounts are settled in three business days( ex public holidays). When large business deal with large business, they use debentures and corporate bonds which is a business IOU and using banks as mediate to settle. IOUs have up to 60 days settle periods. Some complications unique to au banking system. There are only 4 large banks in au and they and their subsidiaries own 99% of the assets collectively. What gets more interesting is large 4 banks owns each other. Each banks holds significant amount shares of other banks. They are like 4 brothers with different surnames. All of it is to minimise risk and share profit.",
"It depends on the broker. The one I use (Fidelity) will allow me to buy then sell or sell then buy within 3 days even though the cash isn't settled from the first transaction. But they won't let me buy then sell then buy again with unsettled cash. Of course not waiting for cash to settle makes you vulnerable to a good faith violation.",
"\"Yes. I heard back from a couple brokerages that gave detailed responses. Specifically: In a Margin account, there are no SEC trade settlement rules, which means there is no risk of any free ride violations. The SEC has a FAQ page on free-riding, which states that it applies specifically to cash accounts. This led me to dig up the text on Regulation T which gives the \"\"free-riding\"\" rule in §220.8(c), which is titled \"\"90 day freeze\"\". §220.8 is the section on cash accounts. Nothing in the sections on margin accounts mentions such a settlement restriction. From the Wikipedia page on Free Riding, the margin agreement implicitly covers settlement. \"\"Buying Power\"\" doesn't seem to be a Regulation T thing, but it's something that the brokerages that I've seen use to state how much purchasing power a client has. Given the response from the brokerage, above, and my reading of Regulation T and the relevant Wikipedia page, proceeds from the sale of any security in a margin account are available immediately for reinvestment. Settlement is covered implicitly by margin; i.e. it doesn't detract from buying power. Additionally, I have personally been making these types of trades over the last year. In a sub-$25K margin account, proceeds are immediately available. The only thing I still have to look out for is running into the day-trading rules.\"",
"No, you cannot withdraw the money until settlement day. Some brokers will allow you to trade with unsettled funds, but you cannot withdraw it until it is settled. Think about it, when you buy stock you have to pay for them by T+3, so if you sell you actually don't receive the funds until T+3.",
"You have to call Interactive Brokers for this. This is what you should do, they might even have a web chat. These are very broker specific idiosyncrasies, because although margin rules are standardized to an extent, when they start charging you for interest and giving you margin until settlement may not be standardized. I mean, I can call them and tell you what they said for the 100 rep.",
"In India, in the money options get exercised automatically at the end of the day and is settled at T+1(Where T is expiry day). This means, the clearing house takes the closing price of the underlying security while calculating the amount that needs to be credited/debited to its members. Source: - http://www.nseindia.com/products/content/derivatives/equities/settlement_mechanism.htm",
"If they short the contract, that means, in 5 months, they will owe if the price goes up (receive if the price goes down) the difference between the price they sold the future at, and the 3-month Eurodollar interbank rate, times the value of the contract, times 5. If they're long, they receive if the price goes up (owe if the price goes down), but otherwise unchanged. Cash settlement means they don't actually need to make/receive a three month loan to settle the future, if they held it to expiration - they just pay or receive the difference. This way, there's no credit risk beyond the clearinghouse. The final settlement price of an expiring three-month Eurodollar futures (GE) contract is equal to 100 minus the three-month Eurodollar interbank time deposit rate.",
"Yes, via a margin account, one can trade or transfer on unsettled funds. These are tight regulations that begin with the Federal Reserve, extend to FINRA, and downward. In a cash account, this is not possible. Since speed is a necessity, a margin account can actually be approved nearly instantly.",
"Yes, there is a delay between when you buy a stock and when you actually take ownership of it. This is called the settlement period. The settlement period for US equities is T+2 (other markets have different settlement periods), meaning you don't actually become a shareholder of record until 2 business days after you buy. Conversely, you don't stop being a shareholder of record until 2 business days after you sell. Presumably at some point in the (far) future all public markets will move to same-day changes of ownership, at which point companies will stop making announcements of the form all shareholders of record as of September 22nd and will switch to announcements of the form all shareholders of record as of September 22nd at 13:00 UTC",
"Right now the SEPA Credit Transfers take 3 days excluding holidays. In future this would be reduced to 2 days and then eventually to same day. Your bank would have acknowledged sending out the transaction. It would go into the clearing house and then to the recipient's bank. Once the receiver's bank receives the funds, they would notify the receiver.",
"Transfers are defined to arrive on a specific number of business days, nearly always one business day (if you submit it before the cutoff time). The exact number of days depends on the receiver bank, but when you try to create a transfer, it will tell you when it will arrive, before you send it out.",
"No, you cannot. The cash settlement period will lock up your cash depending on the product you trade. Three business days for stocks, 1 business day for options, and you would need waaaaaay more than $5,000 to trade futures.",
"According to Regulation T, you can make as many day trade (round trip) stock purchases using a cash account as long as you have the funds to cover each and every round trip sale. However, the funds generated from the sales cannot be used again to purchase new stocks until the settlement period (T-2 or T-3) is over. For example, say you have $10000 dollars in your cash account and no securities. You buy 1000 shares of XYZ stock in the morning at one dollar per share and you sell the stock 30 minutes later because it went up say by 50 cents. According to Regulation T, you cannot use the money generated from the sale of your 1000 shares until after the settlement date. However, you can use the remaining $9000 dollars in your account to execute other trades just as the first trade. You can do this as many times as you want as long as you have funds available to pay for the transaction the same day it's executed. The only thing to worry about and that isn't clear, is, what happens if you perform this action more than 3 times in a week? Does it mean that your cash account now becomes a margin account subject to margin account rules because you executed more than three round trip trades in a five day rolling period?",
"At the bottom of the page you linked to, NASDAQ provides a link to this page on nasdaqtrader.com, which states Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date. The dates you are seeing are the dates the member firms settled their trades. In general (also from nasdaq.com), the settlement date is The date on which payment is made to settle a trade. For stocks traded on US exchanges, settlement is currently three business days after the trade.",
"Typically there are several parties involved: (Sometimes one company plays multiple roles; for example AmEx is a network and an issuer.) When a merchant charges a card and the issuer approves it, money is transferred from the issuer to the acquirer to the merchant. This settlement process takes some time, but generally is completed within a day. Of course, most cardholders pay on a monthly basis. The issuer must use their own funds in the mean time. If the cardholder defaults, the issuer takes the loss.",
"\"I was perplexed by this until a few days ago when it finally clicked in a meeting with our fraud and money laundering teams in work (I work on trading surveillance). Apparently fraud detection and prevention of money laundering are currently the biggest delayers when it comes to electronic transfer of funds, checking that the transferring party has the funds to transfer etc. takes no time at all. It takes some time for a bank user to \"\"release\"\" a funds transfer; once it has been initiated it is put into a queue to be reviewed as potentially fraudulent or money laundering activity. Almost every transaction has to be monitored for this from a legal standpoint. The compliance process can take multiple days. Once the process is complete the request also has to go through \"\"settling\"\" which is an end of day process whereby banks \"\"net off\"\" their customers' transactions with other banks and only pass the net value between them. This is an end of day process by nature so only happens once a day meaning that once all of the checks have occurred any transaction will take until the end of the day to crystallise for the bank and so get credited to their customers' accounts. Incidentally in the UK and Europe banks are moving to streamline this process through \"\"faster payment\"\" systems (that is the industry term for the technology) so that customers see the effect within a few hours (2 in the UK currently) and then the banks net off at the end of day as usual. This means reducing the time it takes to do the checks that have to be done using specialist software to flag transfers as potentially fraudulent or not and making banks' processes much clearer and faster.\"",
"Here is the definition of Ex-dividend date from the SEC: Once the company sets the record date, the stock exchanges or the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. fix the ex-dividend date. The ex-dividend date is normally set for stocks two business days before the record date. If you purchase a stock on its ex-dividend date or after, you will not receive the next dividend payment. Instead, the seller gets the dividend. If you purchase before the ex-dividend date, you get the dividend. The linked document discusses weekend, and holidays involved in the calculation. The difference between the record date and the ex-dividend is to allow for the three days of settlement.",
"For margin, it is correct that these rules do not apply. The real problem becomes day trading funding when one is just starting out, broker specific minimums. Options settle in T+1. One thing to note: if Canada is anything like the US, US options may not be available within Canadian borders. Foreign derivatives are usually not traded in the US because of registration costs. However, there may be an exception for US-Canadian trade because one can trade Canadian equities directly within US borders.",
"My bank (USAA) moves money to and from a USAA brokerage account instantly. They also have instant transfers from their money market funds to checking, savings, and brokerage. It takes the 3 days to go to another institution, though.",
"\"Trading on specific ECNs is the easy part - you simply specify the order routing in advance. You are not buying or selling the *exact* same shares. Shares are fungible - so if I simultaneously buy one share and sell another share, my net share position is zero - even if those trades don't settle until T+3. PS \"\"The Nasdaq\"\" isn't really an exchange in the way that the CME, or other order-driven markets are. It's really just a venue to bring market makers together. It's almost like \"\"the internet,\"\" as in, when you buy something from Amazon, you're not buying it from \"\"the internet,\"\" but it was the internet that made your transaction with Amazon possible.\"",
"\"If the wording is \"\"within 10 days\"\" then its 10 days. Calendar days. Otherwise they would put \"\"10 business days\"\", for example. Usually, if you need to do something within 10 days from today, the first day to count is today. I would expect \"\"within\"\" to mean that you can fund in any of the days up to the 10th. But that's me, trying to read English as English. Why don't you call the bank and ask them?\"",
"Your question is unanswerable as you haven't provided enough information. I.e. If those shares cost $1000 and you have $50000 ( or any number above $1000) of cash available in the account then you can't possibly free ride. I think your understanding of the free ride rule is incorrect. Basically what this rule is stating is that you have to have the cash when the trade is placed in order to settle the trade. Otherwise you are taking on margin (which you can't do in a cash account). So at order entry you have to have the cash to cover the purchase so it's able to be settled. If you do, no problem and you can sell that stock before trade settlement. There is no law that says you have to hold it past trade settlement. However, you cannot spend the same dollar more than once before it settles. This site does a good job explaining this more throughly with examples: http://www.invest-faq.com/articles/trade-day-free-ride.html",
"Your understanding is incorrect. The date of record is when you have to own the stock by. The ex-dividend date is calculated so that transaction before that date settles in time to get you listed as owner by the date of record. If you buy the stock before the ex-dividend date, you get the dividend. If you buy it on or after the ex-dividend date, the seller gets the dividend.",
"High frequency trades are intra day. The would buy a stock for 100 and sell for 100.10 multiple times. So If you start with 100 in your broker account, you buy something [it takes 2-3 days to settle], you sell for 100.10 [it takes 2-3 days to settle]. You again buy something for 100. It is the net value of both buys and sells that you need to look at. Trading on Margin Accounts. Most brokers offer Margin Accounts. The exact leverage ratios varies. What this means is that if you start with 10 [or 15 or 25] in your broker you can buy stock of 100. Of course legally you wont own the stock unless you pay the broker balance, etc.",
"\"Brokerages offer you the convenience of buying and selling financial products. They are usually not exchanges themselves, but they can be. Typically there is an exchange and the broker sends orders to that exchange. The main benefit that brokers offer is a simpler commission structure. Not all brokers have their own liquidity, but brokers can have their own allotment of shares of a stock, for example, that they will sell you when you make an order, so that you get what you want faster. Regarding accounts at the exchanges to track actual ownership and transfer of assets, it is not safe to assume thats how that works. There are a lot of shortcomings in how the actual exchange works, since the settlement time is 1 - 3 business days, depending on the product (so upwards of 5 to 6 actual days). In a fast market, the asset can change hands many many times making the accounting completely incorrect for extended time periods. Better to not worry about that part, but if you'd like to read more about how that is regulated look up \"\"Failure To Deliver\"\" regulations on short selling to get a better understanding of market microstructure. It is a very antiquated system.\"",
"They're batched typically and about 30-90 days out typically, though the speed is routinely increasing the last few years. The flow depends from payment processor to payment processor. Generally, the cheaper the payment processing the longer the delay. The future of this stuff is blockchain if you'd like to look at that http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/blockchain/",
"\"The \"\"hold\"\" is just placeholder that prevents you from overspending until the transaction is settled. The merchant isn't \"\"holding\"\" your money, your bank or card provider is protecting itself from you overdrawing. In general, it takes 1-3 days for a credit transaction to settle. With a credit card, this usually isn't an issue, unless you have a very low credit line or other unusual things going on. With pre-paid and debit cards, it is an issue, since your spending power is contingent upon you having an available balance. I'm a contrarian on this topic, but I don't see any compelling reason to use debit or stored value cards, other than preventing yourself from overspending. I've answered a few other questions in detail in this area, if you're interested.\"",
"Great question! It can be a confusing for sure -- but here's a great example I've adapted to your scenario: As a Day Trader, you buy 100 shares of LMNO at $100, then after a large drop the same day, you sell all 10 shares at $90 for a loss of $1,000. Later in the afternoon, you bought another 100 shares at $92 and resold them an hour later at $97 (a $500 profit), closing out your position for the day. The second trade had a profit of $500, so you had a net loss of $500 (the $1,000 loss plus the $500 profit). Here’s how this works out tax-wise: The IRS first disallows the $1,000 loss and lets you show only a profit of $500 for the first trade (since it was a wash). But it lets you add the $1,000 loss to the basis of your replacement shares. So instead of spending $9,200 (100 shares times $92), for tax purposes, you spent $10,200 ($9,200 plus $1,000), which means that the second trade is what caused you to lose the $500 that you added back (100 x $97 = $9,700 minus the 100 x $102 = $10,200, netting $500 loss). On a net basis, you get to record your loss, it just gets recorded on the second trade. The basis addition lets you work off your wash-sale losses eventually, and in your case, on Day 3 you would recognize a $500 final net loss for tax purposes since you EXITED your position. Caveat: UNLESS you re-enter LMNO within 30 days later (at which point it would be another wash and the basis would shift again). Source: http://www.dummies.com/personal-finance/investing/day-trading/understand-the-irs-wash-sale-rule-when-day-trading/",
"this time float is a fabulous money maker for the banks. someone owns that money during that time and creams whatever interest is earned during those few days, and guess who that is. I think most of is is deliberate",
"It is a rather complex system, but here is a rough summary. Interbank tranfers ultimately require a transfer of reserves at the central bank. As a concrete example, the bank of england system is the rtgs. Only the clearing banks and similar (e.g. bacs) have access to rtgs. You can send a chaps payment fairly quickly, but that costs. Chaps immediately triggers an rtgs transfer once the sending bank agrees and so you can be certain that the money is being paid. Hence its use for large amounts. Bacs also sits on the rtgs but to keep costs down it batches tranfers up. Because we are talking about bank reserve movements, checks have to be in place and that can take time. Furthermore the potential for fraud is higher than chaps since these are aggregrated transactions a layer removed, so a delay reduces the chance of payment failing after apparently being sent. Faster payments is a new product by bacs that speeds up the bacs process by doing a number of transfers per day. Hence the two hour clearing. For safety it can only be used for up to 10k. Second tier banks will hold accounts with clearing banks so they are another step down. Foreign currency transfers require the foreign Central Bank reserve somewhere, and so must be mediated by at least one clearing bank in that country. Different countries are at different stages in their technology. Uk clearing is 2h standard now but US is a little behind I believe. Much of Europe is speeding up. Rather like bitcoin clearing, you have a choice between speed and safety. If you wait you are more certain the transaction is sound and have more time to bust the transfer.",
"Ex-Date is a function of the exchange, as well as the dividend. Consider Deutsche Bank AG, DB on the NYSE, DKR on Xetra. For a given dividend, each exchange sets the ex-date for trades on that exchange. (See http://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm for a description of how it works in the US; other exchanges/countries are similar.) This ex-date is normally based on the dividends record date, which is when you must be on the company's books as a shareholder to receive the dividend, and based on when trades for an exchange are settled. The ex-date is the first date for which trades on that date will not settle until after the record date. This means that the ex-date can be different for different exchanges. If you sell your shares on an exchange before the ex-date for that exchange, you will not get the dividend. If you sell your shares on or after the ex-date for the exchange, you do not get the dividend. So it depends on the time zone of the exchange. Most stock exchanges trade T+3, but this can still come into play if there are bank holidays in different countries at different times.",
"\"This is not a problem. SWIFT does not need the Beneficiary Account Currency. The settlement account [or the Instruction amount] is of interest to the Banks. As I understand your agreement with client is they pay you \"\"X\"\" EUR. That is what would be specified on the SWIFT along with your details as beneficiary [Account Number etc]. Once the funds are received by your bank in Turkey, they will get EUR. When they apply these funds to your account in USD, they will convert using the standard rates. Unless you are a large customer and have special instructions [like do not credit if funds are received in NON-USD or give me a special rate or Call me and ask me what I want to do etc]. It typically takes 3-5 days for an international wire depending on the countries and currencies involved. Wait for few more days and then if not received, you have to ask your Client to mention to his Bank that Beneficiary is claiming non-receipt of funds. The Bank that initiated the transfer can track the wire not the your bank which is supposed to receive the funds.\"",
"\"I would think that a lot of brokers would put the restriction suggested in @homer150mw in place or something more restrictive, so that's the first line of answer. If you did get assigned on your short option, then (I think) the T+3 settlement rules would matter for you. Basically you have 3 days to deliver. You'll get a note from your broker demanding that you provide the stock and probably threatening to liquidate assets in your account to cover their costs if you don't comply. If you still have the long-leg of the calendar spread then you can obtain the stock by exercising your long call, or, if you have sufficient funds available, you can just buy the stock and keep your long call. (If you're planning to exercise the long call to cover the position, then you need to check with your broker to see how quickly the stock so-obtained will get credited to your account since it also has some settlement timeline. It's possible that you may not be able to get the stock quickly enough, especially if you act on day 3.) Note that this is why you must buy the call with the far date. It is your \"\"insurance\"\" against a big move against you and getting assigned on your short call at a price that you cannot cover. With the IRA, you have some additional concerns over regular cash account - Namely you cannot freely contribute new cash any time that you want. That means that you have to have some coherent strategy in place here that ensures you can cover your obligations no matter what scenario unfolds. Usually brokers put additional restrictions on trades within IRAs just for this reason. Finally, in the cash account and assuming that you are assigned on your short call, you could potentially could get hit with a good faith, cash liquidation, or free riding violation when your short call is assigned, depending on how you deliver the stock and other things that you're doing in the same account. There are other questions on that on this site and lots of information online. The rules aren't super-simple, so I won't try to reproduce them here. Some related questions to those rules: An external reference also on potential violations in a cash account: https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/trading-investing/trading/avoiding-cash-trading-violations\"",
"Once you own no shares for 31 days, it's game over. Even though the accounting has wash sales to consider, in the end, gains and losses all cancel to one net position of break even, gain or loss. It's when there are shares remaining at the end of a period of time that the wash sale rules really impact the numbers.",
"This is normal for credit cards. As long as you make the credit card company's cutoff time, they will make the funds available on your credit card rather than make you wait for them to actually get the funds from your bank. The amount of time this takes actually can vary significantly from bank to bank. You do want to make sure funds are available in your bank account for them to withdraw when they do take them though. If not, the payment would get returned and can set red flags on your credit card account that take a while to drop off.",
"\"Because it takes 3 business days for the actual transfer of stock to occur after you buy or sell to the next owner, your cash is tied up until that happens. This is called the settlement period. Therefore, brokers offer \"\"margin\"\", which is a form of credit, or loan, to allow you to keep trading while the settlement period occurs, and in other situations unrelated to the presented question. To do this you need a \"\"margin account\"\", you currently have a \"\"cash account\"\". The caveat of having a retail margin account (distinct from a professional margin account) is that there is a limited amount of same-day trades you can make if you have less than $25,000 in the account. This is called the Pattern Day Trader (PDT) rule. You don't need $25k to day trade, you will just wish you had it, as it is easy to get your account frozen or downgraded to a cash account. The way around THAT is to have multiple margin accounts at different brokerages. This will greatly increase the number of same day trades you can make. Many brokers that offer a \"\"solution\"\" to PDT to people that don't have 25k to invest, are offering professional trading accounts, which have additional fees for data, which is free for retail trading accounts. This problem has nothing to do with: So be careful of the advice you get on the internet. It is mostly white noise. Feel free to verify\"",
"I will answer my own question. After calling my broker, they explained me this:",
"As others have said, it depends on the brokerage firm. My broker is Scottrade. With Scottrade the commission is assessed and applied the moment the order is filled. If I buy 100 shares of XYZ at $10 a share then Scottrade will immediately deduct $1007.02 out of my account. They add the commission and fees to the buy transaction. On a sale transaction they subtract the commission and fees from the resulting money. So if I sell 100 shares of XYZ at $11 a share I will get 1,092.98 put into my account, which I can use three business days later.",
"Buy it at the close. That way you won't lose money (even if marked to market) on the day.",
"Every bank and credit union in the US has a Deposit Agreement and Disclosures document, Bank of America is no different. Our general policy is to make funds from your cash and check deposits available to you no later than the first business day after the day of your deposit. However, in some cases we place a hold on funds that you deposit by check. A hold results in a delay in the availability of these funds. that sounds great but ... For determining the availability of your deposits, every day is a business day, except Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays. If you make a deposit on a business day that we are open at one of our financial centers before 2:00 p.m. local time, or at one of our ATMs before 5:00 p.m. local time in the state where we maintain your account, we consider that day to be the day of your deposit. However, if you make a deposit after such times, or on a day when we are not open or that is not a business day, we consider that the deposit was made on the next business day we are open. Some locations have different cutoff times. so if you deposit a check on Friday afternoon, the funds are generally available on Tuesday. but not always... In some cases, we will not make all of the funds that you deposit by check available to you by the first business day after the day of your deposit. Depending on the type of check that you deposit, funds may not be available until the second business day after the day of your deposit. The first $200 of your deposits, however, may be available no later than the first business day after the day of your deposit. If we are not going to make all of the funds from your deposit available by the first business day after the day of your deposit, we generally notify you at the time you make your deposit. We also tell you when the funds will be available. Ok what happens when the funds are available... In many cases, we make funds from your deposited checks available to you sooner than we are able to collect the checks. This means that, from time to time, a deposited check may be returned unpaid after we made the funds available to you. Please keep in mind that even though we make funds from a deposited check available to you and you withdraw the funds, you are still responsible for problems with the deposit. If a check you deposited is returned to us unpaid for any reason, you will have to repay us and we may charge your account for the amount of the check, even if doing so overdraws your account. Fidelity has a similar document: Each check deposited is promptly credited to your account. However, the money may not be available until up to six business days later, and we may decline to honor any debit that is applied against the money before the deposited check has cleared. If a deposited check does not clear, the deposit will be removed from your account, and you are responsible for returning any interest you received on it. I would think that the longer holding period for Fidelity is due to the fact that they want to wait long enough to make sure that the number of times they have to undo investments due to the funds not clearing is nearly zero.",
"Each bank is different, so your question needs to be more specific. For instance, I believe Paypal and Chase settles at 7pm EST on business days. Bank of America at 5PM.",
"Purchases and sales from the same trade date will both settle on the same settlement date. They don't have to pay for their purchases until later either. Because HFT typically make many offsetting trades -- buying, selling, buying, selling, buying, selling, etc -- when the purchases and sales settle, the amount they pay for their purchases will roughly cancel with the amount they receive for their sales (the difference being their profit or loss). Margin accounts and just having extra cash around can increase their ability to have trades that do not perfectly offset. In practice, the HFT's broker will take a smaller amount of cash (e.g. $1 million) as a deposit of capital, and will then allow the HFT to trade a larger amount of stock value long or short (e.g. $10 million, for 10:1 leverage). That $1 million needs to be enough to cover the net profit/loss when the trades settle, and the broker will monitor this to ensure that deposit will be enough.",
"I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think it would be considered a free ride. The idea of a free ride is that you are engaging in a transaction when you do not actually have the money available to cover it, since the broker is technically giving you a 3 day loan whenever you purchase your stock (3 day rule to settle.) However, if you are using a margin account, and you have enough credit available, then you are not actually using unsettled assets, but rather an additional line of credit which was granted to you. You would just need to make sure that your total transactions are less than your purchasing power. That's my take on it anyway. I hope that helps, and hopefully someone can confirm or reject what I have said.",
"Automated Clearing House transactions are used in the US for direct deposit of pay checks and direct debit of many payments for accounts such as mortgages, credit cards, car loans, insurance premiums, etc. The reason they take one or more business days to clear is that the transactions are accumulated by each processor in the network during the day and processed as a batch at the end of each business day. The ACH network processes 20+ billion transactions per year worth $40 trillion, (estimates based on 2012 figures).",
"I have been careful here to cover both shares in companies and in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Some information such as around corporate actions and AGMs is only applicable for company shares and not ETFs. The shares that you own are registered to you through the broker that you bought them via but are verified by independent fund administrators and brokerage reconciliation processes. This means that there is independent verification that the broker has those shares and that they are ring fenced as being yours. The important point in this is that the broker cannot sell them for their own profit or otherwise use them for their own benefit, such as for collateral against margin etc.. 1) Since the broker is keeping the shares for you they are still acting as an intermediary. In order to prove that you own the shares and have the right to sell them you need to transfer the registration to another broker in order to sell them through that broker. This typically, but not always, involves some kind of fee and the broker that you transfer to will need to be able to hold and deal in those shares. Not all brokers have access to all markets. 2) You can sell your shares through a different broker to the one you bought them through but you will need to transfer your ownership to the other broker and that broker will need to have access to that market. 3) You will normally, depending on your broker, get an email or other message on settlement which can be around two days after your purchase. You should also be able to see them in your online account UI before settlement. You usually don't get any messages from the issuing entity for the instrument until AGM time when you may get invited to the AGM if you hold enough stock. All other corporate actions should be handled for you by your broker. It is rare that settlement does not go through on well regulated markets, such as European, Hong Kong, Japanese, and US markets but this is more common on other markets. In particular I have seen quite a lot of trades reversed on the Istanbul market (XIST) recently. That is not to say that XIST is unsafe its just that I happen to have seen a few trades reversed recently.",
"It takes about 4-5 workdays, maybe it depends on the day also when you start the transfer. I transferred an amount last Wednesday, and the same amount on Thursday too. Both transactions hit the destination account on the next Tuesday, with a difference of 2 minutes.",
"Your ETF will return the interest as dividends. If you hold the ETF on the day before the Ex-Dividend date, you will get the dividend. If you sell before that, you will not. Note that at least one other answer to this question is wrong. You do NOT need to hold on the Record date. There is usually 2 days (or so) between the ex-date and the record date, which corresponds to the number of days it takes for your trade to settle. See the rules as published by the SEC: http://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm",
"\"Scenario 1 - When you sell the shares in a margin account, you will see your buying power go up, but your \"\"amount available to withdraw\"\" stays the same until settlement. Yes, you can reallocate the same day, no need to wait until settlement. There is no margin interest for this scenario. Scenario 2 - If that stock is marginable to 50%, and all you have is $10,000 in that stock, you can buy another $10,000. Once done, you are at 50% margin, exactly.\"",
"\"FINRA Description of Day Trading rules The rules adopt a new term \"\"pattern day trader,\"\" which includes any margin customer that day trades (buys then sells or sells short then buys the same security on the same day) four or more times in five business days, provided the number of day trades are more than six percent of the customer's total trading activity for that same five-day period. So, there's several ways to avoid being labeled a pattern day trader:\"",
"\"The issues of trading with unsettled funds are usually restricted to cash accounts. With margin, I've never personally heard of a rule that will catch you in this scenario. You won't be able to withdraw funds that are tied up in unsettled positions until the positions settle. You should be able to trade those funds. I've never heard of a broker charging margin interest on unsettled funds, but that doesn't mean there isn't a broker somewhere that does. Brokers are allowed to impose their own restrictions, however, since margin is basically offering you a line of credit. You should check to see if your broker has more restrictive rules. I'd guess that you may have heard about restrictions that apply to cash accounts and think they may also apply to margin accounts. If that's the case and you want to learn more about the rules generally, try searching for these terms: You should be able to find a lot of clear resources on those terms. Here's one that's current and provides examples: https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/trading-investing/trading/avoiding-cash-trading-violations On a margin account you avoid these issue because the margin (essentially a loan from your broker) provides a cushion / additional funds that avoid the issues. It is possible that if you over-extend yourself that you'll get a \"\"margin call,\"\" but that seems to be different than what you're asking and maybe worth a new question if you want to know about that.\"",
"Do you realise that the examples you have given are for stock splits not for dividends, that is why the date payable is before the ex-date for the split. The payments for the split occur on 30th June and the first day the stock trades with the new split is on the next trading day, being the ex-date, 1st July.",
"\"As previously answered, the solution is margin. It works like this: You deposit e.g. 1'000 USD at your trading company. They give you a margin of e.g. 1:100, so you are allowed to trade with 100'000 USD. Let's say you buy 5'000 pieces of a stock at $20 USD (fully using your 100'000 limit), and the price changes to $20.50 . Your profit is 5000* $0.50 = $2'500. Fast money? If you are lucky. Let's say before the price went up to 20.50, it had a slight dip down to $19.80. Your loss was 5000* $0.2 = 1'000$. Wait! You had just 1000 to begin with: You'll find an email saying \"\"margin call\"\" or \"\"termination notice\"\": Your shares have been sold at $19.80 and you are out of business. The broker willingly gives you this credit, since he can be sure he won't loose a cent. Of course you pay interest for the money you are trading with, but it's only for minutes. So to answer your question: You don't care when you have \"\"your money\"\" back, the trading company will always be there to give you more as long as you have deposit left. (I thought no one should get margin explained without the warning why it is a horrible idea to full use the ridiculous high margins some broker offer. 1:10 might or might not be fine, but 1:100 is harakiri.)\"",
"The SEC considers a day trade to be any trade that is opened and closed within the same trading day, and considers a day trader to be any trader that completes 4 or more day trades within 5 business days. If so they would label you day trader and in the US you are required to have at least $25K in your account. Maybe that's why they require you to add more money to your account? See more at Day trading restriction on US stocks and Wikipedia - Pattern day trader.",
"Futures are immediate settlement, and your money is available as soon as you close out your position.",
"When you swipe your credit card, the terminal at the store makes a request of your bank, and your bank has only a few seconds to accept or reject the transaction. Once the transaction is accepted by your bank, it appears in the Pending transactions. At the end of the business day, the store submits all of the final transactions for the day to their bank in a batch, and the banks all trade transactions in a batch, and money is sent between banks. This is the process that takes a couple of days, and after this happens, you see the transaction move from your Pending transactions into the regular transactions area. Most of the time, the pending transaction and the final transaction are the same. However, there are cases where it is different. A couple of examples: With a credit account, the fact that the final amount is not known for a few days is no big deal: after all, you don't have any money in the account, and if you end up spending more than you have, the bank will happily let you take your time coming up with the money (at a steep cost, of course). With a debit card tied to your checking account, the transaction is handled the same way, as far is the store is concerned. However, your bank is not going to run the risk of you overdrawing your checking account. They also are not going to run the risk of you withdrawing money from your account that is needed to cover pending transactions. So they usually treat these pending transactions as final transactions, deducting the pending transaction from your account balance immediately. When the final transaction comes through, they adjust the transaction, and your balance goes up or down accordingly. This is one of the big drawbacks to using a debit card, in my opinion. If a bad pending transaction comes through, you are out this money until it gets straightened out.",
"Yes, on the settlement the stock is yours to sell with no risk of freeride or day trading applying.",
"\"The difficulty is that you are thinking of a day as a natural unit of time. For some securities the inventory decisions are less than a minute, for others, it can be months. You could ask a similar question of \"\"why would a dealer hold cash?\"\" They are profit maximizing firms and, subject to a chosen risk level, will accept deals that are sufficiently profitable. Consider a stock that averages 1,000 shares per day, but for which there is an order for 10,000 shares. At a sufficient discount, the dealer would be crazy not to carry the order. You are also assuming all orders are idiosyncratic. Dividend reinvestment plans (DRIP) trigger planned purchases on a fixed day, usually by averaging them over a period such as 10 days. The dealer slowly accumulates a position leading up to the date whenever it appears a good discount is available and fills the DRIP orders out of their own account. The dealer tries to be careful not to disturb the market leading up to the date and allows the volume request to shift prices upward and then fills them.\"",
"The answer provide by @mbhunter is correct, however there are contexts, shorting in spot market and carrying the position over settlement usually does not entail payment of dividend to the broker, one of the reason being post ex-date the price of the share downward adjusts to the extent of the dividend, so practically if you have shorted at 100 and post ex-date (assuming a dividend of 2 and no movement of the stock price), the price would slide to 98, the party who longed the stock @ 100 now is sitting on a price of 98 and received a dividend of 2 which equates to 100. The above is also contextual to the law of the country governing the exchange and the security exchange board regulations.",
"\"Short answer - matching your firms stock record or box to the records of a depository or fund family. Any differences are referred to as \"\"breaks\"\" and need to be resolved promptly otherwise action like covering or moving to suspsense are required. There are rules surrounding suspense, that may be valuable reading. Let me know if you have any specifics or want more detail. I made a few assumptions but that is the broadest view of a firms asset reconciliation (FINRA passed some recent rules that take this even deeper into \"\"firm\"\" accounts).\"",
"\"Summary: The phrase \"\"short sale circuit breaker\"\" rule normally refers to the SEC's recent adoption of a new version of the uptick rule. The new uptick rule triggers a ban on short selling when the stock drops a certain amount. The SEC defines the process like this: The \"\"circuit breaker\"\" is triggered for a security any day the price declines by 10% or more from the prior day's closing price The alternative uptick rule, which permits short selling only \"\"if the price of the security is above the current national best bid.\"\"1 The rule applies \"\"to short sale orders in that security for the remainder of the day as well as the following day.\"\" In general, the rule applies to all equities. 1) The national best bid is usually the bid price that you see in Level 1 data. Example: If a stock closed at $100/share on Monday, the \"\"circuit breaker\"\" would be triggered if the stock traded at or below $90/share during Tuesday's session. Short-selling would be disallowed until the start of trading on Thursday unless the short-sell price is above the national best bid, i.e. on an uptick. Purpose: The stated purpose of this rule is promote market stability and preserve investor confidence by restricting potentially abusive short selling from driving prices farther downward during periods of increased volatility and downward price pressure. Whether or not such rules succeed is a matter of some debate, and the SEC removed similar uptick rules in 2006 because \"\"they modestly reduce liquidity and do not appear necessary to prevent manipulation.\"\" Exceptions: There are a few exceptions to the uptick rule that mainly revolve around when the short sell order was placed or when the securities will be delivered.\"",
"\"Here is how the Visa network works: A Visa transaction is a carefully orchestrated process. When a Visa account holder uses a Visa card to buy a pair of shoes, it’s actually the acquirer — the merchant’s bank — that reimburses the merchant for the shoes. Then, the issuer — the account holder’s bank — reimburses the acquirer, usually within 24 to 48 hours. Lastly, the issuer collects from the account holder by withdrawing funds from the account holder’s bank account if a debit account is used, or through billing if a credit account is used. I read this to mean the Merchant's Bank (the Acquirer Bank) gives the merchant the money within 2 days via the Card Issuer's Bank. The issuing bank is the one that provides the \"\"credit\"\" feature since that bank won't get reimbursed until the shopper's bill is paid (or perhaps even longer if the shopper carries a balance). You'll notice the Credit Card company (Visa/MC/etc) is only involved in the process as a way of passing messages. Of course they take a fee for this service so seller ultimately get's less than the buyer bought the shoes for.\"",
"I phoned Tangerine; they enlightened me. It generally takes 2 hours for the email to arrive. Next, the recipient must open the email, click the link, and enter their bank account number. They'll generally receive the money 2-3 business days after that. This forum post suggests that the delays are due to systemic risk management, tendering, and clearing.",
"The next day the market opens trading at 10.50, You haven't specified whether you limit order for $10.10 is to buy or sell. When the trading opens next day, it follows the same process of matching the orders. So if you have put a limit order to buy at $10.10 and there is no sell order at that price, your trade will not go through. If you have placed a limit sell order at $10.10 and there is a buyer at or higher price, it would go through. The Open price is the price of the first trade of the day.",
"As Nathan has correctly noted, ACH processes transactions in daily batches. The reason for that is accounting - the money doesn't actually change hands for each transaction. All the transactions are aggregated and calculated in the batch process, and the money only changes hands for the difference. Consider this: If each transaction was to be handled separately, each time banks would have to adjust their books to account for the money movement. But if we do it in batch we have this: The resulting inter-bank transfers: Total for the original 30 transactions - 2 transactions between the banks: A->B and C->A. If you need money to be transferred immediately (relatively) - you can use wire transfer. Some banks will still aggregate and batch-process those, but more than once a day. They'll charge you additional fee for their inconvenience.",
"I tried to find that out once, and learned 'theoretically never'. The reason is that the guy who gave you the check (name him guy-1) might have deposited a check from guy-2 a day before, and without that money, his check will bounce. Now guy-2 might have deposited a check from guy-3 a day before, and without that money, his check will bounce. Repeat for a while, and then bounce the check from guy-99, and it takes the banks months to unravel it. Yes, improbable. But. A friend working in a bank explained me that, he had seen chains of three and four unravel, which took 20+ days.",
"As the record date is 7th August, you need to hold stocks on the 7th August closing. You need not hold it till 2nd Sept. The list as taken on 7th August would be processed and instructions given to Bank and the dividends credited by 1st Sept. Edit: To Clarify Victor's comment Typically from the time one sells the stocks to the time it actually gets transferred has a clearing cycle. Most stock exchanges have 2 or 3 days cycles. i.e. if I sell the stock today, it is still in my name. The money is still with the buyer. On Day 1, the positions are arrived at. On Day 2 the stock gets credited to the buyer and the funds gets credit to seller. As the question was specific whether to hold the stock till 7th or 22nd Sept, my initial answer was simple. The illustration by Victor is more accurate.",
"\"Banks don't generally \"\"Post\"\" transactions on Friday-Sunday, meaning any transfers made on those days don't show up until someone processes it on Monday. I would expect the money to show today, and call your bank tomorrow if it doesn't.\"",
"The hard hold is the bank holding your money for no reason but to make money of your. Like the hotel took deposit for my over night and they released the time checked out in there system but it never showed on my account . I had to call the bank why the numbers are not adding up to my current balance. It's illegal practice by banks to hold your money until your realize you didn't spent that much and that musing amount is not even showing on your account. When it happen they will release after 30 days or you can call the bank right away soon as you done your business so you can use the money right away not the bank",
"It could be a delay because of the Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) process. At least that's the explanation on this thread at the PayPal forums, and on Prosper.com.",
"Equal sized gains and losses in alternating years would lead to an unjust positive tax. On the contrary. If I can take my gains at the long term rate (15%) in even years, but take losses in odd years, up to $3000, or let them offset short term gains at ordinary rate, I've just gamed the system. What is the purpose of the wash sale rule? Respectfully, we here can do a fine job of explaining how a bit of tax code works. And we can suggest the implication of those code bits. But, I suspect that it's not easy to explain the history of particular rules. For wash sale, the simple intent is to not let someone take a loss without actually selling the stock for a time. You'd be right to say the +/- 30 days is arbitrary. I'd ask you to keep 2 things in mind if you continue to frequent this board -",
"One thing I didn't see mentioned - my major bills are all electronic transfer, i.e. there is no check mailed. A bill due in 2 days can be set up now, and still paid the day after tomorrow. Try that with a check. There are smaller companies that are not done that way and a check mailed, but you state the due date not the mailing date. So the bank still has the obligation to get it there. This is how my particular bank works.",
"\"You need to have 3 things if you are considering short-term trading (which I absolutely do not recommend): The ability to completely disconnect your emotions from your gains and losses (yes, even your gains but especially your losses). The winning/losing on a daily basis will cause you to start taking unnecessary risk in order to win again. If you can't disconnect your emotions, then this isn't the game for you. The lowest possible trading costs to enter and exit a position. People will talk about 1% trading costs; that rule-of-thumb doesn't apply anymore. Personally, my trading costs are a total 13.9 basis points to enter and exit a $10,000 position and I think it's still too high (that's just a hair above one-eighth of 1% for you non-traders). The ability to \"\"gut-check\"\" and exit a losing position FAST. Don't hesitate and don't hope for it to go up. GTFO. If you are serious about short-term trading then you must close all positions on a daily basis. Don't do margin in today's market as many valuations are high and some industries are not trending as they have in the past. The leverage will kill you. It's not a question of \"\"if\"\", it's a when. You're new. Don't trade anything larger than a $5,000 position, no matter what. Don't hold more than 10% of your portfolio in the same industry. Don't be afraid to sit on 50% cash or more for months at a time. Use money market funds to park cash because they are T+1 settlement and most firms will let you trade the stock without cash as long as you effect the money market trade on the same day since stock settlement is T+3.\"",
"WE're talking about companies. Cooperate companies. What cooperate company is issuing bounced or fake checks to their employees that can also issue debit cards as payments? None. You're trying to split hairs between personal cashed checks and pay roll checks. They aren't the same at all. Payroll checks don't require a 3 day waiting period before the balance is moved to your account, personal checks that don't have a history of bouncing do.",
"\"Why? Because they can get away with it, of course. In short - why not? You may want to read the answers to this similar question (my answer is the one accepted by the OP). Who has the money? The banks, who else. I have found that some banks are capable of sending/receiving ACH transfers faster than others. I have accounts in two banks, lets call them A and B. If I send money (push) from A to B, it may take several days. But if I decide to pull the money from A to B by originating the transaction through my account at B - the money arrives the next day! So the actual transfer only takes a night, one business day. Its just the direction that matters - if the bank has to give the money out, it will do all it can (including taking 2-3 days for \"\"processing\"\") to keep the money as long as possible. But when another bank charges them - they have no choice but to pay. By the way, bank B behaves better - when I send the money from my account at B, it arrives to A the next day as well. Try a similar experiment. Instead of originating the transaction at the sender bank - try to originate it at the receiver bank, see how long it takes then for the money to appear on your account after it disappeared from the other one.\"",
"\"I would suggest the following rationale : This appears to be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, however, you can bet that this is how things are handled. As to who receives the dividend you have payed, this will be whoever the counter-party (or counter-parties) are that were assigned the exercise. EDIT Looking at the Dec16 SPY options, we see that the expiry date is 23 Dec. Therefore, your options have been exercised prior to expiry. The 3AM time stamp is probably due to the \"\"overnight batch processing\"\" of your brokers computer system. The party exercising the options will have chosen to exercise on the day prior to ex-dividend in order to receive the dividends.\""
] |
[
"For margin, it is correct that these rules do not apply. The real problem becomes day trading funding when one is just starting out, broker specific minimums. Options settle in T+1. One thing to note: if Canada is anything like the US, US options may not be available within Canadian borders. Foreign derivatives are usually not traded in the US because of registration costs. However, there may be an exception for US-Canadian trade because one can trade Canadian equities directly within US borders.",
"The key word you forgot to include from Slide 29 is: Free-Riding Investopedia defines free-riding as: In the context of a brokerage firm, a free rider problem refers to a situation where a client has been allowed to purchase shares without actually paying for them, and then subsequently sells the shares (ideally for profit). The problem with this scenario is that the client, if allowed to free ride, can profit from a stock trade without actually using any of his or her own capital. This is illegal. I have not heard of any issues with this type of action being a problem with trading accounts in Australia, nor have I been able to find any such rules on the ASX website or any of by brokers websites. So I think this may be an issue in the USA but not Australia. You should check the rules in any other countries you wish to trade in."
] |
5460
|
Paying off a loan with a loan to get a better interest rate
|
[
"93248",
"184337",
"21174",
"108514",
"463885"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"336725",
"379487",
"58432",
"576609",
"108514",
"413108",
"549512",
"333391",
"411572",
"543616",
"458506",
"219536",
"197313",
"5152",
"481822",
"184337",
"555280",
"402739",
"145276",
"426120",
"10790",
"104577",
"152184",
"587682",
"180390",
"327115",
"39676",
"509883",
"37070",
"117417",
"354883",
"463885",
"340520",
"5827",
"100403",
"160932",
"40161",
"359433",
"98920",
"164434",
"545327",
"564358",
"343748",
"510469",
"217636",
"357687",
"286023",
"334964",
"466161",
"78361",
"201968",
"311558",
"205522",
"231105",
"67137",
"361717",
"185107",
"329817",
"227718",
"398090",
"140610",
"125811",
"63427",
"598428",
"497436",
"412142",
"392881",
"200297",
"55084",
"303795",
"88190",
"991",
"343961",
"403735",
"477048",
"217553",
"553277",
"500761",
"79150",
"542461",
"191250",
"110400",
"263647",
"410564",
"167082",
"300660",
"287157",
"243268",
"566234",
"252082",
"578885",
"385736",
"188713",
"425157",
"436840",
"155624",
"431296",
"417964",
"494306",
"515815"
] |
[
"You owe $10k at 18% and borrow an additional $10k at 0. When you pay back $10k, they are likely to apply it to the zero rate money and you are out 2%. Your question has merit, but as others say, the devil is I'm the details. You should read the fine print. My credit card checks forbid drawing a check payable to myself. I need to pay another account, in my case easy to 'pay' my HELOC, then draw the funds.",
"Sounds fishy - taking out more debt to pay the main mortgage down faster? There are a couple of issues I can see: I would think that a much more sensible strategy with a lot less risk is to save up extra cash and send your lender a check every quarter or six months.",
"Seems like a good deal to me. You are paying less interest over the lifetime of the loan. And what I would do is take the difference between the new payments and the old, put it into a savings account each month, and when the savings account exceeds the balance of the loan pay it off.",
"Unless I'm missing something, this doesn't make sense at all. Why take out money at 3.25% (the Heloc) to reduce the balance on a 3% loan (the refi)? It would be better to move as much from the Heloc to the refi as possible to get the best rate. If this results in a lower monthly payment, keep paying the higher payment and you'll be better off.",
"Before we were married my wife financed a car at a terrible rate. I think it was around 20%. When trying to refinance it the remaining loan was much larger than the value of the car, so no one was interested in refinancing. I was able to do a balance transfer to a credit card around 10%. This did take on a bit of risk, which almost came up when the car was totaled in an accident. Fortunately the remaining balance was now less than the value of the car, otherwise I would have been stuck with a credit card payment and no vehicle.",
"It is unlikely that the plan is worth doing, given the numbers you have used. However, your thinking is correct that given enough of a rate differential, it could be worth doing. Consider that for each $100k of your mortgage [and I assume your limit for an unsecured personal loan is likely far less than 100k], you would save only $50/year by taking out a personal unsecured loan of 3% and paying off your 3.05% mortgage. Instead, such low unsecured rates may be a signal that it would be worthwhile for you to renegotiate your mortgage. You will likely need to pay a fee, but the savings could be significant. For each $100k of mortgage, a 1% rate change from your current rate saves you 1k per year. So if you can get a mortgage rate of 2% [which may be possible if an unsecured loan costs you 3%], compare the initial administrative fee against those savings, over the course of the term of the renegotiation. ie: $300k saves you 9k over 3 years, so would be well worth even an initial $3k admin fee.",
"Nope. If there is no prepayment penalty go for it. Find another credit source to use (like a credit card you pay off every month) if you want to get a long history. Saving money on interest is more important to me than minutia in a credit score.",
"You are on the right path. Especially for the fact that you are paying the highest rate card with highest priority. As long as your credit score will not stop you from getting the credit union loan, this is a great idea. It will turn the highest rate card(s) into something more reasonable and let you continue to attack principal instead of mostly paying interest.",
"\"You owe $20,000 to a loanshark, 1% per week interest. I'm happy to get 1% per month, and trust you to pay it back, so I lend you the $20,000. The first lender got his money, and now you are paying less interest as you pay the loan back. This is how a refi works, only the first bank won't try to break the legs of the second bank for moving into their business. This line \"\"reinvested the money into the mortgage to lower his monthly payments\"\" implies he also paid it down a bit, maybr the new mortgage is less principal than the one before.\"",
"It depends on how long it will take you to pay off the personal loan, the rate for the personal loan, the refi rate you think you can get, how much principal you will have to add to get the refi (may have gone up since then). Since you did not provide all the necessary details, the general answer is to sketch out your total payments (mortgage + personal loan) with and without the refi over the life of the mortgage and see if you end up with more money in your pocket with the refi. My overall impression based on the details you did provide is that you will probably find it worthwhile to do the refi.",
"If you're a bit into the loan, then they're probably hoping that you'll take longer to pay off the loan. Is there a fee for refinancing the loan? If so, be sure to take that into account. A smart way to approach it (assuming that the fees are low or zero) would be to continue making the same payment you had been before the refinance. Then you'll end your loan ahead of schedule. (This assumes that there's no prepayment penalty.)",
"Two principles in comparing different scenarios: 1) keep the two scenarios as equal as possible in amount and timing of payments; and 2) find the financial comparison at one particular point. So, your car loan, $10,000 for 35 months at 8% compounded monthly means you're paying $321.29 Suppose you make the switch and keep on paying the same, mortgage and $321.29 for the 35 months (see 1, above) Those extra payments, continued for 35 months at your mortgage rate of 5.59%, will pay off a mortgage of $10,354.10, which will more than pay off the $10,000 you added to the mortgage In other words, making the switch will benefit you to the tune of 354.10 as of the day of the switch. You could ask the mortgage company to give you the $10,000 and the $354.10, and all your payments and amortization would stay the same... (see 2 above) Of course, this is pretty much what Joe Taxpayer said...",
"If you keep the monthly payment the same, and the interest is lower; then you will be by definition overpaying the new loan therefore it will be paid off sooner. Based on some quick calculations it will be paid off approximately 5 years sooner. One advantage to the new loan is that you will have flexibility, you can drop the payment to the lower level for a few months because of a big financial problem and not be in default.",
"Essentially, what you're describing is a leveraged investment. As others noted, the question is how confident you can be that (a) the returns on the investment will exceed what you're paying in interest, and (b) that if you lose the bet you'll still be able to pay off the loan without severely injuring yourself. I did essentially this when I bought my house, taking out a larger loan than necessary and leaving more money in my investments, which had been returning more than the mortgage's interest rate. I then got indecently lucky during the recession and was able to refinance down to under 4%, which I am very certain my investment will beat. I actually considered lengthening the term of the loan for that reason, or borrowing a bit more, but decided not to double down on the bet; that was my own risk-comfort threshold. Know exactly what your risks are, including secondary effects of these risks. Run the numbers to see what the likely return is. Decide whether you like the odds enough to go for it.",
"I used to do this all the time but it's more difficult now. Just a general warning that this probably isn't a good idea unless you're very responsible with your money because it's easy to get yourself in a bad position if you're not careful. You can get a new credit card that does balance transfers and request balance transfer checks from them. Then just use one of those balance transfer checks to mail a payment to the loan you want to transfer. Make sure your don't use the entire credit line as the credit card will have the balance transfer fee put on it as well. You used to be able to find credit cards with 0% balance transfer fee but I haven't seen one of those in ages. Chase Slate is the lowest I've seen recently at 2%. Alternately, if you have a lot of expenses every month then it's easy to find a credit card where all purchases are 0% interest for a year or more and use that to pay every possible expense for a few months and use the money you'd normally use to pay for those expenses to pay off the original loan. If you're regular monthly expenses are high enough you can pay off the original loan quickly and then pay on the credit card with no interest as normal. The banks are looking to hook you so make sure you pay them off before the zero percent runs out or make sure you know what happens after it does. Normally the rate sky rockets. Also, don't use that card for anything else. Credit card companies always put payments towards the lowest interest rate first so if you charge something that doesn't qualify for 0% then it will collect interest until you've paid off the entire 0% balance which will likely take a while and cost you a lot of money. If you have to pay a balance transfer fee then figure out if it's less then you would have paid if you continued paying interest on the original loan. Good luck. I hope it works out for you.",
"If it's possible in your case to get such a loan, then sure, providing the loan fees aren't in excess of the interest rate difference. Auto loans don't have the fees mortgages do, but check the specific loan you're looking at - it may have some fees, and they'd need to be lower than the interest rate savings. Car loans can be tricky to refinance, because of the value of a used car being less than that of a new car. How much better your credit is likely determines how hard this would be to get. Also, how much down payment you put down. Cars devalue 20% or so instantly (a used car with 5 miles on it tends to be worth around 80% of a new car's cost), so if you put less than 20% down, you may be underwater - meaning the principal left on the loan exceeds the value of the car (and so you wouldn't be getting a fully secured loan at that point). However, if your loan amount isn't too high relative to the value of the car, it should be possible. Check out various lenders in advance; also check out non-lender sites for advice. Edmunds.com has some of this laid out, for example (though they're an industry-based site so they're not truly unbiased). I'd also recommend using this to help you pay off the loan faster. If you do refinance to a lower rate, consider taking the savings and sending it to the lender - i.e., keeping your payment the same, just lowering the interest charge. That way you pay it off faster.",
"\"It's not a bad strategy. I'd rather owe money at 4% interest than at 6-7%. However, there is something to consider. Consolidating debt into a new loan can backfire. When you have money borrowed at 7%, you want to get that paid off as quickly as possible. Once you have that converted to 4%, if you think, \"\"Now I can take my time paying off this debt,\"\" then you aren't really better off. In fact, if you take too long paying off the new loan, you might end up paying more interest than if you had kept the high interest loan and paid it as soon as possible. Don't lose your drive to get out of debt after you refinance. As far as how the student loans affect your debt-to-income ratio, I'm not sure; however, if they do count (I think they do), your ratio will not really be going up by taking out the new loan, since you are using the money to pay other debt. Make sure the new lender knows this, so they take that into consideration when making their decision. Overall, I like your strategy: pay off what you can right away (the car loan and the highest interest student loans) and reduce the interest on the rest. Just make sure that you continue to pay down that debt as quick as you can.\"",
"\"The short answer is no, it's probably not ok. The longer answer is, it might be, if you are very disciplined. You need to make sure that you have enough money to pay off the card after a year, and that you pay the card on time, every month, without exception. There may also be balance transfer or other fees that only make it worth while if the interest rate or balance on the other loan is high. The problem is most of these offers will raise your rates to very high levels (think 20% or more) if you are even one day late with one payment. Some of them also will back charge you interest starting from day one, although I have only seen this on store credit \"\"one year, same as cash\"\" type offers. In the end you need to balance the possible payoff against how much it will cost you if you do it wrong. Remember, the banks are not in the business of lending out free money. They wouldn't do this unless enough people didn't pay it back in one year for them to make a profit.\"",
"Why would you trade a lower interest rate over a higher one? I wouldn't use the mortgage to pay off the car. Also, you should have loan/lease payoff on your auto insurance, which if the car is totaled means your loan would be paid by insurance. I don't think you'd be able to take advantage of that if your car payments become one with the mortgage. Finally not all mortgage interest may be deductible. Also, I can't think of any way you'd be able to use the car loan to pay off the mortgage. You wouldn't be able to borrow more than the car is worth, and for a new car it loses quite a bit of value immediately.",
"One reason to not do that is if you consider that one of the loans is at risk of being called in early. e.g. You have a line of credit which is close to its limit, and the bank decides to reduce that limit, forcing you to quickly come up with the money to pay it down below the new limit, which can really throw a wrench into your plans.",
"\"I've done exactly what you are describing and it was a great move for me. A few years back I had two credit cards. One had a $6000 balance and a fairly high interest rate that I was making steady payments to (including interest). The other was actually tied to a HELOC (home equity line of credit) whose interest rate was fixed to \"\"prime\"\", which was very low at the time, I think my effective rate on the card was around 3%. So, I pulled out one of the \"\"cash advance checks\"\" from the HELOC account and paid off the $6000 balance. Then I started making my monthly payments against the balance on the HELOC, and paid it off a bit more quickly and with less overall money spent because I was paying way less interest. Another, similar, tactic is to find a card that doesn't charge fees for balance transfers and that has a 0% interest rate for the first 12 months on transferred balances. I am pretty sure they are out there. Open an account on that card, transfer the balance to it, and pay it down within 12 months. And, try not to use the card for anything else if you can help it.\"",
"Does it cost money to refi? I know there are quite a few deals out there, I refi'd in June for $500, not bad. But sometimes can cost couple grand. If so, you have up front costs, plus the cost of the personal loan, that probably would break even at some point after your refi, but at what point? Will you sell before then, or even think about it? Or would you break even next year, then its a no brainer. As mentioned by others, do the numbers.",
"No. It's perhaps a bit obvious, but with the shorter term loan you would be contractually obligated to pay the higher monthly payment. By paying double on the longer loan, you retain the flexibility to pay less. And you would pay less interest if you truly doubled your payment on the longer loan. This is because you'd be paying off more of the principal more quickly. (But you'd also be making a slightly higher payment than on the shorter term loan.) You can play with the amortization calculator at Bankrate to understand this.",
"You have the 2 properties, and even though the value of property B is less than the amount you owe on it hopefully you have some equity in propery A. So if you do have enough equity in property A, why don't you just go to the one lender and get both property A and B refinanced under the same mortgage. This way hopefully the combined equity in both properties would be enough to cover the full amount of the loan, and you have the opportunity to refinance at favourable rate and terms. Sounds like you are in the USA with an interest rate of 3.25%, I am in Australia and my mortgage rates are currently between 6.3% to 6.6%.",
"You're not crazy, but the banks are. Here's the problem: You're taking 100% LTV on property A - you won't be able to get a second mortgage for more than 80% total (including the current mortgage) LTV. That's actually something I just recently learned from my own experience. If the market is bad, the banks might even lower the LTV limit further. So essentially, at least 20% of your equity in A will remain on the paper. Banks don't like seeing the down-payment coming from anywhere other than your savings. Putting the downpayment from loan proceeds, even if not secured by the property which you're refinancing, will probably scare banks off. How to solve this? Suggest to deal with it as a business, putting both properties under a company/LLC, if possible. It might be hard to change the titles while you have loans on your properties, but even without it - deal with it as if it is a business. Approach your bank for a business loan - either secured by A or unsecured, and another investment loan for B. Describe your strategy to the banker (preferably a small community bank in the area where the properties are), and how you're going to fund the properties. You won't get rates as low as you have on A (3.25% on investment loan? Not a chance, that one is a keeper), but you might be able to get rid of the balloon/variable APR problem.",
"You would have to do the specific math with your specific situation to be certain, but - generally speaking it would be smarter to use extra money to pay down the principle faster on the original loan. Your ability to refinance in the future at a more favorable rate is an unknowable uncertainty, subject to a number of conditions (only some of which you can control). But what is almost always a complete certainty is that paying off a debt is, on net, better than putting the same money into a low-yield savings account.",
"Awesome, you are a math guy. Very good for you. In theory, what you are proposing, should work out great as the math works out great. However have you taken a economics or finance coursework? The math that they do in these class will leave a most math guys uncomfortable with the imprecision even when one is comfortable with chaos theory. Personal finance is worse. If it were about math things like reverse mortgages, payday lenders, and advances on one income tax returns would not exist. The risk derived from the situation you describe is one born out of behavior. Sometimes it is beyond control of the person attempting your scheme. Suppose one of these happen: In my opinion the market is risky enough without borrowing money in order to invest. Its one thing to not pay extra principle to a mortgage in order to put that money in play in the market, it is another thing to do what you are suggesting. While their may be late fees associated with a mortgage payment, a fixed rate mortgage will not change if you late on payment(s). On these balance transfer CC schemes they will jack your rate up for any excuse possible. I read an article that the most common way to end up with a 23%+ credit card was to start out with a 0% balance transfer. One thing that is often overlooked is that the transfer fee paid jacks up the stated rate of the card. In the end, get out of consumer debt, have an emergency fund, then start investing. Building a firm financial foundation is the best way to go about it. Without one it will be difficult to make headway. With one your net worth will increase faster then you imagined possible.",
"It doesn't really make sense to cure indebtedness with more debt. This is why your friend is having trouble finding someone to loan him money. If he can't borrow at a lower rate then he should probably focus on paying down some of his debt.",
"\"There are two issues here: arithmetic and psychology. Scenario 1: You are presently paying an extra $500 per month on your student loan, above the minimum payments. Your credit card company offers a $4000 cash advance at 0% for 8 months. So you take the cash advance, pay it toward the student loan, and then instead of paying the extra $500 per month toward the student loan you use that $500 for 8 months to repay the cash advance. Net result: You pay 0% interest on the loan, and save roughly 8 months times $4000 times the interest on the student loan divided by two. (I say \"\"divided by two\"\" because it's not the difference between $4000 and zero, but between $4000 and the $500 you would have been paying off each month.) Clearly you are better off. If you are NOT presently paying an extra $500 on the student loan -- or even if you are but it is a struggle to come up with the money -- then the question becomes, can you reasonably expect to be able to pay off the credit card before the grace period runs out? Interest rates on credit cards are normally much higher than interest rates on student loans. If you get the cash advance and then can't repay it, after 8 months you are paying a very steep interest rate, and anything you saved on the student loan will quickly be lost. What I mean by \"\"psychological\"\" is that you have to have the discipline to really repay the credit card within the grace period. If you're not very confidant that you can do that, this plan could go bad very quickly. Personally, I've thought about doing things like this many times -- cash advances against credit cards, home equity loans, etc, all give low-interest money that could be used to pay off a higher-interest debt. But it's easy to get into trouble doing things like this. It's easy to say to yourself, Well, I don't need to put ALL the money toward that other debt, I could keep a thousand or so to buy that big screen TV I really need. Or to fail to pay back the low-interest loan on schedule because other things keep coming up that you spend your money on instead, whether frivolous luxuries or true emergencies. And there's always the possibility that something will happen to mess up your finances, from a big car repair bill to losing your job. You don't want to paint yourself into a corner. Finally, maxing out your credit cards hurts your credit rating. The formulas are secret, but I understand that if you use more than half your available credit, that's a minus. How much it hurts you depends on lots of factors.\"",
"If you get a mortgage on the new property, you can almost surely get better than 9% today. I refinanced my house a year or so ago at 4%. You didn't say how much the new house will cost or how much of your cash you're willing to put to it, but just to make up a number say the house costs $200,000 and you'll pay $100,000 with cash. So you could keep the $50,000 at 9% and get a new $100,000 at 4%, or you could pay off the old loan so you have $0 at 9% and $150,000 at 4%. Clearly plan B is significantly less interest -- 5% x $50,000 = $2,500 per year. If you can afford to buy the new house without getting a loan at all, it gets more complicated. By not getting a loan, you avoid closing costs, typically several thousand dollars. Would the amount you save on closing costs be more than the difference in interest? I think probably not, but I'd check into it. If paying off the old loan means that your down payment on the new place is now low enough that you have to pay mortgage insurance, you'd have to factor that in. I can't say without knowing the numbers, but I'd guess PMI would be less than the interest savings, but maybe not. Oh, I assume that you're planning to keep the old house. If you sell it, this whole question becomes a moot point, as most mortgages have a due-on-sale clause.",
"You can. You can take out a conventional mortgage and keep the cash. A mortgage is nothing but a secured loan against your home. You can open a HELOC and treat it as a negative-equity bank-account. Note that both a mortgage and a HELOC tend to have significant up-front or administrative costs attached to them. It costs the loaning institution some money to ensure they are in a safe position, and they will want to pass it on to you. They don't want you taking out such a loan and not using it. On the other hand, the interest rates on such a loan are often much lower than interest rates on other loans. If you have a reliable source of significant income, getting a completely unsecured line of credit may be possible with a rate only a few percentage points higher than a HELOC without having to pay a cent in fees. The bank doesn't have to appraise your home or ensure ownership before such a loan, just assess income (which is easy, especially if you have a regular paycheck auto-deposited into an account at the same branch; toss in some signatures from your employer and good to go). If that is feasible, you could end up with a lower rate. Withdraw from the line of credit, pay off your other loans, then work to repay the line of credit. If an unsecured line of credit has a rate 1-3% higher than a secured one, and you are borrowing 5000$ against it and pay it off over 2 years, the total interest you would save from a secured line is about 50$-150$. Note that in some jurisdictions your home is protected against loss from bankruptcy, unless you have used it as collateral for a loan, or it is easier to claim the home if you are insolvent if you have used it as collateral. Determining what the consequences of securing your loan against the house could itself be expensive.",
"Your current loan is for a new car. Your refinanced loan would probably be for a used car. They have different underwriting standards and used car loan rates are usually higher because of the higher risks associated with the loans. (People with better credit will tend to buy new cars.) This doesn't mean that you can't come out ahead after refinancing but you'll probably have to do a bit of searching. I think you should take a step back though. 5% isn't that much money and five years is a long time. Nobody can predict the future but my experience tells me that the **** is going to hit the fan at least once over any five year period, and it's going to be a really big dump at least once over any ten year period. Do you have savings to cover it or would you have to take a credit card advance at a much higher interest rate? Are you even sure that's an option - a lot of people who planned to use their credit card advances as emergency savings found their credit limits slashed before they could act. I understand the desire to reduce what you pay in interest but BTDT and now I don't hesitate to give savings priority when I have some excess cash. There's no one size fits all answer but should have at least one or two months of income saved up before you start considering anything like loan prepayments.",
"\"Better suggestion: Refinance into a lower rate mortgage. In the US right now you could cut that rate substantially with very little effort, unless you are a bad credit risk. Also: Not all mortgages permit use as a \"\"line of credit\"\" without additional fees, in addition to credit card transfer fees. (There is often a different kind of house loan, at a higher interest rate, if you really need that flexibility.) So this idea may not even be possible, or those fees may kill it, even before considering costs and risks on the credit card side. Generally, gimmicks don't work.\"",
"Let's say I have two loans (say 2 car loans), and the high interest loan has a higher balance. Both have a monthly payment of, say, $500. My income fluctuates a lot, so occasionally I only have $750. I get hit with big fees those months, or maybe I just have to eat beans for those months. I come on some extra money. Maybe enough to get rid of the low interest small loan. Paying off the smaller loan frees up cash. I don't have to eat beans on the bad months.",
"If you get your income in the currency you have the new loan in, there is no exchange risk for the future. Assuming that you are able to get and serve that loan, it reduces your cost, so go for it. Yes, if the currency exchange rate changes the right way over the next years, you could have made a better deal - but consider it could also go the other way. If you really want to play this game, do it separately, by trading calls/puts on the currency exchange rate. See it as a separate and decoupled investment option.",
"Sounds like baloney to me. HELOCs are variable rate, so you are paying down the principal of a fixed rate loan with a variable rate loan. If you want to pay the mortgage down faster, make two half payments per month, and/or add a little extra to each payment (make sure with the bank that any extra will automatically go to principal).",
"If you plan to stay in Europe for some time, then you should match your income currency with your liability currency, and so should use the Euro loan to pay off the INR loan, thereby eliminating the currency risk that you currently bear every time you convert Euro into INR to pay down the loan. Plus, you have a much lower interest rate. So, do it !",
"\"In the first years of a loan, most of what you're paying is interest, so my guess is that this is a bad idea. But there are lots of mortgage calculators offered for free on the web (your bank's website may have one) so I'd suggest that you spend some time running actual numbers before deciding. Reminder: Most renovations do NOT pay for themselves in increased sales price, not least because you'll lose the buyers who don't like what you've done but would have been happy to renovate it themselves to their own tastes. Unless there is something which will actively impair your ability to sell the house, you should usually renovate when you plan to stay there for a while and take your returns in enjoying the house more, NOT on the way out. (There's been some recent discussion of this over in Home Improvement, pointing out that the changes which return more than they cost are usually simple things like refreshing the paint, \"\"staging\"\" the house so it looks lived in but not cluttered, replacing damaged blinds, washing windows, putting out a few more flowers, and so on.)\"",
"What you're getting at is the same as investing with leverage. Usually this comes in the form in a margin account, which an investor uses to borrow money at a low interest rate, invest the money, and (hopefully!) beat the interest rate. is this approach unwise? That completely depends on how your investments perform and how high your loan's interest rate is. The higher your loan's interest rate, the more risky your investments will have to be in order to beat the interest rate. If you can get a return which beats the interest rates of your loan then congratulations! You have come out ahead and made a profit. If you can keep it up you should make the minimum payment on your loan to maximize the amount of capital you can invest. If not, then it would be better to just use your extra cash to pay down the loan. [are] there really are investments (aside from stocks and such) that I can try to use to my advantage? With interest rates as low as they are right now (at least in the US) you'll probably be hard-pressed to find a savings account or CD that will return a higher interest rate than your loan's. If you're nervous about the risk associated with investing in stocks and bonds (as is healthy!), then know that they come in a wide spectrum of risk. It's up to you to evaluate how much risk you're willing to take on to achieve a higher return.",
"$33K, $227 payment is 7.33%. But is that right? You're also stretching out the remaining loan back to 30 years. Now, if the bank just let you do the stretch, you'd owe $95K / 4.75% / 360 mo / PMT = $495.56 - this would be a neutral move, same rate. You now have: $128K / 5.625% / 360 / PMT = $737 so to my thinking, the delta is: $33K / X rate / 360 / PMT = $241.44 and the rate is 7.97% If you have enough equity to refi, you have enough to take that in a HELOC, and pay it off aggressively, why give up the great rate? The $227/mo you will pay the HELOC off in 22 years even at 6%. My HELOC is 2.5%. I'd use any raise or bonus to hack away at it. I tried to spell out my thought process on the math. If any savvy reader (you all are, I know) wants to look at this and offer a better method, I'm open minded. There's a fallacy that comes with refinancing, certainly money appears in the payment stream as a result of extending the term. Somewhere that needs to be accounted for, else a higher rate at a longer term appears favorable, so my approach is to normalize the numbers one way or another. Here, producing that first step of calculating the payment on the extended term (an interim step that's a mental process only, that loan is hypothetical). Comments welcome.",
"No, because of the balance transfer fees, which could be 4%. Unless of course you get a deal for 12 months of no payment, and you pay it back in 12 months, in which case a 4% annual interest rate is much less than a loan! At that point you are gambling that you will be responsible with the payments, and the card company is taking the opposite bet.",
"The reason is the same as with cell phones payment plans. As competition grows cell phone companies offer better payment plans for the same price or the same plans for lower price or both so that you stay with that cell operator. Banks also make better offers if the financial situation allows. Suppose several banks offer refinancing with better terms but prohibit refinancing loans from the same bank. Okay, you refinance from another bank and them maybe refinance the new loan again from the original bank - it's a new loan after the first refinance and prohibition no longer works. They just make you jump through more loops and it doesn't make sense neither for them nor for you",
"This is what your car loan would look like if you paid it off in 14 months at the existing 2.94% rate: You'll pay a total of about $277 in interest. If you do a balance transfer of the $10,000 at 3% it'll cost you $300 up front, and your payment on the remaining $5,000 will be $363.74 to pay it off in the 14 month period. Your total monthly payment will be $1,099.45; $5,000 amortized at 2.94% for 14 months plus $10,300 divided by 14. ($363.74 + 735.71). Your interest will be about $392, $300 from the balance transfer and $92 from the remaining $5,000 on the car loan at 2.94%. Even if your lender doesn't credit your additional payment to principal and instead simply credits future payments, you'd still be done in 15 months with a total interest expense of about $447. So this additional administration and additional loan will save you maybe about $55 over 14 or 15 months.",
"Is this the smart thing to do? You're essentially borrowing money at 2.7% to keep it in your bank account. No, that is not a smart financial decision. Pay the difference in cash and replenish your savings with the $1,100 a month. Some other notes:",
"There's several different trade-offs wrapped up in your question. In general, refinancing a mortgage to a lower interest rate makes sense if you are certain you'll be living in the house for N years. N depends on your closing costs and points. Basically you need to calculate the break-even point for when the savings from the reduced interest rate exceeds the cost of the re-fi. When I refinanced, the broker did the calculations for me for a range of options, maybe yours could as well. The trade off in selecting 30-year vs. 15-year is between monthly payment and total outlay. A 15-year mortgage will have a higher monthly payment, but the total money that is paid out the bank (rather than to your equity) will be less. Using the Heloc to do the down payment seems sketchy; plus then you have two loan payments you're making each month. Why not keep it simple and look for a $250k loan with 5% down? Presumably with the current mortgage you already put in a good down payment, and have built some equity up.",
"That interest rate (13%) is steep, and the balloon payment will have him paying more interest longer. Investing the difference is a risky proposition because past performance of an investment is no guarantee of future performance. Is taking that risk worth netting 2%? Not for me, but you must answer that last question for yourself. To your edit: How disruptive would losing the car and/or getting negative marks on your credit be? If you can quantify that in dollars then you have your answer.",
"if the rate of interest on both loans is 6.5%, it does not make any difference against which loan you offset. if you offset it with 50K loan, you will close it sooner [I am assuming your 50K loan is of shorter tenure compared to the 300K without considering offset]. The overall interest outgo looks larger if you close the shorter loan vs closing the larger loan, however the net effect is the same if you start putting out the balance $400 to the 300K loan after you have closed it out.",
"The only way this suggestion works is if you can realize a higher rate of return on the investment than the payoff of the loan. There's no guarantee of that, so it can be a risky strategy from the standpoint that you'll end up paying more for the car when all is said and done.",
"\"My husband made a similar car loan decision when he was younger and didn't have an established credit history / favourable credit rating. As a result, he ended up paying triple what the car was worth, because of the interest. When we consolidated our finances, this ugly loan was first on our list of priorities to change, convert, eliminate, but unfortunately, in our case, the terms of the loan were such that only the lender benefited. There was no incentive to pay off the loan early, in fact, we would have to have paid all the future interest at once, without saving a penny. So check the terms of your loan - hopefully you're better off than we were. In our case, the only upside we could figure was the lesson of \"\"live and learn\"\"!\"",
"The chances are good that the interest you are going to pay on the debt is going to be higher than the interest you are going to receive on any type of short term investments. That would make the paying off of the debt worth more to you in the long run than saving your money. Note that without the particulars of your situation this is all just theory crafting so consult the details of you loan agreements. I cannot imagine that a credit provider did not discuss this with you before you put pen on paper.",
"\"When you refinance, there is cost (guess: around $2000-$3000) to cover lawyers, paperwork, surveys, deed insurance, etc. etc. etc. Someone has to pay that cost, and in the end it will be you. Even if you get a \"\"no points no cost\"\" loan, the cost is going to be hidden in the interest rate. That's the way transactions with knowledgeable companies works: they do business because they benefit (profit) from it. The expectation is that what they need is different from what you need, so that each of you benefits. But, when it's a primarily cash transaction, you can't both end up with more money. So, unless value will be created somewhere else from the process (and don't include the +cash, because that ends up tacked onto the principle), this seems like paying for financial entertainment, and there are better ways to do that.\"",
"If you have (other) high interest debt, say over 8%, pay it back first. Else, you are likely best off paying this loan back and getting the money working for you long term.",
"What you propose is to convert unsecured debt into secured debt. Conversion of unsecured debt into secured debt is not generally a good idea (several reasons). The debt you currently owe does not have assets securing the debt, so the creditor knows they are exposed to risk, and may be more willing to negotiate or relax terms on the debt, should you encounter problems. When you provide an asset to secure debt, you lose freedom to sell that asset. When you incur debt their is usually a spending problem that needs to be corrected, which is typically not fixed when a refinance solution is used. You do not mention interest rate, which would be one benefit to conversion of unsecured to secured debt, so you probably are not gaining adequate benefit from the conversion strategy. This strategy is often contemplated using 'cash-out' refinancing to borrow against a home you already own, and the (claimed) benefit is often to lower the interest rate on the debt. Your scenario is more complicated in that you have not purchased the home (yet). Though it may be a good idea to purchase a home, that choice depends on a different set of considerations (children, job stability, rental vs. buy costs, lifestyle, expected appreciation, etc) from how to best handle a large debt (income vs. expenses, how to increase income or reduce expenses, lifestyle, priorities, etc). Another consideration is that you already have a problem with the large debt owed to one (set of) creditor(s), and you have a plan which would shift the risk/exposure to another (set of) creditor(s) who may have been less complicit in accruing the original debt. Was the debt incurred jointly during the marriage, and something you accepted responsibility to repay? You mention that you make great income, and you specify one expense (rent), but you neither provided the amount of income, total of all your expenses, nor your free cash flow amount, nor any indication of percentages spent on rent, essential expenses, lifestyle, nor amount available to retire debt. Since you did not provide specifics, we can take a look at three scenarios, scenario #1, $4000/month income scenario #1, $6000/month income scenario #1, $8000/month income Depending upon your income and choices, you might have < $500/month to pay towards debt, or as much as $3000/month to pay towards debt, and depending upon interest rate (which OP did not provide), this debt could take < 2 years to pay or > 5 years to pay. Have you accepted the responsibility for the debt? It will be a tough task to repay the debt. And you will learn that debt comes with a cost as you repay it. One problem people often encounter when they refinance debt is they have not changed the habits which produced the debt. So they often continue their spending habits and incur new unsecured debt, landing them back in the same problem position, but with the increased secured debt combined with additional new unsecured debt. Challenge yourself to repay a specific portion of the debt in a specific time, and consider ways to reduce your expenses (and/or increase your income) to provide more money to repay the debt quicker. As you also did not disclose your assets, it is hard to know whether you could repay a portion of the debt from assets you already own. It makes sense to sell assets that have a low (or zero) return to repay debt that has a high interest rate. Perhaps you have substantial assets that you are reluctant to sell, but that you could sell to repay a large part of the debt?",
"You should check the details of those balance transfers - they typically have a 3 to 5 % 'one-time fee', which means you pay nearly a year's interest right away. And then every time you transfer the total on again. Also, this fee gets added to the credit card total, and it is possibly considered paid last (after you paid off the completed transferred balance), so it cost interest for the whole time (and that interest is different, maybe 19.99 % or worse). It is probably a better idea to refinance for 5 years at <3%, and they pay off as fast as possible.",
"\"What are the fees associated with changing the new loan? Are those fees worth the peace of mind? If so, than it is not \"\"crazy\"\". The decision really boils down to that: is it worth the money that you will spend refinancing the loan to not have to deal with the original bank that financed your loan, assuming that you find an institution that will be more amenable to your financial expectations.\"",
"First off, this is a post for /r/personalfinance. Second off, if you want to think of this like an accountant/financier, those are the bank's 10233 dollars, not your's, and you are paying them 6% to keep that money. If you are confident that you are going to make more than 6% interest on any investments you make with that money, it makes sense to do so, although your return will be 6% less in reality. You also assume the risk of losing money on the investment and not having enough money to repay your loans. tl;dr Pay off the loan.",
"\"It can be a good thing for the bank to refinance your loan for you - since you will be keeping the loan at that particular institution. This gives them more time to enjoy the free money you pay them in interest for the remaining life of the loan. Banks that offer \"\"No closing costs\"\" are betting that mortgage payers will move their mortgage to get the lower interest rates - and whomever holds the loan, gets the interest payments.\"",
"Not sure if this is possible... It is possible! It is called a balance transfer card and most of the major credit card companies offer them. It is possible to save a significant amount on interest during the grace period. However... Is this a viable option? Not really. Any card will charge you an upfront fee of 3% to 5% of the balance you are transferring. This really only buys you some time in case you are about to fall behind on payments. For many people it's just a way to shuffle around debt, digging themselves a little deeper into consumer debt with each transfer.",
"From a pure monetary point of view, paying 5% to earn 1% doesn't make sense... Though there is also the question of retaining enough immediately available emergency funds, which may make the loan worth considering anyway. On the other hand, if you consider putting the funds into the stock market rather than a bank account, you have quite decent odds of earning more than 5%. In that case, this becomes an opportunity for leveraged investment. I'm doing exactly that with my mortgage.",
"\"A few points Yes, as a rule, it is better to pay down high interest accounts first, as this will yield lower cost in the long run. Credit card balance transfers usually come at a cost (typically something like \"\"3% or $50, whichever is higher\"\"). So instead of transferring the debt, maybe try purchasing items with your card instead of cash, and using the cash to pay down the debt. This has the added benefit of giving you points or cash back on the card (typically you won't get these for a balance transfer). Caveat: Only do this if you are very disciplined! It is very easy to run up high CC balances and forget to save the cash. You should leave a bit of unused credit line on your credit cards in case of emergencies. I'm doubting you can use your high interest loans in the same way.\"",
"As well as paying 8% interest on your loan (i.e. $800/year), you're also wasting money on the car: depreciation, insurance etc. So it's worth a lot to you to get out of it. Set against that is the risk of having to borrow the $3000 you'll be taking from your emergency fund at a higher interest rate (say 30%?) for at most 6 months, which would only cost you $300-$400 even if it happens. You'll also be giving up a small amount of interest on the $3000, but at current interest rates that pretty much negligible. There is a small chance that an emergency would also cause the available credit on your credit cards to disappear, but in the short term that should be pretty unlikely. So I think the balance is overwhelmingly in favour of getting out of the loan as soon as you can.",
"What you are describing is called a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). While the strategy you are describing is not impossible it would raise the amount of debt in your name and reduce your borrowing potential. A recent HELOC used to finance the down payment on a second property risks sending a signal of bad financial position to credit analysts and may further reduce your chances to obtain the credit approval.",
"You have to have 9% ROI for your investment to break even. That's pretty steep. I'd pay the loan, where you have 9% promised return. Just make sure that there are no pre-payment penalties, and that you're comfortable enough with not having that money available.",
"\"Paypal forbids using their credit card service to \"\"give yourself a cash advance or help others to do so\"\". For small ammounts you may get away with it but pushing $10K through a PayPal account is going to raise red flags. In the USA it seems that some cards allow balance transfers from other types of loan while others are restricted to credit cards only. So that is a possibility. Another option can be to find a card with a good deal on purchases. Then move your regular purchases to the card and use the money you would normally have spent on purchases to pay off the other loan. Remember credit cards can be either a very cheap way to borrow or a very expensive way. Which one they are depends on how good you are at negotiating the traps they set up for you. If you do use a credit card deal make sure you Is it overall a viable option? That depends on the details which are not specified in your hypothetical scenario incluing the persons credit rating , what the interest is like on the existing loan and what the expected time to repay the debt is.\"",
"I’d say No, it’s not crazy. I did that even for a mortgage, because the bank tended to lose my checks or let them sit for some days, and then claim I paid late. They were known on the internet for their poor processing department, so I decided to avoid that monthly hassle with calling and arguing, and refinanced. Compare the pain with the cost for refinancing, and if you think it’s worth it, change. You might even get a cheaper credit, and save on it.",
"One thing I would look into is getting a fixed rate home equity loan for a short term. Not a line of credit, but a home equity loan. The main benefit is they typically offer no closing costs. You can get a very low rate provided you move the loan into first position (replace your current mortgage). I know someone who got a 7 year fixed Home Equity Loan, from Regions Bank, for 2.62% no closing costs.",
"This is more an /r/personalfinance question, but I'll give my 2 cents. No matter what, the fund you invest in is going to be subject to risk, so you could end up losing money. It would definitely be a gamble. If you have other debt at higher APR than the loan, it could be beneficial to pay that off using extra loan proceeds.",
"Refinancing a car for anything other than lowering the rate is not a good idea. Keep the same term, or take a shorter one. Remember that unlike real property, a car only loses value. So when you make your payments on your 84 month (!) loan, those payments are amortized so that the interest is front loaded. The problem is, when your car gets totalled around month 24, insurance will generally only pay what the car is worth, and you'll owe more.",
"I wouldn't advocate it, but one reason to pay a lower interest rate is if you have $990 on a $1000 limit credit card with 6% interest and $5000 on a $15k limit card at 10% interest. Having $500 to pay in a month and putting it on the lower interest would free up a greater percentage of credit on that card and could potentially help your credit rating I believe. I think having $1000 on 10 different credit cards w/ $15k limit reflects better than $10k on one $15k card, regardless of interest rates. Personally I think that's dumb b/c having the extra credit available is an opportunity to get into trouble a lot easier.",
"Let's say you owe $200K (since you didn't mention balance. If you do, I'd edit my response), and can get 4.5%. You'd save 1.5% or about $3K/yr the first few years. If a $12K paydown is all that's between you and and refi I'd figure out a way. There are banks that are offering refi's under the HARP program if your current mortgage is owned by FNMA or FMAC which permit even if under water. So, the first step is research to see if you can refi exactly what's owed, failing that, shop around. A 401(k) loan will not appear as a loan on your credit report, that may be one way to raise the $12K. The best thing you can do is put all the savings into the 401(k) to really get it going.",
"Considering that we are in a low-interest rate period (the lowest in history), it's smart to loan money from the bank to reinvest in property or other investments as far as you get a better yield (ROI) than the interest.",
"\"The question asked in your last paragraph (what's the downside) is answered simply; if you take out a loan and close the cards, that's a ding on your score because your leverage ratio on this portion of your credit jumps to 100% or more, and because you'll be reducing the average age of your lines of credit (one line of credit a few days old versus five lines of credit several years old each). If you take out the loan and don't close the accounts, it's one more line of credit, increasing your total credit, lowering your leverage, but making institutions more reluctant to give you any more credit until they see what you'll do with what you have. In either case, assuming you can get the loan at less than the average rate of the cards (that's actually not a guarantee; a lot of lenders will want APRs in the 20s or 30s even for a title loan or other collateralized loan), then your cost of capital will also go down. That gives you more of a gap of discretionary income that you can better use to \"\"snowball\"\" all this debt as you are planning. Another thing to keep in mind is that the minimum payment changes as the balance does. The minimum payment covers monthly interest at least, and therefore varies based on your interest rate (usually variable) and your balance (which will hopefully be decreasing). A constant payment over the current minimum, much like a more traditional amortization, would be preferable.\"",
"\"Played \"\"the balance transfer game\"\" once recently, just as a reference - Got a balance transfer offer for a sock drawer no-AF card. 2% up-front fee, 0% APR. Grace period was, by the time I acted on it, about 16 months. Used it to pay down an auto loan with an APR slightly higher than 2%, and brought my equity back to positive. Towards the end when I rolled over the auto loan, thanks to the positive equity I was offered a rate discount on the new loan. Essentially this was a piggyback loan on the original auto loan funded by credit card (via balance transfer). Saved some interest charges without having to refinance.\"",
"\"You can definitely do it. But: Refinancing would make more sense to you, you can refinance at no cost and get rates below 4%, so you'll be saving 1% a year, without paying anything extra. If you pay the fees you'll get even lower rates, but then you need to check whether its worth it. I've just refinanced to a 15 years fixed mortgage at no cost a couple of months ago, and got 3.875% rate (in California), so its definitely worth looking into, don't just dismiss it. This will limit your flexibility though, because paying 30yrs loan \"\"as if\"\" is much more flexible than committing on 15yes loan - you can always go back to your original payments if you want to spread it out a bit more. You can add a HELOC once you've accumulated some equity to back you up, that's what I did.\"",
"You could consider turning your current place into a Rental Property. This is more easily done with a fixed rate loan, and you said you have an ARM. The way it would work: If you can charge enough rent to cover your current mortgage plus the interest-difference on your new mortgage, then the income from your rental property can effectively lower the interest rate on your new home. By keeping your current low rate, month-after-month, you'll pay the market rate on your new home, but you'll also receive rental income from your previous home to offset the increased cost. Granted, a lot of your value will be locked up in equity in your former home, and not be easily accessible (except through a HELOC or similar), but if you can afford it, it is a good possibility.",
"You might try to refinance some of those loans. It sounds like you are serious about minimizing interest expense, if you think you will be able to pay those loans in full within five years you might also try a loan that is fixed for five years before becoming variable. If you do not think you can repay the loans in full before that time, you should probably stick with the fixed rates that you have. It may even be profitable to refinance those loans through another lender at the exact same fixed rate because it gets around their repayment tricks that effectively increase your interest on those two smaller loans.",
"The bit I don't quite understand is why you are thinking about staying in debt in the first place - you're basically thinking about shuffling around assets and liabilities in order to stay in debt? I think what I would do in your situation is to liquidate enough of the investments you have and pay off the mortgage. This doesn't change your net worth position less the fees etc that you might incur, but it'll save you the interest for the mortgage over the remaining term of your mortgage.",
"There are several concerns with this plan: The bank will look at the remaining student loans when determining how much you can afford in payments each month. If they do approve the loan they will want to have the check written to the student loan accounts as part of the closing process, otherwie you could have both sets of loans.",
"IMO, it's a good deal. Pre-paying 3% interest is better than accruing it at 1-2% per month. The other nice thing about it is that all of your payments hit the principal.",
"I'm assuming that when you sell the house you expect to be able to pay off these loans. In that case you need a loan that can be paid off in full without penalty, but has as low an interest rate as possible. My suggestions:",
"On the face, this appears a sound method to manage long run cumulative interest, but there are some caveats. Maxing out credit cards will destroy your credit rating. You will receive no more reasonable offers for credit, only shady ones. Though your credit rating will rise the moment you bring the balance back down to 10%, even with high income, it's easy to overshoot the 8 months, and then a high interest rate kicks in because of the low credit rating. Further, maxing out credit cards will encourage credit card lenders to begin cutting limits and at worse demand early payment. Now, after month 6 hits, your financial payment obligations skyrocket. A sudden jolt is never easy to manage. This will increase risk of missing a payment, a disaster for such hair line financing. In short, the probability of decimating your financial structure is high for very little benefit. If you are confident that you can pay off $4,000 in 8 months then simply apply those payments to the student loan directly, cutting out the middle man. Your creditors will be pleased to see your total liabilities fall at a high rate while your utilization remains small, encouraging them to offer you more credit and lower rates. The ideal credit card utilization rate is 10%, so it would be wise to use that portion to repay the student loans. Building up credit will allow you to use the credit as an auxiliary cushion when financial disaster strikes. Keeping an excellent credit rating will allow you to finance the largest home possible for your money. Every percentage point of mortgage interest can mean the difference between a million USD home and a $750,000 one.",
"It seems you understand the risks, it seems like a fine enough idea. Hopefully it works out for you. However, you may want to talk to a few local banks about getting a short term home equity loan. I know someone who was able to do this getting a very low rate for 7 years. At the time of the loan, the prevailing rate for a 15 year was 3.25, but they were able to get the HEL at 2.6 fixed. There was no closing costs. The best part about it was the payment was not that much more. While going from ~1200 to ~1800 is a 50% increase it was not that much in dollars in relationship to his household income. Note that I did not say Home Equity Line of Credit, which are vairable rates and amount borrowed.",
"A balance transfer is paying one debt instrument with another. While this is typically seen in credit card offers it isn't necessarily confined to credit cards. Obviously the only reason to do this is refinancing debt to a lower interest rate. You need to watch for loads on the incoming money, there may be an upwards of 5% fee. This calculation is materially different than your APR. Monthly interest charges can be estimated by taking your APR divided by 12 times your balance. So a 15% APR will have a rough monthly interest charge of 1.25%. The 5% balance transfer fee is 4x your normal interest charge. That fee is added to your balance and now you pay interest on the whole amount. You need to ensure the new rate is low enough to actually benefit you after the incoming fee.",
"Like azam pointed out, fundamentally you need to decide if the money invested elsewhere will grow faster than the Interest you are paying on the loan. In India, the safe returns from Fixed Deposits is around 8-9% currently. Factoring taxes, the real rate of return would be around 6-7%. This is less than what you are paying towards interest. The PPF gives around 9% with Tax break [if there are no other options] and tax free interest, the real return can be as high as 12-14%. There is a limit on how much you can invest in PPF. However this looks higher than your average interest. The stock markets in long term [7 Years] averages give you around 15% returns, but are not predictable year to year. So the suggest from azam is valid, you would need to see what are the high rate of interest loans and if they accept early repayment, you should complete it ASAP. If there are loans that are less than average, say in the range of 7-8%, you can keep it and pay as per schedule.",
"I won't repeat what's already been said, but I agree that it's a good move to take advantage of the free financing so long as you read the fine print carefully, keep the money designated to pay off this debt and not use it for anything else, and make sure to pay it off before you get smacked with some bad interest. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that this kind of offer can help build credit. You mentioned that you already have excellent credit, but for someone who has good credit, this could be an account that, if used carefully, could give their credit a boost by adding to their history of on-time payments.",
"Go where your money is treated best. If you can lower your APR, great. It should help a little bit with getting a mortgage if you can reduce your payment. Your debt-to-income ratio would go down.",
"I think it depends on how you're approaching paying off the credit card. If you're doing some sort of debt snowball and/or throw all available cash at the card, it's not likely to matter much. If you're paying a set amount close to the minimum each month then you're probably better off getting a loan, use it to pay off the card and cut up the card. Well, I'd do the latter in either case... Mathematically it would matter if the interest rate on the card is 10%-15% higher than the personal loan but if you're throwing every spare dime at the card and the some, it might not matter. Another option if you have the discipline to pay the debt off quickly is to see if you can find a card with a cheap balance transfer, move the balance over and close the inflexible card.",
"\"This doesn't say the whole story (like the length of the HELOC). if you have 15 years left on a mortgage and \"\"refinance\"\" into a 30 year HELOC then yes, your payments maybe 20% lower, but you add 15 years to pay it off. Just remember that interest occurs daily on what you owe. If you move 100K of debt from 5% mortgage to 6% HELOC you'll be paying more to the banks no matter how you slice it.\"",
"Generally speaking personal loans have higher rates than car loans. During fairly recent times, the market for car loans has become very competitive. A local credit union offers loans as low as 1.99% which is about half the prevailing mortgage rate. In comparison personal loans are typically in the 10-14% range. Even if it made mathematical sense to do so, I doubt any bank would give you a personal loan secured by a car rather than car loan. Either the brain would not work that way; or, it would simply be against company policy. These questions always interest me, why the desire to maximize credit score? There is no correlation between credit score and wealth. There is no reward for anything beyond a sufficiently high score to obtain the lowest rates which is attained by simply paying one's bills on time. One will always be limited by income when the amount able to borrow is calculated regardless of score. I can understand wanting to maximize different aspects of personal finance such as income or investment return percentage, etc.. By why credit score? This is further complicated by a evolving algorithm. Attempts to game the score today, may not work in the future.",
"Yes it most cases it is legal. Plus depending on how you look at it, the last payment of 1000 can be principal paid and interest was paid in initial installments.",
"The key word you are looking for is that you want to refinance the loan at a lower rate. Tell banks that and ask what they can offer you.",
"\"So, let's take a mortgage loan that allows prepayment without penalty. Say I have a 30 year mortgage and I have paid it for 15 years. By the 16th year almost all the interest on the 30 year loan has been paid to the bank This is incorrect thinking. On a 30 year loan, at year 15 about 2/3's of the total interest to be paid has been paid, and the principal is about 1/3 lower than the original loan amount. You may want to play with some amortization calculators that are freely available to see this in action. If you were to pay off the balance, at that point, you would avoid paying the remaining 1/3 of interest. Consider a 100K 30 year mortgage at 4.5% In month two the payment breaks down with $132 going to principal, and $374 going to interest. If, in month one, you had an extra $132 and directed it to principal, you would save $374 in interest. That is a great ROI and why it is wonderful to get out of debt as soon as possible. The trouble with this is of course, is that most people can barely afford the mortgage payment when it is new so lets look at the same situation in year 15. Here, $271 would go to principal, and $235 to interest. So you would have to come up with more money to save less interest. It is still a great ROI, but less dramatic. If you understand the \"\"magic\"\" of compounding interest, then you can understand loans. It is just compounding interest in reverse. It works against you.\"",
"Carmax will be interested in setting a price that allows them to make money on the reselling of the vehicle. They won't offer you more than that. The determination of the value compared to the BlueBook value is based on condition and miles. The refinancing of the auto loan could lower your monthly payment, but may not save you any money in the short term. The new lender will also want an evaluation of the vehicle, and if it is less than the payoff amount of the current loan they will ask you to make a lump sum payment. This is addition to the cost of getting the new loan setup. If you can pay the delta between the value of the car and loan then do so, when you sell the car. Don't refinance unless you plan on keeping the car for many months, or you are just adding paperwork to the transaction.",
"You could do that once, maybe, if the lender negotiates rather than going to court and taking you for everything you have plus having you wages garnished for the next several decades. And in the process, you would destroy your credit rating, making it impossible to borrow again any time soon. Doing this deliberately is fraud ... But worse than that, it's blatently stupid. You are likely to lose far more than you could gain.",
"Personally, I don't think that the interest from the car loan is worth the credit history you're building through it. There are other ways to build credit that don't require you to pay interest, like the credit card you mentioned (so long as you keep paying off the balance). So I'd go that route: ditch the auto loan and replace it with a line of consumer credit. Just be careful not to overspend because the card will likely have a higher interest rate than your loan.",
"\"That is called \"\"substitution of collateral.\"\" And yes, it can be done, but only with consent of the lender. The \"\"best case\"\" for this kind of maneuver is if the second house is larger and more valuable than the first. Another possibility is that you have two mortgages on the first house and none on the second, and you want to move the second mortgage on the first house to the second one, effectively making it a \"\"first\"\" mortgage. In these instances, the lender has a clear incentive to allow a substitution of collateral, because the second one is actually better than the first one. The potential problem in your case, is if the second house were more expensive than the first house, you could not use the sale proceeds of the first house as to buy the second house without borrowing additional money. In that case, a possible solution would be to go back to the lender on your first house for a larger mortgage, with the proceeds of that mortgage being used to retire the earlier mortgage. Depending on your credit, payment record, etc. they might be willing to do this.\"",
"Approximately Yes. However as you are paying more, the interest accrused would be less.",
"Don't do it. I would sell one of my investment houses and use the equity to pay down your primary mortgage. Then I would refinance my primary mortgage in order to lower the payments.",
"No. It means each month the total amount you owe goes up by a factor of (1+0.298/12). So if you owed $23K at the beginning of the month, at the end you owe a total of 23K*1.0248=$23,571. Then subtract the $804 you are paying. If you want to think of it in terms of interest and principal, you are paying $571 a month in interest and 233 toward principle, I guess. Paying off debt with a lower interest rate using debt with a higher interest rate is throwing a lot of money away and impoverishing yourself needlessly. Psychology can't get around that. If you want a psychological aid, decide how much you are going to pay toward these debts and have it automatically deducted from your paycheck so you never see it. Make the minimum payment on every debt you have except the one with the highest interest rate. Pay the very most you can toward that. Then when it is paid off, move to the next highest. Do all your spending out of the lowest rate card, or avoid using these credit cards until your financial discipline and resources allow you to pay all credit cards off completely at the end of each month.",
"As someone with a lot of student loan debt, I can relate - the first thing you should do is read the promissory note on your current loans - there might be information there you can use. For govt loans (stafford, etc) made after July 1, 2006 the interest rate is going to be fixed and even a federal direct consolidation is not going to lower the rates themselves. If anything, consolidation will just increase the repayment period, which means you'll end up paying more in the long run. Most private Loans usually offer variable interest rates, which today are quite low. But unless your financial situation is very comfortable and stable, consolidating out of federally guaranteed loans into private loans might not be the best path. You might lose options like deferment, forbearance, and maybe even things like a death benefit (if you die, your loans die with you). related - if you have a co-signer you don't get that death benefit! But refinancing into a variable rate private loan is going to push a lot of risk to you in terms of interest rate inflation, etc. Most financial professionals will agree that interest rates can only go up in the long run. Keep in mind, student loans are completely unsecured - meaning lenders are taking a fairly large risk in loaning money (and probably why the fed govt has to guarantee most of them). I've heard of people borrowing against their home equity to pay down student loan debt - but I can't think of a reason you'd want to substitute secured for unsecured debt and possibly lose the loan interest tax deduction. The bottom line is you're unlikely to find an alternative lending source at a lower interest rate for an unsecured student loan. Another option may be the income based repayment plan. If you qualify, it caps student loan monthly payments at 15% of your discretionary income (discretionary is your income minus whatever the poverty threshold income amount is). And if that 15% doesn't even cover the interest on the loans, the govt picks up the tab for the difference (for up to 3 years). You have to re-qualify every year by sending in all sorts of documentation, but if you somehow stay on IBR for 25 years, your loans are then forgiven. Obviously the downside here is that you are probably paying little to no principal, but if you do the math and determine that your IBR payment would be next to nothing, and your current situation is barely paying interest-only... well, maybe IBR isn't a bad thing for a couple of years (or 25 if you think you will never have a larger income). Personally, I went through all these options as well and decided that my best option was to just earn more money... a 2nd job or side project here and there helps me pay down the debt faster, and with less risk, than moving to private variable rate loans."
] |
[
"I don't know what rates are available to you now, but yes, if you can refinance your car at a better rate with no hidden fees, you might save some money in interest. However, there are a couple of watchouts: Your original loan was a 6 year loan, and you have 5 years remaining. If you refinance your car with a new 6 year loan, you will be paying on your car for 7 years total, and you will end up paying more interest even though your interest rate might have gone down. Make sure that your new loan, in addition to having a lower rate than the old loan, does not have a longer term than what you have remaining on the original loan. Make sure there aren't any hidden fees or closing costs with the new loan. If there are, you might be paying your interest savings back to the bank in fees. If your goal is to save money in interest, consider paying off your loan early. Scrape together extra money every month and send it in, making sure that it is applied to the principal of your loan. This will shorten your loan and save you money on interest, and can be much more significant than refinancing. After your loan is paid off, continue saving the amount you were spending on your car payment, so you can pay cash for your next car and save even more.",
"If it's possible in your case to get such a loan, then sure, providing the loan fees aren't in excess of the interest rate difference. Auto loans don't have the fees mortgages do, but check the specific loan you're looking at - it may have some fees, and they'd need to be lower than the interest rate savings. Car loans can be tricky to refinance, because of the value of a used car being less than that of a new car. How much better your credit is likely determines how hard this would be to get. Also, how much down payment you put down. Cars devalue 20% or so instantly (a used car with 5 miles on it tends to be worth around 80% of a new car's cost), so if you put less than 20% down, you may be underwater - meaning the principal left on the loan exceeds the value of the car (and so you wouldn't be getting a fully secured loan at that point). However, if your loan amount isn't too high relative to the value of the car, it should be possible. Check out various lenders in advance; also check out non-lender sites for advice. Edmunds.com has some of this laid out, for example (though they're an industry-based site so they're not truly unbiased). I'd also recommend using this to help you pay off the loan faster. If you do refinance to a lower rate, consider taking the savings and sending it to the lender - i.e., keeping your payment the same, just lowering the interest charge. That way you pay it off faster.",
"Dude- my background is in banking specifically dealing with these scenarios. Take my advice-look for a balance transfer offer-credit card at 0%. Your cost of capital is your good credit, this is your leverage. Why pay 4.74% when you can pay 0%. Find a credit card company with a balance transfer option for 0%. Pay no interest, and own the car outright. Places to start; check the mail, or check your bank, or check local credit unions. Some credit unions are very relaxed for membership, and ask if they have zero percent balance transfers. Good Luck!",
"Before we were married my wife financed a car at a terrible rate. I think it was around 20%. When trying to refinance it the remaining loan was much larger than the value of the car, so no one was interested in refinancing. I was able to do a balance transfer to a credit card around 10%. This did take on a bit of risk, which almost came up when the car was totaled in an accident. Fortunately the remaining balance was now less than the value of the car, otherwise I would have been stuck with a credit card payment and no vehicle.",
"Your current loan is for a new car. Your refinanced loan would probably be for a used car. They have different underwriting standards and used car loan rates are usually higher because of the higher risks associated with the loans. (People with better credit will tend to buy new cars.) This doesn't mean that you can't come out ahead after refinancing but you'll probably have to do a bit of searching. I think you should take a step back though. 5% isn't that much money and five years is a long time. Nobody can predict the future but my experience tells me that the **** is going to hit the fan at least once over any five year period, and it's going to be a really big dump at least once over any ten year period. Do you have savings to cover it or would you have to take a credit card advance at a much higher interest rate? Are you even sure that's an option - a lot of people who planned to use their credit card advances as emergency savings found their credit limits slashed before they could act. I understand the desire to reduce what you pay in interest but BTDT and now I don't hesitate to give savings priority when I have some excess cash. There's no one size fits all answer but should have at least one or two months of income saved up before you start considering anything like loan prepayments."
] |
7141
|
Do investors go long option contracts when they cannot cover the exercise of the options?
|
[
"255927",
"132288"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"576364",
"288289",
"293767",
"238474",
"316037",
"140371",
"374331",
"472516",
"334473",
"383328",
"136042",
"228217",
"538054",
"72024",
"349974",
"415705",
"224069",
"507828",
"222498",
"376136",
"163034",
"367928",
"31587",
"102316",
"259178",
"553110",
"281533",
"510006",
"520098",
"374797",
"7743",
"487297",
"23469",
"247870",
"584223",
"506897",
"103013",
"570046",
"254474",
"300211",
"393134",
"588836",
"242663",
"575408",
"336541",
"267113",
"389501",
"521644",
"103147",
"171819",
"598993",
"393418",
"187214",
"21768",
"80894",
"343613",
"6701",
"347966",
"502164",
"163670",
"536564",
"131225",
"100103",
"22426",
"173745",
"591757",
"598322",
"7391",
"249869",
"100628",
"80871",
"352588",
"74839",
"305676",
"151546",
"568611",
"226546",
"408398",
"364421",
"494186",
"397166",
"576976",
"228058",
"313135",
"500534",
"528052",
"401447",
"44530",
"39402",
"251711",
"230355",
"363043",
"477588",
"517873",
"189858",
"489254",
"42083",
"437208",
"41967",
"236176"
] |
[
"\"You're forgetting the fundamental issue, that you never have to actually exercise the options you buy. You can either sell them to someone else or, if they're out of the money, let them expire and take the loss. It isn't uncommon at all for people to buy both a put and call option (this is a \"\"straddle\"\" when the strike price of both the put and call are the same). From Investopedia.com: A straddle is an options strategy in which the investor holds a position in both a call and put with the same strike price and expiration date, paying both premiums. This strategy allows the investor to make a profit regardless of whether the price of the security goes up or down, assuming the stock price changes somewhat significantly. Read more: Straddle http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/straddle.asp#ixzz4ZYytV0pT\"",
"As other answers state, selling the options contracts to the market is a definite way out, and probably the best in most cases. If you're determined to exercise your options (or there's not enough liquidity to reasonably sell your contracts to the market), then you could plan ahead and exercise smaller number of contracts at a time and sell the resulting position in the underlying, which will give you funds to exercise some more contracts and sell the underlying. If you think you're going down this path, however, make sure that you take into account your broker's rules for settlement. You may need to start the exercise / sell cycle before the option's expiration date.",
"If the buyer exercises your option, you will have to give him the stock. If you already own the stock, the worst that can happen is you have to give him your stock, thus losing the money you spend to buy it. So the most you can lose is what you already spent to buy the stock (minus the price the buyer paid for your option). If you don't own the stock, you will have to buy it. But if the stock skyrockets in value, it will be very expensive to buy it. If for instance you buy the stock when it is worth $100, sell your covered call, and the next day the stock shoots to $1000, you will lose the $100 you got from the purchase of the stock. But if you had used a naked call, you would have to buy the stock at $1000, and you would lose $900. Since there is no limit to how high the stock can go, there is no limit to how much money you may lose.",
"If it helps you to think about it, long is equivalent to betting for the upside and short is equivalent to betting for the downside. If you are long on options, then you expect the value of such options to increase. If you are long an option, then you own the option. If you are short an option, then generally you sold the option. Someone who is short a call (sometimes called the writer or occasionally the issuer) has sold a call option to someone who is now long a call. Buying a call option that will increase in value is itself a form of investment, just as it's investment to buy stock or other instruments hoping they will appreciate in value. An option's value will rise or fall with the underlying, so being long an option is a way to be long in the underlying. Someone can be long in a stock by buying the stock, or long in a call by buying call options in the stock. The long call generally requires less initial investment than buying the underlying, and lets the option-holder avoid the asset downside during the option term. The risk is that the asset may not appreciate to the point that the call option will pay off. In the conceptual sense, a share of stock is a particular right to the profits and assets of a corporation, both in form of dividends and in liquidation. An option is a particular right to the the share of stock. It's just a further way to formalize and subdivide the various property rights that exist in a corporation. If you can buy a piece of paper with particular rights to corporate profits and assets, then you can buy another piece of paper with particular rights to the former piece of paper.",
"You are long the puts. By exercising them you force the underlying stock to be bought from you at your strike price. Let's say your strike it $100 and the stock is currently $25. Buy 100 shares and exercise 1 (bought/long) put. That gives you $7500 of new money, so do the previous sentence over again in as many 'units' as you can.",
"To expand on the comment made by @NateEldredge, you're looking to take a short position. A short position essentially functions as follows: Here's the rub: you have unlimited loss potential. Maybe you borrow a share and sell it at $10. Maybe in a month you still haven't closed the position and now the share is trading at $1,000. The share lender comes calling for their share and you have to close the position at $1,000 for a loss of $990. Now what if it was $1,000,000 per share, etc. To avoid this unlimited loss risk, you can instead buy a put option contract. In this situation you buy a contract that will expire at some point in the future for the right to sell a share of stock for $x. You get to put that share on to someone else. If the underlying stock price were to instead rise above the put's exercise price, the put will expire worthless — but your loss is limited to the premium paid to acquire the put option contract. There are all sorts of advanced options trades sometimes including taking a short or long position in a security. It's generally not advisable to undertake these sorts of trades until you're very comfortable with the mechanics of the contracts. It's definitely not advisable to take an unhedged short position, either by borrowing someone else's share(s) to sell or selling an option (when you sell the option you take the risk), because of the unlimited loss potential described above.",
"\"By their agreements with the central counterparty - in the US, the exchange or the Options Clearing Corporation, which interposes itself between the counterparties of each trade and guarantees that they settle. From the CCP article: A clearing house stands between two clearing firms (also known as member firms or participants). Its purpose is to reduce the risk a member firm failing to honor its trade settlement obligations. A CCP reduces the settlement risks by netting offsetting transactions between multiple counterparties, by requiring collateral deposits (also called \"\"margin deposits\"\"), by providing independent valuation of trades and collateral, by monitoring the credit worthiness of the member firms, and in many cases, by providing a guarantee fund that can be used to cover losses that exceed a defaulting member's collateral on deposit. Exercisers on most contracts are matched against random writers during the assignment process, and if the writer doesn't deliver/buy the stock, the OCC does so using its funds and goes after the defaulting party.\"",
"I can't speak for all brokerages but the one I use requires cash accounts to have cash available to purchase the stock in this situation. With the cash available you would be able to purchase the stock if the option was exercised. Hope this helps",
"You can buy a put and exercise it. The ideal option in this case will have little time premium left and very near the money. Who lent you the shares? The person that sold you the option! In reality, when you exercise, assignment can be random, but everything is [supposedly] accounted for as the option seller had to put up margin collateral to sell the option.",
"The fact that the option is deep in the money will be reflected in the market price of the option so you can just sell it at a profit. If there's a (n almost) guaranteed profit to be had, however, you can always find someone who will lend you the money to cover the exercise... they'll charge you interest, however!",
"Yes, if the call expires worthless, leaving you with stock. Then you can exercise your put when the stock goes below put strike price.",
"Put options are basically this. Buying a put option gives you the right but not the obligation to sell the underlying security at a certain date for a fixed price, no matter its current market value at that time. However, markets are largely effective, and the price of put options is such that if you bought them to cover you the whole time, you would on average pay more than you'd gain from the underlying security. There is no such thing as a risk-free investment.",
"It is possible to exercise an out of the money option contract. Reasons to do this: You want a large stake of voting shares at any price without moving the market and could not get enough options contracts at a near the money strike price, so you decided to go out of the money. Then exercised all the contracts and suddenly you have a large influential position in the stock and nobody saw it coming. This may be favorable if the paper loss is less than the loss of time value that would have been incurred if you chose contracts near the money at further expiration dates, in search of liquidity. Some convoluted tax reason.",
"\"Not all call options that have value at expiration, exercise by purchasing the security (or attempting to, with funds in your account). On ETNs, they often (always?) settle in cash. As an example of an option I'm currently looking at, AVSPY, it settles in cash (please confirm by reading the documentation on this set of options at http://www.nasdaqomxtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=Alpha, but it is an example of this). There's nothing it can settle into (as you can't purchase the AVSPY index, only options on it). You may quickly look (wikipedia) at the difference between \"\"American Style\"\" options and \"\"European Style\"\" options, for more understanding here. Interestingly I just spoke to my broker about this subject for a trade execution. Before I go into that, let me also quickly refer to Joe's answer: what you buy, you can sell. That's one of the jobs of a market maker, to provide liquidity in a market. So, when you buy a stock, you can sell it. When you buy an option, you can sell it. That's at any time before expiration (although how close you do it before the closing bell on expiration Friday/Saturday is your discretion). When a market maker lists an option price, they list a bid and an ask. If you are willing to sell at the bid price, they need to purchase it (generally speaking). That's why they put a spread between the bid and ask price, but that's another topic not related to your question -- just note the point of them buying at the bid price, and selling at the ask price -- that's what they're saying they'll do. Now, one major difference with options vs. stocks is that options are contracts. So, therefore, we can note just as easily that YOU can sell the option on something (particularly if you own either the underlying, or an option deeper in the money). If you own the underlying instrument/stock, and you sell a CALL option on it, this is a strategy typically referred to as a covered call, considered a \"\"risk reduction\"\" strategy. You forfeit (potential) gains on the upside, for money you receive in selling the option. The point of this discussion is, is simply: what one buys one can sell; what one sells one can buy -- that's how a \"\"market\"\" is supposed to work. And also, not to think that making money in options is buying first, then selling. It may be selling, and either buying back or ideally that option expiring worthless. -- Now, a final example. Let's say you buy a deep in the money call on a stock trading at $150, and you own the $100 calls. At expiration, these have a value of $50. But let's say, you don't have any money in your account, to take ownership of the underlying security (you have to come up with the additional $100 per share you are missing). In that case, need to call your broker and see how they handle it, and it will depend on the type of account you have (e.g. margin or not, IRA, etc). Generally speaking though, the \"\"margin department\"\" makes these decisions, and they look through folks that have options on things that have value, and are expiring, and whether they have the funds in their account to absorb the security they are going to need to own. Exchange-wise, options that have value at expiration, are exercised. But what if the person who has the option, doesn't have the funds to own the whole stock? Well, ideally on Monday they'll buy all the shares with the options you have at the current price, and immediately liquidate the amount you can't afford to own, but they don't have to. I'm mentioning this detail so that it helps you see what's going or needs to go on with exchanges and brokerages and individuals, so you have a broader picture.\"",
"\"It will be helpful to establish some definitions: Long \"\"Long\"\" is financial slang for \"\"to have possession of an asset\"\", legally, and \"\"to debit an asset\"\", financially. Short \"\"Short\"\" is financial slang for \"\"to be liable for an asset\"\", legally, and \"\"to credit an asset\"\", financially. Option \"\"Option\"\" is financial slang for \"\"to have the right but not obligation to force the liable to perform action\"\", legally. Without limits and when taken to absurdity, this can mean slavery. For equities, this means \"\"to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy/sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\" for a call/put, respectively. By the above, a call option is \"\"the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\". By the definition of \"\"long\"\" above, a call option is actually not long the underlying. By the definitions above and with a narrower scope applied to equities & indexes, to be \"\"long\"\" the call means \"\"to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\" while to be \"\"short\"\" the call means \"\"to have the obligation to be forced to sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\". So, to be \"\"long\"\" a call means to simply own the call.\"",
"\"Firstly \"\"Most option traders don't want to actually buy or sell the underlying stock.\"\" THIS IS COMPLETELY UTTERLY FALSE Perhaps the problem is that you are only familiar with the BUY side of options trading. On the sell side of options trading, an options desk engages in DELTA HEDGING. When we sell an option to a client. We will also buy an appropriate amount of underlying to match the delta position of the option. During the life time of the option. We will readjust our hedge position whenever the delta changes (those who follow Black Scholes will know that normally that comes from (underlying) price changes). However, we lose money on each underlying change (we have to cross the bid-ask spread for each trade). That is why we lose money when there is volatility. That is why we are said to be \"\"short VEGA\"\" or \"\"short volatility\"\". So one way to think about \"\"buying\"\" options, is that you are paying someone to execute a specific trading strategy. In general, those who sell options, are also happy to buy options back (at a discount of course, so we make a profit). But when doing so, we need to unroll our hedging position, and that again incurs a cost (to us, the bank). Finally. Since this is \"\"money\"\" stackexchange rather than finance. You are most likely referring to \"\"warrants\"\" rather than \"\"options\"\", which are listed on stock exchanges. The exchange in most regions give us very specific and restrictive regulations that we must abide by. One very common one is that we MUST always list a price which we are willing to buy the warrants back at (which may not be an unreasonable spread from the sell price). Since an Option is a synthetically created investment instrument, when we buy back the Option from the investor, we simply unwind the underlying hedging positions that we booked to synthesize the Options with. Source: I've worked 2 years on a warrant desk, as a desk developer.\"",
"\"You need to interpret \"\"security\"\" appropriately in Wikipedia's definition. You should think of it as saying: to be long in a put, means the holder of the position owns the put and will profit if the price of the put goes up And what makes the price of the put go up? -- the price of the underlying stock going down.\"",
"\"I'm adding to @Dilip's basic answer, to cover the additional points in your question. I'll assume you are referring to publicly traded stock options, such as those found on the CBOE, and not an option contract entered into privately between two specific counterparties (e.g. as in an employer stock option plan). Since you are not obligated to exercise a call option you purchased on the market, you don't need to maintain funds on account for possible exercising. You could instead let the option expire, or resell the option, neither of which requires funds available for purchase of the underlying shares. However, should you actually choose to exercise the call option (and usually this is done close to expiration, if at all), you will be required to fund your account much like if you bought the underlying shares in the first place. Call your broker to determine the exact rules and timing for when they need the money for a call-option exercise. And to expand on the idea of \"\"cancelling\"\" an option you purchased: No, you cannot \"\"cancel\"\" an option contract, per se. But, you are permitted to sell the call option to somebody else willing to buy, via the market. When you sell your call option, you'll either make or lose money on the sale – depending on the price of the underlying shares at the time (are they in- or out- of the money?), volatility in the market, and remaining time value. Once you sell, you're back to \"\"no position\"\". That's not the same as \"\"cancelled\"\", but you are out of the trade, whether at profit or loss. Furthermore, the option writer (i.e. the seller who \"\"sold to open\"\" a position, in writing the call in the first place) is also not permitted to cancel the option he wrote. However, the option writer is permitted to close out the original short position by simply buying back a matching call option on the market. Again, this would occur at either profit or loss based on market prices at the time. This second kind of buy order – i.e. made by someone who initially wrote a call option – is called a \"\"buy to close\"\", meaning the purchase of an offsetting position. (The other kind of buy is the \"\"buy to open\"\".) Then, consider: Since an option buyer is free to re-sell the option purchased, and since an option writer (who \"\"sold to open\"\" the new contract) is also free to buy back an offsetting option, a process known as clearing is required to match remaining buyers exercising the call options held with the remaining option writers having open short positions for the contract. For CBOE options, this clearing is performed by the Options Clearing Corporation. Here's how it works (see here): What is the OCC? The Options Clearing Corporation is the sole issuer of all securities options listed at the CBOE, four other U.S. stock exchanges and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), and is the entity through which all CBOE option transactions are ultimately cleared. As the issuer of all options, OCC essentially takes the opposite side of every option traded. Because OCC basically becomes the buyer for every seller and the seller for every buyer, it allows options traders to buy and sell in a secondary market without having to find the original opposite party. [...] [emphasis above is mine] When a call option writer must deliver shares to a call option buyer exercising a call, it's called assignment. (I have been assigned before, and it isn't pleasant to see a position called away that otherwise would have been very profitable if the call weren't written in the first place!) Also, re: \"\"I know my counter party cannot sell his shares\"\" ... that's not strictly true. You are thinking of a covered call. But, an option writer doesn't necessarily need to own the underlying shares. Look up Naked call (Wikipedia). Naked calls aren't frequently undertaken because a naked call \"\"is one of the riskiest options strategies because it carries unlimited risk\"\". The average individual trader isn't usually permitted by their broker to enter such an order, but there are market participants who can do such a trade. Finally, you can learn more about options at The Options Industry Council (OIC).\"",
"Yes. There are levels of option trading permission. For example, I've never set myself up for naked put writing. But, if you already have the call spread, buying back the shorted call will leave you with a long call. This wouldn't be an issue. As long as you have the cash/margin to buy back that higher strike call.",
"In the case of regulated, exchange-traded options, the writer of an options contract is obliged to maintain a margin with their broker, and the broker is obliged to maintain a margin with the clearing house. (Institutional writers of options will deal directly with the clearing house.) In the event that the writer is unable to make a daily margin call, the broker (or clearing house) may automatically close out (all of) their positions using existing margin held. If there was a shortfall, the broker (or clearing house) would be left to persue the client (writer) to make good on their obligations. None of this effects the position of the original buyer of the options contract. Effectively, the buyer's counterparty is their broker's clearing house account.",
"You're correct. If you have no option position at execution then you carry no risk. Your risk is only based on the net number of options you're holding at execution. This is handled by your broker or clearinghouse. Pretend that you wrote 1000 options, (you're short the call) then you bought 1000 of the same option (bought to cover) ... you are now flat and have zero options exposure. Pretend you bought 1000 options (you're long the calls) then you sold 1000 of them (liquidated your long) ... you are now flat and have zero options exposure.",
"It would be nice if the broker could be instructed to clear out the position for you, but in my experience the broker will simply give you the shares that you can't afford, then freeze your account because you are over your margin limit, and issue a margin call. This happened to me recently because of a dumb mistake: options I paid $200 for and expected to expire worthless, ended up slightly ITM, so they were auto-exercised on Friday for about $20k, and my account was frozen (only able to close positions). By the next Monday, market news had shifted the stock against me and I had to sell it at a loss of $1200 to meet the margin call. This kind of thing is what gives option trading a reputation for danger: A supposedly max-$200-risk turned into a 6x greater loss. I see no reason to ever exercise, I always try to close my positions, but these things can happen.",
"Exchange traded options are issued in a way that there is no counter party risk. Consider, stocks and options are held in street name. So, for example, if I am short and you are long shares, no matter what happens on my end, your shares are yours. To be complete, it's possible to enter into a direct deal, where you have a contract for some non-standard option, but that would be very rare for the average investor.",
"Assignment risk. In your example, if someone exercises OTM call, your account could be assigned. In that case, if you do nothing, you could lose more money than there is in the account. The broker won't do it for you because there is more than one way to handle the assignment. For example, you might choose to exercise the long call, or buy a different call and exercise that. Selling the long call may be enough to satisfy any resulting margin call.",
"You bought the right – but not the obligation – to buy a certain number of shares at $15 from whomsoever sold you the option, and you paid a premium for it. You can choose whether you want to buy the shares at $15 during the period agreed upon. If you call for the shares, the other guy has to sell the shares to you for $15 each, even if the market price is higher. You can then turn around and promptly resell the purchased shares at the higher market price. If the market price never rises above $15 at any time while the option is open, you still have the right to buy the shares for $15 if you choose to do so. Most rational people would let the option expire without exercising it, but this is not a legal requirement. Doing things like buying shares at $15 when the market price is below $15 is perfectly legal; just not very savvy. You cannot cancel the option in the sense of going to the seller of the option and demanding your premium money back because you don't intend to exercise the option because the market price is below $15. Of course, if the market price is above $15 and you tell the seller to cancel the contract, they will be happy to do so, since it lets them off the hook. They may or may not give you the premium back in this case.",
"\"There are situations where you can be forced to cover a position, particular when \"\"Reg SHO\"\" (\"\"regulation sho\"\") is activated. Reg SHO is intended to make naked short sellers cover their position, it is to prevent abusive failure to delivers, where someone goes short without borrowing someone else's shares. Naked shorting isn't a violation of federal securities laws but it becomes an accounting problem when multiple people have claims to the same underlying assets. (I've seen companies that had 120% of their shares sold short, too funny, FWIW the market was correct as the company was worth nothing.) You can be naked short without knowing it. So there can be times when you will be forced to cover. Other people being forced to cover can result in a short squeeze. A risk. The other downside is that you have to pay interest on your borrowings. You also have to pay the dividends to the owner of the shares, if applicable. In shorter time frames these are negligible, but in longer time frames, such as closer to a year or longer, these really add up. Let alone the costs of the market going in the opposite direction, and the commissions.\"",
"\"You are likely making an assumption that the \"\"Short call\"\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \"\"write\"\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\"",
"The problem with short options is they expire and have to be covered. An inverse ETF is the way to go in my opinion. Because the real issue isn't if the market is overvalued but when will it correct. That's the risk and no one knows that answer",
"\"A derivative contract can be an option, and you can take a short (sell) position , much the same way you would in a stock. When BUYING options you risk only the money you put in. However when selling naked(you don't have the securities or cash to cover all potential losses) options, you are borrowing. Brokers force you to maintain a required amount of cash called, a maintenance requirement. When selling naked calls - theoretically you are able to lose an INFINITE amount of money, so in order to sell this type of options you have to maintain a certain level of cash in your account. If you fail to maintain this level you will enter into whats often referred to as a \"\"margin-call\"\". And yes they will call your phone and tell you :). Your broker has the right to liquidate your positions in order to meet requirements. PS: From experience my broker has never liquidated any of my holdings, but then again I've never been in a margin call for longer then a few days and never with a severe amount. The margin requirement for investors is regulated and brokers follow these regulations.\"",
"\"There's no free lunch. Here are some positions that should be economically equivalent (same risk and reward) in a theoretically-pure universe with no regulations or transaction costs: You're proposing to buy the call. If you look at the equivalent, stock plus protective put, you can quickly see the \"\"catch\"\"; the protective put is expensive. That same expense is embedded in the call option. See put-call parity on Wikipedia for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Put%E2%80%93call_parity You could easily pay 10% a year or more for the protection, which could easily eat up most of your returns, if you consider that average returns on a stock index might be about 10% (nominal, not real). Another way to look at it is that buying the long call and selling a put, which is a synthetic long position in the stock, would give you the put premium. So by not selling the put, you should be worse off than owning the stock - worse than the synthetic long - by about the value of the put premium. Or yet another way to look at it is that you're repeatedly paying time value on the long call option as you roll it. In practical world instead of theory world, I think you'd probably get a noticeable hit to returns just from bid-ask and commissions, even without the cost of the protection. Options cost more. Digressing a bit, some practical complications of equivalency between different combinations of options and underlying are: Anyway, roughly speaking, any position without the \"\"downside risk\"\" is going to have an annual loss built in due to the cost of the protection. Occasionally the options market can do something weird due to supply/demand or liquidity issues but mostly the parity relationships hold, or hold closely enough that you can't profit once expenses are considered. Update: one note, I'm talking about \"\"vanilla\"\" options as traded in the US here, I guess there are some somewhat different products elsewhere; I'm not sure exactly which derivatives you mean. All derivatives have a cost though or nobody would take the other side of the trade.\"",
"\"So, yes, you may be having the inevitable epiphany where you realize that options can synthetically replicate the same risk profile of owning stock outright. Allowing you to manipulate risk and circumvent margin requirement differences amongst asset classes. Naked short puts are analogous to a covered call, but may have different (lesser) margin requirements. This allows you to increase your risk, and the broker has to account for that. The broker's clientele might not understand all the risks associated with that much leverage and so may simply consider it risky \"\"for your protection\"\"\"",
"\"It's talked about quite often among more experienced investors. They were/ are used extensively by hedge funds. Keep in mind that if your option expires when not \"\"in the money\"\" you lose the premium you paid for the purchase of the option. That's where the risk comes in. I've grown really interested in options over the last couple months. Check out McMillan's Guide to Options. It's generally thought of as the quintessential beginners guide to understanding options. Good luck!\"",
"Market makers are required to buy options contracts as a condition of being a market maker. It is what keeps the markets functioning and liquid. As to whether or not your trade can be closed at a profit depends on many variables - how much you paid, what the underlying security is, etc CBOE Options expiration FAQs",
"No, if you are trading options to profit solely off the option and not own the underlying, you should trade it away because it costs more to exercise:",
"There are options on options. Some derivative instruments assets ARE options (some ETFs), and you are able to buy shares of those ETFs OR options on those ETFs. Secondly, options are just a contract, so you just need to write one up and find someone to buy the contract. The only thing is that the exchange won't facilitate it, so you will have liquidity issues. What you want to do is a diagonal / calendar spread. Buy the back month option, sell the front month option, this isn't a foreign concept and nobody is stopping you. Since you have extra leverage on your LEAPS, then you just need to change the balancing of your short leg to match the amount of leverage the leaps will provide. (so instead of buying,selling 1:1, you need to buy one leap and perhaps sell 5 puts)",
"A few observations - A limit order can certainly work, as you've seen. I've put in such an order far beyond the true value, and gotten back a realistic bid/ask within 10 minutes or so. That at least gave me an idea where to set my limit. When this doesn't work, an exercise is always another way to go. You'll get the full intrinsic value, but no time value, by definition. Per your request in comment - You own a put, strike price $100. The stock (or ETF) is trading at $50. You buy the stock and tell the broker to exercise the put, i.e. deliver the stock to the buyer of the put.",
"If you look at it from the hedging perspective, if you're unsure you're going to need to hedge but want to lock in an option premium price if you do need to do so, I could see this making sense.",
"An option gives you the legal right to buy stock. However, you cannot exercise a stock option unless you have the ability to buy the stock. In the United States, securities not fully registered with the SEC for public sale cannot be purchased except by qualified investors.",
"\"I think the question, as worded, has some incorrect assumptions built into it, but let me try to hit the key answers that I think might help: Your broker can't really do anything here. Your broker doesn't own the calls you sold, and can't elect to exercise someone else's calls. Your broker can take action to liquidate positions when you are in margin calls, but the scenario you describe wouldn't generate them: If you are long stock, and short calls, the calls are covered, and have no margin requirement. The stock is the only collateral you need, and you can have the position on in a cash (non-margin) account. So, assuming you haven't bought other things on margin that have gone south and are generating calls, your broker has no right to do anything to you. If you're wondering about the \"\"other guy\"\", meaning the person who is long the calls that you are short, they are the one who can impact you, by exercising their right to buy the stock from you. In that scenario, you make $21, your maximum possible return (since you bought the stock at $100, collected $1 premium, and sold it for $120. But they usually won't do that before expiration, and they pretty definitely won't here. The reason they usually won't is that most options trade above their intrinsic value (the amount that they're in the money). In your example, the options aren't in the money at all. The stock is trading at 120, and the option gives the owner the right to buy at 120.* Put another way, exercising the option lets the owner buy the stock for the exact same price anyone with no options can in the market. So, if the call has any value whatsoever, exercising it is irrational; the owner would be better off selling the call and buying the stock in the market.\"",
"There is a reason why most professional option traders are sellers instead of buyers. Option sellers IMO are analogous to insurance companies that come out ahead in the long run. That is not to say if you are bullish about a stock then you should not buy it. I personally would never buy an option outright and look to reduce my cost basis by selling options around it such as:",
"\"Consider the futures market. Traders buy and sell gold futures, but very few contracts, relatively speaking, result in delivery. The contracts are sold, and \"\"Open interest\"\" dwindles to near zero most months as the final date approaches. The seller buys back his short position, the buyer sells off his longs. When I own a call, and am 'winning,' say the option that cost me $1 is now worth $2, I'd rather sell that option for even $1.95 than to buy 100 shares of a $148 stock. The punchline is that very few option buyers actually hope to own the stock in the end. Just like the futures, open interest falls as expiration approaches.\"",
"Fair enough. I would imagine the ETF could get a better option pricing if that were the case, plus liquidity and counterpart risk concerns but your point is well taken. Serves me right to shoot my mouth off on something I do not do (short). Speaking of which, do you do a lot of shorting? Cover positions or speculation?",
"\"Some thoughts on your questions in order, Duration: You might want to look at the longest-dated option (often a \"\"LEAP\"\"), for a couple reasons. One is that transaction costs (spread plus commission, especially spread) are killer on options, so a longer option means fewer transactions, since you don't have to keep rolling the option. Two is that any fundamentals-based views on stocks might tend to require 3-5 years to (relatively) reliably work out, so if you're a fundamental investor, a 3-6 month option isn't great. Over 3-6 months, momentum, short-term news, short squeezes, etc. can often dominate fundamentals in determining the price. One exception is if you just want to hedge a short-term event, such as a pending announcement on drug approval or something, and then you would buy the shortest option that still expires after the event; but options are usually super-expensive when they span an event like this. Strike: Strike price on a long option can be thought of as a tradeoff between the max loss and minimizing \"\"insurance costs.\"\" That is, if you buy a deeply in-the-money put or call, the time value will be minimal and thus you aren't paying so much for \"\"insurance,\"\" but you may have 1/3 or 1/2 of the value of the underlying tied up in the option and subject to loss. If you buy a put or call \"\"at the money,\"\" then you might have only say 10% of the value of the underlying tied up in the option and subject to loss, but almost the whole 10% may be time value (insurance cost), so you are losing 10% if the underlying stock price stays flat. I think of the deep in-the-money options as similar to buying stocks on margin (but the \"\"implied\"\" interest costs may be less than consumer margin borrowing rates, and for long options you can't get a margin call). The at-the-money options are more like buying insurance, and it's expensive. The commissions and spreads add significant cost, on top of the natural time value cost of the option. The annual costs would generally exceed the long-run average return on a diversified stock fund, which is daunting. Undervalued/overvalued options, pt. 1: First thing is to be sure the options prices on a given underlying make sense at all; there are things that \"\"should\"\" hold, for example a synthetic long or short should match up to an actual long or short. These kinds of rules can break, for example on LinkedIn (LNKD) after its IPO, when shorting was not permitted, the synthetic long was quite a bit cheaper than a real long. Usually though this happens because the arbitrage is not practical. For example on LNKD, the shares to short weren't really available, so people doing synthetic shorts with options were driving up the price of the synthetic short and down the price of the synthetic long. If you did actually want to be long the stock, then the synthetic long was a great deal. However, a riskless arbitrage (buy synthetic long, short the stock) was not possible, and that's why the prices were messed up. Another basic relationship that should hold is put-call parity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Put%E2%80%93call_parity Undervalued/overvalued options, pt. 2: Assuming the relationship to the underlying is sane (synthetic positions equivalent to actual positions) then the valuation of the option could focus on volatility. That is, the time value of the option implies the stock will move a certain amount. If the time value is high and you think the stock won't move much, you might short the option, while if the time value is low and you think the stock will move a lot, you might buy the option. You can get implied volatility from your broker perhaps, or Morningstar.com for example has a bunch of data on option prices and the implied components of the price model. I don't know how useful this really is though. The spreads on options are so wide that making money on predicting volatility better than the market is pretty darn hard. That is, the spread probably exceeds the amount of the mispricing. The price of the underlying is more important to the value of an option than the assumed volatility. How many contracts: Each contract is 100 shares, so you just match that up. If you want to hedge 100 shares, buy one contract. To get the notional value of the underlying multiply by 100. So say you buy a call for $30, and the stock is trading at $100, then you have a call on 100 shares which are currently priced at $10,000 and the option will cost $30*100=3,000. You are leveraged about 3 to 1. (This points to an issue with options for individual investors, which is that one contract is a pretty large notional value relative to most portfolios.)\"",
"An option is freely tradable, and all options (of the same kind) are equal. If your position is 0 and you sell 1 option, your new position in that option is -1. If the counterparty to your trade buys or sells more options to close, open, or even reopen their position afterwards, that doesn't matter to your position at all. Of course there's also the issue with American and European Options. European Options expire at their due date, but American Options expire at their due date or at any time before their due date if the holder decides they expire. With American Options, if a holder of an American Option decides to exercise the option, someone who is short the same option will be assigned as the counterparty (this is usually random). Expiry is after market close, so if one of your short American Options expires early, you will need to reopen the position the next day. Keep in mind dividends for slightly increased complexity. American and European Options do not in any way refer to the continents they are traded on, or to the location of the companies. These terms simply describe the expiry rules.",
"\"There is unlimited risk in taking a naked call option position. The only risk in taking a covered call position is that you will be required to sell your shares for less than the going market price. I don't entirely agree with the accepted answer given here. You would not lose the amount you paid to buy the shares. Naked Call Option Suppose take a naked call option position by selling a call option. Since there is no limit on how high the price of the underlying share can go, you can be forced to either buy back the option at a very high price, or, in the case that the option is exercised, you can be force. to buy the underlying shares at a very high price and then sell them to the option holder at a very low price. For example, suppose you sell an Apple call option with a strike price of $100 at a premium of $2.50, and for this you receive a payment of $250. Now, if the price of Apple skyrockets to, say, $1000, then you would either have to buy back the option for about $90,000 = 100 x ($1000-$100), or, if the holder exercised the option, then you would need to buy 100 Apple shares at the market price of $1000 per share, costing you $100,000, and then sell them to the option holder at the strike price of $100 for $10,000 = 100 x $100. In either case, you would show a loss of $90,000 on the share transaction, which would be slightly offset by a $250 credit for the premium you received selling the call. There is no limit on the potential loss since there is no limit on how high the underlying share price can go. Covered Call Option Consider now the case of a covered call option. Since you hold the underlying shares, any loss you make on the option position would be \"\"covered\"\" by the profit you make on the underlying shares. Again, suppose you own 100 Apple shares and sell a call option with a strike price of $100 at a premium of $2.50 to earn a payment of $250. If the price of Apple skyrockets to $1000, then there are again two possible scenarios. One, you buy back the option at a premium of about $900 costing you $90,000. In order to cover this cost you would then sell your 100 Apple shares at the market price of $1000 per share to realise $100,000 = 100 x $1000. On the other hand, if your option is exercised, then you would deliver your 100 Apple shares to the option holder at the contracted strike price of $100 per share, thus receiving just $10,000 = 100 x $100. The only \"\"loss\"\" is that you have had to sell your shares for much less than the market price.\"",
"The nature of options requires you to understand that they are essentially a bet. In one sense, so is investing in stocks. We imagine a bell curve (first mistake) with a median return at 10%/yr and a standard deviation of about 14%. Then we say that odds are that over some period of time a monte-carlo simulation can give us the picture of the likely returns. Now, when you buy short term options, say one month or so, you are hoping the outcome is a rise in price that will yield some pretty high return, right? There was a time I noticed a particular stock would move a large percent based on earnings. And earnings were a day before options expiration. So I'd buy the call that was just out of the money and if the surprise was up, I'd make 3-4X my money. But I was always prepared to lose it all and often did. I never called this investing. I know of no recovery strategy. Sorry.",
"If the underlying is currently moving as aggressively as stated, the broker would immediately forcibly close positions to maintain margin. What securities are in fact closed depends upon the internal algorithms. If the equity in the account remains negative after closing all positions if necessary, the owner of the account shall owe the broker the balance. The broker will close the account and commence collections if the owner of the account does not pay the balance quickly. Sometimes, brokers will impose higher margin requirements than mandated to prevent the above eventuality. Brokers frequently close positions that violate internal or external margin requirements as soon as they are breached.",
"Buying the underlying asset will not completely hedge you, only what lies above 155 dollars (strike + price of option) - you still have the risk of losing everything but 5. You have a maximum earnings-potential of 55 dollars (strike of 150 - investment of 100 + option of 5) but you have a risk of losing 95$ (investment of 100 - option of 5). Say chance of winning everything or losing everything is 50-50, your expected outcome is 0.5 x -95 + 0.5 x 55 = -20$. Is this a great investment? Sure you don't know your odds - otherwise it would be a sure thing. You shouldn't sell the call option if you do not expect prices to go up - but in that case - why not just buy the underlying alone? Speculating in options is a dangerous game with infinite earnings-potential but also infinite loss potential. (Consider selling a call option and not buying the underlying and the price goes from 100 to 1.000.000.000).",
"The original option writer (seller) can close his short position in the contracts he wrote by purchasing back matching contracts (i.e. contracts with the same terms: underlying, option type, strike price, expiration date) from any others who hold long positions, or else who write new matching contract instances. Rather than buyer and seller settling directly, options are settled through a central options clearing house, being the Options Clearing Corporation for exchange-listed options in the U.S. See also Wikipedia - Clearing house (finance). So, the original buyer of the put maintains his position (insurance) and the clearing process ensures he is matched up with somebody else holding a matching obligation, if he chooses to exercise his put. I also answered a similar question but in more detail, here.",
"\"There some specific circumstances when you would have a long-term gain. Option 1: If you meet all of these conditions: Then you've got a long-term gain on the stock. The premium on the option gets rolled into the capital gain on the stock and is not taxed separately. From the IRS: If a call you write is exercised and you sell the underlying stock, increase your amount realized on the sale of the stock by the amount you received for the call when figuring your gain or loss. The gain or loss is long term or short term depending on your holding period of the stock. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010630 Option 2: If you didn't hold the underlying and the exercise of the call that you wrote resulted in a short position, you might also be able to get to a long-term gain by buying the underlying while keeping your short position open and then \"\"crossing\"\" them to close both positions after one year. (In other words, don't \"\"buy to cover\"\" just \"\"buy\"\" so that your account shows both a long and a short position in the same security. Your broker probably allows this, but if not you, could buy in a different account than the one with the short position.) That would get you to this rule: As a general rule, you determine whether you have short-term or long-term capital gain or loss on a short sale by the amount of time you actually hold the property eventually delivered to the lender to close the short sale. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010586 Option 1 is probably reasonably common. Option 2, I would guess, is uncommon and likely not worthwhile. I do not think that the wash sale rules can help string along options from expiration to expiration though. Option 1 has some elements of what you wrote in italics (I find that paragraph a bit confusing), but the wash sale does not help you out.\"",
"Let's do a real example of leverage on the SPY. Imagine you have $20K today and plan on having $100K by JAN 2018. You could get 100 shares of SPY and ride it out. Maybe buying another 100 shares every few months until 2018, ending up with less than 500 shares to your name ( and zero cash in the bank ). or You could lever with DEC 2017 LEAP CALLS. They'll expire in 2.5 years, so you'd have to re-up sooner than your plan. With 20K starting cash, in my example we'll go with 5 contracts to start with. If we choose the $230 strike they'd cost $1250 each (putting roughly $6250 at risk). The plan in is if the stock market goes up, you've got leverage. You are the proud owner of contracts worth 500 shares of SPY and have only spent 1/3rd of your present day dollars. If the market goes down in the next two years, sure, you lost the entire $6250, but likely saved $93,750 powder dry and can try your luck with the 2021 LEAPS. Probably get down votes for this, but I'll even argue that proper use of leverage can very much reduce your risk. One truth is you'll never get a margin call from holding long options.",
"By buying the call option, you are getting the benefit of purchasing the underlying shares (that is, if the shares go up in value, you make money), but transferring the risk of the shares reducing in value. This is more apparent when you are using the option to offset an explicit risk that you hold. For example, if you have a short position, you are at unlimited risk of the position going up in value. You could decide you only want to take the risk that it might rise to $X. In that case, you could buy a call option with $X strike price. Then you have transferred the risk that the position goes over $X to the counterpart, since, even if the shares are trading at $X+$Y you can close out the short position by purchasing the shares at $X, while the option counterpart will lose $Y.",
"Check out this site: http://www.m-x.ca/produits_options_actions_en.php (Under the Trading Strategies). If you have a background in math or eco or are comfortable with graphs, I suggest you graph the payoffs of each of these strategies. It will really help you understand it. If you need help with this, let me know and I can draw a couple out for you. Your question is rather vague but also complicated however I will try to answer it. First off, many investors buy options to hedge against a current position in a stock (already own the stock). But you can also try to make money off of options rather than protecting yourself. Let's suppose you anticipate that a stock will increase in value so you want to capitalize on this. Suppose further that you have a small amount of money to invest, say $100. Suppose the stock is currently at $100 so that you can only afford 1 share. Suppose there is a call option out there with strike $105 that costs you only $1. Let's compare two scenarios: The stock increases to $120 at the maturity date of the option. So, you made a lot more money with the same initial investment. The amount of money you put in is small (i.e. can be perceived as low risk). However, if the stock price ended up being $104.90 then your options are worthless (i.e. can be perceived as high risk). HTH.",
"Being long the call is being long the option. The call is a type of option. A put is a type of option If you buy a call, you are long an option and long the underlying asset. If you buy a put, you are long an option and short the underlying asset.",
"The broker would give you a margin call and get you to deposit more funds into your account. They wouldn't wait for the stock price to reach $30, but would take this action much earlier. More over it is very unrealistic for any stock to go up 275% over a few hours, and if the stock was this volatile the broker would be asking for a higher margin to start with. What I am really worried about is that if there were any situation like this you are not considering what you would do as part of your risk management strategy. Before writing the option you should already have an exit point at which you would buy back the option to limit your losses.",
"Two ways to mitigate this risk are to buy a put at a lower premium to the written call, or manage your trade by buying back your call if you see the underlying price going against you - a bit similar to having a stop loss.",
"Don't know the name but it means you're long with conviction :P Unlimited gains, maximum loss of 95$ + (8-6) = 97$. Basically You are long @ 107 - -2 from 105 to 95. You would have to be ULTRA bullish to initiate this strategy.",
"I use over half my buying power of my portfolio for options, and I'm not a fan of any of the strategies listed above either (I stay away from negative theta trades for the most part), but I just listed them to point out that saying the reason someone wouldn't enter a short position is for fear of infinite losses is asinine. It's easy enough to make any trade risk defined if that is something the trader cares about.",
"I am very surprised no one mentioned the Stock Repair Option Strategy which has real benefits and is one of the mainstream Option Strategies. Quote: Who Should Consider Using the Stock Repair Strategy? In a nutshell, you are buying call options with current strike price (at-the-money) and sell call options with higher strike price (out-of-the-money), all with the same expiry dates. The only reason to also sell call options here is to recover your premium paid for the other call options. If you are comfortable paying that premium, you just buy the call options without selling the others. In case your stock will rise moderately to a price between the two strike prices, your call option will rise together with your stock, so you will be faster to recover your money. This is the main reason it is called Repair. If you have sold any call options, as the price rises, you have to be careful when it reaches the strike price of the options sold, as from there on you will begin incurring losses. It is however exactly the lucky outcome you were hoping for, your stock is higher, and you can buy back those loss making options - then or shortly before. If you didn't sell any options and payed your premium, you don't need to worry at all at this stage. WARNING It should be noted that the Stock Repair Strategy offers no protection for your stock price further falling down. In that case all those options will expire worthless or you can sell back the ones your bought but likely not for much. In order to have the downside protection for your stock, there are other strategies, the simplest one being buying a Put Option at-the-money or slightly lower. That will effectively cut your possible losses to the Option Premium (which is the main use of that option). Again, if you hate to pay that premium, you can offset it by selling other options that you either hope won't be exercised or take steps to protect you against those.",
"\"Long here does not mean you wish for the underlying stock to increase in value, in fact, as the chart shows, just the opposite is true. \"\"Long means you bought the derivative, and you own the option. The guy that sold it to you is at your mercy, he is short the put, and it's your decision to put the stock to him should it fall in value. The value of the put itself rises with the falling stock price, you are long the put and want the put, itself, to rise in value.\"",
"Just so I'm clear- the end result is a long call, and you think the stock is going up. There is nothing wrong with that fundamentally. Be aware though: That's a negative theta trade. This means if your stock doesn't increase in price during the remaining time to expiration of your call option, the option will lose some of its value every day. It may still lose some of its value every day, depending on how much the stock price increases. The value of the call option just goes down and down as it approaches maturity, even if the stock price stays about the same. Being long a call (or a put) is a tough way to make money in the options market. I would suggest using an out-of-the-money butterfly spread. The potential returns are a bit less. However, this is a cheap positive theta trade so you avoid time decay on the value of the option.",
"Double check with your broker, but if a series isn't open yet for trading, you can't trade it. If there is a series trading without open interest (rare), simply work your open, as options are created at trade. If you have enough money, do this https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/21839/list-of-cflex-2-0-brokers",
"Firstly, going short on a stock and worrying if the price suddenly gaps up a lot due to good news is the same as being long on a stock and worrying that the price will suddenly collapse due to bad news. Secondly, an out of the money call option would be cheaper than an in the money call option, in fact the further out of the money the cheaper the premium will be, all other things being equal. So a good risk management strategy would be to set your stop orders as per your trading plan and if you wish to have added protection in case of a large gap is to buy a far out of the money call option. The premium should not be too expensive. Something you should also consider is the time until expiry for the option, if your time frame for trading is days to weeks you make consider a cheaper option that expires in about a month, but if you are planning on holding the position for more than a month you might need a longer expiry period on the option, which will increase the premium. Another option to consider, if your broker offers it, is to use a guaranteed stop loss order. You will pay a little premium for this type of order and not all brokers offer it, but if it is offered you will be protected against any price gaps past your guaranteed stop loss price.",
"Out of the money options often have the biggest changes in value, when the stock moves upward. This person could also gain, by the implied (underlying) volatility of the stock rising if it moves erratically to either side. Still seems to be a very risky game, given only 4 days to expiry.",
"Let's consider that transaction cost is 0(zero) for calculation. In the scenario you have stated, maximum profit that could be made is 55$, however risk is unlimited. Hedging can also be used to limit your losses, let's consider this scenario. Stock ABC trading @ 100$, I'll buy the stock ABC @ 100$ and buy a put option of ABC @ strike price 90$ for a premium of 5$ with an expiration date of 1 month. Possible outcomes I end up in a loss in 3 out of 4 scenarios, however my loss is limited to 15$, whereas profit is unlimited.",
"\"As Dilip has pointed out in the comment, investing in commodities is to either delivery or Buy. Lets say you entered into buying \"\"X\"\" quantities of Soybeans in November, contract is entered into May. In November, if the price is higher than what you purchased for, you can easily sell this, and make money. If in November, the price is lower than your contract price, you have an option to sell it at loss. If you don't want to sell it at loss, you are supposed to take the physical shipment [arrange for your own transport] and store it in warehouse. Although there are companies that will allow you to lease their warehouse, it very soon becomes more loss making proposition. By doing this you can HOLD onto as long as you want [or as long as the good survive and don't rot] It makes sense for a large wholesaler to enter into Buy contracts as he would be like to get known prices for at least half the stock he needs. Similarly large farmers / co-operative societies need to enter into Sell contracts so that they are safeguarded against price fluctuations.\"",
"Well, if you are going long on a future option, you would not have to risk as much capital. I am interested in commodities, but I want to trade it more conservatively. But I do want to learn about them before I dive in, just so there are no surprises.",
"Well, if you only own the option, you are only limited to loosing the premium. With futures, at least with the brokers I talked to, most of the time you need to sign a margin contract just to trade futures. I don't want to go into debt, and I don't think I would do too well to be fairly honest. I am a college student, and want to limit my risk, and so just trading the option would help me get access to the commodity markets without having to get margin like many brokers want me to do. I am not trying to do any hedging or anything (which I am aware you can do). All I want to do is do an inflation trade, and I believe commodities are the best way. To me honest, if I had my way I would just buy and hold, and that is the strategy I want to emulate closest, even though I know I can't hold it forever. Basically, I want to avoid debt, but still trade commodities.",
"When you buy a call option, you transfer the risk to the owner of the asset. They are risking losing out on gains that may accumulate in addition to the strike price and paid premium. For example, if you buy a $25 call option on stock XYZ for $1 per contract, then any additional gain above $26 per share of XYZ is missed out on by the owner of the stock and solely benefits the option holder.",
"While a margin account is not required to trade options, a margin account is necessary to take delivery of an exercised put. The puts can be bought in a cash account so long as the cash necessary to fund the trade is available. If you do choose to exercise which almost never has a positive expected value relative to selling except after the final trading time before expiration, taxes notwithstanding, then your shares will be put to your counterparty. Since options almost always trade in round lots, 100 shares will have to fund the put exercise, or a margin account must satisfy the difference. For your situation, trading out of both positions would be probably be best.",
"long deep ITM calls is equivalent to owning the equity. You're going to pay alot and hence will start off in a hole already, and you aren't getting too much leverage there at all depending how deep ITM you go. Covariance scales, but assuming B-S in order to get nice scaling and ignoring the risks you are actually taking with options (unlimited down-size ie you can lose your entire investment in the option, people forget this) will screw you unless you really know what you are dong. Leverage means increasing your risk. long dep ITM is not obtaining much leverage and therefore not risking too much. but you aren't going ot get 3-4x leverage this way. you get leverage by saying: oh, i have 100, i could invest in 1 share of stock OR I could buy 100 worth of some option. If I pick a deep ITM (think strike = 0) it's identical to owing the stock. If i pick ATM, i have a ~50/50 chance of wining, so i should be able to double my upside. If I go OTM, i can increase my exposure to the upside while increasing hte chance that my options expire worthless. So really, i have no idea why deep ITM do what you are trying to do. and If you don't either, you probably shouldn't do it.",
"You're assuming options traded on the open market. To close open positions, a seller buys them back on the open market. If there's little on offer, this will drive the price up.",
"The option is exercised. The option is converted into shares. That is an optional condition in closing that contract, hence why they are called options.",
"\"In general there are two types of futures contract, a put and call. Both contract types have both common sides of a transaction, a buyer and a seller. You can sell a put contract, or sell a call contract also; you're just taking the other side of the agreement. If you're selling it would commonly be called a \"\"sell to open\"\" meaning you're opening your position by selling a contract which is different from simply selling an option that you currently own to close your position. A put contract gives the buyer the right to sell shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to put the shares on someone else. A call contract gives the buyer the right to buy shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to call on someone for shares. \"\"American\"\" options contracts allow the buyer can exercise their rights under the contract on or before the expiration date; while \"\"European\"\" type contracts can only be exercised on the expiration date. To address your example. Typically for stock an option contract involves 100 shares of a stock. The value of these contracts fluctuates the same way other assets do. Typically retail investors don't actually exercise their contracts, they just close a profitable position before the exercise deadline, and let unprofitable positions expire worthless. If you were to buy a single call contract with an exercise price of $100 with a maturity date of August 1 for $1 per share, the contract will have cost you $100. Let's say on August 1 the underlying shares are now available for $110 per share. You have two options: Option 1: On August 1, you can exercise your contract to buy 100 shares for $100 per share. You would exercise for $10,000 ($100 times 100 shares), then sell the shares for $10 profit per share; less the cost of the contract and transaction costs. Option 2: Your contract is now worth something closer to $10 per share, up from $1 per share when you bought it. You can just sell your contract without ever exercising it to someone with an account large enough to exercise and/or an actual desire to receive the asset or commodity.\"",
"It's a covered call. When I want to create a covered call position, I don't need to wait before the stock transaction settles. I enter it as one trade, and they settle at different times.",
"You don't necessarily have to use a LEAP to do a spread. Since you are doing a covered call, I'm assuming that you would be comfortable with having that call exercised and you are bullish on the stock. So doing a spread trade with the short call option would essentially be capping your maximum profit without risking the obligation to sell the stock below market value. An example for the payoff from a bull call spread: long lower strike call, short higher (covered) strike call can be found here",
"\"Your broker likely didn't close your position out because it is a covered position. Why interfere with a trade that has no risk to it, from their perspective? There's no risk for the broker since your account holds the shares available for delivery (definition of covered), for if and when the options you wrote (sold) are exercised. And buyers of those options will eventually exercise the options (by expiration) if they remain in-the-money. There's only a chance that an option buyer exercises prematurely, and usually they don't because there's often time value left in the option. That the option buyer has an (ahem) \"\"option\"\" to exercise is a very key point. You wrote: \"\"I fully expected my position to be automatically liquidated by whoever bought my call\"\". That's a false assumption about the way options actually work. I suggest some study of the option exercise FAQs here: Perhaps if your position were uncovered – i.e. you wrote the call without owning the stock (don't try this at home, kids!) – and you also had insufficient margin to cover such a short position, then the broker might have justifiably liquidated your position. Whereas, in a covered call situation, there's really no reason for them to want to interfere – and I would consider that interference, as opposed to helpful. The situation you've described is neither risky for them, nor out of the ordinary. It is (and should be) completely up to you to decide how to close out the position. Anyway, your choices generally are:\"",
"I understand that it is an evil people have to put up with. I would still bitch about it regardless of whether it is something I use or not (CFDs, which I think are dangerous, should not be banned IMO). But then again, this is off topic. On the issue, to my understanding (and putting aside whether the 25k minimum applies to futures or future options as well), if you buy an option on a future, and if it works anything like a stock option in terms of paying a premium for a right to buy the underlying security (call option), then technically you would have the RIGHT, but not obligation to buy a future at a past price. I am not an export on futures or options, but from my understanding, that is what I understood future options to be . I first heard about them from Jim Rogers in hot commodities. For more info see: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/optioninvestor/02/061302.asp",
"Roll it into another put with a lower strike and hope it keeps going down. At the very least it will defray the cost of the long position. Ps I think you're looking for the word hedge not lever.",
"You sold a call, I trust? I bought a call. I have the right to exercise at my will. No sense if out of the money, of course, but if in the money, I might want to capture a dividend or just start the clock for long term gains. Once I exercise, you have no option (pun intended) but to let it go. The assignment is notification, not a request for permission.",
"The put will expire and you will need to purchase a new one. My advise will be that the best thing is to sell more calls so your delta from the short call will be similr to the delta from the equity holding.",
"\"Am I getting it right that in India in terms of short selling in F&O market its what in the rest of the world is called naked short and you actually make promise to depositary that you will deliver that security you sold on settlement without actually owning the security or going through SLB mechanism? In Future and Options; there is no concept of short selling. You buy a future for a security / index. On the settlement day; the exchange determines the settlement price. The trade is closed in cash. i.e. Based on the settlement price, you [and the other party] will either get money [other party looses money] or you loose money [other party gets the money]. Similarly for Options; on expiry, the all \"\"In Money\"\" [or At Money] Options are settled in cash and you are credit with funds [the option writer is debited with funds]. If the option is \"\"out of money\"\" it expires and you loose the premium you paid to exercise the option.\"",
"\"In addition to JoeTaxpayer's answer there are articles that describe the writing of options as \"\"being the casino\"\". When you write, or sell to open an option, you are selling one of the most desirable things in the world to sell: a depreciating asset. Writing options are not without risk, but they can be a very conservative strategy. Who wins these massive losses? Sometimes run of the mill investors, myself being one of them.\"",
"\"You gave your own answer - the 80% is positions, not contracts. Most actors on the option market have no interest in the underlying asset. They want \"\"just\"\" exposure to its price movement. It makes more sense to close your position than to be handed over bushels of wheat or whatever.\"",
"Yes, it can buy back the call, but much before stock hits the $30 mark. Let us say you got 1$ from selling the call. So the total money in your account is 4$ + 1 $ = 5 $. When stock hits 10$ (your strike), the maintenance margin is 5$. As soon as stock goes past 10, your maintenance margin is violated. So broker will buy back your call (at least IB does that, it does not wait for a margin call). Now if the stock gapped up from 8 to 30,then yes, broker will buy it back at 30, so your account will have a negative balance. Assume the call cost 20$ when stock hit 30, your balance is: 5 - (30-10) = -15. Depending on broker, I suppose they will ask you to bring your account balance back up to positive. If they don't do that, they risk going out of business.",
"\"Your question indicates that you might have a little confusion about put options and/or leveraging. There's no sense I'm aware of in which purchasing a put levers a position. Purchasing a put will cost you money up front. Leveraging typically means entering a transaction that gives you extra money now that you can use to buy other things. If you meant to sell a put, that will make money up front but there is no possibility of making money later. Best case scenario the put is not exercised. The other use of the term \"\"leverage\"\" refers to purchasing an asset that, proportionally, goes up faster than the value of the underlying. For example, a call option. If you purchase a put, you are buying downside protection, which is kind of the opposite of leverage. Notice that for an American put you will most likely be better off selling the put when the price of the underlying falls than exercising it. That way you make the money you would have made by exercising plus whatever optional value the put still contains. That is true unless the time value of money is greater than the optional (insurance) value. Since the time value of money is currently exceptionally low, this is unlikely. Anyway, if you sell the option instead of exercising, you don't need to own any shares at all. Even if you do exercise, you can just buy them on the market and sell right away so I wouldn't worry about what you happen to be holding. The rules for what you can trade with a cash instead of a margin account vary by broker, I think. You can usually buy puts and calls in a cash account, but more advanced strategies, such as writing options, are prohibited. Ask your broker or check their help pages to see what you have available to you.\"",
"SPX options are cash settled European style. You cannot exercise European style options before the expiration date. Assuming it is the day of expiration and you own 2,000 strike puts and the index settlement value is 1,950 - you would exercise and receive cash for the in the money amount times the contract multiplier. If instead you owned put options on the S&P 500 SPDR ETF (symbol SPY) those are American style, physically settled options. You can exercise a long American style option anytime between when your purchase it and when it expires. If you exercised SPY puts without owning shares of SPY you would end up short stock at the strike price.",
"Yes, and there's a good reason they might. (I'm gonna use equity options for the example; FX options are my thing, but they typically trade European style). The catch is dividends. Imagine you're long a deep-ITM call on a stock that's about to pay a dividend. If that dividend is larger than the time value remaining on the option, you'd prefer to exercise early - giving you the stock and the dividend payment - rather than hanging on to the time value of the option. You can get a similar situation in FX options when you're long a deep-ITM American call on a positive-carry currency (say AUDJPY); you might find yourself so deep in the money, with so little time value left on the option, that you'd rather exercise the option and give up the remaining time value in return for the additional carry from getting the spot position early.",
"It definitely depends on your risk appetite as Joe Taxpayer pointed out in his answer. Covered calls are a good choice for someone who already own's the stock, because the premium collected reduces the cost basis for the position. The downside is that if the calls are exercised, there is a good chance that you are missing out on additional upside in the stock price (because the strike is obviously below the market value for the stocks). Another good option trade is the spread option. This would allow you to capture the difference between the two strikes of the options in the spread. This is also one of the less risky choices because your initial cost an potential profit/loss are known in advance of entering the position.",
"For the lenders to sell their positions they need buyers on the other side. For a large brokerage that means they should always be able to find another lender. For many contracts the client may have no idea they are a lender as lending is part of their agreement with the broker",
"Today SPY (The S&P ETF) trades at $128. The option to buy at $140 (this is a Jan '13 call) trades for $5. I buy the call, for $500 as they trade in 100 lots. The S&P skyrockets to 1500 and SPY to $150. The call trades for $11, as it still has a month or two before expiring, so I sell it, and get $1100. The S&P rose 17%, but I doubled my money. If it 'only' rose 9%, to less than $140, I'd lose my investment. No, I don't need to buy the SPY I can sell the call any time before expiration. In fact, most options are not exercised, they are sold between purchase and expiration date.",
"\"A covered call risks the disparity between the purchase price and the potential forced or \"\"called\"\" sale price less the premium received. So buy a stock for $10.00 believing it will drop you or not rise above $14.00 for a given period of days. You sell a call for a $1.00 agreeing to sell your stock for $14.00 and your wrong...the stock rises and at 14.00 or above during the option period the person who paid you the $1.00 premium gets the stock for a net effective price of $15.00. You have a gain of 5$. Your hypothecated loss is unlimited in that the stock could go to $1mil a share. That loss is an opportunity loss you still had a modest profit in actual $. The naked call is a different beast. you get the 1.00 in commission to sell a stock you don't own but must pay for that right. so lets say you net .75 in commission per share after your sell the option. as long as the stock trades below $14.00 during the period of the option you sold your golden. It rises above the strike price you must now buy that stock at market to fill the order when the counter party choses to exercise the option which results in a REAL loss of 100% of the stocks market price less the .75 a share you made. in the scenarios a 1000 shares that for up $30.00 a share over the strike price make you $5,000 in a covered call and lose you $29,250 in a naked call.Naked calls are speculative. Covered calls are strategic.\"",
"\"Yes, if it's an American style option. American style options may be exercised at any time prior to expiration (even if they're not in-the-money). Generally, you are required to deliver or accept delivery of the underlying by the beginning of the next trading day. If you are short, you may be chosen by the clearinghouse to fulfill the exercise (a process called \"\"assignment\"\"). Because the clearinghouse is the counter-party to every options trade, you can be assigned even if the specific person who purchased the option you wrote didn't exercise, but someone else who holds a long position did. Similarly, you might not be assigned if that person did exercise. The clearinghouse randomly chooses a brokerage to fulfill an assignment, and the brokerage will randomly choose an individual account. If you're going to be writing options, especially using spreads, you need to have a plan ahead of time on what to do if one of your legs gets assigned. This is more likely to happen just before a dividend payment, if the payment is more than the remaining time value.\"",
"You sold a call, and have a risk if the stock rises. You bought a put and gain when the stock drops. You, sir, have a synthetic short position. It's Case 3 from your linked example: Suppose you own Long Stock and the company is going to report earnings but you’re going on vacation. How can you hedge your position without selling your stock? You can short the stock synthetically with options! Short Stock = Short Call + Long Put They conclude with the net zero remark, because the premise was an existing long position. A long plus this synthetic short results in a neutral set of positions (and the author's ability to go on vacation not concerned about any movement in the stock.)",
"While open interest usually correlates to volume, the mark of liquidity is the bid ask spread. Even when trading options with spreads as large as an ask 2x the bid, a more realistic price that traders are willing to accept lies somewhere in the middle. Any option can easily be exited at intrinsic value: underlying price - exercise price for calls, exercise price - underlying price for puts. For illiquid options, this will be the best price obtained. For longer term options, something closer to the theoretical price is still possible. If an underlying is extremely liquid, yet the options aren't quite then options traders will be much more ready to trade at the theoretical price. For exiting illiquid options, small, < 4 contracts, and infrequent, > 30 minute intervals, orders are more likely to be filled closer to the theoretical price; however, if one's sells are the only trades, traders on the other side will take note and accept ever lowering implied volatilities. With knowledge of what traders will accept, it is always more optimal to trade out of options rather than exercise because of the added costs and uncertainty involved with exercising and liquidating.",
"I don't actually have any of this stock. Apparently, it's quite common strategy This is called naked short selling. It's not illegal per se, but there can be some major penalties so you should call your broker and ask them these questions. Intentionally naked short selling is not looked upon favorably. They'll probably try to recommend you a safer shorting system by which:",
"First, a margin account is required to trade options. If you buy a put, you have the right to deliver 100 shares at a fixed price, 50 can be yours, 50, you'll buy at the market. If you sell a put, you are obligated to buy the shares if put to you. All options are for 100 shares, I am unaware of any partial contract for fewer shares. Not sure what you mean by leveraging the position, can you spell it out more clearly?",
"Adding on to all the fine answers, you can consider selling a covered call. You will have to own a minimum of 100 shares. It will offer a bit of protection, but limit your upside. If your confident long term, but expect a broader market pull back then a covered call might give you that small protection your looking for.",
"For listed options in NYSE,CBOE, is it possible for an option holder to exercise an option even if it is not in the money? Abandonment of in-the-money options or the exercise of out-of-the-money options are referred as contrarian instructions. They are sometimes forbidden, e.g. see CME - Weekly & End-of-Month (EOM) Options on Standard & E-mini S&P 500 Futures (mirror): In addition to offering European-style alternatives (which by definition can only be exercised on expiration day), both the weekly and EOM options prohibit contrarian instructions (the abandonment of in-the-money options, or the exercise of out-of-the-money options). Thus, at expiration, all in-the-money options are automatically exercised, whereas all options not in-the-money are automatically abandoned.",
"In the first case, if you wish to own the stock, you just exercise the option, and buy it for the strike price. Else, you can sell the option just before expiration, it will be priced very close to its in-the-money value."
] |
[
"I think it depends on your broker. Some brokers will not try to auto exercise in the money options. Others will try to do the exercise it if you have available funds. Your best bet, if find yourself in that situation, is to sell the option on the open market the day of or slightly before expiration. Put it on your calendar and don't forget, you could loose your profits. @#2 Its in the best interest of your broker to exercise because they get a commission. I think they are used to this situation where there is a lack of funds. Its not like bouncing a check. You will need to check with your broker on this. @#3 I think many or most options traders never intend on buying the underling stock. Therefore no, they do not always make sure there is enough funds to buy.",
"I do this often and have never had a problem. My broker is TD Ameritrade and they sent several emails (and even called and left a message) the week of expiry to remind me I had in the money options that would be expiring soon. Their policy is to automatically exercise all options that are at least $.01 in the money. One email was vaguely worded, but it implied that they could liquidate other positions to raise money to exercise the options. I would have called to clarify but I had no intention of exercising and knew I would sell them before expiry. In general though, much like with margin calls, you should avoid being in the position where the broker needs to (or can do) anything with your account. As a quick aside: I can't think of a scenario where you wouldn't be able to sell your options, but you probably are aware of the huge spreads that exist for many illiquid options. You'll be able to sell them, but if you're desperate, you may have to sell at the bid price, which can be significantly (25%?) lower than the ask. I've found this to be common for options of even very liquid underlyings. So personally, I find myself adjusting my limit price quite often near expiry. If the quote is, say, 3.00-3.60, I'll try to sell with a limit of 3.40, and hope someone takes my offer. If the price is not moving up and nobody is biting, move down to 3.30, 3.20, etc. In general you should definitely talk to your broker, like others have suggested. You may be able to request that they sell the options and not attempt to exercise them at the expense of other positions you have."
] |
2857
|
I have around 60K $. Thinking about investing in Oil, how to proceed?
|
[
"233732",
"501384",
"60175",
"295864"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"379140",
"127566",
"233732",
"501384",
"60175",
"542051",
"303944",
"234115",
"49235",
"349621",
"316444",
"315930",
"154611",
"233223",
"519025",
"26939",
"296969",
"598322",
"250028",
"285648",
"441139",
"157038",
"241423",
"66460",
"269671",
"534010",
"328919",
"328477",
"580313",
"65006",
"129255",
"155074",
"299284",
"160030",
"332924",
"208165",
"295864",
"459825",
"461193",
"573213",
"504089",
"94900",
"474575",
"368674",
"480879",
"387273",
"160922",
"224816",
"308633",
"215296",
"158426",
"117451",
"171189",
"68270",
"2376",
"484327",
"103584",
"560395",
"292338",
"540919",
"18855",
"424131",
"311192",
"440305",
"551627",
"312821",
"314300",
"13885",
"411856",
"122679",
"487817",
"483299",
"313570",
"215799",
"226298",
"571218",
"382415",
"24563",
"359515",
"591909",
"91746",
"356552",
"323067",
"567500",
"503261",
"398900",
"53431",
"45029",
"464297",
"263852",
"240351",
"444946",
"223792",
"269384",
"254556",
"173562",
"153231",
"152286",
"276778",
"393757"
] |
[
"Oil as a commodity or investing in oil companies as a stock? As a commodity, I'd recommend none. The article Commodities – They Have (Almost) No Place in Your Portfolio and The Case Against Commodities explain why commodities are not good investments.",
"Probably the easiest way for individual investors is oil ETFs. In particular, USO seems to be fairly liquid and available. You should check carefully the bid/ask spreads in this volatile time. There are other oil ETFs and leveraged and inverse oil ETFs exist as well, but one should heed the warnings about leveraged ETFs. Oil futures are another possibility though they can be more complicated and tough to access for an individual investor. Note that futures have a drift associated with them as well. Be careful close or roll any positions before delivery, of course, unless you have a need for a bunch of actual barrels of oil. Finally, you can consider investing in commodities ETFs or Energy stocks or stock ETFs that are strongly related to the price of oil. As Keshlam mentions, care is advised in all these methods. Many people thought oil reached its bottom a few weeks back then OPEC decided to do nothing and the price dropped even further.",
"One possibility would be to invest in a crude oil ETF (or maybe technically they're an ETP), which should be easily accessible through any stock trading platform. In theory, the value of these investments is directly tied to the oil price. There's a list of such ETFs and some comments here. But see also here about some of the problems with such things in practice, and some other products aiming to avoid those issues. Personally I find the idea of putting all my savings into such a vehicle absolutely horrifying; I wouldn't contemplate having more than a small percentage of a much more well diversified portfolio invested in something like that myself, and IMHO it's a completely unsuitable investment for a novice investor. I strongly suggest you read up on topics like portfolio construction and asset allocation (nice introductory article here and here, although maybe UK oriented; US SEC has some dry info here) before proceeding further and putting your savings at risk.",
"\"This is only a partial answer to your question #1. If you have a conservative approach to savings (and, actually, even if you don't), you should not invest all of your money in any single industry or product. If you want to invest some money in oil, okay, but don't overdo it. If your larger goal is to invest the money in a manner that is less risky but still more lucrative than a savings account, you should read up on personal finance and investing to get a sense of what options are available. A commonly-recommended option is to invest in low-cost index funds that mirror the performance of the stock market as a whole. The question of \"\"how should I invest\"\" is very broad, but you can find lots of starting points in other questions on this site, by googling, or by visiting your local library.\"",
"If you've decided to ignore the sound advice re: oil company stocks, and you want something directly linked to the price of oil, do the following: Understand that oil producers would like avoid the risk of a price drop, and oil consumers (refiners, electric utilities, etc.) would like to avoid the risk of a price rise. Understand that you are about to assume their risk.",
"There are many ways of investing either directly or indirectly in oil: all of these options are ways to invest in an expected change in the price of oil at various degrees of directness and risk profiles. Investing in derivative or derivative-like products such as futures and CFDs is very risky and requires a good degree of sophisticated knowledge to manage.",
"While we're not supposed to make direct recommendations, and I am in no way advising anything, USO an ETF that buys light sweet crude oil futures with the intention of mirroring the price movements of oil.",
"You can buy the exchange traded fund ETFS WTI Crude Oil (CRUD), amongst other ETFS products. http://funds.ft.com/uk/Tearsheet/Summary?s=CRUD:LSE:USD Note these funds do not 'jump' when the crude oil futures contracts are in contango (e.g. June contract is priced higher than May) and the futures roll-over, as they do monthly. When this happens the EFTS continues with no movement. Currently May is $52.85 and June is $54.15 (so in contango). LSE:CRUD is $13.40 and if the crude oil futures rolled-over it would carry straight on at that value. For this reason one should be cautious buying and holding LSE:CRUD longterm.",
"\"As others have alluded to but haven't said due to the lack of reputation points to spare, you can take advantage of oil prices by leveraging up and using as much credit and margin as the banks and brokerages (respectively) will lend you. People assume that the correct answer on this forum has to masquerade as conservative financial advice, and this is not advice nor conservative. Futures contracts are readily available, but they are expensive to obtain (like a minimum entry of $4,450). But if this expense is no such object to you then you can then obtain this contract which is actually worth 20x that and experience the price appreciation and depreciation of the whole contract. The concept is similar to a downpayment on a mortgage. You assume \"\"rock bottom\"\" oil prices, but fortunately for you, futures contracts will allow you to quickly change your bets from future price appreciation and allow you to speculate on future price depreciation. So although the union workers will be protesting full time after the drilling company lays them off, you will still be getting wealthier. Long Options. These are the best. The difference with options, amongst other speculation products, is that options require the least amount of capital risk for the greatest reward. With futures, or with trading shares of an ETF (especially on margin), you have to put up a lot of capital, and if the market does not go your desired direction, then will lose a lot. And on margin products you can lose more than you put in. Being long options does not come with these dilemmas. A long march 2015 call option on USO ETF can currently be bought for less than $200 of actual cash (ie. the trading quote will be less than $2.00, but this will cost you less than $200), and will be worth $1000 on a very modest rebound in prices. The most you can lose is the $200 for the contract. Compared to $4450 on the futures, or $100,000 (that you don't have) in the futures market if oil really moves against you, or compared to whatever large amount of cash needed to actually buy shares of an ETF needed to make any decent return. These are the most lucrative (and fun and exhilarating and ) ways to take advantage of rock bottom oil prices, as an individual.\"",
"\"Option 1 is out. There are no \"\"safe returns\"\" that make much money. Besides, if a correction does come along how will you know when to invest? There is no signal that says when the bottom is reached, and you emotions could keep you from acting. Option 2 (dollar cost averaging) is prudent and comforting. There are always some bargains about. You could start with an energy ETF or a few \"\"big oil\"\" company stocks right now.\"",
"The Oil futures are exactly that. They are people forecasting the price of oil at a point of time in the future where they are willing to buy oil at that price. That said, Do you have evidence of a correlation of Price of oil to the shares of oil stocks? Oil companies that are good investments are generally good investments regardless of the cost of oil. If you did not know about oil futures then you might be best served by consulting an investment professional for some guidance.",
"Here is some good advice, read your UCO prospectus. It seems to hold 20% of it's value ($600MM out of $3B) via 13800 of the Apr 21st 2015 contracts. (expiring in 30 days) Those will be rolled very quickly into the May contracts at a significant loss of NAV. (based on current oil futures chains) Meaning if crude oil stays exactly the same price, you'd still lose 1% (5% spread loss * .20% the percentage of NAV based off futures contracts) on the roll each month. Their other $2.4Billion is held in swaptions or cash, unsure how to rate that exposure. All I know is those 13,800 contracts are in contango danger during roll week for the next few months (IMO). I wonder if there is a website that tracks inflows and outflows to see if they match up with before and after the roll periods. http://www.proshares.com/funds/uco_daily_holdings.html How Oil ETFs Work Many oil ETFs invest in oil futures contracts. An oil futures contract is a commitment to buy a given amount of crude oil at a given price on a particular date in the future. Since the purpose of oil ETFs is only to serve as an investment vehicle to track the price of oil, the creators of the fund have no interest in stockpiling actual oil. Therefore, oil ETFs such as USO periodically “roll over” their futures contracts by selling the contracts that are approaching expiration and buying contracts that expire farther into the future. The Contango Problem While this process of continually rolling over futures contracts may seem like a great way to track the price of crude oil, there’s a practical problem with the method: contango. The rollover method would work perfectly if oil funds could sell their expiring contracts for the exact same price that they pay for the futures contracts they buy each month. However, in reality, it’s often true that oil futures contracts get more expensive the farther their expiration date is in the future. That means that every time the oil ETFs roll over their contracts, they lose the difference in value between the contracts they sell and the contracts they buy. That’s why funds like USO, which invests only in WTI light, sweet crude oil futures contracts, don’t directly track the performance of the WTI crude oil spot price. http://www.etftrends.com/2015/01/positioning-for-an-oil-etf-rebound-watch-for-contango/ Due to these reasons, I'd deem UCO for swing trading, not for 'investing' (buy-and-hold). Maybe later I'll remember why one shouldn't buy and hold leveraged vehicles (leverage slippage/decay). Do you have an exit price in mind ? or are you buy and hold ?",
"\"In layman's terms, oil on the commodities market has a \"\"spot price\"\" and a \"\"future price\"\". The spot price is what the last guy paid to buy a barrel of oil right now (and thus a pretty good indicator of what you'll have to pay). The futures price is what the last guy paid for a \"\"futures contract\"\", where they agreed to buy a barrel of oil for $X at some point in the future. Futures contracts are a form of hedging; a futures contract is usually sold at a price somewhere between the current spot price and the true expected future spot price; the buyer saves money versus paying the spot price, while the seller still makes a profit. But, the buyer of a futures contract is basically betting that the spot price as of delivery will be higher, while the seller is betting it will be lower. Futures contracts are available for a wide variety of acceptable future dates, and form a curve when plotted on a graph that will trend in one direction or the other. Now, as Chad said, oil companies basically get their cut no matter what. Oil stocks are generally a good long-term bet. As far as the best short-term time to buy in to an oil stock, look for very short windows when the spot and near-future price of gasoline is trending downward but oil is still on the uptick. During those times, the oil companies are paying their existing (high) contracts for oil, but when the spot price is low it affects futures prices, which will affect the oil companies' margins. Day traders will see that, squawk \"\"the sky is falling\"\" and sell off, driving the price down temporarily. That's when you buy in. Pretty much the only other time an oil stock is a guaranteed win is when the entire market takes a swan dive and then bottoms out. Oil has such a built-in demand, for the foreseeable future, that regardless of how bad it gets you WILL make money on an oil stock. So, when the entire market's in a panic and everyone's heading for gold, T-debt etc, buy the major oil stocks across the spectrum. Even if one stock tanks, chances are really good that another company will see that and offer a buyout, jacking the bought company's stock (which you then sell and reinvest the cash into the buying company, which will have taken a hit on the news due to the huge drop in working capital). Of course, the one thing to watch for in the headlines is any news that renewables have become much more attractive than oil. You wait; in the next few decades some enterprising individual will invent a super-efficient solar cell that provides all the power a real, practical car will ever need, and that is simultaneously integrated into wind farms making oil/gas plants passe. When that happens oil will be a thing of the past.\"",
"Do not buy any commodity tracking ETF without reading and understanding the prospectus. Some of these things get exposure to the underlying commodity via swaps or other hocus-pocus derivatives, so you're really buying credit obligations from some bank. Others are futures based, and you need to understand your potential upside AND downside. If you think that oil prices are going to continue to rise, you should look into sector funds, or better yet individual stocks that are in the oil or associated businesses. Alternatively, look at alternative investments like natural gas producers or pipeline operators.",
"The papers you would need to buy are called 'futures', and they give you the right to buy (or sell) a certain amount of oil at a certain location (some large harbor typically), for a certain price, on a certain day. You can typically sell these futures anytime (if you find someone that buys them), and depending on the direction you bought, you will make or lose money according to oil rice changes - if you have the future to get oil for 50 $, and the market price is 60, this paper is obviously worth 10 $. Note that you will have to sell the future at some day before it runs out, or you get real oil in some harbor somewhere for it, which might not be very useful to you. As most traders don't want really any oil, that might happen automatically or by default, but you need to make sure of that. Note also that worst case you could lose a lot more money than you put in - if you buy a future to deliver oil for 50 $, and the oil price runs, you will have to procure the oil for new price, meaning pay the current price for it. There is no theoretical limit, so depending on what you trade, you could lose ten times or a thousand times what you invested. [I worded that without technical lingo so it is clear for beginners - this is the concept, not the full technical explanation]",
"Don't start by investing in a few individual companies. This is risky. Want an example? I'm thinking of a big company, say $120 billion or so, a household name, and good consistent dividends to boot. They were doing fairly well, and were generally busy trying to convince people that they were looking to the future with new environmentally friendly technologies. Then... they went and spilled a bunch of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Yes, it wasn't a pretty picture if BP was one of five companies in your portfolio that day. Things would look a lot better if they were one of 500 or 5000 companies, though. So. First, aim for diversification via mutual funds or ETFs. (I personally think you should probably start with the mutual funds: you avoid trading fees, for one thing. It's also easier to fit medium-sized dollar amounts into funds than into ETFs, even if you do get fee-free ETF trading. ETFs can get you better expense ratios, but the less money you have invested the less important that is.) Once you have a decent-sized portfolio - tens of thousands of dollars or so - then you can begin to consider holding stocks of individual companies. Take note of fees, including trading fees / commissions. If you buy $2000 worth of stock and pay a $20 commission you're already down 1%. If you're holding a mutual fund or ETF, look at the expense ratio. The annualized real return on the stock market is about 4%. (A real return is after adjusting for inflation.) If your fee is 1%, that's about a quarter of your earnings, which is huge. And while it's easy for a mutual fund to outperform the market by 1% from time to time, it's really really hard to do it consistently. Once you're looking at individual companies, you should do a lot of obnoxious boring stupid research and don't just buy the stock on the strength of its brand name. You'll be interested in a couple of metrics. The main one is probably the P/E ratio (price/earnings). If you take the inverse of this, you'll get the rate at which your investment is making you money (e.g. a P/E of 20 is 5%, a P/E of 10 is 10%). All else being equal, a lower P/E is a good thing: it means that you're buying the company's income really cheap. However, all else is seldom equal: if a stock is going for really cheap, it's usually because investors don't think that it's got much of a future. Earnings are not always consistent. There are a lot of other measures, like beta (correlation to the market overall: riskier volatile stocks have higher numbers), gross margins, price to unleveraged free cash flow, and stuff like that. Again, do the boring research, otherwise you're just playing games with your money.",
"if you have 30k to invest use some of it to hire someone because the returns you'd get with some sort of professional would probably make up for what your paying them in comparison to doing it on your own. although if you're really against it then like mjvcaj said, ETF's would probably be a good idea.",
"Well, if you are going long on a future option, you would not have to risk as much capital. I am interested in commodities, but I want to trade it more conservatively. But I do want to learn about them before I dive in, just so there are no surprises.",
"Generally speaking, you want to find goods and services that are inelastic and also require oil as a cost. Oil company stocks make record profits when oil is high, because direct demand for oil is relatively inelastic. Profit margins of oil competition should also go up, as this creates inflation in general, as people seek alternatives to the inelastic demand.",
"Don't really know much about futures but I'll give you a couple of options: Assuming that you are just looking around right now about currency investing, are you sure (I mean, really sure) that you want to do it?",
"Too little information to give any kind of advice. What is your age, goals, other monies, other investments etc... You need to look at the whole thing. Are you investing already in tax-deferred IRA. Spend the time to learn to be your own investment advisor. Many investment professionals may disagree with me on this, but since you can't trust many of them better you do your own research first. Same with Stocks or ETF, you try to be the expert. Better you have the time to follow your own investments ideas, do not depend on a human or robot to tell you when to buy or sell. Their job is to part you from your money. If you do not have the time to this yourself, save yourself the money, and just do something else with it. I have been investing in the Stock Market since 1986, I have made more money than I lost. Good runs and bad. Today it is all about trading, you can not trust the financials given by anyone, or know what is going to happen in the markets in general. So unless you want to play the game every day, don't be in it.",
"It is only wise to invest in what you understand (ala Warren Buffet style). Depending on how much money you have, you might see fit to consult a good independent financial advisor instead of seeking advice from this website. A famous quote goes: “Those who say, do not know. Those who know, do not say”",
"\"See Solid reading/literature for investment/retirement/income taxes? – not exactly the same question, but a great reading list for you. You are putting the cart before the horse here, first, you learn, then you invest. There's a large danger in confusing intelligent investing with \"\"fooling around\"\". The idea that you think you'd like to use derivatives without knowing how or why is a tough one. I suggest you go to Yahoo! Finance and set yourself up with a portfolio (click on the \"\"My Portfolios\"\" tab), in effect, creating your own simulated account. Assume you are starting with some reasonable amount of money, say $10,000, but not $1M, as part of real investing is to learn how to asset allocate the funds you have. Learning that way for a time is the smarter way to start. That said, individual stocks are not for everyone. Most investors can lead a successful investing life by using ETFs or mutual funds of one type or another. Learning to pick individual stocks can be a life's work, and if you put too little time into it, are likely to be disappointed. But learning by 'paper trading' can be a good learning experience nonetheless.\"",
"This security looks like it will require patience for it to pay off. The 200 day moving average looks as if it will soon cross over the 20 day moving average. When that happens the security can be said to be in a bull run. http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=UWTI&p=D&yr=1&mn=6&dy=0&id=p10888728027 However, this is just speculation... trying to make money via 'buy low, sell high' as I have stated previously, you have about a 25% chance of buying at the low and selling at the high. Better to buy into a fund that pays dividends and reinvest those dividends. Such as: http://www.dividend.com/dividend-stocks/uncategorized/other/pgf-invesco-powershares-financial-preferred-portfolio/ http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=PGF&p=D&yr=1&mn=6&dy=0&id=p59773821284",
"At your age (heck, at MY age :-)) I would not think about doing any of those types of investments (not savings) on your own, unless you are really interested in the investment process for its own sake, and are willing to devote a lot of time to investigating companies in order to try to pick good investments. Instead, find a good mutual fund from say Vanguard or TRP, put your money in there, and relax. Depending on your short-term goals (e.g. will you expect to need the money for college?) you could pick either an index fund, or a low-risk, mostly bond fund.",
"I think your best strategy is to learn more about the behavior of what you're investing in. Learn everything you can about it. Specialize in it. The more you study, the more the proper strategy will present itself. Answer the questions you ask in paragraph 3 through your own study.",
"This conversation is about energy futures, not generic securities. A moderately wealthy dilettante without a background in the subject is at an extreme disadvantage - since as a trader your edge is being able to identify market inefficiencies and profit from them, it's difficult to imagine being able to do this in a market you do not understand.",
"\"Don't do it until you have educated yourself enough to know what you are doing. I hope you won't take this personally, but given that you are wandering around asking random strangers on the Internet how to \"\"get into investing,\"\" I feel safe in concluding that you are by no means a sophisticated enough investor to be choosing individual investments, nor should you be trusting financial advisors to choose investments for you. Believe me, they do not have your interests at heart. I usually advise people in your position to start by reading one book: A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel. Once you've read the book by Malkiel you'll understand that the best strategy for all but the most sophisticated investors is to buy an index fund, which simply purchases a portfolio of ALL available stocks without trying to pick winners and losers. The best index funds are at Vanguard (there is also a Vanguard site for non-US residents). Vanguard is one of the very, very, very few honest players in the business. Unlike almost any other mutual fund, Vanguard is owned by its investors, so it has no profit motive. They never try to pick individual stocks, so they don't have to pay fancy high-priced analysts to pick stocks. If you find it impossible to open a Vanguard account from wherever you're living, find a local brokerage account that will allow you to invest in the US stock market. Many Vanguard mutual funds are available as ETFs which means that you buy and sell them just like any other stock on the US market, which should be easy to do from any reasonably civilized place.\"",
"you should invest in a range of stock market indexes. Ex : Dow jones, S&P500, Nasdaq and keep it there until you are ready to retire. I'm invested half in SLYV and SLYG (S&P600 small cap value and S&P600 small cap growth; Respectively). It brings on average between 8-13% a year (since 1971). This is not investment advice. Talk to your broker before doing this.",
"There are quite a few options. Suggest you put a mix of things and begin investing into Mutual Funds.",
"Investing is really about learning your own comfort level. You will make money and lose money. You will make mistakes but you will also learn a great deal. First off, invest in your own financial knowledge, this doesn't require capital at all but a commitment. No one will watch or care for your own money better than yourself. Read books, and follow some companies in a Google Finance virtual portfolio. Track how they're doing over time - you can do this as a virtual portfolio without actually spending or losing money. Have you ever invested before? What is your knowledge level? Investing long term is about trying to balance risk while reducing losses and trying not to get screwed along the way (by people). My personal advice: Go to an independent financial planner, go to one that charges you per hour only. Financial planners that don't charge you hourly get paid in commissions. They will be biased to sell you what puts the most money in their pockets. Do not go to the banks investment people, they are employed by the banks who have sales and quota requirements to have you invest and push their own investment vehicles like mutual funds. Take $15k to the financial planner and see what they suggest. Keep the other $5K in something slow and boring and $1k under your mattress in actual cash as an emergency. While you're young, compound interest is the magic that will make that $25k increase hand over fist in time. But you need to have it consistently make money. I'm young too and more risk tolerant because I have time. While I get older I can start to scale back my risk because I'm nearing retirement and preserve instead of try to make returns.",
"I would make this a comment, but I am not worthy...... You will need to define your objectives before you can do anything. What is the money for? What is your risk tolerance? Where do you live? Capital appreciation? Preservation? Can you eat if your savings are cut in half? How much are you currently making? How much are you currently saving? What do you already have exposure to? How secure is your job? What is the makeup of the congregation? Do you have any tax-related surprises? Do you own your home? Have you previously consulted with a financial planner? There are many many factors obviously. More than I think most people want to give out over the internet, but they are all important to making a decision. Get a recommendation from someone you know for a financial planner. Ask upfront what their background is. Education, experience credentials. You want a certified financial planner or analyst. Ask how their fees are structured and what their approach is like, and make sure they're speaking intelligibly. Feel free to shop around until you find someone you like.",
"The advice I have is short and sweet. Be an investor, not a speculator. Adopt the philosophy of Warren Buffet which is the 'buy and hold' philosophy. Avoid individual stocks and buy mutual funds or ETFs. Pick something that pays dividends and reinvest those dividends. Don't become a speculator, meaning avoid the 'buy low, sell high' philosophy. EDIT:For some reason I cannot add a comment, so I am putting my response here. @jad The 'buy low, sell high' approach makes money for the stock broker, not necessarily you. As we learn in the movie Trading Places, each buy or sell creates a commission for the broker. It is those commission expenses that eat away at your nestegg. Just don't sell. If a security is trading at $10 a share and pays $0.25 a share each quarter then you are getting 10% ROI if you buy that security (and if it continues to pay $0.25 a share each quarter). If the price goes up then the ROI for new buyers will go down, but your ROI will still be the same. You will continue to get 10% for as long as you hold that security. A mutual fund buys the individual stocks for you. The value of the fund is only calculated at the end of the day. An ETF is like a mutual fund but the value of the ETF is calculated moment by moment.",
"I would recommend that go through some forums where commodities topics be discussed so that if you have some issues related any point in commodities investment you will easily get your question sort out.",
"\"I recommend avoiding trading directly in commodities futures and options. If you're not prepared to learn a lot about how futures markets and trading works, it will be an experience fraught with pitfalls and lost money – and I am speaking from experience. Looking at stock-exchange listed products is a reasonable approach for an individual investor desiring added diversification for their portfolio. Still, exercise caution and know what you're buying. It's easy to access many commodity-based exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on North American stock exchanges. If you already have low-cost access to U.S. markets, consider this option – but be mindful of currency conversion costs, etc. Yet, there is also a European-based company, ETF Securities, headquartered in Jersey, Channel Islands, which offers many exchange-traded funds on European exchanges such as London and Frankfurt. ETF Securities started in 2003 by first offering a gold commodity exchange-traded fund. I also found the following: London Stock Exchange: Frequently Asked Questions about ETCs. The LSE ETC FAQ specifically mentions \"\"ETF Securities\"\" by name, and addresses questions such as how/where they are regulated, what happens to investments if \"\"ETF Securities\"\" were to go bankrupt, etc. I hope this helps, but please, do your own due diligence.\"",
"50 (dollars, Euros?) is a very small amount to invest. The first time I ever bought stock I picked a winner. It went up by about 40% in the first few months. I sold it and lost money. How? I only bought 10 shares at $7.50 each. The profit was less than the two commissions for buying and selling (about $17 a piece). If you are thinking of buying individual stocks, You simply need to save up more money before it will be practical. If you are not trying to beat the market, which is probably not something an amateur like you or I should attempt, then you should consider low cost index funds. I have money in mutual funds, some of which, have as low as a $100 minimum investment. I have moved entirely away from picking stocks. It was a good experience and I could afford to lose the money, but as a long term strategy, it just was not working for me. Note: This is coming from an American. If this somehow does not apply in Europe...",
"Royalty trusts track oil prices (they're a pure play on ownership of a portfolio of mineral rights and do not otherwise have the operations that the oil companies themselves have). Many publicly traded ones listed at the embedded wikipedia link. Oil tankers are having a bang up business right now as described in the article, but that's because of the low prices and flood of product from the middle east. The article notes that inventories are near capacity, so terminals and pipelines may be in for a few good years, though these do not directly track oil price. However, as a way to bet on oil or oil services, many terminals and pipelines are organized as publicly traded master limited partnerships or MLPs, often spun out of a major oil company for tax reasons, allowing fine-grained investment in specific assets.",
"Unless you have the storage and transportation facilities for it, or can come up with the money needed to rent or build those, no -- or not in any significant quantity. Buying oil futures is essentially an on-paper version of the same bet. Futures prices are already taking into account both expectations about price changes and the fact that there's cash tied up until they come due, but storage costs also adjust to follow those expectations.",
"\"First, you need to figure out what your objectives for the money are. Mostly, this boils down to how soon you are going to need the money. If you are, as you say, very busy and you don't need the money until retirement, I'd suggest putting your money in a single target date fund, such as the BlackRock LifePath fund. You figure out when you are going to retire, and put your money in that fund. The fund will then pick a mix of stocks, bonds, and other investments, adjusting the risk for your time horizon. Maybe your objectives are different, and you want to become an trader. You value being able to say at a BBQ, \"\"oh, I bought AAPL at $20\"\", or \"\"I think small caps are over valued\"\". I'd suggest you take your $50,000, and structure it so you invest $5,000 a year over 10 years. Nothing teaches you about investing like making or losing a bit of money in the market. If you put it all in at once, you risk losing it all - well before you've learned many valuable lessons which only the market can teach you. I'd suggest you study the Efficient-market hypothesis before studying specific markets or strategies.\"",
"Yes, it is. Got to start somewhere. Typically directly through a company itself. Check out this site that lists a bunch of them and their minimum requirements. Not many only accept $100 but there are a few. ie. ACTIVEnergy Income Fund, CIBC, COMPASS Income Fund, Suncor Energy Inc. and a few others.",
"-I understand. If the option expires and you paid a premium of let's say $20, then you loose it. I will still have to read more obviously. If there are other ways to play the commodities market in a safer way, I am more than willing to look into it. -I understand futures and options on futures are more risky than stocks. What I am getting at is it is less risky COMPARED to regular futures. Compared to the available choices, this seems like the safest. I understand I can loose all the money I invest/speculate with. But loosing $10 (or whatever the price of said commodity options are), is still better than loosing thousands. I agree though I should do my do diligence. -What I am getting at is obviously certain things are correlated with bull or bear markets (gold bear, growth stocks bull). If you can use a combination of assets, you can have some that are winners, while some will be down. I don't expect one asset to be a super asset. -But most the stocks are overvalued, and are overrated. I have found several stocks that I am invested in (MGM Macau, Lippo Mall, and Whiting Trust II). I am also in gold, silver, small Riyal position, and Norwegian Kroner.",
"Buy a share - not a penny stock; rather a well known company like Coca-Cola, Kelloggs, Exxon, etc. Follow the company. Understand their business model. See the share price fall and rise. You will learn a lot having your own money at risk.",
"$10k isn't really enough to make enough money to offset the extremely high risks in investing in options in this area. Taking risks is great, but a sure losing proposition isn't a risk -- it's a gamble. You're likely to get wiped out with leveraged options, since you don't have enough money to hedge your bets. Timing is critical... look at the swings in valuation in the stock market between the Bear Sterns and Lehman collapses in 2009. If you were highly leveraged in QQQQ that you bought in June 2009, you would have $0 in November. With $10k, I'd diversify into a mixture of foreign cash (maybe ETFs like FXF, FXC, FXY), emerging markets equities and commodities. Your goal should be to preserve investment value until buying opportunities for depressed assets come around. Higher interest rates that come with inflation will be devastating to the US economy, so if I'm betting on high inflation, I want to wait for a 2009-like buying opportunity. Then you buy depressed non-cyclical equities with easy to predict cash flows like utilities (ConEd), food manufacturers (General Mills), consumer non-durables (P&G) and alcohol/tobacco. If they look solvent, buying commodity ETFs like the new Copper ETFs or interests in physical commodities like copper, timber, oil or other raw materials with intrinsic value are good too. I personally don't like gold for this purpose because it doesn't have alot of industrial utility. Silver is a little better, but copper and oil are things with high intrinsic value that are always needed. As far as leverage goes, proceed with caution. What happens when you get high inflation? High cost of capital.",
"> Taking rough rice as an example, there are millions (if not billions) of people who eat rice to survive. People will always need oil to fuel their cars. People will always need electricity. Commodity values are unlikely to go to 0, I agree. The fact you think this is super-relevant suggests to me you have not fully grasped the nature of the commodities futures markets. > I don't like to be too risky You are looking at getting into extremely risky securities. > I guess what I am trying to do is look into things that allow me to profit, regardless of where equities are going. Many men have died searching for the holy grail. Speculating in these markets is not for the faint of hearts, let alone for the risk-averse. > I have gone as far as to look through OTC ADRs to find some foreign value, and I found nothing. There are plenty of funds offering lots of exposure to international equities, which seem well-geared toward the individual investor.",
"> The only problem I see with stock options is that they expire You're on to something: the reason why some prefer to write (sell) options instead of buying. Neutral to bullish on crude oil? Sell puts on /CL at 90-95% probability OTM. You keep your money if the underlying moves up or does nothing, within the days to expiration.",
"Look into commodities futures & options. Unfortunately, they are not trivial instruments.",
"You might want to consider 'investing' a portion of that money into educating yourself. The payoff might not be as immediately obvious or gratifying but with appropriate determination, in the long term it will generate you a much greater return. If you would like to learn about investing, a great starting point would be to buy and read the book 'The Intelligent Investor' by Benjamin Graham. This will be a great barometer for how ready you are to invest in the stock market. If you are able to understand the concepts discussed and comprehend why they are important, you will have gone far in ensuring that you will make adequate returns over your lifetime and will - more importantly - increase the odds of safeguarding your capital.",
"Littleadv has given you excellent general advice, but to my mind, the most important part of it all and the path which I will strongly recommend you follow, is the suggestion to look into a mutual fund. I would add even more strongly, go to a mutual fund company directly and make an investment with them directly instead of making the investment through a brokerage account. Pick an index fund with low expenses, e.g. there are S&P 500 index funds available with expenses that are a fraction of 1%. (However, many also require minimum investments on the order of $2500 or $3000 except for IRA accounts). At this time, your goal should be to reduce expenses as much as possible because expenses, whether they be in brokerage fees which may be directly visible to you or mutual fund expenses which are invisible to you, are what will eat away at your return far more than the difference between the returns of various investments.",
"You can look at it from a fundamental perspective to see who benefits from rising oil prices. That's a high level analysis and the devil is in the details - higher oil prices may favour electric car producers for example or discount clothes retailers vs. branded clothes manufacturers. Another approach it to use a statistical analysis. I have run a quick and dirty correlation of the various S&P sector indices against the oil prices (Crude). Based on the the results below, you would conclude that materials and energy stocks should perform well with rising oil prices. There again, it is a behaviour you would expect at the group level but it may not translate to each individual company within those groups (in particular in the materials sector where some would benefit and some would be detrimentally affected). You could get exposure to those sectors using ETFs, such as XLB and XLE in the US. Or you could run the same analysis for each stock within the S&P 500 (or whatever index you are looking at) and create a portfolio with the stocks that are the most correlated with oil prices. This is calculated over 10 years of monthly returns after removing the market component from the individual sectors. The two important columns are:",
"If you have the money put it in, and invest the money over a few months. Always keep a modest reserve of cash to give you the flexibility to take advantage of market opportunities.",
"ChrisW's comment may appear flippant, but it illustrates (albeit too briefly) an important fact - there are aspects of investing that begin to look exactly like gambling. In fact, there are expressions which overlap - Game Theory, often used to describe investing behavior, Monte Carlo Simulation, a way of convincing ourselves we can produce a set of possible outcomes for future returns, etc. You should first invest time. 100 hours reading is a good start. 1000 pounds, Euros, or dollars is a small sum to invest in individual stocks. A round lot is considered 100 shares, so you'd either need to find a stock trading less than 10 pounds, or buy fewer shares. There are a number of reasons a new investor should be steered toward index funds, in the States, ETFs (exchange traded funds) reflect the value of an entire index of stocks. If you feel compelled to get into the market this is the way to go, whether a market near you of a foreign fund, US, or other.",
"Your question is a moving target. And my answer will be subject to revision. I disagree with the votes to close, as you are asking (imho) what role commodities and specifically oil, play in one's asset allocation. Right? How much may be opinion, but there's a place to ask if. I'm looking at this chart, and thinking, long term, the real return is zero. The discussion regarding gold has been pretty exhausted. For oil, it's not tough to make the case that it will fluctuate, but long term, there's no compelling reason to believe its price will rise any faster than inflation over the really long term.",
"\"Say you have $15,000 of capital to invest. You want to put the majority of your capital into low risk investments that will yield positive gains over the course of your working career. $5,000: Government bonds and mutual funds, split how you want. $9,500: Low risk, trusted companies with positive historical growth. If the stock market is very unfamiliar for you, I recommend Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, and Zack's to learn about smart investments you can make. You can also research the investments that hedge fund managers and top investors are making. Google \"\"Warren Buffett or Carl Icahn portfolio\"\", and this will give you an idea of stocks you can put your money into. Do not leave your money into a certain company for more than 25 years. Rebalance your portfolio and take the gains when you feel you need them. You have no idea when to take your profits now, but 5 years from now, you will be a smart and experienced investor. A safe investment strategy to start is to put your money into an ETF that mimics the S&P 500. Over the past 20 years, the S&P 500 has yielded gains of about 270%. During the financial crisis a few years back, the S&P 500 had lost over 50% of its value when it reached its low point. However, from when it hit rock bottom in 2009, it has had as high percentage gains in six years as it did in 12 years from 1995 to 2007, which about 200%. The market is very strong and will treat your money well if you invest wisely. $500: Medium - High risk Speculative Stocks There is a reason this category accounts for only approximately 3% of your portfolio. This may take some research on the weekend, but the returns that may result can be extraordinary. Speculative companies are often innovative, low priced stocks that see high volatility, gains or losses of more than 10% over a single month. The likelihood of your $500 investment being completely evaporated is very slim, but if you lose $300 here, the thousands invested in the S&P 500, low risk stocks, government bonds, and mutual funds will more than recuperate the losses. If your pick is a winner, however, expect that the $500 investment could easily double, triple, or gain even more in a single year or over the course of just a few, perhaps, 2-4 years will see a very large return. I hope this advice helps and happy investing! Sending your money to smart investments is the key to financial security, freedom, and later, a comfortable retirement. Good luck, Matt McLaughlin\"",
"I like Keshlam's answer and would like to add a few notes: While your enthusiasm to invest is admirable learning patience is a key aspect of wealth building and keeping.",
"It depends on whether you want a career as a fund manager/ analyst or if you want to be an investor/ trader. A fund manager will have many constraints that a private investor doesn’t have, as they are managing other people’s money. If they do invest their own money as well they usually would invest it differently from how they invest the fund's money. Many would just get someone else to invest their money for them, just as a surgeon would get another surgeon to operate on a family member. My suggestion to you is to find a job you like doing and build up your savings. Whilst you are building up your savings read some books. You said you don’t know much about the financial markets, then learn about them. Get yourself a working knowledge about both fundamental and technical analysis. Work out which method of analysis (if not both) suits you best and you would like to know more about. As you read you will get a better idea if you prefer to be a long term investor or a short term trader or somewhere in-between or a combination of various methods. Now you will start to get an idea of what type of books and areas of analysis you would like to concentrate on. Once you have a better idea of what you would like to do and have gained some knowledge, then you can develop your investment/trading plan and start paper trading. Once you are happy with you plan and your paper trading you can start trading with a small account balance (not more than $10,000 and preferably under $5,000). No matter how well you did with paper trading you will always do worse with real money at first due to your emotions being in it now. So always start off small. If you want to become good at something it takes time and a lot of hard work. You can’t go from knowing nothing to making a million dollars per year without putting in the hard yards first.",
"If you're looking to invest using stocks and shares, I recommend you set up an account at something like Google Finance - it is free and user-friendly with lots of online help. You can set up some 'virtual cash' and put it into a number of stocks which it'll track for you. Review your progress and close some positions and open others as often as you want, but remember to enter some figure for the cost of the transaction, say $19.95 for a trade, to discourage you from high-frequency trading. Take it as seriously as you want - if you stick to your original cash input, you'll see real results. If you throw in more virtual cash than you could in real life, it'll muddle the outcome. After some evaluation period, say 3 months, look back at your progress. You will learn a tremendous amount from doing this and don't need to have read any books or spent any money to get started. Knowing which stocks to pick and when to buy or sell is much more subtle - see other answers for suggestions.",
"\"I think you might be asking the wrong question. You have plenty of capital on the side that can be invested. Instead of asking whether you should get an adviser, you might want to examine what your end goal is. Are you looking to build long term growth of you capital? Are you asking about and adviser because you don't want to handle your money, or is it simply because \"\"that's what people do?\"\" I would imagine that the answer to 1. is yes and that the answer to 2. is that you want to handle your money, and you always considered this something best left to the advisers. I shall proceed on these hypothetical assumptions. In my humble opinion, I would do the following: Skip the adviser and the fees that go with it. For a young professional like yourself, especially with an engineering background, you can certainly handle the education required to learn the mechanics of investing. Invest some time to learn the fundamentals of the market such as asset classes, basic terminology ect. You will benefit in several ways. For one, you will learn an invaluable skill and save tens of thousands in fees during your lifetime. Moreover, you will have complete control of your risk profile, allocation, and every penny that belongs to you. I really am not bashing advisers, but no one will care as much about your money as you will. And don't be fooled. The market is efficient. An adviser does not have any more edge in a market than anyone else. And from first hand experience, they rarely outperform benchmarks net of fees. I assume you have made it to this step because you want to manage your own money and financial future. Sounds scary, how should one proceed? Let's assume that $100,000 is \"\"in play\"\". And since you are learning the ropes, let's leave $50,000 in cash for now. This leaves $50,000 to start a portfolio. I'd start by building a core position of all the major asset classes in ETF form. This means buying things like SPY or TLT. If you're comfortable, you can start selling monthly calls against these positions to reduce basis and earn some income. The point is, your only limitation at this point is taking time to learn the ropes. The technology is there, the free education is there, and liquidity and product mix is there. Next thing you know you're learning how gamma scalping works, or maybe you're more of a Buffett type. This is how I view finance in general, and truly hope you break through the initial barrier to controling your own finances.\"",
"Congratulations on being in this position. Your problem - which I think that you identified - is that you don't know much about investing. My recommendation is that you start with three goals: The Motley Fool (www.fool.com) has a lot of good information on their site. Their approach may or may not align with what you want to do; I've subscribed to their newsletters for quite a while and have found them useful. I'm what is known as a value investor; I like to make investments and hold them for a long time. Others have different philosophies. For the second goal, it's very important to follow the money and ask how people get paid in the investment business. The real money in Wall Street is made not by investment, but by charging money to those who are in the investment business. There are numerous people in line for some of your money in return for service or advice; fees for buying/selling stocks, fees for telling you which stocks to buy/sell, fees for managing your money, etc. You can invest without spending too much on fees if you understand how the system works. For the third goal, I recommend choosing a few stocks, and creating a virtual portfolio. You can then then get used to watching and tracking your investments. If you want a place to put your money while you do this, I'd start with an S&P 500 index fund with a low expense ratio, and I'd buy it through a discount broker (I use Scottrade but there are a number of choices). Hope that helps.",
"If you are sure you are right, you should sell stock short. Then, after the market drop occurs, close out your position and buy stock, selling it once the stock has risen to the level you expect. Be warned, though. Short selling has a lot of risk. If you are wrong, you could quite easily lose all $80,000 or even substantially more. Consider, for example, this story of a person who had $37,000 and ended up losing all of that and still owing over $100,000. If you mistime your investment, you could quite easily lose your entire investment and end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.",
"The highest growth for an investment has historically been in stocks. Investing in mature companies that offer dividends is great for you since it is compound growth. Many oil and gas companies provide dividends.",
"\"Without knowing what you are trying to achieve - make a bit of pocket money, become financially independent, invest for retirement, learn trading to become a trader - I'll give you a few thoughts ... The difficulty you will have trading with $400-600 is that brokerage will be a high proportion of your \"\"profits\"\". I'm not sure of the US (assuming US rather than AU, NZ, etc) rates for online brokers, but UK online brokers are the order of £6-10 / trade. Having a quick read suggests that the trading is similar $6-10/trade. With doing day trades you will be killed by the brokerage. I'm not sure what percent of profitable trades you have, but if it is 50% (e.g.), you will need to make twice the brokerage fees value on each profitable trade before you are actually making a profit. There can be an emotional effect that trips you up. You will find that trading with your own real money is very different to trading with fake money. Read up about it, this brief blog shows some personal thoughts from someone I read from time to time. With a $10 brokerage, I would suggest the following Another option, which I wouldn't recommend is to leverage your money, by trading CDFs or other derivatives that allow you to trade on a margin. Further to that, learn about trading/investing Plus other investment types I have written about earlier.\"",
"You do not need to have 'high net value', and yes, you can invest in it. Typically, fund companies require a minimum investment, that could be 100, it could be a 1000. 5000 should be enough for 99.9 % of all funds for an initial investment. What you need is an investment company that manages the account for you. I cannot name those for your country, but they should be easy to find (companies like IMG, and Fidelity might serve your country). You then open an account with the company of your choice, transfer the money, and tell them which fund it shall go in; all this is possible online. You can also go to see an agent in person, and he will fill the forms for you, and handle all the action, but he might take a fee for it.",
"\"Bit hesitant to put this in an answer as I don't know if specific investment advice is appropriate, but this has grown way too long for a comment. The typical answer given for people who don't have the time, experience, knowledge or inclination to pick specific stocks to hold should instead invest in ETFs (exchange-traded index funds.) What these basically do is attempt to simulate a particular market or stock exchange. An S&P 500 index fund will (generally) attempt to hold shares in the stocks that make up that index. They only have to follow an index, not try to beat it so are called \"\"passively\"\" managed. They have very low expense ratios (far below 1%) and are considered a good choice for investors who want to hold stock without significant effort or expense and who's main goal is time in the market. It's a contentious topic but on average an index (and therefore an index fund) will go even with or outperform most actively managed funds. With a sufficiently long investment horizon, which you have, these may be ideal for you. Trading in ETFs is also typically cheap because they are traded like stock. There are plenty of low-fee online brokers and virtually all will allow trading in ETFs. My broker even has a list of several hundred popular ETFs that can be traded for free. The golden rule in investing is that you should never buy into something you don't understand. Don't buy individual stock with little information: it's often little more than gambling. The same goes for trading platforms like Loyal3. Don't use them unless you know their business model and what they stand to gain from your custom. As mentioned I can trade certain funds for free with my broker, but I know why they can offer that and how they're still making money.\"",
"In that case, forget this whole pot shop and look into buying some REITs (Real estate investment trusts). Or invest in QCLN, a ETF that invests in companies that produce and distribute green energy. You're looking for a get rich quick scheme, not a solid investment. You don't even have any money. You can't afford to lose $92,000 when you have $0.",
"I think I have a better answer for this since I have been an investor in the stock markets since a decade and most of my money is either made through investing or trading the financial markets. Yes you can start investing with as low as 50 GBP or even less. If you are talking about stocks there is no restriction on the amount of shares you can purchase the price of which can be as low as a penny. I stared investing in stocks when I was 18. With the money saved from my pocket money which was not much. But I made investments on a regular period no matter how less I could but I would make regular investments on a long term. Remember one thing, never trade stock markets always invest in it on a long term. The stock markets will give you the best return on a long term as shown on the graph below and will also save you money on commission the broker charge on every transaction. The brokers to make money for themselves will ask you to trade stocks on short term but stock market were always made to invest on a long term as Warren Buffet rightly says. And if you want to trade try commodities or forex. Forex brokers will offer you accounts with as low as 25 USD with no commissions. The commission here are all inclusive in spreads. Is this true? Can the average Joe become involved? Yes anyone who wants has an interest in the financial markets can get involved. Knowledge is the key not money. Is it worth investing £50 here and there? Or is that a laughable idea? 50 GBP is a lot. I started with a few Indian Rupees. If people laugh let them laugh. Only morons who don't understand the true concept of financial markets laugh. There are fees/rules involved, is it worth the effort if you just want to see? The problem with today's generation of people is that they fear a lot. Unless you crawl you dont walk. Unless you try something you dont learn. The only difference between a successful person and a not successful person is his ability to try, fail/fall, get back on feet, again try untill he succeeds. I know its not instant money, but I'd like to get a few shares here and there, to follow the news and see how companies do. I hear that BRIC (brasil, russia, india and china) is a good share to invest in Brazil India the good thing is share prices are relatively low even the commissions. Mostly ROI (return on investment) on a long term would almost be the same. Can anyone share their experiences? (maybe best for community wiki?) Always up for sharing. Please ask questions no matter how stupid they are. I love people who ask for when I started I asked and people were generous enough to answer and so would I be.",
"\"Everything that I'm saying presumes that you're young, and won't need your money back for 20+ years, and that you're going to invest additional money in the future. Your first investments should never be individual stocks. That is far too risky until you have a LOT more experience in the market. (Once you absolutely can't resist, keep it to under 5% of your total investments. That lets you experiment without damaging your returns too much.) Instead you would want to invest in one or more mutual funds of some sort, which spreads out your investment across MANY companies. With only $50, avoiding a trading commission is paramount. If you were in the US, I would recommend opening a free online brokerage account and then purchasing a no-load commission-free mutual fund. TD Ameritrade, for example, publishes a list of the funds that you can purchase without commission. The lists generally include the type of fund (index, growth, value, etc.) and its record of return. I don't know if Europe has the same kind of discount brokerages / mutual funds the US has, but I'd be a little surprised if it didn't. You may or may not be able to invest until you first scrape together a $500 minimum, but the brokerages often have special programs/accounts for people just starting out. It should be possible to ask. One more thing on picking a fund: most charge about a 1% annual expense ratio. (That means that a $100 investment that had a 100% gain after one year would net you $198 instead of $200, because 1% of the value of your asset ($200) is $2. The math is much more complicated, and depends on the value of your investment at every given point during the year, but that's the basic idea.) HOWEVER, there are index funds that track \"\"the market\"\" automatically, and they can have MUCH lower expense fees (0.05%, vs 1%) for the same quality of performance. Over 40 years, the expense ratio can have a surprisingly large impact on your net return, even 20% or more! You'll want to google separately about the right way to pick a low-expense index fund. Your online brokerage may also be able to help. Finally, ask friends or family what mutual funds they've invested in, how they chose those funds, and what their experience has been. The point is not to have them tell you what to do, but for you to learn from the mistakes and successes of other experienced investors with whom you can follow up.\"",
"If you have been putting savings away for the longer term and have some extra funds which you would like to take some extra risk on - then I say work yourself out a strategy/plan, get yourself educated and go for it. If it is individual shares you are interested then work out if you prefer to use fundamental analysis, technical analysis or some of both. You can use fundamental analysis to help determine which shares to buy, and then use technical analysis to help determine when to get into and out of a position. You say you are prepared to lose $10,000 in order to try to get higher returns. I don't know what percentage this $10,000 is of the capital you intend to use in this kind of investments/trading, but lets assume it is 10% - so your total starting capital would be $100,000. The idea now would be to learn about money management, position sizing and risk management. There are plenty of good books on these subjects. If you set a maximum loss for each position you open of 1% of your capital - i.e $1,000, then you would have to get 10 straight losses in a row to get to your 10% total loss. You do this by setting stop losses on your positions. I'll use an example to explain: Say you are looking at a stock priced at $20 and you get a signal to buy it at that price. You now need to determine a stop price which if the stock goes down to, you can say well I may have been wrong on this occasion, the stock price has gone against me so I need to get out now (I put automatic stop loss conditional orders with my broker). You may determine the stop price based on previous support levels, using a percentage of your buy price or another indicator or method. I tend to use the percentage of buy price - lets say you use 10% - so your stop price would be at $18 (10% below your buy price of $20). So now you can work out your position size (the number of shares to buy). Your maximum loss on the position is $2 per share or 10% of your position in this stock, but it should also be only 1% of your total capital - being 1% of $100,000 = $1,000. You simply divide $1,000 by $2 to get 500 shares to buy. You then do this with the rest of your positions - with a $100,000 starting capital using a 1% maximum loss per position and a stop loss of 10% you will end up with a maximum of 10 positions. If you use a larger maximum loss per position your position sizes would increase and you would have less positions to open (I would not go higher than 2% maximum loss per position). If you use a larger stop loss percentage then your position sizes would decrease and you would have more positions to open. The larger the stop loss the longer you will potentially be in a position and the smaller the stop loss generally the less time you will be in a position. Also as your total capital increases so will your 1% of total capital, just as it would decrease if your total capital decreases. Using this method you can aim for higher risk/ higher return investments and reduce and manage your risk to a desired level. One other thing to consider, don't let tax determine when you sell an investment. If you are keeping a stock just so you will pay less tax if kept for over 12 months - then you are in real danger of increasing your risk considerably. I would rather pay 50% tax on a 30% return than 25% tax on a 15% return.",
"You could buy shares of an Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) based on the price of gold, like GLD, IAU, or SGOL. You can invest in this fund through almost any brokerage firm, e.g. Fidelity, Etrade, Scotttrade, TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, ShareBuilder, etc. Keep in mind that you'll still have to pay a commission and fees when purchasing an ETF, but it will almost certainly be less than paying the markup or storage fees of buying the physical commodity directly. An ETF trades exactly like a stock, on an exchange, with a ticker symbol as noted above. The commission will apply the same as any stock trade, and the price will reflect some fraction of an ounce of gold, for the GLD, it started as .1oz, but fees have been applied over the years, so it's a bit less. You could also invest in PHYS, which is a closed-end mutual fund that allows investors to trade their shares for 400-ounce gold bars. However, because the fund is closed-end, it may trade at a significant premium or discount compared to the actual price of gold for supply and demand reasons. Also, keep in mind that investing in gold will never be the same as depositing your money in the bank. In the United States, money stored in a bank is FDIC-insured up to $250,000, and there are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example). If you invest in gold and the price plunges, you're left with the fair market value of that gold, not your original deposit. Yes, you're hoping the price of your gold investment will increase to at least match inflation, but you're hoping, i.e. speculating, which isn't the same as depositing your money in an insured bank account. If you want to speculate and invest in something with the hope of outpacing inflation, you're likely better off investing in a low-cost index fund of inflation-protected securities (or the S&P500, over the long term) rather than gold. Just to be clear, I'm using the laymen's definition of a speculator, which is someone who engages in risky financial transactions in an attempt to profit from short or medium term fluctuations This is similar to the definition used in some markets, e.g. futures, but in many cases, economists and places like the CFTC define speculators as anyone who doesn't have a position in the underlying security. For example, a farmer selling corn futures is a hedger, while the trading firm purchasing the contracts is a speculator. The trading firm doesn't necessarily have to be actively trading the contract in the short-run; they merely have no position in the underlying commodity.",
"The best way to start out is to know that even the experts typically under-perform the market, so you have no chance. Your best bet is to invest in diversified funds, either through something like Betterment or something like Vanguard's ETFs that track the markets. Buying individual stocks isn't typically a winning strategy.",
"For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.",
"Investing $100k into physical gold (bars or coins) is the most prudent option; given the state of economic turmoil worldwide. Take a look at the long term charts; they're pretty self explanatory. Gold has an upward trend for 100+ years. http://www.goldbuyguide.com/price/ A more high risk/high reward investment would be to buy $100k of physical silver. Silver has a similar track record and inherent benefits of gold. Yet, with a combination of factors that could make it even more bull than gold (ie- better liquidity, industrial demand). Beyond that, you may want to look at other commodities such as oil and agriculture. The point is, this is troubled times for worldwide economies. Times like this you want to invest in REAL things like commodities or companies that are actually producing essential materials.",
"An additional way to get a better grip on the mechanics of what you're looking to do is to use a paper trading tool. For example, thinkorswim gives you $200k in virtual money to trade with- money you don't have to worry about as you might initially make mistakes in trading futures. As mentioned above, each product has it's own pricing and trading options on futures (derivatives of derivatives) is even more confusing, so you'll be well-served by a risk-free learning tool.",
"\"The way to invest money in a company is to buy its shares, or derivatives of its shares. However, it seems you're way in over your head. Don't buy what you don't understand. There is plenty of material to teach you about stock investing on the internet. However, a book may be the fastest way to learn what you need to know. And yes, there is a \"\"for dummies\"\" book about that: Stock Investing ForDummies. I just found it by Googling, I'm sure you can find even more interesting books out there. (Note, the link is to the \"\"cheat sheet\"\" in the back of the book. The full book is worth reading.)\"",
"5 years is a reasonable time period to invest in a stock which will give you a decent return and will generally not lose too much value except in case of 2008 kinda downturn. I would advise you to invest in a large cap stock/s like BP, Royal Dutch or HSBC (Your parents of course can buy them for you).",
"I would just buy a low-cost diversified equity ETF. VTI is pretty solid. Also, JW are you working or in school? If you are working you should consider opening an IRA or Roth IRA. Also if your employer has a 401k or other retirement plan you can contribute to I would advise doing so.",
"Congratulations! You're making enough money to invest. There are two easy places to start: I recommend against savings accounts because they will quite safely lose your money: the inflation rate is usually higher than the interest rate on a savings account. You may have twice as much money after 50 years, but if everything costs four times as much, then you've lost buying power. If, in the course of learning about investing, you'd like to try buying individual stocks, do it only with money you wouldn't mind losing. Index funds will go down slightly if one of the companies in that index fails entirely, but the stock of a failed company is worthless.",
"\"There's not nearly enough information here for anyone to give you good advice. Additionally, /r/personalfinance will probably be a bit more relevant and helpful for what you're asking. Aside from that, if you don't know what you're doing, stay out of currency trading and mutual funds. If you don't care about losing your money, go right ahead and play in some markets, but remember there are people paid millions of dollars/year who don't make consistent profit. What are the chances a novice with no training will perform well? My $.02, pay your debt, make a general theory about the economy a year from now (e.g. \"\"Things will be worse in Europe than they are now\"\") and then invest your money in an index fund that matches that goal (e.g. Some sort of Europe-Short investment vehicle). Reassess a year from now and don't stress about it.\"",
"Purchasing an option to sell the stock is probably the safest bet. This gives you reasonable leverage, and your risk is limited to the cost of the option. Say the stock currently sells for $100 per share. You think it will drop to $80 per share in the next two weeks and the market thinks the price will be stable. Now, consider an option to sell one share of that stock for $95 any time within the next two weeks. The market would consider that option nearly worthless, since in all likelihood, you would lose out by exercising it (since you could just sell the share on the market for a price expected to be higher than that). You might be able to acquire that option for $5. Now, say you're right and within two weeks, the price drops to $80. Now you can purchase a share for $80, exercise the option to sell it for $95, and pocket $15. That would make you a $10 profit on a $5 investment. If you're wrong, you just let the option lapse and are out $5. No problem. In reality, you would buy a number of such options. And you wouldn't actually buy a share and exercise the option, you would just sell the option back to its issuer for $15.",
"A 401-K is something you get through an employer. I recommend getting a self-directed IRA. You can open an IRA with Scottrade with $500 The money you put into an IRA is tax deferred, meaning that you do not have to pay taxes on profits. It may also lower your tax liability. Scottrade has a feature to automatically reinvest any dividends from the securities you own. This feature allows you to avoid commissions on those automatic purchases. Don't try to time the market. Pick a good ETF (exchange traded fund) that pays dividends. It will give you diversification. Avoid the urge to buy and sell constantly. This only gives commissions to the broker.",
"As stated in the comments, Index Funds are the way to go. Stocks have the best return on investment, if you can stomach the volatility, and the diversification index funds bring you is unbeatable, while keeping costs low. You don't need an Individual Savings Account (UK), 401(k) (US) or similar, though they would be helpful to boost investment performance. These are tax advantaged accounts; without them you will have to pay taxes on your investment gains. However, there's still a lot to gain from investing, specially if the alternative is to place them in the vault or similar. Bear in mind that inflation makes your money shrink in real terms. Even a small interest is better than no interest. By best I mean that is safe (regulated by the financial authorities, so your money is safe and insured up to a certain amount) and has reasonable fees (keeping costs low is a must in any scenario). The two main concerns when designing your portfolio are diversification and low TER (Total Expense Ratio). As when we chose broker, our concern is to be as safe as we possibly can (diversification helps with this) and to keep costs at the bare minimum. Some issues might restrict your election or make others seem better. Depending on the country you live and the one of the fund, you might have to pay more taxes on gains/dividends. e.g. The US keeps some of them if your country doesn't have a special treaty with them. Look for W-8Ben and tax withholding for more information. Vanguard and Blackrock offer nice index funds. Morningstar might be a good place for gathering information. Don't trust blindly the 'rating'. Some values are 'not rated' and kick ass the 4 star ones. Again: seek low TER. Not a big fan of this point, but I'm bound to mention it. It can be actually helpful for sorting out tax related issues, which might decide the kind of index fund you pick, and if you find this topic somewhat daunting. You start with a good chunk of money, so it might make even more sense in your scenario to hire someone knowledgeable and trustworthy. I hope this helps to get you started. Best of luck.",
"Since you mentioned £, there's a good chance you're in the UK. The UK is something of an anomaly in the world in so much as you don't need to use CDFs because you can 'spread bet'. The principle is ultimately the same: you're making a bet that the price will change in your favour. As others have said, this isn't investment and isn't a good idea if you don't know what you're doing. It's a possibly risky way into the field because your losses can exceed your deposit. It's generally pretty short-term, and so is highly susceptible to unpredictable temporary market fluctuation ('real' investing is usually longer term, and so based on the general trend of the market, which is generally less difficult to predict). That said, half-way decent spread betting companies will check you out pretty thoroughly before you start, they'll offer a 'demo' account where you can trade with 'fake money' (ie. you make no deposit, and can make no withdrawals) until you're comfortable. Some do training courses and seminars too. When you first start trading for real, you'll need to put a 'stop loss' on every trade, and thus mostly avoid the problem of losing more than you staked (it's still possible to lose more than you staked with a stop loss, but in most cases your excess loss won't be ruinous, just eye-watering). I worked for one such spread-betting company (a good, honest one at that). We once had an internal competition using demo accounts - the aim was to make as much money as you could in a two week period. I think we started with £10,000 each. A couple of people 'made' a decent looking amount of money in that time, but dozens more of us lost at least all of the money. It is possible to make money, but there's a far, far greater chance you'll lose all you're prepared to stake (and maybe more). Also, using a demo account is very different from using real money (no matter how much you tell yourself it isn't).",
"I have been on the same boat as you are right now. So basically, it depends on your goals, risk tolerance, upcoming life events! You want a plan not just for this particular 50K, but for your household assets and future earnings to come! My suggestion: Get a flat fee, online financial advisor to do the work for you. You don’t have to figure this out by yourself. Personally, I would invest in a portfolio that: Offers dynamic asset allocation plans that evolves over time based on changing market conditions. Offers a healthy mix of beta and alpha strategies along with the liquidity and ability to monitor activity online. Has structural risk management in place. Risk management is as much about increasing risk as it is about cutting risk. Therefore, you want a plan for de-allocating and re-allocating risk Hope this helps.",
"As a matter of fact, I invest small sums in stable stocks every month (in fact, much lesser than the $50 you are talking about). More than the return on investment, I gained a lot of knowledge keeping track of my stocks and this now helps me pick my stocks better. And the portfolio is doing great too. So, it is a good idea to start small and invest regularly.",
"Do your own research There are hundreds of places where people will give you all sorts of recommendations. There is as much noise in the recommendations as there is in the stock market itself. Become your own filter. You need to work on your own instinct. Pick a couple of sectors and a few stocks in each and study them. It is useful to know where the main indexes are going, but - unless you are trading the indexes - it is the individual sectors that you should focus on more.",
"\"Are there other options I haven't thought of? Mutual funds, stocks, bonds. To buy and sell these you don't need a lawyer, a real-estate broker and a banker. Much more flexible than owning real estate. Edit: Re Option 3: With no knowledge of investing the first thing you should do is read a few books. The second thing you should do is invest in mutual funds (and/or ETFs) that track an index, such as the FTSE graph that was posted. Index funds are the safest way to invest for those with no experience. With the substantial amount that you are considering investing it would also be wise to do it gradually. Look up \"\"dollar cost averaging.\"\"\"",
"Trading and investing are very, very different activities. Investing is (very generally) done for the longer haul, by people looking for a reasonable return, determined largely by the long term prospects of the business in which they invest, accepting some moderate risk, usually around the prospects of that business. Trading is (very generally) done shorter term (seconds to days/weeks), and can involve significantly higher risk, usually focused around market conditions and players at the time of the trade. To reiterate, these are gross generalizations, but if you are just starting out: (a) you probably want to be investing, rather than trading; and (b) you may be best served by understanding as well as you can the difference between the two. Once you understand that difference, that will lead you to learning resources on each.",
"I would suggest that oil stocks are going down due to reduced earnings predictions. The market may go too far in selling off oil and oil-related stocks. You may be able to pick up a bargain, but beware that prices may continue to fall in the short to medium term.",
"My advice to you is not to take any advice from anyone when it comes to investing, especially when you don't know much about what you are investing in. mbhunter is correct, take your time to learn about what you want to invest in. If your goal at the moment is short term don't invest in stocks unless you really know what you are doing. Put your money where you can get the highest interest rate, continue saving and do a lot of research on the house you wish to buy. Even if you are not ready to buy a house yet, start looking so that by the time you are ready to buy, you know how much the house is really worth. Before buying our house we spent about 7 months looking and researching and looked at more than 100 houses.",
"If you have money and may need to access it at any time, you should put it in a savings account. It won't return much interest, but it will return some and it is easily accessible. If you have all your emergency savings that you need (at least six months of income), buy index-based mutual funds. These should invest in a broad range of securities including both stocks and bonds (three dollars in stocks for every dollar in bonds) so as to be robust in the face of market shifts. You should not buy individual stocks unless you have enough money to buy a lot of them in different industries. Thirty different stocks is a minimum for a diversified portfolio, and you really should be looking at more like a hundred. There's also considerable research effort required to verify that the stocks are good buys. For most people, this is too much work. For most people, broad-based index funds are better purchases. You don't have as much upside, but you also are much less likely to find yourself holding worthless paper. If you do buy stocks, look for ones where you know something about them. For example, if you've been to a restaurant chain with a recent IPO that really wowed you with their food and service, consider investing. But do your research, so that you don't get caught buying after everyone else has already overbid the price. The time to buy is right before everyone else notices how great they are, not after. Some people benefit from joining investment clubs with others with similar incomes and goals. That way you can share some of the research duties. Also, you can get other opinions before buying, which can restrain risky impulse buys. Just to reiterate, I would recommend sticking to mutual funds and saving accounts for most investors. Only make the move into individual stocks if you're willing to be serious about it. There's considerable work involved. And don't forget diversification. You want to have stocks that benefit regardless of what the overall economy does. Some stocks should benefit from lower oil prices while others benefit from higher prices. You want to have both types so as not to be caught flat-footed when prices move. There are much more experienced people trying to guess market directions. If your strategy relies on outperforming them, it has a high chance of failure. Index-based mutual funds allow you to share the diversification burden with others. Since the market almost always goes up in the long term, a fund that mimics the market is much safer than any individual security can be. Maintaining a three to one balance in stocks to bonds also helps as they tend to move in opposite directions. I.e. stocks tend to be good when bonds are weak and vice versa.",
"Unless you have insider information (ILLEGAL!!!) don't go high risk over this time frame. It makes about as much sense as betting on the horses. Stick it in a 3 or 6 month GIC at the pathetic rates the banks are giving.",
"Just to clarify Short Team Goals & Long Term Goals... Long Term goals are for something in future, your retirement fund, Children’s education etc. Short Term goals are something in the near future, your down payment for car, house, and holiday being planned. First have both the long and short terms goals defined. Of Couse you would need to review both these goals on a ongoing basis... To meet the short term goals you would need to make short term investments. Having arrived at a short term goal value, you would now need to make a decision as to how much risk you are willing [also how much is required to take] to take in order to meet your goal. For example if you goal is to save Rs 100,000 by yearend for the car, and you can easily set aside Rs 8,000 every month, you don't really need to take a risk. A simple Term / Fixed Deposit would suffice you to meet your goal. On the other hand if you can only save Rs 6,000 a year, then you would need to invest this into something that would return you around 35%. You would now need to take a risk. Stocks market is one option, there are multiple types of trades [day trades, shorts, options, regular trades] that one can do ... however the risk can wipe out even your capital. As you don't know these types of investments, suggest you start with dummy investing using quite a few free websites, MoneyControl is one such site, you get pseudo money and can buy sell and see how things actually move. This should teach you something about making quick gains or losses without actually gaining or loosing real money. Once you reach some confidence level, you can start trading using real money by opening a trading account almost every other bank in India offers online trading linked to bank account. Never lose sight of risk appetite, and revise if every now and then. When you don't have dependents, you can easily risk money for potential bumper, however after you have other commitments, you may want to tone down... Edit: http://moneybhai.moneycontrol.com/moneybhai-rules.html is one such site, there are quite a few others as well that offer you to trade on virtual money. Try this for few months and you will understand whether you are making right decissions or not.",
"\"I think you have a really good idea, kudos to it. It will be difficult to break eve, and while you stressed the fact that you are ready to part with this money, it would be interesting for you not to part with this money just for the sake of trading. You will be frustrated because you are \"\"winning\"\" and breaking even or even losing money in the process. Think about that. For somebody with limited experience the derivatives market carries a very high risk also as everything in this matters carries high or very high yield. Trading futures on margin can actually work but I think you will need a bit more money. Check the mini contracts of infinity futures and calculate the commissions. You will be paying more for a contract, yes. you will need more money for your maintenance margin, yes, but if you day-trade and you have a cheapo broker this will be substantially lower. Gold contracts pay about 10 to 1 so a mini contract of 33 ounces will pay you 33 dollars per 1 dollar move. Your commissions will be about 4/5 usd in a discount broker and you will need to pay some exchange house fees, maybe about 15% of your trade will be fees. Check the contract specs and costs. As somebody said before, they wouldn't recommend trading on margin but with an account of that side I wouldn't know anything else. Trading physical gold on margin could also be an option. Just my 2 cents.\"",
"Each trade will cost you nearly $10 to buy and then $10 to sell. With $1800 that is literally 1% of your initial investment lost to fees. It would be far wiser for you to learn with play money instead. Head over to investopedia and use pretend money: http://www.investopedia.com/simulator/ If you're absolutely fine with losing your $1800 than go ahead and jump into some companies you like. I would not recommend that though. Put the $1800 into one single position that you will hold for a few years and play with pretend money to get a better feel for short term trades.",
"\"First off, monozok is right, at the end of the day, you should not accept what anyone says to do without your money - take their suggestions as directions to research and decide for yourself. I also do not think what you have is too little to invest, but that depends on how liquid you need to be. Often in order to make a small amount of money grow via investments, you have to be willing to take all the investment profits from that principle and reinvest it. Thus, can you see how your investment ability is governed by the time you plan to spend without that money? They mantra that I have heard from many people is that the longer you are able to wait, the more 'risk' you can take. As someone who is about the same age as you (I'm 24) I can't exactly say yet that what I have done is sure fire for the long term, but I suggest you adopt a few principles: 1) Go read \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\" by Burton G. Malkiel. A key point for you might be that you can do better than most of these professional investors for hire simply by putting more money in a well selected index fund. For example, Vanguard is a nice online service to buy indexes through, but they may require a minimum. 2) Since you are young, if you go into any firm, bank, or \"\"financial planner,\"\" they will just think you are naive and try to get you to buy whatever is best for them (one of their mutual funds, money market accounts, annuities, some flashy cd). Don't. You can do better on your own and while it might be tempting because these options look more secure or well managed, most of the time you will barely make above inflation, and you will not have learned very much. 3) One exciting thin you should start learning now is about algorithmic trading because it is cool and super efficient. quantopian.com is a good platform for this. It is a fun community and it is also free. 4) One of the best ways I have found to watch the stock market is actually through a stock game app on my phone that has realtime stock price feed. Seeking Alpha has a good mobile app interface and it also connects you to news that has to do with the companies you are interested in.\"",
"UNG United States Natural Gas Fund Natural Gas USO United States Oil Fund West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil UGA United States Gasoline Fund Gasoline DBO PowerShares DB Oil Fund West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil UHN United States Heating Oil Fund Heating Oil I believe these are as close as you'd get. I'd avoid the double return flavors as they do not track well at all. Update - I understand James' issue. An unmanaged single commodity ETF (for which it's impractical to take delivery and store) is always going to lag the spot price rise over time. And therefore, the claims of the ETF issuer aside, these products will almost certain fail over time. As shown above, When my underlying asset rises 50%, and I see 24% return, I'm not happy. Gold doesn't have this effect as the ETF GLD just buys gold, you can't really do that with oil.",
"One share costs the 202 $. You need to invest 3000 $ total at a minimum, meaning you have to buy some 14.9 shares at minimum. You should not worry about the exact number of shares, they are just to keep track, and you can buy every decimal part of them too. For example, if you invest now 5000 $, you will get 24.7525 shares. Next year, if they are for example worth 220 $ per share, you have a value of 24.7525 * 220 = 5445.55 $ It depends on the offering company, but that (a certain fixed amount per paycheck) is a typical way to invest (and a good way - you implictly take advantage of prices changing a bit - you buy more shares when the price is down and less when it's up). Probably you can make it an automated deduction from your checking account, or you send it every week/month/whenever. Good plan!",
"The plan doesn't make sense. Don't invest your money. Just keep it in your bank account. $5000 is not a lot, especially since you don't have a steady income stream. You only have $1000 to your name, you can't afford to gamble $4000. You will need it for things like food, books, rent, student loans, traveling, etc. If you don't get a job right after you graduate, you will be very happy to have some money in the bank. Or what if you get a dream job, but you need a car? Or you get a job at a suit & tie business and need to get a new wardrobe? Or your computer dies and you need a new one? You find a great apartment but need $2500 first, last & security? That money can help you out much more NOW when you're starting out, then it will when you're ready to retire in your 60's.",
"I don't want to get involved in trading chasing immediate profit That is the best part. There is an answer in the other question, where a guy only invested in small amounts and had a big sum by the time he retired. There is good logic in the answer. If you put in lump sum in a single stroke you will get at a single price. But if you distribute it over a time, you will get opportunities to buy at favorable prices, because that is an inherent behavior of stocks. They inherently go up and down, don't remain stable. Stock markets are for everybody rich or poor as long as you have money, doesn't matter in millions or hundreds, to invest and you select stocks with proper research and with a long term view. Investment should always start in small amounts before you graduate to investing in bigger amounts. Gives you ample time to learn. Where do I go to do this ? To a bank ? To the company, most probably a brokerage firm. Any place to your liking. Check how much they charge for brokerage, annual charges and what all services they provide. Compare them online on what services you require, not what they provide ? Ask friends and colleagues and get their opinions. It is better to get firsthand knowledge about the products. Can the company I'm investing to be abroad? At the moment stay away from it, unless you are sure about it because you are starting. Can try buying ADRs, like in US. This is an option in UK. But they come with inherent risk. How much do you know about the country where the company does its business ? Will I be subject to some fees I must care about after I buy a stock? Yes, capital gains tax will be levied and stamp duties and all.",
"You have received much good advice, but based on 53 years investing and the first 25 getting my nose bloodied and breaking even I very strongly offer the following. Before doing so let me first offer this caveat: I am not questioning your broker or the advice, but it is only valuable to you if history proves correct. No one, not even Bernanke can predict how stock will perform in the future. Maybe if he sees a depression. My advice to someone new to stock investing is to purchase a index fund from a discount broker, e.g. Fidelity or Vanguard, and then study the market and economics. The Wall Street Journal and the web are my favorites. I started with a hell of a lot less than you have saved, I would not turn $200K over to anyone until you know exactly the risk and cost involved. Also, I wouldn't depend on one person or firm to advise or manage my money. I like to balance one against the other. I do not recall different firms recommending the same stocks. One must remember everyone in the business of recommending stock or any investment is selling something and must be compensated. That's how they earn a living.",
"Yahoo Finance has this now, the ticker is CL=F."
] |
[
"One possibility would be to invest in a crude oil ETF (or maybe technically they're an ETP), which should be easily accessible through any stock trading platform. In theory, the value of these investments is directly tied to the oil price. There's a list of such ETFs and some comments here. But see also here about some of the problems with such things in practice, and some other products aiming to avoid those issues. Personally I find the idea of putting all my savings into such a vehicle absolutely horrifying; I wouldn't contemplate having more than a small percentage of a much more well diversified portfolio invested in something like that myself, and IMHO it's a completely unsuitable investment for a novice investor. I strongly suggest you read up on topics like portfolio construction and asset allocation (nice introductory article here and here, although maybe UK oriented; US SEC has some dry info here) before proceeding further and putting your savings at risk.",
"\"This is only a partial answer to your question #1. If you have a conservative approach to savings (and, actually, even if you don't), you should not invest all of your money in any single industry or product. If you want to invest some money in oil, okay, but don't overdo it. If your larger goal is to invest the money in a manner that is less risky but still more lucrative than a savings account, you should read up on personal finance and investing to get a sense of what options are available. A commonly-recommended option is to invest in low-cost index funds that mirror the performance of the stock market as a whole. The question of \"\"how should I invest\"\" is very broad, but you can find lots of starting points in other questions on this site, by googling, or by visiting your local library.\"",
"If you've decided to ignore the sound advice re: oil company stocks, and you want something directly linked to the price of oil, do the following: Understand that oil producers would like avoid the risk of a price drop, and oil consumers (refiners, electric utilities, etc.) would like to avoid the risk of a price rise. Understand that you are about to assume their risk.",
"Royalty trusts track oil prices (they're a pure play on ownership of a portfolio of mineral rights and do not otherwise have the operations that the oil companies themselves have). Many publicly traded ones listed at the embedded wikipedia link. Oil tankers are having a bang up business right now as described in the article, but that's because of the low prices and flood of product from the middle east. The article notes that inventories are near capacity, so terminals and pipelines may be in for a few good years, though these do not directly track oil price. However, as a way to bet on oil or oil services, many terminals and pipelines are organized as publicly traded master limited partnerships or MLPs, often spun out of a major oil company for tax reasons, allowing fine-grained investment in specific assets."
] |
3566
|
Where can I buy stocks if I only want to invest a little bit at a time, and not really be involved in trading?
|
[
"152286",
"99943",
"307424"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"99943",
"593475",
"358154",
"307424",
"122679",
"183722",
"413856",
"400196",
"497344",
"152286",
"481999",
"246531",
"229788",
"158091",
"311192",
"397976",
"597699",
"149306",
"374375",
"84800",
"323067",
"208165",
"45174",
"178017",
"278607",
"573814",
"97836",
"397383",
"241135",
"173562",
"231195",
"592636",
"325426",
"596537",
"513281",
"564876",
"155677",
"551627",
"446948",
"176335",
"313525",
"281423",
"173715",
"363919",
"71293",
"40227",
"317493",
"63158",
"441139",
"511664",
"234039",
"414116",
"205068",
"158426",
"359515",
"548467",
"573213",
"280719",
"224816",
"222900",
"182658",
"427842",
"536990",
"299284",
"467176",
"460951",
"455609",
"253024",
"29502",
"365465",
"59871",
"349668",
"328308",
"484327",
"250027",
"390972",
"23819",
"544576",
"505993",
"226298",
"528095",
"511760",
"408123",
"298985",
"322725",
"376485",
"539418",
"361383",
"428141",
"379546",
"15800",
"223792",
"456474",
"390635",
"369251",
"442127",
"35971",
"384983",
"285560",
"144349"
] |
[
"I'd look into ShareBuilder. You can buy stocks for as low as $2 each, and there is no minimum funding level. You have to be carefull about selling though, as they will charge you $10 each time you want to sell a stock, regardless of how much of it you want to sell.",
"There are more than a few ideas here. Assuming you are in the U.S., here are a few approaches: First, DRIPs: Dividend Reinvestment Plans. DRIP Investing: How To Actually Invest Only A Hundred Dollars Per Month notes: I have received many requests from readers that want to invest in individual stocks, but only have the available funds to put aside $50 to $100 into a particular company. For these investors, keeping costs to a minimum is absolutely crucial. I have often made allusions and references to DRIP Investing, but I have never offered an explanation as to how to logistically set up DRIP accounts. Today, I will attempt to do that. A second option, Sharebuilder, is a broker that will allow for fractional shares. A third option are mutual funds. Though, these often will have minimums but may be waived in some cases if you sign up with an automatic investment plan. List of mutual fund companies to research. Something else to consider here is what kind of account do you want to have? There can be accounts for specific purposes like education, e.g. a college or university fund, or a retirement plan. 529 Plans exist for college savings that may be worth noting so be aware of which kinds of accounts may make sense for what you want here.",
"\"You can start investing with any amount. You can use the ShareBuilder account to purchase \"\"partial\"\" stocks through their automatic investment plan. Usually brokers don't sell parts of stock, and ShareBuilder is the only one allowing it IMHO using its own tricks. What they do basically is buy a stock and then divide it internally among several investors who bought it, while each of the investors doesn't really own it directly. That's perfect for investing small amounts and making first steps in investing.\"",
"There's a few options you may want to look into. First, I'm writing from an US point of view, I do not know if these are available in Russia. First look into DRIPS (Dividend Reinvestment Plans). These seem tailor made for your request. They are plans set up by companies that pay dividends. If you own at least one share (costing no more than say $100 often less), then these companies will take the dividends paid on these shares and automatically buy more shares as the income from the dividends pile up. This is a low cost of entry way of getting in on many high quality stocks. Stalwart stocks such as GE and many utility and real estate stocks (REITs) offer this. Check out these links: Secondly you can look at brokerages that specialize in buying smaller amount of stocks on a regular basis to simulate a DRIP, ShareBuilder will allow you to invest say $50 or $100 a month into one or more stocks. However, at smaller amounts, their commission fees can eat in to your returns. Folio investing does the same thing as Sharebuilder. It's worth looking at them both and comparing their commissions and other features",
"For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.",
"You have a couple of options: Auto-investing in an open-end mutual fund. Some companies may waive a minimum if you sign up for an automatic investing, e.g. T. Rowe Price will waive its minimum if you agree to invest $100/month. There may be some lower ones out there as well. Some brokers like ShareBuilder have programs where someone could auto-invest getting fractional shares with each purchase. However, something to consider is what percentage is it costing you to buy each time as it may be quite a bit of friction if you are paying $4 a purchase and only buying $40, this is 10% of your investment being eaten up in costs that I'd highly advise taking the first option.",
"In terms of building the initial investment using some kind of mutual fund, I'd suggest you see my answer to this similar question https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/9943/cheapest-or-free-online-broker-for-beginner For buying individual stocks later, you could look at sharebuilder, or a low cost broker, however most of them charge between $5-$7 per trade, and if you are doing small dollar value trades then that can really really eat into things if you try to trade a lot.",
"Almost all major no-load mutual fund families allow you to do the kind of thing you are talking about, however you may need an initial investment of between $1000 to $3000 depending on the fund. Once you have it however, annual fee's are usually very little, and the fees to buy that companies funds are usually zero if it's a no-load company (Vanguard, TRowPrice, etc) With the larger companies that means you have a pretty large selection of funds, but generally EACH fund has a minimum initial purchase, once that's met then you can buy additional amounts in small quantities without a problem. For someone on a smaller budget, many low cost brokers (ETrade as mentioned by Litteadv, Scottrade as mentioned by myself in another similar question today) allow you to start with smaller initial balances and have a small selection of funds or ETF's that you can trade from without commission. In the case of Scottrade, they have like 15 ETF's that you can trade comission free. Check with the various low cost brokerages such as ETrade, Scottrade, and TDAmeritrade, to see what their policies are, and what if any funds/ETF's they allow you to trade in without commissions. Keep in mind that for Mutual funds, there may still be a fund minimum initial investment that applies, be sure to check if that is the case or not. The lack of any minimum investment makes ETF's a slightly more attractive option for someone who doesn't have the 'buy in' that many funds require.",
"\"For equities, buy direct from the transfer agent. You have to buy one full share at a minimum but after that dividend reinvestment is free. There are others like share builder and foliofn that let you buy fractional shares. As the other poster said their roster is limited so you cannot buy every ETF out there. With your example of not wanting to spend $200 I agree with the others that you should invest in a mutual fund. Vanguard will have every index fund you need and can invest as little as $50, as long as you sign up for a systematic investment draft from your bank. Plus vanguard typically has the lowest fees in the industry. The most important thing is to start investing as soon as possible and as regular as possible. \"\"Pay yourself first\"\"\"",
"I don't want to get involved in trading chasing immediate profit That is the best part. There is an answer in the other question, where a guy only invested in small amounts and had a big sum by the time he retired. There is good logic in the answer. If you put in lump sum in a single stroke you will get at a single price. But if you distribute it over a time, you will get opportunities to buy at favorable prices, because that is an inherent behavior of stocks. They inherently go up and down, don't remain stable. Stock markets are for everybody rich or poor as long as you have money, doesn't matter in millions or hundreds, to invest and you select stocks with proper research and with a long term view. Investment should always start in small amounts before you graduate to investing in bigger amounts. Gives you ample time to learn. Where do I go to do this ? To a bank ? To the company, most probably a brokerage firm. Any place to your liking. Check how much they charge for brokerage, annual charges and what all services they provide. Compare them online on what services you require, not what they provide ? Ask friends and colleagues and get their opinions. It is better to get firsthand knowledge about the products. Can the company I'm investing to be abroad? At the moment stay away from it, unless you are sure about it because you are starting. Can try buying ADRs, like in US. This is an option in UK. But they come with inherent risk. How much do you know about the country where the company does its business ? Will I be subject to some fees I must care about after I buy a stock? Yes, capital gains tax will be levied and stamp duties and all.",
"I'd like to add that many companies offer Divident Re-Investment Plans or DRIPs, which is basically a regular automatic stock purchase program. More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_reinvestment_plan. While your stock broker may offer dividend reinvestment, this is not the same as a DRIP. DRIPs are offered directly by the company, rather than the stock broker. They have the added benefits that the stock purchases are almost always commission-free, and in some cases, the company even offers a discount on the stock price. It can take a little more effort to get enrolled in a DRIP, but if you are interested in holding the stock long-term, this is a good option to consider.",
"As I recall, the Scottrade minimum is only $500. (By the way, Scottrade has a feature to automatically reinvest any dividends which the securities pay) Once you have an account, you can buy into an index fund. SPY tracks the S&P 500. It is also currently paying nearly 2% in dividends. You can shop for other alternatives here: http://seekingalpha.com/insight/etf_hub/etf_guide/selector/article/39431-core-building-blocks-large-mid-small-cap-us-etfs",
"The least expensive way to buy such small amounts is through ING's Sharebuilder service. You can perform a real-time trade for $9, or you can add a one-time trade to their investment schedule for $4 (transaction will be processed on the next upcoming Tuesday morning). They also allow you to purchase fractional shares.",
"Since you are not starting with a lot of cash the commissions may eat into your account. So go with somebody that has no inactivity fee and low/free commission. I think there are number of sites and the ING sharebuilder.com comes to mind. Scottrade also one of the cheaper ones that i used.",
"\"Bit hesitant to put this in an answer as I don't know if specific investment advice is appropriate, but this has grown way too long for a comment. The typical answer given for people who don't have the time, experience, knowledge or inclination to pick specific stocks to hold should instead invest in ETFs (exchange-traded index funds.) What these basically do is attempt to simulate a particular market or stock exchange. An S&P 500 index fund will (generally) attempt to hold shares in the stocks that make up that index. They only have to follow an index, not try to beat it so are called \"\"passively\"\" managed. They have very low expense ratios (far below 1%) and are considered a good choice for investors who want to hold stock without significant effort or expense and who's main goal is time in the market. It's a contentious topic but on average an index (and therefore an index fund) will go even with or outperform most actively managed funds. With a sufficiently long investment horizon, which you have, these may be ideal for you. Trading in ETFs is also typically cheap because they are traded like stock. There are plenty of low-fee online brokers and virtually all will allow trading in ETFs. My broker even has a list of several hundred popular ETFs that can be traded for free. The golden rule in investing is that you should never buy into something you don't understand. Don't buy individual stock with little information: it's often little more than gambling. The same goes for trading platforms like Loyal3. Don't use them unless you know their business model and what they stand to gain from your custom. As mentioned I can trade certain funds for free with my broker, but I know why they can offer that and how they're still making money.\"",
"You are suggesting something called dollar cost averaging (or its cousin, dollar value averaging) - http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/dcavsva.asp This is certainly a valid investment strategy, although personally, I feel that for long term investment, it is not necessary unless you plan on being an active trader. I still strongly encourage you to research these two methods and see if they would work well for your personal investment strategy and goals. As far as what sorts of investments for a taxable account, I have three general recommendations: As far as which company to use for your brokerage, I personally have accounts at Voya, TRowe Price and Fidelity. I would strongly recommend Fidelity out of those three, mostly due to customer service and quality and ease of use of their website. Vanguard is a great brokerage, but you don't have to choose them just because you plan to mostly invest in Vanguard funds. I also recommend you research how capital gains and dividend taxing works (and things like lost harvesting), so that you can structure your investments with taxes in mind. Do this ahead of time, don't wait until April of 2016 because it will be too late to save on taxes by then.",
"I think your best bet would be commission-free ETFs, which have no minimum and many have a share price under $100. Most online brokerages have these now, e.g. Vanguard, Fidelity, etc. Just have to watch out for any non-trading fees brokerages may charge with a low balance.",
"This is allowed somewhat infrequently. You can often purchase stocks through DRIPs which might have little or no commission. For example Duke Energy (DUK) runs their plan internally, so you are buying from them directly. There is no setup fee, or reinvestment fee. There is a fee to sell. Other companies might have someone else manage the DRIP but might subsidize some transaction costs giving you low cost to invest. Often DRIPs charge relatively large amounts to sell and they are not very nimble if trading is what you are after. You can also go to work for a company, and often they allow you to buy stock from them at a discount (around 15% discount is common). You can use a discount broker as well. TradeKing, which is not the lowest cost broker, allows buys and sells at 4.95 per trade. If trading 100 shares that is similar in cost to the DUK DRIP.",
"\"If you are not worried about timing the market and want to buy primarily \"\"blue chip\"\" stocks to hold for a while, consider using Loyal3. They don't charge any commission. The downside is that trades are executed at the end of the day and there's only about 60 companies currently available (but there are some really good ones currently available).\"",
"\"Your broker, Ameritrade, offers a variety of Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that you can buy and sell with zero commission. An ETF is like a mutual fund, but you buy and sell shares the same way you buy and sell shares of stocks. From your point of view, the relevance of this is that you can buy and sell as many or as few shares as you like, even down to a single share. Note that to get the commission-free trades on the available ETFs you have to sign up for it in your account profile. Be sure to do that before you enter any buy orders. You'll want to start by looking at the Ameritrade's list of commission-free ETFs. Notice that they are divided into different categories: stocks, bonds, international, and commodities. Which categories you pick from will depend on your personal investing goals, time horizon, risk tolerance, and so on. There are lots of questions and answers on this site that talk about asset allocation. You should read them, as it is the most important decision you will make with your portfolio. The other thing you want to be aware of is the expense ratio for each fund. These expenses reduce the fund's return (they are included in the calculation of the net asset value of the shares), so lower is definitely better. Personally, I wouldn't even consider paying more than about 0.10% (commonly read \"\"10 basis points\"\" or \"\"10 bp\"\") for a broad-based domestic stock fund. For a sectoral fund you might put up with as much as 20 bp in expenses. Bond funds tend to be a little more expensive, so maybe allow as much as 25 bp, and likewise for international funds. I've never invested in commodity funds, so I'll let someone else opine on appropriate expense ratios for those. Once you've decided what funds you want (and have signed up for commission-free trades), all you have to do is enter the trade orders. The website where you manage your account has tutorials on how to do that. After that you should be all set. Good luck with your investing!\"",
"As a matter of fact, I invest small sums in stable stocks every month (in fact, much lesser than the $50 you are talking about). More than the return on investment, I gained a lot of knowledge keeping track of my stocks and this now helps me pick my stocks better. And the portfolio is doing great too. So, it is a good idea to start small and invest regularly.",
"50 (dollars, Euros?) is a very small amount to invest. The first time I ever bought stock I picked a winner. It went up by about 40% in the first few months. I sold it and lost money. How? I only bought 10 shares at $7.50 each. The profit was less than the two commissions for buying and selling (about $17 a piece). If you are thinking of buying individual stocks, You simply need to save up more money before it will be practical. If you are not trying to beat the market, which is probably not something an amateur like you or I should attempt, then you should consider low cost index funds. I have money in mutual funds, some of which, have as low as a $100 minimum investment. I have moved entirely away from picking stocks. It was a good experience and I could afford to lose the money, but as a long term strategy, it just was not working for me. Note: This is coming from an American. If this somehow does not apply in Europe...",
"Here's a good strategy: Open up a Roth IRA at a discount-broker, like TD Ameritrade, invest in no-fee ETF's, tracking an Index, with very low expense ratios (look for around .15%) This way, you won't pay brokers fees whenever you buy shares, and shares are cheap enough to buy casually. This is a good way to start. When you learn more about the market, you can check out individual stocks, exploring different market sectors, etc. But you won't regret starting with a good index fund. Also, it's easy to know how well you did. Just listen on the radio or online for how the Dow or S&P did that day/month/year. Your account will mirror these changes!",
"For most people, investing in the stock market directly is one of the last things to do. That's not to say you shouldn't, but rather that there are other things to consider as well. Start with automatic monthly deposits to a liquid account such as savings or money market. The morale boost you get from seeing the balance grow is nearly impossible to beat. Following that, paying down any debts such as student loans or credit cards. Once you've done that, then you should look at company sponsored 401k plans or IRAs. Sharebuilder offers IRAs holding whichever stock or fund you pick. Again, automatic monthly deposits are the way to go here. Good luck, and happy investing :)",
"To optimize your return on investment, you need to buy low and sell high. If you knew that one stock had hit rock bottom, and the others had not, buying the low stock would be the best. However, unless you can predict the future, you don't know if any individual stock has hit the bottom, or if it will continue to drop. If you decide to spend the same amount of money each month on stock purchases, then when the price is low, you will automatically buy more shares, and when the price is high, you will buy fewer shares. This strategy is sometimes called dollar cost averaging. It eliminates the need to predict the future to optimize your buying. All that having been said, I agree with @Powers that at the investment amount that you are talking about and the per transaction fee you listed, a monthly investment in several stocks will cause you to lose quite a bit to transaction fees. It sounds like you need a different strategy.",
"\"Price is current price per share, but you can buy fractional shares. Minimal investment is how later the first purchase of shares must be to make it worth their efforts to set up the account for you. How you manage it is up to you. You can buy or sell shares at any time, pretty much, though it may take a few days for the transaction to \"\"settle\"\" and take effect. You can do this via checks, or you can give the broker (or the investment house, if you are dealing directly with them as I do) permission to take money from or put money to your bank account when you tell them you want to buy or sell shares. You may be able to set up direct deposit; talk to your employer about that. Or you may be able to have your bank make a periodic transfer/purchase for you.\"",
"Most ETFs are index funds, meaning you get built in diversification so that any one stock going down won't hurt the overall performance much. You can also get essentially the same index funds by directly purchasing them from the mutual fund company. To buy an ETF you need a brokerage account and have to pay a transaction fee. Buying only $1000 at a time the broker transaction fee will eat too much of your money. You want to keep such fees way down below 0.1%. Pay attention to transaction fees and fund expense ratios. Or buy an equivalent index fund directly from the mutual fund company. This generally costs nothing in transaction fees if you have at least the minimum account value built up. If you buy every month or two you are dollar cost averaging, no matter what kind of account you are using. Keep doing that, even if the market values are going down. (Especially if the market values are going down!) If you can keep doing this then forget about certificates of deposit. At current rates you cannot build wealth with CDs.",
"What is your investing goal? And what do you mean by investing? Do you necessarily mean investing in the stock market or are you just looking to grow your money? Also, will you be able to add to that amount on a regular basis going forward? If you are just looking for a way to get $100 into the stock market, your best option may be DRIP investing. (DRIP stands for Dividend Re-Investment Plan.) The idea is that you buy shares in a company (typically directly from the company) and then the money from the dividends are automatically used to buy additional fractional shares. Most DRIP plans also allow you to invest additional on a monthly basis (even fractional shares). The advantages of this approach for you is that many DRIP plans have small upfront requirements. I just looked up Coca-cola's and they have a $500 minimum, but they will reduce the requirement to $50 if you continue investing $50/month. The fees for DRIP plans also generally fairly small which is going to be important to you as if you take a traditional broker approach too large a percentage of your money will be going to commissions. Other stock DRIP plans may have lower monthly requirements, but don't make your decision on which stock to buy based on who has the lowest minimum: you only want a stock that is going to grow in value. They primary disadvantages of this approach is that you will be investing in a only a single stock (I don't believe that can get started with a mutual fund or ETF with $100), you will be fairly committed to that stock, and you will be taking a long term investing approach. The Motley Fool investing website also has some information on DRIP plans : http://www.fool.com/DRIPPort/HowToInvestDRIPs.htm . It's a fairly old article, but I imagine that many of the links still work and the principles still apply If you are looking for a more medium term or balanced investment, I would advise just opening an online savings account. If you can grow that to $500 or $1,000 you will have more options available to you. Even though savings accounts don't pay significant interest right now, they can still help you grow your money by helping you segregate your money and make regular deposits into savings.",
"Yes, you often can buy stocks directly from the company at little or no transaction cost. Many companies have either a Dividend Reinvestment Plan (DRIP) or a Direct Stock Plan (DSP). With these plans, you purchase shares directly from the company (although, often there is a third party transfer agent that handles the transaction), and the stock is issued in your name. This differs from purchasing stock from a broker, where the stock normally remains in the name of the broker. Generally, in order to begin participating in a DRIP, you need to already be a registered stockholder. This means that you need to purchase your first share of stock outside of the DRIP, and get it in your name. After that, you can register with the DRIP and purchase additional shares directly from the company. If the company has a DSP, you can begin purchasing shares directly without first being a stockholder. With the advent of discount brokers, DRIPs do not save as much money for regular investors as they once did. However, they can still sometimes save money for someone who wants to purchase shares on a regular basis over even a discount broker. If you are interested in DRIPs and DSPs and want to learn more, there is an informative website at dripinvesting.org that has lots of information on which DRIPs are available and how to get started.",
"One share costs the 202 $. You need to invest 3000 $ total at a minimum, meaning you have to buy some 14.9 shares at minimum. You should not worry about the exact number of shares, they are just to keep track, and you can buy every decimal part of them too. For example, if you invest now 5000 $, you will get 24.7525 shares. Next year, if they are for example worth 220 $ per share, you have a value of 24.7525 * 220 = 5445.55 $ It depends on the offering company, but that (a certain fixed amount per paycheck) is a typical way to invest (and a good way - you implictly take advantage of prices changing a bit - you buy more shares when the price is down and less when it's up). Probably you can make it an automated deduction from your checking account, or you send it every week/month/whenever. Good plan!",
"I am not interested in watching stock exchange rates all day long. I just want to place it somewhere and let it grow Your intuition is spot on! To buy & hold is the sensible thing to do. There is no need to constantly monitor the stock market. To invest successfully you only need some basic pointers. People make it look like it's more complicated than it actually is for individual investors. You might find useful some wisdom pearls I wish I had learned even earlier. Stocks & Bonds are the best passive investment available. Stocks offer the best return, while bonds are reduce risk. The stock/bond allocation depends of your risk tolerance. Since you're as young as it gets, I would forget about bonds until later and go with a full stock portfolio. Banks are glorified money mausoleums; the interest you can get from them is rarely noticeable. Index investing is the best alternative. How so? Because 'you can't beat the market'. Nobody can; but people like to try and fail. So instead of trying, some fund managers simply track a market index (always successfully) while others try to beat it (consistently failing). Actively managed mutual funds have higher costs for the extra work involved. Avoid them like the plague. Look for a diversified index fund with low TER (Total Expense Ratio). These are the most important factors. Diversification will increase safety, while low costs guarantee that you get the most out of your money. Vanguard has truly good index funds, as well as Blackrock (iShares). Since you can't simply buy equity by yourself, you need a broker to buy and sell. Luckily, there are many good online brokers in Europe. What we're looking for in a broker is safety (run background checks, ask other wise individual investors that have taken time out of their schedules to read the small print) and that charges us with low fees. You probably can do this through the bank, but... well, it defeats its own purpose. US citizens have their 401(k) accounts. Very neat stuff. Check your country's law to see if you can make use of something similar to reduce the tax cost of investing. Your government will want a slice of those juicy dividends. An alternative is to buy an index fund on which dividends are not distributed, but are automatically reinvested instead. Some links for further reference: Investment 101, and why index investment rocks: However the author is based in the US, so you might find the next link useful. Investment for Europeans: Very useful to check specific information regarding European investing. Portfolio Ideas: You'll realise you don't actually need many equities, since the diversification is built-in the index funds. I hope this helps! There's not much more, but it's all condensed in a handful of blogs.",
"Go to fidelity.com and open a free brokerage account. Deposit money from your bank account into your fidelity account. (expect a minimum of $2500, FBIDX requires more I believe) Buy free to trade ETF Funds of your liking. I tend to prefer US Bonds to stocks, FBIDX is a decent intermediate US Bond etf, but the euro zone has added a little more volatile lately than I'd like. If you do really want to trade stocks, you may want to go with a large cap fund like FLCSX, but it is more risky especially in this economy. (but buy low sell high right?) I've put my savings into FBIDX and FGMNX (basically the same thing, intermediate bond ETF funds) and made $700 in interest and capitol gains last year. (started with zero initially, have 30k in there now)",
"\"Previously (prior to Capital One acquisition -- it's kind of like K-Mart buying Sears) Sharebuilder offered 12 automatic (i.e. pre-scheduled) stock purchases per month if you subscribed to their $12/mo \"\"Advantage\"\" plan. So, 12 trades for $1 a trade. Great deal. Except then they flattened their pricing to everyone's acclaim (that is, everyone except for the non-millionaire casual investors) and jacked it up to $4 per automatic investment. As far as I know, Sharebuilder's 12 no-fee investments for $12/mo was rather unique in the online trading world -- and now it's very sadly extinct. They do have no-fee mutual fund investing, however, for what it's worth.\"",
"I think small sums invested regularly over long-term can do good for you, things to consider: I would go with an index fund and contribute there there regularly.",
"\"First, let me say that $1000 is not that much of amount to invest in stocks. You need to remember that each transaction (buy/sell) has fees, which vary between $4-$40 (depending on the broker, you mentioned Scottrade - they charge $7 per transaction for stocks and about twice as much for some mutual funds). Consider this: you invest $1000, you gain $100. You'll pay $15 in fees just to buy/sell, that's 1.5% expense ratio. If you invest in more than 1 stock - multiply your fees. To avoid that you can look into mutual funds. Different brokers offer different funds for free, and almost all of them carry many of the rest for a fee. When looking into funds, you can find their expense ratio and compare. Remember that a fund with 1% expense ratio diversifies and invests in many stocks, while for you 1.5% expense ratio is for investing in a single stock. Is it a good idea to invest only in US or diversify worldwide? You can invest in the US, but in funds that diversify worldwide or across industries. Generally it is a good idea to diversify. I am 28. Should I be a conservative investor or take some risks? Depends on how bad of a shape will you be if you lose all your principle. What online brokerage service is the best? I have heard a lot about Scotttrade but want to be sure before I start. It seems to be the least expensive and most user-friendly to me. \"\"Best\"\" is a problematic term. Scottrade is OK, E*Trade is OK, you can try Sharebuilder, Ameritrade, there are several \"\"discount\"\" online brokers and plenty of on-line reviews and comparisons amongst them. What is a margin account and how would it affect my investing? From what I understand it comes into play when an investor borrows money from the broker. Do I need to use it at all as I won't be investing on a big scale yet. You understand right. There are rules to use margin accounts, and with the amount you have I'd advise against them even if you get approved. Read through the brokers' FAQ's on their requirement. Should I keep adding money on a monthly basis to my brokerage account to give me more money to invest or keep it at a certain amount for an extended period of time? Sharebuilder has a mechanism to purchase monthly at discounted prices. But be careful, they give you discounted prices to buy, but not to sell. You may end up with a lot of positions, and the discounts you've gotten to buy will cause you spend much more on selling. Generally, averaging (investing monthly) is a good way to save and mitigate some risks, but the risks are still there. This is good only for long term savings. How should my breakdown my investments in terms of bonds vs stocks? Depends on your vulnerability and risk thresholds.\"",
"\"Yes, you can. You could either go through brokerages like Ameritrade or fund companies like Fidelity or Vanguard. Yes there are minimums depending on the fund where some retail funds may waive a minimum if you sign up for an \"\"Automatic Investment Plan\"\" and some of the lower cost funds may have higher initial investment as Vanguard's Admiral share class is different from Investor for example.\"",
"That is a loaded question but I'll give it a shot. First things first you need to determine if you are ready to invest in stocks. If you have a lot of high interest debt you would be much better served paying that off before investing in stocks. Stocks return around 8%-10% in the long run, so you'd be better off paying off any debt you have that is higher than 8%-10%. Most people get their start investing in stocks through mutual funds in their 401k or a Roth IRA. If you want to invest in individual stocks instead of mutual funds then you will need to do a lot of reading and learning. You will need a brokerage account or if you have a stock in mind they might have a dividend reinvestment plan (DRIP) that you could invest in directly with the company. You will have to compare the different brokerage firms to determine which is best for you. Since you seem to be internet savvy, I suggest you use a discount brokerage that let's you buy stocks online with cheaper commissions. A good rule of thumb is to keep commissions below 1% of the amount invested. Once you have your online brokerage account open with money in there the process of actually buying the stock is fairly straightforward. Just place an order for the amount of shares you want. That order can be a market order which means the purchase will occur at the current market price. Or you can use a limit order where you control at what price your purchase will occur. There are lots of good books out there for beginners. Personally I learned from the Motley Fool. And last but not least is to have fun with it. Learn as much as you can and welcome to the club.",
"I think I have a better answer for this since I have been an investor in the stock markets since a decade and most of my money is either made through investing or trading the financial markets. Yes you can start investing with as low as 50 GBP or even less. If you are talking about stocks there is no restriction on the amount of shares you can purchase the price of which can be as low as a penny. I stared investing in stocks when I was 18. With the money saved from my pocket money which was not much. But I made investments on a regular period no matter how less I could but I would make regular investments on a long term. Remember one thing, never trade stock markets always invest in it on a long term. The stock markets will give you the best return on a long term as shown on the graph below and will also save you money on commission the broker charge on every transaction. The brokers to make money for themselves will ask you to trade stocks on short term but stock market were always made to invest on a long term as Warren Buffet rightly says. And if you want to trade try commodities or forex. Forex brokers will offer you accounts with as low as 25 USD with no commissions. The commission here are all inclusive in spreads. Is this true? Can the average Joe become involved? Yes anyone who wants has an interest in the financial markets can get involved. Knowledge is the key not money. Is it worth investing £50 here and there? Or is that a laughable idea? 50 GBP is a lot. I started with a few Indian Rupees. If people laugh let them laugh. Only morons who don't understand the true concept of financial markets laugh. There are fees/rules involved, is it worth the effort if you just want to see? The problem with today's generation of people is that they fear a lot. Unless you crawl you dont walk. Unless you try something you dont learn. The only difference between a successful person and a not successful person is his ability to try, fail/fall, get back on feet, again try untill he succeeds. I know its not instant money, but I'd like to get a few shares here and there, to follow the news and see how companies do. I hear that BRIC (brasil, russia, india and china) is a good share to invest in Brazil India the good thing is share prices are relatively low even the commissions. Mostly ROI (return on investment) on a long term would almost be the same. Can anyone share their experiences? (maybe best for community wiki?) Always up for sharing. Please ask questions no matter how stupid they are. I love people who ask for when I started I asked and people were generous enough to answer and so would I be.",
"Powers makes a good point: trading costs may eat up a significant portion of your ROI. A fee as little as 2% can consume more than 50% of your long-term ROI! A rule of thumb is keep your fees to less than 1%. One way to do that is to buy stock in companies that have a DRIP with a Share Purchase Plan (SPP). Often the SPP allows investors to purchase shares for low fees or free. Once you have the ability to purchase shares for (virtually) free, you can use InvestMete. Roughly, you send more money to the companies whose share prices are near their 52-week low, and less money to those who are near their 52-week high. Getting back to your original question...",
"\"You will invest 1000£ each month and the transaction fee is 10£ per trade, so buying a bunch of stocks each month would not be wise. If you buy 5 stocks, then transaction costs will eat up 5% of your investment. So if you insist on taking this approach, you should probably only buy one or two stocks a month. It sounds like you're interested in active investing & would like a diversified portfolio, so maybe the best approach for you is Core & Satellite Portfolio Management. Start by creating a well diversified portfolio \"\"core\"\" with index funds. Once you have a solid core, make some active investment decisions with the \"\"satellite\"\" portion of the portfolio. You can dollar cost average into the core and make active bets when the opportunity arises, so you're not killed by transaction fees.\"",
"\"There are several brokerages which have lower minimum deposits (often $500) and allow purchase of index ETFs. I won't name them to avoid advertising. The best way to find out is to go to your bank, and ask to see a financial advisor. Then explain your difficulty to the advisor (who should caution you about the issues with investing such a small amount) and ask for advice on where to find a suitable broker. Also, sometimes banks offer services where you can buy shares of a fund through your bank account. This is probably not \"\"as good\"\" as the brokerage (performance may be not as good, fees may come out higher), but especially for small amounts and for convenience, this may be easier. Again, you should inquire at your institution.\"",
"\"Take a look at FolioFN - they let you buy small numbers of shares and fractional shares too. There is an annual fee on the order of US$100/year. You can trade with no fees at two \"\"windows\"\" per day, or at any time for a $15 fee. You are better off leaving the stock in broker's name, especially if you live overseas. Otherwise you will receive your dividends in the form of cheques that might be expensive to try to cash. There is also usually a fee charged by the broker to obtain share certificates instead of shares in your account.\"",
"\"I think I understand what you're trying to achieve. You just want to see how it \"\"feels\"\" to own a share, right? To go through the process of buying and holding, and eventually selling, be it at a loss or at a gain. Frankly, my primary advice is: Just do it on paper! Just decide, for whatever reason, which stocks to buy, in what amount, subtract 1% for commissions (I'm intentionally staying on the higher side here), and keep track of the price changes daily. Instead of doing it on mere paper, some brokers offer you a demo account where you can practice your paper trading in the same way you would use a live account. As far as I know, Interactive Brokers and Saxo Bank offer such demo accounts, go look around on their web pages. The problem about doing it for real is that many of the better brokers, such as the two I mentioned, have relatively high minimum funding limits. You need to send a few thousand pounds to your brokerage account before you can even use it. Of course, you don't need to invest it all, but still, the cash has to be there. Especially for some younger and inexperienced investors, this can seduce them to gambling most of their money away. Which is why I would not advise you to actually invest in this way. It will be expensive but if it's just for trying it on one share, use your local principal bank for the trade. Hope this gets you started!\"",
"I buy or sell a few shares whenever I have a small amount of money to transfer into out of my mutual funds. Since I'm not paying transaction fees, there is no reason not to, when that is what makes sense. If you are paying a fee for each transaction, of course it makes sense to try to wait until you have a larger amount to move so the overhead per share is lower.",
"Thanks, at the moment I don't plan to do alot of trading just need to sell a few shares at the moment and might sell some more more at another point, but other than that I don't plan on touching the stock and just plan on letting it re-invest itself. Since I don't plan on doing alot of selling I don't know how much I need to worry about fee's as long as they aren't too steep.",
"Nothing beats statistics like that found on Morning Star, Yahoo or Google Finance. When you are starting out, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Pick a couple of mutual funds with good track records and start there. Keep in mind the financial press, to some degree, has a vested interest in having their readership chase the next hot thing. So while sites like Seeking Alpha, Kiplingers, or Money do provide some good advice, there is also an element that placates their advertisers. The only peer-to-peer lending I would consider is Lending Club. However, you are probably better off in the long run investing in mutual funds. One way to get involved in individual stocks without getting burned is to participate in Dividend Reinvestment Plans (DRIPs). Companies that have them tend to be very well established, and they are structured to discourage trading. Buying is easy, dividend reinvestment is easy, dividend payouts are easy; but, starting and selling is kind of a pain. That is a good thing.",
"I take the route of the tortoise. I subscribe to the adage that you invest in an excellent index fund like VFINX and forget about day trading and trying to make short term gains. Just like I would do at a casino I do gamble a bit for fun. Using etrade you can purchase some Vanguard or a billion of other things. I purchased some Apple, Google, Verizon, and Ford (when it was at 1.3) and all of those have been good investments. However, I don't invest the majority of my money in to individual stocks. I just do this with some 'play' money. After maxing out 401k, etc. I put away my 6 months of safety net in a money mark and put the rest in Vanguard.",
"A guy I used to work with would buy some shares in certain companies on a regular basis. The guy in question chose Coke, Pepsi, GE, Disney and some other old stable stocks. He just kept buying a few shared ($50 or so at a time) year after year after year. He worked his entire life, but by the time he was ready to retire, he had a pretty sizable investment; he was worth a rather tidy sum. The moral of the story is, it is very much worth it to invest a bit at a time. Don't bother with the idea of buying low and selling high; not right now. Just go ahead and buy stable stocks (or shares of index funds) and wait them out. This strategy (mixed with other retirement tactics like a 401K from work, and IRA of your own, Social Security in the US) is a good way to build wealth. Don't spend money you don't have, be ready for a long term investment and I think it makes great sense, regardless of what country you live in.",
"Too little information to give any kind of advice. What is your age, goals, other monies, other investments etc... You need to look at the whole thing. Are you investing already in tax-deferred IRA. Spend the time to learn to be your own investment advisor. Many investment professionals may disagree with me on this, but since you can't trust many of them better you do your own research first. Same with Stocks or ETF, you try to be the expert. Better you have the time to follow your own investments ideas, do not depend on a human or robot to tell you when to buy or sell. Their job is to part you from your money. If you do not have the time to this yourself, save yourself the money, and just do something else with it. I have been investing in the Stock Market since 1986, I have made more money than I lost. Good runs and bad. Today it is all about trading, you can not trust the financials given by anyone, or know what is going to happen in the markets in general. So unless you want to play the game every day, don't be in it.",
"I'd recommend investing in a mutual fund that diversifies your purchase across a number of stocks (and bonds, depending on the fund). Vanguard has some of the lowest fees around, and have a large number of funds to choose from. Take a look at their offerings for a data point if nothing else.",
"Assuming you have no new cash to add to your account as gyurisc has suggested, I wouldn't sweat the small amounts – it doesn't hurt to have a little cash sit idle, even if you want to theoretically be fully invested (the wisdom of doing that, or not, perhaps worthy of another question :-) If you try too hard to invest the small amounts frequently, you're likely to get killed on fees. My strategy (if you could call it that) is to simply let small amounts accumulate until there's enough to buy more shares without paying too much commission. For instance, I don't like fees to be more than 1% of the shares purchased, so with a $10 commission per trade, I prefer to make minimum $1000 purchases. I used to roll small amounts of cash into a no-load money market fund I could buy without commission, and then purchase shares when I hit the threshold, but even putting the cash in a money market fund isn't worth the hassle today with rates of return from money market funds being close to zero.",
"Is there a reason you are focusing on stocks? A portfolio of $4,000 in stocks alone will not give you much diversification, and buying $40 of 100 stocks will not have enough impact to grow your portfolio in the way it sounds like you would like it to. Have you considered using ETFs?",
"I actually use a service called etorro, there are social trading and normal trading. It allows me to put money into the service, follow other people or just pick my own shares to buy and sell with a load other features. It does cost a small amount to extract money but the app is really good, the website is well designed and I've made a bit of money being 23, and in the It industry with no financial training ever it seems like a good way to start.",
"ChrisW's comment may appear flippant, but it illustrates (albeit too briefly) an important fact - there are aspects of investing that begin to look exactly like gambling. In fact, there are expressions which overlap - Game Theory, often used to describe investing behavior, Monte Carlo Simulation, a way of convincing ourselves we can produce a set of possible outcomes for future returns, etc. You should first invest time. 100 hours reading is a good start. 1000 pounds, Euros, or dollars is a small sum to invest in individual stocks. A round lot is considered 100 shares, so you'd either need to find a stock trading less than 10 pounds, or buy fewer shares. There are a number of reasons a new investor should be steered toward index funds, in the States, ETFs (exchange traded funds) reflect the value of an entire index of stocks. If you feel compelled to get into the market this is the way to go, whether a market near you of a foreign fund, US, or other.",
"A 401-K is something you get through an employer. I recommend getting a self-directed IRA. You can open an IRA with Scottrade with $500 The money you put into an IRA is tax deferred, meaning that you do not have to pay taxes on profits. It may also lower your tax liability. Scottrade has a feature to automatically reinvest any dividends from the securities you own. This feature allows you to avoid commissions on those automatic purchases. Don't try to time the market. Pick a good ETF (exchange traded fund) that pays dividends. It will give you diversification. Avoid the urge to buy and sell constantly. This only gives commissions to the broker.",
"\"1000 (£/$/€) is also not a lot to start with. Assuming you want to buy stocks or ETFs you will be paying fees on both ends. Even with online brokerages you are looking at 7.95 (£/$/€) a trade. That of course translates to a min of .795% x 2 = 1.59% increase in value you would need just to break even already. There is a way around some of this as a lot of the brokerages do not charge fees for their ETFs or their affiliated ones. However, I would try to hold out till at least $5000 before investing in assets such as stocks. In the meantime there are many great books out there to \"\"invest in knowledge\"\".\"",
"Yes, it is. Got to start somewhere. Typically directly through a company itself. Check out this site that lists a bunch of them and their minimum requirements. Not many only accept $100 but there are a few. ie. ACTIVEnergy Income Fund, CIBC, COMPASS Income Fund, Suncor Energy Inc. and a few others.",
"If you are comfortable picking individual stocks and can get into Robinhood you only need $1000 to get started. This means buying one stock of this, two stocks of that, etc. but it works.",
"Littleadv has given you excellent general advice, but to my mind, the most important part of it all and the path which I will strongly recommend you follow, is the suggestion to look into a mutual fund. I would add even more strongly, go to a mutual fund company directly and make an investment with them directly instead of making the investment through a brokerage account. Pick an index fund with low expenses, e.g. there are S&P 500 index funds available with expenses that are a fraction of 1%. (However, many also require minimum investments on the order of $2500 or $3000 except for IRA accounts). At this time, your goal should be to reduce expenses as much as possible because expenses, whether they be in brokerage fees which may be directly visible to you or mutual fund expenses which are invisible to you, are what will eat away at your return far more than the difference between the returns of various investments.",
"Small purchases will have a disproportionate expense for commissions. Even a $5 trade fee is 5% on a $100 purchase. So on one hand, it's common to advise individuals just starting out to use mutual funds, specifically index funds with low fees. On the flip side, holding stocks has no annual fee, and if you are buying for the long term, you may still be better off with an eye toward cost, and learn over time. In theory, an individual stands a better chance to beat the experts for a number of reasons, no shareholders to answer to, and the ability to purchase without any disclosure, among them. In reality, most investor lag the average by such a wide margin, they'd be best off indexing and staying in for the long term.",
"First of all, you'll need a securities account. Nowadays, most large banks offer this as a standard product for all their customers, though it may require some extra paperwork. Then you need to buy shares in the ETF. This is indeed typically done through the stock market, but there are alternatives. Some banks will sell securities to you directly, but usually only those they create themselves (options and such). Some also offer ETF investment plans that allow you to buy shares for a fixed amount each month through the bank. In any case, the bank's online banking interface should support all these options. However, fees are an important consideration! With some banks, the securities account is free, others charge an annual fee. And the fees on stock market transactions and investment plans also vary considerably, so it could be worth it to consider some alternatives.",
"There are hundreds of entities which offer mutual funds - too many to adequately address here. If you need to pick one, just go with Vanguard for the low low low fees. Yes, this is important. A typical expense ratio of 1% may not sound like much until you realize that the annualized real rate of return on the stock market - after inflation - is about 4%... so the fund eats a quarter of your earnings. (Vanguard's typical expense ratios are closer to 0.1-0.2%). If your company offers a tax-deferred retirement account such as a 401(k), you'll probably find it advantageous to use whatever funds that plan offers just to get the tax advantage, and roll over the account to a cheaper provider when you change employers. You can also buy mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) through most brokerages. E*Trade has a nice mutual fund screener, with over 6700 mutual funds and 1180 ETFs. Charles Schwab has one you can browse without even having an account.",
"\"Traditional brokers There are tons of players in this market, especially in USA. You have traditional brokers, brokers tied to your bank and a bunch of startups. The easiest is probably a broker tied to your bank, because you probably don't have to wait to fund your brokerage account and can start trading immediately. Often the older/traditional brokers don't have very intuitive interfaces, it's the startups who do a better job at this. But honestly it doesn't really matter, because you can use reporting services that are different from the services you use to execute your trades. Meaning that you only use the interface of your broker to execute trades (buy or sell), and use third party services to monitor your holdings. Monitoring services: Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, Sigfig, Morningstar,... are services allowing you to monitor your holdings. But you can't execute trades with them. Start-ups: Then there are a bunch of startups that offer investment services besides the traditional brokers. Start-up > Robinhood The most ambitious one is Robinhood, which offers the same service as a traditional broker, but completely free (most of the traditional brokers charge a flat fee and/or percentage when buying/selling hodlings) and with an intuitive interface. They're mobile first, but announced they will be launching their service on the web soon. Start-up > Acorns Another popular, mobile-first start-up is Acorns. They offer a lazy-investing service which rounds your everyday purchases and uses the change to invest. It's great when investing is not on your mind, but you still want to invest without realizing it. Start-ups > Robo-advisors Robo-advisors auto-invest your money across a bunch of funds picked based on your risk profile. Because the robo-advisers are fairly new, they often have the most intuitive interfaces. These robo-advisors often don't allow you to pick individual holdings, so these services are best when you want to passively invest. Meaning you don't want to look at it very often, and let them do the investing for you. There are tons of robo-advisor start-ups: Betterment, Wealthfront, Personal Capital, Sigfig, FutureAdvisor,... Also bigger parties jumped on this trend with their offerings: Schwab Intelligent Portfolios, Ally Managed Portfolio, Vanguard Personal Advisor, etc. Summary: It's fun to pick individual stocks, but if you start out it can be overwhelming. Robinhood is probably the best start, they have reduced functionality, but gets you going with an attractive interface. But soon you'll realize it's extremely hard to beat the market. Meaning that hand-picking stocks statistically gives you a worse return than just buying into the general stock market (like S&P500). So you can decide to just buy one fund with a traditional broker that covers the general stock market. Or you can decide to try out one of the many robo-advisors. They haven't been around that long, so it's hard to tell how effective these are and whether they beat the market. If you're young, and you believe in start-ups (who often try to challenge the traditional players), try out one of the robo-advisors. If you want to play a bit and are addicted to your smartphone, try out Robinhood. If you are addicted to your phone, but don't want to check up on your investments all the time, go for Acorns. Of course you can combine all these. Lastly, there are tons of cryptocurrencies which might give you a large return. Tons of startups offer intuitive interfaces to trade cryptocurrencies like Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken. But beware, there is a lot of risk involved in trading cryptocurrencies, it's completely unregulated etc. But definitely check them out. Oh, and you can also invest by giving out loans through LendingClub, Prosper etc. Who can you trust? Above gives you an overview of your options intermingled with some reasoning. But regarding your question \"\"who can I trust\"\" in terms of advice, it's up to yourself. Most traditional broker services don't give you any advice at all, you're on your own. Robo-advisors don't give you advice either, but let their proprietary algorithm do the job. Are these reliable? Nobody can tell, they haven't been around long enough, and they need to go through a bear market (a crash) to see how they respond during rough times. Some robo-advisors offer you personal consultancy (I believe Sigfig and PersonalCapital) does this (limited to a few hours per year). But obviously they'll try to promote their robo-advisor services.\"",
"The advice I have is short and sweet. Be an investor, not a speculator. Adopt the philosophy of Warren Buffet which is the 'buy and hold' philosophy. Avoid individual stocks and buy mutual funds or ETFs. Pick something that pays dividends and reinvest those dividends. Don't become a speculator, meaning avoid the 'buy low, sell high' philosophy. EDIT:For some reason I cannot add a comment, so I am putting my response here. @jad The 'buy low, sell high' approach makes money for the stock broker, not necessarily you. As we learn in the movie Trading Places, each buy or sell creates a commission for the broker. It is those commission expenses that eat away at your nestegg. Just don't sell. If a security is trading at $10 a share and pays $0.25 a share each quarter then you are getting 10% ROI if you buy that security (and if it continues to pay $0.25 a share each quarter). If the price goes up then the ROI for new buyers will go down, but your ROI will still be the same. You will continue to get 10% for as long as you hold that security. A mutual fund buys the individual stocks for you. The value of the fund is only calculated at the end of the day. An ETF is like a mutual fund but the value of the ETF is calculated moment by moment.",
"You can sell as many shares as you want. The only issue will be the fees attached to low dollar trades. I would recommend a site with no fee for the first 20 trades. If you plan to be a frequent trader I would recommend getting a stable rate ($10 for every transaction). If your plan is to trade in low quantities then maybe a variable rate (1% of all fades) might be better suited.",
"I personally am from Canada and use my local bank to trade stocks. Contact your local bank and they will tell you how to do it, since rules depend on country of residency. If you are not close to a bank, e-mail the major bank in the country of your residence.",
"I'm not sure it is the best idea, but you can buy only 4 stocks generally. As you alluded to, you should take notice of the fees. Also note that many stocks trade at significantly lower prices than Apple's per shares, so you might want to factor that into your decision. You could probably get a better feel for transactions if you bought say 50 shares of a $30 stock; then it might be easier to see what it's like to sell some, etc. Note that specific trading sites might have various limits in place that would pose as barriers to this sort of behavior though.",
"Verify if a local bank offers to participate in different stock markets - big companies like apple or facebook often gets traded on different markets - like Xetra (germany) or SIX (Switzerland). That being said I'd recommend you to rethink this strategy and maybe using some products offered by your bank - for 1000$ you will quickly drown in fees (my bank requires 40$ for every trade. If you buy and sell them you already lost nearly 10% of your investment)",
"You pay taxes on any gains you make after selling, so if you buy and hold you won't pay taxes (and you should hold for more than a year so that it gets taxed at the long-term rate, not the short-term rate). I like ETFs, there are some good ones Vanguard offers that are fairly broad, or you can use something like www.Betterment.com which invests in a diversified portfolio of ETFs (and includes things like automatic re-balancing and tax-loss harvesting).",
"\"Very simple. You open an account with a broker who will do the trades for you. Then you give the broker orders to buy and sell (and the money to pay for the purchases). That's it. In the old days, you would call on the phone (remember, in all the movies, \"\"Sell, sell!!!!\"\"? That's how), now every decent broker has an online trading platform. If you don't want to have \"\"additional value\"\" and just trade - there are many online discount brokers (ETrade, ScotTrade, TD Ameritrade, and others) who offer pretty cheap trades and provide decent services and access to information. For more fees, you can also get advices and professional management where an investment manager will make the decisions for you (if you have several millions to invest, that is). After you open an account and login, you'll find a big green (usually) button which says \"\"BUY\"\". Stocks are traded on exchanges. For example the NYSE and the NASDAQ are the most common US exchanges (there's another one called \"\"pink sheets\"\", but its a different kind of animal), there are also stock exchanges in Europe (notably London, Frankfurt, Paris, Moscow) and Asia (notably Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo). Many trading platforms (ETrade, that I use, for example) allow investing on some of those as well.\"",
"Try something like this: http://www.halifax.co.uk/sharedealing/our-accounts/fantasy-trader/ Virtual or fantasy trading is a great way to immerse yourself in that world and not lose your money whilst you make basic mistakes. Once real money is involved, there are some online platforms that are cheaper for lower amount investing than others. This article is a good, recent starting point for you: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/diyinvesting/article-1718291/Pick-best-cheapest-investment-Isa-platform.html Best of luck in the investment casino! (And only risk money you can afford to lose - as with any form of investment, gambling, etc)",
"This is more than likely a thing about your financial institution and the exchanges where they trade shares. Some exchanges cannot/will not handle odd lot transactions. Most established brokerages have software and accounting systems that will deal in round lots with the exchanges, but can track your shares individually. Sometimes specific stocks cannot be purchased in odd lots due to circumstances specific to that stock (trading only on a specific exchange, for example). Most brokerages offer dollar-cost averaging programs, but may limit which stocks are eligible, due to odd lot and partial share purchases. Check with your brokerage to see if they can support odd lot and/or DCA purchases. You may find another similar ETF with similar holdings that has better trading conditions, or might consider an open-end mutual fund with similar objectives. Mutual funds allow partial share purchases (you have $100 to invest today, and they issue you 35.2 shares, for example).",
"In my opinion, the ability to set a sell or buy price is the least of my concerns. Your question of whether to choose individual stocks vs funds prompts a different issue for me to bring to light. Choosing stocks that beat the market is not simple. In fact, a case can be made for the fact that the average fund lags the market by more and more over time. In the end, conceding that fact and going with the lowest cost funds or ETFs will beat 90% of investors over time.",
"If you're looking to invest using stocks and shares, I recommend you set up an account at something like Google Finance - it is free and user-friendly with lots of online help. You can set up some 'virtual cash' and put it into a number of stocks which it'll track for you. Review your progress and close some positions and open others as often as you want, but remember to enter some figure for the cost of the transaction, say $19.95 for a trade, to discourage you from high-frequency trading. Take it as seriously as you want - if you stick to your original cash input, you'll see real results. If you throw in more virtual cash than you could in real life, it'll muddle the outcome. After some evaluation period, say 3 months, look back at your progress. You will learn a tremendous amount from doing this and don't need to have read any books or spent any money to get started. Knowing which stocks to pick and when to buy or sell is much more subtle - see other answers for suggestions.",
"When you start to buy stock, don't buy too little of it! Stocks come at a cost (you pay a commission), and you need to maintain a deposit, you have to take these costs into account when buying to calculate your break even point for selling. Don't buy stock for less than 1.500€ Also, diversify. Buy stock from different sectors and from different geographies. Spread your risks. Start buying 'defensive' stocks (food, pharma, energy), then move to more dynamic sectors (telecom, informatics), lastly buy stock from risky sectors that are not mature markets (Internet businesses). Lastly, look for high dividend. That's always nice at the end of the year.",
"\"Shares are for investors. Most of the rich are investors. Unfortunately, the reverse is not true. But if you want to get rich, the first step is to become an investor. (The second is to become a SUCCESSFUL investor. 50 pounds might be too little. Try to start with at least 500 at a time. You can ADD amounts of 50 pounds. There are definitely fees involved. You will \"\"pay for lessons.\"\" But it will be worth it, if you become even a moderately successful investor. As for rules, they'll teach you the rules. Everyone wants your business. People have gotten (modestly) rich, buying shares here and there. One man told me of investing $600 in a company called Limited, and ending up with $12,000 some years later. BRIC is not a \"\"share.\"\" It is an acronym for four countries \"\"of the future.\"\" High risk, high reward here.\"",
"a) Go to Money super market and compare all the share dealing accounts and choose one to your liking. b) That depends on one's own circumstances. Nobody can be give you any specific strategies without knowing your financial situation, goals and risk averseness.",
"\"I've never used them myself, but Scottrade might be something for you to look at. They do $7 internet trades, but also offer $27 broker assisted trades (that's for stocks, in both cases). Plus, they have brick-and-morter storefronts all over the US for that extra \"\"I gotta have a human touch\"\". :-) Also, they do have after hours trading, for the same commission as regular trading.\"",
"Buy the minimum of one fund now. (Eg total bond market) Buy the minimum of the next fund next time you have $2500. (Eg large-cap stocks.) Continue with those until you have enough to buy the next fund (eg small-cap stocks). Adjust as you go to balance these funds according to your planned ratios, or as close as you can reasonably get without having to actually transfer money between the funds more than once a year or so. Build up to your targets over time. If you can't easily afford to tie up that first $2500, stay with banks and CDs and maybe money market accounts until you can. And don't try to invest (except maybe through a matched 401k) before you have adequate savings both for normal life and for an emergency reserve. Note too that the 401k can be a way to buy into funds without a minimum. Check with your employer. If you haven't maxed out your 401k yet, and it has matching funds, that is usually the place to start saving for retirement; otherwise you are leaving free money on the table.",
"I would just buy a low-cost diversified equity ETF. VTI is pretty solid. Also, JW are you working or in school? If you are working you should consider opening an IRA or Roth IRA. Also if your employer has a 401k or other retirement plan you can contribute to I would advise doing so.",
"For point two.. The norm for buying stock is to just register online with a major broker: Fidelity, Schwab,TD Ameritrade...etc, send them money to fund your purchase, make the stock purchase in your account, and then have a little faith. You could probably get them to physically transfer the stock certificates from them to you, but it is not the norm at all. I would plan on a fee being involved also. The 10$ is for one trade... regardless of if you buy one share or many. So you wouldn't buy 1 share of a five dollar stock as your cost would be absurd. You might buy a hundred shares.",
"Anytime you invest in stocks, you do that inside an investment account - such as the type you might open at ETrade, Vanguard, Fidelity or Charles Schwab. Once you have the account and fund it, you can tell the system to invest some/all of your money in When you open your investment account, their first question will be whether this is a cash account, traditional IRA, or Roth IRA. The broker must report this to the IRS because the tax treatment is very different.",
"\"You don't seem to be a big fan of trading as you may think it may be too risky or too time consuming being in front of your computer all day long. You also don't seem to be a fan of buy and hold as you don't know what your investments will be worth when you need the funds. How about a combination of the two, sometimes called trend trading or active investing. With this type of trading/investing you may hold a stock from a couple of months to many years. Once you buy a stock that is up-trending or starting to up-trend you hold onto it until it stops up-trending. You can use a combination of fundamental analysis (to find out what to buy) and technical analysis (to tell you when to buy and when to sell). So these are some topics you can start reading up on. Using a technique like this will enable you to invest in healthy stocks when they are moving up in price and get out of them when they start moving down in price. There are many techniques you can use to get out of a stock, but the simplest has to be using stop losses. And once you learn and set up your system it should not take up much of your time when you actually do start trading/investing - 2 to 3 hours per week, and you can set yourself up that you analyse the market after the close and place any order so they get executed the next trading day without you being in front or the screen all day. Other areas you might want to read and learn about are writing up a Trading Plan, using Position Sizing and Money Management so you don't overtrade in any one single trade, and Risk Management. A good book I quite liked is \"\"Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom\"\" by Van Tharp. Good luck.\"",
"\"Is this amount an adequate starting amount to begin investing with? Yes. You can open an account at a brokerage with this amount. I'm not sure I would invest in individual stocks at this point. Which services should I use to start buying shares? (Currently my bank offers this service but I'm willing to use other sources) I can't make UK-specific recommendations, but I'd compare your bank's fees to those of a discount broker -- as well as the variety and level of service available. I would like to regularly increase the amount invested in shares. Is it worth doing this in say £200 increments? Take a look at the fees associated with each investment. Divide the fee by the increment to see what percent you'll lose to fees/commissions. Keep in mind that you have to gain more than that percentage to start earning a positive return on your investment. If you have access to fee-free automatic mutual fund investments, and you can commit to the £200 amount on a regular basis going forward, then this can be a completely free way of making these incremental investments. See also this answer on dollar cost averaging, and my comment on the other answer on that question for how fees impact returns. When buying shares should I focus on say two or three companies, or diversify more? I would diversify into two or three different index funds. Read up on asset allocation. For example, you might invest 1/3 of your balance into S&P 500 index fund, bond index fund, and MSCI EAFE index fund (but that's just a rough example, and not necessarily good for you). I highly recommend \"\"The Intelligent Asset Allocator\"\" by William Bernstein for excellent info on diversification and asset allocation.\"",
"In the past 10 years there have been mutual funds that would act as a single bucket of stocks and bonds. A good example is Fidelity's Four In One. The trade off was a management fee for the fund in exchange for having to manage the portfolio itself and pay separate commissions and fees. These days though it is very simple and pretty cheap to put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs that would represent a balanced portfolio. Whats even more interesting is that large online brokerage houses are starting to offer commission free trading of a number of ETFs, as long as they are not day traded and are held for a period similar to NTF mutual funds. I think you could easily put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs to trade on Fidelity or TD Ameritrade commission free, and one that would represent a nice diversified portfolio. The main advantage is that you are not giving money to the fund manager but rather paying the minimal cost of investing in an index ETF. Overall this can save you an extra .5-1% annually on your portfolio, just in fees. Here are links to commission free ETF trading on Fidelity and TD Ameritrade.",
"\"Congratulations on deciding to save money and choosing to invest it. One thing to know about mutual funds including index funds is that they typically require a minimum investment of a few thousand dollars, $3000 being a typical amount, unless the investment is in an IRA in which case $1000 might be a minimum. In some cases, automated monthly investments of $50 or $100 might need to be set up if you are beginning with a small balance. There is nothing wrong with your approach. You now should go and look at the various requirements for specific index funds. The Fidelity and Vanguard families are good choices and both offer very low-cost index funds to choose from, but different funds can have different requirements regarding minimum investments etc. You also have a choice of which index you want to follow, the S&P 500 Index, MidCap Indexes, Small-Cap Indexes, Total Stock Market Indexes etc., but your choice might be limited until you have more money to invest because of minimum investment rules etc. Most important, after you have made your choice, I urge you to not look every day, or even every month, to see how your investment is doing. You will save yourself a lot of anxiety and will save yourself from making wrong decisions. Far too many investors ignore the maxim \"\"Buy Low, Sell High\"\" and pull money out of what should be long-term investments at the first flicker of a downturn and end up buying high and selling low. Finally, the time is approaching when most stock funds will be declaring dividends and capital gains distributions. If you invest now, you may end up with a paper profit on which you will have to pay taxes (in non-tax-advantaged accounts) on your 2012 tax return (this is called \"\"buying a dividend\"\"), and so you might want to spend some time investigating now, but actually make the investment in late December after your chosen fund has made its distributions (the date for this will be on the fund's web site) or in early 2013.\"",
"I have done this last year. Just open an account with an online brocker and buy a couple of Apple shares (6 I think, for 190$ each or something like that :) ). If this is just to test how stock exchange works, I think this is a good idea. I am also in Europe (France), and you'r right the charge to buy on NasDaq are quite expensive but still reasonnable. Hope this helps.",
"Consider trying a broker that offers free trading. Robinhood is one such broker.",
"You don't really have a lot of money, and that isn't a criticism as much as that you are limited to diversification. For example, I would estimate you can only have one or two stocks for a buy-write scheme. Secondly you may be only to buy one fund with a high minimum investment, and a second fund with a smaller minimum investment. Thirdly there is not a whole lot of money to make a large difference. One options might be to look at iShares since your are with Fidelity. Trading those are commission free and the minimum investment is one share. They offer many sector funds. Since you were in a CD ladder you might be looking for stability of principle. If so you can look at USMV and PFF. If you can tolerate a little more volatility DGRO. Having said that you seem interested in doing some buy-writes. Why not mix and match? Pick a stock, like INTC (for example not a recommendation), and buy-write with half the money and some combination of iShares for the rest.",
"It sounds like you are interested in investing in the stock market but you don't want to take too much risk. Investing in an Index EFT will provide some diversification and can be less risky than investing in individual stocks, however with potentially lower returns. If you want to invest your money, the first thing you should do is learn about managing your risk. You are still young and you should spend your time now to increase your education and knowledge. There are plenty of good books to start with, and you should prepare an investment plan which incorporates a risk management strategy. $1000 is a little low to start investing in the stock market, so whilst you are building your education and preparing your plan, you can continue building up more funds for when you are ready to start investing. Place your funds in an high interest savings account for now, and whilst you are learning you can practice your strategies using virtual accounts. In fact the ASX has a share market game which is held 2 or 3 times per year. The ASX website also has some good learning materials for novices and they hold regular seminars. It is another good source for improving your education in the subject. Remember, first get educated, then plan and practice, and then invest.",
"I am not sure whether this hold in all countries, but at least in the Netherlands my bank allows for investment in funds without charging transaction costs. The downside is that these funds charge an annual fee of about 1%, but for the amounts you are talking about this definitely sounds more attractive than the alternative. As an alternative, you could ofcourse just take care of the transaction costs. That way your child can see their funds develop as you put it into different stocks without being distracted by the details. Of course you feel the 'pain' but I believe the main lesson stands out most this way.",
"Each trade will cost you nearly $10 to buy and then $10 to sell. With $1800 that is literally 1% of your initial investment lost to fees. It would be far wiser for you to learn with play money instead. Head over to investopedia and use pretend money: http://www.investopedia.com/simulator/ If you're absolutely fine with losing your $1800 than go ahead and jump into some companies you like. I would not recommend that though. Put the $1800 into one single position that you will hold for a few years and play with pretend money to get a better feel for short term trades.",
"\"You may want to look into robo-investors like Wealthfront and Betterment. There are many others, just search for \"\"robo investor\"\".\"",
"The more the stock is worth, the more it needs to rise to make a profit. You can buy some stock from Google or amazon, but that's about all the stock you'd have... Start small with companies you know and trust that have an upward trend.",
"When investing small amounts, you should consider the substantial toll that commissions will take on your investment. In your case, $800 placed in just one ETF will incur commissions of about $8 each way, or a total of 2% of your investment. I suggest you wait until you have at least $5000 to invest in stocks or ETFs. Since this is in a IRA, your options are limited, but perhaps you may qualify for a Vanguard mutual fund, which will not charge commissions and will have annual expenses only a trivial amount higher than the corresponding ETF. it should probably go in a mixed allocation fund, and since you are young, it should be a relatively aggressive one. Mutual funds will also allow you to contribute small amounts over time without incurring any extra fees.",
"I have found The DRiP Investing Resource Center to be a useful resource for more information about DRIP investing. Moneypaper.com offers a list of companies offering both direct purchase options and dividend reinvestment plans. For those offering dividend reinvestment plans, but not direct purchase, you have the option of using a service to purchase your first shares to enroll in the DRIP program. The tax paperwork for DRIPs is a pain due to the partial shares purchased over time when you have to figure out your own cost basis upon sale of shares , but a spreadsheet and a FIFO (first in first out) approach makes it not too much of a headache. -MU",
"Dividend reinvestment plans are a great option for some of your savings. By making small, regular investments, combined with reinvested dividends, you can accumulate a significant nest egg. Pick a medium to large cap company that looks to be around for the foreseeable future, such as JNJ, 3M, GE, or even Exxon. These companies typically raise their dividends every year or so, and this can be a significant portion of your long term gains. Plus, these programs are usually offered with miniscule fees. Also, have a go at the interest rate formulas contained in your favorite spreadsheet application. Calculate the FutureValue of a series of payments at various interest rates, to see what you can expect. While you cannot depend on earning a specific rate with a stock investment, a basic familiarity with the formula can help you determine a rate of return you should aim for.",
"\"You mentioned three concepts: (1) trading (2) diversification (3) buy and hold. Trading with any frequency is for people who want to manage their investments as a hobby or profession. You do not seem to be in that category. Diversification is a critical element of any investment strategy. No matter what you do, you should be diversified. All the way would be best (this means owning at least some of every asset out there). The usual way to do this is to own a mutual or index fund. Or several. These funds own hundreds or thousands of stocks, so that buying the fund instantly diversifies you. Buy and hold is the only reasonable approach to a portfolio for someone who is not interested in spending a lot of time managing it. There's no reason to think a buy-and-hold portfolio will underperform a typical traded portfolio, nor that the gains will come later. It's the assets in the portfolio that determine how aggressive/risky it is, not the frequency with which it is traded. This isn't really a site for specific recommendations, but I'll provide a quick idea: Buy a couple of index funds that cover the whole universe of investments. Index funds have low expenses and are the cheapest/easiest way to diversify. Buy a \"\"total stock market\"\" fund and a \"\"total bond fund\"\" in a ratio that you like. If you want, also buy an \"\"international fund.\"\" If you want specific tickers and ratios, another forum would be better(or just ask your broker or 401(k) provider). The bogleheads forum is one that I respect where people are very happy to give and debate specific recommendations. At the end of the day, responsibly managing your investment portfolio is not rocket science and shouldn't occupy a lot of time or worry. Just choose a few funds with low expenses that cover all the assets you are really interested in, put your money in them in a reasonable-ish ratio (no one knows that the best ratio is) and then forget about it.\"",
"\"If I invest in index funds or other long term stocks that pay dividend which I reinvest, they don't need to be worth more per share for me to make a profit, right? That is, if I sell part of the stocks, it's GOOD if they're worth more than I bought them at, but the real money comes from the QUANTITY of stocks that you get by reinvesting your dividends, right? I would say it is more the other way around. It is nice to get dividends and reinvest them, but overall the main gain comes from the stocks going up in value. The idea with index funds, however, is that you don't rely on any particular stock going up in value; instead you just rely on the aggregate of all the funds in the index going up. By buying lots of stocks bundled in an index fund, you avoid being too reliant on any one company's performance. Can I invest \"\"small amounts\"\" (part of paycheck) into index funds on a monthly basis, like €500, without taking major \"\"transaction fees\"\"? (Likely to be index fund specific... general answers or specific answers using popular stocks welcomed). Yes, you can. At least in the US, whether you can do this automatically from your paycheck depends on whether you employer has that set up. I don't know that work in the Netherlands. However, at the least, you can almost certainly set up an auto-invest program that takes $X out of your bank account every month and buys shares of some index fund(s). Is this plan market-crash proof? My parents keep saying that \"\"Look at 2008 and think about what such a thing would do to your plan\"\", and I just see that it will be a setback, but ultimately irrelevant, unless it happens when I need the money. And even then I'm wondering whether I'll really need ALL of my money in one go. Doesn't the index fund go back up eventually? Does a crash even matter if you plan on holding stocks for 10 or more years? Crashes always matter, because as you say, there's always the possibility that the crash will occur at a time you need the money. In general, it is historically true that the market recovers after crashes, so yes, if you have the financial and psychological fortitude to not pull your money out during the crash, and to ride it out, your net worth will probably go back up after a rough interlude. No one can predict the future, so it's possible for some unprecedented crisis to cause an unprecedented crash. However, the interconnectedness of stock markets and financial systems around the world is now so great that, were such a no-return crash to occur, it would probably be accompanied by the total collapse of the whole economic system. In other words, if the stock market dies suddenly once and for all, the entire way of life of \"\"developed countries\"\" will probably die with it. As long as you live in such a society, you can't really avoid \"\"gambling\"\" that it will continue to exist, so gambling on there not being a cataclysmic market crash isn't much more of a gamble. Does what I'm planning have similarities with some financial concept or product (to allow me to research better by looking at the risks of that concept/product)? Maybe like a mortgage investment plan without the bank eating your money in between? I'm not sure what you mean by \"\"what you're planning\"\". The main financial products relevant to what you're describing are index funds (which you already mentioned) and index ETFs (which are basically similar with regard to the questions you're asking here). As far as concepts, the philosophy of buying low-fee index funds, holding them for a long time, and not selling during crashes, is essentially that espoused by Jack Bogle (not quite the inventor of the index fund, but more or less its spiritual father) and the community of \"\"Bogleheads\"\" that has formed around his ideas. There is a Bogleheads wiki with lots of information about the details of this approach to investing. If this strategy appeals to you, you may find it useful to read through some of the pages on that site.\"",
"Depends on what you are, an investor or a speculator. An investor will look at an 'indefinite' investment period. A speculator will be after a fast buck. If you are an investor, buy your stock once as that will cost less commissions. After all, you'll sell your stock in 10, 15, 20 years."
] |
[
"I don't want to get involved in trading chasing immediate profit That is the best part. There is an answer in the other question, where a guy only invested in small amounts and had a big sum by the time he retired. There is good logic in the answer. If you put in lump sum in a single stroke you will get at a single price. But if you distribute it over a time, you will get opportunities to buy at favorable prices, because that is an inherent behavior of stocks. They inherently go up and down, don't remain stable. Stock markets are for everybody rich or poor as long as you have money, doesn't matter in millions or hundreds, to invest and you select stocks with proper research and with a long term view. Investment should always start in small amounts before you graduate to investing in bigger amounts. Gives you ample time to learn. Where do I go to do this ? To a bank ? To the company, most probably a brokerage firm. Any place to your liking. Check how much they charge for brokerage, annual charges and what all services they provide. Compare them online on what services you require, not what they provide ? Ask friends and colleagues and get their opinions. It is better to get firsthand knowledge about the products. Can the company I'm investing to be abroad? At the moment stay away from it, unless you are sure about it because you are starting. Can try buying ADRs, like in US. This is an option in UK. But they come with inherent risk. How much do you know about the country where the company does its business ? Will I be subject to some fees I must care about after I buy a stock? Yes, capital gains tax will be levied and stamp duties and all.",
"I'd look into ShareBuilder. You can buy stocks for as low as $2 each, and there is no minimum funding level. You have to be carefull about selling though, as they will charge you $10 each time you want to sell a stock, regardless of how much of it you want to sell.",
"There's a few options you may want to look into. First, I'm writing from an US point of view, I do not know if these are available in Russia. First look into DRIPS (Dividend Reinvestment Plans). These seem tailor made for your request. They are plans set up by companies that pay dividends. If you own at least one share (costing no more than say $100 often less), then these companies will take the dividends paid on these shares and automatically buy more shares as the income from the dividends pile up. This is a low cost of entry way of getting in on many high quality stocks. Stalwart stocks such as GE and many utility and real estate stocks (REITs) offer this. Check out these links: Secondly you can look at brokerages that specialize in buying smaller amount of stocks on a regular basis to simulate a DRIP, ShareBuilder will allow you to invest say $50 or $100 a month into one or more stocks. However, at smaller amounts, their commission fees can eat in to your returns. Folio investing does the same thing as Sharebuilder. It's worth looking at them both and comparing their commissions and other features"
] |
6221
|
To pay off a student loan, should I save up a lump sum payoff payment or pay extra each month?
|
[
"128698",
"470716",
"257248",
"519675",
"76414",
"169688",
"455614",
"115717"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"352363",
"538014",
"128698",
"535742",
"274108",
"69150",
"470716",
"541313",
"482798",
"448791",
"257248",
"563009",
"159762",
"142653",
"512699",
"44895",
"169688",
"103093",
"551423",
"115717",
"414534",
"394474",
"64752",
"571198",
"380486",
"577323",
"117085",
"413313",
"320703",
"227770",
"305862",
"442896",
"307517",
"546070",
"427206",
"98294",
"529229",
"221364",
"192594",
"101176",
"519675",
"399259",
"208842",
"213907",
"592192",
"581697",
"202527",
"466707",
"586626",
"33350",
"65461",
"54027",
"27484",
"31189",
"255703",
"34893",
"313885",
"451457",
"529418",
"28230",
"82809",
"384626",
"449294",
"170481",
"116700",
"6339",
"319773",
"431884",
"522655",
"267856",
"263649",
"680",
"415292",
"167213",
"507544",
"486402",
"564206",
"131365",
"49097",
"36816",
"462312",
"479050",
"149102",
"96268",
"78361",
"123557",
"74497",
"589582",
"187010",
"529551",
"110081",
"108546",
"149500",
"490648",
"48104",
"104563",
"202987",
"327700",
"240261",
"487621"
] |
[
"Paying $12,000 in lump sumps annually will mean a difference of about $250 in interest vs. paying $1,000 monthly. If front-load the big payment, that saves ~$250 over paying monthly over the year. If you planned to save that money each month and pay it at the end, then it would cost you ~$250 more in mortgage interest. So that's how much money you would have to make with that saved money to offset the cost. Over the life of the loan the choice between the two equates to less than $5,000. If you pay monthly it's easy to calculate that an extra $1,000/month would reduce the loan to 17 years, 3 months. That would give you a savings of ~$400,000 at the cost of paying $207,000 extra during those 17 years. Many people would suggest that you invest the money instead because the annual growth rates of the stock market are well in excess of your 4.375% mortgage. What you decide is up to you and how conservative your investing strategy is.",
"Not that I doubted everyone's assumption but I wanted to see the math so I did some spreadsheet hacking. I assumed a monthly payments for 30 years which left us with total payments of 483.89. I then assumed we'd pay an extra $200/month in one of two scenarios. Scenario 1 we just paid that $200 directly to the lender. In scenario 2 we set the extra $200 aside every month until we were able to pay off the $10k at 7%. I assumed that the minimum payments were allocated proportionately and the overpayments were allocated evenly. That meant we paid off loan 5 at about month 77, loan 4 in month 88, loan 3 in month 120, loan 2 in month 165, and loan 1 in month 170. Getting over to scenario 2 where we pay $483.89 to lender and save $200 separately. In month 48 we've saved $9600 relative to the principle remaining in loan 3 of $9547. We pay that off and we're left with loan 1,2,4,5 with a combined principle of about $60930. At this point we are now going to make payments of 683.89 instead of saving towards principle. Now our weighted average interest rate is 6.800% instead of 6.824%. We can calculate the number of payments left given a principle of 60930, interest of 6.8%, and payment of 683.89 to be 124.4 months left for a total of 172.4 months Conclusion: Scenario 1 pays off the debt 3 months sooner with the same monthly expenditure as scenario 2.",
"As a new graduate, aside from the fact that you seem to have the extra $193/mo to pay more towards your loan, we don't know anything else. I wrote a lengthy article on this in response to a friend who had a loan, but was also pondering a home purchase in the future. Student Loans and Your First Mortgage discusses the math behind one's ability to put a downpayment on a house vs having that monthly cash to pay towards the mortgage. In your case, the question is whether, in 5 years, the $8500 would be best spent as a home down payment or to pay off the 6.8% loan. If you specifically had plans toward home ownership, the timing of that plan would affect my answer here, as I discuss in the article. The right answer to your question can only come by knowing far more of your personal situation. Meanwhile, the plan comes at a cost. Your plan will get rid of the loan in about 5 years, but if you simply double up the payments, advising the servicing company to apply the extra to principal, it would drop to just a couple month over over 4. As you read more about personal finance, you'll find a lot of different views. Some people are fixated on having zero debt, others will focus on liquidity. In the end, you need to understand each approach and decide what's right for you.",
"Excellent question and it is a debate that is often raised. Mathematically you are probably best off using option #1. Any money that is above and beyond minimum payments earns a pretty high interest rate, about 6.82% in the form of saved interest payments. The problem is you are likely to get discouraged. Personal finance is a lot about behavior, and after working at this for a year, and still having 5 loans, albeit a lower balance, might take a bit of fight out of you. Paying off such a large balance, in a reasonable time, will take a lot of fight. With the debt snowball, you pay the minimum to the student loan, save in an outside account, and when it is large enough, you execute option #2. So a year from now you might only have three loans instead of five. If you behaved exactly the same your balance would be higher after that year then using the previous method. However often one does not behave the same. Because the goals are shorter and more attainable it is easier to delay some gratification. The 8 dollars you are saving in your weekly gas budget, because of low prices, is meaningful when saving for a 4K goal, where it is meaningless when looking at it as a 74K goal. With the 4K goal you are more apt to put that money in your savings, where the 74K goal you might spend it on a latte. For me, the debt snowball worked really well. With either option make sure that excess payments actually go to a reduction in principle not a prepayment of interest. Given this you may be left with no option. For example if method #1 you only prepay interest, you are forced to use option #2.",
"Can I pay $12,000 extra once a year or $1000 every month - which option is better? Depends when. If you mean 12K now vs 1K a month over the next 12 months, repeating this each year, now wins. If you mean saving 1K a month for 12 months then doing a lumpsum, the 1K a month wins. Basically, a sooner payment saves you more money than a later payment. The first option does sound better, but for a 30 year mortgage, is it that significant? Your number one issue is that you have a thirty year mortgage. The interest you pay on it is monstrous. For the 30 year term, you pay around 500K in interest. A 15-year mortgage is 300K cheaper (only 200K in interest will be paid). The monthly payment would be 1250 more. How much money and years on a mortgage can I save? When is the best time to pay? At the end of each year? You can knock off about a dozen years. Save I think ~250K. You can find mortgage calculators online or talk to your mortgage advisor to play around with the numbers.",
"\"While the question is highly subjective as you noted, putting extra money will of course save you interest payments, it depends on how much \"\"enjoyment\"\" is worth now. I would suggest you to not be overly aggressive as you might dig yourself a ditch, your minimum monthly payments might get adjust upwards if some of these loans are student loans as it might seem you have a higher degree of disposable income to play with. Be aggressive in paying them off but not to aggressive, I also think the interest is tax deductible. What it really comes down to is, how much more interest do you want to pay them for enjoyment now, 50 months is not long its just north of 4 years. I'd say if you think you can put 800 extra towards them, don't. Instead if it were me I would put an extra 400 towards the highest until its paid and then take the 400 plus the monthly minimum and add that to the next highest and keep the other 400 for a rainy day, you will still get paid off quick but will leave yourself some scratch if necessary.\"",
"If the savings rate is the same as the loan rate, mathematically it doesn't make any difference whether you pay down the loan more and save less or vice versa. However, if the loan rate is higher than the savings rate it's better to pay it down as fast as possible. The chart below compares paying down the loan and saving equally (the gradual scenario), versus paying down the loan quickly at 2 x $193 and then saving 2 x $193. The savings rate, for illustration, is 2%. Paying quickly pays down the loan completely by month 51. On the other hand, in the gradual scheme the loan can't be paid down (with the savings) until month 54, which then leaves 3 months less for saving. In conclusion, it's better to pay down the higher rate loan first. Practically speaking, it may be useful to have some savings available.",
"Since you are considering dumping your savings into your student loans when they are equal, you should go ahead and do it now. You will immediately reap the benefit of paying less interest per month. Also, your minimum monthly payments will decrease so if you had unexpected expenses pop up, you could shrink your payments for a limited time. If you don't have emergency expenses, more of your regular monthly payment will go toward the principle of your loan and pay it off faster. Make a goal to get your savings back up as soon as you can after your loans are paid off. In the mean time, see what other things you can cut back on like eating less expensive food or switching to a less expensive phone plan. If you have stuff you don't need anymore, try selling it on Craiglist or eBay. Or just focus on doing more at work so you can get a raise. These things are not necessary, but it's a good feeling to be able to shave another month or two off paying a debt.",
"\"The short answer is \"\"yes\"\", paying more towards the loan as soon as a you can will reduce the interest. There are calculators or you could work up a spreadsheet using the specialized family of functions: PMT, PPMT, IPMT. My personal view: The amount of interest you offset in this manner is going to be fairly small (I'm going to guess less than $5 or $10 a month, but I haven't done the math). I would say what is more important is to automate your payments at a comfortable level, while making sure your other obligations are taken care of. Then add an extra payment when you save up a chunk of money to pay towards it. Make sure you never miss a payment. That means making sure you set up emergency fund to cover the payments if you lose your job or need to visit a sick family member for a while or the car breaks down or ....\"",
"One way to reduce the monthly payment due each month is to do everything to eliminate one of the loans. Make the minimum payment to the others, but put everything into eliminating one of the loans. Of course this assumes that you have separate loans for each year of school. Make sure that in trying to get aggressive on the loan repayment that you don't neglect the saving for a down payment. Each dollar you can put down will save you money on the mortgage. It might also allow you to reduce the mortgage insurance payments. If you pay one student loan back aggressively but can't eliminate it you might be worse off because you spent your savings but it didn't help you qualify for the mortgage. One way to maximize the impact is to not make the extra payments until you are ready to apply for the mortgage. Ask the lender if you qualify with all the student loans, or if you need to eliminate one. If you don't need to eliminate a loan, then apply the extra funds to a larger down payment or pay points to reduce the interest rate.",
"If you pay extra now you will pay less in interest over the life of the loan. Unless your savings account has a higher interest rate than the loan's rate you are not saving anything. That being said, you may have a greater need for savings due to other things (e.g. you might need a emergency fund). But if you are only saving for the loan: compare the rates to see if it is worth it.",
"Ponder this. Suppose that a reputable company or government were to come out and say hey, we are going to issue some 10 year bonds at 6.4%. Anyone interested in buying some? Assume that the company or government is financially solid and there is zero chance that they will go bankrupt. Think those bonds would sell? Would you be interested in buying such a bond? Well, I would wager that these bonds would sell like hotcakes, despite the fact that the long term stock market return beats it by a half percent. Heck, vanguard's junk bond fund is hot right now. It only yields 4.9% and those are junk bonds, not rock solid companies (see vanguard high yield corporate bond fund) Every time you make an extra principal payment on your student loan, you are effectively purchasing a investment with a rock solid, guaranteed 6.4% return for 10 years (or whatever time you have left on the loan if make no extra payments). On top of that, paying off a loan early builds your credit reputation, improves your monthly cash flow once the loan is paid, may increase your purchasing power for a house or car, and if nothing else, it frees you from being a slave to that debt payment every month. Edit Improved wording based on Ross's comment",
"\"When is the best time to pay? At the end of each year? If you save $1,000 each month at 1% so as to pay $12,000 at EOY on a 4.75% loan, you've lost \"\"4.75% - 1% = 3.75%\"\" over that year. (And that's presuming you put the money in a \"\"high yield\"\" online savings account.) Thus, the best time to pay is as soon as you have the money. EDIT: This all assumes that you have an emergency fund (more than the bare minimum $1K), zero other debt with a higher rate than 4.75% and that you are getting the full company match from 401(k).\"",
"\"The monthly bill should reduce as required by Loan A no longer requiring payment. This will occur only when Loan A is fully payed off, not before. If you're going to do this, make sure you tell them that any extra money is principal reduction, and not \"\"prepayment\"\" Lets say you do pay off loan A, and you continue to pay $11 a month. If you specify \"\"principle reduction\"\" for the $1 extra, they must reduce the loan balance by $1. If you do not specify, or you specify \"\"prepayment\"\", they \"\"may\"\" apply $0.20 to principal reduction and $0.80 to interest.\"",
"The definitive answer is: It Depends. What are your goals? First and foremost, you need to have at least 3 months expenses in cash or equivalent. (i.e. an investment that you can withdraw from quickly, and without penalty). The good news is that you don't have to come up with it instantly. Set a time frame - one year - for creating this safety net, and pay towards that goal. This is the single most important piece of financial advice you will receive. Now determine what you need to do. For example, you may need a car. Compare interest rates on your student loan and the car loan. Put your cash towards whichever is higher. If you don't need a car or other big ticket item, then you may consider sticking your surplus into the student loans. 50k at $1650 a month will be paid down in about 3 years, which might be a bit long to live the monastic lifestyle. I'd look at paying down the smallest loan first (assuming relatively similar rates), and freeing up that payment for yourself. So if you can pay off 1650 a month, and free up $100 of that in six months, then you can reward yourself with half that surplus, and apply the other half to the next loan. (This is different than some would suggest because you're talking about entering severe spartan mode, which is not sustainable.) Remember that life happens. You'll meet someone. You'll have an accident, your brother will get sick and you'll give him some money to help out. You've got to be prepared for these events, and for these reasons, I don't recommend living that close to the edge. Remember, you're not in default, and you do have the option of continuing to pay the minimum for a long time.",
"How much can I save? Depends on inflation and what other investment opportunities you have. It could end up costing you millions. Can I pay $12,000 extra once a year or $1000 every month - which option is better? It depends on how risk adverse you are. The first option does sound better, but for a 30 year mortgage, is it that significant? How much of your time is it going to cost you to do it every month? What is keeping you from doing it every day? How much is your time worth to you. Giving the bank its money sooner is always better than giving it it's money from a saving interest perspective. When is the best time to pay? See above.",
"The interest accrues daily based on the amount you owe. The less you owe the less the daily interest accrual. The faster you pay it off the less you pay in the lifetime of the loan. You are losing money if you bank money rather than applying it to the loan immediately. Since student loans cannot be declared in bankruptcy and interest rates cannot be refinanced, or are nonnegotiable, then you should consider your student loan a priority in case your employment/income runs into problems.",
"Staying with your numbers - a 7% long term return will have a tax of 15% (today's long term cap gain tax) resulting in a post tax of 5.95%. On the other hand, even if the student loan interest remains deductible, it's subject to phaseout and a really successful grad will quickly lose the deduction. There's a similar debate regarding mortgage debt. When I've commented on my 3.5% mortgage costing 2.5% post tax, there's no consensus agreeing that this loan should remain as long as possible in favor of investing in the market for its long term growth. And in this case the advantage is a full 3.45%/yr. While I've made my decision, Ben's points remain, the market return isn't guaranteed, while that monthly loan payment is fixed and due each month. In the big picture, I'd prioritize to make deposits to the 401(k) up to the match, if offered, pay down any higher interest debt such as credit cards, build an emergency account, and then make extra payments to the student loan. Keep in mind, also - if buying a house is an important goal, the savings toward the downpayment might take priority. Student Loans and Your First Mortgage is an article I wrote which describes the interaction between that loan debt and your mortgage borrowing ability. It's worth understanding the process as paying off the S/L too soon can impact that home purchase.",
"\"In my opinion, you should pay off the student loans as soon as possible, before you start saving for the house downpayment. $26k is a big number, but you have a great salary. (Nice!) Up until now, you have been a poor college student, accustomed to a relatively low standard of living. Your $800 per month plan would have you pay off the loan in 3 years, but I would challenge you to pay off this entire student loan in 1 year or less. A monthly loan payment of $2226 will pay off your loan in 12 months. After that is done, if you take the same amount you had been paying toward your student loans and save it for your condo, in less than two years you'll have a 10% down payment saved ($50k). The whole thing will take less than three years. There are three reasons why I recommend paying off the loan first before saving for the condo: one is practical and two are philosophical. Practical: You will save money on interest. Paying off the loan in 1 year vs. 3 years will save you $1343. You won't find a short-term safe investment that will beat 5% in interest. Philosophical: The loan is something current and concrete that you can focus on. Your condo is a dream at this point, and there is lots of time to change your mind. If the $2k+ per month amount is at all a sacrifice for you, then in a few months, you might be tempted to say to yourself, \"\"This month I really want a vacation, so I'll just skip this month of saving.\"\" For the loan, however, if you establish a concrete goal of 12 months to pay off the loan, it will hopefully help motivate you to allocate this money and stick to your plan. Philosophical: Getting used to borrowing money, making payments to a bank, and paying interest is not a great way to live. It is better, in my opinion, to eliminate your debt as fast as possible and start getting accustomed to saving cash for what you want. Clean up your debt, and resolve not to borrow any more money except for a reasonably-sized mortgage on your home.\"",
"Simply, you should put your money into whatever has the higher interest rate, savings or repayment of debt. Let's say at the beginning of month A you put $1000 into each account. In the case of the savings, at the end of month A you will have $1001.6 ($1000 + 1000 x 2% annual interest / 12) In the case of a loan, at the end of month A you will have $1005.7. ($17000 plus 6.8 interest for one month is 17096.3. On $16000, the new value is 16090.6. The difference between these is $1005.7. 5.7 / 1.6 = 3.56 Therefore, using your money to repay your loan nets you a return about 3.5 times greater.",
"Like all other loan-vs-savings questions, it depends on the terms of the loan. If you have a choice, the usual answer is to pay off the loan with the worst terms (which usually means the highest interest rate) first, and only start with savings when you've paid off all the high-interest loans entirely. If your student loan is on US terms, then pay it off as soon as you can, unless you have commercial debt (credit-card or unsecured personal loan), which you should pay off first, or unless you have or are realistically likely to get eligibility for a forgiveness program. But it does depends on the terms of the debt, which in turn depend on the country you studied in; on UK terms it's a very bad idea to pay off a student loan any faster than you have to. Interest is restricted to the rate of inflation, so good investments probably beat the interest rate of the student loan; the required repayments vary with your income, so savings are more useful than debt repayment if you encounter income difficulties (e.g unemployment) in the future, and finally the debt is automatically forgiven after 30 years, so you may never have to pay it all back anyway - so why pay it off voluntarily if it would get forgiven eventually anyway?",
"Others have suggested paying off the student loan, mostly for the satisfaction of one less payment, but I suggest you do the math on how much interest you would save by paying early on each of the loans: When you do the calculations I think you'll see why paying toward the debt with the highest interest rate is almost always the best advice. Whether you can refinance the mortgage to a lower rate is a separate question, but the above calculation would still apply, just with different amortization schedules.",
"The second choice is a normal payment, just made early. This guards you against forgetting to make the payment later and incurring late payment fees -- which in this kind of loan are added to the balance and themselves accrue compounded interest. The first option is an extra payment, applied entirely to the principal. That lets you avoid years of accrued interest on that portion of the loan, and reduces the loan's actual cost. I think the extra payment is a better investment.",
"\"I think you're right that from a pure \"\"expected future value\"\" perspective, it makes sense to pay this loan off as quickly as possible (including not taking the next year's loan). The new student loans with the higher interest rates have changed the balance enough that it's no longer automatically better to keep it going as long as possible. The crucial point in your case, which isn't true for many people, is that you will likely have to pay it off eventually anyway and so in terms of net costs over your lifetime you will do best by paying it off quickly. A few points to set against that, that you might want to consider: Not paying it off is a good hedge against your career not going as well as you expect, e.g. if the economy does badly, you have health problems, you take a career break for any reason. If that happens, you would end up not being forced to pay it off, so will end up gaining from not having done so voluntarily. The money you save in that case could be more valuable to you that the money you would lose if your career does go well. Not paying it off will increase your net cash earlier in life when you are more likely to need it, e.g. for a house deposit. Having more free cash could increase your options, making it possible to buy a house earlier in life. Or it could mean you have a higher deposit when you do buy, reducing the interest rate on the entire mortgage balance. The savings from that could end up being more than the 6% interest on the loan even though when you look at the loan in isolation it seems like a very bad rate.\"",
"When I called Navient about this exact question last year they told me that my loan is a term length loan; so if I were to make extra payments on one of my dozen loans then my total monthly payment would be adjusted (go down) in order to make sure that my loans would still be paid off in x months. It is very important to note however that Navient has at least 4 loan payment types that I know of so I can make no assurances that yours will work the same way. The only way to get an absolute answer to this is going to be to Call Navient and ask them.",
"\"I'll use similar logic to Dave Ramsey to answer this question because this is a popular question when we're talking about paying off any debt early. Also, consider this tweet and what it means for student loans - to you, they're debt, to the government, they're assets. If you had no debt at all and enough financial assets to cover the cost, would you borrow money at [interest rate] to obtain a degree? Put it in the housing way, if you paid off your home, would you pull out an equity loan/line for a purchase when you have enough money in savings? I can't answer the question for you or anyone else, as you can probably find many people who will see benefits to either. I can tell you two observations I've made about this question (it comes a lot with housing) over time. First, it tends to come up a lot when stocks are in a bubble to the point where people begin to consider borrowing from 0% interest rate credit cards to buy stocks (or float bills for a while). How quickly people forget what it feels (and looks like) when you see your financial assets drop 50-60%! It's not Wall Street that's greedy, it's most average investors. Second, people asking this question generally overlook the behavior behind the action; as Carnegie said, \"\"Concentration is the key to wealth\"\" and concentrating your financial energy on something, instead of throwing it all over the place, can simplify your life. This is one reason why lottery winners don't keep their winnings: their financial behavior was rotten before winning, and simply getting a lot of money seldom changes behavior. Even if you get paid a lot or little, that's irrelevant to success because success requires behavior and when you master the behavior everything else (like money, happiness, peace of mind, etc) follows.\"",
"\"Everyone has made some good points that I was going to mention but to put it in terms that might make it easier to decide. As stated by others, paying off debt and being free is always the goal and desirable. However, you must also consider the \"\"efficiency\"\" of what you do as well. For example, there are two common types of student loans (there are others but let's focus on these) and that is subsidized and unsubsidized. The main difference? Subsidized loans don't earn interest on your balance while you are in school, it only happens when you graduate and come out of repayment grace period. Unsubsidized loans begin accumulating interest the moment they are disbursed, but you are not required to make payments on them until you graduate. All student loans are deferred until you graduate and exhaust your grace period or other means of deferring your payment, say for example a postponement or forbearance. However, it is often recommended that on UNSUBSIDIZED loans, you pay down your principle while still in school to avoid that massive interest amount that will get added to it when you are officially in repayment. On the other hand, it is often (if not always) recommended that you hold off on paying SUBSIDIZED loans until you are done and go into repayment, as for all intents and purposes its not costing you anything extra to wait. Family and parent loans are considered and treated more like personal loans, so treat them as such. Hope that helps. Also, don't forget to take advantage of the income based repayment options, as they will make the payments manageable enough to avoid making them a burden while you are trying to get a job and go post education. Further reading: Income-Driven Plans (Department of Education) Income-Driven Repayment Plans (nelnet)\"",
"I would add this as comment if I could. Basically a lot of people say you can't beat the interest rate when you invest vs paying off a loan which is typically correct, however you really need to learn how to save money. It's quite easy getting into debt and paying it off but what tends to happen with a lot of people is they continue that cycle when they see how easy it is and never have a decent amount of savings. I would make the minimum payments or slightly more and then save as much as possible, learn to sacrifice on luxuries which are extremely tempting when you are just starting out to earn good money. I'm not sure about your cost of living but set up a direct debit to take 10% of your salary after tax every month a couple days after you get paid. Having a large lump sum will do wonders for your credit and will enforce good habits",
"Keep in mind that by fully paying off one of your loans, you will reduce your minimum repayments. This will make you feel richer than you actually are. This will make you buy stuff that it seems like you can afford, probably putting some of it on credit. As you can't actually afford this, this will leave you, in a years time, with the same amount of debt you have now or more, but with a slightly bigger tv. Assuming your home loan has no penalties for paying off extra, then put all 11k into there to keep your monthly repayments as high as possible.",
"Great work so far, and good question. I think a lot of it depends on how risky your financial life is. For example lets say that you are working a temp or contract job that ends in 3 months. That is also the same month your savings and student loan will be equal. I think most would agree that it would be foolish to empty out your savings in such a risky month. Now same situation one month later. The company you were working for takes you on as a full time employee. I would go ahead and empty out my savings and make the student loan go away. There could be other risks to consider like needing a different car, moving to a new place, potential medical bills, or a needing to travel. Anything like that on the horizon I would hold off emptying out my savings. However, once it is smooth sailing GO FOR IT! Being debt free is wonderful and it is a worthy goal.",
"\"I'd recommend hitting the loan the hardest, but getting something invested as well. It's tempting to see these decisions as binary, so it's good to see you wondering if a \"\"mix\"\" is best. I admit to being a spreadsheet junky, but I think this is a good candidate for working up various scenarios to see where the pain/pleasure point is and once you've identified it, move forward with it (e.g., let's say it's a 10K lump sum you're dealing with, what does 5k on the loan and 5k invested look like over the next 6 months, 12 months, 24 months (requires assumptions on investment performance)? What about 6K loan, 4K invested? 7K loan, 3K invested? etc)\"",
"A friend tweeted a similar question regarding student loans, and I responded with Student Loans and Your First Mortgage. The punchline is that you need to be aware of the 28/36 ratios in a bank qualifying you for your mortgage. Even though you have a house, you may not be aware of this. Simply put, 28% of gross monthly income can be used to qualify for your house burden, loan, taxes, etc. 36% for total debt. So the student loan may fit in that 8% gap, and paying it all off reduces the cash you have without helping you borrow more money. 3-5 years is short term, and to that part of the question, this money should not be invested in anything at risk. A 3 year treasury or CD would be it, in my opinion.",
"Paying off the student loans slower and investing the rest has some advantages - the interest is tax deductible (essentially lowering that 7% number), and it helps allow you to build up a liquid emergency fund which is more important to financial security than returns.",
"I agree with the advice given, but I'll add another angle from which to look at it. It sounds like you are already viewing the money used to either pay off the loan early or invest in the market as an investment, which is great. You are wise to think about opportunity cost, but like others pointed out, you are overlooking the risk factor. The way I would look at this is: I could take a guaranteed 6.4% return by paying off the loan or a possible 7% return by investing the money. If the risk pays off modestly, all you've done is earned 0.6%, with a huge debt still hanging over you. Personally, I would take the guaranteed 6.4% return by paying off the debt, then invest in the stock market. Now this is looking at the investment as a single, atomic pool of money. But you can split it up a bit. Let's say the amount of extra disposable income you want to invest with is $1,000/mo. Then you could pay an extra $500/mo to your student loan and invest the other $500 in the stock market, or do a 400/600 split, or whatever suits your risk tolerance. You mentioned multiple loans and 6.4% is the highest loan. What I would do, based on what I value personally, is put every extra penny into paying off the 6.4% loan because that is high. Once that is done, if the next loan is 4% of less, then split my income between paying extra to it and investing in the market. Remember, with each loan you pay off, the monthly income that previously went to it is now available, and can be used for the next loan or the other goals.",
"Pay off your highest-interest debt first: credit card, car, maybe even mortgage. Pay minimums on all else. Student loans are typically low interest, so pay off anything else first, but double-check your rate of course. Even if you have no other debt, you may still want to hang on to your savings instead of paying down your student loans if getting rid of your savings causes you to accrue debt. For example, if you have a low income and no savings, you may accrue credit card debt (high interest). Or you may want to buy a car with cash instead of getting a loan. Even if this is not an issue, consider what you can do with your savings that others who lack them cannot do. You can put it into mutual funds, which may offer higher rate of return (albeit with risk) than your student loan interest. Or you may pay a down payment on a home. The very low interest rates of student loans are, to a person with savings, essentially a source of cheap money that doesn't need to be justified to a bank. You can use it as seed money to start a business, as funds for travel, for living expenses while in the Peace Corps, or whatever else. But if you pay down that principal, you bind yourself. In short, pay down your student loans when there is no better use for the money.",
"Pay off the Highest interest loan rate first. You must be doing something funky with how long your terms are... If you give a bit more info about your loan's such as the term and how much extra you have right now to spend it could be explained in detail why that would be the better choice using your numbers. You have to make sure when you are analyzing your different loan options that you make sure you are comparing apples to apples. IE make sure that you are either comparing the present value, future value or amortization payments... EDIT: using some of your numbers lets say you have 5000 dollars in your pocket you have 3 options. excel makes these calculations easier... Do nothing: in 80 months your Student Loan will be payed in full and you will have 54676.08 owing on your mortgage and 5000 in your pocket(assuming no bank interest) for mortgage: Pay off Student loan and allocate Student loans amortization to Mortgage: in 80 months you will have $47,910.65 owing on mortgage and student loan will be paid in full For mortgage: Pay 5000 on Mortgage: in 80 months student loan will be paid in full and you will have $48,204.92 owing on mortgage For mortgage:",
"\"Given the exact formula that goes into the 'Fair Issac\"\" calculation is a closely guarded trade secret, AND that each agency has their own formula, I'm not sure there's really any 100% for sure authoritative answer to the question in terms of which option would be best. There are a lot of balancing factors, like how long you've had accounts, payment history over time, etc. Stuff that is known to HURT a score can include things like closing a longstanding account. If you have a very low interest loan (like some car companies offer now and then) I'd just make the normal payments. If you have something at a higher interest rate, especially above 6-7%, then I'd worry less about credit score and more about how much I'm going to pay in interest and pay it off as rapidly as I could. The big key is 'never pay late' more than anything else, Followed by how much of your debt capacity is used (which paying down any account, loan or credit card, will help), and long standing relationships (length of history) See this (approximate) chart and notice that any early payoff is basically going lower your 'capacity used', possibly reduce the types of credit used (if it's the last loan of that type), all of which should help your score.\"",
"Based on your numbers, it sounds like you've got 12 years left in the private student loan, which just seems to be an annoyance to me. You have the cash to pay it off, but that may not be the optimal solution. You've got $85k in cash! That's way too much. So your options are: -Invest 40k -Pay 2.25% loan off -Prepay mortgage 40k Play around with this link: mortgage calculator Paying the student loan, and applying the $315 to the monthly mortgage reduces your mortgage by 8 years. It also reduces the nag factor of the student loan. Prepaying the mortgage (one time) reduces it by 6 years. (But, that reduces the total cost of the mortgage over it's lifetime the most) Prepaying the mortgage and re-amortizing it over thirty years (at the same rate) reduces your mortgage payment by $210, which you could apply to the student loan, but you'd need to come up with an extra $105 a month.",
"Reading Great Lakes' page How Payments Are Applied, I think you are probably correct about how the payments are applied: Interest first, minimum on each loan next, then any extra is applied to the highest interest loan. If I were you, I would make one payment a month, and I would make that payment as large as I possibly could. Trying to make more than one payment in a month is too complicated (and you aren't sure exactly how those payments get credited), and saving up for a big payment every few months is pointless and will cost you interest.",
"If you have sufficient money to support yourself until you have a career, then paying off your student loan principal on unsubsidized, federal loans, is probably your best bet. This is because interest accumulates before you're actually required to pay. If they are private, make the payment on the highest interest rate loans.",
"There are a few ways you can go about paying this off quickly (and safely): You could start paying $386 monthly (ie, double what you're paying now). You'll pay less interest in the long run because they can only charge you for the amount outstanding. Remember, 6.8% of $12k is more than 6.8% of $6k. However, your plan sounds more sensible. Say you get to $6k paid off and $6k saved, you're able to pay off what's left and that's almost $200 a month you'll have extra. Although what I like about this is - if you become ill, lose your job, or whatever, then you're still able make the $193 payments, PLUS you'll have money saved for day-to-day expenses (food, water, gas, electricity, etc.) long enough to see yourself through. PS. They may charge you a settlement fee because if you pay early then they miss out on money... but check your contract with them first. Hope this helps!",
"It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to save up and wait to make a payment on any of these loans. Any dollar you pay today works better than saving it and waiting months to pay it, no matter which loan it will be applied to. Since your lender won't let you choose which loan your payment is being applied to, don't worry about it. Just make as big a payment as you can each month, and try to get the whole thing out of your life as soon as possible. The result of this will be that the smaller balance loans will be paid off first, and the bigger balance loans later. It is unfortunate that the higher interest rate loans will be paid later, but it sounds like you don't have a choice, so it is not worth worrying about. Instead of thinking of it as 5 loans of different amounts, think of it as one loan with a balance of $74,000, and make payments as quickly and as often as possible. For example, let's say that you have $1000 a month extra to throw at the loans. You would be better off paying $1000 each month than waiting until you have $4000 in the bank and paying it all at once toward one loan. How the lender divides up your payment is less significant than when the lender gets the payment.",
"If there's no prepayment penalty, and if the extra is applied to principal rather than just toward later payments, then paying extra saves you money. Paying more often, by itself, doesn't. Paying early within a single month (ie, paying off the loan at the same average rate) doesn't save enough you be worth considering",
"It's definitely NOT a good idea to pay off one of the smaller loans in your case - a $4k payment split across all the loans would be better than repaying the 5% / $4k loan completely, as it's the most beneficial of your loans and thus is last priority for repayment. A payment that splits across all the loans equally is, in effect, a partial repayment on a loan with an interest rate of 6.82% (weighed average rate of all your loans). It's not as good as repaying a 7% loan, but almost as good. It might be an option to save up until you can repay one of your 7% loans, but it depends - if it takes a lot of time, then you would've paid unneccessary interest during that time.",
"My advice is that if you've got the money now to pay off your student loans, do so. You've saved up all of that money in one year's time. If you pay it off now, you'll eliminate all of those monthly payments, you'll be done paying interest, and you should be able to save even more toward your business over the next year. Over the next year, you can get started on your business part time, while still working full time to pile up cash toward your business. Neither you nor your business will be paying interest on anything, and you'll start out in a very strong position. The interest on your student loans might be tax deductible, depending on your situation. However, this doesn't really matter a whole lot, in my opinion. You've got about $22k in debt, and the interest will cost you roughly $1k over the next year. Why pay $1k to the bank to gain maybe $250 in tax savings? Starting a business is stressful. There will be good times and bad. How long will it take you to pay off your debt at $250 a month? 5 or 6 years, probably. By eliminating the debt now, you'll be able to save up capital for your business even faster. And when you experience some slow times in your business, your monthly expenses will be less.",
"\"First to actually answer the question \"\"how long at these rates/payments?\"\"- These is nothing magic or nefarious about what the bank is doing. They add accrued interest and take your payment off the new total. I'd make higher payments to the 8.75% debt until it's gone, $100/mo extra and be done. The first debt, if you bump it to $50 will be paid in 147 months, at $75/mo, 92 months. Everything you pay above the minimum goes right to the principal balance and gets you closer to paying it off. The debt snowball is not the ideal way to pay off your debt. Say I have one 24% credit card the bank was nice enough to give me a $20,000 line of credit on. I also have 20 cards each with $1000 in credit, all at 6%. The snowball dictates that the smallest debt be paid first, so while I pay the minimum on the 24% card, the 6% cards get paid off one by one, but I'm supposed to feel good about the process, as I reduce the number of cards every few months. The correct way to line up debt is to pay off the (tax adjusted) highest rate first, as an extra $100 to the 24% card saves you $2/mo vs 50 cents/mo for the 6% cards. I wrote an article discussing the Debt Snowball which links to a calculator where you can see the difference in methods. I note that if the difference from lowest to highest rate is small, the Snowball method will only cost you a small amount more. If, by coincidence, the balances are close, the difference will also be small. The above aside, it's the rest of your situation that will tell you the right path for you. For example, a matched 401(k) deposit should take priority over most debt repayment. The $11,000 might be better conserved for a house downpayment as that $66/mo is student loan and won't count as the housing debt, rather \"\"other debt\"\" and part of the higher ratio when qualifying for the mortgage. If you already have taken this into account, by all means, pay off the 8.75% debt asap, then start paying off the 3% faster. Keep in mind, this is likely the lowest rate debt one can have and once paid off, you can't withdraw it again. So it's important to consider the big picture first. (Are you depositing to a retirement account? Is it a 401(k) and are you getting any matching from the company?)\"",
"Look at my answer here, and then calculate again. If you keep on saving and keep on paying off your highest interest rate loan, you'll be 'making' money. Also look at this answer here for saving or paying back. Basically, you should always calculate whether the money you have is better 'spend' in a savings account or as a return payment to your loan. Always tackle the highest interest loan first. My 0,02€",
"Strictly from a fastest payback standpoint, the rule is to make all minimum payments and send any extra funds to the highest interest loan next. This will result in the lowest interest paid each year. The decision to consolidate depends on the impact it will have to both your payment and overall payoff schedule. It sounds like your priority might need to be cash flow and not overall savings. e.g. taking a 4% loan that has a high payment, but stretching it over more time can lower the payment, even at a bit higher rate. You just need to be aware of the cost and decide based on what you can live with. I hope you are in a good field that would see improvements to your income over these next few years.",
"You mention only two debts, mortgage and student loan, but you mention $19K in savings, which suggests that you are a saver, and likely do not have other debts. You did not mention your (net) income and expenses (income statement), but since you have substantial savings, you likely live within your means (income > expenses). Since you mention $38K in retirement, we might conclude you are regularly saving for retirement (are you saving 10% toward retirement)? You did not mention any medical condition or other debts, that might require a large savings, so I would suggest having 6 months savings ($2.5K x 6 = $15K) but should your net expenses be less, you might reduce this ($2K x 6 = $12K). You do not mention any investment you might want to make, but since you did not mention any candidate investments, we can assume you have no (specific) investments you find particularly attractive. You did not mention anything you were saving to purchase that you might want to purchase. You have combined $19K + $50K = $69K savings, and $15K would be a comfortable emergency savings, leaving $54K you could use to reduce mortgage or student loan debt. The mortgage debt interest @4.5%, is higher, so paying that debt off would be like earning 4.5% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free. At your income, your marginal tax rate is low enough that the mortgage interest deduction (if you do itemize) would not reduce this return much (15% if you itemize). The student loan debt interest @2.8%, would be like earning 2.8% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free. Clearly the higher return on your 'investment' in paying off debt would be reducing your mortgage balance (over 50% higher return on investment, compared to the student loan debt). You did not mention any circumstance that might cause the student loan rate to increase, the mortgage rate to increase, nor did you mention any difficulty making both the mortgage and student loan payments, the amounts of either payment, nor the number of years remaining to pay on either. Should you need (or desire) to reduce your payments, you could choose to payoff the student loan to eliminate one payment, and thus decrease your expenses. Or you could choose to pay down the mortgage, and refinance (or refactor) the mortgage to obtain a smaller payment. Another strategy (assuming you have had your house for 5-7 years), might be to pay the mortgage down enough to refinance into a 15 year loan, and (assuming you have a good credit score) obtain a lower (3%) rate. But I am going to suggest you consider a blended approach. Combine the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach with the reduce the interest rate approach. Take the $54K ($57K?) available (after reserving 6 months emergency fund), and split between both. You pay your mortgage down by $27K and your student loan debt down by $27K. Your blended return on investment is (2.8+4.5)/2 = 3.65%, and you have the following Balance Sheet: Assets: Debts: The next steps would be to, There are two great reasons for paying off the student loan debt. One is the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach which is that this is the smaller debt, and thus represents a psychological win, and the other is that student loan debt has special treatment even in bankruptcy.",
"By paying the $11,000 into the 2.54% loan you will save $23.30 in interest every month. By paying the $11,000 into the 3.625% loan you will save $33.20 in interest every month. If your objective is to get rid of one loan quicker so repayments can go to the other loan to pay off sooner, I would put the $11,000 into the 2.54% loan and pay that off as quick as possible, then put any extra payments into the mortgage at 3.625%. Pay only the minimum amounts into the 0% car loan as this is not costing you anything.",
"First, let me fill in the gaps on your situation, based on the numbers you've given so far. I estimate that your student loan balance (principal) is $21,600. With the variable rate loan option that you've presented, the maximum interest rate you could be charged would be 11.5%, which would bring your monthly payment up to that $382 number you gave in the comments. Your thoughts are correct about the advantage to paying this loan off sooner. If you are planning on paying off this loan sooner, the interest rate on the variable rate loan has less opportunity to climb. One thing to be cautious of with the comparison, though: The $1200 difference between the two options is only valid if your rate does not increase. If the rate does increase, of course, the difference would be less, or it could even go the other way. So keep in mind that the $1200 savings is only a theoretical maximum; you won't actually see that much savings with the variable rate option. Before making a decision, you need to find out more about the terms of this variable rate loan: How often can your rate go up? What is the loan rate based on? I'm not as familiar with student loan variable rate loans, but there are other variable rate loans I am familiar with: With a typical adjustable rate home mortgage, the rate is locked for a certain number of years (perhaps 5 years). After that, the bank might be allowed to raise the rate once every period of months (perhaps once every year). There will be a limit to how much the rate can rise on each increase (perhaps 1.0%), and there will be a maximum rate that could be charged over the life of the loan (perhaps 12%). The interest rate on your mortgage can adjust up, inside of those parameters. (The actual formula used to adjust will be found in the fine print of your mortgage contract.) However, the bank knows that if they let your rate get too high above the current market rates, you will refinance to a different bank. So the mortgage is typically structured so that it will raise your rate somewhat, but it won't usually get too far above the market rate. If you knew ahead of time that you would have the house paid off in 5 years, or that you would be selling the house before the 5 years is over, you could confidently take the adjustable rate mortgage. Credit cards, on the other hand, also typically have variable rates. These rates can change every month, but they are usually calculated on some formula determined ahead of time. For example, on my credit card, the interest rate is the published Prime Rate plus 13.65%. On my last statement, it said the rate was 17.15%. (Of course, because I pay my balance in full each month, I don't pay any interest. The rate could go up to 50%, for all I care.) As I said, I don't know what determines the rate on your variable rate student loan option, and I don't know what the limits are. If it climbs up to 11.5%, that is obviously ridiculously high. I recommend that you try to pay off this student loan as soon as you possibly can; however, if you are not planning on paying off this student loan early, you need to try to determine how likely the rate is to climb if you want to pick the variable rate option.",
"If you have a minimum monthly payment amount of $190, then you have to make a payment every month. If you pay only every 3 months (even if you pay 3 times the minimum amount, or much more), you would not be making the minimum monthly payment for each month: one month would get the minimum monthly payment, plus a lot more, then the following 2 months you would be in default because you didn't pay the minimum amount for that month! Interest is usually accrued daily, so you want to make the payments as early as possible. Pay back as much as you can afford each month, as soon as the money comes in. When computing how much you can afford, if you haven't already done so, it may be a good idea to keep a little bit aside (at least the first few months, to build up a little security pillow), just in case you need it (you won't be able to get money back from those overpayments if you need any money for an emergency).",
"\"Two things you should consider about paying off student loans ahead of the 10 year amortization schedule: What interest rate are you paying on your loans? What are you earning on your investments in a balanced mutual fund? When you pay off your student loans you are essentially guaranteed a return of the interest rate on your loan (future interest you would have had to pay). However if you are investing well and getting a good return on your investments you will get a greater return. Ex. Half of my student loans are at 6.8%, thr other half are at 2.5%. I make the minimum payments on the loans at 2.5% and invest my money in tax sheltered retirement accounts. The return on these funds has been 8% and that is on per-tax dollars so really closer to 11%. Now there is also downside risk when you invest in the market, but 2.5% guaranteed I will forgoe for 11% in low risk return. However my loans at 6.8% I repay in excess of the minimums because 6.8% guaranteed return is pretty good! So this decision is based on your confidence in your investments and your own risk tolerance. Once you pay your bank on your student loans that money is gone, out of your control. If you need it in the future you may need to pay higher interest on an unsecured loan, or you may not be able to borrow it. When you want to make large purchases (a car, house) that money you per-paid on your loans isn't available to you as a down payment. Banks should want you to have some of your own \"\"skin in the game\"\" on these purchases and the lending standards keep getting tougher. You are better off if you have money saved in your name rather than against the balance on your loan. Yes you can't bankrupt these loans, but the money you repay on them doesn't go toward housing you or paying your bills on a rainy day. I went through the same feeling when I completed my MBA with $50k in debt, you want to pay it off as soon as possible. But you need to step away and realize that it was an investment in your future and your future is long, you need time to make a financial foundation for it. And you will feel a lot more empowered when you have money saved and you can make the decision for how you want to deploy it to work for you. (Ex. I could pay down my student loans with the balance I have in the bank, but I am going to use it to invest in myself and open my own business).\"",
"\"It is typically best to pay minimum payments to 2 of the loans and pay aggressively on the third loan. Some will tell you to pay the highest interest rate loan off first because \"\"personal finance\"\" is about \"\"finance\"\" and mathematically that saves you the most interest. Some will tell you to pay the smallest balance loan off first because \"\"personal finance\"\" is \"\"personal\"\" and the psychological \"\"win\"\" of paying off a loan is more valuable than the small amount of interest difference between this strategy and paying off the loan with the highest interest rate first.\"",
"\"Which option will save you the most money in the long run? That is tough. Assuming you stay healthy, don't lose your job, don't experience a pay cut or any major emergency that drains your savings, then applying the $6000 to the higher interest loan will save you more money in the long run. However, the difference in savings is a few hundred dollars. Not much really. So, in this case, I'd put the $6k towards the smaller loan. Why? Because then you'd pay it off faster. Once that's done, you open up your cash flow by the minimum monthly payment you would have had on that loan. Assuming they both have the same or similar number of months left, by paying the smaller loan off sooner, you'd open up $X month, where $X is your minimum monthly payment. This could be useful to you if you want to take on some other debt (like buying a house) because it lowers your debt to income ratio. If you put that money towards the higher loan, your DTI won't change until the normal time you would have paid off the smaller loan. Even if you are not looking to purchase anything that requires you to have a lower DTI, paying the smaller loan off sooner increases your cash flow sooner (because your monthly payment on the higher loan doesn't change just because you lowered the balance by $6k). So you'd be more robust to emergencies if your current income doesn't allow for much savings. A major emergency could wipe out all savings from paying down the bigger balance. So, I'd suggest: Edit: TripeHound asked a question, pretty much requesting more details for why I was biased towards paying off the smaller loan first. What follows is my response, with a bit of reorganization: Typically, people asking these questions don't have so much wealth that \"\"which loan to pay first?\"\" is an academic question. They need to make smart financial decisions. While paying the highest interest loan saves the most money in interest - that only occurs under the assumption that nothing bad will ever happen to you until the loans are paid off. In reality, other things happen. Tires blow out, children get sick, you get laid off and so the \"\"best\"\" thing to do is the one that maximizes your long term financial health, even if it comes at the expense of a few $k more interest. Each loan has a minimum monthly payment. Let's assume, barring any windfalls of additional cash, you will just make the minimum payments each month towards a loan. If you pay off the smaller loan first, that increases your available monthly cash flow. At that point, you can put extra towards the other loan. However, if an emergency should come up, or you need to save for a vacation, you can do that, without negatively impacting the second loan, because you'd just drop back to its minimum payment. Putting the money towards the higher balance loan would mean it takes you longer to reach this point as the time to reach payoff on the first loan will not change ($6k only reduces the $25.6k loan to $19.6k) so you never gain the flexibility of additional cash flow until the time you would have paid off the $13.5k originally. I'd rather have a few hundred dollars each month that I can choose to use to make additional loan payments, eat out, pay for car repairs, pay for emergencies than be forced to dip into credit or worse, pay day loans, should an emergency happen.\"",
"3 years ago I wrote Student Loans and Your First Mortgage in response to this exact question by a fellow blogger in my state. What I focused on was the way banks qualify you for a loan, a percentage for the housing cost, and a higher number that also comprises all other debt. If the goal is speed-to-purchase, you make minimum payments on the student loan, and save for the $100K downpayment as fast as you can. The question back to you is whether the purchase is your priority, and how debt averse you are. I'd caution, if you work for a company with a matched 401(k), I'd still deposit to the match, but no more. Personal finance is just that, personal. We don't know your entire situation, your current rental expenses vs your total condo cost when you buy. If you are in a location where renting costs far more than your cost of ownership, Ben might change his mind a bit. If the reverse is true, you're living a college student's lifestyle with a room costing $400/mo sharing a house with friends, I'll back off and say to pay the loan and save until you can't tolerate the situation. You'll find there are few situations that have a perfect answer without having all the details.",
"Would you borrow money at 3% just to leave it in a savings account? That's effectively what you're doing by not paying of your student loans. I would pay of all of the student loans, and consider putting a little toward the car loan. If you do run into an emergency you still have your $2K/month to help build your savings back up.",
"\"A major thing to consider when deciding whether to invest or pay off debt is cash flow. Specifically, how each choice affects your cash flow, and how your cash flow is affected by various events. Simply enough, your cash flow is the amount of money that passes through your finances during a given period (often a month or a year). Some of this is necessary payments, like staying current on loans, rent, etc., while other parts are not necessary, such as eating out. For example, you currently have $5,500 debt at 3% and another $2,500 at 5%. This means that every month, your cashflow effect of these loans is ($5,500 * 3% / 12) + ($2,500 * 5% / 12) = $24 interest (before any applicable tax effects), plus any required payments toward the principal which you don't state. To have the $8,000 paid off in 30 years, you'd be paying another $33 toward the principal, for a total of about $60 per month before tax effects in your case. If you take the full $7,000 you have available and use it to pay off the debt starting with the higher-interest loan, then your situation changes such that you now: Assuming that the repayment timeline remains the same, the cashflow effect of the above becomes $1,000 * 3% / 12 = $2.50/month interest plus $2.78/month toward the principal, again before tax effects. In one fell swoop, you just reduced your monthly payment from $60 to $5.25. Per year, this means $720 to $63, so on the $7,000 \"\"invested\"\" in repayment you get $657 in return every year for a 9.4% annual return on investment. It will take you about 11 years to use only this money to save another $7,000, as opposed to the 30 years original repayment schedule. If the extra payment goes toward knocking time off the existing repayment schedule but keeping the amount paid toward the principal per month the same, you are now paying $33 toward the principal plus $2.50 interest against the $1,000 loan, which means by paying $35.50/month you will be debt free in 30 months: two and a half years, instead of 30 years, an effective 92% reduction in repayment time. You immediately have another about $25/month in your budget, and in two and a half years you will have $60 per month that you wouldn't have if you stuck with the original repayment schedule. If instead the total amount paid remains the same, you are then paying about $57.50/month toward the principal and will be debt free in less than a year and a half. Not too shabby, if you ask me. Also, don't forget that this is a known, guaranteed return in that you know what you would be paying in interest if you didn't do this, and you know what you will be paying in interest if you do this. Even if the interest rate is variable, you can calculate this to a reasonable degree of certainty. The difference between those two is your return on investment. Compare this to the fact that while an investment in the S&P might have similar returns over long periods of time, the stock market is much more volatile in the shorter term (as the past two decades have so eloquently demonstrated). It doesn't do you much good if an investment returns 10% per year over 30 years, if when you need the money it's down 30% because you bought at a local peak and have held the investment for only a year. Also consider if you go back to school, are you going to feel better about a $5.25/month payment or a $60/month payment? (Even if the payments on old debt are deferred while you are studying, you will still have to pay the money, and it will likely be accruing interest in the meantime.) Now, I really don't advocate emptying your savings account entirely the way I did in the example above. Stuff happens all the time, and some stuff that happens costs money. Instead, you should be keeping some of that money easily available in a liquid, non-volatile form (which basically means a savings account without withdrawal penalties or a money market fund, not the stock market). How much depends on your necessary expenses; a buffer of three months' worth of expenses is an often recommended starting point for an emergency fund. The above should however help you evaluate how much to keep, how much to invest and how much to use to pay off loans early, respectively.\"",
"The typical case would be - as you expected - that the interest goes down equally dramatically, and you would pay much less interest. Note that that does not remove your obligation to pay the full 1000 every month - even though you could argue that you are 90 months ahead in paying, you still need to deliver 1000 a month, until it is fully paid. Some mortgages are made differently - they do not allow that. Basically, if you pay a large amount at once, it is considered a 'pre-payment' for the next x month. As a result, you are now x months ahead (and could stop paying for that much time), but your interest stays high. The latter type 'protects' the bank against 'losing' the interest income they already planned for. As a balance, those type of mortgages are typically slightly cheaper (because the bank is in a better position). You did not specify a country; in Germany, typically all mortgages are of the second type; but - you can get 1.35% mortgages... In the US, most are the first. You need to check which type you have, best before you pay a large amount. In the latter case, it is better to invest that money and use it to pay off as soon as you reach the threshold; in the first case, any extra payoff is to your advantage.",
"I am answering this in light of the OP mentioning the desire to buy a house. A proper mortgage uses debt to income ratios. Typically 28/36 which means 28% of monthly gross can go toward PITI (principal, interest, tax, insurance) and the total debt can go as high as 36% including credit cards and car payment etc. So, if you earn $5000/mo (for easy math) the 8% gap (between 28 and 36) is $400. If you have zero debt, they don't let you use it for the mortgage, it's just ignored. So a low interest long term student loan should not be accelerated if you are planning to buy a house, better put that money to the down payment. But for credit cards, the $400/mo carries $8000 (banks treat it as though the payment is 5% of debt owed). So, I'd attack that debt with a vengeance. No eating out, no movies, beer, etc. Pay it off as if your life depended on it, and you'll be happier in the long run.",
"It really depends on the terms of your loan. For example, some loans have a pre-payment penalty. You will just have to ask your lender to know for sure. That said. In almost all cases, you can save considerable interest by making extra payments towards the principal. Be careful though, some lenders require you to specifically mark the payment to be applied to the loan principal and if you don't designate it as such, they will just apply it as an early payment for future months and not reduce your balance until that future payment is due, which doesn't help at all. Another option to reduce your total interest costs, though more common for larger loans like mortgages, is to split the payment into multiple parts and pay more than once a month instead of a single payment each month. This only works if they calculate interest daily and would be useless if they do it monthly. They key is knowing the terms of your loan. Despite it not being in their best interest (pun intended), most lenders will work with you on a strategy to help you minimize the interest cost in the name of customer service.",
"\"A Tweep friend asked me a similar question. In her case it was in the larger context of a marriage and house purchase. In reply I wrote a detail article Student Loans and Your First Mortgage. The loan payment easily fit between the generally accepted qualifying debt ratios, 28% for house/36 for all debt. If the loan payment has no effect on the mortgage one qualifies for, that's one thing, but taking say $20K to pay it off will impact the house you can buy. For a 20% down purchase, this multiplies up to $100k less house. Or worse, a lower down payment percent then requiring PMI. Clearly, I had a specific situation to address, which ultimately becomes part of the list for \"\"pay off student loan? Pro / Con\"\" Absent the scenario I offered, I'd line up debt, highest to lowest rate (tax adjusted of course) and hack away at it all. It's part of the big picture like any other debt, save for the cases where it can be cancelled. Personal finance is exactly that, personal. Advisors (the good ones) make their money by looking carefully at the big picture and not offering a cookie-cutter approach.\"",
"If you can get a rate of savings that is higher than your debt, you save. If you can't then you pay off your debt. That makes the most of the money you have. Also to think about: what are you goals? Do you want to own a home, start a family, further your education, move to a new town? All of these you would need to save up for. If you can do these large transactions in cash you will be better off. If it were me I would do what I think is a parroting of Dave Ramsay's advice Congratulations by the way. It isn't easy to do what you have accomplished and you will lead a simpler life if you don't have to worry about money everyday.",
"Good credit is calculated (by many lenders) by taking your FICO score which is calculated based upon what is in your credit report. Building credit generally means building up your FICO score. Your FICO score is impacted my many factors, one small one of which is your utilization ratio of your installment loans like student loans. This is the ratio of the current balance to your original balance. To improve your score (slightly) you would want a lower ratio. I would recommend paying your student loan down to 75% ratio as fast as you can and then you can go back to $50/month. A much better way to improve your FICO score is to have revolving credit. Your student loans are not revolving, they are installment loans. Therefore, you should open at least one credit card (assuming you currently have none) right away. The longer you have had a credit card open, the better your FICO score gets. Your revolving credit utilization ratio is way more important than your installment loan ratio. Therefore, to maximize your FICO, try to never have more than 10% utilization on your revolving credit report to the credit bureaus each month. Only the current month's ratio affects your score at any given moment. You can ensure you don't go above 10% by paying your balance before the statement cuts each month to get it below 10% way before any payment would be due. (You should always pay your remaining credit card statement balance in full each month by the due date after the statement cuts to avoid any interest charges.) Note that there is a slight FICO advantage to having at least one major bank credit card instead of just only credit union credit cards. Also, never let all your revolving credit report a zero balance in a month, you must always have at least $1 reporting to the credit bureaus on at least one of your open credit cards or your FICO score will take a big negative hit. If you cannot get a normal credit card, go to a credit union and find one that offers secured credit cards, or a bank that does. A secured credit card is where you place a deposit with the bank that they hold and give you a credit limit to match your security. Ideally it would be a card that graduates to unsecured after your demonstrate good history with them. For example, the Navy Federal Credit Union secured card unsecures for many people. I also believe the Wells Fargo Bank credit card (you can join if there is a family member who served or a roomate who did) also will unsecure. The reason you want it to unsecure and not be forced to open a new account to get an unsecured account is that you want your average age and oldest age of open revolving credit accounts to be as high as possible as this is another impact on your FICO score. Credit unions that anyone can join include, Digital Federal Credit Union, the Pentagon Federal Credit Union (which offers a secured card that does not graduate), and The State Department Federal Credit Union (also offers secured card that I think does not graduate). One other method to boost your FICO score is to get added as an authorized user on one of your parent's credit cards that has been open a long time. Not all lenders will report such an authorized user, however, ones that are known to do so are: Bank of America, Citi Bank, and Capital One. It is a good sign that it will report if they ask for the social security number of the authorized user. However, note that the Authorized User addition can have no impact if the lender is using one of the newer versions of the FICO scoring model, only the older versions reward you for the age of accounts for which you are an authorized user. A very long term boost is to open your first American Express card underwritten directly by Amex such as their Zync card which is pretty easy to get. The advantage of American express is that they remember the date your first credit card was opened with them and if you open new accounts in the future they will back date the date of their opening to match the date your first card was opened. If you let your membership lapse, be sure to record the account number and date opened in your personal files so that you can help them locate it again if you reopen as they can have trouble if it has been on the order of ten years or more. Finally, note that the number of accounts opened in the last twelve months is a small negative mark on your score (along with number of inquiries), so if you open a lot of accounts all at once, in addition to bringing down your average age of accounts, you will also get dinged for how many were opened in the last year.",
"\"Will the proportion of my payments towards interest eventually go down? Yes. Today would be a good day to do a web search for \"\"amortization schedule\"\". You will quickly learn how to compute precisely how much of each payment goes to interest and how much goes to principal given different payment choices. Would it be wiser to spend more each month on loan payments? That depends on your goals and resources, which we know nothing about. If you have extra money you could spend it on debt reduction, or you could spend it on an investment that pays more money in growth or dividends than the interest you'd save. Or you could decide that the longer you have that loan, sure, the more interest you'll pay, but inflation will make future money less valuable. Basically, by taking out a loan you have chosen to gamble that the thing you bought with the loaned money will be worth the cost of the interest payments in the future, adjusted for inflation. The bank on the other hand is gambling that you're good for the debt and that they can make a reasonable profit off it. If you have more money to gamble with, which bet is the wisest one is really up to you. would it be smarter to try to pay off one loan before the other? If you want to pay off a loan early then always choose the loan with the higher interest rate. should I start making bi-weekly payments instead of monthly? That's roughly equivalent to paying off the principal by one additional payment a year. There are two reasons to do so. The first is that the total interest will be lower and the loan will be paid off faster. You can work out exactly how much with your new found skill at amortization computation. The second is the simple convenience of knowing that your budget for each pay period is the same. That convenience is worth something; is it worth the amount extra you'll be paying every year? Again, this is for you to decide. Work out how much extra you're paying per year and how much you're saving in the long run, and compare that against the benefit.\"",
"Should I use the profit to pay down student loans or just roll it into my next house in order to have a lower mortgage amount? Calculate the amount of interest in each scenario, where the two scenarios are: Use extra cash to pay down student loans, take out a full mortgage. Use extra cash to make a big down payment on the next house, keep paying down student loans at normal rate. In both scenarios the student loan rate will stay the same. However in the second scenario you may get a lower interest rate from making a larger down payment. So then calculate the total interest resulting from each scenario: student loan rateXremaining student loan balance=student loan interest new mortgage rateXnew mortgage balance=mortgage interest scenario 1 interest = student loan interest+mortgage interest student loan rateXstudent loan balance = student loan interest new mortgage rate with large down paymentXnew mortgage balance after large down payment = mortgage interest scenario 2 interest = student loan interest+mortgage interest Whichever scenario's interest is lower will save money.",
"I have heard that it is better for your credit score to pay them down over time. Will it make much of a difference? I have never heard that, however, the financial institutions (who are charging you an amount of interest which was at one time in the not so distant past classified and punishable in state criminal codes) really enjoy you thinking that way. You are clearly capable of doing the math yourself. While I don't know the exact numbers, I am totally confident that you will find in about 5 or 10 minutes (if that long) that eliminating debt of any kind in your life will pay an immediate return that beats the great majority of other investments in terms of risk/reward. After the immediate financial return, there is a quieter, subtler, and even greater long term benefit. Basic principle: Highest Rates First Perhaps this decision could be considered slightly less important than deciding not to smoke during your youth; but I would put it as a close second. You are already in a position where you can see the damage that your prior decisions (about financial debt) have produced. Run the clock back to the time in your life when you were debt free. Now, pay off that debt with the big check, and start from zero. Now, turn on your psychic powers and predict the same amount of time, in the future, with the same amount of money (don't even try to adjust for inflation; just use flat dollars) WITHOUT losing the money which you have given to the financial institutions during this previous part of your life. Do you now see why the financial institutions want you to think about slowly paying them off instead of waking up tomorrow without owing them anything ?",
"\"Although there is no single best answer to your situation, several other people have already suggest it in some form: always pay off your highest after-tax (!) interest loan first! That being said, you probably also have heard about the differentiation for good debt vs. bad debt. Good debt is considered a mortgage for buying your primary home or, as is the case here, debt for education. As far as I am concerned, those are pretty much the only two types of debt I'd ever tolerate. (There may be exceptions for health/medical reasons.) Everything else is consumer debt and my personal rule is, don't buy it if you don't have the money for it! Meaning, don't take on consumer debt. One other thing you may consider before accelerating paying off your student debt, the interest paid on it may be tax deductible. So you should look at what the true interest is on your student loan after taxes. If it is in the (very) low single digits, meaning between 1-3%, you may consider using the extra money towards an automatic investment plan into an ETF index fund. But that would be a question you should discuss with your tax accountant or financial adviser. It is also critical in that case that you don't view the money invested as \"\"found\"\" money later on, unless you have paid off all your debt. (This part is the most difficult for most people so be very cautious and conscious if you decide to go this route!) At any rate, congratulations on making so much progress paying off your debt! Keep it going.\"",
"Keep 3-6 months (or more if you need to, for me the number is 9 months) worth of expenses in an emergency fund. Put the rest against the student loan. The length of time depends on your situation. I have family, and work in IT. Changing jobs takes me longer, because ... reasons. Having less than 6-9 months of buffer means that I have to rush and possibly take a position that is not a good fit, or get behind on payments. So, set aside your emergency fund, add to it if you need to. Once it is fully funded, take the money you were using to fund the emergency fund and budget that to clearing student loans. Also, don't start new credit cards, and be sure to never carry a balance on them. I know it seems like a lot, but keep in mind that yours is small, and you'll likely be able to knock it out in a very short time. Edit (after OP listed expenses): Taking into account the expenses you listed, it looks like you have about 2000 per month in expenses (if you're in emergency fund mode, luxuries can wait, and you can tighten the belt on food, so go with the lower end of your estimate.) Lets say you have 600 a month to work with. My suggestion would be bring savings up to $6000. That will take you two months. Then pay 850 a month to student loans. You'll be paid off in a year, and still have 6000 for emergencies. Once you're done, you will have 850 a month to save and invest. With patience, persistence and care, you can start a nest egg that will allow you to remain financially independent. Search around for FIRE (financial independence, retire early) and other strategies for retirement savings and investing. Be sure to save for retirement. The worst inheritance to leave your loved ones would be to become financially dependent upon them in your later years. And watch out for credit, it's a trap.",
"Its almost always better to pay off loans sooner rather than later. Being debt free is amazingly liberating. However, in your case, I'd be reluctant to make significant headway on a loan repayment program. Here's why: The best investment you can make, right now, is in yourself. Completing your education should be the top priority. The next would be to meet the requirements of a job after received after school is complete. So what I would do is estimate the amount of money it would take to complete school. Add to that an estimate of an amount to move to a new city and setup a household. That amount should be held in reserve. Anything above that can used to pay down loans. Once you complete school and get settled into a job, you can then take that money and also throw it at your loans.",
"An extra payment on a loan is, broadly speaking, a known-return, risk-free investment. (That the return on the investment is in reduced costs going forward instead of increased revenue is basically immaterial, assuming you have sufficient cash flow to handle either situation.) We can't know what the interest rates will be like going forward, but we can know what they are today, because you gave us those numbers in your question. Quick now: Given the choice between a known return of 3.7% annually and a known return of 7% annually, with identical (and extremely low) risk, where would you invest your money? By putting the $15k toward the $14k loan, you free up $140 per month and have $1k left that you can put toward the $30k loan, which will reduce your payment term by $1k / $260/month or about 4 months. You will be debt free in 14 years 8 months. You pay $14,000 instead of $16,800 on the $14,000 loan, reducing the total cost of the loan by $2,800, and reduce the cost of the $30,000 loan by four months' worth of interest which is about $175 (so the $30,000 loan ends up costing you something like $46,600 instead of $46,800). By putting the $15k toward the $30k loan, you cut the principal of that one in half. Assuming that you keep paying the same amount each month, you will reduce the payment term by 7 ½ years, and will be debt free in 10 years (because the $14,000 10-year loan now has the longer term). Instead of paying $46,800 for the $30k loan, you end up paying $23,400 plus the $15,000 = $38,400, reducing the total cost of the $30,000 loan by $8,400 while doing nothing to reduce the cost of the $14,000 loan. To a first order estimate, using the $15,000 to pay off the $14,000 loan in full will improve your cash flow in the short term, but putting the money toward the $30,000 loan will give you a three-fold better return on investment over the term of both loans and nearly halve the total loan term, assuming unchanged monthly payments and unchanged interest rates. That's how powerful compounding interest is.",
"So one approach would be purely mathematical: look at whichever has the higher interest rate and pay it first. Another approach is to ignore the math (since the interest savings difference between a mortgage and student loan is likely small anyways) and think about what your goals are. Do you like having a student loan payment? Would you prefer to get rid of it as quickly as possible? How would it feel to cut the balance in HALF in one shot? If it were me, I would pay the student loan as fast as possible. Student loans are not cancellable or bankruptable, and once you get it paid off you can put that payment amount toward your house to get it paid off.",
"\"From a financial point of view: If your savings are 'free' (you don't expect to need it in the near future): pay off the loan completely. You say you feel a little hesitant, and this I understand. \"\"What if you unexpectedly do need that cash in the near future?\"\" A simple solution is to pay off the loan in 4 or 6 steps, say each other month. This way you mitigate the risk of regret.\"",
"I don't understand the calculations in the comments by the OP. He says My monthly savings after mandatory expense is around USD 2000. This includes rent, expenses, emergency fund savings, and the monthly required payment of my auto loan. (emphasis added) He has $2000 USD left over after monthly expenses (which includes rent, food, utilities etc, contribution towards emergency funds, and the required monthly payment on the auto loan). He claims that by applying the $2000 USD per month towards reducing the debt, it would take him 30-36 months to be debt-free. But is it not the case that applying the $2000 to the student loan of $18K+ (while continuing to make the auto loan payments) will pay the student loan off in less than 10 months? If no payments are made on that $18K+ student loan, the accrued interest of about $2K in 10 months (this is (18.25*13.7%*)(10/12) for a total of $20K+). In actuality, with the loan being paid down, the interest will be much less. Once the student loan is paid off, the extra $2000 can go towards what is left of the $10K auto loan each month and pay it off in another 4 or 5 months or so. So we are talking of 15 months max instead of 30-36 months. Of course, as Carlos Briebiescas points out, the car is more valuable as an asset than can be sold in case of job loss creating a need for cash etc, and so paying it off first might be better, but that is a different calculation.",
"Two different questions: Is it better to be in debt or to pay off the debt? And: Is it better to have student debt than other debt? Any debt needs to be paid off eventually, and any debt makes you less flexible. So if you have the choice between spending/wasting your money and paying off debt, I would recommend paying off the debt. The other question is whether having student debt is better than having other debt. You need to look at the terms of your student debt. Pay off the debt with the worst conditions first. Loan sharks (in Britain: pay-day loans) must be paid first. Credit cards debt must go next. Then general loans. Depending on your situation, you may want some savings as well. In case you lose your job, for example. So if you have $8,000 saved and an $8,000 student loan, you might consider waiting a bit before you pay back the loan. No job + $8,000 student loan + $8,000 in the bank is better than no job + no debt + no money in the bank.",
"Here's what I'd do. Show these figures to your bank, and ask if they can offer you some type of account with a small overdraft, say up to $2000. Typically this won't pay the same kind of interest as your savings account, but it doesn't matter. If such an account is available, then yes, dump most of your savings into the student loan, and keep a few hundred in your new account. The overdraft on this account is your emergency fund. This means that in the more likely scenario (no emergencies) you're saving yourself 6% interest on something like $4000 to $4500. In the case of an emergency, you're still covered; but you'll be paying a larger amount of interest. Let's say you have an emergency cost and need to dip into the overdraft for $1000. If the interest is 15%, then you've cost yourself an extra 9% on that $1000 over leaving that debt in the student loan. This seems to me like a really good gamble - more likely to gain 6% of $4000, less likely to lose 9% of $1000. If your bank won't give you a low-interest account with a small overdraft, then use your credit card as your emergency fund. The same kind of logic applies; but since credit card interest rates are typically higher than overdraft interest rates, you'll want to keep slightly more in your savings account. About $1200 to $1500 feels right to me; and move the remaining $3500 to $3800 to your student loan. So yes, pay off the student loan. That 6% interest really is worth having, even if you'd be taking a small gamble. Edit - Alexander Kosubek has suggested that I should compare this to matched retirement plans. The 100% gain in a matched retirement plan isn't 100% per annum; it's 100% divided across the length of time you have to wait until you can get your hands on that money. Suppose the money is accessible when you turn 60 - a matched plan is a good deal if you're in your 50's, but not so good if you're in your 20's. The 100% matching is equivalent to 6% interest per annum compounded over slightly under 12 years. So if you're less than 12 years away from retiring, go for the matched plan. Otherwise, pay off your student loan first.",
"Here's my take on it (and quite a few people might disagree) - student loans aren't bankruptable, so they'll stay with you forever. So if you want to reduce your risk over time and have a funded emergency fund and some cash put aside for, say, a car or another major expense, then I'd try to throw money at the student loan to get rid of it quickly.",
"but then they make suggestions such as paying extra each month on your mortgage. How else does one pay off his mortgage early other than by paying extra each month? The principal and interest are fixed, no matter how much money you throw at them. The interest rate is fixed. The total interest paid varies depending on how much extra you pay towards the principal. You'll pay the same amount every month regardless. That's factually incorrect. just put the extra money into savings At 1.2%, if you're smart enough to put it in an on-line savings account. until you have enough to pay off the mortgage Which costs you 3.5%. This way, the money is locked up in your home. Who says that all of your money must be locked up in your home? (I'm sure that there are financial advisors who recommend that you throw every single spare dime into extra mortgage payments, but they're rare.) Am I missing something? Yes: the mathematical sense to see that a 3.5% loan costs more than than 1.2% savings earns you",
"A tip I tend to put in here that doesn't directly relate to student loan payments, but does matter: Don't focus so much on student loan payments that you find yourself needing to tap short-term credit sources to make ends meet. Making a $100 payment on a 6% interest student loan and then needing to charge a $100 car repair on your 19% interest credit card is not a sound financial move.",
"Finish off the student loans. If your absolute goal is saving as much as you possibly can for retirement, then you of course will be best off by maxing your IRA contribution every year. However, student loans are just another thing hanging over you, and nothing feels better than getting rid of a large debt. Pay them off, take yourself out to a nice dinner to celebrate, and tuck away what you have left over in your IRA. Paying off student loans is a great accomplishment - celebrate it! The difference long-term will be negligible.",
"At the current rates, stated in the question, I would push additional funds towards your Stafford loans as their higher interest rates will incur interest charges almost 3 times faster than your private loans. With my loans I have not seen much information regarding private loans jumping the interest rate close to the 6.8% any time in the coming years (if others have insight to this I look forward to the comments). Due to the private loans being variable there is an element of risk to their rates increasing. Another way to look at it may be to prorate your amount of extra payments according to their interest rate. $1,000 x 0.068 /(0.068 + 0.025) = $731.18 Toward your Stafford Loans $1,000 x 0.025 /(0.068 + 0.025) = $268.82 Toward your Private Loans",
"The hard and fast rule is to pay off high interest loans first, but each individual's situation is different so there are some things to consider. Student loan interest is tax deductible up to $2,500. Will your student loan interest exceed $2,500 for the year? If so I would try to pay down the student loan first to bring down the total interest for the year so that you get as much interest back as possible on your tax return. Also, it may be beneficial to pay off the car first to close that account so that you are only left with the 1 loan. Once you have the car loan payment out of the way you can dedicate that amount to paying off the student loan. I'm in almost the same situation as you. I currently have a mortgage and car payment. In 6 months my grace period will be over, and my student loan payments will start. I have $100k in student loan debt. So I will have a $1,100 mortgage payment, $1,100 student loan payment, and $700 car payment (car loan is 0%). I don't want to have 3 loans active so I will pay off my car loan in a 2-3 months to get that out of the way. Then I will pay down my student loan by paying $700 extra every month.",
"Assuming that partial payments are held (without interest) until enough money has accumulated to make at least a full payment, and assuming that overpayments are applied toward principal, a strategy of making three $ 96.00 payments per month will shorten your amortization period by less than one month. These calculations assume that the interest rate is 12.5 percent APR, compounded monthly (with an APY of 13.2416 percent). Instead of 71 payments of $ 285.56 plus a final payment of $ 285.38, you would make the equivalent of 71 payments of $ 288.00 plus a final payment of $ 28.10. If you make one $ 96.00 payment every ten days, you will make an average of 36.5… partial payments per year, instead of 36 partial payments per year. This will speed up your loan amortization by about another month-and-a-half over the course of the 72 month loan. One month of shortening is due to the extra principal payments, and the other half-month is due to interest savings. To a second approximation, this strategy is similar to paying $ 292.00 per month for 69 months plus a final payment of $ 195.38. In other words, this strategy will probably involve about 212 payments of $ 96.00 each, possibly with a small 213th payment.",
"My recommendation would be to pay off your student loan debt as soon as possible. You mention that the difference between your student loan and the historical, long-term return on the stock market is one-half percent. The problem is, the 7% return that you are counting on from the stock market is not guaranteed. You might get 7% over the next few years, but you also might do much worse. The 6.4% interest that you will save by aggressively paying off your debt is guaranteed. You are concerned about the opportunity cost of paying your debt early. However, this cost is only temporary. By drawing out your debt payments, you have a long-term opportunity cost. By this, I mean that 4 years from now, you could still have 6 years of debt payments hanging over your head, or you could be debt free with all of your income available to save, spend, or invest as you see fit. In my opinion, prolonging debt just to try to come out 0.5% ahead is not worth the hassle or risk.",
"The chances are good that the interest you are going to pay on the debt is going to be higher than the interest you are going to receive on any type of short term investments. That would make the paying off of the debt worth more to you in the long run than saving your money. Note that without the particulars of your situation this is all just theory crafting so consult the details of you loan agreements. I cannot imagine that a credit provider did not discuss this with you before you put pen on paper.",
"\"Already a lot of great answers, but since I ask myself this same question I thought I'd share my 2 cents. As @user541852587 pointed out, behavior is of the essence here. If you're like most recent grads, this is probably the first time in your life you are getting serious about building wealth. Can you pay your loans down quickly and then have the discipline to invest just as much -- if not more -- than you were putting towards your loans? Most people are good at paying bills in full and on time, yet many struggle to \"\"pay themselves\"\" in full and on time. As @Brandon pointed out, you can do both. I find this makes a great deal of practical sense. It helps form good behaviors, boosts confidence, and \"\"diversifies\"\" those dollars. I have been paying double payments on my student loans while at the same time maxing out my IRA, HSA, & 401k. I also have a rental property (but that's another can of worms). I'm getting on top and feeling confident in my finances, habits, etc. and my loans are going down. With each increase in pay, I intend to pay the loans down faster than I invest until they're paid off. Again -- I like the idea of doing both.\"",
"Yes, one is certainly better than the other. Which one depends on your priorities and the interest and tax rates on your student loan, your savings, and your (future) mortgage plus how much you can afford to save and still enjoy the lifestyle you want as well as how soon you want to move out. Basically, you havn't given enough information.",
"I think the discrepancy you are seeing is in the detail of what happens once you pay off your student loan. If you take your monthly payment for your student loan, and apply that to your mortgage once the student loan is payed off, paying the highest interest loan will cone out ahead. If, on the other hand, you take your student loan payment and do something else with it (not pay down your mortgage), you would be better off paying on your mortgage. Say you have $1000 to put towards either loan, and there is 5 years to pay on the student loan, and 25 years to pay on the mortgage. By paying on the student loan you are, roughly, saving 5 years of 5% interest on that $1000. By paying on the mortgage, you are saving 25 years of 3% interest.",
"\"If I understand correctly, your question boils down to this: \"\"I have $X to invest over 25 years, are guaranteed returns at a 0.6% lower rate better than what I expect to get from the stock market over the same period?\"\" Well, I believe the standard advice would go something like: Rational investors pay a premium to reduce risk/volatility. Or, put another way, guaranteed returns are more valuable than risky returns, all things equal. I don't know enough about student loans in America (I'm Australian). Here a student loan is very low interest and the minimum repayments scale with what you earn not what you owe, starting at $0 for a totally liveable wage - Here I'd say there's a case to just pay the minimum and invest extra money elsewhere. If yours is a private loan though, following the same rules as other loans, remember the organisation extending your loan has access to the stock market too! why would they extend a loan to you on worse terms than they would get by simply dumping money into an index fund? Is the organisation that extends student loans a charity or subsidised in some way? If not, someone has already built a business on the the analysis that returns at 6.4% (including defaults) beats the stock market at 7% in some way. What I would put back to you though, is that your question oversimplifies what is likely your more complex reality, and so answering your question directly doesn't help that much to make a persuasive case - It's too mathematical and sterile. Here are some things off the top of my head that your real personal circumstances might convince you to pay off your loan first, hit up Wall Street second:\"",
"\"Another option would be to not refinance but also not pay any extra each month but to continue as you are making the existing payments and just put the \"\"extra\"\" you would have paid aside in an investment of some type (something you are comfortable with) This as the added benefit of not tying up this extra money in your house should you need it in the next few years for something else. You would then have the option in 2 or 3 years of continuing on this path or closing the investment and paying off the remaining principal in one lump sum. If nothing else that big payment would be a really fun check to write.\"",
"\"It really depends on the answers to two questions: 1) How tight is your budget going to be if you have to make that $530 payment every month? Obviously, you'd still be better off than you are now, since that's still $30 cheaper. But, if you're living essentially paycheck to paycheck, then the extra flexibility of the $400/month option can make the difference if something unforeseen happens. 2) How disciplined (financially) have you proven you can be? The \"\"I'll make extra payments every month\"\" sounds real nice, but many people end up not doing it. I should know, I'm one of them. I'm still paying on my student loans because of it. If you know (by having done it before), that you can make that extra $130 go out each and every month and not talk yourself into using it on all sorts of \"\"more important needs\"\", then hey, go for it. Financial flexibility is a great thing, and having that monthly nut (all your minimum living expenses combined) as low as possible contributes greatly to that flexibility. Update: Another thing to consider Another thing to consider is what they do with your extra payment. Will they apply it to the principal, or will they treat it as a prepayment? If they apply it to principal, it'll be just like if you had that shorter term. Your principal goes down additionally by that extra amount, and the next month, you owe another $400. On the other hand, if they treat it as a prepayment, then that extra $130 will be applied to the next month's bill. Principal stays the same, and the next month you'll be billed $270. There are two practical differences for you: 1) With prepayment, you'll pay slightly more interest over that 60 months paying it off. Because it's not amortized into the loan, the principal balance doesn't go down faster while the loan exists. And since interest is calculated on the remaining principal balance, end result is more interest than you otherwise would have paid. That sucks, but: 2) with the prepayment, consider that at the end of year 2, you'd have over 7 months of payments prepaid. So, if some emergency does come up, you don't have to send them any money at all for 7 months. There's that flexibility again. :-) Honestly, while this is something you should find out about the loan, it's really still a wash. I haven't done the math, but with the interest rate, amount of the loan and time frame, I think the extra interest would be pretty minor.\"",
"\"If I had to guess (since you provided little information about your loan repayment), I'd guess that you're on the \"\"Extended\"\" repayment plan for your $72k loan, and the \"\"Standard\"\" plan for your $30k loan. In general, there are 4 main kinds of student loan repayment plans This holds true for federal loans (Direct/Stafford/PLUS). Private loans may not have all of these options, or they may have more. Running your numbers, I get 300 payments of $500/mo at 6.8% interest for a $72,000 loan, and 120 payments of $345/mo at 6.8% interest for a $30,000 loan. Now, to address your issue of interest vs principal, you should notice that each month you pay, the interest payment is slightly lower, and the principal slightly higher. And if you make bi-weekly payments, you'll see that change a LITTLE bit more quickly (slightly smaller balance accruing interest for 14 days of the month) and you'll also pay slightly less over time.\"",
"I see two advantages to not paying student loan debt off more quickly: For #1, however, there are plenty of other ways to build credit and I don't see this as being worth the downsides of not paying off the debt more quickly. In fact, in the United States student loan debt cannot be written off if you go bankrupt. This is important to know and understand. I would generally advise you to pay down your student loans as quickly as you can reasonably do so.",
"See many past answers: you will usually save the most money by paying off the highest-intetest-rate loan first. (Remember to allow for tax effects, if any, when comparing real interest rates.) Some folks are more motivated to simplify their finances than to save money; in that case you might pay off the smallest loan first.",
"We don't have all the relevant numbers to give you the perfect answer. Knowing your income is pretty important for this question, but, since you have 200K in student loans, I'm going to guess (and hope) you probably make more than 80K/yr which is the cutoff for deducting student loan interest. (It starts phasing out once you make over 65K and fully phases out at 80K, or 160K if you're married.) Even if you make less than 65K, you can only deduct a max of 2500/yr in student loan interest and you'll be maxing that out for at least the next 4 years. So, my take is: Throw it at the student loan. Your mortgage interest is (probably) fully deductible, which means your mortgage interest rate is effectively reduced by your tax bracket. E.g. if you are in the 28% tax bracket a 4% mortgage rate would effectively become 2.88%. Outside of that, if you were to make minimum payments on your mortgage and student loans starting now, as soon as your student loan is paid off I would start making that same student loan payment amount towards your mortgage. This way you won't have any change in cash flow, but it will significantly lower the term of your mortgage. (Which is what would happen if you choose to pay down the mortgage now, but then you don't get the tax advantage on the difference.)",
"Depending on your bank you may receive an ACH discount for doing automatic withdrawals from a deposit account at that bank. Now, this depends on your bank and you need to do independent research on that topic. As far as dictating what your extra money goes towards each month (early payments, principal payments, interest payments) you need to discuss that with your bank. I'm sure it's not too difficult to find. In my experience most banks, so long as you didn't sign a contract on your mortgage where you're penalized for sending additional money, will apply extra money toward early payments, and not principal. I would suggest calling them. I know for my student loans I have to send a detailed list of my loans and in what order I want my extra payments toward each, otherwise it will be considered an early payment, or it will be spread evenly among them all.",
"If you're truly ready to pay an extra $1000 every month, and are confident you'll likely always be able to, you should refinance to a 15 year mortgage. 15 year mortgages are typically sold at around a half a point lower interest rates, meaning that instead of your 4.375% APR, you'll get something like 3.875% APR. That's a lot of money over the course of the mortgage. You'll end up paying around a thousand a month more - so, exactly what you're thinking of doing - and not only save money from that earlier payment, but also have a lower interest rate. That 0.5% means something like $25k less over the life of the mortgage. It's also the difference in about $130 or so a month in your required payment. Now of course you'll be locked into making that larger payment - so the difference between what you're suggesting and this is that you're paying an extra $25k in exchange for the ability to pay it off more slowly (in which case you'd also pay more interest, obviously, but in the best case scenario). In the 15 year scenario you must make those ~$4000 payments. In the 30 year scenario you can pay ~$2900 for a while if you lose your job or want to go on vacation or ... whatever. Of course, the reverse is also true: you'll have to make the payments, so you will. Many people find enforced savings to be a good strategy (myself among them); I have a 15 year mortgage and am happy that I have to make the higher payment, because it means I can't spend that extra money frivolously. So what I'd do if I were you is shop around for a 15 year refi. It'll cost a few grand, so don't take one unless you can save at least half a point, but if you can, do.",
"Paying off your student loan is an investment, and a completely risk-free one. Every payment of your loan is a purchase of debt at the interest rate of the loan. It would be extremely unusual to be able to find a CD, bond or other low-risk play at a better rate. Any investment in a risky asset such as stocks is just leveraging up your personal balance sheet, which is strictly a personal decision based on your risk appetite, but would nearly universally be regarded as a mistake by a financial advisor. (The only exception I can think of here would be taking out a home mortgage, and even that would be debatable.) Unless your loan interest rate is in the range of corporate or government bonds -- and I'm sure it isn't -- don't think twice about paying them off with any free cash you have.",
"I ended up writing a simulation in R. Here is my code: It produces a plot like this: This code assumes you have a lump sum and either wish to pay down a loan or invest it all immediately. Feedback welcome.",
"So my advice for your financial situation depends on your aims. Are you aiming to: - Completely clear your debt - Clear one card to free up more monthly income. - Clear some debt to allow further controlled spending - Clear one card and focus on just using one, having 2nd as emergency. There are other things you may wish to do but you said to pay off some / all of 2 credit card bills. If you want to contact me I can plan this more precisely. Some seem the same but other factors can come into play as well. Differing rates of interest make the options clearer. My first advice would be to call the card companies and see if you can get better rates first. SCENARIO (some figures made up for visual) Credit Card Debts 8,000 8,000 Monthly payment 100 100 APR % 10 10 Ignoring APR this will be 80 months to repay (otherwise 140 months using my example amounts above) £28,000 repaid over 11 years 8 months. Your Suggestion As per your suggestion originally, paying off cards equally will allow smaller debt on both cards. Credit Card Debt 3,000 3,000 Monthly payment 100 100 APR % 10 10 With a 0% APR this would be paid off in 2 years 6 months. Cards are available to get free balance transfers, need to look into this. With the 10% APR this would take 3 years 1 month. £10,000 lump and £7,400 repaid over 3 years 1 month (saving £10,600 and 8 years 7 months) AIM: To clear debt completely. My advice here is to use the £10,000 lump sum to pay off one credit card, the remaining £2,000 can then come off the other card. This will free up your outgoings (was 2 x £100) by £100. But then use this £100 to pay off the card, this will result in the following: Credit Card Debt 6,000 Monthly payment 200 APR % 10 With a 0% APR this would be paid off in 2 years 6 months. Cards are available to get free balance transfers, need to look into this. With 10% APR this would take roughly 3 years 1 month. £10,000 lump and £7,400 repaid over 3 years 1 month (saving £10,600 and 8 years 7 months). This option is the same as above, but you have the options on the odd tight month to reduce payments to £100. This also will allow the 2nd card to be used interest free for an emergency purchase (to be paid off without any interest charge) If rates are different, pay of the one with the higher APR AIM: Clear one card to free up more monthly income. AIM: Clear one card and focus on just using one, having 2nd as emergency. Same as above, but don’t increase to £200, leave monthly payment at £100. Credit Card Debt 6,000 Monthly payment 100 APR % 10 With a 0% APR this would be paid off in 5 years. With the 10% APR this would take 88 months (7 years 4 months) £10,000 lump and £8,800 repaid over 7 years and 4 months (saving £9,200 and 4 years 4 months). This also allows for some extra spending (even racking back up the debt – although not advised) AIM: Clear some debt to allow further controlled spending As above apart from this will allow you to spend to get back up to full £16,000 debt. NOTE My figures are theoretical, paying off £500 (£250x2) a month instead of the £100 (10%APR) would take: Lump sum 10,000, remaining 6,000 – 14 months (£17,000 paid) Lump sum 5,000, remaining 2 x 5,500 – 26 months (£18,000 paid) Lump Sum 0, remaining 2 x 8,000 – 40 months (£20,000 paid) Now I have finished waffling, I hope you have an idea on what you are aiming to achieve and a better idea of what to do when you receive the income Stephen."
] |
[
"As a new graduate, aside from the fact that you seem to have the extra $193/mo to pay more towards your loan, we don't know anything else. I wrote a lengthy article on this in response to a friend who had a loan, but was also pondering a home purchase in the future. Student Loans and Your First Mortgage discusses the math behind one's ability to put a downpayment on a house vs having that monthly cash to pay towards the mortgage. In your case, the question is whether, in 5 years, the $8500 would be best spent as a home down payment or to pay off the 6.8% loan. If you specifically had plans toward home ownership, the timing of that plan would affect my answer here, as I discuss in the article. The right answer to your question can only come by knowing far more of your personal situation. Meanwhile, the plan comes at a cost. Your plan will get rid of the loan in about 5 years, but if you simply double up the payments, advising the servicing company to apply the extra to principal, it would drop to just a couple month over over 4. As you read more about personal finance, you'll find a lot of different views. Some people are fixated on having zero debt, others will focus on liquidity. In the end, you need to understand each approach and decide what's right for you.",
"If the savings rate is the same as the loan rate, mathematically it doesn't make any difference whether you pay down the loan more and save less or vice versa. However, if the loan rate is higher than the savings rate it's better to pay it down as fast as possible. The chart below compares paying down the loan and saving equally (the gradual scenario), versus paying down the loan quickly at 2 x $193 and then saving 2 x $193. The savings rate, for illustration, is 2%. Paying quickly pays down the loan completely by month 51. On the other hand, in the gradual scheme the loan can't be paid down (with the savings) until month 54, which then leaves 3 months less for saving. In conclusion, it's better to pay down the higher rate loan first. Practically speaking, it may be useful to have some savings available.",
"If you pay extra now you will pay less in interest over the life of the loan. Unless your savings account has a higher interest rate than the loan's rate you are not saving anything. That being said, you may have a greater need for savings due to other things (e.g. you might need a emergency fund). But if you are only saving for the loan: compare the rates to see if it is worth it.",
"There are a few ways you can go about paying this off quickly (and safely): You could start paying $386 monthly (ie, double what you're paying now). You'll pay less interest in the long run because they can only charge you for the amount outstanding. Remember, 6.8% of $12k is more than 6.8% of $6k. However, your plan sounds more sensible. Say you get to $6k paid off and $6k saved, you're able to pay off what's left and that's almost $200 a month you'll have extra. Although what I like about this is - if you become ill, lose your job, or whatever, then you're still able make the $193 payments, PLUS you'll have money saved for day-to-day expenses (food, water, gas, electricity, etc.) long enough to see yourself through. PS. They may charge you a settlement fee because if you pay early then they miss out on money... but check your contract with them first. Hope this helps!",
"As someone in the very same position as you here is what I suggest: Have $1,000 for each possible large expense you currently have. For example, house, car, pregnant wife, etc. As someone who only has a car (living at home still) I only have $1,000 in my eFund (emergency fund). The ABSOLUTE rest of my money goes to paying off the loans as soon as possible. I mean ever single dollar. There is no point for investing unless you have a really good return on investment. I am not too sure how common returns of 6.8% are, but that seems above average. If in fact you're just stashing it in a bank account at ~1%, you're doing it wrong. Getting out of debt is not only just about the financial benefits but the emotional benefits too. It feels really nice to not owe anybody anything. Good luck man! P.S. Try using a tracker like ReadytoZero to show how much you're losing a day by remaining in debt. This will better help you understand if your investments are making you money or losing your money.",
"The interest accrues daily based on the amount you owe. The less you owe the less the daily interest accrual. The faster you pay it off the less you pay in the lifetime of the loan. You are losing money if you bank money rather than applying it to the loan immediately. Since student loans cannot be declared in bankruptcy and interest rates cannot be refinanced, or are nonnegotiable, then you should consider your student loan a priority in case your employment/income runs into problems.",
"Just one more thing to consider: a friend of mine had some student loan debt left over from graduate school. Years later, through his employer, he was able to apply for and receive a grant that paid off the remainder of his student loan. It was literally free money, and a significant amount, too. The windfall was a little bittersweet for him because he had been making extra payments over the years. The cap on the grant was something like $50k and he wasn't able to use all of it because he had been aggressive in paying it down. (Still, free money is free money.) Sure, this is a unique situation, but grants happen.",
"Simply, you should put your money into whatever has the higher interest rate, savings or repayment of debt. Let's say at the beginning of month A you put $1000 into each account. In the case of the savings, at the end of month A you will have $1001.6 ($1000 + 1000 x 2% annual interest / 12) In the case of a loan, at the end of month A you will have $1005.7. ($17000 plus 6.8 interest for one month is 17096.3. On $16000, the new value is 16090.6. The difference between these is $1005.7. 5.7 / 1.6 = 3.56 Therefore, using your money to repay your loan nets you a return about 3.5 times greater."
] |
3934
|
Should market based health insurance premiums be factored into 6 months emergency fund savings?
|
[
"457034",
"122952",
"209604",
"201769"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"457034",
"201769",
"79903",
"68239",
"209604",
"402438",
"487739",
"122952",
"61093",
"439617",
"161301",
"438571",
"333334",
"261619",
"371624",
"374722",
"369134",
"406286",
"278611",
"279539",
"595028",
"14989",
"131852",
"267945",
"329767",
"156908",
"466388",
"43976",
"29517",
"408307",
"277529",
"390969",
"81281",
"241819",
"451858",
"116545",
"464080",
"362887",
"179702",
"329217",
"254572",
"352051",
"111054",
"431028",
"210653",
"343693",
"437182",
"96725",
"423541",
"304804",
"244408",
"590623",
"505213",
"268597",
"295155",
"424437",
"156097",
"400503",
"123013",
"186585",
"574654",
"502389",
"110732",
"585790",
"50542",
"476054",
"68516",
"424126",
"397358",
"243287",
"206222",
"80009",
"169312",
"440940",
"41793",
"223697",
"464166",
"199971",
"306908",
"376084",
"206431",
"377371",
"122946",
"241161",
"318735",
"146547",
"587710",
"497993",
"64453",
"164908",
"147074",
"64554",
"67135",
"59899",
"404868",
"206223",
"535931",
"405356",
"340529",
"25814"
] |
[
"\"Yes, you should budget some amount of your emergency fund for healthcare expenses. How much you budget is really dependent on your particular anticipated costs. Be aware that health insurance likely costs significantly more than your employer charges you for access to its plan. Since healthcare reform mandated guaranteed issue individual coverage you will have the ability to buy individual coverage for you and, if applicable, your family. When buying individual coverage you have essentially two choices, your decision hinges on whether or not you'd qualify for a premium subsidy. If your AGI is below 400% of the poverty line you'll be able to receive subsidized coverage at a state or federal health insurance exchange. If the subsidy is not meaningful to you, or you wouldn't qualify, you can buy an \"\"off exchange\"\" plan offered either directly through a carrier or an insurance agent (some insurance agents are also licensed to sell exchange plans though it's somewhat rare). In order to receive subsidized coverage you must buy through a state or federal exchange, or an agent licensed to sell exchange products specifically. If your employer was large enough to be required to offer its plan via COBRA or you live in a state that extends the COBRA requirement to smaller businesses, you can choose that as well. Bear in mind this option is likely to be expensive relative to individual plans. It's becoming a less relevant solution with the advent of guaranteed issue individual coverage. COBRA is not a special type of insurance, it's a mandate that your employer allow you to remain on its plan but pay the full gross premium plus an up to 2% (10% for calCOBRA) administrative fee. Despide popular vernacular, there is no such thing as Obamacare or ACA coverage. Obamacare reshaped the insurance market. The ACA outlines certain minimum coverage requirements, generally referred to as \"\"Minimum Essential Coverage.\"\" While employers and plans are not \"\"required\"\" to meet all of these coverage requirements there is a penalty associated with non-compliance. The single exception to this is grandfathered plans which can still sidestep a few of the requirements. The penalty is harsh enough that it's not worth the cost of offering a non-compliant plan. Whether you buy coverage through a state or federal exchange, through an insurance agent, or via your employer's COBRA program you will have \"\"ACA\"\" coverage (unless on the off chance your employer's plan doesn't check the \"\"Minimum Essential Coverage\"\" box). So generally all plans available to you will have $0 preventive coverage, pregnancy benefits, cancer treatment benefits etc. Another thing to consider is your entire family doesn't need to be on the same plan. If your family is healthy with the exception of one child, you can purchase $0 deductible coverage for the one child and higher deductible more catastrophic plan for the remainder of your family. In fact you could choose COBRA for one child and purchase individual coverage for the remainder of the family. The things to consider when you face a lay-off: I tried to mitigate my use of \"\"all\"\" and \"\"always\"\" because there are some narrow exceptions to these requirements, such as the \"\"Hobby Lobby\"\" decision allowing closely held organizations with highly religious owners the ability to remove certain contraception benefits. Understand that these exceptions are rare and not available to individual plans.\"",
"Yes, it should be. As, where one has insurance, its an expense one would expect one to continue to incur in a normal budgetary emergency, even drop in the extreme.",
"Unanticipated unemployment is usually the triggering factor for drawing on an emergency fund. Ask yourself: what happens if I lose my job tomorrow? Or my spouse becomes unemployed? What happens if I become disabled and can't work for x amount of time? Sure, you can discount your chances of needing such a fund if you have free health care. But having health insurance doesn't change the fact that an emergency fund is a good idea. There are many ways to go broke!",
"The issue is how likely you will have zero income for six months, and what are your monthly expenses. If you know the maximum medical bill you face that may allow you to save a smaller amount. But you still have to protect for that loss of income. The interuption could be because of job loss, medical emergency, or other family crisis. If I told you that the chances you would face a crisis dropped by 50%, would you decide that the need for an emergency fund went away? Or would you still create a fund? I think the need still exists just to avoid the downside if you aren't prepared.",
"Yes factor into your fund the cost of health insurance. You basically have three options when facing a loss of income for 3-6 months: Pre-ACA the COBRA one was the default option many planned for because there was no need to change doctors. Of course many people were shocked how expensive it was compared to just looking at the employees share of the monthly premium. For planning you can do some research into the cost of one of the ACA approved plans in your state. Keeping in mind that the lack of income might qualify you for a subsidy. As to the coverage level, that would depend on your situation and the perceived gap. I have known many people who didn't have to pick COBRA until after the new job started so they knew exactly what they needed to cover and what their bills were during the gap.",
"Regarding Medical insurance premiums - The premiums are only part of the cost. You need to know if you have a deductible, your out of pocket maximum and what co-pays you have. If you take medications on a daily basis you need to account for those costs. Some programs allow you to put money aside pre-tax to pay for these known expenses. I would split Emergency fund / general savings into two lines. You can set a goal to save X months worth of expenses as an emergency fund, but the general savings will be whatever is left over from the rest of your budget. Unless you have a goal for the savings: car, home...",
"\"The concept of emergency fund is a matter of opinion. I can tell you the consensus is that one should have 6-9 months worth of expenses kept as liquid cash. This is meant to cover literally all bills that you might encounter during that time. That's a lot of money. There are levels of savings that are shy of this but still responsible. Not enough to cover too much in case of job loss, but enough to cover the busted transmission, the broken water heater, etc. this is still more than many people have saved up, but it's a worthy goal. The doctor visit is probably the lowest level. Even without insurance, the clinic visit should be under $200, and this shouldn't cause you to have to carry that amount beyond the time the bill comes in. The point that shouldn't be ignored is that if you owe money at 18% on a credit card, the emergency fund is costing you money, and is a bit misguided. I'd send every cent I could to the highest rate card and not have more than a few hundred $$ liquid until the cards were at zero. Last - $5K, $10K in the emergency account is great, unless you are foregoing matched 401(k) dollars to do it. All just my opinion. Others here whom I respect might disagree with parts of my answer, and they'd be right. Edit - Regarding the 'consensus 6-9 months' I suggest - From Investopedia - \"\"...using the conservative recommendation to sock away eight months’ worth of living expenses....\"\" The article strongly support my range for the fact that it both cites consensus, yet disagrees with it. From Money Under 30 The more difficult you rank your ability to find a new job, the more we suggest you save — up to a year’s worth of expenses if you think your income would be very difficult to replace. From Bank of America I have no issue with those comfortable with less. A dual income couple who is saving 30% of their income may very well survive one person losing a job with no need to tap savings, and any 'emergency' expense can come from next month's income. That couple may just need this month's bills in their checking account.\"",
"\"The guideline for the size of an emergency fund is just a guideline. I've usually heard it expressed as \"\"3 to 6 months,\"\" but everyone has a different idea of exactly how big it should be. The purpose of the fund is to give you enough cash to be able to pay for unexpected expenses that have come up that you have not budgeted for without you having to borrow money to pay for them. To figure out how big this fund should be, we look at the worst case scenario. Suppose that you lost your job tomorrow. What would you do? Cut your expenses. You'd probably be much more careful how you spend money. Secure health insurance. This would be done by either continuing your employer's policy with COBRA, or by purchasing your own insurance, likely through the Obamacare/ACA market. Keep in mind that most likely your employer is paying for a portion of your insurance now, so this expense will go up quite a bit no matter which option you choose. Look for another job. You'd probably begin your search for a new job immediately. The size of your emergency fund determines how long you will be able to go without income before you need to start a new job. Regarding cutting your expenses, it is up to you how much you would cut. There are things that are easy to cut temporarily (or permanently), such as restaurants, entertainment expenses, vacations, etc. You would probably stop retirement investing until you have income again. The more you cut, the longer your emergency fund would last. Things you don't want to cut are necessities, like housing, groceries, utilities, transportation, etc. I would also include health insurance in this list. Certainly, if you have a pre-existing condition, you do not want to let your health insurance coverage lapse. Your employability is also a factor. If you believe that you would have an easy time finding similar employment to what you have now, your emergency fund might not need to be quite as big as someone who believes they would have a harder time finding another job.\"",
"The main factor should be what sorts of emergencies you are trying and also need to protect yourself against. Overall I'd say at least 6-9 months of expenses, adjusted for the above factors. More might be better but I'd probably keep that in a different type of investment vehicle, mainly because it doesn't really need to be accessible instantaneously like your normal emergency fund would need to be.",
"I think it's wise to account for those inevitable but unpredictable expenses like car/house repairs and abnormal medical bills when deciding on your emergency fund amount. So if you average $100/month for car repairs, and you have a 6-month emergency fund, then part of that fund is $600 for car repairs. If your total annual out of pocket for health insurance is $5,000/year, then emergency fund gets $2,500 and so on. This way, you add cushion to your emergency fund to handle those unpredictable but inevitable expenses without setting up a bunch of separate accounts. It doesn't have to be inflexible either, I know my furnace and air conditioner are way past their expected life, so I'm keeping a larger than normal emergency fund. Ultimately it's personal preference, to me, cash is all the same no matter what account it's in, but other people do best by keeping some logical/physical separation of funds intended for different purposes.",
"6 to 9 months worth of expenses is recommended. You should also consider having long-term disability insurance in place, in case of serious illness or accident.",
"I would suggest that you use Emergency Funds for things that have a Low likelihood of happening but if they do happen can be devastating. I used to work as a financial advisor and the sugfestion we gave people is to have about 3 months worth of expenses in cash. This was primarily to cover things luke loss of work or some unforseen even that would prevent you from missing work for an extended period of time. Once you have your emergency fund saved do not touch it! Leave it where it is. Then tou can start working on a savings account for those items that are more likely to happen but dont have as much of a negative impact.",
"\"People treat an emergency fund as some kind of ace-in-the-hole when it comes to financial difficulty, but it is only one of many sources of money that you can utilize. What is an emergency? First, you have to define what an emergency is. Is it a lost job? Is it an unplanned event (pregnancy, perhaps)? Is it a medical emergency? Is it the death of you or your spouse? Also, what does it mean to be unplanned? Is being so unhappy with your job that you give a 2-week notice an emergency? Is one month of planning an emergency? Two? Only you can answer these questions for yourself, but they significantly shape your financial strategy. Planning is highly dependent on your cashflow, and, for some people, it may take them a year to build enough savings to enable them to take 3 months off work. For others, they may be able to change their spending to build up enough for 3 months in 1 month. Also, you have to consider the length of the emergency. Job-loss is rarely permanent, but it's rarely short as well. The current average is 30.7 weeks: that's 7 months! Money in an Emergency There are six main places that people get money during a financial emergency: A good emergency strategy takes all six of these into account. Some emergencies may lean more on one source than the other. However, some of these are correlated. For example, in 2008, three things happened: the stock market crashed, unsecured debt dried up, and people faced financial emergency (lost jobs, cut wages). If you were dependent on a stock portfolio and/or a line of credit, you'd be up a creek, because the value of your investments suddenly decreased, and you can't really tap your now significantly limited line of credit. However, if you had a one or more of cash savings, unemployment income, and unemployment insurance, you would probably have been OK. Budgeting for an emergency When you say \"\"financial emergency\"\", most people think job loss. However, the most common cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical debt. Depending on your insurance situation, this could be a serious risk, or it may not be. People say you should have 3x-6x of your monthly income in savings because it's an easy, back-of-the-envelope way to handle most financial emergency risk, but it's not necessarily the most prudent strategy for you. To properly budget for an emergency, you need to fully take into account what emergencies you are likely to face, and what sources of financing you would have access to given the likely factors that led to that emergency. Generally, having a savings account with some amount of liquid cash is an important part of a risk-mitigation strategy. But it's not a panacea for every kind of emergency.\"",
"First you should maintain a monthly expense and find out the burn rate. There would be certain expenses that are annual but mandatory [School fees, Insurance Premium, Property Taxes, etc]. So the ideal emergency fund depending on your industry should be 3 month to 6 months plus your mandatory yearly payments, more so if they come together. For example Most of my annual payments come out in May and I bank on the Bonus payout in April to cater to this spike in expense. So if I were to lose a job in March, my emergency funds would be sufficient for routine expenses, if i don't provision for additional funds Second you need to also figure out the reduced rate of monthly burn and ideally the emergency funds should be for 3 months of normal burn and 6 months of reduced burn.",
"The way you ask this is interesting, it implies (quite correctly) that for many, an annual bill for house insurance, property tax, etc, can turn into an emergency. My answer to the true emergency is a breakage that can't be foreseen (although you have to know the furnace isn't going to last forever) or a medical bill that's not covered (our dental is limited and the Mrs root canal can be $1000 out of pocket)",
"On topic of Healthcare needs, I think it depend on individual. For example, my employer's dental plan offer PPO $34 per month and DMO $12 per month. I have my favor dentist that I have been going for years. He only accept PPO. I already had most of my dental works done so I only use him for teeth clean. He charge $100 without insurance and free with insurance. I can only use my insurance for teeth clean twice a year so $34x12 = $408 vs $200. If I go with DMO, I won't get to see my doctor and since I get my teeth once a year why not just save that money and go to my favor doctor instead the DMO doctors and if I need major dental works done which isn't immediate. I can go to Taiwan for dental works that is way cheaper than U.S. I think if you're a healthy young man/women. You should put more money toward your retirement and only keep insurance for emergency. You can do a medical tourism mentioned in 60 minutes that can be more cost effective and those doctors are U.S. trained. For older folks, a full Health care insurance is more needed than retirement. Just my two cents.",
"Emergency funds are defined in terms of months of tightened-belt living -- that's according to the usual gurus such as Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey etc. They aren't for short-term emergencies like a blown transmission. Use other money for those. Why? People with bad financial habits have short-term emergencies all the time, and that emergency fund doesn't have a chance of lasting. This is just their financial habits manifesting. Here's what an emergency fund is for. Scenario: big economic bubble bursts. Stock market drops 50%. Credit dries up. This happened in 2007 by the way. The dominoes start falling boom, boom, boom: I'm exaggerating a bit here, but a lot of people lived at least half this stuff in 2007-11. Nothing starts those dominoes falling like lack of cash at a key moment. That's what an emergency fund is all about - keeping things tight-normal for long enough to get back on your feet. If you want to keep your emergency fund in something risky -- keep a lot more of it!",
"The rule that I know is six months of income, stored in readily accessible savings (e.g. a savings or money market account). Others have argued that it should be six months of expenses, which is of course easier to achieve. I would recommend against that, partially because it is easier to achieve. The other issue is that people are more prone to underestimate their expenses than their income. Finally, if you base it on your current expenses, then budget for savings and have money left over, you often increase your expenses. Sometimes obviously (e.g. a new car) and sometimes not (e.g. more restaurants or clubs). Income increases are rarer and easier to see. Either way, you can make that six months shorter or longer. Six months is both feasible and capable of handling difficult emergencies. Six years wouldn't be feasible. One month wouldn't get you through a major emergency. Examples of emergencies: Your savings can be in any of multiple forms. For example, someone was talking about buying real estate and renting it. That's a form of savings, but it can be difficult to do withdrawals. Stocks and bonds are better, but what if your emergency happens when the market is down? Part of how emergency funds operate is that they are readily accessible. Another issue is that a main goal of savings is to cover retirement. So people put them in tax privileged retirement accounts. The downside of that is that the money is not then available for emergencies without paying penalties. You get benefits from retirement accounts but that's in exchange for limitations. It's much easier to spend money than to save it. There are many options and the world makes it easy to do. Emergency funds make people really think about that portion of savings. And thinking about saving before spending helps avoid situations where you shortchange savings. Let's pretend that retirement accounts don't exist (perhaps they don't in your country). Your savings is some mix of stocks and bonds. You have a mortgaged house. You've budgeted enough into stocks and bonds to cover retirement. Now you have a major emergency. As I understand your proposal, you would then take that money out of the stocks and bonds for retirement. But then you no longer have enough for retirement. Going forward, you will have to scrimp to get back on track. An emergency fund says that you should do that scrimping early. Because if you're used to spending any level of money, cutting that is painful. But if you've only ever spent a certain level, not increasing it is much easier. The longer you delay optional expenses, the less important they seem. Scrimping beforehand also helps avoid the situation where the emergency happens at the end of your career. It's one thing to scrimp for fifteen years at fifty. What's your plan if you would have an emergency at sixty-five? Or later? Then you're reducing your living standard at retirement. Now, maybe you save more than necessary. It's not unknown. But it's not typical either. It is far more common to encounter someone who isn't saving enough than too much.",
"\"Since it's not tagged united-states, I'd like to offer a more general advice. Your emergency fund should match the financial risks that are relevant to you. The two main classes of financial risk are of course a sudden increase in costs or a decrease in income. You'd have to address both independently. First, loss of income. For most, this would simply equate to the loss of a job. How much benefits would you expect to get, and for how long? This is often the most important question; the 6 months advise in the US is based on a lack of benefits. With two incomes, you're less likely to lose both jobs at the same time. That's a general advise, though. If you both work for the same employer, the risk of losing two jobs at the same time is certainly real. Also, in countries with little protection against dismissal (such as the US), the chance of being layed off at the same time is also higher. On the debit side, there are also two main risks. The first is the loss or failure of an essential possession, i.e. one which requires immediate replacement. This could include a car, or a washing machine. You already paid for one before, so you should have a good idea how much it costs. The second expenditure risk is health-related costs. Those can suddenly crop up, but often you have some kind of insurance. If not, you'd need to account for some costs, but it's hard to come up with an objective number here. The two categories are dependent, of course. Health-related costs may very well coincide with a loss of income, especially if you're self-employed. Now, once you've figured out what the risks are, it's time to figure out how to insure against them. Insurance might be a better choice than an emergency fund, especially for the health costs. You might even discover that you don't need an emergency fund at all. In large parts of Europe, you could establish a credit margin that's not easily revoked (i.e. overdraft agreements), and unemployment benefits are sufficient to cover your regular cost of living. The main risk would then be a sudden lack of liquidity if your employer goes bankrupt and fails to pay the monthly wages, which means your credit should be guaranteed sufficient to borrow one month of expenses. (This of course assumes quite good credit; \"\"pay off my car\"\" doesn't suggest that.)\"",
"\"I'd say that it's more like 75% to 80%. Here's why: the amount of time required to find a new job (should you lose your current one) is at an all time high (something like a year and a half if you factor in the \"\"discouraged workers\"\"). So, your emergency fund, if it is going to plan for truly disastrous scenarios such as job loss, needs to be able to handle monthly expenses for a year and a half. I would also throw in a re-education component to that as well, because you're more than likely going to need to retrain (if for no other reason than to tell prospective employers that you voluntarily took some time off to go back to school, so they don't shit can your resume before they even let you interview).\"",
"\"To address the issue in the title of your question: Many expenses strike at what for all practical purposes are random intervals. Roof starts leaking, car needs repair, etc, don't have a fixed cost every month. Medical expenses can certainly be more extreme than many other expenses, but their nature is the same. And so the way to budget for them is the same: You figure out what your average expenses are over a long period of time. Then you start putting away a little more than this amount every month. Keep putting away until you have a reserve larger than any expense you are likely to get hit with all at once. I have no idea what your particular expenses are, so let me use myself for an example. My medical bills last year were unusually large: about $6,000. I have lousy insurance and a couple of chronic conditions, so my bills are usually maybe $1,000 to $2,000 per year. So I plan on about $150 per month for medical bills. Most insurance policies have an \"\"out of pocket maximum\"\". This should be the most you'd ever have to lay out in a year. Mine is $13,000. (I told you my insurance sucks.) So I have an account that I have now built up to $13,000. Worst case, I wipe out that account. In any case, if my bills are that large, the doctors or hospital will normally agree to a payment plan. (I still owe a few hundred on my bills from last year and the hospital is letting me pay it off at $120 per month.) Your question brings up a lot of issues about difficulties of working with insurance and the U.S. medical system in general. I'm not sure if your intent was to get advice on the rest of it all. Simple -- not pleasant, but simple -- answer: If you're insurance is provided by your employer, you're pretty much stuck with the policy that the employer negotiates. I don't know how much you're contributing to premiums, usually the company pays the bulk of it. You could investigate getting a policy on your own, but odds are that any policy you could get for what you're contributing now would be way worse than what you can get through the company. You could always investigate, but I doubt you'll do better. You can talk to HR. If it's a big company, they may have some muscle with the insurance company and could help you out. Failing that, it becomes a political question of how the laws affecting medical care and insurance in the U.S. are set up, and while I have many ideas for how it could be improved, sadly I'm not in a position to do much about it, and I doubt you are either. Unless you have the resources to run for president.\"",
"I know this is heresy but if you have funds for significantly more than 6 months of expenses (let's say 12 months), how risky would it be to put it all into stock index funds? Quite risky as if you do need to dip into it, how fast could you get the cash? Also, do you realize the tax implications when you do sell the shares should you have an emergency? In the worst-case scenario, let's say you have a financial emergency at the same time the stock market crashes and loses half its value. You could still liquidate the rest and have sufficient funds for 6 months. Am I underestimating the risks of this strategy? That's not worst case scenario though. Worst case scenario would be another 9/11 where the markets are closed for nearly a week and you need the money but can't get the funds converted to cash in the bank that you can use. This is in addition to the potential wait for a settlement in the case of using ETFs if you choose to go that way. In the case of money market funds, CDs and other near cash equivalents these can be accessed relatively easily which is part of the point. A staggered approach where some cash is kept in house, some in accounts that can easily accessed and some in other investments may make sense though the breakdown would differ depending on how much risk people are willing to take. If it truly is an emergency fund then the odds of needing it should be very slim, so why live with near zero return on that money? Something to consider is what is called an emergency here? For some people a sudden $1,000 bill to fix their car that just broke down is an emergency. For others, there could be emergency trips to visit family that may have gotten into accidents or gotten a diagnosis that they may pass away soon. Consider what do you want to call an emergency here as chances are you may not be considering all that people would think is an emergency. There is the question of what other sources of money do you have to cover should issues arise.",
"There is no right answer here, one has to make the choice himself. Its best to have an emergency fund before you start to commit funds to other reasons. The plan looks good. Keep following it and revise the plan often.",
"\"I think it is stated perfectly in the question, \"\"unforeseen critical needs.\"\" You know you will need to buy new tires for your car, they are critical but not unforeseen. However, if a tree falls on your car and you need to pay the insurance deductible for the repairs it would be unforeseen. You should budget for the expenses you can plan for in advance like car maintenance and repairs. An emergency fund is for items that are out of the ordinary.\"",
"Figure you need as much cash in the bank to pay all of your bills for the amount of time it would take you to find a new job if yours went away. Also .. congratulations on your situation .. good work.",
"\"This is basically the short-term/long-term savings question in another form: savings that you hope are long-term but which may turn short-term very suddenly. You can never completely eliminate the risk of being forced to draw on long term savings during a period when the market is doing Something Unpleasant that would force you to take a loss (or right before it does Something Pleasant that you'd like to be fully invested during). You can only pick the degree of risk that you're willing to accept, balancing that hazard of forced sales against the lower-but-more-certain returns you'd get from a money market or equivalent. I'm considered a moderately aggressive investor -- which doesn't mean I'm pushing the boundaries on what I'm buying (not by a long shot!), but which does mean I'm willing to keep more of my money in the market and I'm more likely to hold or buy into a dip than to sell off to try to minimize losses. That level of risk-tolerance also means I'm willing to maintain a ready-cash pool which is sufficient to handle expected emergencies (order of $10K), and not become overly paranoid about lost opportunity value if it turns out that I need to pull a few thou out of the investments. I've got decent health insurance, which helps reduce that risk. I'm also not particularly paranoid about the money. On my current track, I should be able to maintain my current lifestyle \"\"forever\"\" without ever touching the principal, as long as inflation and returns remain vaguely reasonable. Having to hit the account for a larger emergency at an Inconvenient Time wouldn't be likely to hurt me too much -- delaying retirement for a year or two, perhaps. It's just money. Emergencies are one of the things it's for. I try not to be stupid about it, but I also try not to stress about it more than I must.\"",
"I keep it simple. Here's what I learned when I took Personal Financial Planning: Insurance is for low likelihood, high-impact events.",
"Emergency funds, by the name it implies that they should be available on hand at a very short notice if needed. Conservation of principal (not withstanding inflation, but rather in absolute terms) is also a very important criteria of any kind of account that you will use to save the emergency fund. I would suggest the following breakup. The number in brackets signifies the amount of per month expenses that you can keep in that account. = total 6 months living expenses",
"The bare minimum should be 6-months of expenses. Ideally, it should be at least 1 year. My personal preference is 2+ years, but one thing at a time. Figure out your necessary expenses: food, shelter, transportation and necessary extras. An example of a necessity, beyond the basics, for me is a decent internet connection. Telephone costs is another good example. (Meanwhile, electricity and such bills should be included in the figure for shelter.) You may want to include some allowance for clothing as well; especially for the 2+ year plan.",
"In personal finance circles this is called an Emergency Fund. There are many opinions about how big it needs to be but most seem to come in around 3-6 months worth of your average expenses. Any more than that and you're going to loose money to inflation, less and you will start having problems if you get laid off or have a medical issue.",
"\"If you think about it, it's really all one big pot of money. The idea behind an \"\"emergency fund\"\" is that you want to make sure your financial life has stability: it's not going to be suddenly driven into the red, below $0. As long as that doesn't happen, you can figure out how to live your life as you want. The reason we separate out an \"\"emergency fund\"\" is to simplify decision making. In theory, every single purchase you make should include a consideration of how it destabilizes you. Every $100 you spend on groceries is $100 you won't be able to bring to bear if you get fired or have a major accident. In practice, this would be a crippling way of thinking about things. You don't know what emergencies can hit you, nor when they will hit. That's why they're \"\"emergencies.\"\" If you had to think about them all the time, it'd be horrible! You would end up simply not thinking about it (like most people), and then the emergency hits when you don't have enough cash to stay solvent. The purpose of an \"\"emergency fund\"\" is to help make these decisions easier. If you have money set aside for \"\"emergencies\"\" that you only have to think about every now and then, you can make the decisions in the rest of your financial life without too much concern for them. You don't have to worry about that $100 in groceries because you are confident that if an emergency hits, that $100 won't be the straw that broke the camel's back because you have reserves to draw on. So you should define an \"\"emergency fund\"\" in a way which is most helpful for you to remain stable and solvent without having to fret about it too much. For most people, the criteria for tapping that fund is very high, because the goal is to not have to think about it all that much. If you wanted to, you could feel free to lump those \"\"medium predictability\"\" items into the emergency fund, but it just means you have to spend more time and effort thinking about the state of the fund. Every medium predictability purchase has to come with the thought process \"\"what is the state of the emergency fund? Could this purchase meaningfully destabilize my ability to handle emergencies?\"\" Your emergency fund might yo-yo under these extra purchases, which could force you to think about the state of your emergency fund for normal purchases. That'd be bad. Different people might want to think about things different ways. I'm a big-picture guy, so I prefer to think about all of my assets as one big account when I make a lot of my decisions. My wife, on the other hand, prefers not to have to think that way when she makes her purchases. For her, having a very discrete \"\"emergency fund\"\" has great value. For me, it has less. So when I look at the finances, I choose to lump the emergency funds in with, say, the funds to re-do our backyard (something we are looking at doing over the next 2-5 years). For me, that is the most natural way to deal with analyzing the risks -- I just have to be aware of how backyard purchases interact with our safety net. My wife prefers to keep those funds separate in her head, so that she can look at how to spend money on the backyard without thinking about how it affects our emergency readiness. While complicated, it shows that even within a household, it's possible to think about emergency funding two different ways. (it causes minimal headaches, though a fair bit of book-keeping) So define \"\"emergency fund\"\" however suits you and your life best. However, practically speaking, most people find it desirable to not put those medium predictability purchases into the same bucket as emergencies. Those that do find it desirable to put them in the same bucket typically have a personal reason for why that suits their needs better.\"",
"\"IMO, you can do whatever you want with an emergency fund, as long as it is in a deposit-type account. The purpose of the fund is for emergencies, not to make money, so you want it to be liquid so that you can access it in an emergency. Personally, I'm willing to take accept a potential penalty for withdrawing. Here's some examples of what I mean: You don't want \"\"emergency\"\" funds in a marketable security, because your emergency could be directly or indirectly related to some sort of market crisis. If you absolutely needed to liquidate an investment in the days after the collapse of Lehman brothers, you probably would have taken a bath -- even secure, US State bonds fell in value. If you feel that this is taking too much cash off the table, that's ok, just don't consider the part that you invest part of your \"\"emergency\"\" fund. The 3-8 months of expenses thing depends on your situation. If you're a salesman, err towards 8. If you're a unionized civil service worker with seniority, 3 months is probably appropriate.\"",
"You seem to have a grasp of the basic principles involved, but your estimation of the risk you are taking seems a bit low. Your non-investment reserves are unlikely to cover your expenses for more than a month, so the chance that you would need to sell investments to cover additional expenses is high. You mention that I am flexible with the 'cash on hand' amount. For instance, for about three months I put a very tight spending/investing freeze on my life because I knew I'd be leaving jobs and moving (I already had the other job lined up). Those savings presumably went toward moving expenses, as your usual savings were insufficient. In the event that you are laid off suddenly, you might find yourself in the same position again, with added unplanned expenses like fees for breaking a lease. Your current plan involves selling investments to cover the gap. Based on your age you have probably only invested in a predominantly positive market, so the chance that you might need to sell investments for cash seems like a reasonable trade-off for the added potential gains. Your perception might change if the markets go south and you are forced to sell into a down market, possibly at a significant loss. You also don't indicate if your investments are currently sufficient to cover an extended period of unemployment. You are taking on a lot of risk under your current plan. Essentially you are trading possible investment gains for flexibility and time. By making small changes like saving at least enough to move as you did previously, you can give yourself time to react to job loss or other unexpected financial need. Rather than give the traditional emergency funds advice, I suggest you look at the broader picture. The total amount of savings/risk is up to you, but you should consider your current savings as insufficient to rely on as a safety net.",
"If you have retirement savings, the HSA should not be considered in isolation, but as part of your complete asset allocation. The HSA is a unique account in that the funds go in pre-tax, grow tax free, and then for qualified expenses, are withdrawn tax free. With healthcare being the biggest risk to one's retirement portfolio (i.e. a large unknown in that retirement budget), funding an HSA to the max, and treating it as a long term investment makes a lot of sense. As a comment suggests, keeping what you feel is a year's worth of expenses liquid might make sense. The (medical) plan coverage should have a maximum out of pocket each year. That's another number you can use as a guideline. The question is great, and as more people have the high deductible plan with an HSA, it's worth some analysis. The problem for those answering is that we don't know the rest of your situation. Specifically, how these funds fit into your portfolio of assets.",
"Let me first start by defining an emergency fund. This is money which is: Because emergency's usually need to be deal with ASAP, boiler breaks, gears box in a car. Generally you need these to be solved as soon as possible, because ou depend on these things working and you can't budget for this type of expenditure using just your monthly salary. This is a personal opinion but I prefer investment types that don't have another fee on access. I really don't like having another fee on top on money that I need right now. Investment Options: Market based investments should be seen as long term investments, therefore they do not really satisfy requirement one, they can also have broker fees, therefore you might pay a small extra charge for taking money out, and so do not satisfy requirement two. Investment Options for Emergency Funds You want to get the best return on your money even if it's your emergency fund. So use regular saving accounts, but from you emergency fund or use tax effective savings accounts, like a cash ISA if based in the UK. Don't think of an emergency money as just sitting there, you have options just makes sure the options fit the requirements. UPDATE Given feedback I appreciate there are levels of emergency fund, the above details things which might be about 1-2 month salary in cost, car repairs, leaks, boiler repairs. Now I have another fund which is in P2P funds which is higher risk than a deposit account but then gives me a better return and is less subject to market fluctuations and it would be the place I go to for loss of job level emergencies say 6 months of salary, this takes a bit longer to access but given I have the above emergency fund I have given myself time to get the money from the P2P account.",
"There are, of course, many possible financial emergencies. They range from large medical expenses to losing your job to being sued to major home or car repairs to who-knows-what. I suppose some people are in a position where the chances that they will face any sort of financial emergency are remote. If you live in a country with national health insurance and there is near-zero chance that you will have any need to go outside this system, you are living with your parents and they are equipped to handle any home repairs, you ride the bus or subway and don't own a car so that's not an issue, etc etc, maybe there just isn't any likely scenario where you'd suddenly need cash. I can think of all sorts of scenarios that might affect me. I'm trying to put my kids through college, so if I lost my job, even if unemployment benefits were adequate to live on, they wouldn't pay for college. I have terrible health insurance so big medical bills could cost me a lot. I have an old car so it could break down any time and need expensive repairs, or even have to be replaced. I might suddenly be charged with a crime that I didn't commit and need a lawyer to defend me. Etc. So in a very real sense, everyone's situation is different. On the other hand, no matter how carefully you think it out, it's always possible that you will get bitten by something that you didn't think of. By definition, you can't make a list of unforeseen problems that might affect you! So no matter how safe you think you are, it's always good to have some emergency fund, just in case. How much is very hard to say.",
"\"Given that the 6 answers all advocate similar information, let me offer you the alternate scenario - You earn $60K and have an employer offering a 50% match on all deposits. All deposits. (Note, I recently read a Q&A here describing such an offer. If I see it again, I'll link). Let the thought of the above settle in. You think about the fact that $42K isn't a bad salary, and decide to deposit 30%, to gain the full match on your $18K deposit. Now, you budget to live your life, pay your bills, etc, but it's tight. When you accumulate $2000, and a strong want comes up (a toy, a trip, anything, no judgement) you have a tough decision. You think to yourself, \"\"after the match, I am literally saving 45% of my income. I'm on a pace to have the ability to retire in 20 years. Why do I need to save even more?\"\" Your budget has enough discretionary spending that if you have a $2000 'emergency', you charge it and pay it off over the next 6-8 months. Much larger, and you know that your super-funded 401(k) has the ability to tap a loan. Your choice to turn away from the common wisdom has the recommended $20K (about 6 months of your spending) sitting in your 401(k), pretax deposited as $26K, and matched to nearly $40K, growing long term. Note: This is a devil's advocate answer. Had I been the first to answer, it would reflect the above. In my own experience, when I got married, we built up the proper emergency fund. As interest rates fell, we looked at our mortgage balance, and agreed that paying down the loan would enable us to refinance and save enough in mortgage interest that the net effect was as if we were getting 8% on the money. At the same time as we got that new mortgage, the bank offered a HELOC, which I never needed to use. Did we somehow create high risk? Perhaps. Given that my wife and I were both still working, and had similar incomes, it seemed reasonable.\"",
"\"Which of these categories are emergency funds meant to cover? Emergency funds are for emergencies, which to me means expenses that are unanticipated and can't be covered out of \"\"normal\"\" cash-flow. Oil changes are not an \"\"emergency\"\" and should be part of your normal budget. Car/house repairs and doctor visits might be an emergency depending on the severity and the urgency (e.g. do I need to fix this now or can I save up and fix it?) For known, predictable expenses that are infrequent (Christmas, birthdays, car insurance, home insurance/taxes if it's not part of your mortgage payment), I use an escrow account. I calculate how much I'll need for all of those things put together over the year and set aside a fixed amount each paycheck to ensure that I have enough to cover each item. You could do something similar for minor doctor visits, car repairs, etc. Estimate how much you might spend and set aside some money each month. If you find you're spending more than you thought, just increase the amount. You can use envelopes for each type of expense, have a separate checking account for those, whatever. The point is to set it aside and make sure you have enough left over to cover your known expenses. The whole point of an emergency fund is to be able to pay cash for emergencies rather than borrowing to pay them and dealing with interest, late fees, etc.\"",
"\"An emergency fund is very well defined, both on this site and across the web. An emergency fund is a cash account where you keep money for emergencies so you don't need to take on debt like a loan or credit cards. Car breaks down? emergency fund can help pay that. Lose your job? The emergency fund is there to pay rent and for groceries until you're back up an running. There are several schools of thought on how much money should be in your emergency fund, but it boils down to how high your risk assessment is. Typically, the average is to have 3 months in cash available at all times (like in a savings account). It'd be better to have more, but that's a typical goal. You're also asking about investments in the comments. An emergency fund should be readily available. If you already have $10K in savings, set aside what you would need to cover a few months of bills into a cash-ready savings account, then invest the rest. Investments sometimes take time, or have penalties, if you withdraw them. Additionally, as @JoeTaxpayer so correctly pointed out, getting into the habit of maintaining a separate emergency fund helps protect your other investments from becoming a crutch and instead used to save up for larger things like a house or, especially, retirement. See also: What expenses should be covered by an emergency fund What should I reserve \"\"emergency savings\"\" for? What expenses do most people not prepare for that turn into \"\"emergencies\"\" but are not covered by an Emergency Fund? Less than a year at my first job out of college, what do I save for first?\"",
"Extended illness/disability that prevents you from being able to work. Edit: Leigh Riffel: So, why should this be expected, and how should it be planned for? Some of us may be fortunate enough that this never happens, but I've known enough unlucky people to have seen that it can and does happen. Prepare for it with:",
"From a budgeting perspective, the emergency fund is a category in which you've budgeted funds for the unexpected. These are things that weren't able to be predicted and budgeted for in advance, or things that exceeded the expected costs. For example you might budget $150 per month for car maintenance, and typically spend some of it while the rest builds up over time for unexpected repairs, so you have a few hundred available for that. But this month your transmission died and you have a $3,000 bill. You'll then fund most of this out of your emergency fund. This doesn't cover where to store that money though, which leads me to my next point. Emergencies are emergencies because they come without warning, without you having a chance to plan. Thefore the primary things you want in an emergency fund account are stability and quick access. You can structure investments to be whatever you think of as safe or stable but you don't want to be thinking about whether it's a good time to sell when you need the money right now. But the bigger problem is access. When you need the funds on a weekend, holiday, anytime outside of market hours, you're not going to be able to just sell some stocks and go to an ATM. This is the reason why it's recommended to have these funds in a checking or savings account usually. The reason I mentioned the budgeting side first is because I wanted to point out that if you're budgeting well, most of the unexpected expenses you have should have been expected in a sense; you can still plan for something without knowing when or if it will happen. So in the example of a car repair, ideally you're already budgeting for possible repairs, if you own a home you're budgeting for things that would go wrong, budgeting for speeding tickets, for surprise out of pocket medical costs, etc. These then become part of your normal budget: they aren't part of the emergency fund anymore. The bright side about budgeting for something unexpected is that you know what that money is for, and do you likely also know how quickly you'll need it. For example you know if you have unexpected medical costs that happen very quickly, you're not likely you need a bag of cash on a moment's notice. So those last two points lead to the fact that your actual emergency fund, the dollars that are for things you simply could not foresee, will be relatively small. A few thousand dollars or so in most cases. If you've got things structured like this, you'll be happy to have a few grand available at a moment's notice. The bulk of the money you would use for other surprise expenses (or things like 6 months of living expenses) is represented in other specific categories and you already know the timeframe in which you need it (probably enough time that it could be invested, risk to taste). In short: by expecting the unexpected, you can sidestep this issue and not worry so much about missed returns on the emergency fund.",
"I've read the answers and respect the thought behind them. I'd like to focus on (a) the magnitude of the emergency, and (b) the saving rate of the people affected. 3-6 months is interesting. It's enough not just to fix the car, repair the A/C, etc, but more than enough to lose one's job and recover. (Let's avoid the debate of how long it take to find a job, no amount of 'emergency savings' can solve that.) If one is spending below their means, any unexpected expense that can paid off within, say 3 months, doesn't really need to tap emergency funds (EF). And, at some level of income and retirement savings, one can more easily run a much lower EF. My own situation - I had 9mo worth of expenses saved as EF. We were living well beneath our means, and I was looking at the difference between our mortgage (6%+) vs bank interest (near 0%). I used the funds to pay down principal, refinanced to a lower rate, and at the same closing got a HELOC. The psychology of this is tough, it then appears that for simple expenses, I'd be borrowing from my HELOC. On the other hand, the choice was between a known cost, the $5K/year the money was costing by sitting there plus the lower rate by going to a non-jumbo loan at the time, vs the risk of using 3% money from the HELOC. In the end, the HELOC was never tapped for more than a small portion of its line, and I never regretted the decision. Ironically, it's the person who isn't saving much that need the EF most. If you are a saver, you need to judge how long it would take to replace the funds. I offer the above not as a recommendation, but as devil's advocate to the other excellent advice here. All cash flows are a choice, $100 going here, can't go there. I'd slip in a warning that one should capture matching 401(k) contributions, if offered, before funding the EF. And pay down any high interest debt. After that, the decision of how liquid to be is a personal choice, what worked for my wife and me may not be for everyone.",
"\"Between 6 months and a year is normally regarded as the \"\"standard\"\". Plan out what your monthly expenses are and save that money away. One thing to consider is what extras can you give up. If you are currently eating steak and lobster every day can you live with switching to ramen noodles for a period of time? Can you switch from premium cable to basic cable (or cancel it altogether)? Questions like this can greatly impact the amount you have to set aside. I personally have my emergency fund in CDs that mature the first of every month. I know there is less liquidity in this approach but I'm ok with that. My emergency fund is a sum of cash I'll always have so I wanted to reap the benefits of a higher yield. If it comes down to it I can place an expense on a credit card and pay off the credit card when funds become available.\"",
"It sounds like you're putting all your extra money into insurances because you feel that one can never have too much insurance. That's a very bad idea, financially. Basically it means you'll end up giving your money away to insurance companies in order to satisfy that feeling. Do realize that the expected value of every instuance is negative: on average, you'll pay more money than you'll receive. Otherwise, insurance companies would go bankrupt, so they are very good at ensuring that they get more in premiums than they pay out. Insurance should only be bought to cover essential risks, things that would ruin you: major health problems, death (to cover dependants), disability, liability. For everything else, you should self-insure by saving up money (up to a few months' wages) and putting it into safe and liquid investment vehicles as an emergency fund. That way, you are much more flexible, don't pay for the insurance company's employees, fancy offices and profits, and may even earn some interest.",
"As you point out in your question your risk level is personal. If you really believe your job is stable there is no more risk. However the overall evidence is that most jobs are less stable, and if you do lose your job you're likely going to be out of work for a while. One thing to consider though is that if you have planned on emergency credit in the past, that option is not really viable anymore.",
"\"The answer to your question depends very much on your definition of \"\"long-term\"\". Because let's make something clear: an investment horizon of three to six months is not long term. And you need to consider the length of time from when an \"\"emergency\"\" develops until you will need to tap into the money. Emergencies almost by definition are unplanned. When talking about investment risk, the real word that should be used is volatility. Stocks aren't inherently riskier than bonds issued by the same company. They are likely to be a more volatile instrument, however. This means that while stocks can easily gain 15-20 percent or more in a year if you are lucky (as a holder), they can also easily lose just as much (which is good if you are looking to buy, unless the loss is precipitated by significantly weaker fundamentals such as earning lookout). Most of the time stocks rebound and regain lost valuation, but this can take some time. If you have to sell during that period, then you lose money. The purpose of an emergency fund is generally to be liquid, easily accessible without penalties, stable in value, and provide a cushion against potentially large, unplanned expenses. If you live on your own, have good insurance, rent your home, don't have any major household (or other) items that might break and require immediate replacement or repair, then just looking at your emergency fund in terms of months of normal outlay makes sense. If you own your home, have dependents, lack insurance and have major possessions which you need, then you need to factor those risks into deciding how large an emergency fund you might need, and perhaps consider not just normal outlays but also some exceptional situations. What if the refrigerator and water heater breaks down at the same time that something breaks a few windows, for example? What if you also need to make an emergency trip near the same time because a relative becomes seriously ill? Notice that the purpose of the emergency fund is specifically not to generate significant interest or dividend income. Since it needs to be stable in value (not depreciate) and liquid, an emergency fund will tend towards lower-risk and thus lower-yield investments, the extreme being cash or the for many more practical option of a savings account. Account forms geared toward retirement savings tend to not be particularly liquid. Sure, you can usually swap out one investment vehicle for another, but you can't easily withdraw your money without significant penalties if at all. Bonds are generally more stable in value than stocks, which is a good thing for a longer-term portion of an emergency fund. Just make sure that you are able to withdraw the money with short notice without significant penalties, and pick bonds issued by stable companies (or a fund of investment-grade bonds). However, in the present investment climate, this means that you are looking at returns not significantly better than those of a high-yield savings account while taking on a certain amount of additional risk. Bonds today can easily have a place if you have to pick some form of investment vehicle, but if you have the option of keeping the cash in a high-yield savings account, that might actually be a better option. Any stock market investments should be seen as investments rather than a safety net. Hopefully they will grow over time, but it is perfectly possible that they will lose value. If what triggers your financial emergency is anything more than local, it is certainly possible to have that same trigger cause a decline in the stock market. Money that you need for regular expenses, even unplanned ones, should not be in investments. Thus, you first decide how large an emergency fund you need based on your particular situation. Then, you build up that amount of money in a savings vehicle rather than an investment vehicle. Once you have the emergency fund in savings, then by all means continue to put the same amount of money into investments instead. Just make sure to, if you tap into the emergency fund, replenish it as quickly as possible.\"",
"We aim to keep 6 months of expenses. The rationale is that its enough time to recover from most serious illnesses (that you can recover from) or a redundancy or pay for a large unexpected problem not covered by the insurance (e.g. the boiler dying). It also gives us enough time to reorganise finances if needed. For example we could get out of contracts (like mobile phones, sky TV), sell the car, and maybe even find a cheaper house if needed in that time. It will take a good chunk of time to build up that amount and it's worth considering how many commitments you have (kids, wife, mortgage, car...) as the fewer you have the less you need. If you have fewer commitments you can be comfortable with much less contingency. When I lived in rented accomodation and didn't run a car or have many possessions, I just maintained enough cash to cover my bills for about 6 weeks, this would give me enough time to find another job, and if I didn't get one I could always crash round a friend's house.",
"If you can afford to max out an HSA and cover out of pocket expenses without withdrawing from it, it makes sense to do so. It might sound initially risky to tie too much money to healthcare expenses, perhaps you'll enjoy exceptional health and not need those funds. However, the annual contribution limit ($3,350/year for an individual) is low enough that it's unlikely you'd overfund your HSA, but even if you didn't need it all for healthcare, after 65 you can withdraw HSA funds without the 20% withdrawal penalty that you're hit with if under 65, so best case it's tax-free, worst-case it's like an IRA. From a tax perspective, your contributions are a tax-deduction like a traditional IRA, there's no tax on the gains, and you withdraw it tax-free as well, so long as you have healthcare expenses. The tricky bit is you can get reimbursed for your expenses at any time. If you pay out of pocket now, in 20 years you can get a reimbursement from your HSA: From HSA Bank's FAQ Can I use my tax-free HSA savings to pay for — or reimburse myself for — IRS-qualified medical expenses from a previous year? Yes, as long as the IRS-qualified medical expenses were incurred after your HSA was established, you can pay them or reimburse yourself with HSA funds at any time. Just be sure to keep sufficient records to show that these expenses were not previously paid for by another source or taken as an itemized deduction in any prior tax year.",
"It's an issue of how much of a safety net you want, and part of that is going to be how much of a safety net you have in other areas. You should take into account what regular expenses you have, what emergency expenses you might have, what insurance policies you have, what deductibles those policies have, and what sources of money you have. As Alex B says, a HELOC isn't a guaranteed source of money, but it is one contingency. If you have a large amount of equity and your local real estate market is stable, your bank could cancel your HELOC, but they would have no financial incentive to do so. Other possible safety nets to consider would be friends and family, credit cards, and loans backed by retirement funds. Obviously you shouldn't rely on the last two for everyday expenses, but it's reasonable to consider them as contingencies in true emergencies. Also, if you have a significant net worth, home equity and savings account should not be the only places you're storing your wealth. Look into stocks, bonds, and money market accounts. Your expected returns in the stock market should be higher than the interest you're paying on the HELOC. Stocks are more risky and obviously you shouldn't put all your savings there, but it is one more basket to put your eggs in, and unlike a savings account your money isn't just sitting there.",
"I am understanding the OP to mean that this is for an emergency fund savings account meant to cover 3 to 6 months of living expenses, not a 3-6 month investment horizon. Assuming this is the case, I would recommend keeping these funds in a Money Market account and not in an investment-grade bond fund for three reasons:",
"I think that Dave Ramsey has a good approach to emergency funds. Save $1,000 that is immediately accessible in an emergency, pay off your debts, then build a 3-6 month fund. Two years is great, but takes a really long time to build up.",
"I think this varies considerably depending on your situation. I've heard people say 6 month's living expenses, and I know Suze Orman recommended bumping that to 8 months in our current economy. My husband and I have no children, lots of student loan debts, but we pay off our credit cards in full each month and are working to save up for a house. We've talked through a few different what-if scenarios. If one of us were to lose our job, we have savings to cover the difference between our reduced income and paying the bills for 6 or 8 months while the other person regained employment. If both of us were to lose our jobs simultaneously, our savings wouldn't hold us over for more than 3 or 4 months, but if that were to happen, we would likely take advantage of the opportunity to relocate closer to our families, and possibly even move in to my parent's house for a short time. With no children and no mortgage, our commitments are few, so I don't feel the need to have a very large emergency cash fund, especially with student loans to pay off. Think through a few scenarios for your life and see what you would need. Take into consideration expenses to break a rental lease, cell phone contract, or other commitments. Then, start saving toward your goal. Also see answers to a similar question here.",
"Having a highly liquid emergency fund can lubricate the wheels for disaster recovery. For example, several years ago I returned from a vacation to discover that, during my absence, a plumbing fixture had broken and my house was flooded. Since we had sufficient liquidity to cover the cost of the repairs in our emergency fund, the insurance company was much easier to deal with, and the relationships between the contractor, bank, and insurance company were much smoother. The bank was able to approve the insurance in minutes versus days. Ironically, we didn't actually have to touch our emergency fund precisely because we had it. Clarification - I make it a point to have no debt.",
"Depends on the insurance company itself, as well as the costs of treatments. Imagine an ideal scenario where costs of treatments stayed the same, and that all insurance plans were segregated and pulled from the same pool of funds to pay for treatments. Then employer subsidized health insurance plans would be unaffected by the drama in the ACA plans. Those are the factors to consider, from my understanding. But I wouldn't be surprised if the burdens of accepting people that would previously never have been serviced by these companies has greatly distorted the market as a whole.",
"I would disagree with your analysis. To me there are two purposes for a money market (MM): Your emergency fund should be from 3 to 6 months of expenses. Think of it of an insurance policy against Murphy. You may want to have some money designated for big expenses, or even sinking funds. For example, I keep some money in a MM for a car as both the wife, daughter, and I driver older vehicles. I may need to replace them. If you were planning on making a larger purchase car, house, boat, engagement ring I would put the money in a MM fund so you are not subject to the whims of the market. After that you are free to invest all your money. Its likely that you should have some money outside of tax advantaged funds so if you want to start a business you will not have to do high cost withdrawals.",
"Keeping your “big emergency” fund in stocks if you have 12 months income saved is OK. However you should keep your “small emergency” fund in cash. (However I find that even my stock broker accounts have some cash in them, as I like to let the dividends build up enough to make the dealing charges worthwhile. You don’t wish to be forced to sell at a bad time due to your boiler needing replacing or your car breaking down. However if you lost your job in the same week that your boiler broke down and your car needed replacing then being forced to sell stocks at a bad time is not much of an issue. Also if you are saving say 1/3 of your income each month and you have a credit card with large unused credit limit that is paid of each month, then most “small emergency” that are under 2/3 of your monthly income can be covered on the credit card with little or no interest charges. One option is to check you bank balance on the day after you are paid, and if it is more than 2x your monthly income, then move some of it to long term savings, but only if you tend to spend a lot less then you earn most months.",
"Congrats on making it this far debt free. It is rare, but nice to be in the situation that you are in. The important thing here is that you want to remain debt free. That's really what the emergency fund is all about: it keeps you from needing to go into debt should something unexpected happen. You've got 1.5 months worth of expenses saved up, and that's great. If you don't have a family or other responsibilities, that might be enough, but think about this: how are you paying for school, and what would happen if those funds stopped coming in? If you are paying for school out of your own income, what happens if you lose your job? If someone else, perhaps your parents, is paying for school, what happens if they are suddenly no longer able to do so? While you have extra cash, you want to be saving it up for situations like this. If I were you, I would build up that emergency fund until it got to the point where it could pay all your expenses and tuition until graduation. Hopefully, you won't need to touch it, but it will be there if you need it. Since you need to be able to access your money quickly, it is generally recommended to park this money in a savings account, where it is very safe. Mutual funds are a great way to invest, but they are not safe in the short term. Don't stress out about not being able to start retirement investing just yet. Making sure you can finish school debt free is the best investment you can make right now. After you graduate and land a job, you can start investing aggressively.",
"i think emergency fund should be in a more liquid account (like regular saving or money market) so you can withdraw money any time, while your regular saving can be tied up in a long term CD, bond or an investment account.",
"On paper the whole 6 months living costs sounds (and is) great, but in real life there are a lot of things that you need to consider. For example, my first car was constantly falling apart and was an SUV that got 16MPG. I have to travel for work (about 300 miles per week) so getting a sedan that averages close to 40MPG saves me more in gas and maintenance than the monthly payment for the new car costs. When our apartment lease was up, the new monthly rent would have been $1685 per month, we got a 30 year mortgage with a monthly payment of $1372. So buying a house actually let us put aside more each month. We have just under 3 months of living expenses set aside (1 month in liquid assets, 2 months in a brokerage account) and I worry about it. I wish we had a better buffer, but in our case the house and car made more sense as an early investment compared to just squirreling away all our savings. Also, do you have any debt? Paying off debt (student loans, credit card debt, etc.) should often take top priority. Have some rainy day funds, of course, but pay down debts, and then create a personal financial plan for what works best in your situation. That would be my suggestion.",
"Without a full time job you are in an emergency. Hopefully it won't last long, but my opinion is to give the emergency fund priority while you just might need it soon.",
"I would say that, for the most part, money should not be invested in the stock market or real estate. Mostly this money should be kept in savings: I feel like your emergency fund is light. You do not indicate what your expenses are per month, but unless you can live off of 1K/month, that is pretty low. I would bump that to about 15K, but that really depends upon your expenses. You may want to go higher when you consider your real estate investments. What happens if a water heater needs replacement? (41K left) EDIT: As stated you could reduce your expenses, in an emergency, to 2K. At the bare minimum your emergency fund should be 12K. I'd still be likely to have more as you don't have any money in sinking funds or designated savings and the real estate leaves you a bit exposed. In your shoes, I'd have 12K as a general emergency fund. Another 5K in a car fund (I don't mind driving a 5,000 car), 5k in a real estate/home repair fund, and save about 400 per month for yearly insurance and tax costs. Your first point is incorrect, you do have debt in the form of a car lease. That car needs to be replaced, and you might want to upgrade the other car. How much? Perhaps spend 12K on each and sell the existing car for 2K? (19K left). Congratulations on attempting to bootstrap a software company. What kind of cash do you anticipate needing? How about keeping 10K designated for that? (9K left) Assuming that medical school will run you about 50K per year for 4 years how do you propose to pay for it? Assuming that you put away 4K per month for 24 months and have 9K, you will come up about 95K short assuming some interests in your favor. The time frame is too short to invest it, so you are stuck with crappy bank rates.",
"\"Careful with saying \"\"no need\"\". Look careful at the cost of life insurance. That cost depends obviously on the amount, but also on the age when you start paying into the insurance. If you take out a $100,000 insurance at 20, and someone else takes it out at 30, and a third person at 50, they will pay hugely different amounts when you reach the same age. You will pay less when you are 50 then the person taking out insurance at 30 when they reach the age of 50, and less again than the person who just started with their life insurance. And as mhoran said, once you have insurance you can keep it even if you get an illness that would make you uninsurable.\"",
"insurance premiums My annual car premium always caught me off guard until I set up a dedicated savings account for it.",
"It's simple. Most people don't spend $6000 a year in medical care. As for myself, there's probably only $400 or less, mostly in annual checkups and the like. If you are the type to require more medical care, then you will pay more per month. I know a person with asthma, kidney stones, and inflammatory issues. This person spends probably $1000 in co-pays per year, with considerable more if you were to include the hospital visits in the likes. But if you don't think you are one of these people, then don't get the higher cost plan.",
"The iron-clad rule of investing is that risk and return are directly related. It is impossible to get a higher return than you are getting without putting principal at risk. Your emergency fund should be in cash, preferably in government insured cash (like a savings account). The best you could probably do is laddered 3-month CDs. That way, you could cash them out, one per month, as they mature.",
"I'd imagine that it's a small portion of the population that can have much of both. If one is saving a decent amount for retirement, say 10-15%, they aren't likely to have much else, aside from the house if included. For example, when I look at my 'pie chart' I get Retirement 72%, House 22%, everything else 6%. Specific to your question, emergency funds should be just that, accessible for urgent matters, other short term needs, such as car fund, big TV fund, vacation, etc, also in non-risky cash (i.e. money funds CDs, etc) and the rest invested long term. The short need money isn't part of the long term asset allocation, to be specific.",
"You have to consider that taxes that you pay on the premiums is money definitely paid, while benefits being tax free won't save you a thing if you never receive the benefits.",
">Insurance should be based on binary states, and healthy/unhealthy just isn't an actual set of binary states. Insurance is a financial risk mitigation product. Binary states are irrelevant. You buy insurance to make sure that if you have healthcare bills over some amount in a year, insurance kicks in. That's it! It's pure economics.",
"This is probably a good time to note that credit is not a liquid asset, and not an emergency fund. Credit can be revoked or denied at any time, and Murphy's law states that you may have issues with credit when everything else goes wrong too.",
"\"This is a very interesting question. Unfortunately, in the way you wrote the question the answer is no. Essentially, you would be asking someone to give you a ~20% return for your cash on something that is almost guaranteed when holding your cash only gets them a <1% return. Would anyone take the other side of that deal? Interestingly though, you can to some extent hedge surprises in health care costs. For instance, investing in the healthcare industry as David Rice suggests is a partial hedge. The prices of those industry stocks already has future expected cost increases included. However, if costs were to jump even higher than expected you would gain some of the added cost you would pay in healthcare back. Not that I recommend this strategy, as you lose diversification, but this is a valid and reasonable reason to slightly overweight american healthcare companies for someone in your situation. Note that the Wiki article you mention talks about hedging surprises as well. \"\"If at planting time the farmer sells a number of wheat futures contracts equivalent to his anticipated crop size, he effectively locks in the price of wheat at that time.\"\" Thinking that way you may actually be able to buy health insurance now for two or three years in the future essentially locking in expected price increases today. Probably not the answer you were looking for, but the best analogy for what financial hedging truly does.\"",
"I was also going to mention people going through savings during unemployment. And given the unemployment figures, 28% having no emergency savings even seems low. Purely anecdotal but I cleared through my savings a few years ago during seven months of unemployment and have several friends who did the same and/or racked up thousands in debt.",
"Firstly well done on building a really sold base of savings. An emergency fund needs to have two key characteristics: Be enough to get you through a typical emergency event (often seen as approx. ~6 months’ salary in your style of situation assuming you have no dependents etc) Be liquid and available to you instantly if an emergency arises Once you have decided how much you will need for 1), you then generally find the best interest available on an instant access savings account and leave it there. It's important to note that because you need it very liquid and very secure you will basically never make (nor should you expect to make) any sizeable rate of interest on your emergency fund. Once this is done, whatever left should be invested in an asset/mix of assets that best fit your risk profile - of which long term bonds are a completely legitimate option, but it's hard to say without knowing more about your long term aims/liabilities/job market etc.",
"\"Evaluate if the Rs 5 million term insurance is sufficient. Typically the term insurance provided by employer is in the range of 1 to 3 times the gross. Generally one should be covered in the range of 5 to 10 times the Gross. The sooner you start the lesser the premium and you can get insured for a large amount for a long duration at very nominal rate. NOTE: You can also buy a health insurance for your father, note these typically come at high cost, generally if over 70 years of age, 25% is the premium amount and 25% as co-pay. So if your dad doesn't fall ill once in 3 years, its a loss making proposition. Edit: Accident insurance best take is along with rider on term plan. Additional Health insurance is a good idea and helps if you are in between jobs. Plus the new company health insurance can reject a particular treatment as \"\"Pre-Existing\"\". i.e. certain illness [in certain plans] require one to have coverage for 3 years before the claim for it can be covered.\"",
"If you have doubts about the long term prospects at your employer or jobs in your area, you may want to keep the option of moving to find a new job open while you save up for a larger down payment on a house. While there are insurance products out there that claim to cover your mortgage, they often have loopholes which make them difficult to collect on. Insurance companies are in business to make money and premiums are high when it's likely that people will try to collect. Splitting those premiums into your mortgage and your own self-insured unemployment fund (i.e. an emergency fund in a money market bank account) will usually be a better deal. As always, make sure you have term life insurance for a family and long term disability insurance just in case something really bad happens in the near term. Buying a home is a better financial decision when you know you'll be in an area for at least 5 years. Saving until you have 20% down on place that you can afford to pay off in 15 years (even if you take a 30 year loan) will be a lot cheaper and less stressful.",
"\"You can deduct what you pay for your own and your family's health insurance regardless of whether it is subsidized by your employer or not, as well as all other medical and dental expenses for your family, as an itemized deduction on Schedule A of Form 1040, but only to the extent that the total exceeds 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) (10% on tax returns for year 2013 onwards). As pointed out in KeithB's comment, you cannot deduct any health insurance premium (or other medical expense) that was paid for out of pre-tax dollars, nor indeed can you deduct any medical expense to the extent that it was paid for by the insurance company directly to hospital or doctor (or reimbursed to you) for a covered expense; e.g. if the insurance company reimbursed you $72 for a claim for a doctor's visit for which you paid $100 to the doctor, only $28 goes on Schedule A to be added to the amount that you will be comparing to the 7.5% of AGI threshold, and the $72 is not income to you that needs to be reported on Form 1040. Depending on other items on Schedule A, your total itemized deductions might not exceed the standard deduction, in which case you will likely choose to use the standard deduction. In this case, you \"\"lose\"\" the deduction for medical expenses as well as all other expenses deductible on Schedule A. Summary of some of the discussions in the comments Health care insurance premiums cannot be paid for from HSA accounts (IRS Pub 969, page 8, column 2, near the bottom) though there are some exceptions. Nor can health care insurance premiums be paid from an FSA account (IRS Pub 969, page 17, column 1, near the top). If you have a business on the side and file a Schedule C as a self-employed person, you can buy medical insurance for that business's employees (and their families too, if you like) as an employment benefit, and pay for it out of the income of the Schedule C business, (thus saving on taxes). But be aware that if you have employees other than yourself in the side business, they would need to be covered by the same policy too. You can even decide to pay all medical expenses of your employees and their families too (no 7.5% limitation there!) as an employment benefit but again, you cannot discriminate against other employees (if any) of the Schedule C business in this matter. Of course, all this money that reduced your Schedule C income does not go on Schedule A at all. If your employer permits your family to be covered under its health insurance plan (for a cost, of course), check whether you are allowed to pay for the insurance with pre-tax dollars. The private (non-Schedule C) insurance would, of course, be paid for with post-tax dollars. I would doubt that you would be able to save enough money on taxes to make up the difference between $1330/month and $600/month, but it might also be that the private insurance policy covers a lot less than your employer's policy does. As a rule of thumb, group insurance through an employer can be expected to offer better coverage than privately purchased insurance. Whether the added coverage is worth the additional cost is a different matter. But while considering this matter, keep in mind that privately purchased insurance is not always guaranteed to be renewable, and a company might decline to renew a policy if there were a large number of claims. A replacement policy might not cover pre-existing conditions for some time (six months? a year?) or maybe even permanently. So, do consider these aspects as well. Of course, an employer can also change health insurance plans or drop them entirely as an employment benefit (or you might quit and go work for a different company), but as long as the employer's health plan is in existence, you (and continuing members of your family) cannot be discriminated against and denied coverage under the employer's plan.\"",
"One thing that kept me from doing a budget for years is how complex some people make it. For example you list your gross pay, then deduct the taxes, 401K, FSA, etc... Why? Those are pretty consistent. For me, the way this is budgeted is I list my net pay, and go from there. If you were perfect in predicting your FSA, you would have no medical expenses on your budget! Simple, easy budget! Now this year, you will probably have to pay out of pocket for some expenses. Can you predict how much? Can your disposable income absorb the overages? If not you will need to start a sinking fund. That is put a sufficient amount of money into a savings account each month to cover the shortage. Keep in mind you can go over a bit on your FSA contributions. If you find yourself near the end of the plan year with extra money, you can also claim mileage reimbursement for your medical appointments. Since your FSA has a history of those, it is easy to calculate your mileage from your home to the DR's office and submit a claim.",
"\"You are kind of thinking of this correctly, but you will and should pay for insurance at some point. What I mean by that is that, although the insurance company is making a profit, that removing the risk for certain incidents from your life, you are still receiving a lot of value. Things that inflict large losses in your life tend to be good insurance buys. Health, liability, long term care, long term disability and property insurance typically fall into this category. In your case, assuming you are young and healthy, it would be a poor choice to drop the major medical health insurance. There is a small chance you will get very sick in the next 10 years or so and require the use of this insurance. A much smaller chance than what is represented by the premium. But if you do get very sick, and don't have insurance, it will probably wipe you out financially. The devastation could last the rest of your life. You are paying to mitigate that possibility. And as you said, it's pretty low cost. While you seem to be really good at numbers it is hard to quantify the risk avoidance. But it must be considered in your analysis. Also along those lines is car insurance. While you may not be willing to pay for \"\"full coverage\"\" it's a great idea to max out your personal liability if you have sufficient assets.\"",
"\"For me, the emergency fund is meant to cover unexpected, but necessary expenses that I didn't budget for. The emergency fund allows me to pay for these things without going into debt. Let's say that my car breaks down, and I don't have any money in my budget for fixing it. I really need to get my car fixed, so I spend the money from my emergency fund. However, cars break down periodically. If I was doing a better job with my budget, I would allocate some money each month into a \"\"car repair/maintenance\"\" category. (In fact, I actually do this.) With my budgeting software, I can look at how much I've spent on car repairs over the last year, and budget a monthly amount for car repair expenses. Even if I do this, I might end up short if I am unlucky. Emergency fund to the rescue! If I'm budgeting correctly, I don't pay any regular bills out of this fund, as those are expected expenses. Car insurance, life insurance, and property tax are all bills that come on a regular basis, and I set aside money for each of these each month so that when the bill comes, I have the money ready to go. The recommended size of an emergency fund is usually listed as \"\"3 to 6 months of expenses.\"\" However, that is just a rough guideline. As you get better with your budget, you might find that you have a lower probability of needing it, and you can let your emergency fund fall to the lower end of the guideline range. The size of my own emergency fund is on the lower end of this scale. And if I have a true crisis (i.e. extended unemployment, severe family medical event), I can \"\"rob\"\" one of my other savings funds, such as my car replacement fund, vacation fund, etc. Don't be afraid to spend your emergency fund money if you need it. If you have an unexpected, necessary expense that you have not budgeted for, use the emergency fund money. However, your goal should be to get to the point where you never have to use it, because you have adequately accounted for all of the expenses that you can reasonably expect to have in the future.\"",
"As others have pointed out, post-tax dollars are what you'll use. Just as a quick note, as you'll be using post-tax dollars; in the past, I've refused to take contractor plans because they almost always are inferior to what I've been able to get off the private exchange ehealthinsurance. A few people have written excellent articles on Get Rich Slowly here and here about them in detail if you want more information. Generally, contractors (and sometimes employees) are offered a few plans (3-4), and this health exchange gives you a little more freedom to pick your plan, which in your situation may help. It isn't always cheaper, but depending on your needs, you may obtain a better deal. Forgot to add this: this option has also made switching jobs easy as well since I don't have to pay COBRA. While it depends on the situation, this can sometimes come out significantly cheaper. For instance, if I were to take the employer health plan next year, I would lose ~$450 a month, whereas the private exchange option is ~$300. But, if I were to switch jobs, decide to opt for self-employment, or a layoff, the COBRA would be even higher than ~$450.",
"I am going through this right now. We recently moved and learned the lesson of needing a good bit of wealth in easily accessible accounts. In our case for a down payment on a new house. So we have decided to increase our emergency fund to $50,000.00 minimum. Then throwing the rest in retirement accounts seems like a safe bet. So my rule of thumb is think of how much a 20% down payment would be on a new house if you needed to move. That way you can avoid pmi while also avoiding penalties for withdrawing from your retirement accounts.",
"I know an answer has been accepted, but you need an emergency fund, ideally enough to cover at least 3 months of after-tax basic living expenses. As a free-lancer, 6 months would be even better. This isn't a fun way to tie up your money, but it is a prudent way. What if you lose your job, or decide you want to change your line of work? What if you're told a close family member has only months to live and you want to take significant time off unpaid? What if your car breaks down and you need a new one? What if your freelance business hits a dry patch for a few months? What if you want to move but can't sell your next house quickly? I've known people who had these types of situations come up unexpectedly. Some were financially prepared and had the freedom to make the choices they wanted to make, others didn't and now have regrets. Once you have a basic emergency fund in place, then go for investing with the rest of the money. Best of luck!",
"Considering how expensive insurance is now, We need to try single payer and any other means to lower our costs. The problem today is that people without healthcare (e.g. Do not seek healthcare when a low cost option would work). The result is that by the time uninsured go to the hospital it is very expensive. What we have today is not working, we should not have to pay 18-20% of our income to get health insurance.",
"\"This is probably skewed, because most people see their credit-cards as \"\"emergency savings\"\". But the real problem happens that once you have an emergency, it turns into two. 1) *Emergency* 2) Maxed out credit-card emergency.\"",
"A Roth IRA is intended for retirement. Before age 59.5 (I think), you can only withdraw the amount you deposited without penalty. It's great you're saving in a Roth, but you shouldn't put savings in there that you will need before you reach sufficient age. And since it's long-term, you can invest in things you expect to grow over the long term, like equities. You should keep emergency funds either in federally insured, extremely liquid accounts (bank savings) or money market funds (which aren't insured, but are close enough to zero-risk). Yes, the interest rates are terrible right now. But anything else would potentially leave you with insufficient funds in the event of, you know, an emergency.",
"\"Emergency funds have a very specific and obvious benefit; you'll have money sitting around in case you need it. A lot of people think a big car repair or some unexpected home repair is an emergency, and that's fine. Emergency also expands up to \"\"I lost my job four months ago and we're a year in to a recession, the stock market is down 30% and I need to pay my rent or mortgage.\"\" Sure, you could just sell some of your stocks that have lost 30% and pay your rent. I know nobody likes to think about it, but the stock market can go down. I know nobody likes to think about it, but the economy can slink in to a recession. In fact, here's a small list of recent U.S. recessions: No competent investment adviser would advise that your emergency funds should be subject to market volatility because that completely defeats the purpose of an emergency fund. It's possible that this manager wants you to indicate a separate emergency fund to allocate a portion of your account to a low volatility US Treasury fund or something of the like, this would be materially different than investing in a broad market/large cap fund like VOO or VTI. The effects of inflation are not so bad that you should put your emergency money in the market. Who cares what inflation was if you have to sell an asset at a loss to pay rent? One last point. Index fund ETFs are not \"\"safe.\"\" Investing in diversified funds is safER than buying individual company stocks.\"",
"I think rather than take a percentage out, I focus on getting a total amount I consider appropriate for my emergency fund. Then as for retirement, I do at least what my employer matches, up to the contribution limit. For example my personal retirement plan in the US has an annual max contribution of $5000. Once I have my 6 to 12 month emergency fund (in a pretty liquid form) and a fully funded retirement, I want to concentrate on building wealth via investments or increasing the quality of my life by spending. Summary answer is: no percentage for emergency, just get to a total amount you feel comfortable. Then whatever percentage will allow you to make the most of employer matching and make your retirement fully funded.",
"\"There are exactly zero experts in the field of Personal Finance that would advise having an \"\"emergency fund\"\" (liquid assets available to meet sudden obligations like illness, car accident, AC breaks, etc.) that is sub $1,000. If you have less than $1k in liquid assets you either A. must live at home with your parents, B. very broke or C. being very irresponsible. I think an emergency fund of $10k is really the sweet spot. I can't imagine anyone reasonable funding the shit out of their 401k, IRA, etc. and having less than $1k cash.\"",
"Duffbeer703 covers most everything. The entire point of an emergency fund IS for it to be liquid. Now I do understand (if you feel your situation requires over 6 months of living expenses): That is a lot of money to have sitting in a statement savings account! Under no circumstances should you take any sort of risk with an emergency fund. However, you COULD do this: Invest some of the assets in a six month, 1 year or 2 year CD if returns were enough to be worthwhile. If you don't need the money, then fine, great. But if you do, you can break a Certificate of Deposit before maturity. There will be a penalty fee. You might lose interest too. But you'll have access to your money, no liquidity risk. So maybe you could put most, say 60% of your rainy day funds in truly liquid assets. The remainder could be in longer term CD's which you hopefully won't need because you'll be back to non rainy day living again.",
"I'd be concerned about using CDs (or other non-liquid source) for your emergency fund because you become likely to use debt instead of tapping your emergency fund because you are worried about penalties (which typically only affect interest). This mind set can make you loan the bank money at 1-2% (buy a cd) and borrow money from the bank at 18-25% (credit card). Don't create psychological barriers to using your emergency fund in a true emergency Also, you recommend 3-8 months of expenses. The purpose of an emergency fund is to cover both a loss of income for 3-8 months, or a one time large expense (new roof, new sewer pipe to the house, etc.). A tiered solution solves the loss of income solution, but does not readily address the need for a one time, large emergency. I'd keep all of your emergency fund liquid.",
"In today's market being paid 1% for risk and free access money is pretty darn good. If 50k is what you feel comfortable with an emergency fund, then you are doing a fine enough job. To me that is a lot to keep in an emergency fund, however several factors play into this: We both drive older cars, so I also keep enough money around to replace one of them. Considering all that I keep a specific amount in savings that for me earns .89%. Some of that is kept in our checking accounts which earns nothing. You have to go through some analysis of your own situation and keep that amount where it is. If that amount is less than 50K, you have some money to play with. Here are some options:",
"No danger. You can get in a car accident, break your leg skateboarding, or otherwise wind up in the hospital like anyone else. You can also get the money back, with a tax penalty, but you probably will never need to if you are responsible and live within your means. Do you need a wake up call about what things can cost? I knew a college student who broke his leg skateboarding and didn't buy the ~$100/semester health insurance. He had to have a rod put in his leg and it was ~$30,000. Obviously he didn't have the money and the hospital agreed to put him on some kind of payment plan. I suppose bankruptcy was an alternative.... but either way, not a great way to start out in life. Any time you can defer payment of tax for decades or buy something with pre-income tax money, it is like instantly earning 20% (or more) on your money. I believe you can pay for eyeglasses and dental out of an HSA as well. So I wouldn't go overboard on an HSA or IRA if you have big credit card debts, if you do have room for savings it is dumb not to be putting money in the HSA and IRA/401k. Take a look at HSA bank for a low fee home for your money. They pay interest on over $3,000 (but like most banks, not much). The fees for being under $3k are currently around $2 a month. Don't worry about investing the HSA money until you have like $10,000 in there, which will be a while.",
"Who depends on you? I personally wasn't insured until I had a family. Of course I had the required insurance policies like auto, but no health until I was 29 and had a kid who needed me. Now I have health, dental, vision, life, auto, homeowners and renter's insurance. I can't let an accident or disaster affect my baby's future.",
"I like HSAs. My employer had one for one year, but then took it away. Money you put into an HSA is tax-advantaged, you can invest it however you want, it can be used for healthcare if you need it, and you can stop adding to it at any time. You're healthy now, but it's likely there will be a time when you're not, and then it would be nice to have money already available.",
"Why are you saving your emergency fund in a Roth-IRA? That type of fund should be for retirement. I know you can pull out your principal but that would mean in a crisis you will be destroying your retirement fund. Remember there is an annual limit, it could take years to replenish it if you have to pay for a big repair, or period of unemployment. The emergency fund should be kept in a very safe account. I would just keep in a high yeild account at a Credit Union",
"Emergency funds are good to keep yourself out of debt, for whatever reason. Job loss is a big place where an emergency fund can help you out. It buys you time to find another job before hauling out the credit cards for your groceries, falling behind on your mortgage and car payments, etc. But it can just as easily be used for major car repairs, serious medical issues, home repairs, etc. ... anything that needs to be done quickly, and isn't a discretionary item. The bigger your cash reserves, the better, especially now that the economy is bad.",
"Most financial guru's recommend between three and six months of savings, modified by how likely you think it is you'll lose your job. Note that the months here are months of expenses not income. Dave Ramsey on the other hands recommends saving only $1000 until you've paid all debts (except your home). This strategy only makes sense if you're paying off debt very aggressively. Since you have many relatively small debts, you would benefit greatly from the debt snowball (recent research shows it's more effective in practice than paying off high interest first). As you quickly pay off the smaller loans you reduce the amount you must pay each month, reducing your risk (your emergency fund now goes that much farther), and enabling you to put more on the next debt. In your particular case the debt snowball would be: etc. Again, this is good because it quickly reduces your monthly required debt payments.",
"If this is truly your emergency fund, then you should keep the money safe. Unfortunately interest rates are very low right now and there is not much you can do about that. However, ask your investment advisor for a CDIC insured high interest account, such as these:",
"You could slip and fall in the shower tonight. Or you might never need it. Insurance is a hedge against risk. If the event has already occurred, you're uninsurable. If you and others would suffer if you have a bad accident and can't work, get it now.",
"I don't see why it would be any harder to sell stocks or bonds than it is to sell a CD you may have. Not to mention for large one time expenditures you can usually cover these with a credit card. This gives you about a month to move money around to pay your credit card off in a timely manner without incurring a charge. I have had no problem getting a credit limit beyond 4-5 months of expenses for myself on a single card. I can't even think of a household emergency that you can't pay for with a credit card. Job loss situations are not going to require large amounts of money immediately. True catastrophic emergencies (natural disasters, ransoms) however will need fast cash potentially. However in this case the only thing that is good is having cash on hand. As you can't count on ATMs or Bank systems to be functional. Even more serious emergencies such as zombies, the end of world, or anything that involves total economic collapse would require things that are not cash. You would need to invest in things like supplies, shelter, guns and maybe shiny metals that may have value.",
"If you are absolutely sure you will need the money in the next year or so I wouldn't do it just because of the hassle. If you think you might not need to use the money then I would go ahead and fund a Roth IRA for the simple reason that you can get your contributions (NOT earnings on those contributions.) back without paying any penalties if you do end up needing them. A good summary of the rationale can be found at My Money Blog's Roth IRA Contribution vs. Emergency Fund Savings"
] |
[
"\"Yes, you should budget some amount of your emergency fund for healthcare expenses. How much you budget is really dependent on your particular anticipated costs. Be aware that health insurance likely costs significantly more than your employer charges you for access to its plan. Since healthcare reform mandated guaranteed issue individual coverage you will have the ability to buy individual coverage for you and, if applicable, your family. When buying individual coverage you have essentially two choices, your decision hinges on whether or not you'd qualify for a premium subsidy. If your AGI is below 400% of the poverty line you'll be able to receive subsidized coverage at a state or federal health insurance exchange. If the subsidy is not meaningful to you, or you wouldn't qualify, you can buy an \"\"off exchange\"\" plan offered either directly through a carrier or an insurance agent (some insurance agents are also licensed to sell exchange plans though it's somewhat rare). In order to receive subsidized coverage you must buy through a state or federal exchange, or an agent licensed to sell exchange products specifically. If your employer was large enough to be required to offer its plan via COBRA or you live in a state that extends the COBRA requirement to smaller businesses, you can choose that as well. Bear in mind this option is likely to be expensive relative to individual plans. It's becoming a less relevant solution with the advent of guaranteed issue individual coverage. COBRA is not a special type of insurance, it's a mandate that your employer allow you to remain on its plan but pay the full gross premium plus an up to 2% (10% for calCOBRA) administrative fee. Despide popular vernacular, there is no such thing as Obamacare or ACA coverage. Obamacare reshaped the insurance market. The ACA outlines certain minimum coverage requirements, generally referred to as \"\"Minimum Essential Coverage.\"\" While employers and plans are not \"\"required\"\" to meet all of these coverage requirements there is a penalty associated with non-compliance. The single exception to this is grandfathered plans which can still sidestep a few of the requirements. The penalty is harsh enough that it's not worth the cost of offering a non-compliant plan. Whether you buy coverage through a state or federal exchange, through an insurance agent, or via your employer's COBRA program you will have \"\"ACA\"\" coverage (unless on the off chance your employer's plan doesn't check the \"\"Minimum Essential Coverage\"\" box). So generally all plans available to you will have $0 preventive coverage, pregnancy benefits, cancer treatment benefits etc. Another thing to consider is your entire family doesn't need to be on the same plan. If your family is healthy with the exception of one child, you can purchase $0 deductible coverage for the one child and higher deductible more catastrophic plan for the remainder of your family. In fact you could choose COBRA for one child and purchase individual coverage for the remainder of the family. The things to consider when you face a lay-off: I tried to mitigate my use of \"\"all\"\" and \"\"always\"\" because there are some narrow exceptions to these requirements, such as the \"\"Hobby Lobby\"\" decision allowing closely held organizations with highly religious owners the ability to remove certain contraception benefits. Understand that these exceptions are rare and not available to individual plans.\"",
"\"The guideline for the size of an emergency fund is just a guideline. I've usually heard it expressed as \"\"3 to 6 months,\"\" but everyone has a different idea of exactly how big it should be. The purpose of the fund is to give you enough cash to be able to pay for unexpected expenses that have come up that you have not budgeted for without you having to borrow money to pay for them. To figure out how big this fund should be, we look at the worst case scenario. Suppose that you lost your job tomorrow. What would you do? Cut your expenses. You'd probably be much more careful how you spend money. Secure health insurance. This would be done by either continuing your employer's policy with COBRA, or by purchasing your own insurance, likely through the Obamacare/ACA market. Keep in mind that most likely your employer is paying for a portion of your insurance now, so this expense will go up quite a bit no matter which option you choose. Look for another job. You'd probably begin your search for a new job immediately. The size of your emergency fund determines how long you will be able to go without income before you need to start a new job. Regarding cutting your expenses, it is up to you how much you would cut. There are things that are easy to cut temporarily (or permanently), such as restaurants, entertainment expenses, vacations, etc. You would probably stop retirement investing until you have income again. The more you cut, the longer your emergency fund would last. Things you don't want to cut are necessities, like housing, groceries, utilities, transportation, etc. I would also include health insurance in this list. Certainly, if you have a pre-existing condition, you do not want to let your health insurance coverage lapse. Your employability is also a factor. If you believe that you would have an easy time finding similar employment to what you have now, your emergency fund might not need to be quite as big as someone who believes they would have a harder time finding another job.\"",
"Yes factor into your fund the cost of health insurance. You basically have three options when facing a loss of income for 3-6 months: Pre-ACA the COBRA one was the default option many planned for because there was no need to change doctors. Of course many people were shocked how expensive it was compared to just looking at the employees share of the monthly premium. For planning you can do some research into the cost of one of the ACA approved plans in your state. Keeping in mind that the lack of income might qualify you for a subsidy. As to the coverage level, that would depend on your situation and the perceived gap. I have known many people who didn't have to pick COBRA until after the new job started so they knew exactly what they needed to cover and what their bills were during the gap.",
"Yes, it should be. As, where one has insurance, its an expense one would expect one to continue to incur in a normal budgetary emergency, even drop in the extreme."
] |
9245
|
Stock Options for a company bought out in cash and stock
|
[
"194561"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"207253",
"510875",
"451613",
"220147",
"214946",
"186869",
"39345",
"259560",
"187776",
"518340",
"409818",
"203334",
"257853",
"248393",
"178497",
"142401",
"87331",
"147805",
"159703",
"261487",
"134972",
"400644",
"518088",
"340730",
"519781",
"550785",
"530410",
"81924",
"575741",
"555276",
"302735",
"541368",
"361482",
"57800",
"117177",
"135798",
"236176",
"232207",
"131488",
"367742",
"344372",
"313372",
"265111",
"74839",
"38808",
"491899",
"544800",
"595787",
"97942",
"558233",
"163396",
"396180",
"139387",
"145864",
"61919",
"446628",
"102436",
"595605",
"266613",
"259072",
"374867",
"143655",
"580534",
"56118",
"253369",
"5347",
"340264",
"567244",
"472516",
"241718",
"55893",
"317711",
"217124",
"514231",
"295258",
"361507",
"391156",
"235779",
"175563",
"12034",
"469036",
"248269",
"52458",
"204388",
"27416",
"460341",
"517516",
"570112",
"104740",
"77124",
"212025",
"401266",
"87283",
"213976",
"73260",
"103952",
"72024",
"525390",
"520079",
"441718"
] |
[
"According to this article: With an all-stock merger, the number of shares covered by a call option is changed to adjust for the value of the buyout. The options on the bought-out company will change to options on the buyer stock at the same strike price, but for a different number of shares. Normally, one option is for 100 shares of the underlying stock. For example, company A buys company B, exchanging 1/2 share of A for each share of B. Options purchased on company B stock would change to options on company A, with 50 shares of stock delivered if the option is exercised. This outcome strongly suggests that, in general, holders of options should cash out once the takeover is announced, before the transactions takes place. Since the acquiring company will typically offer a significant premium, this will offer an opportunity for instant profits for call option holders while at the same time being a big negative for put option holders. However, it is possible in some cases where the nominal price of the two companies favours the SML company (ie. the share prices of SML is lower than that of BIG), the holder of a call option may wish to hold onto their options. (And, possibly, conversely for put option holders.)",
"I've been through two instances where I worked for a public company that was merged (for stock) into another company. In both cases the options I had were replaced with equivalent options in the merged company with the number of shares and strike price adjusted at the same rate as the actual stock was converted, and the vesting terms remained essentially the same. In other words, the options before and after were in essence equivalent.",
"Having stock options means that you have worked for and rightfully earned a part of the company's capital appreciation. Takeover of the company would indicate someone is interested in the company (something should be valuable). It would be unwise to not strike before the period lapses since the strike price is always lower than market price and takeovers generally increases stock values ... it is capital gains all the way my friend. Good luck. *observations not in professional capacity. pls consult a professional for investment related advice.",
"Options granted by an employer to an employee are generally different that the standardized options that are traded on public stock option exchanges. They may or may not have somewhat comparable terms, but generally the terms are fairly different. As a holder of an expiring employee option, you can only choose to exercise it by paying the specified price and receiving the shares, or not. It is common that the exercise system will allow you to exercise all the shares and simultaneously sell enough of the acquired shares to cover the option cost of all the shares, thus leaving you owning some of the stock without having to spend any cash. You will owe taxes on the gain on exercise, regardless of what you do with the stock. If you want to buy publicly-traded options, you should consider that completely separately from your employer options other than thinking about how much exposure you have to your company situation. It is very common for employees to be imprudently overexposed to their company's stock (through direct ownership or options).",
"\"Simply put, yes. I bought that call. I was betting the shares would rise in value by Jan 2018, and chose the $130 strike. With a strike nearly a year away, I paid a premium that was all time value as the shares traded at Now the shares are replaced by $128. The time value has gone to zero, and there is no intrinsic \"\"in the money\"\" value. If the shares were bought at $140, the time value stills drops to zero, but the option is closed at $10 in the money. My answer was for a cash deal. In a case where the old shares are replaced by new shares or a combination of shares and money, the options terms are changed to reflect the combination of new assets for old. Update based on disclosure that it's Monsanto we are discussing. Bayer and Monsanto have announced that they signed a definitive agreement under which Bayer will acquire Monsanto for USD 128 per share in an all-cash transaction. Based on Monsanto’s closing share price on May 9, 2016, the day before Bayer’s first written proposal to Monsanto, the offer represents a premium of 44 percent to that price. You can see that the deal has been in the works for some time now. Further research shows they expect the deal to close by \"\"the end of 2017\"\". It's not a done deal. This is why the options are still trading. Now the shares are replaced by $128. The time value has gone to zero, and there is no intrinsic \"\"in the money\"\" value. If the shares were bought at $140, the time value stills drops to zero, but the option is closed at $10 in the money. My answer was for a cash deal. In a case where the old shares are replaced by new shares or a combination of shares and money, the options terms are changed to reflect the combination of new assets for old. Update based on disclosure that it's Monsanto we are discussing. Bayer and Monsanto have announced that they signed a definitive agreement under which Bayer will acquire Monsanto for USD 128 per share in an all-cash transaction. Based on Monsanto’s closing share price on May 9, 2016, the day before Bayer’s first written proposal to Monsanto, the offer represents a premium of 44 percent to that price. You can see that the deal has been in the works for some time now. Further research shows they expect the deal to close by \"\"the end of 2017\"\". It's not a done deal. This is why the options are still trading.\"",
"A lot may depend on the nature of a buyout, sometimes it's is for stock and cash, sometimes just stock, or in the case of this google deal, all cash. Since that deal was used, we'll discuss what happens in a cash buyout. If the stock price goes high enough before the buyout date to put you in the money, pull the trigger before the settlement date (in some cases, it might be pulled for you, see below). Otherwise, once the buyout occurs you will either be done or may receive adjusted options in the stock of the company that did the buyout (not applicable in a cash buyout). Typically the price will approach but not exceed the buyout price as the time gets close to the buyout date. If the buyout price is above your option strike price, then you have some hope of being in the money at some point before the buyout; just be sure to exercise in time. You need to check the fine print on the option contract itself to see if it had some provision that determines what happens in the event of a buyout. That will tell you what happens with your particular options. For example Joe Taxpayer just amended his answer to include the standard language from CBOE on it's options, which if I read it right means if you have options via them you need to check with your broker to see what if any special exercise settlement procedures are being imposed by CBOE in this case.",
"Good questions. I can only add that it may be valuable if the company is bought, they may buy the options. Happened to me in previous company.",
"\"I'm in the US, so there may be idiosyncrasies with UK taxes that I'm not familiar with, but here's how I've always treated stock I get as compensation. Suppose the vested shares are worth X. If I had X in cash, would I buy my company's stock as an investment? Usually the answer is no, not because I think the stock will tank, but because there's better things I can do with that cash (pay off debt, unfortunately). Therefore I sell the shares and use the cash for something else. You have stock options. So suppose the stock value is X but you can buy it for Y. You can either: Therefore, the math is the same. If you had X in cash, would you buy your company's stock as an investment? If so, then option 2 is best, because you can get X in stock for a lower cost. (Option 3 might be better if the gain on the stock will be taxed higher, but they're pretty much equivalent if there's no chance that the stock will drop below Y) If not, then option 4 is best since you will likely get more than X-Y from selling the options that by exercising them and selling the stock (since options have time value). If option 4 is not a possibility, then option 1 is best - you pocket X-Y as \"\"income\"\" and invest it however you see fit.\"",
"Generally speaking: when a company buys another company it's a complex agreement that spells out many things, including how the acquiring company is paying for the target company. These are the most common form of payment: 1. Cash. Shareholders of the target company get cash. 2. Shares. Shareholders of the target company get shares of the acquiring company. 3. A combination of 1 and 2 above.",
"\"It seems like this was a \"\"stock for stock\"\" transaction. That is, your company was acquired, not for cash, but for the stock of Company X in a deal that your company's board of directors \"\"signed off\"\" on. Your company no longer exists, and that's why your stock was cancelled. The acquirer will be sending you an equivalent amount of stock in their Company, X. You don't need to worry about taxes, only accounting, because this is a \"\"non-cash\"\" transaction. What this means that your cost basis in the stock of Company X will be what you paid for the original company's stock (not its value on the day of the merger, which may be higher or lower than what you paid).\"",
"\"When you exercise your options, you come up with cash to buy the shares. This makes you an owner of the company for shares at the share price your options let you have. Ideally, your share price is at a significant discount to what the company is worth. Being a shareholder, you gain from any share price appreciation in a sale. The only thing the \"\"60-day window\"\" applies to is whether you come up with the cash to buy fast enough, or your shares get permanently deleted from the company finances, where everyone else potentially makes more, you make nothing. The sale of the company is based on whenever the sell finalizes, which is between your company and the acquiring company.\"",
"To explain the capital gains part of the question, non qualified stock options (NSOs) are always treated like earned income and have payroll taxes withheld. It's advantageous for the company to issue these because they can deduct them as expenses just as they do your salary. Articles talking about capital gains would probably be referring to incentive stock options (ISOs) or possibly even restricted stock units (RSUs). If you were granted the option to buy the stock and/or hold it for a period of time, then the stock options could be treated as capital gains, short-term gains if you held them for less than a year, and long-term gains if you held them for more than a year. This payment for your NSOs is exactly like a cash bonus. The withholding follows the same guidelines. You may wish to look at what this will mean for your annual salary and adjust your W-4 withholding up or down as appropriate depending on whether the 25% federal withholding rate is more or less than what you think your final marginal rate will be with this bonus included in your annual salary.",
"\"This is a great question. I've participated in a deal like that as an employee, and I also know of friends and family who have been involved during a buyout. In short: The updated part of your question is correct: There is no single typical treatment. What happens to unvested restricted stock units (RSUs), unvested employee stock options, etc. varies from case to case. Furthermore, what exactly will happen in your case ought to have been described in the grant documentation which you (hopefully) received when you were issued restricted stock in the first place. Anyway, here are the two cases I've seen happen before: Immediate vesting of all units. Immediate vesting is often the case with RSUs or options that are granted to executives or key employees. The grant documentation usually details the cases that will have immediate vesting. One of the cases is usually a Change in/of Control (CIC or COC) provision, triggered in a buyout. Other immediate vesting cases may be when the key employee is terminated without cause, or dies. The terms vary, and are often negotiated by shrewd key employees. Conversion of the units to a new schedule. If anything is more \"\"typical\"\" of regular employee-level grants, I think this one would be. Generally, such RSU or option grants will be converted, at the deal price, to a new schedule with identical dates and vesting percentages, but a new number of units and dollar amount or strike price, usually so the end result would have been the same as before the deal. I'm also curious if anybody else has been through a buyout, or knows anybody who has been through a buyout, and how they were treated.\"",
"ISOs (incentive stock options) can be closed out in a cashless transaction. Say the first round vests, 25,000 shares. The stock is worth $7 but your option is to buy at $5 as you say. The broker executes and sells, you get $50,000, with no up front money. Edit based on comment below - you know they vest over 4 years, but how long before they expire? It stands to reason the longer you are able to hold them, the better a chance the company succeeds, and the price rises. The article Understanding employer-granted stock options (PDF) offers a nice discussion of different scenarios supporting my answer.",
"Stock options represent an option to buy a share at a given price. What you have been offered is the option to buy the company share at a given price ($5) starting a given date (your golden handcuffs aka vesting schedule). If the company's value doubles in 1 year and the shares are liquid (i.e. you can sell them) then you've just made $125k of profit. If the company's value has gone to zero in 1 year then you've lost nothing other than your hopes of getting rich. As others have mentioned, the mechanics of exercising the option and selling the shares can typically be accomplished without any cash involved. The broker will do both in a single transaction and use the proceeds of the sale to pay the cost of buying the shares. You should always at least cover the taxable portion of the transaction and typically the broker will withhold that tax anyways. Otherwise you could find yourself in a position where you have actually lost money due to tax being owed while the shares decline in value below that tax. You don't have to worry about that right now. Again as people have mentioned options will typically expire 10 years from vesting or 90 days from leaving your employment with the company. I'm sure there are some variations on the theme. Make sure you ask and all this should be part of some written contract. I'm sure you can ask to see it if you wish. Also typical is that stock option grants have to be approved by the board which is normally a technicality. Some general advice:",
"It depends. If you accept the offer, then your stock will cease existing. If you reject the offer, then you will become a minority shareholder. Depending on the circumstances, you could be in the case where it becomes illegal to trade your shares. That can happen if the firm ceases to be a public company. In that case, you would discount the cash flows of future dividends to determine worth because there would be no market for it. If the firm remained public and also was listed for trading, then you could sell your shares although the terms and conditions in the market would depend on how the controlling firm managed the original firm.",
"As far as I know, the AMT implications are the same for a privately held company as for one that is publicly traded. When I was given my ISO package, it came with a big package of articles on AMT to encourage me to exercise as close to the strike price as possible. Remember that the further the actual price at the time of purchase is from the strike price, the more the likely liability for AMT. That is an argument for buying early. Your company should have a common metric for determining the price of the stock that is vetted by outside sources and stable from year to year that is used in a similar way to the publicly traded value when determining AMT liability. During acquisitions stock options often, from what I know of my industry, at least, become options in the new company's stock. This won't always happen, but its possible that your options will simply translate. This can be valuable, because the price of stock during acquisition may triple or quadruple (unless the acquisition is helping out a very troubled company). As long as you are confident that the company will one day be acquired rather than fold and you are able to hold the stock until that one day comes, or you'll be able to sell it back at a likely gain, other than tying up the money I don't see much of a downside to investing now.",
"Often buyouts are paid for by the buyer issuing a load of new shares and giving those to the seller to pay them. Sometimes it could be all shares, sometimes all cash, or any mix in-between. If you believe in the future of the buyers' business model, you'll often get a load of shares at a discounted rate this way. If you do not believe in the buyers' future then you're getting shares that you think may be worth little or nothing some day, so cash would be better.",
"How you are taxed will depend on what kind of stock awards they are. The value will be determined by the company that issues it, and appropriate tax forms will be sent to you to include with your taxes. The way the value is determined is an accounting question that is off-topic here, but the value will be stated on your stock award paperwork. If you are awarded the stock directly then that value will be taxed as ordinary income. If you are awarded options, then you can purchase the stock to start the clock on long-term capital gains, but you will not incur any tax liability through the initial purchase. If the company is sold privately and you have held the stock for over 1 year, then yes, it will be taxed as a long-term capital gain. If you receive/exercise the stock less than 1 year before such an acquisition, then it will be considered a short-term capital gain and will be taxed as ordinary income.",
"A buy out is agreed by shareholders. Plus most countries have regulation protecting minority interest. Depending on the terms of buy out, you may get equivalent shares of buyer company or cash or both.",
"The company may not permit a transfer of these options. If they do permit it, you simply give him the money and he has them issue the options in your name. As a non-public company, they may have a condition where an exiting employee has to buy the shares or let them expire. If non-employees are allowed to own shares, you give him the money to exercise the options and he takes possession of the stock and transfers it to you. Either way, it seems you really need a lawyer to handle this. Whenever this kind of money is in motion, get a lawyer. By the way, the options are his. You mean he must purchase the shares, correct?",
"In the real world, there are only two times you'll see that 5% become worth anything - ie, something you can exchange for cash - 1) if another company buys them; (2) if they go public. If neither of these things happen, you cannot do anything with the stock or stock options that you own.",
"Since the 2 existing answers addressed the question as asked. Let me offer a warning. You have 10,000 options at $1. You've worked four years and the options are vested. The stock is worth $101 when you get a job offer (at another company) which you accept. So you put up $10k and buy the shares. At this moment, you put up $10K for stock worth $1.01M, a $1M profit and ordinary income. You got out of the company just in time. For whatever reason, the stock drops to $21 and at tax time you realize the $1M gain was ordinary income, but now the $800k loss is a capital loss, limited to $3000/yr above capital gains. In other words you have $210k worth of stock but a tax bill on $1M. This is not a contrived story, but a common one from the dotcon bubble. It's a warning that 'buy and hold' has the potential to blow up in your face, even if the shares you buy retain some value.",
"When your options vest, you will have the option to buy your company's stock at a particular price (the strike price). A big part of the value of the option is the difference between the price that your company's stock is trading at, and the strike price of the option. If the price of the company stock in the market is lower than the strike price of the option, they are almost worthless. I say 'almost' because there is still the possibility that the stock price could go up before the options expire. If your company is big enough that their stock is not only listed on an exchange, but there is an active options market in your company's stock, you could get a feel for what they are worth by seeing what the market is willing to buy or sell similar exchange listed options. Once the options have vested, you now have the right to purchase your company's stock at the specified strike price until the options expire. When you use that right, you are exercising the option. You don't have to do that until you think it is worthwhile buying company stock at that price. If the company pays a dividend, it would probably be worth exercising the options sooner, (options don't receive a dividend). Ultimately you are buying your company's stock (albeit at a discount). You need to see if your company's stock is still a good investment. If you think your company has growth prospects, you might want to hold onto the stock. If you think you'd be better off putting your money elsewhere in the market, sell the stock you acquired at a discount and use the money to invest in something else. If there are any additional benefits to holding on to the stock for a period of time (e.g. selling part to fit within your capital gain allowance for that year) you should factor that into your investment decision, but it shouldn't force you to invest in, or remain invested in something you would otherwise view as too risky to invest in. A reminder of that fact is that some employees of Enron invested their entire retirement plans into Enron stock, so when Enron went bankrupt, these employees not only lost their job but their savings for retirement as well...",
"\"When the buyout happens, the $30 strike is worth $10, as it's in the money, you get $10 ($1000 per contract). Yes, the $40 strike is pretty worthless, it actually dropped in value today. Some deals are worded as an offer or intention, so a new offer can come in. This appears to be a done deal. From Chapter 8 of CHARACTERISTICS AND RISKS OF STANDARDIZED OPTIONS - FEB 1994 with supplemental updates 1997 through 2012; \"\"In certain unusual circumstances, it might not be possible for uncovered call writers of physical delivery stock and stock index options to obtain the underlying equity securities in order to meet their settlement obligations following exercise. This could happen, for example, in the event of a successful tender offer for all or substantially all of the outstanding shares of an underlying security or if trading in an underlying security were enjoined or suspended. In situations of that type, OCC may impose special exercise settlement procedures. These special procedures, applicable only to calls and only when an assigned writer is unable to obtain the underlying security, may involve the suspension of the settlement obligations of the holder and writer and/or the fixing of cash settlement prices in lieu of delivery of the underlying security. In such circumstances, OCC might also prohibit the exercise of puts by holders who would be unable to deliver the underlying security on the exercise settlement date. When special exercise settlement procedures are imposed, OCC will announce to its Clearing Members how settlements are to be handled. Investors may obtain that information from their brokerage firms.\"\" I believe this confirms my observation. Happy to discuss if a reader feels otherwise.\"",
"Depends on your contract, cash or shares delivered? If shares, then you get 5 BIG shares. Theres no longer any options. If you sell instantly, theoretically you will net the $10 difference + profit above strike. If cash, same thing just that you get cash $50 less strike. Applies to cash and stock deals Options are binary, never pro-rated. if converted, basically you end up with BIG shares.",
"For the employee, this is an identical tax situation to an at-the-money option purchase. They're buying an asset with a specific cost basis. For the company, you are just issuing shares from treasury as authorized... debit cash, credit additional paid-in-capital and equity. There is no tax consequence for this money received.",
"\"I believe that your option contracts will become \"\"non-standard\"\" and will be for a combination of ACE stock and cash. The allocation between stock and cash should follow that of the acquisition parameters of the underlying - probably with fractional shares converted to cash. Hence 1 call contract for 100 shares of CB will become 1 call contract for 60 shares of ACE + $6293 cash + a cash correction for the 0.19 fractional share of ACE that you would have had claim to get. The corrections should be 0.19 sh x $62.93/sh.\"",
"\"You were probably not given stock, but stock options. Those options have a strike price and you can do some more research on them if needed. Lets assume that you were given 5K shares at a strike of 20, and they vest 20% per year. Assume the same thing in your second year and you are going to leave in year three. You would have 2K shares from your year 1 grant, and 1K shares from your year 2 grant, so 2K total. If you leave no more shares would be vested. If you leave you have one of two options: To complicate matters subsequent grants may have different strike prices, so perhaps year two grant is at $22 per share. However, in pre-public companies that is not likely the case. For a bit of history, I worked at a pre-ipo company and we were all going to get rich. I was given generous grants, but decided to leave. I really wanted to buy my options but simply didn't have the money. Shortly after I left the company folded, so the money would have been thrown away anyway. When a company is private the motivate their employees with tales of riches, but they are not required to disclose financial data. This company did a very good job of convincing employees that all was fine, when it wasn't. Also I received options in a publicly traded company. Myself and other employees received options that were \"\"underwater\"\" or worth far less than the strike price. You could let them expire so one did not owe money, but they were worthless. Hopefully that answers your question.\"",
"I would ask your HR or benefits department to be certain, but here's how I read that without any specific knowledge of the situation: What is right to receive the RSU consideration? Company A was bought by Company B. You had unvested Restricted Stock Units in A, which is now gone. B is saying that you now have the right to receive consideration equivalent to the value of those RSUs in A. Since B is private, there's no publicly traded stock, so it will likely be in cash, but read the rest of the paperwork or talk to HR to be certain. For example, if you had 100 RSUs vesting next year and the price of stock in A was $50 when the company was bought, those RSUs would be worth $5,000. B is give you the right to consideration for those RSUs, hopefully for somewhere around $5,000. That consideration is unvested, meaning you must stay employed until the vesting period in order to claim that right. If you are fired without cause (i.e. laid off), you will receive those unvested claims as compensation. I assume the same will be applicable if employee leaves the company Probably not. In any situation, if you voluntarily leave a company, any unvested stock, RSUs, options, etc. are forfeited.",
"I'm assuming this was a cashless exercise because you had income show up on your w-2. When I had a similar situation, I did the following: If you made $50,000 in salary and $10,000 in stock options then your W-2 now says $60,000. You'll record that on your taxes just like it was regular income. You'll also get a form that talks about your stock sale. But remember, you bought and sold the stock within seconds. Your forms will probably look like this: Bought stock: $10,000 Sold stock: $10,000 + $50 commission Total profit (loss): ($50) From the Turbotax/IRS view point, you lost $50 on the sale of the stock because you paid the commission, but the buy and sell prices were identical or nearly identical.",
"I've seen many buyouts in my own portfolio, including the company I worked for. There have been several different scenarios: The terms of the deal are subject to the deal -- frankly whatever makes sense to the buyer and that is accepted by the seller. So sometimes brokers charge reorganization fees. check into those for your broker. I've not seen one in a while, but my brokerage account is substantial, and often that's a perk they offer higher-value accounts. Also watch out for taxes. The transaction where my employer was bought by another publicly traded company -- we got bit because the IRS treated it as a taxable transaction, and all our RSUs were effectively sold and then repurchased. So we ended up with a big tax bill (capital gains) without any cash to offset the big tax bill. I suspect its because my old employer was a US based company, whereas the new company is not.",
"Stock awards by employers are treated and taxed as salary. I.e.: you pay ordinary rate income tax, FICA taxes, State taxes etc. The fact that you got your salary in shares and not cash is irrelevant for tax purposes. Once you got the shares and paid your taxes on them, the treatment is the same as if you got the salary and immediately bought the shares. Holding period for capital gains tax purposes starts at the time you paid your taxes on the award, which is the time at which you get full ownership (i.e.: vesting time, for the restricted stocks). When you sell these stocks - you treat the sale as any other stock sale: you check the holding period for capital gains tax rates, and you do not pay (or get refund) any FICA taxes on the sales transaction. So bottom line: You got $10K salary and you bought $10K worth of company stock, and you sold it at $8K half a year later. You have $10K wages income and $2K short term capital loss.",
"\"Okay, I'm going to give you my opinion based on experience; not any technical understanding. The options - by themselves - are pretty meaningless in terms of determining their value. The business plan going forward, their growth expectations, the additional options to be authorized, the additional preferred stock offers they anticipate, even current estimated value of the company are some of the pieces of data you will be needing. I also want to say something cynical, like \"\"to hell with the stock options give me cold hard\"\" but that's just me. (My experience two-times so far has shown stock options to be worth very very little.)\"",
"I've had stock options at two different jobs. If you are not getting a significant ownership stake, but rather just a portion of options as incentive to come work there, I would value them at $0. If you get the same salary and benefits, but no stock options at another company and you like the other company better, I'd go to the other company. I say this because there are so many legal changes that seem to take value from you that you might as well not consider the options in your debate. That being said, the most important question I'd want to know is what incentive does the company have to going public or getting bought? If the company is majority owned by investors, the stock options are likely to be worth something if you wait long enough. You are essentially following someone else's bet. If the company is owned by 2 or 3 individuals who want to make lots of money, they may or may not decide to sell or go public.",
"\"It depends on how big the dilution is. Could be a good trade. Do the math yourself, many times nobody else has as all the employees think they are going to get rich because \"\"options\"\" :)\"",
"In the first case, if you wish to own the stock, you just exercise the option, and buy it for the strike price. Else, you can sell the option just before expiration, it will be priced very close to its in-the-money value.",
"does it still count as a capital gain or loss? Yes. Is it essentially treated like you sold the stock at the price of the buy-out? Yes. Do you still get a 1099-B from your broker? Yes.",
"What are my options, if any, in how to deal with a buyout that forced me to sell, and accept cash only for my Florida USA company shares? Options are limited;",
"Assuming that taxes were withheld when you received the options, you would now only owe tax on the profit from the sale of the stock. The cost basis would be whatever you bought the stock for (the strike price of the options in this case), and the profit will be the total amount received from the sale minus the total cost of those shares. Since you bought the stock more than one year ago, you will get taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of 15% (unless you are in the 39.6% tax bracket, in which case the rate is 20%). As with all tax advice on this site, you need to check with a tax specialist when you actually file, but that should give you a rough indication of what your tax liability is.",
"I like C. Ross and MrChrister's advice to not be heavily weighted in one stock over the long run, especially the stock of your employer. I'll add this: One thing you really ought to find out – and this is where your tax advisor is likely able to help – is whether your company's stock options plan use qualified incentive stock options (ISO) or non-qualified stock options (NQO or NSO). See Wikipedia - Incentive stock option for details. From my understanding, only if your plan is a qualified (or statutory) ISO and you hold the shares for at least 1 year of the date of exercise and 2 years from the date of the option grant could your gain be considered a long-term capital gain. As opposed to: if your options are non-qualified, then your gain may be considered ordinary income no matter how long you wait – in which case there's no tax benefit to waiting to cash out. In terms of hedging the risk if you do choose to hold long, here are some ideas: Sell just enough stock at exercise (i.e. taking some tax hit up front) to at least recover your principal, so your original money is no longer at risk, or If your company has publicly listed options – which is unlikely, if they are very small – then you could purchase put options to insure against losses in your stock. Try a symbol lookup at the CBOE. Note: Hedging with put options is an advanced strategy and I suggest you learn more and seek advice from a pro if you want to consider this route. You'll also need to find out if there are restrictions on trading your employer's public stock or options – many companies have restrictions or black-out periods on employee trading, especially for people who have inside knowledge.",
"\"There are a few other items that you should be aware of when getting options: The strike price is usually determined by an independent valuation of the common shares (called a 409a valuation). This should give you a sense on what the options are worth. Obviously you are hoping that the value becomes many multiple of that. There are two kinds in the US: Non-quals (NQO) and Incentive Stock Options (ISOs). The big difference is that when you exercise Non-quals, you have to pay the tax on the difference between the \"\"fair\"\" market value on the shares and what you paid for them (the strike price). This is important because if the company is private, you likely can not sell any shares until it is public. With ISOs, you don't pay any tax (except AMT tax) on the gain until you actually sell the shares. You should know what kind your getting. Some plans allow for early exercise, essentially allowing you to buy the shares early (and given back if you leave before they vest) which helps you establish capital gains treatment earlier as well as avoid AMT if you have ISOs. This is really complicated direction and you would want to talk to a tax professional. And always a good idea to know how many total shares outstanding in the Company. Very few people ask this question but it is helpful for you to understand the overall value of the options.\"",
"This happened to me recently. What became the final offer was a cash buy-out of all of our shares rather than a conversion. The cash buy-out was higher than the company's original asking price and than the stock ever went on the market before hand. I was extremely pleased to have held on to the stock until the end. That said, it sounds like your situation is different. You can't necessarily time this sort of thing. You can just make your best decision and determine to be happy with the way it all plays out.",
"The option is exercised. The option is converted into shares. That is an optional condition in closing that contract, hence why they are called options.",
"I do not know for sure so do not quote me on this. But I would assume that you will get paid out to what the value of the buyout is. Example if your company has 100 private shares and you own 1 share (1%), and the company sells for $1,000,000. Your share will be worth 1% of the $1 million.",
"If this is a one to one share exchange with added cash to make up the difference in value, you're getting 1 share of XYZ plus $19.20 in cash for each share of ABC. They calculated the per share price they're offering ($36) and subtracted the value of XYZ share at the time of the offer ($16.80) to get the cash part ($19.20). The value of XYZ after is subject to investor reaction. Nobody can accurately predict stock values. If you see the price dropping, owners of XYZ are selling because they feel that they no longer wish to own XYZ. If XYZ is rising, investors feel like the merger is a positive move and they are buying (or the company is buying back shares). Bottom line is the cash is a sure thing, the stock is not. You called it a merger, but it's actually a takeover. My advice is to evaluate both stocks, see if you wish to continue owning XYZ, and determine whether you'd rather sell ABC or take the offer. The value of ABC afterwards, if you decline the offer, is something that I cannot advise you on.",
"Both you and the Company were probably benefitted by this decision. Specifically an option grant that was not FRV or more would require you to recognize the option as income whether you had exercised it or not. Additionally a host of other 409A tax issues/penalties could have been levied against you as an employee recipient. I certainly appreciate your concern about a change in compensation, but this is one where Corporate America likely saved your bacon.",
"Its important that you carefully read the agreement, if you accept the job. The options agreement will usually specify the vesting schedule, the strike price, and the number of options you will have. When you start vesting options, you can choose to buy stock at the strike price. When you do exercise the options, your employer will likely withhold state and federal income tax. The strike price will hopefully be well below the market price. Unlike stock, when your employment ends, you usually are not able to hold on to your options. There's typically a small window of time in which you can exercise your options. You should read this part of the agreement carefully and plan accordingly.",
"It might, but it also might not. The Board of Directors gets to decide whether and how much dividends are paid to stockholders. So this will vary from company to company and may change over time. I suggest you ask the person making the offer. That said: It looks like they offered you OPTIONS, not Shares. An option is just the right to buy stock at a given price in the future. It is extremely unlikely that you would be entitled to any dividends since you don't have an ownership stake, just a potential to be a shareholder.",
"I've been offered a package that includes 100k stock options at 5 dollars a share. They vest over 4 years at 25% a year. Does this mean that at the end of the first year, I'm supposed to pay for 25,000 shares? Wouldn't this cost me 125,000 dollars? I don't have this kind of money. At the end of the first year, you will generally have the option to pay for the shares. Yes, this means you have to use your own money. You generally dont have to buy ANY until the whole option vests, after 4 years in your case, at which point you either buy, or you are considered 'vested' (you have equity in the company without buying) or the option expires worthless, with you losing your window to buy into the company. This gives you plenty of opportunity to evaluate the company's growth prospects and viability over this time. Regarding options expiration the contract can have an arbitrarily long expiration date, like 17 years. You not having the money or not isn't a consideration in this matter. Negotiate a higher salary instead. I've told several companies that I don't want their equity despite my interest in their business model and product. YMMV. Also, options can come with tax consequences, or none at all. its not a raw deal but you need to be able to look at it objectively.",
"What you will probably get is an option to buy, for £10,000, £10,000 worth of stock. If the stock price on the day your option is granted is £2.50, then that's 4,000 shares. Companies rarely grant discounted options, as there are tax disincentives. The benefit of the stock option is that when you exercise it, you still only pay £10,000, no matter what the 4,000 shares are now worth. This is supposed to be an incentive for you to work harder to increase the value of the company. You should also check the vesting schedule. You will typically not be able to exercise all your options for some years, although some portion of it may vest each year.",
"\"I don't think its a taxable event since no income has been constructively received (talking about the RSU shareholders here). I believe you're right with the IRC 1033, and the basis of the RSU is the basis of the original stock option (probably zero). Edit: see below. However, once the stock becomes vested - then it is a taxable event (not when the cash is received, but when the chance of forfeiture diminishes, even if the employee doesn't sell the stock), and is an ordinary income, not capital. That is my understanding of the situation, do not consider it as a tax advice in any way. I gave it a bit more though and I don't think IRC 1033 is relevant. You're not doing any exchange or conversion here, because you didn't have anything to convert to begin with, and don't have anything after the \"\"conversion\"\". Your ISO's are forfeited and no longer available, basically - you treat them as you've never had them. What happened is that you've received RSU's, and you treat them as a regular RSU grant, based on its vesting schedule. The tax consequences are exactly as I described in my original response: you recognize ordinary income on the vested stocks, as they vest. Your basis is zero (i.e.: the whole FMV of the stock at the time of vesting is your ordinary income). It should also be reflected in your W2 accordingly.\"",
"\"A little terminology: Grant: you get a \"\"gift\"\" with strings attached. \"\"Grant\"\" refers to the plan (legal contract) under which you get the stock options. Vesting: these are the strings attached to the grant. As long as you're employed by the company, your options will vest every quarter, proportionally. You'll become an owner of 4687 or 4688 options every quarter. Each such vest event means you'd be getting an opportunity to buy the corresponding amount of stocks at the strike price (and not the current market price which may be higher). Buying is called exercising. Exercising a nonqualified option is a taxable event, and you'll be taxed on the value of the \"\"gift\"\" you got. The value is determined by the difference between the strike price (the price at which you have the option to buy the stock) and the actual fair market value of the stock at the time of vest (based on valuations). Options that are vested are yours (depending on the grant contract, read it carefully, leaving the company may lead to forfeiture). Options that are not vested will disappear once you leave the company. Exercised options become stocks, and are yours. Qualified vs Nonqualifed - refers to the tax treatment. Nonqualified options don't have any special treatment, qualified do. 3.02M stocks issued refers to the value of the options. Consider the total valuation of the company being $302M. With $302M value and 3.02M stocks issued, each stock is worth ~$100. Now, in a year, a new investor comes in, and another 3.02M stocks are issued (if, for example, the new investor wants a 50% stake). In this case, there will be 6.04M stocks issued, for 302M value - each stock is worth $50 now. That is called dilution. Your grant is in nominal options, so in case of dilution, the value of your options will go down. Additional points: If the company is not yet public, selling the stocks may be difficult, and you may own pieces of paper that no-one else wants to buy. You will still pay taxes based on the valuations and you may end up paying for these pieces of paper out of your own pocket. In California, it is illegal to not pay salary to regular employees. Unless you're a senior executive of the company (which I doubt), you should be paid at least $9/hour per the CA minimum wages law.\"",
"\"As the comments above have been trying to get across, the prospective employer is offering to pay you for the bonus/unvested compensation that you would be losing by jumping ship right now to go work for them. They are not offering to buy any securities that you already hold, regardless of whether they're profitable or unprofitable. Example 1. You participate in your current company's 401(k), and your company matches your contributions at 50%. However, the matching funds are not yours immediately; they vest in 20%/year increments until you have been at the company for 5 years. Let's say you've been there for 3 years and have contributed $50K to the plan. Your company has matched you at $25K, but only 60% of that ($15K) has vested. If you leave right now for the new employer, you're leaving $10K behind. So the new employer might offer to \"\"buy out\"\" (i.e. pay you) that $10K to help encourage you to switch now. You might then counter their offer by pointing out that if you stay where you are that $10K is coming to you tax-deferred, whereas their $10K signing bonus would be taxed. So you ask for $15K instead. Example 2. You work for a Wall Street investment bank. Each December you receive a performance bonus. Since you began working there, your three yearly bonuses have been (in chronological order) $500K, $750K, and $1M. It's June, so you've worked halfway towards your next bonus. You have a lot of incentive to NOT leave your current employer. A competing employer may offer to \"\"buy you out\"\" of your anticipated bonus by giving you a $1.25M signing bonus (since you'd almost certainly not be eligible for a performance bonus during your first year there). You might negotiate with them and say \"\"I'm on track for $2M this year\"\", and then they would figure out if you're really worth that much to them. So you can see this all has to do with the prospective employer trying to compensate you for any income you're already counting on receiving from your current employer. By jumping ship now you would be foregoing that guaranteed/expected income, so the competitor wants to remove that anchor that might be holding you back from making the move. Stocks/options that you already own are irrelevant to the prospective employer. Since you wouldn't be giving those up by changing jobs, there's no reason for them to factor into the equation.\"",
"\"Alternatively you could exercise 12000 shares for $36000 and immediately sell 7200 shares to recover your exercise price. Then you use the remaining 4800 share to pay the exercise price of the remaining 8000 options. Both scenarios are equivalent but may have different fees associated, so it's worth checking the fine print. Tax wise: The above example is \"\"cash neutral before taxes\"\". The taxes associated with these transaction are substantial, so it's highly recommended to talk with a tax adviser. \"\"cash neutral after taxes\"\" depends highly on your specific tax situation.\"",
"Does this technically mean that she has to pay AMT on $400,000? Yes. Well, not exactly 400,000. She paid $1 per share, so 390,000. And if so, is %28 the AMT for this sum? (0.28 * $400,000 = $112,000)? Or does she have to include her salary on top of that before calculating AMT? (Suppose in the fake example that her salary is $100,000 after 401k). All her income is included in calculating the AMT, minus the AMT exemption amount. The difference between the regular calculated tax and the calculated AMT is then added to the regular tax. Note that some deductions allowed for the regular calculation are not allowed for the AMT calculation. How does California state tax come into play for this? California has its own AMT rules, and in California any stock option exercise is subject to AMT, unless you sell the stock in the same year. Here's a nice and easy to understand write up on the issue from the FTB. When would she have to pay the taxes for this huge AMT? Tax is due when income is received (i.e.: when you exercise the options). However, most people don't actually pay the tax then, but rather discover the huge tax liability when they prepare to submit their tax return on April 15th. To avoid that, I'd suggest trying to estimate the tax and adjust your withholding using form W4 so that by the end of the year you have enough withheld. Suppose in the worst case, the company goes completely under. Does she get her massive amounts of tax back? Or if it's tax credit, where can I find more info on this? That would be capital loss, and only up to $3K a year of capital loss can be deducted from the general income. So it will continue offsetting other capital gains or being deducted $3K a year until it all clears out. Is there any way to avoid this tax? (Can she file an 83b election?) You asked and answered. Yes, filing 83(b) election is the way to go to avoid this situation. This should be done within 30 days of the grant, and submitted to the IRS, and a copy attached to the tax return of the grant year. However, if you're considering exercise - that ship has likely sailed a long time ago. Any advice for Little Susie on how she can even afford to pay that much tax on something she can't even sell anytime soon? Don't exercise the options? Should she take out a loan? (e.g. I've heard that in the extreme case, you can find angel investors who are willing to pay all your taxes/strike price, but want 50% of your equity? I've also heard that you can sell your illiquid shares on SecondMarket?) Is she likely to get audited by IRS for pulling something like this? You can take a loan secured by shares you own, there's nothing illegal in it. If you transfer your shares - the IRS only cares about the taxes being paid, however that may be illegal depending on the terms and the conditions of the grant. You'll need to talk to a lawyer about your situation. I suggest talking to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about the specifics concerning your situation.",
"Vesting As you may know a stock option is the right to acquire a given amount of stock at a given price. Actually acquiring the stock is referred to as exercising the option. Your company is offering you options over 200,000 shares but not all of those options can be exercised immediately. Initially you will only be able to acquire 25,000 shares; the other 175,000 have conditions attached, the condition in this case presumably being that you are still employed by the company at the specified time in the future. When the conditions attached to a stock option are satisfied that option is said to have vested - this simply means that the holder of the option can now exercise that option at any time they choose and thereby acquire the relevant shares. Dividends Arguably the primary purpose of most private companies is to make money for their owners (i.e. the shareholders) by selling goods and/or services at a profit. How does that money actually get to the shareholders? There are a few possible ways of which paying a dividend is one. Periodically (potentially annually but possibly more or less frequently or irregularly) the management of a company may look at how it is doing and decide that it can afford to pay so many cents per share as a dividend. Every shareholder would then receive that number of cents multiplied by the number of shares held. So for example in 4 years or so, after all your stock options have vested and assuming you have exercised them you will own 200,000 shares in your company. If the board declares a dividend of 10 cents per share you would receive $20,000. Depending on where you are and your exact circumstances you may or may not have to pay tax on this. Those are the basic concepts - as you might expect there are all kinds of variations and complications that can occur, but that's hopefully enough to get you started.",
"\"Yes, you would pay no taxes at the time of purchase. In fact, this is not uncommon. Many early employees of startup companies are offered stock options that can be \"\"early-exercised\"\" (exercised before they vest). In such a case, an employee who exercises immediately upon grant (and assuming the exercise price of the option is the FMV at the time of grant) purchases the stock at FMV, and there no no tax paid when filing 83(b) election.\"",
"The stockholders of company A vote to approve or disapprove the buy out. That is the only control you have on the price: Vote to approve or disapprove. If the deal is approved then you get the money, or stock in B, or both, in accordance with the terms of the deal. It will arrive into your account automatically.",
"What you want is a cashless transaction. It's part of the normal process. My employer gives me 1000 options at $1, I never need to come up with the money, the shares are bought and sold in one set of transactions, and if the stock is worth $10, I see $9000 less tax withholding, hit the account. No need for me to come up with that $1000.",
"Does this make sense? I'm concerned that by buying shares with post tax income, I'll have ended up being taxed twice or have increased my taxable income. ... The company will then re-reimburse me for the difference in stock price between the vesting and the purchase share price. Sure. Assuming you received a 100-share RSU for shares worth $10, and your marginal tax rate is 30% (all made up numbers), either: or So you're in the same spot either way. You paid $300 to get $1,000 worth of stock. Taxes are the same as well. The full value of the RSU will count as income either way, and you'll either pay tax on the gains of the 100 shares in your RSU our you'll pay tax on gains on the 70 shares in your RSU and the 30 shares you bought. Since they're reimbursing you for any difference the cost basis will be the same (although you might get taxed on the reimbursement, but that should be a relatively small amount). This first year I wanted to keep all of the shares, due to tax reasons and because believe the share price will go up. I don't see how this would make a difference from a tax standpoint. You're going to pay tax on the RSU either way - either in shares or in cash. how does the value of the shares going up make a difference in tax? Additionally I'm concerned that by doing this I'm going to be hit by my bank for GBP->USD exchange fees, foreign money transfer charges, broker purchase fees etc. That might be true - if that's the case then you need to decide whether to keep fighting or decide if it's worth the transaction costs.",
"\"An option is a financial instrument instrument that gives you the right, but not the obligation, to do some transaction in the future at a given price. An employee stock option is a kind of \"\"call option\"\" -- it gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy the stock at a certain price (the \"\"exercise price\"\", usually set as the price of the stock when the option was granted). The idea is that you would \"\"exercise\"\" the option (buy the stock at the given price as provided by the option), if the value of the stock is higher than the exercise price, and not if it is lower. The option is gifted to you. But that does not mean you get any stock. If and when you choose to exercise the option, you would buy the stock with your own money. At what time you can exercise the option (and how many shares you can exercise at a given time) will be specified in the agreement. Usually, you can only exercise a particular share after it has \"\"vested\"\" (according to some vesting schedule), and you lose the ability to exercise after you no longer work for the company (plus perhaps a grace period), or after the option expires.\"",
"It is a very complex question to answer and it really depends. However, here are some points to consider and verify with your accountant or tax expert. First, if you exercise now, the downside is that you may be subject to Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) based on the theoretical gain on the stock (current price minus your strike price) when you file your tax return. The other obvious downside is that if the company goes nowhere, you are stuck with the stock and potentially lose money. The benefit is that the clock starts ticking for long-term capital gains so if you sell after 1 year from the exercise date (or your company gets sold) then the gain would be taxed as long-term capital gain which is taxed at a lower rate. If your company were to get sold, the gains are not necessarily taxed as ordinary income. If it is a cash transaction then most likely (unless you have exercised and held the stock for over a year). However, if it is a stock sale, then you may end up getting stock of the company that acquires your company. In that situation, the tax event would be when you sell the new shares vs. the time of company sale. Finally, whether to exercise or not also depends on how you feel about the prospects of the company. If you think they will be sold or of more value down the road then exercising makes sense. If you are not sure then you could hedge your bets by only exercising a portion of it. You should definitely consult with a financial advisor or a tax consultant regarding these matters.",
"Let's work from the inside out. Options are not stock. Options are a contract that give you the right to own the stock. For options to have value they have to be exercised. Straight line means that each quarter 1/16th of the option grant becomes yours and the company cannot take it away. Four quarters in a year times four years is 16 quarters. 'Grant' means they are giving you the options at no cost to you. 'Nonqualified' means that there is nothing you have to do, or be, in order to get the options. (Some options are only for management.)",
"\"The key phrase in your post is that the options are \"\"in a good position now\"\". They may be worthless in three months or a year. If I was you I would cash in the options and pay off the debt. Cash in enough to also cover taxes. You may want to cash them all in.\"",
"If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.",
"That is a weird one. Typically one never needs to layout cash to exercise an option. One would only choose to use option 1, if one is seeking to buy the options. This would occur if an employee was leaving a company, would no longer be eligible for the ISO (and thereby forfeit any option grant), and does not want to exercise the options. However, what is not weird is the way income tax works, you are taxed on your income in the US. I assume you are talking about the US here. So if you exercise 10K shares, if under either option, you will be taxed on the profit from those share. Profit = (actual price - strike price) * shares - fees",
"When the deal closes, will it be as if I sold all of my ESPP shares with regards to taxes? Probably. If the deal is for cash and not stock exchange, then once the deal is approved and closed all the existing shareholders will sell their shares to the buyer for cash. Is there any way to mitigate this? Unlikely. You need to understand that ESPP is just a specific way to purchase shares, it doesn't give you any special rights or protections that other shareholders don't have.",
"I can't speak for all brokerages but the one I use requires cash accounts to have cash available to purchase the stock in this situation. With the cash available you would be able to purchase the stock if the option was exercised. Hope this helps",
"My understanding was that if they cash out they only have to pay capital gains tax on it, which is lower than income tax for their bracket. You also have to think about tax on dividends from these stock options, which is only 15%, which is paltry to regular incometax rate that the rich pay on their salaries. According to Wikipedia: Congress passed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), which included some of the cuts Bush requested and which he signed into law on May 28, 2003. Under the new law, qualified dividends are taxed at the same rate as long-term capital gains, which is 15 percent for most individual taxpayers Anyways, SOMETHING needs to be done.",
"Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.",
"This really comes down to tax structuring (which I am not an expert on), for public companies the acquiror almost always pays for the cash to prevent any taxable drawdown of overseas accounts, dividend taxes suck, etc. For a private company, first the debt gets swept, then special dividend out - dividends received by the selling corporate entity benefit from a tax credit plus it reduces the selling price of the equity, reducing capital gains taxes.",
"\"Check how long you have to hold the stock after buying it. If you can sell reasonably soon and your company is reasonably stable, you're unlikely to lose and/or be taxed and/or pay enough in fees to lose more than the 30% \"\"free money\"\" they're giving you. Whether you hold it longer than the minimum time depends partly on whether you think you can better invest the money elsewhere, and partly on how you feel about having both your salary and (part of) your investments tied to the company's success? The company would like you to \"\"double down\"\" that way, in the theory that it may make you mors motivated... but some investment councelors would advise keeping that a relatively small part of your total investments, basically for the same reasons you are always advised to diversify.\"",
"As part of this acquisition 96% of the shareholders accepted an offer for their shares This means that most of the shareholder agreed for the sale. If this was less than specified percentage, the deal would not have gone through. To make it easier, there were 2 options present to shareholder, full exchange of shares of Infinera or part shares and part cash. I failed to do so as I was unwell at the time So you cannot now choose the option. There will be a default option of getting the equivalent shares in Infinera. What options are available to me now? Contact Infinera investor relations and ask them.",
"\"First, you mentioned your brother-in-law has \"\"$100,000 in stock options (fully vested)\"\". Do you mean his exercise cost would be $100,000, i.e. what he'd need to pay to buy the shares? If so, then what might be the estimated value of the shares acquired? Options having vested doesn't necessarily mean they possess value, merely that they may be exercised. Or did you mean the estimated intrinsic value of those options (estimated value less exercise cost) is $100,000? Speaking from my own experience, I'd like to address just the first part of your question: Have you treated this as you would a serious investment in any other company? That is, have you or your brother-in-law reviewed the company's financial statements for the last few years? Other than hearing from people with a vested interest (quite literally!) to pump up the stock with talk around the office, how do you know the company is: BTW, as an option holder only, your brother-in-law's rights to financial information may be limited. Will the company share these details anyway? Or, if he exercised at least one option to become a bona-fide shareholder, I believe he'd have rights to request the financial statements – but company bylaws vary, and different jurisdictions say different things about what can be restricted. Beyond the financial statements, here are some more things to consider: The worst-case risk you'd need to accept is zero liquidity and complete loss: If there's no eventual buy-out or IPO, the shares may (effectively) be worthless. Even if there is a private market, willing buyers may quickly dry up if company fortunes decline. Contrast this to public stock markets, where there's usually an opportunity to witness deterioration, exit at a loss, and preserve some capital. Of course, with great risk may come great reward. Do your own due diligence and convince yourself through a rigorous analysis — not hopes & dreams — that the investment might be worth the risk.\"",
"The tax cost at election should be zero. The appreciation is all capital gain beyond your basis, which will be the value at election. IRC §83 applies to property received as compensation for services, where the property is still subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. It will catch unvested equity given to employees. §83(a) stops taxation until the substantial risk of forfeiture abates (i.e. no tax until stock vests) since the item is revocable and not yet truly income. §83(b) allows the taxpayer to make a quick election (up to 30 days after transfer - firm deadline!) to waive the substantial risk of forfeiture (e.g. treat shares as vested today). The normal operation of §83 takes over after election and the taxable income is generally the value of the vested property minus the price paid for it. If you paid fair market value today, then the difference is zero and your income from the shares is zero. The shares are now yours for tax purposes, though not for legal purposes. That means they are most likely a capital asset in your hands, like other stocks you own or trade. The shares will not be treated as compensation income on vesting, and vesting is not a tax matter for elected shares. If you sell them, you get capital gain (with tax dependent on your holding period) over a basis equal to FMV at the election. The appreciation past election-FMV will be capital gain, rather than ordinary income. This is why the §83(b) election is so valuable. It does not matter at this point whether you bought the restricted shares at FMV or at discount (or received them free) - that only affects the taxes upon §83(b) election.",
"\"I can see two possibilities. Either a deal is struck that someone (the company itself, or a large owner) buys out the remaining shares. This is the scenario @mbhunter is talking about, so I won't go too deeply into it, but it simply means that you get money in your bank account for the shares in question the same as if you were to sell them for that price (in turn possibly triggering tax effects, etc.). I imagine that this is by far the most common approach. The other possibility is that the stock is simply de-listed from a public stock exchange, and not re-listed elsewhere. In this case, you will still have the stock, and it will represent the same thing (a portion of the company), but you will lose out on most of the \"\"market\"\" part of \"\"stock market\"\". That is, the shares will still represent a monetary value, you will have the same right to a portion of the company's profits as you do now, etc., but you will not have the benefit of the market setting a price per share so current valuation will be harder. Should you wish to buy or sell stock, you will have to find someone yourself who is interested in striking a deal with you at a price point that you feel comfortable with.\"",
"I have had this happen a couple of times because of splits or sales of portions of the company. The general timeline was to announce how the split was to be handled; then the split; then a freeze in purchasing stock in the other company; then a freeze in sales; followed by a short blackout period; then the final transfers to funds/options/cash based on a mapping announced at the start of the process. You need to answer two questions: To determine if the final transactions will make the market move you have to understand how many shares are involved compared to the typical daily volume. There are two caveats: professional investors will be aware of the transaction date and can either ignore the employee transactions or try and take advantage of them; There may also be a mirroring set of transactions if the people left in the old company were awarded shares in your company as part of the sale. If you are happy with the default mapping then you can do nothing, and let the transaction happen based on the announced timeline. It is easy, and you don't have to worry about deadlines. If you don't like the default mapping then you need to know when the blackout period starts, so you don't end up not being able to perform the steps you want when you want. Timing is up to you. If the market doesn't like the acquisition/split it make make sense to make the move now, or wait until the last possible day depending on which part they don't like. Only you can answer that question.",
"In response to your points #1 and #2: In general, yes it is true that capital gains are only subject to half one's marginal rate of income tax. That doesn't mean 50% of the gain is due as tax... rather, it means that if one's marginal tax rate (tax bracket) on the next $10K would have been, say, 32%, then one is taxed on the gain at 16%. (The percentages are examples, not factual.) However, because these are employee stock options, the tax treatment is different than for a capital gain! Details: On the Federal tax return are lines for reporting Security option benefits (Line 101) and Security options deductions (Line 249). The distinction between a regular capital gain and an employee stock option benefits is important. In many cases the net effect may be the same as a capital gain, but the income is characterized differently and there are cases where it matters. Somebody who is about to or has realized employee stock option benefits should seek professional tax advice. In response to your next two points: No, one cannot transfer a capital gain or other investment income into a TFSA immediately after-the-fact in order to receive the tax-free benefits of the TFSA on that income. Only income and gains earned within a TFSA are free from tax – i.e. The options would have to have been in the TFSA before being exercised. Once a gain or other investment income has been realized in a non-sheltered account, it is considered taxable. The horse has already left the barn, so to speak! However, despite the above, there is another strategy available: One can create an offsetting deduction by contributing some of the realized gain into an RRSP. The RRSP contribution, assuming room is available, would yield a tax deduction to offset some tax due on the gain. However, the RRSP only defers income tax; upon withdrawal of funds, ordinary income tax is due (hopefully, at a lower marginal rate in retirement.) There is no minimum amount of time that money or assets have to be inside a TFSA to benefit from the tax-free nature of the account. However, there are limits on how much money you can move into a TFSA in any given year, and many folks weren't aware of the rules. p.s. Let me add once more that this is a case where I suggest seeking professional tax advice.",
"I assume I can/will need to file an 83(b) election, in order to avoid tax repercussions? What exactly will this save me from? 83(b) election is for restricted stock grants, not for stock purchases. For restricted stocks, you generally pay income tax when they vest. For startups the price difference between the time of the grant and the time of the vesting can be astronomical and by choosing 83(b) you effectively pay income tax on the value of the grant instead of the value of the vest. Then, you only pay capital gains tax on the difference between the sale price and the grant value when you sell. In your case you're exercising an option, i.e.: you're buying a stock, so 83(b) is irrelevant. What you will pay though is the tax on the difference between the strike price and the stock FMV (unless the stocks you end up buying are restricted - which would have been the case if you exercised your options early, but I don't think is going to be the case now). What steps should I take to (in the eyes of the law) guarantee that the board has received my execution notice? The secretary of the board is a notorious procrastinator and can be very unorganized. You should read what the grant contract/company policy says on that. Ask the HR/manager. Usually, a certified letter with return receipt should be enough, but you should verify the format, the address, and the timeframe.",
"\"I'd early-exercised 75% of my grant at $5 and (later) exercised the remaining portion at $2. So did you actually pay the money and got \"\"X\"\" unvested shares? I'll be leaving the company; and they'll be unwinding half of the grant, so I'll get some money back, but now the question is: Do they pay me back from the $5 shares or the $2 shares? This would depend on what your contract says on unvested shares. There can be numerous combinations. More Often these are forfeited. i.e. you are not granted the shares. At times if you have paid then the guideline would give the details what would happen; i.e. only half vest and are priced at market and you are forced to encash them.\"",
"It really depends. If it is offered as compensation (ie in leiu of, or in addition to salary or cash bonus) then it would be reportable income, and if sold later for a profit then that would be taxable as gains. If this share is purchased as an investment at current value then it would be treated like other securities most likely gains realized at sale. Any discount could be considered income but there are some goofy rules surrounding this enacted to prevent tax evasion and some to spur growth. That is the answer in a nut shell. It is far more complicated in reality as there are somewhere around 2000 pages of regulations deal with different exceptions and scenerios.",
"> But, it seems like the pool is adding value out of nowhere! Options don't simply exercise in the void. There are proceeds from the exercise (option-holders must pay into the company). This amount is an additional investment in the company that hasn't precisely materialized yet, but is generally expected to (and is difficult to alter, as it's likely part of an employment contract).",
"You likely received the shares as ordinary income for services of $10k, since they withheld taxes at granting. Separately, you likely had a short term capital loss on sale of $2k, since your holding period seems to have been under one year.",
"\"For the first and last questions, I can do this multiple ways. For the middle question, I'll just make up values. If you want different ones, you will have to redo the math. I am going to assume that you participate in the merger exchange, swapping your share for their offer. If you own one share, it depends how they handle fractional shares. Your original one share of ABC can be worth either one share of XYZ or 1.05 shares of XYZ. If you get one share, you typically get an additional $.80 cash to make up for the fractional share. You might ask why you don't just get $20 cash and one share of XYZ. Consider the case where you own twenty shares of ABC. Then you'd own twenty-one shares of XYZ and $384. No need for fractional shares. Beyond all this though, the share value of XYZ is not set autocratically. The shares might be worth $16, $40, or $2 after the merger. If both stocks are perfectly valued and the market is aware of that value, then it will depend partially on the number of shares of each. For example, if we assume there are 10,000 shares of ABC and 50,000 shares of XYZ (including the shares paid for ABC), then their initial market values are $320,000 for ABC and $800,000 for XYZ. XYZ is paying $360,000, so its value drops to $440,000. But it is gaining ABC, which is worth $320,000. Net value now is $760,000 or $15.20 per share. This has assumed that the shares transferred from XYZ to the shareholders of ABC were already included in the market value. This may mean that the stock price was previously $20 or so with almost 40,000 shares in circulation. Then they issued new shares, diluting the value down to $16. We could start at 50,000 shares at $16 and end up with 60,000 to 60,050 shares at $13.332 to $13.333 per share. Then XYZ is really only paying $326,658.31 for ABC. That's a premium of only $6,658.31 for ABC and gives a final stock value of $13.222 per share. The problem though is that in reality, there is no equivalent of perfect value. So I say again that the market value might be $15.20 (the theoretic answer that best fits the question given the example quantities of shares), $13, $20, or something else. It will depend on how the market perceives the deal. Is the combined company worth more or less than the sum of its parts? And beyond this, you will have $19.20 to $20 in cash in addition to your XYZ share (or 1.05 shares). Assuming 1.05 shares, that would be $15.96 plus the $19.20--that's $35.16 total in theory or anything from $19.20 up in practice. With the givens, the only thing of which you can be sure is the $19.20 cash. The value of the stock is up in the air. If XYZ is only privately traded, this is still true. The stock is worth the price that someone will pay for it. The \"\"someone\"\" is just more limited with privately traded stocks.\"",
"There's no best strategy. Options are just pieces of paper, and if the stock price goes below the strike price - they're worthless. Stocks are actual ownership share, whatever the price is - that's what they're worth. So unless you expect the company stock prices to sky-rocket soon, RSU will probably provide better value. You need to do some math and decide whether in your opinion the stock growth in the next few years justifies betting on ESOP. You didn't say what country you're from, but keep in mind that stock options and RSUs are taxed differently and that can affect your end result as well.",
"I am not required to hold any company stock. I also have an ESOP plan carrying a similar number of shares in company stock. So if it were to be sold, what would the recommendation be to replace it? I can move the shares into any option shown, and have quite a few others. Not dealing with any huge amounts, just a 4.5% contribution over three years (so far).",
"\"I've bought ISO stock over they years -- in NYSE traded companies. Every time I've done so, they've done what's called \"\"sell-to-cover\"\". And the gubmint treats the difference between FMV and purchase price as if it's part of your salary. And for me, they've sold some stock extra to pay estimated taxes. So, if I got this right... 20,000 shares at $3 costs you 60,000 to buy them. In my sell-to-cover at 5 scenario: did I get that right? Keeping only 4,000 shares out of 20,000 doesn't feel right. Maybe because I've always sold at a much ratio between strike price and FMV. Note I made some assumptions: first is that the company will sell some of the stock to pay the taxes for you. Second is your marginal tax rate. Before you do anything check these. Is there some reason to exercise immediately? I'd wait, personally.\"",
"Yes, what they said. You don't mention where you are on the totem pole. Are you reporting to the top dog, or are you 3 levels down? Not to be a downer, but until you know your cut, I'd not get too excited either way. 1000 shares/options of a LinkedIn turned to nearly $100K. Nothing to sneeze at, to be sure, but not enough to retire, nor bother contacting a lawyer. The details of the equity should be spelled out clearly, nothing against Lawyers, but it's likely to be wasted money.",
"Par value SHOULD mean that they are offering you the options with a strike price (exercise price) that is equivalent to the current valuation of the company. Note I said SHOULD. As long as you can confirm with HR (or if you're small enough, just ask the CEO) that your grant price is the same as the current valuation of the company's shares, then things are straight. And while it's very unlikely that someone is doing Something Sneaky, it's always possible. As a reference, my recent grant letter said: [Company] (the “Company”) hereby grants you the following Option to purchase shares of its common stock (“Shares”). The terms and conditions of this Option are set forth in the Stock Option Agreement and the [Company] 2013 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), both of which are attached to and made a part of this document.",
"The difference is whether your options qualify as incentive stock options (ISOs), or whether they are non-qualifying options. If your options meet all of the criteria for being ISOs (see here), then (a) you are not taxed when you exercise the options. You treat the sale of the underlying stock as a long term capital gain, with the basis being the exercise price (S). There is something about the alternative minimum tax (AMT) as they pertain to these kinds of options. Calculating your AMT basically means that your ISOs are treated as non-qualifying options. So if your exercise bumps you into AMT territory, too bad, so sad. If you exercise earlier, you do get a clock ticking, as you put it, because one of the caveats of having your options qualify as ISOs is that you hold the underlying stock (a) at least two years after you were granted the options and (b) at least one year after you exercise the options.",
"\"Your company actually will most likely use some sort of options pricing model, either a binomial tree or black-scholes to determine the value for their accounting and, subsequently, for their issuance and realization. First, market value of equity will be determined. Given you're private (although \"\"pre-IPO could mean public tomorrow,\"\"), this will likely revolve around a DCF and/or market approaches. Equity value will then be compared to a cap table to create an equity waterfall, where the different classes of stock and the different options will be valued along tranches. Keep in mind there might be liquidation preferences that would make options essentially further out of the money. As such, your formulae above do not quite work. However, as an employee, it might be difficult to determine the necessary inputs to determine value. To estimate it, however, look for three key pieces of information: 1. Current equity value 2. Option strike price 3. Maturity for Options If the strike is close to the current equity value, and the maturity is long enough, and you expect the company to grow, then it would look like the options have more value than not. Equity value can be derived from enterprise value, or by directly determining it via a DCF or guideline multiples. Reliable forecasts should come from looking at the industry, listening to what management is saying, and then your own information as an insider.\"",
"You would not owe any taxes in the 2015 year, unless you got exercised and called away in 2015. The premium would be short term capital gains barring some other exception I'm not aware of, and if you retain a gain on the underlying shares then that would still be long term capital gains. If it gets called in say April 2016, is the premium+profit+dividends all long term capital gains for the year 2016? The profits are long term capital gains and the premium serves to lower your cost basis, dividends have their own conditions so you'll have to do separate research on that, fortunately they'll likely be negligible compared to the potential capital gains and options premium.",
"To me it depends on things like your net worth, debt, and how other assets are invested. Currently you have 25K invested in the company you work for. If you have 100K in student loans, are a renter, and 12K in your 401K, then I would recommend exercising almost all of your options. In that case you have a much to large part of your world wrapped up in your company. If you have 250K in your 401K, own a home and have an emergency fund with no debt then you are fine with letting it ride. You can afford to absorb a loss of 25K without wrecking your net worth. More than likely, you are somewhere in between (just statistics speaking there). So why not exercise some of them now with the purpose of improving your financial situation? Say do a 1/3 now and when they come available. When 401ks were first invented people put almost all of their money in their company stock. They lost just about everything when the company went down in value and were often a victim of layoffs exasperating the issue. This is akin to the same situation. Most financial advisers recommend against putting any 401K money to company stock, or at least limiting the amount.",
"So in a sense, I can think of the employees / option-holders as another investor? That makes sense - but many of the examples I'm finding online are still confusing me. Based on the example above, it seems like option-holders would be paying the same exercise price as the VC. Per [Andreesen Horowitz](https://a16z.com/2016/08/24/options-ownership/) this seems uncommon: > The exercise price of employee options — the price per share needed to actually own the shares — is often less than the original issue price paid by the most recent investor, who holds preferred stock. In reality, would option-holders receive, say, 40% (using example above) for their $6m in exercise value due to receiving common stock, with the founder being diluted to even further?",
"Since it's not a public company it would be difficult for anyone to value these options or predict their future value without a lot more details on the finances of the firm. Once the firm goes public you can use the Black Shoales equation to get a present value for the options. And once they've got several months of trading data you can get a very rough estimate the future stock price with it's beta. But with individual stocks predicting future values can really be a crapshoot.",
"\"Not all call options that have value at expiration, exercise by purchasing the security (or attempting to, with funds in your account). On ETNs, they often (always?) settle in cash. As an example of an option I'm currently looking at, AVSPY, it settles in cash (please confirm by reading the documentation on this set of options at http://www.nasdaqomxtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=Alpha, but it is an example of this). There's nothing it can settle into (as you can't purchase the AVSPY index, only options on it). You may quickly look (wikipedia) at the difference between \"\"American Style\"\" options and \"\"European Style\"\" options, for more understanding here. Interestingly I just spoke to my broker about this subject for a trade execution. Before I go into that, let me also quickly refer to Joe's answer: what you buy, you can sell. That's one of the jobs of a market maker, to provide liquidity in a market. So, when you buy a stock, you can sell it. When you buy an option, you can sell it. That's at any time before expiration (although how close you do it before the closing bell on expiration Friday/Saturday is your discretion). When a market maker lists an option price, they list a bid and an ask. If you are willing to sell at the bid price, they need to purchase it (generally speaking). That's why they put a spread between the bid and ask price, but that's another topic not related to your question -- just note the point of them buying at the bid price, and selling at the ask price -- that's what they're saying they'll do. Now, one major difference with options vs. stocks is that options are contracts. So, therefore, we can note just as easily that YOU can sell the option on something (particularly if you own either the underlying, or an option deeper in the money). If you own the underlying instrument/stock, and you sell a CALL option on it, this is a strategy typically referred to as a covered call, considered a \"\"risk reduction\"\" strategy. You forfeit (potential) gains on the upside, for money you receive in selling the option. The point of this discussion is, is simply: what one buys one can sell; what one sells one can buy -- that's how a \"\"market\"\" is supposed to work. And also, not to think that making money in options is buying first, then selling. It may be selling, and either buying back or ideally that option expiring worthless. -- Now, a final example. Let's say you buy a deep in the money call on a stock trading at $150, and you own the $100 calls. At expiration, these have a value of $50. But let's say, you don't have any money in your account, to take ownership of the underlying security (you have to come up with the additional $100 per share you are missing). In that case, need to call your broker and see how they handle it, and it will depend on the type of account you have (e.g. margin or not, IRA, etc). Generally speaking though, the \"\"margin department\"\" makes these decisions, and they look through folks that have options on things that have value, and are expiring, and whether they have the funds in their account to absorb the security they are going to need to own. Exchange-wise, options that have value at expiration, are exercised. But what if the person who has the option, doesn't have the funds to own the whole stock? Well, ideally on Monday they'll buy all the shares with the options you have at the current price, and immediately liquidate the amount you can't afford to own, but they don't have to. I'm mentioning this detail so that it helps you see what's going or needs to go on with exchanges and brokerages and individuals, so you have a broader picture.\"",
"\"A company has 100,000 shares and 100,000 unexercised call options (company issued). Share price and strike price both at $1. What country is this related to? I ask because, in the US, most people I know associate a \"\"call\"\" option with the instrument that is equivalent to 100 shares. So 100,000 calls would be 10,000,000 shares, which exceeds the number of shares you're saying the company has. I don't know if that means you pulled the numbers out of thin air, or whether it means you're thinking of a different type of option? Perhaps you meant incentive stock options meant to be given to employees? Each one of those is equivalent to a single share. They just aren't called \"\"call options\"\". In the rest of my answer, I'm going to assume you meant stock options. I assume the fact that these options exist will slow any price increases on the underlying shares due to potential dilution? I don't think the company can just create stock options without creating the underlying shares in the first place. Said another way, a more likely scenario is that company creates 200,000 shares and agrees to float 50% of them while reserving the other 50% as the pool for incentive employee stock. They then choose to give the employees options on the stock in the incentive pool, rather than outright grants of the stock, for various reasons. (One of which is being nice to the employees in regards to taxes since there is no US tax due at grant time if the strike price is the current price of the underlying stock.) An alternative scenario when the company shares are liquidly traded is that the company simply plans to buy back shares from the market in order to give employees their shares when options are exercised. In this case, the company needs the cash on hand, or cash flow to take money from, to buy those shares at current prices. Anyway, in either case, there is no dilution happening WHEN the options get exercised. Any dilution happened before or at the time the options were created. Meaning, the total number of shares in the company was already pre-set at an earlier time. As a result, the fact that the options exist in themselves will not slow price changes on the stock. However, price changes will be impacted by the total float of shares in the company, or the impact to cash flow if the company has to buy shares to redeem its option commitments. This is almost the same thing you're asking about, but it is technically different as to timing. If this is the case, can this be factored into any option pricing models like black-scholes? You're including the effect just by considering the total float of shares and net profits from cash flow when doing your modelling.\"",
"according to the Options Industry council ( http://www.optionseducation.org/tools/faq/splits_mergers_spinoffs_bankruptcies.html ) put options the shares (and therefore the options) may continue trading OTC but if the shares completely stop trading then: if the courts cancel the shares, whereby common shareholders receive nothing, calls will become worthless and an investor who exercises a put would receive 100 times the strike price and deliver nothing. The reason for this is that it is not the company whose shares you have the option on that you have a contract with but the counterparty who wrote the option. If the counterparty goes bankrupt then you may not get paid out (depending on assets available at liquidation - this is counterparty risk) but, unless the two are the same, if the company whose shares you have a put option on declares bankruptcy then you will get paid",
"This may be a good or a bad deal, depending on the fair market value (FMV) of the stock at the time of exercise. Let's assume the FMV is $6, which is the break even point. In general this would probably be treated as two transactions. So overall you would be cash neutral, but your regular tax income would be increased by $30,000 and your AMT income by $60,000."
] |
[
"There is no chance the deal will complete before option expiration. Humana stock will open Monday close to the $235 buyout price, and the options will reflect that value. $40 plus a bit of time value, but with just 2 weeks to expiration, not much."
] |
2472
|
How do I deal with a mistaken attempt to collect a debt from me that is owed by someone else?
|
[
"401125",
"370334",
"307315"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"201758",
"200263",
"330507",
"144922",
"546028",
"161422",
"49321",
"500671",
"393710",
"233535",
"153443",
"384608",
"86245",
"189662",
"401125",
"155530",
"339365",
"531137",
"372039",
"180601",
"219119",
"518563",
"50395",
"357481",
"220853",
"535307",
"398258",
"84380",
"400447",
"115172",
"122617",
"251258",
"251257",
"574948",
"567498",
"2702",
"467737",
"20912",
"259764",
"370334",
"494116",
"435006",
"439474",
"543607",
"254528",
"544956",
"142582",
"131926",
"348889",
"452405",
"362313",
"92888",
"280140",
"297722",
"22067",
"112711",
"476659",
"561958",
"163016",
"247952",
"360586",
"214082",
"538217",
"529784",
"530233",
"149749",
"334850",
"197093",
"166522",
"165364",
"306510",
"528054",
"437084",
"403969",
"567916",
"97329",
"45958",
"65605",
"307315",
"576082",
"92390",
"347413",
"107865",
"572096",
"95356",
"325587",
"63747",
"569421",
"75493",
"574122",
"298179",
"520516",
"492226",
"176350",
"497125",
"393334",
"100443",
"319276",
"171216",
"178127"
] |
[
"\"Step one: Contact the collection agency. Tell them that they have the wrong person, and the same name is just a coincidence. I would NOT give them my correct social security number, birth date, or other identifying information. This could be a total scam for the purpose of getting you to give them such personal identifying information so they can perform an identity theft. Even if it is a legitimate debt collection agency, if they are overzealous and/or incompetent, they may enter your identifying information into their records. \"\"Oh, you say your social security number isn't 123-45-6789, but 234-56-7890. Thank you, let me update our records. Now, sir, I see that the social security number in our records matches your social security number ...\"\" Step two: If they don't back off, contact a lawyer. Collection agencies work by -- call it \"\"intimidation\"\" or \"\"moral persuasion\"\", depending on your viewpoint. Years after my wife left me, she went bankrupt. A collection agency called me demanding payment of her debts before the bankruptcy went through. I noticed two things about this: One, We were divorced and I had no responsibility for her debts. Somehow they tracked down my new address and phone number, a place where she had never even lived. Why should I pay her debts? I had no legal obligation, nor did I see any moral obligation. Two, Their pitch was that she/I should pay off this debt before the bankruptcy was final. Why would anyone do that? The whole point of declaring bankruptcy is so you don't have to pay these debts. They were hoping to intimidate her into paying even though she wouldn't be legally obligated to pay. If you don't owe the money, of course there's no reason why you should pay it. If they continue to pursue you for somebody else's debt, in the U.S. you can sue them for harassment. There are all sorts of legal limits on what collection agencies are allowed to do. Actually even if they do back off, it might be worth contacting a lawyer. I suspect that asking your employer to garnish your wages without a court order, without even proof that you are responsible for this debt, is a tort that you could sue them for.\"",
"Debt collectors are just doing their job as many people want to evade payment by not responding and skipping their debts, and they talk tough to force people found to make their obligated payments based on what they can afford and that’s all. I’m in the UK, but I assume the process is similar. Before I begin, I worked in debt collection and I presume that the debt collection agency have requested details for a source like a college and you have been returned as a possible match as you name is identical to their debtor but with differing date of birth etc. College/University students are very nomadic in nature and addresses aren’t very helpful when they are not current, but details of a current address/employer to a very similar name would be a possible lead to debtor and the debt collector is simply acting on flawed information which is fairly rare, and cases such as these are resolved when you can simply confirm your date of birth and other details so that they can eliminate you from their chasing activities. Whilst you may feel uncomfortable about giving your details, you are not the debtor and will have to confirm this, the debt collector is only interested in collection of valid debts values, and the current letter is most likely a standard letter to get you to act assuming that you are the debtor. If you try to ignore this or only partly answer their contact by telling them not to contact your employer etc, they will assume that you are the debtor and step up pursuit by contacting at work by phone, in person, or by other means, and you employer will see you in a bad light… I would advise you to write to them a one-time only letter confirming details of your home address and insist on correspondence in writing only to that home address, in addition you should confirm your full name including full middle names, date of birth, that you have never attended the college in question, agreed to any such debt in writing, and that you are not the correct data subject as the ss number also differs. The letter should also go on to state a range of costs which require payment before you act further, ie subsequent letter $xx.xx amount attending court $xx.xx per hour(not cheap) and that if they harass you or otherwise affect your standing with your credit reference, or employer or anyone else that you ‘Will’ take further action and ‘May’ take them to your ‘Local’ court and pursue the costs list above and losses as a result of their actions including pain and suffering. Speak tough and mean business and act decisively and your message will win through, share your details with them once and above all copy your employer in so that they know this is a case of mistaken identity. You can add a large heading at the top of the letter of ‘Mistaken Identity’ to prove your point.",
"You've already done everything I would suggest: Contact the collections agency, being careful in what personal information you provide. Check all three of your credit reports, for any trace of incorrect information. At this point, since you've confirmed that the social security number that the collections agency has does not match yours, and you've confirmed that you have nothing in your credit report about this debt, I don't think you need to worry about it. Collections agencies employ a number of tactics to try to collect on bad debt. The first dilemma they have is finding the debtor. Sometimes this is easier than other times. In this case, they obviously don't know where this person is, so they just started contacting people that have the same name as the debtor, hoping that they will get lucky. Intimidation is a major collections agency tactic, so I'm sure the letter you got was strongly worded. Your phone call to them may or may not have convinced them that they have the wrong person. (Believe it or not, people sometimes lie to collections agencies.) So the biggest thing you may have to deal with is continued harassment by the agency. If they think you are lying to them, you can expect more phone calls and more harassment. The FTC has a FAQ page about debt collection. If you hear from them again, don't fall for any intimidation tactics that they might say to you. Just tell them not to contact you again, and report them if they do. They will eventually get the message and go away.",
"You are talking to the wrong people. Debt collectors are not intimidated by anything you say. Call and tell them that, before you pay the debt, they need to get the paperwork from the company to verify that you actually owe them the money and the amount. You need copies of the original paperwork. This alone may resolve the issue. If not, then call the client company and explain that THEIR debt collection agency is talking to the wrong person. Explain why you are not that person. It may be necessary to tell them that your lawyer advised you that they will be personally held responsible for any damages that you may incur from this debt collector's actions. The client is the one who needs to be intimidated.",
"\"Use with moderation. Powerful stuff. Your caller could be an offshore scammer too. Summarizing from http://www.creditinfocenter.com/rebuild/debt-validation.shtml: You can dispute the debt, and demand that the collector give you the name and address of the original creditor and show that it isn't past the statute of limitations. If they can't \"\"validate\"\" the debt by providing that info, in writing, they must drop it until they can do so. You can sue (though generally not for very much) if they don't. You may have to make this request in writing, so it has a paper trail. A valid verification respond must include: If they don't respond within 30 days, they are in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FDCPA section 809b), and you can send registered mail threatening them with a lawsuit if they don't immediately drop it and remove it from your credit report. They should respond to that within two weeks, and if they don't have darned good evidence will probably cave. If they can prove you do owe the money ... Well, you can hope they aren't licensed to collect in your state; if they aren't you can try to challenge them on that basis. Unlikely to work. If they agree, remember to send a copy of the letter to the credit reporting agencies to make sure it's taken off your record. If this isn't enough to resolve it, you'll probably need to bring suit. That's another long list of steps; I'm going to refer you to the linked site rather than summarize them here since at that point you should get a lawyer involved to make sure it's done promptly.\"",
"Run your credit reports for the 3 major agencies to find out which of them have the debt was reported on and initiate the dispute process with each agency that reports the invalid debt. This will cause the person who put it on the report to either prove that it is valid or remove it from your report. Ignoring debt collector calls is not a good option, regardless of whether the debt is valid. They obviously think the debt is yours so their response is naturally to put it on your credit report. In most cases it is a good idea to respond in writing that it is not your debt. I doubt you have much recourse against the creditor. For one thing they DID try to contact you and you dodged them. That is not their fault. Secondly, it is unlikely you would prevail unless you could prove that they maliciously put false information on your credit or through gross incompetence did so. More likely is that they are mismatching you to a debt from someone with a similar name, or there is an accounting error somewhere. Or possibly you owe the debt and no one ever sent you a bill. It happens with medical bills all the time.",
"Request verification in writing of the debt. They are required to provide this by law. Keep this for your records. Send them a notice by certified mail stating that this is not your debt and not to contact you again. Indicate that you will take legal action if they continue to try and collect. Keep a log of if/when they continue to call or harass you. Contact counsel about your rights under the fair debt collection laws, but if they keep harassing you after being provided proof of your identity, they are liable. You could win a judgement in court if you have proof of bad behavior. If your identity is stolen, you are not legally responsible for the charges. However it is a mess to clean up, so pull your credit reports and review your accounts to be sure.",
"\"As a former debt collector myself, I can tell you that we did occasionally get someone claiming that they weren't who they really were. However, it was pretty obvious who was telling the truth after a while. Above all else, just be calm and polite. Technically, you can also say \"\"do not call this number again\"\" and they have to stop calling, but I wouldn't do this right off the bat. Its best if they are convinced that you aren't the guy they're looking for. Calmness and politeness are traits that debtors usually lack, sometimes because they are just normal people overwhelmed with their situation, and sometimes because they are irrational loser (sorry, but its true). Either way, if you are consistently calm and unconcerned about their threats, they will either give up or realize you aren't the guy. Eventually they will stop calling you (or at least I know I would have stopped calling you).\"",
"If you tell the collector that the claim isn't valid, they're obliged to go back to the creditor to verify it. Sometimes that gets a real person, instead of their automatic billing system, to look at the claim, and if you're right, they'll drop it.",
"\"The first thing you should do is write a letter to the collection company telling them that you dispute all charges and demand, per section 809 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, that they immediately validate and confirm any and all debts they allege you owe. You should further request that that they only communicate with you by mail. Section 809 requires them to examine the legal documents showing you allegedly owe a debt and they are required to send this to you. This all creates a useful paper trail. When you send the letter, be sure to send it as certified mail with a return receipt. From your description, it doesn't sound like this will do anything, but it's important you do it within 30 days of them contacting you. This is because the law allows them to assume the debt is valid if you don't do it within 30 days of their initial contact. I recommend you speak with an attorney. Most states have a statute of limitation on debt of about 4 or 5 years. I don't know if that applies to courts though. Whatever you do, be very careful of the language you use when speaking with them. Always refer to it as \"\"the alleged debt,\"\" or \"\"the debt you allege I owe.\"\" You don't want them misconstruing your words later on. As far as proving you paid it, I would look through every scrap of paper I'd ever touched looking for it. If that proves fruitless, try going to the courthouse and looking through their records. If they're saying you didn't pay, that's a long shot, but still worth a try. You could also try bank records from that time, like if you have a Visa statement showing $276.17 paid to the Nevada Court or something like that. If all else fails, the law allows you to send the collector a letter saying that you refuse to pay the debt. The collection company then legally must stop contacting you unless it's to tell you they are suing you or to tell you they won't contact you again. I strongly advise against this though. Your best bet is going to be speaking with a qualified attorney. Edit: You should also pull your credit reports to make sure this isn't being reported there. Federal law gives you the right to have a free copy of each of your credit reports once every year. If it is being reported, send a certified letter with return receipt to each bureau which is reporting it telling them you dispute the information. They then are required to confirm the information. If they can't confirm it, they must remove it. If they do confirm it, you are legally entitled to put a statement disputing the information next to it on your credit report. I am not an attorney. This is not legal advise. You should consult an attorney who is licensed to practice law in your particular jurisdiction.\"",
"http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre27.pdf if you are in the US Look at section 805 and 805 about how they may contact you and what they are and aren't allowed to do. You can simply send a Certified Mail, Return Receipt (CMRR) letter explaining you have no part of it, and that they are not allowed to contact you by any means other than in writing from this point forward. Then you can either put return to sender on the letters (it costs them money) or open them and delete anything you don't need.",
"All three credit bureaus allow you to file a dispute online. Some allow you to upload documentation at the same time, others will ask you to mail it to them. Send them the letter you got from your bank, they will then return to the collection company. For $300.00 most likely they will not pursue it any further and the credit bureaus will delete the entry from your file. If the collection company want to make a case out of it they will have to view to cost of trying to get a Court Judgment against the value of the amount they are claiming. Almost certainly they will view at not cost effective and your credit rating will return to where it was prior to the negative impact",
"Send a well-documented payment to the original creditor. Do it in such a way that you would have the ability to prove that you sent a payment if they reject it. Should they reject it, demonstrate that to the credit reporting bureaus.",
"\"First of all, whatever you do, DON'T PAY! Credit reporting agencies operate on aged records, and paying it now will most certainly not improve your score. For example, let's say that you had an unpaid debt that was reported as a \"\"charge-off\"\" to the credit bureaus. After, say, six months, the negative effect on your score is reduced. It is reduced even further after a year or two, and after two years, the negative effect on your score is negligible. Now, say you were to pay the debt after the two years. This would \"\"refresh\"\" the record, and show as a \"\"paid charge-off\"\". Sure, now it shows as paid, but it also shows the date of the record as being today, which increases the effect on your credit drastically. In other words, you would have just shot yourself in the foot, big-time. As others have noted, the best option is to dispute the item. If, for some reason, it isn't removed, you are allowed to submit an annotation to the item, explaining your side of the story. Anyone pulling your credit record would see this note, which can help you in some instances. In any case, these scam artists don't deserve your money. Finally, you should check who is the local ombusdman, and report this agent to them. She could lose her license for such a practice.\"",
"Do not provide any personal information. If the debt is not yours, ask the caller to provide all the identifying information they have over the phone to verify whether they have your information, or are just following up on similar names. Even if they have information that is yours, do not provide more information. Always make them tell you what they know. If they provide information that is not yours, simply state that it is not your information and politely end the call. If they persist in calling you, there are local agencies you can report them to. If they have your information, then ask for all of the details of the debt -- who is it owed to, when was the debt incurred, what was the original amount of the debt, what is the current balance, when was the last activity on the account, what is their relation to creditor. Once you know the creditor, you can contact them directly for more information. It is possible they may have written off the account and closed it, selling it to a debt collector in order to get some sort of return on debt. If they truly have a debt that is yours, and you did not incur it, then you will need to file a police report for a case of identity theft. Be prepared for some scrutiny.",
"Don't waste your time threatening legal action or screwing around with certified mail. If they're contacting your employer to garnish your wages they probably already have a summary judgment against you for failing to appear at a court date you didn't know about. Your employer might have had your back but these guys will continue to try to locate your assets and attempt garnishment until someone does accept their claim and hands over your bank account. Contact a bankruptcy attorney immediately (they are most experienced with dealing with debt collectors and related issues). Consultations are generally free.",
"\"This is somewhat unbelievable. I mean if you had a business of collecting debts, wouldn't you want to collect said debts? Rather than attempting to browbeat people with these delinquent debts into paying, you have someone volunteering to pay. Would you want to service that client? This would not happen in just about any other industry, but such is the lunacy of debt collecting. The big question is why do you need this cleared off your credit? If it is just for a credit score, it probably is not as important as your more recent entries. I would just wait it out, until 7 years has passed, and you can then write the reporting agencies to remove it from your credit. If you are attempting to buy a home or similarly large purpose and the mortgage company is insisting that you deal with this, then I would do the following: Write the company to address the issue. This has to be certified/return receipt requested. If they respond, pay it and insist that it be marked as paid in full on your credit. I would do this with a money order or cashiers check. Done. Dispute the charge with the credit reporting agencies, providing the documentation of no response. This should remove the item from your credit. Provide this documentation to the mortgage broker. This should remove any hangup they might have. Optional: Sue the company in small claims court. This will take a bit of time and money, but it should yield a profit. There was a post on here a few days ago about how to do this. Make part of any settlement to have your name cleared of the debt. It is counterproductive to fall into the trap of the pursuit of a perfect credit score. A person with a 750 often receives the same rate options as a person with 850. Also your relationship with a particular lender could trump your credit score. Currently I am \"\"enjoying\"\" the highest credit score of my life, over 820. Do you know how I did it? I got out of debt (including paying off the mortgage) and I have no intentions of ever going into debt for anything. So why does it matter? It is a bit ridiculous.\"",
"\"I was I a similar position as you, and sometimes credit bureaus might be difficult to deal with, especially when high amounts of money are involved. To make the long story short, someone opened a store credit card under my name and made a charge of around 3k. After reporting this to the bureaus, they did not want to remove the account from my credit report citing that the claim was \"\"frivolous\"\". After filing a police report, the police officer gave me the phone number for the fraud department of this store credit card, and after they investigated, they removed the account from my credit. I would suggest to do the following: Communicating with Creditors and Debt Collectors You have the right to: Stop creditors and debt collectors from reporting fraudulent accounts. After you give them a copy of a valid identity theft report, they may not report fraudulent accounts to the credit reporting companies. Get copies of documents related to the theft of your identity, like transaction records or applications for new accounts. Write to the company that has the documents, and include a copy of your identity theft report. You also can tell the company to give the documents to a specific law enforcement agency. Stop a debt collector from contacting you. In most cases, debt collectors must stop contacting you after you send them a letter telling them to stop. Get written information from a debt collector about a debt, including the name of the creditor and the amount you supposedly owe. If a debt collector contacts you about a debt, request this information in writing. I know that you said that the main problem was that your credit account was combined with another. But there might be a chance that identity theft was involved. If this is the case, and you can prove it, then you might have access to more tools to help you. For example, you can file a report with the FTC, and along with a police report, this can be a powerful tool in stopping these charges. Feel free to go to the identitytheft.gov website for more information.\"",
"\"The debt collection agency needs to see a copy of the notice from the bank that the $300 charge is a disputed and fraudulent charge. Also require them to provide proof. To reduce your stress, you should contact a lawyer to handle the debt collection agency. Disputing the information on your credit report is exactly the way to \"\"fix\"\" that issue. All they need to see is the bank letter stating that the charges were fraudulent. The credit reports should show that item as disputed for at least a month if not remove it entirely. The bank should be able to provide with copies although you may have to pay a research charge if the information is old enough. I recommend talking to your local branch manager to get what you need.\"",
"I had a debt collector call on a bill that was sent to collections because of a clerical error. Instead of negotiating with the debt collector, I called the company that originally owned the debt. They allowed me to pay my bill without any late fees 6 months later, and they gave me a receipt to furnish to the debt collectors. I'm sure the debt collectors got a refund for the purchase of my debt. If your desire is to pay the debt, then you could still call the owner of the debt and see it they wish to work with you to get the debt paid. Any contact with the original creditor will affect your legal rights with respect to collection and statutes of limitation, so you should be sure you want to pay the debt back in full before you take such a step.",
"If they are a debt collector, they must follow the requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In particular, they must provide you with verification of the debt at your written request. If they won't give you a way to do this, they are in violation of the law, and you should contact proper authorities. If they are not a debt collection agency, it does sound like a scam, in which case you should also contact the appropriate law enforcement agency.",
"You are making an assumption that may not be true: Unbeknownst to me, some apartment debt I paid had already been sold to a collections agency before I actually paid it. Typically debts are sold to a Debt Buyer, whereas a Collection Agency works on commission to collect debts on behalf of the creditor. If your debt was actually sold, you should have been notified in writing of this fact, and who the new creditor was. I suspect your debt was not sold, because if it was the apartment complex would not have been legally allowed to cash your check when you finally paid them. Therefore, it is most likely that the collection agency was working on commission, and the apartment complex never informed them that you had settled your debt. As for what to do about it, here are 3 options, ordered by likelihood of success: Good luck, and if you don't mind, please update us later on what you did and what the result was. Your experience will be helpful for others having this issue in the future.",
"Never speak to a debt collector. Ask them to stop calling you and STOP talking to them. Communicate only via postal mail. Do not react in an emotional way, do not use foul language, etc. If they call you and attempt to harass or intimidate you, note the date/time, name of the caller and nature of the call. Ask them to cease communications via phone and hang up. You're missing alot of detail here. You need to understand: The key to these things is to fully understand the situation you are in and find out what your legal obligations are.",
"\"Sue the debt collectors in small claims court. There are several example stories around the internet, but this is a well written one from the consumerist. If your phone is a cell phone: \"\"it is against the law for a company to leave a pre-recorded message on your cell phone.\"\" In fact, the call frequency increased once they realized they had reached a live person. I called each of these companies multiple times, and though I was given assurances each time that my number would be taken off of their lists, the calls continued, morning, noon and night. At my wits end, I decided the only way to have the harassing calls stop was to file suits against the collection companies. It's very important to understand that it is against the law for a company to leave a pre-recorded message on your cell phone. Armed with this knowledge, I filed suit against several of the collection companies. I filed in small claims court so I did not need to hire an attorney, and the process was as simple as completing a paragraph on a complaint form. For evidence, I had over a hundred Google Voicemail transcripts showing the times the companies called and the text of the pre-recorded messages. Mysteriously, the calls all stopped immediately on the same date the collection companies received the certified letters stating they were being sued. Then a new flurry of calls began pouring in. This time it was their attorneys. The attorneys representing these out of state collection companies were all desperate to settle out of court. hey did not want to incur the expense of traveling for court or hiring a local law firm who wasn't on retainer. They also understood they had no justifiable defense for the calls. To make a long story short, so far I have successfully sued 3 of these collection companies and settled for more than $5,000 out of court. All it cost me was $35 and 20 minutes per suit. Making these companies pay is the only incentive for them to stop their illegal and harassing practices. If more consumers knew their rights and actually took a few minutes to stand up for them, it would become less profitable for these companies to conduct business the way they do now. -Source And whether you have a cell phone or land line, It is illegal for the debt collectors to tell you they are calling to collect a debt for someone else under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (wikipedia, ftc docs). What Remedies Are Available If The Debt Collector Violates The Law Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, you have the right to sue a debt collector in state or federal court within one year from the date of the violation. If you win, you may recover damages in the amount of any losses you suffered as a result of the violation, plus an additional amount of up to $1,000.00. You may also be able to recover court costs and attorney fees. If the same debt collector has engaged in unlawful conduct with a number of consumers, it may be possible to find a lawyer who will file a class action lawsuit. -Source With regard to whether you can sue under FDCPA if you are not the debtor, one FDCPA lawyer (take with grain of salt) says yes: Did you know that it doesn't matter if you owe the account the debt collector is calling you about or not? If a debt collector violates the FDCPA (the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692 et. seq.) that debt collector could be liable to pay you statutory damages, actual damages, attorney's fees, and court costs. -Source\"",
"Reading stuff like this makes me want to go into the debt collection business. Just send letters to random people demanding money. Sounds like an easy way to make a living. What's your name and address? Just kidding. If they are sending stuff to a Virginia PO Box, close the box with no forwarding address and consider it case closed. If they are targetting you personally in New Hampshire, the best thing to do is to sue proactively before it goes to collection. New Hampshire has strict anti-debt-collection laws. Basically, what you do is go to small claims court and fill out a one-page form. Sue them for $2000, $3000 or whatever is convenient. Do not hire a lawyer. You can do this in 2 hours of your own time. Your grounds are: (1) Violation of the creditor of NH FDCA laws. According to the laws the creditor has to put all kinds of specific stuff in their threat letters. Since they are not doing this, they have violated NH FDCA. Read the FDCA so you know which specific items they are violating. (2) Extortion. Since you do not owe them any money, demanding money from you is extortion which is both criminally and civilly actionable. You sue them for mental anguish due to extortion. The validity of your claims is irrelevant. You just need to get them in court. There are two possibilities: (A) They fail to show up. In this case you win and they owe you $3000 or whatever. Not only that if they later try to collect from you send a copy of the judgement to the credit bureau or collector or whatever and that is proof you owe them no money. (B) They hire some stooge local lawyer who appears. Accept the court's offer for arbitration. When you go into arbitration with the lawyer tell him you will drop the lawsuit if they send you a check for $500 and a hand-written guarantee from him that you will never hear from his client again. Either way, you come out ahead. By the way, it is absolutely guaranteed that the enemy lawyer will accept your offer in (B) above because the SEO company is already paying him $5000 to show up to answer your lawsuit, and the lawyer does not want to hang around all morning in court waiting for the case to be heard. If he can get out of there in half an hour for only $500 he will do it. -------------------------------UPDATE If all you are getting is calls and the caller refuses to identify themself, then it is definitely an illegal scam. It is illegal in New Hampshire to make collection calls and refuse to full identify who is calling. The phone company has methods for dealing with illegal calls. First you have to file a police report. Then you call Verizon Security at 1-800-518-5507 (or whatever your phone company is). They will trace the call and identify the caller. They you can make a criminal complaint in their jurisdiction unless the call is from Pakistan or something.",
"\"It's your business to pay what you owe but it's not your business to determine what you owe. The \"\"Fair Debt Collections Practices act\"\" FDCPA proscribes certain steps creditors must go through to contact you. You appear to not have received any active contact or demand, but you can still cite the FDCPA to make it their problem. Write to the creditor's address (I assume its the hospital, the OP isn't clear), use USPS Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested, asking them to validate that you owe this debt by mail in 5 days, as is your right under the FDCPA. If they get back to you and you agree (or its reasonably plausible) you do owe it, pay it especially if it's on the order of $100. At least you will know it is settled at the source. Cross reference to your insurance claims to be sure its not double billed or a miscredited copay, but you may see many legit separate charges from one ER visit (hospital, doctor, anesthesiologist, etc) and it would not be the first time a medical billing system crapped the bed. If you don't hear anything after a few weeks, use the credit report protest process (or write to them, cc: the Federal Trade Commission) contesting the validity of this report. The creditor did not respond to your FDCPA request for validation (copy of the Return Receipt); and you otherwise believe you are current with the hospital. Per the Fair Credit Reporting act, they must investigate. Fight bureaucratic fire with fire: conduct all business by mail, and make liberal use of certified mail return receipts. Its a $6 way to telegraph you know that they have specific federal law timeliness requirements; and you have a federal timestamp signed by someone in their organization.\"",
"What you are describing here is the opposite of a problem: You're trying to contact a debt-collector to pay them money, but THEY'RE ignoring YOU and won't return your calls! LOL! All joking aside, having 'incidental' charges show up as negative marks on your credit history is an annoyance- thankfully you're not the first to deal with such problems, and there are processes in place to remedy the situation. Contact the credit bureau(s) on which the debt is listed, and file a petition to have it removed from your history. If everything that you say here is true, then it should be relatively easy. Edit: See here for Equifax's dispute resolution process- it sounds like you've already completed the first two steps.",
"From a page on consumerfinance.gov A debt collector generally may not contact your employer or other third-parties about the debt. Debt collectors may ask your employer to verify your employment, or ask for your address or telephone number. Note - they aren't even allowed to tell the employer that they are trying to collect a debt. So - even if you were the guilty party, this isn't allowed. They've already broken very clear laws and thus are probably not trustworthy, so (echoing what others have said) don't give them your own personal information. If they've done one day's research on the law governing their industry they know this is illegal. If they've actually gotten any money from your employer, it's theft. If they haven't then it's just attempted theft. Contact the police regardless. Also - contact a lawyer. You may well have the right to sue them. They've broken Federal laws in a way that causes you injury. Odds are they've broken state laws as well. One last point - do you even have proof that these are debt collectors collecting a real debt, rather than people trying to get you to give them your SSN? Perhaps their business plan is to look at company webpages and send bogus requests to the employers for some random employee and then see what information they get back (I'm not him, here's my personal information). Be very careful to not give any personally identifiable information (date of birth, address, SSN, mother's maiden name, etc). Anything they ask about you don't provide.",
"\"It's probably a scam or maybe some amateur agency trying to put pressure on their target. Normal garnishment goes through the court system. Just ignore it. Tell your employer they obviously have the wrong person since the SS is wrong. Suing clowns like this is not worth it. Just to clarify this some more for you: Trying to collect on a random person with the same name is called \"\"tagging\"\" in the collection industry. Before 2010 it was common because it was actually easier to legally bully the wrong person (who had money) than the right person who does not have money. That was then, this is now. Various federal and state laws have been passed since that time to prevent identity theft and these laws create big liabilities for debt collectors that try to bully the wrong person. Therefore, it rarely happens anymore, though of course sometimes agencies will still call you if they think they have a soft target. That's what the call to your employer is, just a test. A pro collector (like a law firm) would never call an employer, because they could get sued for doing that, but some amateur working out of his basement might. That's what you are dealing with: some joker in a basement. Such people never sue, they just buy old debt for pennies on the dollar and try random harassing phone calls. Ignore it and he will move on to the next \"\"John Smith\"\" on his list. A lot of lawyers will advise you to \"\"talk\"\" to the collector, correcting their misinformation, blah blah. Lawyers like talking, because the more talk there is, the more money they make. In the real legal world: never talk to your enemy or give them information. The way real courts and judges work is that they don't like plaintiffs who sue the wrong person. In fact, they do not like it VERY MUCH. Very bad things happen in courtrooms to people who sue the wrong person. Judges have VERY short patience in general and they DO NOT LIKE IT when somebody wastes their time by suing the wrong person. Basically what this means is: ignore the guy and he will go away.\"",
"I have been in a similar position for quite a while now and the only thing that seems to help is screening phone calls. I have a long list of collector numbers set to not ring on my phone. They can still leave a voice mail but they never do. As far as I know there aren't any laws that protect you from nuisance phone calls. FDCPA letters only apply to the debtor and the collector it is sent to it doesn't protect an unrelated third party from getting annoying phone calls. I have a feeling that sending FDCPA letters is just confirming that you probably are the debtor and prolong the collection calls.",
"\"If any creditor thinks they're going to put their fuck up on my \"\"identity\"\" they got on another thing coming. I will not waste my time clearing up my credit score, I will not waste my time electronically verifying my identity, they will see a certified letter, and then they'll see me personaly in a court room.\"",
"I have had a couple of businesses do this to me. I simply ask them to come over to talk about the bill. Sometimes this ends it. If they come over then I call the cops to file a report on fraud. A lot of times the police will do nothing unless they have had a load of complaints but it certainly gets the company off your back. And if they are truly unscrupulous it doesn't hurt to get a picture of them talking with the police and their van, and then post the whole situation online - you will see others come forward really quick after doing something like this.",
"Assuming you're in the US, you can file complaints against financial institutions (including debt collectors) through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The link to debt collector complaints is: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/Complaint/#debt-collection",
"This sounds like a shady trick. I would consult with a consumer debt lawyer in your area. Most county bar associations in the US have a referral service, where they recommend a local lawyer and there is a reduced fee for the initial visit. I think the statute of limitations is 10 years in most cases, but it depends on where you live. From these bare details,I think they don;t have much of a case. Go see a lawyer and don't let them harrass you.",
"\"I would start with actually talking to the collection agency. Say what you are saying here, namely: \"\"I'm willing to pay the debt if the creditor can prove to me that I owe them\"\". You can also talk to the health facility, ask them for information or records. You can start there and see what happens. Once you are ready to pay the debt you can negotiate to have the negative mark removed from your report. It really depends on the collection agency. They could be reasonable, or the could be total scum.\"",
"Ben Miller offers you sounds advice. However, if it comes down to it I would reach out to a lawyer to negotiate this for you. If what you are presenting is true then you could easily sue them for the damages incurred. I have been in a similar situation and unfortunately using the lawyers is what was required to get the solution resolved. Based on my previous experience a simple letter from a local lawyer office would get this dropped pretty quick and should cost you around $150. Best of luck!",
"You're not missing anything. Consumer protection in the US is very basic and limited, if at all. So if someone claims you owe them something, it would be really hard for you to prove otherwise unless you actually drag them to court. Especially if there actually was a relationship, and there probably is some paperwork to substantiate the claim. I suggest talking to a consumer issues attorney.",
"This seems very suspicious, as if it were fraud, and not a legitimate collector. Garnishing wages takes a court order. A court would require a bit more proof than a name. Names can easily be common, I know sets of first cousins named after the common grandparent, 4 pairs in my extended family, along with 2 triples. The court would certainly look for a social security number match. Your own credit history will show no activity in that state. A legitimate debt collector would handle this very differently.",
"\"I don't know the details of whether or not you should pay this money, or who is at fault. But clearly, you believe that you do not owe the money, and the bank investigation seems to agree with you, since they gave you your money back. Since you have your money, and they haven't sued you, the only issue yet remaining is your credit report. Here is what I would suggest. First, make sure you check all three credit reports, to see which reports the collection appears on. Then dispute the report with each credit bureau reporting the problem. There is an article on CreditKarma that explains the process. When you file your dispute with the credit bureau(s), they will investigate. This usually involves asking the creditor for proof of the debt, and if you didn't sign anything, they probably won't have any proof. Hopefully, the credit bureaus will come to the same conclusion as the bank did, and remove the collection from your credit reports. In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to pay them now, if you don't believe you owe it. Paying them won't remove all the bad stuff from your credit report (but it will improve it), and you don't want to pay them and then immediately sue them. If, however, the credit bureaus side with the landlord and leave this on your report, paying the $300 is better on your report than leaving the \"\"unpaid debt\"\" on there.\"",
"It may be a scam. But it also may be a company trying to find a person with the same or similar name. They may have followed a trail to her old address, and still not have the correct person. They bought number of old debts at a large discount, and are trying to track down any money they can find. It is best to ignore it, especially if they know it isn't their debt. If they start providing more proof then get interested. If they keep contacting them tell them there is no business relationship and they should stop.",
"Suing is a legitimate option as well as screening your calls but here's another idea which has personally worked and relates to the collections I did for awhile. Talk with the collector. Outstanding debt gets sold many times and each time a new collector gets their hands on an account they do their due diligence which means calling every single number multiple times. Collectors a looking for consumers who actively evade collections calls for years. My recommendation is to use logic and explain the situation. Give your first name and describe when you received the phone number and then ask a simple question. When in the last 3 1/2 years have you or any collector had a successful hit from this number. They'll respond never in 3 1/2 years. The collector notes the account for themselves and future collectors. Debt collectors are about about making money, not wasting time and they do review all notes pertaining to an account. Will it work? Maybe not but hopefully it will stop the calls with a short conversation. Good luck.",
"This doesn't seem to explain the odd behavior of the collector, but I wanted to point out that the debt collector might not actually own the debt. If this is the case then your creditor is still the original institution, and the collector may or may not be allowed to actually collect. Contact the original creditor and ask how you can pay off the debt.",
"\"You say your primary goal is to clean up your credit report, and you're willing to spend some cash to do it. OK. But beware: the law in this area is a funhouse mirror, everything works upside down and backwards. To start, let's be clear: Credit reports are not extortion to force you into paying. They are a historical record of your creditworthiness, and almost impossible to fix without altering history. Paying on this debt will affirm the old data was correct, and glue it to your report. Here's how credit reporting works for R-9 (sent to collections) amounts. The data is on your credit report for 7 years. The danger is in this clock being restarted. What will not restart the clock? Ignoring the debt, talking casusally to collectors, and the debt being sold from one collector to another. What will restart the clock? Acknowledging the debt formally, court judgment, paying the debt, or paying on the debt (obviously, paying acknowledges the debt.) Crazy! You could have a debt that's over 7 years old, pay it because you're a decent person, and BOOM! Clock restarts and 7 more years of bad luck. Even worse-- if they write-off or forgive any part of the debt, that's income and you'll need to pay income tax on it. Ugh! Like I say, the only way to remove a bad mark is to alter history. Simple fact: The collector doesn't care about your bad credit mark; he wants money. And it costs a lot of money, time and/or stress for both of you to demand they research it, negotiate, play phone-tag, and ultimately go to court. So this works very well (this is just the guts, you have to add all the who, what, where, signature block, formalities etc.): 1 Company and Customer absolutely disagree as to whether Customer owes Company this debt: (explicitly named debt with numbers and amount) 2 But Company and Customer both eagerly agree that the expense, time, and stress of research, negotiation, and litigation is burdensome for both of us. We both strongly desire a quick, final and no-fault solution. Therefore: 3 Parties agree Customer shall pay Company (acceptable fraction here). Payment within 30 days. To be acknowledged in writing by Company. 4 This shall be absolute and final resolution. 5 NO-FAULT. Parties agree this settlement resolves the matter in good faith. Parties agree this settlement is done for practical reasons, this bill has not been established as a valid debt, and any difference between billed and settled amount is not a canceled nor forgiven debt. 6 Neither party nor its assigns will make any adverse statements to third parties relating to this bill or agreement. Parties agree they have a continuous duty to remove adverse statements, and agree to do so within seven days of request. 7 Parties specifically agree no adverse mark nor any mark of any kind shall be placed on Customer's credit report; and in the event such a mark appears, Parties will disavow it continuously. Parties agree that a good credit report has a monetary value and specific impacts on a customer's life. 8 Jurisdiction of law shall be where the effects are felt, and that shall be (place of service) regarding the amounts of the bill proper. Severable, inseparable, counterparts, witness, signature lines blah blah. A collector is gonna sign this because it's free money and it's not tricky. What does this do? 1, 2 and 5 alter history to make the debt never have existed in the first place. To do this, it must formally answer the question of why the heck would you pay a debt that isn't real and you don't owe: out of sheer practicality; it's cheaper than Rogaine. This is your \"\"get out of jail free\"\" card both with the credit bureaus and the IRS. Of course, 3 gives the creditor motivation to go along with it. 6 says they can't burn your credit. 7 says it again and they're agreeing you can sue for cash money. 8 lets you pick the court. The collector won't get hung up on any of these since he can easily remove the bad mark. (don't be mad that they won't do it \"\"for free\"\", that's what 3 is for.) The key to getting them to take a settlement is to be reasonable and fair. Make sure the agreement works for them too. 6 says you can't badmouth them on social media. 4 and 5 says it can't be used against them. 8 throws them a bone by letting them sue in their home court for the bill they just settled (a right they already had). If it's medical, add \"\"HIPAA does not apply to this document\"\" to save them a ton of paperwork. Make it easy for them. You want the collector to take it to his boss and say \"\"this is pretty good. Do it.\"\" Don't send the money until their signed copy is in your hands. Then send promptly with an SASE for the receipt. Make it easy for them. This is on you. As far as \"\"getting them to send you an offer\"\", creditors are reluctant to mail things especially to people they don't think will pay, because it costs them money to write and send. So you may need to be proactive about running them down with your offer. Like I say, it's a funhouse mirror.\"",
"This may not apply in your particular situation, but I think it's important to mention: When a debt collector doesn't act like a debt collector, it may be because they aren't actually a debt collector. It's certainly strange that someone called you to collect money from you, and when you asked for a simple document, they not only got off the phone quickly but they also told you the debt would be cancelled. That just doesn't make sense: Why would they cancel the debt? Why wouldn't they send you the document? My initial impression is that you were possibly being scammed. The scam can take on many forms: Whenever you are called by a debt collector (or someone pretending to be one), it's a good idea to verify their identity first. More info here.",
"\"You should hire a lawyer. The fact that they told you your personal information shows that they actually had it, and are not imposters, which is a good thing. The fact that they mislead you means that their intentions are not pure (which is not surprising coming from a collection agency of course). When dealing with collections (or any matter of significance for that matter), don't rely on their recording of the call, because they can always conveniently lose it. Make sure to write down every single detail discussed, including the date and time of the call, and the ID/name of the person on the other side. If possible - make your own recording (notifying them of it of course). It's too late to record the calls now, but do try to reconstruct as much information as possible to provide to your lawyer to deal with it. In the end of the day they will either provide you with the recording (and then you might be surprised to hear that what they said was not in fact what you thought they said, and it was just your wishful thinking, it is very possible to be indeed the case), or claim \"\"we lost it\"\" and then it will be a problem to either of you to prove who said what, but they'll have the better hand (having better lawyers) in convincing the court that you're the one trying to avoid paying your debts. That is why proper representation at all stages is important. As to the bankruptcy - it won't help for student loans, student loans is one of the very few types of debts you can't really run away from. You have to solve this, the sooner the better. Get a professional advice. For the future (and for the other readers) - you should have gotten the professional advice before defaulting on these loans, and certainly after the first call.\"",
"If one does pay, one should only pay after they get a letter stating such a payment fully satisfies the debt. Then, one should only pay via money order or cashiers check. Never pay by personal check or credit card. Send such a payment via certified mail to ensure delivery. As stated in other answers: There might be an issue of honoring your debts, but that doesn't come into play here. You already didn't pay your debt, and the original owner of the note already took money. Paying this debt is only money in pocket of the debt collector. The scammier they are, and the worse they treat you would factor in.",
"His credit is likely impacted already for the fact it's in collection. My real concern is that he be 100% certain the debt collector actually has ownership of the debt. At first glance this sounds like it may be a scam, but if the debt was written off, it may have been sold for pennies on the dollar. So to the collector 20% of face value is a tidy profit.",
"\"I agree about not wanting to get into your friend's personal business, and it's a scummy bill collector that repeatedly calls friends or family to track down a debtor. On the other hand, at least he's made it obvious he's calling about a debt as opposed to pretending to be tracking down your friend with some other pretext. Nevertheless, you want the calls to stop. Here are two suggestions: Perhaps, a small fib: \"\"The creep owes me money too! Grrr! Let me know when you find him!\"\" The bill collector probably won't call you again :-) Or, if you're like me and uncomfortable fibbing – even to a scummy bill collector! – then here's a more truthful yet direct approach: \"\"I told you already it's not my debt, it's none of my business, and that I want you to stop calling me. You have no right to harass me and if you call again I will involve the police. There will be no other warning.\"\" Then have the phone company block the bill collector's phone number from calling you.\"",
"Offer them $500 with the condition that you will have paid your liability in full and they don't report to the bureau. If they give you grief, hang up on the guy. Be aggressive and assertive -- the collector is going to get chewed out if he can't collect on something this simple. Don't allow them to give you some guilt trip, and don't sweat the deadline.",
"I went to the bank with my friends and told them that I saw the money in my account, that it's not mine, and that they should investigate and send it back to wherever it came from Right thing to do. Did you give this in writing? Do you have a stamped copy of the letter from Bank that they accepted your complaint? he has been calling with different phone number threatening me, saying that he will kill me, he will make sure I don't return to my country alive, and all. Lodge a formal police complaint. And also I have not heard from the bank at all. What should I do? Ensure that all your communication and follow-up is in writing. Even email is fine. But periodically send this via certified post with tracking number. Even when you call up the bank, keep a track of calls. After a day or two, send a email saying further to calls 1, calls 2, calls 3 etc you are still awaiting a response from Bank. Even after face to face visits, record all your follow-up and periodically send via email and after few email take a print of everything [even if its 10 pages] and send via certified mail. The reason it is very important to have a written trail is if things go wrong, Law enforcement can accuse you to be part of fraud/scam. It will be difficult to establish you were the one who complained about it. If not too difficult, change you phone numbers. Yes definitely open the new Bank Account; and don't give this to a random stranger on Internet.",
"Collections companies buy debt for a fraction of the face value of the debt (as little as 5-7 cents on the dollar), and you can often settle debt for a fraction of the face amount (perhaps 10-25 cents on the dollar). But there are several considerations. Do you owe the debt (is it a legitimate debt), can you afford to pay the debt, what is the age of the debt (remember, there is a statute of limitations on debt, varies by state), and what are the consequences of non-payment or settlement of the debt. Rather than confirm that you owe the debt, tell the debt collector that you need proof that the debt is yours (you should do this by certified letter). Be careful not to confirm the debt, or agree to pay it, or make any payments (yet). You said that your doctor ordered the product for you. You said the company sent you a product (you have the product). Once you have confirmed that the debt is yours, you should determine the age of the debt (when was the last time you paid on the debt). Each state has statute of limitations on debt, depending upon the age of the debt (this is why it is important not to send the collector money until you have verified the debt). You did not state when the debt was incurred (assume under SoL). Ask yourself whether you can afford to pay the debt. The amount of the debt, and your ability to pay, and whether you want to avoid the time and expense of dealing with the collector (they are trained to be annoying) are all factors to consider. You should also consider the negative consequences (credit score effects), and whether the cost of a derogatory entry is worth fighting the debt. You did not explain your financial situation; paying the $55 may be trivial, or it may be a hardship. Before you settle any debt, you should send a letter (keep a copy and proof you sent it, certified), and demand that the debt collector provide proof that you owe the debt. Often this proof does not exist, or is insufficient to gain a judgement (you would need legal help here). And should a debt collector agree to settle the debt for a lower amount, you need to get that agreement in writing. Be aware that when you settle a debt, the collector can (and will) send you a 1099 for the portion of the debt which has been forgiven, and can report to the credit bureaus that you settled a debt for less than the full amount (negative mark against credit). Derogatory credit items will haunt you for years. Decide whether saving $20, $30 or even $55 is worth the trouble. Probably not. Learn from this. When a company sends you something you did not order, contact them, and send it back or demand they pay shipping, and send them a letter demanding $5/day storage and $20 handling fee to ship it back to them. Disclaimer: Heed the insane ravings of a deranged heretic at your peril... hire a lawyer.",
"The advice above is generally good, but the one catch I haven't seen addressed is which specific laws apply. You said that you are in Arkansas, but the dealer is in Texas. This means that the laws of at least two different states are in play, possibly three if the contract contains a clause stating that disputes will be handled in a certain jurisdiction, and you are going to have to do some research to figure out what actually applies. One thing that may significantly impact this issue is whether you were in TX or AR when you signed the contracts. If you borrowed the money in TX, and the lender is in TX, then it is almost certain that the laws of Texas will govern. However, if you were living in AR at the time you acquired the loan, particularly if you were in AR when you signed the papers, you have a decent case for claiming that the laws of Arkansas govern. I don't know enough about either state to know if one is more favorable to the consumer than the other, but it is a question you really want to have answered. That said, I would be shocked if any state did not have provisions requiring the lender to provide a copy of the terms and a detailed statement of the account and transaction history upon request. Spend some time on the web site of the Texas attorney general and/or legislator (because that is where the lender is, they are more likely to respect Texas law) to see if you can track down any specific laws or codes that you can reference. You might also look into the federal consumer protection laws, though I can't think of one off hand that would apply in the scenario you have described. Then work on putting together a letter asking them to provide a copy of the contract and a full history of the account. As others noted, make sure you send it certified/return receipt, or better yet use a private carrier such as fedex, and check the box about requiring a signature. Above all you need to get the dialog transferred to a written form. I can not stress this point enough. Everything you tell them or ask for from here out needs to be done in a written format. If they call you about anything, tell them you want to see their issue/offer in writing before you will consider it. You do not necessarily need a lawyer to do any of this, but you do need to know the applicable laws. Do the research to know what your legal standing is. Involve a lawyer if you feel you need to, but I have successfully battled several large utility companies and collection agencies into behaving without needing one.",
"The first thing you need to know is that getting a new social security number will not erase your credit history. In fact, using a name change or a social security number change to get out of debt is considered fraud in most jurisdictions and you can be arrested for it. As soon as you are issued a new social security number, your old number and new number are linked in the government and credit bureau files. Everything that was on your old credit report will appear on your new credit report. The second big thing to know is if you suspect that your social security number has been used fraudulently in regards to credit, stop reading this right now, immediately call one of the three major credit bureaus (Experian, TransUnion, or Equifax), and place what's called an initial fraud alert. You only need to call one of the three. The one you call will notify the other two. This places a flag on your credit file at all three bureaus which says that your identity may have been stolen and any financial institution which is processing an application for credit should immediately contact you at the phone number you provide. The alert is good for 90 days and you can renew it as many times as you wish. I suggest using TransUnion as your one call because I've called them when my identity was stolen, and they're automated system is very well designed. Now that that is out of the way... you said that they have your email address, but it is very unusual for people to be contacted by email for a debt. In fact, I would automatically disregard any emails about debts. Every legitimate financial institution I've ever come across will either call you or send mail to your last known address. Regarding what's being reported on your credit report, you need to type a letter to each credit bureau which is reporting the information telling them who you are and that you are disputing this information on your report. Mail it to the bureaus by certified mail with return receipt. Under United States law they are required to verify the information on your report, if you dispute it, and remove the information if they are unable to verify it. In many cases, it's too much of a hassle and the bureaus just remove the information. The other thing I'll leave you with is that you said you've only had credit in the past six months. Six months is not enough time to build an adequate credit profile. You really need to be strategic about your credit score. Every time you apply for credit, it drags the score just a little bit lower. Your question wasn't really about building credit, so I'll spare you the novel on that, but I would encourage you to seek out one of the many resources which are readily available online. I am not an attorney. This is not legal advice. You should consult with an attorney who is licensed to practice law in your particular jurisdiction.",
"I would say you can ignore calls but not a summons. You can send a drop dead letter at anytime too if they keep calling. Here is an example one. http://www.fdcpaclaims.com/gathering-evidence-to-win-my-fdcpa-claim/what-constitutes-abuse-of-the-fdcpa/sample-drop-dead-letter/ John Oliver, on a show not too long ago, illustrated very plainly that this can be passed around from 3rd party to 3rd party with no evidence that you even owe money. And every time a new third party gets word that you might owe money a whole new round of calling could begin. So off topic but... If they decide to take it to court and you do not show, the court rules against you and you will owe the money even if you didn't. It's absolutely crazy. Never ignore a court summons.",
"You keep a copy of the dashed check, and tell him to pound sand. If he contacts you again, you tell him that you will charge him with fraud. By accepting the check and cashing it, he acknowledged the debt is paid.",
"I had a similar situation, except the debtor had no connection to us whatsoever, other than holding our phone number previously. We tried going through channels to deal with it, and had no success. At the end of the day, I was very abusive to the people calling, and forwarded the number to a very irritating destination.",
"To me this is a simple cost/benefit analysis... I'm guessing you will spend a whole lot more time and effort trying to fight the collection agency than the $55 is worth. In this case I would just go ahead, pay it and be done with it. Had the amount been higher, this would change. But that's me; you should do your own analysis based on your circumstances (including how much it's worth to you to be right) and let that inform your decision.",
"\"I had a similar issue take place at a hospital when the repeatedly billed the \"\"wrong me\"\" -- a stale insurance record left behind from when I was a dependent on my parent's insurance a decade earlier. They ended up billing me for anesthesia when I had a major surgery (everything else was billed to the correct insurance.) The outsourced billing people were pretty unhelpful (not usually the case with hospitals), so I became the squeaky wheel. I sent certified letters, had my priest rattle the cage (it was a Catholic hospital) and eventually talked myself into a meeting with the VP of Finance, who started paying attention when the incompetence of his folks became apparent. Total cost: $0 + my time.\"",
"This can be a case of someone trying to use your identity to obtain credit. I would put a fraud alert on my credit immediately. I went through something similar... got denial letters for credit I didn't apply to. A few months later I get hit with a credit ding from a pay day loan company that apparently allowed the thief to get a loan who obviously didn't pay it back. I had no contact with this company before they put the lates on my credit and it took over a year to get this cleaned up. Apparently this loan was obtained about a week after I got the first denial letter so if I put a fraud alert on immediately it would have most likely stopped this fraudulent pay day loan before it happened.",
"You should actually contact the company, not just try to. There are ways to do this. For example, show up in person, send registered mail. All other advice is moot until you actually contact the company.",
"\"Every legitimate claim I've filed regarding fraudulent charges on my card includes signing a legal document. If your \"\"friend\"\" completes such a document and you can verify that it is untrue, he's in deeper trouble than you. Unfortunately, if he's successful in filing a claim that is later proven to be fraudulent, it puts your account in a poor status until it's fully cleared. Even then, corporate inertia may result in longer duration inaccurate information. Once you've cleared the fraudulent claim, you'll want to contact your credit agency to ensure they are provided with correct and proper documentation.\"",
"It's very, very unlikely that you received a phone call at work with an incorrect birth date from an actual lending company that thinks it loaned you any money. It's much more likely that you received a phone call at work from a collections agency that would have bought some loan from the aforementioned agency for pennies on the dollar. They would have been hunting around trying to find someone with your name who was born thirteen years earlier. It's even more likely that this is some sort of phishing scam. If you're worried, you can check your credit rating, but it is likely that you can safely ignore the situation. If they call back, ask for thorough details about the credit card. If they're a real collections agency and for some reason they won't leave you alone, IIRC the most surefire course of action is to hire a lawyer to send them a cease-and-desist letter.",
"I would keep the letter in a file for follow-up, and I would do what you are already planning to do and wait to see what shows up on the credit report. If this does reflect an identity theft attempt, chances are that others will follow, so vigilance is key here. If there is a hard credit check, then you can dispute that on your credit report. If there is not a hard credit check, there is nothing further this credit card company can do to help you anyway.",
"A person name Matthew Drury or a similar name owes money on their loan, and it has gone to collections. The collections company is trying to match the account to a real person with money. They sent a letter to somebody (your grandmother) with the same last name. The debtor may have even lived in that town at sometime. The reason you received the letter is because your grandmother forward it on. Because the rest of your info (SSN and birth date) don't match the loan it is unlikely they can attach the debt to you. Unless you provided your address to the company you could in the future receive a letter from them. But I doubt they are going to send letters to everybody with the same name. I would not worry about it unless they actually send a letter or call you directly.",
"I had this happen to me with parking ticket when I was still in school. The tickets were issued by the school police and later dismissed (because I had purchased a year-long parking pass). 3 years later I got a letter alleging that I had unpaid parking ticket. So they lost the record of dismissal. But they did not lose the record of having issued the ticket. I am fairly certain this happens because legal entities either lose electronic records and restore data from backups without realizing that some corrupted data remains lost or because they transition to a new system and certain real-world events don't get transferred properly to the new system. Of course, the people with whom you end up interacting at that point have no idea of any potential technical problems (because they may occur only in some technical one-off cases). In my case, I was able to show that I had received a judgement of dismissal. I actually kept the paperwork. The question is what do you do if you lost the records and the state had lost all electronic records of your payments. Let's assume the collections agency has a record (produced by the state) that you owed the ticket amount, but the state claims that no record exists of you having paid the tickets. What do you do, then? Carefully compile the list of all possible banks which you could have possibly used. Then request duplicate statements from all the banks which you have on that list. Assuming you were a regular consumer and not running a business, this should not amount to more than 100 pages or so. If you do manage to find the transactions in those bank records, you are in luck. States, unlike the federal government, are not immune from law suits. So you can consult a lawyer. By fraudulently claiming that you defaulted on payments, the state caused you material harm (by lowering your credit rating and increasing your cost of borrowing). Once you have all the paperwork in hand, you still will have difficult time finding anyone in the state to listen to you. And even if you do, you will not be compensated for the time and expenses you expanded to obtain these records. If you indeed paid the tickets, then you are being asked to prove your innocence and you are assumed guilty until you do. Again, a good lawyer should be able to do something with that to get you a proper compensation for this.",
"The debt collection agency (DCA) has purchased the debt and has the rights to your original account. The original creditor will have nothing to do with you anymore. If the DCA does not want to work with your payment schedule, simply deposit the money into an account. Don’t touch the money. Hopefully you save enough money soon enough to pay off the debt before it falls off your credit report. If not, well, enjoy the money you saved.",
"I can ONLY WISH this would happen to me. Get every scrap of information that you can. DOCUMENT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT..and then get a nice sleazy lawyer to sue the collector AND your employer if they leaked anything... Plain and simple, it's illegal and there are very nice protections in place for such.",
"\"This question has the [united kingdom] tag, so the information about USA or other law and procedures is probably only of tangential use. Except for understanding that no, this is not something to ignore. It may well indicate someone trying to use your id fraudulently, or some other sort of data-processing foul-up that may adversely impact your credit rating. The first thing I would do is phone the credit card company that sent the letter to inform them that I did not make his application, and ask firmly but politely to speak to their fraud team. I would hope that they would be helpful. It's in their interests as well as yours. (Added later) By the way, do not trust anything written on the letter. It may be a fake letter trying to lure or panic you into some other sort of scam, such as closing your \"\"compromised\"\" bank account and transferring the money in it to the \"\"fraud team\"\" for \"\"safety\"\". (Yes, it sounds stupid, but con-men are experts at what they do, and even finance industry professionals have fallen victim to such scams) So find a telephone number for that credit card company independently, for example Google, and then call that number. If it's the wrong department they'll be able to transfer you internally. If the card company is unhelpful, you have certain legal rights that do not cost much if anything. This credit company is obliged to tell you as an absolute minimum, which credit reference agencies they used when deciding to decline \"\"your\"\" application. Yes, you did not make it, but it was in your name and affected your credit rating. There are three main credit rating agencies, and whether or not the bank used them, I would spend the statutory £2 fee (if necessary) with each of them to obtain your statutory credit report, which basically is all data that they hold about you. They are obliged to correct anything which is inaccurate, and you have an absolute right to attach a note to your file explaining, for example, that you allege entries x,y, and z were fraudulently caused by an unknown third party trying to steal your ID. (They may be factually correct, e.g. \"\"Credit search on \"\", so it's possible that you cannot have them removed, and it may not be in your interests to have them removed, but you certainly want them flagged as unauthorized). If you think the fraudster may be known to you, you can also use the Data Protection Act on the company which write to you, requiring them to send you a copy of all data allegedly concerning yourself which it holds. AFAIR this costs £10. In particular you will require sight of the application and signature, if it was made on paper, and the IP address details, if it was made electronically, as well as all the data content and subsequent communications. You may recognise the handwriting, but even if not, you then have documentary evidence that it is not yours. As for the IP address, you can deduce the internet service provider and then use the Data Protection act on them. They may decline to give any details if the fraudster used his own credentials, in which case again you have documentary evidence that it was not you ... and something to give the police and bank fraud investigators if they get interested. I suspect they won't be very interested, if all you uncover is fraudulent applications that were declined. However, you may uncover a successful fraud, i.e. a live card in your name being used by a criminal, or a store or phone credit agreement. In which case obviously get in touch with that company a.s.a.p. to get it shut down and to get the authorities involved in dealing with the crime. In general, write down everything you are told, including phone contact names, and keep it. Confirm anything that you have agreed in writing, and keep copies of the letters you write and of course, the replies you receive. You shouldn't need any lawyer. The UK credit law puts the onus very much on the credit card company to prove that you owe it money, and if a random stranger has stolen your id, it won't be able to do that. In fact, it's most unlikely that it will even try, unless you have a criminal record or a record of financial delinquency. But it may be an awful lot of aggravation for years to come, if somebody has successfully stolen your ID. So even if the first lot of credit reference agency print-outs look \"\"clean\"\", check again in about six weeks time and yet again in maybe 3 months. Finally there is a scheme that you can join if you have been a victim of ID theft. I've forgotten its name but you will probably be told about it. Baically, your credit reference files will be tagged at your request with a requirement for extra precautions to be taken. This should not affect your credit rating but might make obtaining credit more hassle (for example, requests for additional ID before your account is opened after the approval process). Oh, and post a letter to yourself pdq. It's not unknown for fraudsters to persuade the Post Office to redirect all your mail to their address!\"",
"\"I had about $16k in student loans. I defaulted on the loans, and they got > passed to a collection type agency (OSCEOLA). These guys are as legitimate as a collection agency can be. One thing that I feel is very sketchy is when they were verifying my identity they said \"\"Does your Social Security Number end in ####. Is your Birthday Month/Day/Year.\"\" That is not sketchy. It would be sketchy for a caller to ask you to give that information; that's a common scheme for identity theft. OSCEOLA are following the rules on this one. My mom suggested I should consider applying for bankruptcy Won't help. Student loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy. You have the bankruptcy \"\"reform\"\" act passed during the Bush 43 regime for that. The loan itself is from school. What school? Contact them and ask for help. They may have washed their hands of your case when they turned over your file to OSCEOLA. Then again, they may not. It's worth finding out. Also, name and shame the school. Future applicants should be warned that they will do this. What can I do to aid in my negotiations with this company? Don't negotiate on the phone. You've discovered that they won't honor such negotiations. Ask for written communications sent by postal mail. Keep copies of everything, including both sides of the canceled checks you use to make payments (during the six months and in the future). Keep making the payments you agreed to in the conversation six months ago. Do not, EVER, ignore a letter from them. Do not, EVER, skip going to court if they send you a summons to appear. They count on people doing this. They can get a default judgement if you don't show up. Then you're well and truly screwed. What do you want? You want the $4K fee removed. If you want something else, figure out what it is. Here's what to do: Write them a polite letter explaining what you said here. Recount the conversation you had with their telephone agent where they said they would remove the $4K fee if you made payments. Recount the later conversation. If possible give the dates of both conversations and the names of the both agents. Explain the situation completely. Don't assume the recipient of your letter knows anything about your case. Include evidence that you made payments as agreed during the six months. If you were late or something, don't withhold that. Ask them to remove the extra $4K from your account, and ask for whatever else you want. Send the letter to them with a return receipt requested, or even registered mail. That will prevent them from claiming they didn't get it. And it will show them you're serious. Write a cover letter admitting your default, saying you relied on their negotiation to set things straight, and saying you're dismayed they aren't sticking to their word. The cover letter should ask for help sorting this out. Send copies of the letter with the cover letter to: Be sure to mark your letter to OSCEOLA \"\"cc\"\" all these folks, so they know you are asking for help. It can't hurt to call your congressional representative's office and ask to whom you should send the letter, and then address it by name. This is called Constituent Service, and they take pride in it. If you send this letter with copies you're letting them know you intend to fight. The collection agency may decide it's not worth the fight to get the $4K and decide to let it go. Again, if they call to pressure you, say you'd rather communicate in writing, and that they are not to call you by telephone. Then hang up. Should I hire a lawyer? Yes, but only if you get a court summons or if you don't get anywhere with this. You can give the lawyer all this paperwork I've suggested here, and it will help her come up to speed on your case. This is the kind of stuff the lawyer would do for you at well over $100 per hour. Is bankruptcy really an option Certainly not, unfortunately. Never forget that student lenders and their collection agencies are dangerous and clever predators. You are their lawful prey. They look at you, lick their chops, and think, \"\"food.\"\" Watch John Oliver's takedown of that industry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxUAntt1z2c Good luck and stay safe.\"",
"You should write a demand letter immediately, send the letter by certified mail, and then wait 30 days. Here is a sample demand letter for the state of california that you can send: http://www.courts.ca.gov/11151.htm It seems like most of the demand letters assumed that you tried to cash the check and incurred a service fee. Personally, I wouldn't risk incurring even most cost. Instead, after 30 days, I would take him to small claims court and show all the evidence you have (checks, receipts, and letters of correspondence).",
"Sorry to hear about this happening to you. You should file a lawsuit in small claims court and get a judgement. Unfortunately, you are probably one of many creditors, and are unlikely to get much, if any, money back.",
"This is more of a legal question than a monetary one. You can try to negotiate with the debt owner as Pete B. suggests. Alternatively, you can ignore them and see what happens. They might sue you for the 400 plus costs, or maybe not. That is a pretty small amount for a lawyer to show up in a court of law. If you go to court, you can win by testifying that you returned the box and the charge is invalid. If you testify in court that you did not return the box, then you will lose. Sometimes a debt collector will just file a credit complaint against you and you would have to go to court to get that complaint removed from your record with the credit agency. The loan owner has no idea whether you returned the box at all. All they have is a debt security which simply says who owes the money and how much it is. In a court room they have zero evidence against you (unless you said something to them and they wrote it down or recorded it).",
"This is not your problem and you should not try to fix it. If your employer paid money into someone else's account instead of yours they should ask their bank to reverse it and should pay you your wages while they are waiting for this to be done. No bank will let you do anything about money paid by someone else into an account that is not yours, or give you details of someone else's account.",
"\"You promised to pay the loan if he didn't. That was a commitment, and I recommend \"\"owning\"\" your choice and following it through to its conclusion, even if you never do that again. TLDR: You made a mistake: own it, keep your word, and embrace the lesson. Why? Because you keep your promises. (Nevermind that this is a rare time where your answer will be directly recorded, in your credit report.) This isn't moralism. I see this as a \"\"defining moment\"\" in a long game: 10 years down the road I'd like you to be wise, confident and unafraid in financial matters, with a healthy (if distant) relationship with our somewhat corrupt financial system. I know austerity stinks, but having a strong financial life will bring you a lot more money in the long run. Many are leaping to the conclusions that this is an \"\"EX-friend\"\" who did this deliberately. Don't assume this. For instance, it's quite possible your friend sold the (car?) at a dealer, who failed to pay off this note, or did and the lender botched the paperwork. And when the collector called, he told them that, thinking the collector would fix it, which they don't do. The point is, you don't know: your friend may be an innocent party here. Creditors generally don't report late payments to the credit bureaus until they're 30 days late. But as a co-signer, you're in a bad spot: you're liable for the payments, but they don't send you a bill. So when you hear about it, it's already nearly 30 days late. You don't get any extra grace period as a co-signer. So you need to make a payment right away to keep that from going 30 late, or if it's already 30 late, to keep it from going any later. If it is later determined that it was not necessary for you to make those payments, the lender should give them back to you. A less reputable lender may resist, and you may have to threaten small claims court, which is a great expense to them. Cheaper to pay you. They say France is the nation of love. They say America is the nation of commerce. So it's not surprising that here, people are quick to burn a lasting friendship over a temporary financial issue. Just saying, that isn't necessarily the right answer. I don't know about you, but my friends all have warts. Nobody's perfect. Financial issues are just another kind of wart. And financial life in America is hard, because we let commerce run amok. And because our obsession with it makes it a \"\"loaded\"\" issue and thus hard to talk about. Perhaps your friend is in trouble but the actual villain is a predatory lender. Point is, the friendship may be more important than this temporary adversity. The right answer may be to come together and figure out how to make it work. Yes, it's also possible he's a human leech who hops from person to person, charming them into cosigning for him. But to assume that right out of the gate is a bit silly. The first question I'd ask is \"\"where's the car?\"\" (If it's a car). Many lenders, especially those who loan to poor credit risks, put trackers in the car. They can tell you where it is, or at least, where it was last seen when the tracker stopped working. If that is a car dealer's lot, for instance, that would be very informative. Simply reaching out to the lender may get things moving, if there's just a paperwork issue behind this. Many people deal with life troubles by fleeing: they dread picking up the phone, they fearfully throw summons in the trash. This is a terrifying and miserable way to deal with such a situation. They learn nothing, and it's pure suffering. I prefer and recommend the opposite: turn into it, deal with it head-on, get ahead of it. Ask questions, google things, read, become an expert on the thing. Be the one calling the lender, not the other way round. This way it becomes a technical learning experience that's interesting and fun for you, and the lender is dreading your calls instead of the other way 'round. I've been sued. It sucked. But I took it on boldly, and and actually led the fight and strategy (albeit with counsel). And turned it around so he wound up paying my legal bills. HA! With that precious experience, I know exactly what to do... I don't fear being sued, or if absolutely necessary, suing. You might as well get the best financial education. You're paying the tuition!\"",
"The absolute first thing you need to do is contact the bank. Also, do you have a copy of the loan papers you signed? You should look over those as soon as possible as well. I'm sure you want these payments going toward your FICO score and not your mothers.",
"Generally when items go to collection you will receive a letter in the mail not an email. You can try to dispute the charge with the credit companies (TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian) showing that the charge came after you left the country. Like the answer above me said, disputing it may cause the 7 year clock to restart which leaves it on your account longer. It may just be simpler to try to improve your credit score instead. You can check your credit score as often as you want using Credit Karma online or on your phone.",
"Have you tried contacting them via phone or e-mail to follow up? If not, definitely do that first. If no response, you can keep this simple: Close your old account, write a personal check from your new one, and send the check with an explanatory note via Certified Mail. That will get you proof that it was delivered successfully (or not). Leave the money in your account for 180 days. Your check should be void after that and cannot be cashed (check with your bank on this) and if it's still unclaimed they will need to contact you to request payment.",
"\"I would accept the offer provided that it is a BONA FIDE offer. Some issues to consider: 1) Make sure the debt is actually yours. 2) Make sure that there is a meaningful period of time left on the statute of limitations (10 years). Because if this \"\"settlement\"\" doesn't work, the clock goes back to time zero for the debt, minus the amount you paid. In other words, don't pay off a debt \"\"by the end of the month\"\" that will expire on the fifteenth. 3) I'm not a lawyer, and therefore, in your shoes, I would consider consulting a lawyer. 4) If using a lawyer isn't cost effective, then I would set up an escrow account, deposit the settlement amount, and then release it upon receipt of a letter that says that the amount in escrow fully satisfies the debt. Such a letter will help your record with credit agencies. It will also establish a record that you've paid, and paid in full. Based on what you've said about the original letter, the debt collector would be willing to do this. If he reneges, he's \"\"playing games.\"\"\"",
"I can only speak for germany/europe. Inkasso companies/lawyer would write a letter with a bill, those letters have register numbers. If in doubt, one would call the company, ask who is the debtor/what is the origin of the bill. I certainly would not react on a phone call. However, if an official entity or lawyer is contacting you, you have to take action asap, at least calling them.",
"Here's your problem: The debt is valid and it is your debt, regardless of your arrangement with the insurance company. The insurance company (possibly) owes you money, and you owe the Doctor money. You are stuck in the middle, and in the end it doesn't matter whether the insurance company pays as to whether you owe the money. Don't ignore them. Also, disputing the debt it pointless because the truth is that you do owe the debt. The insurance company may owe you money (which is in dispute), but the debt to your medical provider is your own. You are just stuck in the middle. It sucks, but is pretty common. I think the best you can do is keep working on the insurance company and responding to the bill collectors letting them know that you are working on it and will need to pay late. In theory they deal with this a lot and probably understand, not that it will make them lay off you in the meantime. In the end it is possible you might have to sue the insurance company to get the money. One thing to be careful about: If the debt is fairly old (several years) you may want to avoid making partial payments because if this goes on your credit report, that payment may extend the period where the negative information can appear on your credit history.",
"There are statutes of limitations on how long they can wait before coming after you. 14 years certainly exceeds it, which I believe means you are not legally required to pay. statutes of limitations by state The most likely scenario is that this is a scam. Second most likely is that this is a collections agency trying to trick you into paying even though they don't have legal authority to force you. In that case if you do pay them anything, then the statute of limitations restarts and they can legally start giving you trouble, so definitely don't do that. If they keep harassing you, you can probably take legal action against them. That's the worst case scenario, though. I'd just ignore them. At this point, if they are legally entitled to any money, which I highly doubt, they will need to take you to court. They are not going to do that over $1000. Blocking their number might be a reasonable idea. I would doubt whether they can even do anything to your credit rating over this issue. If you are worried about your credit, you can check your oustanding debts and negative incidents at www.annualcreditreport.com and see if you see anything. I would be surprised. Edit: You might read up about time-barred debts (assuming it's not a scam. I still think it is). FTC page on time-barred debt",
"You have not specified what country you are in. That radically changes everything. In case you are in Canada, there's a great blog that covers bankruptcy and student loans, at http://student-loan-bankruptcy.ca/. Fundamentally, in order to discharge government-backed student loans, you must have ceased to be a student for at least seven years prior to filing. Even then, though, the government can object, in which case you will still have to repay some or all of the loan. More generally, given that the collection agency appears to be operating in bad faith, you'll want to ensure that they send you written documentation of any offer they are extending you. If they refuse to do this, you should assume that they aren't actually offering you anything at all and you will have to pay back the full amount plus interest and penalties. Note that, in many countries, if you settle the debt (that is, pay anything less than the full amount plus interest and penalties), this will be a black mark on your credit report. In this case, if you repaid the full $16,000 and they forgave the extra $4,000, they would most likely still add a note to your credit report indicating that you did not pay the full amount that you owed, and this will negatively impact your credit rating even beyond your late payments.",
"According to LegalZoom: If your debtor is unwilling to pay and you know they have the means, it's time to use your local sheriff. You have three options to collect: a bank levy, wage garnishment, or a real estate lien. It sounds like you'll need to reach out to your local police/sheriff's department and they can further help you out and get you your money.",
"Dispute the charge. Receiving the wrong product is grounds for dispute.",
"\"Your best option right now is to get a lawyer, file suit against your insurance for the full amount (total shown on the collections from the provider, without discounts) plus \"\"damages\"\". Include in the damages the cost of your lawyer, time spent resolving this, and any other expenses you have incurred thus far in dealing with this. Your lawyer will be able to give you guidance here. I think you'll find that the insurance company changes their tune once they are served papers.\"",
"\"The more I think about this the more I think you are actually better off letting it go to collections. At least then you would be able to agree an affordable repayment schedule based on your real budget, and having a big dent in your credit score because it's gone to collections doesn't actually put you in any worse position (in terms of acquiring credit in the future) than you are now. Whoever is the creditor on your original loan is (IMO) quite unreasonable demanding a payment in full on a given date, especially given that you say you've only been made aware of this debt recently. The courts are usually much more reasonable about this sort of thing and recognise that a payment plan over several years with an affordable monthly payment is MUCH more likely to actually get the creditor their money back than any other strategy. They will also recognise and appreciate that you have made significant efforts to obtain the money. I'm also worried about your statement about how panicked and \"\"ready to give up\"\" you are. Is there someone you can talk to? Around here (UK) we have debt counselling bureaus - they can't help with money for the actual debt itself, but they can help you with strategies for dealing with debt and will explain all parts of the process to you, what your rights and responsibilities are if it does go to court, etc. If you have something similar I suggest you contact them, even just to speak to someone and find out that this isn't the end of the world. It's a sucky situation but in a few years you'll be able to look back and at least laugh wryly at it.\"",
"The money NEVER becomes your money. It has been paid to you in error. Your best response is to write to the company who has paid you in error and tell them that for the responsibilty and subsequent stress caused to you by them putting you in a position of looking after their money you hereby give notice that you are charging them $50 per week until such time as they request the repayment of their money. Keep a dated copy of your letter and if they fail to respond then in 12 weeks they will have to pay you $600 to retrieve their $600. If they come back to you anytime after that they will OWE YOU money - but I wouldn't push for payment on that one. I have successfully used this approach with companies who send unsolicited goods and expect me to mess about returning them if I don't want them. I tell them the weekly fee I am charging them for storage and they quickly make arrangements to either take their goods back or (in one case) told me to keep them.",
"When I have had background/credit checks, I have had to fill out a form first. You may be able to attach your proof that the debts are paid to your form. I had a friend that bombed his background check because his birth certificate and passport didn't have matching names (two variations on the same name, but it spooked the securitiy company). He had a chance to contest the finding and was still hired.",
"Do you have any ties to your old address? In particular are you the LANDLORD? This could have been a precursor application to test identity evidence and setup a mortgage. The perps may even have legally changed their name to yours and even be living in, or close to the house if it is a share house to intercept this kind of mail. Otherwise someone's database may have been breached, so it is important you try to work out where this information used in the application came from. If they are an illegal you may be racking up Council Tax somewhere or end up paying income tax on their earnings. In any case your character has probably now been damaged. So do follow it up right smartly.",
"Yes you can do this yourself. I cannot speak for all the credit repair companies, but generally they are not reputable. Even if they are trustworthy, they cannot do anything you cannot do yourself. Freeze your credit. Lock it down and prevent any new activity. This is for safety and I want you to do it so you know where you stand. Get a copy of your free copies of the three credit reports from https://www.annualcreditreport.com/ (this is the only free, official place to get your reports) Sign up for a free credit score estimation site like http://www.CreditKarma.com or http://www.CreditSesame.com (These sites make money by selling affiliate offers, but you can easily ignore them) You can't get your exact FICO score, but they letter grades they provide help you understand where you stand. Dispute anything that is not accurate. Get wrong items corrected with the credit agency. Ignore collectors who are not showing up on your report. If they aren't reporting you, so what? Let your own moral compass be your guide if you pay those debts or not. Negotiate a payment amount with the debtors you owe. If you are dealing with a debt collector, there isn't any point in paying the full amount. You owed the money to somebody else, and they sold it to the debt collector, therefore in my mind they are as whole as they feel like being. It is up to you how much you pay, but you are already going to suffer (and have suffered) the credit ramifications. No sense in wasting money when they will very likely settle for dimes on the dollar. Don't let them bully you around. I suggest understand your rights and protections as offered by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Before you pay anybody anything, get it IN WRITING Wait and follow up. Make sure they report it correctly. I would probably tackle them in order of age, newest first. Don't bother with debts that are more than, or nearly seven years old. Anything that old is or will fall off of the credit report soon, and your score will start to rise. Paying on those debts will refresh them and they will harm you longer. We can debate the ethics of that advice in the comments, but if you want your score to raise, I suggest just waiting about anything over six years old while you tackle the newer ones. This is a SLOW process. Your credit score will still take a couple years to heal once you fix your report. But that is the point of the score after all. It is a history of how you handle money and debt.",
"\"Maybe just put all his correspondence back in the Post Box and mark it \"\"Wrong address\"\"? Precisely. Without opening. Just tell the postman that that person doesn't live there and have it returned to sender. The Revenue will figure it out. Most definitely do not accept any certified or registered mail not addressed to you personally.\"",
"It might be reasonable, or it might be their error. Right now you have their assertion that they overpaid. So the range of outcomes runs from them collecting $0 to the full amount they assert. You are in a negotiation now, get your mind in this game. If they demonstrate to your satisfaction that they overpaid, you should pay. If the reason is not convincing, well, can they collect it? If there is a final pay then thats their last shot to do it internally. Is the amount in question more than the pay? When you were hired you may have authorized them to make correction withdrawls from direct deposit. I don't know if your new orders to your bank override this. If this is a risk ask the bank for a new account and close this one. Did you already sign exit interview paperwork that may ask you to do certain things like not work for a direct competitor, release and hold them harmless, or not discuss the company publicly? If not then there are two negotiations in play and it is fair to ask, in condideration for your signature, to settle any potential overpayment claims for $0 or as the money now stands. Do they do this to other people who leave?",
"The best way is to either file a dispute (or threaten to) with their regulator. They do NOT need negative attention from a bank regulator, so it should get their attention if you show that you are aware of and willing to contact them. They take this extremely seriously. You can figure out who the regulator is using this helpful page on the Office of Comptroller of Currency's (OCC) website. If the OCC itself regulates the bank you can file a dispute using this web page.",
"One issue is whether it is a scam or the collector has a right to collect. Another issue is the statute of limitations period on the debt. If it has expired, the creditor cannot get a court judgement against the borrower (if the borrower contests it). However, if the borrower makes a payment, or promises to pay, the time resets to zero, starting a new period subject to valid court action. In the U.S. the length of this period varies by state. (This period is different from the amount of time a debt can be listed on a credit report.)",
"I am sorry for your troubles. Presumably, you are feeling better which is the best possible outcome. You project that you are an honest person and desire to seek a fair outcome although you were mistreated. The insurance company should have paid a good portion of this bill. Because of this situation you will learn a valuable lesson. Namely that collectors are scum. They lie and manipulate to do their job. They are trying to generate an emotional reaction out of you so you give in an put this bill on a credit card. Do not fear them. My advice would be to ignore them. You can educate yourself on collections law in your state. They cannot call you at work and they probably cannot call you on a cell phone. They will threaten to garnish your wages, tax return, and take away your birthday. Just don't talk to them. When you can save up some money. Once you have like $1200 attempt to settle in full for that amount. Get it in writing ahead of time and do not give them access to your checking account. Use a cashiers check or prepaid visa (that you then throw away). If they say no, do not argue, hang up and call back when you have 1300. Rinse, wash, repeat. There is a decent chance that they have already violated some form of collections law. If you have proof you can call the company's legal department and provide that proof. You can then settle on having your collections waived. In summary: This also presumes you have a lowish household income. If you make like 70K, jut pay the bill. I doubt that is the case though.",
"In the U.S., there are laws that protect both employees and employers. Ask for proof of overpayment, and time to respond. If you feel you have a case, consult a lawyer that specializes in wage disputes. Otherwise, let them have their money, out of your last check if necessary. You don't want to have to go to court if you really do owe them. If you tell them a lawyer has accepted your case based on evidence, they may choose to settle out of court to avoid public embarrassment and legal fees, since, if you win, they also have to pay your court fees and legal fees, plus possible punitive damages. Conversely, if you go to court, but you owe them, you'll be subject to pay back what you owe plus their legal fees, which will be far more than you intend to pay them, or even what you'd get if you won. Losing would cost you dearly. Nobody can tell you what the outcome of your specific case will be, but unless the sum is significant, I would recommend that you accept the losses and walk away. While I know this can be hard, as someone who also lives the middle class paycheck-to-paycheck life, you probably can't afford to lose, and your company has expensive lawyers. Losing a few thousand dollars is easier than losing tens of thousands (or more) in a court battle. You can always seek assistance, such as unemployment, welfare, utility assistance, and other government programs to get back on your feet. If you owe them more than you can actually repay, try to negotiate. You want to stay out of court if at all practical. Their lawyers run hundreds of dollars per hour, so if they choose to, they can bury you financially if they have a case.",
"If you are the main account holder I would try contacting your bank directly, some of them have very accommodating services for this kind of thing. You might even consider going in person if you have a local branch, this might just make communicating easier. They will probably go over your recent transactions with you to identify the fraudulent ones. You might do this first by yourself if you have an online account. Once you identify the fraudulent purchases they will probably take a week or two to investigate/process and reimburse you. But do NOT just close the account and forget about it- first off closing an account that is close to $2,000 in debt probably isn't even possible. Second, if you forgot about it for a long time and just let you credit take a hit you could end up really paying for it(in the form of higher interest payments) later in life when you try to get anything financed like car or house or even student loans for college. And make no mistake that can amount to *maaany* thousands of dollars more than you would otherwise pay over the course of a loan. So don't damage your credit if you can avoid it. Long story short, banks have special departments to handle this kind of thing, so work with your bank. See how that goes, if you run into hangups you may need to bring your parents into the loop. Good luck!",
"First things first, its always good to set the records straight. When you are trying to clear your debt do them one by one and ask the collection agent that you would pay in full only if the records would be deleted from your credit history and most of the collection agencies are happy to take it off your credit report as they are getting the money. This would work generally only when you pay the full amount. I can guarantee you this because I have tried it myself after hearing about it from my friends. If you have already paid whole amount already then records of your payments generally will not be available after 2 years with any banks even the big ones like Bank of America or Wells Fargo. That means if they don't have the records no body else would because its a burden as your payment is written off. You can file a dispute to credit bureaus for your payment history and if they couldn't provide you the history they have to take your record off your history even they know that you have delinquent history because they don't have enough proof to confirm that. And when you file a dispute its always good to file it by paper as they have to write back and you can ask hard copies of the proofs which are very difficult to get. One more thing if you want to dispute it might take couple of months atleast and you need to have patience because you already might have known how important credit history is.",
"Since you acknowledge that you legitimately owe this money and the debts are relatively small, you should pay them without trying to settle for less. Don't bother with a consolidation loan for these. The loan, if you can get approved, would be more trouble than it is worth, at the time frame you are looking at. Just pay these off in full as fast as you can. Once you do that, your credit will start to heal. Get a written statement from the collectors to ensure that you and they are in agreement on exactly how much you owe. When you pay them, don't pay electronically; use a check. (Debt collectors have been known to clean out bank accounts if you set up an electronic payment.) After you've cleaned these up, I would encourage you to aggressively tackle your student loans and any other debt you have. Now, when you are starting your career, is the time to dig yourself out of the hole and eliminate your debt. This will set you up for success in the future.",
"\"The comments are getting too much, but to verify that you are not insane, you are being bullied. It sounds like this is a sub-prime loan, of which you are wisely trying to get out of. It also sounds like they are doing everything in their power to prevent you from doing so. For them you are a very profitable customer. This might take some legwork for you, but depending on how bad they are violating the law they might be willing to forgive the loan. What I am trying to say, it might be very worth your while! Your first step will be looking for any free resources at your disposal: Just be cautious as many \"\"credit representation\"\" type business are only offering loan consolidation. That is not what you need. Fight those bastards!\""
] |
[
"Do not provide any personal information. If the debt is not yours, ask the caller to provide all the identifying information they have over the phone to verify whether they have your information, or are just following up on similar names. Even if they have information that is yours, do not provide more information. Always make them tell you what they know. If they provide information that is not yours, simply state that it is not your information and politely end the call. If they persist in calling you, there are local agencies you can report them to. If they have your information, then ask for all of the details of the debt -- who is it owed to, when was the debt incurred, what was the original amount of the debt, what is the current balance, when was the last activity on the account, what is their relation to creditor. Once you know the creditor, you can contact them directly for more information. It is possible they may have written off the account and closed it, selling it to a debt collector in order to get some sort of return on debt. If they truly have a debt that is yours, and you did not incur it, then you will need to file a police report for a case of identity theft. Be prepared for some scrutiny.",
"It may be a scam. But it also may be a company trying to find a person with the same or similar name. They may have followed a trail to her old address, and still not have the correct person. They bought number of old debts at a large discount, and are trying to track down any money they can find. It is best to ignore it, especially if they know it isn't their debt. If they start providing more proof then get interested. If they keep contacting them tell them there is no business relationship and they should stop.",
"I can only speak for germany/europe. Inkasso companies/lawyer would write a letter with a bill, those letters have register numbers. If in doubt, one would call the company, ask who is the debtor/what is the origin of the bill. I certainly would not react on a phone call. However, if an official entity or lawyer is contacting you, you have to take action asap, at least calling them."
] |
7206
|
Who Bought A Large Number Of Shares?
|
[
"441155",
"532211",
"553066"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"553066",
"552375",
"441155",
"239502",
"444752",
"24269",
"216734",
"121886",
"573846",
"433490",
"532211",
"5572",
"313544",
"395096",
"88157",
"65667",
"349147",
"173836",
"584350",
"61227",
"534370",
"191080",
"350214",
"542998",
"493321",
"18675",
"543522",
"482517",
"372153",
"6751",
"62462",
"296528",
"248217",
"34882",
"365704",
"460241",
"378825",
"62360",
"334261",
"336018",
"38863",
"400841",
"342652",
"588774",
"158639",
"536674",
"34680",
"505484",
"581529",
"373750",
"192600",
"207853",
"475019",
"31224",
"498676",
"399480",
"479384",
"480534",
"87189",
"465542",
"587558",
"199917",
"358164",
"393759",
"83331",
"389329",
"72846",
"449624",
"462135",
"529001",
"556535",
"251813",
"558703",
"505770",
"514736",
"544506",
"538795",
"152709",
"140018",
"566553",
"259856",
"96363",
"413672",
"482739",
"124350",
"189005",
"592187",
"393936",
"287858",
"451898",
"223795",
"365926",
"432883",
"235531",
"404936",
"488055",
"88652",
"471964",
"419697",
"327525"
] |
[
"SEC forms are required when declaring insider activity. An insider is defined by the SEC to be a person or entity which (i) beneficially owns 10% or more of the outstanding shares of the company, (ii) is an officer or director of the company, or (iii), in the case of insider trading, does so based on knowledge which is not otherwise publically available at the time. At any rate, the person or entity trading the stock is required to file certain forms. Form 3 is filed when a person first transitions into the status of an insider (by becoming an officer, director, or beneficial owner of a certain percentage of stock). Form 4 is filed when an existing insider trades stock under the company's symbol. Form 5 is filed when certain insider trades of small value are reported later than usual. *More information can be found at the SEC's website. Another possibility is that a large number of options or derivatives were exercised by an officer, director, or lending institution. In the cases of officers or directors, this would need to be declared with an SEC form 4. For an institution exercising warrants obtained as a result of a lending agreement, either form 3 or 4 would need to be filed. In addition to the above possibilities, username passing through pointed out a very likely scenario in his answer, as well.",
"I think following the professional money managers is a strategy worth considering. The buys from your favorite investors can be taken as strong signals. But you should never buy any stock blindly just because someone else bought it. Be sure do your due diligence before the purchase. The most important question is not what they bought, but why they bought it and how much. To add/comment on Freiheit's points:",
"Schedule 13D (or the abbreviated version, schedule 13G) would be the most likely place to find this info. When a person or group of persons acquires beneficial ownership of more than 5% of a voting class of a company’s equity securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, they are required to file a Schedule 13D with the SEC. Schedule 13D reports the acquisition and other information within ten days after the purchase. Any material changes in the facts contained in the schedule require a prompt amendment. You can find the Schedules 13D for most publicly traded companies in the SEC’s EDGAR database. A 1% change in the amount of ownership is considered material.",
"In order: A seller of the stock (duh!). You don't know who or why this stock was sold. It could be any reason, and is of no concern of yours. It doesn't matter. Investors (pension funds, hedge funds, individual investors, employees, management) sell stock for many reasons: need cash, litigation, differing objectives, sector rotation, etc. To you, this does not matter. Yes, it does affect stock market prices: If you were not willing to buy that amount of shares, and there were no other buyers at that price, the seller would likely choose to lower the price offered. By your purchase, you are supporting the price.",
"There are not necessarily large shareholders, maybe every other Joe Schmoe owns 3 or 5 shares; and many shares might be inside investment funds. If you are looking for voting rights, typically, the banks/investment companies that host the accounts of the individual shareholders/fund owners have the collective voting rights, so the Fidelity's and Vanguard's of the world will be the main and deciding voters. That is very common.",
"\"Companies absolutely know who ALL their shareholders are. Ownership is filed on Form 3/4 and in 10-Q/Ks. Look there. Guidelines for required disclosure are as follows: 1) Individuals must disclose when their ownership exceeds 5%; 2) Non-individual legal entities (read: companies; e.g. a hedge fund) must disclose when their ownership exceeds 10% (Form 13-F); and 3) All Officers and Directors Notice the word \"\"required.\"\" For example, a entity (individual/company) may file \"\"confidentiality letter\"\" (which allows them to delay disclosing ownership) with the SEC as they are building a position. So at any given point in time the information that is publicaly available may not be \"\"up-to-date.\"\" And in all cases beneficial owner(ship).\"",
"This may not be related to the US stock exchanges but in the Australian stock exchange (ASX) many of the largest shareholders of companies are bank nominee companies. i.e. JP Morgan Nominees Limited or HSBC Custody Nominees and they own large stakes in many business's. Who's behind these investments exacly? Could it be literally anyone and if so why do they hide behind these nominee companies? Do all banks have some kind of wealth management/funds management business?",
"\"The price of a company's stock at any given moment is established by a ratio of buyers to sellers. When the sellers outnumber the buyers at a given price, the stock price drops until there are enough people willing to buy the stock to balance the equation again. When there are more people wanting to purchase a stock at a given price than people willing to sell it, the stock price rises until there are enough sellers to balance things again. So given this, it's easy to see that a very large fund (or collection of very large funds) buying or selling could drive the price of a stock in one direction or another (because the sheer number of shares they trade can tip the balance one way or another). What's important to keep in mind though is that the ratio of buyers to sellers at any given moment is determined by \"\"market sentiment\"\" and speculation. People selling a stock think the price is going down, and people buying it think it's going up; and these beliefs are strongly influenced by news coverage and available information relating to the company. So in the case of your company in the example that would be expected to triple in value in the next year; if everyone agreed that this was correct then the stock would triple almost instantly. The only reason the stock doesn't reach this value instantly is that the market is split between people thinking this is going to happen and people who think it won't. Over time, news coverage and new information will cause one side to appear more correct than the other and the balance will shift to drive the price up or down. All this is to say that YES, large funds and their movements CAN influence a stock's trading value; BUT their movements are based upon the same news, information, analysis and sentiment as the rest of the market. Meaning that the price of a stock is much more closely tied to news and available information than day to day trading volumes. In short, buying good companies at good prices is just as \"\"good\"\" as it's ever been. Also keep in mind that the fact that YOU can buy and sell stocks without having a huge impact on price is an ADVANTAGE that you have. By slipping in or out at the right times in major market movements you can do things that a massive investment fund simply cannot.\"",
"In addition to the GE move, Buffett's firm also added a large share of Synchrony, equalling about $520.7 in value, and a $418.1 million stake in Store Capital. So, they bought one regular sized share? This is Why BI-journalists doesnt work in IB...",
"The reason for such differences is that there's no source to get this information. The companies do not (and cannot) report who are their shareholders except for large shareholders and stakes of interest. These, in the case of GoPro, were identified during the IPO (you can look the filings up on EDGAR). You can get information from this or that publicly traded mutual fund about their larger holdings from their reports, but private investors don't provide even that. Institutional (public) investors buy and sell shares all the time and only report large investments. So there's no reliable way to get a snapshot picture you're looking for.",
"The reality that the share price did not move shows that there is nothing nefarious going on. It is most likely some mutual fund offloading their position to another fund. You can commonly see the play out at market openings if you have access to level II data. You will see a big block sitting on both sides of the same bid/ask. If you put in a higher bid (or vice versa) the two positions will move to match yours. And when the market opens their trade will be transacted BEFORE yours, even though you are thinking ... 'well I put in my bid first'. Obviously they have agreed to swap and agreed to use whatever value the market decides.",
"\"It's not necessarily bad but it can cause the stock price to become a lot more volatile. Depends on which side of the bet you're on ;) Suppose a hedge fund manager thinks a company is poorly run. He may buy a ton of shares so that he can get rid of the current CEO and replace it with his/her own. For the hedge fund and others long on the stock, this is good. Those who are trading options or using some short-term strategies could get screwed because of the sudden volatility. My next point is related to the above. What is the intrinsic value of a stock? The current price of a stock is the equilibrium of all investor's perception of the stock's value. Professionals make up a value for a stock using models such as DCF. Once they do so they trade based on what they believe the value of the stock is. You might calculate a stock is worth 70 and I believe it's 80 so the stock price is going to fluctuate a bit but it should keep within that range (assuming we're the only investors). Then comes a hedge fund manager, say Carl Icahn, and discloses a stake in our stock. \"\"Wow, the stock must be really valuable!\"\" Everyone starts buying this stock so up it goes to 90, simply because the guy who seems to know what he's doing bought it. The point here is that now it's not trading based on intrinsic value, now it's purely psychological. Ie. it's now a momentum stock, which you have no idea when it'll crash. Look at Tesla, Netflix, or just google momentum stocks. All the big crashes in stock prices happen when these big funds unload their stocks. A surge in supply will cut the price. The problem is you can't predict when some fund manager will decide to sell some stake of his. Tying everything together is liquidity. The more liquid a stock is, the easier it is to obtain and the less volatile it is. The more people playing the game, with not too big shares of stock, the faster the price will converge to some equilibrium and with less volatility. Institutional investors take away liquidity.\"",
"\"If you own a stake large enough to do that, you became regulated - under Section 13(d) of the 1934 Act and Regulation (in case of US stock) and you became regulated. Restricting you from \"\"shocking\"\" market. Another thing is that your broker will probably not allow you to execute order like that - directed MKT order for such volume. And market is deeper than anyone could measure - darkpools and HFTs passively waiting for opportunities like that.\"",
"\"There are a LOT of reasons why institutional investors would own a company's stock (especially a lot of it). Some can be: The company is in one of the indices, especially big ones. Many asset management companies have funds that are either passive (track index) or more-or-less closely adhere to a benchmark, with the benchmark frequently being (based on/exactly) an index. As such, a stock that's part of an index would be heavily owned by institutional investors. Conclusion: Nothing definitive. Being included in an equity index is usually dependent on the market cap; NOT on intrinsic quality of the company, its fundamentals or stock returns. The company is considered a good prospect (growth or value), in a sector that is popular with institutional investors. There's a certain amount of groupthink in investing. To completely butcher a known IT saying, you don't get fired for investing in AAPL :) While truly outstanding and successful investors seek NON-popular assets (which would be undervalued), the bulk is likely to go with \"\"best practices\"\"... and the general rules for valuation and analysis everyone uses are reasonably similar. As such, if one company invests in a stock, it's likely a competitor will follow similar reasoning to invest in it. Conclusion: Nothing definitive. You don't know if the price at which those institutional companies bought the stock is way lower than now. You don't know if the stock is held for its returns potential, or as part of an index, or some fancy strategy you as individual investor can't follow. The company's technicals lead the algorithms to prefer it. And they feed off of each other. Somewhat similar in spirit to #2, except this time, it's algorithmic trading making decisions based on technicals instead of portfolio managers based on funamentals. Obviously, same conclusion applies, even more so. The company sold a large part of the stock directly to institutional investor as part of an offering. Sometimes, as part of IPO (ala PNC and BLK), sometimes additional capital raising (ala Buffett and BAC) Conclusion: Nothing definitive. That investor holds on to the investment, sometimes for reason not only directly related to stock performance (e.g. control of the company, or synergies). Also, does the fact that Inst. Own % is high mean that the company is a good investment and/or less risky? Not necessarily. In 2008, Bear Stearns Inst Own. % was 77%\"",
"Everyone has a price. If nobody is selling shares, then increase the price you will buy them for. And then wait. Somebody will have some hospital bills to pay for eventually. I buy illiquid investments all the time, and thats typically what happens. Great companies do not have liquidity problems.",
"\"The simple answer could be that one or more \"\"people\"\" decided to buy. By \"\"people,\"\" I don't mean individual buyers of 100 shares like you or me, but typically large institutional investors like Fidelity, who might buy millions of shares at a time. Or if you're talking about a human person, perhaps someone like Warren Buffett. In a \"\"thinly\"\" traded small cap stock that typically trades a few hundred shares in a day, an order for \"\"thousands\"\" could significantly move the price. This is one situation where more or less \"\"average\"\" people could move a single stock.\"",
"\"What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? I imagine supply would outweigh demand and the stock would fall. Yes this is the case. Every large \"\"Sell\"\" order results in price going down and every large \"\"Buy\"\" order results in price going up. Hence typically when large orders are being executed, they are first negotiated outside for a price and then sold at the exchange. I am not talking about Ownership change event. If a company wants a change in ownership, the buyer would be ready to pay a premium over the market price to get controlling stake.\"",
"\"Volume is measured in the number of shares traded in a given day, week, month, etc. This means that it's not necessarily a directly-comparable measure between stocks, as there's a large difference between 1 million shares traded of a $1 stock ($1 million total) and 1 million shares traded of a $1000 stock ($1 billion total). Volume as a number on its own is lacking in context; it often makes more sense to look at it as an overall dollar amount (as in the parentheses above) or as a fraction of the total number of shares in the marketplace. When you see a price quoted for a particular ticker symbol, whether online, or on TV, or elsewhere, that price is typically the price of the last trade that executed for that security. A good proxy for the current fair price of an asset is what someone else paid for it in the recent past (as long as it wasn't too long ago!). So, when you see a quote labeled \"\"15.5K @ $60.00\"\", that means that the last trade on that security, which the service is using to quote the security's price, was for 15500 shares at a price of $60 per share. Your guess is correct. The term \"\"institutional investor\"\" often is meant to include many types of institutions that would control large sums of money. This includes large banks, insurance companies, pooled retirement funds, hedge funds, and so on.\"",
"\"When there is a trade the shares were both bought and sold. In any trade on the secondary market there has to be both a buyer and a seller for the trade to take place. So in \"\"lasttradesize\"\" a buyer has bought the shares from a seller.\"",
"A pattern of high level people buying or selling is a sign, positive or negative. An individual, not so much. He can be selling to diversify, trying to keep his investments from being all in the company. He can be selling to pay his large bills. Same reasons any of us might be selling an investment to have cash to use.",
"In the United States, when key people in a company buy or sell shares there are reporting requirements. The definition of key people includes people like the CEO, and large shareholders. There are also rules that can lock out their ability to buy and sell shares during periods where their insider knowledge would give them an advantage. These reporting rules are to level the playing field regarding news that will impact the stock price. These rules are different than the reporting rules that the IRS has to be able to tax capital gains. These are also separate than the registration rules for the shares so that you get all the benefits of owning the stock (dividends, voting at the annual meeting, voting on a merger or acquisition).",
"Generally speaking, having more institutional investors is a good sign. Of course there are many types of institutions. Normally we are thinking of mutual funds, pension funds, endowments, and hedge funds. They may not all have the same implications. Hedge funds, in particular, are out to make a buck with very little restriction on how they do it. They may buy an undervalued stock and then use their voting power to improve the company or they may do something more questionable, like pump up the stock price and then sell at the high, causing volatility. The people you are referring to may be thinking of something like the latter. Those concerns are generally small when compared with the known positives of institutional ownership.",
"Okay I don't know where my disconnect was, in my mind I was viewing that as a negative for some reason haha. Thanks! That makes sense. What is your perspective on the large amount of companies buying back shares right now?",
"What you describe there is the textbook definition of a proxy fight: buy a 5-10% stake (we're talking $10-$15 billion here for major money center banks), work with other shareholders, try to replace the directors, change business practices, etc. It's a strategy that works in many cases, but the sheer amount of stock you'd have to buy to effect a traditional proxy fight makes this strategy neither probable nor plausible. Like I said, the only believable way to do this is a proxy fight via the press: buy a small number of shares, table resolutions at the annual meetings, and leverage those resolutions with the press.",
"\"There are several such \"\"lists.\"\" The one that is maintained by the company is called the shareholder registry. That is a list that the company has given to it by the brokerage firms. It is a start, but not a full list, because many individual shareholders hold their stock with say Merrill Lynch, in \"\"street name\"\" or anonymously. A more useful list is the one of institutional ownership maintained by the SEC. Basically, \"\"large\"\" holders (of more than 5 percent of the stock) have to register their holdings with the SEC. More to the point, large holders of stocks, the Vanguards, Fidelitys, etc. over a certain size, have to file ALL their holdings of stock with the SEC. These are the people you want to contact if you want to start a proxy fight. The most comprehensive list is held by the Depositary Trust Company. People try to get that list only in rare instances.\"",
"\"It is not clear when you mean \"\"company's directors\"\" are they also majority owners. There are several reasons for Buy; Similarly there are enough reasons for sell; Quite often the exact reasons for Buy or Sell are not known and hence blindly following that strategy is not useful. It can be one of the inputs to make a decision.\"",
"\"#####&#009; ######&#009; ####&#009; [**Share repurchase**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share%20repurchase): [](#sfw) --- > >__Share repurchase__ (or __stock buyback__) is the re-acquisition by a [company](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company) of its own stock. In some countries, including the [US](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) and the [UK](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom), a [corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation) can repurchase its own [stock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock) by distributing [cash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash) to existing [shareholders](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder) in exchange for a fraction of the company's outstanding [equity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholders%27_equity); that is, cash is exchanged for a reduction in the number of [shares outstanding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shares_outstanding). The company either retires the repurchased shares or keeps them as [treasury stock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_stock), available for re-[issuance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issued_capital). >Under US [corporate law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporations_law) there are five primary methods of stock repurchase: open market, private negotiations, repurchase '[put](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Put_option)' rights and two variants of self-tender repurchase: a fixed price [tender offer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tender_offer) and a [Dutch auction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction). In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, there was a sharp rise in the volume of share repurchases in the US: [US$](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar)5 [billion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1000000000_(number\\)) in 1980 rose to US$349 billion in 2005. >It is relatively easy for insiders to capture insider-trading like gains through the use of \"\"open market repurchases\"\". Such transactions are legal and generally encouraged by regulators through safe-harbours against [insider trading](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading) liability. > --- ^Interesting: [^Accelerated ^share ^repurchase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_share_repurchase) ^| [^Dividend](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend) ^| [^Equity ^\\(finance)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_\\(finance\\)) ^| [^Treasury ^stock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_stock) ^Parent ^commenter ^can [^toggle ^NSFW](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+cjwf4oy) ^or[](#or) [^delete](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&message=%2Bdelete+cjwf4oy)^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| [^(FAQs)](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/wiki/index) ^| [^Mods](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1x013o/for_moderators_switches_commands_and_css/) ^| [^Magic ^Words](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1ux484/ask_wikibot/)\"",
"\"If we can agree that 2010 was closer to the low of 2009 than 2007 then the rich did all the buying while the super-rich did all the selling. http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html Looks like the rich cleaned up during the Tech Crash too, but it looks like the poor lost faith. That limited data makes it look like the best investors are the rich. Market makers are only required by the exchanges to provide liquidity, bids & asks. They aren't required to buy endlessly. In fact, market makers (at least the ones who survive the busts) try to never have a stake in direction. They do this by holding equal inventories of long and shorts. They are actually the only people legally allowed to naked short stock: sell without securing shares to borrow. All us peons must secure borrowed shares before selling short. Also, firms involved in the actual workings of the market like bookies but unlike us peons who make the bets play by different margin rules. They're allowed to lever through the roof because they take on low risk or near riskless trades and \"\"positions\"\" (your broker, clearing agent, etc actually directly \"\"own\"\" your financial assets and borrow & lend them like a bank). http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@notice/documents/notices/p004001.pdf This is why market makers can be assumed not to load up on shares during a decline; they simply drop the bids & asks as their bids are hit.\"",
"Yep, you have it pretty much right. The volume is the number of shares traded that day. The ticker is giving you the number of shares bought at that price in a given transaction, the arrow meaning whether the stock is up or down on the day at that price. Institutional can also refer to pensions, mutuals funds, corporates; generally any shareholder that isn't an individual person.",
"Their argument is mostly nonsense. Take someone like Tim Cook, CEO of Apple. He has a not very large salary, and makes a lot more money through stock bonuses. You would never, ever expect him to buy Apple shares. And assuming that he doesn't want to end up one day as the richest man in the cemetery, you would expect him to sell significant numbers of shares, independent on whether he expects Apple to go up or down.",
"Gotcha. So they essentially are just your normal dude that puts money in the stock market, just bigger money. For example, I may buy a few stocks in Apple in the hopes that I can exit at a higher price and have higher dividends. Those big investors are doing the same thing for the 2 benefits I said earlier, but they have more money to invest. Or do they get other benefits that us average stock holders dont get? Thanks for the first reply.",
"Yes it is legal, in fact according to statistics.gov.uk, foreign investors are the largest holders of UK shares (as of 2008). Investors from outside the UK owned 41.5 per cent of shares listed on the London Stock Exchange at the end of 2008, up from 40.0 per cent at end of 2006, according to the latest Office for National Statistics report on share ownership.",
"It could be an endless number of reasons for it. It could simply just be a break through a long term resistance causing technical traders to jump in. It could be an analyst putting out a buy recommendation. If fundamentals have not changed then maybe the technicals have changed. Momentum could have reached an oversold position causing new buyers to enter the market. Without knowing the actual stock, its fundamentals and its technicals, no one will ever know exactly why.",
"Open Google finance and divide the Market Capitalization by the total price. That will give you the total number of shares outstanding. Now see the number of shares you could buy for $1000(40 shares of $25 each or 10 shares of 100 shares each). Now divide the number of shares you own, by the number of shares outstanding in the company and multiply it by 100(i.e (Shares you own/shares Outstanding) * 100). That will give you the percentage or stake of the company you own(With $1000, don't expect it to be a very large number). Now ask your self the question, Is it worth it if I can buy x % of this company for $1000? If the answer is yes, go ahead and buy it. To answer your question in short, NO! it does not matter whether you buy 10 shares for $100 or 40 shares for $25. Cheers",
"\"You can learn very little from it. Company directories are often given share options or shares as a bonus, and because of that they are unlikely to buy shares. When they sell shares, you'll hear people shouting \"\"so-and-so sold his or her shares, they must know something bad about the company\"\". The truth is that you can't eat or drink shares. If that company director owning shares worth a million dollars wants to buy a new Ferrari, he will find that Ferrari doesn't give free cars to people owning lots of shares. He actually has to sell the shares to get the money for the car, and that's what he does.\"",
"\"Or it could be a Robinhood user just messing around with their free commissions. I've seen \"\"people that work for organizations\"\" and other analysts go crazy over some completely benign activity. It is like playing poker with a newbie, unpredictable.\"",
"\"A more serious problem: how do you know who's really buying your stock? \"\"Shell companies\"\" are an increasingly obvious problem in corporate and tax accountability. There are jurisdictions where companies can be created with secret lists of directors and shareholders. If stock is bought by one of these companies, it is very hard to trace it to a particular individual.\"",
"\"Market makers, traders, and value investors would be who I'd suspect for buying the stock that is declining. Some companies stocks can come down considerably which could make some speculators buy the stock at the lower price thinking it may bounce back soon. \"\"Short sellers\"\" are out to sell borrowed stocks that if the stock is in free fall, unless the person that shorted wants to close the position, they would let it ride. Worthless stocks are a bit of a special case and quite different than the crash of 1929 where various blue chip stocks like those of the Dow Jones Industrials had severe declines. Thus, the companies going down would be like Apple, Coca-Cola and other large companies that people would be shocked to see come down so much yet there are some examples in recent history if one remembers Enron or Worldcom. Stocks getting delisted tend to cause some selling and there are some speculators may buy the stock believing that the shares may be worth something only to lose the money possibly as one could look at the bankrupt cases of airlines and car companies to study some recent cases here. Circuit breakers are worth noting as these are cases when trading may be halted because of a big swing in prices that it is believed stopping the market may cause things to settle down.\"",
"I think 3,000 shares would swallow up the sizes on the ask to bring it up to 25 right now just looking at level 2 quotes. But then you'll attract some sellers to bring it down right after I'm sure. edit: You just have to swallow up the offers out there. But a big move in price and people/marketmakers will likely see it as an opportunity to take advantage of a market move based on just one buyer and start selling and bringing the price back down.",
"\"Learn something new every day... I found this interesting and thought I'd throw my 2c in. Good description (I hope) from Short Selling: What is Short Selling First, let's describe what short selling means when you purchase shares of stock. In purchasing stocks, you buy a piece of ownership in the company. You buy/sell stock to gain/sell ownership of a company. When an investor goes long on an investment, it means that he or she has bought a stock believing its price will rise in the future. Conversely, when an investor goes short, he or she is anticipating a decrease in share price. Short selling is the selling of a stock that the seller doesn't own. More specifically, a short sale is the sale of a security that isn't owned by the seller, but that is promised to be delivered. Still with us? Here's the skinny: when you short sell a stock, your broker will lend it to you. The stock will come from the brokerage's own inventory, from another one of the firm's customers, or from another brokerage firm. The shares are sold and the proceeds are credited to your account. Sooner or later, you must \"\"close\"\" the short by buying back the same number of shares (called covering) and returning them to your broker. If the price drops, you can buy back the stock at the lower price and make a profit on the difference. If the price of the stock rises, you have to buy it back at the higher price, and you lose money. So what happened? The Plan The Reality Lesson I never understood what \"\"Shorting a stock\"\" meant until today. Seems a bit risky for my blood, but I would assume this is an extreme example of what can go wrong. This guy literally chose the wrong time to short a stock that was, in all visible aspects, on the decline. How often does a Large Company or Individual buy stock on the decline... and send that stock soaring? How often does a stock go up 100% in 24 hours? 600%? Another example is recently when Oprah bought 10% of Weight Watchers and caused the stock to soar %105 in 24 hours. You would have rued the day you shorted that stock - on that particular day - if you believed enough to \"\"gamble\"\" on it going down in price.\"",
"You won't be able to know the trading activity in a timely, actionable method in most cases. The exception is if the investor (individual, fund, holding company, non-profit foundation, etc) is a large shareholder of a specific company and therefore required to file their intentions to buy or sell with the SEC. The threshold for this is usually if they own 5% or greater of the outstanding shares. You can, however, get a sense of the holdings for some of the entities you mention with some sleuthing. Publicly-Traded Holding Companies Since you mention Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway is an example of this. Publicly traded companies (that are traded on a US-based exchange) have to file numerous reports with the SEC. Of these, you should review their Annual Report and monitor all filings on the SEC's website. Here's the link to the Berkshire Hathaway profile. Private Foundations Harvard and Yale have private, non-profit foundations. The first place to look would be at the Form 990 filings each is required to file with the IRS. Two sources for these filings are GuideStar.org and the FoundationCenter.org. Keep in mind that if the private foundation is a large enough shareholder in a specific company, they, too, will be required to file their intentions to buy or sell shares in that company. Private Individuals Unless the individual publicly releases their current holdings, the only insight you may get is what they say publicly or have to disclose — again, if they are a major shareholder.",
"Is it normal for such transactions to create new outstanding shares? Yes a company can create new shares or a Majority share holder can sell some of his stake or it can be a mix of both. how will this news affect the short-term and long-term price of the company's stock? This is opinion based and not apt for this site. It can be positive or negative depending on how the market reacts to the news.",
"Regardless of whether a stock is owned by a retail investor or an institutional investor, it is subject to the same rules. For example, say that as part of the buyout, 1 share of Company B is equivalent to 0.75 shares of Company A and any fractional shares will be paid out in cash. This rule will apply to both the retail investor who holds 500 shares of Company B, as well as the asset manager or hedge fund holding 5,000,000 shares of Company B.",
"Include warnings that these numbers are estimates and are not adjusted for the market impact and tax impact of selling these shares. They need to stop pondering to the followers of the Prosperity Theology and get their analysis changed. Going to the shareholders page and just adding up their shares in comparison to the current price is lazy and not a good indicator.",
"No, there is no such list, as the other answers mention it is practically impossible to compile one. However you can see the institutional investors of a public company. MSN Money has this information available in a fair amount of details. For example see the Institutional Investors of GOOG",
"Note that your link shows the shares as of March 31, 2016 while http://uniselect.com/content/files/Press-release/Press-Release-Q1-2016-Final.pdf notes a 2-for-1 stock split so thus you have to double the shares to get the proper number is what you are missing. The stock split occurred in May and thus is after the deadline that you quoted.",
"Buying pressure means there are more interested buyers than there are ready sellers putting upward pressure on prices. That might include institutional buyers who are slowly executing buy orders because they still want the best prices possible without clearing out the market. Buying pressure doesn't have to be related to volume at all. If everyone who owns shares think they are going to be worth far more than recent market prices, they will not offer them for sale. That means there is more demand to buy than there is a supply of shares to be bought. That condition can exist regardless of trading volume.",
"\"Yes these are the number of shareholders that are not held in \"\"street name\"\" plus the different brokerages that hold the shares in \"\"street name\"\". So the stat is pointless since it really only lists the few people who own the stocks outside of a brokerage account and a bunch of wall street brokers.\"",
"They have a $1.5 billion buyback in place. The company likely buying back shares here (at 18x declining free cash flow). More leverage for the company, now almost at 3x EBITDA. Don't worry, after they're done fucking the whole world it'll blow up and whoever gets stiffed on the debt will somehow wind up passing the cost onto taxpayers :)",
"Not sure where you got the 296 crores figure. The data on the sheet shows activity by category of investors. In the end NET of all BUY and SELL across all categories will always be Zero. It has no bearing on whether the stock market goes up or goes down. If you compare only activity by certain category, say FII then there could be more SELL compared to BUY or vice-versa.",
"Stock A last traded at $100. Stock A has 1 million shares outstanding. No seller is willing to sell Stock A for less than $110 a share. One buyer is willing to buy 1 share for $110. The order executes. The buyer pays the seller $110. Stock A's new price is $110. An $110 investment increased the market cap by $10 million. Neat trick (for all who own Stock A).",
"You can become an activist share holder with as little as one share depending on your strategy an example of this was Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall (excellent name) vs Tesco (a huge supermarket, think walmart). He purchased one share which gave him the right to table a resolution at the AGM, then used the media to beat Tesco into submission over his particular issue however very few of the institution share holders (think large banks, pension funds, insurance companies) voted in favor so he failed miserably, but Tesco later caved slightly through fear of bad press. Also Carl Icahn is pretty well noted for doing things like this. Regarding the amount of money, you would need to raise a hell of a lot to buy enough shares to have anything like enough of a block to influence the company directly, but to attend the AGM, ask questions and generally be a pain in the ass you only need modest amount of shares, in some cases just one share.",
"\"The short version of JB King's excellent answer is that the company will typically buy back shares from the open market at market price. Sometimes, it will specifically target larger stakeholders, even controlling interests, who are making noise that they want to divest; if such an investor were to just dump their stock on the open market, neither the investor nor the company would be very happy with the resulting price collapse. In those cases, the company may offer an incentive price above market rates. In recent times, the investor looking to divest has often been the U.S. Government, who received stock in return for bailouts, and (with notable exceptions) turned a modest profit on many of them. Not enough to break even on the entire bailout, but the Government didn't just throw $700 billion in taxpayer money down a hole as conservative pundits would have you believe. In the '80s, a specific type of buy-back was made famous, called the \"\"leveraged buyout\"\". Basically, the company took out a huge loan against itself, and used that money to buy up all the company's publicly-traded shares, essentially becoming a private company. This became a popular tool among private equity groups, for better and worse.\"",
"Putting 64% of a portfolio in gold and silver is pretty reckless from an investing standpoint. That being said, if he really did buy most of the stocks in 2002, he's probably made a good deal of money off these picks.",
"\"As a TL;DR version of JAGAnalyst's excellent answer: the buying company doesn't need every last share; all they need is to get 51% of the voting bloc to agree to the merger, and to vote that way at a shareholder meeting. Or, if they can get a supermajority (90% in the US), they don't even need a vote. Usually, a buying company's first option is a \"\"friendly merger\"\"; they approach the board of directors (or the direct owners of a private company) and make a \"\"tender offer\"\" to buy the company by purchasing their controlling interest. The board, if they find the offer attractive enough, will agree, and usually their support (or the outright sale of shares) will get the company the 51% they need. Failing the first option, the buying company's next strategy is to make the same tender offer on the open market. This must be a public declaration and there must be time for the market to absorb the news before the company can begin purchasing shares on the open market. The goal is to acquire 51% of the total shares in existence. Not 51% of market cap; that's the number (or value) of shares offered for public trading. You could buy 100% of Facebook's market cap and not be anywhere close to a majority holding (Zuckerberg himself owns 51% of the company, and other VCs still have closely-held shares not available for public trading). That means that a company that doesn't have 51% of its shares on the open market is pretty much un-buyable without getting at least some of those private shareholders to cash out. But, that's actually pretty rare; some of your larger multinationals may have as little as 10% of their equity in the hands of the upper management who would be trying to resist such a takeover. At this point, the company being bought is probably treating this as a \"\"hostile takeover\"\". They have options, such as: However, for companies that are at risk of a takeover, unless management still controls enough of the company that an overruling public stockholder decision would have to be unanimous, the shareholder voting body will often reject efforts to activate these measures, because the takeover is often viewed as a good thing for them; if the company's vulnerable, that's usually because it has under-performing profits (or losses), which depresses its stock prices, and the buying company will typically make a tender offer well above the current stock value. Should the buying company succeed in approving the merger, any \"\"holdouts\"\" who did not want the merger to occur and did not sell their stock are \"\"squeezed out\"\"; their shares are forcibly purchased at the tender price, or exchanged for equivalent stock in the buying company (nobody deals in paper certificates anymore, and as of the dissolution of the purchased company's AOI such certs would be worthless), and they either move forward as shareholders in the new company or take their cash and go home.\"",
"In fact, buybacks WERE often considered a vehicle for insider trading, especially prior to 1982. For instance, Prior to the Reagan era, executives avoided buybacks due to fears that they would be prosecuted for market manipulation. But under SEC Rule 10b-18, adopted in 1982, companies receive a “safe harbor” from market manipulation liability on stock buybacks if they adhere to four limitations: not engaging in buybacks at the beginning or end of the trading day, using a single broker for the trades, purchasing shares at the prevailing market price, and limiting the volume of buybacks to 25 percent of the average daily trading volume over the previous four weeks.",
"\"Institutional ownership has nearly lost all meaning. It used to mean mutual funds, investment banks, etc. Now, it means pension funds, who hold the rest of the equity assets directly, and insiders. Since the vast majority of investors in equity do not hold it directly, \"\"institutions\"\" are approaching 100% ownership on all major equities. Other sites still segment the data.\"",
"It doesn't matter if the shares are owned by an institution like an asset manager or by a retail investor like you or me - it is all counted and treated the same way in terms of the corporate actions involved (cash/stock payouts).",
"\"Shares do not themselves carry any identity. Official shareholders are kept at the registrar. In the UK, this may be kept up to date and publicly accessible. In the US, it is not, but this doesn't matter because most shares are held \"\"in street name\"\". For a fully detailed history, one would need access to all exchange records, brokerage records, and any trades transacted off exchange. These records are almost totally unavailable.\"",
"Initially, Each company has 10k shares. Company B has $500k money and possibly other assets. Every company has stated purpose. It can't randomly buy shares in some other firm. Company A issued 5k new shares, which gives it $500k money. Listed companies can't make private placements without regulatory approvals. They have to put this in open market via Public issue or rights issue. Company B does the same thing, issuing 5k shares for $500k money. Company A bought those 5k shares using the $500k it just got There is no logical reason for shareholder of Company B to raise 5K from Company A for the said consideration. This would have to increase.",
"Also a layman, and I didnt read the article because it did the whole 'screw you for blocking my ads' thing. But judging from the title, I'd guess someone bought a massive amount of call options for VIX, the stock that tracks volatility in the market. Whenever the market crashes or goes through difficult times, the VIX fund prospers. The 'by october' part makes me think it was call options that he purchased: basically he paid a premium for each share (a fraction of the shares cost) for the right to buy that share at today's price, from now until october. So if the share increases in value, for each call option he has, he can buy one share at todays price, and sell it at the price it is that day. Options can catapult your profit into the next dimension but if the share decreases in value or even stays the same price, he loses everything. Vicious redditors, please correct the mistakes ive made here with utmost discrimination",
"\"In some cases, when a company purchases a minor stake, they often intend to increase the size of the stake over time. As a reference, note that Coca Cola has increased their stake in Green Mountain Coffee Roasters (GMCR) over time. It also adds some \"\"support\"\" to the price because these investors may be willing to step in and purchase the stock if there is any distress or poor performance. Finally, its generally a good \"\"tell\"\" that the stock has good things going for it and may be subject to additional interest from large investors.\"",
"\"The effect of making a single purchase, of size and timing described, would not cause market disequilibrium, it would only hurt you (and your P&L). As @littleadv said, you would be unlikely to get your order filled. You asked about making a \"\"sudden\"\" purchase. Let's say you placed the order and were willing to accept a series of partial fills e.g. in 5,000 or 10,000 share increments at a time, over a period of hours. This would be a more moderate approach. Even spread out over the span of a day, this remains unwise. A better approach would be to buy small lots over the course of a week or month. But your transaction fees would increase. Investors make money in pink sheets and penny stocks due to increases in share price of 100% (on the low end), with a relatively small number of shares. It isn't feasible to earn speculator profits by purchasing huge blocks (relative to number of shares outstanding) of stock priced < $1.00 USD and profit from merely 25% price increases on large volume.\"",
"the implications are that the company's earnings per share may seem greater, (after the company buys them there will be less shares outstanding), giving wall street the impression that there is more growth potential than there really is. its an accounting gimmick that can work for a few quarters while the company evaluates how else to impress wall street",
"A board authorizes the repurchase of shares because they feel the stock in undervalued. The hope is that the stocks will rise either directly by their repurchase, or in the near term due to the realization that the company is in better shape then the market thought. Eventually those shares will be resold back into the market thus bring in more cash at a later date. They will set limits on them maximum they will pay, they will also spread the repurchases out over a time period so they don't overwhelm the market.",
"Consider the mechanic which actually drives the 'price' of a stock. In simplest terms, the 'price' of a stock is the price at which the most recent trade occurred. ie: if the price of IBM is $100/share, that means the last time someone bought IBM stock, they paid $100. Above and below the 'spot price', are dozens/hundreds/thousands of buyers and sellers who have placed orders that no one is yet willing to match. ie: if IBM's spot price is at $100, there could still be 10,000 people willing to sell for $101 (called the 'ask' price, for the lowest price someone is currently willing to sell at), and 15,000 willing to buy for $99 (called the 'bid' price, for the highest price someone is currently willing to buy for). Until someone is willing to buy for $101, then no one will be able to sell at $101. Until someone is willing to sell for $99, no one will be able to buy for $99. Typically orders are placed in the market at a particular limit. Meaning that those orders to buy at $99/sell at $101 are already in the 'system', and will be matched immediately as soon as someone is willing to meet the price on the other side. Now consider general market economics: high demand drives up price, and high supply drives down price. If the details above for IBM were yesterday, and today some news came out that IBM was laying off employees, imagine that another 10,000 people who held shares wanted to sell. Now there would be 20,000 sellers and only 15,000 buyers. If those new sellers were aggressive about wanting to sell, they would have to drop their price to $99, to match the highest buyers in the market. Put together, this means that as more sellers enter the market, supply of shares increases, driving down price. Conversely, as more buyers enter the market, demand for shares increases, driving up share price. As a result of the above, you can say that (all else being equal) if price for a stock goes up, there were more buyers that day, and if price goes down, there were more sellers that day. On the face of it, that is not necessarily true, because you could have the same number of buyers and sellers, one side could have simply decreased/increased their acceptable price to match the other side.",
"Yes, all the shares of a publicly traded company can be purchased. This effectively takes the company private so that it's no longer traded on a stock market. Here are some examples: EDIT: to answer your edited question... the corporation can issue more stock. However that would dilute the value of existing shares. Thus, existing shareholders must vote to allow more shares to be issued. So... in your situation yes, you'd need to wait for someone else to sell.",
"If you hold at least $2,000 of a company's shares for at least a year you can submit a proxy filing -- a stockholder proposal at the shareholders' meeting. Then you can use the media to agitate around that proposal. (See Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, mentioned here as well). Companies have been known to bow to media pressure around minority shareholder proposals. The guidelines for proxy filings are here: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=47b43cbb88844faad586861c05c81595&rgn=div5&view=text&node=17:3.0.1.1.1&idno=17#17:3.0.1.1.1.2.82.201 Buying enough shares to assume control of a major money center bank is not possible, regardless of the amount of money you can raise (remember: there are poison pill provisions, not to mention the fact that the more shares you want to buy, the higher the price will be). tl;dr: The way to do what you're trying to do is not by accumulating shares but by using the media. You need $2,000.",
"\"Because more people bought it than sold it. That's really all one can say. You look for news stories related to the event, but you don't really know that's what drove people to buy or sell. We're still trying to figure out the cause of the recent flash crash, for example. For the most part, I feel journalism trying to describe why the markets moved is destined to fail. It's very complicated. Stocks can fall on above average earnings reports, and rise on dismal annual reports. I've heard a suggestion before that people \"\"buy on the rumor, sell on the news\"\". Which is just this side of insider trading.\"",
"It doesn't matter which exchange a share was purchased through (or if it was even purchased on an exchange at all--physical share certificates can be bought and sold outside of any exchange). A share is a share, and any share available for purchase in New York is available to be purchased in London. Buying all of a company's stock is not something that can generally be done through the stock market. The practical way to accomplish buying a company out is to purchase a controlling interest, or enough shares to have enough votes to bind the board to a specific course of action. Then vote to sell all outstanding shares to another company at a particular fixed price per share. Market capitalization is an inaccurate measure of the size of a company in the first place, but if you want to quantify it, you can take the number of outstanding shares (anywhere and everywhere) and multiply them by the price on any of the exchanges that sell it. That will give you the market capitalization in the currency that is used by whatever exchange you chose.",
"The conspiracy theorist in me says this is a huge bet on a future of high crime and civil unrest in the US. Otherwise, why would owning most of the American consumer gun industry be such an attractive investment, unless you're banking on a high demand for guns? EDIT: Either that, or they're possibly betting on the US invading yet another country, depending on how heavily these companies are involved in military contracting. If I want to spin conspiracy theories, anyway. Probably they're just undervalued companies, like any others. But it's awfully intriguing...",
"\"Orders large enough to buy down the current Bid and Ask Book are common. This is the essential strategy through which larger traders \"\"Strip\"\" the Bid or Ask in order to excite motion in a direction that is favorable to their interests. Smaller traders will often focus on low float/small cap tickers, as both conditions tend to favor volatility on relatively small volume.\"",
"\"When you buy a share of stock, you are almost always buying from someone who previously purchased that share and now wants to sell it. The money -- minus broker's fee -- goes to that other investor, which may be a person, a company (rarely the company that issued the stock, but that will occasionally be the case), an investment fund, the \"\"market maker\"\" for that stock (websearch for definition of that term), or anyone else. They owned a small percentage of the company; you bought it from them and gave them the money for it, just as you would buy anything else. You don't know or care who you bought from; they don't know or care who they sold to; the market just found a buyer and seller who could agree on the price. There are a very few exceptions to that. The company may repurchase some of its own shares and/or sell them again, depending on its own financial needs and obligations. For example, my own employer has to purchase its own shares periodically so it has enough on hand to sell to employees at a slight discount through the Employee Stock Ownership Program. But you generally don't know that's who you're selling to; it happens like any other transaction. And during the Initial Public Offering, if you're lucky/privileged enough to get in on the first wave of purchases, you're buying from the investment bank that's managing this process ... though that's an almost vanishingly rare case for \"\"retail\"\" investors like us; we're more likely to get the shares after someone has already pushed the price up a bit. But really, when you buy a share the money goes to whoever you bought it from, and that's all you can know or need to know.\"",
"WSJ reported they bought them through a broker, the seller was the central bank. The central bank also reported a $700m increase to its USD holdings shortly after. Whether GS knew that the seller was the central bank or not is another question entirely, one that their compliance department is reportedly looking in to.",
"Absolutely. In fact, all stock purchases of more than 5% of a company's stock must be reported to the SEC, so assuming A and B are publicly traded companies in the US, the purchase would likely be a matter of public record. There are probably special cases where this could cause problems, however; any case where A's purchase of B's stock (or vice versa) runs afoul of regulation would be one such case. For example, if company A wants to own a controlling interest in company B and appoint members of its board of directors and both companies were in the same heavily-concentrated market, regulators may frown on the potential for decreased competition. Such regulations may apply to any purchase of a controlling interest in a company, though.",
"according to me it's the news about a particular stock which makes people to buy or sell it mostly thus creates a fluctuation in price . It also dependents on the major stock holder.",
"Lots of bloomberg vids posted on dailymotion.com have interviews with Blackrock analysts. Looked Blackrock up in wiki. Amazing size: The company acquired Barclays Global Investors in December 2009, solidifying its position as the largest investment manager in the world.[3] As of June 2011, ***the company has over $3.65 trillion in assets under management.***",
"\"Members of the Federal Reserve System keep track of what money a bank has (if it's not in the vault), who owns what shares of stock, who owns what bond, etc. The part of the Federal Reserve System that tracks stock ownership is the Depository Trust Company (DTC). They have a group of subsidiaries that settle various types of security transactions. DTC is a member of the U.S. Federal Reserve System, a limited-purpose trust company under New York State banking law and a registered clearing agency with the Securities and Exchange Commission. There's lots of information on their website describing this process. DTCC's subsidiary, The Depository Trust Company (DTC), established in 1973, was created to reduce costs and provide clearing and settlement efficiencies by immobilizing securities and making \"\"book-entry\"\" changes to ownership of the securities. DTC provides securities movements for NSCC's net settlements1, and settlement for institutional trades (which typically involve money and securities transfers between custodian banks and broker/dealers), as well as money market instruments. Black pools are trades done where the price is not shared with the market. But the DTC is the one who keeps track of who owns which shares. They have records of all net transactions2. The DTC is the counterparty for transactions. When stock moves from one entity to another the DTC is involved. As the central counterparty for the nation's major exchanges and markets, DTCC clears and settles virtually all broker-to-broker equity 1. This is the link that shows that settlements are reported on a \"\"net basis\"\". 2. If broker A sells 1000 shares of something to broker B at 8 and then five minutes later broker B sells the 1000 shares back to A, you cannot be sure that that total volume will be recorded. No net trading took place and there would be fees to pay for no reason if they reported both trades. Note: In dark pool trading quite often the two parties don't know each other. For shares (book-keeping records) to be exchanged it has to be done through a Clearing House.\"",
"If there's one activist you don't go to war with, it's Paul Singer. He mailed thousands of mini video players to retail investors of Arconic this spring to get them to swing the vote, putting in 4 new dissenting board members.",
"The other answer has some good points, to which I'll add this: I believe you're only considering a company's Initial Public Offering (IPO), when shares are first offered to the public. An IPO is the way most companies get a public listing on the stock market. However, companies often go to market again and again to issue/sell more shares, after their IPO. These secondary offerings don't make as many headlines as an IPO, but they are typical-enough occurrences in markets. When a company goes back to the market to raise additional funds (perhaps to fund expansion), the value of the company's existing shares that are being traded is a good indicator of what they may expect to get for a secondary offering of shares. A company about to raise money desires a higher share price, because that will permit them to issue less shares for the amount of money they need. If the share price drops, they would need to issue more shares for the same amount of money – and dilute existing owners' share of the overall equity further. Also, consider corporate acquisitions: When one company wants to buy another, instead of the transaction being entirely in cash (maybe they don't have that much in the bank!), there's often an equity component, which involves swapping shares of the company being acquired for new shares in the acquiring company or merged company. In that case, the values of the shares in the public marketplace also matter, to provide relative valuations for the companies, etc.",
"And then they got caught for inside trading because the CEO was getting inside information, but now they are private and I think he offers at least 30% now. Don't believe me, Idc. SAC capital is right down the street from where I work and I know the personal secretary for the CEO of SAC capital.",
"In most countries there are specific guidelines on buy backs. It is never a case where by one fine morning company would buy its shares and sell it whenever it wants. In general company has to pass a board resolution, sometimes it also requires it to be approved by share holders. It has to notify the exchange weeks in advance. Quite a few countries require a price offer to all. I.E. it cannot execute a market order. All in all the company may have inside information, but it cannot time the market.",
"\"Hmm... Well there are several ways to do that: Go to any bank (or at the very least major ones). They can assist you with buying and/or selling stocks/shares of any company on the financial market. They keep your shares safe at the bank and take care of them. The downside is that they will calculate fees for every single thing they do with your money or shares or whatever. Go to any Financial broker/trader that deals with the stock market. Open an account and tell them to buy shares from company \"\"X\"\" and keep them. Meaning they won't trade with them if this is what you want. Do the same as point 2, but on your own. Find a suitable broker with decent transaction fees, open an account, find the company's stock code and purchase the stocks via the platform the broker uses.\"",
"\"There is one other factor that I haven't seen mentioned here. It's easy to assume that if you buy a stock, then someone else (another stock owner) must have sold it to you. This is not true however, because there are people called \"\"market makers\"\" whose basic job is to always be available to buy shares from those who wish to sell, and sell shares to those who wish to buy. They could be selling you shares they just bought from someone else, but they also could simply be issuing shares from the company itself, that have never been bought before. This is a super oversimplified explanation, but hopefully it illustrates my point.\"",
"I have a low position. Only 300 shares but will probably purchase more when it's in the .2-.3 range. They're pumping this company so it'll meet the NASDAQ requirements so i'm predicting executives will be putting a lot into the pool. Let's ride, boys.",
"Please refer to this question to understand the basics of how an order is matched. How do exchanges match limit orders? Now most of the times even Block orders follow the same matching criteria. I think you are assuming that for every large buy order there is a matching large sell order. This is not true. So on the Buy side at various point in times there were Buy Orders, with Single order more than 10,000 shares. On the sell side to fulfil these orders there may or may not be a single order of 10,000. More often there will be quite a few smaller orders or 500, 1000 or whatever amount that are present in the queue based on the amount & time sort order or even partially matching out of a sell order of 10,000 ... Similarly when there is a large sell order of more than 10,000 , these may not have got filled in by a large buy order but by smaller buy orders etc ... So if you average out the amounts on the buy side and the sell side there would definately be a difference. The analysis of this difference is as indicated in your question, buy price is more than sell price and hence people are bullish ...",
"\"In an IPO the seller is the Company selling new shares. Some of the IPOs also include something called \"\"secondary\"\" sales which are existing holders selling at the same time at the IPO price. But that is a but more unusual. And as someone noted, the $68 is the price paid for the people who bought at the IPO (the aggregate group usually called the syndicate). The $85 is the price that it is trading at once there is trading in the open market. People that are able to get into the syndicate to buy the stock at $68 sometimes quickly sell if the price is much higher when trading starts. This is called \"\"flipping\"\" the stock. Hedge funds do this much more often than institutional buyers like Fidelity.\"",
"Umm no. 2.14 B Shares outstanding... First day had a peak to low of (41.68-38.27) of 3.41. Unless UBS got over 100M shares and roundtriped them 200m of volume. This number is not possible as FB had 580,587,742 of total volume. It's highly unrealistic that UBS accounted for about 35% of volume in one day. UBS would have to have longed a large holding in FB for some time to have lost this much.",
"The original investors and founders own them. Think about it this way - When you hear that an IPO priced at $10 opened at $50, is that 'good or 'bad'? Of course, it depends who you are. If you are the guy that got them at $10, you're happy. If you are the founder of the company, you are thinking the banker you paid to determine a market price for the IPO failed. Big. He blew it, basically as you just sold your company for 20% of the perceived value. But, instead of selling all the shares, just sell, say, 5%. Now, the IPO opening price is just a way to understand the true value of your company while keeping 95% of the upside once the market settles down to a regular trading pattern. You can slowly sell these shares into the market or you can use them as cash to take over other companies by buying with these shares instead of actual cash. Either way, the publicly traded shares should trade based on the total value of the company and the fraction they represent.",
"\"Discussing individual stocks is discouraged here, so I'll make my answer somewhat generic. Keep in mind, some companies go public in a way that takes the shares that are held by the investment VCs (venture capitalists) and cashes them out of their positions, i.e. most if not all shares are made public. In that case, the day after IPO, the original investors have their money, and, short of the risk of being sued for fraud, could not care less what the stock does. Other companies float a small portion up front, and retain the rest. This is a way of creating a market and valuing the company, but not floating so many shares the market has trouble absorbing it. This stock has a \"\"Shares Outstanding\"\" of 2.74B but has only floated 757.21M. The nearly 2 billion shares held by the original investors certainly impact their wallets with how this IPO went. See the key statistics for the details.\"",
"The holders of the shares have to agree to sell them to management in a share repurchase. Typically, share repurchases are done in the open market, causing market activity to increase the share price marginally. This is how the company returns the value to shareholders. The company could also negotiate a price with a mutual fund, or founder, for a large block. If they get close to the point of purchasing all outstanding shares, this would be exactly the same as the management of the company taking the company private, buying out all existing shareholders. To prevent a single holdout from keeping say the very last share for one million dollars or the like on the open market, they would generally propose to the board of directors the buyout terms with a price per share, and most corporate charters are written such that the directors' vote binds minority shareholders to buyout or merger decisions. Michael Dell famously took Dell Computer private in 2013, raising external money to offer a fair price to the board, which accepted it, letting him take it back to private status.",
"You can execute block trades on the options market and get exercised for shares to create a very large position in Energy Transfer Partners LP without moving the stock market. You can then place limit sell orders, after selling directly into the market and keep an overhang of low priced shares (the technical analysis traders won't know what you specifically are doing, and will call this 'resistance'). If you hit nice even numbers (multiples of 5, multiples of 10) with your sell orders, you can exacerbate selling as many market participants will have their own stop loss orders at those numbers, causing other people to sell at lower and lower prices automatically, and simultaneously keep your massive ask in effect. If your position is bigger than the demand then you can keep a stock lower. The secondary market doesn't inherently affect a company in any way. But many companies have borrowed against the price of their shares, and if you get the share price low enough they can get suddenly margin called and be unable to service their existing debt. You will also lose a lot of money doing this, so you can also buy puts along the way or attempt to execute a collar to lower your own losses. The collar strategy is nice because it is unlikely that other traders and analysts will notice what you are doing, since there are calls, puts and share orders involved in creating it. One person may notice the block trade for the calls initially, but nobody will notice it is part of a larger strategy with multiple legs. With the share position, you may also be able to vote on some things, but that solely depends on the conditions of the shares.",
"Not sure about US. In India all Demat shares have a unique identity. Incase of splits or merging of shares, new ID's are created maintaining the linking of older ID's. The Demat holding entity would have all the history of a particular stock. It is mandatory to disclose the name of the person / entity who has purchased the shares. Of Course if shares are purchased by Fund houses or other aggregators then its the aggregators name that would be available. All this data is confidential and not meant for common consumption.",
"RonJohn is right, all shares are owned by someone. Depending on the company, they can be closely held so that nobody wants to sell at a given time. This can cause the price people are offering to rise until someone sells. That trade will cause an adjustment in the ticker price of that stock. Supply and demand at work. Berkshire Hathaway is an example of this. The number of shares is low, the demand for them is high, the price per share is high.",
"Depends on the structure of the company and what shares are outstanding. If the pink sheet stock has no voting power then buying all that stock doesn't get you any control at all. On the other hand, if the outstanding shares only represent 20% of the company's overall shares, then buying all the shares isn't likely enough to have a controlling interest. Thus, you'll have to dig into the details. If you want an example of where I'd have my doubts, look at Nestle's stock which has the ticker of NSRGY. There can be companies that are structured with stock on multiple exchanges that can also be a challenge at times. There is also something to be said if you own enough stock in a company that this has to be disclosed to the SEC when you buy more.",
"1 lot is 100 shares on London stock exchange",
"he invested in goog. hes a couple of appl shares away from being a mod on /r/wallstreetbets. a billionaire investing in an S&P500 company is literally the most mundane shit you can think of. if thats proof hes (((up to no good))) then i dont know what to even say to that.",
"A share is just a part ownership of a company. If you buy a share of a green stock in the open market, you now just own part of a green company. Just like if you buy a house, the money you paid moves to the former owner, but what you are getting is a clear asset in return that you now own. Via mutual funds/indexes this can get a little more complicated (voting rights etc tend to go to the mutual/indexing company rather than the holders of the fund), but is approximately the same thing: the fund buys assets on the open market, then holds them, buys more, or sells them on behalf of the fund investors.",
"\"You are overlooking the fact that it is not only supply & demand from investors that determines the share price: The company itself can buy and sell its own shares. If company X is profitable over the long haul but pays 0 dividends then either Option (2) is pretty ridiculous, so (1) will hold except in an extreme \"\"man bites dog\"\" kind of fluke. This is connected with the well-known \"\"dividend paradox\"\", which I discussed already in another answer.\"",
"\"Share prices change (or not) when shares are bought and sold. Unless he's sitting on a large percentage of the total shares, the fact that he isn't selling or buying means he's having no effect ar all on the stock price, and unless there's a vote war going on in the annual meeting his few stockholder votes aren't likely to have much effect there either (though there's always the outside chance of his being a tiebreaker). On the other hand, there's nothing inherently wrong with holding shares for a very long time and just taking the dividends (\"\"clipping coupons\"\"). Buy-and-hold is a legitimate strategy. Basically: His reason is wrong, but his action may be right, and you should probably just not ask.\""
] |
[
"Schedule 13D (or the abbreviated version, schedule 13G) would be the most likely place to find this info. When a person or group of persons acquires beneficial ownership of more than 5% of a voting class of a company’s equity securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, they are required to file a Schedule 13D with the SEC. Schedule 13D reports the acquisition and other information within ten days after the purchase. Any material changes in the facts contained in the schedule require a prompt amendment. You can find the Schedules 13D for most publicly traded companies in the SEC’s EDGAR database. A 1% change in the amount of ownership is considered material.",
"The reality that the share price did not move shows that there is nothing nefarious going on. It is most likely some mutual fund offloading their position to another fund. You can commonly see the play out at market openings if you have access to level II data. You will see a big block sitting on both sides of the same bid/ask. If you put in a higher bid (or vice versa) the two positions will move to match yours. And when the market opens their trade will be transacted BEFORE yours, even though you are thinking ... 'well I put in my bid first'. Obviously they have agreed to swap and agreed to use whatever value the market decides.",
"SEC forms are required when declaring insider activity. An insider is defined by the SEC to be a person or entity which (i) beneficially owns 10% or more of the outstanding shares of the company, (ii) is an officer or director of the company, or (iii), in the case of insider trading, does so based on knowledge which is not otherwise publically available at the time. At any rate, the person or entity trading the stock is required to file certain forms. Form 3 is filed when a person first transitions into the status of an insider (by becoming an officer, director, or beneficial owner of a certain percentage of stock). Form 4 is filed when an existing insider trades stock under the company's symbol. Form 5 is filed when certain insider trades of small value are reported later than usual. *More information can be found at the SEC's website. Another possibility is that a large number of options or derivatives were exercised by an officer, director, or lending institution. In the cases of officers or directors, this would need to be declared with an SEC form 4. For an institution exercising warrants obtained as a result of a lending agreement, either form 3 or 4 would need to be filed. In addition to the above possibilities, username passing through pointed out a very likely scenario in his answer, as well."
] |
6142
|
How does stabilization work during an IPO?
|
[
"155461",
"209863"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"155461",
"89533",
"258563",
"5685",
"499154",
"595171",
"3495",
"77631",
"386364",
"21975",
"518242",
"351055",
"209863",
"282565",
"111773",
"320472",
"243115",
"386278",
"58686",
"195455",
"57387",
"158297",
"100546",
"553896",
"361843",
"250164",
"10171",
"335631",
"592187",
"287858",
"476829",
"498752",
"243396",
"544172",
"436536",
"25195",
"568526",
"313695",
"13732",
"333605",
"573079",
"529402",
"584836",
"332657",
"407898",
"584135",
"525590",
"200894",
"334162",
"569303",
"571001",
"337049",
"349147",
"90519",
"410404",
"408695",
"566553",
"417506",
"491644",
"407911",
"169548",
"493438",
"216307",
"591436",
"481339",
"119505",
"327952",
"570064",
"9264",
"220187",
"386398",
"138178",
"502713",
"68907",
"573600",
"68094",
"23108",
"21189",
"475700",
"64943",
"541991",
"568252",
"132180",
"582646",
"146628",
"313414",
"151132",
"261522",
"202375",
"224672",
"498885",
"532171",
"178296",
"445943",
"340791",
"130303",
"540799",
"480967",
"485538",
"12917"
] |
[
"\"There are no \"\"rules\"\" about how the price should act after an IPO, so there are no guarantee that a \"\"pop\"\" would appear at the opening day. But when an IPO is done, it's typically underpriced. On average, the shares are 10% up at the end of the first day after the IPO (I don't have the source that, I just remember that from some finance course). Also, after the IPO, the underwriter can be asked to support the trading of the share for a certain period of time. That is the so called stabilizing agent. They have few obligations like: This price support in often done by a repurchase of some of the shares of poorly performing IPO. EDIT: Informations about the overallotment pool. When the IPO is done, a certain number of client buy the shares issued by the company. The underwriter, with the clients, can decide to create an overallotment pool, where the clients would get a little more shares (hence \"\"overallotment\"\"), but this time the shares are not issued by the company but by the underwriter. To put it another way, the underwriter oversell and becomes short by a certain number of shares (limited to 15% of the IPO). In exchange for the risk taken by this overallotment, the underwriter gets a greenshoe option from the clients, that will allows the underwriter to buy back the oversold shares, at the price of the IPO, from the clients. The idea behind this option is to avoid a market exposure for the underwriter. So, after the IPO: If the price goes down, the underwriter buys back on the market the overshorted shares and makes a profits. If the price goes up, the company exercise the greenshoe option buy the shares at the IPO prices (throught the overallotment pool, that is, the additional shares that the clients wanted ) to avoid suffering a loss.\"",
"underwriters aren't subject to lock-up. They actually don't hold anything. They oversell at IPO, with their short position covered by the green shoe (an option from the company). If the deal does well, the underwriters exercise the green shoe to cover their short. If the deal runs into some pressure, they step in to support the price by buying back shares... thereby covering their short. So they are doing price support in the early days of a deal, but it is almost always paid for by the company granting them an option. But the underwriters aren't taking stock. Correct that typically all insiders and existing investors are expected to sign-up a lock-up.",
"Should do it through a limit auction book. Management and shareholders pre ipo submit sealed limit sell orders. Buyers submit sealed limit buy orders, nobody can see where the price is going. At 9AM, the price is calculated and whomever fills get filled and ta da everyone is trading at 9:30 when the market is open.",
"A consortium of investment banks go on a road show to their clients to see who's interested at which price in the IPO. The arrange this price through various financial models to determine the market value of the company. The banks price the offering deliberately low to ensure a pop on the open of trading to send a positive signal to the market. This is their story at least, IPOs mispriced on the low side result in less money for the company making the offering. I think a better way to perform an IPO is the way google did the theirs; a reverse auction. This is the same way the treasury sells bonds and definitely would put more money in the companies and less in the banks. Unfortunately the banks don't love the idea and you need a lot of clout to get them to change their minds.",
"\"The offering price is what the company will raise by selling the shares at that price. However, this isn't usually what the general public sees as often there will be shows to drive up demand so that there will be buyers for the stock. That demand is what you see on the first day when the general public can start buying the stock. If one is an employee, relative or friend of someone that is offered, \"\"Friends and Family\"\" shares they may be able to buy at the offering price. Pricing of IPO from Wikipedia states around the idea of pricing: A company planning an IPO typically appoints a lead manager, known as a bookrunner, to help it arrive at an appropriate price at which the shares should be issued. There are two primary ways in which the price of an IPO can be determined. Either the company, with the help of its lead managers, fixes a price (\"\"fixed price method\"\"), or the price can be determined through analysis of confidential investor demand data compiled by the bookrunner (\"\"book building\"\"). Historically, some IPOs both globally and in the United States have been underpriced. The effect of \"\"initial underpricing\"\" an IPO is to generate additional interest in the stock when it first becomes publicly traded. Flipping, or quickly selling shares for a profit, can lead to significant gains for investors who have been allocated shares of the IPO at the offering price. However, underpricing an IPO results in lost potential capital for the issuer. One extreme example is theglobe.com IPO which helped fuel the IPO \"\"mania\"\" of the late 90's internet era. Underwritten by Bear Stearns on November 13, 1998, the IPO was priced at $9 per share. The share price quickly increased 1000% after the opening of trading, to a high of $97. Selling pressure from institutional flipping eventually drove the stock back down, and it closed the day at $63. Although the company did raise about $30 million from the offering it is estimated that with the level of demand for the offering and the volume of trading that took place the company might have left upwards of $200 million on the table. The danger of overpricing is also an important consideration. If a stock is offered to the public at a higher price than the market will pay, the underwriters may have trouble meeting their commitments to sell shares. Even if they sell all of the issued shares, the stock may fall in value on the first day of trading. If so, the stock may lose its marketability and hence even more of its value. This could result in losses for investors, many of whom being the most favored clients of the underwriters. Perhaps the best known example of this is the Facebook IPO in 2012. Underwriters, therefore, take many factors into consideration when pricing an IPO, and attempt to reach an offering price that is low enough to stimulate interest in the stock, but high enough to raise an adequate amount of capital for the company. The process of determining an optimal price usually involves the underwriters (\"\"syndicate\"\") arranging share purchase commitments from leading institutional investors. Some researchers (e.g. Geoffrey C., and C. Swift, 2009) believe that the underpricing of IPOs is less a deliberate act on the part of issuers and/or underwriters, than the result of an over-reaction on the part of investors (Friesen & Swift, 2009). One potential method for determining underpricing is through the use of IPO Underpricing Algorithms. This may be useful for seeing the difference in that \"\"theglobe.com\"\" example where the offering price is $9/share yet the stock traded much higher than that initially.\"",
"There are rules that prevent two of the reactive measures you suggest from occurring. First, on the date of and shortly following an IPO, there is no stock available to borrow for shorting. Second, there are no put options available for purchase. At least, none that are listed, of the sort you probably have in mind. In fact, within a day or two of the LinkedIn IPO, most (all?) of the active equity traders I know were bemoaning the fact that they couldn't yet do exactly what you described i.e. buying puts, or finding shares to sell short. There was a great deal of conviction that LinkedIn shares were overpriced, but scant means available to translate that market assessment into an influence of market value. This does not mean that the Efficient Markets Hypothesis is deficient. Equilibrium is reached quickly enough, once the market is able to clear as usual.",
"When a company IPOs the underwriters sell a given percentage on IPO day and shortly thereafter. Whatever is sold on IPO day trades freely. Insiders, employees and investors who bought before the IPO only sell a percentage of their shares on IPO day. They all also agree to 'lock up' the remainder for a period of time, so that not everyone is rushing to the exits right away. Well, if you're an employee you don't per-se agree, it's just how your stock options are setup and you don't really have a say in the matter.",
"\"Usually the big institution that \"\"floats\"\" the stock on the market is the one to offer it to you. The IPO company doesn't sell the stock itself, the big investment bank does it for them. IPO's shareholders/employees are generally not allowed to sell their shares at the IPO until some time passes. Then you usually see the sleuth of selling.\"",
"Who determines company value at IPO? The Owners based on the advice from Lead Bankers and other Independent auditors who would determine the value of the company at the time of listing. At times instead of determining a fixed price a range is given [lower side and higher side]. The Market participants [FI / Institutional Investor Segments] then decide the price by bidding at an amount. There are multiple aspects in play that help stabalize the IPO and roles of various parties. A quick read of question with IPO tag is recommended Edits: Generally at a very broad level, one of the key purpose of the IPO is to either encash Owner equity [Owner wants some profits immediately] or Raise additional Capital. More often it is a mix of both. If the price is too low, one loose out on getting the true value, this would go to someone else. If the price is too high, then it may not attract enough buyers or even there are buyers, there is substantial -ve sentiment. This is not good for the company. Read the question From Facebook's perspective, was the fall in price after IPO actually an indication that it went well? This puts determining the price of IPO more in the realm of art than science. There are various mechanism [Lead bankers, Institutional Investors, Underwriters] the a company would put in place to ensure the IPO is success and that itself would moderate the price to realistic level. More often the price is kept slightly lower to create a positive buzz about the stock.",
"\"In an IPO (initial public offering) or APO (additional public offering) situation, a small group of stakeholders (as few as one) basically decide to offer an additional number of \"\"shares\"\" of equity in the company. Usually, these \"\"shares\"\" are all equal; if you own one share you own a percentage of the company equal to that of anyone else who owns one share. The sum total of all shares, theoretically, equals the entire value of the company, and so with N shares in existence, one share is equivalent to 1/Nth the company, and entitles you to 1/Nth of the profits of the company, and more importantly to some, gives you a vote in company matters which carries a weight of 1/Nth of the entire shareholder body. Now, not all of these shares are public. Most companies have the majority (51%+) of shares owned by a small number of \"\"controlling interests\"\". These entities, usually founding owners or their families, may be prohibited by agreement from selling their shares on the open market (other controlling interests have right of first refusal). For \"\"private\"\" companies, ALL the shares are divided this way. For \"\"public\"\" companies, the remainder is available on the open market, and those shares can be bought and sold without involvement by the company. Buyers can't buy more shares than are available on the entire market. Now, when a company wants to make more money, a high share price at the time of the issue is always good, for two reasons. First, the company only makes money on the initial sale of a share of stock; once it's in a third party's hands, any profit from further sale of the stock goes to the seller, not the company. So, it does little good to the company for its share price to soar a month after its issue; the company's already made its money from selling the stock. If the company knew that its shares would be in higher demand in a month, it should have waited, because it could have raised the same amount of money by selling fewer shares. Second, the price of a stock is based on its demand in the market, and a key component of that is scarcity; the fewer shares of a company that are available, the more they'll cost. When a company issues more stock, there's more shares available, so people can get all they want and the demand drops, taking the share price with it. When there's more shares, each share (being a smaller percentage of the company) earns less in dividends as well, which figures into several key metrics for determining whether to buy or sell stock, like earnings per share and price/earnings ratio. Now, you also asked about \"\"dilution\"\". That's pretty straightforward. By adding more shares of stock to the overall pool, you increase that denominator; each share becomes a smaller percentage of the company. The \"\"privately-held\"\" stocks are reduced in the same way. The problem with simply adding stocks to the open market, getting their initial purchase price, is that a larger overall percentage of the company is now on the open market, meaning the \"\"controlling interests\"\" have less control of their company. If at any time the majority of shares are not owned by the controlling interests, then even if they all agree to vote a certain way (for instance, whether or not to merge assets with another company) another entity could buy all the public shares (or convince all existing public shareholders of their point of view) and overrule them. There are various ways to avoid this. The most common is to issue multiple types of stock. Typically, \"\"common\"\" stock carries equal voting rights and equal shares of profits. \"\"Preferred stock\"\" typically trades a higher share of earnings for no voting rights. A company may therefore keep all the \"\"common\"\" stock in private hands and offer only preferred stock on the market. There are other ways to \"\"class\"\" stocks, most of which have a similar tradeoff between earnings percentage and voting percentage (typically by balancing these two you normalize the price of stocks; if one stock had better dividends and more voting weight than another, the other stock would be near-worthless), but companies may create and issue \"\"superstock\"\" to controlling interests to guarantee both profits and control. You'll never see a \"\"superstock\"\" on the open market; where they exist, they are very closely held. But, if a company issues \"\"superstock\"\", the market will see that and the price of their publicly-available \"\"common stock\"\" will depreciate sharply. Another common way to increase market cap without diluting shares is simply to create more shares than you issue publicly; the remainder goes to the current controlling interests. When Facebook solicited outside investment (before it went public), that's basically what happened; the original founders were issued additional shares to maintain controlling interests (though not as significant), balancing the issue of new shares to the investors. The \"\"ideal\"\" form of this is a \"\"stock split\"\"; the company simply multiplies the number of shares it has outstanding by X, and issues X-1 additional shares to each current holder of one share. This effectively divides the price of one share by X, lowering the barrier to purchase a share and thus hopefully driving up demand for the shares overall by making it easier for the average Joe Investor to get their foot in the door. However, issuing shares to controlling interests increases the total number of shares available, decreasing the market value of public shares that much more and reducing the amount of money the company can make from the stock offering.\"",
"\"There are two kinds of engagements in an IPO. The traditional kind where the Banks assume the risks of unsold shares. Money coming out of their pockets to hold shares no one wants. That is the main risk. No one buying the stock that the bank is holding. Secondly, there is a \"\"best efforts\"\" engagement. This means that bank will put forth its best effort to sell the shares, but will not be on the hook if any don't sell. This is used for small cap / risky companies. Source: Author/investment banker\"",
"Thanks for the link. The way I interpretet is like this: IPOs are underpriced to make sure they will sell all the shares to the market, avoiding lose of face. (short term andslide 4) But that doesn't mean it is a good investment in the long run, because these companies have their reasons to go public, and one of those reasons could be that they think the market is overpricing stocks (long term and slide 5) There are of course other reasons, one of them to finance the business. By the way, I think the data is heavily skewed because of the dotcom crash, but interesting nonetheless.",
"\"IPO's are priced so that there's a pop\"\" on the opening day.\"\" If I were IPOing my company and the price \"\"popped\"\" on the open, I would think the underwriter priced it too low. In fact if I were to IPO, I'd seek an underwriter whose offerings consistently traded on the first day pretty unchanged. That means they priced it correctly. In the 90's IPO boom, there were stocks that opened up 3X and more. The original owners must have been pretty upset as the poor pricing guidance the underwriter offered.\"",
"A company typically goes public in order to bring in additional capital. In an IPO, the company (through its officials) will typically do so by issuing additional shares, and offering to sell those to investors. If they did not do that, then there would be no net capital gain for the company; if person A sells share in company C to person B, then company C does not benefit directly from the exchange. By issuing and selling additional shares, the total value of all stock in the company can increase. Being publicly traded also greatly increases the confidence in the valuation of the company, as a consequence of the perfect market theory. There is nothing in this that says that initial investors (cofounders, employees, etc.) need to sell their shares in the process. They might choose to do so, or they might not; or they might be prevented from doing so by terms of any agreements that they have signed or by insider trading laws. Compare What happens to internal stock when a company goes public? Depending on specifics, it might be reasonable for the company to perform a share split prior to the initial public offering. That, however, doesn't affect the total value of the shares, only the price per share.",
"There are different types of agreements. Sometimes an underwriter will simply try to find buyers. Other times an underwriter will guarantee that all shares will be sold at some price. If this is the case and they do not find enough buyers, the underwriter will buy the remaining shares.",
"\"In the case of an \"\"initial public offering\"\", the brokers underwriting the share issue will look at the current earnings being generated by the company and compare these to those of other competitor companies already listed in the stock market. For example, if a new telephone company is undertaking an initial public offering, then the share price of those telephone companies which are already traded on the stock market will serve as a reference for how much investors will be willing to pay for the new company's shares. If investors are willing to pay 15 times earnings for telecom shares, then this will be the benchmark used in determining the new share price. In addition, comparative growth prospects will be taken into account. Finally, the underwriter will want to see a successful sale, so they will tend to \"\"slightly under price\"\" the new shares in order to make them attractive. None of this is an exact science and we often see shares trading at a large premium to the initial offer price during the first few days of trading. More often that not, prices then settle down to something closer to the offer price. The initial price spike is usually the result of high demand for the shares by investors who believe that past examples of a price spike will repeat with this initial public offering. There will also usually be high demand for the new shares from funds that specialise in shares of the type being issued. In the case of a \"\"rights issue\"\", where an existing publicly traded company wishes to raise capital by issuing new shares, the company will price the new shares at a significant discount to the current market price. The new shares will be initially offered to existing shares holders and the discounted price is intended to encourage the existing shareholders to exercise their \"\"rights\"\" since the new shares may have the effect of diluting the value of their shares. Any shares which are not purchased by existing share holder will then be offered for sale in the market.\"",
"Investment banks don't have to buy anything. If they don't think the stock is worth buying - they won't. If they think it is - others on the secondary market will probably think so too. Initial public offering is offering to the public - i.e.: theoretically anyone can participate and purchase stocks. The major investment firms are not buying the stocks for themselves - but for their clients who are participating in this IPO. I, for example, receive email notifications from my brokerage firm each time there's another IPO that they have access to, and I can ask the brokerage to buy stocks from the IPO on my behalf. When that happens - they don't buy the stocks themselves and then sell to me. No, what happens is that I buy a stock, through them, and they charge me a commission for the service. Usually IPO participation commissions are higher than regular trading commissions. Most of the time those who purchase stocks at IPO are institutional investors - i.e.: mutual funds, pension plans, investment banks for their managed accounts, etc. Retail investors would probably not participate in the IPO because of the costs, limited access (not all the brokerage firms have access to all the IPOs), and the uncertainty, and rather purchase the stocks later on a secondary market.",
"how do they turn shares into cash that they can then use to grow their business? Once a Company issues an IPO or Follow-On Public Offer, the company gets the Money. Going over the list of question tagged IPO would help you with basics. Specifically the below questions; How does a company get money by going public in an IPO? Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market? Why would a stock opening price differ from the offering price? From what I've read so far, it seems that pre-IPO an investment bank essentially buys the companies public shares, and that bank then sells them on the open market. Is the investment bank buying 100% of the newly issued public shares? And then depositing the cash equivalent into the companies bank account? Additionally, as the stock price rises and falls over the lifetime of the company how does that actually impact the companies bank balance? Quite a bit on above is incorrect. Please read the answers to the question tagged IPO. Once an IPO is over, the company does not gain anything directly from the change in shareprice. There is indirect gain / loss.",
"That's the problem with IPOs. Professionals are very bad at valuing companies, particularly prospectively. That's Daniel Kahneman's whole point about how no one beats the market. Yet, we expect the same types of professionals who can't beat the market to set the price for the market.",
"\"The company gets the proceeds from the sales of shares on the open market. If a company is selling 1,000,000 shares at $12/share then they will receive $12,000,000 from the underwriter minus some fees that the underwriter will collect. The part that ties into valuation is to consider what percentage is the company selling of itself that is coming from its own holdings. If the company is putting out 10% of its shares in the IPO from treasury holdings on a $10B valuation then it will get $1B minus the fees I'd suspect. Where I worked in late 1990s/early 2000s had an IPO where the underwriter did a bridge loan and the IPO so that the company didn't get all the money raised but did get enough to run operations for a while before ending operations. Public Offering notes that after an IPO other offerings would be called \"\"seasoned equity offering\"\" that may or may not be dilutive as they could come from new or existing shares.\"",
"\"For new shares to be successfully sold, the price has to be below market price. If you currently own shares of that company, you should always get an option to buy those newly sold shares at that discounted price. The number of options depends on the relative number of shares you hold. Lets say you own 100 out of 1000 shares, currently priced at $10. 100 new shares are to be sold at $9. Since you are holding 10% of all shares, you have the option (i.e. the right) to buy 10 new (cheaper) shares (10% of 100) before anybody else can buy them. Theoretically, the money you save by getting the shares at a discounted price is equal to the money you lose by the share's value being diluted. So, if you're a shareholder and the company is increasing it's capital, you're given the right to \"\"go with it\"\".\"",
"There isn't a formula like that, there is only the greed of other market participants, and you can try to predict how greedy those participants will be. If someone decided to place a sell order of 100,000 shares at $5, then you can buy an additional 100,000 shares at $5. In reality, people can infer that they might be the only ones trying to sell 100,000 shares right then, and raise the price so that they make more money. They will raise their sell order to $5.01, $5.02 or as high as they want, until people stop trying to buy their shares. It is just a non-stop auction, just like on ebay.",
"\"A company doesn't offer up 100% of its shares to the market. There's a float amount of varying significance, maybe 30% of the shares are put up for public offer. Generally some amount of current shareholders will pledge some or all of their shares for offer to the public. This may be how the venture capital, private equity or other current investors cash out their initial investment. The company may issue new shares in order to raise money for some initiative. It may be a combination of existing shares and new. Additionally, a company may hold some \"\"treasury shares\"\" on its balance sheet. In this instance fluctuations in the share price directly affect the health of the balance sheet. As far as incentive goes, stock options to management and C-Suite employees keep everyone interested in an increasing stock price.\"",
"Some brokers have a number of shares they can offer their customers, but the small guy will get 100, not as many as they'd like. In the Tech bubble of the late 90's I was able to buy in to many IPOs, but the written deal from the broker is that you could not sell for 30 days or you'd be restricted from IPO purchases for the next 90. No matter what the stock opened at, there were a fair number of stocks thay were below IPO issue price after 30 days had passed. I haven't started looking at IPOs since the tech flameout, but had I gotten in to LinkedIn it would have been at that $45 price. Let's see if it stays at these levels after 30 days. Edit - This is the exact cut/paste from my broker's site : Selling IPO Shares: While XXX customers are always free to sell shares purchased in a public offering at any time, short holding periods of less than 31 calendar days will be a factor in determining whether XXX allocates you shares in future public offerings. Accordingly, if you sell IPO shares purchased in a public offering within 30 calendar days of such purchase, you will be restricted from participating in initial and secondary public offerings through XXX for a period of 3 months. (I deleted the broker name) I honestly don't know if I'd have gotten any LI shares. Next interesting one is Pandora.",
"A company generally sells a portion of its ownership in an IPO, with existing investors retaining some ownership. In your example, they believe that the entire company is worth $25MM, so in order to raise $3MM it is issuing stock representing 12% of the ownership stake (3/25), which dilutes some or all of the existing stockholders' claims.",
"When a stock is going to become public there's a level of analysis required to figure out the range of IPO price that makes sense. For a company that's somewhat mature, and has a sector to compare it to, you can come up with a range that would be pretty close. For the recent linkedin, it's tougher to price a somewhat unique company, running at a loss, in a market rich with cash looking for the next great deal. If one gives this any thought, an opening price that's so far above the IPO price represents a failure of the underwriters to price it correctly. It means the original owners just sold theirvshares for far less than the market thought they were worth on day one. The day of IPO the stock opens similar to how any stock would open at 9:30, there are bids and asks and a price at which supply (the ask) and demand (bid) balance. For this IPO, it would appear that there were enough buyers to push the price to twice the anticipated open and it's maintained that level since. It's possible to have a different system in which a Dutch auction is used to make the shares public, in theory this can work, it's just not used commonly.",
"\"To add to @keshlam's answer slightly a stock's price is made up of several components: the only one of these that is known even remotely accurately at any time is the book value on the day that the accounts are prepared. Even completed cashflows after the books have been prepared contain some slight unknowns as they may be reversed if stock is returned, for example, or reduced by unforeseen costs. Future cashflows are based on (amongst other things) how many sales you expect to make in the future for all time. Exercise for the reader: how many iPhone 22s will apple sell in 2029? Even known future cashflows have some risk attached to them; customers may not pay for goods, a supplier may go into liquidation and so need to change its invoicing strategy etc.. Estimating the risk on future cashflows is highly subjective and depends greatly on what the analyst expects the exact economic state of the world will be in the future. Investors have the choice of investing in a risk free instrument (this is usually taken as being modelled by the 10 year US treasury bond) that is guaranteed to give them a return. To invest in anything riskier than the risk free instrument they must be paid a premium over the risk free return that they would get from that. The risk premium is related to how likely they think it is that they will not receive a return higher than that rate. Calculation of that premium is highly subjective; if I know the management of the company well I will be inclined to think that the investment is far less risky (or perhaps riskier...) than someone who does not, for example. Since none of the factors that go into a share price are accurately measurable and many are subjective there is no \"\"right\"\" share price at any time, let alone at time of IPO. Each investor will estimate these values differently and so value the shares differently and their trading, based on their ever changing estimates, will move the share price to an indeterminable level. In comments to @keshlam's answer you ask if there is enough information to work out the share price if a company buys out the company before IPO. Dividing the price that this other company paid by the relative ownership structure of the firm would give you an idea of what that company thought that the company was worth at that moment in time and can be used as a surrogate for market price but it will not and cannot accurately represent the market price as other investors will value the firm differently by estimating the criteria above differently and so will move the share price based on their valuation.\"",
"Oh, I see what you mean. It depends which side you look at it from: the company, or the individual investor. For the individual investor, I guess it doesn't matter. As you said, you only buy the amount of stocks you can afford. What matters afterwards is whether the price of your stocks goes up or down. That's when the company valuation comes into play. If a company is overvalued, the stock prices are going to go down until they reach the [equilibrium point](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_equilibrium). Or, rephrasing, stocks go down when more people will want to sell than buy, creating an excess supply, so sellers will be willing to offer lower prices so you buy from them. Stocks go up when the opposite happens, more people will want to buy than sell, so buyers will have to offer more money to convince sellers to sell. In essence, Facebook was overvalued, and not enough people were buying their shares, creating excess supply, so, sellers had to offer lower prices. Had Facebook been properly valued, people would've felt the stocks were a good price, everyone would've rushed to purchase, and stock prices would've gone up.",
"\"In an IPO the seller is the Company selling new shares. Some of the IPOs also include something called \"\"secondary\"\" sales which are existing holders selling at the same time at the IPO price. But that is a but more unusual. And as someone noted, the $68 is the price paid for the people who bought at the IPO (the aggregate group usually called the syndicate). The $85 is the price that it is trading at once there is trading in the open market. People that are able to get into the syndicate to buy the stock at $68 sometimes quickly sell if the price is much higher when trading starts. This is called \"\"flipping\"\" the stock. Hedge funds do this much more often than institutional buyers like Fidelity.\"",
"The original investors and founders own them. Think about it this way - When you hear that an IPO priced at $10 opened at $50, is that 'good or 'bad'? Of course, it depends who you are. If you are the guy that got them at $10, you're happy. If you are the founder of the company, you are thinking the banker you paid to determine a market price for the IPO failed. Big. He blew it, basically as you just sold your company for 20% of the perceived value. But, instead of selling all the shares, just sell, say, 5%. Now, the IPO opening price is just a way to understand the true value of your company while keeping 95% of the upside once the market settles down to a regular trading pattern. You can slowly sell these shares into the market or you can use them as cash to take over other companies by buying with these shares instead of actual cash. Either way, the publicly traded shares should trade based on the total value of the company and the fraction they represent.",
"There's an unwritten rule among IPO underwriters that they will not go below a 7% underwriting fee. They act like an oligopoly, artificially keeping the price high to avoid losing future underwriting revenue. Additionally, the most famous example of a reverse auction IPO was Google's. Despite a lot of concerns leading up to the IPO, it was priced rather high and did very well following the IPO.",
"After a company goes public, if it wants to raise more money, then it does this by secondary public offering or rights issue. In subscription rights issue gives the right to existing share holders to buy new shares at equal proportion. So if every one buys, they maintain the same percentage of ownership. Generally the pricing is at discount to current market price. Not sure why the price is high, unless the price for this stock fell sharply recently.",
"> I still think there should be some kind of rule in place that an IPO has to reflect a companies actual value. The value of a company is it's price. Really hard to determine that beforehand. ∑(assets) doesn't determine the value of a company (otherwise most software companies would be near valueless)",
"Did you see the I don't know part, as in, I don't know what the right solution? The ups were probably from people like me, who aren't experts in the market either, but still see a fundamental disconnect between what's happening now and what the presumed purpose of the market was claimed to be - a funds raising mechanism for companies.",
"Whenever a large number of shares to be sold hit the market at the same time the expectation is that the price for each share will drop. The employees in a normal market would be expected to sell some of their shares at the first opportunity. Because during the dot com boom some companies employees were able to become millionaires, every employee at a tech IPO hopes to be richly rewarded. If the long term prospects of the stock price are viewed by the employees as a continuous path up, then the percentage of shares that will hit the market is low. They do want some instant cash, but want the bulk of the shares to capture future growth. The more dismal the long term price lookout is, the greater the percentage of shares that will hit the market. The general consensus is that as each of the Lock Ups expires a significant percentage of shares will be sold, and the price will suffer a short term drop.",
"\"If you participate in an IPO, you specify how many shares you're willing to buy and the maximum price you're willing to pay. All the investors who are actually sold the shares get them at the same price, and the entity managing the IPO will generally try to sell the shares for the highest price they can get. Whether or not you actually get the shares is a function of how many your broker gets and how your broker distributes them - which can be completely arbitrary if your broker feels like it. The price that the market is willing to pay afterward is usually a little higher. To a certain extent, this is by design: a good deal for the shares is an incentive for the big (million/billion-dollar) financiers who will take on a good bit of risk buying very large positions in the company (which they can't flip at the higher price, because they'd flood the market with their shares and send the price down). If the stock soars 100% and sticks around that level, though, the underwriting bank isn't doing its job very well: Investors were willing to give the company a lot more money. It's not \"\"stealing\"\", but it's definitely giving the original owners of the company a raw deal. (Just to be clear: it's the existing company's owners who suffer, not any third party.) Of course, LinkedIn was estimated to IPO at $30 before they hiked it to $45, and plenty of people were skeptical about it pricing so high even then, so it's not like they didn't try. And there's a variety of analysis out there about why it soared so much on the first day - fewer shares offered, wild speculative bubbles, no one could get a hold of it to short-sell, et cetera. They probably could have IPO'd for more, but it's unlikely there was, say, $120/share financing available: just because one sucker will pay the price doesn't mean you can move all 7.84 million IPO shares for it.\"",
"\"When an IPO happens, the buyers pay some price (let's say $20 per share) and the seller (the company) receives a different price ($18.60). Who paid the commission? Well, the commission caused a spread between buyer and seller. It doesn't matter who technically pays the commission because it costs both parties. In an IPO, the company technically pays the commission, but they use buyers' money to do it and the buyer must pay more than he/she would if there was no commission. The same thing happens when you buy a home. Technically the seller pays both realtors' commissions but it came from money the buyer gave the seller and the commissions pushed up the price, so didn't the buyer pay the commission? They both did. The second paragraph suggests that if the investment bankers act as a simple broker, buying public securities instead of newly issued shares for their clients, then the commissions will be much lower. Obviously. I wonder if this is really the right interpretation, though, as no broker charges 4% to a large client for this service. I would need more context to be sure that's what's meant. The gyst is that IPOs generate a lot of money for the investment bankers who act as intermediaries. If you are participating in the transaction, that money is in some way coming out of your pocket, even if it doesn't show up as a \"\"brokerage fee\"\" on your statement.\"",
"The IPO price is set between the underwriters and the specialist in the NASDAQ. There are a lot of complexities on how to get to this price, everyone is trying to pull to their own side. In the Facebook example, the price was $38 for all IPO participants. Then, once the IPO went to the secondary market, the bid/ask drove the pricing. At the secondary market the price is driven by the demand and offer of the stock. That is, people who wanted to buy right after the IPO likely drove the initial price up.",
"\"Also, in the next sentence, what is buyers commission? Is it referring to the share holder? Or potential share holder? And why does the buyer get commission? The buyer doesn't get a commission. The buyer pays a commission. So normally a buyer would say, \"\"I want to buy a hundred shares at $20.\"\" The broker would then charge the buyer a commission. Assuming 4%, the commission would be So the total cost to the buyer is $2080 and the seller receives $2000. The buyer paid a commission of $80 as the buyer's commission. In the case of an IPO, the seller often pays the commission. So the buyer might pay $2000 for a hundred shares which have a 7% commission. The brokering agent (or agents may share) pockets a commission of $140. Total paid to the seller is $1860. Some might argue that the buyer pays either way, as the seller receives money in the transaction. That's a reasonable outlook. A better way to say this might be that typical trades bill the buyer directly for commission while IPO purchases bill the seller. In the typical trade, the buyer negotiates the commission with the broker. In an IPO, the seller does (with the underwriter). Another issue with an IPO is that there are more parties getting commission than just one. As a general rule, you still call your broker to purchase the stock. The broker still expects a commission. But the IPO underwriter also expects a commission. So the 7% commission might be split between the IPO underwriter (works for the selling company) and the broker (works for the buyer). The broker has more work to do than normal. They have to put in the buyer's purchase request and manage the price negotiation. In most purchases, you just say something like \"\"I want to offer $20 a share\"\" or \"\"I want to purchase at the market price.\"\" In an IPO, they may increase the price, asking for $25 a share. And they may do that multiple times. Your broker has to come back to you each time and get a new authorization at the higher price. And you still might not get the number of shares that you requested. Beyond all this, you may still be better off buying an IPO than waiting until the next day. Sure, you pay more commission, but you also may be buying at a lower price. If the IPO price is $20 but the price climbs to $30, you would have been better off paying the IPO price even with the higher commission. However, if the IPO price is $20 and the price falls to $19.20, you'd be better off buying at $19.20 after the IPO. Even though in that case, you'd pay the 4% commission on top of the $19.20, so about $19.97. I think that the overall point of the passage is that the IPO underwriter makes the most money by convincing you to pay as high an IPO price as possible. And once they do that, they're out of the picture. Your broker will still be your broker later. So the IPO underwriter has a lot of incentive to encourage you to participate in the IPO instead of waiting until the next day. The broker doesn't care much either way. They want you to buy and sell something. The IPO or something else. They don't care much as to what. The underwriter may overprice the stock, as that maximizes their return. If they can convince enough people to overpay, they don't care that the stock falls the day after that. All their marketing effort is to try to achieve that result. They want you to believe that your $20 purchase will go up to $30 the next day. But it might not. These numbers may not be accurate. Obviously the $20 stock price is made up. But the 4% and 7% numbers may also be inaccurate. Modern online brokers are very competitive and may charge a flat fee rather than a percentage. The book may be giving you older numbers that were correct in 1983 (or whatever year). The buyer's commission could also be lower than 4%, as the seller also may be charged a commission. If each pays 2%, that's about 4% total but split between a buyer's commission and a seller's commission.\"",
"\"After the initial public offering, the company can raise money by selling more stock (equity financing) or selling debt (e.g. borrowing money). If a company's stock price is high, they can raise money with equity financing on more favorable terms. When companies raise money with equity financing, they create new shares and dilute the existing shareholders, so the number of shares outstanding is not fixed. Companies can also return money to shareholders by buying their own equity, and this is called a share repurchase. It's best for companies to repurchase their shared when their stock price is low, but \"\"American companies have a terrible track record of buying their own shares high and selling them low.\"\" The management of a company typically likes a rising stock price, so their stock options are more valuable and they can justify bigger pay packages.\"",
">Suppose they had priced it at $25 and limited the number of shares they would have gotten less money but they'd also be looking at a massively successful pop on their share price. ...which would've benefited them how, exactly? Sell a share for $38 and it drops to $25, the company gets $38. Sell a share for $25 and it goes to $150, the company gets $25.",
"It depends a large part on your broker's relationship with the issuing bank how early you can participate in the IPO round. But the nature of the stock market means the hotter the stock and the closer to the market (away from the issuing bank) you have to buy the higher the price you'll pay. The stock market is a secondary market, meaning the only things for sale are shares already owned by someone. As a result, for a hot stock the individual investor will have to wait for another investor (not the issuing bank) to trade (sell) the stock.",
"The reason a company creates more stock is to generate more capital so that this can be utilized and more returns can be generated. It is commonly done as a follow on public offer. Typically the funds are used to retire high cost debts and fund future expansion. What stops the company from doing it? Are Small investors cheated? It's like you have joined a car pool with 4 people and you are beliving that you own 1/4th of the total seats ... so when most of them decide that we would be better of using Minivan with 4 more persons, you cannot complain that you now only own 1/8 of the total seats. Even before you were having just one seat, and even after you just have one seat ... overall it maybe better as the ride would be good ... :)",
"Is it correct that there is no limit on the length of the time that the company can keep the money raised from IPO of its stocks, unlike for the debt of the company where there is a limit? Yes that is correct, there is no limit. But a company can buy back its shares any time it wants. Anyone else can also buy shares on the market whenever they want.",
"I was looking at NAT and NAO, NAT owns 20% of NAO. They trade opposite each other on the price of oil, low is good for NAT, bad for NAO. In bad times the other company's stock would probably rise, so they could trim excess shares to keep a stable monetary holding. This would create cash in bad times, in good times they could buy more, creating a floor as well for the other.",
"\"I personally think that this is how IPOs are going to work going forward. Company ownership trading will happen behind closed doors, then the hype is built in the limelight way above expectations, then the over valued IPO will drop allowing the backroom deal makers to cash out of the company, The problem isn't social networking, it is \"\"the next big thing\"\" mindset of Wall Street\"",
"As others have posted, the company gains capital in return for its new shares. However, the share price can still fall. The problem is that the share marked is affected by supply and demand like any other marked. If the company just issues the new shares at marked price, they will have problems finding buyers. The people who are willing to pay that price has already bought as many shares as they want. The company does this to raise capital, and depends on the shares actually selling for this to work. So, they issue shares at below marked price to attract buyers and the shares get diluted. In the end the share will usually end up somewhere between the old marked price and the issue price. The old share owners are probably not too happy about this and will not accept this plan. (At least here in Norway, share issue has to be accepted at a shareholder meeting) So, what is often done instead is to issue buy options for the required number of shares at the below-marked price. These options are given (for free) to the current share holders proportional to their current holding. If everybody exercises their options they get new cheap shares that compensates for the loss of share value. If they don't have the capital themselves, they can sell the options and get compensation that way instead.",
"By definition, an IPO'd stock is publicly traded, and you can buy shares if you wish. There's often an excitement on the first day that doesn't carry over to the next days or weeks. The opening price may be well above the IPO price, depending on that demand.",
"Here is an example for you. We have a fictional company. It's called MoneyCorp. Its job is to own money, and that's all. Right now it owns $10,000. It doesn't do anything special with that $10,000 - it stores it in a bank account, and whenever it earns interest gives it to the shareholders as a dividend. Also, it doesn't have any expenses at all, and doesn't pay taxes, and is otherwise magic so that it doesn't have to worry about distractions from its mathematical perfection. There are 10,000 shares of MoneyCorp, each worth exactly $1. However, they may trade for more or less than $1 on the stock market, because it's a free market and people trading stock on the stock market can trade at whatever price two people agree on. Scenario 1. MoneyCorp wants to expand. They sell 90,000 shares for $1 each. The money goes in the same bank account at the same interest rate. Do the original shareholders see a change? No. 100,000 shares, $100,000, still $1/share. No problem. This is the ideal situation. Scenario 2: MoneyCorp sells 90,000 shares for less than the current price, $0.50 each. Do the original shareholders lose out? YES. It now has something like $55,000 and 100,000 shares. Each share is now worth $0.55. The company has given away valuable equity to new shareholders. That's bad. Why didn't they get more money from those guys? Scenario 3: MoneyCorp sells 90,000 shares for more than the current price, $2 each, because there's a lot of hype about its business. MoneyCorp now owns $190,000 in 100,000 shares and each share is worth $1.90. Existing shareholders win big! This is why a company would like to make its share offering at the highest price possible (think, Facebook IPO). Of course, the new shareholders may be disappointed. MoneyCorp is actually a lot like a real business! Actually, if you want to get down to it, MoneyCorp works very much like a money-market fund. The main difference between MoneyCorp and a random company on the stock market is that we know exactly how much money MoneyCorp is worth. You don't know that with a real business: sales may grow, sales may drop, input prices may rise and fall, and there's room for disagreement - that's why stock markets are as unpredictable as they are, so there's room for doubt when a company sells their stock at a price existing shareholders think is too cheap (or buys it at a price that is too expensive). Most companies raising capital will end up doing something close to scenario 1, the fair-prices-for-everyone scenario. Legally, if you own part of a company and they do something a Scenario-2 on you... you may be out of luck. Consider also: the other owners are probably hurt as much as you are. Only the new shareholders win. And unless the management approving the deal is somehow giving themselves a sweetheart deal, it'll be hard to demonstrate any malfeasance. As an individual, you probably won't file a lawsuit either, unless you own a very large stake in the company. Lawsuits are expensive. A big institutional investor or activist investor of some sort may file a suit if millions of dollars are at stake, but it'll be ugly at best. If there's nothing evil going on with the management, this is just one way that a company loses money from bad management. It's probably not the most important one to worry about.",
"I see another way of looking at this that hasn't been addressed yet. By offering the discount, the company is attempting to change your behavior into doing something irrational, that benefits them at your expense. The company hopes for one (or more) of the following psychological effects to happen to you: The proper thing to do, if you have enough capital to prevent margin calls, it to short-sell the stock at the same instant the price is set, thus locking in the profit. Eventually you can take possession of the shares and deliver them to offset the short -- hopefully before you get a margin call from the stock dropping.",
"An Initial Public Offering (IPO), is the perfect first marketing of shares by the secretly purchased company to the public. The companies going public hick finance through IPO's for working capital, debt repayment, acquisitions, and a manager of other uses. If you want to learn the fundamental of the IPO best site is W3Teachers.com. For more INFO. visit :-http://www.w3teachers.com/IPO/IPO-DASHBOARD",
"Say I am an employee of Facebook and I will be able to sell stares at enough of a profit to pay of my mortgage and have enough money left to cover my living costs for many years. I also believe that there is a 95% chance that the stock price will go up in the next few years. Do I take a 5% risk, when I can transform my life without taking any risk? (The USA tax system as explained by JoeTaxpayer increases the risk.) So you have a person being very logical and selling stocks that they believe will go up in value by more than any other investment they could have. It is called risk control. (Lot of people will know the above; therefore some people will delay buying stock until Lock Up expiration day hoping the price will be lower on that day. So the price may not go down.)",
"\"What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? I imagine supply would outweigh demand and the stock would fall. Yes this is the case. Every large \"\"Sell\"\" order results in price going down and every large \"\"Buy\"\" order results in price going up. Hence typically when large orders are being executed, they are first negotiated outside for a price and then sold at the exchange. I am not talking about Ownership change event. If a company wants a change in ownership, the buyer would be ready to pay a premium over the market price to get controlling stake.\"",
"\"IPO is \"\"Initial Public Offering\"\". Just so you know. The valuations are done based on the company business model, intellectual property, products, market shares, revenues and profits, assets, and future projections. You know, the usual stuff. Yes, it is. And very frequently done. In fact, I can't think of any company that is now publicly traded, that didn't start this way. The first investor, the one who founds the company, is the first one who invests in it after raising the capital (even if it is from his own bank account to pay the fees for filing the incorporation papers). What is the difference between \"\"normal\"\" investor and \"\"angel\"\"? What do you refer to as \"\"angel\"\"? How is it abnormal to you? Any investor can play a role, depending on the stake he/she has in the company. If the stake is large enough - the role will be significant. If the stake is the majority - the investor will in fact be able major decisions regarding the company. How he bought the stocks, whether through a closed offering, initial investment or on a stock exchange - doesn't matter at all. You may have heard of the term \"\"angels\"\" with regards to high-tech start up companies. These are private investors (not funds) that invest their own money in start ups at very early stages. They're called \"\"angels\"\" because they invest at stages at which it is very hard for entrepreneurs to raise money: there's no product, no real business, usually it is a stage of just an idea or a patent with maybe initial prototype and some preliminary business analysis. These people gamble, in a sense, and each investment is very small (relatively to their wealth) - tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes a hundred or two thousands, and they make a lot of these. Some may fail and they lose the money, but those that succeed - bring very high returns. Imagine investing 10K for 5% stake at Google 15 years ago. Those people are as investors as anyone else, and yes, depending on their stake in the company, they can influence its decisions.\"",
"There are 2 primary ways to bet against a stock if you think it will decline. The first is to short sell shares of that stock the second is to buy put options (I would also add that selling naked call options would also be a bet against but I don't believe that is as common as the other 2 mentioned methods). The problem with short selling an IPO is that you first have to borrow the shares you are going to sell. Since the shares are privately held prior to the IPO that can be problematic. Even after the IPO you may have to wait a bit before shares become available to borrow. The problem with options (either buying puts or seeking naked calls) is similar. Options are traded on a different exchange than the stock and they have their own requirements that a stock must meet to have options traded. Both of these problems eventually correct themselves however, not in time for you to catch the initial fall you seem to be looking for.",
"its the best investment you can have specially with the company you work for and IPO, if i was you i would invest in more then just the minimum since its IPO. ask you your manager or supervisor how much are they buying the stocks for if they are doing it the go for it you'll be okay just keep track of it regular sometime you can invest more as time go by. You can get the idea by how much production your company is doing, if your company's profit going up chances are you need to buy more.",
"The other answer has some good points, to which I'll add this: I believe you're only considering a company's Initial Public Offering (IPO), when shares are first offered to the public. An IPO is the way most companies get a public listing on the stock market. However, companies often go to market again and again to issue/sell more shares, after their IPO. These secondary offerings don't make as many headlines as an IPO, but they are typical-enough occurrences in markets. When a company goes back to the market to raise additional funds (perhaps to fund expansion), the value of the company's existing shares that are being traded is a good indicator of what they may expect to get for a secondary offering of shares. A company about to raise money desires a higher share price, because that will permit them to issue less shares for the amount of money they need. If the share price drops, they would need to issue more shares for the same amount of money – and dilute existing owners' share of the overall equity further. Also, consider corporate acquisitions: When one company wants to buy another, instead of the transaction being entirely in cash (maybe they don't have that much in the bank!), there's often an equity component, which involves swapping shares of the company being acquired for new shares in the acquiring company or merged company. In that case, the values of the shares in the public marketplace also matter, to provide relative valuations for the companies, etc.",
"A broker will only get so many shares for any IPO. They will give their highest profit customers priority, but try to keep the smaller ones happy as well. So where my TWTR order today was for 1000 shares, I actually was granted 100. In the dotcon* bubble of the late 90's, there were some stocks I saw as many as 1000 hit my account. (*not a typo, this is the title of a book on that period, the making of a bubble and irrational doings on Wall Street.",
"Underwriters get blamed for underpriced IPOs, management for overpriced. People tend to target their opprobrium at whomever benefits the most, whether that opprobrium is fair or not. Kind of silly because the real discussion should be about how to find a new way of doing IPOs that actually works.",
"Rather than take anyone's word for it (including and especially mine) you need to do think very carefully about your company; you know it far better than almost anyone else. Do you feel that the company values its employees? If it values you and your immediate colleagues then its likely that it not only values its other employees but also its customers which is a sign that it will do well. Does the company have a good relationship with its customers? Since you are a software engineer using a web stack I assume that it is either a web consultancy or has an e-commerce side to it so you will have some exposure to what the customers complain about, either in terms of bugs or UX difficulties. You probably even get bug reports that tell you what customer pain points are. Are customers' concerns valid, serious and damaging? If they are then you should think twice about taking up the offer, if not then you may well be fine. Also bear in mind how much profit is made on each item of product and how many you can possibly sell - you need to be able to sell items that have been produced. Those factors indicate how the future of the company looks currently, next you need to think about why the IPO is needed. IPOs and other share offerings are generally done to raise capital for the firm so is your company raising money to invest for the future or to cover losses and cashflow shortfalls? Are you being paid on time and without issues? Do you get all of the equipment and hiring positions that you want or is money always a limiting factor? As an insider you have a better chance to analyse these things than outsiders as they effect your day-to-day work. Remember that anything in the prospectus is just marketing spiel; expecting a 4.5 - 5.3% div yield is not the same as actually paying it or guaranteeing it. Do you think that they could afford to pay it? The company is trying to sell these shares for the maximum price they can get, don't fall for the hyped up sales pitch. If you feel that all of these factors are positive then you should buy as much as you can, hopefully far more than the minimum, as it seems like the company is a strong, growing concern. If you have any concerns from thinking about these factors then you probably shouldn't buy any (unless you are getting a discount but that's a different set of considerations) as your money would be better utilized elsewhere.",
"Your impression about banks and bankers is very wrong. Wall street banks can and often do lose in transactions. In fact, banks go bankrupt and/or require massive bailouts to survive because they sometimes lose a ton of money. The business of investment banking often involves bearing risk for customers, which, by definition, means they lose some of the time. Generally the risks they take on individual transactions are not large enough to bring the whole bank down, but sometimes they are. Banking is a job like any other, except that it has more risk than most. Anyway, to your point, how do underwriters make money on shares that fall in value before the sale? On the commission. The issuing company will normally pay the investment bank a percentage of the funds raised in the offering, regardless of the price. Of course, it's possible for the bank to still lose money if their contract stipulates a minimum price and they are not able to meet it. In that case, the bank may lose on that offering, contradicting your preconceived notion. By the way, one other question implicit in your post: Why was the secondary offering considered bad news? If the CEO and other insiders have private information that indicates that the stock is overvalued, then doing a secondary offering at the inflated price will greatly enrich them. Because this happens some times, investors are wary about secondary offerings. This makes companies that would otherwise do a secondary offering shy away from it, even if shares are not overpriced. Therefore if a company is doing a secondary offering, the market is likely to worry that the stock is overvalued even at a reduced price.",
"A Company start with say $100. Lets say the max it can borrow from bank is $100 @ $10 a year as Interest. After a years say, On the $200 the company made a profit of $110. So it now has total $310 Option 1: Company pays back the Bank $100 + $10. It further gave away the $100 back to shareholders as dividends. The Balance with company $100. It can again start the second year, borrow from Bank $100 @ 10 interest and restart. Option 2: Company pays back the Bank $100 + $10. It now has $200. It can now borrow $200 from Bank @ $20. After a year it makes a profit of $250. [Economics of scale result $30 more] Quite a few companies in growth phase use Option 2 as they can grow faster, achieve economies of scale, keep competition at bay, etc Now if I had a share of this company say 1 @ $1, by end of first year its value would be $2, at the end of year 2 it would be $3.3. Now there is someone else who wants to buy this share at end of year 1. I would say this share gives me 100% returns every year, so I will not sell at $2. Give me $3 at the end of first year. The buyer would think well, if I buy this at $3, first year I would notionally get $.3 and from then on $1 every year. Not bad. This is still better than other stocks and better than Bank CD etc ... So as long as the company is doing well and expected to do well in future its price keeps on increasing as there is someone who want to buy. Why would someone want to sell and not hold one: 1. Needs cash for buying house or other purposes, close to retirement etc 2. Is balancing the portfolio to make is less risk based 3. Quite a few similar reasons Why would someone feel its right to buy: 1. Has cash and is young is open to small risk 2. Believes the value will still go up further 3. Quite a few similar reasons",
"**Lock-up period** A lock-up period, also known as a lock in, lock out, or locked up period, is a predetermined amount of time following an initial public offering where large shareholders, such as company executives and investors representing considerable ownership, are restricted from selling their shares. Generally, a lock-up period is a condition of exercising an employee stock option. Depending on the company, the IPO lock-up period typically lasts between 90–180 days before these shareholders are allowed the right, but not the obligation, to exercise the option. Lockups are designed to prevent insiders from liquidating assets too quickly after a company goes public. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24",
"You can purchase stock immediately in the open market on the day of the IPO when market opens. Below link gives you more information. http://finance.zacks.com/buy-ipo-stock-3903.html",
"There's an odd anomaly that often occurs with shares acquired through company plans via ESPP or option purchase. The general situation is that the share value above strike price or grant price may become ordinary income, but a sale below the price at day the shares are valued is a capital loss. e.g. in an ESPP offering, I have a $10 purchase price, but at the end of the offering, the shares are valued at $100. Unless I hold the shares for an additional year, the sale price contains ordinary W2 income. So, if I see the shares falling and sell for $50, I have a tax bill for $90 of W2 income, but a $50 capital loss. Tax is due on $90 (and for 1K shares, $90,000 which can be a $30K hit) but that $50K loss can only be applied to cap gains, or $3K/yr of income. In the dotcom bubble, there were many people who had million dollar tax bills and the value of the money netted from the sale couldn't even cover the taxes. And $1M in losses would take 300 years at $3K/yr. The above is one reason the lockup date expiration is why shares get sold. And one can probably profit on the bigger companies stock. Edit - see Yelp down 3% following expiration of 180 day IPO lock-up period, for similar situation.",
"Yes, that is correct. There is no limit. An initial public offering of common stock by a company means that these shares remain outstanding for as long as the company wishes. The exceptions are through corporate actions, most commonly either",
"The offering price is the price at which that IPO is, well, offered. Think of it as a suggested retail price. The opening price is the actual price at which trading begins, on a particular day, for a stock. That price depends on demand/overnight-orders/what-have-you. Think of this as the actual price in the store.",
"This was a really unusual deal because a fund owned by one of the owners of the company was buying much of the shares. Seems that maybe someone at the company realized that they could get an IPO for much less than 7% because the bank wasn't really doing much work or taking much risk for their cut. And that nobody figured to put contingencies for this in a contract because how often does it happen. Edit: do people even read the articles for these things? >>When you do an IPO where an existing shareholder (and company director) is buying half the deal, that's not quite the same as doing an IPO where the banks are just selling shares to investors that the banks dig up. And when that shareholder decides that he'd rather not buy, his escape is not so much refusing to pay for his shares as it is trying to get the deal pulled. If VBL sues the banks, they can turn around and sue VBL saying that this is a backdoor way of getting out of their contract.",
"I believe, I could be wrong, it has been a long day. By exercising this right you have the right to purchase the equivalent of their current share. Eg. Someone owns 50 of 100 shares. and the company does a rights offering and is expanding the shares to 200. That person has first right to purchase 50 more shares to keep his share from being diluted.",
"\"a lot of companies will \"\"class\"\" their shares and the founders will hold on to the A class shares so that they can distribute more than 50% but still retain the majority of control over company decisions. A lot of this stuff is set out in the underwriting.\"",
"$38 was the IPO price. This was price per share for those investors who bought directly from the underwriters (Morgan Stanley, etc.) $42.06 was the first secondary market price, the price at which two private parties first exchanged the shares on an exchange, in this case NASDAQ.",
"That's because they literally could not help you. It's not that they were just unwilling to. A hedge fund manager might be able to do it, because the person who bet on Facebook would be willing to let him borrow their shares. An IPO in explain like I'm five: A bank helps underwrite the shares pre offering. This means they buy the shares wholesale. They buy a large majority of the company in order to offer them to the public when the stock goes public. The bank does this for profit, the company does this become it helps raise their price. The bank that underwrites the stock is legally prohibited from short selling that stock for ***at least*** 30 days before the IPO. This is to prevent the bank from trying to commit fraud by selling stock out the front door and betting against it out the back. *** So, now let's jump forward to the day of the IPO. The bank is offering stock to everyone who wants to buy it (other banks who will cut it up and sell it to more people). In order to short the stock someone must be willing to let you borrow their shares. Only the bank that underwrote it prohibited from short selling. It's possible but hard. The underwriter has the majority of the shares for the first thirty days anyways. They're just going to release enough of them to raise volume on the ticker symbol (volume is the amount of people buying and selling). The others the underwriter sold to are unwilling to let someone borrow their stock because they want to ride the price hike and shares are in short supply. So while it's possible to short shares, it's very hard. The underwriters limit the supply of shares to prevent that from happening. The underwriters can't just let you short their own shares because they are legally prohibited from it. Basically, you're left with the fact that the only person who has enough supply to let you short, is prohibited by law from letting you do it. I'm sure Morgan Stanley would have been happy to let their customers short Facebook (as long as you did it through them) to hedge their bets. But they can't.",
"The goal of a good IPO underwriter is to set the price such that it brings as much money as possible to the company. * Too low: Early stock flippers get the money that should be going to the company. * Too high: Not all the stock gets sold. By that definition, **Facebook should be recorded as the most successful IPO of all time**. The problem is investors have gotten used to incompetent and/or corrupt underwriters that set the price too low. The company gets screwed, but the underwriter’s buddies make some quick cash on the flip.",
"I'd add, this is actually the way any stock opens every day, i.e. the closing price of the prior day is what it is, but the opening price will reflect whatever news there was prior to the day's open. If you watch the business news, you'll often see that some stock has an order imbalance and has not opened yet, at the normal time. So, as Geo stated, those who were sold shares at the IPO price paid $38, but then the stock could open at whatever price was the point where bid and ask balanced. I snapped a screen capture of this chart on the first day of trading, the daily charts aren't archived where I can find them. This is from Yahoo Finance. You can see the $42 open from those who simply wanted in but couldn't wait, the willingness of sellers to grab their profit right back to what they paid, and then another wave of buying, but then a sell-off. It closed virtually unchanged from the IPO price.",
"The first moment of trading usually occurs even later than that. It may take a few hours to balance the current buy/sell orders and open the stock. Watch CNBC when a hot IPO is about to open and you'll see the process in real time. If you miss it, look at a one day Yahoo chart to see when the open occurred.",
"Depending on your perspective of it, I can see reasons for and against this idea. Only with the benefit of hindsight can one say how wise or unwise it is to do so. Earlier in my career, I invested and lost it all. Understand if you do buy when would you be able to sell, do you have to have an account with the underwriter, what fees may there be in having such an account, and would there be restrictions on when you could sell.",
"More shares mean less volatility because it takes a larger number of trades, a larger number of shares per trade, or a combination of both to raise or lower the stock price. Institutional investors (mutual funds, pensions, hedge funds, other investment firms, etc) are the sorts of organizations with the large amounts of money needed to move a stock price one way or the other. But the more floating shares there are in a company, the harder it is for one or two firms to move a stock price. A company with fewer floating shares wouldn't require as many trades (or as many shares per trade) to see wider swings in price. When it comes to stock price, insider trading isn't the same as manipulation. In the (surprisingly few) cases of insider trading that are prosecuted, it tends to be an individual (or small group) with early access to information that the broader market doesn't have being able to buy or sell ahead of the broader market. Their individual sales are seldom if ever enough to noticeably move a stock price. They're locking in profit or limiting a loss. Manipulation might (but doesn't always) precede insider trading, if misinformation (or truth) is released for the purpose of creating a situation that can be profited from via a trade or trades.",
"\"I'll skip the \"\"authorizing....\"\" and go right to uses of new shares: Companies need stock as another liquid asset for a variety of purposes, and if not enough stock is available, then may be forced to the open market to acquire, either by exchanging cash or taking on debt to get the cash.\"",
"Underwriters cannot win. If the stock goes down, people blame them for overpricing and fleecing the investors. If the stock goes up, people blame them for underpricing and fleecing the company. They are playing both sides, so one side is likely to be more happy than the other side. They are bankers, so people will always find a reason to hate them.",
"This seemed very unrealistic, I mean who would do that? But to my immense surprise the market price increased to 5.50$ in the following week! Why is that? This is strange. It seems that people mistakenly [?] believe that the company should be at 5.5 and currently available cheap. This looks like irrational behaviour. Most of the past 6 months the said stock in range bound to 4.5 to 5. The last time it hit around 5.5 was Feb. So this is definitely strange. If the company had set a price of 6.00$ in the rights offering, would the price have increased to 6$? Obviously the company thinks that their shares are worth that much but why did the market suddenly agree? Possibly yes, possible no. It can be answered. More often the rights issue are priced at slight discount to market price. Why did this happen? Obviously management thinks that the company is worth that much, but why did the market simply believe this statement without any additional information? I don't see any other information; if the new shares had some special privileges [in terms of voting rights, dividends, etc] then yes. However the announcements says the rights issues is for common shares.",
"As a general principle the stock price on the stock market is controlled by an agreement between buyers and sellers. Some initial observations on this stock So, my take on this is one/more of the following My suspicion is the latter.",
"you know, i'm curious. why did you feel it was overpriced? if it opened at $50 a share and you thought that was too high, might you buy 2 shares if it opened at $25 instead? would there be any notable difference in what you owned?",
"\"Will the investment bank evaluate the worth of my company more than or less than 50 crs. Assuming the salvage value of the assets of 50 crs (meaning that's what you could sell them for to someone else), that would be the minimum value of your company (less any outstanding debts). There are many ways to calculate the \"\"value\"\" of a company, but the most common one is to look at the future potential for generating cash. The underwriters will look at what your current cash flow projections are, and what they will be when you invest the proceeds from the public offering back into the company. That will then be used to determine the total value of the company, and in turn the value of the portion that you are taking public. And what will be the owner’s share in the resulting public company? That's completely up to you. You're essentially selling a part of the company in order to bring cash in, presumably to invest in assets that will generate more cash in the future. If you want to keep complete control of the company, then you'll want to sell less than 50% of the company, otherwise you can sell as much or as little as you want.\"",
"I'm sure you did. I'm pretty sure a hedge fund manager knew the underwriters couldn't short IPOs. No one would have been able to follow your advice because they wouldn't have been able to short it on day two either. You still don't get it.",
"\"I would differentiate between pricing and valuation a bit more: Valuation is the result of investment analysis and the result of coming up with a fair value for a company and its shares; this is done usually by equity analysts. I have never heard about pricing a security in this context. Pricing would indicate that the price of a product or security is \"\"set\"\" by someone (i.e. a car manufacturer sets the prices of its new cars). The price of a security however is not set by an analyst or an institution, it is solely set by the stock market (perhaps based on the valuations of different analysts). There is only one exception to this: pricing an IPO before its shares are actually traded on an exchange. In this case the underwriting banks set the price (based on the valuation) at which the shares are distributed.\"",
"I'm going to have to take you to task for this post. If someone is incapable of determining the implied current P/E in the IPO price then they should not be buying stocks. You cannot blame Wall Street for the greed and stupidity of the public.",
"\"First, keep in mind that there are generally 2 ways to buy a corporation's shares: You can buy a share directly from the corporation. This does not happen often; it usually happens at the Initial Public Offering [the first time the company becomes \"\"public\"\" where anyone with access to the stock exchange can become a part-owner], plus maybe a few more times during the corporations existence. In this case, the corporation is offering new ownership in exchange for a price set the corporation (or a broker hired by the corporation). The price used for a public offering is the highest amount that the company believes it can get - this is a very complicated field, and involves many different methods of evaluating what the company should be worth. If the company sets the price too low, then they have missed out on possible value which would be earned by the previous, private shareholders (they would have gotten the same share % of a corporation which would now have more cash to spend, because of increased money paid by new shareholders). If the company sets the price too high, then the share subscription might only be partially filled, so there might not be enough cash to do what the company wanted. You can buy a share from another shareholder. This is more common - when you see the company's share price on the stock exchange, it is this type of transaction - buying out other current shareholders. The price here is simply set based on what current owners are willing to sell at. The \"\"Bid Price\"\" listed by an exchange is the current highest bid that a purchaser is offering for a single share. The \"\"Ask Price\"\" is the current lowest offer that a seller is offering to sell a single share they currently own. When the bid price = the ask price, a share transaction happens, and the most recent stock price changes.\"",
"Like others have already said, it may cause an immediate dip due to a large and sudden move in shares for that particular stock. However, if there is nothing else affecting the company's financials and investors perceive no other risks, it will probably bounce back a bit, but not back to the full value before the shares were issued. Why? Whenever a company issues more stock, the new shares dilute the value of the current shares outstanding, simply because there are now more shares of that stock trading on the market; the Earnings Per Share (EPS) Ratio will drop since the same profit and company value has to be spread across more shares. Example: If a company is valued at $100 dollars and they have 25 shares outstanding, then the EPS ratio equates to $4 per share (100/25 = 4). If the company then issues more shares (stock to employees who sell or keep them), let's say 25 more shares, then shares outstanding increase to 50, but the company's value still remains at $100 dollars. EPS now equates to $2 per share (100/50 = 2). Now, sometimes when shareholders (especially employees...and especially employees who just received them) suddenly all sell their shares, this causes a micro-panic in the market because investors believe the employees know something bad about the company that they don't. Other common shareholders then want to dump their holdings for fear of impending collapse in the company. This could cause the share price to dip a bit below the new diluted value, but again if no real, immediate risks exist, the price should go back up to the new, diluted value. Example 2: If EPS was at $4 before issuing more stock, and then dropped to $2 after issuing new stock, the micro-panic may cause the EPS to drop below $2 and then soon rebound back to $2 or more when investors realize no actual risk exists. After the dilution phase plays out, the EPS could actually even go above the pre-issuing value of $4 because investors may believe that since more stock was issued due to good profits, more profits may ensue. Hope that helps!",
"That's true. So instead, they brute force the exchange with buy orders before they know if there's even any demand for the equity. Most of these get cancelled. If they see someone else placing a large buy order, they let theirs go through and do not cancel. They meet the ask and get the order because they don't care about getting the best deal. The buy order the HFT sent through is for the entire book. The HFT can then demand the highest price possible. After that, they dump the unsought portion of the book back into the market. Regulation have cracked down on this practice. However, that just means HFT have decided to build their own exchanges. The HFT buy order was placed before they even knew there was anyone else looking for the same buy.",
"\"For every buyer there is a seller. That rule refers to actual (historical) trades. It doesn't apply to \"\"wannabees.\"\" Suppose there are buyers for 2,000 shares and sellers for only 1,000 at a given price, P. Some of those buyers will raise their \"\"bid\"\" (the indication of the price they are willing to pay) above P so that the sellers of the 1000 shares will fill their orders first (\"\"sold to the highest bidder\"\"). The ones that don't do this will (probably) not get their orders filled. Suppose there are more sellers than buyers. Then some sellers will lower their \"\"offer\"\" price to attract buyers (and some sellers probably won't). At a low enough price, there will likely be a \"\"match\"\" between the total number of shares on sale, and shares on purchase orders.\"",
"Thank you for replying. I'm not sure I totally follow though, aren't you totally at mercy of the liquidity in the stock? I guess I'm havinga hard time visualizing the value a human can add as opposed to say vwapping it or something. I can accept that you're right, just having a difficult time picturing it",
"\"An important thing that many people fail to realize is that the number of shares outstanding in a stock, times the current market price of those shares, does not represent anything related to the total value of those shares. If a company has one million shares outstanding and its total value is $10 million, then the real worth of each share is $10. If few people feels like buying or selling, but a few people think the company is worth $50 million and offer $50/share, that could raise the market price to $50/share, but it wouldn't mean that the company became worth five times as much; it would merely mean the stock was overpriced. If, after the price went to $50/share, all the owners of the stock put in stop-loss orders at $45. Note that the real $10/share \"\"real value\"\" of their stock would never have changed. If the people who thought the stock was worth $50 decided to get out of the market, and nobody else was willing to offer more than $10, that would instantly drop the price to $10. The fact that a million shares of stock have stop-loss orders at $45 wouldn't magically generate buyers for those stocks at that price. Indeed, unchecked stop-loss orders would have the reverse effect, since many people who would have been willing if not eager to buy the stock if it had been available for less than $10/share would instead be trying to sell it below that price. It's too bad people think that the number of shares outstanding times the current market price represents some kind of \"\"meaningful quantity\"\". If the present cash value of all future payouts associated with a share of stock is $10, then someone who buys a share of stock for less than that makes money off the seller; someone who pays more loses money to the seller. Many people think they can lose money to the seller and still come out okay if the price goes higher, but what that really means is that they're hoping to find a bigger sucker--a game where it's guaranteed that some people will have losses they don't recoup.\"",
"Well, if one share cost $100 and the company needs to raise $10000, then the company will issue 100 shares for that price. Right? However, say there's 100 shares out there now, then each share holder owns 1/100th of the company. Now the company will remain the same, but it's shared between 200 shareholders after the issuing of new shares. That means each share holder now owns 1/200th of the company. And hence only gets 1/200th of their earnings etc.",
"\"Supply and Demand, pure and simple! There are two basic forms of this - a change in the quantity demanded/supplied at any given price, and a true change in the amount of demand/supply itself. Please note that this can be distinct from the underlying change in the value of the company and/or its expected future cash flows, which are a function of both financial performance and future expectations. If more people want the stock that are willing to sell it at a given price at a given point in time, sellers will begin to offer the stocks at higher prices until the market is no longer willing to bear the new price, and vice versa. This will reduce the quantity of stocks demanded by buyers until the quantity demanded and the quantity supplied once again reach an equilibrium, at which point a transaction occurs. Because people are motivated to buy and sell for different reasons at different times, and because people have different opinions on a constant flow of new information, prices change frequently. This is one of the reasons why executives of a recent IPO don't typically sell all of their stock at once. In addition to legal restrictions and the message this would send to the market, if they flooded the market with additional quantities of stock supplied, all else being equal, since there is no corresponding increase in the quantity demanded, the price would drop significantly. Sometimes, the demand itself for a company's stock shifts. Unlike a simple change in price driven by quantity supplied versus quantity demanded, this is a more fundamental shift. For example, let's suppose that the current demand for rare earth metals is driven by their commercial applications in consumer electronics. Now if new devices are developed that no longer require these metals, the demand for them will fall, regardless of the actions of individual buyers and sellers in the market. Another example is when the \"\"rules of the game\"\" for an industry change dramatically. Markets are behavioral. In this sense prices are most directly driven by human behavior, which hopefully is based on well-informed opinions and facts. This is why sometimes the price keeps going up when financial performance decreases, and why sometimes it does not rise even while performance is improving. This is also why some companies' stock continues to rise even when they lose huge sums of money year after year. The key to understanding these scenarios is the opinions and expectations that buyers and sellers have of that information, which is expressed in their market behavior.\"",
"\"It appears that the company in question is raising money to invest in expanding its operations (specifically lithium production but that is off topic for here). The stock price was rising on the back of (perceived) increases in demand for the company's products but in order to fulfil demand they need to either invest in higher production or increase prices. They chose to increase production by investing. To invest they needed to raise capital and so are going through the motions to do that. The key question as to what will happen with their stock price after this is broken down into two parts: short term and long term: In the short term the price is driven by the expectation of future profits (see below) and the behavioural expectations from an increase in interest in the stock caused by the fact that it is in the news. People who had never heard of the stock or thought of investing in the company have suddenly discovered it and been told that it is doing well and so \"\"want a piece of it\"\". This will exacerbate the effect of the news (broadly positive or negative) and will drive the price in the short run. The effect of extra leverage (assuming that they raise capital by writing bonds) also immediately increases the total value of the company so will increase the price somewhat. The short term price changes usually pare back after a few months as the shine goes off and people take profits. For investing in the long run you need to consider how the increase in capital will be used and how demand and supply will change. Since the company is using the money to invest in factors of production (i.e. making more product) it is the return on capital (or investment) employed (ROCE) that will inform the fundamentals underlying the stock price. The higher the ROCE, the more valuable the capital raised is in the future and the more profits and the company as a whole will grow. A questing to ask yourself is whether they can employ the extra capital at the same ROCE as they currently produce. It is possible that by investing in new, more productive equipment they can raise their ROCE but also possible that, because the lithium mines (or whatever) can only get so big and can only get so much access to the seams extra capital will not be as productive as existing capital so ROCE will fall for the new capital.\"",
"The core issue is to understand what 'selling a share' means. There is no special person or company that takes the share from you; you are selling on the open market. So your question is effectively 'can I find a guy on the street that buys a 10$-bill for 11$ ?' - Well, maybe someone is dumb enough, but chances are slim.",
"When there are no buyers, you can't sell your shares, and you'll be stuck with them until there is some interest from other investors. In this link describes clearly: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/03/053003.asp",
"\"Aganju has mentioned put options, which are one good possibility. I would suggest considering an even easier strategy: short selling. Technically you are borrowing the stock from someone and selling it. At some point you repurchase the stock to return to the lender (\"\"covering your short\"\"). If the stock price has fallen, then when you repurchase it, it will be cheaper and you keep the profit. Short selling sounds complicated but it's actually very easy--your broker takes care of all the details. Just go to your brokerage and click \"\"sell\"\" or \"\"sell short.\"\" You can use a market or limit order just like you were selling something you own. When it sells, you are done. The money gets credited to your account. At some point (after the price falls) you should repurchase it so you don't have a negative position any more, but your brokerage isn't going to hassle you for this unless you bought a lot and the stock price starts rising. There will be limits on how much you can short, depending on how much money is in your account. Some stocks (distressed and small stocks) may sometimes be hard to short, meaning your broker will charge you a kind of interest and/or may not be able to complete your transaction. You will need a margin account (a type of brokerage account) to either use options or short sell. They are easy to come by, though. Note that for a given amount of starting money in your account, puts can give you a much more dramatic gain if the stock price falls. But they can (and often do) expire worthless, causing you to lose all money you have spent on them. If you want to maximize how much you make, use puts. Otherwise I'd short sell. About IPOs, it depends on what you mean. If the IPO has just completed and you want to bet that the share price will fall, either puts or short selling will work. Before an IPO you can't short sell and I doubt you would be able to buy an option either. Foreign stocks? Depends on whether there is an ADR for them that trades on the domestic market and on the details of your brokerage account. Let me put it this way, if you can buy it, you can short sell it.\"",
"Suppose the price didn't drop on the ex-dividend date. Then people wanting to make a quick return on their money would buy shares the day before, collect the dividend, and then sell them on the ex-dividend date. But all those people trying to buy on the day before would push the price up, and they would push the price down trying to sell on the date.",
"\"That's the way the markets work in THEORY. In actual fact, markets are subject to \"\"real world\"\" pressures. That is, there are so many things going on in the market that the end of the \"\"Lined In\"\" lock up is just one of many. To produce the result you describe, traders would have to hold cash in reserve for this so-called \"\"contingency\"\" to buy at the end of the lock-up. In most cases, they wouldn't want to because of everything else that is going on. To use a real world analogy, would you want to wait until the last possible moment before going to the bathroom? Or would you go now while you had the chance? That's what the decision about \"\"holding cash in reserve for a contingency\"\" is like.\""
] |
[
"\"There are no \"\"rules\"\" about how the price should act after an IPO, so there are no guarantee that a \"\"pop\"\" would appear at the opening day. But when an IPO is done, it's typically underpriced. On average, the shares are 10% up at the end of the first day after the IPO (I don't have the source that, I just remember that from some finance course). Also, after the IPO, the underwriter can be asked to support the trading of the share for a certain period of time. That is the so called stabilizing agent. They have few obligations like: This price support in often done by a repurchase of some of the shares of poorly performing IPO. EDIT: Informations about the overallotment pool. When the IPO is done, a certain number of client buy the shares issued by the company. The underwriter, with the clients, can decide to create an overallotment pool, where the clients would get a little more shares (hence \"\"overallotment\"\"), but this time the shares are not issued by the company but by the underwriter. To put it another way, the underwriter oversell and becomes short by a certain number of shares (limited to 15% of the IPO). In exchange for the risk taken by this overallotment, the underwriter gets a greenshoe option from the clients, that will allows the underwriter to buy back the oversold shares, at the price of the IPO, from the clients. The idea behind this option is to avoid a market exposure for the underwriter. So, after the IPO: If the price goes down, the underwriter buys back on the market the overshorted shares and makes a profits. If the price goes up, the company exercise the greenshoe option buy the shares at the IPO prices (throught the overallotment pool, that is, the additional shares that the clients wanted ) to avoid suffering a loss.\"",
"\"IPO's are priced so that there's a pop\"\" on the opening day.\"\" If I were IPOing my company and the price \"\"popped\"\" on the open, I would think the underwriter priced it too low. In fact if I were to IPO, I'd seek an underwriter whose offerings consistently traded on the first day pretty unchanged. That means they priced it correctly. In the 90's IPO boom, there were stocks that opened up 3X and more. The original owners must have been pretty upset as the poor pricing guidance the underwriter offered.\""
] |
7513
|
Where are Bogleheadian World ETFs or Index funds?
|
[
"115372",
"273861",
"567362"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"344758",
"567362",
"386173",
"206876",
"103987",
"391215",
"172569",
"276983",
"528880",
"71545",
"31779",
"168841",
"7208",
"505597",
"115372",
"27930",
"273861",
"99568",
"566429",
"275334",
"168642",
"459596",
"228044",
"122679",
"373688",
"29642",
"176489",
"466845",
"583552",
"503725",
"138383",
"387277",
"214723",
"557573",
"513818",
"558924",
"98461",
"462984",
"172703",
"18303",
"41577",
"177036",
"68773",
"243931",
"94477",
"524030",
"288409",
"143238",
"188497",
"427842",
"403977",
"370470",
"172374",
"435746",
"401939",
"129070",
"141585",
"220486",
"535340",
"330743",
"195191",
"535549",
"437875",
"161019",
"592636",
"159471",
"241996",
"526346",
"402306",
"408524",
"551155",
"419985",
"329466",
"226298",
"562919",
"196992",
"312015",
"221990",
"14185",
"397445",
"206118",
"324697",
"328086",
"313525",
"120133",
"176342",
"377429",
"591909",
"264740",
"174227",
"351018",
"8759",
"511559",
"436020",
"17208",
"557820",
"188855",
"322725",
"580733",
"216441"
] |
[
"Here is another choice I like, iShares JPMorgan USD Emerging Markets Bond (EMB) Here is the world ETFs",
"A proper world porfolio is a non-trivial task. No one answer exists which is the best one and how one should construct it. World? The problem with world portfolio is that it is not well-defined. Providers use it as they wish and people use it as they wish, read the history for further ado (messy stuff). You can build yourself world portfolio but warning it is getting harder. You can use this tool by selecting global equity to search through global funds -- it is very useful and allows you to find the low-cost funds with PE/PB/Div.yield. Also, investigate topic more with this tool, less spam.",
"It isn't just ETFs, you have normal mutual funds in India which invest internationally. This could be convenient if you don't already have a depository account and a stockbroker. Here's a list of such funds, along with some performance data: Value Research - Equity: International: Long-term Performance. However, you should also be aware that in India, domestic equity and equity fund investing is tax-free in the long-term (longer than one year), but this exemption doesn't apply to international investments. Ref: Invest Around the World.",
"Just saw the update: Here's some ETFs for Canada from Vanguard.",
"You can use www.etfdb.com and search on geography.",
"Index funds: Some of the funds listed by US SIF are index funds. ETFs: ETFdb has a list, though it's pretty short at the moment.",
"There are hundreds if not thousands of index funds and ETFs in the EU, far too many to enumerate here. It's worth pointing out that Vanguard themselves operate in the UK. The minimum investment if you go direct to Vanguard is £100,000, but you can make smaller investments through a number of fund platforms.",
"You haven't looked very far if you didn't find index tracking exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on the Toronto Stock Exchange. There are at least a half dozen major exchange-traded fund families that I'm aware of, including Canadian-listed offerings from some of the larger ETF providers from the U.S. The Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) maintains a list of ETF providers that have products listed on the TSX.",
"Here're some findings upon researches: Two main things to watch out for: Estate tax and the 30% tax withholding. These 2 could be get around by investing in Luxembourg or Ireland domiciled ETF. For instance there's no tax withholding on Ireland domiciled ETF dividend, and the estate tax is not as high. (source: BogleHead forums) Some Vanguard ETF offered in UK stock market: https://www.vanguard.co.uk/uk/mvc/investments/etf#docstab. Do note that the returns of S&P 500 ETF (VUSA) are adjusted after the 30% tax withholding! Due to VUSA's higher TER (0.09%), VOO should remain a superior choice. The FTSE Emerging Markets and All-World ETFs though, are better than their US-counterparts, for non-US residents. Non-US residents are able to claim back partials of the withhold tax, by filing the US tax form 1040NR. In 2013, non-US resident can claim back at least $3,900. Kindly correct me if anything is inaccurate.",
"I have only found solution for UK residents so far, see the article on This Is Money: Cheapest index-tracking funds: Trackers with the lowest charges - and the best ways to invest in them",
"Vanguard offers an index fund. Their FTSE Social Index Fund. For more information on it, go here.",
"Vanguard has just recently started listing its funds in London but it doesn't look like the High Dividend Yield ETF is available yet. You'll need to either get a broker who can trade on the U.S. markets (there might be tax and exchange rate complications), or wait until Vanguard lists this stock on the London exchange.",
"Some other suggestions: Index-tracking mutual funds. These have the same exposure as ETFs, but may have different costs; for example, my investment manager (in the UK) charges a transaction fee on ETFs, but not funds, but caps platform fees on ETFs and not funds! Target date funds. If you are saving for a particular date (often retirement, but could also be buying a house, kids going to college, mid-life crisis motorbike purchase, a luxury cruise to see an eclipse, etc), these will automatically rebalance the investment from risk-tolerant (ie equities) to risk-averse (ie fixed income) as the date approaches. You can get reasonably low fees from Vanguard, and i imagine others. Income funds/ETFs, focusing on stocks which are expected to pay a good dividend. The idea is that a consistent dividend helps smooth out volatility in prices, giving you a more consistent return. Historically, that worked pretty well, but given fees and the current low yields, it might not be smart right now. That said Vanguard Equity Income costs 0.17%, and i think yields 2.73%, which isn't bad.",
"\"The iShares Barclays Aggregate Bond - ticker AGG, is a ETF that may fit the bill for you. It's an intermediate term fund with annual expenses of .20%. It \"\"seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index\"\"\"",
"Half VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF) and half VEU (Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US ETF), and stop futzing. The US is roughly half the world market cap so this is like a total world equity index. Very low costs. VTI Expense ratio is 0.04% as of 04/27/2017. I don't know what you mean by RSG, but it could be either a waste processor or a gold miner. Either way it seems kind of speculative to hold even 10% of your wealth.",
"Also, when they mean SP500 fund - it means that fund which invests in the top 500 companies in the SP Index, is my understanding correct? Yes that is right. In reality they may not be able to invest in all 500 companies in same proportion, but is reflective of the composition. I wanted to know whether India also has a company similar to Vanguard which offers low cost index funds. Almost all mutual fund companies offer a NIFTY index fund, both as mutual fund as well as ETF. You can search for index fund and see the total assets to find out which is bigger compared to others.",
"You weren't really clear about where you are in the world, what currency you are using and what you want your eventual asset allocation to be. If you're in the US, I'd recommend splitting your international investment between a Global ex-US fund like VEU (as Chris suggested in his comment) and an emerging markets ETF like VWO. If you're not in the US, you need to think about how much you would like to invest in US equities and what approach you would like to take to do so. Also, with international funds, particularly emerging markets, low expense ratios aren't necessarily the best value. Active management may help you to avoid some of the risks associated with investing in foreign companies, particularly in emerging markets. If you still want low expenses at all cost, understand the underlying index that the ETF is pegged to.",
"\"The majority (about 80%) of mutual funds are underperforming their underlying indexes. This is why ETFs have seen massive capital inflows compared to equity funds, which have seen significant withdrawals in the last years. I would definitively recommend going with an ETF. In addition to pure index based ETFs that (almost) track broad market indexes like the S&P 500 there are quite a few more \"\"quant\"\" oriented ETFs that even outperformed the S&P. I am long the S&P trough iShares ETFs and have dividend paying ETFs and some quant ETFS on top (Invesco Powershares) in my portfolio.\"",
"If liquidity and cost are your primary objectives, Vanguard is indeed a good bet. They are the walmart of finance and the absolute best at minimizing fees and other expenses. Your main portfolio holding should be VTI, the total stock market fund. Highly liquid and has the lowest fees out there at 0.05%. You can augment this with a world-minus-US fund if you want. No need to buy sector or specific geography funds when you can get the whole market for less. Add some bond funds and alternative investments (but not too much) if you want to be fully diversified.",
"If you are looking for an index index fund, I know vanguard offers their Star fund which invests in 11 other funds of theirs and is diversified across stocks, bonds, and short term investments.",
"Here is a list of European ETFs you can buy in Europe: iShares Europe and DB x-Trackers. Both offer ETFs for Spanish citizens. Regarding your question in your comment on if you could buy Austrian ETFs as a Spanish citizen: If your broker offers Austrian ETFs you can buy them as well. I do not believe that there would be any legal restrictions. For a good international broker, which would allow you to buy these ETFs I would recommend looking at Interactive Brokers.com",
"\"Morningstar is often considered a trusted industry standard when it comes to rating mutual funds and ETFs. They offer the same data-centric information for other investments as well, such as individual stocks and bonds. You can consult Morningstar directly if you like, but any established broker will usually provide you with Morningstar's ratings for the products it is trying to sell to you. Vanguard offers a few Emerging Markets stock and bond funds, some actively managed, some index funds. Other investment management companies (Fidelity, Schwab, etc.) presumably do as well. You could start by looking in Morningstar (or on the individual companies' websites) to find what the similarities and differences are among these funds. That can help answer some important questions: I personally just shove a certain percentage of my portfolio into non-US stocks and bonds, and of that allocation a certain fraction goes into \"\"established\"\" economies and a certain fraction into \"\"emerging\"\" ones. I do all this with just a few basic index funds, because the indices make sense (to me) and index funds cost very little.\"",
"There are ETFs listed on the Brazilian stock market. Specifically there is one for S&P500 - SPXI11, which might fulfill your requirements, though as one commenter has observed, it doesn't answer your original question.",
"For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.",
"\"Here's a dump from what I use. Some are a bit more expensive than those that you posted. The second column is the expense ratio. The third column is the category I've assigned in my spreadsheet -- it's how I manage my rebalancing among different classes. \"\"US-LC\"\" is large cap, MC is mid cap, SC is small cap. \"\"Intl-Dev\"\" is international stocks from developed economies, \"\"Emer\"\" is emerging economies. These have some overlap. I don't have a specific way to handle this, I just keep an eye on the overall picture. (E.g. I don't overdo it on, say, BRIC + Brazil or SPY + S&P500 Growth.) The main reason for each selection is that they provide exposure to a certain batch of securities that I was looking for. In each type, I was also aiming for cheap and/or liquid like you. If there are substitutes I should be looking at for any of these that are cheaper and/or more liquid, a comment would be great. High Volume: Mid Volume (<1mil shares/day): Low Volume (<50k shares/day): These provide enough variety to cover the target allocation below. That allocation is just for retirement accounts; I don't consider any other savings when I rebalance against this allocation. When it's time to rebalance (i.e. a couple of times a year when I realize that I haven't done it in several months), I update quotes, look at the percentages assigned to each category, and if anything is off the target by more than 1% point I will buy/sell to adjust. (I.e. if US-LC is 23%, I sell enough to get back to 20%, then use the cash to buy more of something else that is under the target. But if US-MC is 7.2% I don't worry about it.) The 1% threshold prevents unnecessary trading costs; sometimes if everything is just over 1% off I'll let it slide. I generally try to stay away from timing, but I do use some of that extra cash when there's a panic (after Jan-Feb '09 I had very little cash in the retirement accounts). I don't have the source for this allocation any more, but it is the result of combining a half dozen or so sample allocations that I saw and tailoring it for my goals.\"",
"Some of the ETFs you have specified have been delisted and are no longer trading. If you want to invest in those specific ETFs, you need to find a broker that will let you buy European equities such as those ETFs. Since you mentioned Merrill Edge, a discount broking platform, you could also consider Interactive Brokers since they do offer trading on the London Stock Exchange. There are plenty more though. Beware that you are now introducing a foreign exchange risk into your investment too and that taxation of capital returns/dividends may be quite different from a standard US-listed ETF. In the US, there are no Islamic or Shariah focussed ETFs or ETNs listed. There was an ETF (JVS) that traded from 2009-2010 but this had such little volume and interest, the fees probably didn't cover the listing expenses. It's just not a popular theme for North American listings.",
"(For people looking at this question many years later...) Schwab and Fidelity offer a wide selection of commission-free ETFs. You need an initial purchase amount, though, of (when last I checked at Schwab) $1,000.",
"There are a few ETFs that fall into the money market category: SHV, BIL, PVI and MINT. What normally looks like an insignificant expense ratio looks pretty big when compared to the small yields offered by these funds. The same holds for the spread and transaction fees. For that reason, I'm not sure if the fund route is worth it.",
"Significantly less effort to buy into any of several international bond index funds. Off the top of my head, VTIBX.",
"In a word, yes. You can buy very low cost index ETFs, like VTI, VEA, BND, FBND and rebalance in proportion to your age and risk tolerance. Minimal management and low cost.",
"Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund. An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments. The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios. Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities. Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs. Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund. For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment). Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER). Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number. For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral). See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page. Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF. Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds. Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free. Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs. Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general.",
"ETFs are just like any other mutual fund; they hold a mix of assets described by their prospectus. If that mix fits your needs for diversification and the costs of buying/selling/holding are low, it's as worth considering as a traditional fund with the same mix. A bond fund will hold a mixture of bonds. Whether that mix is sufficiently diversified for you, or whether you want a different fund or a mix of funds, is a judgement call. I want my money to take care of itself for the most part, so most of the bond portion is in a low-fee Total Bond Market Index fund (which tries to match the performance of bonds in general). That could as easily be an ETF, but happens not to be.",
"While you would reduce risk by diversifying into other stock ETFs across the world, Developed Market returns (and Emerging Markets to a lesser extent) are generally highly correlated with another (correlation of ~0.85-0.90). This implies that they all go up in bull-markets and go down together in bear markets. You are better off diversifying into other asset-classes given your risk tolerance (such as government bonds, as you have mentioned). Alternatively, you can target a portfolio owning all of the assets in the universe (assuming you're trading in Frankfurt, a combination of something similar to H4ZJ and XBAG, but with higher volumes and/or lower fees)! A good starting resource would be the Bogleheads Wiki: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Asset_allocation",
"Try this site for the funds http://www.socialinvest.org/resources/mfpc/ I'm not aware of any etfs. I'm sure some exist though.",
"Stock portfolios have diversifiable risk and undiversifiable risk. The market rewards investors for taking undiversifiable risk (e.g. owning an index of oil producing companies) and does not reward investors for assuming diversifiable risk (e.g. owning a single oil producing company). The market will not provide investors with any extra return for owning a single oil company when they can buy an oil index fund at no additional cost. Similarly, the market will not reward you for owning a small-cap index fund when you can purchase a globally diversified / capitalization diversified index fund at no additional cost. This article provides a more detailed description. The Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund is a much better staring point for an equity portfolio. You will need to make sure that the asset allocation of your overall portfolio (e.g. stocks, bonds, P2P lending, cash) is consistent with your time horizon (5-10 years).",
"As keshlam said, an ETF holds various assets, but the level of diversification depends on the individual ETF. A bond ETF can focus on short term bonds, long term bonds, domestic bonds, foreign bonds, government bonds, corporate bonds, low risk, high risk, or a mixture of any of those. Vanguard Total International Bond ETF (BNDX) for instance tries to be geographically diverse.",
"There are some ETF's on the Indian market that invest in broad indexes in other countries Here's an article discussing this Be aware that such investments carry an additional risk you do not have when investing in your local market, which is 'currency risk' If for example you invest in a ETF that represents the US S&P500 index, and the US dollar weakens relative to the indian rupee, you could see the value if your investment in the US market go down, even if the index itself is 'up' (but not as much as the change in currency values). A lot of investment advisors recommend that you have at least 75% of your investments in things which are denominated in your local currency (well technically, the same currency as your liabilities), and no more than 25% invested internationally. In large part the reason for this advice is to reduce your exposure to currency risk.",
"\"Vanguard has a Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund. Their web page says \"\"Some individuals choose investments based on social and personal beliefs. For this type of investor, we have offered Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund since 2000. This low-cost fund seeks to track a benchmark of large- and mid-capitalization stocks that have been screened for certain social, human rights, and environmental criteria. In addition to stock market volatility, one of the fund’s other key risks is that this socially conscious approach may produce returns that diverge from those of the broad market.\"\" It looks like it would meet the qualifications you require, plus Vanguard funds usually have very low fees.\"",
"No, some of Vanguard's funds are index funds like their Total Stock Market Index and 500 Index. In contrast, there are funds like Vanguard PRIMECAP and Vanguard Wellington that are actively managed. There are index funds in both open-end and exchange-traded formats. VTI is the ticker for Vanguard's Total Stock Market ETF while VTSMX is an open-end mutual fund format. VOO would be the S & P 500 ETF ticker while VFINX is one of the open-end mutual fund tickers, where VIIIX has a really low expense ratio but a pretty stiff minimum to my mind. As a general note, open-end mutual funds will generally have a 5 letter ticker ending in X while an ETF will generally be shorter at 3 or 4 letters in length.",
"Dogma always disappoints. The notion that an index fund is the end-all, be-all for investing because the expense ratios are low is a flawed one. I don't concern myself with cost as an independent factor -- I look for the best value. Bogle's dogma lines up with his business, so you need to factor that in as well. Vendors of any product spend alot of time and money convincing you that unique attributes of their product are the most important thing in the world. Pre-crash, the dogmatics among us were bleating about how Fixed-date Retirement Funds were the new paradigm. Where did they go?",
"This is a great forum, mostly focused around mutual funds though: http://www.bogleheads.org/",
"@bstpierre gave you an example of a portfolio similar to IFA's 70 portfolio. Please, look other variants of example portfolios there and investigate which would suit to you. Although the example portfolios are not ETF-based, required by the op, you can rather easily check corresponding components with this tool here. Before deciding your portfolio, fire up a spreadsheet (samples here) and do calculations and do not underestimate things below: Bogleheads have already answered this type of questions so why not look there? Less reinventing the wheel: google retirement portfolios site:bogleheads.org. I am not making any recommendations like other replies because financial recommendations devalue. I hope I steered you to the right track, use less time to pick individual funds or stocks and use more time to do your research.",
"\"You have many alternatives to the funds you mentioned. It is actually very unusual for ETFs to have such high denominations. Possible alternative: iShares IVV What would you recommend I do with $1000? A diversified index fund is a great equity investment for the long run but might be considered \"\"boring\"\" by newcomers who think of equity markets as something more exciting. Maybe add a share or two, small ones, just to show the differences to the fund. This wouldn't be called wise investing but it certainly would have an educational effect. Except if this money is all you saved for your daughter, then don't gamble any of it.\"",
"\"This has been answered countless times before: One example you may want to look at is DGRO. It is an iShares ETF that many discount brokers trade for free. This ETF: offers \"\"exposure to U.S. stocks focused on dividend growth\"\".\"",
"Usually, you can buy ETFs through brokerages. I looked at London to see if there's any familiar brokerage names, and it appears that the address below is to Fidelity Investments Worldwide and their site indicates that you can buy securities. Any brokerage, in theory, should allow you to invest in securities. You could always call and ask if they allow you to invest in ETFs. Some brokerages may also allow you to purchase securities in other countries; for instance, some of the firms in the U.S. allow investors to invest in the ETF HK:2801, which is not a U.S. ETF. Many countries have ETF securities available to local and foreign investors. This site appears to help point people to brokers in London. Also, see this answer on this site (a UK investor who's invested in the U.S. through Barclays).",
"John Bogle never said only buy the S&P 500 or any single index Q:Do you think the average person could safely invest for retirement and other goals without expert advice -- just by indexing? A: Yes, there is a rule of thumb I add to that. You should start out heavily invested in equities. Hold some bond index funds as well as stock index funds. By the time you get closer to retirement or into your retirement, you should have a significant position in bond index funds as well as stock index funds. As we get older, we have less time to recoup. We have more money to protect and our nervousness increases with age. We get a little bit worried about that nest egg when it's large and we have little time to recoup it, so we pay too much attention to the fluctuations in the market, which in the long run mean nothing. How much to pay Q: What's the highest expense ratio that one should pay for a domestic equity fund? A: I'd say three-quarters of 1 percent maybe. Q: For an international fund? A: I'd say three-quarters of 1 percent. Q: For a bond fund? A: One-half of 1 percent. But I'd shave that a little bit. For example, if you can buy a no-load bond fund or a no-load stock fund, you can afford a little more expense ratio, because you're not paying any commission. You've eliminated cost No. 2....",
"You could certainly look at the holdings of index funds and choose index funds that meet your qualifications. Funds allow you to see their holdings, and in most cases you can tell from the description whether certain companies would qualify for their fund or not based on that description - particularly if you have a small set of companies that would be problems. You could also pick a fund category that is industry-specific. I invest in part in a Healthcare-focused fund, for example. Pick a few industries that are relatively diverse from each other in terms of topics, but are still specific in terms of industry - a healthcare fund, a commodities fund, an REIT fund. Then you could be confident that they weren't investing in defense contractors or big banks or whatever you object to. However, if you don't feel like you know enough to filter on your own, and want the diversity from non-industry-specific funds, your best option is likely a 'socially screened' fund like VFTSX is likely your best option; given there are many similar funds in that area, you might simply pick the one that is most similar to you in philosophy.",
"\"There are a few reasons why an index mutual fund may be preferable to an ETF: I looked at the iShare S&P 500 ETF and it has an expense ratio of 0.07%. The Vanguard Admiral S&P 500 index has an expense ratio of 0.05% and the Investor Shares have an expense ratio of 0.17%, do I don't necessarily agree with your statement \"\"admiral class Vanguard shares don't beat the iShares ETF\"\".\"",
"The idea of an index is that it is representative of the market (or a specific market segment) as a whole, so it will move as the market does. Thus, past performance is not really relevant, unless you want to bank on relative differences between different countries' economies. But that's not the point. By far the most important aspect when choosing index funds is the ongoing cost, usually expressed as Total Expense Ratio (TER), which tells you how much of your investment will be eaten up by trading fees and to pay the funds' operating costs (and profits). This is where index funds beat traditional actively managed funds - it should be below 0.5% The next question is how buying and selling the funds works and what costs it incurs. Do you have to open a dedicated account or can you use a brokerage account at your bank? Is there an account management fee? Do you have to buy the funds at a markup (can you get a discount on it)? Are there flat trading fees? Is there a minimum investment? What lot sizes are possible? Can you set up a monthly payment plan? Can you automatically reinvest dividends/coupons? Then of course you have to decide which index, i.e. which market you want to buy into. My answer in the other question apparently didn't make it clear, but I was talking only about stock indices. You should generally stick to broad, established indices like the MSCI World, S&P 500, Euro Stoxx, or in Australia the All Ordinaries. Among those, it makes some sense to just choose your home country's main index, because that eliminates currency risk and is also often cheaper. Alternatively, you might want to use the opportunity to diversify internationally so that if your country's economy tanks, you won't lose your job and see your investment take a dive. Finally, you should of course choose a well-established, reputable issuer. But this isn't really a business for startups (neither shady nor disruptively consumer-friendly) anyway.",
"There are hundreds of entities which offer mutual funds - too many to adequately address here. If you need to pick one, just go with Vanguard for the low low low fees. Yes, this is important. A typical expense ratio of 1% may not sound like much until you realize that the annualized real rate of return on the stock market - after inflation - is about 4%... so the fund eats a quarter of your earnings. (Vanguard's typical expense ratios are closer to 0.1-0.2%). If your company offers a tax-deferred retirement account such as a 401(k), you'll probably find it advantageous to use whatever funds that plan offers just to get the tax advantage, and roll over the account to a cheaper provider when you change employers. You can also buy mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) through most brokerages. E*Trade has a nice mutual fund screener, with over 6700 mutual funds and 1180 ETFs. Charles Schwab has one you can browse without even having an account.",
"I'd say neither. Index Funds mimic whatever index. Some stocks that are in the index are good investment opportunities, others not so much. I'm guessing the Bond Index Funds do the same. As for Gold... did you notice how much gold has risen lately? Do you think it will keep on rising like that? For which period? (Hint: if your timespan is less than 10 years, you really shouldn't invest). Investing is about buying low, and selling high. Gold is high, don't touch it. If you want to invest in funds, look at 4 or 5 star Morningstar rated funds. My advisors suggest Threadneedle (Lux) US Equities DU - LU0096364046 with a 4 star rating as the best American fund at this time. However, they are not favoring American stocks at this moment... so maybe you should stay away from the US for now. Have you looked at the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries?",
"An interesting read. As of lately, my office has been getting calls from Hartford, Fidelity, Oppenheimer, First Trust, and now Prudential regarding their ETFs. A lot of them just received their 3 year number and the companies are trying to get inflows into them. Prudential's has not launched yet, but is expecting to drop end of summer or early fall. Fidelity is currently the only major competitor in the space. They have a slightly lower internal cost compared to Vanguard and their position are almost identical to the iShares ETFs offered by Black Rock. You can think of Black Rock as Bounty brand paper towels while Fidelity is more like Kirkland Signature. Essentially the same thing with a slight savings on price. One thing to look out for is the very thin trading volume on some of these new ETFs. Oppenheimer and Hartford have very thin levels of volume which makes owning them feel like a game of old maid. You don't want to be stuck holding the bag if something happens in the sector ETF that was purchased. Always make sure there is a market for some of these ETFs before you buy it. Fidelity has overcome some of these volume problems... but some of the ETFs are still a little thin. Just stick with Vanguard for the thinly traded sectors and consider Fidelity if you want to shave a few bps on internal cost. This has just been my personal observation of the industry.",
"If you just want to track an index, then ETFs are, generally speaking, the better way.",
"The top ten holdings for these funds don't overlap by even one stock. It seems to me they are targeting an index for comparison, but making no attempt to replicate a list of holdings as would, say, a true S&P index.",
"\"It sounds like you need an index fund that follows so called Sustainability index. A sustainability index does not simply select \"\"socially responsible\"\" industries. It attempts to replicate the target market, in terms of countries, industries, and company sizes, but it also aims to select most \"\"sustainable\"\" companies from each category. This document explains how Dow Jones Sustainability World index is constructed (emphasis mine): An example of a fund following such index is iShares Dow Jones Global Sustainability Screened UCITS ETF, which also excludes \"\"sin stocks\"\".\"",
"You could use a stock-only ISA and invest in Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). ETFs are managed mutual funds that trade on open exchanges in the same manner as stocks. This changes the specific fund options you have open to you, but there are so many ETFs at this point that any sector you want to invest in is almost certainly represented.",
"A quick update for people finding this thread through Google. With the help of a few awesome Bogleheads, I compiled all the relevant research done into two Wiki articles: This includes comparing US to Irish domiciled ETFs, how to calculate tax withholding leakage and estate tax concerns. Hope you find this useful.",
"\"You cannot actually buy an index in the true sense of the word. An index is created and maintained by a company like Standard and Poor's who licenses the use of the index to firms like Vanguard. The S&P 500 is an example of an index. The S&P 500 \"\"index includes 500 leading companies\"\", many finical companies sell products which track to this index. The two most popular products which track to indexes are Mutual Funds (as called Index Funds and Index Mutual Funds) and Exchange Traded Funds (as called ETFs). Each Index Mutual Fund or ETF has an index which it tracks against, meaning they hold securities which make up a sample of the index (some indexes like bond indexes are very hard to hold everything that makes them up). Looking at the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Mutual Fund (ticker VFINX) we see that it tracks against the S&P 500 index. Looking at its holdings we see the 500-ish stocks that it holds along with a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow for people buying and sell shares. If we look at the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (ticker VOO) we see that it also tracks against the S&P 500 index. Looking at its holdings we see they are very similar to the similar Index Mutual Fund. Other companies like T. Rowe Price have similar offering. Look at the T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 Fund (ticker PREIX) its holdings in stocks are the same as the similar Vanguard fund and like the Vanguard fund it also holds a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow. The only real difference between different products which track against the same index is in the expense ratio (fees for managing the fund) and in the small differences in the execution of the funds. For the most part execution of the funds do not really matter to most people (it has a very small effect), what matters is the expense (the fees paid to own the fund). If we just compare the expense ratio of the Vanguard and T. Rowe Price funds we see (as of 27 Feb 2016) Vanguard has an expense ratio of 0.17% for it Index Mutual Fund and 0.05% for its ETF, while T. Rowe Price has an expense ratio of 0.27%. These are just the fees for the funds themselves, there are also account maintenance fees (which normally go down as the amount of money you have invested at a firm go up) and in the case of ETFs execution cost (cost to trade the shares along with the difference between the bid and ask on the shares). If you are just starting out I would say going with the Index Mutual Fund would easier and most likely would cost less over-all if you are buying a small amount of shares every month. When choosing a company look at the expense ratio on the funds and the account maintenance fees (along with the account minimals). Vanguard is well known for having low fees and they in fact were the first to offer Index Mutual Funds. For more info on the S&P 500 index see also this Investopedia entry on the S&P 500 index. Do not worry if this is all a bit confusing it is to most people (myself included) at first.\"",
"\"As user quid states in his answer, all you need to do is open an account with a stock broker in order to gain access to the world's stock markets. If you are currently banking with one of the six big bank, then they will offer stockbroking services. You can shop around for the best commission rates. If you wish to manage your own investments, then you will open a \"\"self-directed\"\" account. You can shelter your investments from all taxation by opening a TFSA account with your stock broker. Currently, you can add $5,500 per year to your TFSA. Unused allowances from previous years can still be used. Thus, if you have not yet made any TFSA contributions, you can add upto $46,500 to your TFSA and enjoy the benefits of tax free investing. Investing in what you are calling \"\"unmanaged index funds\"\" means investing in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Once you have opened your account you can invest in any ETFs traded on the stock markets accessible through your stock broker. Buying shares on foreign markets may carry higher commission rates, but for the US markets commissions are generally the same as they are for Canadian markets. However, in the case of buying foreign shares you will carry the extra cost and risk of selling Canadian dollars and buying foreign currency. There are also issues to do with foreign withholding taxes when you trade foreign shares directly. In the case of the US, you will also need to register with the US tax authorities. Foreign withholding taxes payable are generally treated as a tax credit with respect to Canadian taxation, so you will not be double taxed. In today's market, for most investors there is generally no need to invest directly in foreign market indices since you can do so indirectly on the Toronto stock market. The large Canadian ETF providers offer a wide range of US, European, Asian, and Global ETFs as well as Canadian ETFs. For example, you can track all of the major US indices by trading in Toronto in Canadian dollars. The S&P500, the Dow Jones, and the NASDAQ100 are offered in both \"\"currency hedged\"\" and \"\"unhedged\"\" forms. In addition, there are ETFs on the total US Market, US Small Caps, US sectors such as banks, and more exotic ETFs such as those offering \"\"covered call\"\" strategies and \"\"put write\"\" strategies. Here is a link to the BMO ETF website. Here is a link to the iShares (Canada) ETF website.\"",
"There are fund of funds,e.g. life cycle funds or target retirement funds, that could cover a lot of these with an initial investment that one could invest into for a few years and then after building up a balance large enough, then it may make sense to switch to having more control.",
"Something to consider is how do you want to handle fractional shares. Most open-end funds can easily go to fractional shares to that if you want to invest $500 in a fund each month, it is a relatively easy transaction where some shares will be fractional and handled easily. An ETF may not always work that way unless you go through something like Sharebuilder that would allow the fractional shares as if the ETF is trading at $150/share, you could buy 3 shares but still have $50 that you want to invest but can't as stocks trade in whole share numbers usually. This is without adding brokerage commissions. Depending on the broker, re-investing dividends may or may not be that simple as fractional shares could be a problem since those 3 shares aren't likely to have enough of a dividend to equal another share being bought with the proceeds. If you want the flexibility of stop and limit orders then the ETF may make more sense while the open-end fund is simply to invest whole dollar amounts that then lead to fractional shares. Don't forget to factor in minimums and other stuff as VFIAX may have a bit of a minimum to it as well as possible fees that could be annoying as I remember VFINX having some account maintenance fees that were a bit irksome back in the day that may still be around in some cases so be sure to read the fine print on things.",
"\"I'm *really* surprised to see Schwab as \"\"only\"\" #5.. They don't specialize in \"\"niche\"\" ETFs, but for the core \"\"lazy portfolio\"\" style ETFs, I've always considered them neck-and-neck with Vanguard. That said - There's nothing wrong with obscure players in the market! I'd rather they had more exposure and therefore lower ERs, but the fact that something like $BBC *can* exist makes me sooo happy! That's pretty much my personal \"\"ultra high risk\"\" basket in one convenient form!\"",
"An index fund is inherently diversified across its index -- no one stock will either make or break the results. In that case it's a matter of picking the index(es) you want to put the money into. ETFs do permit smaller initial purchases, which would let you do a reasonable mix of sectors. (That seems to be the one advantage of ETFs over traditional funds...?)",
"Your tax efficient reasoning is solid for where you want to distribute your assets. ETFs are often more tax efficient than their equivalent mutual funds but the exact differences would depend on the comparison between the fund and ETF you were considering. The one exception to this rule is Vanguard funds and ETFs which have the exact same tax-efficiency because ETFs are a share class of the corresponding mutual fund.",
"Go to fidelity.com and open a free brokerage account. Deposit money from your bank account into your fidelity account. (expect a minimum of $2500, FBIDX requires more I believe) Buy free to trade ETF Funds of your liking. I tend to prefer US Bonds to stocks, FBIDX is a decent intermediate US Bond etf, but the euro zone has added a little more volatile lately than I'd like. If you do really want to trade stocks, you may want to go with a large cap fund like FLCSX, but it is more risky especially in this economy. (but buy low sell high right?) I've put my savings into FBIDX and FGMNX (basically the same thing, intermediate bond ETF funds) and made $700 in interest and capitol gains last year. (started with zero initially, have 30k in there now)",
"Why don't you look at the actual funds and etfs in question rather than seeking a general conclusion about all pairs of funds and etfs? For example, Vanguard's total stock market index fund (VTSAX) and ETF (VTI). Comparing the two on yahoo finance I find no difference over the last 5 years visually. For a different pair of funds you may find something very slightly different. In many cases the index fund and ETF will not have the same benchmark and fees so comparisons get a little more cloudy. I recall a while ago there was an article that was pointing out that at the time emerging market ETF's had higher fees than corresponding index funds. For this reason I think you should examine your question on a case-by-case basis. Index fund and ETF returns are all publicly available so you don't have to guess.",
"A single fund that reflects the local currency would be an index fund in the country. Look for mutual funds which provide for investing on the local stock index. The fund managers would handle all the portfolio balancing for you.",
"One thing to be aware of when choosing mutual funds and index ETFs is the total fees and costs. The TD Ameritrade site almost certainly had links that would let you see the total fees (as an annual percentage) for each of the funds. Within a category, the lowest fees percentage is best, since that is directly subtracted from your performance. As an aside, your allocation seems overly conservative to me for someone that is 25 years old. You will likely work for 40 or so years and the average stock market cycle is about 7 years. So you will likely see 5 or so complete cycles. Worrying about stability of principal too young will really cut into your returns. My daughter is your age and I have advised her to be 100% in equities and then to start dialing that back in about 25 years or so.",
"It's incredibly difficult to beat the market, especially after you're paying out significant fees for managed funds. The Bogleheads have some good things going for them on their low cost Vanguard style funds. The biggest winners in the financial markets are the people collecting fees from churn or setting up the deals which take advantage of less sophisticated/connected players. Buy, Hold and Forget has been shown as a loser as well in this recession. Diversifying and re-balancing however takes advantage of market swings by cashing out winners and buying beaten down stocks. If you take advantages of general market highs and lows (without worrying about strict timing) every few months to re-balance, you buy some protection from crashes in any given sector. One common guideline is to use your age as the percentage of your holdings that are in cash equivalents, rather than stocks. At age 28, at least 28% of my account should be in bonds, real estate, commodities, etc. This should help guide your allocation and re-balancing strategy. Finally, focusing on Growth and Income funds may give you a better shot at above S&P returns, but it's wise to hold a small percentage in the S&P 500 as well.",
"Index Funds & ETFs, if they are tracking the same index, will be the same in an ideal world. The difference would be because of the following factors: Expense ratio: i.e. the expense the funds charge. This varies and hence it would lead to a difference in performance. Tracking error: this means that there is a small percentage of error between the actual index composition and the fund composition. This is due to various reasons. Effectively this would result in the difference between values. Demand / Supply: with ETFs, the fund is traded on stock exchanges like a stock. If the general feeling is that the index is rising, it could lead to an increase in the price of the ETF. Index funds on the other hand would remain the same for the day and are less liquid. This results in a price increase / decrease depending on the market. The above explains the reason for the difference. Regarding which one to buy, one would need to consider other factors like: a) How easy is it to buy ETFs? Do you already hold Demat A/C & access to brokers to help you conduct the transaction or do you need to open an additional account at some cost. b) Normally funds do not need any account, but are you OK with less liquidity as it would take more time to redeem funds.",
"I believe that kind of micro-tuning for every participant would make the operating costs of the fund intolerable. A better approach, if this is important to you, would be to find a fund or funds designed for people who share your criteria. If the goals and criteria aren't mutual, a mutual fund -- traditional or ETF -- is probably not the right tool.",
"There's really no right or wrong answer here because you'll be fine either way. If you've investing amounts in the low 5 figures you're likely just getting started, and if your asset allocation is not optimal it's not that big a deal because you have a long time horizon to adjust it, and the expense ratio differences here won't add up to that much. A third option is Vanguard ETFs, which have the expense ratio of Admiral Shares but have lower minimums (i.e. the cost of a single share, typically on the order of $100). However, they are a bit more advanced than mutual funds in that they trade on the market and require you to place orders rather than just specifying the amount you want to buy. A downside here is you might end up with a small amount of cash that you can't invest, since you can initially only buy whole numbers of ETFs shares. So what I'd recommend is buying roughly the correct number of ETFs shares you want except for your largest allocation, then use the rest of your cash on Admiral Shares of that (if possible). For example, let's say you have $15k to invest and you want to be 2/3 U.S. stock, 1/6 international stock, and 1/6 U.S. bond. I would buy as many shares of VXUS (international stock ETF) and BND (U.S. bond ETF) as you can get for $2500 each, then whatever is left over (~$10k) put into VTSAX (U.S. stock Admiral Shares mutual fund).",
"If you are going to the frenzy of individual stock picking, like almost everyone initially, I suggest you to write your plan to paper. Like, I want an orthogonal set of assets and limit single investments to 10%. If with such limitations the percentage of brokerage fees rise to unbearable large, you should not invest that way in the first hand. You may find better to invest in already diversified fund, to skip stupid fees. There are screeners like in morningstar that allow you to see overlapping items in funds but in stocks it becomes trickier and much errorsome. I know you are going to the stock market frenzy, even if you are saying to want to be long-term or contrarian investor, most investors are convex, i.e. they follow their peers, despite it would better to be a concave investor (but as we know it can be hard). If the last part confused you, fire up a spreadsheet and do a balance. It is a very motivating activity, really. You will immediately notice things important to you, not just to providers such as morningstar, but alert it may take some time. And Bogleheads become to your rescue, ready spreadsheets here.",
"I would just buy a low-cost diversified equity ETF. VTI is pretty solid. Also, JW are you working or in school? If you are working you should consider opening an IRA or Roth IRA. Also if your employer has a 401k or other retirement plan you can contribute to I would advise doing so.",
"Let's simplify things by assuming you only own 2 stocks. By owning VOO and VTI, you're overweight on large- and mid-cap stocks relative to the market composition. Likewise, by owning VTI and VT, you're overweight on U.S. stocks; conversely, by owning VXUS and VT, you're overweight on non-U.S. stocks. These are all perfectly fine positions to take if that's what you intend and have justification for. For example, if you're in the U.S., it may be a good idea to hold more U.S. stocks than VT because of currency risk. But 4 equity index ETFs is probably overcomplicating things. It is perfectly fine to hold only VTI and VXUS because these funds comprise thousands of stocks and thus give you sufficient diversification. I would recommend holding those 2 ETFs based on a domestic/international allocation that makes sense to you (Vanguard recommends 40% of your stock allocation to be international), and if for some reason you want to be overweight in large- and mid-cap companies, throw in VOO. You can use Morningstar X-Ray to look at your proposed portfolio and find your optimal mix of geographic and stock style allocation.",
"Small cap and mid cap shares tend to outperform large cap shares in a bull market, but they tend to underperform large cap shares in a bear market. Since the stock markets tend to go up in the long term, this suggests that a low cost small and mid cap index ETF should offer the best long term returns. Having said that, we are currently in a mature bull market having experienced over seven years without encountering a bear market. If a bearish outlook is something you worry about, then perhaps a broad market index, which will be heavily weighted towards large cap shares, may be a better choice for you at this time, with an eye toward switching to small and mid cap indices during the next bear market.",
"I see a couple of reasons why you could consider choosing a mutual fund over an ETF In some cases index mutual funds can be a cheaper alternative to ETFs. In the UK where I am based, Fidelity is offering a management fee of 0.07% on its FTSE All shares tracker. Last time I checked, no ETF was beating that There are quite a few cost you have to foot when dealing ETFs In some cases, when dealing for relatively small amounts (e.g. a monthly investment plan) you can get a better deal, if your broker has negotiated discounts for you with a fund provider. My broker asks £12.5 when dealing in shares (£1.5 for the regular investment plan) whereas he asks £0 when dealing in funds and I get a 100% discount on the initial charge of the fund. As a conclusion, I would suggest you look at the all-in costs over total investment period you are considering for the exact amount you are planning to invest. Despite all the hype, ETFs are not always the cheapest alternative.",
"American Century has their Heritage Fund: https://www.americancentury.com/sd/mobile/fund_facts_jstl?fund=30 It has a good track record. Here are all the mutual funds from American Century: https://www.americancentury.com/content/americancentury/direct/en/fund-performance/performance.html A mutual fund is a good wayway to go as it is not subject to fluctuations throughout the day whereas an ETF is.",
"Your link is pointing to managed funds where the fees are higher, you should look at their exchange traded funds; you will note that the management fees are much lower and better reflect the index fund strategy.",
"\"That share class may not have a ticker symbol though \"\"Black Rock MSCI ACWI ex-US Index\"\" does have a ticker for \"\"Investor A\"\" shares that is BDOAX. Some funds will have multiple share classes that is a way to have fees be applied in various ways. Mutual fund classes would be the SEC document about this if you want a government source within the US around this. Something else to consider is that if you are investing in a \"\"Fund of funds\"\" is that there can be two layers of expense ratios to consider. Vanguard is well-known for keeping its expenses low.\"",
"Most of the “recommendations” are just total market allocations. Within domestic stocks, the performance rotates. Sometimes large cap outperform, sometimes small cap outperform. You can see the chart here (examine year by year): https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1428692400000&chddm=99646&chls=IntervalBasedLine&cmpto=NYSEARCA:VO;NYSEARCA:VB&cmptdms=0;0&q=NYSEARCA:VV&ntsp=0&ei=_sIqVbHYB4HDrgGA-oGoDA Conventional wisdom is to buy the entire market. If large cap currently make up 80% of the market, you would allocate 80% of domestic stocks to large cap. Same case with International Stocks (Developed). If Japan and UK make up the largest market internationally, then so be it. Similar case with domestic bonds, it is usually total bond market allocation in the beginning. Then there is the question of when you want to withdraw the money. If you are withdrawing in a couple years, you do not want to expose too much to currency risks, thus you would allocate less to international markets. If you are investing for retirement, you will get the total world market. Then there is the question of risk tolerance. Bonds are somewhat negatively correlated with Stocks. When stock dips by 5% in a month, bonds might go up by 2%. Under normal circumstances they both go upward. Bond/Stock allocation ratio is by age I’m sure you knew that already. Then there is the case of Modern portfolio theory. There will be slight adjustments to the ETF weights if it is found that adjusting them would give a smaller portfolio variance, while sacrificing small gains. You can try it yourself using Excel solver. There is a strategy called Sector Rotation. Google it and you will find examples of overweighting the winners periodically. It is difficult to time the rotation, but Healthcare has somehow consistently outperformed. Nonetheless, those “recommendations” you mentioned are likely to be market allocations again. The “Robo-advisors” list out every asset allocation in detail to make you feel overwhelmed and resort to using their service. In extreme cases, they can even break down the holdings to 2/3/4 digit Standard Industrial Classification codes, or break down the bond duration etc. Some “Robo-advisors” would suggest you as many ETF as possible to increase trade commissions (if it isn’t commission free). For example, suggesting you to buy VB, VO, VV instead a VTI.",
"One of the key things to look for is trading volume. I think the price spread will be better on high volume ETFs, which means you'll be able to sell for more when the time comes. Check Google or Yahoo finance for those stats.",
"There's a few different types of investments you could do. As poolie mentioned, you could split your money between the Vanguard All World ex-US and Vanguard Total Stock Market index. A similar approach would be to invest in the Vanguard Total World Stock ETF. You wouldn't have to track separate fund performances, at the downside of not being able to allocate differential amounts to the US and non-US markets (Vanguard will allocate them by market cap). You could consider investing in country-specific broad market indices like the S&P 500 and FTSE 100. While not as diversified as the world indices, they are more correlated with the country's economic outlook. Other common investing paradigms are investing in companies which have historically paid out high dividends and companies that are under-valued by the market but have good prospects for future growth. This gets in the domain of value investing, which an entire field by itself. Like Andrew mentioned, investing in a mutual fund is hassle-free. However, mutual fees/commissions and taxes can be higher (somewhere in the range 1%-5%) than index funds/ETF expense ratios (typically <0.50%), so they would have to outperform the market by a bit to break-even. There are quite a few good books out there to read up about investing. I'd recommend The Intelligent Investor and Millionaire Teacher to understand the basics of long-term investing, but of course, there are many other equally good books too.",
"\"There are several brokerages which have lower minimum deposits (often $500) and allow purchase of index ETFs. I won't name them to avoid advertising. The best way to find out is to go to your bank, and ask to see a financial advisor. Then explain your difficulty to the advisor (who should caution you about the issues with investing such a small amount) and ask for advice on where to find a suitable broker. Also, sometimes banks offer services where you can buy shares of a fund through your bank account. This is probably not \"\"as good\"\" as the brokerage (performance may be not as good, fees may come out higher), but especially for small amounts and for convenience, this may be easier. Again, you should inquire at your institution.\"",
"I quite like the Canadian Couch Potato which provides useful information targeted at investors in Canada. They specifically provide some model portfolios. Canadian Couch Potato generally suggests investing in indexed ETFs or mutual funds made up of four components. One ETF or mutual fund tracking Canadian bonds, another tracking Canadian stocks, a third tracking US stocks, and a fourth tracking international stocks. I personally add a REIT ETF (BMO Equal Weight REITs Index ETF, ZRE), but that may complicate things too much for your liking. Canadian Couch Potato specifically recommends the Tangerine Streetwise Portfolio if you are looking for something particularly easy, though the Management Expense Ratio is rather high for my liking. Anyway, the website provides specific suggestions, whether you are looking for a single mutual fund, multiple mutual funds, or prefer ETFs. From personal experience, Tangerine's offerings are very, very simple and far cheaper than the 2.5% you are quoting. I currently use TD's e-series funds and spend only a few minutes a year rebalancing. There are a number of good ETFs available if you want to lower your overhead further, though Canadians don't get quite the deals available in the U.S. Still, you shouldn't be paying anything remotely close to 2.5%. Also, beware of tax implications; the website has several articles that cover these in detail.",
"Vanguard has low cost ETFs that track the S&P 500. The ticker is VOO, its expense ratio is 0.05%, which is pretty low compared to others in the market. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you won't have to pay tax on the dividends if it's in a retirement account such as a Traditional(pay taxes when you withdraw) or Roth IRA(pay income/federal/fica etc, but no taxes on withdrawal)...",
"In the case of VFIAX versus VOO, if you're a buy-and-hold investor, you're probably better off with the mutual fund because you can buy fractional shares. However, in general the expense ratio for ETFs will be lower than equivalent mutual funds (even passive index funds). They are the same in this case because the mutual fund is Admiral Class, which has a $10,000 minimum investment that not all people may be able to meet. Additionally, ETFs are useful when you don't have an account with the mutual fund company (i.e. Vanguard), and buying the mutual fund would incur heavy transaction fees.",
"As stated in the comments, Index Funds are the way to go. Stocks have the best return on investment, if you can stomach the volatility, and the diversification index funds bring you is unbeatable, while keeping costs low. You don't need an Individual Savings Account (UK), 401(k) (US) or similar, though they would be helpful to boost investment performance. These are tax advantaged accounts; without them you will have to pay taxes on your investment gains. However, there's still a lot to gain from investing, specially if the alternative is to place them in the vault or similar. Bear in mind that inflation makes your money shrink in real terms. Even a small interest is better than no interest. By best I mean that is safe (regulated by the financial authorities, so your money is safe and insured up to a certain amount) and has reasonable fees (keeping costs low is a must in any scenario). The two main concerns when designing your portfolio are diversification and low TER (Total Expense Ratio). As when we chose broker, our concern is to be as safe as we possibly can (diversification helps with this) and to keep costs at the bare minimum. Some issues might restrict your election or make others seem better. Depending on the country you live and the one of the fund, you might have to pay more taxes on gains/dividends. e.g. The US keeps some of them if your country doesn't have a special treaty with them. Look for W-8Ben and tax withholding for more information. Vanguard and Blackrock offer nice index funds. Morningstar might be a good place for gathering information. Don't trust blindly the 'rating'. Some values are 'not rated' and kick ass the 4 star ones. Again: seek low TER. Not a big fan of this point, but I'm bound to mention it. It can be actually helpful for sorting out tax related issues, which might decide the kind of index fund you pick, and if you find this topic somewhat daunting. You start with a good chunk of money, so it might make even more sense in your scenario to hire someone knowledgeable and trustworthy. I hope this helps to get you started. Best of luck.",
"There is the iShares Jantzi Social Index Fund.",
"absolutely $SPY ETF is the way to go if your point of comparison is the S&P and you want to do low maintenance.",
"\"Target Date Bond ETFs: Best or Worst Fixed Income Funds? references a product at least in terms of being a bond fund that exists, Target Date Bond ETFs. While the article is a bit old as it came out 7 months ago, \"\"AMT Free Municipal Bonds by iShares\"\" would be the product to explore and see if the ticker exists. Shares Launches 2018 Muni Bond ETF may be the product you want assuming a 5 year time frame as the final date referenced in the article is Aug. 31, 2018 approximately. Remember to do your own research but this would seem to be what you wanted.\"",
"What you may be looking for are multi-manager ETFs; these invest in a basket of diversified funds to get the best out of all of the funds. The problem with multi-manager funds is, of course, that you pay fees twice; once to the fund itself and once to each of the funds in the fund. The low fees on ETFs mean that it is not very profitable to actively maintain one so there are not many around (Googling returns very few). Noting that historic success doesn't guarantee future success and that fees are being applied to fees these funds only really benefit from diversification of manager performance risk. partial source of information and an example of a (non-outperforming) Multi-manager ETF: http://www.etfstrategy.co.uk/advisorshares-sets-date-for-multi-manager-etf-with-charitable-twist-give-53126/",
"\"While nothing is guaranteed - any stock market or country could collapse tomorrow - if you have a fairly long window (15+ years is certainly long), ETFs are likely to earn you well above inflation. Looking at long term ETFs, you typically see close to 10% annual growth over almost any ten year period in the US, and while I don't know European indexes, they're probably well above inflation at least. The downside of ETFs is that your money is somewhat less liquid than in a savings account, and any given year you might not earn anything - you easily could lose money in a particular year. As such, you shouldn't have money in ETFs that you expect to use in the next few months or year or even a few years, perhaps. But as long as you're willing to play the long game - ie, invest in ETF, don't touch it for 15 years except to reinvest the dividends - as long as you go with someone like Vanguard, and use a very low expense ratio fund (mine are 0.06% and 0.10%, I believe), you are likely in the long term to come out ahead. You can diversify your holdings - hold 10% to 20% in bond funds, for example - if you're concerned about risk; look at how some of the \"\"Target\"\" retirement funds allocate their investments to see how diversification can work [Target retirement funds assume high risk tolerance far out and then as the age grows the risk tolerance drops; don't invest in them, but it can be a good example of how to do it.] All of this does require a tolerance of risk, though, and you have to be able to not touch your funds even if they go down - studies have repeatedly shown that trying to time the market is a net loss for most people, and the best thing you can do when your (diverse) investments go down is stay neutral (talking about large funds here and not individual stocks). I think this answers 3 and 4. For 1, share price AND quantity matter (assuming no splits). This depends somewhat on the fund; but at minimum, funds must dividend to you what they receive as dividends. There are Dividend focused ETFs, which are an interesting topic in themselves; but a regular ETF doesn't usually have all that large of dividends. For more information, investopedia has an article on the subject. Note that there are also capital gains distributions, which are typically distributed to help offset capital gains taxes that may occur from time to time with an ETF. Those aren't really returns - you may have to hand most or all over to the IRS - so don't consider distributions the same way. The share price tracks the total net asset value of the fund divided by the number of shares (roughly, assuming no supply/demand split). This should go up as the stocks the ETF owns go up; overall, this is (for non-dividend ETFs) more often the larger volatility both up and down. For Vanguard's S&P500 ETF which you can see here, there were about $3.50 in dividends over 2014, which works out to about a 2% return ($185-$190 share price). On the other hand, the share price went from around $168 at the beginning of 2014 to $190 at the end of 2014, for a return of 13%. That was during a 'good' year for the market, of course; there will be years where you get 2-3% in dividends and lose money; in 2011 it opened at 116 and closed the year at 115 (I don't have the dividend for that year; certainly lower than 3.5% I'd think, but likely nonzero.) The one caveat here is that you do have stock splits, where they cut the price (say) in half and give you double the shares. That of course is revenue neutral - you have the same value the day after the split as before, net of market movements. All of this is good from a tax point of view, by the way; changes in price don't hit you until you sell the stock/fund (unless the fund has some capital gains), while dividends and distributions do. ETFs are seen as 'tax-friendly' for this reason. For 2, Vanguard is pretty good about this (in the US); I wouldn't necessarily invest monthly, but quarterly shouldn't be a problem. Just pay attention to the fees and figure out what the optimal frequency is (ie, assuming 10% return, what is your break even point). You would want to have some liquid assets anyway, so allow that liquid amount to rise over the quarter, then invest what you don't immediately see a need to use. You can see here Vanguard in the US has no fees for buying shares, but has a minimum of one share; so if you're buying their S&P500 (VOO), you'd need to wait until you had $200 or so to invest in order to invest additional funds.\"",
"\"TD e-series index funds are great for regular contributions every paycheck since there is no trading commission. The personal finance blog \"\"Canadian Couch Potato\"\" has great examples of what they call \"\"model portfolios\"\" and one consists of entirely TD e-series index funds. Check it out: http://canadiancouchpotato.com/model-portfolios-2/ The e-series portfolio that is described in the Model Portfolios (linked above) made returns of just over 10%. This is very similar to the ETF Model Portolio. One thing to remember is that these funds have a 30 day no sell time frame, otherwise a 2% fee is applied to the funds you withdraw.\"",
"See my comment for some discussion of why one might choose an identical fund over an ETF. As to why someone would choose the higher cost fund in this instance ... The Admiral Shares version of the fund (VFIAX) has the same expense ratio as the ETF but has a minimum investment of $10K. Some investors may want to eventually own the Admiral Shares fund but do not yet have $10K. If they begin with the Investor Shares now and then convert to Admiral later, that conversion will be a non-taxable event. If, however, they start with ETF shares now and then sell them later to buy the fund, that sale will be a taxable event. Vanguard ETFs are only commission-free to Vanguard clients using Vanguard Brokerage Services. Some investors using other brokers may face all sorts of penalties for purchasing third-party ETFs. Some retirement plan participants (either at Vanguard or another broker) may not even be allowed to purchase ETFs.",
"My plan is that one day I can become free of the modern day monetary burdens that most adults carry with them and I can enjoy a short life without these troubles on my mind. If your objective is to achieve financial independence, and to be able to retire early from the workforce, that's a path that has been explored before. So there's plenty of sources that you might want to check. The good news is that you don't need to be an expert on security analysis or go through dozens of text books to invest wisely and enjoy the market returns. This is the Bogleheads philosophy. It's widely accepted by people in academia, and thoroughly tested. Look into it further if you want to see the rationale behind, but, to sum it up: It doesn't matter how expert you are. The idea of beating the market, that an index fund tracks, is about 'outsmarting' the rest of investors. That would be difficult, even if it was a matter of skill, but when it comes to predicting random events we're all equally clueless. *Total Expense Ratio: It gives an idea of how expensive is a given fund in terms of fees. Actively managed funds have higher TER than indexed ones. This doesn't mean there aren't index funds with, unexplainable, high TER out there.",
"\"Save the effort. For personal finance purpose, just use the simple tools. For example, if you like P&G very much but you want to diversify with ETF, use: http://etfdb.com/stock/PG/ https://www.etfchannel.com/finder/?a=etfsholding&symbol=PG Pick a ETF with highest weighting. Replace \"\"PG\"\" in the link with other tickers.\"",
"In the past 10 years there have been mutual funds that would act as a single bucket of stocks and bonds. A good example is Fidelity's Four In One. The trade off was a management fee for the fund in exchange for having to manage the portfolio itself and pay separate commissions and fees. These days though it is very simple and pretty cheap to put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs that would represent a balanced portfolio. Whats even more interesting is that large online brokerage houses are starting to offer commission free trading of a number of ETFs, as long as they are not day traded and are held for a period similar to NTF mutual funds. I think you could easily put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs to trade on Fidelity or TD Ameritrade commission free, and one that would represent a nice diversified portfolio. The main advantage is that you are not giving money to the fund manager but rather paying the minimal cost of investing in an index ETF. Overall this can save you an extra .5-1% annually on your portfolio, just in fees. Here are links to commission free ETF trading on Fidelity and TD Ameritrade.",
"I think the dividend fund may not be what youre looking for. You mentioned you want growth, not income. But I think of dividend stocks as income stocks, not growth. They pay a dividend because these are established companies that do not need to invest so much in capex anymore, so they return it to shareholders. In other words, they are past their growth phase. These are what you want to hold when you have a large nest egg, you are ready to retire, and just want to make a couple percent a year without having to worry as much about market fluctuations. The Russel ETF you mentioned and other small caps are I think what you are after. I recently made a post here about the difference between index funds and active funds. The difference is very small. That is, in any given year, many active ETFs will beat them, many wont. It depends entirely on the market conditions at the time. Under certain conditions the small caps will outperform the S&P, definitely. However, under other conditioned, such as global growth slowdown, they are typically the first to fall. Based on your comments, like how you mentioned you dont want to sell, I think index funds should make up a decent size portion of your portfolio. They are the safest bet, long term, for someone who just wants to buy and hold. Thats not to say they need be all. Do a mixture. Diversification is good. As time goes on dont be afraid to add bond ETFs either. This will protect you during downturns as bond prices typically rise under slow growth conditions (and sometimes even under normal conditions, like last year when TLT beat the S&P...)",
"Assuming this will be a taxable account (since you want to pull income off of it, although this will lower wealth growth), you could open a brokerage account at some place like Vanguard (free on their ETFs) and look at tax efficient index fund ETFs (such as total stock market or their 500 fund), including some international (foreign tax credit is nice in taxable) and muni funds for the (tax advantaged) income, although CDs are likely better for the income at this point."
] |
[
"Half VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF) and half VEU (Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US ETF), and stop futzing. The US is roughly half the world market cap so this is like a total world equity index. Very low costs. VTI Expense ratio is 0.04% as of 04/27/2017. I don't know what you mean by RSG, but it could be either a waste processor or a gold miner. Either way it seems kind of speculative to hold even 10% of your wealth.",
"You weren't really clear about where you are in the world, what currency you are using and what you want your eventual asset allocation to be. If you're in the US, I'd recommend splitting your international investment between a Global ex-US fund like VEU (as Chris suggested in his comment) and an emerging markets ETF like VWO. If you're not in the US, you need to think about how much you would like to invest in US equities and what approach you would like to take to do so. Also, with international funds, particularly emerging markets, low expense ratios aren't necessarily the best value. Active management may help you to avoid some of the risks associated with investing in foreign companies, particularly in emerging markets. If you still want low expenses at all cost, understand the underlying index that the ETF is pegged to.",
"A proper world porfolio is a non-trivial task. No one answer exists which is the best one and how one should construct it. World? The problem with world portfolio is that it is not well-defined. Providers use it as they wish and people use it as they wish, read the history for further ado (messy stuff). You can build yourself world portfolio but warning it is getting harder. You can use this tool by selecting global equity to search through global funds -- it is very useful and allows you to find the low-cost funds with PE/PB/Div.yield. Also, investigate topic more with this tool, less spam."
] |
864
|
Why use accounting software like Quickbooks instead of Excel spreadsheets?
|
[
"472924",
"30142",
"211364",
"24890",
"566337",
"152072"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"30142",
"566337",
"472924",
"24890",
"19794",
"222380",
"2436",
"329774",
"351340",
"278702",
"327202",
"463893",
"157751",
"398365",
"78117",
"332675",
"123384",
"505361",
"479302",
"528589",
"431945",
"249894",
"505134",
"171253",
"456885",
"345530",
"584175",
"324273",
"272202",
"467508",
"419245",
"277583",
"151554",
"249450",
"408628",
"535928",
"507281",
"540199",
"402174",
"285342",
"231968",
"365476",
"32199",
"333681",
"554141",
"307919",
"509365",
"597681",
"391841",
"71986",
"118620",
"208067",
"356928",
"196432",
"102880",
"557861",
"590375",
"261378",
"409284",
"586272",
"412351",
"109196",
"211503",
"71987",
"500618",
"470319",
"290687",
"453604",
"499604",
"417400",
"592309",
"218793",
"183960",
"177946",
"552106",
"479625",
"345122",
"179420",
"578342",
"173307",
"76782",
"194970",
"309853",
"308991",
"579066",
"382746",
"349998",
"91671",
"291376",
"485102",
"494625",
"63294",
"325235",
"2565",
"178061",
"365721",
"464269",
"529790",
"305164",
"20844"
] |
[
"I think your reasons are good. Fundamentally accounting software is built to ensure you record your accounting data effectively with minimal mistakes and good auditing. But you still need to use the tool properly to get the benefit. One other advantage is that many accountants are familiar with, say QuickBooks, and can do your accounts more effectively if you use their preferred tool.",
"Why use spreadsheets rather than writing your forms and formulas directly in a programming lanuage? Because you've got better things to do than reinvent the wheel, right? Same answer. ===== clarification, since the point apparently wasn't clear: Using a spreadsheet means you're writing and organizing and maintaining the formats and formulas yourself. Essentially, you are writing your own accounting program, using the spreadsheet program as your programming language. Nothing wrong with that, it just means you're doing work to produce something that you could have purchased instead. It's up to you to decide how the value of your time doing that work trades off against the cost of the commercial product. For many people, especially as the bookkeeping becomes more complex, that isn't a good investment of their time. The otherwise billable time it would take them to maintain the spreadsheet is worth more than the cost of buying an off-the-shelf product, and the product offers features that they wouldn't get around to adding to their own solution. Add to that the question of whether people find creating and tweaking spreadsheets rewarding or annoying. The right tool is always the one that lets you focus on what you actually care about, unless the cost is too high to justify it.Most folks care about getting the accounting task done a least cost/least efprt. Buying a solution is least effort; if the real cost including time/effort is also lower, that's the direction they're going to go. I maintained my own accounts, and did my taxes, in spreadsheets for quite some time. These days the time to do so, multiplied by what my time is worth, would exceed the cost of buying tools, and the commercial tools are more pleasant to use, less prone to accidents, and offer featured that I don't need but appreciate. I still use a stylesheet for one small calculation (rebalancing my invedtments) but thst's because I havean odd corner case the built-in tool doesn't handle well...not that it makes any practival difference, but being slightly off annoyed me. Your milage, obviously, will vary. Use the tool that suits your needs; others will do likewise.",
"\"I would say that all of the reasons you list in your question are valid, and I would add the following... You are in the landscaping business, not the accounting business. If you manage everything in spreadsheets, at least one of you has to become the bookkeeper and leave the landscaping to the others. Spreadsheets are \"\"agnostic\"\" in how you use them, so you have to turn them into an accounting system, which means you're now not only more of a bookkeeper, but you're also more of a developer, too, and even less of a landscaper. Accounting software is already developed by developers who understand accounting. Using it requires you to only perform the data entry tasks, and then you can focus on the landscaping, customer service, sales and marketing, etc., things that actually contribute to your business. It is still good for you to understand basic accounting principles. Specialized accounting software will guide you through the process of learning and help you avoid making many of the costly mistakes you might have made in that learning process.\"",
"\"Since this is a cooperative I'm guessing your partners may want to be able to view the books so another key point you may want to consider is collaboration. QuickBooks desktop has all of these same issues because it is meant to be used on a single desktop. We're in an age of mobile devices, and especially in a business like landscaping it would be nice if certain aspects of record keeping could be done at the point and time where they are incurred. I'd argue you want a Software as a Service (SaaS) accounting package as opposed to \"\"accounting software\"\" which might come on a CD in the form of QuickBooks, Sage and others. Additionally, most of these will also have guides to help make sure you are properly entering your records. Most of these SaaS products also have customer success teams to help you along should you need assistance. Depending on the level of your subscription you may get more sophisticated handling of taxes, customized invoices or integrated payroll. Your goal is to keep accurate records so you can better run your business and maintain obligations like filing taxes. You're not keeping the records just to have them. Keep them in a place where they will work for you and provide the insights and functionality that will help your business grow and become successful. Accounting software will always win in this scenario over a spreadsheet. FULL DISCLAIMER: I work for Kashoo, a simple cloud accounting product designed for small businesses. But the points I mention above are true for Xero, QuickBooks Online and Wave as well as Kashoo. And if you really want expertise to go with the actual software consider service providers with a platform like: Indinero, Bench, easyrecordbooks or Liberty Accounting.\"",
"Systems to research that may help you out: Less Accounting and Wave are great because they can import data from banks / credit cards. I know you said your bank doesn't export it but it seems like something as a small business you would want.",
"I like Quicken for personal use, and they have a small business edition if you don't want to move into QuickBooks.",
"\"Xero and WaveAccounting can make things easy, but they also have their limitations. I've used both for short periods of time but found both of them to be lacking. While the \"\"ease\"\" is appealing, the ability to drill into the details and get good reports is the downfall of both of these accounting systems. QuickBooks may seem like the easy answer here, but it really is the best for getting the power you want without getting too complicated.\"",
"Business bookkeeping services helps small businesses in all aspect of managing their accounts and financial data within the accounting software. We have expertise in following accounting software QuickBooks, MYOB, and Peachtree. We have also used other small business accounting software like Great plain, Simply Accounting, etc. Using this software we can produce various reports, graphs, and other analysis documents to help you in your bookkeeping tasks.",
"In my opinion, every person, regardless of his or her situation, should be keeping track of their personal finances. In addition, I believe that everyone, regardless of their situation, should have some sort of budget/spending plan. For many people, it is tempting to ignore the details of their finances and not worry about it. After all, the bank knows how much money I have, right? I get a statement from them each month that shows what I have spent, and I can always go to the bank's website and find out how much money I have, right? Unfortunately, this type of thinking can lead to several different problems. Overspending. In olden days, it was difficult to spend more money than you had. Most purchases were made in cash, so if your wallet had cash in it, you could spend it, and when your wallet was empty, you were required to stop spending. In this age of credit and electronic transactions, this is no longer the case. It is extremely easy to spend money that you don't yet have, and find yourself in debt. Debt, of course, leads to interest charges and future burdens. Unpreparedness for the future. Without a plan, it is difficult to know if you have saved up enough for large future expenses. Will you have enough money to pay the water bill that only shows up once every three months or the property tax bill that only shows up once a year? Will you have enough money to pay to fix your car when it breaks? Will you have enough money to replace your car when it is time? How about helping out your kids with college tuition, or funding your retirement? Without a plan, all of these are very difficult to manage without proper accounting. Anxiety. Not having a clear picture of your finances can lead to anxiety. This can happen whether or not you are actually overspending, and whether or not you have enough saved up to cover future expenses, because you simply don't know if you have adequately covered your situation or not. Making a plan and doing the accounting necessary to ensure you are following your plan can take the worry out of your finances. Fear of spending. There was an interesting question from a user last year who was not at all in trouble with his finances, yet was always afraid to spend any money, because he didn't have a budget/spending plan in place. If you spend money on a vacation, are you putting your property tax bill in jeopardy? With a good budget in place, you can know for sure whether or not you will have enough money to pay your future expenses and can spend on something else today. This can all be done with or without the aid of software, but like many things, a computer makes the job easier. A good personal finance program will do two things: Keeps track of your spending and balances, apart from your bank. The bank can only show you things that have cleared the bank. If you set up future payments (outside of the bank), or you write a check that has not been cashed yet, or you spend money on a credit card and have not paid the bill yet, these will not be reflected in your bank balance online. However, if you manually enter these things into your own personal finance program, you can see how much money you actually have available to spend. Lets you plan for future spending. The spending plan, or budget, lets you assign a job to every dollar that you own. By doing this, you won't spend rent money at the bar, and you won't spend the car insurance money on a vacation. I've written before about the details on how some of these software packages work. To answer your question about double-entry accounting: Some software packages do use true double-entry accounting (GnuCash, Ledger) and some do not (YNAB, EveryDollar, Mvelopes). In my opinion, double-entry accounting is an unnecessary complication for personal finances. If you don't already know what double-entry accounting is, stick with one of the simpler solutions.",
"You can try Wave Accounting. Its a free software for Small Business and web-based. http://waveaccounting.com/",
"So there are a lot of people that get into trouble in your type of self employment situation. This is what I do, and I use google drive so there are no cost for tools. However, having an accounting system is better. Getting in trouble with the IRS really sucks bad.",
"Honing in on your last question: Is there a better way? I think there is, but it would require you to change the way you handle your spending, and that may not be of interest to you. Right now you have a lot of manual work, keeping track of expenditures and then entering the, every day. The great thing about switching to a habit where you pay for everything using a debit or credit card is that you can skip the manual entry by importing your transactions from your bank. You mention that your bank doesn't allow for exporting. There's still a chance that your bank can connect with a solution like Wave Accounting (http://www.waveaccouting.com), which is free and made for small business accounting. (Full disclosure: I represent Wave.) If your current bank doesn't permit export or connections with Wave, it may be worth switching to a different bank. It's a bit of a pain to make the switch, I know, but you really will save a massive amount of time and effort over the course of the year, as well as minimize the risk of human error, compared to entering your receipts on a daily basis. In Wave, you can still enter all of your cash receipts manually if you want to continue with your current practice of cash payments. One important thing to mention, too: If you're looking for a better way of doing things, make sure it includes proper backup. There would be nothing worse than entering all that data onto a spreadsheet and then something happening to your computer and you lose it all. Wave Accounting is backed up hourly and uses bank-level security to keep your information safe. One last thing: as I mention above, Wave Accounting is free. So if it is a good match for your small business accounting needs, it will also be a nice fit for your wallet.",
"A desktop application that has the same features (although as already stated, nothing will be identical but if you are looking for functionality then certainly there will be) and pretty simple to use was Microsoft Money, however, Microsoft stopped supporting it with newer versions and while the existing versions will work, I still use mine, there will be no future updates. I like the interface, its simple to use and has all the features you want. They abandoned it in favor of Intuit's Quicken but personally I am not a fan of the Quicken interface. They still had a more extensive and probably too much for the average user application called Office Accounting, but they abandoned future updates and supports on that in favor of Intuit's Quickbooks. Again, I am not a fan of the interface but they are very feature rich including invoicing and payroll, again overkill for the average user. They still have the Small Business Accounting in the form of Microsoft Dynamics, but that is utterly overkill for personal use. I generally don't trust online or cloud based accounting solutions like Mint or even Quicken online because I don't trust my information security to some third party without knowing how they are securing it and what will happen to me if/when they are leaked due to breach. So I like to keep everything local to myself and that's a good move for you, you should do that. It seems at the moment the market standard without much competition is Quicken for personal use and Quickbooks for small business. I would recommend you start with Quicken and if your needs increase in the future, you can easily transfer into Quickbooks to scale up as they are fully compatible with each other. Check it out here and compare their products to see what works best for your needs.",
"It never hurts to get professional help when you're starting something new. It would be best to do it right the first time with the help of an accountant because tax laws and business structures can become complex. According to Xero, here are some reasons why you should hire an accountant when starting a small business: Congrats on starting your own business, it's no small feat. Although Quickbooks definitely can make your life easier, having a CPA to help out along the way wouldn't hurt so that you can learn about the accounting side of a business.",
"The company I work with uses Intuit QuickBooks Online and have had zero problems with it. The functionality is effective and it fits the size of our company as well. (Not huge, but I wouldn't consider it a 'small business') Also, you can try a 30 day free trial. QuickBooks Simple Start focuses on small business accounting, so for this reason it has a cleaner interface and is simple to use. QuickBooks Simple Start compared to Quicken Home This article doesn't exactly have a bright light shining on Quickbooks, but I think it's fair to show you other alternatives: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382514,00.asp [Note that it is from 2011]",
"Not sure you are going to find anything like this in Excel - with the automatic lookup in specific. Microsoft has a template available; but it looks to be a pretty busy page. Why not look at other software? If you have a PC, Quicken and Microsoft Money are of course the big guns. You don't mention why you switched away from MS Money... There are many other packages as well. The one that I use (but have no other financial interest in) is Moneydance as it was the best on Mac at the time I was looking. It also runs on Windows and Linux.",
"\"It comes down to the resolution you want to have on your personal finances. A package like GNUCash allows you to easily answer questions like \"\"Exactly how much do I spend on interest per month/year/decade.\"\" Same with pretty much any other expense, liability or asset you have whether it be taxes, utilities, your home equity or your net worth. The other tools you mention are nice, and certainly convenient, but they tend to lump things together in broad strokes and omit many categories altogether (taxes). Ultimately by having such a fine grained accounting tool, you can target small or large things to better budget your money. Another thing a package like GNUCash provides is a single, private place to consolidate all of your finances. This is nice for things like net worth and asset accounts that you might not want to give a company access to. Finally, GNUcash in particular helps normal people think like accountants. Rather than lump everything into 'income' and 'expenses', once you start using GNUCash you'll start thinking in terms of equity, liabilities, net-worth and assets in addition to income and expenses. This gives me a much more accurate view of my finances and helps me better target areas for improvement. In short, it helps me to see the broader picture which helps me to keep my eye on the prize - which of course is to not have to worry about money at all.\"",
"I use QuickBooks online... It's really the best out there for the price, just make sure to never upgrade to an edition you aren't 100% sure you need or you're forever stuck essentially. That's the mess I'm in right now. Paying $20 more than necessary a month, but it's still cheaper than switching to, say, xero. The starter edition of QuickBooks online is a lot more powerful than the equivalent plans anywhere else for the price.",
"I type the whole fucking thing out myself. All financial statements. I've been trying to figure out a way to make it so I can just have it set up for me so I just have to type numbers in but every company uses different wording and has different accounts for each statement so you're going to have to add and subtract accounts. It'll still be time consuming.",
"Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_accounting_software, in particular the rows with a market focus of 'personal'. This is probably one of the more complete lists available, and shows if they are web-based (like Mint) or standalone (like Quicken or Microsoft Money).",
"Egg. Haven't used it personally. I can do a lot with excel itself, but that is a personal choice. Sometime ago Kublax existed but I read somewhere it went bust.",
"I wouldn't say 90% but it is a lot. Oracle Financials is also quite big. Excel is used for reporting. To give you an idea of how one big organisation does it, the balance sheet is SAP. Transactions are done with Oracle, the two are reconciled and reported via Excel.",
"\"I am perfectly qualified to not use an accountant. I am a business professor, and my work crosses over into accounting quite a bit. I would certainly find a CPA that is reputable and hire them for advice before starting. I know a physicist who didn't do that and found they ended up with $78,000 in fines. There are a number of specific things an accountant might provide that Quickbooks will not. First and foremost, they are an outsider's set of eyes. If they are good, they will find a polite way to say \"\"you want to do what?!?!?!\"\" If they are good, they won't fall out of their chair, their jaw won't drop to the floor, and they won't giggle until they get home. A good accountant has seen around a hundred successful and unsuccessful businesses. They have seen everything you may have thought of. Intelligence is learning from your own mistakes, wisdom is learning from the mistakes of others. Accountants are the repositories of wisdom. An accountant can point out weaknesses in your plan and help you shore it up. They can provide information about the local market that you may not be aware of. They can assist you with understanding the long run consequences of the legal form that you choose. They can assist you in understanding the trade-offs of different funding models. They can also do tasks that you are not talented at and which will take a lot of time if you do it, and little time if they do it. There is a reason that accountants are required to have 160 semester hours to sit for the CPA. They also have to have a few thousand field hours before they can sit for it as well. There is one thing you may want to keep in mind though. An accountant will often do what you ask them to do, so think about what you want before you visit the accountant. Also, remember to ask the question \"\"is there a question I should have asked but didn't?\"\"\"",
"Intuit Quicken. Pros: Cons:",
"\"I really wish someone would release a similar product to quickbooks, its so SLOW and clunky. Its my number 1 question from my small business IT clients... \"\"is there anything out there besides quickbooks?\"\" I hear freshbooks is good, but everyone is so ingrained in the quickbooks way of doing things it would be a strugle to switch people to a different product.\"",
"I use GNUCash. It's a bit more like Quickbooks than plain Quicken, but it's not all that complicated. Probably the most difficult part is understanding the idea of income accounts. Benefits: For short term planning, I use scheduled transactions. If I'm spending more than I have, it'll show up here. Every paycheck and dollar spent or invested is recorded with the exact date I anticipate it will happen, 30 days in advance. If that would overdraw my checking account, the Future Minimum Balance field will go negative and red. This lets me move float to higher interest savings and retirement funds, and avoids overdraft fees or other mishaps. By looking 30 days ahead in detail, I have enough time to transfer from illiquid assets. For longer term planning, I keep a spreadsheet around that plans out annual expenses. If I'm spending more than I earn, it shows up here. I estimate everything: expenses, savings, taxes, and income. I need this because I have a lot of expenses that are far less frequent than monthly or paycheck-ly. The beauty of it is that once I've got it in place, I can duplicate the sheet and consider tweaks for say taking a new job or moving, or even just changing an insurance plan (probably less relevant for those with access to NHS). Especially when moving to take a new job, it's not as straightforward as comparing salaries, and thus having a document for the status quo to start from lets you focus on the parts that changed.",
"\"As your financial situation becomes more complex, it becomes increasingly more difficult to keep track of everything with a simple spreadsheet. It is much easier to work with software that is specifically designed for personal finances. A good program will allow you to keep track of as many accounts as you want. A great program will completely separate the different account balances (location of the money) from the budget category balances (purpose of the money). Let me explain: When you set up the software, you will enter in all of your different bank accounts with their balances. Perhaps you have three savings accounts and two checking accounts. It doesn't matter. When you are done entering those, the software will total them up, and the next job you have is assigning this money into different budget categories: your spending plan. For example, you might put some of it into a grocery category, some into an entertainment category, some will be assigned to pay your next car insurance bill, and some will be an emergency fund. (These categories are completely customizable, and your budget can be as broad or as detailed as you wish.) When you deposit your paycheck, you assign that new income into budget categories as well. It doesn't matter at this point which accounts your money are located in; the only thing that matters is that you own this money and you have access to it. Now, you might want to use a certain account for a certain budget category, but you are not required to do so. (For example, your grocery category money will probably be in your checking account, since you will be spending from it regularly. Your emergency fund will hopefully be in an account that earns a little higher interest.) Once you take this approach, you might find you don't need as many bank accounts as you thought you did, because the software does the job of separating your money into different \"\"accounts\"\" for different purposes. I've written before about the different categories of personal finance software. YNAB, Mvelopes, and EveryDollar are three examples of software that will take this approach of separating the concepts of the bank account and the budget category.\"",
"Excel Pros: Cons:",
"Quicken has tools for this, but they have some quirks so i hesitate to actually recommend it on that basis.",
"I haven't used it in years, but look at GnuCash. From the site, one bullet point under Feature Highlights:",
"Best Linux software is PostBooks. It is full double entry, but there is definitely a learning curve. For platform-agnostic, my favorite is Xero, which is web-based. It is full double entry balance sheet, the bank reconciliation is a pleasure to use, and they are coming out with a US version this summer. Easy to use and does everything I need.",
"Good tax people are expensive. If you are comfortable with numbers and computers, you can do it better yourself.",
"Given your needs, GNUcash will do swimmingly. I've used it for the past 3 years and while it's a gradual learning process, it's been able to resolve most stuff I've thrown at it. Schedule bills and deposits in the calendar view so I can keep an eye on cash flow. GNUcash has scheduled payments and receipts and reconcilation, should you need them. I prefer to keep enough float to cover monthly expenses in accounts rather than monitor potential shortfalls. Track all my stock and mutual fund investments across numerous accounts. It pulls stock, mutual and bond quotes from lots of places, domestic and foreign. It can also pull transaction data from your brokers, if they support that. I manually enter all my transactions so I can keep control of them. I just reconcile what I entered into Quicken based on the statements sent to me. I do not use Quicken's bill pay There's a reconciliation mode, but I don't use it personally. The purpose of reconcilation is less about catching bank errors and more about agreeing on the truth so that you don't incur bank fees. When I was doing this by hand I found I had a terrible data entry error rate, but on the other hand, the bayesian importer likes to mark gasoline purchases from the local grocery store as groceries rather than gas. I categorize all my expenditures for help come tax time. GNUcash has accounts, and you can mark expense accounts as tax related. It also generates certain tax forms for you if you need that. Not sure what all you're categorizing that's helpful at tax time though. I use numerous reports including. Net Worth tracking, Cash not is retirement funds and total retirement savings. Tons of reports, and the newest version supports SQL backends if you prefer that vs their reports.",
"\"Split transactions are indispensable to anybody interested in accurately tracking their spending. If I go to the big-box pharmacy down the road to pick up a prescription and then also grab a loaf of bread and a jug of milk while there, then I'd want to enter the transaction into my software as: I desire entering precise data into the software so that I can rely on the reports it produces. Often, I don't need an exact amount and estimated category totals would have been fine, e.g. to inform budgeting, or compare to a prior period. However, in other cases, the expenses I'm tracking must be tracked accurately because I'd be using the total to claim an income tax deduction (or credit). Consider how Internet access might be commingled on the same bill with the home's cable TV service. One is a reasonable business expense and deduction for the work-at-home web developer, whereas the other is a personal non-deductible expense. Were split transaction capability not available, the somewhat unattractive alternatives are: Ignore the category difference and, say, categorize the entire transaction as the larger or more important category. But, this deliberately introduces error in the tracked data, rendering it useless for cases where the category totals need to be accurate, or, Split the transaction manually. This doesn't introduce error into the tracked data, but suffers another problem: It makes a lot of work. First, one would need to manually enter two (or more) top-level transactions instead of the single one with sub-amounts. Perhaps not that much more work than if a split were entered. Worse is when it comes time to reconcile: Now there are two (or more) transactions in the register, but the credit card statement has only one. Reconciling would require manually adding up those transactions from the register just to confirm the amount on the statement is correct. Major pain! I'd place split transaction capability near the top of the list of \"\"must have\"\" features for any finance management software.\"",
"Account statements and the account information provided by your personal finance software should be coming from the same source, namely your bank's internal accounting records. So in theory one is just as good as the other. That being said, an account statement is a snapshot of your account on the date the statement was created, while synchronizations with your personal finance application is dynamically generated upon request (usually once a day or upon login). So what are the implications of this? Your account statement will not show transactions that may have taken place during that period but weren't posted until after the period ended (common with credit card transactions and checks). Instead they'd appear on the next statement. Because electronic account synchronizations are more frequent and not limited to a specific time period those transactions will show up shortly after they are posted. So it is far easier to keep track of your accounts electronically. Every personal finance software I've ever used supports manual entries so what I like to do is on a daily basis I manually enter any transaction which wasn't posted automatically. This usually only takes a few minutes each evening. Then when the transaction eventually shows up it's usually reconciled with my manually entered one automatically. Aside from finding (infrequent) bank errors this has the benefit of keeping me aware of how much I'm spending and how much I have left. I've also caught a number of cashier errors this way (noticing I was double-charged for an item while entering the receipt total) and its the best defense against fraud and identity theft I can think of. If you're looking at your accounts on a daily basis you're far more likely to notice an unusual transaction than any monitoring service.",
"You can absolutely query multiple data points into a unified interface with Gsuites. Not to mention create in-depth dashboards that feed from centralized raw data (coming from multiple channels) and pushes it to charts/forms. The hotkeys are limited, continuously improving with other functionalities, but excel can certainly maintain more data. Probably one of my biggest painpoints with using Gsheets. Excel and PowerPoint produce cleaner and more manipulative charts, but overall, the fundamentals are there if you take the time to digest the differences.",
"If you want to keep any consistent standard, you need to knuckle down and make those transaction entries. Honestly, this is a lot faster doing in bulk than doing day-by-day. But change how you account so it isn't annoying. I minimize my bookable transactions. For instance I deposit all income whole (for tracking) but stop tracking when the money is converted to cash or gift card money - I log adding $50 to a McDonalds gift card, but not the individual meals. I only use cash for the myriad small things I do not want to track - fast food, parking meters, etc. Anything big or that I want to track goes on a credit card. Then it's easy to reconcile credit cards to accounting system. (Cathy) Ryan's Law: if it wasn't written down, it didn't happen.",
"often financial software is dire, with crappy interfaces and poorly integrated to the wider company. I have an ambition one day to create a modern human centred financial software that is focused on the task at hand rather than forcing the user to jump through unnecessary hoops. Also Excel should be banned for many reasons.",
"I use GnuCash which I really like. However, I've never used any other personal finance software so I can't really compare. Before GnuCash, I used an Excel spreadsheet which works fine for very basic finances. Pros Cons",
"If you're good with numbers and understand basic principles of accounting, I suggest using GnuCash - free and open-source accounting software which will provide for all your needs and more. If you're not so comfortable with self-service, many tax preparers also provide bookkeeping services. It can cost somewhere from $50/hour, and you should shop around and also look for references. The bookkeeper doesn't have to be the one to do your taxes, but it will probably make it easier on you to have the same person do all of it.",
"Lots of business do work and buy products for their customers then invoice them later think of landscapers or IT professionals. They keep track of the work and products on post-its they stick on their desks. Need further help, contact QuickBooks Support team by visit our site - https://www.wizxpert.com/quickbooks-support-help-phone-number/",
"In general spreadsheets can do all of what you ask. Have a try of some online training like these to get started.",
"It's been a long time since I've used MS Money and/or Quickbooks (never Quicken), but I've used GnuCash over the past year or so. It works, but it does suffer from some usability problems. Some of the UI is clunky. Data entry sequences are a little harder than they should be. Reports could be a little prettier. But overall it does work, and it's the best I've found on linux. (I would definitely appreciate pointers to something better.)",
"I did my own taxes previously using both H&R Block Tax Cut and TurboTax. When I had a simple return and was single, it worked great. Once I got married it was a little more complicated. When I started a small side business, I switched to an accountant. He does a great job of adjusting deductions between my wife and I and filing separately. This minimizes the amount of taxes we have to pay. It has been a few years since I used the software, but I did not see the ability to easily make adjustments like that.",
"\"The official guide can be found here, but that can be a little in depth as well. To make good use of you need at least a little knowledge of double-entry bookkeeping. Double-entry bookkeeping, in accounting, is a system of bookkeeping so named because every entry to an account requires a corresponding and opposite entry to a different account. From Wikipedia Another way to think of it is that everything is an account. You'll need to set up accounts for lots of things that aren't accounts at your bank to make the double-entry system work. For example you'll need to set up various expense accounts like \"\"office supplies\"\" even though you'll never have a bank account by that name. Generally an imbalanced transfer is when you have a from or to account specified, but not both. If I have imbalanced transactions I usually work them from the imbalance \"\"account\"\", and work each transaction to have its appropriate tying account, at which point it will no longer be listed under imbalance.\"",
"In this blog, i will share some important things about QuickBooks Online. In this busy life, Every businessman has limited time. So with the help of QuickBooks Online he/she has to keep a track record of their sales and expenses. For more - https://www.wizxpert.com/quickbooks-online-support/",
"I started my business about 4 years ago. I heard bad things about Quickbooks for Mac so I steered clear. I used an open source program called GnuCash and it does a good job. It's free and fairly easy to set up.",
"I have not used Quicken; I've used GnuCash exclusively. It feels a bit rough with the UI: Balancing that, the data is stored in a gzip-compressed xml file. The compression is also optional, so you can save it as a plain xml file. This means that you have some hope of recovery if you wind up with a corrupted file. (And for programmer-types, you could keep it in source control for additional peace of mind.) My wife and I have been using it for several years now, and has worked well for us. LWN.net had a pair of Grumpy Editor reviews on personal finance software here and here which would be worth reading.",
"\"Note: Specific to UK. I can't recommend anything higher than Crunch - they act as your accountant and have their own cloud accounting software, so it's more expensive than just using cloud accounting software, but if you use an accountant to do your year-end anyway, then they cost about the same as using cloud accounting software plus using an accountant to do your year-end. The thing I like (as a software development contractor) is that I don't have to know or worry about different ledger accounts, or journal entries, or any of the other weird accounting things, etc. Most cloud accounting software claim to simplify accounting \"\"so that you can concentrate on running your business\"\" whereas the reality is that you still have to spend ages learning how to be an accountant just to fill it in correctly. With Crunch that's actually true, it does actually make it simple. I've used Crunch, Sage, and Xero, so my sample-set isn't very big - just thought I'd share my experiences. If you value your time and get annoyed by having to create multiple internal transfers between different ledgers just to do something simple, it's for you. This probably sounds like a sales pitch, but I have nothing to do with them and nothing to gain by recommending them. The only reason I'm so passionate is I started a new business to do an online shop and tried to use Crunch, but they don't do retail businesses. Only contractors/freelancers or simple service-based businesses (their software is geared up specifically for that which I guess is why it's more simple than the others). Anyway, so now I'm annoyed at having to use the more complicated ones.\"",
"Uh, Quicken is virtually identical to MS Money. If you liked money and don't want to change, use that.",
"I'm not directly affiliated with the company (I work for one of the add-on partners) but I can wholeheartedly recommend Xero for both personal and business finances. Their basis is to make accounting simple and clean, without sacrificing any of the power behind having the figures there in the first place.",
"Muscle memory is hard to abandon. Who spent years developing a model understandably wants to maintain control and automatism. Thus my original question: how and at what conditions you transitioned a team from embedded formulas to a proper separation? In my experience when you demonstrate data has become increasingly erroneous as manual updates progressed. And when lack of collaboration features where perceived with enough pain.",
"A checking account is one that permits the account holder to write demand drafts (checks), which can be given to other people as payment and processed by the banks to transfer those funds. (Think of a check as a non-electronic equivalent of a debit card transaction, if that makes more sense to you.) Outside of the ability to write checks, and the slightly lower interest rate usually offered to trade off against that convenience, there really is no significant difference between savings and checking accounts. The software needs to be designed to handle checking accounts if it's to be sold in the US, since many of us do still use checks for some transactions. Adding support for other currencies doesn't change that. If you don't need the ability to track which checks have or haven't been fully processed, I'd suggest that you either simply ignore the checking account feature, or use this category separation in whatever manner makes sense for the way you want to manage your money.",
"It has a bit of a learning curve, but I like GNU Cash. (And since it open source, it's free!)",
"Looks like this is just for billing mostly. We need inventory management that integrates with our PO's but still be able to add line items for sales that do not come from inventory. We need a system similar to SAP.",
"You should consider Turbocash. It's a mature open-source project, installed locally (thick client).",
"I suggest you to test AlauxSoft Accounts and Budget. This software is a money-like. There is a freeware and a shareware (24 EUR). You will find its at http://www.alauxsoft.com Best regards, Michel ALAUX.",
"hledger is a free software, cross-platform double-entry accounting tool I've been working on for a while. It has command-line and web-based interfaces to your local data, and some other interesting features. There's also ledger (http://wiki.github.com/jwiegley/ledger/) which is command-line only. These are.. different, but worth a look for some folks.",
"\"Fair enough. FB extends out quite a bit from its core as billing software, but I don't know if it'd do the kind of inventory management you want. SAP, on the other hand, is as pricey as it is because it's *powerful* and \"\"enterprise ready\"\" ... probably way more than you need (or enough rope to hang yourself with, as they say). I wonder if the best solution might be to hire a competent contractor to fix / upgrade whatever your current system is lacking. I still recommend taking FreshBooks for a test run; it might just do the trick for you. Care to elaborate on why you're looking to replace the 10-year-old custom solution you've got?\"",
"\"The real question is what can you NOT do! If you track all your monetary actions, you know everything about your monetary situation. That means you have the tools to ask and answer \"\"what if\"\" questions, such as: \"\"If I get a 10% raise, could I take longer vacations?\"\" You could calculate how much you spend per day on vacation and then consider the amount of your raise and how much of it you'd need to allocate to vacations to, say, be able to take a two-week vacation instead of a one-week vacation. \"\"How much more would I have to earn to move to this nicer apartment?\"\" This may seem like a simple question, but a surprising number of people can't answer it in a reliable way, because they don't have a clear understanding of how much money they make and how much of it they can afford to spend on housing. If you find you have lots of spare income, maybe you can move to the nicer place right away; if not, at least you can get a sense of how much more money you'd need to make it happen. \"\"If I started taking the bus to work, how much would I save?\"\" You can look at how much you spend on gas and compare that to the price of a bus pass. By separating out categories like gas, repairs, and car insurance, you can also calculate different scenarios, like if you still kept your car but only used it for occasional trips, versus if you sold the car and used only public transportation. \"\"If I want to take a trip to Tahiti, what can I cut back on to save the money?\"\" Using your table you can pencil out scenarios like \"\"Suppose I stop eating out for lunch at work and just bring my lunch, how long would I have to do that to save enough to pay for a plane ticket?\"\" These are just a few random examples. The general idea is that with a record of hard numbers, you can start to consider potential tradeoffs in an objective way --- that is, you can ask \"\"how much in category X would I have to give up to gain this thing I want in category Y?\"\" The real trick in making use of your data is not so much \"\"what\"\" you can do, but \"\"how\"\" exactly to do it. You may have to become more of a spreadsheet wizard to really delve into these questions. Also, if you have programming expertise, you can even use something like Python to do calculations that might be laborious in a spreadsheet.\"",
"No, as in just coming up start up. I'm sure that's the case but then again there must be some basic software that can make my life easier right? Like accounting softwares, etc that do not depend on the industry the startup is working in. Any?",
"Probably because it's a question of Excel vs Access, not VBA vs SQL. You probably don't need VBA for any of the calcs that the OP mentions. Excel is the one tool everyone uses in Finance. CR and SSRS require tools and permissions that the average guy simply won't have, and a level of expertise that is not useful for most front/middle-office analysis work. I usually see these done in Excel. SSRS and CR seem like way overkill for something done trivially and transparently in Excel, whose presentation will change frequently anyway. Depending on what OP is talking about, analysis is not reporting, and flexibility and transparency usually win. Especially when you want to poke around the underlying data and iterate with other people. SSRS and CR only make sense when you know what you're looking for, that the data is appropriate for it and you don't expect it to change.",
"I would investigate mint.com further. Plenty of people have written off using them because Intuit purchased them, but that seems like cutting of your nose to spite your face. I think mint.com is worth it for its Trends functionality alone, not to mention its automatic categorization of your purchases, reminders when bills are due, notifications of increased credit card interest rates, and overdraft notices. I don't think mint.com schedules bills & deposits, but it tracks stocks & mutual fund investments and compares your portfolio returns against Dow Jones, S&P 500, or NASDAQ if you wish. I'm not sure I see the advantage of manual transaction entry, but you can add cash or check transactions manually. As I mentioned earlier, automated categorization is a great feature. In addition, you can tag certain transactions as reimbursable or tax-related. If the primary feature you're interested in is stock quotes, maybe something like Yahoo Finance or Google Finance will be enough.",
"\"For anyone that's curious, I had a number of chats with Quickbooks who recommended I import only the relevant business transactions from my personal account & personal credit card in order to lower the tax liability. This way money \"\"paid\"\" from the business account to myself rightly shows up as a transfer and not as income. This means when generating a tax report, it calculates the correct rate of tax to be paid based on income minus allowable expenses, regardless which account they came from.\"",
"Thanks for helping me gauge my expectations for this project. The more advanced stuff may require an exception then. I guess they are looking to knock off the casual Excel users while making exceptions for the more advanced Corporate Finance/Financial Reporting team. Thanks for your input though, can I ask you what your organization does and what areas you did have success in transitioning to GSuite?",
"I second the vote for GnuCash. It runs on Linux, Windows, and Mac. It is double-entry accounting, so there is a little bit of a learning curve, but it sounds like you should probably have something a little more powerful than Mint for your situation.",
"I would suggest opening a new account (credit card and bank) for just your business. This protects you in multiple ways, but is no bigger burden for you other than carrying another card in your wallet. Then QB can download the transactions from your website and reconciling is a cinch. If you got audited, you'd be in for a world of pain right now. From personal experience there are a few charges that go unnoticed that reconciling finds every month at our business. We have a very strict process in place, but some things slip through the cracks.",
"This is a retarded statement. Excel was never meant to be used for gigantic complex models based on large data sets but it's still incredibly valuable. I've been using it for 20 years in my career and when it comes to building quick and dirty analyses and forecasting models I will run circles around anybody trying to use R or Python.",
"\"One easy way to monitor costs in QuickBooks is to establish sub-bank accounts. For example, you may have an asset account called \"\"State Bank\"\" numbered 11100 (asset, cash and cash equivalents, bank). Convert this to a parent account for a middle school by making subaccounts such as At budget formation, transfer $800 from Operations 11110 to Family Fun Committee 11130. Then write all checks for Family Fun from the Family Fun 11130 subaccount. For fundraising, transfer $0 at budget formation to the X Grade accounts. Do deposit all grade-level receipts into the appropriate grade-level subaccounts and write all checks for the grades from the grade-level subaccounts. The downside to the above is that reconciling the check book each month is slightly more complicated because you will be reconciling one monthly paper bank statement to multiple virtual subaccounts. Also, you must remember to never write a check from the parent \"\"State Bank\"\" 11100, and instead write the checks from the appropriate subaccounts.\"",
"I wrote a small Excel-based bookkeeping system that handles three things: income, expenses, and tax (including VAT, which you Americans can rename GST). Download it here.",
"Like most software it's about what you put in to them. We use ProSeries software which is like TurboTax but $4500 with no questions. I would do your taxes on online and then have a professional do them. You then can ask any questions you may have to better understanding of what's going on. Only take copies of your documents because some unprofessional places will try to keep them. Do this each time something big changes in your life, you have a baby, buy a house or start a business. May cost more but could save you thousands in the long run. I have been doing taxes professionally for 7 years.",
"Mint.com does a pretty good job at this, for a free service, but it's mostly for personal finance. It looks at all of your transactions and tries to categorize them, and also allows you to create your own categories and filters. For example, when I started using it, it imported the last three months of my transactions and detected all of my 'coffee house' transactions. This is how I learned that I was spending about $90 a month going to Starbucks, rather than the $30 I had estimated. I know it's not a 'system' like an accounting outfit might use, but most accounting offices I've worked with have had their own home-brewed system.",
"I switched from Quicken for Mac to Moneydance, and have not regretted it. I see only one weakness in MD compared with Quicken: its reporting is not very good. Your information is all there and well organized, but sometimes it's hard work to extract it in a convenient form. Of course a lot depends on what you need from the application, but I strongly recommend you take a look at MD before deciding.",
"\"I think the \"\"right\"\" way to approach this is for your personal books and your business's books to be completely separate. You would need to really think of them as separate things, such that rather than being disappointed that there's no \"\"cross transactions\"\" between files, you think of it as \"\"In my personal account I invested in a new business like any other investment\"\" with a transfer from your personal account to a Stock or other investment account in your company, and \"\"This business received some additional capital\"\" which one handles with a transfer (probably from Equity) to its checking account or the like. Yes, you don't get the built-in checks that you entered the same dollar amount in each, but (1) you need to reconcile your books against reality anyway occasionally, so errors should get caught, and (2) the transactions really are separate things from each entity's perspective. The main way to \"\"hack it\"\" would be to have separate top-level placeholder accounts for the business's Equity, Income, Expenses, and Assets/Liabilities. That is, your top-level accounts would be \"\"Personal Equity\"\", \"\"Business Equity\"\", \"\"Personal Income\"\", \"\"Business Income\"\", and so on. You can combine Assets and Liabilities within a single top-level account if you want, which may help you with that \"\"outlook of my business value\"\" you're looking for. (In fact, in my personal books, I have in the \"\"Current Assets\"\" account both normal things like my Checking account, but also my credit cards, because once I spend the money on my credit card I want to think of the money as being gone, since it is. Obviously this isn't \"\"standard accounting\"\" in any way, but it works well for what I use it for.) You could also just have within each \"\"normal\"\" top-level placeholder account, a placeholder account for both \"\"Personal\"\" and \"\"My Business\"\", to at least have a consistent structure. Depending on how your business is getting taxed in your jurisdiction, this may even be closer to how your taxing authorities treat things (if, for instance, the business income all goes on your personal tax return, but on a separate form). Regardless of how you set up the accounts, you can then create reports and filter them to include just that set of business accounts. I can see how just looking at the account list and transaction registers can be useful for many things, but the reporting does let you look at everything you need and handles much better when you want to look through a filter to just part of your financial picture. Once you set up the reporting (and you can report on lists of account balances, as well as transaction lists, and lots of other things), you can save them as Custom Reports, and then open them up whenever you want. You can even just leave a report tab (or several) open, and switch to it (refreshing it if needed) just like you might switch to the main Account List tab. I suspect once you got it set up and tried it for a while you'd find it quite satisfactory.\"",
"Mint.com is a fantastic free personal finance software that can assist you with managing your money, planning budgets and setting financial goals. I've found the features to be more than adequate with keeping me informed of my financial situation. The advantage with Mint over Microsoft Money is that all of your debit/credit transactions are automatically imported and categorized (imperfectly but good enough). Mint is capable of handling bank accounts, credit card accounts, loans, and assets (such as cars, houses, etc). The downsides are:",
"QuickBooks online is one of the best accounting solution choice for small business owners. So here you find how to convert QB Desktop to QB Online. IF you need more detail and help related to this visit our page- https://www.wizxpert.com/convert-your-quickbooks-desktop-file-to-quickbooks-online/",
"Second time this has come up this week, but I'd recommend spending a bit of time test-driving [FreshBooks](http://www.freshbooks.com). It might take a bit of time to set up the way you want to use it, but you should be able to figure out whether it'll meet your needs with about 3 or 4 hours of focused testing. Their support people are awesome, too: they can help you figure out which way's up, and I can tell you from experience: they like having happy customers, so they won't try to sell you something that's not really a good fit for your business.",
"For double entry bookkeeping, personal or small business, GnuCash is very good. Exists for Mac Os.",
"For academic stuff, SAS and Stata are amazingly better at cleaning and processing huge amounts of data. I love excel and it can certainly do some very amazing things, but at some point you just need a full on statistical software totally driven by its own programming language. That software is pretty cheap for academics, but corporate licenses are usually insanely more expensive. Otherwise I program everything in Python.",
"\"> excel Ok, my point still stands. Are we going to make rules around excels? Its heavy \"\"abuse\"\" takes jobs away. Let me make this clear, you are not entitle to be paid for something that someone else can do for fraction of cost. If you think your time is worth more, then you should have no problem convincing employer of just that.\"",
"I use http://moneydance.com/ it has Mac, Windows and Linux versions and works well for my needs.",
"You would be surprised how amazed people are when you can quickly make a pivot table and summarize their data in 15 seconds. Same reaction with vlookup. Also VBA is somewhat clunky but can be used effectively to automate repetitive Excel tasks or for creating formulas, loops, etc. that would be difficult to produce in Excel cells. These sort of Excel tricks are good to know and utilize because the majority of people do not understand/want to understand so you would be in a good position to help",
"I have used Quicken for over 10 years. It has always provided the information I needed and I have always received good support from Intuit.",
"\"Quicken. I am in the same situation. I've tried mint.com and switched back to Quicken because i want to know how much money i'll have in my accounts in 2 weeks, 4 weeks, etc. I have to admit though, quicken is getting worse and worse every year. Can't really say i \"\"recommend\"\" it.\"",
"Every customer's circumstance is checked on consistently to guarantee top notch control. Amid business hours, one of our Account Associates is accessible for conference and aptitude. Instead of acquiring the cost of a full-time bookkeeper you pay just when you require guidance. Our key favorable position by Miroslav zecevic to our clients is our coordinated business relationship that starts on the principal day a customer joins our firm. Consistently, our experts have worked with businesses of all sizes. Our extensive variety of services and aptitude secures the future development for some businesses over the globe.",
"Frankly, you should probably learn to write code and use a data science package. Pandas lets me do the shit I'd do in excel 10 times quicker with more data and I can generalize it instead of working with just one file. As with most white-collar fields nowadays, writing code or at least understanding how to use it to enhance your productivity is very very attractive.",
"\"We're in much the same boat as you. We do make use of the transaction download feature of our software, but we don't let it auto-enter the amounts. We use the downloaded transactions to make entering our receipts easier. We each take responsibility for entering our own transactions, and then I go through and download bills, reconcile statements and such. I'm the numbers person in our house, so it's easier for me to take care of this stuff. We have all of our bills on auto-pay so that we don't have to worry about payments not getting made if we don't have time to get to our banking tasks on time. I try to set aside time on Saturday afternoon while my kids have their \"\"screen time\"\", or I'll do it in the evening after the kids are in bed. This year, my wife has been much busier and hasn't had as much time to keep up with her data entry, so we've been doing less well at keeping up with things. Something we're considering (and this might work for you as well) is to use the envelope system for the categories where we're most in danger of over-spending. This way. we would have an easy way to see if we'd overspent a category even if we were behind on our data entry. If you're not familiar with the envelope system, respond here and I'll explain it further.\"",
"Perhaps you should use your own tracking software, such as GnuCash, Quicken, Mint, or even Excel. The latter would work given you say you're manually putting in your transactions. There's lots of pre-done spreadsheets for tracking investments if you look around. I'm hoping that a web search gets you help on migrating transaction data, but I've yet to run into any tools to do the export and import beyond a manual effort. Then again, I haven't checked for this lately. Not sure about your other questions, but I'd recommend you edit the question to only contain what you're asking about in the subject.",
"\"What you are doing is neither one. You are simply watching to make sure you don't overdraw, which itself suggests you might be living hand to mouth and not saving. Keeping track of your money and budgeting are useful tools which help people get on top of their money. Which tends to have the effect of allowing you to save. How much did you spend on groceries last month? Eating out? Gas? If you were \"\"keeping track of your money\"\", you could say immediately what you spent, and whether that is above or below average, and why. How much do you plan to spend in the next 3 months on gas, groceries, eating out? If you knew the answer to that question, then you would have a \"\"budget\"\". And if those months go by, and your budget proves to have been accurate, or educates you as to what went wrong so you can learn and fix it... then your budget is a functioning document that is helping you master your money. Certainly the more powerful of the two is the \"\"keeping track\"\", or accounting of what has happened to you so far. It's important that you keep track of every penny without letting stuff \"\"slip through the cracks\"\". Here you can use proper accounting techniques and maybe accounting software, just like businesses do where they reconcile their accounting against their bank statements and wallet cash. I shortcut that a little. I buy gift cards for McDonalds, Panera, Starbucks, etc. and buy my meals with those. That way, I only have one transaction to log, $40 - McDonalds gift card instead of a dozen little meals. It works perfectly fine since I know all that money went to fast food. A little more dangerous is that I treat wallet cash the same way, logging say two monthly entries of $100 to cash rather than 50 little transactions of left $1 tip at restaurant. This only works because cash is a tiny part of my overall expenditures - not worth accounting. If it added up to a significant part, I'd want accounting on that.\"",
"\"Yes. The simplest option to track your spending over time is to familiarize yourself with the \"\"Reports\"\" menu on the toolbar. Take a look specifically at the \"\"Reports > Income/Expense > Income Statement\"\" report, which will sum up your income and spending over a time frame (defaults to the current year). In each report that you run, there is an \"\"Options\"\" button at the top of the screen. Open that and look on the \"\"General\"\" tab, you'll be able to set the time frame that the report displays (if you wanted to set it for the 2 week block since your last paycheck, for example). Other features you're going to want to familiarize yourself with are the Expense charts & statements, the \"\"Cash Flow\"\" report, and the \"\"Budgeting\"\" interface (which is relatively new), although there is a bit of a learning curve to using this last feature. Most of the good ideas when it comes to tracking your spending are independent of the software you're using, but can be augmented with a good financial tracking program. For example, in our household we have multiple credit cards which we pay in full every month. We selected our cards on specific benefits that they provide, such as one card which has a rotating category for cash back at certain business types. We keep that card set on restaurants and put all of our \"\"eating out\"\" expenses on that card. We have other cards for groceries, gas, etc. This makes it easy to see how much we've spent in a given category, and correlates well with the account structure in gnucash.\"",
"Certainly sounds worthwhile to get a CPA to help you with setting up the books properly and learning to maintain them, even if you do it yourself thereafter. What's your own time worth?",
"depends entirely on the scope and where your chokepoints are. if its a question of ginormeous amounts of data being stored in your spreadsheet and then extracted/joined with a mess of index match functions, that can quickly run up in size, and can be deftly replaced with a powerquery setup. If it's a computation that requires a few iterative steps or complex nested lookups, but with simple inputs, then a few simply scripted UDFs can lower the complexity (and workload and size) of the workbook. OP also mentions that the workbook is used for the display. If there is a lot of repeated deletion and adding of formats, sometimes workbook size can be seriously affected by these things cluttering up the sheet, and it can be useful to just clear those outs. I'd say it makes sense to move away from workbooks and into something more technical if you the organizational support to do so. If one person sits and codes models in python but none of his colleagues can work on it or fix it, and it's not documented correctly, and there's no support structure, then I'd be cautious of transferring something business critical to that structure, rather than optimizing the solution that people are familiar with and can modify themselves. But if it's a tech-savvy organization that recruits accordingly and has the technical support structures to implement changes and modifications as required by the business, I don't see any problem in using other tools.",
"Instead of gnucash i suggest you to use kmymoney. It's easier",
"Actuit offer accounting services to help you in carry out non key activities of your business. Our accounting and online bookkeeping services not only will reduces your cost but also enables you to focus on more critical functions of your business, like your customers by providing you reliable completed work on time for you to act.",
"That article was terribly generic and ripe with grammatical errors. A quick Google search yields dozens of much more informative articles. Furthermore, this topic has a fringe relation to finance, and would be a better post in a small business, entrepreneur, or accounting subreddit.",
"I am no expert on the situation nor do I pretend to act like one, but, as a business owner, allow me to give you my personal opinion. Option 3 is closest to what you want. Why? Well: This way, you have both the record of everything that was done, and also IRS can see exactly what happened. Another suggestion would be to ask the GnuCash maintainers and community directly. You can have a chat with them on their IRC channel #gnucash, send them an email, maybe find the answer in the documentation or wiki. Popular software apps usually have both support people and a helpful community, so if the above method is in any way inconvenient for you, you can give this one a try. Hope this helps! Robert",
"I don't think you need double-entry bookkeeping. To quote Robert Kiyosaki (roughly): Income is when money enters you pocket, and expenses are when money leaves your pocket. Income is an addition; expenses are subtractions. But if you want double-entry accounting, I'm not qualified to answer that. :)",
"Buxfer is a personal-finance web app which you might like. It's not open-source. But at least none of your complaints about financeworks.intuit.com apply to Buxfer. Buxfer offers a piece of software you can download to your own PC, called Firebux. This macro-recording software provides automation that helps you download statements and upload them to Buxfer. So you never have to give Buxfer any of your bank or brokerage usernames or passwords. Buxfer and Firebux are both free of charge. Wesabe, another personal-finance web app, also used to offer data-uploader software, but Wesabe has now gone out of business.",
"CashBase has a web app, an iPhone app and an Android app, all sync'ed up. It doesn't integrate with banks automatically, but you can import bank statements as CSV. Disclaimer: I'm CashBase's founder.",
"In all honesty, the best solution I've come across is Microsoft's now defunct Money."
] |
[
"\"I would say that all of the reasons you list in your question are valid, and I would add the following... You are in the landscaping business, not the accounting business. If you manage everything in spreadsheets, at least one of you has to become the bookkeeper and leave the landscaping to the others. Spreadsheets are \"\"agnostic\"\" in how you use them, so you have to turn them into an accounting system, which means you're now not only more of a bookkeeper, but you're also more of a developer, too, and even less of a landscaper. Accounting software is already developed by developers who understand accounting. Using it requires you to only perform the data entry tasks, and then you can focus on the landscaping, customer service, sales and marketing, etc., things that actually contribute to your business. It is still good for you to understand basic accounting principles. Specialized accounting software will guide you through the process of learning and help you avoid making many of the costly mistakes you might have made in that learning process.\"",
"I think your reasons are good. Fundamentally accounting software is built to ensure you record your accounting data effectively with minimal mistakes and good auditing. But you still need to use the tool properly to get the benefit. One other advantage is that many accountants are familiar with, say QuickBooks, and can do your accounts more effectively if you use their preferred tool.",
"I would add to your reasons: Would you mow an entire lawn with a string trimmer just because you can, or would you buy a lawnmower? Use the right tool for the job.",
"\"Since this is a cooperative I'm guessing your partners may want to be able to view the books so another key point you may want to consider is collaboration. QuickBooks desktop has all of these same issues because it is meant to be used on a single desktop. We're in an age of mobile devices, and especially in a business like landscaping it would be nice if certain aspects of record keeping could be done at the point and time where they are incurred. I'd argue you want a Software as a Service (SaaS) accounting package as opposed to \"\"accounting software\"\" which might come on a CD in the form of QuickBooks, Sage and others. Additionally, most of these will also have guides to help make sure you are properly entering your records. Most of these SaaS products also have customer success teams to help you along should you need assistance. Depending on the level of your subscription you may get more sophisticated handling of taxes, customized invoices or integrated payroll. Your goal is to keep accurate records so you can better run your business and maintain obligations like filing taxes. You're not keeping the records just to have them. Keep them in a place where they will work for you and provide the insights and functionality that will help your business grow and become successful. Accounting software will always win in this scenario over a spreadsheet. FULL DISCLAIMER: I work for Kashoo, a simple cloud accounting product designed for small businesses. But the points I mention above are true for Xero, QuickBooks Online and Wave as well as Kashoo. And if you really want expertise to go with the actual software consider service providers with a platform like: Indinero, Bench, easyrecordbooks or Liberty Accounting.\"",
"Why use spreadsheets rather than writing your forms and formulas directly in a programming lanuage? Because you've got better things to do than reinvent the wheel, right? Same answer. ===== clarification, since the point apparently wasn't clear: Using a spreadsheet means you're writing and organizing and maintaining the formats and formulas yourself. Essentially, you are writing your own accounting program, using the spreadsheet program as your programming language. Nothing wrong with that, it just means you're doing work to produce something that you could have purchased instead. It's up to you to decide how the value of your time doing that work trades off against the cost of the commercial product. For many people, especially as the bookkeeping becomes more complex, that isn't a good investment of their time. The otherwise billable time it would take them to maintain the spreadsheet is worth more than the cost of buying an off-the-shelf product, and the product offers features that they wouldn't get around to adding to their own solution. Add to that the question of whether people find creating and tweaking spreadsheets rewarding or annoying. The right tool is always the one that lets you focus on what you actually care about, unless the cost is too high to justify it.Most folks care about getting the accounting task done a least cost/least efprt. Buying a solution is least effort; if the real cost including time/effort is also lower, that's the direction they're going to go. I maintained my own accounts, and did my taxes, in spreadsheets for quite some time. These days the time to do so, multiplied by what my time is worth, would exceed the cost of buying tools, and the commercial tools are more pleasant to use, less prone to accidents, and offer featured that I don't need but appreciate. I still use a stylesheet for one small calculation (rebalancing my invedtments) but thst's because I havean odd corner case the built-in tool doesn't handle well...not that it makes any practival difference, but being slightly off annoyed me. Your milage, obviously, will vary. Use the tool that suits your needs; others will do likewise.",
"Here are the few points: Hope that helps,"
] |
4465
|
How to donate to charity that will make a difference?
|
[
"376575",
"344041",
"299242"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"299242",
"328060",
"179556",
"264271",
"540575",
"46381",
"90591",
"344041",
"106786",
"245650",
"21416",
"326167",
"379353",
"201261",
"174033",
"266342",
"390089",
"553289",
"468898",
"461051",
"453455",
"132881",
"427322",
"546281",
"562386",
"85447",
"153121",
"143249",
"376575",
"368047",
"14478",
"568928",
"240448",
"162577",
"570028",
"443757",
"330255",
"80655",
"290019",
"277549",
"414091",
"68926",
"550526",
"392163",
"556109",
"319458",
"366078",
"115802",
"52283",
"77818",
"164038",
"478266",
"440267",
"307459",
"174543",
"256669",
"286251",
"82744",
"88698",
"158968",
"329101",
"262358",
"226303",
"221427",
"335844",
"325470",
"358275",
"594442",
"498844",
"569461",
"177736",
"67203",
"101732",
"237193",
"516832",
"19501",
"167879",
"262521",
"459177",
"413681",
"576740",
"176105",
"101201",
"8060",
"508381",
"416378",
"499710",
"73821",
"189120",
"174034",
"95322",
"120438",
"518451",
"313225",
"386404",
"148265",
"157553",
"6454",
"161667",
"72301"
] |
[
"In the. US, i'd suggest hitting the Charity Navigator website for evaluation of how efficiently various charities will use your money. At this point I won't donate money to anything that gets less than three stars unless I know the organization very well indeed -- and I've been progressively swapping out 3-star groups for 4-star organizations in the same category. Many of the groups reviewed by CN are international, so you might find it useful even if you're donating from/to elsewhere.",
"For people who are good with money (presumably), Kiva.org gives your money to such people who apply for loans through social service organizations in various countries (I believe this is how it's done). The people state what they will use the money for. It can be as simple as 'buying provisions for food truck business' or 'replacing wheels on tractor.' Then they pay the money back and you (who donated x number of dollars) use that repaid money to make another loan.",
"\"I'll answer your second question: it depends what your charity is for. There are two types: i) Emergency (i.e. to respond to environmental or social disasters where it acts a bit like an insurance policy); ii) Development (i.e. where the intention is to subsidise something missing in the local economy); A lack of insurance is certainly a problem for people who lose their homes and livelihoods to disaster. Your donations can go far. As for development aid: \"\"We find little evidence of a robust positive correlation between aid and growth,\"\" write two ex-IMF economists, Raghuram Rajan, who stepped down as IMF chief economist at the end of 2006, and Arvind Subramanian, who left the IMF this year. \"\"One of the most enduring and important questions in economics is whether foreign aid helps countries grow ... There is a moral imperative to this question: it is a travesty for so many countries to remain poor if a relatively small transfer of resources from rich countries could set them on the path to growth ... But if there is no clear evidence that aid boosts growth, then handing out more money makes little sense,\"\" they conclude. I do somewhat further in declaring that charity is equivalent to trade dumping. By artificially lowering the real cost of a particular good it ensures that there will be no local investment in that good. Free clothes to Africa has destroyed the local textiles industry. Free doctors has resulted in more African doctors in New York than in the whole of Africa. So decide where your charity is going: emergencies or development? Then decide what you can afford. But your first investment should always be in yourself. If by making use of that investment you can benefit the economy and keep others around you employed and productive you will achieve far more.\"",
"This might be blasphemy in the context of an audience that may be most focused on the gift itself, but you should be donating in a manner that helps advance the landscape, as well as your particular favourite charity. Almost 90% of businesses are in the process of trying to move away from issuing and receiving checks, and several countries in the world have already stopped using them. Checks are inefficient, costly and in a resource constrained environment like that facing most charities, create an opportunity cost that is even higher than the manual processing cost that flows directly. As donors, we need to think about scale in a manner that many individual charities don't. Send your donation via ACH!",
"GiveDirectly works substantially better than you'd imagine, and is money well spent in terms of unlimited problems and limited resources. But it probably isn't as close to perfect as reports like this make it seem. As a general idea, financial efficiency is super important but you still need to analyze that the approach the organization takes is effective. Part of the downside of GiveDirectly is based on the fact that your average joe won't always spend money in the perfect manner. This article is a pretty good critique and links to a more formal study - https://ssir.org/articles/entry/givedirectly_not_so_fast Think it's a great organization but the flowery praise may be a bit too optimistic. I sure as shit don't know. Depends on the mission but quantifying the efficacy of charities and benefit per dollar spent is very difficult. The most economically efficient charity ever is probably a smaller organization that approaches a very concrete simple problem, and has minimal overhead. Best guess would be a food bank run by a convent/monastery.",
"\"The definite answer if you want to give a larger amount of money is: Ask the charity. Just drop them a mail with something like: Dear Sirs, I've decided to donate you $1,000,000 because I like what you do. Could you please tell me which option is more convenient and less costly for you? I can do either an online debit/credit card payment, send you a check by mail, or make a bank transfer [cross out whichever you can't do]. I'm looking forward to hearing from you. Yours faithfully, Even if you give \"\"just\"\" $2,000, it's surely enough to be worth for them writing you a reply and clarifying whichever way they prefer, so you don't waste neither their time nor the money this way.\"",
"\"I know your pain oh, so much. I literally have a 14 gallon rubbermaid container FULL of solicitations I have received. Even worse, for-profit fundraising companies send most of those mailings! They take the money, and deduct their \"\"expenses\"\", rigged to consume almosts all your gift. Some companies have been caught passing as little as 9% to the charity. First let's talk about a few issues. Authentication. Is that outfit really a tax deductible 501c3 charity? Address. Is this their genuine address, or is it the dropbox of a scammer or one of those evil for-profit fundraising companies? Acknowledgement. For gifts over a certain size, you need a thank-you letter from them to show the IRS that you really donated. Will you get it? The limit is $250 (no letter, deduction rejected) but as a practical thing, it helps in an audit to show as many donation letters as possible. Charities cannot issue them retroactively, but can issue you second copies of ones they sent previously. If the charity drops the ball, you lose. Obviously enough, you go to the post office and spend $1 on a money order. This does not authenticate them as a charity. It does not assure it goes to their real address. You can do both these things yourself, by checking their data on the IRS website or on guidestar.org. You don't get an acknowledgement. I mention these because donation websites work much the same way. DAFs require a higher one-time commitment but are much simpler and more efficient after that. If you are planning to give $5000 in a single year, save it up and open a Donor Advised Fund account. A DAF is itself a charity. You donate to the DAF, and take the tax deduction for charitable contributons. Then, you tell the DAF to donate it to other charities on your behalf, or anonymously. Their concept is, you use the DAF as a \"\"buffer\"\" so you can easily make the tax-deductible donation when you need to for tax purposes, then at your leisure research charities and support them. However, I asked my DAF - most people donate and then immediately re-donate the money, leaving the fund at zero balance. My DAF doesn't mind that at all, and they charge zero fees for this. (Its expenses are paid by those of us who leave money sitting around in the DAF. Mine charges 0.6% a year. This money can be invested sort of like in a 401K, and each investment also has an expense ratio, such as 0.18% a year in my chosen index fund.) Websites like \"\"justgive.org\"\" will take any amount of your money and re-donate it to the charity you select. They deduct 3-5% for their expenses (notably paper, stamps, and the 2-3% it costs them to process your credit card).\"",
"I can't say specifically about charities to help Greece. If someone on here has specific knowledge, please chime in. The only shortcut I know to tell if a charity is legitimate is to consult one of the ratings/watchdog type groups that monitor charities. For example, for explicitly Christian charities, there's a group called the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. To be a member in good standing a charity has to meet a bunch of criteria, like having an independent board of directors, i.e. you can't start a charity, make yourself the president and your brother-in-law the vice president and you're not answerable to anyone else; their fund-raising and administrative costs can't be more than a certain percentage of total income, etc. There are similar groups with similar standards for more general charities. I'm not naming any of those groups because there's a potential catch: How reputable is the group that rates other people's reputations? And I don't want to recommend someone without knowing. Years ago I came across a news story about an organization that rated colleges, and that had given one particular college their top rating. But, the news story said, investigators found that that one college was the ONLY college they ever gave a rating to, and that their address was the same as the college's address. It turned out, of course, that the college was a scam. The other method is to take some time to investigate the charity. For starters, get a copy of their annual report or their newsletter. If they're total frauds, often they don't have an annual report or a newsletter. Of course a fraud could make up beautiful flyers describing all the wonderful work they do, with pictures of people they helped and detailed case histories, and it's all complete fiction. But that's more work than most con men go to. I've gotten lots of pleas for contributions from people who call on the phone or come to my door or send an email. If the message does not have a logo, a mailing address and phone number, reasonably coherent English, and a fair amount of text describing what they do, I don't give them anything. They COULD be a new start up that hasn't had time to prepare these things. They COULD believe that pretty flyers are a waste of money and they want to put all their resources into helping the needy. But more likely it's a scam that somebody through together in his basement. Of course the best thing is if you personally know people who are officers in the organization. (Well, assuming you personally know them AND you know that they are honest people. If you know the president and you know he's a sleazy con man, you might want to stay away from that group.) See if you can find information about the charity in the news or on-line. If they're being investigated for fraud by the Justice Department, you might want to avoid them. Etc. Maybe you've thought this through, but you also might want to think about exactly who in Greece you want to help, and what your philosophy of charity is. Do you want to help people who lost their jobs because of the economic problems there and who are now unemployed? Do you want to donate to the government to help them balance the budget? Do you want to help support an orphanage or a homeless shelter, or give money directly to needy people? Etc. And one piece of unsolicited advice: Unless you have millions to give -- and I'm assuming you don't as you said your first gift would be $50 -- I'd pick one or two charities and give regularly to them. I think you can do more good by giving $X per month to a single charity than to give to a different charity every month. You make more difference.",
"\"I'd suggest you to separate \"\"doing good\"\" from \"\"earning profit\"\". Look at the guys like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates (or Carnegie and Ford for that matters). They understand that you can't reconcile the two goals, so they donate for free what they earned for profit. If you want to make a social impact with your money, you can check the charity programs that have a confirmed record of a positive impact on people's lives. Non-profits that studied such programs publish their results extensively: AidGrade compiles this research and suggests direct donations to the programs that demonstrated best outcomes per dollar invested:\"",
"Economic efficiency is overrated. I would rather give money to a charity that spent 15% on human resources and 10% on marketing to get $10 million in incoming donations than to a charity with an 8% expense rate that receives $1 million in incoming donations.",
"The simplest way to handle this would be to buy money orders, make them out to the charities, and leave your name off them. Money orders don't require you to put your name on them, just the name of whoever they're being paid to. You can mail them with no return address as well if you're sure you have the charity's proper mailing address. This way you can still feel good about giving and leave no trace of who you are for anyone to use for future marketing. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"\"In the US: In the UK: You can set up a CAF (Charities Aid foundation) Charity Account. This allows you to donate to charities anonymously, while still allowing the recipient to benefit from Gift Aid (where they can reclaim the income tax you'd paid on the donation). You can even use this account to donate to overseas charities if you're donating at least £250. Or you can use a different intermediary such as BT MyDonate or The Big Give or another intermediary. See the Wikipedia article \"\"Comparison of online charity donation services in the United Kingdom\"\". In Canada: If there's a United Way charity in your country, it may have a donor choice program which may be able to forward a designated donation to any other charity in your country. The United Way probably charges a fee for this service. I'm not sure whether or not the United Way would be willing to keep you anonymous, and I'm not sure whether or not the United Way would add you to its mailing list. More details may be available elsewhere online.\"",
"If you don't have much money, and more important, don't itemize, donations are strictly between you and your karma. If you itemize (from a combination of mortgage interest, property tax, and state tax), by donating used goods, you can get some return on your taxes, and feel good about yourself. When I donate at charity time (December for me) I don't look at every $1000 check as a $250 benefit back to me, although that's the effect. I care deeply about the charity's cause and have personally visited each of them. You want to drop $50 to some huge agency that's funding cancer research? No objection. But when I visit a Veteran's Center or School for the Blind, I can see the good work my money is doing.",
"You have money, free hands and free time, you can make an extremely positive impact on the world. I would start with a list of causes that you're passionate about. Narrow that down to 3 and then get involved in all of them. I think you should pick the one you like most, but some people can handle all 3.",
"If I donate $10,000 to charity then I can deduct that $10,000 from my income and not pay income taxes on it. So if I make $50,000 a year then I will only pay income taxes on $40,000 instead of $50,000 since I donated $10,000 to charity. This is what is meant when charity contributions are said to be tax deductible. Don't feel like you have to donate to charity. You owe no one anything. You do more for others by working (assuming you work in the private sector). If you know of someone personally that is in need of aid then you could give them some help directly. I find this more effective then blindly dumping money in a bureaucratic, inefficient charity. I also find there are very few people in need of charity. Personally, I think charity donations are a way for people to feel good about themselves. They rarely care if their donations are effective.",
"\"Having worked for both a non-profit and a charity, it is my recommendation that you always donate directly to the charity, and not through any form of solicitation. Most of the telephone calls that you receive are likely from telemarketing companies. It has been my experience (through exploring them as a means of fundraising) that the charity will likely only see about 10% - 25% of the funds raised in their name!! I imagine that a number of door to door solicitations are also done by professional fundraisers. WRT sharing of lists, it is likely not the charities that share the lists, but the companies that they hire to solicit for them. I always ask to be put on their \"\"do not call\"\" list To verify that a person collecting at your door is from the charity that they represent, can you pledge a donation, buying time to look into them? Or write a cheque in the name of the charity if it is known to you? I doubt that many scammers would go to the trouble of trying to open a bank account in the charity's name. I like YMCbuzz's point about the online donation - I use CanadaHelps.org. They are very upfront about the small (3%) fee that they charge, and the rest of the money goes to the charity. I have used them working for a charity, so I can vouch for how much is sent to the charity.\"",
"In the US, if it's a large donation to a tax-exempt organization (401c3 or equivalent), you may want to consider giving appreciated equities (stocks, bonds, mutual fund shares which are now worth more than you paid for them). You get to claim the deduction's value at the time you transfer it to their account, and you avoid capital gains tax. They would pay the capital-gains tax when they redeem it for cash... but if exempt, they get the full value and the tax is completely avoided. Effectively, your donation costs you less for the same impact. It does take a bit of work to coordinate this with the receiving organization, and there may be brokerage fees, so it probably isn't worth doing for small sums.)Transfers within the same brokerage house may avoid those feee.) So again, you should talk to the charity about what's best. But for larger donations, where larger probably starts at a few thou, it can save you a nice chunk of change.",
"There isn't going to be one right answer, but LessWrong has some posts on effective altruism you might find helpful. They also link to a TED talk",
"\"Agreed. One of the comments for this question Good books for learning about tax strategy/planning uses the phrase: \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" It applies to charitable donations. Donate because it is expected by your church; donate because it makes you feel good; but don't donate just to save money on your taxes. Once you have decided to donate take the steps necessary to be able to deduct your donation. Get the receipt or use a check or credit card so you can deduct the donation.\"",
"If I were donating money to a charity, i.e. an organization set up to help others, I would simply send them the money and ask that my name not be used in publicity. That would mean that the person(s) actually benefiting from my donation didn't know who I was. The charity would know, but they don't themselves benefit.",
"In the US the best way to solve the problem, IMHO, would be via a trust. Talk to a properly licensed trust/estate attorney and a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). Using intermediary who's not a 501(c) organization may pose income tax issues to that intermediary as providing support to the needy is not a valid business expense. It may also pose gift tax issues, since the aggregate amounts may exceed the statutory exemption limits. Using a (non-revokable) trust you can avoid these issues, but others may come up (such as what to do with the trust income or undistributed moneys). Talk to the advisers about how to avoid them.",
"If you are interested, simply collect their contact information and donate by mail or in the office. You can't vet a door to door or phone call charity; not quickly enough anyway. A real charity would be happy for your donation anytime, not just when a volunteer happens to catch you at home on the weekend. It is simply to ripe for scams in my opinion. The big exception is when a kid comes to my door with a food item. I try to buy one just to make the kid feel successful. Even if they never turn in the money at least I got a $2 chocolate bar.",
"\"Charitable donations can be deducted from your income, and in that way make your taxable income lower, hence lower taxes. That's the meaning of \"\"tax deductible\"\". As to \"\"if I donate it then the money will be given right to the charity instead of spread out to many other places\"\" - taxes are being used by the government based on its own decisions (presumably made by elected officials thus representing the will of the voters). Charities use the money based on their defined goals. Giving money to a charity will ensure it is used for the specific goal the charity declared, and that's the way for you to funnel money to the goals of your preference/choice. For example, you can donate money to your temple, orphanage around the corner, or the gay rights organization. Or anti gay, for that matters. Your money will be spent on the goals of your choosing. Re advantages - charitable donations are used by the rich folks to avoid paying taxes on their income (because they're deductible), so someone might donate money to places they use themselves (like the temple/church for example, or the school where the kids go, or politician which will \"\"objectively\"\" choose someone's business for a big government contract, etc etc). For \"\"ordinary\"\" people it's a way to reduce the taxable income and divert the money to the specific goals of their choice. For example, donating $100 to Red Cross Japan Tsunami relief fund, will reduce your taxable income by $100, and total taxes by $28 (assuming you're in the 28% bracket), thus the $28 will go to the specific goal your choose instead of the general taxes.\"",
"Yes. Donating to name-brand charities or politicians will result in you geting solicitied for more donations -- charities sell your info and donation habits.",
"This sounds a lot like numerous small-scale development efforts. They may work on some level, but rarely have an impact on the most significant cause of poor development -- corrupt politics. In the end it will likely benefit a few people, and provide data for economists to pore over. Which is worth something, I suppose.",
"One of the best things you can do for this purpose, while getting a modest ROI on a passive investment, is invest in a company that profitably does whatever you want to see more of. For example, you could invest in a for-profit company that sells needed goods to low-income people at lower prices. Something like Wal-Mart, which is one of the most effective anti-poverty engines in the US. You might also say the same of something like Aldi (owner of Aldi stores and Trader Joe's), which is a discount store chain. This is true even though a company like Wal-Mart is seeking to make money first. Its customer base tends to skew heavily towards low-income consumers, and historically to rural and elderly consumers. When Wal-Mart is able to provide food, clothing, appliances and the like to poor people at a lower cost, it is making it marginally less painful to have a low income. Peter Suderman can explain why Wal-Mart is a humanitarian enterprise: Walmart’s customer base is heavily concentrated in the bottom income quintile, which spends heavily on food. The bottom income quintile spends about 25 percent of income on food compared to just 3.5 percent for the top quintile. So the benefits of Walmart’s substantially lower prices to the lowest earning cohort are huge, especially on food. As Suderman points out, this view of Wal-Mart dramatically lowering prices that low-income people pay for food was corroborated by an Obama adviser. That's just one company. You can pick the industry and company that best suits your personal preferences. Alternatively, you could invest in something like Whole Foods, a company with multiple missions to improve the planet and the community, in addition to the more typical mission of being a prosperous retail chain. Of course, as a general proposition, a less than entirely altruistic, charity-inclined investment doesn't need to be targeted at those with low incomes or at saving the planet. You could invest in almost anything you think is good (yachts, yo-yos, violins, energy production, industrial inputs, music performances) and the company will take care of making more of that good thing. You didn't say whether your goal was to help the poor, the planet, arts, sciences, knowledge, community, or whatever. What I understand you to be saying is you are willing to accept a lower ROI in exchange for some warm-fuzzies from your investment. That seems perfectly valid and reasonable to me, but it makes it much more subjective and particular to your tastes. So you'll need to pick something that's meaningful to you. If you're going to trade ROI for positive feelings, then you should pick whatever gives you your optimal blend of emotions and returns. Alternatively, you could invest in something stable and predictable to beat inflation (some sort of index or fund) and then annually use some portion of those profits to simply give to the charity of your choice. Your investment and your charity do not necessarily need to be the same vehicle.",
"\"Can you get a cashier's check from your bank, made out in the charity's name, and mail it to the charity? From what I recall of the last few times I've gotten a cashier's check from the bank, it didn't have anything on it that identified me. A determined person could probably trace it back to you, but you're not really looking for strong anonymity. Another possibility would be a postal money order, but I'm not sure whether you can leave the \"\"From\"\" section blank. The money order would have a fee, but the cashier's check should be free. (It is at both my local bank and my CU.)\"",
"\"But sending money overseas doesn't help here, and government programs that feed people (especially children) and keeping people working or in school (medical programs) do have direct economic benefits to this nation, in addition to being \"\"nice\"\" or \"\"moral\"\". I am not advocating the end of all suffering by giving things away, rather I am advocating the judicious use of government spending to make the world better for everyone.\"",
"OP wants to do something very honourable, applause for that. Being a Greek I have insider knowledge about the impact of various organisations. Fact is, for people from abroad what is the most highly recommended action would be to support organisations of an international network (red cross, doctors w/out borders etc), because the health system is suffering seriously nowadays -or access to it-, and providing redundancy in that respect can certainly make a difference, via global health efforts. The next best thing you can do, to yourself and others, is basically to take a vacation in Greece and visit both a big city (here's where the problems will be visible) and an island (here's where you'll realise that you are in a place of stunning natural beauty). By taking this action you achieve two things: you put the economy in motion - a small vote, yet it counts - and you actually are a first-person observer. Enough is enough with victimisation via the news coming from inside or outside Greece! People need get the whole respective.",
"I'm familiar with the quote. The institution you donate to can keep you anonymous. The person actually benefiting is not aware of your generosity. This is how I understand the biblical meaning. By the way, a number of people who donate, do not take the tax deduction, so as to not benefit. To them I suggest they calculate the refund, and add that to their donations the next year.",
"\"For many people, giving to charity will have minimal effect on their taxes. Non-profits love to attract donations by saying the money is tax deductible, but for most people, it doesn't work out that way. You will only itemize deductions if they exceed your standard deduction. The IRS allows you to either \"\"itemize\"\" your deductions (where you list each deduction you can take) or take the \"\"standard deduction\"\". Consider a married couple filing jointly in 2011. Their standard deduction is $11,400. They are in the 28% tax bracket. They donate $100 of old clothes to the Goodwill, and are looking forward to deducting that on your taxes, and getting $28 of that back. If that's their only deduction, though, they'd have to give up the standard deduction to take the itemized deduction. Not worth it. Suppose instead they have $11,500 of deductions in 2011. Now we're talking, right? No. The tax impact of itemizing is only $28, since they only exceeded the standard deduction by $100. The cost of having a tax accountant fill out the itemization form probably offsets that small gain. There's also all the time that went in to tracking those deductions over the year. Not worth it. Tax deductions only become worthwhile when they significantly exceed the standard deduction. You need some big ticket items to get past the itemized deduction threshold. For most people, this only happens when they have a mortgage, as the interest on a residence is deductible. Folks love to suggest that having a mortgage is a good deal, because the interest is deductible. However, since you have to exceed the standard deduction before it makes sense to itemize, it's not likely to be a big win. For most people: TL;DR: Give to charity because you want that charity to have your money. Tax implications are minimal; let your accountant sort it out. Disclaimer: I am not an accountant.\"",
"Might I interest you in /r/kiva (Kiva.org) as well? Particularly if you have excess cash lying around that you are wondering how to put to use productively while waiting for the markets to cycle, and/or are interested in /r/churning. Let me know if you have any questions about it.",
"\"You could always put cash in an envelope and mail it, with no return address on the envelope. Any form of anonymous donation that I can think of has the risk that if the money is intercepted and stolen, you'll never know. Also, you won't get a receipt that you can use for tax purposes. You could try sending this organization a note saying, \"\"I think you're doing great work, but this donation was a one-time gift. Please take me off your mailing list.\"\" I don't know if it would work, but it's worth a try. By the way, the problem is worse than you think: charities share mailing lists. Once one charity has your name, they'll often share it with other related charities. For example, I give to the Catholic Family Association even though I am a Protestant -- I think they're doing good work that Catholics, Protestants, and people of many other faiths could support. But over the years I started getting fundraising letters from other Catholic charities, and then from groups trying to spread Catholicism, and now I'm getting mailings from groups whose stated purpose is to oppose Protestants. I laugh and throw away the letters, but I know some people get really bothered by this sort of thing. \"\"I'm pretty sure that the total cost of the mailings including postage has now exceeded the $20 I donated.\"\" I've occassionally thought of sending some trivial donation, $5 or $10, to some political or activist group that I totally oppose, just so they'll spend way more than that over the course of the next few years asking me for more money. :-) Plus, they'll send me letters that will tell me what the opposition is up to.\"",
"What I want to know is; How much does all this 'competition', advertising, marketing, etc etc actually increase how much people give as a total yearly sum of their earning? If 40 cents on the dollar is spend advertising and 'collecting' more money. Sure it works on the scale of a single successful charity. What is the cost to charities as a whole though? If someone gives away 2,000 a year to charity, and 19 charities all spend $100 chasing that $2000 dollars, they on average can prove they are 'making money' by spending to get that $100 'more'. But in reality, now instead of being able to give $2000 to the needy the person was actually only able to give $100. That is my fear when we start having charities operate as big business.",
"We are the second most charitable country on the planet (source: world giving index), if Granny can't find support, she isn't really looking. The support is there for those genuinely in need. And, the money goes further because it doesn't have to pay bureaucrat salaries.",
"Depending on the size of the donation, you may be able to reduce taxes further by donating appreciated assets, such as stock or fund shares that have gone up a lot. That lets you dodge the capital gains tax on redeeming the shares, and if you're donating to a tax-exempt organization they don't have to pay that tax either. And as @JoeTaxpayer has confirmed, you still get to deduct the current value of the donation, not just the basis value of those shares. So if you're donating anyway, this comes close to being Free Money in exchange for some slightly annoying paperwork. (Yet another benefit of long-term investing!) Of course folks in the top brackets sometimes set up their own tax-exempt foundations so they can decouple taking the tax break from deciding what to do with the donation.",
"\"I have a short list of charities that I support, so it's relatively easy for me to say \"\"I'm sorry, all my donations go to _.\"\" I do all my donations online, as well, so keeping receipts is very easy.\"",
"Putting money into your Amazon gift card balance is also a very convenient option, but I like these recurring Red Cross and Wikipedia ideas also.",
"\"I'm being taxed at a 40% rate, then I can give $500,000 to charity, write it off, and save $200,000 on my taxes. That's a net loss of $300,000. I may have paid less taxes, but it cost me 300 grand. Your logic is correct. However, here's another way to think about it. Suppose you are being taxed at a 40% rate. You wish to purchase $500,000 worth of diamonds. How much do you have to make in income to do so? You need to make $833,333 in income, pay 40% of that ($333,333) in taxes, and then spend the $500,000 on the diamonds. But to spend that $500,000 on a charitable donation, you only need to make an income of $500,000, taxed at a rate of 0%, because donations to charity count against your taxable income. Or, yet another way to think about it, is that if you make $833,333 in income, you can spend it on $500,000 worth of diamonds, or $833,333 worth of charitable contributions; effectively you get to purchase $333,333 worth of charitable contributions \"\"for free\"\" over the equivalent purchase that is not a charitable donation.\"",
"I once had worked for Koch Industries. I attended a meeting in which Charles Koch said 'do well so that you can do good'. I like that philosophy. It means make money (even if it is from 'bad' companies) so that you have the means (money) to do good things for others. Bill Gates has made money and is now trying to do good with it. You have better control of how your money is used if you manage it yourself. If you let some faceless company manage it you are never quite sure that they are really helping others.",
"If you have a software company, that can produce a box of software for $5, but the box sells for $100. (You have to make a profit and cover development costs) But then you give these boxes to charity, that is a cost of $5 each and a tax rebate of $100 x 40% = $40. A profit of $35 per donation of $5. Note: You can only do this if you have taxable profit to offset it against.",
"Give them cash and watch how the violent ones start robbing houses to steal others’ money. P.s poor people are good at managing money. They know the value of each cent. They are bad at managing big amounts. Thats why you give them $1000 over a year instead of lump sum of $50.000 f.e",
"That plan wouldn't save you any money because tax brackets don't work that way. All of your earnings up to each level are taxed at that rate. You aren't taxed at the highest rate on all of the money. In your example you pay... If you reduce your income to $37,4000 you pay... In the end you'd be spending $100 to save $20. The only way you conceivably come out ahead by donating to charity (not counting the good karma for doing so) is if you own the charity and it is a way for you to funnel money to yourself and write it off.",
"\"At its heart, I think the best spirit of \"\"donation\"\" is helping others less fortunate than yourself. But as long as the US remains solvent, the chief benefit of paying down the national debt is - like paying off a credit card - lowering the future interest payments the U.S. taxpayer has to make. Since the wealthy pay a disproportionately large portion of taxes (per capita), your hard earned money would be disproportionately benefitting the wealthy. So I'd recommend you do one or both of the following: instead target your donations to a charity whose average beneficiary is less fortunate than yourself take political action with an aim towards balancing the federal budget (since the US national debt is principally financed in the form of 30 year treasuries, the U.S. will be completely out of debt if it can maintain a balanced budget for 30 years recanted, see below)\"",
"In the United States investing towards donation is a great idea because you can donate appreciated securities directly rather than donating cash. Notice how much this can benefit you: So you get to both (a) donate untaxed money and then (b) deduct that unrealized money from your income total on your tax return. With the above in mind, a good strategy for investing towards this type of donation would be to pick securities that are likely to increase in market value but not likely to produce any other sort of income. So bonds (which produce lots of interest income), or stocks with dividends, or equity mutual funds (which distribute dividends as capital gains) would all be suboptimal for this purpose. Of course, an even better strategy would be to establish a widely diversified investment portfolio without thought to future donations. Then, once a year (or whenever), evaluate all your investments and find some where the market value has increased. Then donate some of those shares. No special advance planning necessary. Note that your tax consequences could be more complicated depending on your exact situation. Read the section about Capital Gain Property in IRS Pub. 26 for all the details. There may be special limits on the amount you can deduct. Also, donations of short term capital gains are treated much less favorably, so make sure you donate only long term capital gain property.",
"I've found you can give the money to charity. If you text REDCROSS to 90999 for example you can give $10 to the redcross",
"Now that the labor market in China is near saturation and wages are rising, I think that the Western factories that rely heavily on unskilled labor will start to move from China to sub-Saharan Africa. Edit: I disagree with this line: > tried-and-true strategies of delivering charity Those charities have come under a lot of fire recently, especially from African academics, for distorting the market economies in Africa. Massive supplies of free grain ruin the market for farmers. They inhibit the development of the agricultural sector in Africa and may be harming Africans in the long-term as much as they help in the short-term. Foreign direct investment, better governance, and foreign-built factories will probably help Africa more than food aid.",
"here is what I have learned with multiple close encounters with bankruptcies: ask yourself.. what if I save vs what if I spend? say you like a new shirt.. ask yourself what can you do saving $40 vs rewarding yourself/your well wishers right away? you will end up spending. just like you the other person needs money. he/she is doing a work. ask yourself what if you are in his/her situation. you would obviously want others to be happy. so spend. I think these two should be good. I must add that you should NOT be wasteful. Eg.. buying a handmade shoes vs corporation made shoes? choose handmade one because it fits above two. buying a corporate one would be more polluting and less rewarding because you just gave your money to someone who already has lots and cares least about you. in what way are you saying mortgage is good? I see that as a waste. you can pay back your mortgage only when someone takes even bigger mortgage (check with some maths before refuting)... in other words you have taken part in ponzi scheme.! I would suggest making a house vs buying one is better spending. finally spending is a best saving.. don't forget that you are getting money only because someone is spending wisely. stop feeding your money to corporates and interests and everyone will have plenty to spend.",
"\"I think the best way to handle her fears is to explain the income and expenses of the household overall, then explain the savings and investment strategies, retirement projections, and then finally explain a concrete number for allowable monthly or annual discretionary expenses (including charity, entertainment, vacations, etc.). You may have delicate relationship reasons for not doing this, but if you want a reasonable discussion, I would leave it this way. Please do not open with the question \"\"how much do you think we make\"\" or anything similar because that comes off as a trick or a quiz. It sounds very condescending and highlights how much more you know about finances than she does. It also highlights subconsciously how little mental control she has over the finances, which is likely to make her feel greater anxiety. You should emphasize how secure things are and explain why all the savings and investments you're using are conservatively likely to keep her financially secure. This sets the ground for her to be comfortable with the fact that she now has money, in contrast to perhaps a less financially secure personal history. After that, charitable expenses come out of the expense budget, same as vacations, recreation, etc. If it does not implicate financial security, then it's not dangerous to spend on charity. The alternate approach is to avoid the big financial talk and just propose a few small contributions this year. Then increase it every year incrementally. That may be easier to swallow once there's a psychological track record of donating without incident. Please go into the discussion remembering three things: But above all, please do not open up with a quiz. Have a simple discussion with her. Give her time to consider the expenses budget relative to the savings budget as a proportion of income. And then allow for the fact that she may place a strong premium on savings and a strong discount on charity.\"",
"If the organization is a non-profit. You can search by EIN on Charity Navigator's website FOR FREE. https://www.charitynavigator.org/",
"\"At this level it's not so much about \"\"handling money\"\" in the way we think of it in the first world. It's more like you have no possible way to get enough capital to get out of a desperately bad situation. But if you do get that capital, you can start digging your way out. For example, in one case I read about, someone used part of that $1000 to buy a cow. Then she started selling milk and saving money.\"",
"You question is very hard to answer as it is tough to put a value on how much bad your added investment in evil companies would cause and also how much value the charities add. However, there has been a bunch of really good work on socially responsible investing in general. This paper might be too technical for some but the conclusion section is very readable and clear. The big worry about socially responsible investing from a financial standpoint is that it will lower returns in the long run. The paper above and others show fairly clearly that as long as you only exclude a few classes of stocks and still have a fairly broad base that the expected returns are similar. The main issue though is some socially responsible funds have much higher fees. So the usual advice applies, do your research to make sure your investments are well diversified and have low fees. As long as the index is fairly broad you can consider the difference between the fees on the socially responsible index and investing in a more common index as the long run cost. Then you can balance that cost and having more money for charity against the benefits of not investing in evil companies.",
"FYI, the proposed cuts to food stamps would need to be compensated by an increase fo ~$50,000/church for local food-based organizations to make up the difference. If you want your giving to make up for government programs, you'd best be prepared to give a lot.",
"\"Fighting poverty is akin to \"\"fighting drug use\"\". No matter how much money is raised via taxation there will always be a bottom percentile of individuals who are not \"\"wealthy\"\" in relation to others above them in society and especially Bill Gates. If he really wants to make a difference then he should support rational and reasonable economic propositions which raises the standard of living and lowers the cost of living, but I suspect that would not bring him any sort of feel good press as his \"\"Tax the rich, give to the poor\"\" proposals.\"",
"\"It really depends on what your goals are. If your intent is to benefit the charity, I'm sure that they would tell you that the sooner you give them the money, the better. If they think that the money would do them more good invested then spent, they will invest it. The money you have sitting in your \"\"charitable account\"\" doesn't benefit anyone until you give it away. It really doesn't benefit you, either. You take your tax deduction when you contribute, and it is really out of your hands at this point. The only reason I could see for using a charitable account this way is if you don't know who you want to give money to. If this is the case, you can contribute money to your charitable account now and take the tax deduction now, and wait to identify a worthy charity later. But if I were you, I wouldn't wait too long to find someone to give the money to. There are lots of good organizations that would do a lot of good with that money, and the sooner they get it, the better. If you skip the charitable account and donate directly to them on a regular basis, you can experience the joy of partnering with a charity to help people. If you decide in the future to switch to a different charity, then you do so. Waiting until the \"\"right time\"\" to donate doesn't really do anyone any good.\"",
"\"A budget that you both agree on is a great goal. X% to charity, y% to savings, $z a month to a reserve for house repairs, and so on. Your SO is likely to agree with this, especially if you say it like this: I know you're concerned that I might want to give too much to charity. Why don't we go through the numbers and work out a cap on what I can give away each year? Like, x% of our gross income or y% of our disposable income? Work out x and y in advance so you say real percentages in this \"\"meeting request\"\", but be prepared to actually end up at a different x and y later. Perhaps even suggest an x and y that are a little lower than you would really wish for. If your SO thinks you earn half what you really do, then mental math if you say 5% will lead to half what you want to donate, but don't worry about that at the moment. That could even work in your favour if you've already said you want to give $5000 (or $50,000) a year and mental math with the percentage leads your SO to $2500 (or $25,000), (s)he might think \"\"yes, if we have this meeting I can rein in that crazy generosity.\"\" Make sure your budget is complete. You don't want your SO worrying that if the furnace wears out or the roof needs to be replaced, the money won't be there because you gave it away. Show how these contingencies, and your retirement, will all be taken care of. Show how much you are setting aside to spend on vacations, and so on. That will make it clear that there is room to give to those who are not as fortunate as you. If your SO's motivations are only worry that there won't be money when it's needed, you will not only get permission to donate, you'll get a happier SO. (For those who don't know how this can happen, I knew a woman just like this. The only income she believed they had was her husband's pension. He had several overseas companies and significant royalty income, but she never accounted for that when talking of what they could afford. Her mental image of their income was perhaps a quarter of what it really was, leading to more than one fight about whether they could take a trip, or give a gift, that she thought was too extravagant. For her own happiness I wish he had gone through the budget with her in detail.)\"",
"Kind of pointless when 1/2 goes to military 1/4 to banks, the rest for poorly organised social services. Better off setting up a separate foundation / charity or it will just get recycled back into wealth disparity activities. No point raising tax revenues when its spent on war inc and wallstreet.",
"As someone that has run a nonprofit, my 2 cents: First: thank you for giving and for being conscientious about wanting to make things as easy as possible. The best method is the one you'll actually do. If there is a chance that you will end up not donating by check because you don't have a stamp, you forget, etc. go ahead and do it online. A donation with a fee is better than an intention without one. We had one case where a potential donor decided to give, but was so worried about the processing fee that they wanted to write a check. We followed up 3 times on the pledge, spent time following up with the pledge's connection that wanted to see if it came through, and in the end they never sent the check. Their pledge wound up costing us staff time and money as we tried to make their giving easy. If you are as likely to give, size matters. My rule of thumb is that if you are giving $1 up to about a hundred dollars, the fee (which most nonprofits can get to about 3% or 3.5%) is about the same as the added staff time opening the check, adding an extra to the deposit slip, etc. But as soon as you are giving a couple hundred dollars and especially if you are giving in the thousands, it is definitely better to do it by check. Most banks don't charge an extra deposit fee at the scale of most nonprofits, and we probably have some run to the bank happening in the next day or two. Really your thank you note should be the same whether online or by check (even though you'll get the auto-thank you online), so that time difference shouldn't really play into it. The donation will be appreciated either way. While I cringe a bit if I see a $1,500 donation come through online knowing that the check would be cheaper, that is far outweighed by the thankfulness that someone thought of us and made it happen.",
"This is a long term investment but can be very useful during tough times. Be prepared not only to take but to give as well. Moreover:",
"People put conditions on donations all the time. They donate to the Red Cross for a specific disaster. The donate money to a church for the building fund. They donate money to a hospital to buy a new x-ray machine. They donate money to the scouts for a new dining hall. It is possible to donate money to a non-profit for a specific purpose. If the non-profit doesn't want to accept the money with those strings they can refuse. Generally these specific projects are initiated by the non-profit. But there is no requirement that the idea originate with the non-profit. It is also up to the non-profit and their legal advisers regarding how strictly they view those strings. If you donate money for web design and they don't spend it all, can they pay net years hosting bill with the money, or must they hold it for a few years for when they need a designer again? If the company wants to provide the service, they can structure the project to pay their employees for their time. They pay employees for $100 of labor while deigning the website. The pay and benefits reduce profit thus lowering taxes. Donating money to the non-profit to be given back to the company doesn't seem to be the best way to structure transaction. At best it is a wash. Donating money to a charity and then directing exactly which contractor will perform the service starts to look like money laundering, and most charities will get wary.",
"\"If something is tax-deductible in the US, it means that, in the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service, you effectively didn't earn that money. Within restrictions, your adjusted gross income, which is the income that your tax is calculated on, is reduced by the amount of your tax deductions. In the case of the ASPCA, they've jumped through the appropriate hoops to become a 501(c)(3) organization, which, among other things, means that donations to them are tax-deductible by the donor (a) if they itemize, and (b) if they haven't reached a donation cap. That's the carrot that encourages donations to these organizations. There are restrictions, meaning that there can be only certain types of privileges or exchange between the donor and the organization. Essentially, it has to be a donation, and not a purchase of substantial goods or services. Your donation to these kinds of organizations doesn't hurt their funding elsewhere, or shouldn't. As mentioned above, if you don't itemize your deductions, you won't gain any extra tax savings from the donation. (You shouldn't itemize if you're better off taking the standard deduction.) Having said that, though, please give whatever you're led to give, after considering all of the ramifications (financial and spiritual). The tax deduction is only a subsidy; the IRS doesn't \"\"pick up the whole tab\"\" but only refunds a fraction to you in the form of tax savings through itemized deductions. If you don't feel you have the money, then donate your time. It might be more needed anyway!\"",
"How is taxing them preventing a donation to their charity of choice? It isn't one or the other. You can be taxed and voluntarily charitable. The whole GOP point, though, is to make it ALL voluntary charity so if they give, they get to decide who deserves their money and they deserve a big fat tax deduction.",
"I know in the UK at least, 99% of the time even legitimate collectors don't work directly for the charity. They work for independent for-profit companies. The companies collect a large comission (around £50-£70) for every direct debit signup. The guy that knocks on your door will see very little of it. Have a look at this: http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2005/08/just-6-for-eight-days-work-for.html The bags you get through your door for clothing donations are run on a similar basis - the clothes and profit go to a private company, which makes a donation to the charity out of their profits. Sometimes as little as 0.1% of your donation will go the charity. Always go direct to your chosen charity.",
"With a short position you make your money (profit) when you buy the stocks back to close the position at a lower price than what you bought them at. As short selling is classed as speculation and not investing and you at no time own any actual assets, you cannot donate any short possition to charity. If you did want to avoid paying tax on the profits you could donate the proceeds of the profits after closing the position and thus get a tax deduction equal to the profits you made. But that raises a new and more important question, why are you trading in the first place if you are afraid to make profits in case you have to pay tax on those profits?",
"\"How can I best start a discussion about this topic with SO? I'm guessing your SO is more visual than verbal. I'd break the ice by presenting an income pie chart and an expenses pie chart, maybe just for 2013 or comparing 2012 and 2013, and then offer your interpretation of an interesting slice or two: \"\"I noticed we're saving so much each year that...\"\" Or, instead of starting with graphically demonstrating your cash flow, start with appropriate graphics demonstrating your savings is growing fast enough that making a few donations wouldn't be a serious impact. \"\"See how little we spend compared to our savings?\"\". In any case, a picture is worth a 1,000 words, so starting with pictures is a good way to start your discussion.\"",
"\"At first, I thought this might be too broad. There are of course thousands of things that you can do with your money to \"\"help the economy\"\". But I think that there is room to discuss some broad strokes without trying to list a thousand details. Regular investing (as you are now) helps the economy in that companies obtain money by selling their stock. They can then use that money to fund expansion, etc. These things can help the economy permanently. Of course, they can also use the money to pay executive bonuses, which don't help the economy so much. Similarly, just spending money does not normally help the economy. Unless we are in a recession, it is mildly harmful to spend wastefully. Money that could be going to support long term improvements in production instead is used to buy a luxury that doesn't terribly interest you. I.e. if you don't want a bigger house or a more luxurious car don't buy it to \"\"stimulate\"\" the economy. Many charitable donations have the same problem. They help short term consumption somewhere. And of course the charity starts asking you for more money. Many charities waste most of a donation trying to get another one from the same person or family. Sir John Maynard Keynes proposed that the best thing that people could do to help the economy is to invest in things that cause economic activity in turn. He was mostly talking about things like roads, bridges, and dams that are out of the investing range of most people, so he wanted governments to do it, particularly during a recession. So we are looking for ways to invest in durable improvements that will support economic activity in the future. A million dollars is a small amount for many things, but there are some activities that work. I'm going to list a few examples, but there are certainly others: Fund microfinance. Basically loan your million dollars to people who need a small amount of money. These programs often allow you to determine the initial recipient and then that person determines the next recipient. A million dollars can finance hundreds if not thousands of these loans. They may be in the United States or in a developing country. Set up a scholarship. My recommendation would be to find an existing scholarship with a few recipients and ask them to add one a year for the million dollars. A million dollars should typically produce about a scholarship a year in returns after inflation. Of course, that's just regular inflation. Education inflation is higher. Solar prize. Fund a program that gives out one solar installation every year or five to a family that owns a house, is struggling to pay utilities, and makes a compelling case. Basically, whenever the investment grows enough to support it, make a new prize. Buy something that will help other people make money. This is just six ideas off the top of my head. The goal here is to create something lasting that will promote economic activity. So a program that loans money forward. Or a scholarship or free textbook, particularly in a STEM field. A small piece of infrastructure that helps people move around to work or spend their money. Solar is a bit of a stretch here, but it can be justified if you believe that an investment now is an investment in moving towards the future. The key thing here is to make your money do double duty. By spending your money during a recession or investing during the rest of the business cycle, you can get some value for your money. But even better is if that spending has a societal return as well. Microfinance, scholarships, and infrastructure do that. There is the immediate spending, plus there is the effect of the spending. A business is established. A mind is trained and working at a high income job. People can move, work, and spend their own money.\"",
"\"Depending on what your other deductions are and the amount you are wanting to donate, you can save some money by \"\"batching\"\" deductions into every other year. For example, if you are single in 2015, the standard deduction is $6,300. This means the first $6,300 in deductions you have basically don't \"\"matter\"\" because the standard deduction is larger. You only \"\"count\"\" itemized deductions greater than $6,300. Let's imagine you are donating $10k in 2015 and 2016 and have no other itemized deductions. If you donate in both years, you basically get a net deduction of ($10,000 - $6,300) * 2 = $7,400 over the standard deduction. However, if you donate $10k in 2015 and the next $10k on Dec31, 2015, then you now have donated $20k in 2015 and $0k in 2016. This affects your taxes because you now get ($20,000 - $6,300) = $13,700 in \"\"bonus\"\" deductions. You still get the full $6,300 standard deduction in 2016 as well. This can be a significant impact on your taxes (especially if you are married as the married deduction is double the single or have minimal other itemizable deductions)..\"",
"\"In the UK, one quirky option in this area (OK, admittedly it's not a passive) is the \"\"Battle Against Cancer Investment Trust\"\" (BACIT). Launched in 2012, it's basically a fund-of-funds where the funds held charge zero management charges or performance fees to the trust, but the trust then donates 1% of NAV to charity each year (half to cancer research, investors decide the other half).\"",
"I actually read that a lot of times, that isn’t necessarily true. In some of these third world countries, the issue is less that the money is wasted but that there isn’t enough to make the kinds of optimal investments that were thinking of. For example, someone might understand intellectually that they need to buy a water buffalo to scale up their farm but saving up the money to do so would mean that they wouldn’t be able to feed their kids for two years. They’re not “bad with money”, they just flat out don’t have enough to go beyond subsistence. I think that’s the target market for these types of programs. They won’t work for everyone, people who are actually irresponsible will screw up no matter how much money and coaching you give them. But this could be a game changer for people who are good with the money they do have and just need a boost.",
"If the charity accepts stock, you can avoid the tax on the long term cap gain when you donate it. e.g. I donate $10,000 in value of Apple. I write off $10,000 on my taxes, and benefit with a $2500 refund. If I sold it, I'd have nearly a $1500 tax bill (bought long enough ago, the basis is sub $100). Any trading along the way, and it's on you. Gains long or short are taxed on you. It's only the final donation that matters here. Edit - to address Anthony's comment on other answer - I sell my Apple, with a near $10,000 gain (it's really just $9900) and I am taxed $1500. Now I have $8500 cash I donate and get $2125 back in a tax refund. By donating the stock I am ahead nearly $375, and the charity, $1500.",
"My first question to you is if you itemize? If not the charitable contributions will not do any good. Along these lines, donating unused items to Goodwill or similar can help boost your charitable giving. The bottom line is that the 401K is one of the few real deductions high earners have. If you anticipate earning similarly next year, you could both contribute the max. You still have some time before the end of the year, can you get more in your wife's account? Does your state have income tax? You might be able to deduct sales tax for larger purchases if you made any. However, I would not justify a large purchase just to write off the sales tax. Conventional wisdom will tell you that you should have a large mortgage in order to deduct the interests. However, it does not make sense to pay the bank 10K so you can get 3K back from the government. That seems pretty dumb. If you did not do additional withholding, you probably will have to pay a significant amount plus penalty if you owe more than $1000. You still have time to make one more quarterly payment, so you may want to do so by January 15th. For next year I would recommend the following: The funny thing about giving is that it rarely helps the recipient, it does so much more for the giver. It helps you build wealth. For myself I like to give to charities that have a bent to helping people out of poverty or homelessness. We have two excellent ones here in Orlando, FL: Orlando Rescue Mission and Christian Help. Both have significant job training and budgeting programs.",
"Timing differences would still all come out in the wash. Might reduce it one year but over a few years it's essentially the same. It's becoming harder to create situations where big timing differences can apply. And generally (although not in every case) companies are seeing the bad press associated with not paying taxes and are being relatively less aggressive than in the past. There's a lot too it but I get annoyed by people saying companies only make donations to avoid tax. I've posted on it before and it's a silly view.",
"Right you just summed up the conventional wisdom, which is pretty much that poor people are stupid. But in small experiments so far, it's turned out that poor people know exactly what their biggest problem is, and when they've got the money they fix that problem. It's not always what know-it-all Westerners expected, but it's usually effective.",
"I challenge you to come up with an example of squandering that could not be considered charity, or charity that could not be considered squandering. It entirely depends on how much value you place on the money going where it went. Any spending of money can be considered charity if you feel others need it more than you do.",
"\"SO has observed a lot of irresponsible spending from a parent, which has scarred SO for life OK, so we've got fear... SO is not very financially savvy and has very little idea about how much we earn ...and ignorance. You are entirely correct to worry about the conversation. Fear plus ignorance equals disastrous conversations. I manage our finances. Apparently your SO wishes to have input on the management of your finances without understanding them. It strikes me that this serves neither of you well. I would note that it is exceedingly difficult to rationally argue someone out of a position that they arrived at through irrational fear and ignorance. So I wouldn't start by having a conversation about charitable giving at all. Rather, I would start by addressing the ignorance, because that's the easy one. how high up we are in terms of being in the top y% of households by income Income is irrelevant to the fearful; income can vanish with debts remaining. If your SO is not earning much of that income then SO's future financial security is dependent on the whims of another, which has already turned out badly once for SO. Focusing on raw income is the wrong way to go; focusing on an abstraction like percentile is even more irrelevant. The figures to focus on are not income and percentile, but rather net worth and change in net worth over time. Income $300K, expenses $350K eventually leads to poverty if you lack net worth, even if you are in the 1% of income earners. Open up with \"\"how much do you think we earn?\"\" Playing rhetorical games with ignorant people seems both risky and perhaps unethical to me, and it seems unlikely to engender trust. I would approach this situation by first removing the ignorance, rather than attempting to take advantage of it for rhetorical purposes. I would also institute a policy that ignorant people don't get a say. If SO wants to abrogate financial responsibility to you, then SO should accept your decisions without question. If SO wants to have a say in your joint financial life then SO has a responsibility to make recommendations based on both facts and feelings, not just feelings. So, how to remove this ignorance? This will take some doing, but not much. Go through your records and account for: From that you can compute your net worth. Then go back a few years and account for: From this you can show the effect of your past prudent decisions on your net worth. There should be no percentages. There should be no math more complicated than adding and subtracting, and it should be very clear what adds and substracts to what. People who are financially savvy are extremely intimidated by jargon. If some of your increase in net worth came from a realized capital gain less taxes do not say \"\"realized capital gain less taxes\"\" on your summary document. There should be no \"\"depreciation\"\" or \"\"cost basis\"\" or anything even vaguely like that. Even \"\"assets\"\" and \"\"liabilities\"\" are too jargonish. \"\"Possessions\"\" and \"\"debts\"\" are more easily understood. I'm thinking something like: My SO is financially savvy and still I do this about twice a year; it's helpful for both of us to have a quick summary of what's coming in, what's going out, and what we've got. Once the ignorance is gone, then start working on the fear. It sounds like the fear comes from a betrayal of trust, so it's not just enough to be trustworthy, you've got to consistently appear trustworthy. A great way to do that is to keep doing what I already suggested: on a regular, ongoing basis inform SO of how you are doing financially. When SO sees that net worth is consistently improving over time, that you are not one bad decision away from poverty, the fear should diminish. Expect this to take a long time.\"",
"Do you eat out much or go to coffee shops? I add portions of my excess spare change to the tips/tip jars. I make it a bit over the usual percentage to make up for the fact that it's, well, spare change...",
"There are a number of benefits to this type of account. If one has highly appreciated stock (think Apple), donations of the stock are taken at current value, so for example, I donate $10,000 worth of shares, which cost me $100. In the 28% bracket, and itemizing, I see a $2800 benefit. But, I also avoid a $9900 capital gain and the 15% tax on that, or $1485. In this example, the fund comes into play as it would allow me to break up that $10,000 into smaller donations, and over a number of years. Next example - In my article some years ago Fun with Schedule A I describe how a strategy of 'bunching' ones itemized deductions every other year can help push people into the ability to itemize where normally they just miss doing so. Using the charitable fund can help people smooth out their contributions to the end charities while actually making the out of pocket withdrawal every other year. Last - there are many whose income is irregular for whatever reason. This type of account can be useful to help people in this situation make a deposit in high income/high tax rate years, skipping the deposit in low income/low rate years, but still keep up with the annual charity support. Obviously, one's goal is to help the charities they wish to support, it's silly to donate 'for the deduction.' But, for those who are charitable, these strategies help them divert more money to the charity and less to Uncle Sam. Sorry, I'm not sure about the math to show that 6.46%. My answer was to share the benefits of using these types of accounts.",
"Donations need to be with no strings attached. In this case, you make the cash donation, a deduction, and then they pay you, in taxable income. It's a wash. Why not just give them the service for free? Otherwise this is just money going back and forth.",
"Apart from what the other posters have said, you could look at some 'good cause'. I'd keep on saving 50% as spending more won't really make you more happy. You already sound happy. What I used to do, when I could, was to donate 10% of my 'profit' per year. I'd compare year start with year end and do the math. Afterwards it was just a matter of choosing. there are non government organizations that will get most money where it's needed. Edit as soon as the business I'm starting becomes profitable, I'll continue my donations. Thanks for the appreciations.",
"You can have a way for people to pay, i.e. some kind of payment gateway. Run as Business: Best create a company and get the funds there. This would be treated as income of the website and would be taxed accordingly. One can deduct expenses for running the website, etc. Run as Charity: Register as one, however the cause should be considered as charitable one by the tax authorities. Only then the donations would be tax free.",
"\"You don't consider a situation where people give to \"\"charity\"\" that they're heading themselves. But generally speaking you're correct, the idea is that charity is tax deductible, and people prefer to give their money to their local church where they get the direct benefit of it, rather than to Uncle Sam.\"",
"Assuming that what you want to do is to counter the capital gains tax on the short term and long term gains, and that doing so will avoid any underpayment penalties, it is relatively simple to do so. Figure out the tax on the capital gains by determining your tax bracket. Lets say 25% short term and 15% long term or (0.25x7K) + (0.15*8K) or $2950. If you donate to charities an additional amount of items or money to cover that tax. So taking the numbers in step 1 divide by the marginal tax rate $2950/0.25 or $11,800. Money is easier to donate because you will be contributing enough value that the IRS may ask for proof of the value, and that proof needs to be gathered either before the donation is given or at the time the donation is given. Also don't wait until December 31st, if you miss the deadline and the donation is counted for next year, the purpose will have been missed. Now if the goal is just to avoid the underpayment penalty, you have two other options. The safe harbor is the easiest of the two to determine. Look at last years tax form. Look for the amount of tax you paid last year. Not what was withheld, but what you actually paid. If all your withholding this year, is greater than 110% of the total tax from last year, you have reached the safe harbor. There are a few more twists depending on AGI Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers. If at least two-thirds of your gross income for tax year 2014 or 2015 is from farming or fishing, substitute 662/3% for 90% in (2a) under the General rule, earlier. If your AGI for 2014 was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if your filing status for 2015 is married filing a separate return), substitute 110% for 100% in (2b) under General rule , earlier. See Figure 4-A and Publication 505, chapter 2 for more information.",
"Are you being willfully obtuse? Of course you can do both. However, had you never been taxed you'd have that same money to spend as you see fit, such as giving it to charity. Mind blowing right? Oh so you know how to spend that money better huh? Maybe I say I know how to spend your money better than you. Fuck your charity for down syndrome. People with prostate cancer need it more. Here's your tax bill :)",
"Sounds about right. From [Give Well](http://www.givewell.org/how-we-work/our-criteria/cost-effectiveness): > As of November 2016, the median estimate of our top charities' cost-effectiveness ranged from ~$900 to ~$7,000 per equivalent life saved (a metric we use to compare interventions with different outcomes, such as income improvements and averting a death) .",
"\"A slower approach: keep any discussion of income out of it to begin with. Remaining within discretionary income Z, just go back to the charities your SO has proposed, and say that you would like to set up monthly donations. You would also like to donate a similar amount to charities of your choice. Say what bills your proposed contribution is less than. Once your SO has got used to the idea of charitable giving as a regular expenditure, and has got back the grateful charity newsletters and whatnot, then address the issue of how much you \"\"should\"\" give by comparison with income. Whenever you do consider income, your SO doesn't really seem to want anything to do with this. So I'd approach it as seeking agreement. Eric Lippert has a more long-term approach for seeking involvement. So, present the following information however seems best, probably with a pre-amble establishing that you both want to support charities, so the question is how much and how to get it done. \"\"We earn U. This means we are fortunate enough to be in the top V% of households. Our income breaks down as: This being the case, we can afford to be generous. I would like us to give to the charities that we each care about, to the extent of N. Charitable giving is important to me because ... The amount I suggest we give is less than what we spend annually on ..., and I chose that amount because ... \"\" Depending on the tax situation, you may then have to explain how N from gross income translates to an actual amount available to give to charity. Or charitable giving might be tax free. If the N you want is greater than Z-A then it might be wise to suggest a smaller amount, but ask that you both make a plan in increase it in a year or whatever. Similarly if N strikes your SO as a scarily large number then I would think the best thing to do is just reduce it so that at least you start somewhere. If Y is low or zero, and your SO suffers from anxiety about financial security, then increasing Y at the same time might be a good way to offset the fear of N. When stating income you might want to exclude any income from savings/investments. Although legally it's income your SO might see it psychologically as capital gains and hence touching it would endanger your savings/investment/pension returns. Even though it's all fungible.\"",
"\"Can a company say \"\"StackExchange\"\" donate to a non-profit company say $5,000 in agreement that they will spend that on paying a designer for a new website? And most importantly is this donation still tax deductible? A non-profit would have to typically create a bucket for IT Services or Website design. As long as \"\"StackExchange\"\" specify they employ a profession service to get it done, there would be no issue. If \"\"StackExchange\"\" were to specify an individula/company it would be an issue.\"",
"\"seems like a dumb idea to me. Will these people know what to do with $1000? Will they know best how to invest it or will it be squandered on booze, or just plain living expenses? It might be better spent giving it to them with a string such as \"\"buy a cow or chickens that can produce\"\" or seed for a patch of land. I expect some will fall in each of the three catagories. Question now is what will be the distribution?\"",
"\"Ask yourself one question - \"\"Why me?\"\" Say I had no friends or family (that I liked). I have money and I'm dying. There are a half dozen charities I'd write checks to. Under what circumstances would I ever contact a stranger to try to give my money away? That answers why this is a scam.\"",
"It's a good question. We can't know for sure, but here are some things to think about. Paypal advertises a discounted transaction rate for non-profit organizations. In the U.S. at least, the rate they advertise is 2.2% + 0.30 USD. There are lots of things that can come into play here, such as international rates or any special deal that Wikimedia has struck with Paypal, but it seems reasonable to guess that of your 2€ donation, Wikipedia sees perhaps 1.65€. Note that most of the fee is a flat rate; of the next 2€ in your donation, Wikipedia gets 1.96€. Direct debit probably has lower fees. Paypal has to account for some credit card transaction fees in their fee structure, and direct debit does not. Therefore, I would guess that to maximize your gift, direct debit might result a little better than Paypal. Charities, in general, don't want to tell you the best way to donate, because they want it to be as easy for you as possible, and don't want to discourage any type of donation at all. They are very happy to get any donation, even if one method over another results in slightly higher fees. Wikimedia, in particular, offers many different options for donating.",
"An answer from PayPal stated that donations may be turned on only for Business PayPal accounts that are verified for its non-profit status. Such PayPal Business account must be opened in the name of non-profit organization (not a single person) and go through verification process. One must provide the following information: That would mean that one cannot ask for donations as a private person, at least in Croatia, and probably in Europe.",
"You could also start a business. I ran a project called the Thousand Rand Challenge a few years ago in South Africa where we supported people in starting a business for about $100 each. Some of them were surprisingly profitable. You can find a few ideas at the wiki site.",
"One possibility to consider would be making an arrangement with a registered UK charity where you would donate the necessary amount for the specific purpose of covering medical costs of that particular person. Charitable donations are expressly deductible from business profits. Some charities may be genuinely interested in helping people from developing countries get quality medical help that's not available in those countries. There may be some organizations in the proposed beneficiary's country that have contacts among the UK charities. PS. I am not a lawyer or an accountant, nor do I claim to be either. The above is not a legal or accounting advice. Consider seeking professional assistance.",
"Jason I think your doing a great thing. Based on what your describing I would look further into a 501(c)(3). Chapter 3 from the IRS Publication 557 offers information. This Wikipedia gives a quick understanding of 501(c)(3) and how to apply. Here is a great article from ehow it has some suggestions for someone who is just starting out. Maybe going through an organization already existing within your community might be a better, perhaps a church or some religious organization.",
"The relevant page of the CRA's 2016 General Income Tax and Benefit Guide explains how to donate money to the federal debt servicing and reduction account. The guide writes: To make a gift to this account, make it payable to the Receiver General, and send it with a note asking that we apply it to this account, to: Place du Portage Phase III, 11 Laurier Street Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0S5 Donations are tax-deductible: they'll send you a tax receipt.",
"\"The word you are looking for is \"\"budget\"\" You can't pay off debt if you are spending more than you earn. Therefore, start a budget that you both work on at the same time, and both agree 100% with. Evaluate your progress on that budget on a regular basis. From your question, you understand what your obligations are and you seem to manage money pretty well. Therefore your key to retirement is just the ticket you need. As newlyweds, you both have to be VERY aware that the main reason a marriage fails in the US is money issues. Starting out with a groundwork where you both agree to your budget and can keep it will help you a lot in your upcoming life. Then, for some details Sprinkle your charitable donations anywhere in the list where you feel it is important.\"",
"i'm not talking about giving money to the gov't to have them help with it (i agree, our gov't should care only about us), but doing it yourself. or maybe flying over there to help yourself with your own money. my point is: a direct approach isnt best in the long run. the best help is having a booming economy. the poor are much better in a booming economy than in a shitty one. and govt redistribution will make a shitty economy. of course a bigger problem is the gov't manipulation of interest rates and over-regulation, but a better economy pulls people out of poverty. that's why everyone was financially equal, yet extremely poor in the USSR. nice and moral are always a good thing, but not by force. libertarians DO believe their policies are best for the poor, despite a lack of redistribution of money.",
"No, it makes no sense. The US national debt is different from other debt on TWO KEY WAYS : 1.) The national debt is not money we owe to our government IT IS MONEY WE OWE TO OURSELVES. 2.) If the GNP of our country can grow at a rate equal to or greater than the national debt interest, then the figure of national debt has no bearing on anything. So a more philanthropic endeavor would be to help grow the economy.",
"has very little idea about how much we earn and how high up we are in terms of income percentile. The first part of this sentence is tough to understand. My daughter was 12 when she told us what she estimated our income to be. She looked up the price of our home, worked backwards using conservative numbers, and was pretty close. Here you are saying your wife doesn't know the family income? Percentiles are meaningless. There are $60k couples who donate 10%, and there are $300k earners who are not charitable at all, and don't even save. It's time to have a general budget conversation with her. Perhaps starting with the rate of savings, and show how there's room for charity. If your charitable desire is based on a religious compulsion, share that as well, the 10% is what many feel commanded to share by their maker, and feel that it comes off the top regardless of their income level. In reality, this issue is not financial, it's about open dialog between 2 people. Money is difficult for some to discuss, but you need to start somewhere.",
"This kind of questions keeps repeating itself on this site and the answer is generally it doesn't matter. As you said yourself, there are costs either way, and these costs are comparable. Generally, merchant fees differ tremendously between the different kinds of merchants, and while gas stations and video rentals may pay up to 5% and even more, charitable organizations and community services are usually not considered as high fraud risk operation and are charged much lower fees. Either way, paying employees, managing cash/check deposits or paying merchant fees is part of the charity operational expenses. Together with maintaining offices, postal office boxes, office supplies, postage expenses and formal stationary and envelopes needed for physical donations handling. I would guess that if the charity's majority of donations come on-line as credit card/paypal payments - check handling will be more expensive. So I suggest you take the route you consider majority of donors pay - that would be the cheapest for them to handle. I would guess, credit cards being the most convenient - would be the way to go.",
"If your taxes aren't going to healthcare, they are going for something else. Taxes won't go away even if we eliminate Medicaid, Medicare, social security and the EPA. Politicians are very good at spending money, so they will find a place for your taxes. The argument isn't taxes or charity. It's where should taxes be spent for the most good. What will keep the US leading the rest of the world? It isn't charity. It is democracy, standards of living and defense spending."
] |
[
"OP wants to do something very honourable, applause for that. Being a Greek I have insider knowledge about the impact of various organisations. Fact is, for people from abroad what is the most highly recommended action would be to support organisations of an international network (red cross, doctors w/out borders etc), because the health system is suffering seriously nowadays -or access to it-, and providing redundancy in that respect can certainly make a difference, via global health efforts. The next best thing you can do, to yourself and others, is basically to take a vacation in Greece and visit both a big city (here's where the problems will be visible) and an island (here's where you'll realise that you are in a place of stunning natural beauty). By taking this action you achieve two things: you put the economy in motion - a small vote, yet it counts - and you actually are a first-person observer. Enough is enough with victimisation via the news coming from inside or outside Greece! People need get the whole respective.",
"I can't say specifically about charities to help Greece. If someone on here has specific knowledge, please chime in. The only shortcut I know to tell if a charity is legitimate is to consult one of the ratings/watchdog type groups that monitor charities. For example, for explicitly Christian charities, there's a group called the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. To be a member in good standing a charity has to meet a bunch of criteria, like having an independent board of directors, i.e. you can't start a charity, make yourself the president and your brother-in-law the vice president and you're not answerable to anyone else; their fund-raising and administrative costs can't be more than a certain percentage of total income, etc. There are similar groups with similar standards for more general charities. I'm not naming any of those groups because there's a potential catch: How reputable is the group that rates other people's reputations? And I don't want to recommend someone without knowing. Years ago I came across a news story about an organization that rated colleges, and that had given one particular college their top rating. But, the news story said, investigators found that that one college was the ONLY college they ever gave a rating to, and that their address was the same as the college's address. It turned out, of course, that the college was a scam. The other method is to take some time to investigate the charity. For starters, get a copy of their annual report or their newsletter. If they're total frauds, often they don't have an annual report or a newsletter. Of course a fraud could make up beautiful flyers describing all the wonderful work they do, with pictures of people they helped and detailed case histories, and it's all complete fiction. But that's more work than most con men go to. I've gotten lots of pleas for contributions from people who call on the phone or come to my door or send an email. If the message does not have a logo, a mailing address and phone number, reasonably coherent English, and a fair amount of text describing what they do, I don't give them anything. They COULD be a new start up that hasn't had time to prepare these things. They COULD believe that pretty flyers are a waste of money and they want to put all their resources into helping the needy. But more likely it's a scam that somebody through together in his basement. Of course the best thing is if you personally know people who are officers in the organization. (Well, assuming you personally know them AND you know that they are honest people. If you know the president and you know he's a sleazy con man, you might want to stay away from that group.) See if you can find information about the charity in the news or on-line. If they're being investigated for fraud by the Justice Department, you might want to avoid them. Etc. Maybe you've thought this through, but you also might want to think about exactly who in Greece you want to help, and what your philosophy of charity is. Do you want to help people who lost their jobs because of the economic problems there and who are now unemployed? Do you want to donate to the government to help them balance the budget? Do you want to help support an orphanage or a homeless shelter, or give money directly to needy people? Etc. And one piece of unsolicited advice: Unless you have millions to give -- and I'm assuming you don't as you said your first gift would be $50 -- I'd pick one or two charities and give regularly to them. I think you can do more good by giving $X per month to a single charity than to give to a different charity every month. You make more difference.",
"In the. US, i'd suggest hitting the Charity Navigator website for evaluation of how efficiently various charities will use your money. At this point I won't donate money to anything that gets less than three stars unless I know the organization very well indeed -- and I've been progressively swapping out 3-star groups for 4-star organizations in the same category. Many of the groups reviewed by CN are international, so you might find it useful even if you're donating from/to elsewhere."
] |
4777
|
How to finance necessary repairs to our home in order to sell it?
|
[
"590710"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"365342",
"570318",
"468104",
"416382",
"542461",
"412142",
"359433",
"422084",
"482638",
"473907",
"451985",
"434266",
"468894",
"574954",
"86982",
"396540",
"202290",
"110400",
"118491",
"537716",
"597813",
"52351",
"133735",
"58855",
"452562",
"579760",
"145383",
"444148",
"478413",
"375632",
"336441",
"151746",
"232944",
"72730",
"281599",
"69213",
"329504",
"171631",
"223166",
"234161",
"83411",
"172722",
"205522",
"446646",
"97484",
"87187",
"125811",
"395957",
"487726",
"566493",
"497927",
"104577",
"422770",
"309077",
"294167",
"451421",
"421586",
"466196",
"43556",
"38712",
"96666",
"354883",
"374443",
"578906",
"426678",
"517633",
"505580",
"321637",
"360872",
"293464",
"180214",
"473692",
"570415",
"46266",
"415097",
"379023",
"89081",
"544107",
"244254",
"205906",
"565985",
"299536",
"222232",
"352908",
"87324",
"438217",
"141876",
"573276",
"496819",
"479558",
"432961",
"349380",
"111184",
"248578",
"294097",
"342852",
"80840",
"332719",
"587682",
"403735"
] |
[
"If you intend to flip this property, you might consider either a construction loan or private money. A construction loan allows you to borrow from a bank against the value of the finished house a little at a time. As each stage of the construction/repairs are completed, the bank releases more funds to you. Interest accrues during the construction, but no payments need to be made until the construction/repairs are complete. Private money works in a similar manner, but the full amount can be released to you at once so you can get the repairs done more quickly. The interest rate will be higher. If you are flipping, then this higher interest rate is simply a cost of doing business. Since it's a private loan, you ca structure the deal any way you want. Perhaps accruing interest until the property is sold and then paying it back as a single balloon payment on sale of the property. To find private money, contact a mortgage broker and tell them what you have in mind. If you're intending to keep the property for yourself, private money is still an option. Once the repairs are complete, have the bank reassess the property value and refinance based on the new amount. Pay back the private loan with equity pulled from the house and all the shiny new repairs.",
"I'm not sure about your first two options. But given your situation, a variant of option three seems possible. That way you don't have to throw away your appraisal, although it's possible that you'll need to get some kind of addendum related to the repairs. You also don't have your liquid money tied up long term. You just need to float it for a month or two while the repairs are being done. The bank should be able to preapprove you for the loan. Note that you might be better off without the loan. You'll have to pay interest on the loan and there's extra red tape. I'd just prefer not to tie up so much money in this property. I don't understand this. With a loan, you are even more tied up. Anything you do, you have to work with the bank. Sure, you have $80k more cash available with the loan, but it doesn't sound like you need it. With the loan, the bank makes the profit. If you buy in cash, you lose your interest from the cash, but you save paying the interest on the loan. In general, the interest rate on the loan will be higher than the return on the cash equivalent. A fourth option would be to pay the $15k up front as earnest money. The seller does the repairs through your chosen contractor. You pay the remaining $12.5k for the downpayment and buy the house with the loan. This is a more complicated purchase contract though, so cash might be a better option. You can easily evaluate the difficulty of the second option. Call a different bank and ask. If you explain the situation, they'll let you know if they can use the existing appraisal or not. Also consider asking the appraiser if there are specific banks that will accept the appraisal. That might be quicker than randomly choosing banks. It may be that your current bank just isn't used to investment properties. Requiring the previous owner to do repairs prior to sale is very common in residential properties. It sounds like the loan officer is trying to use the rules for residential for your investment purchase. A different bank may be more inclined to work with you for your actual purchase.",
"I'll write this up as a more formal answer, here. I'd suggest looking into a Home Equity Line of Credit, or HELOC. You didn't mention in your question how much equity you have in the home, but assuming at least 20%, you might be able to open a HELOC with a line of $40,000. My experience is that you can do 50% of your equity, but depends on the bank. Here are a few notes that are generally in play with HELOC's (YMMV, so be sure to know the specifics before signing on the line) Doing this, at least when we did 8 years ago, did not subject us to PMI. There are certainly plenty of things to research, but it sounds like you're pretty astute based on how you're evaluating the financial side of this endeavor. There are no guarantees in real estate. Houses could be selling like crazy now, but in 6 months they might not. It certainly sounds like that's a lower risk in your area, but you never know what might happen. If you're taking on this extra line of credit, make sure that it's something you could afford should the worst case scenario happen. Equity loans are also available. This is a more traditional fixed-rate loan rather than line of credit, so you'd be looking at set monthly payments rather than the flexibility of paying interest only when you need to. There's a brief write-up on the differences here. I have also heard of a construction loan, which falls into the same category as the aforementioned options, but I can't speak to today's market on those.",
"I agree with MrChrister about first considering how necessary the renovations are (is it a nice-to-have, or a need-to-have?), as well as the importance of consulting a Realtor, if you are selling your home, as they will advise you wisely. For instance, they might advise you to replace the linoleum with a neutral beige ceramic tile, as you would be assured a better resale value on your dollar spent, than if you were to replace the old linoleum with new linoleum (or laminate). There are many types of renovations that simply don't pay off, and others that do provide good return-on-investment (like intelligent kitchen and bathroom updates). I found this ROI grid at lendingmax.ca (which is pretty consistent with what I remember reading in the Toronto Star this spring): Top 10 Renovations ~ Average return on investment Painting and interior decorating = 73% Kitchen renovations = 72% Bathroom renovations = 68% Exterior painting = 65% Flooring upgrades = 62% Window/door replacement = 57% Family room addition = 51% Fireplace addition = 50% Basement renovation = 49% Furnace/heating updating = 48% If you are selling your home, and your Realtor has suggested improvements, they are probably necessary, and not doing them might serve as an impediment to quickly selling your home - so factor in the (potential) costs of carrying your home for additional weeks/months, or worse, overlapping mortage costs, if it takes your home longer to sell, and you end up owning two homes simultaneously for a bit. As far as your question (should you pay cash for renos or take out a loan), one factor to consider if you live in Canada is the Home Renovation Tax Credit, which applies to renos that take place until Feb 1, 2010, and can deduct up to $1,350. So if you have to do a reno and yours qualifies for this tax credit, and you won't have the cash before that deadline, factor in the cost of borrowing vs. the $1,350. Good luck!",
"I'm assuming that when you sell the house you expect to be able to pay off these loans. In that case you need a loan that can be paid off in full without penalty, but has as low an interest rate as possible. My suggestions:",
"One thing I would look into is getting a fixed rate home equity loan for a short term. Not a line of credit, but a home equity loan. The main benefit is they typically offer no closing costs. You can get a very low rate provided you move the loan into first position (replace your current mortgage). I know someone who got a 7 year fixed Home Equity Loan, from Regions Bank, for 2.62% no closing costs.",
"\"In the first years of a loan, most of what you're paying is interest, so my guess is that this is a bad idea. But there are lots of mortgage calculators offered for free on the web (your bank's website may have one) so I'd suggest that you spend some time running actual numbers before deciding. Reminder: Most renovations do NOT pay for themselves in increased sales price, not least because you'll lose the buyers who don't like what you've done but would have been happy to renovate it themselves to their own tastes. Unless there is something which will actively impair your ability to sell the house, you should usually renovate when you plan to stay there for a while and take your returns in enjoying the house more, NOT on the way out. (There's been some recent discussion of this over in Home Improvement, pointing out that the changes which return more than they cost are usually simple things like refreshing the paint, \"\"staging\"\" the house so it looks lived in but not cluttered, replacing damaged blinds, washing windows, putting out a few more flowers, and so on.)\"",
"sheegaon's reply looks fine to me, a HELOC can usually be set up for a minimal ($50?) fee, and is currently a pretty low rate, mine is 2.5%. If this doesn't appeal to you, my other suggestion is a 401(k) loan. While this is usually a last resort and 'not' recommended, a short term use may make sense. The rate is low, and you can pay in back in full after moving into the new house.",
"For alternative financing, pursue a line of credit or a Home Equity Line of Credit. (From the comments of @ChrisInEdmonton and @littleadv on the original question)",
"There are ups and downs to doing this. This isn't a taxable gain, because it's borrowed money that will be repaid. Whether there are restrictions or not depends upon your contract with the seller and your bank. If the concessions are for health & safety related repairs, your bank may require you to complete the work before closing or within a certain period of time. Overall: Upsides Downsides",
"Over the last ten years you have reaped the benefits of a good financial decision. (Presumably your low mortgage has freed up money for other financial priorities.) There would be no harm in making a clean break by selling as is. On the other hand, the resale value would probably be rather low considering the condition and the neighborhood. I don't want to assume too much here, but if a potential buyer is interested in the house by virtue of not being able to afford a house in a better neighborhood or better condition, their finances and credit history may make it difficult for them to be approved for a mortgage. That would reduce the potential buyer pool and further reduce the sale price. If you can pull more in rent than the mortgage, you definitely have an opportunity to come ahead. Maybe window A/C units and a repaired chimney are enough if you're renting. Your rental income would pay for that in less than a year even while paying your mortgage for you. (Of course you don't want to become a sleazy slumlord either.)",
"You should look into a home equity line of credit: A home equity line of credit (often called HELOC and pronounced HEE-lock) is a loan in which the lender agrees to lend a maximum amount within an agreed period (called a term), where the collateral is the borrower's equity in his/her house. Because a home often is a consumer's most valuable asset, many homeowners use home equity credit lines only for major items, such as education, home improvements, or medical bills, and choose not to use them for day-to-day expenses.",
"A professional home inspection will clue you in on any problems you might be buying, so it's important in any real estate transaction. If the seller finances the loan, you need a lawyer. It might be a nice opportunity - being in the right place at the right time. You just have to investigate all angles.",
"\"The problem here can be boiled down to that fact you are attempting to obtain a loan without collateral. There are times it can be done, but you have to have a really good relationship with a banker. Your question suggests that avenue has been exhausted. You are looking for an investor, but you are offering something very speculative. Suppose an investor gives you 20K, what recourse does he have if you do not pay the terms of the loan? From what income will this be paid from? What event will trigger the capability to make a balloon payment? Now if you can find a really handy guy that really needs a place to live could you swap rent for repairs? Maybe. Perhaps you buy the materials, and he does the roof in exchange for 6 months worth of rent or whatever. If you approached me with this \"\"investment\"\", the thing that would raise a red flag is why don't you have 20K to do this yourself? If you don't how will you be able to make payments? For example of the items you mentioned: That is a weekend worth of work and some pretty inexpensive materials. Why does money need to be borrowed for this? A weekend worth of demo, and $500 worth of material and another weekend to build something serviceable for a rental. Why does money need to be borrowed for this? 2K? Why does money need to be borrowed for this? This can be expensive, but most roofing companies offer financing. Also doing some of the work yourself can save a ton of money. Demoing an old roof is typically about 1/3 of the roofing cost and is technically simple, but physically difficult. So besides the new roof, you could have a lot of your list solved for less than 3K and three weekends worth of work. You are attempting to change this into a rental, not the Taj Mahal.\"",
"Great question, but I'm thinking you'll want to get a professional who can look at your specific situation and do it right. I wouldn't go solely on advice here. Having said that, though, my decidedly non-professional advice: The other alternative is to take a bit of a profit hit, and demand that the seller pay cash. Then the transaction becomes much easier and quicker. But again, I urge you to have a pro look at this!",
"There are deals out there which allow refinancing up to 125% of appraised value so long as you have a solid payment history. You need to research banks in your area working with HARP funded mortgages. An alternate method is to find a bank that will finance 80% of the current value at 4% and the rest as a HELOC. The rate will be higher on the equity line, but the average rate will be better and you can pay the line off faster.",
"If you have a family member with sufficient funds to lend, you might consider writing a deed that gives them a percentage of ownership in the property in exchange for a loan, then you could later take a mortgage to pay back that loan and purchase that percentage of the property back. If it was me, I would probably just pay cash and try to get a home equity line of credit for emergency funds once I started working again. All the money I would have paid into a mortgage, and perhaps more--I would invest to rebuild the investment account as quickly as possible.",
"It seems you understand the risks, it seems like a fine enough idea. Hopefully it works out for you. However, you may want to talk to a few local banks about getting a short term home equity loan. I know someone who was able to do this getting a very low rate for 7 years. At the time of the loan, the prevailing rate for a 15 year was 3.25, but they were able to get the HEL at 2.6 fixed. There was no closing costs. The best part about it was the payment was not that much more. While going from ~1200 to ~1800 is a 50% increase it was not that much in dollars in relationship to his household income. Note that I did not say Home Equity Line of Credit, which are vairable rates and amount borrowed.",
"Your only option might be finding a seller-financed property with a motivated seller who is willing to take the risk of loaning you money. However, be prepared to pay a hefty rate on that loan if you can even pull it off.",
"Others have covered the usual vehicles for getting money out of a property. There's another category of home loan called a hard money loan. It would take a lot of inquiries to find a hard money loan given your needs, but chances are its doable. The terms can be onerous, and hard money lenders don't mess around when it comes to foreclosing after a few missed payments. It's an off-the-radar industry and the private lenders and specialized trustees operate together with strike-force precision. Trustees normally should be trust-able by borrower and lender, but in the case I describe below, one man owned the small company that lent, and the small company that acted as trustee. Borrower beware. Yet, if your credit score and income are dismal, but your home equity is great, hard money is the only way to borrow against your home. In making hard money loans, lenders don't consider your credit score or income, just how much equity is in the property. I daresay they hope you'll default. They don't always hang onto the loans. If you look like a payer instead of someone they can foreclose on, they might sell the loan to someone who wants a stable monthly income. You don't know a thing about that person. A Cautionary Tale: *Check out HankandHelen.blogspot.com for a currently-unfolding saga, in which an elderly couple's grandson convinced them to let him take title to their house, borrow against it, invest the proceeds, and share the profits. It didn't work that way. He went through hard-money lenders. He borrowed $360,000 and then $65,000. Those were mysteriously paid off (total mystery at this point), and he borrowed $47,000. About a year later, he lost the house by defaulting the $47,000 loan. He was only about $2000 behind in payments when the trustee issued a notice of default, followed by a notice of sale. The trustee put the place up for auction, which didn't require a court order: that's the way it is in California and many western states, and a few others. The hard money lender bought the loan at auction for $83,000, and a home worth about $800,000 no longer belonged to the grandson. A fundraiser brought in about $120,000 and the couple bought a mobile home in a mobile home park. The acre of land and swimming pool they used to own will be for sale soon, or possibly demolished for a mansion to be built. (House in the area go for about $2.5M when improved with very large, new houses.)* I poke around PropertyShark.com when I see a house bought cheaply at a foreclosure auction. Quite often the (former) borrower had inherited the house, treated it like a piggy bank, defaulted, and boom--no more house. It never makes sense to put a house at risk for a small amount like $5000. If you can't pay those credit card bills, the lenders can hound you and maybe get a court order to extract something from your checking account every month, but they can't take your belongings. When you sign a deed of trust or mortgage, you're giving a third party the right to kick you out of your home and take possession of it. You don't have any say in the matter. You might go to court, and say whatever you feel like saying, but if you owe many payments and can't pay them immediately, you're very likely to be out of luck. Someone mentioned paying off credit card balances with the highest interest rates first. That's done by throwing whatever cash you have at them while paying the minimum on the lower-rate balances. That's financially sound, but there's a technique that turns out to be more motivating for some, which is attacking the lowest balance first. It leads to the quickest reduction in the number payments you're required to make every month, and quickly lets you add the money you were applying to the smallest balance to the payment you make on the next-smallest balance. (Close each card as you pay it off if you don't want to accumulate debt again.) P.S. I don't know what your home's feed is, so I didn't address that. If it's some kind of rental income, every lender I have encountered credits 75% of the current monthly rent toward your gross income. They assume there will be vacancies and other costs.",
"Yes this is possible. The most likely tool to use in this case would be a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). This is a line of credit for which the full amount is backed by home equity (difference between market and book prices). Most likely your financial institution will apply a factor to this collateral to account for various risks which will reduce the maximum amount that can be taken as a line of credit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_equity_line_of_credit",
"\"We considered similar big renovations when putting our house on the market. The answer turns out to be pretty simple; unless you do renovation-type work as your day job, or have really good friends in the residential contracting business, sell as-is. You will virtually never get back the full price of bringing in a gen-con to renovate any space in your home; you do that when you want to spend the extra to make your home exactly what you wanted, so you can live in it for decades and get the enjoyment out of it. If you're trying to turn a profit with the renovation, like house-flippers do professionally, you look for easy repairs/renos, buy good-looking but inexpensive materials, and do the labor yourself. Whether you sell to the market or to a specifically-interested buyer is your call, but I will caution you that a specifically-interested buyer is going to be looking for a deal, or a steal. When marketing our house, we met with three different realtors. The first one was very overoptimistic about what we could list for (basically assuming that we could get the same price as a fully-upgraded version of our same floor plan with a pool out back). She also had a to-do list a mile long, and my wife and I both noticed that she looked very apprehensive about the house when looking around, even as she reassured us that selling it would be no trouble. We eventually realized why she was so apprehensive, and fired her before we got even halfway through her to-dos, which included major landscaping, new kitchen floors and countertops, etc, which would have cost us thousands and would not have gotten the house price even close to the target. The second one took a look at our half-finished refinish and told us to stop everything we were doing to update the minor stuff like paint and fixtures, saying we were putting lipstick on a pig; she would market the house to some cash buyers she knew personally, for about 80% of the list price our first realtor quoted, and implied that we should be kissing her boots for finding us a buyer willing to take the house off our hands at all. During the tour, she pointed out \"\"problems\"\" with the house that weren't even there, like foundation issues such as sloping floors, in an attempt to scare us into going with her strategy. We sniffed that out pretty quickly, showed her the door at the end of the initial consult and never called back. This, by the way, is the kind of thing you want to avoid; unless your home is really dilapidated or torn apart with unfinished major renos, it should have decent value on the market and you shouldn't have to resort to a cash buyer looking for a flip or a rental property on the cheap. Just like Goldilocks, our third choice was just right. He saw all the same comparables, toured our house, and recommended that we offer about $20k less than the fully-upgraded version (but still about $20k more than the second realtor was estimating), targeting a \"\"real\"\" buyer and not an investor or flipper, but at a price that would make the lack of upgrades more acceptable. We finished the paint and finish projects we started, brought in a weekend's worth of scheduled showings, and our house was under contract for full price within 3 days, giving us the extra $20k worth of down payment to put into our new house. In summary, I highly recommend a realtor, because the one we eventually listed with worked his butt off on the business side while we fixed up the house. However, make sure you find the right one; realtors are ultimately in business for themselves, and their ultimate interest is in getting your house sold and getting you into a new one. That is what gets them paid. Some of them will do it the right way, working the deal with other realtors and their prospective buyers to get you what you need. Others will take the easy way out, at your expense, either giving you bad advice about how to present and price your home so that you end up on the market for 6 months with no offers, or handing your house to their business buddies at a discount.\"",
"To give the seller cash at the closing, you will need to borrow the money ahead of time, which means a mortgage is out. A bank will only make a mortgage if they get the deed. Therefore, you will have to borrow a different way, such as through a more-expensive home equity loan.",
"\"Be careful that pride is not getting in the way of making a good decision. As it stands now what difference does it make to have 200K worth of debt and a 200K house or 225K of debt and a 250K house? Sure you would have a 25K higher net worth, but is that really important? Some may even argue that such an increase is not real as equity in primary residence might not be a good indication of wealth. While there is nothing wrong with sitting down with a banker, most are likely to see your scheme as dubious. Home improvements rarely have a 100% ROI and almost never have a 200% ROI, I'd say you'd be pretty lucky to get a 65% ROI. That is not to say they will deny you. The banks are in the business of lending money, and have the goal of taking as much of your hard earned paycheck as possible. They are always looking to \"\"sheer the sheep\"\". Why not take a more systematic approach to improving your home? Save up and pay cash as these don't seem to cause significant discomfort. With that size budget and some elbow grease you can probably get these all done in three years. So in three years you'll have about 192K in debt and a home worth 250K or more.\"",
"It depends on your equity(assets - liabilities). If you have a lot of equity, banks will be happy to lend you money because they now they can always seize your assets. If you don't have a lot of equity another option is to go to hard money lenders. They charge high rates and some of them lend-to-own, but is an option. And consider what Pete said, you might be a little optimistic.",
"Depends on the house. If it's a house that's <10 years old, you're looking at pretty minor repair work. You can probably afford to be aggressive. I bought a home built in 1927 in 2006. Since then, I've put on a roof, replaced windows, replaced hot water tanks, replaced bathroom fixtures and corrected plumbing horrors. Total cost: $20k. Had I spent down savings on a down payment, I would have been in rough shape financially. Other things to think about are:",
"I recommend fixing the roof. You're going to pay for it eventually, either as an emergency repair or a concession at sale.",
"The reason for borrowing instead of paying cash for major renovations should be the same for the decision about whether to borrow or pay cash for the home itself. Over history, borrowing using low, tax-deductible interest while increasing your retirement contributions has always yielded higher returns than paying off mortgage principal over the long term. You should first determine how much you need to save for retirement, factor that into your budget, then borrow as much as needed (and can afford) to live at whatever level of home you decide is important to you. Using this same logic, if interest rates are low enough, it would behoove you to refinance with cash out leveraging the cash to use as additional retirement savings.",
"Personally, I'd use my emergency fund first. It is unlikely (though possible, of course) that I will entirely lose my income at the same time I need to replace my roof or my furnace. I'd rather pay my emergency fund back with installment payments than pay off a HELOC to my bank. The lost interest on my emergency fund, which, after all, should be in cash, is much less than the cost of the loan. I could even set up an amortization schedule in a spreadsheet and charge myself interest when paying back into the emergency fund. That said, if I didn't have the cash in my emergency fund, I'd rather borrow against the house than finance with a contractor. If they'd even do that, which is unlikely--I've never dealt with a roofer or heating contractor that required anything but full payment at time of service. Home equity borrowing is generally the cheapest kind. I'm firmly in the camp of those who look at home ownership as a consumption decision rather than an investment. If the value goes up, great, but I just build in about 1% of the cost of building a new house (excluding the land price) into the housing budget each year, right along with mortgage interest, property taxes and basic utilities. Usually, that's enough to cover the major wear-and-tear related repairs (averaged over 3-5 year periods, anyway).",
"It's just possible that if you have your home appraised (probable cost a few hundred $), and the value is sufficiently higher than what the mortgage company is owed, that they will let this slide, since they are covered. Many banks, at least, allow secured lines of credit against the equity in your home, and allow the amount of the loan to increase if/as the value of the property goes up and your equity increases. However, I'd run this by the mortgage company before investing in the appraisal, since they may not be as flexible this way as the banks I've dealt with, and in any case it's a gamble unless you are certain of the value of your property.",
"You decide whether the improvements will result in a net higher price. You also need to figure on how long the house will be on the market and the cost of carrying the home, unoccupied. Some people would prefer the quickest sale. Others would wait to get the highest price. If you sell to a known buyer, you avoid using a real estate agent. If you plan to sell on your own and avoid the agent, there's a bit of effort dealing with the public, especially those who just want to look at houses with no real interest in buying. (As an agent, I can tell you, there's nothing like talking for nearly an hour, and then figuring out these people are from 1/2 mile away, but just attend every open house in the area.)",
"If you do the financing, get a large down payment and make a short loan. Do not expose yourself to risk with a 30 year note, and get some major money up front so the buyer has some skin in the game and will continue to make payments.",
"It may be possible to get more cash than you currently have. For example, If you have $200,000, you could buy a distressed property for $150,000, spend $50,000 on renovations, get it appraised for $300,000 and then cash out refi $240,000 (keeping 20% equity to avoid MIPs) to invest. This would be analogous to flipping a house for yourself. Normally flippers buy a house for cheap, then sell it to someone else for way more than their total outlay in purchase + improvements. The only difference here is there's no 3rd party - you stay in the house and essentially buy it from yourself with the mortgage.",
"I know that both Lowes and Home Depot (in Canada at least) will offer a 6 month deferred interest payment on all purchases over a certain dollar amount (IIRC, $500+), and sometimes run product specific 1 year deferred interest specials. This is a very effective way of financing renovations. Details: You've probably seen deferred interest -- It's very commonly used in furniture sales (No money down!!! No interest!!! Do not pay for 1 full year!!!) (Personally, I think it's a plot by the exclamation point manufacturers) It works like this: Typically, I manage these types of purchases by dividing the principal by 6, and then adding 5%, and paying that amount each month. Pay close attention to the end date, because you do not want to pay 22% interest on the entire amount. This also requires that you watch your card balance carefully. All payments are usually put to current purchases (i.e. those not under a plan) first, before they are applied to the plan balance. So if you are paying 250 a month on the new floor, and run up another $150 on paint, You need to pay the entire new balance, and then the $250 floor payment in order for it to be applied correctly. Also <shameless plug> http://diy.stackexchange.com </shameless plug> Consider doing it yourself.",
"A bridge loan (or bridging loan) is designed for exactly this circumstance. They're short-term loans (6 months is common) designed to help home-buyers to bridge the gap between buying and selling. MoneySupermarket defines them like this: Bridging loans are designed to help people complete the purchase of a property before selling their existing home by offering them short-term access to money at a high-rate of interest. As well as helping home-movers when there is a gap between the sale and completion dates in a chain, this type of loan can also help someone planning to sell-on quickly after renovating a home, or help someone buying at auction. Interest rates are very high, and there are likely to be fees, because you'll only need the loan for a short period. Here are some links to Canadian websites that explain more.",
"Your best bet is to talk with a banker about your specific plans. One of the causes of the housing crash was an 80/20 loan. There you would get a first for 80% of the value of a home and 20% on a HELOC for the rest. This would help the buyer avoid PMI. Editorially, the reason this was popular was because the buyer could not afford the home with the PMI and did not have a down payment. They were simply cutting things too close. Could you find a banker willing to do something like this, I bet you could. In your case it seems like you are attempting to increase the value of your home by using money to do an improvement so the situation is better. However, sizable improvements rarely return 100% or more on investments. Typically, I would think, the bank would want you to have some money invested too. So if you wanted to put in a pool, a smart banker would have you put in about 60% of the costs as pools typically have a 40% ROI. However, I bet you can find a banker that would loan you 100%. You don't seem to be looking for advice on making a smart money decision, and it is difficult to render a verdict as very little detail is supplied about your specific situation. However, while certain decisions might look very profitable on paper, they rarely take into consideration risk.",
"\"There is no guarantee improvements will raise the appraised value. You also don't want your property tax appraisal to go up if you can avoid it. Since you are talking on the order of $10k I'll assume you're only a few thousand dollars more from getting to 20%. That said, any schemes you might come up with like refinancing or second line of credit will probably cost more in fees than they are worth, unless you can get a much nicer interest rate. Figure out how long you plan to stay there, Evaluate your options (do nothing, principal reduction, refinance for 30, 15, or even an ARM) and figure out your bottom line by comparing everything in a spreadsheet One more thing: if you do pay a substantial amount of extra principal, you can ask the lender to \"\"rebalance\"\" which will correct the minimum monthly payment to your remaining term. This will likely incur a fee, but could be helpful in an emergency\"",
"\"The long and short of it is, the mortgage company has a significant interest in the resale value of the home in the event of a default. Imagine a scenario where you say to yourselves that you're not going to repair the deck just yet (\"\"meh, we'll do that next summer\"\") and something happens that causes a default on the mortgage. The resale value of the home may be harmed by the deck, even though you're willing to live with it. That being the case, the mortgage company has every right to insist that you carry out the repairs in order to maintain the property in salable condition, so the essence of it is, you don't have much choice but to do the repairs. Keep in mind too that the insurance company paid for the roof and the deck to be repaired. If they were to learn that you now have no intention of using the money to repair the property, you could end up in legal hot water with them. After all, you did accept the check for repairs that you're now not carrying out.\"",
"It sounds like you may need to look into the different types of personal loans that are available to you. Typically, they are in 2 categories: secured vs unsecured. A personal loan is usually of the unsecured variety, meaning that the bank is loaning you money with no collateral to use if you default. These loans will have much higher interest rates than a secured loan. A prime example of a secured loan would be a mortgage or an equity line of credit. If you want an unsecured personal loan to use towards making those improvements, then whether or not you receive the loan will depend on your credit rating and income status. As Aganju stated, these loans don't really care what the money is used for. Because it's not your property that you're fixing up, you won't be able to get a secured loan against that property. If your mother took out a loan against her home (like a second mortgage), she may be able to get a significantly lower interest rate than what you'll get with an unsecured loan. She could also look into a renovation/remodeling loan, which would require information regarding the work being done such as costs and how it will improve the value of the property. If she used an equity line of credit instead, then they don't typically care what the money will be used for as it's just a credit line against the equity she's already built into her mortgage payments over the years.",
"The most likely reason for this is that the relocation company wants to have a guaranteed sale so as to get a new mortgage in the new location. Understand that the relocation company generally works for a prospective employer. So they are trying to make the process as painless as possible for the homeowner (who is probably getting hired as a professional, either a manager or someone like an engineer or accountant). If the sale is guaranteed to go through regardless of any problems, then it is easy for them to arrange a new mortgage. In fact, they may bridge the gap by securing the initial financing and making the downpayment, then use the payout from the house you are buying to buy out their position. That puts them on the hook for a bunch of money (a downpayment on a house) while they're waiting on the house you're purchasing to close. This does not necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with the house. The relocation company would only know about something wrong if the owner had disclosed it. They don't really care about the house they're selling. Their job is to make the transition easy. With a relocation company, it is more likely that they are simply in a hurry and want to avoid a busted purchase. If this sale fails to go through for any reason, they have to start over. That could make the employment change fall through. This is a variation of a no contingencies sale. Sellers like no contingencies sales because they are easier. Buyers dislike them because their protections are weaker. But some buyers will offer them because they get better prices that way. In particular, house flippers will do this frequently so as to get the house for less money than they might otherwise pay. This is better than a pure no contingencies sale, as they are agreeing to the repairs. This is a reasonable excuse to not proceed with the transaction. If this makes you so uncomfortable that you'd rather continue looking, that's fine. However, it also gives you a bit of leverage, as it means that they are motivated to close this transaction quickly. You can consider any of the following: Or you can do some combination of those or something else entirely that makes you fell more secure. If you do decide to move forward with any version of this provision, get a real estate lawyer to draft the agreement. Also, insist on disclosure of any previous failed sales and the reason for the failure before signing the agreement. The lawyer can make that request in such a way as to get a truthful response. And again, in case you missed it when I said this earlier. You can say no and simply refuse to move forward with such a provision. You may not get the house, but you'll save a certain amount of worry. If you do move forward, you should be sure that you are getting a good deal. They're asking for special provisions; they should bear the cost of that. Either your current deal is already good (and it may be) or you should make them adjust until it is.",
"\"Plus one to Alexandre for pointing out this is possible. It is also possible to run with scissors, and I would recommend neither. Your money problems are very small and doing something so dramatic to solve them will probably put you in a worse financial decision. Why would you put your home, at risk, to pay off such a small amount (less than 5K)? The \"\"one payment\"\" or consolidation mantra, for a person like you, will often lead a person into reoccurring the same debt and having the consolidation loan. You don't need one payment you need no payments. First off stop borrowing. Second increase your income by working more or selling stuff. You might want to clean some houses, baby sit, or mow some lawns instead of the traditional job. Third decrease your spending. Let your loved ones know it will be a lean Christmas this year. Cut cable as you won't have time to watch TV anyway. If you do all that could you find $1000 per month? I bet you could find more. Doing all that and you will be done in 5 months and still own your home outright. You are a great candidate to pay off your bills by the snowball method, or smallest to largest. While it may not be, on paper, the most mathematically efficient it helps people with motivation and hope. It sounds like you could use that. List your bills smallest to largest and pay off the smallest first while paying minimums on the rest. You can do it!\"",
"If you are going to live in the house for awhile, you can probably use a regular mortgage. Shop around and look for a mortgage program that works. Look at local banks/credit unions, particularly those with community development programs. Usually an investment mortgage is higher rate, higher payment and has higher underwriting standards.",
"What you propose is to convert unsecured debt into secured debt. Conversion of unsecured debt into secured debt is not generally a good idea (several reasons). The debt you currently owe does not have assets securing the debt, so the creditor knows they are exposed to risk, and may be more willing to negotiate or relax terms on the debt, should you encounter problems. When you provide an asset to secure debt, you lose freedom to sell that asset. When you incur debt their is usually a spending problem that needs to be corrected, which is typically not fixed when a refinance solution is used. You do not mention interest rate, which would be one benefit to conversion of unsecured to secured debt, so you probably are not gaining adequate benefit from the conversion strategy. This strategy is often contemplated using 'cash-out' refinancing to borrow against a home you already own, and the (claimed) benefit is often to lower the interest rate on the debt. Your scenario is more complicated in that you have not purchased the home (yet). Though it may be a good idea to purchase a home, that choice depends on a different set of considerations (children, job stability, rental vs. buy costs, lifestyle, expected appreciation, etc) from how to best handle a large debt (income vs. expenses, how to increase income or reduce expenses, lifestyle, priorities, etc). Another consideration is that you already have a problem with the large debt owed to one (set of) creditor(s), and you have a plan which would shift the risk/exposure to another (set of) creditor(s) who may have been less complicit in accruing the original debt. Was the debt incurred jointly during the marriage, and something you accepted responsibility to repay? You mention that you make great income, and you specify one expense (rent), but you neither provided the amount of income, total of all your expenses, nor your free cash flow amount, nor any indication of percentages spent on rent, essential expenses, lifestyle, nor amount available to retire debt. Since you did not provide specifics, we can take a look at three scenarios, scenario #1, $4000/month income scenario #1, $6000/month income scenario #1, $8000/month income Depending upon your income and choices, you might have < $500/month to pay towards debt, or as much as $3000/month to pay towards debt, and depending upon interest rate (which OP did not provide), this debt could take < 2 years to pay or > 5 years to pay. Have you accepted the responsibility for the debt? It will be a tough task to repay the debt. And you will learn that debt comes with a cost as you repay it. One problem people often encounter when they refinance debt is they have not changed the habits which produced the debt. So they often continue their spending habits and incur new unsecured debt, landing them back in the same problem position, but with the increased secured debt combined with additional new unsecured debt. Challenge yourself to repay a specific portion of the debt in a specific time, and consider ways to reduce your expenses (and/or increase your income) to provide more money to repay the debt quicker. As you also did not disclose your assets, it is hard to know whether you could repay a portion of the debt from assets you already own. It makes sense to sell assets that have a low (or zero) return to repay debt that has a high interest rate. Perhaps you have substantial assets that you are reluctant to sell, but that you could sell to repay a large part of the debt?",
"Definitely don't borrow from your 401K. If you quit or get laid off, you have to repay the whole amount back immediately, plus you are borrowing from your opportunity cost. The stock market should be good at least through the end of this year. As one of the commentators already stated, have you calculated your net savings by reducing the interest rate? You will be paying closing costs and not all of these are deductible (only the points are). When calculating the savings, you have to ask yourself how long you will be hanging on the property? Are you likely to be long term landlords, or do you have any ideas on selling in the near future? You can reduce the cost and principal by throwing the equivalent of one to two extra mortgage payments a year to get the repayment period down significantly (by years). In this way, you are not married to a higher payment (as you would be if you refinanced to a 15 year term). I would tend to go with a) eat the appraisal cost, not refinance, and b) throw extra money towards principal to get the term of the loan to be reduced.",
"You submitted a claim for damage to the deck. The insurance company notified the mortgage company. Now the mortgage company wants to make sure that the collateral for the loan is still in good condition. They want you to make the repairs that you insisted needed to be done. They may even require you to use a licensed contractor before releasing the funds. Once you own the house without a mortgage, then you can decide for yourself if minor repairs need to be done.",
"\"The \"\"easier\"\" way is to sell the house, and pay back the 95K to the mortgage company. Your taxable gain (if any) is calculated as the difference between the sales price minus the purchased price of 150K. There is a further deduction for any selling expenses, before you have to pay income tax. If you liquidate your other investments to raise the 95K and prepay the mortgage, you might realize, and be taxed on gains on **those ** investments. That's something you might not want. On the other hand, if you have some investments that can be liquidated at a loss, you might want to sell those to generate a tax loss, then prepay all or part of the 95K. Bear in mind that there are limitations of 3K a year for certain types of losses. So see a tax adviser before using this course of action.\"",
"What you are describing is called a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). While the strategy you are describing is not impossible it would raise the amount of debt in your name and reduce your borrowing potential. A recent HELOC used to finance the down payment on a second property risks sending a signal of bad financial position to credit analysts and may further reduce your chances to obtain the credit approval.",
"Possible? Sure. The question is where do you plan on going to get the money and how well can you shop around to find the best rate for the loan. Banks and credit unions would be one option but I'd be curious as to how well do you know the various routes you could take.",
"You can ask the buyer to lower the price by the amount you are approved for and negation transferring the amount to him via a escrow..",
"Even straight index funds grow at about 6-7%. on average, or over long periods of time. In short time periods (quarters, years), they can fluctuate anywhere from -10% to +20%. Would you be happy if your bank account lost 10% of its value the week before you had to pay the bill for the repairs? Is it appropriate to invest small amounts for short periods of time? In general, no. Most investments are designed for long term appreciation. Even sophisticated financial companies can't do any better than 1 or 2% (annualized) on short-term cash reserves. Where you can make a huge difference is on the cost side. Bargain with suppliers, or wait for sales on retail items. Both will occasionally forego their margin on certain items in order to try to secure future business, which can make a difference of 20% or more in the cost of repairs.",
"The bank I work with would be more inclined to expand an existing HELOC rather than write a new one. I think that would be your best bet if you decide to continue borrowing against your home. Consider that your own income would have to support the repayment of these larger homes. If it is, why didn't you buy a larger home to begin with? As far as increasing the appraisal, you don't usually get one dollar of increased appraisal for each dollar you spend on improvements unless you have a rundown house in a nice neighborhood; part of the appraisal comes from a comparison with the appraisals of the other homes nearby. Eventually you get close enough to par with the other houses that anyone looking for something more expensive will often choose a different neighborhood entirely. Update: To your edit that mentions the original lender will cap the amount you can borrow, you can take additional secondary mortgages/HELOCs, but the interest rate is usually higher because it is not the first mortgage. I don't generally recommend it, but the option is there.",
"Does it cost money to refi? I know there are quite a few deals out there, I refi'd in June for $500, not bad. But sometimes can cost couple grand. If so, you have up front costs, plus the cost of the personal loan, that probably would break even at some point after your refi, but at what point? Will you sell before then, or even think about it? Or would you break even next year, then its a no brainer. As mentioned by others, do the numbers.",
"Run the numbers in advance. Understand what are the current rates for an additional 2nd mortgage, what are the rates for a brand new mortgage that will cover the additional funds. Understand what they are for another lender. Estimate the amount of paperwork involved in each option (new first, new 2nd, and new lender). Ask the what are the options they can offer you. Because you have estimated the costs in money and time for the different options, you can evaluate the offer they make. What they offer you can range from everything you want to nothing you would accept. What they offer will depend on several factors: Do they care to keep you as a customer?; Do they expect you to walk away?; are they trying to get rid of mortgages like the one you have?; Can they make more money with the plan they are offering you? You will be interested in the upfront costs, the monthly costs, and the amount of time required for the process to be completed.",
"Yes, banks still offer combo loans, but it is going to depend on the appraised value of your home. Typically lenders will allow you to finance up to 80% loan to value on the first mortgage (conforming loan amount) and 95% combined loan to value on a HELOC. I would start by checking with your local credit union or bank branch. They have more competitive rates and can be more flexible with loan amount and appraised value guidelines.",
"You did borrow money for the downpayment. When you apply for a mortgage loan on your new home, you will be required to list all your assets and all your liabilities. You must disclose the first mortgage as well as the second mortgage on your current condo as well as the monthly payment on each of these loans. If you took out the second mortgage five years ago, you can truthfully say that you have not taken out any loans within the past year to get cash for the down payment when you apply for a mortgage for purchasing your new house. But, what the lender will be looking at is: Can the applicants' current income support monthly payments of $1000 for the first mortgage on the condo plus $300 for the second mortgage on the condo plus $1500 for the proposed mortgage on the new house? You might argue that you will be selling that condo soon, or will be renting it out and that the rental income will cover the mortgage payments on the condo, but will the lender give much credence to this? The condo may not sell easily, you might not be able to find a tenant right away, or be able to rent the condo at a high enough rental to cover the costs etc. If you simply save money from your current extra cash flow and use that to make the down payment, the lender will be pondering the question Can the applicants' current income support monthly payments of $1000 for the mortgage on the condo plus $1500 for the proposed mortgage on the new house? Which deal will the lender be happier with? If you are uncomfortable saving your extra cash flow in a savings account or CD or investing it in stocks and/or bonds until you need the money for the down-payment on your new house, put that money in a sock under your mattress (and don't smoke in bed!)",
"I think you need to go to a local bank and ask. The key thing is paper trail. For any mortgage I've gotten on a new purchase, the bank needs to see where the down payment came from and how it got to the seller. In this case, it can go either way. If the value is truly 100% to the 80% you are looking to finance, and the paper trail is legit, this may work just fine. The issue others seem to have is that simply buying at a 20% discount is not a legit way to finance the 80%. Here, it appears to me that the 20% came from you in installments, via the rent.",
"Don't steal from the 401k. If you take the money out, you'll pay 28% in taxes and 10% in penalties -- only getting $12,960 out. Before you do anything, consult an online refi calculator to make sure you'll be in the house beyond the break-even point. With the numbers you've given and some reasonable guesses I made, it looks like you'll break even within a year. If your new employer's plan allows for loans, roll it into the new plan. Based on what you say you're putting in, you should be able to take a loan out of about $15-20k, which would get you to your LTV goal. Before you do this, calculate: and make sure you will comfortably be able to handle all of the payments. Make sure you're aware of the loan terms on your 401k loan. Understand the penalties associated with failing to make timely payments. Finally, beware of sinking all of your liquid cash into this -- how will you handle an emergency that comes up soon after closing on the new loan before you have a chance to rebuild your emergency fund?",
"\"Yes, a HELOC is great for that. I just had my roof done last month (~$15K, \"\"ugh\"\") and pretty much every major contractor in my area had a 0% same-as-cash for at least 12 months. So that helps - any balance that I don't bank by 11/15/2015 will be on the HELOC.\"",
"we have little money in cash for a down-payment This is a red flag to me. If you have little money in cash for a down-payment, how are you supposed to be a landlord too? You could try is to do a lease to own from your Dad. Get a renter into the other home for at least a year or more and then close on the house once your financial situation improves. You still have the same problem of being a landlord. Another option is to receive a gift letter from your Dad since he is gifting the money on the home. It might extend your closing a little bit so you can get an appraisal done and loan application. This to me is the most sane option.",
"\"The first red-flag here is that an appraisal was not performed on an as-is basis - and if it could not be done, you should be told why. Getting an appraisal on an after-improvement basis only makes sense if you are proposing to perform such improvements and want that factored in as a basis of the loan. It seems very bizarre to me that a mortgage lender would do this without any explanation at all. The only way this makes sense is if the lender is only offering you a loan with specific underwriting guidelines on house quality (common with for instance VA-loans and how they require the roof be of a certain maximum age - among dozens of other requirements, and many loan products have their own standards). This should have been disclosed to you during the process, but one can certainly never assume anyone will do their job properly - or it may have only mentioned in some small print as part of pounds of paper products you may have been offered or made to sign already. The bank criteria is \"\"reasonable\"\" to the extent that generally mortgage companies are allowed to set underwriting criteria about the current condition of the house. It doesn't need to be reasonable to you personally, or any of us - it's to protect lender profits by aiding their risk models. Your plans and preferences don't even factor in to their guidelines. Not all criteria are on a a sliding scale, so it doesn't necessarily matter how well you meet their other standards. You are of course correct that paying for thousands of dollars in improvements on a house you don't own is lunacy, and the fact that this was suggested may on it's own suggest you should cut your losses now and seek out a different lender. Given the lender being uncooperative, the only reason to stick with it seems to be the sunk cost of the appraisal you've already paid for. I'd suggest you specifically ask them why they did not perform an as-is appraisal, and listen to the answer (if you can get one). You can try to contact the appraiser directly as well with this question, and ask if you can have the appraisal strictly as-is without having a new appraisal. They might be helpful, they might not. As for taking the appraisal with you to a new bank, you might be able to do this - or you might not. It is strictly up to each lender to set criteria for appraisals they accept, but I've certainly known of people re-using an appraisal done sufficiently recently in this way. It's a possibility that you will need to write off the $800 as an \"\"education expense\"\", but it's certainly worth trying to see if you can salvage it and take it with you - you'll just have to ask each potential lender, as I've heard it go both ways. It's not a crazy or super-rare request - lenders backing out based on appraisal results should be absolutely normal to anyone in the finance business. To do this, you can just state plainly the situation. You paid for an appraisal and the previous lender fell through, and so you would like to know if they would be able to accept that and provide you with a loan without having to buy a whole new appraisal. This would also be a good time to talk about condition requirements, in that you want a loan on an as-is basic for a house that is inhabitable but needs cosmetic repair, and you plan to do this in cash on your own time after the purchase closes. Some lenders will be happy to do this at below 75%-80% LTV, and some absolutely do not want to make this type of loan because the house isn't in perfect condition and that's just what their lending criteria is right now. Based on description alone, I don't think you really should need to go into alternate plans like buy cash and then get a home equity loan to get cash out, special rehab packages, etc. So I'd encourage you to try a more straight-forward option of a different lender, as well as trying to get a straight answer on their odd choice of appraisal order that you paid for, before trying anything more exotic or totally changing your purchase/finance plans.\"",
"You could look into refinancing with a bank or credit union. But to weed out options quickly, use a service like LendingTree, which can vet multiple options for you a whole lot more quickly than you could probably do yourself. (I don't work for, or get any benefit from LendingTree.) Whatever you do, try to do all the applying within a short span of time, as to not negatively affect your credit score (read here) by creating extraneous inquiries. Then again, if your credit sucks, you might not qualify for a re-fi. If you are turned down, make your payments on time for six months or so, and try again.",
"You can. You can take out a conventional mortgage and keep the cash. A mortgage is nothing but a secured loan against your home. You can open a HELOC and treat it as a negative-equity bank-account. Note that both a mortgage and a HELOC tend to have significant up-front or administrative costs attached to them. It costs the loaning institution some money to ensure they are in a safe position, and they will want to pass it on to you. They don't want you taking out such a loan and not using it. On the other hand, the interest rates on such a loan are often much lower than interest rates on other loans. If you have a reliable source of significant income, getting a completely unsecured line of credit may be possible with a rate only a few percentage points higher than a HELOC without having to pay a cent in fees. The bank doesn't have to appraise your home or ensure ownership before such a loan, just assess income (which is easy, especially if you have a regular paycheck auto-deposited into an account at the same branch; toss in some signatures from your employer and good to go). If that is feasible, you could end up with a lower rate. Withdraw from the line of credit, pay off your other loans, then work to repay the line of credit. If an unsecured line of credit has a rate 1-3% higher than a secured one, and you are borrowing 5000$ against it and pay it off over 2 years, the total interest you would save from a secured line is about 50$-150$. Note that in some jurisdictions your home is protected against loss from bankruptcy, unless you have used it as collateral for a loan, or it is easier to claim the home if you are insolvent if you have used it as collateral. Determining what the consequences of securing your loan against the house could itself be expensive.",
"Based on your question details, I doubt you'll like this answer...but first things first, you need to focus on rebuilding your credit and your savings. $1K isn't a huge loan amount, so I'm going to assume you've made some poor decisions in the past to get to this point. I'm a small business owner, and I make it a goal to have 3-6 months of expected expenses in an account, should my circumstances ever drastically change or something happen that would keep me from working. Without knowing your living situation and daily expenses, here's some general advice on building a small business without a loan: 1) Find steady, gainful employment anywhere you can. 2) Pay off outstanding debts and rebuild a savings account to rebuild your credit score. 3) If you need fast cash, sell some stuff you don't need (gaming systems, home electronics, etc.). Also, minimize your unnecessary expenses (dining out, etc.). 4) Once your debts are paid off, create a business startup savings plan (put away as much as you can afford every week, until you reach your goal. 5) Once your goal is reached, you can begin your flipping business. Open a bank account, and separate your profits into buckets for operations, self-pay, and taxes (if you declare this income, which I hope you do). For myself, I put away 35% for income taxes, which I do not touch until my taxes are paid. I put 40% away for daily operations -- this keeps my business running, allowing me to pay for the equipment I need, the products I deliver, and advertising to keep my business running. I pay myself 25%. This is a simple method, but it works well for me.",
"I would tell the former owner that you will sell him the house for you current loan balance. He wants the home, he may be willing to pay what you owe. You can't really do a short sale unless you are behind on your payments. Banks only agree to a short sale when they think they are going to have to foreclose on the property. Not to mention a short sale is almost as bad as a foreclosure and will wreck your credit. If the former buying is not willing to buy the house for what you owe your only real option is to come up with the difference. If he offers you say $50K less than you owe, you will have to give the mortgage holder the remaining balance $50K in this example for them to release the property. Another problem you will face, if the former owner is willing to pay more than what the house is worth, and he is going to finance it, he will have to have enough cash to put down so that the loan amount is not more than the property is worth. Finally if none of that works you can just hold on to the property until the value comes up or you mortgage is payed down enough to make the balance of the mortgage less than the value of the house. Then offer the property to the former owner again.",
"There are a few ways to get money from property, but I'm not sure any would work for you: 1) Firstly you could sell it. Selling the building might require enough repairs that the building is habitable; if the repair costs are too high, you might not be able to recover costs from selling. For a particularly old and unkempt building, this is more likely to be the case. In extreme scenarios, you may earn more net profit by demolishing a decrepit building, and simply selling the land. Make sure you aren't setting your price too high if you are desperate to sell; dropping your price might make the headache of upkeep go away, and might be better for you financially in the long run. 2) You could rent it - but if it is so uninhabitable you can't sell it, then this is unlikely without repairs (and it seems you don't want to do this anyway). 3) If your building is in an area where the zoning laws are not strict, you may be able to apply for a permit to have it zoned for commercial use - and either run a business out of it, or rent it to someone else to do so. Again, this would be dependent on repairs if the building is uninhabitable, and also would require the building to well-situated for a business. 4) You could take out a mortgage on the building. Of course, this has two big caveats: (a) the bank would need to assess the building for value [and it seems not to be worth much in your case]; and (b) this provides only temporary cash, which you would need to pay back to the bank over time. In some cases, if you had a solid plan, you might be able to take a mortgage out against the value of the land, and use the cash from the mortgage to do some repairs, so that it would be in good shape for selling.",
"If I was you I would not borrow from my 401K and shred the credit card offer. Both are very risky ventures, and you are already in a situation that is risky. Doing either will increase your risk significantly. I'd also consider selling the rental house. You seem to be cutting very close on the numbers if you can't raise 17K in cash to refi the house. What happens if you need a roof on the rental, and an HVAC in your current home? My assumption is that you will not sell the home, okay I get it. I would recommend either giving your tenant a better deal then the have now, or something very similar. Having a good tenant is an asset.",
"In planning to buy a house, and sort out how to handle the costs of some initial renovations, I've been considering using Lowes and Home Depot credit cards (hopefully this will count differently than the typical credit cards I think you're referring to): http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ContentView?pn=Credit_Center&langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053 http://www.lowes.com/cd_Credit+Card+Accounts+from+Lowes_781778798_ You should definitely read the fine print first, as the interest rates can shoot up after the first 6 months if you don't pay the balance in full on some of them. Also, Lowes has a project card that gives you the 6 month no interest (only a minimum payment), and you don't have to pay off the full balance at the end. This one even has more reasonable rates, so this could be a good way to go.",
"\"If you need less than $125k for the downpayment, I recommend you convert your mutual fund shares to their ETF counterparts tax-free: Can I convert conventional Vanguard mutual fund shares to Vanguard ETFs? Shareholders of Vanguard stock index funds that offer Vanguard ETFs may convert their conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. This conversion is generally tax-free, although some brokerage firms may be unable to convert fractional shares, which could result in a modest taxable gain. (Four of our bond ETFs—Total Bond Market, Short-Term Bond, Intermediate-Term Bond, and Long-Term Bond—do not allow the conversion of bond index fund shares to bond ETF shares of the same fund; the other eight Vanguard bond ETFs allow conversions.) There is no fee for Vanguard Brokerage clients to convert conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. Other brokerage providers may charge a fee for this service. For more information, contact your brokerage firm, or call 866-499-8473. Once you convert from conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs, you cannot convert back to conventional shares. Also, conventional shares held through a 401(k) account cannot be converted to Vanguard ETFs. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/content/Funds/FundsVIPERWhatAreVIPERSharesJSP.jsp Withdraw the money you need as a margin loan, buy the house, get a second mortgage of $125k, take the proceeds from the second mortgage and pay back the margin loan. Even if you have short term credit funds, it'd still be wiser to lever up the house completely as long as you're not overpaying or in a bubble area, considering your ample personal investments and the combined rate of return of the house and the funds exceeding the mortgage interest rate. Also, mortgage interest is tax deductible while margin interest isn't, pushing the net return even higher. $125k Generally, I recommend this figure to you because the biggest S&P collapse since the recession took off about 50% from the top. If you borrow $125k on margin, and the total value of the funds drop 50%, you shouldn't suffer margin calls. I assumed that you were more or less invested in the S&P on average (as most modern \"\"asset allocations\"\" basically recommend a back-door S&P as a mix of credit assets, managed futures, and small caps average the S&P). Second mortgage Yes, you will have two loans that you're paying interest on. You've traded having less invested in securities & a capital gains tax bill for more liabilities, interest payments, interest deductions, more invested in securities, a higher combined rate of return. If you have $500k set aside in securities and want $500k in real estate, this is more than safe for you as you will most likely have a combined rate of return of ~5% on $500k with interest on $500k at ~3.5%. If you're in small cap value, you'll probably be grossing ~15% on $500k. You definitely need to secure your labor income with supplementary insurance. Start a new question if you need a model for that. Secure real estate with securities A local bank would be more likely to do this than a major one, but if you secure the house with the investment account with special provisions like giving them copies of your monthly statements, etc, you might even get a lower rate on your mortgage considering how over-secured the loan would be. You might even be able to wrap it up without a down payment in one loan if it's still legal. Mortgage regulations have changed a lot since the housing crash.\"",
"what are my options for raising the funds? Assuming you have decent credit, you can either mortgage your home or apply for a land loan in order to purchase the land. Since both your home and the land have value, either one can act as collateral in case you default on your loan. Land loans tend to have a higher interest rate and down payment, however. This is because banks see land loans as a riskier investment since it's easier for you to walk away from an empty plot of land than your own home.",
"\"The other answers are talking about seller financing. There is another type of arrangement that might be described as \"\"writing your own mortgage,\"\" where the buyer arranges his (or her) own financing. Instead of using a bank, a buyer might find his own investor to hold the mortgage for him. An example would be if I were to buy a house that needs fixing up. I might be able to buy a house for $40,000, but after I fix it up, I believe it will sell for $100,000. Instead of going through a traditional mortgage bank, I find an investor with cash that agrees the house is a good deal, and we arrange for the investor to provide funds for the purchase of the house on a short-term basis (perhaps interest-only), during which I fix up the house and sell it. Just like a regular mortgage, the loan is backed by the house itself. I am not recommending this type of arrangement by any means, but this article does a good job of describing how this would work. It is written by a real-estate guru with lots of training courses and coaching materials that she would like to sell you. :)\"",
"If you put down 80% of the purchase price for a house, you can very likely get a loan with few problems. After all, people with credit scores in the mid-500 range can get loans with 20% down. My question would be this -- if you actually had $400,000 then why not just buy a $400,000 house? If the goal is to improve your credit then if you buy a house for cash, you can then take out a home equity loan and make the payments, which would greatly improve your credit.",
"What you are suggesting will not work. Banks have strict guidelines about what they can and cannot do with an FHA loan property. Remember the FHA is only an insurance policy to the bank saying that if you default they will cover a high percentage of the loan. The bank won't take the risk of violating their insurance policy and the government refusing to pay them off if you default. Instead, consider doing a creative sale on your property, maybe a rent to own deal or owner financing. As long as you pay the mortgage the bank won't even know you don't live there and you can rent the house out to someone who eventually will buy it after the timeframe expires. Meanwhile you can go and get a new home or condo either thru regular financing or owner financing(search the internet to see how to do this) and you can use owner financing until you complete the sale of the first house. Otherwise just tough it out in the house you are in until the time expires and then sell. You made no mention of the property value but I am assuming if you bought it 3 years ago that you may have a little equity. Pleas note that if you sell at that time though you will likely have to come out of cash because your equity won't cover the realtor fee and closing cost. But if you do the rent to own I suggested earlier you can sell at a slightly higher price making sure you can cover those cost. I realize this answer is a little out the box but I deal with people who don't want properties all day and I have completed transactions like this many times. Good Luck and God Bless!",
"\"So either scenario has about $10K upfront costs (either realtor/selling expenses or fixing up for rental). Furthermore, I'm sure that the buyers would want you to fix all these things anyway, or reduce the price accordingly, but let's ignore this. Let's also ignore the remaining mortgage, since it looks like you can comfortably pay it off. Assuming 10% property management and 10% average vacancy (check your market), and rental price at $1000 - you end up with these numbers: I took very conservative estimates both on the rent (lower than you expect) and the maintenance expense (although on average over the years ,since you need to have some reserves, this is probably quite reasonable). You end up with 2.7% ROI, which is not a lot for a rental. The rule of thumb your wife mentioned (1% of cash equity) is indeed usually for ROI of leveraged rental purchase. However, if rental prices in your area are rising, as it sounds like they are, you may end up there quite soon anyway. The downside is that the money is locked in. If you're confident in your ability to rent and are not loosing the tax benefit of selling since it sounds like you've not appreciated, you may take out some cash through a cash-out refi. To keep cash-flow near-0, you need to cash out so that the payments would be at or less than the $3200/year (i.e.: $266/month). That would make about $50K at 30/yr fixed 5% loan. What's best is up to you to decide, of course. Check whether \"\"you can always sell\"\" holds for you. I.e.: how stable is the market, what happens if one or two large employers disappear, etc.\"",
"\"Assuming \"\"take advantage\"\" means continue to build wealth, as opposed to blow it all on a fancy holiday... Downgrade As you already note, you could downgrade/downsize. This could happen via moving to a smaller house in the same area, or moving to an area where the cost of buying is less. HELOC Take out a Home Equity Line of Credit. You could use the line of credit to do home improvements further boosting the asset value (forced appreciation, assuming the appreciation to date is simply market based). Caution is required if the house has already appreciated \"\"considerably\"\" - you want to keep the home value within tolerance levels for the area. (Best not to have the only $300K house on a street of $190K-ers...) Home Equity Loan Assuming you have built up equity in the house, you could leverage that equity to purchase another property. For most people this would form part of the jigsaw for getting the financing to purchase again.\"",
"Is it a safety thing? If the heat pump goes out you replace it immediately, if your floor looks bad but you aren't tripping, I would suggest saving. Use the extra time to find a great deal and educate yourself on your options. Maybe even take a class and learn to do it yourself. In these rough times, anything I can save for and pay cash I would. The exception is if you can finance with 0% interest for a period of time and you have enough money to pay that off. The last consideration I can think of is if you plan to sell the home soon? For that you might be getting more value than the loan and a real estate agent would be probably know best.",
"EDIT: new ideas based on the full story. I wouldn't worry about the price history. While it is certainly true that some buyers might try to leverage that information against you, the bottom line is the price is the price. Both the buyer and the seller have to agree. If the initial listing was too high, then lower the price. If that isn't low enough, then readjust down. I see no harm in moving the price down over time repeatedly. In fact, I thin that is a good tactic to getting the most for the house. If you happen to have the luxury of time, then keep lowering that price until it sells. Don't fret how that behavior appears. You can lower the price as often as you like until it sells. I am not a real estate agent, and I am a terrible negotiator, but I would lower the price every quarter until it sells. You can't go down to fast (a buyer might wait you out) and you can't wait to long as you stated. Also, if you house is priced inline with the neighborhood, you can at least get offers and negotiate. Buy asking for such a premium (25%) folks might not even make an offer. You simply need to decide what is more important, the selling price or the time frame in getting it sold. If you house doesn't sell because the market doesn't support your price, then consider keeping it as a rental. You can do it yourself, or if you are not interested in that (large) amount of work, then hire a rental management company to do it for a fee. Renting a home is hard work and requires attention to detail, a good amount of your time and much labor. If you just need to wait a couple of years before selling, renting it can be a good option to cover your costs while you wait for the market to reach you. You should get advice on how to handle the money, how to rent it, how to deal with renters, and the the laws are in your jurisdiction. Rent it out to a trusted friend or family member for a steal of a deal. They save money, and you get the luxury of time waiting for the sale. With a real estate lawyer you hire, get a contract for a lease option or owner finance deal on the house. Sometimes you can expand the market of people looking to buy your house. If you have a willing purchaser will bad credit, you can be doing them a favor and solving your own issue. It costs money and you will make less on the sale, but it could be better than nothing. Take heed, there is a reason some people cannot get a traditional loan on their own. Before you extend your good name or credit think about it. It is another hassle for sure. This won't help if you have to pay off a mortgage, but you could donate it. This is another tricky deal that you really need to speak with a lawyer who specialize in charitable giving. There are tax benefits, but I would make any kind of a deal where tax deductions are the only benefit. This is common enough these days. If you are unable to pay for the mortgage, it benefits you and the bank to get into a short sale arrangement. They bank gets probably more money than if they have to foreclose (and they save money on legal fees) and you can get rid of the obligation. You will do a deed in lieu or the short sale depending on how the market it and what the house can be sold for. You and the bank will have to work it out. This will ruin for a credit for a while, and you will not likely qualify to get a new mortgage for at least a few years. You can stop paying your mortgage, tell the bank and they will foreclose. This is going to ruin your credit for a long time as well as disqualify you from mortgages in the near future. Don't do this. If you are planning a foreclosure, take the time to contact your bank and arrange a short sale or a deed in lieu. There isn't really any excuse to go into foreclosure if you are having problems. Talk to the bank and work out a deal.",
"A bank isn't going to offer to lend you money on a property you don't own. You first need to finish the process of probate and get a clear title. Then it's your house and a bank with lend you money based on a combination of your income and the home's value.",
"Used car dealers will sometimes deliberately issue high-interest-rate subprime loans to folks who have poor credit. But taking that kind of risk on a mortgage, when you aren't also taking profit out of the sale, really isn't of interest to anyone who cares about making a profit. There might be a nonprofit our there which does so, but I don't know of one. Fix your credit before trying to borrow.",
"The thing with your last option is that the cash-out mortgage is treated differently than purchase mortgage, with regards to taxes. Specifically, tax deduction is limited to $100K mortgage instead of $1M (or a bit higher even). Other than that - you've covered your options, and its up to you to decide what to do.",
"I am a real estate agent. I know you are in Canada, but will let you know that in the US, agents are not to supposed to offer this kind of advice. They can refer you to a bank or mortgage broker, but should not be giving this type of financial advice. That said, it's a HELOC, it would be rare for your bank to be willing to just add to your mortgage at the current low rate. Still, ask the bank holding your loan. Is the second home to rent out or a vacation/summer home for you to live in?",
"The crucial question not addressed by other answers is your ability to repay the debt. Borrowing is always about leverage, and leverage is always about risk. In the home improvement loan case, default comes with dire consequences-- to extinguish the debt you might have to sell your home. With a stable job, reliable income, and sufficient cash flow (and, of course, comfort that the project will yield benefits you're happy to pay for), then the clear answer is, go ahead and borrow. But if you work in a highly cyclical industry, have very little cash saved, or for whatever other reason are uncertain about your future ability to pay, then don't borrow. Save until you are more comfortable you can handle the loan. That doesn't necessarily mean save ALL the money; just save enough that you are highly confident in your ability to pay whatever you borrow.",
"I can probably rent the house out for about $1,600. If sell now I can get 180k at the most. My mortgage will be $1,800 with tax and insurance. If I use the 180k to pay off the house, I can refinance the loan for a lower interest rate too. I think I know what I want to do but just need a second opinion. Thanks btw",
"If an entity or individual has full rights to the land and land improvements, they can hold, transfer, delegate, or dispose of them on their terms. The only exception may be eminent domain. If the sovereignty meets the public necessity or public purpose tests they can assume or change the rights to your property in exchange for compensation. As others have said writing your own mortgage falls under the category of seller financing. A seller can write a mortgage with the help of a loan servicing company. Some loan service companies report to credit agencies, to help with buyer refinancing at a later point. Other forms of seller financing: Leasing Land contracts mineral contracts and more... Additionally, the seller can finance the minority of the property, called a junior mortgage. For example, the Bank finances 79% of the value, the seller finances 11%, and the buyer's 10% down payment covers the rest. If the buyer defaults, the superior mortgage (bank's) has collection priority. More commonly, the seller can option for a wrap-around mortgage or an 'all-inclusive mortgage'. The seller holds or refinances the existing mortgage and provides a junior mortgage in exchange for a secured promissory note and an all-inclusive trust deed. If the buyer defaults, the seller has foreclosure rights. It is not uncommon for entities or people to use financing strategies other than the traditional mortgage if they are unable to exclude the gain on sale. Check out section 1031 exchanges. In almost all cases I would tell people not to make decisions based on tax consequences alone, if your financial objective/goal for seller financing sounds like a 1031 exchange, take exception and carefully consider the tax consequences.",
"You might also want to talk directly to a bank. If your credit report is clean, they may have some discretion in making the loan. Note - the 'normal' fully qualified loan has two thresholds, 28% (of monthly income) for housing costs, 36% for all debt servicing. A personal, disclosed loan from a friend/family which is not secured against the house, would count as part of the other debt, as would a credit card. While I don't recommend using a credit card for this purpose, the debt fits in that 28-36 gap. As Kevin points out below, not all paths are equally advisable. Nor are rules of thumb always true. Not having the OP's full details, income, assets, price of house, etc, this is just a list of things to consider. The use of a 401(k) loan in the US can be a great idea for some, bad mistake for others. This format doesn't make it easy to go into great detail, and I'm sure the 401(k) loan issue has been asked and answered in other questions. With respect to Kevin, if he wrote 'usually', I'd agree, but never say 'never.'",
"In general you do not want to show a taxable gain on rental properties if you can avoid it. One of the more beneficial advantages of owning cash flowing rental properties, is that the income is tax deferred because of the depreciation. I say deferred, because depreciation affects the cost basis of your property. Also since you are considering financing, it sounds like you don't need the cash flow currently. You usually can get better returns by financing and buying more rental properties, especially with investment mortgages at historical lows (Win via inflation over time)",
"I am; I bought the house as a preforeclosure (short sell) at 120000; 100% financed with a USDA loan and lived there for about 5 years before my wife and I took a job in Birmingham. With a 30 yr fixed rate... 119000 is about as low as I can go before I would have to come out of pocket at closing to get the lien released... and the problem is there's nothing left in my pockets..",
"You put 20% down and already owe the 80% or $80k, so you don't have the ability to borrow $100k or even $20k for that matter. As LittleAdv stated, the banks have really tightened their lending criteria. Borrowing out more than 80% carries a high premium if you can get it at all. In your example, you want the property to increase in value by at least 10% to borrow $10K.",
"If you're in the US, you have some no down payment options, but you still need some closing costs money, that can potentially be negotiated with the seller. There are fha loans which have very low down payment options, 80/20 loans which are 100% coverage, hud assistance on fha to get a 100% loan. Your 401k can be leveraged into the loan as 35% collateral paying 7% interest on a traditional no recourse loan. These options are available with a work history and if you're not taking on more debt than you can pay with 30% salary. Finding an angel investor will be harder than working with the bank, they have much less room for risk. It's easier to find a current landlord and asking about a rent to own, though, this will be more expensive than a mortgage. To be honest though, most people are in a rush to be house poor, living on the edge of affordability. I don't know your situation, but I do know that rushing into things can be very expensive in the long run.",
"\"Let me summarize your question for you: \"\"I do not have the down payment that the lender requires for a mortgage. How can I still acquire the mortgage?\"\" Short answer: Find another lender or find more cash. Don't overly complicate the scenario. The correct answer is that the lender is free to do what they want. They deem it too risky to lend you $1.1M against this $1.8M property, unless they have $700k up front. You want their money, so you must accept their terms. If other lenders have the same outlook, consider that you cannot afford this house. Find a cheaper house.\"",
"If it is a separate unit from the rest of the property, you can use that portion as an investment property. the part, or unit, you are living in is your primary residence. The remainder is your investment. You are eligible to not pay capital gains on the portion you live in After two years. As always consult a tax accountant For advice... Also, if this is less then 4 unit, you may he able to finance the sale of the home with an FHA loan.",
"As the other answers suggest, there are a number of ways of going about it and the correct one will be dependent on your situation (amount of equity in your current house, cashflow primarily, amount of time between purchase and sale). If you have a fair amount of equity (for example, $50K mortgage remaining on a house valued at $300K), I'll propose an option that's similar to bridge financing: Place an offer on your new house. Use some of your equity as part of the down payment (eg, $130K). Use some more of your equity as a cash buffer to allow you pay two mortgages in between the purchase and the sale (eg, $30K). The way this would be executed is that your existing mortgage would be discharged and replaced with larger mortgage. The proceeds of that mortgage would be split between the down payment and cash as you desire. Between the closing of your purchase and the closing of your sale, you'll be paying two mortgages and you'll be responsible for two properties. Not fun, but your cash buffer is there to sustain you through this. When the sale of your new home closes, you'll be breaking the mortgage on that house. When you get the proceeds of the sale, it would be a good time to use any lump sum/prepayment privileges you have on the mortgage of the new house. You'll be paying legal fees for each transaction and penalties for each mortgage you break. However, the interest rates will be lower than bridge financing. For this reason, this approach will likely be cheaper than bridge financing only if the time between the closing of the two deals is fairly long (eg, at least 6 months), and the penalties for breaking mortgages are reasonable (eg, 3 months interest). You would need the help of a good mortgage broker and a good lawyer, but you would also have to do your own due diligence - remember that brokers receive a commission for each mortgage they sell. If you won't have any problems selling your current house quickly, bridge financing is likely a better deal. If you need to hold on to it for a while because you need to fix things up or it will be harder to sell, you can consider this approach.",
"Since you are leaving the country, get it sold by a real estate agent. If you choose to lower the price and get it done quickly, or if you choose to wait for a fair value, the key here is to get many independent referrals (like a dozen) so you agent is trustworthy. I don't think you need to sign over power of attorney as fax machines are pretty reliable these days. I won't matter if you live 50 miles or 5000 miles away. Renting it is not a great option because you can't easily follow up from another country. Don't sell it to the rock bottom places. Either you don't need the money and you can afford to you wait, or you need the money and it would be best to wait.",
"\"If you mortgage after the fact you will usually pay an extra .25% higher on the interest rate because a \"\"cash out\"\" refinance is treated as riskier than a new home purchase mortgage. You might save enough on the purchase price of the home with a cash offer to make that higher interest rate worth it, but in most cases, if you are planning to hold the loan for a long time, it's best to get that mortgage at the time of purchase. You might be able to get the same deal with an offer that says you will pay cash if there are any problems getting the loan approved.\"",
"\"There are basically two ways to get value out of an appreciating asset such as a home: (a) Sell it and take the profit. In the case of a home, you presumably still have to live somewhere, so unless you buy a cheaper home to replace it, this doesn't get you anywhere. If you can get another house that is just as nice and in just as nice a location -- whatever you consider \"\"nice\"\" to be -- than this sounds like a winning option. If it means moving to a less desirable home, then you are getting the cash but losing the nice home. You'll have to decide if it's worth it. (b) Use it as collateral for a loan. In this case, that means a second mortgage, home equity loan, or a home equity line of credit. But this can be dangerous. House prices are very volatile these days. If the value of the house falls, you could be stuck with debts greater than your assets. In my humble opinion, you should be very careful about doing this. Borrowing against your house to send the kids to college or pay for your spouse's life-saving operation may be reasonable. Borrowing against your house to go on a fancy vacation is almost surely a bad idea. The vacation will be over within a couple of weeks, but you could be paying off the debt for decades.\"",
"If it is your primary residence and you lived there continuously and for more than 2 years out of the last 5 - then you can exclude the gain under the IRC Sec. 121. In this case, you'll pay no taxes on your gain. If the property has been a rental or you haven't lived there long enough, the rules become more complicated but you may still be able to exclude some portion of the gain, even all of it, depends on the situation. So it doesn't look like 1031 exchange is good for you here, you don't want to carry excluded gain - you want to recognize it and get the tax benefit. However, refinancing after purchase with cash-out money affects the deductability of the loan interest. You can only deduct interest on money used to buy, not cash-out portion. I believe there's a period (60 days IIRC) during which you can do the cash-out refinance and still count it as purchase money, but check with a licensed tax advier (EA/CPA licensed in your State).",
"Are you interested in refurbishing your rented home here in Singapore? If you are struggling with financial difficulties, you can apply for a renovation loan offered by banks. Most banks in Singapore offer renovation loans and home loans only to those who own a property. It is very hard to find a renovation loan for a rented home. **Home loans for renovation** You can take a home loan for your rented property and top up your home loan to finance your renovation project. If you already have a home loan, all you need to do is ask your bank representative to add extra financing to your [home loan](https://www.bankbazaar.sg/home-loan.html) for renovation purpose. Applying for a home loan for a rented property is simple. You can use an online loan calculator and compare home loans provided for a rented property. According to your repayment capacity and financial requirements, you can choose a home loan and use it for renovation. Make sure you have a good credit score while applying so that your home loan gets approved easily. **Personal loans for renovation** If you are not able to find too many home loans or renovation loans for rented property, you need not worry. Have you considered taking a personal loan to make awesome home improvement measures? That’s right; you can apply for a personal loan and use the funds to renovate your abode. The best thing about a personal loan is that a lender does not enquire about the purpose for your loan application. So, you can use your personal loan for any of your needs. *Eligibility criteria for personal loans* The general criteria to be qualified for a personal loan in Singapore are: The applicant should be 21 to 65 years old. The applicant should be a Singaporean or a permanent resident or a foreigner. The minimum income requirement for a Singaporean or PR is generally S$20,000 p.a. and S$40,000 p.a. for a foreigner. **When are personal loans ideal for renovation?** There are a few situations when a personal loan is the best option for renovating your rented property: Many banks give personal loans with attractive promotions such as interest-free loan for a certain period. You can take this loan and even repay the full amount before the zero-interest period expires. This will help you save efficiently on your renovation project. The minimum income required to secure a home loan is generally higher than the income requirement for a personal loan. Hence, a personal loan is a better option. A home loan generally gives a higher sum of money than a personal loan. This high amount is suitable for a construction project but will be excessive for renovation work. Therefore, it makes more sense to apply for a personal loan to give the perfect makeover to the kitchenette in your home. The approval process for a home loan is typically very lengthy. Personal loan applications get approved within 24 hours by most banks in Singapore. So now you can apply for a personal loan without any tension and remodel your balcony to have a party at home sweet home! Personal loan rates are generally lower than home loan rates. You can refurbish your living space by paying your loan at an interest rate not more than 4%. Now, you would have got a fair idea about how to finance your remodelling work. Always remember to enquire about every loan’s terms and conditions. Never sign any loan contract without being absolutely clear about the loan’s features.",
"Talk to your parents, and find out if you are reducing the debt or not. Find buyers, sell the place now and get out the deal. Of course you will have to wait to get a good price on it. Short term you haven't lost that much, but long term you will. Take your 25%, and use it as a down payment on a regular bank mortgage. Lesson learned move on.",
"I would agree with the other answers about it being a bad idea to invest in stocks in the short term. However, do consider also long-term repairs. For example, you should be prepared to a repair happening in 20 years in addition to repairs happening in a couple of months. So, if it is at all possible for you to save a bit more, put 2% of the construction cost of a typical new house (just a house, not the land the house is standing on) aside every year into a long-term repair fund and invest it into stocks. I would recommend a low-cost index fund or passive ETF instead of manually picking stocks. When you have a long-term repair that requires large amounts of money but will be good for decades to come, you will take some money out of the long-term repair fund. Where I live, houses cost about 4000 EUR per square meter, but most of that is the land and building permit cost. The actual construction cost is about 2500 EUR per square meter. So, I would put away 50 EUR per square meter every year. So, for example, for a relatively small 50 square meter apartment, that would mean 2500 EUR per year. There are quite many repairs that are long-term repairs. For example, in apartment buildings, plumbing needs to be redone every 40 years or so. Given such a long time period, it makes sense to invest the money into stocks. So, my recommendation would be to have two repair funds: short-term repairs and long-term repairs. Only the long-term repair fund should be invested into stocks.",
"You have the 2 properties, and even though the value of property B is less than the amount you owe on it hopefully you have some equity in propery A. So if you do have enough equity in property A, why don't you just go to the one lender and get both property A and B refinanced under the same mortgage. This way hopefully the combined equity in both properties would be enough to cover the full amount of the loan, and you have the opportunity to refinance at favourable rate and terms. Sounds like you are in the USA with an interest rate of 3.25%, I am in Australia and my mortgage rates are currently between 6.3% to 6.6%.",
"\"You can definitely do it. But: Refinancing would make more sense to you, you can refinance at no cost and get rates below 4%, so you'll be saving 1% a year, without paying anything extra. If you pay the fees you'll get even lower rates, but then you need to check whether its worth it. I've just refinanced to a 15 years fixed mortgage at no cost a couple of months ago, and got 3.875% rate (in California), so its definitely worth looking into, don't just dismiss it. This will limit your flexibility though, because paying 30yrs loan \"\"as if\"\" is much more flexible than committing on 15yes loan - you can always go back to your original payments if you want to spread it out a bit more. You can add a HELOC once you've accumulated some equity to back you up, that's what I did.\""
] |
[
"A typical HELOC will have about $300 in fees to open it. From there, it's up to you how much or how long to use it. I'd shop around to find the bank that offers the right product for you."
] |
701
|
What are the ins/outs of writing-off part of one's rent for working at home?
|
[
"288537",
"339488",
"389446"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"356884",
"410128",
"456234",
"531442",
"124507",
"231990",
"380165",
"5587",
"248761",
"245122",
"520386",
"344955",
"272940",
"15270",
"220063",
"177074",
"288537",
"544381",
"339488",
"349672",
"443859",
"375357",
"493255",
"295509",
"55200",
"87113",
"63919",
"2528",
"418480",
"474057",
"378465",
"459119",
"397920",
"482165",
"302022",
"350839",
"398536",
"552356",
"324911",
"409566",
"140977",
"103405",
"389446",
"264659",
"18539",
"377621",
"436505",
"406723",
"541809",
"221281",
"116934",
"257616",
"417981",
"97719",
"446984",
"581265",
"376392",
"257303",
"338348",
"320579",
"55261",
"82199",
"130631",
"156444",
"552043",
"146388",
"327263",
"421301",
"12729",
"141738",
"201954",
"571711",
"263259",
"331981",
"299002",
"442142",
"551934",
"34810",
"205217",
"364938",
"593976",
"480512",
"272709",
"75005",
"86134",
"30319",
"75920",
"476173",
"338439",
"26790",
"540395",
"60652",
"337706",
"280538",
"236122",
"338545",
"330269",
"22710",
"322906",
"434846"
] |
[
"If the UK is similar to Australia then you would not claim a virtual rent for the business portion but instead could claim a portion of the house expenses such as electricity use, property taxes, and yes a portion of the mortgage, and any repairs or renovations done to the work areas of the house. However, you should keep in mind that if you sell the place you may have to pay CGT on the portion you were claiming for business use.",
"In Canada I think you'd do it as a % of square footage. For example: Then you can count 20% of the cost of the of renting the apartment as a business expense. I expect that conventions (i.e. that what's accepted rather than challenged by the tax authorities) may vary from country to country.",
"As someone who used to be an IT contractor in the UK and used to work from home, my advice is to talk to your accountant in detail. It's been a few years, but IIRC you can write off some small stuff like proportional heating costs etc, but in my case it was so minuscule that it wasn't worth the effort. You're likely better off to just leave it. <subliminal message> Talk to your accountant :). </subliminal message>",
"\"According to this post on TurboTax forums, you could deduct it as an \"\"Unreimbursed Employee\"\" expense. This would seem consistent with the IRS Guidelines on such deductions: An expense is ordinary if it is common and accepted in your trade, business, or profession. An expense is necessary if it is appropriate and helpful to your business. An expense does not have to be required to be considered necessary. Office rent is not listed explicitly among the examples of deductible unreimbursed employee expenses, but this doesn't mean it's not allowed. Of course you should check with a tax professional if you want to be sure.\"",
"The general rule is: Generally, in order to claim a business deduction for your home, you must use part of your home exclusively and regularly: Exclusively seems to be the toughest standard and I do not know exactly how strict the IRS's interpretation is. Working in your living room where you regularly watch TV and have people over on the weekends would seem to fail that test. A separate room with your computer in it would pass it. If it was your only computer and you regularly played online games with it, that would seem to be a grey area. The IRA booklet covering this area is here http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p587.pdf I know people that have rented rooms in other places or made use of rental offices for this purpose.",
"\"If you are a telecommuter and in good terms with your employer, then all you need is contact your employer and explain your situation. Ask them for a short letter that indicates: \"\"1. they require you to work from a privately rented office (or from a home office for those who prefer working from home), 2. this is one of the terms of your employment, and, 3. they will not reimburse you for this expense.\"\" With this letter in your hand, you satisify both the \"\"convenience of employer\"\" test AND the deduction of the rent for your private office as a unreimbursed employee expense. The IRS cannot expect your employer to open an office branch in your city just for your sake, nor can they expect you to commute to your employer's city for work, which is an impossiblity considering the distance. Additionally, the IRS cannot \"\"force\"\" telecommuters to work from home. The key is to get a letter from your employer. You'd be surprised how easily they are willing to write such letter for you.\"",
"You can do it, provided that the bedroom is ONLY set up as an office. That is, no bed, TV or other stuff. You can stretch it a bit, considering a TV is also a monitor, a couch is also a visitor couch. Whatever route you choose you have to be able to justify what everything is doing there in case of a visit from the authorities. I am (was) in exactly the same situation for two years and had no problem deducting ~30% of the housing costs. That is, the usage of bathroom and utilities is calculated as proportional to the surface area given to the office. It might make more sense to move into a larger apartment just so you can have one designated office room. Edit: the above applies in Germany, YMMV, IANAL, etc. EU is pretty consistent though in regulations and as far as I know the above aplies in most EU countries.",
"Source on GOV.UK You may be able to get tax back for some of the bills you have to pay because you have to work at home on a regular basis. You can only claim for things to do with your work, eg business telephone calls or the extra cost of gas and electricity for your work area. You can’t claim for things that you use for both private and business use, eg rent or broadband access. You don’t need to provide records for claims of up to £4 per week (£18 per month). For claims over £4 per week you’ll need to provide evidence of what you’ve spent. Claims up to £2,500 You must claim using a Self Assessment tax return if you already fill one in. If you don’t already fill in a Self Assessment tax return, and your allowable expenses are under £2,500 for the tax year, fill in form P87 and send it to the address on the form. If you’ve made a successful claim in a previous tax year and your expenses are less than £1,000 (or £2,500 for professional fees and subscriptions), you may be able to make your claim by phone. Claims over £2,500 You must claim using a Self Assessment tax return.",
"You can claim a deduction only if all of your business is conducted from the home, i.e. your home is your principal place of business - not just if you work from home sometimes. The CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) has pretty strict guidelines listed here, but once you're sure you qualify for a deduction, the next step would be to determine what portion of your home qualifies. You cannot attempt to deduct your entire mortgage simply because you run your business out of your home. The portion of your mortgage and other related & allowable home expense deductions has to be pro-rated to be equal to or less than the portion of your home you use for business. Simply put, if your business is operated out of a 120 sq-ft self-contained space, and your home's total square-footage is 2400 sq-ft, you can deduct 5% of your expenses (120/2,400 = 0.05). Hope this helps!",
"Talk to a tax professional. The IRS really doesn't like the deduction, and it's a concept (like independent contractors) that is often not done properly. You need to, at a minimum, have records, including timestamped photographs, proving that: Remember, documentation is key, and must be filed and accessible for a number of years. Poor record keeping will cost you dearly, and the cost of keeping those records is something that you need to weigh against the benefit.",
"Your best approach is to assess rent levels in your local area for offices of a similar size. You need to take into account all the usuals - amenities, parking, etc, just as if your home-office was provided by a third-party. Get your $/sq ft and work out the monthly amount. With this figure, you need to then work out what % of it you can charge. If the space is used exclusively for the business, charge 100%. If it's used about half the time, charge 50%, etc. I would strongly advise you to do two things - 1. make sure your accountant and your attorney help you get this squared away. 2. document everything about how you arrived at the cost. Nothing fancy, but dates, realtors, addresses, $/sq foot. A simple table will do. By doing these two things, if the IRS should come around to chat, you should be covered.",
"There are other answers here about how much you can deduct for a home office. What seems unique is the question of whether you can deduct it for both your LLC and for your employment. Unless your LLC owns the home, you cannot deduct the depreciation directly. Instead you have to charge your LLC rent for the time that you are using the space for the LLC. That rent must be declared as income on your personal tax return, and you can then offset some of it with the time you spend in that space working for your employer and depreciation for time it is being rented to your LLC. Using a strategy this complex may save you a few bucks on your return, but this is definitely an area where a tax professional is worth the expense making sure you get it right.",
"\"You are pushing your luck, but not because you're not in the US, because it is likely that you're not qualified. From what you said, I doubt you can take it (I'm not a professional though, get a professional opinion). You say \"\"dedicated space\"\". It has to be an exclusive room. You cannot deduct 10 sq. ft. from your living room because your computer that is used wholly for your business is there. It has to be a room that is used exclusively for your business, and for your business only. I.e.: nothing not related to the business is there, and when you're there the only thing you do is working on your business. Your office doesn't have to be in the US necessarily, to the best of my knowledge. Your office must be in your home. If you take primary residence exclusion as part of your FEI, then I doubt you can deduct as well.\"",
"Your freelance income will not qualify you for the work-from-home deductions, for that you would need a T2200 form signed by your employer. But, you are allowed to be self employed as a sole-proprietorship while still being an employee of another company. If you take that route, you'll be able to write-off even more expenses than those you linked to. Things like a portion of your internet bill can be claimed, for example. But note that these deductions would only apply to offset the self-employment income, so if you're not earning very much from the freelance work, it might not be worth all the hassle. Filing taxes when self-employed is definitely more complicated, and many people will get professional tax preparation help - at least for the first time.",
"\"If you are talking about a home office, you don't \"\"charge\"\" the business anything. If the area is used exclusively as an office you pro-rate by square footage just the actual expenses. TurboTax recent published an article \"\"Can I Take the Home Office Deduction?\"\" which is a must read if you don't understand the process. (Note: I authored said article.)\"",
"\"If you use \"\"a room or other separately identifiable space\"\" within your apartment exclusively for your business, then you might be able to recoup a fraction of your rent for that. Check the rules for home office at the IRS and adopt a consistent and well-documented approach. (I would pay your full rent out of your personal account, and then do an \"\"expense report\"\" for the portion that's legitimately business related, but that's not a unique approach.) Other than that, I agree with the answer by litteadv - You cannot reduce your tax by the full amount of your rent just by having the S Corp pay, and trying to do so is probably playing with fire. Generally speaking, don't comingle business and personal expenses like that.\"",
"Be ruthlessly meticulous about the IRS regulations for deducting a home office. If it's allowed, it's allowed.",
"\"Can she claim deductions for her driving to and from work? Considering most people use their cars mostly to commute to/from work, there must be limits to what you can consider \"\"claimable\"\" and what you can't, otherwise everyone would claim back 80% of their mileage. No, she can't. But if she's driving from one work site to another, that's deductible whether or not either of the work sites is her home office. Can she claim deductions for her home office? There's a specific set of IRS tests you have to meet. If she meets them, she can. If you're self-employed, reasonably need an office, and have a place in your house dedicated to that purpose, you will likely meet all the tests. Can I claim deductions for my home office, even though I have an official work place that is not in my home? It's very hard to do so. The use of your home office has to benefit your employer, not just you. Can we claim deductions for our home internet service? If the business or home office uses them, they should be a deductible home office expense in some percentage. Usually for generic utilities that benefit the whole house, you deduct at the same percentage as the home office is of the entire house. But you can use other fractions if more appropriate. For example, if you have lots of computers in the home office, you can deduct more of the electricity if you can justify the ratio you use. Run through the rules at the IRS web page.\"",
"Tax regulations vary from country to country - some permitting more deductions, some less - but here are a few guidelines. As regards the home-office: As regards the deductions: Think of it like this: in order to have space for a home-office you needed a bigger home. That leads to increased rates, heating, insurance and so on. Many tax regulators recognise that these are genuine expenses. The alternative is to rent a separate office and incur greater expenses, leading to increased deductions and less overall tax paid (which won't finance the deficit). The usual test for deductions is: was the expense legitimately incurred in the pursuit of revenue? The flexibility permitted will vary by tax authority but you can frequently deduct more than you expected.",
"The answer is simple. You can generally claim a deduction for an expense if that expense was used to derive an income. Of course social policy sometimes gets in the way and allows for deductions where they usually wouldn't be allowed. Your rent is not tax deductible because this expense is not used to derive your income. If however you were working from your home, example - you had a home based business, and you dedicated a part of your home for your work, say an office, then part of your rent may then become tax deductible.",
"On form 8829, line 20 you can list utilities paid for the home office. You have two choices: 1) You can list the entire amount under column (b) as an indirect expense. You will then get a deduction for the fraction of the amount based on what fraction of your home is an office. This makes sense if the service equally benefits your entire home. 2) You can compute the portion of the expense reasonably attributable to the business/office and list that amount under column (a). This entire amount will be deducted. Which option you choose depends on how well you think you can allocate the expense between your office and the rest of your home. For example, I have had to do this with electricity, but I specifically measured the electricity used by my office. If you think you can defend allocating a larger portion to the office, use option 2. If you would have paid the same amount even if you didn't have an office, it's hard to justify allocating more of the expense to the office than its portion of the home. If you opted for a more expensive service or otherwise incurred additional costs, it makes sense to allocate a higher fraction to the office and to calculate that yourself.",
"As DJClayworth said, be very careful with this one! The property is a residence, not a business location. Given that, it is almost a certainty that the IRS is not going to let you claim 100% of the expenses for the home as a business expense, even if nobody's actually living there. You may get away with doing this for a period of time and not run into zoning or other issues such as those DJ mentioned, but it's like begging for trouble. You run the very real risk of being audited if you try to do what you're proposing, and rest assured, whatever you saved in taxes will disappear like smoke in the wind under an audit. That being said, there's no reason you can't call a tax service and ask a simple question, because in answering it they're going to hope to gain your business. It'd be well worth the phone call before you land yourself in any hot water with the IRS. I can tell you that I'd rather have a double root canal with no anesthetic than go through an audit, even when I didn't do anything wrong! (grin) Good luck!",
"Yes, all the house footage is treated the same. The use of home is a (suspected) audit trigger, so do consult with a tax professional if you want to take this deduction. From the statute (IRC Sec. 280A): The term dwelling unit includes a house, apartment, condominium, mobile home, boat, or similar property, and all structures or other property appurtenant to such dwelling unit.",
"This answer is assuming you're in the US, which apparently you're not. I doubt that the rules in the EU are significantly different, but I don't know for sure. In case of an IRS control, is it ok to say that I regularly connect remotely to work from home although in the work contract it says I must work at client's office? No. Are there any other ways I can prove that this deduction is valid? No. You can't prove something is valid when its not. You can only deduct home office expense if it is used exclusively for your business, and your bedroom obviously is not.",
"As I understand it... Generally housing can't be considered a business expense unless taken at your employer's explicit direction, for the good of the business rather than the employee. Temporary assignment far enough from you home office that commuting or occasional hotel nights are impractical, maybe. In other words, if they wouldn't be (at least theoretically) willing to let you put it on an expense account, you probably can't claim it here.",
"It's the same result either way. Say the bills are $600, and you are reimbursed $400. You'd be able to write off $400 as part of the utilities that are common expenses, but then claim the $400 as income. I'd stick with that, and have contemporaneous records supporting all cash flow. You also can take 2/3 of any other maintenance costs that most homeowners can't. Like snow removal, lawn care, etc.",
"\"I'm not a tax professional, but as I understand it, you are not expected to commute from San Francisco to Boston. :) If your employer has not provided you with an external office, then yes, you have very likely met the \"\"convenience of the employer\"\" test. However, to take the home office deduction, there are many requirements that have to be met. You can read more at the Nolo article Can You Deduct Your Home Office When You're an Employee? (Thanks, keshlam) The home office deduction has many nuances and is enough of an IRS red flag that you would be well-advised to talk to an accountant about it. You need to be able to show that it is exclusively and necessarily used for your job. Another thing to remember: as an employee, the home office deduction, if you take it, will be deducted on Schedule A, line 21 (unreimbursed employee expenses), among other Miscellaneous Deductions. Deductions in this section need to exceed 2% of your adjusted gross income before you can start to deduct. So it will not be worth it to pursue the deduction if your income is too high, or your housing expenses are too low, or your office is too small compared to the rest of your house, or you don't itemize deductions.\"",
"This is essentially a reimbursement of your expense. Since you can deduct the expense, the fact that the reimbursement is taxable doesn't affect you much. You deduct your home office expenses on your annual tax return using form 8829. See the IRS site for more details. If you're asking about the UK tax, there may be some other considerations, but from the US tax perspective it is (nearly) a wash.",
"\"Yes, you may deduct the cost of building the \"\"noise cancellation system\"\" :) sorry couldn't resist. But seriously, yes you can deduct it ONCE (unless you have more cost maintaining it) and its on line 19 (Repairs and maintenance) of IRS Form 8829.\"",
"You will need to look at the 27.5 year depreciation table from the IRS. It tells you how you will be able to write off the first year. It depends on which month you had the unit ready to rent. Note that that it might be a different month from when you moved, or when the first tenant moved in. Your list is pretty good. You can also claim some travel expenses or mileage related to the unit. Also keep track of any other expenses such as switching the water bill to the new renter, or postage. If you use Turbo tax, not the least expensive version, it can be a big help to get started and to remember how much to depreciate each year.",
"If it's a rental, you will write off the losses via Schedule E. You should read this document and its instructions to understand this fully. You will also take depreciation on the value of the building, not the land, over 27.5 years. If you don't understand this, search here, there are discussions that cover this. If it's not a rental, but your home or second home, you take the interest and real estate tax off you tax via Schedule A, if you itemize. (I see the tag 'rental' but leave this line for sake of a complete answer.)",
"\"In the UK it all comes down to what HMRC will allow you to charge without taxing you on the \"\"rent profit\"\" and not hitting capital gain tax when you sell the house, it may not all count as your \"\"main home\"\" if some is rented out. (http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/ is a good place to ask this type of questions in the uk)\"",
"I heard that a C-Corp being a one person shop (no other employees but the owner) can pay for the full amount 100% of personal rent if the residence is being used as a home office. Sure. Especially if you don't mind being audited. Technically, it doesn't matter how the money gets where it goes as long as the income tax filings accurately describe the tax situation. But the IRS hates it when you make personal expenses from a business account, even if you've paid the required personal income tax (because their computers simply aren't smart enough to keep up with that level of chaos). Also, on a non-tax level, commingling of business and personal funds can reduce the effectiveness of your company's liability protection and you could more easily become personally liable if the company goes bankrupt. From what I understand the 30% would be the expense, and the 70% profit distribution. I recommend you just pay yourself and pay the rent from your personal account and claim the allowed deductions properly like everyone else. Why & when it would make sense to do this? Are there any tax benefits? Never, because, no. You would still have to pay personal income tax on your 70% share of the rent (the 30% you may be able to get deductions for but the rules are quite complicated and you should never just estimate). The only way to get money out of a corporation without paying personal income tax is by having a qualified dividend. That's quite complicated - your accounting has to be clear that the money being issued as a qualified dividend came from an economic profit, not from a paper profit resulting from the fact that you worked hard without paying yourself market value.",
"It depends on the structure of your business. Are you a sole proprietor filing Schedule C on your 1040, or an S-corp, or part of a partnership? The treatment of a home office will differ depending on business entity.",
"No, you cannot write off time, period. You should price the time spent into your product. I, occasionally, work on side projects of my own and forgo the possibility of earning direct income for that time. Income not earned is income not taxed, so there's nothing to deduct.",
"A computer is a special case because the IRS thinks that you might be using it for personal applications. You may need to keep a log, or be able to state that you also have another computer for non-business use. That said, if your schedule C shows a small profit then you don't need to itemize expenses, just state the total.",
"The short answer is no you can only deduct actual expenses. The long answer is that it would be impossible for the IRS to determine the value of your time and it would open the tax system to an enormous amount of fraud (think of being able to make up time spent or writing off time spent volunteering at a soup kitchen or any other charity). Now you can write off expenses you have involved in doing the work, equipment and supplies used to do the work along with any wages you paid an employee or contractor to do said work.",
"\"I disagree with BrenBran, I don't think this is qualified as unreimbursed employee expense. For it to qualify, it has to be ordinary and necessary, and specifically - necessary for your employer. This is not the case for you, as there's no such necessity. From employer's perspective, you can work from your home just as well. In fact, the expense is your personal, as it is your choice, not \"\"unreimbursed employee expense\"\" since your employer didn't even ask you to do it. You should clarify this with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in New York).\"",
"\"Suppose that I work from home, but do not qualify for a business use of home deduction. As I understand it, this means I cannot deduct trips from home to another work location (e.g., going to a client's home or office to do work there). I do not think this is true. You cannot deduct trips to your main business location, i.e.: you cannot deduct trips to your office or client's location if this is your main client and you routinely work on-site. However, if you only visit your clients on occasion for specific events while doing your routine work at home - you can definitely deduct those trips. The deduction of the home usage itself has nothing to do with it. However, there's a different reason they refer to pub 587. Your home must qualify as principal place of business (even if it doesn't qualify for deduction). The qualifications of \"\"principal place of business\"\" are described in pub 587. \"\"if for some personal reason you do not go directly from one location to the other, you cannot deduct more than the amount it would have cost you to go directly from the first location to the second.\"\" What is not clear to me is what exactly is deductible if there are significant time gaps (within a single day) between trips to different clients. You got it right. What this quote means is that if you have client A and client B, and you drive from A to B - you can only deduct the travel between A and B, nothing else. I.e.: if you have 2 hours to kill and you take a trip to the mall - you cannot deduct the mileage attributable to that trip. You only deduct the actual distance between A and B as it would be had you driven from A to B directly. The example you cite re first client being considered as the place of business is for the case where your home doesn't qualify as principal place of business. In this case you start counting miles from your first client, and only for direct trips from client to client. If you only have 1 client in that day, tough luck, nothing to deduct. Also, it's not clear whether stopoffs between clients would really be \"\"personal reasons\"\", since the appointment times are often set by the client, so it's not as if the delay between A and B was just because I felt like it; there was never the option of going directly from A to B. That's what is called \"\"facts and circumstances\"\". You can argue that you had enough time between meetings to go back to your home office to continue working. The IRS agent auditing you (and you're likely to get audited) will consider that. Maybe will accept it. Maybe not. If I had a gap like that described above, I could save on my taxes by going to the park or a hamburger stand instead of going home between A and B But then you wouldn't be at home, so why would it be \"\"principal place of business\"\" if you're not there? Boom, lost deduction for the trip to the first client. I suggest you talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). You're dealing with deductions that are considered \"\"red flags\"\" for the IRS. I.e.: many people believe that these deductions (business use of your home/car) trigger audits. To substantiate business use of your car you need to keep very good track of your travels (literally travel log, they sell them at Staples), and make sure to distinguish between personal travel and business travel, keep proofs that the meetings took place (although keeping a log is a requirement, it can be backdated/faked, so if audited - the IRS will want to see more than your own documentation). A good tax adviser will educate you on all these rules, and also clarify the complexities you were asking about here. I'm not a tax adviser, so don't rely on this answer when you're preparing your tax return or responding to the IRS audit. In your edit you ask this: Specifically, what I'm wondering is whether it is possible for a home to qualify as a \"\"principal place of business\"\" for purposes of deducting car expenses but not for the home office deduction. The answer is yes. Deductibility is determined by exclusivity of use, among other things. But the fact that you manage your business from your kitchen doesn't make your kitchen any less of a principal place of business. It is non-deductible because you also cook your dinners there, but it is still, nonetheless, your principal place of business. The Pub 587 which I linked to has these qualifications: Your home office will qualify as your principal place of business if you meet the following requirements. You use it exclusively and regularly for administrative or management activities of your trade or business. You have no other fixed location where you conduct substantial administrative or management activities of your trade or business. As you see, exclusivity of the usage of your home area is not a requirement here. The \"\"exclusively and regularly\"\" in the quote refers to your business not using any other location, and managing it from home regularly. I.e.: if you manage your business a day in a year - that's not enough for it to be considered principal. If you manage your business from your office and your home - you cannot consider home as principal.\"",
"Very simple. If it wasn't rented, it's deductible as a schedule A home mortgage interest. If it was rented, you go into Schedule E land, still a deduction along with any/every expense incurred.",
"Yes, legitimate, documented, expenses are written off against that income.",
"Only if your work on the side is making you at least £60,000 profit a year. The overheads are just not worth it if you make less. Working as a sole trader, you can still claim for expenses incurred in the course of your business. You can also claim a percentage of your computer costs, even though you may use the computer for gaming. This is not unreasonable as the computer is necessary for your work. The Inland Revenue accept the fact that some assets are part work-related. In your case, as a web and mobile phone developer, I expect the percentage to be at least half, if not a lot more. If you need to travel in the course of your work you can claim a percentage for your car. You can include other small expenses such as telephone, stationery, electricity etc but don't go overboard. The important point to remember is that you must be able to defend the expenses claimed as work-related, so long as you can do this there is no problem. Remember to keep good records of all your expenses. This is on-going throughout the year and is much more work than filling out your tax return. The software on the IR self-assessment site is excellent, so it's conceivable that you may not need an accountant if you are prepared to do your own tax return. However, if you feel unsure employ an accountant initially and take it from there.",
"Before starting to do this, make sure that you are squeaky clean in all aspects of your tax preparation and are prepared to back up any claims that you make with documentation. Home office deductions are a huge red flag that often trigger audits. Follow mbhunter's advice and be incredibly meticulous about following the rules and keeping records.",
"It will come down the percentage of time you use a specific area in your home. For each business you will be asked to first designate a percentage of your home you use for that business, then the percentage of time you use it. The space for both businesses might be the same, but the percentage of use would not. You could not claim 100% for both businesses. The combined petcentage of use could not exceed 100%.",
"Here are the general guidelines on what you should report and pay - but the overall rule is that if it's not a business-related cost then you can't claim it. In your example, a client meeting may warrant a claim for 'entertaining clients' which could be claimed as a business cost - but buying yourself a coffee to get out of the house isn't a business cost.",
"Your home doesn't belong to the partnership, it belongs to you. So you can (if qualified) deduct home office usage as a business expense on your individual tax return. Same goes to your partner. Similarly any other unreimbursed expense.",
"The short answer is yes you probably can take the deduction for a home office because the space is used exclusively and you are working there for the convenience of your employer if you don't have a desk at your employers office. The long answer is that it may not be worth it to take the home office deduction as an employee. You're deduction is subject to a 2% AGI floor. You can only deduct a percentage of your rent or the depreciation on your home. A quick and dirty example if you make $75k/year, rent a 1200 sqft 2 bedroom apartment for $1000/month and use one bedroom (120 sqft) regularly and exclusively for your employer. You can deduct 10% (120sqft/1200sqft) of the $12000 ($1000*12 months (assumes your situation didn't change)) in rent or $1200. However because you are an employee you are subject to the 2% AGI floor so you can deduct $1200-$1500 (75000*.02 (salary * 2% floor)) = -300 so in order to deduct the first dollar you need an additional $300 worth of deductible expenses. Depending on your situation it may or may not be worth it to take the home office deduction even if you qualify for it.",
"Do I get a write off for paying student loans? Maybe. See https://www.irs.gov/publications/p970/ch04.html Generally, personal interest you pay, other than certain mortgage interest, isn't deductible on your tax return. However, if your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) is less than $80,000 ($160,000 if filing a joint return) there is a special deduction allowed for paying interest on a student loan (also known as an education loan) used for higher education. For most taxpayers, MAGI is the adjusted gross income as figured on their federal income tax return before subtracting any deduction for student loan interest. This deduction can reduce the amount of your income subject to tax by up to $2,500. Read the whole document to be sure, but that's the basics. You'll have to fill out a 1040 or 1040A to claim a student loan deduction. It won't be on the 1040EZ. You do not have to itemize though. What kinds of write-offs and credits are available for someone who is single and lives in an apartment with two roommates? As a practical matter, in 2016 you'll get the standard deduction for someone who is single ($6300) and the personal exemption ($4050). It's extremely unlikely that you'll be able to deduct more by itemizing. Most people who itemize are taking a mortgage interest deduction. Major medical bills are another possibility, but they have to be more than 10% of your adjusted gross income (it's one of the lines on your tax return). Assuming you rent and are reasonably healthy, you are unlikely to have enough to itemize. The most likely additional deduction would be the one for an IRA (Individual Retirement Account). Although you might be better off doing a Roth anyway (no tax deduction). If you are self-employed or making more than $100,000 a year, there are additional issues. But most people aren't. If you filled out a W-4 and will get a W-2 back, you aren't self-employed. Hopefully you have a rough idea of your annual income. The first $9275 over your deductions will pay 10%. After that, up to $37,650 you pay 15%. The 2016 link above has a link (PDF) to the full table if you need more than that. Note that that is the first $48,000 in income with your $10,350 in deductions.",
"\"No, your business cannot deduct your non-business expenses. You can only deduct from your business income those reasonable expenses you paid in order to earn income for the business. Moreover, for there to be a tax benefit, your business generally has to have income (but I expect there are exceptions; HST input tax credits come to mind.) The employment income from your full-time job wouldn't count as business income for your corporation. The corporation has nothing to do with that income – it's earned personally, by you. With respect to restaurant bills: These fall under a category known as \"\"meals & entertainment\"\". Even if the expense can be considered reasonable and business-related (e.g. meeting customers or vendors) the Canada Revenue Agency decided that a business can only deduct half of those kinds of expenses for tax purposes. With respect to gasoline bills: You would need to keep a mileage and expense log. Only the portion of your automobile expenses that relate to the business can be deducted. Driving to and from your full-time job doesn't count. Of course, I'm not a tax professional. If you're going to have a corporation or side-business, you ought to consult with a tax professional. (A point on terminology: A business doesn't write off eligible business expenses — it deducts them from business income. Write off is an accounting term meaning to reduce the value of an asset to zero. e.g. If you damaged your car beyond repair, one could say \"\"the car is a write-off.\"\")\"",
"I've actually had the same problem several years running, and it's solved by filing my corporate taxes, then taking those schedules, and applying them to my 1040, along with a Schedule C You'll want to work with an accountant on this, but basically you're going to take the total set of business expenses as 1 chunk, then write them off your income (as one chunk). I always recommend an accountant for this, but that's the general idea that I've used, and for the last 10 years, it's worked great.",
"Yes, you can deduct from your taxable profits (almost) any expenses incurred in the course of your business. See here for HMRC's detailed advice on the subject. The fact that you have salaried PAYE employment as well makes no difference.",
"There is no tax code I know that would grant you such a privilege. And it just isn't practicable. In your examples, you always sold your product and were thus able, in retrospect, to give a value to your work. What if you don't sell your product? What if in one case your worked hour is reimbursed with one price, with the next product at another (i.e. difference in margin)? No, it won't work like that. And by the way, I think you might have got some definitions upside down. What you want is a salary that your own company pays out to yourself and you can deduct from other profits. But as long as you can't afford to pay yourself a salary, and you don't have access to investors who are willing to front you the money, the time invested is your personal investment and cannot be deducted anywhere - though it might pay off nicely in the long run. That's the risk entrepreneurs take.",
"\"While the question is very localized, I'll answer about the general principle. My main question is with how far away it is (over 1000 miles), how do I quantify the travel expenses? Generally, \"\"necessary and ordinary\"\" expenses are deductible. This is true for business and also true for rentals. But what is necessary and what is ordinary? Is it ordinary that a landlord will manage the property 1000 miles away by himself on a daily basis? Is it ordinary for people to drive 1000 miles every week? I'd say \"\"no\"\" to both. I'd say it would be cheaper for you to hire a local property manager, thus the travel expense would not be necessary. I would say it would be cheaper to fly (although I don't know if its true to the specific situation of the OP, but as I said - its too localized to deal with) rather than drive from Texas to Colorado. If the OP thinks that driving a thousand miles is indeed ordinary and necessary he'll have to justify it to the IRS examiner, as I'm sure it will be examined. 2 trips to the property a year will be a nearly 100% write-off (2000 miles, hotels, etc). From what I understood (and that is what I've been told by my CPA), IRS generally allows 1 (one) trip per year per property. If there's an exceptional situation - be prepared to justify it. Also, keep all the receipts (like gas, hotel, etc.... If you claim mileage but in reality you took a flight - you'll get hit hard by the IRS when audited). Also while I'm up there am I allowed to mix business with pleasure? You cannot deduct personal (\"\"pleasure\"\") expenses, at all. If the trip is mainly business, but you go out at the evening instead of staying at the hotel - that's fine. But if the trip is \"\"business\"\" trip where you spend a couple of hours at your property and then go around having fun for two days - the whole trip may be disallowed. If there's a reasonable portion dedicated to your business/rental, and the rest is pleasure - you'll have to split some of the costs and only deduct the portion attributed to the business activities. You'll have to analyze your specific situation, and see where it falls. Don't stretch the limits too much, it will cost you more on the long run after all the audits and penalties. Can I also write off all travel involved in the purchase of the property? Although, again, the \"\"necessary and ordinary\"\" justification of such a trip is arguable, lets assume it is necessary and ordinary and generally justified. It is reasonable to expect you to go and see the property with your own eyes before the closing (IMHO, of course, I'm not an authority). Such an expense can be either business or investment expense. If its a business expense - its deductible on schedule C. If its an investment expense (if you do buy the property), its added to the cost of the property (capitalized). I'm not a tax adviser or a tax professional, and this is not a tax advice. This answer was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding any tax related penalties that may be imposed on you or any other person under the Internal Revenue Code. You should seek a professional consultation with a CPA/Attorney(tax) licensed in your State(s) or a Federally licensed Enrolled Agent (EA).\"",
"\"Disclaimer: This should go without saying, but this answer is definitely an opinion. (I'm pretty sure my current accountant would agree with this answer, and I'm also pretty sure that one of my past accountants would disagree.) When I started my own small business over 10 years ago I asked this very same question for pretty much every purchase I made that would be used by both the business and me personally. I was young(er) and naive then and I just assumed everything was deductible until my accountant could prove otherwise. At some point you need to come up with some rules of thumb to help make sense of it, or else you'll drive yourself and your accountant bonkers. Here is one of the rules I like to use in this scenario: If you never would have made the purchase for personal use, and if you must purchase it for business use, and if using it for personal use does not increase the expense to the business, it can be fully deducted by the business even if you sometimes use it personally too. Here are some example implementations of this rule: Note about partial expenses: I didn't mention partial deductions above because I don't feel it applies when the criteria of my \"\"rule of thumb\"\" is met. Note that the IRS states: Personal versus Business Expenses Generally, you cannot deduct personal, living, or family expenses. However, if you have an expense for something that is used partly for business and partly for personal purposes, divide the total cost between the business and personal parts. You can deduct the business part. At first read that makes it sound like some of my examples above would need to be split into partial calulations, however, I think the key distinction is that you would never have made the purchase for personal use, and that the cost to the business does not increase because of allowing personal use. Partial deductions come into play when you have a shared car, or office, or something where the business cost is increased due to shared use. In general, I try to avoid anything that would be a partial expense, though I do allow my business to reimburse me for mileage when I lend it my personal car for business use.\"",
"The relevant IRS publication is pub 463. Note that there are various conditions and exceptions, but it all starts with business necessity. Is it necessary for you to work from the UK? If you're working from the UK because you wanted to take a vacation, but still have to work, and would do the same work without being in the UK - then you cannot deduct travel expenses. It sounds to me like this is the case here.",
"\"In the US tax system, you cannot \"\"write-off\"\" capital assets. You have to depreciate them, with very specific exceptions. So while you may be purchasing $4500 of equipment, your deduction may be significantly less. For example, computers are depreciated over the period of 5 years, so if you bought a $1000 computer - you write off $200/year until it is completely depreciated, not $1000 at once. There are exceptions however, for example - IRC Sec. 179 is one of them. But you should talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about whether it is applicable to the specific expense you want to \"\"write off\"\" and to what extent. Also, keep in mind that State laws may not conform to the Federal IRC. While you may be able to use Sec. 179 or other exceptions and deduct your expenses on your Federal return, you may end up with a whole different set of deductions on your State return. And last but not least: equipment that you depreciated or otherwise \"\"wrote off\"\" that is later sold - is income to you, since depreciation/deduction reduces basis. Ah, and keep in mind - the IRS frowns upon Schedule C business that consistently show losses. If you have losses for more than 3 in the last 5 years - your business may be classified as \"\"hobby\"\", and deductions may be disallowed. But the bottom line is that yes, it is possible to end up with 0 tax liability with business income offset by business deductions. However, not for prolonged periods of time (not for years consistently, but first year may fly). Again - you should talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). It is well worth the money. Do not rely on answers on free Internet forums as a tax advice - it is not.\"",
"http://www.irs.gov/publications/p936/ar02.html#en_US_2010_publink1000229891 If you still own it, you get to deduct all of it. In my taxes I did online with TaxAct, it asked if I lived there or not and it just mattered which form it filed for me. With having tenants it was a 'business' form and I assume it would be a standard schedule A for personal. Either way the deductions are still mine to take.",
"\"You will need to see a tax expert. Your edited question includes the line For the short term, we will be \"\"renting\"\" it to my wife's grandmother at a deep discount. According to the instructions for schedule E If you rented out a dwelling unit that you also used for personal purposes during the year, you may not be able to deduct all the expenses for the rental part. “Dwelling unit” (unit) means a house, apartment, condominium, or similar property. For each property listed on line 1a, report the number of days in the year each property was rented at fair rental value and the number of days of personal use. A day of personal use is any day, or part of a day, that the unit was used by: I have no idea how this will work for Schedule C.\"",
"Nice try. No. If you were in the music industry, you might have a case. Depending on the exact job, certain things related to music would be a business expense. I don't see how this would pass an audit as it really is unrelated to the work you do.",
"\"I think you may have a significant misunderstanding here. You have been renting your property out for two years, now. There is no special \"\"roommate\"\" clause in the tax code; roommates are renters, and the rent they pay is rental income. (If they were roommates in a property you both rented from a third party, that would be different.) See publication 527, chapter 4 for more details on the subject (search on \"\"Renting Part of Property\"\"). You should be: You may also consider \"\"Not renting for profit\"\" section, which may be closer to what you're actually thinking - of changing from \"\"Renting not for profit\"\" to \"\"Renting for profit\"\". Not rented for profit means you can report on your 1040 as opposed to filing Schedule E, but it does mean you have to actually not make a profit (and remember, some of the money that goes to paying the mortgage is not deductible on this side of things since it's your property and you'll get that money back, presumably, when you sell it). If that is what you're asking about, it sounds like it's just a matter of money. Are you going to start making money? Or, are you going to start making enough significant upgrades/etc. to justify the tax deduction? You should consider the actual, specific numbers carefully, probably with the help of a CPA who is familiar with this sort of situation, and then make the decision that gives you the best outcome (keeping in mind that there may be long-term impacts of switching from not-for-profit to for-profit rental treatment).\"",
"\"Yes and no. You can not claim the maid service cleaning your \"\"home\"\" but you can cleaning your \"\"office\"\" or your office's facilities. For example, If you have a mother-in-law suite in the back that you converted to an office, AND you have a maid service cleaning just that, THEN you should be able to claim the expense. Another example would be if you have a room in your house set aside as an office (careful here) AND your maid services charges $20 per room, you should be able to claim that $20. Another example; if you have a maid service that charges you $100 to clean your house, AND you have a dedicated office in that house, THEN you may be claim a portion of your expenses as a business expense. HOWEVER!!!! This can be very subject to your situation. For example, your much more likely to meet the criteria if you have clients in your office. Much less likely if your the only person using the office. Also you need to be aware that what the IRS allows you to call an office is not as clear cut as it seems. Your best bet is to ask a tax consultant.\"",
"\"No, you capitalize all that and deduct as depreciation from the royalties. What it means is that you cannot deduct the expense when it is incurred, but only when you started receiving income that the expense was used to derive. This is similar to capitalizing building improvements which can only be deducted when you start getting rent, or capitalizing software development expenses which can only be deducted once you start selling/licensing the developed software. In the case of book writing - you capitalize the expenses and deduct them once you start receiving royalties. The period over which you deduct (the \"\"depreciation schedule\"\") depends on the type of the expense and the type of the income, so you better get a guidance from a licensed tax accountant (EA or CPA licensed in your State).\"",
"\"In the US you are not required to have a corporation to use business expenses to offset your income. The technical term you need is \"\"deducting business expenses\"\", and in matters of taxes it's usually best to go straight to the horse's mouth: the IRS's explanations Deducting Business Expenses Business expenses are the cost of carrying on a trade or business. These expenses are usually deductible if the business operates to make a profit. What Can I Deduct? Cost of Goods Sold, Capital Expenses, Personal versus Business Expenses, Business Use of Your Home, Business Use of Your Car, Other Types of Business Expenses None of this requires any special incorporation or tax arrangements, and are a normal part of operating a business. However, there is a bit of a problem with your scenario. You said you \"\"invested\"\" into a business, but you mentioned buying specific things for the business which is not generally how one accounts for investment. If you are not an owner/operator of the business, then the scenario is not so straight-forward, as you can't simply claim someone else's business expenses as your own because you invested in it. Investments are taxed differently than expenses, and based upon your word choices I'm concerned that you could be getting yourself into a bit of a pickle. I would strongly advise you to speak with a professional, such as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), to go over your current arrangement and advise you on how you should be structuring your ongoing investment into this shared business. If you are investing you should be receiving equity to reflect your ownership (or stock in the company, etc), and investments of this sort generally cannot be deducted as an expense on your taxes - it's just an investment, the same as buying stock or CDs. If you are just buying things for someone else's benefit, it's possible that this could be looked upon as a personal gift, and you may be in a precarious legal position as well (where the money is, indeed, just a gift). And gifts of this sort aren't deductible, either. Depending on how this is all structured, it's possible that you should both consider a different form of legal organization, such as a formal corporation or at least an official business partnership. A CPA and an appropriate business attorney should be able to advise you for a nominal (few hundred dollars, at most) fee. If a new legal structure is advisable, you can potentially do the work yourself for a few hundred dollars, or pay to have it done (especially if the situation is more complex) for a few hundred to a few thousand. That's a lot less than you'd be on the hook for if this business is being accounted for improperly, or if either of your tax returns are being reported improperly!\"",
"\"It's pretty easy. In the Interview Setup for Ufile, check the box for \"\"Self-employment business income\"\". Then during the process of filling everything out, you'll get a Self-Employment screen. It'll ask for the name of your business, but just put your own name since you don't have one. For the 6-digit classification code, click the ? button and look through the list for the industry that best matches the one for whom you wrote the technical report. Or you can go with 711500: Independent artists, writers and performers. It doesn't really matter that much so don't worry if it's a poor match. It will also ask you for your income and expenses. I don't know exactly what costs you might have incurred to write your report, but you can likely claim a very tiny amount of \"\"home office\"\" expenses. Costs like rent (or mortgage interest + property tax), utilities, and home insurance can be claimed, but they have to be pro-rated for the time you were actually doing the work, and are based on the amount of space you used for the work. For example, if you paid $1000 rent and $200 utilities for the month in which the work was done, and it took you 20 of the 31 days in that month to actually do the work, and you used a room that makes up about 10% of the square footage of your home, then you can claim: $1200 * 20/31 * 0.1 = $77.42 for your home office expenses. If you also used that room for non-business purposes during that time, then you reduce it even further. Say, if the room was also used for playing video games 50% of the time, then you'd only claim $38.71\"",
"First, you can look up the property tax of the building you are in for an exact number. Go to you town's tax office or look at Zillow. You need to claim the rent as income, but will take all expenses as well as depreciation on half the building. The numbers may well work in your favor, especially as a resident landlord. I still own a rental in the next state, but it's 2 hour away, so I'm paying pros to do the simplest things. On site, you can handle all maintenance and save that way. If the cash flow looks like it's better than what you have right now, it might be time to buy. Without seeing the numbers I can't point out what you might be missing.",
"You've got two options. Deduct the business portion of the depreciation and actual expenses for operating the car. Use the IRS standard mileage rate of $.575/mile in 2015. Multiply your business miles by the rate to calculate your deduction. Assuming you're a sole proprietor you'll include a Schedule C to your return and claim the deduction on that form.",
"First of all, Dilip's answer explains well how the business deductions generally work. For most (big) expenses you depreciate it. However, in some cases you need to capitalize it, which is another accounting method. When you capitalize your expense, it becomes part of the basis of the product you're creating. Since you're an engineer, this might be relevant for you. Talk to your tax adviser. How exactly you deduct/depreciate/capitalize things, and what expense goes which way depends greatly on the laws and jurisdictions. Even in the US, different states have different laws, and the IRS and State laws don't have to conform (unfortunately). For example, the limitations on Sec. 179 deduction in 2010-2011 were 20 times higher on Federal level than in the State of California. This could have lead to cases where you fully deducted your expense on your Federal tax return, but need to continue and depreciate it on your State return (or vice versa). Good tax adviser is crucial to avoid or manage these cases.",
"\"Worksheets/ Documentation: (From my experience filing my business deductions through several tax preparers.) Keep all your calculations, but only submit the calculations and worksheets requested by the tax form. Most travel deductions are just a category total. If the IRS wants more info, it will ask for it. Information from the book Home Business Tax Deductions (from Nolo) (2012): Traveling with kids: In chapter 9 (\"\"Leaving Town: Business Travel\"\"), in the section \"\"Taking People With You\"\", it specifically discusses your situation. Paraphrasing, it says that you can deduct the amount any eligible expenses would have cost you if you were traveling without your kids. So, you can deduct the cost the smaller hotel room that you and your wife would have normally rented if you were alone. How your side trips affect your business deductions: According to the book, since you spent 50% or more of your time on business activities while traveling in the U.S.: Deducting meals shared with your kids: You can deduct meals as either entertainment or travel expenses. I would recommend you buy one of Nolo's books on deductions, as it goes into much more detail than I do here.\"",
"No, you can't claim personal expenses as business expenses. What is the alternative to paying someone to do your chores? Letting the chores go undone. How does it affect your business if your household chores go undone? It doesn't; it only affects your personal life--that's why they are personal expenses.",
"\"About deducting mortgage interest: No, you can not deduct it unless it is qualified mortgage interest. \"\"Qualified mortgage interest is interest and points you pay on a loan secured by your main home or a second home.\"\" (Tax Topic 505). According to the IRS, \"\"if you rent out the residence, you must use it for more than 14 days or more than 10% of the number of days you rent it out, whichever is longer.\"\" Regarding being taxed on income received from the property, if you claim the foreign tax credit you will not be double taxed. According to the IRS, \"\"The foreign tax credit intends to reduce the double tax burden that would otherwise arise when foreign source income is taxed by both the United States and the foreign country from which the income is derived.\"\" (from IRS Topic 856 - Foreign Tax Credit) About property taxes: From my understanding, these cannot be claimed for the foreign tax credit but can be deducted as business expenses. There are various exceptions and stipulations based on your circumstance, so you need to read the official publications and get professional tax advice. Here's an excerpt from Publication 856 - Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals: \"\"In most cases, only foreign income taxes qualify for the foreign tax credit. Other taxes, such as foreign real and personal property taxes, do not qualify. But you may be able to deduct these other taxes even if you claim the foreign tax credit for foreign income taxes. In most cases, you can deduct these other taxes only if they are expenses incurred in a trade or business or in the production of income. However, you can deduct foreign real property taxes that are not trade or business expenses as an itemized deduction on Schedule A (Form 1040).\"\" Note and disclaimer: Sources: IRS Tax Topic 505 Interest Expense, IRS Real Estate (Taxes, Mortgage Interest, Points, Other Property Expenses) , IRS Topic 514 Foreign Tax Credit , and Publication 856 Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals\"",
"If it's a legitimate cost of doing business, it's as deductible as any other cost of doing business. (Reminder: be careful about the distinctions between employee and contractor; the IRS gets annoyed if you don't handle this correctly.)",
"I'm not an expert, but here's my $0.02. Deductions for business expenses are subject to the 2% rule. In other words, you can only deduct that which exceeds 2% of your AGI (Adjusted Gross Income). For example, say you have an AGI of $50,000, and you buy a laptop that costs $800. You won't get a write-off from that, because 2% of $50,000 is $1,000, and you can only deduct business-related expenses in excess of that $1,000. If you have an AGI of $50,000 and buy a $2,000 laptop, you can deduct a maximum of $1,000 ($2,000 minus 2% of $50,000 is $2,000 - $1,000 = $1,000). Additionally, you can write off the laptop only to the extent that you use it for business. So in other words, if you have an AGI of $50,000 and buy that $2,000 laptop, but only use it 50% for business, you can only write off $500. Theoretically, they can ask for verification of the business use of your laptop. A log or a diary would be what I would provide, but I'm not an IRS agent.",
"I looked at Publication 463 (2014), Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses for examples. I thought this was the mot relevant. No regular place of work. If you have no regular place of work but ordinarily work in the metropolitan area where you live, you can deduct daily transportation costs between home and a temporary work site outside that metropolitan area. Generally, a metropolitan area includes the area within the city limits and the suburbs that are considered part of that metropolitan area. You cannot deduct daily transportation costs between your home and temporary work sites within your metropolitan area. These are nondeductible commuting expenses. This only deals with transportation to and from the temporary work site. Transportation expenses do not include expenses you have while traveling away from home overnight. Those expenses are travel expenses discussed in chapter 1 . However, if you use your car while traveling away from home overnight, use the rules in this chapter to figure your car expense deduction. See Car Expenses , later. You will also have to consider the cost of tolls of the use of a trailer if those apply.",
"Keep this rather corny acronym in mind. Business expenses must be CORN: As other posters have already pointed out, certain expenses that are capital items (computers, furniture, etc.) must be depreciated over several years, but you have a certain amount of capital items that you can write off in the current tax year.",
"IRS Publication 463 is a great resource to help you understand what you can and can't deduct. It's not a yes/no question, it depends on the exact company use, other use, and contemporaneous record keeping.",
"I suggest to start charging slightly more than needed to cover expenses. All you need is to show profit. It doesn't have to be significant - a couple of hundred of dollars of consistent yearly profit should suffice to show a profitable business. Then you can deduct on Schedule C all the related expenses. The caveat is that the profit (after the deduction of the expenses will be a bit smaller) will be subject to not only income tax but also the self-employment tax. But at least you'll pay tax on profit that is not entirely phantom. I remember suggesting you getting a professional consultation on this matter a while ago. You should really do that - talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state, it may be well worth the $100-200 fee they'll charge for the consultation (if at all...).",
"The basis of the home is the cost of land and material. That's it. Your time isn't added to basis. No different than if you spend 1000 hours in a soup kitchen. You deduct miles for your car and expenses you can document but you can't deduct your time. Over 2 years, you could have a gain up to $500K per married couple and pay no tax.",
"\"I'm going to look just at purchase price. Essentially, you can't always claim the whole of the purchase price (or 95% your case) in the year (the accounting period) of purchase, but you get a percentage of the value of the car each year, called writing down allowance, which is a capital allowance. It is similar to depreciation, but based on HRMC's own formula. In fact, it seems you probably can claim 95% of the purchase price, because the value is less than £1000. The logic is a bit involved, but I hope you can understand it. You could also claim simplified expenses instead, which is just based on a rate per mile, but you can't claim both. Note, by year I mean whatever your account period is. This could be the normal financial year, but you would probably have a better idea about this. See The HMRC webpage on this for more details. The big idea is that you record the value of any assets you are claiming writing down allowance on in one of a number of pools, that attract the same rate of writing down allowance, so you don't need to record the value of each asset separately. They are similar to accounts in accounting, so they have an opening balance, and closing balance. If you use an asset for personal use, it needs a pool to itself. HRMC call that a single asset pool. So, to start with, look at the Business Cars section, and look at the Rates for Cars section, to determine the rate you can claim. Each one links to a further article, which gives more detail if you need it. Your car is almost certainly in the special rate category. Special rate is 8% a year, main rate is 18%, and First year allowance is essentially 100%. Then, you look at the Work out what you can claim article. That talks you through the steps. I'll go through your example. You would have a pool for your car, which would end the account period before you bought the vehicle at zero (step 1). You then add the value of the car in the period you bought it (Step 2). You would reduce the value of the pool if you dispose of it in the same year (Step 3). Because the car is worth less than £1,000 (see the section on \"\"If you have £1,000 or less in your pool\"\"), you would normally be able to claim the whole value of the pool (the value of the car) in the first accounting period, and reduce the value of the pool to zero. As you use the car for personal use, you only claim 95% of the value, but still reduce the pool to zero. See the section on \"\"Items you use outside your business\"\". This £1000 is adjusted if your accounting period lasts more or less than 12 months. Once the pool is down to zero that it you don't need to think about it any more for tax purposes, apart from if you are claiming other motoring expenses, or if you sell it. It gets more complicated if the car is more expensive. I'll go through an example for a car worth £2,000. Then, after Step 3, on the year of purchase, you would reduce the value of the pool by 8%, and claim 95% of the reduction. This would be a 160 reduction, and 95%*160 = 152 claim, leaving the value of 1860 in the pool. You then follow the same steps for the next year, start with 1840 in the pool, reduce the value by 8%, then claim 95% of the reduction. This continues until you sell or dispose of the car (Step 3), or the value of the pool is 1000 or less, then you claim all of it in that year. Selling the car, or disposing of the car is discussed in the Capital allowances when you sell an asset article. The basic idea is that if you have already reduced the value of the pool to zero, the price you sell the car for is added you your profits for that year (See \"\"If you originally claimed 100% of the item\"\"), if you still have anything in the pool, you reduce the value of the pool by the sale value, and if it reduces to below zero (to -£200, say), you add that amount (£200, in this case), to your profits. If the value is above zero, you keep applying writing down allowances. In your case, that seems to just means if you sell the car in the same year you buy it, you claim the difference (or 95% of it) as writing down allowance, and if you do it later, you claim the purchase price in the year of purchase, and add 95% of the sale price to your profits in the year you sell it. I'm a bit unclear about starting \"\"to use it outside your business\"\", which doesn't seem to apply if you use it outside the business to start with. You can claim simplified expenses for vehicles, if you are a sole trader or partner, but not if you claim capital allowances (such as writing down allowances) on them, or you include a separate expense in your accounts for motoring expenses. It's a flat rate of 45p a mile for the first 10,000 miles, and 25p per mile after that, for cars, and 24p a mile for motorcycles. See the HRMC page on Simplifed Mileage expenses for details. For any vehicle you decide to either claim capital allowances claim running costs separately, or claim simplified mileage expenses, and \"\"Once you use the flat rates for a vehicle, you must continue to do so as long as you use that vehicle for your business.you have to stick with that decision for that vehicle\"\". In your case, it seems you can claim 95% of the purchase price in the accounting period you buy it, and if you sell it you add 95% of the sale price to your profits in that accounting period. It gets more complicated if you have a car worth more than £1000, adjusted for the length of the accounting period. Also, if you change how you use it, consult the page on selling selling an asset, as you may have disposed of it. You can also use simplified mileage expenses, but then you can't claim capital allowances, or claim running costs separately for that car. I hope that makes sense, please comment if not, and I'll try to adjust the explanation.\"",
"As noted above but with sources An improvement materially adds to the value of your home, considerably prolongs its useful life, or adapts it to new uses. You must add the cost of any improvements to the basis of your home. You cannot deduct these costs. Source Page 11, Adjusted Basis, Improvements Second, A repair keeps your home in an ordinary, efficient operating condition. It does not add to the value of your home or prolong its life. Repairs include repainting your home inside or outside, fixing your gutters or floors, fixing leaks or plastering, and replacing broken window panes. You cannot deduct repair costs and generally cannot add them to the basis of your home. Source Page 12, Adjusted Basis, Repairs versus improvements Generally, an expense for repairing or maintaining your rental property may be deducted if you are not required to capitalize the expense. You must capitalize any expense you pay to improve your rental property. An expense is for an improvement if it results in a betterment to your property, restores your property, or adapts your property to a new or different use. Source Page 5, Repairs and Improvements Good Luck,",
"It looks like you can. Take a look at these articles: http://www.googobits.com/articles/1747-taking-an-itemized-deduction-for-job-expenses.html http://www.bankrate.com/finance/money-guides/business-expenses-that-benefit-you.aspx http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tax_tips/tax_planning/employment.html But of course, go to the source: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p529/ar02.html#en_US_publink100026912 From publication 529: You can deduct certain expenses as miscellaneous itemized deductions on Schedule A (Form 1040 or Form 1040NR). You can claim the amount of expenses that is more than 2% of your adjusted gross income. You figure your deduction on Schedule A by subtracting 2% of your adjusted gross income from the total amount of these expenses. Your adjusted gross income is the amount on Form 1040, line 38, or Form 1040NR, line 36. I hope that helps. Happy deducting!",
"And he has to pay for it every home repair and every month the property sets empty. His loss each month is not $250, but probably closer to $500. In generally you need to clear at least $200 ABOVE PTI (principle, taxes and interest) to cover repair and the like to property. From your post, it sounds like your dad was forced into the land-lord business by the recession. Unless he plans to hold the property until its rental value has increased by $500 a month, he should consider selling it and writing-off the loss. Losing money bit by bit on a house isn't a tax write-off event. Selling a property for less than you bought it for generally is. FYI, I got the $500/month loss by assuming that repairs/emptiness/etc will cost you about $200 a month, and added $50 for your dad's time managing the property.",
"IRS Publication 529 is the go-to document. Without being a tax professional, I'd say if the dues and subscriptions help you in the running of your business, then they're deductible. You're on your own if you take my advice (or don't). ;)",
"Most items used in business have to be depreciated; you get to deduct a small fraction of the cost each year depending on the lifetime of the item as per IRS rules. That is, you cannot assume a one-year life for an electronic item even if it will be obsolete in three months. Some items can be expensed; you get to deduct the entire cost in the first year but then if you don't stay in business, e.g. you get a job paying wages and are no longer self-employed, you have to recapture this and pay taxes on the amount recaptured in the later year. With respect to consumer-type electronics such as an iPad or laptop, it helps to have a separate item for personal use that you can show in case of an audit.",
"If you and your wife are owners, your tickets might be a business expense against the rental income. 'Might' as in the IRS will be happy to audit you, seeing the kids went as well and prorating the expense as say 25% was really business, the rest, family vacation. If this $4000 write off is the make or break for this deal, don't do it.",
"Not authoritative, but according to TurboTax: If your new cell phone acts as both your business and personal phone, you are only allowed to deduct the portion used for business from your taxable income. It’s important for you to hang on to your itemized phone bill and receipts to ensure that you’re deducting the right amounts and to keep records of your deduction. Since the usage you're describing sounds like a very small amount of the overall usage, it will probably be difficult to justify a business expense deduction.",
"\"You are \"\"pool[ing] the sales from both houses as downpayment on the new house.\"\" But they are going to pay you rent. Your question as it stands, just opens more questions. What, exactly is the ownership of the new house? If your's (and your wife's) was the money a gift? Ignoring the gift, if that's what it is, and if the in-law suite is 25% of the house value, you have a rental. You claim 25% of the expenses, including property tax and mortgage interest, along with 25% of the utilities, unless their part has its own meters. That's a start, if you add details, I may edit my answer. (Not to be pedantic, but whose parents are they. They can't be \"\"our in-laws,\"\" can they?)\"",
"Yes, use a separate Form 8829 for each home used for business during the year. The top of 8829 includes that exact instruction.",
"Yes, you can. That the books were purchased from abroad is irrelevant: you incurred an expense in the course of earning your income. If the books are expensive (>$300 per set iirc) you will need to deprecate them over a reasonable life time rather than claiming the entire amount up front. It doesn't matter whether what you got was a VAT Invoice; as long as you have some reasonable documentation of the expense you're ok.",
"Bartering is a tricky discussion. Yes, it definitely applies when you are self-employed and do a job that you would charge anyone else for, but what if you are helping a friend in your spare time? If you receive something in exchange, the value of the item you received would be your income, but what if you don't receive anything in exchange? If the company bought a computer that they loan to you to do occasional work for them, there's no reason you couldn't take the computer home and have that company retain ownership of the property. They could still expense the depreciation of the computer without giving it to you. If it were a car though, you would have to count mileage for personal use as income. What if you exchange occasional tech support for the use of an empty desk and Internet connection? As long as they aren't renting desks for money to others, there's probably no additional marginal cost to them if they allow you to use the space, so the fair market value question breaks down.",
"If I sell it for $50 can I write off the $50 loss. Only if you can establish that it is a normal part of your business and that you did not get $50 worth of use out of it. That's the technical, legal argument. As a practical matter, it's unlikely that they'll ding you for selling something after using it, as they won't know. If they did catch you, you would be in trouble. You can't deduct loss due to personal use. The larger problem is that if you sell one TV for a $50 loss, they aren't going to believe that you are in the business of selling TVs. If you sell a larger amount for a loss, then they still are unlikely to believe that you are in business. If you sell a large amount for an overall gain, they are unlikely to notice that you took a loss on one TV. They could only notice that if they were already auditing you, as that wouldn't be visible in your tax forms.",
"Alright, IRS Publication 463: Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses Business and personal use. If you use your car for both business and personal purposes, you must divide your expenses between business and personal use. You can divide your expense based on the miles driven for each purpose. Example. You are a sales representative for a clothing firm and drive your car 20,000 miles during the year: 12,000 miles for business and 8,000 miles for personal use. You can claim only 60% (12,000 ÷ 20,000) of the cost of operating your car as a business expense Obviously nothing helpful in the code. So I would use option 1, weight the maintenance-related mileage by the proportion of business use. Although if you use your car for business a lot (and perhaps have a spouse with a car), an argument could be made for 3. So I would consider my odds of being audited (even lower this year due to IRS budget cuts) and choose 1 or 3. And of course never throw anything away until you're room temperature.",
"\"I have done several days of additional research on this and found out that it appears I can deduct the cost of the books against a single year's royalty income by claiming a Section 179 deduction. The steps are as follows: (1) Write the maximum amount of property you can claim under section 179 on line 1 of Form 4562. (2) Add up the total cost of section 179 property you began using during the tax year, including books, and record the amount on line 2. (3) Write the limit of your deductions on line 3. (4) Subtract the amount on line 2 from the amount on line 3 and record it on line 4. If line 3 is larger than line 2, simply write \"\"0\"\" on line 4, then subtract the amount on line 4 from the amount on line 1 and record on line 5. Step 5 (5) Describe the property and books on line 6 and record the cost of each in section b. Write the amount of the expense you are claiming for each item in section c of line 6. You can claim the entire cost of the books. (6) Add the amount in line 6 c to any amounts on line 7 and write the total on line 8. Write either the amount on line 8 or the amount on 5 on line 9, depending on which is smaller. (7) Write the amount of your Schedule C income on line 11, unless it is greater than $500,000. On line 12, write the amount of your deduction, which is the total of line 9 plus any carry-over you may have had from the previous year. (8) Record the amount of your deduction for section 179 books and property on line 13 of your Schedule C, not line 22. Include form 4562 when you hand in your tax return. source: \"\"How to Deduct Books for Self-Employed\"\" by Emily Weller\"",
"In most cases the rent paid by the company would be include as part of your salary for tax purposes, so your income would still be seen as $5000 per month.",
"In some circumstances losses from self-employment can be offset against total income and/or capital gains. If this applies to you may be able to claim back some of the tax taken by PAYE from your day job. You can also to some extent carry the loss backwards into previous tax years or forward into the next one if you can't use it fully this year. HMRC have some information available on the current rules: When you can claim losses You can claim: But You can’t claim:",
"The answer on the Canadian Government's website is pretty clear: Most employees cannot claim employment expenses. You cannot deduct the cost of travel to and from work, or other expenses, such as most tools and clothing. However, that is most likely related to a personal vehicle. There is a deduction related to Public Transportation: You can claim cost of monthly public transit passes or passes of longer duration such as an annual pass for travel within Canada on public transit for 2016. The second sleeping residence is hard to justify as the individual is choosing to work in this town and this individual is choosing to spent the night there - it is not currently a work requirement. As always, please consult a certified tax professional in your country for any final determinations on personal (and corporate) tax laws and filings.",
"Assuming your country is the United States there is. See schedule C line 9 and the corresponding instructions. There are many rules associated with this, in some cases the entire purchase can be written off but typically if the truck is only used for business. Most people write off partial usage in the form of credits for mileage. You are best to consult with a CPA once your business earns a profit. Good luck.",
"Ah, I did some more research and apparently Rental Income is considered Passive Income, and as such the IRS does not allow a net loss to exist, but you can carry the loss over into the next year. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc425.html Generally, losses from passive activities that exceed the income from passive activities are disallowed for the current year. You can carry forward disallowed passive losses to the next taxable year. A similar rule applies to credits from passive activities. So in the event in a loss on my rental business activity, I simply pay no tax on it, and deduct the remainder in income in 2017 from taxes. I don't make any changes to my Consulting income at all.",
"How is it a write off? I write off my mortgage interest, it reduces my taxable income, but has no impact on my EBIT. If I paid workers more, my EBIT would go down and, due to this, my taxable income would go down. One is independent of my earnings, the other is a function of it. The former is a write off, the latter isn't, right?",
"Yes. You must register for GST as well, if you will be making over the threshold (currently $60,000). That's probably a bonus for you, as your home office expenses will mostly include GST, but your income will most likely be zero-rated. Check with an accountant or with the IRD directly. Just be certain to put aside enough money from each payment to cover income tax, GST and ACC. You will get a very large bill in your second year of business.",
"\"When I have a question about my income taxes, the first place I look is generally the Giant Book of Income Tax Information, Publication 17 (officially called \"\"Your Federal Income Tax\"\"). This looks to be covered in Chapter 26 on \"\"Car Expenses and Other Employee Business Expenses\"\". It's possible that there's something in there that applies to you if you need to temporarily commute to a place that isn't your normal workplace for a legitimate business reason or other business-related travel. But for your normal commute from your home to your normal workplace it has this to say: Commuting expenses. You cannot deduct the costs of taking a bus, trolley, subway, or taxi, or of driving a car between your home and your main or regular place of work. These costs are personal commuting expenses. You cannot deduct commuting expenses no matter how far your home is from your regular place of work. You cannot deduct commuting expenses even if you work during the commuting trip.\""
] |
[
"Be ruthlessly meticulous about the IRS regulations for deducting a home office. If it's allowed, it's allowed.",
"Tax regulations vary from country to country - some permitting more deductions, some less - but here are a few guidelines. As regards the home-office: As regards the deductions: Think of it like this: in order to have space for a home-office you needed a bigger home. That leads to increased rates, heating, insurance and so on. Many tax regulators recognise that these are genuine expenses. The alternative is to rent a separate office and incur greater expenses, leading to increased deductions and less overall tax paid (which won't finance the deficit). The usual test for deductions is: was the expense legitimately incurred in the pursuit of revenue? The flexibility permitted will vary by tax authority but you can frequently deduct more than you expected.",
"Before starting to do this, make sure that you are squeaky clean in all aspects of your tax preparation and are prepared to back up any claims that you make with documentation. Home office deductions are a huge red flag that often trigger audits. Follow mbhunter's advice and be incredibly meticulous about following the rules and keeping records."
] |
2551
|
How to find cheaper alternatives to a traditional home telephone line?
|
[
"413832",
"450742",
"143100"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"143100",
"450742",
"413832",
"112904",
"267318",
"376923",
"209584",
"482638",
"522613",
"563122",
"333113",
"378396",
"486098",
"80211",
"482974",
"272295",
"38066",
"229249",
"562286",
"230419",
"535533",
"166208",
"186355",
"418546",
"495574",
"490869",
"6212",
"296661",
"379413",
"540205",
"374950",
"286786",
"157644",
"582490",
"44518",
"327526",
"120171",
"23873",
"118340",
"2562",
"368813",
"597243",
"77774",
"498288",
"96562",
"51919",
"137675",
"188571",
"510485",
"218144",
"550360",
"333440",
"108461",
"238747",
"296725",
"40527",
"14765",
"561344",
"524125",
"328375",
"96666",
"412142",
"506027",
"117976",
"361383",
"182443",
"209269",
"184924",
"250135",
"418888",
"191925",
"443879",
"55969",
"250326",
"346610",
"68367",
"124142",
"505580",
"592436",
"401960",
"290325",
"116474",
"269380",
"52720",
"177714",
"303293",
"53031",
"161894",
"273172",
"508555",
"511942",
"151903",
"46274",
"269724",
"443859",
"448592",
"581422",
"375658",
"162587",
"555506"
] |
[
"Try to use VOIP service provider or web enabled conference calling services in your home phone. Now a days communication technologies have seen a boost as well as integration of different formats and platforms which easily reduces phone bills of a user. Service such as UberConference, Skype, Webinar etc enables audio/video as well as web conferencing feature for their user. Service tiers such as free plans, basic plans and business plans allow user to use these conference calling services per their need. Have a look at any such service and use it as an alternative of your home phone line.",
"\"How low you can reduce your costs does depend on your calling pattern. How many minutes per month you call locally; call long distance; call internationally; and how many minutes you receive calls for. If all these figures are low, you can be better off with a pay-per-minute service, if any of the outbound figures are high then you could consider a flat-rate \"\"unlimited\"\" service. So that's the first step, determine your needs: don't pay for what you don't need. For example, I barely use a \"\"landline\"\" voip phone any more. But it is still useful for incoming calls, and for 911 service. So I use a prepaid pay-per-minute VOIP company, that has a flat rate (< $2/mo) for the incoming number, an add-on fee for the 911 service (80c/mo), and per-minute costs for outgoing calls (1c/min or less to US, Canada, western Europe). I use my own Obitalk box (under $50 to buy). There is a bit of setup and learning needed, but the end result means my \"\"landline\"\" bill is usually under $4/mo (no other taxes or fees). Companies in this BYOD (bring your own device) space in the US/Canada include (in alphabetic order), Anveo, Callcentric, Callwithus, Futurenine, Localphone, Voip.ms and many others. A good discussion forum to learn more about them is the VOIP forum at DSLreports (although it can be a bit technical). There is also a reviews section at that site. If your usage is higher (you make lots of calls to a variety of numbers), most of these companies, and others, have flat-rate bundles, probably similar to what you have now. Comparing them depends on your usage pattern, so again that's the first thing to consider, then you know what to shop for. If you need features like voicemail or voicemail transcription, be sure to look at whether you need an expensive bundle with it in, or whether you're better off paying for that seperately. If your outbound calls are to a limited number of numbers, such as relatives far away or internationally, consider getting a similar VOIP system for those relatives. Most VOIP companies have free \"\"on network\"\" calls between their customers, regardless of the country they are in. So your most common, and most lengthy calls, could be free. The Obitalk boxes (ATA's: analog telephone adapters) have an advantage here, if you install them in yours and relatives houses. As well as allowing you to use any of the \"\"bring your own device\"\" VOIP companies like those listed above, they have their own Obitalk network allowing free calls between their boxes, and also to/from their iOS and Android apps. There are other ATA's from other companies (Cisco have well-known models), and other ways to make free calls between them, so Obitalk isn't the only option. I mentioned above I pay for the incoming number. Not every supplier has incoming numbers available in every area, you need to check this. Some can port-in (transfer in) your existing number, if you are attached to it, but not all can, so again check. You can also get incoming numbers in other areas or countries, that ring on your home line (without forwarding costs). This means you can have a number near a cluster of relatives, who can call you with a local call. Doesn't directly save you money (each number has a monthly fee) but could save you having to call them back!\"",
"Cheapest is one thing. You can absolutely shop in the market and find the lowest possible price. I can think of three places to shop, each with an up and downside. I would think that what you really mean is the best price for the service. Just like shopping for a car you have to decide what you need vs what is nice to have. Decide what features you need. Do you need long distance? Do you need caller id? Do you need to call technophobic friends and family? Find out what you have available to you through associations. Often schools, work or a club you belong to have deals for service discounts. Look at your insurance plan or AAA membership for the crazy discounts. Decide what kinds of service will meet your needs. Buy the cheapest service. DO NOT ENTER A CONTRACT. Even if the price is slightly lower. At least not at first. If you try out your service and love it, enter the contract if and only if the total price measured over length of the contract is less. With cell phones especially, it is absolutely possible to save money buying month to month vs a 2 year contract. Even when you buy equipment for full price up front. Ask for the bare minimum service from your local phone company. Because phone companies are often regulated monopolies, they might have a bare minimum level of service they are required to offer by the municipality. They probably don't advertise it or push it, but it might exist if you call and ask. You basically get a dial tone. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/local-local-toll-and-long-distance-calling Price is dictated by a government board, so you don't have to worry about shopping for deals Not the cheapest possible solution This is popular plan the youth oriented market, but more and more people of all demographics are using their cellphones only. There are downsides (911, etc) and shopping for the best cell phone plan can be a full time job, but it does offer a way to save money by simply not having home phone service. Might be possible to score organizational discounts through work or groups you belong to Cellphones require batteries, and can go dead (not good for emergencies) Voice over Internet Protocol uses your existing Internet connection. You can buy a cheap regular phone and plug it into the VOIP box and use it like any other phone. VOIP can either be very inexpensive for all the features you get, or just plain inexpensive. There are providers who sell a monthly service, yearly service or no service plan at all. (You buy a device and get service as long as you own the device.) Taxes to the government are always due, so nothing is ever free. Sometimes the provider is just computer software, so a minimalist would like that. Emergency services are more reliable than cellular (if you follow extra steps to set them up) Can be confusing to buy. Some require contracts, some special devices, some require a bit of technical know how to setup. Be sure to evaluate the total cost of ownership when comparing prices",
"seriously...I'm the only one that is recommending VoIP.ms? It costs a buck a month to keep your number and you can get DIDs (numbers) from other countries that point to the same phone. You'll need a ATA though to hook up your normal phone to the internet...I use the Cisco PAP2T-NA and it works wonders with good QoS on the router. Bonus: This also allows you to do long distance phone calls on your smart phone if you have 3g/wifi internet access....pretty awesome stuff. Extra Bonus: if you switch family members onto voip.ms too then you can phone them for free. I have quite a few around the world and most of my long distance has been completely cut out of my bills. Monthly bills are ~3-5 bucks a month based on usage. I challenge anyone else to beat that! Edit: just realized Verizon is cell service only -- DOH! Can you tell I'm not from the states? :P Leaving this post here because it could help someone in a better choice for their wired phone service non-the-less. Long distance thing is also a plus for your smart phone ;)",
"This is more of a general answer about your situation than a specific answer to your question. You might consider getting a SIP telephone number based in the US, or an even easier to use IP based phone number. That way you can use it through your Internet connection and make eaiser calls to US companies that you still have a business relationship with.",
"C) None of the above. I mostly use Lync/Skype/Facebook/Whatsapp for making calls on the road. Wifi is ubiquitous these days, Project Fi and T-Mobile let you freely roam data outside the USA and I believe most European carriers are similar",
"voip service providers We provide TaTa voiz, New voiz, 24 dialer and itel mobile dialer. All are good working in UAE, Oman, Saudi Arabia and others countries.If you need good quality dialer with good quality sound, you may contact with us for reseller panel or calling card. MASUM salestalkdialer@gmail.com, mobiledialer@yahoo.com +8801711062213, 8801673706969 Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook",
"For alternative financing, pursue a line of credit or a Home Equity Line of Credit. (From the comments of @ChrisInEdmonton and @littleadv on the original question)",
"Nowadays telephones can do so much more than just make calls. Using a VOIP business phone provides you with many additional systems features not available in ordinary phones. Here are five features of phones that every business needs.",
"Internet Phone Hello dear, You can make call with voip dialer by using internet phone. i have good quality Mobile dialer. Just install dialer software and give login and password then make call.,We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–700/750/1200/1350 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 1500 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213",
"low rate voip i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available.zonefone, 1legcall, fonefamily,cool dialer, trivigo dialer, talk dialer, new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, web dialer, kwickcannect dialer, klaamclear dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer. Reseller available. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ MASUM SARKER Contact email:- salestalkdialer@gmail.com, mobiledialer@yahoo.com Contact phone:- +8801711062213,01673706969",
"My wife just got a Moto G off Amazon for [$80](http://www.amazon.com/Moto-Boost-Mobile-Prepaid-Phone/dp/B00HPP3VW2/) and is using it on Ting, which means if she keeps her mobile data usage down the phone should cost us about $10 - $15 a month. It is an amazingly good phone for that price.",
"SIP Trunking & PRI Business Voice Solutions - SIP Trunking is the ideal way to use your existing IP PBX equipment to take advantage of the latest Voice over IP technologies and benefits. It's easy to simply your network by using data lines to pass voice and data traffic while still using your existing Cisco, Avaya, NEC or Mitel equipment.",
"voip voice Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile dialer. Just install dialer software and give login and password then make call.,We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–700/750/1200/1350 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 1500 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213",
"New technologies continue to emerge rapidly to make things easier for us at homes and offices. But not all of them are appreciated by the users and most of them are discontinued after not receiving the anticipated feedback. However, one technology that emerged as a boon for businesses is of the VoIP or the Voice over Internet Protocol system.",
"Get high quality telephone systems from a company that has always been committed to providing innovative technology and communication solutions to enterprises of all sizes. You'll get all the essential tools that you need in today’s fast paced business environment.",
"telephone voip call Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile and pc dialer.We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–800 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 800/1450 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213",
"Cheap Voip calls Hello everybody, i have good quality Mobile and pc dialer.We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us.Looking for Reseller. Dialer download link : You can use all dialer in one account India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–700/750/1200/1350 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 1500 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213 Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook",
"ip to ip voip i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available.zonefone, 1legcall, fonefamily,cool dialer, trivigo dialer, talk dialer, new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, web dialer, kwickcannect dialer, klaamclear dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer. Reseller available. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ MASUM SARKER Contact email:- salestalkdialer@gmail.com, mobiledialer@yahoo.com Contact phone:- +8801711062213,01673706969",
"I typically only purchase $10-$20 for each of our phones yearly as we do not use them very much. The first year, I purchased $100 for each, but after that, any amount will continue service for a year and you keep/roll over any unused minutes. Can't beat $$20-$60 per year for two phones...I just wish their coverage was much better in rural areas. I wish Verizon offered the same deal as their coverage is superior in Ohio.",
"DirecTV... Time Warner.... Netflix... 2 iPhones (= 2*Data plan).... $280 a month on pure luxuries. >10% of your net income. Of course, you may be needing at least some of this, no-one wants to come home and stare at bare walls. But if you have Netflix - maybe you don't need DirecTV? Or the other way around? And maybe DSL internet will be cheaper than cable? Maybe prepaid $1/day AT&T GoPhone or similar plan would be better than paying $151 for two iPhones?",
"Voip for mobile Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile dialer. Just install dialer software and give login and password then make call.,We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–800 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 800/1450 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213",
"Voip Business Become a reseller or card seller i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available.zonefone, 1legcall, fonefamily,cool dialer, trivigo dialer, talk dialer, new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, web dialer, kwickcannect dialer, klaamclear dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ For more countries call rate please contact with us. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213, 8801673706969",
"Reseller i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available.zonefone, 1legcall, fonefamily,cool dialer, trivigo dialer, talk dialer, new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, web dialer, kwickcannect dialer, klaamclear dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ For more countries call rate please contact with us. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213",
"Can't have a mobile workforce when you're tied to your desk because of your phone. Also why have a phone meeting when you can use Skype. The company I work for has plans to get rid of landlines as well. I still have one but the only calls I get are unsolicited sales calls.",
"voip calls Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile and pc dialer.We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–800 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 800/1450 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213",
"The best office and business telephone systems offered by this company come with features such as telephony, instant messaging, video conferencing and data sharing, into a single robust IP platform. The services are really affordable and customer services are simply unmatched.",
"Voip Business Become a reseller or card seller i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available.zonefone, 1legcall, fonefamily,cool dialer, trivigo dialer, talk dialer, new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, web dialer, kwickcannect dialer, klaamclear dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ MASUM SARKER Contact email:- salestalkdialer@gmail.com, mobiledialer@yahoo.com Contact phone:- +8801711062213,01673706969",
"Voip call Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile and pc dialer.We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–800 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 800/1450 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213 Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook",
"I found this page at CNN Money, that lists 5 viable alternatives to Paypal, namely: I would suggest looking for unbiased sources like CNN rather than searching for alternatives and happening upon the merchant's sites themselves. Hope this helps!",
"I feel like this change is the first of many that are going to continue to happen in the business world because there is a younger wiser generation arising that appreciate the power of technology and will get rid of these things that are not as efficient or old fashioned such as the landline.",
"Mobile Voip Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile dialer. Just install dialer software and give login and password then make call.,We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–700/750/1200/1350 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 1500 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213",
"voip reseller Voip Business Become a reseller or card seller i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available.zonefone, 1legcall, fonefamily,cool dialer, trivigo dialer, talk dialer, new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, web dialer, kwickcannect dialer, klaamclear dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ For more countries call rate please contact with us. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213, 8801673706969",
"voip voip i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available., we sell new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, itel mobile dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer., if you need reseller panel or calling card, you may contact with us. we believe quality service with long time relationship business. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ MASUM SARKER Contact email:- salestalkdialer@gmail.com, mobiledialer@yahoo.com Contact phone:- +8801711062213,01673706969",
"Google Adwords, they really push local. Set up a simple Wordpress blog and set up calls as conversions. It should get you customers for just a few bucks per click. Word of warning, Adwords can be costly if you don't know what you are doing. Message me if you wanna know more.",
"There are certain companies that will let you pay a flat fee per month instead of billing you for consumption. You should call your providers and ask them if they have such an option available; this way budgeting will be easy. :)",
"voip calls Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile and pc dialer.We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–700/750/1200/1350mins Pakistan Mobile—- 1500 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 08801711062213",
"Voip Reseller Become a reseller or card seller i have good quality mobile dialer and pc2phone reseller available.zonefone, 1legcall, fonefamily,cool dialer, trivigo dialer, talk dialer, new voiz,TaTa voiz, 24 dialer, web dialer, kwickcannect dialer, klaamclear dialer, fring and nimbuzz sip dialer. Rates>>> BD silver 01———————– 0.0196$ BD gold 0880 ——- 0.0185$ BD IGW ——- 0.0365$ BD WHITE PREMIUM 00880—-0.0357$ INDIA 91 LAND——————— 0.0142$ INDIA 919 MOBILE—————– 0.0112$ INDIA 9194 BSNL—————– 0.0143$ PAKISTAN92———————— 0.0253$ PAKISTAN MOBILE923————0.0162$ For more countries call rate please contact with us. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 8801711062213, 8801673706969",
"This is an alternative solution and it will depend where you live as to how you will have to make it work. I am in the UK and there are a number of ways that I can use to access my money from anywhere in the world without high transaction fees. Internet banking takes care of everything else.",
"Well, the article requires a login, so the only input I have is that the floor for cell phone plans is about $25 per month. There's no reason to price a product way below competition unless you don't care about revenue",
"This seems like a great thread to direct me somewhere my girlfriend and I can discover what it would take to quit our 2 room (TV, DVR/Cable box) setup and with cheaper services that give us what we want. Instead of outlining the problem, I am wondering if there is a better subreddit than /business.",
"I have and I was close to going that route but I live in a relatively rural area and the only viable antenna would need to be powered and roof mounted. This is something I would be willing to do as it's still cheaper than having cable/satellite but even with this I won't get many of the games I want (we would still not have clear reception for some major channels). I found that basically, without ESPN I cannot get the majority of the games we want to watch. That's what it boiled down to. No ESPN. I was all set to get an Apple TV (or similar device), a powered antenna, a VPN so I could catch the European soccer I like but I couldn't find a way to get ESPN and that eliminates too many of the games we like to watch.",
"This is a remarkable limit that most business telephones are outfitted with. It fills in the head or colleague. Already, just huge associations may make sense of how to keep running with this limit subsequently of its high cost.",
"Voip for mobile Voip mobile Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile dialer. Just install dialer software and give login and password then make call.,We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–800 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 800/1450 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like. Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 8801711062213, 8801673706969",
"your plan to implement business VoIP phones in your office can look very easy, but the fact is miles away from this. Therefore, in this post, you’ll get a brief glossary of some major terms that we will have to use on a daily basis.",
"\"FTA: \"\"Verizon would give up its television and Internet landline business known as FiOS, which has been a cable alternative for 14 million U.S. homes.\"\" Somebody explain to me !!! WTF does it mean? Are they going to give FiOS over to Comcast?\"",
"In Chicago, for HD and dvr, typical price for phone/internet/tv bundle is about 100-120 a month. My parents pay double that because they make no effort to look for the deals. But that's for several hundred channels, not sure whether programming is comparable in France.",
"How many cable providers can you choose at your house? We can choose from exactly one. We could get DSL at 1/3 the speed. High speed internet is pretty much a monopoly in this country, and is able to charge monopoly prices.",
"Depending what country you are from, there may be better alternatives to transfer money internationally. Opening a bank account is complicated, costs money, and international bank transfers are remarkably expensive.",
"\"You can get a \"\"drive-by\"\" appraisal or an assessment from a local real estate agent. This obviously will give you a less precise and not as reliable information as a full appraisal, but will be significantly cheaper.\"",
"[Craig Morganson](http://www.craigmorgansonreports.com/) agrees that it might be beneficial to look around your property and do an evaluation. Do you drink a great deal of bottled water? Those plastic bottles are an environment killer. Contemplate instead putting in a purification unit on your own faucet – these are very inexpensive.",
"Last I checked, all business expenses in regards to * Office Supplies * Stationary * Phone service * Marketing are all tax deductible....so how does cutting those costs save money when you'll get that money back via the corporate tax code?",
"Your best bet would be to find an independent Property and Casualty Insurance agent and buy through him/her. Insurance agents make a commission, yes - BUT - the cost to consumer is THE SAME whether you buy through an agent or through directly through the company. Any P&C agent would be happy to run your numbers for you and tell you what the cheapest deal is. Just make sure you find someone who writes for several different large insurers. Obviously, some P&C Insurance agents are slick salesy types, which can get annoying, but if you find someone nice, he or she can help you out at no cost to you (they are paid by the insurance company they place the business with). If you are straightforward with the agent about exactly what your needs, they can get you quotes quickly and save you a lot of time and hassle.",
"If you are using T-mobile you don't have to put $100 in each year to keep your minutes for a year. Once you spend $100 you get a year with any additional minutes you buy. Buying them $100 at a time is the cheapest way - but when you renew you can renew with only $50 or $30 and you have a year to use them from the last time you bought. I did this this year - only put $50 on each phone because we don't use $100 worth in a year.",
"That all depends on you. The cheaper places are certainly going to cost less, but when it comes to comparing value that is a subjective decision that only you can make. Maybe the more expensive one has an easier to user website, friendlier customer service, or something else you value enough to pay more for trades.",
"Most people use SMS or internet messaging similar to WhatsApp - but WhatsApp is not popular in the US. People use Apple, Google or Facebook services. Since SMS will not work for them in a foreign country, they can only use their internet messaging. Apple people use iMessage. Many other people use Facebook Messenger or Twitter Direct Messages (DMs). It is very important to have a Facebook account for people to link to you (when they write about their trip) - so Messenger should be easy to setup. Google, Facebook, and twitter can run on a cheaper android phone. But many tourists probably have Apple iPhones. iMessages can only be sent from Apple devices. If you have access to an older iPhone (iPhone 4S) - it should be able to still send iMessages. Email is used by everyone, but younger tourists may not like it, and it may be hard for you to check. Google can give you email and messenger for free.",
"Transferwise is a new peer-to-peer service that's setup to lower fees for international money transfers: https://transferwise.com",
"I've used OFX quite a lot for international transfers. They are much faster than a normal international transfer from your bank. Instead it ends up being a local transfer on either end which just works a heck of a lot quicker. They also claim lower exchange rates. In the past we have compared and sometimes found them lower and sometimes found them a little higher. Their fees certainly are lower though. Only thing is I think there was a lag setting up the account initially (they need to contact you by phone), so if you're in a hurry this may be problematic. And yes, you will need internet banking to do this. Since the question is specifically about how to do this in the cheapest way possible, I think the answer is to use internet banking.",
"Options: (personally I did the first and it is working well).",
"US Alarm Companies helps consumers compare services and features from the best home security companies in the industry. This allows you to customize your home alarm system while saving time and money. An alarm system will secure your home, reduce the risk of a break in, and protect your family and property. Listed below are a few good tips that will help you pick the best security system for your home. Consider your home security needs when it comes to purchasing a new security system for your home. If you take a look around your home, you will see that you have many things of value. Computers, TV's, gaming systems, DVD's, jewelry, and priceless personal possessions are all something of value. And while we may not all have expensive family heirlooms to protect, we all have something valuable we would miss if a burglar should make off with it. Imagine your home being burglarized and all of these things were stolen. It would probably be very expensive to replace all the things that were taken, if the items are even replaceable at all. Determine your budget for a new home security system. A good home security system will cost money. You do not need to spend a small fortune to get one, but you will need to spend a little bit of money. By doing your research and comparing home security companies, you can get a rough idea about how much a home security system for your home will run. By knowing this, you will feel secure speaking to any alarm company representative when going over your security system options. Many reputable home security companies will offer to come out to your home and give you a free estimate for a new security system for your home, so its a good idea to get quotes from several companies. Go over all your options with your home security sales representative. Do you want a hardwired or wireless home security system? Do you have an active phone line or will you be using cellular communication as a way for your security system to be monitored? How long is the contract? What happens if you move? These are all questions to ask upfront and based on the answers you receive, should be enough to help you make your choice for a new home security company. Make your final decision. Now that you have narrowed down your choices, it is time to make your final decision on which company and security system you will go with. Always remember that cheaper is not always better. It is always a good idea to use a company you feel the most secure with and who you feel can provide the best security for your home. Sometimes that means paying a little more money for the peace of mind. However, this is the security of your family you are dealing with, you can't really put a price on that.",
"You could look into refinancing with a bank or credit union. But to weed out options quickly, use a service like LendingTree, which can vet multiple options for you a whole lot more quickly than you could probably do yourself. (I don't work for, or get any benefit from LendingTree.) Whatever you do, try to do all the applying within a short span of time, as to not negatively affect your credit score (read here) by creating extraneous inquiries. Then again, if your credit sucks, you might not qualify for a re-fi. If you are turned down, make your payments on time for six months or so, and try again.",
"One thing I would look into is getting a fixed rate home equity loan for a short term. Not a line of credit, but a home equity loan. The main benefit is they typically offer no closing costs. You can get a very low rate provided you move the loan into first position (replace your current mortgage). I know someone who got a 7 year fixed Home Equity Loan, from Regions Bank, for 2.62% no closing costs.",
"\"My dad uses CenturyLink for internet (DSL, only option available in the \"\"sticks\"\") and uses another company for television. I pointed out that he is paying CenturyLink over $75 a month for DSL, when it should be $12.99. I mentioned they are charging for the entire package. He insisted he never ordered any of it, but I just chalked it up to a mistake and got it sorted out by calling them. Maybe he really never ordered it ... Ugh.\"",
"You can save around hundred dollars per month, mostly the teens are attracted by this method. If you are a frequent shopper and want to get the recent updates about the coupons available then you can sign up with the website and they will send you the email subscriptions.",
"Consider trying a broker that offers free trading. Robinhood is one such broker.",
"\"If the amount is large, \"\"wire transfer\"\" is usually the cheapest option. Mane banks have online option for it.\"",
"Switch to a different product. For $500, you'd be surprised what you could buy wholesale. Potential options: -Find something appropriate to wholesale to your peers on Alibaba -Start a T-shirt company with graphics relevant to your school, area, or pop-culture microcosm. Edgy inside references with clean graphics being ideal. Shopify is $25 a month + Print on demand t-shirt company (about $7 profit per shirt) + Fiverr for inexpensive graphics --> you could launch a local T-shirt brand for less than $100.",
"Here's one option: Telephone is a lower-tech yet relatively more secure means for transmitting your payment information when a secure web site isn't available. And yet another option: You could send them an encrypted email, but this would require tools (e.g. GPG), setup (public keys), and expertise on their end which they are unlikely to already have. However, ChrisInEdmonton raised a good point in his comment. How can you consider them to be a reputable seller when they don't take basic precautions to protect customers' payment information online? The seller may with good faith charge your card the correct amount and deliver the goods that you expect, but how will they protect your credit card information once in their hands? Would you trust their internal systems if they can't even set up an HTTPS web site?",
"> unlimited data plans on your phone This may work in some countries; in the US, oligopolic wireless carriers are doing their level best to ensure it doesn't become the norm, because they collectively see it as a threat to their business models. They may still lose; tho I consider it unlikely, as the best scenario for that would require increasing the number of players in the wireless market. Some sort of open-access rule for infrastructure built by companies granted spectrum licenses would be a good start, but seems unlikely given how much more sway corporations have over the state than consumers.",
"There is no need of the conventional advertising methods, which include cost of– Land, capital, work, and businessperson to enhance the promotion of your product. You can start with blog promotion, web-based social networking, and email advertising of your services with lesser investment.",
"Several things to do: Change your bank. $2 for a check? Why?? When shopping for a new bank: ask for a free checking account. College students can get free checking in almost any bank. At least the first box of checks will be free, which will give you enough checks for the next several years (I'm still not half done with the box I got from WaMu 5 years ago). Check out your neighborhood credit union. Most of them have free checking and free checks for students as well. If still no luck - check online check printing services, they'll send you a box for less than $25, that's for sure. Walmart for example (1 box - $7). Also, you can use banks' bill-pay service for any check you write, if you know the address of the person, the amount and the sum a couple of days ahead of time. That should cover rent, and probably most of your other checks.",
"Many business owners simply cannot afford to procure office space. An obvious solution to this problem may be what is referred to as a virtual office. A virtual office offers many of the benefits of an actual office without an expensive lease. A virtual office can be especially appealing to small startup businesses which simply haven't grown large enough yet to start looking for commercial office space.",
"for one thing, marketing. e.g. there are some ads that runs on radio 5-10x a day every day over networks reaching many tens of millions every day. if you're working a website site as your pitch, the big marketer crushes you with massive exposure, 800 phone numbers, live 24 hour service...etc",
"We moved and decided to drop cable a few years ago. I haven't really missed it at all. I also don't pirate anything. I imagine people willing to pirate have absolutely no problem dropping cable TV. The *only* thing I miss is my hometown sports. I can't always get them over the air. The thing is that it is a redundant system. It is a less appealing information delivery system. Why would I pay for internet service and a worse, time restricted service? It is one of the reasons I think that Netflix's move to original content is smart. I pay a small price for quality content that just uses the best information delivery system I have. Honestly, I suspect that phone service (even mobile) is going to head in that direction too.",
"You can find great deals and the forums are full of other information. I also have found when I need to find a deal on something, you can ask or find others on the forums for help. http://slickdeals.net/",
"They still got away with pocketing the cash and I got uhh DSL (shitty limited range technology) and other crummy something or other long distance options! Fuck MA BELL. Name any phone company, it's still MA BELL. Smaller competitive with someone else company my ass. They're letting it merge back together too. I still love the day our towns Main Street was being torn up to be repaved. During this little adventure they severed some fiber optic cables. It took out the cell phone network (and ONLY that network). I'll leave that there for someone to attempt to figure out.",
"Here are some ways my family saves money on our home insurance: Here are a couple of good articles on the subject: Finally - make sure you get adequate coverage! Make sure you consider your real insurance needs, and not just the cost of the insurance. If the worst happens, you'll want good coverage with a good company.",
"In planning to buy a house, and sort out how to handle the costs of some initial renovations, I've been considering using Lowes and Home Depot credit cards (hopefully this will count differently than the typical credit cards I think you're referring to): http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ContentView?pn=Credit_Center&langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053 http://www.lowes.com/cd_Credit+Card+Accounts+from+Lowes_781778798_ You should definitely read the fine print first, as the interest rates can shoot up after the first 6 months if you don't pay the balance in full on some of them. Also, Lowes has a project card that gives you the 6 month no interest (only a minimum payment), and you don't have to pay off the full balance at the end. This one even has more reasonable rates, so this could be a good way to go.",
"There are a lot of cheap or low-cost packages that are quite lucrative but you can be sure that these are not at all private servers but are rented out to several customers so basically you are now paying for the stuff you could have obtained for free on the internet.",
"The only real competition I see in the US market is in the pre-paid service providers. But they are just piggybacking off the networks of the larger carriers. To have an actual functioning market they would have to be some legal framework that requires all carriers to share their networks at some reasonable fee rate and then put value added on top of that. That is pretty much how the POTS worked. We recognized that as a nation it is plainly ridiculous to compete on who can hang the most wires. We lost that lesson and now we're letting carriers compete almost purely on who can erect the most towers. AT&T and Verizon are essentially the same company offering the same service. The entire basis of their competition is who can get the most right of way access to install the most towers. it's crazy.",
"Have you considered social lending (for example: Lending Club)?",
"Call centre solution providers will efficiently serve customers, while keeping overheads low. They can efficiently manage not just the regular inbound calls, but also make the outbound calls to promote your products and services which further lead your trade to the path of success.",
"If commuting is a big budget item, then can you: A side job is one way to make extra money, but I'd suggest a home business. If your wife substitute teaches, I bet she writes fairly well, and in any case you can. Write a personal finance blog or just a site with articles. Focus on surviving and thriving with child(ren) in a one-income Christian household in the suburbs of Philadelphia. Or if you have a hobby that stokes your furnace, write about that. Heck, do both. The content just stays there and gets traffic day after day that you can monetize. My main suggestion would be to start this now because it's not overnight money. But in the long run it can turn into a nice, fairly passive income. The big advantage of this is that mommy gets to stay home with the kids and build up a decent business. The cost is $10/year for the domain (per domain) and maybe $10/month for hosting. Or, if some other legitimate work-at-home business presents itself, go with that. I suggest blogging because it's what I know, but everyone's an expert in something unique.",
"There is a number of cheaper online options that you could use. TranferWise was already mentioned here. Other options i know are Paysera or TransferGo. They state that international transfers are processed on the next day and they are substantially cheaper than those of banks. Currency exchange rate is usually not bad.",
"You may want to look at services like https://transferwise.com/. For transferring money abroad they may be cheaper than you own bank. Here is a list of similar services: https://www.icomparefx.com/transferwise-competitors/. Which one is the cheapest depends on the amount of money you want to transfer. You would still need an account at a german bank or a trustworthy friend with a german account.",
"There are a number of ways and it all depends on your concentration and range of skills (or skills you're willing to develop). As for involving your wife ... things that can be done locally for neighbours is always a good idea. The most important thing is not to spend too much time or cash on anything that will take a long time to pay off. That excludes writing your own iPhone apps, for example, which would take long hours of development and much marketing (and luck) to be successful. Good luck and congrats.",
"Alternative: buy a recent-model used car in good condition. Or buy an older car in good condition. Let someone else pay the heavy depreciation that happens the moment you drive a new car off the dealer's lot.",
"What sort of items? That being said, I am cheap and not brand loyal...I buy what's on sale. I have never seen 'everyday items' cheaper than the grocery store or Aldi or Costco (places where I most of my shopping when not shopping online).",
"Of course not, even if it got me closer to work, I've moved 30+ times in my life and I'm fucking done with it. I'm just saying, there are conceivably options, it isn't a total monopoly, even if you have to do an unreasonable amount of work to get around it. From an investing standpoint, there are competitors, even if there aren't real options for customers.",
"\"You got anything else? And you're right... There are more than 3. But that doesn't mean shit when you can't access them. Who owns the lines that allow other providers to work by allowing them to rent/buy space? Oh that's right att, Comcast, time warner and charter. So even then if its \"\"allowed\"\" competition is it really competition?\"",
"Want to know why your cable bill is so high? Blame the four letter sports network. About $20 of your non tax/fee cable charges go straight to those assholes and then by way to the three letter professional sports outfits and by way of them your local bling wearing pro athlete who promptly blow it. Ditch the coaxial.",
"\"Even without the $2 fee, I'm jumping ship and switching to Virgin Mobile. Here's my breakdown: Verizon 400 minutes + 100 texts (IIRC), no data, $45 before fees Virgin 300 minutes + unlimited 3G data & text: $35 with purchase of $200+ smartphone. (and virgin uses Sprint for 3G) I'll be informing Verizon that their separate fee hike of $0.15 which, to my knowledge, is still in the works, is what's known legally as a \"\"material averse effect\"\" and allows me to opt out of the contract without paying a cancellation fee.\"",
"I've always wondered why nobody has tried to use the broadcast spectrum for internet connectivity. Or at least tried to lobby for repurposing some of the spectrum for that purpose. I had always assumed there was some kind of technical limitation that kept it from being considered. Seems like a much better use of our broadcast spectrum than our antiquated TV networks. Especially after the Fairness Doctrine was rescinded.",
"Um you said yourself that it goes down on 7pm on a Friday and costs you hours and hours of problems. The cost of a T1 is like $300. I'm going to guess it would pay for itself. My advice - learn basic math.",
"On form 8829, line 20 you can list utilities paid for the home office. You have two choices: 1) You can list the entire amount under column (b) as an indirect expense. You will then get a deduction for the fraction of the amount based on what fraction of your home is an office. This makes sense if the service equally benefits your entire home. 2) You can compute the portion of the expense reasonably attributable to the business/office and list that amount under column (a). This entire amount will be deducted. Which option you choose depends on how well you think you can allocate the expense between your office and the rest of your home. For example, I have had to do this with electricity, but I specifically measured the electricity used by my office. If you think you can defend allocating a larger portion to the office, use option 2. If you would have paid the same amount even if you didn't have an office, it's hard to justify allocating more of the expense to the office than its portion of the home. If you opted for a more expensive service or otherwise incurred additional costs, it makes sense to allocate a higher fraction to the office and to calculate that yourself.",
"Aha, perhaps...also, perhaps someone like Louis with a product such as this, to the (reasonably) technically literate while pushed through a next-generation service that isn't rapacious when it comes to something as simple as digitally moving money...perhaps it's time. Shake our fists to the heavens, and all.",
"What does cheap mean? Compared to what? A standard international wire transfer cost about 40 $. Is that 'cheap' for you? Alternatively, a mailed paper check takes 5-7 days mailing plus 7-10 days processing, but is free, that's as cheap as it gets.",
"Cant tell if sarcasm but between two employees where one has a cellphone and one dosnt (or only intermittently) who are you going to rely on. That being said it's cheap as fuck to afford a basic ass cellphone.",
"Google Maps and Craig’s List are easy wins and free. I would offer free inspections and estimates. What about getting into one of those new mover mailings. That is when most people will be updating their fixtures.",
"I can't provide a list, but when I took out my Stocks and Shares, I extensively researched for a good, cheap, flexible option and I went with FoolShareDealing. I've found them to be good, and their online trading system works well. I hope that's still the case."
] |
[
"Cheapest is one thing. You can absolutely shop in the market and find the lowest possible price. I can think of three places to shop, each with an up and downside. I would think that what you really mean is the best price for the service. Just like shopping for a car you have to decide what you need vs what is nice to have. Decide what features you need. Do you need long distance? Do you need caller id? Do you need to call technophobic friends and family? Find out what you have available to you through associations. Often schools, work or a club you belong to have deals for service discounts. Look at your insurance plan or AAA membership for the crazy discounts. Decide what kinds of service will meet your needs. Buy the cheapest service. DO NOT ENTER A CONTRACT. Even if the price is slightly lower. At least not at first. If you try out your service and love it, enter the contract if and only if the total price measured over length of the contract is less. With cell phones especially, it is absolutely possible to save money buying month to month vs a 2 year contract. Even when you buy equipment for full price up front. Ask for the bare minimum service from your local phone company. Because phone companies are often regulated monopolies, they might have a bare minimum level of service they are required to offer by the municipality. They probably don't advertise it or push it, but it might exist if you call and ask. You basically get a dial tone. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/local-local-toll-and-long-distance-calling Price is dictated by a government board, so you don't have to worry about shopping for deals Not the cheapest possible solution This is popular plan the youth oriented market, but more and more people of all demographics are using their cellphones only. There are downsides (911, etc) and shopping for the best cell phone plan can be a full time job, but it does offer a way to save money by simply not having home phone service. Might be possible to score organizational discounts through work or groups you belong to Cellphones require batteries, and can go dead (not good for emergencies) Voice over Internet Protocol uses your existing Internet connection. You can buy a cheap regular phone and plug it into the VOIP box and use it like any other phone. VOIP can either be very inexpensive for all the features you get, or just plain inexpensive. There are providers who sell a monthly service, yearly service or no service plan at all. (You buy a device and get service as long as you own the device.) Taxes to the government are always due, so nothing is ever free. Sometimes the provider is just computer software, so a minimalist would like that. Emergency services are more reliable than cellular (if you follow extra steps to set them up) Can be confusing to buy. Some require contracts, some special devices, some require a bit of technical know how to setup. Be sure to evaluate the total cost of ownership when comparing prices",
"\"How low you can reduce your costs does depend on your calling pattern. How many minutes per month you call locally; call long distance; call internationally; and how many minutes you receive calls for. If all these figures are low, you can be better off with a pay-per-minute service, if any of the outbound figures are high then you could consider a flat-rate \"\"unlimited\"\" service. So that's the first step, determine your needs: don't pay for what you don't need. For example, I barely use a \"\"landline\"\" voip phone any more. But it is still useful for incoming calls, and for 911 service. So I use a prepaid pay-per-minute VOIP company, that has a flat rate (< $2/mo) for the incoming number, an add-on fee for the 911 service (80c/mo), and per-minute costs for outgoing calls (1c/min or less to US, Canada, western Europe). I use my own Obitalk box (under $50 to buy). There is a bit of setup and learning needed, but the end result means my \"\"landline\"\" bill is usually under $4/mo (no other taxes or fees). Companies in this BYOD (bring your own device) space in the US/Canada include (in alphabetic order), Anveo, Callcentric, Callwithus, Futurenine, Localphone, Voip.ms and many others. A good discussion forum to learn more about them is the VOIP forum at DSLreports (although it can be a bit technical). There is also a reviews section at that site. If your usage is higher (you make lots of calls to a variety of numbers), most of these companies, and others, have flat-rate bundles, probably similar to what you have now. Comparing them depends on your usage pattern, so again that's the first thing to consider, then you know what to shop for. If you need features like voicemail or voicemail transcription, be sure to look at whether you need an expensive bundle with it in, or whether you're better off paying for that seperately. If your outbound calls are to a limited number of numbers, such as relatives far away or internationally, consider getting a similar VOIP system for those relatives. Most VOIP companies have free \"\"on network\"\" calls between their customers, regardless of the country they are in. So your most common, and most lengthy calls, could be free. The Obitalk boxes (ATA's: analog telephone adapters) have an advantage here, if you install them in yours and relatives houses. As well as allowing you to use any of the \"\"bring your own device\"\" VOIP companies like those listed above, they have their own Obitalk network allowing free calls between their boxes, and also to/from their iOS and Android apps. There are other ATA's from other companies (Cisco have well-known models), and other ways to make free calls between them, so Obitalk isn't the only option. I mentioned above I pay for the incoming number. Not every supplier has incoming numbers available in every area, you need to check this. Some can port-in (transfer in) your existing number, if you are attached to it, but not all can, so again check. You can also get incoming numbers in other areas or countries, that ring on your home line (without forwarding costs). This means you can have a number near a cluster of relatives, who can call you with a local call. Doesn't directly save you money (each number has a monthly fee) but could save you having to call them back!\"",
"Try to use VOIP service provider or web enabled conference calling services in your home phone. Now a days communication technologies have seen a boost as well as integration of different formats and platforms which easily reduces phone bills of a user. Service such as UberConference, Skype, Webinar etc enables audio/video as well as web conferencing feature for their user. Service tiers such as free plans, basic plans and business plans allow user to use these conference calling services per their need. Have a look at any such service and use it as an alternative of your home phone line."
] |
7705
|
Why would I pick a specific ETF over an equivalent Mutual Fund?
|
[
"539263",
"195191",
"377429"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"312015",
"473658",
"153112",
"500486",
"364735",
"358997",
"539263",
"200212",
"106863",
"480315",
"370244",
"536120",
"138383",
"96926",
"161019",
"87722",
"270992",
"288679",
"479420",
"49168",
"454224",
"268289",
"524612",
"172374",
"143238",
"332278",
"237133",
"377429",
"408524",
"195191",
"153660",
"159471",
"99568",
"17208",
"200360",
"518735",
"550319",
"560783",
"362579",
"451598",
"580802",
"130188",
"387277",
"472663",
"314008",
"498645",
"324697",
"340143",
"254230",
"20504",
"138658",
"107462",
"87238",
"217002",
"201714",
"183910",
"585405",
"523810",
"504301",
"367960",
"466845",
"516880",
"89205",
"392465",
"590010",
"119819",
"526346",
"215410",
"97836",
"65587",
"122679",
"454610",
"551155",
"473150",
"7814",
"435951",
"322725",
"437875",
"225964",
"78626",
"576008",
"336218",
"41625",
"460347",
"228686",
"230997",
"286227",
"341544",
"372233",
"536282",
"287537",
"311798",
"588836",
"386173",
"170863",
"196721",
"409995",
"474745",
"7208",
"419985"
] |
[
"I see a couple of reasons why you could consider choosing a mutual fund over an ETF In some cases index mutual funds can be a cheaper alternative to ETFs. In the UK where I am based, Fidelity is offering a management fee of 0.07% on its FTSE All shares tracker. Last time I checked, no ETF was beating that There are quite a few cost you have to foot when dealing ETFs In some cases, when dealing for relatively small amounts (e.g. a monthly investment plan) you can get a better deal, if your broker has negotiated discounts for you with a fund provider. My broker asks £12.5 when dealing in shares (£1.5 for the regular investment plan) whereas he asks £0 when dealing in funds and I get a 100% discount on the initial charge of the fund. As a conclusion, I would suggest you look at the all-in costs over total investment period you are considering for the exact amount you are planning to invest. Despite all the hype, ETFs are not always the cheapest alternative.",
"ETFs offer the flexibility of stocks while retaining many of the benefits of mutual funds. Since an ETF is an actual fund, it has the diversification of its potentially many underlying securities. You can find ETFs with stocks at various market caps and style categories. You can have bond or mixed ETFs. You can even get ETFs with equal or fundamental weighting. In short, all the variety benefits of mutual funds. ETFs are typically much less expensive than mutual funds both in terms of management fees (expense ratio) and taxable gains. Most of them are not actively managed; instead they follow an index and therefore have a low turnover. A mutual fund may actively trade and, if not balanced with a loss, will generate capital gains that you pay taxes on. An ETF will produce gains only when shifting to keep inline with the index or you yourself sell. As a reminder: while expense ratio always matters, capital gains and dividends don't matter if the ETF or mutual fund is in a tax-advantaged account. ETFs have no load fees. Instead, because you trade it like a stock, you will pay a commission. Commissions are straight, up-front and perfectly clear. Much easier to understand than the various ways funds might charge you. There are no account minimums to entry with ETFs, but you will need to buy complete shares. Only a few places allow partial shares. It is generally harder to dollar-cost average into an ETF with regular automated investments. Also, like trading stocks, you can do those fancy things like selling short, buying on margin, options, etc. And you can pay attention to the price fluctuations throughout the day if you really want to. Things to make you pause: if you buy (no-load) mutual funds through the parent company, you'll get them at no commission. Many brokerages have No Transaction Fee (NTF) agreements with companies so that you can buy many funds for free. Still look out for that expense ratio though (which is probably paying for that NTF advantage). As sort of a middle ground: index funds can have very low expense ratios, track the same index as an ETF, can be tax-efficient or tax-managed, free to purchase, easy to dollar-cost average and easier to automate/understand. Further reading:",
"The ETF is likely better in this case. The ETF will generally generate less capital gains taxes along the way. In order to pay off investors who leave a mutual fund, the manager will have to sell the fund's assets. This creates a capital gain, which must be distributed to shareholders at the end of the year. The mutual fund holder is essentially taxed on this turnover. The ETF does not have to sell any stock when an investor sells his shares because the investor sells the shares himself on the open market. This will result in a capital gain for the specific person exiting his position, but it does not create a taxable event for anyone else holding the ETF shares.",
"First, it's not always the case that ETFs have lower expenses than the equivalent mutual funds. For example, in the Vanguard family of funds the expense ratio for the ETF version is the same as it is for the Admiral share class in the mutual fund version. With that in mind, the main advantages of a mutual fund over an equivalent ETF are: From a long-term investor's point of view, the main disadvantage of mutual funds relative to ETFs is the minimum account sizes. Especially if the fund has multiple share classes (i.e., where better classes get lower expense ratios), you might have to have quite a lot of money invested in the fund in order to get the same expense ratio as the ETF. There are some other differences that matter to more active investors (e.g., intraday trading, options, etc.), but for a passive investor the ones above are the major ones. Apart from those mutual funds and ETFs are pretty similar. Personally, I prefer mutual funds because I'm at a point where the fund minimums aren't really an issue, and I don't want to deal with the more fiddly aspects of ETFs. For investors just starting out the lower minimum investment for an ETF is a big win, as long as you can get commission-free trades (which is what I've assumed above.)",
"I think that assuming that you're not looking to trade the fund, an index Mutual Fund is a better overall value than an ETF. The cost difference is negligible, and the ability to dollar-cost average future contributions with no transaction costs. You also have to be careful with ETFs; the spreads are wide on a low-volume fund and some ETFs are going more exotic things that can burn a novice investor. Track two similar funds (say Vanguard Total Stock Market: VTSMX and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF: VTI), you'll see that they track similarly. If you are a more sophisticated investor, ETFs give you the ability to use options to hedge against declines in value without having to incur capital gains from the sale of the fund. (ie. 20 years from now, can use puts to make up for short-term losses instead of selling shares to avoid losses) For most retail investors, I think you really need to justify using ETFs versus mutual funds. If anything, the limitations of mutual funds (no intra-day trading, no options, etc) discourage speculative behavior that is ultimately not in your best interest. EDIT: Since this answer was written, many brokers have begun offering a suite of ETFs with no transaction fees. That may push the cost equation over to support Index ETFs over Index Mutual Funds, particularly if it's a big ETF with narrow spreads..",
"What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value). Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss. These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction). As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though.",
"There are times when investing in an ETF is more convenient than a mutual fund. When you invest in a mutual fund, you often have an account directly with the mutual fund company, or you have an account with a mutual fund broker. Mutual funds often have either a front end or back end load, which essentially gives you a penalty for jumping in and out of funds. ETFs are traded exactly like stocks, so there is inherently no load when buying or selling. If you have a brokerage account and you want to move funds from a stock to a mutual fund, an ETF might be more convenient. With some accounts, an ETF allows you to invest in a fund that you would not be able to invest in otherwise. For example, you might have a 401k account through your employer. You might want to invest in a Vanguard mutual fund, but Vanguard funds are not available with your 401k. If you have access to a brokerage account inside your 401k, you can invest in the Vanguard fund through the associated ETF. Another reason that you might choose an ETF over a mutual fund is if you want to try to short the fund.",
"http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/104/stupid.htm would have some data though a bit old about open-end funds vs an ETF that would be one point. Secondly, do you know that the Math on your ETF will always work out to whole numbers of shares or do you plan on using brokers that would allow fractional shares easily? This is a factor as $3,000 of an open-end fund will automatically go into fractional shares that isn't necessarily the case of an ETF where you have to specify a number of shares when you purchase as well as consider are you doing a market or limit order? These are a couple of things to keep in mind here. Lastly, what if the broker you use charges account maintenance fees for your account? In buying the mutual fund from the fund company directly, there may be a lower likelihood of having such fees. I don't know of any way to buy shares in the ETF directly without using a broker.",
"The main difference between a mutual fund and an ETF are how they are bought and sold (from the investors perspective). An ETF is transacted on the open market. This means you normally can't buy partial shares with your initial investment. Having to transact on the open market also means you pay a market price. The market price is always a little bit different from the Net Asset Value (NAV) of the fund. During market hours, the ETF will trade at a premium/discount to the NAV calculated on the previous day. Morningstar's fund analysis will show a graph of the premium/discount to NAV for an ETF. With a mutual fund on the other hand, your investment goes to a fund company, which then grants you shares while under the hood buying the underlying investments. You pay the NAV price and are allowed to buy partial shares. Usually an ETF has a lower expense ratio, but if that's equal and any initial fees/commissions are equal, I would prefer the mutual fund in order to buy partial shares (so your initial investment will be fully invested) and so you don't have to worry about paying premium to NAV",
"\"ETFs purchases are subject to a bid/ask spread, which is the difference between the highest available purchase offer (\"\"bid\"\") and the lowest available sell offer (\"\"ask\"\"). You can read more about this concept here. This cost doesn't exist for mutual funds, which are priced once per day, and buyers and sellers all use the same price for transactions that day. ETFs allow you to trade any time that the market is open. If you're investing for the long term (which means you're not trying to time your buy/sell orders to a particular time of day), and the pricing is otherwise equal between the ETF and the mutual fund (which they are in the case of Vanguard's ETFs and Admiral Shares mutual funds), I would go with the mutual fund because it eliminates any cost associated with bid/ask spread.\"",
"Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive.",
"Where are you planning on buying this ETF? I'm guessing it's directly through Vanguard? If so, that's likely your first reason - the majority of brokerage accounts charge a commission per trade for ETFs (and equities) but not for mutual funds. Another reason is that people who work in the financial industry (brokerages, mutual fund companies, etc) have to request permission for every trade before placing an order. This applies to equities and ETFs but does not apply to mutual funds. It's common for a request to be denied (if the brokerage has inside information due to other business lines they'll block trading, if a mutual fund company is trading the same security they'll block trading, etc) without an explanation. This can happen for months. For these folks it's typically easier to use mutual funds. So, if someone can open an account with Vanguard and doesn't work in the financial industry then I agree with your premise. The Vanguard Admiral shares have a much lower expense, typically very close to their ETFs. Source: worked for a brokerage and mutual fund company",
"Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund. An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments. The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios. Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities. Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs. Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund. For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment). Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER). Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number. For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral). See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page. Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF. Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds. Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free. Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs. Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general.",
"The mutual fund will price at day's end, while the ETF trades during the day, like a stock. If you decide at 10am, that some event will occur during the day that will send the market up, the ETF is preferable. Aside from that, the expenses are identical, a low .14%. No real difference especially in a Roth.",
"Your tax efficient reasoning is solid for where you want to distribute your assets. ETFs are often more tax efficient than their equivalent mutual funds but the exact differences would depend on the comparison between the fund and ETF you were considering. The one exception to this rule is Vanguard funds and ETFs which have the exact same tax-efficiency because ETFs are a share class of the corresponding mutual fund.",
"In my opinion, if you are doing long-term investing, this is a non-issue. The difference of hours in being able to trade an ETF during the day vs. only being able to trade a traditional mutual fund at day-end is irrelevant if you are holding the investment for a long time. If you are engaging in day trading, market timing, or other advanced/controversial trading practices, then I suppose it could make a difference. For the way I invest (index funds, long-term, set-it-and-forget-it), ETFs have no advantage over traditional mutual funds.",
"The main difference between an ETF and a Mutual Fund is Management. An ETF will track a specific index with NO manager input. A Mutual Fund has a manager that is trying to choose securities for its fund based on the mandate of the fund. Liquidity ETFs trade like a stock, so you can buy at 10am and sell at 11 if you wish. Mutual Funds (most) are valued at the end of each business day, so no intraday trading. Also ETFs are similar to stocks in that you need a buyer/seller for the ETF that you want/have. Whereas a mutual fund's units are sold back to itself. I do not know of many if any liquity issues with an ETF, but you could be stuck holding it if you can not find a buyer (usually the market maker). Mutual Funds can be closed to trading, however it is rare. Tax treatment Both come down to the underlying holdings in the fund or ETF. However, more often in Mutual Funds you could be stuck paying someone else's taxes, not true with an ETF. For example, you buy an Equity Mutual Fund 5 years ago, you sell the fund yourself today for little to no gain. I buy the fund a month ago and the fund manager sells a bunch of the stocks they bought for it 10 years ago for a hefty gain. I have a tax liability, you do not even though it is possible that neither of us have any gains in our pocket. It can even go one step further and 6 months from now I could be down money on paper and still have a tax liability. Expenses A Mutual Fund has an MER or Management Expense Ratio, you pay it no matter what. If the fund has a positive return of 12.5% in any given year and it has an MER of 2.5%, then you are up 10%. However if the fund loses 7.5% with the same MER, you are down 10%. An ETF has a much smaller management fee (typically 0.10-0.95%) but you will have trading costs associated with any trades. Risks involved in these as well as any investment are many and likely too long to go into here. However in general, if you have a Canadian Stock ETF it will have similar risks to a Canadian Equity Mutual Fund. I hope this helps.",
"ETFs are both liquid (benefits active traders) and a simple way for people to invest in funds even if they don't have the minimum balance needed to invest in a mutual fund (EDIT: in which purchases are resolved at the end of the trading day). One big difference between ETFs and mutual funds is that you must buy ETFs in whole units, whereas you can add $100 to a mutual fund and the fund will determine -- usually to 4 decimal places -- how many shares you've purchased.",
"Mutual funds buy (and sell) shares in companies in accordance with the policies set forth in their prospectus, not according to the individual needs of an investor, that is, when you invest money in (or withdraw money from) a mutual fund, the manager buys or sells whatever shares that, in the manager's judgement, will be the most appropriate ones (consistent with the investment policies). Thus, a large-cap mutual fund manager will not buy the latest hot small-cap stock that will likely be hugely profitable; he/she must choose only between various large capitalization companies. Some exchange-traded funds are fixed baskets of stocks. Suppose you will not invest in a company X as a matter of principle. Unless a mutual fund prospectus says that it will not invest in X, you may well end up having an investment in X at some time because the fund manager bought shares in X. With such an ETF, you know what is in the basket, and if the basket does not include stock in X now, it will not own stock in X at a later date. Some exchange-traded funds are constructed based on some index and track the index as a matter of policy. Thus, you will not be investing in X unless X becomes part of the index because Standard or Poor or Russell or somebody changed their minds, and the ETF buys X in order to track the index. Finally, some ETFs are exactly like general mutual funds except that you can buy or sell ETF shares at any time at the price at the instant that your order is executed whereas with mutual funds, the price of the mutual fund shares that you have bought or sold is the NAV of the mutual fund shares for that day, which is established based on the closing prices at the end of the trading day of the stocks, bonds etc that the fund owns. So, you might end up owning stock in X at any time based on what the fund manager thinks about X.",
"The creation mechanism for ETF's ensures that the value of the underlying stocks do not diverge significantly from the Fund's value. Authorized participants have a strong incentive to arbitrage any pricing differences and create/redeem blocks of stock/etf until the prices are back inline. Contrary to what was stated in a previous answer, this mechanism lowers the cost of management of ETF's when compared to mutual funds that must access the market on a regular basis when any investors enter/exit the fund. The ETF only needs to create/redeem in a wholesale basis, this allows them to operate with management fees that are much lower than those of a mutual fund. Expenses Due to the passive nature of indexed strategies, the internal expenses of most ETFs are considerably lower than those of many mutual funds. Of the more than 900 available ETFs listed on Morningstar in 2010, those with the lowest expense ratios charged about .10%, while those with the highest expenses ran about 1.25%. By comparison, the lowest fund fees range from .01% to more than 10% per year for other funds. (For more on mutual fund feeds, read Stop Paying High Fees.)",
"A mutual fund has several classes of shares that are charged different fees. Some shares are sold through brokers and carry a sales charge (called load) that compensates the broker in lieu of a fee that the broker would charge the client for the service. Vanguard does not have sales charge on its funds and you don't need to go through a broker to buy its shares; you can buy directly from them. Admiral shares of Vanguard funds are charged lower annual expenses than regular shares (yes, all mutual funds charge expenses for fund adninistration that reduce the return that you get, and Vanguard has some of the lowest expense ratios) but Admiral shares are available only for large investments, typically $50K or so. If you have invested in a Vanguard mutual fund, your shares can be set to automatically convert to Admiral shares when the investment reaches the right level. A mutual fund manager can buy and sell stocks to achieve the objectives of the fund, so what stockes you are invested in as a share holder in a mutual fund will typically be unknown to you on a day-to-day basis. On the other hand, Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are fixed baskets of stocks, and you can buy shares in the ETF. These shares are bought and sold through a broker (so you pay a transaction fee each time) but expenses are lower since there is no manager to buy and sell stocks: the basket is fixed. Many ETFs follow specific market indexes (e.g. S&P 500). Another difference between ETFs and mutual funds is that you can buy and sell ETFs at any time of the day just as if you could if you held stocks. With mutual funds, any buy and sell requests made during the day are processed at the end of the day and the value of the shares that you buy or sell is determined by the closing price of the stocks held by the mutual fund. With ETFs, you are getting the intra-day price at the time the buy or sell order is executed by your broker.",
"\"One reason is that it is not possible (at Vanguard and at many other brokerages) to auto-invest into ETFs. Because the ETF trades like a stock, you typically must buy a whole number of shares. This makes it difficult to do auto-investing where you invest, say, a fixed dollar amount each month. If you're investing $100 and the ETF trades for $30 a share, you must either buy 3 shares and leave $10 unspent, or buy 4 and spend $20 more than you planned. This makes auto-investing with dollar amounts difficult. (It would be cool if there were brokerages that handled this for you, for instance by accumulating \"\"leftover\"\" cash until an additional whole share could be purchased, but I don't know of any.) A difference of 0.12% in the expense ratios is real, but small. It may be outweighed by the psychological gains of being able to adopt a \"\"hands-off\"\" auto-investing plan. With ETFs, you generally must remember to \"\"manually\"\" buy the shares yourself every so often. For many average investors, the advantage of being able to invest without having to think about it at all is worth a small increase in expense ratio. The 0.12% savings don't do you any good if you never remember to buy shares until the market is already up.\"",
"ETFs are a type of investment, not a specific choice. In other words, there are good ETFs and bad. What you see is the general statement that ETFs are preferable to most mutual funds, if only for the fact that they are low cost. An index ETF such as SPY (which reflects the S&P 500 index) has a .09% annual expense, vs a mutual fund which average a full percent or more. sheegaon isn't wrong, I just have a different spin to offer you. Given a long term return of say even 8% (note - this question is not a debate of the long term return, and I purposely chose a low number compared to the long term average, closer to 10%) and the current CD rate of <1%, a 1% hit for the commission on the buy side doesn't bother me. The sell won't occur for a long time, and $8 on a $10K sale is no big deal. I'd not expect you to save $1K/yr in cash/CDs for the years it would take to make that $8 fee look tiny. Not when over time the growth will overshaddow this. One day you will be in a position where the swings in the market will produce the random increase or decrease to your net worth in the $10s of thousands. Do you know why you won't lose a night's sleep over this? Because when you invested your first $1K, and started to pay attention to the market, you saw how some days had swings of 3 or 4%, and you built up an immunity to the day to day noise. You stayed invested and as you gained wealth, you stuck to the right rebalancing each year, so a market crash which took others down by 30%, only impacted you by 15-20, and you were ready for the next move to the upside. And you also saw that since mutual funds with their 1% fees never beat the index over time, you were happy to say you lagged the S&P by .09%, or 1% over 11 year's time vs those whose funds had some great years, but lost it all in the bad years. And by the way, right until you are in the 25% bracket, Roth is the way to go. When you are at 25%, that's the time to use pre-tax accounts to get just below the cuttoff. Last, welcome to SE. Edit - see sheegaon's answer below. I agree, I missed the cost of the bid/ask spread. Going with the lowest cost (index) funds may make better sense for you. To clarify, Sheehan points out that ETFs trade like a stock, a commission, and a bid/ask, both add to transaction cost. So, agreeing this is the case, an indexed-based mutual fund can provide the best of possible options. Reflecting the S&P (for example) less a small anual expense, .1% or less.",
"If you just want to track an index, then ETFs are, generally speaking, the better way.",
"\"There are a few reasons why an index mutual fund may be preferable to an ETF: I looked at the iShare S&P 500 ETF and it has an expense ratio of 0.07%. The Vanguard Admiral S&P 500 index has an expense ratio of 0.05% and the Investor Shares have an expense ratio of 0.17%, do I don't necessarily agree with your statement \"\"admiral class Vanguard shares don't beat the iShares ETF\"\".\"",
"One of the often cited advantages of ETFs is that they have a higher liquidity and that they can be traded at any time during the trading hours. On the other hand they are often proposed as a simple way to invest private funds for people that do not want to always keep an eye on the market, hence the intraday trading is mostly irrelevant for them. I am pretty sure that this is a subjective idea. The fact is you may buy GOOG, AAPL, F or whatever you wish(ETF as well, such as QQQ, SPY etc.) and keep them for a long time. In both cases, if you do not want to keep an on the market it is ok. Because, if you keep them it is called investment(the idea is collecting dividends etc.), if you are day trading then is it called speculation, because you main goal is to earn by buying and selling, of course you may loose as well. So, you do not care about dividends or owning some percent of the company. As, ETFs are derived instruments, their volatility depends on the volatility of the related shares. I'm wondering whether there are secondary effects that make the liquidity argument interesting for private investors, despite not using it themselves. What would these effects be and how do they impact when compared, for example, to mutual funds? Liquidity(ability to turn cash) could create high volatility which means high risk and high reward. From this point of view mutual funds are more safe. Because, money managers know how to diversify the total portfolio and manage income under any market conditions.",
"\"If your intention is to purchase ETFs on a regular basis (like $x per month), then ETFs may not make sense. You may have to pay a fixed transaction cost like you were buying a stock for each purchase. In a similar no load mutual fund, there are more likely to be no transaction costs (depending on how it is bought). The above paragraph is not very definitive, and is really dependent upon how you would purchase either ETFs or Mutual funds. For example if you have a Fidelity brokerage account, they may let you buy certain ETFs commission free. Okay then either ETFs make great sense. It would not make sense to buy ones that they charge $35 per transaction if you have regular transactions that are smallish. The last two questions seem to be asking if you should buy MF or buy stocks directly. For most people the later is a losing proposition. They do not have the time or ability to buy stocks directly, effectively. Even if they did they may not have the capital to make enough of a difference when one considers all the cost involved. However, if that kind of thing interests you, perhaps you should dabble. Start out small and look at the higher costs of doing so as part of the \"\"cost of doing business\"\".\"",
"In the case of VFIAX versus VOO, if you're a buy-and-hold investor, you're probably better off with the mutual fund because you can buy fractional shares. However, in general the expense ratio for ETFs will be lower than equivalent mutual funds (even passive index funds). They are the same in this case because the mutual fund is Admiral Class, which has a $10,000 minimum investment that not all people may be able to meet. Additionally, ETFs are useful when you don't have an account with the mutual fund company (i.e. Vanguard), and buying the mutual fund would incur heavy transaction fees.",
"Index Funds & ETFs, if they are tracking the same index, will be the same in an ideal world. The difference would be because of the following factors: Expense ratio: i.e. the expense the funds charge. This varies and hence it would lead to a difference in performance. Tracking error: this means that there is a small percentage of error between the actual index composition and the fund composition. This is due to various reasons. Effectively this would result in the difference between values. Demand / Supply: with ETFs, the fund is traded on stock exchanges like a stock. If the general feeling is that the index is rising, it could lead to an increase in the price of the ETF. Index funds on the other hand would remain the same for the day and are less liquid. This results in a price increase / decrease depending on the market. The above explains the reason for the difference. Regarding which one to buy, one would need to consider other factors like: a) How easy is it to buy ETFs? Do you already hold Demat A/C & access to brokers to help you conduct the transaction or do you need to open an additional account at some cost. b) Normally funds do not need any account, but are you OK with less liquidity as it would take more time to redeem funds.",
"Something to consider is how do you want to handle fractional shares. Most open-end funds can easily go to fractional shares to that if you want to invest $500 in a fund each month, it is a relatively easy transaction where some shares will be fractional and handled easily. An ETF may not always work that way unless you go through something like Sharebuilder that would allow the fractional shares as if the ETF is trading at $150/share, you could buy 3 shares but still have $50 that you want to invest but can't as stocks trade in whole share numbers usually. This is without adding brokerage commissions. Depending on the broker, re-investing dividends may or may not be that simple as fractional shares could be a problem since those 3 shares aren't likely to have enough of a dividend to equal another share being bought with the proceeds. If you want the flexibility of stop and limit orders then the ETF may make more sense while the open-end fund is simply to invest whole dollar amounts that then lead to fractional shares. Don't forget to factor in minimums and other stuff as VFIAX may have a bit of a minimum to it as well as possible fees that could be annoying as I remember VFINX having some account maintenance fees that were a bit irksome back in the day that may still be around in some cases so be sure to read the fine print on things.",
"\"For a non-ETF mutual fund, you can only buy shares of the mutual fund from the mutual fund itself (at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day) and can only shares back to the mutual fund (again at a price that the mutual fund will reveal only at the end of the day). There is no open market in the sense that you cannot put in a bid to buy, say, 100 shares of VFINX at $217 per share through a brokerage, and if there is a seller willing to sell 100 shares of VFINX to you at $217, then the sale is consummated and you are now the proud owner of 100 shares of VFINX. The only buyer or seller of VFINX is the mutual find itself, and you tell it that you \"\"want to buy 100 shares of VFINX and please take the money out of my checking account\"\". If this order is entered before the markets close at 4 pm, the mutual fund determines its share price as of the end of the day, opens a new account for you and puts 100 shares of VFINX in it (or adds 100 shares of VFINX to your already existing pile of shares) and takes the purchase price out of your checking account via an ACH transfer. Similarly for redeeming/selling shares of VFINX that you own (and these are held in an account at the mutual fund itself, not by your brokerage): you tell the mutual fund to that you \"\"wish to redeem 100 shares and please send the proceeds to my bank account\"\" and the mutual fund does this at the end of the day, and the money appears in your bank account via ACH transfer two or three days later. Generally, these transactions do not need to be for round lots of multiples of 100 shares for efficiency; most mutual fund will gladly sell you fractional shares down to a thousandth of a share. In contrast, shares of an exchange-traded fund (ETF) are just like stock shares in that they can be bought and sold on the open market and your broker will charge you fees for buying and selling them. Selling fractional shares on the open market is generally not possible, and trading in round lots is less expensive. Also, trades occur at all times of the stock exchange day, not just at the end of the day as with non-ETF funds, and the price can fluctuate during the day too. Many non-ETF mutual funds have an ETF equivalent: VOO is the symbol for Vanguard's S&P 500 Index ETF while VFINX is the non-ETF version of the same index fund. Read more about the differences between ETFs and mutual funds, for example, here.\"",
"Why don't you look at the actual funds and etfs in question rather than seeking a general conclusion about all pairs of funds and etfs? For example, Vanguard's total stock market index fund (VTSAX) and ETF (VTI). Comparing the two on yahoo finance I find no difference over the last 5 years visually. For a different pair of funds you may find something very slightly different. In many cases the index fund and ETF will not have the same benchmark and fees so comparisons get a little more cloudy. I recall a while ago there was an article that was pointing out that at the time emerging market ETF's had higher fees than corresponding index funds. For this reason I think you should examine your question on a case-by-case basis. Index fund and ETF returns are all publicly available so you don't have to guess.",
"\"The majority (about 80%) of mutual funds are underperforming their underlying indexes. This is why ETFs have seen massive capital inflows compared to equity funds, which have seen significant withdrawals in the last years. I would definitively recommend going with an ETF. In addition to pure index based ETFs that (almost) track broad market indexes like the S&P 500 there are quite a few more \"\"quant\"\" oriented ETFs that even outperformed the S&P. I am long the S&P trough iShares ETFs and have dividend paying ETFs and some quant ETFS on top (Invesco Powershares) in my portfolio.\"",
"See my comment for some discussion of why one might choose an identical fund over an ETF. As to why someone would choose the higher cost fund in this instance ... The Admiral Shares version of the fund (VFIAX) has the same expense ratio as the ETF but has a minimum investment of $10K. Some investors may want to eventually own the Admiral Shares fund but do not yet have $10K. If they begin with the Investor Shares now and then convert to Admiral later, that conversion will be a non-taxable event. If, however, they start with ETF shares now and then sell them later to buy the fund, that sale will be a taxable event. Vanguard ETFs are only commission-free to Vanguard clients using Vanguard Brokerage Services. Some investors using other brokers may face all sorts of penalties for purchasing third-party ETFs. Some retirement plan participants (either at Vanguard or another broker) may not even be allowed to purchase ETFs.",
"\"If anything, the price of an ETF is more tightly coupled to the underlying holdings or assets than a mutual fund, because of the independent creation/destruction mechanism. With a mutual fund, the price is generally set once at the end of each day, and the mutual fund manager has to deal with investments and redemptions at that price. By the time they get to buying or selling the underlying assets, the market may have moved or they may even move the market with those transactions. With an ETF, investment and redemption is handled by independent \"\"authorized participants\"\". They can create new units of the ETF by buying up the underlying assets and delivering them to the ETF manager, and vice versa they can cancel units by requesting the underlying assets from the ETF manager. ETFs trade intraday (i.e. at any time during trading hours) and any time the price diverges too far from the underlying assets, one of the authorized participants has an incentive to make a small profit by creating or destroying units of the ETF, also intraday.\"",
"There is little difference between buying shares in your broker's index fund and shares of their corresponding ETF. In many cases the money invested in an ETF gets essentially stuffed right into the index fund (I believe Vanguard does this, for example). In either case you will be paying a little bit of tax. In the ETF case it will be on the dividends that are paid out. In the index fund case it will additionally be on the capital gains that have been realized within the fund, which are very few for an index fund. Not a ton in either case. The more important tax consideration is between purchase and sale, which is the same in either case. I'd say stick it wherever the lowest fees are.",
"This depends on a lot actually - with the overall being your goals and how much you like risk. Question: What are your fees/commissions for selling? $8.95/trade will wipe out some gains on those trades. (.69% if all are sold with $8.95 commission - not including the commission payed when purchased that should be factored into the cost basis) Also, I would recommend doing commission free ETFs. You can get the same affect as a mutual fund without the fees associated with paying someone to invest in ETFs and stocks. On another note: Your portfolio looks rather risky. Although everyone has their own risk preference so this might be yours but if you are thinking about a mutual fund instead of individual stocks you probably are risk averse. I would suggest consulting with an adviser on how to set up for the future. Financial advice is free flowing from your local barber, dentist, and of course StackExchange but I would look towards a professional. Disclaimer: These are my thoughts and opinions only ;) Feel free to add comments below.",
"Mutual funds don't do what ETFs do because, according to how the fund was built in their contract, they can't. That is not how they are built and the people that invested in them expect them to act in a certain way. That is ok, though. Many people still invest in mutual funds partially because of their history but there are some advantages to mutual funds over etfs. Mainly mutual funds must mark-to-market at the end of day while etf values can drift from the asset value especially in crisis. As long enough people invest in mutual funds the funds make enough money on their fees they don't need to change. Maybe mutual funds will go extinct as etfs do have significant advantages, but it likely won't happen soon.",
"Cost. If an investor wanted to diversify his portfolio by investing in the companies that make up the S&P 500, the per-share and commission costs to individually place trades for each and every one of those companies would be prohibitive. I can buy one share of an exchange-traded fund that tracks the S&P 500 for less than the purchase price of a single share in some of the companies that make up the index.",
"The simple answer is that whatever strategy is implemented with e-series, could be implemented at a lower cost with ETFs.",
"You cannot do a 1031 exchange with stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or ETFs. There really isn't much difference between an ETF and its equivalent index mutual fund. Both will have minimal capital gains distributions. I would not recommend selling an index mutual fund and taking a short-term capital gain just to buy the equivalent ETF.",
"ETFs trade on specific exchanges. If your broker deals with those exchanges, you should have access to the ETF. If your broker does not deal with that exchange, then you will not have access through that broker. This is different than, say, mutual funds, which don't trade on the exchanges are proprietary to certain brokerages or financial institutions.",
"ETFs are just like any other mutual fund; they hold a mix of assets described by their prospectus. If that mix fits your needs for diversification and the costs of buying/selling/holding are low, it's as worth considering as a traditional fund with the same mix. A bond fund will hold a mixture of bonds. Whether that mix is sufficiently diversified for you, or whether you want a different fund or a mix of funds, is a judgement call. I want my money to take care of itself for the most part, so most of the bond portion is in a low-fee Total Bond Market Index fund (which tries to match the performance of bonds in general). That could as easily be an ETF, but happens not to be.",
"\"An Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) is a special type of mutual fund that is traded on the stock exchange like a stock. To invest, you buy it through a stock broker, just as you would if you were buying an individual stock. When looking at a mutual fund based in the U.S., the easiest way to tell whether or not it is an ETF is by looking at the ticker symbol. Traditional mutual funds have ticker symbols that end in \"\"X\"\", and ETFs have ticker symbols that do not end in \"\"X\"\". The JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund, with ticker symbol JFAMX, is a traditional mutual fund, not an ETF. JPMorgan does have ETFs; the JPMorgan Diversified Return Emerging Markets Equity ETF, with ticker symbol JPEM, is an example. This ETF invests in similar stocks as JFAMX; however, because it is an index-based fund instead of an actively managed fund, it has lower fees. If you aren't sure about the ticker symbol, the advertising/prospectus of any ETF should clearly state that it is an ETF. (In the example of JPEM above, they put \"\"ETF\"\" right in the fund name.) If you don't see ETF mentioned, it is most likely a traditional mutual fund. Another way to tell is by looking at the \"\"investment minimums\"\" of the fund. JFAMX has a minimum initial investment of $1000. ETFs, however, do not have an investment minimum listed; because it is traded like a stock, you simply buy whole shares at whatever the current share price is. So if you look at the \"\"Fees and Investment Minimums\"\" section of the JPEM page, you'll see the fees listed, but not any investment minimums.\"",
"\"I'm assuming the question is about how to compare two ETFs that track the same index. I'd look at (for ETFs -- ignoring index funds): So, for example you might compare SPY vs IVV: SPY has about 100x the volume. Sure, IVV has 2M shares trading, so it is liquid \"\"enough\"\". But the bigger volume on SPY might matter to you if you use options: open interest is as much as 1000x more on SPY. Even if you have no interest in options, the spreads on SPY are probably going to be slightly smaller. They both have 0.09% expense ratios. When I looked on 2010-9-6, SPY was trading at a slight discount, IVV was at a slight premium. Looking for any sort of trend is left as an exercise to the reader... Grab the prospectus for each to examine the rules they set for fund makeup. Both come from well-known issuers and have a decent history. (Rather than crazy Uncle Ed's pawn shop, or the Central Bank of Stilumunistan.) So unless you find something in the SPY prospectus that makes you queasy, the higher volume and equal expense ratios would seem to suggest it over IVV. The fact that it is at a (tiny) discount right now is a (tiny) bonus.\"",
"\"Bonds might not be simple, but in general there are only a few variables that need to be understood: bid, coupon (interest) rate, maturity, and yield. Bond tables clearly lay those out, and if you're talking about government bonds a lot of things (like convertibles) don't apply (although default is still a concern). This might be overly simplistic, but I view ETF's primarily as an easy way to bring somewhat esoteric instruments (like grain futures) into the easily available markets of Nasdaq and the NYSE. That they got \"\"enhanced\"\" with leveraged funds and the such is interesting, but perhaps not the original intent of the instrument. Complicating your situation a bit more is the fee that gets tacked onto the ETF. Even Vanguard government bond funds hang out north of 0.1%. That's not huge, but it's not particularly appealing either considering that (unlike rounding up live cattle futures), it's not that much work to buy US government bonds, so the expense might not seem worth it to someone who's comfortable purchasing the securities directly. I'd be interested to see someone else's view on this, but in general I'd say that if you know what you want and know how to buy it, the government bond ETF becomes a lot less relevant as the liquidity offered (including the actual \"\"ease of transacting\"\") seem to to be the biggest factors in favor. From Investopedia's description: The bond ETF is an exciting new addition to the bond market, offering an excellent alternative to self-directed investors who, looking for ease of trading and increased price transparency, want to practice indexing or active bond trading. However, bond ETFs are suitable for particular strategies. If, for instance, you are looking to create a specific income stream, bond ETFs may not be for you. Be sure to compare your alternatives before investing.\"",
"One of the key things to look for is trading volume. I think the price spread will be better on high volume ETFs, which means you'll be able to sell for more when the time comes. Check Google or Yahoo finance for those stats.",
"Cheaper would refer to the fees of a fund rather than the share price, IMO. Are 2 quarters worth more or less than 10 nickels? This is another way to express your question though most open-end funds bought directly from the fund family or through fund supermarkets would do fractional shares that may be better than going through ETFs though there can be some brokers like Sharebuilder that used to do fractional shares though not necessarily having the best execution as I recall.",
"The issue with trading stocks vs. mutual funds (or ETFs) is all about risk. You trade Microsoft you now have a Stock Risk in your portfolio. It drops 5% you are down 5%. Instead if you want to buy Tech and you buy QQQ if MSFT fell 5% the QQQs would not be as impacted to the downside. So if you want to trade a mutual fund, but you want to be able to put in stop sell orders trade ETFs instead. Considering mutual funds it is better to say Invest vs. Trade. Since all fund families have different rules and once you sell (if you sell it early) you will pay a fee and will not be able to invest in that same fund for x number of days (30, 60...)",
"that's just it, though - they are splitting up the 1%! and in most cases, especially vanguard, they are splitting up far less. ETFs don't have 12b-1 fees. explaining why you're experiencing different returns for ETFs will almost certainly involve something other than their expense. again, this is especially true for vanguard. they have the cheapest ETFs around (though i think schwab beats them on a few now). i can only guess at the full compensation structure. betterment likely earns money on cash reserves and securities hypothecation (i guess?). they also charge a small fee from what i understand. finance is very slim these days. i guess i'm wondering what your ultimate question is. if it's the inter corporate compensation structure, above is my best guess. if it's about performance, then we need to compare the ETFs you are looking at. if it's about the fees on funds, i think we covered that! as an advisor, it's my experience that very specific inquiries about fees have a deeper concern. people hear a lot about being overcharged so cost is a very standard place for clients to initially look when trying to compare performance of portfolios or securities.",
"- ETFs make money through management fees. You can look it up: they all skim off a little bit of its profit, normally <1%. - It's all about cheap diversification. People generally don't have the capital to invest individually in each equity to mimic an ETF's portfolio. - Yes, but you need a lot of money. For example: You can't just invest $1 in GOOG if you want to buy a tech sector ETF.",
"So, why or why should I not invest in the cheaper index fund? They are both same, one is not cheaper than other. You get something that is worth $1000. To give a simple illustration; There is an item for $100, Vanguard creates 10 Units out of this so price per unit is $10. Schwab creates 25 units out of this, so the per unit price is $4. Now if you are looking at investing $20; with Vanguard you would get 2 units, with Schwab you would get 5 units. This does not mean one is cheaper than other. Both are at the same value of $20. The Factors you need to consider are; Related question What differentiates index funds and ETFs?",
"what reason would I have in buying an ETF? Apart from the efforts, the real reason is the ticket size. One can't buy shares in fraction. To truly reflect the index in equal weight, the amount to invest will be in multiples of millions [depending on the Index and the stock composition] This related question should help you understand why it is difficult even for large fund house to exactly mimic the index. Why do passive ETFs require so much trading (and incur costs)?",
"Market cap probably isn't as big of an issue as the bid/ask spread and the liquidity, although they tend to be related. The spread is likely to be wider on lesser traded ETF funds we are talking about pennies, likely not an issue unless you are trading in and out frequently. The expense ratios will also tend to be slightly higher again not a huge issue but it might be a consideration. You are unlikely to make up the cost of paying the commission to buy into a larger ETF any time soon though.",
"Ohhhh. Well thank you for that info. I know I could've Googled it all and while I'm a sticker for doing your own research, it's nice to hear it from someone in the know. Gotta pass on knowledge to those who don't know. Is it cheap to buy an ETF?",
"The problem there is that there's a tax due on that dividend. So, if you wish, you can buy the ETF and specify to reinvest dividends, but you'll have to pay a bit of tax on them, and keep track of your basis, if the account isn't a retirement account.",
"Sure, but as a retail client you'd be incurring transaction fees on entry and exit. Do you have the necessary tools to manage all the corporate actions, too? And index rebalances? ETF managers add value by taking away the monstrous web of clerical work associated with managing a portfolio of, at times, hundreds of different names. With this comes the value of institutional brokerage commissions, data licenses, etc. I think if you were to work out the actual brokerage cost, as well as the time you'd have to spend doing it yourself, you'd find that just buying the ETF is far cheaper. Also a bit of a rabbit hole, but how would you (with traditional retail client tools) even coordinate the simultaneous purchase of all 500 components of something like SPY? I would guess that, on average, you're going to have significantly worse slippage to the index than a typical ETF provider. Add that into your calculation too.",
"Why is that? With all the successful investors (including myself on a not-infrequent basis) going for individual companies directly, wouldn't it make more sense to suggest that new investors learn how to analyse companies and then make their best guess after taking into account those factors? I have a different perspective here than the other answers. I recently started investing in a Roth IRA for retirement. I do not have interest in micromanaging individual company research (I don't find this enjoyable at all) but I know I want to save for retirement. Could I learn all the details? Probably, as an engineer/software person I suspect I could. But I really don't want to. But here's the thing: For anyone else in a similar situation to me, the net return on investing into a mutual fund type arrangement (even if it returns only 4%) is still likely considerably higher than the return on trying to invest in stocks (which likely results in $0 invested, and a return of 0%). I suspect the overwhelming majority of people in the world are more similar to me than you - in that they have minimal interest in spending hours managing their money. For us, mutual funds or ETFs are perfect for this.",
"What decision are you trying to make? Are you interested day trading stocks to make it rich? Or are you looking at your investment options and trying to decide between an actively managed mutual fund and an ETF? If the former, then precise statistics are hard to come by, but I believe that 99% of day traders would do better investing in an ETF. If the latter, then there are lots of studies that show that most actively managed funds do worse than index funds, so with most actively managed funds you are paying higher fees for worse performance. Here is a quote from the Bogleheads Guide to Investing: Index funds outperform approximately 80 percent of all actively managed funds over long periods of time. They do so for one simple reason: rock-bottom costs. In a random market, we don't know what future returns will be. However, we do know that an investor who keeps his or her costs low will earn a higher return than one who does not. That's the indexer's edge. Many people believe that your best option for investing is a diverse portfolio of ETFs, like this. This is what I do.",
"\"I think you are asking about actively managed funds vs. indexes and possibly also vs. diversified funds like target date funds. This is also related to the question of mutual fund vs. ETF. First, a fund can be either actively managed or it can attempt to track an index. An actively managed fund has a fund manager who tries to find the best stocks to invest in within some constraints, like \"\"this fund invests in large cap US companies\"\". An index fund tries to match as closely as possible the performance of an index like the S&P 500. A fund may also try to offer a portfolio that is suitable for someone to put their entire account into. For example, a target date fund is a fund that may invest in a mix of stocks, bonds and foreign stock in a proportion that would be appropriate to someone expecting to retire in a certain year. These are not what people tend to think of as the canonical examples of mutual funds, even though they share the same legal structure and investment mechanisms. Secondly, a fund can either be a traditional mutual fund or it can be an exchange traded fund (ETF). To invest in a traditional mutual fund, you send money to the fund, and they give you a number of shares equal to what that money would have bought of the net asset value (NAV) of the fund at the end of trading on the day they receive your deposit, possibly minus a sales charge. To invest in an ETF, you buy shares of the ETF on the stock market like any other stock. Under the covers, an ETF does have something similar to the mechanism of depositing money to get shares, but only big traders can use that, and it's not used for investing, but only for people who are making a market in the stock (if lots of people are buying VTI, Big Dealer Co will get 100,000 shares from Vanguard so that they can sell them on the market the next day). Historically and traditionally, ETFs are associated with an indexing strategy, while if not specifically mentioned, people assume that traditional mutual funds are actively managed. Many ETFs, notably all the Vanguard ETFs, are actually just a different way to hold the same underlying fund. The best way to understand this is to read the prospectus for a mutual fund and an ETF. It's all there in reasonably plain English.\"",
"There are a few ETFs that fall into the money market category: SHV, BIL, PVI and MINT. What normally looks like an insignificant expense ratio looks pretty big when compared to the small yields offered by these funds. The same holds for the spread and transaction fees. For that reason, I'm not sure if the fund route is worth it.",
"There are many technical answers above , but the short story to me is that very few active fund managers consistently beat the market. Look at the results of actively managed funds. Depending on whose analysis you read, you will find out that somewhere between 80-90% of fund managers in a given year do not beat passive index funds. So go figure how you will do compared to a mutual fund manager who has way more experience than you likely have. So, that in itself is moderately interesting, but if you look at same-manager performance over several consecutive years it is rare to find anyone that goes beats the market for more than a few years in a row. There are exceptions, but go pick one of these guys/gals - good luck. Getting in and out of the market is a loser. This is because there is no way to see market spikes and down turns. There are many behavioral studies that have been done that show people do the wrong thing: they sell after losses have occurred and they buy after the market has gone up. Missing an up spike and not being in before the spike is as devastating as missing a down turn and not getting out in time. There is another down side, if you are trading in a personal account, rather than a tax deferred account, going in and out of stocks has tax complications. In short, a broad based equity index will, over time, beat about anything out there and it will do it in a tax efficient manner. Exchange traded funds (ETFs) are a wonderful way to obtain diversification immediately at very low cost.",
"The market doesn't really need to adjust for fees on ETF funds that are often less than 1/10th of a percent. The loss of the return is more than made up for by the diversification. How does the market adjust for trading fees? It doesn't have to, it's just a cost of doing business. If one broker or platform offers better fee structures, people will naturally migrate toward the lower fees.",
"\"Your question is one of semantics. ETFs and mutual funds have many things in common and provide essentially the same service to investors with minimal differences. It's reasonably correct to say \"\"An ETF is a mutual fund that...\"\" and then follow up with some stuff that is not true of a typical mutual fund. You could do the same with, for example, a hedge fund. \"\"A hedge fund is a mutual fund that doesn't comply with most SEC regulations and thus is limited to accredited investors.\"\" As a matter of practice, when people say \"\"mutual fund\"\" they are talking about traditional mutual funds and pretty much never including ETFs. So is an ETF a mutual fund as the word is commonly used? No.\"",
"What JoeTaxpayer means is that you can sell one ETF and buy another that will perform substantially the same during the 30 day wash sale period without being considered substantially the same from a wash sale perspective more easily than you could with an individual stock. For example, you could sell an S&P 500 index ETF and then temporarily buy a DJIA index ETF. As these track different indexes, they are not considered to be substantially the same for wash sale purposes, but for a short term investing period, their performance should still be substantially the same.",
"\"You seem to be assuming that ETFs must all work like the more traditional closed-end funds, where the market price per share tends—based on supply and demand—to significantly deviate from the underlying net asset value per share. The assumption is simplistic. What are traditionally referred to as closed-end funds (CEFs), where unit creation and redemption are very tightly controlled, have been around for a long time, and yes, they do often trade at a premium or discount to NAV because the quantity is inflexible. Yet, what is generally meant when the label \"\"ETF\"\" is used (despite CEFs also being both \"\"exchange-traded\"\" and \"\"funds\"\") are those securities which are not just exchange-traded, and funds, but also typically have two specific characteristics: (a) that they are based on some published index, and (b) that a mechanism exists for shares to be created or redeemed by large market participants. These characteristics facilitate efficient pricing through arbitrage. Essentially, when large market participants notice the price of an ETF diverging from the value of the shares held by the fund, new units of the ETF can get created or redeemed in bulk. The divergence quickly narrows as these participants buy or sell ETF units to capture the difference. So, the persistent premium (sometimes dear) or discount (sometimes deep) one can easily witness in the CEF universe tend not to occur with the typical ETF. Much of the time, prices for ETFs will tend to be very close to their net asset value. However, it isn't always the case, so proceed with some caution anyway. Both CEF and ETF providers generally publish information about their funds online. You will want to find out what is the underlying Net Asset Value (NAV) per share, and then you can determine if the market price trades at a premium or a discount to NAV. Assuming little difference in an ETF's price vs. its NAV, the more interesting question to ask about an ETF then becomes whether the NAV itself is a bargain, or not. That means you'll need to be more concerned with what stocks are in the index the fund tracks, and whether those stocks are a bargain, or not, at their current prices. i.e. The ETF is a basket, so look at each thing in the basket. Of course, most people buy ETFs because they don't want to do this kind of analysis and are happy with market average returns. Even so, sector-based ETFs are often used by traders to buy (or sell) entire sectors that may be undervalued (or overvalued).\"",
"One thing to be aware of when choosing mutual funds and index ETFs is the total fees and costs. The TD Ameritrade site almost certainly had links that would let you see the total fees (as an annual percentage) for each of the funds. Within a category, the lowest fees percentage is best, since that is directly subtracted from your performance. As an aside, your allocation seems overly conservative to me for someone that is 25 years old. You will likely work for 40 or so years and the average stock market cycle is about 7 years. So you will likely see 5 or so complete cycles. Worrying about stability of principal too young will really cut into your returns. My daughter is your age and I have advised her to be 100% in equities and then to start dialing that back in about 25 years or so.",
"One thing I would add to @littleadv (buy an ETF instead of doing your own) answer would be ensure that the dividend yield matches. Expense ratios aren't the only thing that eat you with mutual funds: the managers can hold on to a large percentage of the dividends that the stocks normally pay (for instance, if by holding onto the same stocks, you would normally receive 3% a year in dividends, but by having a mutual fund, you only receive .75%, that's an additional cost to you). If you tried to match the DJIA on your own, you would have an advantage of receiving the dividend yields on the stocks paying dividends. The downsides: distributing your investments to match and the costs of actual purchases.",
"Most ETFs are index funds, meaning you get built in diversification so that any one stock going down won't hurt the overall performance much. You can also get essentially the same index funds by directly purchasing them from the mutual fund company. To buy an ETF you need a brokerage account and have to pay a transaction fee. Buying only $1000 at a time the broker transaction fee will eat too much of your money. You want to keep such fees way down below 0.1%. Pay attention to transaction fees and fund expense ratios. Or buy an equivalent index fund directly from the mutual fund company. This generally costs nothing in transaction fees if you have at least the minimum account value built up. If you buy every month or two you are dollar cost averaging, no matter what kind of account you are using. Keep doing that, even if the market values are going down. (Especially if the market values are going down!) If you can keep doing this then forget about certificates of deposit. At current rates you cannot build wealth with CDs.",
"Some index funds offer lower expense ratios to those who invest large amounts of money. For example, Vanguard offers Admiral Shares of many of its mutual funds (including several index funds) to individuals who invest more than $50K or $100K, and these Shares have lower expense ratios than the Investor shares in the fund. There are Institutional Shares designed for investments by pension plans, 401k plans of large companies etc which have even lower expenses than Admiral Shares. Individuals working for large companies sometimes get access to Institutional Shares through their 401k plans. Thus, there is something to gained by investing in just one index fund (for a particular index) that offers lower expense ratios for large investments instead of diversifying into several index funds all tracking the same index. Of course, this advantage might be offset by failure to track the index closely, but this tracking should be monitored not on a daily basis but over much longer periods of time to test whether your favorite fund is perennially trailing the index by far more than its competitors with larger expense ratios. Remember that the Net Asset Value (NAV) published by each mutual fund after the markets close already take into account the expense ratio.",
"For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.",
"\"I wonder if ETF's are further removed from the actual underlying holdings or assets giving value to the fund, as compared to regular mutual funds. Not exactly removed. But slightly different. Whenever a Fund want to launch an ETF, it would buy the underlying shares; create units. Lets say it purchased 10 of A, 20 of B and 25 of C. And created 100 units for price x. As part of listing, the ETF company will keep the purchased shares of A,B,C with a custodian. Only then it is allowed to sell the 100 units into the market. Once created, units are bought or sold like regular stock. In case the demand is huge, more units are created and the underlying shares kept with custodian. So, for instance, would VTI and Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares be equally anchored to the underlying shares of the companies within the index? Yes they are. Are they both connected? Yes to an extent. The way Vanguard is managing this is given a Index [Investment Objective]; it is further splitting the common set of assets into different class. Read more at Share Class. The Portfolio & Management gives out the assets per share class. So Vanguard Total Stock Market Index is a common pool that has VTI ETF, Admiral and Investor Share and possibly Institutional share. Is VTI more of a \"\"derivative\"\"? No it is not a derivative. It is a Mutual Fund.\"",
"I believe that kind of micro-tuning for every participant would make the operating costs of the fund intolerable. A better approach, if this is important to you, would be to find a fund or funds designed for people who share your criteria. If the goals and criteria aren't mutual, a mutual fund -- traditional or ETF -- is probably not the right tool.",
"Price, whether related to a stock or ETF, has little to do with anything. The fund or company has a total value and the value is distributed among the number of units or shares. Vanguard's S&P ETF has a unit price of $196 and Schwab's S&P mutual fund has a unit price of $35, it's essentially just a matter of the fund's total assets divided by number of units outstanding. Vanguard's VOO has assets of about $250 billion and Schwab's SWPPX has assets of about $25 billion. Additionally, Apple has a share price of $100, Google has a share price of $800, that doesn't mean Google is more valuable than Apple. Apple's market capitalization is about $630 billion while Google's is about $560 billion. Or on the extreme a single share of Berkshire's Class A stock is $216,000, and Berkshire's market cap is just $360 billion. It's all just a matter of value divided by shares/units.",
"\"If you are a \"\"small\"\" investor (namely, not an accredited investor), then the transaction costs (commissions) for purchasing the stocks while attempting to duplicate DJIA will defeat any benefit. My personal preference is to purchase mutual funds rather than ETFs.\"",
"M Attia, the advantages of the TD e-series are that they are a low cost way to index your portfolio as well it gives you to opportunity to invest small amounts at a time. With ETF's, purchasing small amounts at a time would simply get too expensive.",
"In the past 10 years there have been mutual funds that would act as a single bucket of stocks and bonds. A good example is Fidelity's Four In One. The trade off was a management fee for the fund in exchange for having to manage the portfolio itself and pay separate commissions and fees. These days though it is very simple and pretty cheap to put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs that would represent a balanced portfolio. Whats even more interesting is that large online brokerage houses are starting to offer commission free trading of a number of ETFs, as long as they are not day traded and are held for a period similar to NTF mutual funds. I think you could easily put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs to trade on Fidelity or TD Ameritrade commission free, and one that would represent a nice diversified portfolio. The main advantage is that you are not giving money to the fund manager but rather paying the minimal cost of investing in an index ETF. Overall this can save you an extra .5-1% annually on your portfolio, just in fees. Here are links to commission free ETF trading on Fidelity and TD Ameritrade.",
"An index fund is inherently diversified across its index -- no one stock will either make or break the results. In that case it's a matter of picking the index(es) you want to put the money into. ETFs do permit smaller initial purchases, which would let you do a reasonable mix of sectors. (That seems to be the one advantage of ETFs over traditional funds...?)",
"One advantage not pointed out yet is that closed-end funds typically trade on stock exchanges, whereas mutual funds do not. This makes closed-end funds more accessible to some investors. I'm a Canadian, and this particular distinction matters to me. With my regular brokerage account, I can buy U.S. closed-end funds that trade on a stock exchange, but I cannot buy U.S. mutual funds, at least not without the added difficulty of somehow opening a brokerage account outside of my country.",
"The expense ratio reduces the return of the ETF; your scenario of paying 100.0015 is that of a load. Most (all?) ETFs can be bought without paying a load (sales charge as a percent of amount invested), and some ETFs can be bought without paying a brokerage fee (fixed or variable charge for a buy transaction just like buying any other stock through the brokerage) because the brokerage has waived it. Your broker might charge fees for both buying and selling shares in an ETF, but in any case, this is quite separate from the expense ratio.",
"Buying the right shares gives higher return. Buying the wrong ones gives worse return, possibly negative. The usual recommendation, even if you have a pro advising you, is to diversify most of your investments to reduce the risk, even though that may reduce the possible gain. A mutual fund is diversification-in-a-can. It requires little to no active maintenance. Yes, you pay a management fee, but you aren't paying per-transaction fees every time you adjust your holdings, and the management costs can be quite reasonable if you pick the right funds; minimal in the case of computer-managed (index) funds. If you actively enjoy playing with stocks and bonds and are willing/able to accept your failures and less-than-great choices as part of the game, and if you can convince yourself that you will do better this way, go for it. For those of us who just want to deposit out money, watch it grow, and maybe rebalance once a year if that, index funds are a perfectly good choice. I spend at least 8 hours a day working for my money; the rest of the time, I want my money to work for me. Risk and reward tend to be proportional to each other; when they aren't, market prices tend to move to correct that. You need to decide how much risk you're comfortable with, and how much time and effort and money you're willing to spend managing that risk. Personally, I am perfectly happy with the better-than-market-rate-of-return I'm getting, and I don't have any conviction that I could do better if I was more involved. Your milage will vary. If folks didn't disagree, there wouldn't be a market.",
"Just sticking to equities: If you are investing directly in a share/stock, depending on various factors, you may have picked up a winner or to your dismay a loser. Say you just have Rs 10,000/- to invest, which stock would you buy? If you don't know, then it’s better to buy a Mutual Fund. Now if you say you would buy a few of everything, then even to purchase say Rs 5000/- worth of each stock in the NIFTY Index [50 companies] you would require at least an investment of 250,000/-. When you are investing directly you always have to buy in whole numbers, i.e. you can't buy 1/2 share or 1.6 share of some stock. The way Mutual funds work is they take 10,000 from 250 people and invest in all the stocks. There are fund managers who's job is to pick good stocks, however even they cannot predict winners all the time. Normally a few of the picks become great winners, most are average, and a few are losers; this means that overall your returns are average VS if you had picked the winning stock. The essential difference between you investing on your own and via mutual funds are: It is good to begin with a Mutual Fund, and once you start understanding the stocks better you can invest directly into the equities. The same logic holds true for Debt as well.",
"\"Oddly enough, in the USA, there are enough cost and tax savings between buy-and-hold of a static portfolio and buying into a fund that a few brokerages have sprung up around the concept, such as FolioFN, to make it easier for small investors to manage numerous small holdings via fractional shares and no commission window trades. A static buy-and-hold portfolio of stocks can be had for a few dollars per trade. Buying into a fund involves various annual and one time fees that are quoted as percentages of the investment. Even 1-2% can be a lot, especially if it is every year. Typically, a US mutual fund must send out a 1099 tax form to each investor, stating that investors share of the dividends and capital gains for each year. The true impact of this is not obvious until you get a tax bill for gains that you did not enjoy, which can happen when you buy into a fund late in the year that has realized capital gains. What fund investors sometimes fail to appreciate is that they are taxed both on their own holding period of fund shares and the fund's capital gains distributions determined by the fund's holding period of its investments. For example, if ABC tech fund bought Google stock several years ago for $100/share, and sold it for $500/share in the same year you bought into the ABC fund, then you will receive a \"\"capital gains distribution\"\" on your 1099 that will include some dollar amount, which is considered your share of that long-term profit for tax purposes. The amount is not customized for your holding period, capital gains are distributed pro-rata among all current fund shareholders as of the ex-distribution date. Morningstar tracks this as Potential Capital Gains Exposure and so there is a way to check this possibility before investing. Funds who have unsold losers in their portfolio are also affected by these same rules, have been called \"\"free rides\"\" because those funds, if they find some winners, will have losers that they can sell simultaneously with the winners to remain tax neutral. See \"\"On the Lookout for Tax Traps and Free Riders\"\", Morningstar, pdf In contrast, buying-and-holding a portfolio does not attract any capital gains taxes until the stocks in the portfolio are sold at a profit. A fund often is actively managed. That is, experts will alter the portfolio from time to time or advise the fund to buy or sell particular investments. Note however, that even the experts are required to tell you that \"\"past performance is no guarantee of future results.\"\"\"",
"As has been pointed out, one isn't cheaper than the other. One may have a lower price per share than the other, but that's not the same thing. Let's pretend that the total market valuation of all the stocks within the index was $10,000,000. (Look, I said let's pretend.) You want to invest $1,000. For the time being, let's also pretend that your purchasing 0.01% of all the stock won't affect prices anywhere. One company splits the index into 10,000 parts worth $1,000 each. The other splits the same index into 10,000,000 parts worth $1 each. Both track the underlying index perfectly. If you invest $1,000 with the first company, you get one part; if you invest $1,000 with the second, you get 1,000 parts. Ignoring spreads, transaction fees and the like, immediately after the purchase, both are worth exactly $1,000 to you. Now, suppose the index goes up 2%. The first company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly one) are now worth $1,020 each, and the second company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly 1,000) are worth $1.02 each. In each case, you now have index shares valued at $1,020 for a 2% increase ($1,020 / $1,000 = 1.02 = 102% of your original investment). As you can see, there is no reason to look at the price per share unless you have to buy in terms of whole shares, which is common in the stock market but not necessarily common at all in mutual funds. Because in this case, both funds track the same underlying index, there is no real reason to purchase one rather than the other because you believe they will perform differently. In an ideal world, the two will perform exactly equally. The way to compare the price of mutual funds is to look at the expense ratio. The lower the expense ratio is, the cheaper the fund is, and the less of your money is being eroded every day in fees. Unless you have some very good reason to do differently, that is how you should compare the price of any investment vehicles that track the same underlying commodity (in this case, the S&P 500).",
"Excellent summary. I'd add a minor point that it's cheaper to setup and run a hedge fund. The legal fees associated with starting a 40 Act mutual fund are about $750,000. A hedge fund cane be setup for about $80,000. It's also cheaper to keep the hedge fund going as the reporting requirements are much less. source: Have setup hedge funds and mutual funds. edit: A word and source. Edi",
"\"Back in the olden days, if you wanted to buy the S&P, you had to have a lot of money so you can buy the shares. Then somebody had the bright idea of making a fund that just buys the S&P, and then sells small pieces of it to investor without huge mountains of capital. Enter the ETFs. The guy running the ETF, of course, doesn't do it for free. He skims a little bit of money off the top. This is the \"\"fee\"\". The major S&P ETFs all have tiny fees, in the percents of a percent. If you're buying the index, you're probably looking at gains (or losses) to the tune of 5, 10, 20% - unless you're doing something really silly, you wouldn't even notice the fee. As often happens, when one guy starts doing something and making money, there will immediately be copycats. So now we have competing ETFs all providing the same service. You are technically a competitor as well, since you could compete with all these funds by just buying a basket of shares yourself, thereby running your own private fund for yourself. The reason this stuff even started was that people said, \"\"well why bother with mutual funds when they charge such huge fees and still don't beat the index anyway\"\", so the index ETFs are supposed to be a low cost alternative to mutual funds. Thus one thing ETFs compete on is fees: You can see how VOO has lower fees than SPY and IVV, in keeping with Vanguard's philosophy of minimal management (and management fees). Incidentally, if you buy the shares directly, you wouldn't charge yourself fees, but you would have to pay commissions on each stock and it would destroy you - another benefit of the ETFs. Moreover, these ETFs claim they track the index, but of course there is no real way to peg an asset to another. So they ensure tracking by keeping a carefully curated portfolio. Of course nobody is perfect, and there's tracking error. You can in theory compare the ETFs in this respect and buy the one with the least tracking error. However they all basically track very closely, again the error is fractions of the percent, if it is a legitimate concern in your books then you're not doing index investing right. The actual prices of each fund may vary, but the price hardly matters - the key metric is does it go up 20% when the index goes up 20%? And they all do. So what do you compare them on? Well, typically companies offer people perks to attract them to their own product. If you are a Fidelity customer, and you buy IVV, they will waive your commission if you hold it for a month. I believe Vanguard will also sell VOO for free. But for instance Fidelity will take commission from VOO trades and vice versa. So, this would be your main factor. Though, then again, you can just make an account on Robinhood and they're all commission free. A second factor is reliability of the operator. Frankly, I doubt any of these operators are at all untrustworthy, and you'd be buying your own broker's ETF anyway, and presumably you already went with the most trustworthy broker. Besides that, like I said, there's trivial matters like fees and tracking error, but you might as well just flip a coin. It doesn't really matter.\"",
"diversifying; but isn't that what mutual funds already do? They diversify and reduce stock-specific risk by moving from individual stocks to many stocks, but you can diversify even further by selecting different fund types (e.g. large-cal, small-cap, fixed- income (bond) funds, international, etc.). Your target-date fund probably includes a few different types already, and will automatically reallocate to less risky investments as you get close to the target date. I would look at the fees of different types of funds, and compare them to the historical returns of those funds. You can also use things like morningstar and other ratings as guides, but they are generally very large buckets and may not be much help distinguishing between individual funds. So to answer the question, yes you can diversify further - and probably get better returns (and lower fees) that a target-date fund. The question is - is it worth your time and effort to do so? You're obviously comfortable investing for the long-term, so you might get some benefit by spending a little time looking for different funds to increase your diversification. Note that ETFs don't really diversify any differently than mutual funds, they are just a different mechanism to invest in funds, and allow different trading strategies (trading during the day, derivatives, selling short, etc.).",
"Index funds, like IBB, generally lack active management, which equates to lower expenses. This is simply because the target index, the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index in the case of IBB, is composed of known quantities. This means there won't be stock pickers or analysts constantly swapping holdings, increasing the turnover rate of the portfolio and increasing capital gains; costs that are offset by higher expense ratios in more actively managed funds.",
"Equal-weight ETFs remove the large cap bias found in most popular indexes. What results behaves very much like a small-cap or mid-cap index. Observe RSP vs IJR over a 5 year period: IJR (iShares S&P SmallCap 600 ETF) vs RSP (Rydex S&P Equal Weight ETF) I'm not sure if equal-weighting is worth the reduced efficiency. Mid-cap and small-cap funds have lower expenses (%0.20 for IJR vs %0.40 for RSP) and appear to do better over the long run. We don't know if that pattern will continue, but expense is one of the strongest long-term predictors of performance.",
"ETrade allows this without fees (when investing into one of the No-Load/No-Fees funds from their list). The Sharebuilder plan is better when investing into ETF's or stocks, not for mutual funds, their choice (of no-fees funds) is rather limited on Sharebuilder.",
"You do realize that the fund will have management expenses that are likely already factored into the NAV and that when you sell, the NAV will not yet be known, right? There are often fees to run a mutual fund that may be taken as part of managing the fund that are already factored into the Net Asset Value(NAV) of the shares that would be my caution as well as possible fee changes as Dilip Sarwate notes in a comment. Expense ratios are standard for mutual funds, yes. Individual stocks that represent corporations not structured as a mutual fund don't declare a ratio of how much are their costs, e.g. Apple or Google may well invest in numerous other companies but the costs of making those investments won't be well detailed though these companies do have non-investment operations of course. Don't forget to read the fund's prospectus as sometimes a fund will have other fees like account maintenance fees that may be taken out of distributions as well as being aware of how taxes will be handled as you don't specify what kind of account these purchases are being done using.",
"The same reason a company would offer coupons. I'd guess they're just doing it as a way to entice people to do their investing with them. Since it is any ETF I doubt they are being compensated by the ETF companies, as is sometimes the case (iShares does this with Fidelity, for example). And they still get the commission on the sale.",
"Fair enough. I would imagine the ETF could get a better option pricing if that were the case, plus liquidity and counterpart risk concerns but your point is well taken. Serves me right to shoot my mouth off on something I do not do (short). Speaking of which, do you do a lot of shorting? Cover positions or speculation?",
"It isn't just ETFs, you have normal mutual funds in India which invest internationally. This could be convenient if you don't already have a depository account and a stockbroker. Here's a list of such funds, along with some performance data: Value Research - Equity: International: Long-term Performance. However, you should also be aware that in India, domestic equity and equity fund investing is tax-free in the long-term (longer than one year), but this exemption doesn't apply to international investments. Ref: Invest Around the World.",
"\"There are several reasons. One, mutual funds provide instant diversification. To build a diverse portfolio \"\"manually\"\" (by buying individual shares) requires a lot of time and effort. If your portfolio is not diverse, then it is wrong to say \"\"buying shares gives higher return\"\"; in many cases diversification will increase your returns. Two, mutual funds reduce transactions costs. If you buy individual shares, you pay transactions costs every time you buy or sell. If you buy and sell the shares of many companies, you must perform many transactions and thus incur heavy fees. With mutual funds, a single transaction gets you access to many companies. In addition, it is often possible to buy mutual funds without paying transactions costs at all (although you will still pay fund expenses). Three (sort of a combination of the previous two) it is just easier. Many people can easily buy mutual funds with no cost and little effort through their bank. It is also simple to set up auto-investment plans so that you automatically save money over time. All of these things are much more complicated if you try to buy many individual shares. Four, if you buy the right kinds of funds (low-cost index funds), it is probably more lucrative than buying individual shares. The odds that, through carefully selected stock-buying, you will earn more than the market average are small. Even professional stock-pickers consistently underperform broad market indexes. In short, it is not true that \"\"buying shares gives higher return\"\", and even if it were, the convenience and diversification of mutual funds would still be good reasons to use them.\"",
"As these all seem to be US Equity, just getting one broad based US Equity index might offer similar diversification at lower cost. Over 5 years, 20 basis points in fees will only make about 1% difference. However, for longer periods (retirement saving), it is worth it to aim for the lowest fees. For further diversification, you might want to consider other asset classes, such as foreign equity, fixed income, etc.",
"The ETF price quoted on the stock exchange is in principle not referenced to NAV. The fund administrator will calculate and publish the NAV net of all fees, but the ETF price you see is determined by the market just like for any other security. Having said that, the market will not normally deviate greatly from the NAV of the fund, so you can safely assume that ETF quoted price is net of relevant fees.",
"Investopedia laid out the general information of tax treatment on the ETF fund structures as well as their underlying asset classes: http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0213/how-tax-treatments-of-etfs-work.aspx",
"Some other suggestions: Index-tracking mutual funds. These have the same exposure as ETFs, but may have different costs; for example, my investment manager (in the UK) charges a transaction fee on ETFs, but not funds, but caps platform fees on ETFs and not funds! Target date funds. If you are saving for a particular date (often retirement, but could also be buying a house, kids going to college, mid-life crisis motorbike purchase, a luxury cruise to see an eclipse, etc), these will automatically rebalance the investment from risk-tolerant (ie equities) to risk-averse (ie fixed income) as the date approaches. You can get reasonably low fees from Vanguard, and i imagine others. Income funds/ETFs, focusing on stocks which are expected to pay a good dividend. The idea is that a consistent dividend helps smooth out volatility in prices, giving you a more consistent return. Historically, that worked pretty well, but given fees and the current low yields, it might not be smart right now. That said Vanguard Equity Income costs 0.17%, and i think yields 2.73%, which isn't bad.",
"There's really no right or wrong answer here because you'll be fine either way. If you've investing amounts in the low 5 figures you're likely just getting started, and if your asset allocation is not optimal it's not that big a deal because you have a long time horizon to adjust it, and the expense ratio differences here won't add up to that much. A third option is Vanguard ETFs, which have the expense ratio of Admiral Shares but have lower minimums (i.e. the cost of a single share, typically on the order of $100). However, they are a bit more advanced than mutual funds in that they trade on the market and require you to place orders rather than just specifying the amount you want to buy. A downside here is you might end up with a small amount of cash that you can't invest, since you can initially only buy whole numbers of ETFs shares. So what I'd recommend is buying roughly the correct number of ETFs shares you want except for your largest allocation, then use the rest of your cash on Admiral Shares of that (if possible). For example, let's say you have $15k to invest and you want to be 2/3 U.S. stock, 1/6 international stock, and 1/6 U.S. bond. I would buy as many shares of VXUS (international stock ETF) and BND (U.S. bond ETF) as you can get for $2500 each, then whatever is left over (~$10k) put into VTSAX (U.S. stock Admiral Shares mutual fund)."
] |
[
"There are times when investing in an ETF is more convenient than a mutual fund. When you invest in a mutual fund, you often have an account directly with the mutual fund company, or you have an account with a mutual fund broker. Mutual funds often have either a front end or back end load, which essentially gives you a penalty for jumping in and out of funds. ETFs are traded exactly like stocks, so there is inherently no load when buying or selling. If you have a brokerage account and you want to move funds from a stock to a mutual fund, an ETF might be more convenient. With some accounts, an ETF allows you to invest in a fund that you would not be able to invest in otherwise. For example, you might have a 401k account through your employer. You might want to invest in a Vanguard mutual fund, but Vanguard funds are not available with your 401k. If you have access to a brokerage account inside your 401k, you can invest in the Vanguard fund through the associated ETF. Another reason that you might choose an ETF over a mutual fund is if you want to try to short the fund.",
"Something to consider is how do you want to handle fractional shares. Most open-end funds can easily go to fractional shares to that if you want to invest $500 in a fund each month, it is a relatively easy transaction where some shares will be fractional and handled easily. An ETF may not always work that way unless you go through something like Sharebuilder that would allow the fractional shares as if the ETF is trading at $150/share, you could buy 3 shares but still have $50 that you want to invest but can't as stocks trade in whole share numbers usually. This is without adding brokerage commissions. Depending on the broker, re-investing dividends may or may not be that simple as fractional shares could be a problem since those 3 shares aren't likely to have enough of a dividend to equal another share being bought with the proceeds. If you want the flexibility of stop and limit orders then the ETF may make more sense while the open-end fund is simply to invest whole dollar amounts that then lead to fractional shares. Don't forget to factor in minimums and other stuff as VFIAX may have a bit of a minimum to it as well as possible fees that could be annoying as I remember VFINX having some account maintenance fees that were a bit irksome back in the day that may still be around in some cases so be sure to read the fine print on things.",
"In the case of VFIAX versus VOO, if you're a buy-and-hold investor, you're probably better off with the mutual fund because you can buy fractional shares. However, in general the expense ratio for ETFs will be lower than equivalent mutual funds (even passive index funds). They are the same in this case because the mutual fund is Admiral Class, which has a $10,000 minimum investment that not all people may be able to meet. Additionally, ETFs are useful when you don't have an account with the mutual fund company (i.e. Vanguard), and buying the mutual fund would incur heavy transaction fees."
] |
1322
|
Is this follow-up after a car crash a potential scam?
|
[
"399418",
"114231",
"115552",
"64138"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"153640",
"567031",
"588026",
"524723",
"13325",
"269917",
"370334",
"252758",
"41094",
"185616",
"298365",
"508896",
"114231",
"219119",
"73821",
"374049",
"9737",
"378432",
"567973",
"408027",
"204735",
"409761",
"41469",
"220138",
"58664",
"160611",
"50368",
"198269",
"349932",
"545789",
"156581",
"574604",
"452846",
"467737",
"424274",
"364316",
"193065",
"362721",
"310845",
"5049",
"49082",
"367944",
"234247",
"137078",
"145322",
"9471",
"523792",
"400950",
"253317",
"592785",
"228858",
"381899",
"478514",
"2702",
"26492",
"254759",
"125288",
"564156",
"322428",
"463351",
"237607",
"405591",
"574948",
"224098",
"97582",
"205804",
"104221",
"442625",
"335376",
"64758",
"538217",
"594206",
"139314",
"335435",
"20912",
"315796",
"264822",
"52128",
"25613",
"426944",
"504776",
"220853",
"115552",
"543607",
"399418",
"405231",
"456783",
"501690",
"251644",
"580479",
"65418",
"40870",
"151514",
"502909",
"44085",
"271116",
"501038",
"212810",
"567201",
"214518"
] |
[
"This is a scam. Do not give them any money. A quick search on this site will yield many examples of this scam.",
"This is a scam. Delete the email and don't talk to the person or keep any contact.",
"It's marketing or SCAM tentative. Please check with extreme attention before clicking any link present in the communication.",
"Yes it is a scam. There is no money. They are after your personal details so that they can get your money.",
"I can't imagine any scenario under which this wouldn't be a scam, and frankly I'm a bit surprised to be talking about it once again. Any time someone you don't know and who doesn't know you wants to give you money for no good reason and asks you to provide personal information and bank info, there should be enough alarms going off for a five-alarm fire. Worse still this guy wants you to send half the money back to him. One simple question: WHY??? For what reason would they want you to send anything back? Why not just send you the money he wants you to have and keep the rest for himself? For heaven's sake, don't fall for this. Stay away from the whole mess and save yourself a bunch of grief.",
"\"This is totally a scam. I didn't read the whole thing. Didn't need to after I read \"\"abandoned sum of 22.5 million\"\" which implied part of it was yours to take after you do something for them.. Logically speaking.. No stranger would disclose this to you.\"",
"It may be a scam. But it also may be a company trying to find a person with the same or similar name. They may have followed a trail to her old address, and still not have the correct person. They bought number of old debts at a large discount, and are trying to track down any money they can find. It is best to ignore it, especially if they know it isn't their debt. If they start providing more proof then get interested. If they keep contacting them tell them there is no business relationship and they should stop.",
"You can't blame companies like 'Legal Claimant Services' for making a profit by providing this service. That is capitalism and it is the way of the world. It is just like any other business you can do yourself - from making dinner to cutting your own grass. If you choose to do it yourself, you save money but you also do the work. When I got my letter telling me about a claim, I automatically went online to do some research. That's how I found this site and information that led me to validate the claim. I then chose to follow a few simple instructions and keep all of the claim instead of giving away 30%.",
"100% scam. This is classic of mixing real (Exxon) with fiction. This gives credibility to story. Don't give any thing, there is no damage yet. If you take the bait, there are multiple ways to get money from you.",
"This is very possibly a scam. The way the scam works is that the scammers send you a letter and demand you call the telephone number. But the telephone number belongs to the scammers, not the bank. When you call the number, they will 'authenticate' you by asking you a bunch of questions. They will then have enough information to call the bank and pretend to be you, and transfer out all of your money. What you need to do is to find the telephone number for your bank without making use of this letter. For example, look at a previous bank statement, or find the telephone number on the bank's website. Call that number and discuss this letter. If you have already called the number in the letter and if you have the slightest reason to believe it is not valid, stop reading. This is an emergency. Immediately call a legitimate number at the bank. Explain the situation and note that you believe your information has been compromised. Why are you still reading? Do it now.",
"It is absolutely a scam. Anyone who tells you they can give you a large amount of money for free is trying to scam you. Additional warning signs include:",
"Pretty much any financial transaction where they start by calling you on the phone is a scam. They aren't doing it for your benefit and the caller is on commission.",
"\"You have to realize that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to do things \"\"unofficially\"\" by not reporting the accident (to insurance companies and/or police), but you want to do it \"\"officially\"\" in that you want to have legal recourse if they try to hit you up for more money. The only way to have it both ways is to trust the other person. From a financial perspective, ultimately you need to decide if the monetary cost of your raised insurance premiums, etc., outweighs the cost of whatever money the other party in the accident will try to squeeze out of you (factoring in the likelihood that they will do so). You also would need to factor in the likelihood that, rather than trying to scam you, they'll pursue legal action against you. In short, from a purely monetary perspective, if the legitimate cost of repairs is $700 and the cost to you of doing it by the book via insurance is $2000, you should be willing to be scammed for up to $1300, because you'll still come out ahead. Of course, there are psychological considerations, like whether someone unscrupulous enough to scam you will stop at $1300. But those numbers are the baseline for whatever outcome calculations you want to do. On the more qualitative side of things, it is possible they're trying to scam you, but also possible they're just trying to hustle you into doing everything quickly without thinking about it. They may not be trying to gouge you monetarily, they just want to pressure you so they get their money. I agree with other answerers here that the ideal way would be for them to send you an actual bill after repairs are complete. However, you could ask them to send you a written copy of the repair shop estimate, along with a written letter in which they state that they will consider payment of that amount to resolve the issue and won't pursue you further. The legal strength of that is dubious, but at least you have some documentation that you didn't just try to stiff them. If they won't give you some form of written documentation, I would read that as a red flag, bite the bullet, and contact your insurance company.\"",
"If they are a debt collector, they must follow the requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In particular, they must provide you with verification of the debt at your written request. If they won't give you a way to do this, they are in violation of the law, and you should contact proper authorities. If they are not a debt collection agency, it does sound like a scam, in which case you should also contact the appropriate law enforcement agency.",
"\"Ask yourself one question - \"\"Why me?\"\" Say I had no friends or family (that I liked). I have money and I'm dying. There are a half dozen charities I'd write checks to. Under what circumstances would I ever contact a stranger to try to give my money away? That answers why this is a scam.\"",
"This is definitely a scam. I had a friend sign up for a very similar offer and what they did was send a fake check and then asked to transfer the same amount to them. So now you just send them a couple grand and you're holding a fake check.",
"100% scam. Run away. If you have already given the bank account, inform the bank and close the account. Else just close the new account opened. Do not contact the scammer or reply back.... Just ignore ... Don't read any of scammer email, they are very convincing in why it's right and why it's not a scam.",
"Definitely sounds like scam. Odds are are high that the page he gave you the link to is a fake and this app is pure identity theft. Run away, unless you are interested enough to do the work to check with the company and confirm this is legitimate. Nobody contacts strangers with this kind of story without it being a scam. The fact that this one sounds shady is an attempt to keep you from questioning it too closely. Think about it: if it was at all legitimate, couldn't he find a friend of a friend? If it sounds too good to be true, it ain't true. Never download software unless you know exactly where it is coming from. It could be anything from ransomware, to something that first steals all you financial info, then uss you mail account to send a similar pitch to all your friends, to a botnet that uses your machine to attack other machines.",
"Yes, it’s a scam. Best case you will end up with nothing, worst case you wil end up losing money and facing criminal charges for fraud and/or money laundering. Do not contact him again or respond to further contact. Forward his details to your local law enforcement if you have provided any of your personal information to him already.",
"The sting here is definitely in the tail, the PS that says We are starting to call you from the same day when we get your details. The initial email doesn't ask for details, it asks for commitment. Once committed, you will be more relaxed about providing details. This makes me think that this is more serious than a simple financial scam. This is an effort to steal your identity, and that could be much more serious than the one-off loss of a few thousand dollars. Here's why: 1. The scammer could get numerous credit cards and store cards in your name, run up thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in charges, and leave you stuck with explaining what happened. I know someone who went from being a multi-millionaire to a pauper in a few months when his identity was stolen - and he is no fool. 2. It will take you years to clear your name. Meanwhile, your credit is shot, and you might have trouble getting a job, renting an apartment, or simply getting a cellphone contract. 3. Once you've repaired your credit, the scammer can just go through his old files and do it all over again. 4. Cloaked in your identity, and therefore being seen as you, the scammer can pull any number of scams, for which you will eventually be blamed. Then as well as dealing with credit bureaus, you will be dealing with another, more serious bureau: the FBI.",
"This is almost surely a scam. Among other things:",
"\"Any time someone starts asking you to provide personal information, such as a birth date, it could very well be a scam. This is especially true if it's someone you don't even know. Be very careful about getting involved in such situations. There is always some kind of almost believable story to what the scammers tell you, and unless you're willing to look deeper into it then it's easy to get pulled in. On top of that, you have to ask yourself, \"\"why did they pick me for this?\"\", because that's the real question. You have no idea what else the software they're asking you to download might do that you wouldn't know about, but offering to pay you something is a good way for them to get you to bypass your own security by installing it yourself. If the offer sounds too good to be true or too easy, you have to question it, and in such cases, your best bet is to stay away from it altogether.\"",
"\"Let me guess, it's a fairly large amount of money, a few thousand at least. This is a scam. This is a variation on the many fake check scams out there. You deposit the check and you think it \"\"cleared\"\" your bank, but it didn't clear. A clever fake check can take a couple weeks to bounce and the bank will demand the money back. Any money you wire back to the fraudster in the meantime will be lost forever.\"",
"\"Some additional information for the people who may read this question in the future : The situation is weird, to say the least. I'm going to assume 2 things : Now, look at these classic its-a-scam red flags : In these conditions, it is not safe to give even the smallest shred of information to such people. I'd advise you to ignore this person (best option), or to offer to get them in touch with an official (most scammers will run away at this point) or threaten to report them (not recommended, the scammer may take insult and try to \"\"get back at you\"\"). Hope this post helps and nobody gets scammed! EDIT: Thank you for the amazing welcome! If I'd have known I'd get such a huge response, I'd have written a better answer ;) (I hope I'm not breaking any rules by this edit)\"",
"Yes. It is a scam. The story makes no sense. They just want your info to steal your money. regarding requests to know how it works: the scammer is requesting: username, password, routing number, checking account number, and security question/answers. they now have access to your bank account. they will have access until you are able to shut it down. Once they have your password, they can change it to whatever they want. it can be used to launder money, steal money from other accounts you have, proof of identity...",
"Just FYI for the benefit of future users. Haven't been paid yet nor have I paid but some interesting facts. I decided to sign the contract with the person who approached me. The contract seemed harmless whereby I only transfer money once I retrieve the funds. Thanks to your comments here I also understood that I must make sure the funds really cleared in my account and can never be cancelled before I transfer anything. He gave me the information of the check that matched my previous employer and made sense as it was a check issues just after I had left my job and the state. I did not used the contact details he provided me, but rather found the direct contact details of the go to person in my last institution and contacted them. I still haven't been able to reclaim the funds, but that is due to internal problems between the state comptroller and my institution. Will come back to update if I am ever successful, but the bottom line is that it is probably not a scam. I am waiting for the final resolution of the case before I post the name of the company which approached me (if it is at all OK per the discussion board rules)",
"This sounds like a scam. C.f. Craigslist for normal warning signs of an on-line scam",
"Call your bank and inquire if they send out the kinds of notices like the one you received. Don't call the number in the message, because if it is a scam, you're calling the scammers themselves, more than likely. Be very cautious about this situation, and if your bank is local then it might not hurt to pay a visit to a local branch to talk to someone in person. Print out the message(s) you receive to show them and let their fraud division look into it.",
"This is very similar to what was asked in this question: Scam or real? This is a real winner of a scam, because it always finds someone gullible enough to fall for it. No stranger sends you money just to be a nice guy. This version of the scam is one I've seen on job-hunting sites. They'll promise you a job, and then they say they'll send you a check for equipment and supplies, but you need to send most of the money back to them. As long as they find victims, they'll continue to find more refined techniques to stay ahead of the authorities, and it'll change just enough that people won't recognize it for what it is. AVOID THIS AT ALL COSTS!! I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"\"How can I say this more clearly? SCAM, SCAM, SCAM! This is another one of the oldest scams out there, where you've won a prize or an inheritance has come in, and all you have to do is pay the taxes on it to claim it. Don't be a sucker! Ask yourself why the government couldn't (and wouldn't) just take the taxes due out of the funds they have and give the rest to the person they belong to? Wouldn't that be the smartest and easiest thing to do? As an example, let's say that you have $1,000 that belongs to me, and I owe you $100. Would you tell me to pay you the $100 and then you'll give me the $1,000 or would you take the $100 I owe you out of the $1,000 and give me the remaining $900? The fact this is someone you know from the internet and they want your \"\"help\"\" to claim their money should tell you how much of a scam this is. Stop talking to this person, and don't tell them anything personal about you. They are scam artists, and whatever you tell them could be used to steal your identity or take your money. Be careful, my friend!\"",
"In the very unlikely event that it is not a scam, there would be a distinct probability that it is someone trying to launder money. You don't want to get caught up with drug dealers or ISIS terrorists, so forget it. There is also the possibility that your post is a scam, looking for people who would believe such nonsense. I wonder if people who reply are going to get phished.",
"This is a scam. There is no soldier, no money ... This is a story to gain sympathy and make one part with Bank account and other details so that the scammer can make away with your money.",
"You should probably talk to a lawyer experienced in such matters, it is really hard to tell from what you described whether there is a problem or not. Are they trying to put majority of blame on me so that they can increase my premium or are they acting the right way? Both may be true. They are acting in their own best interests, not yours. They're trying to minimize their exposure. Had the other guy had insurance they would be much more susceptible to shift the blame, but since he doesn't - it is unlikely that they'll recover their money. So it is not in their best interests to accept your claim. Whether they're right or not - you answered yourself. A person backing out is usually responsible and the burden of proof that you aren't is on you. Does the insurance have something to gain from assigning more fault on me? Of course. Less money to shell out, more premiums to get. That said, they are willing to admit that some of the blame is on the other driver, which means that they're not entirely dismissing your claims. In general, I'm just trying to make sure I'm not being cheated monetarily by the insurance company in any way. Sue them.",
"You're not missing anything. Consumer protection in the US is very basic and limited, if at all. So if someone claims you owe them something, it would be really hard for you to prove otherwise unless you actually drag them to court. Especially if there actually was a relationship, and there probably is some paperwork to substantiate the claim. I suggest talking to a consumer issues attorney.",
"If this 'scam' has a name, address and/or phone number, I forward it to the FBI anonymously. That is my advice. You may also wish to consult a lawyer.",
"So while these companies are not a scam, 30% feels pretty darn high. How about you negotiate a much lower rate? 10% or 15%? Here is why: You will spend time and effort (which technically isn't free) to find the money. I bet you can find it if you look hard enough. But you could also just collect it and give this company a cut for their expertise. However if 30% bugs you (and it would bug me) then consider their reality. They spent money to find the funds and contact you. HOWEVER, that is a sunk cost. It is already spent. You can find it on your own and they get zip. Or you negotiate a lower percentage, they get enough to cover their costs and make some profit and you save a ton of time. Since they took the time to explain themselves here, they are either scammers trying to bully you into compliance, or they are legit. It is field that people might look down on, but it isn't criminal. I would look for the money if it were me, but I feel I have enough free time that it would be worth it.",
"This just happened to me to! At target. I have no idea if its a scam but that is the same thing i am thinking. They Lady who told me about it didn't tell me anything about her business. Just to go to the link....which isn't working. Idk its feels pretty shady. She did everything you said above.",
"Yes, it is a scam. Think about it: Why would a stranger offer to give you money? Why would she need you to pay her own employees? She wouldn't. It is a scam. You have more to lose than just the $25 that is in the account. Just as has happened to your dad before, you will be receiving money that is not real, but paying real money out somewhere else. One more thing: If your dad has fallen for these scams so many times that he can't get a bank account anymore, why are you still taking financial advice from him?",
"Yes this is a scam. Stay as far away as possible. Don't talk or send any messages. The more you talk, she would convince you that this is not a scam. Armed Forces have a very good way of taking care of their people. They don't need to do something like this.",
"Yes, it is a scam. There is no doubt about it. Never give your bank password to anyone, especially strangers. You will lose your money if you fall for this.",
"I have prepared a report on scam's like this. I'd be happy to deliver a copy of the report to your home. Just give me your address and mail me the keys to your house and I'll drop by and leave it in your home. Oh, and tell me a time when you won't be home, so I won't bother you when I come by. It might also be helpful if you tell me if you have any cash, jewelry, or other valuables in the house and where you keep them, so I can give you advice on security measures. :-)",
"\"It doesn't matter if the terms are a \"\"fair deal\"\" or are \"\"too good to be true\"\" — either way, it's definitely a scam. They are \"\"phishing\"\" for your personal information, including your banking information, and have no intention of giving you a loan. How can I tell? Simple: all such offers like this everywhere are scams. There is no economic situation other than being a scammer to do this. Why would an individual put out their money to strangers at such a high risk for even a much, much higher purported return? They wouldn't.\"",
"It's got every sign of a scam. Signatures are needed on contracts, so you should only place them on below one. Free money sounds too good to be true. Money evading banks is a typical sign of money laundering; why are they trying to avoid paper trails? The normal way to gift money is to just hand it over or pay it to a bank account. If anything, you sign a tax declaration, but you would send that to the taxman yourself.",
"\"Here's what's going to happen: At the last minute, he's going to \"\"discover\"\" that for some reason first you must send him $10,000. He'll tell you not to worry, as he's still going to send you $40,000... now $50,000. In fact, he's going to tell you that he'll send you $60,000 and tell you to keep the $10,000 as a \"\"finders fee\"\". Then you will send him, $10,000 and he will walk away with your $10,000. You'll never hear from him again. This is a very common scam. The best way to avoid it is not to tell him you won't do it for IRS reasons. The best thing to do is to stop accepting email from him and (optionally) report him to law enforcement.\"",
"\"If an offer \"\"is only valid right now\"\" and \"\"if you don't act immediately, it will expire\"\" that is almost always a scam.\"",
"Definitely a scam. Don't call him or do anything. Stay calm, there is no damage done yet. I met someone online three weeks ago. ... Left his wallet, debit card, credit cards, drivers license, etc. in the room In the entire world its only you he can bank upon ... someone whom hes met online just few weeks ago; there are no relatives, friends !!! why would the hotel manager Fed-Ex or UPS the items to my home address ... and not to his own address? Upon receipt, the engineer will give me his password to the Bank of America account so he can access his account Why doesn't he have internet? I am supposed to call him in the next hour or so and let him know if I will be doing this tomorrow. Don't call. Don't reply. The $150 is just a starter bait to see if one is gullible enough to take it and then there is more and more by different ways.",
"for full disclosure I'm an Independent Contractor and work with Jeff Richman. @ Neil: Question 1: How legitimate is this? If you were never contacted by the company you would never know about the money. Period, end of story. Not trying to be rude but that is the bottom line truth. Look up asset recovery businesses. They are in every city almost. They work for individuals, governments and businesses. Very legitimate business. Question 2: Since this doesn't seem to be the case, how does this company know that I potentially have unclaimed assets to claim? I understand your concern and the best analogy I can think of to explain this is: A company's copier breaks down. A copy machine repair man is called. He shows up and opens the copier and studies it intensely and closes it back up. He takes a hammer out of his bag and hits the copier on the side in two different places, twice. The copier starts working. He charges the company owner a $1000.00. The company owner is glad to pay it because without the knowledge of the repair man, his business is not making money. This is the same: The professionals at Keane have specific knowledge about how to, where to and who to ask for these lists. Granted, it's not your business we're talking about here but without them, you get nothing. 2 professionals have advised you to move forward; your brother's accountant and lawyer. Take the money. It costs you nothing. If they want money from you up front or want you to pay for stuff, run.",
"Yes. It is a scam, and here is how it will work. They will deposit a phony check into the account which will appear to clear. You will send money to Africa from the account. The check will take a while to bounce, but it will bounce. They will take it back out of your account (and may try to prosecute you for a fake check). At best, your account balance will go negative and you will owe the money back to the bank that you sent. The people you sent the money to will vanish.",
"My first thought is: email? Are you sure it is legitimate? Verify everything. Assuming it is legitimate:",
"This is a variation of a very common scam. The principle of the scam is this: I give you a check for a huge amount of money which you pay in your account. Then I ask you to pay some money from your account into a third account. Two months later the bank detects that my check was forged / stolen / cancelled / whatever and takes the huge amount of money away from your account. But you paid the money from your account, and that money is gone from your account and irrevocably ended up in my account.",
"\"Short answer: Yes this is a scam. I see three different possibilities how they get you. I will rank them from \"\"best\"\" to worst Scammer A sends 100$ to you. You then follow his instructions and send back 50$ through WU (this is untraceable). He then contacts his bank and tells them he never intended to send that 100$ to you, then bank will then reverse that transaction and give him back his money, leaving you 50$ short. Scammer A hacks or scams innocent person B and either sends B:s money to you or tricks person B to do it. When person B reports this to the police it will look like you were behind the whole thing. The transaction will be reversed leaving you 50$ short and with unwanted police attention (see this article for an extreme example: https://www.wired.com/2015/10/online-dating-made-woman-pawn-global-crime-plot/) The nice person A wants to send money to a criminal syndicate or terrorist organization but don't want to be associated with it. Leaving you 50$ up (hurray) and possibly on a bunch of terrorist watch lists (ouch!). The extra info you provide wouldn't be necessary for any of these scams but I guess it could be nice to have for some regular identity theft. This is by no means an exhaustive list of all that the scammers could do. It's just a short list to show you how dangerous it would be to play along. To state the obvious, don't walk from this person, RUN!\"",
"Of course it is a scam. They don't need your password to give you money. Even giving them the rest is enough information for them to try and withdraw money from your bank by automatic transfer.",
"\"I believe no-one who's in a legal line of business would tell you to default voluntarily on your obligations. Once you get an offer that's too good to be true, and for which you have to do something that is either illegal or very damaging to you - it is probably a scam. Also, if someone requires you to send any money without a prior written agreement - its probably a scam as well, especially in such a delicate matter as finances. Your friend now should also be worried about identity theft as he voluntary gave tons of personal information to these people. Bottom line - if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Your friend had all the warning signs other than a huge neon light saying \"\"Scam\"\" pointing at these people, and he still went through it. For real debt consolidation companies, research well: online reviews, BBB ratings and reviews, time in business, etc. If you can't find any - don't deal with them. Also, if you get promises for debtors to out of the blue give up on some of their money - its a sign of a scam. Why would debtors reduce the debt by 60%? He's paying, he can pay, he is not on the way to bankruptcy (or is he?)? Why did he do it to begin with?\"",
"Ben Miller offers you sounds advice. However, if it comes down to it I would reach out to a lawyer to negotiate this for you. If what you are presenting is true then you could easily sue them for the damages incurred. I have been in a similar situation and unfortunately using the lawyers is what was required to get the solution resolved. Based on my previous experience a simple letter from a local lawyer office would get this dropped pretty quick and should cost you around $150. Best of luck!",
"\"I have no personal knowledge of this company; I've only looked over what I found on the web. Overall, my judgement is that Pension Benefit Information, Inc. of San Rafael, CA is likely legitimate and aboutmyletter.com is one of two sites run by them (the other being pbinfo.com). These two sites are registered to Pension Benefit Information, Inc. (aboutmyletter uses Network Solutions privacy service but gives the company name; pbinfo uses their name and San Rafael address.) They are in the BBB. The president (of the 8 employee Co.), Susan McDonald, has testified (PDF on .gov site) before Congress about business uses of SSNs. They made a (very schlocky) video, which has an interview with McDonald after several canned, generic, \"\"impressive\"\" introductions. I found the interview convincing of a person actually running a small, real business of this type. A short version is on their site, long version here. There are some queries about their legitimacy online (like this one), but I found nothing negative on them, and one somewhat positive. One article talks about the suspicions they run into when contacting participants, and has some advice. Also, scammers are unlikely to pay the U.S. Postal Service money to send paper letters. So what are the dangers? Money or identity. So don't pay them any fees (now or later), especially since it looks like their clients (retirement funds) pay on the other side. As for identity information: What's in the letter? Don't they show that they already know a bunch about you? Old employer? Maybe the last four digits of your SSN? Your address (if this is not the forwarded-by-IRS type of contact letter). Other things, maybe? What information would you be giving up if you did respond to them fully? You could try contacting your old company directly (mentioning PBI, Inc,), although on their website PBI says you'll have to go through them. (They probably get paid for each successful contact, and deserve it.) Still, responding through mail or telephone to PBI seems like the reasonable thing to do.\"",
"He said he would need my first and last name and my online banking information not my date of birth, SSN, Address, Bank Address, Routing number, or checking account number This is a scam. No one needs online Banking User name and password. If you have already given this info, close your account and disable internet banking. not my date of birth, SSN, Address, Giving your date of birth and SSN is also dangerous. So my question for you is it a scam or could he really be wanting to put money into my account? Oh yeah and also he said they'll send it through my account I'll send half BACK through money gram or western union. There is no legit reason for doing this. This is 100% scam, one would only loose money. Just walk away before any damage can be done",
"No. A company cannot bill you for services you did not request nor receive. If they could, imagine how many people would just randomly get bills in their mail. Ignore them. They don't have a contract or agreement with you and can't do anything other than make noise. If they get aggressive or don't stop requesting money, hire an attorney and it will be taken care of.",
"It could be that your friend is being scammed into recruiting you as another victim. So it is vaguely possible that this isn't malicious on their part. However, it is a scam if they are asking for your credit card info without a completely clear and good reason it's necessary. Which they have failed to do. That is reason enough to assume it's a scam, illegal, or both. Run. And seriously consider whether these are really people you can trust on anything, never mind money. At best they're gullible.",
"\"I agree that you shouldn't give up trying to get your money back, but I strongly feel that this is not sufficient. If they are trying to victimize you, they are trying to victimize others. Taking care of getting your own money back should be your top concern, but contacting any Attorneys General and District Attorneys that have jurisdiction should also be a priority to help others--past, present, and future--that might be caught in this scam. Contact them, contact the police, contact the BBB, contact the local media. Shine a light and make the cockroaches pack up and get out of town. \"\"We got you... you have no recourse\"\" should always be met with the response, \"\"I will shut you down.\"\"\"",
"I ended up getting a letter in the mail a while later from Florida Treasure Hunt, and I did end up getting something from it. This brings up a very interesting find: Florida Treasure Hunt must first sell the listings to third-party companies to see if they can get your business. That's the only explanation I have for what happened.",
"\"A friend since July online and big business talks and trust/money forwards. Usually a question \"\"is this a scam or legitimate?\"\" is hard to answer since obviously scams are modelled after legitimate stories (or they'd easily fail). If there were bookmakers for \"\"scam or legitimate\"\", this one would easily gather odds of 10000:1. The only plausible reason for this to be legitimate would be to defraud the scam-or-legitimate bookmakers. At any rate, Exxon is a large company and has to obey labor laws. They cannot set up operations in a manner where their workers may not have access to their salary for prolonged times without easy remedy. Drop communications immediately, don't open them, don't read them. They hook you with emotional investment. They will redouble efforts if it appears you are slipping out of their reach. Explanations will become more plausible, more pressing, more emotionally charged. You are a big promising fish and they won't let you swim off without a serious struggle to rehook you. Hand your communication so far to law enforcement. That may help with not having to figure this out on your own.\"",
"\"In general, if you think something even MIGHT be a scam, the answer is\"\"yes\"\".\"",
"This sounds like a shady trick. I would consult with a consumer debt lawyer in your area. Most county bar associations in the US have a referral service, where they recommend a local lawyer and there is a reduced fee for the initial visit. I think the statute of limitations is 10 years in most cases, but it depends on where you live. From these bare details,I think they don;t have much of a case. Go see a lawyer and don't let them harrass you.",
"You're most definitely being scammed. You're being asked all the information required to steal your identity and take over your bank account. And Austria is land-locked, it has no west coast (or any coast, for that matter).",
"Yes, this is a scam. Tell your dad not to pay any money. There will likely be a large deposit in his account, but if he withdraws the money from his account, the bank will come after him looking for the money when the transfer to his account is reversed.",
"Here at Personal Injury Claims Scotland, we can help you claim compensation if you have been involved in an accident while driving. We will help you in the entire process so you can secure maximum compensation. We will also assist in the inspection of your vehicle’s damages to determine its eligibility for replacement. Visit our website at personal-injury-claims-scotland.co.uk for more details.",
"I think in such situations a good rule of thumb may be - if you are asked to pay significant sums of money upfront before anything is done, stop and ask yourself, what would you do if they don't do what they promised? They know who you are, but usually most you know is a company name and phone number. Both can disappear in a minute and what are you left with? If they said they'd pay off the debt and issue the new loan - fine, let them do it and then you pay them. If they insist on having money upfront without delivering anything - unless it's a very big and known and established company you probably better off not doing it. Either it's a scam or in the minuscule chance they are legit you still risking too much - you're giving money and not getting anything in return.",
"\"This is not only a scam but it is potentially fraud that may get you in trouble. This \"\"friend\"\" of yours will wire you some money in which you do not know where this money is really from. It's obvious from other answers that his story is fictitious. Thus it is likely that this money was stolen through another scam/hack in which now he wants to wash this money through your bank account. If it turns out that is was stolen, any money you withdrawal for your \"\"cut\"\", will have to be returned and your account will be frozen.\"",
"\"You're being scammed. I'd be willing to bet this 'celebrity' friend is a fake account on Instagram with 20k followers that befriends lonely neckbeards then tries to scam them. Save your money. Even if this is a legitimate long term friend whom you trust, you should put a lot more thought into \"\"investing\"\" money (that you don't have) into her brothers drug shop.\"",
"\"You should NEVER have to pay a fee to find out what has happened to a transaction in progress. You might sometimes have to pay for duplicate copies of a statement or similar, but not just to find out what is going on. It sounds like you are being scammed - your \"\"friend\"\" tells you they have transferred you money (but they have not done anything in reality), then they give you a \"\"customer care number\"\" to call and try to get you to pay them money in order to find out what has happened to the (non-existent) transaction. If you think this is plausibly what is happening - for example, if you google the company who is supposedly doing the transfer and find that they do not exist, or that the number you have been given is not really their customer care line - then you should cease all contact with your \"\"friend\"\" and pass all communications to your local law enforcement.\"",
"I would keep the letter in a file for follow-up, and I would do what you are already planning to do and wait to see what shows up on the credit report. If this does reflect an identity theft attempt, chances are that others will follow, so vigilance is key here. If there is a hard credit check, then you can dispute that on your credit report. If there is not a hard credit check, there is nothing further this credit card company can do to help you anyway.",
"Just browsed their website. Not a single name of anybody involved. Their application process isn't safe(No https usage while transferring private information). And considering they contacted you rather than you contacting them, I will be very wary about how they got my details. And they are located in Indonesia. And a simple google takes me to a BOILER SCAM thread. So all in all you have been scammed. Try asking for your money back, but may not be that helpful. Next time before giving your money to somebody, do some due diligence. These type of scams aren't new and are very common.",
"\"The lady said there wasn't any warning signs, uh hello they sent you $2850 and asked you to then make deposits. I would of just kept it if somebody sent me a \"\"check\"\". That's way to trusting for a new survey job.\"",
"Another reason to think it's a scam: fake paypal email notifications are a thing. I've seen one that was quite convincing (but it wasn't mine to properly analyse or report), so the intial payment may be a fake from another account belonging to the scammer, and you've just transferred money to the scammer. The fake email can include links to log in to a fake paypal website, which can be quite convincing as the mark will give the login details which can be used to scrape data. Links not going to where they say is the giveaway here.",
"This seems very suspicious, as if it were fraud, and not a legitimate collector. Garnishing wages takes a court order. A court would require a bit more proof than a name. Names can easily be common, I know sets of first cousins named after the common grandparent, 4 pairs in my extended family, along with 2 triples. The court would certainly look for a social security number match. Your own credit history will show no activity in that state. A legitimate debt collector would handle this very differently.",
"I wouldn't lose any sleep on it until it actually happens. I believe generally the agreement of the merchant with the credit card company says they must submit to the company's arbitration. If they come back to you, I would definitely get in touch with Visa to complain. Here's some great advice on dealing with unscrupulous debt collection, the main points being It's actually you that should be threatening to sue them if the repairs were incompetent or dangerous!",
"Oh my God. Turn. Back. Now. This is literally a textbook scam. I know you want to believe this is true. Its not. Even if it was true it would still be a high, high risk investment that would then be compounded by the fact that you would be doing it with 100% debt.",
"\"Scammers know you're not stupid enough to fall for this. So when you balk, he'll understand and offer to send you a check. When he sends you a check, he'll say cash it, keep $XXX for yourself, then forward him the rest for some other expense (or even possibly send it to someone else). Know in advance that that's a scam, too. When his fake check bounces you'll already be out the money and he'll be long gone. \"\"If it's too good to be true, it probably is\"\"\"",
"So, you think forcing people to buy their auto insurance doesn't provide any money? It sounds like the customer didn't even know they were paying for it. Or, are you saying that this minor scam is nothing in the grand scheme of things, and that we should expect their scams to pay out at least a few billion?",
"No, we did not apply for the loan. So, this is why we thought it was a bit strange a company just sending you a real check for $30K. It does not say anywhere in big red letters that it is a loan. Probably something in very small letters on a back of a paper. This is really horrible. Especially,if your customers do pay you by check and small business relies on online statement to determine who paid what. I can easily imagine a small outfit that just takes all the checks to the bank, cash them, and then use online statement to update their books. I do not see how it is helpful to businesses to receive pre-approved credit that is so poorly marked. Especially in the age of electronic transfers!!! I am trying to understand why I feel so offended by this, and I guess it all comes down to disgust: I refuse to believe that any serious company would use these sort of tactics and instead of us spending more time developing a better product, we have to put more time and effort into ensuring we do not fall victim to this.",
"I agree with you: it sounds like a scam. Those terms are too good to be true. Online, it is too easy to pretend to be someone you are not. When choosing a bank to work with, you need to be confident of its legitimacy. Make sure you have heard of it someplace other than their own website and can trust it. In this case, this isn't even a bank; it is just an individual stranger. I can't see how this could possibly be legitimate. With the information that they are asking for, they could potentially impersonate you and steal your money. I would stay away from this.",
"Reading stuff like this makes me want to go into the debt collection business. Just send letters to random people demanding money. Sounds like an easy way to make a living. What's your name and address? Just kidding. If they are sending stuff to a Virginia PO Box, close the box with no forwarding address and consider it case closed. If they are targetting you personally in New Hampshire, the best thing to do is to sue proactively before it goes to collection. New Hampshire has strict anti-debt-collection laws. Basically, what you do is go to small claims court and fill out a one-page form. Sue them for $2000, $3000 or whatever is convenient. Do not hire a lawyer. You can do this in 2 hours of your own time. Your grounds are: (1) Violation of the creditor of NH FDCA laws. According to the laws the creditor has to put all kinds of specific stuff in their threat letters. Since they are not doing this, they have violated NH FDCA. Read the FDCA so you know which specific items they are violating. (2) Extortion. Since you do not owe them any money, demanding money from you is extortion which is both criminally and civilly actionable. You sue them for mental anguish due to extortion. The validity of your claims is irrelevant. You just need to get them in court. There are two possibilities: (A) They fail to show up. In this case you win and they owe you $3000 or whatever. Not only that if they later try to collect from you send a copy of the judgement to the credit bureau or collector or whatever and that is proof you owe them no money. (B) They hire some stooge local lawyer who appears. Accept the court's offer for arbitration. When you go into arbitration with the lawyer tell him you will drop the lawsuit if they send you a check for $500 and a hand-written guarantee from him that you will never hear from his client again. Either way, you come out ahead. By the way, it is absolutely guaranteed that the enemy lawyer will accept your offer in (B) above because the SEO company is already paying him $5000 to show up to answer your lawsuit, and the lawyer does not want to hang around all morning in court waiting for the case to be heard. If he can get out of there in half an hour for only $500 he will do it. -------------------------------UPDATE If all you are getting is calls and the caller refuses to identify themself, then it is definitely an illegal scam. It is illegal in New Hampshire to make collection calls and refuse to full identify who is calling. The phone company has methods for dealing with illegal calls. First you have to file a police report. Then you call Verizon Security at 1-800-518-5507 (or whatever your phone company is). They will trace the call and identify the caller. They you can make a criminal complaint in their jurisdiction unless the call is from Pakistan or something.",
"You wouldn't pay what the quote says, you would pay what the bill says. If the car is used as a taxi then either it's done illegally and not your problem, or they have proper insurance. One reason to go through your insurance is that they know how to handle all these things for you. If you have only their phone number: You owe them money, so they will contact you.",
"This may not apply in your particular situation, but I think it's important to mention: When a debt collector doesn't act like a debt collector, it may be because they aren't actually a debt collector. It's certainly strange that someone called you to collect money from you, and when you asked for a simple document, they not only got off the phone quickly but they also told you the debt would be cancelled. That just doesn't make sense: Why would they cancel the debt? Why wouldn't they send you the document? My initial impression is that you were possibly being scammed. The scam can take on many forms: Whenever you are called by a debt collector (or someone pretending to be one), it's a good idea to verify their identity first. More info here.",
"\"Do not give them any money until you have a signed contract that releases your liability completely. It's imperative that this contract be drafted correctly. The contract needs proper consideration (money in exchange for release of liability), among other things. In other words, talk to a lawyer if you want to go this route. If you just cut them a check, there's nothing stopping them from taking your money and making an insurance claim anyway, or taking your money and then suing for \"\"whiplash\"\" or some other fake injury. The best way is just to go through insurance. It might cost a bit more, but you're covered in case they sue.\"",
"Absolutely anyone who wants to put money into a stranger's account is a guaranteed scammer and most likely from Nigeria in reality. I know you probably felt like it was your lucky day but in fact it could have been your unluckiest day had you not asked on here, so good on you man. Whenever you're not sure about something just ask, that's what the internet is for, someone's always willing to help.",
"\"This is obviously a spam mail. Your mortgage is a public record, and mortgage brokers and insurance agents were, are and will be soliciting your business, as long as they feel they have a chance of getting it. Nothing that that particular company offers is unique to them, nothing they can offer you cannot be done by anyone else. It is my personal belief that we should not do business with spammers, and that is why I suggest you to remember the company name and never deal with them. However, it is up to you if you want to follow that advice or not. What they're offering is called refinance. Any bank, credit union or mortgage broker does that. The rates are more or less the same everywhere, but the closing fees and application fees is where the small brokers are making their money. Big banks get their money from also servicing the loans, so they're more flexible on fees. All of them can do \"\"streamline\"\" refinance if your mortgage is eligible. None if it isn't. Note that the ones who service your current mortgage might not be the ones who own it, thus \"\"renegotiating the rate\"\" is most likely not an option (FHA backed loans are sold to Fannie and Freddie, the original lenders continue servicing them - but don't own them). Refinancing - is a more likely option, and in this case the lender will not care about your rate on the old mortgage.\"",
"\"It is a scam. Not only will it get your personal information, which could allow him to impersonate you (like, using your identity as the generous lender on a future scam), in order to fulfill the loan, a \"\"small payment\"\" for some documents will be needed. And next another for a certificate necessary for lending, and so on. Their goal is to get your money, not lending you any. Aganju hit the nail: how would such person ensure that you will pay back, when he knows absolutely nothing about you? That would have been the #1 priority for someone that decided to invest using such unbelievable schema.\"",
"That sounds pretty fishy to me. I'm an IT professional - I can determine more about him if I have full access to the email headers. Just give me your email and your password so I can log in and check the email he's using to contact you.",
"It used to be Nigerian royalty, now it's Ghanaian porn stars. Great. This is a bog-standard 419 scam. It's probably the most lucrative single swindle in the world. It's always hard to get people to believe they have been tricked, but don't let your dad participate.",
"Unprintable, yes, it's a scam. Nobody will ever have any legitimate reason to run money through your account. Period.",
"\"OK, reading between the lines here it looks like the services offered by your company are of an \"\"adult\"\" (possibly illegal?) nature and that this individual has actually paid you in full for the services rendered up to this point. The wrinkle here is that you say that you've been offered large cash \"\"gifts\"\" in return for unspecified future favours, but that your client hasn't provided a real Paypal account to do so. When you pressed him on it, he sent a fake email and invented a \"\"financial adviser\"\" to fob you off, then hasn't contacted you since. It's pretty clear that he hasn't got any intention of making these payments to you. What you're now proposing to do is to use his known banking details to collect money to cover those verbal promises. In pretty much every part of the world, that's a crime. Without a written agreement to use that payment method for those promises, he could easily call the police and have you arrested for theft of funds. The further wrinkle is that his actions (claiming to have made payment via paypal, forged email headers, etc) strongly suggest that this individual is involved in cyber-crime and may well have used a fake bank account to pay for your initial services. The bottom line here is that you need real legal advice, from an actual lawyer.\"",
"You can't cash the check silly. How can you go off on a rant when you can't even tell the difference between a real check and a promotional tool. If you don't want to call in an get info throw it away....simple. This thread made me laugh. Thanks for that. Good day.",
"This is why you don't get to excited and accept the first offer. Did they tell you that it was just sales and your main job would be cold calling people? If they lied to you, chances are she is lying to you about helping you to land a real job. Honestly, unpaid internships sounds like a scam. Maybe its the trend now, with the shitty economy, but I never did any kind of internship that was unpaid, and the only ones who offered unpaid were some shady places.",
"Don't take the car back! The dealership wants you to take it back to try and earn more money. Simply stated, the dealerships hate paid up front cash deals. They make money on the financing. So to call back and try to up their fee is them realizing their not making a large enough profit. Say thank you and move on. The deal is done!!",
"Absolute scam. Any time anyone asks you to open a bank account so they can send you money and then you have to send some portion of it back to them, it's a guarantee that it's a scam. What happens is that your dad will deposit the check and transfer it to this woman, then the check will bounce (or turn out to be fake altogether) and your dad will be on the hook for the money to the bank. These schemes are dependent on the fact that people want hope and believe in quick, easy money, and it works as long as the con artists are able to get the 'mark' (the person who deposits the check and sends them the money) to send the money before the check (always drawn on some obscure foreign bank) has a chance to clear. This is another variation of a long-running type of bank scam, and if you get involved, you'll regret it. I hope you can keep your dad from getting involved, because it will create a financial mess and affect his credit as well. The basic premise of this scam is this: In the interests of providing good customer service, most banks will make some or all of a deposit available right away, even though the check hasn't cleared. The scammer has you withdraw the money (either a cashier's check, have you send a wire transfer, etc) immediately and send it to them. Eventually the check is returned because it is The bank charges the check back against your account, often imposing pretty substantial penalties and fees, so you as the account holder are left without the money you sent the scammer and all of the fees. This is the easy version of events. You could end up in legal trouble, depending on the nature of the scam and what they determine your involvement to be. It will certainly badly affect your banking history (ChexSystems tracks how we all treat bank accounts, much like the credit agencies do with our credit), so you may have trouble opening bank accounts. So there are many consequences to this to think about, and it's why you JUST SAY NO!! Don't walk away from this -- RUN!!!",
"You encountered a quite common scam: You are supposed to perform a job, they send you a check for too much money, and you are supposed to pay them some money back. Ten weeks later the check bounces and your money is gone. That's these people's job. They do this all day long. The success rate isn't very high, so they are busy doing this all day. These scammers might have your name and address, but if that is all there is, they can get names and addresses of 100s of people by using the phone book, and they don't. I wouldn't say that it is impossible to turn your name and address into money, but it is hard work. So it is quie unlikely to happen.",
"Of course, it is a scam. Regardless of how the scam might work, you already know that the person on the other end is lying, and you also know that people in trouble don't contact perfect strangers out of the blue by e-mail for help, nor do they call up random phone numbers looking for help. Scammers prey on the gullibility, greed, and sometimes generosity of the victims. As to how this scam works, the money that the scammer would be depositing into your father's account is not real. However, it will take the bank a few days to figure that out. In the mean time, your father will be sending out real money back to the scammer. When the bank figures out what is going on, they will want your father to pay back this money.",
"\"A bona-fide company never needs your credit card details, certainly not your 3-digit-on-back-of-card #, to issue a refund. On an older charge, they might have to work with their merchant provider. But they should be able to do it within the credit card handling system, and in fact are required to. Asking for details via email doesn't pass the \"\"sniff test\"\" either. To get a credit card merchant account, a company needs to go through a security assessment process called PCI-DSS. Security gets drummed into you pretty good. Of course they could be using one of the dumbed-down services like Square, but those services make refunds ridiculously easy. How did you come to be corresponding on this email address? Did they initially contact you? Did you find it on a third party website? Some of those are fraudulent and many others, like Yelp, it's very easy to insert false contact information for a business. Consumer forums, even moreso. You might take another swing at finding a proper contact for the company. Stop asking for a cheque. That also circumvents the credit card system. And obviously a scammer won't send a check... at least not one you'd want! If all else fails: call your bank and tell them you want to do a chargeback on that transaction. This is where the bank intervenes to reverse the charge. It's rather straightforward (especially if the merchant has agreed in principle to a refund) but requires some paperwork or e-paperwork. Don't chargeback lightly. Don't use it casually or out of laziness or unwillingness to speak with the merchant, e.g. to cancel an order. The bank charges the merchant a $20 or larger investigation fee, separate from the refund. Each chargeback is also a \"\"strike\"\"; too many \"\"strikes\"\" and the merchant is barred from taking credit cards. It's serious business. As a merchant, I would never send a cheque to an angry customer. Because if I did, they'd cash the cheque and still do a chargeback, so then I'd be out the money twice, plus the investigation fee to boot.\"",
"\"It is likely a scam. In fact the whole mystery shopping \"\"job\"\" may be a scam. There is a Snopes page about cashier's check scams, as well as a US government page which specifically mentions mystery shopping as a scam angle. As for how the scam works, from the occ.gov site I just linked: However, cashier’s checks lately have become an attractive vehicle for fraud when used for payments to consumers. Although, the amount of a cashier’s check quickly becomes \"\"available\"\" for withdrawal by the consumer after the consumer deposits the check, these funds do not belong to the consumer if the check proves to be fraudulent. It may take weeks to discover that a cashier’s check is fraudulent. In the meantime, the consumer may have irrevocably wired the funds to a scam artist or otherwise used the funds—only to find out later, when the fraud is detected—that the consumer owes the bank the full amount of the cashier’s check that had been deposited. It is somewhat unusual in that, from what you say, there has been no attempt thus far to get money back. However, your sister-in-law may have received that info separately, or received it as part of her mystery shopping job but didn't mention it to you with regard to this check. Typically the scam involves telling the recipient to transfer money to a third party (e.g., by buying goods as a mystery shopper, or via wire transfer to \"\"reimburse\"\" someone associated with a sham operation). By the time the cashier's check is revealed as fraudulent, the victim has already transferred away his/her own real money. It's probably worth taking the check to your or her bank and asking them about it. They may have more info. Also, banks usually want to know about scams like this because, in the long run, they accumulate data on them and share that with law enforcement and can eventually catch some of the scammers. Edit: Just to help anyone who may be reading this later. The letter you added confirms it is absolutely a scam. My boss was once contacted via a scam operation very similar to this. The huge red flag (in addition to others already mentioned) is that you are being \"\"given\"\" a check for over $2000, of which only $25 is purportedly for actual mystery shopping and $285 is payment for you, the mystery shopper. The whole rest of the $2000+ amount is for you to wire to \"\"another Mystery/Secret Shopper in order for them to complete their assignment\"\". They are giving you $2000 to give to someone else who is supposedly another one of their own employees/contractors. Ask yourself what sane business would conduct their operations in this way. If you work at a law office, or a hamburger stand, or a school, or anything you like, does your boss ever say \"\"Here is your paycheck for $5000. I know you only earned $1000, but I'm just going to give you the whole $5000, and you're supposed to use $4000 of it to pay your coworker Joe his wages.\"\" No. There is no reason to do that except that the \"\"other mystery shopper\"\" is actually the scammer.\""
] |
[
"\"Do not give them any money until you have a signed contract that releases your liability completely. It's imperative that this contract be drafted correctly. The contract needs proper consideration (money in exchange for release of liability), among other things. In other words, talk to a lawyer if you want to go this route. If you just cut them a check, there's nothing stopping them from taking your money and making an insurance claim anyway, or taking your money and then suing for \"\"whiplash\"\" or some other fake injury. The best way is just to go through insurance. It might cost a bit more, but you're covered in case they sue.\"",
"\"You have to realize that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to do things \"\"unofficially\"\" by not reporting the accident (to insurance companies and/or police), but you want to do it \"\"officially\"\" in that you want to have legal recourse if they try to hit you up for more money. The only way to have it both ways is to trust the other person. From a financial perspective, ultimately you need to decide if the monetary cost of your raised insurance premiums, etc., outweighs the cost of whatever money the other party in the accident will try to squeeze out of you (factoring in the likelihood that they will do so). You also would need to factor in the likelihood that, rather than trying to scam you, they'll pursue legal action against you. In short, from a purely monetary perspective, if the legitimate cost of repairs is $700 and the cost to you of doing it by the book via insurance is $2000, you should be willing to be scammed for up to $1300, because you'll still come out ahead. Of course, there are psychological considerations, like whether someone unscrupulous enough to scam you will stop at $1300. But those numbers are the baseline for whatever outcome calculations you want to do. On the more qualitative side of things, it is possible they're trying to scam you, but also possible they're just trying to hustle you into doing everything quickly without thinking about it. They may not be trying to gouge you monetarily, they just want to pressure you so they get their money. I agree with other answerers here that the ideal way would be for them to send you an actual bill after repairs are complete. However, you could ask them to send you a written copy of the repair shop estimate, along with a written letter in which they state that they will consider payment of that amount to resolve the issue and won't pursue you further. The legal strength of that is dubious, but at least you have some documentation that you didn't just try to stiff them. If they won't give you some form of written documentation, I would read that as a red flag, bite the bullet, and contact your insurance company.\"",
"You wouldn't pay what the quote says, you would pay what the bill says. If the car is used as a taxi then either it's done illegally and not your problem, or they have proper insurance. One reason to go through your insurance is that they know how to handle all these things for you. If you have only their phone number: You owe them money, so they will contact you.",
"\"I would write them a check or give them cash money. There are payment receipt forms available online, you can print one of have them fill it out and sign it. Just google \"\"private party receipt\"\". Money transfer (via bank account or Paypal) is also an option, but in my opinion it's more convenient to meet up and handle it in person. If you want, you can have them meet you at a notary public's office (your local bank branch should have one) and have the receipt notarized. I don't think it's a scam, but make sure you are paying the right person.\""
] |
6907
|
Nominal value of shares
|
[
"251604"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"421992",
"297032",
"400738",
"303112",
"599414",
"140481",
"93354",
"98654",
"30464",
"91870",
"506236",
"69506",
"275392",
"427859",
"480515",
"488055",
"151132",
"86757",
"535697",
"533779",
"64237",
"174583",
"251604",
"468188",
"13908",
"34882",
"418610",
"271029",
"246295",
"152003",
"495066",
"336742",
"374602",
"111827",
"306149",
"10171",
"323244",
"566553",
"472537",
"480119",
"535043",
"249320",
"65401",
"33157",
"345129",
"124205",
"390725",
"378906",
"95806",
"480964",
"131788",
"414940",
"471123",
"386398",
"307095",
"37558",
"22169",
"143261",
"102375",
"208331",
"499269",
"465542",
"555915",
"178296",
"199206",
"370212",
"407551",
"215486",
"271243",
"15650",
"177093",
"568944",
"283168",
"178",
"577381",
"399043",
"113800",
"460230",
"213535",
"374372",
"331108",
"196173",
"478772",
"504243",
"364420",
"509939",
"99947",
"532171",
"474467",
"320472",
"433827",
"114834",
"73950",
"29306",
"251715",
"21786",
"192600",
"501032",
"46117",
"110635"
] |
[
"I was thinking that the value of the stock is the value of the stock...the actual number of shares really doesn't matter, but I'm not sure. You're correct. Share price is meaningless. Google is $700 per share, Apple is $100 per share, that doesn't say anything about either company and/or whether or not one is a better investment over the other. You should not evaluate an investment decision on price of a share. Look at the books decide if the company is worth owning, then decide if it's worth owning at it's current price.",
"authorized 100,000,000 shares They cannot issue shares more than that so 102M isn't possible. Common stock - $.01 par value, authorized 100,000,000 shares, issued 51,970,721 and 51,575,743 shares If you look at the right 2 columns it become clear what it means. You missed the $ symbol and on the top (In thousands, except share amounts) ouststanding share 51,970,721 -> 520 On Sept 30, 2014 outstanding shares * 0.01 and rounded off to arrive at 520. ouststanding share 51,575,743 -> 516 On June 30, 2014 outstanding shares * 0.01 and rounded off to arrive at 516.",
"Capital surplus is used to account for that amount which a firm raises in excess of the par value (nominal value) of the shares (common stock).. Investopedia has a much simpler answer. Somebody has tried to be smart on wikipedia and have done the calculations without much explanation. The portion of the surplus of a business arising from sources other than earnings : all surplus other than earned surplus usually including amounts received from sale or exchange of capital stock in excess of par or stated value, profits on resale of treasury stock, donations to capital by stockholders or others, or increment arising from revaluation of fixed or other assets The number of shares a company wants to issue is decided and agreed with the regulators. They decide the par value and then decide how much premium will be charged, extra money above the par value. Take out any RHP of an issue and you find all these details. Par Value = 1 Issue price(Price at which investors buy) = 10 Premium = 9 For a single share the capital surplus is 9, multiply it by the number of shares issued and you have the total capital surplus.",
"\"The answer to your question has to do with the an explanation of \"\"shares authorized, issued and outstanding.\"\" Companies, in their Articles of Incorporation, specify a maximum number of shares they are authorized to issue. For example purposes let's assume Facebook is authorized to issue 100 shares. Let's pretend they have actually issued 75 shares, but only 50 are outstanding (aka Float, i.e. freely trading stock in the market) and stock options total 25 shares. So if someone owns 1 share, what percentage of Facebook do they own? You might think 1/100, or 1%; you might think 1/75, or 1.3%; or you might think 1/50, or 2%. 2% is the answer, but only on a NON-diluted basis. So today someone who owns 1 share owns 2% of Facebook. Tomorrow Facebook announces they just issued 15 shares to Whatsapp to buy the company. Now there are 65 shares outstanding and 90 issued. Now someone who owns 1 share of Facebook own only 1/65, or 1.5% (down from 2%)! P.S. \"\"Valuation\"\" can be thought of as the price of the stock at the time of the purchase announcement.\"",
"Shareholders are the equity holders. They mean the same thing. A simplified formula for the total value of a company is the value of its equity, plus the value of its debt, less its cash (for reasons I won't get into). There are usually other things to add or subtract, but that's the basic formula.",
"Fully paid up Shares issued in which no more money is required to be paid to the company by shareholders on the value of the shares. When a company issues shares upon incorporation or through an issuance, either initial or secondary, shareholders are required to pay a set amount for those shares. Once the company has received the full amount from shareholders, the shares become fully paid shares. authorised share capital The number of stock units that a publicly traded company can issue as stated in its articles of incorporation, or as agreed upon by shareholder vote. Authorized share capital is often not fully used by management in order to leave room for future issuance of additional stock in case the company needs to raise capital quickly. Another reason to keep shares in the company treasury is to retain a controlling interest in the company. If so, why not just give the existing shareholders the $500 million, (and do a stock split if desired)? Stock splits, bonus issues doesn't generate any capital for the firm, which it required.",
"\"Market cap is the current value of a company's equity and is defined as the current share price multiplied by the number of shares. Please check also \"\"enterprise value\"\" for another definition of a company`s total value (enterprise value = market cap adjusted for net nebt). Regarding the second part of your question: Issuing new shares usually does not affect market cap in a significant way because the newly issued shares often result in lower share prices and dilution of the existing share holders shares.\"",
"outstanding shares are the shares(regular shares) that are still tradable in the market, where the firm in question is listed. The term is primarily used to distinguish from shares held in treasury(treasury stock), which have been bought back(buybacks) from the market and aren't currently tradable in the market. Wikipedia is a bit more clearer and mentions the diluted outstanding shares(used for convertible bonds, warrants, etc) which is used to calculated diluted EPS.",
"\"What benefit do I get from buying a share The value of any financial asset is its ability to generate cash in the future, and thus the \"\"value\"\" of a share is heavily influenced by the dividends it pays and the equity value. The equity value can be calculated different ways. Two common ways are to just take \"\"book\"\" value, meaning assets - liabilities, or you can look at the projected free cash flows of the company discounted back to the present time. Voting rights don't typically influence a share price except in hostile takeover scenarios (meaning someone buys up a lot of shares to have more influence in company decisions)\"",
"I haven't seen any of the other answers address this point – shares are (a form of) ownership of a company and thus they are an entitlement to the proceeds of the company, including proceeds from liquidation. Imagine an (extreme, contrived) example whereby you own shares in a company that is explicitly intended to only exist for a finite and definite period, say to serve as the producers of a one-time event. Consider a possible sequence of major events in this company's life: So why would the shares of this hypothetical company be worth anything? Because the company itself is worth something, or rather the stuff that the company owns is worth something, even (or in my example, especially) in the event of its dissolution or liquidation. Besides just the stuff that a company owns, why else would owning a portion of a company be a good idea, i.e. why would I pay for such a privilege? Buying shares of a company is a good idea if you believe (and are correct) that a company will make larger profits or capture more value (e.g. buy and control more valuable stuff) than other people believe. If your beliefs don't significantly differ from others then (ideally) the price of the companies stock should reflect all of the future value that everyone expects it to have, tho that value is discounted based on time preference, i.e. how much more valuable a given amount of money or a given thing of value is today versus some time in the future. Some notes on time preference: But apart from whether you should buy shares in a specific company, owning shares can still be valuable. Not only are shares a claim on a company's current assets (in the event of liquidation) but they are also claims on all future assets of the company. So if a company is growing then the value of shares now should reflect the (discounted) future value of the company, not just the value of its assets today. If shares in a company pays dividends then the company gives you money for owning shares. You already understand why that's worth something. It's basically equivalent to an annuity, tho dividends are much more likely to stop or change whereas the whole point of an annuity is that it's a (sometimes) fixed amount paid at fixed intervals, i.e. reliable and dependable. As CQM points out in their answer, part of the value of stock shares, to those that own them, and especially to those considering buying them, is the expectation or belief that they can sell those shares for a greater price than what they paid for them – irrespective of the 'true value' of the stock shares. But even in a world where everyone (magically) had the same knowledge always, a significant component of a stock's value is independent of its value as a source of trading profit. As Jesse Barnum points out in their answer, part of the value of stocks that don't pay dividends relative to stocks that do is due to the (potential) differences in tax liabilities incurred between dividends and long-term capital gains. This however, is not the primary source of value of a stock share.",
"You can find this in the annual report. Preferred value is not the same as common value.",
"Try to find the P/E ratio of the Company and then Multiply it with last E.P.S, this calculation gives the Fundamental Value of the share, anything higher than this Value is not acceptable and Vice versa.",
"Theoretically, when a company issues more shares, it does not affect the value of your shares. The reason is that when a company issues and sells more shares, the proceeds from the sale of those shares goes back into the company. Using your example, you have 10 out of 100 shares of the company, for a 10% stake. Let's say that the shares are valued at $1,000 each, meaning that the market value of the company is $100,000, and your stake is worth $10,000. Now the company issues 100 more shares at $1,000 each. The company receives $100,000 from new investors, and now the company is worth $200,000. Your stake is now only 5% of the company, but it is still worth $10,000. The authorized share capital is the amount of shares that a company has already planned on selling. When you buy stock in a company, you can look up how many shares exist, so you know what your percent stake in the company is. When a company wants to sell more shares, this is called an increase of authorized share capital. In order to do this, the company generally needs the approval of a majority of the existing shareholders.",
"\"I think it's easiest to illustrate it with an example... if you've already read any of the definitions out there, then you know what it means, but just don't understand what it means. So, we have an ice cream shop. We started it as partners, and now you and I each own 50% of the company. It's doing so well that we decide to take it public. That means that we will be giving up some of our ownership in return for a chance to own a smaller portion of a bigger thing. With the money that we raise from selling stocks, we're going to open up two more stores. So, without getting into too much of the nitty gritty accounting that would turn this into a valuation question, let's say we are going to put 30% of the company up for sale with these stocks, leaving you and me with 35% each. We file with the SEC saying we're splitting up the company ownership with 100,000 shares, and so you and I each have 35,000 shares and we sell 30,000 to investors. Then, and this depends on the state in the US where you're registering your publicly traded corporation, those shares must be assigned a par value that a shareholder can redeem the shares at. Many corporations will use $1 or 10 cents or something nominal. And we go and find investors who will actually pay us $5 per share for our ice cream shop business. We receive $150,000 in new capital. But when we record that in our accounting, $5 in total capital per share was contributed by investors to the business and is recorded as shareholder's equity. $1 per share (totalling $30,000) goes towards actual shares outstanding, and $4 per share (totalling $120,000) goes towards capital surplus. These amounts will not change unless we issue new stocks. The share prices on the open market can fluctuate, but we rarely would adjust these. Edit: I couldn't see the table before. DumbCoder has already pointed out the equation Capital Surplus = [(Stock Par Value) + (Premium Per Share)] * (Number of Shares) Based on my example, it's easy to deduce what happened in the case you've given in the table. In 2009 your company XYZ had outstanding Common Stock issued for $4,652. That's probably (a) in thousands, and (b) at a par value of $1 per share. On those assumptions we can say that the company has 4,652,000 shares outstanding for Year End 2009. Then, if we guess that's the outstanding shares, we can also calculate the implicit average premium per share: 90,946,000 ÷ 4,652,000 == $19.52. Note that this is the average premium per share, because we don't know when the different stocks were issued at, and it may be that the premiums that investors paid were different. Frankly, we don't care. So clearly since \"\"Common Stock\"\" in 2010 is up to $9,303 it means that the company released more stock. Someone else can chime in on whether that means it was specifically a stock split or some other mechanism... it doesn't matter. For understanding this you just need to know that the company put more stock into the marketplace... 9,303 - 4,652 == 4,651(,000) more shares to be exact. With the mechanics of rounding to the thousands, I would guess this was a stock split. Now. What you can also see is that the Capital Surplus also increased. 232,801 - 90,946 == 141,855. The 4,651,000 shares were issued into the market at an average premium of 141,855 ÷ 4,651 == $30.50. So investors probably paid (or were given by the company) an average of $31.50 at this split. Then, in 2011 the company had another small adjustment to its shares outstanding. (The Common Stock went up). And there was a corresponding increase in its Capital Surplus. Without details around the actual stock volumes, it's hard to get more exact. You're also only giving us a portion of the Balance Sheet for your company, so it's hard to go into too much more detail. Hopefully this answers your question though.\"",
"\"One of two things is true: You own less than 5% of the total shares outstanding. Your transaction will have little to no effect on the market. For most purposes you can use the current market price to value the position. You own more than 5% of the total shares outstanding. You are probably restricted on when, where, and why you can sell the shares because you are considered part owner of the company. Regardless, how to estimate (not really \"\"calculate,\"\" since some of the inputs to the formula are assumptions a.k.a. guesses) the value depends on exactly what you plan to with the result.\"",
"1 lot is 100 shares on London stock exchange",
"\"First, keep in mind that there are generally 2 ways to buy a corporation's shares: You can buy a share directly from the corporation. This does not happen often; it usually happens at the Initial Public Offering [the first time the company becomes \"\"public\"\" where anyone with access to the stock exchange can become a part-owner], plus maybe a few more times during the corporations existence. In this case, the corporation is offering new ownership in exchange for a price set the corporation (or a broker hired by the corporation). The price used for a public offering is the highest amount that the company believes it can get - this is a very complicated field, and involves many different methods of evaluating what the company should be worth. If the company sets the price too low, then they have missed out on possible value which would be earned by the previous, private shareholders (they would have gotten the same share % of a corporation which would now have more cash to spend, because of increased money paid by new shareholders). If the company sets the price too high, then the share subscription might only be partially filled, so there might not be enough cash to do what the company wanted. You can buy a share from another shareholder. This is more common - when you see the company's share price on the stock exchange, it is this type of transaction - buying out other current shareholders. The price here is simply set based on what current owners are willing to sell at. The \"\"Bid Price\"\" listed by an exchange is the current highest bid that a purchaser is offering for a single share. The \"\"Ask Price\"\" is the current lowest offer that a seller is offering to sell a single share they currently own. When the bid price = the ask price, a share transaction happens, and the most recent stock price changes.\"",
"It would be 0.22 * Rs 5 per share, i.e. Rs 1.1 per share. For 1000 share it would be Rs 1.1 * 1000, i.e. 1100",
"It means a 3% return on the value of the stock. If a stock has a $10 share price, the dividend would be $0.30. Normally though, the dividends are announced as a fixed amount per share, because the share price fluctuates. If a percentage were announced, then the final cost would not be known as the share priced could change radically before the dividend date.",
"Stock splits are typically done to increase the liquidity of stock merely by converting every stock of the company into multiple stocks of lower face value. For example, if the initial face value of the stock was $10 and the stock got split 10:1, the new face value of the stock would be $1 each. This has a proportional effect on the market value of the stock also. If the stock was trading at $50, after the split the stock should ideally adjust to $5. This is to ensure that despite the stock split, the market capitalization of the company should remain the same. Number of Shares * Stock Price = Market Capitalization = CONSTANT",
"All shares of the same class are considered equal. Each class of shares may have a different preference in order of repayment. After all company liabilities have been paid off [including bank debt, wages owing, taxes outstanding, etc etc.], the remaining cash value in a company is distributed to the shareholders. In general, there are 2 types of shares: Preferred shares, and Common shares. Preferred shares generally have 3 characteristics: (1) they get a stated dividend rate every year, sometimes regardless of company performance; (2) they get paid out first on liquidation; and (3) they can only receive their stated value on liquidation - that is, $1M of preferred shares will be redeemed for at most $1M on liquidation, assuming the corporation has at least that much cash left. Common Shares generally have 4 characteristics: (1) their dividends are not guaranteed (or may be based on a calculation relative to company performance), (2) they can vote for members of the Board of Directors who ultimately hire the CEO and make similar high level business decisions; (3) they get paid last on liquidation; and (4) they get all value remaining in the company once everyone else has been paid. So it is not the order of share subscription that matters, it is the class. Once you know how much each class gets, based on the terms listed in that share subscription, you simply divide the total class payout by number of shares, and pay that much for each share a person holds. For companies organized other-than as corporations, ie: partnerships, the calculation of who-gets-what will be both simpler and more complex. Simpler in that, generally speaking, a partnership interest cannot be of a different 'class', like shares can, meaning all partners are equal relative to the size of their partnership interest. More complex in that, if the initiation of the company was done in an informal way, it could easily become a legal fight as to who contributed what to the company.",
"Let's say the company has a million shares valued at $10 each, so market caps is $10 million dollar = $10 per share. Actual value of the company is unknown, but should be close to that $10 million if the shares are not overvalued or undervalued. If they issue 100,000 more shares at $10 each, the buyers pay a million dollar. Which goes into the bank account of the company. Which is now worth a million dollar more than before. Again, we don't know what it is worth, but the market caps should go up to $11 million dollar. And since you have now 1,100,000 shares, it's still $10 per share. If the shares are sold below or above $10, then the share price should go down or up a bit. Worst case, if the company needs money, can't get a loan, and sells 200,000 shares for $5 each to raise a million dollars, there will be suspicion that the company is in trouble, and that will affect the share price negatively. And of course the share price should have dropped anyway because the new value is $11,000,000 for $1,200,000 shares or $9.17 per share.",
"They are 2 different class of shares belonging to the same company. Class A shares [par value of 0.01] have 100 voting rights per share. Class B shares [par value of 0.0002] have one voting rights. Both are listed separately with different ISN and trade at slightly different values. The Class A at higher value than Class B which looks right as it has more voting power.",
"What I know about small companies and companies who are not listed on the stock markets is this: If a small company has shares issued to different people either within an organization or outside the value of the shares is generally decided by the individual who wants to sell the share and the buyer who wants to buy it. Suppose my company issued 10 shares to you for your help in the organization. Now you need money and you want to sell it. You can offer it at any price you want to to the buyer. If the buyer accepts your offer thats the price you get. So the price of the share is determined by the price a buyer is willing to buy it at from you. Remember the Face value of the shares remains the same no matter what price you sell it for. Now annual profit distribution is again something called dividends. Suppose my company has 100 shares in total out of which I have given you 10. This means you are a 10% owner of the company and you will be entitled to 10% of the net profit the company makes. Now at the end of the year suppose my company makes a 12,000 USD net profit. Now a panel called board of directors which is appointed by share holders will decide on how much profit to keep within the company for future business and how much to distribute about share holders. Suppose they decide to keep 2000 and distribute 10,000 out of total profit. Since you own 10% shares of the company you get 1000. The softwares you are talking are accounting softwares. You can do everything with those softwares. After-all a company is only about profit and loss statements.",
"\"The \"\"par value\"\" is a technicality that you can ignore in this case, and it has nothing directly to do with the merger. When a company issues stock, it puts a \"\"par value\"\" on the shares. If it later issues more shares, they cannot be issued at less than par value. The rest of the notice seems to be as you said: If you hold until the merger takes effect, they are going to give you $25/share and your shares will be gone. As always, you can try to sell on the open market before that time instead, although you can bet that not too many people are going to want to give you more than $25/share at this point.\"",
"Open Google finance and divide the Market Capitalization by the total price. That will give you the total number of shares outstanding. Now see the number of shares you could buy for $1000(40 shares of $25 each or 10 shares of 100 shares each). Now divide the number of shares you own, by the number of shares outstanding in the company and multiply it by 100(i.e (Shares you own/shares Outstanding) * 100). That will give you the percentage or stake of the company you own(With $1000, don't expect it to be a very large number). Now ask your self the question, Is it worth it if I can buy x % of this company for $1000? If the answer is yes, go ahead and buy it. To answer your question in short, NO! it does not matter whether you buy 10 shares for $100 or 40 shares for $25. Cheers",
"Market cap is basically the amount of money that it would cost to buy all of the shares of public stock in a company. Or share cost * number of outstanding shares. It is a measure of how much a company is worth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_capitalization",
"None of the above. The fair value is a term used to describe an analytical result of projecting the company's future dividends and profits into a present value. Such estimates are published by the likes of Morningstar, S&P and Value Line. It is quite common for a stock to trade well above or below such estimated fair values.",
"all other things being equal if you have two stocks, both with a P/E of 2, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase? What this really boils down to is the number of shares a company has outstanding. Given the same earnings & P/E, a company with fewer shares will have a higher EPS than a company with more shares. Knowing that, I don't think the number of shares has much if anything to do with the quality of a company. It's similar to the arguments I hear often from people new to investing where they think that a company with a share price of $100/share must be better than a company with a share price of $30/share simply because the share price is higher.",
"As you can see at https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AAAPL the number of apple shares at this very moment is 5.25B, so if you have 1 share you own 1 / 5.25B of the company.",
"\"Market Capitalization is the value the market attributes to the company shares calculated by multiplying the current trading price of these shares by the total amount of shares outstanding. So a company with 100 shares trading at $10 has a market cap of $1000. It is technically not the same as the value of a company (in the sense of how much someone would need to pay to acquire the company), Enterprise value is what you want to determine the net value of a company which is calculated as the market capitalization + company debt (as the acquirer has to take on this debt) - company cash (as the acquirer can pocket this for itself). The exact boundary for when a company belongs to a certain \"\"cap\"\" is up for debate. For a \"\"large cap\"\" a market capitalization of $10 billion+ is usually considered the cutoff (with $100+ billion behemoths being called \"\"mega caps\"\"). Anything between $10 billion and ~$1 billion is considered \"\"mid cap\"\", from ~$1billion to ~$200 million it's called a \"\"small cap\"\" and below $200 million is \"\"nano cap\"\". Worth noting that these boundaries change quite dramatically over time as the overall average market capitalization increases as companies grow, for example in the 80s a company with a market cap of $1 billion would be considered \"\"large cap\"\". The market \"\"determines\"\" what the market cap of company should be based (usually but certainly not always!) on the historical and expected profit a company makes, for a simple example let's say that our $1000 market cap company makes $100 a year, this means that this company's earnings per share is $1. If the company grows to make $200 a year you can reasonably expect the share price to rise from $10 to ~$20 with the corresponding increase in market cap. (this is all extremely simplified of course).\"",
"Hi I have a question about net worth value of rich people on those forbes lists. For example most of those rich people have high net worth because they are shareholders. Do they take into account that if they want to sell all their assets then actually they would receive much less in cash (as the stock price would drastically drop) or is it just the nominal net worth (i.e. the value of all their at the current price)",
"This depends. Quite a few stock exchanges / country report total capitalisation in terms of free float. I.E total shares that can be traded, ignoring the promoters shares. The market cap reported by company takes all shares.",
"You are correct in thinking actual number of shares do not matter, the value is the value. However there are cases where share price does play a role. Berkshire Hathaway for example has not split because Warren Buffet believes it has cut down on the liquidity of the stock, as well as attracting investors with an eye for the longer term. There have also been things written on the psychology of a share price. For example, some people are attracted to shares that split, because it reflects a company is growing.",
"Fully Paid up Partly Paid up: A company may issue stock to you which is only partly paid up, for example, a company may issue a stock of face value 10 to you and ask you to pay 5 now and other 5 will be adjusted later by some other mechanism. This stock shall be partly paid up. Usually, these stocks are issued in different circumstances, for example as part payment for debentures, preference shares or other capital structuring. On the other hand for a fully paid up share no more money needs to be paid by you or no other adjustments need to be made. So, above, the company is issuing you with stocks for which you will need to pay no further money, they are fully paid for. Authorized Capital: Authorized capital of a company is the amount of money a company can raise by selling stock (not debt, equity). This number is registered when the company is incorporated, subsequently, this number can be revised upward by applying to the registrar of companies. Now, this means that at max. the company is authorized to raise this much capital and no more. However, a company may raise less than this, which is called Issued Capital. In your case, the company is raising its authorized capital by applying to the registrar of companies, though in this case they are looking at their full authorized capital to be issued capital, it was not necessary to do so. Increase of Authorized capital: The main benefit is that the company can get more money in form of equity and utilize the same, perhaps, for expansion of business etc., that is the primary benefit. Bonus Share: Usually, companies keep some surplus as reserve, this money comes out of the profit the company makes and is essentially money of the shareholders. This reserve surplus is maintained for situations, when the money may be required for exigencies. However, this surplus grows over a few years and the company usually the company plans for an expansion of business. However, this money cannot be just taken, as it belongs to the shareholder, so shareholders are issued extra equity in proportion to their current holding and this surplus is capitalized i.e. used as part of the company's equity capital. Bonus declaration does not add t o the value of the company and the share prices fall in proportion (but not quite) to the bonus.",
"\"To add to @keshlam's answer slightly a stock's price is made up of several components: the only one of these that is known even remotely accurately at any time is the book value on the day that the accounts are prepared. Even completed cashflows after the books have been prepared contain some slight unknowns as they may be reversed if stock is returned, for example, or reduced by unforeseen costs. Future cashflows are based on (amongst other things) how many sales you expect to make in the future for all time. Exercise for the reader: how many iPhone 22s will apple sell in 2029? Even known future cashflows have some risk attached to them; customers may not pay for goods, a supplier may go into liquidation and so need to change its invoicing strategy etc.. Estimating the risk on future cashflows is highly subjective and depends greatly on what the analyst expects the exact economic state of the world will be in the future. Investors have the choice of investing in a risk free instrument (this is usually taken as being modelled by the 10 year US treasury bond) that is guaranteed to give them a return. To invest in anything riskier than the risk free instrument they must be paid a premium over the risk free return that they would get from that. The risk premium is related to how likely they think it is that they will not receive a return higher than that rate. Calculation of that premium is highly subjective; if I know the management of the company well I will be inclined to think that the investment is far less risky (or perhaps riskier...) than someone who does not, for example. Since none of the factors that go into a share price are accurately measurable and many are subjective there is no \"\"right\"\" share price at any time, let alone at time of IPO. Each investor will estimate these values differently and so value the shares differently and their trading, based on their ever changing estimates, will move the share price to an indeterminable level. In comments to @keshlam's answer you ask if there is enough information to work out the share price if a company buys out the company before IPO. Dividing the price that this other company paid by the relative ownership structure of the firm would give you an idea of what that company thought that the company was worth at that moment in time and can be used as a surrogate for market price but it will not and cannot accurately represent the market price as other investors will value the firm differently by estimating the criteria above differently and so will move the share price based on their valuation.\"",
"A share is more than something that yields dividends, it is part ownership of the company and all of its assets. If the company were to be liquidated immediately the shareholders would get (a proportion of) the net value (assets - liabilities) of the company because they own it. If a firm is doing well then its assets are increasing (i.e. more cash assets from profits) therefore the value of the underlying company has risen and the intrinsic value of the shares has also increased. The price will not reflect the current value of the firms assets and liabilities because it will also include the net present value of expected future flows. Working out the expected future flows is a science on par with palmistry and reading chicken entrails so don't expect to work out why a company is trading at a price so much higher than current assets - liabilities (or so much lower in companies that are expected to fail). This speculation is in addition to price speculation that you mention in the question.",
"The other answer has some good points, to which I'll add this: I believe you're only considering a company's Initial Public Offering (IPO), when shares are first offered to the public. An IPO is the way most companies get a public listing on the stock market. However, companies often go to market again and again to issue/sell more shares, after their IPO. These secondary offerings don't make as many headlines as an IPO, but they are typical-enough occurrences in markets. When a company goes back to the market to raise additional funds (perhaps to fund expansion), the value of the company's existing shares that are being traded is a good indicator of what they may expect to get for a secondary offering of shares. A company about to raise money desires a higher share price, because that will permit them to issue less shares for the amount of money they need. If the share price drops, they would need to issue more shares for the same amount of money – and dilute existing owners' share of the overall equity further. Also, consider corporate acquisitions: When one company wants to buy another, instead of the transaction being entirely in cash (maybe they don't have that much in the bank!), there's often an equity component, which involves swapping shares of the company being acquired for new shares in the acquiring company or merged company. In that case, the values of the shares in the public marketplace also matter, to provide relative valuations for the companies, etc.",
"The price of a share has two components: Bid: The highest price that someone who wants to buy shares is willing to pay for them. Ask: The lowest price that someone who has a share is willing to sell it for. The ask is always higher than the bid, since if they were equal the buyer and seller would have a deal, make a transaction, and that repeats until they are not equal. For stock with high volume, there is usually a very small difference between the bid and ask, but a stock with lower volume could have a major difference. When you say that the share price is $100, that could mean different things. You could be talking about the price that the shares sold for in the most recent transaction (and that might not even be between the current bid and ask), or you could be talking about any of the bid, the ask, or some value in between them. If you have shares that you are interested in selling, then the bid is what you could immediately sell a share for. If you sell a share for $100, that means someone was willing to pay you $100 for it. If after buying it, they still want to buy more for $100 each, or someone else does, then the bid is still $100, and you haven't changed the price. If no one else is willing to pay more than $90 for a share, then the price would drop to $90 next time a transaction takes place and thats what you would be able to immediately sell the next share for.",
"As a start-up, the initial shares can be given at various price points. So essentially they can give someone a larger percentage based on the same amount earlier, and lesser percentage to someone else for the same amount. As its a start-up the valuations can be very tricy and what matters is that whether you believe the percentage you got for the amount is right or not. It is very important to note that when you have been given an ownership in the company, how that is designated. Is it in absolute number of shares or is it in terms of percentage based on the existing shares. For example you maybe given 100 shares, without any qualification. Or you maybe given a 5% stake in the paid-up capital, that translates to 100 shares. It is always better to hold the shares in % of the total shares. Also read the contract, any dilution should require your approval. Normally start-ups once the valuation starts to go up, start creating more shares and sell these to private equity or create more shares and give it as a bonus to promoters. Hence in both cases your holding will keep getting diluted. There is a related quesiton If a startup can always issue new shares, what value is there to stocks/options?",
"A private company say has 100 shares with single owner Mr X, now it needs say 10,000/- to run the company, if they can get a price of say 1000 per share, then they just need to issue 10 additional shares, so now the total shares is 110 [100 older plus 10]. So now the owner's share in the company is around 91%. However if they can get a price of only Rs 200 per share, they need to create 50 more shares. So now the total shares is 150 [100 older plus 50]. So now Mr X's equity in his own company is down to 66%. While this may still be OK, if it continues and goes below 50%, there is chances that he [Original owner] will be thrown out",
"While there are many very good and detailed answers to this question, there is one key term from finance that none of them used and that is Net Present Value. While this is a term generally associate with debt and assets, it also can be applied to the valuation models of a company's share price. The price of the share of a stock in a company represents the Net Present Value of all future cash flows of that company divided by the total number of shares outstanding. This is also the reason behind why the payment of dividends will cause the share price valuation to be less than its valuation if the company did not pay a dividend. That/those future outflows are factored into the NPV calculation, actually performed or implied, and results in a current valuation that is less than it would have been had that capital been retained. Unlike with a fixed income security, or even a variable rate debenture, it is difficult to predict what the future cashflows of a company will be, and how investors chose to value things as intangible as brand recognition, market penetration, and executive competence are often far more subjective that using 10 year libor rates to plug into a present value calculation for a floating rate bond of similar tenor. Opinion enters into the calculus and this is why you end up having a greater degree of price variance than you see in the fixed income markets. You have had situations where companies such as Amazon.com, Google, and Facebook had highly valued shares before they they ever posted a profit. That is because the analysis of the value of their intellectual properties or business models would, overtime provide a future value that was equivalent to their stock price at that time.",
"I stock is only worth what someone will pay for it. If you want to sell it you will get market price which is the bid.",
"\"I am a tax lawyer and ALL the RESPONSES ABOVE are 1/2 Correct but also 1/2 Wrong and in tax law this means 100% WRONG (BECAUSE ANY PART INCORRECT UNDER TAX LAW will get YOU A HUGE PENALY and/or PRISON TIME by way of the IRS! So in ESSENCE ALL the above answers are WRONG! Let me enlighten you to the correct answer in 5 parts, as people that do not practice tax law may understand (but you still probably will not understand, if you are NOT a Lawyer). 1) All public companies are corporations (shown by Ltd.), 2) only Shareholders of Public companies (ie, traded on the NYSE stock market) are never liable for debts of a bankrupt company, due to the concept of limited liability. 2) now Banks may ask a sole proprietorship (who wants to incorp. for example) to give collateral, such as owners stocks/bonds or his/her house, but then of course the loanee can tell the Bank No Thanks and find a lender that may charge higher interest rates but lend money to his company with little to NO collateral. 3) Of course not all companies are publicly traded and these are called private companies. 4)\"\"limited liability\"\" has nothing to do directly with subsequent shareholders (the above answer is inaccurate!), it RELATES rather to INITIAL OWNERS INVESTMENT in their company, limiting the amount of owner loss if the company goes bankrupt. 5) Share Face-value is usually never related to this as shares are sold at market value in real life instances (above or below face-value), or the most money Investments Banks or owners can fetch for the shares they sell (not what the stock's face-value is set at upon issuance). Never forget, stocks are sold in our Capitalistic System to whomever pays the most, as it is that Buyer who gets to purchase the stock!\"",
"Market Capitalization is the equity value of a company. It measures the total value of the shares available for trade in public markets if they were immediately sold at the last traded market price. Some people think it is a measure of a company's net worth, but it can be a misleading for a number of reasons. Share price will be biased toward recent earnings and the Earnings Per Share (EPS) metric. The most recent market price only reflects the lowest price one market participant is willing to sell for and the highest price another market participant is willing to buy for, though in a liquid market it does generally reflect the current consensus. In an imperfect market (for example with a large institutional purchase or sale) prices can diverge widely from the consensus price and when multiplied by outstanding shares, can show a very distorted market capitalization. It is also a misleading number when comparing two companies' market capitalization because while some companies raise the money they need by selling shares on the markets, others might prefer debt financing from private lenders or sell bonds on the market, or some other capital structure. Some companies sell preferred shares or non-voting shares along with the traditional shares that exist. All of these factors have to be considered when valuing a company. Large-cap companies tend to have lower but more stable growth than small cap companies which are still expanding into new markets because of their smaller size.",
"Is the stock's price at any given moment the price at which all shares could be sold to new investors? No. For the simple fact that the current bid/offer always have sizes associated. What you should be looking at is the consolidated price to buy/sell X shares (10bn doesn't really work as not everyone is willing to sell/buy). If you look at the spread of the consolidated price at your quantity level, you'd notice it would be in stark contrast to the spread of the best bid/offer but (by definition) that would be the price to buy or sell X shares to new investors. Edit Calculation of the consolidated price of X shares: You go through the order book and calculate the size-weighted average price until you covered X. Example: So the consolidated price for 3000 shares would be $39.80, the consolidated price for 2000 shares would be $39.90.",
"Simply put, 100% stock dividend is 1:1 or 1 for 1 bonus share, as explained above, if you held 100 shares after 1:1 bonus you would have 200 shares (100 original, another 100 as bonus). The impact on the stock price is that the price becomes 1/2 the price of the stock before bonus (supply has doubled). 1:1 bonus is nor exactly like a 2:1 / 2 for 1 stock split, in a split the face value if the share would also go down. In effect, any bonus share is not of any fundamental value to the shareholder, as the companies usually capitalize reserves from previous year/years this way as the value of the company does not change fundamentally. In effect the company is taking your money and giving you shares instead.",
"Short answer: No, it only matters if you want to use covered calls strategies. The price of a share is not important. Some companies make stock splits from time to time so that the price of their shares is more affordable to small investors. It is a decision of the company's board to keep the price high or low. More important is the capitalization for these shares. If you have lots of money to invest, the best is to divide and invest a fixed pourcentage of your portfolio in each company you choose. The only difference is if you eventually decide to use covered call strategies. To have a buy write on Google will cost you a lot of money and you will only be able to sell 1 option for every 100 shares. Bottom line: the price is not important, capitalization and estimated earnings are. Hope this answers your question.",
"Remember that shares represent votes at the shareholders' meeting. If share price drops too far below the value of that percentage of the company, the company gets bought out and taken over. This tends to set a minimum share price derived from the company's current value. The share price may rise above that baseline if people expect it to be worth more in the future, or drop s bit below if people expect awful news. That's why investment is called speculation. If the price asked is too high to be justified by current guesses, nobody buys. That sets the upper limit at any given time. Since some of this is guesswork, the market is not completely rational. Prices can drop after good news if they'd been inflated by the expectation of better news, for example. In general, businesses which don't crash tend to grow. Hence the market as a whole generally trends upward if viewed on a long timescale. But there's a lot of noise on that curve; short term or single stocks are much harder to predict.",
"You can ask for 305rs, but as long as shares are available at lower prices you won't sell. Only when your ask becomes the lowest available price will someone buy from you. See many past questions about how buyers and sellers are matched by the market.",
"Let's say that you bought a share of Apple for $10. When (if ever) their stock sold for $10, it was a very small company with a very small net worth; that is, the excess of assets over liabilities. Your $10 share was perhaps a 1/10,000,000th share of a tiny company. Over the years, Apple has developed both software and hardware that have real value to the world. No-one knew they needed a smartphone and, particularly, an iPhone, until Apple showed it to us. The same is true of iPads, iPods, Apple watches, etc. Because of the sales of products and services, Apple is now a huge company with a huge net worth. Obviously, your 1/10,000,000th share of the company is now worth a lot more. Perhaps it is worth $399. Maybe you think Apples good days are behind it. After all, it is harder to grow a huge company 15% a year than it is a small company. So maybe you will go into the marketplace and offer to sell your 1/10,000,000th share of Apple. If someone offers you $399, would you take it? The value of stocks in the market is not a Ponzi scheme, although it is a bit speculative. You might have a different conclusion and different research about the future value of Apple than I do. Your research might lead you to believe the stock is worth $399. Mine might suggest it's worth $375. Then I wouldn't buy. The value of stocks in the market is based on the present and estimated future value of living, breathing companies that are growing, shrinking and steady. The value of each company changes all the time. So, then, does the price of the stock. Real value is created in the stock market when real value is created in the underlying company.",
"NAV is how much is the stuff of the company worth divided by the number of shares. This total is also called book value. The market cap is share price times number of shares. For Amazon today people are willing to pay 290 a share for a company with a NAV of 22 a share. If of nav and price were equal the P/B (price to book ratio) would be 1, but for Amazon it is 13. Why? Because investors believe Amazon is worth a lot more than a money losing company with a NAV of 22.",
"\"Market caps is just the share price, multiplied by the number of shares. It doesn't represent any value (if people decide to pay more or less for the shares, the market cap goes up or down). It does represent what people think the company is worth. NAV sounds very much like book value. It basically says \"\"how much cash would we end up with if we sold everything the company owns, paid back all the debt, and closed down the business? \"\" Since closing down the business is rarely a good idea, this underestimates the value of the business enormously. Take a hairdresser who owns nothing but a pair of scissors, but has a huge number of repeat customers, charges $200 for a haircut, and makes tons of money every year. The business has a huge value, but NAV = price of one pair of used scissors.\"",
"$38 was the IPO price. This was price per share for those investors who bought directly from the underwriters (Morgan Stanley, etc.) $42.06 was the first secondary market price, the price at which two private parties first exchanged the shares on an exchange, in this case NASDAQ.",
"If that company issues another 100 shares, shouldn't 10 of those new 100 shares be mine? Those 100 shares are an asset of the company, and you own 10% of them. When investors buy those new shares, you again own a share of the proceeds, just as you own a share of all the company's assets. A company only issues new share to raise money - it is a borrowing from investors, and in that way can be seen as an alternative to taking on loans. Both share issuing and a loan bring new capital and debt into a company. The difference is that shares don't need to be repaid.",
"\"Market cap is speculative value, M = P * W, where W is stock (or other way of owning) percentage of ownership, P - price of percentage of ownership. This could include \"\"outside of exchange\"\" deals. Some funds could buy ownership percentage directly via partial ownership deal. That ownership is not stock, but fixed-type which has value too. Stock market cap is speculative value, M2 = Q * D, where D is free stocks available freely, Q - price of stock, in other words Quote number (not price of ownership). Many stock types do NOT provide actual percentage of ownership, being just another type of bond with non-fixed coupon and non-fixed price. Though such stocks do not add to company's capitalization after sold to markets, it adds to market capitalization at the moment of selling via initial price.\"",
"In India, the amount of dividend you get is based on the face value of the stock. If the stock's face value is Rs. 10 and the company announced a dividend of 20%, you will receive Rs.2 per share.To see whether you qualify to receive a dividend, see the ex-dividend date of the company. If you purchased shares before that date, you will receive the dividend, else you will not",
"It seems like you want to compare the company's values not necessarily the stock price. Why not get the total outstanding shares and the stock price, generate the market cap. Then you could compare changes to market cap rather than just share price.",
"Specifically I was wondering, how can the founder determine an appropriate valuation and distribution of shares; ie- the amount of equity to make available for public vs how much to reserve for him/herself. This is an art more than science. If markets believe it to be worth x; one will get. This is not a direct correlation of the revenue a start up makes. It is more an estimated revenue it would make in some point in time in future. There are investment firms that can size up the opportunity and advise; however it is based on their experience and may not always be true reflection of value.",
"It is known as the range or the price spread of the stock. You can read more about it here http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/range.asp",
"Aside of the other (mostly valid) answers, share price is the most common method of valuating the company. Here is a bogus example that will help you understand the general point: Now, suppose that Company A wants to borrow $20 Million from a bank... Not a chance. Company B? Not a problem. Same situation when trying to raise new funds for the market or when trying to sell the company or to acquire another",
"Initially, Each company has 10k shares. Company B has $500k money and possibly other assets. Every company has stated purpose. It can't randomly buy shares in some other firm. Company A issued 5k new shares, which gives it $500k money. Listed companies can't make private placements without regulatory approvals. They have to put this in open market via Public issue or rights issue. Company B does the same thing, issuing 5k shares for $500k money. Company A bought those 5k shares using the $500k it just got There is no logical reason for shareholder of Company B to raise 5K from Company A for the said consideration. This would have to increase.",
"You haven't mentioned how much debt your example company has. Rarely does a company not carry any kind of debt (credit facilities, outstanding bonds or debentures, accounts payable, etc.) Might it owe, for instance, $1B in outstanding loans or bonds? Looking at debt too is critically important if you want to conduct the kind of analysis you're talking about. Consider that the fundamental accounting equation says: or, But in your example you're assuming the assets and equity ought to be equal, discounting the possibility of debt. Debt changes everything. You need to look at the value of the net assets of the company (i.e. subtracting the debt), not just the value of its assets alone. Shareholders are residual claimants on the assets of the company, i.e. after all debt claims have been satisfied. This means the government (taxes owed), the bank (loans to repay), and bondholders are due their payback before determining what is leftover for the shareholders.",
"Well, if one share cost $100 and the company needs to raise $10000, then the company will issue 100 shares for that price. Right? However, say there's 100 shares out there now, then each share holder owns 1/100th of the company. Now the company will remain the same, but it's shared between 200 shareholders after the issuing of new shares. That means each share holder now owns 1/200th of the company. And hence only gets 1/200th of their earnings etc.",
"It's still the purchase price or the price at which the shares are purchased or granted. This Investopedia article describes how the price is used for tax purposes: The amount that must be declared [for tax purposes] is determined by subtracting the original purchase or exercise price of the stock (which may be zero) from the fair market value of the stock as of the date that the stock becomes fully vested. Restricted stock awards are similar to stock options. The employer promises to grant the employee a certain number of shares upon the completion of the vesting schedule. The price at which the shares are purchased (or granted, if the price is zero) is the exercise price.",
"Nothing. Stockbrokers set up nominee accounts, in which they hold shares on behalf of individual investors. Investors are still the legal owners of the shares but their names do not appear on the company’s share register. Nominee accounts are ring-fenced from brokers’ other activities so they are financially secure.",
"\"Also note that a share of voting stock is a vote at the stockholder's meeting, whether it's dividend or non-dividend. That has value to the company and major stockholders in terms of protecting their own interests, and has value to anyone considering a takeover of the company or who otherwise wants to drive the company's policy. Similarly, if the company is bought out, the share will generally be replaced by shares in whatever the new owning company is. So it really does represent \"\"a slice of the company\"\" in several vary practical ways, and thus has fairly well-defined intrinsic value linked to the company's perceived value. If its price drops too low the company becomes more vulnerable to hostile takeover, which means the company itself will often be motivated to buy back shares to protect itself from that threat. One of the questions always asked when making an investment is whether you're looking for growth (are you hoping its intrinsic value will increase) or income (are you hoping it will pay you a premium for owning it). Non-dividend stocks are a pure growth bet. Dividend-paying stocks are typically a mixture of growth and income, at various trade-off points. What's right for you depends on your goals, timeframe, risk tolerance, and what else is already in your portfolio.\"",
"Dividend prices are per share, so the amount that you get for a dividend is determined by the number of shares that you own and the amount of the dividend per share. That's all. People like to look at dividend yield because it lets them compare different investments; that's done by dividing the dividend by the value of the stock, however determined. That's the percentage that the question mentions. A dividend of $1 per share when the share price is $10 gives a 10% dividend yield. A dividend of $2 per share when the share price is $40 gives a 5% dividend yield. If you're choosing an investment, the dividend yield gives you more information than the amount of the dividend.",
"\"Have the stock certificate in with a letter from the previous owner of the company from what I can tell in the letter these stocks were distributed from the owner himself stating \"\"after evaluation we have determined that your investment in this company is worth 10,000 shares at $1.00 a piece\"\" as well as I believe these shares were also acquired when the company was going through name changes or their company was bought\"",
"The intrinsic value of a company is based on their profits year on year along with their expect future growth. A company may be posting losses, but if the market determines there's any chance they will turn a profit one day, or be a takeover target, it assigns value to those shares. In normal times, you'll observe a certain P/E range. Price to earning ratio is a simple way to say the I will pay X$ for a dollar's worth of earnings. A company that's in a flat market and not growing may command a P/E of only 10. Another company that's expanding their products and increasing market share may see a 20 P/E. Both P/Es are right for the type of company involved.",
"\"Share price is based on demand. Assuming the same amount of shares are made available for trade then stocks with a higher demand will have a higher price. So say a company has 1000 shares in total and that company needs to raise $100. They decide to sell 100 shares for $1 to raise their $100. If there is demand for 100 shares for at least $1 then they achieve their goal. But if the market decides the shares in this company are only worth 50 cents then the company only raises $50. So where do they get the other $50 they needed? Well one option is to sell another 100 shares. The dilution comes about because in the first scenario the company retains ownership of 900 or 90% of the equity. In the second scenario it retains ownership of only 800 shares or 80% of the equity. The benefit to the company and shareholders of a higher price is basically just math. Any multiple of shares times a higher price means there is more value to owning those shares. Therefore they can sell fewer shares to raise the same amount. A lot of starts up offer employees shares as part of their remuneration package because cash flow is typically tight when starting a new business. So if you're trying to attract the best and brightest it's easier to offer them shares if they are worth more than those of company with a similar opportunity down the road. Share price can also act as something of a credit score. In that a higher share price \"\"may\"\" reflect a more credit worthy company and therefore \"\"may\"\" make it easier for that company to obtain credit. All else being equal, it also makes it more expensive for a competitor to take over a company the higher the share price. So it can offer some defensive and offensive advantages. All ceteris paribus of course.\"",
"A share of stock is a small fraction of the ownership of the company. If you expect the company to eventually be of interest to someone who wants to engineer a merger or takeover, it's worth whatever someone is willing to pay to help make that happen or keep it from happening. Which means it will almost always track the company's value to some degree, because the company itself will buy back shares when it can if they get too cheap, to protect itself from takeover. It may also start paying dividends at a later date. You may also value being able to vote on the company's actions. Including whether it should offer a dividend or reinvest that money in the company. Basically, you would want to own that share -- or not -- for the same reasons you would want to own a piece of that business. Because that's exactly what it is.",
"There are a few reason why share prices increase or decrease, the foremost is expectation of the investors that the company/economy will do well/not well, that is expectation of profit/intrinsic value growth over some time frame (1-4 qtrs.)there is also demand & supply mismatch over (usually) short time. If you really see, the actual 'value' of a company is it's net-worth (cash+asset+stock in trade+brand value+other intangibles+other incomes)/no of shares outstanding, which (in a way) is the book value, then all shares should trade at their book value, the actual number but it does not, the expectation of investors that a share would be purchased by another investor at a higher price because the outlook of the company over a long time is good.",
"\"At any given moment, one can tally the numbers used for NAV. It's math, and little more. The Market Cap, which as you understand is a result of share value. Share value (stock price) is what the market will pay today for the shares. It's not only based on NAV today, but on future expectations. And expectations aren't the same for each of us. Which is why there are always sellers for the buyers of a stock, and vice-versa. From your question, we agree that NAV can be measured, it's the result of adding up things that are all known. (For now, let's ignore things such as \"\"goodwill.\"\") Rarely is a stock price simply equal to the NAV divided by the number of shares. Often, it's quite higher. The simplest way to look at it is that the stock price not only reflects the NAV, but investors' expectations looking into the future. If you look for two companies with identical NAV per share but quite different share prices, you'll see that the companies differ in that one might be a high growth company, the other, a solid one but with a market that's not in such a growth mode.\"",
"This is a question of how does someone value a business. Typically, it is some function of how much the company owns, how much the company owes, how risky is the company's business, and how much the company makes in profit. For example if a company (or investment) make $100/year, every year no matter what, how much would you pay for that? If you pay $1,000 you'll make 10% each year on your investment. Is that a good enough return? If you think the risk of the company requires a 20% payoff, you shouldn't pay more than $500 for the company.",
"Par value of common stock is essentially a historical artifact; it is a price at which the company will redeem shares directly. If common stock has any par value at all, it is always so low that no one would ever redeem, preferring to sell in the market at a better price. Par is obviously much more relevant to debt securities than equities. So you do need a strike price. ljwobker's letter is a typical one, in that companies often make the strike price for granted options a formula based on the market price of the stock at the time of the grant, say 100% of market or 110% of market. But you will obviously need to find out what strike your company is offering.",
"\"See Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK-A) (The Class A shares) and it will all be clear to you. IMHO, the quote for the B shares is mistaken, it used earning of A shares, but price of B. strange. Excellent question, welcome to SE. Berkshire Hathaway is a stock that currently trades for nearly US$140,000. This makes it difficult for individual investors to buy or sell these shares. The CEO Warren Buffet chose to reinvest any profits which means no dividends, and never to split the shares, which meant no little liquidity. There was great pressure on him to find a way to make investing in Berkshire Hathaway more accessible. In June '96, the B shares were issued which represented 1/30 of a share of the Class A stock. As even these \"\"Baby Berks\"\" rose in price to pass US$4500 per share, the stock split 50 to 1, and now trade in the US$90's. So, the current ratio is 1500 to 1. The class B shares have 1/10,000 the voting rights of the A. An A share may be swapped for 1500 B shares on request, but not vice-versa.\"",
"Market capitalization is one way to represent the value of the company. So if a company has 10 million shares, which are each worth $100, then the company's market capitalization is 1 billion. Large cap companies tend to be larger and more stable. Small cap companies are smaller, which indicates higher volatility. So if you want more aggressive investments then you may want to invest in small cap companies while if you lean on the side of caution then big cap companies may be your friend.",
"\"This is typically referred to as the \"\"market value\"\" of your holdings--it is the revenue you would generate if you sold your holdings at that moment (less any transaction costs, of course)\"",
"Because it's a good indicator of how much their asset worth. In oversimplified example, wouldn't you care how much your house, car, laptop worth? Over the course of your life you might need to buy a bigger house, sell your car etc. to cope with your financial goal / situation. It's similar in company's case but with much more complexity.",
"Adding a couple more assumptions, I'd compute about $18.23 would be that pay out in 2018. This is computed by taking the Current Portfolio's Holdings par values and dividing by the outstanding shares(92987/5100 for those wanting specific figures used). Now, for those assumptions: Something to keep in mind is that bonds can valued higher than their face value if the coupon is higher than other issues given the same risk. If you have 2 bonds maturing in 3 years of the same face value and same risk categories though one is paying 5% and the other is paying 10% then it may be that the 5% sells at a discount to bring the yield up some while the other sells at a premium to bring the yield down. Thus, you could have bonds worth more before they mature that will eventually lose this capital appreciation.",
"Suppose I purchase $10,000 worth of a particular share today. If the person(s) I am purchasing the shares from paid $9,000 for those shares, then I replacing their $9,000 investment with my $10,000 investment. This is a net inflow of $1,000 into the market. Similarly, if the person(s) I am purchasing the shares from paid $11,000 for those shares, then their $11,000 investment is being replace by my $10,000 investment. This is a net outflow of $1,000 out of the market. The aggregate of all such inflows and outflows in the net inflow/outflow into the market over a given period of time. (Here we are ignoring the effects of new share issues.)",
"Yes, that's what it means. Also, it tells you that the share price went up by $0.39 yesterday, which was an increase of 1.43% from the previous day's price, and that the total value of all of Microsoft's shares is $232.18 billion (from which we can deduce that there are a bit less than 10 billion Microsoft shares in total).",
"There are books on the subject of valuing stocks. P/E ratio has nothing directly to do with the value of a company. It may be an indication that the stock is undervalued or overvalued, but does not indicate the value itself. The direct value of company is what it would fetch if it was liquidated. For example, if you bought a dry cleaner and sold all of the equipment and receivables, how much would you get? To value a living company, you can treat it like a bond. For example, assume the company generates $1 million in profit every year and has a liquidation value of $2 million. Given the risk profile of the business, let's say we would like to make 8% on average per year, then the value of the business is approximately $1/0.08 + $2 = $14.5 million to us. To someone who expects to make more or less the value might be different. If the company has growth potential, you can adjust this figure by estimating the estimated income at different percentage chances of growth and decline, a growth curve so to speak. The value is then the net area under this curve. Of course, if you do this for NYSE and most NASDAQ stocks you will find that they have a capitalization way over these amounts. That is because they are being used as a store of wealth. People are buying the stocks just as a way to store money, not necessarily make a profit. It's kind of like buying land. Even though the land may never give you a penny of profit, you know you can always sell it and get your money back. Because of this, it is difficult to value high-profile equities. You are dealing with human psychology, not pennies and dollars.",
"Assuming you are saying that the company issues 20,000 additional shares of its own stock and sells them for $8 each: The money from the sale is not income and not part of earnings. It is capital and appears on the balance sheet as part of shareholder's equity. With no other transactions, yes, the total of shares outstanding is increased by 20,000 to 100,000.",
"Shareholder's Equity consists of two main things: The initial capitalization of the company (when the shares were first sold, plus extra share issues) and retained earnings, which is the amount of money the company has made over and above capitalization, which has not been re-distributed back to shareholders. So yes, it is the firm's total equity financing-- the initial capitalization is the equity that was put into the company when it was founded plus subsequent increases in equity due to share issues, and retained earnings is the increase in equity that has occurred since then which has not yet been re-distributed to shareholders (though it belongs to them, as the residual claimants). Both accounts are credited when they increase, because they represent an increase in cash, that is debited, so in order to make credits = debits they must be credits. (It doesn't mean that the company has that much cash on hand, as the cash will likely be re-invested). Shareholder's Equity is neither an asset nor a liability: it is used to purchase assets and to reduce liabilities, and is simply a measure of assets minus liabilities that is necessary to make the accounting equation balance: Since the book value of stocks doesn't change that often (because it represents the price the company sold it for, not the current value on the stock market, and would therefore only change when there were new share issues), almost all changes in total assets or in total liabilities are reflected in Retained Earnings.",
"I have been asking myself a similar question about the financial statements of Weyerhaeuser. In response to Dheer's comment, whilst treasury shares are treated as a negative, it is issued shares less treasury shares (the negative) which gives the outstanding shares. So the original query remains unanswered. I've searched several sources and all state that outstanding shares will never be greater than issued shares. I've realized that the shares referred to are those authorized followed by those issued and outstanding (current year and prior year respectively) i.e. the shares that are both issued and outstanding as they must be issued in order to be outstanding This is supported in the example of Weyerhaeuser as there was a large increase in shares during Q1 2016 as a result of their merger with Plum Creek. Shares issued and outstanding are 510 million and 759 million respectively.",
"\"An important thing that many people fail to realize is that the number of shares outstanding in a stock, times the current market price of those shares, does not represent anything related to the total value of those shares. If a company has one million shares outstanding and its total value is $10 million, then the real worth of each share is $10. If few people feels like buying or selling, but a few people think the company is worth $50 million and offer $50/share, that could raise the market price to $50/share, but it wouldn't mean that the company became worth five times as much; it would merely mean the stock was overpriced. If, after the price went to $50/share, all the owners of the stock put in stop-loss orders at $45. Note that the real $10/share \"\"real value\"\" of their stock would never have changed. If the people who thought the stock was worth $50 decided to get out of the market, and nobody else was willing to offer more than $10, that would instantly drop the price to $10. The fact that a million shares of stock have stop-loss orders at $45 wouldn't magically generate buyers for those stocks at that price. Indeed, unchecked stop-loss orders would have the reverse effect, since many people who would have been willing if not eager to buy the stock if it had been available for less than $10/share would instead be trying to sell it below that price. It's too bad people think that the number of shares outstanding times the current market price represents some kind of \"\"meaningful quantity\"\". If the present cash value of all future payouts associated with a share of stock is $10, then someone who buys a share of stock for less than that makes money off the seller; someone who pays more loses money to the seller. Many people think they can lose money to the seller and still come out okay if the price goes higher, but what that really means is that they're hoping to find a bigger sucker--a game where it's guaranteed that some people will have losses they don't recoup.\"",
"You only got 75 shares, so your basis is the fair market value of the stock as of the grant date times the number of shares you got: $20*75. Functionally, it's the same thing as if your employer did this: As such, the basis in that stock is $1,500 ($20*75). The other 25 shares aren't yours and weren't ever yours, so they aren't part of your basis (for net issuance; if they were sell to cover, then the end result would be pretty similar, but there'd be another transaction involved, but we won't go there). To put it another way, suppose your employer paid you a $2000 bonus, leaving you with a $1500 check after tax withholding. Being a prudent person and not wishing to blow your bonus on luxury goods, you invest that $1500 in a well-researched investment. You wouldn't doubt that your cost basis in that investment at $1500.",
"\"In the case of an \"\"initial public offering\"\", the brokers underwriting the share issue will look at the current earnings being generated by the company and compare these to those of other competitor companies already listed in the stock market. For example, if a new telephone company is undertaking an initial public offering, then the share price of those telephone companies which are already traded on the stock market will serve as a reference for how much investors will be willing to pay for the new company's shares. If investors are willing to pay 15 times earnings for telecom shares, then this will be the benchmark used in determining the new share price. In addition, comparative growth prospects will be taken into account. Finally, the underwriter will want to see a successful sale, so they will tend to \"\"slightly under price\"\" the new shares in order to make them attractive. None of this is an exact science and we often see shares trading at a large premium to the initial offer price during the first few days of trading. More often that not, prices then settle down to something closer to the offer price. The initial price spike is usually the result of high demand for the shares by investors who believe that past examples of a price spike will repeat with this initial public offering. There will also usually be high demand for the new shares from funds that specialise in shares of the type being issued. In the case of a \"\"rights issue\"\", where an existing publicly traded company wishes to raise capital by issuing new shares, the company will price the new shares at a significant discount to the current market price. The new shares will be initially offered to existing shares holders and the discounted price is intended to encourage the existing shareholders to exercise their \"\"rights\"\" since the new shares may have the effect of diluting the value of their shares. Any shares which are not purchased by existing share holder will then be offered for sale in the market.\"",
"\"Each company has X shares valued at $Y/share. When deals like \"\"Dragon's Den\"\" in Canada and Britain or \"\"Shark Tank\"\" in the US are done, this is where the company is issuing shares valued at $z total to the investor so that the company has the funds to do whatever it was that they came to the show to get funding to do, though some deals may be loans or royalties instead of equity in the company. The total value of the shares may include intangible assets of course but part of the point is that the company is doing an \"\"equity financing\"\" where the company continues to operate. The shareholders of the company have their stake which may be rewarded when the company is acquired or starts paying dividends but that is a call for the management of the company to make. While there is a cash infusion into the company, usually there is more being done as the Dragon or Shark can also bring contacts and expertise to the company to help it grow. If the investor provides the entrepreneur with introductions or offers suggestions on corporate strategy this is more than just buying shares in the company. If you look at the updates that exist on \"\"Dragon's Den\"\" or \"\"Shark Tank\"\" at least in North America I've seen, you will see how there are more than a few non-monetary contributions that the Dragon or Shark can provide.\"",
"\"I agree with the answer by @Michael that this number doesn't exist. It's hard to see what use it would have and it would be difficult to track. I'm writing a separate answer because I also disagree with the premise of your question: Individual shares of stock have never to my knowledge had such a number. Your comment about numbers on stock certificates identifies the certificate document, which will generally represent multiple shares of stock. That number no more identifies a single share of stock than the serial number on a $10 bill identifies any one of the ten dollars it represents. Even at the \"\"collective\"\" unit of $10, when the bill is eventually replaced with a new one, the new bill has a new number. No continuity.\"",
"\"A non-trading stock or non-marketable security or unlisted security is one that does not trade continually on an exchange. For tax purposes, this can mean a whole new ball of wax which I would prefer the experts address with an edit to this answer or a new answer. For financial accounting purposes, this is when, say, one owns shares in an unlisted corporation and should be treated very carefully less one delude oneself. For trading stock, the value can be known immediately by checking any valid data provider's price and marking to market. For non-trading stock, the value has to be \"\"marked to model\"\". This can get one into Enron sized trouble. In this case, it's best to either leave the value of the stock at the purchase price and recognize gains upon sale, use a price from another honest transaction by third parties which are most likely difficult to attain, or to use some shorthand measure like applying the market P/E. Be wary of strangely high figures for value from the purchase price by using a market average, and don't throw away the shares just yet if a strangely low one arises. This method can lead to strange results.\"",
"No - there are additional factors involved. Note that the shares on issue of a company can change for various reasons (such as conversion/redemption of convertible securities, vesting of restricted employee shares, conversion of employee options, employee stock purchase programs, share placements, buybacks, mergers, rights issues etc.) so it is always worthwhile checking SEC announcements for the company if you want an exact figure. There may also be multiple classes of shares and preferred securities that have different levels of dividends present. For PFG, they filed a 10Q on 22 April 2015 and noted they had 294,385,885 shares outstanding of their common stock. They also noted for the three months ended March 31 2014 that dividends were paid to both common stockholders and preferred stockholders and that there were Series A preferred stock (3 million) and Series B preferred stock (10 million), plus a statement: In February 2015, our Board of Directors authorized a share repurchase program of up to $150.0 million of our outstanding common stock. Shares repurchased under these programs are accounted for as treasury stock, carried at cost and reflected as a reduction to stockholders’ equity. Therefore the exact amount of dividend paid out will not be known until the next quarterly report which will state the exact amount of dividend paid out to common and preferred shareholders for the quarter.",
"Market Capitalization is the product of the current share price (the last time someone sold a share of the stock, how much?) times the number of outstanding shares of stock, summed up over all of the stock categories. Assuming the efficient market hypothesis and a liquid market, this gives the current total value of the companies' assets (both tangible and intangible). Both the EMH and perfect liquidity may not hold at all times. Beyond those theoretical problems, in practice, someone trying to buy or sell the company at that price is going to be in for a surprise; the fact that someone wants to sell that many stocks, or buy that many stocks, will move the price of the company stock.",
"The value of a share depends on the value of the company, which involves a lot more than the value of its assets -- it requires making decisions about what you think will happen to the company in the future. That's inherently not something that can be reduced to a single formula, at least not unless you can figure out how to represent your guesses and your confidence in them in the formula ... and even if you could do all that it would only say what you think the stock is worth; others will be using different numbers and legitimately get different results. Disagreement over value is what the stock market is all about, I'm afraid.",
"Stock A last traded at $100. Stock A has 1 million shares outstanding. No seller is willing to sell Stock A for less than $110 a share. One buyer is willing to buy 1 share for $110. The order executes. The buyer pays the seller $110. Stock A's new price is $110. An $110 investment increased the market cap by $10 million. Neat trick (for all who own Stock A).",
"From Wikipedia - To calculate the value of the S&P 500 Index, the sum of the adjusted market capitalization of all 500 stocks is divided by a factor, usually referred to as the Divisor. For example, if the total adjusted market cap of the 500 component stocks is US$13 trillion and the Divisor is set at 8.933 billion, then the S&P 500 Index value would be 1,455.28. From a strictly mathematical perspective, the divisor is not canceling out the units, and the S&P index is dollar denominated even though it's never quoted that way. A case in point is that the S&P is often said to have a P/E, and especially an E, the earnings attributed to one 'unit' of S&P. And if you buy a mutual fund sporting a low expense ratio, you can invest exactly that much money (the current S&P index value) and see the dividends accrue to your account, less the fee.",
"The missing information is at the end of the first line: the price is from NASDAQ (most specifically Nasdaq Global Select), which is a stock exchange in the USA, so the price is in US Dollars.",
"Since I'm missing the shortest and simplest answer, I'll add it: A car also doesn't offer dividends, yet it's still worth money. A $100 bill doesn't offer dividends, yet people are willing to offer services, or goods, or other currencies, to own that $100 bill. It's the same with a stock. If other people are willing to buy it off you for a price X, it's worth at least close to price X to you. In theory the price X depends on the value of the assets of the company, including unknown values like expected future profits or losses. Speaking from experience as a trader, in practice it's very often really just price X because others pay price X."
] |
[
"They are 2 different class of shares belonging to the same company. Class A shares [par value of 0.01] have 100 voting rights per share. Class B shares [par value of 0.0002] have one voting rights. Both are listed separately with different ISN and trade at slightly different values. The Class A at higher value than Class B which looks right as it has more voting power."
] |
3682
|
Short selling - lender's motivation
|
[
"356161",
"329662"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"247313",
"348445",
"434788",
"187568",
"181673",
"405206",
"255978",
"329662",
"13240",
"188531",
"188152",
"68853",
"251711",
"226496",
"356161",
"35500",
"122050",
"320450",
"588743",
"118039",
"564611",
"259706",
"307155",
"107045",
"274835",
"553110",
"308809",
"193502",
"461062",
"336847",
"549040",
"356726",
"563744",
"75686",
"499877",
"501984",
"17426",
"125659",
"412223",
"471730",
"489254",
"283982",
"172783",
"330041",
"366484",
"330900",
"7743",
"459494",
"599925",
"458907",
"439295",
"9082",
"501739",
"233379",
"588836",
"67107",
"12542",
"370161",
"67154",
"537153",
"523729",
"440805",
"49794",
"558921",
"172338",
"464132",
"172761",
"591694",
"13631",
"409350",
"281533",
"94117",
"428786",
"386537",
"344076",
"239998",
"92267",
"140371",
"513942",
"356388",
"219762",
"479593",
"581423",
"177137",
"385220",
"312154",
"63301",
"84891",
"568299",
"327814",
"409432",
"79764",
"255319",
"314478",
"273644",
"179893",
"551485",
"384015",
"323731",
"487329"
] |
[
"\"There are two primary reasons shares are sold short: (1) to speculate that a stock's price will decline and (2) to hedge some other related financial exposure. The first is acknowledged by the question. The second reason may be done for taxes (shorting \"\"against the box\"\" was once permitted for tax purposes), for arbitrage positions such as merger arbitrage and situations when an outright sale of stock is not permitted, such as owning restricted stock such as employer-granted shares. Why would a shareholder lend the investor the shares? The investor loaning his stock out to short-sellers earns interest on those shares that the borrower pays. It is not unusual for the annualized cost of borrowing stock to be double digits when there is high demand for heavily shorted shares. This benefit is however not available to all investors.\"",
"In short (pun intended), the shareholder lending the shares does not believe that the shares will fall, even though the potential investor does. The shareholder believes that the shares will rise. Because the two individuals believe that a different outcome will occur, they are able to make a trade. By using the available data in the market, they have arrived at a particular conclusion of the fair price for the trade, but each individual wants to be on the other side of it. Consider a simpler form of your question: Why would a shareholder agree to sell his/her shares? Why don't they just wait to sell, when the price is higher? After all, that is why the buyer wants to purchase the shares. On review, I realize I've only stated here why the original shareholder wouldn't simply sell and rebuy the share themselves (because they have a different view of the market). As to why they would actually allow the trade to occur - Zak (and other answers) point out that the shares being lent are compensated for by an initial fee on the transaction + the chance for interest during the period that the shares are owed for.",
"Not really. The lender is not buying the stock back at a lower price. Remember, he already owns it, so he need not buy it again. The person losing is the one from whom the short seller buys back the stock, provided that person bought the stock at higher price. So if B borrowed from A(lender) and sold it to C, and later B purchased it back from C at a lower price, then B made profit, C made loss and A made nothing .",
"Nobody is going to short sell stocks through a lender that forces people to buy in as soon as it is getting good for them.",
"Why would a shareholder lend the investor the shares? Some brokers like IB will pay you to lend your shares: http://ibkb.interactivebrokers.com/node/1838 If you buy shares on margin, you don't have much of a choice. Your broker is allowed to lend your shares to short-sellers.",
"Michael gave a good answer describing the transaction but I wanted to follow up on your questions about the lender. First, the lender does charge interest on the borrowed securities. The amount of interest can vary based on a number of factors, such as who is borrowing, how much are they borrowing, and what stock are they trying to borrow. Occasionally when you are trying to short a stock you will get an error that it is hard to borrow. This could be for a few reasons, such as there are already a large amount of people who have shorted your broker's shares, or your broker never acquired the shares to begin with (which usually only happens on very small stocks). In both cases the broker/lender doesnt have enough shares and may be unwilling to get more. In that way they are discriminating on what they lend. If a company is about to go bankrupt and a lender doesnt have any more shares to lend out, it is unlikely they will purchase more as they stand to lose a lot and gain very little. It might seem like lending is a risky business but think of it as occurring over decades and not months. General Motors had been around for 100 years before it went bankrupt, so any lender who had owned and been lending out GM shares for a fraction of that time likely still profited. Also this is all very simplified. JoeTaxpayer alluded to this in the comments but in actuality who is lending stock or even who owns stock is much more complicated and probably doesnt need to be explained here. I just wanted to show in this over-simplified explanation that lending is not as risky as it may first seem.",
"Short sellers have to pay interest on the borrowings to the shareholders. Although many times brokers don't pass on these earnings to the shareholders, this is the exchange.",
"\"As the other answer said, the person who owns the lent stock does not benefit directly. They may benefit indirectly in that brokers can use the short lending profits to reduce their fees or in that they have the option to short other stocks at the same terms. Follow-up question: what prevents the broker lending the shares for a very short time (less than a day), pocketing the interest and returning the lenders their shares without much change in share price (because borrowing period was very short). What prevents them from doing that many times a day ? Lack of market. Short selling for short periods of time isn't so common as to allow for \"\"many\"\" times a day. Some day traders may do it occasionally, but I don't know that it would be a reliable business model to supply them. If there are enough people interested in shorting the stock, they will probably want to hold onto it long enough for the anticipated movement to happen. There are transaction costs here. Both fees for trading at all and the extra charges for short sale borrowing and interest. Most stocks do not move down by large enough amounts \"\"many\"\" times a day. Their fluctuations are smaller. If the stock doesn't move enough to cover the transaction fees, then that seller lost money overall. Over time, sellers like that will stop trading, as they will lose all their money. All that said, there are no legal blocks to loaning the stock out many times, just practical ones. If a stock was varying wildly for some bizarre reason, it could happen.\"",
"Because they receive compensation (generally interest + dividends) for loaning out the shares. I own an asset X. Somebody else wants to borrow asset X for some time period. I agree to loan them asset X in return for some form of compensation (generally a rate of interest plus, in this specific case, any dividend payments). The reasons why I own asset X, and why they want to borrow asset X are irrelevant to the transaction. The only relevant points are the amount of compensation and the risk that they might default on the loan. This applies equally well to shares as to money or any other kind of loan-able asset.",
"\"Concerning the general problem of short selling and the need to borrow shares to complete the transaction : Selling short is a cash transaction. Unlike a futures contract, where a short seller is entering into a legal agreement to sell something in the future, in the case of short selling a share the buyer of the share is taking immediate delivery and is therefore entitled to all of the benefits and rights that come with share ownership. In particular, the buyer of the shares is entitled to any dividends payable and, where applicable, to vote on motions at AGMs. If the short seller has not borrowed the shares to sell, then buyer of non-existent shares will have none of the rights associated with ownership. The cash market is based on the idea of matching buyers and sellers. It does not accommodate people making promises. Consider that to allow short sellers to sell shares they have not borrowed opens up the possibility of the aggregate market selling more shares than actually exist. This would lead to all sorts of problematic consequences such as heavily distorting the price of the underlying share. If everyone is selling shares they have not borrowed willy-nilly, then it will drive the price of the share down, much to the disadvantage of existing share holders. In this case, short sellers who have sold shares they have not already borrowed would be paying out more in dividends to the buyers than the total dividends being paid out by the underlying company. There are instruments that allow for short selling of unowned shares on a futures basis. One example is a CFD = Contract for Difference. In the case of CFDs, sellers are obliged to pay dividends to buyers as well as other costs related to financing. EDIT Regarding your comment, note that borrowing shares is not a market transaction. Your account does not show you buying a share and then selling it. It simply shows you selling a share short. The borrowing is the result of an agreement between yourself and the lender and this agreement is off market. You do not actually pay the lender for the shares, but you do pay financing costs for the borrowing so long as you maintain your short position. EDIT I realise that I have not actually read your question correctly. You are not actually talking about \"\"naked\"\" short selling. You are talking about selling shares you already own in a hope of maintaining both a long and short position (gross). The problem with this approach is that you must deliver the shares to the buyer. Otherwise, ask yourself what shares is the buyer actually buying if you want the bought shares to remain in your account. If you are not going to deliver your long position shares, then you will need to borrow the shares you are selling short for the reasons I have outlined above.\"",
"hmmm. I think it's because in both cases, you must pay for it up front, before the positions are closed out. You own nothing except the right to buy the stock re: the call, and the obligation to buy the stock re: the short. You buy a call, but must borrow the stock, for which you must put some margin collateral and there is a cost to borrow. You pay for that, of course. I wouldn't call it lending though.",
"They will make money from brokerage as usual and also from the interest they charge you for lending you the money for you to buy your shares on margin. In other words you will be paying interest on the $30,000 you borrowed from your broker. Also, as per Chris's comment, if you are shorting securities through your margin account, your broker would charge you a fee for lending you the securities to short.",
"For the lenders to sell their positions they need buyers on the other side. For a large brokerage that means they should always be able to find another lender. For many contracts the client may have no idea they are a lender as lending is part of their agreement with the broker",
"It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either. Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check. Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated. So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if:",
"\"Oftentimes, the lender (the owner of the security) is not explicitly involved in the lending transaction. Let's say the broker is holding a long-term position of 1MM shares from Client A. It is common for Client A's agreement with Broker A to include a clause that allows the broker to lend out the 1MM shares for its own profit (\"\"rehypothecation\"\"). Client A may be compensated for this in some form (e.g. baked into their financing rates), but they do not receive any compensation that is directly tied to lending activities. You also have securities lending agents that lend securities for an explicit fee. For example, the borrower's broker may not have sufficient inventory, in which case they would need to find a third-party lending agent. This happens both on-demand as well as for a fixed-terms (typically a large basket of securities). SLB (securities lending and borrowing) is a business in its own right. I'm not sure I follow your follow-up question but oftentimes there is no restriction that prevents the broker from lending out shares \"\"for a very short time\"\". Unless there is a transaction-based fee though, the number of times you lend shares does not affect \"\"pocketing the interest\"\" since interest accrues as a function of time.\"",
"In finance, short selling (also known as shorting or going short) is the practice of selling assets, usually securities, that have been borrowed from a third party (usually a broker) with the intention of buying identical assets back at a later date to return to the lender. Remember your broker has to borrow it from somewhere, other clients or if they hold those specific stocks themselves. So if it isn't possible for them to lend you those stocks, they wouldn't. High P/E stocks would find more sellers than buyers, and if the broker has to deliver them, it would be a nightmare for him to deliver all those stocks, which he had lent you(others) back to whom he had borrowed from, as well as to people who had gone long(buy) when you went short(sell). And if every body is selling there is going to be a dearth of stocks to be borrowed from as everybody around is selling instead of buying.",
"In this example, Client A has to buy shares to return them to Client B for his sale (closing Client A's short position). Client B then sells the shares. The end result is there are no shares within the brokerage clientele anymore, so Client A can't borrow them anymore. The broker is just an intermediary, they wouldn't go out and acquire securities on their own for the benefit of a client wanting to short it, as they would be taking on the risk of the opposite position. This would be in addition to the risk they already take on when allowing people to short sell -- which is that Client A won't have the money to buy the shares it owes to Client B, in which case the broker has to make Client B whole.",
"You can't make money on the way down if it was your money that bought the shares when the market was up. When you sell short, borrowing lets you tap into the value without paying for it. That way, when the price (hopefully) drops you profit from the difference. In your example, if you hadn't paid the £20 in the first place, then you would actually be up £5. But since you started with £20, you still show loss. As others said, borrowing is the definition of selling short. It is also simply the only way the math works. Of course, there is a large risk you must assume to enjoy benefiting from something you do not own!",
"Typically, as an individual, you can't just decide you want to lend out some securities. There is a lot of legalities that must take place in order to engage in such a transaction. It's a regulated industry and the contractual obligations that exist between borrower and seller are taken care of ahead of time by the broker with their client, prior to any actual transaction taking place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_lending I say typically, becuase I'm guessing that if you are a large enough client and own a substantial block of shares (I really mean a lot) you may be in the unique position of being able to lend out. I'm not sure what the logistics of this would look like, but I think the brokerage house would approach you and negotiate a borrowing rate. In that situation, you may negotiate lending to the the brokerage house and not necessarily directly to the borrower.",
"why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Because if you sell shares out of your own portfolio, by definition, you are not selling short at all. If you sell something you own (and deliver it) - then there is no short involved. A short is defined as a net negative position - i.e. you sell shares you do not have. Selling shares you own is selling shares you own - no short involved. You must borrow the shares for a short because in the stock market, you must DELIVER. You can not deliver shares you do not own. The stock market does not work on promises - the person who bought the shares expects ownership of them with all rights that gives them. So you borrow them to deliver them, then return them when you buy them back.",
"The point of short-selling as a separate instrument is that you can you do it when you can't sell the underlying asset... usually because you don't actually own any of it and in fact believe that it will go down. Shorting allows you to profit from a falling price. Another (non-speculative) possibility is that you don't have the underlying asset right now (and thus can't sell it) but will get it at a certain point in the future, e.g. because it's bonds that you've used to guarantee a loan... or grain that's still growing on your fields.",
"\"A simple way to ask the question might be to say \"\"why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Why is borrowing someone else's shares necessary to make the concept a viable one? Why isn't it just the inverse of 'going long'?\"\" A simple way to think about it is this: to make money by trading something, you must buy it for less than you sell it for. This applies to stocks like anything else. If you believe the price will go up, then you can buy them first and sell them later for a higher price. But if you believe the price will go down, the only way to buy low and sell high is to sell first and buy later. If you buy the stock and it goes down, any sale you make will lose you money. I'm still not sure I fully understand the point of your example, but one thing to note is that in both cases (i.e., whether you buy the share back at the end or not), you lost money. You say that you \"\"made $5 on the share price dropping\"\", but that isn't true at all: you can see in your example that your final account balance is negative in both cases. You paid $20 for the shares but only got $15 back; you lost $5 (or, in the other version of your example, paid $20 and got back $5 plus the depreciated shares). If you had bought the shares for $20 and sold them for, say, $25, then your account would end up with a positive $5 balance; that is what a gain would look like. But you can't achieve that if you buy the shares for $20 and later sell them for less. At a guess, you seem to be confusing the concept of making a profit with the concept of cutting your losses. It is true that if you buy the shares for $20 and sell them for $15, you lose only $5, whereas if you buy them for $20 and sell for $10, you lose the larger amount of $10. But those are both losses. Selling \"\"early\"\" as the price goes down doesn't make you any money; it just stops you from losing more money than you would if you sold later.\"",
"This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.",
"Rich's answer captures the basic essence of short selling with example. I'd like to add these additional points: You typically need a specially-privileged brokerage account to perform short selling. If you didn't request short selling when you opened your account, odds are good you don't have it, and that's good because it's not something most people should ever consider doing. Short selling is an advanced trading strategy. Be sure you truly grok selling short before doing it. Consider that when buying stock (a.k.a. going long or taking a long position, in contrast to short) then your potential loss as a buyer is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero) and your potential gain unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're lucky!) Whereas, with short selling, it's reversed: Your loss can be unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're unlucky!) and your potential gain is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero.) The proceeds you receive from a short sale – and then some – need to stay in your account to offset the short position. Brokers require this. Typically, margin equivalent to 150% the market value of the shares sold short must be maintained in the account while the short position is open. The owner of the borrowed shares is still expecting his dividends, if any. You are responsible for covering the cost of those dividends out of your own pocket. To close or cover your short position, you initiate a buy to cover. This is simply a buy order with the intention that it will close out your matching short position. You may be forced to cover your short position before you want to and when it is to your disadvantage! Even if you have sufficient margin available to cover your short, there are cases when lenders need their shares back. If too many short sellers are forced to close out positions at the same time, they push up demand for the stock, increasing price and deepening their losses. When this happens, it's called a short squeeze. In the eyes of the public who mostly go long buying stock, short sellers are often reviled. However, some people and many short sellers believe they are providing balance to the market and preventing it sometimes from getting ahead of itself. [Disambiguation: A short sale in the stock market is not related to the real estate concept of a short sale, which is when a property owner sells his property for less than he owes the bank.] Additional references:",
"In terms of pricing the asset, this functions in exactly the same way as a regular sell, so bids will have to be hit to fill the trade. When shorting an equity, currency is not borrowed; the equity is, so the value of per share liability is equal to it's last traded price or the ask if the equity is illiquid. Thus when opening a short position, the asks offer nothing to the process except competition for your order getting filled. Part of managing the trade is the interest rate risk. If the asks are as illiquid as detailed in the question, it may be difficult even to locate the shares for borrowing. As a general rule, only illiquid equities or those in free fall may be temporarily unable for shorting. Interactive Brokers posts their securities financing availabilities and could be used as a proxy guide for your broker.",
"\"There are situations where you can be forced to cover a position, particular when \"\"Reg SHO\"\" (\"\"regulation sho\"\") is activated. Reg SHO is intended to make naked short sellers cover their position, it is to prevent abusive failure to delivers, where someone goes short without borrowing someone else's shares. Naked shorting isn't a violation of federal securities laws but it becomes an accounting problem when multiple people have claims to the same underlying assets. (I've seen companies that had 120% of their shares sold short, too funny, FWIW the market was correct as the company was worth nothing.) You can be naked short without knowing it. So there can be times when you will be forced to cover. Other people being forced to cover can result in a short squeeze. A risk. The other downside is that you have to pay interest on your borrowings. You also have to pay the dividends to the owner of the shares, if applicable. In shorter time frames these are negligible, but in longer time frames, such as closer to a year or longer, these really add up. Let alone the costs of the market going in the opposite direction, and the commissions.\"",
"Problems with shorting 1. The price could become even more insanely high. 2. The stock you borrowed could be recalled leaving you sitting on a loss. 3. High borrowing costs. 4. Potentially limited loss potential e.g. when a takeover is announced, or when the company has a windfall, or fraudulently announces phony good news. Shorting could still be useful as a niche 10% of your portfolio; the risk is limited that way. Also high short interest tend to make me look a bit harder before buying.",
"\"My take on this is that with any short-selling contract you are engaging in, at a specified time in the future you will need to transfer ownership of the item(s) you sold to the buyer. Whether you own the item(s) or in your case you will buy your friend's used car in the meantime (or dig enough gold out of the ground - in the case of hedging a commodity exposure) is a matter of \"\"trust\"\". Hence there is normally some form of margin or credit-line involved to cover for you failing to deliver on expiry.\"",
"\"For the same reason that people bet on different teams. Some think the Tigers will win, others thing the Yankees will win. They wager $5 on it. One of them wins, the other loses. In a short, one person bets that the stock goes down, the other bets that the stock goes up (or hold). You're basically saying \"\"I think this stock is going to hold it's value or go up. If I thought it would go down, like you do, I would sell it myself right now. Instead, I'll let you have it for a while because when I get it back I think I'll come out on top.\"\"\"",
"our mortgage has been sold to a secondary market player. There are multiple ways in which the deal is struck. At times the risk of default is with Original FI [with recourse], at times it is with secondary FI [without recourse]. The rate can be discounted. So the Original FI collects the EMI as per 3.75 and pays to the secondary FI at 3.25. Or it can also be one time fixed amount. How could this possibly be financially beneficial for the original loan holder? As indicated, there are multiple ways the Original FI makes money, either one time or over the period, depending on how the deal is struck. Are they truly making enough money from the mortgage fees and first payment's interest to to warrant their need to clear up their credit line for new mortgages? Are mortgages always sold for less than the remaining principal? No broadly speaking the mortgage fees cover the cost for initiating the loan. There may be a very small amount banks may make. This is incidental. The actual money is made in the interest that is collected every month. If a Bank as say 5 loans for 100K each. It is very reputed brand and 10 people need 100K loans. Then it makes sense for the First FI to give loan to 5 people for 100K each, and sell this at profit to secondary FI. Take the 100K * 5 and give it off to new 5 people. Effectively making more money on the original 500K the bank had.",
"\"I know some derivative markets work like this, so maybe similar with futures. A futures contract commits two parties to a buy/sell of the underlying securities, but with a futures contract you also create leverage because generally the margin you post on your futures contract is not sufficient to pay for the collateral in the underlying contract. The person buying the future is essentially \"\"borrowing\"\" money while the person selling the future is essentially \"\"lending\"\" money. The future you enter into is generally a short term contract, so a perfectly hedged lender of funds should expect to receive something that approaches the fed funds rate in the US. Today that would be essentially nothing.\"",
"You just disclosed that you are new investor to the stock market. I'd advise that you first understand investing a bit better, as most will advise that investors need to be above a certain level before picking individual stocks. That said, most stocks trade in high enough volume and have low enough short interest that they don't fall under the category you seek. You want to first ask your broker if they have such a process, not all do. If so, they would need to provide you with the stocks that fall into this odd situation, specifically, the shares that have traders seeking to short the stock, but the stock is unavailable. Even then, the broker may have requirements that you don't fall into, minimum history with broker, minimum size account, etc. Worse, they are not likely to offer this for 100 shares, but may have a 1000 or higher share requirement. Are you willing to buy some obscure $50/sh priced stock to lend out at 1%/mo? The guy trying to short it is far smarter than both you and I, at least regarding this particular stock. This strategy is more appropriate for the 7 figure net worth investor. If any reader has actual experience with this, I'm happy to hear it. This response is from my recollection of two articles I read about 3 years ago, coincidence they both were published within weeks of each other.",
"> It's like they only care about personal short term gain and care little about being in the game for the long term. That's pretty much it. If they can't be lending (and making interest), they aren't winning. It's funny that the banks know as well as anyone that the worst place to leave money is in a bank.",
"Are there any other losses that can be expected beyond the above? The lender may have to invest some money into the house in order to get it in shape to sell. Also, while the lender possesses the house they are liable to the property taxes and possibly utilities. are there any statutes or pressures to motivate the financial institution to get fair price when the property is sold? The lender is motivated to at least break even when selling the property in order to limit losses on their investment. This means they are very motivated to seek a higher price, but they're also motivated to sell the property quickly in order to limit their losses due to property taxes. Usually the lender takes a loss of the investment if foreclosure occurs; only 10 percent to 20 percent of auctioned foreclosed houses did yield a surplus. When the lender sells the foreclosed property using a realtor, they're motivated to sell it as quickly as possible so long as they break even. In this case there is little motivation to sell the property for a surplus. If the property is being sold via auction, then time is not a factor and the lender will just sell to the highest bidder.",
"\"The reason for selling a stock \"\"short\"\", is for when you believe the stock value will decrease in the near future. Here is an example: Today Exxon-Mobile stock is selling for $100 / share. You are expecting the price to decrease, so you want to short the stock, which means your broker (i.e. eTrade, etc) allows you to borrow shares without paying money, and those shares are transferred into your account, and then you sell them and receive money for the sale. But you didn't actually own those shares, you only borrowed them, so you need to return the shares to your broker sometime in the future. Let's say you borrow 10 shares @ $100, and you sell them at the market price of $100, you receive $1,000 in your account. But you owe your broker 10 shares, which you need to return sometime in the future. A few days later, the share price has decreased to $80. Now you can buy 10 shares from the market at a total cost of $800. You get 10 shares, and return those shares to your broker. Since you originally took in $1,000, and you just paid out $800, you keep a resulting profit of $200\"",
"To short a stock you actually borrow shares and sell them. The shorter gets the money from selling immediately, and pays interest for the share he borrows until he covers the short. The amount of interest varies depending on the stock. It's typically under 1% a year for large cap stocks, but can be 20% or more for small, illiquid, or heavily shorted stocks. In this scam only a few people own the shares that are lent to shorters, so they essentially have a monopoly and can set really high borrow costs. The shorter probably assumes that a pump-and-dump will crash quickly, so wouldn't mind paying a high borrow cost.",
"\"If the owner of the stock wants it back, they \"\"call\"\" it back. There are no guarantees of how long you can keep it for your short, or the cost involved to hold it. Usually, everyone knows about a particular set-up (e.g. a warrant or convertible bond mispricing) that is attractive for arbitrage. This causes the associated stock to be in high demand thus expensive to borrow for shorting, or impossible to find for any price at all.\"",
"\"Lending of shares happens in the background. Those who have lent them out are not aware that they have been lent out, nor when they are returned. The borrowers have to pay any dividends to the lenders and in the end the borrowers get their stock back. If you read the fine print on the account agreement for a margin account, you will see that you have given the brokerage the permission to silently loan your stocks out. Since the lending has no financial impact on your portfolio, there's no particular reason to know and no particular protection required. Actually, brokers typically don't bother going through the work of finding an actual stock to borrow. As long as lots of their customers have stocks to lend and not that many people have sold short, they just assume there is no problem and keep track of how many are long and short without designating which stocks are borrowed from whom. When a stock becomes hard to borrow because of liquidity issues or because many people are shorting it, the brokerage will actually start locating individual shares to borrow, which is a more time-consuming and costly procedure. Usually this involves the short seller actually talking to the broker on the phone rather than just clicking \"\"sell.\"\"\"",
"A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.",
"Brokers have the right to charge interest on any stock that they lend you. Since you borrowed the TSLA to short it, the owner of those shares can charge you interest until you return them. If you are not getting charged interest on some shares that you have borrowed to short, consider it generosity on the part of the lender.",
"I don't actually have any of this stock. Apparently, it's quite common strategy This is called naked short selling. It's not illegal per se, but there can be some major penalties so you should call your broker and ask them these questions. Intentionally naked short selling is not looked upon favorably. They'll probably try to recommend you a safer shorting system by which:",
"\"He sold at 25 cents per pound and then as the price rises, the cash he has will buy less and less which could trigger a margin call as you are missing the \"\"short\"\" part of his position which is rather important here. From Investopedia: A margin account also allows your brokerage firm to liquidate your position if the likelihood that you will return what you've borrowed diminishes. This is part of the agreement that is signed when the margin account is created. From the broker's perspective, this increases the likelihood that you will return the shares before losses become too large and you become unable to return the shares. If you sold at 25 cents per pound and the price goes up, at some point you may be forced to buy to cover the position as brokers don't like to lose their money. As another example of a short going bad, \"\"Devastated\"\" Trader Crushed By Soaring Biotech, Starts Online Begging Campaign To Fund $106,000 Margin Call notes in part: However where this story gets abusrdly entertaining, or woefully tragic, depending on one's perspective, is that one trader, Joe Campbell, was on the wrong side of last night's massive surge. As the RutRho blog, which noticed it first explains, a \"\"dummy\"\" E-trader, Joe Campbell, decided to go $35,000 short KBIO \"\"and now owes $ETFC a wonderful $106K.\"\"\"",
"Lending of securities is done by institutional investors and mutual funds. The costs of dealing with thousands of individual investors, small share blocks and the various screw-ups and drama associated with each individual are too high. Like many exotic financial transactions, if you have to ask about it, you're probably not qualified to do it.",
"\"First, you are not exactly \"\"giving\"\" the brokerage $2000. That money is the margin requirement to protect them in the case the stock price rises. If you short 200 shares as in your example and they are holding $6000 from you then they are protected in the event of the stock price increasing to $30/share. Sometime before it gets there the brokerage will require you to deposit more money or they will cover your position by repurchasing the shares for your account. The way you make money on the short sale is if the stock price declines. It is a buy low sell high idea but in reverse. If you believe that prices are going to drop then you could sell now when it is high and buy back later when it is lower. In your example, you are selling 200 shares at $20 and later, buying those at $19. Thus, your profit is $200, not counting any interest or fees you have paid. It's a bit confusing because you are selling something you'll buy in the future. Selling short is usually considered quite risky as your gain is limited to the amount that you sold at initially (if I sell at $20/share the most I can make is if the stock declines to $0). Your potential to lose is unlimited in theory. There is no limit to how high the stock could go in theory so I could end up buying it back at an infinitely high price. Neither of these extremes are likely but they do show the limits of your potential gain and loss. I used $20/share for simplicity assuming you are shorting with a market order vs a limit order. If you are shorting it would be better for you to sell at 20 instead of 19 anyway. If someone says I would like to give you $20 for that item you are selling you aren't likely to tell them \"\"no, I'd really only like $19 for it\"\"\"",
"For every seller, there's a buyer. Buyers may have any reason for wanting to buy (bargain shopping, foolish belief in a crazy business, etc). The party (brokerage, market maker, individual) owning the stock at the time the company goes out of business is the loser . But in a general panic, not every company is going to go out of business. So the party owning those stocks can expect to recover some, or all, of the value at some point in the future. Brokerages all reserve the right to limit margin trading (required for short selling), and during a panic would likely not allow you to short a stock they feel is a high risk for them.",
"\"You sold $10,000 worth of stock so that money is essentially yours. However, you sold this stock without actually owning any which means that you, through your broker, are currently borrowing shares amounting to (at the time of your sale) $10,000 from someone who actually owns this stock. You will be paying this person interest for the privilege of borrowing their shares, the exact amount charged varies wildly and depends on factors such as short interest in the stock (loads of people want to go short = shareholders can charge high interest) etc. If I remember correctly hovering over the \"\"position\"\" column in your portfolio in the IB Workstation should give you information about the interest rate charged. You will have to buy back these shares from the lender at some point which is why the $10k isn't just \"\"free money.\"\" If the stock has gone up in price in the meantime you are going to be paying more than the $10k you got for the same amount of shares and vice versa.\"",
"\"So, yes, you may be having the inevitable epiphany where you realize that options can synthetically replicate the same risk profile of owning stock outright. Allowing you to manipulate risk and circumvent margin requirement differences amongst asset classes. Naked short puts are analogous to a covered call, but may have different (lesser) margin requirements. This allows you to increase your risk, and the broker has to account for that. The broker's clientele might not understand all the risks associated with that much leverage and so may simply consider it risky \"\"for your protection\"\"\"",
"\"Below is just a little information on short selling from my small unique book \"\"The small stock trader\"\": Short selling is an advanced stock trading tool with unique risks and rewards. It is primarily a short-term trading strategy of a technical nature, mostly done by small stock traders, market makers, and hedge funds. Most small stock traders mainly use short selling as a short-term speculation tool when they feel the stock price is a bit overvalued. Most long-term short positions are taken by fundamental-oriented long/short equity hedge funds that have identified some major weaknesses in the company. There a few things you should consider before shorting stocks: Despite all the mystique and blame surrounding short selling, especially during bear markets, I personally think regular short selling, not naked short selling, has a more positive impact on the stock market, as: Lastly, small stock traders should not expect to make significant profits by short selling, as even most of the great stock traders (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen,) have hardly made significant money from their shorts. it is safe to say that odds are stacked against short sellers. Over the last century or so, Western large caps have returned an annual average of between 8 and 10 percent while the returns of small caps have been slightly higher. I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of \"\"The small stock trader\"\")\"",
"Investopedia has a good explanation of the term shorting which is what this is. In the simplest of terms, someone is borrowing the bond and selling it with the intent to replace the security and any dividends or coupons in the end. The idea is that if a bond is overvalued, one may be able to buy it back later for a cheaper price and pocket the difference. There are various rules about this including margin requirements to maintain since there is the risk of the security going up in price enough that someone may be forced into a buy to cover in the form of a margin call. If one can sell the bond at $960 now and then buy it back later for $952.38 then one could pocket the difference. Part of what you aren't seeing is what are other bonds doing in terms of their prices over time here. The key point here is that brokers may lend out securities and accrue interest on loaned securities for another point here.",
"\"If you can't find anyone to lend you the shares, then you can't short. You can attempt to raise the interest rate at which you will borrow at, in order to entice others to lend you their shares. In practice, broadcasting this information is pretty convoluted. If there aren't any stocks for you to buy back, then you have to buy back at a higher price. As in, place a limit buy order higher and higher until someone decides to sell to you. This affects your profit. Regarding the public ledger: This functions different in different markets. United States stock markets have an evolving body of regulations to alleviate the exact concerns you detailed, but Canada's or Dubai's stock markets would have different provisions. You make the assumption that it is an efficient process, but it is not and it is indeed ripe for abuse. In US stocks, the public ledger has a 3 business day delay between showing change of ownership. Many times brokers and clearing firms and other market participants allow a customer to go short with fake shares, with the idea that they will find real shares within the 3 business day time period to cover the position. During the time period that there is no real shares hitting the market, this is called a \"\"naked short\"\". The only legal system that attempts to deter this practice is the \"\"fail to deliver\"\" (FTD) list. If someone fails to deliver, that means there is a short position active with fake shares for which no real shares have been borrowed against. Too many FTD's allow for a short selling restriction to be placed, meaning nobody else can be short, and existing short sellers may be forced to cover.\"",
"Are mortgages always sold for less than the remaining principal? No, they're almost always sold for more than that. The buyer will take a loss if the homeowner pays off the loan immediately, but that's very unlikely. The buyer is hoping that the owner will payoff the loan as scheduled and they'll make a tidy profit from the interest charged. The originator now makes their profit immediately and has their capital back so they can make more loans.",
"This is a gross simplification as there are a few different ways to do this. The principle overall is the same though. To short a stock, you borrow X shares from a third party and sell them at the current price. You now owe the lender X shares but have the proceeds from the sale. If the share price falls you can buy back those shares at the new lower price, return them to the lender and pocket the difference. The risk comes when the share price goes the other way, you now owe the lender the new value of the shares, so have to find some way to cover the difference. This happened a while back when Porsche made a fortune buying shares in Volkswagen from short sellers, and the price unexpectedly rose.",
"In a lot of cases, the bank has already made their money. Shortly after you get your mortgage is sold to investors though the bank is still servicing it for a fee. Therefore, if you refinance, they get to sell it again.",
"\"Selling short is simply by definition the selling, then later re-buying of stock you don't initially own. Say you tally your entire portfolio balance: the quantity of each stock you own, and your cash assets. Let's call this your \"\"initial position\"\". We define \"\"profit\"\" as any increase in assets, relative to this initial position. If you know a particular stock will go down, you can realize a profit by selling some of that stock, waiting for the price to go down, then buying it back. In the end you will have returned to your initial position, except you will have more cash. If you sell 10 shares of a stock valued at £1.50, then buy them back at £1.00, you will make a £5.00 profit while having otherwise returned to your previous position. If you do the same, but you initially owned 1000 shares, sold just 10 of those, then bought 10 back, that's still a profit of £5.00. Selling short is doing the same thing, but with an initial and ending balance of 0 shares. If you initially own 0 shares, sell 10, then buy 10 back, you return to your initial position (0 shares) plus a profit of £5.00. (And in practice you must also pay a borrowing fee to do this.) The advantage of selling short is it can be done with any stock, not just those currently owned.\"",
"Fair enough. I would imagine the ETF could get a better option pricing if that were the case, plus liquidity and counterpart risk concerns but your point is well taken. Serves me right to shoot my mouth off on something I do not do (short). Speaking of which, do you do a lot of shorting? Cover positions or speculation?",
"\"You didn't win in case B. Borrowing shares and then selling them is known as \"\"selling short\"\". You received $2000 when you sold short 100 shares at $20. You spent $1000 to buy them back at $10, so you come out $1000 ahead on that deal. But at the same time, the 100 shares you already owned have declined in value from $20 to $10, so you are down $1000 on that deal. So you've simply broken even, and you are still out the interest and transaction fees. In effect, a short sale allows you to sell shares you don't own. But if you do already own them, then the effect is the same as if you just sold your own shares. This makes it easier to see that this is just a complicated and expensive way of accomplishing nothing at all.\"",
"Short selling can be a good strategy to hedge, but you have almost unlimited downside. If a stock price skyrockets, you may be forced to cover your short by the brokerage before you want to or put up more capital. A smarter strategy to hedge, that limits your potential downside is to buy puts if you think the market is going down. Your downside is limited to the total amount that you purchased the put for and no more. Another way to hedge is to SELL calls that are covered because you own the shares the calls refer to. You might do this if you thought your stock was going to go down but you didn't want to sell your shares right now. That way the only downside if the price goes up is you give up your shares at a predetermined price and you miss out on the upside, but your downside is now diminished by the premium you were paid for the option. (You'd still lose money if the shares went down since you still own them, but you got paid the option premium so that helps offset that).",
"I agree with Mark. I was quite confuse about the short position at first but then I did a lot of learning and found out that as long as you have enough cash to cover your margin requirement you do not pay any interest since you do not have a debit on your margin balance. This is not true for a long position though, supposed you have 5k cash and 5k margin balance, if you buy 10K worth of stocks then you will need to pay interest on the 5k of the margin balance since it is a debit. Since shorting is done at a credit basis, you actually get interest from the transaction but you still may need to pay the borrowing fees for the stocks so they could simply balance each other out. I have shorted stocks twice through two different companies and neither time I noticed any interest charges. But make sure you have enough cash to cover your margin requirement, because once your margin balance is used to covered your position then interest would accrual. Learn.",
"The only reason to lend the money in this scenario is cashflow. But considering you buy a $15000 car, your lifestyle is not super luxurious, so $15000 spare cash is enough.",
"You will be charged a stock borrow fee, which is inversely related to the relative supply of the stock you are shorting. IB claims to pay a rebate on the short proceeds, which would offset part or all of that fee, but it doesn't appear relevant in your case because: It is a bit strange to me that IB would not require you to keep the cash in your account, as they need the cash to collateralize the stock borrow with the lending institution. In fact, per Regulation T, the short position requires an initial margin of 150%, which includes the short proceeds. As described by Investopedia: In the first table of Figure 1, a short sale is initiated for 1,000 shares at a price of $50. The proceeds of the short sale are $50,000, and this amount is deposited into the short sale margin account. Along with the proceeds of the sale, an additional 50% margin amount of $25,000 must be deposited in the account, bringing the total margin requirement to $75,000. At this time, the proceeds of the short sale must remain in the account; they cannot be removed or used to purchase other securities. Here is a good answer to your question from The Street: Even though you might see a balance in your brokerage account after shorting a stock, you're actually looking at a false credit, according to one big brokerage firm. That money is acting as collateral for the short position. So, you won't have use of these funds for investment purposes and won't earn interest on it. And there are indeed costs associated with shorting a stock. The broker has to find stock to loan to you. That might come out of a broker's own inventory or might be borrowed from another stock lender.",
"But by closing the short position the broker would still be purchasing shares from the market no? Or at least, someone would be purchasing the shares to close the short position. So, why doesn't the broker just let Client A keep their short position open and buy shares in the market so that Client B can sell them...I know it sounds a bit ridic, but not much more so to me than letting Client A borrow the shares to begin with!",
"\"Who are the losers going to be? If you can tell me for certain which firms will do worst in a bear market and can time it so that this information is not already priced into the market then you can make money. If not don't try. In a bull market stocks tend to act \"\"normally\"\" with established patterns such as correlations acting as expected and stocks more or less pricing to their fundamentals. In a bear market fear tends to overrule all of those things. You get large drops on relatively minor bad news and modest rallies on even the best news which results in stocks being undervalued against their fundamentals. In the crash itself it is quite easy to make money shorting. In an environment where stocks are undervalued, such as a bear market, you run the risk that your short, no matter how sure you are that the stock will fall, is seen as being undervalued and will rise. In fact your selling of a \"\"losing\"\" stock might cause it to hit levels where value investors already have limits set. This could bring a LOT of buyers into the market. Due to the fact that correlations break down creating portfolios with the correct risk level, which is what funds are required to do not only by their contracts but also by law to an extent, is extremely difficult. Risk management (keeping all kinds to within certain bounds) is one of the most difficult parts of a manager's job and is even difficult in abnormal market conditions. In the long run (definitions may vary) stock prices in general go up (for those companies who aren't bankrupted at least) so shorting in a bear market is not a long term strategy either and will not produce long term returns on capital. In addition to this risk you run the risk that your counterparty (such as Lehman brothers?) will file for bankruptcy and you won't be able to cover the position before the lender wants you to repay their stock to them landing you in even more problems.\"",
"I'm just began playing in the stock market. I assume you mean that you're not using real money, but rather you have an account with a stock simulator like the one Investopedia offers. I am hopeful that's the case due to the high level of risk involved in short selling like you're describing. Here is another post about short selling that expands a bit on that point. To learn much more about the ins and outs of short selling I will point again to Investopedia. I swear I don't work for them, but they do have a great short selling tutorial. When you short sell a stock you are borrowing the stock from your broker. (The broker typically uses stock held by one or more of his clients to cover the loan.) Since it's basically a loan you pay interest. Of course the longer you hold it the more interest you pay. Also, as Joe mentioned there are scenarios in which you may be forced to buy the stock (at a higher price than you sold it). This tends to happen when the stock price is going against the short sell (i.e. you lose money). Finally, did anyone mention that the potential losses in a short sell are infinite?",
"Answers here are correct but I'll offer an extremely (overly) simple explanation that should help you in understanding the more detailed answers. When most people own stock they do so through a broker. Unless you jump through some hoops, the broker keeps the shares in the name of the brokerage. This is called holding the stock in street name. When you sell short through a brokerage, the broker is letting you borrow a certain number of shares owned by someone else and sell them for cash now. At some point, you need to repay this loan with the same number of shares you borrowed. Ideally, you want the stock to drop to $0. The reason you might be forced to purchase the stock is that the actual owner(s) of the stock want to sell. If the broker has too many people wanting to sell, you will need to repay some of all of the loan (in shares) i.e. purchasing shares at the current market price.",
"The problem with short would be that even if the stock eventually falls, it might raise a lot in the meantime, and unless you have enough collateral, you may not survive till it happens. To sell shares short, you first need to borrow them (as naked short is currently prohibited in US, as far as I know). Now, to borrow you need some collateral, which is supposed to be worth more that the asset you are borrowing, and usually substantially more, otherwise the risk for the creditor is too high. Suppose you borrowed 10K worth of shares, and gave 15K collateral (numbers are totally imaginary of course). Suppose the shares rose so that total cost is now 14K. At this moment, you will probably be demanded to either raise more collateral or close the position if you can not, thus generating you a 4K loss. Little use it would be to you if next day it fell to 1K - you already lost your money! As Keynes once said, Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. See also another answer which enumerates other issues with short selling. As noted by @MichaelPryor, options may be a safer way to do it. Or a short ETF like PSQ - lists of those are easy to find online.",
"ELI5 - you sell something that you don't own with the expectation that it will go down, and then you buy it back when it goes down in order to lock in profit. You are charged fees to borrow the stock from someone else who currently owns it, and you also run the risk of the market going against you by going up.",
"\"Banks make money on load origination fees. The \"\"points\"\" you pay or closing costs are the primary benefit to the banks. A vast majority of the time risks associated with the mortgage are sold to another party. FYI, the same is true with investment banks. In general, the transaction costs (which are ignored by modern finance theory) are the main thing running the incentives for the industry.\"",
"\"The correct answer to this question is: the person who the short sells the stock to. Here's why this is the case. Say we have A, who owns the stock and lends it to B, who then sells it short to C. After this the price drops and B buys the stock back from D and returns it to A. The outcome for A is neutral. Typically stock that is sold short must be held in a margin account; the broker can borrow the shares from A, collect interest from B, and A has no idea this is going on, because the shares are held in a street name (the brokerage's name) and not A. If A decides during this period to sell, the transaction will occur immediately, and the brokerage must shuffle things around so the shares can be delivered. If this is going to be difficult then the cost for borrowing shares becomes very high. The outcome for B is obviously a profit: they sold high first and bought (back) low afterwards. This leaves either C or D as having lost this money. Why isn't it D? One way of looking at this is that the profit to B comes from the difference in the price from selling to C and buying from D. D is sitting on the low end, and thus is not paying out the profit. D bought low, compared to C and this did not lose any money, so C is the only remaining choice. Another way of looking at it is that C actually \"\"lost\"\" all the money when purchasing the stock. After all, all the money went directly from C to B. In return, C got some stock with the hope that in the future C could sell it for more than was paid for it. But C literally gave the money to B, so how could anybody else \"\"pay\"\" the loss? Another way of looking at it is that C buys a stock which then decreases in value. C is thus now sitting on a loss. The fact that it is currently only a paper loss makes this less obvious; if the stock were to recover to the price C bought at, one might conclude that C did not lose the money to B. However, in this same scenario, D also makes money that C could have made had C bought at D's price, proving that C really did lose the money to B. The final way of seeing that the answer is C is to consider what happens when somebody sells a stock which they already hold but the price goes up; who did they lose out on the gain to? The person again is; who bought their stock. The person would buys the stock is always the person who the gain goes to when the price appreciates, or the loss comes out of if the price falls.\"",
"The answer provide by @mbhunter is correct, however there are contexts, shorting in spot market and carrying the position over settlement usually does not entail payment of dividend to the broker, one of the reason being post ex-date the price of the share downward adjusts to the extent of the dividend, so practically if you have shorted at 100 and post ex-date (assuming a dividend of 2 and no movement of the stock price), the price would slide to 98, the party who longed the stock @ 100 now is sitting on a price of 98 and received a dividend of 2 which equates to 100. The above is also contextual to the law of the country governing the exchange and the security exchange board regulations.",
"Shorting is the term used when someone borrows a stock and sells it at the current price to then buy it back later at hopefully a lower price. There are rules about this as noted in the link that begins this answer as there are risks to selling a stock you don't own of course. If you look up various large companies you may find that there are millions of shares sold short throughout the market as someone does have the shares and they will need to be put back eventually.",
"\"You are likely making an assumption that the \"\"Short call\"\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \"\"write\"\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\"",
"This can be best explained with an example. Bob thinks the price of a stock that Alice has is going to go down by the end of the week, so he borrows a share at $25 from Alice. The current price of the shares are $25 per share. Bob immediately sells the shares to Charlie for $25, it is fair, it is the current market price. A week goes by, and the price does fall to $20. Bob buys a share from David at $20. This is fair, it is the current market value. Then Bob gives the share back to Alice to settle what he borrowed from her, one share. Now, in reality, there is interest charged be Alice on the borrowed value, but to keep it simple, we'll say she was a friend and it was a zero interest loan. So then Bob was able to sell something he didn't own for $25 and return it spending $20 to buy it, settling his loan and making $5 in the transaction. It is the selling to Charlie and buying from David (or even Charlie later, if he decided to dump the shares), without having invested any of your own money that earns the profit.",
"How so? If i sell short, then i make a profit only if the price goes down so i can buy back at a lower price. Yes, but if the price is going up then you would go long instead. Shorting a stock (or any other asset) allows you to profit when the price is going down. Going long allows you to profit when the price is going up. In the opposite cases, you lose money. In order to make a profit in either of those situations, you have to accurately assess which way the price will trade over the period of time you are dealing with. If you make the wrong judgment, then you lose money because you'll either sell for a lower price than you bought (if you went long), or have to buy back at a higher price than you sold for (if you went short). In either case, unless the trader can live with making a short-term loss and recouperating it later, one needs a good stop-loss strategy.",
"\"You at least have some understanding of the pitfalls of shorting. You might not be able to borrow stock. You might not be able to buy it back when the time comes. You're moves are monitored, so you can't \"\"run away\"\" because the rules are enforced. (You don't want to find out how, personally.) \"\"Shorting\"\" is a tough, risky business. To answer your implicit question, if you have to ask about it on a public forum like this, you're not good enough to do it.\"",
"The original owner of the shares can pledge their shares to be short, and they earn interest from lending their shares. The conditions of this arrangement are detailed in standard agreements all market participants sign with their broker, or clearinghouse, or with the exchange, or with the self regulatory agency. Stocks within the same class are identical, despite someone's sentiment to an old share certificate that their grandparents gave them, and as such can be sold and returned to the beneficial owner multiple times with no difference. That is how it is supposed to work anyway, as naked shorting involves selling fictional shares that have no beneficial owner. So there are market inefficiencies in this practice, but the agreements between market participants are sound and answers your question about how.",
"Owning a stock via a fund and selling it short simultaneously should have the same net financial effect as not owning the stock. This should work both for your personal finances as well as the impact of (not) owning the shares has on the stock's price. To use an extreme example, suppose there are 4 million outstanding shares of Evil Oil Company. Suppose a group of concerned index fund investors owns 25% of the stock and sells short the same amount. They've borrowed someone else's 25% of the company and sold it to a third party. It should have the same effect as selling their own shares of the company, which they can't otherwise do. Now when 25% of the company's stock becomes available for purchase at market price, what happens to the stock? It falls, of course. Regarding how it affects your own finances, suppose the stock price rises and the investors have to return the shares to the lender. They buy 1 million shares at market price, pushing the stock price up, give them back, and then sell another million shares short, subsequently pushing the stock price back down. If enough people do this to effect the share price of a stock or asset class, the managers at the companies might be forced into behaving in a way that satisfies the investors. In your case, perhaps the company could issue a press release and fire the employee that tried to extort money from your wife's estate in order to win your investment business back. Okay, well maybe that's a stretch.",
"The 'normal' series of events when trading a stock is to buy it, time passes, then you sell it. If you believe the stock will drop in price, you can reverse the order, selling shares, waiting for the price drop, then buying them back. During that time you own say, -100 shares, and are 'short' those shares.",
"To expand on the comment made by @NateEldredge, you're looking to take a short position. A short position essentially functions as follows: Here's the rub: you have unlimited loss potential. Maybe you borrow a share and sell it at $10. Maybe in a month you still haven't closed the position and now the share is trading at $1,000. The share lender comes calling for their share and you have to close the position at $1,000 for a loss of $990. Now what if it was $1,000,000 per share, etc. To avoid this unlimited loss risk, you can instead buy a put option contract. In this situation you buy a contract that will expire at some point in the future for the right to sell a share of stock for $x. You get to put that share on to someone else. If the underlying stock price were to instead rise above the put's exercise price, the put will expire worthless — but your loss is limited to the premium paid to acquire the put option contract. There are all sorts of advanced options trades sometimes including taking a short or long position in a security. It's generally not advisable to undertake these sorts of trades until you're very comfortable with the mechanics of the contracts. It's definitely not advisable to take an unhedged short position, either by borrowing someone else's share(s) to sell or selling an option (when you sell the option you take the risk), because of the unlimited loss potential described above.",
"\"The broker will charge borrowing fees and sometimes a charge called \"\"hard-to-borrow fee\"\". Other than that you will earn interest on the cash you get from selling the stocks, but you will have to pay dividends. This is because someone else (the party you sold the stocks off to) will now get the dividends and the party who lent you the stocks will miss out on these, that's why you have to remunerate them. The type of account you need is entirely up to your broker (and besides, it depends on what a 'normal' account for you is, you should at least mention your country or your broker).\"",
"\"Derivatives derive their value from underlying assets. This is expressed by the obligation of at least one counterparty to trade with the other counterparty in the future. These can take on as many combinations as one can dream up as it is a matter of contract. For futures, where two parties are obligated to trade at a specific price at a specific date in the future (one buyer, one seller), if you \"\"short\"\" a future, you have entered into a contract to sell the underlying at the time specified. If the price of the future moves against you (goes up), you will have to sell at a loss. The bigger the move, the greater the loss. You go ahead and pay this as well as a little extra to be sure that you satisfy what you owe due to the future. This satisfaction is called margin. If there weren't margin, people could take huge losses on their derivative bets, not pay, and disrupt the markets. Making sure that the money that will trade is already there makes the markets run smoothly. It's the same for shorting stocks where you borrow the stock, sell it, and wait. You have to leave the money with the broker as well as deposit a little extra to be sure you can make good if the market moves to a large degree against you.\"",
"In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-). In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.",
"I can see that building credit is a valid reason. I would also suggest another scenario, when you have locked up money in long-term savings, with a substantial penalty for early withdrawal. If you suddenly needed money then you might save money by borrowing against the long-term deposit rather than pay the penalties. This is especially true if you needed the money only for a short time.",
"\"Point of order: \"\"What goes up must come down\"\" refers to gravity of terrestrial objects below escape velocity and should not be generalized beyond its intent. It's not true that stocks MUST come down just because they have gone up. For example, we would not expecting the price of oil to come down to 1999 levels, right? Prices, including those of stocks, are not necessarily cyclical. Anyway, short selling isn't necessarily a bad idea. In some sense, it is insurance if you have a lot of assets (like maybe your human capital) that will take a dive when the market goes down. Short selling would have lost a lot of money in your case as the stock market between 2011 (when you wrote the question) and 2014 (when I wrote this answer) performed very well. On average the long side stock market should make money over long periods of time as compensation for risk and the short side should lose money, so it's not a good way to make money if you don't have an informational advantage. Like all insurance, it protects you against certain calamities, but on average it costs you money.\"",
"I've read this claim many times in the news: banks are making less profit from the lending business when interest rates are historically low. The issue with most loans is they can be satisfied at any time. When you have falling interest rates it means most of the banks loans are refinanced from nice high rates to current market low interest rates which can significantly reduce the expected return on past loans. The bank gets the money back when it wants it the least because it can only re-lend the money at the current market (lower) interest rates. When interest rates are increasing refinance and early repayment activity reduces significantly. It's important to look at the loan from the point of view of the bank, a bank must first issue out the entire principal amount. On a 60 month loan the lender has not received payments sufficient to satisfy the principal until around 50th or 55th month depending on the interest rate. If the bank receives payment of the outstanding amount on month 30 the expected return on that loan is reduced significantly. Consider a $10,000, 60 month loan at 5% apr. The bank is expected to receive $11,322 in total for interest income of $1,322. If the loan is repaid on month 30, the total interest is about $972. That's a 26% reduction of expected interest income, and the money received can only be re-lent for yet a lower interest rate. Add to this the tricky accounting of holding a loan, which is really a discounted bond, which is an asset, on the books and profitability of lending while interest rates are falling gets really funky. And this doesn't even examine default risk/cost.",
"\"Being \"\"long\"\" - expecting the price to go up to make a profit - is a two step process: 1) buy 2) sell Being \"\"short\"\" - expecting the price to go down to make a profit - is a 5 step process: 1) borrow someone else's asset 2) sell their asset on the open market to somebody else a third party 3) pocket the proceeds of the sell for your own account 4) buy an identical asset for a cheaper price 5) return this identical asset to the person that let you borrow their asset if this is successful you keep the difference between 3) and 4)\"",
"One of my university professors suggested doing this systematically to get access to shareholder meetings where there is typically a nice dinner involved. As long as the stock price + commission is less than the price of a nice restaurant it's actually not a bad idea.",
"You are the one lending yourself the shares to sell;you purchase the stock at market price and sell at the strike price of the option to the put seller when you exercise the option.",
"\"Many investors don't invest for the short term and so a stock \"\"nose-diving\"\" in the short run will not affect their long term strategy so they will simply hold on to it until it recovers. Additionally funds that track an index have to hold on to the constituents of that index no matter what happens to its value over the period (within trading limits). Both of these kinds of investors will be able to lend stock in a company out and not trigger a forced buy-in on a short term change. If the underlying long-term health of the company changes or it is removed from indices it is likely that this will change, however. Employee stock plans and other investors who are linked directly to the company or who have a vested interest in the company other than in a financial way will also be unwilling (or unable) to sell on a down turn in the company. They will similarly be able to lend their stock in the short term.\"",
"If you already own shares in a company and sell some, you won't be short selling these shares if sold from the same brokerage account, because your existing shares with that broker need to be sold first before you are able to short sell any. If you own a portfolio of shares however, you may be able to short sell an index to hedge your current portfolio. Also, if you have your existing shares in a company but don't want to sell your existing shares, for example you don't want to crystallise a capital gain, you can always hedge you current shares by short selling them through a different broker. Some other hedging options possibly available to you include: buying put options over the shares, writing cover call options, or short selling some other derivatives like CFDs (if your country allows them).",
"First utilize a security screener to identify the security profiles you are looking to identify for identifying your target securities for shorting. Most online brokers have stock screeners that you can utilize. At this point you may want to look at your target list of securities to find out those that are eligible for shorting. The SHO thresold list is also a good place to look for securities that are hard to borrow to eliminate potential target securities. http://regsho.finra.org/regsho-Index.html Also your broker can let you know the stocks that are available for borrowing. You can then take your target securities and then you can look at the corporate filings on the SEC's Edgar site to look for the key words you are looking for. I would suggest that you utilize XBRL so you can electronically run your key word searched in an automated manner. I would further suggest that you can run the key word XBRL daily for issuer filings of your target list of securities. Additional word searches you may want to consider are those that could indicate a dilution of the companies stock such as the issuance of convertible debt. Also the below link detailing real short interest may be helpful. Clearing firms are required to report short interest every two weeks. http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/short-interest.aspx",
"Also keep in mind that most REITs have high dividend yields. If you short, you are responsible for payment of the dividend to the party you are borrowing the shares from. This can add costs to your position over time. Short REITS for a long time period is not necessarily an optimal strategy.",
"Yes in order for you to short a stock, some one has to be willing to lend it to you to short, the more people that want to short this stock, the higher the borrowing rate is to short it. in some instances such as groupon so many people are shorting it that there are practically no shares left to short and if you do end up getting some it would be at a very high borrowing cost.",
"Yes, you would. You owe it to the person you borrowed the shares from. (source)",
"\"And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position. When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here. In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them. If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from. Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest). Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy. Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800. In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question). It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement. Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money. If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a \"\"margin call\"\" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses. And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin). When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go. There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position. You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs.\"",
"\"In finance, form is function, and while a reason for a trade could be anything, but since the result of a trade is a change in value, it could be presumed that one seeks to receive a change in value. Stock company There may have been more esoteric examples, but currently, possession of a company (total ownership of its' assets actually) is delineated by percentage or a glorified \"\"banknote\"\" frequently called a \"\"share\"\". Percentage companies are usually sole proprietorship and partnerships, but partnerships can now trade in \"\"units\"\". Share companies are usually corporations. With shares, a company can be divided into almost totally indistinguishable units. This allows for more flexible ownership, so individuals can trade them without having to change the company contract. Considering the ease of trade, it could be assumed that common stock contract provisions were formulated to provide for such an ease. Motivation to trade This could be anything, but it seems those with the largest ownership of common stock have lots of wealth, so it could be assumed that people at least want to own stocks to own wealth. Shorting might be a little harder to reason, but I personally assume that the motivation to trade is still to increase wealth. Social benefit of the stock market Assuming that ownership in a company is socially valuable and that the total value of ownership is proportional to the social value provided, the social benefit of a stock market is that it provided the means to scale ownership through convenience, speed, and reliability.\"",
"For Canada No distinction is made in the regulation between “naked” or “covered” short sales. However, the practice of “naked” short selling, while not specifically enumerated or proscribed as such, may violate other provisions of securities legislation or self-regulatory organization rules where the transaction fails to settle. Specifically, section 126.1 of the Securities Act prohibits activities that result or contribute “to a misleading appearance of trading activity in, or an artificial price for, a security or derivative of a security” or that perpetrate a fraud on any person or company. Part 3 of National Instrument 23-101 Trading Rules contains similar prohibitions against manipulation and fraud, although a person or company that complies with similar requirements established by a recognized exchange, quotation and trade reporting system or regulation services provider is exempt from their application. Under section 127(1) of the Securities Act, the OSC also has a “public interest jurisdiction” to make a wide range of orders that, in its opinion, are in the public interest in light of the purposes of the Securities Act (notwithstanding that the subject activity is not specifically proscribed by legislation). The TSX Rule Book also imposes certain obligations on its “participating organizations” in connection with trades that fail to settle (see, for example, Rule 5-301 Buy-Ins). In other words, shares must be located by the broker before they can be sold short. A share may not be locatable because there are none available in the broker's inventory, that it cannot lend more than what it has on the books for trade. A share may not be available because the interest rate that brokers are charging to borrow the share is considered too high by that broker, usually if it doesn't pass on borrowing costs to the customer. There could be other reasons as well. If one broker doesn't have inventory, another might. I recommend checking in on IB's list. If they can't get it, my guess would be that no one can since IB passes on the cost to finance short sales.",
"This is very much possible and happens quite a lot. In the US, for example, promotional offers by credit card companies where you pay no interest on the balance for a certain period are a very common thing. The lender gains a new customer on such a loan, and usually earns money from the spending via the merchant fees (specifically for credit cards, at least). The pro is obviously free money. The con is that this is usually for a short period of time (longest I've seen was 15 months) after which if you're not careful, high interest rates will be charged. In some cases, interest will be charged retroactively for the whole period if you don't pay off the balance or miss the minimum payment due.",
"http://www.investopedia.com/university/shortselling/shortselling1.asp 'Therein lies the major risk of short selling, the fear of infinite losses. While the maximum loss for a long investor is the amount invested in a security, the maximum loss for a short seller is theoretically infinite, since there is no upper limit to a stock’s price appreciation. This risk is compounded by the fact that during a short squeeze or buy-in...' Never have shorted a stock. Too intimidated by that!",
"If you are planning this as a tax avoidance scheme, well it is not. The gains will be taxable in your hands and not in the Banks hands. Banks simply don't cash out the stock at the same price, there will be quite a bit of both Lawyers and others ... so in the end you will end up paying more. The link indicates that one would pay back the loan via one's own earnings. So if you have a stock worth USD 100, you can pledge this to a Bank and get a max loan of USD 50 [there are regulations that govern the max you can get against 100]. You want to buy something worth USD 50. Option1: Sell half the stock, get USD 50, pay the captial gains tax on USD 50. Option2: Pledge the USD 100 stock to bank, get a loan of USD 50. As you have not sold anything, there is no tax. Over a period pay the USD 50 loan via your own earnings. A high valued customer may be able to get away with a very low rate of intrest and very long repayment period. The tax implication to your legal hier would be from the time the stock come to his/her hands to the time she sold. So if the price increase to 150 by the time Mark dies, and its sold at 160 later, the gain is only of USD 10. So rather than paying 30% or whatever the applicable tax rate, it would be wise to pay an interest of few percentages.",
"Well, if the short seller has to pay the dividend out of their pocket, what happens to the dividend the company paid out ?? Sounds like there are 2 divdends floating around, the short's, and the company's, but only 1 share of stock."
] |
[
"\"Oftentimes, the lender (the owner of the security) is not explicitly involved in the lending transaction. Let's say the broker is holding a long-term position of 1MM shares from Client A. It is common for Client A's agreement with Broker A to include a clause that allows the broker to lend out the 1MM shares for its own profit (\"\"rehypothecation\"\"). Client A may be compensated for this in some form (e.g. baked into their financing rates), but they do not receive any compensation that is directly tied to lending activities. You also have securities lending agents that lend securities for an explicit fee. For example, the borrower's broker may not have sufficient inventory, in which case they would need to find a third-party lending agent. This happens both on-demand as well as for a fixed-terms (typically a large basket of securities). SLB (securities lending and borrowing) is a business in its own right. I'm not sure I follow your follow-up question but oftentimes there is no restriction that prevents the broker from lending out shares \"\"for a very short time\"\". Unless there is a transaction-based fee though, the number of times you lend shares does not affect \"\"pocketing the interest\"\" since interest accrues as a function of time.\"",
"\"As the other answer said, the person who owns the lent stock does not benefit directly. They may benefit indirectly in that brokers can use the short lending profits to reduce their fees or in that they have the option to short other stocks at the same terms. Follow-up question: what prevents the broker lending the shares for a very short time (less than a day), pocketing the interest and returning the lenders their shares without much change in share price (because borrowing period was very short). What prevents them from doing that many times a day ? Lack of market. Short selling for short periods of time isn't so common as to allow for \"\"many\"\" times a day. Some day traders may do it occasionally, but I don't know that it would be a reliable business model to supply them. If there are enough people interested in shorting the stock, they will probably want to hold onto it long enough for the anticipated movement to happen. There are transaction costs here. Both fees for trading at all and the extra charges for short sale borrowing and interest. Most stocks do not move down by large enough amounts \"\"many\"\" times a day. Their fluctuations are smaller. If the stock doesn't move enough to cover the transaction fees, then that seller lost money overall. Over time, sellers like that will stop trading, as they will lose all their money. All that said, there are no legal blocks to loaning the stock out many times, just practical ones. If a stock was varying wildly for some bizarre reason, it could happen.\""
] |
9115
|
Why does the calculation for percentage profit vary based on whether a position is short vs. long?
|
[
"158520",
"207325",
"422467"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"245082",
"422467",
"158520",
"314478",
"419897",
"385220",
"209359",
"207325",
"428786",
"320450",
"99131",
"331850",
"307155",
"35102",
"266900",
"428746",
"226496",
"331606",
"233379",
"544857",
"259706",
"13631",
"591079",
"370161",
"82294",
"157347",
"56422",
"499877",
"240215",
"412223",
"292609",
"188152",
"273789",
"232880",
"517873",
"188531",
"9082",
"356819",
"75715",
"118039",
"330041",
"434788",
"283982",
"94117",
"379759",
"109561",
"92267",
"255978",
"224069",
"388754",
"349974",
"22916",
"383287",
"242849",
"461062",
"190928",
"67107",
"126146",
"278729",
"94062",
"298284",
"316497",
"598295",
"154665",
"356388",
"330900",
"219927",
"182272",
"294522",
"459494",
"410822",
"592665",
"222320",
"107045",
"27401",
"6701",
"247902",
"587187",
"238474",
"173745",
"31863",
"281533",
"553253",
"444405",
"553110",
"438547",
"251190",
"32290",
"450760",
"295511",
"571016",
"525094",
"394961",
"537153",
"384015",
"163670",
"61853",
"482238",
"168639",
"374905"
] |
[
"There is no difference. When dealing with short positions, talking about percentages become very tricky since they no longer add up to 100%. What does the 50% in your example mean? Unless there's some base amount (like total amount of the portfolio, then the percentages are meaningless. What matters when dealing with long and short positions is the net total - meaning if you are long 100 shares on one stock trade and short 50 shares on another, then you are net long 50 shares.",
"The problem with rate of return calculation on short positions is, that the commonly used approach assumes an initial investment creating a cash outflow. If we want to apply this approach to short selling, we should look at the trade from another perspective. We buy money and pay for this money with stock. Our investment to buy 50$ in your example is 1 share. When closing the short position, we effectively sell back our money (50$) and receive 2 shares. Our profit on this position is obviously 1 share. Setting this in relation to our investment of 1 share yields a performance of 100% in reality, we do not sell back the entire cash but only the amount needed to get back our investment of 1 share. This is actually comparable to a purchase of stock which we only partially close to get back our invested cash amount and keep the remaining shares as our profit",
"There are different perspectives from which to calculate the gain, but the way I think it should be done is with respect to the risk you've assumed in the original position, which the simplistic calculation doesn't factor in. There's a good explanation about calculating the return from a short sale at Investopedia. Here's the part that I consider most relevant: [...] When calculating the return of a short sale, you need to compare the amount the trader gets to keep to the initial amount of the liability. Had the trade in our example turned against you, you (as the short seller) would owe not only the initial proceeds amount but also the excess amount, and this would come out of your pocket. [...] Refer to the source link for the full explanation. Update: As you can see from the other answers and comments, it is a more complex a Q&A than it may first appear. I subsequently found this interesting paper which discusses the difficulty of rate of return with respect to short sales and other atypical trades: Excerpt: [...] The problem causing this almost uniform omission of a percentage return on short sales, options (especially writing), and futures, it may be speculated, is that the nigh-well universal and conventional definition of rate of return involving an initial cash outflow followed by a later cash inflow does not appear to fit these investment situations. None of the investment finance texts nor general finance texts, undergraduate or graduate, have formally or explicitly shown how to resolve this predicament or how to justify the calculations they actually use. [...]",
"\"And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position. When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here. In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them. If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from. Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest). Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy. Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800. In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question). It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement. Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money. If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a \"\"margin call\"\" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses. And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin). When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go. There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position. You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs.\"",
"If you mean the percentages of long/short positions within a mutual fund or ETF, then it's a percentage of the total value of the fund portfolio. In that case, positions of 50% in X, -50% in Y are not the same as 100% in X, -100% in Y. If the long and short positions are both for the same asset, then, as D Stanley mentions, all that matters is the net position. If you're equally long and short X, then the net position is always 0%.",
"\"Being \"\"long\"\" - expecting the price to go up to make a profit - is a two step process: 1) buy 2) sell Being \"\"short\"\" - expecting the price to go down to make a profit - is a 5 step process: 1) borrow someone else's asset 2) sell their asset on the open market to somebody else a third party 3) pocket the proceeds of the sell for your own account 4) buy an identical asset for a cheaper price 5) return this identical asset to the person that let you borrow their asset if this is successful you keep the difference between 3) and 4)\"",
"When you short a stock, you can lose an unlimited amount of money if the trade goes against you. If the shorted stock gaps up overnight you can lose more money than you have in your account. The best case is you make 100% if the stock goes to zero. And then you have margin fees on top of that. With long positions, it's the other way around. Your max loss is 100% and your gains are potentially unlimited.",
"Simple math: 50-25=25, hence decline from 50 to 25 is a 50% decline (you lose half), while an advance from 25 to 50 is 100% gain (you gain 100%, double your 25 to 50). Their point is that if you have more upswings than downswings - you'll gain more on long positions during upswings than on short positions during downswings on average. Again - simple math.",
"How so? If i sell short, then i make a profit only if the price goes down so i can buy back at a lower price. Yes, but if the price is going up then you would go long instead. Shorting a stock (or any other asset) allows you to profit when the price is going down. Going long allows you to profit when the price is going up. In the opposite cases, you lose money. In order to make a profit in either of those situations, you have to accurately assess which way the price will trade over the period of time you are dealing with. If you make the wrong judgment, then you lose money because you'll either sell for a lower price than you bought (if you went long), or have to buy back at a higher price than you sold for (if you went short). In either case, unless the trader can live with making a short-term loss and recouperating it later, one needs a good stop-loss strategy.",
"You can't make money on the way down if it was your money that bought the shares when the market was up. When you sell short, borrowing lets you tap into the value without paying for it. That way, when the price (hopefully) drops you profit from the difference. In your example, if you hadn't paid the £20 in the first place, then you would actually be up £5. But since you started with £20, you still show loss. As others said, borrowing is the definition of selling short. It is also simply the only way the math works. Of course, there is a large risk you must assume to enjoy benefiting from something you do not own!",
"\"When portfolio positions are reported in percentages, those percentages are relative to the portfolio's base equity. When you start out, that is equal to the cash you have in a portfolio. Later it's the net equity of the portfolio (i.e., how much money you could withdraw if you were to exit all your positions). If you put $5,000 into your account and are long and short 50%, then you are long $2,500 and short $2,500. If it's 100% and -100%, then long and short $5,000. \"\"Leverage\"\" is often computed gross (as if all positions were long). So if you have 100% and -100%, then your broker may say you are \"\"levered 2 to 1.\"\" That is, your gross exposure is twice as large as your underlying base equity.\"",
"In order to compare the two, you need to compare your entire portfolio, which is not just how much money you have, but how much stock. In both scenarios, you start with (at least, but let's assume) £20 and 0 stock. In your scenario, you buy 10 shares, leaving you with £0 and 10 shares. You then sell it at £1.50/share to cut your losses, leaving you with £15 and 0 shares. That concludes the first transaction with a net loss of £5. In a second transaction, you then buy 10 shares again at £1/share, leaving you with £5 and 10 shares. You are still down £15 from the start, but you also still have 10 shares. Any further profit or loss depends on what you can get for those 10 shares in the future. In a short sale, you borrow 10 shares and sell them, leaving you with £40 (your initial £20 plus what you just made on the short sale) and -10 shares of stock. At the end of the contract, you must buy 10 shares to return them; you are able to do so at £1.50/share, leaving you with £25 and 0 shares. At this point, your exposure to the stock is complete, and you have a net gain of £5.",
"This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.",
"\"The margin rules are also more complicated. A simple buy on a non-margin account will never run into margin rules and you can just wait out any dips if you have confidence the stock will recover. A \"\"simple\"\" short sell might get you a call from your broker that you have a margin call, and you can't wait it out without putting more money in. Personally I have trouble keeping the short sale margin rules straight in my head, at least compared to a long sale. I got in way over my head shorting AMZN once, and lost a lot of money because I thought it was overvalued at the time, but it just kept going up and I wanted it to go down. I've never gotten stuck like that on a long position.\"",
"\"The margin money you put up to fund a short position ($6000 in the example given) is simply a \"\"good faith\"\" deposit that is required by the broker in order to show that you are acting in good faith and fully intend to meet any potential losses that may occur. This margin is normally called initial margin. It is not an accounting item, meaning it is not debited from you cash account. Rather, the broker simply segregates these funds so that you may not use them to fund other trading. When you settle your position these funds are released from segregation. In addition, there is a second type of margin, called variation margin, which must be maintained while holding a short position. The variation margin is simply the running profit or loss being incurred on the short position. In you example, if you sold 200 shares at $20 and the price went to $21, then your variation margin would be a debit of $200, while if the price went to $19, the variation margin would be a credit of $200. The variation margin will be netted with the initial margin to give the total margin requirement ($6000 in this example). Margin requirements are computed at the close of business on each trading day. If you are showing a loss of $200 on the variation margin, then you will be required to put up an additional $200 of margin money in order to maintain the $6000 margin requirement - ($6000 - $200 = $5800, so you must add $200 to maintain $6000). If you are showing a profit of $200, then $200 will be released from segregation - ($6000 + $200 = $6200, so $200 will be release from segregation leaving $6000 as required). When you settle your short position by buying back the shares, the margin monies will be release from segregation and the ledger postings to you cash account will be made according to whether you have made a profit or a loss. So if you made a loss of $200 on the trade, then your account will be debited for $200 plus any applicable commissions. If you made a profit of $200 on the trade then your account will be credited with $200 and debited with any applicable commissions.\"",
"My instinct says that there should be no difference. Your instincts are right. Your understanding of math is not so much. You sold $100K at the current price of 7500000RUB, but ended up buying at 3500000, you earned 3500000RUB. That's 100% in USD (50% in RUB). You bought 7500000RUB for the current price of $100K, but sold later for $200K. You earned $100K (100% in USD), which at that time was equal 3500000RUB. You earned 3500000RUB. That's 50% in RUB. So, as your instincts were saying - no difference. The reason percentages are different is because you're coming from different angles. For the first case your currency is RUB, for the second case your currency is USD, and in both cases you earned 100%. If you use the same currency for your calculations, percentages change, but the bottom line - is the same.",
"It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either. Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check. Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated. So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if:",
"\"When margin is calculated as the equity percentage of an account, the point at which a broker will forcibly liquidate is typically called \"\"maintenance margin\"\". In the US, this is 25% for equities. To calculate the price at which this will occur, the initial and maintenance margin must be known. The formula for a long with margin is: and for a short where P_m is the maintenance margin price, P_i is the initial margin price, m_i is the initial margin rate, and m_m is the maintenance margin rate. At an initial margin of 50% and a maintenance margin of 25%, a long equity may fall by 1/3 before forced liquidation, a short one may rise by 50%. This calculation can become very complex with different asset classes with differing maintenance margins because the margin debt is applied to all securities collectively.\"",
"\"Selling short is simply by definition the selling, then later re-buying of stock you don't initially own. Say you tally your entire portfolio balance: the quantity of each stock you own, and your cash assets. Let's call this your \"\"initial position\"\". We define \"\"profit\"\" as any increase in assets, relative to this initial position. If you know a particular stock will go down, you can realize a profit by selling some of that stock, waiting for the price to go down, then buying it back. In the end you will have returned to your initial position, except you will have more cash. If you sell 10 shares of a stock valued at £1.50, then buy them back at £1.00, you will make a £5.00 profit while having otherwise returned to your previous position. If you do the same, but you initially owned 1000 shares, sold just 10 of those, then bought 10 back, that's still a profit of £5.00. Selling short is doing the same thing, but with an initial and ending balance of 0 shares. If you initially own 0 shares, sell 10, then buy 10 back, you return to your initial position (0 shares) plus a profit of £5.00. (And in practice you must also pay a borrowing fee to do this.) The advantage of selling short is it can be done with any stock, not just those currently owned.\"",
"You have got it wrong. The profit or loss for smaller investor or big investor is same in percentage terms.",
"\"A simple way to ask the question might be to say \"\"why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Why is borrowing someone else's shares necessary to make the concept a viable one? Why isn't it just the inverse of 'going long'?\"\" A simple way to think about it is this: to make money by trading something, you must buy it for less than you sell it for. This applies to stocks like anything else. If you believe the price will go up, then you can buy them first and sell them later for a higher price. But if you believe the price will go down, the only way to buy low and sell high is to sell first and buy later. If you buy the stock and it goes down, any sale you make will lose you money. I'm still not sure I fully understand the point of your example, but one thing to note is that in both cases (i.e., whether you buy the share back at the end or not), you lost money. You say that you \"\"made $5 on the share price dropping\"\", but that isn't true at all: you can see in your example that your final account balance is negative in both cases. You paid $20 for the shares but only got $15 back; you lost $5 (or, in the other version of your example, paid $20 and got back $5 plus the depreciated shares). If you had bought the shares for $20 and sold them for, say, $25, then your account would end up with a positive $5 balance; that is what a gain would look like. But you can't achieve that if you buy the shares for $20 and later sell them for less. At a guess, you seem to be confusing the concept of making a profit with the concept of cutting your losses. It is true that if you buy the shares for $20 and sell them for $15, you lose only $5, whereas if you buy them for $20 and sell for $10, you lose the larger amount of $10. But those are both losses. Selling \"\"early\"\" as the price goes down doesn't make you any money; it just stops you from losing more money than you would if you sold later.\"",
"The answer provide by @mbhunter is correct, however there are contexts, shorting in spot market and carrying the position over settlement usually does not entail payment of dividend to the broker, one of the reason being post ex-date the price of the share downward adjusts to the extent of the dividend, so practically if you have shorted at 100 and post ex-date (assuming a dividend of 2 and no movement of the stock price), the price would slide to 98, the party who longed the stock @ 100 now is sitting on a price of 98 and received a dividend of 2 which equates to 100. The above is also contextual to the law of the country governing the exchange and the security exchange board regulations.",
"Is it just -34*4.58= -$155.72 for CCC and -11*0.41= -$4.51 for DDD? Yes it needs to be recorded as negative because at some point in time, the investor will have to spend money to buy these shares [cover the short sell and return the borrowed shares]. Whether the investor made profit or loss will not be reflected as you are only reflecting the current share inventory.",
"I agree with Mark. I was quite confuse about the short position at first but then I did a lot of learning and found out that as long as you have enough cash to cover your margin requirement you do not pay any interest since you do not have a debit on your margin balance. This is not true for a long position though, supposed you have 5k cash and 5k margin balance, if you buy 10K worth of stocks then you will need to pay interest on the 5k of the margin balance since it is a debit. Since shorting is done at a credit basis, you actually get interest from the transaction but you still may need to pay the borrowing fees for the stocks so they could simply balance each other out. I have shorted stocks twice through two different companies and neither time I noticed any interest charges. But make sure you have enough cash to cover your margin requirement, because once your margin balance is used to covered your position then interest would accrual. Learn.",
"Variance of a single asset is defined as follows: σ2 = Σi(Xi - μ)2 where Xi's represent all the possible final market values of your asset and μ represents the mean of all such market values. The portfolio's variance is defined as σp2 = Σiwi2σi2 where, σp is the portfolio's variance, and wi stands for the weight of the ith asset. Now, if you include the borrowing in your portfolio, that would classify as technically shorting at the borrowing rate. Thus, this weight would (by the virtue of being negative) increase all other weights. Moreover, the variance of this is likely to be zero (assuming fixed borrowing rates). Thus, weights of risky assets rise and the investor's portfolio's variance will go up. Also see, CML at wikipedia.",
"The product type and transaction direction are not linked. When you short sell a stock, you are still dealing with shares of an equity security. When you take delivery of a bond, you are buying that bond and holding a long position even though it's a debt security.",
"Longing the short ETF will give you better returns than shorting the long etf. The reason is that as the price gets the smaller the absolute price change gets a lot smaller. So you would rather have upward price exposure than downward. A good case is SPXU and UPRO",
"\"The reason for selling a stock \"\"short\"\", is for when you believe the stock value will decrease in the near future. Here is an example: Today Exxon-Mobile stock is selling for $100 / share. You are expecting the price to decrease, so you want to short the stock, which means your broker (i.e. eTrade, etc) allows you to borrow shares without paying money, and those shares are transferred into your account, and then you sell them and receive money for the sale. But you didn't actually own those shares, you only borrowed them, so you need to return the shares to your broker sometime in the future. Let's say you borrow 10 shares @ $100, and you sell them at the market price of $100, you receive $1,000 in your account. But you owe your broker 10 shares, which you need to return sometime in the future. A few days later, the share price has decreased to $80. Now you can buy 10 shares from the market at a total cost of $800. You get 10 shares, and return those shares to your broker. Since you originally took in $1,000, and you just paid out $800, you keep a resulting profit of $200\"",
"\"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or \"\"going short.\"\" When you use money to buy shares, it is called \"\"going long.\"\" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything. Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share. You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000. You are both long and short in the stock for $2000. At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds. You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share. Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000. However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares. Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest. Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share. Your long shares have lost $1000 in value. However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares. However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything. Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time. However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame. The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting. Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time. You are only attempting to hedge your bets. And it doesn't work. A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position. And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future. This, however, doesn't really change things much. Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term. Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess. And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain. You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop. You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon. Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short. However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position. And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up. You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain.\"",
"A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.",
"The risk of the particular share moving up or down is same for both. however in terms of mitigating the risk, Investor A is conservative on upside, ie will exit if he gets 10%, while is ready to take unlimited downside ... his belief is that things will not go worse .. While Investor B is wants to make at least 10% less than peak value and in general is less risk averse as he will sell his position the moment the price hits 10% less than max [peak value] So it more like how do you mitigate a risk, as to which one is wise depends on your belief and the loss appetite",
"hmmm. I think it's because in both cases, you must pay for it up front, before the positions are closed out. You own nothing except the right to buy the stock re: the call, and the obligation to buy the stock re: the short. You buy a call, but must borrow the stock, for which you must put some margin collateral and there is a cost to borrow. You pay for that, of course. I wouldn't call it lending though.",
"I'm not entirely sure about some of the details in your question, since I think you meant to use $10,000 as the value of the futures contract and $3 as the value of the underlying stock. Those numbers would make more sense. That being said, I can give you a simple example of how to calculate the profit and loss from a leveraged futures contract. For the sake of simplicity, I'll use a well-known futures contract: the E-mini S&P500 contract. Each E-mini is worth $50 times the value of the S&P 500 index and has a tick size of 0.25, so the minimum price change is 0.25 * $50 = $12.50. Here's an example. Say the current value of the S&P500 is 1,600; the value of each contract is therefore $50 * 1,600 = $80,000. You purchase one contract on margin, with an initial margin requirement1 of 5%, or $4,000. If the S&P 500 index rises to 1,610, the value of your futures contract increases to $50 * 1,610 = $80,500. Once you return the 80,000 - 4,000 = $76,000 that you borrowed as leverage, your profit is 80,500 - 76,000 = $4,500. Since you used $4,000 of your own funds as an initial margin, your profit, excluding commissions is 4,500 - 4,000 = $500, which is a 500/4000 = 12.5% return. If the index dropped to 1,580, the value of your futures contract decreases to $50 * 1,580 = $79,000. After you return the $76,000 in leverage, you're left with $3,000, or a net loss of (3,000 - 4000)/(4000) = -25%. The math illustrates why using leverage increases your risk, but also increases your potential for return. Consider the first scenario, in which the index increases to 1,610. If you had forgone using margin and spent $80,000 of your own funds, your profit would be (80,500 - 80,000) / 80000 = .625%. This is smaller than your leveraged profit by a factor of 20, the inverse of the margin requirement (.625% / .05 = 12.5%). In this case, the use of leverage dramatically increased your rate of return. However, in the case of a decrease, you spent $80,000, but gained $79,000, for a loss of only 1.25%. This is 20 times smaller in magnitude than your negative return when using leverage. By forgoing leverage, you've decreased your opportunity for upside, but also decreased your downside risk. 1) For futures contracts, the margin requirements are set by the exchange, which is CME group, in the case of the E-mini. The 5% in my example is higher than the actual margin requirement, which is currently $3,850 USD per contract, but it keeps the numbers simple. Also note that CME group refers to the initial margin as the performance bond instead.",
"A long put - you have a small initial cost (the option premium) but profit as the stock goes down. You have no additional risk if the shock rises, even a lot. Short a stock - you gain if the stock drops, but have unlimited risk if it rises, the call mitigates this, by capping that rising stock risk. The profit/loss graph looks similar to the long put when you hold both the short position and the long call. You might consider producing a graph or spreadsheet to compare positions. You can easily sketch put, call, long stock, short stock, and study how combinations of positions can synthetically look like other positions. Often, when a stock has no shares to short, the synthetic short can help you put your stock position in place.",
"You sold a call, and have a risk if the stock rises. You bought a put and gain when the stock drops. You, sir, have a synthetic short position. It's Case 3 from your linked example: Suppose you own Long Stock and the company is going to report earnings but you’re going on vacation. How can you hedge your position without selling your stock? You can short the stock synthetically with options! Short Stock = Short Call + Long Put They conclude with the net zero remark, because the premise was an existing long position. A long plus this synthetic short results in a neutral set of positions (and the author's ability to go on vacation not concerned about any movement in the stock.)",
"\"Concerning the general problem of short selling and the need to borrow shares to complete the transaction : Selling short is a cash transaction. Unlike a futures contract, where a short seller is entering into a legal agreement to sell something in the future, in the case of short selling a share the buyer of the share is taking immediate delivery and is therefore entitled to all of the benefits and rights that come with share ownership. In particular, the buyer of the shares is entitled to any dividends payable and, where applicable, to vote on motions at AGMs. If the short seller has not borrowed the shares to sell, then buyer of non-existent shares will have none of the rights associated with ownership. The cash market is based on the idea of matching buyers and sellers. It does not accommodate people making promises. Consider that to allow short sellers to sell shares they have not borrowed opens up the possibility of the aggregate market selling more shares than actually exist. This would lead to all sorts of problematic consequences such as heavily distorting the price of the underlying share. If everyone is selling shares they have not borrowed willy-nilly, then it will drive the price of the share down, much to the disadvantage of existing share holders. In this case, short sellers who have sold shares they have not already borrowed would be paying out more in dividends to the buyers than the total dividends being paid out by the underlying company. There are instruments that allow for short selling of unowned shares on a futures basis. One example is a CFD = Contract for Difference. In the case of CFDs, sellers are obliged to pay dividends to buyers as well as other costs related to financing. EDIT Regarding your comment, note that borrowing shares is not a market transaction. Your account does not show you buying a share and then selling it. It simply shows you selling a share short. The borrowing is the result of an agreement between yourself and the lender and this agreement is off market. You do not actually pay the lender for the shares, but you do pay financing costs for the borrowing so long as you maintain your short position. EDIT I realise that I have not actually read your question correctly. You are not actually talking about \"\"naked\"\" short selling. You are talking about selling shares you already own in a hope of maintaining both a long and short position (gross). The problem with this approach is that you must deliver the shares to the buyer. Otherwise, ask yourself what shares is the buyer actually buying if you want the bought shares to remain in your account. If you are not going to deliver your long position shares, then you will need to borrow the shares you are selling short for the reasons I have outlined above.\"",
"This is a gross simplification as there are a few different ways to do this. The principle overall is the same though. To short a stock, you borrow X shares from a third party and sell them at the current price. You now owe the lender X shares but have the proceeds from the sale. If the share price falls you can buy back those shares at the new lower price, return them to the lender and pocket the difference. The risk comes when the share price goes the other way, you now owe the lender the new value of the shares, so have to find some way to cover the difference. This happened a while back when Porsche made a fortune buying shares in Volkswagen from short sellers, and the price unexpectedly rose.",
"Suppose that the ETF is currently at a price of $100. Suppose that the next day it moves up 10% (to a price of $110) and the following day it moves down 5% (to a price of $104.5). Over these two days the ETF has had a net gain of 4.5% from its original price. The inverse ETF reverses the daily gains/losses of the base ETF. Suppose for simplicity that the inverse ETF also starts out at a price of $100. So on the first day it goes down 10% (to $90) and on the second day it goes up 5% (to $94.5). Thus over the two days the inverse ETF has had a net loss of 5.5%. The specific dollar amounts do not matter here. The result is that the ETF winds up at 110%*95% = 104.5% of its original price and the inverse ETF is at 90%*105% = 94.5% of its original price. A similar example is given here. As suggested by your quote, this is due to compounding. A gain of X% followed by a loss of Y% (compounded on the gain) is not in general the same as a loss of X% followed by a gain of Y% (compounded on the loss). Or, more simply put, if something loses 10% of its value and then gains 10% of its new value, it will not return to its original value, because the 10% it gained was 10% of its decreased value, so it's not enough to bring it all the way back up. Likewise if it gains 10% and then loses 10%, it will go slightly below its original value (since it lost 10% of its newly increased value).",
"I have found a good explanation here: http://www.contracts-for-difference.com/Financing-charge.html Financing is calculated by taking the overall position size, and multiplying it by (LIBOR + say 2%) and then dividing by 365 x the amount of days the position is open. For instance, the interest rate applicable for overnight long positions may be 6% or 0.06. To calculate how much it would cost you to hold a long position for X number of days you would need to make this 'pro rata' meaning that you would need to divide the 0.06 by 365 and multiply it by X days and then multiply this by the trade size. So for example, for a trade size of $20,000, held for 30 days, the interest cost would be about $98.6. It is important to note that due to financing, long positions held for extended periods can reduce returns.",
"why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Because if you sell shares out of your own portfolio, by definition, you are not selling short at all. If you sell something you own (and deliver it) - then there is no short involved. A short is defined as a net negative position - i.e. you sell shares you do not have. Selling shares you own is selling shares you own - no short involved. You must borrow the shares for a short because in the stock market, you must DELIVER. You can not deliver shares you do not own. The stock market does not work on promises - the person who bought the shares expects ownership of them with all rights that gives them. So you borrow them to deliver them, then return them when you buy them back.",
"\"First, you are not exactly \"\"giving\"\" the brokerage $2000. That money is the margin requirement to protect them in the case the stock price rises. If you short 200 shares as in your example and they are holding $6000 from you then they are protected in the event of the stock price increasing to $30/share. Sometime before it gets there the brokerage will require you to deposit more money or they will cover your position by repurchasing the shares for your account. The way you make money on the short sale is if the stock price declines. It is a buy low sell high idea but in reverse. If you believe that prices are going to drop then you could sell now when it is high and buy back later when it is lower. In your example, you are selling 200 shares at $20 and later, buying those at $19. Thus, your profit is $200, not counting any interest or fees you have paid. It's a bit confusing because you are selling something you'll buy in the future. Selling short is usually considered quite risky as your gain is limited to the amount that you sold at initially (if I sell at $20/share the most I can make is if the stock declines to $0). Your potential to lose is unlimited in theory. There is no limit to how high the stock could go in theory so I could end up buying it back at an infinitely high price. Neither of these extremes are likely but they do show the limits of your potential gain and loss. I used $20/share for simplicity assuming you are shorting with a market order vs a limit order. If you are shorting it would be better for you to sell at 20 instead of 19 anyway. If someone says I would like to give you $20 for that item you are selling you aren't likely to tell them \"\"no, I'd really only like $19 for it\"\"\"",
"Not really. The lender is not buying the stock back at a lower price. Remember, he already owns it, so he need not buy it again. The person losing is the one from whom the short seller buys back the stock, provided that person bought the stock at higher price. So if B borrowed from A(lender) and sold it to C, and later B purchased it back from C at a lower price, then B made profit, C made loss and A made nothing .",
"\"He sold at 25 cents per pound and then as the price rises, the cash he has will buy less and less which could trigger a margin call as you are missing the \"\"short\"\" part of his position which is rather important here. From Investopedia: A margin account also allows your brokerage firm to liquidate your position if the likelihood that you will return what you've borrowed diminishes. This is part of the agreement that is signed when the margin account is created. From the broker's perspective, this increases the likelihood that you will return the shares before losses become too large and you become unable to return the shares. If you sold at 25 cents per pound and the price goes up, at some point you may be forced to buy to cover the position as brokers don't like to lose their money. As another example of a short going bad, \"\"Devastated\"\" Trader Crushed By Soaring Biotech, Starts Online Begging Campaign To Fund $106,000 Margin Call notes in part: However where this story gets abusrdly entertaining, or woefully tragic, depending on one's perspective, is that one trader, Joe Campbell, was on the wrong side of last night's massive surge. As the RutRho blog, which noticed it first explains, a \"\"dummy\"\" E-trader, Joe Campbell, decided to go $35,000 short KBIO \"\"and now owes $ETFC a wonderful $106K.\"\"\"",
"This can be best explained with an example. Bob thinks the price of a stock that Alice has is going to go down by the end of the week, so he borrows a share at $25 from Alice. The current price of the shares are $25 per share. Bob immediately sells the shares to Charlie for $25, it is fair, it is the current market price. A week goes by, and the price does fall to $20. Bob buys a share from David at $20. This is fair, it is the current market value. Then Bob gives the share back to Alice to settle what he borrowed from her, one share. Now, in reality, there is interest charged be Alice on the borrowed value, but to keep it simple, we'll say she was a friend and it was a zero interest loan. So then Bob was able to sell something he didn't own for $25 and return it spending $20 to buy it, settling his loan and making $5 in the transaction. It is the selling to Charlie and buying from David (or even Charlie later, if he decided to dump the shares), without having invested any of your own money that earns the profit.",
"It depends to some extent on how you interpret the situation, so I think this is the general idea. Say you purchase one share at $50, and soon after, the price moves up, say, to $55. You now have an unrealized profit of $5. Now, you can either sell and realize that profit, or hold on to the position, expecting a further price appreciation. In either case, you will consider the price change from this traded price, which is $55, and not the price you actually bought at. Hence, if the price fell to $52 in the next trade, you have a loss of $3 on your previous profit of $5. This (even though your net P&L is calculated from the initial purchase price of $50), allows you to think in terms of your positions at the latest known prices. This is similar to a Markov process, in the sense that it doesn't matter which route the stock price (and your position's P&L) took to get to the current point; your decision should be based on the current/latest price level.",
"The initial position is worth 40000. You post 50% margin, so you deposited 20000 and borrowed 20000. 6% of 20000 is 1200.",
"The 'normal' series of events when trading a stock is to buy it, time passes, then you sell it. If you believe the stock will drop in price, you can reverse the order, selling shares, waiting for the price drop, then buying them back. During that time you own say, -100 shares, and are 'short' those shares.",
"Short sellers have to pay interest on the borrowings to the shareholders. Although many times brokers don't pass on these earnings to the shareholders, this is the exchange.",
"\"You need to interpret \"\"security\"\" appropriately in Wikipedia's definition. You should think of it as saying: to be long in a put, means the holder of the position owns the put and will profit if the price of the put goes up And what makes the price of the put go up? -- the price of the underlying stock going down.\"",
"\"The question you are asking concerns the exercise of a short option position. The other replies do not appear to address this situation. Suppose that Apple is trading at $96 and you sell a put option with a strike price of $95 for some future delivery date - say August 2016. The option contract is for 100 shares and you sell the contract for a premium of $3.20. When you sell the option your account will be credited with the premium and debited with the broker commission. The premium you receive will be $320 = 100 x $3.20. The commission you pay will depend on you broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple drops to $90 and your option is exercised, either on expiry or prior to expiry. Then you would be obliged to take delivery of 100 Apple shares at the contracted option strike price of $95 costing you $9,500 plus broker commission. If you immediately sell the Apple shares you have purchased under your contract obligations, then assuming you sell the shares at the current market price of $90 you would realise a loss of $500 ( = 100x($95-$90) )plus commission. Since you received a premium of $320 when you sold the put option, your net loss would be $500-$320 = $180 plus any commissions paid to your broker. Now let's look at the case of selling a call option. Again assume that the price of Apple is $96 and you sell a call option for 100 shares with a strike price of $97 for a premium of $3.60. The premium you receive would be $360 = 100 x $3.60. You would also be debited for commission by your broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple shares rises to $101 and your option is exercised. Then you would be obliged to deliver 100 Apple shares to the party exercising the option at the contracted strike price of $97. If you did not own the shares to effect delivery, then you would need to purchase those shares in the market at the current market price of $101, and then sell them to the party exercising the option at the strike price of $97. This would realise an immediate loss of $400 = 100 x ($101-$97) plus any commission payable. If you did own the shares, then you would simply deliver them and possibly pay some commission or a delivery fee to your broker. Since you received $360 when you sold the option, your net loss would be $40 = $400-$360 plus any commission and fees payable to the broker. It is important to understand that in addition to these accounting items, short option positions carry with them a \"\"margin\"\" requirement. You will need to maintain a margin deposit to show \"\"good faith\"\" so long as the short option position is open. If the option you have sold moves against you, then you will be called upon to put up extra margin to cover any potential losses.\"",
"\"It will be helpful to establish some definitions: Long \"\"Long\"\" is financial slang for \"\"to have possession of an asset\"\", legally, and \"\"to debit an asset\"\", financially. Short \"\"Short\"\" is financial slang for \"\"to be liable for an asset\"\", legally, and \"\"to credit an asset\"\", financially. Option \"\"Option\"\" is financial slang for \"\"to have the right but not obligation to force the liable to perform action\"\", legally. Without limits and when taken to absurdity, this can mean slavery. For equities, this means \"\"to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy/sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\" for a call/put, respectively. By the above, a call option is \"\"the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\". By the definition of \"\"long\"\" above, a call option is actually not long the underlying. By the definitions above and with a narrower scope applied to equities & indexes, to be \"\"long\"\" the call means \"\"to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\" while to be \"\"short\"\" the call means \"\"to have the obligation to be forced to sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\". So, to be \"\"long\"\" a call means to simply own the call.\"",
"On expiry, with the underlying share price at $46, we have : You ask : How come they substract 600-100. Why ? Because you have sold the $45 call to open you position, you must now buy it back to close your position. This will cost you $100, so you are debited for $100 and this debit is being represented as a negative (subtracted); i.e., -$100 Because you have purchased the $40 call to open your position, you must now sell it to close your position. Upon selling this option you will receive $600, so you are credited with $600 and this credit is represented as a positive (added) ; i.e., +$600. Therefore, upon settlement, closing your position will get you $600-$100 = $500. This is the first point you are questioning. (However, you should also note that this is the value of the spread at settlement and it does not include the costs of opening the spread position, which are given as $200, so you net profit is $500-$200 = $300.) You then comment : I know I am selling 45 Call that means : As a writer: I want stock price to go down or stay at strike. As a buyer: I want stock price to go up. Here, note that for every penny that the underlying share price rises above $45, the money you will pay to buy back your short $45 call option will be offset by the money you will receive by selling the long $40 call option. Your $40 call option is covering the losses on your short $45 call option. No matter how high the underlying price settles above $45, you will receive the same $500 net credit on settlement. For example, if the underlying price settles at $50, then you will receive a credit of $1000 for selling your $40 call, but you will incur a debit of $500 against for buying back your short $45 call. The net being $500 = $1000-$500. This point is made in response to your comments posted under Dr. Jones answer.",
"The original post's $16 has two errors: Here is the first scenario: . Tax Liability($) on Net . Cash # of Price Paper Realized Value Time: ($) Shares ($/sh) Profits Profits ($) 1. Start with: 100 - n/a - - 100 2. After buy 10@10$/sh: - 10 10 - - 100 3. Before selling: - 10 12 (5) - 115 4. After sell 10@12$/sh: 120 - n/a - (5) 115 5. After buy 12@10$/sh: - 12 10 - (5) 115 6. Before selling: - 12 12 (6) (5) 133 7. After sell 12@12$/sh: 144 - n/a - (11) 133 8. After buy 14@10$/sh: 4 14 10 - (11) 133 9. Before selling: 4 14 12 (7) (11) 154 10.After sell 14@12$/sh: 172 - n/a - (18) 154 At this point, assuming that all of the transactions occurred in the same fiscal year, and the realized profits were subject to a 25% short-term capital gains tax, you would owe $18 in taxes. Yes, this is 25% of $172 - $100.",
"Simple math. Take the sale proceeds (after trade expenses) and divide by cost. Subtract 1, and this is your return. For example, buy at 80, sell at 100, 100/80 = 1.25, your return is 25%. To annualize this return, multiply by 365 over the days you were in that stock. If the above stock were held for 3 months, you would have an annualized return of 100%. There's an alternative way to annualize, in the same example above take the days invested and dive into 365, here you get 4. I suggested that 25% x 4 = 100%. Others will ask why I don't say 1.25^4 = 2.44 so the return is 144%/yr. (in other words, compound the return, 1.25x1.25x...) A single day trade, noon to noon the next day returning just 1%, would multiply to 365% over a year, ignoring the fact there are about 250 trading days. But 1.01^365 is 37.78 or a 3678% return. For long periods, the compounding makes sense of course, the 8%/yr I hope to see should double my money in 9 years, not 12, but taking the short term trades and compounding creates odd results of little value.",
"\"For the same reason that people bet on different teams. Some think the Tigers will win, others thing the Yankees will win. They wager $5 on it. One of them wins, the other loses. In a short, one person bets that the stock goes down, the other bets that the stock goes up (or hold). You're basically saying \"\"I think this stock is going to hold it's value or go up. If I thought it would go down, like you do, I would sell it myself right now. Instead, I'll let you have it for a while because when I get it back I think I'll come out on top.\"\"\"",
"\"All margin is marked to market. Option longs do not post margin because long margin trading is forbidden. Equity longs must post margin if cash is borrowed to fund the purchase. Shorts of all kinds must post margin, and the rates are generally the same: a few standard deviations away from the mean daily change of the underlying. A currency futures trader, because of the involatility of most major monies, can get away with a few percentage points. Commodities can get to around 10%. Single equities are frequently around 20%, while indices can get back down to 10%. A future is a special case because both sides are technically short and long at the same time. The easiest example to perceive is a currency future. Which one is the buyer and which is the seller? Both and neither. Contracts may be denominated for one side as the seller and the other the buyer, but contractually, legally, and effectively, both are liable to the other, and both must take delivery. For non-currency assets, it only appears as if the cash seller is the buyer because cash is not considered an asset in the same way all other assets are, but the \"\"long\"\" is obligated to sell cash and buy the \"\"asset\"\".\"",
"\"You didn't win in case B. Borrowing shares and then selling them is known as \"\"selling short\"\". You received $2000 when you sold short 100 shares at $20. You spent $1000 to buy them back at $10, so you come out $1000 ahead on that deal. But at the same time, the 100 shares you already owned have declined in value from $20 to $10, so you are down $1000 on that deal. So you've simply broken even, and you are still out the interest and transaction fees. In effect, a short sale allows you to sell shares you don't own. But if you do already own them, then the effect is the same as if you just sold your own shares. This makes it easier to see that this is just a complicated and expensive way of accomplishing nothing at all.\"",
"See http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/04/30/why-the-sec-should-look-at-levered-etfs/?dlvrit=60132, http://symmetricinfo.org/2011/04/are-investors-in-levered-short-treasury-etfs-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen-pt1/, and the articles linked from it: The issue with holding a levered ETF past 1 day is that investors expose themselves to path dependency in the underlying.... The reason for the difference in payouts comes from the fact that the manager of the levered ETF promises you a multiple of the daily returns of the underlying. To be able to promise you these daily returns, the ETF manager has to buy/sell some of the underlying every day to position himself to have a constant leverage ratio the next day. The short video below explains this process in detail for a 2x long ETF, but the same result holds for a 2x short ETF: the manager has to buy more of the underlying on a day when the underlying increases in value and sell more of the underlying when the underlying goes down in value .",
"It's not quite identical, due to fees, stock rights, and reporting & tax obligations. But the primary difference is that a person could have voting rights in a company while maintaining zero economic exposure to the company, sometimes known as empty voting. As an abstract matter, it's identical in that you reduce your financial exposure whether you sell your stock or short it. So the essence of your question is fundamentally true. But the details make it different. Of course there are fee differences in how your broker will handle it, and also margin requirements for shorting. Somebody playing games with overlapping features of ownership, sales, and purchases, may have tax and reporting obligations for straddles, wash sales, and related issues. A straight sale is generally less complicated for tax reporting purposes, and a loss is more likely to be respected than someone playing games with sales and purchases. But the empty voting issue is an important difference. You could buy stock with rights such as voting, engage in other behavior such as forwards, shorts, or options to negate your economic exposure to the stock, while maintaining the right to vote. Of course in some cases this may have to be disclosed or may be covered by contract, and most people engaging in stock trades are unlikely to have meaningful voting power in a public company. But the principle is still there. As explained in the article by Henry Hu and Bernie Black: Hedge funds have been especially creative in decoupling voting rights from economic ownership. Sometimes they hold more votes than economic ownership - a pattern we call empty voting. In an extreme situation, a vote holder can have a negative economic interest and, thus, an incentive to vote in ways that reduce the company's share price. Sometimes investors hold more economic ownership than votes, though often with morphable voting rights - the de facto ability to acquire the votes if needed. We call this situation hidden (morphable) ownership because the economic ownership and (de facto) voting ownership are often not disclosed.",
"200% margin for a short sale is outrageous. You should only need to put up 150% margin, of which 50% is your money, and the 100% is the proceeds. With $100 of your money, you should be able to buy $100 of GOOG and short $100 of PNQI.",
"When you short a stock and the stock goes ex-div. you have to pay out an amount equal to the dividend. So in your example, GG would short the stock at $10.00, buy back at $9.00 and be charged $1.00 for the dividend. Net effect $0.00.",
"\"When trading Forex each currency is traded relative to another. So when shorting a currency you must go long another currency vs the currency you are shorting, it seems a little odd and can be a bit confusing, but here is the explanation that Wikipedia provides: An example of this is as follows: Let us say a trader wants to trade with the US dollar and the Indian rupee currencies. Assume that the current market rate is USD 1 to Rs.50 and the trader borrows Rs.100. With this, he buys USD 2. If the next day, the conversion rate becomes USD 1 to Rs.51, then the trader sells his USD 2 and gets Rs.102. He returns Rs.100 and keeps the Rs.2 profit (minus fees). So in this example the trader is shorting the rupee vs the dollar. Does this article add up all other currency crosses to get the 'net' figure? So they don't care what it is depreciating against? This data is called the Commitment of Traders (COT) which is issued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) In the WSJ article it is actually referring to Forex Futures. In an another article from CountingPips it explains a bit clearer as to how a news organization comes up with these type of numbers. according to the CFTC COT data and calculations by Reuters which calculates the dollar positions against the euro, British pound, Japanese yen, Australian dollar, Canadian dollar and the Swiss franc. So this article is not talking about futures but it does tell us they got data from the COT and in addition Reuters added additional calculations from adding up \"\"X\"\" currency positions. No subscription needed: Speculators Pile Up Largest Net Dollar Long Position Since June 2010 - CFTC Here is some additional reading on the topic if you're interested: CFTC Commitment of the Traders Data – COT Report FOREX : What Is It And How Does It Work? Futures vs. Forex Options Forex - Wiki\"",
"Apart from making money from the price difference, some stocks also give dividends, or bonus issues. For long term investors whom are looking for steady income, they may be more interested with the dividend pay-out instead of the capital-appreciation.",
"Opened Long - is when you open a long position. Long means that you buy to open the position, so you are trying to profit as the price rises. So if you were closing a long position you would sell it. Closed Short - is when you close out a short position. Short means that you sell to open and buy back to close. With a short position you are trying to profit as the price falls. Scaled Out - means you get out of a position in increments as the price climbs (for long positions). Scaled In - means you set a target price and then invest in increments as the stock falls below that price (for long positions).",
"\"Derivatives derive their value from underlying assets. This is expressed by the obligation of at least one counterparty to trade with the other counterparty in the future. These can take on as many combinations as one can dream up as it is a matter of contract. For futures, where two parties are obligated to trade at a specific price at a specific date in the future (one buyer, one seller), if you \"\"short\"\" a future, you have entered into a contract to sell the underlying at the time specified. If the price of the future moves against you (goes up), you will have to sell at a loss. The bigger the move, the greater the loss. You go ahead and pay this as well as a little extra to be sure that you satisfy what you owe due to the future. This satisfaction is called margin. If there weren't margin, people could take huge losses on their derivative bets, not pay, and disrupt the markets. Making sure that the money that will trade is already there makes the markets run smoothly. It's the same for shorting stocks where you borrow the stock, sell it, and wait. You have to leave the money with the broker as well as deposit a little extra to be sure you can make good if the market moves to a large degree against you.\"",
"\"You sold $10,000 worth of stock so that money is essentially yours. However, you sold this stock without actually owning any which means that you, through your broker, are currently borrowing shares amounting to (at the time of your sale) $10,000 from someone who actually owns this stock. You will be paying this person interest for the privilege of borrowing their shares, the exact amount charged varies wildly and depends on factors such as short interest in the stock (loads of people want to go short = shareholders can charge high interest) etc. If I remember correctly hovering over the \"\"position\"\" column in your portfolio in the IB Workstation should give you information about the interest rate charged. You will have to buy back these shares from the lender at some point which is why the $10k isn't just \"\"free money.\"\" If the stock has gone up in price in the meantime you are going to be paying more than the $10k you got for the same amount of shares and vice versa.\"",
"You have only sold 200 shares for $4.75 from those bought for $3.15. So your profit on those 200 shares is $1.60 per share or $320 or 51%. From that you have 110 shares left that cost you $3.15 and 277 shares that cost you $3.54. So the total cost of your remaining shares is $1,327.08 (110 x $3.15 + 277 x $3.54). So your remaining shares have a average cost of $3.429 per share ($1,327.08/387). We don't know what the current share price is as you haven't provided it, nor do we know what the company is, so lets say that the current price is $5 (or that you sell the remaining 387 shares for $5 per share). Then the profit on these 387 shares would be $1.571 per share or $607.92 or 46%. Your total profit would then be $320 + $ 607.92 = $927.92 or 47% (note that this profit neglects any brokerage or other fees, as you have not provided any). Edit due to new info. provided in question With the current share price at $6.06 then the profit on these 387 shares would be $2.631 per share or $1018.20 or 77%. Your total profit would then be $320 + $1018.20 = $1338.20 or 75% (note that this profit neglects any brokerage or other fees, as you have not provided any).",
"Here's a simple example for a put, from both sides. Assume XYZ stock trades at $200 right now. Let's say John writes a $190 out of the money put on XYZ stock and sells this put to Abby for the premium, which is say $5. Assume the strike date, or date of settlement, is 6 months from now. Thus Abby is long one put option and John is short one put option (the writer of the option is short the option). On settlement date, let's assume two different scenarios: (1) If the price of the stock decreases by $50, then the put that Abby bought is 'in the money'. Abby's profit can be calculated as being strike price 190 - current stock price 150 - premium paid 5 = $35 So not including any transaction fees, that is a $35 dollar return on a $5 investment. (2) If the price of the stock increases by $50, then the put that Abby bought is worthless and her loss was 100%, or her entire $5 premium. For John, he made $5 in 6 months (in reality you need collateral and good credit to be able to write sizable option positions).",
"It this a real situation or is it a made up example? Because for a stock that has a last traded priced of $5 or $6 and volume traded over $4M (i.e. it seems to be quite liquid), it is hardly likely that the difference from bid to ask would be as large as $1 (maybe for a stock that has volume of 4 to 5 thousand, but not for one having volume of 4 to 5 million). In regards to your question, if you were short selling the order would go in exactly the same as if you were selling a stock you owned. So your order would be on the ask side and would need to be matched up with a price on the bid side for there to be a trade.",
"\"Below is just a little information on short selling from my small unique book \"\"The small stock trader\"\": Short selling is an advanced stock trading tool with unique risks and rewards. It is primarily a short-term trading strategy of a technical nature, mostly done by small stock traders, market makers, and hedge funds. Most small stock traders mainly use short selling as a short-term speculation tool when they feel the stock price is a bit overvalued. Most long-term short positions are taken by fundamental-oriented long/short equity hedge funds that have identified some major weaknesses in the company. There a few things you should consider before shorting stocks: Despite all the mystique and blame surrounding short selling, especially during bear markets, I personally think regular short selling, not naked short selling, has a more positive impact on the stock market, as: Lastly, small stock traders should not expect to make significant profits by short selling, as even most of the great stock traders (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen,) have hardly made significant money from their shorts. it is safe to say that odds are stacked against short sellers. Over the last century or so, Western large caps have returned an annual average of between 8 and 10 percent while the returns of small caps have been slightly higher. I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of \"\"The small stock trader\"\")\"",
"I think you are mixing up the likelihood of making a profit with the amount of profit. The likelyhood of profit will be the same, because if you buy $100 worth of shares and the price moves up you will make a profit. If you instead bought $1000 worth of the same shares at the same price and the price moved up you would once again make a profit. In fact if you don't include commissions and other fees, and you buy and sell at the same prices, you percentage profit would be the same. For example, if you bought at $10 and sold at $12, you percentage gain of 20% would be the same no matter how many shares you bought (not including commissions). So if you bought $100 worth your gain would have been 20% or $20 and if you bought $1000 worth your gain would have been 20% or $200. However, if you include commissions, say $10 in and $10 out, your net profit on $100 would have been $0 (0%) and your net profit on $1000 would have been $180 (18%).",
"The paragraph before on page 115 states: Scaling corresponds to having a weight in the long and short legs that is different from one and varies over time, but the strategy is still self-financing. Meaning that the long and short positions are no longer equal due to weighting one side more highly than the other. The weighting of one side (either long or short) is the number between 0.2 and 2 that you mention.",
"\"In the USA there are two ways this situation can be treated. First, if your short position was held less than 45 days. You have to (when preparing the taxes) add the amount of dividend back to the purchase price of the stock. That's called adjusting the basis. Example: short at $10, covered at $8, but during this time stock paid a $1 dividend. It is beneficial for you to add that $1 back to $8 so your stock purchase basis is $9 and your profit is also $1. Inside software (depending what you use) there are options to click on \"\"adjust the basis\"\" or if not, than do it manually specifically for those shares and add a note for tax reviewer. Second option is to have that \"\"dividednd payment in lieu paid\"\" deducted as investment expence. But that option is only available if you hold the shorts for more than 45 days and itemize your deductions. Hope that helps!\"",
"Rich's answer captures the basic essence of short selling with example. I'd like to add these additional points: You typically need a specially-privileged brokerage account to perform short selling. If you didn't request short selling when you opened your account, odds are good you don't have it, and that's good because it's not something most people should ever consider doing. Short selling is an advanced trading strategy. Be sure you truly grok selling short before doing it. Consider that when buying stock (a.k.a. going long or taking a long position, in contrast to short) then your potential loss as a buyer is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero) and your potential gain unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're lucky!) Whereas, with short selling, it's reversed: Your loss can be unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're unlucky!) and your potential gain is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero.) The proceeds you receive from a short sale – and then some – need to stay in your account to offset the short position. Brokers require this. Typically, margin equivalent to 150% the market value of the shares sold short must be maintained in the account while the short position is open. The owner of the borrowed shares is still expecting his dividends, if any. You are responsible for covering the cost of those dividends out of your own pocket. To close or cover your short position, you initiate a buy to cover. This is simply a buy order with the intention that it will close out your matching short position. You may be forced to cover your short position before you want to and when it is to your disadvantage! Even if you have sufficient margin available to cover your short, there are cases when lenders need their shares back. If too many short sellers are forced to close out positions at the same time, they push up demand for the stock, increasing price and deepening their losses. When this happens, it's called a short squeeze. In the eyes of the public who mostly go long buying stock, short sellers are often reviled. However, some people and many short sellers believe they are providing balance to the market and preventing it sometimes from getting ahead of itself. [Disambiguation: A short sale in the stock market is not related to the real estate concept of a short sale, which is when a property owner sells his property for less than he owes the bank.] Additional references:",
"\"With stocks, you can buy or sell. If you sell first, that's called 'shorting.' As in \"\"I think linkedin is too high, I'm going to short it.\"\" With options, the terminology is different, the normal process is to buy to open/sell to close, but if you were shorting the option itself, you would first sell to open, i.e you are selling a position to start it, effectively selling it short. Eventually, you may close it out, by buying to close. Options trading is not for the amateur. If you plan to trade, study first and be very cautious.\"",
"Don't know the name but it means you're long with conviction :P Unlimited gains, maximum loss of 95$ + (8-6) = 97$. Basically You are long @ 107 - -2 from 105 to 95. You would have to be ULTRA bullish to initiate this strategy.",
"If you buy puts, there are no guaranteed proceeds though. If you short against the box, you've got immediate proceeds with a nice capital loss if it doesn't work out. Conversely, you could write a covered call, take the contract proceeds, and write off the long position losses. Nobody ever factors tax consequences into the equation here.",
"In Australia we have a 50% capital gain discount if you hold the asset for more than 12 months, whether it is in shares, property or other assets. The main reason is to encourage people to invest long-term instead of speculating or trading. The government sees speculation or short term trading as more risky than long term investing for the everyday mum and dad investor, so rewards people it sees taking the lower risk long term view. In my opinion, long term investing, short term trading and speculation can all be risky for someone who is unedutated in the financial markets, and the first rule of investing should be to consider the asset itself and not the tax implications.",
"If it helps you to think about it, long is equivalent to betting for the upside and short is equivalent to betting for the downside. If you are long on options, then you expect the value of such options to increase. If you are long an option, then you own the option. If you are short an option, then generally you sold the option. Someone who is short a call (sometimes called the writer or occasionally the issuer) has sold a call option to someone who is now long a call. Buying a call option that will increase in value is itself a form of investment, just as it's investment to buy stock or other instruments hoping they will appreciate in value. An option's value will rise or fall with the underlying, so being long an option is a way to be long in the underlying. Someone can be long in a stock by buying the stock, or long in a call by buying call options in the stock. The long call generally requires less initial investment than buying the underlying, and lets the option-holder avoid the asset downside during the option term. The risk is that the asset may not appreciate to the point that the call option will pay off. In the conceptual sense, a share of stock is a particular right to the profits and assets of a corporation, both in form of dividends and in liquidation. An option is a particular right to the the share of stock. It's just a further way to formalize and subdivide the various property rights that exist in a corporation. If you can buy a piece of paper with particular rights to corporate profits and assets, then you can buy another piece of paper with particular rights to the former piece of paper.",
"Let's consider that transaction cost is 0(zero) for calculation. In the scenario you have stated, maximum profit that could be made is 55$, however risk is unlimited. Hedging can also be used to limit your losses, let's consider this scenario. Stock ABC trading @ 100$, I'll buy the stock ABC @ 100$ and buy a put option of ABC @ strike price 90$ for a premium of 5$ with an expiration date of 1 month. Possible outcomes I end up in a loss in 3 out of 4 scenarios, however my loss is limited to 15$, whereas profit is unlimited.",
"Profit = Sale price - Basis Basis = Purchase price - any depreciation taken, including expensing it.",
"\"You are likely making an assumption that the \"\"Short call\"\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \"\"write\"\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\"",
"E.g. I buy 1 stock unit for $100.00 and sell it later for $150.00 => income taxes arise. Correct. You pay tax on your gains, i.e.: the different between net proceeds and gross costs (proceeds sans fees, acquisition costs including fees). I buy 1 stock unit for $150.00 and sell it later for $100.00 => no income taxes here. Not correct. The loss is deductible from other capital gains, and if no other capital gains - from your income (up to $3000 a year, until exhausted). Also, there are two different tax rate sets for capital gains: short term (holding up to 1 year) and long term (more than that). Short term capital gains tax matches ordinary income brackets, whereas long term capital gains tax brackets are much lower.",
"Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.",
"\"There are situations where you can be forced to cover a position, particular when \"\"Reg SHO\"\" (\"\"regulation sho\"\") is activated. Reg SHO is intended to make naked short sellers cover their position, it is to prevent abusive failure to delivers, where someone goes short without borrowing someone else's shares. Naked shorting isn't a violation of federal securities laws but it becomes an accounting problem when multiple people have claims to the same underlying assets. (I've seen companies that had 120% of their shares sold short, too funny, FWIW the market was correct as the company was worth nothing.) You can be naked short without knowing it. So there can be times when you will be forced to cover. Other people being forced to cover can result in a short squeeze. A risk. The other downside is that you have to pay interest on your borrowings. You also have to pay the dividends to the owner of the shares, if applicable. In shorter time frames these are negligible, but in longer time frames, such as closer to a year or longer, these really add up. Let alone the costs of the market going in the opposite direction, and the commissions.\"",
"There are many ways to calculate the return, and every way will give you a different results in terms of a percentage-value. One way to always get something meaningful - count the cash. You had 977 (+ 31) and in the end you have 1.370, which means you have earned 363 dollars. But what is your return in terms of percentage? One way to look at it, is by pretending that it is a fund in which you invest 1 dollar. What is the fund worth in the beginning and in the end? The tricky part in your example is, you injected new capital into the equation. Initially you invested 977 dollars which later, in the second period became worth 1.473. You then sold off 200 shares for 950 dollars. Remember your portfolio is still worth 1.473, split between 950 in cash and 523 in Shares. So far so good - still easy to calculate return (1.473 / 977 -1 = 50.8% return). Now you buy share for 981 dollars, but you only had 950 in cash? We now need to consider 2 scenarios. Either you (or someone else) injected 31 dollars into the fund - or you actually had the 31 dollars in the fund to begin with. If you already had the cash in the fund to begin with, your initial investment is 1.008 and not 977 (977 in shares and 31 in cash). In the end the value of the fund is 1.370, which means your return is 1.370 / 1.007 = 36%. Consider if the 31 dollars was paid in to the fund by someone other than you. You will then need to recalculate how much you each own of the fund. Just before the injection, the fund was worth 950 in cash and 387 in stock (310 - 200 = 110 x 3.54) = 1.339 dollars - then 31 dollars are injected, bringing the value of the fund up to 1.370. The ownership of the fund is split with 1.339 / 1.370 = 97.8% of the value for the old capital and 2.2% for the new capital. If the value of the fund was to change from here, you could calculate the return for each investor individually by applying their share of the funds value respective to their investment. Because the value of the fund has not changed since the last period (bullet 3), the return on the original investment is (977 / 1.339 - 1 = 37.2%) and the return on the new capital is (31 / 31 = 0%). If you (and not someone else) injected the 31 dollar into the fund, you will need to calculate the weight of each share of capital in each period and get the average return for each period to get to a total return. In this specific case you will still get 37.2% return - but it gets even more comlex for each time you inject new capital.",
"Think of it this way: C + (-P) = forward contract. Work it out from there. Anyways, this stack is meant for professionals, not students, I think.",
"Depends on the stock involved, but for the most part brokerages allow you gain entry at 50%, meaning you can short twice the cash on hand you have. Going forward, you need to maintain 30%, so on a $10,000 short, you'd have to maintain $3000 in your account. Example, an account with $5000 cash - You can short $10,000 securities. Let say 100 shares of xyz at $100 per share. After trade settles, you won't receive a margin call until your balance falls to $3000, probably right around the time xyz rises to $120 per share. Riskier stocks will have higher margin maintenance requirements - leveraged vehicles like FAS/FAZ (triple leveraged) require 90% margin (3x30%) if they are allowed to be 'shorted' at all.",
"\"I know its not legal to have open long and short position on specific security (on two stock exchanges - NSE/BSE) There is nothing illegal about it. There are prescribed ways on how this is addressed. In Cash Segment / Intra Day trades: One can short sell a security. If by end of day he does not buy the security; it goes into Auction. The said security is purchased on your behalf. Any profit or loss arising out of this is charged to you. Similarly one can buy a security; if one does not pay the amount by end of day; it would go into auction and sold. Any profit or loss arising out of this is charged to you. If you short sell a security on one exchange; you have to buy it on same exchange. If you buy on other exchange; it will not be adjusted against this short position. Also is it legal to have long position on stock and short its derivative (future/option)? There are no restrictions. Edit: @yety Party A shorts 10 shares of HDFC today in Intra-Day Cash Segment purchased by Party B. Rather than buying back 10 shares or allowing it to go into auction... Party A borrows 10 HDFC Shares from \"\"X\"\" via SLB for a period of say 6 months [1 month to 1 year]. This is recorded as Party A obligation to \"\"X\"\". These 10 borrowed shares are transferred to Party B. So Party \"\"X\"\" doesn't have any HDFC shares at this point in time. However in exchange, Party X receives fees for borrowing from Party A. If there is dividend, are declared, Company pays Party B. However SLB recovers identical amount from Party A and pays Party X. If there is 1:1 split, now party A owes Party X 20 HDFC Shares. On maturity [after 6 months], Party A has to buy these from market and given back the borrowed shares to Party X. If there are some other corporate actions, i.e. mergers / amalgamations ... the obligation of Party A to Party X is closed immediately and position settled. Of course there are provisions whereby party A can pay back the shares earlier or party X can ask for shares earlier and there are rules/trades/mechanisms to facilitate this.\"",
"When you buy a stock, the worst case scenario is that it drops to 0. Therefore, the most you can lose when buying a stock is 100% of your investment. When you short a stock, however, there's no limit on how high the stock can go. If you short a stock at 10, and it goes up to 30, then you've lost 200% on your investment. Therefore shorting stocks is riskier than buying stocks, since you can lose more than 100% of your investment when shorting. because the price might go up, but it will never be as big of a change as a regular price drop i suppose... That is not true. Stocks can sometimes go up significantly (50-100% or more) in a very short amount of time on a positive news release (such as an earnings or a buyout announcement). A famous example occurred in 2008, when Volkswagen stock quintupled (went up 400%) in less than 2 days on some corporate news: Porsche, for some reason, wants to control Volkswagen, and by building up its stake has driven up the price. Hedge funds, figuring the share price would fall as soon as Porsche got control and stopped buying, sold a lot of VW shares short. Then last weekend, Porsche disclosed that it owned 42.6 percent of the stock and had acquired options for another 31.5 percent. It said it wanted to go to 75 percent. The result: instant short-squeeze. The German state of Lower Saxony owns a 20 percent stake in VW, which it said it would not sell. That left precious few shares available for anyone else. The shorts scrambled to cover, and the price leaped from about €200, or about $265, to above €1,000.",
"Your strategy of longing company(a) and shorting company(b) is flawed as the prices of company(a) and company(b) can both increase and though you are right , you will lose money due to the shorting strategy. You should not engage in pair trading , which is normally used for arbitrage purposes You should just buy company(a) since you believed its a better company compared to company(b) , its as simple as that",
"\"RoR for options you bought is fairly easy: (Current Value-Initial Cost)/Initial Cost gives you the actual return. If you want the rate of return, you need to annualize that number: You divide the return you got above by the number of days the investment was in place, and then multiply that number by the number of days in a year. (365 if you're using calendar days, about 255 if you're using trading days.) RoR for options you sold is much more complex: The problem is that RoR is basically calculating the size of your return relative to the capital it tied up to earn it. That's simple when you bought something; the capital tied up is the money you put up. It's more complex on a position like a short option, where the specific transaction in question generates cash when it's put on. The correct way to deal with this is to A) Bundle your strategy (options, stock and collateral) into one RoR where appropriate, and B) include any needed collateral to support the short option in the calculation. So, if you sell a \"\"cash-secured\"\" put, where you have to post the money that you'd need to take delivery of the shares if they were put to you, the initial cost is the total amount you'd need to put the trade on: in this case, it's the cash amount, less the premium you collected for selling the put. That's just one example. But the approach holds more broadly: if you're using covered calls, your original cost is the cost of the stock less the premium generated by the sale of the call.\"",
"\"at $8.50: total profit = $120.00 *basis of stock, not paid in cash, so not included in \"\"total paid\"\" at $8.50: total profit = $75.00\"",
"You will be charged a stock borrow fee, which is inversely related to the relative supply of the stock you are shorting. IB claims to pay a rebate on the short proceeds, which would offset part or all of that fee, but it doesn't appear relevant in your case because: It is a bit strange to me that IB would not require you to keep the cash in your account, as they need the cash to collateralize the stock borrow with the lending institution. In fact, per Regulation T, the short position requires an initial margin of 150%, which includes the short proceeds. As described by Investopedia: In the first table of Figure 1, a short sale is initiated for 1,000 shares at a price of $50. The proceeds of the short sale are $50,000, and this amount is deposited into the short sale margin account. Along with the proceeds of the sale, an additional 50% margin amount of $25,000 must be deposited in the account, bringing the total margin requirement to $75,000. At this time, the proceeds of the short sale must remain in the account; they cannot be removed or used to purchase other securities. Here is a good answer to your question from The Street: Even though you might see a balance in your brokerage account after shorting a stock, you're actually looking at a false credit, according to one big brokerage firm. That money is acting as collateral for the short position. So, you won't have use of these funds for investment purposes and won't earn interest on it. And there are indeed costs associated with shorting a stock. The broker has to find stock to loan to you. That might come out of a broker's own inventory or might be borrowed from another stock lender.",
"http://www.investopedia.com/university/shortselling/shortselling1.asp 'Therein lies the major risk of short selling, the fear of infinite losses. While the maximum loss for a long investor is the amount invested in a security, the maximum loss for a short seller is theoretically infinite, since there is no upper limit to a stock’s price appreciation. This risk is compounded by the fact that during a short squeeze or buy-in...' Never have shorted a stock. Too intimidated by that!",
"\"Long here does not mean you wish for the underlying stock to increase in value, in fact, as the chart shows, just the opposite is true. \"\"Long means you bought the derivative, and you own the option. The guy that sold it to you is at your mercy, he is short the put, and it's your decision to put the stock to him should it fall in value. The value of the put itself rises with the falling stock price, you are long the put and want the put, itself, to rise in value.\"",
"\"But what happen if the stock price went high and then go down near expiry date? When you hold a short (sold) call option position that has an underlying price that is increasing, what will happen (in general) is that your net margin requirements will increase day by day. Thus, you will be required to put up more money as margin to finance your position. Margin money is simply a \"\"good faith\"\" deposit held by your broker. It is not money that is debited as cash from the accounting ledger of your trading account, but is held by your broker to cover any potential losses that may arise when you finally settle you position. Conversely, when the underlying share price is decreasing, the net margin requirements will tend to decrease day by day. (Net margin is the net of \"\"Initial Margin\"\" and \"\"Variation Margin\"\".) As the expiry date approaches, the \"\"time value\"\" component of the option price will be decreasing.\"",
"You don't mention any specific numbers, so I'll answer in generalities. Say I buy a call option today, and I short the underlying stock with the delta. The value will be the value of the option you bought less the value of the stock you are short. (your premium is not included in the value since it's a sunk cost, but is reflected in your profit/loss) So, say I go out and adjust my portfolio, so I am still delta short in the underlying. It's still the value of your options, less the value of the underlying you are short. What is my PnL over this period? The end value of your portfolio less what you paid for that value, namely the money you received shorting the underlyings less the premium you paid for the option.",
"Contrary to what other people said I believe that even without leverage you can lose more that you invest when you short a FX. Why? because the amount it can go down is alwasy limited to zero but it can, potentially, go up without limit. See This question for a mored detailed information.",
"\"Suddenly its not just comparing the current price to the price of the contract, or is it? Sure it is. Suppose you bought 100 option contracts (each for 100 shares) and paid a $1 per share premium ($10,000 total). Now those options are trading for $1.50 per share. You have an unrealized $0.50 gain per share, or $5,000. The $10,000 in options you bought are now worth $15,000. It holds whether they were bought to open or close a position, or whether they are puts or calls. The only difference is whether you bought or sold the options (the arithmetic is just reversed for selling an option). But lets say we have an Option, where the payoff is max(St-K, c0) where ct is the market price. What do you do then? Your current, unrealized P&L is different than the payoff. The payoff only happens at maturity. The current P&L is based on current market prices, just like stock. Option prices all have a \"\"time premium\"\" making them worth more than their payoff (intrinsic) value prior to maturity.\""
] |
[
"There are different perspectives from which to calculate the gain, but the way I think it should be done is with respect to the risk you've assumed in the original position, which the simplistic calculation doesn't factor in. There's a good explanation about calculating the return from a short sale at Investopedia. Here's the part that I consider most relevant: [...] When calculating the return of a short sale, you need to compare the amount the trader gets to keep to the initial amount of the liability. Had the trade in our example turned against you, you (as the short seller) would owe not only the initial proceeds amount but also the excess amount, and this would come out of your pocket. [...] Refer to the source link for the full explanation. Update: As you can see from the other answers and comments, it is a more complex a Q&A than it may first appear. I subsequently found this interesting paper which discusses the difficulty of rate of return with respect to short sales and other atypical trades: Excerpt: [...] The problem causing this almost uniform omission of a percentage return on short sales, options (especially writing), and futures, it may be speculated, is that the nigh-well universal and conventional definition of rate of return involving an initial cash outflow followed by a later cash inflow does not appear to fit these investment situations. None of the investment finance texts nor general finance texts, undergraduate or graduate, have formally or explicitly shown how to resolve this predicament or how to justify the calculations they actually use. [...]",
"Simple math: 50-25=25, hence decline from 50 to 25 is a 50% decline (you lose half), while an advance from 25 to 50 is 100% gain (you gain 100%, double your 25 to 50). Their point is that if you have more upswings than downswings - you'll gain more on long positions during upswings than on short positions during downswings on average. Again - simple math.",
"The problem with rate of return calculation on short positions is, that the commonly used approach assumes an initial investment creating a cash outflow. If we want to apply this approach to short selling, we should look at the trade from another perspective. We buy money and pay for this money with stock. Our investment to buy 50$ in your example is 1 share. When closing the short position, we effectively sell back our money (50$) and receive 2 shares. Our profit on this position is obviously 1 share. Setting this in relation to our investment of 1 share yields a performance of 100% in reality, we do not sell back the entire cash but only the amount needed to get back our investment of 1 share. This is actually comparable to a purchase of stock which we only partially close to get back our invested cash amount and keep the remaining shares as our profit"
] |
6278
|
What is the best way to help my dad consolidate his credit card debt at a lower rate?
|
[
"138511",
"63698"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"63698",
"423569",
"209849",
"138511",
"36826",
"571246",
"481898",
"441836",
"145937",
"333391",
"113822",
"58071",
"120837",
"430911",
"361698",
"289982",
"10790",
"201982",
"508510",
"19479",
"364567",
"200268",
"257483",
"559523",
"509883",
"300660",
"515815",
"60996",
"205715",
"45457",
"40312",
"69938",
"497672",
"2519",
"355605",
"108514",
"274690",
"508952",
"545991",
"21174",
"321136",
"233892",
"346024",
"350980",
"231105",
"83411",
"241070",
"221605",
"205420",
"19793",
"439003",
"466707",
"344244",
"329817",
"319915",
"127185",
"268849",
"340520",
"394298",
"96666",
"534158",
"156873",
"220710",
"991",
"592325",
"481822",
"394467",
"398090",
"555280",
"20610",
"28191",
"395379",
"598428",
"364361",
"423816",
"37310",
"553756",
"588197",
"406340",
"271525",
"194563",
"21325",
"249643",
"179808",
"70444",
"30623",
"563030",
"273095",
"284827",
"55084",
"547835",
"412142",
"578885",
"372993",
"517361",
"348726",
"423503",
"537716",
"414674",
"157923"
] |
[
"I agree with you that you need to consolidate this debt using a loan. It may be hard to find a bank or credit organization that will give you an unsecured personal loan for that much money. I know of one, called Lending Club (Disclaimer - I'm an investor on this platform. Not trying to advertise, it's just the only place I know of off the top of my head) that facilitates loans like this, but instead of a bank financing the loan, the loan is split up accross hundreds of investors who each contribute a small amount (such as $25). They have rates anywhere between 5-30%, based on your credit profile(s), and I believe they have some loan amounts that go up to the area that you're discussing. Regarding buying the house - The best thing you can do when trying to buy a house is to save up a 20% downpayment, if at all possible. Below this amount, you may be asked to pay for 'PMI' - Private Mortgage Insurance. This is a charge that doesn't go away for quite a while (until you've paid them 20% of the appraised value of the home), where you pay a premium because you didn't have the 20% downpayment for the house. I would suggest you try to eliminate your credit card debt as soon as possible, and would recommend the same for your father. Getting your utilization down and reconsolidating the large debts with a loan will help to reduce interest charges and get you a reasonable, fixed payment. Whether you decide to pay off your own balances using your savings account is up to you; if it were me, personally, I'd do so immediately rather than trying to pay it off over time. But if you lose money to taxes by withdrawing the money from your 'tax free savings account', it may not be a beneficial situation. Treat debt, especially credit card debt, like an emergency at all times, and you'll find yourself in a better place as a result. Credit card debt and balances are and should be temporary, and their rates and fees are structured that way. If, for any reason, you expect that a credit card's balance will remain for an extended period of time, you may want to consider whether it would be advantageous for you to consolidate the debt into a loan, instead.",
"I wouldn't worry about his credit score. The hit from a credit inquiry is not that big and it's absolutely worth it in the long run. I suggest you sign him up for a free budgeting app (just google budgeting app) that will help him not only take control of his spending but also help him with his loans. Transferring debt comes with a few caveats: His credit score is bad so I don't know if he'll be able to get 0% loan, but even if he gets 6% - 8% that will save him money; just don't forget about the transfer fee. If he has checking/savings account it's worth talking to that bank first - they might be able to give him a better deal for being their customer. Also if he tells them his story and credit score they might be able to give him an idea what they can offer him without doing a credit check. Another option is to become a member of a local credit union - they have great rates on loans / credit cards. Credit card or personal loan doesn't matter much, whatever he can get. With his credit score I doubt he'll be able to get a good rate at Chase or one of the other big credit card companies. Good luck.",
"Consolidation makes sense, if your friend has his act together and isn't going to run up more debt. Finding a lender will be tough. I'd suggest trying local credit unions, making sure first that there has been NO late or missed payments for 6-9 months. You need to talk to a human at a local lender who will give you informal guidance about what you need to approve, so you don't end up getting lots of declinations. If its more than $10k, it will be hard to get a loan like this from anyone. In that case, you need to focus on the smallest debts first, because your friend's cash flow is going to be pinched by making payments to multiple creditors. It's critical to pay all creditors on time for at least the minimum amount due. The problem is, once you start paying things down, the creditors will start ratcheting down credit limits. When that happens, you're at greater risk for getting nabbed with fees and higher minimum payments, which may be considered a universal default by other lenders. There isn't alot of detail here, but depending on income and the amount of debt, your friend should be prepared to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.",
"Are you doing the right thing? Yes, paying back some of the expense of college is a great way to show your gratitude. Could your sister also pitch in a little to help pay the debt down? Will you get approved for a $30,000 unsecured loan? You don't mention your credit rating but that will have an effect obviously. You might consider visiting a credit union with your father and co-signing a loan since it is his debt that you are assuming. You might still want to write a loan for your dad to sign even if he isn't co-signed on a loan. This could protect you in case of his death if there are other assets to divide. If you are not approved for a loan, you could also simply join your dad in paying down the highest-rate cards first and have a loan agreement for him to pay back that money if/when it is possible. You've mentioned that you have no collateral. There aren't many options for loans with no collateral. Your dad's bank or a credit union might consider a debt consolidation loan with you as a co-signer. That's why I mentioned going to a credit union. Talking to a loan officer at a local financial institution will make it easier to get approved. If they see that you are taking responsible steps to pay off the debt, that reduces your credit risk. If you do get a debt consolidation loan, they will probably ask your dad to close some credit card accounts.",
"\"Your companies are declining to lower your rates because you are describing it as being kind. When I was in a similar situation, I called each one, starting with the highest rate, and said this: For the last little while things have been tight and my balances have crept up on all my cards. Now I'm about to start a fairly dramatic paydown. I'm going to be doing highest-rate fastest, which is you. Are you able to lower my rate so that you can continue to collect it? Some said no. Some said \"\"ask again when you've paid more than the minimum three months in a row.\"\" Most said yes, and sometimes by a dramatic amount. It made a real difference to getting things under control. I agree with the other answers that $50 extra on each card is just not as fulfilling as putting all the extra to a single card. If you must still use a card (to put gas in your car, buy groceries etc) getting one card to zero will return you to not paying interest even when you use it, so you might want to start with your lowest balance and then go to highest-rate once you have one clear one you can use. (If your balances are all so high that it will take a year or more to get one to zero, then maybe not. But if one is low drive it down first.) As for the consolidation loan, for some people it's the key to saving interest and getting the debt behind them. For others it's a chance to catch their breath and run up even more debt. Most people cannot predict in advance which they will be or which others will be. Be aware that it is a risk. You can vow that you will never again cover payroll with a cash advance from the company credit card (or your personal one) but when push comes to shove, you just might anyway.\"",
"To confirm: you say you have credit card debt of $18,000 with min. repayment of $466.06, plus on top of this you are also paying off a car loan and another personal loan. From my calculations if your monthly interest on your credit card is $237, the interest on your credit card should be about 15.8% p.a. Is this correct? Balance Transfer If you did a balance transfer of your $18,000 to a new credit card with 0% for 14 months and keep your repayments the same ($466) you would have saved yourself a bit over $3020 in interest over those 14 months. Your credit card balance after 14 months would be about $11,471 (instead of $14,476 with your current situation). If your interest after the 14 months went back to 15.8% you would be able to pay the remaining $11,471 in 2.5 more years (keeping repayments at $466), saving 10 months off your repayments and a total of $4,781 in interest over 3 years and 8 months. The main emphasis here is that you are able to keep your repayments at least the same so you are able to pay off the debt quicker, and that your interest rate on the new credit card after the 14 months interest free is not more than your current interest rate of 15.8%. Things you should be careful about if you take this path: Debt Consolidation In regards to a Debt Consolidation for your personal loan and credit card (and possibly your car loan) into a single lower interest rate loan can be a good idea, but there are some pitfalls you should consider. Manly, if you are taking out a loan with a lower interest rate but a longer term to pay it off, you may end up paying less in monthly repayments but will end up paying more interest in the long run. If you do take this course of action try to keep your term to no longer than your current debt's terms, and try to keep your repayments as high as possible to pay the debt off as soon as possible and reduce any interest you have to pay. As you already have you credit card and personal loan with CBA talk to them to see what kind of deal they can give you. Again be wary of the fine print and read the PDS of any products you are thinking of getting. Refer to ASIC - Money Smart website for more valuable information you should consider before taking out any debt consolidation. Other Action You Can Take If you are finding that the repayments are really getting out of hand and no one will help you with any debt consolidation or reducing your interest rates on your debts, as a last resort you can apply for a Part 9 debt agreement. But be very careful as this is an alternative to bankruptcy, and like bankruptcy a debt agreement will appear on your credit file for seven years and your name will be listed on the National Personal Insolvency Index forever. Further Assistance and Help If you have trouble reading any PDS, or want further information or help regarding any issues I have raised or any other part of your financial situation you can contact Centrelink's Financial Information Service. They provide a free and confidential service that provides education and information on financial and lifestyle issues to all Australians.",
"\"The best way I know of to get the interest rate lowered is to call the credit card company and simply ask. Typically if a credit card company thinks you will leave them for another company they will be willing to work with you. There is also the option of transfering some of the higher interest debt to one of the lower interest credit cards. It sounds like you have your friend on the right track by focusing all extra money on the credit card with the highest interest rate. Then after that one is paid off send all extra to the next highest one and so on. The classic \"\"snowball\"\" effect.\"",
"You should also look outside the box. There are non profit credit relief organizations that will give you free credit counseling. Don't pay for it though. There are some organizations that are shady in offering counseling but they wreck your credit by asking you to stop making your payments. Some of the legitimate organizations out there have ties to credit unions and banks that can offer you some loans to consolidate your debt at rates lower than those you mentioned in your questions. You should probably also approach a credit union directly and discuss debt consolidation loan options. Even if you can only knock out the debts with the highest interest rate, that's a good first step.",
"\"The bottom line is that this just does not work, and as such you should not do it. Here is a question that you really need to think about: How will you handle non-payments? How will you handle it when they talk about purchases they made or vacations they went on when they have been short for the last three months? Yes, it will happen. The majority of people who engage in debt consolidation, which you are proposing, end up with the consolidated debt and more consumer debt. One cannot borrow themselves out of debt. Carrying credit card debt is a sign of poor money management and improper spending behavior. That behavior will not change if you \"\"bail them out\"\" with the consolidation. They need to find a way to work their way out of this situation by budgeting, living a more austere lifestyle, and earning more. Encouraging them to do so will serve them far better then your generous attempts to reduce the pain of their own making. In the end it is always a parent's desire to help their children. If you can afford to give, then it is well within your right to do so. It is also within your right to qualify that giving with behavioral conditions. However, if you cannot afford to give, it is best not to loan.\"",
"You are on the right path. Especially for the fact that you are paying the highest rate card with highest priority. As long as your credit score will not stop you from getting the credit union loan, this is a great idea. It will turn the highest rate card(s) into something more reasonable and let you continue to attack principal instead of mostly paying interest.",
"\"Typically you can use credit card balance transfers to consolidate some, or all, of your other loan balances in one place. The interest rate might be lower. Some prefer to make one payment rather than multiple payments. There is typically a fee that is imposed by the card that is originating or creating the loan. This would be the credit card you are transferring the balances. That fee is typically in the 3% to 5% range. While tempting and attractive on the surface, this plan typically leads to a worse situation then you are now. It's a \"\"tough pill to swallow\"\", but your problem is that you spend too much money. Transferring money will not change this problem, it is your behavior that has to change in order to not accumulate more debt. It has to change further if you want to get rid of the debt in a timely fashion. You would be far better served to forget about this transfer and get your life into control. Spend a lot less, earn more. Pay off the cards you have now and cut them up. Make a goal to be done in a year and figure out how to earn enough money to make that happen. BTW I am a reformed over-spender that now owes nothing. Yep my house, cars, and rental property are all paid for. You can get there too.\"",
"Why not just get a consolidated loan for 15K, and then $20K zero transfer? The Loan will have a payoff on the amount borrowed, probably a fixed payment which would be more than double the payment as if it were only $15K to start. That make sense? If you are approved for both pieces of this, it should help, what is going to be the rate on the loan? The process you are starting has 3 aspects - cut spending, reduce interest, minimize payment obligations. If you do anything to earn more, even a few hours a week it will add up. I would not reduce any credit lines. In a perfect world, you will have a buffer of money to cover any expense. Until then, available access to money is important, but of course to be used either for emergencies or when cash is there to pay the bill in full when it comes in.",
"The debt on Credit Cards is pretty high. Its in the range of 30-40% APR. There could also be a case very high personal loan for medical or other personal emergencies at a rate in excess of 15%. The debt consolidation would offer this at a very low APR There are institutions that offer debt consolidation services that would consolidate all your debt into a single loan at a lower rate of interest. They would also negotiate with all your lenders to waive charges and accrued interests to the max extent. The benefit to the institution offering this service is that they have a larger loan on books and hence the servicing cost is less. Most of the time the debt consolidation is offered with some asset as the guarantee for the new loan. By doing this the advantages are: Of course if you are looking for the balance transfer on cards to new one, then its same and in fact may at times be more expensive.",
"A good resource for this type of help is the National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC). They provide free and low-cost credit counselors who can... Most importantly, avoid those for-profit debt consolidation companies. They are ripoffs.",
"Short-term, getting a balance transfer will help. It'll reduce the interest you pay. You can also reduce the interest you pay on your cars if you are able to consolidate your debt into a personal loan. To your question about debt consolidation companies, as far as I know, that's all they do. However, long-term, there's only two ways to stay on top of debt: increase your income, or reduce your spending. Basically, if you can't or won't get a raise or a job that pays more (or a second job), you need to cut back on your spending. You might need to do something radical, like move somewhere with cheaper rent (as long as increased travel costs doesn't offset the saving). But you'll be much better off in the long run if you step back and take a look at your situation now, and make adjustments accordingly.",
"\"In addition to dpassage's excellent advice on dealing with your debt in the most efficient manner, you may also want to consider Consumer Credit Counseling Services (CCCS). These are non-profit agencies (free or low-cost) that can work with you and your creditors to come up with payment plans and sometimes negotiate lower interest rates to help you get out from under the debt. You should definitely avoid for-profit \"\"debt consolidation\"\" companies, but the National Foundation for Credit Counseling can refer you to non-profit services in your area.\"",
"\"I've done exactly what you are describing and it was a great move for me. A few years back I had two credit cards. One had a $6000 balance and a fairly high interest rate that I was making steady payments to (including interest). The other was actually tied to a HELOC (home equity line of credit) whose interest rate was fixed to \"\"prime\"\", which was very low at the time, I think my effective rate on the card was around 3%. So, I pulled out one of the \"\"cash advance checks\"\" from the HELOC account and paid off the $6000 balance. Then I started making my monthly payments against the balance on the HELOC, and paid it off a bit more quickly and with less overall money spent because I was paying way less interest. Another, similar, tactic is to find a card that doesn't charge fees for balance transfers and that has a 0% interest rate for the first 12 months on transferred balances. I am pretty sure they are out there. Open an account on that card, transfer the balance to it, and pay it down within 12 months. And, try not to use the card for anything else if you can help it.\"",
"Take the consolidation loan and pay it off. Don't close the card. Opening a new account will have no bearing on your mortgage a year or two down the road. Keep paying on time -- that will make a big difference! JohnFX's suggestion to open a new card and do a transfer is a great idea if you have good credit. Just read the fine print -- most cards charge a 3-5% transfer fee and some cards accrue interest if you don't pay within the promotional period.",
"If you hadn't done it already cut up the cards. Don't close the accounts because it could hurt your credit score even more. Switching some or all of the CC debt onto low rate cards, or a debt consolidation loan is a way that some people use to reduce their credit card payments. The biggest risk is that you become less aggressive with the loan payback. If you were planning on paying $800 in minimum payments,plus $200 extra each month; then still pay $1000 with the new loan and remaining credit cards. Another risk is that you start overusing the credit card again, because you have available credit on the card that was paid off with the loan. The third risk, which you haven't proposed, occurs when people switch unsecured credit card dept, to a secured 2nd mortgage debt. This then puts the family home at risk.",
"You can take a out loan against your 401k, which means you won't be penalized for the withdrawal. You will have to pay that amount back though, but it can help since the interest will be lower than a lot of credit card rates. You could refinance your home if you can get a reasonable interest rate. You could also get a 0% APR balance transfer credit card and transfer the balance and pay it off that way. There are a lot of options. I would contact a Credit Counselor and explore further options. The main objective is to get you out of debt, not put you more in debt - whether that is refinancing your mortgage, cashing in an annuity, etc.",
"Obviously the best way to consolidate the real-estate loans is with a real-estate loan. Mortgages, being secured loans, provide much better interest rates. Also, interest can be deducted to some extent (depending on how the proceeds are used, but up to $100K of the mortgage can have deductible interest just for using the primary residence as a collateral). Last but not least, in many states mortgages on primary residence are non-recourse (again, may depend on the money use). That may prove useful if in the future your mother runs into troubles repaying it. So yes, your instincts are correct. How to convince your mother - that's between you and her.",
"\"In the sole interest of improving your credit score, the thing you should focus on is lowering your overall utilization. The best thing you could do for this would be to get a loan to reconsolidate your credit card debts into a single, long term loan. The impact of this is that your credit card utilization, assuming the loan covers 100% of your balances, will suddenly drop to 0%, as you'll no longer have a balance on the cards. Additionally, at this point, with a consolidation loan, you'll be building loan history by making steady, fixed payments on the loan. The loan will also, ideally, have a significantly lower interest rate than the cards, and thus will save you money that you'd otherwise be spending on interest. A lot of others here will feed you some additonal, irrelevant advice - \"\"Pay off X credit card first!\"\"; Ideally, you need to eliminate this debt. But to directly address the question of how you could improve your credit score, based on your utilization, I believe the best option would be for you to reconsolidate your credit card debt into a single loan, to reduce your utilization on the cards.\"",
"\"First of all, congratulations on admitting your problem and on your determination to be debt-free. Recognizing your mistakes is a huge first step, and getting rid of your debt is a very worthwhile goal. When considering debt consolidation, there are really only two reasons to do so: Reason #1: To lower your monthly payment. If you are having trouble coming up with enough money to meet your monthly obligations, debt consolidation can lower your monthly payment by extending the time frame of the debt. The problem with this one is that it doesn't help you get out of debt faster. It actually makes it longer before you are out of debt and will increase the total amount of interest that you will pay to the banks before you are done. So I would not recommend debt consolidation for this reason unless you are truly struggling with your cashflow because your minimum monthly payments are too high. In your situation, it does not sound like you need to consolidate for this reason. Reason #2: To lower your interest rate. If your debt is at a very high rate, debt consolidation can lower your interest rate, which can reduce the time it will take to eliminate your debt. The consolidation loan you are considering is at a high interest rate on its own: 13.89%. Now, it is true that some of your debt is higher than that, but it looks like the majority of your debt is less than that rate. It doesn't sound to me that you will save a significant amount of money by consolidating in this loan. If you can obtain a better consolidation loan in the future, it might be worth considering. From your question, it looks like your reasoning for the consolidation loan is to close the credit card accounts as quickly as possible. I agree that you need to quit using the cards, but this can also be accomplished by destroying the cards. The consolidation loan is not needed for this. You also mentioned that you are considering adding $3,000 to your debt. I have to say that it doesn't make sense at all to me to add to your debt (especially at 13.89%) when your goal is to eliminate your debt. To answer your question explicitly, yes, the \"\"cash buffer\"\" from the loan is a very bad idea. Here is what I recommend: (This is based on this answer, but customized for you.) Cut up/destroy your credit cards. Today. You've already recognized that they are a problem for you. Cash, checks, and debit cards are what you need to use from now on. Start working from a monthly budget, assigning a job for every dollar that you have. This will allow you to decide what to spend your money on, rather than arriving at the end of the month with no idea where your money was lost. Budgeting software can make this task easier. (See this question for more information. Your first goal should be to put a small amount of money in a savings account, perhaps $1000 - $1500 total. This is the start of your emergency fund. This money will ensure that if something unexpected and urgent comes up, you won't be so cash poor that you need to borrow money again. Note: this money should only be touched in an actual emergency, and if spent, should be replenished as soon as possible. At the rate you are talking about, it should take you less than a month to do this. After you've got your small emergency fund in place, attack the debt as quickly and aggressively as possible. The order that you pay off your debts is not significant. (The optimal method is up for debate.) At the rate you suggested ($2,000 - 2,500 per month), you can be completely debt free in maybe 18 months. As you pay off those credit cards, completely close the accounts. Ignore the conventional wisdom that tells you to leave the unused credit card accounts open to try to preserve a few points on your credit score. Just close them. After you are completely debt free, take the money that you were throwing at your debt, and use it to build up your emergency fund until it is 3-6 months' worth of your expenses. That way, you'll be able to handle a small crisis without borrowing anything. If you need more help/motivation on becoming debt free and budgeting, I recommend the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey.\"",
"Get a loan at a decent interest rate and use that to pay off all of the credit cards. Then pay into that loan and leave the credit cards alone. Cancel them and don't use them. Credit card debt is possibly the worst kind of debt. So expensive. It's not designed for long term borrowing. It's designed to be paid off completely every month. Get a single loan and consolidate all your debt into it. It will have a lower interest rate and cost you a lot less in the long term.",
"It doesn't really make sense to cure indebtedness with more debt. This is why your friend is having trouble finding someone to loan him money. If he can't borrow at a lower rate then he should probably focus on paying down some of his debt.",
"Go where your money is treated best. If you can lower your APR, great. It should help a little bit with getting a mortgage if you can reduce your payment. Your debt-to-income ratio would go down.",
"As someone with a lot of student loan debt, I can relate - the first thing you should do is read the promissory note on your current loans - there might be information there you can use. For govt loans (stafford, etc) made after July 1, 2006 the interest rate is going to be fixed and even a federal direct consolidation is not going to lower the rates themselves. If anything, consolidation will just increase the repayment period, which means you'll end up paying more in the long run. Most private Loans usually offer variable interest rates, which today are quite low. But unless your financial situation is very comfortable and stable, consolidating out of federally guaranteed loans into private loans might not be the best path. You might lose options like deferment, forbearance, and maybe even things like a death benefit (if you die, your loans die with you). related - if you have a co-signer you don't get that death benefit! But refinancing into a variable rate private loan is going to push a lot of risk to you in terms of interest rate inflation, etc. Most financial professionals will agree that interest rates can only go up in the long run. Keep in mind, student loans are completely unsecured - meaning lenders are taking a fairly large risk in loaning money (and probably why the fed govt has to guarantee most of them). I've heard of people borrowing against their home equity to pay down student loan debt - but I can't think of a reason you'd want to substitute secured for unsecured debt and possibly lose the loan interest tax deduction. The bottom line is you're unlikely to find an alternative lending source at a lower interest rate for an unsecured student loan. Another option may be the income based repayment plan. If you qualify, it caps student loan monthly payments at 15% of your discretionary income (discretionary is your income minus whatever the poverty threshold income amount is). And if that 15% doesn't even cover the interest on the loans, the govt picks up the tab for the difference (for up to 3 years). You have to re-qualify every year by sending in all sorts of documentation, but if you somehow stay on IBR for 25 years, your loans are then forgiven. Obviously the downside here is that you are probably paying little to no principal, but if you do the math and determine that your IBR payment would be next to nothing, and your current situation is barely paying interest-only... well, maybe IBR isn't a bad thing for a couple of years (or 25 if you think you will never have a larger income). Personally, I went through all these options as well and decided that my best option was to just earn more money... a 2nd job or side project here and there helps me pay down the debt faster, and with less risk, than moving to private variable rate loans.",
"\"I don't recommend balance transfers. Like many credit card things, they distract you with shiny (\"\"0 percent interest!\"\") and ream you on a 'balance transfer fee'. If you have a decent credit score and working relationship, talk to banks about opening what's called a 'signature loan,' and use that to shift the debt to a lower rate. A local credit union advertises rates 'as low as' 9.75 percent. Which is itself a shiny that you may not qualify for. The really low loans rates you see are secured loans; if you don't pay, they can take the collateral.\"",
"\"From the comments, it sounds like you have a technical background. So I'm going to suggest you think of this as a technical problem: it's an optimization problem, where the variable you're trying to optimize for is total interest paid over the lifetime of the loans. Step 1 is making sure you're using the credit available to you most efficiently. If there's room in the credit limit for card #1 to move more of your debt there, then definitely move your balances from the higher-interest cards. However, be careful; some cards will have different interest rates for balance transfers or cash advances. And definitely don't move any principal from Card #3 until the 0% interest rate expires. Pursuing a bank loan as part of step 1 is valid as well. You could start with the bank you use for your checking account today. Credit unions can be a good source of lower-interest loans as well. Ensure that you fully understand the terms and interest rates, particularly if they change. Just be careful about applying for them; too many rejections can affect your credit rating negatively. You also mention in the comments that you're paying \"\"her\"\" mortgage. I don't know how the ownership is set up there, but either refinancing or taking out a home equity loan can be a way to consolidate debt. The interest rate on a home loan will almost assuredly be less than on your higher rate cards, especially taking the tax deduction into account. Step 2 is paying down the debt efficiently. The rule here is simple: Pay the minimum payment on all cards except for the one with the highest interest rate; any money you have above the minimum payments should go into paying down the principal on that one. In your case, that's Card #2. Good luck!\"",
"You need to pay off the entire balance of 7450 as soon as possible. This should be your primary financial goal at this point above anything else. A basic structure that you can follow is this: Is the £1500 balance with the 39.9% interest rate the obvious starting point here? Yes, that is fine. But all the cards and overdraft debts need to be treated with the same urgency! What are the prospects for improving my credit score in say the next 6-12 months enough to get a 0% balance transfer or loan for consolidation? This should not be a primary concern of yours if you want to move on with your financial life. Debt consolidation will not help you achieve the goals you have described (home ownership, financial stability). If you follow the advice here, by the time you get to the point of being eligible, you may not see enough savings in interest to make it worth the hassle. Focus on the hard stuff and pay off the balances. Is that realistic, or am I looking at a longer term struggle? You are looking at a significant struggle. If it was easy you would not be asking this question! The length of time will be determined by your choices: how aggressively you will cut your lifestyle, take on extra jobs, and place additional payments on your debt. By being that extreme, you will actually start to see progress, which will be encouraging. If you go in half-committed, your progress will show as much and it will be demotivating. Much of your success will hinge on your mental and emotional toughness to push through the hard work of delaying pleasure and paying off these balances. That is just my personal experience, so you can take it or leave it. :) The credit score will take care of itself if you follow this method, so don't worry about it. Good Luck!",
"I would personally look at consolidating your debt at a lower interest rate by refinancing your mortgage. I would leave any retirement funds alone unless it was absolutely necessary to touch it with no other avenues available. However, once you have consolidated your debt into the mortgage I would pay more than the minimum amount so that you don't take too long to pay it off. I would put about 50% of the freed-up cash flow back into the repayments, that way you will be paying more debt off quicker and you will have additional cash flow to help your monthly budget. Another good point would be to go through your monthly budget to see if there is any expenses you could reduce or eliminate.",
"If your credit is good, you should immediately attempt to refinance your high rate credit cards by transferring the balance to credit cards with lower interest rates.You might want to check at your local credit union, credit unions can offer great rates. Use the $4000 to pay off whatever is left on the high rate cards. If your credit is bad, I suggest you call your credit card company and try to negotiate with them. If they consider you a risk they might settle your account for fraction of what you own if you can send payment immediately. Don't tell them you have money, just tell them your are trying to get your finances under control and see what they can offer you. This will damage your credit score but will get you out of depth much sooner and save you money in the long term. Also keep in mind that if they do settle, they'll close your account. That way, you leverage the $4000 and use it as a tool to get concessions from the bank.",
"Depending on your credit score you might be able to balance transfer to a lower rate. Credit is still cheap, with a good credit score you should be able to get ~ 6%, maybe even lower if you go through a credit union. Given you return is 13% (!!) I would not divert money from that.",
"\"The first thing I'd do is to find out your credit (FICO) score. If you have a good one, try to get another card with a lower rate. Then call up the lender, point to your good score, and your alternatives. If you have a bad score, do nothing. \"\"Let sleeping dogs lie.\"\"\"",
"\"My answer is similar to Ben Miller's, but let me make some slightly different points: There is one excellent reason to get a consolidation loan: You can often get a lower interest rate. If you are presently paying 19% on a credit card and you can roll that into a personal loan at 13.89%, you'll be saving over 5%, which can add up. I would definitely not consolidate a loan at 12.99% into a loan at 13.89%. Then you're just adding 1% to your interest rate. What's the benefit in this? Another good reasons for a consolidation loan is psychological. A consolidation loan with fixed payments forces you to pay that amount every month. You say you have trouble with credit cards. It's very easy to say to yourself, \"\"Oh, just this month I'm going to pay just the minimum so I can use my cash for this other Very Important Thing that I need to buy.\"\" And then next month you find something else that you just absolutely have to buy. And again the next month, and the next, and your determination to seriously pay down your debt keeps getting pushed off. If you have a fixed monthly payment, you can't. You're committed. Also, if you have many credit cards, juggling payments on all of them can get complex and confusing. It's easy to lose track of how much you owe and to budget for payments. At worst, when there are many bills to pay you may forget one. (Personally I now have 3 bank cards, an airline card, and 2 store cards, and managing them is getting out of hand. I have good reasons for having so many cards: the airline card and the store cards give me special discounts. But it's confusing to keep track of.) As to adding $3,000 to the consolidation loan: Very, very bad idea. You are basically saying, \"\"I have to start seriously paying down my debt ... tomorrow. Today I need a some extra cash so I'm going to borrow just a little bit more, but I'm going to get started paying it off next month.\"\" This is a trap, and the sort of trap that leads people into spiraling debt. Start paying off debt NOW, not at some vague time in the future that never seems to come.\"",
"Before we were married my wife financed a car at a terrible rate. I think it was around 20%. When trying to refinance it the remaining loan was much larger than the value of the car, so no one was interested in refinancing. I was able to do a balance transfer to a credit card around 10%. This did take on a bit of risk, which almost came up when the car was totaled in an accident. Fortunately the remaining balance was now less than the value of the car, otherwise I would have been stuck with a credit card payment and no vehicle.",
"Some things you should consider: Balance Transfer Debt Consolidation If you get approved for the Citibank 2 year interest free credit card on balance transfers, you will need another loan of $18K to consolidate your other debt. If you cannot get approval for the credit card you may need to get consolidation loan approval for your full $35K of debt. This approval again will depend on your income and your ability to make repayments. As it sounds like you don't have any assets, you may have to get an unsecured loan which comes with higher interest rates. Remember a consolidation loan is only worthwhile if you can get an interest rate lower than your current interest rates and if you pay as much as possible to reduce the term of the loan and the total interest you end up paying. You haven't given the interest rate for the consolidation loan, but lets assume you could get one at 12% p.a. over a 3 year period. For a loan of $18K you would have to pay $138 per week. Together with the $163.50 per week you would have to pay the credit card balance transfer, your total repayments per week for the first 2 years would be $301.50, then $138 per week for the 3rd year. This option sounds affordable, but without knowing what your income and current expenses are it is hard for others to determine for sure. If you had to get a consolidated loan for the full $35K at say 12% p.a. then your weekly repayments would be $268.30 over a 3 year period. This looks to be achievable too. Being Disciplined As you said you will need to be very disciplined in order to get out of this debt. You will need to set up a proper budget and watch every dollar you spend. You will need to restrict any spending on credit cards and getting any new personal loans. You say you will keep a small credit limit to pay for ongoing online payments for courses. Make sure you uses a 55 day interest free credit card (preferably with no annual fee) for this and pay the full amount due every month, so you don't end up paying any more interest on this card. In case of death would my debts pass on to my next of kin or family? If your debts are unsecured (which personal loans and credit cards are), then no your next of kin or family will not have to pay your debts if you die. When you die any money or assets (which would be sold) in your estate will first be used to pay off any of your debts. If there is not enough money or assets in your estate then your remaining debts may not need to be paid. Other people are only responsible for paying your debts after you die if: Bankruptcy An alternative to Bankruptcy is a Part 9 debt agreement, as I mentioned in my answer to your previous question. In this case you will still need to pay off at least part of the debt but will not be charged any further interest on the debt. This is not as severe as Bankruptcy, but as I mentioned before, should not be taken lightly. Like bankruptcy, a debt agreement will appear on your credit file for seven years and your name will be listed on the National Personal Insolvency Index forever. Bankruptcy or a Debt Agreement should only be used as a last resort if you are unable to undertake any other option. And remember, even if you do take this course of action, you will still need to be disciplined now and into the future, so you don't end up in a similar situation again.",
"I am super sorry about your divorce and nod to you for taking care of your kids and spouse. This may sound super snarky, although not my intention, but you have an income problem. Despite making almost double the national average, you are supporting two households, and live in a high cost of living area. (BTW been there, done that and also in IT.) The best way to avoid paying CC interest is to pay them off, and cut them up. Some might poo-poo the idea as you can earn some $ by getting CC rebates, but you are not in that mode right now. Consolidations, and balance transfers are a losing game as you can probably feel the November deadline looming. If I was you, I would get a second job, even if it was something like pumping gas. Making an extra $500/month increases your balance reduction by 650%. Sell stuff. Recently an older version of Visual Studio, that was sitting unused on my shelf, went for $400 on Ebay. The best way to solve this problem is through sweat equity. There are no easy answers. It sucks, but putting your big boy pants on and being prepared to work 20 hours of the day is the easiest way out of this. If you do this you will learn a lesson about CC utilization that most don't learn.",
"\"Congratulations on recognizing your problem and getting serious about paying down your debt. That's the first step. If you have a loan with 80% interest, yes, get that paid off as quickly as possible. Much better to be paying even the outrageous 20% on a credit card than the astounding 80%. As others have noted, if you can get a consolidation loan or refinance that 80% to something more realistic, do it and do it as soon as possible. Heck, if you have the credit limit, use the credit card to off the 80% loan. 20% on a credit card is better than 80%. Of course you may not have enough credit limit to do that. Cash-back rewards are nice if you are paying off the credit card balance each month. But in your case, you're not. 25% with a 2% cash back reward means you're still paying 23% the first month and 25% every month after that. That's worse than 20%. Remember you pay the interest on your balance every month that you don't pay it off, while a cash-back is a one-time thing. So if you're not going to pay off the balance, AT BEST a cash back reward could be effectively subtracted from the interest rate. 20% with a 2% cashback is effectively somewhere between 18% and 20%. If you're comparing 20% with 2% cashback to 19%, could be complicated to figure out which is better. But it's clearly worse than anything more than 20%. Besides that, you don't say what your total debt is in relation to your income. If you have a lot of debt, I'd say first thing is to figure out what you can do to cut your expenses. Lots of things that people call \"\"fixed expenses\"\" aren't really fixed at all, they just take some effort to cut. Like if you have a big expensive house and you're paying a large mortgage, you can (probably) cut that by selling the place and moving to a cheaper house. (I say \"\"probably\"\" because the housing market may make it impossible to sell for enough to improve your situation.) If you have large heating bills, you can turn the thermostat down and get used to wearing a sweater around the house. Etc. Final note: I've talked to a fair number of people with debt problems, and I often hear them say, \"\"Yes, I really need to cut my spending and start paying off these debts. And I intend to ... right after I buy this one last thing that I really really want.\"\" But of course after that there's one more vital purchase, and then another, etc. Avoid falling into this trap.\"",
"Dude- my background is in banking specifically dealing with these scenarios. Take my advice-look for a balance transfer offer-credit card at 0%. Your cost of capital is your good credit, this is your leverage. Why pay 4.74% when you can pay 0%. Find a credit card company with a balance transfer option for 0%. Pay no interest, and own the car outright. Places to start; check the mail, or check your bank, or check local credit unions. Some credit unions are very relaxed for membership, and ask if they have zero percent balance transfers. Good Luck!",
"I would take a closer look at each provider. I have one credit-card provider who when there is a large portion of credit available, they frequently offer promotions on balance transfers so you fill that credit, sometimes it can be 0% for xx months, or a very low % until paid off in full. If this is the case clear that card fully and balance transfer the remainder to get an even lower interest to make the repayments eaier to clear.",
"If you are now in a better position to pay your debts, the wise move for your long-term credit is to consolidate any high-interest debt that remains and pay it off as quickly as possible. This may not be possible depending on your situation, but one way to get such consolidation loans is to have a parent with good credit cosign as guarantor on the consolidation loan. The only way your credit will recover is if you establish a good history of payments over the next seven years. Frankly I wouldn't cosign a loan with a family member who made the same decisions you have made, because I wouldn't want to put my own credit at risk, but I might loan the money directly, which would ease the pain for that family member, but it wouldn't help their credit going forward. This may not be a popular opinion, but without any details, it's hard for me to agree that any of your creditors are being greedy when they threaten a judgment. They loaned you the money in good faith, and now you are attempting to negotiate a change of terms. Are they greedy because the interest rates are too high? Maybe you were a bad risk when they loaned the money and the rates reflected the risk of losing some portion of the money. The fact that you are trying to discharge some portion of that debt vindicates any high rates charged.",
"While C/C's have 0% interest this a good mechanism to manage debt. But they expect you will pile up a large debt and at then of the interest free period you will get hammered. So plan your exit strategy. Plan to pay off the 0% cards at the end of the int free period and pay the other cards down. Alternatively, What you could do is pay off the other cards now by drawing down on the 0% card if its possible. Then.all your debt is at 0% int. Also you are consolidating your debt into 1 account. When the int free period is over move the debt into a single personal loan if you don't plan on paying it all off immrdiatley In the meantime put you savings into an interest bearing account to maximize the value of your savings.",
"If it were me, I'd be debt free today, Monday, at latest. 100K-(53K+31.2K) = 15.8K would be my bank balance by this afternoon. I am not sure why you would count 6K of your daughter's money as yours to use. Either it is her money, or yours, not both. If you still want debt, which I think is silly, you might try to refi your home with a home equity loan. That loan would be in first position, at a fixed rate, and for a fixed term. Regions bank did some thing like this for a person with excellent credit and plenty of equity. They got a 7 year loan at 2.6% when the prevailing interest rate on a 15 year was about a point higher.",
"You should check the details of those balance transfers - they typically have a 3 to 5 % 'one-time fee', which means you pay nearly a year's interest right away. And then every time you transfer the total on again. Also, this fee gets added to the credit card total, and it is possibly considered paid last (after you paid off the completed transferred balance), so it cost interest for the whole time (and that interest is different, maybe 19.99 % or worse). It is probably a better idea to refinance for 5 years at <3%, and they pay off as fast as possible.",
"\"Plus one to Alexandre for pointing out this is possible. It is also possible to run with scissors, and I would recommend neither. Your money problems are very small and doing something so dramatic to solve them will probably put you in a worse financial decision. Why would you put your home, at risk, to pay off such a small amount (less than 5K)? The \"\"one payment\"\" or consolidation mantra, for a person like you, will often lead a person into reoccurring the same debt and having the consolidation loan. You don't need one payment you need no payments. First off stop borrowing. Second increase your income by working more or selling stuff. You might want to clean some houses, baby sit, or mow some lawns instead of the traditional job. Third decrease your spending. Let your loved ones know it will be a lean Christmas this year. Cut cable as you won't have time to watch TV anyway. If you do all that could you find $1000 per month? I bet you could find more. Doing all that and you will be done in 5 months and still own your home outright. You are a great candidate to pay off your bills by the snowball method, or smallest to largest. While it may not be, on paper, the most mathematically efficient it helps people with motivation and hope. It sounds like you could use that. List your bills smallest to largest and pay off the smallest first while paying minimums on the rest. You can do it!\"",
"I'll add a little to the already great advice here. It certainly sounds like you are in need of consolidation here. Having 11 different cards vying for your attention sounds like a nightmare to manage. I also concur that it is a bad idea to cash out your retirement accounts to deal with this. I know it's frustrating to have the debt hanging over your head (I have student loans I'm personally working on) but getting a loan to consolidate that level of noise sounds like a much smarter move that can help greatly if you have high interest cards (most likely the case here). Since you mentioned that you are not interested in selling the house, have you considered a home equity loan to consolidate this? Best of luck to you.",
"Sometimes there are credit cards that offer a (promotional) 0% APR on transfers with no transfer fees. It can be a good option to move the money to one of these if you're disciplined enough to keep hacking away at the debt before the APR jumps.",
"Keep paying down the bills. Attack them by balance (lowest first) or by interest rate (highest first). Talk to a local chapter of the National Foundation for Credit Counseling to see if they have any ideas. Perhaps you are a candidate for bankruptcy or some other drastic measure if you have a steady living situation and steady employment. (I wouldn't know, but honestly if your score can't get much worse so there isn't much to lose) You are doing the best you can and because you care enough, you will do great and adjust going forward. As a dad myself, don't worry about paying for your kids school or showering them with entertainment. Of course they need some, but time with you and knowing you are always there and stable will mean much more than buying their books. The best gift you can give your kid is a future where they don't have to support you, which is sadly more common than we sometimes think.",
"Sounds like you are drowning in debt. Why not just stop paying? It will ruin your credit, but eventually you might be able to settle for much less than you owe and a reasonable interest rate. You will then have a long road to recover you credit, but IMHO this road is much longer and stressful. Hey, you are paying a high interest rate because you are EXPECTED to default. If you were expected to pay back your rates would be lower!",
"If your parents can afford to shell out $1,250 a month for 5 years, they would pretty much have the debt paid off, provided the credit card companies don't start playing games with rates. If that payment is too high, maybe you could kick in $5k every few months to knock the principal down. If they think the business can keep puttering along without losing more money, that may be the way to go. Five years is long enough that the business or property may have recovered some value. Another option, depending on the value of the home, could be a reverse mortgage. I don't know how the economy has affected those programs, but that might be a good option to get the debt cleared away. My grandfather was in a similar position back in the 70's. He owned taverns in NYC that catered to an industrial clientele... the place was booming in the 60s and my grandfather and his brother owned 4 locations at one point. But the death of his brother, post-Vietnam malaise, suburban exodus and shutting of industry really hurt the business, and he ended up selling out his last tavern in 1979 -- which was a dark hour in NYC history and real estate values. A few years later, that building sold for a tremendous amount of money... I believe 10x more. I don't know whether there was a way for his business to survive for another 5-7 years, as I was too young to remember. But I do remember my grandfather (and my father to this day) being melancholy about the whole affair. It's hard to have to work part-time in your 60's and be constantly reminded that your family business -- and to some degree a part of your life -- ended in failure. The stress of keeping things afloat when you're broke is tough. But there's also a mental reward from getting through a tough situation on your own. Good luck!",
"Strictly from a fastest payback standpoint, the rule is to make all minimum payments and send any extra funds to the highest interest loan next. This will result in the lowest interest paid each year. The decision to consolidate depends on the impact it will have to both your payment and overall payoff schedule. It sounds like your priority might need to be cash flow and not overall savings. e.g. taking a 4% loan that has a high payment, but stretching it over more time can lower the payment, even at a bit higher rate. You just need to be aware of the cost and decide based on what you can live with. I hope you are in a good field that would see improvements to your income over these next few years.",
"I am sure everyone is different, but it has helped me a great deal. I have had several card balances go up and the interest on those per month was more than $200 in just interest combined. I transferred the balances over to 0% for 15 months – with a fee, so the upfront cost was about $300. However, over the next 15 months at 0% I'm saving over $200 each month. Now I have the money to pay everything off at 14 months. I will not be paying any interest after that, and I cut up all of my cards so I won't rack up the bills with interest on them anymore. Now, if I can't buy it with a debit card or cash, I don't get it. My cards went up so high after remodeling a home so they were justified. It wasn't because I didn't pay attention to what I could afford. My brother, on the other hand, has trouble using credit cards properly and this doesn't work for him.",
"Not sure if this is possible... It is possible! It is called a balance transfer card and most of the major credit card companies offer them. It is possible to save a significant amount on interest during the grace period. However... Is this a viable option? Not really. Any card will charge you an upfront fee of 3% to 5% of the balance you are transferring. This really only buys you some time in case you are about to fall behind on payments. For many people it's just a way to shuffle around debt, digging themselves a little deeper into consumer debt with each transfer.",
"\"There's a cliche, \"\"out of the frying pan and into the fire\"\". I've never had the occasion to use it till now. I understand some people find they have a dozen cards and struggle to keep organized. An extra percent or two seems worth the feeling of just one payment to make. In your case, 3 checks (or online payments) per month shouldn't push you to a bad decision. Twice the interest? No thanks. Just make the minimum payments on the two lower rate cards, and pay all you can to the highest rate. Do all you can to cut expenses. The only way out of this is to change your habits avoiding what got you here in the first place.\"",
"My concern is that just moving the balance will make you feel like you've accomplished something, when you really haven't. Sure you'll save on interest but that just reduces the rate at which you're bleeding and doesn't heal the wound. It's entirely likely that you'll feel freed by the reduced balance on the original card, ignore the transferred balance since you aren't paying any interest on it, and soon you'll have two cards that are maxed out. I would instead look at getting your expenses under control. Make sure you have the start of an emergency fund - 1-2k depending on your family situation. If you are single start with 1k; if you have kids bump it up to 2k or maybe a little more just to avoid charging any expenses. Get on a written budget, and don't spend any money in the next month that is not accounted for. Then you can figure out how much you can afford to put towards the credit card. That will also tell you how much interest you're going to pay. The only way I would recommend the balance transfer is if the interest savings (after the balance transfer fee) reduced the time it takes to pay off the card by two or more months (since one month isn't going to make a big difference interest-wise), and you immediately cancelled the original card, and cut up both cards (including the new one), making payments by mail or online. Other than that, the interest saved after the balance transfer fee probably isn't worth the risk of being in a worse situation on the other side.",
"Look for offers for 0% (or low) APR on balance transfers. It is more likely to get a promotional APR on balance transfer, than to lower the APR you already have. Of course, try to pay off the balance as long as you're in the period of the promotion, because otherwise you'll end up paying the high rate again. If you cannot get such an offer (low credit etc) - then just try to pay off ASAP and start rebuilding your credit, not much workarounds there. BTW: When you consider the balance transfer promotions - look at 3 things: The promotion period - when it ends, so that you'd know how much time you have to pay it off. The balance transfer fee - usually the balance transfer itself is not free, and you pay 3-5% on the transfer. If you have 0% APR for 12 months, it makes it effectively 5% APR (for the 5% fee), if the period is lesser - the APR is higher. Take that into the account. The APR after the promotion, in case you can't pay off in that time frame.",
"\"Better suggestion: Refinance into a lower rate mortgage. In the US right now you could cut that rate substantially with very little effort, unless you are a bad credit risk. Also: Not all mortgages permit use as a \"\"line of credit\"\" without additional fees, in addition to credit card transfer fees. (There is often a different kind of house loan, at a higher interest rate, if you really need that flexibility.) So this idea may not even be possible, or those fees may kill it, even before considering costs and risks on the credit card side. Generally, gimmicks don't work.\"",
"This can mean a few things to me. Some of which has been mentioned already. It can mean one (or all) of the following to me: You take out a new credit card and transfer ALL other credit balances to it. (Only good if you destroy the others, this is a 0% offer, AND you plan on paying this card off furiously.) You do the loan thing mentioned earlier. You go to a credit consolidation service who will handle your paying your payments and you send them one payment each month. (Highly discourage using them. A majority of them are shady, and won't get do what they say they will do. Check Better Business Bureau if you find yourself considering them as an option.) In the first two cases, you are just reducing the number of hands reaching into your bank account. But keep in mind, doing this is not the same as paying off debt. You can't borrow your way out. You can do this as part of your plan, but do so CAREFULLY.",
"You could look into refinancing with a bank or credit union. But to weed out options quickly, use a service like LendingTree, which can vet multiple options for you a whole lot more quickly than you could probably do yourself. (I don't work for, or get any benefit from LendingTree.) Whatever you do, try to do all the applying within a short span of time, as to not negatively affect your credit score (read here) by creating extraneous inquiries. Then again, if your credit sucks, you might not qualify for a re-fi. If you are turned down, make your payments on time for six months or so, and try again.",
"2% is a very low interest rate; you can do much better by investing your new found money on a 2 year CD, or short term bonds. You could pay the 0% card according to the terms as well. Therefore, considering the low rates of your cards, you should check into some safe investments with guaranteed return rates.",
"\"With the scenario that you laid out (ie. 5% and 10% loans), it makes no sense at all. The problem is, when you're in trouble the rates are never 5% or 10%. Getting behind on credit cards sucks and is really hard to recover from. The problem with multiple accounts is that as the banks tack on fees and raise your interest rate to the default rate (usually 30%) when you give them any excuse (late payment, over the limit, etc). The banks will also cut your credit lines as you make payments, making it more likely that you will bump over the limit and be back in \"\"default\"\" status. One payment, even at a slightly higher rate is preferable when you're deep in the hole because you can actually pay enough to hit principal. If you have assets like a house, you'll get a much better rate as well. In a scenario where you're paying 22-25% interest, your minimum payment will be $150-200 a month, and that is mostly interest and penalty. \"\"One big loan\"\" will usually result in a smaller payment, and you don't end up in a situation where the banks are jockeying for position so they get paid first. The danger of consolidation is that you'll stop triggering defaults and keep making your payments, so your credit score will improve. Then the vultures will start circling and offering you more credit cards. EDIT: Mea Culpa. I wrote this based on experiences of close friends whom I've helped out over the years, not realizing how the law changed in 2009. Back around 2004, a single late payment would trigger universal default on most cards, jacking all rates up to 30% and slashing credit lines, resulting in over the limit and other fees. Credit card banks generally apply payments (in order, to interest on penalties, penalties, interest on principal, principal) in a way that makes it very difficult to pay down principal for people deep in debt. They would also offer \"\"payment plans\"\" to entice you to pay Bank B vs. Bank A, which would trigger overlimit fees from Bank A. Another change is that minimum payments were generally 2% of statement balance, which often didn't cover the monthly finance charge. The new law changed that, resulting in a payment of 1% of balance + accrued interest. Under the old regime, consolidation made it less likely that various circumstances would trigger default, and gave the struggling debtor one throat to choke. With the new rules, there are definitely a smaller number of scenarios where consolidation actually makes sense.\"",
"\"Sometimes you need to do more than ask to have your rating reduced. You need to make it in their best interest (no pun intended) to do it. Find the lowest rate card and then tell the others you want to transfer your balance to that card and close the account (don't do it, it is an empty threat). I guarantee they will transfer you to a retention agent who will give you a better deal. From their perspective your current offer is getting 19% interest instead of 22%, why would they do that without some motivation? With the approach described above their options are get 19% interest instead of 0% interest. It is all about negotiation and the \"\"Retention agents\"\" have the most leverage to do so.\"",
"\"The question asked in your last paragraph (what's the downside) is answered simply; if you take out a loan and close the cards, that's a ding on your score because your leverage ratio on this portion of your credit jumps to 100% or more, and because you'll be reducing the average age of your lines of credit (one line of credit a few days old versus five lines of credit several years old each). If you take out the loan and don't close the accounts, it's one more line of credit, increasing your total credit, lowering your leverage, but making institutions more reluctant to give you any more credit until they see what you'll do with what you have. In either case, assuming you can get the loan at less than the average rate of the cards (that's actually not a guarantee; a lot of lenders will want APRs in the 20s or 30s even for a title loan or other collateralized loan), then your cost of capital will also go down. That gives you more of a gap of discretionary income that you can better use to \"\"snowball\"\" all this debt as you are planning. Another thing to keep in mind is that the minimum payment changes as the balance does. The minimum payment covers monthly interest at least, and therefore varies based on your interest rate (usually variable) and your balance (which will hopefully be decreasing). A constant payment over the current minimum, much like a more traditional amortization, would be preferable.\"",
"\"Several student loans are backed by government guarantee and this will allow you to get attractive rates. This may require them to consolidate the three classes of loans separately. Many commercial banks offer consolidation services, one example is Wachovia discussed at https://www.wellsfargo.com/student/private-loan-consolidation/ Other methods of \"\"consolidation\"\" are of course anything that pays off the original loan. If available, using a parent's home equity line of credit to pay of the loans and then paying back the parents can save money. An additional benefit of HELOC-style loans is that they are very flexible in their payment terms. For example you may pay $25 per year to keep the account open and then only be required to make interest payments. Links: https://origin.bankrate.com/finance/college-finance/faqs-on-student-loan-consolidation-1.aspx\"",
"I used to do this all the time but it's more difficult now. Just a general warning that this probably isn't a good idea unless you're very responsible with your money because it's easy to get yourself in a bad position if you're not careful. You can get a new credit card that does balance transfers and request balance transfer checks from them. Then just use one of those balance transfer checks to mail a payment to the loan you want to transfer. Make sure your don't use the entire credit line as the credit card will have the balance transfer fee put on it as well. You used to be able to find credit cards with 0% balance transfer fee but I haven't seen one of those in ages. Chase Slate is the lowest I've seen recently at 2%. Alternately, if you have a lot of expenses every month then it's easy to find a credit card where all purchases are 0% interest for a year or more and use that to pay every possible expense for a few months and use the money you'd normally use to pay for those expenses to pay off the original loan. If you're regular monthly expenses are high enough you can pay off the original loan quickly and then pay on the credit card with no interest as normal. The banks are looking to hook you so make sure you pay them off before the zero percent runs out or make sure you know what happens after it does. Normally the rate sky rockets. Also, don't use that card for anything else. Credit card companies always put payments towards the lowest interest rate first so if you charge something that doesn't qualify for 0% then it will collect interest until you've paid off the entire 0% balance which will likely take a while and cost you a lot of money. If you have to pay a balance transfer fee then figure out if it's less then you would have paid if you continued paying interest on the original loan. Good luck. I hope it works out for you.",
"\"The best thing to do is to completely pay off one credit card, then apply the left over to the highest interest card. After that, ALL of your expenses that can be put on a credit card, should be put on the one that you just paid off. At the end of the month, pay off a different credit card and the highest interest, and move all your purchasing to that card. Keep going around the circle until you are able to pay them all off. Doing this will be good for your credit score as the debt on the cards will now be \"\"new\"\". If you're really desperate to increase your credit score (e.g. refinancing a house) you can use balance transfers to temporarily make it appear that you have zero debt but it will cost you some money, typically balance transfers cost something like $35 + 2%.\"",
"\"A few points Yes, as a rule, it is better to pay down high interest accounts first, as this will yield lower cost in the long run. Credit card balance transfers usually come at a cost (typically something like \"\"3% or $50, whichever is higher\"\"). So instead of transferring the debt, maybe try purchasing items with your card instead of cash, and using the cash to pay down the debt. This has the added benefit of giving you points or cash back on the card (typically you won't get these for a balance transfer). Caveat: Only do this if you are very disciplined! It is very easy to run up high CC balances and forget to save the cash. You should leave a bit of unused credit line on your credit cards in case of emergencies. I'm doubting you can use your high interest loans in the same way.\"",
"\"It's not a bad strategy. I'd rather owe money at 4% interest than at 6-7%. However, there is something to consider. Consolidating debt into a new loan can backfire. When you have money borrowed at 7%, you want to get that paid off as quickly as possible. Once you have that converted to 4%, if you think, \"\"Now I can take my time paying off this debt,\"\" then you aren't really better off. In fact, if you take too long paying off the new loan, you might end up paying more interest than if you had kept the high interest loan and paid it as soon as possible. Don't lose your drive to get out of debt after you refinance. As far as how the student loans affect your debt-to-income ratio, I'm not sure; however, if they do count (I think they do), your ratio will not really be going up by taking out the new loan, since you are using the money to pay other debt. Make sure the new lender knows this, so they take that into consideration when making their decision. Overall, I like your strategy: pay off what you can right away (the car loan and the highest interest student loans) and reduce the interest on the rest. Just make sure that you continue to pay down that debt as quick as you can.\"",
"Without knowing your credit situation or your full budget it's a little difficult, but i'd go with the snowball method for now: It may seem like not a big deal to have this kind of debt but you really should be looking at it as if your walking around with your hair on fire. It's a HUGE emergency. Debt, especially looming CC debt with high rates, can make things worse (think water on grease fire) really quickly so the faster you get rid of it the better. Good luck!",
"\"Without knowing what the balances are, I associate \"\"uncomfortable\"\" with high, as in tens of thousands. What I would do: is 1) cut up the cards and stop using them, and 2) have some balance transfer offers in hand the next time you call to negotiate with the companies. Essentially, you will have to convince them that they will have to explain one of two things to their boss: why they lowered your rate or why you left. They can collect less interest from you or no interest from you. It's up to them. If they don't offer you something that's in the ballpark of your balance transfer offer, then bid them goodbye and complete the balance transfer. As far as paying them off, the top two modes of repayment are lowest balance first (aka snowball) or high interest rate first. Both methods are similar in that you pay minimums on all but the method's focus point. Whether it is lowest balance or highest interest rate, you pay ALL of your extra money on the lowest balance or the highest interest debt until it is gone and then you move onto the next one in the list. For what it's worth, I prefer the lowest balance method, you see progress faster.\"",
"I've kind of been there myself. I stretched my finances for the deposit on a house, and lived off my credit card for a few months to build up what I was short on the deposit. Add some unexpected car repairs, and I ended up with £10k on the card. The problem I had then was that interest on the card ran at around 20%, and although I could meet the interest payments I couldn't clear the £10k. I simply went and talked to my bank. In the UK there are some clear rules about banks giving customers a chance to restructure their debts. That's the BANK doing it, not some shady loan-shark. We went through my finances and established that in principle it was repayable. So I got a 2-year unsecured loan at around 5%, cleared the card, and spent the next 2 years paying off a loan that I could afford. My credit score is still aces. Forget the loan-sharks. Talk to your bank. If they're crap, talk to another bank. If no bank is going to help you, consider bankrupcy as per advice above. Debt restructuring companies are ALWAYS a con, no exceptions.",
"\"Paypal forbids using their credit card service to \"\"give yourself a cash advance or help others to do so\"\". For small ammounts you may get away with it but pushing $10K through a PayPal account is going to raise red flags. In the USA it seems that some cards allow balance transfers from other types of loan while others are restricted to credit cards only. So that is a possibility. Another option can be to find a card with a good deal on purchases. Then move your regular purchases to the card and use the money you would normally have spent on purchases to pay off the other loan. Remember credit cards can be either a very cheap way to borrow or a very expensive way. Which one they are depends on how good you are at negotiating the traps they set up for you. If you do use a credit card deal make sure you Is it overall a viable option? That depends on the details which are not specified in your hypothetical scenario incluing the persons credit rating , what the interest is like on the existing loan and what the expected time to repay the debt is.\"",
"If you want to work within that constraint, then I sincerely suggest you find a credit councilor. It may take you a while to dig out of debt, but with a little help from someone that knows the ropes, you can do it! Remember, even though you want to pay back those debts, many times the sky-rocketing interest rates work against you. Most of the good councilors know how to work the system to get these rates reduced, and sometimes even get the interest you've already accumulated reduced.",
"Gaining traction is your first priority. WARNING: as @JosephZambrano explains in his answer the tax penalty for withdrawing from a 401(k) can easily exceed the APR of the credit card making it a very bad strategy. Consult in-depth with a financial advisor to see before taking that path. As @JoeTaxpayer has noted a loan is another alternative. The 401k is no good to you if you can't have shelter or comfort in the mean time. The idea is to look at all the money as a single thing and balance it together. There is no credit and retirement, just a single target that you can hit by moving the good money to clear the bad. Consolidating the credit card debt somehow would be very wise if you can. Assuming it is 30% APR shrinking that quickly is the first priority. You may be able to justify a hardship withdrawal to finance the reduction/consolidation of the credit card. It may be worth considering negotiating a closure arrangement with a reduced principal. Credit card companies can be quite open to this as it gets their money back. You may also be able to negotiate a lower interest rate. You may be able to negotiate a non-credit-affecting debt consolidation with a debt consolidator. They want to make money and a 25K loan to a person with sound credit is a pretty good bet. Moving, buying a house, or any of that may just relocate the problem. You may be able to withdraw $25K from your 401k under hardship, pay the credit card, and come up with a payment plan for the medical debt. It's a retirement setback for sure, but retirement is an illusion with that credit card shark eating all of your hard-earned money. You gotta slay that beast quick. Again, be sure to fully analyze whether the penalty on the 401(k) withdrawal exceeds the APR of the credit card.",
"The U.S. Department of Ed offers Loan consolidation that you may want to take a look at: https://loanconsolidation.ed.gov/AppEntry/apply-online/appindex.jsp Going through a Government Agency as opposed to a private lender might reduce the burden (co-signers, collateral) you need to pass to get the loan.",
"Repairing your credit takes time. Companies that offer to do it for you (for money) generally succeed mostly at getting money from you. Nonprofit agencies will help you with advice and encouragement and will not want money from you. They may be able to help you apply for a consolidation loan, but to be honest that is rarely the best first step. Over time, you need to The last step may happen months or years after the first two.",
"I think you've made a perfectly valid suggestion, and, if your son is struggling somewhat financially now, one that may be very welcome. If you agree to forgive the debt at this time in lieu of a similar amount forgone in future inheritance, it will eliminate the never ending interest-only payments, free up $200+ a month for you son on a tight budget, and improve your own credit score once you pay off the credit line. It's also, in my opinion, a good idea to be open about this in advance with your other children heirs so that everyone will understand what is expected during the eventual probate. My paternal grandfather was the recipient of a great deal of financial largess from his wealthy mother during her life, and it was fully understood by him, her, and his siblings, that in exchange he would not share in her estate when she passed. He didn't, there were no problems, and he and his siblings stayed close for the rest of their lives.",
"\"Tough spot. I'm guessing the credit cards are a personal line of credit in their name and not the company's (the fact that the business can be liquidated separately from your parents means they did at least set up an LLC or similar business entity). Using personal debt to save a company that could have just been dissolved at little cost to their personal credit and finances was, indeed, a very bad move. The best possible end to this scenario for you and your parents would be if your parents could get the debt transferred to the LLC before dissolving it. At this point, with the company in such a long-standing negative situation, I would doubt that any creditor would give the business a loan (which was probably why your parents threw their own good money after bad with personal CCs). They might, in the right circumstances, be able to convince a judge to effectively transfer the debt to the corporate entity before liquidating it. That puts the debt where it should have been in the first place, and the CC companies will have to get in line. That means, in turn, that the card issuers will fight any such motion or decision tooth and nail, as long as there's any other option that gives them more hope of recovering their money. Your parents' only prayer for this to happen is if the CCs were used for the sole purpose of business expenses. If they were living off the CCs as well as using them to pay business debts, a judge, best-case, would only relieve the debts directly related to keeping the business afloat, and they'd be on the hook for what they had been living on. Bankruptcy is definitely an option. They will \"\"re-affirm\"\" their commitment to paying the mortgage and any other debts they can, and under a Chapter 13 the judge will then remand negotiations over what total portion of each card's balance is paid, over what time, and at what rate, to a mediator. Chapter 13 bankruptcy is the less damaging form to your parent's credit; they are at least attempting to make good on the debt. A Chapter 7 would wipe it away completely, but your parents would have to prove that they cannot pay the debt, by any means, and have no hope of ever paying the debt by any means. If they have any retirement savings, anything in their name for grandchildren's college funds, etc, the judge and CC issuers will point to it like a bird dog. Apart from that, their house is safe due to Florida's \"\"homestead\"\" laws, but furniture, appliances, clothing, jewelry, cars and other vehicles, pretty much anything of value that your parents cannot defend as being necessary for life, health, or the performance of whatever jobs they end up taking to dig themselves out of this, are all subject to seizure and auction. They may end up just selling the house anyway because it's too big for what they have left (or will ever have again). I do not, under any circumstance, recommend you putting your own finances at risk in this. You may gift money to help, or provide them a place to live while they get back on their feet, but do not \"\"give till it hurts\"\" for this. It sounds heartless, but if you remove your safety net to save your parents, then what happens if you need it? Your parents aren't going to be able to bail you out, and as a contractor, if you're effectively \"\"doing business as\"\" Reverend Gonzo Contracting, you don't have the debt shield your parents had. It looks like housing's faltering again due to the news that the Fed's going to start backing off; you could need that money to weather a \"\"double-dip\"\" in the housing sector over the next few months, and you may need it soon.\"",
"\"First, pay off the highest interest first. If you have 80%, pay it first. Paying off a card/loan with a lower rate, but a lower payment or a lower balance can help your mental capacity by having fewer things to pay. But, this should be a decision where things are similar, such as 20-25%, not 20-80%. What about any actual loans? Any loans with a fixed payment and a fixed amount? If you must continue to use CC while paying them off, use the one with the lowest interest rate. Call all of your debtors and ask for reduction in interest rate. This is not the option to take first... This is a strategic possibility and will cause credit score issues... If you are considering bankruptcy or not paying back some, then you have even more negotiation power. Consider calling them all and telling them that you only have a little bit of money and would like to negotiate a settlement with them. \"\"I have only a limited amount of money, and lots of debt. I will pay back whomever gives me the best deal.\"\" See what they say. They may not negotiate until you stop paying them for a few months... It is not uncommon to get them to reduce interest (even to 0%) and/or take a reduction in the amount due - up to 25 cents on the dollar. To do this, you might need to pay the amount all at once, so look into loans from sources like retirement, home equity, life insurance, family... Also, cut out all expenses. Cut them hard; cut until it hurts. Cut out the cell phone (get a pre-paid plan and/or budget $10-20/month), cut out all things like alcohol, tobacco, firearms, lottery, tattoos, cable tv, steak, eating out. Some people would suggest that you consider pets and finding them a new home. No games, no trips, no movies, no new clothes... Cut out soft drinks, candy, and junk food. Take precautions to stay healthy - don't wear shoes in the house, brush your teeth, take a multi vitamin, get exercise, eat healthy (this is not expensive, organic stuff, just regular groceries). Consider other ways to save, like moving in with family or friends. Having family or friends live with you and pay rent. Analyze costs like daycare vs. job income. Apply for assistance - there are lots of levels, and some don't rely on others, such as daycare. Consider making more money - new job, 2nd job, overtime, new career. Consider commute - walk, bike, take the bus. Work 4/10's. Telework. Make a list of every expense and prioritize them. Only keep things which are really necessary. Good Luck.\"",
"\"Here's what my wife and I did. First, we stopped using credit cards and got rid of all other expenses that we absolutely didn't need. A few examples: cable TV, home phone, high end internet - all shut off. We changed our cell phone plan to a cheap one and stopped going out to restaurants or bars. We also got rid of the cars that had payments on them and replaced them with ones we paid cash for. Probably the most painful thing for me was selling a 2 year old 'vette and replacing it with a 5 year old random 4 door. Some people might tell you don't do this because older cars need repairs. Fact is, nearly all cars are going to need repairs. It's just a matter of whether you are also making payments on it when they need them and if you can discipline yourself enough to save up a bit to cover those. After doing all this the only payments we had to make were for the house (plus electric/gas/water) and the debt we had accumulated. I'd say that if you have the option to move back into your parent's house then do it. Yes, it will suck for a while but you'll be able to pay everything off so much faster. Just make sure to help around the house. Ignore the guys saying that this tanks your score and will make getting a house difficult. Although they are right that it will drop your score the fact is that you aren't in any position to make large purchases anyway and won't be for quite some time, so it really doesn't matter. Your number one goal is to dig yourself out of this hole, not engage in activity that will keep you in it. Next, if you are only working part time then you need to do one of two things. Either get a full time job or go find a second part time one. The preference is obviously on the first, which you should be able to do in your spare time. If, for some reason, you don't have the tech skills necessary to do this then go find any part time job you can. It took us about 3 years to finally pay everything (except the house) off - we owed a lot. During that time everything we bought was paid for in cash with the vast majority of our money going to pay off those accounts. Once the final account was paid off, I did go ahead and get a credit card. I made very minor purchases on it - mostly just gas - and paid it off a few days before it was due each month. Every 4 months they increased my limit. After around 18 months of using that one card my credit score was back in the 700+ range and with no debt other than the mortgage. *note: I echo what others have said about \"\"Credit Repair\"\" companies. Anything they can do, you can too. It's a matter of cutting costs, living within your means and paying the bills. If the interest rates are killing you, then try to get a consolidation loan. If you can't do that then negotiate settlements with them, just get everything in writing prior to making a payment on it if you go this route. BTW, make sure you actually can't pay them before attempting to settle.\"",
"A couple of thoughts from someone who's kind of been there... Is the business viable at all? A lot of people do miss the jumping-off point where the should stop throwing good money after bad and just pull the plug on the business. If the business is not that viable, then selling it might not be an option. If the business is still viable (and I'd get advice from a good accountant on this) then I'd be tempted to try and pull through to until I'd get a good offer for the business. Don't just try to sell it for any price because times are bad if it's self-sustaining and hopefully makes a little profit. I does sound like their business is on the up again and if that's a trend and not a fluke, IMHO pouring more energy into (not money) would be the way to go. Don't make the mistake of buying high and selling low, so to speak. I'm also a little confused re their house - do they own it or do they still owe money on it? If they owe money on it, how are they making their payments? If they close the business, do they have enough income to make the payments still? Before they find another job, even if it's just a part-time job? As to paying off their debts or at least helping with paying them off, I'd only do that if I was in a financial position to gift them the money; anything else is going to wreak havoc with the family dynamics (including co-signing debt for them) and everybody will wish they didn't go there. Ask me how I know. Re debt consolidation, I don't think it's going to do much for them, apart from costing them more money for something they could do themselves. Bankruptcy - well, are they bankrupt or are they looking for the get-out-of-debt-free card? Sorry to be so blunt, but if they're so deep in the hole that they truly have no chance whatsoever to pay off their debt ever, then they're bankrupt. From what you're saying they're able to make the minimum payments they're not really what I'd consider bankrupt... Are your parents on a budget? As duffbeer703 said, depending on how much money the business is making they should be able to pay off the debt within a reasonable amount of time (which again doesn't make them bankrupt).",
"In a perfect the world, the most ideal solution would be to find a way to pay back all of your debt so that your credit will not be affected any further. Unfortunately, it does not work this way most of the time. Debt settlement is where you work with a creditor to settle your a credit card debt for less than the full amount owed. This could be a very viable solution for you instead of filing for bankruptcy. However, there are many scams out there when it applies to debt settlement so you must tread carefully. Debt settlement can only occur when you're behind on your payments. If you are currently paying off your payments successfully, the creditor has no obligation to settle when they think you should be able to pay it fully back.",
"Debt consolidation is basically getting all your debt into one loan. This is possibly more convenient, and lets you close the other accounts (in the case of credit cards, preventing you from incurring any more debt). Ideally, your consolidated debt will have a better interest rate, so it saves you money as well. If you're defaulting on your debt already, you're likely combining this process with some negotiation with your existing creditors.",
"Here is what I would do (my wife has done this and it worked great). Pay off one card. Pay down the other card then find a new card that offers a 0% period on balance transfers. They generally have between a 1%-5% fee with 3% being pretty typical. You will get probably 18-24 months of no interest. At the end of that period, provided it isn't paid off, just open another card and do another balance transfer. After you are done paying everything off get a card that offers cash back bonus and pay for everything using that card, pay the card off at the end of the month.",
"From my understanding by paying your bills more than 5 days late will not lead you into bankruptcy or stop you from getting a new loan in the future, however it may mean that lenders offer you credit at a higher interest rate. This of course would not help you as you are already struggling with your finances. However, no matter how bad you think things might be for you financially, there are always things you can do to improve your situation. Set a Budget The first thing you must do is to set a budget. List down all sources of income you receive each month, including any allowances. Then list all your sources of expenses and spending. List all your bills such as rent, telephone, electricity, car maintenance, credit card and other loans. Keep a diary for a month for all your discretionary spending - including coffees, lunches, and other odd bits and ends. You can also talk with your existing lenders and come to some agreement on reducing you interest rates on your debts and the repayments. But remember any reduction in repayments may increase your repayment period and the total interest you have to pay in the long term. If you need help setting up your budget here are some links to resources you can download to help you get started: Once you set up your budget you want your total income to be more than your total expenses. If it isn't you will be getting further and further behind each month. Some things you can do are to increase your income - get a job/second job, sell some unwanted items, or start a small home business. Some things you can do to reduce your expenses - make coffees and lunches at home before going out and buying these, pay off higher interest debts first, consolidate all your debts into a lower interest rate loan, reduce discretionary spending to an absolute minimum, cancel all unnecessary services, etc. Debt Consolidation In regards to a Debt Consolidation for your existing personal loans and credit cards into a single lower interest rate loan can be a good idea, but there are some pitfalls you should consider. Manly, if you are taking out a loan with a lower interest rate but a longer term to pay it off, you may end up paying less in monthly repayments but will end up paying more interest in the long run. If you do take this course of action try to keep your term to no longer than your current debt's terms, and try to keep your repayments as high as possible to pay the debt off as soon as possible and reduce any interest you have to pay. Again be wary of the fine print and read the PDS of any products you are thinking of getting. Refer to ASIC - Money Smart website for more valuable information you should consider before taking out any debt consolidation. Assistance improving your skills and getting a higher paid job If you are finding it hard to get a job, especially one that pays a bit more, look into your options of doing a course and improving your skills. There is plenty of assistance available for those wanting to improve their skills in order to improve their chances of getting a better job. Check out Centrelink's website for more information on Payments for students and trainees. Other Action You Can Take If you are finding that the repayments are really getting out of hand and no one will help you with any debt consolidation or reducing your interest rates on your debts, as a last resort you can apply for a Part 9 debt agreement. But be very careful as this is an alternative to bankruptcy, and like bankruptcy a debt agreement will appear on your credit file for seven years and your name will be listed on the National Personal Insolvency Index forever. Further Assistance and Help If you have trouble reading any PDS, or want further information or help regarding any issues I have raised or any other part of your financial situation you can contact Centrelink's Financial Information Service. They provide a free and confidential service that provides education and information on financial and lifestyle issues to all Australians. Learn how to manage your money so you can get out of your debt and can lead a much more comfortable and less stressful life into the future.",
"Why not just get another credit card and transfer the balance? Many of them will give you special perks like x months of no interest for doing so. Also, once you call to actually cancel the card you will see for sure whether they really have any power to negotiate rates. From their perspective 15% APR is more than 0%APR which is what they'd get if they lose your business.",
"I'm going to suggest a slightly different approach. Most answers seem to suggest paying off the lower rate card to clear it. Some answers / comments also talk about emergency funds. One risk of paying off a card is that the card issuer may choose to reduce your credit limit if they see you as high risk, to prevent you re-spending the money. If you don't trust yourself with the card then this could be a good thing (and remember you're always free to ask for a limit decrease). But if you want access to emergency funds, then I would suggest paying half onto each card. That way if one card cuts you off, you have a chance of still having access to the other in an emergency.",
"Does your company offer matching on 401(k) deposits? Are you depositing at least to the match? If not, that should be priority one. Kill the card, never pay that kind of interest. Ever. Why are you paying 5%? The 30 year rate is 4% right now, and even if you pay some closing costs, you'll recoup the money quickly. In general, borrowing to invest is a losing game. I agree, get rid of the HELOC as well. If you refine to 15 years, you can get 3.5%, and in 16 years won't regret the decision.",
"I wouldn't advocate it, but one reason to pay a lower interest rate is if you have $990 on a $1000 limit credit card with 6% interest and $5000 on a $15k limit card at 10% interest. Having $500 to pay in a month and putting it on the lower interest would free up a greater percentage of credit on that card and could potentially help your credit rating I believe. I think having $1000 on 10 different credit cards w/ $15k limit reflects better than $10k on one $15k card, regardless of interest rates. Personally I think that's dumb b/c having the extra credit available is an opportunity to get into trouble a lot easier.",
"For those who are looking to improve credit for the sake of being able to obtain future credit on better terms, I think a rewards credit card is the best way to do that. I recommend that you only use as many cards as you need to gain the best rewards. I have one card that gives 6% back on grocery purchases, and I have another card that gives 4% back on [petrol] and 2% back on dining out. Both of those cards give only 1% back on all other purchases, so I use a third card that gives 1.5% back across the board for my other purchases. I pay all of the cards in full each month. If there was a card that didn't give me an advantage in making my purchases, I wouldn't own it. I'm generally frugal, so I know that there is no psychological disadvantage to paying with a card. You have to consider your own spending discipline when deciding whether paying with cards is an advantage for you. In the end, you should only use debt when you can pay low interest rates (or as in the case of the cards above, no interest at all). In the case of the low interest debt, it should be allowing you to make an investment that will pay you more by having it sooner than the cost of interest. You might need a car to get to work, but you probably don't need a new car. Borrow as little as you can and repay your loans as quickly as you can. Debt can be a tool for your advantage, but only if used wisely. Don't be lured in by the temptation of something new and shiny now that you can pay for later.",
"One thing I would look into is getting a fixed rate home equity loan for a short term. Not a line of credit, but a home equity loan. The main benefit is they typically offer no closing costs. You can get a very low rate provided you move the loan into first position (replace your current mortgage). I know someone who got a 7 year fixed Home Equity Loan, from Regions Bank, for 2.62% no closing costs.",
"The key word you are looking for is that you want to refinance the loan at a lower rate. Tell banks that and ask what they can offer you.",
"\"I had to apply for an American Express card, which was also rejected. Then I had searched for a Marbles Credit Card Stop applying for credit cards/loans. Doing so is just making your credit rating worse. Credit agencies will downgrade your credit rating if they see lots of signs of credit checking. It's a sign you're desperately looking for credit, which you are...! 44.9% APR This is very expensive credit. You can get personal loans on the high street for 3-4%. 44.9% is really bad value. You're simply going to make the situation worse. Am I taking off a loan from website as amingos loans to help me build up my credit rating Again this is 44% interest! You also need a guarantor. So you're not only going to get yourself in trouble but a family member too: don't do this! This will only help your credit rating if you pay it back successfully, which given your situation seems like a risk. Contact the Money Advice Service or the National Debt Line. Explain your situation in detail to them. They are a government-backed service designed for people in your situation. They will offer practical advice and can even help negotiate with your creditors, etc. Here's some general advice about getting out of debt from Money Saving Expert Traditional debt help says 'never borrow your way out of a debt problem'. But this ignores the varying cost of different debts. The MoneySaving approach is: \"\"Never borrow more to get out of a debt problem.\"\"\"",
"I see some merit in the other answers, which are all based on the snowball method. However, I would like to present an alternative approach which would be the optimal way in case you have perfect self-control. (Given your amount of debt, most likely you currently do not have perfect self-control, but we will come to that.) The first step is to think about what the minimum amount of emergency funds are that you need and to compare this number with your credit card limit. If your limits are such that your credit cards can still cover potential emergency expenses, use all of the 4000$ to repay the debt on the loan with the higher interest rate. Some answer wrote that Others may disagree as it is more efficient to pay down the 26%er. However, if you pay it all of within the year the difference only comes to $260. This is bad advice because you will probably not pay back the loan within one year. Where would you miraculously obtain 20 000$ for that? Thus, paying back the higher interest loan will save you more money than just 260$. Next, follow @Chris 's advice and refinance your debt under a lower rate. This is much more impactful than choosing the right loan to repay. Make sure to consult with different banks to get the best rate. Reducing your interest rate has utmost priority! From your accumulated debt we can probably infer that you do not have perfect self-control and will be able to minimize your spending/maximize your debt repayments. Thus, you need to incentivize yourself to follow such behavior. A powerful way to do this is to have a family member or very close friend monitor your purchase and saving behavior. If you cannot control yourself, someone else must. It should rather be a a person you trust than the banks you owe money.",
"\"A drop in credit score of 300 is pretty significant, right? You describe the cause of this as \"\"unfortunate circumstances\"\". Lets say you observe a mother giving a small child a ball to play with in the median of a busy interstate. Once the inevitable happens, would you also describe that as \"\"unfortunate circumstances\"\"? Because really it is the same thing. You overextended yourself and did not consider risk in the decision to borrow money. This may sound harsh, but you have proven that you cannot handle credit. So your solution is to borrow more? That makes no sense. The best thing you can do for your credit score is to reduce, then eliminate all debt.\"",
"I can't help you with consolidation, but I'd suggest automating as much of the payments as possible. If not, you might take a look at any of the numerous online banks that have online bill pay, and open an account with them. (E.g. ING Direct, Ally, etc.) You can set up the online account to pull from your current checking/savings account, and then make payments from that online account to your loans. When you have that set up, if there is some extra payment you want to make, you can set up an automatic additional periodic payment to get rid of one lender at a time until everything is paid off.",
"Others have covered the usual vehicles for getting money out of a property. There's another category of home loan called a hard money loan. It would take a lot of inquiries to find a hard money loan given your needs, but chances are its doable. The terms can be onerous, and hard money lenders don't mess around when it comes to foreclosing after a few missed payments. It's an off-the-radar industry and the private lenders and specialized trustees operate together with strike-force precision. Trustees normally should be trust-able by borrower and lender, but in the case I describe below, one man owned the small company that lent, and the small company that acted as trustee. Borrower beware. Yet, if your credit score and income are dismal, but your home equity is great, hard money is the only way to borrow against your home. In making hard money loans, lenders don't consider your credit score or income, just how much equity is in the property. I daresay they hope you'll default. They don't always hang onto the loans. If you look like a payer instead of someone they can foreclose on, they might sell the loan to someone who wants a stable monthly income. You don't know a thing about that person. A Cautionary Tale: *Check out HankandHelen.blogspot.com for a currently-unfolding saga, in which an elderly couple's grandson convinced them to let him take title to their house, borrow against it, invest the proceeds, and share the profits. It didn't work that way. He went through hard-money lenders. He borrowed $360,000 and then $65,000. Those were mysteriously paid off (total mystery at this point), and he borrowed $47,000. About a year later, he lost the house by defaulting the $47,000 loan. He was only about $2000 behind in payments when the trustee issued a notice of default, followed by a notice of sale. The trustee put the place up for auction, which didn't require a court order: that's the way it is in California and many western states, and a few others. The hard money lender bought the loan at auction for $83,000, and a home worth about $800,000 no longer belonged to the grandson. A fundraiser brought in about $120,000 and the couple bought a mobile home in a mobile home park. The acre of land and swimming pool they used to own will be for sale soon, or possibly demolished for a mansion to be built. (House in the area go for about $2.5M when improved with very large, new houses.)* I poke around PropertyShark.com when I see a house bought cheaply at a foreclosure auction. Quite often the (former) borrower had inherited the house, treated it like a piggy bank, defaulted, and boom--no more house. It never makes sense to put a house at risk for a small amount like $5000. If you can't pay those credit card bills, the lenders can hound you and maybe get a court order to extract something from your checking account every month, but they can't take your belongings. When you sign a deed of trust or mortgage, you're giving a third party the right to kick you out of your home and take possession of it. You don't have any say in the matter. You might go to court, and say whatever you feel like saying, but if you owe many payments and can't pay them immediately, you're very likely to be out of luck. Someone mentioned paying off credit card balances with the highest interest rates first. That's done by throwing whatever cash you have at them while paying the minimum on the lower-rate balances. That's financially sound, but there's a technique that turns out to be more motivating for some, which is attacking the lowest balance first. It leads to the quickest reduction in the number payments you're required to make every month, and quickly lets you add the money you were applying to the smallest balance to the payment you make on the next-smallest balance. (Close each card as you pay it off if you don't want to accumulate debt again.) P.S. I don't know what your home's feed is, so I didn't address that. If it's some kind of rental income, every lender I have encountered credits 75% of the current monthly rent toward your gross income. They assume there will be vacancies and other costs.",
"Pay it all off now before you change your mind. Having an emergency fund is important but that assumes you'll have the discipline to leave it alone. Obviously, you don't or you wouldn't have amassed $36k in cc debt. Regardless of the rates, your icome or any other factor, that's just way too much and a pretty good indication that you've got problems managing money. Pay them off now while you still can!",
"First of all a big thumbs up for Ben's answer. A few small things you can do to help you on your way. Hopefully you are not more in debt that 6 months of salary in debt because that is a really tough road. first thing you need to do is get some professional help. The National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC) offers free or low-cost debt counseling to help you through the process. Visit them at NFCC.org or call 1-800-388-2227 to find a local affiliate office near you. You might want to only use cash for a while. If not and you have a credit card with no balance always use that card because it will be interest free. Remember if you use credit cards as a payment system and not credit, you actually get free interest. If you roll even a penny over into the next statement you are paying interest day one of each purchase. Pay credit cards with highest interest rate first an pay minimums to others This one I like the best. As you get money pay your credit card. You interest is being compounded daily. Pay your cards when you have money, not when they are due. Have a mindset that reminds how much something is really going to cost you If you plan on taking 3 years to get out of debt and you buy something for $100 that is really costs you $156.08 Three years of compound 16% interest. 5b. Conversely if you sell something for $100 on eBay that is like selling something for $156.08."
] |
[
"Are you doing the right thing? Yes, paying back some of the expense of college is a great way to show your gratitude. Could your sister also pitch in a little to help pay the debt down? Will you get approved for a $30,000 unsecured loan? You don't mention your credit rating but that will have an effect obviously. You might consider visiting a credit union with your father and co-signing a loan since it is his debt that you are assuming. You might still want to write a loan for your dad to sign even if he isn't co-signed on a loan. This could protect you in case of his death if there are other assets to divide. If you are not approved for a loan, you could also simply join your dad in paying down the highest-rate cards first and have a loan agreement for him to pay back that money if/when it is possible. You've mentioned that you have no collateral. There aren't many options for loans with no collateral. Your dad's bank or a credit union might consider a debt consolidation loan with you as a co-signer. That's why I mentioned going to a credit union. Talking to a loan officer at a local financial institution will make it easier to get approved. If they see that you are taking responsible steps to pay off the debt, that reduces your credit risk. If you do get a debt consolidation loan, they will probably ask your dad to close some credit card accounts.",
"I agree with you that you need to consolidate this debt using a loan. It may be hard to find a bank or credit organization that will give you an unsecured personal loan for that much money. I know of one, called Lending Club (Disclaimer - I'm an investor on this platform. Not trying to advertise, it's just the only place I know of off the top of my head) that facilitates loans like this, but instead of a bank financing the loan, the loan is split up accross hundreds of investors who each contribute a small amount (such as $25). They have rates anywhere between 5-30%, based on your credit profile(s), and I believe they have some loan amounts that go up to the area that you're discussing. Regarding buying the house - The best thing you can do when trying to buy a house is to save up a 20% downpayment, if at all possible. Below this amount, you may be asked to pay for 'PMI' - Private Mortgage Insurance. This is a charge that doesn't go away for quite a while (until you've paid them 20% of the appraised value of the home), where you pay a premium because you didn't have the 20% downpayment for the house. I would suggest you try to eliminate your credit card debt as soon as possible, and would recommend the same for your father. Getting your utilization down and reconsolidating the large debts with a loan will help to reduce interest charges and get you a reasonable, fixed payment. Whether you decide to pay off your own balances using your savings account is up to you; if it were me, personally, I'd do so immediately rather than trying to pay it off over time. But if you lose money to taxes by withdrawing the money from your 'tax free savings account', it may not be a beneficial situation. Treat debt, especially credit card debt, like an emergency at all times, and you'll find yourself in a better place as a result. Credit card debt and balances are and should be temporary, and their rates and fees are structured that way. If, for any reason, you expect that a credit card's balance will remain for an extended period of time, you may want to consider whether it would be advantageous for you to consolidate the debt into a loan, instead."
] |
8
|
How to deposit a cheque issued to an associate in my business into my business account?
|
[
"566392",
"65404"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"65404",
"188893",
"536686",
"564553",
"309023",
"521540",
"261856",
"184697",
"264075",
"268026",
"213331",
"316359",
"489199",
"466317",
"193830",
"388147",
"216200",
"406109",
"590102",
"301833",
"508754",
"346537",
"197862",
"133833",
"507287",
"278653",
"165397",
"377521",
"91707",
"389953",
"138934",
"317569",
"318108",
"590837",
"29372",
"556021",
"1066",
"270339",
"36917",
"528661",
"508960",
"116030",
"342212",
"439540",
"289844",
"473017",
"212713",
"566392",
"66991",
"176383",
"42032",
"529879",
"272807",
"32092",
"299578",
"81530",
"308938",
"480238",
"25397",
"266840",
"3336",
"501230",
"596549",
"45078",
"400230",
"561764",
"248624",
"48840",
"526817",
"15473",
"489093",
"576362",
"331384",
"460577",
"596427",
"188167",
"591416",
"152027",
"334902",
"171242",
"302893",
"356035",
"391420",
"355686",
"221061",
"570960",
"287899",
"187790",
"413229",
"251700",
"80538",
"357738",
"309928",
"514687",
"168667",
"196997",
"333616",
"94957",
"494666",
"100764"
] |
[
"Just have the associate sign the back and then deposit it. It's called a third party cheque and is perfectly legal. I wouldn't be surprised if it has a longer hold period and, as always, you don't get the money if the cheque doesn't clear. Now, you may have problems if it's a large amount or you're not very well known at the bank. In that case you can have the associate go to the bank and endorse it in front of the teller with some ID. You don't even technically have to be there. Anybody can deposit money to your account if they have the account number. He could also just deposit it in his account and write a cheque to the business.",
"Assuming it's your business, endorse the check as yourself and your DBA name, payable to your personal account",
"\"If your son endorses the check or better still, endorses it with \"\"for deposit only\"\" and places the account number in the endorsement, it's likely the bank will accept it for deposit. In this manner, you are not putting it in your account, you are putting it in his. I have a family member perform this action occasionally with zero complications and she does not have an account at the same bank.\"",
"\"If the cheque is not crossed, then your friend can write \"\"payable to [your name]\"\" above his signature when he endorses it. If it is crossed, you'll have to deposit it into his account. Given that one can deposit cheques at ATMs, this shouldn't require his presence. Just make sure he endorses it before you leave! It also might take a few more days to clear.\"",
"\"Depending on how the check was made out, you may be able to file a DBA (\"\"doing business as\"\"), which would give you the business name locally. Then open an account under that name and deposit the check. Or simply go back to the customer and say \"\"hey, I don't have yhe company bak account open yet; could I exchange this check for one made out to me personally?\"\" That's how I've been handling hobby income under a company name. (I really do ned to file that DBA!)\"",
"If the check is made out to him, he will have to endorse it. Which means that at some point he will have to physically have the check in his hands. At which point, he could probably just deposit it himself. If there's some problem getting the check to him for him to sign it, you could call the bank and ask if they'll accept it for deposit to his account without a signature. I understand some banks will do this. I would be very surprised if they would let you deposit a check made out to your son to your account. They'd have no way of knowing if your son was agreeable to this or if you were stealing his money. Traditionally, the person the check was made out to could endorse it, give the check to someone else, and then the second person could endorse it and deposit it to their (the second person's) account. That is, the endorsement would have your son's signature, and below that, your signature. But I understand some banks won't accept this any more, so you'd be best to check before trying it.",
"Banks has to complete KYC. In case you want to open a bank account, most will ask for proof of address. I also feel it is difficult for bank to encash a cheque payable to a business in your account. Opening a bank account in the name of your business or alternatively obtaining a cheque payable to your personal name seems the only alternatives to me.",
"You can simply deposit the check into your joint account. You should be able do that even without his signature. Then you can transfer the money out of that account and into yours.",
"How would I go about this so that I can start using this money? You would open the LLC. The checks were not written out to you, they were written out to the LLC. Only the LLC can endorse them.",
"\"If you sign the check \"\"For Deposit Only\"\", the bank will put it in your account. You may need to set up a \"\"payable name\"\" on the account matching your DBA alias. However, having counted offerings for a church on several occasions, I know that banks simply have no choice but to be lax about the \"\"Pay to the Order Of\"\" line on checks. Say the church's \"\"legal name\"\" for which the operating funds account was opened is \"\"Saint Barnabas Episcopal Church of Red Bluff\"\". You'll get offering checks made out to \"\"Saint Barnabas\"\", \"\"Saint B's\"\", \"\"Episcopal Church of Red Bluff\"\", \"\"Red Bluff Episcopal\"\", \"\"Youth Group Fund\"\", \"\"Pastor Frank\"\", etc. The bank will take em all; just gotta stamp em with the endorsement for the church. Sometimes the money will be \"\"earmarked\"\" based on the payable line; any attempt to pay the pastor directly will go into his \"\"discretionary fund\"\", and anything payable to a specific subgroup of the church will go into their asset account line, but really all the cash goes directly to the same bank account anyway. For-profit operations are similar; an apartment complex may get checks payable to the apartment name, the management company name, even the landlord. I expect that your freelance work will be no different.\"",
"\"Your friend probably cannot deposit the check to your U.S. bank account. U.S. banks that I've worked with will not accept a deposit from someone who is not an owner of the account. I don't know why not. If some stranger wants to make unauthorized deposits to my account, why should I object? But that's the common rule. You could endorse the check, your friend could then deposit it to his own account or cash it, and then transfer the money to you in a variety of ways. But I think it would be easier to just deposit the check in your account wherever it is you live. Most banks have no problem with depositing a foreign check. There may be a fairly long delay before you can get access to the money while the check clears through the system. I don't know exactly what you mean by a \"\"prize check\"\", but assuming that this is taxable income, yes, I assume the U.S. government would want their hard-earned share of your money. These days you can pay U.S. taxes on-line if you have a credit card. If you have not already paid U.S. taxes for the year, you should make an \"\"estimated payment\"\". i.e. you can't wait until April 15 of the next year, you have to pay most or all of the taxes you will owe in the calendar year you earned it.\"",
"In my experience, you don't need to endorse a check with a signature to deposit it into your account. You do if you are exchanging the check for cash. Businesses usually have a stamp with their account number on them. Once stamped, those checks are only able to be deposited into that account. Individuals can do the same. I have had issues depositing insurance and government checks in the past that had both my and my wife's name on them. Both of us had to endorse the check to be able to deposit them. I think this was some kind of fraud prevention scheme, so that later one of us couldn't claim they didn't know anything about the check.",
"\"It's possible to cash cheques by post. When I did this, it involved filling out a \"\"paying-in slip\"\" (I had a book of these provided by the bank) and posting the cheque together with the slip to an address provided by the bank. You could also bring the paying-in slip and the cheque to a branch and deposit them there, and it wasn't necessary that you were the account holder, just that the details on the slip matched the account you were paying into. I Googled \"\"paying-in slip\"\" and found the instructions for HSBC as an example: Paying-In Slips. It explicitly mentions that you don't need to be the account holder to do this, and moreover there are even blank slips in the branch, which you just need to fill in with the correct account details. I think the procedure is much the same for other banks, but presumably you could check the relevant bank's website for specific guidance.\"",
"buy a cashiers check with the cash (a CRT will be nec if over 10 K) and deposit the cashiers check",
"You can sign over the check, of course. However, you'll probably need to deal with 1099 issued to you personally instead of the corporation later on. You'll have to add it to your tax return as income and negative income on the same line (line 21 of your 1040) and attach a statement explaining that the income was erroneously reported to you and will be reported on the corp form 1120. Another option is to return the check to the payer and ask them to reissue in the correct name. Next time, make sure to provide the properly filled W9 to your payers with the details of the corporation, not your own details.",
"\"You can try writing on the back of the check, in the signature area, \"\"For deposit only to account xxxxxxxxx\"\", leaving room for the signature. This may or may not be legally binding, but it states your intnt and is in a form the bank will recognize.\"",
"No you do not insure the cheque. A cheque is just standardized form that instructs a bank to transfer money. It is no more important than an ordinary letter. A cheque carries no commercial value, especially when it has a designated recipient. No mail insurance will cover the financial loss as a result of bank fraud. It is a kind of indirect loss. Just tell her to write your account number at the back of the paper, walk into your bank's branch and tell the teller to deposit it. There is no need of mailing.",
"\"Anyone can walk into a bank, say \"\"Hi, I'm a messenger, I have an endorsed check and a filled out deposit slip for Joe Blow who has an account here, please deposit this check for him, as he is incapacitated. Straight deposit.\"\" They'll fiddle on their computer, to see if they can identify the deposit account definitively, and if they can, and the check looks legit, \"\"thanks for taking care of our customer sir.\"\" Of course, getting a balance or cashback is out of the question since you are not authenticated as the customer. I have done the same with balance transfer paperwork, in that case the bank knew the customer and the balance transfer was his usual. If the friend does not have an account there, then s/he should maybe open an account at an \"\"online bank\"\" that allows deposit by snapping photos on a phone, or phone up a branch, describe her/his situation and see if they have any options. Alternately, s/he could get a PayPal account. Or get one of those \"\"credit card swipe on your phone\"\" deals like Square or PayPal Here, which have fees very close to nil, normally cards are swiped but you can hand-enter the numbers. Those are fairly easy to get even if you have troubles with creditworthiness. S/he would need to return the check to the payer and ask the payer to pay her/him one of those ways. The payer may not be able to, e.g. if they are a large corporation. A last possibility is if the check is from a large corporation with whom s/he continues to do business with. For instance, the electric company cashiers out your account after you terminate service at your old location. But then you provision service at a new location and get a new bill, you can send their check right back to them and say \"\"Please apply this to my new account\"\". If s/he is unable to get any of those because of more serious problems like being in the country illegally, then, lawful behavior has its privileges, sorry. There are lots of unbanked people, and they pay through the nose for banking services at those ghastly check-cashing places, at least in America. I don't have a good answer for how to get a check cashed in that situation.\"",
"When a business asks me to make out a cheque to a person rather than the business name, I take that as a red flag. Frankly it usually means that the person doesn't want the money going through their business account for some reason - probably tax evasion. I'm not saying you are doing that, but it is a frequent issue. If the company makes the cheque out to a person they may run the risk of being party to fraud. Worse still they only have your word for it that you actually own the company, and aren't ripping off your employer by pocketing their payment. Even worse, when the company is audited and finds that cheque, the person who wrote it will have to justify and document why they made it out to you or risk being charged with embezzlement. It's very much in their interests to make the cheque out to the company they did business with. Given that, you should really have an account in the name of your business. It's going to make your life much simpler in the long run.",
"\"If the cheque is crossed (as almost all are these days), it can only be paid into an account in the name of the person it was written out to: it cannot be paid into another's account, nor can it be \"\"cashed\"\"1 – see the rules on \"\"Crossed\"\" cheques. Note: that while the recipient of the cheque cannot (legally) alter this state of afairs, the writer of a cheque that was printed pre-crossed can – at least technically – cancel the crossing (see above link). Probably the best the OP can do is pay in the cheque on the friend's behalf (as described in Ben Millwood's answer) and then either lend the friend some money until they are mobile and can get some cash to repay the OP (or have the friend write one of their own cheques which the OP can pay into their bank account). 1 As mentioned in the last section of the rules on crossed cheques, the only exception is that designated \"\"Cheque cashing shops\"\" have special arrangements to deposit cheques which they have cashed (after deducting a fee). However, they would (should?) require proof of identity (of the original payee) and so are unlikely to be of any help (and probably not worth the cost for £35). Having said that, I've never used one, so have no idea how strict they are in practice.\"",
"\"I have checked with Bank of America, and they say the ONLY way to cash (or deposit, or otherwise get access to the funds represented by a check made out to my business) is to open a business account. They tell me this is a Federal regulation, and every bank will say the same thing. To do this, I need a state-issued \"\"dba\"\" certificate (from the county clerk's office) as well as an Employer ID Number (EIN) issued by the IRS. AND their CHEAPEST business banking account costs $15 / month. I think I can go to the bank that the check is drawn upon, and they will cash it, assuming I have documentation showing that I am the sole proprietor. But I'm not sure.... What a racket!!\"",
"Deposit check and send a personal check (resulting in tax and IRS reporting issues) That's a bad idea, unless maybe the check you're receiving is a certified bank draft. Suppose the insurance company are crooks and the check is fraudulent. It could take weeks or months for some investigation to catch up to that, long after your own personal check was cashed by the pharmacy. The bank will then put you on hook for the 20 grand by reversing the check, even though the funds had been deposited into your account. Do not put yourself into the position of a money handler; you don't have the cash base, insurance, government protection and whatever else that a bank has. And, of course, you're being a free money handler if you do that. (You're not even compensated for postage, time and whatnot). If you're handling money between two parties, you should collect a percentage, or else refuse. That percentage has to be in proportion to the risk, since cashing a check for someone carries a risk similar to (and is effectively a form of) making a loan.",
"Avoid talking to a person: Just use an automated system, such as an ATM or a cellphone app. Automated systems will ONLY scan for the RTN # and Account number at the bottom of the check (the funny looking blocky numbers). The automated system will not care who the check is made out to, or who is present, so long as you have an account to credit the money into, and the account number on the check can get the money debited properly.",
"\"In absence of complete information, I can only speculate that your phrases We both endorsed the cheque, and especially since the name on the cheque doesn't seem to be the name of the person I spoke with. mean that the check was payable to Jane Doe but was endorsed by someone you know as Wade Roe using language such as \"\"Pay to the order of user6344\"\" and then you endorsed it as something like \"\"For deposit only to Acct# 1234567890\"\" and gave it to the bank teller with a deposit slip for Acct# 1234567890. Presumably Wade Roe did not accompany you to the bank and the bank teller did not notice that the check was not endorsed to you by Jane Doe, or she did go with you to the bank but the teller did not check her ID when she endorsed the check. In any case, you, as a customer of the bank, are definitely on the hook in the sense that you in effect guaranteed the validity of Wade Roe's endorsement of the check payable to Jane Doe. You presented the check to the bank as a legitimate check that you were legitimately entitled to deposit in your account. In effect, if fraud was committed, you committed the fraud by depositing a bum check. As all the other answers have said, you need to go down to the bank and talk to a bank officer, preferably the manager, right away. Don't go to a teller (even though in many banks, the tellers have job titles like assistant vice-president.\"",
"I'm going to give the checkmark to Joe, but I wanted to convey my personal experience. I bank with TD in New Jersey and was informed by the teller that I simply needed to endorse the check myself and indicate Parent of Minor. I cannot attest if other banks will accept this, but it at least works for TD and my situation in particular.",
"Quick get a Social Security Number for the child. You will need it before you file your taxes early next year. If you don't have a SSN for your child you will not be able to claim them as a dependent. If you applied for one already, many do so at the hospital, then wait for it to arrive. The next step is to open a savings account with the child's SSN. Then have your parent write the check in the child's name and deposit it into the account. If it is written in the child's name already then you don't need a new check from them. If the check is large, you may run into problems if you take a check in the name of a minor and try and deposit it into your account. The bank would have no idea that the person is related to you.",
"\"The best reason for endorsing a check is in case it is lost. If the back is blank, a crooked finder could simply write \"\"pay to the order of \"\" on it and deposit it in his own account. You do not need a signature for the endorsement. The safest way to endorse a check is to write \"\"FOR DEPOSIT ONLY\"\" followed by an account number, in which case the signature is not needed. most businesses make up rubber stamps with this and stamp it the minute they receive a check. That way it has no value to anyone else. Depositing checks is increasingly going the way of the dodo. Many businesses today use check truncation - the business scans the check in, sends the digital image to the bank, and stores the check. I was surprised that Chase already has an applet for iPhones that you can use to deposit a check by taking a picture of it!\"",
"I'd consider this offer. Keep in mind, any time you write a check, there's the information he's asking for. If it makes you feel comfortable, use the small balance account, or set up a 4th one you'll use for these incoming deposits only.",
"All banks in the US that I have ever worked with will allow you to deposit checks if: In your case, you have 3 options:",
"I have seen this happen with IRS checks, the bank told me that the IRS imposes the requirement. Otherwise, though, I have frequently deposited checks made out to my wife into a joint checking account without her signature, they have never cared one bit.",
"When I moved banks. I had my old bank cut a cashier's check. It isn't a check you write. They write it and give it to you. I then took the cashier's check to my new bank to deposit it.",
"Why do they have to endorse every check every time they want to deposit it? They told you why. They said it was because it was made out to one person and there were others on the account that could withdraw money from the acct., so endorsing it acknowledged that the payee still wanted to deposit the money, knowing others could take the $ out The reason they insist on it may have something to do with their responsibility in case of elder abuse. They are worried that you may be using your parents' money without their knowledge, and if it ends up being true and they didn't enforce the requirement - they may also be liable. I have a joint account with my spouse, and they do not let us deposit checks written to both of us unless we both endorse. This is similar, and stems from the same concern. So here's the unusual situation In case of a death of a joint account holder - the whole account is frozen until the estate is executed. You cannot deposit a check of a deceased person to such an account.",
"In general, deposits into an NRE account must be the proceeds of remittances from outside India. If you send your friend a cheque, denominated in Indian Rupees, drawn on your NRE account (which is an account held in a bank in India), that cheque will most likely be refused by your friend's bank for deposit into your friend's NRE account. Your friend could deposit it into an NRO account, though, but that deposit would likely draw the attention of the income tax people.",
"\"It is not allowed to pay refunds to anyone other than the taxpayer. This is due to various tax return fraud schemes that were running around. Banks are required to enforce this. If the direct deposit is denied, a check will be issued. In her name, obviously. What she does with it when she gets it is her business - but I believe that tax refund checks may not be just \"\"endorsed\"\", the bank will likely want to see her when you deposit it to your account, even if it is endorsed. For the same reason.\"",
"\"Lets say you owed me $123.00 an wanted to mail me a check. I would then take the check from my mailbox an either take it to my bank, or scan it and deposit it via their electronic interface. Prior to you mailing it you would have no idea which bank I would use, or what my account number is. In fact I could have multiple bank accounts, so I could decide which one to deposit it into depending on what I wanted to do with the money, or which bank paid the most interest, or by coin flip. Now once the check is deposited my bank would then \"\"stamp\"\" the check with their name, their routing number, the date, an my account number. Eventually an image of the canceled check would then end up back at your bank. Which they would either send to you, or make available to you via their banking website. You don't mail it to my bank. You mail it to my home, or my business, or wherever I tell you to mail it. Some business give you the address of another location, where either a 3rd party processes all their checks, or a central location where all the money for multiple branches are processed. If you do owe a company they will generally ask that in the memo section in the lower left corner that you include your customer number. This is to make sure that if they have multiple Juans the money is accounted correctly. In all my dealings will paying bills and mailing checks I have never been asked to send a check directly to the bank. If they want you to do exactly as you describe, they should provide you with a form or other instructions.\"",
"Yes, you can do this. I do this for my own single-member LLC, but I usually do it online instead of writing a check. Your only legal obligation is to pay quarterly estimated tax payments to the IRS. I'm assuming you are not otherwise doing anything shady. For example, that you have funds in your business account to pay any expenses that will be due soon or that you are trying to somehow pull a fast one on someone else...",
"\"There's nothing you can do. If he has indeed deposited the check, it would appear on your account fairly quickly - I've never seen it taking more than 2-3 business days. However, a check is a debt instrument, and you cannot close the account until it clears, or until the \"\"unclaimed property\"\" laws of your state kick in. If he claims that he deposited the check, ask it in writing and have your bank (or the bank where it was deposited) investigate why it takes so long to clear. If he's not willing to give it to you in writing - he's likely not deposited it. Whatever the reason may be, even just to cause you nuisance. Lesson learned. Next time - cashier's check with a signed receipt. Re closing the LLC: if you're the only two partners - you can just withdraw yourself from the LLC, take out your share, and drop it on him leaving him the only partner. Check with your local attorney for details.\"",
"If it's always the same person, you could open a joint account. Then fees are avoided altogether. How fast the funds are available depends on what you deposit. Cash is immediate.",
"It all depends on the trust level you have in them handling it correctly. If they never deposit it, it doesn't matter what happens to the check, they could frame it and hang it on the wall. The risk is that someone someday deposits it (incorrectly double-charging you), and you need to do what think is appropriate to avoid this risk. If your trust in them is too small, only sending it back to you makes sure that you physically control the check.",
"The legal department at the Bank left me a message telling me that the bank check was paid & the recipient got the funds. Call up the bank and find out who the recipient was. Generally it can only be cashed by the person whose name is on it - the original business partner to whom it was intended. It is unlikely to be cashed by the attorney, unless he misrepresented the facts to the bank and got the funds. My question is how could he have cashed it without the original bank check? The other possibility is your mom lost this check, went to the bank and requested them to cancel this and reissue a fresh banker's check and give it to the business partner - in which case the check you had was worthless. You would need to work with the bank and ask them for details. However without the details of the original bank check that you found, it would be difficult for the bank to help you.",
"\"I would contact the security/fraud departments at your bank and see if you can get in contact (via your bank) with the bank that the check is drawn on. By my reading of your question, it sounds like the person you are dealing with fraudulently endorsed a third party check, which you subsequently endorsed for deposit. Explain this situation to your bank. As far as the other person goes, tell her \"\"I'm in contact with the frauds department at my bank, as the validity of the check is in question, and I'm not giving you a cent until the matter is resolved.\"\" Depositing a bad check is a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions, so it's essential to bring this to the attention of the bank and authorities asap.\"",
"if the deposit earned interest, you could be liable for taxes on the interest earned. If it ended up in a checking account, then you will not be liable for any taxes since checking accounts do not earn interest anyway. Your bank may inquire about where these transfers are coming from and question the legality of it.",
"I've been a landlord and also a tenant. I have been able to deposit money in an account, where I have the account number, and/or a deposit slip. In a foreign bank you can deposit by a machine if in the bank or someone is there for you and knows the account number. With regards to cashing a check in another country, it is up to the bank and the time is at least 14 to 21 business days, with a fee is added. As of a winning check, since its in your name, if you are in another country sign the check, for deposit only with a deposit slip and send it to your out of country bank by FedEx - you will have a tracking number, where as regular mail it might get there in 3 months. I hope by now you came to your solution.",
"\"In general, a lack of endorsement (meaning nothing written by the receiver on the back of the check) is equivalent to it being endorsed \"\"as deposit only\"\" to a bank that the depositor has an account with. (See Uniform Commercial Code §4-205.) That is, the bank that receives a deposit without any endorsement promises to the banks that process the check along the line all the way back to your bank, that they properly deposited the money into the account of the entity that the check was made out to. With checks being processed with more and more automation, it's getting fairly common for there to be little writing needed on the check itself, as the digital copy gets submitted to the banking system for clearing. If you're concerned about there being some sort of fraud, that perhaps the entity that you're sending money to isn't the ones that should be getting it, or that they're not actually getting the money, or something like that, that's really an entirely different concern. I would expect that if you were saying that you paid something, and the payee said that you hadn't, that you would dispute the transaction with your bank. They should be able to follow the electronic trail to where the money went, but I suspect they only do so as part of an investigation (and possibly only in an investigation that involved law enforcement of some type). If you're just curious about what bank account number your deposit went into, then it just looks like you're the one trying to commit some sort of fraud (even if you're just being curious), and they don't have much incentive to try to help you out there.\"",
"\"A check is simply an order to the bank to pay money to someone. The payor's signature on the front of the check is all that's needed to make that order binding. If you read the check carefully, you'll see that it says \"\"Pay to the order of ...\"\"; that's the payor's instruction to the bank, and as payee you can make a further order, to pay the money to someone else, in which case you'd have to endorse the check to make your order binding. But nobody does that any more; instead, people always just deposit checks into their accounts. When you deposit a check, the payor's signature is all that's needed to tell the payor's bank that it should pay the money. If your bank insists on a signature as well, that's just to pretend that they're paying attention in case it turns out that you stole the check. In reality, banks don't pay attention to signatures, nor to the name of the payee. I once put the wrong check into an envelope, and the phone company got a check for something over $700 on a bill of less than $50, payable to some completely different company; they deposited it and gave me a credit for the balance; none of the banks in the transition chain questioned it.\"",
"The person writing the check has already signed and endorsed it. The depositer's signature is not to confirm the check's validity, but to demonstrate that the check was depisited to the correct Fred Smith's account, and permit charges to be brought if, eg, Fred Bonzo Smith tries to steal Fred Gnorph Smith's check.",
"This varies by jurisdiction somewhat but speaking as a Canadian, a small business owner, and accountant (unregistered but some courses and accounting for multiple businesses) this is the answer if you were in Canada. In Canada the cheque cashing limit is 6 months. Therefor any bank will refuse to cash this cheque. It would be totally morally and legally acceptable to ask for a replacement cheque from your employer. In Canada they would generally have no problem issuing a replacement; in other jurisdictions with differing time limits they might want to cancel the original cheque first.",
"Have the check reissued to the proper payee.",
"Deposit it into your Brazilian bank account. They'll charge you collection fee (shouldn't be high, its a cashier's check equivalent), and the currency exchange rate may not be the best ever, but that's the price to pay for the service. Another option would be to cash the check at check cashing places, but that would most likely require you being in the US (I don't know if any check-cashing store in Brazil would cash a US check).",
"Checks are awesome things in that, even if it gets lost the money doesn't change hands until the check is cashed. I would highly recommend NOT signing a check over and putting it in the mail though. Essentially putting your signature on it is saying yes, pay to whomever. Theoretically acceptable, rarely a good idea. Call the insurance company and have them cancel current check to reissue to the correct people. Don't forget to write VOID (in huge letters) on the check before throwing away and/or tearing it up.",
"\"There are at least a couple problems: Your friend may not manage money well and so may not have enough money in the account. Check bounces. They get charged a fee. You get charged a fee. You have to chase after the friend to get the fee paid. The friend was cheap about the regular fees and doesn't want to pay this much higher fee. Your \"\"friend\"\" may really be a crook. The check is no good. Perhaps it's written under a false identity such that you are attempting to cash a stolen/forged check. You cash it. They take the money and disappear. You get charged with participating in the crime, go to jail, and now have a criminal record (worst case). My quick thought is that if you don't know the person well enough to know the home address, you don't know the person well enough to cash checks. In general, I would view this the same as a loan. When loaning to a friend, you should never loan more than you are willing to lose. Note that an actual loan would be safer. If you loan $50 to a friend, at worst you're out $50. If you deposit a fraudulent check, you did something illegal. You will have to be convincing when you tell your story to the police. If they don't believe you, they could charge you. A couple bad breaks and you could go to jail.\"",
"It would be better to use a bank account and have the refund deposited directly to it. But you said you never had a bank account, so that may be a problem. Another option is to have the refund check mailed to you, and you deposit it in your local bank, converting to your home currency (or not, depending on local laws). Generally, for another person to cash a check made out to you - you need to endorse it first. Physically, on the back of the check. That means you have to see the check. Specifically with tax refund checks there's much more scrutiny since there's a lot of fraud going on with regards to tax refunds. Thus, I doubt a bank would allow a third party cash a check made out to you, without you actually being present there.",
"While you can print that on the check, it isn't considered legally binding. If you are concerned about a check not being deposited in a timely manner, consider purchasing a cashier's check instead. This doesn't solve the problem per se, but it transfers responsibility of tracking that check from you to the bank.",
"I am not sure about your country but I think each country must be having some fixed time frame for reversal of the transaction (Which must be less than a month), please inquire if that time limit has passed or not ? If it hasn't best will be to wait for some more time before informing them. Once the reversal time limit has passed no one (Except government agencies with court orders) can withdraw money from your bank account without your written consent even if they have deposited it themselves. World would have been a strange place if this restriction was not there. Since you want to close the account you can approach your previous boss (or executive from HR/Account department) and tell them your intention. After that either you can transfer money online to their account or give them a cheque which they can deposit in their account. This way things will end faster and you will be freed from this extra account. If above process takes time another solution will be to transfer the money to your another (permanent) account and give them a cheque from this account. Here also you can use online transfers or by sending them a cheque through courier. Whichever mode you choose to pay the money back make sure you have some documented proof that may be helpful in future.",
"Traveller check require one signature at top when the check are purchased. Matching signature at bottom when you want to encash. So if there is no signature, you would need to get her signature, or as suggested mail it to her and get a regular check.",
"\"Anytime you do work without any payment until the work is complete, you are effectively extending credit to the party receiving your service. How much credit you are willing to extend will vary greatly, depending on the amount and the trustworthiness of the party. For example, if you are charging $50 for something, you probably won't bother to collect money upfront, whereas if you are charging $5,000 you probably would collect some upfront. But if the party you are working for is a large financially sound company, the number may be even much higher than $5K as you can trust you will be paid. Obviously there are many factors that go into how much credit you are willing to extend to your customer. (This is why credit reports exist for banks to determine how much credit to extend to you.) As for the specific case you are asking about, which may be classified as a decent amount of work for a small business, I would default to having a written scope of work, a place in the document for both parties to sign, and specify 50% upfront payment and 50% payment at completion. When you receive the signed document and the upfront payment (and possibly even after the check clears), you begin work. I would call this my \"\"default contract\"\" and adjust according to your needs depending on the size of the job and the trustworthiness of the customer. As for your question about how to deposit the check, that depends on what type of entity you are. If you are a sole proprietor you should ask for the checks to be made out to you. If you are a business then the checks should be made out to your business name. You don't need \"\"in trust\"\" or anything similar because your customer, after paying the upfront fee, must trust that you will do the work you promise to do, just like you have to trust that after completing the work you will receive the final payment. This is the reason the default is 50% before and after. Both parties are risking (roughly) the same amount. Tip: having done the \"\"default\"\" contract many times in my career, both as a sole proprietor and a business owner, I can assure you there is a big difference between a potential customer agreeing to something in advance, and actually writing a check. The upfront payment definitely helps weed out those that were never going to end up paying you, even if their intentions were good. Tip 2: be as specific as possible as to what the scope of work will include. If you don't, particularly with software, they'll be adding feature after feature and expecting it to be \"\"included\"\".\"",
"\"You should have separate files for each of the two businesses. The business that transfers money out should \"\"write check\"\" in its QB file. The business that receives money should \"\"make deposit\"\" in its QB file. (In QB you \"\"write check\"\" even when you make the payment by some other means like ACH.) Neither business should have the bank accounts of the other explicitly represented. On each side, you will also need to classify the payment as having originated from / gone to some other account - To know what's correct there, we'd need to know why your transferring the money in the first place and how you otherwise have your books established. I think that's probably beyond the scope of what's on-topic / feasible here. Money into your business from your personal account is probably owner's equity, unless you have something else going on. For example, on the S Corp you should be paying yourself a salary. If you overpay by accident, then you might write a check back to the company from your personal account to correct the mistake. That's not equity - It's probably a \"\"negative expense\"\" in some other account that tracks the salary payments.\"",
"They can go to an ATM and deposit it in to their account. The ATM does not care to read the name, and the bank does not care to verify anything if the check goes through (meaning the bank it is drawn on pays). So if nobody complains, that's it, he has your money. You would need to go to the check-writer's bank and ask for help, or look at the check-writer's cancelled check copy if you get to it. That bank can find out where it was deposited to, and then you have to go after the guy and get your money back - if it is still recoverable! - if it is a poor sod and he already blew your 5 grand, you can sue his pants off, but there are no 5 grand in them anywhere. So bad luck for you. Technically, the bank is not supposed to accept the check if the name doesn't match. At the counter, that might get a question, but as said above, there are deposit ATMs, and he could also just endorse the check to himself and sign the endorsement with some illegible scrawling, and claim that this is your signature - how would Joe the teller know? Either way, he gets the check in his account, and then he can take it out and blow it. It is legally clearly theft or fraud, and probably a federal crime, but if the guy is bankrupt, that doesn't help you much. Depending on that bank's fine-print, they might or might not cover your loss, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Better don't lose a check.",
"As it is a cheque I don't think you can deposit online. It seems that most the banks here charge a flat fee. Bank of Queensland charges $45 plus whatever the FX rate and fees are at the time. I think most of the banks have a clearance period of up to 28 days from when you deposit the cheque to when the funds clear and you could use them. If you want a cheaper and quicker option maybe try to have the USD funds sent electronically to the Australian bank account you choose.",
"The easiest options appear to be to open an account with one of the large multinational banks like Citi. They have options such as opening two separate checking accounts, one in each currency, and Citi in particular has an international account that appears to make mutli-currency personal banking easier. All of the options have minimum balance requirements or fees for conversion, but if you need quick access this seems to be the best bet. Even if this is a one-time event and you don't need the account, a bank like Citi may be able to help you cash the check and get access to the funds quicker than a national or local bank. http://www.citibank.com/ipb-global/homepage/newsite/content/english/multi_cap_bank_depo.htm Alternatively if you know anyone with a US bank account you can deposit it with them and take the cash withdrawal from their account, assuming they agree, the check isn't too large, etc.",
"\"Yes, kinda. Talk to local banks about a business account, and tell them you want to enable certain employees to make deposits but not withdrawals. They don't need to know you're all the same person. For instance I have a PayPal account for business. These allow you to create \"\"sub accounts\"\" for your employees with a variety of access privileges. Of course I control the master account, but I also set up a \"\"sub account\"\" for myself. That is the account I use every day.\"",
"How? Basically all banks nowadays allow online deposits from a smartphone - you take a picture from the front and back of the check, and submit it, and that's it. You still have the paper check, and it looks pristine, but it is deposited (and the paper is worthless).",
"You actually don't have to open a business account with your bank, you can have a personal account with the bank and have your business funds go into it, whether it be from cheques or from Eftpos\\Credit Card Facilities. You just have to get your customers to make the cheque out under your name (the same name used for your bank account). If you are trading as a sole trader and you trade under a name other than your own name, then officially you are supposed to register that name with Fair Trading in your state. However, if you are trading using another name and it is not registered, Fair Trading will only become aware of it if someone (usually one of your customers) makes a compliant about you, and they will then ask you to either stop using that name as your trading name or have it registered (if not already registered by someone else).",
"You probably can't deposit the check directly, but there are mechanisms in place to get your money through other means. In the US, all states and territories have an unclaimed property registry. Before you contact the company that wrote the check, you should check that registry in your state. You will have to provide proof that you are the intended recipient, having the original check in your possession should make that considerably easier.",
"\"IANAL, but. As you note, when you open a new account, they give you temporary checks that are usually blank in the upper left. I've used such checks and the bank has honored them. Therefore, I conclude that there must not be any legal requirement for anything to appear there, nor does the bank require it. Businesses are often reluctant to accept such temporary checks, for the obvious reason that anyone could go to the bank, open an account with $10, write checks for thousands of dollars, and disappear. At least if they've waited long enough to get the permanent checks in, there's some reason to believe that they plan to stick around. In any case, it's not clear what you are trying to accomplish. You want to hand-write either your business name or your personal name depending on whether the check is for personal or business purposes? I don't see what that gains. You could always use a personal check for business purposes. If you're afraid someone will say, \"\"Hey, that doesn't look very professional, what kind of fly-by-night company is this that uses personal checks?\"\", surely a hand-written company name would look even less professional. Why not just open a business account and have your personal checks printed with your personal name and your business checks with your business name? I don't know where you live, but I have a business account on which I pay zero fees. The only cost is getting checks printed. There's the small hassle of having to make one trip to the bank to open the account. Well, the biggest hassle I have is that the bank won't let me transfer money between my personal and business accounts over the Internet, so I have to either go to the bank to move money back and forth, or I have to write a check from one account to the other and deposit through an ATM.\"",
"Publication 17 Your Income Tax top of page 14 If the direct deposit cannot be done, the IRS will send a check instead. When your girlfriend gets the check, she can endorse it over to you for deposit into your account.",
"\"Depending on where you are, you may be able to get away with filing a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" document with your local government, and then having the bank call the county seat to verify this. There is generally a fee for processing/recording/filing the DBA form, of course. But it's useful for more purposes than just this one. (I still need to file a DBA for my hobby work-for-pay, for exactly this reason.)\"",
"You don't have much choice other than to open an account in your business name, then do a money transfer, as @DJClayworth says. You will not without providing your name and street address and possibly other information that you may consider to be of a private nature. This is due to laws about fraud, money laundering and consumer protection. I'm not saying that's what you have in mind! But without accountability of the sort provided by names and street addresses, banks would be facilitating crimes of many sorts, which is why regulatory agencies enforce disclosure requirements.",
"You mentioned depositing the check and then sending a personal check. Be sure to account for time, since any deposit over $10,000 the money will be made available in increments, so it may take 10-14 days to get the full amount in your account before you could send a personal check. I would not recommend this option regardless, but if you do, just a heads up.",
"I don't see any reason to worry about a check being deposited via cell phone. There isn't anything you can write on a check to make it physical deposit only or similar. If you really want to keep your check from being read electronically you could always smudge the numbers but you run the risk of the bank not cashing it and possibly getting a return check fee.",
"What you've described is the norm in Australia, where it's rare for anyone under sixty to use cheques. Assuming they're transferring the funds using internet banking, I would have the following suggestions: You make it clear that the the funds must reach your account by the due date for rent. It is their (the tenant's) responsibility to allow for the normal transfer delay from their account to yours. This will save unpleasant arguments later if the rent is late. If you're not comfortable with your tenant knowing your banking details, set up another account specifically for receiving rental income payments and paying your costs associated with the property. This may have the added benefit of simplifying things at tax time. Another alternative, which I think others have mentioned, is to use an escrow service like PayPal, but be aware that these kinds of services will usually charge a small percentage when you withdraw your funds.",
"Before answering specific question, you are liable to pay tax as per your bracket on the income generated. I work with my partner and currently we transfer all earning on my personal bank account. Can this create any issue for me? If you are paying your partner from your account, you would need to maintain proper paperwork to show the portion of money transferred is not income to you. Alternatively create a join Current Account. Move funds there and then move it to your respective accounts. Which sort off account should be talk and by whose name? Can be any account [Savings/Current]. If you are doing more withdrawls open Current else open Savings. It does not matter on whos name the account is. Paperwork to show income matters from tax point of view. What should we take care while transfering money from freelance site to bank? Nothing specific Is there any other alternative to bank? There is paypal etc. However ultimately it flows into a Bank Account. What are other things to be kept in mind? Keep proper record of actual income of each of you, along with expenses. There are certain expenses you can claim from income, for example laptop, internet, mobile phone etc. Consult a CA he will be able to guide and it does not cost much.",
"I agree with Joe, having the money deposited to the US bank account may land you in trouble. Technically, a US business paying a foreigner must withhold 30% of the payment, unless a tax treaty says otherwise. The US business should do that based on your W8-BEN/W8-ECI form that you should have given to the business before being paid. I'm guessing, that by paying to your US bank account, you (and your American counterpart) are trying to avoid this withholding. That may cause trouble for both of you. I would suggest you talking to a professional (EA/CPA licensed in the State where the business is located) and having the situation resolved ASAP. You may not be liable for the US taxes at all, but because of incorrectly reporting the income/expense - you and the US business may end up paying way more than the $0 you otherwise would have, in penalties.",
"Once you've made a good-faith effort to straighten the situation out you've done all you can do. Cash the check.",
"I'll assume you are asking about a check for some kind of work or service that you provided them, that they hired your company to do. No large business will do that. In their records they have a contract with your company to provide services. If they write you a personal check it won't match with the contract, and when the auditors see that they will scream blue murder. Whoever wrote the check will have to prove that you are legitimately the same thing as the company (that doesn't mean taking your word for it). They may also have to show they weren't conspiring with you to commit tax fraud ( that wasn't your intention of course, was it?) .",
"\"Do not use a shared bank account. One of you can cash/deposit the check in your personal account and then either pay the others in the group cash or write them a check. You open yourself up to many, many problems sharing a bank account and/or money. Treat it like a business as far as income goes, but I would not recommend any type of formal business, LLC, partnership, sole proprietorship, etc. For federal taxes, you just keep track of how much \"\"you\"\" personally are paid and report that at the end of the year as income, most likely on a 1040EZ 1040SE, along with any other income you have.\"",
"\"No functional difference. Only impression/convenience. \"\"Business checks\"\" are checks in larger format (8\"\" instead of the regular 5\"\" checks), they can be from your personal account just as well. I didn't have any problem using the small \"\"individual\"\"-standard checks for my company (I actually did get them for free from Wells Fargo, but that was a gesture, not by policy).\"",
"It seems that you're complicating things quite a bit. Why would you not create a business entity, open one or more bank accounts for it, and then have the money wired into those accounts? If you plan on being a company then set up the appropriate structure for it. In the U.S., you can form an S-corporation or an LLC and choose pass-through taxation so that all you pay is income tax on what you receive from the business as personal income. The business itself would not have tax liability in such a case. Co-mingling your personal banking with that of your business could create real tax headaches for you if you aren't careful, so it's not worth the trouble or risk.",
"There is no reason for you to open a firm. However, it will help you, if you operate separate bank account for business and personal purposes. You can run your business as proprietorship business. Your inward remittance is your income. You can deduct payment made to your colleagues as salary. You should pay them by way of cheques or bank transfer only. You are also entitled to deduct other business expenses provided you keep proper receipt of the same such as broadband connection charges, depreciation on equipment and more importantly, rent on your house. If your total receipt from such income exceeds INR 60,00,000 you will need to withhold tax on payment made to your colleagues as also subject to audit of your accounts. If you want to grow your business, suggest you should take an Import / Export Code in your own name. You can put any further question in this regard.",
"Some banks give you an indemnity form that will allow them to clear the payment available in a different name. This is usually in case the name on the cheque is slightly misspelled. For example, color (American) could be spelt as colour (British). In India for example, names can often be spelt in multiple ways. the indeminity form is common place.",
"If you can provide evidence that you are the person who opened the account (which may be as simple as providing your signature, since this isn't really different from asking for a bank check or inter-bank transfer or ATM-network transfer), there should be no problem. Contact your bank and ask them what information they need to provide.",
"Okay, I went through a similar situation when my mother died in March of this year. The estate still needs to go into probate. Especially if there was a will. And when you do this, your husband will be named as the executor. Then what he will need to do is produce both of their death certificates to the bank, have the account closed, and open an estate account with both of their names on it. Their debts & anything like this should be paid from this account as well. Then what you can do is endorse the check as the executor and deposit it into this account. After all debts are paid, the money can be disbursed to the beneficiaries (your husband). Basically, as long as they didn't have any huge debts to pay, he will see the money again. It just may be a couple of months. And you will have to pay some filing fees.",
"You friend would only be able to deposit this in NRO account. You may have to explain the source of money. If you declare it as gift, then you would need to pay gift tax. What you are doing is converting USD to INR outside the normal banking network and this maybe in volition of FEMA [Foreign Exchange Management Act].",
"\"This is not a mistake. This is done for \"\"Out of Network\"\" providers, and mainly when the patient is an Anthem member, be it Blue Shield or Blue Cross. Even though an \"\"Assignment of Benefits\"\" is completed by the patient, and all fields on the claim from (CMS1500 or UB04) are completed assigning the benefits to the provider, Anthem has placed in their policy that the Assignment of Benefits the patient signs is null and void. No other carrier that I have come across conducts business in this manner. Is it smart? Absolutely not! They have now consumed their member's time in trying to figure out which provider the check is actually for, the member now is responsible for forwarding the payment, or the patient spends the check thinking Anthem made a mistake on their monthly premium at some point (odds are slim) and is now in debt thousands of dollars because they don't check with Anthem. It creates a huge mess for providers, not only have we chased Anthem for payment, but now we have to chase the patient and 50% of the time, never see the payment in our office. It creates more phone calls to Anthem, but what do they care, they are paying pennies on the dollar for their representatives in the Philippines to read from a script. Anthem is the second largest insurance carrier in the US. Their profit was over 800 million dollars within 3 months. The way they see it, we issued payment, so stop calling us. It's amazing how they can accept a CMS1500, but not follow the guidelines associated with it. Your best bet, and what we suggest to patients, either deposit the check and write your a personal check or endorse and forward. I personally would deposit the check and write a personal check for tracking purposes; however, keep in mind that in the future, you may depend on your bank statements for proof of income (e.g. Social Security) and imagine the work having to explain, and prove, a $20,000 deposit and withdraw within the same month.\"",
"\"Generally, ACH transfers are not considered direct deposits. However, you can pay for this service to various providers, and they will do the transfer so that it would be marked as a direct deposit. For example, Wells Fargo allows doing it using their \"\"DirectPay\"\" system. I happen to have a WF business account (free with conditions) where this service is available, but there are plenty of providers. It does cost money (for WF - $10 monthly fee + $0.50 for a transfer to non-WF account), but it may be worth it for you if the benefit is large enough.\"",
"That's a sensible plan. No there's no reason for the IRS to see this arrangement as suspicious, particularly because the deposits will be from paychecks; you have a record of where all the money came from. Conversely, multiple cash deposits might be considered suspicious. It can only affect your credit if you have credit lines associated with the account (like an overdraft line of credit). Interest earned could increase your tax liability by a tiny amount, but in the current interest rate environment, that's not much of a worry.",
"\"I would suggest opening a bank account that you use to accept deposits only, and then get a system set up where it automatically transfers the money over to your main account. If not instantly it could transfer the money hourly or daily. Of course you would have to pay a premium for this \"\"peace of mind\"\" ;)\"",
"Contractors regularly deposit checks like this; if the income is legitimate don't worry. Report it to the IRS as income whether or not the customer issues you a 1099. With deposits like this you should be making quarterly payments to the IRS for your projected income.",
"You should have a separate business account. Mixing business and personal funds is a bad practice. Shop around, you should be able to find a bank that will let you open a free checking account, especially if you are going to have minimal activity (e.g. less than 20 of checks per month) and perhaps maintain a small balance (e.g. $100 or $500).",
"I suspect @SpehroPefhany is correct and that your bank will cash a check from the US Department of the Treasury. Especially since they're the same ones who guarantee the U.S. Dollar. They may hold the funds until the check clears, but I think you'll have good luck going through your bank. Of course, fees and exchange rate are a factor. Consider browsing the IRS and US Treasury Department websites for suggestions/FAQs. I suggest you line up a way to cash it, and make sure there's enough left after fees and exchange rate and postage to get the check that the whole process is worth it, all before you ask it to be shipped to you. If there's no way to do it through your bank, through a money exchange business (those at the airport come to mind) or through your government (postal bank?), and the check is enough that you're willing to go through some trouble, then you should look into assigning power of attorney for this purpose. I don't know if it is possible, but it might be worth looking into. Look for US based banks in your area.",
"\"If you forgot to put the name on the \"\"pay to the order of\"\" line then anybody who gets their hands on the check can add their name to the check and deposit it at their bank into their account. If it goes to the correct person they will have an easy time making sure that the check is made out correctly. They don't have to worry about that picky teller who doesn't know what to do with a check made out to Billy Smith and a drivers license for Xavier William Smith. On the other hand... a criminal will also be able to make sure it is processed exactly the way they want it. If I made it out to a small business or a person I would let them know. You might not have a choice but to wait and see what happens if it was sent to a large business, the payment processing center could be a long way from where you will be calling.\"",
"No fees: Write a check. Deposit it into the other bank.",
"For an individual its not automatic. One needs to ask the Bank, return the check. For Corporate Customer depending on how big the relationship is, many a times this is given as a service and there is an automatic return",
"If you have an SSN and foreign passport - it's all you need to open account, so just open it and order a checkbook. It will take some time before they will issue it but most probably they'll give you some checks to use till that very moment. So basically you should: Also I strongly suggest you to open two accounts - one would be for you and one for rent exclusively. The thing is that check could be cashed any time and it's pretty annoying exercise to keep that in mind.",
"If you don't have a bank account then open one and use the check as your opening deposit. You'll need to obtain a Social Security card as well (you didn't indicate you have one or not, so I'll assume you don't), but they're free and quick to apply for. I assume you're from Washington state, so there should be no problem with you opening an account in Washington, no matter where the check is from. Because of the amount of the check, the bank will probably only let yo have a part of the amount for a few days until it clears, but federal banking rules require quick clearance of out-of-state checks (I think it's 48 hours now), so you'd have access to at least half of the money right away and the rest in a few days.",
"The insurance company issued the check. I'd contact the insurance company to have the current check voided and a new one issued to the pharmacy.",
"You can make a capital contribution, not a loan. It's not a taxable event, no interest, and you can take a distribution later when the business has the money to pay you back. So yes, transfer the money. If you use software like Quickbooks, make use of unique accounts for tracking the contribution",
"\"Its a classic sign of fraud. The fraud is on you. You cashed the check not given to you, and not endorsed by the person its given to, so even if the check is legit you're still in trouble. There are many variations of this scheme, but the common thing is that the \"\"innocent\"\" third party is given a check to cash, and gives its own check or cash in return. The check ends up being forged, stolen, or otherwise invalid, but the cash/check the third party gave is long gone. Usually its cash, because its untraceable. You should wait at least a couple of weeks to make sure the check doesn't bounce. You might want to contact the check owner to verify its legit, and suggest to return the money, if it is not. You might also want to consult with an attorney. Bear in mind, that it might be reported to the authorities as a money laundering scheme (which it very well might be), and you'll have some explaining to do in this case, even if the check is legit.\"",
"Your main concern seems to be to be accused of something called 'smurfing' or structuring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring Depositing money amounts (cash or checks) under the 10k limit to circumvent the reporting requirement. People have been investigated for depositing under the limit, e.g. small business owners. If you're always above 10k you should be fine, as your deposits are reported and shouldn't raise IRS or FBI suspicions.",
"\"You don't specify which country you are in, so my answers are more from a best practice view than a legal view.. I don't intend on using it for personal use, but I mean it's just as possible. This is a dangerous proposition.. You shouldn't co-mingle business expenses with personal expenses. If there is a chance this will happen, then stop, make it so that it won't happen. The big danger is in being able to have traceability between what you are doing for the business, and what you are doing for yourself. If you are using this as a \"\"staging\"\" account for investments, etc., are those investments for yourself? Or for the business? Is tax treatment on capital gains and/or dividends the same for personal and business in your jurisdiction? If you buy a widget, is the widget an expense against business income? Or is it an out of pocket expense for personal consumption? The former reduces your taxable income, the latter does not. I don't see the benefit of a real business account because those have features specific to maybe corporations, LLC, and etc. -- nothing beneficial to a sole proprietor who has no reports/employees. The real benefit is that there is a clear delineation between business income/expenses and personal income/expenses. This account can also accept money and hold it from business transactions/sales, and possibly transfer some to the personal account if there's no need for reinvesting said amount/percentage. What you are looking for is a commonly called a current account, because it is used for current expenses. If you are moving money out of the account to your personal account, that speaks to paying yourself, which has other implications as well. The safest/cleanest way to do this is to: While this may sound like overkill, it is the only way to guarantee that income/expenses are allocated to the correct entity (i.e. you, or your business). From a Canadian standpoint:\""
] |
[
"Have the check reissued to the proper payee.",
"Just have the associate sign the back and then deposit it. It's called a third party cheque and is perfectly legal. I wouldn't be surprised if it has a longer hold period and, as always, you don't get the money if the cheque doesn't clear. Now, you may have problems if it's a large amount or you're not very well known at the bank. In that case you can have the associate go to the bank and endorse it in front of the teller with some ID. You don't even technically have to be there. Anybody can deposit money to your account if they have the account number. He could also just deposit it in his account and write a cheque to the business."
] |
6891
|
What is the theory behind Rick Van Ness's risk calculation in the video about diversification?
|
[
"277217",
"463837",
"474351"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"474351",
"238702",
"365189",
"463837",
"370777",
"43683",
"277217",
"419038",
"134542",
"486643",
"471817",
"180855",
"218728",
"508540",
"372381",
"331008",
"351352",
"259084",
"82294",
"514141",
"483123",
"390380",
"594755",
"296567",
"483588",
"31954",
"344783",
"499008",
"153989",
"500863",
"425452",
"186575",
"26335",
"188461",
"473936",
"393833",
"310032",
"477646",
"570787",
"297100",
"87915",
"279072",
"430398",
"391861",
"186928",
"220327",
"441450",
"239296",
"289",
"252574",
"144261",
"463943",
"217437",
"502495",
"329565",
"139368",
"445582",
"332937",
"378403",
"309387",
"403916",
"192541",
"36534",
"424717",
"172136",
"283074",
"229364",
"549188",
"81304",
"306815",
"492506",
"141596",
"117491",
"222076",
"527786",
"569283",
"459970",
"460301",
"37034",
"312942",
"320401",
"1565",
"152788",
"254493",
"451348",
"199237",
"207368",
"565181",
"72446",
"110078",
"335981",
"134610",
"395437",
"397846",
"111431",
"492346",
"450949",
"284591",
"460308",
"499301"
] |
[
"\"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \"\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\"\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\"",
"\"Years ago I wrote an article Risk, Reward, Coin Flipping which explains from a 'game theory' perspective how diversifying works to minimize standard deviation in one's returns. It's long and tedious, not easy to summarize, but it holds up well, I'm pleased with how the analogy does its job. Update - the above is too \"\"link-only\"\", written over 5 years ago. The article I wrote offers a mathematical approach via an understandable example of coin flipping. With just 2 options, a 'head' is a 10% loss, while a 'tail' is a 30% gain. This actually represents the market fairly well as it results in a 10% average gain and 28% standard deviation for just 2 flips. The article shows how by 'diversifying', choosing to make multiple smaller bets, the average 10% stays the same, but the standard deviation is brought down dramatically, 7.6% when we use a sample experiment with 7 coins.\"",
"At its simplest level it's an application of basic statistics/probability: Suppose you have n independent and identically distributed assets with the return on asset i denoted R_i which has mean m and variance s^2 (same for all assets). You can easily weaken these assumptions but I make them to simplify the exposition [Square brackets show a numerical example with n=20, m=8%, s=2%] if you invest in one of these assets you expect to get a return of m [8%] with standard deviation s [2%] (so you expect with probability 95% (approx) to get a return between m-2*s and m+2*s. [between 4% and 12%] Now suppose you split your money equally among the n-assets. Your return is now R = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i your expected return is E(R) = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n E(R_i) = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n m = m [8%] the variance of your return is Var(R) = Var( (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i ) = (1/n^2)\\Sum{i=1}^n Var(R_i) = n * s^2 / n^2) = s^2/n So, the standard deviation is SD(R) = Sqrt(V(R)) = s/Sqrt(n) [2%/Sqrt(20) = 0.44%] Now, with 95% probability we get a return between E(R)-2*SD(R) and E(R)+2*SD(R) [between 7.12% and 8.88%]. This interval is smaller than when we invested in the single asset, so in effect with this portfolio we are achieving the same return m [8%] but with lower variance (risk) [0.44% instead of 2%]. This is the result of diversification. You can assume the assets are not independent (and most book expositions of this topic do indeed do that). In that case the calculation is modified because the variance of the portfolio now depends on the correlation between returns, as does the reduction in variance caused by the diversification. If assets are negatively correlated the result of the diversification will be more reduction in risk and vice versa. You can also assume the assets are not identically distributed and the above analysis does not change too much. You might look for some references on CAPM (Capital Asset Pricing Model) or portfolio theory but broadly these are based on what I have described above - finding the portfolio with minimum variance for a given return by investing proportionally in treasury bonds and risky assets.",
"\"John Bensin's answer covers the math, but I like the plain-English examples of the theory from William Bernstein's fine book, The Intelligent Asset Allocator. At the author's web site, you can find the complete chapter 1 and chapter 2, though not chapter 3, which is the one with the \"\"multiple coin toss\"\" portfolio example I want to highlight. I'll summarize Bernstein's multiple coin toss example here with some excerpts from the book. (Another top user, @JoeTaxpayer, has also written about the coin flip on his blog, also mentioning Bernstein's book.) Bernstein begins Chapter 1 by describing an offer from a fictitious \"\"Uncle Fred\"\": Imagine that you work for your rich but eccentric Uncle Fred. [...] he decides to let you in on the company pension plan. [...] you must pick ahead of time one of two investment choices for the duration of your employment: Certificates of deposit with a 3% annualized rate of return, or, A most peculiar option: At the end of each year Uncle Fred flips a coin. Heads you receive a 30% investment return for that year, tails a minus 10% (loss) for the year. This will be hereafter referred to as \"\"Uncle Fred’s coin toss,\"\" or simply, the \"\"coin toss.\"\" In effect, choosing option 2 results in a higher expected return than option 1, but it is certainly riskier, having a high standard deviation and being especially prone to a series of bad tosses. Chapters 1 and 2 continue to expand on the idea of risk, and take a look at various assets/markets over time. Chapter 3 then begins by introducing the multiple coin toss example: Time passes. You have spent several more years in the employ of your Uncle Fred, and have truly grown to dread the annual coin-toss sessions. [...] He makes you another offer. At the end of each year, he will divide your pension account into two equal parts and conduct a separate coin toss for each half [...] there are four possible outcomes [...]: [...] Being handy with numbers, you calculate that your annualized return for this two-coin-toss sequence is 9.08%, which is nearly a full percentage point higher than your previous expected return of 8.17% with only one coin toss. Even more amazingly, you realize that your risk has been reduced — with the addition of two returns at the mean of 10%, your calculated standard deviation is now only 14.14%, as opposed to 20% for the single coin toss. [...] Dividing your portfolio between assets with uncorrelated results increases return while decreasing risk. [...] If the second coin toss were perfectly inversely correlated with the first and always gave the opposite result [hence, outcomes 1 and 4 above never occurring], then our return would always be 10%. In this case, we would have a 10% annualized long-term return with zero risk! I hope that summarizes the example well. Of course, in the real world, one of the tricks to building a good portfolio is finding assets that aren't well-correlated, and if you're interested in more on the subject I suggest you check out his books (including The Four Pillars of Investing) and read more about Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT).\"",
"if I have a asset A with expected return of 100% and risk(measured by standard deviation) 1%, and asset B with expected return of 1% and risk 100%, would it be rational to put asset B into the portfolio ? No, because Modern Portfolio Theory would say that if there is another asset (B2) with the same (or higher) return but less risk (which you already have in asset A), you should invest in that. If those are the only two assets you can choose from, you would invest completely in Asset A. The point of diversification is that, so long as two assets aren't perfectly positively correlated (meaning that if one moves up the other always moves up), then losses in one asset will sometimes be offset by gains in another, reducing the overall risk.",
"If you have 100% of your money in one security that is inherently more risky than splitting your money 50/50 between two securities, regardless of the purported riskiness of the two securities. The calculations people use to justify their particular breed of diversification may carry some assumptions related risk/reward calculations. But these particular justifications don't change the fact that spreading your money across different assets protects your money from value variances of the individual assets. Splitting your $100 between Apple and Microsoft stock is probably less valuable (less well diversified) than splitting your money between Apple and Whole Foods stock but either way you're carrying less risk than putting all $100 in to Apple stock regardless of the assumed rates of return for any of these companies stock specifically. Edit: I'm sure the downvotes are because I didn't make a big deal about correlation and measuring correlation and standard deviations of returns and detailed portfolio theory. Measuring efficacy and justifying your particular allocations (that generally uses data from the past to project the future) is all well and good. Fact of the matter is, if you have 100% of your money in stock that's more stock risk than 25% in cash, 25% in bonds and 50% in stock would be because now you're in different asset classes. You can measure to your hearts delight the effects of splitting your money between different specific companies, or different industries, or different market capitalizations, or different countries or different fund managers or different whatever-metrics and doing any of those things will reduce your exposure to those specific allocations. It may be worth pointing out that currently the hot recommendation is a plain vanilla market tracking S&P 500 index fund (that just buys some of each of the 500 largest US companies without any consideration given to risk correlation) over standard deviation calculating actively managed funds. If you ask me that speaks volumes of the true efficacy of hyper analyzing the purported correlations of various securities.",
"\"He's calculating portfolio variance. The general formula for the variance of a portfolio composed of two securities looks like this: where w_a and w_b are the weights of each stock in the portfolio and the sigmas represent the standard deviation/risk of each asset or portfolio. In the case of perfect positive or negative correlation, applying some algebra to the formula relating covariance to the correlation coefficient (rho, the Greek letter that looks like \"\"p\"\"): tells us that the covariance we need in the original formula is simply the product of the standard deviations and the correlation coefficient (-1 in this case). Combining that result with our original formula yields this calculation: Technically we've calculated the portfolio's variance and not it's standard deviation/risk, but since the square root of 0 is still 0, that doesn't matter. The Wikipedia article on Modern Portfolio Theory has a section that describes the mathematical methods I used above. The entire article is worth a read, however.\"",
"\"JoeTaxpayer's answer is dead on... but let me give my own two cents with a little bit of math. Otherwise, I personally find that people talking about diversified portfolios tends to be full of buzzwords. Let's say that Buffett's investments are $10 million. He would like to earn ≥7% this year, or $700,000. He can invest that money in coca-cola//underwear, which might return: Or he can invest in \"\"genius moves\"\" that will make headlines: (like buying huge stakes in Goldman Sachs), which might return: And he makes plays for the long haul based on the expected value of the investments. So if he splits it 50/50... ($5 million/ $5 million), then his expected value is 822,250: By diversifying, he does reduce the expected value of the portfolio... (He is not giving $10 M the chance to turn into $1.5 million or $2 million for him!). The expected value of that shock-and-awe portfolio with all $10 million invested in it is $1.2M. By taking less risk... for less reward... his expected return is lower. But his risk is lower too. Scale this example back up into the $100 million or billion range that Buffett invests in and that extra margin makes the difference. In the context of your original article, the lower-risk 'cake and underwear' investments let Buffett go big on the things that will make 20%+ returns on billions of dollars, without completely destroying his investment capital when things take a turn for the worse.\"",
"\"When you invest in a single index/security, you are completely exposed to the risk of that security. Diversification means spreading the investments so the losses on one side can be compensated by the gains on the other side. What you are talking about is one thing called \"\"risk apettite\"\", more formally known as Risk Tolerance: Risk tolerance is the degree of variability in investment returns that an investor is willing to withstand. (emphasis added) This means that you are willing to accept some losses in order to get a potential bigger return. Fidelity has this graph: As you can see in the table above, the higher the risk tolerance, the bigger the difference between the best and worst values. That is the variability. The right-most pie can be one example of an agressive diversified portfolio. But this does not mean you should go and buy exactly that security compostion. High-risk means playing with fire. Unless you are a professional stuntman, playing with fire usually leaves people burnt. In a financial context this usually means the money is gone. Recommended Reading: Investopedia; Risk and Diversification: The Risk-Reward Tradeoff Investopedia; How to construct a High Risk portfolio Fidelity: Guide to Diversification KPMG: Understanding and articulating Risk Appetite (pdf)\"",
"Dummy example to explain this. Suppose your portfolio contained just two securities; a thirty year US government bond and a Tesla stock. Both of those position are currently valued at $1mm. The Tesla position however is very volatile with its daily volatility being about 5% (based on the standard deviation of its daily return) whole there bond's daily volatility is 1%. Then the Tesla position is 5/6 of your risk while being only 1/2 of the portfolio. Now if in month the Tesla stock tanks to half is values then. Then it's risk is half as much as before and so it's total contribution to risk has gone down.",
"\"The standard measure of risk is the variance of the asset. The return on investment of the asset is understood as a random variable with a particular distribution. One can make inferences about the underlying distribution using historical data. As you say, this is what the quants do. There are other, more sophisticated measures of risk that allow for such things as skewed distributions and Markov switching. If you are interested in learning more, I suggest starting with the foundations of Modern Portfolio Theory: \"\"Portfolio Selection\"\" by Harry Markowitz and \"\"Capital Asset Prices\"\" by William Sharpe.\"",
"Diversifying your portfolio between asset A and asset B only reduces the portfolio risk if asset A and asset B are not correlated. If they have either a low correlation or a negative correlation to each other, then you benefit from combining them in a portfolio in terms of risk reduction. The standard deviation of returns will be lower in a portfolio of low or uncorrelated assets. If on the other hand you combine two correlated assets into a portfolio you are doubling down on the same assumption, which means you are not reducing your risk. You are also wasting capital because now you have allocated capital to 2 separate trades / investments yet they have shown a high tendency of moving together. Here is an article that discusses this further: Why Diversify your Stock Portfolio",
"The other example I'd offer is the case for diversification. If one buys 10 well chosen stocks, i.e. stocks spread across different industries so their correlation to one another is low, they will have lower risk than each of the 10 folk who own one of those stocks per person. Same stocks, but lower risk when combined.",
"\"Diversification is extremely important and the one true \"\"Free Lunch\"\" of investing, meaning it can provide both greater returns and less risk than a portfolio that is not diversified. The reason people say otherwise is because they are talking about \"\"true\"\" portfolio diversification, which cannot be achieved by simply spreading money across stocks. To truly diversify a portfolio it must be diversified across multiple, unrelated \"\"Return Drivers.\"\" I describe this throughout my best-selling book and am pleased to provide complimentary links to the following two chapters, where I discuss the lack of diversification from spreading money solely across stocks (including correlation tables), as well as the benefits of true portfolio diversification: Jackass Investing - Myth #8: Trading is Gambling – Investing is Safer Jackass Investing - Myth #20: There is No Free Lunch\"",
"\"You're talking about modern portfolio theory. The wiki article goes into the math. Here's the gist: Modern portfolio theory (MPT) is a theory of finance that attempts to maximize portfolio expected return for a given amount of portfolio risk, or equivalently minimize risk for a given level of expected return, by carefully choosing the proportions of various assets. At the most basic level, you either a) pick a level of risk (standard deviation of your whole portfolio) that you're ok with and find the maximum return you can achieve while not exceeding your risk level, or b) pick a level of expected return that you want and minimize risk (again, the standard deviation of your portfolio). You don't maximize both moments at once. The techniques behind actually solving them in all but the most trivial cases (portfolios of two or three assets are trivial cases) are basically quadratic programming because to be realistic, you might have a portfolio that a) doesn't allow short sales for all instruments, and/or b) has some securities that can't be held in fractional amounts (like ETF's or bonds). Then there isn't a closed form solution and you need computational techniques like mixed integer quadratic programming Plenty of firms and people use these techniques, even in their most basic form. Also your terms are a bit strange: It has correlation table p11, p12, ... pij, pnn for i and j running from 1 to n This is usually called the covariance matrix. I want to maximize 2 variables. Namely the expected return and the additive inverse of the standard deviation of the mixed investments. Like I said above you don't maximize two moments (return and inverse of risk). I realize that you're trying to minimize risk by maximizing \"\"negative risk\"\" so to speak but since risk and return are inherently a tradeoff you can't achieve the best of both worlds. Maybe I should point out that although the above sounds nice, and, theoretically, it's sound, as one of the comments points out, it's harder to apply in practice. For example it's easy to calculate a covariance matrix between the returns of two or more assets, but in the simplest case of modern portfolio theory, the assumption is that those covariances don't change over your time horizon. Also coming up with a realistic measure of your level of risk can be tricky. For example you may be ok with a standard deviation of 20% in the positive direction but only be ok with a standard deviation of 5% in the negative direction. Basically in your head, the distribution of returns you want probably has negative skewness: because on the whole you want more positive returns than negative returns. Like I said this can get complicated because then you start minimizing other forms of risk like value at risk, for example, and then modern portfolio theory doesn't necessarily give you closed form solutions anymore. Any actively managed fund that applies this in practice (since obviously a completely passive fund will just replicate the index and not try to minimize risk or anything like that) will probably be using something like the above, or at least something that's more complicated than the basic undergrad portfolio optimization that I talked about above. We'll quickly get beyond what I know at this rate, so maybe I should stop there.\"",
"\"I would like to first point out that there is nothing special about a self-managed investment portfolio as compared to one managed by someone else. With some exceptions, you can put together exactly the same investment portfolio yourself as a professional investor could put together for you. Not uncommonly, too, at a lower cost (and remember that cost is among the, if not the, best indicator(s) of how your investment portfolio will perform over time). Diversification is the concept of not \"\"putting all your eggs in one basket\"\". The idea here is that there are things that happen together because they have a common cause, and by spreading your investments in ways such that not all of your investments have the same underlying risks, you reduce your overall risk. The technical term for risk is generally volatility, meaning how much (in this case the price of) something fluctuates over a given period of time. A stock that falls 30% one month and then climbs 40% the next month is more volatile than one that falls 3% the first month and climbs 4% the second month. The former is riskier because if for some reason you need to sell when it is down, you lose a larger portion of your original investment with the former stock than with the latter. Diversification, thus, is reducing commonality between your investments, generally but not necessarily in an attempt to reduce the risk of all investments moving in the same direction by the same amount at the same time. You can diversify in various ways: Do you see where I am going with this? A well-diversed portfolio will tend to have a mix of equity in your own country and a variety of other countries, spread out over different types of equity (company stock, corporate bonds, government bonds, ...), in different sectors of the economy, in countries with differing growth patterns. It may contain uncommon classes of investments such as precious metals. A poorly diversified portfolio will likely be restricted to either some particular geographical area, type of equity or investment, focus on some particular sector of the economy (such as medicine or vehicle manufacturers), or so on. The poorly diversified portfolio can do better in the short term, if you time it just right and happen to pick exactly the right thing to buy or sell. This is incredibly hard to do, as you are basically working against everyone who gets paid to do that kind of work full time, plus computer-algorithm-based trading which is programmed to look for any exploitable patterns. It is virtually impossible to do for any real length of time. Thus, the well-diversified portfolio tends to do better over time.\"",
"it's kind of like a circular loop: i think he would suggest identifying strategies/portfolio managers who have demonstrated outperformance in a persistent manner. Thing is, that's also really hard to do. I think empirically, MPT suffers when the market does. By diversifying, you'll only be down less. He's suggesting shooting for absolute returns -- no matter what the market does, he wants to see positive gains. (a lot) easier said than done",
"Diversification is used by many to hopefully reduce the risk when bad investments are made. Diversification does not help you make more profits but instead averages down your profits. There is no way one can tell whether a stock or portfolio of stocks will go up or down once they are purchased. In order to try to provide some protection against total loss of the portfolio, a lazy so called long term investor will use diversification as a way of risk management. But the best outcome for them will be an averaging down of their profits. A better method is to let the market tell you when your purchased investment is a bad one and get out of that investment early and thus limiting your losses, whilst letting your good investments (as determined by the market) run and make larger profits.",
"Variance of a single asset is defined as follows: σ2 = Σi(Xi - μ)2 where Xi's represent all the possible final market values of your asset and μ represents the mean of all such market values. The portfolio's variance is defined as σp2 = Σiwi2σi2 where, σp is the portfolio's variance, and wi stands for the weight of the ith asset. Now, if you include the borrowing in your portfolio, that would classify as technically shorting at the borrowing rate. Thus, this weight would (by the virtue of being negative) increase all other weights. Moreover, the variance of this is likely to be zero (assuming fixed borrowing rates). Thus, weights of risky assets rise and the investor's portfolio's variance will go up. Also see, CML at wikipedia.",
"Quick and dirty paper but pretty interesting.. I'm not in Portfolio Management but I probably would have ended up at the modal number as well. I don't know the subject deeply enough to answer my own question, but is the bias always toward underestimation of variance? Or is that a complex of the way the problem was set up? Another question I have for those in investment management; Would this impact asset allocation?",
"\"The question is: how do you quantify investment risk? As Michael S says, one approach is to treat investment returns as a random variable. Bill Goetzmann (Yale finance professor) told me that if you accept that markets are efficient or that the price of an asset reflects it's underlying value, then changes in price represent changes in value, so standard deviation naturally becomes the appropriate measure for riskiness of an asset. Essentially, the more volatile an asset, the riskier it is. There is another school of thought that comes from Ben Graham and Warren Buffett, which says that volatility is not inherently risky. Rather, risk should be defined as the permanent loss of capital, so the riskiness of an asset is the probability of a permanent loss of capital invested. This is easy to do in casino games, based on basic probability such as roulette or slots. But what has been done with the various kinds of investment risks? My point is saying that certain bonds are \"\"low risk\"\" isn't good enough; I'd like some numbers--or at least a range of numbers--and therefore one could calculate expected payoff (in the statistics sense). Or can it not be done--and if not, why not? Investing is more art than science. In theory, a Triple-A bond rating means the asset is riskless or nearly riskless, but we saw that this was obviously wrong since several of the AAA mortgage backed securities (MBS) went under prior to the recent US recession. More recently, the current threat of default suggests that bond ratings are not entirely accurate, since US Treasuries are considered riskless assets. Investors often use bond ratings to evaluate investments - a bond is considered investment grade if it's BBB- or higher. To adequately price bonds and evaluate risk, there are too many factors to simply refer to a chart because things like the issuer, credit quality, liquidity risk, systematic risk, and unsystematic risk all play a factor. Another factor you have to consider is the overall portfolio. Markowitz showed that adding a riskier asset can actually lower the overall risk of a portfolio because of diversification. This is all under the assumption that risk = variance, which I think is bunk. I'm aware that Wall Street is nothing like roulette, but then again there must be some math and heavy economics behind calculating risk for individual investors. This is, after all, what \"\"quants\"\" are paid to do, in part. Is it all voodoo? I suspect some of it is, but not all of it. Quants are often involved in high frequency trading as well, but that's another note. There are complicated risk management products, such as the Aladdin system by BlackRock, which incorporate modern portfolio theory (Markowitz, Fama, Sharpe, Samuelson, etc) and financial formulas to manage risk. Crouhy's Risk Management covers some of the concepts applied. I also tend to think that when people point to the last x number of years of stock market performance, that is of less value than they expect. Even going back to 1900 provides \"\"only\"\" 110 years of data, and in my view, complex systems need more data than those 40,500 data points. 10,000 years' worth of data, ok, but not 110. Any books or articles that address these issues, or your own informed views, would be helfpul. I fully agree with you here. A lot of work is done in the Santa Fe Institute to study \"\"complex adaptive systems,\"\" and we don't have any big, clear theory as of yet. Conventional risk management is based on the ideas of modern portfolio theory, but a lot of that is seen to be wrong. Behavioral finance is introducing new ideas on how investors behave and why the old models are wrong, which is why I cannot suggest you study risk management and risk models because I and many skilled investors consider them to be largely wrong. There are many good books on investing, the best of which is Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor. Although not a book on risk solely, it provides a different viewpoint on how to invest and covers how to protect investments via a \"\"Margin of Safety.\"\" Lastly, I'd recommend Against the Gods by Peter Bernstein, which covers the history of risk and risk analysis. It's not solely a finance book but rather a fascinating historical view of risk, and it helps but many things in context. Hope it helps!\"",
"The funny thing is - this is total bullshit, the major assumption underlying VAR along with many other financial products is that your assets have a certain correlation to oneanother, and you calculate your risk hedges on this assumption. VAR is a terrible way of managing firmwide risk, and always will be, because it doesn't protect you from a deleveraging environment, when all asset values fall and former inverse correlations don't protect you anymore.",
"Risk in finance is defined as standard deviation of returns. This is a measure of size of your returns, both negative and positive. Since the mean return is positive (at least for the stock market and fixed income), if you double the standard deviation your mean return also doubles along with it. In this way you are compensated by the market for taking on more risk.",
"\"While it's definitely possible (and likely?) that a diversified portfolio generates higher returns than the S&P 500, that's not the main reason why you diversify. Diversification reduces risk. Modern portfolio theory suggests that you should maximize return while reducing risk, instead of blindly chasing the highest returns. Think about it this way--say the average return is 11% for large cap US stocks (the S&P 500), and it's 10% for a diversified portfolio (say, 6-8 asset classes). The large cap only portfolio has a 10% chance of losing 30% in a given year, while the diversified portfolio has a 1% chance of losing 30% in a year. For the vast majority of investors, it's worth the 1% annual gap in expected return to greatly reduce their risk exposure. Of course, I just made those numbers up. Read what finance professors have written for the \"\"data and proof\"\". But modern portfolio theory is believed by a lot of investors and other finance experts. There are a ton of studies (and therefore data) on MPT--including many that contradict it.\"",
"That's exactly what immunofort is saying, and it lines up with established financial theory (well, some of it). The general argument is that stocks are priced according to what risks they're exposed to. Several (although not all) of the major financial economics theories propose (and find empirical evidence for this) that the market as whole is a risk factor, so individual stocks would be priced in part based on how correlated they are with the market. Strictly speaking, the risk free rate is purely theoretical and can't be directly observed, but the US T-bill yield is usually considered to be a pretty good proxy for it.",
"\"I think Swenson's insight was that the traditional recommendation of 60% stocks plus 40% bonds has two serious flaws: 1) You are exposed to way too much risk by having a portfolio that is so strongly tied to US equities (especially in the way it has historically been recommend). 2) You have too little reward by investing so much of your portfolio in bonds. If you can mix a decent number of asset classes that all have equity-like returns, and those asset classes have a low correlation with each other, then you can achieve equity-like returns without the equity-like risk. This improvement can be explicitly measured in the Sharpe ratio of you portfolio. (The Vanguard Risk Factor looks pretty squishy and lame to me.) The book the \"\"The Ivy Portfolio\"\" does a great job at covering the Swenson model and explains how to reasonably replicate it yourself using low fee ETFs.\"",
"\"There are some good answers about the benefits of diversification, but I'm going to go into what is going on mathematically with what you are attempting. I was always under the assumption that as long as two securities are less than perfectly correlated (i.e. 1), that the standard deviation/risk would be less than if I had put 100% into either of the securities. While there does exist a minimum variance portfolio that is a combination of the two with lower vol than 100% of either individually, this portfolio is not necessarily the portfolio with highest utility under your metric. Your metric includes returns not just volatility/variance so the different returns bias the result away from the min-vol portfolio. Using the utility function: E[x] - .5*A*sig^2 results in the highest utility of 100% VTSAX. So here the Sharpe ratio (risk adjusted return) of the U.S. portfolio is so much higher than the international portfolio over the period tracked that the loss of returns from adding more international stocks outweigh the lower risk that you would get from both just adding the lower vol international stocks and the diversification effects from having a correlation less than one. The key point in the above is \"\"over the period tracked\"\". When you do this type of analysis you implicitly assume that the returns/risk observed in the past will be similar to the returns/risk in the future. Certainly, if you had invested 100% in the U.S. recently you would have done better than investing in a mix of US/Intl. However, while the risk and correlations of assets can be (somewhat) stable over time relative returns can vary wildly! This uncertainty of future returns is why most people use a diversified portfolio of assets. What is the exact right amount is a very hard question though.\"",
"\"Wow, this analysis really surprised me. Very complete and useful, but i think my teacher request was easier. He just said: \"\"Try to build a diversified portfolio. Then try to add a commodity (like silver or gold) and understand how the risk vary introducing an asset like this.\"\" So, i'm basically making a stocks portfolio and i'm calculating its expected return and risk. (for example 40%FB, 10%JNJ, 20%GS, 10%F and 20%MCD) then i'm adding GLD (so now i have something like 20%FB, 10%JNJ, 10%GS, 10%F and 20%MCD 30%GLD) and i'm actually making an excel spreadsheet where i calculate all the: -Expected returns -St Deviation -Covariance At the end i compare the returns and the risks on the 2 different portfolios.\"",
"\"Diversification tends to protect you from big losses. But it also tends to \"\"protect\"\" you from big gains. In any industry, some companies provide good products and services and prosper while others have problems and fail. (Or maybe the winners are just lucky or they paid off the right politicians, whatever, not the point here.) If you put all your money in one stock and they do well, you could make a bundle. But if you pick a loser, you could lose your entire investment. If you buy a little stock in each of many companies, then some will go up and some will go down, and your returns will be an average of how everyone in the industry is doing. Suppose I offered to bet you a large sum of money that if I roll a die, it will come up 6. You might be reluctant to take that bet, because you can't predict what number will come up on one roll of a die. But suppose I offered to bet you a large sum of money that a die will come up 6, 100 times in a row. You might well take that bet, because the chance that it will turn up 6 time after time after time is very low. You reduce risk by spreading your bets. Anyone who's bought stock has surely had times when he said, \"\"Oh man! If only I'd bought X ten years ago I'd be a millionaire now!\"\" But quite a few have also said, \"\"If only I'd sold X ten years ago I wouldn't have lost all this money!\"\" I recently bought a stock a stock that within a few months rose to 10 times what I paid for it ... and then a few months later the company went bankrupt and the stock was worth nothing. I knew the company was on a roller coaster when I bought the stock, I was gambling that they'd pull through and I'd make money. I guessed wrong. Fortunately I gambled an amount that I was willing to lose.\"",
"Modern portfolio theory has a strong theoretical background and its conclusions on the risk/return trade-off have a lot of good supporting evidence. However, the conclusions it draws need to be used very carefully when thinking about retirement investing. If you were really just trying to just pick the one investment that you would guess would make you the most money in the future then yes, given no other information, the riskiest asset would be the best one. However, for most people the goal retirement investing is to be as sure as possible to retire comfortably. If you were to just invest in a single, very risky asset you may have the highest expected return, but the risk involved would mean there might be a good chance you money may not be there when you need it. Instead, a broad diversified basket of riskier and safer assets leaning more toward the riskier investments when younger and the safer assets when you get closer to retirement tends to be a better fit with most people's retirement goals. This tends to give (on average) more return when you are young and can better deal with the risk, but dials back the risk later in life when your investment portfolio is a majority of your wealth and you can least afford any major swings. This combines the lessons of MPT (diversity, risk/return trade-off) in a clearer way with common goals of retirement. Caveat: Your retirement goals and risk-tolerance may be very different from other peoples'. It is often good to talk to (fee-only) financial planner.",
"\"In theory, the idea is that diversified assets will perform differently in different circumstances, spreading your risk around. Whether that still functions in practice is a decent question, as the \"\"truth\"\" of most probability based arguments for diversification rely on the different assets being at least somewhat uncorrelated. This article suggests that might not be true. Specifically: The correlations we note among industry sectors are profoundly and dysfunctionally high. and Gold and silver traders have gotten too used to the negative correlation trade with stocks. This is, in fact, an unusual relationship for precious metals tostocks. The correlation should actually be zero.\"",
"You're missing the concept of systemic risk, which is the risk of the entire market or an entire asset class. Diversification is about achieving a balance between risk and return that's appropriate for you. Your investment in Vanguard's fund, although diversified between many public companies, is still restricted to one asset class in one country. Yes, you lower your risk by investing in all of these companies, but you don't erase it entirely. Clearly, there is still risk, despite your diversification. You may decide that you want other investments or a different asset allocation that reduce the overall risk of your portfolio. Over the long run, you may earn a high level of return, but never forget that there is still risk involved. bonds seem pretty worthless, at least until I retire According to your profile, you're about my age. Our cohort will probably begin retiring sometime around 2050 or later, and no one knows what the bond market will look like over the next 40 years. We may have forecasts for the next few years, but not for almost four decades. Writing off an entire asset class for almost four decades doesn't seem like a good idea. Also, bonds are like equity, and all other asset classes, in that there are different levels of risk within the asset class too. When calculating the overall risk/return profile of my portfolio, I certainly don't consider Treasuries as the same risk level as corporate bonds or high-yield (or junk) bonds from abroad. Depending on your risk preferences, you may find that an asset allocation that includes US and/or international bonds/fixed-income, international equities, real-estate, and cash (to make rebalancing your asset allocation easier) reduces your risk to levels you're willing to tolerate, while still allowing you to achieve returns during periods where one asset class, e.g. equities, is losing value or performing below your expectations.",
"\"Modern portfolio theory dramatically underestimates the risk of the recommended assets. This is because so few underlying assets are in the recommended part of the curve. As investors identify such assets, large amounts of money are invested in them. This temporarily reduces measured risk, and temporarily increases measured return. Sooner or later, \"\"the trade\"\" becomes \"\"crowded\"\". Eventually, large amounts of money try to \"\"exit the trade\"\" (into cash or the next discovered asset). And so the measurable risk suddenly rises, and the measured return drops. In other words, modern portfolio theory causes bubbles, and causes those bubbles to pop. Some other strategies to consider:\"",
"What you're looking for is expected value. Let's say you invest $1000 in option A, and later discover that you are going to lose 20%. So the expected value of option A is $800. If option B has a 50% chance of losing 50%, and a 50% of gaining 20%, then your expected value is $650 ($650 = $1000 * (50% * 50% + 50% * 20%)). $800 > $650, so you should stay with option A. In the real world, you usually don't know the exact odds and percentages, so substitute in your best guesses. This may lead to suboptimal results, but only if your estimations are wrong; the formula itself is ideal.",
"Ditto Bill and I upvoted his answer. But let me add a bit. If everyone knew exactly what the risk was for every investment, then prices would be bid up or down until every stock (or bond or derivative or whatever) was valued at exactly risk times potential profit. (Or more precisely, integral of risk times potential profit.) If company A was 100% guaranteed to make $1 million profit this year, while company B had 50% change to make a $2 million profit and 50% to make $0, and every investor in the world knew that, then I'd expect the total price of all shares of the two stocks to stabilize at the same value. The catch to that, though, is that no one really knows the risk. The risk isn't like, we're going to roll a die and if it comes up even the company makes $1 million and if it comes up odd the company makes $0, so we could calculate the exact probability. The risk comes from lack of information. Will consumers want to buy this new product? How many? What are they willing to pay? How capable is the new CEO? Etc. It's very hard to calculate probabilities on these things. How can you precisely calculate the probability that unforeseen events will occur? So in real life prices are muddled. The risk/reward ratio should be roughly sort of approximately linear, but that's about the most one can say.",
"\"The formula you are looking for is pretty complicated. It's given here: http://itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda3661.htm You might prefer to let somebody else do the grunt work for you. This page will calculate the probability for you: http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/normal.aspx. In your case, you'd enter mean=.114, standard deviation=.132, and \"\"standard score\"\"= ... oh, you didn't say what you're paying on your debt. Let's say it's 6%, i.e. .06. Note that this page will give you the probability that the actual number will be less than or equal to the \"\"standard score\"\". Enter all that and click the magic button and the probability that the investment will produce less than 6% is ... .34124, or 34%. The handy rule of thumb is that the probability is about 68% that the actual number will be within 1 standard deviation of the mean, 95% that it will be within 2 standard deviations, and 99.7% that it will be within 3. Which isn't exactly what you want because you don't want \"\"within\"\" but \"\"less than\"\". But you could get that by just adding half the difference from 100% for each of the above, i.e. instead of 68-95-99.7 it would be 84-98-99.9. Oh, I missed that in a follow-up comment you say you are paying 4% on a mortgage which you are adjusting to 3% because of tax implications. Probability based on mean and SD you gave of getting less than 3% is 26%. I didn't read the article you cite. I assume the standard deviation given is for the rate of return for one year. If you stretch that over many years, the SD goes down, as many factors tend to even out. So while the probability that money in a given, say, mutual fund will grow by less than 3% in one year is fairly high -- the 25 - 35% we're talking here sounds plausible to me -- the probability that it will grow by an average of less than 3% over a period of 10 or 15 or 20 years is much less. Further Thought There is, of course, no provably-true formula for what makes a reasonable risk. Suppose I offered you an investment that had a 99% chance of showing a $5,000 profit and a 1% chance of a $495,000 loss. Would you take it? I wouldn't. Even though the chance of a loss is small, if it happened, I'd lose everything I have. Is it worth that risk for the modest potential profit? I'd say no. Of course to someone who has a billion dollars, this might be a very reasonable risk. If it fails, oh well, that could really cut in to what he can spend on lunch tomorrow.\"",
"I use two measures to define investment risk: What's the longest period of time over which this investment has had negative returns? What's the worst-case fall in the value of this investment (peak to trough)? I find that the former works best for long-term investments, like retirement. As a concrete example, I have most of my retirement money in equity, since the Sensex has had zero returns over as long as a decade. Since my investment time-frame is longer, equity is risk-free, by this measure. For short-term investments, like money put aside to buy a car next year, the second measure works better. For this purpose, I might choose a debt fund that isn't the safest, and has had a worst-case 8% loss over the past decade. I can afford that loss, putting in more money from my pocket to buy the car, if needed. So, I might choose this fund for this purpose, taking a slight risk to earn higher return. In any case, how much money I need for a car can only be a rough guess, so having 8% less than originally planned may turn out to be enough. Or it may turn out that the entire amount originally planned for is insufficient, in which case a further 8% shortfall may not be a big deal. These two measures I've defined are simple to explain and understand, unlike academic stuff like beta, standard deviation, information ratio or other mumbo-jumbo. And they are simple to apply to a practical problem, as I've illustrated with the two examples above. On the other hand, if someone tells me that the standard deviation of a mutual fund is 15%, I'll have no idea what that means, or how to apply that to my financial situation. All this suffers from the problem of being limited to historical data, and the future may not be like the past. But that affects any risk statistic, and you can't do better unless you have a time machine.",
"\"Diversification is spreading your investments around so that one point of risk doesn't sink your whole portfolio. The effect of having a diversified portfolio is that you've always got something that's going up (though, the corollary is that you've also always got something going down... winning overall comes by picking investments worth investing in (not to state the obvious or anything :-) )) It's worth looking at the different types of risk you can mitigate with diversification: Company risk This is the risk that the company you bought actually sucks. For instance, you thought gold was going to go up, and so you bought a gold miner. Say there are only two -- ABC and XYZ. You buy XYZ. Then the CEO reveals their gold mine is played out, and the stock goes splat. You're wiped out. But gold does go up, and ABC does gangbusters, especially now they've got no competition. If you'd bought both XYZ and ABC, you would have diversified your company risk, and you would have been much better off. Say you invested $10K, $5K in each. XYZ goes to zero, and you lose that $5K. ABC goes up 120%, and is now worth $11K. So despite XYZ bankrupting, you're up 10% on your overall position. Sector risk You can categorize stocks by what \"\"sector\"\" they're in. We've already talked about one: gold miners. But there are many more, like utilities, bio-tech, transportation, banks, etc. Stocks in a sector will tend to move together, so you can be right about the company, but if the sector is out of favor, it's going to have a hard time going up. Lets extend the above example. What if you were wrong about gold going up? Then XYZ would still be bankrupt, and ABC would be making less money so they went down as well; say, 20%. At that point, you've only got $4K left. But say that besides gold, you also thought that banks were cheap. So, you split your investment between the gold miners and a couple of banks -- lets call them LMN and OP -- for $2500 each in XYZ, ABC, LMN, and OP. Say you were wrong about gold, but right about banks; LMN goes up 15%, and OP goes up 40%. At that point, your portfolio looks like this: XYZ start $2500 -100% end $0 ABC start $2500 +120% end $5500 LMN start $2500 +15% end $2875 OP start $2500 +40% end $3500 For a portfolio total of: $11,875, or a total gain of 18.75%. See how that works? Region/Country/Currency risk So, now what if everything's been going up in the USA, and everything seems so overpriced? Well, odds are, some area of the world is not over-bought. Like Brazil or England. So, you can buy some Brazilian or English companies, and diversify away from the USA. That way, if the market tanks here, those foreign companies aren't caught in it, and could still go up. This is the same idea as the sector risk, except it's location based, instead of business type based. There is an additional twist to this -- currencies. The Brits use the pound, and the Brazilians use the real. Most small investors don't think about this much, but the value of currencies, including our dollar, fluctuates. If the dollar has been strong, and the pound weak (as it has been, lately), then what happens if that changes? Say you own a British bank, and the dollar weakens and the pound strengthens. Even if that bank doesn't move at all, you would still make a gain. Example: You buy British bank BBB for 40 pounds a share, when each pound costs $1.20. Say after a while, BBB is still 40 pounds/share, but the dollar weakened and the pound strengthened, such that each pound is now worth $1.50. You could sell BBB, and because of the currency exchange once you've got it converted back to dollars you'd have a 25% gain. Market cap risk Sometimes big companies do well, sometimes it's small companies. The small caps are riskier but higher returning. When you think about it, small and mid cap stocks have much more \"\"room to run\"\" than large caps do. It's much easier to double a company worth $1 billion than it is to double a company worth $100 billion. Investment types Stocks aren't the only thing you can invest in. There's also bonds, convertible bonds, CDs, preferred stocks, options and futures. It can get pretty complicated, especially the last two. But each of these investment behaves differently; and again the idea is to have something going up all the time. The classical mix is stocks and bonds. The idea here is that when times are good, the stocks go up; when times are bad, the bonds go up (because they're safer, so more people want them), but mostly they're there to providing steady income and help keep your portfolio from cratering along with the stocks. Currently, this may not work out so well; stocks and bonds have been moving in sync for several years, and with interest rates so low they don't provide much income. So what does this mean to you? I'm going make some assumptions here based on your post. You said single index, self-managed, and don't lower overall risk (and return). I'm going to assume you're a small investor, young, you invest in ETFs, and the single index is the S&P 500 index ETF -- SPY. S&P 500 is, roughly, the 500 biggest companies in the USA. Further, it's weighted -- how much of each stock is in the index -- such that the bigger the company is, the bigger a percentage of the index it is. If slickcharts is right, the top 5 companies combined are already 11% of the index! (Apple, Microsoft, Exxon, Amazon, and Johnson & Johnson). The smallest, News Corp, is a measly 0.008% of the index. In other words, if all you're invested in is SPY, you're invested in a handfull of giant american companies, and a little bit of other stuff besides. To diversify: Company risk and sector risk aren't really relevant to you, since you want broad market ETFs; they've already got that covered. The first thing I would do is add some smaller companies -- get some ETFs for mid cap, and small cap value (not small cap growth; it sucks for structural reasons). Examples are IWR for mid-cap and VBR for small-cap value. After you've done that, and are comfortable with what you have, it may be time to branch out internationally. You can get ETFs for regions (such as the EU - check out IEV), or countries (like Japan - see EWJ). But you'd probably want to start with one that's \"\"all major countries that aren't the USA\"\" - check out EFA. In any case, don't go too crazy with it. As index investing goes, the S&P 500 is not a bad way to go. Feed in anything else a little bit at a time, and take the time to really understand what it is you're investing in. So for example, using the ETFs I mentioned, add in 10% each IWR and VBR. Then after you're comfortable, maybe add 10% EFA, and raise IWR to 20%. What the ultimate percentages are, of course, is something you have to decide for yourself. Or, you could just chuck it all and buy a single Target Date Retirement fund from, say, Vanguard or T. Rowe Price and just not worry about it.\"",
"Basically, diversifying narrows the spread of possible results, raising the center of the returns bell-curve by reducing the likelihood of extreme results at either the high or low end. It's largely a matter of basic statistics. Bet double-or-nothing on a single coin flip, and those are the only possible results, and your odds of a disaster (losing most or all of the money) are 50%. Bet half of it on each of two coin flips, and your odds of losing are reduced to 25% at the cost of reducing your odds of winning to 25%, with 50% odds that you retain your money and can try the game again. Three coins divides the space further; the extremes are reduced to 12.5% each, with the middle being most likely. If that was all there was, this would be a zero-sum game and pure gambling. But the stock market is actually positive-sum, since companies are delivering part of their profits to their stockholder owners. This moves the center of the bell curve up a bit from break-even, historically to about +8%. This is why index funds produce a profit with very little active decision; they treat the variation as mostly random (which seems to work statistically) and just try to capture average results of a (hopefully) slightly above-average bucket of stocks and/or bonds. This approach is boring. It will never double your money overnight. On the other hand, it will never wipe you out overnight. If you have patience and are willing to let compound interest work for you, and trust that most market swings regress to the mean in the long run, it quietly builds your savings while not driving you crazy worrying about it. If all you are looking for is better return than the banks, and you have a reasonable amount of time before you need to pull the funds out, it's one of the more reliably predictable risk/reward trade-off points. You may want to refine this by biasing the mix of what you're holding. The simplest adjustment is how much you keep in each of several major investment categories. Large cap stocks, small cap stocks, bonds, and real estate (in the form of REITs) each have different baseline risk/return curves, and move in different ways in response to news, so maintaining a selected ratio between these buckets and adding the resulting curves together is one simple way to make fairly predictable adjustments to the width (and centerline) of the total bell curve. If you think you can do better than this, go for it. But index funds have been outperforming professionally managed funds (after the management fees are accounted for), and unless you are interested in spending a lot of time researching and playing with your money the odds of your doing much better aren't great unless you're willing to risk doing much worse. For me, boring is good. I want my savings to work for me rather than the other way around, and I don't consider the market at all interesting as a game. Others will feel differently.",
"\"There are a couple of reasons to diversify your assets. First, since we cannot predict which of our investments will perform best, we want to \"\"cast our net\"\" broadly enough to have something invested in what's going to be performing well. Second, diversification isn't intended to provide the highest returns, but rather it is used to soften the effects of market volatility. By softening the downsides and lowering the overall volatility among our assets, returns are more consistent. If a model does not address future downside risk it is only telling you part of the story. (Past performance does not guarantee... you get the picture)\"",
"\"Typically investing in only two securities is not a good idea when trying to spread risk. Even though you are in the VTI which is spread out over a large amount of securites it should in theory reduce portfolio beta to zero, or in this case as close to it as possible. The VTI however has a beta of 1.03 as of close today in New York. This means that the VTI moves roughly in exact tandem as \"\"the market\"\" usually benched against the S&P 500, so this means that the VTI is slightly more volatile than that index. In theory beta can be 0, this would be akin to investing in T-bills which are 'assumed' to be the risk free rate. So in theory it is possible to reduce the risk in your portfolio and apply a more capital protective model. I hope this helps you a bit.\"",
"If you are diversifying just for diversification purposes then all you are doing is averaging down your returns. You shouldn't just buy two securities because you think it is safer than putting all your money into one. A better method is to use money management and position sizing to limit your risk and exposure in any one security. You should know what your maximum risk is before you buy any security and know when it is time to get out of it. There are better ways to manage your risk. Don't put all your eggs in the one basket - yes, but don't diversify just for diversification purposes.",
"Exactly. Regardless of just the volatility, to weight an asset or two with a majority of your portfolio is poor investment strategy. Ron is a smart guy and obviously understands the benefits of diversification. As others have suggested, I think he is doing it more to make a statement. When he retires, I hope it doesn't come back to bite him.",
"Asset Allocation serves many purposes, not just mitigating risk via a diversification of asset classes, but also allowing you to take a level of risk that is appropriate for a given investor at a given time by how much is allocated to which asset classes. A younger investor with a longer timeframe, may wish to take a lot more risk, investing heavily in equities, and perhaps managed funds that are of the 'aggressive growth' variety, seeking better than market returns. Someone a little older may wish to pull back a bit, especially after a bull market has brought them substantial gains, and begin to 'take money off the table' perhaps by starting to establish some fixed income positions, or pulling back to slightly less risky index, 'value' or 'balanced' funds. An investor who is near or in retirement will generally want even less risk, going to a much more balanced approach with half or more of their investments in fixed income, and the remainder often in income producing 'blue chip' type stocks, or 'income funds'. This allows them to protect a good amount of their wealth from potential loss at a time when they have to be able to depend on it for a majority of their income. An institution such as Yale has very different concerns, and may always be in a more aggressive 'long term' mode since 'retirement' is not a factor for them. They are willing to invest mostly in very aggressive ways, using diversification to protect them from one of those choices 'tanking' but still overall taking a pretty high level of risk, much more so than might be appropriate for an individual who will generally need to seek safety and to preserve gains as they get older. For example look at the PDF that @JLDugger linked, and observe the overall risk level that Yale is taking, and in addition observe the large allocations they make to things like private equity with a 27%+ risk level compared to their very small amount of fixed income with a 10% risk level. Yale has a very long time horizon and invests in a way that is atypical of the needs and concerns of an individual investor. They also have as you pointed out, the economy of scale (with something like #17B in assets?) to afford to hire proven experts, and their own internal PHD level experts to watch over the whole thing, all of which very few individual investors have. For either class of investor, diversification, is a means to mitigate risk by not having all your eggs in one basket. Via having multiple different investments (such as picking multiple individual stocks, or aggressive funds with different approaches, or just an index fund to get multiple stocks) you are protected from being wiped out as might happen if a single choice might fail. For example imagine what would have happened if you had in 2005 put all your money into a single stock with a company that had been showing record profits such as Lehman Brothers, and left it there until 2008 when the stock tanked. or even faster collapses such as Enron, etc that all 'looked great' up until shortly after they failed utterly. Being allocated across multiple asset classes provides some diversification all on it's own, but you can also be diversified within a class. Yale uses the diversification across several asset classes to have lower risk than being invested in a single asset class such as private equity. But their allocation places much more of their funds in high risk classes and much less of their funds in the lowest risk classes such as fixed income.",
"The relationship is not linear, and depends on a lot of factors. The term you're looking for is efficient frontier, the optimal rate of return for a given level of risk. The goal is to be on the efficient frontier, meaning that for the given level of risk, you're receiving the greatest possible rate of return (reward). http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/efficientfrontier.asp",
"\"Beta is the correct answer. It is THE measure of the risk relationship of a stock with the broad market. R squared is incorrect unless you mean something very odd by \"\"co-efficiency.\"\" A stock that goes up each time the market goes down has very low co-efficiency (negative risk as you have defined it) but very high R squared. A stock that goes the same direction as the market but twice as far (with a lot of noise) has a very low R squared but contains a lot of market risk. A stock that always goes in the same direction as the market but only a 100th as far is very safe but has a very high R squared. You can calculate beta using \"\"slope\"\" in excel or doing a regression, but the easiest thing is just to look up the beta in yahoo finance or elsewhere. You don't need to calculate it for yourself normally.\"",
"Other answers here explain very well the intent of your question. However, a word should be said about why people make different choices at all. So to directly answer your question, yes there is a theory but it does not say inaction is worse/better and instead explains why different people make different choices and how this information can be used to construct optimal portfolios for a specific individual. And that theory is called the Risk Aversion Theory. You can visit the following URLs to discover more about this theory:",
"\"The fundamental flaw here is conflating net worth with utility, at least failing to recognize that there's a nonlinear relationship between the two. In the extreme example imagine taking a bet that will either make you twice as rich or completely broke. Your expected return is zero, but it would be pretty dumb to take it since being flat broke could ruin your life while being twice as rich may only improve it marginally. In more realistic cases most of your income is tied up in fixed costs, which magnifies relatively small perturbations to your net worth. Losing something essential (like your house or car), even if it's only 20% of your net worth, renders you effectively broke until you scrape together enough cash to get another one. That situation robs you of much more utility than you'd gain from a 20% increase in net worth. In either case, avoiding the risk is completely rational as long as you believe in nonlinear utility as a function of net worth, it's not just an issue of humans being \"\"risk averse\"\".\"",
"\"So you're basically saying that average market fluctuations have an affect on individual stocks, because individual stocks are often priced in relation to the growth of the market as a whole? Also, what kinds of investments would be considered \"\"risk free\"\" in this nomenclature?\"",
"\"I think you're confusing risk analysis (that is what you quoted as \"\"Taleb Distribution\"\") with arguments against taking risks altogether. You need to understand that not taking a risk - is by itself a risk. You can lose money by not investing it, because of the very same Taleb Distribution: an unpredictable catastrophic event. Take an example of keeping cash in your house and not investing it anywhere. In the 1998 default of the Russian Federation, people lost money by not investing it. Why? Because had they invested the money - they would have the investments/properties, but since they only had cash - it became worthless overnight. There's no argument for or against investing on its own. The arguments are always related to the investment goals and the risk analysis. You're looking for something that doesn't exist.\"",
"\"Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Not exactly. Indexes give the best long term performance when compared to actively managing investments directly in the underlying stocks. That is, if you compare an S&P500 index to trying to pick stocks that are part of it, you're more likely to succeed with blindly following the index than trying to actively beat it. That said, no-one promises that investing in S&P500 is better than investing in DJIA, for example. These are two different indexes tracking different stocks and areas. So when advisers say \"\"diversify\"\" they don't mean it that you should diversify between different stocks that build up the S&P500 index. They mean that you should diversify your investments in different areas. Some in S&P500, some in DJIA, some in international indexes, some in bond indexes, etc. Still, investing in various indexes will likely yield better results than actively managing the investments trying to beat those indexes, but you should not invest in only one, and that is the meaning of diversification. In the comments you asked \"\"why diversify at all?\"\", and that is entirely a different question from your original \"\"what diversification is?\"\". You diversify to reduce the risk of loss from one side, and widen the net for gains from another. The thing is that any single investment can eventually fail, regardless of how it performed before. You can see that the S&P500 index lost 50% of its value twice within ten years, whereas before it was doubling itself every several years. Many people who were only invested in that index (or what's underlying to it) lost a lot of money. But consider you've diversified, and in the last 20 years you've invested in a blend of indexes that include the S&P500, but also other investments like S&P BSE SENSEX mentioned by Victor below. You would reduce your risk of loss on the American market by increasing your gains on the Indian market. Add to the mix soaring Chinese Real Estate market during the time of the collapse of the US real-estate, gains on the dollar losing its value by investing in other currencies (Canadian dollar, for example), etc. There are many risks, and by diversifying you mitigate them, and also have a chance to create other potential gains. Now, another question is why invest in indexes. That has been answered before on this site. It is my opinion that some methods of investing are just gambling by trying to catch the wave and they will almost always fail, and rarely will individual stock picking beat the market. Of course, after the fact its easy to be smart and pick the winning stocks. But the problem is to be able to predict those charts ahead of time.\"",
"\"A kid can lose everything he owns in a crap shoot and live. But a senior citizen might not afford medical treatment if interest rates turn and their bonds underperform. In modern portfolio theory, risk/\"\"aggression\"\" is measured by beta and you get more return by increasing risk. Risk-adjusted return is measured by the Sharpe ratio and the efficient frontier shows how much return you get for each level of risk. For simplicity, we will assume that choosing beta is the only investment choice you make. You are buying a house tomorrow all cash, you should set aside that much in liquid assets today. (Return = who cares, Beta = 0) Your kids go to college in 5 years, so you invest funds now with a 5 year investment horizon to produce, with a reasonable level of certainty, the needed cash then. (Beta = low) You wish to leave money in your estate. Invest for the highest return with a horizon of your lifetime. (Return = maximum, Beta = who cares) In other words, you set risk based on how important your expenses are now or later. And your portfolio is a weighted average. On paper, let's say you have sold yourself into indentured servitude. In return you have received a paid-up-front annuity which pays dividends and increases annually. For someone in their twenties: This adds up to a present value of $1 million. When young, the value of lifetime remaining wages is high. It is also low risk, you will probably find a job eventually in any market condition. If your portfolio is significantly smaller than $1 million this means that the low risk of future wages pulls down your beta, and therefore: Youth invest aggressively with available funds because they compensate large, low-risk future earnings to meet their desired risk appetite.\"",
"\"no way -- he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game. He doesn't like the idea of a \"\"lesser bad\"\" way to invest (MPT). If you do decide to get involved in investing, then it's about absolute performance, not relative. He believes that the whole relative performance thing -- beating some arbitrary benchmark -- is just an artificial construct.\"",
"Diversification is a good method of risk management. Different types of investments do better in different situations and economic climates. Invest all your money at the wrong time in a single product and you could lose everything. You could also technically make a great deal of money, but actions such as these are the actions of speculators, not investors. Spreading your investments appropriately lets you maximize your growth opportunities while limiting your risk.",
"VaR does not capture overall risk, it allows you to say a statement, based on our model, K% of the time, losses will not exceed X. The problem is, 1. How accurate is the statement out of sample? 2. What is the marginal value of this number? Are the choices I make better or worse? 3. Even with a 99.999% confidence level what is the cost to the organization if a decision is made when the model is wrong? Personally when running multiple strategies, you always need to factor in model risk in your asset allocation/trading, i.e. either shut down or reduce exposure when assumptions are violated or run something else, for example when correlations between strategies increases, it is logical to downsize exposure to those strategies as the risk factor to equity has increased. 1. in the grand context of a bank/financial institution, if the VaR is wrong we can bankrupt or negative, so we may want to diversify revenue streams by avoiding that risk, for example correlations increase across asset classes. 2. Sizing is a key problem for banks, as the question is does model error across various platforms (FI, EQ, FICC, Transactions etc), happen at the same time?",
"Diversifying is the first advice given to beginner in order to avoid big loss. For example in 2014 the company Theranos was really appealing before it fail in 2016. So a beginner could have invest ALL his money and lose it. But if he has deverified he wouldn't lost everything. As an investor goes from beginner to experience some still Diversify and other concentrate. Mostly it depends how much confident you are about an investement. If you have 20 years of experience, now everything about the company and you are sure there will be profit you can concentrate. If you are not 100% sure there will be a profit, it is better to Diversify. Diversifying can also be profitating when you loose money: because you will pay tax when you earn money, if you diversify you can choose to loose money in some stock (usually in december) and in this way cut your taxes.",
"So I'm confused - reading dhando investor - he says Odds of receiving a $1 in 2009 and 30+ percent intrestest from 2002-2009 is -> 50% Odds of getting .19 back ( a loss of .11) -> 45% Odds of a loss of .24 is 2% Odds of a total loss is 3% He states Kelly criterion suggests 86% betting how!!!!! Bought the converts at .30 cents please explain no idea how he did this.",
"\"In addition to individual stocks, your entire portfolio will also have a beta. It would be equal to the weighted sum of the individual asset betas So a beta portfolio of 1 would have approximate risk equal to a market index. You would use this to construct a risk level that you were comfortable with, given the expected return of the individual assets. You are also interested in obtaining a high level of \"\"alpha\"\" which means that your portfolio is earning more than what would be expected, given it's level of risk.\"",
"if I have a asset A with expected return of 100% and risk(measured by standard deviation) 1%, and asset B with expected return of 1% and risk 100%, would it be rational to put asset B into the portfolio ? In the capital asset pricing model (CAPM), investors are rational and have access to perfect information. Asset A sounds like an excellent investment, B like a lousy one -- B is probably very far from the efficient frontier. Investors know this, so A's market capitalization will be high, B's low. According to the CAPM, you should then do the same rational thing everyone else is doing, which is to buy a lot of A and very little of B (each in proportion to its market capitalization). Of course the CAPM is just a model, and like any model it is only as good as its assumptions. However, I think this particular application of the model gives a pretty reasonable common-sense answer to the question.",
"The risk-reward relation depends on what you are changing. In the most cases people ask about, it is not linear but I will give examples of both. Nonlinear case 1: As you diversify your portfolio, the firm-specific risks of various stocks cancel each other out without necessarily affecting the expected return of the portfolio. Reduction in risk without any loss in returns--very nonlinear. Nonlinear case 2: If you are changing the weights in your portfolio to move along the efficient frontier, then you the risk-reward relation is a hyperbola, which is nonlinear. Nonlinear case 3: If you are changing the weights in your portfolio to move away from the efficient frontier, then you increase risk without adding a fully compensatory amount of return. There could be many paths along the risk-reward plane, but generally it will not be linear in the sense that it will not be on the same line as your initial, efficient, portfolio and your savings account. Linear case 1: The most common sense in which we think of the risk-reward relation being linear is when the thing you are changing is the size of your investment. If you take money out of savings to put in your fully diversified portfolio without changing the relative weights, your expected returns will increase linearly. Linear case 2: If you believe the CAPM, then the expected return of an asset stock is linearly proportional to the market risk of the firm. If you could change the market risk of a single asset without changing anything else, then you would linearly change its expected return. The general rule about the risk/reward relation is this: If you are changing the size of your investment, the relation is linear. If you are changing its composition, the relation is nonlinear",
"\"Another approach would be more personalized, which is to measure the risk of missing your goals, rather than measuring the risk of an investment in some abstract sense. Financial planners do this for example with Monte Carlo simulation software (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method). They would put in a goal such as not running out of money before you die, with assumptions such as the longest you might live and how much you'll withdraw every year. You'd also assume an asset allocation. The Monte Carlo simulation then generates random market movements over the time period, considering historical behavior of your asset allocation, and each run of the simulation would either succeed (you are able to support yourself until death) or fail (you run out of money). The risk measure is the percentage of simulation runs that fail. You can do this to plan saving for retirement in addition to planning withdrawals; then your goal would be to have X amount of money in real after-inflation dollars, perhaps, and success is if you end up with it, and failure is if you don't. The great thing about this risk measure is that it's relevant and personal; \"\"10% chance of being impoverished at age 85,\"\" \"\"20% chance of having to work an extra decade because you don't have enough at 65,\"\" these kinds of answers. Which is a lot easier to act on than \"\"the variance is 10\"\" or \"\"the beta is 1.5\"\" - would you rather know your plan has a 90% chance of success, or know that you have a variance of 10? Both numbers are probably just guesses, but at least the \"\"chance of success\"\" measure is actionable and relevant. Some tangential thoughts FWIW:\"",
"What I do not get is why does the author choose to buy an ITM put. If the goal was to not lose more than 5.6%, he could have chosen a out of money put where the strike is ~6% OTM. The reason why he is buying a ITM put instead of a put 5-6% below the ATM price, is because he wants to only lose 5-6% after all fee's. A put at 5-6% below ATM is not free, so it will not actually provide a 6% cushion, more likely 10%-15% maximum loss after it's cost is accounted for. You cannot rely on the strike alone to determine the level of protection you are buying. Real world example. SPY DEC 2017 195 strike put, costs $2150, it's about 6% OTM, but it costs roughly 10% of SPY $207, at best it would protect 85% of your net worth. Strike - Costs = Protection Did he choose an ITM put because he does not want to pay any time premium? Does he not lose in wide bid-ask spreads what he gains by not paying time premium? Nope, you were just misunderstanding how he calculated his protection. He wanted to protect 5-6% after the cost of the hedge. He 'needed' to select an ITM put because time premiums are so high that an OTM put wouldn't suffice.",
"\"Generally investing in index-tracking funds in the long term poses relatively low risk (compared to \"\"short term investment\"\", aka speculation). No-one says differently. However, it is a higher risk than money-market/savings/bonds. The reason for that is that the return is not guaranteed and loss is not limited. Here volatility plays part, as well as general market conditions (although the volatility risk also affects bonds at some level as well). While long term trend may be upwards, short term trend may be significantly different. Take as an example year 2008 for S&P500. If, by any chance, you needed to liquidate your investment in November 2008 after investing in November 1998 - you might have ended up with 0 gain (or even loss). Had you waited just another year (or liquidated a year earlier) - the result would be significantly different. That's the volatility risk. You don't invest indefinitely, even when you invest long term. At some point you'll have to liquidate your investment. Higher volatility means that there's a higher chance of downward spike just at that point of time killing your gains, even if the general trend over the period around that point of time was upward (as it was for S&P500, for example, for the period 1998-2014, with the significant downward spikes in 2003 and 2008). If you invest in major indexes, these kinds of risks are hard to avoid (as they're all tied together). So you need to diversify between different kinds of investments (bonds vs stocks, as the books \"\"parrot\"\"), and/or different markets (not only US, but also foreign).\"",
"\"Specifically, what does my broker mean when they say an asset or investment strategy is high risk? In this context, it is a statement based on past events and probability. It is based on how confident s/he is that the investment will perform to certain benchmarks. This is a math question, primarily (with some opinion mixed in, granted). This is where the Sharpe ratio and others fit well. How am I supposed to answer a question like \"\"rate your risk tolerance from low to high\"\"? This is the hard question, as you have seen. In this context, risk tolerance is derived from your current position and future plans (goals). This is a planning, goal setting, and strategy question, primarily (with some math mixed in, granted). How vulnerable is your current position and future plans to an under-performing investment? If you answer \"\"very\"\", then you choose investments that have a lower probability of under-performing. The Sharpe ratio has little to do with answering this question. It is a tool to find investments that better match your answer to this question.\"",
"\"It's interesting that you use so many different risk measures. Here's what I'd like to know more in detail: 1) About the use of VaR. I've heard (from a friend, may be unreliable) that some investment managers like Neuberger Berman doesn't use VaR for assessing risk and maintaining capital adequacy requirements. Rather, some firms only rely on tracking error, beta, standard deviation, etc. Why do you think is this so? Isn't VaR supposed to be a widely accepted risk measure. 2) The whole \"\"Expected Shortfall vs. VaR\"\" debate. I've read some papers comparing Expected Shortfall and VaR. Mainly, they criticize VaR for not being able to consider the 1% probability left where losses can (probably) skyrocket to infinity. If I need to choose between the two, which do you think is better and why?\"",
"In answer to your last formulation, no. In a perfectly efficient market, different investors still have different risk tolerances (or utility functions). They're maximizing expected utility, not expected value. The portfolios that maximize expected utility for different risk preferences are different, and thus generally have different expected values. (Look up mean-variance utility for a simple-ish example.) Suppose you have log utility for money, u(x) = log(x), and your choice is to invest all of your money in either the risk-free bond or in the risky bond. In the risky bond, you have a positive probability of losing everything, achieving utility u(0) = -\\infty. Your expected utility after purchase of the risky bond is: Pr(default)*u(default) + (1-Pr(default))*u(nominalValue). Since u(default)= -\\infty, your expected utility is also negative infinity, and you would never make this investment. Instead you would purchase the risk-free bond. But another person might have linear utility, u(x) = x, and he would be indifferent between the risk-free and risky bonds at the prices you mention above and might therefore purchase some. (In fact you probably would have bid up the price of the risk-free bond, so that the other investor strictly prefers the risky one.) So two different investors' portfolios will have different expected returns, in general, because of their different risk preferences. Risk-averse investors get lower expected value. This should be very intuitive from portfolio theory in general: stocks have higher expected returns, but more variance. Risk-tolerant people can accept more stocks and more variance, risk-averse people purchase less stocks and more bonds. The more general question about risk premia requires an equilibrium price analysis, which requires assumptions about the distribution of risk preferences among other things. Maybe John Cochrane's book would help with that---I don't know anything about financial economics. I would think that in the setup above, if you have positive quantities of these two investor types, the risk-free bond will become more expensive, so that the risky one offers a higher expected return. This is the general thing that happens in portfolio theory. Anyway. I'm not a financial economist or anything. Here's a standard introduction to expected utility theory: http://web.stanford.edu/~jdlevin/Econ%20202/Uncertainty.pdf",
"Dollar-Cost averaging will allow you to reduce your risk while the stock prices falls provided: You must invest a fixed amount $X on a fixed time scale (i.e. every Y days). By doing this you will be able to take advantage of the lowering price by obtaining more shares per period as the price falls. But at the same time, if it starts to rise, you will already have your pig in the race. Example: Suppose you wanted to invest $300 in a company. We will do so over 3 periods. As the price falls, your average dollar cost will as well. But since you don't know where the bottom is, you cannot wait until the bottom. By trying to guess the bottom and dumping all of your investment at once you expose yourself to a higher level of risk.",
"\"If you read Joel Greenblatt's The Little Book That Beats the Market, he says: Owning two stocks eliminates 46% of the non market risk of owning just one stock. This risk is reduced by 72% with 4 stocks, by 81% with 8 stocks, by 93% with 16 stocks, by 96% with 32 stocks, and by 99% with 500 stocks. Conclusion: After purchasing 6-8 stocks, benefits of adding stocks to decrease risk are small. Overall market risk won't be eliminated merely by adding more stocks. And that's just specific stocks. So you're very right that allocating a 1% share to a specific type of fund is not going to offset your other funds by much. You are correct that you can emulate the lifecycle fund by simply buying all the underlying funds, but there are two caveats: Generally, these funds are supposed to be cheaper than buying the separate funds individually. Check over your math and make sure everything is in order. Call the fund manager and tell him about your findings and see what they have to say. If you are going to emulate the lifecycle fund, be sure to stay on top of rebalancing. One advantage of buying the actual fund is that the portfolio distributions are managed for you, so if you're going to buy separate ETFs, make sure you're rebalancing. As for whether you need all those funds, my answer is a definite no. Consider Mark Cuban's blog post Wall Street's new lie to Main Street - Asset Allocation. Although there are some highly questionable points in the article, one portion is indisputably clear: Let me translate this all for you. “I want you to invest 5pct in cash and the rest in 10 different funds about which you know absolutely nothing. I want you to make this investment knowing that even if there were 128 hours in a day and you had a year long vacation, you could not possibly begin to understand all of these products. In fact, I don’t understand them either, but because I know it sounds good and everyone is making the same kind of recommendations, we all can pretend we are smart and going to make a lot of money. Until we don’t\"\" Standard theory says that you want to invest in low-cost funds (like those provided by Vanguard), and you want to have enough variety to protect against risk. Although I can't give a specific allocation recommendation because I don't know your personal circumstances, you should ideally have some in US Equities, US Fixed Income, International Equities, Commodities, of varying sizes to have adequate diversification \"\"as defined by theory.\"\" You can either do your own research to establish a distribution, or speak to an investment advisor to get help on what your target allocation should be.\"",
"You can look the Vanguard funds up on their website and view a risk factor provided by Vanguard on a scale of 1 to 5. Short term bond funds tend to get their lowest risk factor, long term bond funds and blended investments go up to about 3, some stock mutual funds are 4 and some are 5. Note that in 2008 Swenson himself had slightly different target percentages out here that break out the international stocks into emerging versus developed markets. So the average risk of this portfolio is 3.65 out of 5. My guess would be that a typical twenty-something who expects to retire no earlier than 60 could take more risk, but I don't know your personal goals or circumstances. If you are looking to maximize return for a level of risk, look into Modern Portfolio Theory and the work of economist Harry Markowitz, who did extensive work on the topic of maximizing the return given a set risk tolerance. More info on my question here. This question provides some great book resources for learning as well. You can also check out a great comparison and contrast of different portfolio allocations here.",
"Yes, more leverage increases the variance of your individual portfolio (variance of your personal net worth). The simple way to think about it is that if you only own only 50% of your risky assets, then you can own twice as many risky assets. That means they will move around twice as much (in absolute terms). Expected returns and risk (if risk is variance) both go up. If you lend rather than borrow, then you might have only half your net worth in risky assets, and then your expected returns and variation in returns will go down. Note, the practice of using leverage differs from portfolio theory in a couple important ways.",
"\"Taking examples from this loosely Googled page: http://www.fundlibrary.com/features/columns/page.asp?id=14406 If you find, or calculate, the standard deviation (volatility) of the returns from your various investment classes you will find they range from low-risk (low volatility), such as Cash, to high-risk (high volatility), such as Strategic Growth. The risk rating (volatility) is a good indicator of how reactive to market conditions your investment is likely to be. As you can see below, from mid-2010 to mid-2011 the High Risk index performed really well, but it was also most reactive when the market subsequently turned down. The medium risk indices performed the best over the chart period, 2010 to 2013, but it could have turned out different. Generally, you choose your investment according to your \"\"risk appetite\"\" - how much you're willing to risk. You might play safe with, say, 30% cash, 60% medium risk, 10% high risk. (Then again, are you paying someone to manage cash, which you might be able to do for free in a bank?) Assuming, for a moment, European (3.) and Intnl Equity Tracker (9.) had the same medium risk profile, then holding 50% & 50% would also add some currency diversification, which is usually advisable. However, the main choice is down to risk appetite. To address your specific question: \"\"my main interest for now is between Stockmarket Growth and Strategic Growth\"\", first thing to do is check their volatilities. For a further level of sophistication you can check how they are correlated against each other. If they are inversely correlated, i.e. one goes up when the other goes down, then holding some of each could be a good diversification. FYI: An Introduction to Investment Theory The historical returns are important too, but the investment classes your pension fund is offering will probably be reasonably aligned on a risk-return basis. You should check though. I.e. do they line up on a plot of 3 year Return vs Volatility? e.g. the line through SA Cash - SA Bonds - Vol Target 20 - SA Equity. Source\"",
"\"In my opinion the risk is about the lost opportunity cost. You can find a lot of articles about it on the net. In big shortcut opportunity cost takes place each time you have to choose between two or more options and the tradeoff effect have its price. It is defined as value of best alternative solution. Quite good definition from wikipedia is as follows: In microeconomic theory, the opportunity cost of a choice is the value of the best alternative forgone, in a situation in which a choice needs to be made between several mutually exclusive alternatives given limited resources. Assuming the best choice is made, it is the \"\"cost\"\" incurred by not enjoying the benefit that would be had by taking the second best choice available Note that opportunity cost is not the sum of the available alternatives when those alternatives are, in turn, mutually exclusive to each other – it is the value of the next best use. As you probalby think, this situation often happens in financial world, where investors always seek best from their point of view way to invest capital.\"",
"Someone entering a casino with $15 could employ a very simple strategy and have a better-than-90% chance of walking out with $16. Unfortunately, the person would have a non-trivial chance (about one in 14) of walking out with $0. If after losing $15 the person withdrew $240 from the bank and tried to win $16, the person would have a better-than-90% chance of succeeding and ending up ahead (holding the original $15, plus the additional $240, plus $1) but would have at that point about a one in 14 chance from that point of losing the $240 along with the original $15. Measured from the starting point, you'd have about a 199 out of 200 chance of gaining $1, and a one out of 200 chance of losing $240. Market-timing bets are like that. You can arrange things so you have a significant chance of making a small profit, but at the risk of a large downside. If you haven't firmly decided exactly how much downside you are willing to accept, it's very easy to simultaneously believe you don't have much money at risk, but that you'll be able to win back anything you lose. The only way you can hope to win back anything you lose is by bringing a lot more money to the table, which will of course greatly increase your downside risk. The probability of making money for the person willing to accept $15 of downside risk to earn $1 is about 93%. The probability of making money for the person willing to accept $255 worth of risk is about 99.5%. It's easy to see that there are ways of playing which have a 99.5% chance of winning, and that there are ways of playing that only have a 15:1 downside risk. Unfortunately, the ways of playing that have the smaller risk don't have anything near a 99.9% chance of winning, and those that have a better chance of winning have a much larger downside risk.",
"They made an analysis of my readiness to assume a risk and found out that I am willing to take only small risks. I would agree with this analysis. You really should rethink this part. At your age, you have no rational reason whatsoever to be risk-averse! Especially since any reasonably diversified fund already eliminates actual risk (of complete loss) almost completely. Going into bonds and real estate does not reduce risk at all; it reduces volatility - and you're giving up a lot of money merely to avoid seeing your investments go down temporarily(!)",
"There are a few flaws in your reasoning: I know my portfolio will always keep going up, No, it won't. You'll have periods of losses. You are starting your investing in a bull market. Do NOT be fooled into believing that your successes now will continue indefinitely. The more risky your portfolio, the bigger the losses. The upside of a risky portfolio is that the gains generally outweigh the losses, but there will be periods of losses. I honestly don't believe that it's possible for me to end up losing in the long term, regardless of risk. I think you vastly underestimate the risk of your strategy and/or the consequences of that risk. There's nothing wrong with investing in risky assets, since over time you'll get higher-than-average returns, but unless you diversify you are exposing yourself to catastrophic losses as well.",
"Information is useless in this case. IR is useful when you are trying to replicate the risk exposures of an index and beat it. I.E.If I am a tech fund, I would compare myself to the tech S&P. IR is useless in this case as it is just the ratio of excess returns over the benchmark to vol. From a trading sense he needs a rate of wins to losses, so a sharpe like construct of R/SemiDeviation. Essentially his avg return divided by negative volatility. Going further on that is omega which introduces a threshold as in trading you care more about the equity curve so MAXDD is probably more relevant.",
"I think to answer this question it is best for you to learn more about why people diversify through asset allocation. Look at related questions involving Asset Allocation here. I've asked a couple questions about asset allocation - I think you'll find the top rated answer on this post useful.",
"I'v actually heard of this before, the idea is that you gamble across the spread. Most of these have a place in a risky asset class in portfolios. Think of it as the little bit of crack you do on the side of your vanilla life.",
"I implemented this in MatLab about 10 years back. You just calculate your conditional variance of the required assets (x_i), use matrix multiplication on the correlation matrix (rho_i_j) from the same asset (this could be a point of research but unless you are using extreme conditions on the VaR it makes little difference) then apply a standard Markiowitz optimisation approach. You can then just use simple Sharpe ratio (marginal return over conditional risk) at every point on the efficient frontier. Then choose the maximum Sharpe ratio point.",
"Diversified is relative. Alfred has all his money in Apple. He's done very well over the last 10 years, but I think most investors would say that he's taking an incredible risk by putting everything on one stock. Betty has stock in Apple, Microsoft, and Google. Compared to Alfred, she is diversified. Charlie looks at Betty and realizes that she is only investing in one particular industry. All the companies in an individual industry can have a downturn together, so he invests everything in an S&P 500 index fund. David looks at Charlie and notes that he's got everything in large, high-capitalization companies. Small-cap stocks are often where the growth happens, so he invests in a total stock market fund. Evelyn realizes that David has all his money tied up in one country, the United States. What about the rest of the world? She invests in a global fund. Frank really likes Evelyn's broad approach to equities, but he knows that some portion of fixed-income assets (e.g. cash deposits, bonds) can reduce portfolio volatility—and may even enhance returns through periodic rebalancing. He does what Evelyn does, but also allocates some percentage of his portfolio to fixed income, and intends to maintain his target allocations. Being diversified enough depends on your individual goals and investing philosophy. There are some who would say that it is wrong to put all of your money in one fund, no matter what it is. Others would say that a sufficiently broad index fund is inherently diversified as-is.",
"The point im trying to make is that VaR is useless as a risk metric and it should not be a necessary part of any risk management arsenal as it does little to answer the question that losses will be limited to X K% of the time and it instils a sense of false security.",
"Yes, it's a risk. To put it in perspective, If we look at the data for S&P returns since 1871, we get a CAGR of 10.72%. But, that comes with a SDev (Standard deviation) of 18.67%. This results in 53 of the 146 years returning less than 4%. Now if we repeat the exercise over rolling 8 year periods, the CAGR drops to 9.22%, but the SDev drops to 5.74%. This results in just 31 of the 139 periods returning less than 4%. On the flip side, 26 periods had an 8 year return of over 15% CAGR. From the anti-DS article you linked, I see that you like a good analogy. For me, the returns of the S&P over the long term are like going to Vegas, and finding that after you run the math of their craps (dice rolling game) you find the expected return is 10%. You can still lose on a given roll. But over a series of a larger number of rolls, you're far ahead. To D Stanley - I agree that returns are not quite normal, but they are not so far off. Of the 139 rolling returns, we'd expect about 68% or 95 results to be 1 SDev away. We get 88 returns +/-1SDev. 2 SDevs? We'd expect only 5% to lie outside this range, and in fact, I only get one result on the low side and 4 on the high side, 5 results vs the 7 total we'd expect. The results are a bit better (more profitable) than the Normal Bell Curve fit would suggest.",
"Mostly, when an equity's price rises, its statistical and implied volatilities fall and vice versa. The reason why is a mathematical phenomenon mixed with the reality that a unceasingly falling asset price will soon not exist, skewing the results with survivorship bias. Since volatility is standard deviation of price indexes, a security that changes in price by the same amount every day will have lower volatility, so a rising price will have lower implied volatility because its mostly experiencing positive daily price change while a recently falling price will have higher volatility because factored together with the positive price changes, the negative price changes will widen the standard deviation of the securities price index. Quantitatively, any change, in or out of one's favor, is a risk because change is uncertain, and any uncertainty is a risk. This quantitative interpretation while valid runs almost totally counter to the value opinion, that a lower price relative to value is a lower risk than a higher price relative to value, but both have their place in time. Over long time periods, it's best to use the value interpretation, quantitative for shorter. Using the opposite has hastily destroyed many a fund manager.",
"Risk and return always go hand by hand.* Risk is a measure of expected return volatility. The best investment at this stage is a good, easy to understand but thorough book on finance. *Applies to efficient markets only.",
"\"The question \"\"do they?\"\" is a fair one, but the answer, \"\"we can only observe the past, and that's what they did,\"\" may not be so satisfying to you. It's safe to say that any longer term view of any market will show far less volatility than a short one. It only takes a glance at the return of the 2000's 2009 27.11 2008 -37.22 2007 5.46 2006 15.74 2005 4.79 2004 10.82 2003 28.72 2002 -22.27 2001 -11.98 2000 -9.11 (for the S&P) to see that in an awful decade containing -37% and -22% that the full decade was \"\"only\"\" down 9% in total or just less than 1% per year compounded. I'm not predicting any particular returns forward, just noting this is how the math works. DCA performs well through such a decade, better than in a rising one. You are offered the opportunity to buy into a market selling below the long term trend. Added note in response to Enno's answer below - On rereading the linked article, I see where the author cites Zvi Bodie who clearly made a logical error. He concludes that since a 20 month S&P put costs triple what a 2.3 mo put costs, that there's more risk the market falls over the longer period, not less. American options can be sold or exercised at any time. If a 2 year option were cheaper than a 2 month option, no one would buy the shorter term. It's pretty simple that the Options Pricing Models take time into account and their value, put or call, increases along with the time till expiration. On a lighter note, when I take the S&P data for 1871-2012 (I know, no S&P back then, but it's Schiller's data) I get average 40 year returns of 44X, similar to the author's conclusion, $1K growing to $44K. But, the Standard deviation is 28. So the high end of +1 STDEV is $72K, not the author's $166K. Although, the low end 44-28=16 comes close to his $14K figure. $16K is a 7.18% long term return which today doesn't look bad. When the article was written, the author was looking at a 6% short term risk free rate.\"",
"\"This is basically what financial advisers have been saying for years...that you should invest in higher risk securities when you are young and lower risk securities when you get older. However, despite the fact that this is taken as truth by so many financial professionals, financial economists have been unable to formulate a coherent theory that supports it. By changing the preferences of their theoretical investors, they can get solutions like putting all your investments in a super safe asset until you get to a minimum survival level for retirement and then investing aggressively and many other solutions. But for none of the typically assumed preferences does investing aggressively when young and becoming more conservative as you near retirement seem to be the solution. I'm not saying there can be no such preferences, but the difficulty in finding them makes me think maybe this idea is not actually correct. Couple of problems with your intuition that you should think about: It's not clear that things \"\"average out\"\" over time. If you lose a bunch of money in some asset, there's no reason to think that by holding that asset for a while you will make back what you lost--prices are not cyclical. Moreover, doesn't your intuition implicitly suggest that you should transition out of risky securities as you get older...perhaps after having lost money? You can invest in safe assets (or even better, the tangency portfolio from your graph) and then lever up if you do want higher risk/return. You don't need to change your allocation to risky assets (and it is suboptimal to do so--you want to move along the CAL, not the curve). The riskiness of your portfolio should generally coincide (negatively) with your risk-aversion. When you are older and more certain about your life expectancy and your assets, are you exposed to more or less risks? In many cases, less risks. This means you would choose a more risky portfolio (because you are more sure you will have enough to live on until death even if your portfolio takes a dive). Your actual portfolio consists both of your investments and your human capital (the present value of your time and skills). When you are young, the value of this capital changes significantly with market performance so you already have background risk. Buying risky securities adds to that risk. When you are old, your human capital is worth little, so your overall portfolio becomes less risky. You might want to compensate by increasing the risk of your investments. EDIT: Note that this point may depend on how risky your human capital is (how likely it is that your wage or job prospects will change with the economy). Overall the answer to your question is not definitively known, but there is theoretical evidence that investing in risky securities when young isn't optimal. Having said that, most people do seem to invest in riskier securities when young and safer when they are older. I suspect this is because with life experience people become less optimistic as they get older, not because it is optimal to do so. But I can't be sure.\"",
"\"There is no simple answer to that, because no one knows exactly what the probability distribution of S&P 500 returns is. Here is a sketch of one possible way to proceed. Don't forget step 4! The problem is that the stock market is full of surprises, so this kind of \"\"backtesting\"\" can only reliably tell you about what already happened, not what will happen in the future. People argue about how much you can learn from this kind of analysis. However, it is at the least a clearly defined and objective process. I wouldn't advise investing your whole nest egg in anything based just on this, but I do think that it is relevant information.\"",
"I am voting you up because this is a legitimate question with a correct possible answer. Yes, you shouldn't buy penny stocks, yes you shouldn't speculate, yes people will be jealous that you have money to burn. Your question: how to maximize expected return. There are several definitions of return and the correct one will determine the correct answer. For your situation, $1,000 sounds like disposable income and that you have the human capital to make more income in the future with your productive years. So we will not assume you want to take this money and reinvest the remains until you are dead. This rules out #2. It sounds like you are the sole beneficiary of this fund and that your value proposition is regardless of asset class and competition to other investment opportunities. In other words, you are committed to blowing this $1,000 and would not consider instead putting the money towards paying down credit card debt or other valuable uses. This rules out #3. You are left with #1, expected value. Now there is already evidence that penny stocks are a losing proposition. In fact, some people have been successful in setting up honeypot email accounts and waiting for penny stock spam... then shorting those stocks. So to maximize expected return, invest 0% of your bankroll. But that's boring, let's ignore it. As you have correctly identified, the transaction costs are significant, $14 in tolls on crossing the bridge both ways on a $1,000 investment already exceeds the 5-year US bond rate. Diversification will affect the correlation and overall risk (Kelly Criterion) of your portfolio -- but it has no effect on your expected return. In summary, diversification has zero effect on your expected return and is not justified by the cost.",
"It's important to distinguish between speculation and investing. Buying something because you hope to make money on market fluctuations is speculation. Buying something and expecting to make money because your money is providing actual economic value is investing. If Person A buys 100 shares of a stock with the intent of selling them in a few hours, and Person B buys 100 shares of the same stock with the intent of holding on to it for a year, then obviously at that point they both have the same risk. The difference comes over the course of the year. First, Person B is going to be making money from the economic value the company provides over the whole year, while the only way Person A can make money is from market fluctuation (the economic value the company provides over the course of an hour is unlikely to be significant). Person B is exposed to the risk of buying the stock, but that's counterbalanced by the profit from holding the stock for a year, while Person A just has the risk. Second, if Person A is buying a new stock every hour, then they're going to have thousands of transactions. So even though Person B assumed just as much risk as Person A for that one transaction, Person A has more total risk.",
"If you buy stock in established companies, it is vey unlikely that they will lose all their value. Spreading your money across multiple stocks -- diversifying -- reduces that risk because it is extremely unlikely that they all lose all their value at once. Spreading them across multiple industries and adding bonds to the mix increases diversification. Of course the trade-off is that if one of the stocks skyrockets you don't benefit as much as if you had been lucky enough to put all your money in that one stock. You need to decide for yourself how much risk you are willing to tolerate in exchange for the chance of gains. Other answers on this site have dealt with this in more detail.",
"\"For a retail investor who isn't a Physics or Math major, the \"\"Beta\"\" of the stock is probably the best way to quantify risk. Examples: A Beta of 1 means that a stock moves in line with the market. Over 1 means that you would expect the stock to move up or down faster than the market as a whole. Under 1 means that you would expect the stock to move slower than the market as a whole.\"",
"\"You're an idiot. There is no such thing as \"\"statistical heresy\"\". Picking any given stretch of time will create an assumption. The last year has had historically crazy low volatility, but if they were using a one year sample in mid-2009 it would be the most incredibly conservative VaR in history. On the other hand, using historical volatility from the past 50 years would make no sense either: does the stock market in 1985 look anything like today's? What about the liquidity of pretty much any derivatives market? There is no \"\"right\"\" way to measure VaR; any way you do it involves assumptions and tweaks that are entirely subjective. Also, VaR can be over a variety of confidence intervals. 99% or 95% are standard, with 95% being more common because that's two standard deviations in a normal distribution. And hey! That's what they used.\"",
"I am also confused by what he says. The DJIA has not been at 900 for decades. However a $36 dividend is 4% per unit if you get $9 per unit per quarter. 2/3 of 4% is 6%,so that is inside his 7.5% to 5.5%. How much you have in dividend paying stocks vs. Bonds most often is a function of your age. For example, I have heard the advice of subtracting your age in years from 110 and that would be the percent you hold in dividend paying stocks. At age 30 you would have 80% in stocks. At age 60 you would be 50% in stocks. There are retirement funds that do this for you. But the 'bottom line' all depends on your risk tolerance. I have a large tolerance for risk. So even though I am currently retired I only have 10% of my money in a 'safe' investment (ticker=PGF). It pays 5.5% per year. The rest is in a leveraged junk bond fund (PHK) that pays 15.5% per year.",
"As others have said, this opinion is predicated on an assumption that early in your life you have no need to actually USE the money, so you are able to take advantage of compounding interest (because the money is going to be there for many many years) and you are far more tolerant of loss (because you can simply wait for the markets to recover). This is absolutely true of a pension pot, which is locked away for a great many years. But it is absolutely NOT true of general investments. Someone in the mid-20s to mid-30s is very likely to want to spend that money on, say, buying a house. In which case losing 10% of your deposit 3 months before you start looking for a house could potentially be a disaster. Liekwise, in your mid-40s if your child's school/college fund goes up in smoke that's a big deal. It is a very commonly espoused theory, but I think it is also fundamentally flawed in many scenarios.",
"\"This article is written by an idiot!! Risk ≠ failure, risk = possibility of failure Reward (return) should be commensurate with risk and this is why long-shot propositions should be worthwhile. An example of this could be something like the following; an investment with a 95% chance of success should return about 5% on the investment (1 in 20 risk of loss, 1/20th return on investment for taking the risk) while a long-shot investment with a 5% chance of success should be paying a 2000% return (1 in 20 will succeed but they will pay 20 times the investment if they do). An investment with a 0% chance of return (that you are suckered into due to \"\"opacity\"\") is not an investment, it is being robbed and it should be illegal. WTF is opacity? Lying?\"",
"\"This chart concerns an option contract, not a stock. The method of analysis is to assume that the price of an option contract is normally distributed around some mean which is presumably the current price of the underlying asset. As the date of expiration of the contract gets closer the variation around the mean in the possible end price for the contract will decrease. Undoubtedly the publisher has measured typical deviations from the mean as a function of time until expiration from historical data. Based on this data, the program that computes the probability has the following inputs: (1) the mean (current asset price) (2) the time until expiration (3) the expected standard deviation based on (2) With this information the probability distribution that you see is generated (the green hump). This is a \"\"normal\"\" or Gaussian distribution. For a normal distribution the probability of a particular event is equal to the area under the curve to the right of the value line (in the example above the value chosen is 122.49). This area can be computed with the formula: This formula is called the probability density for x, where x is the value (122.49 in the example above). Tau (T) is the reciprocal of the variance (which can be computed from the standard deviation). Mu (μ) is the mean. The main assumption such a calculation makes is that the price of the asset will not change between now and the time of expiration. Obviously that is not true in most cases because the prices of stocks and bonds constantly fluctuate. A secondary assumption is that the distribution of the option price around the mean will a normal (or Gaussian) distribution. This is obviously a crude assumption and common sense would suggest it is not the most accurate distribution. In fact, various studies have shown that the Burr Distribution is actually a more accurate model for the distribution of option contract prices.\"",
"\"Standard deviation from Wikipedia : In statistics and probability theory, the standard deviation (represented by the Greek letter sigma, σ) shows how much variation or dispersion from the average exists.1 A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean (also called expected value); a high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a large range of values. In the case of stock returns, a lower value would indicate less volatility while a higher value would mean more volatility, which could be interpreted as high much change does the stock's price go through over time. Mean would be interpreted as if all the figures had to be the same, what would they be? So if a stock returns 10% each year for 3 years in a row, then 10% would be the mean or average return. Now, it is worth noting that there are more than a few calculations that may be done to derive a mean. First, there is the straight forward sum and division by the number of elements idea. For example, if the returns by year were 0%, 10%, and 20% then one may take the sum of 30% and divide by 3 to get a simple mean of 10%. However, some people would rather look at a Compound Annual Growth Rate which in this case would mean multiplying the returns together so 1*(1+.1)*(1+.2)=1.1*1.2=1.32 or 32% since there is some compounding here. Now, instead of dividing a cubic root is taken to get approximately 9.7% average annual return that is a bit lower yet if you compound it over 3 years it will get up to 32% as 10% compounded over 3 years would be 33.1% as (1.1)^3=1.331. Sharpe Ratio from Investopedia: A ratio developed by Nobel laureate William F. Sharpe to measure risk-adjusted performance. The Sharpe ratio is calculated by subtracting the risk-free rate - such as that of the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond - from the rate of return for a portfolio and dividing the result by the standard deviation of the portfolio returns. Thus, this is a way to think about given the volatility how much better did the portfolio do than the 10 year bond. R-squared, Alpha and Beta: These are all around the idea of \"\"linear regression\"\" modelling. The idea is to take some standard like say the \"\"S & P 500\"\" in the case of US stocks and see how well does the portfolio follow this and what if one were to use a linear model are the multipliers and addition components to it. R-squared can be thought of it as a measure as to how good is the fit on a scale of 0 to 1. An S & P 500 index fund may well have an R-squared of 1.00 or 0.99 to the index as it will track it extremely closely while other investments may not follow that well at all. Part of modern portfolio theory would be to have asset classes that move independently of each other and thus would have a lower R-squared so that the movement of the index doesn't indicate how an investment will do. Now, as for alpha and beta, do you remember the formula for a line in slope-intercept form, where y is the portfolio's return and x is the index's return: y=mx+b In this situation m is beta which is the multiple of the return, and b is the alpha or how much additional return one gets without the multiple. Going back to an index fund example, m will be near 1 and b will be near 0 and there isn't anything being done and so the portfolio's return computed based on the index's return is simply y=x. Other mutual funds may try to have a high alpha as this is seen as the risk-free return as there isn't the ups and downs of the market here. Other mutual funds may go for a high beta so that there is volatility for investors to handle.\"",
"What is the importance or benefit of the assumption that high-risk is preferable for younger people/investors instead of older people? Law of averages most high risk investments [stocks for examples, including Mutual funds]. Take any stock market [some have data for nearly 100 years] on a 15 year or 30 years horizon, the year on year growth is around 15 to 18 percentage. Again depends on which country, market etc ... Equally important every stock market in the same 15 year of 30 year time, if you take specific 3 year window, it would have lost 50% or more value. As one cannot predict for future, someone who is 55 years, if he catches wrong cycle, he will lose 50%. A young person even if he catches the cycle and loses 50%, he can sit tight as it will on 30 years average wipe out that loss.",
"Finance noob here. Am I reading the article right that he's saying MPT bad, active management good? If so, what is that saying about how I should manage my portfolio (assuming I am only dedicating a few hours a month)? >he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game So what do I do then? Are there specific strategies? Also, could you suggest a good explanation of why MPT is bad?",
"This paper makes the rounds every so often and I HATE IT VERY MUCH. No one has EVER EVER EVER estimated standard deviation by taking an average of abs deviations, because that would be stupid, further, realized vol is a very different beast than implied vol. AND FURTHER, the models are fitted to the data, rather than fighting the tape and fitting the data to the models. Most people working with these instruments are trying to figure out the prices of unknown derivatives based on known derivatives - the models just help interpret findings and estimate what's necessary to hedge a position."
] |
[
"\"He's calculating portfolio variance. The general formula for the variance of a portfolio composed of two securities looks like this: where w_a and w_b are the weights of each stock in the portfolio and the sigmas represent the standard deviation/risk of each asset or portfolio. In the case of perfect positive or negative correlation, applying some algebra to the formula relating covariance to the correlation coefficient (rho, the Greek letter that looks like \"\"p\"\"): tells us that the covariance we need in the original formula is simply the product of the standard deviations and the correlation coefficient (-1 in this case). Combining that result with our original formula yields this calculation: Technically we've calculated the portfolio's variance and not it's standard deviation/risk, but since the square root of 0 is still 0, that doesn't matter. The Wikipedia article on Modern Portfolio Theory has a section that describes the mathematical methods I used above. The entire article is worth a read, however.\"",
"\"John Bensin's answer covers the math, but I like the plain-English examples of the theory from William Bernstein's fine book, The Intelligent Asset Allocator. At the author's web site, you can find the complete chapter 1 and chapter 2, though not chapter 3, which is the one with the \"\"multiple coin toss\"\" portfolio example I want to highlight. I'll summarize Bernstein's multiple coin toss example here with some excerpts from the book. (Another top user, @JoeTaxpayer, has also written about the coin flip on his blog, also mentioning Bernstein's book.) Bernstein begins Chapter 1 by describing an offer from a fictitious \"\"Uncle Fred\"\": Imagine that you work for your rich but eccentric Uncle Fred. [...] he decides to let you in on the company pension plan. [...] you must pick ahead of time one of two investment choices for the duration of your employment: Certificates of deposit with a 3% annualized rate of return, or, A most peculiar option: At the end of each year Uncle Fred flips a coin. Heads you receive a 30% investment return for that year, tails a minus 10% (loss) for the year. This will be hereafter referred to as \"\"Uncle Fred’s coin toss,\"\" or simply, the \"\"coin toss.\"\" In effect, choosing option 2 results in a higher expected return than option 1, but it is certainly riskier, having a high standard deviation and being especially prone to a series of bad tosses. Chapters 1 and 2 continue to expand on the idea of risk, and take a look at various assets/markets over time. Chapter 3 then begins by introducing the multiple coin toss example: Time passes. You have spent several more years in the employ of your Uncle Fred, and have truly grown to dread the annual coin-toss sessions. [...] He makes you another offer. At the end of each year, he will divide your pension account into two equal parts and conduct a separate coin toss for each half [...] there are four possible outcomes [...]: [...] Being handy with numbers, you calculate that your annualized return for this two-coin-toss sequence is 9.08%, which is nearly a full percentage point higher than your previous expected return of 8.17% with only one coin toss. Even more amazingly, you realize that your risk has been reduced — with the addition of two returns at the mean of 10%, your calculated standard deviation is now only 14.14%, as opposed to 20% for the single coin toss. [...] Dividing your portfolio between assets with uncorrelated results increases return while decreasing risk. [...] If the second coin toss were perfectly inversely correlated with the first and always gave the opposite result [hence, outcomes 1 and 4 above never occurring], then our return would always be 10%. In this case, we would have a 10% annualized long-term return with zero risk! I hope that summarizes the example well. Of course, in the real world, one of the tricks to building a good portfolio is finding assets that aren't well-correlated, and if you're interested in more on the subject I suggest you check out his books (including The Four Pillars of Investing) and read more about Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT).\"",
"\"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \"\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\"\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\""
] |
10034
|
Tax implications of holding EWU (or other such UK ETFs) as a US citizen?
|
[
"480749",
"181942"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"181942",
"528880",
"389581",
"392313",
"9158",
"565296",
"459953",
"447197",
"506368",
"65702",
"480749",
"430868",
"437907",
"197478",
"141585",
"85926",
"115333",
"44955",
"51777",
"273209",
"326559",
"123047",
"129852",
"495417",
"158185",
"474745",
"263312",
"586010",
"237785",
"381884",
"439502",
"514977",
"198532",
"161041",
"5347",
"410543",
"510599",
"493160",
"106024",
"417208",
"303287",
"566028",
"104128",
"309923",
"583635",
"533929",
"72135",
"458635",
"343708",
"120082",
"534391",
"188816",
"43508",
"66039",
"386941",
"180500",
"434252",
"111274",
"284805",
"259602",
"183910",
"161019",
"368938",
"481488",
"102287",
"372744",
"185999",
"332626",
"552138",
"403948",
"108890",
"340661",
"328699",
"586455",
"160899",
"454563",
"465135",
"407185",
"350317",
"149305",
"168841",
"551809",
"1011",
"182374",
"385310",
"244303",
"511528",
"575899",
"265404",
"308208",
"495827",
"108081",
"46092",
"183477",
"397449",
"331384",
"86621",
"386173",
"332314",
"180146"
] |
[
"My understanding is that EWU (and EWUS) are both traded on US stock markets (NYSE & BATS), and as such these are not classified as PFIC. However, they do contain PFICs, so iShares takes the responsibility of handling the PFICs they contain and make adjustments in December. This contains the information about the adjustments made in 2016. https://www.ishares.com/us/literature/tax-information/pfic-2016.pdf On page 106 of the statement of the summary information they describe how they handle paying the necessary tax as an expense of the fund. https://www.ishares.com/us/library/stream-document?stream=reg&product=WEBXGBP&shareClass=NA&documentId=925898~926077~926112~1180071~1242912&iframeUrlOverride=%2Fus%2Fliterature%2Fsai%2Fsai-ishares-trust-8-31.pdf (I'm not a tax professional)",
"Here're some findings upon researches: Two main things to watch out for: Estate tax and the 30% tax withholding. These 2 could be get around by investing in Luxembourg or Ireland domiciled ETF. For instance there's no tax withholding on Ireland domiciled ETF dividend, and the estate tax is not as high. (source: BogleHead forums) Some Vanguard ETF offered in UK stock market: https://www.vanguard.co.uk/uk/mvc/investments/etf#docstab. Do note that the returns of S&P 500 ETF (VUSA) are adjusted after the 30% tax withholding! Due to VUSA's higher TER (0.09%), VOO should remain a superior choice. The FTSE Emerging Markets and All-World ETFs though, are better than their US-counterparts, for non-US residents. Non-US residents are able to claim back partials of the withhold tax, by filing the US tax form 1040NR. In 2013, non-US resident can claim back at least $3,900. Kindly correct me if anything is inaccurate.",
"I'm not a professional, but my understanding is that US funds are not considered PFICs regardless of the fact that they are held in a foreign brokerage account. In addition, be aware that foreign stocks are not considered PFICs (although foreign ETFs may be).",
"non-resident aliens to the US do not pay capital gains on US products. You pay tax in your home country if you have done a taxable event in your country. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/nonusresidenttax.asp#axzz1mQDut9Ru but if you hold dividends, you are subject to US dividend tax. The UK-US treaty should touch on that though.",
"I believe that tax will be withheld (at 30%?) on dividends paid to non-residents. You can claim it back if your country has a tax treaty with the USA, but you will need to file. You probably also need to file a W-series withholding form (eg a W9-BEN). Interesting question. I would like to hear a more definitive answer.",
"You have left out the most important piece of information: are you an American citizen? If you are, then PFIC rules mean you need to be very careful not to invest in any foreign index funds/ETFs. That means it will probably be easiest for you to just leave the money in the US and continue to invest it there. If you do not have US citizenship, and have never had a green card, then you will qualify for non-resident alien status after you've been gone for 3 years. Once that happens, you won't owe US capital gains tax (though you will owe it in AUS). You will owe 30% tax on dividends, though. Much more at Investopedia.",
"As far as I read in many articles, all earnings (capital gains and dividends) from Canadian stocks will be always tax-free. Right? There's no withholding tax, ie. a $100 dividend means you get $100. There's no withholding for capital gains in shares for anybody. You will still have to pay taxes on the amounts, but that's only due at tax time and it could be very minor (or even a refund) for eligible Canadian dividends. That's because the company has already paid tax on those dividends. In contrast, holding U.S. or any foreign stock that yields dividends in a TFSA will pay 15% withholding tax and it is not recoverable. Correct, but the 15% is a special rate for regular shares and you need to fill out a W8-BEN. Your broker will probably make sure you have every few years. But if you hold the same stock in a non-registered account, this 15% withholding tax can be used as a foreign tax credit? Is this true or not or what are the considerations? That's true but reduces your Canadian tax payable, it's not refundable, so you have to have some tax to subtract it from. Another consideration is foreign dividends are included 100% in income no mater what the character is. That means you pay tax at your highest rate always if not held in a tax sheltered account. Canadian dividends that are in a non-registered account will pay taxes, I presume and I don't know how much, but the amount can be used also as a tax credit or are unrecoverable? What happens in order to take into account taxes paid by the company is, I read also that if you don't want to pay withholding taxes from foreign > dividends you can hold your stock in a RRSP or RRIF? You don't have any withholding taxes from US entities to what they consider Canadian retirement accounts. So TFSAs and RESPs aren't covered. Note that it has to be a US fund like SPY or VTI that trades in the US, and the account has to be RRSP/RRIF. You can't buy a Canadian listed ETF that holds US stocks and get the same treatment. This is also only for the US, not foreign like Europe or Asia. Also something like VT (total world) in the US will have withholding taxes from foreign (Europe & Asia mostly) before the money gets to the US. You can't get that back. Just an honourable mention for the UK, there's no withholding taxes for anybody, and I hear it's on sale. But at some point, if I withdraw the money, who do I need to pay taxes, > U.S. or Canada? Canada.",
"See my answer here What is the dividend tax rate for UK stock The only tax from US stocks you'd need to worry about would be dividend withholding tax of 30%. If you contact your ISA provider they should be able to provide you with a W8-BEN form so that you can have this rate reduced to 15%. Just because there's a tax treaty does not mean you will automatically be charged 15% - you must provide a W8-BEN form and renew it when it expires. That last 15% is unfortunately unavoidable. If you were paying any UK taxes you could claim that 15% as a discount against your UK dividend tax liability, but as your US stock would be wrapped in an ISA there's no UK tax to pay which means no tax to reclaim from the tax treaty. Other than DWT though, you will pay absolutely no tax on US stocks held in an ISA to either the US or UK government.",
"I believe I have to pay taxes in US since it is a US broker. No, not at all. The fact that the broker is a US broker has nothing to do with your tax liabilities. You should update the banks and the broker with your change of status submitting form W8-BEN to them. Consult a tax professional proficient with Indo-US tax treaty as to what you should put in part II. The broker might withhold some of your income and remit it as taxes to the IRS based on what you put in W8-BEN and the type of income, but you can have it refunded (if it exceeds your liability) by submitting a tax return (form 1040-NR). You do have to pay tax in India, based on the Indian tax law, for your profits in the US. Consult with an Indian tax accountant on that. If I'm not mistaken, there are also currency transfer restrictions in India that you should be aware of.",
"\"Securities and ETFs are also subjected to Estate Tax. Some ways: Draft a \"\"Transfer on Death\"\" instruction to the broker, that triggers a transfer to an account in the beneficiary's name, in most cases avoiding probate. If the broker does not support it, find another broker. Give your brokerage and bank password/token to your beneficiary. Have him transfer out holdings within hours of death. Create a Trust, that survives even after death of an individual. P.S. ETF is treated as Stock (a company that owns other companies), regardless of the nature of the holdings. P.S.2 Above suggestions are only applicable to nonresident alien of the US.\"",
"You will not be able to continue filing with TurboTax if you invest in foreign funds. Form 8261 which is required to report PFIC investments is not included. Read the form instructions carefully - if you don't feel shocked and scared, you didn't understand what it says. The bottom line is that the American Congress doesn't want you do what you want to do and will punish you dearly.",
"If the brokerage account holds US assets, such as the stock of US companies, then it may be taxable under some conditions. The rules are complex and depend on the nationality of the individuals, because the results may be affected by tax treaties between the United States and whatever country the person is from.",
"The dividend tax credit is not applicable to foreign dividend income, so you would be taxed fully on every dollar of that income. When you sell a stock, there will be a capital gain or capital loss depending on if it gained or lost value, after accounting for the Adjusted Cost Base. You only pay income tax on half of the amount earned through capital gains, and if you have losses, you can use them to offset other investments that had capital gains (or carry forward to offset gains in the future). The dividends from US stocks are subject to a 15% withholding tax that gets paid to the IRS automatically when the dividends are issued. If the stocks are held in an RRSP, they are exempt from the withholding tax. If held in a non-registered account, you can be reimbursed for the tax by claiming the foreign tax credit that you linked to. If held in a TFSA or RESP, the withholding tax cannot be recovered. Also, if you are not directly holding the stocks, and instead buy a mutual fund or ETF that directly holds the stocks, then the RRSP exemption no longer applies, but the foreign tax credit is still claimable for a non-registered account. If the mutual fund or ETF does not directly hold stocks, and instead holds one or more ETFs, there is no way to recover the withholding tax in any type of account.",
"If you are a US citizen, you need to very carefully research the US tax implications of investing in foreign stocks before you do so. The US tax rules have been set up in general to make this very unattractive.",
"A quick update for people finding this thread through Google. With the help of a few awesome Bogleheads, I compiled all the relevant research done into two Wiki articles: This includes comparing US to Irish domiciled ETFs, how to calculate tax withholding leakage and estate tax concerns. Hope you find this useful.",
"From the UK-USA tax treaty.... ARTICLE 1 General Scope 1. Except as specifically provided herein, this Convention is applicable only to persons who are residents of one or both of the Contracting States. 2. This Convention shall not restrict in any manner any benefit now or hereafter accorded: a) by the laws of either Contracting State; or b) by any other agreement between the Contracting States... I'm not an expert but to me that sounds like the tax free advantage of an UK ISA would be respected by the IRS From the UK-USA tax treaty.... ARTICLE 7 7. Where under any provision of this Convention income or gains arising in one of the Contracting States are relieved from tax in that Contracting State and, under the law in force in the other Contracting State, a person, in respect of the said income or gains, is subject to tax by reference to the amount thereof which is remitted to or received in that other Contracting State and not by reference to the full amount thereof, then the relief to be allowed under this Convention in the first-mentioned Contracting State shall apply only to so much of the income or gains as is taxed in the other Contracting State. This is very difficult to comprehend but suggets also that tax free status is upheld in the uSa",
"With the W8-Ben filed, tax will be withheld at a lower rate. (I would expect 10%). Tax treaty treatment will mean that this witholding will reduce your UK tax even if this payment is not taxable there. This is only effective if you actually pay tax. This is how it works for lotteries and dividends as well.",
"Transferring money you own from one place to another pretty much never has tax implications. It might have other implications, including requirement to report it. Being a US citizen has tax implications, including the requirement to file US tax forms for the rest of eternity.",
"The UK has historically aggressive financial law, inherited from Dutch friendship, influence, and acquisitions by conquest. The law is so open that nearly anyone can invest through the UK without much difficulty, and citizens have nearly no restrictions on where to invest. A UK citizen can either open an account in the US with paperwork hassles or at home with access to all world markets and less paperwork. Here is the UK version of my broker, Interactive Brokers. Their costs are the lowest, but you will be charged a minimum fee if you do not trade enough, and their minimum opening balance can be prohibitively high for some. If you do buy US products, be sure to file your W-8BEN.",
"There is a fourth option - pay those taxes. Depending on the amounts, it might be the easiest way - if you make 34.49 in interest, and pay 6 $ in taxes on it, and be done, that might not be worth any other effort. If the expected taxable amount is significant, moving (most of it) to index funds or other simply switching existing investments to ‘reinvest’ instead of ‘pay out in cash’ would be the best approach. Again, some smaller amounts in savings or checkings accounts are probably not worth any effort. Transferring the money to the US doesn’t save you taxes, as any interest would still be taxable. You have a risk to lose on the conversion back and forth (and a potential to gain - the exchange rate could go either way!), so if you are sure you go back, it’s not a good idea to move the money.",
"The link provided by DumbCoder (below) is only relevant to UK resident investors and does not apply if you live in Malaysia. I noticed that in a much older question you asked a similar question about taxes on US stocks, so I'll try and answer both situations here. The answer is almost the same for any country you decide to invest in. As a foreign investor, the country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The rate of DWT that will be withheld is unique to each country. The UK does not have any withholding tax so you will always receive the full dividend on UK stocks. The withholding tax rate for the US is 30%. Other countries vary. For most countries that do charge a withholding tax, it is possible to have this reduced to 15% if there is a double taxation treaty in place between the two countries and all of the following are true: Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).",
"I would not expect any problems. Your interest will have tax deducted at 20% which I don't think you would be entitled to reclaim because you don't get a personal allowance if you aren't resident in the UK, and unless you have a huge amount of UK earnings you would not be legally liable to any higher rates of tax so there would be no issues there. If you were liable to more tax you would be obliged to inform the Inland Revenue.",
"\"If you haven't been a US resident (not citizen, different rules apply) at the time you sold the stock in Europe but it was inside the same tax year that you moved to the US, you might want to have a look at the \"\"Dual Status\"\" part in IRS publication 519.\"",
"I am a US citizen by birth only. I left the US aged 6 weeks old and have never lived there. I am also a UK citizen but TD Waterhouse have just followed their policy and asked me to close my account under FATCA. It is a complete nightmare for dual nationals who have little or no US connection. IG.com seem to allow me to transfer my holdings so long as I steer clear of US investments. Furious with the US and would love to renounce citizenship but will have to pay $2500 or thereabouts to follow the US process. So much for Land of the Free!",
"The answer to your question doesn't depend on who you trade with but what country you live in. If you live outside of the US, you will have to pay tax on dividends... sometimes. This depends on the tax treaty that your country has with the US. Canada, Australia, UK and a few other countries have favorable tax treaties with the US that allow you to not be double taxed. You must look into the tax treaty that your home country has with the US to answer the question. Each country is different.",
"Investopedia laid out the general information of tax treatment on the ETF fund structures as well as their underlying asset classes: http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0213/how-tax-treatments-of-etfs-work.aspx",
"\"The shares are \"\"imputed income\"\" / payment in kind. You worked in the UK, but are you a \"\"US Person\"\"? If not, you should go back to payroll with this query as this income is taxable in the UK. It is important you find out on what basis they were issued. The company will have answers. Where they aquired at a discount to fair market value ? Where they purchased with a salary deduction as part of a scheme ? Where they acquired by conversion of employee stock options ? If you sell the shares, or are paid dividends, then there will be tax withheld.\"",
"The money that you put into the ETF is not tax-exempt in the usual sense of the word. It is your money and you don't owe any taxes on it any more unless Congress (or the state that you reside in) imposes a wealth tax at some time in the future. What you will owe taxes on are any dividends or capital gains that the ETF distributes to you each year (even if you have opted to automatically re-invest those amounts into the ETF), and the capital gains when you sell shares of the ETF.",
"As you have indicated, the 1042-S reflects no income or withholding. As such, you are not required to file a US tax return unless you have other income from the US. Gains on stocks are not reported until realized upon sale. FYI, your activity does not fit the requirements of being engaged in a trade or business activity. While the definition is documented in several places of the Code, I have attached Publication 519 which most accurately represents the application to your situation as you have described it. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p519/ch04.html#en_US_2016_publink1000222308",
"IANAL, I am married to someone in your situation. As a US citizen age 26 who has not had any contact with the IRS, you should most definitely be worried... As a US citizen, you are (and always have been) required to file a US tax return and pay any tax on all income, no matter where earned, and no matter where you reside. There are often (but not always) agreements between governments to reduce double taxation. The US rule as to whether a particular type of income is taxable will prevail. As a US citizen with financial accounts (chequing, saving, investment, etc.) above a minimum balance, abroad, you are required to report information, including the amounts in the account, to the US government annually (Look up FBAR). Failure to file these forms carries harsh penalties. A recent law (FATCA) requires foreign financial institutions to report information on their US citizen clients to the US, irrespective of any local banking privacy laws. It's possible that your application triggered these reporting requirements. You will not be allowed to renounce your US citizenship until you have paid all past US taxes and penalties. Good new: you are eligible in ten years or so to run for President. Don't believe any of this, or that nothing has been missed; you must consult with a local tax expert specializing in US/UK tax laws.",
"Citizenship matter for US reporting, but not for Canadian taxes. If you are an American resident then you need only worry about US taxes and rules. s",
"Not knowing the US laws at all, you should worry more about having the best stock portfolio and less about taxes. My 0,02€",
"Since you're a US citizen, submitting W8-BEN was wrong. If you read the form carefully, when you signed it you certified that you are not a US citizen, which is a lie and you knew it. W9 and W8 are mutually exclusive. You're either a US person for tax purposes or you're not, you cannot be both. As a US citizen - you are a US person for tax purposes, whether you have any other citizenship or not, and whether you live in (or have ever been to) the US or not. You do need to file tax returns just like any other US citizen. If you have an aggregate of $10K or more on your bank accounts outside of the US at any given day - you need to file FBAR. FATCA forms may also be applicable, depending on your balances. From foreign banks' perspective you're a US person, with regard to their FATCA obligations. Whether or not you'll be punished is hard to tell. Whether or not you could be punished is easy to tell: you could. You knowingly broke the law by certifying that you're not a US citizen when you were. That is in addition to un-filed tax returns, FBAR, etc etc. The fact that you were born outside of the US and have never lived there is technically irrelevant. Not knowing the law is not a reasonable cause for breaking it. Get a US-licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in the US) to help you sort it out.",
"ETF is essentially a stock, from accounting perspective. Treat it as just another stock in the portfolio.",
"If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.",
"As a relatively recent nonimmigrant visa holder (O1), I was able to open an ETrade brokerage account without problems. I have full tax residence in the USA so have an SSN, and a credit history so it was no problem. Later, as a greencard holder, I opened IRA accounts with them, too. Again, there were no issues as I had all the information that the IRS paperwork required at hand.",
"A) a tax treaty probably covers this for the avoidance of double taxation. Tax treaties can be very cryptic and have little precedence clarifying them http://www.irs.gov/businesses/international/article/0,,id=169552,00.html B) I'm going to say NO since the source of your income is going to be US based. But the UK tax laws might also have specific verbage for resident source income. sorry it is an inconclusive answer, but should be some factors to consider and point you in the right direction.",
"\"That's a tricky question and you should consult a tax professional that specializes on taxation of non-resident aliens and foreign expats. You should also consider the provisions of the tax treaty, if your country has one with the US. I would suggest you not to seek a \"\"free advice\"\" on internet forums, as the costs of making a mistake may be hefty. Generally, sales of stocks is not considered trade or business effectively connected to the US if that's your only activity. However, being this ESPP stock may make it connected to providing personal services, which makes it effectively connected. I'm assuming that since you're filing 1040NR, taxes were withheld by the broker, which means the broker considered this effectively connected income.\"",
"As the funds are Gift received from your parents, and your tax residency is US, as per US gift tax, there is no tax due from you for these funds.",
"\"I'll add a bit to Paul's excellent write up. Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (form 2555): notice the earned there. It doesn't exclude capital gains, interest, dividends, and basically everything that is not salary. You pay US taxes on it from the first cent. Foreign tax credit - foreign tax credit (form 1116) doesn't reduce your US tax dollar for dollar (even though it may appear that it does from the generic explanations). By using this form you may end up accumulating unused credit while still paying double taxes at the same time. Happened to me. Thank Congress for the logical and reasonable US tax laws. New FATCA form 8938: as opposed to FBAR (that goes to the FinCEN in the Treasury), this one goes to the IRS. it contains very similar info, but the threshold requirements are different. You may have to file FBAR, but not these, or you may have to file both. Being an American citizen, some European banks will refuse to provide services to you. Again, thank Congress for FATCA. It requires foreign banks to enforce US tax regulations on US citizens, and banks that won't will get penalized in the US. Many banks refuse to provide services to Americans because of that because what IRS requires is illegal in most countries. Some countries (like UK and some other EU countries) have signed treaties with the US to resolve this, but many haven't. Currency conversion - as I commented to Paul, you convert the amounts when you receive them, which may have your fixed EUR salary be converted to different dollar amounts every time. You need to make sure you do it right. Pensions, savings, investments - if you're doing these in non-US instruments prepare to be penalized. US taxes foreign investments much more aggressively than domestic. If you're investing in indexes/mutual funds, or you're a principle in a corporation, or you create a pension account - you'll get hit by additional reporting requirements and tax. Tax treaties - the US has tax treaties with many EU countries, and equalization treaties with some. The tax treaties affect the standard tax treatment by the US and some of the \"\"generic\"\" info you got here may not apply because of a tax treaty, and some other rules may apply. Equalization treaties work similarly with regards to the Social Security. Bottom line, and I know Paul disagrees with me on this - talk with a US-licensed adviser in the country you're going to. It is very important for your tax adviser to know the relevant treaty (and not read it the first time when you call him), and to understand each and every financial instrument in your country. Missing piece of paper in your tax return can cost you thousands of dollars in penalties (not exaggerating, not filing form 3520 triggers a $10000 penalty, even if there's no tax) and additional taxes.\"",
"Where you earn your money makes no difference to the IRS. Citizen/permanent resident means you pay income tax. To make matters worse given your situation it's virtually certain you have unreported foreign bank accounts--something that's also an important issue.",
"As other people have said they should register with a broker in the country they reside in that can deal in US stocks, then fill out a W8-BEN form. I have personally done this as I am from the Uk, it's not a very complicated process. I would assume that most US brokers don't allow foreign customers due to the person having to pay tax where they reside and the US brokers don't want to have to keep approximately 200 different tax codes in track.",
"Short answer: it's complicated. The UK govt pages on foreign income are probably your best starting point: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/LeavingOrComingIntoTheUK/DG_10027480 As you can see, it depends on your precise residence status here. (There is a tax treaty between the UK and the US so you wouldn't be double taxed on the income either way. But there might still be reporting obligations).",
"Selling one fund and buying another will incur capital gains tax on the sale for the amount of the gain. I'm not aware of any sort of exemption available due to you moving out of the country. However, long-term capital gains for low-tax-bracket taxpayers is 0%. As long as your total income including the gains fits within the 15% regular tax bracket, you don't pay any long-term capital gains. Options for you that I see to avoid taxes are: Note that even if you do sell it all, it's only the amount of gains that would take your income over the 15% normal tax bracket that would be taxed at the long-term rate of 15%, which may not end up being that much of a tax hit. It may be worth calculating just how bad it would be based on your actual income. Also note that all I'm saying here is for US federal income taxes. The state you most recently lived in may still charge taxes if you're still considered a resident there in some fashion, and I don't know if your new home's government may try to take a cut as well.",
"Good question - I know you can keep the ISA in the UK and it won't lose its tax free status but you're not able to contribute it while you're not a UK resident. Not that its tax free status buys you that much if you're a non-resident as you could apply to receive tax gross on pretty much any savings account anyway. Given that the idea of tax-free saving outside a retirement account doesn't really exist here in the US I would assume that you will have to declare the interest as income and, if you don't pay any other taxes in the UK that would cover the amount you'd have to pay on your ISA under the foreign tax credit, you'd end up giving the IRS their pound of flesh. As I mentioned in an answer to a previous question, you really need to talk to an US accountant/CPA, preferably one that is familiar with UK taxation law as well.",
"I can't find anything specifically about holding international real estate as a US taxpayer, but the act of transferring the money to (I presume) an account of yours in Italy, and any other associated accounts, will trigger requirements for reporting under FBAR and FACTA. Even with this, it is primarily a reporting requirement. I do not believe you will incur any additional taxes unless you do rent out the property (or allow someone not a reported dependent to make use of the property). Note that if you do not report and should, the penalties are quite steep, so please do comply. NOTE: I am not a tax expert, nor a lawyer, nor an accountant, nor an agent of the IRS. Please consult one or all of these before making any decisions.",
"Yes, you do. Since you've been a green card holder since the beginning of the year - your whole worldwide income for the whole year is taxable in the US. You can take credit for the taxes paid in the UK (use form 1116) to reduce your US tax liability.",
"\"This page from the CRA website details the types of investments you can hold in a TFSA. You can hold individual shares, including ETFs, traded on any \"\"designated stock exchange\"\" in addition to the other types of investment you have listed. Here is a list of designated stock exchanges provided by the Department of Finance. As you can see, it includes pretty well every major stock exchange in the developed world. If your bank's TFSA only offers \"\"mutual funds, GICs and saving deposits\"\" then you need to open a TFSA with a different bank or a stock broking company with an execution only service that offers TFSA accounts. Almost all of the big banks will do this. I use Scotia iTrade, HSBC Invest Direct, and TD, though my TFSA's are all with HSBC currently. You will simply provide them with details of your bank account in order to facilitate money transfers/TFSA contributions. Since purchasing foreign shares involves changing your Canadian dollars into a foreign currency, one thing to watch out for when purchasing foreign shares is the potential for high foreign exchange spreads. They can be excessive in proportion to the investment being made. My experience is that HSBC offers by far the best spreads on FX, but you need to exchange a minimum of $10,000 in order to obtain a decent spread (typically between 0.25% and 0.5%). You may also wish to note that you can buy unhedged ETFs for the US and European markets on the Toronto exchange. This means you are paying next to nothing on the spread, though you obviously are still carrying the currency risk. For example, an unhedged S&P500 trades under the code ZSP (BMO unhedged) or XUS (iShares unhedged). In addition, it is important to consider that commissions for trades on foreign markets may be much higher than those on a Canadian exchange. This is not always the case. HSBC charge me a flat rate of $6.88 for both Toronto and New York trades, but for London they would charge up to 0.5% depending on the size of the trade. Some foreign exchanges carry additional trading costs. For example, London has a 0.5% stamp duty on purchases. EDIT One final thing worth mentioning is that, in my experience, holding US securities means that you will be required to register with the US tax authorities and with those US exchanges upon which you are trading. This just means fill out a number of different forms which will be provided by your stock broker. Exchange registrations can be done electronically, however US tax authority registration must be submitted in writing. Dividends you receive will be net of US withholding taxes. I am not aware of any capital gains reporting requirements to US authorities.\"",
"\"The US withholding tax applies to stocks/ETFs purchased on the NYSE and other US-based exchanges. If you buy Cenovus on the TSE then you will not be charged this tax. Your last sentence seems like you might be misunderstanding this tax though. If the tax applied, it would not cost you 15% on all your profits, it only applies to dividend yields. So if it pays you a 5% dividend, the tax costs you 0.75%. However, if you buy at $21.19 and sell at $26, then your capital gain is not subject to withholding taxes. It is however, subject to Canadian income tax (at 50% of the gain amount) when it's not sheltered in a TFSA or other registered account. The tax on the gains could easily amount to 16% of your profits, which is a much more significant cost. Therefore, having to pay a 0.75% withholding cost certainly does not \"\"defeat the purpose of the TFSA\"\" which is to shelter from Canadian income tax!\"",
"ML is a brokerage firm. Tell them to sell. If you can't or don't know how to do it on-line - call them and do it over the phone. Your citizenship might come in effect when tax are withheld, you need to fill form W8-BEN if you haven't done so yet. If US taxes are withheld, you can file 1040NR to request refund, or get it credited against your local tax liabilities.",
"Does my prior answer here to a slightly different question help at all? Are there capital gains taxes or dividend taxes if I invest in the U.S. stock market from outside of the country?",
"I'll start with the bottom line. Below the line I'll address the specific issues. Becoming a US tax resident is a very serious decision, that has significant consequences for any non-American with >$0 in assets. When it involves cross-border business interests, it becomes even more significant. Especially if Switzerland is involved. The US has driven at least one iconic Swiss financial institution out of business for sheltering US tax residents from the IRS/FinCEN. So in a nutshell, you need to learn and be afraid of the following abbreviations: and many more. The best thing for you would be to find a good US tax adviser (there are several large US tax firms in the UK handling the US expats there, go to one of those) and get a proper assessment of all your risks and get a proper advice. You can get burnt really hard if you don't prepare and plan properly. Now here's that bottom line. Q) Will I have to submit the accounts for the Swiss Business even though Im not on the payroll - and the business makes hardly any profit each year. I can of course get our accounts each year - BUT - they will be in Swiss German! That's actually not a trivial question. Depending on the ownership structure and your legal status within the company, all the company's bank accounts may be reportable on FBAR (see link above). You may also be required to file form 5471. Q) Will I need to have this translated!? Is there any format/procedure to this!? Will it have to be translated by my Swiss accountants? - and if so - which parts of the documentation need to be translated!? All US forms are in English. If you're required to provide supporting documentation (during audit, or if the form instructions require it with filing) - you'll need to translate it, and have the translation certified. Depending on what you need, your accountant will guide you. I was told that if I sell the business (and property) after I aquire a greencard - that I will be liable to 15% tax of the profit I'd made. Q) Is this correct!? No. You will be liable to pay income tax. The rate of the tax depends on the kind of property and the period you held it for. It may be 15%, it may be 39%. Depends on a lot of factors. It may also be 0%, in some cases. I also understand that any tax paid (on selling) in Switzerland will be deducted from the 15%!? May be. May be not. What you're talking about is called Foreign Tax Credit. The rules for calculating the credit are not exactly trivial, and from my personal experience - you can most definitely end up being paying tax in both the US and Switzerland without the ability to utilize the credit in full. Again, talk to your tax adviser ahead of time to plan things in the most optimal way for you. I will effectively have ALL the paperwork for this - as we'll need to do the same in Switzerland. But again, it will be in Swiss German. Q) Would this be a problem if its presented in Swiss German!? Of course. If you need to present it (again, most likely only in case of audit), you'll have to have a translation. Translating stuff is not a problem, usually costs $5-$20 per page, depending on complexity. Unless a lot of money involved, I doubt you'll need to translate more than balance sheet/bank statement. I know this is a very unique set of questions, so if you can shed any light on the matter, it would be greatly appreciated. Not unique at all. You're not the first and not the last to emigrate to the US. However, you need to understand that the issue is very complex. Taxes are complex everywhere, but especially so in the US. I suggest you not do anything before talking to a US-licensed CPA/EA whose practice is to work with the EU/UK expats to the US or US expats to the UK/EU.",
"\"The examples you provide in the question are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the brokerage is or where is the company you own stocks in. For a fairly standard case of an non-resident alien international student living full time in the US - your capital gains are US sourced. Let me quote the following text a couple of paragraphs down the line you quoted on the same page: Gain or loss from the sale or exchange of personal property generally has its source in the United States if the alien has a tax home in the United States. The key factor in determining if an individual is a U.S. resident for purposes of the sourcing of capital gains is whether the alien's \"\"tax home\"\" has shifted to the United States. If an alien does not have a tax home in the United States, then the alien’s U.S. source capital gains would be treated as foreign-source and thus nontaxable. In general, under the \"\"tax home\"\" rules, a person who is away (or who intends to be away) from his tax home for longer than 1 year has shifted tax homes to his new location upon his arrival in that new location. See Chapter 1 of Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses I'll assume you've read this and just want an explanation on what it means. What it means is that if you move to the US for a significant period of time (expected length of 1 year or more), your tax home is assumed to have shifted to the US and the capital gains are sourced to the US from the start of your move. For example: you are a foreign diplomat, and your 4-year assignment started in May. Year-end - you're not US tax resident (diplomats exempt), but you've stayed in the US for more than 183 days, and since your assignment is longer than 1 year - your tax home is now in the US. You'll pay the 30% flat tax. Another example: You're a foreign airline pilot, coming to the US every other day flying the airline aircraft. You end up staying in the US 184 days, but your tax home hasn't shifted, nor you're a US tax resident - you don't pay the flat tax. Keep in mind, that tax treaties may alter the situation since in many cases they also cover the capital gains situation for non-residents.\"",
"The US will let you keep as much money as you want to within its borders regardless of your citizenship. You'll owe capital gains tax in the US unless you're subject to a tax treaty (which you would probably make as an election in the year of the transaction). I don't know if India has any rules about how it governs its citizens' foreign assets, but the US requires citizens to file a form annually declaring foreign accounts over $10,000. You may be subject to additional Indian taxes if India taxes global income like the US does.",
"To answer my own question, at least to the extent of my understanding. Here the IRS says that all income for a foreign person from a US-based company is taxable with 30%. Here the IRS says that this tax should be withhold at source by whomever pays you. In case there is a tax treaty with the country, the tax can even be waived in the US. Of course, if you don't declare it in your home country, the US bank could probably give information requested by the home country authorities. For the other two cases (when there's no US party involved) I can't find anything on the IRS website, which kind of make sense. If I am using an account in the US just to receive and send money shouldn't imply any tax. Thanks to @litteadv for pointing me into the right direction.",
"Is this money taxable in US? From what you described you're likely to have been a US tax resident. As such, you're taxed on your worldwide income. Foreign tax deferral schemes are not considered qualified under the US law (unless a treaty says otherwise), so you're liable for taxes on them now. Get a new tax adviser.",
"You could use HBB and other similar funds that exchange distributions for capital gains. There's HXT and HXS which is Canada and US equity markets. The swap fee + mer is a little more than some funds except for HXT which is very cheap. There's a risk for long term holders that this may eventually get banned and you're forced to sell with a gain at the wrong time, but this won't matter much if you're planning on selling in a few years. You have to pay the capital gains tax eventually. Note, the tax on distributions is really a long term drag on performance and won't make a big difference in the short term.",
"My understanding is that the only tax implication is that any interest income earned on foreign accounts is still taxable in the US if held by a US citizen. If the total across foreign accounts totals more than $10,000 you'll have to report those accounts to the Treasury via FinCEN Form 114, this doesn't create any additional tax obligations, it's just a regulatory measure to stop people from hiding money overseas and not paying tax on those earnings. If the US account is only in your husband's name, and the Australian account is only in your name, there may not be any reporting requirement to the Treasury. Money transferred between spouses is not subjected to gift-tax.",
"\"Others have given a lot of advice about how to invest, but as a former expat I wanted to throw this in: US citizens living and investing overseas can VERY easily run afoul of the IRS. Laws and regulations designed to prevent offshore tax havens can also make it very difficult for expats to do effective investing and estate planning. Among other things, watch out for: US citizens owe US income tax on world income regardless of where they live or earn money FBAR reporting requirements affect foreign accounts valued over $10k The IRS penalizes (often heavily) certain types of financial accounts. Tax-sheltered accounts (for education, retirement, etc.) are in the crosshairs, and anything the IRS deems a \"\"foreign-controlled trust\"\" is especially bad. Heavy taxes on investment not purchased from a US stock exchange Some US states will demand income taxes from former residents (including expats) who cannot prove residency in a different US state. I believe California is neutral in that regard, at least. I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant nor a financial advisor, so please take the above only as a starting point so you know what sorts of questions to ask the relevant experts.\"",
"I can't give you a specific answer because I'm not a tax accountant, so you should seek advice from a tax professional with experience relevant to your situation. This could be a complicated situation. That being said, one place you could start is the Canada Revenue Agency's statement on investment income, which contains this paragraph: Interest, foreign interest and dividend income, foreign income, foreign non-business income, and certain other income are all amounts you report on your return. They are usually shown on the following slips: T5, T3, T5013, T5013A To avoid double taxation, Canada and the US almost certainly have a foreign tax treaty that ensures you are only taxed in your country of residence. I'm assuming you're a resident of Canada. Also, this page states that: If you received foreign interest or dividend income, you have to report it in Canadian dollars. Use the Bank of Canada exchange rate that was in effect on the day you received the income. If you received the income at different times during the year, use the average annual exchange rate. You should consult a tax professional. I'm not a tax professional, let alone one who specializes in the Canadian tax system. A professional is the only one you should trust to answer your question with 100% accuracy.",
"The problem there is that there's a tax due on that dividend. So, if you wish, you can buy the ETF and specify to reinvest dividends, but you'll have to pay a bit of tax on them, and keep track of your basis, if the account isn't a retirement account.",
"Your tax efficient reasoning is solid for where you want to distribute your assets. ETFs are often more tax efficient than their equivalent mutual funds but the exact differences would depend on the comparison between the fund and ETF you were considering. The one exception to this rule is Vanguard funds and ETFs which have the exact same tax-efficiency because ETFs are a share class of the corresponding mutual fund.",
"\"Answers: 1: No, Sections 1291-1298 of the IRC were passed in the Reagan adminstration. 2: Not only can a foreign company like a chocolate company fall afoul of the definition of PFIC because of the \"\"asset test\"\", which you cite, but it can also be called a PFIC because of the \"\"income test\"\". For example, I have shares in a development-stage Canadian biotech which is considered a PFIC because it has no income at all, except for a minor amount of bank interest on its working capital. This company is by no means \"\"passive\"\" (it has run 31 clinical trials in over 1100 human research subjects, burning $250M of investor's money in the process) nor is it an \"\"investment company\"\", but the stupid IRS considers it to be a \"\"passive foreign investment company\"\"! The IRS looks at it and sees only the bank account, and assumes it is a foreign shell corporation set up to shield the bank interest from them. 3: Yes, a foreign mutual fund is EXACTLY what congress intended to be a PFIC when passed IRC 1291-1298. (Biotechs, candy factories, ect got nailed as innocent bystanders.) Note that if you hold a US mutual fund then every year you'll get a form 1099 in the mail. The 1099 will report your share of the mutual fund's own income and capital gains, which you must report on your taxes. (You can also have capital gains from selling your shares of the mutual fund, but that's a different thing.) Now suppose that there was no PFIC law. Then the US investors in the mutual fund would do better if the mutual fund were in a foreign country, for two reasons: a) The fund would no longer distribute 1099's. That means the shareholders wouldn't have to pay tax every year on their proportions of the fund's own income/gains. The money that would have sooner gone to the IRS can sit around for years earning interest. b) The fund could return profits to shareholders exclusively through capital gains rather than dividends, thus ensuring that all of the investors' income on the fund would be taxed at <15%-20% rather than up to 39%. The fund could do this by returning cash to shareholders exclusively through buybacks. However, the US mutual fund industry doesn't want to move the industry to Canada, and it only takes a few newspaper articles about a foreign loophole to make congress spring to action. 4) It depends. If you have a PEDIGREED QEF election in place (as I do for my biotech shares) then form 8621 takes a few minutes by hand. However, this requires both the company and the investor to fully cooperate with congress's vision for PFICs. The company cooperates by providing a so-called \"\"PFIC annual information sheet\"\", which replaces the 1099 form for a US mutual fund. The investor cooperates by having a \"\"QEF election\"\" in place for EACH AND EVERY TAX YEAR in which he held the stock and by reporting the numbers from the PFIC annual information sheet on his return. (Note that the QEF election persists once made, until revoked. There are subtleties here that I am glossing over, since \"\"deemed sale\"\" elections and other means may be used to modify a share's holding period to come into compliance.) Note that there is software coming out to handle PFICs, and that the software makers will already run their software to make your form 8621 for $75 or so. I should also warn you that the blogs of tax accountants and tax lawyers all contradict each other on the basic issue of whether you can take capital losses on PFICs for which you have no form 8621 elections. (See section 2.3 of my notes http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr for commentary on this mess.) I do not know if the software people will tell you which elections are best made on form 8621, though, or advise you if it's time to simply dump your investment. The professional software is at 8621.com, and the individual 8621 preparation is at http://expattaxtools.com/?page_id=242. BTW, in case you're interested, I wrote up a very careful analysis of how to deal with the PFIC situation for the small biotech I invested in in certain cases. It is posted http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr. (For tax reasons it was quite fortunate that the share price dipped to near an all-time low on Jan 1, 2015, making the (next) 2015 tax year ripe for a so-called \"\"deemed sale\"\" election. This was only possible because the company provides the necessary \"\"PFIC annual information statements\"\", which your chocolate factory may or may not do.)\"",
"My concern is if I need to report and pay extra taxes for the part of the company that will be under my name Yes, d'uh. Of course. It's actually quite complicated when it comes to foreign companies owned by US people, and you'll need a good tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) who's fluent in that area. Citizenship has nothing to do with this, from tax perspective there's no difference between a green card holder and a citizen (except that green card holder cannot claim non-resident exemptions and certain tax treaties' exemptions).",
"\"I'm assuming that by saying \"\"I'm a US resident now\"\" you're referring to the residency determination for tax purposes. Should I file a return in the US even though there is no income here ? Yes. US taxes its residents for tax purposes (which is not the same as residents for immigration or other purposes) on worldwide income. If yes, do I get credits for the taxes I paid in India. What form would I need to submit for the same ? I am assuming this form has to be issued by IT Dept in India or the employer in India ? The IRS doesn't require you to submit your Indian tax return with your US tax return, however they may ask for it later if your US tax return comes under examination. Generally, you claim foreign tax credits using form 1116 attached to your tax return. Specifically for India there may also be some clause in the Indo-US tax treaty that might be relevant to you. Treaty claims are made using form 8833 attached to your tax return, and I suggest having a professional (EA/CPA licensed in your State) prepare such a return. Although no stock transactions were done last year, should I still declare the value of total stocks I own ? If so what is an approx. tax rate or the maximum tax rate. Yes, this is done using form 8938 attached to your tax return and also form 114 (FBAR) filed separately with FinCEN. Pay attention: the forms are very similar with regard to the information you provide on them, but they go to different agencies and have different filing requirements and penalties for non-compliance. As to tax rates - that depends on the types of stocks and how you decide to treat them. Generally, the tax rate for PFIC is very high, so that if any of your stocks are classified as PFIC - you'd better talk to a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about how to deal with them. Non-PFIC stocks are dealt with the same as if they were in the US, unless you match certain criteria described in the instructions to form 5471 (then a different set of rules apply, talk to a licensed tax adviser). I will be transferring most of my stock to my father this year, will this need to be declared ? Yes, using form 709. Gift tax may be due. Talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). I have an apartment in India this year, will this need to be declared or only when I sell the same later on ? If there's no income from it - then no (assuming you own it directly in your own name, for indirect ownership - yes, you do), but when you sell you will have to declare the sale and pay tax on the gains. Again, treaty may come into play, talk to a tax adviser. Also, be aware of Section 121 exclusion which may make it more beneficial for you to sell earlier.\"",
"If you want to prove the actual tax liability you have in the US - you have to file a tax return. If the Romanian government believes you that the withholding is your actual tax - fine, but that would be a lie. Withholding is not a tax. The American payers must withhold from foreigners enough to have transferred more than the actual tax the foreigners would have paid. The standard withholding is 30%, but the actual tax on dividends varies. In case the tax treaty limits the tax on dividends - the withholding is usually up to the maximum of the tax allowed by the treaty. But allowed doesn't mean that would be the actual tax. In many cases it is not. So if you want to claim the US tax paid as a credit towards your Romanian tax - you'll need to file a tax return in the US, calculate the actual tax liability and that would be the amount of credit you can claim. The difference between that amount and the amount withheld by the payer will be refunded to you by the IRS. You don't have to file a US tax return, that is true. But the withholding is not the tax, the actual tax liability may have been less, and the Romanian tax authority may deny your credit, in whole or in part, based on the fact that you haven't filed a US tax return and as such have no proof of your actual tax paid. You had some experience with the UK tax treaty, and you think all the treaties are the same. That may be a reasonable line of thought, but it is incorrect. Treaties are not the same. More importantly, even if the treaty is the same - the tax law is not. While in the UK the tax on dividends may be flat and from the first pound - in the US it is neither flat nor from the first dollar. Thus, while in the UK you may have been used to paying tax at source and that's it - in the US it doesn't work that way at all.",
"You're not physically present in the US, you're not a US citizen, you're not a green card holder, and you don't have a business that is registered in the US - US laws do not apply to you. You're not in any way under the US jurisdiction. Effectively connected income is income effectively connected to your business in the US. You're not in the US, so there's nothing to effectively connect your income to. Quote from the link: You usually are considered to be engaged in a U.S. trade or business when you perform personal services in the United States. You ask: If I form an LLC or C corp am I liable for this withholding tax? If you form a legal entity in a US jurisdiction - then that entity becomes subjected to that jurisdiction. If you're physically present in the US - then ECI may become an issue, and you also may become a resident based on the length of your stay.",
"\"The IRS taxes worldwide income of its citizens and green card holders. Generally, for those Americans genuinely living/working overseas the IRS takes the somewhat reasonable position of being in \"\"2nd place\"\" tax-wise. That is, you are expected to pay taxes in the country you are living in, and these taxes can reduce the tax you would have owed in the USA. Unfortunately, all of this has to be documented and tax returns are still required every year. Your European friends may find this quite surprising as I've heard, for instance, that France will not tax you if you go live and work in Germany. A foreign company operating in a foreign country under foreign law is not typically required to give you a W-2, 1099, or any of the forms you are used to. Indeed, you should be paying taxes in the place where you live and work, which is probably somewhat different than the USA. Keep all these records as they may be useful for your USA taxes as well. You are required to total up what you were paid in Euros and convert them to US$. This will go on the income section of a 1040. You should be paying taxes in the EU country where you live. You can also total those up and convert to US$. This may be useful for a foreign tax credit. If you are living in the EU long term, like over 330 days/year or you have your home and family there, then you might qualify for a very large exemption from your income for US tax purposes, called the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion. This is explained in IRS Publication 54. The purpose of this is primarily to avoid double taxation. FBAR is a serious thing. In past years, the FBAR form went to a Financial Crimes unit in Detroit, not the regular IRS address. Also, getting an extension to file taxes does not extend the deadline for the FBAR. Some rich people have paid multi-million dollar fines over FBAR and not paying taxes on foreign accounts. I've heard you can get a $10,000 FBAR penalty for inadvertent, non-willful violations so be sure to send those in and it goes up from there to $250k or half the value of the account, whichever is more. You also need to know about whether you need to do FATCA reporting with your 1040. There are indeed, a lot of obnoxious things you need to know about that came into existence over the years and are still on the law books -- because of the perpetual 'arms race' between the government and would be cheaters, non-payers and their advisors. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p54/ http://americansabroad.org/\"",
"\"The country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The US withholding tax rate on dividends is 30%, although this can be reduced to 15% if there as a tax treaty in place between the US and your country of residence. Malaysia does have a double taxation agreement with the US (see here: http://www.mida.gov.my/env3/index.php?page=double-taxation-agreement) but it is flagged as a \"\"limited\"\" agreement. You'd need to find the full text of the agreement to see whether a reduced rate of dividend withholding tax would be available in the Malaysia/US treaty. See my other answer for more details on withholding taxes and how to partially reclaim under a double tax treaty: What is the dividend tax rate for UK stock Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).\"",
"If you hold this money in USD and spend it in the US as USD, then there is no tax liability or reporting requirement at all. You are not subject to any tax on foreign exchange gains and losses because you have not performed any foreign exchange. CRA says a foreign exchange gain or loss happens when the fx transaction occurs—not as the currency’s value fluctuates while on deposit - and since you are never performing an fx transaction, no such issues will arise. The CRA is not interested in how you spend your money, only the money that you earn. The only possible tax liability that would arise in the circumstances that you describe would be the tax liability arising from interest earned while the cash in on deposit. If this interest exceeds the threshold of reportability, then your bank will issue you with a T-slip to be included in your tax return.",
"There is a tax treaty between Canada and the US that recognizes RRSPs as retirement accounts. You won't be taxed on the gains in your RRSP like you would be if it was in a TFSA. So you don't really have to do anything (except fill out a form for the IRS every year). The problem that usually arises is if you want to buy something else. I don't know of any Canadian brokerage that will sell products to a US resident. It's a question of where they're licensed. However the SEC has issued an exemption so you can try to argue with your broker to get a trade done. Link to SEC order With such a small amount in the account you may be paying fees or have it invested in funds with higher fees. You will have to do the math on whether or not you should just withdraw the money and invest in cheaper funds and accounts in the US. When you withdraw the money Canada will withhold a flat rate of 25% or in some circumstances 15%. For more info go to Serbinski (a cross border tax specialist).",
"Unless you started a bank or other kind of a financial institution (brokerage, merchant processor, etc etc), the page you linked to is irrelevant. That said, there's enough in the US tax code for you to reconsider your decision of not living in the US, or at least of being a shareholder of a foreign company. Your compliance costs are going to go through the roof. If you haven't broken any US tax laws yet (which is very unlikely), you may renounce your citizenship and save yourself a lot of money and trouble. But in the more likely case of you already being a criminal with regards the US tax law, you should probably get a proper tax advice from a US-licensed CPA/EA who's also proficient in the Japanese-American tax treaty and expats' compliance issues resolution.",
"\"The London Stock Exchange offers a wealth of exchange traded products whose variety matches those offered in the US. Here is a link to a list of exchange traded products listed on the LSE. The link will take you to the list of Vanguard offerings. To view those offered by other managers, click on the letter choices at the top of the page. For example, to view the iShares offerings, click on \"\"I\"\". In the case of Vanguard, the LSE listed S&P500 ETF is traded under the code VUSA. Similarly, the Vanguard All World ETF trades under the code VWRL. You will need to be patient viewing iShares offerings since there are over ten pages of them, and their description is given by the abbreviation \"\"ISH name\"\". Almost all of these funds are traded in GBP. Some offer both currency hedged and currency unhedged versions. Obviously, with the unhedged version you are taking on additional currency risk, so if you wish to avoid currency risk then choose a currency hedged version. Vanguard does not appear to offer currency hedged products in London while iShares does. Here is a list of iShares currency hedged products. As you can see, the S&P500 currency hedged trades under the code IGUS while the unhedged version trades under the code IUSA. The effects of BREXIT on UK markets and currency are a matter of opinion and difficult to quantify currently. The doom and gloom warnings of some do not appear to have materialised, however the potential for near-term volatility remains so longs as the exit agreement is not formalised. In the long-term, I personally believe that BREXIT will, on balance, be a positive for the UK, but that is just my opinion.\"",
"I don't think so in your case. Unless the account generates so much interest income that it became reportable (I don't know the exact limit, but I think it's in the hundreds if not thousands of dollars, you might get a 1099 form if it generates over $10 of interest income, but you don't have to file taxes if your overall income is too low anyways). The US does not typically tax assets, only income. There are some states (Florida is the only one I can think of) that has odd tax treatment of intangible assets, but I doubt that would apply in your case. If this were a large enough amount, usually over $10,000, it might trigger some reporting requirements (possibly by your home country).",
"As far as the RRSP goes, see my answer in self directed RRSP for a non resident Don't forget to file your FBAR and form 8938, if applicable. -Jon",
"If you are tax-resident in the US, then you must report income from sources within and without the United States. Your foreign income generally must be reported to the IRS. You will generally be eligible for a credit for foreign income taxes paid, via Form 1116. The question of the stock transfer is more complicated, but revolves around the beneficial owner. If the stocks are yours but held by your brother, it is possible that you are the beneficial owner and you will have to report any income. There is no tax for bringing the money into the US. As a US tax resident, you are already subject to income tax on the gain from the sale in India. However, if the investment is held by a separate entity in India, which is not a US domestic entity or tax resident, then there is a separate analysis. Paying a dividend to you of the sale proceeds (or part of the proceeds) would be taxable. Your sale of the entity containing the investments would be taxable. There are look-through provisions if the entity is insufficiently foreign (de facto US, such as a Subpart-F CFC). There are ways to structure that transaction that are not taxable, such as making it a bona fide loan (which is enforceable and you must pay back on reasonable terms). But if you are holding property directly, not through a foreign separate entity, then the sale triggers US tax; the transfer into the US is not meaningful for your taxes, except for reporting foreign accounts. Please review Publication 519 for general information on taxation of resident aliens.",
"\"After more searching for how the US might treat such an attempt to \"\"rollover\"\" the funds, I found this: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/am2008009.pdf So, it seems it is impossible to do without US tax consequences.\"",
"\"Mutual funds don't pay taxes themselves, they distribute any dividends or capital gains to the shareholders. Thus, if you hold a mutual fund in a tax-advantaged account like a 401k or IRA then the distribution isn't a taxable event while in a regular taxable account you would have to pay taxes on the distributions. From Forbes: There can be foreign companies on US stock exchanges that would still work the same way. Unilever for example is an Anglo-Dutch multinational listed on the NYSE as \"\"UN.\"\"\"",
"Generally, ETFs and mutual funds don't pay taxes (although there are some cases where they do, and some countries where it is a common case). What happens is, the fund reports the portion of the gain attributed to each investor, and the investor pays the tax. In the US, this is reported to you on 1099-DIV as capital gains distribution, and can be either short term (as in the scenario you described), long term, or a mix of both. It doesn't mean you actually get a distribution, though, but if you don't - it reduces your basis.",
"\"Appreciation of a Capital Asset is a Capital Gain. In the United States, Capital Gains get favorable tax treatment after being held for 12 months. From the IRS newsroom: Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2009, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. The IRS defines a Capital Asset as \"\"most property you own\"\" with a list of exclusions found in Schedule D Instructions. None of the exclusions listed relate to Bond ETFs.\"",
"Vanguard has just recently started listing its funds in London but it doesn't look like the High Dividend Yield ETF is available yet. You'll need to either get a broker who can trade on the U.S. markets (there might be tax and exchange rate complications), or wait until Vanguard lists this stock on the London exchange.",
"Any large stockbroker will offer trading in US securities. As a foreign national you will be required to register with the US tax authorities (IRS) by completing and filing a W-8BEN form and pay US withholding taxes on any dividend income you receive. US dividends are paid net of withholding taxes, so you do not need to file a US tax return. Capital gains are not subject to US taxes. Also, each year you are holding US securities, you will receive a form from the IRS which you are required to complete and return. You will also be required to complete and file forms for each of the exchanges you wish to received market price data from. Trading will be restricted to US trading hours, which I believe is 6 hours ahead of Denmark for the New York markets. You will simply submit an order to the desired market using your broker's online trading software or your broker's telephone dealing service. You can expect to pay significantly higher commissions for trading US securities when compared to domestic securities. You will also face potentially large foreign exchange fees when exchaning your funds from EUR to USD. All in all, you will probably be better off using your local market to trade US index or sector ETFs.",
"\"You will be filing the exact same form you've been filing until now (I hope...) which is called form 1040. Attached to it, you'll add a \"\"Schedule C\"\" form and \"\"Schedule SE\"\" form. Keep in mind the potential effect of the tax and totalization treaties the US has with the UK which may affect your filings. I suggest you talk to a licensed EA/CPA who works with expats in the UK and is familiar with all the issues. There are several prominent offices you can find by Googling.\"",
"If you're a non resident then you owe no capital gains tax to Canada. Most banks won't let you make trades if you're a non-resident. They may not have your correct address on file so they don't realize this. This is not tax law but just OSC (or equivalent) regulations. You do have to fill out paperwork for withholding tax on OAS/CPP payments. This is something you probably already do but here's a link . It's complicated and depends on the country you live in. Of course you may owe tax in Thailand, I don't know their laws.",
"Let me restate question for clarity. Facts: Question: Are there any taxes for this transaction? Answer: (Added improvements provided by Eric) Generally No. Generally, it is not considered income until you sell and the sale price is greater than the purchase price. But with currency differences, there is an additional complication, section 988 rules apply. It could result in ordinary income or loss.",
"\"I made an investing mistake many (eight?) years ago. Specifically, I invested a very large sum of money in a certain triple leveraged ETF (the asset has not yet been sold, but the value has decreased to maybe one 8th or 5th of the original amount). I thought the risk involved was the volatility--I didn't realize that due to the nature of the asset the value would be constantly decreasing towards zero! Anyhow, my question is what to do next? I would advise you to sell it ASAP. You didn't mention what ETF it is, but chances are you will continue to lose money. The complicating factor is that I have since moved out of the United States and am living abroad (i.e. Japan). I am permanent resident of my host country, I have a steady salary that is paid by a company incorporated in my host country, and pay taxes to the host government. I file a tax return to the U.S. Government each year, but all my income is excluded so I do not pay any taxes. In this way, I do not think that I can write anything off on my U.S. tax return. Also, I have absolutely no idea if I would be able to write off any losses on my Japanese tax return (I've entrusted all the family tax issues to my wife). Would this be possible? I can't answer this question but you seem to be looking for information on \"\"cross-border tax harvesting\"\". If Google doesn't yield useful results, I'd suggest you talk to an accountant who is familiar with the relevant tax codes. Are there any other available options (that would not involve having to tell my wife about the loss, which would be inevitable if I were to go the tax write-off route in Japan)? This is off topic but you should probably have an honest conversation with your wife regardless. If I continue to hold onto this asset the value will decrease lower and lower. Any suggestions as to what to do? See above: close your position ASAP For more information on the pitfalls of leveraged ETFs (FINRA) What happens if I hold longer than one trading day? While there may be trading and hedging strategies that justify holding these investments longer than a day, buy-and-hold investors with an intermediate or long-term time horizon should carefully consider whether these ETFs are appropriate for their portfolio. As discussed above, because leveraged and inverse ETFs reset each day, their performance can quickly diverge from the performance of the underlying index or benchmark. In other words, it is possible that you could suffer significant losses even if the long-term performance of the index showed a gain.\"",
"You're asking whether the shares you sold while being a US tax resident are taxable in the US. The answer is yes, they are. How you acquired them or what were the circumstances of the sale is irrelevant. When you acquired them is relevant to the determination of the tax treatment - short or long term capital gains. You report this transaction on your Schedule D, follow the instructions. Make sure you can substantiate the cost basis properly based on how much you paid for the shares you sold (the taxable income recognized to you at vest).",
"Found a great article (with bibliography) that covers taxation on investment activity by non resident aliens - even covers the special 15% tax on dividends for Canadian residents. It's (dividend tax rate) generally 30% for other NRAs (your 2nd question). And it confirmed my suspicion that there are no capital gains taxes for NRAs. (1st Q) Source: http://invest-faq.com/articles/tax-non-us-nat.html",
"What I ended up doing was finding where each ticker of Novo was registered (what exchange), then individually looking up the foreign taxation rules of the containing country. Luckily, most companies only have a few tickers so this wasn't too hard in the end.",
"So your accountant certainly knows much more than I do about Israeli tax law and its interactions with US tax law, which is zero. I'm going to look at this problem from the investment perspective which I hope to convince you is the most important place to start. Then you can adjust for interactions between the Isreali and US tax codes. Even if the tax breaks are exceptional, it would be hard to recommend buying real estate as an investment in the 7-10 year time frame. Especially if this real estate is in the US. Open/Closing fees, mortgage fees, risk of property devaluation, bad-renters, acts of god, insurance costs and tax complications make short to medium term investments in real estate a particularly risky way to invest. Buying a local apartment and renting is somewhat more reasonable as you don't have to worry about the currency conversion and you can do a lot more research in your local environment and keep a closer eye on the property, it is still this a pretty concentrated risk. Saving and investing using tax-advantaged accounts is generally considered a great way to build toward a down payment in the medium term. A mixture of mostly local bonds with some local and foreign stocks and more and more cash as it gets close to purchase time is generally what is recommended when saving for a home. This mixture is relatively safe and will tend to grow steadily without the concentrated risk of a real estate investment. PFIC rules are complicated and certainly worth taking some time to understand, but owning real estate especially in a foreign country seems much more complicated and certainly riskier. There may be some rule that makes investing in REITs much better than normal stocks in these particular accounts though I would be surprised if that were the case. It is generally not true for people under just he US tax code. So while option (1) may not be the absolute best from a tax perspective it would certainly be my guess as the most likely to succeed.",
"\"Its not for US citizens - its for US residents. If the US considers you as a tax resident - you'll be treated the same as a US citizen, regardless of your immigration status. The question is very unclear, since it is not mentioned whether your US sourced income \"\"from the Internet\"\" is sales in the US, sales on-line, services you provide, investments, or what else. All these are treated differently. For some kinds of US-sourced income you should have paid taxes in the US already, regardless of where you physically reside. For others - not. In any case, if you become US tax resident, you'll be taxed on your worldwide income, not only the $10K deposited in the US bank account. ALL of your income, everywhere in the world, must be declared to the US government and will be taxed. You should seek professional advice, before you move to the US, in order to understand your responsibilities, liabilities and rights. I suggest looking for a EA/CPA licensed in California and experienced with taxation of foreigners (look for someone in the SF or LA metropolitan areas). Keep in mind that there may be a tax treaty between the US and your home country that may affect your Federal (but not California) taxes.\"",
"I don't think the location of the funds is any of your concern. You're buying a CDI, which is: Australian financial instruments The US has no jurisdiction over you, being you an Australian, so unless you own a US-based asset (i.e.: a real-estate in the US, or a US brokerage account), US tax laws shouldn't matter to you.",
"I see no reason why a US ID would be mandatory anywhere in the UK. I'm sure they have their own tax IDs in the UK. However, if the gallery requires US persons to submit US W-9 - then yes, you're covered under that requirement.",
"\"I would suggest to get an authoritative response from a CPA. In any case it would be for your own benefit to have at least the first couple of years of tax returns prepared by a professional. However, from my own personal experience, in your situation the income should not be regarded as \"\"US income\"\" but rather income in your home country. Thus it should not appear on the US tax forms because you were not resident when you had it, it was given to you by your employer (which is X(Europe), not X(USA)), and you should have paid local taxes in your home country on it.\"",
"You can keep your Mutual Funds. You have to communicate your new status to fund house. The SIP can continue. Please note you have to convert the savings account to NRO account. Most banks would keep the account number same, else you have to revise SIP debit to new NRO account. From a tax point of view, it would be similar to resident status. Right now short term gains are taxed. There are quite a few other things you may need to do. Although dated, this is a good article. PS: Once you become resident alien in US for tax purposes, you are liable for taxes on global income.",
"I agree with Joe, having the money deposited to the US bank account may land you in trouble. Technically, a US business paying a foreigner must withhold 30% of the payment, unless a tax treaty says otherwise. The US business should do that based on your W8-BEN/W8-ECI form that you should have given to the business before being paid. I'm guessing, that by paying to your US bank account, you (and your American counterpart) are trying to avoid this withholding. That may cause trouble for both of you. I would suggest you talking to a professional (EA/CPA licensed in the State where the business is located) and having the situation resolved ASAP. You may not be liable for the US taxes at all, but because of incorrectly reporting the income/expense - you and the US business may end up paying way more than the $0 you otherwise would have, in penalties.",
"Residents of Canada must pay Canadian income tax on their worldwide income (source: Wikipedia). However, there is a tax treaty between the U.S. and Canada; I haven't read it, but my guess is that it will allow you to claim a tax credit in Canada for the capital gains tax you have paid to the U.S.",
"It isn't just ETFs, you have normal mutual funds in India which invest internationally. This could be convenient if you don't already have a depository account and a stockbroker. Here's a list of such funds, along with some performance data: Value Research - Equity: International: Long-term Performance. However, you should also be aware that in India, domestic equity and equity fund investing is tax-free in the long-term (longer than one year), but this exemption doesn't apply to international investments. Ref: Invest Around the World.",
"If you have income in the US, you will owe US income tax on it, unless there is a treaty with your country that says otherwise.",
"As long as the relative in the UK is not a US citizen and isn't considered domiciled in the US, there will be no estate taxes imposed by the US. You can see a much lengthier explanation on this subject here. The summary is that as a US citizen or resident, you can't circumvent estate taxes by moving yourself or your money abroad, but a relative who genuinely doesn't have US ties (other than inheritors located in the US) will be covered through applicable tax treaties (the UK does have an applicable tax treaty and applicable estate taxes as Ganesh points out)."
] |
[
"You will not be able to continue filing with TurboTax if you invest in foreign funds. Form 8261 which is required to report PFIC investments is not included. Read the form instructions carefully - if you don't feel shocked and scared, you didn't understand what it says. The bottom line is that the American Congress doesn't want you do what you want to do and will punish you dearly.",
"My understanding is that EWU (and EWUS) are both traded on US stock markets (NYSE & BATS), and as such these are not classified as PFIC. However, they do contain PFICs, so iShares takes the responsibility of handling the PFICs they contain and make adjustments in December. This contains the information about the adjustments made in 2016. https://www.ishares.com/us/literature/tax-information/pfic-2016.pdf On page 106 of the statement of the summary information they describe how they handle paying the necessary tax as an expense of the fund. https://www.ishares.com/us/library/stream-document?stream=reg&product=WEBXGBP&shareClass=NA&documentId=925898~926077~926112~1180071~1242912&iframeUrlOverride=%2Fus%2Fliterature%2Fsai%2Fsai-ishares-trust-8-31.pdf (I'm not a tax professional)"
] |
5064
|
How much should a graduate student attempt to save?
|
[
"2003",
"192811"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"2003",
"192811",
"553288",
"45353",
"37601",
"157219",
"430014",
"332749",
"421455",
"479769",
"353369",
"440628",
"35680",
"109061",
"156097",
"319760",
"599075",
"423745",
"321619",
"60793",
"433986",
"489480",
"598562",
"347849",
"295637",
"206223",
"329767",
"235653",
"492215",
"85977",
"18194",
"141032",
"404121",
"123013",
"415432",
"321397",
"287991",
"55841",
"148976",
"29517",
"198328",
"379948",
"325098",
"590623",
"345403",
"256055",
"522655",
"471173",
"34884",
"401248",
"580122",
"81554",
"476078",
"70730",
"413266",
"492174",
"45773",
"480402",
"213435",
"438932",
"574678",
"153341",
"123256",
"544066",
"7831",
"332938",
"396537",
"474896",
"59327",
"167438",
"555794",
"270877",
"244408",
"426906",
"316515",
"505082",
"349738",
"468879",
"20304",
"512699",
"328076",
"70558",
"421535",
"228855",
"551423",
"280776",
"446506",
"571044",
"439899",
"143467",
"137708",
"486402",
"151300",
"203380",
"12133",
"468010",
"147745",
"569628",
"153231",
"474714"
] |
[
"\"While I haven't experienced being \"\"grad student poor\"\" myself (I went to grad school at night and worked full-time), I would shoot for 10-20% per month ($150-$300). This depends of course on how much you currently have in savings. If it isn't much, you might want to attempt a higher savings percentage (30-40%). If you can move to a less-expensive place, do that as soon as you can. It's your largest expense; any place you can spend less on than $900 creates instance savings without having to sacrifice what you categorize as living expenses.\"",
"\"First, don't save anything in a tax sheltered vehicle. You will be paying so little tax that there will be essentially no benefit to making the contributions, and you'll pay tax when they come out. Tax free compounding for 40 years is terrific, but start that after you're earning more than a stipend. Second, most people recommend having a month's expenses readily available for emergencies. For you, that would be $1500. If you put $100 a month aside, it will take over a year to have your emergency fund. It's easy to argue that you should pick a higher pace, so as to have your emergency money in place sooner. However, the \"\"emergencies\"\" usually cited are things like home repair, car repair, needing to replace your car, and so on. Since you are renting your home and don't have a car, these emergencies aren't going to happen to you. Ask yourself, if your home was destroyed, and you had to replace all your clothes and possessions (including furniture), how much would you need? (Keep in mind any insurance you have.) The only emergency expense I can't guess about is health costs, because I live in Canada. I would be tempted to tell you to get a credit card with a $2000 limit and consider that your emergency fund, just because grad student living is so tight to the bone (been there, and 25 years ago I had $1200 a month, so it must be harder for you now.) If you do manage to save up $1500, and you've really been pinching to do that (walking instead of taking the bus, staying on campus hungry instead of popping out to buy food) let up on yourself when you hit the target. Delaying your graduation by a few months because you're not mentally sharp due to hunger or tiredness will be a far bigger economic hit than not having saved $200 a month for 2 or 3 years. The former is 3-6 months of your new salary, the latter 5-7K. You know what you're likely to earn when you graduate, right?\"",
"Are you working? Does your employer offer a 401(k) and if so, is there any match? Saving should be taught to kids at the same time they are old enough to get an allowance. There are many numbers tossed around, but 10% is a start for any new saver. If a college graduate can start by saving even 15%, better still. If you find that the 10% is too much, just start with what you can spare, and work to build that up over time, perhaps by splitting any future raises, half going toward savings, half to spending. Good luck. Edit - my 12 yr old made good money this summer baby sitting. I'm opening a Roth IRA for her. A 10 yr head start on her retirement savings. Edit (Jan-2013) - she's 14 now, 3 deposits to the Roth total $6000, and she's planning to up the number this year. Her goal is to have $50K saved in her Roth by the time she graduates college. Edit, by request (July-2017) 18, and off to college next month. Just under $24K, all invested in an S&P low cost index. We are planning to continue deposits of $4-$5K/yr, so the $50K is still a good goal.",
"You should plan 1-3 months for an emergency fund. Saving 6 months of expenses is recommended by many, but you have a lot of goals to accomplish, and youth is impatient. Early in your life, you have a lot of building (saving) that you need to do. You can find a good car for under $5000. It might take some effort, and you might not get quite the car you want, but if you save for 5-6 months you should have a decent car. My son is a college student and bought a sedan earlier this year for about $4000. Onto the house thing. As you said, at $11,000*2=$22,000 expenses yearly, plus about $10,000 saved, you are making low 30's. Using a common rule of thumb of 25% for housing, you really cannot afford more than about $600-700/month for housing -- you probably want to wait on that first house for awhile. Down payments really should be about 20%, and depending upon the area of the country, a modest house might be $120,000 or $520,000. Even on a $120,000, the 20% down payment would be $24,000. As you have student loans ($20,000), you should put together a plan to pay them off, perhaps allocating half your savings amount to paying down the student loans and half to saving? As you are young, you should have strong salary gains in the first few years, and once you are closer to $40,000/year, you might find the numbers working better for housing. My worry is that you are spending $22,000 out of about $32,000 for living expenses. That you are saving is great, and you are putting aside a good amount. But, you want to target saving 30-40%, if you can.",
"Secondly, should we pay off his student loans before investing? The subsidized loans won't be gaining any interest until he graduates so I was wondering if we should just pay off the unsubsidized loans and keep the subsidized ones for the next two years? From a purely financial standpoint, if the interest you gain on your savings is higher than the interest of the debt, then no. Otherwise, yes. If we were to keep 5,000 in savings and pay of the 3,000 of unsubsidized loans as I described above, that would leave us with about 15,000 dollars that is just lying around in my savings account. How should I invest this? Would you recommend high risk or low risk investments? I'm not from the US so take my answer with caution, but to me $15,000 seems a minimum safety net. Then again, it depends very much on any external help you can get in case of an emergency.",
"\"Read \"\"Stop Acting Rich\"\" by Dr Thomas Stanley. I'm concerned that even before you've earned your first paycheck you want a flashy car. $4800/yr on $63K/yr income is just about half what I'd recommend to someone who starts working. 10% is the minimum, if and only if, the employer matches 5, for a total 15% saved. Do it in a pretax account and when you go back to grad school convert to Roth.\"",
"\"My basic rule I tell everyone who will listen is to always live like you're a college student - if you could make it on $20k a year, when you get your first \"\"real\"\" job at $40k (eg), put all the rest into savings to start (401(k), IRA, etc). Gradually increase your lifestyle expenses after you hit major savings goals (3+ month emergency fund, house down payment, etc). Any time you get a raise, start by socking it all into your employer's 401(k) or similar. And repeat the above advice.\"",
"I'd suggest you keep putting money in your savings account and start investing after you land that first big job. As another answer mentioned, unless you're fortunate enough to have all of your tuition and living expenses paid for, an emergency fund is an invaluable tool for a college student. And the bigger the better. Your laptop gets stolen or your car's air conditioner (or heater) dies -- both of these things happened to me in college -- and it would have been a much bigger deal for me if I didn't have some money tucked away.",
"\"The policy you quoted suggests you deposit 6% minimum. That $6,000 will cost you $4,500 due to the tax effect, yet after the match, you'll have $9,000 in the account. Taxable on withdrawal, but a great boost to the account. The question of where is less clear. There must be more than the 2 choices you mention. Most plans have 'too many' choices. This segues into my focus on expenses. A few years back, PBS Frontline aired a program titled The Retirement Gamble, in which fund expenses were discussed, with a focus on how an extra 1% in expenses will wipe out an extra 1/3 of your wealth in a 40 year period. Very simple to illustrate this - go to a calculator and enter .99 raised to the power of 40. .669 is the result. My 401(k) has an expense of .02% (that's 1/50 of 1%) .9998 raised to the same 40 gives .992, in other words, a cost of .8% over the full 40 years. My wife and I are just retired, and will have less in expenses for the rest of our lives than the average account cost for just 1 year. In your situation, the knee-jerk reaction is to tell you to maximize the 401(k) deposit at the current (2016) $18,000. That might be appropriate, but I'd suggest you look at the expense of the S&P index (sometime called Large Cap Fund, but see the prospectus) and if it's costing much more than .75%/yr, I'd go with an IRA (Roth, if you can't deduct the traditional IRA). Much of the value of the 401(k) beyond the match is the tax differential, i.e. depositing while in the 25% bracket, but withdrawing the funds at retirement, hopefully at 15%. It doesn't take long for the extra expense and the \"\"holy cow, my 401(k) just turned decades of dividends and long term cap gains into ordinary income\"\" effect to take over. Understand this now, not 30 years hence. Last - to answer your question, 'how much'? I often recommend what may seem a cliche \"\"continue to live like a student.\"\" Half the country lives on $54K or less. There's certainly a wide gray area, but in general, a person starting out will choose one of 2 paths, living just at, or even above his means, or living way below, and saving, say, 30-40% off the top. Even 30% doesn't hit the extreme saver level. If you do this, you'll find that if/when you get married, buy a house, have kids, etc. you'll still be able to save a reasonable percent of your income toward retirement. In response to your comment, what counts as retirement savings? There's a concept used as part of the budgeting process known as the envelope system. For those who have an income where there's little discretionary money left over each month, the method of putting money aside into small buckets is a great idea. In your case, say you take me up on the 30-40% challenge. 15% of it goes to a hard and fast retirement account. The rest, to savings, according to the general order of emergency fund, 6-12 months expenses, to cover a job loss, another fund for random expenses, such as new transmission (I've never needed one, but I hear they are expensive), and then the bucket towards house down payment. Keep in mind, I have no idea where you live or what a reasonable house would cost. Regardless, a 20-25% downpayment on even a $250K house is $60K. That will take some time to save up. If the housing in your area is more, bump it accordingly. If the savings starts to grow beyond any short term needs, it gets invested towards the long term, and is treated as \"\"retirement\"\" money. There is no such thing as Saving too much. When I turned 50 and was let go from a 30 year job, I wasn't unhappy that I saved too much and could call it quits that day. Had I been saving just right, I'd have been 10 years shy of my target.\"",
"I recommend you consider a Roth IRA. Invest it as others here suggest, safely, CDs, money market,etc. You can put in $5000/yr. When you spend, use this last, there is no penalty to withdraw the deposits. But if you make it through grad school without needing it, you'll have great start on your retirement savings.",
"Determine how much you are going to save first. Then determine where you can spend your money. If you're living with your parents, try to build an emergency fund of six months income. The simplest way is to put half of your income in the emergency fund for a year. Try to save at least 10% of your income for retirement. The earlier you start this, the longer you'll have to let the magic of compounding work on it. If your employer offers a 401k with a match, do that first. If not, consider an IRA. You probably want to do a Roth now (because you probably pay little in taxes so the deduction from a standard IRA won't help you). After the year, you'll have an emergency fund. Work out how much money you'll need for rent, utilities, and groceries when you're on your own. Invest that in some way. Pay off student loans if you have any. Buy a car that you can keep a long time if you need one. Go to night school. Put any excess money in a savings account or mutual fund. This is money for doing things related to housing. Perhaps you'll need to buy a washer/dryer. Or pay a down payment on a mortgage eventually. Saving this money now does two things: first, it gives you savings for when you need it; second, it keeps you from getting used to spending your entire paycheck. If you are used to only having $200 of spending cash out of each check, you will fit your spending into that. If you are used to spending $800 every two weeks, it will be hard to cut your spending to make room for rent, etc.",
"To make this more general: should you save for retirement or for education? The answer is simple: save for your education first. A PriceWaterhouseCoopers report on behalf Universities UK in 2006 and another by the Washington-based College Board in 2007 indicate that graduates of higher education can earn anywhere from $400,000 to $1 million more, after tax and education loans are paid, than do those who start work with only a high-school qualification. [From my blog...] Over your lifetime your higher education will earn you far more than any other income and investments you forego while attaining that education. Make those sacrifices now to reap greater rewards later.",
"Yes, you should be saving for retirement. There are a million ideas out there on how much is a reasonable amount, but I think most advisor would say at least 6 to 10% of your income, which in your case is around $15,000 per year. You give amounts in dollars. Are you in the U.S.? If so, there are at least two very good reasons to put money into a 401k or IRA rather than ordinary savings or investments: (a) Often your employer will make matching contributions. 50% up to 6% of your salary is pretty common, i.e. if you put in 6% they put in 3%. If either of your employers has such a plan, that's an instant 50% profit on your investment. (b) Any profits on money invested in an IRA or 401k are tax free. (Effectively, the mechanics differ depending on the type of account.) So if you put $100,000 into an IRA today and left it there until you retire 30 years later, it would likely earn something like $600,000 over that time (assuming 7% per year growth). So you'd pay takes on your initial $100,000 but none on the $600,000. With your income you are likely in a high tax bracket, that would make a huge difference. If you're saying that you just can't find a way to put money away for retirement, may I suggest that you cut back on your spending. I understand that the average American family makes about $45,000 per year and somehow manages to live on that. If you were to put 10% of your income toward retirement, then you would be living on the remaining $171,000, which is still almost 4 times what the average family has. Yeah, I make more than $45,000 a year too and there are times when I think, How could anyone possibly live on that? But then I think about what I spend my money on. Did I really need to buy two new computer printers the last couple of months? I certainly could do my own cleaning rather than hiring a cleaning lady to come in twice a month. Etc. A tough decision to make can be paying off debt versus putting money into an investment account. If the likely return on investment is less than the interest rate on the loan, you should certainly concentrate on paying off the loan. But if the reverse is true, then you need to decide between likely returns and risk.",
"In addition to what others have said, I think it is important to consider that government retirement assistance (whatever it is called in each instance) is basically a promise that can be revoked. I talked to a retired friend of mine just yesterday and we got onto that subject; she mentioned that when she was young, the promise was for 90% of one's pay, paid by the government after retiring. It is very different today. Yes, you can gamble that you won't need the saved money, and thus decide not to save anything. What then if you do end up needing the money you did not set aside, but rather spent? You are just now graduating college, and assuming of course that you get a decently-paying job, are likely going to have loads more money than you are used to. If you make an agreement with yourself to set aside even just 10-15% of the difference in income right from the start, that is going to grow into a pretty sizable nest egg by the time you approach retirement age. Then, you will have the option of continuing to work (maybe part-time) or quitting in a way you would not have had otherwise. Now I'm going to pull numbers out of thin air, but suppose that you currently have $1000/month net, before expenses, and can get a job that pays $1800/month net starting out. 10-15% of the difference means you'll be saving around $100/month for retirement. In 35 years, assuming no return on investment (pessimistic, but works if returns match inflation) and no pay rises, that will still be over $40K. That's somewhere on the order of $150/month added to your retirement income for 25 years. Multiply with whatever inflation rate you think is likely if you prefer nominal values. It becomes even more noticable if you save a significant fraction of the additional pay; if you save 1/3 of the additional money (note that you still effectively get a 50% raise compared to what you have been living on before), that gives you a net income of $1500/month instead of $1800 ($500/month more rather than $800/month more) which grows into about $110K in 35 years assuming no return on investment. Nearly $400 per month for 25 years. $100 per week is hardly chump change in retirement, and it is still quite realistic for most people to save 30% of the money they did not have before.",
"Congrats on making it this far debt free. It is rare, but nice to be in the situation that you are in. The important thing here is that you want to remain debt free. That's really what the emergency fund is all about: it keeps you from needing to go into debt should something unexpected happen. You've got 1.5 months worth of expenses saved up, and that's great. If you don't have a family or other responsibilities, that might be enough, but think about this: how are you paying for school, and what would happen if those funds stopped coming in? If you are paying for school out of your own income, what happens if you lose your job? If someone else, perhaps your parents, is paying for school, what happens if they are suddenly no longer able to do so? While you have extra cash, you want to be saving it up for situations like this. If I were you, I would build up that emergency fund until it got to the point where it could pay all your expenses and tuition until graduation. Hopefully, you won't need to touch it, but it will be there if you need it. Since you need to be able to access your money quickly, it is generally recommended to park this money in a savings account, where it is very safe. Mutual funds are a great way to invest, but they are not safe in the short term. Don't stress out about not being able to start retirement investing just yet. Making sure you can finish school debt free is the best investment you can make right now. After you graduate and land a job, you can start investing aggressively.",
"Great question and great of you to be paying attention to this. Right now having the ability to save $2K per year might seem very out of reach. However with the right career path and by paying attention to personal finance saving 2K per month will become possible sooner than you may think. As a student you are already investing in your future, by building your greatest wealth building tool: your income. Right now concentrate on that. If you have extra money throw it in a boring old savings account and don't touch it other than emergencies. An emergency is defined as something that will preclude you from completing your education. It is not paying for the latest xbox game/skateboard/once in a lifetime trip. An important precursor to investing is having an emergency fund that sits in a boring old savings account earning almost nothing. Think of it as an insurance policy that prevents you from liquidating your investments in case of and emergency. Emergencies often come during economic downturns. If you have to liquidate your investment to cover these times then you will lock in negative returns. Once you are done with school, moved into a place of your own, and have your first job you will have a nice start on your emergency fund. Then you can start investing. Doing it in the right order you will be amazed how quickly your savings can accumulate. I'd be shooting for that 2 million by the time you are 40, not 65.",
"I don't have a reference, but I think it depends on when you entered the workforce: If you finished school at age 24, your primary goals are to pay down expensive debt and to save up enough for a down payment. So essentially not much. Maybe $5k to $10k at the most. On the other hand if you entered the workforce at age 20, with no debts and no significant expenses, it should have been easy to sock away 20% of your income for 6 years, so $40k to $50k would be reasonable. The difference is that the first person's income earning potential should be higher, so eventually they'd be able to make up the difference and pass them.",
"Save enough to build an emergency cushion of 4-6 months total expenses. After that, invest everything you can in areas where you are well researched and have carefully formed your own opinion on the subject. Those who save do not reach financial freedom, those who learn to invest and make their money work for them do. Invest in learning how to invest.",
"This is assuming that you are now making some amount X per month which is more than the income you used to have as a student. (Otherwise, the question seems rather moot.) All figures should be net amounts (after taxes). First, figure out what the difference in your cost of living is. That is, housing, electricity, utilities, the basics that you need to have to have a place in which to live. I'm not considering food costs here unless they were subsidized while you were studying. Basically, you want to figure out how much you now have to spend extra per month for basic sustenance. Then, figure out how much more you are now making, compared to when you were a student. Subtract the sustenance extra from this to get your net pay increase. After that is when it gets trickier. Basically, you want to set aside or invest as much of the pay increase as possible, but you probably have other expenses now that you didn't before and which you cannot really do that much about. This mights be particular types of clothes, commute fares (car keepup, gas, bus pass, ...), or something entirely different. Anyway, decide on a savings goal, as a percentage of your net pay increase compared to when you were a student. This might be 5%, 10% or (if you are really ambitious) 50% or more. Whichever number you pick, make sure it's reasonable giving your living expenses, and keep in mind that anything is better than nothing. Find a financial institution that offers a high-interest savings account, preferably one with free withdrawals, and sign up for one. Each and every time you get paid, figure out how much to save based on the percentage you determined (if your regular case is that you get the same payment each time, you can simply set up an automated bank transfer), put that in the savings account and, for the moment, forget about that money. Try your best to live only on the remainder, but if you realize that you set aside too much, don't be afraid to tap into the savings account. Adjust your future deposits accordingly and try to find a good balance. At the end of each month, deposit whatever remains in your regular account into your savings account, and if that is a sizable amount of money, consider raising your savings goal a little. The ultimate goal should be that you don't need to tap into your savings except for truly exceptional situations, but still keep enough money outside of the savings account to cater to some of your wants. Yes, bank interest rates these days are often pretty dismal, and you will probably be lucky to find a savings account that (especially after taxes) will even keep up with inflation. But to start with, what you should be focusing on is not to make money in terms of real value appreciation, but simply figuring out how much money you really need to sustain a working life for yourself and then walking that walk. Eventually (this may take anywhere from a couple of months to a year or more), you should have settled pretty well on an amount that you feel comfortable with setting aside each month and just letting be. By that time, you should have a decently sized nest egg already, which will help you get over rough spots, and can start thinking about other forms of investing some of what you are setting aside. Whenever you get a net pay raise of any kind (gross pay raise, lower taxes, bonus, whichever), increase your savings goal by a portion of that raise. Maybe give yourself 60% of the raise and bank the remaining 40%. That way, you are (hopefully!) always increasing the amount of money that you are setting aside, while also reaping some benefits right away. One major upside of this approach is that, if you lose your job, not only will you have that nest egg, you will also be used to living on less. So you will have more money in the bank and less monthly expenses, which puts you in a significantly better position than if you had only one of those, let alone neither.",
"Save a little if you want but pay most of your way through college if you can. Debt sucks bad and I try to avoid as little as possible. I'm willing to bet that any money you invested while in school would be trumped by a only a few hours of overtime once you're out of college and making money (assuming you've chosen a path that is valuable today and through most of your future). I worked full time and attended school full time when I was in college..those 3-4 hour nights of sleep were worth it not that I see people paying $1k/month for the next 10 years on loans... assuming you can handle it.",
"Daniel, first of all, I'm jealous of your predicament. That said, I think you've gotten some good advice already, so I won't repeat what's been said. But I will throw out a few ideas that haven't come up. My first thought is that you may be underestimating upcoming expenses. It sounds like your current expenses are low, and that's great! I'm impressed that you're living below your means, and looking for the best way to use your extra cash. But you may not be thinking of a few things. You have a girlfriend, and maybe your relationship isn't such that you are planning a wedding quite yet. But, regardless of whether your current girlfriend is your future life partner or not, if you think marriage may be in your future at all, you'll save yourself a lot of stress if you've got some savings for a wedding in place before you're ready to commit. Next, what are you driving? If it's a good car that you expect to last you another 10 years, you're probably ok right now. But if you may need to replace your vehicle in the next few years, start saving now and you may be able to buy it outright. (I expect your interest rate on financing a car would be higher than your current student loan rates, so I would save for a car before paying down loans with such beautiful rates.) A house has already been discussed, and there was also mention of additional education, and both of those require a solid financial plan that begins far in advance. In summary, I think you need a lot more than $5K in savings. Sure, have some fun, and take advantage of opportunities to travel, etc, as they come along, but if you're able to bump your savings by $500 to $1000/month, I think you'll really be glad you did. When it comes time for a new car, or you find you're ready to settle down, it will be nice to have somewhere to draw from, and if there's only $5K in your savings, you may come to regret choices you made when you were 22.",
"You will find lots of rules of thumb but there is no universal truth to how much you should save. There are factors you DO need to consider though: you should start as early as possible to set money aside for retirement. You should then use a retirement calculator to at least get an understanding of the amount you need to set aside each month to achieve the desired retirement income; your default should be not to spend money and only spend money when you must. Leisure, travel and eating out should come last after you have saved up; you should have funds for different terms. For example, my wife and I have an emergency fund for unexpected expenses or losses in income. The rule of thumb here generally is to have 3-6 months of salary saved up. A longer term fund should be created for larger expenses like buying a car or preparing the cashdown on a property. Finally, the retirement fund which should cover your needs after you have retired.",
"\"Debt cripples you, it weighs you down and keeps you from living your life the way you want. Debt prevents you from accomplishing your goals, limits your ability to \"\"Do\"\" what you want, \"\"Have\"\" what you want, and \"\"Be\"\" who you want to be, it constricts your opportunities, and constrains your charity. As you said, Graduated in May from school. Student loans are coming due here in January. Bought a new car recently. The added monthly expenses have me concerned that I am budgeting my money correctly. Awesome! Congratulations. You need to develop a plan to repay the student loans. Buying a (new) car before you have planned you budget may have been premature. I currently am spending around 45-50% of my monthly (net)income to cover all my expenses and living. The left over is pretty discretionary, but things like eating dinner outside the house and expenses that are abnormal would come out of this. My question is what percentage is a safe amount to be committing to expenses on a monthly basis? Great! Plan 40-50% for essentials, and decide to spend under 20-30% for lifestyle. Be frugal here and you could allocate 30-40% for financial priorities. Budget - create a budget divided into three broad categories, control your spending and your life. Goals - a Goal is a dream with a plan. Organize your goals into specific items with timelines, and steps to progress to your goals. You should have three classes of goals, what you want to \"\"Have\"\", what you want to \"\"Do\"\", and who you want to \"\"Be\"\"; Ask yourself, what is important to you. Then establish a timeline to achieve each goal. You should place specific goals or steps into three time blocks, Near (under 3-6 months), medium (under 12 months), and Long (under 24 months). It is ok to have longer term plans, but establish steps to get to those goals, and place those steps under one of these three timeframes. Example, Good advice I have heard includes keeping housing costs under 25%, keeping vehicle costs under 10%, and paying off debt quickly. Some advise 10-20% for financial priorities, but I prefer 30-40%. If you put 10% toward retirement (for now), save 10-20%, and pay 10-20% toward debt, you should make good progress on your student loans.\"",
"First thing to do right now, is to see if there's somewhere equally liquid, equally risk free you can park your cash for higher rate of return. You can do this now, and decide how much to move into less liquid investments on your own pace. When I was in grad school, I opened a Roth IRA. These are fantastic things for young people who want to keep their options open. You can withdraw the contributions without penalty any time. The earnings are tax free on retirement, or for qualified withdrawls after five years. Down payments on a first home qualify for example. As do medical expenses. Or you can leave it for retirement, and you'll not pay any taxes on it. So Roth is pretty flexible, but what might that investment look like? It in depends on your time horizon; five years is pretty short so you probably don't want to be too stock market weighted. Just recognize that safe short term investments are very poorly rewarded right now. However, you can only contribute earnings in the year they are made, up to a 5000 annual maximum. And the deadline for 2010 is gone. So you'll have to move this into an IRA over a number of years, and have the earnings to back it. So in the meanwhile, the obvious advice to pay down your credit card bills & save for emergencies applies. It's also worth looking at health and dental insurance, as college students are among the least likely to have decent insurance. Also keep a good chunk on hand in liquid accounts like savings or checking for emergencies and general poor planning. You don't want to pay bank fees like I once did because I mis-timed a money transfer. It's also great for negotiating when you can pay in cash up front; my car insurance for example, will charge you more for monthly payments than for every six months. Or putting a huge chunk down on a car will pretty much guarantee the best available dealer financing.",
"Saving some money for the future is a good idea. But how much to save is a tough question. I retired with a small fraction of what the experts said I would need. Three years later, I can confidently say I did not even need what I had saved.",
"Most financial guru's recommend between three and six months of savings, modified by how likely you think it is you'll lose your job. Note that the months here are months of expenses not income. Dave Ramsey on the other hands recommends saving only $1000 until you've paid all debts (except your home). This strategy only makes sense if you're paying off debt very aggressively. Since you have many relatively small debts, you would benefit greatly from the debt snowball (recent research shows it's more effective in practice than paying off high interest first). As you quickly pay off the smaller loans you reduce the amount you must pay each month, reducing your risk (your emergency fund now goes that much farther), and enabling you to put more on the next debt. In your particular case the debt snowball would be: etc. Again, this is good because it quickly reduces your monthly required debt payments.",
"Figure you need as much cash in the bank to pay all of your bills for the amount of time it would take you to find a new job if yours went away. Also .. congratulations on your situation .. good work.",
"You are looking for r/personalfinance. But it'd probably be best to put your excess monies in a savings account, not worrying about 401k/retirement contributions until you get a full time job, post college. Don't listen to the pussies that will tell you to invest it in a vagaurd account or your 401k. The money is more important to you as an emergency fund you can access immediately. At most you'll see a 4-5% return on your meager savings, amounting to less than $100/year.",
"My graduate stipend was wage income so I could make Roth IRA contributions. Don't lose the year; you can withdraw nominal contributions if needed. What you choose is less important than making the contribution.",
"Chances are since college is your next likely step I would recommend saving up for it. Start building an emergency fund. Recommended $1,000 minimum. To start building your credit rating (when 18) get a low interest low limit credit. Pay off the balance every month. Starting to build your credit rating now can save you hundreds of thousands when buying a house over the course of paying it off. ie. cheaper interest rate. As for investing, the sooner you can get started the better. Acquire preferred/stocks/bonds/REITs/ETFs/etc that pay you to own them (they pay you dividends monthly/quarterly/etc). Stick with solid stocks that have a history of consistently increasing their dividends over time and that are solid companies. I personally follow the work/advice of Derek Foster. He's not a professional but he retired at 34. His first book (Stop working - Here's how you can) is great and recommend it to anyone who is looking to get started. Also check out Ramit Sethi's blog I Will Teach You to be Rich. He focuses on big wins which save you a lot over the long term. He's also got some great advice for students as well. Best of luck!",
"Get a decent job while at university - it will make all the difference. And calculate your budget and don't spend more than your budget allows Worked for me. That was the time when I had the greatest disposable income - all gone downhill since :-)",
"\"Fool's 13 steps to invest is a good starting point. Specifically, IFF all your credit cards are paid, and you made sure you've got no outstanding liabilities (that also accrues interest), stock indexes might be a good place for 5-10 years timeframes. For grad school, I'd probably look into cash ISA (or local equivalent thereof) -the rate of return is going to be lower, but having it in a separate account at least makes it mentally \"\"out of sight - out of mind\"\", so you can make sure the money's there WHEN you need it.\"",
"I saved all the money I made working part time in high school and paid for my first year of college, it was a big relief and really helped me. $15,000 is not that much now that I'm done with school.",
"On paper the whole 6 months living costs sounds (and is) great, but in real life there are a lot of things that you need to consider. For example, my first car was constantly falling apart and was an SUV that got 16MPG. I have to travel for work (about 300 miles per week) so getting a sedan that averages close to 40MPG saves me more in gas and maintenance than the monthly payment for the new car costs. When our apartment lease was up, the new monthly rent would have been $1685 per month, we got a 30 year mortgage with a monthly payment of $1372. So buying a house actually let us put aside more each month. We have just under 3 months of living expenses set aside (1 month in liquid assets, 2 months in a brokerage account) and I worry about it. I wish we had a better buffer, but in our case the house and car made more sense as an early investment compared to just squirreling away all our savings. Also, do you have any debt? Paying off debt (student loans, credit card debt, etc.) should often take top priority. Have some rainy day funds, of course, but pay down debts, and then create a personal financial plan for what works best in your situation. That would be my suggestion.",
"On average, you should be saving at least 10-15% of your income in order to be financially secure when you retire. Different people will tell you different things, but really this can be split between short term savings (cash), long term savings (401ks, IRAs, stocks & bonds), and paying down debt. That $5k is a good start on an emergency fund, but you probably want a little more. As justkt said, 6 months' worth is what you want to aim for. Put this in a Money Market account, where you'll earn a little more interest but won't be penalized from withdrawing it when its needed (you may have to live off it, after all). Beyond that, I would split things up; if possible, have payroll deductions going to a broker (sharebuilder is a good one to start with if you can't spare much change), as well as an IRA at a bank. Set up a separate checking account just for rent and utilities, put a month's worth of cash in there, and have another payroll deduction that covers your living expenses + maybe 5% put in there automatically. Then, set up automatic bill payments, so you don't even have to think about it. Check it once a month to make sure there aren't any surprises. Pay off your credit cards every month. These are, by far, the most expensive forms of credit that most people have. You shouldn't be financing large purchases with them (you'll get better rates by taking a personal loan from a bank). Set specific goals for savings, and set up automatic payroll deductions to work towards them. Especially for buying a house; most responsible lenders will ask for 20% down. In today's market, that means you need to write a check for $40k or $50k. While it's tempting to finance up to 100% of the property value, it's also risky considering how volatile markets can be. You don't want to end up owing more on the property than it's worth two years down the road. If you find yourself at the end of the month with an extra $50 or so, consider your savings goals or your current debt instead of blowing it on a toy. Especially if you have long term debt (high balance credit cards, vehicle or property loans), applying that money directly to principal can save you months (or years) paying it back, and hundreds or thousands of dollars of interest (all depending on the details of the loan, of course). Above all, have fun with it :) Think of your personal net worth as you do your Gamer score on the XBox, and look for ways to maximize it with a minimum of effort or investment on your part! Investing in yourself and your future can be incredibly rewarding emotionally :)",
"Why not just hold that cash until you graduate from college? Why? Because it's a safety net - make sure you don't have any sudden expenses (medical, school bills, car bills, etc). Then after school you're going to need some cash for job moving, relocation, clothes, downpayment on apartment, utilities, etc. If all that cash is tied up into a 401 or IRA then you can't touch it and if something happens you'll be tempted to take a loan out. Ack! You'll have plenty of time since you're just starting to save for retirement. Keep this cash as a beginning emergency fund and hang on cause as soon as you get out of school things really move fast. :)",
"I have about $1K in savings, and have been told that you should get into investment and saving for retirement early. I make around $200 per week, which about $150 goes into savings. That's $10k per year. The general rule of thumb is that you should have six months income as an emergency fund. So your savings should be around $5k. Build that first. Some argue that the standard should be six months of living expenses rather than income. Personally, I think that this example is exactly why it is income rather than living expenses. Six months of living expenses in this case would only be $1250, which won't pay for much. And note that living expenses can only be calculated after the fact. If your estimate of $50 a week is overly optimistic, you might not notice for months (until some large living expense pops up). Another problem with using living expenses as the measure is that if you hold down your living expenses to maximize your savings, this helps both measures. Then you hit your savings target, and your living expenses increase. So you need more savings. By contrast, if your income increases but your living expenses do not, you still need more savings but you can also save more money. Doesn't really change the basic analysis though. Either way you have an emergency savings target that you should hit before starting your retirement savings. If you save $150 per week, then you should have around $4k in savings at the beginning of next year. That's still low for an emergency fund by the income standard. So you probably shouldn't invest next year. With a living expenses standard, you could have $6250 in savings by April 15th (deadline for an IRA contribution that appears in the previous tax year). That's $5000 more than the $1250 emergency fund, so you could afford an IRA (probably a Roth) that year. If you save $7500 next year and start with $4k in savings (under the income standard for emergency savings), that would leave you with $11,500. Take $5500 of that and invest in an IRA, probably a Roth. After that, you could make a $100 deposit per week for the next year. Or just wait until the end. If you invested in an IRA the previous year because you decided use the living expenses standard, you would only have $6500 at the end of the year. If you wait until you have $6750, you could max out your IRA contribution. At that point, your excess income for each year would be larger than the maximum IRA contribution, so you could max it out until your circumstances change. If you don't actually save $3k this year and $7500 next year, don't sweat it. A college education is enough of an investment at your age. Do that first, then emergency savings, then retirement. That will flip around once you get a better paying, long term job. Then you should include retirement savings as an expected cost. So you'd pay the minimum required for your education loans and other required living expenses, then dedicate an amount for retirement savings, then build your emergency savings, then pay off your education loans (above the minimum payment). This is where it can pay to use the more aggressive living expenses standard, as that allows you to pay off your education loans faster. I would invest retirement savings in a nice, diversified index fund (or two since maintaining the correct stock/bond mix of 70%-75% stocks is less risky than investing in just bonds much less just stocks). Investing in individual stocks is something you should do with excess money that you can afford to lose. Secure your retirement first. Then stock investments are gravy if they pan out. If they don't, you're still all right. But if they do, you can make bigger decisions, e.g. buying a house. Realize that buying individual stocks is about more than just buying an app. You have to both check the fundamentals (which the app can help you do) and find other reasons to buy a stock. If you rely on an app, then you're essentially joining everyone else using that app. You'll make the same profit as everyone else, which won't be much because you all share the profit opportunities with the app's system. If you want to use someone else's system, stick with mutual funds. The app system is actually more dangerous in the long term. Early in the app's life cycle, its system can produce positive returns because a small number of people are sharing the benefits of that system. As more people adopt it though, the total possible returns stay the same. At some point, users saturate the app. All the possible returns are realized. Then users are competing with each other for returns. The per user returns will shrink as usage grows. If you have your own system, then you are competing with fewer people for the returns from it. Share the fundamental analysis, but pick your stocks based on other criteria. Fundamental analysis will tell you if a stock is overvalued. The other criteria will tell you which undervalued stock to buy.",
"\"I posted a comment in another answer and it seems to be approved by others, so I have converted this into an answer. If you're talking about young adults who just graduated college and worked through it. I would recommend you tell them to keep the same budget as what they were living on before they got a full-time job. This way, as far as their spending habits go, nothing changes since they only have a $500 budget (random figure) and everything else goes into savings and investments. If as a student you made $500/month and you suddenly get $2000/month, that's a lot of money you get to blow on drinks. Now, if you put $500 in savings (until 6-12 month of living expenses), $500 in investments for the long run and $500 in vacation funds or \"\"big expenses\"\" funds (Ideally with a cap and dump the extra in investments). That's $18,000/yr you are saving. At this stage in your life, you have not gotten used to spending that extra $18,000/yr. Don't touch the side money except for the vacation fund when you want to treat yourself. Your friends will call you cheap, but that's not your problem. Take that head start and build that down payment on your dream house. The way I set it up, is (in this case) I have automatics every day after my paychecks come in for the set amounts. I never see it, but I need to make sure I have the money in there. Note: Numbers are there for the sake of simplicity. Adjust accordingly. PS: This is anecdotal evidence that has worked for me. Parents taught me this philosophy and it has worked wonders for me. This is the extent of my financial wisdom.\"",
"I think JohnFx's answer is pretty much the right thing to do. I'd just like to suggest that the budget doesn't have to be fixed. It sounds like you aren't completely sure what an acceptable lifestyle costs for you, and it might feel like a budget locks you into a spending pattern that could end up being unfulfilling, or keep you in debt longer than necessary. To reduce that risk, you could start with a very easy level of contributions, then every month see if you can spend $10-$50 less without sacrificing in the lifestyle department. And eventually if you feel like you're missing out, you can stick with the previous month's budget. You might avoid depriving yourself by starting with something easy, but I think if you make an effort to save money, you'll more likely be surprised how much you can improve your lifestyle while spending less. I like a lot of the advice on Mr. Money Mustache and Early Retirement Extreme, and I'd recommend the introductory sections of both blogs if you ever hit a block at some level of contribution. And one minor (highly situational) comment: You mentioned having less to save if you contribute more, but if you have high interest loans, paying them down early can be (pretty much) a guaranteed very high ROI. So while you might want to prioritize an emergency fund and maybe an employer match first, most saving will probably be less useful than extra contributions.",
"The bare minimum should be 6-months of expenses. Ideally, it should be at least 1 year. My personal preference is 2+ years, but one thing at a time. Figure out your necessary expenses: food, shelter, transportation and necessary extras. An example of a necessity, beyond the basics, for me is a decent internet connection. Telephone costs is another good example. (Meanwhile, electricity and such bills should be included in the figure for shelter.) You may want to include some allowance for clothing as well; especially for the 2+ year plan.",
"Your first problem is looking at these as monthly expenses rather than looking longer-term at how to remove the expenses. You have a $600/month loan, but what is the interest rate? If you paid that loan more aggressively it would free up 10% of your income, but you can't pay the loan aggressively if you don't have an emergency fund. You need enough cash-flow to take care of emergencies so you don't incur more debt on less advantageous terms. The way you describe the problem, it appears that you don't know where all of the money is going, so the first step is to track all of your expenses and formulate a budget. The budget is a plan on how to spend the money for next month. At least 10% should be money you are saving for a short-term emergency fund. Another 10% should be money you are saving for retirement. Until you have 6 months of expenses saved for your emergency fund, you need to skip luxuries like taxi rides and maybe you need to reduce the amount you send home. 22% is a large amount and unless your parents are using that money to become independent (so that they won't rely on your contributions forever) it will only prevent you from becoming wealthy enough to really help them later. Only you can determine what can be cut from your monthly expenses--but if you want to save--spending less is required.",
"You have great intentions, and a great future. As far as investing goes, you're a bit early. Unless your parents or other benefactor is going to pay every dime of your expenses, you'll have costs you need to address. $1000 is the start of a nice emergency fund, but not yet enough to consider investing for the long term. If you continue to work, it's not tough to burn through $200/wk especially when you are in college and have more financial responsibility.",
"I would definitely recommend putting some of this in an IRA. You can't put all $30K in an IRA immediately though, as the contribution limit is $5500/year for 2014, but until April 15 you can still contribute $5500 for 2013 as well. At your income level I would absolutely recommend a Roth IRA, as your income will very likely be higher in retirement, given that your income will almost certainly rise after you get your Ph.D. Your suggested asset allocation (70% stocks, 30% bonds) sounds appropriate; if anything you might want to go even higher on stocks assuming you won't mind seeing the value drop significantly. If you don't want to put a lot of energy into investment choices, I suggest a target retirement date fund. As far as I am aware, Vanguard offers the lowest expenses for these types of funds, e.g. this 2050 fund.",
"I think this varies considerably depending on your situation. I've heard people say 6 month's living expenses, and I know Suze Orman recommended bumping that to 8 months in our current economy. My husband and I have no children, lots of student loan debts, but we pay off our credit cards in full each month and are working to save up for a house. We've talked through a few different what-if scenarios. If one of us were to lose our job, we have savings to cover the difference between our reduced income and paying the bills for 6 or 8 months while the other person regained employment. If both of us were to lose our jobs simultaneously, our savings wouldn't hold us over for more than 3 or 4 months, but if that were to happen, we would likely take advantage of the opportunity to relocate closer to our families, and possibly even move in to my parent's house for a short time. With no children and no mortgage, our commitments are few, so I don't feel the need to have a very large emergency cash fund, especially with student loans to pay off. Think through a few scenarios for your life and see what you would need. Take into consideration expenses to break a rental lease, cell phone contract, or other commitments. Then, start saving toward your goal. Also see answers to a similar question here.",
"\"Congratulations. The first savings goal should be an emergency fund. Think of this not as an investment, but as insurance against life's woes. They happen and having this kind of money earmarked allows one to invest without needing to withdraw at an inopportune time. This should go into a \"\"high interest\"\" savings account or money market account. Figure three to six months of expenses. The next goal should be retirement savings. In the US this is typically done through 401K or if your company does not offer one, either a ROTH IRA or Traditional IRA. The goal should be about 15% of your income. You should favor a 401k match over just about anything else, and then a ROTH over that. The key to transforming from a broke college student into a person with a real job, and disposable income, is a budget. Otherwise you might just end up as a broke person with a real job (not fun). Part of your budget should include savings, spending, and giving. All three areas are the key to building wealth. Once you have all of those taking care of the real fun begins. That is you have an emergency fund, you are putting 15% to retirement, you are spending some on yourself, and giving to a charity of your choice. Then you can dream some with any money left over (after expenses of course). Do you want to retire early? Invest more for retirement. Looking to buy a home or own a bunch of rental property? Start educating yourself and invest for that. Are you passionate about a certain charity? Give more and save some money to take time off in order to volunteer for that charity. All that and more can be yours. Budgeting is a key concept, and the younger you start the easier it gets. While the financiers will disagree with me, you cannot really invest if you are borrowing money. Keep debt to zero or just on a primary residence. I can tell you from personal experience that I did not started building wealth until I made a firm commitment to being out of debt. Buy cars for cash and never pay credit card interest. Pay off student loans as soon as possible. For some reason the idea of giving to charity invokes rancor. A cursory study of millionaires will indicate some surprising facts: most of them are self made, most of them behave differently than pop culture, and among other things most of them are generous givers. Building wealth is about behavior. Giving to charity is part of that behavior. Its my own theory that giving does almost no good for the recipient, but a great amount of good for the giver. This may seem difficult to believe, but I ask that you try it.\"",
"\"I'd first put it in CDs or other short term account. Get through school first, then see where you land. If you have income that allows you to start a Roth IRA, I'd go for that, but keep it safe in case you actually need it back soon. After school, if you don't land a decent job fast, this money might be needed to live on. How long will it last if you take a few months to find work? If you do find a good job, moving, and setting up an apartment has a cost. Once you're there, I'd refer you to the many \"\"getting started\"\" Q&As on this site.\"",
"Keep 3-6 months (or more if you need to, for me the number is 9 months) worth of expenses in an emergency fund. Put the rest against the student loan. The length of time depends on your situation. I have family, and work in IT. Changing jobs takes me longer, because ... reasons. Having less than 6-9 months of buffer means that I have to rush and possibly take a position that is not a good fit, or get behind on payments. So, set aside your emergency fund, add to it if you need to. Once it is fully funded, take the money you were using to fund the emergency fund and budget that to clearing student loans. Also, don't start new credit cards, and be sure to never carry a balance on them. I know it seems like a lot, but keep in mind that yours is small, and you'll likely be able to knock it out in a very short time. Edit (after OP listed expenses): Taking into account the expenses you listed, it looks like you have about 2000 per month in expenses (if you're in emergency fund mode, luxuries can wait, and you can tighten the belt on food, so go with the lower end of your estimate.) Lets say you have 600 a month to work with. My suggestion would be bring savings up to $6000. That will take you two months. Then pay 850 a month to student loans. You'll be paid off in a year, and still have 6000 for emergencies. Once you're done, you will have 850 a month to save and invest. With patience, persistence and care, you can start a nest egg that will allow you to remain financially independent. Search around for FIRE (financial independence, retire early) and other strategies for retirement savings and investing. Be sure to save for retirement. The worst inheritance to leave your loved ones would be to become financially dependent upon them in your later years. And watch out for credit, it's a trap.",
"Congrats on your first real job! Save as much as your can while keeping yourself (relatively) comfortable. As to where to put your hard earned money, first establish why you want to save the money in the first place. Money is a mean to acquire the things we want or need in your life or the lives of others. Once your goals are set, then follow this order:",
"My opinion is that 50% savings is the number to shoot for, and I strive toward that number as often as possible. 10% - savings for retirement 10% - savings for short term emergency fund 25% - payment on mortgage principal 5% - savings for planned big purchases I overpay the principal so that 25% of my income goes to principal payments, and I separately account for the mortgage interest/home owners insurance as another expense in my budget. Because of this aggressive payment schedule, the house I bought 2 years ago will be payed in full in another 9 years. I own another property outright that I paid down in the same fashion and I collect rent on it as a supplement to my income. I started with a small townhouse that I could easily afford, but now I have a much larger home that I can still easily afford. The emergency fund doesn't need to be more than 6 months of expenses, which is 3 months of income if your expenses are only 50% of your income. I keep 6 months of expenses liquid and another 12 in a low risk investment. Once you have your emergency fund funded, you can add that percentage to a different category (say 15% to retirement and 10% to planned big purchases), or you can over-fund it. I have had a few catastrophes that have depleted that fund, so I like having the extra 12 months of income available. I set the last 5% aside for wants that are not regular expenses. If I want a car, I save 5% of my income until I can pay cash for it. I have an infinite number of these wants, so I prioritize them and buy them in order when the cash becomes available. The reason I use percentages is to keep me focused when my income increases. Instead of spending all the additional money that I could afford to spend each time I get a raise. I instead only increase my expenses to the 50% mark. It was much harder to save 50% when I got my first job out of college, but now I live quite comfortably on that percentage and I could take a large hit to my income before I would need to make significant changes to my lifestyle.",
"\"Spend less. As @jldugger said, shop around for textbooks. Make sure to look for used books: you can sometimes save a lot of money there. Be smart about food money. I could go to our on-campus grill and get a sandwich and a salad for lunch. If I packed both with toppings, the salad could be a 2nd meal for the same day. If you have the option, get a meal plan that is just 1 meal a day, and eat a lot that meal. Don't do the starbucks \"\"pay several dollars for a coffee each day\"\" thing. Small-ish regular expenses add up quickly. Quit smoking (if applicable). Ditch your car if possible. Some colleges are in cities with good public transportation or are small enough that a bike will do. Cars are very expensive. Try to find free activities to do in your free time. Usually college towns are great places to find free fun. Pick-up sports, student concerts/art shows, playing board/card/video games. Make sure to track how you're spending money to look for areas where you could be spending less. There are plenty of tools available to help with this. Some on-campus jobs involve sitting around and occasionally doing something: IE working the checkout desk at the library. A job like this (if you can find one) can effectively pay you for doing our homework. One other very important college-related financial tip is to not take out more loans than you can afford. I've heard a good rule of thumb is not take our more loans than you expect to earn your first year after graduating. Look up average starting salaries for the career you realistically expect to have after you graduate. If you would need to borrow much more than that to get your degree, rethink your plans. Being a slave to a bank for years is a crappy way to spend your life.\"",
"You need to protect from two types of disasters. You need to set a goal. In 5 years I will have X months of emergency funds. Then start building it. You can also make sure that any found money (birthday check from your grandmother or bonus check at work) goes into building the fund. While is seems a waste to pay all that interest for the student loans, you may decide that having an emergency fund is more important. Note: don't mix the two types of emergency funds. It is less confusing to have two sub accounts, because it avoids the double counting of the funds.",
"Heck no, don't spend more! I saved a ton of money when I got my first real job. You won't always be able to do this. Save a bundle while you can.",
"I encourage using it as a buffer. After h.s. I had a thousand or so dollars saved up in my savings account. After college it was maybe 5 thousand and it's remained roughly like that ever since. I figure any modest emergency or spending splurge may cost, at most, a couple thousand bucks. I'm talking about a new couch, a car accident, hospital bill, vacation to wherever, etc. It's nice to have an idea of a buffer. Financial advisors say to have a buffer of about 3 months of salary. This is in case of unemployment and such. It was smart for me. I wouldn't try to spend money to make money at this point. It's not enough money to try to see a significant gain unless you're lucky. I tried Sharebuilder a while ago with $200 to see what stocks were like. They gave you several free trades to see how you liked it. At first I was shuffling stuff a little too much and once the fees start kicking in it's 7 bucks here, 7 bucks there- eventually I realized you have to invest enough to offset the transfer fees and the fact that you have your money tied up in something going up and down all the time. But yeah. Start with a buffer and scale it up as your lifestyle changes. Anything beyond your buffer is spending money, investing money, fun money.",
"With $800/month extra? Do both. (I am ethnocentric enough to assume you live in the same country as me) First, figure out what your emergency fund should look like. Put this money in a high yield checking or savings account. Add to it monthly until you reach your goal. It should be 3 to 6 months of your total monthly expenses. It will be a lot more than $2k I suspect. You will earn bubkis in interest, but the point of the emergency fund is a highly liquid asset for emergencies so you can choose cheaper car insurance and not buy warranties on stuff. With your $800/month, split it up this way: $416/month into a Roth IRA account at Vanguard (or Schwab or Fidelity) in the Star Fund (or similar low cost, diversified fund). The star is $1000 to open, pretty diversified. $416 is a lazy number that comes close to the $5000 annual limit for a Roth IRA in the US. Contribute like clockwork, directly from your paycheck if you can. This will make it easy to do and get you the benefit of dollar cost averaging. $200 or $300 into your savings account until you reach your emergency fund goal. $85 - $100. Live a little. Speculate in stocks with your vanguard account. Or rent fancy cars. Or taken a vacation or go party. If you are saving $800/month in your early 20 be proud of yourself, but have a little fun too so you can let off steam. It isn't much but you know you can play with it. Once you reach your emergency fund, save up for your future house or car or plane tickets to Paris. Ask another question for how to save up for these kinds of goals.",
"For a more philosophical way to approach this, consider money saved as the opposite of money owed: This philosophy works for things which you may be able to borrow for (computer, car, house), but also for things you can't borrow for (retirement, giving to your kids, etc.). As others have mentioned, the 10% suggestion is for retirement, but the actual number depends on your lifestyle. As you can see in this chart, saving 10% of your income means you'll need to work for 51.4 years.",
"Does your employer offer direct deposit? Can you deposit to more than one account? Personally, I have my pay split up like this via direct deposit: From an early age I found that separating my expenses from my spending money kept me inside my spending limits and kept my savings on track. In fact, checking account 1 and 2 are at two different banks. Get yourself a credit card to start establishing some credit. Make a payment plan for the student loan, but before focusing completely on repaying it start to establish an emergency fund.",
"Assuming the amount of your car payment and student loan aren't crazy you should be fine. I would suggest starting with a baseline budget listing your monthly income and expenses. Be sure to include miscellaneous expenses like car maintenance, insurance, food, clothes, etc (the common things that sometimes get overlooked in a budget). After all of your necessary expenses (fluff like entertainment doesn't count), if your employer has a 401k with a match I would contribute to that up to the match amount. Next I would save an emergency fund to cover unforseen events such as car repairs, etc. $1000 is not an uncommon amount to see people suggest for this. Next I would knock out your car loan then student loan as fast as possible. This will free up some cash flow which gives you more freedom to do what you want. At this point you save more so you don't have to finance the next car or have a down payment for a home or whatever. Building your savings to be 3-6 months of income is a good idea, this covers things like being laid off or other larger unexpected events. After you get to that point how you handle your budget is pretty open.",
"Your attitude is great, but be careful to temper your (awesome) ambition with a dose of reality. Saving is investing is great, the earlier the better, and seeing retirement at a young age with smooth lots of life's troubles; saving is smart and we all know it. But as a college junior, be honest with yourself. Don't you want to screw around and play with some of that money? Your first time with real income, don't you want to blow it on a big TV, vacation, or computer? Budget out those items with realistic costs. See the pros and cons of spending that money keeping in mind the opportunity cost. For example, when I was in college, getting a new laptop for $2000 (!) was easily more important to me than retirement. I don't regret that. I do regret buying my new truck too soon and borrowing money to do it. These are judgment calls. Here is the classic recipe: Adjust the numbers or businesses to your personal preferences. I threw out suggestions so you can research them and get an idea of what to compare. And most importantly of all. DO NOT GET INTO CREDIT CARD DEBT. Use credit if you wish, but do not carry a balance.",
"\"The power of compounding interest and returns is an amazing thing. Start educating yourself about investing, and do it -- there are great Q&As on this site, numerous books (I recommend \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\", tools for small investors (like Sharebuilder.com) and other resources out there to get you started. Your portfolio doesn't need to include every dime you have either. But you do need to develop the discipline to save money -- even if that savings is $20 while you're in school. How you split between cash/deposit account savings and other investment vehicles is a decision that needs to make sense to you.\"",
"Budget. Figure out how much money you need to keep for your own spending purposes, then figure out from that how much you can afford to move to longer term savings for youeself and/or the kid. Try it for a while, see if it works, adjust how much you can afford to save, repeat. (Actually, you want to further reduce the savings a bit until the emergency fund comes up to a level you feel comfortable at, then increase them to acceptable targets.) It's OK if you miss or reduce some deposits to the savings plans while you get the emergency fund up to a level you're comfortable at. If you don't feel you're saving enough after making these adjustments, you need to economize somewhere so you have more money to save, or make more money, or recalibrate your expectations. You can't get a gallon out of a quart container.",
"I'm not a 'rule of thumb' guy, but here, I'd suggest that if you can set aside 10% of your income each year for college, that would be great. That turns out to be $900/mo. In 15 years, if you saw an 8% CAGR, you'd have $311K which happens to be in your range of expenses. And you'd still have time to go as the baby won't graduate for 22(?) years. (Yup, 10% is a good rule of thumb for your income and 3 kids) Now, on the other hand, I'd research what grants you'd be able to get if you came up short. If instead of saving a dime, you funded your own retirement and the spouse's IRA if she's not working, and time the mortgage to pay it off in 15 years from now, the lack of liquid funds actually runs in your favor. But, I'm not an expect on this, just second guessing my own fully funded college account for my daughter.",
"As long as you have a emergency fund, I'd stop 401k contributions immediately and use that money to fund school (as much as you can). Student loans are dangerous - they're very difficult to discharge in a bankruptcy, and eat into your savings for a long time. It may even be better to defer school for a year while the debt gets paid off and you can get an emergency fund built up.",
"Put it in the bank and earn the meager interest rate. By far your most important investment is finishing your education and as such this money might be needed to do so. If you don't need the money during your education you will undoubtedly need it for a new apartment/furnishings/moving expenses.",
"Since you already have established a set of expenses, most importantly your rent. Blair Hodgson DuQuesnay said, “You don’t want to spend more than one-third of your take-home pay on your housing, whether that’s rent or a mortgage. With almost everything else, you can work from there.” She also recommends that your static bills — housing, utilities, and other fixed expenses that recur monthly — don’t take up more than 50% of your budget. If you can keep them even lower than 50%, like, say 40% or 35%, you’ll have even more spending money for everything from food to clothing to savings. So basically, it is time to start to be worried if you are exceeding half of your budget on your expenses. Forbes has an excellent article on how new grads can plan to budget their money.",
"I'd suggest waiting until a bit after you are married. To Eagle1's point, even $23,000 is not a huge sum of money. You didn't make any mention of a desire to buy a home, but if that becomes part of the plan, I'd want every cent of liquidity I can get. I wrote Student Loans and Your First Mortgage to explain why your buying power for the house is lowered by paying that loan. In your case, $5000 is 20% of $25000. For a good 20% down purchase, I'd want those funds available. You also don't mention retirement accounts. Depending on the home purchase timing, I'd start to think about putting aside at least the $5500 per year IRA/Roth IRA maximum.",
"\"I take it you have nearly zero expenses, since you don't mention any savings and with your income you wouldn't have much left over for investing. At your level of income, any actual investing is either going to unwisely reduce your cash available should you need it (such as investment in mutual funds, which often have minimum investment periods of 2-6 months or more to avoid fees), or cost you a high percentage of your income in commissions (stock trading). So, I wouldn't recommend investing at all — yet. I find Dave Ramsey's baby steps to be very good general money management advice. Here is how I would adapt the first three steps to your income and stage in life. Beyond this, Dave recommends saving for retirement, college (for kids) and paying off your house early. These things are a little beyond your stage in life, but it would be good to start thinking about them. For you, I recommend following DJClayworth's advice to \"\"invest in yourself\"\". Specifically, plan to get through college debt-free. Put away money so that you have a head start once you do have living expenses — save for a car, save money for rent, etc. so that you don't have to live month to month as most people do starting out. So, what this boils down to: Put away every cent you have, in a savings account.\"",
"In general, the better advice I've heard is to spend only on things that matter to you and scrimp on the rest. It's an easy way to budget without having to stick to a strict set of rules. Otherwise keep 3-6 months of living expenses in liquid accounts (money market, savings) and invest the rest.",
"On the one hand, it's a great idea to open a Roth IRA now, once you've got the cash to contribute. It's a tax designation sounds like it would fit your meager earnings this year. The main reason to open one now rather than later is that some types of withdrawls require the account be aged 5 years. But you can also withdraw the amount you've contributed tax free any time. Student loans right now are pricey, so if you're carrying a balance at say 6.8 percent fixed you should pay that down ASAP. Beyond that, I'd keep the rest liquid for now. Having that kind of liquid cash is extremely reassuring, and many of the biggest returns on investment are going to be in your personal life. More fuel efficient vehicles, energy efficient appliances, computer backups, chest freezers and bulk meat purchases, etc. One example I see every six months is car insurance: I can pay for six months in full or I can pay a smaller monthly bill plus a small fee. That fee is well above current market rates. You see this everywhere; people searching for lower minimum payments rather than lower total costs. Save your money up and be the smart buyer. It's too damn expensive to be broke.",
"Every $1,000 you use to pay off a 26% interest rate card saves you $260 / year. Every $1,000 you use to pay off a 23% interest rate card saves you $230 / year. Every $1,000 you put in a savings account earning ~0.5% interest earns you $5 / year. Having cash on hand is good in case of emergencies, but typically if your debt is on high interest credit cards, you should consider paying off as much of it as possible. In your case you may want to keep only some small amount (maybe $500, maybe $1000, maybe $100) in cash for emergencies. Paying off your high interest debt should be a top priority for you. You may want to look on this site for help with budgeting, also. Typically, being in debt to credit card companies is a sign of living beyond your means. It costs you a lot of money in the long run.",
"Congrats! That's a solid accomplishment for someone who is not even in college yet. I graduated college 3 years ago and I wish I was able to save more in college than I did. The rule of thumb with saving: the earlier the better. My personal portfolio for retirement is comprised of four areas: Roth IRA contributions, 401k contributions, HSA contributions, Stock Market One of the greatest things about the college I attended was its co-op program. I had 3 internships - each were full time positions for 6 months. I strongly recommend, if its available, finding an internship for whatever major you are looking into. It will not only convince you that the career path you chose is what you want to do, but there are added benefits specifically in regards to retirement and savings. In all three of my co-ops I was able to apply 8% of my paycheck to my company's 401k plan. They also had matching available. As a result, my 401k had a pretty substantial savings amount by the time I graduated college. To circle back to your question, I would recommend investing the money into a Roth IRA or the stock market. I personally have yet to invest a significant amount of money in the stock market. Instead, I have been maxing out my retirement for the last three years. That means I'm adding 18k to my 401k, 5.5k to my Roth, and adding ~3k to my HSA (there are limits to each of these and you can find them online). Compounded interest is amazing (I'm just going to leave this here... https://www.moneyunder30.com/power-of-compound-interest).",
"\"Two things to consider: When it comes to advice, don't be \"\"Penny wise and Pound foolish\"\". It is an ongoing debate whether active management vs passive indexes are a better choice, and I am sure others can give good arguments for both sides. I look at it as you are paying for advice. If your adviser will teach you about investing and serve your interests, having his advise will probably prevent you from making some dumb mistakes. A few mistakes (such as jumping in/out of markets based on fear/speculation) can eliminate any savings in fees. However, if you feel confident that you have the resources and can make good decisions, why pay for advise you don't need? EDIT In this case, my opinion is that you don't need a complex plan at this time. The money you would spend on financial advise would not be the best use of the funds. That said, to your main question, I would delay making any long-term decisions with these funds until you know you are done with your education and on an established career path. This period of your life can be very volatile, and you may find yourself halfway through college and wanting to change majors or start a different path. Give yourself the option to do that by deferring long-term investment decisions until you have more stability. For that reason, I would avoid focusing on retirement savings. As others point out, you are limited in how much you can contribute per year. If you want to start, ROTH is your best bet, but if you put it in don't pull it out. That is a bad habit to get into. Personal finance is as much about developing habits as it is doing math... A low-turnover index fund may be appropriate, but you don't want to end up where you want to buy a house or start a business and your investment has just lost 10%... I would keep at least half in a liquid, safe account until after graduation. Any debt you incur because you tied up this money will eliminate any investment gains (if any). Good Luck! EDITED to clarify retirement savings\"",
"First, don't borrow any more money. You're probably bankrupt right now at that income level. 2k/month is poverty level income, especially in some of the higher cost of living areas of California. At $2k per month of income, and $1300 of rent and utilities, you've only got 700 a month for food. The student loans are probably in deferment while your husband is in school. If so, keep them that way and deal with them when he lands a career track goal after grad school. The car loan is more than you can afford. Seriously consider selling the car to get rid of the note. Then use the cash flow that was going to the car loan to pay off the 'other' debt. A car is usually a luxury, but if it is necessary, be sure it is one that doesn't include a loan. Budget all of your income (consider using YNAB or something like it). Include a budget item to build an emergency fund. Live within your means and look for ways to supplement your income. With three of your own, you'd probably make an excellent baby sitter. As for the inheritance, find a low risk, liquid investment, such as 12 month CDs or savings bonds. Something that you can liquidate without penalty if an emergency arises. Save the money for if you get into a situation where there is no other way out. Hopefully you can have your emergency fund built up so that you don't need to draw on the inheritance. Set a date, grad school + landing + 90 days. If you reach that date and haven't had to use the inheritance, and you have a good emergency fund, put the inheritance in a retirement fund and forget about it. Why retirement fund and not a college fund for the kids? The best gift you can give them is to remain financially independent throughout your life. If you get to the point where you are fully funding your tax advantaged retirement savings, and you are ready to start wealth-building, that is the time to take part of that cash flow and set it aside for college funds.",
"I think that Dave Ramsey has a good approach to emergency funds. Save $1,000 that is immediately accessible in an emergency, pay off your debts, then build a 3-6 month fund. Two years is great, but takes a really long time to build up.",
"Try reading about budgeting. Make a list of all income coming in and all expenses going out. Eliminate any unnecessary expenses and try to increase income, which could include a part-time second job. Try to always put a portion of the income away as savings - try 10%, but if this is too hard to start with try saving at least 5% of the income.",
"\"Whatever you do, you need to be saving a lot more to have a good chance at retirement at a reasonable age. With a combined salary of $150,000, I'd recommend: In total, that's $47,000/year in tax advantaged accounts, plus whatever you put into taxable accounts. Your $150,000 yearly income, less $90,000/year in savings is still an income of $60,000. People live comfortably and raise families on a lot less. Consider how fortunate you are. You could retire in 10 years, if you wanted, by increasing your savings and decreasing your expenses. Seriously, I'm speaking from first-hand experience. If you stay on your present course (saving $2,000/mo), at a 7% real return, you'll need about 37 years to accumulate $3,800,000 (in today's dollars), which is enough to: Even if those student loans are forgiven, that only knocks off about 2 years. If you are in your late 30s now, there's a decent chance you'll be dead before you retire. As for buying a house or not, this depends a lot on your personal circumstance and how the rental market in your city compares. In your decision, don't forget to consider: Renting is not necessarily throwing money away any more than buying a house is. If you take out a mortgage, you'll be \"\"throwing away\"\" a lot of money anyway. Look for a \"\"loan amortization calculator\"\" to see how much goes to interest versus principal. For a $500,000 loan at a 3.5% rate, you will be paying approximately $1400 per month in interest versus only $800 towards the principal. When you deduct insurance, taxes, maintenance, etc from that $800, you may find you are still throwing away most of your monthly payment on interest and expenses you wouldn't have if you rented. The money you do \"\"save\"\", after interest and expenses, isn't really saved. Housing markets go up and down, but on average, over the long term, they go up just enough to keep up with inflation, meaning a 0% real return. If renting means less cash out of pocket per month, you can put that extra cash towards investments that yield a much higher return. Sure, you may need to continue making rental payments in perpetuity, but you can save enough extra money to pay for the rental in investment income. Again, it depends considerably on how the housing and rental markets compare where you live. Popular cities (San Francisco, New York, Paris, etc.) tend to favor renting. Unpopular cities (Detroit, St. Louis) and rural areas tend to favor buying. Further reading: Mr. Money Mustache: Rent vs. Buy: If You Have to Ask, You Should Probably Rent\"",
"Debt will ruin any plans. I guess that the interest on the credit cards is about $450 a month or about $5,500 per year and the school loans is about $6,000 a year. Get a an Excel spread sheet going and start tracking your expensed. Learn to make a amortization spread sheet for all debts, and any future debts that you are thinking about. If you want a family soon plan on one income for a period of time. If you buy a house plan on paying it off while you are working. Then the house payment becomes spendable money during retirement. A cheaper house can be upgraded in the right neighborhood with an excellent appreciation in value. Money put into excellent collectibles and kept for 20 years or more is private and off the radar income no taxes when sold. STUDY STUDY LEARN LEARN",
"I would focus entirely on the emergency fund first and get it built up as fast as you can. Once that is in place, you've got a cushion that will keep you from going into debt in an emergency. Depending on your monthly expenses, $2000 seems low for that. I'd aim for 3-6 months worth of expenses. Note that this is $800 less than your monthly income because of your savings. Once you have your emergency fund in place, then follow a formula like @MrChrister's to invest for retirement and save for future major purchases (car, house, vacation, etc).",
"\"As someone who has a very similar debt amount and environment (new grad, nice new paying job, want a car, etc), I'd like to share something with you. Life has unexpected costs. Luckily I didn't buy that new car the first few months out of college like I had planned to; I'm glad that I didn't because, as a fledgling \"\"adult\"\", despite having lived on my own while in college while working part-to-full time there are some things you just don't realize until it either happens or it happens to someone else. Here are some of those things: I could go on but I won't. $95K is good money and I would definitely recommend spending it a bit to enjoy yourself. But I would honestly tell you that taking your monthly expenses, adding a few hundred on top of that and then multiplying that sum by 3 would be a smart savings amount before picking up a car loan. Maybe that's an excessive savings but I've seen way too many people burn out over their cost-of-living and their failure to adjust appropriately when shit hits the fan. So instead of having to deal with the stab at your pride when having to lower the cost/quality of living that you'll probably grow accustomed to at a $95K salary, just prepare for the worst. Oh, and did I mention... A NEW JOB IS NOT A SECURE JOB Consider yourself to likely be the first asset dropped from the company if even the tiniest thing goes wrong. I know way too many people who were fresh hires at Intel, Boeing, and a few other big tech companies that pay around what you make and, despite being bad asses in college, they were dropped like a bad habit when their employers hit rough patches. To those even more experienced than me, please feel free to add to the list. I'd personally love to know them myself.\"",
"To be honest, all that they might be able to tell you is to keep saving. Your income seems like it will vary week to week thanks to commission (and I'm still very curious how at 18 you found a job making $96,000 a year at minimum). Right now because you have no savings, start stacking that up. You're going to want an emergency fund on the side as well. Even though now you may still live with parents, you still may run into issues where you'll need money on hand. It's much better to dig into an emergency fund than get a loan. Plus, when moving out, you won't be living paycheck to paycheck. Best rule of thumb for this is to keep an emergency fund of roughly 3-6 months of expenses. Right now because you're so young with so little money, there isn't a large reason to really open up an IRA or any sort of investment account. Unless you're actually guaranteed $2,000 a week, then things are different.",
"The definitive answer is: It Depends. What are your goals? First and foremost, you need to have at least 3 months expenses in cash or equivalent. (i.e. an investment that you can withdraw from quickly, and without penalty). The good news is that you don't have to come up with it instantly. Set a time frame - one year - for creating this safety net, and pay towards that goal. This is the single most important piece of financial advice you will receive. Now determine what you need to do. For example, you may need a car. Compare interest rates on your student loan and the car loan. Put your cash towards whichever is higher. If you don't need a car or other big ticket item, then you may consider sticking your surplus into the student loans. 50k at $1650 a month will be paid down in about 3 years, which might be a bit long to live the monastic lifestyle. I'd look at paying down the smallest loan first (assuming relatively similar rates), and freeing up that payment for yourself. So if you can pay off 1650 a month, and free up $100 of that in six months, then you can reward yourself with half that surplus, and apply the other half to the next loan. (This is different than some would suggest because you're talking about entering severe spartan mode, which is not sustainable.) Remember that life happens. You'll meet someone. You'll have an accident, your brother will get sick and you'll give him some money to help out. You've got to be prepared for these events, and for these reasons, I don't recommend living that close to the edge. Remember, you're not in default, and you do have the option of continuing to pay the minimum for a long time.",
"The 10K in savings and money market is equal to about 1.5 months of income for emergency funds. You should add additional funds to this account over the next few years to let that increase to 3 to 6 months of monthly expenses. This money should be kept secure so that it will be there when you need it. Growth is not the primary function for this account. Investment at this stage should be for retirement. This means take advantage of 401K matching if it is available. You will have to determine if Roth or regular makes the most sense for you. In general the lower your current tax bracket the more sense Roth makes for you. If you want an IRA again decide which type. Also remember that you have until the tax deadline to make a contribution so you can decide to use a refund to fund the IRA. IRAs and 401Ks are just account types with some rules attached. They can be invested in everything from CD's to individual stocks depending on how aggressive you want to be.",
"This is all very basic and general advice, that works for most, but not all. You are unique with your own special needs and desires. Good luck! P.S.: not exactly related to your question, but when you get more familiar with investing and utilizing your money, find more ways to save more. For example, change phone plan, cut the cable, home made food in bulk, etc.",
"There is no absolute answer to this as it depends on your particular situation, but some tips: As to investing versus saving, you need to do some of both: Be careful about stockpiling too much in bank accounts. Inflation will eat that money up over time to the tune of 3-4%/year. You are young and have a longer investment horizon for retirement, take advantage of that and accept a little more risk while you can.",
"Calculate a weekly budget for yourself for all incidentals (i.e. shopping, movies, eating out, etc...) and take that amount out in cash each week. For example, if your budget is $75 then try to spend only that $75 on all the extra stuff you do doing the week. It'll make you hyper-conscious of where your money is going and how fast. You'll be surprised at how quickly little things like grabbing coffee in the morning can chip away at your funds.",
"\"In my opinion, you should pay off the student loans as soon as possible, before you start saving for the house downpayment. $26k is a big number, but you have a great salary. (Nice!) Up until now, you have been a poor college student, accustomed to a relatively low standard of living. Your $800 per month plan would have you pay off the loan in 3 years, but I would challenge you to pay off this entire student loan in 1 year or less. A monthly loan payment of $2226 will pay off your loan in 12 months. After that is done, if you take the same amount you had been paying toward your student loans and save it for your condo, in less than two years you'll have a 10% down payment saved ($50k). The whole thing will take less than three years. There are three reasons why I recommend paying off the loan first before saving for the condo: one is practical and two are philosophical. Practical: You will save money on interest. Paying off the loan in 1 year vs. 3 years will save you $1343. You won't find a short-term safe investment that will beat 5% in interest. Philosophical: The loan is something current and concrete that you can focus on. Your condo is a dream at this point, and there is lots of time to change your mind. If the $2k+ per month amount is at all a sacrifice for you, then in a few months, you might be tempted to say to yourself, \"\"This month I really want a vacation, so I'll just skip this month of saving.\"\" For the loan, however, if you establish a concrete goal of 12 months to pay off the loan, it will hopefully help motivate you to allocate this money and stick to your plan. Philosophical: Getting used to borrowing money, making payments to a bank, and paying interest is not a great way to live. It is better, in my opinion, to eliminate your debt as fast as possible and start getting accustomed to saving cash for what you want. Clean up your debt, and resolve not to borrow any more money except for a reasonably-sized mortgage on your home.\"",
"\"According to your numbers, you just stated that you spend approximately $1500 in discretionary expenditures per month, yet are unable to save. I fully realize that living in a big city is usually expensive, but on your (presumably after-tax) salary, I think you can easily save a substantial portion of your income. As others have already noted, enforcing saving of a significant portion of your discretionary income is the most obvious step. It's easy to say, but I suspect that if you are like most people who have difficulty saving, the psychological impact of quitting your previous spending habits \"\"cold turkey\"\" is likely to be very harsh, all the more so if you have an active social life. You may find yourself becoming depressed or resentful at \"\"having\"\" to save. You may lose motivation to work as hard because you might think that you're putting away all this money for the distant future, whereas you are young now and want to enjoy life while you can. It is in this context, then, that I looked at your other financial obligations. Paying $1300/month to your parents is a lot. It's over 20% of your after-tax salary. You do not specify the reasons for doing this other than a vague sense of familial duty, but my recommendation is to see if this could be reduced somewhat. If you can bring it down to $1000/month, that $300 would go into your savings, and you would psychologically feel a lot better about putting, say, $600 of your own discretionary income into savings as well. Now you have, all told, about $1000/month of savings without severely curtailing your extra expenditures. But I would start with that $1500/month of luxury spending first. And yes, you do need to view it as luxury spending. The proper frame of mind is to compare your financial situation to someone who is truly unable to save because their entire income is spent on actual necessities: food and shelter; their effective tax rate is 0% because they earn too little; and they usually find themselves in debt because they cannot make ends meet. Now look back at that $1500/month. Can you honestly say that you cannot afford to cut that spending?\"",
"If you are still paying off debt, then you should have about $1000 in savings and put all you can towards non-mortgage debt. If you don't have any debt besides your mortgage, then add up all of your monthly expenses including food, gas, utilities and keep 3-6 months in liquid savings. Whether you keep 3 or 6 months depends on how safe your income is. If you have a steady safe job, you might be safe with 3 months. But, if your employer is cutting back or you are in a commission based job or self employed - then lean more towards 6 months expenses. Congrats on your new home!",
"If you have no immediate need for the money you can apply the Rule of 72 to that money. Ask your parent's financial advisor to invest the money. Based on the rate of return your money will double like clockwork. At 8% interest your money will double every 9 years. 45 years from now that initial investment will have doubled 5 times. That adds up pretty fast. Time is your best friend when investing at your age. Odds are you'll want to be saving for a college education though. Graduating debt free is by far the best plan.",
"First pay off all existing debt. Then set up at least 6 month emergency fund. Freelancing exposes you to way more risks than employment. Then buy GIC's to cover and match the maturity of your expected education fees. Only 'play' with what is left. Don't over think it. Buy a low-cost (less than 0.5%) passive large-index mutual fund covering either the S&P or TSX.",
"\"Many years ago I heard a multi-level marketing pitch that pointed out how many doctors don't get out of debt until they are well into their 50's. The selling point was that you can get rich quick, as rich as a doctor, with nothing more then a bit of elbow grease. Of course the pitch failed to mention that most doctors, buy the things doctors buy, when they get that first big job. The big house, expensive cars nerf the income that they receive and they are probably stuck with years of student loan payments. I assume that you are one of the \"\"lucky\"\" ones that have graduated college with a well paying job. By lucky I mean you concentrated on obtaining a skill for which the marketplace has a need. Why not continue to live like a college student for a few more months and pay off all of your student loans ASAP? Get rid of them like you were purging the phone number of that high maintenance girl you dated during a short time of insanity.\"",
"First of all, make sure you have an emergency fund. Ideally this should be at least 6 months of living expenses in an easily accessible place. Do you have any credit card debt, school debt, or other debt? Work towards becoming debt free, especially of higher interest debt and debt on things that are only depreciating (cars, for example). If you have extra income, consider putting it towards debt. If you currently have access to a 403b, you should begin investing immediately. If not, look into a Roth IRA. The community has provided suggestions for good places to get one. With a Roth IRA you take post-tax income money and invest it into this retirement account and when you reach retirement age you get it and all the interest as tax-free income. You can't withdraw the principal until retirement age. You should put up to the legal limit into a retirement account - if you can't do this at first work towards this goal. After an emergency fund, becoming debt free, and fully funding your retirement, save for goals such as a house or other things you are working towards. The exact order of doing these things might vary, but in general you need the emergency fund first.",
"Here's what I'd do. Show these figures to your bank, and ask if they can offer you some type of account with a small overdraft, say up to $2000. Typically this won't pay the same kind of interest as your savings account, but it doesn't matter. If such an account is available, then yes, dump most of your savings into the student loan, and keep a few hundred in your new account. The overdraft on this account is your emergency fund. This means that in the more likely scenario (no emergencies) you're saving yourself 6% interest on something like $4000 to $4500. In the case of an emergency, you're still covered; but you'll be paying a larger amount of interest. Let's say you have an emergency cost and need to dip into the overdraft for $1000. If the interest is 15%, then you've cost yourself an extra 9% on that $1000 over leaving that debt in the student loan. This seems to me like a really good gamble - more likely to gain 6% of $4000, less likely to lose 9% of $1000. If your bank won't give you a low-interest account with a small overdraft, then use your credit card as your emergency fund. The same kind of logic applies; but since credit card interest rates are typically higher than overdraft interest rates, you'll want to keep slightly more in your savings account. About $1200 to $1500 feels right to me; and move the remaining $3500 to $3800 to your student loan. So yes, pay off the student loan. That 6% interest really is worth having, even if you'd be taking a small gamble. Edit - Alexander Kosubek has suggested that I should compare this to matched retirement plans. The 100% gain in a matched retirement plan isn't 100% per annum; it's 100% divided across the length of time you have to wait until you can get your hands on that money. Suppose the money is accessible when you turn 60 - a matched plan is a good deal if you're in your 50's, but not so good if you're in your 20's. The 100% matching is equivalent to 6% interest per annum compounded over slightly under 12 years. So if you're less than 12 years away from retiring, go for the matched plan. Otherwise, pay off your student loan first.",
"The title question suggests an answer - Balance. There are countless stories of misers who saved their money but led miserable lives. Keep in mind, you are looking at debt while still earning an income lower than you'll see after you get your PHD. Don't add more debt while working towards the PHD, but don't think that this is the time to aggressively pay it off, either. I'd look at it this way - when you get a full time job, money itself will be cheaper, it will cost you fewer hours to earn the same number of Euros. When I was in college, the US minimum wage was just over $3/hr, but I had an engineering degree and back then, a starting salary of over $20/hr. While still in school, my time was precious, and the $10,000 I borrowed (for spending money) was 3300 hours that I didn't need to work, but it was paid back with just 500 work-hours. Your question also goes to the future, a home purchase. There are 2 approaches. First pay off the student loan, then save for the down payment. For many anti-debt people, this is ideal. But, if your goal is to be in the house sooner, save now for the down payment and only pay the minimum on the loan. Once you are in the house, you can decide to pay the student loan faster, but 1.5%? I'd just pay the mortgage faster. I don't know the cost of housing where you will choose to live, but in general, I'd suggest finding the house that you can afford on a 15 year mortgage, but take out a 30. This will give you flexibility in your budget. Life happens, and it's tough to plan for every possible outcome. I'd prefer to have room in the budget for the first years in the house, and for potential marriage and the kids that may follow. It's far easier to pay extra on loans than to get lower payments when you realize the budget is too tight. Happy to update/edit to address any comments you may have.",
"My god man, where do you live that is too expensive to live on your own and 7K isn't enough for emergency cash? Anyway, with your age and income I would be more worried about a long-term sustainable lifestyle. In other words, a job that nets you more than $26K/year. Someday you may want to have a wife and kids and that income sure as hell wont pay for their college. That was life advice, now for financial: I've always been a believer that if someone is not a savvy investor, their priorities before investments should be paying off debt. If you had a lot of capital or knew your way around investment vehicles and applicable returns then I would be telling you something different. But in your case, pay off that car first giving yourself more money to invest in the long-run.",
"In addition to the advice already given (particularly getting rid of high-interest debt), I would add the following:",
"Start as soon as you can and make your saving routine. Start with whatever you feel comfortable with and be consistent. Increase that amount with raises, income gains, and whenever you want.",
"First pay yourself. When you get salary, send some parts of that (for example 10%) to your saving account. Step by step you'll save nice money ;)",
"\"You are doing Great! But you might want to read a couple of books and do some studying on budgeting and personal finance - education yourself now and you will avoid pain in the future. I learned a lot from reading Dave Ramsey's Total Money Makeover, and I have found some great advice from the simple budgeting guidelines on LearnVest. Budget in these three categories with these percentages, You may find that your \"\"essentials\"\" lower than 50%, because you are sharing room and utilities. You want to put as much into \"\"financial\"\" as you can for the first 1-2 years, to reduce (or eliminate) your student loan debt. Many folks will recommend you save six months (salary/expenses) for emergencies and unexpected situations. But understand that you are in debt now, and you have a unique opportunity to pay off your debt before your living expenses creep up (as they so often do). Since you are a contractor, put aside 2 months expenses (twice what I would normally advise), and then attack paying off your debts with passion. Since you have a mix of student loans, focus on paying them off by picking one at a time, paying the minimum against the others while you pay off the one you picked, then proceed to the next. Dave Ramsey advises a Debt Snowball, paying the smallest one first (psychological advantage, early wins), while others advise paying the highest interest off first. Since you have over $2400/month available to pay down debt, you could plan on reducing your student loan debt substantially in a year. But avoid accumulating other debt along the way. Save for larger purchases. Your bedroom purchase may have been premature, but you needed some basics. But check your contract. Since many 0% furniture loan deals retroactively charge interest if you don't pay them off in full - you might want to make regular payments, and pay the debt off a month early (avoid any 'gotcha's). You might want to open a retirement account - many folks recommend a Roth account for folks your age - it is after tax, but you don't pay tax when you withdraw money. Roth is better when you have lots of deductions (think mortgage, kids). But some retirement account would be great to get started. Open a credit union account (if you can), that will make getting a credit card or personal loan (installment) easier. You want to build a credit file, but you don't want credit card debt (seems contradictory), so opening 2 credit cards over the next year will help your credit. You want a good credit mix (student loans, revolving, installment, and mortgage - wait on that one).\"",
"The plan doesn't make sense. Don't invest your money. Just keep it in your bank account. $5000 is not a lot, especially since you don't have a steady income stream. You only have $1000 to your name, you can't afford to gamble $4000. You will need it for things like food, books, rent, student loans, traveling, etc. If you don't get a job right after you graduate, you will be very happy to have some money in the bank. Or what if you get a dream job, but you need a car? Or you get a job at a suit & tie business and need to get a new wardrobe? Or your computer dies and you need a new one? You find a great apartment but need $2500 first, last & security? That money can help you out much more NOW when you're starting out, then it will when you're ready to retire in your 60's.",
"while not stated, if you have any debt at all, use the $3000 to pay it off. That's the best investment in the short term. No risk and guaranteed reward. College can invite all sorts of unexpected expenses and opportunities, so stay liquid, protect working capital."
] |
[
"\"While I haven't experienced being \"\"grad student poor\"\" myself (I went to grad school at night and worked full-time), I would shoot for 10-20% per month ($150-$300). This depends of course on how much you currently have in savings. If it isn't much, you might want to attempt a higher savings percentage (30-40%). If you can move to a less-expensive place, do that as soon as you can. It's your largest expense; any place you can spend less on than $900 creates instance savings without having to sacrifice what you categorize as living expenses.\"",
"\"First, don't save anything in a tax sheltered vehicle. You will be paying so little tax that there will be essentially no benefit to making the contributions, and you'll pay tax when they come out. Tax free compounding for 40 years is terrific, but start that after you're earning more than a stipend. Second, most people recommend having a month's expenses readily available for emergencies. For you, that would be $1500. If you put $100 a month aside, it will take over a year to have your emergency fund. It's easy to argue that you should pick a higher pace, so as to have your emergency money in place sooner. However, the \"\"emergencies\"\" usually cited are things like home repair, car repair, needing to replace your car, and so on. Since you are renting your home and don't have a car, these emergencies aren't going to happen to you. Ask yourself, if your home was destroyed, and you had to replace all your clothes and possessions (including furniture), how much would you need? (Keep in mind any insurance you have.) The only emergency expense I can't guess about is health costs, because I live in Canada. I would be tempted to tell you to get a credit card with a $2000 limit and consider that your emergency fund, just because grad student living is so tight to the bone (been there, and 25 years ago I had $1200 a month, so it must be harder for you now.) If you do manage to save up $1500, and you've really been pinching to do that (walking instead of taking the bus, staying on campus hungry instead of popping out to buy food) let up on yourself when you hit the target. Delaying your graduation by a few months because you're not mentally sharp due to hunger or tiredness will be a far bigger economic hit than not having saved $200 a month for 2 or 3 years. The former is 3-6 months of your new salary, the latter 5-7K. You know what you're likely to earn when you graduate, right?\""
] |
2486
|
Is working on a W2 basis, with benefits paid to me, a good idea?
|
[
"487791"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"487791",
"32072",
"382908",
"373949",
"234436",
"332124",
"37725",
"324878",
"24323",
"77245",
"584218",
"68524",
"316074",
"157157",
"359465",
"247472",
"194899",
"376631",
"68516",
"149198",
"58937",
"62882",
"199037",
"406789",
"171576",
"490223",
"265397",
"532932",
"60238",
"572774",
"402115",
"165645",
"417295",
"251564",
"122987",
"232544",
"184022",
"394871",
"113960",
"222049",
"527620",
"54064",
"257443",
"80994",
"377056",
"175889",
"300418",
"36608",
"74958",
"6595",
"597053",
"510409",
"238622",
"60290",
"18647",
"431317",
"396255",
"462255",
"292331",
"16767",
"586026",
"589970",
"348927",
"299819",
"352640",
"23097",
"272851",
"361954",
"400927",
"301533",
"569135",
"32005",
"516576",
"267776",
"431840",
"366282",
"14286",
"179359",
"386567",
"595133",
"87102",
"292230",
"312765",
"42999",
"436701",
"246453",
"86260",
"135798",
"338582",
"67061",
"326329",
"245451",
"233423",
"464661",
"258252",
"250766",
"484658",
"437194",
"283836",
"597199"
] |
[
"It's hard to answer without knowing all of the details (i.e. what was your salary for each of the options), but I think you probably made a good choice. 1099: Would have required you to pay self-employment tax, but also would have allowed you to deduct business expenses. W2 with benefits: Likely would have been beneficial if you needed healthcare (since group plans can be cheaper than individual plans, and healthcare payments aren't taxed), but if you don't use the healthcare, that would have been a waste. W2, no benefits: Assuming your salary here falls between the 1099 and the W2 with benefits, it seems like a good compromise for your situation.",
"I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer without knowing all about your situation, but some things to consider: If you are on a 1099, you have to pay self-employment tax, while on a W-2 you do not. That is, social security tax is 12.4% of your income. If you're a 1099, you pay the full 12.4%. If you're W-2, you pay 6.2% and the employer pays 6.2%. So if they offer you the same nominal rate of pay, you're 6.2% better off with the W-2. What sort of insurance could you get privately and what would it cost you? I have no idea what the going rates for insurance are in California. If you're all in generally good health, you might want to consider a high-deductible policy. Then if no one gets seriously sick you've saved a bunch of money on premiums. If someone does get sick you might still pay less paying the deductible than you would have paid on higher premiums. I won't go into further details as that's getting off into another question. Even if the benefits are poor, if there are any benefits at all it can be better than nothing. The only advantage I see to going with a 1099 is that if you are legally an independent contractor, then all your business expenses are deductible, while if you are an employee, there are sharp limits on deducting employee business expenses. Maybe others can think of other advantages. If there is some reason to go the 1099 route, I understand that setting up an LLC is not that hard. I've never done it, but I briefly looked into it once and it appeared to basically be a matter of filling out a form and paying a modest fee.",
"Can I work on 1099 from my own company instead of on W2? The reason is on W2 I can't deduct my commute, Health Insurance and some other expenses while on 1099 I think I can able do that. Since I am going to client place to work not at my own office, I am not sure whether I should able to do that or not. If you have LLC, unless you elected to tax it as a corporation, you need neither 1099 nor W2. For tax purposes the LLC is disregarded. So it is, from tax perspective, a sole proprietorship (or partnership, if multiple members). Being a W2 employee of your own LLC is a bad idea. For all these above expenses, which can I use company's debit/credit card or I need to use only my personal debit/credit card? It would be better to always use a business account for business purposes. Doesn't matter much for tax per se, but will make your life easier in case of an audit or a legal dispute (limited liability protection may depend on it). If I work on 1099, I guess I need to file some reasonable taxes on quarterly basis instead of filing at year end. If so, how do I pay my tax on quarterly basis to IRS? I mean which forms should I file and how to pay tax? Unless you're a W2 employee, you need to do quarterly estimate payments using form 1040-ES. If you are a W2 employee (even for a different job, and even if it is not you, but your spouse with whom you're filing jointly) - you can adjust your/spouse's withholding using form W4 to cover the additional tax liability. This is, IMHO, a better way than paying estimates. There are numerous questions on this, search the site or ask another one for details.",
"Health insurance varies wildly per state and per plan and per provider - but check them out to have a baseline to know what it should cost if you did it yourself. Don't forget vacation time, too: many contract/comp-only jobs have no vacation time - how much is that 10 or 15 days a year worth to you? It effectively means you're getting paid for 2080 hours, but working 2000 (with the 2 week number). Is the comp-only offer allowing overtime, and will they approve it? Is the benefits-included job salaried? If it's truly likely you'll be working more than a normal 40 hour week on a routine basis (see if you can talk to other folks that work there), an offer that will pay overtime is likely going to be better than one that wouldn't .. but perhaps not in your setting if it also loses the PTO.",
"Another thing to consider, however, is the deductibility of business expenses. Let's assume that the employer can legitimately hire you as a 1099 contractor. (Would you be able to telecommute? Would you have a high degree of control over when you worked and when you didn't? These factors also affect whether you're a true independent 1099 contractor or not.) As a legit 1099 contractor, you're able to deduct certain business expenses directly from your income. (You can find a list of the rules at irs.gov.) As a W2 employee, by contrast, can deduct only business expenses that exceed 2% of the your AGI (adjusted gross income). So, you also have to consider your personal circumstances in making the calculus and comparing whether a legitimate 1099 contractor job is or is not good for you. It's not just a comparison of what they'd pay W2 employees versus what they'd pay 1099 contractors.",
"In your situation, it sounds like the only added benefit would be insurance continuance. For employees who can't access short-term disability it is a critical protection against losing their job. I just want to emphasize that given that you are in a pretty decent employment situation.",
"\"Your comment to James is telling and can help us lead you in the right direction: My work and lifestyle will be the same either way, as I said. This is all about how it goes \"\"on the books.\"\" [emphasis mine] As an independent consultant myself, when I hear something like \"\"the work will be the same either way\"\", I think: \"\"Here thar be dragons!\"\". Let me explain: If you go the independent contractor route, then you better act like one. The IRS (and the CRA, for Canadians) doesn't take lightly to people claiming to be independent contractors when they operate in fact like employees. Since you're not going to be behaving any different whether you are an employee or a contractor, (and assuming you'll be acting more like an employee, i.e. exclusive, etc.), then the IRS may later make a determination that you are in fact an employee, even if you choose to go \"\"on the books\"\" as an independent contractor. If that happens, then you may find yourself retroactively denied many tax benefits you'd have claimed; and owe penalties and interest too. Furthermore, your employer may be liable for additional withholding taxes, benefits, etc. after such a finding. So for those reasons, you should consider being an employee. You will avoid the potential headache I outlined above, as well as the additional paperwork etc. of being a contractor. If on the other hand you had said you wanted to maintain some flexibility to moonlight with other clients, build your own product on the side, choose what projects you work on (or don't), maybe hire subcontractors, etc. then I'd have supported the independent contractor idea. But, just on the basis of the tax characteristics only I'd say forget about it. On the financial side, I can tell you that I wouldn't have become a consultant if not for the ability to make more money in gross terms (i.e. before tax and expenses.) That is: your top line revenues ought to be higher in order to be able to offset many of the additional expenses you'd incur as an independent. IMHO, the tax benefits alone wouldn't make up for the difference. One final thing to look at is Form SS-8 mentioned at the IRS link below. If you're not sure what status to choose, the IRS can actually help you. But be prepared to wait... and wait... :-/ Additional Resources:\"",
">However, you would have to pay income taxes on that wage and could end up with less money overall to spend on healthcare. That's not truth tho. You can open IRA and 401k and now you have more money to put into them that won't get tax and it help you save for the retirement.",
"\"The personal checks may be due to their bank not issuing the company checks yet and there may also not be a payroll system in place at this time. So far as the W2's are concerned you should probably ask the owner if they plan on distributing them to the employees. If the owner has no interest in making you proper \"\"on the books employees\"\" let them know that they should probably be paying you in cash so that if the IRS comes you wont be tied to it. Obviously working in cash (off the books) has its drawbacks (no rights or protections) and benefits (no taxes).\"",
"Careful. I would personally need a LOT more than $5 more per hour to go from W-2 employment to 1099 employment. It boils down to two reasons: (1) employers pay a huge amount of taxes on behalf of their employees, and (2) you would have to pay all of your own withholding up front. Your current proposal from them doesn't account for that. There are also risks that you face as a 1099. On the first item, your employer currently pays 6.2% of your Social Security tax. You pay the other 6.2%. If you go to 1099 status, you will be self-employed as an independent contractor and have to pay the full 12.4% out of your increased 1099 wages. On the second item, your employer also does your withholding out of your paychecks based on what you tell them on a form W-4. If you're disciplined enough to pay this out yourself in estimated taxes every time you get a paycheck, great. Many people aren't and just see a much bigger paycheck with no taxes out of it, and end up with a large tax bill at the end of the year. Overall, there are some other considerations like healthcare and other benefits. These will not be available to you as a 1099 employee. You can also be terminated spontaneously, unless you have a specific contract length with the company. As I see it, not including any benefits you would receive, you're looking at LESS money in your pocket at $50/hr as a contractor than at your $48/hr. Your pay net social security deductions is: $48 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 99,840 * .938 = 93,649.92. As a 1099 @ $50/hr you would net $50 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 104,000 * .876 = 91,104. Then there are the rest of taxes, etc to figure out your real take-home pay. I'm not a tax advisor, but I would be very careful to get the whole picture figured out before jumping. I would ask for a lot more with the added risk you would take as an independent, too.",
"To be honest I don't know how any of this work in the US so my answer will be of very limited value to yourself, I suspect, but when it comes to the UK if you're going to get the same pay gross either way than being independent makes very little sense. Running your own business is hassle, is generally more risky (although possibly not in your case) and costs money. Some of the most obvious costs are the added NI, probably the need for an accountant, at around £1200 p/a for basic accountancy service, you are obliged by law to have liability insurance and you probably want professional indemnity insurance, this will be around £600 p/a minmum, and so on and so forth. On top of that, oficially anyway, as a contractor, you really shouldn't be getting any benefits from the client, and so health insurance, company car, even parking are all meant to be arranged by, and paid by, your company, and can't (or rather - shouldn't) be charged to the client. So - I would say - if you're seriously thinking about setting up a consultancy company, and this client is first of many - set up a company, but take into account the sums you need to earn. If you're really thinking about employment - be an employee.",
"The tax savings of being 1099 can be significant. It depends on your salary, and what you can deduct. You may want to consult with an accountant. The social security tax, for the self employed, is 12.4% of profit not on revenue. If you can write off more than half of the income as expenses then you could be paying less than a w-2 employee. Also you might make a higher salary as a 1099, it is rare the offer the same compensation for a W-2 as a 1099 as the former has higher expenses for the employer. It is hard to know without actual numbers, actual expected expense deductions and so forth. Which is why I would suggest consulting with an accountant. You may want to talk to one in the state where he will be working rather than where you live now.",
"\"I've been in a similar situation before. While contracting, sometimes the recruiting agency would allow me to choose between being a W2 employee or invoicing them via Corp-2-Corp. I already had a company set up (S-Corp) but the considerations are similar. Typically the C2C rate was higher than the W2 rate, to account for the extra 7.65% FICA taxes and insurance. But there were a few times where the rate offered was identical, and I still choose C2C because it enabled me to deduct many of my business expenses that I wouldn't have otherwise been able to deduct. In my case the deductions turned out to be greater than the FICA savings. Your case is slightly different than mine though in that I already had the company set up so my company related costs were \"\"sunk\"\" as far as my decision was concerned. For you though, the yearly costs associated with running the business must be factored in. For example, suppose the following: Due to these expenses you need to make up $3413 in tax deductions due to the LLC. If your effective tax rate on the extra income is 30%, then your break even point is approximately $8K in deductions (.3*(x+3413)=3413 => x = $7963) So with those made up numbers, if you have at least $8K in legitimate additional business expenses then it would make sense to form an LLC. Otherwise you'd be better off as a W2. Other considerations:\"",
"\"It completely depends on what type of work you intend to do. Are you intending to run/setup your own business? Or stay with your current employer, but work from home instead of going to the office? If thats the case, then yes it is a good idea, since you will save on commuting costs amongst other things If you are asking about working from home under one of those \"\"work from home piecework\"\" schemes, I would be wary. Many of them require you do an insane amount of piecework, for literally peanuts, so it might not be worth the effort (since you could earn 2, 3x as much in a supermarket shift of the same duration)\"",
"As others have said, it depends entirely on what benefits are provided, and how much of the cost of those benefits is paid by the employer and how much is paid by the employee, and compare that to what it would cost to obtain the necessary/equivalent coverage without employer assistance. In my case, my employer pays more than $10,000 per year toward the cost of medical, dental, vision, disability, and life insurance for myself and my family. That's almost 20% of the average total household income in my state, so it is not an insignificant amount at all.",
"Do you get time and half on the overtime? If you give that up you're going to take a decent hit on overall income. You'll also decrease income because benefit costs are likely to be double or more. I've been in retail customer service. It rough. Just try to get through it, make the best of things and move on to something else with more overall benefits.",
"\"You can do either a 1099 or a W-2. There is no limitations to the number of W-2s one can have in reporting taxes. Problems occur, with the IRS, when one \"\"forgets\"\" to report income. Even if one holds only one job at a time, people typically have more than one W-2 if they change jobs within the year. The W-2 is the simplest way to go and you may want to consider doing this if you do not intend to work this side business into significant income. However, a 1099 gig is preferred by many in some situations. For things like travel expenses, you will probably receive the income from these on a 1099, but you can deduct them from your income using a Schedule C. Along these lines you may be able to deduct a wide variety of other things like travel to and from the client's location, equipment such as computers and office supplies, and maybe a portion of your home internet bill. Also this opens up different retirement contributions schemes such as a simplified employee pension. This does come with some drawbacks, however. First your life is more complicated as things need to be documented to become actual business expenses. You are much more likely to be audited by the IRS. Your taxes become more complicated and it is probably necessary to employee a CPA to do them. If you do this for primary full time work you will have to buy your own benefits. Most telling you will have to pay both sides of social security taxes on most profits. (Keep in mind that a good account can help you transfer profits to dividends which will allow you to be taxed at 15% and avoid social security taxes.) So it really comes down to what you see this side gig expanding into and your goals. If you want to make this a real business, then go 1099, if you are just doing this for a fes months and a few thousand dollars, go W-2.\"",
"When I worked for myself it was bad because But Ultimately I gave up my business and went to work for a school teaching, and through a series of other jobs ended up in a very stable reliable trustworthy job. When I was younger the variable paycheck didn't outweigh the freedom. Now that I am a dad I only think about having insurance and a secure job. The other option to consider is having a regular job, and then doing a little side work for yourself. You get all the benefits of both (and all the detractions)",
"You have to consider that taxes that you pay on the premiums is money definitely paid, while benefits being tax free won't save you a thing if you never receive the benefits.",
"To answer your question directly, this is a taxable benefit that they are providing for you in lieu of higher wages. It is taxable to the employee as income and through payroll taxes. It is taxable to the employer for their half of the payroll taxes.",
"In general What does this mean? Assume 10 holidays and 2 weeks of vacation. So you will report to the office for 240 days (48 weeks * 5 days a week). If you are a w2 they will pay you for 260 days (52 weeks * 5 days a week). At $48 per hour you will be paid: 260*8*48 or $99,840. As a 1099 you will be paid 240*8*50 or 96,000. But you still have to cover insurance, the extra part of social security, and your retirement through an IRA. A rule of thumb I have seen with government contracting is that If the employee thinks that they make X,000 per year the company has to bill X/hour to pay for wages, benefits, overhead and profit. If the employee thinks they make x/hour the company has to bill at 2X/hour. When does a small spread make sense: The insurance is covered by another source, your spouse; or government/military retirement program. Still $2 per hour won't cover the 6.2% for social security. Let alone the other benefits. The IRS has a checklist to make sure that a 1099 is really a 1099, not just a way for the employer to shift the costs onto the individual.",
"It's difficult to quantify the intangible benefits, so I would recommend that you begin by quantifying the financials and then determine whether the difference between the pay of the two jobs justifies the value of the intangible benefits to you. Some Explainations You are making $55,000 per year, but your employer is also paying for a number of benefits that do not come free as a contractor. Begin by writing down everything they are providing you that you would like to continue to have. This may include: You also need to account for the FICA tax that you need to pay completely as a part time employee (normally a company pays half of it for you). This usually amounts to 7.8% of your income. Quantification Start by researching the cost for providing each item in the list above to yourself. For health insurance get quotes from providers. For bonuses average your yearly bonuses for your work history with the company. Items like stock options you need to make your best guess on. Calculations Now lets call your original salary S. Add up all of the costs of the list items mentioned above and call them B. This formula will tell you your real current annual compensation (RAC): Now you want to break your part time job into hours per year, not hours per month, as months have differing numbers of working days. Assuming no vacations that is 52 weeks per year multiplied by 20 hours, or 1040 hours (780 if working 15 hours per week). So to earn the same at the new job as the old you would need to earn an hourly wage of: The full equation for 20 hours per week works out to be: Assumptions DO NOT TAKE THIS SECTION AS REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR SITUATION; ONLY A BALLPARK ESTIMATE You must do the math yourself. I recommend a little spreadsheet to simplify things and play what-if scenarios. However, we can ballpark your situation and show how the math works with a few assumptions. When I got quoted for health insurance for myself and my partner it was $700 per month, or $8400 per year. If we assume the same for you, then add 3% 401k matching that we'll assume you're taking advantage of ($1650), the equation becomes: Other Considerations Keep in mind that there are other considerations that could offset these calculations. Variable hours are a big risk, as is your status as a 'temporary' employee. Though on the flip side you don't need to pay taxes out of each check, allowing you to invest that money throughout the year until taxes are due. Also, if you are considered a private contractor you can write off many expenses that you cannot as a full time employee.",
"Do some math. Figure out the net (after tax) money you'd have if you left it taxable, then look at the difference. In effect, you'd pay $X (the tax now) for $Y benefit (the tax on the full benefit not paid). The math works similar to you buying a small policy on your own.",
"\"Littleadv is incorrect because receiving a 1099 means she will be taxed self-employment tax on top of federal income taxes. Your employer will automatically withhold 7.65% of payroll taxes as they pay you each paycheck and then they'll automatically pay the other half of your payroll tax (an additional 7.65%) to bring it to a total of 15.3%. In other words, because your wife is technically self employed, she will owe both sides of payroll tax which is 15.3% of $38k = $5,800 on TOP of your federal income tax (which is the only thing the W-4 is instructing them about what amount to withhold). The huge advantage to a 1099, however, is that she's essentially self-employed which means ALL of the things she needs to run her business are deductible expenses. This includes her car, computer, home office, supplies, sometimes phone, gas, maintenance, travel expenses, sometimes entertainment, etc - which can easily bring her \"\"income\"\" down from $38k to lets say $23k, reducing both her federal income tax AND self-employment tax to apply to $15k less (saving lets say 50% of $15k = $7.5k with federal and self employment because your income is so high). She is actually supposed to pay quarterly taxes to make up for all of this. The easy way to do this is each quarter plug YOUR total salary + bonus and the tax YOU have paid so far (check your paystubs) into TurboTax along with her income so far and all of her expenses. This will give you how much tax you can expect to have left to owe so far--this would be your first quarter. When you calculate your other quarters, do it the exact same way and just subtract what you've already paid so far that year from your total tax liability.\"",
"\"It's a tough question, because there is society and individual to consider, and the society's effects on the individual. Currently, employers don't have to provide insurance, they do it to compete in the employee marketplace. Employers have an advantage over employees in that regard, because they can procure insurance at a lower cost that employees can, and they get tax breaks for doing so. Employers providing health insurance get a more stable relationship with their employees, because employees always hold great value in having an employee who provides good benefits. The company I work for provides good benefits, but suppose tomorrow they told me \"\"Hey Mutatron, we're not providing benefits anymore, but we'll bump your salary to what your benefits are worth, plus enough to compensate for the tax break we get.\"\" So now, everything is equal to what it was before, but I have to go out and find my own insurance, which is a hassle, but presumably because of the PPACA I can get a good value and carry this insurance with me wherever I go, and never have to mess with changing every time I change jobs. But suppose all the employers do this, so now there are no employer-provided health plans, and ten or twenty years down the line they've all just taken advantage so that wages haven't kept up and they've essentially pocketed the difference, or passed it on to their customers. Now people have less money to buy health insurance, and those near the bottom will now have to rely on the government to assist with providing health insurance. This is the way it works now with the minimum wage. A recent report found that WalMart employees rely on welfare to the tune of [$2.66 billion a year](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/10/1141724/-Walmart-fuels-inequality-epidemic-taking-advantage-of-our-safety-net), while the company makes $15 billion in profit. So 18% of Walmart's profits are an indirect subsidy from the US taxpayer, which comes to about $48 per US citizen, or about $208 a year for the top 50% of wage earners. Even so, I think I'd prefer to get my whole compensation package in one shot, all else being equal. That last part is important, though, I would need to get all the breaks my employer gets for providing myself with health insurance.\"",
"While the OP disses the health insurance coverage offered through his wife's employer as a complete rip-off, one advantage of such coverage is that, if set up right (by the employer), the premiums can be paid for through pre-tax dollars instead of post-tax dollars. On the other hand, Health insurance premiums cannot be deducted on Schedule C by self-employed persons. So the self-employed person has to pay both the employer's share as well as the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes on that money. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Line 29 of Form 1040 but only for those months during which the Schedule C filer is neither covered nor eligible to be covered by a subsidized health insurance plan maintained by an employer of the self-employed person (whose self-employment might be a sideline) or the self-employed person's spouse. In other words, just having the plan coverage available through the wife's employment, even though one disdains taking it, is sufficient to make a Line 29 deduction impermissible. So, AGI is increased. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Schedule A but only to the extent that they (together with other medical costs) exceed 10% of AGI. For many people in good health, this means no deduction there either. Thus, when comparing the premiums of health insurance policies, one should pay some attention to the tax issues too. Health insurance through a spouse's employment might not be that bad a deal after all.",
"\"Get some professional accounting help. You're going to have to pay for everything out of the fee you charge: taxes, retirement, health care, etc. You'll be required to pay quarterly. I don't think you should base your fee on what \"\"this\"\" company will pay as a full-time employee, but what you can expect in your area. They're saving a lot of money not going through an established employment firm and essentially, making you create your own. There are costs to setting up and maintaining a company. They have less risk hiring you because there are no unemployment consequences for letting you go. Once you're hired, they'll probably put you on salary, so you can forget about making more money if you work over 40 hrs. IMHO - there have to be better jobs in your area than this one.\"",
"Unless the amounts involved are very small, it is MUCH better to incorporate. First, incorporation gives you limited liability for your acts as an employee. As an individual, you have unlimited liability. Second, incorporating allows you to deduct (for tax purposes) the costs of doing business, including all of your health insurance, most transportation, and some meals. The exception to the rule is if the amounts you are earning are so small that they don't cover the cost of incorporating, accounting fees, etc. (a few hundred, or at most a few thousand dollars).",
"I've been in the workforce for a little over 20 years. This sounds like one of the situations that starts out as a nice little bonus, but ends with me holding the bag and wishing I never would've gotten involved.",
"I'd still take the lower total pay with higher hourly pay, because I'm saving myself time. It ultimately represents an increase in efficiency for my time, or an increase in my ROI of time, which most business people would agree is a good thing. I can supplement my income with side jobs or a side business, with the extra time I have. What's really key is what happens to overall employment. If it gets low enough to where workers can find 2nd jobs, then it may truly leave some low wage workers worse off, and the entire demographic worse off as a whole.",
"\"I would definitely keep working because Social Security pays out for people with permanent disabilities, but it's dependant on working and paying into to Soc Security for a period of time. Here's a link to the info. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10029.html#part2 If your 401k has an employer match,then the no brainer answer is \"\"YES!', otherwise you are just leaving money on the table. Even if there isn't, I think they are good vehicles for saving money while deferring interest.\"",
"Yes, you've summarized it well. You may be able to depreciate your computer, expense some software licenses and may be home office if you qualify, but at this scale of earning - it will probably not cover for the loss of the money you need to pay for the additional SE tax (the employer part of the FICA taxes for W2 employees) and benefits (subsidized health insurance, bonuses you get from your employer, insurances, etc). Don't forget the additional expense of business licenses, liability insurances etc. While relatively small amounts and deductible - still money out of your pocket. That said... Good luck earning $96K on ODesk.",
"If the $882 is reported on W2 as your income then it is added to your taxable income on W2 and is taxed as salary. Your basis then becomes $5882. If it is not reported on your W2 - you need to add it yourself. Its salary income. If its not properly reported on W2 it may have some issues with FICA, so I suggest talking to your salary department to verify it is. In any case, this is not short term capital gain. Your broker may or may not be aware of the reporting on W2, and if they report the basis as $5000 on your 1099, when you fill your tax form you can add a statement that it is ESPP reported on W2 and change the basis to correct one. H&R Block and TurboTax both support that (you need to chose the correct type of investment there).",
"question #2 - yes, 25% of your 1099 income. Good idea. It adds up quickly and is a good way to reduce taxable income.",
"The idea is that paying your employees more confers benefits that are worth the cost. Paying employees more than they produce for you is (almost) always not a good idea. However, if paying higher wages has advantages, those advantages persist or are enhanced by other companies not paying higher wages.",
"\"I agree that you should have received both a 1099 and a W2 from your employer. They may be reluctant to do that because some people believe that could trigger an IRS audit. The reason is that independent contractor vs employee is supposed to be defined by your job function, not by your choice. If you were a contractor and then switched to be an employee without changing your job description, then the IRS could claim that you should have always been an employee the entire time, and so should every one of the other contractors that work for that company with a similar job function. It's a hornet's nest that the employer may not want to poke. But that's not your problem; what should you do about it? When you say \"\"he added my Federal and FICA W/H together\"\", do you mean that total appears in box 4 of your 1099? If so, it sounds like the employer is expecting you to re-pay the employer portion of FICA. Can you ask them if they actually paid it? If they did, then I don't see them having a choice but to issue a W2, since the IRS would be expecting one. If they didn't pay your FICA, then the amount this will cost you is 7.65% of what would have been your W2 wages. IMHO it would be reasonable for you to request that they send you a check for that extra amount. Note: even though that amount will be less than $600 and you won't receive a 1099 in 2017 for it, legally you'll still have to pay tax on that amount so I think a good estimate would be to call it 10% instead. Depending on your personality and your relationship with the employer, if they choose not to \"\"make you whole\"\", you could threaten to fill out form SS-8. Additional Info: (Thank you Bobson for bringing this up.) The situation you find yourself in is similar to the concept of \"\"Contract-to-Hire\"\". You start off as a contractor, and later convert to an employee. In order to avoid issuing a 1099 and W2 to the same person in a single tax year, companies typically utilize one of the following strategies: Your particular situation is closest to situation 2, but the reverse. Instead of retroactively calling you a W2 employee the entire time, your employer is cheating and attempting to classify you as a 1099 contractor the entire time. This is frowned upon by the IRS, as well as the employee since as you discovered it costs you more money in the form of employer FICA. From your description it sounds like your employer was trying to do you a favor and didn't quite follow through with it. What they should have done was never switch you to W2 in the first place (if you really should have been a contractor), or they should have done the conversion properly without stringing you along.\"",
"Financial benefit? No. No matter whether you are paid based on a salary or by the hour, the frequency of your pay check has no effect since at the end of the year you will have received the exact same amount of money. Psychological benefit? Well, from the many answers and comments on this page that seem to think there is a difference, then apparently there is a large psychological difference. Whether that is a benefit or not, I guess, depends on your personality.",
"In general that's illegal. If you're a W2 employee, you don't miraculously become a 1099 contractor just because they pay you more. If your job doesn't change - then your status doesn't change just because they give you a raise. They can be sued (by you, and by the IRS) for that. Other issues have already been raised by other respondents, just wanted to point out this legal perspective.",
"\"It depends on when you're setting the goal. 1) When you have finished the year and you are filling out tax forms, your goal is to get as large of a refund as possible. 2) When the year begins afresh and you are earning money and paying taxes, your goal should be roughly to pay exactly the amount of tax owed so that at the end of the year you don't have any refund or tax owed - it's the same as getting your tax refund right away rather than waiting until after you file taxes. So you want your W4 set up appropriately (assuming you're talking about the US). I think (1) is obvious. For (2), imagine you start the year with the goal to get the largest possible tax refund at the end. Well that's simple - fill out the W4 and on line 6 (\"\"Additional amount, if any, you want withheld from each paycheck\"\") tell them to withhold everything. Then at the end of the year you'll get a huge refund. Of course in the meantime, you've made an interest-free loan to the government, and you've probably had to take out a high-interest rate loan from your bank or credit card. Obviously this is bad. An argument could be made that it would be even better to slightly underpay your taxes (but not enough to owe a penalty). Ignoring human weakness, this is correct. If you have the discipline to set that money aside in a safe place, that's okay. If this would cause you to spend that money (or even save less of your other money), then this is a bad idea. So I'd really want to highlight some of this depends on your own financial discipline - is it better for you to have the money right away so that you can make good choices with how to use it now, or is it better for you to put the money somewhere out of reach so that you won't spend it on impulse purchases? (and recognize that there are ways to put it out of reach and earn interest on it rather than spending it - one good choice for you would be a Roth IRA)\"",
"Your recruiter is likely trying to avoid having to pay the employer's side of employment taxes, and may even be trying to avoid having to file a 1099 for you by treating your relationship as a vendor/service provider that he is purchasing services from, which would make your pay just a business expense. It's definitely in his best interest for you to do it this way. Whether it's in your best interest is up to you. You should consult a licensed legal/tax professional to help you determine whether this is a good arrangement for you. (Most of the time, when someone starts playing tax avoidance games, they eventually get stung by it.) The next big question: If you already know this guy is a snake, why are you still working with him? If you don't trust him, why would you take legal/tax advice from him? He might land you a high-paying job. But he also might cause you years of headaches if his tax advice turns out to be flawed.",
"you wouldn't have to pay income taxes on the portion for health insurance. think of high deductible health plans - the employer puts the deductible into a healthcare savings account which is tax free as long as it's for medical care. right now you can also deduct the portion of your overall expenses that are medical over a portion of your income. 2 issues with your idea, though - 1. right now, there are people who can't get health insurance except through an employer. send them out into the marketplace and they will get turned down. obamacare is supposed to fix this, but if Romney is elected, it will continue. 2. healthcare inflation rises much higher than regular inflation, so if your benefits were included as part of wages and you had to buy it on your own, you would face a continually decreasing amount of money over time to purchase healthcare - a spiral. this is the issue that many have with the voucher system the republicans are proposing for medicare - the voucher will rise at inflation, while healthcare rises much higher than inflation - right now I think it's a difference of 1% versus 8-9% off the top of my head. also, for many industries, it's in the best interest of the company to have a healthy workforce.",
"The answer is simple. If your employer is offering you a discount, that is free money. You always take free money, always.",
"I assume the OP is the US and that he is, like most people, a cash-basis tax payer and not an accrual basis tax payer. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying was reported as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms but the corresponding income tax was not withheld. If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion, then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Nor is the company entitled to withhold tax on this income for 2010 and 2011 at this time; the tax on that income has already been paid by the OP directly to the IRS and the company has nothing to do with the matter anymore. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying was NOT reported as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms. If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion, then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Should the OP have declared the value of the rental of the unit as additional income from his employer that was not reported on the W-2 form, and paid taxes on that money? Possibly, but it would be reasonable to argue that the OP did nothing wrong other than not checking his W-2 form carefully: he simply assumed the income numbers included the value of the rental and copied whatever the company-issued W-2 form said onto his 1040 form. At least as of now, there is no reason for the IRS to question his 2010 and 2011 returns because the numbers reported to the IRS on Copy A of the W-2 forms match the numbers reported by the OP on his tax returns. My guess is that the company discovered that it had not actually declared the value of the rental payments on the OP's W-2 forms for 2010 and 2011 and now wants to include this amount as income on subsequent W-2 forms. Now, reporting a lump-sum benefit of $38K (but no actual cash) would have caused a huge amount of income tax to need to be withheld, and the OP's next couple of paychecks might well have had zero take-home pay as all the money was going towards this tax withholding. Instead, the company is saying that it will report the $38K as income in 78 equal installments (weekly paychecks over 18 months?) and withhold $150 as the tax due on each installment. If it does not already do so, it will likely also include the value of the current rent as a benefit and withhold tax on that too. So the OP's take-home pay will reduce by $150 (at least) and maybe more if the current rental payments also start appearing on the paychecks and tax is withheld from them too. I will not express an opinion on the legality of the company withholding an additional $150 as tax from the OP's paycheck, but will suggest that the solution proposed by the company (have the money appear as taxable benefits over a 78-week period, have tax withheld, and declare the income on your 2012, 2013 and 2014 returns) is far more beneficial to the OP than the company declaring to the IRS that it made a mistake on the 2010 and 2011 W-2's issued to the OP, and that the actual income paid was higher. Not only will the OP have to file amended returns for 2010 and 2011 but the company will need to amend its tax returns too. In summary, the OP needs to know that He will have to pay taxes on the value of the waived rental payments for 2010 and 2011. The company's mistake in not declaring this as income to the OP for 2010 and 2011 does not absolve him of the responsibility for paying the taxes What the company is proposing is a very reasonable solution to the problem of recovering from the mistake. The alternative, as @mhoran_psprep points out, is to amend your 2010 and 2011 federal and state tax returns to declare the value of the rental during those years as additional income, and pay taxes (and possibly penalties) on the additional amount due. This takes the company completely out of the picture, but does require a lot more work and a lot more cash now rather than in the future.",
"Your question begins with a misunderstanding. When you prepare your tax return (Form 1040/1040A/1040EZ) you always try to minimize your total tax bill. When you fill out form W4 you trying to estimate how much tax will be shown on next years tax return. The penalty for having too much tax withheld is not having the use of the money until you get a tax refund. At the moment interest rates are very low and your economic loss is the temporary loss of access to the money. One exception would be if you are carrying credit card debt. In that case you are, in effect, paying 20-30% interest to borrow money you lending to the US Treasury for 0% interest. The penalty for having too little tax withheld is having to make a large payment with your tax return. If your pre-payments aren't at least as much as your total income tax from last year there may also be modest underpayment penalty based on the difference between your pre-payments and your total income tax from last year or this year whichever is less. A large underpayment will trigger a different larger underpayemnt penalty. The W4 combined with the withholding rates tends to over-withhold income tax for most, but not all, taxpayers. Most people don't have enough savings to pay a large tax due, which leads to more penalties and an even larger bill. Over-witholding protects the overall tax system from the consequences of those events. People tend to be very unhappy, not quietly. On balance your greatest economic benefit depends on whether or not you have high interest debt. If you do, then accurate and even slightly under-withholding will probably work to your advantage as long as you can pay next 4/15. If not, avoiding the chance of having any unexpected balance due next year may be more important.",
"\"Yes, there is a financial benefit, if and only if you can live on 24/26th of your salary. Thus, bi-weekly is 12/13 lower than a bi-monthly income. However, you now get a so-called \"\"extra\"\" paycheck twice a year. (We typically get them in March and October.) You can either spend those extra paychecks on \"\"hookers and blow\"\" or spend them wisely on things like accelerated debt repayment, home/car down payment, property taxes, etc, etc. HOWEVER... none of this really matters, since you don't control whether or not you're paid bi-weekly or semi-monthly.\"",
"They are already indirectly paying these expenses. They should be built into your rates. The amount per job or per hour needs to cover what would have been your salary, plus the what would have been sick, vacation, holidays, health insurance, life insurance, disability, education, overhead for office expenses, cost of accountants...and all taxes. In many companies the general rule of thumb is that they need to charge a customer 2x the employees salary to cover all this plus make a profit. If this is a side job some of these benefits will come from your main job. Some self employed get some of these benefits from their spouse. The company has said we give you money for the work you perform, but you need to cover everything else including paying all taxes. Depending on where you live you might have to send money in more often then once a year. They are also telling you that they will be reporting the money they give you to the government so they can claim it as a business expense. So you better make sure you report it as income.",
"If the employer provides housing to the employee, the employer has to identify whether it is taxable or not. If it is - the amounts would be added to the taxable income on your W2. All the withholding and FICA tax calculations will be performed based on that taxable income. If the employer fails to do that, and you get audited, you can be left on the hook for the unpaid taxes on the unreported income. In some cases, employee housing is a non-taxable fringe benefit, in others it is taxable. Your tax adviser will help identify which case applies to you. After you added in a comment that you're trying to see if you should be asking your boss to pay your personal expenses vs. giving you a raise - as I said in the comments, your personal expenses are not deductible neither for you nor for anyone else. If your boss pays your rent instead of a raise - its taxable income for you.",
"I would not assume they would pay for any benefits. You will be responsible for paying entirely for health insurance and social security and Medicare. This move is most likely not in your best interests. At a minimum, I would charge double your current hourly rate and would charge for all hours worked including time and half for overtime. 3 times is actually probably a better choice if you want to cover holidays (which they will not pay you for), vacation time, etc. I know when I did project bids, we always priced at 2-3 times the salary we paid the employees.",
"In addition to taking into account your deductions, as mentioned by @bstpierre, you also need to account for vacation, and other time off such as sick days. You also need to estimate what percentage of the year you expect to be working and pro-rate your salary accordingly. For example it is not uncommon to use 40 weeks out of the year which is about 77% of the time. Also check to see if you would be eligible for unemployment for the times you are not working. I suspect not. But in any case, you might want to use worst case scenario figures to see if it is worth it, especially in this economy.",
"A 401k is pretty good, but it's not magic. Personally, I'd consider a 30k salary with a 401k and a 2k employer match less valuable than a 36k salary, let alone a 48k salary. If worried about retirement savings simply set up that IRA and put in the full 5.5k allowance.",
"Yes. W4 determines how much your employer will withhold from your wages. Leaving everything at default would mean that your salary is your only taxable income, and you only take default deductions. Your employee will calculate your tax withholding based on that. But, if your salary is >200k, I assume that you have other income (investment/capital gains, interest on your bank account), which you will have to pay taxes on. You're probably going to have some deductible expenses (business/partnership expenses, mortgage interest, donations, college funds etc) as well. So it is very likely, unless you're really not smart about money, that you have more to do with your taxes than just the employers' withholding.",
"No, even businesses pay taxes quarterly. So if you formed Nathan, LLC, or otherwise became self employed, you'd still have to file quarterly estimates and make tax payments. This would cause taxes to be a much more high touch part of your life. However, you should ensure that you're claiming the proper exemptions etc to avoid excessive withholding.",
"Since you worked as an RA, the university should send you a W2 form. The taxable wages line in that form would be the sum of both the direct salary and employer paid benefits that are taxable. As such you should not need to do anything than enter the numbers that they provide you.",
"\"I think Feral Oink said it well here when someone asked if they should negotiate for additional benefits in lieu of a portion of salary. \"\"You never want to take a lower salary, especially not in exchange for something that is conditional e.g. benefits. Your salary is the only thing that is guaranteed as a condition of employment. Other things can be changed by the employer at a future point in time.\"\" Does it make sense to take a lower salary so I can still contribute to a Roth IRA?\"",
"One possibility that I use: I set up an LLC and get paid through that entity. Then I set up a payroll service through Bank of America and set up direct deposit so that it is free. I pay myself at 70% of my hourly rate based on the number of hours I work, and the payroll service does all the calculations for me and sets up the payments to the IRS. Typically money is left over in my business account. When tax time rolls around, I have a W2 from my LLC and a 1099 from the company I work for. I put the W2 into my personal income, and for the business I enter the revenue on the 1099 and the payroll expenses from paying myself; the left over in the business account is taxed as ordinary income. Maybe it's overkill, but setting up the LLC makes it possible to (a) set up a solo 401(k) and put up to $51k away tax-free, and (b) I can write off business expenses more easily.",
"\"No, there aren't only 2 choices as I have a good job. In this case though, there are two options, either continue to have the \"\"bad jobs\"\" that this rich guys company is providing or he shuts down the company and there are no jobs at all. It's not a loaded question. I'd rather have a bad employer than no employer at all.\"",
"Interesting. What is your view of this idea: institute a bonus program which allocates to each employee scrip proportionate to the number of dependents (plus 1 for themselves, of course); this scrip would be valid for one year and to earn it one needs meet some basic work requirements and can be used to purchase whatever goods and services the workers prefer. (This is only a rough description of what I have in mind. Feel free to ask questions for more details. I feel we have much to learn from each other on this topic.)",
"I'm not business-savvy, but that seems like a very good idea. My wife works for a not-for-profit company, yet the CEO still makes $8,000,000 a year, *not* counting bonuses. I think in a for-profit, the CEO could easily afford to pay more employees to fill the gap made by decreasing the free labor he's used to.",
"I'm an independent tech contractor in Canada. The single payer health care makes it so much easier to be a contractor or to create a startup. I have to wonder if the lack of healthcare in the US is the result of businesses trying to retain white collar workers that would otherwise go independent. In this environment, it's little surprise that I prefer getting those big cheques over getting benefits. Usually the benefit packages are little more than dental, many of which only provide partial coverage.",
">Better for you and for me, yes, but not for the disadvantaged without benefactors. That's the situation I was in. That wasn't exactly my point. I'm all for helping people, and social security does help people, and I am very happy it helped you - I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that what you got from social security is not as good as what you would have got from a $500,000 - $1,000,000 term life insurance policy. For people in there 20s, in good health, that kind of policy should be $20-$40/month, which could easily be bought with the money we otherwise spend on social security. (Now... whether parents would actually be responsible enough to buy term life insurance and put money towards retirement if we didn't have social security is a WHOOOOOOOOOLE nother discussion.) That's all I'm saying - I'd rather buy term life and invest for my own retirement because me and my family will come out ahead of where social security will put us. I'm really not a financial wizard, and I have to believe that this type of plan would work well for everyone else, too.",
"Forms 1099 and W2 are mutually exclusive. Employers file both, not the employees. 1099 is filed for contractors, W2 is filed for employees. These terms are defined in the tax code, and you may very well be employee, even though your employer pays you as a contractor and issues 1099. You may complain to the IRS if this is the case, and have them explain the difference to the employer (at the employer's expense, through fines and penalties). Employers usually do this to avoid providing benefits (and by the way also avoid paying payroll taxes). If you're working as a contractor, lets check your follow-up questions: where do i pay my taxes on my hourly that means does the IRS have a payment center for the tax i pay. If you're an independent contractor (1099), you're supposed to pay your own taxes on a quarterly basis using the form 1040-ES. Check this page for more information on your quarterly payments and follow the links. If you're a salaried employee elsewhere (i.e.: receive W2, from a different employer), then instead of doing the quarterly estimates you can adjust your salary withholding at that other place of work to cover for your additional income. To do that you submit an updated form W4 there, check with the payroll department on details. Is this a hobby tax No such thing, hobby income is taxed as ordinary income. The difference is that hobby cannot be at loss, while regular business activity can. If you're a contractor, it is likely that you're not working at loss, so it is irrelevant. what tax do i pay the city? does this require a sole proprietor license? This really depends on your local laws and the type of work you're doing and where you're doing it. Most likely, if you're working from your employer's office, you don't need any business license from the city (unless you have to be licensed to do the job). If you're working from home, you might need a license, check with the local government. These are very general answers to very general questions. You should seek a proper advice from a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for your specific case.",
"\"If you're really a part-time worker, then there are some simple considerations.... The remote working environment, choice of own hours, and non-guarantee of work availability point to your \"\"part-time\"\" situation being more like a consultancy, and that would normally double or triple the gross hourly rate. But if they're already offering or paying you a low hourly figure, they are unlikely to give you consultant rates.\"",
"The main advantage and disadvantage I can see in a scenario like this are - how savvy and good an investor are you? It's a good way to create below-market average returns if you're not that good at investing and returns way above market average if you are...",
"How old are you? With $15k, I assume late twenties. Do you still use your credit cards? or is this just past accumulated debt? (paying them off will do you no good if you just run them back up again.) Does your employer match you contributions? How much? Are you fully vested in their contributions? In general, it is not a good idea, but under the right circumstances it isn't a bad idea.",
"I am surprised no one has mentioned the two biggest things (in my opinion). Or I should say, the two biggest things to me. First, 1099 have to file quarterly self employment taxes. I do not know for certain but I have heard that often times you will end up paying more this way then even a W-2 employees. Second, an LLC allows you to deduct business expenses off the top prior to determining what you pay in taxes as pass-through income. With 1099 you pay the same taxes regardless of your business expenses unless they are specifically allowed as a 1099 contractor (which most are not I believe). So what you should really do is figure out the expense you incur as a result of doing your business and check with an accountant to see if those expenses would be deductible in an LLC and if it offsets a decent amount of your income to see if it would be worth it. But I have read a lot of books and listened to a lot of interviews about wealthy people and most deal in companies not contracts. Most would open a new business and add clients rather than dealing in 1099 contracts. Just my two cents... Good luck and much prosperity.",
"\"It's correct. Be sure of your personal opportunity cost and not that you're letting the tax tail wag the dog just to score \"\"tax free\"\". Your upside is $3,700 (single) or $7,000 (married) in taxes saved until you're out of the 0% zone. Is that worth not receiving an income? Even if your savings are such that you don't need to work for income for a fiscal year, how would this affect the rest of your career and lifetime total earning prospects? Now, maybe: Otherwise, I'd hope you have solid contacts in your network who won't be fazed by a resume gap and be delighted to have a position open for you in 2019 (and won't give you the \"\"mother returning to the workforce\"\" treatment in salary negotiations).\"",
"No, absolutely not. Income tax rates are marginal. The tax bracket's higher tax rate only applies to extra dollars over the threshold, not to dollars below it. The normal income tax does not have any cliffs where one extra dollar of income will cost more than one dollar in extra taxes. Moreover, you are ignoring the personal exemption and standard deduction. A gross salary of $72,000 is not the same as taxable income of $72,000. The deduction will generally be $12,200 and the exemptions will be $3,900 for you, your spouse, and any kids. So married-filing-jointly with the standard deduction will get an automatic $20,000 off of adjusted gross income when counting taxable income. So the appropriate taxable income is actually going to be more like $52,000. Note that getting your compensation package reshuffled may result in different tax treatment. But simply taking a smaller salary (rather than taking some compensation as stock options, health insurance, or fringe benefits), is not a money-saving move. Never do it.",
"Everyone pays their personal income tax with funds from their employer; some of it through withholding, and the rest through the balance due at the time of filing. All that is happening here is that the company is calculating your personal tax return for you, and fiddling retroactively with the gross salary to yield a specific after-tax salary. One problem is that there is a lot of information I put in my return to earn deductions, that I would not care to tell my employer. The system would also appear to be contrary to public policy. Governments create tax deductions to give a larger income to those with socially acceptable expenses: health care, dependents, etc. The system you describe would give employees with such deductions a lower gross salary.",
"Better for you and for me, yes, but not for the disadvantaged without benefactors. That's the situation I was in. I just wish social security wasn't spent on the elderly, when they have so little left to contribute to our society and economy, in terms of new business, growth, and constructing the future.",
"Very good point. However, I would say stability. Say I could just continue doing this one the side of my regular job, couldn't I do both? Edit: I don't know why I keep getting down voted... I'm literally just asking valid questions.",
"When you do your tax return, your total income from the year from all sources is added up. So you will need to include your employment income as well as your contractor income. Any tax taken off at source through PAYE will then be deducted from how there is to pay. So whether you pay the tax or your employer pays it, it should end up the same, although the timing will differ. There will be differences in National Insurance treatment, and you don't necessarily have a free option to choose which happens - the nature of your relationship may mean you have to be classed as either employed or self-employed under HMRC rules.",
"I had a similar decision to make. I got offered a modest salary near Philly, or a better salary plus a nice bonus in New York. I chose New York. I'm loving it so far but who knows what will happen. I'm actually saving a lot of money as I automatically have it deduct from my paycheck and disperse into several savings accounts. I guess it's different for everyone and you have to consider your situation before applying a blanket advice",
"\"I feel that getting money sooner than later is always advantageous. If I offered you the choice between getting: Which option would you take? I would take the last option. And for the same reason, from a purely-numbers point of view, I would argue that getting paid biweekly is preferable (assuming the the annual salary is pro-rated fairly, and barring any compulsive spending habits). Your calculations suggest to me that they are trying to answer the question, \"\"Looking at a single year or month (or some other fixed amount of time) in a vacuum, is there any financial benefit to being paid bi-weekly over monthly?\"\". The analysis seems to be focusing on comparing the two pay schedules on a month-by-month basis, noting when one is paid bi-weekly, some months you get paid more times than the other. However, one could also compare the two pay schedules on a fortnight-by-fortnight basis, and note that when one is paid monthly, many fortnights you don't get paid at all, and some you get paid a lot. Or one could compare the two pay schedules on an hour-by-hour basis, too. But in the long run, the money adds up to be the same amount. I prefer getting it as soon as I can.\"",
"On what basis are you not employee? You should probably get some tax/legal advice, but generally J1 internship is by definition employment. You should also check the tax treaty between the US and Ireland, if there's one, and check what it says about training related income. You may find a pleasant surprise there. Most universities have support for international students/visiting scholars, check the international students' office at your school.",
"I would go with option B. That is safer, as it would leave you with more options, in case of an unexpected job loss or an emergency.",
"\"I think there's a sub~~ject~~ for this financialcareers or something. I'll just say, as your career goes on, every \"\"next\"\" place you interview for will ask what your last salary was and partly base their offer on that. So taking a job like this that bumps you up considerably pays off for every other job you get down the road.\"",
"\"My answer has nothing to do with tax brackets or mathematics (I'm taking advantage of the leeway your question allowed), but rather it has to do with career goals and promotion. Large companies often have large \"\"Policies & Procedures\"\" booklets to go with them. One policy that sometimes exists which would make it a bad idea to accept a raise is: Employee cannot be given more than one salary increase in a 12-month period This means that if you accept a standard-of-living or merit increase of say, 2% or 3% in April, and then you apply for a job that would otherwise warrant a pay grade increase, you may be forced to wait until the following year to get bumped to the proper pay grade. Of course, this totally depends on the company, but it would be advisable to check your company's H.R. policy on that, if you're considering a move (even a lateral one) in the future.\"",
"\"It seems that you think you are freelancing, and they think you are an employee. What's bad for you, the tax office will also think you are an employee if they withhold tax for you. Alternatively, they think you are stupid, and they keep the money, but are actually not paying it to the tax office at all, in which case you will have a bad surprise when you do your tax returns. First, I'd ask them for proof that they are indeed paying these taxes into some account related to you. I'd then ask a tax adviser for some serious advice. If they are acting out of incompetence and not out of malice, then you should be mostly fine, but your work there will count as employment. Heaven knows why they treat you as an employee. Check your contract with them; whether it is between you and them or your company and them. It maybe that they never hired a contractor and believe that they have to pay employment tax. They don't. If your company sends them a bill, then they need to pay that bill, 100% of it, and that's it. Taxes are fully your business and your responsibility. As \"\"quid\"\" said, if they say they are withholding tax, then at the very least there must be a paystub that proves they have actually been paying these taxes. If they withhold taxes, and there is no paystub, then this looks like a criminal attempt to cheat you. If they have actually paid taxes properly into your account, then they are merely creating a mess that can hopefully be fixed. But it is probably complicated enough that you need a tax advisor, even if you had none before, since instead of paying to your company, they paid some money to the company, and some to you personally.\"",
"Here in Germany there is a special case. I am studying (and working a little on the side) and still receiving child benefits from the state which is like 190€/m. Because I am getting this I don't have to pay tuition which is 1k/y. If my side income would get over the boundary (which is like 9k/y) I would lose those benefits (~3.3k) and would have to pay insurance myself (I dont know how much that would be. 50-100/m I guess.) So getting a raise from 8k to 10k sounds nice as it is a 25% raise, but it actually means getting less.",
"I had better healthcare when I had a full time job and the company provided it until ACA came around and the company changed the majority of full time positions to part time. Now I have two part time jobs and ACA healthcare with a high premium and insanely high deductible. Is that supposed to be good?",
"If you are in the US and a regular employee, this will have to show up on your year-end W2 form as income. If it doesn't, there is some funky accounting business going and you should probably consult a professional for advice.",
"No. Even if you don't need the additional salary income now, you might be able to contribute the incremental amount over the Roth max to either of the other two types of IRAs, or maybe even something else. You never want to take a lower salary, especially not in exchange for something that is conditional e.g. benefits. Your salary is the only thing that is guaranteed as a condition of employment. Other things can be changed by the employer at a future point in time. If you have two different job offers and the salaries are different, that is a separate scenario. You should make the decision based on overall comparison, not just using Roth limit contribution criteria.",
">But suppose all the employers do this, so now there are no employer-provided health plans, Which means the insurance bought by employees must get a whole lot cheaper, I guess, as there would be direct competition and lots of shopping around. >, and ten or twenty years down the line they've all just taken advantage so that wages haven't kept up So the employers suddenly don't need to compete on the employee marketplace? I mean in times with high unemployment not, but this is orthogonal to this - in times with high unemployment they don't need to compete with benefits either, I guess? Although in reality I agree with you, let me offer a different but supporting perspective: it is much easier to haggle a salary than to haggle anything else. I've always lived in European countries with different amounts of government-mandated paid holidays and I have never ever heard of a person who succesfully haggled a week of extra holiday in his package, or a VIP-level additional private health insurance above the basic social-security-paid one (the one that gets people more comfortable hospital rooms and better hospital food etc. - if people buy it here, they always buy it privately, not by the employer), or really anything but money. The only extra I ever heard about is the private usage of a company car, and even that is rare, and that has more to do with easier accounting than anything else. Sometimes people get lunch tickets, but that is usually because they are tax-free. I don't know why, but it seems to be the general law: either the government mandates some non-monetary benefit, or the employer decides to provide it because of competition, but people privately can pretty much never haggle for it, not even when they are badly needed. Strange. A possible explanation: business are used to buying stuff with a simple monetary price. As a buyer, you have no other responsibilities than to pay. For example a programming company will not demand that the client gives them a detailed specification, they will gladly write one, for a price. So if anyone comes and tries to sell something, and wants anything else but money, it gets weird. And I figure it is the same for employees.",
"After reading OP Mark's question and the various answers carefully and also looking over some old pay stubs of mine, I am beginning to wonder if he is mis-reading his pay stub or slip of paper attached to the reimbursement check for the item(s) he purchases. Pay stubs (whether paper documents attached to checks or things received in one's company mailbox or available for downloading from a company web site while the money is deposited electronically into the employee's checking account) vary from company to company, but a reasonably well-designed stub would likely have categories such as Taxable gross income for the pay period: This is the amount from which payroll taxes (Federal and State income tax, Social Security and Medicare tax) are deducted as well as other post-tax deductions such as money going to purchase of US Savings Bonds, contributions to United Way via payroll deduction, contribution to Roth 401k etc. Employer-paid group life insurance premiums are taxable income too for any portion of the policy that exceeds $50K. In some cases, these appear as a lump sum on the last pay stub for the year. Nontaxable gross income for the pay period: This would be sum total of the amounts contributed to nonRoth 401k plans, employee's share of group health-care insurance premiums for employee and/or employee's family, money deposited into FSA accounts, etc. Net pay: This is the amount of the attached check or money sent via ACH to the employee's bank account. Year-to-date amounts: These just tell the employee what has been earned/paid/withheld to date in the various categories. Now, OP Mark said My company does not tax the reimbursement but they do add it to my running gross earnings total for the year. So, the question is whether the amount of the reimbursement is included in the Year-to-date amount of Taxable Income. If YTD Taxable Income does not include the reimbursement amount, then the the OP's question and the answers and comments are moot; unless the company has really-messed-up (Pat. Pending) payroll software that does weird things, the amount on the W2 form will be whatever is shown as YTD Taxable Income on the last pay stub of the year, and, as @DJClayworth noted cogently, it is what will appear on the W2 form that really matters. In summary, it is good that OP Mark is taking the time to investigate the matter of the reimbursements appearing in Total Gross Income, but if the amounts are not appearing in the YTD Taxable Income, his Payroll Office may just reassure him that they have good software and that what the YTD Taxable Income says on the last pay stub is what will be appearing on his W2 form. I am fairly confident that this is what will be the resolution of the matter because if the amount of the reimbursement was included in Taxable Income during that pay period and no tax was withheld, then the employer has a problem with Social Security and Medicare tax underwithholding, and nonpayment of this tax plus the employer's share to the US Treasury in timely fashion. The IRS takes an extremely dim view of such shenanigans and most employers are unlikely to take the risk.",
"Unless you make those investments inside a tax-deferred account, you will have to pay income-taxes on that money this year. Because you made that money through your own business, you will also have payroll taxes due on that money this year.",
"\"J - Approaching the answer from the W4 perspective (for calculation purposes) may be more trouble that it's worth. I'd strongly suggest you use tax software, whether it's the 2016 SW or a current year one, on line, to get an estimate of your total tax bill for the year. You can then look at your current run rate of tax paid in to see if you are on track. If you have a large shortfall, you can easily adjust your withholdings. If you are on track to get a large refund, make the adjustment so next year will track better. Note, a withholding allowance is equal to a personal exemption. Some think that \"\"4\"\" means 4 people in the house, but it actually means \"\"don't tax 4 x $4050\"\" as I have $16200 in combined people or tax deductions.\"",
"In your situation I would get out my spreadsheet, estimate what I would be making and how that compares to my current market wage, and go from there. At the end of the day it is your decision, hope I have helped you by asking questions. Goodluck mate!",
"\"It depends on how big the dilution is. Could be a good trade. Do the math yourself, many times nobody else has as all the employees think they are going to get rich because \"\"options\"\" :)\"",
"Checkout the worksheet on page 20 of Pub 535. Also the text starting in the last half of the third column of page 18 onward. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p535.pdf The fact that you get a W-2 is irrelevant as far as I can see. Your self-employment business has to meet some criteria (such as being profitable) and the plan needs to be provided through your own business (although if you're sole proprietor filing on Schedule C, it looks like having it in your own name does the trick). Check the publication for all of the rules. There is this exception that would prevent many people with full-time jobs on W-2 from taking the deduction: Other coverage. You cannot take the deduction for any month you were eligible to participate in any employer (including your spouse's) subsidized health plan at any time during that month, even if you did not actually participate. In addition, if you were eligible for any month or part of a month to participate in any subsidized health plan maintained by the employer of either your dependent or your child who was under age 27 at the end of 2014, do not use amounts paid for coverage for that month to figure the deduction. (Pages 20-21). Sounds like in your case, though, this doesn't apply. (Although your original question doesn't mention a spouse, which might be relevant to the rule if you have one and he/she works.) The publication should help. If still in doubt, you'll probably need a CPA or other professional to assess your individual situation.",
"You'd be moving from 33.5K of taxable income + 16.5K of untaxable income, to 65K of taxable income (worst case). So the question is whether the net from the extra 31.5K of taxable income is more than the 16.5K, and since marginal tax rates in the relevant brackets are no more than 32% according to the table you posted (22% federal and 10% provincial), it's definitely a win to move jobs. More precisely, the marginal tax rate is 25% on the first 8044 (41544-33500) and 32% on the rest, making for total extra tax of about 9.5K and thus net income (beyond the 33.5K baseline) of 22K. Compared to the 16.5K this leaves you 5.5K up. If you end up at the 70K end, you're another 3.4K up beyond that.",
"In the US we have social security taxes, where for a full time employee the company pays half and the employee pays half. When you work as a business, what we call 1099 for the form that the wages are reported on, then the contractor pays the full amount of social security tax. There are times when a contractor can negotiate a higher rate because the company does not have to pay that tax. However, most of the time the company just prefers to negotiate the rate based on your value. If you are a 60K year guy, then that is what they will pay you. From the company's perspective it does not matter what your tax rate is, only the value you can bring to the company. If you can add about 180K to the bottom line, then they will be happy to pay you 60K, and you should be happy to get it. Here in the US a contractor can expect to make about 7.5% more of an equivalent employee because of the social security tax savings to the company. However, not all companies are willing to provide that in compensation. Some companies see the legal and administrative costs of employees as normal, and the same costs with contractors as extra so they don't perceive a cost savings. There are other things that would preclude employers from giving the bump although it is logical to do so. First you will really have to feel out your employer for the attitude on the subject. Then I would make a logical case if they are open to providing extra compensation in return for tax savings. If I am an employee at 60K, you would also have to pay the government 18K. How about you pay me 75K as a contractor instead? That would be a great deal for all in the US.",
"Many countries have employers report their employees' salaries and withhold some money for income tax purposes (it's called “pay as you earn”, “withholding taxes” or taxing “at the source”). Often the system is designed in such a way that most people actually pay too much and can get money back at the end of the year. In that case, the salary you receive can certainly be considered a “net salary”. Depending on the tax system, individuals might need to file a separate tax returns to report any other income (investments, rents, whatever) or benefit from tax incentives but it can also be optional. If you live in such a country and your situation is simple enough that there are no applicable deductibles, you might simply choose to forgo it and let your employer take care of everything.",
"Not correct. First - when you say they don't tax the reimbursement, they are classifying it in a way that makes it taxable to you (just not withholding tax at that time). In effect, they are under-withholding, if these reimbursement are high enough, you'll have not just a tax bill, but penalties for not paying enough all year. My reimbursements do not produce any kind of pay stub, they are a direct deposit, and are not added to my income, not as they occur, nor at year end on W2. Have you asked them why they handle it this way? It's wrong, and it's costing you.",
"\"I agree. Job offered benefits were implemented to entice people to work for their company when the demand for good workers was higher than the supply. Now people expect benefits and the govt has also took it upon itself to mandate employers provide medical benefits. One way around this is to higher part time workers to keep costs down. So basically the governments \"\"good intentions\"\" of helping the masses will actually cause more harm directly to the people it was supposed to help.\"",
"\"Exactly. I'll \"\"retire\"\" from teaching in two years and will be given the chance to take half of my retirement in one lump sum payment and take home $1,000 a month, or take nothing and bring home 2,000 a month. The other thing to remember is the 30% tax payment that next April. That's tough. This looks like a no-brainer because in just seven years, I'd eclipse the cash out. However, I might do it because I'll take the money and possibly pay off a rental home. With a rental, I'll be able to raise the rent if inflation kicks in. Of course, if deflation continues, that might be a bad move. The thing is, I'll be able to decide.\"",
"The benefits and taxes thing, in my opinion is the biggie. Most people don't realize that the cost to the company for a full-time employee with benefits can be 2x or even 3x the amount they see in their paycheck. Health plans are extremely expensive. Even if you are having money taken from your check for health insurance, it is often just a fraction of the total cost, and the employer is subsidizing the rest. More expensive benefits that contractors don't typically get are 401K matches and paid vacation days. When contractors call in sick or don't work because it is a national holiday, they don't get paid for that day. Also, see that line on your paycheck deducting for Social security and Medicare? That is only half of the tax. The employer pays an equal amount that is not shown on that statement. Also, they pay taxes that go towards unemployment benefits , and may be required to pay higher taxes if they churn through a lot of full-time employees. You can usually let contractors go with relative impunity . For the unemployment tax reasons, not paying for people's days off or benefits, a lot less paperwork, and less risk to the business associated with committing to full-time employees all provide value to the company. Thus companies are willing to pay more because they are getting more. Think of it like a cell phone-contract. If you commit to a three year contract it can be a pain/expensive to get out of the deal early, but you will probably get a better rate in exchange for the risk being shifted to your end of the deal.",
"It depends on where you are in life, and where you want to be at some point in the future, and the taxes, expenses and income at those points in your life. You don't get a mortgage to save on taxes, or keep a mortgage to save on taxes. But if somebody said they want to have the house paid off before they retire, that sounds to me like a great plan. They do need to balance it with saving for retirement, emergency fund, and college costs for themselves or their children. Without having the whole picture it is impossible to say doing X is always a good idea.",
"\"Assuming the numbers work out roughly the same (and you can frankly whip up a spreadsheet to prove that out), a defined benefit scheme that pays out an amount equal to an annuitized return from a 401(k) is better. The reason is not monetary - it is that the same return is being had at less risk. Put another way, if your defined benefit was guaranteed to be $100/month, and your 401(k) had a contribution that eventually gets to a lump sum that, if annuitized for the same life expectancy gave you $100/month, the DB is better because there is less chance that you won't see the money. Or, put even simpler, which is more likely? That New York goes Bankrupt and is relieved of all pension obligations, or, the stock market underperforms expectations. Neither can be ruled out, but assuming even the same benefit, lower risk is better. Now, the complication in your scenario is that your new job pays better. As such, it is possible that you might be able to accumulate more savings in your 401(k) than you might in the DB scheme. Then again, even with the opportunity to do so, there is no guarantee that you will. As such, even modelling it out really isn't going to dismiss the key variables. As such, can I suggest a different approach? Which job is going to make you happier now? Part of that may be money, part of that may be what you are actually doing. But you should focus on that question. The marginal consideration of retirement is really moot - in theory, an IRA contribution can be made that would equalize your 401(k), negating it from the equation. Grant you, there is very slightly different tax treatment, and the phaseout limits differ, but at the salary ranges you are looking at, you could, in theory, make decisions that would have the same retirement outcome in any event. The real question is then not, \"\"What is the effect in 20 years?\"\" but rather, which makes you happier now?\"",
"\"I agree to some degree, but I've gotten very jaded over the past 25 years. You could have the best boss in the world, be working on a fantastic project, have a solid career path, and they'll still throw you out like yesterday's trash if anyone says \"\"recession\"\" So my philosophy is more tactical (month to month) than strategic (build a career). And it's rooted in this: >I believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work Except that I've come to believe in a fair hour's pay for a fair hour's work, because on salary it seems that a \"\"fair day's work\"\" is never less than eight hours but frequently more. Put in twelve hours on a project in crunch time? Here's your standard eight hours pay. Work Saturday on something that saves the company fifteen million dollars? Here are two vouchers for dinner at the Outback Steakhouse and we'll see you Monday morning.\"",
"Self employment is typically harder to qualify with than W2 income. In general the bank is going to want 2 years of tax returns. You will be asked to sign a 4506-T that allows the bank to get the records directly from the IRS. Self employment income will be averaged across the 2 years, I don't think a 20% drop in profits is large enough to cause concern but it might. I would plan on being able borrow against the lowest year just in case. If you get a W2 job you will be able to count the income immediately assuming it is not a temporary position. The bank will ask for the offer letter. If you have decent credit and 20% down, you should be able to get a mortgage either way. A W2 is typically less paperwork and you would get to claim your current income assuming that is higher than your past income."
] |
[
"It's hard to answer without knowing all of the details (i.e. what was your salary for each of the options), but I think you probably made a good choice. 1099: Would have required you to pay self-employment tax, but also would have allowed you to deduct business expenses. W2 with benefits: Likely would have been beneficial if you needed healthcare (since group plans can be cheaper than individual plans, and healthcare payments aren't taxed), but if you don't use the healthcare, that would have been a waste. W2, no benefits: Assuming your salary here falls between the 1099 and the W2 with benefits, it seems like a good compromise for your situation."
] |
6420
|
Does the bid/ask concept exist in dealer markets?
|
[
"565568",
"127452"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"565568",
"127452",
"580364",
"585552",
"558566",
"316838",
"151391",
"284235",
"208070",
"394244",
"501748",
"184051",
"164008",
"413041",
"528494",
"163333",
"505244",
"78053",
"382067",
"177926",
"351011",
"79766",
"137984",
"137175",
"112714",
"543927",
"49782",
"146125",
"87065",
"186392",
"447562",
"213938",
"122323",
"519291",
"175831",
"179258",
"507357",
"402482",
"169062",
"69197",
"118389",
"373862",
"554207",
"183419",
"508144",
"459052",
"294867",
"7561",
"396844",
"92109",
"251100",
"294295",
"417365",
"294522",
"53041",
"280172",
"322798",
"281844",
"28604",
"43432",
"412223",
"434596",
"579244",
"307155",
"58565",
"494727",
"43219",
"129806",
"448476",
"298551",
"19196",
"379759",
"124205",
"95010",
"503075",
"506617",
"131403",
"66210",
"442048",
"201361",
"280168",
"535525",
"224672",
"212685",
"35340",
"228983",
"224725",
"557770",
"571116",
"560558",
"353396",
"427747",
"110162",
"502607",
"525231",
"584295",
"498885",
"310636",
"21376",
"105343"
] |
[
"\"The Auction Market is where investors such you and me, as well as Market Makers, buy and sell securities. The Auction Markets operate with the familiar bid-ask pricing that you see on financial pages such as Google and Yahoo. The Market Makers are institutions that are there to provide liquidity so that investors can easily buy and sell shares at a \"\"fair\"\" price. Market Makers need to have on hand a suitable supply of shares to meet investor demands. When Market Makers feel the need to either increase or decrease their supply of a particular security quickly, they turn to the Dealer Market. In order to participate in a Dealer Market, you must be designated a Market Maker. As noted already, Market Makers are dedicated to providing liquidity for the Auction Market in certain securities and therefore require that they have on hand a suitable supply of those securities which they support. For example, if a Market Maker for Apple shares is low on their supply of Apple shares, then will go the Dealer Market to purchase more Apple shares. Conversely, if they are holding what they feel are too many Apple shares, they will go to the Dealer Market to sell Apple shares. The Dealer Market does operate on a bid-ask basis, contrary to your stated understanding. The bid-ask prices quoted on the Dealer Market are more or less identical to those on the Auction Market, except the quote sizes will be generally much larger. This is the case because otherwise, why would a Market Maker offer to sell shares to another Market Maker at a price well below what they could themselves sell them for in the Auction Market. (And similarly with buy orders.) If Market Makers are generally holding low quantities of a particular security, this will drive up the price in both the Dealer Market and the Auction Market. Similarly, if Market Makers are generally holding too much of a particular security, this may drive down prices on both the Auction Market and the Dealer Market.\"",
"\"Why would there not be a bid and ask? Dealers make their money in the spread between what they buy it from one entity for and what they sell it to another entity for. This doesn't mean they have to do it auction-style, but they'll still have a different buy price from a sell price, hence \"\"bid\"\" and \"\"ask\"\".\"",
"\"This is a misconception. One of the explanations is that if you buy at the ask price and want to sell it right away, you can only sell at the bid price. This is incorrect. There are no two separate bid and ask prices. The price you buy (your \"\"bid\"\") is the same price someone else sells (their \"\"sell\"\"). The same goes when you sell - the price you sell at is the price someone else buys. There's no spread with stocks. Emphasized it on purpose, because many people (especially those who gamble on stock exchange without knowing what they're doing) don't understand how the stock market works. On the stock exchange, the transaction price is the match between the bid price and the ask price. Thus, on any given transaction, bid always equals ask. There's no spread. There is spread with commodities (if you buy it directly, especially), contracts, mutual funds and other kinds of brokered transactions that go through a third party. The difference (spread) is that third party's fee for assuming part of the risk in the transaction, and is indeed added to your cost (indirectly, in the way you described). These transactions don't go directly between a seller and a buyer. For example, there's no buyer when you redeem some of your mutual fund - the fund pays you money. So the fund assumes certain risk, which is why there's a spread in the prices to invest and to redeem. Similarly with commodities: when you buy a gold bar - you buy it from a dealer, who needs to keep a stock. Thus, the dealer will not buy from you at the same price: there's a premium on sale and a discount on buy, which is a spread, to compensate the dealer for the risk of keeping a stock.\"",
"\"When I first started working in finance I was given a rule of thumb to decide which price you will get in the market: \"\"You will always get the worst price for your deal, so when buying you get the higher ask price and when selling you get the lower bid price.\"\" I like to think of it in terms of the market as a participant who always buys at the lowest price they can (i.e. buys from you) and sells at the highest price they can. If that weren't true there would be an arbitrage opportunity and free money never exists for long.\"",
"Yes, but also note each exchange have rules that states various conditions when the market maker can enlarge the bid-ask (e.g. for situations such as freely falling markets, etc.) and when the market makers need to give a normal bid-ask. In normal markets, the bid-asks are usually within exchange dictated bounds. MM's price spread can be larger than bid-ask spread only when there are multiple market makers and different market makers are providing different bid-asks. As long as the MM under question gives bid and ask within exchange's rules, it can be fine. These are usually rare situations. One advice: please carefully check the time-stamps. I have seen many occasions when tick data time-stamps between different vendors are mismatched in databases whereas in real life it isn't. MM's profits not just from spreads, but also from short term mean-reversion (fading). If a large order comes in suddenly, the MM increases the prices in one direction, takes the opposite side, and once the order is done, the prices comes down and the MM off-loads his imbalance at lower prices, etc.",
"\"The answer posted by Kirill Fuchs is incorrect according to my series 65 text book and practice question answers. The everyday investor buys at the ask and sells at the bid but the market maker does the opposite. THE MARKET MAKER \"\"BUYS AT THE BID AND SELLS AT THE ASK\"\", he makes a profit form the spread. I have posted a quiz question and the answer created by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). To fill a customer buy order for 800 WXYZ shares, your firm requests a quote from a market maker. The response is \"\"bid 15, ask 15.25.\"\" If the order is placed, the market maker must sell: A) 800 shares at $15.25 per share. B) 800 shares at $15 per share. C) 100 shares at $15.25 per share. D) 800 shares at no more than $15 per share. Your answer, sell 800 shares at $15.25 per share., was correct!. A market maker is responsible for honoring a firm quote. If no size is requested by the inquiring trader, a quote is firm for 100 shares. In this example, the trader requested an 800-share quote, so the market maker is responsible for selling 8 round lots of 100 shares at the ask price of $15.25 per share.\"",
"Your assets are marked to market. If you buy at X, and the market is bidding at 99.9% * X then you've already lost 0.1%. This is a market value oriented way of looking at costs. You could always value your assets with mark to model, and maybe you do, but no one else will. Just because you think the stock is worth 2*X doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees, evidenced by the bid. You surely won't get any margin loans based upon mark to model. Your bankers won't be convinced of the valuation of your assets based upon mark to model. By strictly a market value oriented way of valuing assets, there is a bid/ask cost. more clarification Relative to littleadv, this is actually a good exposition between the differences between cash and accrual accounting. littleadv is focusing completely on the cash cost of the asset at the time of transaction and saying that there is no bid/ask cost. Through the lens of cash accounting, that is 100% correct. However, if one uses accrual accounting marking assets to market (as we all do with marketable assets like stocks, bonds, options, etc), there may be a bid/ask cost. At the time of transaction, the bids used to trade (one's own) are exhausted. According to exchange rules that are now practically uniform: the highest bid is given priority, and if two bids are bidding the exact same highest price then the oldest bid is given priority; therefore the oldest highest bid has been exhausted and removed at trade. At the time of transaction, the value of the asset cannot be one's own bid but the highest oldest bid leftover. If that highest oldest bid is lower than the price paid (even with liquid stocks this is usually the case) then one has accrued a bid/ask cost.",
"\"EVERYONE buys at the ask price and sells at the bid price (no matter who you are). There are a few important things you need to understand. Example: EVE bid: 16.00 EVE ask: 16.25 So if your selling EVE at \"\"market price\"\" you are entering an ask equal to the highest bid ($16.00). If you buy EVE at \"\"market price\"\" you are entering a bid equal to the lowest ask price ($16.25). Its key to understand this rule: \"\"An order executes ONLY when both bid and ask meet. (bid = ask).\"\" So a market maker puts in a bid when he wants to buy but the trade only executes when an ASK price meets his BID price. When you see a quote for a stock it is the price of the last trade. So it is possible to have a quote higher or lower then both the bid and the ask.\"",
"I think your confusion has arisen because in every transaction there is a buyer and a seller, so the market maker buys you're selling, and when you're buying the market maker is selling. Meaning they do in fact buy at the ask price and sell at the bid price (as the quote said).",
"Bid and ask prices are the reigning highest buy price and lowest sell price in the market which doesn't mean one must only buy/sell at thise prices. That said one can buy/sell at whatever price they so wish although doing it at any other price than the bid/ask is usually harder as other market participants will gravitate to the reigning bid/ask price. So in theory you can buy at ask and sell at bid, whether or not your order will be filled is another matter altogether.",
"To add a bit to Daniel Anderson's great answer, if you want to 'peek' at what a the set of bid and ask spreads looks like, the otc market page could be interesting (NOTE: I'm NOT recommending that you trade Over The Counter. Many of these stocks are amusingly scary): http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/ACBFF/quote You can see market makers essentially offering to buy or sell blocks of stock at a variety of prices.",
"The point is that the bid and ask prices dictate what you can buy and sell at (at market, at least), and the difference between the two, or spread, contributes implicitly to your gains or losses. For example, say your $1 stock actually had a bid of $0.90 and an ask of $1.10; i.e. say that $1 was the last price. You would have to buy the stock at the ask price of $1.10, but now you can only sell that stock at the bid price of $0.90. Thus, you would need to make at least that $0.20 spread before you can make a profit.",
"The everyday investor buys at the ask and sells at the bid but the market maker does the opposite This is misleading; it has nothing to do with being either an investor or a market maker. It is dependent on the type of order that is submitted. When a market trades at the ask, this means that a buy market order has interacted with a sell limit order at the limit price. When a market trades at the bid, this means that a sell market order has interacted with a buy limit order at the limit price. An ordinary investor can do exactly the same as a market maker and submit limit orders. Furthermore, they can sit on both sides of the bid and ask exactly as a market maker does. In the days before high frequency trading this was quite common (an example being Daytek, whose traders were notorious for stepping in front of the designated market maker's bid/ask on the Island ECN). An order executes ONLY when both bid and ask meet. (bid = ask) This is completely incorrect. A transaction occurs when an active (marketable) order is matched with a passive (limit book) order. If the passive order is a sell limit then the trade has occurred at the ask, and if it is a buy limit the trade has occurred at the bid. The active orders are not bids and asks. The only exception to this would be if the bid and ask have become crossed. When a seller steps in, he does so with an ask that's lower than the stock's current ask Almost correct; he does so with an order that's lower than the stock's current ask. If it's a marketable order it will fill the front queued best bid, and if it's a limit order his becomes the new ask price. A trade does not need to occur at this price for it to become the ask. This is wrong, market makers are the opposite party to you so the prices are the other way around for them. This is wrong. There is no distinction between the market maker and yourself or any other member of the public (beside the fact that designated market makers on some exchanges are obliged to post both a bid and ask at all times). You can open an account with any broker and do exactly the same as a market maker does (although with nothing like the speed that a high frequency market-making firm can, hence likely making you uncompetitive in this arena). The prices a market maker sees and the types of orders that they are able to use to realize them are exactly the same as for any other trader.",
"Market Makers are essentially just there to process the buys and sells of traders, so just like you and I buy and sell at the ask and bid prices they do to. They are just completing the process of making our orders a reality. Market makers are just representative of brokers, meaning that when you place your order at ask or bid, you are placing that particular brokers order at ask or bid. People often say that certain brokers have too many shares and claim that they are games when really that just means that there happen to be a lot of people using a particular broker all at once, or more troubling, perhaps even company execs using a broker, to sell a large amount of shares.",
"1. Rebate 2. Bid-Ask spread 3. Tactically increasing/decreasing inventory based on their view of the market 4. Picking off idiot traders (OTC markets, basically not passing orders on to the market when the counterparty has a low performance history).",
"Yes for every order there is a buyer and seller. But overall there are multiple buyers and multiple sellers. So every trade is at a different price and this price is agreed by both buyer and seller. Related question will help you understand this better. How do exchanges match limit orders?",
"\"- In a quote driven market, must every investor trade with a market maker? In other words, two parties that are both not market makers cannot trade between themselves directly? In a way yes, all trades go through a market maker but those trades can be orders put in place by a \"\"person\"\" IE: you, or me. - Does a quote driven market only display the \"\"best\"\" bid and ask prices proposed by the market makers? In other words, only the highest bid price among all the market makers is displayed, and other lower bid prices by other market makers are not? Similarly, only the lowest ask price over all market makers is displayed, and other higher ask prices by other market makers are not? No, you can see other lower bid and higher ask prices. - In a order-driven market, is it meaningful to talk about \"\"the current stock price\"\", which is the price of last transaction? Well that's kind of an opinion. Information is information so it won't be bad to know it. Personally I would say the bid and ask price is more important. However in the real world these prices are changing constantly and quickly so realistically it is easier to keep track of the quote price and most likely the bid/ask spread is small and the quote will fall in between. The less liquid a security is the more important the bid/ask is. -- This goes for all market types. - For a specific asset, will there be several transactions happened at the same time but with different prices? Today with electronic markets, trades can happen so quickly it's difficult to say. In the US stock market trades happen one at a time but there is no set time limit between each trade. So within 1 second you can have a trade be $50 or $50.04. However it will only go to $50.04 when the lower ask prices have been exhausted. - Does an order driven market have market makers? By definition, no. - What are some examples of quote driven and order driven financial markets, in which investors are commonly trading stocks and derivatives, especially in U.S.? Quote driven market: Bond market, Forex. Order driven market: NYSE comes from an order driven market but now would be better classified as a \"\"hybird market\"\" Conclusion: If you are asking in order to better understand today's stock markets then these old definitions of Quote market or Order market may not work. The big markets in the real world are neither. (IE: Nasdaq, NYSE...) The NYSE and Nasdaq are better classified as a \"\"hybird market\"\" as they use more then a single tactic from both market types to insure market liquidity, and transparency. Markets these days are strongly electronic, fast, and fairly liquid in most cases. Here are some resources to better understand these markets: An Introduction To Securities Markets The NYSE And Nasdaq: How They Work Understanding Order Execution\"",
"\"Joke warning: These days, it seems that rogue trading programs are the big market makers (this concludes the joke) Historically, exchange members were market makers. One or more members guaranteed a market in a particular stock, and would buy whatever you wanted to sell (or vice-versa). In a balanced market -- one where there were an equal number of buyers and sellers -- the spread was indeed profit for them. To make this work, market makers need an enormous amount of liquidity (ability to hold an inventory of stocks) to deal with temporary imbalances. And a day like October 29, 1929, can make that liquidity evaporate. I say \"\"historically,\"\" because I don't think that any stock market works this way today (I was discussing this very topic with a colleague last week, went to Wikipedia to look at the structure of the NYSE, and saw no mention of exchange members as market makers -- in fact, it appears that the NYSE is no longer a member-based exchange). Instead, today most (all?) trading happens on \"\"electronic crossing networks,\"\" where the spread is simply the difference between the highest bid and lowest ask. In a liquid stock, there will be hundreds if not thousands of orders clustered around the \"\"current\"\" price, usually diverging by fractions of a cent. In an illiquid stock, there may be a spread, but eventually one bid will move up or one ask will move down (or new bids will come in). You could claim that an entity with a large block of stock to move takes the role of market maker, but it doesn't have the same meaning as an exchange market maker. Since there's no entity between the bidder and asker, there's no profit in the spread, just a fee taken by the ECN. Edit: I think you have a misconception of what the \"\"spread\"\" is. It's simply the difference between the highest bid and the lowest offer. At the instant a trade takes place, the spread is 0: the highest bid equals the lowest offer, and the bidder and seller exchange shares for money. As soon as that trade is completed, the spread re-appears. The only way that a trade happens is if buyer and seller agree on price. The traditional market maker is simply an entity that has the ability to buy or sell an effectively unlimited number of shares. However, if the market maker sets a price and there are no buyers, then no trade takes place. And if there's another entity willing to sell shares below the market maker's price, then the buyers will go to that entity unless the market's rules forbid it.\"",
"Depends on when you are seeing these bids & asks-- off hours, many market makers pull their bid & ask prices entirely. In a lightly traded stock there may just be no market except during the regular trading day.",
"In the stock market many participants enter orders that are not necessarily set at the current market price of the stock (i.e. they are not market orders, they are limit orders). They can be lower than the market price (if they want to buy) or they can be higher than the market price (if they want to sell). The set of orders at each point of time for a security is called the order book. The lowest selling price of the order book is the offer or ask, the higher buying price is the bid. The more liquid is a security, the more orders will be in the order book, and the narrower will be the bid-ask spread. The depth of the order book is the number of units that the order book can absorb in any direction (buy or sell). As an example: imagine I want to buy 100 units at the lowest offer, but the size of the lowest offer is only 50 units, and there is not any further order, that means the stock has little depth.",
"While volume per trade is higher at the open and to a lesser extent at the close, the overall volume is actually lower, on average. Bid ask spreads are widest at the open and to a lesser extent at the close. Generally, bid ask spreads are inversely proportional to overall volumes. Why this is the case hasn't been sufficiently clearly answered by academia yet, but some theories are that",
"\"As an aside, on most securities with a spread of the minimum tick, there would be no bid ask spread if so-called \"\"locked markets\"\", where the price of the best bid on one exchange is equal to the price of the best ask on another, were permitted. It is currently forbidden for a security to have posted orders having the same price for both bid and ask even though they're on different exchanges. Option spreads would narrow as well as a result.\"",
"\"We're in agreement, I just want retail investors to understand that in most of these types of discussions, the unspoken reality is the retail sector trading the market is *over*. This includes the mutual funds you mentioned, and even most index funds (most are so narrowly focused they lose their relevance for the retail investor). In the retail investment markets I'm familiar with, there are market makers of some sort or another for specified ranges. I'm perfectly fine with no market makers; but retail investors should be told the naked truth as well, and not sold a bunch of come-ons. What upsets me is seeing that just as computers really start to make an orderly market possible (you are right, the classic NYSE specialist structure was outrageously corrupt), regulators turned a blind eye to implementing better controls for retail investors. The financial services industry has to come to terms whether they want AUM from retail or not, and having heard messaging much like yours from other professionals, I've concluded that the industry does *not* want the constraints with accepting those funds, but neither do they want to disabuse retail investors of how tilted the game is against them. Luring them in with deceptively suggestive marketing and then taking money from those naturally ill-prepared for the rigors of the setting is like beating up the Downs' Syndrome kid on the short bus and boasting about it back on the campus about how clever and strong one is. If there was as stringent truth in marketing in financial services as cigarettes, like \"\"this service makes their profit by encouraging the churning of trades\"\", there would be a lot of kvetching from so-called \"\"pros\"\" as well. If all retail financial services were described like \"\"dead cold cow meat\"\" describes \"\"steak\"\", a lot of retail investors would be better off. As it stands today, you'd have to squint mighty hard to see the faintly-inscribed \"\"caveat emptor\"\" on financial services offerings to the retail sector. Note that depending upon the market setting, the definition of retail differs. I'm surprised the herd hasn't been spooked more by the MF Global disaster, for example, and yet there are some surprisingly large accounts detrimentally affected by that incident, which in a conventional equities setting would be considered \"\"pros\"\".\"",
"If you are buying your order will be placed in Bid list. If you are selling your order will be placed in the Ask list. The highest Bid price will be placed at the top of the Bid list and the lowest Ask price will be placed at the top of the Ask list. When a Bid and Ask price are matched a transaction will take place and it will the last traded price. If you are looking to buy at a lower price, say $155.01, your Bid price will be placed 3rd in the Bid list, and unless the Ask prices fall to that level, your order will remain in the list until it trades, it expires or you cancel it. If prices don't fall to you Bid price you will not get a trade. If you wanted your trade to go through you could either place a limit buy order closer to the lowest Ask price (however this is still not a certainty), or to be certain place a market buy order which will trade at the lowest Ask price.",
"\"Market makers (shortened MM) in an exchange are generally required to list both a bid and ask price to allow both buyers and sellers to trade and keep the market moving. However, a more general idea of a MM may includes companies off an exchange (say large banks acting as broker/dealers in an over-the-counter market) are not required to give a simultaneous bid/ask, but often will on request. So, it might depend on where you are getting this data but likely the bid/ask was quoted simultaneously. An exchange, like the NASDAQ for instance, may have multiple MMs for a given market. The \"\"market\"\" spread will be from the highest bid to the lowest ask over all the MMs. The highest bid and lowest ask may come from different MMs and any particular MM often will have a larger spread. The size of the spread gives a rough idea of how much a MM is trying to make off of a \"\"round trip\"\" trade (buying than immediately selling to someone else or selling than immediately buying from someone else). Of course, immediate round-trip trades are not always possible and there are many other complications. However, half the spread is a rough indicator of how much they hope to make off of a single trade.\"",
"3) Isn't strictly true, as off market swaps do trade quite regularly. For example, if the company has a bad credit rating, an off market swap is often executed to cover the credit costs (and essentially the cost of the bank's capital Under BASEL III.) Hence a bank shouldn't trade at mid.",
"I can often get the option at [a] price [between bid and ask] The keyword you use here is quite relevant: often. More realistically, it's going to be sometimes. And that's just how supply and demand should work. The ask is where you know you can buy right away. If you don't wanna buy at ask, you can try and put a higer bid but you can only hope someone will take it before the price moves. If prices are moving up fast, you will have missed a chance if you gambled mid-spread. Having said that, the larger the spread is, the more you should work with limits mid-spread. You don't want to just take ask or bid with illiquid options. Make a calculation of the true value of the option (i.e. using the Black Scholes Model), then set your bid around there. Of course, if not only the option but also the underlying is illiquid, this all gets even more difficult.",
"The best ask is the lowest ask, and the best bid is the highest bid. If the ask was lower than the bid then they crossed, and that would be a crossed market and quickly resolved. So the bid will almost always be cheaper than the ask. A heuristic is that a bid is the revenue of the stock at any given time while the ask is the cost, so the market will only ever offer a profit to itself not to the liquidity seeker. If examining the book vertically, all orders are usually sorted descending. Since the best ask is the lowest ask, it is on the bottom of the asks, and vice versa for the best bid. The best bid & best ask will be those closest since that's the narrowest spread and price-time priority will promise that a bid that crosses the asks will hit the lowest ask, the best possible price for the bidder and vice versa for an ask that crosses the best bid.",
"The Bid price is simply the highest buy price currently being offered and the Ask price simply the lowest sell price being offered. The list of Bid and Ask prices is called the market depth. When the Bid and Ask prices match then a sale goes through. When looking to sell you would generally look at both the Bid and Ask prices. As a seller you want to be matched with the Bid price to get a sale, but you also need to check the current list of Ask prices. If the price you want to sell at is too high you will be placed down the Ask price list, and unless the price moves up to match your sell price you will not end up selling. On the other-hand, if your price to sell is too low and in fact much lower than the current lowest sell price you may get a quick sale but maybe at a lower price than you could have gotten. Similarly, when looking to buy, you would generally also look at both the Bid and Ask prices. As a buyer you want to be matched with the Ask price to get a sale, but you also need to check the current list of Bid prices. If the price you want to buy at is too low you will be placed down the Bid price list, and unless the price moves down to match your buy price you will no end up buying. On the other-hand, if your price to buy is too high and in fact much higher than the current highest buy price you may get a quick purchase but maybe at a higher price than you could have gotten. So, whether buying or selling, it is important to look at and consider both the Bid and Ask prices in the market depth.",
"This is too lengthy for a comment. The following quoted passages are excerpted from this Money SE post. Before electronic trading and HFTs specifically, trading was thin and onerous. No. The NYSE and AMEX were deep, liquid and transparent for nearly 75 years prior to high frequency trading (HFT), in 2000 or so. The same is true for NASDAQ, but not for as many years, as NASDAQ is newer, being an electronic market. The point is that it existed, and thrived, prior to HFT. The NASDAQ can be active and functional, WITH or WITHOUT high frequency trading. This is not historically true, nor is it true now: Without a bid or ask at any given time, there could be no trade... Market makers, also known as specialists, were responsible for hitting the bid and taking the offer on whatever security they covered. They had a responsibility assigned to them by the exchange. Yes, it was lucrative! There was risk, and they were rewarded for bearing it. There is a trade-off though. Specialists provided greater stability on a systemic level, although other market participants paid for that cost. Prior to HFT, traders who were not market makers were often bounded by, boxed in, by the toll paid to market makers. Market makers had different, much higher capital and solvency requirements than other traders. Most specialists/market makers had seats, or shared a seat on the NYSE or AMEX. Remember that market makers/specialists are specific to stock markets, whereas HFT is not. If this is true, then we are in trouble: HFTs have supplanted the traditional market maker Why? Because trading volume is LOWER now than it was in the 1990's! EDIT In the comments, I noticed that OP was asking about the difference between I suggest reading this very accurate, well-written answer to a related question, The spread goes to the market maker, is the market maker the exchange? That explains the difference between",
"\"Realize this is almost a year old, but I just wanted to comment on something in Dynas' answer above... \"\"Whenever you trade always think about what the other guys is thinking. Sometimes we forget their is someone else on the other side of my trade that thinks essentially the exact opposite of me. Its a zero sum game.\"\" From a market maker's perspective, their primary goal is not necessarily to make money by you being wrong, it is to make money on the bid-offer spread and hedging their book (and potentially interalize). That being said, the market maker would likely be quoting one side of the market away from top of the book if they don't want to take exposure in that direction (i.e. their bid will be lower than the highest bid available or their offer higher than the lowest offer available). This isn't really going to change anything if you're trading on an exchange, but important to consider if you can only see the prices your broker/dealer provides to you and they are your counterparty in the trade.\"",
"\"The difficulty is that you are thinking of a day as a natural unit of time. For some securities the inventory decisions are less than a minute, for others, it can be months. You could ask a similar question of \"\"why would a dealer hold cash?\"\" They are profit maximizing firms and, subject to a chosen risk level, will accept deals that are sufficiently profitable. Consider a stock that averages 1,000 shares per day, but for which there is an order for 10,000 shares. At a sufficient discount, the dealer would be crazy not to carry the order. You are also assuming all orders are idiosyncratic. Dividend reinvestment plans (DRIP) trigger planned purchases on a fixed day, usually by averaging them over a period such as 10 days. The dealer slowly accumulates a position leading up to the date whenever it appears a good discount is available and fills the DRIP orders out of their own account. The dealer tries to be careful not to disturb the market leading up to the date and allows the volume request to shift prices upward and then fills them.\"",
"The equation you show is correct, you've simply pointed out that you understand that you buy at the 'ask' price, and later sell at the 'bid.' There is no bid/ask on the S&P, as you can't trade it directly. You have a few alternatives, however - you can trade SPY, the (most well known) S&P ETF whose price reflects 1/10 the value or VOO (Vanguard's offering) as well as others. Each of these ETFs gives you a bid/ask during market hours. They trade like a stock, have shares that are reasonably priced, and are optionable. To trade the index itself, you need to trade the futures. S&P 500 Futures and Options is the CME Group's brief info guide on standard and mini contracts. Welcome to SE.",
"Yes, but it must be remembered that these conditions only last for instants, and that's why only HFTs can take advantage of this. During 2/28/14's selloff from the invasion of Ukraine, many times, there were moments where there was overwhelming liquidity on the bid relative to the ask, but the price continued to drop.",
"yes you are right as per my understanding while doing trade you must consider fol (specially for starters like me) The volume of the stock you are trading in should be high enough to keep you secure for quick in and out Whenever the bid volume is more than the ask volume the prices will move up and vice versa. to give an example if a stock is at 100 points and there are fol bids: The transaction will occur when either the bidder agrees to pay the ask price (case 1. he pays 101 . his bid offer will disappear and the next best ask will be 102. and the current price will be 101 which was the last transaction.) or when the person giving ask price agrees to deal at best bid which was 99 in which case the share will go down.",
"In the world of stock exchanges, the result depends on the market state of the traded stock. There are two possibilities, (a) a trade occurs or (b) no trade occurs. During the so-called auction phase, bid and ask prices may overlap, actually they usually do. During an open market, when bid and ask match, trades occur.",
"Many of the Bitcoin exchanges mimic stock exchanges, though they're much more rudimentary offering only simple buy/sell/cancel orders. It's fairly normal for retail stock brokerage accounts to allow other sorts of more complex orders, where once a certain criteria is met, (the price falls below some $ threshold, or has a movement greater than some %) then your order is executed. The space between the current buy order and the current sell order is the bid/ask spread, it's not really about timing. Person X will buy at $100, person Y will sell at $102. If both had a price set at $101, they would just transact. Both parties think they can do a little bit better than the current offer. The width of the bid/ask spread is not universal by any means. The current highest buy order and the current lowest sell order, are both the current price. The current quoted market price is generally the price of the last transaction, whether it's buy or sell.",
"You can always trade at bid or ask price (depending if you are selling or buying). Market price is the price the last transaction was executed at so you may not be able to get that. If your order is large then you may not even be able to get bid/ask but should look at the depth of the order book (ie what prices are other market participants asking for and what is the size of their order). Usually only fast traders will trade at bid/ask, those who believe the price move is imminent. If you are a long term trader you can often get better than bid or ask by placing a limit order and waiting until a market participant takes your offer.",
"\"It's good to ask this question, because this is one of the fundamental dichotomies in market microstructure. At any time T for each product on a (typical) exchange there are two well-defined prices: At time T there is literally no person in the market who wants to sell below the ask, so all the people who are waiting to buy at the bid (or below) could very well be waiting there forever. There's simply no guarantee that any seller will ever want to part with their product for a lesser price than they think it's worth. So if you want to buy the product at time T you have a tough choice to make: you get in line at the bid price, where there's no guarantee that your request will ever be filled, and you might never get your hands on the product you decide that owning the product right now is more valuable to you than (ask - bid) * quantity, so you tell the exchange that you're willing to buy at the ask price, and the exchange matches you with whichever seller is first in line Now, if you're in the market for the long term, the above choice is completely immaterial to you. Who cares if you pay $10.00 * 1000 shares or $10.01 * 1000 shares when you plan to sell 30 years from now at $200 (or $200.01)? But if you're a day trader or anyone else with a very short time horizon, then this choice is extremely important: if the price is about to go up several cents and you got in line at the bid (and never got filled) then you missed out on some profit if you \"\"cross the spread\"\" to buy at the ask and then the price doesn't go up (or worse, goes down), you're screwed. In order to get out of the position you'll have to cross the spread again and sell at at most the bid, meaning you've now paid the spread twice (plus transaction fees and regulatory fees) for nothing. (All of the above also applies in reverse for selling at the ask versus selling at the bid, but most people like to learn in terms of buying rather than selling.)\"",
"Quote driven markets are the predecessors to the modern securities market. Before electronic trading and HFTs specifically, trading was thin and onerous. Today, the average investor can open up a web page, type in a security, and buy at the narrowest spread permitted by regulators with anyone else who wants to take the other side. Before the lines between market maker and speculator became blurred to indistinction, a market maker was one who was contractually obligated to an exchange to provide a bid and ask for a given security on said exchange even though at heart a market maker is still simply a trader despite the obligation. A market maker would simultaneously buy a large amount of securities privately and short the same amount to have no directional bias, exposure to the direction of the security, and commence to making the market. The market maker would estimate its cost basis for the security based upon those initial trades and provide a bid and ask appropriate for the given level of volume. If volumes were high, the spread would be low and vice versa. Market makers who survived crashes and spikes would forgo the potential profit in always providing a steady price and spread, ie increased volume otherwise known as revenue, to maintain no directional bias. In other words, if there were suddenly many buyers and no sellers, hitting the market maker's ask, the MM would raise the ask rapidly in proportion to the increased exposure while leaving the bid somewhere below the cost basis. Eventually, a seller would arise and hit the MM's bid, bringing the market maker's inventory back into balance, and narrowing the spread that particular MM could provide since a responsible MM's ask could rise very high very quickly if a lack of its volume relative to its inventory made inventory too costly. This was temporarily extremely costly to the trader if there were few market makers on the security the trader was trading or already exposed to. Market makers prefer to profit from the spread, bidding below some predetermined price, based upon the cost basis of the market maker's inventory, while asking above that same predetermined cost basis. Traders profit from taking exposure to a security's direction or lack thereof in the case of some options traders. Because of electronic trading, liquidity rebates offered by exchanges not only to contractually obligated official market makers but also to any trader who posts a limit order that another trader hits, and algorithms that become better by the day, market making HFTs have supplanted the traditional market maker, and there are many HFTs where there previously were few official market makers. This speed and diversification of risk across many many algorithmically market making HFTs have kept spreads to the minimum on large equities and have reduced the same for the smallest equities on major exchanges. Orders and quotes are essentially identical. Both are double sided auction markets with impermenant bids and asks. The difference lies in that non-market makers, specialists, etc. orders are not shown to the rest of the market, providing an informational advantage to MMs and an informational disadvantage to the trader. Before electronic trading, this construct was of no consequence since trader orders were infrequent. With the prevalence of HFTs, the informational disadvantage has become more costly, so order driven markets now prevail with much lower spreads and accelerated volumes even though market share for the major exchanges has dropped rapidly and hyperaccelerated number of trades even though the size of individual trades have fallen. The worst aspect of the quote driven market was that traders could not directly trade with each other, so all trades had to go between a market maker, specialist, etc. While this may seem to have increased cost to a trader who could only trade with another trader by being arbitraged by a MM et al, paying more than what another trader was willing to sell, these costs were dwarfed by the potential absence of those market makers. Without a bid or ask at any given time, there could be no trade, so the costs were momentarily infinite. In essence, a quote driven market protects market makers from the competition of traders. While necessary in the days where paper receipts were carted from brokerage to brokerage, and the trader did not dedicate itself to round the clock trading, it has no place in a computerized market. It is more costly to the trader to use such a market, explaining quote driven markets' rapid exit.",
"One broker told me that I have to simply read the ask size and the bid size, seeing what the market makers are offering. This implies that my order would have to match that price exactly, which is unfortunate because options contract spreads can be WIDE. Also, if my planned position size is larger than the best bid/best ask, then I should break up the order, which is also unfortunate because most brokers charge a lot for options orders.",
"Sounds to me like you're describing just how it should work. Ask is at 30, Bid is at 20; you offer a new bid at 25. Either: Depending on liquidity, one or the other may be more likely. This Investorplace article on the subject describes what you're seeing, and recommends the strategy you're describing precisely. Instead of a market order, take advantage of the fact that the options world truly is a marketplace — one where you can possibly get a better price just by asking. How does that work? If you use a limit order (instead of a market order) when opening a position, you can tell your broker how much you are willing to pay to enter a trade. For example, if you enter a limit price of $1.15, you can see whether the market-maker will bite. You will be surprised at how many times you will get your price (i.e., $1.15) instead of the ask price of $1.30. If your order at $1.15 is not filled after a few minutes, you can modify your order and pay the ask price by entering a market order or limit order at the ask price (that is, you can tell your broker to pay no more than $1.30).",
"When there is a difference between the two ... no trading occurs. Let's look at an example: Investor A, B, C, and D all buy/sell shares of company X. Investor A wants to sell 10 shares at $20 a share (Ask price $20 x10). Investor B wants to buy 15 shares at $10 a share (Bid price $10 x15). Since the bid price and ask price are different, no sale is made. Next Investor C comes along and wants to sell 5 shares at $14 (Ask price $14 x5). Still no sale. Investor D comes along and wants to buy 5 shares for $14 each. So a sale is finally made. At this point, the stock quote moves to $14. The ask price is $20 x10 and the bid price is $10 x15. No further trading will occur until another investor is willing to buy at $20 or sell at $10. Another discussion of this topic is shown on this post.",
"\"Both prices are quotes on a single share of stock. The bid price is what buyers are willing to pay for it. The ask price is what sellers are willing to take for it. If you are selling a stock, you are going to get the bid price, if you are buying a stock you are going to get the ask price. The difference (or \"\"spread\"\") goes to the broker/specialist that handles the transaction.\"",
"Theoretically, it's a question of rate of return. If a desired or acceptable rate of return for market makers' capital is X, and X is determined by the product of margin & turnover then higher turnover means lower margin for a constant X. Margin, in the case of trading, is the bid/ask spread, and turnover, in the case of trading, is volume. Empirically, it has been noted in the last markets still offering such wide-varying evidence, equity options: http://faculty.baruch.cuny.edu/lwu/890/mayhew_jf2002.pdf",
"If you are looking to go long (buy) you would use bid prices as this is what you will be matched against for your order to be executed and a trade to go through. If you are looking to go short (sell) you would use the ask prices as this is what you will be matched against for your order to be executed and a trade go through. In your analysis you could use either this convention or the midpoint of the two prices. As FX is very liquid the bid and ask prices would be quite close to each other, so the easiest way to do your analysis is to use the convention I listed above.",
"You don't see Buying and Selling. You see Bid and Ask. Best Bid--Highest Price someone is willing to pay to buy a stock. Best Ask - Lowest price someone is willing to accept to sell a stock. As for your second question, if you can look up Accumulation/Distribution Algorithm and Iceberg Order, you will get basic idea.",
"The role of the market maker is to make sure there is a bid and ask on a particular stock. That's it. The market maker ensures that there is a price at which you can buy and a price at which you can sell immediately, but these are not necessarily the best prices. The majority of trades do not involve market makers and occur between two third parties. Whoever said a market order trades with the market maker is thinking of the way stock markets were years ago, not the way they are now. Market orders are supposed to execute immediately and at one time trading with the market makers was the method for executing immediately. If you issue a market order today, it executes with the best available limit order(s) on the other wide of the trade. This may or may not involve a party that identifies as a market maker.",
"It depends on the sequence in which the order [bid and ask] were placed. Please read the below question to understand how the order are matched. How do exchanges match limit orders?",
"When a stock is ask for 15.2 and bid for 14.5, and the last market price was 14.5, what does it mean? It means that the seller wants to sell for a higher price than the last sale while the buyer does not want to buy for more than the last sale price. Or what if the last price is 15.2? The seller is offering to sell for the last sale price, but the buyer wants to buy for less.",
"In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.",
"I frequently do this on NADEX, selling out-of-the-money binary calls. NADEX is highly illiquid, and the bid/ask is almost always from the market maker. Out-of-the-money binary calls lose value quickly (NADEX daily options exist for only ~21 hours). If I place an above-ask order, it either gets filled quickly (within a few minutes) due to a spike in the underlying, or not at all. I compensate by changing my price hourly. As Joe notes, one of Black-Scholes inputs is volatility, but price determines (implied) volatility, so this is circular. In other words, you can treat the bid/ask prices as bid/ask volatilities. This isn't as far-fetched as it seems: http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/fx/volatility-quoting-fx-options.html",
"\"First, as @littleadv mentions, and as I've pointed out before, anyone who participates in a market using limit orders (which, by the way, should be every non-professional investor) is by definition a market maker. So, I will assume that your question pertains both to official market makers and to \"\"retail investors\"\" using limit orders. When you remark that there are such \"\"tight spreads\"\" in \"\"liquid assets\"\", what you are really saying is \"\"wow, look at all the market makers in these products!\"\" That's the benefit of electronic trading and algorithmic traders -- millions of participants each with their own opinion of the value of a financial instrument, trying to find people who have very specifically opposing opinions of the value of that same instrument. This is called price discovery, and is the entire point of financial markets. So, you ask why are there all these market makers present to create such tight spreads in assets like SPY? Answer: Because they can make money in these markets: Imagine (towards a contradiction) that market makers thought they couldn't make money by offering tight spreads in SPY, and so SPY had a wider spread than it actually does. For example, say the highest bid for SPY was $99.98 and the lowest ask was $100.01. Now imagine that a market maker with perfect knowledge of the future came along knowing that he would be able to sell SPY for $100.01 in 5 minutes. Then he would load up as many buy orders as he could for $100.00 or lower. (He wouldn't bid $100.01 or higher because those trades would not be profitable according to his information -- at least not 5 minutes from now.) So the spread had previously been $0.03 and then suddenly it was $0.01, all because a market maker with better information came along and realized he could make money by creating a tighter market! Now, nobody has perfect knowledge of the future, which is why markets are never infinitely tight or infinitely liquid. Each market maker has to weigh possible profits against the probability that those profits will actually turn into losses. But if one market maker decides not to participate in a particular instrument, there's bound to be another market maker who will happily take his place. So the very fact that there are so many market participants with resting buy/sell orders for SPY right now is proof that there are market makers able to make money doing so. If they could not make money, they wouldn't be there, and the spread would be wider. 10-15 years ago, before electronic trading and algorithmic trading, the number of market participants was far lower, and the spreads were far wider, meaning retail investors like you and me had a much harder time making money. The only people making money were the institutional investors, the brokers, and the exchanges. Now that all these new millions of players are present in the market, retail investors like you and me get to participate and make money too.\"",
"It this a real situation or is it a made up example? Because for a stock that has a last traded priced of $5 or $6 and volume traded over $4M (i.e. it seems to be quite liquid), it is hardly likely that the difference from bid to ask would be as large as $1 (maybe for a stock that has volume of 4 to 5 thousand, but not for one having volume of 4 to 5 million). In regards to your question, if you were short selling the order would go in exactly the same as if you were selling a stock you owned. So your order would be on the ask side and would need to be matched up with a price on the bid side for there to be a trade.",
"\"A \"\"market maker\"\" is someone that is contractually bound, by the exchange, to provide both bid and ask prices for a given volume (e.g. 5000 shares). A single market maker usually covers many stocks, and a single stock is usually covered by many market makers. The NYSE has \"\"specialists\"\" that are market makers that also performed a few other roles in the management of trading for a stock, and usually a single issue on the NYSE is covered by only one market maker. Market makers are often middlemen between brokers (ignoring stuff like dark pools, and the fact that brokers will often trade stocks internally among their own clients before going to the exchange). Historically, the market makers gave up buy/sell discretion in exchange for being the \"\"go-to guys\"\" for anyone wanting to trade in that stock. When you told your broker to buy a stock for you, he didn't hook you up with another retail investor; he went to the market maker. Market makers would also sometimes find investors willing to step in when more liquidity was needed for a security. They were like other floor traders; they hung out on the exchange floors and interacted with traders to buy and sell stocks. Traders came to them when they wanted to buy one of the specialist's issues. There was no public order book; just ticker tape and a quote. It was up to the market maker to maintain that order book. Since they are effectively forbidden from being one-sided traders in a security, their profit comes from the bid-ask spread. Being the counter-party to almost every trade, they'd make profit from always selling above where they were buying. (Except when the price moved quickly -- the downside to this arrangement.) \"\"The spread goes to the market maker\"\" is just stating that the profit implicit in the spread gets consumed by the market maker. With the switch to ECNs, the role of the market maker has changed. For example, ForEx trading firms tend to act as market makers to their customers. On ECNs, the invisible, anonymous guy at the other end of most trades is often a market maker, still performing his traditional role. Yet brokers can interact directly with each other now, rather than relying on the market maker's book. With modern online investing and public order books, retail investors might even be trading directly with each other. Market makers are still out there; in part, they perform a service sold by an Exchange to the companies that choose to be listed on that exchange. That service has changed to helping tamp volatility during normal high-volatility periods (such as at open and close).\"",
"The same as when you are buying a car. If a dealer quotes 10k and you quote 8k. 8k is the buy price and 10k is the sell price. Somebody might quote 8.5k and another dealer might quote 9.5k. The the new price that you see on your screen is 8.5k(Best buy price) and 9.5k(Best sell price). When the buyer and seller agree to an amount, the car(In your case stock) is traded.",
"\"I think for this a picture is worth a thousand words. This is a \"\"depth chart\"\" that I pulled from google images, specifically because it doesn't name any security. On the left you have all of the \"\"bids\"\" to buy this security, on the right you have the \"\"asks\"\" to sell the security. In the middle you have the bid/ask spread, this is the space between the highest bid and the lowest ask. As you can see you are free to place you order to the market to buy for 232, and someone else is free to place their order to the market to sell for 234. When the bid and the ask match there's a transaction for the maximum number of available shares. Alternatively, someone can place a market order to buy or sell and they'll just take the current market price. Retail investors don't really get access to this kind of chart from their brokers because for the most part the information isn't terribly relevant at the retail level.\"",
"When you place a bid between the bid/ask spread, that means you are raising the bid (or lowering the ask, if you are selling). The NBBO (national best bid and offer) is now changed because of your action, and yes, certain kinds of orders may be set to react to that (a higher bid or lower ask triggering them), also many algorithms (that haven't already queued an order simply waiting for a trigger, like in a stop limit) read the bid and ask and are programmed to then place an order at that point.",
"\"The current stock price you're referring to is actually the price of the last trade. It is a historical price – but during market hours, that's usually mere seconds ago for very liquid stocks. Whereas, the bid and ask are the best potential prices that buyers and sellers are willing to transact at: the bid for the buying side, and the ask for the selling side. But, think of the bid and ask prices you see as \"\"tip of the iceberg\"\" prices. That is: The \"\"Bid: 13.20 x200\"\" is an indication that there are potential buyers bidding $13.20 for up to 200 shares. Their bids are the highest currently bid; and there are others in line behind with lower bid prices. So the \"\"bid\"\" you're seeing is actually the best bid price at that moment. If you entered a \"\"market\"\" order to sell more than 200 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a lower price. The \"\"Ask: 13.27 x1,000\"\" is an indication that there are potential sellers asking $13.27 for up to 1000 shares. Their ask prices are the lowest currently asked; and there are others in line behind with higher ask prices. So the \"\"ask\"\" you're seeing is the best asking price at that moment. If you entered a \"\"market\"\" order to buy more than 1000 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a higher price. A transaction takes place when either a potential buyer is willing to pay the asking price, or a potential seller is willing to accept the bid price, or else they meet in the middle if both buyers and sellers change their orders. Note: There are primarily two kinds of stock exchanges. The one I just described is a typical order-driven matched bargain market, and perhaps the kind you're referring to. The other kind is a quote-driven over-the-counter market where there is a market-maker, as JohnFx already mentioned. In those cases, the spread between the bid & ask goes to the market maker as compensation for making a market in a stock. For a liquid stock that is easy for the market maker to turn around and buy/sell to somebody else, the spread is small (narrow). For illiquid stocks that are harder to deal in, the spread is larger (wide) to compensate the market-maker having to potentially carry the stock in inventory for some period of time, during which there's a risk to him if it moves in the wrong direction. Finally ... if you wanted to buy 1000 shares, you could enter a market order, in which case as described above you'll pay $13.27. If you wanted to buy your shares at no more than $13.22 instead, i.e. the so-called \"\"current\"\" price, then you would enter a limit order for 1000 shares at $13.22. And more to the point, your order would become the new highest-bid price (until somebody else accepts your bid for their shares.) Of course, there's no guarantee that with a limit order that you will get filled; your order could expire at the end of the day if nobody accepts your bid.\"",
"\"People in this case, are large institutional investors. The \"\"bid ask\"\" spread is for \"\"small traders\"\" like yourself. It is put out by the so-called specialists (or \"\"market makers\"\") and is typically good for hundreds or thousands of shares at a time. Normally, 2 points on a 50 stock is a wide spread, and the market maker will make quite a bit of money on it trading with people like yourself. It's different if a large institution, say Fidelity, wants to sell, say 1 million shares of the stock. Depending on market conditions, it may have trouble finding buyers willing to buy in those amounts anywhere near 50. To \"\"move\"\" such a large block of stock, they may have to put the equivalent of K-Mart's old \"\"Blue Light Special\"\" on, several points below.\"",
"A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.",
"In general stock markets are very similar to that, however, you can also put in limit orders to say that you will only buy or sell at a given price. These sit in the market for a specified length of time and will be executed when an order arrives that matches the price (or better). Traders who set limit orders are called liquidity (or price) makers as they provide liquidity (i.e. volume to be traded) to be filled later. If there is no counterparty (i.e. buyer to your seller) in the market, a market maker; a large bank or brokerage who is licensed and regulated to do so, will fill your order at some price. That price is based on how much volume (i.e. trading) there is in that stock on average. This is called average daily volume (ADV) and is calculated over varying periods of time; we use ADV30 which is the 30 day average. You can always sell stocks for whatever price you like privately but a market order does not allow you to set your price (you are a price taker) therefore that kind of order will always fill at a market price. As mentioned above limit orders will not fill until the price is hit but will stay on book as long as they aren't filled, expired or cancelled.",
"Traditionally, dealers and broker-dealers were in contact with the actual producers of a product or issuers of a security, selling it at the exchange on their behalf. Consumers would traditionally be on the buy side, of course. These days, anyone can enter the market on either side. Even if you don't hold the security or product, you could sell it, and take on the risk of having to stock up on it by the delivery date in exchange for cash or other securities. On the other side, if you can't hold the product or security you could still buy it, taking on the risk of having to dispose of it somehow by delivery in exchange for cash or other securities. In either case you (the sell-side) take on risk and provide products/securities/cash. This is most commonly known as market making. Modern literature coins the terms liquidity taker (buy-side) and liquidity provider (sell-side). Even more accurately, risk management literature would use the terms risk-taker (sell-side) and risk spreader or risk reducer (buy side). This is quite illustrative in modern abstract markets. Take a market that allows for no offsetting or hedging because the product in question is abstract or theoretical, e.g. weather trading, volatility trading, inflation trading, etc. There's always one party trying to eliminate dependence on or correlation to the product (the risk reducer, buy-side) and the counterparty taking on their risk (sell-side).",
"This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.",
"I think you're over complicating it! There is the market maker in the pure sense as what chilldontkill said - a bookie, a middleman. They are just the brokers in between the buyers and sellers, and they simply make profit off of the spread differential. But market maker is also used to refer to large, high volume buyers and sellers that can influence the price because they control a larger % of volume. These only really exist on low volume products, and they slowly ween out the larger the volume. On higher volume products, I like to refer to them as institutions - that is, well informed, large pockets - whether is be central banks, clearing houses, hedge funds, boutique firms. These are the people who are generally in the know and they often bet against eachother.hope this helps ...",
"\"Re: A trader when buying needs to buy at the ask price and when selling needs to sell at the bid price. So how can a trade happen 'in between' the bid and ask? Saying the trade can happen \"\"in between\"\" the bid & ask is simplistic. There is a time dimension to the market. It's more accurate to say that an order can be placed \"\"in between\"\" the current best bid & ask (observed at time T=0), thus establishing a new level for one or the other of those quoted prices (observed at time T>0). If you enter a market order to buy (or sell), then yes, you'll generally be accepting the current best ask (or best bid) with your order, because that's what a market order says to do: Accept the current best market price being offered for your kind of transaction. Of course, prices may move much faster than your observation of the price and the time it takes to process your order – you're far from being the only participant. Market orders aside, you are free to name your own price above or below the current best bid & ask, respectively. ... then one could say that you are placing an order \"\"in between\"\" the bid and ask at the time your order is placed. However – and this is key – you are also moving one or the other of those quoted prices in the process of placing your above-bid buy order or your below-ask sell order. Then, only if somebody else in the market chooses to accept your new ask (or bid) does your intended transaction take place. And that transaction takes place at the new ask (or bid) price, not the old one that was current when you entered your order. Read more about bid & ask prices at this other question: (p.s. FWIW, I don't necessarily agree with the assertion from the article you quoted, i.e.: \"\"By looking for trades that take place in between the bid and ask, you can tell when a strong trend is about to come to an end.\"\" I would say: Maybe, perhaps, but maybe not.)\"",
"\"I mean, it's only a difference of an order of magnitude, really. Until you consider the following: 1) Only a fraction of the $800B Muni bonds market is new issue. 2) True spreads on Muni bonds are hard enough to calculate as is because they're all OTC. 3)The author quotes that the particular bid was for an 87K/year return on a notional of $300M. That's a spread of a whopping 3 basis points that the bank took extra over \"\"true value\"\". 4) Intraday vol for almost any financial instrument is more than 3 basis points. 5) So that's what he's making this big deal over? THREE basis points? I don't even know the length of my penis to within three basis points, and I challenge you to find anyone who could name the yield on the 10Y Treasury within 3 basis points.\"",
"Actually the insertion part is interesting because they actually aren't middlemen just faster buyer's and sellers on the open market. They just buy what one person is selling and sell it to someone else who is at the same time looking to buy. So I guess the issue is the 'same time' isn't the same for all parties concerned. On the other hand both buyer and seller can set limits on the bounds of the price and only transact when someone meets their terms. If you are willing to accept 'whatever the market will bear' then it seems like you should be OK with getting it.",
"\"Yes we lose some client business to algos - specifically the DMA (direct market access) side of things. I haven't seen much HFT impact on what I do. I see the movement towards algos/automated trading and DMA over the next 5-10 years, and block traders like me going extinct eventually. But this all assumes liquidity, which is not there in the product I trade. So you still need a dealer who knows where the blocks \"\"live\"\". You want to buy 5% of that issue? okay good-luck trying to do that in the market. No algo will help you do that without moving the market against you.\"",
"\"Assuming that no one else has hit the ask, and the asks are still there, yes, you will fill $54.55 as long as you didn't exhaust that ask. Actually, there is no \"\"current price at which the stock is exchanging hands\"\"; in reality, it is \"\"the last price traded\"\". The somebody who negotiated prices between buyers & sellers is the exchange through their handling of bids & asks. The real negotiation comes between bids & asks, and if they meet or cross, a trade occurs. It's not that both bid & ask should be $54.55, it's that they were. To answer the title, the reasons why the bid and ask (even their midpoint) move away from the last price are largely unknown, but at least for the market makers, if their sell inventory is going away (people are buying heavily and they're running out of inventory) they will start to hike up their asks a lot and their bids a little because market makers try to stay market neutral, having no opinion on whether an asset will rise or fall, so with stocks, that means having a balanced inventory of longs & shorts. They want to (sometimes have to depending on the exchange) accommodate the buying pressure, but they don't want to lose money, so they simply raise the ask and then raise the bid as people hit their asks since their average cost basis has risen. In fact (yahoo finance is great about showing this), there's rarely 1 bid and 1 ask. Take a look at BAC's limit book: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ecn?s=BAC+Order+Book You can see that there are many bids and many asks. If one ask is exhausted, the next in line is now the highest. The market maker who just sold at X will certainly step over the highest bid to bid at X*0.9 to get an 11% return on investment.\"",
"The principle of demand-supply law will not work if spoofing (or layering, fake order) is implemented. However, spoofing stocks is an illegal criminal practice monitored by SEC. In stock market, aggressive buyer are willing to pay for a higher ask price pushing the price higher even if ask size is considerably larger than bid size, especially when high growth potential with time is expected. Larger bids may attract more buyers, further perpetuating a price increase (positive pile-on effect). Aggressive sellers are willing to accept a lower bid price pushing the price lower even if ask size is considerably smaller than bid size, when a negative situation is expected. Larger asks may attract more sellers, further perpetuating a price fall (negative pile-on effect). Moreover, seller and buyers considers not only price but also size of shares in their decision-making process, along with marker order and/or limit order. Unlike limit order, market order is not recorded in bid/ask size. Market order, but not limit order, immediately affects the price direction. Thus, ask/bid sizes alone do not give enough information on price direction. If stocks are being sold continuously at the bid price, this could be the beginning of a downward trend; if stocks are being sold continuously at the ask price, this could be the beginning of a upward trend. This is because ask price is always higher than bid price. In all the cases, both buyers and sellers hope to make a profit in a long-term and short-term view",
"It depends to some extent on how you interpret the situation, so I think this is the general idea. Say you purchase one share at $50, and soon after, the price moves up, say, to $55. You now have an unrealized profit of $5. Now, you can either sell and realize that profit, or hold on to the position, expecting a further price appreciation. In either case, you will consider the price change from this traded price, which is $55, and not the price you actually bought at. Hence, if the price fell to $52 in the next trade, you have a loss of $3 on your previous profit of $5. This (even though your net P&L is calculated from the initial purchase price of $50), allows you to think in terms of your positions at the latest known prices. This is similar to a Markov process, in the sense that it doesn't matter which route the stock price (and your position's P&L) took to get to the current point; your decision should be based on the current/latest price level.",
"Is the stock's price at any given moment the price at which all shares could be sold to new investors? No. For the simple fact that the current bid/offer always have sizes associated. What you should be looking at is the consolidated price to buy/sell X shares (10bn doesn't really work as not everyone is willing to sell/buy). If you look at the spread of the consolidated price at your quantity level, you'd notice it would be in stark contrast to the spread of the best bid/offer but (by definition) that would be the price to buy or sell X shares to new investors. Edit Calculation of the consolidated price of X shares: You go through the order book and calculate the size-weighted average price until you covered X. Example: So the consolidated price for 3000 shares would be $39.80, the consolidated price for 2000 shares would be $39.90.",
"There are usually so many different options around for the same stock that some are rarely traded. Especially if the price has moved since the option was issued, nobody might be interested in that particular option at that price anymore. So the asking price might be something that someone asked for ages ago and that is much higher than anyone would reasonably pay today. With a bid of $20 and an ask of $30, nobody is trading, but the value of that option is somewhere between $20 and $30. If the value is below $25, someone will notice your $25 bid and sell.",
"To add to @Victor 's answer; if you are entering a market order, and not a limit order (where you set the price you want to buy or sell at), then the Ask price is what you can expect to pay to purchase shares of stock in a long position and the Bid price is what you can expect to receive when you sell stock you own in a long position.",
"You seem to be confused - try answering these: 1. Whom do the traders work for? 2. What are the traders trading and how do they acquire those vehicles? 3. How does a company make money and how does that money get deployed? Google will be crucial for these, but will answer your questions. If you choose to get in finance, remember the golden rule: if you have a question, Google it first.",
"All day. We make markets are pretty much anything. We just don't price anything. If we can go in house that's what we'll do if not we'll go external. We so see decent flow, but nothing like capital markets sees. You guys hiring? :)",
"\"Mathematically it's arbitrary - you could just as easily use the bid or the midpoint as the denominator, so long as you're consistent when comparing securities. So there's not a fundamental reason to use the ask. The best argument I can come up with is that most analysis is done from the buy side, so looking at liquidity costs (meaning how much does the value drop instantaneously purely because of the bid-ask spread) when you buy a security would be more relevant by using the ask (purchase price) as the basis. Meaning, if a stock has a bid-ask range of $95-$100, if you buy the stock at $100 (the ask), you immediately \"\"lose\"\" 5% (5/100) of its value since you can only sell it for $95.\"",
"All the time. For high volume stocks, it may be tough to see exactly what's going on, e.g. the bid/ask may be moving faster than your connection to the broker can show you. What I've observed is with options. The volume on some options is measured in the 10's or 100's of contracts in a day. I'll see a case where it's $1.80/$2.00 bid/ask, and by offering $1.90 will often see a fill at that price. Since I may be the only trade on that option in the 15 minute period and note that the stock wasn't moving more than a penny during that time, I know that it was my order that managed to fill between the bid/ask.",
"\"I assume that mutual funds are being discussed here. As Bryce says, open-ended funds are bought from the mutual fund company and redeemed from the fund company. Except in very rare circumstances, they exist only as bits in the fund company's computers and not as share certificates (whether paper or electronic) that can be delivered from the selling broker to the buying broker on a stock exchange. Effectively, the fund company is the sole market maker: if you want to buy, ask the fund company at what price it will sell them to you (and it will tell you the answer only after 4 pm that day when a sale at that price is no longer possible unless you committed to buy, say, 100 shares and authorized the fund company to withdraw the correct amount from your bank account or other liquid asset after the price was known). Ditto if you want to sell: the mutual fund company will tell you what price it will give you only after 4 pm that day and you cannot sell at that price unless you had committed to accept whatever the company was going to give you for your shares (or had said \"\"Send me $1000 and sell as many shares of mine as are needed to give me proceeds of $1000 cash.\"\")\"",
"This question is impossible answer for all markets but there are 2 more possibilities in my experience:",
"No, it's not even remotely accurate in the current sense. Both markets have counterparties directly executing against one another, and both have auctions. The auction mechanics are different (with NYSE's Specialist/DMM model) but during normal market hours there isn't much difference.",
"\"For every buyer there is a seller. That rule refers to actual (historical) trades. It doesn't apply to \"\"wannabees.\"\" Suppose there are buyers for 2,000 shares and sellers for only 1,000 at a given price, P. Some of those buyers will raise their \"\"bid\"\" (the indication of the price they are willing to pay) above P so that the sellers of the 1000 shares will fill their orders first (\"\"sold to the highest bidder\"\"). The ones that don't do this will (probably) not get their orders filled. Suppose there are more sellers than buyers. Then some sellers will lower their \"\"offer\"\" price to attract buyers (and some sellers probably won't). At a low enough price, there will likely be a \"\"match\"\" between the total number of shares on sale, and shares on purchase orders.\"",
"At any point of time, buyer wants to purchase a stock at lesser price and seller wants to sell the stock at a higher price. Let's consider this scenario Company XYZ is trading at 100$, as stated above buyer wants to purchase at lower price and seller at higher price, this information will be available in Market depth, let's consider there are 5 buyers and 5 sellers, below are the details of their orders Buyers List Sellers List Highest order in buyers list will contain the bid price and bid quantity, Lowest order in Sellers list will contain the offer price and offer quantity. Now, if I want to buy 50 Stocks of company XYZ, need to place an order first, it can be either limit or Market. Limit Order : In this order, I will mention the price(buy price) at which I wish to buy, if there is any seller selling the stock less than or equal to price I have mentioned, then the order will be executed else it will be added to buyers list Market Order : In this order, I will not mention the price, if I wish to purchase 50 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 101. if I wish to purchase 200 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 2 transactions, since entire request cannot be accommodated in single order Usually the volume(Ask Volume and Offer Volume) being displayed are all Limit orders and not Market orders, Market orders are executed immediately. This is just an example, However several transactions are executed within a second, hence we will get to know the exact value only after the order is completed(executed)",
"Investopedia has a section in their article about currency trading that states: The FX market does not have commissions. Unlike exchange-based markets, FX is a principals-only market. FX firms are dealers, not brokers. This is a critical distinction that all investors must understand. Unlike brokers, dealers assume market risk by serving as a counterparty to the investor's trade. They do not charge commission; instead, they make their money through the bid-ask spread. Principals-only means that the only parties to a transaction are agents who actively bear risk by taking one side of the transaction. There are forex brokers who charge what's called a commission, based on the spread. Investopedia has another article about the commission structure in the forex market that states: There are three forms of commission used by brokers in forex. Some firms offer a fixed spread, others offer a variable spread and still others charge a commission based on a percentage of the spread. So yes, there are forex brokers who charge a commission, but this paragraph is saying mostly the same thing as the first paragraph. The brokers make their money through the bid-ask spread; how they do so varies, and sometimes they call this charge a commission, sometimes they don't. All of the information above differs from the stock markets, however, in which The broker takes the order to an exchange and attempts to execute it as per the customer's instructions. For providing this service, the broker is paid a commission when the customer buys and sells the tradable instrument. The broker isn't taking a side in the trade, so he's not making money on the spread. He's performing the service of taking the order to an exchange an attempting to execute it, and for that, he charges a commission.",
"\"In a sense, yes. There's a view in Yahoo Finance that looks like this For this particular stock, a market order for 3000 shares (not even $4000, this is a reasonably small figure) will move the stock past $1.34, more than a 3% move. Say, on the Ask side there are 100,000 shares, all with $10 ask. It would take a lot of orders to purchase all these shares, so for a while, the price may stay right at $10, or a bit lower if there are those willing to sell lower. But, say that side showed $10 1000, $10.25 500, $10.50 1000. Now, the volume is so low that if I decided I wanted shares at any price, my order, a market order will actually drive the market price right up to $10.50 if I buy 2500 shares \"\"market\"\". You see, however, even though I'm a small trader, I drove the price up. But now that the price is $10.50 when I go to sell all 2500 at $10.50, there are no bids to pay that much, so the price the next trade will occur at isn't known yet. There may be bids at $10, with asking (me) at $10.50. No trades will happen until a seller takes the $10 bid or other buyers and sellers come in.\"",
"\"At least for liquid markets, the downside of being a market maker is what we call \"\"negative selection\"\". Specifically, if you're both bid and offered in a market, trying to collect your spread, then as the market goes up, you'll tend to sell the whole way up, and vice versa. So if you're not smart about it, you can end up losing a lot of money. Being a good market maker, then, involves either being able to smarter about when to be aggressively bid and offered and when to pull back, or being able to hedge them quickly before they really hurt you. The first probably would require more sophisticated algorithms, while the second requires good speed and execution strategies.\"",
"As another answer started, this information comes straight from an exchange and generally costs a fortune . . . However things change: IEX, a new exchange, recently opened and they are offering real time bid/ask data for free. Here's the API description: https://www.iextrading.com/developer/ This data should be good for active securities, but for securities less actively traded the numbers might be stale.",
"\"The risk of market orders depends heavily on the size of the market and the exchange. On big exchange and a security which is traded in hue numbers you're likely that there are enough participants to give you a \"\"fair\"\" price. Doing a market order on a security which is hardly dealed you might make a bad deal. In Germany Tradegate Exchange and the sister company the bank Tradegate AG are known to play a bit dirty: Their market is open longer than Frankfurt (Xetra) and has way lower liquidity. So it can happen that not all sell or buy orders can be processes on the Exchange and open orders are kept. Then Tradegate AG steps in with a new offer to full-fill these trades selling high or buying low. There is a German article going in details on wiwo.de either German or via Google Translate\"",
"As others have stated, the current price is simply the last price at which the security traded. For any given tick, however, there are many bid-ask prices because securities can trade on multiple exchanges and between many agents on a single exchange. This is true for both types of exchanges that Chris mentioned in his answer. Chris' answer is pretty thorough in explaining how the two types of exchanges work, so I'll just add some minor details. In exchanges like NASDAQ, there are multiple market makers for most relatively liquid securities, which theoretically introduces competition between them and therefore lowers the bid-ask spreads that traders face. Although this results in the market makers earning less compensation for their risk, they hope to make up the difference by making the market for highly liquid securities. This could also result in your order filling, in pieces, at several different prices if your brokerage firm fills it through multiple market makers. Of course, if you place your order on an exchange where an electronic system fills it (the other type of exchange that Chris mentioned), this could happen anyway. In short, if you place a market order for 1000 shares, it could be filled at several different prices, depending on volume, multiple bid-ask prices, etc. If you place a sizable order, your broker may fill it in pieces regardless to prevent you from moving the market. This is rarely a problem for small-time investors trading securities with high volumes, but for investors with higher capital like institutional investors, mutual funds, etc. who place large orders relative to the average volume, this could conceivably be a burden, both in the price difference across time as the order is placed and the increased bookkeeping it demands. This is tangentially related, so I'll add it anyway. In cases like the one described above, all-or-none (AON) orders are one solution; these are orders that instruct the broker to only execute the order if it can be filled in a single transaction. Most brokers offer these, but there are some caveats that apply to them specifically. (I haven't been able to find some of this information, so some of this is from memory). All-or-none orders are only an option if the order is for more than a certain numbers of shares. I think the minimum size is 300 or 400 shares. Your order won't be placed until your broker places all other orders ahead of it that don't have special conditions attached to them. I believe all-or-none orders are day orders, which means that if there wasn't enough supply to fill the order during the day, the order is cancelled at market close. AON orders only apply to limit orders. If you want to replicate the behavior of a market order with AON characteristics, you can try setting a limit buy/sell order a few cents above/below the current market price.",
"\"Say we have stock XYZ that costs $50 this second. It doesn't cost XYZ this second. The market price only reflects the last price at which the security traded. It doesn't mean that if you'll get that price when you place an order. The price you get if/when your order is filled is determined by the bid/ask spreads. Why would people sell below the current price, and not within the range of the bid/ask? Someone may be willing to sell at an ask price of $47 simply because that's the best price they think they can sell the security for. Keep in mind that the \"\"someone\"\" may be a computer that determined that $47 is a reasonable ask price. Remember that bid/ask spreads aren't fixed, and there can be multiple bid/ask prices in a market at any given time. Your buy order was filled because at the time, someone else in the market was willing to sell you the security for the same price as your bid price. Your respective buy/sell orders were matched based on their price (and volume, conditional orders, etc). These questions may be helpful to you as well: Can someone explain a stock's \"\"bid\"\" vs. \"\"ask\"\" price relative to \"\"current\"\" price? Bids and asks in case of market order Can a trade happen \"\"in between\"\" the bid and ask price? Also, you say you're a day trader. If that's so, I strongly recommend getting a better grasp on the basics of market mechanics before committing any more capital. Trading without understanding how markets work at the most fundamental levels is a recipe for disaster.\"",
"Market price simply depends on your order side. If you are placing a buy order the market price is the lowest ask, if you are placing a sell order the market price is the highest bid. If your order is larger than the volume then you'd need to also consider the next lowest ask or next highest bid until you've fulfilled your order volume.",
"\"The price of the last trade... Is the price of the last trade. It indicates what one particular buyer and seller agreed upon. There is absolutely no requirement that one of them didn't offer too much or demand too little, so this is nearly meaningless as an indication of what anyone else will be willing to offer or demand. An average of trades across a sufficiently large number of transactions might indicate a rough consensus about the value of a stock, but transactions will be clustered around that average and the average itself moves over time. Either you offer to sell or buy at a particular price, wait for that price, and risk the transaction not taking place at all if nobody agrees, or you do a spot transaction and get the best price at that nanosecond (which may not be the best in the next nanosecond). Or you tell the broker what the limits are that you consider acceptable, trading these risks off against each other. Pick the one which comes closest to your intent and ignore the fact that others may be getting a slightly different price. That's just the way the market works. \"\"If his price is lower, why didn't you buy it there?\"\" \"\"He's out of stock.\"\" \"\"Well, come back when I'm out of stock and I'll be unable to sell it to you for an even better price!\"\"\"",
"No, Mark is right, if you place a market order there will always be someone to buy or sell at the market price. Only if you place a limit order on the price can it not sell or be bought. Just research on your computer and you will find your answer. You must be specify about open order or limit order when asking.",
"\"There are two distinct questions that may be of interest to you. Both questions are relevant for funds that need to buy or sell large orders that you are talking about. The answer depends on your order type and the current market state such as the level 2 order book. Suppose there are no iceberg or hidden orders and the order book (image courtesy of this question) currently is: An unlimited (\"\"at market\"\") buy order for 12,000 shares gets filled immediately: it gets 1,100 shares at 180.03 (1,100@180.03), 9,700 at 180.04 and 1,200 at 180.05. After this order, the lowest ask price becomes 180.05 and the highest bid is obviously still 180.02 (because the previous order was a 'market order'). A limited buy order for 12,000 shares with a price limit of 180.04 gets the first two fills just like the market order: 1,100 shares at 180.03 and 9,700 at 180.04. However, the remainder of the order will establish a new bid price level for 1,200 shares at 180.04. It is possible to enter an unlimited buy order that exhausts the book. However, such a trade would often be considered a mis-trade and either (i) be cancelled by the broker, (ii) be cancelled or undone by the exchange, or (iii) hit the maximum price move a stock is allowed per day (\"\"limit up\"\"). Funds and banks often have to buy or sell large quantities, just like you have described. However they usually do not punch through order book levels as I described before. Instead they would spread out the order over time and buy a smaller quantity several times throughout the day. Simple algorithms attempt to get a price close to the time-weighted average price (TWAP) or volume-weighted average price (VWAP) and would buy a smaller amount every N minutes. Despite splitting the order into smaller pieces the price usually moves against the trader for many reasons. There are many models to estimate the market impact of an order before executing it and many brokers have their own model, for example Deutsche Bank. There is considerable research on \"\"market impact\"\" if you are interested. I understand the general principal that when significant buy orders comes in relative to the sell orders price goes up and when a significant sell order comes in relative to buy orders it goes down. I consider this statement wrong or at least misleading. First, stocks can jump in price without or with very little volume. Consider a company that releases a negative earnings surprise over night. On the next day the stock may open 20% lower without any orders having matched for any price in between. The price moved because the perception of the stocks value changed, not because of buy or sell pressure. Second, buy and sell pressure have an effect on the price because of the underlying reason, and not necessarily/only because of the mechanics of the market. Assume you were prepared to sell HyperNanoTech stock, but suddenly there's a lot of buzz and your colleagues are talking about buying it. Would you still sell it for the same price? I wouldn't. I would try to find out how much they are prepared to buy it for. In other words, buy pressure can be the consequence of successful marketing of the stock and the marketing buzz is what changes the price.\"",
"There are two terms that are related, but separate here: Broker and Market Maker. The former is who goes and finds a buyer/seller to buy/sell shares from/to you. The latter (Market Maker) is a company which will agree to partner with you to complete the sale at a set price (typically the market price, often by definition as the market maker often is the one who determines the market price in a relatively low volumne listing). A market maker will have as you say a 'pool' of relatively common stock (and even relatively uncommon, up to a point) for this purpose. A broker can be a market maker (or work for one), also, in which case he would sell you directly the shares from the market maker reservoir. This may be a bad idea for you - the broker (while obligated to act in your interest, in theory) may push you towards stocks that the brokerage acts as a market maker for.",
"Thank you for replying. I'm not sure I totally follow though, aren't you totally at mercy of the liquidity in the stock? I guess I'm havinga hard time visualizing the value a human can add as opposed to say vwapping it or something. I can accept that you're right, just having a difficult time picturing it",
"You can*, if the market is open, in a normal trading phase (no auction phase), works, and there is an existing bid or offer on the product you want to trade, at the time the market learns of your order. Keep in mind there are 2 prices: bid and offer. If the current bid and current offer were the same, it would immediately result in a trade, and thus the bid and offer are no longer the same. Market Makers are paid / given lower fees in order to maintain buy and sell prices (called quotes) at most times. These conditions are usually all true, but commonly fail for these reasons: Most markets have an order type of market order that says buy/sell at any price. There are still sanity checks put in place on the price, with the exact rules for valid prices depending on the stock, so unless it's a penny stock you won't suddenly pay ten times a stock's value. *The amount you can buy sell is limited by the quantity that exists on the bid and offer. If there is a bid or offer, the quantity is always at least 1.",
"But what about the following scenario which is my paraphrasing of a Nanex article (I'm hoping you can help clarify this for me). 1. I observe a 1,000 lot @$10 advertised for Sell on a lit exchange. 2. I try to lift the 1,000 by placing a limit order @10. 3. My order goes through some kind of order routing process. First, 3 orders get executed on a dark pool. Let's say I got a 50 lot filled (so available offer reduces to 950). 4. My order hits a lit exchange. I get a partial fill for 100 (offer shrinks to 850); but the offered size shrinks instead to 500. Or 0. 5. Now, in order to execute my trade, I will have to take a higher price than the original advertised liquidity. My question (maybe you can answer this) is why did my original order size of 1,000 appear in smaller blocks? Is this because the order routing algorithm breaks up the size? Or is it that market makers only post offers in small block sizes (e.g. 100) So even if the order book looked like: 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 All the way to 1,000 total -- as soon as the first 100 shares were lifted, the MM can immediately cancel the remainder of the advertised liquidity -- in practical terms making it impossible to execute large orders at an advertised price.",
"\"This is a complicated subject, because professional traders don't rely on brokers for stock quotes. They have access to market data using Level II terminals, which show them all of the prices (buy and sell) for a given stock. Every publicly traded stock (at least in the U.S.) relies on firms called \"\"market makers\"\". Market makers are the ones who ultimately actually buy and sell the shares of companies, making their money on the difference between what they bought the stock at and what they can sell it for. Sometimes those margins can be in hundreds of a cent per share, but if you trade enough shares...well, it adds up. The most widely traded stocks (Apple, Microsoft, BP, etc) may have hundreds of market makers who are willing to handle share trades. Each market maker sets their own price on what they'll pay (the \"\"bid\"\") to buy someone's stock who wants to sell and what they'll sell (the \"\"ask\"\") that share for to someone who wants to buy it. When a market maker wants to be competitive, he may price his bid/ask pretty aggressively, because automated trading systems are designed to seek out the best bid/ask prices for their trade executions. As such, you might get a huge chunk of market makers in a popular stock to all set their prices almost identically to one another. Other market makers who aren't as enthusiastic will set less competitive prices, so they don't get much (maybe no) business. In any case, what you see when you pull up a stock quote is called the \"\"best bid/ask\"\" price. In other words, you're seeing the highest price a market maker will pay to buy that stock, and the lowest price that a market maker will sell that stock. You may get a best bid from one market maker and a best ask from a different one. In any case, consumers must be given best bid/ask prices. Market makers actually control the prices of shares. They can see what's out there in terms of what people want to buy or sell, and they modify their prices accordingly. If they see a bunch of sell orders coming into the system, they'll start dropping prices, and if people are in a buying mood then they'll raise prices. Market makers can actually ignore requests for trades (whether buy or sell) if they choose to, and sometimes they do, which is why a limit order (a request to buy/sell a stock at a specific price, regardless of its current actual price) that someone places may go unfilled and die at the end of the trading session. No market maker is willing to fill the order. Nowadays, these systems are largely automated, so they operate according to complex rules defined by their owners. Very few trades actually involve human intervention, because people can't digest the information at a fast enough pace to keep up with automated platforms. So that's the basics of how share prices work. I hope this answered your question without being too confusing! Good luck!\""
] |
[
"\"The Auction Market is where investors such you and me, as well as Market Makers, buy and sell securities. The Auction Markets operate with the familiar bid-ask pricing that you see on financial pages such as Google and Yahoo. The Market Makers are institutions that are there to provide liquidity so that investors can easily buy and sell shares at a \"\"fair\"\" price. Market Makers need to have on hand a suitable supply of shares to meet investor demands. When Market Makers feel the need to either increase or decrease their supply of a particular security quickly, they turn to the Dealer Market. In order to participate in a Dealer Market, you must be designated a Market Maker. As noted already, Market Makers are dedicated to providing liquidity for the Auction Market in certain securities and therefore require that they have on hand a suitable supply of those securities which they support. For example, if a Market Maker for Apple shares is low on their supply of Apple shares, then will go the Dealer Market to purchase more Apple shares. Conversely, if they are holding what they feel are too many Apple shares, they will go to the Dealer Market to sell Apple shares. The Dealer Market does operate on a bid-ask basis, contrary to your stated understanding. The bid-ask prices quoted on the Dealer Market are more or less identical to those on the Auction Market, except the quote sizes will be generally much larger. This is the case because otherwise, why would a Market Maker offer to sell shares to another Market Maker at a price well below what they could themselves sell them for in the Auction Market. (And similarly with buy orders.) If Market Makers are generally holding low quantities of a particular security, this will drive up the price in both the Dealer Market and the Auction Market. Similarly, if Market Makers are generally holding too much of a particular security, this may drive down prices on both the Auction Market and the Dealer Market.\"",
"\"Why would there not be a bid and ask? Dealers make their money in the spread between what they buy it from one entity for and what they sell it to another entity for. This doesn't mean they have to do it auction-style, but they'll still have a different buy price from a sell price, hence \"\"bid\"\" and \"\"ask\"\".\""
] |
853
|
What will my taxes be as self employed?
|
[
"260795",
"147080"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"569645",
"147080",
"136804",
"582864",
"211485",
"413694",
"450808",
"456788",
"349926",
"152298",
"156832",
"68486",
"247473",
"260795",
"487728",
"212786",
"252843",
"477476",
"585121",
"302049",
"446117",
"449116",
"85672",
"599876",
"599835",
"304479",
"459740",
"82628",
"249322",
"557603",
"223170",
"149516",
"360925",
"419015",
"90348",
"463881",
"584160",
"533808",
"406789",
"88477",
"125696",
"406561",
"536849",
"395726",
"449816",
"134494",
"1235",
"299579",
"89611",
"438801",
"308113",
"175951",
"15676",
"159162",
"137225",
"118615",
"68524",
"223042",
"208216",
"388713",
"281500",
"418630",
"436701",
"525053",
"496064",
"510409",
"165645",
"388704",
"272248",
"1011",
"87720",
"558832",
"562957",
"33287",
"208989",
"251564",
"397152",
"182989",
"257168",
"555732",
"175889",
"318110",
"549870",
"498834",
"18001",
"118603",
"491028",
"561273",
"81599",
"590775",
"72984",
"303078",
"595765",
"292769",
"445298",
"377547",
"107817",
"93638",
"18570",
"314342"
] |
[
"I agree with your strategy of using a conservative estimate to overpay taxes and get a refund next year. As a self-employed individual you are responsible for paying self-employment tax (which means paying Social Security and Medicare tax for yourself as both: employee and an employer.) Current Social Security Rate is 6.2% and Medicare is 1.45%, so your Self-employment tax is 15.3% (7.65%X2) Assuming you are single, your effective tax rate will be over 10% (portion of your income under $ 9,075), but less than 15% ($9,075-$36,900), so to adopt a conservative approach, let's use the 15% number. Given Self-employment and Federal Income tax rate estimates, very conservative approach, your estimated tax can be 30% (Self-employment tax plus income tax) Should you expect much higher compensation, you might move to the 25% tax bracket and adjust this amount to 40%.",
"The amount of the income taxes you will owe depends upon how much income you have, after valid business expenses, also it will depend upon your filing status as well as the ownership form of your business and what state you live in. That said, you will need to be sure to make the Federal 1040ES quarterly prepayments of your tax on time or there will be penalties. You also must remember that you will be needing to file a schedule SE with your 1040. That is for the social security taxes you owe, which is in addition to your income taxes. With an employer/employee situation, the FICA withhoding you have seen on your paycheck are matched by the same payment by your employer. Now that you are self-employed you are responcible for your share and the employer share as well; in this situation it is known as self-employment tax. the amount of it will be the same as your share of FICA and half of the employer's share of FICA taxes. If you are married and your wife also is working self-employed, then she will have to files herown schedule SE along with yours. meaning that you will pay based on your business income and she will pay baed on hers. your 1040Es quarterly prepayment must cover your income tax and your combined (yours and hers) Self Employment taxes. Many people will debate on the final results of the results of schedule SE vrs an employee's and an employer's payments combined. If one were to provides a ball park percentage that would likely apply to you final total addition to your tax libility as a result of needing schedule SE would tend to fluctuate depending upon your total tax situation; many would debate it. It has been this way since, I first studied and use this schedule decades ago. For this reason it is best for you to review these PDF documents, Form 1040 Schedule SE Instructions and Form 1040 Schedule SE. As for your state income taxes, it will depend on the laws of the state you are based in.",
"Technically you owe 'self-employment' taxes not FICA taxes because they are imposed under a different law, SECA. However, since SE taxes are by design exactly the same rates as combining the two halves of FICA (employer and employee) it is quite reasonable to treat them as equivalent. SE taxes (and income tax also) are based on your net self-employment income, after deducting business expenses (but not non-business items like your home mortgage, dependent exemptions, etc which factor only into income tax). You owe SE Medicare tax 2.9% on all your SE net income (unless it is under $400) adjusted down by 7.65% to compensate for the fact that the employer half of FICA is excluded from gross income before the employee half is computed. You owe SE Social Security tax 12.4% on your adjusted SE net income unless and until the total income subject to FICA+SECA, i.e. your W-2 wages plus your adjusted SE net income, exceeds a cap that varies with inflation and is $127,200 for 2017. OTOH if FICA+SECA income exceeds $200k single or $250k joint you owe Additional Medicare tax 0.9% on the excess; if your W-2 income (alone) exceeds this limit your employer should withhold for it. However the Additional Medicare tax is part of 'Obamacare' (PPACA) which the new President and Republican majorities have said they will 'repeal and replace'; whether any such replacement will affect this for TY 2017 is at best uncertain at this point. Yes SE taxes are added to income tax on your 1040 with schedule SE attached (and schedule C/CEZ, E, F as applicable to your business) (virtually so if you file electronically) and paid together. You are supposed to pay at least 90% during the year by having withholding increased on your W-2 job, or by making 'quarterly' estimated payments (IRS quarters are not exactly quarters, but close), or any combination. But if this is your first year (which you don't say, but someone who had gone through this before probably wouldn't ask) you may get away with not paying during the year as normally required; specifically, if your W-2 withholding is not enough to cover your increased taxes for this year (because of the additional income and SE taxes) but it is enough to cover your tax for the previous year and your AGI that year wasn't over $150k, then there is a 'safe harbor' and you won't owe any form-2210 penalty -- although you must keep enough money on hand to pay the tax by April 15. But for your second year and onwards, your previous year now includes SE amounts and this doesn't help. Similar/related:",
"\"There are a couple of things that are missing from your estimate. In addition to your standard deduction, you also have a personal exemption of $4050. So \"\"D\"\" in your calculation should be $6300 + $4050 = $10,350. As a self-employed individual, you need to pay both the employee and employer side of the Social Security and Medicare taxes. Instead of 6.2% + 1.45%, you need to pay (6.2% + 1.45%) * 2 = 15.3% self-employment tax. In addition, there are some problems with your calculation. Q1i (Quarter 1 estimated income) should be your adjusted annual income divided by 4, not 3 (A/4). Likewise, you should estimate your quarterly tax by estimating your income for the whole year, then dividing by 4. So Aft (Annual estimated federal tax) should be: Quarterly estimated federal tax would be: Qft = Aft / 4 Annual estimated self-employment tax is: Ase = 15.3% * A with the quarterly self-employment tax being one-fourth of that: Qse = Ase / 4 Self employment tax gets added on to your federal income tax. So when you send in your quarterly payment using Form 1040-ES, you should send in Qft + Qse. The Form 1040-ES instructions (PDF) comes with the \"\"2016 Estimated Tax Worksheet\"\" that walks you through these calculations.\"",
"\"Being self-employed, your \"\"profit\"\" is calculated as all the bills you send out, minus all business-related cost that you have (you will need a receipt for everything, and there are different rules for things that last for long time, long tools, machinery). You can file your taxes yourself - the HRS website will tell you how to, and you can do it online. It's close to the same as your normal online tax return. Only thing is that you must keep receipts for all the cost that you claim. Your tax: Assuming your gross salary is £25,000 and your profits are about £10,000, you will be paying 8% for national insurance, and 20% income tax. If you go above £43,000 or thereabouts, you pay 40% income tax on any income above that threshold, instead of 20%, but your national insurance payments stop.\"",
"\"The \"\"hire a pro\"\" is quite correct, if you are truly making this kind of money. That said, I believe in a certain amount of self-education so you don't follow a pro's advice blindly. First, I wrote an article that discussed Marginal Tax Rates, and it's worth understanding. It simply means that as your income rises past certain thresholds, the tax rate also will change a bit. You are on track to be in the top rate, 33%. Next, Solo 401(k). You didn't ask about retirement accounts, but the combined situations of making this sum of money and just setting it aside, leads me to suggest this. Since you are both employer and employee, the Solo 401(k) limit is a combined $66,500. Seems like a lot, but if you are really on track to make $500K this year, that's just over 10% saved. Then, whatever the pro recommends for your status, you'll still have some kind of Social Security obligation, as both employer and employee, so that's another 15% or so for the first $110K. Last, some of the answers seemed to imply that you'll settle in April. Not quite. You are required to pay your tax through the year and if you wait until April to pay the tax along with your return, you will have a very unpleasant tax bill. (I mean it will have penalties for underpayment through the year.) This is to be avoided. I offer this because often a pro will have a specialty and not go outside that focus. It's possible to find the guy that knows everything about setting you up as an LLC or Sole Proprietorship, yet doesn't have the 401(k) conversation. Good luck, please let us know here how the Pro discussion goes for you.\"",
"\"One way to do these sorts of calculations is to use the spreadsheet version of IRS form 1040 available here. This is provided by a private individual and is not an official IRS tool, but in practice it is usually accurate enough for these purposes. You may have to spend some time figuring out where to enter the info. However, if you enter your self-employment income on Schedule C, this spreadsheet will calculate the self-employment tax as well as the income tax. An advantage is that it is the full 1040, so you can also select the standard deduction and the number of exemptions you are entitled to, enter ordinary W-2 income, even capital gains, etc. Of course you can also make use of other tax software to do this, but in my experience the \"\"Excel 1040\"\" is more convenient, as most websites and tax-prep software tend to be structured in a linear fashion and are more cumbersome to update in an ad-hoc way for purposes like tax estimation. You can do whatever works for you, but I would recommend taking a look at the Excel 1040. It is a surprisingly useful tool.\"",
"You will most likely pay around 30%, between standard income tax and payroll taxes. That is a good place to start. If you live in a state/city with income taxes, add that to the mix.",
"If it's just you working, I'd use a ballpark figure of 35% owed - it may be a little high or low, but it's a safe margin to keep set aside for paying your liabilities at the end of the year.",
"As a CPA I can say, without a doubt, you do not owe any federal income tax. However, assuming all of you income was from your business and therefore subject to self-employment tax and you had no healthcare coverage, you would owe: $2,523 in Self-Employment Tax 645 in Healthcare Penalty $3,168 Total Amount You Should Owe. Assuming you have given us the right numbers, $3,300 sounds too high.",
"\"Your question does not say this explicitly, but I assume that you were once a W-2 employee. Each paycheck a certain amount was withheld from your check to pay income, social security, and medicare taxes. Just because you did not receive that amount of money earned does not mean it was immediately sent to the IRS. While I am not all that savvy on payroll procedures, I recall an article that indicated some companies only send in withheld taxes every quarter, much like you are doing now. They get a short term interest free loan. For example taxes withheld by a w-2 employee in the later months of the year may not be provided to the IRS until 15 January of the next year. You are correct in assuming that if you make 100K as a W-2 you will probably pay less in taxes than someone who is 100K self employed with 5K in expenses. However there are many factors. Provided you properly fill out a 1040ES, and pay the correct amount of quarterly payments, you will almost never owe taxes. In fact my experience has been the forms will probably allow you to receive a refund. Tax laws can change and one thing the form did not include last year was the .9% Medicare surcharge for high income earners catching some by surprise. As far as what you pay into is indicative of the games the politicians play. It all just goes into a big old bucket of money, and more is spent by congress than what is in the bucket. The notion of a \"\"social security lockbox\"\" is pure politics/fantasy as well as the notion of medicare and social security taxes. The latter were created to make the actual income tax rate more palatable. I'd recommend getting your taxes done as early as possible come 1 January 2017. While you may not have all the needed info, you could firm up an estimate by 15 Jan and modify the amount for your last estimated payment. Complete the taxes when all stuff comes in and even if you owe an amount you have time to save for anything additional. Keep in mind, between 1 Jan 17 and 15 Apr 17 you will earn and presumably save money to use towards taxes. You can always \"\"rob\"\" from that money to pay any owed tax for 2016 and make it up later. All that is to say you will be golden because you are showing concern and planning. When you hear horror stories of IRS dealings it is most often that people spent the money that should have been sent to the IRS.\"",
"Congratulations on starting your own business. Invest in a tax software package right away; I can't recommend a specific one but there is enough information out there to point you in the right direction: share with us which one you ended up using and why (maybe a separate question?) You do need to make your FICA taxes but you can write off the SE part of it. Keep all your filings as a PDF, a printout and a softcopy in the native format of the tax software package: it really helps the next tax season. When you begin your business, most of the expenses are going to be straightforward (it was for me) and while I had the option of doing it by hand, I used software to do it myself. At the beginning, it might actually seem harder to use the tax software package, but it will pay off in the end. Build relationships with a few tax advisors and attorneys: you will need to buy liability insurance soon if you are in any kind of serious (non hobby) business and accounting for these are no trivial tasks. If you have not filed yet, I recommend you do this: File an extension, overpay your estimated taxes (you can always collect a refund later) and file your return once you have had a CPA look over it. Do not skimp on a CPA: it's just the cost of running your business and you don't want to waste your time reading the IRS manuals when you could be growing your own business. Best of luck and come back to tell us what you did!",
"I can only address this part of it: For instance with a 10k net income, 9293 is the limit for 401k from employee. How is this calculated? I believe this limit is total for all sources too, which I'm confused about. How it's calculated is that when you are self-employed you also pay the employer portion of the FICA taxes. This comes off above the line and is not considered income. The 401k contribution limit takes this into account.",
"Whether you're self-employed or not, knowing exactly how much tax you will pay is not always an easy task. Various actions you can take (e.g., charitable donations, IRA contributions, selling stocks) may increase or reduce your tax liability. One tool I've found useful for estimating federal taxes is the Excel 1040 spreadsheet. This is a spreadsheet version of the income tax return form. It is not official and is not created by the IRS, but is maintained as a labor of love by a private individual. In practice, however, it is pretty much an accurate implementation of the tax calculation algorithms encoded in the tax forms and instructions. The nice thing about it is that it's a spreadsheet. You can plug numbers into various slots in the spreadsheet and see how they affect your federal tax liability. (You may also owe state taxes depending on what state you live in.) Of course, the estimates you get by doing this are only (at most) as accurate as your estimates of the various numbers you plug in. Still, I think it's a free and useful way to get a ballpark estimate of your tax liability based on numbers that you can more easily estimate (e.g., how much money you expect to earn).",
"I strongly recommend that you talk to an accountant right away because you could save some money by making a tax payment by January 15, 2014. You will receive Forms 1099-MISC from the various entities with whom you are doing business as a contractor detailing how much money they paid you. A copy will go to the IRS also. You file a Schedule C with your Form 1040 in which you detail how much you received on the 1099-MISC forms as well as any other income that your contracting business received (e.g. amounts less than $600 for which a 1099-MISc does not need to be issued, or tips, say, if you are a taxi-driver running your own cab), and you can deduct various expenses that you incurred in generating this income, including tools, books, (or gasoline!) etc that you bought for doing the job. You will need to file a Schedule SE that will compute how much you owe in Social Security and Medicare taxes on the net income on Schedule C. You will pay at twice the rate that employees pay because you get to pay not only the employee's share but also the employer's share. At least, you will not have to pay income tax on the employer's share. Your net income on Schedule C will transfer onto Form 1040 where you will compute how much income tax you owe, and then add on the Social Security tax etc to compute a final amount of tax to be paid. You will have to pay a penalty for not making tax payments every quarter during 2013, plus interest on the tax paid late. Send the IRS a check for the total. If you talk to an accountant right away, he/she will likely be able to come up with a rough estimate of what you might owe, and sending in that amount by January 15 will save some money. The accountant can also help you set up for the 2014 tax year during which you could make quarterly payments of estimated tax for 2014 and avoid the penalties and interest referred to above.",
"\"Yes, that's right; in the end, tax is charged on the total of your income in a tax year. PAYE on employment income is just a way of making incremental payments throughout the year. Note that tax rates are marginal rates applying to bands of salary, not the entire salary. But as your employment salary would be already over the 40% threshold (£45,000 for 2017/8), the entire \"\"extra\"\" from self-employment would indeed be taxed at 40%. Note that you'll also owe National Insurance contributions. In general if your employed income is over the higher-rate tax threshold, it should be 2% Class 4 NICs on the self-employment income. However, due to various complications in the way the system works, you might be initially charged more than that and and explicitly claim the excess back from HMRC. It might also be less if your earnings are below or only slightly above the \"\"Lower Profits Limit\"\". You still get to keep 58%, only you can decide whether that is worth your time or not.\"",
"FICA taxes are separate from federal and state income taxes. As a sole proprietor you owe all of those. Additionally, there is a difference with FICA when you are employed vs. self employed. Typically FICA taxes are actually split between the employer and the employee, so you pay half, they pay half. But when you're self employed, you pay both halves. This is what is commonly referred to as the self employment tax. If you are both employed and self employed as I am, your employer pays their portion of FICA on the income you earn there, and you pay both halves on the income you earn in your business. Edit: As @JoeTaxpayer added in his comment, you can specify an extra amount to be withheld from your pay when you fill out your W-4 form. This is separate from the calculation of how much to withhold based on dependents and such; see line 6 on the linked form. This could allow you to avoid making quarterly estimated payments for your self-employment income. I think this is much easier when your side income is predictable. Personally, I find it easier to come up with a percentage I must keep aside from my side income (for me this is about 35%), and then I immediately set that aside when I get paid. I make my quarterly estimated payments out of that money set aside. My side income can vary quite a bit though; if I could predict it better I would probably do the extra withholding. Yes, you need to pay taxes for FICA and federal income tax. I can't say exactly how much you should withhold though. If you have predictable deductions and such, it could be lower than you expect. I'm not a tax professional, and when it comes doing business taxes I go to someone who is. You don't have to do that, but I'm not comfortable offering any detailed advice on how you should proceed there. I mentioned what I do personally as an illustration of how I handle withholding, but I can't say that that's what someone else should do.",
"Welcome to the wonderful but oft confusing world of self-employment. Your regular job will withhold income for you and give you a W2, which tells you and the government how much is withheld. At the end of the year uber will give you and the government a 1099-misc, which will tell you how much they paid you, but nothing will be withheld, which means you will owe the government some taxes. When it comes to taxes, you will file a 1040 (the big one, not a 1040EZ nor 1040A). In addition you will file a schedule C (self-employed income), where you will report the gross paid to you, deduct your expenses, and come up with your profit, which will be taxable. That profit goes into a line in the 1040. You need to file schedule SE. This says how much self-employment tax you will pay on your 1099 income, and it will be more than you expect. Self employment tax is SS/Medicare. There's a line for this on the 1040 as well. You can also deduct half of your self-employment tax on the 1040, there's a line for it. Now, you can pay quarterly taxes on your 1099 income by filing 1040-ES. That avoids a penalty (which usually isn't that large) for not withholding enough. As an alternative, you can have your regular W2 job withhold extra. As long as you don't owe a bunch at tax time, you won't be a fined. When you are self-employed your taxes aren't as simple. Sorry. You can either spend some time becoming an expert by studying the instructions for the 1040, pay for the expensive version of tax programs, or hire someone to do it for you. Self-employed taxes are painful, but take advantage of the upsides as well. You can start a solo 401(k) or SEP IRA, for example. Make sure you are careful to deduct every relevant business expense and keep good records in case you get audited.",
"\"Being self employed just means you fill out some more forms in your annual self assessment for your \"\"profit\"\" from being self employed. Profit = all the money you receive, minus any tax deductible cost that you spent for making that money (and all the cost must be documented, which means you have a folder with all the receipts and keep it safe). You pay normal income tax on all the profit, which means it is just added to your taxable income. What you do with the profit is up to you; you don't pay yourself a salary, just take the money (make sure you leave enough to pay your taxes).\"",
"\"I assume your employer does standard withholding? Then what you need to do is figure what bracket that puts you in after you've done all your normal deductions. Let's say it's 25%. Then multiply your freelance income after business expenses, and that's your estimated tax, approximately. (Unless the income causes you to jump a bracket.) To that you have to add approximately 12-13% Social Security/Medicare for income between the $90K and $118,500. Filling out Form 1040SSE will give you a better estimate. But there is a \"\"safe harbor\"\" provision, in that if what you pay in estimated tax (and withholding) this year is at least as much as you owed last year, there's no penalty. I've always done mine this way, dividing last year's tax by 4, since my income is quite variable, and I've never been able to make sense of the worksheets on the 1040-ES.\"",
"\"From the IRS page on Estimated Taxes (emphasis added): Taxes must be paid as you earn or receive income during the year, either through withholding or estimated tax payments. If the amount of income tax withheld from your salary or pension is not enough, or if you receive income such as interest, dividends, alimony, self-employment income, capital gains, prizes and awards, you may have to make estimated tax payments. If you are in business for yourself, you generally need to make estimated tax payments. Estimated tax is used to pay not only income tax, but other taxes such as self-employment tax and alternative minimum tax. I think that is crystal clear that you're paying income tax as well as self-employment tax. To expand a bit, you seem to be confusing self-employment tax and estimated tax, which are not only two different things, but two different kinds of things. One is a tax, and the other is just a means of paying your taxes. \"\"Self-employment tax\"\" refers to the Social Security and Medicare taxes that you must pay on your self-employment income. This is an actual tax that you owe. If you receive a W-2, half of it is \"\"invisibly\"\" paid by your employer, and half of it is paid by you in the form of visible deductions on your pay stub. If you're self-employed, you have to pay all of it explicitly. \"\"Estimated tax\"\" does not refer to any actual tax levied on anyone. A more pedantically correct phrasing would be \"\"estimated tax payment\"\". Estimated taxes are just payments that you make to the IRS to pay tax you expect to owe. Whether you have to make such payments depends on how much tax you owe and whether you've paid it by other means. You may need to pay estimated tax even if you're not self-employed, although this would be unusual. (It could happen, for instance, if you realized large capital gains over the year.) You also may be self-employed but not need to pay estimated tax (if, for instance, you also have a W-2 job and you reduce your withholding allowances to have extra tax withheld). That said, if you earn significant income from self-employment, you'll likely have to make estimated tax payments. These are prepayments of the income tax and Social Security/Medicare taxes you accrue based on your self-employment income. As Pete B. mentioned in his answer, a possible reason that your estiamtes are low is because some taxes have already been withheld from the paychecks you received so far during the year (while you were an employee). These represent tax payments you've already made; you don't need to pay that money a second time, but you may need to make estimated tax payments for your income going forward.\"",
"\"You would put your earnings (and expenses, don't forget) on Schedule C, and then do a Schedule SE for self-employment tax. http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98846,00.html 1040ES isn't used to compute taxes, it's used to pay taxes. Generally you are supposed to pay taxes as you go, rather than when you file. There are exceptions where you won't be penalized for paying when you file, \"\"most taxpayers will avoid this penalty if they owe less than $1,000 in tax after subtracting their withholdings and credits, or if they paid at least 90% of the tax for the current year, or 100% of the tax shown on the return for the prior year, whichever is smaller\"\" from http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc306.html i.e. there's a safe harbor as long as you pay as much as you owed the year before. If you owe a lot at the end of the year a second time in a row, then you get penalized.\"",
"I'm also self employed. Your circumstances may be different, but my accountant told me there was no reason to pay more than 100% of last years' taxes. (Even if this years' earnings are higher.) So I divide last year by 4 and make the quarterlies. As an aside, I accidentally underpaid last year (mis-estimated), and the penalty was much smaller than I expected.",
"You are in business for yourself. You file Schedule C with your income tax return, and can deduct the business expenses and the cost of goods sold from the gross receipts of your business. If you have inventory (things bought but not yet sold by the end of the year of purchase), then there are other calculations that need to be done. You will have to pay income tax as well as Social Security and Medicare taxes (both the employee's share and the employer's share) on the net profits from this business activity.",
"For 2014/15 it looks something like this: To make it a bit clearer, let's also plot the difference in net income for self-employment and a single person company compared to employment: Self-employment is slightly worse between £5885 and about £10,500 because Class 2 NI kicks in before the employed person starts paying any tax. After that, self-employment is better because you pay 9% Class 4 NI rather than 12% Class 1 NI. Once higher rate tax kicks in, the saving stops growing. The single-person company is most tax-efficient at all points, ignoring any accountancy costs it incurs. Strange things happen between £100k and about £135k because the withdrawal of the personal allowance kicks in at a different point when receiving dividends. We can also plot the percentage of income paid as tax for each case: The strange kink for self-employment below £10k is caused by Class 2 NI again. Employment and self-employment both gradually tend towards paying 47%, reaching 46.5% for £2m gross income. The company tends towards 44.44%, reaching 43.6% for £2m gross income.",
"You may be able to find the answers to your question on the IRS web site: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98263,00.html Specifically, using this form to estimate taxes for salary: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120w.pdf and this form to estimate taxes for dividends: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf",
"\"There's one factor the previous posters apparently missed here: You say \"\"self-employment tax\"\"--in other words, at least some of that $16k is from self employment. In a normal employment situation the FICA tax is taken out of your paycheck, it's normally spot on and generally doesn't show up on your tax return. However, for the self-employed it's another matter. You pay the whole 15.3% from the first dollar and this does show up on your tax return. If it's all self employment money you would have about $2.5k in tax from this.\"",
"\"An unmarried person with a total U.S.-sourced earned income under $ 37,000 during the year 2016 is likely to owe: If the original poster is not an \"\"independent contractor\"\", and is not \"\"billing corp-to-corp\"\" then: In summary: References:\"",
"I am a registered S-corp but for alot of industries that threshold is too low (I'm in housing) >Do you have any insight on average *effective* rates paid by SE owners? > >As a counterpoint to your (very valid) links, filing as S-corp allows for taxes on distributions to be exempt from payroll tax and taxed at much lower rates. Also, being SE allows for various deductions not possible for wage earners. There's probably other examples not immediately coming to mind. > >Also, SE taxes equal taxes otherwise paid by employer + employee. It's just that those employer taxes don't appear on the employee's paystub so not everyone realizes this. The article I posted also doesn't take into account state taxes, do example non deductible B&O, end user Sales tax or impact fees... That Employees don't pay or often even know about, yet some of us small business owners are also employees, so we get double taxed...",
"\"Employers withhold at rates specified in Circular E issued by the IR. You can request that additional money be withheld (not an issue here) or you can have reduced withholding by claiming additional allowances on a W-4 (i.e., more than just for you and spouse and dependents) if you believe that this will result in withholding that will more closely match the tax due. (Note added in edit):Page 2 of the W-4 form has worksheets that can be used to figure out how many additional allowances to request. Also, I wonder if your withholding will be 37% or final tax bill be 26% of your adjusted gross income. The tax brackets are the tax on marginal income. If you are in the 28% tax bracket, you owe 28 cents in tax for each additional dollar of income, not 28 cents in tax for every dollar of income. Your overall tax might well be less than 20% of your income. As a specific example, in 2011 a married taxpayer filing jointly would be in the (highest) 35% tax bracket if the taxable income was $379,150 or more (marginal tax rate of 35% is applicable to every dollar more than $379,150) but the tax on $379,150 itself works out to be $102,574 or 27.05% of the taxable income. So if you do expect to be earning around $350K or more in salary between now and December 31 to hit that 26% that you expect you will owe, you might want to consider paying a tax accountant for advice on how to fill out your W-4 form for your new employer rather than relying on an Internet forum such as this for free advice. Note added in edit: Your comment \"\"... it is a cocktail of ... federal taxes, state taxes, local taxes, health care ...\"\" on the earlier version of my answer does raise the question of whether you want your employer to withhold 26% instead of 37% and have the money go to meet all these obligations or just 26% towards your Federal income tax liability only. The Federal W-4 form affects only how much money is withheld from your paycheck and sent to the US Treasury. Some of the money that each of your employers withholds (Social Security and Medicare taxes) is not affected by what you put down on the W-4 form. Now, if you hold two jobs and the total income shown on your W-2s is larger than the SS limit, you will have had too much Social Security taxes withheld, and the excess will be a credit towards your Federal income tax liability. You have self-employment income too on which you owe Social Security and Medicare taxes and you are making estimated tax payments. The excess Social Security tax payment can count towards this too (as well as income tax on your Schedule C income). Thus, if your new employer is withholding too much, you might be able to skip making the fourth quarterly payment of estimated tax or make a reduced payment (there is no requirement that the four installments must be equal). In short, there are lots of ramifications that you need to take into account before deciding that 26% is the right number. Instead of filling out a W-4 all by yourself right away, I strongly recommend reading up a lot on income taxes, or play with a tax preparation program (last year's version will do a pretty good job of at least getting you in the right ballpark), or consult with a tax accountant.\"",
"Since your YouTube income is considered self-employment income and because you probably already made more than $400 in net income (after deducting expenses from the $4000 you've received so far), you will have to pay self-employment tax and file a return. This is according to the IRS's Publication 17 (2016), Your Federal Income Tax, so assumes the same rules for 2016 will remain in effect for 2017: You are self-employed if you: Carry on a trade or business as a sole proprietor, Are an independent contractor, Are a member of a partnership, or Are in business for yourself in any other way. Self-employment can include work in addition to your regular full-time business activities, such as certain part-time work you do at home or in addition to your regular job. You must file a return if your gross income is at least as much as the filing requirement amount for your filing status and age (shown in Table 1-1). Also, you must file Form 1040 and Schedule SE (Form 1040), Self-Employment Tax, if: Your net earnings from self-employment (excluding church employee income) were $400 or more, or You had church employee income of $108.28 or more. (See Table 1-3.) Use Schedule SE (Form 1040) to figure your self-employment tax. Self-employment tax is comparable to the social security and Medicare tax withheld from an employee's wages. For more information about this tax, see Pub. 334, Tax Guide for Small Business. I'd also note that your predicted income is getting close to the level where you would need to pay Estimated Taxes, which for self-employed people work like the withholding taxes employers remove their employees paychecks and pay to the government. If you end up owing more than $1000 when you file your return you could be assessed penalties for not paying the Estimated Taxes. There is a grace period if you had to pay no taxes in the previous year (2016 in this case), that could let you escape those penalties.",
"\"So the main reason that you aren't getting answers is that the question is not really answerable on this site without putting a lot of details about the expenses of your company online. Even then you will need someone who specializes in Canadian taxes to go through those details to be sure. Most of those people feel like they should be paid a decent amount per hour to go through the details. That being said, I dealt with a similar question for my contract work company by just taking a couple weekends and calculating the taxes myself on estimated numbers. It was time consuming but not really that hard. I thought I might have to buy software, but all I needed was a small calculator. Along the way I learned a few details that helped me lower my overall tax exposure. I found that Neil was generally correct that you are \"\"taxed on profits\"\" but it is worth doing the taxes yourself because the details can really matter.\"",
"With your income so high, your marginal tax rate should be pretty easy to determine. You are very likely in the 33% tax bracket (married filing jointly income range of $231,450 to $413,350), so your wife's additional income will effectively be taxed at 33% plus 15% for self-employment taxes. Rounding to 50% means you need to withhold $19,000 over the year (or slightly less depending on what business expenses you can deduct). You could use a similar calculation for CA state taxes. You can either just add this gross additional amount to your withholdings, or make an estimated tax payment every quarter. Any difference will be made up when you file your 2017 taxes. So long as you withhold 100% of your total tax liability from last year, you should not have any underpayment penalties.",
"> Then there’s taxes, and not just federal. There will be state, local, real estate, school, tolls, export, import, duties and those hard-to-understand fees on your cable bill Of those, the only thing I don't pay are export, import and duties. Which, if you're going in to business for yourself you'd probably know about these already.",
"You will be liable to pay the tax For the 2017 year of assessment (1 March 2016 - 28 February 2017) if you earned less than R75 000 you will not have to pay any tax The annual budget speach is this week and the new tax rates will be released but most likely that R75 000 will increase to R78 000+- so if you earn less than that tax would not even be applicable on you, Should you earn in a tax year more than R75 000 then would be able to do your own tax return and payments via E-Filling on SARS's website : http://www.sarsefiling.co.za/ But if you earn less than R350 000 then you don't have to submit a tax return, but there is nothing that stops you from submitting one if you feel that you want to. You can use https://www.taxtim.com/za/ to help you with other questions you might have. You can potentially bring down your tax-able income by showing a loss in capital value of your equipment that you purchased that is now worth less than it was when you initially purchased it, but these are all things you should discuss with a tax practitioner, I am not entirely sure how you will show a loss in capital value as a sole-proprietor, that is what you will be since you are not a company.",
"\"Does your spouse work? That's one factor that can put your income into a higher bracket. The one difference to note is you will pay 2x the social security portion, so even though not \"\"federal\"\" tax, its right off the top nearly 13%. I'm not familiar with your states tax. It's really worth dropping the $75 on a copy of the software and running your own exact numbers.\"",
">This means that you may be able to make about $120,000 per year, which isn’t bad. Except you’ll have expenses, like rent, transportation, repairs, supplies, computers and whatever else. Your expenses will probably run a few thousand a month, so let’s assume **after expenses you’re netting about $80,000**. Then there’s taxes, and not just federal. There will be state, local, real estate, school, tolls, export, import, duties and those hard-to-understand fees on your cable bill. So lop about 30 percent off that $80K and you’re down to a net living of $56,000. $80,000 net income before taxes is quite good for a self employed individual. I don't really see what the problem is. His bit about taxes after that is completely irrelevant because you'll be paying federal and fica no matter what, plus state and real estate taxes if they apply to you.",
"\"There are way too many details missing to be able to give you an accurate answer, and it would be too localized in terms of time & location anyway -- the rules change every year, and your local taxes make the answer useless to other people. Instead, here's how to figure out the answer for yourself. Use a tax estimate calculator to get a ballpark figure. (And keep in mind that these only provide estimates, because there are still a lot of variables that are only considered when you're actually filling out your real tax return.) There are a number of calculators if you search for something like \"\"tax estimator calculator\"\", some are more sophisticated than others. (Fair warning: I used several of these and they told me a range of $2k - $25k worth of taxes owed for a situation like yours.) Here's an estimator from TurboTax -- it's handy because it lets you enter business income. When I plug in $140K ($70 * 40 hours * 50 weeks) for business income in 2010, married filing jointly, no spouse income, and 4 dependents, I get $30K owed in federal taxes. (That doesn't include local taxes, any itemized deductions you might be eligible for, IRA deductions, etc. You may also be able to claim some expenses as business deductions that will reduce your taxable business income.) So you'd net $110K after taxes, or about $55/hour ($110k / 50 / 40). Of course, you could get an answer from the calculator, and Congress could change the rules midway through the year -- you might come out better or worse, depending on the nature of the rule changes... that's why I stress that it's an estimate. If you take the job, don't forget to make estimated tax payments! Edit: (some additional info) If you plan on doing this on an ongoing basis (i.e. you are going into business as a contractor for this line of work), there are some tax shelters that you can take advantage of. Most of these won't be worth doing if you are only going to be doing contract work for a short period of time (1-2 years). These may or may not all be applicable to you. And do your research into these areas before diving in, I'm just scratching the surface in the notes below.\"",
"\"Littleadv is incorrect because receiving a 1099 means she will be taxed self-employment tax on top of federal income taxes. Your employer will automatically withhold 7.65% of payroll taxes as they pay you each paycheck and then they'll automatically pay the other half of your payroll tax (an additional 7.65%) to bring it to a total of 15.3%. In other words, because your wife is technically self employed, she will owe both sides of payroll tax which is 15.3% of $38k = $5,800 on TOP of your federal income tax (which is the only thing the W-4 is instructing them about what amount to withhold). The huge advantage to a 1099, however, is that she's essentially self-employed which means ALL of the things she needs to run her business are deductible expenses. This includes her car, computer, home office, supplies, sometimes phone, gas, maintenance, travel expenses, sometimes entertainment, etc - which can easily bring her \"\"income\"\" down from $38k to lets say $23k, reducing both her federal income tax AND self-employment tax to apply to $15k less (saving lets say 50% of $15k = $7.5k with federal and self employment because your income is so high). She is actually supposed to pay quarterly taxes to make up for all of this. The easy way to do this is each quarter plug YOUR total salary + bonus and the tax YOU have paid so far (check your paystubs) into TurboTax along with her income so far and all of her expenses. This will give you how much tax you can expect to have left to owe so far--this would be your first quarter. When you calculate your other quarters, do it the exact same way and just subtract what you've already paid so far that year from your total tax liability.\"",
"This is wrong. It should be or Now, to get back to self-employment tax. Self-employment tax is weird. It's a business tax. From the IRS perspective, any self-employed person is a business. So, take your income X and divide by 1.0765 (6.2% Social Security and 1.45% Medicare). This gives your personal income. Now, to calculate the tax that you have to pay, multiply that by .153 (since you have to pay both the worker and employer shares of the tax). So new calculation or they actually let you do which is better for you (smaller). And your other calculations change apace. And like I said, you can simplify Q1se to and your payment would be Now, to get to the second quarter. Like I said, I'd calculate the income through the second quarter. So recalculate A based on your new numbers and use that to calculate Q2i. or Note that this includes income from both the first and second quarters. We'll reduce to just the second quarter later. This also has you paying for all of June even though you may not have been paid when you make the withholding payment. That's what they want you to do. But we aren't done yet. Your actual payment should be or Because Q2ft and Q2se are what you owe for the year so far. Q1ft + Q1se is what you've already paid. So you subtract those from what you need to pay in the second quarter. In future quarters, this would be All that said, don't stress about it. As a practical matter, so long as you don't owe $1000 or more when you file your actual tax return, they aren't going to care. So just make sure that your total payments match by the payment you make January 15th. I'm not going to try to calculate for the state. For one thing, I don't know if your state uses Q1i or Q1pi as its base. Different states may have different rules on that. If you can't figure it out, just use Q1i, as that's the bigger one. Fix it when you file your annual return. The difference in withholding is going to be relatively small anyway, less than 1% of your income.",
"FICA/SE taxes are not 30%. They are at most ~15%, including the employer portion. Employer also pays FUTA tax, and has additional payroll expenses (like fees and worker compensation insurance). The employee's FICA portion is limited up to a certain level of earnings (110100 this year, IIRC). Above it you only pay medicare taxes, not social security. S-Corp earnings are not taxed at 15%, these are not dividends. They're taxed at your ordinary income rate. You don't pay SE taxes on it, that's the only difference. I hope you're talking about tax treatment decision, because there are entirely different factors to keep in mind when you're organizing a business and making a decision between being it a LLC or a corporation. I believe you should pay some money to get a real advice that would apply to you, from a EA/CPA who would be doing the number-crunching (hopefully correctly). I'm a tax practitioner, and this answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.",
"\"The limit on SEP IRA is 25%, not 20%. If you're self-employed (filing on Schedule C), then it's taken on net earning, which in your example would be 25% of $90,000. (https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-for-self-employed-people) JoeTaxpayer is correct as regards the 401(k) limits. The elective deferrals are per person - That's a cap in sum across multiple plans and across both traditional and Roth if you have those. In general, it's actually across other retirement plan types too - See below. If you're self-employed and set-up a 401(k) for your own business, the elective deferral is still aggregated with any other 401(k) plans in which you participate that year, but you can still make the employer contribution on your own plan. This IRS page is current a pretty good one on this topic: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans Key quotes that are relevant: The business owner wears two hats in a 401(k) plan: employee and employer. Contributions can be made to the plan in both capacities. The owner can contribute both: •Elective deferrals up to 100% of compensation (“earned income” in the case of a self-employed individual) up to the annual contribution limit: ◦$18,000 in 2015 and 2016, or $24,000 in 2015 and 2016 if age 50 or over; plus •Employer nonelective contributions up to: ◦25% of compensation as defined by the plan, or ◦for self-employed individuals, see discussion below It continues with this example: The amount you can defer (including pre-tax and Roth contributions) to all your plans (not including 457(b) plans) is $18,000 in 2015 and 2016. Although a plan's terms may place lower limits on contributions, the total amount allowed under the tax law doesn’t depend on how many plans you belong to or who sponsors those plans. EXAMPLE Ben, age 51, earned $50,000 in W-2 wages from his S Corporation in 2015. He deferred $18,000 in regular elective deferrals plus $6,000 in catch-up contributions to the 401(k) plan. His business contributed 25% of his compensation to the plan, $12,500. Total contributions to the plan for 2015 were $36,500. This is the maximum that can be contributed to the plan for Ben for 2015. A business owner who is also employed by a second company and participating in its 401(k) plan should bear in mind that his limits on elective deferrals are by person, not by plan. He must consider the limit for all elective deferrals he makes during a year. Notice in the example that Ben contributed more that than his elective limit in total (his was $24,000 in the example because he was old enough for the $6,000 catch-up in addition to the $18,000 that applies to everyone else). He did this by declaring an employer contribution of $12,500, which was limited by his compensation but not by any of his elective contributions. Beyond the 401(k), keep in mind that elective contributions are capped across different types of retirement plans as well, so if you have a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k), your total contributions across those plans are also capped. That's also mentioned in the example. Now to the extent that you're considering different types of plans, that's a whole question in itself - One that might be worth consulting a dedicated tax advisor. A few things to consider (not extensive list): As for payroll / self-employment tax: Looks like you will end up paying Medicare, including the new \"\"Additional Medicare\"\" tax that came with the ACA, but not SS: If you have wages, as well as self-employment earnings, the tax on your wages is paid first. But this rule only applies if your total earnings are more than $118,500. For example, if you will have $30,000 in wages and $40,000 in selfemployment income in 2016, you will pay the appropriate Social Security taxes on both your wages and business earnings. In 2016, however, if your wages are $78,000, and you have $40,700 in net earnings from a business, you don’t pay dual Social Security taxes on earnings more than $118,500. Your employer will withhold 7.65 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your $78,000 in earnings. You must pay 15.3 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your first $40,500 in self-employment earnings and 2.9 percent in Medicare tax on the remaining $200 in net earnings. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10022.pdf Other good IRS resources:\"",
"\"I've done various side work over the years -- computer consulting, writing, and I briefly had a video game company -- so I've gone through most of this. Disclaimer: I have never been audited, which may mean that everything I put on my tax forms looked plausible to the IRS and so is probably at least generally right, but it also means that the IRS has never put their stamp of approval on my tax forms. So that said ... 1: You do not need to form an LLC to be able to claim business expenses. Whether you have any expenses or not, you will have to complete a schedule C. On this form are places for expenses in various categories. Note that the categories are the most common type of expenses, there's an \"\"other\"\" space if you have something different. If you have any property that is used both for the business and also for personal use, you must calculate a business use percentage. For example if you bought a new printer and 60% of the time you use it for the business and 40% of the time you use it for personal stuff, then 60% of the cost is tax deductible. In general the IRS expects you to calculate the percentage based on amount of time used for business versus personal, though you are allowed to use other allocation formulas. Like for a printer I think you'd get away with number of pages printed for each. But if the business use is not 100%, you must keep records to justify the percentage. You can't just say, \"\"Oh, I think business use must have been about 3/4 of the time.\"\" You have to have a log where you write down every time you use it and whether it was business or personal. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of business use of cars and computers, because these are things that are readily used for personal purposes. If you own a copper mine and you buy a mine-boring machine, odds are you aren't going to take that home to dig shafts in your backyard. But a computer can easily be used to play video games or send emails to friends and relatives and lots of things that have nothing to do with a business. So if you're going to claim a computer or a car, be prepared to justify it. You can claim office use of your home if you have one or more rooms or designated parts of a room that are used \"\"regularly and exclusively\"\" for business purposes. That is, if you turn the family room into an office, you can claim home office expenses. But if, like me, you sit on the couch to work but at other times you sit on the couch to watch TV, then the space is not used \"\"exclusively\"\" for business purposes. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of home office deductions. I've never tried to claim it. It's legal, just make sure you have all your ducks in a row if you claim it. Skip 2 for the moment. 3: Yes, you must pay taxes on your business income. If you have not created an LLC or a corporation, then your business income is added to your wage income to calculate your taxes. That is, if you made, say, $50,000 salary working for somebody else and $10,000 on your side business, then your total income is $60,000 and that's what you pay taxes on. The total amount you pay in income taxes will be the same regardless of whether 90% came from salary and 10% from the side business or the other way around. The rates are the same, it's just one total number. If the withholding on your regular paycheck is not enough to cover the total taxes that you will have to pay, then you are required by law to pay estimated taxes quarterly to make up the difference. If you don't, you will be required to pay penalties, so you don't want to skip on this. Basically you are supposed to be withholding from yourself and sending this in to the government. It's POSSIBLE that this won't be an issue. If you're used to getting a big refund, and the refund is more than what the tax on your side business will come to, then you might end up still getting a refund, just a smaller one. But you don't want to guess about this. Get the tax forms and figure out the numbers. I think -- and please don't rely on this, check on it -- that the law says that you don't pay a penalty if the total tax that was withheld from your paycheck plus the amount you paid in estimated payments is more than the tax you owed last year. So like lets say that this year -- just to make up some numbers -- your employer withheld $4,000 from your paychecks. At the end of the year you did your taxes and they came to $3,000, so you got a $1,000 refund. This year your employer again withholds $4,000 and you paid $0 in estimated payments. Your total tax on your salary plus your side business comes to $4,500. You owe $500, but you won't have to pay a penalty, because the $4,000 withheld is more than the $3,000 that you owed last year. But if next year you again don't make estimated payment, so you again have $4,000 withheld plus $0 estimated and then you owe $5,000 in taxes, you will have to pay a penalty, because your withholding was less than what you owed last year. To you had paid $500 in estimated payments, you'd be okay. You'd still owe $500, but you wouldn't owe a penalty, because your total payments were more than the previous year's liability. Clear as mud? Don't forget that you probably will also owe state income tax. If you have a local income tax, you'll owe that too. Scott-McP mentioned self-employment tax. You'll owe that, too. Note that self-employment tax is different from income tax. Self employment tax is just social security tax on self-employed people. You're probably used to seeing the 7-whatever-percent it is these days withheld from your paycheck. That's really only half your social security tax, the other half is not shown on your pay stub because it is not subtracted from your salary. If you're self-employed, you have to pay both halves, or about 15%. You file a form SE with your income taxes to declare it. 4: If you pay your quarterly estimated taxes, well the point of \"\"estimated\"\" taxes is that it's supposed to be close to the amount that you will actually owe next April 15. So if you get it at least close, then you shouldn't owe a lot of money in April. (I usually try to arrange my taxes so that I get a modest refund -- don't loan the government a lot of money, but don't owe anything April 15 either.) Once you take care of any business expenses and taxes, what you do with the rest of the money is up to you, right? Though if you're unsure of how to spend it, let me know and I'll send you the address of my kids' colleges and you can donate it to their tuition fund. I think this would be a very worthy and productive use of your money. :-) Back to #2. I just recently acquired a financial advisor. I can't say what a good process for finding one is. This guy is someone who goes to my church and who hijacked me after Bible study one day to make his sales pitch. But I did talk to him about his fees, and what he told me was this: If I have enough money in an investment account, then he gets a commission from the investment company for bringing the business to them, and that's the total compensation he gets from me. That commission comes out of the management fees they charge, and those management fees are in the same ballpark as the fees I was paying for private investment accounts, so basically he is not costing me anything. He's getting his money from the kickbacks. He said that if I had not had enough accumulated assets, he would have had to charge me an hourly fee. I didn't ask how much that was. Whew, hadn't meant to write such a long answer!\"",
"Do you have a regular job, where you work for somebody else and they pay you a salary? If so, they should be deducting estimated taxes from your paychecks and sending them in to the government. How much they deduct depends on your salary and what you put down on your W-4. Assuming you filled that out accurately, they will withhold an amount that should closely match the taxes you would owe if you took the standard deduction, have no income besides this job, and no unusual deductions. If that's the case, come next April 15 you will probably get a small refund. If you own a small business or are an independent contractor, then you have to estimate the taxes you will owe and make quarterly payments. If you're worried that the amount they're withholding doesn't sound right, then as GradeEhBacon says, get a copy of last year's tax forms (or this year's if they're out by now) -- paper or electronic -- fill them out by estimating what your total income will be for the year, etc, and see what the tax comes out to be.",
"Yes, you do. Depending on your country's laws and regulations, since you're not an employee but a self employed, you're likely to be required to file some kind of a tax return with your country's tax authority, and pay the income taxes on the money you earn. You'll have to tell us more about the situation, at least let us know what country you're in, for more information.",
"\"Yep. You're single, you're possibly still a dependent on your parent's taxes (in lieu of rent), and you're finally bringing home bacon instead of bacon bits. Welcome to the working world. Let's say your gross salary is the U.S. median of $50,000. With bi-weekly checks (26 a year; common practice) you're getting $1923.08 per paycheck. In the 2013 \"\"Percentage Method\"\" tax tables, here's how your federal withholding is calculated as a single person paid biweekly: Federal taxes are computed piecewise; the amount up to A is taxed at X%, then the amount between A and B is taxed at Y%, so if you make $C, between A and B, the tax is (A*X) + (C-A)*Y. The amount A*X is included in the \"\"base amount\"\" for ease of calculation. Back to our example; let's say you're getting $1923.08 gross wages per check. That puts you in the 25% marginal bracket. You pay the sum of all lesser brackets (which is the \"\"base amount\"\" of the 25% bracket), plus the 25% marginal rate on every dollar that falls within the bracket. That's 191.95 + (1923.08 - 1479) * .25 = 191.95 + (444.08 * .25) = 191.95 + 111.02 = $302.97 per paycheck. The \"\"effective\"\" tax rate on the total amount, as if you were being charged a flat tax, is 15.75%, and this is just for the federal income tax. Add to this MA state income taxes (5.25% flat tax), FICA (aka Medicare; 1.45% flat) and SECA (aka Social Security; 6.2% up to a \"\"wage base\"\" that $50k doesn't even approach), and your effective tax rate on each dollar you earn is 15.75% + 5.25% + 1.45% + 6.2% = 28.65%. This doesn't include any state unemployment taxes that may be withheld separately, but as the rate I come up with is pretty darn close to what you've figured (meaning I slightly overestimated your gross income and thus your effective tax rate), my bet is that SUTA's either employer-paid in MA, or it's just part of MA state income tax. It gets better, at least at the federal level: The amount of your state income taxes is tax-deductible at the federal level if you itemize your deductions. That may not be a factor for you as you'd have to come up with more than $6,100 of other tax-deductible expenses to make itemizing the better option than taking the standard deduction (big-ticket items are mortgage expenses other than principal payments, hospital stays such as for childbirth or major accident, and state and local taxes such as sales, property and income). If you can claim yourself as a dependent (meaning your parents can't), then $150 of each check ($3,900 of your annual salary) is no longer taxed for federal withholding, lowering the amount of money taxed at the 25% marginal rate. You effectively save $37.50 biweekly ($975 annually) in taxes. Get married and file jointly, and your spouse, her personal exemption, and an extra standard deduction amount (if you don't itemize) go on your taxes. The tax rates for married couples filing jointly are also lower; they're currently calculated (or were in 2012) to be the same as if two equal earners were to file separately, so if your spouse doesn't work, your taxes on the single income are calculated at the rates you'd get if you earned half as much. It doesn't work out to half the taxes, but it is a significant \"\"marriage advantage\"\". Have kids, and each one is another little $3,900 tax write-off. It's nowhere near the cost of having or raising the child, but it helps, and having kids isn't about the money. Owning a home, making charitable deductions, having medical expenses, etc are a toss-up. The magic number in 2013 is $12,200 for a married couple, $6,100 for a single person. If your mortgage interest, insurance premiums, property taxes, medical expenditures, charitable donations, any contributions from your take-home pay to a tax-deferred savings account (typically these accounts are paid into by your employer as a \"\"pre-tax deduction\"\" and never show up as taxable income, but you could just as easily move money from your take-home pay into tax-deferred savings) and any other tax-deductible payments add up to more than 12 large, then itemize. If not, take your standard deduction. As a single taxpayer just starting out in life, you probably don't have any of these types of expenditures, certainly not enough to give up the SD. I did the math on my own taxes in 2012, and was surprised at how little the government actually gets of my paycheck when all's said and done. Remember back in the summer of 2012 when everyone was mad at Romney for making millions and only paying an effective income tax rate of 14%, which was compared to the middle class's marginal rate of 25-28%? Well, my family of 3, living on a little more than the median income from one earner (me), taking the married standard deduction, three personal exemptions, and a little extra for student loan interest, paid an effective federal income tax rate of something like 3.5%. Of course, the FICA and SS taxes don't allow any deductions (not even for retirement savings), so add in the 4.2% SS (in 2012) and 1.45% FICA and the full federal gimme was more like 9-10%.\"",
"From my blog's discussion on 2017 tax rates. This is the final set of numbers. So, if you currently have, say $120K taxable income, every dollar above that starts getting taxed at 25%, until $153K, then 28%. In other words, forecast your taxes based on the day job, but then the 1099 goes on top of that.",
"Your tax return will be due on April 18th of 2017 for the amounts made in 2016. Based on the figures that you have provided, assuming you are 18, and assuming you are a single taxpayer your total tax will be around $2600.00 ($2611.25 to be exact, without additional credits or deductions to AGI accounted for). The $1,234 in fed. inc. tax that you have already paid is considered to be a prepaid by the government. If at year-end you have provided more than you have made the government will refund you the excess (federal tax return).",
"In the USA, you probably owe Self Employment Tax. The cutoff for tax on this is 400$. You will need to file a tax return and cover the medicaid expenses as if you were both the employer and employee. In addition, if he earns income from self-employment, he may owe Self-Employment Tax, which means paying both the employee’s and employer's share of Social Security and Medicaid taxes. The trigger for Self Employment Tax has been $400 since 1990, but the IRS may change that in the future. Also see the IRS website. So yes, you need to file your taxes. How much you will pay is determined by exactly how much your income is. If you don't file, you probably won't be audited, however you are breaking the law and should be aware of the consequences.",
"Your taxable income is your total income from however many sources of income you have. If you are in employment and doing self-employed job at the same time, your taxable income will be a combination of both incomes. For example if in employment you make £10000 and self employed you make another £10000 - your total income is £20000 and this is your taxable income. And even if your self-employed job does not bring you more than personal allowance, how would HMRC know that without you filling-in tax return?",
"Havoc P's answer is good (+1). Also don't forget the other aspects of business income: state filing fees, county/city filing fees, business licenses, etc. Are there any taxes you have to collect from your customers? If you expect to make more this year, then you should make estimated quarterly tax payments. The first one for 2011 is due around the same time as your federal income tax filing.",
"Unfortunately, the tax system in the U.S. is probably more complicated than it looks to you right now. First, you need to understand that there will be taxes withheld from your paycheck, but the amount that they withhold is simply a guess. You might pay too much or too little tax during the year. After the year is over, you'll send in a tax return form that calculates the correct tax amount. If you have paid too little over the year, you'll have to send in the rest, but if you've paid too much, you'll get a refund. There are complicated formulas on how much tax the employer withholds from your paycheck, but in general, if you don't have extra income elsewhere that you need to pay tax on, you'll probably be close to breaking even at tax time. When you get your paycheck, the first thing that will be taken off is FICA, also called Social Security, Medicare, or the Payroll tax. This is a fixed 7.65% that is taken off the gross salary. It is not refundable and is not affected by any allowances or deductions, and does not come in to play at all on your tax return form. There are optional employee benefits that you might need to pay a portion of if you are going to take advantage of them, such as health insurance or retirement savings. Some of these deductions are paid with before-tax money, and some are paid with after tax money. The employer will calculate how much money they are supposed to withhold for federal and state taxes (yes, California has an income tax), and the rest is yours. At tax time, the employer will give you a form W-2, which shows you the amount of your gross income after all the before-tax deductions are taken out (which is what you use to calculate your tax). The form also shows you how much tax you have paid during the year. Form 1040 is the tax return that you use to calculate your correct tax for the year. You start with the gross income amount from the W-2, and the first thing you do is add in any income that you didn't get a W-2 for (such as interest or investment income) and subtract any deductions that you might have that are not taxable, but were not paid through your paycheck (such as moving expenses, student loan interest, tuition, etc.) The result is called your adjusted gross income. Next, you take off the deductions not covered in the above section (property tax, home mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc.). You can either take the standard deduction ($6,300 if you are single), or if you have more deductions in this category than that, you can itemize your deductions and declare the correct amount. After that, you subtract more for exemptions. You can claim yourself as an exemption unless you are considered a dependent of someone else and they are claiming you as a dependent. If you claim yourself, you take off another $4,000 from your income. What you are left with is your taxable income for the year. This is the amount you would use to calculate your tax based on the bracket table you found. California has an income tax, and just like the federal tax, some state taxes will be deducted from your paycheck, and you'll need to fill out a state tax return form after the year is over to calculate the correct state tax and either request a refund or pay the remainder of the tax. I don't have any experience with the California income tax, but there are details on the rates on this page from the State of California.",
"You will need to register as self-employed aka sole trader (that's the whole point: pay taxes on income that you're not getting as wages from an employer, who would arrange PAYE/NI contributions), or set up a limited company (in the last case you would have the option of either getting paid as wages or as dividends — which one is better is a complex issue which varies from year to year). You'll find lots of advice on the HMRC website.",
"Do you have any insight on average *effective* rates paid by SE owners? As a counterpoint to your (very valid) links, filing as S-corp allows for taxes on distributions to be exempt from payroll tax and taxed at much lower rates. Also, being SE allows for various deductions not possible for wage earners. There's probably other examples not immediately coming to mind. Also, SE taxes equal taxes otherwise paid by employer + employee. It's just that those employer taxes don't appear on the employee's paystub so not everyone realizes this.",
"I've had zero taxable income for the past 2 years and yet the calculations say I owe the government $250 for each year for the Self Employment tax. How can they charge a non-zero tax on my income when my taxable income is zero? That is theft. That demands reform.",
"Every bill you write counts as income (if the bill doesn't get paid, you would count that as an expense). In cases where you don't write bills, I think the payment you receive would count as income, but you might check that on the HMRC website. So to record your income, you can basically record the payments that you receive. Anything you pay out for your business is an expense. You keep a receipt for every expense - if you don't have a receipt, you can't count it as an expense, so keeping all the receipts is very, very important. An exception are investments, for example buying a computer that should last multiple years; there you can count a percentage of the investment as expense every year. All income, minus all expenses, is your profit. You pay tax and National Insurance contributions according to your profit. You can do whatever you like with the profit. Notice that I didn't mention any salary. Self employed means you have no salary, you have profits and do with them whatever you like. On the other hand, you pay taxes on these profits almost exactly as if they were income. If you have this blog but are also employed, you'll add the profits to your normal income statement.",
"The tax savings of being 1099 can be significant. It depends on your salary, and what you can deduct. You may want to consult with an accountant. The social security tax, for the self employed, is 12.4% of profit not on revenue. If you can write off more than half of the income as expenses then you could be paying less than a w-2 employee. Also you might make a higher salary as a 1099, it is rare the offer the same compensation for a W-2 as a 1099 as the former has higher expenses for the employer. It is hard to know without actual numbers, actual expected expense deductions and so forth. Which is why I would suggest consulting with an accountant. You may want to talk to one in the state where he will be working rather than where you live now.",
"The key for you this year (2015) be aggressive in paying the taxes quarterly so that you do not have to do the quarterly filings or pay penalties for owing too much in taxes in future years. The tax system has a safe harbor provision. If you have withheld or sent via the estimated quarterly taxes an amount equal to 100% of the previous years taxes then you are safe. That means that if you end to the IRS in 2015 an amount equal to 100% of your 2014 taxes then in April 2016 you can avoid the penalties. You should note that the required percentage is 110% for high income individual. Because you can never be sure about your side income, use your ability to adjust your W-4 to cover your taxes. You will know early in 2016 how much you need to cover via withholding, so make the adjustments. Yes the risk is what you over pay, but that may be what you need to do to avoid the quarterly filing requirements. From IRS PUB 17: If you owe additional tax for 2014, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2015. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2015 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2015, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2015 tax return, or 100% of the tax shown on your 2014 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2014 tax return must cover all 12 months. and Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty.",
"\"Hearing somewhere is a level or two worse than \"\"my friend told me.\"\" You need to do some planning to forecast your full year income and tax bill. In general, you should be filing a quarterly form and tax payment. You'll still reconcile the year with an April filing, but if you are looking to save up to pay a huge bill next year, you are looking at the potential of a penalty for under-withholding. The instructions and payment coupons are available at the IRS site. At this point I'm required to offer the following advice - If you are making enough money that this even concerns you, you should consider starting to save for the future. A Solo-401(k) or IRA, or both. Read more on these two accounts and ask separate questions, if you'd like.\"",
"As a new (very!) small business, the IRS has lots of advice and information for you. Start at https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed and be sure you have several pots of coffee or other appropriate aid against somnolence. By default a single-member LLC is 'disregarded' for tax purposes (at least for Federal, and generally states follow Federal although I don't know Mass. specifically), although it does have other effects. If you go this route you simply include the business income and expenses on Schedule C as part of your individual return on 1040, and the net SE income is included along with your other income (if any) in computing your tax. TurboTax or similar software should handle this for you, although you may need a premium version that costs a little more. You can 'elect' to have the LLC taxed as a corporation by filing form 8832, see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/limited-liability-company-llc . In principle you are supposed to do this when the entity is 'formed', but in practice AIUI if you do it by the end of the year they won't care at all, and if you do it after the end of the year but before or with your first affected return you qualify for automatic 'relief'. However, deciding how to divide the business income/profits into 'reasonable pay' to yourself versus 'dividends' is more complicated, and filling out corporation tax returns in addition to your individual return (which is still required) is more work, in addition to the work and cost of filing and reporting the LLC itself to your state of choice. Unless/until you make something like $50k-100k a year this probably isn't worth it. 1099 Reporting. Stripe qualifies as a 'payment network' and under a recent law payment networks must annually report to IRS (and copy to you) on form 1099-K if your account exceeds certain thresholds; see https://support.stripe.com/questions/will-i-receive-a-1099-k-and-what-do-i-do-with-it . Note you are still legally required to report and pay tax on your SE income even if you aren't covered by 1099-K (or other) reporting. Self-employment tax. As a self-employed person (if the LLC is disregarded) you have to pay 'SE' tax that is effectively equivalent to the 'FICA' taxes that would be paid by your employer and you as an employee combined. This is 12.4% for Social Security unless/until your total earned income exceeds a cap (for 2017 $127,200, adjusted yearly for inflation), and 2.9% for Medicare with no limit (plus 'Additional Medicare' tax if you exceed a higher threshold and it isn't 'repealed and replaced'). If the LLC elects corporation status it has to pay you reasonable wages for your services, and withhold+pay FICA on those wages like any other employer. Estimated payments. You are required to pay most of your individual income tax, and SE tax if applicable, during the year (generally 90% of your tax or your tax minus $1,000 whichever is less). Most wage-earners don't notice this because it happens automatically through payroll withholding, but as self-employed you are responsible for making sufficient and timely estimated payments, and will owe a penalty if you don't. However, since this is your first year you may have a 'safe harbor'; if you also have income from an employer (reported on W-2, with withholding) and that withholding is sufficent to pay last year's tax, then you are exempt from the 'underpayment' penalty for this year. If you elect corporation status then the corporation (which is really just you) must always make timely payments of withheld amounts, according to one of several different schedules that may apply depending on the amounts; I believe it also must make estimated payments for its own liability, if any, but I'm not familiar with that part.",
"The tax is depended upon state where you are registered and the salary paid. More here If you employ contract you need not pay tax.",
"\"Most states that have income tax base their taxes on the income reported on your federal return, with some state-specific adjustments. So answering your last question first: Yes, if it matters for federal, it will matter for state (in most cases). For estimating the tax liability, I would not use the effective rate but rather use the rate for your highest tax bracket and apply that to your estimated hobby income, assuming that you primary job income won't be wildly higher or lower than last year. As @keshlam noted in a comment, this income is coming on top of whatever else you earn, so it will be taxed at your top rate. Finally, I'd check again whether this is really \"\"hobby\"\" income or if it is \"\"self-employment\"\" income. Self-employment income will be subject to self-employment tax, which comes on top of the regular income tax.\"",
"Unless you make those investments inside a tax-deferred account, you will have to pay income-taxes on that money this year. Because you made that money through your own business, you will also have payroll taxes due on that money this year.",
"If you want to predict the, the easiest solution is to get hold of a copy of last year's tax forms and fill them in with estimated numbers. Odds are that none of the more complicated deductions will apply to you this first time around, so I'd suggest just using the federal 1040EZ, and your state's equivalent, for this purpose. If it turns out that you can claim anything more than the standard deduction, that would reduce your taxes, so this is leaning toward the safe side.",
"If this will be your sole income for the year, going self-employed is the best way to do this: So, here's how to go at it: Total cash in: £2000 Total Tax paid: £0 Admin overhead: approx 3 hours. Legit: 100% :) Edit: Can you tell me that in my case what are the required fields on the invoice? If you're non-VAT registered, there are no legal requirements as to what information you need to put on the invoice -it literally can be a couple of numbers on a napkin, and still be legit. With that said, to make a professional appearance, my invoices are usually structured as follows: Left side: ( Sidenote: why client-specific incremental numbering? Why, so they can't make educated guesses to the number of clients I have at any given time :) ) Right side: Center table: And so far, none of my clients missed any fields, so this should have everything they need to :) Hope this helps, but keep in mind, all of the above is synthetic sugar on the top -ultimately, the relationship you share with your Clients is the thing you will (or will not) get paid for! Edit#2: The voices in my head just pointed out, that I've totally omitted National Insurance contributions in the above. However, and I quote HMRC: If your profits are expected to be less than £5,315 you may not have to pay Class 2 National Insurance contributions. Hence, this won't change the numbers above, either -just make sure to point this out during your registration in the office.",
"No, even businesses pay taxes quarterly. So if you formed Nathan, LLC, or otherwise became self employed, you'd still have to file quarterly estimates and make tax payments. This would cause taxes to be a much more high touch part of your life. However, you should ensure that you're claiming the proper exemptions etc to avoid excessive withholding.",
"Yes, you've summarized it well. You may be able to depreciate your computer, expense some software licenses and may be home office if you qualify, but at this scale of earning - it will probably not cover for the loss of the money you need to pay for the additional SE tax (the employer part of the FICA taxes for W2 employees) and benefits (subsidized health insurance, bonuses you get from your employer, insurances, etc). Don't forget the additional expense of business licenses, liability insurances etc. While relatively small amounts and deductible - still money out of your pocket. That said... Good luck earning $96K on ODesk.",
"\"Generally if you're a sole S-Corp employee - it is hard to explain how the S-Corp earned more money than your work is worth. So it is reasonable that all the S-Corp profits would be pouring into your salary. Especially when the amounts are below the FICA SS limits when separating salary and distributions are a clear sign of FICA tax evasion. So while it is hard to say if you're going to be subject to audit, my bet is that if you are - the IRS will claim that you underpaid yourself. One of the more recent cases dealing with this issue is Watson v Commissioner. In this case, Watson (through his S-Corp which he solely owned) received distributions from a company in the amounts of ~400K. He drew 24K as salary, and the rest as distributions. The IRS forced re-characterizing distributions into salary up to 93K (the then-SS portion of the FICA limit), and the courts affirmed. Worth noting, that Watson didn't do all the work himself, and that was the reason that some of the income was allowed to be considered distribution. That wouldn't hold in a case where the sole shareholder was the only revenue producer, and that is exactly my point. I feel that it is important to add another paragraph about Nolo, newspaper articles, and charlatans on the Internet. YOU CANNOT RELY ON THEM. You cannot defend your position against IRS by saying \"\"But the article on Nolo said I can not pay SE taxes on my earnings!\"\", you cannot say \"\"Some guy called littleadv lost an argument with some other guy called Ben Miller because Ben Miller was saying what everyone wants to hear\"\", and you can definitely not say \"\"But I don't want to pay taxes!\"\". There's law, there are legal precedents. When some guy on the Internet tells you exactly what you want to hear - beware. Many times when it is too good to be true - it is in fact not true. Many these articles are written by people who are interested in clients/business. By the time you get to them - you're already in deep trouble and will pay them to fix it. They don't care that their own \"\"advice\"\" got you into that trouble, because it is always written in generic enough terms that they can say \"\"Oh, but it doesn't apply to your specific situation\"\". That's the main problem with these free advice - they are worth exactly what you paid for them. When you actually pay your CPA/Attorney - they'll have to take responsibility over their advice. Then suddenly they become cautious. Suddenly they start mentioning precedents and rulings telling you to not do things. Or not, and try and play the audit roulette, but these types are long gone when you get caught.\"",
"\"I have done similar software work. You do not need an LLC to write off business expenses. The income and expenses go on Schedule C of your tax return. It is easy to write off even small expenses such as travel - if you keep records. The income should be reported to you on a 1099 form, filled out by your client, not yourself. For a financial advisor you should find one you can visit with personally and who operates as a \"\"fee-only\"\" advisor. That means they will not try to sell you something that they get a commission on. You might pay a few $hundred per visit. There are taxes that you have to pay (around 15%) due to self-employment income. These taxes are due 4 times a year and paid with an \"\"estimated tax\"\" form. See the IRS web site, and in particular schedule SE. Get yourself educated about this fast and make the estimated tax payments on time so you won't run into penalties at the end of the year.\"",
"\"You will be filing the exact same form you've been filing until now (I hope...) which is called form 1040. Attached to it, you'll add a \"\"Schedule C\"\" form and \"\"Schedule SE\"\" form. Keep in mind the potential effect of the tax and totalization treaties the US has with the UK which may affect your filings. I suggest you talk to a licensed EA/CPA who works with expats in the UK and is familiar with all the issues. There are several prominent offices you can find by Googling.\"",
"\"Chris, Joe's table helps. but think this way: there are two ways you can pay the taxes for your side-gig: either you can send a check quarterly to the Feds, OR, you can overwithhold at your real job to cover taxes at your sidegig. I'd do this in \"\"arrears\"\" -- after you get your first paycheck from sidegig, then adjust your real job's withholding. Except (and Joe neglected this), you're still responsible for Social Security / Medicare Tax from your sidegig. I suspect your income at real-job is high enough that you stop paying Social Security Tax, so at least at this time of year you won't be subject to 15.4% Social Security Tax. However, that's NOT true for the 2.9% Medicare Tax. Remember that because you're an independent contractor being payed without withholding, YOU are responsible not only for the Medicare (and Social Security) taxes you'd be responsible for if a regular employee, but you're also responsible for what your employer's share as well.\"",
"I would say you can file your taxes on your own, but you will probably want the advice of an accountant if you need any supplies or tools for the side business that might be tax deductible. IIRC you don't have to tell your current employer for tax reasons (just check that your contract doesn't state you can't have a side job or business), but I believe you'll have to tell HMRC. At the end of the year you'll have to file a tax return and at that point in time you'll have to pay the tax on the additional earnings. These will be taxed at your highest tax rate and you might end up in a higher tax bracket, too. I'd put about 40% away for tax, that will put you on the safe side in case you end up in the high tax bracket; if not, you'll have a bit of money going spare after paying your taxes.",
"If you qualify for the safe harbor, you are not required to pay additional quarterly taxes. Of course, you're still welcome to do so if you're sure you'll owe them; however, you will not be penalized. If your income is over $150k (joint) or $75k (single), your safe harbor is: Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty. Generally, if you're under that level, the following reasons suggest you will not owe the tax (from the IRS publication 505): The total of your withholding and timely estimated tax payments was at least as much as your 2013 tax. (See Special rules for certain individuals for higher income taxpayers and farmers and fishermen.) The tax balance due on your 2014 return is no more than 10% of your total 2014 tax, and you paid all required estimated tax payments on time. Your total tax for 2014 (defined later) minus your withholding is less than $1,000. You did not have a tax liability for 2013. You did not have any withholding taxes and your current year tax (less any household employment taxes) is less than $1,000. If you paid one-fourth of your last year's taxes (or of 110% of your last-year's taxes) in estimated taxes for each quarter prior to this one, you should be fine as far as penalties go, and can simply add the excess you know you will owe to the next check.",
"As Victor says, you pay tax on net profit. If this is a significant source of income for you, you should file quarterly estimated tax payments or you're going to get hit with a penalty at the end of the year.",
"\"It's not possible to determine whether you can \"\"expect a refund\"\" or whether you are claiming the right number of exemptions from the information given. If your wife were not working and you did not do independent contracting, then the answer would be much simpler. However, in this case, we must also factor in how much your contracting brings in (since you must pay income tax on that, as well as Medicare and, probably, Social Security), whether you are filing jointly or separately, and your wife's income from her business. There are also other factors such as whether you'll be claiming certain child care expenses, and certain tax credits which may phase out depending on your income. If you can accurately estimate your total household income for the year, and separate that into income from wages, contracting, and your wife's business, as well as your expenses for things like state and local income and property taxes, then you can make a very reasonable estimate about your total tax burden (including the self-employment taxes on your non-wage income) and then determine whether you are having enough tax withheld from your paycheck. Some people may find that they should have additional tax withheld to compensate for these expenses (see IRS W-4 Line #6).\"",
"question #2 - yes, 25% of your 1099 income. Good idea. It adds up quickly and is a good way to reduce taxable income.",
"To be confident in your solution, and get the best solution for you, consult a local accountant, preferably one who is specialized in taxes for businesses. Or muddle through the code and figure it out for yourself. The primary advantage in consulting with an accountant is that you can ask them to point out ways you can restructure your expenses, debts and income in order to minimize your tax burden. They can help you run the numbers for the various options and choose the one that is right, numerically.",
"Since you say 1099, I'll assume it's in the US. :) Think of your consulting operation as a small business. Businesses are only taxed on their profits, not their revenues. So you should only be paying tax on the $700 in the example you gave. Note, though, that you need to be sure the IRS thinks you're a small business. Having a separate bank account for the business, filing for a business license with your local city/state, etc are all things that help make the case that you're running a business. Of course, the costs of doing all those things are business expenses, and thus things you can deduct from that $1000 in revenue at tax time.",
"\"A tax return is a document you sign and file with the government to self-report your tax obligations. A tax refund is the payment you receive from the government if your payments into the tax system exceeded your obligations. As others have mentioned, if an extra $2K in income generated $5K in taxes, chances are your return was prepared incorrectly. The selection of an appropriate entity type for your business depends a lot on what you expect to see over the next several years in terms of income and expenses, and the extent to which you want or need to pay for fringe benefits or make pretax retirement contributions from your business income. There are four basic flavors of entity which are available to you: Sole proprietorship. This is the simplest option in terms of tax reporting and paperwork required for ongoing operations. Your net (gross minus expenses) income is added to your wage income and you'll pay tax on the total. If your wage income is less than approximately $100K, you'll also owe self-employment tax of approximately 15% in addition to income tax on your business income. If your business runs at a loss, you can deduct the loss from your other income in calculating your taxable income, though you won't be able to run at a loss indefinitely. You are liable for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of all of your personal assets. Partnership. You will need at least two participants (humans or entities) to form a partnership. Individual items of income and expense are identified on a partnership tax return, and each partner's proportionate share is then reported on the individual partners' tax returns. General partners (who actively participate in the business) also must pay self-employment tax on their earnings below approximately $100K. Each general partner is responsible for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of their personal assets. A general partnership can be created informally or with an oral agreement although that's not a good idea. Corporation. Business entities can be taxed as \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" corporations. Either way, the corporation is created by filing articles of incorporation with a state government (doesn't have to be the state where you live) and corporations are typically required to file yearly entity statements with the state where they were formed as well as all states where they do business. Shareholders are only liable for the debts and obligations of the corporation to the extent of their investment in the corporation. An \"\"S\"\" corporation files an information-only return similar to a partnership which reports items of income and expense, but those items are actually taken into account on the individual tax returns of the shareholders. If an \"\"S\"\" corporation runs at a loss, the losses are deductible against the shareholders' other income. A \"\"C\"\" corporation files a tax return more similar to an individual's. A C corporation calculates and pays its own tax at the corporate level. Payments from the C corporation to individuals are typically taxable as wages (from a tax point of view, it's the same as having a second job) or as dividends, depending on how and why the payments are made. (If they're in exchange for effort and work, they're probably wages - if they're payments of business profits to the business owners, they're probably dividends.) If a C corporation runs at a loss, the loss is not deductible against the shareholders' other income. Fringe benefits such as health insurance for business owners are not deductible as business expenses on the business returns for S corps, partnerships, or sole proprietorships. C corporations can deduct expenses for providing fringe benefits. LLCs don't have a predefined tax treatment - the members or managers of the LLC choose, when the LLC is formed, if they would like to be taxed as a partnership, an S corporation, or as a C corporation. If an LLC is owned by a single person, it can be considered a \"\"disregarded entity\"\" and treated for tax purposes as a sole proprietorship. This option is not available if the LLC has multiple owners. The asset protection provided by the use of an entity depends quite a bit on the source of the claim. If a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on a contract signed on behalf of the entity, then they likely will not be able to \"\"pierce the veil\"\" and collect the entity's debts from the individual owners. On the other hand, if a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on negligence or another tort-like action (such as sexual harassment), then it's very likely that the individual(s) involved will also be sued as individuals, which takes away a lot of the effectiveness of the purported asset protection. The entity-based asset protection is also often unavailable even for contract claims because sophisticated creditors (like banks and landlords) will often insist the the business owners sign a personal guarantee putting their own assets at risk in the event that the business fails to honor its obligations. There's no particular type of entity which will allow you to entirely avoid tax. Most tax planning revolves around characterizing income and expense items in the most favorable ways possible, or around controlling the timing of the appearance of those items on the tax return.\"",
"\"My number one piece of advice is to see a tax professional who can guide you through the process, especially if you're new to the process. Second, keep detailed records. That being said, I found two articles, [1] and [2] that give some relevant details that you might find helpful. The articles state that: Many artists end up with a combination of income types: income from regular wages and income from self-employment. Income from wages involves a regular paycheck with all appropriate taxes, social security, and Medicare withheld. Income from self-employment may be in the form of cash, check, or goods, with no withholding of any kind. They provide a breakdown for expenses and deductions based on the type of income you receive. If you get a regular paycheck: If you've got a gig lasting more than a few weeks, chances are you will get paid regular wages with all taxes withheld. At the end of the year, your employer will issue you a form W-2. If this regular paycheck is for entertainment-related work (and not just for waiting tables to keep the rent paid), you will deduct related expenses on a Schedule A, under \"\"Unreimbursed Employee business expenses,\"\" or on Form 2106, which will give you a total to carry to the schedule A. The type of expenses that go here are: If you are considered an independent contractor (I presume this includes the value of goods, based on the first quoted paragraph above): Independent contractors get paid by cash or check with no withholding of any kind. This means that you are responsible for all of the Social Security and Medicare normally paid or withheld by your employer; this is called Self-Employment Tax. In order to take your deductions, you will need to complete a Schedule C, which breaks down expenses into even more detail. In addition to the items listed above, you will probably have items in the following categories: Ideally, you should receive a 1099 MISC from whatever employer(s) paid you as an independent contractor. Keep in mind that some states have a non-resident entertainers' tax, which is A state tax levied against performers whose legal residence is outside of the state where the performance is given. The tax requires that a certain percentage of any gross earnings from the performance be withheld for the state. Seriously, keep all of your receipts, pay stubs, W2's, 1099 forms, contracts written on the backs of napkins, etc. and go see a tax professional.\"",
"They are already indirectly paying these expenses. They should be built into your rates. The amount per job or per hour needs to cover what would have been your salary, plus the what would have been sick, vacation, holidays, health insurance, life insurance, disability, education, overhead for office expenses, cost of accountants...and all taxes. In many companies the general rule of thumb is that they need to charge a customer 2x the employees salary to cover all this plus make a profit. If this is a side job some of these benefits will come from your main job. Some self employed get some of these benefits from their spouse. The company has said we give you money for the work you perform, but you need to cover everything else including paying all taxes. Depending on where you live you might have to send money in more often then once a year. They are also telling you that they will be reporting the money they give you to the government so they can claim it as a business expense. So you better make sure you report it as income.",
"For income tax, you can expect to pay (see here for the rates): For class 4 NICs, it should be (see here for the rates): So expected take-home is £36667. You can avoid the income tax - but not the NICs - by putting money into a pension. For example you might put £7525 in to eliminate the entire 40% part of the bill, which would only cost you £4515 from your take-home pay because it would reduce the tax bill by the £3010.",
"\"You are on the right track, for tax purposes its all ordinary income at the end of 2016. If the free lance \"\"employer\"\" will withhold fed,state and local tax, then that takes care of your estimated tax. If they can't or won't, you will need to make those estimates and make payments quarterly for the fed and state tax at your projected tax liability. Or, you can bump up withholding by your day job employer and cover your expected tax liability at year end without making estimated tax payments.\"",
"\"I've been highly compensated for a while now, and I have never used a tax professional. My past complications include the year that my company was bought by a VC firm and my stock options and stock held were bought out to the tune of 5x my salary. And now I have two kids in college, with scholarships, and paying the remainder out of 529 accounts. Usually, I don't even use tax software. My typical method is to use the online software -- like turbotax online -- and let it figure out where I am. Then I use the \"\"Free File Fillable forms\"\" online to actually complete the process. Search for \"\"Free File Fillable Forms\"\" -- it's not the same as using turbotax or TaxAct for free. My suggestion to you: download the PDF form of 1040EZ and 1040A from the IRS. Print the EZ, and fill it out. This will give you a better feel for what exactly is going on. With your income, I don't think you can file the EZ, but it's a good way to get your feet wet. The way income taxes work here in the US: According to the IRS, the Personal Exemption this year is worth $4,050, and the Standard Deduction $6,300, assuming you're single. Lets assume that your salary will be in fact 75,000, and you don't pay for any benefits, but you do make a 401k contribution of 15% of your salary. Then your W-2 at the end of the year should tell you to put 63,750 in a particular box on your 1040 form. (63,750 is 85% of 75,000). Lets then assume 63,750 is your AGI after other additions and subtractions. 63,750 - 4,050 - 6,300 == 53,400. The federal Tax system is graduated, meaning there are different ranges (brackets) with different percentages. The term tax people use for taxable income of 53,400 is \"\"marginal tax rate\"\"...so the last dollar they tax at 25%. Other dollars less. According to the IRS, if you're single, then on 53,400, you pay \"\"$6,897.50 plus 25% of the amount over $50,400\"\" Or 6897.50 + 750, or 7647.50. Note this is only Federal Income Tax. You will also be paying Social Security and Medicare payroll Tax. And I'm guessing you'll also be paying colorado state income tax. Each state has its own forms and methods for figuring out the taxes and stuff. By the way, when you start, you'll fill out a \"\"W-4\"\" form to \"\"help\"\" you figure out how much to withhold from every paycheck. (I find the W-4 is not helpful at all). Your company will withhold from your paycheck some mysterious amount, and the process of filling out your 1040A or 1040EZ or whatever will be, likely, to get the over-withheld amount back.\"",
"You are wildly over-estimating your taxes. First, remember that your business expenses reduce your gross income. Second, remember that taxes are progressive, so your flat 35% only applies if you're already making a high salary that pushed you into the higher brackets of US and CA. I think the deeper problems are: 1) you are expecting a super early start-up (with no finished product) to pay you the same as a steady job, including health insurance, and 2) you are expecting Kickstarter to independently fund the venture. The best source of funding is yourself. If you believe in this venture and in your game design abilities, then pay for most of the costs out of your own savings. Cut your expenses to the extent you can. You may want to wander over to startups.SE to get more perspective and ideas on your business plan.",
"The only way you can save taxes is by starting a limited company, not paying yourself any salary, so you pay 20% corporation taxes, you can take I think £5000 a year dividends tax free, and leave the rest in the company account, and don't touch it until you make less money.",
"\"One option is to look at the IRS Witholding Calculator - As George Marian notes, this is by no means a perfect way to \"\"estimate\"\" how much you'll owe. Other key questions for you to answer: There's no silver bullet here. The best you can do is to understand the key inputs into how your taxes are calculated, and then identify the most important tax deductions that you might take. Then pray that you haven't missed some nuance and use a tax program early in January to check your assumptions so you're not completely surprised when April rolls around. A final suggestion: do your own taxes using a website like TurboTax. Take the time to \"\"itemize\"\" your tax deductions just to learn what is tax deductible. You can figure out how the big parts of tax law works by just looking at what you could deduct in the future.\"",
"13 or 30, the only real difference is that as a minor, you are claimed as a dependent on your parent's return, so you don't have you own exemption. But you do have a standard deduction of $6300 when it comes to earned income. Yes, you'll pay taxes, federal, state, and tax for social security. There's nothing wrong with paying taxes. In fact, I hope you have to pay a small fortune in tax! That would mean you've made a large fortune, and after taxes, still got to keep a good chunk of it. If your income is minimal, you'll actually pay very little in taxes, not enough to even think about wanting to give away what you can sell.",
"Seek professional advice as duffbeer703 has suggested already. Very important! Consider incorporating. If your income will fluctuate year to year, you can keep profit in the corporation, taxed in its hands at the Canadian small business rate, since such corporate income below $500,000 would likely qualify for the small business deduction. You could pay retained earnings to yourself as dividends over more than one year in order to lessen the personal tax burden. If you don't incorporate, all your profits in the year they are earned are taxed at personal income tax rates, and with our progressive income tax system, taking the tax hit all in one year can be expensive. However, if this project is a one-off and you're not likely to continue working like this, you might not want the overhead of a corporation. Taxes aside, there are also legal issues to consider vis-a-vis incorporating, or not. A professional can help you make this decision. Yes, you can claim deductions for reasonable business expenses, whether or not you are incorporated. No, you can't do free work on the side and claim it as donations. It's nice to volunteer, but you wouldn't get a charitable tax credit for your time, only for money or goods donated. Consider opening an RRSP so you can start saving for retirement and get a tax deduction for any contributions you make. This is but one strategy to reduce your tax. There are others. For instance, if you are a student, you perhaps have some unused tuition credits that you could claim in your first year with higher income. Oh, and seek professional advice! ;-)",
"In Australia, any income you earn is taxable despite where it came from. Using your example your taxable income is $70,000. Keep in mind that with a business even as a sole trader any business expenses that contribute to the earning of your business income is deductible, reducing the final amount of tax you'll have to pay. The ATO website has lots of good information and examples to look at including tax rates. If your total income is pushing into a higher tax bracket over 30c tax per $1 earned, it may be worth looking at shifting your business to operate under a company structure that just has a fixed tax rate around 30c per $1. That said, for me, I don't want the paperwork overhead of a company yet so I'm running my side business as a sole trader too. I'd rather do that and keep it easy for now while my business gets profitable that waste time on admin structures for tax reasons even if in the shortterm it may mean slightly higher tax. In the end, you only pay tax on profit (income minus expenses) as opposed to raw/gross income. For more info there are good books in the bookshops or local library (to read free) on starting a business on the side while still working. They discuss these issues too.",
"What you need to do is register as a sole trader. This will automatically register you for self assessment so you don't have to do that separately. For a simple business like you describe that's it. Completing your self assessment will take care of all your income tax and national insurance obligations (although as mentioned in your previous question there shouldn't be any NI to pay if you're only making £600 or so a year).",
"\"After doing a little research, I was actually surprised to find many internet resources on this topic (including sites from Intuit) gave entirely incorrect information. The information that follows is quoted directly from IRS Publication 929, rules for dependents First, I will assume that you are not living on your own, and are claimed as a \"\"dependent\"\" on someone else's tax return (such as a parent or guardian). If you were an \"\"emancipated minor\"\", that would be a completely different question and I will ignore this less-common case. So, how much money can you make, as a minor who is someone else's dependent? Well, the most commonly quoted number is $6,300 - but despite this numbers popularity, this is not true. This is how much you can earn in wages from regular employment without filing your own tax return, but this does not apply to your scenario. Selling your products online as an independent game developer would generally be considered self-employment income, and according to the IRS: A dependent must also file a tax return if he or she: Had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified church-controlled organization that is exempt from employer social security and Medicare taxes, or Had net earnings from self-employment of at least $400. So, your first $400 in earnings triggers absolutely no requirement to file a tax return - blast away, and good luck! After that, you do not necessarily owe much in taxes, however you will need to file a tax return even if you owe $0, as this was self-employment income. If you had, for instance, a job at a grocery store, you could earn up to $6,300 without filing a return, because the store would be informing the IRS about your employment anyway - as well as deducting Medicare and Social Security payments, etc. How much tax will you pay as your income grows beyond $400? Based upon the IRS pages for Self-Employment Tax and Family Businesses, while you will not likely have to pay income tax until you make $6,300 in a year, you will still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes after the first $400. Roughly this should be right about 16% of your income, so if you make $6000 you'll owe just under $1000 (and be keeping the other $5000). If your income grows even more, you may want to learn about business expense deductions. This would allow you to pay for things like advertisement, software, a new computer for development purposes, etc, and deduct the expenses out of your income so you pay less in taxes. But don't worry - having such things to wonder about would mean you were raking in thousands of dollars, and that's an awfully good problem to have as a young entrepreneur! So, should you keep your games free or try to make some money? Well, first of all realize that $400 can be a lot harder to make when you are first starting in business than it probably sounds. Second, don't be afraid of making too much money! Tax filing software - even totally free versions - make filing taxes much, much easier, and at your income level you would still be keeping the vast majority of the money you earn even without taking advantage of special business deductions. I'd recommend you not be a afraid of trying to make some money! I'd bet money it will help you learn a lot about game development, business, and finances, and will be a really valuable experience for you - whether you make money or not. Having made so much money you have to pay taxes is not something to be afraid of - it's just something adults like to complain about :) Good luck on your adventures, and you can always come back and ask questions about how to file taxes, what to do with any new found wealth, etc!\"",
"When you take the self employed health care deduction on on Line 29 of form 1040 for 2010 it also will lower your self employment tax. See line 3 of Schedule SE. You report your net earnings from self employment less line 29 from 1040.",
"\"As ApplePie discusses, \"\"tax bracket\"\" without any modifiers refers to a single jurisdiction's marginal tax rate. In your case, this is either your California's \"\"tax bracket\"\" or your Federal \"\"tax bracket\"\" (not including marginal Social Security and Medicare taxes). But if someone says \"\"combined state and federal tax bracket\"\", they probably mean the combination of your state and federal income tax brackets (again, lot including sales taxes, business and occupational taxes, social security taxes, and medicare taxes). The math to combine the state and federal marginal tax rates is a bit tricky, because most people can deduct either their state and local income taxes, or their state and local general sales taxes when computing their income for federal income tax purposes. (The federal \"\"alternative minimum tax\"\" restricts this deduction for some people.) For a single person earning $ 100,000 of salaries and wages in California, whose state income taxes are close to their standard deduction, the calculations for the combined marginal income tax rate look something like this: As mentioned above, this understates the tax bite on marginal \"\"earned income\"\". To find the true marginal rate, we need to add in Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, sales taxes, and business & occupation taxes. The Social Security and Medicare taxes are sometimes called \"\"self employment taxes\"\". This math omits unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance, because those taxes are typically capped well below $ 100,000 per year of income. This math also omits B & O taxes, because this question is California specific. If an employer wishes to increase an employee's pay by $ 1,076.50, the first $ 76.50 will go to the employer's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes. The remaining $ 1,000.00 will be subject to the combined marginal income tax rate discussed above, plus will have $ 76.50 go to the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes. The employee might buy some extra things with some of their extra money, and pay sales tax on them. In 2016, a 9 % sales tax rate was common in California's largest cities. The IRS estimated that (for a single person with no dependents making $ 100,000 per year who did not buy a boat, RV, motor vehicle, or major home construction), about 9 % of their marginal gross income was subject to sales tax.\"",
"\"AFAIK, there are two kinds of taxes your web freelancing income may be subject to in Quebec: On the income taxes: The net income you realize from your web freelancing activities would be considered taxable income. Assuming you are not operating as an incorporated business, you would need to declare the freelancing income on both your federal and provincial tax returns. You should be able to deduct certain costs related to your business – for instance, if you paid for software, hosting, domain name registration, etc. That is, only the profit from your business would be subject to income tax. With income and expenses arising from self-employment, you may want to use a professional to file your taxes. On the sales taxes: You may also need to charge federal GST and provincial QST (Quebec Sales Tax) on your services: You must enroll and charge GST and QST once you exceed the \"\"small supplier\"\" revenue threshold of $30,000 measured over four consecutive quarters. (You can still choose to enroll for GST/QST before you reach that amount, but over that amount enrollment becomes mandatory. Some businesses enroll before the threshold is reached so they can claim input tax credits for tax paid on expenses, but then there's more paperwork – one reason to perhaps avoid enrolling until necessary.) In Quebec, the Ministère du Revenu du Québec administers both GST (on behalf of the federal government) as well as provincial QST. Be sure to also check out their informative booklet, Should I Register with Revenu Quebec? (PDF). See also General Information Concerning the QST and the GST/HST (PDF).\"",
"\"As a minor you certainly can pay tax, the government wants its cut from you just like everyone else :-) However you do get the personal allowance like everyone else, so you won't have to pay income tax until your net income reaches £10,800 (that's the figure for the tax year from April 2015 to April 2016, it'll probably change in future years). Once you're 16, you will also have to pay national insurance, which is basically another tax, at a lower threshold. The current rates are £2.80/week if you are making £5,965 a year or more, and also 9% on any income above £8,060 (up to £42,385). Your \"\"net income\"\" or \"\"profits\"\" are the income you receive minus the expenses you have to support that income. Note that the expenses must be entirely for the \"\"business\"\", they can't be for personal things. The most important thing to do immediately is to start keeping accurate records. Keep a list of the income you receive and also the expenses you pay for hardware etc. Make sure you keep receipts (perhaps just electronic ones) for the expenses so you can prove they existed later. Keep track of that net income as the year goes on and if it starts collecting at the rate you'd have to pay tax and national insurance, then make sure you also put aside enough money to pay for those when the bill comes. There's some good general advice on the Government's website here: https://www.gov.uk/working-for-yourself/what-you-need-to-do In short, as well as keeping records, you should register with the tax office, HMRC, as a \"\"sole trader\"\". This should be something that anyone can do whatever their age, but it's worth calling them up as soon as you can to check and find out if there are any other issues. They'll probably want you to send in tax returns containing the details of your income and expenses. If you're making enough money it may be worth paying an accountant to do this for you.\"",
"You should look into an LLC. Its a fairly simple process, and the income simply flows through to your individual return. It will allow you to deduct supplies and other expenses from that income. It should also protect you if someone sues you for doing shoddy work (even if the work was fine), although you would need to consult a lawyer to be sure. For last year, it sounds like your taxes were done wrong. There are very, very few ways that you can end up adding more income and earning less after taxes. I'm tempted to say none, but our tax laws are so complex that I'm sure you can do it somehow.",
"You need to clarify with Bob what your agreement is. If you and Bob are working together on these jobs as partners, you should get a written partnership agreement done by a lawyer who works with software industry entity formation. You can legally be considered a partnership if you are operating a business together, even if there is nothing in writing. The partnership will have its own tax return, and you each will be allocated 50% of the profits/losses (if that's what you agree to). This amount will be reported on your own individual 1040 as self-employment income. Since you have now lost all the expense deductions you would have taken on your Schedule C, and any home office deduction, it's a good idea to put language in the partnership agreement stating that the partnership will reimburse partners for their out-of-pocket expenses. If Bob is just hiring you as a contractor, you give him your SSN, and he issues you a 1099, like any other client. This should be a situation where you invoice him for the amount you are charging. Same thing with Joe - figure out if you're hiring him as an independent contractor, or if you have a partnership. Either way, you will owe income and self-employment tax on your profits. In the case of a partnership, the amount will be on the K-1 from the partnership return. For an independent contractor who's operating as a sole proprietor, you report the income you invoiced for and received, and deduct your expenses, including independent contractors that you hired, on your Schedule C. Talk to your tax guy about quarterly estimated payments. If you don't have a tax guy, go get one. Find somebody people in your city working in your industry recommend. A good tax person will save you more money than they cost. IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.",
"Don't overthink it. As an employee, whether of your own corporation or of someone else, you get a salary and there are deductions taken out. As the owner of a business you get (hopefully) business profits as well. And, in general, you often have other sources of income from investments, etc. Your estimated tax payments are based on the difference between what was withheld from your salary and what you will owe, based on salary, business income, and other sources. So, in essence, you just add up all the income you expect, estimate what the tax bill will be, and subtract what's been withheld. That's your estimated tax payment.",
"\"Many individual states, counties, and cities have their own income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc., you will need to consult your state and local government websites for information about additional taxes that apply based on your locale. Wages, Salaries, Tips, Cash bonuses and other taxable employee pay, Strike benefits, Long-term disability, Earnings from self employment Earned income is subject to payroll taxes such as: Earned income is also subject to income taxes which are progressively higher depending on the amount earned minus tax credits, exemptions, and/or deductions depending on how you file. There are 7 tax rates that get progressively larger as your income rises but only applies to the income in each bracket. 10% for the first 18,650 (2017) through 39.6% for any income above 470,700. The full list of rates is in the above linked article about payroll taxes. Earned income is required for contributions to an IRA. You cannot contribute more to an IRA than you have earned in a given year. Interest, Ordinary Dividends, Short-term Capital Gains, Retirement income (pensions, distributions from tax deferred accounts, social security), Unemployment benefits, Worker's Compensation, Alimony/Child support, Income earned while in prison, Non-taxable military pay, most rental income, and S-Corp passthrough income Ordinary income is taxed the same as earned income with the exception that social security taxes do not apply. This is the \"\"pure taxable income\"\" referred to in the other linked question. Dividends paid by US Corporations and qualified foreign corporations to stock-holders (that are held for a certain period of time before the dividend is paid) are taxed at the Long-term Capital Gains rate explained below. Ordinary dividends like the interest earned in your bank account are included with ordinary income. Stocks, Bonds, Real estate, Carried interest -- Held for more than a year Income from assets that increase in value while being held for over a year. Long term capital gains justified by the idea that they encourage people to hold stock and make long term investments rather than buying and then quickly reselling for a short-term profit. The lower tax rates also reflect the fact that many of these assets are already taxed as they are appreciating in value. Real-estate is usually taxed through local property taxes. Equity in US corporations realized by rising stock prices and dividends that are returned to stock holders reflect earnings from a corporation that are already taxed at the 35% Corporate tax rate. Taxing Capital gains as ordinary income would be a second tax on those same profits. Another problem with Long-term capital gains tax is that a big portion of the gains for assets held for multiple decades are not real gains. Inflation increases the price of assets held for longer periods, but you are still taxed on the full gain even if it would be a loss when inflation is calculated. Capital gains are also taxed differently depending on your income level. If you are in the 10% or 15% brackets then Long-term capital gains are assessed at 0%. If you are in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% brackets, they are assessed at 15%. Only those in the 39.6% bracket pay 20%. Capital assets sold at a profit held for less than a year Income from buying and selling any assets such as real-estate, stock, bonds, etc., that you hold for less than a year before selling. After adding up all gains and losses during the year, the net gain is taxed as ordinary income. Collectibles held for more than a year are not considered capital assets and are still taxed at ordinary income rates.\""
] |
[
"Whether you're self-employed or not, knowing exactly how much tax you will pay is not always an easy task. Various actions you can take (e.g., charitable donations, IRA contributions, selling stocks) may increase or reduce your tax liability. One tool I've found useful for estimating federal taxes is the Excel 1040 spreadsheet. This is a spreadsheet version of the income tax return form. It is not official and is not created by the IRS, but is maintained as a labor of love by a private individual. In practice, however, it is pretty much an accurate implementation of the tax calculation algorithms encoded in the tax forms and instructions. The nice thing about it is that it's a spreadsheet. You can plug numbers into various slots in the spreadsheet and see how they affect your federal tax liability. (You may also owe state taxes depending on what state you live in.) Of course, the estimates you get by doing this are only (at most) as accurate as your estimates of the various numbers you plug in. Still, I think it's a free and useful way to get a ballpark estimate of your tax liability based on numbers that you can more easily estimate (e.g., how much money you expect to earn).",
"The amount of the income taxes you will owe depends upon how much income you have, after valid business expenses, also it will depend upon your filing status as well as the ownership form of your business and what state you live in. That said, you will need to be sure to make the Federal 1040ES quarterly prepayments of your tax on time or there will be penalties. You also must remember that you will be needing to file a schedule SE with your 1040. That is for the social security taxes you owe, which is in addition to your income taxes. With an employer/employee situation, the FICA withhoding you have seen on your paycheck are matched by the same payment by your employer. Now that you are self-employed you are responcible for your share and the employer share as well; in this situation it is known as self-employment tax. the amount of it will be the same as your share of FICA and half of the employer's share of FICA taxes. If you are married and your wife also is working self-employed, then she will have to files herown schedule SE along with yours. meaning that you will pay based on your business income and she will pay baed on hers. your 1040Es quarterly prepayment must cover your income tax and your combined (yours and hers) Self Employment taxes. Many people will debate on the final results of the results of schedule SE vrs an employee's and an employer's payments combined. If one were to provides a ball park percentage that would likely apply to you final total addition to your tax libility as a result of needing schedule SE would tend to fluctuate depending upon your total tax situation; many would debate it. It has been this way since, I first studied and use this schedule decades ago. For this reason it is best for you to review these PDF documents, Form 1040 Schedule SE Instructions and Form 1040 Schedule SE. As for your state income taxes, it will depend on the laws of the state you are based in."
] |
2590
|
Are non-residents or foreigners permitted to buy or own shares of UK companies?
|
[
"296528",
"209493",
"589625"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"296528",
"589625",
"209493",
"392313",
"566028",
"30996",
"326559",
"51777",
"48269",
"35191",
"57841",
"94477",
"569257",
"347560",
"73457",
"478736",
"540986",
"451729",
"528880",
"458635",
"288145",
"281423",
"562007",
"231814",
"197478",
"9158",
"112393",
"551809",
"546237",
"55999",
"123047",
"536483",
"143264",
"529001",
"504612",
"263312",
"552138",
"253847",
"354116",
"12268",
"310103",
"390972",
"480638",
"508184",
"288977",
"57646",
"255519",
"308048",
"551627",
"105717",
"94336",
"447303",
"262485",
"271333",
"415954",
"370212",
"522907",
"411799",
"107215",
"298985",
"410543",
"286296",
"268022",
"567653",
"72846",
"458730",
"158923",
"85926",
"92462",
"334849",
"528358",
"478147",
"531180",
"206313",
"534391",
"5347",
"328699",
"459953",
"535340",
"177114",
"211428",
"168642",
"168841",
"277500",
"177050",
"481488",
"468148",
"202148",
"294359",
"82283",
"322771",
"123030",
"75762",
"495417",
"33159",
"245753",
"182374",
"265948",
"433023",
"488920"
] |
[
"Yes it is legal, in fact according to statistics.gov.uk, foreign investors are the largest holders of UK shares (as of 2008). Investors from outside the UK owned 41.5 per cent of shares listed on the London Stock Exchange at the end of 2008, up from 40.0 per cent at end of 2006, according to the latest Office for National Statistics report on share ownership.",
"Yes, However if you live in the USA a lot of companies will refuse to sent you any report and will not let you take part in “right issues” as they don’t wish to come under USA investment law.",
"\"It's easy to own many of the larger UK stocks. Companies like British Petroleum, Glaxo, and Royal Dutch Shell, list what they call ADRs (American Depositary Receipts) on the U.S. stock exchanges. That is, they will deposit local shares with Bank of NY Mellon, JP Morgan Chase, or Citicorp (the three banks that do this type of business), and the banks will turn around and issue ADRs equivalent to the number of shares on deposit. This is not true with \"\"small cap\"\" companies. In those cases, a broker like Schwab may occasionally help you, usually not. But you might have difficulty trading U.S. small cap companies as well.\"",
"non-resident aliens to the US do not pay capital gains on US products. You pay tax in your home country if you have done a taxable event in your country. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/nonusresidenttax.asp#axzz1mQDut9Ru but if you hold dividends, you are subject to US dividend tax. The UK-US treaty should touch on that though.",
"As other people have said they should register with a broker in the country they reside in that can deal in US stocks, then fill out a W8-BEN form. I have personally done this as I am from the Uk, it's not a very complicated process. I would assume that most US brokers don't allow foreign customers due to the person having to pay tax where they reside and the US brokers don't want to have to keep approximately 200 different tax codes in track.",
"There are no legal restrictions on doing this. If you're living in the UK, just open an account like any other resident of the UK would.",
"The link provided by DumbCoder (below) is only relevant to UK resident investors and does not apply if you live in Malaysia. I noticed that in a much older question you asked a similar question about taxes on US stocks, so I'll try and answer both situations here. The answer is almost the same for any country you decide to invest in. As a foreign investor, the country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The rate of DWT that will be withheld is unique to each country. The UK does not have any withholding tax so you will always receive the full dividend on UK stocks. The withholding tax rate for the US is 30%. Other countries vary. For most countries that do charge a withholding tax, it is possible to have this reduced to 15% if there is a double taxation treaty in place between the two countries and all of the following are true: Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).",
"The UK has historically aggressive financial law, inherited from Dutch friendship, influence, and acquisitions by conquest. The law is so open that nearly anyone can invest through the UK without much difficulty, and citizens have nearly no restrictions on where to invest. A UK citizen can either open an account in the US with paperwork hassles or at home with access to all world markets and less paperwork. Here is the UK version of my broker, Interactive Brokers. Their costs are the lowest, but you will be charged a minimum fee if you do not trade enough, and their minimum opening balance can be prohibitively high for some. If you do buy US products, be sure to file your W-8BEN.",
"\"Yes and no. There are two primary ways to do this. The first is known as \"\"cross listing\"\". Basically, this means that shares are listed in the home country are the primary shares, but are also traded on secondary markets using mechanisms like ADRs or Globally Registered Shares. Examples of this method include Vodafone and Research in Motion. The second is \"\"dual listing\"\". This is when two corporations that function as a single business are listed in multiple places. Examples of this include Royal Dutch Shell and Unilever. Usually companies choose this method for tax purposes when they merge or acquire an international company. Generally speaking, you can safely buy shares in whichever market makes sense to you.\"",
"First thing to consider is that getting your hands on an IPO is very difficult unless you have some serious clout. This might help a bit in that department (http://www.sec.gov/answers/ipoelig.htm) However, assuming you accept all that risk and requirements, YES - you can buy stocks of any kind in the US even if you are a foreigner. There are no laws prohibiting investment/buying in the US stock market. What you need is to get an online trading account from a registered brokerage house in the US. Once you are registered, you can buy whatever that is offered.",
"I'm in the US as well, but some basic things are still the same. You need to trade through a broker, but the need for a full service broker is no longer necessary. You may be able to get by with a web based brokerage that charges less fees. If you are nervous, look for a big name, and avoid a fly by night company. Stick with non-exotic investments. don't do options, or futures or Forex. You may even want to skip shares all together and see if UK offers something akin to an index fund which tracks broad markets (like the whole of the FTSE 100 or the S&P 500) as a whole.",
"Usually, you can buy ETFs through brokerages. I looked at London to see if there's any familiar brokerage names, and it appears that the address below is to Fidelity Investments Worldwide and their site indicates that you can buy securities. Any brokerage, in theory, should allow you to invest in securities. You could always call and ask if they allow you to invest in ETFs. Some brokerages may also allow you to purchase securities in other countries; for instance, some of the firms in the U.S. allow investors to invest in the ETF HK:2801, which is not a U.S. ETF. Many countries have ETF securities available to local and foreign investors. This site appears to help point people to brokers in London. Also, see this answer on this site (a UK investor who's invested in the U.S. through Barclays).",
"You can open an account with HSBC and use InvestDirect - their online share trading service - to trade LSE-traded shares. https://investments.hsbc.co.uk/product/9/sharedealing",
"You can invest upto $200K per year abroad, and yes, you can buy Google as a stock. Consider opening an international account with a broker like interactive brokers (www.interactivebrokers.co.in) which allows you to fund the account from your local Indian account, and then on, buy shares of companies listed abroad.",
"\"For non Australian residents: Dividends withholding tax rate is 30%. Depending upon your country of residence where there is a tax treaty in place to avoid double taxation, then this can be reduced. Note that only dividends that are unfranked are subject to this (in Australia, if tax has already been paid by the company then they can distribute dividends as \"\"franked\"\" dividends\"\"). For example, if you owned shares in Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), their most recent dividend from Feb 2015 (Paid 2 April 2015) was $1.98 fully franked. No withholding tax is applicable. There is no capital gains tax for non-residents on share transactions. There are other \"\"tax events\"\" that related to large shareholdings in a company (>10%) with property holdings but I'm guessing that is not an issue. https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Tax-return/2014/In-detail/Publications/You-and-your-shares-2013-14/?page=14 https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/International-tax-for-business/Previous-years/Capital-gains-and-foreign-residents/ https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/International-tax-for-business/Previous-years/Capital-gains-and-foreign-residents/?page=13#Foreign_residents_holding_interests_in_Australian_fixed_trusts https://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/services/Tax/regional-tax-centers/asia-pacific-tax-centre/Documents/CountryProfiles/Australia.pdf\"",
"There are some brokers in the US who would be happy to open an account for non-US residents, allowing you to trade stocks at NYSE and other US Exchanges. Some of them, along with some facts: DriveWealth Has support in Portuguese Website TD Ameritrade Has support in Portuguese Website Interactive Brokers Account opening is not that straightforward Website",
"Absolutely. It does highly depend on your country, as US brokerages are stricter with or even closed to residents of countries that produce drugs, launder money, finance terror, have traditional difficulty with the US, etc. It also depends on your country's laws. Some countries have currency controls, restrictions on buying foreign/US securities, etc. That said, some brokerages have offices world-wide, so there might be one near you. If your legal situation as described above is fortunate, some brokers will simply allow you to setup online using a procedure not too different from US residents: provide identification, sign tons of documents. You'll have to have a method to deliver your documentation in the ways you'd expect: mail, fax, email. E*Trade is the best starter broker, right now, imo. Just see how far you can go in the sign-up process.",
"Open an account with a US discount online broker, or with a European broker with access to the US market. I think ETRADE allow non-resident accounts, for instance, amongst others. The brokerage will be about $10, and there is no annual fee. (So you're ~1% down out of the gate, but that's not so much.) Brokers may have a minimum transaction value but very few exchanges care about the number of shares anymore, and there is no per-share fee. As lecrank notes, putting all your savings into a single company is not prudent, but having a flutter with fun money on Apple is harmless. Paul is correct that dividend cheques may be a slight problem for non-residents. Apple don't pay dividends so there's no problem in this specific case. More generally your broker will give you a cash account into which the dividends can go. You may have to deal with US tax which is more of an annoyance than a cost.",
"Here're some findings upon researches: Two main things to watch out for: Estate tax and the 30% tax withholding. These 2 could be get around by investing in Luxembourg or Ireland domiciled ETF. For instance there's no tax withholding on Ireland domiciled ETF dividend, and the estate tax is not as high. (source: BogleHead forums) Some Vanguard ETF offered in UK stock market: https://www.vanguard.co.uk/uk/mvc/investments/etf#docstab. Do note that the returns of S&P 500 ETF (VUSA) are adjusted after the 30% tax withholding! Due to VUSA's higher TER (0.09%), VOO should remain a superior choice. The FTSE Emerging Markets and All-World ETFs though, are better than their US-counterparts, for non-US residents. Non-US residents are able to claim back partials of the withhold tax, by filing the US tax form 1040NR. In 2013, non-US resident can claim back at least $3,900. Kindly correct me if anything is inaccurate.",
"\"This page from the CRA website details the types of investments you can hold in a TFSA. You can hold individual shares, including ETFs, traded on any \"\"designated stock exchange\"\" in addition to the other types of investment you have listed. Here is a list of designated stock exchanges provided by the Department of Finance. As you can see, it includes pretty well every major stock exchange in the developed world. If your bank's TFSA only offers \"\"mutual funds, GICs and saving deposits\"\" then you need to open a TFSA with a different bank or a stock broking company with an execution only service that offers TFSA accounts. Almost all of the big banks will do this. I use Scotia iTrade, HSBC Invest Direct, and TD, though my TFSA's are all with HSBC currently. You will simply provide them with details of your bank account in order to facilitate money transfers/TFSA contributions. Since purchasing foreign shares involves changing your Canadian dollars into a foreign currency, one thing to watch out for when purchasing foreign shares is the potential for high foreign exchange spreads. They can be excessive in proportion to the investment being made. My experience is that HSBC offers by far the best spreads on FX, but you need to exchange a minimum of $10,000 in order to obtain a decent spread (typically between 0.25% and 0.5%). You may also wish to note that you can buy unhedged ETFs for the US and European markets on the Toronto exchange. This means you are paying next to nothing on the spread, though you obviously are still carrying the currency risk. For example, an unhedged S&P500 trades under the code ZSP (BMO unhedged) or XUS (iShares unhedged). In addition, it is important to consider that commissions for trades on foreign markets may be much higher than those on a Canadian exchange. This is not always the case. HSBC charge me a flat rate of $6.88 for both Toronto and New York trades, but for London they would charge up to 0.5% depending on the size of the trade. Some foreign exchanges carry additional trading costs. For example, London has a 0.5% stamp duty on purchases. EDIT One final thing worth mentioning is that, in my experience, holding US securities means that you will be required to register with the US tax authorities and with those US exchanges upon which you are trading. This just means fill out a number of different forms which will be provided by your stock broker. Exchange registrations can be done electronically, however US tax authority registration must be submitted in writing. Dividends you receive will be net of US withholding taxes. I am not aware of any capital gains reporting requirements to US authorities.\"",
"*Disclaimer: I am a tax accountant , but I am not your professional accountant or advocate (unless you have been in my office and signed a contract). This communication is not intended as tax advice, and no tax accountant / client relationship results. *Please consult your own tax accountant for tax advise.** A foreign citizen may form a limited liability company. In contrast, all profit distributions (called dividends) made by a C corporation are subject to double taxation. (Under US tax law, a nonresident alien may own shares in a C corporation, but may not own any shares in an S corporation.) For this reason, many foreign citizens form a limited liability company (LLC) instead of a C corporation A foreign citizen may be a corporate officer and/or director, but may not work/take part in any business decisions in the United States or receive a salary or compensation for services provided in the United States unless the foreign citizen has a work permit (either a green card or a special visa) issued by the United States. Basically, you should be looking at benefiting only from dividends/pass-through income but not salaries or compensations.",
"\"Take a look at FolioFN - they let you buy small numbers of shares and fractional shares too. There is an annual fee on the order of US$100/year. You can trade with no fees at two \"\"windows\"\" per day, or at any time for a $15 fee. You are better off leaving the stock in broker's name, especially if you live overseas. Otherwise you will receive your dividends in the form of cheques that might be expensive to try to cash. There is also usually a fee charged by the broker to obtain share certificates instead of shares in your account.\"",
"Transfers of money to the UK for any purpose are not generally taxed, so you can just transfer it here and invest. Once the money is here, you'll be taxed on the business activity like anyone else - the company will have to pay corporation tax, and depending on your own residency you might have to pay income tax on any distributions from the company.",
"It looks like your best option is to go with an online broker. There are many available. Some of them won't let you open an account online as a foreign national but will allow you to open one through the mail. See more about that http://finance.zacks.com/can-nonus-citizen-trade-us-stocks-9654.html Also keep in mind that you will need to pay taxes on any capital gains made through selling http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p519.pdf",
"If you are a US citizen, you need to very carefully research the US tax implications of investing in foreign stocks before you do so. The US tax rules have been set up in general to make this very unattractive.",
"I believe that tax will be withheld (at 30%?) on dividends paid to non-residents. You can claim it back if your country has a tax treaty with the USA, but you will need to file. You probably also need to file a W-series withholding form (eg a W9-BEN). Interesting question. I would like to hear a more definitive answer.",
"Most UK stock brokers don't require or allow margin trading. A quick web search for 'UK share dealing comparison' shows entries from money.co.uk and moneysupermarket.com who both provide lists of different brokers, e.g. Barclays, Hargraves Lansdown, IG Share Dealing, The Share Centre, TD Direct, Interactive Investor, YouInvest, etc. Some of the UK banks also provide a share dealing service, from quickly looking at their websites, Barclays, HSBC and Halifax all appear to provide share dealing services.",
"Any large stockbroker will offer trading in US securities. As a foreign national you will be required to register with the US tax authorities (IRS) by completing and filing a W-8BEN form and pay US withholding taxes on any dividend income you receive. US dividends are paid net of withholding taxes, so you do not need to file a US tax return. Capital gains are not subject to US taxes. Also, each year you are holding US securities, you will receive a form from the IRS which you are required to complete and return. You will also be required to complete and file forms for each of the exchanges you wish to received market price data from. Trading will be restricted to US trading hours, which I believe is 6 hours ahead of Denmark for the New York markets. You will simply submit an order to the desired market using your broker's online trading software or your broker's telephone dealing service. You can expect to pay significantly higher commissions for trading US securities when compared to domestic securities. You will also face potentially large foreign exchange fees when exchaning your funds from EUR to USD. All in all, you will probably be better off using your local market to trade US index or sector ETFs.",
"\"A lot of ISA's allow both shares and funds as well as gilts, Hargreaves Lansdown comes to mind as does the Alliance Trust. Some penalise (charging wise) securities vs UT (unit trusts) funds but in that case just go for a low cost IT (Investment Trust) ISA and hold individual shares as well as pooled investments in the Big IT's. I think you might have to be an \"\"approved investor\"\" to buy gilts.\"",
"In the UK, this is the very definition of a Public Limited Company. A Limited Company can restrict how its stock is trades and who can buy and sell and when, a Public Limited Company cannot. Most stock exchanges will only allow Public Limited Company stock to be traded. Therefore a company can control who its stock holders are or be traded on a Stock Exchange.",
"I would not expect any problems. Your interest will have tax deducted at 20% which I don't think you would be entitled to reclaim because you don't get a personal allowance if you aren't resident in the UK, and unless you have a huge amount of UK earnings you would not be legally liable to any higher rates of tax so there would be no issues there. If you were liable to more tax you would be obliged to inform the Inland Revenue.",
"Normal high street accounts certainly are available to non-residents. I have several, and I haven't been resident in the UK for fourteen years. However you do need to open them before you leave. They need identification. Once you have one open, the same bank should be able to open other accounts by mail. The disadvantage of course is that you will pay tax on your earnings, and while you can claim it back that's an unnecessary piece of work if you don't have other UK earnings. I would take the risk of an offshore account, assuming it's with a big reputable bank - the kind that are going to be bailed out if there is another collapse. An alternative might be a fixed term deposit. You lock up your money for three years, and you get it back plus a single interest payment at the end of three years. You would pay nothing in tax while you were gone, but the whole interest amount would be taxable when you got back.",
"You don't need a visa to invest in US equity. You don't need a visa to profit from US equity. There may be other legal considerations, but they aren't visa related, hope that helps",
"It doesn't matter which exchange a share was purchased through (or if it was even purchased on an exchange at all--physical share certificates can be bought and sold outside of any exchange). A share is a share, and any share available for purchase in New York is available to be purchased in London. Buying all of a company's stock is not something that can generally be done through the stock market. The practical way to accomplish buying a company out is to purchase a controlling interest, or enough shares to have enough votes to bind the board to a specific course of action. Then vote to sell all outstanding shares to another company at a particular fixed price per share. Market capitalization is an inaccurate measure of the size of a company in the first place, but if you want to quantify it, you can take the number of outstanding shares (anywhere and everywhere) and multiply them by the price on any of the exchanges that sell it. That will give you the market capitalization in the currency that is used by whatever exchange you chose.",
"You can apply for Foreign currency accounts. But they aren't saving accounts by any means, but more like current accounts. Taking money out will involve charges. You have to visit the bank website to figure out what all operations can be performed on your account. Barclays and HSBC allow accounts in foreign currency. Other banks also will be providing the same services. Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person Depends on country by country. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Get yourself a trading account and invest in foreign markets i.e. equities, bonds etc. But all in all be ready for the foreign exchange risks involved in denominating assets in multiple currencies.",
"\"The shares are \"\"imputed income\"\" / payment in kind. You worked in the UK, but are you a \"\"US Person\"\"? If not, you should go back to payroll with this query as this income is taxable in the UK. It is important you find out on what basis they were issued. The company will have answers. Where they aquired at a discount to fair market value ? Where they purchased with a salary deduction as part of a scheme ? Where they acquired by conversion of employee stock options ? If you sell the shares, or are paid dividends, then there will be tax withheld.\"",
"\"The country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The US withholding tax rate on dividends is 30%, although this can be reduced to 15% if there as a tax treaty in place between the US and your country of residence. Malaysia does have a double taxation agreement with the US (see here: http://www.mida.gov.my/env3/index.php?page=double-taxation-agreement) but it is flagged as a \"\"limited\"\" agreement. You'd need to find the full text of the agreement to see whether a reduced rate of dividend withholding tax would be available in the Malaysia/US treaty. See my other answer for more details on withholding taxes and how to partially reclaim under a double tax treaty: What is the dividend tax rate for UK stock Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).\"",
"While most all Canadian brokers allow us access to all the US stocks, the reverse is not true. But some US brokers DO allow trading on foreign exchanges. (e.g. Interactive Brokers at which I have an account). You have to look and be prepared to switch brokers. Americans cannot use Canadian brokers (and vice versa). Trading of shares happens where-ever two people get together - hence the pink sheets. These work well for Americans who want to buy-sell foreign stocks using USD without the hassle of FX conversions. You get the same economic exposure as if the actual stock were bought. But the exchanges are barely policed, and liquidity can dry up, and FX moves are not necessarily arbitraged away by 'the market'. You don't have the same safety as ADRs because there is no bank holding any stash of 'actual' stocks to backstop those traded on the pink sheets.",
"This article might help: https://www.law360.com/articles/733853/good-news-for-foreign-investors-in-us-defense-industry It appears it's the responsibility of the defence contractor to prove it's not under foreign influence or control if they want to keep their security clearance, the loss of which would likely put them out of business as a defence contractor. So if I understand correctly, there's nothing (aside from money) stopping me, a foreigner, from owning a huge chunk of a US defence contractor. They just won't listen if I try to tell them what to do. If I try and force them to do what I say, the US Department of Defence will get angry and I'll lose all the money I invested.",
"As a permanent resident in the U.S. but not a citizen, I was told by a representative at Scottrade that I am not allowed to open a brokerage account.",
"\"It's generally not possible to open a business account in the UK remotely. It's even difficult (near impossible) for a non-resident (even if a citizen) to open a business or personal bank account while visiting the UK. A recent report says that it may be possible to open an account via Barclays Offshore in the Isle of Man. This requires a large deposit, and probably lots of paperwork and fees (most offshore locations have stricter \"\"know your customer\"\" rules than major countries). Note that while the Isle of Man is inside the UK banking system (for sort codes, account numbers), it is a separate territory that doesn't have the same deposit guarantees as the UK. There is no legal reason why a UK company has to bank within the UK banking system, although many companies paying the company would expect it or require it, and an account in anything other than sterling would complicate the accounts. It could have an account in your home country. It's not even a legal requirement that the company has an account in its own name at all. Some people use a (separate) personal account for this purpose. There are plenty of reasons why this is a bad idea (for example it's unclear who/what owns the money in the account, and can give the appearance of director's loans), but it's a work-around. Most inbound electronic payments only require a sort code and account number, the account owner name is not checked. The UK does have a much simpler and cheaper company registry than most European countries, but the near-impossibility of opening a bank account for a business in the UK as a non-resident has made it an unsuitable place to register a small international company.\"",
"\"Shares are for investors. Most of the rich are investors. Unfortunately, the reverse is not true. But if you want to get rich, the first step is to become an investor. (The second is to become a SUCCESSFUL investor. 50 pounds might be too little. Try to start with at least 500 at a time. You can ADD amounts of 50 pounds. There are definitely fees involved. You will \"\"pay for lessons.\"\" But it will be worth it, if you become even a moderately successful investor. As for rules, they'll teach you the rules. Everyone wants your business. People have gotten (modestly) rich, buying shares here and there. One man told me of investing $600 in a company called Limited, and ending up with $12,000 some years later. BRIC is not a \"\"share.\"\" It is an acronym for four countries \"\"of the future.\"\" High risk, high reward here.\"",
"Other than the possibility of minimal entry price being prohibitively high, there's no reason why you couldn't participate in any global trading whatsoever. Most ETFs, and indeed, stockbrokers allows both accounts opening, and trading via the Internet, without regard to physical location. With that said, I'd strongly advice you to do a proper research, and reality check both on your risk/reward profile, and on the vehicles to invest in. As Fools write, money you'll need in the next 6 months have no place on the stockmarket. Be prepared, that you can indeed loose all of your investment, regardless of the chosen vehicle.",
"Here's a different take: Look through the lists of companies that offer shareholder perks. Here's one from Hargreaves Lansdown. See if you can find one that you already spend money with with a low required shareholding where the perks would actually be usable. Note that in your case, being curious about the whole thing and based in London, you don't have to rule out the AGM-based perks, unlike me. My reason for this is simple: with 3 out of 4 of the companies we bought shares in directly (all for the perks), we've made several times the dividend in savings on money we would have spent anyway (either with the company in which we bought shares or a direct competitor). This means that you can actually make back the purchase price plus dealing fee quite quickly (probably in 2/4 in our case), and you still have the shares. We've found that pub/restaurant/hotel brands work well if you use them or their equivalents anyway. Caveats: It's more enjoyable than holding a handful of shares in a company you don't care about, and if you want to read the annual reports you can relate this to your own experience, which might interest you given your obvious curiosity.",
"Depending on your broker, you can buy these stocks directly at the most liquid local exchanges. For instance, if you are US resident and want to to buy German stocks (like RWE) you can trade these stocks over InteractiveBrokers (or other direct brokers in the US). They offer direct access to German Xetra and other local markets.",
"You can't actually transfer shares directly unless they were obtained as part of an employee share scheme - see the answers to questions 19 and 20 on this page: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/isa/faqs.htm#19 Q. Can I put shares from my employee share scheme into my ISA? A. You can transfer any shares you get from into a stocks and shares component of an ISA without having to pay Capital Gains Tax - provided your ISA manager agrees to take them. The value of the shares at the date of transfer counts towards the annual limit. This means you can transfer up to £11,520 worth of shares in the tax year 2013-14 (assuming that you make no other subscriptions to ISAs, in those years). You must transfer the shares within 90 days from the day they cease to be subject to the Plan, or (for approved SAYE share option schemes) 90 days of the exercise of option date. Your employer should be able to tell you more. Q. Can I put windfall or inherited shares in my ISA? A. No. You can only transfer shares you own into an ISA if they have come from an employee share scheme. Otherwise, the ISA manager must purchase shares on the open market. The situation is the same if you have shares that you have inherited. You are not able to transfer them into an ISA.",
"There's no limitation on what you can invest in, including trading stocks (as long as trading is not a business activity, like day-trading or investing for others). You just need to make sure you have a tax ID (either ITIN or SSN) and pay taxes on all the gains and dividends. Also, consider your home country tax laws, since you're still tax resident in your home country (most likely).",
"It is absolutely legal. While studying on a F-1 you would typically be considered a non-resident alien for tax purposes. You can trade stocks, just like any other foreigner having an account with a US- or non-US based brokerage firm. Make sure to account for profit made on dividends/capital gain when doing your US taxes. A software package provided by your university for doing taxes might not be adequate for this.",
"I think I have a better answer for this since I have been an investor in the stock markets since a decade and most of my money is either made through investing or trading the financial markets. Yes you can start investing with as low as 50 GBP or even less. If you are talking about stocks there is no restriction on the amount of shares you can purchase the price of which can be as low as a penny. I stared investing in stocks when I was 18. With the money saved from my pocket money which was not much. But I made investments on a regular period no matter how less I could but I would make regular investments on a long term. Remember one thing, never trade stock markets always invest in it on a long term. The stock markets will give you the best return on a long term as shown on the graph below and will also save you money on commission the broker charge on every transaction. The brokers to make money for themselves will ask you to trade stocks on short term but stock market were always made to invest on a long term as Warren Buffet rightly says. And if you want to trade try commodities or forex. Forex brokers will offer you accounts with as low as 25 USD with no commissions. The commission here are all inclusive in spreads. Is this true? Can the average Joe become involved? Yes anyone who wants has an interest in the financial markets can get involved. Knowledge is the key not money. Is it worth investing £50 here and there? Or is that a laughable idea? 50 GBP is a lot. I started with a few Indian Rupees. If people laugh let them laugh. Only morons who don't understand the true concept of financial markets laugh. There are fees/rules involved, is it worth the effort if you just want to see? The problem with today's generation of people is that they fear a lot. Unless you crawl you dont walk. Unless you try something you dont learn. The only difference between a successful person and a not successful person is his ability to try, fail/fall, get back on feet, again try untill he succeeds. I know its not instant money, but I'd like to get a few shares here and there, to follow the news and see how companies do. I hear that BRIC (brasil, russia, india and china) is a good share to invest in Brazil India the good thing is share prices are relatively low even the commissions. Mostly ROI (return on investment) on a long term would almost be the same. Can anyone share their experiences? (maybe best for community wiki?) Always up for sharing. Please ask questions no matter how stupid they are. I love people who ask for when I started I asked and people were generous enough to answer and so would I be.",
"Yes, http://shares.telegraph.co.uk/stockscreener/ has what you're looking for.",
"\"listed simultaneously in New York, London, and maybe even some Asian markets - is this correct? If the exchanges are not connected, then in primary market the shares are listed. On other exchanges, the \"\"Depository Receipts\"\" are listed. i.e. the Company will keep say 100,000 shares with the primary stock exchange / depository. Based on this it would create new instruments \"\"Depository Receipts\"\". They can be 1:1 or whatever ratio. hypothetically, if I want to buy all of the company's stock Even if it is on one exchange, buying all stocks would trigger various regulatory aspects of Companies Act, or Stock Exchange rules. This is not simple or easy like clicking some buttons and buying everything. That is, let's say that in New York the company has listed 1000 shares, and in London only 10 shares, each worth 10 USD Market capitalization is sum of all outstanding shares into value.\"",
"For question #1, at least some US-based online brokers do permit direct purchases of stocks on foreign exchanges. Depending on your circumstances, this might be more cost effective than purchasing US-listed ADRs. One such broker is Interactive Brokers, which allows US citizens to directly purchase shares on many different foreign exchanges using their online platform (including in France). For France, I believe their costs are currently 0.1% of the total trade value with a 4€ minimum. I should warn you that the IB platform is not particularly user-friendly, since they market themselves to traders and the learning curve is steep (although accounts are available to individual investors). IB also won't automatically convert currencies for you, so you also need to use their foreign exchange trading interface to acquire the foreign currency used to purchase a foreign stock, which has plusses and minuses. On the plus side, their F/X spread is very competitive, but the interface is, shall we say, not very intuitive. I can't answer question #2 with specific regards to US/France. At least in the case of IB, though, I believe any dividends from a EUR-denominated stock would continue to accumulate in your account in Euros until you decide to convert them to dollars (or you could reinvest in EUR if you so choose).",
"No you will have no problems. It's been fourteen years since I've lived in the UK and I've had no trouble with my UK bank accounts in that time. They have happily mailed me statements and new cards abroad for all that time, and I've deposited cheques by mailing them to the branch. Online banking takes care of almost everything else. The only thing I wasn't able to do from abroad was open a new account, because of anti money-laundering regulations. Even that may be possible if you presented the right kind of ID when you opened the original account - mine predated the regulations. Most UK banks will also offer 'offshore' banking for non-residents in which interest is not deducted at source.",
"Yes NRIs are allowed to open a DEMAT account in India from abroad. Investments can be made under the Portfolio Investment NRI Scheme (PINS) either on repatriation or non-repatriation basis. As per,the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India it is mandatory for NRIs to open a trading account with a designated institution authorized by the RBI. They must avail either a Non-Resident Ordinary (NRO) or Non-Resident External (NRE) account to route the various investments.",
"As an NRI there are certain limitations as well as benefits. Limitation in terms of holding a specified quantity of shares in company, thus the need to open new account, so that Bank can track the holding and inform regulator. Benfits in terms of able to reptriate any amount of funds from trades in this account. In order to ease this, there are 2 Accounts NRO demat account (Non PINS): Essentially this does not automatically allow for reptration of funds [like NRE] but its more like NRO, amount upto USD 1 million per year. NRO Demat account PINS: Here you can buy fresh shares and take the proceeds out of country without any limits. So in short, you would need an NRO Demat NON PINS Account. Transfer your existing shares here. Sell whenever you like. Open a NRO Demat PINS account, if you wish to buy more with status as NRI, if you don't wish you buy, there is no need for this account.",
"Nothing. Stockbrokers set up nominee accounts, in which they hold shares on behalf of individual investors. Investors are still the legal owners of the shares but their names do not appear on the company’s share register. Nominee accounts are ring-fenced from brokers’ other activities so they are financially secure.",
"\"Good question! It seems to me that there is no minimum order size for shares trading on the LSE. Please note, I couldn't find an definite answer, but: According to the \"\"International Order Book\"\" document (see: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/traders-and-brokers/rules-regulations/change-and-updates/stock-exchange-notices/2010/n2210_attach1.pdf) from the LSE (page 7): Question 7: Would respondents support a revision of the minimum order size of 50 units? Whilst there was limited support for a low value based minimum order size the majority of respondents requested its complete removal. This was incorporated into the September 2010 quarterly review as per Service Announcement 001/100910 and as from 20 September 2010, the minimum order size in all IOB securities has been 1 unit Even though not all trading on the LSE is performed on this IOB system, it would be very wierd if the international stocks can be traded in any size, while domestic stocks will have an minimum size. Further, consider looking to the times and sales of various stocks (here you can find an example http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/exchange-insight/trade-data.html?page=0&fourWayKey=GB0006731235GBGBXSET1&formName=frmRow&upToRow=-1). Those trades also suggest that there is no minimum order size (for example, I just saw an executed trade with an size of 13). At last, look at the Interactive Brokers (no relationship with) Exchange List at http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/trading/exchanges.php?exch=lse&showcategories=&ib_entity=llc. Here you can click on various stock names, and in the popup window that opens, look for 'size parameters' and the size increment. I could only find stocks with an size increment of 1 (i.e. you can trade anything with a minimum of 1 stock, and more needs to be in steps of 1 stock). Even though I couldn't find official information on the LSE site (like a leaflet for beginners or such), it does seem to me that you can trade any size you want on LSE. Please note that mutual funds and illiquid OTC stocks which don't have an continuous market can have different rules, so double-check with your broker.\"",
"Selftrade does list them. Not sure if you'll be able to sign up from the US though, particularly given the FATCA issues.",
"According to this page on their website (http://www.kotaksecurities.com/internationaleq/homepage.htm), Kotak Securities is one big-name Indian broker that offers an international equities account to its Indian customers. Presumably, they should be able to answer all your questions. Since this is a competitive market, one can assume that others like ICICI Direct must also be doing so.",
"\"Is this amount an adequate starting amount to begin investing with? Yes. You can open an account at a brokerage with this amount. I'm not sure I would invest in individual stocks at this point. Which services should I use to start buying shares? (Currently my bank offers this service but I'm willing to use other sources) I can't make UK-specific recommendations, but I'd compare your bank's fees to those of a discount broker -- as well as the variety and level of service available. I would like to regularly increase the amount invested in shares. Is it worth doing this in say £200 increments? Take a look at the fees associated with each investment. Divide the fee by the increment to see what percent you'll lose to fees/commissions. Keep in mind that you have to gain more than that percentage to start earning a positive return on your investment. If you have access to fee-free automatic mutual fund investments, and you can commit to the £200 amount on a regular basis going forward, then this can be a completely free way of making these incremental investments. See also this answer on dollar cost averaging, and my comment on the other answer on that question for how fees impact returns. When buying shares should I focus on say two or three companies, or diversify more? I would diversify into two or three different index funds. Read up on asset allocation. For example, you might invest 1/3 of your balance into S&P 500 index fund, bond index fund, and MSCI EAFE index fund (but that's just a rough example, and not necessarily good for you). I highly recommend \"\"The Intelligent Asset Allocator\"\" by William Bernstein for excellent info on diversification and asset allocation.\"",
"As a relatively recent nonimmigrant visa holder (O1), I was able to open an ETrade brokerage account without problems. I have full tax residence in the USA so have an SSN, and a credit history so it was no problem. Later, as a greencard holder, I opened IRA accounts with them, too. Again, there were no issues as I had all the information that the IRS paperwork required at hand.",
"A stock represents your share of ownership in a corporation. All of these shares indicate towards your part of ownership in a corporation a shareholder, stockholder or a shareowner in a company. In order to get a stock, be sure to secure the assistance of a licensed stockbroker to buy securities on your behalf. Yes, anyone having substantial amount of money to invest can buy/own/use stocks. Holding a stock for less than a year makes it a subject to tax on your regular income for short-term gains. Most of the people find it higher than the capital gains. In addition, your annual income also comes into play.",
"One risk not mentioned is that foreign stock might be thinly traded on your local stock market, so you will find it harder to buy and sell, and you will be late to the game if there is some sudden change in the share price in the original country.",
"The answer to this question is given by the fact that many public companies have people who are opposed to the company's aims or practices and who own their stock, often a single share, for the purposes of turning up to shareholder meetings and haranguing directors/asking awkward questions/disrupting proceedings, etc. If public companies could stop these campaigning shareholders from owning stock they would.",
"Yes, all the shares of a publicly traded company can be purchased. This effectively takes the company private so that it's no longer traded on a stock market. Here are some examples: EDIT: to answer your edited question... the corporation can issue more stock. However that would dilute the value of existing shares. Thus, existing shareholders must vote to allow more shares to be issued. So... in your situation yes, you'd need to wait for someone else to sell.",
"I assume you are talking about a publicly traded company listed on a major stock exchange and the buyer resides in the US. (Private companies and non-US locations can change the rules really a lot.) The short answer is no, because the company does not own the stock, various investors do. Each investor has to make an individual decision to sell or not sell. But there are complications. If an entity buys more than about 10% of the company they have to file a declaration with the SEC. The limit can be higher if they file an assertion that they are buying it solely for investment and are not seeking control of the company. If they are seeking control of the company then more paperwork must be filed and if they want to buy the whole company they may be required to make a tender offer where they offer to buy any and all shares at a specific price. If the company being bought is a financial institution, then the buyer may have to declare as a bank holding company and more regulations apply. The company can advise shareholders not to take the tender offer, but they cannot forbid it. So the short answer is, below 10% and for investment purposes only, it is cash and carry: Whoever has the cash gets to carry the stock away. Above that various regulations and declarations apply, but the company still does not have the power prevent the purchase in most circumstances.",
"In theory you can buy shares directly from someone else who owns them. In practise, if the stock is listed on an exchange, they are unlikely to own them directly, they are likely to own them through an intermediary. You will have to pay fees to that intermediary to transfer the shares to your name. There are thousands of small companies owned by the guy who started it and a few other investors. You can buy stock in that kind of company directly from the existing owners, as long as they are willing to sell you some. It's a super-high risk investment strategy, though. This is the kind of deal that happens on Dragons Den.",
"From the UK-USA tax treaty.... ARTICLE 1 General Scope 1. Except as specifically provided herein, this Convention is applicable only to persons who are residents of one or both of the Contracting States. 2. This Convention shall not restrict in any manner any benefit now or hereafter accorded: a) by the laws of either Contracting State; or b) by any other agreement between the Contracting States... I'm not an expert but to me that sounds like the tax free advantage of an UK ISA would be respected by the IRS From the UK-USA tax treaty.... ARTICLE 7 7. Where under any provision of this Convention income or gains arising in one of the Contracting States are relieved from tax in that Contracting State and, under the law in force in the other Contracting State, a person, in respect of the said income or gains, is subject to tax by reference to the amount thereof which is remitted to or received in that other Contracting State and not by reference to the full amount thereof, then the relief to be allowed under this Convention in the first-mentioned Contracting State shall apply only to so much of the income or gains as is taxed in the other Contracting State. This is very difficult to comprehend but suggets also that tax free status is upheld in the uSa",
"Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person? I've done it the other way around, opened a bank account in the UK so I have a way to store GBP. Given that Britain is still in the EU you can basically open an account anywhere. German online banks for instance allow you to administrate anything online, should there be cards issued you would need an address in the country. And for opening an account a passport is sufficient, you can identify yourself in a video chat. Now what's the downside? French banks' online services are in French, German banks' services are in German. If that doesn't put you off, I would name such banks in the comments if asked. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Can you clarify that? You should at least be able to buy into any European or American stock through your broker. That should give you an ease of mind being FCA-regulated. However, those are usually GDRs (global depository receipts) and denominated in GBp (pence) so you'd be visually exposed to currency rates, by which I mean that if the stock goes up 1% but the GBP goes up 1% in the same period then your GDR would show a 0% profit on that day; also, and more annoyingly, dividends are distributed in the foreign currency, then exchanged by the issuer of the GDR on that day and booked into your account, so if you want to be in full control of the cashflows you should get a trading account denominated in the currency (and maybe situated in the country) you're planning to invest in. If you're really serious about it, some brokers/banks offer multi-currency trading accounts (again I will name them if asked) where you can trade a wide range of instruments natively (i.e. on the primary exchanges) and you get to manage everything in one interface. Those accounts typically include access to the foreign exchange markets so you can move cash between your accounts freely (well for a surcharge). Also, typically each subaccount is issued its own IBAN.",
"In a simple statement, no doesn't matter. Checked on my trade portal, everything lines up. Same ISIN, same price(after factoring in FX conversions, if you were thinking about arbitrage those days are long gone). But a unusual phenomenon I have observed is, if you aren't allowed to buy/sell a stock in one market and try to do that in a different market for the same stock you will still not be allowed to do it. Tried it on French stocks as my current provider doesn't allow me to deal in French stocks.",
"One of us is misreading the other's message. I think FDIC is great. If a Congolese citizen wants to buy the company I work at right now, great. I just make an exception for state owned enterprises, royal families, et cetera.",
"the demat account that I have in India is not an NRI account. Since I was not sure how long I would be in the US, I never converted my account to NRI account. Is it required to convert my account to NRI account? Yes it is very much required by law. One should not buy or sell shares in the Resident account. One has to close and open a new account NRO Demat account and transfer the shares / units into it. Sell from this account. If you need to buy shares when one is NRI, an Demat PINS account is required to be opened.",
"You can look into specific market targeted mutual funds or ETF's. For Norway, for example, look at NORW. If you want to purchase specific stocks, then you'd better be ready to trade on local stock exchanges in local currency. ETrade allows trading on some of the international stock exchanges (in Asia they have Hong Kong and Japan, in Europe they have the UK, Germany and France, and in the Americas they have the US and Canada). Some of the companies you're interested in might be trading there.",
"I would say you should invest in the market that is more convenient for you, bearing in mind that if you buy ADRs you may have some things to keep an eye on depending on certain events as mentioned by duffbeer703. So, if you are investing with an account in the U.S., go with the ADRs as that will avoid some currency conversion hassles and possible exchange rate issues. I am not certain, but I have a feeling that would also make it easier for you to keep the taxman happy.",
"Does my prior answer here to a slightly different question help at all? Are there capital gains taxes or dividend taxes if I invest in the U.S. stock market from outside of the country?",
"If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.",
"\"The London Stock Exchange offers a wealth of exchange traded products whose variety matches those offered in the US. Here is a link to a list of exchange traded products listed on the LSE. The link will take you to the list of Vanguard offerings. To view those offered by other managers, click on the letter choices at the top of the page. For example, to view the iShares offerings, click on \"\"I\"\". In the case of Vanguard, the LSE listed S&P500 ETF is traded under the code VUSA. Similarly, the Vanguard All World ETF trades under the code VWRL. You will need to be patient viewing iShares offerings since there are over ten pages of them, and their description is given by the abbreviation \"\"ISH name\"\". Almost all of these funds are traded in GBP. Some offer both currency hedged and currency unhedged versions. Obviously, with the unhedged version you are taking on additional currency risk, so if you wish to avoid currency risk then choose a currency hedged version. Vanguard does not appear to offer currency hedged products in London while iShares does. Here is a list of iShares currency hedged products. As you can see, the S&P500 currency hedged trades under the code IGUS while the unhedged version trades under the code IUSA. The effects of BREXIT on UK markets and currency are a matter of opinion and difficult to quantify currently. The doom and gloom warnings of some do not appear to have materialised, however the potential for near-term volatility remains so longs as the exit agreement is not formalised. In the long-term, I personally believe that BREXIT will, on balance, be a positive for the UK, but that is just my opinion.\"",
"As far as I read in many articles, all earnings (capital gains and dividends) from Canadian stocks will be always tax-free. Right? There's no withholding tax, ie. a $100 dividend means you get $100. There's no withholding for capital gains in shares for anybody. You will still have to pay taxes on the amounts, but that's only due at tax time and it could be very minor (or even a refund) for eligible Canadian dividends. That's because the company has already paid tax on those dividends. In contrast, holding U.S. or any foreign stock that yields dividends in a TFSA will pay 15% withholding tax and it is not recoverable. Correct, but the 15% is a special rate for regular shares and you need to fill out a W8-BEN. Your broker will probably make sure you have every few years. But if you hold the same stock in a non-registered account, this 15% withholding tax can be used as a foreign tax credit? Is this true or not or what are the considerations? That's true but reduces your Canadian tax payable, it's not refundable, so you have to have some tax to subtract it from. Another consideration is foreign dividends are included 100% in income no mater what the character is. That means you pay tax at your highest rate always if not held in a tax sheltered account. Canadian dividends that are in a non-registered account will pay taxes, I presume and I don't know how much, but the amount can be used also as a tax credit or are unrecoverable? What happens in order to take into account taxes paid by the company is, I read also that if you don't want to pay withholding taxes from foreign > dividends you can hold your stock in a RRSP or RRIF? You don't have any withholding taxes from US entities to what they consider Canadian retirement accounts. So TFSAs and RESPs aren't covered. Note that it has to be a US fund like SPY or VTI that trades in the US, and the account has to be RRSP/RRIF. You can't buy a Canadian listed ETF that holds US stocks and get the same treatment. This is also only for the US, not foreign like Europe or Asia. Also something like VT (total world) in the US will have withholding taxes from foreign (Europe & Asia mostly) before the money gets to the US. You can't get that back. Just an honourable mention for the UK, there's no withholding taxes for anybody, and I hear it's on sale. But at some point, if I withdraw the money, who do I need to pay taxes, > U.S. or Canada? Canada.",
"\"As user quid states in his answer, all you need to do is open an account with a stock broker in order to gain access to the world's stock markets. If you are currently banking with one of the six big bank, then they will offer stockbroking services. You can shop around for the best commission rates. If you wish to manage your own investments, then you will open a \"\"self-directed\"\" account. You can shelter your investments from all taxation by opening a TFSA account with your stock broker. Currently, you can add $5,500 per year to your TFSA. Unused allowances from previous years can still be used. Thus, if you have not yet made any TFSA contributions, you can add upto $46,500 to your TFSA and enjoy the benefits of tax free investing. Investing in what you are calling \"\"unmanaged index funds\"\" means investing in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Once you have opened your account you can invest in any ETFs traded on the stock markets accessible through your stock broker. Buying shares on foreign markets may carry higher commission rates, but for the US markets commissions are generally the same as they are for Canadian markets. However, in the case of buying foreign shares you will carry the extra cost and risk of selling Canadian dollars and buying foreign currency. There are also issues to do with foreign withholding taxes when you trade foreign shares directly. In the case of the US, you will also need to register with the US tax authorities. Foreign withholding taxes payable are generally treated as a tax credit with respect to Canadian taxation, so you will not be double taxed. In today's market, for most investors there is generally no need to invest directly in foreign market indices since you can do so indirectly on the Toronto stock market. The large Canadian ETF providers offer a wide range of US, European, Asian, and Global ETFs as well as Canadian ETFs. For example, you can track all of the major US indices by trading in Toronto in Canadian dollars. The S&P500, the Dow Jones, and the NASDAQ100 are offered in both \"\"currency hedged\"\" and \"\"unhedged\"\" forms. In addition, there are ETFs on the total US Market, US Small Caps, US sectors such as banks, and more exotic ETFs such as those offering \"\"covered call\"\" strategies and \"\"put write\"\" strategies. Here is a link to the BMO ETF website. Here is a link to the iShares (Canada) ETF website.\"",
"\"Although this is an old question, it's worth pointing out that the Google Stock Screener now supports stocks traded on the London Stock Exchange. From the country dropdown on the left, select \"\"United Kingdom\"\" and use the screener as before.\"",
"When you buy a currency via FX market, really you are just exchanging one country's currency for another. So if it is permitted to hold one currency electronically, surely it must be permitted to hold a different country's currency electronically.",
"Here is a list of European ETFs you can buy in Europe: iShares Europe and DB x-Trackers. Both offer ETFs for Spanish citizens. Regarding your question in your comment on if you could buy Austrian ETFs as a Spanish citizen: If your broker offers Austrian ETFs you can buy them as well. I do not believe that there would be any legal restrictions. For a good international broker, which would allow you to buy these ETFs I would recommend looking at Interactive Brokers.com",
"Vanguard has just recently started listing its funds in London but it doesn't look like the High Dividend Yield ETF is available yet. You'll need to either get a broker who can trade on the U.S. markets (there might be tax and exchange rate complications), or wait until Vanguard lists this stock on the London exchange.",
"You definitely used to be able to (see this BBC article from 2006), and I would imagine that you still can, although I also imagine that it would be more difficult than it used to be, as with all mortgages. EDIT: And here's an article from last year about Chinese banks targeting the UK mortgage market.",
"\"Life would be nicer had we not needed lawyers. But for some things - you better get a proper legal advice. This is one of these things. Generally, the United States is a union of 50 different sovereign entities, so you're asking more about Texas, less about the US. So you'd better talk to a Texas lawyer. Usually, stock ownership is only registered by the company itself (and sometimes not even that, look up \"\"street name\"\"), and not reported to the government. You may get a paper stock certificate, but many companies no longer issue those. Don't forget to talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser in your home country, as well. You'll be dealing with tax authorities there as well. The difference between \"\"unoted\"\" (never heard of this term before) and \"\"regular\"\" stocks is that the \"\"unoted\"\" are not publicly traded. As such, many things that your broker does (like tax statements, at source withholding, etc) you and your company will have to do on your own. If your company plans on paying dividends, you'll have to have a US tax ID (ITIN or SSN), and the company will have to withhold the US portion of the taxes. Don't forget to talk to a tax adviser about what happens when you sell the stock. Also, since the company is not publicly traded, consider how will you be able to sell it, if at all.\"",
"My concern is if I need to report and pay extra taxes for the part of the company that will be under my name Yes, d'uh. Of course. It's actually quite complicated when it comes to foreign companies owned by US people, and you'll need a good tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) who's fluent in that area. Citizenship has nothing to do with this, from tax perspective there's no difference between a green card holder and a citizen (except that green card holder cannot claim non-resident exemptions and certain tax treaties' exemptions).",
"I'll give it a shot, even though you don't seem to be responding to my comment. SIPC insures against fraud or abuse of its members. If you purchased a stock through a SIPC member broker and it was held in trust by a SIPC member, you're covered by its protection. Where you purchased the stock - doesn't matter. There are however things SIPC doesn't cover. That said, SIPC members are SEC-registred brokers, i.e.: brokers operating in the USA. If you're buying on the UK stock exchange - you need to check that you're still operating through a US SIPC member. As I mentioned in the comment - the specific company that you mentioned has different entities for the US operations and the UK operations. Buying through them on LSE is likely to bind you with their UK entity that is not SIPC member. You'll have to check that directly with them.",
"Why should they? If investors' don't want nonvoting shares, they shouldn't buy them. I don't like the big banks, but it's not like they are fleecing little old ladies here. The people with the first rights to the shares tend to be institutions who know what they are getting.",
"\"I think you will find it hard to do. There are money laundering regulations which require you to provide proof of address when opening an account. I don't know for certain if they require an UK address, but even if they don't, it's very likely that individual banks etc will require that. I doubt that they will view you as a profitable customer for them, since you would not be using the account as your \"\"main\"\" account. Although having a job isn't a legal requirement, in practice I think it's the only way you can get an account without having been resident in the country for a while. My company employs a significant number of people from abroad and they typically need support from the company to open an account when they first move. One thing you could investigate is opening an account with some international bank with branches both in Hungary and the UK, and asking them to arrange the UK account for you. One example of such a bank is HSBC. However such banks will typically charge you a significant amount for the privilege - for example with HSBC you need a \"\"premier account\"\" to get this kind of service.\"",
"I'm not aware of any method to own US stocks, but you can trade them as contract for difference, or CFDs as they are commonly known. Since you're hoping to invest around $1000 this might be a better option since you can use leverage.",
"You can check whether the company whose stock you want to buy is present on an european market. For instance this is the case for Apple at Frankfurt.",
"Quite a few stock broker in India offer to trade in US markets via tie-up brokers in US. As an Indian citizen, there are limits as to how much FX you can buy, generally very large, should be an issue. The profits will be taxed in US as well as India [you can claim relief under DTAA]",
"\"The fact that your shares are of a Canadian-listed corporation (as indicated in your comment reply) and that you are located in the United States (as indicated in your bio) is highly relevant to answering the question. The restriction for needing to be a \"\"qualified institutional buyer\"\" (QIB) arises from the parent company not having registered the spin-off company rights [options] or shares (yet?) for sale in the United States. Shares sold in the U.S. must either be registered with the SEC or qualify for some exemption. See SEC Fast Answers - Securities Act Rule 144. Quoting: Selling restricted or control securities in the marketplace can be a complicated process. This is because the sales are so close to the interests of the issuing company that the law might require them to be registered. Under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, all offers and sales of securities must be registered with the SEC or qualify for some exemption from the registration requirements. [...] There are regulations to follow and costs involved in such registration. Perhaps the rights [options] themselves won't ever be registered (as they have a very limited lifetime), while the listed shares might be? You could contact investor relations at the parent company for more detail. (If I guessed the company correctly, there's detail in this press release. Search the text for \"\"United States\"\".)\"",
"I am a US citizen by birth only. I left the US aged 6 weeks old and have never lived there. I am also a UK citizen but TD Waterhouse have just followed their policy and asked me to close my account under FATCA. It is a complete nightmare for dual nationals who have little or no US connection. IG.com seem to allow me to transfer my holdings so long as I steer clear of US investments. Furious with the US and would love to renounce citizenship but will have to pay $2500 or thereabouts to follow the US process. So much for Land of the Free!",
"From Wikipedia: If a company with limited liability is sued, then the claimants are suing the company, not its owners or investors. A shareholder in a limited company is not personally liable for any of the debts of the company, other than for the value of their investment in that company. Summarized, no, if you buy stock from the regular stock market like NYSE, you're not personally liable for any debt or fraud that happens.",
"Yes, You will have to pay the taxes at least initially but you'll most probably get a refund when you will file returns depending upon the amount and tax brackets in the UK.",
"If you're a non resident then you owe no capital gains tax to Canada. Most banks won't let you make trades if you're a non-resident. They may not have your correct address on file so they don't realize this. This is not tax law but just OSC (or equivalent) regulations. You do have to fill out paperwork for withholding tax on OAS/CPP payments. This is something you probably already do but here's a link . It's complicated and depends on the country you live in. Of course you may owe tax in Thailand, I don't know their laws.",
"If I bought 1 percent share of company X, Most countries company X, is treated as a separate legal entity than individual. So max loss is what you have invested. However certain types of companies, generally called partnerships are not separate entities and you have to pay back the said loss. However such companies are not traded on stock exchanges. Is there an age requirements to enter the stock market? Depends on country. Generally a minor can hold an account with a guardian.",
"Saxo Bank offers direct access to Athens Stock Exchange. Interactive Brokers is your next best bet, and as you probably already noticed, they do not have a free platform. They are open to US and non-US citizens. Although they do not currently have direct exposure to individual companies on the Athens Stock Exchange, the various european exchanges they do provide direct market access for will give a lot of exposure. There are a few Greek companies that trade on non-Greek stock exchanges, if you want exposure. There are also Greek ETFs which bundle several companies together or try to replicate Greek company indices.",
"Even with non-voting shares, you own a portion of the company including all of its assets and its future profits. If the company is sold, goes out of business and liquidates, etc., those with non-voting shares still stand collect their share of the funds generated. There's also the possibility, as one of the comments notes, that a company will pay dividends in the future and distribute its assets to shareholders that way. The example of Google (also mentioned in the comments) is interesting because when they went to voting and non-voting stock, there was some theoretical debate about whether the two types of shares (GOOG and GOOGL) would track each other in value. It turned out that they did not - People did put a premium on voting, so that is worth something. Even without the voting rights, however, Google has massive assets and each share (GOOG and GOOGL) represented ownership of a fraction of those assets and that kept them highly correlated in value. (Google had to pay restitution to some shareholders of the non-voting stock as a result of the deviation in value. I won't get into the details here since it's a bit of tangent, but you could easily find details on the web.)"
] |
[
"Yes it is legal, in fact according to statistics.gov.uk, foreign investors are the largest holders of UK shares (as of 2008). Investors from outside the UK owned 41.5 per cent of shares listed on the London Stock Exchange at the end of 2008, up from 40.0 per cent at end of 2006, according to the latest Office for National Statistics report on share ownership.",
"\"It's easy to own many of the larger UK stocks. Companies like British Petroleum, Glaxo, and Royal Dutch Shell, list what they call ADRs (American Depositary Receipts) on the U.S. stock exchanges. That is, they will deposit local shares with Bank of NY Mellon, JP Morgan Chase, or Citicorp (the three banks that do this type of business), and the banks will turn around and issue ADRs equivalent to the number of shares on deposit. This is not true with \"\"small cap\"\" companies. In those cases, a broker like Schwab may occasionally help you, usually not. But you might have difficulty trading U.S. small cap companies as well.\"",
"Yes, However if you live in the USA a lot of companies will refuse to sent you any report and will not let you take part in “right issues” as they don’t wish to come under USA investment law."
] |
1676
|
W2 vs 1099 Employee status
|
[
"77245",
"394871",
"58937",
"234436"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"32072",
"487791",
"586026",
"382908",
"194899",
"68524",
"234436",
"277812",
"58937",
"37725",
"232544",
"406789",
"77245",
"413879",
"24323",
"569135",
"489898",
"352640",
"466213",
"408434",
"454584",
"176777",
"316074",
"532932",
"63144",
"250766",
"394871",
"326329",
"175889",
"220022",
"139501",
"578196",
"367026",
"50310",
"165645",
"458231",
"597199",
"496309",
"584218",
"373949",
"281500",
"524788",
"125696",
"527776",
"97852",
"195640",
"452896",
"135688",
"159162",
"18647",
"56718",
"179398",
"510409",
"300418",
"222049",
"417295",
"156832",
"306688",
"466678",
"160313",
"319331",
"467781",
"502283",
"470898",
"511696",
"65407",
"376631",
"303287",
"406656",
"9085",
"260603",
"443014",
"597053",
"490997",
"42999",
"282770",
"194955",
"44152",
"238622",
"170933",
"446889",
"247473",
"599835",
"359465",
"304479",
"259924",
"262691",
"267776",
"221938",
"355513",
"102995",
"416117",
"80350",
"324878",
"80994",
"549870",
"494583",
"449544",
"189879",
"463881"
] |
[
"I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer without knowing all about your situation, but some things to consider: If you are on a 1099, you have to pay self-employment tax, while on a W-2 you do not. That is, social security tax is 12.4% of your income. If you're a 1099, you pay the full 12.4%. If you're W-2, you pay 6.2% and the employer pays 6.2%. So if they offer you the same nominal rate of pay, you're 6.2% better off with the W-2. What sort of insurance could you get privately and what would it cost you? I have no idea what the going rates for insurance are in California. If you're all in generally good health, you might want to consider a high-deductible policy. Then if no one gets seriously sick you've saved a bunch of money on premiums. If someone does get sick you might still pay less paying the deductible than you would have paid on higher premiums. I won't go into further details as that's getting off into another question. Even if the benefits are poor, if there are any benefits at all it can be better than nothing. The only advantage I see to going with a 1099 is that if you are legally an independent contractor, then all your business expenses are deductible, while if you are an employee, there are sharp limits on deducting employee business expenses. Maybe others can think of other advantages. If there is some reason to go the 1099 route, I understand that setting up an LLC is not that hard. I've never done it, but I briefly looked into it once and it appeared to basically be a matter of filling out a form and paying a modest fee.",
"It's hard to answer without knowing all of the details (i.e. what was your salary for each of the options), but I think you probably made a good choice. 1099: Would have required you to pay self-employment tax, but also would have allowed you to deduct business expenses. W2 with benefits: Likely would have been beneficial if you needed healthcare (since group plans can be cheaper than individual plans, and healthcare payments aren't taxed), but if you don't use the healthcare, that would have been a waste. W2, no benefits: Assuming your salary here falls between the 1099 and the W2 with benefits, it seems like a good compromise for your situation.",
"Forms 1099 and W2 are mutually exclusive. Employers file both, not the employees. 1099 is filed for contractors, W2 is filed for employees. These terms are defined in the tax code, and you may very well be employee, even though your employer pays you as a contractor and issues 1099. You may complain to the IRS if this is the case, and have them explain the difference to the employer (at the employer's expense, through fines and penalties). Employers usually do this to avoid providing benefits (and by the way also avoid paying payroll taxes). If you're working as a contractor, lets check your follow-up questions: where do i pay my taxes on my hourly that means does the IRS have a payment center for the tax i pay. If you're an independent contractor (1099), you're supposed to pay your own taxes on a quarterly basis using the form 1040-ES. Check this page for more information on your quarterly payments and follow the links. If you're a salaried employee elsewhere (i.e.: receive W2, from a different employer), then instead of doing the quarterly estimates you can adjust your salary withholding at that other place of work to cover for your additional income. To do that you submit an updated form W4 there, check with the payroll department on details. Is this a hobby tax No such thing, hobby income is taxed as ordinary income. The difference is that hobby cannot be at loss, while regular business activity can. If you're a contractor, it is likely that you're not working at loss, so it is irrelevant. what tax do i pay the city? does this require a sole proprietor license? This really depends on your local laws and the type of work you're doing and where you're doing it. Most likely, if you're working from your employer's office, you don't need any business license from the city (unless you have to be licensed to do the job). If you're working from home, you might need a license, check with the local government. These are very general answers to very general questions. You should seek a proper advice from a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for your specific case.",
"Can I work on 1099 from my own company instead of on W2? The reason is on W2 I can't deduct my commute, Health Insurance and some other expenses while on 1099 I think I can able do that. Since I am going to client place to work not at my own office, I am not sure whether I should able to do that or not. If you have LLC, unless you elected to tax it as a corporation, you need neither 1099 nor W2. For tax purposes the LLC is disregarded. So it is, from tax perspective, a sole proprietorship (or partnership, if multiple members). Being a W2 employee of your own LLC is a bad idea. For all these above expenses, which can I use company's debit/credit card or I need to use only my personal debit/credit card? It would be better to always use a business account for business purposes. Doesn't matter much for tax per se, but will make your life easier in case of an audit or a legal dispute (limited liability protection may depend on it). If I work on 1099, I guess I need to file some reasonable taxes on quarterly basis instead of filing at year end. If so, how do I pay my tax on quarterly basis to IRS? I mean which forms should I file and how to pay tax? Unless you're a W2 employee, you need to do quarterly estimate payments using form 1040-ES. If you are a W2 employee (even for a different job, and even if it is not you, but your spouse with whom you're filing jointly) - you can adjust your/spouse's withholding using form W4 to cover the additional tax liability. This is, IMHO, a better way than paying estimates. There are numerous questions on this, search the site or ask another one for details.",
"\"You can do either a 1099 or a W-2. There is no limitations to the number of W-2s one can have in reporting taxes. Problems occur, with the IRS, when one \"\"forgets\"\" to report income. Even if one holds only one job at a time, people typically have more than one W-2 if they change jobs within the year. The W-2 is the simplest way to go and you may want to consider doing this if you do not intend to work this side business into significant income. However, a 1099 gig is preferred by many in some situations. For things like travel expenses, you will probably receive the income from these on a 1099, but you can deduct them from your income using a Schedule C. Along these lines you may be able to deduct a wide variety of other things like travel to and from the client's location, equipment such as computers and office supplies, and maybe a portion of your home internet bill. Also this opens up different retirement contributions schemes such as a simplified employee pension. This does come with some drawbacks, however. First your life is more complicated as things need to be documented to become actual business expenses. You are much more likely to be audited by the IRS. Your taxes become more complicated and it is probably necessary to employee a CPA to do them. If you do this for primary full time work you will have to buy your own benefits. Most telling you will have to pay both sides of social security taxes on most profits. (Keep in mind that a good account can help you transfer profits to dividends which will allow you to be taxed at 15% and avoid social security taxes.) So it really comes down to what you see this side gig expanding into and your goals. If you want to make this a real business, then go 1099, if you are just doing this for a fes months and a few thousand dollars, go W-2.\"",
"The tax savings of being 1099 can be significant. It depends on your salary, and what you can deduct. You may want to consult with an accountant. The social security tax, for the self employed, is 12.4% of profit not on revenue. If you can write off more than half of the income as expenses then you could be paying less than a w-2 employee. Also you might make a higher salary as a 1099, it is rare the offer the same compensation for a W-2 as a 1099 as the former has higher expenses for the employer. It is hard to know without actual numbers, actual expected expense deductions and so forth. Which is why I would suggest consulting with an accountant. You may want to talk to one in the state where he will be working rather than where you live now.",
"Another thing to consider, however, is the deductibility of business expenses. Let's assume that the employer can legitimately hire you as a 1099 contractor. (Would you be able to telecommute? Would you have a high degree of control over when you worked and when you didn't? These factors also affect whether you're a true independent 1099 contractor or not.) As a legit 1099 contractor, you're able to deduct certain business expenses directly from your income. (You can find a list of the rules at irs.gov.) As a W2 employee, by contrast, can deduct only business expenses that exceed 2% of the your AGI (adjusted gross income). So, you also have to consider your personal circumstances in making the calculus and comparing whether a legitimate 1099 contractor job is or is not good for you. It's not just a comparison of what they'd pay W2 employees versus what they'd pay 1099 contractors.",
"There are many different types of 1099 forms. Since you are comparing it to a W-2, I'm assuming you are talking about a 1099-MISC form. Independent contractor income If you are a worker earning a salary or wage, your employer reports your annual earnings at year-end on Form W-2. However, if you are an independent contractor or self-employed you will receive a Form 1099-MISC from each client that pays you at least $600 during the tax year. For example, if you are a freelance writer, consultant or artist, you hire yourself out to individuals or companies on a contract basis. The income you receive from each job you take should be reported to you on Form 1099-MISC. When you prepare your tax return, the IRS requires you to report all of this income and pay income tax on it. So even if you receive a 1099-MISC form, you are required to pay taxes on it.",
"In general What does this mean? Assume 10 holidays and 2 weeks of vacation. So you will report to the office for 240 days (48 weeks * 5 days a week). If you are a w2 they will pay you for 260 days (52 weeks * 5 days a week). At $48 per hour you will be paid: 260*8*48 or $99,840. As a 1099 you will be paid 240*8*50 or 96,000. But you still have to cover insurance, the extra part of social security, and your retirement through an IRA. A rule of thumb I have seen with government contracting is that If the employee thinks that they make X,000 per year the company has to bill X/hour to pay for wages, benefits, overhead and profit. If the employee thinks they make x/hour the company has to bill at 2X/hour. When does a small spread make sense: The insurance is covered by another source, your spouse; or government/military retirement program. Still $2 per hour won't cover the 6.2% for social security. Let alone the other benefits. The IRS has a checklist to make sure that a 1099 is really a 1099, not just a way for the employer to shift the costs onto the individual.",
"\"Your comment to James is telling and can help us lead you in the right direction: My work and lifestyle will be the same either way, as I said. This is all about how it goes \"\"on the books.\"\" [emphasis mine] As an independent consultant myself, when I hear something like \"\"the work will be the same either way\"\", I think: \"\"Here thar be dragons!\"\". Let me explain: If you go the independent contractor route, then you better act like one. The IRS (and the CRA, for Canadians) doesn't take lightly to people claiming to be independent contractors when they operate in fact like employees. Since you're not going to be behaving any different whether you are an employee or a contractor, (and assuming you'll be acting more like an employee, i.e. exclusive, etc.), then the IRS may later make a determination that you are in fact an employee, even if you choose to go \"\"on the books\"\" as an independent contractor. If that happens, then you may find yourself retroactively denied many tax benefits you'd have claimed; and owe penalties and interest too. Furthermore, your employer may be liable for additional withholding taxes, benefits, etc. after such a finding. So for those reasons, you should consider being an employee. You will avoid the potential headache I outlined above, as well as the additional paperwork etc. of being a contractor. If on the other hand you had said you wanted to maintain some flexibility to moonlight with other clients, build your own product on the side, choose what projects you work on (or don't), maybe hire subcontractors, etc. then I'd have supported the independent contractor idea. But, just on the basis of the tax characteristics only I'd say forget about it. On the financial side, I can tell you that I wouldn't have become a consultant if not for the ability to make more money in gross terms (i.e. before tax and expenses.) That is: your top line revenues ought to be higher in order to be able to offset many of the additional expenses you'd incur as an independent. IMHO, the tax benefits alone wouldn't make up for the difference. One final thing to look at is Form SS-8 mentioned at the IRS link below. If you're not sure what status to choose, the IRS can actually help you. But be prepared to wait... and wait... :-/ Additional Resources:\"",
"\"I agree that you should have received both a 1099 and a W2 from your employer. They may be reluctant to do that because some people believe that could trigger an IRS audit. The reason is that independent contractor vs employee is supposed to be defined by your job function, not by your choice. If you were a contractor and then switched to be an employee without changing your job description, then the IRS could claim that you should have always been an employee the entire time, and so should every one of the other contractors that work for that company with a similar job function. It's a hornet's nest that the employer may not want to poke. But that's not your problem; what should you do about it? When you say \"\"he added my Federal and FICA W/H together\"\", do you mean that total appears in box 4 of your 1099? If so, it sounds like the employer is expecting you to re-pay the employer portion of FICA. Can you ask them if they actually paid it? If they did, then I don't see them having a choice but to issue a W2, since the IRS would be expecting one. If they didn't pay your FICA, then the amount this will cost you is 7.65% of what would have been your W2 wages. IMHO it would be reasonable for you to request that they send you a check for that extra amount. Note: even though that amount will be less than $600 and you won't receive a 1099 in 2017 for it, legally you'll still have to pay tax on that amount so I think a good estimate would be to call it 10% instead. Depending on your personality and your relationship with the employer, if they choose not to \"\"make you whole\"\", you could threaten to fill out form SS-8. Additional Info: (Thank you Bobson for bringing this up.) The situation you find yourself in is similar to the concept of \"\"Contract-to-Hire\"\". You start off as a contractor, and later convert to an employee. In order to avoid issuing a 1099 and W2 to the same person in a single tax year, companies typically utilize one of the following strategies: Your particular situation is closest to situation 2, but the reverse. Instead of retroactively calling you a W2 employee the entire time, your employer is cheating and attempting to classify you as a 1099 contractor the entire time. This is frowned upon by the IRS, as well as the employee since as you discovered it costs you more money in the form of employer FICA. From your description it sounds like your employer was trying to do you a favor and didn't quite follow through with it. What they should have done was never switch you to W2 in the first place (if you really should have been a contractor), or they should have done the conversion properly without stringing you along.\"",
"\"Littleadv is incorrect because receiving a 1099 means she will be taxed self-employment tax on top of federal income taxes. Your employer will automatically withhold 7.65% of payroll taxes as they pay you each paycheck and then they'll automatically pay the other half of your payroll tax (an additional 7.65%) to bring it to a total of 15.3%. In other words, because your wife is technically self employed, she will owe both sides of payroll tax which is 15.3% of $38k = $5,800 on TOP of your federal income tax (which is the only thing the W-4 is instructing them about what amount to withhold). The huge advantage to a 1099, however, is that she's essentially self-employed which means ALL of the things she needs to run her business are deductible expenses. This includes her car, computer, home office, supplies, sometimes phone, gas, maintenance, travel expenses, sometimes entertainment, etc - which can easily bring her \"\"income\"\" down from $38k to lets say $23k, reducing both her federal income tax AND self-employment tax to apply to $15k less (saving lets say 50% of $15k = $7.5k with federal and self employment because your income is so high). She is actually supposed to pay quarterly taxes to make up for all of this. The easy way to do this is each quarter plug YOUR total salary + bonus and the tax YOU have paid so far (check your paystubs) into TurboTax along with her income so far and all of her expenses. This will give you how much tax you can expect to have left to owe so far--this would be your first quarter. When you calculate your other quarters, do it the exact same way and just subtract what you've already paid so far that year from your total tax liability.\"",
"Careful. I would personally need a LOT more than $5 more per hour to go from W-2 employment to 1099 employment. It boils down to two reasons: (1) employers pay a huge amount of taxes on behalf of their employees, and (2) you would have to pay all of your own withholding up front. Your current proposal from them doesn't account for that. There are also risks that you face as a 1099. On the first item, your employer currently pays 6.2% of your Social Security tax. You pay the other 6.2%. If you go to 1099 status, you will be self-employed as an independent contractor and have to pay the full 12.4% out of your increased 1099 wages. On the second item, your employer also does your withholding out of your paychecks based on what you tell them on a form W-4. If you're disciplined enough to pay this out yourself in estimated taxes every time you get a paycheck, great. Many people aren't and just see a much bigger paycheck with no taxes out of it, and end up with a large tax bill at the end of the year. Overall, there are some other considerations like healthcare and other benefits. These will not be available to you as a 1099 employee. You can also be terminated spontaneously, unless you have a specific contract length with the company. As I see it, not including any benefits you would receive, you're looking at LESS money in your pocket at $50/hr as a contractor than at your $48/hr. Your pay net social security deductions is: $48 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 99,840 * .938 = 93,649.92. As a 1099 @ $50/hr you would net $50 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 104,000 * .876 = 91,104. Then there are the rest of taxes, etc to figure out your real take-home pay. I'm not a tax advisor, but I would be very careful to get the whole picture figured out before jumping. I would ask for a lot more with the added risk you would take as an independent, too.",
"All the existing answers are right and the general theme is: contracting is a different kind of relationship. It's a business-to-business relationship rather than a business-to-employee relationship. This has implications such as: Of course, some contractors are effectively just over-paid employees, and some of the above points don't apply to them, but that's the idea behind bona fide contracting.",
"\"The personal checks may be due to their bank not issuing the company checks yet and there may also not be a payroll system in place at this time. So far as the W2's are concerned you should probably ask the owner if they plan on distributing them to the employees. If the owner has no interest in making you proper \"\"on the books employees\"\" let them know that they should probably be paying you in cash so that if the IRS comes you wont be tied to it. Obviously working in cash (off the books) has its drawbacks (no rights or protections) and benefits (no taxes).\"",
"When you do your tax return, your total income from the year from all sources is added up. So you will need to include your employment income as well as your contractor income. Any tax taken off at source through PAYE will then be deducted from how there is to pay. So whether you pay the tax or your employer pays it, it should end up the same, although the timing will differ. There will be differences in National Insurance treatment, and you don't necessarily have a free option to choose which happens - the nature of your relationship may mean you have to be classed as either employed or self-employed under HMRC rules.",
"\"Whenever you do paid work for a company, you will need to fill out some sort of paperwork so that the company knows how to pay you, and also how to report how much they paid you to the appropriate government agencies. You should not think of this as a \"\"hurdle\"\" and you shouldn't worry that you haven't been employed for a long time. The two most common ways a company pays an individual are via employee wages, or \"\"independent contractor\"\" payments. When you start a relationship with a company, if you are going to become an employee, then you will out a W4 form, and at the end of the year you will receive a W2 form. If you are an independent contractor, (which you would be considered in this case), you will fill out form W9 and at the end of the year you will receive a 1099. This is completely normal and you have nothing to worry about. All it means is that if you make more than a certain amount (typically $600) in a year, you will receive a 1099 in the mail or electronically. The 1099 form basically means that they are reporting that amount to the IRS, and it also helps you file your tax return by showing you all the numbers you need on one form. Please remember that when you are paid as an independent contractor, no taxes are withheld on your behalf, so you may owe some tax on the money you make. It's best to set aside some of your income so you are prepared to pay it come tax time next year.\"",
"I am surprised no one has mentioned the two biggest things (in my opinion). Or I should say, the two biggest things to me. First, 1099 have to file quarterly self employment taxes. I do not know for certain but I have heard that often times you will end up paying more this way then even a W-2 employees. Second, an LLC allows you to deduct business expenses off the top prior to determining what you pay in taxes as pass-through income. With 1099 you pay the same taxes regardless of your business expenses unless they are specifically allowed as a 1099 contractor (which most are not I believe). So what you should really do is figure out the expense you incur as a result of doing your business and check with an accountant to see if those expenses would be deductible in an LLC and if it offsets a decent amount of your income to see if it would be worth it. But I have read a lot of books and listened to a lot of interviews about wealthy people and most deal in companies not contracts. Most would open a new business and add clients rather than dealing in 1099 contracts. Just my two cents... Good luck and much prosperity.",
"\"You file taxes as usual. W2 is a form given to you, you don't need to fill it. Similarly, 1099. Both report moneys paid to you by your employers. W2 is for actual employer (the one where you're on the payroll), 1099 is for contractors (where you invoice the entity you provide services to and get paid per contract). You need to look at form 1040 and its instructions as to how exactly to fill it. That would be the annual tax return. It has various schedules (A, B, C, D, E, F, H, etc) which you should familiarize yourself with, and various additional forms that you attach to it. If you're self employed, you're expected to make quarterly estimate payments, but if you're a salaried employee you can instruct your employer to withhold the amounts you expect to owe for taxes from your salary, instead. If you're using a tax preparation software (like TurboTax or TaxAct), it will \"\"interview\"\" you to get all the needed information and provide you with the forms filled accordingly. Alternatively you can pay someone to prepare the tax return for you.\"",
"You can have multiple W2 forms on the same tax return. If you are using software, it will have the ability for you to enter additional W2 forms. If you are doing it by paper, just follow the instructions and combine the numbers at the correct place and attach both. Similarly you can also have a 1099 with and without a W2. Just remember that with a 1099 you will have to pay the self employment tax ( FICA taxes, both employee and employer) and that no taxes will be withheld. You will want to either adjust the withholding on your main job or file quartely estimated taxes. Travel reimbursement should be the same tax exempt wise. The difference is that with a 1098, you will need to list your business expenses for deduction on the corresponding tax schedule. The value on the 1099 will include travel reimbursement. But then you can deduct your self employment expenses. I believe schedule C is where this occurs.",
"Having been both I see the pros and cons Employers: I personally hated all the paperwork. Government forms, legal protection, insurance, taxes, payroll, accounting, year ends, bank accounts, inventory tracking, expenses. The best bosses don't worry about the product, they worry about maintaining an environment that is good for the product. Good employees who are happy will make good products that you can sell to customers who are happy with your company. I personally went back to employee because I wanted to go home at night and forget about work. Employers cannot do that.",
"In addition to the other answers, consultants and contractors face a real risk (though admittedly small) of not getting paid. The more short-term the gigs are, the higher the risk of not getting paid for a particular job. As an employee, there are laws to ensure that you get your paycheck. As a contractor, you're just another creditor. I know a couple of contractors (software engineers) who have had difficulty collecting after a job. (I'm not even sure one ever got paid the full amount.) I also personally witnessed a contractor show up for a job who was then told by the company that they unilaterally decided that they would pay half of their pre-arranged rate.",
"\"I've been in a similar situation before. While contracting, sometimes the recruiting agency would allow me to choose between being a W2 employee or invoicing them via Corp-2-Corp. I already had a company set up (S-Corp) but the considerations are similar. Typically the C2C rate was higher than the W2 rate, to account for the extra 7.65% FICA taxes and insurance. But there were a few times where the rate offered was identical, and I still choose C2C because it enabled me to deduct many of my business expenses that I wouldn't have otherwise been able to deduct. In my case the deductions turned out to be greater than the FICA savings. Your case is slightly different than mine though in that I already had the company set up so my company related costs were \"\"sunk\"\" as far as my decision was concerned. For you though, the yearly costs associated with running the business must be factored in. For example, suppose the following: Due to these expenses you need to make up $3413 in tax deductions due to the LLC. If your effective tax rate on the extra income is 30%, then your break even point is approximately $8K in deductions (.3*(x+3413)=3413 => x = $7963) So with those made up numbers, if you have at least $8K in legitimate additional business expenses then it would make sense to form an LLC. Otherwise you'd be better off as a W2. Other considerations:\"",
"Unless the amounts involved are very small, it is MUCH better to incorporate. First, incorporation gives you limited liability for your acts as an employee. As an individual, you have unlimited liability. Second, incorporating allows you to deduct (for tax purposes) the costs of doing business, including all of your health insurance, most transportation, and some meals. The exception to the rule is if the amounts you are earning are so small that they don't cover the cost of incorporating, accounting fees, etc. (a few hundred, or at most a few thousand dollars).",
"Basically, it will depend on the documents your employer gives you. If your employer gives you a 2015 W-2 then you would claim it as income on your 2015 taxes. If the first W-2 they give you is for 2016, then you claim it on your 2016 taxes.",
"The benefits and taxes thing, in my opinion is the biggie. Most people don't realize that the cost to the company for a full-time employee with benefits can be 2x or even 3x the amount they see in their paycheck. Health plans are extremely expensive. Even if you are having money taken from your check for health insurance, it is often just a fraction of the total cost, and the employer is subsidizing the rest. More expensive benefits that contractors don't typically get are 401K matches and paid vacation days. When contractors call in sick or don't work because it is a national holiday, they don't get paid for that day. Also, see that line on your paycheck deducting for Social security and Medicare? That is only half of the tax. The employer pays an equal amount that is not shown on that statement. Also, they pay taxes that go towards unemployment benefits , and may be required to pay higher taxes if they churn through a lot of full-time employees. You can usually let contractors go with relative impunity . For the unemployment tax reasons, not paying for people's days off or benefits, a lot less paperwork, and less risk to the business associated with committing to full-time employees all provide value to the company. Thus companies are willing to pay more because they are getting more. Think of it like a cell phone-contract. If you commit to a three year contract it can be a pain/expensive to get out of the deal early, but you will probably get a better rate in exchange for the risk being shifted to your end of the deal.",
"In general that's illegal. If you're a W2 employee, you don't miraculously become a 1099 contractor just because they pay you more. If your job doesn't change - then your status doesn't change just because they give you a raise. They can be sued (by you, and by the IRS) for that. Other issues have already been raised by other respondents, just wanted to point out this legal perspective.",
"In the US we have social security taxes, where for a full time employee the company pays half and the employee pays half. When you work as a business, what we call 1099 for the form that the wages are reported on, then the contractor pays the full amount of social security tax. There are times when a contractor can negotiate a higher rate because the company does not have to pay that tax. However, most of the time the company just prefers to negotiate the rate based on your value. If you are a 60K year guy, then that is what they will pay you. From the company's perspective it does not matter what your tax rate is, only the value you can bring to the company. If you can add about 180K to the bottom line, then they will be happy to pay you 60K, and you should be happy to get it. Here in the US a contractor can expect to make about 7.5% more of an equivalent employee because of the social security tax savings to the company. However, not all companies are willing to provide that in compensation. Some companies see the legal and administrative costs of employees as normal, and the same costs with contractors as extra so they don't perceive a cost savings. There are other things that would preclude employers from giving the bump although it is logical to do so. First you will really have to feel out your employer for the attitude on the subject. Then I would make a logical case if they are open to providing extra compensation in return for tax savings. If I am an employee at 60K, you would also have to pay the government 18K. How about you pay me 75K as a contractor instead? That would be a great deal for all in the US.",
"They are already indirectly paying these expenses. They should be built into your rates. The amount per job or per hour needs to cover what would have been your salary, plus the what would have been sick, vacation, holidays, health insurance, life insurance, disability, education, overhead for office expenses, cost of accountants...and all taxes. In many companies the general rule of thumb is that they need to charge a customer 2x the employees salary to cover all this plus make a profit. If this is a side job some of these benefits will come from your main job. Some self employed get some of these benefits from their spouse. The company has said we give you money for the work you perform, but you need to cover everything else including paying all taxes. Depending on where you live you might have to send money in more often then once a year. They are also telling you that they will be reporting the money they give you to the government so they can claim it as a business expense. So you better make sure you report it as income.",
"It makes no difference for tax purposes. If you are 1099, you will pay the same amount of taxes as if you formed a corporation and then paid yourself (essentially you are doing this as a 1099 contractor, just not formally). Legally, I don't know the answer. I would assume you have some legal protections by forming an LLC but practically I think this won't make any difference if you get sued.",
"\"There are a few sites out there that can give you some reasoning behind the request. LegalZoom, for instance. To quote the LZ doc in case the link dies: Employee vs. Independent Contractor If a worker is an employee, the employer is responsible for paying Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, and possibly other costs like workers' compensation insurance for the employee; at the end of the tax year, the employer is responsible for compiling all necessary payroll reports, including W-2 forms. If a worker is an independent contractor, the employer is not responsible for any of the above taxes or payments, and the only added paperwork is the issuing of a 1099 to the independent contractor at the end of the tax year, if he or she has made more than $600 with the employer. As Kent suggested, you should speak with an attorney (really you need one if setting up an LLC). There are a lot of companies out there these days that try to classify people as contractors rather than full-time employees as it gets them out of paying benefits and dealing with taxes. This is being heavily cracked down on, and several \"\"contractor\"\" employees are winning lawsuits to get full-time status. If you are truly acting as a contractor, then setting up an LLC can help with a few items such as taxes and protection on certain business aspects (see comments below regarding this). It's easy and relatively cheap (cost me about $250 with extra legal advice tacked on). If you are reporting directly to a manager with the company, or really working in any way that isn't consistent with the definition of a contractor, then I'd turn down the offer and ask to be made a FT employee. Additional information: https://www.sba.gov/content/hire-contractor-or-employee\"",
"\"The contract he wants me to sign states I'll receive my monthly stipend (if that is the right word) as a 1099 contractor. The right word is guaranteed payment, which is what \"\"salary\"\" is called when a partner is working for a partnership she's a partner in. Which is exactly the case in your situation. 1099 is not the right form to report this, the partnership (LLC in your case) should be using the Schedule K-1 for that. I suggest you talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser (EA/CPA) who are licensed in your State, before you sign anything.\"",
"Should I have a W-2 re-issued? A W-2 can be corrected and a new copy will be filed with the IRS if your employer incorrectly reported your income and withholding on a W-2 that they issued. In this case, though the employer didn't withhold those taxes, they should not reissue the W-2 unless they plan to pay your portion of the payroll taxes that were not withheld. (If they paid your share of the taxes, that would increase your gross income.) Who pays for the FICA I should have paid last year? Both you and your employer owe 7.65% each for FICA taxes. By law your employer is required to pay their half and you are required to pay your half. Both you and your employer owe additional taxes because of this mistake. Your other questions assume that your employer will pay your portion of the taxes withheld. You employer could decide to do that, but this also assumes that it was your employer's fault that the mistakes were made. If you transitioned to resident alien but did not inform your employer, how is that your employer's fault?",
"Source Sole trader If you start working for yourself, you’re classed as a self-employed sole trader - even if you’ve not yet told HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). As a sole trader, you run your own business as an individual. You can keep all your business’s profits after you’ve paid tax on them. You can employ staff. ‘Sole trader’ means you’re responsible for the business, not that you have to work alone.You’re personally responsible for any losses your business makes. Tax responsibilities You must: You’re personally responsible for any losses your business makes. This is one condition which you would need to have a look. If you do some shoddy work and your client wants to recover the losses they can come after your personal money or property. LLPs have the same probelm too. And you pay NI and income tax on all of your profits. If you have a partner then both can take out the profits of a limited company, if both are directors. The tax hit will be less as compared to a single person.",
"Yes, you've summarized it well. You may be able to depreciate your computer, expense some software licenses and may be home office if you qualify, but at this scale of earning - it will probably not cover for the loss of the money you need to pay for the additional SE tax (the employer part of the FICA taxes for W2 employees) and benefits (subsidized health insurance, bonuses you get from your employer, insurances, etc). Don't forget the additional expense of business licenses, liability insurances etc. While relatively small amounts and deductible - still money out of your pocket. That said... Good luck earning $96K on ODesk.",
"Instead of SSN, foreign person should get a ITIN from the IRS. Instead of W9 a foreigner should fill W8-BEN. Foreigner might also be required to file 1040NR/NR-EZ tax report, and depending on tax treaties also be liable for US taxes.",
"Self employment is typically harder to qualify with than W2 income. In general the bank is going to want 2 years of tax returns. You will be asked to sign a 4506-T that allows the bank to get the records directly from the IRS. Self employment income will be averaged across the 2 years, I don't think a 20% drop in profits is large enough to cause concern but it might. I would plan on being able borrow against the lowest year just in case. If you get a W2 job you will be able to count the income immediately assuming it is not a temporary position. The bank will ask for the offer letter. If you have decent credit and 20% down, you should be able to get a mortgage either way. A W2 is typically less paperwork and you would get to claim your current income assuming that is higher than your past income.",
"Maybe I can explain a little clearer: Your LLC is not a person, and cannot have taxes withheld on its behalf. Therefore, anyone paying your company should not withhold taxes. If they are paying you directly, and withholding taxes, they are treating you as an employee, and will probably issue a W2 instead of a 1099. Put it this way: Your LLC is a separate company providing services to that company. They shouldn't withhold taxes any more than they would when paying their ISP, or power company.",
"To be honest I don't know how any of this work in the US so my answer will be of very limited value to yourself, I suspect, but when it comes to the UK if you're going to get the same pay gross either way than being independent makes very little sense. Running your own business is hassle, is generally more risky (although possibly not in your case) and costs money. Some of the most obvious costs are the added NI, probably the need for an accountant, at around £1200 p/a for basic accountancy service, you are obliged by law to have liability insurance and you probably want professional indemnity insurance, this will be around £600 p/a minmum, and so on and so forth. On top of that, oficially anyway, as a contractor, you really shouldn't be getting any benefits from the client, and so health insurance, company car, even parking are all meant to be arranged by, and paid by, your company, and can't (or rather - shouldn't) be charged to the client. So - I would say - if you're seriously thinking about setting up a consultancy company, and this client is first of many - set up a company, but take into account the sums you need to earn. If you're really thinking about employment - be an employee.",
"Health insurance varies wildly per state and per plan and per provider - but check them out to have a baseline to know what it should cost if you did it yourself. Don't forget vacation time, too: many contract/comp-only jobs have no vacation time - how much is that 10 or 15 days a year worth to you? It effectively means you're getting paid for 2080 hours, but working 2000 (with the 2 week number). Is the comp-only offer allowing overtime, and will they approve it? Is the benefits-included job salaried? If it's truly likely you'll be working more than a normal 40 hour week on a routine basis (see if you can talk to other folks that work there), an offer that will pay overtime is likely going to be better than one that wouldn't .. but perhaps not in your setting if it also loses the PTO.",
"The tax is depended upon state where you are registered and the salary paid. More here If you employ contract you need not pay tax.",
"\"Linkedlinked, You might want to seriously take another look at the links that Chris provided you. Specifically the ones on the IRS website: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html From the IRS website: Businesses must weigh all these factors when determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Some factors may indicate that the worker is an employee, while other factors indicate that the worker is an independent contractor. There is no “magic” or set number of factors that “makes” the worker an employee or an independent contractor, and no one factor stands alone in making this determination. Also, factors which are relevant in one situation may not be relevant in another. The keys are to look at the entire relationship, consider the degree or extent of the right to direct and control, and finally, to document each of the factors used in coming up with the determination. Perhaps more importantly... pay attention to what happens if you're WRONG: Consequences of Treating an Employee as an Independent Contractor If you classify an employee as an independent contractor and you have no reasonable basis for doing so, you may be held liable for employment taxes for that worker (the relief provisions, discussed below, will not apply). See Internal Revenue Code section 3509 for more information. I would STRONGLY recommend that you and your partners give your accountant a call and discuss the matter. They will be able to help you make the right decision. One of biggest mistakes businesses make in this are is to classify their employees as independent contractors. The IRS (who happens to be hungry for money right now) comes in and says, \"\"Nooooooooo... those are employees.\"\" ...and the COMPANY gets to pay the employment taxes. I actually have person experience with this as I worked for a company this happened to. Every contractor was re-classified as an employee except for two (myself and one other). The key reason in that case was that none of the other contractors had any other clients. While I understand that you have other clients, I would still recommend talking to your accountant for an hour or so... just to be 100% sure. Sincerely, Andrew Smith TaxQueries.com\"",
"FICA/SE taxes are not 30%. They are at most ~15%, including the employer portion. Employer also pays FUTA tax, and has additional payroll expenses (like fees and worker compensation insurance). The employee's FICA portion is limited up to a certain level of earnings (110100 this year, IIRC). Above it you only pay medicare taxes, not social security. S-Corp earnings are not taxed at 15%, these are not dividends. They're taxed at your ordinary income rate. You don't pay SE taxes on it, that's the only difference. I hope you're talking about tax treatment decision, because there are entirely different factors to keep in mind when you're organizing a business and making a decision between being it a LLC or a corporation. I believe you should pay some money to get a real advice that would apply to you, from a EA/CPA who would be doing the number-crunching (hopefully correctly). I'm a tax practitioner, and this answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.",
"For tax purposes you will need to file as an employee (T4 slips and tax withheld automatically), but also as an entrepreneur. I had the same situation myself last year. Employee and self-employed is a publication from Revenue Canada that will help you. You need to fill out the statement of business activity form and keep detailed records of all your deductible expenses. Make photocopies and keep them 7 years. May I suggest you take an accountant to file your income tax form. More expensive but makes you less susceptible to receive Revenue Canada inspectors for a check-in. If you can read french, you can use this simple spreadsheet for your expenses. Your accountant will be happy.",
"Legally, do I have anything to worry about from having an incorrectly filed W-4? What you did wasn't criminal. When you submitted the form it was correct. Unfortunately as your situation changed you didn't adjust the form, that mistake does have consequences. Is there anything within my rights I can do to get the company to take responsibility for their role in this situation, or is it basically my fault? It is basically your fault. The company needs a w-4 for each employee. They will use that W-4 for every paycheck until the government changes the regulation, or your employment ends, or you submit a new form. Topic 753 - Form W-4 – Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate If an employee qualifies, he or she can also use Form W-4 (PDF) to tell you not to deduct any federal income tax from his or her wages. To qualify for this exempt status, the employee must have had no tax liability for the previous year and must expect to have no tax liability for the current year. However, if the employee can be claimed as a dependent on a parent's or another person's tax return, additional limitations may apply; refer to the instructions for Form W-4. A Form W-4 claiming exemption from withholding is valid for only the calendar year in which it is filed with the employer. To continue to be exempt from withholding in the next year, an employee must give you a new Form W-4 claiming exempt status by February 15 of that year. If the employee does not give you a new Form W-4, withhold tax as if he or she is single, with no withholding allowances. However, if you have an earlier Form W-4 (not claiming exempt status) for this employee that is valid, withhold as you did before. (I highlighted the key part) Because you were claiming exempt they should have required you to update that form each year. In your case that may not have applied because of the timing of the events. When do you submit a new form? Anytime your situation changes. Sometimes the change is done to adjust withholding to modify the amount of a refund. Other times failure to update the form can lead to bigger complication: when your marital status changes, or the number of dependents changes. In these situations you could have a significant amount of under-withheld, which could lead to a fine later on. As a side note this is even more true for the state version of a W-4. Having a whole years worth of income tax withholding done for the wrong state will at a minimum require you to file in multiple states, it could also result in a big surprise if the forgotten state has higher tax rate. Will my (now former) employee be responsible for paying their portion of the taxes that were not withheld during the 9 months I was full-time, tax Exempt? For federal and state income taxes they are just a conduit. They take the money from your paycheck, and periodically send it to the IRS and the state capital. Unless you could show that the pay stubs said taxes were being withheld, but the w-2 said otherwise; they have no role in judging the appropriateness of your W-4 with one exception. Finally, and I am not too hopeful on this one, but is there anything I can do to ease this tax burden? I understand that the IRS is owed no matter what. You have one way it might workout. For many taxpayers who have a large increase in pay from one year to the next, they can take advantage of a safe-harbor in the tax law. If they had withheld as much money in 2015 as they paid in 2014, they have reached the safe-harbor. They avoid the penalty for under withholding. Note that 2014 number is not what you paid on tax day or what was refunded, but all your income taxes for the entire year. Because in your case your taxes for the year 2014 were ZERO, that might mean that you automatically reach the safe-harbor for 2015. That makes sense because one of the key requirements of claiming exempt is that you had no liability the year before. It won't save you from paying what you owe but it can help avoid a penalty. Lessons",
"According to the W9 instructions you are considered a U.S. person if: According to the following section, it looks like a C corporation may be easier then an LLC: All of this information can be found here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw9.pdf Hope this helps!",
"I'm not sure why you're confusing the two unrelated things. 1040ES is your estimated tax payments. 941 is your corporation's payroll tax report. They have nothing to do with each other. You being the corporation's employee is accidental, and can only help you to avoid 1040ES and use the W2 withholding instead - like any other employee. From the IRS standpoint you're not running a LLC - you're running a corporation, and you're that corporation's employee. While technically you're self-employed, from tax perspective - you're not (to the extent of your corporate salary, at least).",
"\"If you don't want to get income tax taken out of your check, then get a 1099 job and stop blubbering like a baby. You are not doing your case any help. If fact, I am more positive that \"\"anti-taxers\"\" are out of their gourd.\"",
"Do you have any insight on average *effective* rates paid by SE owners? As a counterpoint to your (very valid) links, filing as S-corp allows for taxes on distributions to be exempt from payroll tax and taxed at much lower rates. Also, being SE allows for various deductions not possible for wage earners. There's probably other examples not immediately coming to mind. Also, SE taxes equal taxes otherwise paid by employer + employee. It's just that those employer taxes don't appear on the employee's paystub so not everyone realizes this.",
"One possibility that I use: I set up an LLC and get paid through that entity. Then I set up a payroll service through Bank of America and set up direct deposit so that it is free. I pay myself at 70% of my hourly rate based on the number of hours I work, and the payroll service does all the calculations for me and sets up the payments to the IRS. Typically money is left over in my business account. When tax time rolls around, I have a W2 from my LLC and a 1099 from the company I work for. I put the W2 into my personal income, and for the business I enter the revenue on the 1099 and the payroll expenses from paying myself; the left over in the business account is taxed as ordinary income. Maybe it's overkill, but setting up the LLC makes it possible to (a) set up a solo 401(k) and put up to $51k away tax-free, and (b) I can write off business expenses more easily.",
"\"You are confusing entirely unrelated things. First the \"\"profit distribution\"\" issue with Bob's S-Corp which is in fact tax evasion and will probably trigger a very nasty audit. Generally, if you're the sole employee of your own S-Corp, and the whole S-Corp income is from your own personal services, as defined by the IRS - there's no profit there. All the net income from such a S-Corp is subject to SE tax, either through payroll or through your K-1. Claiming anything else would be lying and IRS is notorious for going after people doing that. Second - the reclassification issue. The reason employers classify employees as contractors is to avoid payroll taxes (which the IRS gets through Bob's S-Corp, so it doesn't care) and providing benefits (that is Bob's problem, not the IRS). So in the scenario above, the IRS wouldn't care whose employee Bob is since Bob's S-Corp would have to pay all the same payroll taxes. The reclassification is an issue when employees are abused. See examples of Fedex drivers, where they're classified as contractors and are not getting any benefits, spend their own money on the truck and maintenance, etc. The employees are the ones who sued for reclassification, but in this case the IRS would be interested as well since a huge chunk of payroll taxes was not paid (driver's net is after car maintenance and payments, not before as it would be if he was salaried). So in your scenario reclassification is not as much a concern to Bob as his tax evasion scheme claiming earnings from performing personal services as \"\"profits from S-Corp\"\". A precedent to look at, as I mentioned elsewhere, would be the Watson v Commissioner case.\"",
"You mentioned that the 1099B that reports this sale is for 2014, which means that you got the proceeds in 2014. What I suspect happened was that the employer reported this on the next available paycheck, thus reporting it in the 2015 period. If this ends up being a significant difference for you, I'd argue the employer needs to correct both W2s, since you've actually received the money in 2014. However, if the difference for you is not substantial I'd leave it as is and remember that the employer will not know of your ESPP sales until at least several days later when the report from the broker arrives. If you sell on 12/31, you make it very difficult for the employer to account correctly since the report from the broker arrives in the next year.",
"No, even businesses pay taxes quarterly. So if you formed Nathan, LLC, or otherwise became self employed, you'd still have to file quarterly estimates and make tax payments. This would cause taxes to be a much more high touch part of your life. However, you should ensure that you're claiming the proper exemptions etc to avoid excessive withholding.",
"If the employer provides housing to the employee, the employer has to identify whether it is taxable or not. If it is - the amounts would be added to the taxable income on your W2. All the withholding and FICA tax calculations will be performed based on that taxable income. If the employer fails to do that, and you get audited, you can be left on the hook for the unpaid taxes on the unreported income. In some cases, employee housing is a non-taxable fringe benefit, in others it is taxable. Your tax adviser will help identify which case applies to you. After you added in a comment that you're trying to see if you should be asking your boss to pay your personal expenses vs. giving you a raise - as I said in the comments, your personal expenses are not deductible neither for you nor for anyone else. If your boss pays your rent instead of a raise - its taxable income for you.",
"Your recruiter is likely trying to avoid having to pay the employer's side of employment taxes, and may even be trying to avoid having to file a 1099 for you by treating your relationship as a vendor/service provider that he is purchasing services from, which would make your pay just a business expense. It's definitely in his best interest for you to do it this way. Whether it's in your best interest is up to you. You should consult a licensed legal/tax professional to help you determine whether this is a good arrangement for you. (Most of the time, when someone starts playing tax avoidance games, they eventually get stung by it.) The next big question: If you already know this guy is a snake, why are you still working with him? If you don't trust him, why would you take legal/tax advice from him? He might land you a high-paying job. But he also might cause you years of headaches if his tax advice turns out to be flawed.",
"If the $882 is reported on W2 as your income then it is added to your taxable income on W2 and is taxed as salary. Your basis then becomes $5882. If it is not reported on your W2 - you need to add it yourself. Its salary income. If its not properly reported on W2 it may have some issues with FICA, so I suggest talking to your salary department to verify it is. In any case, this is not short term capital gain. Your broker may or may not be aware of the reporting on W2, and if they report the basis as $5000 on your 1099, when you fill your tax form you can add a statement that it is ESPP reported on W2 and change the basis to correct one. H&R Block and TurboTax both support that (you need to chose the correct type of investment there).",
"\"Your question does not say this explicitly, but I assume that you were once a W-2 employee. Each paycheck a certain amount was withheld from your check to pay income, social security, and medicare taxes. Just because you did not receive that amount of money earned does not mean it was immediately sent to the IRS. While I am not all that savvy on payroll procedures, I recall an article that indicated some companies only send in withheld taxes every quarter, much like you are doing now. They get a short term interest free loan. For example taxes withheld by a w-2 employee in the later months of the year may not be provided to the IRS until 15 January of the next year. You are correct in assuming that if you make 100K as a W-2 you will probably pay less in taxes than someone who is 100K self employed with 5K in expenses. However there are many factors. Provided you properly fill out a 1040ES, and pay the correct amount of quarterly payments, you will almost never owe taxes. In fact my experience has been the forms will probably allow you to receive a refund. Tax laws can change and one thing the form did not include last year was the .9% Medicare surcharge for high income earners catching some by surprise. As far as what you pay into is indicative of the games the politicians play. It all just goes into a big old bucket of money, and more is spent by congress than what is in the bucket. The notion of a \"\"social security lockbox\"\" is pure politics/fantasy as well as the notion of medicare and social security taxes. The latter were created to make the actual income tax rate more palatable. I'd recommend getting your taxes done as early as possible come 1 January 2017. While you may not have all the needed info, you could firm up an estimate by 15 Jan and modify the amount for your last estimated payment. Complete the taxes when all stuff comes in and even if you owe an amount you have time to save for anything additional. Keep in mind, between 1 Jan 17 and 15 Apr 17 you will earn and presumably save money to use towards taxes. You can always \"\"rob\"\" from that money to pay any owed tax for 2016 and make it up later. All that is to say you will be golden because you are showing concern and planning. When you hear horror stories of IRS dealings it is most often that people spent the money that should have been sent to the IRS.\"",
"Note that you're asking about withholding, not about taxing. Withholding doesn't mean this is exactly the tax you'll pay: it means they're withholding a certain amount to make sure you pay taxes on it, but the tax bill at the end of the year is the same regardless of how you choose to do the withholding. Your tax bill may be higher or lower than the withholding amount. As far as tax rate, that will be the same regardless - you're just moving the money from one place to the other. The only difference would be that your tax is based on total shares under the plan - meaning that if you buy 1k shares, for example, at $10, so $1,500 discounted income, if you go the payroll route you get (say) $375 withheld. If you go the share route, you either get $375 worth of stock (so 38 shares) withheld (and then you would lose out on selling that stock, meaning you don't get quite as much out of it at the end) or you would ask them to actually buy rather more shares to make up for it, meaning you'd have a slightly higher total gain. That would involve a slightly higher tax at the end of it, of course. Option 1: Buy and then sell $10000 worth, share-based withholding. Assuming 15% profit, and $10/share at both points, then buy/sell 1000 shares, $1500 in profit to take into account, 38 shares' worth (=$380) withheld. You put in $8500, you get back $9620, net $1120. Option 2: Buy and then sell $13500 worth, share based withholding. Same assumptions. You make about $2000 in pre-tax profit, meaning you owe about $500 in tax withholding. Put in $11475, get back $13000, net $1525. Owe 35% more tax at the end of the year, but you have the full $1500 to spend on whatever you are doing with it. Option 3: Buy and then sell $1000 worth, paycheck withholding. You get the full $10000-$8500 = $1500 up front, but your next paycheck is $375 lighter. Same taxes as Option 1 at the end of the year.",
"The I-9 form is required because you are working. It is kept by the employer as proof that you have the proper documents to work. If the government was to inspect their records they can be fined if they don't have those document, in fact they have to keep them for several years after your employment is done. A w-4 form is a federal tax form. There also was probably a state version of the form. When you completed the w-4 it is used by your employer to determine how much in taxes need to be withheld. Employers don't know your tax situation. Even though you are on work study, you still could have made enough money over the summer to pay taxes. But if this is your only job, and you will not make enough money to have to pay taxes, you can fill out the form as exempt. That means that last year you didn't make enough money to have to pay taxes, and you don't expect to make enough to have to pay taxes this year. If you are exempt, no federal income tax will be withheld. They might still withhold for social security and medicare. The state w-4 can also be used to be exempt from state taxes. If they withhold any income taxes you have to file one of the 1040 tax forms to get that income tax money back. You will have to do so for the state income tax withholding. A note about social security and medicare. If you have an on campus job, at the campus you attend, during the school year; they don't withhold money for social security and medicare. That law applies to students on work study jobs, and on non-work-study jobs. for single dependents the federal threshold where you must file is: > You must file a return if any of the following apply. Your gross income was more than the larger of— a. $1,000, or b. Your earned income (up to $5,850) plus $350.",
"First, the SSN isn't an issue. She will need to apply for an ITIN together with tax filing, in order to file taxes as Married Filing Jointly anyway. I think you (or both of you in the joint case) probably qualify for the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, if you've been outside the US for almost the whole year, in which cases both of you should have all of your income excluded anyway, so I'm not sure why you're getting that one is better. As for Self-Employment Tax, I suspect that she doesn't have to pay it in either case, because there is a sentence in your linked page for Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident that says However, you may still be treated as a nonresident alien for the purpose of withholding Social Security and Medicare tax. and since Self-Employment Tax is just Social Security and Medicare tax in another form, she shouldn't have to pay it if treated as resident, if she didn't have to pay it as nonresident. From the law, I believe Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident is described in IRC 6013(g), which says the person is treated as a resident for the purposes of chapters 1 and 24, but self-employment tax is from chapter 2, so I don't think self-employment tax is affected by this election.",
"TL;DR: The difference is $230. Just for fun, and to illustrate how brackets work, let's look at the differences you could see from changing when you're paid based on the tax bracket information that Ben Miller provided. If you're paid $87,780 each year, then each year you'll pay $17,716 for a total of $35,432: $5,183 + $12,532 (25% of $50,130 (the amount over $37,650)) If you were paid nothing one year and then double salary ($175,560) the next, you'd pay $0 the first year and $42,193 the next: $18,558 + $23,634 (28% of $84,410 (the amount over $91,150)) So the maximum difference you'd see from shifting when you're paid is $6,761 total, $3,380 per year, or about 4% of your average annual salary. In your particular case, you'd either be paying $35,432 total, or $14,948 followed by $20,714 for $35,662 total, a difference of $230 total, $115 per year, less than 1% of average annual salary: $5,183 + $9,765 (25% of $39,060 (the amount $87,780 - $11,070 is over $37,650)) $18,558 + $2,156 (28% of $7,700 (the amount $87,780 + $11,070 is over $91,150))",
"I would talk to your HMRC tax office they do have guidance on this issue here http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/working/intro/employed-selfemployed.htm",
"\"They are basically asking for the name of the legal entity that they should write on the check. You, as a person, are a legal entity, and so you can have them pay you directly, by name. This is in effect a \"\"sole proprietorship\"\" arrangement and it is the situation of most independent contractors; you're working for yourself, and you get all the money, but you also have all the responsibility. You can also set up a legal alias, or a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" (DBA) name. The only thing that changes versus using your own name is... well... that you aren't using your own name, to be honest. You pay some trivial fee for the paperwork to the county clerk or other office of record, and you're now not only John Doe, you're \"\"Zolani Enterprises\"\", and your business checks can be written out to that name and the bank (who will want a copy of the DBA paperwork to file when you set the name up as a payable entity on the account) will cash them for you. An LLC, since it was mentioned, is a \"\"Limited Liability Company\"\". It is a legal entity, incorporeal, that is your \"\"avatar\"\" in the business world. It, not you, is the entity that primarily faces anyone else in that world. You become, for legal purposes, an agent of that company, authorized to make decisions on its behalf. You can do all the same things, make all the same money, but if things go pear-shaped, the company is the one liable, not you. Sounds great, right? Well, there's a downside, and that's taxes and the increased complexity thereof. Depending on the exact structure of the company, the IRS will treat the LLC either as a corporation, a partnership, or as a \"\"disregarded entity\"\". Most one-man LLCs are typically \"\"disregarded\"\", meaning that for tax purposes, all the money the company makes is treated as if it were made by you as a sole proprietor, as in the above cases (and with the associated increased FICA and lack of tax deductions that an \"\"employee\"\" would get). Nothing can be \"\"retained\"\" by the company, because as far as the IRS is concerned it doesn't exist, so whether the money from the profits of the company actually made it into your personal checking account or not, it has to be reported by you on the Schedule C. You can elect, if you wish, to have the LLC treated as a corporation; this allows the corporation to retain earnings (and thus to \"\"own\"\" liquid assets like cash, as opposed to only fixed assets like land, cars etc). It also allows you to be an \"\"employee\"\" of your own company, and pay yourself a true \"\"salary\"\", with all the applicable tax rules including pre-tax healthcare, employer-paid FICA, etc. However, the downside here is that some money is subject to double taxation; any monies \"\"retained\"\" by the company, or paid out to members as \"\"dividends\"\", is \"\"profit\"\" of the company for which the company is taxed at the corporate rate. Then, the money from that dividend you receive from the company is taxed again at the capital gains rate on your own 1040 return. This also means that you have to file taxes twice; once for the corporation, once for you as the individual. You can't, of course, have it both ways with an LLC; you can't pay yourself a true \"\"salary\"\" and get the associated tax breaks, then receive leftover profits as a \"\"distribution\"\" and avoid double taxation. It takes multiple \"\"members\"\" (owners) to have the LLC treated like a partnership, and there are specific types of LLCs set up to handle investments, where some of what I've said above doesn't apply. I won't get into that because the question inferred a single-owner situation, but the tax rules in these additional situations are again different.\"",
"To clarify that legality of this (for those that question it), this is directly from IRS Publication 926 (2014) (for household employees): If you prefer to pay your employee's social security and Medicare taxes from your own funds, do not withhold them from your employee's wages. The social security and Medicare taxes you pay to cover your employee's share must be included in the employee's wages for income tax purposes. However, they are not counted as social security and Medicare wages or as federal unemployment (FUTA) wages. I am sorry this does not answer your question entirely, but it does verify that you can do this. UPDATE: I have finally found a direct answer to your question! I found it here: http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1040sh/ar01.html Form W-2 and Form W-3 If you file one or more Forms W-2, you must also file Form W-3. You must report both cash and noncash wages in box 1, as well as tips and other compensation. The completed Forms W-2 and W-3 in the example (in these instructions) show how the entries are made. For detailed information on preparing these forms, see the General Instructions for Forms W-2 and W-3. Employee's portion of taxes paid by employer. If you paid all of your employee's share of social security and Medicare taxes, without deducting the amounts from the employee's pay, the employee's wages are increased by the amount of that tax for income tax withholding purposes. Follow steps 1 through 3 below. (See the example in these instructions.) Enter the amounts you paid on your employee's behalf in boxes 4 and 6 (do not include your share of these taxes). Add the amounts in boxes 3, 4, and 6. (However, if box 5 is greater than box 3, then add the amounts in boxes 4, 5, and 6.) Enter the total in box 1.",
"I also reckon the tax situation is a relevant difference. I'd rather take shares over a wage when, you know, I'm not / minimally taxed for capital gains, at a rate way lower than what I should be paying for the equivalent as income tax.",
"\"While the other answers try to quantify the value of health care the question you ask is about employee vs contractor. The delta between those regarding benefits goes way beyond health care. In fact because almost every full time employee must have health care offered by their employer the option of \"\"you can have X with healthcare, or Y with no healthcare\"\" is no longer an option. I have seen situations in the last few years where employees who had no need for healthcare coverage (retired military) were offered additional vacation days to compensate for their lower cost to the employer. For employee vs contractor what is different isn't just healthcare. It also includes holidays, vacation days, sick days, employer portion of social security, education benefits, and 401k. Insurance benefits include not just healthcare but also dental, vision, short term and long term disability, and life insurance. The rule of thumb to cover all these benefits that are lost when you are a contractor is an amount equal to your income. Of course some of these benefits depend on single vs married and kids or not. But unless the rate they are paying the contractors is approaching twice the rate they are paying employees the contractor will be hard pressed to cover the missing benefits.\"",
"When I worked for myself it was bad because But Ultimately I gave up my business and went to work for a school teaching, and through a series of other jobs ended up in a very stable reliable trustworthy job. When I was younger the variable paycheck didn't outweigh the freedom. Now that I am a dad I only think about having insurance and a secure job. The other option to consider is having a regular job, and then doing a little side work for yourself. You get all the benefits of both (and all the detractions)",
"Where you earn your money makes no difference to the IRS. Citizen/permanent resident means you pay income tax. To make matters worse given your situation it's virtually certain you have unreported foreign bank accounts--something that's also an important issue.",
"\"My late answer is: Be aware of the difference of being a contractor and being an employee. I am not sure of the laws in Canada, but in the United States lots of small companies like to hire people as \"\"contractors\"\" but make them work under rules that fall into employee. The business is trying to avoid paying payroll taxes, which is fine, but make sure you know your rights and responsibilities as a contractor vs employee. You can check with your state's Bureau of Labor and Industry in the US, but I am sure wherever you are from there is a government agency to do the same thing.\"",
"\"My employer puts \"\"contractor\"\" in your email address if you're a contractor, just so no one mistakenly treats you like a real employee. jsmith.contractor@company.com They get crappy desks not much bigger than 1970s library carrels. Some of them might be making more than I do, but I'd bet 6 months' salary that most of them aren't - a lot of them have that hangdog \"\"should I go for catfood again tonight or treat myself with some nice instant ramen?\"\" look.\"",
"\"The \"\"independent contractor\"\" vs. \"\"employee\"\" distinction is a red herring to this discussion and not at all important just because someone suggested you use your LLC to do the job. Corp-2-Corp is a very common way to do contracting and having an LLC with business bank accounts provides you with more tax deductions (such as deducting interest on credit lines). Some accounting practices prefer to pay entities by their Tax ID numbers, instead of an individual's social security number. The actual reasoning behind this would be dubious, but the LLC only benefits you and gives you more advantages by having one than not. For example, it is easier for you to hire subcontractors through your LLC to assist with your job, due to the opaqueness of the private entity. Similarly, your LLC can sign Non Disclosure and Intellectual Property agreements, automatically extending the trade secrets to all of its members, as opposed to just you as an individual. By signing whatever agreement with the company that is paying you through your LLC, your LLC will be privy to all of this. Next, assuming you did have subcontractors or other liability inducing assets, the LLC limits the liability you personally have to deal with in a court system, to an extent. But even if you didn't, the facelessness of an LLC can deter potential creditors, for example, your client may just assume you are a cog in a wheel - a random employee of the LLC - as opposed to the sole owner. Having a business account for the LLC keeps all of your expenses in one account statement, making your tax deductions easier. If you had a business credit line, the interest is tax deductible (compared to just having a personal credit card for business purposes). Regarding the time/costs of setting up and managing an LLC, this does vary by jurisdiction. It can negligible, or it can be complex. You also only have to do it once. Hire an attorney to give you a head start on that, if you feel that is necessary. Now back to the \"\"independent contractor\"\" vs. \"\"employee\"\" distinction: It is true that the client will not be paying your social security, but they expect you to charge more hourly than an equivalent actual employee would, solely because you don't get health insurance from them or paid leave or retirement plans or any other perk, and you will receive the entire paycheck without any withheld by the employer. You also get more tax deductions to utilize, although you will now have self employment tax (assuming you are a US citizen), this becomes less and less important the higher over $105,000 you make, as it stops being counted (slightly more complicated than that, but self employment tax is it's own discussion).\"",
"There are still ways that the default values on the W4 can lead you to get a refund or owe the IRS. If there was a big delta in your paychecks, it can lead to problems. If you make 260,000 and get 26 paychecks that means each check had a gross of 10,000. Your company will withhold the same amount from each check. But If you earned a big bonus then the smaller regular paychecks may not have been withholding enough. When bonus checks are involved the payroll office has to treat them as irregular pay to be able to make it work out. Some companies don't do this, so you may under or over pay during the year. If you changed companies during the year, this can lead to under or over payment. The lower paying company would not know about the higher rate of pay at the other company. so at one you would under pay, and the other you would over pay. There are also social security issues with more than one employer.",
"Yes. W4 determines how much your employer will withhold from your wages. Leaving everything at default would mean that your salary is your only taxable income, and you only take default deductions. Your employee will calculate your tax withholding based on that. But, if your salary is >200k, I assume that you have other income (investment/capital gains, interest on your bank account), which you will have to pay taxes on. You're probably going to have some deductible expenses (business/partnership expenses, mortgage interest, donations, college funds etc) as well. So it is very likely, unless you're really not smart about money, that you have more to do with your taxes than just the employers' withholding.",
"Why was I sent both 1042-S and 1099. Which amount is the right amount that has been withheld. Generally, each tax form you get will be about a separate income; for instance, you might get a 1099-DIV for dividends you earned from an investment and then a 1099-B for the profit or loss on selling that investment, in which case you'd report them both to the IRS. In this case, you've also had money withheld as a non-resident alien, which is why you've been issued a 1042-S. So you need to report both amounts to the IRS.",
"After reading OP Mark's question and the various answers carefully and also looking over some old pay stubs of mine, I am beginning to wonder if he is mis-reading his pay stub or slip of paper attached to the reimbursement check for the item(s) he purchases. Pay stubs (whether paper documents attached to checks or things received in one's company mailbox or available for downloading from a company web site while the money is deposited electronically into the employee's checking account) vary from company to company, but a reasonably well-designed stub would likely have categories such as Taxable gross income for the pay period: This is the amount from which payroll taxes (Federal and State income tax, Social Security and Medicare tax) are deducted as well as other post-tax deductions such as money going to purchase of US Savings Bonds, contributions to United Way via payroll deduction, contribution to Roth 401k etc. Employer-paid group life insurance premiums are taxable income too for any portion of the policy that exceeds $50K. In some cases, these appear as a lump sum on the last pay stub for the year. Nontaxable gross income for the pay period: This would be sum total of the amounts contributed to nonRoth 401k plans, employee's share of group health-care insurance premiums for employee and/or employee's family, money deposited into FSA accounts, etc. Net pay: This is the amount of the attached check or money sent via ACH to the employee's bank account. Year-to-date amounts: These just tell the employee what has been earned/paid/withheld to date in the various categories. Now, OP Mark said My company does not tax the reimbursement but they do add it to my running gross earnings total for the year. So, the question is whether the amount of the reimbursement is included in the Year-to-date amount of Taxable Income. If YTD Taxable Income does not include the reimbursement amount, then the the OP's question and the answers and comments are moot; unless the company has really-messed-up (Pat. Pending) payroll software that does weird things, the amount on the W2 form will be whatever is shown as YTD Taxable Income on the last pay stub of the year, and, as @DJClayworth noted cogently, it is what will appear on the W2 form that really matters. In summary, it is good that OP Mark is taking the time to investigate the matter of the reimbursements appearing in Total Gross Income, but if the amounts are not appearing in the YTD Taxable Income, his Payroll Office may just reassure him that they have good software and that what the YTD Taxable Income says on the last pay stub is what will be appearing on his W2 form. I am fairly confident that this is what will be the resolution of the matter because if the amount of the reimbursement was included in Taxable Income during that pay period and no tax was withheld, then the employer has a problem with Social Security and Medicare tax underwithholding, and nonpayment of this tax plus the employer's share to the US Treasury in timely fashion. The IRS takes an extremely dim view of such shenanigans and most employers are unlikely to take the risk.",
"If you don't receive a W2, there are 2 scenarios you should consider: If you have reason to believe that scenario 1 is accurate, then you could file your taxes based on the last valid paycheck you received. If you have reason to believe that scenario 2 is accurate, then you need to do some extra math, but fortunately it is straight forward. Simply treat your final paychecks as if the gross amount of your check was equal to the sum of your taxes paid, and the net amount of the check is $0. This way your income will increase by the proper amount, and you will still receive credit for the taxes paid. This should work out cleanly for federal and state taxes, but will likely result in an overpayment of FICA taxes. You can use form 843 to receive a refund of excess FICA taxes. As a side note, I'd recommend spot checking the YTD numbers on your last paychecks against previous paystubs to make sure there wasn't any fuzzy math going on when they realized they were going out of business.",
"Do not mix personal accounts and corporate accounts. If you're paid as your self person - this money belongs to you, not the corporation. You can contribute it to the corporation, but it is another tax event and you should understand fully the consequences. Talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). If they pay to you personally (1099) - it goes on your Schedule C, and you pay SE taxes on it. If they pay to your corporation, the corporation will pay it to you as salary, and will pay payroll taxes on it. Generally, payroll through corporation will be slightly more expensive than regular schedule C. If you have employees/subcontractors, though, you may earn money which is not from your own performance, in which case S-Corp may be an advantage.",
"Couple of points about being a consultant in the US: It sounds like the rules for what you can deduct may be more lax in Italy. For example, you can deduct a certain percentage of your home for work but the rules are relatively strict on your use of that space and how much is deductible. Also things like clothes, restaurants, phones, car use, etc must follow IRS guidelines to be deductible. This often means they are used exclusively for work and are required for work. A meal you eat by yourself is not generally deductible, for example. Any expense you would have had anyway if you were not working is generally not deductible. A contractor in the US can organize in various ways, including sole proprietorship, an S-corp, and a C-corp. Each has different tax and regulatory implications. In the simple case of a sole proprietorship, one must pay not only regular income tax but also self-employment tax, which is the part of social security and medicare tax normally paid for by one's employer. Estimated taxes must be paid to the government quarterly and then the actual amount due synced up at the end of the year (with the government sending you the difference or vice versa). Generally speaking contractors may set aside more money pre-tax for retirement and have better investment options. This is because solo 401(k) retirement accounts are cost-effective and flexible and the contractor can set aside the full $18K pre-tax as well as having the company contribute generously (pre-tax) to the retirement account. Contractors can also easily employ spouses and set aside even more. The details of how frequently you are paid as a contractor and how much notice (if any) the company must give you before terminating your relationship are negotiated between you and the company and are generally pretty flexible. You could get paid your whole year salary in a lump sum if you wanted. The company that is paying you will not normally give you any benefits whatsoever...in this way it is the same situation as it is in Italy. By the way the three points you mention in your edit are definitely not true in the US.",
"Since you worked as an RA, the university should send you a W2 form. The taxable wages line in that form would be the sum of both the direct salary and employer paid benefits that are taxable. As such you should not need to do anything than enter the numbers that they provide you.",
"\"S-Corp are taxed very different. Unlike LLC where you just add the profit to your income with S-Corp you have to pay yourself a \"\"reasonable\"\" salary (on w-2) which of course is a lot more paperwork. I think the advantage (but don't hold me accountable for this) is if your S-Corp makes a lot more than a reasonable salary, then the rest of the money can be passed through on your personal return at a lower (corp) rate.\"",
"You pay it this tax year. Whether that's now due to W-2 withholding, or later with your 1040 next year, or with your 1040-ES all depends on your particular situation.",
"I can only address this part of it: For instance with a 10k net income, 9293 is the limit for 401k from employee. How is this calculated? I believe this limit is total for all sources too, which I'm confused about. How it's calculated is that when you are self-employed you also pay the employer portion of the FICA taxes. This comes off above the line and is not considered income. The 401k contribution limit takes this into account.",
"For 2014/15 it looks something like this: To make it a bit clearer, let's also plot the difference in net income for self-employment and a single person company compared to employment: Self-employment is slightly worse between £5885 and about £10,500 because Class 2 NI kicks in before the employed person starts paying any tax. After that, self-employment is better because you pay 9% Class 4 NI rather than 12% Class 1 NI. Once higher rate tax kicks in, the saving stops growing. The single-person company is most tax-efficient at all points, ignoring any accountancy costs it incurs. Strange things happen between £100k and about £135k because the withdrawal of the personal allowance kicks in at a different point when receiving dividends. We can also plot the percentage of income paid as tax for each case: The strange kink for self-employment below £10k is caused by Class 2 NI again. Employment and self-employment both gradually tend towards paying 47%, reaching 46.5% for £2m gross income. The company tends towards 44.44%, reaching 43.6% for £2m gross income.",
"As others have said, it depends entirely on what benefits are provided, and how much of the cost of those benefits is paid by the employer and how much is paid by the employee, and compare that to what it would cost to obtain the necessary/equivalent coverage without employer assistance. In my case, my employer pays more than $10,000 per year toward the cost of medical, dental, vision, disability, and life insurance for myself and my family. That's almost 20% of the average total household income in my state, so it is not an insignificant amount at all.",
"You may be able to find the answers to your question on the IRS web site: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98263,00.html Specifically, using this form to estimate taxes for salary: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120w.pdf and this form to estimate taxes for dividends: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf",
"As others have mentioned yes it is taxable. Whether it goes through payroll and has FICA taken out is your issue in terms that you need to report it and you will an extra 7.5% self employment taxes that would normally be covered by your employer. Your employer may have problems but that isn't your issue. Contrary to what other users are saying chances are there won't be any penalties for you. Best case you have already paid 100% of last years tax liability and you can file your normal tax return with no issues. Worst case you need to pay quarterly taxes on that amount in the current quarter. IRS quarters are a little weird but I think you need to pay by Jan 15th for a December payment. You don't have to calculate your entire liability you can just fill out the very short form and attach a check for about what you will owe. There is a form you can fill out to show what quarter you received the money and you paid in it is a bit more complex but will avoid the penalty. For penalties quarterly taxes count in the quarter received where as payroll deductions count as if they were paid in the first quarter of the year. From the IRS The United States income tax is a pay-as-you-go tax, which means that tax must be paid as you earn or receive your income during the year. You can either do this through withholding or by making estimated tax payments. If you do not pay your tax through withholding, or do not pay enough tax that way, you might also have to pay estimated taxes. If you did not pay enough tax throughout the year, either through withholding or by making estimated tax payments, you may have to pay a penalty for underpayment of estimated tax. Generally, most taxpayers will avoid this penalty if they owe less than $1,000 in tax after subtracting their withholdings and credits, or if they paid at least 90% of the tax for the current year, or 100% of the tax shown on the return for the prior year, whichever is smaller.",
"I would say it's all relative. Take the following two scenarios: If you were facing these options, would you chose #2 just because you pay a lower tax rate, even though you make less money? These numbers are of course fictional, but the point I'm trying to make is that everyone will seek the method that allows them to make the most money. If they have to pay a higher tax rate, so be it. One other thought: daytraders will have higher expenses, which are deductible.",
"On what basis are you not employee? You should probably get some tax/legal advice, but generally J1 internship is by definition employment. You should also check the tax treaty between the US and Ireland, if there's one, and check what it says about training related income. You may find a pleasant surprise there. Most universities have support for international students/visiting scholars, check the international students' office at your school.",
"Employer matches (even for Roth 401Ks) are put into traditional 401K accounts and are treated as pre-tax income. Traditional 401K plans are tax deferred accounts, meaning you won't owe any taxes on it this year, but will have to pay taxes on it when you take the money out (likely after retirement). 401K contributions (including the match) are reported to the IRS and are entered in box 12 on the W2 form.",
"\"I'm no lawyer and no expert, so take my remarks as entertainment only. Also see this question. If you have a U.S. SSN which is eligible for work, they may be able to pay you on 1099 basis with your SSN as a sole proprietor, unless they have some personal reason for avoiding that. So perhaps try asking about that specifically. HR policies can be weird and tricky, maybe a nudge in the right direction will help. Not What You Asked: regardless, I might recommend you register as an LLC and get an EIN (sort of SSN for companies) for a variety of reasons. It's called a \"\"limited liability\"\" company for a reason. You may also have an easier time reaping various business-related rewards, like writing off expenses. If you do so, consider a state with no income tax like Wyoming. (Or, for convenience sake, WA if you live in BC, or maybe NH if you live in Ontario.. etc.)\"",
"I think I may have figured this out but if someone could double check my reasoning I'd appreciate it. So if my company makes $75000 and I decide to pay myself a $30000 salary, then the quarterly payment break down would be like this: 1040ES: Would pay income tax on non salary dividend ($45000) 941: Would pay income tax, SS, medicare on salary ($30000) (I'm the only person on payroll) So I think this answers my question in that after switching from filing as LLC to S-corp, I won't have to pay as much on 1040ES because some of it will now be covered on payroll.",
"You are confused about a couple of terms: For example you work for company A: As to the 1098-T: It is likely that you or your parents will use the 1098-T. You don't have to file a copy with the IRS. You and your parents need to determine who should be reporting the educational expenses: you or your parents.",
"Regarding #1: use the free online version of turbotax and start to play with the numbers for the different options for filing. It can make a difference, based on the imbalance between the couples income. Also filing married but separate can eleiminate some deductions/credits. Regarding #2: when you submit your taxes use the forecasting tool in turbotax to see if you should adjust your withholding. 2012 will be tricky because unless you changed your withholding in early 2011 to account for the change in status, your refund/owe number for 2011 will be unrelated to what will happen in 2012. Make sure you meet the safe harbor requirements, enough withheld to equal the previous years tax. Joe Taxpayer tried to give you a formula regarding exemptions, here is another explanation: Each exemption is worth a percent of $3800. If you are in the 10% bracket that means it is worth $380 per year. If you got a big refund or wrote a big check, adjust accordingly. Regarding #4: getting a match is great. Make sure you leave nothing on the table. Other than that it won't make a difference which one you pick. Look at the funds available, investment types, expenses and go with the one that makes the most sense to maximize. Remember you are not getting interest on the 401Ks you are investing and getting returns. There is no way to know which investment fund will be better in 2012.",
">However, you would have to pay income taxes on that wage and could end up with less money overall to spend on healthcare. That's not truth tho. You can open IRA and 401k and now you have more money to put into them that won't get tax and it help you save for the retirement.",
"Your question begins with a misunderstanding. When you prepare your tax return (Form 1040/1040A/1040EZ) you always try to minimize your total tax bill. When you fill out form W4 you trying to estimate how much tax will be shown on next years tax return. The penalty for having too much tax withheld is not having the use of the money until you get a tax refund. At the moment interest rates are very low and your economic loss is the temporary loss of access to the money. One exception would be if you are carrying credit card debt. In that case you are, in effect, paying 20-30% interest to borrow money you lending to the US Treasury for 0% interest. The penalty for having too little tax withheld is having to make a large payment with your tax return. If your pre-payments aren't at least as much as your total income tax from last year there may also be modest underpayment penalty based on the difference between your pre-payments and your total income tax from last year or this year whichever is less. A large underpayment will trigger a different larger underpayemnt penalty. The W4 combined with the withholding rates tends to over-withhold income tax for most, but not all, taxpayers. Most people don't have enough savings to pay a large tax due, which leads to more penalties and an even larger bill. Over-witholding protects the overall tax system from the consequences of those events. People tend to be very unhappy, not quietly. On balance your greatest economic benefit depends on whether or not you have high interest debt. If you do, then accurate and even slightly under-withholding will probably work to your advantage as long as you can pay next 4/15. If not, avoiding the chance of having any unexpected balance due next year may be more important.",
"\"You are on the right track, for tax purposes its all ordinary income at the end of 2016. If the free lance \"\"employer\"\" will withhold fed,state and local tax, then that takes care of your estimated tax. If they can't or won't, you will need to make those estimates and make payments quarterly for the fed and state tax at your projected tax liability. Or, you can bump up withholding by your day job employer and cover your expected tax liability at year end without making estimated tax payments.\"",
"\"The big difference is that you get your money earlier at the start. Suppose you start on a random day with payday on the last day of the month (monthly), or on every 2nd wednesday (biweekly), and it takes 3 days for payroll to \"\"ramp up\"\" (ie, if payday is within 3 days on your start date, your next paycheck is not on the next payday, but on the one after). If we assume every month has 30 days (to keep things simple), it is an average of 4+5+...+33 days until you get your first paycheck with monthly pay, an average of 18.5 days. For weekly it is a bit trickier Assuming you get hired at a random date here, with * being a paydate: time until you get paid: an average of 10.5 days. So you get your first pay an average of 8 days earlier. Later on, that 3 day thing no longer occurs, and now the company holds an average of 6.5 days of your pay \"\"due to you\"\" with biweekly paychecks, and about 14.5 days with weekly paychecks if you have monthly pay. So with monthly pay, on average your bank account has 8 fewer days of your pay in it at all times. This happens when you are first hired, and persists over the length of your employment. Now suppose you save that extra money (on average): Suppose you have an investment at 4% (after inflation). Over 40 years those 8 days of pay invested at 4% grow to 38 days of pay, a free month. What more, if the company has problems making payroll, you'll get a warning (to, say, look for another job) an average of 8 days sooner, and/or have the money in your account. Having someone owe you money is usually worse than having the money in your bank account.\"",
"If you return the money in the same tax year - it will not appear on your W2 and you will not be taxed on it. Whatever was withheld - you'll get it refunded when you file your annual tax return. If you return it in a different tax year - it becomes a miscellaneous deduction reported on your Schedule A. If the amount is less than $3000 - then this deduction is subject to the 2% AGI threshold, if the amount is more than that - it is not subject to threshold. Bottom line, you're probably going to lose money, unless you're already itemizing and the amount is above $3K. There's also a credit that you can take instead of deduction. See publication 525 for details.",
"I see several interesting statement in your question. A. my only income is from my Employer B. I also receive employer stock (ESPP, RSU, NSO). However, employer withholds taxes for these stock transactions through my broker (I see them broken down on my W2). C. I have been subject to Alternative Minimum Tax. A implies a simple tax return. B and C tell the opposite story. In fact if B is not done correctly The amount withheld due to payroll may be perfect but the under withholding could be due to the ESPP's, RSUs and NSOs. The AMT can throw everything else out the window. If a person has a very simple tax situation: Income doesn't change a lot from paycheck to paycheck; they take the standard deduction; the number of exemptions equals the number of people in the family. Then the withholding is very close to perfect. The role of the exemptions on the W-4 is to compensate for situations that go above the standard deduction. The role of extra withholding is when the situation requires more withholding due to situations that will bring in extra income or if the AMT is involved.",
"\"Does your spouse work? That's one factor that can put your income into a higher bracket. The one difference to note is you will pay 2x the social security portion, so even though not \"\"federal\"\" tax, its right off the top nearly 13%. I'm not familiar with your states tax. It's really worth dropping the $75 on a copy of the software and running your own exact numbers.\""
] |
[
"Careful. I would personally need a LOT more than $5 more per hour to go from W-2 employment to 1099 employment. It boils down to two reasons: (1) employers pay a huge amount of taxes on behalf of their employees, and (2) you would have to pay all of your own withholding up front. Your current proposal from them doesn't account for that. There are also risks that you face as a 1099. On the first item, your employer currently pays 6.2% of your Social Security tax. You pay the other 6.2%. If you go to 1099 status, you will be self-employed as an independent contractor and have to pay the full 12.4% out of your increased 1099 wages. On the second item, your employer also does your withholding out of your paychecks based on what you tell them on a form W-4. If you're disciplined enough to pay this out yourself in estimated taxes every time you get a paycheck, great. Many people aren't and just see a much bigger paycheck with no taxes out of it, and end up with a large tax bill at the end of the year. Overall, there are some other considerations like healthcare and other benefits. These will not be available to you as a 1099 employee. You can also be terminated spontaneously, unless you have a specific contract length with the company. As I see it, not including any benefits you would receive, you're looking at LESS money in your pocket at $50/hr as a contractor than at your $48/hr. Your pay net social security deductions is: $48 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 99,840 * .938 = 93,649.92. As a 1099 @ $50/hr you would net $50 x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = 104,000 * .876 = 91,104. Then there are the rest of taxes, etc to figure out your real take-home pay. I'm not a tax advisor, but I would be very careful to get the whole picture figured out before jumping. I would ask for a lot more with the added risk you would take as an independent, too.",
"In general that's illegal. If you're a W2 employee, you don't miraculously become a 1099 contractor just because they pay you more. If your job doesn't change - then your status doesn't change just because they give you a raise. They can be sued (by you, and by the IRS) for that. Other issues have already been raised by other respondents, just wanted to point out this legal perspective.",
"In general What does this mean? Assume 10 holidays and 2 weeks of vacation. So you will report to the office for 240 days (48 weeks * 5 days a week). If you are a w2 they will pay you for 260 days (52 weeks * 5 days a week). At $48 per hour you will be paid: 260*8*48 or $99,840. As a 1099 you will be paid 240*8*50 or 96,000. But you still have to cover insurance, the extra part of social security, and your retirement through an IRA. A rule of thumb I have seen with government contracting is that If the employee thinks that they make X,000 per year the company has to bill X/hour to pay for wages, benefits, overhead and profit. If the employee thinks they make x/hour the company has to bill at 2X/hour. When does a small spread make sense: The insurance is covered by another source, your spouse; or government/military retirement program. Still $2 per hour won't cover the 6.2% for social security. Let alone the other benefits. The IRS has a checklist to make sure that a 1099 is really a 1099, not just a way for the employer to shift the costs onto the individual.",
"Another thing to consider, however, is the deductibility of business expenses. Let's assume that the employer can legitimately hire you as a 1099 contractor. (Would you be able to telecommute? Would you have a high degree of control over when you worked and when you didn't? These factors also affect whether you're a true independent 1099 contractor or not.) As a legit 1099 contractor, you're able to deduct certain business expenses directly from your income. (You can find a list of the rules at irs.gov.) As a W2 employee, by contrast, can deduct only business expenses that exceed 2% of the your AGI (adjusted gross income). So, you also have to consider your personal circumstances in making the calculus and comparing whether a legitimate 1099 contractor job is or is not good for you. It's not just a comparison of what they'd pay W2 employees versus what they'd pay 1099 contractors."
] |
5683
|
What is the PEG ratio? How is the PEG ratio calculated? How is the PEG ratio useful for stock investing?
|
[
"173026",
"448690"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"173026",
"593035",
"448690",
"131335",
"192686",
"70512",
"308294",
"71029",
"226070",
"416732",
"223823",
"571234",
"5054",
"583708",
"472500",
"562238",
"232712",
"466972",
"149211",
"533818",
"215659",
"403224",
"94591",
"548211",
"134110",
"597653",
"96013",
"194319",
"69506",
"451688",
"435722",
"132097",
"278582",
"415946",
"226839",
"384770",
"553450",
"112342",
"265314",
"172691",
"349567",
"446877",
"457873",
"91430",
"546969",
"176070",
"287950",
"433905",
"77963",
"508753",
"30345",
"87667",
"368848",
"521274",
"4290",
"278307",
"45468",
"10703",
"257722",
"245117",
"457485",
"292805",
"241308",
"197480",
"434625",
"82479",
"44666",
"171135",
"404840",
"536462",
"554653",
"288403",
"380851",
"543345",
"504243",
"480811",
"170652",
"11184",
"102138",
"566579",
"8003",
"123263",
"477426",
"62290",
"278369",
"491358",
"4269",
"60495",
"434337",
"187583",
"249360",
"403870",
"532139",
"450949",
"42427",
"452479",
"225855",
"220772",
"590980",
"573928"
] |
[
"PEG is Price/Earnings to Growth. It is calculated as Price/Earnings/Annual EPS Growth. It represents how good a stock is to buy, factoring in growth of earnings, which P/E does not. Obviously when PEG is lower, a stock is more undervalued, which means that it is a better buy, and more likely to go up. Additional References:",
"P/E can use various estimates in its calculation as one could speculate about future P/E rations and thus could determine a future valuation if one is prepared to say that the P/E should be X for a company. Course it is worth noting that if a company isn't generating positive earnings this can be a less than useful tool, e.g. Amazon in the 1990s lost money every quarter and thus would have had a N/A for a P/E. PEG would use P/E and earnings growth as a way to see if a stock is overvalued based on projected growth. If a company has a high P/E but has a high earnings growth rate then that may prove to be worth it. By using the growth rate, one can get a better idea of the context to that figure. Another way to gain context on P/E would be to look at industry averages that would often be found on Yahoo! Finance and other sites.",
"PEG is Price to Earnings Growth. I've forgotten how it's calculated, I just remember that a PEG ratio of 1-2 is attractive by Graham & Dodd standards.",
"PE can be misleading when theres a good risk the company simply goes out of business in a few years. For this reason some people use PEG, which incorporates growth into the equation.",
"Essentially, yes, Peter Lynch is talking about the PEG Ratio. The Price/Earnings to Growth (PEG) Ratio is where you take the p/e ratio and then divide that by the growth rate (which should include any dividends). A lower number indicates that the stock is undervalued, and could be a good buy. Lynch's metric is the inverse of that: Growth rate divided by the p/e ratio. It is the same idea, but in this case, a higher number indicates a good value for buying. In either case, the idea behind this ratio is that a fairly priced stock will have the p/e ratio equal the growth rate. When your growth rate is larger than your p/e ratio, you are theoretically looking at an undervalued stock.",
"This is only a rule of thumb. Peter Lynch popularized it; the ratio PE/growth is often called the Lynch Ratio. At best it's a very rough guideline. I could fill up this page with other caveats. I'm not saying that it's wrong, only that it's grossly incomplete. For a 10 second eyeball valuation of growth stocks, it's fine. But that's the extent of its usefulness.",
"The PE ratio stands for the Price-Earnings ratio. The price-earnings ratio is a straightforward formula: Share Price divided by earnings per share. Earnings per share is calculated by dividing the pre-tax profit for the company by the number of shares in issue. The PE ratio is seen by some as a measure of future growth of a company. As a general rule, the higher the PE, the faster the market believes a company will grow. This question is answered on our DividendMax website: http://www.dividendmax.co.uk/help/investor-glossary/what-is-the-pe-ratio Cheers",
"See this link...I was also looking an answer to the same questions. This site explains with an example http://www.independent-stock-investing.com/PE-Ratio.html",
"\"In the long run (how long?) a shares price always reverts to being its proportional amount of the company's residual equity plus the net present value of its expected future cash flows. Or at least that's the theory. In practice PE ratio is used not as a way of measuring what the stock price itself will do but what the fundamental value of holding that share is compared to its price. It is a way of measuring what a company is worth compared to its price and comparing it against other companies to find companies where the underlying value of the company is underrepresented by the price. Comparing PE ratios within the same industry or sector is the most valid use for this (other than comparing previous years of the same company) and the validity of the comparison drops as the structure of the firm you are comparing with gets more different to that of the company. Each industry has its own \"\"typical\"\" average PE ratio and these differ wildly between industries so in a great many cases even comparing PE ratios between similar stocks in different industries isn't valid. Any weird pseudo PE ratio that you create for other instruments will be meaningless. In general the best way to compare investments across multiple instruments is by comparing returns. when comparing stocks to other instruments you may want to use the return on stock price or the return on capital employed (ROCE) depending on whether you want to compare the trading performance or the fundamental performance.\"",
"Your observation is mostly right, that 1 is a the number around which this varies. You are actually referencing PEG, P/E to Growth ratio, which is a common benchmark to use to evaluate a stock. The article I link to provides more discussion.",
"PE ratio is the current share price divided by the prior 4 quarters earnings per share. Any stock quote site will report it. You can also compute it yourself. All you need is an income statement and a current stock quote.",
"P/E ratio is useful but limited as others have said. Another problem is that it doesn't show leverage. Two companies in the same industry could have the same P/E but be differently leveraged. In that case I would buy the company with more equity and less debt as it should be a less risky investment. To compare companies and take leverage/debt into account you could use the EV/EBIT ratio instead. Its slightly more complicated to calculate and isn't presented by as many data sources though. Enterprise Value (EV) can be said to represent the value of the company if someone would buy it today and then pay off all its (interest bearing) debt. EV is essentially calculated like this: (Market Capitalization plus cash & cash equivalents) minus interest-bearing debt. This is then divided by EBIT (Earnings before interest and tax) to get the ratio. One drawback of this ratio though is that it can't be used for financials since their balance sheet pretty much consists of debt and the Enterprise Value therefore doesn't tell us very much. Also, like the P/E ratio it is dependent on fresh numbers. A balance sheet is just a glimpse of the companys financial situation on ONE DAY, and this could (and probably will, although not drastically for bigger companies) change to the next day.",
"When fundamentals such as P/E make a stock look overpriced, analysts often point to other metrics. The PEG ratio, for example, can be applied to cast growth companies in a better light. Fundamental analysis is highly subjective. For further discussion on the pitfalls of fundamentals, I suggest A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel.",
"It might seem like the PE ratio is very useful, but it's actually pretty useless as a measure used to make buy or sell decisions, and taken largely on its own, pretty useless becomes utterly and completely useless. Stocks trade at prices based on future expectations and speculation, so that means if traders expect a company to double its profits next year, the share price could easily double (there are reasons it might not increase so much, and there are reasons it could increase even more than that, but that's not the point). The Price is now double, but the Earnings is still the same, so the PE ratio is double, and this doubling is based on something some traders know, or think they know, but other traders might not know or not believe! Once you understand that, what use is a PE ratio really? The PE ratio of a company might be low because it is in a death spiral, with many traders believing it will report lower and lower profits in years to come, and the lower the PE ratio of a given company gets probably, relatively, the more likely it is to go bust! If you buy a stock with a low PE ratio you must do so because you feel you understand the company, understand why the market is viewing it negatively, believe that the negativity is wrong or over done, and believe that it will turn around. Equally a PE ratio might be high, but be an excellent buy still because it has excellent growth prospects and potential even beyond what is priced in already! Lets face it, SOMEONE has been buying at the price that's put that PE ratio where is is, right? They might be wrong of course, or not! Or they might be justified now but circumstances might change before earnings ever reach the current priced in expectation. You'll know next year probably! To answer your actual question... first you should now understand there is no such thing as a stock that is on sale, just stocks that are priced broadly according to the markets consensus on its value in years to come, the closest thing being a stock that is 'over sold' (but one man's 'over sold' is another man's train crash remember)... so what to actually look for? The only way to (on average) make good buy and sell decisions is to know about investing and trading (buy some books, I have 12), understand the businesses you propose to invest in and understand their market(s) (which may also mean understanding national and international economics somewhat).",
"\"Some companies have a steady, reliable, stream of earnings. In that case, a low P/E ratio is likely to indicate a good stock. Other companies have a \"\"feast or famine\"\" pattern, great earnings one year, no earnings or losses the following year. In that case, it is misleading to use a P/E ratio for a good year, when earnings are high and the ratio is low. Instead, you have to figure out what the company's AVERAGE earnings may be for some years, and assign a P/E ratio to that.\"",
"The P/E ratio is a measure of historic (the previous financial year) earnings against the current share price. If the P/E is high, this means that the market perceives a big increase in future earnings per share. In other words, the perception is that this is a fast growing company. Higher earnings may also equate to big increases in dividends and rapid expansion. On the other hand, if the P/E is low, then there is a perception that either earnings per share are decreasing or that future growth in earnings is negligible. In other words, low P/E equates to a perception of low future growth and therefore low prospects for future payout increases - possibly even decreases. The market is (rightly) usually willing to pay a premium for fast growing companies.",
"Let's take a step back. My fictional company 'A' is a solid, old, established company. It's in consumer staples, so people buy the products in good times and bad. It has a dividend of $1/yr. Only knowing this, you have to decide how much you would be willing to pay for one share. You might decide that $20 is fair. Why? Because that's a 5% return on your money, 1/20 = 5%, and given the current rates, you're happy for a 5% dividend. But this company doesn't give out all its earnings as a dividend. It really earns $1.50, so the P/E you are willing to pay is 20/1.5 or 13.3. Many companies offer no dividend, but of course they still might have earnings, and the P/E is one metric that used to judge whether one wishes to buy a stock. A high P/E implies the buyers think the stock will have future growth, and they are wiling to pay more today to hold it. A low P/E might be a sign the company is solid, but not growing, if such a thing is possible.",
"The price to earnings ratio is a measure of the company's current share price compared to the annual net earnings per share. The other way to think about this is the number of years a company would take to pay back the share price if the earnings stay constant. This ignores factors like inflation and can be used as an indicator of risk. During the internet bubble many companies had P/E above 24 and no possible means of earning back the share prices that were inflated largely due to speculation. Most tools like Google Finance will list the P/E for a particular quote.",
"Stock price = Earning per share * P/E Ratio. Most of the time you will see in a listing the Stock price and the P/E ration. The calculation of the EPS is left as an exercise for the student Investor.",
"\"To perhaps better explain the \"\"why\"\" behind this rule of thumb, first think of what it means when the P/E ratio changes. If the P/E ratio increases, then this means the stock has become more expensive (in relative terms)--for example, an increase in the price but no change in the earnings means you are now paying more for each cent of earnings than you previously were; or, a decrease in the earnings but no change in the price means you are now paying the same for less earnings. Keeping this in mind, consider what happens to the PE ratio when earnings increase (grow)-- if the price of the stock remains the same, then the stock has actually become relatively \"\"cheaper\"\", since you are now getting more earnings for the same price. All else equal, we would not expect this to happen--instead, we would expect the price of the stock to increase as well proportionate to the earnings growth. Therefore, a stock whose PE ratio is growing at a rate that is faster than its earnings are growing is becoming more expensive (the price paid per cent of earnings is increasing). Similarly, a stock whose PE ratio is growing at a slower rate than its earnings is becoming cheaper (the price paid per cent of earnings is decreasing). Finally, a stock whose P/E ratio is growing at the same rate as its earnings are growing is retaining the same relative valuation--even though the actual price of the stock may be increasing, you are paying the same amount for each cent of the underlying company's earnings.\"",
"To calculate you take the Price and divide it by the Earnings, or by the Sales, or by the Free Cash Flow. Most of these calculations are done for you on a lot of finance sites if the data is available. Such sites as Yahoo Finance and Google Finance as well as my personal favorite: Morningstar",
"generally Forward P/E is computed as current price / forward earnings. The rationale behind this is that buying the stock costs you the current price, and it gives you a claim on the future earnings.",
"P/E = price per earnings. low P/E (P/E < 4) means stock is undervalued.",
"\"@jlowin's answer has a very good discussion of the types of PE ratio so I will just answer a very specific question from within your question: And who makes these estimates? Is it the market commentators or the company saying \"\"we'd expected to make this much\"\"? Future earnings estimates are made by professional analysts and analytical teams in the market based on a number of factors. If these analysts are within an investment company the investment company will use a frequently updated value of this estimate as the basis for their PE ratio. Some of these numbers for large or liquid firms may essentially be generated every time they want to look at the PE ratio, possibly many times a day. In my experience they take little notice of what the company says they expect to make as those are numbers that the board wants the market to see. Instead analysts use a mixture of economic data and forecasting, surveys of sentiment towards the company and its industry, and various related current events to build up an ongoing model of the company's finances. How sophisticated the model is is dependent upon how big the analytics team is and how much time resource they can devote to the company. For bigger firms with good investor relations teams and high liquidity or small, fast growing firms this can be a huge undertaking as they can see large rewards in putting the extra work in. The At least one analytics team at a large investment bank that I worked closely with even went as far as sending analysts out onto the streets some days to \"\"get a feeling for\"\" some companies' and industries' growth potential. Each analytics team or analyst only seems to make public its estimates a few times a year in spite of their being calculated internally as an ongoing process. The reason why they do this is simple; this analysis is worth a lot to their trading teams, asset managers and paying clients than the PR of releasing the data. Although these projections are \"\"good at time of release\"\" their value diminishes as time goes on, particularly if the firm launches new initiatives etc.. This is why weighting analyst forecasts based on this time variable makes for a better average. Most private individual investors use an average or time weighted average (on time since release) of these analyst estimates as the basis for their forward PE.\"",
"So, the price-earnings ratio is price over earnings, easy enough. But obviously earnings are not static. In the case of a growing company, the earnings will be higher in the future. There will be extra earnings, above and beyond what the stock has right now. You should consider the future earnings in your estimate of what the company is worth now. One snag: Those extra earnings are future money. Future-money is an interesting thing, it's actually worth less than present-money- because of things like inflation, but also opportunity cost. So if you bought $100 in money that you'll have 20 years from now, you'd expect to pay less than $100. (The US government can sell you that money. It's called a Series EE Savings Bond and it would cost you $50. I think. Don't quote me on that, though, ask the Treasury.) So you can't compare future money with present-money directly, and you can't just add those dollars to the earnings . You need to compute a discount. That's what discounted cash-flow analysis is about: figuring out the future cash flow, and then discounting the future figuring out what it's worth now. The actual way you use the discount rate in your formula is a little scarier than simple division, though, because it involves discounting each year's earnings (in this case, someone has asserted a discount of 11% a year, and five years of earnings growth of 10%). Wikipedia gives us the formula for the value of the future cash flow: essentially adding all the future cash flows together, and then discounting them by a (compounded) rate. Please forgive me for not filling this formula out; I'm here for theory, not math. :)",
"The price-earnings ratio is calculated as the market value per share divided by the earnings per share over the past 12 months. In your example, you state that the company earned $0.35 over the past quarter. That is insufficient to calculate the price-earnings ratio, and probably why the PE is just given as 20. So, if you have transcribed the formula correctly, the calculation given the numbers in your example would be: 0.35 * 4 * 20 = $28.00 As to CVRR, I'm not sure your PE is correct. According to Yahoo, the PE for CVRR is 3.92 at the time of writing, not 10.54. Using the formula above, this would lead to: 2.3 * 4 * 3.92 = $36.06 That stock has a 52-week high of $35.98, so $36.06 is not laughably unrealistic. I'm more than a little dubious of the validity of that formula, however, and urge you not to base your investing decisions on it.",
"\"ycharts.com has \"\"Weighted Average PE Ratio\"\" and a bunch of other metrics that are meant to correspond to well known stock metrics. Other websites will have similar ratios.\"",
"\"Yes, there are situations where a stock is a bad buy in spite of a low PE. PE ratio tells you the current share price divided by the prior 4 quarters earnings per share. It does not consider: Imagine someone walked up to you and said, \"\"Do you want to buy a piece of my business? I'll sell you 1% of it for $1000. Last year the business earned $25000.\"\" A quick calculation shows a PE of 4 [$1000/($25000 *.01)]. Even though this PE is comparatively low, you wouldn't buy in without a lot more info. What kinds of things might you ask? PE is one tiny component of an informed investment decision.\"",
"Try to find the P/E ratio of the Company and then Multiply it with last E.P.S, this calculation gives the Fundamental Value of the share, anything higher than this Value is not acceptable and Vice versa.",
"The idea here is to get an idea of how to value each business and thus normalize how highly prized is each dollar that a company makes. While some companies may make millions and others make billions, how does one put these in proper context? One way is to consider a dollar in earnings for the company. How does a dollar in earnings for Google compare to a dollar for Coca-cola for example? Some companies may be valued much higher than others and this is a way to see that as share price alone can be rather misleading since some companies can have millions of shares outstanding and split the shares to keep the share price in a certain range. Thus the idea isn't that an investor is paying for a dollar of earnings but rather how is that perceived as some companies may not have earnings and yet still be traded as start-ups and other companies may be running at a loss and thus the P/E isn't even meaningful in this case. Assuming everything but the P/E is the same, the lower P/E would represent a greater value in a sense, yes. However, earnings growth rate can account for higher P/Es for some companies as if a company is expected to grow at 40% for a few years it may have a higher P/E than a company growing earnings at 5% for example.",
"what do you mean exactly? Do you have a future target price and projected future dividend payments and you want the present value (time discounted price) of those? Edit: The DCF formula is difficult to use for stocks because the future price is unknown. It is more applicable to fixed-income instruments like coupon bonds. You could use it but you need to predict / speculate a future price for the stock. You are better off using the standard stock analysis stuff: Learn Stock Basics - How To Read A Stock Table/Quote The P/E ratio and the Dividend yield are the two most important. The good P/E ratio for a mature company would be around 20. For smaller and growing companies, a higher P/E ratio is acceptable. The dividend yield is important because it tells you how much your shares grow even if the stock price stays unchanged for the year. HTH",
"\"P/E is a useful tool for evaluating the price of a company, but only in comparison to companies in similar industries, especially for industries with well-defined cash flows. For example, if you compared Consolidated Edison (NYSE:ED) to Hawaiian Electric (NYSE:HE), you'll notice that HE has a significantly higher PE. All things being equal, that means that HE may be overpriced in comparison to ED. As an investor, you need to investigate further to determine whether that is true. HE is unique in that it is a utility that also operates a bank, so you need to take that into account. You need to think about what your goal is when you say that you are a \"\"conservative\"\" investor and look at the big picture, not a magic number. If conservative to you means capital preservation, you need to ensure that you are in investments that are diversified and appropriate. Given the interest rate situation in 2011, that means your bonds holding need to be in short-duration, high-quality securities. Equities should be weighted towards large cap, with smaller holdings of international or commodity-associated funds. Consider a target-date or blended fund like one of the Vanguard \"\"Life Strategy\"\" funds.\"",
"\"Your question asks us to explain why a false statement is true. From the point of view of an investor, a high price to earnings ratio is not necessarily desirable. From the point of view of an investor, a desirable stock is one that is likely to provide future dividends or price increases that more than compensates for the risk of the stock. This information cannot be inferred from the P/E ratio. So what does the P/E ratio tell us? The P/E ratio measures a stock's current price (i.e., the market's belief about its future earnings) divided by its recent past earnings. A high ratio means the market thinks earnings in the future will be higher than they are now and have therefore bid the price up. These can thought of as expensive stocks, and are often called \"\"growth\"\" stocks because their price is driven by the market's belief in future growth. Some individual high P/E stocks do live up to or exceed the market's expectation, but there's no evidence that this happens enough that they are more desirable as a group than low P/E stocks. If anything, the empirical evidence goes the other way.\"",
"In the equity markets, the P/E is usually somewhere around 15. The P/E can be viewed as the inverse of the rate of a perpetuity. Since the average is 15, and the E/P of that would be 6.7%, r should be 6.7% on average. If your business is growing, the growth rate can be incorporated like so: As you can see, a high g would make the price negative, in essence the seller should actually pay someone to take the business, but in reality, r is determined from the p and an estimated g. For a business of any growth rate, it's best to compare the multiple to the market, so for the average business in the market with your business's growth rate and industry, that P/E would be best applied to your company's income.",
"Are you implying that Amazon is a better investment than GE because Amazon's P/E is 175 while GE's is only 27? Or that GE is a better investment than Apple because Apple's P/E is just 13. There are a lot of other ratios to consider than P/E. I personally view high P/E numbers as a red flag. One way to think of a P/E ratio is the number of years it's expected for the company to earn its market cap. (Share price divided by annual earnings per share) It will take Amazon 175 years to earn $353 billion. If I was going to buy a dry cleaners, I would not pay the owner 175 years of earnings to take control of it, I'd never see my investment back. To your point. There is so much future growth seemingly built in to today's stock market that even when a company posts higher than expected earnings, the company's stock may take a hit because maybe future prospects are a little less bright than everyone thought yesterday. The point of fundamental analysis is that you want to look at a company's management style and financial strategies. How is it paying its debt? How is it accumulating the debt? How is it's return on assets? How is the return on assets trending? This way when you look at a few companies in the same market segment you may have a better shot at picking the winner over time. The company that piles on new debt for every new project is likely to continue that path in to oblivion, regardless of the P/E ratio. (or some other equally less forward thinking management practice that you uncover in your fundamental analysis efforts). And I'll add... No amount of historical good decision making from a company's management can prepare for a total market downturn, or lack of investor confidence in general. The market is the market; sometimes it's up irrationally, sometimes it's down irrationally.",
"While on the surface it might not make sense to pay more than one dollar to get just one dollar back, the key thing is that a good company's earnings are recurring each year. So, you wouldn't just be paying for the $1 dollar of earnings per share this year, but for the entire future stream of earnings per share, every year, in perpetuity -- and the earnings may grow over time too (if it remains a good company.) Your stock is a claim on a portion of the company's future. The brighter and/or more certain that future, the more investors are willing to pay for each recurring dollar of earnings. And the P/E ratio tells you, in effect, how many years it might take for your investment to earn back what you paid – assuming earnings remain the same. But you would hope the earnings would grow, too. When a company's earnings are widely expected to grow, the P/E for the stock is often higher than average. Bear in mind you don't actually receive the company's earnings, since management often decides to reinvest all or a portion of it to grow the company. Yet, many companies do pay a portion of earnings out as dividends. Dividends are money in your pocket each year.",
"One problem is that P/E ratio only looks at the last announced earnings. Let's take your manufacturing plant with a P/E of 12.5. Then they announce a major problem that will hurt future earnings and the price drops in half. Now the P/E is 6.25. It looks great, but since there aren't any new earnings that reflect the problem, it's very misleading.",
"This is called the gordon growth model (or dividend discount model). This is one way to value a stock, but in practice no one uses it because the assumptions are that companies will return value to investors solely via regular dividends, and that the growth rate and the required rate of return from investors are constants; among other issues.",
"It is not so useful because you are applying it to large capital. Think about Theory of Investment Value. It says that you must find undervalued stocks with whatever ratios and metrics. Now think about the reality of a company. For example, if you are waiting KO (The Coca-Cola Company) to be undervalued for buying it, it might be a bad idea because KO is already an international well known company and KO sells its product almost everywhere...so there are not too many opportunities for growth. Even if KO ratios and metrics says it's a good time to buy because it's undervalued, people might not invest on it because KO doesn't have the same potential to grow as 10 years ago. The best chance to grow is demographics. You are better off either buying ETFs monthly for many years (10 minimum) OR find small-cap and mid-cap companies that have the potential to grow plus their ratios indicate they might be undervalued. If you want your investment to work remember this: stock price growth is nothing more than You might ask yourself. What is your investment profile? Agressive? Speculative? Income? Dividends? Capital preservation? If you want something not too risky: ETFs. And not waste too much time. If you want to get more returns, you have to take more risks: find small-cap and mid-companies that are worth. I hope I helped you!",
"Market price of a stock typically trades in a range of Price/Earnings Ratio (P/E ratio). Or in other words, price of a stock = Earnings * P/E ratio Because of this direct proportionality of stock price with earnings, stock prices move in tandem with earnings.",
"for buying: High PE, low debt, discount = win. a company with high debt (in relation to revenues and cash on hand) will have to pay interest and pay off the debt, stunting their growth. and just like a normal person, will barely be able to pay their bills and keep borrowing and might go bankrupt determining discount is just looking for a technical retracement to a support level or lower. (but if you dont enter at the support level, you most likely missed the best entry)",
"How you use the metric is super important. Because it subtracts cash, it does not represent 'value'. It represents the ongoing financing that will be necessary if both the equity plus debt is bought by one person, who then pays himself a dividend with that free cash. So if you are Private Equity, this measures your net investment at t=0.5, not the price you pay at t=0. If you are a retail investor, who a) won't be buying the debt, b) won't have any control over things like tax jurisdictions, c) won't be receiving any cash dividend, etc etc .... the metric is pointless.",
"One thing to keep in mind when calculating P/E on an index is that the E (earnings) can be very close to zero. For example, if you had a stock trading at $100 and the earnings per share was $.01, this would result in a P/E of 10,000, which would dominate the P/E you calculate for the index. Of course negative earnings also skew results. One way to get around this would be to calculate the average price of the index and the earnings per share of the index separately, and then divide the average price of the index by the average earnings per share of the index. Different sources calculate these numbers in different ways. Some throw out negative P/Es (or earnings per share) and some don't. Some calculate the price and earnings per share separate and some don't, etc... You'll need to understand how they are calculating the number in order to compare it to PEs of individual companies.",
"\"What you need to do is go to yahoo finance and look at different stock's P/E ratios. You'll quickly see that the stocks can be sorted by this number. It would be an interesting exercise to get an idea of why P/E isn't a fixed number, how certain industries cluster around a certain number, but even this isn't precise. But, it will give you an idea as to why your question has no answer. \"\"Annual earnings are $1. What is the share price?\"\" \"\"Question has no answer\"\"\"",
"\"When you buy a stock, you're really paying for a STREAM of earnings, from now till whenever. The job of an investor is to figure out how large that stream will be in the future. But if the stock price were the same as \"\"earnings\"\" (for one year), it would mean that you would get all future earnings for \"\"free.\"\" That's not likely to happen unless 1) the company is in liquidation,\"\" meaning \"\"no future\"\" and 2) it earned ALL of the money it ever earned in the past year, meaning \"\"no past.\"\" If there are likely to be any earnings in the future, you will have to pay for those future earnings, over and above what was earned in the most recent year.\"",
"You can create something like that by: You'll have to determine the PE ratio manually from the financial statements. To get the PE ratio for each company, you can try the Edgar database, though I doubt it goes as far back as 1950. This blog has a graph of the DJIA PE ratio from 1929 - 2009.",
"The simple answer is technically bonds don't have earnings, hence no P/E. What I think the OP is really asking how do I compare stock and bond ETFs. Some mature stocks exhibit very similar characteristics to bonds, so at the margin if you are considering investing between 2 such investments that provide stable income in the form of dividends, you might want to use the dividend/price ratio (D/P) of the stock and compare it to the dividend yield of the bond. If you go down to the basics, both the bond and the stock can be considered the present value of all future expected cashflows. The cash that accrues to the owner of the stock is future dividends and for the bond is the coupon payments. If a company were to pay out 100% of its earnings, then the dividend yield D/P would be conveniently E/P. For a company with P/E of 20 that paid out it's entire earnings, one would expect D/P = 1/20 = 5% This serves as a decent yard stick in the short term ~ 1 year to compare mature stock etfs with stable prospects vs bond funds since the former will have very little expected price growth (think utilities), hence they both compete on the cashflows they throw off to the investor. This comparison stops being useful for stock ETFs with higher growth prospects since expected future cashflows are much more volatile. This comparison is also not valid in the long term since bond ETFs are highly sensitive to the yield curve (interest rate risk) and they can move substantially from where they are now.",
"\"Yes, there are non-stock analogs to the Price/Earnings ratio. Rental properties have a Price/Rent ratio, which is analogous to stocks' Price/Revenue ratio. With rental properties, the \"\"Cap Rate\"\" is analogous to the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio of a company that has no long-term debt. Bonds have an interest rate. Depending on whether you care about current dividends or potential income, the interest rate is analogous to either a stock's dividend rate or the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio.\"",
"In order to calculate the ratio you are looking for, just divide total debt by the market capitalization of the stock. Both values can be found on the link you provided. The market capitalization is the market value of equity.",
"Typically a private company is hit by demand supply issues and cost of inputs. In effect at times the cost of input may go up, it cannot raise the prices, because this will reduce demand. However certain public sectors companies, typically in Oil & Engery segements the services are offered by Public sector companies, and the price they charge is governed by Regulatory authorities. In essence the PG&E, the agreement for price to customers would be calculated as cost of inputs to PG&E, Plus Expenses Plus 11.35% Profit. Thus the regulated price itself governs that the company makes atleast 11.35% profit year on year. Does this mean that the shares are good buy? Just to give an example, say the price was $100 at face value, So essentially by year end logically you would have made 111.35/-. Assuming the company did not pay dividend ... Now lets say you began trading this share, there would be quite a few people who would say I am ready to pay $200 and even if I get 11.35 [on 200] it still means I have got ~6% return. Someone may be ready to pay $400, it still gives ~3% ... So in short the price of the stock would keep changing depending how the market percieves the value that a company would return. If the markets are down or the sentiments are down on energy sectors, the prices would go down. So investing in PG&E is not a sure shot way of making money. For actual returns over the years see the graph at http://www.pgecorp.com/investors/financial_reports/annual_report_proxy_statement/ar_html/2011/index.htm#CS",
"\"You'll generally get a number close to market cap of a mature company if you divide profits (or more accurately its free cash flow to equity) by the cost of equity which is usually something like ~7%. The value is meant to represent the amount of cash you'd need to generate investment income off it matching the company you're looking at. Imagine it as asking \"\"How much money do I need to put into the bank so that my interest income would match the profits of the company I'm looking at\"\". Except replace the bank with the market and other forms of investments that generate higher returns of course and that value would be lower.\"",
"This is a note from my broker, CMC Markets, who use Morningstar: Morningstar calculate the P/E Ratio using a weighted average of the most recent earnings and the projected earnings for the next year. This may result in a different P/E Ratio to those based solely on past earnings as reported on some sites and other publications. They show the P/E as being 9.93. So obviously past earnings would usually be used but you would need to check with your source which numbers they are using. Also, as BHP's results just came out yesterday it may take a while for the most recent financial details to be updated.",
"What you're referring to is the yield. The issue with these sorts of calculations is that the dividend isn't guaranteed until it's declared. It may have paid the quarterly dividend like clockwork for the last decade, that does not guarantee it will pay this quarter. Regarding question number 2. Yield is generally an after the fact calculation. Dividends are paid out of current or retained earnings. If the company becomes hot and the stock price doubles, but earnings are relatively similar, the dividend will not be doubled to maintain the prior yield; the yield will instead be halved because the dividend per share was made more expensive to attain due to the increased share price. As for the calculation, obviously your yield will likely vary from the yield published on services like Google and Yahoo finance. The variation is strictly based on the price you paid for the share. Dividend per share is a declared amount. Assuming a $10 share paying a quarterly dividend of $0.25 your yield is: Now figure that you paid $8.75 for the share. Now the way dividends are allocated to shareholders depends on dates published when the dividend is declared. The day you purchase the share, the day your transaction clears etc are all vital to being paid a particular dividend. Here's a link to the SEC with related information: https://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm I suppose it goes without saying but, historical dividend payments should not be your sole evaluation criteria. Personally, I would be extremely wary of a company paying a 40% dividend ($1 quarterly dividend on a $10 stock), it's very possible that in your example bar corp is a more sound investment. Additionally, this has really nothing to do with P/E (price/earnings) ratios.",
"But I wish to know why the parameter is dividend/market price rather than just 'dividend'? What 'extra' info you can uncover by looking at dividend/market price that you cannot get from 'dividend'? Consider two stocks A and B. A offers a dividend of $1 per year. B offers a dividend of $2 per year. Let's remove all complications aside and assume that this trend continues. If you were to buy each of these stocks you will get the following amounts over its life (assumed infinity for simplicity): cash flows from A = $1/(0.04) = $25, assuming risk free is 4% per annum cash flows from B = $2/(0.04) = $50, assuming risk free is 4% per annum The price you buy them at is an important factor to consider because let's say if A was trading for $10 and B for $60, then A would look like a profitable nvestment while B won't. Of course, this is a very simplistic view. Dividend rates are not constant and many companies pose a significant risk of going bust but this should help illustrate the general idea behind the D/P ratio. P.S.:- The formula I have used is one for computing the NPV of a perpetuity.",
"P/E is the number of years it would take for the company to earn its share price. You take share price divided by annual earnings per share. You can take the current reported quarterly earnings per share times 4, you can take the sum of the past four actual quarters earnings per share or you can take some projected earnings per share. It has little to do with a company's actual finances apart from the earnings per share. It doesn't say much about the health of a company's balance sheet, and is definitely not an indicator for bankruptcy. It's mostly a measure of the market's assumptions of the company's ability to grow earnings or maintain it's current earnings growth. A share price of $40 trading for a P/E ratio of 10 means it will take the company 10 years to earn $40 per share, it means there's current annual earnings per share of $4. A different company may also be earning $4 per share but trade at 100 times earnings for a share price of $400. By this measure alone neither company is more or less healthy than the other. One just commands more faith in the future growth from the market. To circle back to your question regarding a negative P/E, a negative P/E ratio means the company is reporting negative earnings (running at a loss). Again, this may or may not indicate an imminent bankruptcy. Increasing balance sheet debt with decreasing revenue and or earnings and or balance sheet assets will be a better way to assess bankruptcy risk.",
"You could sum the P/E ratio of all the companies in the industry and divide it by the number of companies to find the average P/E ratio of the industry. Average P/E ratio of industry = Sum of P/E ratio of all companies in Industry / Number of companies in industry",
"A bond fund has a 5% yield. You can take 1/.05 and think of it as a 20 P/E. I wouldn't, because no one else does, really. An individual bond has a coupon yield, and a YTM, yield to maturity. A bond fund or ETF usually won't have a maturity, only a yield.",
"Hey desquinbnt & pontsone, I had an explanation written up about Share and Bond evaluation and in which, one share evaluation technique utilizes the P/E ratio - hence I explained it. Have a read, if you'd want me to go more in depth, let me know! :) http://letslearnfinance.net/2012/06/09/introduction-to-bonds-and-share-valuation/",
"\"Here's a link to an online calculator employing the Discounted Cash Flow method: Discounted Cash Flows Calculator. Description: This calculator finds the fair value of a stock investment the theoretically correct way, as the present value of future earnings. You can find company earnings via the box below. [...] They also provide a link to the following relevant article: Investment Valuation: A Little Theory. Excerpt: A company is valuable to stockholders for the same reason that a bond is valuable to bondholders: both are expected to generate cash for years into the future. Company profits are more volatile than bond coupons, but as an investor your task is the same in both cases: make a reasonable prediction about future earnings, and then \"\"discount\"\" them by calculating how much they are worth today. (And then you don't buy unless you can get a purchase price that's less than the sum of these present values, to make sure ownership will be worth the headache.) [...]\"",
"The dividend yield can be used to compare a stock to other forms of investments that generate income to the investor - such as bonds. I could purchase a stock that pays out a certain dividend yield or purchase a bond that pays out a certain interest. Of course, there are many other variables to consider in addition to yield when making this type of investment decision. The dividend yield can be an important consideration if you are looking to invest in stocks for an income stream in addition to investing in stocks for gain by a rising stock price. The reason to use Dividend/market price is that it changes the dividend from a flat number such as $1 to a percentage of the stock price, which thus allows it to be more directly compared with bonds and such which return a percentage yeild.",
"\"Check your math... \"\"two stocks, both with a P/E of 2 trading at $40 per share lets say, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase?\"\" If a stock has P/E of 2 and price of $40 it has an EPS of $20. Not $10. Not $5.\"",
"\"For the S&P and many other indices (but not the DJIA) the index \"\"price\"\" is just a unitless number that is the result of a complicated formula. It's not a dollar value. So when you divide said number by the earnings/share of the sector, you're again getting just a unitless number that is incomparable to standard P-E ratios. In fact, now that I think about, it kinda makes sense that each sector would have a similar value for the number that you're computing, since each sector's index formula is presumably written to make all the index \"\"price\"\"s look similar to consumers.\"",
"The three places you want to focus on are the income statement, the balance sheet, and cash flow statement. The standard measure for multiple of income is the P/E or price earnings ratio For the balance sheet, the debt to equity or debt to capital (debt+equity) ratio. For cash generation, price to cash flow, or price to free cash flow. (The lower the better, all other things being equal, for all three ratios.)",
"\"To calculate a sector (or index) P/E ratio you need to sum the market caps of the constituent stocks and divide it by the sum of the total earnings of the constituent stocks (including stocks that have negative earnings). There are no \"\"per share\"\" figures used in the calculation. Beware when you include an individual stock that there may be multiple issues associated with the company that are not in the index.... eg. Berkshire Hathaway BRK.B is in the S&P 500 but BRK.A is not. In contrast, Google has both GOOGL and GOOG included in the S&P 500 index but not its unlisted Class B shares. All such shares need to be included in the market cap and figuring out the different share class ratios can be tricky.\"",
"\"Here is how I would approach that problem: 1) Find the average ratios of the competitors: 2) Find the earnings and book value per share of Hawaiian 3) Multiply the EPB and BVPS by the average ratios. Note that you get two very different numbers. This illustrates why pricing from ratios is inexact. How you use those answers to estimate a \"\"price\"\" is up to you. You can take the higher of the two, the average, the P/E result since you have more data points, or whatever other method you feel you can justify. There is no \"\"right\"\" answer since no one can accurately predict the future price of any stock.\"",
"Too calculate these values, information contained in the company's financial statements (income, balance, or cashflow) will be needed along with the price. Google finance does not maintain this information for BME. You will need to find another source for this information or analyze another another symbol's financial section (BAC for example).",
"\"You could not have two stocks both at $40, both with P/E 2, but one an EPS of $5 and the other $10. EPS = Earnings Per Share P/E = Price per share/Earnings Per Share So, in your example, the stock with EPS of $5 has a P/E of 8, and the stock with an EPS of $10 has a P/E of 4. So no, it's not valid way of looking at things, because your understanding of EPS and P/E is incorrect. Update: Ok, with that fixed, I think I understand your question better. This isn't a valid way of looking at P/E. You nailed one problem yourself at the end of the post: The tricky part is that you have to assume certain values remain constant, I suppose But besides that, it still doesn't work. It seems to make sense in the context of investor psychology: if a stock is \"\"supposed to\"\" trade at a low P/E, like a utility, that it would stay at that low P/E, and thus a $1 worth of EPS increase would result in lower $$ price increase than a stock that was \"\"supposed to\"\" have a high P/E. And that would be true. But let's game it out: Scenario Say you have two stocks, ABC and XYZ. Both have $5 EPS. ABC is a utility, so it has a low P/E of 5, and thus trades at $25/share. XYZ is a high flying tech company, so it has a P/E of 10, thus trading at $50/share. If both companies increase their EPS by $1, to $6, and the P/Es remain the same, that means company ABC rises to $30, and company XYZ rises to $60. Hey! One went up $5, and the other $10, twice as much! That means XYZ was the better investment, right? Nope. You see, shares are not tokens, and you don't get an identical, arbitrary number of them. You make an investment, and that's in dollars. So, say you'd invested $1,000 in each. $1,000 in ABC buys you 40 shares. $1,000 in XYZ buys you 20 shares. Their EPS adds that buck, the shares rise to maintain P/E, and you have: ABC: $6 EPS at P/E 5 = $30/share. Position value = 40 shares x $30/share = $1,200 XYZ: $6 EPS at P/E 10 = $60/share. Position value = 20 shares x $60/share = $1,200 They both make you the exact same 20% profit. It makes sense when you think about it this way: a 20% increase in EPS is going to give you a 20% increase in price if the P/E is to remain constant. It doesn't matter what the dollar amount of the EPS or the share price is.\"",
"\"You are probably going to hate my answer, but... If there was an easy way to ID stocks like FB that were going to do what FB did, then those stocks wouldn't exist and do that because they would be priced higher at the IPO. The fact is there is always some doubt, no one knows the future, and sometimes value only becomes clear with time. Everyone wants to buy a stock before it rises right? It will only be worth a rise if it makes more profit though, and once it is established as making more profit the price will be already up, because why wouldn't it be? That means to buy a real winner you have to buy before it is completely obvious to everyone that it is going to make more profit in the future, and that means stock prices trade at speculative prices, based on expected future performance, not current or past performance. Now I'm not saying past and future performance has nothing in common, but there is a reason that a thousand financially oriented websites quote a disclaimer like \"\"past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance\"\". Now maybe this is sort of obvious, but looking at your image, excluding things like market capital that you've not restricted, the PE ratio is based on CURRENT price and PAST earnings, the dividend yield is based on PAST publications of what the dividend will be and CURRENT price, the price to book is based on PAST publication of the company balance sheet and CURRENT price, the EPS is based on PAST earnings and the published number of shares, and the ROI and net profit margin in based on published PAST profits and earnings and costs and number of shares. So it must be understood that every criteria chosen is PAST data that analysts have been looking at for a lot longer than you have with a lot more additional information and experience with it. The only information that is even CURRENT is the price. Thus, my ultimate conclusive point is, you can't based your stock picks on criteria like this because it's based on past information and current stock price, and the current stock price is based on the markets opinion of relative future performance. The only way to make a good stock pick is understand the business, understand its market, and possibly understand world economics as it pertains to that market and business. You can use various criteria as an initial filter to find companies and investigate them, but which criteria you use is entirely your preference. You might invest only in profitable companies (ones that make money and probably pay regular dividends), thus excluding something like an oil exploration company, which will just lose money, and lose it, and lose some more, forever... unless it hits the jackpot, in which case you might suddenly find yourself sitting on a huge profit. It's a question of risk and preference. Regarding your concern for false data. Google defines the Return on investment (TTM) (%) as: Trailing twelve month Income after taxes divided by the average (Total Long-Term Debt + Long-Term Liabilities + Shareholders Equity), expressed as a percentage. If you really think they have it wrong you could contact them, but it's probably correct for whatever past data or last annual financial results it's based on.\"",
"Profit after tax can have multiple interpretations, but a common one is the EPS (Earnings Per Share). This is frequently reported as a TTM number (Trailing Twelve Months), or in the UK as a fiscal year number. Coincidentally, it is relatively easy to find the total amount of dividends paid out in that same time frame. That means calculating div cover is as simple as: EPS divided by total dividend. (EPS / Div). It's relatively easy to build a Google Docs spreadsheet that pulls both values from the cloud using the GOOGLEFINANCE() function. I suspect the same is true of most spreadsheet apps. With a proper setup, you can just fill down along a column of tickers to get the div cover for a number of companies at once.",
"My reaction to this is that your observation @D.W. is spot on correct: It sounds like long-term market timing: trying to do a better job than the rest of the market at predicting, based upon a simple formula, whether the market is over-priced or under-priced. I read the post by the founder of Valuation Informed Indexing, Rob Bennet. Glance at the comments section. Rob clearly states that he doesn't even use his own strategy, and has not owned, nor traded, any stocks since 1996! As another commenter summarizes it, addressing Rob: This is 2011. You’ve been 100% out of stocks — including indexes — since 1996? That’s 15 years of taking whatever the bond market, CDs or TIPS will yield (often and currently less than 2%)... I’m curious how you defend not following your own program even as you recommend it for others? Rob basically says that stocks haven't shown the right signals for buying since 1996, so he's stuck with bonds, CD's and fixed-income instead. This is a VERY long-term horizon point of view (a bit of sarcasm edges in from me). Answering your more general question, what do I think of this particular Price/ Earnings based ratio as a way to signal asset allocation change i.e. Valuation Informed Investing? I don't like it much.",
"Other metrics like Price/Book Value or Price/Sales can be used to determine if a company has above average valuations and would be classified as growth or below average valuations and be classified as value. Fama and French's 3 Factor model would be one example that was studied a great deal using an inverse of Price/Book I believe.",
"Earnings per share is the company profit (or loss), divided by the number of outstanding shares. The number should always be compared to the share price, so for instance if the EPS is $1 and the share price is $10, the EPS is 10% of the share price. This means that if the company keeps up this earning you should expect to make 10% yearly on your investment, long term. The stock price may fluctuate, but if the company keeps on making money you will eventually do so too as investor. If the EPS is low it means that the market expects the earnings to rise in the future, either because the company has a low profit margin that can be vastly improved, or because the business is expected to grow. Especially the last case may be a risky investment as you will lose money if the company doesn't grow fast enough, even if it does make a healthy profit. Note that the listed EPS, like most key figures, is based on the last financial statement. Recent developments could mean that better or worse is generally expected. Also note that the earnings of some companies will fluctuate wildly, for instance companies that produce movies or video games will tend to have a huge income for a quarter or two following a new release, but may be in the negative in some periods. This is fine as long as they turn a profit long term, but you will have to look at data for a longer period in order to determine this.",
"\"From Wikipedia: Usage Because EV is a capital structure-neutral metric, it is useful when comparing companies with diverse capital structures. Price/earnings ratios, for example, will be significantly more volatile in companies that are highly leveraged. Stock market investors use EV/EBITDA to compare returns between equivalent companies on a risk-adjusted basis. They can then superimpose their own choice of debt levels. In practice, equity investors may have difficulty accurately assessing EV if they do not have access to the market quotations of the company debt. It is not sufficient to substitute the book value of the debt because a) the market interest rates may have changed, and b) the market's perception of the risk of the loan may have changed since the debt was issued. Remember, the point of EV is to neutralize the different risks, and costs of different capital structures. Buyers of controlling interests in a business use EV to compare returns between businesses, as above. They also use the EV valuation (or a debt free cash free valuation) to determine how much to pay for the whole entity (not just the equity). They may want to change the capital structure once in control. Technical considerations Data availability Unlike market capitalization, where both the market price and the outstanding number of shares in issue are readily available and easy to find, it is virtually impossible to calculate an EV without making a number of adjustments to published data, including often subjective estimations of value: In practice, EV calculations rely on reasonable estimates of the market value of these components. For example, in many professional valuations: Avoiding temporal mismatches When using valuation multiples such as EV/EBITDA and EV/EBIT, the numerator should correspond to the denominator. The EV should, therefore, correspond to the market value of the assets that were used to generate the profits in question, excluding assets acquired (and including assets disposed) during a different financial reporting period. This requires restating EV for any mergers and acquisitions (whether paid in cash or equity), significant capital investments or significant changes in working capital occurring after or during the reporting period being examined. Ideally, multiples should be calculated using the market value of the weighted average capital employed of the company during the comparable financial period. When calculating multiples over different time periods (e.g. historic multiples vs forward multiples), EV should be adjusted to reflect the weighted average invested capital of the company in each period. In your question, you stated: The Market Cap is driven by the share price and the share price is determined by buyers and sellers who have access to data on cash and debts and factor that into their decision to buy or sell. Note the first point under \"\"Technical Considerations\"\" there and you will see that the \"\"access to data on cash and debts\"\" isn't quite accurate here so that is worth noting. As for alternatives, there are many other price ratios one could use such as price/earnings, price/book value, price/sales and others depending on how one wants to model the company. The better question is what kind of investing strategy is one wanting to use where there are probably hundreds of strategies at least. Let's take Apple as an example. Back on April 23, 2014 they announced earnings through March 29, 2014 which is nearly a month old when it was announced. Now a month later, one would have to estimate what changes would be made to things there. Thus, getting accurate real-time values isn't realistic. Discounted Cash Flow is another approach one can take of valuing a company in terms of its future earnings computed back to a present day lump sum.\"",
"I thought it was such a useful suggestion that I went ahead and created them. I'm sure you're not the only one who could derive some benefit from them, I know I will. http://www.investy.com/tools When I have some additional time, I will add the option for grace-periods, but for now I wanted to get them up so you could use the calculations as-is from the article. Enjoy. (Disclosure: I'm the founder of the site they are hosted on and I wrote the code for the calculators)",
"There are books on the subject of valuing stocks. P/E ratio has nothing directly to do with the value of a company. It may be an indication that the stock is undervalued or overvalued, but does not indicate the value itself. The direct value of company is what it would fetch if it was liquidated. For example, if you bought a dry cleaner and sold all of the equipment and receivables, how much would you get? To value a living company, you can treat it like a bond. For example, assume the company generates $1 million in profit every year and has a liquidation value of $2 million. Given the risk profile of the business, let's say we would like to make 8% on average per year, then the value of the business is approximately $1/0.08 + $2 = $14.5 million to us. To someone who expects to make more or less the value might be different. If the company has growth potential, you can adjust this figure by estimating the estimated income at different percentage chances of growth and decline, a growth curve so to speak. The value is then the net area under this curve. Of course, if you do this for NYSE and most NASDAQ stocks you will find that they have a capitalization way over these amounts. That is because they are being used as a store of wealth. People are buying the stocks just as a way to store money, not necessarily make a profit. It's kind of like buying land. Even though the land may never give you a penny of profit, you know you can always sell it and get your money back. Because of this, it is difficult to value high-profile equities. You are dealing with human psychology, not pennies and dollars.",
"Knowing the answer to this question is generally not as useful as it may seem. The stock's current price is the consensus of thousands of people who are looking at the many relevant factors (dividend rate, growth prospects, volatility, risk, industry, etc.) that determine its value. A stock's price is the market's valuation of the cash flows it entitles you to in the future. Researching a stock's value means trying to figure out if there is something relevant to these cash flows that the market doesn't know about or has misjudged. Pretty much anything we can list for you here that will affect a stock's price is something the market knows about, so it's not likely to help you know if something is mispriced. Therefore it's not useful to you. If you are not a true expert on how important the relevant factors are and how the market is reacting to them currently (and often even if you are), then you are essentially guessing. How likely are you to catch something that the thousands of other investors have missed and how likely are you to miss something that other investors have understood? I don't view gambling as inherently evil, but you should be clear and honest with yourself about what you are doing if you are trying to outperform the market. As people become knowledgeable about and experienced with finance, they try less and less to be the one to find an undervalued stock in their personal portfolio. Instead they seek to hold a fully diversified portfolio with low transactions costs and build wealth in the long term without wasting time and money on the guessing game. My suggestion for you is to transition as quickly as you can to behave like someone who knows a lot about finance.",
"\"(Value of shares+Dividends received)/(Initial investment) would be the typical formula though this is more of a percentage where 1 would indicate that you broke even, assuming no inflation to be factored. No, you don't have to estimate the share price based on revenues as I would question how well did anyone estimate what kind of revenues Facebook, Apple, or Google have had and will have. To estimate the value of shares, I'd likely consider what does my investment strategy use as metrics: Is it discounted cash flow, is it based on earnings, is it something else? There are many ways to determine what a stock \"\"should be worth\"\" that depending on what you want to believe there are more than a few ways one could go.\"",
"\"The Dividend Discount Model is based on the concept that the present value of a stock is the sum of all future dividends, discounted back to the present. Since you said: dividends are expected to grow at a constant rate in perpetuity ... the Gordon Growth Model is a simple variant of the DDM, tailored for a firm in \"\"steady state\"\" mode, with dividends growing at a rate that can be sustained forever. Consider McCormick (MKC), who's last dividend was 31 cents, or $1.24 annualized. The dividend has been growing just a little over 7% annually. Let's use a discount, or hurdle rate of 10%. MKC closed today at $50.32, for what it's worth. The model is extremely sensitive to inputs. As g approaches r, the stock price rises to infinity. If g > r, stock goes negative. Be conservative with 'g' -- it must be sustainable forever. The next step up in complexity is the two-stage DDM, where the company is expected to grow at a higher, unsustainable rate in the early years (stage 1), and then settling down to the terminal rate for stage 2. Stage 1 is the present value of dividends during the high growth period. Stage 2 is the Gordon Model, starting at the end of stage 1, and discounting back to the present. Consider Abbott Labs (ABT). The current annual dividend is $1.92, the current dividend growth rate is 12%, and let's say that continues for ten years (n), after which point the growth rate is 5% in perpetuity. Again, the discount rate is 10%. Stage 1 is calculated as follows: Stage 2 is GGM, using not today's dividend, but the 11th year's dividend, since stage 1 covered the first ten years. 'gn' is the terminal growth, 5% in our case. then... The value of the stock today is 21.22 + 51.50 = 72.72 ABT closed today at $56.72, for what it's worth.\"",
"\"Probably the most important thing in evaluating a dividend yield is to compare it to ITSELF (in the past). If the dividend yield is higher than it has been in the past, the stock may be cheap. If it is lower, the stock may be expensive. Just about every stock has a \"\"normal\"\" yield for itself. (It's zero for non-dividend paying stocks.) This is based on the stock's perceived quality, growth potential, and other factors. So a utility that normally yields 5% and is now paying 3% is probably expensive (the price in the denominator is too high), while a growth stock that normally yields 2% and is now yielding 3% (e.g. Intel or McDonald'sl), may be cheap.\"",
"The official source for the Dow Jones P/E is Dow Jones. Unfortunately, the P/E is behind a pay-wall and not included in the free registration. The easiest (but only approximate) solution is to track against an equivalent ETF. Here's a list of popular indexes with an equivalent ETF. Source",
"Knowing the log return is useful - the log return can help you to work out the annual return over the period it was estimated - and this should be comparable between stocks. One should just be careful with the calculation so that allowance for dividends is made sensibly.",
"\"If you are looking for numerical metrics I think the following are popular: Price/Earnings (P/E) - You mentioned this very popular one in your question. There are different P/E ratios - forward (essentially an estimate of future earnings by management), trailing, etc.. I think of the P/E as a quick way to grade a company's income statement (i.e: How much does the stock cost verusus the amount of earnings being generated on a per share basis?). Some caution must be taken when looking at the P/E ratio. Earnings can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Revenue can be moved between quarters, assets can be depreciated at different rates, residual value of assets can be adjusted, etc.. Knowing this, the P/E ratio alone doesn't help me determine whether or not a stock is cheap. In general, I think an affordable stock is one whose P/E is under 15. Price/Book - I look at the Price/Book as a quick way to grade a company's balance sheet. The book value of a company is the amount of cash that would be left if everything the company owned was sold and all debts paid (i.e. the company's net worth). The cash is then divided amoung the outstanding shares and the Price/Book can be computed. If a company had a price/book under 1.0 then theoretically you could purchase the stock, the company could be liquidated, and you would end up with more money then what you paid for the stock. This ratio attempts to answer: \"\"How much does the stock cost based on the net worth of the company?\"\" Again, this ratio can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Asset values have to be estimated based on current market values (think about trying to determine how much a company's building is worth) unless, of course, mark-to-market is suspended. This involves some estimating. Again, I don't use this value alone in determing whether or not a stock is cheap. I consider a price/book value under 10 a good number. Cash - I look at growth in the cash balance of a company as a way to grade a company's cash flow statement. Is the cash account growing or not? As they say, \"\"Cash is King\"\". This is one measurement that can not be \"\"massaged\"\" which is why I like it. The P/E and Price/Book can be \"\"tuned\"\" but in the end the company cannot hide a shrinking cash balance. Return Ratios - Return on Equity is a measure of the amount of earnings being generated for a given amount of equity (ROE = earnings/(assets - liabilities)). This attempts to measure how effective the company is at generating earnings with a given amount of equity. There is also Return on Assets which measures earnings returns based on the company's assets. I tend to think an ROE over 15% is a good number. These measurements rely on a company accurately reporting its financial condition. Remember, in the US companies are allowed to falsify accounting reports if approved by the government so be careful. There are others who simply don't follow the rules and report whatever numbers they like without penalty. There are many others. These are just a few of the more popular ones. There are many other considerations to take into account as other posters have pointed out.\"",
"\"The key to evaluating book value is return on equity (ROE). That's net profit divided by book value. The \"\"value\"\" of book value is measured by the company's ROE (the higher the better). If the stock is selling below book value, the company's assets aren't earning enough to satisfy most investors. Would you buy a CD that was paying, say two percentage points below the going rate for 100 cents on the dollar? Probably not. You might be willing to buy it only by paying 2% less per year, say 98 cents on the dollar for a one year CD. The two cent discount from \"\"book value\"\" is your compensation for a low \"\"interest\"\" rate.\"",
"There are several camps for stock valuation, and much of it boils down to your investment style. A growth investor will not consider something with a 50x P/E ratio to be overvalued, but a value investor certainly would. I would recommend looking up the Fama-French n-factor model (it was 3-factor, I believe they have released newer papers which introduce other factors), and reading The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham. Graham's methodology is practically canon for many investors, and the methodology focuses on value, while outlining quantitative factors for determining if a stock is under or over valued.",
"\"Everything you are doing is fine. Here are a few practical notes in performing this analysis: Find all the primary filing information on EDGAR. For NYSE:MEI, you can use https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000065270&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=exclude&count=40 This is the original 10-K. To evaluate earnings growth you need per share earnings for the past three years and 10,11,12 years ago. You do NOT need diluted earnings (because in the long term share dilution comes out anyway, just like \"\"normalized\"\" earnings). The formula is avg(Y_-1+Y_-2+Y_-3) / is avg(Y_-10+Y_-11+Y_-12) Be careful with the pricing rules you are using, the asset one gets complicated. I recommend NOT using the pricing rules #6 and #7 to select the stock. Instead you can use them to set a maximum price for the stock and then you can compare the current price to your maximum price. I am also working to understand these rules and have cited Graham's rules into a checklist and worksheet to find all companies that meet his criteria. Basically my goal is to bottom feed the deals that Warren Buffett is not interested in. If you are interested to invest time into this project, please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vuFmoJDktMYtS64od2HUTV9I351AxvhyjAaC0N3TXrA\"",
"\"There are two common types of P/E ratio calculations: \"\"trailing\"\" and \"\"forward\"\" (and then there are various mixes of the two). Trailing P/E ratios are calculated as [current price] / [trailing 12-month EPS]. An alternative is the Forward P/E ratio, which is based on an estimate of earnings in the coming 12 months. The estimate used is usually called \"\"consensus\"\" and, to answer your question, is the average estimate of analysts who cover the stock. Any reputable organization will disclose how they calculate their financials. For example, Reuters uses a trailing ratio (indicated by \"\"TTM\"\") on their page for BHP. So, the first reason a PE ratio might not jump on an announcement is it might be forward looking and therefore not very sensitive to the realized earnings. The second reason is that if it is a trailing ratio, some of the annual EPS change is known prior to the annual announcement. For example, on 12/31 a company might report a large drop in annual earnings, but if the bulk of that loss was reported in a previous quarterly report, then the trailing EPS would account partially for it prior to the annual announcement. In this case, I think the first reason is the culprit. The Reuters P/E of nearly 12 is a trailing ratio, so if you see 8 I'd think it must be based on a forward-looking estimate.\"",
"It's safe to say that for mature companies, with profits that have been steady, and steadily growing, that a multiple of earnings can come into play. It's not identical between companies or even industries, but for consumer staples, for instance, you'll see a clustering around a certain P/E. On the other hand, there are companies like FaceBook, 18 months ago, trading at 20, now at 70 with a 110 P/E. Did the guys valuing the stock simply get it wrong then or is it wrong now? Contrast this with KO (Coca-cola) a 20 P/E and 3.2% dividend, PG (Proctor and Gamble) 21 P/E, 3% dividend. Funny though, a $1M valuation for $50K in profit may be Shark ridiculous, but a $1B valuation on a $50M company with great prospects, i.e. a pipeline of new products in growing markets, is a steal. Disclosure I have no positions in the mentioned stocks.",
"Imagine a stock where the share price equals the earnings per share. You pay say $100 for a share. In the next year, the company makes $100 per share. They can pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, and you still own the share. Next year, they make $100 per share, pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, plus $100 in your pocket, plus you own the share. Wow. What an incredible investment.",
"It sounds to me like you may not be defining fundamental investing very well, which is why it may seem like it doesn't matter. Fundamental investing means valuing a stock based on your estimate of its future profitability (and thus cash flows and dividends). One way to do this is to look at the multiples you have described. But multiples are inherently backward-looking so for firms with good growth prospects, they can be very poor estimates of future profitability. When you see a firm with ratios way out of whack with other firms, you can conclude that the market thinks that firm has a lot of future growth possibilities. That's all. It could be that the market is overestimating that growth, but you would need more information in order to conclude that. We call Warren Buffet a fundamental investor because he tends to think the market has made a mistake and overvalued many firms with crazy ratios. That may be in many cases, but it doesn't necessarily mean those investors are not using fundamental analysis to come up with their valuations. Fundamental investing is still very much relevant and is probably the primary determinant of stock prices. It's just that fundamental investing encompasses estimating things like future growth and innovation, which is a lot more than just looking at the ratios you have described.",
"\"Compounding is just the notion that the current period's growth (or loss) becomes the next period's principal. So, applied to stocks, your beginning value, plus growth (or loss) in value, plus any dividends, becomes the beginning value for the next period. Your value is compounded as you measure the performance of the investment over time. Dividends do not participate in the compounding unless you reinvest them. Compound interest is just the principle of compounding applied to an amount owed, either by you, or to you. You have a balance with which a certain percentage is calculated each period and is added to the balance. The new balance is used to calculate the next period's interest, which again adds to the balance, etc. Obviously, it's better to be on the receiving end of a compound interest calculation than on the paying end. Interest bearing investments, like bonds, pay simple interest. Like stock dividends, you would have to invest the interest in something else in order to get a compounding effect. When using a basic calculator tool for stocks, you would include the expected average annual growth rate plus the expected annual dividend rate as your \"\"interest\"\" rate. For bonds you would use the coupon rate plus the expected rate of return on whatever you put the interest into as the \"\"interest\"\" rate. Factoring in risk, you would just have to pick a different rate for a simple calculator, or use a more complex tool that allows for more variables over time. Believe it or not, this is where you would start seeing all that calculus homework pay off!\"",
"You could use the Gordon growth model implied expected return: P = D/(r-g) --> r = D/P (forward dividend yield) + g (expected dividend growth). But obviously there is no such thing as a good market return proxy.",
"Fund performance at NAV (%) for latest quarter, YTD, and average annual total returns for 1, 3, 5, 10 years. P/E ratio (1 yr. forecast), P/B ratio, Beta, Sharpe ratio, Wtd. avg. market cap, fund assets. I guess I would want to calculate all these things based off of the data that I would be working with. I will assume I am working with daily fund values per share over 10+ years.",
"The upvoted answers fail to note that dividends are the only benefit that investors collectively receive from the companies they invest in. If you purchase a share for $100, and then later sell it for $150, you should note that there is always someone that purchases the same share for $150. So, you get $150 immediately, but somebody else has to pay $150 immediately. So, investors collectively did not receive any money from the transaction. (Yes, share repurchase can be used instead of dividends, but it can be considered really another form of paying dividends.) The fair value of a stock is the discounted value of all future dividends the stock pays. It is so simple! This shows why dividends are important. Somebody might argue that many successful companies like Berkshire Hathaway do not pay dividend. Yes, it is true that they don't pay dividend now but they will eventually have to start paying dividend. If they reinvest potential dividends continuously, they will run out of things to invest in after several hundred years has passed. So, even in this case the value of the stock is still the discounted value of all future dividends. The only difference is that the dividends are not paid now; the companies will start to pay the dividends later when they run out of things to invest in. It is true that in theory a stock could pay an unsustainable amount of dividend that requires financing it with debt. This is obviously not a good solution. If you see a company that pays dividend while at the same time obtaining more cash from taking more debt or from share issues, think twice whether you want to invest in such a company. What you need to do to valuate companies fairly is to estimate the amount of dividend that can sustain the expected growth rate. It is typically about 60% of the earnings, because a part of the earnings needs to be invested in future growth, but the exact figure may vary depending on the company. Furthermore, to valuate a company, you need the expected growth rate of dividends and the discount rate. You simply discount all future dividends, correcting them up by the expected dividend growth rate and correcting them down by the discount rate.",
"\"Standard deviation from Wikipedia : In statistics and probability theory, the standard deviation (represented by the Greek letter sigma, σ) shows how much variation or dispersion from the average exists.1 A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean (also called expected value); a high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a large range of values. In the case of stock returns, a lower value would indicate less volatility while a higher value would mean more volatility, which could be interpreted as high much change does the stock's price go through over time. Mean would be interpreted as if all the figures had to be the same, what would they be? So if a stock returns 10% each year for 3 years in a row, then 10% would be the mean or average return. Now, it is worth noting that there are more than a few calculations that may be done to derive a mean. First, there is the straight forward sum and division by the number of elements idea. For example, if the returns by year were 0%, 10%, and 20% then one may take the sum of 30% and divide by 3 to get a simple mean of 10%. However, some people would rather look at a Compound Annual Growth Rate which in this case would mean multiplying the returns together so 1*(1+.1)*(1+.2)=1.1*1.2=1.32 or 32% since there is some compounding here. Now, instead of dividing a cubic root is taken to get approximately 9.7% average annual return that is a bit lower yet if you compound it over 3 years it will get up to 32% as 10% compounded over 3 years would be 33.1% as (1.1)^3=1.331. Sharpe Ratio from Investopedia: A ratio developed by Nobel laureate William F. Sharpe to measure risk-adjusted performance. The Sharpe ratio is calculated by subtracting the risk-free rate - such as that of the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond - from the rate of return for a portfolio and dividing the result by the standard deviation of the portfolio returns. Thus, this is a way to think about given the volatility how much better did the portfolio do than the 10 year bond. R-squared, Alpha and Beta: These are all around the idea of \"\"linear regression\"\" modelling. The idea is to take some standard like say the \"\"S & P 500\"\" in the case of US stocks and see how well does the portfolio follow this and what if one were to use a linear model are the multipliers and addition components to it. R-squared can be thought of it as a measure as to how good is the fit on a scale of 0 to 1. An S & P 500 index fund may well have an R-squared of 1.00 or 0.99 to the index as it will track it extremely closely while other investments may not follow that well at all. Part of modern portfolio theory would be to have asset classes that move independently of each other and thus would have a lower R-squared so that the movement of the index doesn't indicate how an investment will do. Now, as for alpha and beta, do you remember the formula for a line in slope-intercept form, where y is the portfolio's return and x is the index's return: y=mx+b In this situation m is beta which is the multiple of the return, and b is the alpha or how much additional return one gets without the multiple. Going back to an index fund example, m will be near 1 and b will be near 0 and there isn't anything being done and so the portfolio's return computed based on the index's return is simply y=x. Other mutual funds may try to have a high alpha as this is seen as the risk-free return as there isn't the ups and downs of the market here. Other mutual funds may go for a high beta so that there is volatility for investors to handle.\"",
"Sources such as Value Line, or S&P stock reports will show you dividend payout ratios (the American usage. These are the inverse of dividend cover ratios, with dividends being in the numerator, and earnings in the denominator. For instance, if the dividend cover ratio is 2, the dividend payout ratio is 1/2= 50%.",
"There is no formula for calculating a stock price based on the financials of a company. A stock price is set by the market and always has a component built into it that is based on something outside of the current valuation of a company using its financials. Essentially, the stock price of a company per share is whatever the best price it can get on the open market. If you are looking at how to evaluate if a stock is a good value at the current price, then look at some of the answers, but I wanted to answer this based on the way you phrased the question.",
"\"The other two folks here are right with the math and such, so I'll just throw some intuition out there for you. The basis for this valuation model is really just tacking the Gordon growth model (which is really just a form of valuing a perpetuity) onto a couple of finite discounted cash flows. So that ending part is the Gordon growth model *at the future point* discounted back to the present. The Gordon growth model uses a \"\"next period\"\" dividend for the very simple reason that it's the next one you'd get if you bought the stock. Is that explanation clear enough, or were some of these points not adequately explained in your class? I'll help a bit more, if I can.\"",
"\"The following is only an overview and does not contain all of the in-depth reasons why you should look more deeply. When you look at a stock's financials in depth you are looking for warning signs. These may warn of many things but one important thing to look for is ratio and growth rate manipulation. Using several different accounting methods it is possible to make a final report reflect a PE ratio (or any other ratio) that is inconsistent with the realities of the company's position. Earnings manipulation (in the way that Enron in particular manipulated them) is more widespread than you might think as \"\"earnings smoothing\"\" is a common way of keeping earnings in line (or smooth) in a recession or a boom. The reason that PE ratio looks so good could well be because professional investors have avoided the stock as there appear to be \"\"interesting\"\" (but legal) accounting decisions that are of concern. Another issue that you don't consider is growth. earnings may look good in the current reporting period but may have been stagnant or falling when considered over multiple periods. The low price may indicate falling revenues, earnings and market share that you would not be aware of when taking only your criteria into account. Understanding a firm will also give you an insight into how future news might affect the company. If the company has a lot of debt and market interest rates rise or fall how will that effect their debt, if another company brings out a competing product next week how will it effect the company? How will it effect their bottom line? How much do they rely on a single product line? How likely is it that their flagship product will become obsolete? How would that effect the company? Looking deeply into a company's financial statements will allow you to see any issues in their accounting practices and give you a feel for how they are preforming over time, it will also let you look into their cost of capital and investment decisions. Looking deeply into their products, company structure and how news will effect them will give you an understanding of potential issues that could threaten your investment before they occur. When looking for value you shouldn't just look at part of the value of the company; you wouldn't just look at sales of a single T-shirt range at Wallmart when deciding whether to invest in them. It is exactly the same argument for why you should look at the whole of the company's state when choosing to invest rather than a few small metrics.\"",
"\"When presenting negative P/E values, most brokers and equity analysts show them as \"\"n.m.\"\", which stands for not meaningful. I have never seen a P/E ratio of 0.\"",
"( t2 / t1 ) - 1 Where t2 is the value today, t1 is the value 12 months ago. Be sure to include dividend payments, if there were any, to t2. That will give you total return over 12 months."
] |
[
"PEG is Price/Earnings to Growth. It is calculated as Price/Earnings/Annual EPS Growth. It represents how good a stock is to buy, factoring in growth of earnings, which P/E does not. Obviously when PEG is lower, a stock is more undervalued, which means that it is a better buy, and more likely to go up. Additional References:",
"PEG is Price to Earnings Growth. I've forgotten how it's calculated, I just remember that a PEG ratio of 1-2 is attractive by Graham & Dodd standards."
] |
9737
|
Long(100%)-Short(-100%) investment explanation
|
[
"245082",
"419897",
"99131"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"99131",
"240215",
"419897",
"385220",
"6701",
"461062",
"245082",
"242524",
"238474",
"314478",
"499877",
"163670",
"92267",
"9082",
"207325",
"209359",
"517873",
"224069",
"428786",
"571016",
"307155",
"467926",
"422467",
"140371",
"266480",
"349974",
"464132",
"94117",
"336018",
"516227",
"232880",
"259706",
"182272",
"233379",
"107045",
"320450",
"331850",
"67107",
"330041",
"450760",
"88223",
"412223",
"195506",
"581514",
"330900",
"350925",
"580400",
"356388",
"229026",
"316037",
"104789",
"118039",
"384015",
"389189",
"82294",
"419138",
"592665",
"220795",
"283982",
"145816",
"56422",
"499811",
"180006",
"94062",
"103362",
"118633",
"263955",
"49794",
"188531",
"358586",
"27401",
"24563",
"430406",
"368543",
"431870",
"193502",
"407941",
"356819",
"173745",
"292609",
"226496",
"281533",
"158363",
"187401",
"573077",
"521644",
"546637",
"553105",
"22916",
"32290",
"565417",
"12542",
"387886",
"440805",
"139914",
"154665",
"168639",
"21608",
"215118",
"427300"
] |
[
"\"When portfolio positions are reported in percentages, those percentages are relative to the portfolio's base equity. When you start out, that is equal to the cash you have in a portfolio. Later it's the net equity of the portfolio (i.e., how much money you could withdraw if you were to exit all your positions). If you put $5,000 into your account and are long and short 50%, then you are long $2,500 and short $2,500. If it's 100% and -100%, then long and short $5,000. \"\"Leverage\"\" is often computed gross (as if all positions were long). So if you have 100% and -100%, then your broker may say you are \"\"levered 2 to 1.\"\" That is, your gross exposure is twice as large as your underlying base equity.\"",
"\"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or \"\"going short.\"\" When you use money to buy shares, it is called \"\"going long.\"\" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything. Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share. You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000. You are both long and short in the stock for $2000. At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds. You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share. Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000. However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares. Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest. Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share. Your long shares have lost $1000 in value. However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares. However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything. Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time. However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame. The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting. Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time. You are only attempting to hedge your bets. And it doesn't work. A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position. And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future. This, however, doesn't really change things much. Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term. Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess. And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain. You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop. You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon. Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short. However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position. And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up. You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain.\"",
"If you mean the percentages of long/short positions within a mutual fund or ETF, then it's a percentage of the total value of the fund portfolio. In that case, positions of 50% in X, -50% in Y are not the same as 100% in X, -100% in Y. If the long and short positions are both for the same asset, then, as D Stanley mentions, all that matters is the net position. If you're equally long and short X, then the net position is always 0%.",
"\"Being \"\"long\"\" - expecting the price to go up to make a profit - is a two step process: 1) buy 2) sell Being \"\"short\"\" - expecting the price to go down to make a profit - is a 5 step process: 1) borrow someone else's asset 2) sell their asset on the open market to somebody else a third party 3) pocket the proceeds of the sell for your own account 4) buy an identical asset for a cheaper price 5) return this identical asset to the person that let you borrow their asset if this is successful you keep the difference between 3) and 4)\"",
"Don't know the name but it means you're long with conviction :P Unlimited gains, maximum loss of 95$ + (8-6) = 97$. Basically You are long @ 107 - -2 from 105 to 95. You would have to be ULTRA bullish to initiate this strategy.",
"\"For the same reason that people bet on different teams. Some think the Tigers will win, others thing the Yankees will win. They wager $5 on it. One of them wins, the other loses. In a short, one person bets that the stock goes down, the other bets that the stock goes up (or hold). You're basically saying \"\"I think this stock is going to hold it's value or go up. If I thought it would go down, like you do, I would sell it myself right now. Instead, I'll let you have it for a while because when I get it back I think I'll come out on top.\"\"\"",
"There is no difference. When dealing with short positions, talking about percentages become very tricky since they no longer add up to 100%. What does the 50% in your example mean? Unless there's some base amount (like total amount of the portfolio, then the percentages are meaningless. What matters when dealing with long and short positions is the net total - meaning if you are long 100 shares on one stock trade and short 50 shares on another, then you are net long 50 shares.",
"Your original example is a little confusing because just shorting for 1k and buying for 1k is 100% leveraged or an infinitive leverage ratio. (and not allowed) Brokerage houses would require you to invest some capital in the trade. One example might be requiring you to hold $100 in the brokerage. This is where the 10:1 ratio comes from. (1000/10) Thus a return of 4.5% on the 1000k bond and no movement on the short position would net you $45 and voila a 45% return on your $100 investment. A 40 to 1 leverage ratio would mean that you would only have to invest $25 to make this trade. Something that no individual investor are allowed to do, but for some reason some financial firms have been able to.",
"If it helps you to think about it, long is equivalent to betting for the upside and short is equivalent to betting for the downside. If you are long on options, then you expect the value of such options to increase. If you are long an option, then you own the option. If you are short an option, then generally you sold the option. Someone who is short a call (sometimes called the writer or occasionally the issuer) has sold a call option to someone who is now long a call. Buying a call option that will increase in value is itself a form of investment, just as it's investment to buy stock or other instruments hoping they will appreciate in value. An option's value will rise or fall with the underlying, so being long an option is a way to be long in the underlying. Someone can be long in a stock by buying the stock, or long in a call by buying call options in the stock. The long call generally requires less initial investment than buying the underlying, and lets the option-holder avoid the asset downside during the option term. The risk is that the asset may not appreciate to the point that the call option will pay off. In the conceptual sense, a share of stock is a particular right to the profits and assets of a corporation, both in form of dividends and in liquidation. An option is a particular right to the the share of stock. It's just a further way to formalize and subdivide the various property rights that exist in a corporation. If you can buy a piece of paper with particular rights to corporate profits and assets, then you can buy another piece of paper with particular rights to the former piece of paper.",
"\"And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position. When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here. In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them. If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from. Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest). Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy. Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800. In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question). It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement. Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money. If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a \"\"margin call\"\" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses. And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin). When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go. There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position. You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs.\"",
"\"The reason for selling a stock \"\"short\"\", is for when you believe the stock value will decrease in the near future. Here is an example: Today Exxon-Mobile stock is selling for $100 / share. You are expecting the price to decrease, so you want to short the stock, which means your broker (i.e. eTrade, etc) allows you to borrow shares without paying money, and those shares are transferred into your account, and then you sell them and receive money for the sale. But you didn't actually own those shares, you only borrowed them, so you need to return the shares to your broker sometime in the future. Let's say you borrow 10 shares @ $100, and you sell them at the market price of $100, you receive $1,000 in your account. But you owe your broker 10 shares, which you need to return sometime in the future. A few days later, the share price has decreased to $80. Now you can buy 10 shares from the market at a total cost of $800. You get 10 shares, and return those shares to your broker. Since you originally took in $1,000, and you just paid out $800, you keep a resulting profit of $200\"",
"\"Long here does not mean you wish for the underlying stock to increase in value, in fact, as the chart shows, just the opposite is true. \"\"Long means you bought the derivative, and you own the option. The guy that sold it to you is at your mercy, he is short the put, and it's your decision to put the stock to him should it fall in value. The value of the put itself rises with the falling stock price, you are long the put and want the put, itself, to rise in value.\"",
"The 'normal' series of events when trading a stock is to buy it, time passes, then you sell it. If you believe the stock will drop in price, you can reverse the order, selling shares, waiting for the price drop, then buying them back. During that time you own say, -100 shares, and are 'short' those shares.",
"This is a gross simplification as there are a few different ways to do this. The principle overall is the same though. To short a stock, you borrow X shares from a third party and sell them at the current price. You now owe the lender X shares but have the proceeds from the sale. If the share price falls you can buy back those shares at the new lower price, return them to the lender and pocket the difference. The risk comes when the share price goes the other way, you now owe the lender the new value of the shares, so have to find some way to cover the difference. This happened a while back when Porsche made a fortune buying shares in Volkswagen from short sellers, and the price unexpectedly rose.",
"Simple math: 50-25=25, hence decline from 50 to 25 is a 50% decline (you lose half), while an advance from 25 to 50 is 100% gain (you gain 100%, double your 25 to 50). Their point is that if you have more upswings than downswings - you'll gain more on long positions during upswings than on short positions during downswings on average. Again - simple math.",
"When you short a stock, you can lose an unlimited amount of money if the trade goes against you. If the shorted stock gaps up overnight you can lose more money than you have in your account. The best case is you make 100% if the stock goes to zero. And then you have margin fees on top of that. With long positions, it's the other way around. Your max loss is 100% and your gains are potentially unlimited.",
"You sold a call, and have a risk if the stock rises. You bought a put and gain when the stock drops. You, sir, have a synthetic short position. It's Case 3 from your linked example: Suppose you own Long Stock and the company is going to report earnings but you’re going on vacation. How can you hedge your position without selling your stock? You can short the stock synthetically with options! Short Stock = Short Call + Long Put They conclude with the net zero remark, because the premise was an existing long position. A long plus this synthetic short results in a neutral set of positions (and the author's ability to go on vacation not concerned about any movement in the stock.)",
"\"You need to interpret \"\"security\"\" appropriately in Wikipedia's definition. You should think of it as saying: to be long in a put, means the holder of the position owns the put and will profit if the price of the put goes up And what makes the price of the put go up? -- the price of the underlying stock going down.\"",
"How so? If i sell short, then i make a profit only if the price goes down so i can buy back at a lower price. Yes, but if the price is going up then you would go long instead. Shorting a stock (or any other asset) allows you to profit when the price is going down. Going long allows you to profit when the price is going up. In the opposite cases, you lose money. In order to make a profit in either of those situations, you have to accurately assess which way the price will trade over the period of time you are dealing with. If you make the wrong judgment, then you lose money because you'll either sell for a lower price than you bought (if you went long), or have to buy back at a higher price than you sold for (if you went short). In either case, unless the trader can live with making a short-term loss and recouperating it later, one needs a good stop-loss strategy.",
"Your strategy of longing company(a) and shorting company(b) is flawed as the prices of company(a) and company(b) can both increase and though you are right , you will lose money due to the shorting strategy. You should not engage in pair trading , which is normally used for arbitrage purposes You should just buy company(a) since you believed its a better company compared to company(b) , its as simple as that",
"This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.",
"\"An important point yet to be mentioned is that, with a standard investment, the most you can lose of your £100 stake is £100 (if the company literally goes bust, say). With shorting on the other hand, your downside is not limited to your initial stake. You could \"\"invest\"\" £100, but end up owing £200, £500, or, well, the sky's the limit. Shorting is dangerous even for experienced investors. For a beginner, it is about the worst possible investment strategy I can think of!\"",
"The problem with rate of return calculation on short positions is, that the commonly used approach assumes an initial investment creating a cash outflow. If we want to apply this approach to short selling, we should look at the trade from another perspective. We buy money and pay for this money with stock. Our investment to buy 50$ in your example is 1 share. When closing the short position, we effectively sell back our money (50$) and receive 2 shares. Our profit on this position is obviously 1 share. Setting this in relation to our investment of 1 share yields a performance of 100% in reality, we do not sell back the entire cash but only the amount needed to get back our investment of 1 share. This is actually comparable to a purchase of stock which we only partially close to get back our invested cash amount and keep the remaining shares as our profit",
"To expand on the comment made by @NateEldredge, you're looking to take a short position. A short position essentially functions as follows: Here's the rub: you have unlimited loss potential. Maybe you borrow a share and sell it at $10. Maybe in a month you still haven't closed the position and now the share is trading at $1,000. The share lender comes calling for their share and you have to close the position at $1,000 for a loss of $990. Now what if it was $1,000,000 per share, etc. To avoid this unlimited loss risk, you can instead buy a put option contract. In this situation you buy a contract that will expire at some point in the future for the right to sell a share of stock for $x. You get to put that share on to someone else. If the underlying stock price were to instead rise above the put's exercise price, the put will expire worthless — but your loss is limited to the premium paid to acquire the put option contract. There are all sorts of advanced options trades sometimes including taking a short or long position in a security. It's generally not advisable to undertake these sorts of trades until you're very comfortable with the mechanics of the contracts. It's definitely not advisable to take an unhedged short position, either by borrowing someone else's share(s) to sell or selling an option (when you sell the option you take the risk), because of the unlimited loss potential described above.",
"We struck a deal. I sold an asset to some body on june 1 . However he says, he would pay me any time on or before august 1st . This puts me in a dilemma. What if price goes down by august 1st and i would have to accept lower payment from him.? If price goes up till august 1st, then obviously i make money since ,even though item is sold,price is yet to be fixed between parties. However i know anytime on or before august 1st, i would get paid the price quoted on that particular day. This price could be high in my favor, or low against me. And, this uncertainty is causing me sleepless nights. i went to futures market exchange. My item (sugar,gold,wheat,shares etc..anything). i short sell a futures which just happens to be equivalent to the quantity of my amount i sold to the acquirer of my item. I shorted at $ 100 , with expiry on august 1st. Now fast orward and august 1st comes. price is $ 120 quoted . lets Get paid from the guy who was supposed to pay on or before august 1st. He pays 120 $. his bad luck, he should have paid us 100 $ on june 1st instead of waiting for august 1st . His judgement of price movement faulted. WE earned 20 $ extra than we expected to earn on june 1st (100$) . However the futures short of 100$ is now 120$ and you must exit your position by purchasing it at back. sell at 100$ and buy at 120$ = loss of 20$ . Thus 20 $ gained from selling item is forwarded to exchange . Thus we had hedged our position on june 1st and exit the hedge by august 1st. i hope this helps",
"\"It will be helpful to establish some definitions: Long \"\"Long\"\" is financial slang for \"\"to have possession of an asset\"\", legally, and \"\"to debit an asset\"\", financially. Short \"\"Short\"\" is financial slang for \"\"to be liable for an asset\"\", legally, and \"\"to credit an asset\"\", financially. Option \"\"Option\"\" is financial slang for \"\"to have the right but not obligation to force the liable to perform action\"\", legally. Without limits and when taken to absurdity, this can mean slavery. For equities, this means \"\"to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy/sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\" for a call/put, respectively. By the above, a call option is \"\"the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\". By the definition of \"\"long\"\" above, a call option is actually not long the underlying. By the definitions above and with a narrower scope applied to equities & indexes, to be \"\"long\"\" the call means \"\"to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\" while to be \"\"short\"\" the call means \"\"to have the obligation to be forced to sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right\"\". So, to be \"\"long\"\" a call means to simply own the call.\"",
"ELI5 - you sell something that you don't own with the expectation that it will go down, and then you buy it back when it goes down in order to lock in profit. You are charged fees to borrow the stock from someone else who currently owns it, and you also run the risk of the market going against you by going up.",
"This can be best explained with an example. Bob thinks the price of a stock that Alice has is going to go down by the end of the week, so he borrows a share at $25 from Alice. The current price of the shares are $25 per share. Bob immediately sells the shares to Charlie for $25, it is fair, it is the current market price. A week goes by, and the price does fall to $20. Bob buys a share from David at $20. This is fair, it is the current market value. Then Bob gives the share back to Alice to settle what he borrowed from her, one share. Now, in reality, there is interest charged be Alice on the borrowed value, but to keep it simple, we'll say she was a friend and it was a zero interest loan. So then Bob was able to sell something he didn't own for $25 and return it spending $20 to buy it, settling his loan and making $5 in the transaction. It is the selling to Charlie and buying from David (or even Charlie later, if he decided to dump the shares), without having invested any of your own money that earns the profit.",
"\"Learn something new every day... I found this interesting and thought I'd throw my 2c in. Good description (I hope) from Short Selling: What is Short Selling First, let's describe what short selling means when you purchase shares of stock. In purchasing stocks, you buy a piece of ownership in the company. You buy/sell stock to gain/sell ownership of a company. When an investor goes long on an investment, it means that he or she has bought a stock believing its price will rise in the future. Conversely, when an investor goes short, he or she is anticipating a decrease in share price. Short selling is the selling of a stock that the seller doesn't own. More specifically, a short sale is the sale of a security that isn't owned by the seller, but that is promised to be delivered. Still with us? Here's the skinny: when you short sell a stock, your broker will lend it to you. The stock will come from the brokerage's own inventory, from another one of the firm's customers, or from another brokerage firm. The shares are sold and the proceeds are credited to your account. Sooner or later, you must \"\"close\"\" the short by buying back the same number of shares (called covering) and returning them to your broker. If the price drops, you can buy back the stock at the lower price and make a profit on the difference. If the price of the stock rises, you have to buy it back at the higher price, and you lose money. So what happened? The Plan The Reality Lesson I never understood what \"\"Shorting a stock\"\" meant until today. Seems a bit risky for my blood, but I would assume this is an extreme example of what can go wrong. This guy literally chose the wrong time to short a stock that was, in all visible aspects, on the decline. How often does a Large Company or Individual buy stock on the decline... and send that stock soaring? How often does a stock go up 100% in 24 hours? 600%? Another example is recently when Oprah bought 10% of Weight Watchers and caused the stock to soar %105 in 24 hours. You would have rued the day you shorted that stock - on that particular day - if you believed enough to \"\"gamble\"\" on it going down in price.\"",
"(buy these when you expect the price to go down) You 'lock in' the price you can sell at. If the price goes down below the 'locked-in' price, you buy at the new low price and sell at the higher 'locked-in' price; make money. (buy these when you expect the price to go up) You 'lock in' the price you can buy at. If the price goes up above the 'locked-in' price, you buy at the 'locked-in' price and sell at the new higher price, make money.",
"A long put - you have a small initial cost (the option premium) but profit as the stock goes down. You have no additional risk if the shock rises, even a lot. Short a stock - you gain if the stock drops, but have unlimited risk if it rises, the call mitigates this, by capping that rising stock risk. The profit/loss graph looks similar to the long put when you hold both the short position and the long call. You might consider producing a graph or spreadsheet to compare positions. You can easily sketch put, call, long stock, short stock, and study how combinations of positions can synthetically look like other positions. Often, when a stock has no shares to short, the synthetic short can help you put your stock position in place.",
"\"A simple way to ask the question might be to say \"\"why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Why is borrowing someone else's shares necessary to make the concept a viable one? Why isn't it just the inverse of 'going long'?\"\" A simple way to think about it is this: to make money by trading something, you must buy it for less than you sell it for. This applies to stocks like anything else. If you believe the price will go up, then you can buy them first and sell them later for a higher price. But if you believe the price will go down, the only way to buy low and sell high is to sell first and buy later. If you buy the stock and it goes down, any sale you make will lose you money. I'm still not sure I fully understand the point of your example, but one thing to note is that in both cases (i.e., whether you buy the share back at the end or not), you lost money. You say that you \"\"made $5 on the share price dropping\"\", but that isn't true at all: you can see in your example that your final account balance is negative in both cases. You paid $20 for the shares but only got $15 back; you lost $5 (or, in the other version of your example, paid $20 and got back $5 plus the depreciated shares). If you had bought the shares for $20 and sold them for, say, $25, then your account would end up with a positive $5 balance; that is what a gain would look like. But you can't achieve that if you buy the shares for $20 and later sell them for less. At a guess, you seem to be confusing the concept of making a profit with the concept of cutting your losses. It is true that if you buy the shares for $20 and sell them for $15, you lose only $5, whereas if you buy them for $20 and sell for $10, you lose the larger amount of $10. But those are both losses. Selling \"\"early\"\" as the price goes down doesn't make you any money; it just stops you from losing more money than you would if you sold later.\"",
"Here's a simple example for a put, from both sides. Assume XYZ stock trades at $200 right now. Let's say John writes a $190 out of the money put on XYZ stock and sells this put to Abby for the premium, which is say $5. Assume the strike date, or date of settlement, is 6 months from now. Thus Abby is long one put option and John is short one put option (the writer of the option is short the option). On settlement date, let's assume two different scenarios: (1) If the price of the stock decreases by $50, then the put that Abby bought is 'in the money'. Abby's profit can be calculated as being strike price 190 - current stock price 150 - premium paid 5 = $35 So not including any transaction fees, that is a $35 dollar return on a $5 investment. (2) If the price of the stock increases by $50, then the put that Abby bought is worthless and her loss was 100%, or her entire $5 premium. For John, he made $5 in 6 months (in reality you need collateral and good credit to be able to write sizable option positions).",
"\"Selling short is simply by definition the selling, then later re-buying of stock you don't initially own. Say you tally your entire portfolio balance: the quantity of each stock you own, and your cash assets. Let's call this your \"\"initial position\"\". We define \"\"profit\"\" as any increase in assets, relative to this initial position. If you know a particular stock will go down, you can realize a profit by selling some of that stock, waiting for the price to go down, then buying it back. In the end you will have returned to your initial position, except you will have more cash. If you sell 10 shares of a stock valued at £1.50, then buy them back at £1.00, you will make a £5.00 profit while having otherwise returned to your previous position. If you do the same, but you initially owned 1000 shares, sold just 10 of those, then bought 10 back, that's still a profit of £5.00. Selling short is doing the same thing, but with an initial and ending balance of 0 shares. If you initially own 0 shares, sell 10, then buy 10 back, you return to your initial position (0 shares) plus a profit of £5.00. (And in practice you must also pay a borrowing fee to do this.) The advantage of selling short is it can be done with any stock, not just those currently owned.\"",
"Rich's answer captures the basic essence of short selling with example. I'd like to add these additional points: You typically need a specially-privileged brokerage account to perform short selling. If you didn't request short selling when you opened your account, odds are good you don't have it, and that's good because it's not something most people should ever consider doing. Short selling is an advanced trading strategy. Be sure you truly grok selling short before doing it. Consider that when buying stock (a.k.a. going long or taking a long position, in contrast to short) then your potential loss as a buyer is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero) and your potential gain unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're lucky!) Whereas, with short selling, it's reversed: Your loss can be unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're unlucky!) and your potential gain is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero.) The proceeds you receive from a short sale – and then some – need to stay in your account to offset the short position. Brokers require this. Typically, margin equivalent to 150% the market value of the shares sold short must be maintained in the account while the short position is open. The owner of the borrowed shares is still expecting his dividends, if any. You are responsible for covering the cost of those dividends out of your own pocket. To close or cover your short position, you initiate a buy to cover. This is simply a buy order with the intention that it will close out your matching short position. You may be forced to cover your short position before you want to and when it is to your disadvantage! Even if you have sufficient margin available to cover your short, there are cases when lenders need their shares back. If too many short sellers are forced to close out positions at the same time, they push up demand for the stock, increasing price and deepening their losses. When this happens, it's called a short squeeze. In the eyes of the public who mostly go long buying stock, short sellers are often reviled. However, some people and many short sellers believe they are providing balance to the market and preventing it sometimes from getting ahead of itself. [Disambiguation: A short sale in the stock market is not related to the real estate concept of a short sale, which is when a property owner sells his property for less than he owes the bank.] Additional references:",
"You can't make money on the way down if it was your money that bought the shares when the market was up. When you sell short, borrowing lets you tap into the value without paying for it. That way, when the price (hopefully) drops you profit from the difference. In your example, if you hadn't paid the £20 in the first place, then you would actually be up £5. But since you started with £20, you still show loss. As others said, borrowing is the definition of selling short. It is also simply the only way the math works. Of course, there is a large risk you must assume to enjoy benefiting from something you do not own!",
"In order to compare the two, you need to compare your entire portfolio, which is not just how much money you have, but how much stock. In both scenarios, you start with (at least, but let's assume) £20 and 0 stock. In your scenario, you buy 10 shares, leaving you with £0 and 10 shares. You then sell it at £1.50/share to cut your losses, leaving you with £15 and 0 shares. That concludes the first transaction with a net loss of £5. In a second transaction, you then buy 10 shares again at £1/share, leaving you with £5 and 10 shares. You are still down £15 from the start, but you also still have 10 shares. Any further profit or loss depends on what you can get for those 10 shares in the future. In a short sale, you borrow 10 shares and sell them, leaving you with £40 (your initial £20 plus what you just made on the short sale) and -10 shares of stock. At the end of the contract, you must buy 10 shares to return them; you are able to do so at £1.50/share, leaving you with £25 and 0 shares. At this point, your exposure to the stock is complete, and you have a net gain of £5.",
"\"You didn't win in case B. Borrowing shares and then selling them is known as \"\"selling short\"\". You received $2000 when you sold short 100 shares at $20. You spent $1000 to buy them back at $10, so you come out $1000 ahead on that deal. But at the same time, the 100 shares you already owned have declined in value from $20 to $10, so you are down $1000 on that deal. So you've simply broken even, and you are still out the interest and transaction fees. In effect, a short sale allows you to sell shares you don't own. But if you do already own them, then the effect is the same as if you just sold your own shares. This makes it easier to see that this is just a complicated and expensive way of accomplishing nothing at all.\"",
"\"First, you are not exactly \"\"giving\"\" the brokerage $2000. That money is the margin requirement to protect them in the case the stock price rises. If you short 200 shares as in your example and they are holding $6000 from you then they are protected in the event of the stock price increasing to $30/share. Sometime before it gets there the brokerage will require you to deposit more money or they will cover your position by repurchasing the shares for your account. The way you make money on the short sale is if the stock price declines. It is a buy low sell high idea but in reverse. If you believe that prices are going to drop then you could sell now when it is high and buy back later when it is lower. In your example, you are selling 200 shares at $20 and later, buying those at $19. Thus, your profit is $200, not counting any interest or fees you have paid. It's a bit confusing because you are selling something you'll buy in the future. Selling short is usually considered quite risky as your gain is limited to the amount that you sold at initially (if I sell at $20/share the most I can make is if the stock declines to $0). Your potential to lose is unlimited in theory. There is no limit to how high the stock could go in theory so I could end up buying it back at an infinitely high price. Neither of these extremes are likely but they do show the limits of your potential gain and loss. I used $20/share for simplicity assuming you are shorting with a market order vs a limit order. If you are shorting it would be better for you to sell at 20 instead of 19 anyway. If someone says I would like to give you $20 for that item you are selling you aren't likely to tell them \"\"no, I'd really only like $19 for it\"\"\"",
"\"I know its not legal to have open long and short position on specific security (on two stock exchanges - NSE/BSE) There is nothing illegal about it. There are prescribed ways on how this is addressed. In Cash Segment / Intra Day trades: One can short sell a security. If by end of day he does not buy the security; it goes into Auction. The said security is purchased on your behalf. Any profit or loss arising out of this is charged to you. Similarly one can buy a security; if one does not pay the amount by end of day; it would go into auction and sold. Any profit or loss arising out of this is charged to you. If you short sell a security on one exchange; you have to buy it on same exchange. If you buy on other exchange; it will not be adjusted against this short position. Also is it legal to have long position on stock and short its derivative (future/option)? There are no restrictions. Edit: @yety Party A shorts 10 shares of HDFC today in Intra-Day Cash Segment purchased by Party B. Rather than buying back 10 shares or allowing it to go into auction... Party A borrows 10 HDFC Shares from \"\"X\"\" via SLB for a period of say 6 months [1 month to 1 year]. This is recorded as Party A obligation to \"\"X\"\". These 10 borrowed shares are transferred to Party B. So Party \"\"X\"\" doesn't have any HDFC shares at this point in time. However in exchange, Party X receives fees for borrowing from Party A. If there is dividend, are declared, Company pays Party B. However SLB recovers identical amount from Party A and pays Party X. If there is 1:1 split, now party A owes Party X 20 HDFC Shares. On maturity [after 6 months], Party A has to buy these from market and given back the borrowed shares to Party X. If there are some other corporate actions, i.e. mergers / amalgamations ... the obligation of Party A to Party X is closed immediately and position settled. Of course there are provisions whereby party A can pay back the shares earlier or party X can ask for shares earlier and there are rules/trades/mechanisms to facilitate this.\"",
"Correct, long/short strategies should have zero beta with the stock market. But this is intentional, and investors in true *hedged* funds seek this *portable alpha* as a complement to their long-only sleeve in the portfolio. My question is: if for example, you are long low P/E stocks, and a short high P/E stocks what *creates* the alpha? Your portfolio should have zero beta. I believe in the long-run this long/short P/E strategy [generates ~300 basis points of return per year (un-levered)](http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/data_library.html). Is not reasonable to assume if returns from long only investing is driven by beta (and investors use 6% to 12% discount rates in their valuation models), then an an un-levered long/short strategy should always under-perform a long-only strategy in the long-run. The purpose of long/short strategies is not to beat long-only investing, it is to create [portable alpha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_alpha). In fact, at a high level of abstraction, the *average* long/short strategy should not earn a return greater than the risk free rate in the long-run because the strategy has zero beta.",
"A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.",
"\"Without going into minor details, an FX transaction works essentially like this. Let's assume you have SEK 100 on your account. If you buy 100 USD/RUB at 1.00, then that transaction creates a positive cash balance on your account of USD 100 and a negative cash balance (an overdraft) of RUB 100. So right after the transaction (assuming there is not transaction cost), the \"\"net equity\"\" of your account is: 100 SEK + 100 USD - 100 RUB = 100 + 100 - 100 = 100 SEK. Let's say that, the day after, the RUB has gone down by 10% and the RUB 100 is now worth SEK 90 only. Your new equity is: 100 SEK + 100 USD - 100 RUB = 100 + 100 - 90 = 110 SEK and you've made 10%(*): congrats! Had you instead bought 100 SEK/RUB, the result would have been the same (assuming the USD/SEK rate constant). In practice the USD/SEK rate would probably not be constant and you would need to also account for: (*) in your example, the USD/RUB has gone up 10% but the RUB has gone down 9.09%, hence the result you find. In my example, the RUB has gone down 10% (i.e. the USD has gone up 11%).\"",
"In this type of strategy profit is made when the shares go down as your main position is the short trade of the common stock. The convertible instruments will tend to move in about the same direction as the underlying (what it can be converted to) but less violently as they are traded less (lower volatility and lower volume in the market on both sides), however, they are not being used to make a profit so much as to hedge against the stock going up. Since both the bonds and the preference shares are higher on the list to be repaid if the company declares bankruptcy and the bonds pay out a fixed amount of interest as well, both also help protect against problems that may occur with a long position in the common stock. Essentially the plan with this strategy is to earn fixed income on the bonds whilst the stock price drops and then to sell both the bonds and buy the stock back on the market to cover the short position. If the prediction that the stock will fall is wrong then you are still earning fixed income on the debt and are able to convert it into stock at the higher price to cover the short sale eliminating, or reducing, the loss made on the short sale. Effectively the profit here is made on the spread between the price of the bond, accounting for the conversion price, and the price of the stock and that fixed income is less volatile (except usually in the junk market) than stock.",
"\"You sold $10,000 worth of stock so that money is essentially yours. However, you sold this stock without actually owning any which means that you, through your broker, are currently borrowing shares amounting to (at the time of your sale) $10,000 from someone who actually owns this stock. You will be paying this person interest for the privilege of borrowing their shares, the exact amount charged varies wildly and depends on factors such as short interest in the stock (loads of people want to go short = shareholders can charge high interest) etc. If I remember correctly hovering over the \"\"position\"\" column in your portfolio in the IB Workstation should give you information about the interest rate charged. You will have to buy back these shares from the lender at some point which is why the $10k isn't just \"\"free money.\"\" If the stock has gone up in price in the meantime you are going to be paying more than the $10k you got for the same amount of shares and vice versa.\"",
"A long straddle using equity would be more akin to buying a triple leveraged ETF and an inverse triple leveraged ETF, only because one side will approach zero while the other can theoretically increase to infinity, in a short time span before time decay hits in. The reason your analogy fails is because the delta is 1.0 on both sides of your trade. At the money options, a necessary requirement for a straddle, have a delta of .5 There is an options strategy that uses in the money calls and puts with a delta closer to 1.0 to create an in the money strangle. I'm not sure if it is more similar to your strategy, an analogous options strategy would be better than yours as it would not share the potential for a margin call.",
"The Explanation is correct. The Traders buys the 1st call and profits linearly form 40$ onwards. At at 45 the short call kick in and neutralizes any further profit on the first call.",
"\"Derivatives derive their value from underlying assets. This is expressed by the obligation of at least one counterparty to trade with the other counterparty in the future. These can take on as many combinations as one can dream up as it is a matter of contract. For futures, where two parties are obligated to trade at a specific price at a specific date in the future (one buyer, one seller), if you \"\"short\"\" a future, you have entered into a contract to sell the underlying at the time specified. If the price of the future moves against you (goes up), you will have to sell at a loss. The bigger the move, the greater the loss. You go ahead and pay this as well as a little extra to be sure that you satisfy what you owe due to the future. This satisfaction is called margin. If there weren't margin, people could take huge losses on their derivative bets, not pay, and disrupt the markets. Making sure that the money that will trade is already there makes the markets run smoothly. It's the same for shorting stocks where you borrow the stock, sell it, and wait. You have to leave the money with the broker as well as deposit a little extra to be sure you can make good if the market moves to a large degree against you.\"",
"\"For sake of simplicity, say the Euro is trading at $1.25. You have leveraged control of $100,000 given the 100x leverage. If you are bullish on the Euro, you are long 80,000 euros. For every 1% it rises, you gain $1000. If it drops by the same 1%, you are wiped out, you lost your $1000. With the contracts I am familiar with, there is a minimum margin, and your account is \"\"marked to market\"\" each night. If your positive balance drops too low, you get the margin call. It's a zero sum game, for every dollar you make, there's a guy on the other side of the trade. Odds are he's doing this full time and is smarter than you.\"",
"You are long the puts. By exercising them you force the underlying stock to be bought from you at your strike price. Let's say your strike it $100 and the stock is currently $25. Buy 100 shares and exercise 1 (bought/long) put. That gives you $7500 of new money, so do the previous sentence over again in as many 'units' as you can.",
"\"So, the term \"\"ready market\"\" simply means that a market exists in which there are legitimate buy/sell offers, meaning there are investors willing to own or trade in the security. A \"\"spot market\"\" means that the security/commodity is being delivered immediately, rather at some predetermined date in the future (hence the term \"\"futures market\"\"). So if you buy oil on the spot market, you'd better be prepared to take immediate delivery, where as when you buy a futures contract, the transaction doesn't happen until some later date. The advantage for futures contract sellers is the ability to lock in the price of what they're selling as a hedge against the possibility of a price drop between now and when they can/will deliver the commodity. In other words, a farmer can pre-sell his grain at a set price for some future delivery date so he can know what he's going to get regardless of the price of grain at the time he delivers it. The downside to the farmer is that if grain prices rise higher than what he sold them for as futures contracts then he loses that additional money. That's the advantage to the buyer, who expects the price to rise so he can resell what he bought from the farmer at a profit. When you trade on margin, you're basically borrowing the money to make a trade, whether you're trading long (buying) or short (selling) on a security. It isn't uncommon for traders to pledge securities they already own as collateral for a margin account, and if they are unable to cover a margin call then those securities can be liquidated or confiscated to satisfy the debt. There still may even be a balance due after such a liquidation if the pledged securities don't cover the margin call. Most of the time you pay a fee (or interest rate) on whatever you borrow on margin, just like taking out a bank loan, so if you're going to trade on margin, you have to include those costs in your calculations as to what you need to earn from your investment to make a profit. When I short trade, I'm selling something I don't own in the expectation I can buy it back later at a lower price and keep the difference. For instance, if I think Apple shares are going to take a steep drop at some point soon, I can short them. So imagine I short-sell 1000 shares of AAPL at the current price of $112. That means my brokerage account is credited with the proceeds of the sale ($112,000), and I now owe my broker 1000 shares of AAPL stock. If the stock drops to $100 and I \"\"cover my short\"\" (buy the shares back to repay the 1000 I borrowed) then I pay $100,000 for them and give them to my broker. I keep the difference ($12,000) between what I sold them for and what I paid to buy them back, minus any brokerage fees and fees the broker may charge me for short-selling. In conclusion, a margin trade is using someone else's money to make a trade, whether it's to buy more or to sell short. A short trade is selling shares I don't even own because I think I can make money in the process. I hope this helps.\"",
"why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Because if you sell shares out of your own portfolio, by definition, you are not selling short at all. If you sell something you own (and deliver it) - then there is no short involved. A short is defined as a net negative position - i.e. you sell shares you do not have. Selling shares you own is selling shares you own - no short involved. You must borrow the shares for a short because in the stock market, you must DELIVER. You can not deliver shares you do not own. The stock market does not work on promises - the person who bought the shares expects ownership of them with all rights that gives them. So you borrow them to deliver them, then return them when you buy them back.",
"http://www.investopedia.com/university/shortselling/shortselling1.asp 'Therein lies the major risk of short selling, the fear of infinite losses. While the maximum loss for a long investor is the amount invested in a security, the maximum loss for a short seller is theoretically infinite, since there is no upper limit to a stock’s price appreciation. This risk is compounded by the fact that during a short squeeze or buy-in...' Never have shorted a stock. Too intimidated by that!",
"I'm not sure how detailed of an explanation you're hoping for. Bear ETFs basically just short sell the underlying asset. The more highly levered ETFs will also use a combination of options, futures, and swaps to achieve their target leverage. The inversion isn't perfect though, and their target is usually just to close inverse to the *daily* return of their underlying asset. If you feel like reading, [here is an example.](http://direxioninvestments.onlineprospectus.net/DirexionInvestments//SPXS/index.html?open=Summary%20Prospectus) You can find the investment overview on page 4.",
"Variance of a single asset is defined as follows: σ2 = Σi(Xi - μ)2 where Xi's represent all the possible final market values of your asset and μ represents the mean of all such market values. The portfolio's variance is defined as σp2 = Σiwi2σi2 where, σp is the portfolio's variance, and wi stands for the weight of the ith asset. Now, if you include the borrowing in your portfolio, that would classify as technically shorting at the borrowing rate. Thus, this weight would (by the virtue of being negative) increase all other weights. Moreover, the variance of this is likely to be zero (assuming fixed borrowing rates). Thus, weights of risky assets rise and the investor's portfolio's variance will go up. Also see, CML at wikipedia.",
"Leverage is when you borrow in order to invest. Mind you, most people aren't going to just give you money to gamble on the stock market completely unsecured; rather, you deposit (say) $10,000 and buy a stock... and then you have $10k in assets which you can borrow against, so you can buy another $10,000 of that stock. Now if the stock goes up you'll make twice the gain (2x leverage). However, if it goes down, you'll lose twice as much as well. If the value of your stock falls, your line of credit will be reduced as well; in this case, since you used all your credit and are now over your limit, your broker will issue a margin call (they will demand a deposit of additional funds, or they will sell some of your stock at their discretion). This protects you from owing more than you invested, but it's still sometimes possible (for instance, if a company spontaneously goes bankrupt and becomes worthless, and your stock becomes worthless). There are also things like leveraged index funds and commodity funds which aim to return some multiple of the market's earnings. These are designed for intraday trading, though, and usually end up underperforming significantly over the long term. [edit] Mose people who accept borrowed funds should generally accept real cash as well. However, if you're trying to short sell, i.e. borrow shares and sell them (in the hopes you can get them back cheaper later after the stock falls) you will need a margin line of credit to do so as well. [edit 2] clarified margin calls",
"The paragraph before on page 115 states: Scaling corresponds to having a weight in the long and short legs that is different from one and varies over time, but the strategy is still self-financing. Meaning that the long and short positions are no longer equal due to weighting one side more highly than the other. The weighting of one side (either long or short) is the number between 0.2 and 2 that you mention.",
"For long periods of time a short ETF's performance will not match the negative of the long ETF, e.g. funding costs and the fact that they 'only' match daily returns will result in a suboptimal performance. If possible use other derivatives like a put on a long gold etf (fgriglesnickerseven)",
"\"He sold at 25 cents per pound and then as the price rises, the cash he has will buy less and less which could trigger a margin call as you are missing the \"\"short\"\" part of his position which is rather important here. From Investopedia: A margin account also allows your brokerage firm to liquidate your position if the likelihood that you will return what you've borrowed diminishes. This is part of the agreement that is signed when the margin account is created. From the broker's perspective, this increases the likelihood that you will return the shares before losses become too large and you become unable to return the shares. If you sold at 25 cents per pound and the price goes up, at some point you may be forced to buy to cover the position as brokers don't like to lose their money. As another example of a short going bad, \"\"Devastated\"\" Trader Crushed By Soaring Biotech, Starts Online Begging Campaign To Fund $106,000 Margin Call notes in part: However where this story gets abusrdly entertaining, or woefully tragic, depending on one's perspective, is that one trader, Joe Campbell, was on the wrong side of last night's massive surge. As the RutRho blog, which noticed it first explains, a \"\"dummy\"\" E-trader, Joe Campbell, decided to go $35,000 short KBIO \"\"and now owes $ETFC a wonderful $106K.\"\"\"",
"I will just try to come up with a totally made up example, that should explain the dynamics of the hedge. Consider this (completely made up) relationship between USD, EUR and Gold: Now lets say you are a european wanting to by 20 grams of Gold with EUR. Equally lets say some american by 20 grams of Gold with USD. Their investment will have the following values: See how the europeans return is -15.0% while the american only has a -9.4% return? Now lets consider that the european are aware that his currency may be against him with this investment, so he decides to hedge his currency. He now enters a currency-swap contract with another person who has the opposite view, locking in his EUR/USD at t2 to be the same as at t0. He now goes ahead and buys gold in USD, knowing that he needs to convert it to EUR in the end - but he has fixed his interestrate, so that doesn't worry him. Now let's take a look at the investment: See how the european now suddenly has the same return as the American of -9.4% instead of -15.0% ? It is hard in real life to create a perfect hedge, therefore you will most often see that the are not totally the same, as per Victors answer - but they do come rather close.",
"Longing the short ETF will give you better returns than shorting the long etf. The reason is that as the price gets the smaller the absolute price change gets a lot smaller. So you would rather have upward price exposure than downward. A good case is SPXU and UPRO",
"Shorting Stocks: Borrowing the shares to sell now. Then buying them back when the price drops. Risk: If you are wrong the stock can go up. And if there are a lot of people shorting the stock you can get stuck in a short squeeze. That means that so many people need to buy the stock to return the ones they borrowed that the price goes up even further and faster. Also whoever you borrowed the stock from will often make the decision to sell for you. Put options. Risk: Put values don't always drop when the underlying price of the stock drops. This is because when the stock drops volatility goes up. And volatility can raise the value of an option. And you need to check each stock for whether or not these options are available. finviz lists whether a stock is optional & shortable or not. And for shorting you also need to find a broker that owns shares that they are willing to lend out.",
"Basic arbitrage is the (near-)simultaneous purchasing and selling of things that are convertible. The classic example is the international trading of equities. If someone in London wants to purchase a hundred shares of Shell for 40 GBP ea. and someone in New York wants to sell you a hundred shares of Shell for 61 USD ea., you can buy the shares from the guy in New York, sell them to the guy in London and convert your GBP back in to USD for a profit of $41.60 minus fees. Now, if after you buy the shares in New York, the price in London goes down, you'll be left holding 100 shares of Shell that you don't want. So instead you should borrow 100 shares in London and sell them at the exact same time that you buy the shares in New York, thus keeping your net position at 0. In fact, you should also borrow 4000GBP and convert them to USD at the same time, so that exchange rate changes don't get you.",
"200% margin for a short sale is outrageous. You should only need to put up 150% margin, of which 50% is your money, and the 100% is the proceeds. With $100 of your money, you should be able to buy $100 of GOOG and short $100 of PNQI.",
"Levarge in simple terms is how of your own money to how much of borrowed money. So in 2008 Typical leverage ratios were Investment Banks 30:1 means that for every 1 Unit of Banks money [shareholders capital/ long term debts] there was 30 Units of borrowed money [from deposits/for other institutions/etc]. This is a very unstable situation as typically say you lent out 31 to someone else, half way through repayments, the depositors and other lends are asking you 30 back. You are sunk. Now lets say if you lent 31 to some one, but 30 was your moeny and 1 was from deposits/etc. Then you can anytime more easily pay back the 1 to the depositor. In day trading, usually one squares away the position the same day or within a short period. Hence say you want to buy something worth 1000 in the morning and are selling it say the same day. You are expecting the price to by 1005 and a gain 5. Now when you buy via your broker/trader, you may not be required to pay 1000. Normally one just needs to pay a margin money, typically 10% [varies from market to market, country to country]. So in the first case if you put 1000 and get by 5, you made a profit of 0.5%. However if you were to pay only 10 as margin money [rest 990 is assumed loan from your broker]. You sell at 1005, the broker deducts his 990, and you get 15. So technically on 10 you have made 5 more, ie 50% returns. So this is leveraging of 10:1. If say your broker allowed only 5% margin money, then you just need to pay 5 for the 1000 trade, get back 5. You have made a 100% profit, but the leveraging is 20:1. Now lets say at this high leveraging when you are selling you get only 990. So you still owe the broker 5, if you can't pay-up and if lot of other such people can't pay-up, then the broker will also go bankrupt and there is a huge risk. Hence although leveraging helps in quite a few cases, there is always an associated risk when things go wrong badly.",
"\"There are three ways to do this. So far the answers posted have only mentioned two. The three ways are: Selling short means that you borrow stock from your broker and sell it with the intent of buying it back later to repay the loan. As others have noted, this has unlimited potential losses and limited potential gains. Your profit or loss will go $1:$1 with the movement of the price of the stock. Buying a put option gives you the right to sell the stock at a later date on a price that you choose now. You pay a premium to have this right, and if the stock moves against you, you won't exercise your option and will lose the premium. Options move non-linearly with the price of the stock, especially when the expiration is far in the future. They probably are not for a beginner, although they can be powerful if used properly. The third option is a synthetic short position. You form this by simultaneously buying a put option and selling short a call option, both at the same strike price. This has a risk profile that is very much like the selling the stock short, but you can accomplish it entirely with stock options. Because you're both buying an selling, in theory you might even collect a small net premium when you open. You might ask why you'd do this given that you could just sell the stock short, which certainly seems simpler. One reason is that it is not always possible to sell the stock short. Recall that you have to borrow shares from your broker to sell short. When many people want to short the stock, brokers will run out of shares to loan. The stock is then said to be \"\"hard to borrow,\"\" which effectively prevents further short selling of the stock. In this case the synthetic short is still potentially possible.\"",
"\"This is basically martingale, which there is a lot of research on. Basically in bets that have positive expected value such as inflation hedged assets this works better over the long term, than bets that have negative expected value such as table games at casinos. But remember, whatever your analysis is: The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. Things that can disrupt your solvency are things such as options expiration, limitations of a company's ability to stay afloat, limitations in a company's ability to stay listed on an exchange, limitations on your borrowings and interest payments, a finite amount of capital you can ever acquire (which means there is a limited amount of times you can double down). Best to get out of the losers and free up capital for the winners. If your \"\"trade\"\" turned into an \"\"investment\"\", ditch it. Don't get married to positions.\"",
"I'm just began playing in the stock market. I assume you mean that you're not using real money, but rather you have an account with a stock simulator like the one Investopedia offers. I am hopeful that's the case due to the high level of risk involved in short selling like you're describing. Here is another post about short selling that expands a bit on that point. To learn much more about the ins and outs of short selling I will point again to Investopedia. I swear I don't work for them, but they do have a great short selling tutorial. When you short sell a stock you are borrowing the stock from your broker. (The broker typically uses stock held by one or more of his clients to cover the loan.) Since it's basically a loan you pay interest. Of course the longer you hold it the more interest you pay. Also, as Joe mentioned there are scenarios in which you may be forced to buy the stock (at a higher price than you sold it). This tends to happen when the stock price is going against the short sell (i.e. you lose money). Finally, did anyone mention that the potential losses in a short sell are infinite?",
"\"Concerning the general problem of short selling and the need to borrow shares to complete the transaction : Selling short is a cash transaction. Unlike a futures contract, where a short seller is entering into a legal agreement to sell something in the future, in the case of short selling a share the buyer of the share is taking immediate delivery and is therefore entitled to all of the benefits and rights that come with share ownership. In particular, the buyer of the shares is entitled to any dividends payable and, where applicable, to vote on motions at AGMs. If the short seller has not borrowed the shares to sell, then buyer of non-existent shares will have none of the rights associated with ownership. The cash market is based on the idea of matching buyers and sellers. It does not accommodate people making promises. Consider that to allow short sellers to sell shares they have not borrowed opens up the possibility of the aggregate market selling more shares than actually exist. This would lead to all sorts of problematic consequences such as heavily distorting the price of the underlying share. If everyone is selling shares they have not borrowed willy-nilly, then it will drive the price of the share down, much to the disadvantage of existing share holders. In this case, short sellers who have sold shares they have not already borrowed would be paying out more in dividends to the buyers than the total dividends being paid out by the underlying company. There are instruments that allow for short selling of unowned shares on a futures basis. One example is a CFD = Contract for Difference. In the case of CFDs, sellers are obliged to pay dividends to buyers as well as other costs related to financing. EDIT Regarding your comment, note that borrowing shares is not a market transaction. Your account does not show you buying a share and then selling it. It simply shows you selling a share short. The borrowing is the result of an agreement between yourself and the lender and this agreement is off market. You do not actually pay the lender for the shares, but you do pay financing costs for the borrowing so long as you maintain your short position. EDIT I realise that I have not actually read your question correctly. You are not actually talking about \"\"naked\"\" short selling. You are talking about selling shares you already own in a hope of maintaining both a long and short position (gross). The problem with this approach is that you must deliver the shares to the buyer. Otherwise, ask yourself what shares is the buyer actually buying if you want the bought shares to remain in your account. If you are not going to deliver your long position shares, then you will need to borrow the shares you are selling short for the reasons I have outlined above.\"",
"\"I saw that an answer hasn't been accepted for this yet: Being bearish is a good hedging strategy. But being hedged is a better hedging strategy. The point being that not everything in investments is so binary (up, and down). A lot of effective hedges can have many more variables than simply \"\"stock go up, stock go down\"\" As such, there are many ways to be bearish and profit from a decline in market values without subjecting yourself to the unlimited risk of short selling. Buying puts against your long equity position is one example. Being long an ETF that is based on short positions is another example.\"",
"\"With stocks, you can buy or sell. If you sell first, that's called 'shorting.' As in \"\"I think linkedin is too high, I'm going to short it.\"\" With options, the terminology is different, the normal process is to buy to open/sell to close, but if you were shorting the option itself, you would first sell to open, i.e you are selling a position to start it, effectively selling it short. Eventually, you may close it out, by buying to close. Options trading is not for the amateur. If you plan to trade, study first and be very cautious.\"",
"Purchasing an option to sell the stock is probably the safest bet. This gives you reasonable leverage, and your risk is limited to the cost of the option. Say the stock currently sells for $100 per share. You think it will drop to $80 per share in the next two weeks and the market thinks the price will be stable. Now, consider an option to sell one share of that stock for $95 any time within the next two weeks. The market would consider that option nearly worthless, since in all likelihood, you would lose out by exercising it (since you could just sell the share on the market for a price expected to be higher than that). You might be able to acquire that option for $5. Now, say you're right and within two weeks, the price drops to $80. Now you can purchase a share for $80, exercise the option to sell it for $95, and pocket $15. That would make you a $10 profit on a $5 investment. If you're wrong, you just let the option lapse and are out $5. No problem. In reality, you would buy a number of such options. And you wouldn't actually buy a share and exercise the option, you would just sell the option back to its issuer for $15.",
"I don't have a direct short position. It is a structured product linked to the performance of Tesla. I basically get a fixed coupon payment every quater and as long as Tesla doesn't move up more than 50% in the next half year I get my initial investment back plus the coupons. If it should move up more than 50% I lose that percentage of my initial investment",
"\"Writing a put for a stock means you are selling the right to sell you stock. Simply put (er no pun intended), \"\"writing put options\"\" means you are selling somebody else the right (a contract) to sell YOU a specific stock at a specific price before a specific date. I imagine the word \"\"write\"\" to refer to the physical act of creating a contract. The specific price is called the STRIKE and the specific date is the EXPIRATION. By \"\"writing a put\"\", you are agreeing to purchase the stock at a particular price (the STRIKE price) before the expiration. You get paid a fee, the \"\"premium\"\", for agreeing to purchase the stock at the strike price if asked to. If the holder of the contract decides to make you buy the stock at the strike price, you have to do it. If the stock never dips below the strike price, then the holder of the put contract (a contract you wrote), will never exercise their right because they'd lose money. But if the stock drops to zero, you could potentially lose up to your strike price (times the number of shares at stake), if the holder of the contract decides to exercise. Therefore, \"\"writing puts\"\" is a LONG position, meaning you stand to gain if the stock goes up. FYI - \"\"LONG\"\" refers direction (UP!), not duration.\"",
"A bullish (or 'long') call spread is actually two separate option trades. The A/B notation is, respectively, the strike price of each trade. The first 'leg' of the strategy, corresponding to B, is the sale of a call option at a strike price of B (in this case $165). The proceeds from this sale, after transaction costs, are generally used to offset the cost of the second 'leg'. The second 'leg' of the strategy, corresponding to A, is the purchase of a call option at a strike price of A (in this case $145). Now, the important part: the payoff. You can visualize it as so. This is where it gets a teeny bit math-y. Below, P is the profit of the strategy, K1 is the strike price of the long call, K2 is the strike price of the short call, T1 is the premium paid for the long call option at the time of purchase, T2 is the premium received for the short call at the time of sale, and S is the current price of the stock. For simplicity's sake, we will assume that your position quantity is a single option contract and transaction costs are zero (which they are not). P = (T2 - max(0, S - K2)) + (max(0, S - K1) - T1) Concretely, let's plug in the strikes of the strategy Nathan proposes, and current prices (which I pulled from the screen). You have: P = (1.85 - max(0, 142.50 - 165)) - (max(0, 142.50 - 145)) = -$7.80 If the stock goes to $150, the payoff is -$2.80, which isn't quite break even -- but it may have been at the time he was speaking on TV. If the stock goes to $165, the payoff is $12.20. Please do not neglect the cost of the trades! Trading options can be pretty expensive depending on the broker. Had I done this trade (quantity 1) at many popular brokers, I still would've been net negative PnL even if NFLX went to >= $165.",
"\"My take on this is that with any short-selling contract you are engaging in, at a specified time in the future you will need to transfer ownership of the item(s) you sold to the buyer. Whether you own the item(s) or in your case you will buy your friend's used car in the meantime (or dig enough gold out of the ground - in the case of hedging a commodity exposure) is a matter of \"\"trust\"\". Hence there is normally some form of margin or credit-line involved to cover for you failing to deliver on expiry.\"",
"\"There is no opposite of a hedge, except not having a hedge at all. A \"\"hedge\"\" isn't directional. If you are short, you hedge by having something that minimizes your losses if you are wrong. If you are long, you hedge by having something that minimizes your losses if it decreases in value. If you own a house, you hedge by having insurance. There are \"\"hedged bets\"\" and \"\"unhedged bets\"\"\"",
"Suppose that the ETF is currently at a price of $100. Suppose that the next day it moves up 10% (to a price of $110) and the following day it moves down 5% (to a price of $104.5). Over these two days the ETF has had a net gain of 4.5% from its original price. The inverse ETF reverses the daily gains/losses of the base ETF. Suppose for simplicity that the inverse ETF also starts out at a price of $100. So on the first day it goes down 10% (to $90) and on the second day it goes up 5% (to $94.5). Thus over the two days the inverse ETF has had a net loss of 5.5%. The specific dollar amounts do not matter here. The result is that the ETF winds up at 110%*95% = 104.5% of its original price and the inverse ETF is at 90%*105% = 94.5% of its original price. A similar example is given here. As suggested by your quote, this is due to compounding. A gain of X% followed by a loss of Y% (compounded on the gain) is not in general the same as a loss of X% followed by a gain of Y% (compounded on the loss). Or, more simply put, if something loses 10% of its value and then gains 10% of its new value, it will not return to its original value, because the 10% it gained was 10% of its decreased value, so it's not enough to bring it all the way back up. Likewise if it gains 10% and then loses 10%, it will go slightly below its original value (since it lost 10% of its newly increased value).",
"Let's consider that transaction cost is 0(zero) for calculation. In the scenario you have stated, maximum profit that could be made is 55$, however risk is unlimited. Hedging can also be used to limit your losses, let's consider this scenario. Stock ABC trading @ 100$, I'll buy the stock ABC @ 100$ and buy a put option of ABC @ strike price 90$ for a premium of 5$ with an expiration date of 1 month. Possible outcomes I end up in a loss in 3 out of 4 scenarios, however my loss is limited to 15$, whereas profit is unlimited.",
"The risk of the particular share moving up or down is same for both. however in terms of mitigating the risk, Investor A is conservative on upside, ie will exit if he gets 10%, while is ready to take unlimited downside ... his belief is that things will not go worse .. While Investor B is wants to make at least 10% less than peak value and in general is less risk averse as he will sell his position the moment the price hits 10% less than max [peak value] So it more like how do you mitigate a risk, as to which one is wise depends on your belief and the loss appetite",
"It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either. Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check. Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated. So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if:",
"\"You are likely making an assumption that the \"\"Short call\"\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \"\"write\"\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\"",
"Borrow the overpriced bond promising to repay the lender $1000 in one year. Sell the bond immediately for $960. Put $952.38 in the bank where the it will gain enough to be worth $1000 in one year. You have +$7.62 immediate cash flow. In one year repay the bond lender with the $1000 from the bank.",
"\"This doesn't make sense to me. Writing a covered call gives him a long delta position - the exact opposite of what he wants. And the tax losses won't turn a losing position into a winning one. Is there something I'm missing? Edit: Also, doesn't \"\"shorting against the box\"\" mean he has to have a long position, and short against that? That means you've got zero net delta, which isn't very useful at all...\"",
"\"Being \"\"Long\"\" something means you own it. Being \"\"Short\"\" something means you have created an obligation that you have sold to someone else. If I am long 100 shares of MSFT, that means that I possess 100 shares of MSFT. If I am short 100 shares of MSFT, that means that my broker let me borrow 100 shares of MSFT, and I chose to sell them. While I am short 100 shares of MSFT, I owe 100 shares of MSFT to my broker whenever he demands them back. Until he demands them back, I owe interest on the value of those 100 shares. You short a stock when you feel it is about to drop in price. The idea there is that if MSFT is at $50 and I short it, I borrow 100 shares from my broker and sell for $5000. If MSFT falls to $48 the next day, I buy back the 100 shares and give them back to my broker. I pocket the difference ($50 - $48 = $2/share x 100 shares = $200), minus interest owed. Call and Put options. People manage the risk of owning a stock or speculate on the future move of a stock by buying and selling calls and puts. Call and Put options have 3 important components. The stock symbol they are actionable against (MSFT in this case), the \"\"strike price\"\" - $52 in this case, and an expiration, June. If you buy a MSFT June $52 Call, you are buying the right to purchase MSFT stock before June options expiration (3rd Saturday of the month). They are priced per share (let's say this one cost $0.10/share), and sold in 100 share blocks called a \"\"contract\"\". If you buy 1 MSFT June $52 call in this scenario, it would cost you 100 shares x $0.10/share = $10. If you own this call and the stock spikes to $56 before June, you may exercise your right to purchase this stock (for $52), then immediately sell the stock (at the current price of $56) for a profit of $4 / share ($400 in this case), minus commissions. This is an overly simplified view of this transaction, as this rarely happens, but I have explained it so you understand the value of the option. Typically the exercise of the option is not used, but the option is sold to another party for an equivalent value. You can also sell a Call. Let's say you own 100 shares of MSFT and you would like to make an extra $0.10 a share because you DON'T think the stock price will be up to $52/share by the end of June. So you go to your online brokerage and sell one contract, and receive the $0.10 premium per share, being $10. If the end of June comes and nobody exercises the option you sold, you get to keep the $10 as pure profit (minus commission)! If they do exercise their option, your broker makes you sell your 100 shares of MSFT to that party for the $52 price. If the stock shot up to $56, you don't get to gain from that price move, as you have already committed to selling it to somebody at the $52 price. Again, this exercise scenario is overly simplified, but you should understand the process. A Put is the opposite of a Call. If you own 100 shares of MSFT, and you fear a fall in price, you may buy a PUT with a strike price at your threshold of pain. You might buy a $48 June MSFT Put because you fear the stock falling before June. If the stock does fall below the $48, you are guaranteed that somebody will buy yours at $48, limiting your loss. You will have paid a premium for this right (maybe $0.52/share for example). If the stock never gets down to $48 at the end of June, your option to sell is then worthless, as who would sell their stock at $48 when the market will pay you more? Owning a Put can be treated like owning insurance on the stock from a loss in stock price. Alternatively, if you think there is no way possible it will get down to $48 before the end of June, you may SELL a $48 MSFT June Put. HOWEVER, if the stock does dip down below $48, somebody will exercise their option and force you to buy their stock for $48. Imagine a scenario that MSFT drops to $30 on some drastically terrible news. While everybody else may buy the stock at $30, you are obligated to buy shares for $48. Not good! When you sold the option, somebody paid you a premium for buying that right from you. Often times you will always keep this premium. Sometimes though, you will have to buy a stock at a steep price compared to market. Now options strategies are combinations of buying and selling calls and puts on the same stock. Example -- I could buy a $52 MSFT June Call, and sell a $55 MSFT June Call. I would pay money for the $52 Call that I am long, and receive money for the $55 Call that I am short. The money I receive from the short $55 Call helps offset the cost of buying the $52 Call. If the stock were to go up, I would enjoy the profit within in $52-$55 range, essentially, maxing out my profit at $3/share - what the long/short call spread cost me. There are dozens of strategies of mixing and matching long and short calls and puts depending on what you expect the stock to do, and what you want to profit or protect yourself from. A derivative is any financial device that is derived from some other factor. Options are one of the most simple types of derivatives. The value of the option is derived from the real stock price. Bingo? That's a derivative. Lotto? That is also a derivative. Power companies buy weather derivatives to hedge their energy requirements. There are people selling derivatives based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Remember those calls and puts on stock prices? There are people that sell calls and puts based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Sounds kind of ridiculous -- but now imagine that you are a solar power company that gets \"\"free\"\" electricity from the sun and they sell that to their customers. On cloudy days, the solar power company is still on the hook to provide energy to their customers, but they must buy it from a more expensive source. If they own the \"\"Sunny Days in Omaha\"\" derivative, they can make money for every cloudy day over the annual average, thus, hedging their obligation for providing more expensive electricity on cloudy days. For that derivative to work, somebody in the derivative market puts a price on what he believes the odds are of too many cloudy days happening, and somebody who wants to protect his interests from an over abundance of cloudy days purchases this derivative. The energy company buying this derivative has a known cost for the cost of the derivative and works this into their business model. Knowing that they will be compensated for any excessive cloudy days allows them to stabilize their pricing and reduce their risk. The person selling the derivative profits if the number of sunny days is higher than average. The people selling these types of derivatives study the weather in order to make their offers appropriately. This particular example is a fictitious one (I don't believe there is a derivative called \"\"Sunny days in Omaha\"\"), but the concept is real, and the derivatives are based on anything from sunny days, to BLS unemployment statistics, to the apartment vacancy rate of NYC, to the cost of a gallon of milk in Maine. For every situation, somebody is looking to protect themselves from something, and somebody else believes they can profit from it. Now these examples are highly simplified, many derivatives are highly technical, comprised of multiple indicators as a part of its risk profile, and extremely difficult to explain. These things might sound ridiculous, but if you ran a lemonade stand in Omaha, that sunny days derivative just might be your best friend...\"",
"Buying the underlying asset will not completely hedge you, only what lies above 155 dollars (strike + price of option) - you still have the risk of losing everything but 5. You have a maximum earnings-potential of 55 dollars (strike of 150 - investment of 100 + option of 5) but you have a risk of losing 95$ (investment of 100 - option of 5). Say chance of winning everything or losing everything is 50-50, your expected outcome is 0.5 x -95 + 0.5 x 55 = -20$. Is this a great investment? Sure you don't know your odds - otherwise it would be a sure thing. You shouldn't sell the call option if you do not expect prices to go up - but in that case - why not just buy the underlying alone? Speculating in options is a dangerous game with infinite earnings-potential but also infinite loss potential. (Consider selling a call option and not buying the underlying and the price goes from 100 to 1.000.000.000).",
"Depends on your time scale, but generally, I don't think it would work. What you'd really be betting on in this case is mean-reversal, which does not hold true in the equity universe (atleast not in the long run). If you look at the historical prices of the S&P, you'll notice it increases in terms of absolute dollar value. On the short term, however, if you feel the market has significantly undervalued or overvalued a security, then mean-reversal might be a reasonable bet to make. In that scenario, however, it seems to me that you are really looking for a volatility trade, in which case you might want to consider a straddle position using options. Here, the bet you'd be making is that the price at expiration will be inside a certain band (or outside the band, depending on your position).",
"Well, arbitrage is a simple mean reversion strategy which states that any two similar commodity with some price difference (usually not much) will converge. So either you can bet on difference in prices in different exchanges or also you can bet on difference in futures value. For example if current price of stock is 14$ and if futures price is 10$. Then you can buy one futures contract and short one stock at the market price. This would lock in a profit of 4$ per share.",
"On expiry, with the underlying share price at $46, we have : You ask : How come they substract 600-100. Why ? Because you have sold the $45 call to open you position, you must now buy it back to close your position. This will cost you $100, so you are debited for $100 and this debit is being represented as a negative (subtracted); i.e., -$100 Because you have purchased the $40 call to open your position, you must now sell it to close your position. Upon selling this option you will receive $600, so you are credited with $600 and this credit is represented as a positive (added) ; i.e., +$600. Therefore, upon settlement, closing your position will get you $600-$100 = $500. This is the first point you are questioning. (However, you should also note that this is the value of the spread at settlement and it does not include the costs of opening the spread position, which are given as $200, so you net profit is $500-$200 = $300.) You then comment : I know I am selling 45 Call that means : As a writer: I want stock price to go down or stay at strike. As a buyer: I want stock price to go up. Here, note that for every penny that the underlying share price rises above $45, the money you will pay to buy back your short $45 call option will be offset by the money you will receive by selling the long $40 call option. Your $40 call option is covering the losses on your short $45 call option. No matter how high the underlying price settles above $45, you will receive the same $500 net credit on settlement. For example, if the underlying price settles at $50, then you will receive a credit of $1000 for selling your $40 call, but you will incur a debit of $500 against for buying back your short $45 call. The net being $500 = $1000-$500. This point is made in response to your comments posted under Dr. Jones answer.",
"Depends on the stock involved, but for the most part brokerages allow you gain entry at 50%, meaning you can short twice the cash on hand you have. Going forward, you need to maintain 30%, so on a $10,000 short, you'd have to maintain $3000 in your account. Example, an account with $5000 cash - You can short $10,000 securities. Let say 100 shares of xyz at $100 per share. After trade settles, you won't receive a margin call until your balance falls to $3000, probably right around the time xyz rises to $120 per share. Riskier stocks will have higher margin maintenance requirements - leveraged vehicles like FAS/FAZ (triple leveraged) require 90% margin (3x30%) if they are allowed to be 'shorted' at all.",
"Let's make a few assumptions: You have several ways of achieving (almost) that, in ascending complexity: Note that each alternative will have a cost which can be small (forwards, futures) or large (CFDs, debit) and the hedge will never be perfect, but you can get close. You will also need to decide whether you hedge the unrealised P&L on the position and at what frequency.",
"Short selling can be a good strategy to hedge, but you have almost unlimited downside. If a stock price skyrockets, you may be forced to cover your short by the brokerage before you want to or put up more capital. A smarter strategy to hedge, that limits your potential downside is to buy puts if you think the market is going down. Your downside is limited to the total amount that you purchased the put for and no more. Another way to hedge is to SELL calls that are covered because you own the shares the calls refer to. You might do this if you thought your stock was going to go down but you didn't want to sell your shares right now. That way the only downside if the price goes up is you give up your shares at a predetermined price and you miss out on the upside, but your downside is now diminished by the premium you were paid for the option. (You'd still lose money if the shares went down since you still own them, but you got paid the option premium so that helps offset that).",
"You have stumbled upon a classic trading strategy known as the carry trade. Theoretically you'd expect the exchange rate to move against you enough to make this a bad investment. In reality this doesn't happen (on average). There are even ETFs that automate the process for you (and get better transaction costs and lending/borrowing rates than you ever could): DBV and ICI.",
"\"Who are the losers going to be? If you can tell me for certain which firms will do worst in a bear market and can time it so that this information is not already priced into the market then you can make money. If not don't try. In a bull market stocks tend to act \"\"normally\"\" with established patterns such as correlations acting as expected and stocks more or less pricing to their fundamentals. In a bear market fear tends to overrule all of those things. You get large drops on relatively minor bad news and modest rallies on even the best news which results in stocks being undervalued against their fundamentals. In the crash itself it is quite easy to make money shorting. In an environment where stocks are undervalued, such as a bear market, you run the risk that your short, no matter how sure you are that the stock will fall, is seen as being undervalued and will rise. In fact your selling of a \"\"losing\"\" stock might cause it to hit levels where value investors already have limits set. This could bring a LOT of buyers into the market. Due to the fact that correlations break down creating portfolios with the correct risk level, which is what funds are required to do not only by their contracts but also by law to an extent, is extremely difficult. Risk management (keeping all kinds to within certain bounds) is one of the most difficult parts of a manager's job and is even difficult in abnormal market conditions. In the long run (definitions may vary) stock prices in general go up (for those companies who aren't bankrupted at least) so shorting in a bear market is not a long term strategy either and will not produce long term returns on capital. In addition to this risk you run the risk that your counterparty (such as Lehman brothers?) will file for bankruptcy and you won't be able to cover the position before the lender wants you to repay their stock to them landing you in even more problems.\"",
"\"I think what you really want to look into is put options. You can essentially replicate the same thing, without worrying about margin calls. Check out this site http://www.fundamentalfinance.com/options/options-basic-charts.php a quick glance seems to show it to be pretty good. The way you would limit downside risk is to buy a put option, allowing you to sell anytime within the next n months for the current price (assuming american). This will allow you to limit downside risk, however, potential profits do go down due to fees as another answer suggests this could be cost prohibitive. This type of strategy is also known as a \"\"protective put\"\". http://www.optionseducation.org/strategies_advanced_concepts/strategies/protective_put.html If you wanted to be more refined you could use Ak's bands, although you have to be looking for that specific outcome. Also due to complexity, this can become a taxing (in terms of time invested) and risky (if you are wrong) investment. Either way I think you need to study payoff curves a little more.\"",
"Opened Long - is when you open a long position. Long means that you buy to open the position, so you are trying to profit as the price rises. So if you were closing a long position you would sell it. Closed Short - is when you close out a short position. Short means that you sell to open and buy back to close. With a short position you are trying to profit as the price falls. Scaled Out - means you get out of a position in increments as the price climbs (for long positions). Scaled In - means you set a target price and then invest in increments as the stock falls below that price (for long positions).",
"Contrary to what other people said I believe that even without leverage you can lose more that you invest when you short a FX. Why? because the amount it can go down is alwasy limited to zero but it can, potentially, go up without limit. See This question for a mored detailed information.",
"\"Yeah. This shorting the box nonsense is an extremely expensive way to capture downside. If I just drop $1000 on a long-dated out-of-the-money put I have significantly more downside exposure for much much less than the [100 X $160 - (call premium)]. That's like 16 grand dude!!! It does keep you more delta neutral, but still, stupid way to go about it, especially if you are concerned about \"\"cheap\"\".\"",
"\"Bull means the investor is betting on a rising market. Puts are a type of stock option where the seller of a put option promises to buy 100 shares of stock from the buyer of the put option at a pre-agreed price called the strike price on any day before expiration day. The buyer of the put option does not have to sell (it is optional, thats why it is called buying an option). However, the seller of the put is required to make good on their promise to the buyer. The broker can require the seller of the put option to have a deposit, called margin, to help make sure that they can make good on the promise. Profit... The buyer can profit from the put option if the stock price moves down substantially. The buyer of the put option does not need to own the stock, he can sell the option to someone else. If the buyer of the put option also owns the stock, the put option can be thought of like an insurance policy on the value of the stock. The seller of the put option profits if the stock price stays the same or rises. Basically, the seller comes out best if they can sell put options that no one ends up using by expiration day. A spread is an investment consisting of buying one option and selling another. Let's put bull and put and spread together with an example from Apple. So, if you believed Apple Inc. AAPL (currently 595.32) was going up or staying the same through JAN you could sell the 600 JAN put and buy the 550 put. If the price rises beyond 600, your profit would be the difference in price of the puts. Let's explore this a little deeper (prices from google finance 31 Oct 2012): Worst Case: AAPL drops below 550. The bull put spread investor owes (600-550)x100 shares = $5000 in JAN but received $2,035 for taking this risk. EDIT 2016: The \"\"worst case\"\" was the outcome in this example, the AAPL stock price on options expiry Jan 18, 2013 was about $500/share. Net profit = $2,035 - $5,000 = -$2965 = LOSS of $2965 Best Case: AAPL stays above 600 on expiration day in JAN. Net Profit = $2,035 - 0 = $2035 Break Even: If AAPL drops to 579.65, the value of the 600 JAN AAPL put sold will equal the $2,035 collected and the bull put spread investor will break even. Commissions have been ignored in this example.\"",
"I think you may be confused on terminology here. Financial leverage is debt that you have taken on, in order to invest. It increases your returns, because it allows you to invest with more money than what you actually own. Example: If a $1,000 mutual fund investment returns $60 [6%], then you could also take on $1,000 of debt at 3% interest, and earn $120 from both mutual fund investments, paying $30 in interest, leaving you with a net $90 [9% of your initial $1,000]. However, if the mutual fund 'takes a nose dive', and loses money, you still need to pay the $30 interest. In this way, using financial leverage actually increases your risk. It may provide higher returns, but you have the risk of losing more than just your initial principle amount. In the example above, imagine if the mutual fund you owned collapsed, and was worth nothing. Now, you would have lost $1,000 from the money you invested in the first place, and you would also still owe $1,000 to the bank. The key take away is that 'no risk' and 'high returns' do not go together. Safe returns right now are hovering around 0% interest rates. If you ever feel you have concocted a mix of options that leaves you with no risk and high returns, check your math again. As an addendum, if instead what you plan on doing is investing, say, 90% of your money in safe(r) money-market type funds, and 10% in the stock market, then this is a good way to reduce your risk. However, it also reduces your returns, as only a small portion of your portfolio will realize the (typically higher) gains of the stock market. Once again, being safer with your investments leads to less return. That is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact investing some part of your portfolio in interest-earning low risk investments is often advised. 99% is basically the same as 100%, however, so you almost don't benefit at all by investing that 1% in the stock market."
] |
[
"There is no difference. When dealing with short positions, talking about percentages become very tricky since they no longer add up to 100%. What does the 50% in your example mean? Unless there's some base amount (like total amount of the portfolio, then the percentages are meaningless. What matters when dealing with long and short positions is the net total - meaning if you are long 100 shares on one stock trade and short 50 shares on another, then you are net long 50 shares.",
"If you mean the percentages of long/short positions within a mutual fund or ETF, then it's a percentage of the total value of the fund portfolio. In that case, positions of 50% in X, -50% in Y are not the same as 100% in X, -100% in Y. If the long and short positions are both for the same asset, then, as D Stanley mentions, all that matters is the net position. If you're equally long and short X, then the net position is always 0%.",
"\"When portfolio positions are reported in percentages, those percentages are relative to the portfolio's base equity. When you start out, that is equal to the cash you have in a portfolio. Later it's the net equity of the portfolio (i.e., how much money you could withdraw if you were to exit all your positions). If you put $5,000 into your account and are long and short 50%, then you are long $2,500 and short $2,500. If it's 100% and -100%, then long and short $5,000. \"\"Leverage\"\" is often computed gross (as if all positions were long). So if you have 100% and -100%, then your broker may say you are \"\"levered 2 to 1.\"\" That is, your gross exposure is twice as large as your underlying base equity.\""
] |
1230
|
How does Walmart account their expired food
|
[
"191649"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"191649",
"423163",
"131131",
"118083",
"25250",
"153520",
"226519",
"567849",
"135073",
"513362",
"380548",
"66198",
"183500",
"434619",
"209997",
"444145",
"207704",
"539511",
"440893",
"53225",
"348315",
"59819",
"351123",
"107584",
"327263",
"414454",
"216456",
"142201",
"140977",
"176627",
"4794",
"119857",
"470928",
"185508",
"33949",
"366830",
"120410",
"478295",
"33117",
"37306",
"8200",
"482464",
"212312",
"272709",
"570860",
"19789",
"15606",
"479985",
"62967",
"26790",
"378484",
"481537",
"107794",
"259728",
"465802",
"242516",
"546509",
"130200",
"202457",
"178521",
"69800",
"574840",
"489539",
"174714",
"276009",
"468141",
"480732",
"109754",
"481070",
"499454",
"30316",
"176090",
"428318",
"17127",
"78584",
"268339",
"282002",
"399199",
"299971",
"362060",
"261415",
"475955",
"424272",
"193529",
"256833",
"82199",
"517836",
"319560",
"211122",
"287243",
"271436",
"499889",
"565607",
"246461",
"106265",
"387578",
"263701",
"591079",
"152407",
"331981"
] |
[
"\"Any business, like any household, has items that are wasted. Unlike a household, a business does keep track of all items that are unsellable. Depending on the reason for the item being unsellable they are accounted for differently. Items that can be returned to the manufacturer are done so, and the business is given credit for that item. For the business the time spent processing, stocking and restocking that item, plus any time spent handling a return for that customer is harder to track. If they see the percentage of bad items is too large compared to sales they will want to address this with the manufacturer. Items that are spoiled by the business, which will include spoiled food items, will also be tracked. They will examine their choice of products, their procedures for those products and the quantities produced to try an minimize the spoilage. They don't just throw the items away, they keep track of the exact items and their worth. When they have to dispose of meat that has reached their \"\"sell by\"\" date they will actually scan the items into the computer. In some cases products can be transformed into other products: bread into bread pudding; in other situations they are \"\"reduced for quick sale\"\"; in other cases they are donated to a charity or food kitchen. All of this is also tracked. Of course any losses that the company can't recover by returning items to manufactures or repurposing will be reflected in the price of their items. Stores that can minimize their waste can offer lower prices.\"",
"Judgement, settlement, insurance proceeds, etc etc. These would probably be recorded as a negative expense in the same category where the original expense was recorded.",
"A rather good IRS paper on the topic states that a donation of a business' in-kind inventory would be Under IRC 170(e)(1), however, the fair market value must be reduced by the amount of gain that would not be long-term capital gain if the property had been sold by the donor at the property's fair market value (determined at the time of the contribution). Under this rule, deductions for donated inventory are limited to the property's basis (generally its cost), where the fair market value exceeds the basis. There are references to IRC regulations in a narrative context you may find helpful: This paper goes on for 16 pages describing detailed exceptions and the political reasons for the exceptions (most of which are concerned with encouraging the donation of prepared food from restaurants/caterers to hunger charities by guaranteeing a value for something that would otherwise be trashed valueless); and a worked out example of fur coats that had a cost of goods of $200 and a market value of $1000.",
"\"A simple way to account debt forgiveness of your receivables is to utilize a \"\"Bad Debt\"\" expense account. Take the following two examples: If you are only forgiving a portion of the principle, another popular term used is Principle Reduction as the expense account.\"",
"This is actually a HUGE source of profits for whole foods. The battered fruit and veggies you don't want or the rotisserie chicken that's been on the warmer 30 minutes longer than you like? Goes right into their prepared foods and cut fruit sections and marked way the fuck up.",
"Assuming that it's not inventory that is sold in the following year or a depreciable asset, you can deduct it when you make the purchase. The courts have ruled that credit cards balances are considered debt. It's treated the same way as if you went to the bank, got a loan, and used cash or a check to purchase the items. On your accounting books, you would debit the expense account and credit the credit card liability account. This is only for credit cards, which are considered loans. If you use a store charge card, then you cannot deduct it until you pay. Those are considered accounts payable. I'm an IRS agent and a CPA.",
"I would take each of these items and any others and consider how you would count it as an expense in the other direction. If you have an account for parking expenses or general transportation funds, credit that account for a refund on your parking. If you have an account for expenses on technology purchases, you would credit that account if you sell a piece of equipment as you replace it with an upgrade. If you lost money (perhaps in a jacket) how would you account for the cash that is lost? Whatever account would would subtract from put a credit for cash found.",
"\"If by \"\"loss on the sale\"\" you mean \"\"an expense\"\", then yes that is fine. Say you sell a $20 game on Steam (30% is very common on markets like Steam, Google Play Store, iTunes Store, etc...), then you would report: Side note: 30% is actually not that bad. For a product I helped bring into a few retail store chains, they are effectively taking closer to 40%, though retail can vary depending on several factors.\"",
"Once the business is shut down, you'll need to show that the corporation is in bankruptcy and the amounts are unrecoverable. You can then report it as investment loss. I suggest talking to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State), and maybe an attorney, on what the specific technical details are.",
"Yes, the business can count that as an expense but you will need to count that as income because a computer = money.",
"I would put it under advertising. Technically the domain name should be amortized over its useful life... you can't really expense it all in the first year, unless it fits within Section 179.",
"The money is still their money, it never becomes your money. The reason is as follows, The books now look like this: YOU: Asset: Mattress Liability: 600 THEM: Asset: 600 Liability: Mattress Now, in their books, they mistakenly thought the mattress was returned, and therefore they returned the mattress to you. The books now look like this YOU: Asset: Mattress Liability: 600 THEM: Asset: Mattress (incorrect) Liability: 0 As you see, their books are wrong, but yours are still correct. According to your books, you owe them $600, which you paid, but then they paid you back. You still have the liability. Why not just depreciate the mattress by 50% over two years? Then there will be no liability on your books.",
"Generally prepaid services should be capitalized over the period prepaid. But if it is up to a year - you can just expense them. As to the technicalities - you can contact Intuit support, but you should be able to put it in the same area where you put all your other business expenses. If you're a sole proprietor - that would be Schedule C.",
"If a business incurs expenses in the process of its trading, generally those expenses are deductible. Disposing of waste is generally held to be a deductible expense.",
"For the purpose of personal finance, treating $500 as Interest Expense is sufficient. For business accounting, it involves making the $500 a contra-liability and amortizing it as interest expense over the course of life of the loan.",
"You recognize expense when you sell the hot dog. When you pay for the buns you have inventory, which is an asset. When you sell the hot dog - you have cost of goods sold, which is the expense. Expense principle says that you recognize expense when you use the product. You use the buns when you actually sell the hot dog, not before. The matching principle is also honored because you recognize expense of the buns at the time of recognizing revenue of the hot dog.",
"Generally, to be able to write off worthless securities, you need to show that they're indeed worthless. It's not necessarily easy, as you need to prove that there's no way they will regain any value in the future. What is usually done, instead, is very simple: you sell them. Many brokers are aware of this problem and will assist by buying these securities from you at a nominal price (E*Trade, for example, for $0.01, ScotTrade for $0.00), and providing a proper trade confirmation. This is a bona fide sale, so if the stock does regain value - it will be a profit for the broker. In this case - you just report it as a sale at loss. Check with your broker if they support such a solution.",
"If your business pays taxes, it is in your best interest to expense it. Even if you don't pay taxes, setting your capitalization policy low enough to capitalize an office organizer (even a nice one) will give you headaches when your business grows larger.",
"In an accounting position, a domain name would fall under an intangible asset. Copyrights and patents are intangible, while tangible assets would be buildings or land (also known as property, plant, and equipment). Noting above, you can list it as an expense for personal reasons, but that would be poor classification. Tangible and intangible assets come with expenses such as legal fees and design. In these instances, you would expense the cost, or fee, but add back that value to the tangible or intangible as it would be considered maintenance. Please read here for tax treatment of a domain name. Please read here for what an intangible asset is. Also read here on page 11 for more clarification by IFRS.",
"One approach would be to create Journal Entries that debit asset accounts that are associated with these items and credit an Open Balance Equity account. The value of these contributions would have to be worked out with an accountant, as it depends on the lesser of the adjusted basis vs. the fair market value, as you then depreciate the amounts over time to take the depreciation as a business expense, and it adjusts your basis in the company (to calculate capital gains/losses when you sell). If there were multiple partners, or your accountant wants it this way, you could then debit open balance equity and credit the owner's contribution to a capital account in your name that represents your basis when you sell. From a pure accounting perspective, if the Open Balance Equity account would zero out, you could just skip it and directly credit the capital accounts, but I prefer the Open Balance Equity as it helps know the percentages of initial equity which may influence partner ownership percentages and identify anyone who needs to contribute more to the partnership.",
"The £500 are an expense associated with the loan, just like interest. You should have an expense account where you can put such financing expenses (or should create a new one). Again, treat it the same way you'll treat interest charges in future statements.",
"The CPA's mention of $2,500 is probably referring to the recently increased de minimis safe harbor under the final tangible property regulations (used to be $500) without an applicable financial statement. The IRS will not challenge your choice of expense or capitalization on amounts on or below $2500 if you elect the de minimis safe harbor election on your return. However, you must follow whatever you're doing for your books. (So if you are capitalizing your laptops for book purposes, you would also need to capitalize for tax purposes). Section 179 allows you to expense property that you would have otherwise have had to capitalize and depreciate. Section 179 can be annoying, especially if your LLC is treated as a passthrough, because there are recapture provisions when you dispose of the asset too early. For the tax return preparer, it makes the return preparation much more simple if there are no fixed assets to account for in the first place, which is quite possible if you are expensive all items/invoices less than $2,500.",
"According to the gnucash guide, losses are recorded as negative transactions against Income:Capital Gains. I've followed this model in the past when dealing with stocks and commodities. If on the other hand, you're talking about an asset which could normally follow a depreciation schedule, you might want to look at the section in the business guide dealing with asset depreciation.",
"or just input it in my accounting software along with receipts, and then when I'm doing taxes this would go under the investment or loses (is it somewhere along that line)? Yes, this. Generally, for the long term you should have a separate bank account and charge card for your business. I started my business (LLC) by filing online, and paying a fee for a registration, and that makes it a business cost right? Startup cost. There are special rules about this. Talk to your tax adviser. For the amounts in question you could probably expense it, but verify.",
"First of all, Dilip's answer explains well how the business deductions generally work. For most (big) expenses you depreciate it. However, in some cases you need to capitalize it, which is another accounting method. When you capitalize your expense, it becomes part of the basis of the product you're creating. Since you're an engineer, this might be relevant for you. Talk to your tax adviser. How exactly you deduct/depreciate/capitalize things, and what expense goes which way depends greatly on the laws and jurisdictions. Even in the US, different states have different laws, and the IRS and State laws don't have to conform (unfortunately). For example, the limitations on Sec. 179 deduction in 2010-2011 were 20 times higher on Federal level than in the State of California. This could have lead to cases where you fully deducted your expense on your Federal tax return, but need to continue and depreciate it on your State return (or vice versa). Good tax adviser is crucial to avoid or manage these cases.",
"\"If it's fully expensed, it has zero basis. Any sale is taxable, 100%. To the ordinary income / cap gain issue raised in comment - It's a cap gain, but I believe, as with real estate, special rates apply. This is where I am out of my area of expertise, and as they say - \"\"Consult a professional.\"\"\"",
"Assets with zero value, perhaps. Unless you can prove that they have resale value. Good luck with that. In other words, not worth spending time on.",
"IRS Pub 561 says you have to use fair market value. You cannot simply use a depreciated value. You should attempt to determine what people normally pay for comparable items, and be prepared to defend your determination with evidence in the event of an audit.",
"Yes, legitimate, documented, expenses are written off against that income.",
"Expense accounts are closed into equity. Same with revenue. So an increase in an expense means lower equity (lower retained earnings since there is more expense). Ergo, decrease equity and increase a liability. Increase a liability since it was accrued, which is usually used specifically to refer to things that kind of just happen in the background. Aka the firm most likely didn't pay cash for that right then and there so increase a payable.",
"Yes When exercising a stock option you will be buying the stock at the strike price so you will be putting up your money, if you lose that money you can declare it as a loss like any other transaction. So if the stock is worth $1 and you have 10 options with a strike at $0.50 you will spend $500 when you exercise your options. If you hold those shares and the company is then worth $0 you lost $500. I have not verified my answer so this is solely from my understanding of accounting and finance. Please verify with your accountant to be sure.",
"I cannot imagine an organizer being worth enough to consider depreciating the expense over a period of time greater than one year. Also, once you write in an organizer, it's pretty much worthless to anyone else. Talk to your accountant if you'd like, but I cannot see how you would classify a fancy organizer as a fixed asset.",
"\"There is no \"\"standard\"\" way for personal accounting. However, GNUCash default accounts set includes \"\"Expense: Adjustment\"\". It is usually used by the community for reconciliation of unknown small money lost.\"",
"Additionally, is grocery even a major profit center for Wal-Mart? It wasn't even a major feature of their stores 15+ years ago IIRC. I guess it has decent halo effects today, but I'd be surprised if they wouldn't be fine treating it like a loss leader as well.",
"Started as pt at a grocery store. Will never get used to throwing all that good meat out. Still has 2 days but there's fresher stock in back. It seems having bold and full shelves is the reason. They throw out food to have that clean magazine photo look of a store.",
"First, you should probably have a proper consultation with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). In fact you should have had it before you started, but that ship has sailed. You're talking about start-up expenses. You can generally deduct up to $5000 in the year your business starts, and the expenses in excess will be amortized over 180 months (15 years). This is per the IRC Sec. 195. The amortization starts when your business is active (i.e.: you can buy the property, but not actually open the restaurant - you cannot start the depreciation). I have a couple questions about accounting - should all the money I spent be a part of capital spending? Or is it just a part of it? If it qualifies as start-up/organizational expenses - it should be capitalized. If it is spent on capital assets - then it should also be capitalized, but for different reasons and differently. For example, costs of filing paperwork for permits is a start-up expense. Buying a commercial oven is a capital asset purchase which should be depreciated separately, as buying the tables and silverware. If it is a salary expense to your employees - then it is a current expense and shouldn't be capitalized. Our company is LLC if this matters. It matters to how it affects your personal tax return.",
"If it is more convenient for you - sure, go ahead and create another account. Generally, when you give someone a check - the money is no longer yours. So according to the constructive receipt doctrine, you've paid, whether the check was cashed or not. The QB is reflecting the correct matter of things. It doesn't matter that you're cash-based, the money still laying on your account because you gave someone a check that hasn't been cashed - is not your money and shouldn't be reflected in your books as such.",
"Walmart has really retarded rules already. If your truck is late 5 mins, you need to wait 24 hours to get de-loaded. And on top of that, they take in the worst produce available. What every other grocery store rejects, they take.",
"If this was a public corporation (stock) and the investment was made in a non-registered account, then you can claim a capital loss. Capital losses are claimed against capital gains (not income), and can be carried back 3 years or carried forward indefinitely. Here's an article I've written on how to claim capital losses that may help.",
"\"I used Quicken, so this may or may not be helpful. I have a Cash account that I call \"\"Temporary Assets and Liabilities\"\" where I track money that I am owed (or that I owe in some cases). So if I pay for something that is really not my expense, it is transferred to this account (\"\"transferred\"\" in Quicken terms). The payment is then not treated as an expense and the reimbursement is not treated as income--the two transactions just balance out.\"",
"Capital is an Asset. Decreasing value of capital is the decreasing value of an asset. When you buy the forex asset * DR Forex Asset * CR Cash When you sell * DR Cash * CR Forex Asset The difference is now accounted for Here is how: Gains (and losses) are modifications to your financial position (Balance sheet). At the end of the period you take your financial performance (Profit and Loss) and put it into your balance sheet under equity. Meaning that afterwards your balance sheet is better or worse off (Because you made more money = more cash or lost it, whatever). You are wanting to make an income account to reflect the forex revaluation so at the end of the period it is reflected in profit then pushed into your balance sheet. Capital gains directly affect your balance sheet because they increase/decrease your cash and your asset in the journal entry itself (When you buy and sell it). If making money this way is actually how you make you make an income it is possible to make an account for it. If you do this you periodically revalue the asset and write off the changes to the revaluation account. You would do something like *DR Asset *CR Forex Revaluation account; depending on the method you take. Businesses mostly do this because if the capital gains are their line of business they will be taxed on it like it is income. For simplicity just account for it when you buy and sell the assets (Because you as an individual will only recognise a profit/loss when you enter and exit). Its easier to think about income and expenses are extensions of equity. Income increases your equity, expenses decrease it. This is how they relate to the accounting formula (Assets = Liabilities + Owners Equity)",
"I'll give the credit to @Quid in the comments section of the question. You put out $10k, you got back $20k, that's a cash gain of $10k, how the asset was valued between your purchase and sale isn't relevant. From an accounting perspective, the company is the only party that is realizing the loss (as they have sold the asset for 40K less than par). You the buyer, only get to see the initial buy and sale of such capital asset. Example: A company purchases a car for $20,000 and after depreciation it is worth (book valued at) $2,000. It is then sold to a customer for $3,000. Does the customer realize a loss of $1,000? No. Does the company realize a gain of $1,000? Yes. Your bank analogy is flawed in two ways:",
"Generally speaking, if a business loses money for whatever reason, then that reduces the profits of the business which reduces the tax payable. However if you were holding the assets on a personal basis prior to incorporating the business, the position may become more complicated. For that kind of money some professional advice may be worthwhile.",
"Most items used in business have to be depreciated; you get to deduct a small fraction of the cost each year depending on the lifetime of the item as per IRS rules. That is, you cannot assume a one-year life for an electronic item even if it will be obsolete in three months. Some items can be expensed; you get to deduct the entire cost in the first year but then if you don't stay in business, e.g. you get a job paying wages and are no longer self-employed, you have to recapture this and pay taxes on the amount recaptured in the later year. With respect to consumer-type electronics such as an iPad or laptop, it helps to have a separate item for personal use that you can show in case of an audit.",
"Generally loan goes against an asset, in your case though it appear that you don't have any fixed assets related to this loan. So it seems like you got a cash loan (current asset/checking account?) which you spent (expenses). Since you're doing it retroactively, you'll probably just put totals in the expenses without detailing them.",
"Australian Goods and Services Tax is charged on the sale amount. Whatever internal accounting you do before billing the customer is of no interest to the Australian Tax Office.",
"You are not the person or entity against whom the crime was committed, so the Casualty Loss (theft) deduction doesn't apply here. You should report this as a Capital Loss, the same way all of the Enron shareholders did in their 2001 tax returns. Your cost basis is whatever you originally paid for the shares. The final value is presumably zero. You can declare a maximum capital loss of $3000, so if your net capital loss for the year is greater than that, you'll have to carry over the remainder to the following years. IRS publication 547 states: Decline in market value of stock. You can't deduct as a theft loss the decline in market value of stock acquired on the open market for investment if the decline is caused by disclosure of accounting fraud or other illegal misconduct by the officers or directors of the corporation that issued the stock. However, you can deduct as a capital loss the loss you sustain when you sell or exchange the stock or the stock becomes completely worthless. You report a capital loss on Schedule D (Form 1040). For more information about stock sales, worthless stock, and capital losses, see chapter 4 of Pub. 550.",
"Not sure I understand your question. If you're talking about paying off the payable, you decrease the liability and decrease an asset. Aka when you actually pay the wages, decrease cash and decrease wages payable. If you're talking about closing expense accounts, you simply credit the expense to zero and debit retained earnings for the same amount (which will reduce RE since RE is equity and has a normal credit balance). If you're talking about accruing revenue, you simply do the opposite of an expense. If revenue is accrued, then you credit a revenue account (increase it) and increase cash or acc receivable. If you're closing a revenue account, you debit the account to zero and credit Retained Earnings or Income Summary (which eventually gets closed into RE anyways). The sum of these revenues and expenses will leave you either with a debit or credit balance in RE. A credit balance means you have a profit and a debit balance means you have a loss. Other expenses like sales tax and other expenses excluding COGS might also be taken directly from RE or identified at the time of sale and held in its own separate account. But I'm not sure if this will answer your question since I'm not sure what you're asking.",
"\"Normally these are only generated upon an acquisition. When you acquire a business, all the tangible and intangible assets are market to \"\"fair value\"\", with goodwill as the plug to total to the actual purchase price. So the cash out the door is the purchase price. Then the asset is amortized. In the normal course you wouldn't create the intangible - the sales people salary would just be an expense.\"",
"If I sell it for $50 can I write off the $50 loss. Only if you can establish that it is a normal part of your business and that you did not get $50 worth of use out of it. That's the technical, legal argument. As a practical matter, it's unlikely that they'll ding you for selling something after using it, as they won't know. If they did catch you, you would be in trouble. You can't deduct loss due to personal use. The larger problem is that if you sell one TV for a $50 loss, they aren't going to believe that you are in the business of selling TVs. If you sell a larger amount for a loss, then they still are unlikely to believe that you are in business. If you sell a large amount for an overall gain, they are unlikely to notice that you took a loss on one TV. They could only notice that if they were already auditing you, as that wouldn't be visible in your tax forms.",
"To quote the answer you linked to: Perhaps the simplest way to think about this is you can only deduct an expense that you actually incur. In other words, the expense should show up on a bank or CC statement. So, if your business purchased the $1000 gift card for $800, you should see a $800 charge appearing on a business CC or bank statement. You would therefore be able to deduct the $800, but not the full $1000 of items that you purchase with it. Side Notes:",
"It doesn't go on Schedule E at all, it goes on form 4797. The fridge should have been depreciated, over 5 years. If you sold it after 5 years, all the proceeds are taxable income taxed as depreciation recapture (25% rate) up to the allowable depreciation (your original cost basis), above which it is taxable capital gain. Whether you actually have depreciated it or not, it is really your problem, IRS doesn't care. So if 5 years of ownership passed - just write it all as taxable income on the form 4797. Otherwise, allowable depreciation prorated (and you can still amend forms 3 years back to get at least part of it). The new fridge should also be depreciated over the 5 years of its expected useful life. See form 4562. Talk to a licensed tax professional (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for details.",
"If a business tool has a limited lifespan, it's value decreases (depreciates) from year to year. The business can capture that loss of value on some things that it couldn't otherwise write off as expenses. A few tools can be either expenses or depreciated, but only one of those can be chosen for that particular object. This is generally not relevant for individual taxpayers, unless you can show that the item is being used for income-producing purposes.",
"\"$500, this is called \"\"cash basis\"\" accounting. A large company might handle it otherwise, counting shipments/billings as revenue. Not you. Yet.\"",
"Purchase accounting requires that you mark assets, including PP&E to fair value. So let's say you bought a machine 5 years ago for $1,000 - you might have depreciated it to $250 on your balance sheet but it might actually be worth $900.",
"Here is how your CEO has to see it. Of course, eventually most revenues are generated by IT systems but technically IT still is an expense only activity unless of course you are selling the software/services offered by it. According to the US GAAP, software development costs are capitalized when a firm develops a software for its own use (e.g., nice shiny UI show bank's VaR, algorithmic trading engines, internal security infrastructure etc.). When the software is developed for sale, all the costs are expensed as incurred until the technical feasibility is established after which the costs are capitalized. The income is realized when licenses to use the software or the services provided by it are sold. According to international standards, the treatment for both the use cases shown above is the same --all the costs are expensed as incurred until the technical feasibility is established after which the costs are capitalized. The income is realized when licenses to use the software or the services provided by it are sold.",
"Costs for home / small business equipment under US$10,000 don't have to be capitalized. They can be expensed (that is, claimed as an expense all in one year.) Unless this printer is one of those behemoths that collates, folds, staples, and mails medium-sized booklets, it cost less than that. Keep track of your costs. Ask the charity to pay you those costs for the product you generate, and then donate that amount of money back to them. This will be good for the charity because they'll correctly account for the cost of printing.",
"gross profits 2011 31 billion http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_(WMT)/Data/Gross_Profit/2011/Q1 Net income 16.99 income http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_(WMT)/Data/Net_Income/2011 The simple truth is that companies that post these sort of net profits are basically off loading the cost of their labor onto the taxpayer by paying a non-livable wage. And we let them. Americans need to remember why they unionized a hundred years ago and grow some balls again. Corps are able to do shit like this only because we (the people) let them.",
"It is likely the policy of the credit card company. If you are running a business, you should factor in theft as part of your mark-up/margin. Every major business accounts for theft within their business practices and accounting. That way they are covered for instances like yours. If you have not been accounting for theft, then I'd highly recommend it. This might be an expensive learning lesson for your family business. Either implement new procedures such as checking ID with credit cards to match the names, or factor in theft/loss of product into your margins. Ideally, do both.",
"\"I dug up an old article on Motley Fool and one approach they mention is to get the stock certificates and then sell them to a friend: If the company was liquidated, you should receive a 1099-DIV form at year's end showing a liquidating distribution. Treat this as if you sold the stock for the amount of the distribution. The date of \"\"sale\"\" is the date that the distribution took place. Using your original cost basis in the shares, you can now compute your loss. If the company hasn't actually been liquidated, you'll need to make sure it's totally worthless before you claim a loss. If you have worthless stock that's not worth the hassle of selling through your broker, you can sell it to a friend (or cousin, aunt, or uncle) for pennies. (However, you can't sell the stock to a spouse, siblings, parents, grandparents, or lineal descendants.) Here's one way to do it: Send the certificate to your stock-transfer agent. Explain that the shares have been sold, and ask to cancel the old shares and issue a new certificate to the new owner. Some brokerages will offer you a quicker alternative, by buying all of your shares of the stock for a penny. They do it to help out their customers; in addition, over time, some of the shares may actually become worth more than the penny the brokers paid for them. By selling the shares, you have a closed transaction with the stock and can declare a tax loss. Meanwhile, your friend, relative, or broker, for a pittance, has just bought a placemat or birdcage liner.\"",
"\"I'm no accountant, but I think the way I'd want to approach this kind of thing in Gnucash would be to track it as an Asset, since it is. It sounds like your actual concern is that your tracked asset value isn't reflecting its current \"\"market\"\" value. Presumably because it's risky it's also illiquid, so you're not sure how much value it should have on your books. Your approach suggested here of having it as just as expense gives it a 0 value as an asset, but without tracking that there's something that you own. The two main approaches to tracking an investment in Gnucash are: Of course, both of these approaches do assume that you have some notion of your investment's \"\"current value\"\", which is what you're tracking. As the section on Estimating Valuation of the concepts guide says of valuing illiquid assets, \"\"There is no hard rule on this, and in fact different accountants may prefer to do this differently.\"\" If you really think that the investment isn't worth anything at the moment, then I suppose you should track it at 0, but presumably you think it's worth something or you wouldn't have bought it, right? Even if it's just for your personal records, part of a regular (maybe annual?) review of your investments should include coming up with what you currently value that investment at (perhaps your best guess of what you could sell it for, assuming that you could find a willing buyer), and updating your records accordingly. Of course, if you need a valuation for a bank or for tax purposes or the like, they have more specific rules about how they are tracking what things are worth, but presumably you're trying to track your personal assets for your own reasons to get a handle on what you currently own. So, do that! Take the time to get a handle on the worth of what you currently own. And don't worry about getting the value wrong, just take your best guess, since you can always update it later when you learn new information about what your investment is worth.\"",
"Are you sure these farmers sell straight to wall mart? There are always companies involved between big farms and grocery stores. They deliver the freshest produce to the higher end grocery stores first because they will pay more for it. If a particular batch is going bad or doesn't pass inspection, the only companies that take it are Walmart and juice companies, speaking from experience (family business). Once a batch has gone bad you lose all value and you don't get paid, no insurance even.",
"If your mortgage is an interest only one then the full amount of the payment you make should be to an expense account perhaps called mortgage interest. If the mortgage is a repayment mortgage you need to split the amount of the payment between such an expense account called mortgage interest and between a liability account which is the amount of the loan. In practice I have not found it very easy to do all this as the actual amounts vary depending on number of days in the month and then there are occasional charges etc made by the mortgage company so some approximations seem to be needed unless one is to spend hours trying to get it exactly correct...... Steve",
"\"When you pay the flight, hotel, conference attendance fees of $100: When you repay the credit card debt of $100: When you receive the gross salary of $5000: Your final balance sheet will show: Your final income statement will show: Under this method, your \"\"Salary\"\" account will show the salary net of business expense. The drawback is that the $4900 does not agree with your official documentation. For tax reporting purposes, you report $5000 to the tax agency, and if possible, report the $100 as Unreimbursed Employee Expenses (you weren't officially reimbursed). For more details see IRS Publication 529.\"",
"It's better to use the accounting equation concept: Asset + Expenses = Capital + Liabilities + Income If you purchase an asset: Suppose you purchased a laptop of $ 500, then its journal will be: If you sell the same Laptop for $ 500, then its entry will be:",
"To understand the answer we first have to understand what Goodwill is. Goodwill in a companies balance sheet is an intangible asset that represents the extra value because of a strong brand name, good customer relations, good employee relations and any patents or proprietary technology. An article from The Economist explains this very well and actually talks about Time Warner directly - The goodwill, the bad and the ugly When one firm buys another, the target’s goodwill—essentially the premium paid over its book value—is added to the combined entity’s balance-sheet. Goodwill and other intangibles on the books of companies in the S&P 500 are valued at $2.6 trillion, or 10% of their total assets, according to analysts at Goldman Sachs. As the economy deteriorates and more firms trade down towards (or even below) their book value, empire-builders are having to mark down the value of assets they splashed out on in rosier times. A recently announced $25 billion goodwill charge is expected to push Time Warner into an operating loss for 2008, for instance. Michael Moran of Goldman Sachs thinks such hits could amount to $200 billion or more over the cycle. Investors have so far paid little attention to intangibles, but as write-downs proliferate they are likely to become increasingly wary of industries with a high ratio of goodwill to assets, such as health care, consumer goods and telecoms. How bad things get will depend on the beancounters. American firms used to be allowed to amortise goodwill over many years. Since 2002, when an accounting-rule change ended that practice, goodwill has had to be tested every year for impairment. In this stormy environment, with auditors keener than ever to avoid being seen to go easy on clients, companies are being told to mark down assets if there is any doubt about their value. The sanguine point out that this has no effect on cashflow, since such charges are non-cash items. Moreover, some investors take goodwill write-offs with a pinch of salt, preferring to look past such non-recurring costs and accept the higher “normalised” earnings numbers to which managers understandably cling. The largest companies are thus able to survive thumping blows that might otherwise floor them, such as the $99 billion loss that the newly formed but ill-conceived AOL Time Warner, as it then was, reported for 2002. But the impact can be all too real, as write-downs reduce overall book value and increase leverage ratios, a particular concern in these debt-averse times.",
"That's true, I concede that point. It wasn't the case in my case study, and I don't think it's the case with these gift cards, but I could be wrong, since I'm not an accountant, and I don't even have my Masters in Finance yet.",
"Expensing a transfer of funds is incorrect. That will affect the Profit/Loss (Income) statement when you transfer it out and back in, which you do not want, at least for the principle. The interest should be recorded as a interest income. The general way to account for transferring money is to credit the originating account, and debit the destination account. This will only affect the balance sheet accounts. For example: Transferring (buying) 10,000 worth of fix term bank deposits Interest is paid: The bank deposit reaches maturity, so the principle is returned, with the final interest payment. The accounts Checking account and Fixed term bank deposit are asset accounts, which show up on the balance sheet. The Interest income is an income account, which will show up in the income statement. This is how a fixed term/CD is usually recorded. In certain cases, where the business must follow an accounting standard, this may very well be insufficient, but this situation will be unlikely if it's a small private sports club. Having said that, double check to make sure what you've stated is indeed correct, and look back into the past entries to see how it was dealt with before, especially since you said this bookkeeping job is temporary. I would strongly advise against changing non-recent entries, even if they are incorrect. For the insurance payments, that would depend on how the damaged assets were accounted for. It's a little hard to say without more detail-- the extent of the damage, how the diminished value was accounted for in the books, the cost of repair materials, etc.",
"An expired option is a stand-alone event, sold at $X, with a bought at $0 on the expiration date. The way you phrased the question is ambiguous, as 'decrease toward zero' is not quite the same as expiring worthless, you'd need to buy it at the near-zero price to then sell another covered call at a lower strike. Edit - If you entered the covered call sale properly, you find that an in-the-money option results in a sale of the shares at expiration. When entered incorrectly, there are two possibilities, the broker buys the option back at the market close, or you wake up Sunday morning (the options 'paperwork' clears on Saturday after expiration) finding yourself owning a short position, right next to the long. A call, and perhaps a fee, are required to zero it out. As you describe it, there are still two transactions to report, the option at $50 strike that you bought and sold, the other a stock transaction that has a sale price of the strike plus option premium collected.",
"It depends on whether or not you are referring to realized or unrealized gains. If the asset appreciation is realized, meaning you've sold the asset and actually collected liquidity from it, then Derek_6424246 has provided a good route to follow. However, if the gains are unrealized, meaning only that the current value of the underlying asset(s) have increased or decreased, then you might want to record this under an Income:Unrealized Gains account. One of the main distinctions between the two are whether or not you have a taxable event (realized) or just want to better track your net worth at a given time (unrealized). For example, I generally track my retirement accounts increase in value sans interest, dividends and contributions, as income from an Income:Unrealized Gains account. I can still reconcile it with my statements, and it shows an accurate picture for my net worth, but the money is not liquid nor taxed and is more for informational purposes than anything. And no, I don't create an additional Expense account here to track losses. Just think of Unrealized Gains as an income account where the balance will fluctuate up and down (and potentially even go negative) over time.",
"You should be recording the reimbursement as a negative expense on the original account the expense was recorded. Let's assume you have a $100 expense and $100 salary. Total $200 paycheck. You will have something like this In the reports, it will show that the expense account will have $0 ($100 + ($100)), while income account will have $100 (salary).",
"Yes, you can depreciate gifts to your business subject to the special rules in § 1011 and Regulation § 1.1011–1 and 1.167(g)–1. It is dual basis property so when you sell the item your gain/loss basis will be different. Adjusted basis of the donor for gain, FMV on the date received for the loss. Minus any depreciation you add, of course, in both cases.",
"Interesting. How would they account for it? Monthly? And if so do they modify the cost basis for each lot for the month and then restate? It's hard to imagine they do that. I have a million questions regarding this topic do you know where in the regs it is covered?",
"The 'standard' thing to do, after double checking your numbers to see if you can find or remember the actual reason for the discrepancy is to use an Income account for 'extra' money and an expense account for 'lost' money. The Imbalance account is meant as a temporary placeholder for monies not yet put into their right account. I personally use Income:Other Income for such found money, and Expenses:Adjustment for lost money.",
"The income and recurring costs will be shown at the end of each year, however the initial cost is recorded at the time they are incurred meaning at t=0 (Jan 2014) The first net profits/loss of 658500 is recorded at the end of Dec 2014 (t=1) And the remaining four ones at the end of 2015 (t=2) 2016 (t=3) 2017 (t=4) 2018 (t=5) -8000000 658500 658500 658500 658500 6658500 t=0) -8000000 t=1) 658500 t=2) 658500 t=3) 658500 t=4) 658500 t=5) 6658500",
"Former Walmart associate here. As long as you have a receipt and it hasn't been more than 90 days, they will take back almost anything. I've seen stained baby clothes and totally destroyed sneakers written off so that the customer could have their full refund.",
"What's the problem with having them write it off? Stop fishing for something negative and accept the fact that they're doing a good thing. They're still a business, not a soup kitchen. Making money isn't evil unless your taking advantage of someone, which is the opposite of what they're doing.",
"I'm a CPA and former IRS agent and manager. Whether you are a cash or accrual basis taxpayer, you get to deduct the expense when your card is charged. Think of it this way: You are borrowing from the credit card company or bank that issued the credit card. You take that money to make a purchase of a product or service. You now have an expense and a liability to a third party. When you pay off the liability, you do not get to take a deduction. Your deduction is when you pay for the expense. Depending on what you purchased, you may have to capitalize it.",
"\"I can say that I got X dollars from an account like \"\"Income:Benefits\"\"... but where do I credit that money to? \"\"Expenses:Groceries\"\" Yes doesn't feel right, since I never actually spent that money on food, You did, didn't you? You got food. I'm guessing there's an established convention for this already? Doubt it. Established conventions in accounting are for businesses, and more specifically - public companies. So you can find a GAAP, or IFRS guidelines on how to book benefits (hint: salary expense), but it is not something you may find useful in your own household accounting. Do what is most convenient for you. Since it is a double-booking system - you need to have an account on the other side. Expenses:Groceries doesn't feel right? Add Expenses:Groceries:Benefits or Expenses:Benefits or whatever. When you do your expense and cash-flow reports - you can exclude both the income and the expense benefits accounts if you track them separately, so that they don't affect your tracking of the \"\"real\"\" expenses.\"",
"I am not an accountant, but I have a light accounting background, despite being primarily an engineer. I also have a tiny schedule C business which has both better and worse years. I am also in the United States and pay US taxes. I assume you are referring to the US Form 1040 tax return, with the attached Schedule C. However little I know about US taxes, I know nothing about foreign taxes. You are a cash-basis taxpayer, so the transactions that happen in each tax year are based on the cash paid and cash received in that year. You were paid last year, you computed your schedule C based on last year's actual transactions, and you paid taxes on that income. You can not recompute last years schedule C based on the warranty claim. You might want to switch to an accrual accounting method, where you can book allowances for warranty claims. It is more complex, and if your business is spotty and low volume, it may be more trouble than it is worth. At this point, you have two months to look for ways to shift expenses into next year or being income into this year, both of which help offset this loss. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on. This article on LegalZoom (link here) discusses how to apply a significant net operating loss (NOL) in this year to the previous two years, and potentially carry it forward to the next two years. This does involve filing amended returns for the prior two years, showing this year's NOL. For this to be relevant, your schedule C loss this year must exceed your other W2 and self-employment income this year, with other tests also applied. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on.",
"Discrepancies between what the book value is reported as and what they'd fetch if sold on the open market. Legal disputes in court.",
"\"I'm not an expert, but here is my best hypothesis. On Microsoft's (and most other company's) cash flow statements, they use the so-called \"\"indirect method\"\" of accounting for cash flow from operations. How that works, is they start with net income at the top, and then adjust it with line items for the various non-cash activities that contributed to net income. The key phrase is that these are accounting for the non-cash activities that contribute to net income. If the accounts receivable amount changes from something other than operating activity (e.g., if they have to write off some receivables because they won't be paid), the change didn't contribute to net income in the first place, so doesn't need to be reconciled on the cash flow statement.\"",
"\"Asset = Equity + (Income - Expense) + Liability Everything could be cancelled out in double entry accounting. By your logic, if the owner contributes capital as asset, Equity is \"\"very similar\"\" to Asset. You will end up cancelling everything, i.e. 0 = 0. You do not understate liability by cancelling them with asset. Say you have $10000 debtors and $10000 creditors. You do not say Net Debtors = $0 on the balance sheet. You are challenging the fundamental concepts of accounting. Certain accounts are contra accounts. For example, Accumulated Depreciation is Contra-Asset. Retained Loss and Unrealized Revaluation Loss is Contra-Equity.\"",
"If you're repairing an existing appliance - its an expense. If you're replacing an existing appliance with a new one - that's disposing of one capital asset and putting in service another. You depreciate the new one and you dispose of the old one (if not fully depreciated - talk to your tax adviser how to handle the remaining value). The additional costs of the fixes that are not related to the installation of the new appliance are regular maintenance expenses, so you have to get an itemized invoice from the plumber to know what to expense and what to capitalize.",
"\"You can make a custom category for \"\"Website expenses\"\" under Other Expenses as well. If the domain name only costs a very small amount, like $10, I think expensing it would be reasonable. Mariette IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.\"",
"\"No, you capitalize all that and deduct as depreciation from the royalties. What it means is that you cannot deduct the expense when it is incurred, but only when you started receiving income that the expense was used to derive. This is similar to capitalizing building improvements which can only be deducted when you start getting rent, or capitalizing software development expenses which can only be deducted once you start selling/licensing the developed software. In the case of book writing - you capitalize the expenses and deduct them once you start receiving royalties. The period over which you deduct (the \"\"depreciation schedule\"\") depends on the type of the expense and the type of the income, so you better get a guidance from a licensed tax accountant (EA or CPA licensed in your State).\"",
"You can depreciate equipment as a valid expense, even for a sole proprietorship. The concept is simple, but the details are pretty complicated (and probably even more so given the added complexities of agricultural economics). Definitely speak to an accountant who specializes in the field.",
"If you did not separate out the fridge for depreciation, you just had it part of the house. A 27.5 year depreciation that you can calculate. You might have made or lost some money. You should depreciate the new one stand alone, on the 5 year depreciation schedule @littleadv notes in his answer.",
"In addition to the expatriation case already mentioned by Ben Miller, traders/investors are required to use mark-to-market accounting on certain investments. These go by Section 1256 contracts due to the part of the law that defines them. Mark-to-market is also required on straddles (combination of a long and and a short position in equities that are expected to vary inversely to each other). Mark-to-market means that you have to treat the positions as if you closed them at their end-of-year market value (even if you still have the position across the new year).",
"\"When you pay expenses on behalf of someone, you do not Debit your expense accounts. You credit your Bank and debit the Liability. The method that you mentioned (debit expense then credit it back to liability) is an acceptable practice, but the method is only used when you accidentially debited your expense accounts without knowing that it is for someone else (or in the case of split transactions). You need to specify \"\"being expense paid on behalf of someone\"\" when you credit the expense account.\"",
"Pub 527 my friend. It gets depreciated. Table 1-1 on page 5.",
"I have no idea what the traditional accounting way of dealing with this might be; but does your accounts package has the concept of subaccounts within a bank account? If so, to me it would make sense that when a cheque is written, you move money in the accounts package from the bank account to a subaccount named 'Cheques Written'; then when it is cashed, move money from that subaccount to the supplier. Then from a reporting perspective, when you want a report that will correspond to your actual bank statement, run a report that includes the subacconut; when you want a report that tells you how much you have available to spend, rune a report that excludes the subaccount.",
"They always expire sometime, and they are a scam. I recommend you unload any on ebay as soon as you get them. For this one in articular, just ask to see a manager and explain your situation politely. You'll usually get what you want.",
"In the US, you can only take a tax deduction on expenses to the extent that they offset income. For an S corp or LLC, if the business had no income, there's no deduction to take. If you have a sole proprietorship, these expenses can offset other income. You can also carry-forward net operating losses to future years when you have more income. See the article How to Carry Over Business Expenses",
"Being a professional auditor and accountant, deduction against expenses are claimed in the year in which expenses has been incurred. It has no relationship with when it is paid. For example, we may buy on credit does not mean that they will be allowed in the period in which it is paid. This is against the fundamental accounting principles.",
"If you don't track the accrued costs involved, then it means that the valuation of the deal will be somewhat arbitrary, but it still can be made by looking at the value of equivalent or similar goods or services. It's rather similar to accounting treatment of (noncash) gifts, for example. You make up a valuation, and as there are obvious tax reasons to make it as low as possible, the valuation should be justifiable or you risk the wrath of IRS. If you sell the same goods or services for cash, then the value of the barter deal is obvious. If this barter is the only time you're handling this particular type of goods, a wholesale price of similar items (either of your items, or the items that you're receiving in barter) could work.",
"Truthfully, I don't know, but in actuality, a 4-5 billion dollar loss even isn't the big deal, it's more important that they lost almost 40B of market cap. Now realistically it's relatively oversold in my opinion and they will make it back eventually, but that has more of an impact on them in the here and now. As far as the offset you are asking about, I'm not sure, personally I don't trust any accounting practices of banks, in reality, it's entirely possible that not even the c-suite understands their exact financial position at any given time. The reports of this loss actually came out about a month before they were even able to make an educated guess as to how much their losses would be. In any case, there are much more qualified/knowledgeable people on here that could likely answer your question a bit better.",
"Is it just -34*4.58= -$155.72 for CCC and -11*0.41= -$4.51 for DDD? Yes it needs to be recorded as negative because at some point in time, the investor will have to spend money to buy these shares [cover the short sell and return the borrowed shares]. Whether the investor made profit or loss will not be reflected as you are only reflecting the current share inventory.",
"Federal income taxes are indeed expenses, they're just not DEDUCTIBLE expenses on your 1120. Federal Income Tax Expense is usually a subcategory under Taxes. This is one of the items that will be a book-to-tax difference on Schedule M-1. I am presuming you are talking about a C corporation, as an S corporation is not likely to be paying federal taxes itself, but would pass the liability through to the members. If you're paying your personal 1040 taxes out of an S-corporation bank account, that's an owner's draw just like paying any of your personal non-business expenses. I would encourage you to get a tax professional to prepare your corporate tax returns. It's not quite as simple as TurboTax Business makes it out to be. ;) Mariette IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.",
"Keep this rather corny acronym in mind. Business expenses must be CORN: As other posters have already pointed out, certain expenses that are capital items (computers, furniture, etc.) must be depreciated over several years, but you have a certain amount of capital items that you can write off in the current tax year."
] |
[
"\"Any business, like any household, has items that are wasted. Unlike a household, a business does keep track of all items that are unsellable. Depending on the reason for the item being unsellable they are accounted for differently. Items that can be returned to the manufacturer are done so, and the business is given credit for that item. For the business the time spent processing, stocking and restocking that item, plus any time spent handling a return for that customer is harder to track. If they see the percentage of bad items is too large compared to sales they will want to address this with the manufacturer. Items that are spoiled by the business, which will include spoiled food items, will also be tracked. They will examine their choice of products, their procedures for those products and the quantities produced to try an minimize the spoilage. They don't just throw the items away, they keep track of the exact items and their worth. When they have to dispose of meat that has reached their \"\"sell by\"\" date they will actually scan the items into the computer. In some cases products can be transformed into other products: bread into bread pudding; in other situations they are \"\"reduced for quick sale\"\"; in other cases they are donated to a charity or food kitchen. All of this is also tracked. Of course any losses that the company can't recover by returning items to manufactures or repurposing will be reflected in the price of their items. Stores that can minimize their waste can offer lower prices.\""
] |
2010
|
Paypal website donations without being a charity
|
[
"44256",
"233877",
"174034"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"174034",
"571006",
"413681",
"233877",
"44256",
"196374",
"424893",
"316228",
"517410",
"348480",
"369577",
"350315",
"439460",
"453455",
"416378",
"496284",
"257311",
"24260",
"559371",
"143998",
"566430",
"421114",
"445339",
"179820",
"158968",
"90591",
"233001",
"111771",
"4457",
"28974",
"364975",
"204870",
"44033",
"186621",
"280679",
"518451",
"35748",
"148288",
"583371",
"465447",
"47693",
"585916",
"289768",
"151758",
"152442",
"427202",
"438975",
"326167",
"304159",
"507701",
"267347",
"466943",
"326690",
"540205",
"346793",
"36783",
"400495",
"161667",
"244318",
"315571",
"316490",
"262521",
"300121",
"70542",
"452544",
"596431",
"432545",
"96674",
"346444",
"124397",
"501330",
"551879",
"124341",
"511583",
"21416",
"385484",
"395139",
"446345",
"191291",
"589692",
"343872",
"54007",
"392357",
"83733",
"114443",
"313361",
"401819",
"426639",
"480984",
"328060",
"321612",
"243503",
"245011",
"122177",
"129607",
"320816",
"446622",
"396792",
"397847",
"264932"
] |
[
"An answer from PayPal stated that donations may be turned on only for Business PayPal accounts that are verified for its non-profit status. Such PayPal Business account must be opened in the name of non-profit organization (not a single person) and go through verification process. One must provide the following information: That would mean that one cannot ask for donations as a private person, at least in Croatia, and probably in Europe.",
"I see two ways you can handle this. Use the gifts for the purpose of creating more free software. This is fundraising, and your cause is writing free software. The language is a little tricky from the PayPal Donate button (emphasis mine): This button is intended for fundraising. If you are not raising money for a cause, please choose another option. Nonprofits must verify their status to withdraw donations they receive. Users that are not verified nonprofits must demonstrate how their donations will be used, once they raise more than $10,000 USD. You don't have to be a nonprofit; they are only requiring existing nonprofits to verify their status. You don't even have to account for the donations if they are below $10,000. Give out your PayPal email address and instruct the gift-givers to simply send you money through their PayPal interface. They can mark it as a gift when they send the money. I think option one is how the various bloggers and other personal users are justifiying their collection of donations, and I think its a valid use of the PayPal Donate button.",
"You can have a way for people to pay, i.e. some kind of payment gateway. Run as Business: Best create a company and get the funds there. This would be treated as income of the website and would be taxed accordingly. One can deduct expenses for running the website, etc. Run as Charity: Register as one, however the cause should be considered as charitable one by the tax authorities. Only then the donations would be tax free.",
"Yes, PayPal allows you to add a donate button to your website. You're responsible for any tax record-keeping related to income from the donate button.",
"Yes, Paypal has such a button you can use, but to be clear, the money you receive is taxable income. Your website is providing 'value' to the readers, and while they may feel they are making a gift to you, it's earned income as far as the IRS is concerned. (This assumes you are in the US, you may wish to add a tag to indicate your country)",
"\"First to clear a few things up. It is definitely not a gift. The people are sending you money only because you are providing them with a service. And for tax purposes, it is not a \"\"Donation\"\". It has nothing to do with the fact that you are soliciting the donation, as charitable organizations solicit donations all the time. For tax purposes, it is not a \"\"Donation\"\" because you do not have 501(c)(3) non profit status. It is income. The question is then, is it \"\"Business\"\" income, or \"\"Hobby\"\" related income? Firstly, you haven't mentioned, but it's important to consider, how much money are you receiving from this monthly, or how much money do you expect to receive from this annually? If it's a minimal amount, say $50 a month or less, then you probably just want to treat it as a hobby. Mostly because with this level of income, it's not likely to be profitable. In that case, report the income and pay the tax. The tax you will owe will be minimal and will probably be less than the costs involved with setting up and running it as a business anyway. As a Hobby, you won't be able to deduct your expenses (server costs, etc...) unless you itemize your taxes on Schedule A. On the other hand if your income from this will be significantly more than $600/yr, now or in the near future, then you should consider running it as a business. Get it clear in your mind that it's a business, and that you intend it to be profitable. Perhaps it won't be profitable now, or even for a while. What's important at this point is that you intend it to be profitable. The IRS will consider, if it looks like a business, and it acts like a business, then it's probably a business... so make it so. Come up with a name for your business. Register the business with your state and/or county as necessary in your location. Get a bank account for your business. Get a separate Business PayPal account. Keep personal and business expenses (and income) separate. As a business, when you file your taxes, you will be able to file a Schedule C form even if you do not itemize your taxes on Schedule A. On Schedule C, you list and total your (business) income, and your (business) expenses, then you subtract the expenses from the income to calculate your profit (or loss). If your business income is more than your business expenses, you pay tax on the difference (the profit). If your business expenses are more than your business income, then you have a business loss. You would not have to pay any income tax on the business income, and you may be able to be carry the loss over to the next and following years. You may want to have a service do your taxes for you, but at this level, it is certainly something you could do yourself with some minimal consultations with an accountant.\"",
"\"Donate buttons are meaningless with regards to taxes. This is payment for something you provided, and you cannot claim that you've received a gift. Any money you receive in this way is payment for your software. Remember, for gifts - no consideration should have been provided to the donor. Anything for which a consideration was provided - cannot be a gift. In your case the consideration is the software, and it's value is the amount you were paid. Since every person can decide how much to pay you on his own - any payment is for the software, not a gift. Any money you get is taxable to you, and you cannot claim it as \"\"gifts\"\" without exposing yourself to risks of making fraudulent claims. Consult a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for a qualified tax advice.\"",
"\"The thing to look at is PayPal's \"\"PayPal.me\"\" service, which is a pretty neat little item. When you sign up for a PayPal.me account (totally free), you create a unique username. So for example, my PayPal.me account name is DanCAnderson. I can give someone the following web link to send me $500: http://paypal.me/DanCAnderson/500 If you click the link above, you'll see what the user sees (my company name is Salt River Networks, Inc.). I gave a live link so you can see the working example of it (no need for anyone to send money! chuckle). I can change the amount by simply changing the value at the end of the URL. When they go to that link, they see a landing page with your name on it and the amount to send to you, then they go through the normal process of paying via PayPal. It's a pretty neat service, and I've used to it bill a few clients for work I've done by emailing that link to them rather than going through the whole PayPal procedure.\"",
"From PayPal's website: PayPal offers discounted transaction rates for 501(c)(3) charities for most products, and consistently low rates for all other nonprofits. No extra fees for setup, statements, withdrawals or cancellation. 2.2% + $0.30 per transaction and no monthly fee for charities. There is a reduced rate if the donations total more than $100,000 (which they would for Wikipedia), but PayPal doesn't publish those rates. You have to call and ask about them. One forum I read indicates the rate drops to 1.9% + $0.30 per transaction.",
"\"Yes, you can create a PayPal business account without having formalized a business with government filings and whatnot. At its simplest terms, \"\"having a business\"\" is simply \"\"doing business as\"\" (D/B/A) a trade name. You can use the address of a Private Mail Box such as those provided at the UPS Store. Ask any kid with a lemonade stand or a box of Girl Scout cookies - you only need to engage in government formalities like registering an LLC or getting a tax EIN when you cross certain thresholds of activity, and paying for things is generally not it. Also, some of businesses, for some relationships, will require the business formalities like an EIN, which in turn will require creating a trade name and registering it with the state. For instance if you set up a traditional credit card merchant account, they'll probably want that.\"",
"If this is something you plan to continue doing it would make sense to create it as it's own business entity and then to get non-profit status eg: 501c3. Otherwise I'm pretty sure you have to think of it as YOU receiving the money as a sole proprietor - and file a couple more tax forms at the end of the year. I think it's a Schedule C. So essentially if you bring in $10,000, then you spend that $10,000 as legit business expenses for your venture your schedule C would show no profit and wouldn't pay taxes on it. BUT, you do have to file that form. Operating this way could have legal implications should something happen and you get sued. Having the proper business entity setup could help in that situation.",
"Do I report it as income? Is it subject to just the same amount of taxes (~30%) as regular income? Are there any restrictions on how it can be used? It is income. You can deduct the costs of maintaining the web page and producing the software from it (have an accountant do that for you, there are strict rules on how to do that, and you can only deduct up to the income if its a hobby and not a for-profit business), but otherwise it's earned income like any other self employment income. It is reported on your schedule C or on line 21 of your 1040 (miscellaneous income), and you're also liable for self-employment taxes on this income. There are no restrictions, it's your money. Technically, who is the donation even being made to? Me, just because I own the webpage? Yes. This is for the United States, but is there any difference if the donations come from overseas? No, unless you paid foreign taxes on the money (in which case you should fill form 1116 and ask for credit). If you create an official 501(c) organization to which the donations are given, instead of you getting it directly, the tax treatment will be different. But of course, you have to have a real charitable organization for that. To avoid confusion - I'm not a licensed tax professional and this is not a tax advice. If in doubt - talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your State.",
"\"Technically, this is considered \"\"income\"\" for you, and is actually not considered a \"\"donation\"\" for your donors, but is instead a \"\"gift\"\" (not tax-deductible for your donors). So, you are technically required to report it, and there is a pretty significant audit trail that can be followed to prove you made that money. I don't know if PayPal is required to file 1099s for payments received, but if you've ever received such a document, so has the IRS, and they'll match it to the income you claimed and see a discrepancy, triggering an audit. Depending on the amount that it affects your taxes (it can be significant; if you have a $50k/yr day job, you'd owe the government 25 cents on every dollar donated), they can let it slide, they may simply dock your next return, or they may come after you for interest and penalties or even charge you with criminal tax fraud if they could prove you maliciously attempted to conceal this revenue. Now, if you already itemize using a Schedule A, then you can erase this income by deducting the costs of the server, not to exceed the amount of the donations. The best you can do is offset it; you cannot use this deduction to reduce taxable income from other sources. Also, you must itemize; you can't take your standard deduction, and with a maximum possible deduction of the actual costs of running the server ($1500, IF you receive enough donations to fully pay for it) compared to one person's standard deduction ($5800), you'll want to take the standard deduction if you don't have other significant deductions (medical expenses, mortgage interest/property taxes, etc). If you were charging users a monthly fee for use of the server, then you've basically created a de facto sole proprietorship, and you would still have to count the fees as income, but could then deduct the full cost of running the server. You'd fill out a Schedule C listing the revenue and expenses, and back them up with statements from your ISP/hosting company and from PayPal. Now, this would apply if you were running the server with the primary goal of making a regular profit; Schedule C cannot be used for income from a \"\"hobby\"\", undertaken primarily for enjoyment and where a few bucks in revenue is gravy. Whether you think you can get away with that in your current situation is your prerogative; I don't think you would, given that the donations are solicited and optional, and thus there is no expectation of ever turning a profit on this game server.\"",
"In the US the best way to solve the problem, IMHO, would be via a trust. Talk to a properly licensed trust/estate attorney and a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). Using intermediary who's not a 501(c) organization may pose income tax issues to that intermediary as providing support to the needy is not a valid business expense. It may also pose gift tax issues, since the aggregate amounts may exceed the statutory exemption limits. Using a (non-revokable) trust you can avoid these issues, but others may come up (such as what to do with the trust income or undistributed moneys). Talk to the advisers about how to avoid them.",
"\"Can a company say \"\"StackExchange\"\" donate to a non-profit company say $5,000 in agreement that they will spend that on paying a designer for a new website? And most importantly is this donation still tax deductible? A non-profit would have to typically create a bucket for IT Services or Website design. As long as \"\"StackExchange\"\" specify they employ a profession service to get it done, there would be no issue. If \"\"StackExchange\"\" were to specify an individula/company it would be an issue.\"",
"Most bank bill pay services will work for this purpose. Generally you can pay any person or business that has a valid address. As an added Paypal will no longer take ~3% of the money.",
"If you are using paypal to sell items online, you need a Premier (or better) account rather than personal. Paypal states: Our fees are the same for Personal, Premier, and Business accounts. [...] If you use your PayPal account to request money from someone, you'll be charged a fee when you receive the payment.",
"No. PayPal payments are credited to a PayPal account. PayPal doesn't let you pay arbitrary banks or credit cards, that defeats the purpose of PayPal and there are other services which can do that cheaper or with less hassle. You need to find another mutually available and satisfactory option with your client.",
"\"Can I teach children an invaluable skill for free and provide a website or PayPal link for anyone who appreciates the result of my gift to their child and wishes to gift me money (or maybe they don’t have a child but believe in my revolutionary contribution to the future) as they see fit, up to $10K? Two immediately obvious problems with this strategy: What about when you receive gifts from people who aren't in the US? You have to declare, and pay taxes on, foreign gifts. It seems to me that these may not be gifts because they are given in connection with the service you provided rather than from \"\"detached and disinterested generosity\"\" as required to make the gift tax exempt. (See Commisioner v. Duberstein -- gift given to thank associate for a sales lead did not arise from detached generosity. See Stanton v. United States -- gift given in appreciation of services rendered may or may not be a gift for tax purposes. See also Bogardus v. Commissioner -- gifts inspired by past service can be tax exempt.)\"",
"PayPal transactions are not taxed in Australia. Income is taxed, and Ad network income is income. Your relative will receive the money, and will have to declare the income so it can be taxed. Your relative will then have to pay the tax. If you are to do this, you should transfer enough money from each payment for your relative to pay the tax; the rest you can move around however you wish.",
"I suspect that the new VATMOSS rules come in to play here. So you owe VAT for donations from EU countries, providing you are below £81k there would be no UK vat payable though, however then you couldn't recoup the vat you paid out. Note I am not an accountant but I did speak to one this week about a similar issue.",
"\"Donations, particularly those in the context of you providing a free service (software, libraries, etc.) are a notable grey area in tax code. Simply naming a button \"\"Donate\"\" doesn't necessarily classify the money transfer as a \"\"gift\"\". The IRS can decide that it's money you're being paid to continue your excellent work/service, making it taxable income (unless you're a registered non-profit organization). In the instance of Patreon, and many other crowd-funding services, you're providing a certain level of \"\"service\"\" for each tier of donations (such as early access or something, I'm not sure what you're offering), which means they're receiving consideration for their donations, which most likely makes it fall into taxable income (again, unless you're a registered non-profit organization). State tax law is even more convoluted, and you should consult your tax professional for clarification on your specific situation.\"",
"If that is what you insist upon, don't use PayPal. This is one of the supposed justifications for the existence of cryptocurrencies",
"Yes, but PayPal has limits. Depending on your annual transactions you might have a $$ limit each year unless you agree to tie to a bank account. In my case, I set up another checking account to link to, and keep a small amount there. Less than $200.",
"People put conditions on donations all the time. They donate to the Red Cross for a specific disaster. The donate money to a church for the building fund. They donate money to a hospital to buy a new x-ray machine. They donate money to the scouts for a new dining hall. It is possible to donate money to a non-profit for a specific purpose. If the non-profit doesn't want to accept the money with those strings they can refuse. Generally these specific projects are initiated by the non-profit. But there is no requirement that the idea originate with the non-profit. It is also up to the non-profit and their legal advisers regarding how strictly they view those strings. If you donate money for web design and they don't spend it all, can they pay net years hosting bill with the money, or must they hold it for a few years for when they need a designer again? If the company wants to provide the service, they can structure the project to pay their employees for their time. They pay employees for $100 of labor while deigning the website. The pay and benefits reduce profit thus lowering taxes. Donating money to the non-profit to be given back to the company doesn't seem to be the best way to structure transaction. At best it is a wash. Donating money to a charity and then directing exactly which contractor will perform the service starts to look like money laundering, and most charities will get wary.",
"\"I know your pain oh, so much. I literally have a 14 gallon rubbermaid container FULL of solicitations I have received. Even worse, for-profit fundraising companies send most of those mailings! They take the money, and deduct their \"\"expenses\"\", rigged to consume almosts all your gift. Some companies have been caught passing as little as 9% to the charity. First let's talk about a few issues. Authentication. Is that outfit really a tax deductible 501c3 charity? Address. Is this their genuine address, or is it the dropbox of a scammer or one of those evil for-profit fundraising companies? Acknowledgement. For gifts over a certain size, you need a thank-you letter from them to show the IRS that you really donated. Will you get it? The limit is $250 (no letter, deduction rejected) but as a practical thing, it helps in an audit to show as many donation letters as possible. Charities cannot issue them retroactively, but can issue you second copies of ones they sent previously. If the charity drops the ball, you lose. Obviously enough, you go to the post office and spend $1 on a money order. This does not authenticate them as a charity. It does not assure it goes to their real address. You can do both these things yourself, by checking their data on the IRS website or on guidestar.org. You don't get an acknowledgement. I mention these because donation websites work much the same way. DAFs require a higher one-time commitment but are much simpler and more efficient after that. If you are planning to give $5000 in a single year, save it up and open a Donor Advised Fund account. A DAF is itself a charity. You donate to the DAF, and take the tax deduction for charitable contributons. Then, you tell the DAF to donate it to other charities on your behalf, or anonymously. Their concept is, you use the DAF as a \"\"buffer\"\" so you can easily make the tax-deductible donation when you need to for tax purposes, then at your leisure research charities and support them. However, I asked my DAF - most people donate and then immediately re-donate the money, leaving the fund at zero balance. My DAF doesn't mind that at all, and they charge zero fees for this. (Its expenses are paid by those of us who leave money sitting around in the DAF. Mine charges 0.6% a year. This money can be invested sort of like in a 401K, and each investment also has an expense ratio, such as 0.18% a year in my chosen index fund.) Websites like \"\"justgive.org\"\" will take any amount of your money and re-donate it to the charity you select. They deduct 3-5% for their expenses (notably paper, stamps, and the 2-3% it costs them to process your credit card).\"",
"\"The only way to prevent it is to not use PayPal. The terms of usage are draconian, and by using the service you agree to them. I'm sure that when the case gets to a court of law, they will find where it is authorized. Paypal is not a bank, and the money there is basically \"\"entrusted\"\" with the company and is not insured by anyone. They don't need or have to be subject to the regulations on the banking industry, and they're no different than your neighbour carrying money for you to the grocery store when you're sick. Other options are wire transfer, services like Western Union or Moneygram, checks (better certified/cashier's checks), money orders or even cash. You can also charge via credit card, but you can get similar problems there (although it is still safer than PayPal because with credit card - the card owner must initiate the charge back, it doesn't appear on its own because they feel like it).\"",
"Yes, you can set up a PayPal or a Google Checkout account without a bank account linked to it. Neither PayPal nor Google Checkout requires you to link to a bank account. Both services provide for linking your payment account to a credit card instead.",
"From WePay (GoFundMe's payment processor) support. I received only gifts and donations. Will I receive a Form 1099-K? As of 2015, the IRS has clarified that WePay is not required to send a Form 1099-K with respect to payments that are made solely as gifts or donations. The purpose of Form 1099-K is to report payments for the provision of goods or services, which may be subject to tax. Gifts and donations typically are not reported as income by recipients, so it is not necessary to send them a Form 1099-K. https://support.wepay.com/hc/en-us/articles/203609483-Tax-Reporting",
"\"I agree with the rest of the answers -- you're probably better off just using it for some predictable flat-rate recurring monthly service like NetFlix, or making a charitable donation if you're into that sort of thing. But since that wasn't what you asked, I'll try to provide an answer: If you don't mind throwing away money, send money to yourself using PayPal. Here's how: Set up a PayPal Business Account, and use your personal PayPal account to send funds to it by setting up a PayPal subscription. PayPal says \"\"You can have one Consumer account and one Business account.\"\" A PayPal Payments Standard business account has no monthly fee -- only transaction fees. According to PayPal, \"\"in order to set up a repeating payment, [you] would need to create a Subscription or Recurring Payments button from the Merchant Services tab\"\" (in the Business Account). You would then click the link/button to set up the subscription from your personal PayPal account, to make it send money to your Business account on an automatic schedule. You can then, at your own leisure, send the money back to your personal account without paying a second transaction fee, then finally send it back to your bank account. Or, if your bank account is not yet tied to your personal account, you can tie it to the business account instead, and deposit the funds into your bank account. Unfortunately, this step can't be automated. Again, to reiterate, you're much better off just using it for something recurring.\"",
"I've definitely seen a similar conversation about this, I personally don't buy from eBay (Amazon for me). So I turned to the internet to see what I could find to offer you any additional information (albeit not my personal experience). I first read this article: CodeNerdz Article and was pretty horrified by the scamming that can happen by buyers. Then, this article by another regular user of eBay, Selling on eBay without PayPal : eBay Guides confirmed the trouble people have with PayPal & eBay. Payment Services permitted on eBay: Allpay.net, Canadian Tire Money, cash2india, CertaPay, Checkfree.com, hyperwallet.com, Moneybookers.com, Nochex.com, Ozpay.biz, Paymate.com.au, Propay.com, XOOM Have you looked into any or all of these?",
"Like Bluetie Grasper have said. Can I create a PayPal account and receive €200 (or a similar amount) without adding a bank account, credit card, or anything but my email address? The answer is No. You can transfer the money to your PayPal account but until you verify it with your personal information with at least a credit card or mostly likely a bank account, PayPal will hold those funds until otherwise. Can I then use that money to buy on Amazon, still without adding anything but my email address? If not, can I buy gift cards and use those on Amazon? Amazon does not accept PayPal.",
"I think you need to have paypal for eBay selling, just for one reason: people will avoid buying from you if they can't pay by paypal. It decreases significantly your selling.",
"\"I wouldn't trust \"\"about.com\"\"; they're based on grabbing content from other places and are entirely unreliable. You can use the money transfer on PayPal, or transfer through a bank. I wouldn't give my bank account details to complete strangers, though. But that's me, with my distrust of the human kind.\"",
"\"Paypal has an account called \"\"micropayments\"\" for those who have a lot of transaction under $10 with \"\"better\"\" commission structure, 5%+5c per transaction (rather than 2.9% + 30c with regular merchant accounts)\"",
"Jason I think your doing a great thing. Based on what your describing I would look further into a 501(c)(3). Chapter 3 from the IRS Publication 557 offers information. This Wikipedia gives a quick understanding of 501(c)(3) and how to apply. Here is a great article from ehow it has some suggestions for someone who is just starting out. Maybe going through an organization already existing within your community might be a better, perhaps a church or some religious organization.",
"there is no tax for receiving money from outside of india paypal just take their charges only",
"I think about as close as you're going to get is to use a personal PayPal account, and set up a reminder to yourself to log in and send the money. (Because, as you said, setting up a recurring payment is a business account thing.) From PayPal's website: Sending money – Personal payments: It's free within the U.S. to send money to family and friends when you use only your PayPal balance or bank account, or a combination of their PayPal balance and bank account. ... Receiving money – Personal payments: It's free to receive money from friends or family in the U.S. when they send the money from the PayPal website using only their PayPal balance or their bank account, or a combination of their PayPal balance and bank account. You can automate the reminder to yourself with any of the gazillion task managers out there: Google Calendar, MS Outlook, Todoist, Remember the Milk, etc.",
"I would assume that under a certain threshold, HMRC doesn't even want to hear from you, because extracting taxes from you costs them more money than you are going to pay. On the other hand, I cannot find anything written about that subject. I'd suggest to call them at 0300 200 3300 and ask them. Have the annual cost of the server ready, and tell them that you will stop asking for donations if say 6 months of cost is covered. There may be an official threshold that I was unable to find. Obviously if you receive £1000 in donations and spend £100 for the server, they will want tax payment. If its £110 in donations and £100 for the server, they will likely not care. If they tell you to register as self-employed, it's not difficult, just a bit of a pain. In that case you'd have to pay tax on your income (donations) minus cost (cost for the server and any other cost).",
"\"This page lays down the requirements for an \"\"unincorporated association\"\" to pay tax (i.e. any group that's not a registered entity). You pay tax is you make money from: it looks like you don't do any of those, so you don't need to file for taxes. There is another exemption that you don't have to file if it is likely that you would owe less than a hundred pounds taxes, which would also probably apply to you. There are many thousands of clubs and societies in the UK that don't need to register for tax purposes, so you are far from alone. It is probably worth creating an actual club (\"\"Captain Insanity Server Club\"\") and keeping records of donations and expenses for the server. There isn't any need to legally incorporate or anything like that, though you might try having a separate bank account for it if you can get a free one, so that if the tax authorities ever audit you personally you can show them that the donations you received weren't income to you.\"",
"A lot of dating sites work on a subscription model. So do websites like O'Reilly's Safari Bookshelf with technical documentation. A lot of sites which do not force you to pay also allow donations of some kind, e.g. reddit's gold system or all those webcomics using Patreon or something similar.",
"Yes. I have a US based website that accepts payments via PayPal and can confirm we have many customers from India. Here is a list of countries PayPal supports. Note typically there are some additional fees associated with currency conversion.",
"PayPal is free for buyers, taking their profit from the sellers -- in much the same way that credit cards take a percentage from the seller (though they will also charge you interest if you don't pay off the entire balance every month). As far as I know, there's nothing that keeps a vendor from having a different price for PayPal customers than cash customers... but that would show up in the number displayed by PayPal before you authorize the purchase, so if you're paying attention it shouldn't be possible to sneak it by you. PayPal has several modes of operation. I'm not aware of one where they hold your balance. Normally you either give them your credit card info, or you give them information about (one of your) bank account(s) and authorize them to do electronic funds transfer from and to that account on your behalf. I've always stuck with the credit card approach; I trust PayPal but I don't trust them that far, on principle. If I was going to link them to an account, it would be a small account I'd create for that purpose, NOT my main savings/checking accounts! (Hm. Actually, I do have one account which normally floats around $500 -- it's the one I dump accumulated pocket change into -- and I could use that. If I ever feel a need to do so.) PayPal does reduce the risk of credit card numbers being abused, by reducing how many people you've given the number to. Depending on what kinds of purchases you make, that may be a security advantage. It certainly doesn't hurt. Personally I have no problem with giving my card number directly to a serious business, but on eBay or sites of that sort where I'm dealing with individuals who are complete strangers I do like the isolation that PayPal provides. In other words, eBay is exactly the environment where I DO use PayPal. After all, that's exactly what PayPal was created for.",
"\"PayPal offers a service called \"\"PayPal Business Payments\"\". Instead of charging a percentage, they charge a flat fee. For US-to-US payments, the fee is fifty cents per transaction. For Canada-to-Canada payments, the fee is five dollars per transaction. You need to use a third-party invoicing service and choose the \"\"PayPal Business Payments\"\" option. FreshBooks or Zoho Invoice might work.\"",
"\"Lots of webcomic sites now have \"\"tip jar\"\" links, or let supporters send money via services like Patrion. I presume other kinds of sites have developed similar solutions. I'd suggest you go out, wander the web a bit looking for such, then contact the sites' owners to ask how it's been working for them\"",
"If i am not wrong, any business activities such should be declared on Year End Tax filing. If your friend is going to own that website either it is commercial or nonprofit, he has to declare in the year end taxation.",
"Goddady.com will gladly accept payment from your personal account. They don't really care, as long as you approve the charge, whose name the account is in. I'm not sure PayPal even check the names on the invoice and the account to match, they just want you to login. However, depending on your local laws, you may be required to have a separate business account. In the US, for example, corporations must have their own accounts. For other entities with limited liability (like LLC or LLP) it is advised to have a separate account to avoid piercing corporate veil. Also, if your business name is not your personal name - clients may want to verify that the checks/transfers are deposited under your business name. In some countries checks written out to X cannot be endorsed by X to be transferred to Y. That may affect your decision as well. You'll have to get a proper legal advice valid in your jurisdiction to know the answer to your question.",
"\"In the US: In the UK: You can set up a CAF (Charities Aid foundation) Charity Account. This allows you to donate to charities anonymously, while still allowing the recipient to benefit from Gift Aid (where they can reclaim the income tax you'd paid on the donation). You can even use this account to donate to overseas charities if you're donating at least £250. Or you can use a different intermediary such as BT MyDonate or The Big Give or another intermediary. See the Wikipedia article \"\"Comparison of online charity donation services in the United Kingdom\"\". In Canada: If there's a United Way charity in your country, it may have a donor choice program which may be able to forward a designated donation to any other charity in your country. The United Way probably charges a fee for this service. I'm not sure whether or not the United Way would be willing to keep you anonymous, and I'm not sure whether or not the United Way would add you to its mailing list. More details may be available elsewhere online.\"",
"Visit paypalblows.org to find out more reasons. PayPal wants your bank account info on file before they allow you to take payment. So setup a bank account strictly for this service, and if they give you trouble or suspend your account, simply never use them again and tell others of your experience. I think the only reason why PayPal wants a bank account is so they can dip into it and take chargeback money.",
"PayPal. Or even Western Union or MoneyGram. Despite their fees, there is a reason those companies are still in business.",
"Paypal can take exactly the same legal actions against you as any creditor could -- take you to court for wilful nonpayment of debt, sell your debt to a collections agency, or anything else a business would do with a deadbeat customer. But this is a legal question, and as such off topic here.",
"There is not any fraud involved. Anybody can gift money to another person.",
"Does the above mean I will not be able to send money to myself or my mother Yes that is right. PayPal will only be used for small trades. The credits into PayPal cannot be used to purchase anything, and will have to be credited back to the linked Bank Account. This is to ensure right reporting and taxes are being paid. You could use alternative Bank channels for getting funds.",
"I found this page at CNN Money, that lists 5 viable alternatives to Paypal, namely: I would suggest looking for unbiased sources like CNN rather than searching for alternatives and happening upon the merchant's sites themselves. Hope this helps!",
"While I've never used the service, there's also Amazon Flexible Payments Services (AFPS): (emphasis below is mine) Amazon Flexible Payments ServiceTM (Amazon FPS) is the first payments service designed from the ground up for developers. It is built on top of Amazon’s reliable and scalable payments infrastructure and provides developers with a convenient way to charge Amazon’s tens of millions of customers (with their permission, of course!). Amazon customers can pay using the same login credentials, shipping address and payment information they already have on file with Amazon. [...] Considering Amazon.com is an e-commerce heavyweight, it might be worth a look.",
"Just create him a regular PayPal account, then so to the Pay Pal prepaid card page, https://www.paypal-prepaid.com, order a card an attach it to his personal paypal account. Unlike student account, you have to do 2 transfers, one into his paypal account, and then to the prepaid card. That is an answer! Unlike those of use with teenagers under 18 who now have their student accounts jacked from them and there really isn't a good option. Not happy with PayPal right now.I am sure there is a government bureaucrat somewhere behind this decision.",
"In general, all income is taxable, regardless of the source. If you living in the U.S. -- I don't think you said anywhere where you live -- then if you are donating this money to charity, you would have to declare the income, and then declare a deduction for the charitable contribution. At that point the two would cancel out and the net result is that you wouldn't have to pay any tax on the income, but you can't just leave it off your tax return. Well, even if you donated all of it to charity to that you don't have to pay income taxes on it, you would still have to pay social security taxes, and it would still affect your social security benefits when you retire. If you're saying that the organization receiving the money is itself a charity, as opposed to donating the money to some other organization that is a charity, than you usually have to be registered as a charity with the IRS to avoid income taxes. There are still forms to file to report the income, but you wouldn't have to pay taxes. There are some exceptions to the requirement to register, basically if your organization is very small and for certain religious organizations.",
"This kind of questions keeps repeating itself on this site and the answer is generally it doesn't matter. As you said yourself, there are costs either way, and these costs are comparable. Generally, merchant fees differ tremendously between the different kinds of merchants, and while gas stations and video rentals may pay up to 5% and even more, charitable organizations and community services are usually not considered as high fraud risk operation and are charged much lower fees. Either way, paying employees, managing cash/check deposits or paying merchant fees is part of the charity operational expenses. Together with maintaining offices, postal office boxes, office supplies, postage expenses and formal stationary and envelopes needed for physical donations handling. I would guess that if the charity's majority of donations come on-line as credit card/paypal payments - check handling will be more expensive. So I suggest you take the route you consider majority of donors pay - that would be the cheapest for them to handle. I would guess, credit cards being the most convenient - would be the way to go.",
"You'll need to check PayPal's terms of service for that first question. I would imagine you could, as my wife and I both have personal PayPal accounts listed at the same address. When you receive money, the senders will only see the (full) name on your account, the amount, and the transaction ID. If you set up a business account, the name on your account will be replaced with the company name. Your mailing address will not be made visible. Yes, PayPal provides an export option of your transaction history. For reference: If your volume greater than $20,000 across 200 or more transactions, then they'll be issuing a 1099-K form, anyway. That depends on the payment method. Bank transfers are instant, where cards require a settlement delay. PayPal provides buyer protection, so I'd be very dutiful in logging all of your work done to provide proof of completion, in case someone disputes a payment. Disputes can take place up to 45 days from the date of the transaction. Chargebacks can take place 120 days or more after the transaction (depends on the card network).",
"\"One option might be to set up a separate bank account and a separate credit card account, which you would use only for your ebay transactions. I have a friend who does a lot of selling on ebay, and this is exactly what she did. It's reasonable to want to protect your personal finances from any complications that might arise with PayPal and/or ebay. But since you definitely have to provide a bank account and c.c. number (there's no way around this), the best solution might be to set up separate \"\"ebay-only\"\" accounts. And be sure not to link them to any of your personal accounts, for added protection. If you're planning to do a lot of selling, this is probably a good idea anyway just for record-keeping purposes. If you do a lot of selling on ebay, you might consider setting up a \"\"merchant account\"\". There are some limitations on international transactions (currently you can't sell to residents of UK, Australia, or France), and payment processing is a few days slower. But there seem to be fewer fees/risks/etc associated with a merchant account. I don't know much more about it, but here's an article from an ebay seller, including pros and cons of PayPal vs. merchant accounts. http://www.ebay.com/gds/Selling-on-eBay-without-PayPal/10000000021351301/g.html\"",
"My husband used this device at work in an organization/club that collects dues for fundraisers. The fundraisers are only for the club. So I think that is not business at all. They have no business tax id#, etc? and they use it for personal reasons when collecting money via Cc#'s if this helps you.",
"Donations need to be with no strings attached. In this case, you make the cash donation, a deduction, and then they pay you, in taxable income. It's a wash. Why not just give them the service for free? Otherwise this is just money going back and forth.",
"You don't have to create a PayPal account in order to buy from a merchant that uses PayPal for processing their payments. You can use your credit card just like with any other purchase. Creating a PayPal business account is, as you say, mainly for businesses wanting to accept payments, not make them. PayPal doesn't require you, the customer, to have an account just to make a payment to a merchant. We have dozens of customers a day make purchases through us using our PayPal account (we're small), and for them the main attraction to using PayPal to pay us is that PayPal has pretty good security and offers some very good customer protections against fraud. They don't have to create a PayPal account just to pay us, though. When you create a PayPal business account, you link a bank account to it that they verify, then they issue you a PayPal MasterCard, which is a debit card that links to your PayPal account. When you make purchases, if the funds are in your PayPal account (because, for instance, you're using PayPal as your merchant processor) then the payment is deducted from that. If there's no money in your PayPal account then PayPal simply debits the bank account you linked with them, no differently than if you were to use your bank's debit card. In this instance, if you don't plan to use PayPal for merchant processing then there's no real reason to open a business account. It doesn't have any advantages over your bank's debit card and, IMHO, just adds another layer of complexity and paperwork to your accounting for no identifiable benefit. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"According to Paypal, they support transactions in Ethiopia: https://www.paypal.com/webapps/mpp/country-worldwide https://developer.paypal.com/docs/classic/api/country_codes/ However those appear to be limited to transferring money out of the country. (link) There is an article here (link) which talks about how to transfer money from paypal back to your bank in Ethiopia. It sounds like you have to set up a US bank account, withdraw the funds to that then somehow transfer the money from their to your bank. NOTE: I have no relationship to any of the sites above, nor do I know if the information is accurate or the trustworthiness of those businesses.",
"PayPal does charge a premium, both for sending and receiving. Here's how you find their rates:",
"paypal says it works with CBE but can't seem to link my account with them, but skrill works perfectly just go to www.skrill.com sign up and you can link your bank account with your skrill account, i've had a few transactions so it should work for you too.",
"According to HMRC's manual BIM42105, you can't deduct expenses of this kind when calculating your profits for corporation tax: No deduction is allowed for expenditure not incurred wholly and exclusively for trade purposes So at the least, the company will have to pay corporation tax on this donation at some point, assuming it ever makes any profits. There's also the risk that HMRC would say that what is really happening is that you are making a personal donation to this person and the company is giving you income to allow you to do it. In that case, you'd be liable to income tax and employees national insurance, and the company liable to employers national insurance. It should then be deductible from corporation tax, though.",
"I don't see how Paypal can stop you from transferring USD funds from your paypal account to a USD account held with a bank. Just tell them to do the transfer to your account. The issue could be around USD onshore / offshore regulation. Is the US government preventing EU citizens from taking USD income offshore? If that's the case then you need a correspondent bank. So in other words, like using your friend. But what you can do is ask your bank who is their correspondent bank in the US, and whether they have the license required to transfer USD funds offshore. So you shift the regulation issues to your bank, and then you have to accept your bank's exchange rate - which is going to be better than paypal, who charges too much for FX transactions.",
"What I should have done in the first place was just ask them. From their customer support team: Thanks for writing in and for your interest in Square. It is perfectly acceptable to use Square for personal business, such as a yard sale. You do not need to have a registered business to take advantage of Square and the ability to accept credit cards. Just please note that it is against our Terms of Service to process prepaid cards, gift cards or your own credit card using your own Square account. Additionally, you may not use Square as a money transfer system. For every payment processed through Square, you must provide a legitimate good or service. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns.",
"You are thinking of something similar to [Patreon](www.patreon.com) then but more automated? I don't quite think automation works for this because you might not want to give every site you visit money, even if you visit it often in a short period of time (e.g. while doing research into cults you might not want to give the WBC money).",
"\"PayPal has a very generous buyer protection program. That means that the buyer can dispute receiving the goods and get their money back fairly easily (compared to credit cards). For this reason Craigslist and other sites recommend not accepting PayPal payments. I know that many transactions go through them flawlessly. But unless I really trust someone, PayPal would not be an option for me unless it was the money transfer (different rules; not as easy to get the money back). However this may be breaking PayPal Terms of Service so I would read them carefully before I went this route. There have been reports of PayPal putting extended holds on funds and effectively seizing the money by refusing to release the funds. I have never had this happen (though I did have a sale on eBay reversed though the item was never returned) but there are many reports of it on the Internet. As far as the BoA option I would contact them and see what they recommend. I would find out what their policies are on reversing the transfers and on providing your account number. They may have a special deposit-only account number you could provide the buyers. But I would want to learn as much about the system as I could before I started using it. The Internet has turned the old adage of \"\"buyer beware\"\" into \"\"seller beware\"\". There are many schemes that con artists have come up with to defraud unsuspecting sellers. I received several offers from people wanting to pay me with a cashiers check for a few items I recently sold on Craigslist. It is scary how prevalent these fraudsters have become.\"",
"In the UK there is a significant difference between taking money out of a bank account and out of a credit card account. Banks typically require explicit authorisation before they will transfer money out of a bank account - for example a direct debit agreement. (North American banks are much less strict, and will transfer your money to any reasonably reputable financial organization who asks for it - don't get me started!). However credit cards run very differently. Essentially the onus is on the vendor to get the authorization, which is why you can sign a credit card slip at the corner store, or give your credit card details over the phone, or fill in an online form, and have your credit card account charged. When you signed the credit card agreement you agreed to let people do this. It's also why the credit card company will reverse a transaction if you claim it was unauthorized. So essentially PayPal is like the specialty store you phone up to order something and give your credit card details to - they have just as much authorization to charge your account. Your only protection is that the credit card company will investigate any transactions you claim are fraudulent, and will reimburse you if it is- even if they can't recover the money themselves.",
"You should check with the Office of Student Affairs (or equivalent) at your University to see if you can accept Credit Cards. Many will only allow you to accept student organization dues paid in cash, check, or money order. Many universities will also provide your organization with basic operating funds, if you request it. Your first point of contact should be your faculty adviser, though. Your best bet would be to just use cash. Learn where the nearest ATMs are. If you are set on using credit cards, set up a PayPal account and just use it to reimburse the person who fronts the money (cover the markup). Everyone will have to have a PayPal account set up, linked to their credit card. You can avoid fees by using a bank account. If you're so inclined, you can set up a Business account and have a PayPal Debit Card, but you'll want to check with your adviser / University by-laws to see if you're allowed. Don't expect any of these to work as website implementations. As you're a University group, you will undoubtedly be meeting in person such that an exchange of cash/check/money order would be trivial In short, you'll need to check into the rules of your University. Credit cards generally carry processing fees, charged to the merchant, which (on its own) carries some tax implications.",
"No it is not required to create a trade account or a current account. If the payment is via Paypal, as per Indian laws, it would automatically get credited to your savings account in 7 days. You would still need to declare this as income and pay tax accordingly.",
"The simplest way to handle this would be to buy money orders, make them out to the charities, and leave your name off them. Money orders don't require you to put your name on them, just the name of whoever they're being paid to. You can mail them with no return address as well if you're sure you have the charity's proper mailing address. This way you can still feel good about giving and leave no trace of who you are for anyone to use for future marketing. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"\"Open a personal account to link SQUARE with, open a savings account with same bank. Register as \"\"PERSONAL USE\"\", make as many transactions you want for whatever you want $5.00 to $1,000.00 or more, you get paid, square collects a fee. Money is in your \"\"personal account\"\" in 24 hrs, transfer it to your savings acct. 2 years now no issue. I've done the EIN, vendors license, registering business crap, if you work for yourself for private citizens it's none of anyone else's concern.\"",
"Your actual question has nothing to do with the technical issue of linking a PayPal account to a bank account. It is all about the accounting of the money. That is, what you claim as income and what you can prove to the taxman. Yes, you will need to separate the money. Linking to a business account is probably the way to go. From there, it is about how you keep track of the money and account for it. How you do the accounting is a different question. So: No, it does not automatically become business income just because it goes into a business bank account. You still have to keep track of said income and claim it somewhere on some tax form(s). The point of the separate business account is to avoid the commingling of the the money which may lead to you losing the liability protection of an incorporation. The bank doesn't file your taxes for you.",
"If I remember correctly my own experience : no you can't. Paypal will block the money even if it's only for online payement.",
"First off... If you provide good service than you shouldn't worry... Since you are providing a service and your customers send payment to your PayPal, if there is no dispute made within 90 days, the customer cannot dispute further. However if it is disputed within 90 days than you may run into some trouble. But it may be in your favor if PayPal finds no signs of fraud and since it's a service payment, PayPal cannot really track it compared to if your customers paid you for a product which can be disputed up to 180 Days?? I may be wrong on that one. However if it does get disputed and PayPal favors your clients than you have to pay it back one way or another. You may want to ask your customers or put yourself a description of the service and terms in the invoice. It may help resolve future disputes. I know this because I have called PayPal customer service and ask which I suggest you do too.",
"There is nothing called best; Depending on the amounts there are several options and each will cost some money. If your business is still small customers are individuals try PayPal it will be easy for everyone. The other options are accepting Credit Card, you would need to set-up card gateway on your website etc Simple wire transfer, it will cost more both for your customers and to you.",
"\"To echo part of stannius' response. If it's taxable, there would be tax on $19,999, just a bit less than on $20,000. Your uncle may have a credential, and members here may not, but still he may be mistaken. Or he could be giving you advice on how to skirt the law. The taxability and the $20,000 threshold are unrelated! Trying to 'avoid' the $20,000 is a completely misplaced effort. Gifts from anyone are not taxable to the recipient. So long as nothing is received in return, it's not taxable income to her. In contrast a blogger with a \"\"tip jar\"\" is soliciting money in exchange for advice, entertainment, etc. that's taxable. Donations to individuals, in the circumstance you describe are not income to her, nor are they deductible to the donor. Edit - a fellow blogger (more than that, she's my tax crush) had an article Cancer survivor gets $19,000 tax bill for GoFundMe donations which may render my answer incorrect. Other article on this story suggest that the IRS is notified, but the nature of the transfer needs to be addressed. In my opinion, you should find a new uncle CPA.\"",
"Have a great lawyer and a fuck ton of money Not only are financial regulations on online payment processors quite complex, each state and the federal gov have required licenses which cost in total around $5 million upfront and $1-2 million annually.",
"Regarding the tax implications half of your question ... There seem to be a lot of articles that say there's not yet any established law concerning the tax treatment of crowdsourced funds. Since your objective is gift-giving rather than business purposes, it would seem that the gift tax rules would apply, and gift taxes are charged to the donor not the donee. (But I am not a tax attorney.)",
"Taxes are the least of your concerns. Your friends need licenses. Although this COULD be avoided entirely with certain craftily worded disclaimers and exemptions and the WAY that money is given to them.",
"I would be inclined to back the 'tip jar' weblink idea, this is very prolific within the Twitch community, as a method of tipping and thereby supporting content creators. I know that there are numerous tutorials on how to set up 'tip' sites for such usage, so that may point you in the right direction. Also you could turn to crowd-funding opportunities, such as Kickstarter and others, however I am not sure on the ruling of these companies and whether you have to offer the completed project as a reward for backers (it tends to be the done thing). And depending on how serious your friends are in helping you as a fledgeling indie developer, you could investigate in setting yourself up as a limited business. This would allow your supporters to purchase shares in your business, turning them into true stakeholders, but whilst retaining the limited status of the company. However, I must stress, on this point I know very little and may be wrong (I am actually hoping someone else contradicts this so I can learn).",
"\"If this is truly hobby income (you do not intend to operate as a business and don't have a profit motive) then report the income on Line 21 (\"\"other income\"\") of form 1040. If this is a business, then the income and expenses belong on a Schedule C to form 1040. The distinction is in the treatment of profits and losses - your net profits on a business are subject to self-employment tax, while hobby income is not. Net losses on a business are deductible against other income; net losses on a hobby are miscellaneous itemized deductions in the \"\"2%\"\" box on Schedule A. From a tax point of view, selling apps and accepting donations are different. Arguably, donations are gifts; gifts are not taxable income. The hobby/business and income/gift distinctions are tricky. If the dollar amounts are small, nobody (including the IRS) really cares. If you start making or losing a lot of money, you'll want to get a good tax person lined up who can help you decide how to characterize these items of income and expens, how to put them on your return, and how to defend the return on audit if necessary.\"",
"\"I'm going to post this as an answer because it's from the GoFundMe website, but ultimately even they say to speak with a tax professional about it. Am I responsible for taxes? (US Only) While this is by no means a guarantee, donations on GoFundMe are simply considered to be \"\"personal gifts\"\" which are not, for the most part, taxed as income in the US. However, there may be particular, case-specific instances where the income is taxable (dependent on amounts received and use of the monies, etc.). We're unable to provide specific tax advice since everyone's situation is different and tax rules can change on a yearly basis. We advise that you maintain adequate records of donations received, and consult with your personal tax adviser. Additionally, WePay will not report the funds you collect as earned income. It is up to you (and a tax professional) to determine whether your proceeds represent taxable income. The person who's listed on the WePay account and ultimately receives the funds may be responsible for taxes. Again, every situation is different, so please consult with a tax professional in your area. https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en-us/articles/204295498-Am-I-responsible-for-taxes-US-Only- And here's a blurb from LibertyTax.com which adds to the confusion, but enforces the \"\"speak with a professional\"\" idea: Crowdfunding services have to report to the IRS campaigns that total at least $20,000 and 200 transactions. Money collected from crowdfunding is considered either income or a gift. This is where things get a little tricky. If money donated is not a gift or investment, it is considered taxable income. Even a gift could be subject to the gift tax, but that tax applies only to the gift giver. Non-Taxable Gifts These are donations made without the expectation of getting something in return. Think of all those Patriots’ fans who gave money to GoFundMe to help defray the cost of quarterback Tom Brady’s NFL fine for Deflategate. Those fans aren’t expecting anything in return – except maybe some satisfaction -- so their donations are considered gifts. Under IRS rules, an individual can give another individual a gift of up to $14,000 without tax implications. So, unless a Brady fan is particularly generous, his or her GoFundMe gift won’t be taxed. Taxable Income Now consider that same Brady fan donating $300 to a Patriots’ business venture. If the fan receives stock or equity in the company in return for the donation, this is considered an investment and is not taxable . However, if the business owner does not offer stock or equity in the company, the money donated could be considered business income and the recipient would need to report it on a tax return. https://www.libertytax.com/tax-lounge/two-tax-rules-to-know-before-you-try-kickstarter-or-gofundme/\"",
"\"When you say \"\"donate\"\", it usually assumes charitable donation with, in this context, tax benefit. That is not what happens in your scenario. Giving someone money with the requirement of that someone to spend that money at your shop is not donation. It is a grant. You can do that, but you won't be able to deduct this as charitable donation, but the money paid to you back would be taxable income to you. I respectfully disagree with Joe that its a wash. It is not. You give them money that you cannot deduct as an expense (as it is not business expense) or donation (as strings are attached). But you do give them the money, it is no longer yours. When they use the money to pay you back - that same money becomes your taxable income. End result: you provide service, and you're the one paying (taxes) for it. Why would you do that?\"",
"Why wouldn't one of the existing crowdsourcing systems meet your needs? Yes, they charge a commission, but they have already addressed the issues you raise and specifically they provide the third-party accounting you want.",
"For people who are good with money (presumably), Kiva.org gives your money to such people who apply for loans through social service organizations in various countries (I believe this is how it's done). The people state what they will use the money for. It can be as simple as 'buying provisions for food truck business' or 'replacing wheels on tractor.' Then they pay the money back and you (who donated x number of dollars) use that repaid money to make another loan.",
"You could find a relative in another country who has the ability to receive PayPal, and have them transfer the money to you via Western Union or Hawala.",
"You do actually have some profits (whatever is left from donations). The way it goes is that you report everything on your Schedule C. You will report this: Your gross profits will then flow to Net Profit (line 31) since you had no other expenses (unless you had some other expenses, like paypal fees, which will appear in the relevant category in part II), and from line 31 it will go to your 1040 for the final tax calculation.",
"\"Income generated from online sales is not considered \"\"passive income\"\", so you need to be authorized to work in the U.S. Those without work authorization can acquire passive income (through investments, lending, competition/contest earnings, etc.) In order to sell products on eBay (the description you've given leads me to believe that this is operated as a business), you need to be authorized to work in the U.S., and register a business. See:\"",
"If PayPal won't accept the VCC number, then by definition you can't do this. If you want to know whether there's a way to get special permission or bypass that restriction... I'm afraid the right thing to do is ask PayPal. Yes, I know their customer support is awful, but this is a classic customer support question, and they know the internals of their system better than any of us possibly could.",
"In addition to paypal, Amazon also offers a payment processing service that has micropayment pricing: For Transactions < $10:",
"Are there any local charities that could fund the work, and thus take Gift-Aided donations for it? Depending on the details, a School PTA or the Parish Church could justify sponsoring some improvements to the local park as part of their remit. You then give donations to them and they claim the Gift Aid and pay for the improvements with the total. Setting up a whole new charity is the other option, but unless the improvements are very expensive, that feels like overkill.",
"The fees for the services are displayed on the PayPal website at https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_display-fees-outside Is there anything else you were looking for.",
"\"Paypal linked with my bank account. 1.Can I use my Saving bank account to receive payments from my clients? Or is it necessary to open a current account? Yes you can get funds into your savings account. However it is advisable to keep a seperate account as it would help with your IT Returns. 2.I will be paying a certain % as commission on every sales to a couple of sales guys (who are not my employees but only working on commission). Can I show this as an expense in my IT returns? As you are earning as freelancer, you are eligible for certain deductions like Phone calls, Laptop, other hardware, payments to partners. It is important that you maintain a book of records. An accountant for a small fee of Rs 5 K should be able to help you. In the Returns you have to show Net income after all these deductions, there is no place to enter expenses. 3.Since I will be receiving all the payments in Euros so am I falling under a category of \"\"Exporter of services\"\"? The work you are doing can be Free Lancing. 4.Do I need an Import Export Code (IEC) for smoothly running this small business? You can run this without one as Free lancing. IEC would be when you grow big and are looking for various benefits under tax and pay different taxes and are incorporated as a company.\"",
"\"Yes, your email address is your \"\"PayPal\"\" account. It's what people use to send you money, and what you use to pay people.\"",
"\"I linked my bank account (by making a transfer from bank account to Paypal) without linking a card. This should not give Paypal any rights to do anything with my bank account - transfer that I made to link it was exactly the same as any other outgoing transfer from my bank account. On attempting to pay more that resides in my Paypal balance I get To pay for this purchase right now, link a debit or credit card to your PayPal account. message. Paypal is not mentioning it but one may also transfer money to Paypal account form bank to solve this problem. Note, that one may give allow Paypal to access bank account - maybe linking a card will allow this? Paypal encourages linking card but without any description of consequences so I never checked this. It is also possible that Paypal gained access to your bank balance in other way - for example in Poland it just asked for logins and passwords to bank accounts (yes, using \"\"Add money instantly using Trustly\"\" in Poland really requires sharing full login credentials to bank account - what among other things breaks typical bank contract) source for \"\"Paypal attempts phishing\"\": https://niebezpiecznik.pl/post/uwaga-uzytkownicy-paypala-nie-korzystajcie-z-najnowszej-funkcji-tego-serwisu/\""
] |
[
"Yes, Paypal has such a button you can use, but to be clear, the money you receive is taxable income. Your website is providing 'value' to the readers, and while they may feel they are making a gift to you, it's earned income as far as the IRS is concerned. (This assumes you are in the US, you may wish to add a tag to indicate your country)",
"Yes, PayPal allows you to add a donate button to your website. You're responsible for any tax record-keeping related to income from the donate button.",
"An answer from PayPal stated that donations may be turned on only for Business PayPal accounts that are verified for its non-profit status. Such PayPal Business account must be opened in the name of non-profit organization (not a single person) and go through verification process. One must provide the following information: That would mean that one cannot ask for donations as a private person, at least in Croatia, and probably in Europe."
] |
5790
|
FX losses on non-UK mortgage for UK property - tax deductable?
|
[
"134794"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"141738",
"11122",
"325118",
"391251",
"369419",
"202645",
"24667",
"30654",
"409566",
"378465",
"166567",
"345070",
"116934",
"212312",
"385874",
"168440",
"134794",
"446984",
"484375",
"330",
"526499",
"342411",
"339295",
"241136",
"33117",
"589416",
"376392",
"569210",
"393629",
"263202",
"476173",
"251385",
"55901",
"426960",
"123047",
"497642",
"156381",
"280538",
"507107",
"278781",
"342903",
"385310",
"373966",
"1666",
"481601",
"24308",
"275543",
"15330",
"334154",
"385139",
"51497",
"495467",
"550468",
"367930",
"205217",
"87386",
"390435",
"578970",
"475410",
"244303",
"160416",
"136850",
"543887",
"97348",
"330269",
"528838",
"316230",
"101543",
"343766",
"361514",
"356884",
"169245",
"129695",
"246461",
"490888",
"136932",
"30403",
"440219",
"272940",
"108273",
"119437",
"236254",
"248761",
"418999",
"100280",
"444369",
"100387",
"30406",
"140977",
"126007",
"484596",
"338539",
"339488",
"53814",
"418480",
"15606",
"194308",
"392313",
"135073",
"590390"
] |
[
"\"About deducting mortgage interest: No, you can not deduct it unless it is qualified mortgage interest. \"\"Qualified mortgage interest is interest and points you pay on a loan secured by your main home or a second home.\"\" (Tax Topic 505). According to the IRS, \"\"if you rent out the residence, you must use it for more than 14 days or more than 10% of the number of days you rent it out, whichever is longer.\"\" Regarding being taxed on income received from the property, if you claim the foreign tax credit you will not be double taxed. According to the IRS, \"\"The foreign tax credit intends to reduce the double tax burden that would otherwise arise when foreign source income is taxed by both the United States and the foreign country from which the income is derived.\"\" (from IRS Topic 856 - Foreign Tax Credit) About property taxes: From my understanding, these cannot be claimed for the foreign tax credit but can be deducted as business expenses. There are various exceptions and stipulations based on your circumstance, so you need to read the official publications and get professional tax advice. Here's an excerpt from Publication 856 - Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals: \"\"In most cases, only foreign income taxes qualify for the foreign tax credit. Other taxes, such as foreign real and personal property taxes, do not qualify. But you may be able to deduct these other taxes even if you claim the foreign tax credit for foreign income taxes. In most cases, you can deduct these other taxes only if they are expenses incurred in a trade or business or in the production of income. However, you can deduct foreign real property taxes that are not trade or business expenses as an itemized deduction on Schedule A (Form 1040).\"\" Note and disclaimer: Sources: IRS Tax Topic 505 Interest Expense, IRS Real Estate (Taxes, Mortgage Interest, Points, Other Property Expenses) , IRS Topic 514 Foreign Tax Credit , and Publication 856 Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals\"",
"\"Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer nor a tax-expert This page on the HMRC site lists several pages that appear to be relevant, starting with CG78401 - Foreign currency: delayed remittances and on to CG78408 - Foreign currency: example which seems pertinent to your case [paraphrased]: A property bought in 1983 is sold for a [taxable] gain in one tax-year (1986/87) but the proceeds cannot be released/remitted to the UK until later (1991/92), by which time currency fluctuations have created a second [taxable] gain. The size of the first gain (selling the property) is determined by the exchange rate in effect at the time of the sale but because of local restrictions, this can be deferred. The size of the second gain (currency movement) is determined by the change in exchange-rate between the time of the sale and the time of conversion. In your case, the first \"\"gain\"\" was actually a loss, so I believe you should be able to use this to offset any tax due second gain. This page states that losses can be claimed up to four years after the end of the tax-year in which they were incurred, so you are probably still OK. (The example makes application under TCGA92/S279 to defer the gain made on the original sale [because of the inability to transfer funds], but as I understand it, this is primarily to avoid a tax liability in that year. Since you made a loss on the sale, there wouldn't have been a tax liability, so there would be no need to defer it).\"",
"\"Mortgage interest in Canada is not generally tax deductible for individuals. (Where did you read otherwise?) As an individual, the only mortgage interest you may be able to deduct is when you borrow the money to purchase an income-producing asset, e.g another property you can rent out, or investments producing dividends or other income. In these cases, the interest you pay on the borrowed funds, i.e. the \"\"carrying costs\"\" for your investments, would be deductible against the income produced by the investments purchased.\"",
"The loan itself is not tax deductible; unless you took it as part of a mortgage, anyway, it's just a regular loan. Mortgage and Student Loan Interest deductions are special cases explicitly given tax-deductible status; other loans are not deductible (unless part of a business expense or other qualifying reason). If this were a short sale (which you note it was not but included for completeness' sake), and some of your debt was cancelled, that may have tax implications. You cannot take a capital loss on your personal residence, so the loss itself is not deductible.",
"\"I would say similar rules apply in the US. If you have a net loss from rental property, you certainly can claim that loss against your personal income. There are various rules around this though that make it a bit less clear cut. If you are a \"\"real estate professional\"\", which basicly means you spend at least 750 hours per year working on your rental properties (or related activities), then all losses are deductible against any other ordinary income you have. If you aren't a \"\"real estate professional\"\", then your rental income is considered a \"\"passive activity\"\" and losses you can count against regular income are limited to $25,000 per year (with a carry-forward provision) and begin to phase out entirely if your income is between $100,000 and $150,000. So, the law here is structured to allow most small-time investors to take rental real estate losses against their ordinary income, but the income phase-out provision is designed to prevent the wealthy from using rental property losses to avoid taxation.\"",
"For stocks, bonds, ETF funds and so on - Taxed only on realised gain and losses are deductible from the gain and not from company's income. Corporate tax is calculated only after all expenses have been deducted. Not the other way around. Real estate expenses can be deducted because of repairs and maintenance. In general all expenses related to the operation of the business can be deducted. But you cannot use expenses as willy nilly, as you assume. You cannot deduct your subscription to Playboy as an expense. Doing it is illegal and if caught, the tours to church will increase exponentially. VAT is only paid if you claim VAT on your invoices. Your situation seems quite complicated. I would suggest, get an accountant pronto. There are nuances in your situation, which an accountant only can understand and help.",
"You cannot deduct. Even if you could, unless you also hold the mortgage, it's unlikely that you would have sufficient deductions to exceed the standard deduction for a married couple.",
"Huh. It appears it's only currencies in sterling that are fully exempt. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-gains-manual/cg12602 Government manuals are more detailed than .gov but still not perfect as it's HMRCs interpretation of legislation and has been overturned in the past. There is also another (old) article here about foreign currency transactions. https://www.taxation.co.uk/articles/2010/10/27/21191/currency-gains I have never come across forex capital gains in practice but I've learnt something today! Something to look out for in the UK as well I guess.",
"Very simple. If it wasn't rented, it's deductible as a schedule A home mortgage interest. If it was rented, you go into Schedule E land, still a deduction along with any/every expense incurred.",
"If it's a rental, you will write off the losses via Schedule E. You should read this document and its instructions to understand this fully. You will also take depreciation on the value of the building, not the land, over 27.5 years. If you don't understand this, search here, there are discussions that cover this. If it's not a rental, but your home or second home, you take the interest and real estate tax off you tax via Schedule A, if you itemize. (I see the tag 'rental' but leave this line for sake of a complete answer.)",
"\"The mortgage tax deduction can at most apply to two mortgages. IRS Publication 936 lays this out pretty clearly. There might be other deductions available if you are using the houses as a commercial entity, but that's more \"\"corporate taxes\"\" than \"\"personal taxes\"\". I know there are tax laws for dealing with interest, depreciation, capital expenses that businesses use.\"",
"I am wondering weather it is worth it (how taxation works in this scenario ect.) or not and legally possible to do so ? Whether it is worth it or not is up to you. There's nothing illegal in this, unless of course there's a legal issue in the foreign country. The US doesn't care. Re taxes - it is a bit trickier. If your lender does not provide you with form 1098, you'll have to report the lender's name, address and SSN/ITIN on your tax return in order to claim a deduction. The IRS will then expect the lender to report that interest as income. This is US-sourced income and is taxed in the US despite the fact that the lender is non-resident. See here for more info. If the lender doesn't report the income and doesn't pay the taxes - your deduction may be denied as well for double-dipping. It is easier if this is an investment. Then the deduction is not going to Schedule A, but rather as an expense to Schedule E. The IRS may still require matching, but you won't need to report the SSN/ITIN - just have the expense properly documented. Obviously, the best when it comes to legal issues, is to talk to an attorney licensed in the State in question. Similarly with tax questions - you should talk to a EA/CPA licensed in that State. I'm neither.",
"Yes, you can deduct from your taxable profits (almost) any expenses incurred in the course of your business. See here for HMRC's detailed advice on the subject. The fact that you have salaried PAYE employment as well makes no difference.",
"Generally speaking, if a business loses money for whatever reason, then that reduces the profits of the business which reduces the tax payable. However if you were holding the assets on a personal basis prior to incorporating the business, the position may become more complicated. For that kind of money some professional advice may be worthwhile.",
"Since you say the money was invested in a corporation that would lead me to believe you mean a stock purchase. Stock losses can be treated as a tax exemption filed as a capital loss. http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/Cutyourtaxes/P33438.asp http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2006-03-10-capital-losses_x.htm Canada has slightly more restrictions on how this can be done. http://www.taxtips.ca/filing/capitallosses.htm",
"No. And I'll let my good friend and fellow blogger Kay Bell answer in some detail, in her article Deducting private mortgage insurance.",
"I spoke to HMRC and they said #1 is not allowable but #2 is. They suggested using either their published exchange rates or I could use another source. I suggested the Bank of England spot rates and that was deemed reasonable and allowable.",
"The relevant IRS publication is pub 463. Note that there are various conditions and exceptions, but it all starts with business necessity. Is it necessary for you to work from the UK? If you're working from the UK because you wanted to take a vacation, but still have to work, and would do the same work without being in the UK - then you cannot deduct travel expenses. It sounds to me like this is the case here.",
"\"DirectGov has a good overview here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_4017814 and answers to your specific questions here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_10013435 In short, you do need to declare the rental income on your tax return and will need to pay tax on it (and note that only the mortgage interest (not the full repayment) is deductible as an \"\"allowable expense\"\", see the full list of what is deductible here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_10014027 ).\"",
"\"As long as the losing business is not considered \"\"passive activity\"\" or \"\"hobby\"\", then yes. Passive Activity is an activity where you do not have to actively do anything to generate income. For example - royalties or rentals. Hobby is an activity that doesn't generate profit. Generally, if your business doesn't consistently generate profit (the IRS looks at 3 out of the last 5 years), it may be characterized as hobby. For hobby, loss deduction is limited by the hobby income and the 2% AGI threshold.\"",
"The rental income is indeed taxable income, but you reduce the taxable portion of it by deducting expenses (including mortgage interest, maintenance, insurance, HOA, real estate tax, and of course depreciation). Due to the depreciation, you may end up breaking even, or having very little taxable income. Note that when you sell the property, your basis is reduced by the depreciation you were allowed to deduct (even if you haven't deducted it for whatever reason), and also the personal residence exclusion might no longer be applicable - i.e.: you'll have to pay capital gains tax. You will not be able to deduct a loss though if you sell now, so it may be better to depreciate it as a rental, rather then sell at a loss that won't affect your taxes. Also, consider the fact that the basis for the depreciation is not the basis you currently have in the property (because you're under water). You have to remember that when calculating the taxes. This is not a tax advice, and you should seek a professional help.",
"If you buy foreign currency as an investment, then the gains are ordinary income. The gains are realized when you close the position, and whether you buy something else go back to the original form of investment is of no consequence. In case #1 you have $125 income. In case #2 you have $125 income. In case #3 you have $166 loss. You report all these items on your Schedule D. Make sure to calculate the tax correctly, since the tax is not capital gains tax but rather ordinary income at marginal rates. Changes in foreign exchange between a transaction and the conversion of the proceeds to USD are generally not considered as income (i.e.: You sold a property in Mexico, but since the money took a couple of days to clear, the exchange rate changed and you got $2K more/less than you would based on the exchange rate on the day of the transaction - this is not a taxable income/loss). This is covered by the IRC Sec. 988. There are additional rules for contracts on foreign currency, TTM rules, etc. Better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for anything other than trivial.",
"The interest on a loan secured by a rental property is not deductible at all. The interest on a loan used to buy (or improve) the rental property is deductible, regardless of where you got it from (you can take money from your credit card to buy a rental - it will be deductible). The deductability is per the use of the money, not the source, with the cash-out up to 100K from your primary residence being the notable exception.",
"To answer some parts of the question which are answerable as-is: Yes, mortgage interest is deductible. So is depreciation. See this question and others. It would be a good idea to put some money away for tax season, just as you should save some money to cover unexpected property expenses. But as @JoeTaxpayer says, this is a good problem to have, assuming you own the property, it's low-maintenance, your tenant is good, and your rent is at market levels.",
"If this was a public corporation (stock) and the investment was made in a non-registered account, then you can claim a capital loss. Capital losses are claimed against capital gains (not income), and can be carried back 3 years or carried forward indefinitely. Here's an article I've written on how to claim capital losses that may help.",
"Any deductable expense will reduce your taxable income not your tax payable. Your Example 1 above is correct and gives you 100% deduction. It is like having a business where your sales are $100,000 and your expenses in making the sales is $40,000. The expenses are your tax deductions and reduce your profits on which you pay tax on to $60,000. If your Example 2 was correct then the situation above would change that you would pay say $30,000 tax on $100,000 sales, then apply your deductions (or expenses) of $40,000 so that you would pay no tax at all and in fact get $10,000 back in your return. In this case the government would not be collecting any taxes but paying out returns to everyone. Your Example 2 is absolutly incorrect.",
"http://www.irs.gov/publications/p936/ar02.html#en_US_2010_publink1000229891 If you still own it, you get to deduct all of it. In my taxes I did online with TaxAct, it asked if I lived there or not and it just mattered which form it filed for me. With having tenants it was a 'business' form and I assume it would be a standard schedule A for personal. Either way the deductions are still mine to take.",
"if you open spreadbetting accounts and prove to the inland revenue that trading profits are not your main income, you will not be liable for any tax on your gains. Holding a property in the uk which is point of call for any held bank accounts needs to be verifiable though. This is only an issue if accounts are larger than £400k. seems anything smaller doesnt get the sniffer dogs attention at the IR dept.",
"Should I treat this house as a second home or a rental property on my 2015 taxes? If it was not rented out or available for rent then you could treat it as your second home. But if it was available for rent (i.e.: you started advertising, you hired a property manager, or made any other step towards renting it out), but you just didn't happen to find a tenant yet - then you cannot. So it depends on the facts and circumstances. I've read that if I treat this house as a rental property, then the renovation cost is a capital expenditure that I can claim on my taxes by depreciating it over 28 years. That is correct. 27.5 years, to be exact. I've also read that if I treat this house as a personal second home, then I cannot do that because the renovation costs are considered non-deductible personal expenses. That is not correct. In fact, in both cases the treatment is the same. Renovation costs are added to your basis. In case of rental, you get to depreciate the house. Since renovations are considered part of the house, you get to depreciate them too. In case of a personal use property, you cannot depreciate. But the renovation costs still get added to the basis. These are not expenses. But does mortgage interest get deducted against my total income or only my rental income? If it is a personal use second home - you get to deduct the mortgage interest up to a limit on your Schedule A. Depending on your other deductions, you may or may not have a tax benefit. If it is a rental - the interest is deducted from the rental income only on your Schedule E. However, there's no limit (although some may be deferred if the deduction is more than the income) if you're renting at fair market value. Any guidance would be much appreciated! Here's the guidance: if it is a rental - treat it as a rental. Otherwise - don't.",
"According to page 107 of the instructions for schedule A for form 1040 : Include taxes (state, local, or foreign) paid on real estate you own that was not used for business. ... If you want to make a business out of her property and be her agent in the management, you might be able to work with an accountant on this, but it won't be a valid personal deduction.",
"Yes, you can. That the books were purchased from abroad is irrelevant: you incurred an expense in the course of earning your income. If the books are expensive (>$300 per set iirc) you will need to deprecate them over a reasonable life time rather than claiming the entire amount up front. It doesn't matter whether what you got was a VAT Invoice; as long as you have some reasonable documentation of the expense you're ok.",
"\"If your friend is loaning you KRW which you are then converting to USD, then there are tax implications. This would be a Section 988 transaction so \"\"gains\"\" or \"\"losses\"\" made during repayment (partial or complete) due to fluctuations in exchange rate would be treated as ordinary gains or losses. For example, imagine you borrow 100,000 KRW and, at the time you borrow it, this is worth exactly 100,000 USD. At some future point, you repay 20,000 KRW. If the exchange rate at that point is such that 20,000 KRW is worth 15,000 USD, then the IRS sees that you have \"\"gained\"\" 5,000 USD in ordinary income. This is a particular concern if the loan is a mortgage and you refinance the mortgage at a moment in time with a more \"\"favorable\"\" exchange rate than the exchange rate when you first got the mortgage. See http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/section-988.asp for some additional discussion.\"",
"Am I eligible for the tax exemption if yes then under which section. Generally Personal loans are not eligible for tax exemption. Only housing loans from qualified institutions are eligible for tax deduction. As per the income tax act; The house should be in your name. The home loans taken from recognised institutions are fully qualified under section 24B and 80C. This means you can claim Interest exemption under 24B and Principal repayment under 80C. The Act also specifies that loan can be taken from friends/relatives for construction of property and will be eligible for Interest exemption under 24B only. The principal will not be eligible for exemption under 80C. Read the FAQ from Income Tax India. There has to be certificate showing how much interest was paid on the said loan. Further there should be records/receipts on how the money was spent. There is difference of opinion amongst CA. It is best you take a professional advise.",
"\"Since you did not treat the house as a QBU, you have to use USD as your functional currency. To calculate capital gains, you need to calculate the USD value at the time of purchase using the exchange rate at the time of purchase and the USD value at the time of sale using the exchange rate at the time of sale. The capital gain / loss is then the difference between the two. This link describes it in more detail and provides some references: http://www.maximadvisors.com/2013/06/foreign-residence/ That link also discusses additional potential complications if you have a mortgage on the house. This link gives more detail on the court case referenced in the above link: http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs5/93F3d26.html The court cases references Rev. Rul 54-105. This link from the IRS has some details from that (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0303021.pdf): Rev. Rul. 54-105, 1954-1 C.B. 12, states that for purposes of determining gain, the basis and selling price of property acquired by a U.S. citizen living in a foreign country should be expressed in United States dollars at the rates of exchange prevailing as of the dates of purchase and sale of the property, respectively. The text of this implies it is for U.S. citizen is living in a foreign country, but the court case makes it clear that it also applies in your scenario (house purchased while living abroad but now residing in the US): Appellants agree that the 453,374 pounds received for their residence should be translated into U.S. dollars at the $1.82 exchange rate prevailing at the date of sale. They argue, however, that the 343,147 pound adjusted cost basis of the residence, consisting of the 297,500 pound purchase price and the 45,647 pounds paid for capital improvements, likewise should be expressed in U.S. dollar terms as of the date of the sale. Appellants correctly state that, viewed “in the foreign currency in which it was transacted,” the purchase generated a 110,227 pound gain as of the date of the sale, which translates to approximately $200,000 at the $1.82 per pound exchange rate. ... However fair and reasonable their argument may be, it amounts to an untenable attempt to convert their “functional currency” from the U.S. dollar to the pound sterling. ... Under I.R.C. § 985(b)(1), use of a functional currency other than the U.S. dollar is restricted to qualified business units (\"\"QBU\"\"s). ... appellants correctly assert that their residence was purchased “for a pound-denominated value” while they were “living and working in a pound-denominated economy,” ... And since appellants concede that the purchase and sale of their residence was not carried out by a QBU, the district court properly rejected their plea to treat the pound as their functional currency.\"",
"I would not expect any problems. Your interest will have tax deducted at 20% which I don't think you would be entitled to reclaim because you don't get a personal allowance if you aren't resident in the UK, and unless you have a huge amount of UK earnings you would not be legally liable to any higher rates of tax so there would be no issues there. If you were liable to more tax you would be obliged to inform the Inland Revenue.",
"You should speak to a good tax adviser. The less documentation you have the more problems IRS are going to cause you. Generally you can deduct business losses (in the year they occurred, which is 2011), but you have to show that that was a valid business, not just a way to reduce your tax bill with personal expenses. Thus lack of documentation reduces your ability to prove that you're entitled to the deduction. The burden of proof is generally on you. You can not deduct it from 2012 taxes, but you can still amend 2011. Keep in mind though that amended returns have higher chance of audit, and a significant business loss on a business that only existed that year is a major red flag which will raise the probability of an audit to very high percentage. Theoretically, if the business was real and just failed - you can definitely deduct this. But practically, lack of documentation may cause too big a problem, and a tax adviser might suggest you giving it up if he doesn't think you have a real chance to convince the IRS. Definitely don't do that without a professional advice. It is worth fighting for, its quite a loss, but don't do it on your own as you will definitely lose.",
"I can't see how you can deduct your mother's loss. The money was not stolen from you, and you gave money to your mother of your own free will and with full intention of the money to be used by her as she wishes. Moving money from your own account to a joint account allowing the joint holder to use it - is akin to giving the money directly to the joint holder, i.e.: in your case, giving a gift to your mother.",
"In some circumstances losses from self-employment can be offset against total income and/or capital gains. If this applies to you may be able to claim back some of the tax taken by PAYE from your day job. You can also to some extent carry the loss backwards into previous tax years or forward into the next one if you can't use it fully this year. HMRC have some information available on the current rules: When you can claim losses You can claim: But You can’t claim:",
"A non-resident alien is only allowed for deductions connected to producing a US-sourced income (See IRC Sec. 873). Thus you can only deduct things that qualify as business expenses, and State taxes on your wages. In addition you can deduct a bunch of stuff explicitly allowed (like tax preparation, charitable contributions, casualty losses, etc) but sales tax is not in that list.",
"Keep in mind, when talking about other deductions, such as mortgage interest, you need to look at your overall situation and whether the taxpayer is near the standard deduction amount. For some, their interest deduction and property tax are below the standard deduction, and therefore, they'd not itemize.",
"Here is the technical guidance from the accounting standard FRS 23 (IAS 21) 'The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates' which states: Exchange differences arising on the settlement of monetary items or on translating monetary items at rates different from those at which they were translated on initial recognition during the period or in previous financial statements shall be recognised in profit or loss in the period in which they arise. An example: You agree to sell a product for $100 to a customer at a certain date. You would record the sale of this product on that date at $100, converted at the current FX rate (lets say £1:$1 for ease) in your profit loss account as £100. The customer then pays you several $100 days later, at which point the FX rate has fallen to £0.5:$1 and you only receive £50. You would then have a realised loss of £50 due to exchange differences, and this is charged to your profit and loss account as a cost. Due to double entry bookkeeping the profit/loss on the FX difference is needed to balance the journals of the transaction. I think there is a little confusion as to what constitutes a (realised) profit/loss on exchange difference. In the example in your question, you are not making any loss when you convert the bitcoins to dollars, as there is no difference in the exchange rate between the point you convert them. Therefore you have not made either a profit or a loss. In terms of how this effects your tax position; you only pay tax on your profit and loss account. The example I give above is an instance where an exchange difference is recorded to the P&L. In your example, the value of your cash held is reflected in your balance sheet, as an asset, whatever its value is at the balance sheet date. Unfortunately, the value of the asset can rise/fall, but the only time where you will record a profit/loss on this (and therefore have an impact on tax) is if you sell the asset.",
"Let me restate question for clarity. Facts: Question: Are there any taxes for this transaction? Answer: (Added improvements provided by Eric) Generally No. Generally, it is not considered income until you sell and the sale price is greater than the purchase price. But with currency differences, there is an additional complication, section 988 rules apply. It could result in ordinary income or loss.",
"\"The likely reason the mortgage is \"\"tricky to get\"\" is the adviser is probably recommending an interest-only mortgage in which there is no repayment of principle before maturity. That would allow you to deduct the amount of the interest expense from your taxable income. Your investment grows compound tax deferred and the principal invested (the mortgage balance) is completely tax free since it never qualifies as income for tax purposes. Example ideal scenario: Refinance $100,000 on a 5/1 ARM-interest only at 3%. Invest the $100,000 at 6%. Each year you effectively pay taxes on only the gains greater than interest. If you reinvest the profits it looks something like: Net Profit: $12,309 Effective Tax Rate: 13.21%\"",
"\"http://www.investopedia.com/articles/mortgages-real-estate/08/tax-deductible-mortgage-canada.asp > This strategy is not for everyone. Borrowing against your home is psychologically difficult, and if the investments don't yield expected returns, this strategy could yield negative results. By re-borrowing the equity in your home, you are also removing your \"\"cushion\"\" of safety if the real estate (or investment) markets take a turn for the worse. By creating an income-producing portfolio in an unregistered account, there can also be additional tax consequences - so always consult with a professional financial advisor to determine whether this strategy is for you, and if it is, have it tailor-made to you and your family's personal financial situation.\"",
"In theory, when you obtained ownership of your USD cash as a Canadian resident [*resident for tax purposes, which is generally a quicker timeline than being resident for immigration purposes], it is considered to have been obtained by you for the CAD equivalent on that date. For example if you immigrated on Dec 31, 2016 and carried $10k USD with you, when the rate was ~1.35, then Canada deems you to have arrived with $13.5k CAD. If you converted that CAD to USD when the rate was 1.39, you would have received 13.9k CAD, [a gain of $400 to show as income on your tax return]. Receiving the foreign inheritances is a little more complex; those items when received may or may not have been taxable on that day. However whether or not they were taxable, you would calculate a further gain as above, if the fx rate gave you more CAD when you ultimately converted it. If the rate went the other way and you lost CAD-value, you may or may not be able to claim a loss. If it was a small loss, I wouldn't bother trying to claim it due to hassle. If it's a large loss, I would be very sure to research thoroughly before claiming, because something like that probably has a high chance of being audited.",
"\"This article on the landlord website Property118.com shows a simple example, demonstrating that a private landlord with a mortgage could see a huge jump in their effective tax rate (in this case, from 18% to 67% by 2020), while a corporate landlord will see no change at all. There's also a link in that article to a detailed report which is highly critical of the tax changes. The government obviously take a different view! (See here for more worked examples of how the tax changes will be applied). More information can be found on this on various landlord sites. A key phrase to look for is \"\"section 24\"\", referring to the section of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015 which implements the change. Note that this change only applies to private landlords (i.e. those who own a property personally, rather than through a company), and who have a mortgage on the property, and who (after the new calculations) are higher or additional rate taxpayers.\"",
"This doesn't sound very legal to me. Real estate losses cannot generally be deducted unless you have other real estate income. So the only case when this would work is when that person has bunch of other buildings that do produce income, and he reduces that income, for tax purposes, by deducting the expenses/depreciation/taxes for the buildings that do not. However, depreciation doesn't really reduce taxes, only defers them to the sale. As mhoran_psprep said - all the rest of the expenses will be minimal.",
"\"Can I claim a 20% of the interest paid over the period of Oct/2015 through Mar/2017 (18 months) when I file for IT returns this year in Mar/2017? Yes you can. Does my name not being the first name affect my eligibility of claiming the relief? No you can claim relief. Joint owners need to file a declaration on the quantum of relief claimed. Both can't claim 100%. Does that mean I my claiming the 20% relief on interest (and the remaining 80% over subsequent years) is in effect moot as my \"\"taxable\"\" income cannot go negative (meaning the govt cannot/will not return some money I have paid as IT in prior years)? If you have no other income on which tax is payable; then Yes it is irrelevant. Does that mean as long as I continue to work in the US (already having become a NRI), have little or no income in India, I cannot claim any future relief regarding the principal or interest? Yes that is right.\"",
"If you are using the money to invest in a property (even abroad) then you can claim tax exemption. while some people will tell you that the reinvestment should be in India only, it have been ruled that the property can be purchased abroad too..",
"If you take the statement you quote as stated, it is indeed absurd. Unless you have a really creative tax accountant or live in a country with very unusual tax laws, any tax deduction you get for mortgage interest is going to be less than the interest. You don't come out ahead by getting a $25 deduction if you had a $100 expense to get that deduction. Where there can be some sense behind such a statement is if you consider the alternative to paying cash for a house or making extra payments against a mortgage. If you had $100,000 in cash in a box under your bed, and the choice is between, (a) use that $100,000 to buy a house in cash, or (b) borrow $100,000 at 6% interest and leave that cash in the box under the bed, than clearly (a) is the better choice because it saves you the interest expense. But if the choice is between, (a) buy a house for $100,000 in cash and borrow $100,000 at 6% to buy a car; or (b) borrow $100,000 at 6% interest to buy a house and use the $100,000 cash to buy the car, (b) is the better choice. The home mortgage loan is tax deductible; the car loan is not. As others have pointed out, if instead of using some extra cash to pay down the principle on your mortgage you used that money to invest in the stock market, it is likely that you would get better returns on the investment than what you would have saved in interest on the mortgage -- depending, of course, on how the market is doing and how well you pick stocks. But the key issue there isn't the tax deduction, it's the comparison of the profits from the investment versus the opportunity cost of the money that could have been saved on the mortgage interest. The tax deduction affects that comparison by effectively reducing the interest rate on the mortgage -- your real interest expense is the nominal interest minus the deduction -- but that's not the key point, just another number to plug in to the formula. By the way, given the complexity of U.S. tax law, I would not rule out the possibility that there could be some scenario where you really would save money by having mortgage interest. There are lots of deductions and credits that are phased out or eliminated as your income goes up. Perhaps you could find some set of tax laws that apply to you such that having an additional $1000 in interest expense lets you take a $300 deduction here and a $500 credit there, etc, and they add up to more than $1000. I don't know if that could actually happen, but the rules are complicated enough that, maybe. Any tax accountants here who can come up with such a scenario?",
"Those choices aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, most discussion of the mortgage interest deduction ignores the fact that for a standard itemizer, much, if not all of this deduction can be lost. For 2011, the std deduction for a single is $5,800. It's not just mortgage interest that's deductible, state income tax, realestate tax, and charitable contributions are among the other deductions. If this house is worth $350K, the property tax is about $5K, and since it's not optional, I'd be inclined to assume that it's the deduction that offsets the std deduction. Most states have an income tax, which tops off the rest. You are welcome to toss this aside as sophistry, but I view it as these other deductions as 'lost' first. I'm married, and our property tax is more than our standard deduction, so when doing the math, the mortgage is fully deductible, as are our contributions. In your case, the numbers may play out differently. No state tax? Great, so it's the property tax and deductions you'd add up first and decide on the value the mortgage deduction brings. Last, I don't have my mortgage for the deduction, I just believe that long term my other investments will exceed, after tax, the cost of that mortgage.",
"The IRS' primary reference Pub 519 Tax Guide for Aliens -- current year online (current and previous years downloadable in PDF from the Forms&Pubs section of the website) says NO: Students and business apprentices from India. A special rule applies .... You can claim the standard deduction .... Use Worksheet 5-1 to figure your standard deduction. If you are married and your spouse files a return and itemizes deductions, you cannot take the standard deduction. Note the last sentence, which is clearly an exception to the 'India rule', which is already an exception to the general rule that nonresident filers never get the standard deduction. Of course this is the IRS' interpretation of the law (which is defined to include ratified treaties); if you think they are wrong, you could claim the deduction anyway and when they assess the additional tax (and demand payment) take it to US Tax Court -- but I suspect the legal fees will cost you more than the marginal tax on $6300, even under Tax Court's simplified procedures for small cases.",
"No, if you are taking a loss solely and purely to reduce the tax you have to pay, then it is not a good strategy, in fact it is a very bad strategy, no matter what country you are in. No investment choice should be made solely due to your tax consequeses. If you are paying tax that means you made a profit, if you made a loss just to save some tax then you are loosing money. The whole point of investing is to make money not lose it.",
"They will include the rental income into the calculation. They don't give you a 100% credit for the income because they have to factor that you might have a gap between tenants. Years ago they only credited me with 66% of the expected monthly income. Example: This expense was then supposed to come from the 10% of my income that was allocated for monthly non-principal mortgage loans, e.g student loan, auto loan, credit card debt...",
"As noted above but with sources An improvement materially adds to the value of your home, considerably prolongs its useful life, or adapts it to new uses. You must add the cost of any improvements to the basis of your home. You cannot deduct these costs. Source Page 11, Adjusted Basis, Improvements Second, A repair keeps your home in an ordinary, efficient operating condition. It does not add to the value of your home or prolong its life. Repairs include repainting your home inside or outside, fixing your gutters or floors, fixing leaks or plastering, and replacing broken window panes. You cannot deduct repair costs and generally cannot add them to the basis of your home. Source Page 12, Adjusted Basis, Repairs versus improvements Generally, an expense for repairing or maintaining your rental property may be deducted if you are not required to capitalize the expense. You must capitalize any expense you pay to improve your rental property. An expense is for an improvement if it results in a betterment to your property, restores your property, or adapts your property to a new or different use. Source Page 5, Repairs and Improvements Good Luck,",
"To bring more clarity to the issue, Viriato will be entitle to deduct property tax depending upon whether he is claiming standard deduction (which varies on some factors including filling as married or single) or itemized deduction. If he is claiming, itemized deduction Example 1 is correct. Example 2 suffers from another mistake. He can get refund of only income tax portion of $5000 and not $5000.",
"If you itemize your deductions then the interest that you pay on your primary residence is tax deductible. Also realestate tax is also deductible. Both go on Schedule A. The car payment is not tax deductible. You will want to be careful about claiming business deduction for home or car. The IRS has very strict rules and if you have any personal use you can disqualify the deduction. For the car you often need to use the mileage reimbursement rates. If you use the car exclusively for work, then a lease may make more sense as you can expense the lease payment whereas with the car you need to follow the depreciation schedule. If you are looking to claim business expense of car or home, it would be a very good idea to get professional tax advice to ensure that you do not run afoul of the IRS.",
"I found the answer I was looking for. Even though I don't have any capital gains to offset, I can deduct up to $3,000 of that loss against other kinds of income, including salary.",
"You can always take deduction for foreign tax paid on Schedule A, or calculate foreign tax credit using form 1116. Credit is usually more beneficial, but in some cases you will be better of with a deduction. However, in very specific cases, you can claim the credit directly on your 1040 without using the form 1116. Look at the 1040 instructions for line 47: Exception. You do not have to complete Form 1116 to take this credit if all of the following apply. All of your foreign source gross income was from interest and dividends and all of that income and the foreign tax paid on it were reported to you on Form 1099-INT, Form 1099-DIV, or Schedule K-1 (or substitute statement). The total of your foreign taxes was not more than $300 (not more than $600 if married filing jointly). You held the stock or bonds on which the dividends or interest were paid for at least 16 days and were not obligated to pay these amounts to someone else. You are not filing Form 4563 or excluding income from sources within Puerto Rico. All of your foreign taxes were: Legally owed and not eligible for a refund or reduced tax rate under a tax treaty, and Paid to countries that are recognized by the United States and do not support terrorism. For more details on these requirements, see the Instructions for Form 1116.",
"\"I made an investing mistake many (eight?) years ago. Specifically, I invested a very large sum of money in a certain triple leveraged ETF (the asset has not yet been sold, but the value has decreased to maybe one 8th or 5th of the original amount). I thought the risk involved was the volatility--I didn't realize that due to the nature of the asset the value would be constantly decreasing towards zero! Anyhow, my question is what to do next? I would advise you to sell it ASAP. You didn't mention what ETF it is, but chances are you will continue to lose money. The complicating factor is that I have since moved out of the United States and am living abroad (i.e. Japan). I am permanent resident of my host country, I have a steady salary that is paid by a company incorporated in my host country, and pay taxes to the host government. I file a tax return to the U.S. Government each year, but all my income is excluded so I do not pay any taxes. In this way, I do not think that I can write anything off on my U.S. tax return. Also, I have absolutely no idea if I would be able to write off any losses on my Japanese tax return (I've entrusted all the family tax issues to my wife). Would this be possible? I can't answer this question but you seem to be looking for information on \"\"cross-border tax harvesting\"\". If Google doesn't yield useful results, I'd suggest you talk to an accountant who is familiar with the relevant tax codes. Are there any other available options (that would not involve having to tell my wife about the loss, which would be inevitable if I were to go the tax write-off route in Japan)? This is off topic but you should probably have an honest conversation with your wife regardless. If I continue to hold onto this asset the value will decrease lower and lower. Any suggestions as to what to do? See above: close your position ASAP For more information on the pitfalls of leveraged ETFs (FINRA) What happens if I hold longer than one trading day? While there may be trading and hedging strategies that justify holding these investments longer than a day, buy-and-hold investors with an intermediate or long-term time horizon should carefully consider whether these ETFs are appropriate for their portfolio. As discussed above, because leveraged and inverse ETFs reset each day, their performance can quickly diverge from the performance of the underlying index or benchmark. In other words, it is possible that you could suffer significant losses even if the long-term performance of the index showed a gain.\"",
"\"I think this is possible under very special conditions. The important part of the description here is probably retired and rich. The answers so far apply to people with \"\"normal\"\" incomes - both in the sense of \"\"not rich\"\" and in the sense of \"\"earned income.\"\" If you sit at the top tax bracket and get most of your income through things like dividends, then you might be able to win multiple ways with the strategy described. First you get the tax deduction on the mortgage interest, which everyone has properly noted is not by itself a winning game - You spend more than you save. BUT... There are other factors, especially for the rich and those whose income is mostly passive: I'm not motivated enough on the hypothetical situation to come up with a detailed example, but I think it's possible that this could work out. In any case, the current answers using \"\"normal sized\"\" incomes and middle tax brackets don't necessarily give the insight that you might hope if the tax payer really is unusually wealthy and retired.\"",
"\"Yes, this is a miscellaneous itemized deduction. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p529/ar02.html For this to impact your taxes, you have to be itemizing deductions (have total deductions greater than standard deduction), and the total of all miscellaneous deductions needs to exceed the \"\"2% floor\"\" described in the IRS link above.\"",
"\"Simple answer YES you can, there are loads here are some links : world first , Baydon Hill , IPF Just googling \"\"foreign currency mortgage\"\", \"\"international mortgage\"\", or \"\"overseas mortgage\"\" gets you loads of starting points. I believe its an established and well used process, and they would be \"\"classified\"\" as a \"\"normal\"\" mortgage. The process even has its own wiki page Incidentally I considered doing it myself. I looked into it briefly, but the cost of fee's seemed to outweigh the possible future benefits of lower interest rates and currency fluctuations.\"",
"\"While you'd need to pay tax if you realized a capital gain on the sale of your car, you generally can't deduct any loss arising from the sale of \"\"personal use property\"\". Cars are personal use property. Refer to Canada Revenue Agency – Personal-use property losses. Quote: [...] if you have a capital loss, you usually cannot deduct that loss when you calculate your income for the year. In addition, you cannot use the loss to decrease capital gains on other personal-use property. This is because if a property depreciates through personal use, the resulting loss on its disposition is a personal expense. There are some exceptions. Read up at the source links.\"",
"Ah, I did some more research and apparently Rental Income is considered Passive Income, and as such the IRS does not allow a net loss to exist, but you can carry the loss over into the next year. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc425.html Generally, losses from passive activities that exceed the income from passive activities are disallowed for the current year. You can carry forward disallowed passive losses to the next taxable year. A similar rule applies to credits from passive activities. So in the event in a loss on my rental business activity, I simply pay no tax on it, and deduct the remainder in income in 2017 from taxes. I don't make any changes to my Consulting income at all.",
"No, you cannot deduct it. There's no business substance in such a trip, it is your vacation, and as such cannot be claimed as an expense against the rental income. You may be able to deduct the coffee you buy for the meeting with the property manager while there, but there's no way you can justify a 7-10 days vacation with your whole family as an expense to maintain the rental property. Since you will only have less than 2 weeks personal use, you won't need to prorate expenses, so you have that at least.",
"Talk about coincidence, we just recieved letters from our bank saying that our interest only loans will be going up by 0.46% and if we want to keep our lower rate we will need to change early to P&I. Now our Interest only periods end in 6 months to about 16 months anyway. We have decided to change to P&I early and save on our interest expenses. Why? Because the main purpose of investing is to make money not to save on tax. Even if you are on the highest marginal tax rate for every extra dollar of expenses you spend and claim as a deduction you will only get about 50 cents back through tax savings. If you are on the lowest marginal tax rate your tax savings will reduce to less than 20 cents for every extra dollar spent. If you are investing in order to save on tax you may be investing for the wrong reasons. Your primary reason for investing should be to make money, for wealth creation. A good reason to stay with an Interest only loan for an investment property would be if you require the extra cash flow you would receive compared with an I&P loan.",
"\"No, you can't deduct any of that. What they're talking about is a flexible spending plan, otherwise known as \"\"Use it or lose it\"\" money. You choose to put pre-tax dollars into a restricted fund. This money is not taxed, in fact technically, it's not even income. You can only spend out of that fund to buy parking, tolls, transit tickets, things like that. Any money not used for those purposes in a suitable time period evaporates. Gone, and irrecoverable. You can't even take the loss as a tax deduction! You have to set this account up with your employer. You can't just dig up your old transit and parking receipts and stick those on your Schedule A. Take 3 people. As you can see, Fran is shooting herself in the foot. This is where these plans can go wrong.\"",
"In the US, mortgage payments are not deductible. What is deductible is the mortgage interest (to a limit). That, as well, is not deductible unconditionally, but rather as part of your itemized deductions on Schedule A of your yearly tax return. So if you're married and have a standard deduction of $12600 a year, live in a state with no state income tax, and your property tax and the mortgage interest are less than your standard deduction - you will not be getting any tax benefit whatsoever. That is, in fact, the case for many, if not majority, of the US mortgage payers. So in order to get a proper estimate, you need to take into account all the aspects of your tax calculations, which are by nature quite personal, and simulate the changes with the mortgage interest deduction. Most tax preparation software will allow you creating multiple files, so you can run the numbers for different scenarios.",
"Never borrow money to get a tax deduction. Even 18 months interest free is a stupid risk to save a few $ in taxes (we're talking $1K or less in tax savings from what I can tell in your questions).",
"If the UK is similar to Australia then you would not claim a virtual rent for the business portion but instead could claim a portion of the house expenses such as electricity use, property taxes, and yes a portion of the mortgage, and any repairs or renovations done to the work areas of the house. However, you should keep in mind that if you sell the place you may have to pay CGT on the portion you were claiming for business use.",
"This loss would be unrealized and, assuming you're a cash-basis tax-payer, you would not be able to take a loss on your 2014 tax return. This is similar to if you held a stock that lost 50% of its value. You wouldn't be able to claim this loss until you finally sold it. The link that User58220 posted may come into play if you converted your UAH back to USD.",
"If your parents were resident but not domiciled in the UK and were using the Remittance Basis in the year when they got the income or gains from which they're now lending you this money that could trigger UK income tax and or capital gains tax on the money the transfer to the UK whether to an account of their own or directly to your account. If they were non resident or using Arising Basis or it was UK income then this is not an issue.",
"In the US, you can only take a tax deduction on expenses to the extent that they offset income. For an S corp or LLC, if the business had no income, there's no deduction to take. If you have a sole proprietorship, these expenses can offset other income. You can also carry-forward net operating losses to future years when you have more income. See the article How to Carry Over Business Expenses",
"\"You need to do a bit more research and as @littleadv often wisely advises, consult a professional, in this case a tax layer or CPA. You are not allowed to just pull money out of a property and write off the interest. From Deducting Mortgage Interest FAQs If you own rental property and borrow against it to buy a home, the interest does not qualify as mortgage interest because the loan is not secured by the home itself. Interest paid on that loan can't be deducted as a rental expense either, because the funds were not used for the rental property. The interest expense is actually considered personal interest, which is no longer deductible. This is not exactly your situation of course, but it illustrates the restriction that will apply to you. Elsewhere in the article, it references how, if used for a business, the interest deduction still will not apply to the rental, but to the business via schedule C. In your case, it's worse, you can never deduct interest used to fund a tax free bond, or to invest in such a tax favored product. Putting the facts aside, I often use the line \"\"don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" Borrowing in order to reduce taxes is rarely a wise move. If you look at the interest on the 90K vs 290K, you'll see you are paying, in effect, 5.12% on the extra 200K, due the higher rate on the entire sum. Elsewhere on this board, there are members who would say that given the choice to invest or pay off a 4% mortgage, paying it off is guaranteed, and the wiser thing to do. I think there's a fine line and might not be so quick to pay that loan off, an after-tax 3% cost of borrowing is barely higher than inflation. But to borrow at over 5% to invest in an annuity product whose terms you didn't disclose, does seem right to me. Borrow to invest in the next property? That's another story.\"",
"No, if you are a nonresident alien, you cannot deduct sales tax. You can only deduct state income tax. 1040NR Schedule A (which is page 3 of 1040NR) does not contain an option for sales tax, like 1040 Schedule A does. If you are a resident alien, then you can deduct sales tax.",
"According to the answers to this question, you generally aren't taxed on gains until you sell the asset in question. None of those answered specifically for the U.K., so perhaps someone else will be able to weigh in on that. To apply those ideas to your question, yes your gains and losses are taxable. If you originally traded something worth $100 for the bitcoins, then when you converted back to dollars you received $200, you would have a $100 gain, simply on the foreign exchange trade. That is, this $100 of income is in addition to any income you made from your business (selling goods).",
"According to the IRS: To deduct a bad debt, you must show that: So if you fulfill the basic requirements, then generally yes, you can deduct them from your taxes. However, as always, please refer to a professional CPA for any final tax determinations.",
"\"You are pushing your luck, but not because you're not in the US, because it is likely that you're not qualified. From what you said, I doubt you can take it (I'm not a professional though, get a professional opinion). You say \"\"dedicated space\"\". It has to be an exclusive room. You cannot deduct 10 sq. ft. from your living room because your computer that is used wholly for your business is there. It has to be a room that is used exclusively for your business, and for your business only. I.e.: nothing not related to the business is there, and when you're there the only thing you do is working on your business. Your office doesn't have to be in the US necessarily, to the best of my knowledge. Your office must be in your home. If you take primary residence exclusion as part of your FEI, then I doubt you can deduct as well.\"",
"You must be rich. My condo was $98K. I paid about $2200 in mortgage interest last year. I opted to take the standard deduction instead. I make $80K a year and I cant even benefit from this deduction. It is really frustrating. I'm 30 with no kids and unmarried because I can't afford anything. Maybe when I'm 40 I can think about starting a family. If I'm lucky.",
"I'm very sorry to hear this. Did you ask the professional to put his advice in writing? At the very least, you can get him reprimanded or even have to make good on what his advice cost you. Professionals like him give bloggers like me a bad rap. In the end, a loss from sale of your home cannot offset any other gains. The gain from your home sale is often not taxable as up to $250k per person (for a couple) is excluded if you lived in the house for two of prior five years. By the way, where, exactly, did you read this? 'Everywhere' is pretty broad. I've been around for some time and never saw this particular incorrect assertion before.",
"Capital losses from the sale of stocks can be used to offset capital gains from the sale of a house, assuming that house was a rental property the whole time. If it was your principal residence, the capital gains are not taxed. If you used it as both a rental and a principal residence, then it gets more complicated: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/ncm-tx/rtrn/cmpltng/rprtng-ncm/lns101-170/127/rsdnc/menu-eng.html",
"You can claim a deduction only if all of your business is conducted from the home, i.e. your home is your principal place of business - not just if you work from home sometimes. The CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) has pretty strict guidelines listed here, but once you're sure you qualify for a deduction, the next step would be to determine what portion of your home qualifies. You cannot attempt to deduct your entire mortgage simply because you run your business out of your home. The portion of your mortgage and other related & allowable home expense deductions has to be pro-rated to be equal to or less than the portion of your home you use for business. Simply put, if your business is operated out of a 120 sq-ft self-contained space, and your home's total square-footage is 2400 sq-ft, you can deduct 5% of your expenses (120/2,400 = 0.05). Hope this helps!",
"Not sure about the UK, but if it were in the US you need to realize the expenses can be claimed as much as the income. After having a mild heart attack when I did my business taxes the first time many years ago, a Small Business Administration adviser pointed it out. You are running the site from a computer? Deductible on an amortization schedule. Do you work from home? Electricity can be deducted. Do you drive at all? Did you pay yourself a wage? Any paperwork, fax communications, bank fees that you had to endure as work expenses? I am not an accountant, but chances are you legally lost quite a bit more than you made in a new web venture. Discuss it with an accountant for the details and more importantly the laws in your country. I could be off my rocker.",
"The answer is simple. You can generally claim a deduction for an expense if that expense was used to derive an income. Most business expenses are used to derive profits and income, most individual expenses are not. Of course social policy sometimes gets in the way and allows for deductions where they usually wouldn't be allowed. Regarding the interest on a mortgage being deductible whilst the principal isn't, that is because it is the interest which is the annual expense. By the way deductions for mortgage interest in the USA for a house you live in is only allowed due to social policy, as there is no income (rent) being produced here, unlike with an investment property.",
"An issue with the initial plan was that the house was gifted to you. Therefore you owned it. Now two years later you wanted to get a mortgage. The IRS would look at it as a home equity debt not a home Acquisition debt, and the interest on the first $100,000 of home equity dept is deductible. This is from IRS pub 936 Mortgage treated as used to buy, build, or improve home. A mortgage secured by a qualified home may be treated as home acquisition debt, even if you do not actually use the proceeds to buy, build, or substantially improve the home. This applies in the following situations. You buy your home within 90 days before or after the date you take out the mortgage. The home acquisition debt is limited to the home's cost, plus the cost of any substantial improvements within the limit described below in (2) or (3). (See Example 1 later.) You build or improve your home and take out the mortgage before the work is completed. The home acquisition debt is limited to the amount of the expenses incurred within 24 months before the date of the mortgage. You build or improve your home and take out the mortgage within 90 days after the work is completed. The home acquisition debt is limited to the amount of the expenses incurred within the period beginning 24 months before the work is completed and ending on the date of the mortgage. (See Example 2 later.) Example 1. You bought your main home on June 3 for $175,000. You paid for the home with cash you got from the sale of your old home. On July 15, you took out a mortgage of $150,000 secured by your main home. You used the $150,000 to invest in stocks. You can treat the mortgage as taken out to buy your home because you bought the home within 90 days before you took out the mortgage. The entire mortgage qualifies as home acquisition debt because it was not more than the home's cost. At two years you would be way outside the 90 day limit. The pub also gives example on how calculate the amount of interest you can deduct.",
"IRS Publication 502: Medical expenses are the costs of diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, and the costs for treatments affecting any part or function of the body. Loan interest and fees do not meet this definition. Your loan interest and fees are a cost of the payment method you chose (a loan), not a cost of medical treatment. The IRS makes clear where loan interest is deductible. Publication 936 discusses home mortgage interest deductions, and Publication 970 specifically discusses student loan interest deductions. Considering Publication 502's definition of a medical expense, combined with the absence of a publication discussing medical expense loan interest deductions, one must conclude that medical loan interest and fees are not deductible.",
"Lending is not a charitable contribution. Its an investment. If the loan becomes a bad debt - you'll have to show that it had become a bad debt. For example - bankruptcy declaration. You'll have to show an arm's length transaction, for example - real intention to repay (evidenced by payments of principal and interest made). Otherwise if you have an intention for the loan to never be repaid, it is in fact a gift, which is not only not deductible - its taxable. Bottom line - be careful and talk to a EA/CPA to get a proper advice with regards to a specific transaction. Edit to answer your revised question: you're not going to pay taxes if you're not going to have gains. However, if you lose the principal, in addition to the said above you would incur the loss as a personal bad debt, and not business. This is because it is not investment. The difference is in tax treatment: personal bad debt is a short-term capital loss (limited deduction), business is an ordinary loss.",
"Yes, legitimate, documented, expenses are written off against that income.",
">According to the IRS, penalties and fines are only non-deductible when they are paid for actual violations of laws/regulations. That's not quite correct. Section 162(f) says [bolding is mine]: >No deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) for any fine or similar penalty **paid to a government** for the violation of any law. That means they can only claim a deduction on the portion of the fine that isn't paid to the US government. I'm doing a little research to see if I can find out what the dealy-o is.",
"\"Assuming USA: It is possible to make the interest deductible if you go to the trouble of structuring, and filing, the loan as an actual mortgage on a primary residence. Websearching \"\"intra-family loan\"\" will find several firms which specialize in this. It costs about $700 for all the paperwork and filing fees as of last time I checked, so unless you're going to pay at least three times that in interest over the life of the loan it probably isn't worth considering. (For an additional fee they'll take care of the payment processing, if you'd really rather be hands-off about it.) I have no idea whether the paperwork fees and processing fees can be deducted from the interest as a cost of producing that income. In theory that ought to be true, but I Am Not A Lawyer. Or accountant. Note: one of the interesting factors here is that the IRS sets a minimum interest rate on intra-family loans. It's pretty low (around 0.3%), so in most cases you can say you gifted the difference if you'd prefer to charge less... but that does set a floor on what the IRS will expect the lender to declare, and pay taxes on. There's a lot more that can be said about this, but since I am NOT an expert I'll refer you to those who are. I have no affiliation with any of this except as a customer, once; it seemed pretty painless but I can't claim to know whether they were really handling everything exactly correctly. The website seemed to do a pretty good job of explaining what choices had to be made and their effects, as well as discussing how these can be used to avoid excess gift taxes by spreading the gift over a number of years.\"",
"\"ASSUMING you're talking about a property in the United States, the answer generally would be \"\"no\"\". You aren't actually paying any of the expenses for the property and yet you want to take the deductions for doing so? That's a rather cheeky move, I'd say! (grin) It probably would lead to some real strife with your brother, since he would have proper claim to those credit on the basis he's the one footing the bills for the property. Before you do anything like what you're talking about, it might be best to speak with him, because both of you are running the very real risk of an audit, and if that happens then I can guarantee the IRS will slap the daylights out of you for it. Your brother, I'm sure, is already claiming all of the deductions he can for what he's putting into the property, and on top of that you want to file for your half. What half are you referring to, when your out-of-pocket is zero? So what you're saying is, you think that between you and your brother you should be able to take a credit of 150% of the actual deductions...Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. I strongly encourage you to talk to a tax professional, but if you get a different answer to this than what I've already given then I'd be stunned. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"Tax regulations vary from country to country - some permitting more deductions, some less - but here are a few guidelines. As regards the home-office: As regards the deductions: Think of it like this: in order to have space for a home-office you needed a bigger home. That leads to increased rates, heating, insurance and so on. Many tax regulators recognise that these are genuine expenses. The alternative is to rent a separate office and incur greater expenses, leading to increased deductions and less overall tax paid (which won't finance the deficit). The usual test for deductions is: was the expense legitimately incurred in the pursuit of revenue? The flexibility permitted will vary by tax authority but you can frequently deduct more than you expected.",
"lets sat If I buy a house on company's name, It will declared as expense and will deduct from profit. but I am not sure If I can rent it out as a IT LTD company. that's my questions. Buying a house is not an expense, it is a transfer of assets. The house itself, is an asset. So if you have $100,000 in cash, buy a house for $35,000, your total assets will remain the same ($100,000), but your asset mix will be different (instead of $100,000 in cash, you now have $65,000 in cash, and $35,000 in property). You can expense the costs associated with buying the house (e.g. taxes, interest, legal fees), but the house itself stays on the asset side of your balance sheet. To refine the example above, if you buy the house for $35,000, and pay $5,000 in misc fees related to purchasing the house, your assets are now $95,000 ($60,000 in cash, $35,000 in house): the $5,000 reduction is from the actual fees associated with the purchase. It is these fees that lower your profit. Being not familiar with UK rules, in Canada and the US, and likely the UK, you would then depreciate the house over its useful life. The depreciation expense is deducted from your annual net income. If you rent out the house, what you can do is expense any maintenance fees, taxes, etc., on the house itself. This expense will count as a negative towards the rental income, lowering your effective taxable income from the rental. E.g. rent out a flat at $1,000/month, but your property taxes are $3,500/year, so your net income for tax purposes (i.e. your taxable income in this case) is $12,000-$3,500=$8,500.",
"\"Yes, you may deduct the cost of building the \"\"noise cancellation system\"\" :) sorry couldn't resist. But seriously, yes you can deduct it ONCE (unless you have more cost maintaining it) and its on line 19 (Repairs and maintenance) of IRS Form 8829.\"",
"You are not the person or entity against whom the crime was committed, so the Casualty Loss (theft) deduction doesn't apply here. You should report this as a Capital Loss, the same way all of the Enron shareholders did in their 2001 tax returns. Your cost basis is whatever you originally paid for the shares. The final value is presumably zero. You can declare a maximum capital loss of $3000, so if your net capital loss for the year is greater than that, you'll have to carry over the remainder to the following years. IRS publication 547 states: Decline in market value of stock. You can't deduct as a theft loss the decline in market value of stock acquired on the open market for investment if the decline is caused by disclosure of accounting fraud or other illegal misconduct by the officers or directors of the corporation that issued the stock. However, you can deduct as a capital loss the loss you sustain when you sell or exchange the stock or the stock becomes completely worthless. You report a capital loss on Schedule D (Form 1040). For more information about stock sales, worthless stock, and capital losses, see chapter 4 of Pub. 550.",
"Well, if you were a business, and your food and rent and travel expenses were business expenses, and you paid out less money than you earned, you *would* get a refund. If you can prove that an expense is tax deductible, then that's just what it is. For businesses, a net operating loss is tax deductible.",
"non-resident aliens to the US do not pay capital gains on US products. You pay tax in your home country if you have done a taxable event in your country. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/nonusresidenttax.asp#axzz1mQDut9Ru but if you hold dividends, you are subject to US dividend tax. The UK-US treaty should touch on that though.",
"Once the business is shut down, you'll need to show that the corporation is in bankruptcy and the amounts are unrecoverable. You can then report it as investment loss. I suggest talking to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State), and maybe an attorney, on what the specific technical details are.",
"\"This change doesn't make a ton of sense to me. Interest is an expense. Expenses are deductible. Yes, there are loopholes, but no matter what happens there will be loopholes. Seems like any easy \"\"no\"\" vote. Sometimes it worries me that we have financially incompetent people in power.\""
] |
[
"I spoke to HMRC and they said #1 is not allowable but #2 is. They suggested using either their published exchange rates or I could use another source. I suggested the Bank of England spot rates and that was deemed reasonable and allowable."
] |
9646
|
Do common stocks and preferred stocks have any differences in terms of percentage of the company per unit they represent?
|
[
"556191",
"272784"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"46428",
"272784",
"556191",
"580512",
"126479",
"251713",
"433197",
"405791",
"236482",
"433032",
"506236",
"573055",
"235391",
"176859",
"311214",
"186643",
"503740",
"113623",
"440370",
"451301",
"354006",
"50081",
"26203",
"385020",
"330917",
"461018",
"414215",
"551893",
"124368",
"480119",
"546548",
"536196",
"251604",
"96121",
"127487",
"344118",
"330534",
"421992",
"481169",
"414505",
"34882",
"61694",
"416397",
"428315",
"725",
"275084",
"407551",
"539664",
"460230",
"544857",
"63296",
"370615",
"303112",
"158063",
"64237",
"524940",
"91870",
"43868",
"503780",
"373204",
"249320",
"108040",
"275297",
"399345",
"143261",
"595298",
"286296",
"352484",
"535697",
"403826",
"378906",
"246295",
"142835",
"245082",
"137465",
"515788",
"258419",
"419945",
"187110",
"37558",
"467081",
"215486",
"259904",
"598295",
"464002",
"497060",
"285085",
"211343",
"400497",
"213767",
"463907",
"576136",
"560499",
"307095",
"342652",
"445353",
"29306",
"350260",
"275392",
"185787"
] |
[
"It is just a different category of stock issued by a company that gives its owners different treatment when it comes to dividend payment and a few other financial transactions. Preferred stock holders get treated with some preference with regard to the company's profits and assets. For example, dividends are typically guaranteed to preferred stock holders whereas the leadership in the company can elect at any time not to pay dividends to common stockholders. In the event the company is liquidated, the preferred stockholders also get to be in line ahead of common stockholders when the assets are distributed.",
"Preferred stocks are, err... Preferred. The whole point of preferred stocks is that they have some preference over other classes of stocks (there may be more than 2, by the way). It can be more voting rights, more dividends or priority on dividends' distribution (common with VC investments), or priority on liquidations (in bankruptcy, preferred stock holders are ranked higher than common). Many times initial or critical investments are made on preferred terms, and the stocks are converted to common when certain thresholds are met. Obviously all these benefits require a premium on the price.",
"Typically, preferred shares come with one or both different benefits - a disproportionate share of votes, say 10 votes per share vs the normal 1, or a preferred dividend. The vote preference is great for the owner(s) looking to go public, but not lose control of the company. Say, I am a Walton (of Walmart fame) and when I went public, I sold 80% of the (1000 share total) company. But, in creating the share structure, 20% of shares were assigned 10 votes each. 800 shares now trade with 800 votes, 200 shares have 10 votes each or 2000 votes. So, there are still the 1000 shares but 2800 votes. The 20% of shares now have 2000/2800 or 71% of the total votes. So, my shares are just less than half ownership, but over 78% of votes. Preferred dividend is as simple as that, buy Stock A for ownership, or (same company) Stock A preferred shares which have ownership and $1/yr dividend. Edited to show a bit more math. I use a simple example to call out a total 1000 shares. The percentages would be the same for a million or billion shares if 20% were a 10 vote preferred.",
"I once bought both preferred and common shares in a bankrupt company. It is true that those preferred shares had less potential for appreciation than the common shares. The reason is because the preferred shares were trading around $50 and had a face value of $1000. This means that if the bankruptcy proceedings ended up finding enough assets to make the preferred shares whole, then the preferred shareholders would be paid $1000 per share and no more than that. So if you bought the preferred shares at $50 and received $1000 per share for them, then you made a 1900% gain. But if the bankruptcy proceedings found enough assets to pay not just the preferred shareholders but also the common shareholders, then the common shareholders had the potential for a greater gain than the preferred shareholders. The common stock was trading around 20 cents at the time, and if enough assets were found to pay $10 per share to the common shareholders, then that would have been a 4900% gain. The preferred shares were capped by their face value, but the common shares had no limit on how high they could go.",
"\"Preferred dividends and common dividends are completely separate transactions. There's not a single \"\"dividend\"\" payment that is split between preferred and common shares. Dividends on preferred shares are generally MUCH higher than common dividends, and are generally required by the terms of the preferred shares, again unlike common dividends, which are discretionary.\"",
"A company can issue different kinds of shares. For example, some kinds of shares may get preference in dividends or payment in event of (company) bankruptcy. Preferred shares are an example of this. A company might have several kinds of preferred shares and a 'common stock'. Here is a good explanation. See too the Wikipedia article about preferred stock. Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) is an example of a company that has fourteen different preferred share issues, each with its own listing on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSE) and symbol. TD has one kind of common stock, which is also listed on the TSE. However, TD common equity trades much more actively than the preferred shares. Remember that preferred stock is a different security type than common stock e.g. common has voting rights, preferred does not.",
"\"Yes and no. There are different classes of shares - Some have voting rights, some *don't*. Some take precedence over others in a bankruptcy. Some get larger dividends. \"\"Common\"\" isn't really a useful description of your stake in the company. You *do* have a \"\"stake\"\" in the company, but not all shares are equal.\"",
"\"I seem not to be able to comment on the first answer due to reputation, so I'll aim to enhanced the first answer which is generally good but with these caveats: 1) Dividends are not \"\"guaranteed\"\" to preferred shareholders. Rather, preferred shareholders are normally in line ahead (i.e. in preference to or \"\"preferred\"\") of common shareholders in terms of dividend payment. This is an extremely important distinction, because unlike investments that we generally consider \"\"guaranteed\"\" such as CDs (known as GICs in Canada), a company's board can suspend the dividend at anytime for long periods of time without significant repercussions -- whereas a missed payment to a bank or secured bondholder can often push a company into bankruptcy very quickly. 2) Due to point 1), it is extremely important to know the \"\"convenants\"\" or rules sorrounding both the preferred shares you are buying and the other more senior creditors of that issuing company (i.e. taxes (almost always come first), banks loans, leases, bonds etc.). It is also important to know if a particular preferred share has \"\"cumulative\"\" dividends. You generally only want to buy preferred's that have \"\"cumulative\"\" dividends, since that means that anytime the company misses a payment, they must pay those dividends first before any other dividends at the same or lower priority in the future. 3) Unlike a common stock, your upside on a preferred stock is relatively fixed: you get a fixed share of the company's profit and that's it, whereas a common shareholder gets everything that's left over after interest and preferred dividends are paid. So if the company does really well you will theoretically do much better with common stock over time. For the above reasons, it is generally advisable to think of preferred shares as being more similar to really risky bonds in the same company, rather than similar to common stock. Of course, if you are an advanced investor there are a lot more variables in play such as tax considerations and whether the preferred have special options attached to them such conversion into common shares.\"",
"\"In most cases, the other classes of shares are preferred stock (example, JPM-F). Preferred stock usually pays higher dividends and shareholders get preferential treatment in the event that the company goes under. (Preferred shareholders are behind bondholders in line, but ahead of common stock holders) In other cases, different classes of shares have different voting rights or pricing. Examples include Berkshire Hathaway B shares. In the case of Berkshire Hathaway B shares, the stock has 1/500th of the rights and 1/10,000th of the voting rights of an \"\"A\"\" share. You need to be cautious about investing in anything other than common stock -- make sure that you understand what you are getting into. This is not to say that other share classes are 'bad' -- just that many preferred stocks are thinly traded and are difficult to buy and sell.\"",
"Classes of shares are not necessarily standardized. Some share classes have preference above others in the event of a liquidation. Some share classes represent a different proportion of ownership interest. Any time you see multiple share classes, you need to research what is different for that specific corporation.",
"You can find this in the annual report. Preferred value is not the same as common value.",
"Not quite. Every security issued by the company defines what it gets. If you want to go straight to common stock, the shareholders are in fact owners of the company: after everyone else gets paid, no matter what is left, it belongs to the common shareholders.",
"\"In a sentence, stocks are a share of equity in the company, while bonds are a share of credit to the company. When you buy one share of stock, you own a (typically infinitesimal) percentage of the company. You are usually entitled to a share of the profits of that company, and/or to participate in the business decisions of that company. A particular type of stock may or may not pay dividends, which is the primary way companies share profits with their stockholders (the other way is simply by increasing the company's share value by being successful and thus desirable to investors). A stock also may or may not allow you to vote on company business; you may hear about companies buying 20% or 30% \"\"interests\"\" in other companies; they own that percentage of the company, and their vote on company matters is given that same weight in the total voting pool. Typically, a company offers two levels of stocks: \"\"Common\"\" stock usually has voting rights attached, and may pay dividends. \"\"Preferred\"\" stock usually gives up the voting rights, but pays a higher dividend percentage (maybe double or triple that of common stock) and may have payment guarantees (if a promised dividend is missed in one quarter and then paid in the next, the preferred stockholders get their dividend for the past and present quarters before the common shareholders see a penny). Governments and non-profits are typically prohibited from selling their equity; if a government sold stock it would basically be taxing everyone and then paying back stockholders, while non-profit organizations have no profits to pay out as dividends. Bonds, on the other hand, are a slice of the company's debt load. Think of bonds as kind of like a corporate credit card. When a company needs a lot of cash, it will sell bonds. A single bond may be worth $10, $100, or $1000, depending on the investor market being targeted. This is the amount the company will pay the bondholder at the end of the term of the bond. These bonds are bought by investors on the open market for less than their face value, and the company uses the cash it raises for whatever purpose it wants, before paying off the bondholders at term's end (usually by paying each bond at face value using money from a new package of bonds, in effect \"\"rolling over\"\" the debt to the next cycle, similar to you carrying a balance on your credit card). The difference between the cost and payoff is the \"\"interest charge\"\" on this slice of the loan, and can be expressed as a percentage of the purchase price over the remaining term of the bond, as its \"\"yield\"\" or \"\"APY\"\". For example, a bond worth $100 that was sold on Jan 1 for $85 and is due to be paid on Dec 31 of the same year has an APY of (15/85*100) = 17.65%. Typically, yields for highly-rated companies are more like 4-6%; a bond that would yield 17% is very risky and indicates a very low bond rating, so-called \"\"junk status\"\".\"",
"I know this has already been answered and I know its frowned upon to dump a link, however, when it comes to investments it's best to get data from an 'official' source to avoid misinterpretations and personal opinions. The attached pdf is from the S&P and provides detailed, but not overwhelming, information regarding the types of preferreds, the risks & common terminology: http://us.spindices.com/documents/education/practice-essentials-us-preferreds.pdf Page 1: PREFERRED SECURITIES DEFINED Borrowing from two worlds, a preferred security has both equity and fixed income characteristics. As such, the preferred structure offers a flexible approach to structuring a preferred offering for an issuer. Companies have many reasons to issue preferred securities. Financial institutions, for example, need to raise capital. Many times they will use the preferred market because of any required regulatory requirements, in addition to cost considerations. Banks and financial institutions are required to maintain a certain level of Tier 1 capital—which includes common equity and perpetual non-cumulative preferreds—as protection against the bank’s liabilities. Issuing more common equity comes at a cost, including the dilution of existing shares, which a company may not want to bear. Preferred securities are a cheaper alternative approach to raising the capital. Companies often use preferred stock for strategic reasons. Some of these uses include:",
"To follow up on Quid's comment, the share classes themselves will define what level of dividends are expected. Note that the terms 'common shares' and 'preferred shares' are generally understood terms, but are not as precise as you might believe. There are dozens/hundreds of different characteristics that could be written into share classes in the company's articles of incorporation [as long as those characteristics are legal in corporate law in the company's jurisdiction]. So in answering your question there's a bit of an assumption that things are working 'as usual'. Note that private companies often have odd quirks to their share classes, things like weird small classes of shares that have most of the voting rights, or shares with 'shotgun buyback clauses'. As long as they are legal clauses, they can be used to help control how the business is run between various shareholders with competing interests. Things like parents anticipating future family infighting and trying to prevent familial struggle. You are unlikely to see such weird quirks in public companies, where the company will have additional regulatory requirements and where the public won't want any shock at unexpected share clauses. In your case, you suggested having a non-cumulative preferred share [with no voting rights, but that doesn't impact dividend payment]: There are two salient points left related to payout that the articles of incorporation will need to define for the share classes: (1) What is the redemption value for the shares? [This is usually equal to the cost of subscribing for the shares in the first place; it represents how much the business will need to pay the shareholder in the event of redemption / recall] (2) What is the stated dividend amount? This is usually defined at a rate that's at or a little above a reasonable interest rate at the time the shares are created, but defined as $ / share. For example, the shares could have $1 / share dividend payment, where the shares originally cost $50 each to subscribe [this would reflect a rate of payment of about 2%]. Typically by corporate law, dividends must be paid to preferred shares, to the extent required based on the characteristics of the share class [some preferred shares may not have any required dividends at all], before any dividends can be paid to common shares. So if $10k in dividends is to be paid, and total preferred shares require $15k of non-cumulative dividends each year, then $0 will be paid to the common shares. The following year, $15k of dividends will once again need to be paid to the preferred shares, before any can be paid to the common shares.",
"In most cases , preferential sharesholders are paid dividends first before common shareholders are paid . In the event of a company bankruptcy , preferential shareholders have the right to be paid first before common shareholders. In exchange for these benefits , preferential shareholders do not have any voting rights. The issuing of preferential shares has no impact on share prices or issuing of bonuses , it is a mere coincidence that the stock price went up",
"Stocks represent partial ownership of the company. So, if you owned 51% of the stock of the company (and therefore 51% of the company itself), you could decide to liquidate all the assets of the company, and you would be entitled to 51% of the proceeds from that sale. In the example above, it would have to be Common Stock, as preferred stock does not confer ownership. *In a situation where it is not possible to buy 51% or more of the company (for example, it's not for sale), this is not possible, so the value of the stock could be much less.",
"Stock basically implies your ownership in the company. If you own 1% ownership in a company, the value of your stake becomes equal to 1% of the valuation of the entire company. Dividends are basically disbursal of company's profits to its shareholders. By holding stocks of a company, you become eligible to receiving dividends proportional to your ownership in the company. Dividends though are not guaranteed, as the company may incur losses or the management may decide to use the cash for future growth instead of disbursing it to the shareholders. For example, let's say a company called ABC Inc, is listed on NYSE and has a total of 1 million shares issued. Let's say if you purchase 100 stocks of ABC, your ownership in ABC will become Let's say that the share price at the time of purchase was $10 each. Total Investment = Stock Price * Number of Stocks Purchased = $10 * 100 = $1,000 Now, let's say that the company declares a dividend of $1 per share. Then, Dividend Yield = Dividend/Stock Price = $1/$10 = 10% If one has to draw analogy with other banking products, one can think of stock and dividend as Fixed Deposits (analogous to stock) and the interest earned on the Fixed Deposit (analogous to dividend).",
"The essential difference b/n ADR and a common share is that ADR do not have Voting rights. Common share has. There are some ADR that would in certain conditions get converted to common stock, but by and large most ADR's would remain ADR's without any voting rights. If you are an individual investor, this difference should not matter as rarely one would hold such a large number of shares to vote on General meeting on various issues. The other difference is that since many countries have regulations on who can buy common shares, for example in India an Non Resident cannot directly buy any share, hence he would buy ADR. Thus ADR would be priced more in the respective market if there is demand. For example Infosys Technologies, an India Company has ADR on NYSE. This is more expensive around 1.5 times the price of the common share available in India (at current exchange rate). Thus if you are able to invest with equal ease in HK (have broker / trading account etc), consider the taxation of the gains in HK as well the tax treatment in US for overseas gains then its recommended that you go for Common Stock in HK. Else it would make sense to buy in US.",
"\"From Wikipedia - Stock: The stock (also capital stock) of a corporation constitutes the equity stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims such as secured and unsecured debt. Stockholders' equity cannot be withdrawn from the company in a way that is intended to be detrimental to the company's creditors Wikipedia - Dividend: A dividend is a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders, usually as a distribution of profits. When a corporation earns a profit or surplus, it can re-invest it in the business (called retained earnings), and pay a fraction of this reinvestment as a dividend to shareholders. Distribution to shareholders can be in cash (usually a deposit into a bank account) or, if the corporation has a dividend reinvestment plan, the amount can be paid by the issue of further shares or share repurchase. Wikipedia - Bond: In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders. It is a debt security, under which the issuer owes the holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to pay them interest (the coupon) and/or to repay the principal at a later date, termed the maturity date. Interest is usually payable at fixed intervals (semiannual, annual, sometimes monthly). Very often the bond is negotiable, i.e. the ownership of the instrument can be transferred in the secondary market. This means that once the transfer agents at the bank medallion stamp the bond, it is highly liquid on the second market. Thus, stock is about ownership in the company, dividends are the payments those owners receive, which may be additional shares or cash usually, and bonds are about lending money. Stocks are usually bought through brokers on various stock exchanges generally. An exception can be made under \"\"Employee Stock Purchase Plans\"\" and other special cases where an employee may be given stock or options that allow the purchase of shares in the company through various plans. This would apply for Canada and the US where I have experience just as a parting note. This is without getting into Convertible Bond that also exists: In finance, a convertible bond or convertible note or convertible debt (or a convertible debenture if it has a maturity of greater than 10 years) is a type of bond that the holder can convert into a specified number of shares of common stock in the issuing company or cash of equal value. It is a hybrid security with debt- and equity-like features. It originated in the mid-19th century, and was used by early speculators such as Jacob Little and Daniel Drew to counter market cornering. Convertible bonds are most often issued by companies with a low credit rating and high growth potential.\"",
"\"The difference between TMUSP and TMUS is that the \"\"with P\"\" ticker is for a TMobile Preferred Stock offering. The \"\"without P\"\" ticker is for TMobile common stock. The difference between the apparent percentage yields is due to Yahoo! Stock misreporting the dividend on the preferred stock for the common stock, which has not paid a dividend (thanks Brick for pointing this out!) Preferred stock holders get paid first in the event of liquidation, in most scenarios they get paid first. They sometimes get better returns. They typically lack voting rights, and after a grace period, they may be recalled by the company at a fixed price (set when they were issued). Common stock holders can vote to alter the board of directors, and are the epitome of the typical \"\"I own a trivial fraction of the company\"\" model that most people think of when owning stocks. As the common stock is valued at much less, it appears that the percent yield is much higher, but in reality, it's 0%.\"",
"What percent of a company are you buying when you purchase stock? The percent of a company represented by a single share can be calculated by percent = 1/number_of_shares*100% Apple comprises 5,250,000,000 shares, so one share makes up about 1.9e-8% of a company, or 0.000000019% of Apple.",
"First, the stock does represent a share of ownership and if you have a different interpretation I'd like to see proof of that. Secondly, when the IPO or secondary offering happened that put those shares into the market int he first place, the company did receive proceeds from selling those shares. While others may profit afterward, it is worth noting that more than a few companies will have secondary offerings, convertible debt, incentive stock options and restricted stock that may be used down the road that are all dependent upon the current trading share price in terms of how useful these can be used to fund operations, pay executives and so forth. Third, if someone buys up enough shares of the company then they gain control of the company which while you aren't mentioning this case, it is something to note as some individuals buy stock so that they can take over the company which happens. Usually this has more of an overall plan but the idea here is that getting that 50%+1 control of the company's voting shares are an important piece to things here.",
"True blue preferred shares are considered loose hybrids of credit and equity. They are more senior than common equity in bankruptcy liquidation but pay out a dividend which is not mandatory. Financial institutions issue the bulk of genuine preferred shares because of their need for more flexibility than a bond but not so much that they can afford the cost to shareholders by diluting common equity. Since it is a credit-like security that receives none of the income from operations but merely pays out a potentially unpredictable yet fixed amount of income, it will perform much more like a bond, rising when interest rates fall and vice versa, and since interest rates do not move to the extent of common equity valuations, preferreds' price variances will correspond much more to bonds than common equities. If the company stops paying the preferred dividend or looks to become in financial trouble, the price of the preferred share should be expected to fall. There are more modern preferred however. It has now become popular to fund intermediate startups with convertible preferred shares. Because these are derivatives based upon the common equity, they can be expected to be much more variant.",
"Shareholders have voting rights, and directors have fiduciary obligations to shareholders. Sure, shareholders have rights to the dividends, but stock confers decisionmaking powers. I'm not really sure what your answer to this is, or how you are differentiating the concept of ownership from this.",
"stocks represent ownership in a company. their price can go up or down depending on how much profit the company makes (or is expected to make). stocks owners are sometimes paid money by the company if the company has extra cash. these payments are called dividends. bonds represent a debt that a company owes. when you buy a bond, then the company owes that debt to you. typically, the company will pay a small amount of money on a regular basis to the bond owner, then a large lump some at some point in the future. assuming the company does not file bankrupcy, and you keep the bond until it becomes worthless, then you know exactly how much money you will get from buying a bond. because bonds have a fixed payout (assuming no bankrupcy), they tend to have lower average returns. on the other hand, while stocks have a higher average return, some stocks never return any money. in the usa, stocks and bonds can be purchased through a brokerage account. examples are etrade, tradeking, or robinhood.com. before purchasing stocks or bonds, you should probably learn a great deal more about other investment concepts such as: diversification, volatility, interest rates, inflation risk, capital gains taxes, (in the usa: ira's, 401k's, the mortgage interest deduction). at the very least, you will need to decide if you want to buy stocks inside an ira or in a regular brokerage account. you will also probably want to buy a low-expense ration etf (e.g. an index fund etf) unless you feel confident in some other choice.",
"\"From the Times A Reader Q.&A. on G.M.’s Bankruptcy Q. I own G.M. preferred shares. Should I be looking to sell them, or hold on? I bought them at $25 a share when they were issued in late 2001. — Karen, Manhattan A. When a company files for bankruptcy, its various stock and bondholders essentially get in line. The first investors to be repaid are secured debt holders, then senior bond investors, followed by subordinated debt holders. Preferred shareholders are next, and lastly, holders of common stock. In a bankruptcy, preferred shares are usually worthless, much like shares of common stock. But in the case of G.M., there may be some good — or at least somewhat better — news. Most of G.M.’s preferred shares are actually senior notes or “quarterly interest bonds,” which means you will be treated as a bondholder, according to Marilyn Cohen, president of Envision Capital Management. So you will be able to exchange your preferreds for G.M. stock (bondholders will receive 10 percent of the new company’s stock). It’s not the best deal, but it beats the empty bag true preferred shareholders would have been left holding. Of course this is just one example, and you were hoping to get some larger picture. The article stated \"\"In a bankruptcy, preferred shares are usually worthless, much like shares of common stock\"\" which at least is a bit closer to that, if you accept usually as a statistic.\"",
"A stock is an ownership interest in a company. There can be multiple classes of shares, but to simplify, assuming only one class of shares, a company issues some number of shares, let's say 1,000,000 shares and you can buy shares of the company. If you own 1,000 shares in this example, you would own one one-thousandth of the company. Public companies have their shares traded on the open market and the price varies as demand for the stock comes and goes relative to people willing to sell their shares. You typically buy stock in a company because you believe the company is going to prosper into the future and thus the value of its stock should rise in the open market. A bond is an indebted interest in a company. A company issues bonds to borrow money at an interest rate specified in the bond issuance and makes periodic payments of principal and interest. You buy bonds in a company to lend the company money at an interest rate specified in the bond because you believe the company will be able to repay the debt per the terms of the bond. The value of a bond as traded on the open exchange varies as the prevailing interest rates vary. If you buy a bond for $1,000 yielding 5% interest and interest rates go up to 10%, the value of your bond in the open market goes down so that the payment terms of 5% on $1,000 matches hypothetical terms of 10% on a lesser principal amount. Whatever lesser principal amount at the new rate would lead to the same payment terms determines the new market value. Alternatively, if interest rates go down, the current value of your bond increases on the open market to make it appear as if it is yielding a lower rate. Regardless of the market value, the company continues to pay interest on the original debt per its terms, so you can always hold onto a bond and get the original promised interest as long as the company does not go bankrupt. So in summary, bonds tend to be a safer investment that offers less potential return. However, this is not always the case, since if interest rates skyrocket, your bond's value will plummet, although you could just hold onto them and get the low rate originally promised.",
"You can argue that cash dividend is a kind of split as well by this logic. The stock price on ex-dividend gets a hit coincidental with the dividend to be paid, so one can argue that the investor has the same cash value on the day the dividend was paid as if it wouldn't be paid at all. However, for the company to distribute stocks instead of cash may be advantageous if they have low cash reserves but significant amount of treasury stocks, and the stocks are of high liquidity. It is also a way for the company to release treasury stocks without diluting the current shareholders and creating taxable income to the company, that's an important factor to consider. This is in fact the real answer to your question. The main difference between split and stock dividend is that in split, the stock distributions proportions don't change. With stock dividend - they do. While the outstanding share proportions do not change, total proportions do, because of the treasury stocks being distributed. So company has less stocks in its vaults, but everyone else still has the same proportions of ownership. Compare this to split: company's treasury stocks would be split as well, and it would continue essentially sitting on the same proportion of stocks. That shift of treasury stocks to the outside shareholders - this is what makes it a dividend.",
"As a start-up, the initial shares can be given at various price points. So essentially they can give someone a larger percentage based on the same amount earlier, and lesser percentage to someone else for the same amount. As its a start-up the valuations can be very tricy and what matters is that whether you believe the percentage you got for the amount is right or not. It is very important to note that when you have been given an ownership in the company, how that is designated. Is it in absolute number of shares or is it in terms of percentage based on the existing shares. For example you maybe given 100 shares, without any qualification. Or you maybe given a 5% stake in the paid-up capital, that translates to 100 shares. It is always better to hold the shares in % of the total shares. Also read the contract, any dilution should require your approval. Normally start-ups once the valuation starts to go up, start creating more shares and sell these to private equity or create more shares and give it as a bonus to promoters. Hence in both cases your holding will keep getting diluted. There is a related quesiton If a startup can always issue new shares, what value is there to stocks/options?",
"\"From The Coca-Cola Company website, section for Investors: Stock History, Issues Year 1919 Original issue -- 600,000 shares 100,000 preferred, par $100 each 500,000 common, without nominal or par value 1926 Eliminated 100,000 preferred in November. This means there were preferred shares issued in 1919. However, all preferred shares were \"\"eliminated\"\" (not sure what that means) as of 1926. There has been no subsequent reissuance of preferred shares of Coca-Cola since then. I think the company is still authorized to issue them, should they choose to do so in the future.\"",
"Don't ever quantify a stock's preference/performance just based on the dividend it is paying out Volatility defined by movements in the the stock's price, affected by factors embedded in the stock e.g. the corporation, the business it is in, the economy, the management etc etc. Apple wasn't paying dividends but people were still buying into it. Same with Amazon, Berkshire, Google. These companies create value by investing their earnings back into their company and this is reflected in their share prices. Their earnings create more value in this way for the stockholders. The holding structures of these companies also help them in their motives. Supposedly $100 invested in either stocks. For keeping things easy, you invested at the same time in both, single annual dividend and prices more or less remain constant. Company A: $5/share at 20% annual dividend yield. Dividend = $20 Company B: $10/share at 20% annual dividend yield Dividend = $20 You receive the same dividend in both cases. Volatility willn't affect you unless you are trading, or the stock market tanks, or some very bad news comes out of either company or on the economy. Volatility in the long term averages out, except in specific outlier cases e.g. Lehman bankruptcy and the financial crash which are rare but do happen. In general case the %price movements in both stocks would more or less follow the markets (not exactly though) except when relevant news for either corporations come out.",
"They are 2 different class of shares belonging to the same company. Class A shares [par value of 0.01] have 100 voting rights per share. Class B shares [par value of 0.0002] have one voting rights. Both are listed separately with different ISN and trade at slightly different values. The Class A at higher value than Class B which looks right as it has more voting power.",
"\"If you mean, If I invest, say, $1000 in a stock that is growing at 5% per year, versus investing $1000 in an account that pays compound interest of 5% per year, how does the amount I have after 5 years compare? Then the answer is, They would be exactly the same. As Kent Anderson says, \"\"compound interest\"\" simply means that as you accumulate interest, that for the next interest cycle, the amount that they pay interest on is based on the previous cycle balance PLUS the interest. For example, suppose you invest $1000 at 5% interest compounded annually. After one year you get 5% of $1000, or $50. You now have $1050. At the end of the second year, you get 5% of $1050 -- not 5% of the original $1000 -- or $52.50, so you now have $1102.50. Etc. Stocks tend to grow in the same way. But here's the big difference: If you get an interest-bearing account, the bank or investment company guarantees the interest rate. Unless they go bankrupt, you WILL get that percentage interest. But there is absolutely no guarantee when you buy stock. It may go up 5% this year, up 4% next year, and down 3% the year after. The company makes no promises about how much growth the stock will show. It may show a loss. It all depends on how well the company does.\"",
"There is no difference between more shares of a relatively cheaper stock and less shares of a relatively more expensive stock. When you invest in a stock, the percentage increase (or decrease) in the share price results in gains (or losses). This is a fundamental concept of investing. Your question suggests that you would benefit from further research before investing your money. Trading real dollars can be difficult without a strong understanding of the principles involved. Investing your money without a good knowledge base will likely be stressful and could have a discouraging effect if it doesn't go well. Before you open an investment account, read up on investing fundamentals, particularly mutual funds as those can be a great place to start as a new investor. There are many sources of information including books, websites such as http://investor.gov/investing-basics and this website. Don't skip the sections on taxes, as those matter just as much and sometimes more than the simple buying and selling. You might look at tax advantaged accounts, such as 401k's, IRA's, etc. It shouldn't take long but it will be one of the most important things you do as a beginning investor. Everyone has to start here. Understanding the vocabulary and concepts will likely save you time and money throughout your investing life.",
"\"Baseball cards don't pay dividends. But many profitable companies do just that, and those that don't could, some day. Profits & dividends is where your analogy falls apart. But let's take it further. Consider: If baseball cards could somehow yield a regular stream of income just for owning them, then there might be yet another group of people, call them the Daves. These Daves I know are the kind of people that would like to own baseball cards over the long term just for their income-producing capability. Daves would seek out the cards with the best chance of producing and growing a reliable income stream. They wouldn't necessarily care about being able to flip a card at an inflated price to a Bob, but they might take advantage of inflated prices once in a while. Heck, even some of the Steves would enjoy this income while they waited for the eventual capital gain made by selling to a Bob at a higher price. Plus, the Steves could also sell their cards to Daves, not just Bobs. Daves would be willing to pay more for a card based on its income stream: how reliable it is, how high it is, how fast it grows, and where it is relative to market interest rates. A card with a good income stream might even have more value to a Dave than to a Bob, because a Dave doesn't care as much about the popularity of the player. Addendum regarding your comment: I suppose I'm still struggling with the best way to present my question. I understand that companies differ in this aspect in that they produce value. But if stockholders cannot simply claim a percentage of a company's value equal to their share, then the fact that companies produce value seems irrelevant to the \"\"Bobs\"\". You're right – stockholders can't simply claim their percentage of a company's assets. Rather, shareholders vote in a board of directors. The board of directors can decide whether or not to issue dividends or buy back shares, each of which puts money back in your pocket. A board could even decide to dissolve the company and distribute the net assets (after paying debts and dissolution costs) to the shareholders – but this is seldom done because there's often more profit in remaining a going concern. I think perhaps what you are getting hung up on is the idea that a small shareholder can't command the company to give net assets in exchange for shares. Instead, generally speaking, a company runs somewhat like a democracy – but it's each share that gets a vote, not each shareholder. Since you can't redeem your shares back to the company on demand, there exists a secondary market – the stock market – where somebody else is willing to take over your investment based on what they perceive the value of your shares to be – and that market value is often different from the underlying \"\"book value\"\" per share.\"",
"For all practical purposes the words mean the same thing. Shares are just stock in a particular company whereas stock can refer to shares over many companies. Investopedia has a good explaination. If you are a financial journalist you might want to make sure you are using the right term at the right time, but otherwise they are synonyms.",
"I was thinking that the value of the stock is the value of the stock...the actual number of shares really doesn't matter, but I'm not sure. You're correct. Share price is meaningless. Google is $700 per share, Apple is $100 per share, that doesn't say anything about either company and/or whether or not one is a better investment over the other. You should not evaluate an investment decision on price of a share. Look at the books decide if the company is worth owning, then decide if it's worth owning at it's current price.",
"Firstly a stock split is easy, for example each unit of stock is converted into 10 units. So if you owned 1% of the company before the stock split, you will still own 1% after the stock split, but have 10 times the number of shares. The company does not pay out any money when doing this and there is no effect on tax for the company or the share holder. Now onto stock dividend… When a company make a profit, the company gives some of the profit to the share holders as a dividend; this is normally paid in cash. An investor may then wish to buy more shares in the company using the money from the dividend. However buying shares used to have a large cost in broker charges etc. Therefore some companies allowed share holders to choose to have the dividend paid as shares. The company buys enough of their own shares to cover the payout, only having one set of broker charges and then sends the correct number of shares to each share holder that has opted for a stock dividend. (Along with any cash that was not enough to buy a complete share.) This made since when you had paper shares and admin costs where high for stock brokers. It does not make sense these days. A stock dividend is taxed as if you had been paid the dividend in cash and then brought the stock yourself.",
"\"The key difference I've found between a stock split and a stock dividend – of the exact same stock and class, as opposed to a spin-off – seems to be from the company's own accounting perspective. There doesn't appear to be any actual transfer of value to the shareholder with either kind of transaction; i.e. in theory, each transaction would be immaterial to the value of your holdings. With respect to the company's accounting, a stock split affects the par value of the shares, whereas a stock dividend reduces the retained earnings account in order to increase paid-in or contributed capital. I found a good online source which explains the history behind this accounting difference: McGraw-Hill - Intermediate Accounting eBook, 6/e - Chapter 18 - Stock Dividends and Splits. Small quote: [...] Besides being based on fallacious reasoning, accounting for stock dividends by artificially reclassifying “earned” capital as “invested” capital conflicts with the reporting objective of reporting shareholders' equity by source. Despite these limitations, this outdated accounting standard still applies. Since neither the corporation nor its shareholders apparently benefits from stock dividends, why do companies declare them?23 Occasionally, a company tries to give shareholders the illusion that they are receiving a real dividend. Another reason is merely to enable the corporation to take advantage of the accepted accounting practice of capitalizing retained earnings. Specifically, a company might wish to reduce an existing balance in retained earnings—otherwise available for cash dividends—so it can reinvest the earned assets represented by that balance without carrying a large balance in retained earnings. [...] There's a lot more on that page, before and after, worth reading. From another book: Google Books - Comparative Income Taxation, a Structural Analysis - page 314 - Stock Dividends. Small quote: The distribution of dividends in the form of stock or \"\"bonus\"\" shares to existing shareholders typically involves a transfer for corporate law purposes of retained earnings into stated capital. It can been [sic] viewed as a deemed distribution of a cash dividend to the shareholders followed by a corresponding contribution to capital or as solely as an event at the corporate level which has no effect on the shareholders whose economic interest in the corporation is unchanged by the receipt of additional shares. The systems have taken varied approaches to the stock dividend problem. The treatment is in part a function of the rules dealing with distributions of stated capital. [emphases above are mine] [... continues w/descriptions of different countries' tax treatments of the kinds of stock dividends. Includes U.S., Sweden, Japan, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, U.K., France, Germany. ...] As far as why a corporation might want to capitalize earnings and reduce the equity otherwise available for dividends, I can only imagine that, ignoring taxes for a moment, that it may have something to do with capital ratios that need to be maintained for financing or regulatory purposes? Yet, I remain curious. If I discover more on this then I'll update my answer. Additional resources:\"",
"Open Google finance and divide the Market Capitalization by the total price. That will give you the total number of shares outstanding. Now see the number of shares you could buy for $1000(40 shares of $25 each or 10 shares of 100 shares each). Now divide the number of shares you own, by the number of shares outstanding in the company and multiply it by 100(i.e (Shares you own/shares Outstanding) * 100). That will give you the percentage or stake of the company you own(With $1000, don't expect it to be a very large number). Now ask your self the question, Is it worth it if I can buy x % of this company for $1000? If the answer is yes, go ahead and buy it. To answer your question in short, NO! it does not matter whether you buy 10 shares for $100 or 40 shares for $25. Cheers",
"If I'm buying preferred stock with liquidation preferences, I care what *that class of equity* is worth. I don't give a shit what common is worth. The article takes a pretty banal point - common may not be worth what other classes are worth - and tries to make it into a conspiracy, which is fucking stupid.",
"Coca Cola doesn't seem to have any preferred shares outstanding. From the annual report, it does say that the number of common shares outstanding was 2,294,316,831 as of February 22, 2011. (cover page, right before the horizontal break) But normally, you can find it either toward the beginning of the document or in the statement of shareholder's equity.",
"Hart's answer regarding the difference between an index and a stock aside, remember that dividend yield is a passive measure. It takes the announced dividend (which is a $/share amount) and divides it by the current market price. So you can't assume that if you buy a stock that had a dividend yield of 4% for $100 that you're guaranteed 4% of the stock price in dividends. If the price of the stock doubles, you'd still get $4, but the yield would drop to 2%. Or the company could reduce (or even suspend) its dividends, which would reduce the yield if the stock price stayed flat. For an index like the S&P, it's easier to measure dividends on % yield terms rather then $/share terms since you'd have to own shares in every single company to get that amount, but on average the stocks in the S&P 500 pay X% in dividends (which are typically quarterly) - some pay more than that, some less, and some none at all.",
"Preferred stock is traded on the market, so you can just buy it like any other. The symbol for a preferred stock is the ticker symbol followed by a dash and a letter for each class of preferred stock. Examples: Generally speaking, you should buy Preferred stock with the intention of holding onto it for at least a couple of years. Often preferred shares are lightly traded and have wide spreads that made it difficult to make money in the short term.",
"How to 'use' your shares: If you own common shares in a company (as opposed to a fund) then you have the right (but not the obligation) to excersize one vote per share on questions put before the shareholders. Usually, this occurs once a year. Usually these questions regard approval of auditors. Sometimes they involve officers such as directors on the board. You will be mailed a form to fill out and mail back in. Preferred shares usually are not voting shares,but common shares always are. By the way, I do not recommend owning shares in companies. I recommend funds instead,either ETFs or mutual funds. Owning shares in companies puts you at risk of a failure of that company. Owning funds spreads that risk around,thus reducing your exposure. There are, really, two purposes for owning shares 1) Owning shares gives you the right to declared dividends 2) Owning shares allows you to sell those shares at some time in the future. (Hopefully at a profit) One obscure thing you can do with owned shares is to 'write' (sell) covered put options. But options are not something that you need to concern yourself with at this point. You may find it useful to sign up for a free daily email from www.investorwords.com.",
"\"Also note that a share of voting stock is a vote at the stockholder's meeting, whether it's dividend or non-dividend. That has value to the company and major stockholders in terms of protecting their own interests, and has value to anyone considering a takeover of the company or who otherwise wants to drive the company's policy. Similarly, if the company is bought out, the share will generally be replaced by shares in whatever the new owning company is. So it really does represent \"\"a slice of the company\"\" in several vary practical ways, and thus has fairly well-defined intrinsic value linked to the company's perceived value. If its price drops too low the company becomes more vulnerable to hostile takeover, which means the company itself will often be motivated to buy back shares to protect itself from that threat. One of the questions always asked when making an investment is whether you're looking for growth (are you hoping its intrinsic value will increase) or income (are you hoping it will pay you a premium for owning it). Non-dividend stocks are a pure growth bet. Dividend-paying stocks are typically a mixture of growth and income, at various trade-off points. What's right for you depends on your goals, timeframe, risk tolerance, and what else is already in your portfolio.\"",
"No, I think you are misunderstanding the Math. Stock splits are a way to control relatively where the price per share can be for a company as companies can split or reverse split shares which would be similar to taking dimes and giving 2 nickels for each dime, each is 10 cents but the number of coins has varied. This doesn't create any additional value since it is still 10 cents whether it is 1 dime or 2 nickels. Share repurchase programs though are done to prevent dilution as executives and those with incentive-stock options may get shares in the company that increase the number of outstanding shares that would be something to note.",
"Market capitalization is one way to represent the value of the company. So if a company has 10 million shares, which are each worth $100, then the company's market capitalization is 1 billion. Large cap companies tend to be larger and more stable. Small cap companies are smaller, which indicates higher volatility. So if you want more aggressive investments then you may want to invest in small cap companies while if you lean on the side of caution then big cap companies may be your friend.",
"You have got it wrong. The profit or loss for smaller investor or big investor is same in percentage terms.",
"\"If so, then if company A never pays dividends to its shareholders, then what is the point of owning company A's stock? The stock itself can go up in price. This is not necessarily pure speculation either, the company could just reinvest the profits and grow. Since you own part of a company, your share would also increase in value. The company could also decide to start paying dividend. I think one rule of thumb is that growing companies won't pay out, since they reinvest all profit to grow even more, but very large companies like McDonalds or Microsoft who don't really have much room left to grow will pay dividends more. Surely the right to one vote for company A's Board can't be that valuable. Actually, Google for instance neither pays dividend nor do you get to vote. Basically all you get for your money is partial ownership of the company. This still gives you the right to seize Google assets if you go bankrupt, if there's any asset left once the creditors are done (credit gets priority over equity). What is it that I'm missing? What you are missing is that the entire concept of the dividend is an illusion. There's little qualitative difference between a stock that pays dividend, and a stock that doesn't. If you were going to buy the stock, then hold it forever and collect dividend, you could get the same thing with a dividend-less stock by simply waiting for it to gain say 5% value, then sell 4.76% of your stock and call the cash your dividend. \"\"But wait,\"\" you say, \"\"that's not the same - my net worth has decreased!\"\" Guess what, stocks that do pay dividend usually do drop in value right after the pay out, and they drop by about the relative value of the dividend as well. Likewise, you could take a stock that does pay dividend, and make it look exactly like a non-paying stock by simply taking every dividend you get and buying more of the same stock with it. So from this simplistic point of view, it is irrelevant whether the stock itself pays dividend or not. There is always the same decision of whether to cut the goose or let it lay a few more eggs that every shareholder has to make it. Paying a dividend is essentially providing a different default choice, but makes little difference with regards to your choices. There is however more to it than simple return on investment arithmetic: As I said, the alternative to paying dividend is reinvesting profits back into the enterprise. If the company decided to pay out dividend, that means they think all the best investing is done, and they don't really have a particularly good idea for what to do with the extra money. Conversely, not paying is like management telling the shareholders, \"\"no we're not done, we're still building our business!\"\". So it can be a way of judging whether the company is concentrating on generating profit or growing itself. Needless to say the, the market is wild and unpredictable and not everyone obeys such assumptions. Furthermore, as I said, you can effectively overrule the decision by increasing or decreasing your position, regardless of whether they have decided to pay dividend to begin with. Lastly, there may be some subtle differences with regards to things like how the income is taxed and so on. These don't really have much to do with the market itself, but the bureaucracy tacked onto the market.\"",
"One big difference: Interest is contracted. They can change the rate in the future but for any given time period you know what you're going to get. Dividends are based on how the company did, there is no agreed-upon amount.",
"\"The answer to your question has to do with the an explanation of \"\"shares authorized, issued and outstanding.\"\" Companies, in their Articles of Incorporation, specify a maximum number of shares they are authorized to issue. For example purposes let's assume Facebook is authorized to issue 100 shares. Let's pretend they have actually issued 75 shares, but only 50 are outstanding (aka Float, i.e. freely trading stock in the market) and stock options total 25 shares. So if someone owns 1 share, what percentage of Facebook do they own? You might think 1/100, or 1%; you might think 1/75, or 1.3%; or you might think 1/50, or 2%. 2% is the answer, but only on a NON-diluted basis. So today someone who owns 1 share owns 2% of Facebook. Tomorrow Facebook announces they just issued 15 shares to Whatsapp to buy the company. Now there are 65 shares outstanding and 90 issued. Now someone who owns 1 share of Facebook own only 1/65, or 1.5% (down from 2%)! P.S. \"\"Valuation\"\" can be thought of as the price of the stock at the time of the purchase announcement.\"",
"\"In the Income Statement that you've linked to, look for the line labeled \"\"Net Income\"\". That's followed by a line labeled \"\"Preferred Dividends\"\", which is followed by \"\"Income Available to Common Excl. Extra Items\"\" and \"\"Income Available to Common Incl. Extra Items\"\". Those last two are the ones to look at. The key is that these lines reflect income minus dividends paid to preferred stockholders (of which there are none here), and that's income that's available to ordinary shareholders, i.e., \"\"earnings for the common stock\"\".\"",
"All shares of the same class are considered equal. Each class of shares may have a different preference in order of repayment. After all company liabilities have been paid off [including bank debt, wages owing, taxes outstanding, etc etc.], the remaining cash value in a company is distributed to the shareholders. In general, there are 2 types of shares: Preferred shares, and Common shares. Preferred shares generally have 3 characteristics: (1) they get a stated dividend rate every year, sometimes regardless of company performance; (2) they get paid out first on liquidation; and (3) they can only receive their stated value on liquidation - that is, $1M of preferred shares will be redeemed for at most $1M on liquidation, assuming the corporation has at least that much cash left. Common Shares generally have 4 characteristics: (1) their dividends are not guaranteed (or may be based on a calculation relative to company performance), (2) they can vote for members of the Board of Directors who ultimately hire the CEO and make similar high level business decisions; (3) they get paid last on liquidation; and (4) they get all value remaining in the company once everyone else has been paid. So it is not the order of share subscription that matters, it is the class. Once you know how much each class gets, based on the terms listed in that share subscription, you simply divide the total class payout by number of shares, and pay that much for each share a person holds. For companies organized other-than as corporations, ie: partnerships, the calculation of who-gets-what will be both simpler and more complex. Simpler in that, generally speaking, a partnership interest cannot be of a different 'class', like shares can, meaning all partners are equal relative to the size of their partnership interest. More complex in that, if the initiation of the company was done in an informal way, it could easily become a legal fight as to who contributed what to the company.",
"One difference is the bid/ask spread will cost you more in a lower cost stock than a higher cost one. Say you have two highly liquid stocks with tiny spreads: If you wanted to buy say $2,000 of stock: Now imagine these are almost identical ETFs tracking the S&P 500 index and extrapolate this to a trade of $2,000,000 and you can see there's some cost savings in the higher priced stock. As a practical example, recently a popular S&P 500 ETF (Vanguard's VOO) did a reverse split to help investors minimize this oft-missed cost.",
"I haven't seen any of the other answers address this point – shares are (a form of) ownership of a company and thus they are an entitlement to the proceeds of the company, including proceeds from liquidation. Imagine an (extreme, contrived) example whereby you own shares in a company that is explicitly intended to only exist for a finite and definite period, say to serve as the producers of a one-time event. Consider a possible sequence of major events in this company's life: So why would the shares of this hypothetical company be worth anything? Because the company itself is worth something, or rather the stuff that the company owns is worth something, even (or in my example, especially) in the event of its dissolution or liquidation. Besides just the stuff that a company owns, why else would owning a portion of a company be a good idea, i.e. why would I pay for such a privilege? Buying shares of a company is a good idea if you believe (and are correct) that a company will make larger profits or capture more value (e.g. buy and control more valuable stuff) than other people believe. If your beliefs don't significantly differ from others then (ideally) the price of the companies stock should reflect all of the future value that everyone expects it to have, tho that value is discounted based on time preference, i.e. how much more valuable a given amount of money or a given thing of value is today versus some time in the future. Some notes on time preference: But apart from whether you should buy shares in a specific company, owning shares can still be valuable. Not only are shares a claim on a company's current assets (in the event of liquidation) but they are also claims on all future assets of the company. So if a company is growing then the value of shares now should reflect the (discounted) future value of the company, not just the value of its assets today. If shares in a company pays dividends then the company gives you money for owning shares. You already understand why that's worth something. It's basically equivalent to an annuity, tho dividends are much more likely to stop or change whereas the whole point of an annuity is that it's a (sometimes) fixed amount paid at fixed intervals, i.e. reliable and dependable. As CQM points out in their answer, part of the value of stock shares, to those that own them, and especially to those considering buying them, is the expectation or belief that they can sell those shares for a greater price than what they paid for them – irrespective of the 'true value' of the stock shares. But even in a world where everyone (magically) had the same knowledge always, a significant component of a stock's value is independent of its value as a source of trading profit. As Jesse Barnum points out in their answer, part of the value of stocks that don't pay dividends relative to stocks that do is due to the (potential) differences in tax liabilities incurred between dividends and long-term capital gains. This however, is not the primary source of value of a stock share.",
"If they all own common stock, no, everyone has to be treated equally. There are also lots of protections against, say, A and B finding one shareholder to vote with them and using their 50.1% to grant themselves special rights. there are a million ways you could do that - issue preferred stock to A, issue options to B, buy a service from A for $10mm, rent a basement from B for $10mm, etc. etc. This stuff has to be prevented otherwise nobody would be willing to be a minority investor.",
"\"Dividend rate is \"\"dividend per share\"\" over a specified time period, usually a year. So in the first example, if the company paid a $1/share dividend over the year before the stock dividend the shareholder would receive $100, while if it paid the $1/share the year after the stock dividend the shareholder would receive $105. The company could have achieved the same thing by paying total dividends of $1.05/share, which is what the last phrase of the last quoted paragraph is saying. Here's an Investopedia page on dividend rate. Also, what you're calling \"\"payout ratio\"\" is really \"\"dividend yield\"\". \"\"Payout ratio\"\" is how much of the company's net earnings are paid out in dividends. That's all in the US, I could see the terms being used differently outside the US.\"",
"Unless your brokerage will sell you fractional shares, the most obvious difference (without us knowing the actual identify of the companies) is that with the $260 one, you will have 3 shares plus you will have $220 minus commission left over that you wanted to invest but weren't able to simply because of the mechanics of long division. You could put that $220 into one of the cheaper stocks, but now the multiple commissions will start to eat your returns. My personal opinion is you should go for a low cost index mutual fund or ETF, and wait to pick individual stocks until you have more than $1000 to work with (and even then, probably still go with the low cost index fund)",
"While there are many very good and detailed answers to this question, there is one key term from finance that none of them used and that is Net Present Value. While this is a term generally associate with debt and assets, it also can be applied to the valuation models of a company's share price. The price of the share of a stock in a company represents the Net Present Value of all future cash flows of that company divided by the total number of shares outstanding. This is also the reason behind why the payment of dividends will cause the share price valuation to be less than its valuation if the company did not pay a dividend. That/those future outflows are factored into the NPV calculation, actually performed or implied, and results in a current valuation that is less than it would have been had that capital been retained. Unlike with a fixed income security, or even a variable rate debenture, it is difficult to predict what the future cashflows of a company will be, and how investors chose to value things as intangible as brand recognition, market penetration, and executive competence are often far more subjective that using 10 year libor rates to plug into a present value calculation for a floating rate bond of similar tenor. Opinion enters into the calculus and this is why you end up having a greater degree of price variance than you see in the fixed income markets. You have had situations where companies such as Amazon.com, Google, and Facebook had highly valued shares before they they ever posted a profit. That is because the analysis of the value of their intellectual properties or business models would, overtime provide a future value that was equivalent to their stock price at that time.",
"In my mind its not the same. If growth is stock value then this is incorrect because of compound interest in stock price. $100 stock price after one year would be $105 and a dividend would be $2 Next year the stock would be $110.20 (Compound Interest) and would the Dividend really go up in lock step with the stock price? Well probably not, but if it did then maybe you could call it the same. Even if the dollars are the same the growth rate is more variable than the dividends so its valuable to segregate the two. I am open to criticism, my answer is based on my personal experience and would love to hear contrary positions on this.",
"In the scenario you describe, the first thing I would look at would be liquidity. In other words, how easy is it to buy and sell shares. If the average daily volume of one share is low compared to the average daily volume of the other, then the more actively traded share would be the more attractive. Low volume shares will have larger bid-offer spreads than high volume shares, so if you need to get out of position quickly you will be at risk of being forced to take a lowball offer. Having said that, it is important to understand that high yielding shares have high yields for a reason. Namely, the market does not think much of the company's prospects and that it is likely that a cut in the dividend is coming in the near future. In general, the nominal price of a share is not important. If two companies have equal prospect, then the percentage movement in their share price will be about the same, so the net profit or loss you realise will be about the same.",
"A stock dividend isn't exactly a split. Example: You have 100 shares of stock worth $5 a share (total value $500). The company wants to distribute a dividend worth 1%. You could expect a check for $5. But If they wanted to do a stock dividend they could send you 0.01 shares for every share you own, in your case you will be given a single share worth $5. Now you own 101 shares. Why a share dividend? It doesn't take cash to give the dividend. It keeps the money invested in the company. Some investors re-invest a cash dividend, some don't. A cash dividend is generally taxable income for the investor; a stock dividend isn't. Some investors prefer one over the other, but it depends on their specific financial picture. Neither a stock dividend, a cash dividend or split changes anything. The split changes the price to meet a goal. The cash dividend lowers the price by sending excess cash to the investors. The stock dividend lowers the price by creating new shares and retaining cash. It company picks the message and the method. depending on their goals and situation. Remember that a company may want to give a dividend because they have a history of doing so, but not have the cash to do so. It is like a split because the number of shares you own will go up, and the price per share will go down. But a split is generally done to bring the price of a share to within a specific range. The company sees a benefit to having a stock mid priced, instead of very high or very low.",
"It seems like you want to compare the company's values not necessarily the stock price. Why not get the total outstanding shares and the stock price, generate the market cap. Then you could compare changes to market cap rather than just share price.",
"\"Sure, stocks don't pay interest. I just looked up the word \"\"compound\"\" in a couple of dictionaries and the relevant definition in all of them just mentioned interest and not growth in the value of stock. So it may be technically inaccurate to talk about \"\"compound growth\"\" of a stock. I'll yield to someone more knowledgeable about the technical language of finance to answer that part. But regardless of whether the word strictly applies, the concept certainly does. Suppose you put $1000 into a mutual fund and the fund grows by 10%. You now have $1100. The next year the fund grows by 15%. So you gain 15% of what? Of your original $1000? No, of your present balance, $1100. The effect is the same as compound interest. There is the fundamental difference that interest is normally a fixed rate: you get such-and-such percent a year as spelled out in a contract. But change in the value of a stock depends on many factors, none of them guaranteed.\"",
"A stock represents your share of ownership in a corporation. All of these shares indicate towards your part of ownership in a corporation a shareholder, stockholder or a shareowner in a company. In order to get a stock, be sure to secure the assistance of a licensed stockbroker to buy securities on your behalf. Yes, anyone having substantial amount of money to invest can buy/own/use stocks. Holding a stock for less than a year makes it a subject to tax on your regular income for short-term gains. Most of the people find it higher than the capital gains. In addition, your annual income also comes into play.",
"\"In financial theory, there is no reason for a difference in investor return to exist between dividend paying and non-dividend paying stocks, except for tax consequences. This is because in theory, a company can either pay dividends to investors [who can reinvest the funds themselves], or reinvest its capital and earn the same return on that reinvestment [and the shareholder still has the choice to sell a fraction of their holdings, if they prefer to have cash]. That theory may not match reality, because often companies pay or don't pay dividends based on their stage of life. For example, early-stage mining companies often have no free cashflow to pay dividends [they are capital intensive until the mines are operational]. On the other side, longstanding companies may have no projects left that would be a good fit for further investment, and so they pay out dividends instead, effectively allowing the shareholder to decide where to reinvest the money. Therefore, saying \"\"dividend paying\"\"/\"\"growth stock\"\" can be a proxy for talking about the stage of life + risk and return of a company. Saying dividend paying implies \"\"long-standing blue chip company with relatively low capital requirements and a stable business\"\". Likewise \"\"growth stocks\"\" [/ non-dividend paying] implies \"\"new startup company that still needs capital and thus is somewhat unproven, with a chance for good return to match the higher risk\"\". So in theory, dividend payment policy makes no difference. In practice, it makes a difference for two reasons: (1) You will most likely be taxed differently on selling stock vs receiving dividends [Which one is better for you is a specific question relying on your jurisdiction, your current income, and things like what type of stock / how long you hold it]. For example in Canada, if you earn ~ < $40k, your dividends are very likely to have a preferential tax treatment to selling shares for capital gains [but your province and specific other numbers would influence this]. In the United States, I believe capital gains are usually preferential as long as you hold the shares for a long time [but I am not 100% on this without looking it up]. (2) Dividend policy implies differences in the stage of life / risk level of a stock. This implication is not guaranteed, so be sure you are using other considerations to determine whether this is the case. Therefore which dividend policy suits you better depends on your tax position and your risk tolerance.\"",
"It means a 3% return on the value of the stock. If a stock has a $10 share price, the dividend would be $0.30. Normally though, the dividends are announced as a fixed amount per share, because the share price fluctuates. If a percentage were announced, then the final cost would not be known as the share priced could change radically before the dividend date.",
"For bonds bought at par (the face value of the bond, like buying a CD for $1000) the payment it makes is the same as yield. You pay $1000 and get say, $40 per year or 4%. If you buy it for more or less than that $1000, say $900, there's some math (not for me, I use a finance calculator) to tell you your return taking the growth to maturity into account, i.e. the extra $100 you get when you get the full $1000 back. Obviously, for bonds, you care about whether the comp[any or municipality will pay you back at all, and then you care about how much you'll make when then do. In that order. For stocks, the picture is abit different as some companies give no dividend but reinvest all profits, think Berkshire Hathaway. On the other hand, many people believe that the dividend is important, and choose to buy stocks that start with a nice yield, a $30 stock with a $1/yr dividend is 3.3% yield. Sounds like not much, but over time you expect the company to grow, increase in value and increase its dividend. 10 years hence you may have a $40 stock and the dividend has risen to $1.33. Now it's 4.4% of the original investment, and you sit on that gain as well.",
"Short answer: No, it only matters if you want to use covered calls strategies. The price of a share is not important. Some companies make stock splits from time to time so that the price of their shares is more affordable to small investors. It is a decision of the company's board to keep the price high or low. More important is the capitalization for these shares. If you have lots of money to invest, the best is to divide and invest a fixed pourcentage of your portfolio in each company you choose. The only difference is if you eventually decide to use covered call strategies. To have a buy write on Google will cost you a lot of money and you will only be able to sell 1 option for every 100 shares. Bottom line: the price is not important, capitalization and estimated earnings are. Hope this answers your question.",
"all other things being equal if you have two stocks, both with a P/E of 2, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase? What this really boils down to is the number of shares a company has outstanding. Given the same earnings & P/E, a company with fewer shares will have a higher EPS than a company with more shares. Knowing that, I don't think the number of shares has much if anything to do with the quality of a company. It's similar to the arguments I hear often from people new to investing where they think that a company with a share price of $100/share must be better than a company with a share price of $30/share simply because the share price is higher.",
"All investors of equal standing get the same proportion of the net assets on bankruptcy but not all shareholders are of equal standing. In general, once all liabilities are covered, bond holders are paid first as that type of investment is company debt, then preferred stock holders are paid out and then common shareholders. This is the reason why preferred stock is usually cheaper - it is less risky as it has a higher claim to assets and therefore commands a lower risk premium. The exact payout schedule is very corporation dependent so needs research on a per firm basis.",
"There is no difference. When dealing with short positions, talking about percentages become very tricky since they no longer add up to 100%. What does the 50% in your example mean? Unless there's some base amount (like total amount of the portfolio, then the percentages are meaningless. What matters when dealing with long and short positions is the net total - meaning if you are long 100 shares on one stock trade and short 50 shares on another, then you are net long 50 shares.",
"I'm fairly convinced there is no difference whatsoever between dividend payment and capital appreciation. It only makes financial sense for the stock price to be decreased by the dividend payment so over the course of any specified time interval, without the dividend the stock price would have been that much higher were the dividends not paid. Total return is equal. I think this is like so many things in finance that seem different but actually aren't. If a stock does not pay a dividend, you can synthetically create a dividend by periodically selling shares. Doing this would incur periodic trade commissions, however. That does seem like a loss to the investor. For this reason, I do see some real benefit to a dividend. I'd rather get a check in the mail than I would have to pay a trade commission, which would offset a percentage of the dividend. Does anybody know if there are other hidden fees associated with dividend payments that might offset the trade commissions? One thought I had was fees to the company to establish and maintain a dividend-payment program. Are there significant administrative fees, banking fees, etc. to the company that materially decrease its value? Even if this were the case, I don't know how I'd detect or measure it because there's such a loose association between many corporate financials (e.g. cash on hand) and stock price.",
"The general difference between high dividend paying stocks and growth stocks is as follows: 1) A high dividend paying stock/company is a company that has reached its maximum growth potential in a market and its real growth (that is after adjustment of inflation) is same (more or less) as the growth of the economy. These companies typically generate a lot of cash (Cash Cow) and has nowhere to really invest the entire thing, so they pay high dividends. Typically Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) ,Power/Utility companies, Textile (in some countries) come into this category. If you invest in these stocks, expect less growth but more dividend; these companies generally come under 'defensive sector' of the market i.e. whose prices do not fall drastically during down turn in a market. 2) Growth stocks on the other hand are the stocks that are operating in a market that is witnessing rapid growth, for example, technology, aerospace etc. These companies have high growth potential but not much accumulated income as the profit is re-invested to support the growth of the company, so no dividend (you will be typically never get any/much dividend from these companies). These companies usually (for some years) grow (or at least has potential to grow) more than the economy and provide real return. Usually these companies are very sensitive to results (good or bad) and their prices are quite volatile. As for your investment strategy, I cannot comment on that as investment is a very subjective matter. Hope this helps",
"For some very small private companies I know of (and am part of), paper stocks do exist. You can sit at the table with the damn things in your hand and wave them in people's faces. They tell everyone how much of the company you own as a result of the money you ponied up. On the other hand, most stocks are now electronic. Nothing to hold. Just electronic records to review. They still represent how much you own of the company because of some amount of money you have put at risk, but they aren't anywhere near as much fun as the old-fasioned paper proofs. (As MrChrister notes, you can pay a small fee to get paper if you like, even for some big companies. Some of these paper stocks are remarkably elaborate and fine looking, but hardly necessary.) (You can see more info about what stocks are and what sort of stocks exist here: http://www.wikinvest.com/wiki/What_is_a_stock%3F)",
"If you don't have any voting rights then you don't have much say in the direction of the company. Of course, if the majority of voting rights are held by 1 or 2 people/institutions then you probably don't have much say regardless. That said, 0.1% isn't a whole lot of a voice anyway.",
"This is a very common misconception. I've been studying equities and credits for a while now, and the simplest way to explain the difference is this: - Credit is about stable cash flows. Your investment in a bond has almost (read: almost) nothing to do with growth rate. It has everything to do with how stable the cash flows are and interest coverage. - Equity is about growth. No wonder companies with highly irregular cash flows (e.g., every single young tech company in the history of tech companies) can have the most in-demand equity while few bond investors would touch them with a ten foot pole.",
"\"Market cap is speculative value, M = P * W, where W is stock (or other way of owning) percentage of ownership, P - price of percentage of ownership. This could include \"\"outside of exchange\"\" deals. Some funds could buy ownership percentage directly via partial ownership deal. That ownership is not stock, but fixed-type which has value too. Stock market cap is speculative value, M2 = Q * D, where D is free stocks available freely, Q - price of stock, in other words Quote number (not price of ownership). Many stock types do NOT provide actual percentage of ownership, being just another type of bond with non-fixed coupon and non-fixed price. Though such stocks do not add to company's capitalization after sold to markets, it adds to market capitalization at the moment of selling via initial price.\"",
"\"Different stocks balance dividend versus growth differently. Some have relatively flat value but pay a strong dividend -- utility stocks used to be examples of that model, and bonds are in some sense an extreme version of this. Some, especially startups, pay virtually no dividends and aim for growth in the value of the stock. And you can probably find a stock that hits any point between these. This is the \"\"growth versus income\"\" spectrum you may have heard mentioned. In the past, investors took more of their return on investment as dividends -- conceptually, a share of the company's net profits for the year reflecting the share's status as partial ownership. If you wanted to do so, you could use the dividend to purchase more shares (via a dividend reinvestment plan or not), but that was up to you. These days, with growth having been strongly hyped, many companies have shifted much more to the growth model and dividends are often relatively wimpy. Essentially, this assumes that everyone wants the money reinvested and will take their profit by having that increase the value of their shares. Of course that's partly because some percentage of stockholders have been demanding growth at all costs, not always realistically. To address your specific case: No, you probably aren't buying Microsoft because you like its dividend rate; you're buying it in the hope it continues to grow in stock value. But the dividend is a bit of additional return on your investment. And with other companies the tradeoff will be different. That's one of the things, along with how much you believe in the company, that would affect your decision when buying shares in specific companies. (Personally I mostly ignore the whole issue, since I'm in index funds rather than individual stocks. Picking the fund sets my overall preference in terms of growth versus income; after that it's their problem to maintain that balance.)\"",
"Dividend prices are per share, so the amount that you get for a dividend is determined by the number of shares that you own and the amount of the dividend per share. That's all. People like to look at dividend yield because it lets them compare different investments; that's done by dividing the dividend by the value of the stock, however determined. That's the percentage that the question mentions. A dividend of $1 per share when the share price is $10 gives a 10% dividend yield. A dividend of $2 per share when the share price is $40 gives a 5% dividend yield. If you're choosing an investment, the dividend yield gives you more information than the amount of the dividend.",
"If you are looking to re-invest it in the same company, there is really no difference. Please be aware that when a company announces dividend, you are not the only person receiving the dividend. The millions of share holders receive the same amount that you did as dividend, and of course, that money is not falling from the sky. The company pays it from their profits. So the day a dividend is announced, it is adjusted in the price of the share. The only reason why you look for dividend in a company is when you need liquidity. If a company does not pay you dividend, it means that they are usually using the profits to re-invest it in the business which you are anyway going to do with the dividend that you receive. (Unless its some shady company which is only established on paper. Then they might use it to feed their dog:p). To make it simpler lets assume you have Rs.500 and you want to start a company which requires Rs 1000 in capital : - 1.) You issue 5 shares worth Rs 100 each to the public and take Rs 100 for each share. Now you have Rs 1000 to start your company. 2.) You make a profit of Rs 200. 3.) Since you own majority of the shares you get to make the call whether to pay Rs.200 in dividend, or re-invest it in the business. Case 1:- You had issued 10 shares and your profit is Rs 200. You pay Rs. 20 each to every share holder. Since you owned 5 shares, you get 5*20 that is Rs.100 and you distribute the remaining to your 5 shareholders and expect to make the same or higher profit next year. Your share price remains at Rs.100 and you have your profits in cash. Case 2:- You think that this business is awesome and you should put more money into it to make more. You decide not to pay any dividend and invest the entire profit into the business. That way your shareholders do not receive anything from you but they get to share profit in the amazing business that you are doing. In this case your share price is Rs. 120 ((1000+200)/10) and all your profits are re-invested in the business. Now put yourself in the shareholders shoes and see which case suits you more. That is the company you should invest in. Please note: - It is very important to understand the business model of the company before you buy anything! Cheers,",
"Apart from making money from the price difference, some stocks also give dividends, or bonus issues. For long term investors whom are looking for steady income, they may be more interested with the dividend pay-out instead of the capital-appreciation.",
"You might be right about that, but your previous posts don't say that. In just the last one you said: >Because buyback decreases shares outstanding it **also decreases the company's total future dividend payouts as well** This is indicating that you believe there is a difference somehow, no?",
"One reason to prefer a dividend-paying stock is when you don't plan to reinvest the dividends. For example, if you're retired and living off the income from your investments, a dividend-paying stock can give you a relatively stable income.",
"\"Lots of questions: In general, no. Market Capitalization and Equity represent 2 different things. Equity first, the equity of a firm is the value of the assets (what it owns) less its liabilities (what it owes) and consists (broadly) of two components - share capital (what the firm gets when it sells to investors as part of an IPO or subsequent share issue) and retained earnings (what the firm has as a result of making profits and not paying them out as dividends). This is the theoretical liquidation value of the firm - what it is worth if it stops trading, sells all its assets and pays all its debts. Market Capitalization is the current value of the future cash flow of the firm as perceived by the market - the value today of all the dividends that the firm will pay in the future for as long as it exists. This is the theoretical going concern value of the firm - what it is worth as a functioning business. In general, Market Capitalization is bigger than Equity - if it isn't the firm is worth more as scrap than as an operating business. Um ... no. If you don't have any shares then you are by definition not an owner. Having shares is what makes you an owner. What I think you mean is, is it possible for the owner(s) of a private company to sell all of its shares when it goes public? The answer is yes. It is uncommon for a start-up owner to do this but it is standard practice for \"\"corporate raiders\"\" who buy failing companies, take them private, restructure them and then take them public again - they have done their job and they are not interested in maintaining an ownership stake. Nope. See above and below. Not at all, equity is an accounting construct and market capitalization is about market sentiment. Consider the following hypothetical firm: It has $1m in equity, it makes $4m in profit and will do for the foreseeable future, it pays all of that $4m out as dividends - if we work on a simple ROI of 10% then this firm is worth $40m dollars - way more than its equity.\"",
"Investopedia has a good definition. Stock dividends are similar to cash dividends; however, instead of cash, a company pays out stock. Stock splits occur when a company perceives that its stock price may be too high. Stock splits are usually done to increase the liquidity of the stock (more shares outstanding) and to make it more affordable for investors to buy regular lots (a regular lot = 100 shares).",
"Shares often come associated with a set of rights, such as ability to vote in the outcome of the company. Some shares do not have this right, however. With your ability to vote in the outcome of the company, you could help dictate that the company paid dividends at a point in time. Or many other varieties of outcomes. Also, if there were any liquidity events due to demand of the shares, this is typically at a much higher price than the shares are now when the company is private/closely held.",
"\"The first 3 are the same as owning stock in a company would be measured in shares and would constitute some percentage of the overall shares outstanding. If there are 100 shares in the company in total, then owning 80 shares is owning 80% is the same as owning 80% of the common stock. This would be the typical ownership case though there can also be \"\"Restricted stock\"\" as something to note here. Convertible debt would likely carry interest charges as well as the choice at the end of becoming stock in the company. In this case, until the conversion is done, the stock isn't issued and thus isn't counted. Taking the above example, one could have a note that could be worth 10 shares but until the conversion is done, the debt is still debt. Some convertible debt could carry options or warrants for the underlying stock as there was the Berkshire convertible notes years ago that carried a negative interest rate that was studied in \"\"The Negative Coupon Bond\"\" if you want an example here. Options would have the right but not the obligation to buy the stock where there are \"\"Incentive Stock Options\"\" to research this in more depth. In this case, one could choose to not exercise the option and thus no stock changes hands. This is where some companies will experience dilution of ownership as employees and management may be given options that put more shares out to the public. Issuing debt wouldn't change the ownership and isn't direct ownership unless the company goes through a restructuring where the creditors become the new stock holders in the case of a Chapter 11 situation in the US. Note that this isn't really investing in a small business as much as it is making a loan to the company that will be paid back in cash. If the company runs into problems then the creditor could try to pursue the assets of the company to be repaid.\"",
"The bonus share also improves the liquidity however there is some difference in treatment. Lets say a company has 100 shares, of $10 ea. The total capital of the compnay is 100*10 = 1000. Assuming the company is doing well, its share is now available in the market for $100 ea. Now lets say the company has made a profit of $1000 and this also gets factored into the price of $100. Lets say the company decides to keep this $1000 kept as Cash Reserve and is not distributed as dividends. In a share split say (1:1), the book value of each share is now reduced to $5, the number of shares increase to 200. The share capital stays at 200*5 = 1000. The market value of shares come down to $50 ea. In a Bonus share issue say (1:1), the funds $1000 are moved from Cash Reserve and transferred to share capital. The book value of each share will remain same as $10, the number of shares increase to 200. The share capital increases to 200*10 = 2000. The market value of shares come down to $50 ea. So essentially from a liquidity point of view both give the same benefit. As to why some companies issue bonus and not a split, this is because of multiple reasons. A split beyond a point cannot be done, ie $10 can be split to $1 ea but it doesn't look good to make it $0.50. The other reason is there is adequate cash reserve and you want to convert this into share holders capital. Having a larger share holders capital improves some of the health ratios for the compnay. At times bouns is used to play upon that one is getting something free.",
"When you invest in stocks, there are two possible ways to make money: Many people speculate just on the stock price, which would result in a gain (or loss), but only once you have resold the shares. Others don't really care about the stock price. They get dividends every so often, and hopefully, the return will be better than other types of investments. If you're in there for the long run, you do not really care what the price of the stock is. It is often highly volatile, and often completely disconnected from anything, so it's not because today you have a theoretical gain (because the current stock price is higher than your buying price) that you will effectively realise that gain when you sell (need I enumerate the numerous crashes that prevented this from happening?). Returns will often be more spectacular on share resale than on dividends, but it goes both ways (you can lose a lot if you resell at the wrong time). Dividends tend to be a bit more stable, and unless the company goes bankrupt (or a few other unfortunate events), you still hold shares in the company even if the price goes down, and you could still get dividends. And you can still resell the stock on top of that! Of course, not all companies distribute dividends. In that case, you only have the hope of reselling at a higher price (or that the company will distribute dividends in the future). Welcome to the next bubble...",
"They were issued in 1919 and eliminated in 1926. This means that Coca-Cola redeemed them in 1926 and either converted the preferred's to common stock or paid the preferred investor's back their full par value and took them off the books.",
"If that company issues another 100 shares, shouldn't 10 of those new 100 shares be mine? Those 100 shares are an asset of the company, and you own 10% of them. When investors buy those new shares, you again own a share of the proceeds, just as you own a share of all the company's assets. A company only issues new share to raise money - it is a borrowing from investors, and in that way can be seen as an alternative to taking on loans. Both share issuing and a loan bring new capital and debt into a company. The difference is that shares don't need to be repaid.",
"Regardless of whether a stock is owned by a retail investor or an institutional investor, it is subject to the same rules. For example, say that as part of the buyout, 1 share of Company B is equivalent to 0.75 shares of Company A and any fractional shares will be paid out in cash. This rule will apply to both the retail investor who holds 500 shares of Company B, as well as the asset manager or hedge fund holding 5,000,000 shares of Company B.",
"Your question has already been answered, you divide the amount of shares you own * 100% by the total amount of shares. However, I feel it is somewhat misleading to talk about owning a percentage of the company by owning shares. Strictly speaking, shares do not entitle you to a part of the company but instead give you a proportional amount of votes at shareholder meetings (assuming no funky share classes). What this means is that someone who owns 30% of a company's shares can't just grab 30% of the company's assets (factories, offices and whatever) and say that they are entitled to own this. What they actually own is 30% of the voting rights in this company, this means that they control 30% of all available votes when the company calls a vote on corporate actions, choosing a new director etc. which is how shareholders exert their influence on a company.",
"No - there are additional factors involved. Note that the shares on issue of a company can change for various reasons (such as conversion/redemption of convertible securities, vesting of restricted employee shares, conversion of employee options, employee stock purchase programs, share placements, buybacks, mergers, rights issues etc.) so it is always worthwhile checking SEC announcements for the company if you want an exact figure. There may also be multiple classes of shares and preferred securities that have different levels of dividends present. For PFG, they filed a 10Q on 22 April 2015 and noted they had 294,385,885 shares outstanding of their common stock. They also noted for the three months ended March 31 2014 that dividends were paid to both common stockholders and preferred stockholders and that there were Series A preferred stock (3 million) and Series B preferred stock (10 million), plus a statement: In February 2015, our Board of Directors authorized a share repurchase program of up to $150.0 million of our outstanding common stock. Shares repurchased under these programs are accounted for as treasury stock, carried at cost and reflected as a reduction to stockholders’ equity. Therefore the exact amount of dividend paid out will not be known until the next quarterly report which will state the exact amount of dividend paid out to common and preferred shareholders for the quarter.",
"If you have a public company and shareholder A owns 25% and shareholder B owns 25%, and lets say the remaining 50% is owned by various funds/small investors. Say profits are 100mil, and a dividend is payed. Say 50 mil worth is payed out as dividend and 30 mil is kept as retained earnings for future investment. Can the remaining 20 mil be distributed to shareholders A and B, so that they both get 10mil each? Can certain shareholders be favored and get a bigger cut of profits than the dividends pay out is my question basically.",
"Theoretically, when a company issues more shares, it does not affect the value of your shares. The reason is that when a company issues and sells more shares, the proceeds from the sale of those shares goes back into the company. Using your example, you have 10 out of 100 shares of the company, for a 10% stake. Let's say that the shares are valued at $1,000 each, meaning that the market value of the company is $100,000, and your stake is worth $10,000. Now the company issues 100 more shares at $1,000 each. The company receives $100,000 from new investors, and now the company is worth $200,000. Your stake is now only 5% of the company, but it is still worth $10,000. The authorized share capital is the amount of shares that a company has already planned on selling. When you buy stock in a company, you can look up how many shares exist, so you know what your percent stake in the company is. When a company wants to sell more shares, this is called an increase of authorized share capital. In order to do this, the company generally needs the approval of a majority of the existing shareholders.",
"\"Thanks for your reply. I think a lot of people are confused when talking about ownership, and I think it is a definitional issue. When a company issues stock (the first time or anytime), what they are doing is \"\"selling\"\" the right to a percentage of the dividend. They are not actually selling parts of the company to you. Everyone thinks this way though, and that has to do with the Chicago School economists who perpetuated their ideas of ownership which is what everyone know thinks is the case. This way of thinking about corporations and ownership is just wrong (not ethically), just erroneous. As I stated before, Lynn Stout of Cornell University explains this really well. I would encourage anyone to read more about it.\""
] |
[
"Typically, preferred shares come with one or both different benefits - a disproportionate share of votes, say 10 votes per share vs the normal 1, or a preferred dividend. The vote preference is great for the owner(s) looking to go public, but not lose control of the company. Say, I am a Walton (of Walmart fame) and when I went public, I sold 80% of the (1000 share total) company. But, in creating the share structure, 20% of shares were assigned 10 votes each. 800 shares now trade with 800 votes, 200 shares have 10 votes each or 2000 votes. So, there are still the 1000 shares but 2800 votes. The 20% of shares now have 2000/2800 or 71% of the total votes. So, my shares are just less than half ownership, but over 78% of votes. Preferred dividend is as simple as that, buy Stock A for ownership, or (same company) Stock A preferred shares which have ownership and $1/yr dividend. Edited to show a bit more math. I use a simple example to call out a total 1000 shares. The percentages would be the same for a million or billion shares if 20% were a 10 vote preferred.",
"Preferred stocks are, err... Preferred. The whole point of preferred stocks is that they have some preference over other classes of stocks (there may be more than 2, by the way). It can be more voting rights, more dividends or priority on dividends' distribution (common with VC investments), or priority on liquidations (in bankruptcy, preferred stock holders are ranked higher than common). Many times initial or critical investments are made on preferred terms, and the stocks are converted to common when certain thresholds are met. Obviously all these benefits require a premium on the price."
] |
4433
|
When should you use an actively managed mutual fund in a 401k?
|
[
"146181",
"301580"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"34986",
"550783",
"563728",
"311527",
"146181",
"315627",
"301580",
"544236",
"90858",
"599701",
"297290",
"343040",
"523331",
"135596",
"576008",
"122378",
"513474",
"135453",
"434279",
"30159",
"59670",
"545760",
"356595",
"3279",
"194776",
"210514",
"106620",
"493578",
"155242",
"330743",
"225395",
"134300",
"53100",
"591383",
"570117",
"504301",
"140917",
"367960",
"8759",
"358704",
"382101",
"79375",
"408994",
"387492",
"346474",
"374225",
"391835",
"516880",
"52589",
"246253",
"147889",
"555377",
"322806",
"84642",
"66754",
"304081",
"1366",
"576807",
"340131",
"438525",
"436930",
"128077",
"586029",
"539263",
"277",
"39071",
"346894",
"61524",
"546150",
"536580",
"57070",
"81652",
"233187",
"506302",
"281049",
"589602",
"266194",
"576391",
"477021",
"429929",
"181624",
"301616",
"228485",
"315126",
"389019",
"462612",
"551155",
"67220",
"525426",
"90294",
"219907",
"331492",
"584627",
"234640",
"477175",
"568315",
"288050",
"47614",
"505943",
"332152"
] |
[
"When you look at managed funds the expense ratios are always high. They have the expense of analyzing the market, deciding where to invest, and then tracking the new investments. The lowest expenses are with the passive investments. What you have noticed is exactly what you expect. Now if you want to invest in active funds that throw off dividends and capital gains, the 401K is the perfect place to do it, because that income will not be immediately taxable. If the money is in a Roth 401K it is even better because that income will never be taxed.",
"I would stay away from the Actively Managed Funds. Index funds or the asset allocation funds are your best bet since they have the lowest fees. What is your risk tolerance? How old are you? I would suggest reading:",
"\"Hope springs eternal in the human breast. No actively managed fund has beaten the indices over a long period of time, but over shorter periods, actively managed funds have beaten the indices quite often, sometimes quite spectacularly, and sometimes even for many years in a row. Examples from the past include Fidelity Magellan and Legg Mason Value Trust. So people buy actively managed funds hoping to cash in on such good performance. The difficulty is, of course, that many people don't even think about investing in a fund until it is listed in some \"\"Top Forty Funds of last year\"\" compilation, and for many funds, they have already peaked, and new buyers are often disappointed. Some people who invested earlier plan on getting out of the fund before the fund falls flat on its face, and fewer even succeed in doing so. As to why 401k plans often have high-cost actively managed funds, there are several reasons. A most important one is that there are numerous companies that act as administrators of 401k programs and these companies put together package deals of 401k programs (funds, administrative costs etc), and small employers perforce have to choose from one of these packages. Second, there are various rules that have come into existence since the first days of 401k (and 403b) programs such as the investment choices must include funds of different types, and actively managed funds (large cap, small cap etc) are one of the choices that must be offered. Gone are the days when the only choice was a variable annuity offered by the insurance company administering the 401k program. Finally, program participants also have hopes (cf. opening sentence) and used to demand that the 401k program offer a few actively managed funds, not just index funds.\"",
"Just find a low cost S&P 500 index fund, and spend your time reading The Great Mutual Fund Trap instead of wasting your time and money picking actively managed funds.",
"\"For US stocks it's a bit of a gamble. Many actively managed funds underperform the market indexes, but some of them outperform in many years. With an index you will get average results. With an active manager you \"\"might\"\" do better than average. So you can view active management as a higher risk, potentially higher reward investment approach. On the other hand, if you want to diversify some of your investments into international stocks, bonds, junk bonds, and real estate (REITs) active management is highly likely to be better than indexing. For these specialized areas specialized knowledge and research is needed.\"",
"Note that many funds just track indexes. In that case, you essentially don't have to worry about the fund manager making bad decisions. In general, the statistics are very clear that you want to avoid any actively managed fund. There are many funds that are good all-in-one investments. If you are in Canada, for example, Canadian Couch Potato recommends the Tangerine Investment Funds. The fees are a little high, but if you don't have a huge investment, one of these funds would be a good choice and appropriate for 100% of your investment. If you have a larger investment, to the point that Tangerine's MER scares you a little, you still may well look at a three or four fund (or ETF) portfolio. You may choose to use an actively-managed fund even though you know there's virtually no chance it'll beat a fund that just tracks an index, long-term. In that case, I'd recommend devoting only a small portion of your portfolio to this fund. Many people suggest speculating with no more than 10% of your combined investment. Note that other people are more positive on actively-managed funds.",
"By definition, actively managed funds will underperform passive index funds as a whole. Or more specifically: The aggregate performance of all actively managed portfolio of publicly-tradable assets will have equal performance to those of passively managed portfolios. Which taken with premise two: Actively managed funds will charge higher fees than passively managed funds Results in: In general, lower-fee investment vehicles (e.g. passive index investments) with broad enough diversification to the desired risk exposure will outperform higher-fee options But don't take my wonkish approach, from a more practical perspective consider:",
"Basically, no. Selecting an actively managed fund over a low-fee index fund means paying for the opportunity to possibly outperform the index fund. A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel argues that the best general strategy for the average investor is to select the index fund because the fee savings are certain. Assuming a random walk means that any mutual fund may outperform the index in some years, but this is not an indication that it will overall. Unless you have special information about the effectiveness of the bank fund management (it's run by the next Warren Buffett), you are better off in the index fund. And even Warren Buffett suggests you are probably better off in the index fund: This year, regarding Wall Street, Buffett wrote: “When trillions of dollars are managed by Wall Streeters charging high fees, it will usually be the managers who reap outsized profits, not the clients. Both large and small investors should stick with low-cost index funds.”",
"\"First, consider what causes taxes to apply to a mutual fund, index or actively managed. Dividends and capital gains are generally what will be distributed to shareholders given the nature of a mutual fund since the fund itself doesn't pay taxes. For funds held in IRAs or other tax-advantaged accounts, this isn't a concern and thus people may not have this concern for those situations which can account for a lot of investing situations as people may have 401(k)s and IRAs that hold their investments rather than taxable accounts. Second, there can be tax-managed funds so there can be cases where a fund is managed with taxes in mind that is worth noting here as what is referenced is a \"\"Dummies\"\" link that is making a generalization. For taxable accounts, it may make more sense to have a tax-managed fund rather than an index fund though I'd also argue to be careful of asset allocation as to maintain a purity of style can require selling of stocks that grow too big and thus trigger capital gains,e.g. small-cap and mid-cap funds that can't hold onto the winners as they would become mid-cap and large-cap instead of representing the proper asset class. A FUND THAT PLAYED IT SAFE--AND WAS SORRY would be a Businessweek story from 1998 of an actively managed fund that went mostly to cash and missed the rise of the stock market at that time if you want a specific example of what an actively managed fund can do that an index fund often cannot do. The index fund is to track the index and stay nearly all invested all the time.\"",
"No I get that. But if you don’t want risk, then buy bonds. Long term an S&P Index has very low risk. On the other hand, actively managed funds have fees that take out a ton of the gain that could be had. I don’t have time to look for the study but I read recently that 97% of actively managed funds were outperformed by S&P Indexes after fees. Now I don’t know about you but I think the risk of not picking a top 3% fund is probably higher than the safe return of index’s.",
"\"There is a lot of interesting information that can be found in a fund's prospectus. I have found it very helpful to read books on the issue, one I just finished was \"\"The Boglehead's Guide to Investing\"\" which speaks mostly on mutual and index funds. Actively managed funds mean that someone is choosing which stocks to buy and which to sell. If they think a stock will be \"\"hot\"\" then they buy it. Research has shown that people cannot predict the stock market, which is why many people suggest index based funds. An index fund generally tracks a group of companies. Example: an index fund of the S&P 500 will try to mimic the returns that the S&P 500 has. Overall, managed funds are more expensive than index funds because the fund manager must be paid to manage it. Also, there is generally more buying and selling so that also increases the tax amount you would owe. What I am planning on doing is opening a Roth IRA with Vanguard, as their funds have incredibly low fees (0.2% on many). One of the most important things you do before you buy is to figure out your target allocation (% of stocks vs % of bonds). Once you figure that out then you can start narrowing down the funds that you wish to invest in.\"",
"Statistically speaking active strategies **are** strictly on par with, or worse when you subtract fees, than passive strategies (regardless of how much time or money you spend investigating companies). Actively managed mutual funds are by and large just a racket where one class of rich people soaks another class of rich people plus some of the middle class. So yeah they should go ahead and call it a day. About time IMO.",
"Current evidence is that, after you subtract their commission and the additional trading costs, actively managed funds average no better than index funds, maybe not as well. You can afford to take more risks at your age, assuming that it will be a long time before you need these funds -- but I would suggest that means putting a high percentage of your investments in small-cap and large-cap stock indexes. I'd suggest 10% in bonds, maybe more, just because maintaining that balance automatically encourages buy-low-sell-high as the market cycles. As you get older and closer to needing a large chunk of the money (for a house, or after retirement), you would move progressively more of that to other categories such as bonds to help safeguard your earnings. Some folks will say this an overly conservative approach. On the other hand, it requires almost zero effort and has netted me an average 10% return (or so claims Quicken) over the past two decades, and that average includes the dot-bomb and the great recession. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance, of course, but the point is that it can work quite well enough.",
"This might be better suited to r/personalfinance but if you're looking to invest I'd say start with an index fund. The MER's (fees) for most other mutual funds take too heavy a chunk of returns to be worth it in a market where actively managed funds are either underperforming of performing at par with passive funds. Additionally if these are your first investments, make sure you're doing it with investment goals in mind. Is this money you're saving for short, medium, or long term? For medium and long term investing make sure you're doing it through a tax efficient instrument like an IRA or 401k.",
"Buying the right shares gives higher return. Buying the wrong ones gives worse return, possibly negative. The usual recommendation, even if you have a pro advising you, is to diversify most of your investments to reduce the risk, even though that may reduce the possible gain. A mutual fund is diversification-in-a-can. It requires little to no active maintenance. Yes, you pay a management fee, but you aren't paying per-transaction fees every time you adjust your holdings, and the management costs can be quite reasonable if you pick the right funds; minimal in the case of computer-managed (index) funds. If you actively enjoy playing with stocks and bonds and are willing/able to accept your failures and less-than-great choices as part of the game, and if you can convince yourself that you will do better this way, go for it. For those of us who just want to deposit out money, watch it grow, and maybe rebalance once a year if that, index funds are a perfectly good choice. I spend at least 8 hours a day working for my money; the rest of the time, I want my money to work for me. Risk and reward tend to be proportional to each other; when they aren't, market prices tend to move to correct that. You need to decide how much risk you're comfortable with, and how much time and effort and money you're willing to spend managing that risk. Personally, I am perfectly happy with the better-than-market-rate-of-return I'm getting, and I don't have any conviction that I could do better if I was more involved. Your milage will vary. If folks didn't disagree, there wouldn't be a market.",
"It all depends on whether you can manage your money or not. Many people are incapable of doing so in a responsible way. Like any service, you get what you pay for -- active management costs money!",
"\"Most people advocate a passively managed, low fee mutual fund that simply aims to track a given benchmark (say S&P 500). Few funds can beat the S&P consistently, so investors are often better served finding a no load passive fund. First thing I would do is ask your benefits rep why you don't have an option to invest in a Fidelity passive index fund like Spartan 500. Ideally young people would be heavy in equities and slowly divest for less risky stuff as retirement comes closer, and rebalance the portfolio regularly when market swings put you off risk targets. Few people know how to do this and actually do so. So there are mutual funds that do it for you, for a fee. These in are called \"\"lifecycle\"\" funds (The Freedom funds here). I hesitate to recommend them because they're still fairly new. If you take a look at underlying assets, these things generally just reinvest in the broker's other funds, which themselves have expenses & fees. And there's all kinds personal situations that might lead to you place a portion with a different investment.\"",
"As other posters have pointed out, many other potential factors at play here besides value, but that said, a huge part of my long-term money that I don't want to manage myself is in actively managed EM funds.",
"\"Here is the \"\"investing for retirement\"\" theoretical background you should have. You should base your investment decisions not simply on the historical return of the fund, but on its potential for future returns and its risk. Past performance does not indicate future results: the past performance is frequently at its best the moment before the bubble pops. While no one knows the specifics of future returns, there are a few types of assets that it's (relatively) safe to make blanket statements about: The future returns of your portfolio will primarily be determined by your asset allocation . The general rules look like: There are a variety of guides out there to help decide your asset allocation and tell you specifically what to do. The other thing that you should consider is the cost of your funds. While it's easy to get lucky enough to make a mutual fund outperform the market in the short term, it's very hard to keep that up for decades on end. Moreover, chasing performance is risky, and expensive. So look at your fund information and locate the expense ratio. If the fund's expense ratio is 1%, that's super-expensive (the stock market's annualized real rate of return is about 4%, so that could be a quarter of your returns). All else being equal, choose the cheap index fund (with an expense ratio closer to 0.1%). Many 401(k) providers only have expensive mutual funds. This is because you're trapped and can't switch to a cheaper fund, so they're free to take lots of your money. If this is the case, deal with it in the short term for the tax benefits, then open a specific type of account called a \"\"rollover IRA\"\" when you change jobs, and move your assets there. Or, if your savings are small enough, just open an IRA (a \"\"traditional IRA\"\" or \"\"Roth IRA\"\") and use those instead. (Or, yell at your HR department, in the event that you think that'll actually accomplish anything.)\"",
"The expense fees are high, and unfortunate. I would stop short of calling it criminal, however. What you are paying for with your expenses is the management of the holdings in the fund. The managers of the fund are actively, continuously watching the performance of the holdings, buying and selling inside the fund in an attempt to beat the stock market indexes. Whether or not this is worth the expenses is debatable, but it is indeed possible for a managed fund to beat an index. Despite the relatively high expenses of these funds, the 401K is still likely your best investment vehicle for retirement. The money you put in is tax deductible immediately, your account grows tax deferred, and anything that your employer kicks in is free money. Since, in the short term, you have little choice, don't lose a lot of sleep over it. Just pick the best option you have, and occasionally suggest to your employer that you would appreciate different options in the future. If things don't change, and you have the option in the future to rollover into a cheaper IRA, feel free to take it.",
"\"Lifecycle funds might be a suitable fit for you. Lifecycle funds (aka \"\"target date funds\"\") are a mutual fund that invests your money in other mutual funds based on how much time is left until you need the money-- they follow a \"\"glide-path\"\" of reducing stock holdings in favor of bonds over time to reduce volatility of your final return as you near retirement. The ones I've looked at don't charge a fee of their own for this, but they do direct your portfolio to actively managed funds. That said, the ones I've seen have an \"\"acquired\"\" expense ratio of less than what you're proposing you'd pay a professional. FWIW, my current plan is to invest in a binary portfolio of cheap mutual funds that track S&P500 and AGG and rebalance regularly. This is easy enough that I don't see the point of adding in a 1 percent commission.\"",
"Fire your fund manager. There are several passive funds that seek to duplicate the S&P 500 Index returns. They have lower management fees, which will make returns lower than S&P, and they have less risk by following a broadly diversified strategy (versus midcap growing stocks). There's also ETFs, but evidence is growing that they're not as safe as hoped. But here's the deal: the S&P has been on a tear lately. It could be overvalued and what looks like a good investment could start falling again. A possible alternative would be one of the Lifetime funds that seek to perform portfolio adjustment with a retirement decade target; they're fairly new which mostly means nobody knows how they screw you over yet. In theory, this decade structure means the brokerage can execute trading cash for stocks, stocks for bonds, and bonds for cash in house.",
"Whatever you do, don't take your retirement savings to Vegas. Second, you should also consider investment expenses. Your investments profit after the managers pay themselves. Get the lowest expense ratio mutual funds you can. Third, most active managers do not beat the market. Index funds are your friends. They also tend to have the lower expense ratios.",
"Most mutual funds underperform the stock market. Of those that over-perform, much of the performance can be attributed to dumb luck. Most mutual funds exist to generate fees from you, rather than make you wealthy. In my opinion, if you want to invest in one, choose a no-load index fund, and you will outperform most other funds. Better still get some good financial education and learn to manage your funds/investments yourself.",
"The S&P top 5 - 401(k) usually comply with the DOL's suggestion to offer at least three distinct investment options with substantially different risk/return objectives. Typically a short term bond fund. Short term is a year or less and it will rarely have a negative year. A large cap fund, often the S&P index. A balanced fund, offering a mix. Last, the company's stock. This is a great way to put all your eggs in one basket, and when the company goes under, you have no job and no savings. My concern about your Microsoft remark is that you might not have the choice to manage you funds with such granularity. Will you get out of the S&P fund because you think this one stock or even one sector of the S&P is overvalued? And buy into what? The bond fund? If you have the skill to choose individual stocks, and the 401(k) doesn't offer a brokerage window (to trade on your own) then just invest your money outside the 401(k). But. If they offer a matching deposit, don't ignore that.",
"That is such a vague statement, I highly recommend disregarding it entirely, as it is impossible to know what they meant. Their goal is to convince you that index funds are the way to go, but depending on what they consider an 'active trader', they may be supporting their claim with irrelevant data Their definition of 'active trader' could mean any one or more of the following: 1) retail investor 2) day trader 3) mutual fund 4) professional investor 5) fund continuously changing its position 6) hedge fund. I will go through all of these. 1) Most retail traders lose money. There are many reasons for this. Some rely on technical strategies that are largely unproven. Some buy rumors on penny stocks in hopes of making a quick buck. Some follow scammers on twitter who sell newsletters full of bogus stock tips. Some cant get around the psychology of trading, and thus close out losing positions late and winning positions early (or never at all) [I myself use to do this!!]. I am certain 99% of retail traders cant beat the market, because most of them, to be frank, put less effort into deciding what to trade than in deciding what to have for lunch. Even though your pension funds presentation is correct with respect to retail traders, it is largely irrelevant as professionals managing your money should not fall into any of these traps. 2) I call day traders active traders, but its likely not what your pension fund was referring to. Day trading is an entirely different animal to long or medium term investing, and thus I also think the typical performance is irrelevant, as they are not going to manage your money like a day trader anyway. 3,4,5) So the important question becomes, do active funds lose 99% of the time compared to index funds. NO! No no no. According to the WSJ, actively managed funds outperformed passive funds in 2007, 2009, 2013, 2015. 2010 was basically a tie. So 5 out of 9 years. I dont have a calculator on me but I believe that is less than 99%! Whats interesting is that this false belief that index funds are always better has become so pervasive that you can see active funds have huge outflows and passive have huge inflows. It is becoming a crowded trade. I will spare you the proverb about large crowds and small doors. Also, index funds are so heavily weighted towards a handful of stocks, that you end up becoming a stockpicker anyway. The S&P is almost indistinguishable from AAPL. Earlier this year, only 6 stocks were responsible for over 100% of gains in the NASDAQ index. Dont think FB has a good long term business model, or that Gilead and AMZN are a cheap buy? Well too bad if you bought QQQ, because those 3 stocks are your workhorses now. See here 6) That graphic is for mutual funds but your pension fund may have also been including hedge funds in their 99% figure. While many dont beat their own benchmark, its less than 99%. And there are reasons for it. Many have investors that are impatient. Fortress just had to close one of its funds, whose bets may actually pay off years from now, but too many people wanted their money out. Some hedge funds also have rules, eg long only, which can really limit your performance. While important to be aware of this, that placing your money with a hedge fund may not beat a benchmark, that does not automatically mean you should go with an index fund. So when are index funds useful? When you dont want to do any thinking. When you dont want to follow market news, at all. Then they are appropriate.",
"\"The best predictor of mutual fund performance is low expense ratio, as reported by Morningstar despite the fact that it produces the star ratings you cite. Most of the funds you list are actively managed and thus have high expense ratios. Even if you believe there are mutual fund managers out there that can pick investments intelligently enough to offset the costs versus a passive index fund, do you trust that you will be able to select such a manager? Most people that aren't trying to sell you something will advise that your best bet is to stick with low-cost, passive index funds. I only see one of these in your options, which is FUSVX (Fidelity Spartan 500 Index Fund Fidelity Advantage Class) with an exceptionally low expense ratio of 0.05%. Do you have other investment accounts with more choices, like an IRA? If so you might consider putting a major chunk of your 401(k) money into FUSVX, and use your IRA to balance your overall porfolio with small- and medium-cap domestic stock, international stock, and bond funds. As an aside, I remember seeing a funny comment on this site once that is applicable here, something along the lines of \"\"don't take investment advice from coworkers unless they're Warren Buffett or Bill Gross\"\".\"",
"\"If you're willing to do a little more work and bookkeeping than just putting money into the 401(k) I would recommend the following. I note that you said you chose some funds based on performance since the expense ratios are all high. I would recommend against chasing performance because active funds will almost always falter; honor the old saw: \"\"past performance is no guarantee of future returns\"\". Assuming the cash in your Ally account is an emergency fund, I would use it to pay off your credit card debt to avoid the interest payments. Use free cash flow in the coming months to bring the emergency fund balance back up to an acceptable level. If the Ally account is not an emergency fund, I would make it one! With no debt and an emergency fund for 3-12 months of living expenses (pick your risk tolerance), then you can concentrate on investing. Your 401(k) options are unfortunately pretty poor. With those choices I would invest this way: Once you fill up your choice of IRA, then you have the tougher decision of where to put any extra money you have to invest (if any). A brokerage account gives you the freedom of investment choices and the ability to easily pull out money in the case of a dire emergency. The 401(k) will give you tax benefits, but high fund expenses. The tax benefits are considerable, so if I were at a job where I plan on moving on in a few years, I'd fund the 401(k) up to the max with the knowledge that I'd roll the 401(k) into a rollover IRA in the (relatively) short term. If I saw myself staying at the employer for a long time (5+ years), I'd probably take the taxable account route since those high fund fees will add up over time. One you start building up a solid base, then I might look into having a small allocation in one of my accounts for \"\"play money\"\" to pick individual stocks, or start making sector bets.\"",
"You have to look at the market conditions and make decisions based on them. Ideally, you may want to have 30% of your portfolio in bonds. But from a practical point of view, it's probably not so smart to invest in bond funds right at this moment given the interest rate market. Styles of funds tend to go into and out of style. I personally do asset allocation two ways in my 457 plan (like a 401k for government workers): In my IRA, I invest in a portfolio of 5-6 stocks. The approach you take is dependent on what you are able to put into it. I invest about 10 hours a week into investment related research. If you can't do that, you want a strategy that is simpler -- but you still need to be cognizant of market conditions.",
"There are fund of funds,e.g. life cycle funds or target retirement funds, that could cover a lot of these with an initial investment that one could invest into for a few years and then after building up a balance large enough, then it may make sense to switch to having more control.",
"\"Yep, most 401k options suck. You'll have access to a couple dozen funds that have been blessed by the organization that manages your account. I recently rolled my 401k over into a self-directed IRA at Fidelity, and I have access to the entire mutual fund market, and can trade stocks/bonds if I wish. As for a practical solution for your situation: the options you've given us are worryingly vague -- hopefully you're able to do research on what positions these funds hold and make your own determination. Quick overview: Energy / Utilities: Doing good right now because they are low-risk, generally high dividends. These will underperform in the short-term as the market recovers. Health Care: riskier, and many firms are facing a sizable patent cliff. I am avoiding this sector. Emerging Markets: I'm also avoiding this due to the volatility and accounting issues, but it's up to you. Most large US companies have \"\"emerging markets\"\" exposure, so not necessary for to invest in a dedicated fund in my unprofessional opinion. Bonds: Avoid. Bonds are at their highest levels in decades. Short-term they might be ok; but medium-term, the only place to go is down. All of this depends on your age, and your own particular investment objectives. Don't listen to me or anyone else without doing your own research.\"",
"Let me throw in one more variable to consider. Company 401K plans typically have MUCH higher fees than you are likely to get if you shop around on your own as long as you don't go with a high dollar broker. You won't see these fees on your statements typically, which I think is criminal, but they are hidden in the prices of the funds you are buying in the 401K. If you don't believe me, get the quotes for a fund from the 401K company's web-site then look up the same fund on a site like MSMoney. The share prices won't match and you will be angry until you come to terms with it. So if you have a choice of money in a personal retirement account versus a 401K always go with your own account... UNLESS: or",
"\"That's a lot of manual checking-in to see if everything is performing the way you \"\"want\"\". Not to insult your intelligence, but that is not your job, and doing that on a monthly basis is going to eat a lot of time. Plus, most 401(k) programs have lockout periods wherein changes can't be made without incurring additional fees (related to distributions, etc). And if you're checking that often, you are [likely] losing the benefits of investing in mutual funds to start with. If you have the stomach to handle the risk, go for the high-risk investment vehicles early in your career - you can afford a 30% drop this year if you then make 105%, 15%, or 50% back each of the next 5. If, on the other hand, you're in your mid-career, switch to more conservative management tactics.\"",
"If they're not matching, and their profit-sharing has nothing to do with how much you invest, then I'd say don't bother with the company 401k at all. If you need to at least have an account open to get the profit sharing, then contribute the bare minimum. Having your retirement account through your company forces you to follow their standards, choose from their funds, use their broker, etc. It also means that when you leave the company, you either have to move your money anyway, or else have an account through a company you don't work for, which I wouldn't feel all that comfortable doing anyway. If you open a retirement account through your bank or a private financial planner, then it's yours, and you can contribute what you want, when you want, and buy the securities that you want. Your account executive is there to service you, not your company.",
"The benefit of the 401K and IRAs are that reallocating and re balancing are easy. They don't want you to move the funds every day, but you are not locked in to your current allocations. The fact that you mentioned in a comment that you also have a Roth IRA means that you should look at all retirements as a whole. Look at what options you have in the 401K and also what options you have with the IRA. Then determine the overall allocation between bonds, stocks, international, REIT, etc. Then use the mix of funds in the IRA and 401K to meet that goal. Asking if the 401K should be small and mid cap only can't be answered without knowing not just your risk tolerances but the total money in the 401K and IRA. Pick an allocation, map the available funds to that allocation. Rebalance every year. But review the allocation in a few years or after a life event such as: change of job, getting married, having kids, or buying a house.",
"What decision are you trying to make? Are you interested day trading stocks to make it rich? Or are you looking at your investment options and trying to decide between an actively managed mutual fund and an ETF? If the former, then precise statistics are hard to come by, but I believe that 99% of day traders would do better investing in an ETF. If the latter, then there are lots of studies that show that most actively managed funds do worse than index funds, so with most actively managed funds you are paying higher fees for worse performance. Here is a quote from the Bogleheads Guide to Investing: Index funds outperform approximately 80 percent of all actively managed funds over long periods of time. They do so for one simple reason: rock-bottom costs. In a random market, we don't know what future returns will be. However, we do know that an investor who keeps his or her costs low will earn a higher return than one who does not. That's the indexer's edge. Many people believe that your best option for investing is a diverse portfolio of ETFs, like this. This is what I do.",
"Does your employer offer a 401(k) match? If so, contribute enough to maximize that--it's free money. After that, contribute to an IRA where you can invest in funds with low expenses. After you max that out, if you still have money left over, max out your 401(k) despite the high expenses for the tax advantages. Remember when you leave the company you can roll over the balance into an IRA and switch to lower-cost investments. Of course this is general advice without knowing your situation. If you're looking to buy a home soon, for example, you might want to keep extra money in a taxable account for a downpayment rather than maxing out your 401(k).",
"\"I think you are asking about actively managed funds vs. indexes and possibly also vs. diversified funds like target date funds. This is also related to the question of mutual fund vs. ETF. First, a fund can be either actively managed or it can attempt to track an index. An actively managed fund has a fund manager who tries to find the best stocks to invest in within some constraints, like \"\"this fund invests in large cap US companies\"\". An index fund tries to match as closely as possible the performance of an index like the S&P 500. A fund may also try to offer a portfolio that is suitable for someone to put their entire account into. For example, a target date fund is a fund that may invest in a mix of stocks, bonds and foreign stock in a proportion that would be appropriate to someone expecting to retire in a certain year. These are not what people tend to think of as the canonical examples of mutual funds, even though they share the same legal structure and investment mechanisms. Secondly, a fund can either be a traditional mutual fund or it can be an exchange traded fund (ETF). To invest in a traditional mutual fund, you send money to the fund, and they give you a number of shares equal to what that money would have bought of the net asset value (NAV) of the fund at the end of trading on the day they receive your deposit, possibly minus a sales charge. To invest in an ETF, you buy shares of the ETF on the stock market like any other stock. Under the covers, an ETF does have something similar to the mechanism of depositing money to get shares, but only big traders can use that, and it's not used for investing, but only for people who are making a market in the stock (if lots of people are buying VTI, Big Dealer Co will get 100,000 shares from Vanguard so that they can sell them on the market the next day). Historically and traditionally, ETFs are associated with an indexing strategy, while if not specifically mentioned, people assume that traditional mutual funds are actively managed. Many ETFs, notably all the Vanguard ETFs, are actually just a different way to hold the same underlying fund. The best way to understand this is to read the prospectus for a mutual fund and an ETF. It's all there in reasonably plain English.\"",
"What you may be looking for are multi-manager ETFs; these invest in a basket of diversified funds to get the best out of all of the funds. The problem with multi-manager funds is, of course, that you pay fees twice; once to the fund itself and once to each of the funds in the fund. The low fees on ETFs mean that it is not very profitable to actively maintain one so there are not many around (Googling returns very few). Noting that historic success doesn't guarantee future success and that fees are being applied to fees these funds only really benefit from diversification of manager performance risk. partial source of information and an example of a (non-outperforming) Multi-manager ETF: http://www.etfstrategy.co.uk/advisorshares-sets-date-for-multi-manager-etf-with-charitable-twist-give-53126/",
"Placing bets on targeted sectors of the market totally makes sense in my opinion. Especially if you've done research, with a non-biased eye, that convinces you those sectors will continue to outperform. However, the funds you've boxed in red all appear to be actively managed funds (I only double-checked on the first.) There is a bit of research showing that very few active managers consistently beat an index over the long term. By buying these funds, especially since you hope to hold for decades, you are placing bets that these managers maintain their edge over an equivalent index. This seems unlikely to be a winning bet the longer you hold the position. Perhaps there are no sector index funds for the sectors or focuses you have? But if there were, and it was my money that I planned to park for the long term, I'd pick the index fund over the active managed fund. Index funds also have an advantage in costs or fees. They can charge substantially less than an actively managed fund does. And fees can be a big drag on total return.",
"The problem is that short-term trends are really unpredictable. There is nobody who can accurately predict where a fund (or even moreso, a single stock or bond) is going to move in a few hours, or days or even months. The long-term trends of the entire market, however, are (more or less) predictable. There is a definite upward bias when you look at time-scales of 5, 10, 20 years and more. Individual stocks and bonds may crash, and different sectors perform differently from year to year, but the market as a whole has historically always risen over long time scales. Of course, past performance never guarantees future performance. It is possible that everything could crash and never come back, but history shows that this would be incredibly unlikely. Which is the entire basis for strategies based on buying and holding (and periodically rebalancing) a portfolio containing funds that cover all market sectors. Now, regarding your 401(k), you know your time horizon. The laws won't let you withdraw money without penalty until you reach retirement age - this might be 40 years, depending on your current age. So we're definitely talking long term. You shouldn't care about where the market goes over a few months if you won't be using the money until 20 years from now. The most important thing for a 401(k) is to choose funds from those available to you that will be as diverse as possible. The actual allocation strategy is something you will need to work out with a financial advisor, since it will be different for every person. Once you come up with an appropriate allocation strategy, you will want to buy according to those ratios with every paycheck and rebalance your funds to those ratios whenever they start to drift away. And review the ratios with your advisor every few years, to keep them aligned with large-scale trends and changes in your life.",
"The presence of the 401K option means that your ability to contribute to an IRA will be limited, it doesn't matter if you contribute to the 401K or not. Unless your company allows you to roll over 401K money into an IRA while you are still an employee, your money in the 401K will remain there. Many 401K programs offer not just stock mutual funds, but bond mutual funds, and international funds. Many also have target date funds. You will have to look at the paperwork for the funds to determine if any of them meet your definition of low expense. Because any money you have in those 401K funds is going to remain in the 401K, you still need to look at your options and make the best choice. Very few companies allow employees to invest in individual stocks, but some do. You can ask your employer to research other options for the 401K. The are contracting with a investment company to make the plan. They may be able to switch to a different package from the same company or may need to switch companies. How much it will cost them is unknown. You will have to understand when their current contract is up for renewal. If you feel their current plan is poor, it may be making hiring new employees difficult, or ti may lead to some employees to leave in search of better options. It may also be a factor in the number of employees contributing and how much they contribute.",
"Unfortunately, that's a call only you can make and whichever route you choose comes with advantages and disadvantages. If you manage your money directly, you may significantly reduce costs (assuming that you don't frequently trade index funds or you use a brokerage like RobinHood) and take advantage of market returns if the indexes perform well. On the other hand, if the market experiences some bad years, a professional might (and this is a huge might) have more self-discipline and prevent a panic sell, or know how to allocate accordingly both before and after a rise or fall (keep in mind, investors often get too greedy for their own good, like they tend to panic at the wrong time). As an example of why this might is important: one family member of mine trusted a professional to do this and they failed; they bought in a rising market and sold in a falling market. To avoid the above example, if you do go with the professional service, the best course of action is to look at their track record; if they're new, you might be better on your own. Since I assume this one or more professionals at the company, testing to see what they've recommended over the years might help you evaluate if they're offering you a good choice. Finally, depending on how much money you have, you could always do what Scott Adams did: he took a portion of his own money and managed it himself and tested how well he did vs. how well his professional team did (if I recall, I believe he came out ahead of his professional team). With two decades left, that may help guide you the rest of the way, even through retirement.",
"\"There are probably 3-4 questions here. Diversification - A good index, a low cost S&P fund or ETF can serve you very well. If you add an extended market index or just go with \"\"Total market\"\", that might be it for your stock allocation. I've seen people with 5 funds, and it didn't take much analysis to see the overlap was so significant, that the extra 4 funds added little, and 2 of the 5 would have been it. If you diversify by buying more ETFs or funds, be sure to see what they contain. If you can go back in time, buy Apple, Google, Amazon, etc, and don't sell them. Individual stocks are fun to pick, but unless you put in your homework, are tough to succeed at. You need to be right at the buy side, and again to know if, and when, to sell. I bought Apple, for example, long ago, pre-last few splits. But, using responsible a approach, I sold a bit each time it doubled. Has I kept it all through the splits, I'd have $1M+ instead of the current $200K or so of stock. Can you tell which companies now have that kind of potential for the future? The S&P has been just about double digit over 60 years. The average managed fund will lag the S&P over time, many will be combined with other funds or just close. Even with huge survivor bias, managed funds can't beat the index over time, on average. Aside from a small portion of stocks I've picked, I'm happy to get S&P less .02% in my 401(k). In aggregate, people actually do far worse due to horrific timing and some odd thing, called emotions.\"",
"I'm looking for ways to geared to save for retirement, not general investment. Many mutual fund companies offer a range of target retirement funds for different retirement dates (usually in increments of 5 years). These are funds of funds, that is, a Target 2040 Fund, say, will be invested in five or six different stock and bond mutual funds offered by the same company. Over the years and as the target date approaches closer, the investment mix will change from extra weight given to stock mutual funds towards extra weight being given to bond mutual funds. The disadvantage to these funds is that the Target Fund charges its own expense ratio over and above the expense ratios charged by the mutual funds it invests in: you could do the same investments yourself (or pick your own mix and weighting of various funds) and save the extra expense ratio. However, over the years, as the Target Fund changes its mix, withdrawing money from the stock mutual funds and investing the proceeds into bond mutual funds, you do not have to pay taxes on the profits generated by these transactions except insofar as some part of the profits become distributions from the Target Fund itself. If you were doing the same transactions outside the Target Fund, you would be liable for taxes on the profits when you withdrew money from a stock fund and invested the proceeds into the bond fund.",
"\"First of all, it's great you're now taking full advantage of your employer match – i.e. free money. Next, on the question of the use of a life cycle / target date fund as a \"\"hedge\"\": Life cycle funds were introduced for hands-off, one-stop-shopping investors who don't like a hassle or don't understand. Such funds are gaining in popularity: employers can use them as a default choice for automatic enrollment, which results in more participation in retirement savings plans than if employees had to opt-in. I think life cycle funds are a good innovation for that reason. But, the added service and convenience typically comes with higher fees. If you are going to be hands-off, make sure you're cost-conscious: Fees can devastate a portfolio's performance. In your case, it sounds like you are willing to do some work for your portfolio. If you are confident that you've chosen a good equity glide path – that is, the initial and final stock/bond allocations and the rebalancing plan to get from one to the other – then you're not going to benefit much by having a life cycle fund in your portfolio duplicating your own effort with inferior components. (I assume you are selecting great low-cost, liquid index funds for your own strategy!) Life cycle are neat, but replicating them isn't rocket science. However, I see a few cases in which life cycle funds may still be useful even if one has made a decision to be more involved in portfolio construction: Similar to your case: You have a company savings plan that you're taking advantage of because of a matching contribution. Chances are your company plan doesn't offer a wide variety of funds. Since a life cycle fund is available, it can be a good choice for that account. But make sure fees aren't out of hand. If much lower-cost equity and bond funds are available, consider them instead. Let's say you had another smaller account that you were unable to consolidate into your main account. (e.g. a Traditional IRA vs. your Roth, and you didn't necessarily want to convert it.) Even if that account had access to a wide variety of funds, it still might not be worth the added hassle or trading costs of owning and rebalancing multiple funds inside the smaller account. There, perhaps, the life cycle fund can help you out, while you use your own strategy in your main account. Finally, let's assume you had a single main account and you buy partially into the idea of a life cycle fund and you find a great one with low fees. Except: you want a bit of something else in your portfolio not provided by the life cycle fund, e.g. some more emerging markets, international, or commodity stock exposure. (Is this one reason you're doing it yourself?) In that case, where the life cycle fund doesn't quite have everything you want, you could still use it for the bulk of the portfolio (e.g. 85-95%) and then select one or two specific additional ETFs to complement it. Just make sure you factor in those additional components into the overall equity weighting and adjust your life cycle fund choice accordingly (e.g. perhaps go more conservative in the life cycle, to compensate.) I hope that helps! Additional References:\"",
"I could see doing this if the investments were via different environments. The choices in a 401K are limited by the plan, so you might want to put new money into the 401K index fund. At the same time you could have IRA money invested in a similar index. You could even have non-retirement money invested. While you should look at all your investments while evaluating your investment percentages, the 401K (limited options) and the non-retirement account (avoiding taxes) might be harder to move around. Otherwise the only advantage of splitting between funds is avoiding having all your money in a Ponzi scheme.",
"There are many technical answers above , but the short story to me is that very few active fund managers consistently beat the market. Look at the results of actively managed funds. Depending on whose analysis you read, you will find out that somewhere between 80-90% of fund managers in a given year do not beat passive index funds. So go figure how you will do compared to a mutual fund manager who has way more experience than you likely have. So, that in itself is moderately interesting, but if you look at same-manager performance over several consecutive years it is rare to find anyone that goes beats the market for more than a few years in a row. There are exceptions, but go pick one of these guys/gals - good luck. Getting in and out of the market is a loser. This is because there is no way to see market spikes and down turns. There are many behavioral studies that have been done that show people do the wrong thing: they sell after losses have occurred and they buy after the market has gone up. Missing an up spike and not being in before the spike is as devastating as missing a down turn and not getting out in time. There is another down side, if you are trading in a personal account, rather than a tax deferred account, going in and out of stocks has tax complications. In short, a broad based equity index will, over time, beat about anything out there and it will do it in a tax efficient manner. Exchange traded funds (ETFs) are a wonderful way to obtain diversification immediately at very low cost.",
"See if any of the funds they offer are index funds, which will generally have MUCH lower fees and which seem to perform as well as any of the actively managed funds in the same categories.",
"\"An investment portfolio is typically divided into three components: All three of those can be accessed through mutual funds or ETFs. A 401(k) will probably have a small set of mutual funds for you to pick from. Mutual funds may charge you silly expenses if you pick a bad one. Look at the prospectus for the expense ratio. If it's over 1% you're definitely paying too much. If it's over 0.5% you're probably paying too much. If it's less than 0.1% you have a really good deal. US stocks are generally the core holding until you move into retirement (or get close to spending the money on something else if it's not invested for retirement). International stocks are riskier than US stocks, but provide opportunity for diversification and better returns than the US stocks. Bonds, or fixed-income investments, are generally very safe, but have limited opportunities for returns. They tend to do better when stocks are doing poorly. When you've got a while to invest, you should be looking at riskier investments; when you don't, you should be looking for safer investments. A quick (and rough) rule of thumb is that \"\"your age should match the portion of your portfolio in bonds\"\". So if you're 50 years old and approaching retirement in 15 years or so, you should have about 50% in bonds. Roughly. People whose employment and future income is particularly tied to one sector of the market would also do well to avoid investing there, because they already are at risk if it performs badly. For instance, if you work in the technology sector, loading up on tech stocks is extra risky: if there's a big bust, you're not just out of a job, your portfolio is dead as well. More exotic options are available to diversify a portfolio: While many portfolios could benefit from these sorts of holdings, they come with their own advantages and disadvantages and should be researched carefully before taking a significant stake in them.\"",
"With a match, the 401(k) becomes the priority, up to that match, often ahead of other high interest debt. Without the match, the analysis is more about the cost within the 401(k). The 401(k) is a tax deferred account (let's not go on a tangent to Roth 401(k)) so ideally, you'd be skimming off money at 25% and saving it till you retire, so some of it is taxed at 0, 10, 15%. If the fees in the 401(k) are say 1.5% between the underlying funds and management fee, it doesn't take long to wipe out the potential 10 or 15% you are trying to gain. Yes, there's a risk that cap gain rates go away, but with today's tax law, the long term rate is 15%. So that money put into a long term low cost ETF will have reinvested dividends taxed at 15% and upon sale, a 15% rate on the gains. There are great index ETFs with sub - .1% annual cost. My simple answer is - If the total cost in that 401(k) is .5% or higher, I'd pass. Save the money in an outside account, using IRAs as best you can. (The exact situation needs to be looked at very carefully. In personal finance, there's a lot of 'grey'. For example, a frequent job changer can view the 401(k) as a way of saving pretax, knowing the fee will only last 2 years, and will end with a transfer to the IRA)",
"An experienced individual wouldn't ask such questions. I don't say this to take a jab at you, but to provide context. The matter is much more complicated than a simple answer to your question could accomplish. The short answer is no, not necessarily; but it depends on the details. Generally, if the employer matches, it's suggested that you take advantage of the match. It's free money. That said, it comes with some strings attached, like a vesting schedule. It's not yours right away, necessarily. Choices are limited in a 401k, but we should still come out ahead with that free money. The investment choices available in a 401k are also a part of the details. If they meet your needs you should certainly consider the 401k even if the employer doesn't match. There is also the matter of one's particular tax situation, which is certainly an involved matter. A 401k can certainly be a part of judicious tax planning. It's a matter of working out the details. Continuing this theme of details and coming back to the employer match: if the employer doesn't mach, I would make sure that I'm maxing out an IRA before considering the 401k. If the employer matched, I would probably contribute to take advantage of that match. However, it quickly becomes complicated here. I'm accustomed to employer matching up to some percentage of pay, which typically works out to be less then the anual contribution limits for a 401k. So, I my plan for such a situation is to contribute up to the employer match in the 401k, then max out an IRA, and then return to the 401k to finish contributing up to its yearly maximum. There is plenty for you to consider in order to come up with a plan of action. While it's certainly complicated, it's accessible to most people. You don't have to be a genius. In fact, eggheads are regularly trounced by the markets.",
"\"Diversification is the only real free lunch in finance (reduction in risk without any reduction in expected returns), so clearly every good answer to your question will be \"\"yes.\"\" Diversification is good.\"\" Let's talk about many details your question solicits. Many funds are already pretty diversified. If you buy a mutual fund, you are generally already getting a large portion of the gains from diversification. There is a very large difference between the unnecessary risk in your portfolio if you only hold a couple of stocks and if you hold a mutual fund. Should you be diversified across mutual funds as well? It depends on what your funds are. Many funds, such as target-date funds, are intended to be your sole investment. If you have funds covering every major asset class, then there may not be any additional benefit to buying other funds. You probably could not have picked your \"\"favorite fund\"\" early on. As humans, we have cognitive biases that make us think we knew things early on that we did not. I'm sure at some point at the very beginning you had a positive feeling toward that fund. Today you regret not acting on it and putting all your money there. But the number of such feelings is very large and if you acted on all those, you would do a lot of crazy and harmful things. You didn't know early on which fund would do well. You could just as well have had a good feeling about a fund that subsequently did much worse than your diversified portfolio did. The advice you have had about your portfolio probably isn't based on sound finance theory. You say you have always kept your investments in line with your age. This implies that you believe the guidelines given you by your broker or financial advisor are based in finance theory. Generally speaking, they are not. They are rules of thumb that seemed good to someone but are not rigorously proven either in theory or empirics. For example the notion that you should slowly shift your investments from speculative to conservative as you age is not based on sound finance theory. It just seems good to the people who give advice on such things. Nothing particularly wrong with it, I guess, but it's not remotely on par with the general concept of being well-diversified. The latter is extremely well established and verified, both in theory and in practice. Don't confuse the concept of diversification with the specific advice you have received from your advisor. A fund averaging very good returns is not an anomaly--at least going forward it will not be. There are many thousand funds and a large distribution in their historical performance. Just by random chance, some funds will have a truly outstanding track record. Perhaps the manager really was skilled. However, very careful empirical testing has shown the following: (1) You, me, and people whose profession it is to select outperforming mutual funds are unable to reliably detect which ones will outperform, except in hindsight (2) A fund that has outperformed, even over a long horizon, is not more likely to outperform in the future. No one is stopping you from putting all your money in that fund. Depending on its investment objective, you may even have decent diversification if you do so. However, please be aware that if you move your money based on historical outperformance, you will be acting on the same cognitive bias that makes gamblers believe they are on a \"\"hot streak\"\" and \"\"can't lose.\"\" They can, and so can you. ======== Edit to answer a more specific line of questions =========== One of your questions is whether it makes sense to buy a number of mutual funds as part of your diversification strategy. This is a slightly more subtle question and I will indicate where there is uncertainty in my answer. Diversifying across asset classes. Most of the gains from diversification are available in a single fund. There is a lot of idiosyncratic risk in one or two stocks and much less in a collection of hundreds of stocks, which is what any mutual fund will hold. Still,you will probably want at least a couple of funds in your portfolio. I will list them from most important to least and I will assume the bulk of your portfolio is in a total US equity fund (or S&P500-style fund) so that you are almost completely diversified already. Risky Bonds. These are corporate, municipal, sovereign debt, and long-term treasury debt funds. There is almost certainly a good deal to be gained by having a portion of your portfolio in bonds, and normally a total market fund will not include bond exposure. Bonds fund returns are closely related to interest rate and inflation changes. They are also exposed to some market risk but it's more efficient to get that from equity. The bond market is very large, so if you did market weights you would have more in bonds than in equity. Normally people do not do this, though. Instead you can get the exposure to interest rates by holding a lesser amount in longer-term bonds, rather than more in shorter-term bonds. I don't believe in shifting your weights toward nor away from this type of bond (as opposed to equity) as you age so if you are getting that advice, know that it is not well-founded in theory. Whatever your relative weight in risky bonds when you are young is should also be your weight when you are older. International. There are probably some gains from having some exposure to international markets, although these have decreased over time as economies have become more integrated. If we followed market weights, you would actually put half your equity weight in an international fund. Because international funds are taxed differently (gains are always taxed at the short-term capital gains rate) and because they have higher management fees, most people make only a small investment to international funds, if any at all. Emerging markets International funds often ignore emerging markets in order to maintain liquidity and low fees. You can get some exposure to these markets through emerging markets funds. However, the value of public equity in emerging markets is small when compared with that of developed markets, so according to finance theory, your investment in them should be small as well. That's a theoretical, not an empirical result. Emerging market funds charge high fees as well, so this one is kind of up to your taste. I can't say whether it will work out in the future. Real estate. You may want to get exposure to real estate by buying a real-estate fund (REIT). Though, if you own a house you are already exposed to the real estate market, perhaps more than you want to be. REITs often invest in commercial real estate, which is a little different from the residential market. Small Cap. Although total market funds invest in all capitalization levels, the market is so skewed toward large firms that many total market funds don't have any significant small cap exposure. It's common for individuals to hold a small cap fund to compensate for this, but it's not actually required by investment theory. In principle, the most diversified portfolio should be market-cap weighted, so small cap should have negligible weight in your portfolio. Many people hold small cap because historically it has outperformed large cap firms of equal risk, but this trend is uncertain. Many researchers feel that the small cap \"\"premium\"\" may have been a short-term artifact in the data. Given these facts and the fact that small-cap funds charge higher fees, it may make sense to pass on this asset class. Depends on your opinion and beliefs. Value (or Growth) Funds. Half the market can be classed as \"\"value\"\", while the other half is \"\"growth.\"\" Your total market fund should have equal representation in both so there is no diversification reason to buy a special value or growth fund. Historically, value funds have outperformed over long horizons and many researchers think this will continue, but it's not exactly mandated by the theory. If you choose to skew your portfolio by buying one of these, it should be a value fund. Sector funds. There is, in general, no diversification reason to buy funds that invest in a particular sector. If you are trying to hedge your income (like trying to avoid investing in the tech sector because you work in that sector) or your costs (buying energy because you buy use a disproportionate amount of energy) I could imagine you buying one of these funds. Risk-free bonds. Funds specializing in short-term treasuries or short-term high-quality bonds of other types are basically a substitute for a savings account, CD, money market fund, or other cash equivalent. Use as appropriate but there is little diversification here per se. In short, there is some value in diversifying across asset classes, and it is open to opinion how much you should do. Less well-justified is diversifying across managers within the same asset class. There's very little if any advantage to doing that.\"",
"\"Having worked for a financial company for years, my advice is to stay away from all the \"\"Freedom Funds\"\" offered. They're a new way for Fidelity to justify charging a higher management fee on those particular funds. That extra 1% or so a year is great for making the company money; it will kill your rate of return over the next 25+ years you're putting money into your retirement account. All these funds do is change the percentage of your funds in stocks vs. more fixed investments (bonds, etc.) so you have a higher percentage in stocks while you're young and slowly move the percentage more towards fixed as you get older. If you take a few hours every 5 years to re-balance your portfolio and just slowly shift more money towards fixed investments, you'll achieve the same thing WITHOUT the extra annual fee. So how much difference are we talking here? Let's do a quick example. Based on your salary of $70k and a 4% match by your company, you'll have $5,600 a year to put in your 401(k) (your 4% plus matched 4%). I'll also assume an 8% annual return for both funds. Here is what that 1% extra service charge will cost you: Fund with a 1% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $60.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $301.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25: $3,782 Fund with a 2% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $121.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $472.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25: $6,489 That's a total of $2,707 in extra fees over 25 years on just the investment you make this year! Next year if you invest the same amount in your 401k that will be another $2,707 paid over 25 years to the management company. This pattern repeats EACH year you pay the higher management fee. Trust me, if you invest that money in stock instead of paying it as fees, you'll have a whole lot more money saved when it's time to retire. My advice, pick a percentage you're comfortable with in stocks at your age, maybe 85 - 90%, and pick the stock funds with the lowest management fees (the remaining 10 - 15% should go into a fixed fund). Make sure you pick at least some of your stock money, I do 20 - 25%, and select a diverse (lots of different countries) international fund. For any retirement money you plan to save above the 4% getting matched by your company, set up a Roth IRA. That will give you the freedom to invest in any stocks or funds you want. Find some low-cost index funds (such as VTI for stocks, and BND for bonds) and put your money in those. Invest the same amount every month, automatically, and your cost average will work itself out through up markets and down. Good luck!\"",
"Every 401(k) has managers to make the stock choices. They all have different rates. You want to see that fidelity or Vangard is handling your 401(k).(and I am sure others) If you have a mega bank managing your funds or an insurance company odds are you are paying way to high management fees. So find out, the management fees should be available should be less than 1%. They can get as high as 2%...Ouch",
"If you don't have the time or interest to manage investments, you need a financial advisor. Generally speaking, you're better served by an advisor who collects an annual fee based on a percentage of your account value. Advisors who are compensated based on transactions have a vested interest to churn your account, which is often not in your best interest. You also need to be wary of advisors who peddle expensive mutual funds with sales loads (aka kick-backs to the advisor) or annuities. Your advisor's compensation structure should be transparent as well.",
"If you can afford to put money in your 401(k) account, I would say at least you should invest enough to get your employer's matching fund. It's free money, why not get it?",
"Another option to a human advisor is FutureAdvisor, a web service that (if it supports your 401k plan) gives personalized algorithmic advice on what you should hold in your 401(k) and other retirement accounts. If it doesn't support your 401(k) plan just yet you can sign up to be emailed when your plan is added. [Disclosure: I work here, but I believe in the product and it's designed to solve this exact problem so I'm mentioning it here] Note from JoeTaxpayer - bolu's disclosure is much appreciated. The fee is $39/yr, with a free trial. Consider that a commissions based advisor won't even take on a $10K level account, and at $100K, you'd be hard pressed to gain by more than his 1% fee. So while I've not dug deeper into this site, a rules-based methodology is likely to be worth the cost if over time it gains you even a fraction of a percent compared to what you'd have done blindly.",
"You may want to move money between your investments within the plan, rebalancing money to maintain your diversification. You don't have to deal with the details if selling and buying, just tell them how much to move where. Many plans offer investments that automatically rebalance for you such as Target Date accounts. You may be able to select one of those and just ignore the 401k until retirement, or at most rebalance even less often. Look at what's offered, look at what it costs as fees, run the numbers and decide whether you can do better.",
"I am sure there would be many views on the above topic, my take is that DIY takes the following: Now, for many, one or more of the other factors are missing. In this case, it is probably best to go for a financial adviser. There are others who have some of the above in place and are interested but probably cannot spend enough time. For them a middle ground of Mutual Funds probably is a good choice. Here they get to choose the fund they invest in and the fund manager manages the fund. For the people who have the above more or less in place and also are willing to take risk and learn, they probably can do a DIY for a while and find out the actual result. Just my views and opinion.",
"$10.90 for every $1000 per year. Are you kidding me!!! These are usually hidden within the expense ratio of the plan funds, but >1% seems to be quite a lot regardless. FUND X 1 year return 3% 3 year return 6% 10 year return 5% What does that exactly mean? This is the average annual rate of return. If measured for the last 3 years, the average annual rate of return is 6%, if measured for 1 year - it's 3%. What it means is that out of the last 3 years, the last year return was not the best, the previous two were much better. Does that mean that if I hold my mutual funds for 10 years I will get 5% return on it. Definitely not. Past performance doesn't promise anything for the future. It is merely a guidance for you, a comparison measure between the funds. You can assume that if in the past the fund performed certain way, then given the same conditions in the future, it will perform the same again. But it is in no way a promise or a guarantee of anything. Since my 401K plan stinks what are my options. If I put my money in a traditional IRA then I lose my pre tax benefits right! Wrong, IRA is pre-tax as well. But the pre-tax deduction limits for IRA are much lower than for 401k. You can consider investing in the 401k, and then rolling over to a IRA which will allow better investment options. After your update: Just clearing up the question. My current employer has a 401K. Most of the funds have the expense ratio of 1.20%. There is NO MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS. Ouch. Should I convert the 401K of my old company to Traditional IRA and start investing in that instead of investing in the new employer 401K plan with high fees. You should probably consider rolling over the old company 401k to a traditional IRA. However, it is unrelated to the current employer's 401k. If you're contributing up to the max to the Roth IRA, you can't add any additional contributions to traditional IRA on top of that - the $5000 limit is for both, and the AGI limitations for Roth are higher, so you're likely not able to contribute anything at all to the traditional IRA. You can contribute to the employer's 401k. You have to consider if the rather high expenses are worth the tax deferral for you.",
"\"The question you should be asking yourself is this: \"\"Why am I putting money into a 401(k)?\"\" For many people, the answer is to grow a (large) nest egg and save for future retirement expenses. Investors are balancing risk and potential reward, so the asset categories you're putting your 401(k) contribution towards will be a reflection on how much risk you're willing to take. Per a US News & World Report article: Ultimately, investors would do well to remember one of the key tenants of investing: diversify. The narrower you are with your investments, the greater your risk, says Vanguard's Bruno: \"\"[Diversification] doesn't ensure against a loss, but it does help lessen a significant loss.\"\" Generally, investing in your employer's stock in your 401(k) is considered very risk. In fact, one Forbes columnist recommends not putting any money into company stock. FINRA notes: Simply stated, if you put too many eggs in one basket, you can expose yourself to significant risk. In financial terms, you are under-diversified: you have too much of your holdings tied to a single investment—your company's stock. Investing heavily in company stock may seem like a good thing when your company and its stock are doing well. But many companies experience fluctuations in both operational performance and stock price. Not only do you expose yourself to the risk that the stock market as a whole could flounder, but you take on a lot of company risk, the risk that an individual firm—your company—will falter or fail. In simpler terms, if you invest a large portion of your 401(k) funds into company stock, if your company runs into trouble, you could lose both your job AND your retirement investments. For the other investment assets/vehicles, you should review a few things: Personally, I prefer to keep my portfolio simple and just pick just a few options based on my own risk tolerance. From your fund examples, without knowing specifics about your financial situation and risk tolerance, I would have created a portfolio that looks like this when I was in my 20's: I avoided the bond and income/money market funds because the growth potential is too low for my investing horizon. Like some of the other answers have noted, the Target Date funds invest in other funds and add some additional fee overhead, which I'm trying to avoid by investing primarily in index funds. Again, your risk tolerance and personal preference might result in a completely different portfolio mix.\"",
"I agree with others here that suggest that you should be taking higher risk since it is repaid with higher returns. You have 40 years or so to go before you might switch to safer but lower return funds. I suggest that you look at the Morningstar rating for the funds you are considering: http://www.morningstar.com/ A fund rated five stars means that the fund performs in the top 20% compared to all similar funds. I prefer five star funds. Next, check the management fees. Here is an example from one of the funds you mentioned; https://www.google.com/finance?cid=466533039917726 Next, I suggest you compare how each fund has performed compared to a benchmark. Here are some common indices: Compare an equity fund to, for example, the S&P 500. Has your fund beat or closely matched the S&P for 1, 5 and 10 years? If not, you may as well buy an index fund, such as SPY.",
"There are times when investing in an ETF is more convenient than a mutual fund. When you invest in a mutual fund, you often have an account directly with the mutual fund company, or you have an account with a mutual fund broker. Mutual funds often have either a front end or back end load, which essentially gives you a penalty for jumping in and out of funds. ETFs are traded exactly like stocks, so there is inherently no load when buying or selling. If you have a brokerage account and you want to move funds from a stock to a mutual fund, an ETF might be more convenient. With some accounts, an ETF allows you to invest in a fund that you would not be able to invest in otherwise. For example, you might have a 401k account through your employer. You might want to invest in a Vanguard mutual fund, but Vanguard funds are not available with your 401k. If you have access to a brokerage account inside your 401k, you can invest in the Vanguard fund through the associated ETF. Another reason that you might choose an ETF over a mutual fund is if you want to try to short the fund.",
"My super fund and I would say many other funds give you one free switch of strategies per year. Some suggest you should change from high growth option to a more balance option once you are say about 10 to 15 years from retirement, and then change to a more capital guaranteed option a few years from retirement. This is a more passive approach and has benefits as well as disadvantages. The benefit is that there is not much work involved, you just change your investment option based on your life stage, 2 to 3 times during your lifetime. This allows you to take more risk when you are young to aim for higher returns, take a balanced approach with moderate risk and returns during the middle part of your working life, and take less risk with lower returns (above inflation) during the latter part of your working life. A possible disadvantage of this strategy is you may be in the higher risk/ higher growth option during a market correction and then change to a more balanced option just when the market starts to pick up again. So your funds will be hit with large losses whilst the market is in retreat and just when things look to be getting better you change to a more balanced portfolio and miss out on the big gains. A second more active approach would be to track the market and change investment option as the market changes. One approach which shouldn't take much time is to track the index such as the ASX200 (if you investment option is mainly invested in the Australian stock market) with a 200 day Simple Moving Average (SMA). The concept is that if the index crosses above the 200 day SMA the market is bullish and if it crosses below it is bearish. See the chart below: This strategy will work well when the market is trending up or down but not very well when the market is going sideways, as you will be changing from aggressive to balanced and back too often. Possibly a more appropriate option would be a combination of the two. Use the first passive approach to change investment option from aggressive to balanced to capital guaranteed with your life stages, however use the second active approach to time the change. For example, if you were say in your late 40s now and were looking to change from aggressive to balanced in the near future, you could wait until the ASX200 crosses below the 200 day SMA before making the change. This way you could capture the majority of the uptrend (which could go on for years) before changing from the high growth/aggressive option to the balanced option. If you where after more control over your superannuation assets another option open to you is to start a SMSF, however I would recommend having at least $300K to $400K in assets before starting a SMSF, or else the annual costs would be too high as a percentage of your total super assets.",
"If you are working for a small company, the expense ratios on the funds in the 401k account are likely much higher than you can get with a similar IRA. Depending on your income, whether you are married and want to contribute to a spouse's IRA, your limit on what can be contributed to an IRA may vary, but the compelling reason to contribute to a 401k is that the contribution limit is higher ($17,500 vs $5,500 for people on the lower end of the income scale) so you may need to contribute to a 401k to meet your retirement savings goals.",
"Even experts have no real certainty what the market will do as a whole. 2/3's of managers fail to beat the market every year. I think this is mostly due to hedging and trying to meet their investors needs. If. You buy and hold a few index ETFs you will most likely beat actively managed accountsn that said, you will sacrifice liquidity if you want to avoid cyclical losses.",
"\"See if they offer a \"\"Target Date\"\" plan that automatically adjusts throughout your career to balance gains against preserving what you've already built up. You can adjust for more or less aggressive by selecting a plan with a later or sooner target date, respectively. (But check the administrative fees; higher fees can eat up a surprisingly large part of your growth since they're essentially subtracted from rate of return and thus get compounded.) If they don't have that option, or charge too much for it, then yes, you may want to adjust which plan your money is in over time; you can usually \"\"exchange\"\" between these plans at no cost and with no tax penalty. NOTE: The tax-advantaged 401(k) investments should be considered in the context of all your investments. This is one of the things an independent financial planner can help you with. As with other investment decisions, the best answer for you depends on your risk tolerance and your time horizon.\"",
"I have managed two IRA accounts; one I inherited from my wife's 401K and my own's 457B. I managed actively my wife's 401 at Tradestation which doesn't restrict on Options except level 5 as naked puts and calls. I moved half of my 457B funds to TDAmeritrade, the only broker authorized by my employer, to open a Self Directed account. However, my 457 plan disallows me from using a Cash-secured Puts, only Covered Calls. For those who does not know investing, I resent the contention that participants to these IRAs should not be messing around with their IRA funds. For years, I left my 401k/457B funds with my current fund custodian, Great West Financial. I checked it's current values once or twice a year. These last years, the market dived in the last 2 quarters of 2015 and another dive early January and February of 2016. I lost a total of $40K leaving my portfolio with my current custodian choosing all 30 products they offer, 90% of them are ETFs and the rest are bonds. If you don't know investing, better leave it with the pros - right? But no one can predict the future of the market. Even the pros are at the mercy of the market. So, I you know how to invest and choose your stocks, I don't think your plan administrator has to limit you on how you manage your funds. For example, if you are not allowed to place a Cash-Secured Puts and you just Buy the stocks or EFT at market or even limit order, you buy the securities at their market value. If you sell a Cash-secured puts against the stocks/ETF you are interested in buying, you will receive a credit in fraction of a dollar in a specific time frame. In average, your cost to owning a stock/ETF is lesser if you buy it at market or even a limit order. Most of the participants of the IRA funds rely too much on their portfolio manager because they don't know how to manage. If you try to educate yourself at a minimum, you will have a good understanding of how your IRA funds are tied up to the market. If you know how to trade in bear market compared to bull market, then you are good at managing your investments. When I started contributing to my employer's deferred comp account (457B) as a public employee, I have no idea of how my portfolio works. Year after year as I looked at my investment, I was happy because it continued to grow. Without scrutinizing how much it grew yearly, and my regular payroll contribution, I am happy even it only grew 2% per year. And at this age that I am ready to retire at 60, I started taking investment classes and attended pre-retirement seminars. Then I knew that it was not totally a good decision to leave your retirement funds in the hands of the portfolio manager since they don't really care if it tanked out on some years as long at overall it grew to a meager 1%-4% because they managers are pretty conservative on picking the equities they invest. You can generalize that maybe 90% of IRA investors don't know about investing and have poor decision making actions which securities/ETF to buy and hold. For those who would like to remain as one, that is fine. But for those who spent time and money to study and know how to invest, I don't think the plan manager can limit the participants ability to manage their own portfolio especially if the funds have no matching from the employer like mine. All I can say to all who have IRA or any retirement accounts, educate yourself early because if you leave it all to your portfolio managers, you lost a lot. Don't believe much in what those commercial fund managers also show in their presentation just to move your funds for them to manage. Be proactive. If you start learning how to invest now when you are young, JUST DO IT!",
"\"Ah I got ya. I partially agree with you, but it's far more complex. I think that is simplifying the debate a bit too much. When people go \"\"passive\"\" you are making the assumption that they are able to stay fully invested the full time period (say 30-40 years until retirement when you might change the asset allocation). This is not a fair assumption because many studies on behavioral finance have shown that people (90% plus) are not able to sit tight through a full market cycle and often sell out during a bear market. I'm not debating you're point that passive often outperforms due to the fees (although there are many managers that do outperform), but the main issue with self-managing and passive investing is people usually make emotional decisions, which then hurts their long-term performance. This would be the reason to hire an adviser. Assuming that people are able to stay passive the entire time and not make a single \"\"active\"\" decision is a very unfair assumption. There was a good study on this referenced in Forbes article below: https://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2014/04/24/why-the-average-investors-investment-return-is-so-low/#5169be2b111a Another issue is that there are a lot \"\"active managers\"\" that really just replicate their benchmarks and don't actually actively manage. If you look at active managers who really do have huge under-weights and over-weights relative to their benchmarks they actually tend to outperform them (look at the study below by martin cremers, he's one of the most highly respected researchers when it comes to investment performance research and the active vs passive debate) http://www.cfapubs.org/doi/pdf/10.2469/faj.v73.n2.4 I guess what I'm trying to say is that for most people having an adviser (and paying them a 1% fee) is usually better than going it alone, where they are going to A. chase heat (I bet they always choose the hottest benchmark from the past few years) and B. make poor emotional decisions relating their finances.\"",
"Mostly you nailed it. It's a good question, and the points you raise are excellent and comprise good analysis. Probably the biggest drawback is if you don't agree with the asset allocation strategy. It may be too much/too little into stocks/bonds/international/cash. I am kind of in this boat. My 401K offers very little choices in funds, but offers Vanguard target funds. These tend to be a bit too conservative for my taste, so I actually put money in the 2060 target fund. If I live that long, I will be 94 in 2060. So if the target funds are a bit too aggressive for you, move down in years. If they are a bit too conservative, move up.",
"In summary, you are correct that the goal of investing is to maximize returns, while paying low management fees. Index investing has become very popular because of the low fees. There are many actively traded mutual funds out there with very high management fees of 2.5% and up that do not beat the market. This begs the question of why you are paying high management fees and not just investing in index funds. Consider maxing out your tax sheltered accounts (401(k) and ROTH IRA) to avoid even more fees on your returns. Also consider having a growth component of your portfolio which is generally filled with equity, along with a secure component for assets such as bonds. Bonds may not have the exciting returns of equity, but they help to smooth out the volatility of your portfolio, which may help to keep peace of mind when the market dips.",
"There's a sizable community of people and fiscal advisers who advocate not managing the money at all. Set your passive investor friend with automatic bank draft into a simple three/four fund portfolio of low cost index funds and never never ever trade. See https://www.bogleheads.org/RecommendedReading.php You might be able to beat the stock market for a few years, but probably not over the long term. Most mutual fund professionals don't. Playing with your own money is one thing: playing with other people's money is a whole other ball game.",
"2%? I would put in just what it takes to share in the profit sharing, not a dime more. My S&P fund cost is .02% (edited, as it dropped to .02 since original post), 1/100 of the cost of most funds you list. Doesn't take too many years of this fee to negate the potential tax savings, and not many more to make this a real loser.",
"The other answers assumed student loan debt -- and for that, it's rarely worth it (unless your company only offers managed plans w/ really bad returns, or the economy recovers to the point where banks are paying 5% again on money market accounts) ... but if it's high rate debt, such as carrying a credit card debt, and the current rate of returns on the 401k aren't that great at the time, it would be worth doing the calculations to see if it's better to pay them down instead. If you're carrying extremely high interest debt (such as 'payday loans' or similar), it's almost always going to be worth paying down that debt as quickly as possible, even if it means forgoing matching 401k payments. The other possible reason for not taking the matching funds are if the required contributions would put you in a significant bind -- if you're barely scraping by, and you can't squeeze enough savings out of your budget that you'd risk default on a loan (eg, car or house) or might take penalties for late fees on your utilities, it might be preferable to save up for a bit before starting the contributions -- especially if you've maxed your available credit so you can't just push stuff to credit cards as a last resort.",
"The first two answers to this are very good, but I feel like there are a couple of points they left out that were a little too long for comments. First off take a look at the expense percentage,the load fees, and the average turnover ratio for the funds in your retirement account (assuming they are mutual funds). Having low expense fees <1% preferably and turnover ratios will help tremendously because those eat into returns whether the value of the fund goes up or down. The load fees (either incoming or outgoing) will lower the amount of money you actually put in and get out of the fund. There are thousands of no-load funds and most that have a backend load for taking the money out have clauses that lower that percentage to zero over several years. It is mostly there to keep people from trying to swing trade with mutual funds and pull their money out too quickly. The last thing I would suggest is to look at diversifying the holdings in your account. Bond funds have been up this year even though the stock market has done poorly. And they provide interest income that can increase the amount of shares you own even when the value of the bonds might have gone down.",
"\"If you want a Do-It-Yourself solution, look to a Vanguard account with their total market index funds. There's a lot of research that's been done recently in the financial independence community. Basically, there's not many money managers who can outperform the market index (either S&P 500 or a total market index). Actually, no mutual funds have been identified that outperform the market, after fees, consistently. So there's not much sense in paying someone to earn you less than a low fee index fund could do. And some of the numbers show that you can actually lose value on your 401k due to high fees. That's where Vanguard comes in. They offer some of the lowest fees (if not the lowest) and a selection of index funds that will let you balance your portfolio the way you want. Whether you want to go 100% total stock market index fund or a balance between total stock market index fund and total bond index fund, or a \"\"lazy 3 fund portfolio\"\", Vanguard gives you the tools to do it yourself. Rebalancing would require about an hour every quarter. (Or time span you declare yourself). jlcollinsnh A Simple Path to Wealth is my favorite blog about financial independence. Also, Warren Buffet recommended that the trustees for his wife's inheritance when he passes invest her trust in one investment. Vanguard's S&P500 index fund. The same fund he chose in a 10 year $1M bet vs. hedge fund managers. (proceeds go to charity). That was about 9 years ago. So far, Buffet's S&P500 is beating the hedge funds. Investopedia Article\"",
"You should be saving as much money as you can afford in your 401k up to the maximum allowed. If you don't contribute at least 6%, then you are essentially throwing away the match money that your employer is offering. Start out with the target date fund. You can always change your investment option later once you learn more about investing, but get started saving right away and get that match!",
"It's probably advantageous to stop depositing into a 401(k) when one is no longer receiving payroll deductions into them. Other than that, why would you want to give up the benefits? Remember, 401(k) is just the kind of account. Most offer a variety of investment options within them, and let you move money between those, so you can rebalance to suit your currently preferred risk/return tradeoffs without having to break them open. You might sometimes want to reduce your contribution for a while, if you have immediate cashflow needs elsewhere... but try to avoid doing that. Compound returns are a good thing, and the earlier the money goes in the more you get back from it.",
"While it is certainly easy to manage single fund, I am not sure it's the right strategy. It's been proven again and again that portfolio diversification is key to long term gains in wealth. I think your best option is to invest in low cost index funds and ETFs. While rebalancing your portfolio is hard, it is vastly simpler if your portfolio only has ETFs.",
"There's no one answer. You need to weigh the fees and quality of investment options on the one side against the slowly vesting employer contribution and tax benefits of 401k contributions in excess of IRA limits.",
"The managers of the 401(k) have to make their money somewhere. Either they'll make it from the employer, or from the employees via the expense ratio. If it's the employer setting up the plan, I can bet whose interest he'll be looking after. Regarding your last comment, I'd recommend looking outside your 401(k) for investing. If you get free money from your employer for contributing to your 401(k), that's a plus, but I wouldn't -- actually, I don't -- contribute anything beyond the match. I pay my taxes and I'm done with it.",
"The very term 'market conditions' is subjective and needs context. There are 'market conditions' that favor buying (such as post crash) or market conditions that favor selling (such as the peak of a bubble). Problem with mutual funds is you can't really pick these points yourself; because you're effectively outsourcing that to a firm. If you're tight on time and are looking for weekly update on the economy a good solution is to identify a reputable economist (with a solid track record) and simply follow their commentary via blog or newsletter.",
"\"Here is my simplified take: In any given market portfolio the market index will return the average return on investment for the given market. An actively managed product may outperform the market (great!), achieve average market performance (ok - but then it is more expensive than the index product) or be worse than the market (bad). Now if we divide all market returns into two buckets: returns from active investment and returns from passive investments then these two buckets must be the same as index return are by definition the average returns. Which means that all active investments must return the average market return. This means for individual active investments there are worse than market returns and better then market returns - depending on your product. And since we can't anticipate the future and nobody would willingly take the \"\"worse than market\"\" investment product, the index fund comes always up on top - IF - you would like to avoid the \"\"gamble\"\" of underperforming the market. With all these basics out of the way: if you can replicate the index by simply buying your own stocks at low/no costs I don't see any reason for going with the index product beyond the convenience.\"",
"If there is no match and you are disciplined enough to contribute without it coming directly out of your paycheck, dump the 401K. The reason: Most 401K plans have huge hidden fees built into the investment prices. You won't see them directly, but 3% is not uncommon. 3% is a horrible drag on your investment performance. Get an IRA or Roth IRA and pick something with low fees. Bonus: You will have a lot more investment choices!",
"You don't say what kinds of mutual funds, or what bonds. You don't say how old you are. You seem to have enough cushion to strike out on your own comfortably. This is good. Compared with Vanguard's management fees, the fees you're paying are pretty high. The bottom line of what to invest in rests with you. If you outsource it, it's still your money. The managers get paid whether you make money or not. You have lots of other options: real estate from a distressed seller, commodities, currencies, websites, or other things where you have a knowledge advantage. For the time being, though, if you're concerned about your main income stream, I wouldn't get terribly risky with your money. Cash is just peachy in that case.",
"I believe that kind of micro-tuning for every participant would make the operating costs of the fund intolerable. A better approach, if this is important to you, would be to find a fund or funds designed for people who share your criteria. If the goals and criteria aren't mutual, a mutual fund -- traditional or ETF -- is probably not the right tool.",
"rollover funds only mean the funds one was foolish enough to first roll into this 401(k). With no matching, and need for cash, I'd stop depositing to that account. But, from details you gave, you can't withdraw that money.",
"Even ignoring the match (which makes it like a non-deductible IRA), the 401k plans that I know all have a range of choices of investment. Can you find one that is part of the portfolio that you want? For example, do you want to own some S&P500 index fund? That must be an option. If so, do the 401k and make your other investments react to it-reduce the proportion of S&P500 because of it(remember that the values in the 401k are pretax, so only count 60%-70% in asset allocation). The tax deferral is huge over time. For starters, you get to invest the 30-40% you would have paid as taxes now. Yes, you will pay that in taxes on withdrawal, but any return you generate is (60%-70%) yours to keep. The same happens for your returns.",
"For what it's worth -- and I realize this isn't directly an answer to the question -- one of the advantages of sticking with mutual funds, beyond their being inherently diversified, is that it removes a lot of the temptation to try to time the market. When you need money, you sell shares in such a way that it maintains your preferred investment ratio, and simply don't worry about which stocks are actually involved. (I've gotten 15% APR this year across all my investments, for absolutely minimal effort. That's quite good enough for me.)",
"I'll respect the mod's suggestion. I'd answer with a warning. The concept of 401(k) pretax saving is to save at a high rate, while working, and withdraw at a lower rate. An annual expense pushing 1% or higher is likely to negate the benefit of the account over time. If your employer offers the Roth 401(k), I'd suggest using that for your deposits, and only up to the match. Then invest outside the 401(k). In the 25% bracket, it's good to have a mix of both pre and post tax retirement money.",
"I really like keshlam's answer. Your age is also a consideration. If you make your own target fund by matching the allocations of whatever Vanguard offers, I'd suggest re-balancing every year or every other year. But if you're just going to match the allocations of their target fund, you might as well just invest in the target fund itself. Most (not all, just most) target funds do not charge an additional management fee. So you just pay the fees of the underlying funds, same as if you mirrored the target fund yourself. (Check the prospectus to see if an additional fee is charged or not.) You may want to consider a more aggressive approach than the target funds. You can accomplish this by selecting a target fund later than your actual retirement age, or by picking your own allocations. The target funds become more conservative as you approach retirement age, so selecting a later target is a way of moving the risk/reward ratio. (I'm not saying target funds are necessarily the best choice, you should get professional advice, etc etc.)",
"the whole room basically jumped on me I really have an issue with this. Someone providing advice should offer data, and guidance. Not bully you or attack you. You offer 3 choices. And I see intelligent answers advising you against #1. But I don't believe these are the only choices. My 401(k) has an S&P fund, a short term bond fund, and about 8 other choices including foreign, small cap, etc. I may be mistaken, but I thought regulations forced more choices. From the 2 choices, S&P and short term bond, I can create a stock bond mix to my liking. With respect to the 2 answers here, I agree, 100% might not be wise, but 50% stock may be too little. Moving to such a conservative mix too young, and you'll see lower returns. I like your plan to shift more conservative as you approach retirement. Edit - in response to the disclosure of the fees - 1.18% for Aggressive, .96% for Moderate I wrote an article 5 years back, Are you 401(k)o'ed in which I discuss the level of fees that result in my suggestion to not deposit above the match. Clearly, any fee above .90% would quickly erode the average tax benefit one might expect. I also recommend you watch a PBS Frontline episode titled The Retirement Gamble It makes the point as well as I can, if not better. The benefit of a 401(k) aside from the match (which you should never pass up) is the ability to take advantage of the difference in your marginal tax rate at retirement vs when earned. For the typical taxpayer, this means working and taking those deposits at the 25% bracket, and in retirement, withdrawing at 15%. When you invest in a fund with a fee above 1%, you can see it will wipe out the difference over time. An investor can pay .05% for the VOO ETF, paying as much over an investing lifetime, say 50 years, as you will pay in just over 2 years. They jumped on you? People pushing funds with these fees should be in jail, not offering financial advice.",
"I would say that the three most important skills are: Note that some costs are hidden. So, for example, a mutual fund investing in other countries than where you live in may mean the investment target country charges a certain percentage of dividends going to the mutual fund. The mutual fund company doesn't usually want to tell you this. There may be clever financial instruments (derivatives) that can be used to avoid this, but they are not without their problems. If you diversify into equities at low cost, you will have a very wealthy future. I would recommend you to compare two options: ...and pick from these options the cheaper one. If your time has a high value, and you wish to take this value into account, I would say it is almost always far better option to choose an index fund. Whatever you do, don't pay for active management! It is a mathematical truth that before costs, actively managed investments will yield the same return than indexed investments. However, the costs are higher in active management, so you will have less total return. Don't believe that good historical return would imply good future return. However, if for some reason you see an index fund that continuously loses to the index more than by the amount of stated costs, beware!",
"I use the self-directed option for the 457b plan at my job, which basically allows me to invest in any mutual fund or ETF. We get Schwab as a broker, so the commissions are reasonable. Personally, I think it's great, because some of the funds offered by the core plan are limited. Generally, the trustees of your plan are going to limit your investment options, as participants generally make poor investment choices (even within the limited options available in a 401k) and may sue the employer after losing their savings. If I was a decision-maker in this area, there is no way I would ever sign off to allowing employees to mess around with options.",
"In your case I think you are doing just fine. Index funds, by their nature, have lower transaction costs and fewer taxable events than actively managed funds, good work. Index funds do not preclude the generation of dividends, and by their nature they probably generate slightly more than actively managed funds. You could take capital gain or dividend or both distributions, rather than reinvest them, if paying the taxes are a hardship. Otherwise look at the taxes you pay as your contributions to these funds. It stinks, but this is why 401K/IRA were rather revolutionary when they were formed. It was a really good deal to not have people's capital gains eaten by taxes when they occurred. Now its old hat, but it was pretty darn cool at the time. Should you prefer VTMSX rather than VFIAX? We can't really make the call on that one. Which one will perform better after taxes? Its anyone's guess. It is kind of a good problem to have.",
"You have to read the fine print of the pension wrapper (Standard Life), and of the new fund you want to invest into to find out. Typically here is were the fee feast could happen So you can manage actively your pension pot. But if you choose to do so you need to be mindful of the fees you have to pay. You should better find a pension wrapper with low fees and find funds with low fees If you change all your funds 4 times a year and you get a 1% charge each time, then you pay 4% of your assets. If your investments return for that year is 8%, then you wiped 50% of your return for that year! Good luck with the reading",
"If you can afford it, there are very few reasons not to save for retirement. The biggest reason I can think of is that, simply, you are saving in general. The tax advantages of 401k and IRA accounts help increase your wealth, but the most important thing is to start saving at an early age in your career (as you are doing) and making sure to continue contributing throughout your life. Compound interest serves you well. If you are really concerned that saving for retirement in your situation would equate to putting money away for no good reason, you can do a couple of things: Save in a Roth IRA account which does not require minimum distributions when you get past a certain age. Additionally, your contributions only (that is, not your interest earnings) to a Roth can be withdrawn tax and penalty free at any time while you are under the age of 59.5. And once you are older than that you can take distributions as however you need. Save by investing in a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds. You won't get the tax advantages of a retirement account, but you will still benefit from the time value of money. The bonus here is that you can withdraw your money whenever you want without penalty. Both IRA accounts and mutual fund/brokerage accounts will give you a choice of many securities that you can invest in. In comparison, 401k plans (below) often have limited choices for you. Most people choose to use their company's 401k plan for retirement savings. In general you do not want to be in a position where you have to borrow from your 401k. As such it's not a great option for savings that you think you'd need before you retire. Additionally 401k plans have minimum distributions, so you will have to periodically take some money from the account when you are in retirement. The biggest advantage of 401k plans is that often employers will match contributions to a certain extent, which is basically free money for you. In the end, these are just some suggestions. Probably best to consult with a financial planner to hammer out all the details.",
"As to the rollover question. Only rollover to a ROTH if you have other funds you can use to pay the taxes you will be hit with if you do that. DO NOT pay the taxes out of the funds in the 401k. If you don't have a way to pay the taxes, then roll it to a traditional IRA. You never want to pay the government any taxes 'early' and you don't want to reduce the balance. beyond that, A lot depends on how long you figure you will be with that company. If it's only a few years, or if you and other employees can make enough of a fuss that they move the fund to someplace decent (any of the big no-load companies such as Vanguard would be a better custodian), then I'd go ahead and max it out. If you figure to be there for a long while, and it looks like someone is in bed with the custodian and there's no way it will be changed, then maybe look to max out a Roth IRA instead.",
"Most 401k plans (maybe even all 401k plans as a matter of law) allow the option of moving the money in your 401k account from one mutual fund to another (within the group of funds that are in the plan). So, you can exit from one fund and put all your 401k money (not just the new contributions) into another fund in the group if you like. Whether you can find a fund within that group that invests only in the companies that you approve of is another matter. As mhoran_psprep's answer points out, changing investments inside a 401k (ditto IRAs, 403b and 457 plans) is without tax consequence which is not the case when you sell one mutual fund and buy another in a non-retirement account."
] |
[
"\"For US stocks it's a bit of a gamble. Many actively managed funds underperform the market indexes, but some of them outperform in many years. With an index you will get average results. With an active manager you \"\"might\"\" do better than average. So you can view active management as a higher risk, potentially higher reward investment approach. On the other hand, if you want to diversify some of your investments into international stocks, bonds, junk bonds, and real estate (REITs) active management is highly likely to be better than indexing. For these specialized areas specialized knowledge and research is needed.\"",
"By definition, actively managed funds will underperform passive index funds as a whole. Or more specifically: The aggregate performance of all actively managed portfolio of publicly-tradable assets will have equal performance to those of passively managed portfolios. Which taken with premise two: Actively managed funds will charge higher fees than passively managed funds Results in: In general, lower-fee investment vehicles (e.g. passive index investments) with broad enough diversification to the desired risk exposure will outperform higher-fee options But don't take my wonkish approach, from a more practical perspective consider:"
] |
1150
|
How are the best way to make and save money at 22 years old
|
[
"531698",
"43603",
"353369",
"19936"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"353369",
"70558",
"206785",
"43603",
"531698",
"121161",
"154714",
"457466",
"147745",
"38269",
"422946",
"392371",
"70730",
"85977",
"529444",
"423745",
"10476",
"47184",
"144304",
"430014",
"335248",
"471173",
"112499",
"478242",
"102331",
"339553",
"367415",
"415432",
"405985",
"326948",
"498640",
"45353",
"13602",
"477552",
"235098",
"480402",
"515440",
"228855",
"99987",
"417787",
"66864",
"321619",
"35680",
"208202",
"319760",
"493264",
"516782",
"54147",
"213435",
"468010",
"463043",
"474896",
"179640",
"494815",
"332938",
"118909",
"198328",
"423035",
"532787",
"544175",
"553288",
"416743",
"502051",
"586632",
"359510",
"80844",
"364666",
"482095",
"479697",
"396127",
"218731",
"426906",
"202208",
"438456",
"213714",
"315666",
"20304",
"322900",
"365167",
"241952",
"595287",
"58065",
"538023",
"85837",
"472328",
"450558",
"12133",
"200273",
"543275",
"395471",
"102379",
"213066",
"164559",
"55841",
"345403",
"317027",
"233100",
"514350",
"571218",
"386211"
] |
[
"Determine how much you are going to save first. Then determine where you can spend your money. If you're living with your parents, try to build an emergency fund of six months income. The simplest way is to put half of your income in the emergency fund for a year. Try to save at least 10% of your income for retirement. The earlier you start this, the longer you'll have to let the magic of compounding work on it. If your employer offers a 401k with a match, do that first. If not, consider an IRA. You probably want to do a Roth now (because you probably pay little in taxes so the deduction from a standard IRA won't help you). After the year, you'll have an emergency fund. Work out how much money you'll need for rent, utilities, and groceries when you're on your own. Invest that in some way. Pay off student loans if you have any. Buy a car that you can keep a long time if you need one. Go to night school. Put any excess money in a savings account or mutual fund. This is money for doing things related to housing. Perhaps you'll need to buy a washer/dryer. Or pay a down payment on a mortgage eventually. Saving this money now does two things: first, it gives you savings for when you need it; second, it keeps you from getting used to spending your entire paycheck. If you are used to only having $200 of spending cash out of each check, you will fit your spending into that. If you are used to spending $800 every two weeks, it will be hard to cut your spending to make room for rent, etc.",
"This is all very basic and general advice, that works for most, but not all. You are unique with your own special needs and desires. Good luck! P.S.: not exactly related to your question, but when you get more familiar with investing and utilizing your money, find more ways to save more. For example, change phone plan, cut the cable, home made food in bulk, etc.",
"Buy a ticket to a special country/conference/symposium/exchange program, meet people related to your aspirations, get a mentor. I like the previous answer, but in my experience it is much more rewarding to grow career-wise to earn more than it is to save more money.",
"Get an education. A bachelor's degree preferably, but AA or even a certificate are fine too. It will increase your earning potential significantly and over your lifetime it will earn you a lot of money. You make around $30,000 a year now, median salary for someone with a bachelors in the humanities is around $45,000. If you degree is in the STEM field, that goes up to $55,000 - $65,000 range. Second best option is to start a small business of some kind that does not require substantial investment. Handyman comes to mind as an example or some sort of billing service maybe? I would not recommend self directed investment in the stock market - most people lose money and since you don't have a lot of money to invest, commissions and fees will eat up a significant portion of it. I would usually recommend a CD but interest rates it's not really worth it.",
"Fantastic question to be asking at the age of 22! A very wise man suggested to me the following with regard to your net income I've purposely not included saving a sum of money for a house deposit, as this is very much cultural and lots of EU countries have a low rate of home ownership. On the education versus entrepreneur question. I don't think these are mutually exclusive. I am a big advocate of education (I have a B.Eng) but have following working in the real world for a number of years have started an IT business in data analytics. My business partner and I saw a gap in the market and have exploited it. I continue to educate myself now in short courses on running business, data analytics and investment. My business partner did things the otherway around, starting the company first, then getting an M.Sc. Other posters have suggested that investing your money personally is a bad idea. I think it is a very good idea to take control of your own destiny and choose how you will invest your money. I would say similarly that giving your money to someone else who will sometimes lose you money and will charge you for the privilege is a bad idea. Also putting your money in a box under your bed or in the bank and receive interest that is less than inflation are bad ideas. You need to choose where to invest your money otherwise you will gain no advantage from the savings and inflation will erode your buying power. I would suggest that you educate yourself in the investment options that are available to you and those that suit you personality and life circumstances. Here are some notes on learning about stock market trading/investing if you choose to take that direction along with some books for self learning.",
"Borrow money and start a business. Follow your business plan and invest in yourself and your entrepreneurship. If you mean invest in the market, do not borrow money. In your plan, you are willing to make payments right? There are lots of things you can do better, but borrowing money to invest in the market for a couple of years is not one of them. Investing is boring, saving is boring, and planning your financial future is boring. It takes a consistent effort and you aren't going to get rich quick.",
"The first thing you need to do is to set yourself a budget. Total all your money coming in (from jobs, allowances, etc.) and all your money going out (including rent, utilities, loan repayments, food, other essential and the luxuries). If your money coming in is more than your money going out, then you are onto a positive start. If on the other hand your money going out is more than the money coming in, then you are at the beginning of big trouble. You will have to do at least one of 2 things, either increase your income or reduce your expenses or both. You will have to go through all your expenses (money going out) and cut back on the luxuries, try to get cheaper alternatives for some of your essential, and get a second job or increase your hours at your current job. The aim is to always have more money coming in than the money you spend. The second thing to do is to pay off any outstanding debts by paying more than the minimum amounts and then have some savings goals. You said you wanted to save for a car - that is one saving goal. Another saving goal could be to set up a 6 month emergency fund (enough money in a separate account to be able to survive at least 6 months in case something happened, such as you lost your job or you suddenly got sick). Next you could look at getting a higher education so you can go out and get higher paying jobs. When you do get a higher paying job, the secret is not to spend all your extra money coming in on luxuries, you should treat yourself but do not go overboard. Increase the amounts you save and learn how to invest so you can get your savings to work harder for you. Building a sound financial future for yourself takes a lot of hard work and discipline, but once you do get started and change the way you do things you will find that it doesn't take long for things to start getting easier. The one thing you do have going for you is time; you are starting early and have time on your side.",
"The best thing to do right now is track your spending. You know you're saving 1k a month, and you know you're spending 1k a month on rent. That's 24k so far. I presume you'll have some income tax taken out, let's assume it's another 6k to round us neatly up to 30k. Since you earn 80k and you've spent 30k so far, you have another 50k unaccounted for. If you're in the USA I'd recommend using mint.com or a similar service to automatically track your transactions, or even just a spreadsheet if you don't like handing out your bank details (and you shouldn't). After that, I agree with SoulsOpenSource's answer. Write a budget and try to figure out where the fat can be trimmed. When I started tracking I saw I was spending almost a hundred bucks every week on fast food, due to poor planning and laziness. I decided to cook more and plan better and now I'm spending less than half that - in the last year I've saved almost three thousand dollars! If you want to save up for your future (and good on you if you do!) then there'll be some choices to make ahead. If you're spending a few hundred bucks on going out drinking every weekend, or you grab two coffees every day, or you buy fifty blurays a month (do people still buy blurays?), you'll have to ask yourself: Will I be happier spending money here than saving for my future?",
"First pay yourself. When you get salary, send some parts of that (for example 10%) to your saving account. Step by step you'll save nice money ;)",
"\"It really depends a lot on you and how much time you are putting into it. Since you're saying you want your money to work for you I'm going to assume you want as little hassle as possible. A few general tips: Save a fixed percentage of your monthly income Don't try to save \"\"whenever you have money left over\"\", you will just end up spending it somehow. Invest long term - don't trade Don't try to beat the market - it will just take up too much time and statistically you will end up making less. Hedge If you invest in the company/industry you work in, you will be double screwed if the sector drops (lose job + savings at the same time). Optimally you should invest in something that will benefit when the company you work for is doing bad. Pay off high interest debt Usually debt will have a higher interest than any safe investment you can make. Spend money to save/make money Sometimes the best investment you can make is on stuff that will save you money in the long run. Like buy an apartment close to work (less transport costs) or get a more expensive car that will save you money on gas, insurance etc.\"",
"You are young so you have time on your side. This allows you to invest in more aggressive investments. I would do the following 1) Contribute at least what your company is willing to match on your 401k, if your company offers a Roth 401k use that instead of the normal 401k (When this becomes available to you) 2) Open a Roth IRA Contribute the maximum to this account ~$5500/year 3) Live below your means, setup a budget and try and save/invest a minimum of 50% of your salary, do not get used to spending more money. With each bonus or salary increase a minimum of 75% of it should go toward your savings/investment. This will keep you from rapidly increasing your spending budget. 3) Invest in real estate (this could be its own post). Being young and not too far out of college you have probably been moving every year and have not accumulated so much stuff that it makes moving difficult. I would utilize your FHA loan slot to buy a multifamily property (2-4 Units) for your first property using only 3.5% down payment (you can put more down if you like). Learn how to analyze properties first and find a great Realtor/Mentor. Then I would continue as a NOMAD investor. Where you move every year into a new owner occupied property and turn the previous into a rental. This allows you to put 3-5% down payment of properties that you would otherwise have to put 20-25% and since you are young you can afford the risk. You should check out this article/website as it is very informative and can show you the returns that you could earn. Young Professional Nomad Good luck I am in a very similar situation",
"Does you job offer a retirement plan? (401k, SIMPLE, etc) Does your employer offer a match on contributions? Typically an employer will match what you put in, up to a certain percentage (e.g. 3%). So, say you contribute 3% of your paycheck into your retirement plan. If your employer mathes that, you've effectively contributed 6%. You've just doubled your money! The best thing a young professional can do is to contribute to your employer-matched retirement plan, up to the maximum amount they will match. You should do it immediately. If not, you are leaving money on the table.",
"With $800/month extra? Do both. (I am ethnocentric enough to assume you live in the same country as me) First, figure out what your emergency fund should look like. Put this money in a high yield checking or savings account. Add to it monthly until you reach your goal. It should be 3 to 6 months of your total monthly expenses. It will be a lot more than $2k I suspect. You will earn bubkis in interest, but the point of the emergency fund is a highly liquid asset for emergencies so you can choose cheaper car insurance and not buy warranties on stuff. With your $800/month, split it up this way: $416/month into a Roth IRA account at Vanguard (or Schwab or Fidelity) in the Star Fund (or similar low cost, diversified fund). The star is $1000 to open, pretty diversified. $416 is a lazy number that comes close to the $5000 annual limit for a Roth IRA in the US. Contribute like clockwork, directly from your paycheck if you can. This will make it easy to do and get you the benefit of dollar cost averaging. $200 or $300 into your savings account until you reach your emergency fund goal. $85 - $100. Live a little. Speculate in stocks with your vanguard account. Or rent fancy cars. Or taken a vacation or go party. If you are saving $800/month in your early 20 be proud of yourself, but have a little fun too so you can let off steam. It isn't much but you know you can play with it. Once you reach your emergency fund, save up for your future house or car or plane tickets to Paris. Ask another question for how to save up for these kinds of goals.",
"Chances are since college is your next likely step I would recommend saving up for it. Start building an emergency fund. Recommended $1,000 minimum. To start building your credit rating (when 18) get a low interest low limit credit. Pay off the balance every month. Starting to build your credit rating now can save you hundreds of thousands when buying a house over the course of paying it off. ie. cheaper interest rate. As for investing, the sooner you can get started the better. Acquire preferred/stocks/bonds/REITs/ETFs/etc that pay you to own them (they pay you dividends monthly/quarterly/etc). Stick with solid stocks that have a history of consistently increasing their dividends over time and that are solid companies. I personally follow the work/advice of Derek Foster. He's not a professional but he retired at 34. His first book (Stop working - Here's how you can) is great and recommend it to anyone who is looking to get started. Also check out Ramit Sethi's blog I Will Teach You to be Rich. He focuses on big wins which save you a lot over the long term. He's also got some great advice for students as well. Best of luck!",
"As all said, the age limitation thing is nothing, and saving money not necessarily means to live poor nor Skimpy, spend your needs and try to get what you need instead of what you want, the 24 years old is a good start for saving money, the whole life still in front of you Good luck!",
"Save enough to build an emergency cushion of 4-6 months total expenses. After that, invest everything you can in areas where you are well researched and have carefully formed your own opinion on the subject. Those who save do not reach financial freedom, those who learn to invest and make their money work for them do. Invest in learning how to invest.",
"As a 22 year old planning for your financial life, it is obvious to say that saving as much as you can to invest for the long run is the smartest thing to do from a financial point of view. In general, at this point, aged 22, you can take as much risk as you'll ever will. You're investing for the very long term (+30/+40 years). The downside of risk, the level of uncertainty on returns (positive or negative), is most significant on the short term (<5years). While the upside of risk, assuming you can expect higher returns the more risk you take, are most significant on the long term. In short: for you're financial life, it's smart to save as much as you can and invest these savings with a lot of risk. So, what is smart to invest in? The most important rule is to keep your investment costs as low as possible. Risk and returns are strongly related, however investment costs lower the returns, while you keep the risk. Be aware of the investment industry marketing fancy investment products. Most of them leave you with higher costs and lower returns. Research strongly suggests that an lowcost etf portfolio is our best choice. Personally, i disregard this new smart beta hype as a marketing effort from the financial industry. They charge more investment costs (that's a certain) and promise better returns because they are geniuses (hmmm...). No thanks. As suggested in other comments, I would go for an low cost (you shouldn't pay more than 0.2% per year) etf portfolio with a global diversification, with at least 90% in stocks. Actually that is what I've been doing for three years now (I'm 27 years old).",
"Establish good saving and spending habits. Build up your savings so that when you do buy a car, you can pay cash. Make spending decisions, especially for housing, transportation and entertainment, that allow you to save a substantial portion of your income. The goal is to get yourself to a place where you have enough net worth that the return on your assets is greater than the amount you can earn by working. (BTW, this is basically what I did. I put my two sons through top colleges on my dime and retired six years ago at the age of 56).",
"Buy a home. A home is the first and best investment, u can own a home with as little as 3% down and as u pay for your living u pay it off.....also banks will always give you equity loans in case you need your money",
"\"My basic rule I tell everyone who will listen is to always live like you're a college student - if you could make it on $20k a year, when you get your first \"\"real\"\" job at $40k (eg), put all the rest into savings to start (401(k), IRA, etc). Gradually increase your lifestyle expenses after you hit major savings goals (3+ month emergency fund, house down payment, etc). Any time you get a raise, start by socking it all into your employer's 401(k) or similar. And repeat the above advice.\"",
"Take a certain percentage of your income (say, 10%, but more is better if you can) and put it aside with every paycheck. Some employers will even allow you to direct deposit your paycheck into two different accounts and you can specify a certain amount or percentage for the second account. Your savings will go directly into a separate account as if you never had it in the first place. Consider your savings untouchable as spending money. Watch it grow. There's no other secret, you just have to do it!",
"Congrats on your first real job! Save as much as your can while keeping yourself (relatively) comfortable. As to where to put your hard earned money, first establish why you want to save the money in the first place. Money is a mean to acquire the things we want or need in your life or the lives of others. Once your goals are set, then follow this order:",
"Let Go App...good way to find awesome deals on furniture. Depending on climate find a nice bike, pretty easy way to get around & low maintenance costs compared to a car ( i.e. insurance, gas, repairs). Then depending on whether your work offers matching 401k programs, max that out or find a good index fund & consistently build that emergency fund. Chill for 10-15 years & enjoy the benefits of compounding interest my friend.",
"At twenty-two, you can have anywhere between 100%-70% of your securities portfolio in equities. It is reasonable to start at 100% and reduce over time. The one thing that I would mention with that is that your target at retirement should be 70% stocks/30% bonds. You should NEVER have more than 30% bonds. Why? Because a 70/30 mix is both safer than 100% bonds and will give a higher return. Absent some market timing strategy (which as an amateur investor, you should absolutely avoid) or some complicated balancing scheme, there is never a reason to be at more than 30% bonds. A 50/50 mix of stocks and bonds or a 100% bonds ratio not only returns less than the 70/30 mix, it is actually riskier. Why? Because sometimes bonds fall. And when they do, stocks generally gain. And vice versa. Because of this behavior, the 70/30 mix is less likely to fall than 50% or 100% bonds. Does that mean that your stock percentage should never drop below 70%? No. If your portfolio contains things other than stocks and bonds, it is reasonable for stocks to fall below 70%. The problem is that when you drop stocks below 70%, you should drop bonds below 30% as well. So you keep the stock to bond ratio at 7:3. If you want to get a lower risk than a 70/30 mix, then you should move into cash equivalents. Cash equivalents are actually safer than stocks and bonds either individually or in combination. But at twenty-two, you don't really need more safety. At twenty-two, the first thing to do is to build your emergency fund. This should be able to handle six months of expenses without income. I recommend making it equal to six months of your income. The reason being that it is easy to calculate your income and difficult to be sure of expenses. Also, you can save six months of income at twenty-two. Are you going to stay where you are for the next five years? At twenty-two, the answer is almost certainly no. But the standard is the five year time frame. If you want a bigger place or one that is closer to work, then no. If you stay somewhere at least five years, then it is likely that the advantages to owning rather than renting will outweigh the costs of switching houses. Less than five years, the reverse is true. So you should probably rent now. You can max out your 401k and IRA now. Doing so even with a conservative strategy will produce big returns by sixty-seven. And perhaps more importantly, it helps keep your spending down. The less you do spend, the less you will feel that you need to spend. Once you fill your emergency fund, start building savings for a house. I would consider putting them in a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). A REIT will tend to track real estate. Since you want to buy real estate with the results, this is its own kind of safety. It fell in value? Houses are probably cheap. Houses increasing in price rapidly? A REIT is probably growing by leaps and bounds. You do this outside your retirement accounts, as you want to be able to access it without penalty.",
"In addition to Rocky's answer, and IF you have already saved an adequate emergency fund, then best way to increase your wealth (not your income) is to invest your extra money. If you have no extra money then you need to lower your expenses or work towards getting better income. They aren't really any tricks to this, but there are some tips that may help:",
"\"An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest, as Ben Franklin said. However, this is not a question I can answer for you, as it depends on the opportunities that are specifically available to you as an individual. Sometimes opportunities will knock on your door and you can take advantage, other times you have to create that door to allow opportunities to knock. Maybe you have a friend that is opening a side business, maybe there is a class you can get into at a trivial cost. What I suggest is to start investing just to get into the habit of it, not so much for the returns. Before you do, however, any financial advisor will advise you to begin with a emergency fund, worth about 3-6 months of your expenses for that time. I wanted to hit the ground running and start investing in stocks, but first things first I guess. \"\"Millionaire Next Door\"\" will help you get into a saving mindset, \"\"I will teach you to be rich\"\" is ok, plenty of other books. My advice is keep doing what you're doing, learn to start saving, and once you have obtained an emergency fund of the amount of your choosing, start looking to invest in Index Funds or ETFs through any platform that has LOW FEES!! I use Betterment, but Vanguard is good too, as they allow you to get your feet wet and it's passive. Hope this helps.\"",
"If you are going to work on making as much money as humanly possible, then you ought to consider investing in the market. [Compound Stock Earnings](http://www.compoundstockearnings.com) agrees that investing in stocks is a fantastic technique to acquire prosperity on your own. Believe it or not, it’s the greatest source of wealth in the history of the world. For that reason, you need to ensure that you get started at the earliest opportunity.",
"On average, you should be saving at least 10-15% of your income in order to be financially secure when you retire. Different people will tell you different things, but really this can be split between short term savings (cash), long term savings (401ks, IRAs, stocks & bonds), and paying down debt. That $5k is a good start on an emergency fund, but you probably want a little more. As justkt said, 6 months' worth is what you want to aim for. Put this in a Money Market account, where you'll earn a little more interest but won't be penalized from withdrawing it when its needed (you may have to live off it, after all). Beyond that, I would split things up; if possible, have payroll deductions going to a broker (sharebuilder is a good one to start with if you can't spare much change), as well as an IRA at a bank. Set up a separate checking account just for rent and utilities, put a month's worth of cash in there, and have another payroll deduction that covers your living expenses + maybe 5% put in there automatically. Then, set up automatic bill payments, so you don't even have to think about it. Check it once a month to make sure there aren't any surprises. Pay off your credit cards every month. These are, by far, the most expensive forms of credit that most people have. You shouldn't be financing large purchases with them (you'll get better rates by taking a personal loan from a bank). Set specific goals for savings, and set up automatic payroll deductions to work towards them. Especially for buying a house; most responsible lenders will ask for 20% down. In today's market, that means you need to write a check for $40k or $50k. While it's tempting to finance up to 100% of the property value, it's also risky considering how volatile markets can be. You don't want to end up owing more on the property than it's worth two years down the road. If you find yourself at the end of the month with an extra $50 or so, consider your savings goals or your current debt instead of blowing it on a toy. Especially if you have long term debt (high balance credit cards, vehicle or property loans), applying that money directly to principal can save you months (or years) paying it back, and hundreds or thousands of dollars of interest (all depending on the details of the loan, of course). Above all, have fun with it :) Think of your personal net worth as you do your Gamer score on the XBox, and look for ways to maximize it with a minimum of effort or investment on your part! Investing in yourself and your future can be incredibly rewarding emotionally :)",
"\"To buy a house, you need: At least 2 years tax returns (shows a steady income history; even if you're making 50k right now, you probably weren't when you were 16, and you might not be when you're 20; as they say, easy come, easy go). A 20% down payment. These days, that easily means writing a $50k check. You make $50k a year, great, but try this math: how long will it take you to save 100% of your annual salary? If you're saving 15% of your income (which puts you above many Americans), it'll still take 7 years. So no house for you for 7 years. While your attitude of \"\"I've got the money, so why not\"\" is certainly acceptable, the reality is that you don't have a lot of financial experience yet. There could easily be lean times ahead when you aren't making much (many people since 2008 have gone 18 months or more without any income at all). Save as much money as possible. Once you get $10k in a liquid savings account, speak to a CPA or an investment advisor at your local bank to set up tax deferred accounts such as an IRA. And don't wait to start investing; starting now versus waiting until you're 25 could mean a 100% difference in your net worth at any given time (that's not just a random number, either; an additional 7 years compounding time could literally mean another doubling of your worth).\"",
"You have made the most important first step by starting to think about your money, well done. Firstly pay of all credit cards as quickly as you can and start to live within your means. Until you have paid of your credits cards don’t spend any money of unnecessary items, e.g. Once your credit cards are paid off you can start living a more normal life. Each time you spend money you need to ask yourself: Is this worth more to be then being able to buy a new house in a few years time? You should be able to save at least half the amount you were paying of the credit card each mouth and still leave a reasonable life, so setup a standing order at the start of the month to your saving account. Given your age you are like to get promoted and hence have increased pay or get increments for each year of service. Therefore Every time your pay goes up, set up a standing order to transfer at least half of the pay increases to a saving account. You did not have this money before, so you will not miss it when you save it. In the long term, you should be able to keep your car until it is about 15 years old, so will not have the cost of buying another car. Therefore once the car loan is over, you can save that money as well.",
"\"You're right to seek passive income and since you're already looking for it, you probably already know some of the reasons to why it is important. Do you live in the United States? If so I'd strongly recommend purchasing your primary residence and then maybe investment properties if you like owning your own home. The US tax and banking structure is set up to favor this move in more ways than I can count. So, SAVE, SAVE, SAVE then beg, borrow and steal to get the down payment, rent rooms to friends or random people to afford the payments, buy a fixer upper in an up and coming neighborhood. The US is rife with these in all price ranges. If you're working 56 hrs a week, you've got the work ethic. So if you can't afford it it's probably because you're spending all your money on other stuff. If you want to do this, it will take some effort, smarts, and savings. You will have to trim back the mochas, vacations, dinners out, etc, etc etc. Let your friends do that stuff and rent from you. Your life will get continually easier. If you have already trimmed back all the discretionary spending and still can't make it then you need to earn more money. Doing either and both of these things will absolutely change your whole economic life and future. So in summary I'd offer these Ranked Priorities: 1) Learn to Save (unless you always want to have to work for someone else) 2) Increase your income capability (since your most valuable asset is YOU) 3) Buy and hold real estate (because the game is rigged to favor passive income) I'm 38, never earned a six figure salary, made some good purchases when I was 25-30 and work is \"\"optional\"\" for me now.\"",
"You should plan 1-3 months for an emergency fund. Saving 6 months of expenses is recommended by many, but you have a lot of goals to accomplish, and youth is impatient. Early in your life, you have a lot of building (saving) that you need to do. You can find a good car for under $5000. It might take some effort, and you might not get quite the car you want, but if you save for 5-6 months you should have a decent car. My son is a college student and bought a sedan earlier this year for about $4000. Onto the house thing. As you said, at $11,000*2=$22,000 expenses yearly, plus about $10,000 saved, you are making low 30's. Using a common rule of thumb of 25% for housing, you really cannot afford more than about $600-700/month for housing -- you probably want to wait on that first house for awhile. Down payments really should be about 20%, and depending upon the area of the country, a modest house might be $120,000 or $520,000. Even on a $120,000, the 20% down payment would be $24,000. As you have student loans ($20,000), you should put together a plan to pay them off, perhaps allocating half your savings amount to paying down the student loans and half to saving? As you are young, you should have strong salary gains in the first few years, and once you are closer to $40,000/year, you might find the numbers working better for housing. My worry is that you are spending $22,000 out of about $32,000 for living expenses. That you are saving is great, and you are putting aside a good amount. But, you want to target saving 30-40%, if you can.",
"Save what you can. Due to compounding of interest, saving early is much more advantageous than saving the same amount later. Obviously you need money to live on, and you're entitled to spend some money on entertainment -- but set a budget on that and stick to that budget. Buying toys now deprives you of better toys later. You aren't saving for an uncertain future; you are saving for a certain future!",
"\"I wish I was in your shoes with the knowledge I have in my head. financial goal setting is a great plan at your age. In my humble opinion you don't want to save for anything... you want to invest as much as you can, create a corporation and have the corporation invest as much as possible. When there is enough monthly cash flow coming from your investments... have the corporation buy you a house, a car, take out an insurance policy on you as key employee... etc. As for the $11,000 laying around in cash as an emergency fund, no way! With returns as high as 1-3% per month invested properly keep it invested. Getting to your emergency cash reserve you have in a trading account is only a couple key strokes away. As for the 401k... If it is not making at least 25% yearly for the last 10 years (excluding your Contributions) do it yourself in a self directed IRA. Oh... I forgot to mention When your corporation buys your stuff... if set up correctly you can take them as a loss in the corporate ledger and you know any loss from one entity can offset profits from another, thus reducing any taxes you may have. My friend you are at the point of great beginnings, hard choices and an open door to what ever you want your future to look like. Decide what you want out of your money and don't take \"\"NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT\"\" as an answer. Find someone that will tell you these secrets, they are out there. Good luck.\"",
"At your young age, the most of your wealth is your future labor income (unless you are already rich). Your most profitable investment at this time is most likely to be investment in your human capital (your professional skills, career opportunities). Depending on how you plan to earn your money, invest time and effort to enable you to earn better wages in that activity. So focus on education or professional training. Also, consider that it is probably your total lifetime utility/welfare you should maximize (but you decide!). I suggest you do not focus narrowly on earning as much money as possible. Consider what sort of life you want and what you need to do to enable it. Best of luck!",
"Your attitude is great, but be careful to temper your (awesome) ambition with a dose of reality. Saving is investing is great, the earlier the better, and seeing retirement at a young age with smooth lots of life's troubles; saving is smart and we all know it. But as a college junior, be honest with yourself. Don't you want to screw around and play with some of that money? Your first time with real income, don't you want to blow it on a big TV, vacation, or computer? Budget out those items with realistic costs. See the pros and cons of spending that money keeping in mind the opportunity cost. For example, when I was in college, getting a new laptop for $2000 (!) was easily more important to me than retirement. I don't regret that. I do regret buying my new truck too soon and borrowing money to do it. These are judgment calls. Here is the classic recipe: Adjust the numbers or businesses to your personal preferences. I threw out suggestions so you can research them and get an idea of what to compare. And most importantly of all. DO NOT GET INTO CREDIT CARD DEBT. Use credit if you wish, but do not carry a balance.",
"\"My father imparted this advice to me when I was a teenager, and it hasn't failed me yet. > Pay yourself first What this means is that the first \"\"bill\"\" you pay should always be your savings. Preferably in a way that automatically comes out of your paycheck or account without requiring you to take an active step to make it happen. I save a ton of money, but I am no more disciplined than anyone else. I just realized that over the years of progressing in my career that I gradually got higher and higher salaries, yet never had a substantial increase in the money I had leftover in my bank at the end of the month despite the fact that I make about 8x the money I used to live reasonably comfortably on. Therein is the point, we spend whatever money we see, so you almost have to hide it from yourself. First, participate to the fullest in your company's 401k if they offer it. After a while you will adjust naturally to the net take home pay and won't miss the savings you are accumulating. Absent that, or in addition to that, set up a separate bank or investment account and arrange an automatic transfer from your checking account every month. Then set up automatic investing in CD's or some other less-liquid-than-cash investment so you it is just enough hassle to get at the money that you won't do it on a whim. It sounds too simple, but it works.\"",
"Calculate a weekly budget for yourself for all incidentals (i.e. shopping, movies, eating out, etc...) and take that amount out in cash each week. For example, if your budget is $75 then try to spend only that $75 on all the extra stuff you do doing the week. It'll make you hyper-conscious of where your money is going and how fast. You'll be surprised at how quickly little things like grabbing coffee in the morning can chip away at your funds.",
"\"The suggestions towards retirement and emergency savings outlined by the other posters are absolute must-dos. The donations towards charitable causes are also extremely valuable considerations. If you are concerned about your savings, consider making some goals. If you plan on staying in an area long term (at least five years), consider beginning to save for a down payment to own a home. A rent-versus-buy calculator can help you figure out how long you'd need to stay in an area to make owning a home cost effective, but five years is usually a minimum to cover closing costs and such compared to rending. Other goals that might be worthwhile are a fully funded new car fund for when you need new wheels, the ability to take a longer or nicer vacation, a future wedding if you'd like to get married some day, and so on. Think of your savings not as a slush fund of money sitting around doing nothing, but as the seed of something worthwhile. Yes, you will only be young once. However being young does not mean you have to be Carrie from Sex in the City buying extremely expensive designer shoes or live like a rapper on Cribs. Dave Ramsey is attributed as saying something like, \"\"Live like no one else so that you can live like no one else.\"\" Many people in their 30s and 40s are struggling under mortgages, perhaps long-left-over student loan debt, credit card debt, auto loans, and not enough retirement savings because they had \"\"fun\"\" while they were young. Do you have any remaining debt? Pay it off early instead of saving so much. Perhaps you'll find that you prefer to hit that age with a fully paid off home and car, savings for your future goals (kids' college tuitions, early retirement, etc.). Maybe you want to be able to afford some land or a place in a very high cost of living city. In other words - now is the time to set your dreams and allocate your spare cash towards them. Life's only going to get more expensive if you choose to have a family, so save what you can as early as possible.\"",
"Start as early as possible and you will want to kiss your younger self when you get to retirement age. I know you (and everyone else at that age) thinks that they don't make enough to start saving and leans towards waiting until you get established in your career and start making better money. Don't put it off. Save some money out of each paycheck even if it is only $50. Trust me, as little as you make now, you probably have more disposable income than you will when you make twice as much. Your lifestyle always seems to keep up with your income and you will likely ALWAYS feel like you don't have money left over to save. The longer you wait, the more you are going to have to stuff away to make up for that lost time you could have been compounding your returns as shown in this table (assuming 9.4 percent average gain annually, which has been the average return on the stock market from 1926-2010). I also suggest reading this article when explains it in more detail: Who Wants to be a millionaire?",
"Get a job, get a car, get a better job, save more money, invest that money in a high yield savings account, keep adding to that account until you turn 18. Start buying in bulk from China and reselling on eBay or Amazon for a 200-500% mark up, put that money in savings, ????, Profit. You can easily make 7-10 grand a year while still going to school, just save it all. Don't spend a dime unless you absolutely have to.",
"This is assuming that you are now making some amount X per month which is more than the income you used to have as a student. (Otherwise, the question seems rather moot.) All figures should be net amounts (after taxes). First, figure out what the difference in your cost of living is. That is, housing, electricity, utilities, the basics that you need to have to have a place in which to live. I'm not considering food costs here unless they were subsidized while you were studying. Basically, you want to figure out how much you now have to spend extra per month for basic sustenance. Then, figure out how much more you are now making, compared to when you were a student. Subtract the sustenance extra from this to get your net pay increase. After that is when it gets trickier. Basically, you want to set aside or invest as much of the pay increase as possible, but you probably have other expenses now that you didn't before and which you cannot really do that much about. This mights be particular types of clothes, commute fares (car keepup, gas, bus pass, ...), or something entirely different. Anyway, decide on a savings goal, as a percentage of your net pay increase compared to when you were a student. This might be 5%, 10% or (if you are really ambitious) 50% or more. Whichever number you pick, make sure it's reasonable giving your living expenses, and keep in mind that anything is better than nothing. Find a financial institution that offers a high-interest savings account, preferably one with free withdrawals, and sign up for one. Each and every time you get paid, figure out how much to save based on the percentage you determined (if your regular case is that you get the same payment each time, you can simply set up an automated bank transfer), put that in the savings account and, for the moment, forget about that money. Try your best to live only on the remainder, but if you realize that you set aside too much, don't be afraid to tap into the savings account. Adjust your future deposits accordingly and try to find a good balance. At the end of each month, deposit whatever remains in your regular account into your savings account, and if that is a sizable amount of money, consider raising your savings goal a little. The ultimate goal should be that you don't need to tap into your savings except for truly exceptional situations, but still keep enough money outside of the savings account to cater to some of your wants. Yes, bank interest rates these days are often pretty dismal, and you will probably be lucky to find a savings account that (especially after taxes) will even keep up with inflation. But to start with, what you should be focusing on is not to make money in terms of real value appreciation, but simply figuring out how much money you really need to sustain a working life for yourself and then walking that walk. Eventually (this may take anywhere from a couple of months to a year or more), you should have settled pretty well on an amount that you feel comfortable with setting aside each month and just letting be. By that time, you should have a decently sized nest egg already, which will help you get over rough spots, and can start thinking about other forms of investing some of what you are setting aside. Whenever you get a net pay raise of any kind (gross pay raise, lower taxes, bonus, whichever), increase your savings goal by a portion of that raise. Maybe give yourself 60% of the raise and bank the remaining 40%. That way, you are (hopefully!) always increasing the amount of money that you are setting aside, while also reaping some benefits right away. One major upside of this approach is that, if you lose your job, not only will you have that nest egg, you will also be used to living on less. So you will have more money in the bank and less monthly expenses, which puts you in a significantly better position than if you had only one of those, let alone neither.",
"Yes, you should be saving for retirement. There are a million ideas out there on how much is a reasonable amount, but I think most advisor would say at least 6 to 10% of your income, which in your case is around $15,000 per year. You give amounts in dollars. Are you in the U.S.? If so, there are at least two very good reasons to put money into a 401k or IRA rather than ordinary savings or investments: (a) Often your employer will make matching contributions. 50% up to 6% of your salary is pretty common, i.e. if you put in 6% they put in 3%. If either of your employers has such a plan, that's an instant 50% profit on your investment. (b) Any profits on money invested in an IRA or 401k are tax free. (Effectively, the mechanics differ depending on the type of account.) So if you put $100,000 into an IRA today and left it there until you retire 30 years later, it would likely earn something like $600,000 over that time (assuming 7% per year growth). So you'd pay takes on your initial $100,000 but none on the $600,000. With your income you are likely in a high tax bracket, that would make a huge difference. If you're saying that you just can't find a way to put money away for retirement, may I suggest that you cut back on your spending. I understand that the average American family makes about $45,000 per year and somehow manages to live on that. If you were to put 10% of your income toward retirement, then you would be living on the remaining $171,000, which is still almost 4 times what the average family has. Yeah, I make more than $45,000 a year too and there are times when I think, How could anyone possibly live on that? But then I think about what I spend my money on. Did I really need to buy two new computer printers the last couple of months? I certainly could do my own cleaning rather than hiring a cleaning lady to come in twice a month. Etc. A tough decision to make can be paying off debt versus putting money into an investment account. If the likely return on investment is less than the interest rate on the loan, you should certainly concentrate on paying off the loan. But if the reverse is true, then you need to decide between likely returns and risk.",
"Get a job, if you don't have one right now. Take deductions from your paycheck for an IRA or 401K if the company has one.",
"Great question and great of you to be paying attention to this. Right now having the ability to save $2K per year might seem very out of reach. However with the right career path and by paying attention to personal finance saving 2K per month will become possible sooner than you may think. As a student you are already investing in your future, by building your greatest wealth building tool: your income. Right now concentrate on that. If you have extra money throw it in a boring old savings account and don't touch it other than emergencies. An emergency is defined as something that will preclude you from completing your education. It is not paying for the latest xbox game/skateboard/once in a lifetime trip. An important precursor to investing is having an emergency fund that sits in a boring old savings account earning almost nothing. Think of it as an insurance policy that prevents you from liquidating your investments in case of and emergency. Emergencies often come during economic downturns. If you have to liquidate your investment to cover these times then you will lock in negative returns. Once you are done with school, moved into a place of your own, and have your first job you will have a nice start on your emergency fund. Then you can start investing. Doing it in the right order you will be amazed how quickly your savings can accumulate. I'd be shooting for that 2 million by the time you are 40, not 65.",
"To generate a passive income you need lots of TIME or MONEY, you are short of both. As other people have said, do whatever you can to reduce you spending and start saving. Don’t think “I work very hard, therefore I deserve xxx”, start thinking “x cost y hrs of work, is it truly worth it?” (Remember to consider your take home pay per hr, not you before tax pay!) What would it take to get paid more per hr in one of your jobs? Maybe investing a little time/money in training would increase your pay. Doing your job a little better can often lead to a good outcome. (I see from your profile that you are a new computer programmer; I assume that one of your jobs is programming, if so put your time and effort into it. As you become more skilful within a few years you will start earning more. Maybe even give up one of the other jobs by spending less so you can do better at programming) Then as your incomes goes up, don’t allow your spending to increase, save the additional money.",
"Not 100% related, but the #1 thing you need to avoid is CREDIT CARD DEBT. Trust me on this one. I'm 31, and finally got out of credit card debt about eight months ago. For just about my entire 20s, I racked up credit card debt and saved zero. Invested zero. It pains me to realize that I basically wasted ten years of possible interest, and instead bought a lot of dumb things and paid 25% interest on it. So yes, put money into your 401k and an IRA. Max them out.",
"You need a budget. You need to know how much you make and how much you spend. How much you earn and what you choose to spend you money on is your choice. You have your own tolerance for risk and your own taste and style, so lifestyle and what you own isn't something that we can answer. The key to your budget is to really understand where you money goes. Maybe you are the sort of person who needs to know down to the penny, maybe you are a person who rounds off. Either way you should have some idea. How should I make a budget? and How can I come up with a good personal (daily) budget? Once you know what you budget is, here are some pretty standard steps to get started. Each point is a full question in of itself, but these are to give you a place to start thinking and learning. You might have other priorities like a charity or other organizations that go into your priority like. Regardless of your career path and salary, you will need a budget to understand where you money is, where it goes, and how you can reach your goals and which goals are reasonable to have.",
"\"The power of compounding interest and returns is an amazing thing. Start educating yourself about investing, and do it -- there are great Q&As on this site, numerous books (I recommend \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\", tools for small investors (like Sharebuilder.com) and other resources out there to get you started. Your portfolio doesn't need to include every dime you have either. But you do need to develop the discipline to save money -- even if that savings is $20 while you're in school. How you split between cash/deposit account savings and other investment vehicles is a decision that needs to make sense to you.\"",
"Start as soon as you can and make your saving routine. Start with whatever you feel comfortable with and be consistent. Increase that amount with raises, income gains, and whenever you want.",
"Start now. It's a lot easier to save now than it is to start to save later.",
"On the one hand, it's a great idea to open a Roth IRA now, once you've got the cash to contribute. It's a tax designation sounds like it would fit your meager earnings this year. The main reason to open one now rather than later is that some types of withdrawls require the account be aged 5 years. But you can also withdraw the amount you've contributed tax free any time. Student loans right now are pricey, so if you're carrying a balance at say 6.8 percent fixed you should pay that down ASAP. Beyond that, I'd keep the rest liquid for now. Having that kind of liquid cash is extremely reassuring, and many of the biggest returns on investment are going to be in your personal life. More fuel efficient vehicles, energy efficient appliances, computer backups, chest freezers and bulk meat purchases, etc. One example I see every six months is car insurance: I can pay for six months in full or I can pay a smaller monthly bill plus a small fee. That fee is well above current market rates. You see this everywhere; people searching for lower minimum payments rather than lower total costs. Save your money up and be the smart buyer. It's too damn expensive to be broke.",
"\"Excellent questions! Asking such questions indicates something special about yourself. The desire to learn and adjust your beliefs will increase your chance of success in your life. I would use a wide variety of authors to increase your education. Myself I prefer Dave Ramsey to Clark Howard, but I think Clark is very good. The first thing you should focus on is learning how to do and live by a budget. Often times, adults will assume that you are on a budget because you are broke. It happens with my friends and my youngest child is older than you. Nothing could be further from the truth. A budget is simply a plan on how you will spend your income so you don't run out of money before you run out of month. Along with budgeting I would also focus on goal setting. This is the type of \"\"investing\"\" you should be doing at your age. For example if your primary goal was to become an engineer, my recommendation is to hold off buying stocks/mutual funds and using your current income to get through school with little or no student loans. Another example might be to open your own HVAC business. Your best bet might be to learn the trade, working for someone else, and take night classes for business management. Most 18 year olds have very little earning power. Your focus at this point should be increasing your income and learning how to manage the income you have. Please keep in mind that most debt is bad. It robs you of your income which is your greatest wealth building tool. Car loans and credit card debt is just plain stupid. Often times a business case can be made for reasonable student loans. However, why not challenge yourself to take none. How much further ahead could you be if you graduate, with a degree, when your peers are strapped with a 40K loan? Keep up the good work and keep asking questions.\"",
"how can I save money for the future The fact that you are worrying is good. This is the first step. Follow this up with a plan. One way is first get hold of your income [its fixed you know the salary]. Maintain expenses, then see which costs can be cut down. Create individual goals and start investing for these. The best way for first timer is to invest into a Recurring Deposits or SIP in mutual fund, i.e. kind of forced saving so that you don't spend what is available in bank Account.",
"\"I take it you have nearly zero expenses, since you don't mention any savings and with your income you wouldn't have much left over for investing. At your level of income, any actual investing is either going to unwisely reduce your cash available should you need it (such as investment in mutual funds, which often have minimum investment periods of 2-6 months or more to avoid fees), or cost you a high percentage of your income in commissions (stock trading). So, I wouldn't recommend investing at all — yet. I find Dave Ramsey's baby steps to be very good general money management advice. Here is how I would adapt the first three steps to your income and stage in life. Beyond this, Dave recommends saving for retirement, college (for kids) and paying off your house early. These things are a little beyond your stage in life, but it would be good to start thinking about them. For you, I recommend following DJClayworth's advice to \"\"invest in yourself\"\". Specifically, plan to get through college debt-free. Put away money so that you have a head start once you do have living expenses — save for a car, save money for rent, etc. so that you don't have to live month to month as most people do starting out. So, what this boils down to: Put away every cent you have, in a savings account.\"",
"Apart from what others have contributed. Look at all your usual spendings. Can they be cheaper? (Telephone, Electricity, Gas, Car, Mortgage, Loans, Insurance...) Whenever you are tempted to buy anything, ask yourself: Do I need this? If the answer is 'Yes' go ahead and buy (food, basically). Otherwise, restrain yourself. Most things in life can be bought cheaper. Most things in shops are useless. For example, how many pairs of shoes do you need? You can drink water from the tab. You don't have to go to restaurants or bars, and if you do, you could budget yourself to some amount. If the restaurant is more expensive, walk. My 0,02€",
"Your first problem is looking at these as monthly expenses rather than looking longer-term at how to remove the expenses. You have a $600/month loan, but what is the interest rate? If you paid that loan more aggressively it would free up 10% of your income, but you can't pay the loan aggressively if you don't have an emergency fund. You need enough cash-flow to take care of emergencies so you don't incur more debt on less advantageous terms. The way you describe the problem, it appears that you don't know where all of the money is going, so the first step is to track all of your expenses and formulate a budget. The budget is a plan on how to spend the money for next month. At least 10% should be money you are saving for a short-term emergency fund. Another 10% should be money you are saving for retirement. Until you have 6 months of expenses saved for your emergency fund, you need to skip luxuries like taxi rides and maybe you need to reduce the amount you send home. 22% is a large amount and unless your parents are using that money to become independent (so that they won't rely on your contributions forever) it will only prevent you from becoming wealthy enough to really help them later. Only you can determine what can be cut from your monthly expenses--but if you want to save--spending less is required.",
"Track your expenses. Find out where your money is going, and target areas where you can reduce expenses. Some examples: I was spending a lot on food, buying too much packaged food, and eating out too much. So I started cooking from scratch more and eating out less. Now, even though I buy expensive organic produce, imported cheese, and grass-fed beef, I'm spending half of what I used to spend on food. It could be better. I could cut back on meat and eat out even less. I'm working on it. I was buying a ton of books and random impulsive crap off of Amazon. So I no longer let myself buy things right away. I put stuff on my wish list if I want it, and every couple of months I go on there and buy myself a couple of things off my wishlist. I usually end up realizing that some of the stuff on there isn't something I want that badly after all, so I just delete it from my wishlist. I replaced my 11-year-old Jeep SUV with an 11-year-old Saturn sedan that gets twice the gas mileage. That saves me almost $200/month in gasoline costs alone. I had cable internet through Comcast, even though I don't have a TV. So I went from a $70/month cable bill to a $35/month DSL bill, which cut my internet costs in half. I have an iPhone and my bill for that is $85/month. That's insane, with how little I talk on the phone and send text messages. Once it goes out of contract, I plan to replace it with a cheap phone, possibly a pre-paid. That should cut my phone expenses in half, or even less. I'll keep my iPhone, and just use it when wifi is available (which is almost everywhere these days).",
"\"If you want to be really \"\"financially smart,\"\" buy a used good condition Corolla with cash (if you want to talk about a car that holds re-sale value), quit renting and buy a detached house close to the city a for about $4,000/month (to build equity. It's NYC the house will appreciate in value). Last but not the least, DO NOT get married. Retire at 50, sell the house (now paid after 25-years). Or LEASE a nice brand new car every year and have a good time! You're 25 and single!\"",
"\"Honestly just keep track of your income and spending on a piece of paper. Write down every single thing. Also set goals like \"\"ok I will make $1000 this month, and my goal is to pay bills of $200 and only spend $500 therefore I should easily be able to save $300\"\" or something like that. Just do it there's no magic trick despite what some million stupid articles and forum posts will lead you to believe. Saving money is like being in good shape... or keeping yourself clean... it's an every day, every hour kinda thing\"",
"Are you working? Does your employer offer a 401(k) and if so, is there any match? Saving should be taught to kids at the same time they are old enough to get an allowance. There are many numbers tossed around, but 10% is a start for any new saver. If a college graduate can start by saving even 15%, better still. If you find that the 10% is too much, just start with what you can spare, and work to build that up over time, perhaps by splitting any future raises, half going toward savings, half to spending. Good luck. Edit - my 12 yr old made good money this summer baby sitting. I'm opening a Roth IRA for her. A 10 yr head start on her retirement savings. Edit (Jan-2013) - she's 14 now, 3 deposits to the Roth total $6000, and she's planning to up the number this year. Her goal is to have $50K saved in her Roth by the time she graduates college. Edit, by request (July-2017) 18, and off to college next month. Just under $24K, all invested in an S&P low cost index. We are planning to continue deposits of $4-$5K/yr, so the $50K is still a good goal.",
"Everybody else has given great answers on what to do, but I just want to add some encouragement. Keep saving. Learn to live within your means while saving, and things like houses and cars and new electronics will come. You can always wait a year and save money up for that new TV, but when retirement hits you are out of time. (I sure wish I had). Keep that retirement money out of sight and (mostly) out of mind. Great job saving and keep up the good work.",
"After paying off debts and the other obvious low hanging fruit, you need to start investing. With your time frame, most advice you'll find will say go for an all equities index fund. However, the market is hot and you can do better than the S&P average of 12%. Especially considering a downturn is on coming Take your time and find a safe investment fund to start building your portfolio. I run a PE fund buying Middle Market value add properties. I work exclusively in this market because it provides consistent income that continues through downturns, and we can safely give investors 15% tax mitigated return, every time. PM me if your are interested.",
"Try this as a starter - my eBook served up as a blog (http://www.sspf.co.uk/blog/001/). Then read as much as possible about investing. Once you have money set aside for emergencies, then make some steps towards investing. I'd guide you towards low-fee 'tracker-style' funds to provide a bedrock to long-term investing. Your post suggests it will be investing over the long-term (ie. 5-10 years or more), perhaps even to middle-age/retirement? Read as much as you can about the types of investments: unit trusts, investment trusts, ETFs; fixed-interest (bonds/corporate bonds), equities (IPOs/shares/dividends), property (mortgages, buy-to-let, off-plan). Be conservative and start with simple products. If you don't understand enough to describe it to me in a lift in 60 seconds, stay away from it and learn more about it. Many of the items you think are good long-term investments will be available within any pension plans you encounter, so the learning has a double benefit. Work a plan. Learn all the time. Keep your day-to-day life quite conservative and be more risky in your long-term investing. And ask for advice on things here, from friends who aren't skint and professionals for specific tasks (IFAs, financial planners, personal finance coaches, accountants, mortgage brokers). The fact you're being proactive tells me you've the tools to do well. Best wishes to you.",
"\"Congrats on saving the money but unfortunately, you're looking for a 24% annual rate of return and that's not \"\"reasonable\"\" to expect. $200 per month, is $2,400 per year. $2,400/$10,000 is 24%. In a 1% savings account with spending of $200 per month spending you'll have about $7,882 at the end of the year. You'll earn about $90 of interest over the course of the year. I'm sure other people will have more specific opinions about the best way to deploy that money. I'd open a brokerage account (not an IRA, just a regular plain vanilla brokerage account), break off $5,000 and put it in to a low fee no commission S&P index fund; which CAN lose value. Put the rest in a savings account/checking account and just spend wisely.\"",
"After looking at your profile, I see your age...28. Still a baby. At your age, and given your profession, there really is no need to build investment income. You are still working and should be working for many years. If I was you, I'd be looking to do a few different things: Eliminating debt reduces risk, and also reduces the need for future income. Saving for, and purchasing a home essentially freezes rent increases. If home prices double in your area, in theory, so should rent prices. If you own a home you might see some increases in taxes and insurance rates, but they are minor in comparison. This also reduces the need for future income. Owning real estate is a great way to build residual income, however, there is a lot of risk and even if you employ a management company there is a lot more hands on work and risk. Easier then that you can build an after tax investment portfolio. You can start off with mutual funds for diversification purposes and only after you have built a sizable portfolio should (if ever) make the transition to individual stocks. Some people might suggest DRIPs, but given the rate at which you are investing I would suggest the pain of such accounts is more hassle then it is worth.",
"Fund your retirement accounts first. Even as an intern, it is still worthwhile to open a Roth IRA and start contributing to it. See my answer to a similar question: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career?",
"\"The principle to follow is called \"\"pay yourself first\"\". Have your savings deducted from your paycheck before it hits your checking account. You spending will change to accommodate the reduction. If you have a 401(k) available from your employer, start saving some money via that. If not, figure out a way to have something moved out of your checking account to a separate savings account when your paycheck hits. Then as you get raises, up the amount of automatic savings by half of the raise. You will find this hurts less than you think and it will let you build an emergency fund, which is the first thing you need. When the emergency fund is 6 months of normal spending, then you can start to invest.\"",
"Investing requires capital, and the fastest way to get the capital is to develop good saving habits. Investing is an ongoing process to help you accumulate wealth, so to take advantage of compounding, the earlier you start, the better. I can suggest a few pointers to get you started on the investing journey. Godspeed! :)",
"While there is no age limit, bear in mind that saving money makes sense only if it doesn't delay your paying off expensive debt. If you have credit cards or expensive loans you would be best placed to focus on paying them down before saving a lot. If you save and keep debt, you'll effectively lose money as the interest on your debt will usually be higher than you can earn on savings. Having said that, it's worth saving a small amount anyway to have as an emergency fund. As you pay off your debt, start saving the money you no longer have to pay out and it will soon pay dividends.",
"I was in a similar situation at age 18/19, but not making quite as much money. I maxed out an IRA and bought savings bonds, although rates were decent then. I did flitter away about half of what I earned, which in retrospect was probably dumb. But I had a good time!",
"Try reading about budgeting. Make a list of all income coming in and all expenses going out. Eliminate any unnecessary expenses and try to increase income, which could include a part-time second job. Try to always put a portion of the income away as savings - try 10%, but if this is too hard to start with try saving at least 5% of the income.",
"Does anyone have any good resources for starting up learning about savings, finances, etc? I'm 20 years old and want to begin really saving consistently and learning about 401Ks, IRAs, savings accounts, how to grow your money safely and slowly, etc. I'm mainly looking for a website or application that will help me budget and organize things. A phone app would be nice. And any subreddit where I could learn about these things would be extremely helpful too.",
"I'd invest in yourself. Start up a side business. Take a certification class that gets your foot in the door for something else (auctioneering, real estate sales, whatever). Bid on a storage auction and try to re-sell it. Learn Spanish (or whatever second language is best for your area). And so forth. Most of the suggestions thus far are either debt reduction or passive investment. You have good control on your debt, and most passive investments pay jack (though Lending Club might be a bit better than most). Build up another basket to put your eggs in and build equity and cash flow instead of interest and dividends. You're young. This is the time to learn how to do it.",
"Buying options on a highly volatile underlying like AMD or JNUG. You may make piles of cash or go to zero, but it will be fast at least. Also working 6-12 and not just 9-5. Also you want /r/personalfinance",
"First I'd like to echo msemack's answer. Start by maxing out your 401K and IRA contributions. Not a lot of people just starting their career have the luxury of doing much more outside of that. Here are some additional tips that I learned when I was just getting started:",
"To be honest, all that they might be able to tell you is to keep saving. Your income seems like it will vary week to week thanks to commission (and I'm still very curious how at 18 you found a job making $96,000 a year at minimum). Right now because you have no savings, start stacking that up. You're going to want an emergency fund on the side as well. Even though now you may still live with parents, you still may run into issues where you'll need money on hand. It's much better to dig into an emergency fund than get a loan. Plus, when moving out, you won't be living paycheck to paycheck. Best rule of thumb for this is to keep an emergency fund of roughly 3-6 months of expenses. Right now because you're so young with so little money, there isn't a large reason to really open up an IRA or any sort of investment account. Unless you're actually guaranteed $2,000 a week, then things are different.",
"\"Buy and Hope is a common investment strategy. It's also one that will keep you poor. Instead of thinking about saving money to put against a credit card or line of credit using your own job and hard-earned dollars, why not use someone else's money? If you have enough of a down payment for a property of your own, consider a duplex, triplex, or 4-plex where you live in one of the units. Since you will be living there you only need 5% down as opposed to 20% down if you do not live there. This arrangement gives you a place to live while you have other people paying your mortgage and other debts. If done properly, you can find a place that is cash-flow positive so you basically live rent-free. This all assumes you have a down payment and a bank that will work with you. Your best bet is to discuss your situation with a mortgage broker. They know all the rules, and which banks have the best deal for you. A mortgage broker works on your behalf and is paid by the lending institution, not you. There are various caveats with this strategy, and they all revolve around knowing what to do and how to execute the plan. I suggest Googling Robert Kiyosaki and reading \"\"Rich Dad Poor Dad\"\" before taking this journey. He offers a number of free and paid seminars that teach people how to purchase real estate and make it pay. I have taken the free evening seminar and the $500 weekend seminar on how to purchase properties and make money with them. Note that I have no affiliation with Kiyosaki, and I do find his methods to work.\"",
"\"There are only two ways to increase your savings: You are young, and both of these are likely to spontaneously happen - you will be promoted and get raises, and your loans will be paid off, removing the loan payment. It would seem that you need only to wait a year or so, and there will a lot more than $87 left over each month, and your savings will grow almost without any action from you. But somehow, that is not what happens in real life. As people get older they \"\"need\"\" more than they did before (larger home, more expensive \"\"things\"\", etc) and they never manage to get around to saving. So it's great that you are wondering how to do it. But you are not truly making it a priority. You mention that you also pay/spend for friends, the internet, play & joy, cloth, gifts, book, etc. And this armwavy entirely optional spending is the difference between 72.85 (such precision!) and 90% of your salary. In other words it is 17-18% or more than your rent. Think about that for a moment. Every month you spend more than your rent on friends, play, joy, books and good old etc. If you were to cut that in half, you could save 8 or 9% of your salary. Maybe after your next raise you can get that up to 10%. How can you cut that optional \"\"fun\"\" stuff in half? Well, I don't know, because I don't know what it is, and I suspect you don't either. So track it, for a month or two. Are you getting takeout food or coffee every day? Are you always the one who pays when you go out with friends? Do you eat in restaurants a lot? Do you always wear the latest fashions, buy $500 shoes, pay people to do your nails or dye your hair, buy a new phone every year, have the top end phone plan, top end cable plan, ... You have to know where that rent's-worth of money goes every month. Then you can figure out how to send some of it to savings instead. In some ways you are in a hard generation. Your parents didn't need to save for their retirement because they had you, and they know you will send money home for them. But you probably don't expect the same from the children you don't have yet, so you have to save for yourself. This is a challenge. If you were saving the money you send your parents, you'd be fine. Yet you don't want to reduce what you send, they need it. Still, people have faced bigger challenges and overcome them. Start by understanding where your fun money is going, then look at how to send some (aim for half) of that to savings instead. You won't regret it.\"",
"Aside from what everyone else has said about your money (saving, investing, etc.), I'd like to comment on what else you could spend it on: Spend it all on small/stupid things that, while stupid, would make me happier. For example take taxis more often, eat often in nice restaurants, buy designer clothes, etc. I'll be young only one time. You could also put the money towards something more... productive? Like a home project. Convert a room in your living space into an office or a theater-like room. Install hardwood floors yourself. Renovate a bathroom. Plant a garden of things you would enjoy eating later. Something that you would enjoy having or doing and can look back at and be proud of putting your money towards something that you accomplished.",
"I wouldn't be too concerned, yet. You're young. Many young people are living longer in the family home. See this Guardian article: Young adults delay leaving family home. You're in good company. Yet, there will come a time when you ought to get your own place, either for your own sanity or your parents' sanity. You should be preparing for that and building up your savings. Since you've got an income, you should – if you're not already – put away some of that money regularly. Every time you get paid, make a point of depositing a portion of your income into a savings or investment account. Look up the popular strategy called Pay Yourself First. Since you still live at home, it's possible you're a little more loose with spending money than you should be – at least, I've found that to be the case with some friends who lived at home as young adults. So, perhaps pretend you're on your own. What would your rent be if you had to find a place of your own? If, say, £600 instead of the £200 you're currently paying, then you should reduce your spending to the point where you can save at least £400 per month. Follow a budget. With respect to your car, it's great you recognize your mistake. We're human and we can learn from our mistakes. Plan to make it your one and only car mistake. I made one too. With respect to your credit card debt, it's not an insurmountable amount. Focus on getting rid of that debt soon and then focus on staying out of debt. The effective way to use credit cards is to never carry a balance – i.e. pay it off in full each month. If you can't do that, you're likely overspending. Also, look at what pensions your employer might offer. If they offer matching contributions, contribute at least as much to maximize the tax free extra pay this equates to. If you have access to a defined benefit plan, join it as soon as you are eligible. Last, I think it's important to recognize that at age 23 you're just starting out. Much of your career income earning potential is ahead of you. Strive to be the best at what you do, get promotions, and increase your income. Meanwhile, continue to save a good portion of what you earn. With discipline, you'll get where you want to be.",
"\"This may sound very \"\"tongue in cheek\"\", but the best thing you can invest in is to raise your income in order to increase your retirement savings. How much are you able to contribute to retirement now? I think you would be lucky to do $150/month and most months probably less than that. However, if you were making like 60k/year, and allowed a little lifestyle bloat, you could probably easy put away 20k/year. Once you are able to do that the savings you can manage now will be quickly eclipsed. Often times when people consider \"\"having their money work for them\"\" they often neglect to factor risk. Prior to investing one should have a proper emergency fund in place. That is 6 months or so of living expenses in a nice safe savings account. Those earn about 1.25% these days, which is pretty meager, but it does earn something. Once the emergency fund is in place, one can invest with impunity. Without it, you will have to liquidate investments if economic calamity strikes you. This could be done at a loss furthering the harm done by the calamity. Increase your income and create an emergency fund. Do those things first.\"",
"You've never saved money? Have you ever bought anything? There probably was a small window of time that you had to pool some cash to buy something. In my experience, if you make it more interesting by 'allocating money for specific purposes' you'll have better results than just arbitrarily saving for a rainy day. Allocate your money for different things (ie- new car, emergency, travel, or starting a new business) by isolating your money into different places. Ex- your new car allocation could be in a savings account at your bank. Your emergency allocation can be in cash under your bed. Your new business allocation could be in an investment vehicle like a stocks where it could potentially see significant gains by the time you are ready to use it. The traditional concept of savings is gone. There is very little money to be earned in a savings account and any gains will be most certainly wiped out by inflation anyway. Allocate your money, allocate more with new income, and then use it to buy real things and fund new adventures when the time is right.",
"You are asking all the right questions. I predict a bright future! In addition to the excellent advice from Phil, I would add that NOW is the time to think about investing. If you have not yet started a retirement account, open up a Roth IRA and max it out ($5.5k in 2014) every year. The time value of money is strong and you will be thanking yourself in 40 years for starting now. Yes, paying down debt is important, and you should do that, too. It's a balance. If you get converted to a full-time employee, take part in any retirement plan they offer, and max out any matching because it's free money.",
"I started my career over 10 years ago and I work in the financial sector. As a young person from a working class family with no rich uncles, I would prioritize my investments like this: It seems to be pretty popular on here to recommend trading individual stocks, granted you've read a book on it. I would thoroughly recommend against this, for a number of reasons. Odds are you will underestimate the risks you're taking, waste time at your job, stress yourself out, and fail to beat a passive index fund. It's seriously not worth it. Some additional out-of-the box ideas for building wealth: Self-serving bias is pervasive in the financial world so be careful about what others tell you about what they know (including me). Good luck.",
"I had some extra money, so I opened American express saving account. At the time which was offering .80%, now .90%. I put most of the money in the saving account. The remainder of my money in a investment account at my local bank. I was in touch once a week with investment, I learned allot how the stock market worked and tax deferment(401k, IRA, IRA Roth). My suggestion is to do test run and see if you like it. Side note, NOT ALL investment are created equal.",
"In addition to the advice already given (particularly getting rid of high-interest debt), I would add the following:",
"/r/savedyouaclick 1. Focus on earning 2. Develop multiple streams of income 3. Save to invest, don't save to save 4. Be decisive 5. Don't show off — show up 6. Change your mindset about money 7. Invest in yourself 8. Ditch the steady paycheck 9. Set goals and visualize achieving them 10. Start hanging out with people you admire 11. Shoot for $10 million, not $1 million",
"Depends, sure you could save a buck or two here and there but maybe that time could be used for better things - i.e. earning a side income It's all situational and relative to you and where you are in life - try things, don't be afraid of mistakes",
"Congratulations on getting started in life! John Malloy's (American) research suggests that you should take some time to get used to living on your own, make some friends, and settle into your community. During this time, you can build up an emergency fund. If/when the stock markets do not seem to be in a bear market, you can follow user3771352's advice to buy stock ETFs. Do you hope to get married and have children in the next few years? If so, you should budget time and money for activities where you make new friends (both men and women). Malloy points out that many Americans meet their spouses through women's networks of friends.",
"If I were in your shoes I would concentrate now on investing in yourself. Your greatest wealth building tool is your income. Going to school is great, make sure you can finish. Also is there additional coursework you can obtain that might help boost your salary? I would look for course in the following areas that might be outside your core competency: After that I would concentrate on some books that will help you in your journey. However, I would not start investing until you have a well paying full time job: That will get you started.",
"Other answers here cover some of the basics, but this is also a great time to start establishing a credit history and developing good financial habits to carry throughout your life. In addition to opening a free checking account with the local credit union, establish an overdraft line of credit on that account. Never close this account or this line of credit as it will work to increase the average age of your accounts when you apply for credit later in life. If you are disciplined with your use of credit cards, you may also want to apply for a low limit credit card through the same credit union for the same purpose as above. Never carry a balance on this card, but make minor purchases with it each month, never more than 20% of the balance, maybe just buy gas with it. Start tracking all of your spending and make a monthly budget. There are a lot of online tools that make this very easy. Establishing the habit now will help you make informed financial decisions in the future. Open a Roth IRA and put at least 10% of your money away for retirement. In the future your income may increase enough to put you in the 25% tax bracket. If that ever happens, open a Regular IRA and put the money there instead. Also when you have employers that offer 401k matching do the same thing with a Roth 401k account. Keep your money invested in a low cost index fund.",
"You should invest in that with the best possible outcome. Right now that is in yourself. Your greatest wealth building tool, at this point, is your future income. As such anything you can do to increase your earnings potential. For some that might mean getting an engineering degree, for others it might mean starting a small business. For some it is both obtaining a college degree and learning about business. A secondary thing to learn about would be personal finance. I would hold off on stocks, at this time, until you get your first real job and you have an emergency fund in place. Penny stocks are worthless, forget about them. Bonds have their place, but not at this point in your life. Saving up for college and obtaining a quality education, debt free, should be your top priority. Saving up for emergencies is a secondary priority, but only after you have more than enough money to fund your college education. You can start thinking about retirement, but you need a career to help fund your savings plan. Put that off until you have such a career. Investing in stocks, at this juncture, is a bit foolish. Start a career first. Any job you take now should be seen as a step towards a larger goal and should not define who you are.",
"\"I posted a comment in another answer and it seems to be approved by others, so I have converted this into an answer. If you're talking about young adults who just graduated college and worked through it. I would recommend you tell them to keep the same budget as what they were living on before they got a full-time job. This way, as far as their spending habits go, nothing changes since they only have a $500 budget (random figure) and everything else goes into savings and investments. If as a student you made $500/month and you suddenly get $2000/month, that's a lot of money you get to blow on drinks. Now, if you put $500 in savings (until 6-12 month of living expenses), $500 in investments for the long run and $500 in vacation funds or \"\"big expenses\"\" funds (Ideally with a cap and dump the extra in investments). That's $18,000/yr you are saving. At this stage in your life, you have not gotten used to spending that extra $18,000/yr. Don't touch the side money except for the vacation fund when you want to treat yourself. Your friends will call you cheap, but that's not your problem. Take that head start and build that down payment on your dream house. The way I set it up, is (in this case) I have automatics every day after my paychecks come in for the set amounts. I never see it, but I need to make sure I have the money in there. Note: Numbers are there for the sake of simplicity. Adjust accordingly. PS: This is anecdotal evidence that has worked for me. Parents taught me this philosophy and it has worked wonders for me. This is the extent of my financial wisdom.\"",
"\"Congratulations. The first savings goal should be an emergency fund. Think of this not as an investment, but as insurance against life's woes. They happen and having this kind of money earmarked allows one to invest without needing to withdraw at an inopportune time. This should go into a \"\"high interest\"\" savings account or money market account. Figure three to six months of expenses. The next goal should be retirement savings. In the US this is typically done through 401K or if your company does not offer one, either a ROTH IRA or Traditional IRA. The goal should be about 15% of your income. You should favor a 401k match over just about anything else, and then a ROTH over that. The key to transforming from a broke college student into a person with a real job, and disposable income, is a budget. Otherwise you might just end up as a broke person with a real job (not fun). Part of your budget should include savings, spending, and giving. All three areas are the key to building wealth. Once you have all of those taking care of the real fun begins. That is you have an emergency fund, you are putting 15% to retirement, you are spending some on yourself, and giving to a charity of your choice. Then you can dream some with any money left over (after expenses of course). Do you want to retire early? Invest more for retirement. Looking to buy a home or own a bunch of rental property? Start educating yourself and invest for that. Are you passionate about a certain charity? Give more and save some money to take time off in order to volunteer for that charity. All that and more can be yours. Budgeting is a key concept, and the younger you start the easier it gets. While the financiers will disagree with me, you cannot really invest if you are borrowing money. Keep debt to zero or just on a primary residence. I can tell you from personal experience that I did not started building wealth until I made a firm commitment to being out of debt. Buy cars for cash and never pay credit card interest. Pay off student loans as soon as possible. For some reason the idea of giving to charity invokes rancor. A cursory study of millionaires will indicate some surprising facts: most of them are self made, most of them behave differently than pop culture, and among other things most of them are generous givers. Building wealth is about behavior. Giving to charity is part of that behavior. Its my own theory that giving does almost no good for the recipient, but a great amount of good for the giver. This may seem difficult to believe, but I ask that you try it.\"",
"Your own fault for taking out loans to get a degree in philosophy. If you have an automobile I would say get a job as a delivery driver, Pretty solid way to earn at least 15 bucks an hour. but regardless find a part time job and save scrupilously. Look at what you spend your money on and see where you can chop out expenses. Also look to see how you can find cheaper food. This is a great website to learn how to live on peanuts earlyretirementextreme.com",
"\"Goodness, I wish I could put away half my paycheck. Not to rain on your parade, but a 6-month emergency fund is not quite \"\"very good.\"\" It is the typical starting time frame. Personally, I would feel more comfortable with a 2+ year fund. That is a bit extreme, but only because many of us can barely seem to make it around to a 6-month fund. So, we focus on the more attainable goal. I say you do all three. Make saving money your priority, but do enjoy some of it; in moderation. Do not plan on making any big purchases with it, but know that you will eventually be able able to do so. Money not spent is worthless Idle money is worthless. Make some -- hopefully -- prudent investments with some of your money. A small portion of that investment portfolio can/should be in speculative investments. Maybe even as much as 20% of your investment portfolio, since you are young. Consider that money gone and you will hopefully be surprised by one of those speculative investments. That is the crucial point: earmark a small portion of your investment portfolio which you are willing to lose. However, do not gamble with it. Research the hot emerging technologies, for example, and find a way to make an investment. So, in summary: You may have more money that you know what do with, right now. However, that does not mean you need to go out and spend it all. Trust me, as you get older you will think of plenty of good uses for that money.\"",
"Brownbag your lunch and make coffee at home. If your current lifestyle includes daily takeout lunches and/or barista-made drinks, a rough estimate is you have a negative cash flow of $8-20 per day, $40-100 per week, $2080-5200 per year. If you have daily smoothies, buy a blender. If you have daily lattes buy an espresso maker. I recently got myself a sodastream and it's been worth it. Until you have a six figure portfolio, you aren't going to swing a comparable annual return differential based on asset allocation.",
"Congratulations! You're making enough money to invest. There are two easy places to start: I recommend against savings accounts because they will quite safely lose your money: the inflation rate is usually higher than the interest rate on a savings account. You may have twice as much money after 50 years, but if everything costs four times as much, then you've lost buying power. If, in the course of learning about investing, you'd like to try buying individual stocks, do it only with money you wouldn't mind losing. Index funds will go down slightly if one of the companies in that index fails entirely, but the stock of a failed company is worthless.",
"At this stage of the game your best investment is yourself. Rather than putting it in stocks, use any spare money you have to get yourself the best education you can. See if you can drop that part-time job and give yourself more time to study. Or maybe you can go to a better, more expensive college. Or maybe college will give you some opportunity to travel and learn more that way. You don't want to exclude yourself from those opportunities by not having enough spare cash. So in short, spend what you need to get yourself the best education you can, and keep any spare money you have somewhere you can use it to take advantage of any opportunities that come your way."
] |
[
"Fantastic question to be asking at the age of 22! A very wise man suggested to me the following with regard to your net income I've purposely not included saving a sum of money for a house deposit, as this is very much cultural and lots of EU countries have a low rate of home ownership. On the education versus entrepreneur question. I don't think these are mutually exclusive. I am a big advocate of education (I have a B.Eng) but have following working in the real world for a number of years have started an IT business in data analytics. My business partner and I saw a gap in the market and have exploited it. I continue to educate myself now in short courses on running business, data analytics and investment. My business partner did things the otherway around, starting the company first, then getting an M.Sc. Other posters have suggested that investing your money personally is a bad idea. I think it is a very good idea to take control of your own destiny and choose how you will invest your money. I would say similarly that giving your money to someone else who will sometimes lose you money and will charge you for the privilege is a bad idea. Also putting your money in a box under your bed or in the bank and receive interest that is less than inflation are bad ideas. You need to choose where to invest your money otherwise you will gain no advantage from the savings and inflation will erode your buying power. I would suggest that you educate yourself in the investment options that are available to you and those that suit you personality and life circumstances. Here are some notes on learning about stock market trading/investing if you choose to take that direction along with some books for self learning.",
"Get an education. A bachelor's degree preferably, but AA or even a certificate are fine too. It will increase your earning potential significantly and over your lifetime it will earn you a lot of money. You make around $30,000 a year now, median salary for someone with a bachelors in the humanities is around $45,000. If you degree is in the STEM field, that goes up to $55,000 - $65,000 range. Second best option is to start a small business of some kind that does not require substantial investment. Handyman comes to mind as an example or some sort of billing service maybe? I would not recommend self directed investment in the stock market - most people lose money and since you don't have a lot of money to invest, commissions and fees will eat up a significant portion of it. I would usually recommend a CD but interest rates it's not really worth it.",
"Determine how much you are going to save first. Then determine where you can spend your money. If you're living with your parents, try to build an emergency fund of six months income. The simplest way is to put half of your income in the emergency fund for a year. Try to save at least 10% of your income for retirement. The earlier you start this, the longer you'll have to let the magic of compounding work on it. If your employer offers a 401k with a match, do that first. If not, consider an IRA. You probably want to do a Roth now (because you probably pay little in taxes so the deduction from a standard IRA won't help you). After the year, you'll have an emergency fund. Work out how much money you'll need for rent, utilities, and groceries when you're on your own. Invest that in some way. Pay off student loans if you have any. Buy a car that you can keep a long time if you need one. Go to night school. Put any excess money in a savings account or mutual fund. This is money for doing things related to housing. Perhaps you'll need to buy a washer/dryer. Or pay a down payment on a mortgage eventually. Saving this money now does two things: first, it gives you savings for when you need it; second, it keeps you from getting used to spending your entire paycheck. If you are used to only having $200 of spending cash out of each check, you will fit your spending into that. If you are used to spending $800 every two weeks, it will be hard to cut your spending to make room for rent, etc.",
"Make sure you have a budget, there is a pretty cool budget tracker that you can download here (it works in excel and is easy to use). The important thing is to not only make a budget but also keep in touch and track your budget, some free ebooks and other investment ebooks too. Just start with the budget tracker: http://www.futureassist.com.au/young-to-mid-life Focus on paying off debt first Next look at ETF's (Exchange Traded Funds) as a possible investment option - this is an Australian Government Website but ETF's all work in the same way: https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/investing/managed-funds/exchange-traded-funds-etfs"
] |
3189
|
Diversify my retirement investments with a Roth IRA
|
[
"225395",
"272840"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"65567",
"423658",
"240975",
"88311",
"404800",
"211525",
"553031",
"226298",
"347651",
"199181",
"530425",
"118691",
"287225",
"272840",
"239459",
"324012",
"214174",
"371922",
"428141",
"13209",
"271949",
"335436",
"31462",
"43974",
"580313",
"46986",
"253803",
"350082",
"167194",
"111350",
"101578",
"194862",
"326560",
"278346",
"359515",
"534795",
"294676",
"330743",
"335357",
"576890",
"231227",
"163834",
"586756",
"74283",
"525089",
"65006",
"569342",
"219208",
"175252",
"571579",
"479769",
"462457",
"113881",
"155318",
"400356",
"565429",
"241161",
"164672",
"178340",
"353337",
"96110",
"33714",
"422119",
"591909",
"477295",
"275334",
"346474",
"387338",
"195587",
"469853",
"204992",
"559027",
"232930",
"182305",
"300047",
"151042",
"122222",
"474896",
"403556",
"458168",
"299690",
"187124",
"499606",
"587727",
"326257",
"286227",
"551145",
"541783",
"124042",
"127263",
"437453",
"551122",
"57457",
"125168",
"149367",
"214901",
"561636",
"130118",
"584304",
"161445"
] |
[
"If you have just started an IRA (presumably with a contribution for 2012), you likely have $5000 in it, or $10,000 if you made a full contribution for 2013 as well. At this time, I would recommend putting it all in a single low-cost mutual fund. Typically, mutual funds that track an index such as the S&P 500 Index have lower costs (annual expense fees) than actively managed funds, and most investment companies offer such mutual funds, with Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, to name a few, having very low expenses even among index funds. Later, when you have more money in the account, you can consider diversifying into more funds, buying stocks and bonds, investing in ETFs, etc. Incidentally, if you are just starting out and your Roth IRA is essentially your first investment experience, be aware that you do not need a brokerage account for your Roth IRA until you have more money in the account to invest and specifically want to buy individual stocks and bonds instead of just mutual funds. If you opened a brokerage account for your Roth IRA, close it and transfer the Roth IRA to your choice of mutual fund company; else you will be paying annual fees to the brokerage for maintaining your account, inactivity fees since you won't be doing any trading, etc. The easiest way to do this is to go to the mutual fund company web site and tell them that you want to transfer your IRA to them (not roll over your IRA to them) and they will take care of all the paper work and collecting your money from the brokerage (ditto if your Roth IRA is with a bank or another mutual fund company). Then close your brokerage account.",
"It depends on how much diversification you think you need and what your mutual fund options are. For instance, picking an index fund already provides a fair amount of diversification, especially if you select a Total Market type of index (readily available from Fidelity and Vanguard, and many other fund families). Are you looking to balance domestic vs. international investments? You may want to add an international index fund to the mix. Feel that a particular sector has tremendous potential? Add a sector fund. This investment mix is up to you (or your investment advisor). However, depending on your Roth IRA mutual fund choices, some of these funds may have minimum investment requirement - $3k to open a fund's account, for instance. In that case, you'd have no choice but to put your entire investment into one fund, and wait for subsequent years where you'd be able to invest in other funds after providing additional contributions and/or reallocation any growth from your initial investment. One thing to look at is whether you have an option of putting some of your contributions into a money market account within the Roth IRA - you can then reallocate funds from that account into another fund after you can meet the minimum investment requirement. However, in my opinion, if you start out by investing in a solid, low-cost index fund from a reputable mutual fund company, you've already picked up most of the diversification you need - a single fund is enough.",
"First, you should diversify your portfolio. If your entire portfolio is in the Roth IRA, then you should eventually diversify that. However, if you have an IRA and a 401k, then it's perfectly fine for the IRA to be in a single fund. For example, I used my IRA to buy a riskier REIT that my 401k doesn't support. Second, if you only have a small amount currently invested, e.g. $5500, it may make sense to put everything in a single fund until you have enough to get past the low balance fees. It's not uncommon for funds to charge lower fees to someone who has $8000, $10,000, or $12,000 invested. Note that if you deposit $10,000 and the fund loses money, they'll usually charge you the rate for less than $10,000. So try to exceed the minimum with a decent cushion. A balanced fund may make sense as a first fund. That way they handle the diversification for you. A targeted fund is a special kind of balanced fund that changes the balance over time. Some have reported that targeted funds charge higher fees. Commissions on those higher fees may explain why your bank wants you to buy. I personally don't like the asset mixes that I've seen from targeted funds. They often change the stock/bond ratio, which is not really correct. The stock/bond ratio should stay the same. It's the securities (stocks and bonds) to monetary equivalents that should change, and that only starting five to ten years before retirement. Prior to that the only reason to put money into monetary equivalents is to provide time to pick the right securities fund. Retirees should maintain about a five year cushion in monetary equivalents so as not to be forced to sell into a bad market. Long term, I'd prefer low-load index funds. A bond fund and two or three stock funds. You might want to build your balance first though. It doesn't really make sense to have a separate fund until you have enough money to get the best fees. 70-75% stocks and 25-30% bonds (should add to 100%, e.g. 73% and 27%). Balance annually when you make your new deposit.",
"\"That depends, really. Generally speaking, though - Roth IRAs are THE PLACE for Stock-Market/Mutual-Fund investing. All the off the wall (or, not so off the wall) things like Real Estate investments, or buying up gold, or whatever other ideas you hear from people - they may be good or bad or whatnot. But your Roth IRA is maybe not the best place for that sort of thing. The whole philosophy behind IRAs is to deliberately set aside money for the future. Anything reasonable will work for this. Explore interesting investment ideas with today's money, not tomorrow's money. That being said - at your age I would go for the riskier options within what's available. If I were in your situation (and I have been, recently), I would lean toward low-fee mutual funds classified as \"\"Growth\"\" funds. My own personal opinion (THIS IS NOT ADVICE) is that Small Cap International funds are the place to be for young folks. That's a generalized opinion based on my feel for the world, but I don't think I'm personally competent to start making specific stock picks. So, mutual funds makes sense to me in that I can select the fund that generally aligns with my sense of things, and assume that their managers will make reasonably sound decisions within that framework. Of course that assumption has to be backed up with reputation of the specific MF company and the comparative performance of the fund relative to other funds in the same sector. As to the generalized question (how else can you work toward financial stability and independence), outside of your Roth IRA: find ways to boost your earning potential over time, and buy a house before the next bubble (within the next 18 months, I'm GUESSING).\"",
"First, check out some of the answers on this question: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing When you have determined that you are ready to invest for retirement, there are two things you need to consider: the investment and the account. These are separate items. The investment is what makes your money grow. The type of account provides tax advantages (and restrictions). Generally, these can be considered separately; for the most part, you can do any type of investment in any account. Briefly, here is an overview of some of the main options: In your situation, the Roth IRA is what I would recommend. This grows tax free, and if you need the funds for some reason, you can get out what you put in without penalty. You can invest up to $5500 in your Roth IRA each year. In addition to the above reasons, which are true for anybody, a Roth IRA would be especially beneficial for you for three reasons: For someone that is closer in age to retirement and in a higher tax bracket now, a Roth IRA is less attractive than it is for you. Inside your Roth IRA, there are lots of choices. You can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds (which are simply collections of stocks and bonds), bank accounts, precious metals, and many other things. Discussing all of these investments in one answer is too broad, but my recommendation is this: If you are investing for retirement, you should be investing in the stock market. However, picking individual stocks is too risky; you need to be diversified in a lot of stocks. Stock mutual funds are a great way to invest in the stock market. There are lots of different types of stock mutual funds with different strategies and expenses associated with them. Managed funds actively buy and sell different stocks inside them, but have high expenses to pay the managers. Index funds buy and hold a list of stocks, and have very low expenses. The conventional wisdom is that, in general, index funds perform better than managed funds when you take the expenses into account. I hope this overview and these recommendations were helpful. If you have any specific questions about any of these types of accounts or investments, feel free to ask another question.",
"First, a Roth is funded with post tax money. The Roth IRA deposit will not offset any tax obligation you might have. The IRA is not an investment, it's an account with a specific set of tax rules that apply to it. If you don't have a brokerage account, I'd suggest you consider a broker that has an office nearby. Schwab, Fidelity, Vanguard are 3 that I happen to have relationships with. Once the funds are deposited, you need to choose how to invest for the long term. The fact that I'd choose the lowest cost S&P ETF or mutual fund doesn't mean that's the ideal investment for you. You need to continue to do research to find the exact investment that matches your risk profile. By way of example, up until a few years ago, my wife and I were nearly 100% invested in stocks, mostly the S&P 500. When we retired, four years ago, I shifted a bit to be more conservative, closer to 80% stock 20% cash.",
"Your question seems like you don't understand what a Roth IRA is. A Roth IRA isn't an investment, per se. It is just a type of account that receives special tax treatment. Just like a checking and savings account are different at a bank, a ROTH IRA account is just flagged as such by a brokerage. It isn't an investment type, and there aren't really different ROTH IRA accounts. You can invest in just about anything inside that account so that is what you need to evaluate. One Roth IRA account is as good as any other.As to what to invest your money in inside a ROTH, that is a huge question and off-topic per the rules against specific investing advice.",
"I would just buy a low-cost diversified equity ETF. VTI is pretty solid. Also, JW are you working or in school? If you are working you should consider opening an IRA or Roth IRA. Also if your employer has a 401k or other retirement plan you can contribute to I would advise doing so.",
"You are young, and therefore have a very long time horizon for investing. Absolutely nothing you do should involve paying any attention to your investments more than once a year (if that). First off, you can only deposit money in an IRA (of whatever kind) if you have taxable income. If you don't, you can still invest, just without the tax benefits of a Roth. My suggestion would be to open an account with a discount brokerage (Schwab, Fidelity, eTrade, etc). The advantage of a brokerage IRA is that you can invest in whatever you want within the account. Then, either buy an S&P 500 or total market index fund within the account, or buy an index-based ETF (like a mutual fund, but trades like a stock). The latter might be better, since many mutual funds have minimum limits, which ETFs do not. Set the account up to reinvest the dividends automatically--S&P 500 yields will far outstrip current savings account yields--and sit back and do nothing for the next 40 or 50 years. Well, except for continuing to make annual contributions to the account, which you should continue to invest in pretty much the same thing until you have enough money (and experience and knowledge) to diversify into bond funds/international funds/individual stocks, etc. Disclaimer: I am not a financial planner. I just manage my own money, and this strategy has mostly kept me from stressing too badly over the last few years of market turmoil.",
"If you are a novice investor and want to diversify, I'd recommend looking into targeted mutual funds. They couldn't be easier. You just put your money in the fund with the year that you anticipating needing to take the money out and the fund manager handles diversification and adjusting the risk appropriately over the life of the fund based on the remaining time horizon. The only downside is that the annual expenses tend to be higher on these than if you just invested in the underlying securities/funds, but you are pretty much paying them to manage it for you.",
"\"You are overthinking it. Yes there is overlap between them, and you want to understand how much overlap there is so you don't end up with a concentration in one area when you were trying to avoid it. Pick two, put your money in those two; and then put your new money into those two until you want to expand into other funds. The advantage of having the money in an IRA held by a single fund family, is that moving some or all of the money from one Mutual fund/ETF to another is painless. The fact it is a retirement account means that selling a fund to move the money doesn't trigger taxes. The fact that you have about $10,000 for the IRA means that hopefully you have decades left before you need the money and that this $10,00 is just the start. You are not committed to these investment choices. With periodic re-balancing the allocations you make now will be adjusted over the decades. One potential issue. You said: \"\"I'm saving right not but haven't actually opened the account.\"\" I take it to mean that you have money in a Roth TRA account but it isn't invested into a stock fund, or that you have the money ready to go in a regular bank account and will be making a 2015 contribution into the actual IRA before tax day this year, and the 2016 contribution either at the same time or soon after. If it is the second case make sure you get the money for 2015 into the IRA before the deadline.\"",
"\"There are a lot of funds that exist only to feed people's belief that existing funds are not diversified or specialized enough. That's why you have so many options. Just choose the ones with the lowest fees. I'd suggest the following: I wouldn't mess around with funds that try and specialize in \"\"value\"\" or those target date funds. If you really don't want to think and don't mind paying slightly higher fees, just pick the target date fund that corresponds to when you will retire and put all your money there. On the traditional/Roth question, if your tax bracket will be higher when you retire than it is now (unlikely), choose Roth. Otherwise choose traditional.\"",
"Short answer is fund a Roth. If you are under 50 then you can put in $5500 or $6500 if you are older. Great to have money in two buckets one pre tax and one post tax. Plus you can be aggressive putting money in it because you can always take money you put in the Roth out of the Roth with no tax or penalty. Taxes are historically low so it makes a lot of sense to diversify your retirement.",
"Without making specific recommendations, it is worthwhile to point out the differing tax treatments for a Roth IRA: investments in a Roth IRA will not be taxed when you withdraw them during retirement (unless they change the law on that or something crazy). So if you are thinking about investing in some areas with high risk and high potential reward (e.g. emerging market stocks) then the Roth IRA might be the place to do it. That way, if the investment works out, you have more money in the account that won't ever be taxed. We can talk about the possible risks of certain kinds of investments, but this is not an appropriate forum to recommend for or against them specifically. Healthcare stocks are subject to political risk in the current regulatory climate. BRICs are subject to political risks regarding the political and business climate in the relevant nations, and the growth of their economies need not correspond with growth in the companies you hold in your portfolio. Energy stocks are subject to the world economic climate and demand for oil, unless you're talking alternative-energy stocks, which are subject to political risk regarding their subsidies and technological risk regarding whether or not their technologies pan out. It is worth pointing out that any ETF you invest in will have a prospectus, and that prospectus will contain a section discussing the risks which could affect your investment. Read it before investing! :)",
"As you have already good on your retirement kitty. Assuming you have a sufficient cash for difficult situations, explore the options of investing in Shares and Mutual Funds. As you are new to Stock Market, begin slowly by investing into Mutual Funds and ETF for precious metals. This will help you understand and give you confidence on markets and returns. Real estate is a good option, the down side being the hassle of getting rental and the illiquid nature of the investment.",
"Nowhere. To back up a bit, mutual funds are the stock market (and the bond market). That is, when you invest in a mutual fund, your money is ultimately buying stocks on the open market. Some of it might be buying bonds. The exact mix of stocks and bonds depends on the mutual fund. But a mutual fund is just a basket of stocks and/or bonds (and/or other, more exotic investments). At 25, you probably should just be investing your Roth IRA in index stock mutual funds and index bond mutual funds. You probably shouldn't even be doing peer-to-peer lending (unless you're willing to think of any losses as the cost of a hobby); the higher interest rate you're getting is a reflection of the risk that your borrowers will default. I'm not even sure if peer-to-peer lending is allowed in Roth IRA's. Investing in just stocks, bonds, and cast is boring, but these are easy investments to understand. The harder the investment is to understand, the easier it is for it to be a scam (or just a bad investment). There's not necessarily anything wrong with boring.",
"\"A Roth IRA is simply a tax-sheltered account that you deposit funds into, and then invest however you choose (within the limits of the firm you deposit the funds with). For example, you could open a Roth IRA account with Vanguard. You could then invest the $3000 by purchasing shares of VOO, which tracks the S&P 500 index and has a very low expense ratio (0.04 as of last time I checked). Fidelity has a similar option, or Schwab, or whatever brokerage firm you prefer. IRAs are basically just normal investment accounts, except they don't owe taxes until you withdraw them (and Roth don't even owe them then, though you paid taxes on the funds you deposit). They have some limitations regarding options trading and such, but if you're a novice investor just looking to do basic investments, you'll not notice. Then, your IRA would go up or down in value as the market went up or down in value. You do have some restrictions on when you can withdraw the funds; Roth IRA has fewer than a normal IRA, as you can withdraw the capital (the amount you deposited) without penalty, but the profits cannot be withdrawn until you're retirement age (I won't put an actual year, as I suspect that actual year will change by the time you're that old; but think 60s). The reason not to invest in an IRA is if you plan on using the money in the near future - even as an \"\"emergency fund\"\". You should have some money that is not invested aggressively, that is in something very safe and very accessible, for your emergency fund; and if you plan to buy a house or whatever with the funds, don't start an IRA. But if this is truly money you want to save for retirement, that's the best place to start. **Note, this is not investment advice, and you should do your own homework prior to making any investment. You can lose some or all of the value of your account while investing.\"",
"\"I will give a slightly different answer which is actually an addendum to JoeTaxpayer's (soon-to-be-edited) answer. Do NOT go to your financial advisor and ask him \"\"How do I go about transferring my Roth IRA to ....\"\"? where .... is whichever broker or mutual fund family that you have chosen from the list that Joe has suggested. Instead, go to the website of the new group (or call their toll-free number) and tell them \"\"I want to open a Roth IRA account with you and fund it by transferring all the money in my Roth IRA from First Clearing.\"\" Your new Roth IRA custodian will take care of all the paperwork and get the money transferred over at no cost to you except possibly fielding a weepy call from your current financial advisor because he had just ordered his new Lamborghini and now will have difficulty making payments on his auto loan. \"\"Why are you leaving me? After all the years we have had together?\"\" You will need to choose some place to put the money, and I suggest that you use their S&P 500 Index Fund, not the S&P 500 ETF, just the standard vanilla S&P 500 Index Mutual Fund. This recommendation is almost heresy in this forum, but it is better to pay the extra 0.01% fee that the Fund charges over and above the ETF until you become a little more savvy and are ready to branch out into individual stocks (which is when you really need a brokerage account). Revelation: I have never made the transition and invest only in mutual funds which does not require a brokerage account. After doing all this, pay no attention whatsoever to your Roth IRA investment or how the S&P 500 Index is doing for the next 20 years. This will help avoid the temptation of taking all your money out just because the Index went down a little. Everybody is told \"\"Buy Low, Sell High\"\" but far too many folks end up doing exactly the opposite: buying because the stock market is up and selling when it starts going down.\"",
"You don't really have a lot of money, and that isn't a criticism as much as that you are limited to diversification. For example, I would estimate you can only have one or two stocks for a buy-write scheme. Secondly you may be only to buy one fund with a high minimum investment, and a second fund with a smaller minimum investment. Thirdly there is not a whole lot of money to make a large difference. One options might be to look at iShares since your are with Fidelity. Trading those are commission free and the minimum investment is one share. They offer many sector funds. Since you were in a CD ladder you might be looking for stability of principle. If so you can look at USMV and PFF. If you can tolerate a little more volatility DGRO. Having said that you seem interested in doing some buy-writes. Why not mix and match? Pick a stock, like INTC (for example not a recommendation), and buy-write with half the money and some combination of iShares for the rest.",
"You're technically 'allowed' to do other investments with your Roth, but you get taken to the cleaners by the financial 'services' community who wants to take a slice. Non-securities investments from a Roth typically require a 'custodian' or other intermediary to handle your investment, e.g. buying silver coins and paying someone else to hold them. Buy these with cash and hold them yourself, assuming you trust yourself more than some stranger.",
"What asset allocation is right for you (at the most basic the percentage if stocks vs bonds; at the advanced level, percentage of growth vs value, international vs domestic etc) is a function of your age, retirement goals, income stability and employment prospects until retirement. Roth IRA is orthogonal to this. Now, once you have your allocation worked out there are tactical tax advantage decisions available: interest income, REIT and MLP dividends are taxed at income and not capital gains rate, so the tactical decision is to put these investments in tax advantage accounts like Roth and 401ks. Conversely, should you decide to buy and hold growth stocks there are tactical advantages to keeping them in a taxable account: you get tax deferment until the year you choose to sell (barring a takeover), you get the lower lt cap gains rate, and you can employ tax loss harvesting.",
"If I may echo the Roth comment - The Roth is a tax designation, not an end investment, so you still need to research and decide what's appropriate. I recommend the Roth for the long term investments, but keep in mind, even if you feel you may need to tap the Roth sooner than later, all deposits may be withdrawn at any time with no tax or penalty. Roth is great to store the emergency money for many if they aren't 100% sure they have enough cash to save for retirement. As you get further along, and see that you don't need it, change how it's invested to longer term, a mix of stocks (I prefer ETFs that mimic the S&P)",
"\"In asnwer to your questions: As @joetaxpayer said, you really should look into a Solo 401(k). In 2017, this allows you to contribute up to $18k/year and your employer (the LLC) to contribute more, up to $54k/year total (subject to IRS rules). 401(k) usually have ROTH and traditional sides, just like IRA. I believe the employer-contributed funds also see less tax burden for both you and your LLC that if that same money had become salary (payroll taxes, etc.). You might start at irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans and go from there. ROTH vs. pre-tax: You can mix and match within years and between years. Figure out what income you want to have when you retire. Any year you expect to pay lower taxes (low income, kids, deductions, etc.), make ROTH contributions. Any year you expect high taxes (bonus, high wage, taxable capital gains, etc.), make pre-tax payments. I have had a uniformly bad experience with target date funds across multiple 401(k) plans from multiple plan adminstrators. They just don't perform well (a common problem with almost any actively managed fund). You probably don't want to deal with individual stocks in your retirement accounts, so rather pick passively managed index funds that track various markets segments you care about and just sit on them. For example, your high-risk money might be in fast-growing but volatile industries (e.g. tech, aerospace, medical), your medium-risk money might go in \"\"total market\"\" or S&P 500 index funds, and your low-risk money might go in treasury notes and bonds. The breakdown is up to you, but as an 18 year old you have a ~50 year horizon and so can afford to wait out anything short of another Great Depression (and maybe even that). So you'd want generally you want more or your money in the high-risk high-return category, rebalancing to lower risk investments as you age. Diversifying into real estate, foreign investments, etc. might also make sense but I'm no expert on those.\"",
"Have you considered a self-directed IRA to invest, rather than the stock market or publicly traded assets? Your IRA can actually own direct title to real estate, loan money via secured or unsecured promissory notes much like a hard money loan or invest into shares of an entity that invests in real estate. The only nuance is that the IRA holder is responsible for finding and deciding upon the investment vehicle. Just an option outside of the normal parameters, if you have an existing IRA or old 401(k) or other qualified plan, this might be an option for you.",
"you should invest in a range of stock market indexes. Ex : Dow jones, S&P500, Nasdaq and keep it there until you are ready to retire. I'm invested half in SLYV and SLYG (S&P600 small cap value and S&P600 small cap growth; Respectively). It brings on average between 8-13% a year (since 1971). This is not investment advice. Talk to your broker before doing this.",
"I highly recommend passive investing through something like betterment (www.betterment.com) or vanguard's ETFs. FutureAdvisor.com can provide some good advice as to what funds to invest in. I'd recommend using that money to max out your Roth IRAs each year, too.",
"I'd open the Roth IRA account and fund for 2015 and 2016. For the very long term, I'd learn about index funds, specifically a low cost S&P mutual fund or ETF.",
"I know of no way to answer your question without 'spamming' a particular investment. First off, if you are a USA citizen, max out your 401-K. Whatever your employer matches will be an immediate boost to your investment. Secondly, you want your our gains to be tax deferred. A 401-K is tax deferred as well as a traditional IRA. Thirdly, you probably want the safety of diversification. You achieve this by buying an ETF (or mutual fund) that then buys individual stocks. Now for the recommendation that may be called spamming by others : As REITs pass the tax liability on to you, and as an IRA is tax deferred, you can get stellar returns by buying a mREIT ETF. To get you started here are five: mREITs Lastly, avoid commissions by having your dividends automatically reinvested by using that feature at Scottrade. You will have to pay commissions on new purchases but your purchases from your dividend Reinvestment will be commission free. Edit: Taking my own advice I just entered orders to liquidate some positions so I would have the $ on hand to buy into MORL and get some of that sweet 29% dividend return.",
"Since you're 20-30 years out of retirement, you should be 90% to 100% in stocks, and in one or two broad stock market funds likely. I'm not sure about the minimums at TD Ameritrade, but at Vanguard even $3k will get you into the basic funds. One option is the Targeted Retirement Year funds, which automatically rebalance as you get closer to retirement. They're a bit higher expense usually than a basic stock market fund, but they're often not too bad. (Look for expenses under 0.5% annually, and preferably much lower - I pay 0.05% on mine for example.) Otherwise, I'd just put everything into something simple - an S&P500 tracker for example (SPY or VOO are two examples) that has very low management fees. Then when your 401(k) gets up and running, that may have fewer options and thus you may end up in something more conservative - don't feel like you have to balance each account separately when they're just starting, think of them as one whole balancing act for the first year or two. Once they're each over $10k or so, then you can balance them individually (which you do want to do, to allow you to get better returns).",
"If you want to 'offset' current (2016) income, only deductible contribution to a traditional IRA does that. You can make nondeductible contributions to a trad IRA, and there are cases where that makes sense for the future and cases where it doesn't, but it doesn't give you a deduction now. Similarly a Roth IRA has possible advantages and disadvantages, but it does not have a deduction now. Currently he maximum is $5500 per person ($6500 if over age 50, but you aren't) which with two accounts (barely) covers your $10k. To be eligible to make this deductible traditional contribution, you must have earned income (employment or self-employment, but NOT the distribution from another IRA) at least the amount you want to contribute NOT have combined income (specifically MAGI, Modified Adjusted Gross Income) exceeding the phaseout limit (starts at $96,000 for married-joint) IF you were covered during the year (either you or your spouse) by an employer retirement plan (look at box 13 on your W-2's). With whom. Pretty much any bank, brokerage, or mutual fund family can handle IRAs. (To be technical, the bank's holding company will have an investment arm -- to you it will usually look like one operation with one name and logo, one office, one customer service department, one website etc, but the investment part must be legally separate from the insured banking part so you may notice a different name on your legal and tax forms.) If you are satisified with the custodian of the inherited IRA you already have, you might just stay with them -- they may not need as much paperwork, you don't need to meet and get comfortable with new people, you don't need to learn a new website. But if they sold you an annuity at your age -- as opposed to you inheriting an already annuitized IRA -- I'd want a lot of details before trusting they are acting in your best interests; most annuities sold to IRA holders are poor deals. In what. Since you want only moderate risk at least to start, and also since you are starting with a relatively small amount where minimum investments, expenses and fees can make more of an impact on your results, I would go with one or a few broad (= lower risk) index (= lower cost) fund(s). Every major fund familly also offers at least a few 'balanced' funds which give you a mixture of stocks and bonds, and sometimes some 'alternatives', in one fund. Remember this is not committing you forever; any reasonable custodian will allow you to move or spread to more-adventurous (but not wild and crazy) investments, which may be better for you in future years when you have some more money in the account and some more time to ponder your goals and options and comfort level.",
"First you need to distinguish between short-term and long-term capital gains. In an IRA you can use investment strategies that incur short-term capital gains without being taxed as ordinary income. As mentioned in a comment above, with a Roth IRA, you can invest now at your low income tax rates and withdraw all gains without incurring any taxes at retirement time. You can also pull out your contributions penalty free before retirement age (59 1/2) if you've had the account for more than 5 years. You only pay taxes and penalties on the earnings. You can also make withdrawals for education expenses and you have one lifetime exclusion of $10,000 for a down-payment on a house.",
"the $5500 Roth IRA is not restricted to earned income, you can put whatever money you have tax free and gains free.",
"Though I do think it is important to have a diversified portfolio for your retirement, I also think it's more important to make sure you are at no point touching this money until you retire. Taking money out of your retirement early is a sure fire way to get in a bad habit of spending this money when you need a little help. Here's a tip: If you consider this money gone, you will find another way to figure out your situation. With that said, I also would rather not put a percentage on this. Start by building your emergency fund. You'll want to treat this like a bill and make a monthly payment to your savings account each month or paycheck. When you have a good nine times your monthly income in here, stop contributing to this fund. Instead start putting the same amount into your IRA instead. At this point you should no longer have to add to your emergency fund unless there is a true emergency and you are replacing that money. Keep in mind that the amount of money in your emergency fund changes significantly in each situation. Sit down with your bills and think about how much money you would need in the event you lost your job. How long would you be out of work? How many bills do you have each month that would need to be covered?",
"Great question and good for you for starting investments. Are you young, like in your 20s? I would do all that you can in the ROTH. You will not get a tax break now, but you will get one later. Keep in mind that any company match does not go into ROTH but the IRA. I try to look at two things when judging a mutual fund: the historic performance, and the expense fee. When comparing two funds, if one has a 10% average return for 10 years, and a 1% fee, I feel it is better than a fund that has a 12% return for the same time period and a 3% fee. If they are close, you can always put a little bit in each one. An important question to ask is if you have debt. You may want to scale back your contributions some to pay down that debt. For me, I don't like to go below a company match to do so, but anything over and above might be better utilized to move that student, car or credit card loan to zero. Others might disagree, so YMMV, but I have done this myself.",
"A 401-K is something you get through an employer. I recommend getting a self-directed IRA. You can open an IRA with Scottrade with $500 The money you put into an IRA is tax deferred, meaning that you do not have to pay taxes on profits. It may also lower your tax liability. Scottrade has a feature to automatically reinvest any dividends from the securities you own. This feature allows you to avoid commissions on those automatic purchases. Don't try to time the market. Pick a good ETF (exchange traded fund) that pays dividends. It will give you diversification. Avoid the urge to buy and sell constantly. This only gives commissions to the broker.",
"401Ks and IRAs are types of retirement accounts. They have rules regarding maximum amount of investments per year; who can invest; destructibility; and the tax treatment of the growth. Stock, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs are all types of investments that can exist either inside or outside of the retirement account. Some 401Ks restrict the type of investments you can have, others allow you to own almost anything. Any investment is a risk, and there is no guarantee that it will grow. Look around the site for beginning investment advice. You should start with the 401K offered by your company especially if they have matching funds. That is free money. Many suggest you invest enough to get the match, then invest with an IRA. Look into IRAs because under US tax law you can still make a 2013 investment up until tax day 2014. Take the time before tax day to decide on Roth or Regular IRA. The more exotic investments take more time to understand and should not be a concern until you have laid out your basic retirement accounts.",
"If you are earning a salary, go for Roth IRA. You can contribute $5500 (2013 limits) every year . Once you open a account , let say Fidelity or Vanguard, you should invest based on risk appetite into some funds. the advantage is that your money grows tax free and when you are 25- 30 years old and need money for down payment of house, you can pull the money out with out any penalty. The gains you have made will continue to be in that account till the time your retire, growing every year.",
"There are fund of funds,e.g. life cycle funds or target retirement funds, that could cover a lot of these with an initial investment that one could invest into for a few years and then after building up a balance large enough, then it may make sense to switch to having more control.",
"Your question indicates confusion regarding what an Individual Retirement Account (whether Roth or Traditional) is vs. the S&P 500, which is nothing but a list of stocks. IOW, it's perfectly reasonable to open a Roth IRA, put your $3000 in it, and then use that money to buy a mutual fund or ETF which tracks the S&P 500. In fact, it's ridiculously common... :)",
"I would personally suggest owning Mutual Funds or ETF's in a tax sheltered account, such as a 401k or an IRA, especially Roth options if available. This lets you participate in the stock market while ensuring that you have diversified portfolio, and the money is managed by an expert. The tax sheltered accounts (or tax free in the case of Roth accounts) increase your savings, and simplify your life as you don't need to worry about taxes on earnings within those accounts, as long as you leave the money in. For a great beginner's guide see Clark's Investment Guide (Easy).",
"The most important thing is to keep in mind the deadline. If you want to have it count for 2016, you need to open the account and transfer the funds by tax day. Don't wait until the last day to do it, or you could run out of time. Setting up the initial account, and them verifying your information and transferring the money could take a few days. First decide how much of a lump sum you want to invest initially. This will determine some of your options because the mutual fund will have a minimum initial investment. Many of the funds will allow subsequent investments to be smaller. The beauty of a IRA or Roth IRA is that if the fund you want is out of reach for this initial investment in a few years you can transfer the money into another fund or even another fund family without having to worry about tax issues. Now decide on your risk level and you time horizon. Because you said you are student and you want a Roth IRA, it is assumed that you will not need this money for 4+ decades; so you can and should be willing to be a little more risky. As NathanL said an index fund is a great idea. Many also advise an aged based fund. My kids found that when they made their initial investments the age based funds were the only one with a low enough initial investment for their first few years. Then pick a fund family based on the general low fees, and a large mix of options. The best thing is that in a few years as you have more money and more options, you can adjust your choices.",
"In addition to George Marian's excellent advice, I'll add that if you're hitting the limits on IRA contributions, then you'd go back to your 401(k). So, put enough into your 401(k) to get the match, then max out IRA contributions to give you access to more and better investment options, then go back to your 401(k) until you top that out as well, assuming you have that much available to invest for retirement.",
"Your approach sounds solid to me. Alternatively, if (as appears to be the case) then you might want to consider devoting your tax-advantaged accounts to tax-inefficient investments, such as REITs and high-yield bond funds. That way your investments that generate non-capital-gain (i.e. tax-expensive) income are safe from the IRS until retirement (or forever). And your investments that generate only capital gains income are safe until you sell them (and then they're tax-cheap anyway). Of course, since there aren't really that many tax-expensive investment vehicles (especially not for a young person), you may still have room in your retirement accounts after allocating all the money you feel comfortable putting into REITs and junk bonds. In that case, the article I linked above ranks investment types by tax-efficiency so you can figure out the next best thing to put into your IRA, then the next, etc.",
"May I suggest putting it in a Roth IRA ($5,500 per year. Right now you can contribute to both 2015 and 2016 so that's $11K.)? Based on your description it sounds like your tax rate is very low, so it is awesome to put it away now and avoid taxes later on any gains you make on it. You can use Roth IRA money to pay for college, a home, or retirement. Within your Roth IRA, any of the investment options mentioned here will work. For example, CD's or money market accounts if you just want it to grow in a pretty much savings-account-like manner. You could also buy diversified mutual funds or have some fun buying individual stocks with some of it. I'm sorry to say that in the current market conditions you are not going to find a completely safe, cash-like investment or account that makes your money grow substantially. To do that you have to bear risk by buying risky stuff like stocks.",
"Sounds like you're doing fine, though somewhat fuzzy: how are you allocating the $500/month? Are you doing dollar cost averaging into funds, accumulating enough $$ to buy round lots of individual stocks, market timing, etc. The summary suggestion: max out the ROTH first, then with $$$ left over, do the after tax, low-cost fund, monthly dollar cost averaging approach.",
"There are quite a few options. Suggest you put a mix of things and begin investing into Mutual Funds.",
"\"You can have as many IRA accounts as you want (whether Roth or Traditional), so you can have a Roth IRA with American Funds and another Roth IRA with Vanguard if you like. One disadvantage of having too many IRA accounts with small balances in each is that most custodians (including Vanguard) charge an annual fee for maintaining IRA accounts with small balances but waive the fee if the balance is large. So it is best to keep your Roth IRA in just one or two funds with just one or two custodians until such time as investment returns plus additional contributions made over the years makes the balances large enough to diversify further. Remember also that you cannot contribute the maximum to each IRA; the sum total of all your IRA contributions (doesn't matter whether to Roth or to Traditional IRAs) for any year must satisfy the limit for that year. You can move money from one IRA of yours to another IRA (of the same type) of yours without any tax issues to worry about. Such movements (called rollovers or transfers) are not contributions and do not count towards the annual contribution limit. The easiest way to do move money from one IRA account to another IRA account is by a trustee-to-trustee transfer where the money goes directly from one custodian (American Funds in this case) to the other custodian (Vanguard in this case). The easiest way of accomplishing this is to call Vanguard or go online on their website, tell them that you are wanting to establish a Roth IRA with them, and that you want to fund it by transferring money held in a Roth IRA with American Funds. Give Vanguard the account number of your existing American Funds IRA, tell them how much you want to transfer over -- $1000 or $20,000 or the entire balance as the case may be -- and tell Vanguard to go get the money. In a few days' time, the money will appear in your new Vanguard Roth IRA and the American Funds Roth IRA will have a smaller balance, possibly a zero balance, or might even be closed if you told Vanguard to collect the entire balance. DO NOT approach American Funds and tell them that you want to transfer money to a new Roth IRA with Vanguard: they will bitch and moan and drag their heels about doing so because they are unhappy to lose your business, and will probably screw up the transfer. Talk to Vanguard only. They are eager to get their hands on your IRA money and will gladly take care of the whole thing for you at no charge to you. DO NOT cash in any stock shares, or mutual fund shares, or whatever is in your Roth IRA in preparation for \"\"cashing out of the old account\"\". There is a method where you take a \"\"rollover distribution\"\" from your American Funds Roth IRA and then deposit the money into your new Vanguard Roth IRA within 60 days, but I recommend most strongly against using this because too many people manage to screw it up. It is 60 days, not two months; the clock starts from the day American Funds cuts your check, not when you get the check, and it is stopped when the money gets deposited into your new account, not the day you mailed the check to Vanguard or the day that Vanguard received it, and so on. In short, DO NOT try this at home: stick to a trustee-to-trustee transfer and avoid the hassles.\"",
"Many mutual fund companies (including Vanguard when I checked many years ago) require smaller minimum investments (often $1000) for IRA and 401k accounts. Some also allow for smaller investments into their funds for IRA accounts if you set up an automatic investment plan that contributes a fixed amount of money each month or each quarter. On the other hand, many mutual fund companies charge an annual account maintenance fee ($10? $20? $25? more?) per fund for IRA investments unless the balance in the fund is above a certain amount (often $5K or $10K$). This fee can be paid in cash or deducted from the IRA investment, and the former option is vastly better. So, diversification into multiple funds while starting out with an IRA is not that great an idea. It is far better to get diversification through investment in an S&P 500 Index fund (VFINX since you won't have access to @JoeTaxpayer's VIIIX) or a Total Market Index fund or, if you prefer, a Target Retirement Fund, and then branch out into other types of mutual funds as your investment grows through future contributions and dividends etc. To answer your question about fund minimums, the IRA account is separate from a taxable investment account, and the minimum rule applies to each separately. But, as noted above, there often are smaller minimums for tax-deferred accounts.",
"My advice would be to invest in the 401k with the same type of funds you'd purchase when you rollover to your IRA. They are both retirement accounts. If the stock market tanks, your 401k balance will be low but you'll also be purchasing stocks at a much cheaper price when you establish your roth. You should create an asset allocation based on your age, not on the type of retirement account you have. One question to consider: When you do become a student, you'll likely be a in lower tax bracket. Can you contribute pre-tax dollars and then rollover to a ROTH in the year that you're a student?",
"At a very high-level, the answer is yes, that's a good idea. For money that you want to invest on the scale of decades, putting money into a broad, market-based fund has historically given the best returns. Something like the Vanguard S&P 500 automatically gives you a diverse portfolio, with super low expenses. As it sounds like you understand, the near-term returns are volatile, and if you really think you might want this money in the next few years, then the stock market might not be the best choice. As a final note, as one of the comments mentioned, it makes sense to hold a broad, market-based fund for your IRA as well, if possible.",
"I recommend you consider a Roth IRA. Invest it as others here suggest, safely, CDs, money market,etc. You can put in $5000/yr. When you spend, use this last, there is no penalty to withdraw the deposits. But if you make it through grad school without needing it, you'll have great start on your retirement savings.",
"Think about contributing to both a Traditional IRA and a Roth IRA if you have the funds. In theory, you could receive the lowest tax rates by depositing money into a regular IRA during years of democratic rule, depositing money into a Roth during years of Republic rule, and then withdrawing from the Roth during democratic rule and the tradition during Republican rule. Then you would be depositing with lower tax rates and withdrawing with lower tax rates. Granted this method would involve some speculation.",
"Your max contribution to your Roth IRA and your traditional IRA share the same cap, so if you are maxing your Roth IRA you cannot have a traditional one as well. I would put the additional into your 401k or perhaps a 529 if you have any kids.",
"You are permitted to withdraw the deposits from the Roth with no tax or penalty any time. To Dilip's point, the Roth is a good place to keep the investment, and what you might consider is a 'self-directed' account. This type of IRA or Roth IRA permits a choice of investments that are not typically handled by banks or brokers, including Real Estate and the type of Angel investing you seem to be considering. Note - the rules are tough, you need to be very careful to not be self-dealing, or dealing with certain related parties.",
"\"Your funds are in a retirement account. Withdrawals from your IRA will be penalized if you withdraw before you turn 59.5 years old, and you appear to be decades away from that age. The general advice I would give you is to pick a \"\"target year fund\"\" that targets the year you turn 59.5. The stock market is more volatile, but its average gains will protect you from inflation just eating your funds. Bonds are in counterpoint to your stocks - more stable, and protecting you from the chance that stocks dip right before you want to withdraw. Target year funds start with higher amounts of stock, and gradually rebalance towards bonds over time. Thus, you take your market risks earlier while you can benefit from the market's gains, and then have stability when you actually would want to retire and depend on the savings.\"",
"My thoughts are your retirement investing priorities should be as follows: So in your case I would not put any money into your 401k until you have maxed out your Roth IRA.",
"A Roth IRA is intended for retirement. Before age 59.5 (I think), you can only withdraw the amount you deposited without penalty. It's great you're saving in a Roth, but you shouldn't put savings in there that you will need before you reach sufficient age. And since it's long-term, you can invest in things you expect to grow over the long term, like equities. You should keep emergency funds either in federally insured, extremely liquid accounts (bank savings) or money market funds (which aren't insured, but are close enough to zero-risk). Yes, the interest rates are terrible right now. But anything else would potentially leave you with insufficient funds in the event of, you know, an emergency.",
"You're young. Build a side business in your spare time. Invest in yourself. Fail a few times when you have some time to recover financially. Use the money that you would have let sit in some account and develop your skills, start up an LLC, and build up the capacity to get some real returns on your money. Be a rainmaker, not a Roth taker.",
"First, if it's just about the income limit, you can deposit to a regular IRA and soon after (like next day) convert it to a Roth. So long as you have no pretax IRA money out there, there will be no tax consequence, a cent on a day's interest, perhaps. As far as the 401(k) goes, are the options any good? Some 401(k) investment choices are so awful it's best to stop after getting full matching. Mine has an S&P index fund with a .05%/yr expense ratio. That's less than I can find in the best ETF out there. Keep in mind, if you invest long term, the dividends are favored, 15% rate, and the capital gain is both controllable (you decide when to take it, by selling) and also favored, 15%. The magic of 401(k) and IRAs, whatever kind is a bit overplayed in the media. Your investing rate and asset choices are far more important.",
"\"Whoa. These things are on two dimensions. It's like burger and fries, you can also have chicken sandwich and fries, or burger and onion rings. You can invest in an taxable brokerage account and/or an IRA. And then, within each of those... You can buy index funds and/or anything else. All 4 combinations are possible. If someone says otherwise, take your money and run. They are a shady financial \"\"advisor\"\" who is ripping you off by steering you only into products where they get a commission. Those products are more expensive because the commission comes out of your end. Not to mention any names. E.J. If you want financial advice that is honest, find a financial advisor who you pay for his advice, and who doesn't sell products at all. Or, just ask here. But I would start by listening to Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey, whomever you prefer. And read John Bogle's book. They can tell you all about the difference between money market, bonds, stocks, managed mutual funds (ripoff!) and index funds. IRA accounts, Roth IRA accounts and taxable accounts are all brokerage accounts. Within them, you can buy any security you want, including index funds. The difference is taxation. Suppose you earn $1000 and choose to invest it however Later you withdraw it and it has grown to $3000. Investing in a taxable account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you later withdraw the $3000, you pay a tax on $2000 of income. If you invested more than a year, it is taxed at a much lower \"\"capital gains\"\" tax rate. With a traditional IRA account, you pay zero taxes on the initial $1000. Later, when you take the money out, you pay normal income tax on the full $3000. If you withdrew it before age 59-1/2, you also pay a 10% penalty ($300). With a Roth IRA account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you withdraw the $3000 later, you pay NOTHING in taxes. Provided you followed the rules. You can invest in almost anything inside these accounts: Money market funds. Terrible return. You won't keep up with the market. Bonds. Low return but usually quite safe. Individual stocks. Good luck. Managed mutual funds. You're paying some genius stock picker to select high performing stocks. He has a huge staff of researchers and good social connections. He also charges you 1.5% per year overhead as an \"\"expense ratio\"\", which is a total loss to you. The fact is, he can usually pick stocks better than a monkey throwing darts. But he's not 1.5% better! Index funds. These just shrug and buy every stock on the market. There's no huge staff or genius manager, just some intern making small adjustments every week. As such, the expense ratio is extremely small, like 0.1%. If any of these investments pay dividends, you must pay taxes on them when they're issued, if you're not in an IRA account. This problem gets fixed in ETF's. Index ETF's. These are index funds packaged to behave like stocks. Dividends increase your stock's value instead of being paid out to you, which simplifies your taxes. If you buy index funds outside of an IRA, use these. Too many other options to get into here.\"",
"If you're sure you want to go the high risk route: You could consider hot stocks or even bonds for companies/countries with lower credit ratings and higher risk. I think an underrated cost of investing is the tax penalties that you pay when you win if you aren't using a tax advantaged account. For your speculating account, you might want to open a self-directed IRA so that you can get access to more of the high risk options that you crave without the tax liability if any of those have a big payout. You want your high-growth money to be in a Roth, because it would be a shame to strike it rich while you're young and then have to pay taxes on it when you're older. If you choose not to make these investments in a tax-advantaged account, try to hold your stocks for a year so you only get taxed at capital gains rates instead of as ordinary income. If you choose to work for a startup, buy your stock options as they vest so that if the company goes public or sells privately, you will have owned those stocks long enough to qualify for capital gains. If you want my actual advice about what I think you should do: I would increase your 401k percentage to at least 10% with or without a match, and keep that in low cost index funds while you're young, but moving some of those investments over to bonds as you get closer to retirement and your risk tolerance declines. Assuming you're not in the 25% tax bracket, all of your money should be in a Roth 401k or IRA because you can withdraw it without being taxed when you retire. The more money you put into those accounts now while you are young, the more time it all has to grow. The real risk of chasing the high-risk returns is that when you bet wrong it will set you back far enough that you will lose the advantage that comes from investing the money while you're young. You're going to have up and down years with your self-selected investments, why not just keep plugging money into the S&P which has its ups and downs, but has always trended up over time?",
"Putting money into a Roth IRA or 401(k) will save you money if your taxes this year will be lower than your taxes in retirement. See also the Wikipedia retirement-savings matrix.",
"Lots of good answers. I'll try and improve by being more brief. For each option you will pay different taxes: Index Fund: Traditional IRA Roth IRA You can see that the Roth IRA is obviously better than investing in a taxable account. It may not be as obvious that the traditional IRA is better as well. The reason is that in the traditional account you can earn returns on the money that otherwise would have gone to the government today. The government taxes that money at the end, but they don't take all of it. In fact, for a given investment amount X and returns R, the decision of Roth vs Traditional depends only on your tax rate now vs at retirement because X(1-tax)(1+R_1)(1+R_2)...(1+R_n) = X(1+R_1)(1+R_2)...(1+R_n)(1-tax) The left hand side is what you will have at retirement if you do a Roth and the right hand side is what you will have at retirement if you do traditional. Only the tax rate differences between now and retirment matter here. An index fund investment is like the left hand side but has some additional tax terms on your capital gains. It's clearly worse than either.",
"As stated in the comments, Index Funds are the way to go. Stocks have the best return on investment, if you can stomach the volatility, and the diversification index funds bring you is unbeatable, while keeping costs low. You don't need an Individual Savings Account (UK), 401(k) (US) or similar, though they would be helpful to boost investment performance. These are tax advantaged accounts; without them you will have to pay taxes on your investment gains. However, there's still a lot to gain from investing, specially if the alternative is to place them in the vault or similar. Bear in mind that inflation makes your money shrink in real terms. Even a small interest is better than no interest. By best I mean that is safe (regulated by the financial authorities, so your money is safe and insured up to a certain amount) and has reasonable fees (keeping costs low is a must in any scenario). The two main concerns when designing your portfolio are diversification and low TER (Total Expense Ratio). As when we chose broker, our concern is to be as safe as we possibly can (diversification helps with this) and to keep costs at the bare minimum. Some issues might restrict your election or make others seem better. Depending on the country you live and the one of the fund, you might have to pay more taxes on gains/dividends. e.g. The US keeps some of them if your country doesn't have a special treaty with them. Look for W-8Ben and tax withholding for more information. Vanguard and Blackrock offer nice index funds. Morningstar might be a good place for gathering information. Don't trust blindly the 'rating'. Some values are 'not rated' and kick ass the 4 star ones. Again: seek low TER. Not a big fan of this point, but I'm bound to mention it. It can be actually helpful for sorting out tax related issues, which might decide the kind of index fund you pick, and if you find this topic somewhat daunting. You start with a good chunk of money, so it might make even more sense in your scenario to hire someone knowledgeable and trustworthy. I hope this helps to get you started. Best of luck.",
"Look at the aristocrat dividend paying stocks (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500_Dividend_Aristocrats). These all pay dividends and have consistently outperformed the S&P 500 - 10.6% vs 7.4% the last ten years. While stocks should not be generally considered for short-term investing, I personally think the market is showing a general up trend for the next few years. Also, the dividends add an additional buffer. Because you would be making regular monthly investments, you should choose a fund that invests in aristocrat stocks so you can set up an automatic depost.",
"If you are looking for an index index fund, I know vanguard offers their Star fund which invests in 11 other funds of theirs and is diversified across stocks, bonds, and short term investments.",
"I'm looking for ways to geared to save for retirement, not general investment. Many mutual fund companies offer a range of target retirement funds for different retirement dates (usually in increments of 5 years). These are funds of funds, that is, a Target 2040 Fund, say, will be invested in five or six different stock and bond mutual funds offered by the same company. Over the years and as the target date approaches closer, the investment mix will change from extra weight given to stock mutual funds towards extra weight being given to bond mutual funds. The disadvantage to these funds is that the Target Fund charges its own expense ratio over and above the expense ratios charged by the mutual funds it invests in: you could do the same investments yourself (or pick your own mix and weighting of various funds) and save the extra expense ratio. However, over the years, as the Target Fund changes its mix, withdrawing money from the stock mutual funds and investing the proceeds into bond mutual funds, you do not have to pay taxes on the profits generated by these transactions except insofar as some part of the profits become distributions from the Target Fund itself. If you were doing the same transactions outside the Target Fund, you would be liable for taxes on the profits when you withdrew money from a stock fund and invested the proceeds into the bond fund.",
"With a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time without penalty as long as you don't withdraw the earnings/interest. There are some circumstances where you can withdraw the earnings such as disability (and maybe first home). Also, the Roth IRA doesn't need to go through your employer and I wouldn't do it through your employer. I have mine setup through Fidelity though I'm not sure if they have any guaranteed 3% return unless it was a CD. All of mine is in stocks. Your wife could also setup a Roth IRA so over 2 years, you could contribute $20,000. If I was you, I would just max out any 403-b matches (which you surely are at 25% of gross income) and then save my down payment money in a normal money market/savings account. You are doing good contributing almost 25% to the 403-b. There are also some income limitations on Roth IRAs. I believe for a married couple, it is $160k.",
"\"I disagree with the IRA suggestion. Why IRA? You're a student, so probably won't get much tax benefits, so why locking the money for 40 years? You can do the same investments through any broker account as in IRA, but be able to cash out in need. 5 years is long enough term to put in a mutual fund or ETF and expect reasonable (>1.25%) gains. You can use the online \"\"analyst\"\" tools that brokers like ETrade or Sharebuilder provide to decide on how to spread your portfolio, 15K is enough for diversifying over several areas. If you want to keep it as cash - check the on-line savings accounts (like Capitol One, for example, or Ally, ING Direct that will merge with Capitol One and others) for better rates, brick and mortar banks can not possible compete with what you can get online.\"",
"I would not suggest closing out your Roth IRA -- Couple of reasons for that - 1) Since you've been contributing to it for 15 years, your investments have probably grown, seen dividends, etc. If you close it out, you will owe taxes and be slapped with a 10% penalty on the growth (money you didn't contribute). That's quite a waste of hard earned money. 2) While your income may exceed the contribution limit of a Roth, you could do what's called a 'backdoor' Roth - which is really just converting your after tax contributions into an IRA into a Roth IRA. 3) Given the length of your contributions your Roth IRA is seasoned (5 years) This allows you to use up to 10k for your house if you chose. (Usually not an option people use) Other than that, consider paying off the student loans with the highest interest first.",
"You can invest another $5,500 in your Roth IRA each year, so you can invest up to $11,000 between the two tax years. Additionally you can make investments for the previous year up until 15 April the following year. In your case that will be close to graduation time, and you may decide to max out the contribution for 2014, but wait until you are settled into a new job before setting those savings aside long-term. When you start your first job, there will likely also be an option to invest in a 401k. You can still have the advantages of a Roth, but you will be limited to the investments available in the plan. Most employers I've seen today still offer a low-cost index fund, but you may have to speak up at a company meeting to pressure them to include one of those options in the plan. With a 401k your limit increases to $17,500/year. Make sure that the index fund you invest in has the lowest possible expense ratio. I use VOO. Depending on trading fees, etc., you might pick something else.",
"Diversification is an important aspect of precious metals investing. Therefore I would suggest diversifying in a number of different ways:",
"Couple of factors here to consider: 1) The savings vehicle 2) The investments Savings Vehicle: Roth IRAs allow you the flexibility to save for retirement and/or your house. Each person can save up to $5,500 in a Roth and you can withdraw your principal at anytime without penalty. (There is a special clause for first time home buyers; however, it limits the amount to $10k per person. Given your estimate of $750k and history of putting down 20%. It would require a bit more.) The only thing is that you can't touch the growth or interest. When you do max out your Roth IRA, it may make sense for you to open a brokerage account (401Ks often have multiple steps in order to convert or withdraw money for your down payment) Investments: Given your timeline (5-7 years) your investments would be more conservative. (More fixed income) While you should stay diversified (both fixed income and equity), the conservative portfolio will allow less fluctuation in your portfolio value while allowing some growth potential.",
"You asked specifically about the ROTH IRA option and stated you want to get the most bang for your buck in retirement. While others have pointed out the benefits of a tax deduction due to using a Traditional IRA instead, I haven't seen anyone point out some of the other differences between ROTH and Traditional, such as: I agree with your thoughts on using an IRA once you maximize the company match into a 401k plan. My reasoning is: I personally prefer ETFs over mutual funds for the ability to get in and out with limit, stop, or OCO orders, at open or anytime mid-day if needed. However, the price for that flexibility is that you risk discounts to NAV for ETFs that you wouldn't have with the equivalent mutual fund. Said another way, you may find yourself selling your ETF for less than the holdings are actually worth. Personally, I value the ability to exit positions at the time of my choosing more highly than the impact of tracking error on NAV. Also, as a final comment to your plan, if it were me I'd personally pay off the student loans with any money I had after contributing enough to my employer 401k to maximize matching. The net effect of paying down the loans is a guaranteed avg 5.3% annually (given what you've said) whereas any investments in 401k or IRA are at risk and have no such guarantee. In fact, with there being reasonable arguments that this has been an excessively long bull market, you might figure your chances of a 5.3% or better return are pretty low for new money put into an IRA or 401k today. That said, I'm long on stocks still, but then I don't have debt besides my mortgage at the moment. If I weren't so conservative, I'd be looking to maximize my leverage in the continued low rate environment.",
"Start a Roth IRA. Keep it in low risk, short term money market or CDs. At this stage, stocks may be premature. As you build up the account, up to $5000/year, at some point, you should start buying an index mutual fund, say one following the S&P. When you are out of school and working for real money, save an emergency account outside the IRA and shift that Roth IRA to be fully invested. My 13 year old has her emergency account, and her Roth IRA to deposit her baby sitting money. It's never too soon to start.",
"You can buy stocks in the IRA, similarly to your regular investment account. Generally, when you open an account with a retail provider like TDAmeritrade, all the options available for you on that account are allowable. Keep in mind that you cannot just deposit money to IRA. There's a limit on how much you can deposit a year ($5500 as of 2015, $6500 for those 50 or older), and there's also a limit on top of that - the amount you deposit into an IRA cannot be more than your total earned income (i.e. income from work). In addition, there are limits on how much of your contribution you can deduct (depending on your income and whether you/your spouse have an employer-sponsored retirement plan).",
"Apply as many deductions as you are legally entitled to. Those are taxes you may never ever pay. Then turn around and put any more monies above the maximum retirement contributions into a taxable account. But this time invest in tax efficient investments. For example, VTI or SPY will incur very minimal taxes and when you withdraw, it will be at lower tax rate (based on current tax laws). Just as you diversify your investments, you also want to diversify your taxes.",
"On the one hand, it's a great idea to open a Roth IRA now, once you've got the cash to contribute. It's a tax designation sounds like it would fit your meager earnings this year. The main reason to open one now rather than later is that some types of withdrawls require the account be aged 5 years. But you can also withdraw the amount you've contributed tax free any time. Student loans right now are pricey, so if you're carrying a balance at say 6.8 percent fixed you should pay that down ASAP. Beyond that, I'd keep the rest liquid for now. Having that kind of liquid cash is extremely reassuring, and many of the biggest returns on investment are going to be in your personal life. More fuel efficient vehicles, energy efficient appliances, computer backups, chest freezers and bulk meat purchases, etc. One example I see every six months is car insurance: I can pay for six months in full or I can pay a smaller monthly bill plus a small fee. That fee is well above current market rates. You see this everywhere; people searching for lower minimum payments rather than lower total costs. Save your money up and be the smart buyer. It's too damn expensive to be broke.",
"I would open a taxable account with the same custodian that manages your Roth IRA (e.g., Vanguard, Fidelity, etc.). Then within the taxable account I would invest the extra money in low cost, broad market index funds that are tax efficient. Unlike in your 401(k) and Roth IRA, you will now have tax implications if your funds produce dividends or realize a capital gain. That is why tax-efficient funds are important to minimize this as much as possible. The 3-fund portfolio is a popular choice for taxable accounts because of simplicity and the tax efficiency of broad market index funds that are part of the three fund portfolio. The 3-fund portfolio normally consists of Depending on your tax bracket you may want to consider municipal bonds in your taxable instead of taxable bonds if your tax bracket is 25% or higher. Another option is to forgo bonds altogether in the taxable account and just hold bonds in retirement accounts while keeping tax efficient domestic and international tock funds in your taxable account. Then adjust the bond portion upward in your retirement accounts to account for the additional stocks in your taxable accounts. This will maintain the asset allocation that you've already chosen that is appropriate for your age and goals.",
"\"A well diversified retirement portfolio is going to have some component in cash or near-liquid investments. So I tend to put it all in one place knowing that I can draw on it (at least from the ROTH account) in the event of an emergency. Obviously, you don't want to do this very often, but hopefully emergencies don't happen often either. You also have to attenuate your idea of an emergency so that it doesn't mean \"\"I didn't get a bonus check this year and can't afford gifts for the kids as nice as last year!\"\"\"",
"\"As other people have indicated, traditional IRAs are tax deductable for a particular year. Please note, though, that traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free) accounts, meaning that you'll have to pay taxes on any money you take out later regardless of why you're making the withdrawal. (A lot of people mistakenly call them tax free, which they're not). There is no such thing as a \"\"tax-free\"\" retirement account. Really, in terms of Roth vs. Traditional IRAs, it's \"\"pay now or pay later.\"\" With the exception of special circumstances like this, I recommend investing exclusively in Roth IRAs for money that you expect to grow much (or that you expect to produce substantial income over time). Just to add a few thoughts on what to actually invest in once you open your IRA, I strongly agree with the advice that you invest mostly in low-cost mutual funds or index funds. The advantage of an open-ended mutual fund is that it's easier to purchase them in odd increments and you may be able to avoid at least some purchase fees, whereas with an ETF you have to buy in multiples of that day's asking price. For example, if you were investing $500 and the ETF costs $200 per share, you could only purchase 2 shares, leaving $100 uninvested (minus whatever fee your broker charged for the purchase). The advantage of an ETF is that it's easy to buy or sell quickly. Usually, when you add money to a mutual fund, it'll take a few days for it to hit your account, and when you want to sell it'll similarly take a few days for you to get your money; when I buy an ETF the transaction can occur almost instantly. The fees can also be lower (if the ETF is just a passive index fund). Also, there's a risk with open-ended mutual funds that if too many people pull money out at once the managers could be forced to sell stocks at an unfavorable price.\"",
"\"There's already an excellent answer here from @BenMiller, but I wanted to expand a bit on Types of Investments with some additional actionable information. You can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds (which are simply collections of stocks and bonds), bank accounts, precious metals, and many other things. Discussing all of these investments in one answer is too broad, but my recommendation is this: If you are investing for retirement, you should be investing in the stock market. However, picking individual stocks is too risky; you need to be diversified in a lot of stocks. Stock mutual funds are a great way to invest in the stock market. So how does one go about actually investing in the stock market in a diversified way? What if you also want to diversify a bit into bonds? Fortunately, in the last several years, several products have come about that do just these things, and are targeted towards newer investors. These are often labeled \"\"robo-advisors\"\". Most even allow you to adjust your allocation according to your risk preferences. Here's a list of the ones I know about: While these products all purport to achieve similar goals of giving you an easy way to obtain a diversified portfolio according to your risk, they differ in the buckets of stocks and funds they put your money into; the careful investor would be wise to compare which specific ETFs they use (e.g. looking at their expense ratios, capitalization, and spreads).\"",
"To answer your question: As far as what's available in addition to your 401(k) at work (most financial types will say to contribute up to the match first), you may qualify for a Roth IRA (qualification is based on income), if not, then you may have to go with a Traditional IRA. You and your husband can each have one and contribute up to the limit each year. After that, you could get just a straight up mutual fund, and/or contribute up to limit on your 401(k). My two cents: This may sound counter-intuitive (and I'm sure some folks will disagree), but instead of contributing to your 401(k) now, take whatever that amount is, and use it to pay extra on the car loan. Also take the extra being paid on the mortgage and pay it on the car loan too. Once the car loan is paid off, then set aside 15% of your gross income and use that amount to start your retirement investing. Any additional money beyond this can then go into the mortgage. Once it's paid off, then you can take the extra you were paying, plus the mortgage and invest that amount into mutual funds. You may want to check out Chris Hogan's Retire Inspired book or podcast as well.",
"\"IRAs have huge tax-advantages. You'll pay taxes when you liquidate gold and silver. While volatile, \"\"the stock market has never produced a loss during any rolling 15-year period (1926-2009)\"\" [PDF]. This is perhaps the most convincing article for retirement accounts over at I Will Teach You To Be Rich. An IRA is just a container for your money and you may invest the money however you like (cash, stocks, funds, etc). A typical investment is the purchase of stocks, bonds, and/or funds containing either or both. Stocks may pay dividends and bonds pay yields. Transactions of these things trigger capital gains (or losses). This happens if you sell or if the fund manager sells pieces of the fund to buy something in its place (i.e. transactions happen without your decision and high turnover can result in huge capital gains). In a taxable account you will pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. In an IRA you don't ever pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. Over the life of the IRA (30+ years) this can be a huge ton of savings. A traditional IRA is funded with pre-tax money and you only pay tax on the withdrawal. Therefore you get more money upfront to invest and more money compounds into greater amounts faster. A Roth IRA you fund with after-tax dollars, but your withdrawals are tax free. Traditional versus Roth comparison calculator. Here are a bunch more IRA and 401k calculators. Take a look at the IRA tax savings for various amounts compared to the same money in a taxable account. Compounding over time will make you rich and there's your reason for starting young. Increases in the value of gold and silver will never touch compounded gains. So tax savings are a huge reason to stash your money in an IRA. You trade liquidity (having to wait until age 59.5) for a heck of a lot more money. Though isn't it nice to be assured that you will have money when you retire? If you aren't going to earn it then, you'll have to earn it now. If you are going to earn it now, you may as well put it in a place that earns you even more. A traditional IRA has penalties for withdrawing before retirement age. With a Roth you can withdraw the principal at anytime without penalty as long as the account has been open 5 years. A traditional IRA requires you take out a certain amount once you reach retirement. A Roth doesn't, which means you can leave money in the account to grow even more. A Roth can be passed on to a spouse after death, and after the spouse's death onto another beneficiary. more on IRA Required Minimum Distributions.\"",
"Well, I was about to ask a similar question. Unless you get into stocks/mutual funds it seems like returns on less risky items such as CDs (certificate of deposit) are terrible. I don't think it is a good use of folks time to ask what a Roth IRA is. We were considering buying a new car (~$20000 with zero down and 0.9% interest rate) but we drive maybe 6000 miles per year. We would be paying ~$550/month to park something in our garage. Our current car is sexless but absolutely reliable. I am now looking elsewhere and may either invest the money in our house (i.e., refinishing upstairs) or paying down our debt. We have a home loan - $132,000 at 3.5% - and a student loan - $12,675 @ 3.375%. Depending on the loan rate on your car, I would pay that down first. Alternatively, find a fee-only broker and drop around $500 for them to come up with a financial plan for you. They will probably recommend a Roth IRA with a specific mutual fund in mind. You'll need $2500 or so to open the Roth, contributions from there should be such that you can start/stop them on demand without fees.",
"diversifying; but isn't that what mutual funds already do? They diversify and reduce stock-specific risk by moving from individual stocks to many stocks, but you can diversify even further by selecting different fund types (e.g. large-cal, small-cap, fixed- income (bond) funds, international, etc.). Your target-date fund probably includes a few different types already, and will automatically reallocate to less risky investments as you get close to the target date. I would look at the fees of different types of funds, and compare them to the historical returns of those funds. You can also use things like morningstar and other ratings as guides, but they are generally very large buckets and may not be much help distinguishing between individual funds. So to answer the question, yes you can diversify further - and probably get better returns (and lower fees) that a target-date fund. The question is - is it worth your time and effort to do so? You're obviously comfortable investing for the long-term, so you might get some benefit by spending a little time looking for different funds to increase your diversification. Note that ETFs don't really diversify any differently than mutual funds, they are just a different mechanism to invest in funds, and allow different trading strategies (trading during the day, derivatives, selling short, etc.).",
"None of your options seem mutually exclusive. Ordinarily nothing stops you from participating in your 401(k), opening an IRA, qualifying for your company's pension, and paying off your debts except your ability to pay for all this stuff. Moreover, you can open an IRA anywhere (scottrade, vanguard, etrade, etc.) and freely invest in vanguard mutual funds as well as those of other companies...you aren't normally locked in to the funds of your IRA provider. Consider a traditional IRA. To me your marginal tax rate of 25% doesn't seem that great. If I were in your shoes I would be more likely to contribute to a traditional IRA instead of a Roth. This will save you taxes today and you can put the extra 25% of $5,500 toward your loans. Yes, you will be taxed on that money when you retire, but I think it's likely your rate will be lower than 25%. Moreover, when you are retired you will already own a house and have paid off all your debt, hopefully. You kind of need money now. Between your current tax rate and your need for money now, I'd say a traditional makes good sense. Buy whatever funds you want. If you want a single, cheap, whole-market fund just buy VTSAX. You will need a minimum of $10K to get in, so until then you can buy the ETF version, VTI. Personally I would contribute enough to your 401(k) to get the match and anything else to an IRA (usually they have more and better investment options). If you max that out, go back to the 401(k). Your investment mix isn't that important. Recent research into target date funds puts them in a poor light. Since there isn't a good benchmark for a target date fund, the managers tend to buy whatever they feel like and it may not be what you would prefer if you were choosing. However, the fund you mention has a pretty low expense ratio and the difference between that and your own allocation to an equity index fund or a blend of equity and bond funds is small in expectation. Plus, you can change your allocation whenever you want. You are not locked in. The investment options you mention are reasonable enough that the difference between portfolios is not critical. More important is optimizing your taxes and paying off your debt in the right order. Your interest rates matter more than term does. Paying off debt with more debt will help you if the new debt has a lower interest rate and it won't if it has a higher interest rate. Normally speaking, longer term debt has a higher interest rate. For that reason shorter term debt, if you can afford it, is generally better. Be cold and calculating with your debt. Always pay off highest interest rate debt first and never pay off cheap debt with expensive debt. If the 25 year debt option is lower than all your other interest rates and will allow you to pay off higher interest rate debt faster, it's a good idea. Otherwise it most likely is not. Do not make debt decisions for psychological reasons (e.g., simplicity). Instead, always chose the option that maximizes your ultimate wealth.",
"One big pie chart. Traditional (pretax) 401(k) and IRA, Roth 401(k) and IRA, and non-tax favored accounts. All of these need to be viewed holistically, the non-favored money is where I'd keep cash/low return safe instruments, Roth IRA for highest growth.",
"Yours two funds are redundant. Both are designed to have a mix of bonds and stocks and allow you to put all your money in them. Pick the one that has the lowest fees and stick with that (I didn't look at the funds you didn't select...they didn't look great either). Although all your funds have high fees, some are higher than others, so don't ignore fees. When you have decided on your portfolio weights, prioritize your money thus: Contribute enough to your 401(k) to get the full match from your employer Put everything else toward paying off that credit card until you have 0 balance. It's ok to use the card, but let it be little enough that you pay your statement balance off each month so you pay no interest. Then set aside some savings and invest any retirement money into a Roth IRA. At your income level your taxes are low so Roth is better than traditional IRA or 401(k). If you max out your Roth, put any other retirement savings in your 401(k).",
"The article links to William Bernstein’s plan that he outlined for Business Insider, which says: Modelling this investment strategy Picking three funds from Google and running some numbers. The international stock index only goes back to April 29th 1996, so a run of 21 years was modelled. Based on 15% of a salary of $550 per month with various annual raises: Broadly speaking, this investment doubles the value of the contributions over two decades. Note: Rebalancing fees are not included in the simulation. Below is the code used to run the simulation. If you have Mathematica you can try with different funds. Notice above how the bond index (VBMFX) preserves value during the 2008 crash. This illustrates the rationale for diversifying across different fund types.",
"Being from the UK, I'd not heard of a Roth IRA, but it sounds very similar to our own ISA (Individual Savings Account). Having just looked it up, I couldn't believe the annual limit was so low: $5500! Still, you have to work within your jurisdiction's legal framework (or agitate for change?). I would definitely agree with Ben Miller's answer: you need different savings buckets for the different savings objectives you'll have throughout the different periods of your life. I, for instance, am now a parent of two young children. I am fortunate to be able to provide for them on multiple levels: I hope that's of some help.",
"If you have other savings, the diversification occurs across the accounts. e.g. my 401(k) has access to the insanely low .02% fee VIIIX (Vanguard S&P fund) You can bet it's 100% in. My IRAs are the other assets that make the full picture look better allocated. A new investor has the issue you suggest, although right now, you can deposit $5500 for 2013, and $5500 for 2014, so with $11K available, you can start with $6 or $9K and start with 2 or 3 funds. Or $9K now, but with $500 left over for the '14 deposit, you can deposit $6K in early '15. The disparity of $3K min/$5500 annual limit is annoying, I agree, but shouldn't be a detriment to your planning.",
"Since you are paying taxes on the distributions from your mutual funds anyway, instead of reinvesting the distributions back into the mutual funds, you could receive them as cash, then contribute them to your Roth IRA once you are able to open one.",
"If you have the cash on hand to pay the tax on the amount you are transferring I recommend moving to a Roth IRA An IRA is tax-deferred. You put in pretax contributions in to an IRA, and you are taxed on that money (your contributions and interest earned) when you withdraw it at retirement, age 59 1/2. The idea being that you will be taking less out per year in your retirement years, putting you into a lower tax bracket. The major problem is most people draw out as much or more a year in their retirement years than when they were working. A Roth IRA grows tax free You put after tax contributions into a Roth IRA, you have paid taxes on the contributions, and you are never taxed on the growth. When you draw the money out at retirement you don't pay any income taxes on that money. Let me give you an example: For this example we will use the following information for both scenario: We will invest $400 per month for a total of $4800. The current maximum is $5000 if you are under 50 years old $400 dollars after taxes is $300 Invest $300 a month, at age 65 you have 3,529,432 You owe no taxes on this money, it doesn't matter how much you take out a year. $400 dollars a month is taken pretax out of your paycheck. Invest $400 per month, at age 65 you have $4,705,909 You owe taxes of 25% as you draw that out for at total tax of 1,176,477 4,705,909 - 1,176,477 = 3,529,432 cash in your pocket The problem is if you draw out more than $82,400 (current 2010 filing single) per year you will be pushed to a higher tax bracket and take more of your money away. If you decide to buy a vacation home and you take out $250,000 to pay for it, that's counted as income for that year any you will be in the 33% tax bracket. Even if you can keep yourself to a low income the government forces your hand and makes you draw out more money at age 70, based on their tables, forcing you into a higher tax bracket",
"\"If you have wage income that is reported on a W2 form, you can contribute the maximum of your wages, what you can afford, or $5500 in a Roth IRA. One advantage of this is that the nominal amounts you contribute can always be removed without tax consequences, so a Roth IRA can be a deep emergency fund (i.e., if the choice is $2000 in cash as emergency fund or $2000 in cash in a 2015 Roth IRA contribution, choice 2 gives you more flexibility and optimistic upside at the risk of not being able to draw on interest/gains until you retire or claim losses on your tax return). If you let April 15 2016 pass by without making a Roth IRA contribution, you lose the 2015 limit forever. If you are presently a student and partially employed, you are most likely in the lowest marginal tax rate you will be in for decades, which utilizes the Roth tax game effectively. If you're estimating \"\"a few hundred\"\", then what you pick as an investment is going to be less important than making the contributions. That is, you can pick any mutual fund that strikes your fancy and be prepared to gain or lose, call it $50/year (or pick a single stock and be prepared to lose it all). At some point, you need to understand your emotions around volatility, and the only tuition for this school is taking a loss and having the presence of mind to examine any panic responses you may have. No reason not to learn this on \"\"a few hundred\"\". While it's not ideal to have losses in a Roth, \"\"a few hundred\"\" is not consequential in the long run. If you're not prepared at this time in your life for the possibility of losing it all (or will need the money within a year or few, as your edit suggests), keep it in cash and try to reduce your expenses to contribute more. Can you contribute another $100? You will have more money at the end of the year than investment choice will likely return.\"",
"I would wait, and invest that money in a Roth IRA. Because taxes are paid on the contributions to a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time, tax and penalty-free. In addition, you can withdraw contributions and earning to purchase your first home.",
"You're misunderstanding the concept of retirement savings. IRA distributions are taxed, in their entirety, as ordinary income. If you withdraw before the retirement age, additional 10% penalty is added. Investment income has preferential treatment - long term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. However, IRA contributions are tax deductible. I.e.: you don't pay taxes on the amounts contributed to the IRA when you earned the money, only when you withdraw. In the mean time, the money is growing, tax free, based on your investments. Anything inside the IRA is tax free, including dividends, distributions (from funds to your IRA, not from IRA to you), capital gains, etc. This is very powerful, when taking into account the compounding effect of reinvesting your dividends/sale proceeds without taking a chunk out for taxes. Consider you make an investment in a fund that appreciated 100% in half a year. You cash out to reinvest in something less volatile to lock the gains. In a regular account - you pay taxes when you sell, based on your brackets. In the IRA you reinvest all of your sale proceeds. That would be ~25-35% more of the gains to reinvest and continue working for you! However, if you decide to withdraw - you pay ordinary rate taxes on the whole amount. If you would invest in a single fund for 30 years in a regular account - you'd pay 20% capital gains tax (on the appreciation, not the dividends). In the IRA, if you invest in the same fund for the same period - you'll pay your ordinary income rates. However, the benefit of reinvesting dividends tax-free softens the blow somewhat, but that's much harder to quantify. Bottom line: if you want to plan for retirement - plan for retirment. Otherwise - IRA is not an investment vehicle. Also consider Roth IRA/conversions. Roth IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement. If your current tax bracket is at 20%, for example, contributing $5K to Roth IRA instead of a traditional will cost you $1K of taxes now, but will save you all the taxes during the retirement (for the distributions from the Roth IRA). It may be very much worth your while, especially if you can contribute directly to Roth IRA (there are some income limitations and phaseouts). You can withdraw contributions (but not earnings) from Roth IRA - something you cannot do with a traditional IRA.",
"I'm afraid you're mistaking 401k as an investment vehicle. It's not. It is a vehicle for retirement. Roth 401k/IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement, and as long as you're in the low tax bracket - it is for your benefit to take advantage of that. However, that is not the money you would be using to start a business or buy a home (except for maybe up to $10K you can withdraw without penalty for first time home buyers, but I wouldn't bother with $10k, if that's what will help you buying a house - maybe you shouldn't be buying at all). In addition, you should make sure you take advantage of the employer 401k match in full. That is free money added to your Traditional 401k retirement savings (taxed at distribution). Once you took the full advantage of the employer's match, and contributed as much as you consider necessary for your retirement above that (there are various retirement calculators on line that can help you in making that determination), everything else will probably go to taxable (regular) savings/investments.",
"\"You don't state a long term goal for your finances in your message, but I'm going to assume you want to retire early, and retire well. :-) any other ideas I'm missing out on? A fairly common way to reach financial independence is to build one or more passive income streams. The money returned by stock investing (capital gains and dividends) is just one such type of stream. Some others include owning rental properties, being a passive owner of a business, and producing goods that earn long-term royalties instead of just an immediate exchange of time & effort for cash. Of these, rental property is probably one of the most well-known and easiest to learn about, so I'd suggest you start with that as a second type of investment if you feel you need to diversify from stock ownership. Especially given your association with the military, it is likely there is a nearby supply of private housing that isn't too expensive (so easier to get started with) and has a high rental demand (so less risk in many ways.) Also, with our continued current low rate environment, now is the time to lock-in long term mortgage rates. Doing so will reap huge benefits as rates and rents will presumably rise from here (though that isn't guaranteed.) Regarding the idea of being a passive business owner, keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily mean starting a business yourself. Instead, you might look to become a partner by investing money with an existing or startup business, or even buying an existing business or franchise. Sometimes, perfectly good business can be transferred for surprisingly little down with the right deal structure. If you're creative in any way, producing goods to earn long-term royalties might be a useful path to go down. Writing books, articles, etc. is just one example of this. There are other opportunities depending on your interests and skill, but remember, the focus ought to be on passive royalties rather than trading time and effort for immediate money. You only have so many hours in a year. Would you rather spend 100 hours to earn $100 every year for 20 years, or have to spend 100 hours per year for 20 years to earn that same $100 every year? .... All that being said, while you're way ahead of the game for the average person of your age ($30k cash, $20k stocks, unknown TSP balance, low expenses,) I'm not sure I'd recommend trying to diversify quite yet. For one thing, I think you need to keep some amount of your $30k as cash to cover emergency situations. Typically people would say 6 months living expenses for covering employment gaps, but as you are in the military I don't think it's as likely you'll lose your job! So instead, I'd approach it as \"\"How much of this cash do I need over the next 5 years?\"\" That is, sum up $X for the car, $Y for fun & travel, $Z for emergencies, etc. Keep that amount as cash for now. Beyond that, I'd put the balance in your brokerage and get it working hard for you now. (I don't think an average of a 3% div yield is too hard to achieve even when picking a safe, conservative portfolio. Though you do run the risk of capital losses if invested.) Once your total portfolio (TSP + brokerage) is $100k* or more, then consider pulling the trigger on a second passive income stream by splitting off some of your brokerage balance. Until then, keep learning what you can about stock investing and also start the learning process on additional streams. Always keep an eye out for any opportunistic ways to kick additional streams off early if you can find a low cost entry. (*) The $100k number is admittedly a rough guess pulled from the air. I just think splitting your efforts and money prior to this will limit your opportunities to get a good start on any additional streams. Yes, you could do it earlier, but probably only with increased risk (lower capital means less opportunities to pick from, lower knowledge levels -- both stock investing and property rental) also increase risk of making bad choices.\"",
"The S&P 500 is a stock market index, which is a list of 500 stocks from the largest companies in America. You could open a brokerage account with a broker and buy shares in each of these companies, but the easiest, least expensive way to invest in all these stocks is to invest in an S&P 500 index mutual fund. Inside an index mutual fund, your money will be pooled together with everyone else in the fund to purchase all the stocks in the index. These types of funds are very low expense compared to managed mutual funds. Most mutual fund companies have an S&P 500 index fund; two examples are Vanguard and Fidelity. The minimum investment in most of these mutual funds is low enough that you will be able to open an account with your $4000. Something you need to keep in mind, however: investing in any stock mutual fund is not non-risk. It's not even low-risk, really. It is very possible to lose money by investing in the stock market. An S&P 500 index fund is diversified in the sense that you have money in lots of different stocks, but it is also not diversified, in a sense, because it is all in large cap American stocks. Before investing in the stock market, you should have a goal for the money you are investing. If you are investing for something several years away, an index fund can be a good place to invest, but if you will need this money within the next few years, the stock market might be too risky for you."
] |
[
"\"Yep, most 401k options suck. You'll have access to a couple dozen funds that have been blessed by the organization that manages your account. I recently rolled my 401k over into a self-directed IRA at Fidelity, and I have access to the entire mutual fund market, and can trade stocks/bonds if I wish. As for a practical solution for your situation: the options you've given us are worryingly vague -- hopefully you're able to do research on what positions these funds hold and make your own determination. Quick overview: Energy / Utilities: Doing good right now because they are low-risk, generally high dividends. These will underperform in the short-term as the market recovers. Health Care: riskier, and many firms are facing a sizable patent cliff. I am avoiding this sector. Emerging Markets: I'm also avoiding this due to the volatility and accounting issues, but it's up to you. Most large US companies have \"\"emerging markets\"\" exposure, so not necessary for to invest in a dedicated fund in my unprofessional opinion. Bonds: Avoid. Bonds are at their highest levels in decades. Short-term they might be ok; but medium-term, the only place to go is down. All of this depends on your age, and your own particular investment objectives. Don't listen to me or anyone else without doing your own research.\"",
"Without making specific recommendations, it is worthwhile to point out the differing tax treatments for a Roth IRA: investments in a Roth IRA will not be taxed when you withdraw them during retirement (unless they change the law on that or something crazy). So if you are thinking about investing in some areas with high risk and high potential reward (e.g. emerging market stocks) then the Roth IRA might be the place to do it. That way, if the investment works out, you have more money in the account that won't ever be taxed. We can talk about the possible risks of certain kinds of investments, but this is not an appropriate forum to recommend for or against them specifically. Healthcare stocks are subject to political risk in the current regulatory climate. BRICs are subject to political risks regarding the political and business climate in the relevant nations, and the growth of their economies need not correspond with growth in the companies you hold in your portfolio. Energy stocks are subject to the world economic climate and demand for oil, unless you're talking alternative-energy stocks, which are subject to political risk regarding their subsidies and technological risk regarding whether or not their technologies pan out. It is worth pointing out that any ETF you invest in will have a prospectus, and that prospectus will contain a section discussing the risks which could affect your investment. Read it before investing! :)"
] |
9381
|
Trade? Buy and hold? Or both?
|
[
"408123",
"384983"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"442005",
"408123",
"304398",
"83807",
"384983",
"528518",
"144349",
"113099",
"534010",
"299284",
"319793",
"428117",
"371195",
"341481",
"18532",
"25671",
"19113",
"123880",
"398900",
"220608",
"167404",
"337142",
"284075",
"180644",
"41905",
"392826",
"69308",
"111091",
"38510",
"41625",
"458244",
"442727",
"63176",
"577832",
"198957",
"239714",
"29502",
"240996",
"19184",
"484823",
"292609",
"471911",
"224695",
"227479",
"206063",
"103622",
"83046",
"162420",
"222900",
"296516",
"548705",
"135646",
"215542",
"488546",
"131127",
"113786",
"297429",
"563271",
"528475",
"534887",
"541335",
"280099",
"490525",
"155242",
"500452",
"166220",
"333265",
"552707",
"2376",
"139368",
"220665",
"504301",
"302808",
"187404",
"295277",
"453256",
"370995",
"279072",
"263955",
"554910",
"57393",
"199642",
"34241",
"422739",
"169408",
"329450",
"23387",
"428141",
"508610",
"107751",
"215296",
"542765",
"402306",
"510268",
"598295",
"7074",
"267756",
"24846",
"593521",
"346894"
] |
[
"> From what I hear and know you sell when you're up and buy when it's down. That *is* how profit is attained. However, if you're looking to *invest,* both buy and sell decisions should be made after extensive research and, generally, there should be some time between the two offsetting transactions. If you personally decide to *trade*, which is more often and less likely to succeed (per se), that's up to you.",
"\"You don't seem to be a big fan of trading as you may think it may be too risky or too time consuming being in front of your computer all day long. You also don't seem to be a fan of buy and hold as you don't know what your investments will be worth when you need the funds. How about a combination of the two, sometimes called trend trading or active investing. With this type of trading/investing you may hold a stock from a couple of months to many years. Once you buy a stock that is up-trending or starting to up-trend you hold onto it until it stops up-trending. You can use a combination of fundamental analysis (to find out what to buy) and technical analysis (to tell you when to buy and when to sell). So these are some topics you can start reading up on. Using a technique like this will enable you to invest in healthy stocks when they are moving up in price and get out of them when they start moving down in price. There are many techniques you can use to get out of a stock, but the simplest has to be using stop losses. And once you learn and set up your system it should not take up much of your time when you actually do start trading/investing - 2 to 3 hours per week, and you can set yourself up that you analyse the market after the close and place any order so they get executed the next trading day without you being in front or the screen all day. Other areas you might want to read and learn about are writing up a Trading Plan, using Position Sizing and Money Management so you don't overtrade in any one single trade, and Risk Management. A good book I quite liked is \"\"Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom\"\" by Van Tharp. Good luck.\"",
"Determine an investment strategy and that will likely answer this for you. Different people have different approaches and you need to determine for yourself what buy and sell criteria you want to have. Again, depending on the strategy there can be a wide range here as some may trade index funds though this can backfire in some cases. In others, there can be a lot of buy and hold if one finds an index fund to hold forever which depending on the strategy is possible. Returns can vary widely as an index can be everything from buying gold stocks in Russia to investing in short-term Treasuries as there are many different indices as any given market can have an index which could be stocks, bonds, a combination of the two or something else in some cases so please consider asset allocation, types of accounts, risk tolerance and time horizon in making decisions or consider using a financial planner to assist in drawing up a plan with allocations and how frequently you want to rebalance as my suggestion here.",
"\"You should establish a strategy -- eg a specific mix of investments/funds which has the long-term tradeofv of risk, returns, and diversification you want -- and stick to that strategy, rebalancing periodically to maintain your strategic ratios betwedn those investments. Yes, that means you will somettimes sell things that have been doing well and buy others that have been doing less well -- but that's to be expected; it's exactly what happens when you \"\"buy low, sell high\"\".\"",
"\"You mentioned three concepts: (1) trading (2) diversification (3) buy and hold. Trading with any frequency is for people who want to manage their investments as a hobby or profession. You do not seem to be in that category. Diversification is a critical element of any investment strategy. No matter what you do, you should be diversified. All the way would be best (this means owning at least some of every asset out there). The usual way to do this is to own a mutual or index fund. Or several. These funds own hundreds or thousands of stocks, so that buying the fund instantly diversifies you. Buy and hold is the only reasonable approach to a portfolio for someone who is not interested in spending a lot of time managing it. There's no reason to think a buy-and-hold portfolio will underperform a typical traded portfolio, nor that the gains will come later. It's the assets in the portfolio that determine how aggressive/risky it is, not the frequency with which it is traded. This isn't really a site for specific recommendations, but I'll provide a quick idea: Buy a couple of index funds that cover the whole universe of investments. Index funds have low expenses and are the cheapest/easiest way to diversify. Buy a \"\"total stock market\"\" fund and a \"\"total bond fund\"\" in a ratio that you like. If you want, also buy an \"\"international fund.\"\" If you want specific tickers and ratios, another forum would be better(or just ask your broker or 401(k) provider). The bogleheads forum is one that I respect where people are very happy to give and debate specific recommendations. At the end of the day, responsibly managing your investment portfolio is not rocket science and shouldn't occupy a lot of time or worry. Just choose a few funds with low expenses that cover all the assets you are really interested in, put your money in them in a reasonable-ish ratio (no one knows that the best ratio is) and then forget about it.\"",
"Buy and hold doesn't have an exact definition, as far as I know. In my opinion, it's offered as a contrast to those who trade too frequently, or panic every time the market drops 2%. For the general market, e.g. your S&P index holdings. You sell to rebalance to your desired asset allocation. As a personal example, at 50, I was full up invested, 95%+ in stocks. When my wife and I were retired (i.e. let go from company, but with no need to go back to work) I started shifting to get to a more sane allocation, 80/20. The ideal mix may be closer to 60/40. Also, there are times the market as a whole is overvalued as measure by P/E and/or CAPE, made popular by Nobel Prize winning Robert Shiller. During these times, an allocation shift might make sense. For the individual stocks, you had best have a strategy when you buy. Why did you buy XYZ? Because they had promise, decent company with a good outlook for their product? Now that they are up 300%, can they keep gaining share or expand their market? Sometimes you can keep raising the bar, and keep a company long term, really long. Other times, the reason you bought no longer applies, they are at or above the valuation you hoped to achieve. Note - I noticed from another question, the OP is in the UK. I answer this my from US centric view, but it should still apply to OP in general. The question was not tagged UK when I replied.",
"Depends on what you are, an investor or a speculator. An investor will look at an 'indefinite' investment period. A speculator will be after a fast buck. If you are an investor, buy your stock once as that will cost less commissions. After all, you'll sell your stock in 10, 15, 20 years.",
"\"If you're investing for the long term your best strategy is going to be a buy-and-hold strategy, or even just buying a few index funds in several major asset classes and forgetting about it. Following \"\"market conditions\"\" is about as useful to the long term trader as checking the weather in Anchorage, Alaska every day (assuming that you don't live in Anchorage, Alaska). Let me suggest treating yourself to a subscription to The Economist and read it once a week. You'll learn a lot more about investing, economics, and world trends, and you won't be completely in the dark if there are major structural changes in the world (like gigantic housing bubbles) that you might want to know about.\"",
"I think your best strategy is to learn more about the behavior of what you're investing in. Learn everything you can about it. Specialize in it. The more you study, the more the proper strategy will present itself. Answer the questions you ask in paragraph 3 through your own study.",
"The advice I have is short and sweet. Be an investor, not a speculator. Adopt the philosophy of Warren Buffet which is the 'buy and hold' philosophy. Avoid individual stocks and buy mutual funds or ETFs. Pick something that pays dividends and reinvest those dividends. Don't become a speculator, meaning avoid the 'buy low, sell high' philosophy. EDIT:For some reason I cannot add a comment, so I am putting my response here. @jad The 'buy low, sell high' approach makes money for the stock broker, not necessarily you. As we learn in the movie Trading Places, each buy or sell creates a commission for the broker. It is those commission expenses that eat away at your nestegg. Just don't sell. If a security is trading at $10 a share and pays $0.25 a share each quarter then you are getting 10% ROI if you buy that security (and if it continues to pay $0.25 a share each quarter). If the price goes up then the ROI for new buyers will go down, but your ROI will still be the same. You will continue to get 10% for as long as you hold that security. A mutual fund buys the individual stocks for you. The value of the fund is only calculated at the end of the day. An ETF is like a mutual fund but the value of the ETF is calculated moment by moment.",
"You talk about an individual not being advised to sell (or purchase) in response to trends in the market in such a buy and hold strategy. But think of this for a moment: You buy stock ABC for $10 when both the market as a whole and stock ABC are near the bottom of a bear market as say part of a value buying strategy. You've now held stock ABC for a number of years and it is performing well hitting $50. There is all good news about stock ABC, profit increases year after year in double digits. Would you consider selling this stock just because it has increased 400%. It could start falling in a general market crash or it could keep going up to $100 or more. Maybe a better strategy to sell ABC would be to place a trailing stop of say 20% on the highest price reached by the stock. So if ABC falls, say in a general market correction, by less than 20% off its high and then rebounds and goes higher - you keep it. If ABC however falls by more than 20% off its high you automatically sell it with your stop loss order. You may give 20% back to the market if the market or the stock crashes, but if the stock continues going up you benefit from more upside in the price. Take AAPL as an example, if you bought AAPL in March 2009, after the GFC, for about $100, would you have sold it in December 2011 when it hit $400. If you did you would have left money on the table. If instead you placed a trailing stop loss on AAPL of 20% you would have been still in it when it hit its high of $702 in September 2012. You would have finally been stopped out in November 2012 for around the $560 mark, and made an extra $160 per share. And if your thinking, how about if I decided to sell AAPL at $700, well I don't think many would have picked $700 as the high in hindsight. The main benefit of using stop losses is that it takes your emotions out of your trading, especially your exits.",
"\"You seem to prefer to trade like I do: \"\"Buy low, sell high.\"\" But there are some people that prefer a different way: \"\"Buy high, sell higher.\"\" A stock that has \"\"just appreciated\"\" is \"\"in motion.\"\" That is a \"\"promise\"\" (not always kept) that it will continue to go higher. Some people want stocks that not only go higher, but also SOON. The disadvantage of \"\"buy low, sell high\"\" is that the stock can stay low for some time. So that's a strategy for patient investors like you and me.\"",
"\"The only general rule is \"\"If you would buy the stock at its current price, hold and possibly buy. If you wouldn't, sell and buy something you believe in more strongly.\"\" Note that this rule applies no matter what the stock is doing. And that it leaves out the hard work of evaluating the stock and making those decisions. If you don't know how to do that evaluation to your own satisfaction, you probably shouldn't be buying individual stocks. Which is why I stick with index funds.\"",
"True, but the number of investors who are successful with this strategy is negligible. You are basically just trading return for volatility. A well built portfolio will be better than trying to time the market, at least historically.",
"Every time you buy or sell a share for some price, somebody must have thought that that was exactly the right moment to sell or buy that share at that price (and to trade with you). Every time a trade is made, both sides think they are doing the smart thing. Most of the time, one will turn out to be wrong, the other right. Nothing in your proposed method of trading explains why you would be the side that was right more often. So they'll probably even out. Or maybe there are people in the market who actually do have a slightly better than average method, and you'll be wrong somewhat more often than right. Each trade has transaction costs. If you simply hang on to your shares, that's more or less the same as evening out good trades and bad trades, but without the transaction costs.",
"The main question is, how much money you want to make? With every transaction, you should calculate the real price as the price plus costs. For example, if you but 10 GreatCorp stock of £100 each, and the transaction cost is £20 , then the real cost of buying a single share is in fact buying price of stock + broker costs / amount bought, or £104 in this case. Now you want to make a profit so calculate your desired profit margin. You want to receive a sales price of buying price + profit margin + broker costs / amount bought. Suppose that you'd like 5%, then you'll need the price per stock of my example to increase to 100 + 5% + £40 / 10 = £109. So you it only becomes worth while if you feel confident that GreatCorp's stock will rise to that level. Read the yearly balance of that company to see if they don't have any debt, and are profitable. Look at their dividend earning history. Study the stock's candle graphs of the last ten years or so, to find out if there's no seasonal effects, and if the stock performs well overall. Get to know the company well. You should only buy GreatCorp shares after doing your homework. But what about switching to another stock of LovelyInc? Actually it doesn't matter, since it's best to separate transactions. Sell your GreatCorp's stock when it has reached the desired profit margin or if it seems it is underperforming. Cut your losses! Make the calculations for LovelyCorp's shares without reference to GreatCorp's, and decide like that if it's worth while to buy.",
"Like almost all investing question: it depends! Boring companies generally appreciate slowly and as you note, pay dividends. More speculative investing can get you some capital gains, but also are more likely to tank and have you lose your original investment. The longer your time horizon, and the more risk you are willing to take, then it is reasonable to tilt towards, but not exclusively invest in, more speculative stocks. A shorter horizon, or if you have trouble sleeping at night if you lose money, or are looking for an income stream, would then tend towards the boring side. Good Luck",
"The two biggest issues that impact your question I would say are diversification and fees. If you have $10,000 to invest and only invest it in two securities, then a 20% drop in one security can have you lose 10% of your initial investment which I would consider a very high risk scenario. If you have $10,000 to invest and invest it in 20 securities, then a 20% drop in one security would only cause you to lose 1% of your initial investment. So far this is looking better from a diversification point of view. But then the issue of fees comes in. If you paid $10 per trade to buy those 20 securities you already spent 2% of your initial investment in fees! Not to mention you will pay at least another $200 to get out of all those positions. No right answer - but those are the two factors I always try to balance.",
"Trading and investing are very, very different activities. Investing is (very generally) done for the longer haul, by people looking for a reasonable return, determined largely by the long term prospects of the business in which they invest, accepting some moderate risk, usually around the prospects of that business. Trading is (very generally) done shorter term (seconds to days/weeks), and can involve significantly higher risk, usually focused around market conditions and players at the time of the trade. To reiterate, these are gross generalizations, but if you are just starting out: (a) you probably want to be investing, rather than trading; and (b) you may be best served by understanding as well as you can the difference between the two. Once you understand that difference, that will lead you to learning resources on each.",
"\"Selling as well as buying a stock are part science and part art form. I remember once selling a stock at its 52 week high too. That particular stock \"\"quadrupled\"\" in value over the next 52 weeks. Mind you I made 50% ROI on the stock but my point is that none of us have a crystal ball on whether a particular stock will ever stop or start going up or stop or start going down. If someone had those answers they wouldn't be telling you they would be practicing them to make more money! Make up your mind what you want to make and stick by your decisions. Bulls make money when stocks go up and Bears make money when they go down but pigs don't make money. -RobF\"",
"Instead of a simple buy signal, you need to be able to rank your investments from strong to weak on the buy scale and sell the weaker investments that you already own to buy the stronger investments that you have received signals from.",
"I let someone else pick and chose which junk bonds to buy and which to sell. So instead of holding individual bonds in my portfolio I hold an ETF that is managed by a man with a PHD and which buys junk bonds. I get a yearly 15.5% ROI, paid monthly. Buy and hold and you can get a good return for the rest of your life. It is only speculation when you sell.",
"The right time to buy real estate is easy to spot. It's when it is difficult to get loans or when real estate agents selling homes are tripping over each other. It's the wrong time to buy when houses are sold within hours of the sign going up. The way to profit from equities over time is to dollar-cost average a diversified portfolio over time, while keeping cash reserves of 5-15% around. When major corrections strike, buy a little extra. You can make money at trading. But it requires that you exert a consistent effort and stay up to date on your investments and future prospects.",
"Your question is a bit odd in that you are mixing long-term fundamental analysis signals which are generally meant to work on longer time frames with medium term trading where these fundamental signals are mostly irrelevant. Generally you would buy-and-hold on a fundamental signal and ride the short-term fluctuations if you believe you have done good analysis. If you would like to trade on the 2-6 month time scale you would need a signal that works on that sort of time scale. Some people believe that technical analysis can give you those kind of signals, but there are many, many, many different technical signals and how you would trade using them is highly dependent on which one you believe works. Some people do mix fundamental and technical signals, but that can be very complicated. Learning a good amount about technical analysis could get you started. I will note, though, that studies of non-professionals continuously show that the more frequently people trade the more on they underperform on average in the long term when compared with people that buy-and-hold. An aside on technical analysis: michael's comment is generally correct though not well explained. Say Bob found a technical signal that works and he believes that a stock that costs $10 dollars should be $11. He buys it and makes money two months later when the rest of the market figures out the right price is $11 and he sells at that price. This works a bunch of times and he now publishes how the signal works on Stack Exchange to show everyone how awesome he is. Next time, Bob's signal finds a different stock at $10 that should be $11, but Anna just wrote a computer program that checks that signal Bob published faster than he ever could. The computer program buys as much as it can in milliseconds until the price is $11. Bob goes to buy, but now it is too late the price is already $11 and he can't make any money. Eventually, people learn to anticipate/adjust for this signal and even Anna's algorithms don't even work anymore and the hunt for new signals starts again.",
"Dollar cost averaging is beneficial if you don't have the money to make large investments but are able to add to your holding over time. If you can buy the same monetary amount at regular intervals over time, your average cost per share will be lower than the stock's average value over that time. This won't necessarily get you the best price, but it will get you, on the whole, a good price and will enable you to increase your holdings over time. If you're doing frequent trading on a highly volatile stock, you don't want to use this method. A better strategy is to buy the dips: Know the range, and place limit orders toward the bottom of the range. Then place limit orders to sell toward the high end of the range. If you do it right, you might be able to build up enough money to buy and sell increasing numbers of shares over time. But like any frequent trader, you'll have to deal with transaction fees; you'll need to be sure the fees don't eat all your profit.",
"It doesn't matter which way you use. As long as your comfortable with the overall level of risk/reward in your portfolio, that's what matters. (Though I will say that there are more investment vehicles than stocks, bonds, and cash that are worth considering.)",
"Like @chirs, I'm of the opinion that you might want to buy more. I've done this a couple of times, price dropped a bunch, and I said, heck, I bought some last week, and this week I can get twice as much stock for about the same price. Brought down my average cost per share, and when the company was taken private, I actually didn't lose money - unlike some other people I know, who only bought at one price, watched the drop, and held on awaiting a recovery (which didn't happen in time before the big money swooped in on it). But to do this, you need to keep cash reserves (that, like @afforess says, you can afford to lose all of) on hand, awaiting buying opportunities. This, too, is a cost - an opportunity cost.",
"\"Unfortunately, there is very little data supporting fundamental analysis or technical analysis as appropriate tools to \"\"time\"\" the market. I will be so bold to say that technical analysis is meaningless. On the other hand, fundamental analysis has some merits. For example, the realization that CDOs were filled with toxic mortgages can be considered a product of fundamental analysis and hence provided traders with a directional assumption to buy CDSs. However, there is no way to tell when there is a good or bad time to buy or sell. The market behaves like a random 50/50 motion. There are many reasons for this and interestingly, there are many fundamentally sound companies that take large dips for no reason at all. Depending on your goal, you can either believe that this volatility will smooth over long periods and that the market has generally positive drift. On the other hand, I feel that the appropriate approach is to remain active. You will be able to mitigate the large downswings by simply staying small and diversifying - not in the sense of traditional finance but rather looking for uncorrelated products. Remember, volatility brings higher levels of correlation. My second suggestion is to look towards products like options to provide a method of shaping your P/L - giving up upside by selling calls against a long equity position is a great example. Ground your trades with fundamental beliefs if need be, but use your tools and knowledge to combat risks that may create long periods of drawdown.\"",
"1) Don't trade individual stocks. You expose yourself to unnecessary risk. 2) Pick a fund with low expenses that pays a dividend. Reinvest the dividend back into the fund. To quote Einstein: The greatest power on earth is compound interest. Something is wrong with the software of the site. It will not allow me to answer mark with another comment. So I have to edit this answer to be able to answer him. @mark No, I am not hoping the price will go up. The price is only relevant in comparison to the dividend. It is the dividend that is important, not the price. The price is irrelevant if you never sell. Dividend paying securities are what you buy and hold. Then you reinvest the dividend and buy more of the security. As I am buying the security with the dividend I am actually pleasantly surprised when the price goes down. When the price goes down, but the dividend remains the same, I am able to buy more shares of the security withwith that dividend. So if the price goes down, and the dividend remains the same, it is a good thing. Again, the site will not allow me to add another comment. @mark I profit from my investment, without selling, by receiving the dividend. I used to be a speculator, trying to get ahead of the market by 'buy low, sell high' but all that did was make money for the broker. I lost as much as I gained trying to do that. The broker made money on each transaction, regardless if I did or not. It took me decades to learn the lesson that 'buy and hold' of dividend paying securities is the way to go. Don't make my mistake. I now get, at least, 5.5% yeald on my investment (look at PGF, which forms the backbone of my investments). That is almost 0.5% per month. Each month that dividend is reinvested into PGF, with no commission. You can't beat that with a stick.",
"\"Oddly enough, in the USA, there are enough cost and tax savings between buy-and-hold of a static portfolio and buying into a fund that a few brokerages have sprung up around the concept, such as FolioFN, to make it easier for small investors to manage numerous small holdings via fractional shares and no commission window trades. A static buy-and-hold portfolio of stocks can be had for a few dollars per trade. Buying into a fund involves various annual and one time fees that are quoted as percentages of the investment. Even 1-2% can be a lot, especially if it is every year. Typically, a US mutual fund must send out a 1099 tax form to each investor, stating that investors share of the dividends and capital gains for each year. The true impact of this is not obvious until you get a tax bill for gains that you did not enjoy, which can happen when you buy into a fund late in the year that has realized capital gains. What fund investors sometimes fail to appreciate is that they are taxed both on their own holding period of fund shares and the fund's capital gains distributions determined by the fund's holding period of its investments. For example, if ABC tech fund bought Google stock several years ago for $100/share, and sold it for $500/share in the same year you bought into the ABC fund, then you will receive a \"\"capital gains distribution\"\" on your 1099 that will include some dollar amount, which is considered your share of that long-term profit for tax purposes. The amount is not customized for your holding period, capital gains are distributed pro-rata among all current fund shareholders as of the ex-distribution date. Morningstar tracks this as Potential Capital Gains Exposure and so there is a way to check this possibility before investing. Funds who have unsold losers in their portfolio are also affected by these same rules, have been called \"\"free rides\"\" because those funds, if they find some winners, will have losers that they can sell simultaneously with the winners to remain tax neutral. See \"\"On the Lookout for Tax Traps and Free Riders\"\", Morningstar, pdf In contrast, buying-and-holding a portfolio does not attract any capital gains taxes until the stocks in the portfolio are sold at a profit. A fund often is actively managed. That is, experts will alter the portfolio from time to time or advise the fund to buy or sell particular investments. Note however, that even the experts are required to tell you that \"\"past performance is no guarantee of future results.\"\"\"",
"\"'Buy and Hold' Is Still a Winner: An investor who used index funds and stayed the course could have earned satisfactory returns even during the first decade of the 21st century. by By Burton G. Malkiel in The Wall Street Journal on November 18, 2010: \"\"The other useful technique is \"\"rebalancing,\"\" keeping the portfolio asset allocation consistent with the investor's risk tolerance. For example, suppose an investor was most comfortable choosing an initial allocation of 60% equities, 40% bonds. As stock and bond prices change, these proportions will change as well. Rebalancing involves selling some of the asset class whose share is above the desired allocation and putting the money into the other asset class. From 1996 through 1999, annually rebalancing such a portfolio improved its return by 1 and 1/3 percentage points per year versus a strategy of making no changes.\"\" Mr. Malkiel is a professor of economics at Princeton University. This op-ed was adapted from the upcoming 10th edition of his book \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street,\"\" out in December by W.W. Norton. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608623469465624.html\"",
"\"Bob should treat both positions as incomplete, and explore a viewpoint which does a better job of separating value from volatility. So we should start by recognizing that what Bob is really doing is trading pieces of paper (say Stocks from Fund #1 or Bonds from Fund #2, to pick historically volatile and non-volatile instruments.*) for pieces of paper (Greenbacks). In the end, this is a trade, and should always be thought of as such. Does Bob value his stocks more than his bonds? Then he should probably draw from Fund #2. If he values his bonds more, he should probably draw from Fund #1. However, both Bob and his financial adviser demonstrate an assumption: that an instrument, whether stock bond or dollar bill, has some intrinsic value (which may raise over time). The issue is whether its perceived value is a good measure of its actual value or not. From this perspective, we can see the stock (Fund #1) as having an actual value that grows quickly (6.5% - 1.85% = 4.65%), and the bond (Fund #2) as having an actual value that grows slower (4.5% - 1.15$ = 3.35$). Now the perceived value of the stocks is highly volatile. The Chairman of the Fed sneezes and a high velocity trader drives a stock up or down at a rate that would give you whiplash. This perspective aligns with the broker's opinion. If the stocks are low, it means their perceived value is artificially low, and selling it would be a mistake because the market is perceiving those pieces of paper as being worth less than they actually are. In this case, Bob wins by keeping the stocks, and selling bonds, because the stocks are perceived as undervalued, and thus are worth keeping until perceptions change. On the other hand, consider the assumption we carefully slid into the argument without any fanfare: the assumption that the actual value of the stock aligns with its historical value. \"\"Past performance does not predict future results.\"\" Its entirely possible that the actual value of the stocks is actually much lower than the historical value, and that it was the perceived value that was artificially higher. It may be continuing to do so... who knows how overvalued the perceived value actually was! In this case, Bob wins by keeping the bonds. In this case, the stocks may have \"\"underperformed\"\" to drive perceptions towards their actual value, and Bob has a great chance to get out from under this market. The reality is somewhere between them. The actual values are moving, and the perceived values are moving, and the world mixes them up enough to make Scratchers lottery tickets look like a decent investment instrument. So what can we do? Bob's broker has a smart idea, he's just not fully explaining it because it is unprofessional to do so. Historically speaking, Bobs who lost a bunch of money in the stock market are poor judges of where the stock market is going next (arguably, you should be talking to the Joes who made a bunch of money. They might have more of a clue.). Humans are emotional beings, and we have an emotional instinct to cut ties when things start to go south. The market preys on emotional thinkers, happily giving them what they want in exchange for taking some of their money. Bob's broker is quoting a well recognized phrase that is a polite way of saying \"\"you are being emotional in your judgement, and here is a phrasing to suggest you should temper that judgement.\"\" Of course the broker may also not know what they're doing! (I've seen arguments that they don't!) Plenty of people listened to their brokers all the way to the great crash of 2008. Brokers are human too, they just put their emotions in different places. So now Bob has no clear voice to listen to. Sounds like a trap! However, there is a solution. Bob should think about more than just simple dollars. Bob should think about the rest of his life, and where he would like the risk to appear. If Bob draws from Fund #1 (liquidating stocks), then Bob has made a choice to realize any losses or gains early... specifically now. He may win, he may lose. However, no matter what, he will have a less volatile portfolio, and thus he can rely on it more in the long run. If Bob draws from Fund #2 (liquidating bonds) instead, then Bob has made a choice not to realize any losses or gains right away. He may win, he may lose. However, whether he wins or loses will not be clear, perhaps until retirement when he needs to draw on that money, and finds Fund #1 is still under-performing, so he has to work a few more years before retirement. There is a magical assumption that the stock market will always continue rewarding risk takers, but no one has quite been able to prove it! Once Bob includes his life perspective in the mix, and doesn't look just at the cold hard dollars on the table, Bob can make a more educated decision. Just to throw more options on the table, Bob might rationally choose to do any one of a number of other options which are not extremes, in order to find a happy medium that best fits Bob's life needs: * I intentionally chose to label Fund #1 as stocks and Fund #2 as bonds, even though this is a terribly crude assumption, because I feel those words have an emotional attachment associated to them which #1 and #2 simply do not. Given that part of the argument is that emotions play a part, it seemed reasonable to dig into underlying emotional biases as part of my wording. Feel free to replace words as you see fit to remove this bias if desired.\"",
"I believe firmly that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Cash your gains out and be happy with your profit.",
"Your question seems to be making assumptions around “investing”, that investing is only about stock market and bonds or similar things. I would suggest that you should look much broader than that in terms of your investments. Investment Types Your should consider (and include) some or all of the following for your investments, depending on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. I love @Blackjack’s explanation of diversification into other asset classes producing a lower risk portfolio. Excellent! All the above need to be considered in this spread of risk, depending as I said earlier on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. Stock Market Investment I’ll focus most of the rest of my post on the stock markets, as that is where my main experience lies. But the comments are applicable to a greater or lesser extent to other types of investing. We then come to how engaged you want to be with your investments. Two general management styles are passive investment management versus active investment management. @Blackjack says That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs across asset classes and just leave them. The difficulty with this idea is that profitability is very dependent upon when the stocks are purchased and when they are sold. This is why active investing should be considered as a viable alternative to passive investment. I don’t have access to a very long time frame of stock market data, but I do have 30 or so years of FTSE data, so let’s say that we invest £100,000 for 10 years by buying an ETF in the FTSE100 index. I know this isn't de-risking across a number of asset classes by purchasing a number of different EFTs, but the logic still applies, if you will bear with me. Passive Investing I have chosen my example dates of best 10 years and worst 10 years as specific dates that demonstrate my point that active investing will (usually) out-perform passive investing. From a passive investing point of view, here is a graph of the FTSE with two purchase dates chosen (for maximum effect), to show the best and worst return you could receive. Note this ignores brokerage and other fees. In these time frames of data I have … These are contrived dates to illustrate the point, on how ineffective passive investing can be, depending if there is a bear/bull market and where you buy in the cycle. One obviously wouldn’t buy all their stocks in one tranche, but I’m just trying to illustrate the point. Active Investing Let’s consider now active investing. I use the following rules for selling and buying:- This is obviously a very simple technical trading system and I would not recommend using it to trade with, as it is overly simplistic and there are some flaws and inefficiencies in it. So, in my simulation, These beat the passive stock market profit for their respective dates. Summary Passive stock market investing is dependent upon the entry and exit prices on the dates the transactions are made and will trade regardless of market cycles. Active stock market trading or investing engages with the market using a set of criteria, which can change over time, but allows one’s investments to be in or out of the market at any point in time. My time frames were arbitrary, but with the logic applied (which is a very simple technical trading methodology), I would suggest that any 10 year time frame active investing would beat passive investing.",
"I would add to this that, while everyone is right on trading, there are certain special situations you could look into that could turn a profit in a relatively short time frame (one month, say). A recent example is Northstar Realty Finance (NRF). I bought in at $16.50 prior to a spinoff, sold half (the spinoff company) at $18.75 within a month, and the other half (the REIT) has since paid a 50 cent dividend and gone up to mid $18s as well within a total of just over 2 months. (This admittedly sounds like bragging, which isn't intended- I just want to give an example of a short term position resulting in a gain, and I don't know any off the top of my head except the one I did recently). This isn't trading, but it is a short term position that would have turned a profit with $1800. I still wouldn't recommend it, considering commissions eats a sizable portion. But if you want to take short term positions, you don't need as much as you would to be a day trader. I would read Seth Klarman's Margin of Safety, the sections on spinoffs and bankruptcy. They provide some useful information on some short term positions. However, also be aware that you should be willing to hold any short term position as a long term position if it does not immediately work out. By way of example, I believed NRF would go up post spinoff but the spinoff company stay the same. Instead, NRF stayed the same and the spinoff went up. But NRF was undervalued, so I held it for another month. Just my advice. As far as learning goes- use play money. But if you never are going to have enough money to really trade with, hopefully my info on short-term positions is helpful.",
"\"I have heard that investing more money into an investment which has gone down is generally a bad idea*. \"\"Throwing good money after bad\"\" so to speak. This is over simplified statement to explain the concept. What is essentially says is; Say I hold stocks of XYZ; 100 units worth say USD 1000. This has lost me x% [say 50%]. The general tendency is to buy 100 more units in anticipation / hope that the price will go up. This is incorrect. However on case to case basis, this maybe the right decisions. On a periodic basis [or whenever you want to invest more money]; say you have USD 1000 and did not have the stock of XYZ, will you buy this at current price and outlook of the company. If the answer is Yes, hold the stock [or buy more], if the answer is no sell the stock at current market price and take the loss. The same applies when the price has appreciated. If you have USD 1000; given the current price and future outlook, will you buy the specific stock. If yes, hold the stock [or buy more], if answer is no sell the stock and book profit. Off-course I have not overlaid the various other considerations when buying stocks like diversification, risk profiles of individual stocks / segments, tax implications etc that are also essential even if you decide to buy or sell specific stock.\"",
"You pay taxes on any gains you make after selling, so if you buy and hold you won't pay taxes (and you should hold for more than a year so that it gets taxed at the long-term rate, not the short-term rate). I like ETFs, there are some good ones Vanguard offers that are fairly broad, or you can use something like www.Betterment.com which invests in a diversified portfolio of ETFs (and includes things like automatic re-balancing and tax-loss harvesting).",
"If you want to use that money and maybe don't have the time to wait a few years if things should go bad, than you will definitely want to hold a good bunch of your money in the currency you buy most stuff with (so in most cases the currency of the country you live in) even if it is more volatile.",
"I agree with this. I like to buy stocks that are priced low according to value investing principles but set limits to sell if the stock happens to get priced at a point that exceeds X% annualized return, for instance 15% or 30% depending on preference. If the price goes up, I cash out and find the next best value stock and repeat. If the price does not go up, then I hold it which is fine because I only buy what I'm comfortable with holding for the long term. I tend to prefer stocks that have a dividend yield in the 2-6% range so I can keep earning a return. Also I too like the look of MCD. GE looks good as well, from this perspective.",
"For me the aggressive approach makes sense since I have a longer time horizon before I need to withdraw the funds. This style should also match your personality and you should have the patience and appetite to deal with market fluctuations which can be wild in some cases (as we saw in 2008-2009). Not an easy question to answer since everyone's situation is different and everyone has to make their own decisions.",
"The risk of the particular share moving up or down is same for both. however in terms of mitigating the risk, Investor A is conservative on upside, ie will exit if he gets 10%, while is ready to take unlimited downside ... his belief is that things will not go worse .. While Investor B is wants to make at least 10% less than peak value and in general is less risk averse as he will sell his position the moment the price hits 10% less than max [peak value] So it more like how do you mitigate a risk, as to which one is wise depends on your belief and the loss appetite",
"Depends entirely on the stock and your perception of it. Would you buy it at the current price? If so, keep it. Would you buy something else? If so, sell it and buy that.",
"\"Below is just a little information on this topic from my small unique book \"\"The small stock trader\"\": The most significant non-company-specific factor affecting stock price is the market sentiment, while the most significant company-specific factor is the earning power of the company. Perhaps it would be safe to say that technical analysis is more related to psychology/emotions, while fundamental analysis is more related to reason – that is why it is said that fundamental analysis tells you what to trade and technical analysis tells you when to trade. Thus, many stock traders use technical analysis as a timing tool for their entry and exit points. Technical analysis is more suitable for short-term trading and works best with large caps, for stock prices of large caps are more correlated with the general market, while small caps are more affected by company-specific news and speculation…: Perhaps small stock traders should not waste a lot of time on fundamental analysis; avoid overanalyzing the financial position, market position, and management of the focus companies. It is difficult to make wise trading decisions based only on fundamental analysis (company-specific news accounts for only about 25 percent of stock price fluctuations). There are only a few important figures and ratios to look at, such as: perhaps also: Furthermore, single ratios and figures do not tell much, so it is wise to use a few ratios and figures in combination. You should look at their trends and also compare them with the company’s main competitors and the industry average. Preferably, you want to see trend improvements in these above-mentioned figures and ratios, or at least some stability when the times are tough. Despite all the exotic names found in technical analysis, simply put, it is the study of supply and demand for the stock, in order to predict and follow the trend. Many stock traders claim stock price just represents the current supply and demand for that stock and moves to the greater side of the forces of supply and demand. If you focus on a few simple small caps, perhaps you should just use the basic principles of technical analysis, such as: I have no doubt that there are different ways to make money in the stock market. Some may succeed purely on the basis of technical analysis, some purely due to fundamental analysis, and others from a combination of these two like most of the great stock traders have done (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen). It is just a matter of finding out what best fits your personality. I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of \"\"The small stock trader\"\")\"",
"It really depends on your specific goals. Since you are considering trading FOREX, I assume you hate money. It's more efficient to withdraw your money from the bank and light it on fire. Perhaps you like trading FOREX like some old ladies like to gamble away their social security checks. Well then its impossible to answer your question as it is based upon personal preference.",
"My own. Could be a pair trade or outright. I take positions that i believe i can sell later. Or short them then buy back from client. I usually have a lot of small positions and several large ones that i watch like a hawk every day all day. I mostly trade safer big cap stocks. Banks, insurance etc. nothing too risky. No penny stocks. I hedge with etfs.",
"If you know with 100% certainty what the market will do, then invest it all at the best time. If not, spread it out over time to avoid investing it all at the worst possible time.",
"If you know what you are doing, bear markets offer fantastic trading opportunities. I'm a futures and futures options trader, and am equally comfortable trading long or short, although I have a slight preference for the short side, in that moves are typically much quicker to the down side.",
"\"I think, the top three answers by Joe, Anthony and Bigh are giving you all the detail that you need on a technical sense. Although I would like to add a simple picture that underlines, that you can not really compare day trading to long-term trading and that the addictive and psychologic aspect that you mentioned can not be taken out of consideration. The long term investor is like someone buying a house for investment. You carefully look at all offers on the market. You choose by many factors, price, location, quality, environment, neighborhood and extras. After a long research, you pick your favorites and give them a closer look until you finally choose the object of desire, which will pay off in 10 years and will be a wise investment in your future. Now this sounds like a careful but smart person, who knows what he wants and has enough patience to have his earnings in the future. The short term investor is like someone running into the casino for a game of black-jack, roulette or poker. He is a person that thinks he has found the one and only formula, the philosopher's stone, the money-press and is seeking immense profits in just one night. And if it does not work, he is sure, that this was just bad coincidence and that his \"\"formula\"\" is correct and will work the next night. This person is a pure gambler and running the risk of becoming addicted. He is seeking quick and massive profits and does not give up, even though he knows, that the chances of becoming a millionaire in a casino are quite unrealistic and not better than playing in a lottery. So if you are a gamer, and the profit is less important than the \"\"fun\"\", then short term is the thing for you. If you are not necessarily seeking tons of millions, but just want to keep your risk of loss to a minimum, then long term is your way to go. So it is a question of personality, expectations and priorities. The answer why losses are bigger on high frequency signals is answered elsewhere. But I am convinced in reality it is a question of what you want and therefore very subjective. I have worked for both. I have worked for a portfolio company that has gone through periods of ups and downs, but on the long term has made a very tempting profit, which made me regret, that I did not ask for shares instead of money as payment. These people are very calm and intelligent people. They spend all their time investigating and searching for interesting objects for their portfolio and replace losers with winners. They are working for your money and investors just relax and wait. This has a very serious taste to it and I for my part would always prefer this form of investment. I have worked for an investment broker selling futures. I programmed the account management for their customers and in all those years I have only seen one customer that made the million. But tons of customers that had made huge losses. And this company was very emotional, harsh, unpersonal - employees changing day by day, top sellers coming in corvettes. All the people working there where gamblers, just like their customers. Well, it ended one day, when the police came and confiscated all computers from them, because customers have complained about their huge losses. I am glad, that I worked as a remote developer for them and got paid in money and not in options. So both worlds are so different from each other. The chances for bigger profits are higher on day trading, but so are the chances for bigger losses - so it is pure gambling. If you like gambling, split your investment: half in long term and other half in short term, that is fun and wise in one. But one thing is for sure: in over ten years, I have seen many customers loosing loads of money in options in the future markets or currencies. But I have never seen anyone making a loss in long term portfolio investment. There have been hard years, where the value dropped almost 30%, but that was caught up by the following years, so that the only risk was minimizing the profit.\"",
"Small purchases will have a disproportionate expense for commissions. Even a $5 trade fee is 5% on a $100 purchase. So on one hand, it's common to advise individuals just starting out to use mutual funds, specifically index funds with low fees. On the flip side, holding stocks has no annual fee, and if you are buying for the long term, you may still be better off with an eye toward cost, and learn over time. In theory, an individual stands a better chance to beat the experts for a number of reasons, no shareholders to answer to, and the ability to purchase without any disclosure, among them. In reality, most investor lag the average by such a wide margin, they'd be best off indexing and staying in for the long term.",
"If the market has not crashed but you know it will, sell short or buy puts. If the market has crashed, buy equities while they are cheap. If you don't know if or when it will crash hold a diversified portfolio including stocks, bonds, real estate, and alternatives (gold, etc).",
"This investment strategy may have tax advantages. In some countries, income received from dividends is taxed as income, whereas profits on share trades are capital gains. If you have already exceeded your tax-free income limit for the year, but not your capital gains tax allowance, it may be preferable to make a dealing profit rather than an investment income. These arrangements are called a bed-and-breakfast.",
"Yeah, that's what I do, just buy the indices and forget it. My portfolio is so boring it's elegant, and makes money too. 4.5% YTD and 5.9% in 2016, not bad for a 30/70 stock bond split for this 70-year-old. Oh, did I tell you my costs are .06%! I am enjoying the freedom of my retirement.",
"\"What determines your profitability is not your time, but your TRADES. It is probably a mistake to go into the market and say, I hope to make X% today/this month/this year. As a practical matter, you can make a lot of money in a short period of time, or lose a lot over a long period of time (the latter is more likely). You're better off looking at potential trades and saying \"\"I like this trade\"\" (be sure to know why) and \"\"I dislike that trade.\"\" If you're right about your chosen trade, you'll make money. Probably not on your original timetable, because markets react more slowly than individual people do. Then make ONLY those trades that you genuinely like and understand. IF you get into a \"\"rhythm,\"\" (rather few people do), your experience might tell you that you are likely to make, say, X% per month or year. But that's ONLY if the market continues to accommodate YOUR style of trading. If the markets change, YOU must change (or get lost in the shuffle). Trading is a risky, if sometimes rewarding business. The operative motto here is: \"\"You pay your money and you take your chances,\"\" NOT \"\"You put in your time and eventually rewards will come.\"\"\"",
"Recommended? There's really no perfect answer. You need to know the motivations of the participants in the markets that you will be participating in. For instance, the stock market's purpose is to raise capital (make as much money as possible), whereas the commodities-futures market's purpose is to hedge against producing actual goods. The participants in both markets have different reactions to changes in price.",
"\"You asked for advice, so I'll offer it. Trying to time the market is not a great strategy unless you're sitting in front of a Bloomberg terminal all the time. Another person answering your question suggests the use of index funds; he's likely to be right. Look up \"\"asset allocation.\"\" What you want to do is decide that you want your portfolio to contain, for example: If one of your stock holdings goes up far enough that you're out of your target asset allocation ranges, sell some of it and buy something in another asset class,s so you're back in balance. That way you lock in some profit when things go up, without losing access to potential future profits. The same applies if something goes down; you buy more of that asset class by selling others. This has worked really well for me for 30+ years.\"",
"\"There are two umbrellas in investing: active management and passive management. Passive management is based on the idea \"\"you can't beat the market.\"\" Passive investors believe in the efficient markets hypothesis: \"\"the market interprets all information about an asset, so price is equal to underlying value\"\". Another idea in this field is that there's a minimum risk associated with any given return. You can't increase your expected return without assuming more risk. To see it graphically: As expected return goes up, so does risk. If we stat with a portfolio of 100 bonds, then remove 30 bonds and add 30 stocks, we'll have a portfolio that's 70% bonds/30% stocks. Turns out that this makes expected return increase and lower risk because of diversification. Markowitz showed that you could reduce the overall portfolio risk by adding a riskier, but uncorrelated, asset! Basically, if your entire portfolio is US stocks, then you'll lose money whenever US stocks fall. But, if you have half US stocks, quarter US bonds, and quarter European stocks, then even if the US market tanks, half your portfolio will be unaffected (theoretically). Adding different types of uncorrelated assets can reduce risk and increase returns. Let's tie this all together. We should get a variety of stocks to reduce our risk, and we can't beat the market by security selection. Ideally, we ought to buy nearly every stock in the market so that So what's our solution? Why, the exchange traded fund (ETF) of course! An ETF is basically a bunch of stocks that trade as a single ticker symbol. For example, consider the SPDR S&P 500 (SPY). You can purchase a unit of \"\"SPY\"\" and it will move up/down proportional to the S&P 500. This gives us diversification among stocks, to prevent any significant downside while limiting our upside. How do we diversify across asset classes? Luckily, we can purchase ETF's for almost anything: Gold ETF's (commodities), US bond ETF's (domestic bonds), International stock ETFs, Intl. bonds ETFs, etc. So, we can buy ETF's to give us exposure to various asset classes, thus diversifying among asset classes and within each asset class. Determining what % of our portfolio to put in any given asset class is known as asset allocation and some people say up to 90% of portfolio returns can be determined by asset allocation. That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs across asset classes and just leave them. You can readjust your portfolio holdings periodically, but otherwise there is no rapid trading. Now the other umbrella is active management. The unifying idea is that you can generate superior returns by stock selection. Active investors reject the idea of efficient markets. A classic and time proven strategy is value investing. After the collapse of 07/08, bank stocks greatly fell, but all the other stocks fell with them. Some stocks worth $100 were selling for $50. Value investors quickly snapped up these stocks because they had a margin of safety. Even if the stock didn't go back to 100, it could go up to $80 or $90 eventually, and investors profit. The main ideas in value investing are: have a big margin of safety, look at a company's fundamentals (earnings, book value, etc), and see if it promises adequate return. Coke has tremendous earnings and it's a great company, but it's so large that you're never going to make 20% profits on it annually, because it just can't grow that fast. Another field of active investing is technical analysis. As opposed to the \"\"fundamental analysis\"\" of value investing, technical analysis involves looking at charts for patterns, and looking at stock history to determine future paths. Things like resistance points and trend lines also play a role. Technical analysts believe that stocks are just ticker symbols and that you can use guidelines to predict where they're headed. Another type of active investing is day trading. This basically involves buying and selling stocks every hour or every minute or just at a rapid pace. Day traders don't hold onto investments for very long, and are always trying to predict the market in the short term and take advantage of it. Many individual investors are also day traders. The other question is, how do you choose a strategy? The short answer is: pick whatever works for you. The long answer is: Day trading and technical analysis is a lot of luck. If there are consistent systems for trading , then people are keeping them secret, because there is no book that you can read and become a consistent trader. High frequency trading (HFT) is an area where people basically mint money, but it s more technology and less actual investing, and would not be categorized as day trading. Benjamin Graham once said: In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run it is a weighing machine. Value investing will work because there's evidence for it throughout history, but you need a certain temperament for it and most people don't have that. Furthermore, it takes a lot of time to adequately study stocks, and people with day jobs can't devote that kind of time. So there you have it. This is my opinion and by no means definitive, but I hope you have a starting point to continue your study. I included the theory in the beginning because there are too many monkeys on CNBC and the news who just don't understand fundamental economics and finance, and there's no sense in applying a theory until you can understand why it works and when it doesn't.\"",
"Chris Rea's comment captures it -- most people don't have working crystal balls. Unless you are a trader, you address risk with diversification. There are several questions on this site discussing strategies to diversify your portfolio. In many ways, the markets offer investors false choices. We have an emotional desire to react to stimuli -- but that often leads to lousy outcomes. For example, selling your NASDAQ 100 fund after its value falls is usually a bad idea.",
"If you're a person of normal means, being a short-term trader/speculator is a game that you are going to lose. Don't do it -- do some research on investing.",
"\"This is an old post I feel requires some more love for completeness. Though several responses have mentioned the inherent risks that currency speculation, leverage, and frequent trading of stocks or currencies bring about, more information, and possibly a combination of answers, is necessary to fully answer this question. My answer should probably not be the answer, just some additional information to help aid your (and others') decision(s). Firstly, as a retail investor, don't trade forex. Period. Major currency pairs arguably make up the most efficient market in the world, and as a layman, that puts you at a severe disadvantage. You mentioned you were a student—since you have something else to do other than trade currencies, implicitly you cannot spend all of your time researching, monitoring, and investigating the various (infinite) drivers of currency return. Since major financial institutions such as banks, broker-dealers, hedge-funds, brokerages, inter-dealer-brokers, mutual funds, ETF companies, etc..., do have highly intelligent people researching, monitoring, and investigating the various drivers of currency return at all times, you're unlikely to win against the opposing trader. Not impossible to win, just improbable; over time, that probability will rob you clean. Secondly, investing in individual businesses can be a worthwhile endeavor and, especially as a young student, one that could pay dividends (pun intended!) for a very long time. That being said, what I mentioned above also holds true for many large-capitalization equities—there are thousands, maybe millions, of very intelligent people who do nothing other than research a few individual stocks and are often paid quite handsomely to do so. As with forex, you will often be at a severe informational disadvantage when trading. So, view any purchase of a stock as a very long-term commitment—at least five years. And if you're going to invest in a stock, you must review the company's financial history—that means poring through 10-K/Q for several years (I typically examine a minimum ten years of financial statements) and reading the notes to the financial statements. Read the yearly MD&A (quarterly is usually too volatile to be useful for long term investors) – management discussion and analysis – but remember, management pays themselves with your money. I assure you: management will always place a cherry on top, even if that cherry does not exist. If you are a shareholder, any expense the company pays is partially an expense of yours—never forget that no matter how small a position, you have partial ownership of the business in which you're invested. Thirdly, I need to address the stark contrast and often (but not always!) deep conflict between the concepts of investment and speculation. According to Seth Klarman, written on page 21 in his famous Margin of Safety, \"\"both investments and speculations can be bought and sold. Both typically fluctuate in price and can thus appear to generate investment returns. But there is one critical difference: investments throw off cash flow for the benefit of the owners; speculations do not. The return to the owners of speculations depends exclusively on the vagaries of the resale market.\"\" This seems simple and it is; but do not underestimate the profound distinction Mr. Klarman makes here. (and ask yourself—will forex pay you cash flows while you have a position on?) A simple litmus test prior to purchasing a stock might help to differentiate between investment and speculation: at what price are you willing to sell, and why? I typically require the answer to be at least 50% higher than the current salable price (so that I have a margin of safety) and that I will never sell unless there is a material operating change, accounting fraud, or more generally, regime change within the industry in which my company operates. Furthermore, I then research what types of operating changes will alter my opinion and how severe they need to be prior to a liquidation. I then write this in a journal to keep myself honest. This is the personal aspect to investing, the kind of thing you learn only by doing yourself—and it takes a lifetime to master. You can try various methodologies (there are tons of books) but overall just be cautious. Money lost does not return on its own. I've just scratched the surface of a 200,000 page investing book you need to read if you'd like to do this professionally or as a hobbyist. If this seems like too much or you want to wait until you've more time to research, consider index investing strategies (I won't delve into these here). And because I'm an investment professional: please do not interpret anything you've read here as personal advice or as a solicitation to buy or sell any securities or types of securities, whatsoever. This has been provided for general informational purposes only. Contact a financial advisor to review your personal circumstances such as time horizon, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, and asset allocation strategies. Again, nothing written herein should be construed as individual advice.\"",
"\"Typical Human Advisor: Advantages: They can recommend funds and allocations that fit to your portfolio. Disadvantages: Those who are just fund salespeople in disguise will usually recommend poor-performing funds for higher commission pay. Their advice will not be much different from random person internet advice. When your portfolio drops, they still get paid, and they don't care because they are not a fiduciary. Robo-Advisor: Advantages: Rules are automated, and typically based on crunched numbers. Somebody else executes the trades, and remembers to rebalance your portfolio when you'd usually forget to. Disadvantages: Not always accurate, usually relies on momentum from popularity. No one at the helm to adjust for risk. If you follow, you'll usually just lag behind. Yet, those with simple, low-cost diversified ETF portfolios can be attractive. Market ETFs: Advantages: Low cost funds that typically match the market. High performance. Easy to sell when you need to, zero decision making required, and you will be sure to nearly match the general market. Disadvantages: Boring. You need to enter your own orders, but you won't be doing that too often. No thrill except counting all the commas in your account. No wacky stories to wow your friends and family about your gambling addiction. Seriously, some people just can't help but take the high risk route. Newsletter / Portfolio / Online \"\"Expert\"\": Advantages: They usually have some idea of what indicators to look for and can make predictions about price movements. Disadvantages: Predictions are as frequently wrong as they are right. Good ones won't have much to say, and incompetent ones will write multi-paragraph essays about Fibonacci sequences, resistance levels, trends RSI, ROIT, everything that might show an indicator in some direction maybe... and it's usually forgotten by the next newsletter.\"",
"Yes, you should own a diverse mix of company sizes to be well diversified. While both will probably get hit in a recession, different economies suit different sized companies very differently in many cases, and this diversity positions you best to not only not miss out in cases where small companies do better out of recessions than large, but also in environments where small companies rate of growth is larger in bull markets.",
"Well said. To put it shortly I think both can be a viable source of some side income when proper risk management is in place. It is likely not going to work when you are trading/betting with money that is important to you. Paper trade/bet until you find a viable strategy. Then use proper bankroll management and some expendable income to pick up some extra bucks on the side. Sports betting is nice because the initial investment is much lower than day trading.",
"Split the difference. Max it out, sell half immediately and wait a year or more for the rest. Or keep a third... whatever works for your risk tolerance. A perfectly diversified portfolio with $0 in it is still worth $0.",
"You have to look at the market conditions and make decisions based on them. Ideally, you may want to have 30% of your portfolio in bonds. But from a practical point of view, it's probably not so smart to invest in bond funds right at this moment given the interest rate market. Styles of funds tend to go into and out of style. I personally do asset allocation two ways in my 457 plan (like a 401k for government workers): In my IRA, I invest in a portfolio of 5-6 stocks. The approach you take is dependent on what you are able to put into it. I invest about 10 hours a week into investment related research. If you can't do that, you want a strategy that is simpler -- but you still need to be cognizant of market conditions.",
"As one of the answers described, its going to depend on many factors and the environment at the time. But there is no sure way to know which strategy is better, if any are at all. I would say over several hundred years the strategies would be equally as profitable. In a free market the longer dated bonds would be priced lower (higher yield) because they are higher risk. And over a long enough time period that higher risk may end up resulting in that bond being worth less, or maybe nothing at all. In a free market, price discovery would factor all this in, and the two strategies would become equal. The same is true for the price during inversion events Having said that, we dont live in a free market. With central bankers monetizing debt in so many countries, sometimes investing in short term bonds, including US treasuries, is a guaranteed way to lose purchasing power, as these yields are below inflation and sometimes even negative.",
"I would advise against both, at least in the way you are discussing it. You seem to be talking about day-trading (speculating) in either stock or currency markets. This seems ill-advised. In each trade, one of three things will happen. You will end up ahead and the person you buy from/sell to will end up behind. You will lose and the counterparty will win. Or you both will lose due to trading fees. That said, if you must do one, stick with stocks. They have a reason to have positive returns overall, while currency trade is net-zero. Additionally, as you said, if it sounds like you can gain more with less money, that means that there are many more losers than winners. How do you know you will be a winner? A lot of the reason for this idea that you can gain a lot with less is leverage; make sure you understand it well. On the other hand, it may make sense to learn this lesson now while you have little to lose.",
"Common financial advice is just that - it is common and general in nature and not specific for your financial needs, your goals and your risk tolerance. Regarding the possibility of a US market not going anywhere over a long period of time, well it is not a possibility, it has happened. See chart below: It took 13 years for the S&P 500 to break through 1550, a level first reached in March 2000, tested in October 2007 (just before the GFC) and finally broken through in March 2013. If you had bought in early 2000 you would still be behind when you take inflation into account. If you took the strategy of dollar cost averaging and bought the same dollar value (say $10,000) of the index every six months (beginning of each January and each July) starting from the start of 2000 and bought your last portion in January 2013, you would have a return of about 35% over 13.5 years (or an average of 2.6% per year). Now lets look at the same chart below, but this time add some trend lines. If we instead bought whenever the price crossed above the downtrend-line and sold whenever the price crossed below the uptrend-line (with the first purchase at the start of January 2000), we would have a return of 93% over the 13.5 years (or an average of 6.9% per year). Another more aggressive option (but manageable if you incorporate a risk management strategy) is to buy long when the price crosses the downtrend-line and sell your existing long position and sell short when the price drops below the uptrend-line. That is profiting both up-trending and down-trending markets. Again we start our buying at the start of January 2000. By shorting the index when the market is in a down-trend you could increase the above returns of 93% by another 54%, for a total return of 147% over 13.5 years (or an average of 10.9% per year). To conclude, using a simple long term strategy to time the markets may result in considerably higher returns than dollar cost averaging over the medium to long term, and I know which strategy would help me sleep better at night.",
"\"The psychology of investing is fascinating. I buy a stock that's out of favor at $10, and sell half at a 400% profit, $50/share. Then another half at $100, figuring you don't ever lose taking a profit. Now my Apple shares are over $500, but I only have 100. The $10 purchase was risky as Apple pre-iPod wasn't a company that was guaranteed to survive. The only intelligent advice I can offer is to look at your holdings frequently, and ask, \"\"would I buy this stock today given its fundamentals and price?\"\" If you wouldn't buy it, you shouldn't hold it. (This is in contrast to the company ratings you see of buy, hold, sell. If I should hold it, but you shouldn't buy it to hold, that makes no sense to me.) Disclaimer - I am old and have decided stock picking is tough. Most of our retirement accounts are indexed to the S&P. Maybe 10% is in individual stocks. The amount my stocks lag the index is less than my friends spend going to Vegas, so I'm happy with the results. Most people would be far better off indexing than picking stocks.\"",
"It depends on whether you want a career as a fund manager/ analyst or if you want to be an investor/ trader. A fund manager will have many constraints that a private investor doesn’t have, as they are managing other people’s money. If they do invest their own money as well they usually would invest it differently from how they invest the fund's money. Many would just get someone else to invest their money for them, just as a surgeon would get another surgeon to operate on a family member. My suggestion to you is to find a job you like doing and build up your savings. Whilst you are building up your savings read some books. You said you don’t know much about the financial markets, then learn about them. Get yourself a working knowledge about both fundamental and technical analysis. Work out which method of analysis (if not both) suits you best and you would like to know more about. As you read you will get a better idea if you prefer to be a long term investor or a short term trader or somewhere in-between or a combination of various methods. Now you will start to get an idea of what type of books and areas of analysis you would like to concentrate on. Once you have a better idea of what you would like to do and have gained some knowledge, then you can develop your investment/trading plan and start paper trading. Once you are happy with you plan and your paper trading you can start trading with a small account balance (not more than $10,000 and preferably under $5,000). No matter how well you did with paper trading you will always do worse with real money at first due to your emotions being in it now. So always start off small. If you want to become good at something it takes time and a lot of hard work. You can’t go from knowing nothing to making a million dollars per year without putting in the hard yards first.",
"Diversifying is the first advice given to beginner in order to avoid big loss. For example in 2014 the company Theranos was really appealing before it fail in 2016. So a beginner could have invest ALL his money and lose it. But if he has deverified he wouldn't lost everything. As an investor goes from beginner to experience some still Diversify and other concentrate. Mostly it depends how much confident you are about an investement. If you have 20 years of experience, now everything about the company and you are sure there will be profit you can concentrate. If you are not 100% sure there will be a profit, it is better to Diversify. Diversifying can also be profitating when you loose money: because you will pay tax when you earn money, if you diversify you can choose to loose money in some stock (usually in december) and in this way cut your taxes.",
"Here's an easy test... Look at the investments in your portfolio and ask yourself whether if you had the cash value, would you buy those same investments today, because effectively that is what you are doing when you continue to hold. If the answer is no, sell and pick something else. Above all else, don't react to market swings, in most cases you are going to get it wrong and wind up losing more by making emotional decisions.",
"What decision are you trying to make? Are you interested day trading stocks to make it rich? Or are you looking at your investment options and trying to decide between an actively managed mutual fund and an ETF? If the former, then precise statistics are hard to come by, but I believe that 99% of day traders would do better investing in an ETF. If the latter, then there are lots of studies that show that most actively managed funds do worse than index funds, so with most actively managed funds you are paying higher fees for worse performance. Here is a quote from the Bogleheads Guide to Investing: Index funds outperform approximately 80 percent of all actively managed funds over long periods of time. They do so for one simple reason: rock-bottom costs. In a random market, we don't know what future returns will be. However, we do know that an investor who keeps his or her costs low will earn a higher return than one who does not. That's the indexer's edge. Many people believe that your best option for investing is a diverse portfolio of ETFs, like this. This is what I do.",
"If the company is stable. I like to recoup losses by buying in the valley and selling it all at the plateau and then learning as all beginners do, don't buy stocks because there's a feeding frenzy...or because Joe told me too. Pick your strategy in stocks and learn to stick with that. If you have no strategy, buy land.",
"I would buy an ETF (or maybe a couple) in stable, blue chip companies with a decent yield (~3%) and then I'd play a conservative covered call strategy on the stock selling a new position about once a month. That's just me.",
"> It will have minimal effects on buy & hold traders since they typically research for a long time, then buy & hold stock for many months. This is the part I never understand. If a short term tax doesn't affect buy & hold traders, when why would HFT affect buy & hold traders?",
"I bought 1000 shares of a $10 stock. When it doubled, I sold half, no need to be greedy. I watched the shares split 2 for one, and sold as it doubled and doubled again. In the end, I had $50,000 in cash pulled out and still had 100 shares. The shares are now worth $84K since they split 7 for one and trade near $120. Had I just kept the shares till now, no sales, I'd have 14,000 shares of Apple worth $1.68M dollars. $130K for an initial $10,000 investment is nothing to complain about, but yes, taking a profit can be the wrong thing. 25%? Was that all the potential the company had? There's one question to ask, not where is the price today compared to last year or two years ago, but what are the company's prospects. Is the reason I bought them still valid? Look at your investment each quarter as if you were making the decision that day. I agree, diversification is important, so the choice is only hold or sell, not to buy more of a good company, because there are others out there, and the one sane thing Cramer says that everyone should adhere to is to not put your eggs in one basket.",
"\"My theory is that for every stock you buy, you should have an exit strategy and follow it. It is too hard to let emotions rule if you let your default strategy be \"\"let's see what happens.\"\" and emotional investing will almost never serve you well. So before buying a stock, set a maximum loss and maximum gain that you will watch for on the stock, and when it hits that number sell. At the very least, when it hits one of your numbers, consciously make a decision that you are effectively buying it again at the current price if you decide to stay in. When you do this, set a new high and low price and repeat the above strategy.\"",
"If you are diversifying just for diversification purposes then all you are doing is averaging down your returns. You shouldn't just buy two securities because you think it is safer than putting all your money into one. A better method is to use money management and position sizing to limit your risk and exposure in any one security. You should know what your maximum risk is before you buy any security and know when it is time to get out of it. There are better ways to manage your risk. Don't put all your eggs in the one basket - yes, but don't diversify just for diversification purposes.",
"\"This is basically martingale, which there is a lot of research on. Basically in bets that have positive expected value such as inflation hedged assets this works better over the long term, than bets that have negative expected value such as table games at casinos. But remember, whatever your analysis is: The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. Things that can disrupt your solvency are things such as options expiration, limitations of a company's ability to stay afloat, limitations in a company's ability to stay listed on an exchange, limitations on your borrowings and interest payments, a finite amount of capital you can ever acquire (which means there is a limited amount of times you can double down). Best to get out of the losers and free up capital for the winners. If your \"\"trade\"\" turned into an \"\"investment\"\", ditch it. Don't get married to positions.\"",
"\"But I don't see how it's any different than buying a stock at a low price and holding on to it for some months. Based on your question, I would say the difference is time. Day trading by its nature is a 6-hour endeavor. If you buy low and are planning to sell high, then you only have a few hours to make this happen. As a previous poster mentioned, there is a lot of \"\"white noise\"\" that occurs on a weekly/daily/hourly/min basis. Long-term investors have the time to wait it out. Although, as a side note, if you were a buy-and-hold investor from the 1960s-early 1980s, then buy and hold was not very good. Is it just the psychological/addictive aspect of it? This is the biggest reason. Day trading is stressful and stress can cause financially destructive decisions such as over-leveraging, over-trading, etc. Why is day trading stressful? Because you are managing hundreds to thousands of trades a year. When combined with the lack of time in a day to make moves, it becomes stressful. Also, many day traders do it full time. Which adds to the pressure to be correct and to be incredible at money managment. A lot of buy-and-hold investors have full time jobs and may only check their positions every month or so.\"",
"\"It's a tricky question w/out more context. If your only options are between stock/funds and letting it sit (i.e. in a saving or CD), I'd have to say option one is the way to go (but that's based on my situation, and you did ask \"\"if you ..\"\"). However, I think the true answer is \"\"it depends.\"\" It depends on your risk tolerance and what are your short-term vs. long-term financial needs. Only after answering those questions you can then seek to strategize and diversify investment accordingly.\"",
"By coincidence, I entered this position today. Ignore the stock itself, I am not recommending a particular stock, just looking at a strategy. The covered call. For this stock trading at $7.47, I am able, by selling an in-the-money call to be out of pocket $5.87/sh, and am obliged to let it go for $7.00 a year from now. A 19% return as long as the stock doesn't drop more than 6% over that time. The chart below shows maximum profit, and my loss starts if the stock trades 21% below current price. The risk is shifted a bit, but in return, I give up potential higher gains. The guy that paid $1.60 could triple his money if the stocks goes to $12, for example. In a flat market, this strategy can provide relatively high returns compared to holding only stocks.",
"\"It's a trade-off. The answer depends on your risk tolerance. Seeking higher rewards demands higher risk. If you want advice, I would recommend hiring an expert to design a plan which meets your needs. As a sample point, NOT necessarily right for anyone else...I'm considered an aggressive investor, and my own spread is still more conservative than many folks. I'm entirely in low-cost index funds, distributed as ... with the money tied up in a \"\"quiesced\"\" defined-contribution pension fund being treated as a low-yield bond. Some of these have beaten the indexes they're tracking, some haven't. My average yield since I started investing has been a bit over 10%/year (not including the company match on part of the 401k), which I consider Good Enough -- certainly good enough for something that requires near-zero attention from me. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance. This may be completely wrong for someone at a different point in their career and/or life and/or finances. I'm posting it only as an example, NOT a recommendation. Regarding when to rebalance: Set some threshhold at which things have drifted too far from your preferred distribution (value of a fund being 5% off its target percentage in the mix is one rule I've sometimes used), and/or pick some reasonable (usually fairly low) frequency at which you'll actively rebalance (once a year, 4x/year, whenever you change your car's oil, something like that), and/or rebalance by selecting which funds you deposit additional money into whenever you're adding to the investments. Note that that last option avoids having to take capital gains, which is generally a good thing; you want as much of your profit to be long-term as possible, and to avoid triggering the \"\"wash sales\"\" rule. Generally, you do not have to rebalance very frequently unless you are doing something that I'd consider unreasonably risky, or unless you're managing such huge sums that a tiny fraction of a percent still adds up to real money.\"",
"A lot of people on here will likely disagree with me and this opinion. In my opinion the answer lies in your own motives and intentions. If you'd like to be more cognizant of the market, I'd just dive in and buy a few companies you like. Many people will say you shouldn't pick your own stocks, you should buy an index fund, or this ETF or this much bonds, etc. You already have retirement savings, capital allocation is important there. You're talking about an account total around 10% of your annual salary, and assuming you have sufficient liquid emergency funds; there's a lot of non-monetary benefit to being more aware of the economy and the stock market. But if you find the house you're going to buy, you may have to liquidate this account at a time that's not ideal, possibly at a loss. If all you're after is a greater return on your savings than the paltry 0.05% (or whatever) the big deposit banks are paying, then a high yield savings account is the way I'd go, or a CD ladder. Yes, the market generally goes up but it doesn't ALWAYS go up. Get your money somewhere that it's inured and you can be certain how much you'll have tomorrow. Assuming a gain, the gain you'll see will PALE in comparison to the deposits you'll make. Deposits grow accounts. Consider these scenarios if you allocate $1,000 per month to this account. 1) Assuming an investment return of 5% you're talking about $330 return in the first year (not counting commissions or possible losses). 2) Assuming a high yield savings account at 1.25% you're talking about $80 in the first year. Also remember, both of these amounts would be taxable. I'll admit in the event of 5% return you'll have about four times the gain but you're talking about a difference of ~$250 on $12,000. Over three to five years the most significant contributor to the account, by far, will be your deposits. Anyway, as I'm sure you know this is not investment advice and you may lose money etc.",
"If you want to trade to gain from short-term volatility, you can use Derivative-based ETFs that try to track the inverse of a broad index like the S&P 500. Note that these ETFs only track the index over a 1 day period, so you shouldn't hold these. If you're looking for a longer-term investment strategy, look at low-beta stocks, which often do well or produce dividend income during volatile times. Examples include McDonald's Corp and utilities like Consolidated Edison.",
"I'm of the opinion that speculating is for young people like you, because they can afford to lose it all. Avoiding losses becomes necessary once you have to sustain a family, and manage a somewhat large retirement funds. Even if you lose all your money when speculating, you'll probably be better off later, because you make less costly mistakes once you have larger amounts of money.",
"\"You need to have 3 things if you are considering short-term trading (which I absolutely do not recommend): The ability to completely disconnect your emotions from your gains and losses (yes, even your gains but especially your losses). The winning/losing on a daily basis will cause you to start taking unnecessary risk in order to win again. If you can't disconnect your emotions, then this isn't the game for you. The lowest possible trading costs to enter and exit a position. People will talk about 1% trading costs; that rule-of-thumb doesn't apply anymore. Personally, my trading costs are a total 13.9 basis points to enter and exit a $10,000 position and I think it's still too high (that's just a hair above one-eighth of 1% for you non-traders). The ability to \"\"gut-check\"\" and exit a losing position FAST. Don't hesitate and don't hope for it to go up. GTFO. If you are serious about short-term trading then you must close all positions on a daily basis. Don't do margin in today's market as many valuations are high and some industries are not trending as they have in the past. The leverage will kill you. It's not a question of \"\"if\"\", it's a when. You're new. Don't trade anything larger than a $5,000 position, no matter what. Don't hold more than 10% of your portfolio in the same industry. Don't be afraid to sit on 50% cash or more for months at a time. Use money market funds to park cash because they are T+1 settlement and most firms will let you trade the stock without cash as long as you effect the money market trade on the same day since stock settlement is T+3.\"",
"You don't really have a lot of money, and that isn't a criticism as much as that you are limited to diversification. For example, I would estimate you can only have one or two stocks for a buy-write scheme. Secondly you may be only to buy one fund with a high minimum investment, and a second fund with a smaller minimum investment. Thirdly there is not a whole lot of money to make a large difference. One options might be to look at iShares since your are with Fidelity. Trading those are commission free and the minimum investment is one share. They offer many sector funds. Since you were in a CD ladder you might be looking for stability of principle. If so you can look at USMV and PFF. If you can tolerate a little more volatility DGRO. Having said that you seem interested in doing some buy-writes. Why not mix and match? Pick a stock, like INTC (for example not a recommendation), and buy-write with half the money and some combination of iShares for the rest.",
"I'm in a remarkably similar situation as yourself. I keep roughly 80% of my portfolio in low-cost ETFs (16% bond, 16% commodities, 48% stock), with about 20% in 6-8 individual stocks. Individual stocks are often overlooked by investors. The benefits of individual stock ownership are that you can avoid paying any holding or management fee (unlike ETFs and mutual funds). As long as you assess the fundamentals (P/B, P/E, PEG etc.) of the company you are buying, and don't over-trade, you can do quite well. I recommend semi-annual re-balancing among asset classes, and an individual stock check up. I've found over the years that my individual stocks outperform the S&P500 the vast majority of the time, although it often accompanied by an increase in volatility. Since you're limiting your stake to only 20%, the volatility is not really an issue.",
"When the market moves significantly, you should rebalance your investments to maintain the diversification ratios you have selected. That means if bonds go up and stocks go down, you sell bonds and buy stocks (to some degree), and vice versa. Sell high to buy low, and remember that over the long run most things regress to the mean.",
"If you have the money put it in, and invest the money over a few months. Always keep a modest reserve of cash to give you the flexibility to take advantage of market opportunities.",
"Using Fundamental and Technical Analysis together is actually a good idea for longer term trading of up to 6 months or longer. The whole idea behind trading with Technical Analysis is to increase the probabilities of a trade going in the desired direction by using uncorrelated indicators that produce the same signal to buy or sell at the same time. For example, you might use a Moving Average (MA) as a buy signal when the price falls for a few days, hits the MA and then reverses and starts moving back up. If however, you also include a Stochastic Oscillator (SO) to indicate when the stock is oversold (under 20%), and if the price rebounds from the MA average at the same time as the Stochastic is crossing over in the oversold position, then this may be a higher probability trade. If you also only trade stocks that are Fundamentally healthy (as fundamentally good stocks are more likely to go up than fundamentally bad stocks) then this might increase the probabilities again. Then if you only buy when the market as a whole is moving up, then this will increase your chances again. A few weeks ago at a seminar, the presenter totalled the men in the room to be 76 and the women in the room to be 8. He then asked what will most likely be the next person to walk in the room - a man or a woman? The statistics are on the side of a wan walking in next. This is what we try to do with Technical Analysis, increase our chances when we take a trade. Of course a woman could be the next person to walk in the room, just like any trade can go against you, and this is why we use money management and risk management and take a small loss when a trade does go against you. Lets look at an example where you could incorporate FA with TA to increase your chances of profits: Above is a candlestick chart of Select Harvest (SHV), the green line above the price is the perceived value, the pink line is the 40 day MA, the blue line is the EPS, and the white lines is the Stochastic Oscillator (above 80% being overbought and below 20% is oversold). From Feb 2015 to start of Aug 2015 the stock was uptrending, since then the price reversed and started to downtrend. The stock was determined to be fundamentally good early in 2015 with the perceived value gradually increasing and greater than the share price, and the EPS starting to increase regularly from mid April. Thus, as the stock is seen as fundamentally healthy any price reversal in the vicinity of the MA could be seen as a buy opportunity. In fact there where 2 such opportunities on 31st March and 11th June where price had reversed and rebounded off the MA whist the SO crossed over in or near the oversold area. The price did reverse and then rebounded off the MA again on 9th July, however the SO was not in or near the oversold area on this occasion, so not as high in probability terms. The price still rebounded and went up again, however another momentum indicator (not shown here) shows some bearish divergence in this case - so another reason to possibly keep away at this point in time. A good signal to get out of the trade, that is your stop loss has not already taken you out, is when the price breaks and closes below the MA line. This occurred on 7th August. So if we had bought on the first signal on 31st March for $7.41 and sold when the priced broke through the MA on 7th August for $11.76, we would have made a profit of approx. 59% in just over 4 months. If bought on the second signal on 11th June for $9.98 and again sold on 7th August for $11.76, we would have made about 18% in under 2 months. So the fundamentals, the Price (in relation to MA) and the SO where all lining up to provide two high probability trades. Of course you would need to incorporate you risk management (including stops) in case the price did not continue upwards after you bought. If the market is also moving up on the day of the signal this will further increase your chances. Unless you day trade, which I would avoid, a good way to enter your trades after a signal is to enter a stop buy order after market close to buy if the price moves above the high of the signal day. That way if the market and the stock open and move lower during the day after the signal you avoid entering the trade altogether. This can be incorporated as part of your risk management and trading rules. After the price broke down through the MA we can see that a downtrend commenced which is still current today (in fact I just took a short trade on this stock yesterday). We can also see that the perceived value, whilst still above the price, has reached a peak and is currently moving downwards and the EPS after being flat for a few months has just moved down for the first time in 10 months. So maybe the fundamentals are starting to waver a bit on this stock. It may be a good stock to continue shorting into the future. So basically you can continue using Fundamental Analysis to select which stocks to buy, place them in a watch-list, and then use Technical Analysis to determine when these stocks are starting to uptrend and use a combination of uncorrelated indicators to produce higher probability signals for when to enter your trades.",
"It's incredibly difficult to beat the market, especially after you're paying out significant fees for managed funds. The Bogleheads have some good things going for them on their low cost Vanguard style funds. The biggest winners in the financial markets are the people collecting fees from churn or setting up the deals which take advantage of less sophisticated/connected players. Buy, Hold and Forget has been shown as a loser as well in this recession. Diversifying and re-balancing however takes advantage of market swings by cashing out winners and buying beaten down stocks. If you take advantages of general market highs and lows (without worrying about strict timing) every few months to re-balance, you buy some protection from crashes in any given sector. One common guideline is to use your age as the percentage of your holdings that are in cash equivalents, rather than stocks. At age 28, at least 28% of my account should be in bonds, real estate, commodities, etc. This should help guide your allocation and re-balancing strategy. Finally, focusing on Growth and Income funds may give you a better shot at above S&P returns, but it's wise to hold a small percentage in the S&P 500 as well.",
"The answer may be a compromise... if your goal is to make bonds a larger part of your portfolio, sell both stocks and bonds in a 4:1 ratio. or (3:1 or whatever works for you) Also, just as you dollar-cost-average purchases of securities, you can do the same thing on the way out. Plan your sales and spread them over a period of time, especially if you have mutual funds.",
"Apart from making money from the price difference, some stocks also give dividends, or bonus issues. For long term investors whom are looking for steady income, they may be more interested with the dividend pay-out instead of the capital-appreciation.",
"In my IRA I try to find stocks that are in growing sectors but have are undervalued by traditional metrics like PE or book value; I make sure that they have lower debt levels than their peers, are profitable, and at least have comparable margins. I started trading options to make better returns off of indices or etfs. It seems overlooked but it's pretty good, in another thread I was telling someone about my strategy buy applying it to thier portfolio: https://www.reddit.com/r/options/comments/77bt17/ive_been_trading_stocks_for_a_year_and_am/dolydu8/?context=3 I double checked, I told him/her I would buy the DIA Jan 19 2018 call 225 for 795. 8 days later it's trading for 1085. Nearly 50% in a week. It'll never be 300% earnings returns, but I'm happy to take it slow. Shorting is a very different animal it takes a lot to get things right.",
"Over a period of time most mutual funds do not perform better that an index fund. Picking and buying individual stock can be a great learning experience.",
"\"If you are like most people, your timing is kind of awful. What I mean by most, is all. Psychologically we have strong tendencies to buy when the market is high and avoid buying when it is low. One of the easiest to implement strategies to avoid this is Dollar Cost Averaging. In most cases you are far better off making small investments regularly. Having said that, you may need to \"\"save\"\" a bit in order to make subsequent investments because of minimums. For me there is also a positive psychological effect of putting money to work sooner and more often. I find it enjoyable to purchase shares of a mutual fund or stock and the days that I do so are a bit better than the others. An added benefit to doing regular investing is to have them be automated. Many wealthy people describe this as a key to success as they can focused on the business of earning money in their chosen profession as opposed to investing money they have already earned. Additionally the author of I will Teach You to be Rich cites this as a easy, free, and key step in building wealth.\"",
"From my 15 years of experience, no technical indicator actually ever works. Those teaching technical indicators are either mostly brokers or broker promoted so called technical analysts. And what you really lose in disciplined trading over longer period is the taxes and brokerages. That is why you will see that teachers involved in this field are mostly technical analysts because they can never make money in real markets and believe that they did not adhere to rules or it was an exception case and they are not ready to accept facts. The graph given above for coin flip is really very interesting and proves that every trade you enter has 50% probability of win and lose. Now when you remove the brokerage and taxes from win side of your game, you will always lose. That is why the Warren Buffets of the world are never technical analysts. In fact, they buy when all technical analysts fails. Holding a stock may give pain over longer period but still that is only way to really earn. Diversification is a good friend of all bulls. Another friend of bull is the fact that you can lose 100% but gain any much as 1000%. So if one can work in his limits and keep investing, he can surely make money. So, if you have to invest 100 grand in 10 stocks, but 10 grand in each and then one of the stocks will multiply 10 times in long term to take out cost and others will give profit too... 1-2 stocks will fail totally, 2-3 will remain there where they were, 2-3 will double and 2-3 will multiply 3-4 times. Investor can get approx 15% CAGR earning from stock markets... Cheers !!!",
"Even experts have no real certainty what the market will do as a whole. 2/3's of managers fail to beat the market every year. I think this is mostly due to hedging and trying to meet their investors needs. If. You buy and hold a few index ETFs you will most likely beat actively managed accountsn that said, you will sacrifice liquidity if you want to avoid cyclical losses."
] |
[
"\"You don't seem to be a big fan of trading as you may think it may be too risky or too time consuming being in front of your computer all day long. You also don't seem to be a fan of buy and hold as you don't know what your investments will be worth when you need the funds. How about a combination of the two, sometimes called trend trading or active investing. With this type of trading/investing you may hold a stock from a couple of months to many years. Once you buy a stock that is up-trending or starting to up-trend you hold onto it until it stops up-trending. You can use a combination of fundamental analysis (to find out what to buy) and technical analysis (to tell you when to buy and when to sell). So these are some topics you can start reading up on. Using a technique like this will enable you to invest in healthy stocks when they are moving up in price and get out of them when they start moving down in price. There are many techniques you can use to get out of a stock, but the simplest has to be using stop losses. And once you learn and set up your system it should not take up much of your time when you actually do start trading/investing - 2 to 3 hours per week, and you can set yourself up that you analyse the market after the close and place any order so they get executed the next trading day without you being in front or the screen all day. Other areas you might want to read and learn about are writing up a Trading Plan, using Position Sizing and Money Management so you don't overtrade in any one single trade, and Risk Management. A good book I quite liked is \"\"Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom\"\" by Van Tharp. Good luck.\"",
"\"You mentioned three concepts: (1) trading (2) diversification (3) buy and hold. Trading with any frequency is for people who want to manage their investments as a hobby or profession. You do not seem to be in that category. Diversification is a critical element of any investment strategy. No matter what you do, you should be diversified. All the way would be best (this means owning at least some of every asset out there). The usual way to do this is to own a mutual or index fund. Or several. These funds own hundreds or thousands of stocks, so that buying the fund instantly diversifies you. Buy and hold is the only reasonable approach to a portfolio for someone who is not interested in spending a lot of time managing it. There's no reason to think a buy-and-hold portfolio will underperform a typical traded portfolio, nor that the gains will come later. It's the assets in the portfolio that determine how aggressive/risky it is, not the frequency with which it is traded. This isn't really a site for specific recommendations, but I'll provide a quick idea: Buy a couple of index funds that cover the whole universe of investments. Index funds have low expenses and are the cheapest/easiest way to diversify. Buy a \"\"total stock market\"\" fund and a \"\"total bond fund\"\" in a ratio that you like. If you want, also buy an \"\"international fund.\"\" If you want specific tickers and ratios, another forum would be better(or just ask your broker or 401(k) provider). The bogleheads forum is one that I respect where people are very happy to give and debate specific recommendations. At the end of the day, responsibly managing your investment portfolio is not rocket science and shouldn't occupy a lot of time or worry. Just choose a few funds with low expenses that cover all the assets you are really interested in, put your money in them in a reasonable-ish ratio (no one knows that the best ratio is) and then forget about it.\""
] |
3357
|
Why big clients want the contractor to be incorporated before giving them work
|
[
"209974"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"209974",
"19698",
"532932",
"424818",
"413879",
"525292",
"393031",
"468741",
"139501",
"220022",
"382400",
"418647",
"452248",
"260603",
"490865",
"175889",
"176777",
"18950",
"222049",
"352640",
"584218",
"513051",
"321566",
"524788",
"250766",
"172752",
"148250",
"596427",
"265397",
"326329",
"506108",
"173438",
"381830",
"227757",
"288",
"399762",
"47044",
"590102",
"50310",
"476262",
"312131",
"334902",
"113776",
"81530",
"442968",
"76486",
"487870",
"77488",
"210647",
"548291",
"406656",
"82163",
"495076",
"390015",
"144773",
"410223",
"502283",
"138065",
"178586",
"197782",
"212312",
"142645",
"316074",
"9085",
"568771",
"328066",
"451580",
"333954",
"194955",
"207997",
"40044",
"388078",
"519321",
"398273",
"564453",
"37725",
"355513",
"564197",
"36608",
"3746",
"32072",
"362778",
"1873",
"347723",
"594531",
"55440",
"107817",
"404846",
"129089",
"394871",
"580817",
"467704",
"397027",
"34731",
"70384",
"144190",
"466037",
"434906",
"159322",
"315552"
] |
[
"They believe that it reduces the risk that Revenue Canada will deem you to be an employee and make them pay a whole pile of tax, EI, CPP and so on that should have been paid if you had been hired as an employee. It's my recollection that the employer gets dinged for both the employee and employer share of those withholdings (and generally the employer's share is larger than yours) so they really want to prevent it. There's a Revenue Canada publication about whether you're an employee or not. There's nothing on it about being incorporated, but still employers feel more protected when their contracts are incorporated. We did work as a sole proprietorship at the very beginning, so that we could deduct our losses against employment income earned earlier in the year, before we started the business. You can find clients who will take you on. We incorporated once the losses were over with (basically we had bought the equipment and office supplies we needed to get started.) It's a simple and relatively inexpensive thing to do, and gives clients a sense of protection. It won't protect you from your own poor decisions since you'll be a director of the firm.",
"Why not personal responsibility? Get paid *then* provide the service. It's what small business owners do every day without the help of government or the protection of a large corporation. Individuals comply with safety regulations to protect themselves. If you need a corporation to do it for you, expect to make less. If you can do it yourself, expect to make more as an entrepreneur.",
"Unless the amounts involved are very small, it is MUCH better to incorporate. First, incorporation gives you limited liability for your acts as an employee. As an individual, you have unlimited liability. Second, incorporating allows you to deduct (for tax purposes) the costs of doing business, including all of your health insurance, most transportation, and some meals. The exception to the rule is if the amounts you are earning are so small that they don't cover the cost of incorporating, accounting fees, etc. (a few hundred, or at most a few thousand dollars).",
"In short - if you can't get the job without incorporating, then incorporate! Some clients will require you to be incorporated (which is why I did it 10 years ago). Essentially, for them, it's a way of distancing themselves from you to ensure they are not responsible for any monies if you don't pay your taxes. For you, there is also this idea of distancing company assets from your personal assets. If they are not requiring you to incorporate, you can simply act as a sole proprietorship. A good place to start reading up could be the sites below (for Canada/Ontario): Canada Business http://sbinfocanada.about.com/ http://sbinfocanada.about.com/od/incorporation/Incorporating_A_Business_In_Canada.htm http://sbinfocanada.about.com/cs/startup/a/incorporatadv.htm When I registered, I simply bought a book at Grand&Toy, with all the required forms for Ontario. These forms would also be available at a local Government service centre. You walk in, give the government money, and shortly thereafter you are incorporated. There are a number of others things that are required (having a minutes book, writing resolutions, creating shares, setting up a bank account, etc) - all discussed in the guide For Ontario you can start here: http://www.ontario.ca/en/services_for_business/index.htm At a high level, there are some costs for being incorporated, and some tax savings. At a minimum, costs would include: You may need the help of an account to help set things up, but it's quite easy to maintain all the records, etc that are required. Some other minor things I enjoy are writing myself expense cheques so that I get money back immediately (and effectively only pay 60% of the cost after writing it off in the company). I can decide how much to pay myself and push income from year to year.",
"All the existing answers are right and the general theme is: contracting is a different kind of relationship. It's a business-to-business relationship rather than a business-to-employee relationship. This has implications such as: Of course, some contractors are effectively just over-paid employees, and some of the above points don't apply to them, but that's the idea behind bona fide contracting.",
"You are absolutely correct, incorporation and the fiduciary responsibility that comes with it almost always leads to a sacrifice in product quality and long-term business principles. I always think of the difference between McDonalds and In-n-Out hamburgers as examples of where each road leads.",
"You may want to start a company for a few reasons, the main one would be liability, you don't want your friend to drop a weight on a foot and sue you for millions taking your house away. You'd need to pay taxes on the income, that's after you pay all your expenses, bills, mortgage interest, insurance premiums (!), equipment depreciation. So it's going to be a lot less than you collect from your friends. Whether you incorporate or not you have to pay taxes on your income. If it's $200/year IRS may not notice that, if it's $20K a month it would be very hard to hide. If you pay your friends more than some amount (check the laws) you'd need to tell IRS about it (issue 1099-misc), then your friends must pay taxes on that income.",
"If you want to subcontract some of your excess work to somebody else, you better be in business! While some kinds of employees (e.g. commissioned salespeople) are permitted to deduct some expenses on their income tax, generally only a real business can deduct wages for additional employees, or the cost of services provided by subcontractors. Do you invoice your clients and charge HST (GST)? Or do you tell your clients each pay period how many hours you worked and they compensate you through their payroll system like everybody else that walks through the door? If you're not invoicing and charging HST (GST) (assuming you exceed the threshold, and if you have too much work, you probably do!), then perhaps your clients are treating you as an employee – by default – and withholding taxes, CPP, and EI so they don't get in trouble? After all, Canada Revenue Agency is likely to consider any person providing a service to a company to be an employee unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary, and when there isn't enough evidence, it's the company paying for the services that would be on the hook for unpaid taxes, CPP, and EI. Carefully consider what form of business you are operating, or were intending to operate. It's essential for your business to be structured appropriately if you want to hire or subcontract. You ought to be either self-employed as a sole proprietor, or perhaps incorporated if it makes more sense to your situation. Next, act accordingly. For instance, it's likely that your business should be taking care of the source deductions, CPP, and EI. In fact, self-employed individuals shouldn't even be paying into EI – an independent contractor wouldn't qualify to make an EI claim if they lost a contract. As an independent, one doesn't have a job, one has a business, and EI doesn't cover the business itself, only the employees that the business deals with at arm's length. As a business owner, you would be considered non-arms-length, and exempt from EI. Growing your business in the way that you are suggesting is an important enough a step that you should seek professional advice in advance. Find a good accountant that deals with self-employed individuals & small businesses and run all this by him. He should be able to guide you accordingly. Find a lawyer, too. A lawyer can guide you on how to properly subcontract others while protecting you and your business. Finally, be mindful of what it is you agreed to in your contract with your client: Do they expect all services to be performed by you, personally? Even if it wasn't written down who exactly would be performing the services, there may be an assumption it's you. Some negotiation may be in order if you want to use subcontractors.",
"\"There are a few sites out there that can give you some reasoning behind the request. LegalZoom, for instance. To quote the LZ doc in case the link dies: Employee vs. Independent Contractor If a worker is an employee, the employer is responsible for paying Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, and possibly other costs like workers' compensation insurance for the employee; at the end of the tax year, the employer is responsible for compiling all necessary payroll reports, including W-2 forms. If a worker is an independent contractor, the employer is not responsible for any of the above taxes or payments, and the only added paperwork is the issuing of a 1099 to the independent contractor at the end of the tax year, if he or she has made more than $600 with the employer. As Kent suggested, you should speak with an attorney (really you need one if setting up an LLC). There are a lot of companies out there these days that try to classify people as contractors rather than full-time employees as it gets them out of paying benefits and dealing with taxes. This is being heavily cracked down on, and several \"\"contractor\"\" employees are winning lawsuits to get full-time status. If you are truly acting as a contractor, then setting up an LLC can help with a few items such as taxes and protection on certain business aspects (see comments below regarding this). It's easy and relatively cheap (cost me about $250 with extra legal advice tacked on). If you are reporting directly to a manager with the company, or really working in any way that isn't consistent with the definition of a contractor, then I'd turn down the offer and ask to be made a FT employee. Additional information: https://www.sba.gov/content/hire-contractor-or-employee\"",
"It makes no difference for tax purposes. If you are 1099, you will pay the same amount of taxes as if you formed a corporation and then paid yourself (essentially you are doing this as a 1099 contractor, just not formally). Legally, I don't know the answer. I would assume you have some legal protections by forming an LLC but practically I think this won't make any difference if you get sued.",
"Operate a business which can incur its own liabilities and pay its own debts. If the corporate entity is used recklessly, incurring debits you know it cannot pay, using it for fraudulent purposes, co-mingling company funds with your own, etc., then creditors can come after your personal assets",
"Do you need to incorporate? This depends on whether the company prefers you to be incorporated. If you are going through a recruiting company, some of them are willing to deal with non-incorporated people (Sole Proprietor) and withhold taxes from your cheques for you. If you do want to incorporate, you can do it yourself, go through a paralegal, or you can even do it online. I did mine in Ontario for about $300 (no name search - i just have a numbered corporation like 123456 Ontario Inc.) through www.oncorp.com - there are other sites that do it as well. Things to consider - if you're contracting through a corporation you most likely need to: Talk to an accountant about these for clarification - most of them will give you an initial consultation for free. Generally speaking, accountant fees for corporate filing taxes averages about $1000-2000 a year.",
"It is a great advice. I would suggest going to the Companies House (it's in London somewhere), picking up all of their leaflets regarding requirements for different forms of corporate entity, and deciding if you want to have that burden. It is not a lot of work, you can essentially claim VAT on all business purchases (the way roughly it works, is that your company invoices your client, your client has to pay the fee + VAT (usually that VAT is then deducted by your client from it's VAT, so no loss there), and you pay the VAT on the difference between the service sales price, and your costs (computers etc.) ) You have to be careful to avoid excessive double taxation (paying income tax on both corporate income, and then your personal income off said company), but it usually comes off in your favor. Essentially, if you're making more than 50% of your income from services rendered, it is to your advantage to render such services as a business entity.",
"\"The \"\"independent contractor\"\" vs. \"\"employee\"\" distinction is a red herring to this discussion and not at all important just because someone suggested you use your LLC to do the job. Corp-2-Corp is a very common way to do contracting and having an LLC with business bank accounts provides you with more tax deductions (such as deducting interest on credit lines). Some accounting practices prefer to pay entities by their Tax ID numbers, instead of an individual's social security number. The actual reasoning behind this would be dubious, but the LLC only benefits you and gives you more advantages by having one than not. For example, it is easier for you to hire subcontractors through your LLC to assist with your job, due to the opaqueness of the private entity. Similarly, your LLC can sign Non Disclosure and Intellectual Property agreements, automatically extending the trade secrets to all of its members, as opposed to just you as an individual. By signing whatever agreement with the company that is paying you through your LLC, your LLC will be privy to all of this. Next, assuming you did have subcontractors or other liability inducing assets, the LLC limits the liability you personally have to deal with in a court system, to an extent. But even if you didn't, the facelessness of an LLC can deter potential creditors, for example, your client may just assume you are a cog in a wheel - a random employee of the LLC - as opposed to the sole owner. Having a business account for the LLC keeps all of your expenses in one account statement, making your tax deductions easier. If you had a business credit line, the interest is tax deductible (compared to just having a personal credit card for business purposes). Regarding the time/costs of setting up and managing an LLC, this does vary by jurisdiction. It can negligible, or it can be complex. You also only have to do it once. Hire an attorney to give you a head start on that, if you feel that is necessary. Now back to the \"\"independent contractor\"\" vs. \"\"employee\"\" distinction: It is true that the client will not be paying your social security, but they expect you to charge more hourly than an equivalent actual employee would, solely because you don't get health insurance from them or paid leave or retirement plans or any other perk, and you will receive the entire paycheck without any withheld by the employer. You also get more tax deductions to utilize, although you will now have self employment tax (assuming you are a US citizen), this becomes less and less important the higher over $105,000 you make, as it stops being counted (slightly more complicated than that, but self employment tax is it's own discussion).\"",
"\"I know this is a little late but here is my answer. No. You do not \"\"need\"\" to incorporate. In fact, incorporating in your situation will cost you in legal fees, administrative headaches, and a fair bit in taxes. The CRA would probably look at your corporation as a personal services corporation and it would not be allowed to claim a number of tax reductions. The tax rate would end up being over the top range (unless you are in Quebec where it would be just under the top marginal range).\"",
"They are already indirectly paying these expenses. They should be built into your rates. The amount per job or per hour needs to cover what would have been your salary, plus the what would have been sick, vacation, holidays, health insurance, life insurance, disability, education, overhead for office expenses, cost of accountants...and all taxes. In many companies the general rule of thumb is that they need to charge a customer 2x the employees salary to cover all this plus make a profit. If this is a side job some of these benefits will come from your main job. Some self employed get some of these benefits from their spouse. The company has said we give you money for the work you perform, but you need to cover everything else including paying all taxes. Depending on where you live you might have to send money in more often then once a year. They are also telling you that they will be reporting the money they give you to the government so they can claim it as a business expense. So you better make sure you report it as income.",
"In addition to the other answers, consultants and contractors face a real risk (though admittedly small) of not getting paid. The more short-term the gigs are, the higher the risk of not getting paid for a particular job. As an employee, there are laws to ensure that you get your paycheck. As a contractor, you're just another creditor. I know a couple of contractors (software engineers) who have had difficulty collecting after a job. (I'm not even sure one ever got paid the full amount.) I also personally witnessed a contractor show up for a job who was then told by the company that they unilaterally decided that they would pay half of their pre-arranged rate.",
"I don't know the term sole trader but usually the trade off is a corporation allows for shield from liability (i.e. creditors) more flexibility with respect to personal tax management, but higher operating costs (incorporation, financial statements, etc). I always incorporate.",
"Your recruiter is likely trying to avoid having to pay the employer's side of employment taxes, and may even be trying to avoid having to file a 1099 for you by treating your relationship as a vendor/service provider that he is purchasing services from, which would make your pay just a business expense. It's definitely in his best interest for you to do it this way. Whether it's in your best interest is up to you. You should consult a licensed legal/tax professional to help you determine whether this is a good arrangement for you. (Most of the time, when someone starts playing tax avoidance games, they eventually get stung by it.) The next big question: If you already know this guy is a snake, why are you still working with him? If you don't trust him, why would you take legal/tax advice from him? He might land you a high-paying job. But he also might cause you years of headaches if his tax advice turns out to be flawed.",
"I am surprised no one has mentioned the two biggest things (in my opinion). Or I should say, the two biggest things to me. First, 1099 have to file quarterly self employment taxes. I do not know for certain but I have heard that often times you will end up paying more this way then even a W-2 employees. Second, an LLC allows you to deduct business expenses off the top prior to determining what you pay in taxes as pass-through income. With 1099 you pay the same taxes regardless of your business expenses unless they are specifically allowed as a 1099 contractor (which most are not I believe). So what you should really do is figure out the expense you incur as a result of doing your business and check with an accountant to see if those expenses would be deductible in an LLC and if it offsets a decent amount of your income to see if it would be worth it. But I have read a lot of books and listened to a lot of interviews about wealthy people and most deal in companies not contracts. Most would open a new business and add clients rather than dealing in 1099 contracts. Just my two cents... Good luck and much prosperity.",
"To be honest I don't know how any of this work in the US so my answer will be of very limited value to yourself, I suspect, but when it comes to the UK if you're going to get the same pay gross either way than being independent makes very little sense. Running your own business is hassle, is generally more risky (although possibly not in your case) and costs money. Some of the most obvious costs are the added NI, probably the need for an accountant, at around £1200 p/a for basic accountancy service, you are obliged by law to have liability insurance and you probably want professional indemnity insurance, this will be around £600 p/a minmum, and so on and so forth. On top of that, oficially anyway, as a contractor, you really shouldn't be getting any benefits from the client, and so health insurance, company car, even parking are all meant to be arranged by, and paid by, your company, and can't (or rather - shouldn't) be charged to the client. So - I would say - if you're seriously thinking about setting up a consultancy company, and this client is first of many - set up a company, but take into account the sums you need to earn. If you're really thinking about employment - be an employee.",
"\"Interesting as I am in the exact same situations as yourself. I, in fact, just incorporated. You will be able \"\"save\"\" more in taxes in the end. The reason I put \"\"save\"\" in quotes, is that you don't necessarily save on taxes, but you can defer taxes. The driving factor behind this is that you specify your own fiscal calendar/year. Incorporating allows you to defer income for up to 6 months. Meaning that if you make your fiscal year starting in August or September, for example, you can claim that income on the following year (August + 6 months = February). It allows you to keep the current year taxes down. Also, any income left over at year end, is taxed at 15% (the Corporation rate) rather than the 30-40% personal rate you get with a sole-proprietorship. In a nutshell, with sole-proprietorship, all income is taxable (after write-offs)... in a corporation, you can take some of that income and keep it in the corporation (gives your company a \"\"value\"\"), and is only taxed at 15% - big saving there. I primarily work with US businesses. I am, however, a dual-citizen, US and Canadian, which allowed me as a sole-proprietor, to easily work with US companies. However, as a sole-proprietor or a Corporation, you simply need to get an EIN from the IRS and any US company will report earnings to that number, with no deductions. At year end, it is your responsibility to file the necessary tax forms and pay the necessary taxes to both countries. Therefore you can solicit new US business if you choose, but this is not restricted to corporations. The real benefit in incorporating is what I mentioned above. My suggestion to you is to speak with you CA, who can outline all benefits. Revenue Canada's website had some good information on this topic as well. Please let me know if you need anything else explained.\"",
"In addition to asking an accountant, I would also ask a lawyer. When exploring the same question for myself, I found that one of the benefits of incorporating or forming an LLC is that your personal assets are better protected. Including asset protection, here are 5 reasons to incorporate: Initially, I thought that as I had so few assets, I should not be concerned. I was glad I was able to do a free consult with a lawyer who advised me to look into forming an LLC. (Ultimately, my planned business idea never panned out. So, I never went the incorporation/LLC route.) Hope this helps!",
"\"Linkedlinked, You might want to seriously take another look at the links that Chris provided you. Specifically the ones on the IRS website: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html From the IRS website: Businesses must weigh all these factors when determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Some factors may indicate that the worker is an employee, while other factors indicate that the worker is an independent contractor. There is no “magic” or set number of factors that “makes” the worker an employee or an independent contractor, and no one factor stands alone in making this determination. Also, factors which are relevant in one situation may not be relevant in another. The keys are to look at the entire relationship, consider the degree or extent of the right to direct and control, and finally, to document each of the factors used in coming up with the determination. Perhaps more importantly... pay attention to what happens if you're WRONG: Consequences of Treating an Employee as an Independent Contractor If you classify an employee as an independent contractor and you have no reasonable basis for doing so, you may be held liable for employment taxes for that worker (the relief provisions, discussed below, will not apply). See Internal Revenue Code section 3509 for more information. I would STRONGLY recommend that you and your partners give your accountant a call and discuss the matter. They will be able to help you make the right decision. One of biggest mistakes businesses make in this are is to classify their employees as independent contractors. The IRS (who happens to be hungry for money right now) comes in and says, \"\"Nooooooooo... those are employees.\"\" ...and the COMPANY gets to pay the employment taxes. I actually have person experience with this as I worked for a company this happened to. Every contractor was re-classified as an employee except for two (myself and one other). The key reason in that case was that none of the other contractors had any other clients. While I understand that you have other clients, I would still recommend talking to your accountant for an hour or so... just to be 100% sure. Sincerely, Andrew Smith TaxQueries.com\"",
"The benefits and taxes thing, in my opinion is the biggie. Most people don't realize that the cost to the company for a full-time employee with benefits can be 2x or even 3x the amount they see in their paycheck. Health plans are extremely expensive. Even if you are having money taken from your check for health insurance, it is often just a fraction of the total cost, and the employer is subsidizing the rest. More expensive benefits that contractors don't typically get are 401K matches and paid vacation days. When contractors call in sick or don't work because it is a national holiday, they don't get paid for that day. Also, see that line on your paycheck deducting for Social security and Medicare? That is only half of the tax. The employer pays an equal amount that is not shown on that statement. Also, they pay taxes that go towards unemployment benefits , and may be required to pay higher taxes if they churn through a lot of full-time employees. You can usually let contractors go with relative impunity . For the unemployment tax reasons, not paying for people's days off or benefits, a lot less paperwork, and less risk to the business associated with committing to full-time employees all provide value to the company. Thus companies are willing to pay more because they are getting more. Think of it like a cell phone-contract. If you commit to a three year contract it can be a pain/expensive to get out of the deal early, but you will probably get a better rate in exchange for the risk being shifted to your end of the deal.",
"This sounds very like disguised employment. You act like an employee of the company, but your official relationship with them is as a contractor. You gain none of the protection you get from being an employee, and this may make you cheaper, less risky and more desirable for the company who is hiring you. Depending on your country you may also pay corporation tax rather than income tax, which may represent a very significant saving. Also, the company hiring you may not have to pay PAYE, national insurance, stakeholder pension, etc. This arrangement is normal and legal providing you genuinely are acting as a subcontractor. However if you are behaving as an employee (desk at the company, company email, have to work specific hours in a specific location, no ability to subcontract, etc.) you may be classified as a disguised employee. In the UK it used to be common practice for highly paid employees to set up shell companies to avoid tax. This will now get you into hot water. Google IR35 It sounds like your relationship in this case is directly with the recruiter. You will have to consider if the recruiter is acting as your employer, or if you remain a genuinely independent agent. The duration of your contract with the recruiter will have a bearing on this. In the UK there are a whole series of tests for disguised employment. This is a good arrangement provided you go in with your eyes open and an awareness of the legislation. However you should absolutely check the rules that apply in your country before entering into this agreement. You could potentially be stung very badly indeed.",
"Elance, UpWork, Fivver Who would've thought taking skilled labor and watering down the price to mere pennies would be bad for everybody involved? That's why, even though I operate just like a freelancer, I incorporated. Legally, I'm a sole proprietor, not a freelancer...aside the few tax differences, it just saves me a ton of headaches.",
"I'll assume you are asking about a check for some kind of work or service that you provided them, that they hired your company to do. No large business will do that. In their records they have a contract with your company to provide services. If they write you a personal check it won't match with the contract, and when the auditors see that they will scream blue murder. Whoever wrote the check will have to prove that you are legitimately the same thing as the company (that doesn't mean taking your word for it). They may also have to show they weren't conspiring with you to commit tax fraud ( that wasn't your intention of course, was it?) .",
"\"Get some professional accounting help. You're going to have to pay for everything out of the fee you charge: taxes, retirement, health care, etc. You'll be required to pay quarterly. I don't think you should base your fee on what \"\"this\"\" company will pay as a full-time employee, but what you can expect in your area. They're saving a lot of money not going through an established employment firm and essentially, making you create your own. There are costs to setting up and maintaining a company. They have less risk hiring you because there are no unemployment consequences for letting you go. Once you're hired, they'll probably put you on salary, so you can forget about making more money if you work over 40 hrs. IMHO - there have to be better jobs in your area than this one.\"",
"In the US we have social security taxes, where for a full time employee the company pays half and the employee pays half. When you work as a business, what we call 1099 for the form that the wages are reported on, then the contractor pays the full amount of social security tax. There are times when a contractor can negotiate a higher rate because the company does not have to pay that tax. However, most of the time the company just prefers to negotiate the rate based on your value. If you are a 60K year guy, then that is what they will pay you. From the company's perspective it does not matter what your tax rate is, only the value you can bring to the company. If you can add about 180K to the bottom line, then they will be happy to pay you 60K, and you should be happy to get it. Here in the US a contractor can expect to make about 7.5% more of an equivalent employee because of the social security tax savings to the company. However, not all companies are willing to provide that in compensation. Some companies see the legal and administrative costs of employees as normal, and the same costs with contractors as extra so they don't perceive a cost savings. There are other things that would preclude employers from giving the bump although it is logical to do so. First you will really have to feel out your employer for the attitude on the subject. Then I would make a logical case if they are open to providing extra compensation in return for tax savings. If I am an employee at 60K, you would also have to pay the government 18K. How about you pay me 75K as a contractor instead? That would be a great deal for all in the US.",
"\"LLC is, as far as I know, just a US thing, so I'm assuming that you are in the USA. Update for clarification: other countries do have similar concepts, but I'm not aware of any country that uses the term LLC, nor any other country that uses the single-member LLC that is disregarded for income tax purposes that I'm referring to here (and that I assume the recruiter also was talking about). Further, LLCs vary by state. I only have experience with California, so some things may not apply the same way elsewhere. Also, if you are located in one state but the client is elsewhere, things can get more complex. First, let's get one thing out of the way: do you want to be a contractor, or an employee? Both have advantage, and especially in the higher-income areas, contractor can be more beneficial for you. Make sure that if you are a contractor, your rate must be considerably higher than as employee, to make up for the benefits you give up, as well as the FICA taxes and your expense of maintaining an LLC (in California, it costs at least $800/year, plus legal advice, accounting, and various other fees etc.). On the other hand, oftentimes, the benefits as an employee aren't actually worth all that much when you are in high income brackets. Do pay attention to health insurance - that may be a valuable benefit, or it may have such high deductibles that you would be better off getting your own or paying the penalty for going uninsured. Instead of a 401(k), you can set up an IRA (update or various other options), and you can also replace all the other benefits. If you decide that being an employee is the way to go, stop here. If you decide that being a contractor is a better deal for you, then it is indeed a good idea to set up an LLC. You actually have three fundamental options: work as an individual (the legal term is \"\"sole proprietorship\"\"), form a single-member LLC disregarded for income tax purposes, or various other forms of incorporation. Of these, I would argue that the single-member LLC combines the best of both worlds: taxation is almost the same as for sole proprietorship, the paperwork is minimal (a lot less than any other form of incorporation), but it provides many of the main benefits of incorporating. There are several advantages. First, as others have already pointed out, the IRS and Department of Labor scrutinize contractor relationships carefully, because of companies that abused this status on a massive scale (Uber and now-defunct Homejoy, for instance, but also FedEx and other old-economy companies). One of the 20 criteria they use is whether you are incorporated or not. Basically, it adds to your legal credibility as a contractor. Another benefit is legal protection. If your client (or somebody else) sues \"\"you\"\", they can usually only sue the legal entity they are doing business with. Which is the LLC. Your personal assets are safe from judgments. That's why Donald Trump is still a billionaire despite his famous four bankruptcies (which I believe were corporate, not personal, bankrupcies). Update for clarification Some people argue that you are still liable for your personal actions. You should consult with a lawyer about the details, but most business liabilities don't arise from such acts. Another commenter suggested an E&O policy - a very good idea, but not a substitute for an LLC. An LLC does require some minimal paperwork - you need to set up a separate bank account, and you will need a professional accounting system (not an Excel spreadsheet). But if you are a single member LLC, the paperwork is really not a huge deal - you don't need to file a separate federal tax return. Your income will be treated as if it was personal income (the technical term is that the LLC is disregarded for IRS tax purposes). California still does require a separate tax return, but that's only two pages or so, and unless you make a large amount, the tax is always $800. That small amount of paperwork is probably why your recruiter recommended the LLC, rather than other forms of incorporation. So if you want to be a contractor, then it sounds like your recruiter gave you good advice. If you want to be an employee, don't do it. A couple more points, not directly related to the question, but hopefully generally helpful: If you are a contractor (whether as sole proprietor or through an LLC), in most cities you need a business license. Not only that, but you may even need a separate business license in every city you do business (for instance, in the city where your client is located, even if you don't live there). Business licenses can range from \"\"not needed\"\" to a few dollars to a few hundred dollars. In some cities, the business license fee may also depend on your income. And finally, one interesting drawback of a disregarded LLC vs. sole proprietorship as a contractor has to do with the W-9 form and your Social Security Number. Generally, when you work for somebody and receive more than $600/year, they need to ask you for your Social Security Number, using form W-9. That is always a bit of a concern because of identity theft. The IRS also recognizes a second number, the EIN (Employer Identification Number). This is basically like an SSN for corporations. You can also apply for one if you are a sole proprietor. This is a HUGE benefit because you can use the EIN in place of your SSN on the W-9. Instant identity theft protection. HOWEVER, if you have a disregarded LLC, the IRS says that you MUST use your SSN; you cannot use your EIN! Update: The source for that information is the W-9 instructions; it specifically only excludes LLCs.\"",
"You'd have to file to be incorporated (in Canada at least). It's mostly done for tax purposes. You can't just go and call yourself an corporation without filing legal papers (and be approved) with the tax agency of your country. In my experience, it'd be with the CRA. The rules at least here, there's a bunch of leeway that mostly any business can be classed as an corporation if you see fit. Hope it helps!",
"The VAT number should be equivalent from the point of view of your client. The fact that you are a sole trader and not a limited liability doesn't matter when it comes down to pay VAT. They should pay the VAT to you and you will pay it to the government. I'll guess that their issue is with tax breaks, it is a bit more tricky to receive a tax break on paid taxes if you buy something abroad (at least it is here in Finland). If they won't pay you because of that, you could open a LTD or contract the services of a 'management company' which will do the job of invoicing, receiving the money and passing it back to you, for a fee.",
"\"I don't know what you mean by \"\"claim for taxes,\"\" I think you mean pay taxes. I'm not sure how corps function in Canada but in the US single owner limited liability entities typically pass the net income through to the owner to be included in their personal tax return. So it seems all of this is more or less moot, because really you should probably already be including your income sourced from this project on your personal taxes and that's not really likely to change if you formed something more formal. The formal business arrangements really exist to limit the liability of the business spilling over in to the owner's assets. Or trouble in the owner's life spilling over to interrupt the business operation. I don't know what kind of business this is, but it may make sense to set up one of the limited liability arrangements to ensure that business liability doesn't automatically mean personal liability. A sole proprietorship or in the US we have DBA (doing business as) paperwork will get you a separate tax id number, which may be beneficial if you ever have to provide a tax ID and don't want to use your individual ID; but this won't limit your liability the way incorporating does.\"",
"\"> You do realize that investors are protected from being sued right? Not usually, no. If the investor is a partner in the company then they're just as responsible for the debts of their business as any other partner. If they're just a capital investor with no interest in the company business then sure - you can't sue them. But then my contract wouldn't be with them, would it? > So if the company you work for tanks, you can sue them, but they don't have any money so what do you expect to get? The registered owners of the company can also be held liable for it's debts if it's a corporation. Or you can always just have them sign as guarantor for your back pay. And don't say \"\"Nobody will ever do that!!\"\", because if your service is valuable enough then **YES THEY WILL**. I've pushed for a personal liability guarantee from a company owner before and got it.\"",
"VALIS Group Inc a new business on your own and defaulting on incorporating your business or being sued by a customer. Instead of being excited to start a new business, you will face difficulties as your personal assets could be taken away for fulfilling business expenses. However, if Incorporating your business, this nightmare can stay far away from you, as it alleviates personal liability as well as guards you as the corporate owner. also, has very friendly laws to incorporate a company and may require minimum documents and time period to complete company registration.",
"In general the other party will expect you to keep your promises. If you promise to do something for a fixed amount of money, you take on a risk and it is no longer their problem if you work slower than you planned. In principle it could even be the case that you take on a project and fail, after which the company may not have to pay at all. So regardless of how things should be written in your books (For example a theoretical pay above minimum wage but a loss for your private company): An important thing to note is that if you are worried about ending up below minimum wage, you are definitely asking a fee that is too low. You should keep in mind that your fee should include a fair compensation for the expected work, and a fair compensation for the risk that you have taken on.",
"When a business asks me to make out a cheque to a person rather than the business name, I take that as a red flag. Frankly it usually means that the person doesn't want the money going through their business account for some reason - probably tax evasion. I'm not saying you are doing that, but it is a frequent issue. If the company makes the cheque out to a person they may run the risk of being party to fraud. Worse still they only have your word for it that you actually own the company, and aren't ripping off your employer by pocketing their payment. Even worse, when the company is audited and finds that cheque, the person who wrote it will have to justify and document why they made it out to you or risk being charged with embezzlement. It's very much in their interests to make the cheque out to the company they did business with. Given that, you should really have an account in the name of your business. It's going to make your life much simpler in the long run.",
"Source Sole trader If you start working for yourself, you’re classed as a self-employed sole trader - even if you’ve not yet told HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). As a sole trader, you run your own business as an individual. You can keep all your business’s profits after you’ve paid tax on them. You can employ staff. ‘Sole trader’ means you’re responsible for the business, not that you have to work alone.You’re personally responsible for any losses your business makes. Tax responsibilities You must: You’re personally responsible for any losses your business makes. This is one condition which you would need to have a look. If you do some shoddy work and your client wants to recover the losses they can come after your personal money or property. LLPs have the same probelm too. And you pay NI and income tax on all of your profits. If you have a partner then both can take out the profits of a limited company, if both are directors. The tax hit will be less as compared to a single person.",
"Fellow dirty jerz resident here. I would highly recommend going the llc route. If, god forbid, anything ever happened and you were sued, the llc will contain all losses and your personal assets will not be at risk. I'm not sure about the timing of clients. Better to ask a lawyer - cheap to use online services like rocketlawyer (sp?)",
"\"This arrangement is a scam to get around certain tax and benefits laws, both State and Federal. I know they can't get away with this with a person-as-contractor, but this \"\"he's not a contractor, he's a business owner\"\" may move it into a gray area. (I used to know this stuff cold, but I've been retired for a while.) The fact that they asked you to do this is at all is, IMNSHO, a Red Flag®. They think that this way they won't be paying 1/2 your FICA, your Workman's Comp, health insurance, overtime, sick leave or vacation time ... you will. A somewhat simplistic rule of thumb for setting contracting rates is to take your targeted annual salary as a full-time, full-benefits employee and double it. So $50,000 becomes $100,000 a year; $25/hour becomes $50/hour. You can tell them that driving to their workplace from your company's location is now a \"\"site visit\"\" and charge them your hourly rate for the one-way commute time. You could also tell them that your company charges 150% for hours worked over 40 hours/week, plus 150% on Saturdays and 200% on Sundays. Your company may also have a minimum 30 days notice of termination with a penalty kicker. Get it all in writing and signed by someone who has the authority to sign it. Also, Get A Lawyer. The most expensive contracts I've ever signed were ones I thought I was smart enough to draw up myself.\"",
"There is no reason for you to open a firm. However, it will help you, if you operate separate bank account for business and personal purposes. You can run your business as proprietorship business. Your inward remittance is your income. You can deduct payment made to your colleagues as salary. You should pay them by way of cheques or bank transfer only. You are also entitled to deduct other business expenses provided you keep proper receipt of the same such as broadband connection charges, depreciation on equipment and more importantly, rent on your house. If your total receipt from such income exceeds INR 60,00,000 you will need to withhold tax on payment made to your colleagues as also subject to audit of your accounts. If you want to grow your business, suggest you should take an Import / Export Code in your own name. You can put any further question in this regard.",
"There are two reasons for incorporating a business in Canada - limiting liability and providing some freedom in structuring your taxes. Since you are asking about taxes, I will restrict myself to that topic. First of all, remember that if you don't make much money, there isn't much tax to save by clever structuring of your affairs. And if you do incorporate, you will pay taxes as a corporation, and pay taxes again on your salary paid from that corporation. It can still be advantageous, because the small business tax rate is less that the higher tax brackets of personal taxes, and you don't have to pay out all of the profit as salary. If you don't incorporate, you still must pay taxes on your net income from the business. (See brian's answer.) Definitely keep track of your income and expenses, even if you don't plan on making money, in case you get audited. If the CRA wants to call your hobby a business, you will need to show that you haven't made any profit. I am just giving you a few bits of advice because this subject is complicated. Too complicated for an answer on this site. If you are still interested, go to your local library and get some books on the subject.",
"\"Anytime you do work without any payment until the work is complete, you are effectively extending credit to the party receiving your service. How much credit you are willing to extend will vary greatly, depending on the amount and the trustworthiness of the party. For example, if you are charging $50 for something, you probably won't bother to collect money upfront, whereas if you are charging $5,000 you probably would collect some upfront. But if the party you are working for is a large financially sound company, the number may be even much higher than $5K as you can trust you will be paid. Obviously there are many factors that go into how much credit you are willing to extend to your customer. (This is why credit reports exist for banks to determine how much credit to extend to you.) As for the specific case you are asking about, which may be classified as a decent amount of work for a small business, I would default to having a written scope of work, a place in the document for both parties to sign, and specify 50% upfront payment and 50% payment at completion. When you receive the signed document and the upfront payment (and possibly even after the check clears), you begin work. I would call this my \"\"default contract\"\" and adjust according to your needs depending on the size of the job and the trustworthiness of the customer. As for your question about how to deposit the check, that depends on what type of entity you are. If you are a sole proprietor you should ask for the checks to be made out to you. If you are a business then the checks should be made out to your business name. You don't need \"\"in trust\"\" or anything similar because your customer, after paying the upfront fee, must trust that you will do the work you promise to do, just like you have to trust that after completing the work you will receive the final payment. This is the reason the default is 50% before and after. Both parties are risking (roughly) the same amount. Tip: having done the \"\"default\"\" contract many times in my career, both as a sole proprietor and a business owner, I can assure you there is a big difference between a potential customer agreeing to something in advance, and actually writing a check. The upfront payment definitely helps weed out those that were never going to end up paying you, even if their intentions were good. Tip 2: be as specific as possible as to what the scope of work will include. If you don't, particularly with software, they'll be adding feature after feature and expecting it to be \"\"included\"\".\"",
"I know a guy on a much higher rate than me, about £500 per day, and he claims to pay around 18% tax which has me bewildered He will be showing expenses, which are deductible. Check with your accountant about expenses, which can be legally claimed as expenses. This is the main benefit of operating through a limited company. Legtimate business expenses can be claimed, which you cannot do if you are a permanent employee. Your friend might also be claiming false expenses, with a shady accountant. If HMRC does decide to give a call, he might have to pay n times the money he has saved till now. And my suggestion is always ask your accountant first. He(she) knows the legal stuff, so he(she) would give you the legally correct options. If you aren't comfortable with him(her), you can always change accountants. holiday pay, sick pay and job security You miss those that is why you are paid at a rate much higher than an employee. benefit of a limited company You can arrange your salary to pay no PAYE and take the rest as dividends. You willn't have to pay PAYE on that. Secondly if you have a partner(s), all of you can be paid dividends without paying PAYE(if you don't cross the threshold).",
"I am not a lawyer. I do however own an LLC. It's setup as a partnership with 50/50 ownership. You can do it as a sole proprietorship. In basic terms, if you separate your money and assets from the money and assets of the company then you are personally immune from lawsuit and thus your personal assets are safe. You have to set it up right (fairly cheap) and keep the records right (ie never mix personal and company assets ) but it provides a nice legal buffer and in some cases tax benefits. Do not construe this as legal or accountanting advice. Speak with pros to understand and get it set up right. But it's worth it.",
"Creating a corporation is not necessarily less taxes. In fact, you'll face the problem of double taxation, and since you must pay yourself a reasonable salary, if your corporation doesn't earn much to give you as dividend after the salary, and/or your tax bracket is low, you'll in fact may end up paying more taxes. Also there's a lot of bureaucracy involved in managing a corporation. Liability on the other hand is important, and what's more important - is asset separation and limiting the liability to the corporation assets, keeping your personal assets safe. To achieve that, you don't have to create a corporation, but you can create a Limited Liability Company (LLC). LLC are disregarded entities for tax purposes (i.e.: you won't have to pay taxes twice, only once as a sole proprietor/partner), but provide the liability limitation and asset separation. LLC's are much less formal, and require much less paperwork reducing the risk of corporate veil piercing because of non-compliance. I myself decided to manage my investments through LLC's for that very reason (asset separation).",
"If the firm treats you as an employee then they are treated as having a place of business in the UK and therefore are obliged to operate PAYE on your behalf - this rule has applied to EU States since 2010 and the non-EU EEA members, including Switzerland, since 2012. If you are not an employee then your main options are: An umbrella company would basically bill the client on your behalf and pay you net of taxes and NI. You potentially take home a bit less than you would being 100% independent but it's a lot less hassle and potentially makes sense for a small contract.",
"The main risk is insurance liability - if they are in an accident who pays? It is not professional to have your employees deliver items. Most of whom make minimum wage and could care less about on time delivery.",
"Wait. You started a company and contracted it with the company you currently work for? I don’t know why but for some reason this sends up a legal red flag to me. I have no idea, but maybe double check that there isn’t any violations in this arrangement... or just never tell them.",
"\"My late answer is: Be aware of the difference of being a contractor and being an employee. I am not sure of the laws in Canada, but in the United States lots of small companies like to hire people as \"\"contractors\"\" but make them work under rules that fall into employee. The business is trying to avoid paying payroll taxes, which is fine, but make sure you know your rights and responsibilities as a contractor vs employee. You can check with your state's Bureau of Labor and Industry in the US, but I am sure wherever you are from there is a government agency to do the same thing.\"",
"Not a good idea. When you form a partnership with someone that creates a legal connection between you two. What if he racks up $50,000 on the company credit card? Do you want to be responsible for that debt? A better way to do this would be to either charge your clients $X for IT work and pay him half of $X which would get you the same 50% or simply have him agree to share 50% of any income he gets from people referred by you. This can be done in a simple contract or agreement without force you both into a partnership.",
"Note too that being a contractor means that you will unavoidably have periods between contracts; you tend to be out of work more often than a salaried employee would. You need to set your rates so your average income, including those down times, adds up to a living wage including all those benefits that aren't being covered. If a company hires a contractor, they understand that this is part of the trade-off. They avoid making a long-term commitment when they don't have a long-term need, and they accept that this convenience may cost a bit more in the short term.",
"I'd have a good look at how much anonymity an LLC offers in your state - as far as I'm aware this varies from state to state. Out here in NV an LLC owner's privacy is supposedly fairly well protected, but in other states, not quite as much. Also keep in mind that while the LLC offers some protection (and I'm a big advocate of this sort of structure if you're taking larger risks that might have a big impact on your overall personal finances), this might not apply to financing. A lot of banks tend to require an LLC's owner to guarantee loans to an LLC once they go over a certain amount or even in general. Do some research in this area because the LLC would be worth less as a protective shield to you if you're on the hook for the full amount of the loans anyway.",
"That actually sheds some useful light on the whole matter. As long as $client gets the paperwork in order, all will likely be well. Had a discussion with $client today about their recurring practices, just to establish a baseline for their understanding of the same. Not because I know there is or is not a concern, but because their business is risk management and that is a risk worth managing. Or at least worth understanding the scope of the risk and potential exposure.",
"This is dumb. The sub company will lose money but the parent company will pay taxes on the income they made off of expenses to the subcompany. This doesn't systematically reduce their risk either. Banks will loan more money if the parent company is liable to pay the bills if the sub company can't. So yes, a bank may make a loan to the sub company without any liability on the parent company, but its going to be a very small loan compared to what they would've given the parent company.",
"\"They are basically asking for the name of the legal entity that they should write on the check. You, as a person, are a legal entity, and so you can have them pay you directly, by name. This is in effect a \"\"sole proprietorship\"\" arrangement and it is the situation of most independent contractors; you're working for yourself, and you get all the money, but you also have all the responsibility. You can also set up a legal alias, or a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" (DBA) name. The only thing that changes versus using your own name is... well... that you aren't using your own name, to be honest. You pay some trivial fee for the paperwork to the county clerk or other office of record, and you're now not only John Doe, you're \"\"Zolani Enterprises\"\", and your business checks can be written out to that name and the bank (who will want a copy of the DBA paperwork to file when you set the name up as a payable entity on the account) will cash them for you. An LLC, since it was mentioned, is a \"\"Limited Liability Company\"\". It is a legal entity, incorporeal, that is your \"\"avatar\"\" in the business world. It, not you, is the entity that primarily faces anyone else in that world. You become, for legal purposes, an agent of that company, authorized to make decisions on its behalf. You can do all the same things, make all the same money, but if things go pear-shaped, the company is the one liable, not you. Sounds great, right? Well, there's a downside, and that's taxes and the increased complexity thereof. Depending on the exact structure of the company, the IRS will treat the LLC either as a corporation, a partnership, or as a \"\"disregarded entity\"\". Most one-man LLCs are typically \"\"disregarded\"\", meaning that for tax purposes, all the money the company makes is treated as if it were made by you as a sole proprietor, as in the above cases (and with the associated increased FICA and lack of tax deductions that an \"\"employee\"\" would get). Nothing can be \"\"retained\"\" by the company, because as far as the IRS is concerned it doesn't exist, so whether the money from the profits of the company actually made it into your personal checking account or not, it has to be reported by you on the Schedule C. You can elect, if you wish, to have the LLC treated as a corporation; this allows the corporation to retain earnings (and thus to \"\"own\"\" liquid assets like cash, as opposed to only fixed assets like land, cars etc). It also allows you to be an \"\"employee\"\" of your own company, and pay yourself a true \"\"salary\"\", with all the applicable tax rules including pre-tax healthcare, employer-paid FICA, etc. However, the downside here is that some money is subject to double taxation; any monies \"\"retained\"\" by the company, or paid out to members as \"\"dividends\"\", is \"\"profit\"\" of the company for which the company is taxed at the corporate rate. Then, the money from that dividend you receive from the company is taxed again at the capital gains rate on your own 1040 return. This also means that you have to file taxes twice; once for the corporation, once for you as the individual. You can't, of course, have it both ways with an LLC; you can't pay yourself a true \"\"salary\"\" and get the associated tax breaks, then receive leftover profits as a \"\"distribution\"\" and avoid double taxation. It takes multiple \"\"members\"\" (owners) to have the LLC treated like a partnership, and there are specific types of LLCs set up to handle investments, where some of what I've said above doesn't apply. I won't get into that because the question inferred a single-owner situation, but the tax rules in these additional situations are again different.\"",
"It really depends on the type of business you are running. If there is any chance of liability, you should protect yourself with an LLC. Then it is much more difficult for them to sue and take personal assets. For example, if you are a wedding photographer, you would want to be an LLC in case you lose someones pictures.",
"> Umm, one of the benefits of creating a corporation is to keep personal money separate from the business. you missed the key statement from that little link you posted. Here, I'll help you out: > An owner of a corporation can be held personally liable if he or she: personally guarantees a bank loan or a business debt on which the corporation defaults And for a brand new company, you can sure as shit guarantee that as an owner, you'll be held personally liable.",
"\"Here's an alternative. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of contract engineering firms (\"\"job shops\"\") in the United States, probably hundreds in California alone. They are in the business of doing what your \"\"employer\"\" wants you to do, they know how to do it, they have been doing it for decades, working with the biggest, most-established companies in the country. They have forgotten more about providing engineering services to clients, and paying the engineers, than you can learn in a lifetime. Call a few of them. Set up meetings. Budget a few hours for it. You want to talk with the most experienced recruiter in the office, the Old Guy Who Has Been There And Done That. Explain your situation, and tell them that, rather than go through all of the headaches yourself, you want to investigate the possibility of THEM handling all the headaches, for their usual markup of course. (You can probably word this better than I can, but you get the idea.) The shop may or may not be willing to talk about their markup. My personal opinion is that this is perfectly OK. What they make off of you, after your rate is paid, is THEIR business. Also, talk about what you do, and your recommended rate. It would not surprise me to learn that you are currently grossly underpaid. AND, mention that, if the client declines, you're going to be available immediately, and you'd certainly be open to working with them. (You will see this again.) In fact, if they have any current leads that you fit, you would certainly be interested in hearing about them. (They may already have a req from another client, for which you fit, for which the client is willing to pay much more than your current \"\"employer\"\".) If it were me, personally, I'd start with Yoh, Belcan, and maybe TAD Technical. These are three of the oldest and best. I'd also hit up CE Weekly, get a subscription, and find some other shops with offices in your area. Once you have a shop lined up, then ask your \"\"employer\"\" if, rather than you setting up a personal corporation, they'd be willing to work with an established Contract Engineering firm, who does this kind of thing for a living, who does this every day, who has been doing this for decades. Doing this is simpler for everyone, and, by going through an established firm, they avoid having to teach you how to do business with them. They also avoid the risk of having you reclassified by IRS as an employee, which exposes them to all kinds of legal and financial liability. If they say \"\"No\"\", WALK AWAY FROM THEM. Immediately. They've just thrown up a HUGE red flag. This is where the other discussions with the shop come into play.\"",
"Generally speaking, if a business loses money for whatever reason, then that reduces the profits of the business which reduces the tax payable. However if you were holding the assets on a personal basis prior to incorporating the business, the position may become more complicated. For that kind of money some professional advice may be worthwhile.",
"\"It is definitely legal, however none of such expenses will be allowed as a tax deduction for the corporation. Basically, you'll end up paying more to maintain the entity and pay taxes on its income (the rent you're paying to yourself as a corporation) at corporate rates, for no apparent benefit. Being the director/executive in the corporation will make you liable for whatever the corporation is liable, so liability isn't going away. The reason corporation is considered \"\"limited liability\"\" for owners is because shareholders are shielded from the corporate liability. Not directors or executives (which are explicitly not shielded).\"",
"\"I've been in a similar situation before. While contracting, sometimes the recruiting agency would allow me to choose between being a W2 employee or invoicing them via Corp-2-Corp. I already had a company set up (S-Corp) but the considerations are similar. Typically the C2C rate was higher than the W2 rate, to account for the extra 7.65% FICA taxes and insurance. But there were a few times where the rate offered was identical, and I still choose C2C because it enabled me to deduct many of my business expenses that I wouldn't have otherwise been able to deduct. In my case the deductions turned out to be greater than the FICA savings. Your case is slightly different than mine though in that I already had the company set up so my company related costs were \"\"sunk\"\" as far as my decision was concerned. For you though, the yearly costs associated with running the business must be factored in. For example, suppose the following: Due to these expenses you need to make up $3413 in tax deductions due to the LLC. If your effective tax rate on the extra income is 30%, then your break even point is approximately $8K in deductions (.3*(x+3413)=3413 => x = $7963) So with those made up numbers, if you have at least $8K in legitimate additional business expenses then it would make sense to form an LLC. Otherwise you'd be better off as a W2. Other considerations:\"",
"\"My employer puts \"\"contractor\"\" in your email address if you're a contractor, just so no one mistakenly treats you like a real employee. jsmith.contractor@company.com They get crappy desks not much bigger than 1970s library carrels. Some of them might be making more than I do, but I'd bet 6 months' salary that most of them aren't - a lot of them have that hangdog \"\"should I go for catfood again tonight or treat myself with some nice instant ramen?\"\" look.\"",
"Not as you suggest. Since you are sole prop, you are taxed on a cash basis. Within reason, you can prepay vendors - so temp to hire through an agency might appear more attractive than direct hire. But there needs to be a justification other than avoidance of taxes. So pre-paying 100k on 12/25 would look fishy as fuck. Plus your quality of candidate will suffer if you need anything other than low skill labor. Look at your other fully deductible expenses - anything you can prepay-prepay. For example, I set my liability insurance renewal January 15 to provide optionality. But it just shifts one year into another .. Means fuckall if you are in the same marginal bracket next year. The IRS has also relaxed depreciation on office technology. Computers are now fully deductible rather than being capitalized. @ 500k revenue you should have a CPA and legal counsel. Simply incorporating isn't tax magic. The purpose is to limit yourersonal liability, not a tax shelter - but shitty things happen once you have employees, don't create the potential for a disgruntled employee lawsuit put your shelter at risk of court judgment. That said, assuming you aren't dumping a hypothetical on the Internet, congrats - for all the headaches, having employees is the ultimate leverage .. it's like a xerox machine for your labor (including loss of fidelity with each copy) ..",
"Scalability is the key determinate - if it doesn't scale easily then chances are the big bucks will elude you. To the extent that unless your entrepreneurial idea doesn't have scalability built into the business model, you should probably think again. Straight contracting/manpower sub is always limited and problematic - whereas encapsulating the IP and developing the *system* of applying that IS scalable.",
"The short Answer is NO, HMRC do not like disguised employment which is what this is as you fall under IR35 you can bill them via an umbrella company and you should be charging the contractor rate not a permie rate. http://www.contractoruk.com/",
"Normally, incorporation is for liability reasons. Just file your taxes as a business. This just means adding a T2125 to your personal return. There's no registering, that's for GST if over a certain threshold. There's even a section in the instructions for internet businesses. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/t4002/t4002-e.html#internet_business_activities This is the form you have to fill out. Take note that there is a place to include costs from using your own home as well. Those specific expenses can't be used to create or increase a loss from your business, but a regular business loss can be deducted from your employment income. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/t2125/t2125-15e.pdf",
"Do not mix personal accounts and corporate accounts. If you're paid as your self person - this money belongs to you, not the corporation. You can contribute it to the corporation, but it is another tax event and you should understand fully the consequences. Talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). If they pay to you personally (1099) - it goes on your Schedule C, and you pay SE taxes on it. If they pay to your corporation, the corporation will pay it to you as salary, and will pay payroll taxes on it. Generally, payroll through corporation will be slightly more expensive than regular schedule C. If you have employees/subcontractors, though, you may earn money which is not from your own performance, in which case S-Corp may be an advantage.",
"You can ask the client to pay you through the LLC. In that case you should invoice them from the LLC and have them pay the invoice. If they pay you personally, you can always make a capital contribution to the LLC and use that money to buy equipment. The tax implications for a single person LLC providing professional services are the same for you either way: income is income whether it's from your LLC or an employer. It's different for the employer if they are giving you a W2 vs a 1099. So it doesn't matter much for you. If the LLC is buying equipment, make sure you get enough revenue through the LLC to at least offset those expenses.",
"You may also want to consider Delaware and Nevada as possible corporate homes. They are common choices for out of state corporations. You may find that they are better options. Will earnings prior to forming the LLC have to be claimed as self-employment income? If so, would it be easier to wait until the next calendar year to form the LLC? Earnings after forming the Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) will probably have to be claimed as self-employment income. See How LLC Members Are Taxed for more discussion. In particular, read the section on self-employment taxes: The current rule is that any owner who works in or helps manage the business must pay this tax on his or her distributive share (rightful share of profits). However, owners who are not active in the LLC -- that is, those who have merely invested money but don't provide services or make management decisions for the LLC -- may be exempt from paying self-employment taxes on their share of profits. The regulations in this area are a bit complicated, but if you actively manage or work in your LLC, you can expect to pay self-employment tax on all LLC profits allocated to you. As I read it, you actively work in the LLC, so it is unlikely that you can avoid paying self-employment taxes. So it shouldn't make any difference when you officially start an LLC. You'll have to pay self-employment taxes before and after creating the LLC regardless. If you don't want to pay self-employment taxes, you may want to consider forming a Subchapter C corporation. They don't have the same tax structure as Subchapter S corporations or LLCs. You would be paid some kind of wage, salary, or commission and the corporation would pay the employer's side of the payroll taxes. Note that Subchapter S corporations and LLCs exist because they usually pay less in tax than Subchapter C corporations do. Even including the self-employment taxes that you owe. A CPA should be able to guide you in making these decisions and help you with setup. The one time that I started a corporation, I just paid a few hundred dollars to a service and they filed the paperwork for me. That included state fees and notice costs. The CPA probably has a service association already.",
"\"Another factor you may want to consider is insurance, if your wife is at their house as a friend who happens to be teaching the kid to play and the kid falls off their chair and hurts them self that is rather different to your wife being brought in to the house as a contractor and an injury occurring during an activity that she was supervising. I am in a similar situation and I have a $5 million public liability policy, which costs about $300 per year. So if her income is likely to be less than that she may be better off \"\"helping a friend learn\"\" rather than \"\"providing tutoring services\"\". There may also be legal requirements, I am required to apply for government checks every few years in order to operate a business that involves working with children.\"",
"Are you being paid through a limited company or an umbrella company ? Are you self employed If not what they are doing is illegal. If you are being paid a salary, then the employer has to contribute their part of National Insurance. I believe they are treating you as self employed, hence asking you to generate invoices. Check your contract wordings properly. Or get help from Citizens Advice. Call them or visit their local office. Or else do call up HMRC. But if you are invoicing them, I would assume you are self employed and you have to do your self assessment. Get in contact with HMRC and ask them to generate your Unique Taxpayer Reference (UTR). THey will send you the UTR and using this you can fill your tax returns. It looks like cumbersome now, but it isn't so. You can do it yourself, I do mine. Or at the end of the financial year, get an accountant to do the returns for you, probably should charge you £100-£150. Keep all your invoices, bills, bank statements safely. This is some help from HMRC website",
"You don't need to make even close to that much to start doing this. All you need is a job where you hire your company out to another company to do work. Any kind of consulting work is usually done in a similar fashion. You can't expect people not to take advantage of tax breaks. That's like asking parents to stop getting subsidies for child care because it's not fair to bachelors. To say that people who do this don't feel anything is quite insulting.",
"It will depend on how much you expect to earn this way, and whether you expect the company to become profitable soon. Has the company just not made a profit yet, or has it actually made a significant loss that your invoices would just be offsetting? If you're earning over £10,000 per year then invoicing through the company is preferable. Above that level, you'd be taking money from the company as dividends after paying 20% corporation tax with no other tax to pay on your personal tax return. As a sole trader you'd be paying 20% income tax and 9% NI. (Note however that the company can only pay dividends from profits, which is a problem if there are significant losses to offset.) Below £10,000, there's little difference. Through the company, you can take a salary of £7956 per year without paying any income tax or NI. With the new £2000 discount on employers' NI you could then take salary up to £10,000 and just pay 12% employee's NI. As a sole trader, you pay 9% Class 4 NI over £7956 and a fixed £143 per year for Class 2 NI. Paying 9% rather than 12% saves you £60, but then you add the £143. In practice the company would work out more expensive at this level because you'll probably want to pay an accountant to deal with the payroll for you. Having the company repay your £2000 from the invoices doesn't really save any tax if the company will become profitable in the future. You don't pay any tax now since the money you receive isn't income, and the company doesn't pay any tax if the extra £2000 of revenue doesn't put it back in profit. However, if the company is profitable next year then it will have an extra £2000 of profit that would otherwise have been offset against this year's loss, and you do end up paying 20% corporation tax on the £2000. You could still have the company repay the loan in order to delay the tax liability, but it's not really tax free money. Loaning additional money to the company has no tax benefit, you just give the company £1000 and get your original £1000 back later. You pay no tax and neither does the company, but it was your money in the first place.",
"\"Your comment to James is telling and can help us lead you in the right direction: My work and lifestyle will be the same either way, as I said. This is all about how it goes \"\"on the books.\"\" [emphasis mine] As an independent consultant myself, when I hear something like \"\"the work will be the same either way\"\", I think: \"\"Here thar be dragons!\"\". Let me explain: If you go the independent contractor route, then you better act like one. The IRS (and the CRA, for Canadians) doesn't take lightly to people claiming to be independent contractors when they operate in fact like employees. Since you're not going to be behaving any different whether you are an employee or a contractor, (and assuming you'll be acting more like an employee, i.e. exclusive, etc.), then the IRS may later make a determination that you are in fact an employee, even if you choose to go \"\"on the books\"\" as an independent contractor. If that happens, then you may find yourself retroactively denied many tax benefits you'd have claimed; and owe penalties and interest too. Furthermore, your employer may be liable for additional withholding taxes, benefits, etc. after such a finding. So for those reasons, you should consider being an employee. You will avoid the potential headache I outlined above, as well as the additional paperwork etc. of being a contractor. If on the other hand you had said you wanted to maintain some flexibility to moonlight with other clients, build your own product on the side, choose what projects you work on (or don't), maybe hire subcontractors, etc. then I'd have supported the independent contractor idea. But, just on the basis of the tax characteristics only I'd say forget about it. On the financial side, I can tell you that I wouldn't have become a consultant if not for the ability to make more money in gross terms (i.e. before tax and expenses.) That is: your top line revenues ought to be higher in order to be able to offset many of the additional expenses you'd incur as an independent. IMHO, the tax benefits alone wouldn't make up for the difference. One final thing to look at is Form SS-8 mentioned at the IRS link below. If you're not sure what status to choose, the IRS can actually help you. But be prepared to wait... and wait... :-/ Additional Resources:\"",
"\"I'm no lawyer and no expert, so take my remarks as entertainment only. Also see this question. If you have a U.S. SSN which is eligible for work, they may be able to pay you on 1099 basis with your SSN as a sole proprietor, unless they have some personal reason for avoiding that. So perhaps try asking about that specifically. HR policies can be weird and tricky, maybe a nudge in the right direction will help. Not What You Asked: regardless, I might recommend you register as an LLC and get an EIN (sort of SSN for companies) for a variety of reasons. It's called a \"\"limited liability\"\" company for a reason. You may also have an easier time reaping various business-related rewards, like writing off expenses. If you do so, consider a state with no income tax like Wyoming. (Or, for convenience sake, WA if you live in BC, or maybe NH if you live in Ontario.. etc.)\"",
"In the US, and I suspect in most of the developed world, one major point of a corporation is limited liability. The stockholders are not on the hook for liabilities beyond their investment. If the company does something terrible, or fails economically, it goes bankrupt. Usually the stockholders have their investment wiped out, but they are guaranteed that they do not have to pay more in to any settlement.",
"I would not assume they would pay for any benefits. You will be responsible for paying entirely for health insurance and social security and Medicare. This move is most likely not in your best interests. At a minimum, I would charge double your current hourly rate and would charge for all hours worked including time and half for overtime. 3 times is actually probably a better choice if you want to cover holidays (which they will not pay you for), vacation time, etc. I know when I did project bids, we always priced at 2-3 times the salary we paid the employees.",
"Why would the companies pay more to cover personal risks of the employee? The employees will just have to suck it up and live with more risks. Employees who cannot work anymore because of that are the problem of the state and society, not of the company. There's a reason social safety nets were constructed in the first place.",
"I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer without knowing all about your situation, but some things to consider: If you are on a 1099, you have to pay self-employment tax, while on a W-2 you do not. That is, social security tax is 12.4% of your income. If you're a 1099, you pay the full 12.4%. If you're W-2, you pay 6.2% and the employer pays 6.2%. So if they offer you the same nominal rate of pay, you're 6.2% better off with the W-2. What sort of insurance could you get privately and what would it cost you? I have no idea what the going rates for insurance are in California. If you're all in generally good health, you might want to consider a high-deductible policy. Then if no one gets seriously sick you've saved a bunch of money on premiums. If someone does get sick you might still pay less paying the deductible than you would have paid on higher premiums. I won't go into further details as that's getting off into another question. Even if the benefits are poor, if there are any benefits at all it can be better than nothing. The only advantage I see to going with a 1099 is that if you are legally an independent contractor, then all your business expenses are deductible, while if you are an employee, there are sharp limits on deducting employee business expenses. Maybe others can think of other advantages. If there is some reason to go the 1099 route, I understand that setting up an LLC is not that hard. I've never done it, but I briefly looked into it once and it appeared to basically be a matter of filling out a form and paying a modest fee.",
"The major reason to start an LLC for side work is if you want the additional personal liability protection afforded by one. If you're operating as a sole proprietor, you may be exposing yourself to liability: debts and judgments against your business can put your personal assets at risk! So, if you're intending to continue and grow your side work in the future, you ought to consider the LLC sooner than later. It's also an important legal decision and you should consider seeking a professional opinion. The Wall Street Journal has a brief guide titled How to Form an LLC. Here are some notable excerpts: A limited liability company, or LLC, is similar to a partnership but has the legal protections of personal assets that a corporation offers without the burdensome formalities, paperwork and fees. [...] Some states charge annual fees and taxes that can diminish the economic advantage of choosing to become an LLC. Among LLC advantages: pass-through taxation – meaning the profits and losses “pass through” the business to the individuals owning the business who report this information on their own personal tax returns. The result can be paying less in taxes, since profits are not taxed at both the business level and the personal level. Another plus: Owners aren’t usually responsible for the company’s debts and liabilities. [...] Also check out onstartups.com's Startup 101: Should You Form An Inc. or An LLC? Here are some additional articles that discuss the advantages / disadvantages of forming an LLC:",
"\"I expect the company wanted to pay you for a product (on a purchase order) rather than as a contract laborer. Whatever. Would they be willing to re-issue the check to you as a sole proprietor of a business named ABC Consulting (or anything like that)? You can register your sole proprietor business with the state using a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" (DBA, or fictitious name), and then open the bank account for your business using the check provided by the customer as the first deposit. (There is likely a smaller registration fee for the DBA.) If they won't re-issue the check and you have to go the LLC route... Scrounge up $125 doing odd jobs or borrowing from a friend or parents. Seriously, anyone can earn that amount of money in a week or two. Besides the filing fee for the LLC, your bank may require you to provide an Operating Agreement (which is not required by the State). The Operating Agreement can be simple, or more complex if you have a partner (even if it's a spouse). If you do have a partner, it is essential to have such an agreement because it would specify the responsibilities and benefits allocated to each partner, particularly in the event of equity distributions (taking money out of the business, or liquidating and ending the LLC). There are websites that will provide you a boilerplate form for Operating Agreements. But if your business is anything more than just single member LLC, you should pay an attorney to draw one up for you so the wording is right. It's a safeguard against potential future lawsuits. And, while we're at it, don't forget to obtain a EIN (equivalent to a SSN) from the IRS for your LLC. There's no cost, but you'll have to have it to file taxes as a business for every year the LLC exists and has income. Good luck!\"",
"\"I don't see why you would need an \"\"international tax specialist\"\". You need a tax specialist to give you a consultation and training on your situation, but it doesn't seem too complicated to me. You invoice your client and get paid - you're a 1099 contractor. They should issue you a 1099 at the end of the year on everything they paid you. Once you become full-time employee - you become a W2 employee and will get a W2 at the end of the year on the amounts paid as such. From your perspective there's nothing international here, regular business. You have to pay your own taxes on the 1099 income (including SE taxes), they have to withhold taxes from your W2 income (including FICA). Since they're foreign employers, they might not do that latter part, and you'll have to deal with that on your tax return, any decent EA/CPA will be able to accommodate you with that. For the employer there's an issue of international taxation. They might have to register as a foreign business in your state, they might be liable for some payroll taxes and State taxes, etc etc. They might not be aware of all that. They might also be liable (or exempt) for Federal taxes, depending on the treaty provisions. But that's their problem. Your only concern is whether they're going to issue you a proper W2 and do all the withholdings or not when the time comes.\"",
"\"I am co-owner of a business, and we incorporated federally. (Mostly to limit liability.) There is some excellent information above, and most of my wisdom I got from a trusted lawyer and accountant (find experts you trust in these two areas, they will prove invaluable in so many areas.) The one point I would add is that if you decide to incorporate, you can do so federally or provincially. We were all set to go provincially, when our lawyer asked \"\"Is there any chance you might move the business? Any chance you might want to do work in other provinces? What about next year? Five years?\"\" If you are going through the expenses to set up a corporation, consider doing so federally, the extra costs were insignificant, but someday you might be glad you don't have to start from scratch. In this day and age, many people end up moving out of province for work, family concerns, etc.\"",
"This is pretty normal. I am in the UK and currently doing the exact same thing. As some answers state there is additional tax law called IR35. But thats all it is, an additional tax law that may be applicable to your situation (it very well may not). It is all perfectly legal and common (all my university friends now do it). You will be the director of a company, and invoice the recruiters company. This has benefits and disadvantages. Personally I love it, but each to their own. Don't do it if you don't want to.",
"You should look into an LLC. Its a fairly simple process, and the income simply flows through to your individual return. It will allow you to deduct supplies and other expenses from that income. It should also protect you if someone sues you for doing shoddy work (even if the work was fine), although you would need to consult a lawyer to be sure. For last year, it sounds like your taxes were done wrong. There are very, very few ways that you can end up adding more income and earning less after taxes. I'm tempted to say none, but our tax laws are so complex that I'm sure you can do it somehow.",
"Talk to an insurance broker. Dealing with property can be risky. If someone slips and decides to sue, the lawyer is going to drag everyone into it. Look for business insurance, but also personal liability and umbrella insurance. You might think you're doing things as part of your business and find out you're actually doing them as yourself and when sued, you are being sued, not your company! An insurance agent will be able to sort things out for you though.",
"\"The \"\"more money\"\" aspect is only true if you ignore the lack of symmetry between employment and contracting. Consulting is another story altogether. Companies are willing to pay consultants for a number of reasons but the most important is deniability. If a decision is recommended and goes wrong then the consultants can be sued. Liability cover is expensive. Cynicism aside, it often isn't cost-effective to keep specialists permanently on the payroll for tasks that are performed once a year. Recently I've noticed that the nature of consulting is changing. Companies are starting to assemble brains-trusts of internal consultants who can create and manage projects while outsourcing only the labour-intensive data-collection roles. Expect this to have a big impact on the management consulting industry.\"",
"In general that's illegal. If you're a W2 employee, you don't miraculously become a 1099 contractor just because they pay you more. If your job doesn't change - then your status doesn't change just because they give you a raise. They can be sued (by you, and by the IRS) for that. Other issues have already been raised by other respondents, just wanted to point out this legal perspective.",
"\"Not all of the reason to start an LLC is liability (although that is implicit). There are two main reasons as far as I have experienced it: I always recommend that people set things up properly from the beginning. If you do start to grow, or if you need to cut your losses, it can be very difficult to separate yourself from the company if it isn't set up entirely apart from you. I was once told, \"\"Run your small company as you would wish it to be.\"\" Don't get into bad habits at the beginning. They become bad habits in big companies later on.\"",
"They are a business. You're not a corporation. They paid you more than $600 during the year, so they're supposed to send 1099 to you and the IRS about it. They need your taxpayer certification (W9) for that. They were supposed to ask for it before they paid you, but yes - they're supposed to ask for it.",
"If it's a small one person business he will have to sign a personal guarantee no matter what he does with respect to incorporating. Not saying your idea isn't worth looking into but no bank will lend him money without a personal guarantee.",
"That's the foundation of Limited Liability. There is a corporate veil that protects your personal assets from that of your business. The corporate veil can be pierced if you do certain stuff and thus your personal assets will get effected. This allows people to start companies and innovate more and take more risks knowing that they could not be personally liable if the business folds.",
"Contractors earn less. Especially the people that are hired under them. They usually have no education, and base pay; long hours and hard work.",
"You can receive funds from US Client as an individual. There is no legal requirement for you to have a company. If the transactions are large say more than 20 lacs in a year, its advisable to open a Private Ltd. Although its simple opening & Registering a company [A CA or a Laywer would get one at a nominal price of Rs 5000] you can do yourself. Whatever be the case, its advisable to have seperate accounts for this business / professional service transactions. Maintain proper records of the funds received. There are certain benefits you can claim, a CA can help you. Paying taxes in Advance is your responsibility and hence make sure you keep paying every quarter as advance tax. Related questions Indian citizen working from India as freelancer for U.S.-based company. How to report the income & pay tax in India? Freelancer in India working for Swiss Company Freelancing to UK company from India How do I account for money paid to colleagues out of my professional income?",
"You are describing a corporation. You can set up a corporation to perform business, but if you were using the money for any personal reasons the courts could Pierce the corporate veil and hold you personally liable. Also, setting up a corporation for purely personal reasons is fraud.",
"I read, however, that if the company's assets are not kept separate from our assets then if we got sued, the corporate veil would be pierced. This whole venture would be to give us additional income so my wife could watch our daughter and have an income.",
"> Why would the companies pay more So that we, the taxpayer, don't have to. Taxpayers shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing corporate wages by providing necessary services that an employee should be able to buy via earned income.",
"Sounds you need to read up on S corp structures. I think this would benefit you if you generate income even after you physically stopped working which is incomes from membership fees, royalties % of customer revenue, middle man etc... Under the Scorp, you as the sole member must earn a wage that fair and at current market value. You pay social security and Medicare on this wage. The interesting thing here is that an Scorp can pay out earning dividends without having to pay payroll taxes but the catch is that you, as the sole employee must earn a fair wage. As for paying the other member you may want to look into 1099 contract work plus a finders fee. The 1099 hourly wage does not require you to pay Medicare and SS. The common fee I'm used to is 5% of gross invoice. Then you would pay her an hourly wage. The company then bills these hours multiplied by 2 or 3 (or whatever you think is fair) to the client. Deduct expenses from this and that's your profit. Example. Contractor brings Client A which is estimated as a 100 hour project with $100 cost in supplies and requires 2 hours of your time @ $40/hr. You quote 100 hours @ $50 to client, client agrees and gives you down payment. You then present the contract work to your contractor, they complete the work in 100 hours and bill you at $25. You pay your contractor 2500 plus the 5% ($250) and your company earns $2070 (5000 - 2500 - 100-80) And you'll earn $80 minus the payroll tax. Then at the end of the quarter or year or however you want to do earning payouts your LLC- Scorp will write you a check for $2070 or whatever earning % you want to take. This is then taxed at your income tax bracket. One thing to keep in mind is what is preventing this other person from becoming your competition? A partnership would be great motivation to try and bring in as much work under the LLC. But if you start shafting people then they'll just keep the work and cut you out."
] |
[
"They believe that it reduces the risk that Revenue Canada will deem you to be an employee and make them pay a whole pile of tax, EI, CPP and so on that should have been paid if you had been hired as an employee. It's my recollection that the employer gets dinged for both the employee and employer share of those withholdings (and generally the employer's share is larger than yours) so they really want to prevent it. There's a Revenue Canada publication about whether you're an employee or not. There's nothing on it about being incorporated, but still employers feel more protected when their contracts are incorporated. We did work as a sole proprietorship at the very beginning, so that we could deduct our losses against employment income earned earlier in the year, before we started the business. You can find clients who will take you on. We incorporated once the losses were over with (basically we had bought the equipment and office supplies we needed to get started.) It's a simple and relatively inexpensive thing to do, and gives clients a sense of protection. It won't protect you from your own poor decisions since you'll be a director of the firm."
] |
9164
|
Bonds vs equities: crash theory
|
[
"305274",
"365298",
"263390"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"115648",
"16924",
"506743",
"149900",
"305274",
"321941",
"122581",
"187110",
"565226",
"405212",
"599420",
"418528",
"309326",
"296516",
"287656",
"101943",
"303037",
"269064",
"427707",
"228488",
"553734",
"420316",
"354767",
"500452",
"189764",
"288663",
"313669",
"392885",
"538079",
"226090",
"503467",
"108859",
"464824",
"89714",
"551893",
"160625",
"190891",
"409859",
"198119",
"66219",
"328556",
"477092",
"250018",
"112369",
"141174",
"461217",
"225536",
"477823",
"176253",
"212871",
"343693",
"549422",
"577578",
"283421",
"256950",
"127401",
"441133",
"503637",
"133380",
"311688",
"401952",
"313892",
"228341",
"483648",
"235391",
"559157",
"420978",
"478833",
"140189",
"543619",
"185156",
"520562",
"400016",
"392826",
"15385",
"475405",
"581514",
"304679",
"549465",
"280696",
"44555",
"166375",
"256663",
"283202",
"457729",
"55441",
"238024",
"494928",
"77440",
"482517",
"386162",
"72355",
"140213",
"225901",
"72510",
"453913",
"318558",
"10526",
"31581",
"282483"
] |
[
"I agree that the cause of the crash can make a huge difference in the effect on the bond market. Here's a few other possibilities: All that to say that there's no definitive answer as to how the bond market will respond to an equity crash. Bonds are much more highly correlated to equities lately, but that could be due to much lower interest rates pushing more of the risk of bonds to the credit worthiness of the issuer, increasing correlation.",
"It depends on why the stocks crashed. If this happened because interest rates shot up, bonds will suffer also. On the other hand, stocks could be crashing because economic growth (and hence earnings) are disappointing. This pulls down interest rates and lifts bonds.",
"what will happen to the valuation of Tom's bond holdings after the equity crash? This is primarily opinion based. What will happen is generally hard to predict. Bond Price Bump due to Demand: Is a possible outcome; this depends on the assumption that the bonds in the said country are still deemed safe. Recent Greece example, this may not be true. So if the investors don't believe that Bonds are safe, the money may move into Real Estate, into Bullion [Gold etc], or to other markets. In such a scenario; the price may not bump up. Bond Price Decline due to Rising Interest Rates: On a rising interest rates, the long-term bonds may loose in value while the short term bonds may hold their value. Related question How would bonds fare if interest rates rose?",
"The short answer is if you own a representative index of global bonds (say AGG) and global stocks (say ACWI) the bonds will generally only suffer minimally in even the medium large market crashes you describe. However, there are some caveats. Not all bonds will tend to react the same way. Bonds that are considered higher-yield (say BBB rated and below) tend to drop significantly in stock market crashes though not as much as stock markets themselves. Emerging market bonds can drop even more as weaker foreign currencies can drop in global crashes as well. Also, if a local market crash is caused by rampant inflation as in the US during the 70s-80s, bonds can crash at the same time as markets. There hasn't been a global crash caused by inflation after countries left the gold standard, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Still, I don't mean to scare you away from adding bond exposure to a stock portfolio as bonds tend to have low correlations with stocks and significant returns. Just be aware that these correlations can change over time (sometimes quickly) and depend on which stocks/bonds you invest in.",
"Cash would be the better alternative assuming both stocks take a major hit in ALL categories AND the Fed raise rates at the same time for some reason. Money market funds that may have relatively low yields at the moment would likely be one of the few securities not to be repriced downward as interest rates rising would decrease bond values which could be another crash as I could somewhat question how broad of a crash are you talking here. There are more than a few different market segments so that while some parts may get hit really hard in a crash, would you really want to claim everything goes down? Blackrock's graphic shows in 2008 how bonds did the best and only it and cash had positive returns in that year but there is something to be said for how big is a crash: 20%, 50%, 90%?",
"If the equity market in the USA crashed, its very likely equity markets everywhere else would crash. The USA has a high number of the world's largest businesses and there are correlations between equity markets. So you need to think of equities as a global asset class, not regional. Your question is then a question about the correlation between equity markets and currency markets. Here's a guess: If equity markets crashed, you would see a lot of panic selling of stocks denominated in many currencies, but probably the most in USD, due to the large number of the world's largest businesses trading on US stock exchanges. Therefore, when the rest of the world sells US equities they receive cash USD, which they might sell for their local currency. That selling pressure would cause USD to fall. But, when equity markets crash there's a move to safety of the bond markets. The world's largest bond markets are denominated in which currency? Probably USD. So those who receive USD for their equities are going to spend that USD on bonds. In which case there is probably no correlation between equity markets and currency markets at all. A quick google search shows this kind of thing",
"Bonds provide protections against stock market crashes, diversity and returns as the other posters have said but the primary reason to invest in bonds is to receive relatively guaranteed income. By that I mean you receive regular payments as long as the debtor doesn't go bankrupt and stop paying. Even when this happens, bondholders are the first in line to get paid from the sale of the business's assets. This also makes them less risky. Stocks don't guarantee income and shareholders are last in line to get paid. When a stock goes to zero, you lose everything, where as a bondholder will get some face value redemption to the notes issue price and still keep all the previous income payments. In addition, you can use your bond income to buy more shares of stock and increase your gains there.",
"This is a very common misconception. I've been studying equities and credits for a while now, and the simplest way to explain the difference is this: - Credit is about stable cash flows. Your investment in a bond has almost (read: almost) nothing to do with growth rate. It has everything to do with how stable the cash flows are and interest coverage. - Equity is about growth. No wonder companies with highly irregular cash flows (e.g., every single young tech company in the history of tech companies) can have the most in-demand equity while few bond investors would touch them with a ten foot pole.",
"It depends. Very generally when yields go up stocks go down and when yields go down stocks go up (as has been happening lately). If we look at the yield of the 10 year bond it reflects future expectations for interest rates. If the rate today is very low but expectations are that the short term rates will go up that would be reflected in a higher yield simply because no one would buy the longer term bond if they could simply wait out and get a better return on shoter term investments. If expectations are that the rate is going down you get what's called an inverted yield curve. The inverted yield curve is usually a sign of economic trouble ahead. Yields are also influenced by inflation expectations as @rhaskett is alluding in his answer. So. If the stock market crashes because the economy is doing poorly and if interest rates are relatively high then people would expect the rates to go down and therefore bonds will go up! However, if there's rampant inflation and the rates are going up we can expect stocks and bonds to move in opposite directions. Another interpretation of that is that one would expect stock prices to track inflation pretty well because company revenue is going to go up with inflation. If we're just talking about a bump in the road correction in a healthy economy I wouldn't expect that to have much of an immediate effect though bonds might go down a little bit in the short term but possibly even more in the long term as interest rates eventually head higher. Another scenario is a very low interest rate environment (as today) with a stock market crash and not a lot of room for yields to go further down. Both stocks and bonds are influenced by current interest rates, interest rate expectations, current inflation, inflation expectations and stock price expectation. Add noise and stir.",
"\"In a comment you say, if the market crashes, doesn't \"\"regress to the mean\"\" mean that I should still expect 7% over the long run? That being the case, wouldn't I benefit from intentionally unbalancing my portfolio and going all in on equities? I can can still rebalance using new savings. No. Regress to the mean just tells you that the future rate is likely to average 7%. The past rate and the future rate are entirely unconnected. Consider a series: The running average is That running average is (slowly) regressing to the long term mean without ever a member of the series being above 7%. Real markets actually go farther than this though. Real value may be increasing by 7% per year, but prices may move differently. Then market prices may revert to the real value. This happened to the S&P 500 in 2000-2002. Then the market started climbing again in 2003. In your system, you would have bought into the falling markets of 2001 and 2002. And you would have missed the positive bond returns in those years. That's about a -25% annual shift in returns on that portion of your portfolio. Since that's a third of your portfolio, you'd have lost 8% more than with the balanced strategy each of those two years. Note that in that case, the market was in an over-valued bubble. The bubble spent three years popping and overshot the actual value. So 2003 was a good year for stocks. But the three year return was still -11%. In retrospect, investors should have gone all in on bonds before 2000 and switched back to stocks for 2003. But no one knew that in 2000. People in the know actually started backing off in 1998 rather than 2000 and missed out on the tail end of the bubble. The rebalancing strategy automatically helps with your regression to the mean. It sells expensive bonds and buys cheaper stocks on average. Occasionally it sells modest priced bonds and buys over-priced stocks. But rarely enough that it is a better strategy overall. Incidentally, I would consider a 33% share high for bonds. 30% is better. And that shouldn't increase as you age (less than 30% bonds may be practical when you are young enough). Once you get close to retirement (five to ten years), start converting some of your savings to cash equivalents. The cash equivalents are guaranteed not to lose value (but might not gain much). This gives you predictable returns for your immediate expenses. Once retired, try to keep about five years of expenses in cash equivalents. Then you don't have to worry about short term market fluctuations. Spend down your buffer until the market catches back up. It's true that bonds are less volatile than stocks, but they can still have bad years. A 70%/30% mix of stocks/bonds is safer than either alone and gives almost as good of a return as stocks alone. Adding more bonds actually increases your risk unless you carefully balance them with the right stocks. And if you're doing that, you don't need simplistic rules like a 70%/30% balance.\"",
"A stopped clock is right two times a day. We may get a market crash similar to the financial crisis or the dot com crash or we may not. What if over the next 10 years rates rise very sluggishly, low inflation, and low growth more or less continues with maybe one brief and shallow recession. In that case I bet US stocks produce 4-5% returns per year and US bonds produce maybe 1-2% per year. European and emerging market stocks should have higher returns because they are in an earlier part of the cycle. I think your baseline has to look something like that. The last two crashes were caused by the tech bubble and the housing bubble - where is the bubble today? US stocks are expensive, but probably not in bubble territory. Bonds worldwide are unattractive with low or negative yields - negative yields maybe a bubble, but central banks will be the most hurt by negative rates and they are in a strong position to take the pain. There could be a crash I just don't see how we get there yet - maybe china?",
"\"Having cash and bonds in your portfolio isn't just about balancing out the risk and volatility inherent in equities. Consider: If you are 100% invested in equities and the market declines by 30%, you'll be hard pressed to come up with additional money to \"\"buy low\"\". You'll miss out on the rebalancing bonus. But, if you make a point of keeping some portion of your portfolio in cash and bonds, then when the market has such a decline (and it will), you'll be able to rebalance your portfolio back to target weights — i.e. redeploy some of your cash and bonds into equities to take advantage of the lower prices.\"",
"\"Nobody has a \"\"crash proof\"\" portfolio -- you can make it \"\"crash resistant\"\". You protect against a crash by diversifying and not reacting out of fear when the markets are down. Be careful about focusing on the worst possible scenario (US default) vs. the more likely scenarios. Right now, many people think that inflation and interest rates are heading up -- so you should be making sure that your bond portfolio is mostly in short-duration bonds that are less sensitive to rate risk. Another risk is opportunity cost. Many people sold all of their equities in 2008/2009, and are sitting on lots of money in cash accounts. That money is \"\"safe\"\", but those investors lost the opportunity to recoup investments or grow -- to the tune of 25-40%.\"",
"If the market has not crashed but you know it will, sell short or buy puts. If the market has crashed, buy equities while they are cheap. If you don't know if or when it will crash hold a diversified portfolio including stocks, bonds, real estate, and alternatives (gold, etc).",
"\"In some respects the analysis for this question is similar to comparing a \"\"safe\"\" return on a government bond vs. holding the stock market. Typically, the stock market's expected return will be higher -- i.e., there's a positive equity risk premium -- vs. a government bond (assuming it's held to maturity). There's no guarantee that the stock market will outperform, although the probability of outperformance rises (some analysts argue) the longer the holding period for equities beyond, say, 10 years. That's why there's generally a positive equity risk premium, otherwise no one (or relatively few investors) would hold equities.\"",
"And the fact that if notes trade up high enough they tend to get taken out with lower yielding notes (pending the call schedule), so in theory there is more limited upside in high-yield, whereas equity could theoretically trade to infinity. The positives for high-yield is that they generate monthly cash flow via coupon payments and have less down-side relative to equities. Naturally this lower down-side comes at the expense of lower up-side as well.",
"Bonds by themselves aren't recession proof. No investment is, and when a major crash (c.f. 2008) occurs, all investments will be to some extent at risk. However, bonds add a level of diversification to your investment portfolio that can make it much more stable even during downturns. Bonds do not move identically to the stock market, and so many times investing in bonds will be more profitable when the stock market is slumping. Investing some of your investment funds in bonds is safer, because that diversification allows you to have some earnings from that portion of your investment when the market is going down. It also allows you to do something called rebalancing. This is when you have target allocation proportions for your portfolio; say 60% stock 40% bond. Then, periodically look at your actual portfolio proportions. Say the market is way up - then your actual proportions might be 70% stock 30% bond. You sell 10 percentage points of stocks, and buy 10 percentage points of bonds. This over time will be a successful strategy, because it tends to buy low and sell high. In addition to the value of diversification, some bonds will tend to be more stable (but earn less), in particular blue chip corporate bonds and government bonds from stable countries. If you're willing to only earn a few percent annually on a portion of your portfolio, that part will likely not fall much during downturns - and in fact may grow as money flees to safer investments - which in turn is good for you. If you're particularly worried about your portfolio's value in the short term, such as if you're looking at retiring soon, a decent proportion should be in this kind of safer bond to ensure it doesn't lose too much value. But of course this will slow your earnings, so if you're still far from retirement, you're better off leaving things in growth stocks and accepting the risk; odds are no matter who's in charge, there will be another crash or two of some size before you retire if you're in your 30s now. But when it's not crashing, the market earns you a pretty good return, and so it's worth the risk.",
"\"That depends on how you're investing in them. Trading bonds is (arguably) riskier than trading stocks (because it has a lot of the same risks associated with stocks plus interest rate and inflation risk). That's true whether it's a recession or not. Holding bonds to maturity may or may not be recession-proof (or, perhaps more accurately, \"\"low risk\"\" as argued by @DepressedDaniel), depending on what kind of bonds they are. If you own bonds in stable governments (e.g. U.S. or German bonds or bonds in certain states or municipalities) or highly stable corporations, there's a very low risk of default even in a recession. (You didn't see companies like Microsoft, Google, or Apple going under during the 2008 crash). That's absolutely not the case for all kinds of bonds, though, especially if you're concerned about systemic risk. Just because a bond looks risk-free doesn't mean that it actually is - look how many AAA-rated securities went under during the 2008 recession. And many companies (CIT, Lehman Brothers) went bankrupt outright. To assess your exposure to risk, you have to look at a lot of factors, such as the credit-worthiness of the business, how \"\"recession-proof\"\" their product is, what kind of security or insurance you're being offered, etc. You can't even assume that bond insurance is an absolute guarantee against systemic risk - that's what got AIG into trouble, in fact. They were writing Credit Default Swaps (CDS), which are analogous to insurance on loans - basically, the seller of the CDS \"\"insures\"\" the debt (promises some kind of payment if a particular borrower defaults). When the entire credit market seized up, people naturally started asking AIG to make good on their agreement and compensate them for the loans that went bad; unfortunately, AIG didn't have the money and couldn't borrow it themselves (hence the government bailout). To address the whole issue of a company going bankrupt: it's not necessarily the case that your bonds would be completely worthless (so I disagree with the people who implied that this would be the case). They'd probably be worth a lot less than you paid for them originally, though (possibly as bad as pennies on the dollar depending on how much under water the company was). Also, depending on how long it takes to work out a deal that everyone could agree to, my understanding is that it could take a long time before you see any of your money. I think it's also possible that you'll get some of the money as equity (rather than cash) - in fact, that's how the U.S. government ended up owning a lot of Chrysler (they were Chrysler's largest lender when they went bankrupt, so the government ended up getting a lot of equity in the business as part of the settlement). Incidentally, there is a market for securities in bankrupt companies for people that don't have time to wait for the bankruptcy settlement. Naturally, people who buy securities that are in that much trouble generally expect a steep discount. To summarize:\"",
"The 'appropriate' amount of cash/bonds to hold will be largely a matter of opinion, but here are the general reasons why having at least some is a good idea: Cash is very liquid, and bonds are often mostly liquid. This means you can access them very quickly, without taking on losses. To get the most liquidity out of your bonds, you can do what is called 'laddering'. This means that you take out different bond amounts with different maturity dates, and periodically renew them on a schedule, so that you always have some bonds maturing, which you can access without paying an interest penalty. You can look this term up online for more details. Cash and bonds are low risk. If you have absolutely no low-risk assets, then in the event of, say, a market crash, you may have no savings to fall back on. By owning some bonds, and some equities, you are able to earn a modest return, without being too risky. However, note that some bonds are just as risky as equities - any bond which pays an abnormally high interest rate does so because the entity backing the repayment (government, company, whomever) is thought to not be guaranteed to be able to do so. The 25% figure given by your author is his opinion on the appropriate mix of cash/bonds to equities, but there are many views on the matter. Consider that any 'rule of thumb' in personal finance should be for general consideration only.",
"You say you have 90% in stocks. I'll assume that you have the other 10% in bonds. For the sake of simplicity, I'll assume that your investments in stocks are in nice, passive indexed mutual funds and ETFs, rather than in individual stocks. A 90% allocation in stocks is considered aggressive. The problem is that if the stock market crashes, you may lose 40% or more of your investment in a single year. As you point out, you are investing for the long term. That's great, it means you can rest easy if the stock market crashes, safe in the hope that you have many years for it to recover. So long as you have the emotional willpower to stick with it. Would you be better off with a 100% allocation in stocks? You'd think so, wouldn't you. After all, the stock market as a whole gives better expected returns than the bond market. But keep in mind, the stock market and the bond market are (somewhat) negatively correlated. That means when the stock market goes down, the bond market often goes up, and vice versa. Investing some of your money in bonds will slightly reduce your expected return but will also reduce your standard deviation and your maximum annual loss. Canadian Couch Potato has an interesting write-up on how to estimate stock and bond returns. It's based on your stocks being invested equally in the Canadian, U.S., and international markets. As you live in the U.S., that likely doesn't directly apply to you; you probably ignore the Canadian stock market, but your returns will be fairly similar. I've reproduced part of that table here: As you can see, your expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. With a 20 year window, you likely can recover from any crash. If you have the stomach for it, it's the allocation with the highest expected return. Once you get closer to retirement, though, you have less time to wait for the stock market to recover. If you still have 90% or 100% of your investment in stocks and the market crashes by 44%, it might well take you more than 6 years to recover. Canadian Couch Potato has another article, Does a 60/40 Portfolio Still Make Sense? A 60/40 portfolio is a fairly common split for regular investors. Typically considered not too aggressive, not too conservative. The article references an AP article that suggests, in the current financial climate, 60/40 isn't enough. Even they aren't recommending a 90/10 or a 100/0 split, though. Personally, I think 60/40 is too conservative. However, I don't have the stomach for a 100/0 split or even a 90/10 split. Okay, to get back to your question. So long as your time horizon is far enough out, the expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. Be sure that you can tolerate the risk, though. A 30% or 40% hit to your investments is enough to make anyone jittery. Investing a portion of your money in bonds slightly lowers your expected return but can measurably reduce your risk. As you get closer to retirement and your time horizon narrows, you have less time to recover from a stock market crash and do need to be more conservative. 6 years is probably too short to keep all your money in stocks. Is your stated approach reasonable? Well, only you can answer that. :)",
"A very simple and safe, though boring, approach is to hold cash rather than bonds, and move out of cash later once higher yields have lowered asset prices.",
"Write off the entire asset class of corporate bonds? Finance theory says yes, the only two asset classes that you need are stocks and treasury bills (very short-term US government bonds). See the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM).",
"For the type of market neutrality you desire, free from crash risk, it's best to hedge the shares with covered calls when implied volatility is expensive and puts when implied volatility is cheap with the nearest at the money expirations. A put only strategy can be very expensive and should only be used with the longest term options available since they can cost many tens of % per year. Securities become almost perfectly correlated during a crash; therefore, market crash risk of one security is essentially equal to the market crash risk, so hedging the security itself makes a position market neutral for crash risk. This strategy will have intermittent opportunity cost risk in the form of slower returns during market expansion to pay for smaller losses during a crash; however, the expected long run return hedged this way should be greater than the underlying's expected long run return with less volatility.",
"As one of the answers described, its going to depend on many factors and the environment at the time. But there is no sure way to know which strategy is better, if any are at all. I would say over several hundred years the strategies would be equally as profitable. In a free market the longer dated bonds would be priced lower (higher yield) because they are higher risk. And over a long enough time period that higher risk may end up resulting in that bond being worth less, or maybe nothing at all. In a free market, price discovery would factor all this in, and the two strategies would become equal. The same is true for the price during inversion events Having said that, we dont live in a free market. With central bankers monetizing debt in so many countries, sometimes investing in short term bonds, including US treasuries, is a guaranteed way to lose purchasing power, as these yields are below inflation and sometimes even negative.",
"There's no doubt that equities, as well as junk bonds (which have, in Europe, according to BAML, reached the same average return as 10-year-US treasuries) are currently overvalued, which is why I, and I suggest this to any active investor, have taken out all my money from tradable equities and debt and invested it into undervalued dank memes.",
"There is no single 'market interest rate'; there are myriad interest rates that vary by risk profile & term. Corporate bonds are (typically) riskier than bank deposits, and therefore pay a higher effective rate when the market for that bond is in equilibrium than a bank account does. If you are willing to accept a higher risk in order gain a higher return, you might choose bonds over bank deposits. If you want an even higher return and can accept even higher risk, you might turn to stocks over bonds. If you want still higher return and can bear the still higher risk, derivatives may be more appealing than stocks.",
"You're mixing up two different concepts: low-risk and recession-proof. I'll assume I don't need to explain risk: there is always risk, regardless what form you keep your assets in. With bonds, the interest rate is supposed to reflect the risk. If a company offers bonds with too low an interest rate for the risk level, few people will buy them. While if a company offers bonds with too high an interest rate for the level of risk, they are gypping themselves. So a bond is a slightly more transparent investment from a risk assessment perspective, but that doesn't mean the risk is necessarily low: if you buy a bond with a 20% effective annual yield, that means there is quite a high risk that the underlying company will fold (unless inflation is in the double-digit range as well, in which case a 20% yield is not that much). Whereas with a stock, no parameter directly tells you anything about the risk. Recession-proof is not the same thing as low-risk. Recession-proof refers to investing in (or holding debt for) industries that perform better in a recession. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/08/industries-thrive-on-recession.asp.",
"\"20-year Treasury Bonds are not equivalent to cash, not even close. Even though the bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, they are long-term debt and therefore their principal value will fluctuate considerably as market interest rates change. When interest rates rise, the market value of 20-year bonds will drop, and drop more than shorter-term bonds would. Your principal is not protected in the short term. Principal is only guaranteed returned at the 20-year maturity of those bonds. But, oops, there is no maturity on the 20-year bond ETFs because every year the ETF rolls the 19-year positions into new 20-year positions! ;-) For an \"\"equivalent to cash\"\" piece of a portfolio, I'd want my principal to be intact over the short term, and continually reinvested at the higher short-term rates as rates are rising. Reinvesting at short-term rates can be an inflation-hedge. But, money locked in for 20-years is a sitting duck for inflation. Still, inflation aside, why do we want our \"\"equivalent to cash\"\" position to be relatively liquid and principal-protected? When it comes time to rebalance your portfolio after disastrous equity and/or bond returns, you've got in your cash component some excess weighting since it was unaffected by the disastrous performance. That excess cash is ready to be deployed to purchase equities and/or bonds at the lower current prices. Rebalancing from cash can add a bonus to your returns and smooth volatility. If you have no cash component and only equities and bonds, you have no money to deploy when both equities and bonds are depressed. You didn't keep any powder dry. And, BTW, I would personally keep a bit more than 3% of my powder dry. Consider a short-term cash deposit or good money-market fund for your \"\"equivalent to cash\"\" position.\"",
"Dividends are actually a very stable portion of equity returns, the Great recession and Great Depression notwithstanding: However, dividends, with lower variance have lower returns. Most of the return is due to the more variant price: So while dividends fell by 25% during the worst drop since the Great Depression, prices fell almost by 2/3. If one can accumulate enough wealth to live only off of dividend income, the price risk becomes much more manageable. This is the ideal circumstance for retirement.",
"If you believe you can time the crash, then We all know what comes after a crash… just as we know what comes after the doom, we just don’t know when….",
"I found a comparison of stock and bond returns. The relevant portion here is that bonds went up by 10% in 2007 and 20% in 2008 (32% compounded). Stocks were already recovering in 2009, going up almost 26%. You don't mention what you were hoping to get from your gold investment, but bonds gave a very good return for those two years.",
"\"Yes. Bonds perform very well in a recession. In fact the safer the bond, the better it would do in a recession. Think of markets having four seasons: High growth and low inflation - \"\"growing economy\"\" High growth and high inflation - \"\"overheating economy\"\" Low growth and high inflation - \"\"stagflation\"\" Low growth and low inflation - \"\"recession\"\" Bonds are the best investment in a recession. qplum's flagship strategy had a very high allocation to bonds in the financial crisis. That's why in backtest it shows much better returns.\"",
"In 2008, the S&P was down 37%. I love charts that show sector performance by year, as it helps show that 2008 wasn't like the crash of 2000-01 which was more tech-centric. Funds that were more geared towards bonds would have been up as the 10 year Treasury was up 20%. I understand you have a low risk tolerance. Over the long term, this will cost you. The CAGR for the S&P from 1928-2011 was 9.23%, for treasuries, 5.14%. This difference adds up dramatically over time. These rates double your stock investments every 8 years on average vs nearly 14 years for bonds. See the MoneyChimp site to tinker with start/finish years to understand long term returns.",
"With a long enough time horizon, no matter when you buy, equities almost always outperform cash and bonds. There's an article here with some info: http://www.fool.co.uk/investing-basics/how-when-and-where-to-invest/ Holding period where shares have beaten cash There was a similar study done which showed if you picked any day in the last 100 years, no matter if the market was at a high or low, after 1 year your probability of being in profit was only 0.5, but after 10-20 years it was almost certainly 1.0. Equities compound dividends too, and the best place to invest is in diversified stock indices such as the S&P500, FTSE100, DOW30 or indices/funds which pay dividends. The best way to capture returns is to dollar cost average (e.g. place a lump sum, then add $x every month), to re-invest dividends, and oh, to forget about it in an IRA or SIPP (Self invested pension) or other vehicle which discourages tampering with your investment. Yes, values rise and fall but we humans are so short sighted, if we had bought the S&P in 2007 and sold in 2009 in fear, we would have missed out on the 25% gain (excluding dividends) from 2007-2014. That's about 3% a year gain even if you bought the 2007 high -beating cash or bonds even after the financial crisis. Now imagine had you dollar cost averaged the entire period from 2007-2014 where your gain would be. Your equity curve would have the same shape as the S&P (with its drastic dip in 2009) but an accelerated growth after. There are studies if you dig that demonstrate the above. From experience I can tell you timing the market is nigh impossible and most fund managers are unable to beat the indices. Far better to DCA and re-invest dividends and not care about market gyrations! ..",
"A stock is an ownership interest in a company. There can be multiple classes of shares, but to simplify, assuming only one class of shares, a company issues some number of shares, let's say 1,000,000 shares and you can buy shares of the company. If you own 1,000 shares in this example, you would own one one-thousandth of the company. Public companies have their shares traded on the open market and the price varies as demand for the stock comes and goes relative to people willing to sell their shares. You typically buy stock in a company because you believe the company is going to prosper into the future and thus the value of its stock should rise in the open market. A bond is an indebted interest in a company. A company issues bonds to borrow money at an interest rate specified in the bond issuance and makes periodic payments of principal and interest. You buy bonds in a company to lend the company money at an interest rate specified in the bond because you believe the company will be able to repay the debt per the terms of the bond. The value of a bond as traded on the open exchange varies as the prevailing interest rates vary. If you buy a bond for $1,000 yielding 5% interest and interest rates go up to 10%, the value of your bond in the open market goes down so that the payment terms of 5% on $1,000 matches hypothetical terms of 10% on a lesser principal amount. Whatever lesser principal amount at the new rate would lead to the same payment terms determines the new market value. Alternatively, if interest rates go down, the current value of your bond increases on the open market to make it appear as if it is yielding a lower rate. Regardless of the market value, the company continues to pay interest on the original debt per its terms, so you can always hold onto a bond and get the original promised interest as long as the company does not go bankrupt. So in summary, bonds tend to be a safer investment that offers less potential return. However, this is not always the case, since if interest rates skyrocket, your bond's value will plummet, although you could just hold onto them and get the low rate originally promised.",
"I always find this funny. How can government bonds be in attractive and currency be attractive? With monetary policy America guarantees that it can't default on debt. The only thing that can happen which breaks this is if the government prints itself out of debt. In which case not only will you bonds be worthless but so will your cash. So to all the investors with boats of cash, you are trading one problem for the same problem. The only difference is you can hold the second problem in your hands. Fools.",
"\"The price of real estate reacts to both demand for property and the rate of inflation and rate of income growth. Mortgage rates generally move as treasury rates move. See this paragraph: As we mentioned, intermediate term bonds and long-term mortgages (more properly, Mortgage-Backed Securities, or MBS) compete for the same fixed-income investor dollar. Treasury issues are 100% guaranteed to be repaid, but mortgages are not; therefore mortgages carry more risk of default or early repayment, which could potentially disturb the return on the investment. Therefore, mortgage rates must be priced higher to compensate for that risk. But how much higher are mortgages priced? In a normal market, the average \"\"spread\"\" or markup above the 100% secured Treasury is about 170 basis points, or 1.7%. That markup -- the spread relationship -- widens and contracts with a range of market conditions, investor appetites and supply of available product -- as well as the presence of competing investment opportunities, like corporate bonds or domestic (or foreign) equity markets Source: What Moves Mortgage Rates? And when the stock market crashes, investors tend to run to bonds and treasuries, which causes prices to go up and treasury yields to drop. Theoretically, this would also cause mortgage rates to drop, although most mortgage rates have a base price below which they cannot fall. How easy is it to profit from recent stock market drops and at what frequency? Incredibly difficult. The issue with your strategy is that you cannot predict the bottom of the market (at least us mortals can't). Just take the month of August for example. Stocks fell something like 15%? After the first 5-10% drop, people felt that the bottom was there, so they rushed in, only to have the market fall even more. How will you know when to invest? Even if the market falls by 50%, and there's a huge buying opportunity, and you increase the mortgage on your house, odds are your rates will increase because of the equity you take out. What if the market stays low for a very long time? Will you be able to maintain mortgage payments? Japan's stock bubble popped in the early 90's, and they've had two lost decade's now. Furthermore, there are issues of liquidity. What if you need more capital? Can you just sell a property or can you buy now property to draw equity against? What if the market is moving too fast for you to take advantage of. Don't ignore transaction costs and taxes either. Overall, there are a lot of ways that your idea can go wrong, and not many ways it can go right.\"",
"Yes, bond funds are marked to market, so they will decline as the composition of their holdings will. Households actually have unimpressive relative levels of credit to equity holdings. The reason why is because there is little return on credit, making it irrational to hold any amount greater than to fund future liquidity needs, risk adjusted and time discounted. The vast majority of credit is held by insurance companies. Pension funds have large stakes as well. Banks hold even fewer bonds since they try to sell them as soon as they've made them. Insurance companies are forced to hold a large percentage of their floats in credit then preferred equity. While this dulls their returns, it's not a large problem for them because they typically hold bonds until maturity. Only the ones who misprice the risk of insurance will have to sell at unfavorable prices. Being able to predict interest rates thus bond prices accurately would make one the best bond manager in the world. While it does look like inflation will rise again soon just as it has during every other US expansion, can it be assured when commodity prices are high in real terms and look like they may be in a collapse? The banking industry would have to produce credit at a much higher rate to counter the deflation of all physical goods. Households typically shun assets at low prices to pursue others at high prices, so their holdings of bonds ETFs should be expected to decline during a bond collapse. If insurance companies find it less costly to hold ETFs then they will contribute to an increase in bond ETF supply.",
"Barton Biggs's book Wealth, War and Wisdom aims to answer the question of what investments are best-suited to preserving value despite large-scale catastrophes by looking at how various investments and assets performed in countries affected by WWII. In Japan, stocks and urban land turned out to be good investments; in France, farm land and gold did better. Stocks outperformed bonds in nearly every country. Phil Greenspun recently wrote a review of the book.",
"If you know the market will crash, you could opt for going short. However, if you think this is too risky, not investing at all is probably your best move. In case of crises, correlation go up and almost all assets go down.",
"In the 2008 housing crash, cash was king. Cash can make your mortgage payment, buy groceries, utilities, etc. Great deals on bank owned properties were available for those with cash. Getting a mortgage in 2008-2011 was tough. If you are worried about stock market crashing, then diversification is key. Don't have all your investments in one mutual fund or sector. Gold and precious metals have a place in one's portfolio, say 5-10 percent as an insurance policy. The days of using a Gold Double Eagle to pay the property taxes are largely gone, although Utah does allow it. The biggest lesson I took from the crash is you cant have too much cash saved. Build up the rainy day fund.",
"The volatility of an index fund should usually be a lot lower than that of an individual stock. However even with a broad index fund you should consider the fact that being down by 10% in the time frame you refer to is quite possible! So is being up by 10% of course. A corporate bond might be a better choice if you can find one you trust.",
"\"not sure if I will help or just spread more gibberish but maybe the first concept I'd look at is risk tolerance. Risk tolerance is discerning your ability to risk losing money to get better results. So you know the saying \"\"the higher the risk the higher the reward\"\"? The way most people are going to operate is somewhere on the midpoint of behavior - not doing the riskiest thing, but not doing the very most cautious thing either. So given that concept, some investments will be more appealing given different economic scenarios. Typically stocks are going to reward your investment a little more aggressively than a treasury bond if the economy is humming along. This drives prices of treasuries lower, stock yields higher. In a crappy economy, people want to move their money into conservative investments like a treasury bond. Bond prices rise while stock prices dip. If you google 'correlations between the market prices of stocks and the market prices of Treasury bonds' you will find plenty of helpful and hopefully not too convoluted articles a la http://finance.zacks.com/correlation-treasuries-stocks-10871.html Don't get freaked out by graphs, the graphs are just a way to put into a picture that correlation.\"",
"\"I can think of a few reasons for this. First, bonds are not as correlated with the stock market so having some in your portfolio will reduce volatility by a bit. This is nice because it makes you panic less about the value changes in your portfolio when the stock market is acting up, and I'm sure that fund managers would rather you make less money consistently then more money in a more volatile way. Secondly, you never know when you might need that money, and since stock market crashes tend to be correlated with people losing their jobs, it would be really unfortunate to have to sell off stocks when they are under-priced due to market shenanigans. The bond portion of your portfolio would be more likely to be stable and easier to sell to help you get through a rough patch. I have some investment money I don't plan to touch for 20 years and I have the bond portion set to 5-10% since I might as well go for a \"\"high growth\"\" position, but if you're more conservative, and might make withdrawals, it's better to have more in bonds... I definitely will switch over more into bonds when I get ready to retire-- I'd rather have slow consistent payments for my retirement than lose a lot in an unexpected crash at a bad time!\"",
"Smallest risk of default would depend on where Alice and Bob live I suppose, but lets assume they are in a lower yielding nation where default is not a big concern. Remember for instance that Greece was a lower yielding nation at one point and that the US has defaulted before. Let's start with Bob because he is easier to analyze. Yield curves inversions generally pre-date recessions which is generally not so good for Bob as rates tend to drop during recessions and he will be at the short end of the curve so his bonds will be less sensitive. However, he will generally get higher yields in good times to make up for this, but these higher yields come with a price in that he is generally much more sensitive to yield changes and can get much larger swings in portfolio value. First off as JB mentioned Alice would likely own inflation-linked (IL) bonds. Which behave fairly differently from Bob's bonds. However, to keep this simple lets say they live in a place without IL bonds or IL bonds are not a consideration. Then generally Alice has lower yielding bonds in good times but may do very well when the fed steps in during a crisis. So, who wins in the long run? Likely Christi who owns a mix of a broad index of stocks and bonds in a risk mix where she wouldn't have to sell in downturns. Especially, as Christi wouldn't have to pay the trading costs of moving her whole portfolio between long and short bonds. Between Bob and Alice however Bob would likely win in the long run as the markets generally reward risk taking in the long run. Still inflation (even without the IL bonds) and general rate trends (long-term rates are historically low right now) could have Bob losing for uncomfortably long periods.",
"\"Being long the S&P Index ETF you can expect to make money. The index itself will never \"\"crash\"\" because the individual stocks in it are simply removed when they begin performing badly. This is not to say that the S&P Index won't lose 80% of its value in an instant (or over a few trading sessions if circuit breakers are considered), but even in the 2008 correction, the S&P still traded far above book value. With this in mind, you have to realize, that despite common sentiment, the indexes are hardly representative of \"\"the market\"\". They are just a derivative, and as you might be aware, derivatives can enable financial tricks far removed from reality. Regarding index funds, if a small group of people decide that 401k's are performing badly, then they will simply rebalance the components of the indexes with companies that are doing well. The headline will be \"\"S&P makes ANOTHER record high today\"\" So although panic selling can disrupt the order book, especially during periods of illiquidity, with the current structure \"\"the stock market\"\" being based off of three composite indexes, can never crash, because there will always exist a company that is not exposed to broad market fluctuations and will be performing better by fundamentals and share price. Similarly, you collect dividends from the index ETFs. You can also sell covered calls on your holdings. The CBOE has a chart through the 2008 crisis showing your theoretical profit and loss if you sold calls 2 standard deviations out of the money, at every monthly interval. If you are going to be holding an index ETF for a long time, then you shouldn't be concerned about its share price at all, since the returns would be pretty abysmal either way, but it should suffice for hedging inflation.\"",
"You should definitely favor holding bonds in tax-advantaged accounts, because bonds are not tax-efficient. The reason is that more of their value comes in the form of regular, periodic distributions, rather than an increase in value as is the case with stocks or stock funds. With stocks, you can choose to realize all that appreciation when it is most advantageous for you from a tax perspective. Additionally, stock dividends often receive lower tax rates. For much more detail, see Tax-efficient fund placement.",
"Bank assets are debt. Thus bank equity is a claim on debt. Note also that QE etal dropped interest rates, compressing interest rate spreads and making it harder for banks to make money. Banks do well when interest rates increase",
"Small companies are generally able to adapt quickly to take advantage of changing conditions to enter new markets when the economy is growing. This gives them a lot of growth potential under those circumstances. However, in times of crisis, there may not be a lot of new markets to enter, and financing to expand any operations may be impossible to get. Under these conditions, small-caps will suffer relative to large-caps.",
"I don't believe I said anything about the stock market going down, which happens regularly. It's not like municipal bond markets crash very often—once every few generations, maybe. So her being off by a couple years would be insignificant. Not saying I think it's going to happen. I'm just posing the question. If the municipal bond markets crashed within the next year, she would be vindicated.",
"\"The answer to your question depends very much on your definition of \"\"long-term\"\". Because let's make something clear: an investment horizon of three to six months is not long term. And you need to consider the length of time from when an \"\"emergency\"\" develops until you will need to tap into the money. Emergencies almost by definition are unplanned. When talking about investment risk, the real word that should be used is volatility. Stocks aren't inherently riskier than bonds issued by the same company. They are likely to be a more volatile instrument, however. This means that while stocks can easily gain 15-20 percent or more in a year if you are lucky (as a holder), they can also easily lose just as much (which is good if you are looking to buy, unless the loss is precipitated by significantly weaker fundamentals such as earning lookout). Most of the time stocks rebound and regain lost valuation, but this can take some time. If you have to sell during that period, then you lose money. The purpose of an emergency fund is generally to be liquid, easily accessible without penalties, stable in value, and provide a cushion against potentially large, unplanned expenses. If you live on your own, have good insurance, rent your home, don't have any major household (or other) items that might break and require immediate replacement or repair, then just looking at your emergency fund in terms of months of normal outlay makes sense. If you own your home, have dependents, lack insurance and have major possessions which you need, then you need to factor those risks into deciding how large an emergency fund you might need, and perhaps consider not just normal outlays but also some exceptional situations. What if the refrigerator and water heater breaks down at the same time that something breaks a few windows, for example? What if you also need to make an emergency trip near the same time because a relative becomes seriously ill? Notice that the purpose of the emergency fund is specifically not to generate significant interest or dividend income. Since it needs to be stable in value (not depreciate) and liquid, an emergency fund will tend towards lower-risk and thus lower-yield investments, the extreme being cash or the for many more practical option of a savings account. Account forms geared toward retirement savings tend to not be particularly liquid. Sure, you can usually swap out one investment vehicle for another, but you can't easily withdraw your money without significant penalties if at all. Bonds are generally more stable in value than stocks, which is a good thing for a longer-term portion of an emergency fund. Just make sure that you are able to withdraw the money with short notice without significant penalties, and pick bonds issued by stable companies (or a fund of investment-grade bonds). However, in the present investment climate, this means that you are looking at returns not significantly better than those of a high-yield savings account while taking on a certain amount of additional risk. Bonds today can easily have a place if you have to pick some form of investment vehicle, but if you have the option of keeping the cash in a high-yield savings account, that might actually be a better option. Any stock market investments should be seen as investments rather than a safety net. Hopefully they will grow over time, but it is perfectly possible that they will lose value. If what triggers your financial emergency is anything more than local, it is certainly possible to have that same trigger cause a decline in the stock market. Money that you need for regular expenses, even unplanned ones, should not be in investments. Thus, you first decide how large an emergency fund you need based on your particular situation. Then, you build up that amount of money in a savings vehicle rather than an investment vehicle. Once you have the emergency fund in savings, then by all means continue to put the same amount of money into investments instead. Just make sure to, if you tap into the emergency fund, replenish it as quickly as possible.\"",
"\"First, there will always be people who think the market is about to crash. It doesn't really crash very often. When it does crash, they always say they predicted it. Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. You could go short (short selling stocks), which requires a margin account that you have to qualify for (typically you can only short up to half the value of your account, in the US). And if you've maxed out your margin limits and your account continues to drop in value, you risk a margin call, which would force you to cover your shorts, which you may not be able to afford. You could invest in a fund that does the shorting for you. You could also consider actually buying good investments while their prices are low. Since you cannot predict the start, or end, of a \"\"crash\"\" you should consider dollar-cost-averaging until your stocks hit a price you've pre-determined is your \"\"trigger\"\", then purchase larger quantities at the bargain prices. The equity markets have never failed to recover from crashes. Ever.\"",
"\"The federal funds rate is one of the risk-free short-term rates in the economy. We often think of fixed income securities as paying this rate plus some premia associated with risk. For a treasury security, we can think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) The term premium is a bit extra the bond pays because if you hold a long term bond, you are exposed to interest rate risk, which is the risk that rates will generally rise after you buy, making your bond worth less. The relation is more complex if people have expectations of future rate moves, but this is the general idea. Anyway, generally speaking, longer term bonds are exposed to more interest rate risk, so they pay more, on average. For a corporate bond, we think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) + (default premium) where the default premium is some extra that the bond must pay to compensate the holder for default risk, which is the risk that the bond defaults or loses value as the company's prospects fall. You can see that corporate and government bonds are affected the same way (approximately, this is all hand-waving) by changes in the fed funds rate. Now, that all refers to the rates on new bonds. After a bond is issued, its value falls if rates rise because new bonds are relatively more attractive. Its value rises if rates on new bonds falls. So if there is an unexpected rise in the fed funds rate and you are holding a bond, you will be sad, especially if it is a long term bond (doesn't matter if it's corporate or government). Ask yourself, though, whether an increase in fed funds will be unexpected at this point. If the increase was expected, it will already be priced in. Are you more of an expert than the folks on wall-street at predicting interest rate changes? If not, it might not make sense to make decisions based on your belief about where rates are going. Just saying. Brick points out that treasuries are tax advantaged. That is, you don't have to pay state income tax on them (but you do pay federal). If you live in a state where this is true, this may matter to you a little bit. They also pay unnaturally little because they are convenient for use as a cash substitute in transactions and margining (\"\"convenience yield\"\"). In general, treasuries just don't pay much. Young folk like you tend to buy corporate bonds instead, so they can make money on the default and term premia.\"",
">Well, reserve requirements concern, as the name suggests, the reserves, e.g. a position on the balance sheet. Yes, the book value of equity is not affected. However, when the market value experiences a steep decline, you find those that hold deposits begin moving them out of the bank. Investment fear and business fear tend to move together with financial institutions. That directly impacts the reserve requirements. >but sharp price drops in fact can help you to raise equity, simply because your ratios improved (P/E, P/B, in fact any ratio that includes the price part) and the stock became cheaper Not when there is bankruptcy or solvency issues that become present. Obviously an investor wants to buy low and sell high, but if there is a substantial risk of bankruptcy, the common stockholder will demand a premium unattainable by most non-growth firms (i.e. biotech, tech, etc.). That is the issue with France. Liquidity issues stem from systemic risk, but those French banks also possess significant firm risk due to their exposure to sovereign debt. Once those banks mark all of their holdings to market, they will realize substantial losses. BNP recently recorded a nearly $1B write-down.",
"Bonds have multiple points of risk: This is part of the time value of money chapter in any finance course. Disclaimer - Duff's answer popped up as I was still doing the bond calculations. Similar to mine but less nerdy.",
"You are right about the stock and index funds, with dollar cost averaging over several years, the daily price of the security (especially a dividend paying security) will not matter* because your position will have accumulated larger over several entry points, some entries with cheaper shares and some entries with more expensive shares. In the future your position will be so large that any uptick will net you large gains on your original equity. *not matter being a reference to even extreme forms of volatility. But if you had all your equity in a poor company and tanked, never to rise again, then you would still be in a losing position even with dollar cost averaging. If your only other holdings are bonds, then you MAY want to sell those to free up capital.",
"During the hyperinflation of the Wiermer republic, corporate stocks and convertible bonds were thought second only to the species (gold, silver etc) as the only secure currencies. As Milton Friedman proved, inflation is caused solely by the monetary token supply increasing faster than productivity. In the past, days of species of currency, it was caused by governments debasing the currency e.g. streatching the same amount of silver in 50 coins to 100 coins. Sudden increases in the supply of precious metals can also trigger it. The various gold rushes in 19th century and later, improvements in extraction methods caused bouts of inflation. Most famously, the huge amounts of silver the Spanish extracted from the New World mines, devastated the European economy with high inflation. Governments use inflation as a form of stealth flat tax. Money functions as an Abstract Universal Trade Good and it obeys all the rules of supply and demand. If the supply of money goes up suddenly, then its value drops in relation to real goods and service. But that drop in value doesn't occur instantly, the increased quality of tokens has to percolate through the market before the value changes. So, the first institution to spend the infalted/debased currency can get the full current value from trade. The second gets slightly less, the third even less and so on. In 2008, the Federal reserve began printing money and loaning at 0% to insolvent backs who then used that money to buy T-Bill. This had the duel effect of giving the banks an (arbitrary) A1 rated asset for their fractional reserve while the Federal government got full pre-inflation value of the money paid for the T-bills. As the government spent that money, the number of tokens increased fast than the economy. In times of inflation, the value of money per unit drops as its supply increases and increases The best hedges against inflation are real assets e.g. land, equipment, stocks (ownership of real assets) and convertible bonds which are convertible to stock. It's important to remember that money is, of itself, worthless. It's just a technology that abstracts and smilies trading which at the base, is still a barter system. During inflation the barter value of money plunges owing to increased supply. But the direct barter value between any two real assets remain the same because their supplies have not changed. The value of stocks and convertible bonds is maintained by the economic activity of the company whose ownership they represent. Dividends, stock prices and bond equity, as measured in the inflated currency continue to rise in sync with inflation. Thus they preserve the original value of the money paid for them. Not sure why you expect more inflation. The only institution that can create inflation in the US is the Federal Reserve which Trump has no direct control off. Deregulation of banks won't cause inflation in and of itself as the private banks cannot alter the money supply. If banks fail, owing to deregulation, unlikely I think given the dismal nearly century long record of regulation to date, then the Federal Reserve might fix the problem with another inflation tax, but otherwise not.",
"I have had similar thoughts regarding alternative diversifiers for the reasons you mention, but for the most part they don't exist. Gold is often mentioned, but outside of 1972-1974 when the US went off the gold standard, it hasn't been very effective in the diversification role. Cash can help a little, but it also fails to effectively protect you in a bear market, as measured by portfolio drawdowns as well as std dev, relative to gov't bonds. There are alternative assets, reverse ETFs, etc which can fulfill a specific short term defensive role in your portfolio, but which can be very dangerous and are especially poor as a long term solution; while some people claim to use them for effective results, I haven't seen anything verifiable. I don't recommend them. Gov't bonds really do have a negative correlation to equities during periods in which equities underperform (timing is often slightly delayed), and that makes them more valuable than any other asset class as a diversifier. If you are concerned about rate increases, avoid LT gov't bond funds. Intermediate will work, but will take a few hits... short term bonds will be the safest. Personally I'm in Intermediates (30%), and willing to take the modest hit, in exchange for the overall portfolio protection they provide against an equity downturn. If the hit concerns you, Tips may provide some long term help, assuming inflation rises along with rates to some degree. I personally think Tips give up too much return when equity performance is strong, but it's a modest concern - Tips may suit you better than any other option. In general, I'm less concerned with a single asset class than with the long term performance of my total portfolio.",
"Look. Here's a graph of the S&P 500. It's up 1200% since the start of the 70's, our late recession notwithstanding. You're not going to get that kind of return on bonds or commodities or savings accounts. (Maybe real estate stands a chance, if your real estate wasn't in, say, Detroit. It's not as easy to diversify real estate...) People in their 20's who have plenty of time before they need to spend their retirement money invest in the stock market exactly because they're long-term and can withstand these dips just by waiting them out, and earn a ton of money. People approaching their 60's transition their portfolio to bonds so that a market crash won't wipe them out.",
"The DLOM maybe different if the bond is more or less marketable than the equity. However, the ratio itself would be the same. So while this might affect the interest at which you are willing to lend, it would not affect the intrinsic value of the firm.",
"\"In general, yes. If interest rates go higher, then any existing fixed-rate bonds - and hence ETFs holding those bonds - become less valuable. The further each bond is from maturity, the larger the impact. As you suggest, once the bonds do mature, the fund can replace them at a market price, so the effect tails off. The bond market has a concept known as \"\"duration\"\" that helps reason about this effect. Roughly, it measures the average time from now to each payout of the bond, weighted by the payout. The longer the duration, the more the price will change for a given change in interest rates. The concept is just an approximation, and there are various slightly different ways of calculating it; but very roughly the price of a bond will reduce by a percentage equal to the duration times the increase in interest rates. So a bond with a duration of 5 years will lose 5% of its value for a 1% rise in interest rates (and of course vice-versa). For your second question, it really depends on what you're trying to achieve by diversifying - this might be best as a different question that gives more detail, as it's not very related to your first question. Short-term bonds are less risky. But both will lose value if the underlying company is in trouble. Gilts (government bonds) are less risky than corporate bonds.\"",
"The market moves faster than ratings agencies. Everyday the market is trying to figure out the true value of Assets - Liabilities and thus its overall equity value. The financial crisis illustrated this perfectly when Bear Sterns got stuck in a liquidity trap. It's MBS(CDO) was still highly rated, likewise its overall credit rating was sound, however in reality the value of assets were much higher due to coming default, credit providers realized assets Bear had posted as collateral were falling in value quickly. This started the death spiral, or feedback loop in which it isn't clear if the tail wagged the dog or the dog wagged the tail, but as equity value fell Bear could no longer get access to credit markets to fund daily operations, once it got margin called and couldn't pay, it was all over. When it was sold to JPM, they basically stole the entire company at a fire sale price, everyone knew they were getting a deal, as reflected in the post buyout price jump of JPM stock. So in a technical sense you are right, they have nothing to do with each other. But in a practical sense as we see equity value collapse we are approaching bankruptcy, and thus default, and credit ratings should represent likelihood of default so the two should have a positive correlation to one another, assuming equity value is the 'true value'.",
"\"Financing a portfolio with debt (on margin) leads to higher variance. That's the WHOLE POINT. Let's say it's 50-50. On the downside, with 100% equity, you can never lose more than your whole equity. But if you have assets of 100, of which 50% is equity and 50% is debt, your losses can be greater than 50%, which is to say more than the value of your equity. The reverse is true. You can make money at TWICE the rate if the market goes up. But \"\"you pay your money and you take your chances\"\" (Punch, 1846).\"",
"Totally depends on the drivers of the downturn. Keep in mind that in ~2005, both real estate and short-term bonds would arguably have been reasonable answers to this question (without the benefit of hindsight, of course). e: After re-reading your post, it looks like you were asking about (I assume) equity investments by sector rather than asset classes more broadly. I'm not sure equity in any sector can be considered a safe haven in a downturn. Utilities are the typical answer, but they didn't do much better than equity markets in general in 2008-2009.",
"\"In a sentence, stocks are a share of equity in the company, while bonds are a share of credit to the company. When you buy one share of stock, you own a (typically infinitesimal) percentage of the company. You are usually entitled to a share of the profits of that company, and/or to participate in the business decisions of that company. A particular type of stock may or may not pay dividends, which is the primary way companies share profits with their stockholders (the other way is simply by increasing the company's share value by being successful and thus desirable to investors). A stock also may or may not allow you to vote on company business; you may hear about companies buying 20% or 30% \"\"interests\"\" in other companies; they own that percentage of the company, and their vote on company matters is given that same weight in the total voting pool. Typically, a company offers two levels of stocks: \"\"Common\"\" stock usually has voting rights attached, and may pay dividends. \"\"Preferred\"\" stock usually gives up the voting rights, but pays a higher dividend percentage (maybe double or triple that of common stock) and may have payment guarantees (if a promised dividend is missed in one quarter and then paid in the next, the preferred stockholders get their dividend for the past and present quarters before the common shareholders see a penny). Governments and non-profits are typically prohibited from selling their equity; if a government sold stock it would basically be taxing everyone and then paying back stockholders, while non-profit organizations have no profits to pay out as dividends. Bonds, on the other hand, are a slice of the company's debt load. Think of bonds as kind of like a corporate credit card. When a company needs a lot of cash, it will sell bonds. A single bond may be worth $10, $100, or $1000, depending on the investor market being targeted. This is the amount the company will pay the bondholder at the end of the term of the bond. These bonds are bought by investors on the open market for less than their face value, and the company uses the cash it raises for whatever purpose it wants, before paying off the bondholders at term's end (usually by paying each bond at face value using money from a new package of bonds, in effect \"\"rolling over\"\" the debt to the next cycle, similar to you carrying a balance on your credit card). The difference between the cost and payoff is the \"\"interest charge\"\" on this slice of the loan, and can be expressed as a percentage of the purchase price over the remaining term of the bond, as its \"\"yield\"\" or \"\"APY\"\". For example, a bond worth $100 that was sold on Jan 1 for $85 and is due to be paid on Dec 31 of the same year has an APY of (15/85*100) = 17.65%. Typically, yields for highly-rated companies are more like 4-6%; a bond that would yield 17% is very risky and indicates a very low bond rating, so-called \"\"junk status\"\".\"",
"\"Bonds are priced \"\"very high\"\" because their price is compared to their yields. With the current interest rates, which are very low, the bond yields will be low. However, bond issuers still need the money, so there still will be high par value, and investors will not sell bonds at a loss unless there's a better investment (=bonds with better yields). Once the rates start going up, you'll see bonds with current rates dropping in value significantly. Once alternatives appear, people holding them will start dumping them to move the money somewhere more profitable. Similarly the stocks - since there's no other investment alternatives (yields on the bonds are low, interests are low), people invest more in the stocks. Once the rates go up, the investors will start rebalancing portfolios and cashing out.\"",
"Without providing direct investment advice, I can tell you that bond most assuredly are not recession-proof. All investments have risk, and each recession will impact asset-classes slightly differently. Before getting started, BONDS are LOANS. You are loaning money. Don't ever think of them as anything but that. Bonds/Loans have two chief risks: default risk and inflation risk. Default risk is the most obvious risk. This is when the person to whom you are loaning, does not pay back. In a recession, this can easily happen if the debtor is a company, and the company goes bankrupt in the recessionary environment. Inflation risk is a more subtle risk, and occurs when the (fixed) interest rate on your loan yields less than the inflation rate. This causes the 'real' value of your investment to depreciate over time. The second risk is most pronounced when the bonds that you own are government bonds, and the recession causes the government to be unable to pay back its debts. In these circumstances, the government may print more money to pay back its creditors, generating inflation.",
"Doesnt mean that equity or even debt holders wouldn't lose their investment. Those money and banking texts are presently useless post GFC given the incredible moral hazard and how all of the traditional bankruptcy rules were ignored.",
"\"If I don't need this money for decades, meaning I can ride out periodical market crashes, why would I invest in bonds instead of funds that track broad stock market indexes? You wouldn't. But you can never be 100% sure that you really won't need the money for decades. Also, even if you don't need it for decades, you can never be 100% certain that the market will not be way down at the time, decades in the future, when you do need the money. The amount of your portfolio you allocate to bonds (relative to stocks) can be seen as a measure of your desire to guard against that uncertainty. I don't think it's accurate to say that \"\"the general consensus is that your portfolio should at least be 25% in bonds\"\". For a young investor with high risk tolerance, many would recommend less than that. For instance, this page from T. Rowe Price suggests no more than 10% bonds for those in their 20s or 30s. Basically you would put money into bonds rather than stocks to reduce the volatility of your portfolio. If you care only about maximizing return and don't care about volatility, then you don't have to invest in bonds. But you probably actually do care about volatility, even if you don't think you do. You might not care enough to put 25% in bonds, but you might care enough to put 10% in bonds.\"",
"I've had the same thoughts recently and after reading Investing at Level 3 by James Cloonan I believe his thesis that for the passive investor you're giving up too much if you're not 100% in equities. He is clear to point out that you need to be well aware of your withdrawal horizons and has specific tactics for shifting the portfolio when you know you must have the money in the next five years and wouldn't want to pull money out when you're at a market low. The kicker for me was shifting your thought to a plotting a straight line of reasonable expectations on your return. Then you don't worry about how far down you are from your high (or up from your low) but you measure yourself against the expected return and you'll find some real grounding. You're investing for the long term so you're going to see 2-3 bear markets. That isn't the the time to get cold feet and react. Stay put and it will come back. The market gets back to the reasonable expectations very quickly as he confirms in all the bear markets and recessions of any note. He gives guidelines for a passive investing strategy to leverage this mentality and talks about venturing into an active strategy but doesn't go into great depth. So if you're looking to invest more passively this book may be enough to get you rolling with thinking differently than the traditional 70/30 split.",
"\"All bonds carry a risk of default, which means that it's possible that you can lose your principal investment in addition to potentially not getting the interest payments that you expect. Bonds (in the US anyway) are graded, so you can manage this risk somewhat by taking higher quality bonds, i.e. in companies or governments that are considered more creditworthy. Regular bank savings (again specific to the US) are insured by FDIC, so even if your bank goes bust, the US Government is backing them up to some limit. That makes such accounts less risky. There's generally no insurance on a bond, even if it is issued by a government entity. If you do your homework on the bond rating system and choose bonds in a rating band where you're comfortable, this could be a good option for you. You'll find, however, that the bond market also \"\"knows\"\" that the interest rates are generally low, so be ware that higher interest issues are usually coming from less creditworthy (and therefore more risky) issuers. EDIT Here's some additional information based on the follow-up question in the comment. When you buy a bond you are actually making a loan to the issuer. They will pay you interest over the lifetime of the bond and then return your principal at the end of the term. (Verify this payment schedule - This is typical, but you should be sure that whatever you're buying works like this.) This is not an investment in the value of the issuer itself like you would be making if you bought stock. With stock you are taking an ownership share in the company. This might entitle you to dividends if the company pays them, but otherwise your investment value on a stock will be tied to the performance of the company. With the bond, the company might be in decline but the bond still a good investment so long as the company doesn't decline so much that they cannot pay their debts. Also, bonds can be issued by governments, but governments do not sell stock. (An \"\"ownership share of the government\"\" would not make sense.) This may be the so-called sovereign debt if issued by a sovereign government or it may be local (we call it municipal here in the US) debt issued by a subordinate level of government. Bonds are a little bit like stock in the sense that there's a secondary market for them. That means that if you get partway through the length of the bond and don't want to hold it, you can sell the bond to someone else. Of course, it will be harder to sell a bond later if the company becomes insolvent or if the interest rates go up between when you buy and when you sell. Depending on these market factors, you might end up with a capital gain or capital loss (meaning you get more or less than the principal that you put into the bond) at the time of a sale.\"",
"Rates are a complex field. I will assume that context wise you are talking about rates for a individual saver quantities. The two rates you are asking about are personal bank saving account and exchange traded bonds. The points you want to compare between them are. In general, a bond is what we called a fixed rate instrument. This means that for the life of the product, it will yield a fixed percentage of its face value at a regular period. Baring any extreme circumstances (such as bankruptcy), no external factors will change the payment schedule on a bond. Conversely, by placing your money into a bank, you will accrue interest rate at some value related to some published interest rate. For example, if tomorrow, the Treasury decided to try to stimulate the economy, they could slash the interest rate, this would directly affect the rate at which your savings account would accrue interest. In general, a bond has a maturity date, where the capital is finally released from the bond. Until such date, you cannot access the money directly (you can however sell the bond, but it would likely be at a discounted value). Therefore, in general, you cannot get access to the money whenever you want it. As for a saving account, normally one can access the funds instantly, if not within a few days. This seems to the reason people seem to be focusing on. For each bond, the issuer of the bond is obligated to pay you the holder of the bond fixed payments at an interval, plus the capital at the maturity. However, obligation does not mean guarantee. If the issuer, is unable to make the payments, they may go into bankruptcy to avoid paying you. There are companies setup to advise people on the likelihood of each bond issuer on their ability to honour their debts. For example Standard and Poor issues a rating which goes all the way up to AAA for bonds. Recently, many sovereign countries have lost their AAA rating from S&P. Meaning that S&P feel that the possibility of these countries going bankrupt is non-zero. Conversely, banks may also be unable to give you your money when requested. In the US, the reserve requirements means that at any one time it only holds 10% of the money it owes to its customers. This can mean that if every customer turns up to the bank to demand their money, that bank would be unable to pay. This situation is called a Bank Run. During such a situation, the bank would likely collapse and default. In many modern countries, the government put into place guarantees on the first xxx amount in saving accounts, but otherwise, your savings could be lost. There are many complex reasons to choose one instrument over another (including some I have avoided), even if at the outset, they could appear to have the same rates.",
"While debt increases the likelihood and magnitude of a crash, speculation, excess supply and other market factors can result in crashes without requiring excessive debt. A popular counter example of crashes due to speculation is 16th century Dutch Tulip Mania. The dot com bubble is a more recent example of a speculative crash. There were debt related issues for some companies and the run ups in stock prices were increased by leveraged traders, but the actual crash was the result of failures of start up companies to produce profits. While all tech stocks fell together, sound companies with products and profits survive today. As for recessions, they are simply periods of time with decreased economic activity. Recessions can be caused by financial crashes, decreased demand following a war, or supply shocks like the oil crisis in the 1970's. In summary, debt is simply a magnifier. It can increase profits just as easily as can increase losses. The real problems with crashes and recessions are often related to unfounded faith in increasing value and unexpected changes in demand.",
"It doesn't matter which way you use. As long as your comfortable with the overall level of risk/reward in your portfolio, that's what matters. (Though I will say that there are more investment vehicles than stocks, bonds, and cash that are worth considering.)",
"I do this very thing, but with asset allocation and risk parity in mind. I disagree with the cash or bust answers above, but many of the aforementioned facts are valuable and I don't mean to undermine them in anyway. That said, let's look at two examples: Option 1: All-in For the sake of argument let's say you had $100k invested in the SPY (S&P 500 ETF) in early 2007, and you kept it there until today. Your lowest balance would have been about $51k, and at this point the possibility of you losing your job was probably at a peak. Today you would be left with $170k assuming no withdrawal. Option 2: Risk Parity BUT if you balanced your investments with a risk parity approach, using negatively correlated asset classes you avoid this dilemma. If you had invested 50% in XLP (Consumer Staples Sector ETF) and 50% in TLT ( Long Term Treasury ETF) your investments low point would have been $88k, and your lowest annual return would be +0.69%. Today you would be left with $214k assuming no withdrawals. I chose option #2 and it hasn't failed me yet, even in 2016 so far the results are steady and reliably given the reward. My general opinion is simple: when you have money always grow it. Just be sure to cover your ass and prepare for rain. Backtesting for this was done at portfoliovisualizer.com, the one caveat to this approach is that inflation and a lack of international exposure are a risk here.",
"\"In general, small cap stocks are exposed to more downside during recessions and when credit is tight, because it is more difficult for small companies to raise capital, and minor variations in cash flow have a bigger impact. Coming out of recessions or when credit is cheap, small companies generally perform better than larger companies. In the depths of recession, small companies with good cash flow are often great value investments, as analysts and institutional investors \"\"punish\"\" the entire class of smallcap companies.\"",
"In this type of strategy profit is made when the shares go down as your main position is the short trade of the common stock. The convertible instruments will tend to move in about the same direction as the underlying (what it can be converted to) but less violently as they are traded less (lower volatility and lower volume in the market on both sides), however, they are not being used to make a profit so much as to hedge against the stock going up. Since both the bonds and the preference shares are higher on the list to be repaid if the company declares bankruptcy and the bonds pay out a fixed amount of interest as well, both also help protect against problems that may occur with a long position in the common stock. Essentially the plan with this strategy is to earn fixed income on the bonds whilst the stock price drops and then to sell both the bonds and buy the stock back on the market to cover the short position. If the prediction that the stock will fall is wrong then you are still earning fixed income on the debt and are able to convert it into stock at the higher price to cover the short sale eliminating, or reducing, the loss made on the short sale. Effectively the profit here is made on the spread between the price of the bond, accounting for the conversion price, and the price of the stock and that fixed income is less volatile (except usually in the junk market) than stock.",
"Supply and demand for a particular bond may be such that the market price exceeds the par value for the bond at maturity. This is when you get a negative yield. Especially when volatility is high, people will actually pay money to park it in treasuries for an amount of time. But when compared to a > 25% vol in the equities market over that same period, taking a 5% or less hit doesn't sound nearly as bad!",
"No, he's right. Not only about the need to raise cash or capital via the equity markets, but the solvency and regulatory burden banks face. If there is a run on bank stocks, they will struggle to meet their reserve requirement ratios. This is what has been happening with the French banks over the past several months.",
"\"In theory, the term of the bond does not affect the priority. It does not matter whether a \"\"Junior Subordinated Debenture\"\" is due in one year or sixty, it is still lower priority than a \"\"Secured Note\"\". On the other hand, if the \"\"Secured Note\"\" is secured by something that is not worth as much as the note, the excess is an unsecured debt. In practice, the term of the bond has two effects: Short term debt holders are more likely to get out just before the company goes broke. Sometimes their efforts to get out are exactly what causes the company to go broke! (\"\"Commercial paper\"\" is even more fickle than banks.) All other things being equal, and depending on the terms of the loan, some bonds get priority over bonds of the same type that are issued later. For example, your first mortgage usually takes precedence over your second mortgage.\"",
"\"Let me see if I can restate your question: are speculative investments more volatile (subject to greater spikes and drops in pricing) than are more long-term investments which are defined by the predictability of their dividend returns? The short answer is: yes. However, where it gets complicated is in deciding whether something is a speculative investment. Take your example of housing. People who buy a house as an investment either choose to rent it out (so receive \"\"rent\"\" as \"\"dividend\"\") or live in it (foregoing dividends). Either way, the scale of the investment is large and this is often the only direct investment that people manage themselves. For this reason houses are bound up in the sentimental value people attach to a home, the difficulty of uprooting and moving elsewhere in search of cheaper housing or better employment, or the sunk cost of debt that can't be recovered by a fire-sale. Such inertia can lead to sudden sell-offs as critical inflection points are reached (such as hoped-for economic improvements fail to materialise and cash needs become critical). At different levels that is true of just about every investment. Driving price-volatility is the ease of sale and the trade-offs involved. A share that offers regular and dependable dividends, even if its absolute value falls, is going to be hung on to more frequently than those shares that suffer a similar decline but only offer a capital gain. For the latter, the race is on to sell before the drop neutralises any remaining capital gain the investor may have experienced. A house with a good tenant or a share with stable dividends will be kept in preference for the quick cash-return of selling an asset that offers no such ongoing returns. This would result, visually, in more eratic curves for \"\"speculative\"\" shares while more stable shares are characterised by periods of stability interspersed with moments of mania. But I have to take your query further, since you provide graphical evidence to support your thesis. Your charts combine varying time-scales, different sample rates and different scales (one of which is even a log scale). It becomes impossible to draw any sort of meaningful micro-comparison unless they're all presented using exactly the same criteria.\"",
"Historically October has been the month when crashes happen hasn’t it? I know not every crash has happened then but I think there’s something about the September/October period that it’s the part of the year where there’s been the most down months and the months where a few crashes started (Great Depression and recession off the top of my head)",
"Bonds can increase in price, if the demand is high and offer solid yield if the demand is low. For instance, Russian bond prices a year ago contracted big in price (ie: fell), but were paying 18% and made a solid buy. Now that the demand has risen, the price is up with the yield for those early investors the same, though newer investors are receiving less yield (about 9ish percent) and paying higher prices. I've rarely seen banks pay more variable interest than short term treasuries and the same holds true for long term CDs and long term treasuries. This isn't to say it's impossible, just rare. Also variable is different than a set term; if you buy a 10 year treasury at 18%, that means you get 18% for 10 years, even if interest rates fall four years later. Think about the people buying 30 year US treasuries during 1980-1985. Yowza. So if you have a very large amount of money you will store it in bonds as its much less likely that the US treasury will go bankrupt than your bank. Less likely? I don't know about your bank, but my bank doesn't owe $19 trillion.",
"\"The fact that some asset (in this case corporate bonds) has positive correlation with some other asset (equity) doesn't mean buying both isn't a good idea. Unless they are perfectly correlated, the best risk/reward portfolio will include both assets as they will sometimes move in opposite directions and cancel out each other's risk. So yes, you should buy corporate bonds. Short-term government bonds are essentially the risk-free asset. You will want to include that as well if you are very risk averse, otherwise you may not. Long-term government bonds may be default free but they are not risk free. They will make money if interest rates fall and lose if interest rates rise. Because of that risk, they also pay you a premium, albeit a small one, and should be in your portfolio. So yes, a passive portfolio (actually, any reasonable portfolio) should strive to reduce risk by diversifying into all assets that it reasonably can. If you believe the capital asset pricing model, the weights on portfolio assets should correspond to market weights (more money in bonds than stocks). Otherwise you will need to choose your weights. Unfortunately we are not able to estimate the true expected returns of risky assets, so no one can really agree on what the true optimal weights should be. That's why there are so many rules of thumb and so much disagreement on the subject. But there is little or no disagreement on the fact that the optimal portfolio does include risky bonds including long-term treasuries. To answer your follow-up question about an \"\"anchor,\"\" if by that you mean a risk-free asset then the answer is not really. Any risk-free asset is paying approximately zero right now. Some assets with very little risk will earn a very little bit more than short term treasuries, but overall there's nowhere to hide--the time value of money is extremely low at short horizons. You want expected returns, you must take risk.\"",
"It's worth pointing out that a bulk of the bond market is institutional investors (read: large corporations and countries). For individuals, it's very easy to just put your cash in a checking account. Checking accounts are insured and non-volatile. But what happens when you're GE or Apple or Panama? You can't just flop a couple billion dollars in to a Chase checking account and call it a day. Although, you still need a safe place to store money that won't be terribly volatile. GE can buy a billion dollars of treasury bonds. Many companies need tremendous amounts of collateral on hand, amounts far in excess of the capacity of a checking account; those funds are stored in treasuries of some sort. Separately, a treasury bond is not a substitute investment for an S&P index fund. For individuals they are two totally different investments with totally different characteristics. The only reason an individual investor should compare the return of the S&P against the readily available yield of treasuries is to ensure the expected return of an equity investment can sufficiently pay for the additional risk.",
"The average joe wouldn't... we would bury our cash in a mayonaise jar before we would take a guaranteed loss... (although the argument could be made that a positive return that doesnt outpace inflation IS a negative return)... big corporations with billions on hand dont have that luxury however... some investments may also guarantee investors that a certain percentage be allocated to bonds... and in times of deflation a negative return could still provide a net positive return...",
"Just before a crash or at the start of the crash most of the smart money would have gotten out, the remaining technical traders would be out by the time the market has dropped 10 to 15%, and some of them would be shorting their positions by now. Most long-term buy and hold investors would stick to their guns and stay in for the long haul. Some will start to get nervous and have sleepless nights when the markets have fallen 30%+ and look to get out as well. Others stay in until they cannot stand it anymore. And some will stick it out throughout the downturn. So who are the buyers at this stage? Some are the so called bargain hunters that buy when the market has fallen over 30% (only to sell again when it falls another 20%), or maybe buy more (because they think they are dollar cost averaging and will make a packet when the price goes back up - if and when it does). Some are those with stops covering their short positions, whilst others may be fund managers and individuals looking to rebalance their portfolios. What you have to remember during both an uptrend and a downtrend the price does not move straight up or straight down. If we take the downtrend for instance, it will have lower lows and lower highs (that is the definition of a downtrend). See the chart below of the S&P 500 during the GFC falls. As you can see just before it really started falling in Jan 08 there was ample opportunity for the smart money and the technical traders to get out of the market as the price drops below the 200 MA and it fails to make a higher peak. As the price falls from Jan 08 to Mar 08 you suddenly start getting some movement upwards. This is the bargain hunters who come into the market thinking the price is a bargain compared to 3 months ago, so they start buying and pushing the price up somewhat for a couple of months before it starts falling again. The reason it falls again is because the people who wanted to sell at the start of the year missed the boat, so are taking the opportunity to sell now that the prices have increased a bit. So you get this battle between the buyers (bulls) and seller (bears), and of course the bears are winning during this downtrend. That is why you see more sharper falls between Aug to Oct 08, and it continues until the lows of Mar 09. In short it has got to do with the phycology of the markets and how people's emotions can make them buy and/or sell at the wrong times.",
"When credit locks up, junk bond prices fall rapidly, and you see more defaults. The opportunity to make money with junk is to buy a diversified collection of them when the market declines. Look at the charts from some of the mutual funds or ETFs like PIMCO High Yield Instl (PHIYX), or Northeast Investors (NTHEX). Very volatile stuff. Keep in mind that junk bonds are not representative of the economy as a whole -- they cluster in certain industries. Retail and financials are big industry segments for junk. Also keep in mind that the market for these things is not as liquid as the stock market. If your investment choice is really a sector investment, you might be better served by investing in sector funds with stocks that trade every day versus bonds whose market price may be difficult to determine.",
"I seem to remember that put returns are actually way worse than what CAPM would predict based on their negative market correlation. Apparently something about negative skewness, jump risk and/or exposure to change in volatility carrying risk premia of their own. I'm not an expert, but if one can bear these risks, it may be better to replace some equity exposure with *short* puts rather than buying them. (That's what I'm doing a bit. But not very enthusiastically at the moment, with implied volatilities at such extremely low levels...)",
"\"If we can agree that 2010 was closer to the low of 2009 than 2007 then the rich did all the buying while the super-rich did all the selling. http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html Looks like the rich cleaned up during the Tech Crash too, but it looks like the poor lost faith. That limited data makes it look like the best investors are the rich. Market makers are only required by the exchanges to provide liquidity, bids & asks. They aren't required to buy endlessly. In fact, market makers (at least the ones who survive the busts) try to never have a stake in direction. They do this by holding equal inventories of long and shorts. They are actually the only people legally allowed to naked short stock: sell without securing shares to borrow. All us peons must secure borrowed shares before selling short. Also, firms involved in the actual workings of the market like bookies but unlike us peons who make the bets play by different margin rules. They're allowed to lever through the roof because they take on low risk or near riskless trades and \"\"positions\"\" (your broker, clearing agent, etc actually directly \"\"own\"\" your financial assets and borrow & lend them like a bank). http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@notice/documents/notices/p004001.pdf This is why market makers can be assumed not to load up on shares during a decline; they simply drop the bids & asks as their bids are hit.\"",
"I agree with @Turukawa that the x-axes need to be the same to make a direct comparison. However, the graphs you linked make me think of introductory calculus: If you time averaged plots, speculative investments (gold, housing) seem to have many large concave up time periods and the dow jones has many concave down sections. Using the concavity test: If the first derivative tells you about the rate of change, the second derivative tells you about the rate of change of rate of change. Remember back to Physics 101: 1st derivative is velocity & second derivative is acceleration. It would be interesting to have the same time scales for your plots & compare these accelerations between the two. I suspect the more volatile investments would have larger (in magnitude) accelerations during boom/bust cycles than less speculative investments.",
"\"Another factor to consider, beyond the fact that growth and volatility go together, is that the times when many people will need to liquidate their investments will correlate with the times that many other people need to liquidate their investments, and such correlation will push down the immediate value of those investments. While certificates of deposit have penalties for early withdrawal, one can establish up front what the worst-case penalty would be for cashing it in at the most inopportune time. By contrast, stocks offer no such assurance. Stocks sometimes have weird downward spikes that may be short-lived, but if life circumstances force one to liquidate stocks during such a downward spike the \"\"penalty\"\" can be much larger than on a CD.\"",
"Well, reserve requirements concern, as the name suggests, the reserves, e.g. a position on the balance sheet. The price of equity only marginally impacts the balance sheet (via positions in their own stock), not nearly strong enough to be significant. The French banks mainly had trouble with liquidity (this year we witnessed another collapse of the interbank lending market just as in 2007. watch the Libor-O/N-spread.) and solvency through deterioration of the asset side of the balance sheet. Naturally your ability to raise additional equity is influenced by the historic return of your stock, but sharp price drops in fact can help you to raise equity, simply because your ratios improved (P/E, P/B, in fact any ratio that includes the price part) and the stock became cheaper. See UBS/Singapore GIC and GS/Warren Buffet",
"Its still the case though. Most of the economy exists as either stocks, bonds, or debt. Bonds are stable so the wealthy stockpile there just in case, stocks are where they earn new wealth, and the debt just is everywhere. Real estate is basically just their flash cash.",
"Asset prices are inversely related to interest rates. If you're valuing a business or a bond, if you use a lower interest rate you get a higher valuation. Historic equity returns benefit from a falling interest rate environment which won't be repeated as interest rates can only go so low. edit: typo",
"Yes, this phenomenon is well documented. A collapse of an economy's exchange rate is coincidented with a collapse in its equities market. The recent calamities in Turkey, etc during 2014 had similar results. Inflation is highly correlated to valuations, and a collapse of an exchange rate is highly inflationary, so a collapse of an exchange rate is highly correlated to a collapse in valuations.",
"\"You may be thinking about this the wrong way. The yield (Return) on your investment is effectively the market price paid to the investor for the amount of risk assumed for participating. Looking at the last few years, many including myself would have given their left arm for a so-called \"\"meager return\"\" instead of the devastation visited on our portfolios. In essence, higher return almost always (arguably always) comes at the cost of increased risk. You just have to decide your risk profile and investment goals. For example, which of the following scenarios would you prefer? Investment Option A Treasuries, CD's Worst Case: 1% gain Best Case 5% gain Investment option B Equities/Commodities Worst Case: 25% loss Best Case: 40% gain\"",
"\"[...] are all bonds priced in such a way so that they all return the same amount (on average), after accounting for risk? In other words, do risk premiums ONLY compensate for the amount investors might lose? No. GE might be able to issue a bond with lower yield than, say, a company from China with no previous records of its presence in the U.S. markets. A bond price not only contains the risk of default, but also encompasses the servicability of the bond by the issuer with a specific stream of income, location of main business, any specific terms and conditions in the prospectus, e.g.callable or not, insurances against default, etc. Else for the same payoff, why would you take a higher risk? The payoff of a higher risk (not only default, but term structure, e.g. 5 years or 10 years, coupon payments) bond is more, to compensate for the extra risk it entails for the bondholder. The yield of a high risk bond will always be higher than a bond with lower risk. If you travel back in time, to 2011-2012, you would see the yields on Greek bonds were in the range of 25-30%, to reflect the high risk of a Greek default. Some hedge funds made a killing by buying Greek bonds during the eurozone crisis. If you go through the Efficient frontier theory, your argument is a counter statement to it. Same with individual bonds, or a portfolio of bonds. You always want to be compensated for the risk you take. The higher the risk, the higher the compensation, and vice versa. When investors buy the bond at this price, they are essentially buying a \"\"risk free\"\" bond [...] Logically yes, but no it isn't, and you shouldn't make that assumption.\"",
"When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that.",
"In general, investors with a long period of time until they would need to withdraw the cash are best off holding mostly equities. While the dividends that equities would return are less than the interest you would get in peer-to-peer lending, over long periods of time not only do you get the dividends from equity investment but the value of the stock will grow faster than interest on loans. The higher returns from stocks, however, comes with more risk of big downturns. Many people pull their investments out of stocks right after crashes which really hurts their long term returns. So, in order to get the benefit of investing in stocks you need to be strong enough to continue to hold the stocks through the crash and into the recovery. As for which stocks to invest in, generally it is best to invest in low-fee index funds/etfs where you own a broad collection of stocks so that if (when) any one stock goes bust that your portfolio does not take much damage. Try to own both international and domestic stocks to get good diversification. The consensus recommends adding just a little bit of REITs and bonds to your investments, but for someone at 25 it might not be worth it yet. Warren Buffett had some good thoughts on index investing."
] |
[
"Cash would be the better alternative assuming both stocks take a major hit in ALL categories AND the Fed raise rates at the same time for some reason. Money market funds that may have relatively low yields at the moment would likely be one of the few securities not to be repriced downward as interest rates rising would decrease bond values which could be another crash as I could somewhat question how broad of a crash are you talking here. There are more than a few different market segments so that while some parts may get hit really hard in a crash, would you really want to claim everything goes down? Blackrock's graphic shows in 2008 how bonds did the best and only it and cash had positive returns in that year but there is something to be said for how big is a crash: 20%, 50%, 90%?",
"\"Diversify into leveraged short/bear ETFs and then you can quit your job and yell at your boss \"\"F you I'm short your house!\"\" edit: this is a quote from Greg Lippmann and mentioned in the book \"\"The Big Short\"\"\"",
"I would suggest looking into Relative Strength Asset Allocation. This type of investment strategy keeps you invested in the best performing asset classes. As a result of investing in this manner it removes the guesswork and moves naturally (say into cash) when the stock market turns down. There is a good whitepaper on this subject by Mebane Faber titled Relative Strength Strategies for Investing."
] |
10645
|
Explain the details and benefits of rebalancing a retirement portfolio?
|
[
"588607",
"22221"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"588607",
"28425",
"269169",
"117696",
"406192",
"148632",
"22221",
"441176",
"36284",
"432404",
"434014",
"107751",
"473504",
"549402",
"458244",
"418528",
"516607",
"224392",
"253268",
"569849",
"423073",
"410461",
"257274",
"34241",
"405212",
"271504",
"421769",
"235592",
"108721",
"507468",
"64634",
"469835",
"422051",
"340131",
"39569",
"138775",
"195631",
"509837",
"429929",
"18436",
"70194",
"83807",
"562305",
"331492",
"252918",
"355738",
"309969",
"12351",
"227324",
"241202",
"134345",
"252778",
"529179",
"310218",
"593698",
"570117",
"382384",
"74041",
"593879",
"500863",
"331673",
"528518",
"112187",
"470758",
"331008",
"297100",
"466403",
"19040",
"248799",
"476138",
"551719",
"85276",
"347825",
"126836",
"278718",
"307409",
"365189",
"599436",
"549311",
"463837",
"170717",
"185443",
"259084",
"296567",
"575435",
"274392",
"551590",
"391835",
"486643",
"502495",
"310752",
"539680",
"53100",
"272790",
"418551",
"499166",
"83079",
"484825",
"246253",
"291830"
] |
[
"\"Rebalancing a portfolio helps you reduce risk, sell high, and buy low. I'll use international stocks and large cap US stocks. They both have ups and downs, and they don't always track with each other (international might be up while large cap US stocks are down and vice-versa) If you started with 50% international and 50% large cap stocks and 1 year later you have 75% international and 25% large cap stocks that means that international stocks are doing (relatively) well to large cap stocks. Comparing only those two categories, large cap stocks are \"\"on sale\"\" relative to international stocks. Now move so you have 50% in each category and you've realized some of the gains from your international investment (sell high) and added to your large cap stocks (buy low). The reason to rebalance is to lower risk. You are spreading your investments across multiple categories to manage risk. If you don't rebalance, you could end up with 95% in one category and 5% in another which means 95% of your portfolio is tied to the performance of a single asset category. I try to rebalance every 12 months and usually get it done by every 18 months. I like being a hands-off long term investor and this has proven often enough to beat the S&P500.\"",
"A strategy of rebalancing assumes that the business cycle will continue, that all bull and bear markets end eventually. Imagine that you maintained a 50% split between a US Treasury bond mutual fund (VUSTX) and an S&P 500 stock mutual fund (VFINX) beginning with a $10,000 investment in each on January 1, 2008, then on the first of each year you rebalanced your portfolio on the first of January (we can pretend the markets are open that day). The following table illustrates the values in each of those funds with the rebalancing transactions: This second table shows what that same money would look like without any rebalancing over those years: Obviously this is cherry-picking for the biggest drop we've recently experienced, but even if you skipped 2008 and 2009, the increase for a rebalanced portfolio from 2010-2017 is 85% verses 54% for the portfolio that is not being rebalanced in the same period. This is also a plenty conservative portfolio. You can see that a 100% stock portfolio dropped 40% in 2008, but the combined portfolio only dropped 18%. A 100% stock portfolio has gained 175% since 2009, compared to 105% for the balanced portfolio, but it's common to trade gains for safety as you get closer to retirement. You didn't ask about a 100% stock portfolio in your initial question. These results would be repeated in many other portfolio allocations because some asset classes outperform others one year, then underperform the next. You sell after the years it outperforms, then you buy after years that it underperforms.",
"\"An asset allocation formula is useful because it provides a way to manage risk. Rebalancing preserves your asset allocation. The investment risk of a well-diversified portfolio (with a few ETFs or mutual funds in there to get a wide range of stocks, bonds, and international exposure) is mostly proportional to the asset class distribution. If you started out with half-stocks and half-bonds, and stocks surged 100% over the past few years while bonds have stayed flat, then you may be left with (say) 66% stocks and 33% bonds. Your portfolio is now more vulnerable to future stock market drops (the risk associated with stocks). (Most asset allocation recommendations are a little more specific than a stock/bond split, but I'm sure you can get the idea.) Rebalancing can be profitable because it's a formulaic way to enforce you to \"\"buy low, sell high\"\". Massive recessions notwithstanding, usually not everything in your portfolio will rise and fall at the same time, and some are actually negatively correlated (that's one idea behind diversification, anyway). If your stocks have surged, chances are that bonds are cheaper. This doesn't always work (repeatedly transferring money from bonds into stocks while the market was falling in 2008-2009 could have lost you even more money). Also, if you rebalance frequently, you might incur expenses from the trading (depending on what sort of financial instrument you're holding). It may be more effective to simply channel new money into the sector that you're light on, and limit the major rebalancing of the portfolio so that it's just an occasional thing. Talk to your financial adviser. :)\"",
"\"Rebalancing is, simply, a way of making sure your risk/reward level is where you want it to be. Let's say you've decided that your optimal mix is 50% stocks and 50% bonds (or 50% US stocks, 50% international, or 30/30/30 US large-cap/US small-cap/US midcap...). So you buy $100 of each, but over time, the prices will of course fluctuate. At the end of the year, the odds that the ratio of the value of your investments is equal to the starting ratio is nil. So you rebalance to get your target mix again. Rebalance too often and you end up paying a lot in transaction fees. Rebalance not often enough and you end up running outsize risk. People who tell you that you should rebalance to make money, or use \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\" or think there is any upside to rebalancing outside of risk management are making assumptions about the market (mean regressing or some such thing) that generally you should avoid.\"",
"As mentioned by others, dollar cost averaging is just a fancy term for how many shares your individual purchases get when you are initially adding money to your investment accounts. Once the money is invested, annual or quarterly rebalancing serves the purpose of taking advantage of higher rates of growth in particular market sectors. You define the asset allocation based on your risk profile, time to retirement, etc., then you periodically sell the shares of the investments that have grown faster than the rest and buy more shares of the investments that are relatively cheaper.",
"Also, almost by definition rebalancing involves making more trades than you would have otherwise; wouldn't the additional trading fees you incurred in doing so reduce the benefits of this strategy? You forgot to mention taxes. Rebalancing does or rather can incur costs. One way to minimize the costs is to use the parts of the portfolio that have essentially zero cost of moving. These generally are the funds in your retirement accounts. In the United States they can be in IRAs or 401Ks; they can be regular or Roth. Selling winners withing the structure of the plan doesn't trigger capital gains taxes, and many have funds within them that have zero loads. Another way to reduce trading fees is to only rebalance once a year or once every two years; or by setting a limit on how far out of balance. For example don't rebalance at 61/39 to get back to 60/40 even if it has been two years. Given that the ratio of investments is often rather arbitrary to begin with, how do I know whether I'm selling high and buying low or just obstinately sticking with a losing asset ratio? The ratio used in an example or in an article may be arbitrary, but your desired ratio isn't arbitrary. You selected the ratio of your investments based on several criteria: your age, your time horizon, your goals for the money, how comfortable you are with risk. As these change during your investing career those ratios would also morph. But they aren't arbitrary. These decisions to rebalance are separate from the ones to sell a particular investment. You could sell Computer Company X because of how it is performing, and buy stock in Technology Company Y because you think it has a better chance of growing. That transaction would not be a re-balancing. Selling part of your stock in Domestic Company A to buy stock in international Company B would be part of a re-balancing.",
"Rebalancing your portfolio doesn't have to include selling. You could simply adjust your buying to keep your portfolio in balance. If you portfolio has shifted from 50% stocks and 50% bonds to 75% stocks and 25% bonds, you can just only use new savings to buy bonds, until you are back at 50-50. Remember to take into account taxes if you are thinking of selling to rebalance in taxable accounts. The goal of rebalancing is to keep your exposures the way that you want them. Assuming that you had a good reason to have a portfolio of 50% stocks and 50% bonds, you probably want to keep your portfolio similar in the future. If you end up with a portfolio of 75% stocks and 25% bonds due to stock market fluctuations, the exposure and the risk / return profile of your portfolio will have changed, and it's probably not something that you want. You don't want to rebalance just for the sake of rebalancing either. There can be costs to rebalancing (taxes, transaction fees, etc...) and these aren't always worth the effort. That's why you don't need to rebalance every month or if your portfolio has shifted from 50/50 to 51/49. I take a look at my portfolio once a year, and adjust my automated investments so that by the end of the next year I'm back to the ratio I want.",
"If you are making regular periodic investments (e.g. each pay period into a 401(k) plan) or via automatic investment scheme in a non-tax-deferred portfolio (e.g. every month, $200 goes automatically from your checking account to your broker or mutual fund house), then one way of rebalancing (over a period of time) is to direct your investment differently into the various accounts you have, with more going into the pile that needs bringing up, and less into the pile that is too high. That way, you can avoid capital gains or losses etc in doing the selling-off of assets. You do, of course, take longer to achieve the balance that you seek, but you do get some of the benefits of dollar-cost averaging.",
"From Vanguard's Best practices for portfolio rebalancing:",
"Rebalance is across asset-classes which are mutually independent [like stocks and bonds; they may be inversely correlated at times as when stocks go down, bonds go up] 80%-20% (stock-bond) split is good for a young investor [say in 30s, some suggest 110-age as a good stock allocation percentage]. Here rebalance is done when say the asset-allocation(AA) strays away more than say 3 to 5% (again just a rule of thumb). E.g. if due to a recent run-up in stocks, AA could become 85%-15%. Then you sell stocks to buy bonds to make the AA 80%-20% And since this method always sells the winner -- you automatically make gains [selling high and buying low] S&P 500 index gives decent diversification within stocks; you want a total-bond-fund to take care of the bond side of your AA.",
"\"To answer your question directly.. you can investigate by using google or other means to look up research done in this area. There's been a bunch of it Here's an example of search terms that returns a wealth of information. effect+of+periodic+rebalancing+on+portfolio+return I'd especially look for stuff that appears to be academic papers etc, and then raid the 'references' section of those. Look for stuff published in industry journals such as \"\"Journal of Portfolio Management\"\" as an example. If you want to try out different models yourself and see what works and what doesn't, this Monte Carlo Simulator might be something you would find useful The basic theory for those that don't know is that various parts of a larger market do not usually move in perfect lockstep, but go through cycles.. one year tech might be hot, the next year it's healthcare. Or for an international portfolio, one year korea might be doing fantastic only to slow down and have another country perform better the next year. So the idea of re-balancing is that since these things tend to be cyclic, you can get a higher return if you sell part of a slice that is doing well (e.g. sell at the high) and invest it in one that is not (buy at the low) Because you do this based on some criteria, it helps circumvent the human tendency to 'hold on to a winner too long' (how many times have you heard someone say 'but it's doing so well, why do I want to sell now\"\"? presuming trends will continue and they will 'lose out' on future gains, only to miss the peak and ride the thing down back into mediocrity.) Depending on the volatility of the specific market, and the various slices, using re balancing can get you a pretty reasonable 'lift' above the market average, for relatively low risk. generally the more volatile the market, (such as say an emerging markets portfolio) the more opportunity for lift. I looked into this myself a number of years back, the concensus I came was that the most effective method was to rebalance based on 'need' rather than time. Need is defined as one or more of the 'slices' in your portfolio being more than 8% above or below the average. So you use that as the trigger. How you rebalance depends to some degree on if the portfolio is taxable or not. If in a tax deferred account, you can simply sell off whatever is above baseline and use it to buy up the stuff that is below. If you are subject to taxes and don't want to trigger any short term gains, then you may have to be more careful in terms of what you sell. Alternatively if you are adding funds to the portfolio, you can alter how your distribute the new money coming into the portfolio in order to bring up whatever is below the baseline (which takes a bit more time, but incurs no tax hit) The other question is how will you slice a given market? by company size? by 'sectors' such as tech/finance/industrial/healthcare, by geographic regions?\"",
"When the market moves significantly, you should rebalance your investments to maintain the diversification ratios you have selected. That means if bonds go up and stocks go down, you sell bonds and buy stocks (to some degree), and vice versa. Sell high to buy low, and remember that over the long run most things regress to the mean.",
"You are very correct, rebalancing is basically selling off winners to buy losers. Of course the thinking is that selling a winner that has already increased 100% on the basis that it has doubled so it is likely to go down in the near future. However, just look at Apple as an example, if you bought Apple in June 2009 for $20 (adjusted price) and sold it as part of rebalancing when it rose to $40 (adjusted price) in September 2010, you would have missed out on it reaching over $95 2 years later. Similarly you look to rebalance by buying assets which have been battered (say dropped by 50%) on the basis that it has dropped so much that it should start increasing in the near future. But many times the price can fall even further. A better method would be to sell your winners when they stop being winners (i.e. their uptrend ends) and replace them with assets that are just starting their winning ways (i.e. their downtrend has ended and are now starting to Uptrend). This can be achieved by looking at price action and referring to the definitions of an uptrend and a downtrend. Definition of an uptrend - higher highs and higher lows. Definition of a downtrend - lower lows and lower highs.",
"This answer will assume you know more math than most. An ideal case: For the point of argument, first consider the following admittedly incorrect assumptions: 1) The prices of all assets in your investment universe are continuously differentiable functions of time. 2) Investor R (for rebalance) continuously buys and sells in order to maintain a constant proportion of each of several investments in his portfolio. 3) Investor P (for passive) starts with the same portfolio as R, but neither buys nor sells Then under the assumptions of no taxes or trading costs, it is a mathematical theorem that investor P's portfolio return fraction will be the weighted arithmetic mean of the return fractions of all the individual investments, whereas investor R will obtain the weighted geometric mean of the return fractions of the individual investments. It's also a theorem that the weighted arithmetic mean is ALWAYS greater than or equal to the weighted geometric mean, so regardless of what happens in the market (given the above assumptions) the passive investor P does at least as well as the rebalancing investor R. P will do even better if taxes and trading costs are factored in. The real world: Of course prices aren't continuously differentiable or even continuous, nor can you continuously trade. (Indeed, under such assumptions the optimal investing strategy would be to sample the prices sufficiently rapidly to capture the derivatives and then to move all your assets to the stock increasing at the highest relative rate. This crazy momentum trading would explosively destabilize the market and cause the assumptions to break.) The point of this is not to argue for or against rebalancing, but to point out that any argument for rebalancing which continues to hold under the above ideal assumptions is bogus. (Many such arguments do.) If a stockbroker standing to profit from commission pushes rebalancing on you with an argument that still holds under the above assumptions then he is profiting off of BS.",
"\"'Buy and Hold' Is Still a Winner: An investor who used index funds and stayed the course could have earned satisfactory returns even during the first decade of the 21st century. by By Burton G. Malkiel in The Wall Street Journal on November 18, 2010: \"\"The other useful technique is \"\"rebalancing,\"\" keeping the portfolio asset allocation consistent with the investor's risk tolerance. For example, suppose an investor was most comfortable choosing an initial allocation of 60% equities, 40% bonds. As stock and bond prices change, these proportions will change as well. Rebalancing involves selling some of the asset class whose share is above the desired allocation and putting the money into the other asset class. From 1996 through 1999, annually rebalancing such a portfolio improved its return by 1 and 1/3 percentage points per year versus a strategy of making no changes.\"\" Mr. Malkiel is a professor of economics at Princeton University. This op-ed was adapted from the upcoming 10th edition of his book \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street,\"\" out in December by W.W. Norton. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608623469465624.html\"",
"\"Having cash and bonds in your portfolio isn't just about balancing out the risk and volatility inherent in equities. Consider: If you are 100% invested in equities and the market declines by 30%, you'll be hard pressed to come up with additional money to \"\"buy low\"\". You'll miss out on the rebalancing bonus. But, if you make a point of keeping some portion of your portfolio in cash and bonds, then when the market has such a decline (and it will), you'll be able to rebalance your portfolio back to target weights — i.e. redeploy some of your cash and bonds into equities to take advantage of the lower prices.\"",
"\"Rebalancing has been studied empirically quite a bit, but not particularly carefully and actually turns out to be very hard to study well. The main problem is that you don't know until afterward if your target weights were optimal so a bad rebalancing program might give better performance if it strayed closer to optimal weights even if it didn't do an efficient job of keeping near the target weights. In your particular case either method might be preferred depending on a number of things: You can see why there isn't a generally correct answer to your question and the results of empirical studies might very wildly depending on the mix of assets and risk tolerance. Still if your portfolio is not too complicated you can estimate the costs of the two methods without too much trouble and figure out if it is worthwhile to you. EDIT In Response to Comment Below: Your example gets at what makes rebalancing so hard empirically but also generally pretty easy in practice. If you were to target 75% Equity (25% bonds?) and look at returns only for 30 years the \"\"best\"\" rebalancing method would be to never rebalance and just let 75% equity go to near 100% as equity has better long term returns. This happens when you look only at returns as the final number and don't take into account the change in risk in your portfolio. In practice, most people that are still adding (or subtracting in retirement) to a retirement portfolio are adding (removing) a significant amount compared to the total amount in their portfolio. In the case you discribe, it is cheaper (massively cheaper in the presence of load fees) just to use new capital to trade toward your target, keeping your risk profile. New money should be large enough to keep you near enough your target. If you just estimate the trading costs/fees in both cases I think you'll see just how large the difference is between the two methods this will dwarf any small differences in return over the long run even if you can't trade back all the way to your target.\"",
"On what basis did you do your initial allocation of funds to each stock? If you are 're-balancing' that implies returning things to their initial allocation. You can do this without any research or recommendations. If you started out with say 10 stocks and 10% of the funds allocated to each stock, then re-balancing would simply be either buying/selling to return to that initial allocation. If you are contributing to the portfolio you could adjust where the new money goes to re-balance without selling. Or if you are drawing money from the portfolio, then you could adjust what you are selling. If on the other hand you are trying to decide if you want to alter the stocks the portfolio is HOLDING, then you have an entirely different question from 're-balancing'",
"There will quickly come a time when buying to rebalance is impractical. Consider, you save 10%, and at some point, you have 5x your income saved. (you earn $50K and have accumulated $250K). A simple allocation, 50/50, so $125K stock, $125K bonds. Now, in a year the market is up much over 4%, your $5K deposit will not be enough to balance. Earlier on, the method may work just fine, later on, not so much. Edit - The above is an example, to show that there will come a time when deposits are not enough to rebalance. The above single year produces a 52/48 split, and the rebalance deposits more than 2 years. If the market continues to rise a reasonable amount, 2 years later you are even more out of balance, perhaps 56/44. I chose reasonable numbers as a starting point, just 5X income saved, and a 10% annual deposit. In the end, you can waive off any divergence from your target. That's your choice.",
"\"This paper by a Columbia business school professor says: The standard 60%/40% strategy outperforms a 100% bond or 100% stock strategy over the 1926-1940 period (Figure 5) and over the 1990-2011 period (Figure 6). This is based on actual market data from those periods. You can see the figures in the PDF. These are periods of 14 and 21 years, which is perhaps shorter than the amount of time money would sit in your IRA, but still a fairly long time. The author goes on with a lot of additional discussion and claims that \"\"under certain conditions, rebalancing will always outperform a buy-and-hold portfolio given sufficient time\"\". Of course, there are also many periods over which a given asset mix would underperform, so there are no guarantees here. I read your question as asking \"\"is there any data suggesting that rebalancing a diversified portfolio can outperform an all-in-one-asset-class portfolio\"\". There is some such data. However, if you're asking which investing strategy you should actually choose, you'd want to look at a lot of data on both sides. You're unlikely to find data that \"\"proves\"\" anything conclusively either way. It should also be noted that the rebalancing advantage described here (and in your question) is not specific to bonds. For instance, in theory, rebalancing between US and international stocks could show a similar advantage over an all-US or all-non-US portfolio. The paper contains a lot of additional discussion about rebalancing. It seems that your question is really about whether rebalancing a diverse portfolio is better than going all-in with one asset class, and this question is touched on throughout the paper. The author mentions that diversification and rebalancing strategies should be chosen not solely for their effect on mathematically-calculated returns, but for their match with your psychological makeup and tolerance for risk.\"",
"Note that if 1) The stock prices are continuously differentiable (they aren't) 2) You rebalance continuously in the absence of trading fees and taxes then the return fraction (future price / original price) will be the geometric mean of the return fractions for each investment. If you don't rebalance then the return fraction will be the arithmetic mean. But the arithmetic mean is ALWAYS greater than or equal to the geometric mean, so continuous rebalancing in the case of continuously differentiable prices will always hurt you, even abscent trading costs/taxes. Any argument in favor of blind rebalancing which does not somehow fail in the continuously differentiable case is simply wrong. See https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/38536036/to%20karim.pdf -JT",
"\"If you want to make a profit from long term trading (whatever \"\"long term\"\" means for you), the best strategy is to let the good performers in your portfolio run, and cull the bad ones. Of course that strategy is hard to follow, unless you have the perfect foresight to know exactly how long your best performing investments will continue to outperform the market, but markets don't always follow the assumption that perfect information is available to all participants, and hence \"\"momentum\"\" has a real-world effect on prices, whether or not some theorists have chosen to ignore it. But a fixed strategy of \"\"daily rebalancing\"\" does exactly the opposite of the above - it continuously reduces the holdings of good performers and increases the holdings of bad. If this type of rebalancing is done more frequently than the constituents of benchmark index are adjusted, it is very likely to underperform the index in the long term. Other issues in a \"\"real world\"\" market are the impact of increased dealing costs on smaller parcels of securities, and the buy/sell spreads incurred in the daily rebalancing trades. If the market is up and down 1% on alternate days with no long tern trend, quite likely the fund will be repeatedly buying and selling small parcels of the same stocks to do its daily balancing.\"",
"\"There are ways to mitigate, but since you're not protected by a tax-deferred/advantaged account, the realized income will be taxed. But you can do any of the followings to reduce the burden: Prefer selling either short positions that are at loss or long positions that are at gain. Do not invest in stocks, but rather in index funds that do the rebalancing for you without (significant) tax impact on you. If you are rebalancing portfolio that includes assets that are not stocks (real-estate, mainly) consider performing 1031 exchanges instead of plain sale and re-purchase. Maximize your IRA contributions, even if non-deductible, and convert them to Roth IRA. Hold your more volatile investments and individual stocks there - you will not be taxed when rebalancing. Maximize your 401K, HSA, SEP-IRA and any other tax-advantaged account you may be eligible for. On some accounts you'll pay taxes when withdrawing, on others - you won't. For example - Roth IRA/401k accounts are not taxed at all when withdrawing qualified distributions, while traditional IRA/401k are taxed as ordinary income. During the \"\"low income\"\" years, consider converting portions of traditional accounts to Roth.\"",
"\"It's a trade-off. The answer depends on your risk tolerance. Seeking higher rewards demands higher risk. If you want advice, I would recommend hiring an expert to design a plan which meets your needs. As a sample point, NOT necessarily right for anyone else...I'm considered an aggressive investor, and my own spread is still more conservative than many folks. I'm entirely in low-cost index funds, distributed as ... with the money tied up in a \"\"quiesced\"\" defined-contribution pension fund being treated as a low-yield bond. Some of these have beaten the indexes they're tracking, some haven't. My average yield since I started investing has been a bit over 10%/year (not including the company match on part of the 401k), which I consider Good Enough -- certainly good enough for something that requires near-zero attention from me. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance. This may be completely wrong for someone at a different point in their career and/or life and/or finances. I'm posting it only as an example, NOT a recommendation. Regarding when to rebalance: Set some threshhold at which things have drifted too far from your preferred distribution (value of a fund being 5% off its target percentage in the mix is one rule I've sometimes used), and/or pick some reasonable (usually fairly low) frequency at which you'll actively rebalance (once a year, 4x/year, whenever you change your car's oil, something like that), and/or rebalance by selecting which funds you deposit additional money into whenever you're adding to the investments. Note that that last option avoids having to take capital gains, which is generally a good thing; you want as much of your profit to be long-term as possible, and to avoid triggering the \"\"wash sales\"\" rule. Generally, you do not have to rebalance very frequently unless you are doing something that I'd consider unreasonably risky, or unless you're managing such huge sums that a tiny fraction of a percent still adds up to real money.\"",
"\"In a comment you say, if the market crashes, doesn't \"\"regress to the mean\"\" mean that I should still expect 7% over the long run? That being the case, wouldn't I benefit from intentionally unbalancing my portfolio and going all in on equities? I can can still rebalance using new savings. No. Regress to the mean just tells you that the future rate is likely to average 7%. The past rate and the future rate are entirely unconnected. Consider a series: The running average is That running average is (slowly) regressing to the long term mean without ever a member of the series being above 7%. Real markets actually go farther than this though. Real value may be increasing by 7% per year, but prices may move differently. Then market prices may revert to the real value. This happened to the S&P 500 in 2000-2002. Then the market started climbing again in 2003. In your system, you would have bought into the falling markets of 2001 and 2002. And you would have missed the positive bond returns in those years. That's about a -25% annual shift in returns on that portion of your portfolio. Since that's a third of your portfolio, you'd have lost 8% more than with the balanced strategy each of those two years. Note that in that case, the market was in an over-valued bubble. The bubble spent three years popping and overshot the actual value. So 2003 was a good year for stocks. But the three year return was still -11%. In retrospect, investors should have gone all in on bonds before 2000 and switched back to stocks for 2003. But no one knew that in 2000. People in the know actually started backing off in 1998 rather than 2000 and missed out on the tail end of the bubble. The rebalancing strategy automatically helps with your regression to the mean. It sells expensive bonds and buys cheaper stocks on average. Occasionally it sells modest priced bonds and buys over-priced stocks. But rarely enough that it is a better strategy overall. Incidentally, I would consider a 33% share high for bonds. 30% is better. And that shouldn't increase as you age (less than 30% bonds may be practical when you are young enough). Once you get close to retirement (five to ten years), start converting some of your savings to cash equivalents. The cash equivalents are guaranteed not to lose value (but might not gain much). This gives you predictable returns for your immediate expenses. Once retired, try to keep about five years of expenses in cash equivalents. Then you don't have to worry about short term market fluctuations. Spend down your buffer until the market catches back up. It's true that bonds are less volatile than stocks, but they can still have bad years. A 70%/30% mix of stocks/bonds is safer than either alone and gives almost as good of a return as stocks alone. Adding more bonds actually increases your risk unless you carefully balance them with the right stocks. And if you're doing that, you don't need simplistic rules like a 70%/30% balance.\"",
"In your entire question, the only time you mention that this is an investment inside an IRA is when you say Every quarter, six months, whatever Id have to rebalance my IRA while Vanguard would do this for the fund of funds without me needing to. Within an IRA, there are no tax implications to the rebalancing. But if this investment were not inside an IRA, then the rebalancing done by you will have tax implications. In particular, any gains realized when you sell shares in one fund and buy shares in another fund during the rebalancing process are subject to income tax. Similarly, losses also might be realized (and will affect your taxes). However, if you are invested in a fund of funds, there are no capital gains (or capital losses) when re-balancing is done; you have gains or losses only when you sell shares of the fund of funds for a price different than the price you paid for them.",
"If the portfolio itself is taxable, then yes; if you have two stocks and you're rebalancing them, without using new cash, you are forced to sell one stock to buy another. That sale is taxable, unless you're in some sort of tax deferred/deductible account, such as an IRA. If you're talking about you being in a mutual fund and the fund itself rebalances, the same rules apply as above, though indirectly; you'll have capital gains realized and distributed to you, those gains will be taxed unless, again, your account is a retirement account.",
"R has really good package that lets you calculate the return of rebalanced portfolios. The package is called: PerformanceAnalytics (see: http://www.inside-r.org/packages/cran/PerformanceAnalytics/docs/Return.portfolio). I quickly wrote a small script for you that lets you do exactly what you want. Code: By default the portfolio is rebalanced to an equally weighted portfolio. It is also possible to rebalance your portfolio using custom weights. See the documentation on how to do this. In order for this code to work you need to have your data already in return terms. You can do this easily in Excel. Make sure your data in excel looks like this: Than export your data to a CSV file. Note: before you run the code make sure you have installed the package PerformanceAnalytics. You can do this as follows: Let me know if you have any questions regarding the above.",
"Fund rebalancing typically refers to changing the investment mix to stay within the guidelines of the mutual fund objective. For example, lets say a fund is supposed to have at least 20% in bonds. Because of a dramatic increase in stock price and decrease in bond values it finds itself with only 19.9% in bonds at the end of the trading day. The fund manager would sell sufficient equities to reduce its equity holdings and buy more bonds. Rebalancing is not always preferential because it could cause capital gain distribution, typically once per year, without selling the fund. And really any trading within the fun could do the same. In the case you cite the verbiage is confusing. Often times I wonder if the author knows less then the reader. It might also be a bit of a rush to get the article out, and the author did not write correctly. I agree that the ETFs cited are suitable for short term traders. However, that is because, traditionaly, the market has increased in value over the long term. If you bet it will go down over the long term, you are almost certain to lose money. Like you, I cannot figure out how rebalancing makes this suitable only for short term traders. If the ETFs distribute capital gains events much more frequently then once per year, that is worth mentioning, but does not provide a case for short versus long term traders. Secondly, I don't think these funds are doing true rebalancing. They might change investments daily for the most likely profitable outcome, but that really isn't rebalancing. It seems the author is confused.",
"Personally I'm not a huge fan of rebalancing within an asset class. I would vote for leaving the HD shares alone and buying other assets until you get to the portfolio you want. Frequent buying and selling incurs costs and possible tax consequences that can really hurt your returns.",
"Yes, the larger number of ETFs will have a greater chance of enhancing the effect you observe. It's beyond a simple discussion, but the bottom line is that by carving out the different market segments your rebalancing will have greater impact.",
"\"In theory, investing is not gambling because the expected outcome is not random; people are expecting positive returns, on average, with some relationship to risk undertaken and economic reality. (More risk = more returns.) Historically this is true on average, that assets have positive returns, and riskier assets have higher returns. Also it's true that stock market gains roughly track economic growth. Valuation (current price level relative to \"\"fundamentals\"\") matters - reversion to the mean does exist over a long enough time. Given a 7-10 year horizon, a lot of the variance in ending price level can be explained by valuation at the start of the period. On average over time, business profits have to vary around a curve that's related to the overall economy, and equity prices should reflect business profits. The shorter the horizon, the more random noise. Even 1 year is pretty short in this respect. Bubbles do exist, as do irrational panics, and milder forms of each. Investing is not like a coin flip because the current total number of heads and tails (current valuation) does affect the probability of future outcomes. That said, it's pretty hard to predict the timing, or the specific stocks that will do well, etc. Rebalancing gives you an objective, automated, unemotional way to take advantage of all the noise around the long-term trend. Rather than trying to use judgment to identify when to get in and out, with rebalancing (and dollar cost averaging) you guarantee getting in a bit more when things are lower, and getting out a bit more when things are higher. You can make money from prices bouncing around even if they end up going nowhere and even if you can't predict the bouncing. Here are a couple old posts from my blog that talk about this a little more:\"",
"Yes, rebalancing with new money avoids capital gains taxes and loads (although if you're financially literate enough to be thinking about rebalancing techniques, I'm surprised to hear that you're invested in funds with loads). On the other hand, if it's taking you years to rebalance, then: (a) you are not rebalancing anywhere near frequently enough. Rebalancing should be something you do every 6 months or 1 year, such that it would take only a few weeks or maybe a month of new investment to get back in balance. (b) you will be out-of-balance for quite a long time, while the whole point of the theory of rebalancing is to always be mathematically prepared for swings in the market. Any time spent out of balance represents that much more risk that an unexpected market move can seriously hurt your portfolio. You should weigh the time it will take you to rebalance the long way (i.e. the risk cost of not rebalancing immediately) vs. the taxes and fees involved in rebalancing quickly. If you had said that it would take you only a couple weeks or a month to rebalance the long way, I would say that the long way is fine. But the prospect of spending years without a balanced portfolio seems far more costly to me than any expenses you might incur rebalancing quickly. Since it's almost the end of the calendar year, have you considered doing two quick rebalances, one this year, and another in January? That way half of the tax consequences would happen in April, and the other half not until the next April, giving you plenty of time to scrounge up the money. Also, even if you have no capital losses this year with which to offset some of your expected capital gains, you would have all of next year to harvest some losses against next year's half of the rebalancing gains.",
"You may want to move money between your investments within the plan, rebalancing money to maintain your diversification. You don't have to deal with the details if selling and buying, just tell them how much to move where. Many plans offer investments that automatically rebalance for you such as Target Date accounts. You may be able to select one of those and just ignore the 401k until retirement, or at most rebalance even less often. Look at what's offered, look at what it costs as fees, run the numbers and decide whether you can do better.",
"\"There's nothing to rebalance, the index fund rebalances itself to continue matching the index. However, you need to understand that such an investment is not diversified and you only invest in a very specific market, and very specific stocks on that market. S&P 500 is large (500 different companies, most of the time), but still not as broadly diversified as your retirement investment portfolio should be. You should talk to a financial adviser (CFP for example), many companies provide access to these for 401k plan participants. But in any case, I'd suggest considering \"\"target date\"\" funds - funds that are investing based on your expected retirement year, and become more conservative as you get closer to that year.\"",
"You will have to rebalance every time your Boolean Buy flag is true. You buy 20% of each fund then next week you have to sell down to 10% of your first 5 funds and buy 10% of the second 5.",
"\"The way I've implemented essentially \"\"value averaging\"\", is to keep a constant ratio between different investment types in my portfolio. Lets say (in a simple example), 25% cash, 25% REIT (real estate), 25% US Stock, 25% Foreign stock. Lets say I deposit a set $1000 per month into this account. If the stock portion goes up, it will look like I need more cash & REIT, so all of that $1000 goes into cash & the REIT portion to get them towards their 25%. I may spend months investing only in cash & the REIT while the stock goes up. Of course if the stock goes down, that $1000 per month goes into the stock accounts. Now you can also balance your account if you'd like, regularly selling stock (or the REIT), and making the account balanced. So if the stock goes down, you'd use the cash & REIT to purchase more stock. If the stock went up, you'd sell the stock, and buy REIT & leave more in cash.\"",
"You need to look at all your investment as a whole. The 401K, IRA, and any taxable account need to be a part of the diversification and re-balancing. The fact you have regular deposits into the 401K needs to also be a part of your strategy. Regardless of how much specific investments have gone up this year, you need to first determine how you want to be invested in large cap stock, small cap stock, bond, international, emerging markets... Then you need to see where you are today compared to those investment percentages. You then move the money in the retirement accounts to get to your desired percentage. And set the 401K deposits to be consistent with your goals. Many times the deposits are allocated the same way the balances are, but that is more complex if one of the sectors you are investing in exists completely outside the 401K. When you re-balance in the future you will be selling sectors that grew the most and buying those that grew the least compared to their planned percentages. If all the moves are within the 401K and IRA then capital gains are not a concern. Don't think of the different accounts as separate baskets, but think of them as a whole investment strategy.",
"While it is certainly easy to manage single fund, I am not sure it's the right strategy. It's been proven again and again that portfolio diversification is key to long term gains in wealth. I think your best option is to invest in low cost index funds and ETFs. While rebalancing your portfolio is hard, it is vastly simpler if your portfolio only has ETFs.",
"Dollar cost averaging is an great way to diversify your investment risk. There's mainly 2 things you want to achieve when you're saving for retirement: 1) Keep your principal investment; 2) Grow it. The best methods recommended by most financial institutions are as follows: 1) Diversification; 2) Re-balance. There are a lot of additional recommendations, but these are my main take away. When you dollar cost average, you're essentially diversifying your exchange risk between the value of the funds you're investing. Including the ups and downs of the value of the underlying asset, may actually be re-balancing. Picking your asset portfolio: 1) You generally want to include within your 401k or any other invest, classes of investments that do not always move in total correlation as this allows you to diversify risk; 2) I'm making a lot of assumptions here - since you may have already picked your asset classes. Consider utilizing the following to tell you when to buy or sell your underlying investment: 1) Google re-balance excel sheet to find several examples of re-balance tools to help you always buy low and sell high; 2) Enter your portfolio investment; 3) Utilize the movement to invest in the underlying assets based on market movement; and 4) Execute in an emotionless way and stick to your plan. Example - Facts 1) I have 1 CAD and 1 USD in my 401k. Plan I will invest 1 dollar in the ratio of 50/50 - forever. Let's start in 2011 since we were closer to par: 2010 - 1 CAD (value 1 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 50/50 ratio 2011 start - 1 CAD ( value .8 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 40/60 ratio 2011 - rebalance - invest 1 USD as follows purchase .75 CAD (.60 USD) and purchase .40 USD = total of 1 USD reinvested 2011 end - 1.75 CAD (value 1.4USD) and 1.4 USD (value 1.4 USD) - 50/50 ratio As long as the fundamentals of your underlying assets (i.e. you're not expecting hyperinflation or your asset to approach 0), this approach will always build value over time since you're always buying low and selling high while dollar averaging. Keep in mind it does reduce your potential gains - but if you're looking to max gain, it may mean you're also max potential loss - unless you're able to find A symmetrical investments. I hope this helps.",
"Now, if I'm not mistaken, tracking a value-weighted index is extremely easy - just buy the shares in the exact amount they are in the index and wait. Yes in theory. In practise this is difficult. Most funds that track S&P do it on sample basis. This is to maintain the fund size. Although I don't have / know the exact number ... if one wants to replicate the 500 stocks in the same %, one would need close to billion in fund size. As funds are not this large, there are various strategies adopted, including sampling of companies [i.e. don't buy all]; select a set of companies that mimic the S&P behaviour, etc. All these strategies result in tracking errors. There are algorithms to reduce this. The only time you would need to rebalance your holdings is when there is a change in the index, i.e. a company is dropped and a new one is added, right? So essentially rebalance is done to; If so, why do passive ETFs require frequent rebalancing and generally lose to their benchmark index? lets take an Index with just 3 companies, with below price. The total Market cap is 1000 The Minimum required to mimic this index is 200 or Multiples of 200. If so you are fine. More Often, funds can't be this large. For example approx 100 funds track the S&P Index. Together they hold around 8-10% of Market Cap. Few large funds like Vangaurd, etc may hold around 2%. But most of the 100+ S&P funds hold something in 0.1 to 0.5 range. So lets say a fund only has 100. To maintain same proportion it has to buy shares in fraction. But it can only buy shares in whole numbers. This would then force the fund manager to allocate out of proportion, some may remain cash, etc. As you can see below illustrative, there is a tracking error. The fund is not truly able to mimic the index. Now lets say after 1st April, the share price moved, now this would mean more tracking error if no action is taken [block 2] ... and less tracking error if one share of company B is sold and one share of company C is purchased. Again the above is a very simplified view. Tracking error computation is involved mathematics. Now that we have the basic concepts, more often funds tracking S&P; Thus they need to rebalance.",
"\"You should establish a strategy -- eg a specific mix of investments/funds which has the long-term tradeofv of risk, returns, and diversification you want -- and stick to that strategy, rebalancing periodically to maintain your strategic ratios betwedn those investments. Yes, that means you will somettimes sell things that have been doing well and buy others that have been doing less well -- but that's to be expected; it's exactly what happens when you \"\"buy low, sell high\"\".\"",
"\"The goal of the single-fund with a retirement date is that they do the rebalancing for you. They have some set of magic ratios (specific to each fund) that go something like this: Note: I completely made up those numbers and asset mix. When you invest in the \"\"Mutual-Fund Super Account 2025 fund\"\" you get the benefit that in 2015 (10 years until retirement) they automatically change your asset mix and when you hit 2025, they do it again. You can replace the functionality by being on top of your rebalancing. That being said, I don't think you need to exactly match the fund choices they provide, just research asset allocation strategies and remember to adjust them as you get closer to retirement.\"",
"I really like keshlam's answer. Your age is also a consideration. If you make your own target fund by matching the allocations of whatever Vanguard offers, I'd suggest re-balancing every year or every other year. But if you're just going to match the allocations of their target fund, you might as well just invest in the target fund itself. Most (not all, just most) target funds do not charge an additional management fee. So you just pay the fees of the underlying funds, same as if you mirrored the target fund yourself. (Check the prospectus to see if an additional fee is charged or not.) You may want to consider a more aggressive approach than the target funds. You can accomplish this by selecting a target fund later than your actual retirement age, or by picking your own allocations. The target funds become more conservative as you approach retirement age, so selecting a later target is a way of moving the risk/reward ratio. (I'm not saying target funds are necessarily the best choice, you should get professional advice, etc etc.)",
"\"Target Date Funds automatically change their diversification balance over time, rebalancing and reassigning new contributions to become progressively more protective of what you've already earned. (As opposed to other funds which continue to maintain the same balance of investments until you explicitly move the money around.) You can certainly make that same evolution manually; we all used to do that before target funds were made available, and many of us still do so. I'm still handling the relative allocations by hand. But I'm also close to my retirement target, so a target fund wouldn't be changing that much more anyway, and since I'm already tracking the curve... Note that if you feel a bit braver, or a bit more cautious, than the \"\"average investor\"\" the target fund was designed for, you can tweak the risk/benefit curve of a Target Date Fund by selecting a fund with a target date a bit later or earlier, respectively, than the date at which you intend to start pulling money back out of the fund.\"",
"\"Doesn't \"\"no rebalancing\"\" mean \"\"start with a portfolio and let it fly?\"\" Seems like incorporation of rebalancing is more sophisticated than not. Just \"\"buy\"\" your portfolio at the start and see where it ends up with no buying/selling, as compared with where it ends up if you do rebalance. Or is it not that simple?\"",
"\"My answer is Microsoft Excel. Google \"\"VBA for dummies\"\" (seriously) and find out if your brokerage offers an 'API'. With a brief understanding of coding you can get a spreadsheet that is live connected to your brokers data stream. Say you have a spreadsheet with the 1990 value of each in the first two columns (cells a1 and b1). Maybe this formula could be the third column, it'll tell you how much to buy or sell to rebalance them. then to iterate the rebalance, set both a2 and b2 to =C1 and drag the formula through row 25, one row for each year. It'll probably be a little more work than that, but you get the idea.\"",
"I wrote a detailed article on Tax Loss Harvesting to show the impact on returns. For my example, I showed a person in the 15% bracket. In years with no loss, they trade to capture gains at 0% long term rate, thus bumping their basis up. In years with losses, they tax harvest for a 15% effective 'rebate' on that loss. I showed how for the lost decade 2000-2009, a buy and hold would have returned -1% CAGR, but the tax loss harvester would have gained 1% (just 1% for the decade, not CAGR), ending the decade with no loss. As one's portfolio grows, the math changes. You can only take $3000 capital loss against ordinary income, and my example relies on the difference between taking a gain for free but using a loss to offset income. Note, the higher earner would take gains at 15%, but losses at 25%, but only for the relatively small portfolio. The benefit for them is to use loss harvesting to offset gains, less so for ordinary income. As the other answer state, Wealthfront can aid you to do this with no math on your part.",
"They can rebalance and often times at a random manager's discretion. ETF's are just funds, and funds all have their own conditions, read the prospectus, thats the only source of truth.",
"The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. - Twain I use index funds in my retirement planning, but don't stick to just S&P 500 index funds. Suppose I balance my money 50/50 between Small Cap and Large Cap and say I have $10,000. I'd buy $5,000 of an S&P Index fund and $5,000 of a Russell 2000 index fund. Now, fast forward a year. Suppose the S&P Index fund has $4900 and the Russell Index fund has $5200. Sell $150 of Russell Index Fund and buy $150 of S&P 500 Index funds to balance. Repeat that activity every 12-18 months. This lets you be hands off (index fund-style) on your investment choices but still take advantage of great markets. This way, I can still rebalance to sell high and buy low, but I'm not stressing about an individual stock or mutual fund choice. You can repeat this model with more categories, I chose two for the simplicity of explaining.",
"\"Do not reinvent the wheel! Historical data about stock market returns and standard deviations suffer from number of issues such as past-filling and mostly survivorship bias -- that the current answers do not consider at all. I suggest to read the paper \"\"A Century of Global Stock Markets\"\" by Philippe Jorion (UC Irvine) and William Goetzmann (Yale), here. William Bernstein comments the results here, notice that rebalancing is sometimes a good option but not always, his non-obvious finding where the low SD did not favour from rebalancing: Look at the final page of the paper, \"\"geometric returns -- represent returns to a buy-and-hold strategy\"\" and the \"\"arithmetic averages -- give equal weight to each observation interval.\"\", where you can find your asked \"\"historical effect of Rebalancing on Return and Standard Deviation\"\". The paper nicely summarizes the results to this table: The results in the table are from the interval 1921-1996, it is not that long-time but even longer term data has its own drawbacks. The starting year 1921 is interesting choice because it is around the times of social-economical changes and depressing moments, historical context can be realized from books such as Grapes Of Wrath (short summary here, although fiction to some extent, it has some resonance to the history). The authors have had to ignore some years because of different reasons such as political unrest and wars. Instead of delving into marketed spam as suggested by one reply, I would look into this search here. Look at the number of references and the related papers to judge their value. P.s. I encourage people to attack my open question here, hope we can solve it!\"",
"With robo-advisor services, you don't select which funds you buy or sell. All you do is decide on a risk profile, and when you add or remove funds to your account, they decide what to buy or sell based on that profile. Each service might decide how to do this differently. Looking at Betterment's case, it looks like they try to do rebalancing when you buy. So if you put a deposit in each month, they'll buy the lower priced funds to rebalance your account to the desired ratio. In a taxable account, Betterment likes to optimize your tax liability when you withdraw, so they sell the funds that have lost money before they sell the ones that have gained.",
"The idea is you would also have a cash allowance in the portfolio originally - say 25%. So in this scenario, 375K in stock and 125k in cash. and assuming the goal is 1K increase in stock value you would buy 38.5K of stock at the now lower price.",
"\"If the stock market dropped 30%-40% next month, providing you with a rare opportunity to buy stocks at a deep discount, wouldn't you want to have some of your assets in investments other than stocks? If you don't otherwise have piles of new cash to throw into the market when it significantly tanks, then having some of your portfolio invested elsewhere will enable you to back up the proverbial truck and load up on more stocks while they are on sale. I'm not advocating active market timing. Rather, the way that long-term investors capitalize on such opportunities is by choosing a portfolio asset allocation that includes some percentage of safer assets (e.g. cash, short term bonds, etc.), permitting the investor to rebalance the portfolio periodically back to target allocations (e.g. 80% stocks, 20% bonds.) When rebalancing would have you buy stocks, it's usually because they are on sale. Similarly, when rebalancing would have you sell stocks, it's usually because they are overpriced. So, don't consider \"\"safer investments\"\" strictly as a way to reduce your risk. Rather, they can give you the means to take advantage of market drops, rather than just riding it out when you are already 100% invested in stocks. I could say a lot more about diversification and risk reduction, but there are plenty of other great questions on the site that you can look through instead.\"",
"SPY is up 29% YTD. If you are 100% S&P and not up 28.9% plus your deposits, I'd be concerned — check your fund's management fees. Are you calling a top? Proper asset allocation would adjust holding on a regular basis. At the simplest level, say 70% S&P 30% short term/bond fund. It's time to re-adjust to the mix that's right for you, and not market-time. If 2014 sees a huge drop, the re-allocation to 70/30 buys back in at a lower price. If up again, a bit gets shifted out. Last, it makes sense for your deposits to match your allocation split, to lessen the divergence from your target numbers. Note: Asset allocation is a bit more complex than I just described. A good thing to research a bit. (Happy to see someone edit a couple good references here, especially if they aren't looking to offer a full response.) Here are a few choice questions on this site that are related to asset allocation:",
"The benefit of the 401K and IRAs are that reallocating and re balancing are easy. They don't want you to move the funds every day, but you are not locked in to your current allocations. The fact that you mentioned in a comment that you also have a Roth IRA means that you should look at all retirements as a whole. Look at what options you have in the 401K and also what options you have with the IRA. Then determine the overall allocation between bonds, stocks, international, REIT, etc. Then use the mix of funds in the IRA and 401K to meet that goal. Asking if the 401K should be small and mid cap only can't be answered without knowing not just your risk tolerances but the total money in the 401K and IRA. Pick an allocation, map the available funds to that allocation. Rebalance every year. But review the allocation in a few years or after a life event such as: change of job, getting married, having kids, or buying a house.",
"\"Investing is always a matter of balancing risk vs reward, with the two being fairly strongly linked. Risk-free assets generally keep up with inflation, if that; these days advice is that even in retirement you're going to want something with better eturns for at least part of your portfolio. A \"\"whole market\"\" strategy is a reasonable idea, but not well defined. You need to decide wheher/how to weight stocks vs bonds, for example, and short/long term. And you may want international or REIT in the mix; again the question is how much. Again, the tradeoff is trying to decide how much volatility and risk you are comfortable with and picking a mix which comes in somewhere around that point -- and noting which assets tend to move out of synch with each other (stock/bond is the classic example) to help tune that. The recommendation for higher risk/return when you have a longer horizon before you need the money comes from being able to tolerate more volatility early on when you have less at risk and more time to let the market recover. That lets you take a more aggressive position and, on average, ger higher returns. Over time, you generally want to dial that back (in the direction of lower-risk if not risk free) so a late blip doesn't cause you to lose too much of what you've already gained... but see above re \"\"risk free\"\". That's the theoretical answer. The practical answer is that running various strategies against both historical data and statistical simulations of what the market might do in the future suggests some specific distributions among the categories I've mentioned do seem to work better than others. (The mix I use -- which is basically a whole-market with weighting factors for the categories mentioned above -- was the result of starting with a general mix appropriate to my risk tolerance based on historical data, then checking it by running about 100 monte-carlo simulations of the market for the next 50 years.)\"",
"Ben Miller's answer is very thorough, and I up voted it. I believe that the ability to rebalance without tax implications is very import, but there are two aspects of the question that were not covered: The 401K in many cases comes with a company match. Putting enough money into the fund each year to maximize the match, give you free money that is not available in the non-retirement accounts. The presence of that match is to encourage employees to contribute: even if they are tying up their funds until retirement age; and they are into a plan with only a handful of investment options; and they may have higher expenses in the 401K. The question also had a concern about the annual limits for the 401K (18,000) and the IRA (5,500). The use of a retirement account doesn't in any way limit your ability to invest in non-retirement accounts. You can choose to invest from 0 to 23,500 in the retirement accounts and from 0 to unlimited into the non-retirement accounts. Double those amounts if you are married.",
"\"A diversified portfolio (such as a 60% stocks / 40% bonds balanced fund) is much more predictable and reliable than an all-stocks portfolio, and the returns are perfectly adequate. The extra returns on 100% stocks vs. 60% are 1.2% per year (historically) according to https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations To get those average higher stock returns, you need to be thinking 20-30 years (even 10 years is too short-term). Over the 20-30 years, you must never panic and go to cash, or you will destroy the higher returns. You must never get discouraged and stop saving, or you will destroy the higher returns. You have to avoid the panic and discouragement despite the likelihood that some 10-year period in your 20-30 years the stock market will go nowhere. You also must never have an emergency or other reason to withdraw money early. If you look at \"\"dry periods\"\" in stocks, like 2000 to 2011, a 60/40 portfolio made significant money and stocks went nowhere. A diversified portfolio means that price volatility makes you money (due to rebalancing) while a 100% stocks portfolio means that price volatility is just a lot of stress with no benefit. It's somewhat possible, probably, to predict dry periods in stocks; if I remember the statistics, about 50% of the variability in the market price 10 years out can be explained by normalized market valuation (normalized = adjusted for business cycle and abnormal profit margins). Some funds such as http://hussmanfunds.com/ are completely based on this, though a lot of money managers consider it. With a balanced portfolio and rebalancing, though, you don't have to worry about it very much. In my view, the proper goal is not to beat the market, nor match the market, nor is it to earn the absolute highest possible returns. Instead, the goal is to have the highest chance of financing your non-financial goals (such as retirement, or buying a house). To maximize your chances of supporting your life goals with your financial decisions, predictability is more important than maximized returns. Your results are primarily determined by your savings rate - which realistic investment returns will never compensate for if it's too low. You can certainly make a 40-year projection in which 1.2% difference in returns makes a big difference. But you have to remember that a projection in which value steadily and predictably compounds is not the same as real life, where you could have emergency or emotional factors, where the market will move erratically and might have a big plunge at just the wrong time (end of the 40 years), and so on. If your plan \"\"relies\"\" on the extra 1.2% returns then it's not a reasonable plan anyhow, in my opinion, since you can't count on them. So why suffer the stress and extra risk created by an all-stocks portfolio?\"",
"Modern portfolio theory has a strong theoretical background and its conclusions on the risk/return trade-off have a lot of good supporting evidence. However, the conclusions it draws need to be used very carefully when thinking about retirement investing. If you were really just trying to just pick the one investment that you would guess would make you the most money in the future then yes, given no other information, the riskiest asset would be the best one. However, for most people the goal retirement investing is to be as sure as possible to retire comfortably. If you were to just invest in a single, very risky asset you may have the highest expected return, but the risk involved would mean there might be a good chance you money may not be there when you need it. Instead, a broad diversified basket of riskier and safer assets leaning more toward the riskier investments when younger and the safer assets when you get closer to retirement tends to be a better fit with most people's retirement goals. This tends to give (on average) more return when you are young and can better deal with the risk, but dials back the risk later in life when your investment portfolio is a majority of your wealth and you can least afford any major swings. This combines the lessons of MPT (diversity, risk/return trade-off) in a clearer way with common goals of retirement. Caveat: Your retirement goals and risk-tolerance may be very different from other peoples'. It is often good to talk to (fee-only) financial planner.",
"Unfortunately I believe there is not a good answer to this because it's not a well posed problem. It sounds like you are looking for a theoretically sound criteria to decide whether to sell or hold. Such a criteria would take the form of calculating the cost of continuing to hold a stock and comparing it to the transactions cost of replacing it in your portfolio. However, your criteria for stock selection doesn't take this form. You appear to have some ad hoc rules defining whether you want the stock in your portfolio that provide no way to calculate a cost of having something in your portfolio you don't want or failing to have something you do want. Criteria for optimally rebalancing a portfolio can't really be more quantitative than the rules that define the portfolio.",
"Buy and hold doesn't have an exact definition, as far as I know. In my opinion, it's offered as a contrast to those who trade too frequently, or panic every time the market drops 2%. For the general market, e.g. your S&P index holdings. You sell to rebalance to your desired asset allocation. As a personal example, at 50, I was full up invested, 95%+ in stocks. When my wife and I were retired (i.e. let go from company, but with no need to go back to work) I started shifting to get to a more sane allocation, 80/20. The ideal mix may be closer to 60/40. Also, there are times the market as a whole is overvalued as measure by P/E and/or CAPE, made popular by Nobel Prize winning Robert Shiller. During these times, an allocation shift might make sense. For the individual stocks, you had best have a strategy when you buy. Why did you buy XYZ? Because they had promise, decent company with a good outlook for their product? Now that they are up 300%, can they keep gaining share or expand their market? Sometimes you can keep raising the bar, and keep a company long term, really long. Other times, the reason you bought no longer applies, they are at or above the valuation you hoped to achieve. Note - I noticed from another question, the OP is in the UK. I answer this my from US centric view, but it should still apply to OP in general. The question was not tagged UK when I replied.",
"To add to Dheer's point, the vast majority of retail investors will have to pay fees and use up a large amount of valuable time on the entrance and exit of each stock, and each and every time you rebalance as the index weightings change. These also add up extremely fast vs the few basis points the large and liquid ETFs charge for this service.",
"\"One approach is to invest in \"\"allocation\"\" mutual funds that use various methods to vary their asset allocation. Some examples (these are not recommendations; just to show you what I am talking about): A good way to identify a useful allocation fund is to look at the \"\"R-squared\"\" (correlation) with indexes on Morningstar. If the allocation fund has a 90-plus R-squared with any index, it probably isn't doing a lot. If it's relatively uncorrelated, then the manager is not index-hugging, but is making decisions to give you different risks from the index. If you put 10% of your portfolio in a fund that varies allocation to stocks from 25% to 75%, then your allocation to stocks created by that 10% would be between 2.5% to 7.5% depending on the views of the fund manager. You can use that type of calculation to invest enough in allocation funds to allow your overall allocation to vary within a desired range, and then you could put the rest of your money in index funds or whatever you normally use. You can think of this as diversifying across investment discipline in addition to across asset class. Another approach is to simply rely on your already balanced portfolio and enjoy any downturns in stocks as an opportunity to rebalance and buy some stocks at a lower price. Then enjoy any run-up as an opportunity to rebalance and sell some stocks at a high price. The difficulty of course is going through with the rebalance. This is one advantage of all-in-one funds (target date, \"\"lifecycle,\"\" balanced, they have many names), they will always go through with the rebalance for you - and you can't \"\"see\"\" each bucket in order to get stressed about it. i.e. it's important to think of your portfolio as a whole, not look at the loss in the stocks portion. An all-in-one fund keeps you from seeing the stocks-by-themselves loss number, which is a good way to trick yourself into behaving sensibly. If you want to rebalance \"\"more aggressively\"\" then look at value averaging (search for \"\"value averaging\"\" on this site for example). A questionable approach is flat-out market-timing, where you try to get out and back in at the right times; a variation on this would be to buy put options at certain times; the problem is that it's just too hard. I think it makes more sense to buy an allocation fund that does this for you. If you do market time, you want to go in and out gradually, and value averaging is one way to do that.\"",
"\"I would like to first point out that there is nothing special about a self-managed investment portfolio as compared to one managed by someone else. With some exceptions, you can put together exactly the same investment portfolio yourself as a professional investor could put together for you. Not uncommonly, too, at a lower cost (and remember that cost is among the, if not the, best indicator(s) of how your investment portfolio will perform over time). Diversification is the concept of not \"\"putting all your eggs in one basket\"\". The idea here is that there are things that happen together because they have a common cause, and by spreading your investments in ways such that not all of your investments have the same underlying risks, you reduce your overall risk. The technical term for risk is generally volatility, meaning how much (in this case the price of) something fluctuates over a given period of time. A stock that falls 30% one month and then climbs 40% the next month is more volatile than one that falls 3% the first month and climbs 4% the second month. The former is riskier because if for some reason you need to sell when it is down, you lose a larger portion of your original investment with the former stock than with the latter. Diversification, thus, is reducing commonality between your investments, generally but not necessarily in an attempt to reduce the risk of all investments moving in the same direction by the same amount at the same time. You can diversify in various ways: Do you see where I am going with this? A well-diversed portfolio will tend to have a mix of equity in your own country and a variety of other countries, spread out over different types of equity (company stock, corporate bonds, government bonds, ...), in different sectors of the economy, in countries with differing growth patterns. It may contain uncommon classes of investments such as precious metals. A poorly diversified portfolio will likely be restricted to either some particular geographical area, type of equity or investment, focus on some particular sector of the economy (such as medicine or vehicle manufacturers), or so on. The poorly diversified portfolio can do better in the short term, if you time it just right and happen to pick exactly the right thing to buy or sell. This is incredibly hard to do, as you are basically working against everyone who gets paid to do that kind of work full time, plus computer-algorithm-based trading which is programmed to look for any exploitable patterns. It is virtually impossible to do for any real length of time. Thus, the well-diversified portfolio tends to do better over time.\"",
"\"There are a couple of reasons to diversify your assets. First, since we cannot predict which of our investments will perform best, we want to \"\"cast our net\"\" broadly enough to have something invested in what's going to be performing well. Second, diversification isn't intended to provide the highest returns, but rather it is used to soften the effects of market volatility. By softening the downsides and lowering the overall volatility among our assets, returns are more consistent. If a model does not address future downside risk it is only telling you part of the story. (Past performance does not guarantee... you get the picture)\"",
"It looks like an improvement to me, if for no other reason than lowering the expenses. But if you are around 35 years away from retirement you could consider eliminating all bond funds for now. They will pay better in a few years. And the stock market(s) will definitely go up more than bonds over the next 35 years.",
"\"The thing about the glide path is that the closer you're to the retirement age, the less risk you should be taking with your investments. All investments carry risk, but if you invest in a volatile stock market at the age of 20 and lose all your retirement money - it will not have the same effect on your retirement as if you'd invest in a volatile stock market at the age of 65 and then lose all your retirement money. Static allocation throughout your life without changing the risk factor, will lead you to a very conservative investment path, which would mean you're not likely to lose your investments, but you're not likely to gain much either. The point of the glide path is to allow you taking more risks early with more chances of higher gains, but to limit your risks down the road, also limiting your potential gains. That is why it is always suggested to start your retirement funds early in your life, to make sure you have enough time to invest in potentially high return stocks (with high risk), but when you get close to your retirement age, it is advised to do exactly the opposite. The date-targeted funds do that for you, but you can do it on your own as well. As to the academic research - you don't need to go that far. Just look at the graphs to see that over long period investments in stocks give much better return than \"\"conservative\"\" bonds and treasuries (especially when averaging the investments, as it usually is with the retirement funds), but over a given short period, investments in stocks are much more likely to significantly lose in value.\"",
"\"I don't think the advice to take lots more risk when young makes so much sense. The additional returns from loading up on stocks are overblown; and the rocky road from owning 75-100% stocks will almost certainly mess you up and make you lose money. Everyone thinks they're different, but none of us are. One big advantage of stocks over bonds is tax efficiency only if you buy index funds and don't ever sell them. But this does not matter in a retirement account, and outside a retirement account you can use tax-exempt bonds. Stocks have higher returns in theory but to have a reasonable guarantee of higher returns from them, you need around a 30-year horizon. That is a long, long time. Psychologically, a 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio, or something with similar risk mixing in a few more alternative assets like Swenson's, is SO MUCH better. With 100% stocks you can spend 10 or 15 years saving money and your investment returns may get you nowhere. Think what that does to your motivation to save. (And how much you save is way more important than what you invest in.) The same doesn't happen with a balanced portfolio. With a balanced portfolio you get reasonably steady progress. You can still have a down year, but you're a lot less likely to have a down decade or even a down few years. You save steadily and your balance goes up fairly steadily. The way humans really work, this is so important. For the same kind of reason, I think it's great to buy one fund that has both stocks and bonds in there. This forces you to view the thing as a whole instead of wrongly looking at the individual asset class \"\"buckets.\"\" And it also means rebalancing will happen automatically, without having to remember to do it, which you won't. Or if you remember you won't do it when you should, because stocks are doing so well, or some other rationalization. Speaking of rebalancing, that's where a lot of the steady, predictable returns come from if you have a nice balanced portfolio. You can make money over time even if both asset classes end up going nowhere, as long as they bounce around somewhat independently, so you'll buy low and sell high when you rebalance. To me the ideal is an all-in-one fund that aims for about 60/40 stocks/bonds level of risk, somewhat more diversified than stocks/bonds is great (international stock, commodities, high yield, REIT, etc.). You can just buy that at age 20 and keep it until you retire. In beautiful ideal-world economic theory, buy 90% stocks when young. Real world with human brain involved: I love balanced funds. The steady gains are such a mental win. The \"\"target retirement\"\" funds are not a bad option, but if you buy the matching year for your age, I personally wish they had less in stocks. If you want to read more on the \"\"equity premium\"\" (how much more you make from owning stocks) here are a couple of posts on it from a blog I like: Update: I wrote this up more comprehensively on my blog,\"",
"I still don't see the point of this software; rebalancing frequently is a waste of money (through fees). If you invest in index funds, you don't have to rebalance at all--effectively, the fund is doing it for you, and since they can generally trade more efficiently than individual investors can, that's a win. The Coverdell ESA is a great example. There's a maximum contribution amount, just as there are for almost any tax-exempt account. A decent financial adviser could help you plan how much to contribute to which accounts, at what time, and when you can/should start to withdraw from them.",
"\"The standard low-risk/gain very-short-term parking spot these days tends to be a money market account. However, you have only mentioned stock. For good balance, your portfolio should consider the bond market too. Consider adding a bond index fund to diversify the basic mix, taking up much of that 40%. This will also help stabilize your risk since bonds tend to move opposite stocks (prperhaps just because everyone else is also using them as the main alternative, though there are theoretical arguments why this should be so.) Eventually you may want to add a small amount of REIT fund to be mix, but that's back on the higher risk side. (By the way: Trying to guess when the next correction will occur is usually not a winning strategy; guesses tend to go wrong as often as they go right, even for pros. Rather than attempting to \"\"time the market\"\", pick a strategic mix of investments and rebalance periodically to maintain those ratios. There has been debate here about \"\"dollar-cost averaging\"\" -- see other answers -- but that idea may argue for investing and rebalancing in more small chunks rather than a few large ones. I generally actively rebalance once a year or so, and between those times let maintainng the balance suggest which fund(s) new money should go into -- minimal effort and it has worked quite well enough.,)\"",
"Taking as given that your definition of VA involves selling at intermediate times, your question can be made more general. After all, value averaging is just one special case of a portfolio that rebalances to target weights periodically. Do back-end fees (and front-end fees) harm the value of portfolios that require rebalancing? The answer is yes, they do. Those fees are put in place in order to prevent investors from redeeming shares over any but the longest horizons. Any portfolio that rebalances periodically will involve some periodic selling. If you invest in a fund with front-end or back-end fees, it is optimal to leave your money in it for as long as possible and not do any rebalancing. If you want to run a portfolio that is at all active (involves rebalancing), then it is probably wise to use no-load funds. These are often some of the best and cheapest funds anyway, but even if front or back end load funds have a lower expense ratio, you will likely lose money on those loads as you rebalance.",
"The reason diversification in general is a benefit is easily seen in your first graph. While the purple line (Betterment 100% Stock) is always below the blue line (S&P), and the blue line is the superior return over the entire period, it's a bit different if you retired in 2009, isn't it? In that case the orange line is superior: because its risk is much lower, so it didn't drop much during the major crash. Lowering risk (and lowering return) is a benefit the closer you get to retirement as you won't see as big a cumulative return from the large percentage, but you could see a big temporary drop, and need your income to be relatively stable (if you're living off it or soon going to). Now, you can certainly invest on your own in a diverse way, and if you're reasonably smart about it and have enough funds to avoid any fees, you can almost certainly do better than a managed solution - even a relatively lightly managed solution like Betterment. They take .15% off the top, so if you just did exactly the same as them, you would end up .15% (per year) better off. However, not everyone is reasonably smart, and not everyone has much in the way of funds. Betterment's target audience are people who aren't terribly smart about investing and/or have very small amounts of funds to invest. Plenty of people aren't able to work out how to do diversification on their own; while they probably mostly aren't asking questions on this site, they're a large percentage of the population. It's also work to diversify your portfolio: you have to make minor changes every year at a minimum to ensure you have a nicely balanced portfolio. This is why target retirement date portfolios are very popular; a bit higher cost (similar to Betterment, roughly) but no work required to diversify correctly and maintain that diversification.",
"For a non-technical investor (meaning someone who doesn't try to do all the various technical analysis things that theoretically point to specific investments or trends), having a diverse portfolio and rebalancing it periodically will typically be the best solution. For example, I might have a long-term-growth portfolio that is 40% broad stock market fund, 40% (large) industry specific market funds, and 20% bond funds. If the market as a whole tanks, then I might end up in a situation where my funds are invested 30% market 35% industry 35% bonds. Okay, sell those bonds (which are presumably high) and put that into the market (which is presumably low). Now back to 40/40/20. Then when the market goes up we may end up at 50/40/10, say, in which case we sell some of the broad market fund and buy some bond funds, back to 40/40/20. Ultimately ending up always selling high (whatever is currently overperforming the other two) and buying low (whatever is underperforming). Having the industry specific fund(s) means I can balance a bit between different sectors - maybe the healthcare industry takes a beating for a while, so that goes low, and I can sell some of my tech industry fund and buy that. None of this depends on timing anything; you can rebalance maybe twice a year, not worrying about where the market is at that exact time, and definitely not targeting a correction specifically. You just analyze your situation and adjust to make everything back in line with what you want. This isn't guaranteed to succeed (any more than any other strategy is), of course, and has some risk, particularly if you rebalance in the middle of a major correction (so you end up buying something that goes down more). But for long-term investments, it should be fairly sound.",
"If you are looking for an advisor to just build a portfolio and then manage it, a robo-advisor can be beneficial (especially if the alternative is doing it your self, assuming that you are not well versed in the markets). The primary risk with one is that it does not build a portfolio that accurately represents your needs and risk tolerance. Some firms base the number of questions they ask you on sign up based not on what is needed to get a good profile, but on how many before people decide that it is too much hassle and bail. That usually results in poorer profiles. Also a live advisor may be better at really getting at your risk tolerance. Many of day our risk tolerance is one thing but in reality we are not so risk tolerant. Once the profile is built. The algorithms maintain your portfolio on a day by day basis. If rebalancing opportunities occur they take advantage of it. The primary benefit of a robo-advisor is lower fees or smaller minimum account balances. The downside is the lack of human interaction and financial advise outside of putting together a portfolio.",
"\"JoeTaxpayer's advice is solid - reallocating to your target asset allocation is the right move. You should have an Investor Policy Statement (IPS) that maps out your financial objectives, risk tolerance, liquidity constraints, etc. From the IPS, you can determine your target asset allocation and rebalance accordingly. A few more comments: It sounds like 100% of your 401k is in US stocks. You might have other accounts that make your overall portfolio globally diversified, but if not, you want to make sure to set a target asset allocation for a global portfolio. Your statement \"\"If this were in my brokerage account I'd probably cash out some of the profits and hold onto it and buy more shares as the market eventually comes back down. But this being a 401k which has semi-monthly deposits from my paycheck, do I just leave it?\"\" is a bit counterintuitive. If you are going to try to time the market (a very hard task), it is better to use a retirement account, so you don't have to realize capital gains. Timing the market is probably a bad idea, but if you engage in market timing, it is probably better to use a retirement account than a brokerage account. If you would like to tilt your asset allocation based on the market valuation, I recommend researching Shiller's Cyclically Adjusted Price to Earnings ratio.\"",
"At its simplest level it's an application of basic statistics/probability: Suppose you have n independent and identically distributed assets with the return on asset i denoted R_i which has mean m and variance s^2 (same for all assets). You can easily weaken these assumptions but I make them to simplify the exposition [Square brackets show a numerical example with n=20, m=8%, s=2%] if you invest in one of these assets you expect to get a return of m [8%] with standard deviation s [2%] (so you expect with probability 95% (approx) to get a return between m-2*s and m+2*s. [between 4% and 12%] Now suppose you split your money equally among the n-assets. Your return is now R = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i your expected return is E(R) = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n E(R_i) = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n m = m [8%] the variance of your return is Var(R) = Var( (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i ) = (1/n^2)\\Sum{i=1}^n Var(R_i) = n * s^2 / n^2) = s^2/n So, the standard deviation is SD(R) = Sqrt(V(R)) = s/Sqrt(n) [2%/Sqrt(20) = 0.44%] Now, with 95% probability we get a return between E(R)-2*SD(R) and E(R)+2*SD(R) [between 7.12% and 8.88%]. This interval is smaller than when we invested in the single asset, so in effect with this portfolio we are achieving the same return m [8%] but with lower variance (risk) [0.44% instead of 2%]. This is the result of diversification. You can assume the assets are not independent (and most book expositions of this topic do indeed do that). In that case the calculation is modified because the variance of the portfolio now depends on the correlation between returns, as does the reduction in variance caused by the diversification. If assets are negatively correlated the result of the diversification will be more reduction in risk and vice versa. You can also assume the assets are not identically distributed and the above analysis does not change too much. You might look for some references on CAPM (Capital Asset Pricing Model) or portfolio theory but broadly these are based on what I have described above - finding the portfolio with minimum variance for a given return by investing proportionally in treasury bonds and risky assets.",
"\"1. Interest rates What you should know is that the longer the \"\"term\"\" of a bond fund, the more it will be affected by interest rates. So a short-term bond fund will not be subject to large gains or losses due to rate changes, an intermediate-term bond fund will be subject to moderate gains or losses, and a long-term bond fund will be subject to the largest gains or losses. When a book or financial planner says to buy \"\"bonds\"\" with no other qualification, they almost always mean investment-grade intermediate-term bond funds (or for individual bonds, the equivalent would be a bond ladder averaging an intermediate term). If you want technical details, look at the \"\"average duration\"\" or \"\"average maturity\"\" of the bond fund; as a rough guide, if the duration is 10, then a 1% change in interest rates would be a 10% gain or loss on the fund. Another thing you can do is look at long-term (10 years or ideally longer) performance history on some short, intermediate, and long term bond index funds, and you can see how the long term funds bounced around more. Non-investment-grade bonds (aka junk bonds or high yield bonds) are more affected by factors other than interest rates, including some of the same factors (economic booms or recessions) that affect stocks. As a result, they aren't as good for diversifying a portfolio that otherwise consists of stocks. (Having stocks, investment grade bonds, and also a little bit in high-yield bonds can add diversification, though. Just don't replace your bond allocation with high-yield bonds.) A variety of \"\"complicated\"\" bonds exist (convertible bonds are an example) and these are tough to analyze. There are also \"\"floating rate\"\" bonds (bank loan funds), these have minimal interest rate sensitivity because the rate goes up to offset rate rises. These funds still have credit risks, in the credit crisis some of them lost a lot of money. 2. Diversification The purpose of diversification is risk control. Your non-bond funds will outperform in many years, but in other years (say the -37% S&P 500 drop in 2008) they may not. You will not know in advance which year you'll get. You get risk control in at least a few ways. There's also an academic Modern Portfolio Theory explanation for why you should diversify among risky assets (aka stocks), something like: for a given desired risk/return ratio, it's better to leverage up a diverse portfolio than to use a non-diverse portfolio, because risk that can be eliminated through diversification is not compensated by increased returns. The theory also goes that you should choose your diversification between risk assets and the risk-free asset according to your risk tolerance (i.e. select the highest return with tolerable risk). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory for excruciating detail. The translation of the MPT stuff to practical steps is typically, put as much in stock index funds as you can tolerate over your time horizon, and put the rest in (intermediate-term investment-grade) bond index funds. That's probably what your planner is asking you to do. My personal view, which is not the standard view, is that you should take as much risk as you need to take, not as much as you think you can tolerate: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ But almost everyone else will say to do the 80/20 if you have decades to retirement and feel you can tolerate the risk, so my view that 60/40 is the max desirable allocation to stocks is not mainstream. Your planner's 80/20 advice is the standard advice. Before doing 100% stocks I'd give you at least a couple cautions: See also:\"",
"The reinvestment of dividends and capital gains is a very significant portion of investment gains over the years. This creates a compounding effect on your gains. You should almost certainly reinvest to help the account grow, until you are retired and want to withdraw some cash. Placing them in a money market account just builds a pile of uninvested cash.",
"\"John Bensin's answer covers the math, but I like the plain-English examples of the theory from William Bernstein's fine book, The Intelligent Asset Allocator. At the author's web site, you can find the complete chapter 1 and chapter 2, though not chapter 3, which is the one with the \"\"multiple coin toss\"\" portfolio example I want to highlight. I'll summarize Bernstein's multiple coin toss example here with some excerpts from the book. (Another top user, @JoeTaxpayer, has also written about the coin flip on his blog, also mentioning Bernstein's book.) Bernstein begins Chapter 1 by describing an offer from a fictitious \"\"Uncle Fred\"\": Imagine that you work for your rich but eccentric Uncle Fred. [...] he decides to let you in on the company pension plan. [...] you must pick ahead of time one of two investment choices for the duration of your employment: Certificates of deposit with a 3% annualized rate of return, or, A most peculiar option: At the end of each year Uncle Fred flips a coin. Heads you receive a 30% investment return for that year, tails a minus 10% (loss) for the year. This will be hereafter referred to as \"\"Uncle Fred’s coin toss,\"\" or simply, the \"\"coin toss.\"\" In effect, choosing option 2 results in a higher expected return than option 1, but it is certainly riskier, having a high standard deviation and being especially prone to a series of bad tosses. Chapters 1 and 2 continue to expand on the idea of risk, and take a look at various assets/markets over time. Chapter 3 then begins by introducing the multiple coin toss example: Time passes. You have spent several more years in the employ of your Uncle Fred, and have truly grown to dread the annual coin-toss sessions. [...] He makes you another offer. At the end of each year, he will divide your pension account into two equal parts and conduct a separate coin toss for each half [...] there are four possible outcomes [...]: [...] Being handy with numbers, you calculate that your annualized return for this two-coin-toss sequence is 9.08%, which is nearly a full percentage point higher than your previous expected return of 8.17% with only one coin toss. Even more amazingly, you realize that your risk has been reduced — with the addition of two returns at the mean of 10%, your calculated standard deviation is now only 14.14%, as opposed to 20% for the single coin toss. [...] Dividing your portfolio between assets with uncorrelated results increases return while decreasing risk. [...] If the second coin toss were perfectly inversely correlated with the first and always gave the opposite result [hence, outcomes 1 and 4 above never occurring], then our return would always be 10%. In this case, we would have a 10% annualized long-term return with zero risk! I hope that summarizes the example well. Of course, in the real world, one of the tricks to building a good portfolio is finding assets that aren't well-correlated, and if you're interested in more on the subject I suggest you check out his books (including The Four Pillars of Investing) and read more about Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT).\"",
"In the US, the key to understanding the benefits of retirement accounts is to understand capital gains taxes and how they work. Retirement accounts are designed for making investments throughout your career, then after several decades of contributions, withdrawing that money to pay for your needs when your full-time employment has concluded. Normally when you invest money in a brokerage account, if the value of your investment increases, and you sell in less than a year, those investments are considered short-term gains and taxed as ordinary income. If you hold that same investment for over a year, the same investment is taxed at a lower capital gains rate (depending on which tax bracket you are in during that year, the amount due could be up to 20%, but much lower than your regular income tax rate). When you place your money in a retirement account, you are choosing to either pay the tax due on the income when you put it in the account, or put the money in tax free and pay the tax when you withdraw (these are called tax-deferred accounts). When you have money invested several decades, the raw dollar amount increases greatly, but inflation is also reducing the value of those dollars. Imagine you bought some bonds that payed 4% over 40 years, but inflation was 2% during those same years. When you sell those bonds 40 years later, you will owe capital gains on the entire gain even though half of the gain came from inflation. Retirement accounts allow you to buy and sell according to your investment needs and goals without any consideration about whether the gains are short-term or long-term, and they also allow you to pay taxes just once, either when you put it in, or when you take it out, with no worries about whether you're paying taxes on inflated gains.",
"\"First, decide on your asset allocation; are you looking for a fund with 60% stocks/risky-stuff, or 40% or 20%? Second, look for funds that have a mix of stocks and bonds. Good keywords would be: \"\"target retirement,\"\" \"\"lifecycle,\"\" \"\"balanced,\"\" \"\"conservative/moderate allocation.\"\" As you discover these funds, probably the fund website (but at least Morningstar.com) will tell you the percentage in stocks and risk assets, vs. in conservative bonds. Look for funds that have the percentage you decided on, or as close to it as possible. Third, build a list of funds that meet your allocation goal, and compare the details. Are they based on index funds, or are they actively managed? What is the expense ratio? Is the fund from a reputable company? You could certainly ask more questions here if you have several candidates and aren't sure how to choose. For investing in US dollars one can't-go-wrong choice is Vanguard and they have several suitable funds, but unfortunately if you spend in NIS then you should probably invest in that currency, and I don't know anything about funds in Israel. Update: two other options here. One is a financial advisor who agrees to do rebalancing for you. If you get a cheap one, it could be worth it. Two is that some 401k plans have an automatic rebalancing feature, where you have multiple funds but you can set it up so their computer auto-rebalances you. That's almost as good as having a single fund, though it does still encourage some \"\"mental accounting\"\" so you'd have to try to only look at the total balance, not the individual fund balances, over time. Anyway both of these could be alternatives ways to go on autopilot, besides a single fund.\"",
"Diversification is used by many to hopefully reduce the risk when bad investments are made. Diversification does not help you make more profits but instead averages down your profits. There is no way one can tell whether a stock or portfolio of stocks will go up or down once they are purchased. In order to try to provide some protection against total loss of the portfolio, a lazy so called long term investor will use diversification as a way of risk management. But the best outcome for them will be an averaging down of their profits. A better method is to let the market tell you when your purchased investment is a bad one and get out of that investment early and thus limiting your losses, whilst letting your good investments (as determined by the market) run and make larger profits.",
"\"While it's definitely possible (and likely?) that a diversified portfolio generates higher returns than the S&P 500, that's not the main reason why you diversify. Diversification reduces risk. Modern portfolio theory suggests that you should maximize return while reducing risk, instead of blindly chasing the highest returns. Think about it this way--say the average return is 11% for large cap US stocks (the S&P 500), and it's 10% for a diversified portfolio (say, 6-8 asset classes). The large cap only portfolio has a 10% chance of losing 30% in a given year, while the diversified portfolio has a 1% chance of losing 30% in a year. For the vast majority of investors, it's worth the 1% annual gap in expected return to greatly reduce their risk exposure. Of course, I just made those numbers up. Read what finance professors have written for the \"\"data and proof\"\". But modern portfolio theory is believed by a lot of investors and other finance experts. There are a ton of studies (and therefore data) on MPT--including many that contradict it.\"",
"The target date investment will automatically reduce equity exposure and increase bond exposure as it approaches retirement date. If you are unlikely to make adjustments as you get older, you may be setting yourself up for more risk down the road. Only you can decide what level of risk you can tolerate as you chase higher gains.",
"Some years your portfolio may perform better than the benchmark, and some years it may be the other way around. Without a benchmark you will never know. And by the way if you choose poorly, you will never beat the benchmark. If the benchmark goes up 20% but your fund/investment only went up 3% you did make money, but you might want to reevaluate your strategy.",
"\"From http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ , Lots of sensible advisers will tell you to buy index funds, but importantly, the advice is not simply \"\"buy index funds.\"\" There are at least two other critical details: 1) asset allocation across multiple well-chosen indexes, maintained through regular rebalancing, and 2) dollar cost averaging (or, much-more-complex-but-probably-slightly-better, value averaging). The advice is not to take your single lump sum and buy and hold a cap-weighted index forever. The advice is an investment discipline which involves action over time, and an initial choice among indexes. An index-fund-based strategy is not completely passive, it involves some active risk control through rebalancing and averaging. If you'd held a balanced portfolio over the last ten years and rebalanced, and even better if you'd dollar cost averaged, you'd have done fine. Your reaction to the last 10 years incidentally is why I don't believe an almost-all-stocks allocation makes sense for most people even if they're pretty young. More detail in this answer: How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? I think some index fund advocacy and books do people a disservice by focusing too much on the extra cost of active management and why index funds are a good deal. That point is true, but for most investors, asset allocation, rebalancing, and \"\"autopilotness\"\" of their setup are more important to outcome than the expense ratio.\"",
"I could see doing this if the investments were via different environments. The choices in a 401K are limited by the plan, so you might want to put new money into the 401K index fund. At the same time you could have IRA money invested in a similar index. You could even have non-retirement money invested. While you should look at all your investments while evaluating your investment percentages, the 401K (limited options) and the non-retirement account (avoiding taxes) might be harder to move around. Otherwise the only advantage of splitting between funds is avoiding having all your money in a Ponzi scheme.",
"Dummy example to explain this. Suppose your portfolio contained just two securities; a thirty year US government bond and a Tesla stock. Both of those position are currently valued at $1mm. The Tesla position however is very volatile with its daily volatility being about 5% (based on the standard deviation of its daily return) whole there bond's daily volatility is 1%. Then the Tesla position is 5/6 of your risk while being only 1/2 of the portfolio. Now if in month the Tesla stock tanks to half is values then. Then it's risk is half as much as before and so it's total contribution to risk has gone down.",
"Diversification is a good method of risk management. Different types of investments do better in different situations and economic climates. Invest all your money at the wrong time in a single product and you could lose everything. You could also technically make a great deal of money, but actions such as these are the actions of speculators, not investors. Spreading your investments appropriately lets you maximize your growth opportunities while limiting your risk.",
"Yes E[x] is expected value of x. E[x|y] = expected value of x, given y. c, k are some constants Let E[s_{n+1}|s_n=c] = c, but if E[s_{n+1}|s_n,s_{n-1},...,s_{n-m}] ->some constant k as m->\\infty (call this equation 1) then rebalancing makes sense. Notes:",
"\"There is no rule-of-thumb that fits every person and every situation. However, the reasons why this advice is generally applicable to most people are simple. Why it is good to be more aggressive when you are young The stock market has historically gone up, on average, over the long term. However, on its way up, it has ups and downs. If you won't need your investment returns for many years to come, you can afford to put a large portion of your investment into the volatile stock market, because you have plenty of time for the market to recover from temporary downturns. Why it is good to be more conservative when you are older Over a short-term period, there is no certainty that the stock market will go up. When you are in retirement, most people withdraw/sell their investments for income. (And once you reach a certain age, you are required to withdraw some of your retirement savings.) If the market is in a temporary downturn, you would be forced to \"\"sell low,\"\" losing a significant portion of your investment. Exceptions Of course, there are exceptions to these guidelines. If you are a young person who can't help but watch your investments closely and gets depressed when seeing the value go down during a market downturn, perhaps you should move some of your investment out of stocks. It will cost you money in the long term, but may help you sleep at night. If you are retired, but have more saved than you could possibly need, you can afford to risk more in the stock market. On average, you'll come out ahead, and if a downturn happens when you need to sell, it won't affect your overall situation much.\"",
"\"That's a lot of manual checking-in to see if everything is performing the way you \"\"want\"\". Not to insult your intelligence, but that is not your job, and doing that on a monthly basis is going to eat a lot of time. Plus, most 401(k) programs have lockout periods wherein changes can't be made without incurring additional fees (related to distributions, etc). And if you're checking that often, you are [likely] losing the benefits of investing in mutual funds to start with. If you have the stomach to handle the risk, go for the high-risk investment vehicles early in your career - you can afford a 30% drop this year if you then make 105%, 15%, or 50% back each of the next 5. If, on the other hand, you're in your mid-career, switch to more conservative management tactics.\"",
"\"In a cap-weighted fund, the fund itself isn't buying or selling at all (except to support redemptions or purchases of the fund). As the value of a stock in the index goes up, then its value in the fund goes up naturally. This is the advantage of a cap-weighted fund, that it doesn't have to trade (buy and sell), it just sits on the stocks. That makes a cap-weighted fund inexpensive (low trading costs) and tax-efficient (doesn't trigger capital gains due to sales). The buying high and selling low referred to by \"\"fundamental indexation\"\" advocates like Wisdom Tree is buying high and selling low on the part of the investor. That is, when you purchase the market-cap-weighted fund, at that time that you purchase, you will spend more on the higher-priced stocks, just because they account for more of the value of the fund, and less money goes to the cheaper stocks which account for less of the value of the fund. In the prospectus for a fund they should tell you which index they use, and if the prospectus doesn't describe the weighting of the index, you could do a web search for the index name and find out how that index is constructed. A market-cap-weighted fund is the standard kind of weighting which is what you get if you buy the stocks in the index and then hold them without buying or selling. Most of the famous indexes (e.g. S&P500) are cap-weighted, with the notable exception of the Dow Jones Industrial Average which is \"\"price-weighted\"\" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-weighted_index. Price-weighting is just an archaic tradition, not something one would use for a new index design today. A fund weighted by \"\"fundamentals\"\" or equal-weighted, rather than cap-weighted, is effectively doing a kind of rebalancing, selling what's gone up to buy more of what's gone down. Rather than buying an exotic fund, you could get a similar effect by buying a balanced fund (one that mixes stocks and bonds). Then when stocks go up, your fund would sell them and buy bonds, and the fund would sell the most of the highest-market-cap stocks that make up more of the index. And vice versa of course. But the fundamental-weighted funds are fine, the more important considerations include your stocks vs. bonds percentages (asset allocation) and whether you make irrational trades instead of sticking to a plan.\"",
"\"Aggressiveness in a retirement portfolio is usually a function of your age and your risk tolerance. Your portfolio is usually a mix of the following asset classes: You can break down these asset classes further, but each one is a topic unto itself. If you are young, you want to invest in things that have a higher return, but are more volatile, because market fluctuations (like the current financial meltdown) will be long gone before you reach retirement age. This means that at a younger age, you should be investing more in stocks and foreign/developing countries. If you are older, you need to be into more conservative investments (bonds, money market, etc). If you were in your 50s-60s and still heavily invested in stock, something like the current financial crisis could have ruined your retirement plans. (A lot of baby boomers learned this the hard way.) For most of your life, you will probably be somewhere in between these two. Start aggressive, and gradually get more conservative as you get older. You will probably need to re-check your asset allocation once every 5 years or so. As for how much of each investment class, there are no hard and fast rules. The idea is to maximize return while accepting a certain amount of risk. There are two big unknowns in there: (1) how much return do you expect from the various investments, and (2) how much risk are you willing to accept. #1 is a big guess, and #2 is personal opinion. A general portfolio guideline is \"\"100 minus your age\"\". This means if you are 20, you should have 80% of your retirement portfolio in stocks. If you are 60, your retirement portfolio should be 40% stock. Over the years, the \"\"100\"\" number has varied. Some financial advisor types have suggested \"\"150\"\" or \"\"200\"\". Unfortunately, that's why a lot of baby boomers can't retire now. Above all, re-balance your portfolio regularly. At least once a year, perhaps quarterly if the market is going wild. Make sure you are still in-line with your desired asset allocation. If the stock market tanks and you are under-invested in stocks, buy more stock, selling off other funds if necessary. (I've read interviews with fund managers who say failure to rebalance in a down stock market is one of the big mistakes people make when managing a retirement portfolio.) As for specific mutual fund suggestions, I'm not going to do that, because it depends on what your 401k or IRA has available as investment options. I do suggest that your focus on selecting a \"\"passive\"\" index fund, not an actively managed fund with a high expense ratio. Personally, I like \"\"total market\"\" funds to give you the broadest allocation of small and big companies. (This makes your question about large/small cap stocks moot.) The next best choice would be an S&P 500 index fund. You should also be able to find a low-cost Bond Index Fund that will give you a healthy mix of different bond types. However, you need to look at expense ratios to make an informed decision. A better-performing fund is pointless if you lose it all to fees! Also, watch out for overlap between your fund choices. Investing in both a Total Market fund, and an S&P 500 fund undermines the idea of a diversified portfolio. An aggressive portfolio usually includes some Foreign/Developing Nation investments. There aren't many index fund options here, so you may have to go with an actively-managed fund (with a much higher expense ratio). However, this kind of investment can be worth it to take advantage of the economic growth in places like China. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/04/27/how-to-create-your-own-target-date-mutual-fund/\"",
"It's all about risk. These guidelines were all developed based on the risk characteristics of the various asset categories. Bonds are ultra-low-risk, large caps are low-risk (you don't see most big stocks like Coca-Cola going anywhere soon), foreign stocks are medium-risk (subject to additional political risk and currency risk, especially so in developing markets) and small-caps are higher risk (more to gain, but more likely to go out of business). Moreover, the risks of different asset classes tend to balance each other out some. When stocks fall, bonds typically rise (the recent credit crunch being a notable but temporary exception) as people flock to safety or as the Fed adjusts interest rates. When stocks soar, bonds don't look as attractive, and interest rates may rise (a bummer when you already own the bonds). Is the US economy stumbling with the dollar in the dumps, while the rest of the world passes us by? Your foreign holdings will be worth more in dollar terms. If you'd like to work alternative asset classes (real estate, gold and other commodities, etc) into your mix, consider their risk characteristics, and what will make them go up and down. A good asset allocation should limit the amount of 'down' that can happen all at once; the more conservative the allocation needs to be, the less 'down' is possible (at the expense of the 'up'). .... As for what risks you are willing to take, that will depend on your position in life, and what risks you are presently are exposed to (including: your job, how stable your company is and whether it could fold or do layoffs in a recession like this one, whether you're married, whether you have kids, where you live). For instance, if you're a realtor by trade, you should probably avoid investing too much in real estate or it'll be a double-whammy if the market crashes. A good financial advisor can discuss these matters with you in detail.",
"Check out some common portfolios compared: Note that all these portfolios are loosely based on Modern Portfolio Theory, a theory of how to maximize reward given a risk tolerance introduced by Harry Markowitz. The theory behind the Gone Fishin' Portfolio and the Couch Potato Portfolio (more info) is that you can make money by rebalancing once a year or less. You can take a look at 8 Lazy ETF Portfolios to see other lazy allocation percentages. One big thing to remember - the expense ratio of the funds you invest in is a major contributor to the return you get. If they're taking 1% of all of your gains, you're not. If they're only taking .2%, that's an automatic .8% you get. The reason Vanguard is so often used in these model portfolios is that they have the lowest expense ratios around. If you are talking about an IRA or a mutual fund account where you get to choose who you go with (as opposed to a 401K with company match), conventional wisdom says go with Vanguard for the lowest expense ratios.",
"Older folk might wish to let the dividends and cap gains be paid in cash, and use that cash towards their RMDs (required distributions). If you are investing in mutual funds and wish to keep adding to the funds you've selected, the reinvestment is a simple way to avoid having to visit the account and make a new purchase. In other words, you invest $5500, buy the fund, and X years from now, you simply have more shares of the fund but no cash o worry about. The pro is as mentioned, and the con is really for the 70-1/2+ people who will need to take their RMDs. (Although even they can take the RMD in kind, as fund shares)",
"\"An investment portfolio is typically divided into three components: All three of those can be accessed through mutual funds or ETFs. A 401(k) will probably have a small set of mutual funds for you to pick from. Mutual funds may charge you silly expenses if you pick a bad one. Look at the prospectus for the expense ratio. If it's over 1% you're definitely paying too much. If it's over 0.5% you're probably paying too much. If it's less than 0.1% you have a really good deal. US stocks are generally the core holding until you move into retirement (or get close to spending the money on something else if it's not invested for retirement). International stocks are riskier than US stocks, but provide opportunity for diversification and better returns than the US stocks. Bonds, or fixed-income investments, are generally very safe, but have limited opportunities for returns. They tend to do better when stocks are doing poorly. When you've got a while to invest, you should be looking at riskier investments; when you don't, you should be looking for safer investments. A quick (and rough) rule of thumb is that \"\"your age should match the portion of your portfolio in bonds\"\". So if you're 50 years old and approaching retirement in 15 years or so, you should have about 50% in bonds. Roughly. People whose employment and future income is particularly tied to one sector of the market would also do well to avoid investing there, because they already are at risk if it performs badly. For instance, if you work in the technology sector, loading up on tech stocks is extra risky: if there's a big bust, you're not just out of a job, your portfolio is dead as well. More exotic options are available to diversify a portfolio: While many portfolios could benefit from these sorts of holdings, they come with their own advantages and disadvantages and should be researched carefully before taking a significant stake in them.\"",
"\"You're right, the asset allocation is one fundamental thing you want to get right in your portfolio. I agree 110%. If you really want to understand asset allocation, I suggest any and all of the following three books, all by the same author, William J. Bernstein. They are excellent – and yes I've read each. From a theory perspective, and being about asset allocation specifically, the Intelligent Asset Allocator is a good choice. Whereas, the next two books are more accessible and more complete, covering topics including investor psychology, history, financial products you can use to implement a strategy, etc. Got the time? Read them all. I finished reading his latest book, The Investor's Manifesto, two weeks ago. Here are some choice quotes from Chapter 3, \"\"The Nature of the Portfolio\"\", that address some of the points you've asked about. All emphasis below is mine. Page 74: The good news is [the asset allocation process] is not really that hard: The investor only makes two important decisions: Page 76: Rather, younger investors should own a higher portion of stocks because they have the ability to apply their regular savings to the markets at depressed prices. More precisely, young investors possess more \"\"human capital\"\" than financial capital; that is, their total future earnings dwarf their savings and investments. From a financial perspective, human capital looks like a bond whose coupons escalate with inflation. Page 78: The most important asset allocation decision is the overall stock/bind mix; start with age = bond allocation rule of thumb. [i.e. because the younger you are, you already have bond-like income from anticipated employment earnings; the older you get, the less bond-like income you have in your future, so buy more bonds in your portfolio.] He also mentions adjusting that with respect to one's risk tolerance. If you can't take the ups-and-downs of the market, adjust the stock portion down (up to 20% less); if you can stomach the risk without a problem, adjust the stock portion up (up to 20% more). Page 86: [in reference to a specific example where two assets that zig and zag are purchased in a 50/50 split and adjusted back to targets] This process, called \"\"rebalancing,\"\" provides the investor with an automatic buy-low/sell-high bias that over the long run usually – but not always – improves returns. Page 87: The essence of portfolio construction is the combination of asset classes that move in different directions at least some of the time. Finally, this gem on pages 88 and 89: Is there a way of scientifically picking the very best future allocation, which offers the maximum return for the minimum risk? No, but people still try. [... continues with description of Markowitz's \"\"mean-variance analysis\"\" technique...] It took investment professionals quite a while to realize that limitation of mean-variance analysis, and other \"\"black box\"\" techniques for allocating assets. I could go on quoting relevant pieces ... he even goes into much detail on constructing an asset allocation suitable for a large portfolio containing a variety of different stock asset classes, but I suggest you read the book :-)\""
] |
[
"\"Rebalancing a portfolio helps you reduce risk, sell high, and buy low. I'll use international stocks and large cap US stocks. They both have ups and downs, and they don't always track with each other (international might be up while large cap US stocks are down and vice-versa) If you started with 50% international and 50% large cap stocks and 1 year later you have 75% international and 25% large cap stocks that means that international stocks are doing (relatively) well to large cap stocks. Comparing only those two categories, large cap stocks are \"\"on sale\"\" relative to international stocks. Now move so you have 50% in each category and you've realized some of the gains from your international investment (sell high) and added to your large cap stocks (buy low). The reason to rebalance is to lower risk. You are spreading your investments across multiple categories to manage risk. If you don't rebalance, you could end up with 95% in one category and 5% in another which means 95% of your portfolio is tied to the performance of a single asset category. I try to rebalance every 12 months and usually get it done by every 18 months. I like being a hands-off long term investor and this has proven often enough to beat the S&P500.\"",
"Rebalancing your portfolio doesn't have to include selling. You could simply adjust your buying to keep your portfolio in balance. If you portfolio has shifted from 50% stocks and 50% bonds to 75% stocks and 25% bonds, you can just only use new savings to buy bonds, until you are back at 50-50. Remember to take into account taxes if you are thinking of selling to rebalance in taxable accounts. The goal of rebalancing is to keep your exposures the way that you want them. Assuming that you had a good reason to have a portfolio of 50% stocks and 50% bonds, you probably want to keep your portfolio similar in the future. If you end up with a portfolio of 75% stocks and 25% bonds due to stock market fluctuations, the exposure and the risk / return profile of your portfolio will have changed, and it's probably not something that you want. You don't want to rebalance just for the sake of rebalancing either. There can be costs to rebalancing (taxes, transaction fees, etc...) and these aren't always worth the effort. That's why you don't need to rebalance every month or if your portfolio has shifted from 50/50 to 51/49. I take a look at my portfolio once a year, and adjust my automated investments so that by the end of the next year I'm back to the ratio I want."
] |
10809
|
Definitions of leverage and of leverage factor
|
[
"103362",
"286141",
"242524"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"103362",
"163641",
"286141",
"329923",
"419138",
"393591",
"543811",
"106310",
"242524",
"177563",
"475199",
"597679",
"469125",
"482077",
"457584",
"549254",
"521060",
"379314",
"182192",
"499331",
"306815",
"62955",
"63091",
"99131",
"297764",
"536043",
"598993",
"273789",
"592665",
"345294",
"428187",
"145123",
"180249",
"40160",
"89509",
"427300",
"271643",
"552496",
"309976",
"511587",
"6990",
"437659",
"74369",
"199133",
"553304",
"314410",
"102618",
"317399",
"360621",
"189894",
"93890",
"331606",
"549640",
"570178",
"80871",
"260094",
"197056",
"392403",
"549895",
"103528",
"167753",
"582161",
"228341",
"283782",
"290568",
"139654",
"302420",
"467535",
"528052",
"429704",
"515391",
"208926",
"255102",
"33562",
"77963",
"355614",
"258306",
"398960",
"274839",
"5152",
"583304",
"19946",
"7712",
"189680",
"554653",
"594755",
"76776",
"506618",
"229026",
"27797",
"168639",
"25550",
"101343",
"238484",
"450949",
"73201",
"554465",
"40723",
"422922",
"333360"
] |
[
"Levarge in simple terms is how of your own money to how much of borrowed money. So in 2008 Typical leverage ratios were Investment Banks 30:1 means that for every 1 Unit of Banks money [shareholders capital/ long term debts] there was 30 Units of borrowed money [from deposits/for other institutions/etc]. This is a very unstable situation as typically say you lent out 31 to someone else, half way through repayments, the depositors and other lends are asking you 30 back. You are sunk. Now lets say if you lent 31 to some one, but 30 was your moeny and 1 was from deposits/etc. Then you can anytime more easily pay back the 1 to the depositor. In day trading, usually one squares away the position the same day or within a short period. Hence say you want to buy something worth 1000 in the morning and are selling it say the same day. You are expecting the price to by 1005 and a gain 5. Now when you buy via your broker/trader, you may not be required to pay 1000. Normally one just needs to pay a margin money, typically 10% [varies from market to market, country to country]. So in the first case if you put 1000 and get by 5, you made a profit of 0.5%. However if you were to pay only 10 as margin money [rest 990 is assumed loan from your broker]. You sell at 1005, the broker deducts his 990, and you get 15. So technically on 10 you have made 5 more, ie 50% returns. So this is leveraging of 10:1. If say your broker allowed only 5% margin money, then you just need to pay 5 for the 1000 trade, get back 5. You have made a 100% profit, but the leveraging is 20:1. Now lets say at this high leveraging when you are selling you get only 990. So you still owe the broker 5, if you can't pay-up and if lot of other such people can't pay-up, then the broker will also go bankrupt and there is a huge risk. Hence although leveraging helps in quite a few cases, there is always an associated risk when things go wrong badly.",
"Leverage comes in many forms. You'll learn about things like operational leverage, financial leverage, and total leverage throughout school. In the real world, tier 1 capital ratio has become the most commonly scrutinized because it is essentially a ratio of the core equity capital of a firm divided by the risk weighted assets (assets multiplied by a credit weighting which for most banks now a days is using the standard of Basel 2.5 and moving towards Basel III). The multiples you talked about were references to the reciprocal of this formula. You could reciprocate the T1C ratio and get a whole number that is the multiplier. This multiplier would show for every 1$ in core capital, how much the firm held in risk weighted assets. The 30x number would have represented a tier 1 cap of 3.33%. The concept behind it being, a 10% growth in risk weighted assets with a 3.33% T1CR would result in a 300% growth in core equity capital value. As proven in 2008, it is a double edge blade and works the same way in both directions.",
"This would clear out a lot more. 1) Leverage is the act of taking on debt in lieu of the equity you hold. Not always related to firms, it applies to personal situations too. When you take a loan, you get a certain %age of the loan, the bank establishes your equity by looking at your past financial records and then decides the amount it is going to lend, deciding on the safest leverage. In the current action leverage is the whole act of borrowing yen and profiting from it. The leverage factor mentions the amount of leverage happening. 10000 yen being borrowed with an equity of 1000 yen. 2) Commercial banks: 10 to 1 -> They don't deal in complicated investments, derivatives except for hedging, and are under stricter controls of the government. They have to have certain amount of liquidity and can loan out the rest for business. Investment banks: 30 to 1 -> Their main idea is making money and trade heavily. Their deposits are limited by the amount clients have deposited. And as their main motive is to get maximum returns from the available amount, they trade heavily. Derivatives, one of the instruments, are structured on underlyings and sometimes in multiple layers which build up quite a bit of leverage. And all of the trades happen on margins. You don't invest $10k to buy $10k of a traded stock. You put in, maybe $500 to take up the position and borrow the rest of the amount per se. It improves liquidity in the markets and increases efficiency. Else you could do only with what you have. So these margins add up to the leverage the bank is taking on.",
"What I meant by leverage was not borrowing money in order to buy more. What I am getting at is the purchasing power your dollar has in relation to the number of dollars you have (which may mean using leverage, but not per se).",
"Leverage is when you borrow in order to invest. Mind you, most people aren't going to just give you money to gamble on the stock market completely unsecured; rather, you deposit (say) $10,000 and buy a stock... and then you have $10k in assets which you can borrow against, so you can buy another $10,000 of that stock. Now if the stock goes up you'll make twice the gain (2x leverage). However, if it goes down, you'll lose twice as much as well. If the value of your stock falls, your line of credit will be reduced as well; in this case, since you used all your credit and are now over your limit, your broker will issue a margin call (they will demand a deposit of additional funds, or they will sell some of your stock at their discretion). This protects you from owing more than you invested, but it's still sometimes possible (for instance, if a company spontaneously goes bankrupt and becomes worthless, and your stock becomes worthless). There are also things like leveraged index funds and commodity funds which aim to return some multiple of the market's earnings. These are designed for intraday trading, though, and usually end up underperforming significantly over the long term. [edit] Mose people who accept borrowed funds should generally accept real cash as well. However, if you're trying to short sell, i.e. borrow shares and sell them (in the hopes you can get them back cheaper later after the stock falls) you will need a margin line of credit to do so as well. [edit 2] clarified margin calls",
"\"It's called leverage. Here's an example from real estate. The underlying appreciation on a house in certain parts of America is something like 7% a year. So if you bought the house \"\"all cash,\"\" your return would be something like 7% a year. (Actually, a little more, because of the rent you would be collecting, or saving, if you were the \"\"renter.\"\") Suppose you buy the same house, 20% down, 80% mortgage. The rent pays for your mortgage, taxes, insurance, etc. like it is supposed to. The house goes up the same 7% each year. But now your rate of return is 35%, that is 7%/20% (your down payment). You get the whole appreciation but put up only 20% of the money. The bank (and your renter) did the rest.\"",
"\"I think to some extent you may be confusing the terms margin and leverage. From Investopedia Two concepts that are important to traders are margin and leverage. Margin is a loan extended by your broker that allows you to leverage the funds and securities in your account to enter larger trades. In order to use margin, you must open and be approved for a margin account. The loan is collateralized by the securities and cash in your margin account. The borrowed money doesn't come free, however; it has to be paid back with interest. If you are a day trader or scalper this may not be a concern; but if you are a swing trader, you can expect to pay between 5 and 10% interest on the borrowed money, or margin. Going hand-in-hand with margin is leverage; you use margin to create leverage. Leverage is the increased buying power that is available to margin account holders. Essentially, leverage allows you to pay less than full price for a trade, giving you the ability to enter larger positions than would be possible with your account funds alone. Leverage is expressed as a ratio. A 2:1 leverage, for example, means that you would be able to hold a position that is twice the value of your trading account. If you had $25,000 in your trading account with 2:1 leverage, you would be able to purchase $50,000 worth of stock. Margin refers to essentially buying with borrowed money. This must be paid back, with interest. You also may have a \"\"margin call\"\" forcing you to liquidate assets if you go beyond your margin limits. Leverage can be achieved in a number of ways when investing, one of which is investing with a margin account.\"",
"A lease payment is composed of an interest portion (borrowed money) and depreciation amount (purchase - residual). The Monthly payment is then Monthly Interest Cost + Monthly Depreciation Cost The Money Factor is used to estimate the amount of interest due in a single month of a lease so you can figure out the monthly payment. If you are borrowing $100,000 then over the entire loan of repayment from a balance of $100,000 to a balance of $0, the average amount you owed was $50,000 (1/2 of principal). You are repaying this loan monthly (1/12 of a year) and percents are expressed as decimals (1/100). 6 * 1/2 (for principal) * 1/12 (for monthly) * 1/100 (to convert percentage from 6% to .06) = 6 * 1/2400. 2400 is the product of 3 consecutive conversion (1/2 * 1/12 * 1/100) to convert from an interest rate to a money factor. 6/2400 = Money factor of 0.0025 which can be multiplied against the total amount being borrowed to know what the monthly interest would roughly equal. Some Money Factor info: https://www.alphaleasing.com/resources/articles/MoneyFactor.asp",
"Your original example is a little confusing because just shorting for 1k and buying for 1k is 100% leveraged or an infinitive leverage ratio. (and not allowed) Brokerage houses would require you to invest some capital in the trade. One example might be requiring you to hold $100 in the brokerage. This is where the 10:1 ratio comes from. (1000/10) Thus a return of 4.5% on the 1000k bond and no movement on the short position would net you $45 and voila a 45% return on your $100 investment. A 40 to 1 leverage ratio would mean that you would only have to invest $25 to make this trade. Something that no individual investor are allowed to do, but for some reason some financial firms have been able to.",
"\"I would say that you should keep in mind one simple idea. Leverage was the principal reason for the 2008 financial meltdown. For a great explanation on this, I would HIGHLY recommend Michael Lewis' book, \"\"The Big Short,\"\" which does an excellent job in spelling out the case against being highly leveraged. As Dale M. pointed out, losses are greatly magnified by your degree of leverage. That being said, there's nothing wrong with being highly leveraged as a short-term strategy, and I want to emphasize the \"\"short-term\"\" part. If, for instance, an opportunity arises where you aren't presently liquid enough to cover then you could use leverage to at least stay in the game until your cash situation improves enough to de-leverage the investment. This can be a common strategy in equities, where you simply substitute the term \"\"leverage\"\" for the term \"\"margin\"\". Margin positions can be scary, because a rapid downturn in the market can cause margin calls that you're unable to cover, and that's disastrous. Interestingly, it was the 2008 financial crisis which lead to the undoing of Bernie Madoff. Many of his clients were highly leveraged in the markets, and when everything began to unravel, they turned to him to cash out what they thought they had with him to cover their margin calls, only to then discover there was no money. Not being able to meet the redemptions of his clients forced Madoff to come clean about his scheme, and the rest is history. The banks themselves were over-leveraged, sometimes at a rate of 50-1, and any little hiccup in the payment stream from borrowers caused massive losses in the portfolios which were magnified by this leveraging. This is why you should view leverage with great caution. It is very, very tempting, but also fraught with extreme peril if you don't know what you're getting into or don't have the wherewithal to manage it if anything should go wrong. In real estate, I could use the leverage of my present cash reserves to buy a bigger property with the intent of de-leveraging once something else I have on the market sells. But that's only a wise play if I am certain I can unwind the leveraged position reasonably soon. Seriously, know what you're doing before you try anything like this! Too many people have been shipwrecked by not understanding the pitfalls of leverage, simply because they're too enamored by the profits they think they can make. Be careful, my friend.\"",
"Degree of Operating Leverage (DOL) measures the percent change in EBIT given a 1% change in Revenue. In other words, if DOL is 1.5, then increasing Revenue by 1% will increase EBIT by 1.5%. Degree of Financial Leverage (DFL) measures the percent change in NI given a 1% change in EBIT. Degree of Total Leverage (DTL) cuts EBIT out and measures the percent change in NI given a 1% change in Revenue. What all three of these numbers measure is “elasticity.” The elasticity between two variables is always the percentage change effect on one due to a 1% change in the other. Before we talk about why you would multiply elasticities, let’s first just look at absolute changes between a change of three variables, X Y and Z. Lets say X impacts Y (X->Y) and Y impacts Z (Y->Z). To make it even more concrete, let’s imagine a classroom where every student is required to have 2 books and every book has 100 pages. So X = # students, Y = # of books, and Z = # of pages. If we add one student to the class, we need to add 2 books. If we add 1 book to the class, we have added 100 pages. With absolute changes like this it is obvious that we don’t add, we multiply. In other words, to directly see the impact of a new student on the number of pages (X -> Z), we would say 1 student -> 2 books -> 200 pages. To say 102 pages would obviously be silly. For percent changes, this looks pretty similar. To make it easy say the class has 100 students. So adding 1 student is a 1% change. Then we go from 200 books to 202 books, a 1% change. So the degree of Student to Book Leverage is 1 (which make sense there are no “fixed pages”). We go from 20,000 pages to 20,200 pages, also a 1% change so the degree of Book to Page leverage is also 1. Thus, the Student to Page leverage is also just a flat 1. Let’s add fixed amounts. The teacher has a single 2,000 page book on how to teach. We’ll assume the class has 20 students. So we start with 20*2 + 1 = 41 books and 40*100 + 2,000 = 6,000 pages. Let’s add a student. We have a 21/20 -1 = 4% increase in students. 43/41 -1 = 4.89% increase in books. 6,200/6,000 – 1 = 3.33% increase in pages. So the Degree of Student to Book Leverage is 4.00/4.89 = 0.818 and the Degree of Book to Page Leverage is 4.89/3.33 = 1.47. And the direct Student to Page Leverage is 4.00/3.33 = 1.20. Again, note that here it would be silly to add the degrees of leverage, and when we do multiply them we get 0.82*1.47 = 1.2, the right answer. From here the application to EBIT [= Sales - Fixed Cost - Variable Cost = (Gross Margin * Sales) - Fixed Cost] and the application to EPS [= EBIT - Interest – Taxes = (1 – tax rate)*(EBIT – Interest)] should be obvious. I can supply the full proof mathematically, however, if you would like.",
"\"Leverage here is referring to \"\"financial leverage\"\". This is the practice of \"\"levering\"\" [ie increasing, like the use of a lever to increase the amount of weight you can lift] the value of your investment by taking on debt. For example: if you have 100k in cash, you can buy a 100k rental property. Assume the property makes 10k a year, net of expenses [10%]. Now assume the bank will also give you a 100k mortgage, at 3%. You could take the mortgage, plus your cash, and buy a 200k rental property. This would earn you 20k from the rental property, less 3k a year in interest costs [the 3%]. Your total income would be 17k, and since you only used 100k of your own money, your rate of return would now be 17% instead of 10%. This is financial leveraging. Note that this increases your risk, because if your investment fails not only have you lost your own money, you now need to pay back the bank. \"\"Beta riders\"\" appears to be negative commentary on investors who use Beta to calculate the value of a particular stock, without regard to other quantitative factors. Therefore \"\"leveraged beta riders\"\" are those who take on additional risk [by taking on debt to invest], and invest in a manner that the author would perhaps considered \"\"blindly\"\" following Beta. However, I have never seen this term before, and it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. A \"\"quant process driven discipline\"\" appears to be positive commentary on investors who use detailed quantitative analysis to develop rules which they rigorously follow to invest. I have never seen this exact phrasing before, and like the above, it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. I am not providing any opinion on whether \"\"beta riding\"\" or \"\"quant processes\"\" are good or bad things; this is just my attempt to interpret the quote as you presented it. Note that I did not go to the article to get context, so perhaps something else in the article could skew the language to mean something other than what I have presented.\"",
"Leverage increase returns, but also risks, ie, the least you can pay, the greater the opportunity to profit, but also the greater the chance you will be underwater. Leverage is given by the value of your asset (the house) over the equity you put down. So, for example, if the house is worth 100k and you put down 20k, then the leverage is 5 (another way to look at it is to see that the leverage is the inverse of the margin - or percentage down payment - so 1/0.20 = 5). The return on your investment will be magnified by the amount of your leverage. Suppose the value of your house goes up by 10%. Had you paid your house in full, your return would be 10%, or 10k/100k. However, if you had borrowed 80 dollars and your leverage was 5, as above, a 10% increase in the value of your house means you made a profit of 10k on a 20k investment, a return of 50%, or 10k/20k*100. As I said, your return was magnified by the amount of your leverage, that is, 10% return on the asset times your leverage of 5 = 50%. This is because all the profit of the house price appreciation goes to you, as the value of your debt does not depend on the value of the house. What you borrowed from the bank remains the same, regardless of whether the price of the house changed. The problem is that the amplification mechanism also works in reverse. If the price of the house falls by 10%, it means now you only have 10k equity. If the price falls enough your equity is wiped out and you are underwater, giving you an incentive to default on your loan. In summary, borrowing tends to be a really good deal: heads you win, tails the bank loses (or as happened in the US, the taxpayer loses).",
"\"leverage amplifies gains and losses, when returns are positive leverage makes them more positive, but when returns are negative leverage makes them more negative. since most investments have a positive return in \"\"the long run\"\", leverage is generally considered a good idea for long term illiquid investments like real estate. that said, to quote keynes: in the long run we are all dead. in the case of real estate specifically, negative returns generally happen when house prices drop. assuming you have no intention of ever selling the properties, you can still end up with negative returns if rents fall, mortgage rates increase or tax rates rise (all of which tend to correlate with falling property values). also, if cash flow becomes negative, you may be forced to sell during a down market, thereby amplifying the loss. besides loss scenarios, leverage can turn a small gain into a loss because leverage has a price (interest) that is subtracted from any amplified gains (and added to any amplified losses). to give a specific example: if you realize a 0.1% gain on x$ when unleveraged, you could end up with a 17% loss if leveraged 90% at 2% interest. (gains-interest)/investment=(0.001*x-0.02*0.9*x)/(x/10)=-0.017*10=-0.17=17% loss one reason leveraged investments are popular (particularly with real estate), is that the investor can file bankruptcy to \"\"erase\"\" a large negative net worth. this means the down side of a leveraged investment is limited for the highly leveraged investor. this leads to a \"\"get rich or start over\"\" mentality common among the self-made millionaire (and failed entrepreneurs). unfortunately, this dynamic also leads to serious problems for the banking sector in the event of a large nation-wide devaluation of real estate prices.\"",
"\"The reason that UltraLong funds and the like are bad isn't because of the leverage ratio. It's because they're compounded daily, and the product of all the doubled daily returns is not mathematically equivalent to the double the long-term return. I'd consider providing big fancy equations using uppercase pi as the 'product of elements in a sequence' operator and other calculus fanciness, but that would be overkill, I don't think I can do TeX here, and I don't know the relevant TeX anyway. Anyway. From the economics theory perspective, the ideal leverage ratio is 1X - that is, unlevered, straight investment. Consider: Using leverage costs money. You know that, surely. If someone could borrow money at N% and invest at an expected N+X%, where X > 0, then they would. They would borrow all the money they could and buy all the S&P500 they could. But when they bought all that S&P500, they'd eventually run out of people who were willing to sell it for that cheap. That would mean the excess return would be smaller. Eventually you'd get to a point where the excess return is... zero? .... well, no, empirically, we can see that it's definitely not zero, and that in the real world that stocks do return more than bonds. Why? Because stocks are riskier than bonds. The difference in expected return between an index like the S&P500 and a US Treasury bond is due to the relative riskiness of the S&P500, which isn't guaranteed by the US Government to return your principal. Any money that you make off of leverage comes from assuming some sort of a risk. Now, assuming risk can be a profitable thing to do, but there are also a lot of people out there with higher risk tolerance than you, like insurance companies and billionaires, so the market isn't exactly short of people willing to take risks, and you shouldn't expect the returns of \"\"assuming risk\"\" in the general case to be qualitatively awesome. Now, it's true that investing in an unlevered fashion is risky also. But that's not an excuse to go leveraged anyway; it's a reason to hold back. In fact, regular stocks are sufficiently risky that most people probably shouldn't be holding a 100% stock portfolio. They should be tempering that risk with bonds, instead, and increasing the size of their bond holdings over time. The appropriate time to use leverage is when you have information which limits your risk. You have done research, and have reason to believe that you understand the future of an individual stock/index better than the rest of the stock market does. You calculate that the potential for achieving returns with leverage outweighs the risks. Then you dump your money into the leveraged position. (In exchange for this, the market receives information about anticipated future returns of this instrument, because of the price movement which occurs as a result of someone putting his money where his mouth is.) If you're just looking to dump money into broad market indicies in a leveraged fashion, you're doing it wrong. There is no free money. (Ed. Which is not to say there's not money. There's lots of money. But if you go looking for the free kind, you won't find it, and may end up with money that you thought was free but was actually quite expensive.) Edit. Okay, so you don't like my answer. I'm not surprised. I'm giving you a real answer instead of a \"\"make free money\"\" answer. Okay. Here's your \"\"how to make free money\"\" answer. Assume you are using a constant leverage ratio over the length of time you've invested your money, and you don't get to just jump into and out of the market (that's market-timing, not leverage) so you have to stay invested. You're going to have a scenario which falls into one of these categories: The S&P500 historically rises over time. The average rate of return probably exceeds the average interest rate. So the ideal leverage ratio is infinite. Of course, this is a stupid answer in real life because you can't pull that off. Your risk tolerance is too low and you will have trouble finding a lender willing to lend you unsecured money, and you'll probably lose all your money in a crash sooner or later. Ultimately it's a stupid answer because you're asking the wrong question. You should probably ask a better question: \"\"when I use leverage to gain additional exposure to risk, am I being properly compensated for assuming that risk?\"\"\"",
"\"Exposure is the amount of money that you are at risk of losing on a given position (i.e. on a UST 10 year bond), portfolio of positions, strategy (selling covered calls for example), or counterparty, usually represented as a percentage of your total assets. Interbank exposure is the exposure of banks to other banks either through owning debt or stock, or by having open positions with the other banks as counterparties. Leveraging occurs when the value of your position is more than the value of what you are trading in. One example of this is borrowing money (i.e. creating debt for yourself) to buy bonds. The amount of your own funds that you are using to pay for the position is \"\"leveraged\"\" by the debt so that you are risking more than 100% of your capital if, for example, the bond became worthless). Another example would be buying futures \"\"on margin\"\" where you only put up the margin value of the trade and not the full cost. The problem with these leveraged positions is what happens if a credit event (default etc.) happens. Since a large amount of the leverage is being \"\"passed on\"\" as banks are issuing debt to buy other banks' debt who are issuing debt to buy debt there is a risk that a single failure could cause an unravelling of these leveraged positions and, since the prices of the bonds will be falling resulting in these leveraged positions losing money, it will cause a cascade of losses and defaults. If a leveraged position becomes worth less than the amount of real (rather than borrowed or margined) money that was put up to take the position then it is almost inevitable that the firm in that position will default on the requirements for the leverage. When that firm defaults it sparks all of the firms who own that debt to go through the same problems that it did, hence the contagion.\"",
"Money factor is a term coined by leasing companies to make car leasing that much more convoluted. It's basically a decimal value that you multiply by 2400 in order to arrive at your actual annual percentage rate or interest rate. Here's a really good article detailing how you can calculate your interest rate based on other criteria in your leasing contract, because most of the time you won't even be given money factor on your leasing contract",
"\"No one is FORCED to use leverage. But most people do. Trading companies like it because, the more leverage, the more \"\"business\"\" (and total commissions). If someone starts with $1 million and leverages it up ten times to ten million, companies would rather do ten million of business than one. That's a given. On the other hand, if you're Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, and you say I want to do $1 billion of FX, no leverage, no trading company is going to turn it down. More often, it's a company like IBM or Exxon Mobil that wants to do FX, no leverage, because they just earned, say $1 billion Euros. Individuals USUALLY want to use more leverage in order to earn (or lose) more with their capital.\"",
"Alex's answer is very helpful. However, I would like to add why it might be convenient to use money factor instead of APR when computing lease payments. Money factor makes it easier to compute the lease payments manually. Lease payments have two parts: Here is how to calculate them: Where, This is a computation that anyone can perform without any tools.",
"This essentially depends on how you prefer to measure your performance. I will just give a few simple examples to start. Let me know if you're looking for something more. If you just want to achieve maximum $ return, then you should always use maximum margin, so long as your expected return (%) is higher than your cost to borrow. For example, suppose you can use margin to double your investment, and the cost to borrow is 7%. If you're investing in some security that expects to return 10%, then your annual return on an account opened with $100 is: (2 * $100 * 10% - $100 * 7%) / $100 = 13% So, you see the expected return, amount of leverage, and cost to borrow will all factor in to your return. Suppose you want to also account for the additional risk you're incurring. Then you could use the Sharpe Ratio. For example, suppose the same security has volatility of 20%, and the risk free rate is 5%. Then the Sharpe Ratio without leverage is: (10% - 5%) / 20% = 0.25 The Sharpe Ratio using maximum margin is then: (13% - 5%) / (2 * 20%) = 0.2, where the 13% comes from the above formula. So on a risk-adjusted basis, it's better not to utilize margin in this particular example.",
"Yes, more leverage increases the variance of your individual portfolio (variance of your personal net worth). The simple way to think about it is that if you only own only 50% of your risky assets, then you can own twice as many risky assets. That means they will move around twice as much (in absolute terms). Expected returns and risk (if risk is variance) both go up. If you lend rather than borrow, then you might have only half your net worth in risky assets, and then your expected returns and variation in returns will go down. Note, the practice of using leverage differs from portfolio theory in a couple important ways.",
"The fundamental issue with leverage (of any sort, really) is that the amplified downsides are extremely likely to more than cancel out amplified equivalent upsides. Example without using a major swing: 2x leverage on a 5% decline (so a 10% decline). The 5% decline needs a 5.26% increase to get back level. However, the 2x leverage needs an 5.55% increase to get back. So a cycle for the unleveraged returns of -5%, +5.4% would see the unleveraged asset go up by a net +0.13% but 2x leverage would leave you at -0.28%. Conversely, imagine 0.5x leverage (it's easy to do that: 50% cash allocation): after an underlying -5%, the 0.5x leverage needs only +5.13% to reach par. This is basically the argument for low volatility funds. Of course, if you can leverage an asset that doesn't go down, then the leverage is great. And for an asset with an overall positive compound return, a little leverage is probably not going to hurt, simply because there are likely to be enough upsides to cancel out downsides.",
"More leverage means more risk. There is more upside. There is also more downside. If property prices and/or rents fall then your losses are amplified. If you leverage at 90% then a 5% fall means you've lost half your money.",
"\"When portfolio positions are reported in percentages, those percentages are relative to the portfolio's base equity. When you start out, that is equal to the cash you have in a portfolio. Later it's the net equity of the portfolio (i.e., how much money you could withdraw if you were to exit all your positions). If you put $5,000 into your account and are long and short 50%, then you are long $2,500 and short $2,500. If it's 100% and -100%, then long and short $5,000. \"\"Leverage\"\" is often computed gross (as if all positions were long). So if you have 100% and -100%, then your broker may say you are \"\"levered 2 to 1.\"\" That is, your gross exposure is twice as large as your underlying base equity.\"",
"\"Leverage means you can make more investments with the same amount of money. In the case of rental properties, it means you can own more properties and generate more rents. You exchange a higher cost of doing business (higher interest fees) and a higher risk of total failure, for a larger number of rents and thus higher potential earnings. As with any investment advice, whenever someone tells you \"\"Do X and you are guaranteed to make more money\"\", unless you are a printer of money that is not entirely true. In this case, taking more leverage exposes you to more risk, while giving you more potential gain. That risk is not only on the selling front; in fact, for most small property owners, the risk is primarily that you will have periods of time of higher expense or lower income. These can come in several ways: If you weather these and similar problems, then you will stand to make more money using higher leverage, assuming you make more money from each property than your additional interest costs. As long as you're making any money on your properties this is likely (as interest rates are very low right now), but making any money at all (above and beyond the sale value) may be challenging early on. These sorts of risks are magnified for your first few years, until you've built up a significant reserve to keep your business afloat in downturns. And of course, any money in a reserve is money you're not leveraging for new property acquisition - the very same trade-off. And while you may be able to sell one or more properties if you did end up in a temporarily bad situation, you also may run into 2008 again and be unable to do so.\"",
"The opposite of a hedge is leverage (aka gearing). A hedge is where you spend money to reduce your exposure. Leverage is where you spend money to increase your exposure. Spread bets are a form of leverage - that's what makes them such an effective way to lose all your money, quickly.",
"Let's do a real example of leverage on the SPY. Imagine you have $20K today and plan on having $100K by JAN 2018. You could get 100 shares of SPY and ride it out. Maybe buying another 100 shares every few months until 2018, ending up with less than 500 shares to your name ( and zero cash in the bank ). or You could lever with DEC 2017 LEAP CALLS. They'll expire in 2.5 years, so you'd have to re-up sooner than your plan. With 20K starting cash, in my example we'll go with 5 contracts to start with. If we choose the $230 strike they'd cost $1250 each (putting roughly $6250 at risk). The plan in is if the stock market goes up, you've got leverage. You are the proud owner of contracts worth 500 shares of SPY and have only spent 1/3rd of your present day dollars. If the market goes down in the next two years, sure, you lost the entire $6250, but likely saved $93,750 powder dry and can try your luck with the 2021 LEAPS. Probably get down votes for this, but I'll even argue that proper use of leverage can very much reduce your risk. One truth is you'll never get a margin call from holding long options.",
"I'm not entirely sure about some of the details in your question, since I think you meant to use $10,000 as the value of the futures contract and $3 as the value of the underlying stock. Those numbers would make more sense. That being said, I can give you a simple example of how to calculate the profit and loss from a leveraged futures contract. For the sake of simplicity, I'll use a well-known futures contract: the E-mini S&P500 contract. Each E-mini is worth $50 times the value of the S&P 500 index and has a tick size of 0.25, so the minimum price change is 0.25 * $50 = $12.50. Here's an example. Say the current value of the S&P500 is 1,600; the value of each contract is therefore $50 * 1,600 = $80,000. You purchase one contract on margin, with an initial margin requirement1 of 5%, or $4,000. If the S&P 500 index rises to 1,610, the value of your futures contract increases to $50 * 1,610 = $80,500. Once you return the 80,000 - 4,000 = $76,000 that you borrowed as leverage, your profit is 80,500 - 76,000 = $4,500. Since you used $4,000 of your own funds as an initial margin, your profit, excluding commissions is 4,500 - 4,000 = $500, which is a 500/4000 = 12.5% return. If the index dropped to 1,580, the value of your futures contract decreases to $50 * 1,580 = $79,000. After you return the $76,000 in leverage, you're left with $3,000, or a net loss of (3,000 - 4000)/(4000) = -25%. The math illustrates why using leverage increases your risk, but also increases your potential for return. Consider the first scenario, in which the index increases to 1,610. If you had forgone using margin and spent $80,000 of your own funds, your profit would be (80,500 - 80,000) / 80000 = .625%. This is smaller than your leveraged profit by a factor of 20, the inverse of the margin requirement (.625% / .05 = 12.5%). In this case, the use of leverage dramatically increased your rate of return. However, in the case of a decrease, you spent $80,000, but gained $79,000, for a loss of only 1.25%. This is 20 times smaller in magnitude than your negative return when using leverage. By forgoing leverage, you've decreased your opportunity for upside, but also decreased your downside risk. 1) For futures contracts, the margin requirements are set by the exchange, which is CME group, in the case of the E-mini. The 5% in my example is higher than the actual margin requirement, which is currently $3,850 USD per contract, but it keeps the numbers simple. Also note that CME group refers to the initial margin as the performance bond instead.",
"The paragraph before on page 115 states: Scaling corresponds to having a weight in the long and short legs that is different from one and varies over time, but the strategy is still self-financing. Meaning that the long and short positions are no longer equal due to weighting one side more highly than the other. The weighting of one side (either long or short) is the number between 0.2 and 2 that you mention.",
"There are two obvious cases in which your return is lower with a heavily leveraged investment. If a $100,000 investment of your own cash yields $1000 that's a 1% return. If you put in $50,000 of your own money and borrow $50,000 at 2%, you get a 0% return (After factoring in the interest as above.) If you buy an investment for $100,000 and it loses $1000, that's a -1% return. If you borrow $100,000 and buy two investments, and they both lose $1000, that's a -2% return.",
"First, make sure you understand the objective of an ETF. In some cases, they may use leverage to get a multiple of the index's return that is different than 1. Some may be ultra funds that go for double the return or double the inverse of the return and thus will try to apply the appropriate leverage to achieve that return. Those that use physical replication can still have a small portion be used to try to minimize the tracking error as there is something to be said for what kind of tracking error do you accept as the fund's returns may differ from the index by some measure. Yes. For example, if you were to have a fund that had a 50% and -50% return in back to back periods, what would your final return be? Answer: -25%, which if you need to visualize this, take $1 that then becomes $1.50 by going up 50% and then becomes $.75 by going down 50% in a compounded fashion. This is where you have to be careful of the risks of leverage as those returns will compound in a possibly negative way.",
"great example of levered tracking error is any 2x/3x VIX etf. during periods of high volatility (like last week) you will be able to realize much higher returns on the underlying index as the levered and inverse ETFs are unable to replicate their intended performance using market securities. it is not uncommon to see the VIX up ~30% with levered ETFs only netting ~10-12% as opposed to the intended 60 or 90%, for example",
"Is the following correct? The firm needs $20,000 for the investment. It borrows $6,000 @ 7%, and supplies $14,000 in equity. The interest expense on the borrowing is $420 ($6,000 times 7%). After one year, the firm receives $26,500 from its investment. Subtract $6,420 (return borrowings plus interest). The firm is left with $20,080. Divide by starting equity of $14,000. Subtract 1 from the ratio. **Levered return on equity is 43.4%.**",
"First, corporate profits can grow relative to GDP. If companies succeed in growing revenue without paying much more to workers, then corporate profits and stock prices will grow relative to GDP. That has been happening for the last couple decades. If you require that we keep corporate profits vs GDP constant, then borrowing/leverage is how you do it. Companies can expand their operations on a fixed amount of shareholder equity, and as long as they can grow their profits faster than the cost of the debt, then shareholders keep the upside. But this also means that share prices will quickly fall if profits decline even a small amount, because the debt must still be paid off.",
"If you are calculating simple ROI, the answer is straightforward math. See This Answer for some examples, but yes, with more leverage you will always see better ROI on a property IF you can maintain a positive cash flow. The most complete answer is to factor in your total risk. That high ROI of a leveraged property is far more volatile and sensitive to any unexpected expenses. Additionally, a loss of equity in the property (or an upside-down mortgage) will further impact your long term position. To put this more simply (as noted in the comments below), your losses will be amplified. You cannot say a leveraged property will always give you a better ROI because you cannot predict your losses.",
"I think you may be confused on terminology here. Financial leverage is debt that you have taken on, in order to invest. It increases your returns, because it allows you to invest with more money than what you actually own. Example: If a $1,000 mutual fund investment returns $60 [6%], then you could also take on $1,000 of debt at 3% interest, and earn $120 from both mutual fund investments, paying $30 in interest, leaving you with a net $90 [9% of your initial $1,000]. However, if the mutual fund 'takes a nose dive', and loses money, you still need to pay the $30 interest. In this way, using financial leverage actually increases your risk. It may provide higher returns, but you have the risk of losing more than just your initial principle amount. In the example above, imagine if the mutual fund you owned collapsed, and was worth nothing. Now, you would have lost $1,000 from the money you invested in the first place, and you would also still owe $1,000 to the bank. The key take away is that 'no risk' and 'high returns' do not go together. Safe returns right now are hovering around 0% interest rates. If you ever feel you have concocted a mix of options that leaves you with no risk and high returns, check your math again. As an addendum, if instead what you plan on doing is investing, say, 90% of your money in safe(r) money-market type funds, and 10% in the stock market, then this is a good way to reduce your risk. However, it also reduces your returns, as only a small portion of your portfolio will realize the (typically higher) gains of the stock market. Once again, being safer with your investments leads to less return. That is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact investing some part of your portfolio in interest-earning low risk investments is often advised. 99% is basically the same as 100%, however, so you almost don't benefit at all by investing that 1% in the stock market.",
"\"Hi, accounting major here! A lot of people mentioned both tax advantages and \"\"cheap\"\" money (money you can borrow at a low interest rate). Another reason businesses do this is to reward investors. Generally people with stock in a company want to see some of its operations financed with debt, instead of all of it financed from investors' money or profit. This way the company can grow more and still pay better dividends to its investors. However, you don't want too much debt either. It's a balance, and a way to see how much debt vs equity a company has is called a leverage ratio (leverage=debt). Hope this helps!\"",
"\"Step 2 is wrong. Leverage is NOT necessary. It increases possible gain, but increases risk of loss by essentially the same amount. Those two numbers are pretty tightly linked by market forces. See many, many other answers here showing that one can earn \"\"market rate\"\" -- 8% or so -- with far less risk and effort, if one is patient, and some evidence that one can do better with more effort and not too much more risk. And yes, investing for a longer time horizon is also safer.\"",
"\"While it's not true that you have to use leverage to participate in Forex, the alternative makes it impractical for most people to be able to do so. You need to be able to put a lot of money into it in order to not trade on leverage. The fact is, most accounts for \"\"normal\"\" people require leverage because the size of the typical contract is more than the average person can afford to risk (or usually more than the average person has). Leverage, however, in the Forex market is not like Leverage in the stock or commodities market (well, they're the same thing in theory, but they are executed differently). In Forex, the broker is the one lending you the money in nearly all cases, and they will cash out your position when your account balance is exhausted. Thus, there is no risk for them (barring fraud or other illegal issues). Technically, I don't believe they guarantee that you will not accrue a debt, but I've never heard of anyone having their position cashed out and then owed more money. They've very good about making sure you can only spend money you've deposited. To put this another way, if you have $1,000 in your account and you are leveraged to 100,000. Once your trade drops to $1000 in losses your position is automatically cashed out. There is no risk to the broker, and no risk to you (other than your $1000)... So trading without leverage has little value, while traiding with leverage has lots of potential gain and no downsides (other than a faster rate of loss, but if you're worried about that, just trade smaller lots.)\"",
"\"I am assuming you mean derivatives such as speeders, sprinters, turbo's or factors when you say \"\"derivatives\"\". These derivatives are rather popular in European markets. In such derivatives, a bank borrows the leverage to you, and depending on the leverage factor you may own between 50% to +-3% of the underlying value. The main catch with such derivatives from stocks as opposed to owning the stock itself are: Counterpart risk: The bank could go bankrupt in which case the derivatives will lose all their value even if the underlying stock is sound. Or the bank could decide to phase out the certificate forcing you to sell in an undesirable situation. Spread costs: The bank will sell and buy the certificate at a spread price to ensure it always makes a profit. The spread can be 1, 5, or even 10 pips, which can translate to a the bank taking up to 10% of your profits on the spread. Price complexity: The bank buys and sells the (long) certificate at a price that is proportional to the price of the underlying value, but it usually does so in a rather complex way. If the share rises by €1, the (long) certificate will also rise, but not by €1, often not even by leverage * €1. The factors that go into determining the price are are normally documented in the prospectus of the certificate but that may be hard to find on the internet. Furthermore the bank often makes the calculation complex on purpose to dissimulate commissions or other kickbacks to itself in it's certificate prices. Double Commissions: You will have to pay your broker the commission costs for buying the certificate. However, the bank that issues the derivative certificate normally makes you pay the commission costs they incur by hiding them in the price of the certificate by reducing your effective leverage. In effect you pay commissions twice, once directly for buying the derivative, and once to the bank to allow it to buy the stock. So as Havoc P says, there is no free lunch. The bank makes you pay for the convenience of providing you the leverage in several ways. As an alternative, futures can also give you leverage, but they have different downsides such as margin requirements. However, even with all the all the drawbacks of such derivative certificates, I think that they have enough benefits to be useful for short term investments or speculation.\"",
"You should check out existing resources like Investopedia for definitions, and ask questions if there is something you do not understand, instead of asking folks to spit out definitions. A good book for you to read might be Wall Street Words",
"This isn't totally wrong- there are hedge funds that are long 150% of AUM and short 50%. However, Rentech has said that holding a position for 8 seconds is long for them, so that's not what they're doing. I'd assume the 4X leverage most just refers to option positions that have delta 4 on average. They also may be borrowing money, which they can probably do extremely cheaply since they have a 35 year track record showing they're essentially risk-free.",
"\"JoeTaxpayer's answer adequately explained leverage and some of your risks. Your risks also include: The firm's risk is that you will figure out a way to leave them with a negative account that contributes to another customer's profit and yet you disappear in a way that makes the negative account impossible to collect. Another risk is that you are not who you say you are, or that the money you invest is not yours. These are called \"\"know your customer\"\" risks.\"",
"How should we disregard leverage when it's the leverage that creates the 'wipe-out' potential? If you simply convert 100K EUR to USDollars, you dollars might then fluctuate a few thousand, maybe even 10K over a year, but the guy that only put up 1000 EUR to do this has a disproportionally higher risk.",
"Actually, most of the forex traders do not prefer the practice of leveraging. In forex trading, a contract signed by a common trader is way more than any common man can afford to risk. It is not a compulsion for the traders to use leveraging yet most of the traders practice it. The other side of it is completely different. Trading companies or brokers specifically like it because you turn into a kind of cash cow when your account gets exhausted. As for trader, most of them don’t practice leveraging.",
"\"None of the previous answers (which are all good) mention margin accounts (loans from your broker). You may also have heard them described as \"\"leverage\"\". It may seem odd to mention this rather narrow form of debt here, but it's important because overuse of leverage has played a large part in pretty much every financial crisis you can think of (including the most recent one). As the Investopedia definitions indicate, leverage magnifies gains, but also magnifies losses. I consider margin/leverage to be \"\"bad\"\" debt.\"",
"Highest possible is meaningless. Ex: Use 17x Leverage on E-mini S&P 500 Futures, perfectly long before an uptick and short before a downtick every minute. Goes to the moon in a day of 1,440 minutes. You are supposed to use a Buy-and-Hold SPY, with leverage that makes the Standard Deviation of SPY same as your Portfolio/Algorithm, as benchmark.",
"The major drawback to borrowing to invest (i.e. using leverage) is that your return on investment must be high enough to overcome the cost of finance. The average return on the S&P 500 is about 9.8% (from CNBC) a typical unsecured personal loan will have an interest rate of around 18-36% APR (from NerdWallet). This means that on average you will be paying more interest than you are receiving in returns so are losing money on the margin investment. Sometimes the S&P falls and over those periods you would be paying out interest having lost money so will have a negative return! You may have better credit and so be able to get a lower rate but I don't know your loan terms currently. Secured loans, such as remortgaging your house, will have lower costs but come with more life changing risks. The above assumes that you are getting financing by directly borrowing money, however, it is also possible to trade on margin. This is where you post a proportion of the value that you wish to trade with as collateral against a loan to buy the security. This form of finance is normally used by day traders and other short term holders of stocks. Although the financing costs here are low (I am not charged an interest rate on intraday margin trading) there are very high costs if you exceed the term of the loan. An example is that I am charged a fee if I hold a position overnight and my profits and losses are crystallised at that time. If I am in a losing position at that time the crystallisation process and fee can result in not having enough margin to recover the position and the loss of a potentially profit making position. Additionally if the amount of collateral cash (margin) posted is insufficient to cover the expected losses as calculated by your broker they will initiate a margin call asking for more collateral money. If you do not (or cannot) post this extra margin your losing position will be cashed out and you will take as a loss the total loss at that time. Since the market can change very rapidly, such as in a flash crash, this can result in your losing more money than you had in the first place. As this is essentially a loan you can be bankrupted by this. Overall using leverage to invest magnifies your potential profits but it also magnifies your potential losses. In many cases this magnification could be sufficient to lose you more money than you had originally invested. In addition to magnification you need to consider the cost of finance and that your return over the course of the loan needs to be higher than your cost of finance as well as inflation and other opportunity costs of capital. The S&P 500 is a relatively low volatility market in general so is unlikely to return losses in any given period that will mean that leverage of 1.25 times will take you into losses beyond your own capital investment but it is not impossible. The low level of risk automatically means that your returns are lower and so your cost of capital is likely to be a large proportion of your returns and your returns may not completely cover the cost of capital even when you are making money. The key thing if you are going to trade or invest on leverage is to understand the terms and costs of your leverage and discount them from any returns that you receive before declaring to yourself that you are profitable. It is even more important than usual to know how your positions are doing and whether you are covering your cost of capital when using leverage. It is also very important to know the terms of your leverage in detail, especially what will happen when and if your credit runs out for whatever reason be it the end of the financing period (the length of the loan) or your leverage ratio gets too high. You should also be aware of the costs of closing out the loan early should you need to do so and how to factor that into your investing decisions.",
"\"QUICK ANSWER When it comes to fixed income assets, whether rental real estate or government bonds, it's unusual for highly-leveraged assets to yield less than the same asset unleveraged or lowly-leveraged. This is especially so in countries where interest costs are tax deductible. If we exclude capital losses (i.e. the property sells in future at a price less than it was purchased) or net rental income that doesn't keep up with maintenance, regulatory, taxation, inflation and / or other costs, there is one primary scenario where higher leverage results in lower yields compared to lower leverage, even if rental income keeps up with non-funding costs. This occurs when variable rate financing is used and rates substantially increase. EXPLANATION Borrowers and lenders in different countries have different mortgage rate customs. Some are more likely to have long-term fixed rates; some prefer variable rates; and others are a hybrid, i.e. fixed for a few years and then become variable. If variable rates are used for a mortgage and the reference rates increase substantially, as they did in the US during the 1970s, the borrower can easily become \"\"upside-down,\"\" i.e. owe more on the mortgage than the property is then worth, and have mortgage service costs that exceed the net rental income. Some of those costs aren't easy to pass along to renters, even when there are periodic lease renewals or base rent increases referencing inflation rates. Central banks set policies for what would be the lowest short-term rates in a country that has such a bank. Private sector rates are established broadly by supply and demand for credit and can thus diverge markedly from central bank rates. Over time, the higher finance-carrying-cost-to-net-rental-income ratio should abate as (1) rental market prices change to reflect the costs and (2) the landlord can reinvest his net rental income at a higher rate. In the short-term though, this can result in the landlord having to \"\"eat\"\" the costs making his yield on his leveraged fixed income asset less than what he would have without leverage, even if the property was later sold at same price regardless of financing method. ========== Interestingly, and on the flip side, this is one of the quirks in finance where an accounting liability can become, at least in part, an economic asset. If a landlord borrows at a high loan-to-value ratio for a fixed interest rate for the life of the mortgage and rates, variable and fixed, were to increase substantially, the difference between his original rate and the present rates accrues to him. If he's able to sell the property with the loan attached (which is not uncommon for commercial, industrial and sometimes municipal real estate), the buyer will be assuming a liability with a lower carrying cost than his present alternatives and will hence pay a higher price for the property than if it were unleveraged. With long-term rates in many economically advanced countries at historic lows, if a borrower today were to take a long-term fixed rate loan and rates shortly after increased substantially, he may have an instant profit in this scenario even if his property hasn't increased in value.\"",
"In addition to the excellent answers here I might suggest a reason for investing in leveraged funds and the original purpose for their existence. Lets say you run a mutual fund that is supposed to track the performance of the S&P 500. If you have cash inflows and outflows from your fund due to people investing and selling shares of your fund you may have periods where not all funds are invested appropriately because some of the funds are in cash. Lets say 98% of your funds are invested in the securities that reflect the stocks in the S&P 500. You will will miss matching the S&P 500 because you have 2% not invested in some money market account. If you take 1/3 of the cash balance and invest in a triple leveraged fund or take 1/2 of the funds and invest in a double leveraged fund you will more accurately track the index to which your fund is supposed to track. I am not sure what percentage mutual fund owners keep in cash but this is one use that I know these ETFs are used for. The difference over time that compounding effects have on leveraged funds is called Beta Slippage. There are many fine articles explaining it at you can find one located at this link.",
"\"The main difference between a bull market and a bear market is due the \"\"the leverage effect\"\". http://www.princeton.edu/~yacine/leverage.pdf The leverage effect refers to the observed tendency of an asset’s volatility to be negatively correlated with the asset’s returns. Typically, rising asset prices are accompanied by declining volatility, and vice versa. The term “leverage” refers to one possible economic interpretation of this phenomenon, developed in Black (1976) and Christie (1982): as asset prices decline, companies become mechanically more leveraged since the relative value of their debt rises relative to that of their equity. As a result, it is natural to expect that their stock becomes riskier, hence more volatile. More volatile assets in a bear market are not such good investments as less volatile assets in a bull market.\"",
"\"When margin is calculated as the equity percentage of an account, the point at which a broker will forcibly liquidate is typically called \"\"maintenance margin\"\". In the US, this is 25% for equities. To calculate the price at which this will occur, the initial and maintenance margin must be known. The formula for a long with margin is: and for a short where P_m is the maintenance margin price, P_i is the initial margin price, m_i is the initial margin rate, and m_m is the maintenance margin rate. At an initial margin of 50% and a maintenance margin of 25%, a long equity may fall by 1/3 before forced liquidation, a short one may rise by 50%. This calculation can become very complex with different asset classes with differing maintenance margins because the margin debt is applied to all securities collectively.\"",
"\"A \"\"junk bond\"\" is one that pays a high yield UP FRONT because there is a good chance that it could default. So the higher interest rate is necessary to try to compensate for the default Junk bonds are used in leveraged buyouts (LBOs) because such deals are INHERENTLY risky. \"\"Normal\"\" companies may have 20%-30% debt and the rest equity, so that the company will have to lose 70%-80% of its value before the debtholders start losing money on \"\"normal\"\" bonds. But in an LBO, the company may have only 10%-20% equity and the rest debt. Meaning that if it loses that small equity cushion, the value of the \"\"junk\"\" bonds will be impaired.\"",
"At the most basic level of financing a business -- you are trying to acquire capital as cheaply as you can to invest in your projects. The measure for how expensive your capital is to acquire is Weighted Average Cost of Capital. The formula for WACC: Equity Ratio * Cost of Equity + Debt Ratio * Cost of Debt * (1 - Tax Rate) This is also your discount rate when you're making a DCF model. Debt tends to be cheaper than equity when you don't already have any, and is also advantaged by tax rates since you don't pay taxes on interest. In the real world, banks and lenders will ratchet up rates the more debt you acquire, or shut you out once you've taken on too much and your debt service coverage is too low for them. In a classroom though, most teachers are too lazy to make a curvilinear formula for borrowing and will just state a rate for borrowing so you can load up on debt so long as you don't fall below being able to service your debt (cash flow to make your debt payments). This will ultimately juice the returns on equity. Realistically, you would find lenders would let you have ~20% equity in the business and ~80% debt without raising your teacher's eyebrow. If you haven't taken accounting yet; be careful about the difference between cash and revenue in your analyses. Revenue is recognition for work done; not cash in hand. You can have all the revenue in the world but if no one's paid you for it yet, you can't pay anyone.",
"long deep ITM calls is equivalent to owning the equity. You're going to pay alot and hence will start off in a hole already, and you aren't getting too much leverage there at all depending how deep ITM you go. Covariance scales, but assuming B-S in order to get nice scaling and ignoring the risks you are actually taking with options (unlimited down-size ie you can lose your entire investment in the option, people forget this) will screw you unless you really know what you are dong. Leverage means increasing your risk. long dep ITM is not obtaining much leverage and therefore not risking too much. but you aren't going ot get 3-4x leverage this way. you get leverage by saying: oh, i have 100, i could invest in 1 share of stock OR I could buy 100 worth of some option. If I pick a deep ITM (think strike = 0) it's identical to owing the stock. If i pick ATM, i have a ~50/50 chance of wining, so i should be able to double my upside. If I go OTM, i can increase my exposure to the upside while increasing hte chance that my options expire worthless. So really, i have no idea why deep ITM do what you are trying to do. and If you don't either, you probably shouldn't do it.",
"So Betas are not found on a company's financial statements. Beta is essentially a measure of the covariance of an asset and the overall market return, in relation to the variance of the market's return. A beta of 1 is to describe an asset whose daily returns mimic the returns of the overall market. A beta of >1 describes an asset whose returns are greater than the market return and a beta <1 describes an asset whose returns are less than the market return. To the extent that the asset you are comparing to the market index is a share of common stock, the beta you are looking at is levered if the company has debt or preferred stock. The technique your professor is alluding to is the process of unlevering betas of two different companies that may have similar underlying operating assets but because of different capital structures, have different betas when using their common stock returns. This adjustment makes comparing different betas between companies agnostic of the capital structure used.",
"> one of the most highly leveraged Not even close. In general joint retail-investment banking institutions are less leveraged than primary IB's. BOA is sitting at a T1CR under Basel III of 8.1%. JPM 9.18% DB 7.2 MS 8.5% GS 7.3% UBS 8.8% This is all as of Q2 reports.",
"High frequency trades are intra day. The would buy a stock for 100 and sell for 100.10 multiple times. So If you start with 100 in your broker account, you buy something [it takes 2-3 days to settle], you sell for 100.10 [it takes 2-3 days to settle]. You again buy something for 100. It is the net value of both buys and sells that you need to look at. Trading on Margin Accounts. Most brokers offer Margin Accounts. The exact leverage ratios varies. What this means is that if you start with 10 [or 15 or 25] in your broker you can buy stock of 100. Of course legally you wont own the stock unless you pay the broker balance, etc.",
"Investopedia has a nice article on this here The Key benefit looks like better returns with lower capital. The disadvantage is few brokers offering that can be trusted. Potentially lower return due to margins / spreads. Higher leverage and can become an issue.",
"\"If you're looking to leverage your capital more efficiently, at the money options offer the best balance. Options deep in the money will have little time premium remaining on them, but don't allow for greater leverage. On the other hand deep out of the money options may be thinly traded, or might not offer the \"\"mirroring\"\" you'd like of the underlying. By purchasing ATM you will likely be buying some time premium, but still be leveraging your capital, potentially several times over.\"",
"Excess capital is the primary means of navigating around a trade which is moving against you. In a very basic case, consider a long position moving against you. With additional capital you could average in as the price drops or you could write options against your position. If you don't have the capital to handle when (not if) a trade move against you then you're at a significant disadvantage as your only option may be a liquidation.",
"\"As others have pointed out, leveraged investing is investing borrowed money. To do so, you need to convince a lender that you're good for the loan. This usually means you need to have collateral worth what you're trying to borrow, or you need to pay a higher rate to account for the fact that they're gambling that you will remain employed and pay off the loan. Leveraged investing is, in general, a risky move for exactly this reason. You can lose not just your original investment, but everything you borrowed as well. The only time it really makes sense, in my admittedly conservative opinion, is when you (a) can afford to suffer that loss, (b) are pretty confident of your investment, and (c) have assets which you have no intention to sell for the duration of the loan. An \"\"unneeded\"\" mortgage on a house is a classic example, thusly: When I purchased my house, I had enough savings that I could have bought it without taking a mortgage. Instead, I took out a mortgage for a large part of that, and left the remainder in my investment accounts -- essentially building the leveraging loan into the mortgage. I then got obscenely \"\"lucky\"\" when interest rates fell through the floor due to the Great Recession, and was able to refinance the mortgage to near record low rates. As a result, on that loan -- which, as I say, I'm in the position of being able to pay off at any time without killing my finances -- I'm currently paying about 3.5%, while the cash this has let me leave in my investments is earning several times that... a net win. But again, note that this required collateral. Essentially, all I'm doing is paying a bit to to borrow my own money (part of the value of the house). There really is no easy way to \"\"convert 25k to 250k\"\" -- if there was, everyone would be doing it. There's no magic in investment. Just time and compounding returns and trading off risk against potential gain. The more you try to push it and win big, the more you risk losing big. I really recommend not attempting anything fancy until you're wealthy enough that you can afford those losses. But if you insist on playing in this space, the answer to your question is to buy options. Options are a packaged form of borrowing to invest. Note that they're still considered high-risk unless you know EXACTLY what you're doing, and again I strongly recommend you not put money into them unless you can afford to lose it -- options have a nasty habit of turning from apparent gains on paper to losses remarkably quickly.\"",
"\"Financing a portfolio with debt (on margin) leads to higher variance. That's the WHOLE POINT. Let's say it's 50-50. On the downside, with 100% equity, you can never lose more than your whole equity. But if you have assets of 100, of which 50% is equity and 50% is debt, your losses can be greater than 50%, which is to say more than the value of your equity. The reverse is true. You can make money at TWICE the rate if the market goes up. But \"\"you pay your money and you take your chances\"\" (Punch, 1846).\"",
"The most obvious example would be a situation where a Company is growth constrained, but cash flow positive. It may have enough cash flow to service $10 million of debt, but it needs to build a new facility that will cost $20 million. There is the option to raise debt and equity or just raise equity and move quicker to getting that facility up and running. There are also situations where debt is used to replace equity (i.e. dividend recapitalization or leveraged share redemption).",
"\"At my soon to be legendary Stock Options Cafe, I recently wrote an article \"\"Betting On Apple at 9 to 2.\"\" It described a trade in which a 35% move in a stock over a fixed time (2 years) would result in a 354% gain in one's bet. In this case, the options serve to create remarkable leverage for speculators. In general, option help provide liquidity and extend the nature of the risk/reward curve. There are option trades that range from conservative (e.g. a 'covered call') to wildly speculative, as the one I described above.\"",
"The value of a company is, simplified, the sum of the value of the equity and the value of the debt. There are some other things to add/subtract to that, but just think about those for now. You could also say the value of a company is the value of its assets, or more precisely the value of the net cash flows those assets will generate in the future. So let's say you want to start a company, so you want to buy some assets. Maybe you want to buy a $200 asset. Well, you only have $100, so you take out a loan (debt) for $100 for the remainder. You buy the asset and start generating income. Let's say after a month you get bored and decide to sell the company. Let's assume the value of the assets hasn't changed. Your equity is worth $100, and you find a buyer who is willing to pay $100 for your company. Great! Right? Well there's still the $100 loan you owe, so you have to pay that back. And suddenly you now have $0. So in fact, you should have negotiated $200 with the buyer, because that's what the assets are actually worth. Then you can pay back the loan and still have the $100 in equity you deserve. (Alternatively, you could have negotiated the buyer to assume responsibility for the loan; same outcome for you.) Did that help?",
"\"A real simple definition or analogy of present Value would be the \"\"Principal\"\" or \"\"Loan Amount\"\" being lent and the future value as being returning the Principal along with cost of borrowing The (1+i)^n is the interest you earn on present value The (i+i)^-n is the interest you pay on future value The first one is the FVIF or future value of a $1 The second one is the PVIF or present value of a $1 Both these interest factors assume interest is paid annually, if the interest payment is made more often within the payment year then interest factors look this way m is the frequency of interest payment, the higher this frequency the more of interest you pay or earn and you pay or earn the most interest when compounding occurs on each small fraction of time This entails here e is the Euler's e Thus the interest factors turn to this The preceeding examples only considered a single repayment at future date. Now if you were obliged to make periodic loan repayments say in amount of $1 for n number of periods. Then the present value of all such periodic payment is the \"\"Principal\"\" or amount you borrowed. This is the sum of discounted periodic payments as if we replace 1/1+i with x then this turns out to be geometric series of the form This simplifies to replacing (1/1+i) for x we get which is the present value of periodic payment in amount of $1 The future value of periodic payments in amount of $1 can be arrived at multiplying the PVIFA by (1+i)^n giving Once again the interest is compounded per annum and for intra-year compounding you would have to at first find the annual effective yield AEY to use as the effect rate is the PVIFA and FVIFA calculation for continuous compounding All the calculation discussed thus far did not take inflation into consideration, if we were to adjust the amounts for a growth of g% then the present value of a $1 would be as follow Once again you would have to use AEY if compounding frequency of interest is intra-year Now assume that each loan repayment increases or decreases by an extra amount Q per period. To find the present value of series of payments P that increase or decrease per period by an amount Q we would do the following calculations Here and All of these calculations have been available in tadXL add-in for finance and incrementally being offered as JavaScript financial functions library tadJS. Please note that the tad series of the financial functions library for various environments such as Excel, JavaScript, PHP, Ruby, Microsoft.net and others are property of the author writing this post. All of these libraries except one for Excel are available for FREE for public use. And the future value of such payments with increments may be found by multiplying the PV by (1+i)^n as follows Here\"",
"Each situation is different, but it has to do with assessing what the Company is trying to do. People always talk about WACC, but in reality, WACC is less important than figuring how how much debt a Company can support (determined by leverage and solvency statistics). Here are a few things to think about: -How stable are the Company's cash flows? (big difference between a Company that has multi-year contracts locked in place vs. variable/cyclical revenue streams; what type of Capex requirement is there?) -What is the purpose of raising the capital? (growth vs. recapitalization; where are the proceeds going?) -What collateral is available for creditors? -What does working capital look like? (is there seasonality?)",
"\"Your question indicates that you might have a little confusion about put options and/or leveraging. There's no sense I'm aware of in which purchasing a put levers a position. Purchasing a put will cost you money up front. Leveraging typically means entering a transaction that gives you extra money now that you can use to buy other things. If you meant to sell a put, that will make money up front but there is no possibility of making money later. Best case scenario the put is not exercised. The other use of the term \"\"leverage\"\" refers to purchasing an asset that, proportionally, goes up faster than the value of the underlying. For example, a call option. If you purchase a put, you are buying downside protection, which is kind of the opposite of leverage. Notice that for an American put you will most likely be better off selling the put when the price of the underlying falls than exercising it. That way you make the money you would have made by exercising plus whatever optional value the put still contains. That is true unless the time value of money is greater than the optional (insurance) value. Since the time value of money is currently exceptionally low, this is unlikely. Anyway, if you sell the option instead of exercising, you don't need to own any shares at all. Even if you do exercise, you can just buy them on the market and sell right away so I wouldn't worry about what you happen to be holding. The rules for what you can trade with a cash instead of a margin account vary by broker, I think. You can usually buy puts and calls in a cash account, but more advanced strategies, such as writing options, are prohibited. Ask your broker or check their help pages to see what you have available to you.\"",
"\"First it is worth noting the two sided nature of the contracts (long one currency/short a second) make leverage in currencies over a diverse set of clients generally less of a problem. In equities, since most margin investors are long \"\"equities\"\" making it more likely that large margin calls will all be made at the same time. Also, it's worth noting that high-frequency traders often highly levered make up a large portion of all volume in all liquid markets ~70% in equity markets for instance. Would you call that grossly artificial? What is that volume number really telling us anyway in that case? The major players holding long-term positions in the FX markets are large banks (non-investment arm), central banks and corporations and unlike equity markets which can nearly slow to a trickle currency markets need to keep trading just for many of those corporations/banks to do business. This kind of depth allows these brokers to even consider offering 400-to-1 leverage. I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea for these brokers, but the liquidity in currency markets is much deeper than their costumers.\"",
"\"RBL is likely *reserve based lending*, which is a type of asset-based financing in oil&gas world where debt is secured by oil reserves. Presumably context is that have an oil&gas company that the analyst thinks should be acquiring other companies. To fund that, the analyst is saying the parent company should borrow money against their reserves (should be relatively inexpensive capital b/c asset-backed) and then using it to fund acquisitions. For the target's capital structure, those amounts are equity infused by the Parent (even though the Parent got the money by borrowing it). The Target can then borrow money against its own operations... this borrowed money will \"\"gear\"\" up the Target -- gearing is just a term for leverage, typically specifically debt-to-equity ratio. So to fund the acquisition, the Parent is (1) going to borrow using a RBL on Parent's assets to come up with equity to put into target and (2) going to borrow against Target's business. Presumably today Target is relatively debt free or even cash heavy.\"",
"Ok, so disregarding passivity, could you help me through a simplified example? Say I only had two assets, SPY and TLT, with a respective weight of 35 and 65% and I want want to leverage this to 4x. Additionally, say daily return covar is: * B/B .004% * B/S -.004% * S/S .02% Now, if I read correctly, I should buy ATM calls xxx days in the future. Which may look like: Ticker, S, K, Option Price, Delta, Lambda * TLT $126.04 $126.00 $4.35 0.50 14.5 * SPY $134.91 $134.00 $6.26 0.55 11.8 ^ This example is pretty close but some assets are far off. I feel like I'm on the wrong track so I'll stop here. I just want to lever up my risk-parity. Margin rates are too high and I'm docked by Reg-T.",
"You miss the step where the return being doubled is daily. Consider you invested $100 today, went up 10%, and tomorrow you went down 10%. Third day market went up 1.01% and without leverage - got even. Here's the calculation for you: day - start - end 1 $100 $120 - +10% doubled 2 $120 $96 - -10% doubled 3 $96 $97.94 - +1.01% doubled So in fact you're in $2.06 loss, while without leveraging you would break even. That means that if the trend is generally positive, but volatile - you'll end up barely breaking even while the non-leveraged investment would make profits. That's what the quote means. edit to summarize the long and fruitless discussion in the comments: The reason that the leveraged ETF's are very good for day-trading is exactly the same reason why they are bad for continuous investment. You should buy them when there's a reasonable expectation for the market to immediately go in the direction you expect. If for whatever reason you believe the markets will plunge, or soar, tomorrow - you should buy a leveraged ETF, ride the plunge, and sell it in the end of the day. But you asked the question about volatile markets, not markets going in one direction. There - you lose.",
"I wouldn't recommend leveraged dividend fishing. Dividend stocks with such high dividends are highly volatile, you will run out of collateral to cover your trades very quickly",
"In order to calculate the ratio you are looking for, just divide total debt by the market capitalization of the stock. Both values can be found on the link you provided. The market capitalization is the market value of equity.",
">Tax benefit of debt The interest on repayments for debt (eg bonds, loans) is tax deductible (as interest expense). The way you figure out the after tax cost of debt is repayment*(1-tax rate). >Marginal tax benefit Just as marginal benefit, this is asking for every ADDITIONAL (ie marginal) dollar of debt, what is my additional tax benefit (tax deduction). Pretty rough explanation, let me know if there is something in particular that doesn't make sense.",
"Reading and analyzing financial statements is one of the most important tasks of Equity Analysts which look at a company from a fundamental perspective. However, analyzing a company and its financial statements is much more than just reading the absolute dollar figures provided in financial statements: You need to calculate financial ratios which can be compared over multiple periods and companies to be able to gauge the development of a company over time and compare it to its competitors. For instance, for an Equity Analyst, the absolute dollar figures of a company's operating profit is less important than the ratio of the operating profit to revenue, which is called the operating margin. Another very important figure is Free Cash Flow which can be set in relation to sales (= Free Cash Flow / Sales). The following working capital related metrics can be used as a health check for a company and give you early warning signs when they deviate too much: You can either calculate those metrics yourself using a spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) or use a professional solution, e.g. Bloomberg Professional, Reuters Eikon or WorldCap.",
"From http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Business+Fundamentals The facts that affect a company's underlying value. Examples of business fundamentals include debt, cash flow, supply of and demand for the company's products, and so forth. For instance, if a company does not have a sufficient supply of products, it will fail. Likewise, demand for the product must remain at a certain level in order for it to be successful. Strong business fundamentals are considered essential for long-term success and stability. See also: Value Investing, Fundamental Analysis. For a stock the basic fundamentals are the second column of numbers you see on the google finance summary page, P/E ratio, div/yeild, EPS, shares, beta. For the company itself it's generally the stuff on the 'financials' link (e.g. things in the quarterly and annual report, debt, liabilities, assets, earnings, profit etc.",
"I guess I wasn't clear. I want to modestly leverage (3-4x) my portfolio using options. I believe long deep-in-the-money calls would be the best way to do this? (Let me know if not.) It's important to me that the covariance matrix from the equity portfolio scales up but doesn't fundamentally change. (I liken it to systemic change as opposed to idiosyncratic change.) This is what I was thinking: * For the same expiry date, find each positions lowest lambda. * Match all option to the the highest of the lowest lambda. * Adjust number of contracts to compensate for higher leverage. I don't think this will work because if I matched the lowest lambda of options on bond etfs to my equity options they would be out-of-the-money. By the way, thanks for your time.",
"Essentially, what you're describing is a leveraged investment. As others noted, the question is how confident you can be that (a) the returns on the investment will exceed what you're paying in interest, and (b) that if you lose the bet you'll still be able to pay off the loan without severely injuring yourself. I did essentially this when I bought my house, taking out a larger loan than necessary and leaving more money in my investments, which had been returning more than the mortgage's interest rate. I then got indecently lucky during the recession and was able to refinance down to under 4%, which I am very certain my investment will beat. I actually considered lengthening the term of the loan for that reason, or borrowing a bit more, but decided not to double down on the bet; that was my own risk-comfort threshold. Know exactly what your risks are, including secondary effects of these risks. Run the numbers to see what the likely return is. Decide whether you like the odds enough to go for it.",
"Yeah sorry I didn't actually read the entirety of your text as carefully as I should have. I absolutely see where I jumped to the conclusion and obfuscated your point. Sorry bout that. I just saw you hadn't mentioned leveraging and all too quickly hit the reply button. Good day to you!",
"[it was 15 to 1 before the SEC decided that big banks needed to be able to risk more.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_capital_rule) it also started teh distrust between banks. With 15 to 1 you were pretty sure that another bank you were dealing with was leveraged exactly 15 to 1. WHen he removed that requirement, then banks had a much harder time judging the health of other banks they were dealing with. you just didnt know if they were 20 to 1 or 30 to 1 or higher, without going through all their books. This was one of the main reasons the recession was so large in scope. Housing would have exploded eventually, but without the leverage regulations they were able to make it hurt far far far far far far worse.. several times worse.",
"Here is a simple example of how daily leverage fails, when applied over periods longer than a day. It is specifically adjusted to be more extreme than the actual market so you can see the effects more readily. You buy a daily leveraged fund and the index is at 1000. Suddenly the market goes crazy, and goes up to 2000 - a 100% gain! Because you have a 2x ETF, you will find your return to be somewhere near 200% (if the ETF did its job). Then tomorrow it goes back to normal and falls back down to 1000. This is a fall of 50%. If your ETF did its job, you should find your loss is somewhere near twice that: 100%. You have wiped out all your money. Forever. You lose. :) The stock market does not, in practice, make jumps that huge in a single day. But it does go up and down, not just up, and if you're doing a daily leveraged ETF, your money will be gradually eroded. It doesn't matter whether it's 2x leveraged or 8x leveraged or inverse (-1x) or anything else. Do the math, get some historical data, run some simulations. You're right that it is possible to beat the market using a 2x ETF, in the short run. But the longer you hold the stock, the more ups and downs you experience along the way, and the more opportunity your money has to decay. If you really want to double your exposure to the market over the intermediate term, borrow the money yourself. This is why they invented the margin account: Your broker will essentially give you a loan using your existing portfolio as collateral. You can then invest the borrowed money, increasing your exposure even more. Alternatively, if you have existing assets like, say, a house, you can take out a mortgage on it and invest the proceeds. (This isn't necessarily a good idea, but it's not really worse than a margin account; investing with borrowed money is investing with borrowed money, and you might get a better interest rate. Actually, a lot of rich people who could pay off their mortgages don't, and invest the money instead, and keep the tax deduction for mortgage interest. But I digress.) Remember that assets shrink; liabilities (loans) never shrink. If you really want to double your return over the long term, invest twice as much money.",
"\"This is an example from another field, real estate. Suppose you buy a $100,000 house with a 20 percent down payment, or $20,000, and borrow the other $80,000. In this example, your \"\"equity\"\" or \"\"market cap\"\" is $20,000. But the total value, or \"\"enterprise value\"\" of the house, is actually $100,000, counting the $80,000 mortgage. \"\"Enterprise value\"\" is what a buyer would have to pay to own the company or the house \"\"free and clear,\"\" counting the debt.\"",
"Other metrics like Price/Book Value or Price/Sales can be used to determine if a company has above average valuations and would be classified as growth or below average valuations and be classified as value. Fama and French's 3 Factor model would be one example that was studied a great deal using an inverse of Price/Book I believe.",
"Risk in finance is defined as standard deviation of returns. This is a measure of size of your returns, both negative and positive. Since the mean return is positive (at least for the stock market and fixed income), if you double the standard deviation your mean return also doubles along with it. In this way you are compensated by the market for taking on more risk.",
"\"A junk bond is, broadly, a bond with a non-negligible risk of default. (\"\"Bond\"\" ought to be defined elsewhere, but broadly it's a financial instrument you buy from a company or government, where they promise to pay you back the principal and some interest over time, on a particular schedule.) The name \"\"junk\"\" is a bit exaggerated: many of them are issued by respectable and reasonably stable businesses. junk bonds were required to do large leveraged buyouts. This means: the company issued fairly risky, fairly high-yield debt, to buy out equity holders. They have to pay a high rate on the debt because the company's now fairly highly geared (ie has a lot of debt relative to its value) and it may have to pay out a large fraction of its earnings as interest. What is a junk bond and how does it differ from a regular bond? It's only a matter of degree and nomenclature. A bond that has a credit rating below a particular level (eg S&P BBB-) is called junk, or more politely \"\"non-investment grade\"\" or \"\"speculative\"\". It's possible for an existing bond to be reclassified from one side to another, or for a single issuer to have different series some of which are more risky than others. The higher the perceived risk, the more interest the bond must pay offer in order to attract lenders. Why is there higher risk/chance of default? Well, why would a company be considered at higher risk of failing to repay its debt? Basically it comes down to doubt about the company's future earnings being sufficient to repay its debt, which could be for example:\"",
"\"There is actually a recent paper that attempted to decompose Buffett's outperformance. I've quoted the abstract below: \"\"Berkshire Hathaway has realized a Sharpe ratio of 0.76, higher than any other stock or mutual fund with a history of more than 30 years, and Berkshire has a significant alpha to traditional risk factors. However, we find that the alpha becomes insignificant when controlling for exposures to Betting-Against-Beta and Quality-Minus-Junk factors. Further, we estimate that Buffett’s leverage is about 1.6-to-1 on average. Buffett’s returns appear to be neither luck nor magic, but, rather, reward for the use of leverage combined with a focus on cheap, safe, quality stocks. Decomposing Berkshires’ portfolio into ownership in publicly traded stocks versus wholly-owned private companies, we find that the former performs the best, suggesting that Buffett’s returns are more due to stock selection than to his effect on management. These results have broad implications for market efficiency and the implementability of academic factors.\"\"\"",
"\"For sake of simplicity, say the Euro is trading at $1.25. You have leveraged control of $100,000 given the 100x leverage. If you are bullish on the Euro, you are long 80,000 euros. For every 1% it rises, you gain $1000. If it drops by the same 1%, you are wiped out, you lost your $1000. With the contracts I am familiar with, there is a minimum margin, and your account is \"\"marked to market\"\" each night. If your positive balance drops too low, you get the margin call. It's a zero sum game, for every dollar you make, there's a guy on the other side of the trade. Odds are he's doing this full time and is smarter than you.\"",
"Hi all Started my MBA studies recently. We have a simulation project and I've taken the VP Finance Role as I didn't have much experience in this and wanted to learn more. Unfortunately I don't have accounting until next semester, so I'm trying to make up the cap with my career experience so far as an engineer + youtube tutorials. I built a discounted cashflow model. I'm trying to now determine the amount of loan to take in my first year of business. Basically the equity financing doesn't cover our first year capital expenditure, let alone any other costs. My question is how do I determine what an appropriate loan amount is to take. My first thoughts are enough to cover my capital expenses + 1st half of the year operating expenses before I start seeing a revenue. Right now my balance sheet would lead me to believe I have a 0.52 Debt Ratio and 1.23 Debt-to-Equity ratio. Is that ok?",
"Contrary to what other people said I believe that even without leverage you can lose more that you invest when you short a FX. Why? because the amount it can go down is alwasy limited to zero but it can, potentially, go up without limit. See This question for a mored detailed information.",
"\"Because they don't leverage using credit but by shorting stocks. eg they short $400 of microsoft, and use the proceed to buy $400 of Apple. That's a 4x \"\"leverage\"\". It's one of the main characteristics of hedge fund vs traditional fund, they can short while your vanilla long only mutual fund cannot. And they limit capital from outside investors due to decreasing marginal return and liquidity consideration.\"",
"\"If you don't use leverage you can't lose more than you invested because you \"\"play\"\" with your own money. But even with leverage when you reach a certain limit (maintenance margin) you will receive a margin call from your broker to add more funds to your account. If you don't comply with this (meaning you don't add funds) the broker will liquidate some of the assets (in this case the currency) and it will restore the balance of the account to meet with his/her maintenance margin. At least, this is valid for assets like stocks and derivatives. Hope it helps! Edit: I should mention that\"",
"\"Every bank/financial institution uses different terms but I read \"\"cost of carry\"\" as the 'risk' cost of the portfolio. that is, what is the equivalent maturity risk-free rate + the principal-weight probability of default (or to make it more complex, loss give default) %. If this summed % is less than the rate earned on the portfolio of loans you would buy loans. The difference is your spread or profit.\"",
"\"Standard deviation from Wikipedia : In statistics and probability theory, the standard deviation (represented by the Greek letter sigma, σ) shows how much variation or dispersion from the average exists.1 A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean (also called expected value); a high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a large range of values. In the case of stock returns, a lower value would indicate less volatility while a higher value would mean more volatility, which could be interpreted as high much change does the stock's price go through over time. Mean would be interpreted as if all the figures had to be the same, what would they be? So if a stock returns 10% each year for 3 years in a row, then 10% would be the mean or average return. Now, it is worth noting that there are more than a few calculations that may be done to derive a mean. First, there is the straight forward sum and division by the number of elements idea. For example, if the returns by year were 0%, 10%, and 20% then one may take the sum of 30% and divide by 3 to get a simple mean of 10%. However, some people would rather look at a Compound Annual Growth Rate which in this case would mean multiplying the returns together so 1*(1+.1)*(1+.2)=1.1*1.2=1.32 or 32% since there is some compounding here. Now, instead of dividing a cubic root is taken to get approximately 9.7% average annual return that is a bit lower yet if you compound it over 3 years it will get up to 32% as 10% compounded over 3 years would be 33.1% as (1.1)^3=1.331. Sharpe Ratio from Investopedia: A ratio developed by Nobel laureate William F. Sharpe to measure risk-adjusted performance. The Sharpe ratio is calculated by subtracting the risk-free rate - such as that of the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond - from the rate of return for a portfolio and dividing the result by the standard deviation of the portfolio returns. Thus, this is a way to think about given the volatility how much better did the portfolio do than the 10 year bond. R-squared, Alpha and Beta: These are all around the idea of \"\"linear regression\"\" modelling. The idea is to take some standard like say the \"\"S & P 500\"\" in the case of US stocks and see how well does the portfolio follow this and what if one were to use a linear model are the multipliers and addition components to it. R-squared can be thought of it as a measure as to how good is the fit on a scale of 0 to 1. An S & P 500 index fund may well have an R-squared of 1.00 or 0.99 to the index as it will track it extremely closely while other investments may not follow that well at all. Part of modern portfolio theory would be to have asset classes that move independently of each other and thus would have a lower R-squared so that the movement of the index doesn't indicate how an investment will do. Now, as for alpha and beta, do you remember the formula for a line in slope-intercept form, where y is the portfolio's return and x is the index's return: y=mx+b In this situation m is beta which is the multiple of the return, and b is the alpha or how much additional return one gets without the multiple. Going back to an index fund example, m will be near 1 and b will be near 0 and there isn't anything being done and so the portfolio's return computed based on the index's return is simply y=x. Other mutual funds may try to have a high alpha as this is seen as the risk-free return as there isn't the ups and downs of the market here. Other mutual funds may go for a high beta so that there is volatility for investors to handle.\"",
"You don't even need to look at WACC (which is fairly complicated as a concept) you can simply look up gearing. Both high and low gearing is bad, so even if you've got loads of cash you shouldn't just be using that to invest",
"If you want to see a more academic version of this look up Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC). It's a formula that tells you how much it costs for a company to raise $1 of capital whether it be through issuing bonds or stocks. One thing you learn is that there are times that if you take on loans (even if you don't need it) you can raise shareholder value and therefore the total company netvalue. The thought process is (as it states in the article above) that a company can issue debt for cheaper than issue shares and it will have extra cash which it can use to get a better return than its net effective interest rate. I tried to give an example but I only ended up rehashing what it says in the article. Anyhow look up WACC and you'll understand the fundamentals.",
"> People who don't understand leverage shouldn't be writing articles about them Agreed. I wasn't condoning the article, just offering my thoughts. > why should there be a cap at 3x for ETFs when you can get way more leverage with other instruments 3x seems arbitrary. 5x seems arbitrary. I'd love to see a study that analyzed what, if any, would be an optimal 'ceiling' for these. > 3 seems to be a valid point to some degree 3 was getting at speculators using them in excess. A potential solution to limit misuse would be to impose higher costs on levered instruments and capping at 3x or 5x or whatever can be viewed as an (extreme) cost.",
"To calculate any daily return, all one need do is divide the final value by the initial value, subtract 1, and multiply by 100%: This can be applied to either the futures alone, the investments used as margin collateral alone, or all together. Margin collateral as a factor of a derivative's return Collateral can take many forms. Many suggest that cost and revenue for a derivative trade should also take into account margin requirements. This can become problematic. If a futures position moved against the trader, yet the margin was secured with equities at the maximum, and the equities moved with the trader, the futures trade could be interpreted as less of a loss because the collateral, which is probably totally disassociated with the futures position, increased in value. Then again, if a futures position moved with the trader, yet the margin collateral moved against the trader then taken together, the futures trade would look less profitable. Furthermore, most likely the result of a futures position and its collateral would never produce the same result, so extrapolation would become ever more difficult. For ease of analysis, a position's cost and revenue should be segmented from another unless if those positions are meant to hedge each other. Margin is not a cost, but it is a liability, so margin will affect the balance sheet of a futures trade but not its income statement, again unless if the collateral is also used to hedge such futures position.",
"\"A lot of financial software will calculate the value of operating leasess for you (bullet 2). E.g. Capital IQ, BB. What a lot of professionals do is \"\"reverse\"\" out EBITDA/EBIT etc. for: - non-recurring expenses (think big accounting changes, some impairments) - change operating expenses into capital leases to adjust the capital structure - occasionally change some operating expenses (e.g. options) because you are under the assumption if you take a company private that those expenses will not be relevant The whole point is simply to see the operating revenues/expenses of the firm\""
] |
[
"Levarge in simple terms is how of your own money to how much of borrowed money. So in 2008 Typical leverage ratios were Investment Banks 30:1 means that for every 1 Unit of Banks money [shareholders capital/ long term debts] there was 30 Units of borrowed money [from deposits/for other institutions/etc]. This is a very unstable situation as typically say you lent out 31 to someone else, half way through repayments, the depositors and other lends are asking you 30 back. You are sunk. Now lets say if you lent 31 to some one, but 30 was your moeny and 1 was from deposits/etc. Then you can anytime more easily pay back the 1 to the depositor. In day trading, usually one squares away the position the same day or within a short period. Hence say you want to buy something worth 1000 in the morning and are selling it say the same day. You are expecting the price to by 1005 and a gain 5. Now when you buy via your broker/trader, you may not be required to pay 1000. Normally one just needs to pay a margin money, typically 10% [varies from market to market, country to country]. So in the first case if you put 1000 and get by 5, you made a profit of 0.5%. However if you were to pay only 10 as margin money [rest 990 is assumed loan from your broker]. You sell at 1005, the broker deducts his 990, and you get 15. So technically on 10 you have made 5 more, ie 50% returns. So this is leveraging of 10:1. If say your broker allowed only 5% margin money, then you just need to pay 5 for the 1000 trade, get back 5. You have made a 100% profit, but the leveraging is 20:1. Now lets say at this high leveraging when you are selling you get only 990. So you still owe the broker 5, if you can't pay-up and if lot of other such people can't pay-up, then the broker will also go bankrupt and there is a huge risk. Hence although leveraging helps in quite a few cases, there is always an associated risk when things go wrong badly.",
"This would clear out a lot more. 1) Leverage is the act of taking on debt in lieu of the equity you hold. Not always related to firms, it applies to personal situations too. When you take a loan, you get a certain %age of the loan, the bank establishes your equity by looking at your past financial records and then decides the amount it is going to lend, deciding on the safest leverage. In the current action leverage is the whole act of borrowing yen and profiting from it. The leverage factor mentions the amount of leverage happening. 10000 yen being borrowed with an equity of 1000 yen. 2) Commercial banks: 10 to 1 -> They don't deal in complicated investments, derivatives except for hedging, and are under stricter controls of the government. They have to have certain amount of liquidity and can loan out the rest for business. Investment banks: 30 to 1 -> Their main idea is making money and trade heavily. Their deposits are limited by the amount clients have deposited. And as their main motive is to get maximum returns from the available amount, they trade heavily. Derivatives, one of the instruments, are structured on underlyings and sometimes in multiple layers which build up quite a bit of leverage. And all of the trades happen on margins. You don't invest $10k to buy $10k of a traded stock. You put in, maybe $500 to take up the position and borrow the rest of the amount per se. It improves liquidity in the markets and increases efficiency. Else you could do only with what you have. So these margins add up to the leverage the bank is taking on.",
"Your original example is a little confusing because just shorting for 1k and buying for 1k is 100% leveraged or an infinitive leverage ratio. (and not allowed) Brokerage houses would require you to invest some capital in the trade. One example might be requiring you to hold $100 in the brokerage. This is where the 10:1 ratio comes from. (1000/10) Thus a return of 4.5% on the 1000k bond and no movement on the short position would net you $45 and voila a 45% return on your $100 investment. A 40 to 1 leverage ratio would mean that you would only have to invest $25 to make this trade. Something that no individual investor are allowed to do, but for some reason some financial firms have been able to."
] |
2589
|
How can I detect potential fraud in a company before investing in them?
|
[
"43961",
"450577",
"468144"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"450577",
"513980",
"43961",
"217035",
"251303",
"468144",
"46818",
"472243",
"431682",
"467141",
"272862",
"309199",
"391655",
"548596",
"88972",
"358939",
"308964",
"492044",
"374149",
"541152",
"538086",
"284165",
"327814",
"420486",
"254319",
"62417",
"448872",
"47450",
"220772",
"183999",
"424439",
"252942",
"33717",
"146091",
"509430",
"229878",
"88508",
"25431",
"575713",
"496921",
"193404",
"160787",
"327997",
"148348",
"137516",
"364701",
"442158",
"85286",
"520165",
"561703",
"596001",
"490650",
"148270",
"19354",
"315568",
"458345",
"400620",
"205665",
"323269",
"130967",
"314898",
"258306",
"437994",
"534059",
"486964",
"533140",
"186693",
"511072",
"428552",
"396208",
"125204",
"499978",
"171135",
"9938",
"318937",
"241308",
"126144",
"69506",
"599043",
"316872",
"123418",
"56781",
"228571",
"531395",
"349567",
"376209",
"415034",
"86281",
"466835",
"463429",
"104221",
"303754",
"405591",
"564542",
"488928",
"149493",
"402477",
"101600",
"268241",
"12652"
] |
[
"Most of the information we get about how a company is running its business, in any market, comes from the company. If the information is related to financial statements, it is checked by an external audit, and then provided to the public through official channels. All of these controls are meant to make it very unlikely for a firm to commit fraud or to cook its books. In that sense the controls are successful, very few firms provide fraudulent information to the public compared with the thousands of companies that list in stock markets around the world. Now, there is still a handful of firms that have committed fraud, and it is probable that a few firms are committing fraud right now. But, these companies go to great lengths to keep information about their fraud hidden from both the public and the authorities. All of these factors contribute to such frauds being black swan events to the outside observer. A black swan event is an event that is highly improbable, impossible to foresee with the information available before the event (it can only be analyzed in retrospect), and it has very large impact. The classification of an event as a black swan depends on your perspective. E.g. the Enron collapse was not as unexpected to the Enron executives as it was to its investors. You cannot foresee black swan events, but there are a few strategies that allow you to insure yourself against them. One such strategy is buying out of the money puts in the stocks where you have an investment, the idea being that in the event of a crash - due to fraud or whatever other reason - the profits in your puts would offset the loses on the stock. This strategy however suffers from time and loses a little money every day that the black swan doesn't show up, thanks to theta decay. So while it is not possible to detect fraud before investing, or at least not feasible with the resources and information available to the average investor, it is possible to obtain some degree of protection against it, at a cost. Whether that cost is too high or not, is the million dollar question.",
"If you are trying to weed out companies that are fronts for scams, one way is to look for a physical address that checks out with the phone book and a phone number posted on the site that connects you to an actual person. By itself this isn't a guarantee that the company is legit, but it will weed out a large number of fraudulent companies hiding behind PO boxes. That is, companies that defraud a lot of people don't usually make it very easy to track them down or contact them to complain or sue them.",
"\"Given that such activities are criminal and the people committing them have to hide them from the law, it's very unlikely that an investor could detect them, let alone one from a different country. The only things that can realistically help is to keep in mind the adage \"\"If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is\"\", and to stick to relatively large companies, since they have more auditing requirements and fraud is much harder to hide at scale (but not impossible, see Enron). Edit: and, of course, diversify. This kind of thing is rare, and not systematic, so diversification is a very good protection.\"",
"Research the company. Obtain and read their current and past financial statements. Find and read news stories about them. Look for patterns and draw conclusions. Or diversify to the point where one company failing doesn't hurt you significantly. Or both.",
"You can avoid companies that might go bankrupt by not buying the stock of companies with debt. Every quarter, a public company must file financials with the EDGAR system called a 10-Q. This filing includes unaudited financial statements and provides a continuing view of the company's financial position during the year. Any debt the company has acquired will appear on this filing and their annual report. If servicing the debt is costing the company a substantial fraction of their income, then the company is a bankruptcy risk.",
"Even without fraud, a company can get into serious trouble overnight, often through no fault of their own. That's part of the hazard of being part owner of a company -- which is what a share of stock is. As a minority owner not involved in actually running the business, there really isn't a lot you can do about that excep to play the odds and think about how that risk compares to the profit you're taking (which is one reason the current emphasis on stock price rather than dividends is considered a departure from traditional investing) and, as everyone else has said, avoid putting too much of your wealth in one place.",
"Ponzi schemes (or pyramid schemes) are based on paying earlier investors from the money invested by the later ones. For Ponzi scheme, the idea is generally to distribute some relateviely high consistent dividend/payout based on the inflow of money from new investors. As long as new investors are coming, the scheme can be sustained for quite some time (see the Madoff's example that spanned over decades). In the mean time the scheme operator can take (some of) the investment money to himself (legally as fees and salary, illegally as embezzling). The scheme operator doesn't actually have to put in any money other than some organizational expenses. However, at some point the new investors' money won't be enough to pay all the existing investors (inevitably, sooner or later, since the dividend payout grows with each new investor and there are no infinite exponential amount of new investors to cover for it). That's when the $#!+ hits the fan and sons of the schemers start ending up hanging from the ceiling. Pyramid scheme is built on similar idea, but the dividend payout varies based on the level of the investor (i.e.: the investor gets paid based on how many new ones he brought in, and how many new ones rooted from them). Thus the incentive to bring new investors is directly shifted to the investors themselves. The schemers here are at the top and get the most payouts from all the rest of the participants. They themselves usually put no or very little investment. However, the end result is the same: couldn't possibly be enough investors to sustain this model forever, and it will inevitably fail at some point. When such a scheme fails - the paying fund ends up being bankrupt, either due to cashflow problems (not enough money in to pay money out) or because all the money dries out (usually - both). How to detect - if the reports are not falsified (which in most cases they are) you'll see clearly that there's no actual investment income in the cash-flow. But, the reports are usually falsified to conceal this exact fact. So, that's where the independent auditors and regulatory oversight come in handy. Generally, if an investment fund doesn't have a reputable independent auditor - stay away.",
"If you too want to avoid losing your money again in the stock loss recovery scams that have been going on then there are a few tips to keep in mind. Be diligent about researching the company thoroughly online, know about its owners, teams and what others have said about it. This can help you be safe from fraudulent firms.",
"One can never be too cautious when when choosing a financial adviser. For example, has the company your adviser claims to represent ever been sanctioned by the local financial authorities? Does your adviser reside in the country in which he purports to operate? Have you thoroughly researched his background? It is also important to bear in mind what venues a company uses for advertising - if the company resorts to advertising by spamming, then their overall business practices are likely unethical and this could lead to trouble down the line. Finally, one should also research how the company's clientele has been built up. Was it through word of mouth or was the client data acquired by other means?",
"In Order To Be Safe From A Fraudulent Stock Loss Recovery Firms, You Need To Be Careful And Notice Some Warning Signs Beforehand. Aggressive Unexpected calls, asking advance fee, self-praise online and elsewhere all these are characteristics of such a firm",
"It depends greatly from place to place, but nothing beats the Internet reviews' research. If you can't find anything digging slightly deeper than the impressive home page, then you probably should be worried. As it seems that you are. Specifically, I do these: @JohnFX mentions a valid point: check for physical presence. Check that the office address is a real office and not a PO box or residential; call the number and see who answers it (if you call several times during different hours and the same person answers - that's probably a one-man operation). But that doesn't always help because short-term renting an office is not all that hard and getting a call-centre outsourced to a third-world country doesn't cost all that much. It definitely helps if you're dealing with someone local, but if you're in Sweden and checking out a suspicious operation in Cyprus - this is definitely not enough.",
"It is very important to note the strength and reputation of the country's regulatory agency. You cannot assume the standards of say the SEC (US Securities and Exchange Commission) apply in other countries (even well-developed ones). These regulations force companies to disclose certain information to inform and protect investors. The standards for such practices vary internationally.",
"How you check if a broker is legitimate: 1) Are they a registered broker dealer? Broker dealers have to be registered with FINRA and the SEC , which have their own databases for you to look up individuals and companies. here is FINRA's http://www.finra.org/Investors/ToolsCalculators/BrokerCheck/ FINRA is a self-regulatory agency, the SEC is a federal government agency. All things considered, they pretty much have similar legislative authority over the industry. But thats a different story. If the broker isn't able to produce information that would confirm their registration status, or if you can't readily find it in the regulators database, then that is a major red flag. The biggest red flag of them all. 2) If brokers are also acting as a consumer bank, such as how Merrill Lynch is now part of Bank of America and the accounts can be linked pretty easily, then they should will also be regulated by the FDIC. This means that you will be able to find the capital ratio that the company has, letting you know how stable it is as an institution. Physical locations, the name, and duration of existence, or their rating on BBB have nothing to do with it.",
"For months prior to going public a company has to file financial documents with the SEC. These are available to the public at www.sec.gov on their Edgar database. For instance, Eagleline is listed as potentially IPOing next week. You can find out all the details of any IPO including correspondence between the company and the SEC on Edgar. Here's the link for Eagleline (disclaimer, I have not investigated this company. It is an example only) https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001675776&owner=exclude&count=40 The most important, complex, and thorough document is the initial registration statement, usually an S-1, and subsequent amendments that occur as a result of new information or SEC questions. You can often get insight into a new public company by looking at the changes that have occurred in amendments since their initial filings. I highly advise people starting out to first look at the filings of companies they work for or know the industry intimately. This will help you to better understand the filings from companies you may not be so familiar with. A word of caution. Markets and company filings are followed by very large numbers of smart people experienced in each business area so don't assume there is fast and easy money to be made. Still, you will be a bit ahead if you learn to read and understand the filings public companies are required to make.",
"\"The key with analyzing financial statements is that you need to look at all angles of a particular item. ie: Sales has gone up, but has the cost of sales increased by even more, implying narrower margins? Or, interest expense has gone up, but is that because new debt was taken on to pay for expansion? In the specific case you mentioned [buying assets that will create depreciation expense over time], there is a grouping on the cash flow statement called 'Investing', which will state the amount of cash used during the year to invest in the business. This could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on other factors (and your personal preference regarding dividends being paid to shareholders). In addition, you can see the amount of depreciation expense separately listed on the cash flow statement. This tells you many things. Consider a company with $10M in assets on the balance sheet, but $2M in depreciation expense. This tells you that [in a very loose sense], every 5 years the assets owned by the company will all need to be replaced. Compare that with the Investing section of the cash flow statement - if they are buying $4M of new assets this year, this tells you that on an overall basis, they are likely expanding the business, because the new investments outpace the depreciation. But, is your concern of under-reported earnings a common issue? Typically, keep in mind that the most common bias of a company is to over-report earnings. This is because management compensation (in the form of performance bonuses and stock option valuation) is increased by profitable years. However, in a year where a loss / poor performance is likely, a reverse-bias occurs, to take as much of a loss as possible in that year. This is because if a manager's bonus is already 0 due to poor company performance, having a worse year will not turn the bonus negative. So, by taking all expenses possible today on the financial statements, next year might have less allocated expenses, and therefore the manager might get a bigger bonus impact next year. This is called \"\"Taking a big bath\"\". Note that public companies must meet certain reporting standards, and they are audited by external accounting firms to show that they meet those standards. Of course, there is no guarantee that the auditors will catch all cases of accounting manipulation (see Enron, etc., etc.).\"",
"\"(1) I think the phrase \"\"Variable Annuity\"\" is a glowing red flag. A corollary to that is that any strategy that uses insurance for a purpose (e.g. tax avoidance) other than protecting against loss rates at least a yellow flag. (2) The other really obvious indicator is a return that is completely out of whack with the level of risk they are saying the investment has. For example, if someone promises a 10% annual return that is \"\"Completely Safe\"\" or \"\"Very low risk\"\", Run. (3) If it is advertised on tv/radio, or all your friends are talking about it at parties. Stay away. Example: Investing in Gold Coins or the hot Tech IPO. (4) The whole sales pitch relies on past returns as proof that the investment will do well without any real discussion of other reasons it will continue to to well. Beware the gambler's fallacy. (5) Finally, be very wary of anyone who has some sort of great investment plan that they will teach you if you just pay $X or go to their seminar. Fee based advice is fine, but people selling a get rich quick vehicle typically know the real way to get rich is to get suckers to pay for their seminars.\"",
"\"I think you're right that these sites look so unprofessional that they aren't likely to be legitimate. However, even a very legitimate-looking site might be a fake designed to separate you from your money. There is an entire underground industry devoted to this kind of fakery and some of them are adept at what they do. So how can you tell? One place that you can consult is FINRA's BrokerCheck online service. This might be the first of many checks you should undertake. Who is FINRA, you might ask? \"\"The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is the largest independent regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States.\"\" See here. My unprofessional guess is, even if a firm's line of business is to broker deals in private company shares, that if they're located in the U.S. or else dealing in U.S. securities then they'd still need to be registered with FINRA – note the \"\"all securities firms\"\" above. I was able to search BrokerCheck and find SecondMarket (the firm @duffbeer703 mentioned) listed as \"\"Active\"\" in the FINRA database. The entry also provides some information about the firm. For instance, SecondMarket appears to also be registered with the S.E.C.. You should also note that SecondMarket links back to these authorities (refer to the footer of their site): \"\"Member FINRA | MSRB | SIPC. Registered with the SEC as an alternative trading system for trading in private company shares. SEC 606 Info [...]\"\" Any legitimate broker would want you to look them up with the authorities if you're unsure about their legitimacy. However, to undertake any such kind of deal, I'd still suggest more due diligence. An accredited investor with serious money to invest ought to, if they are not already experts themselves on these things, hire a professional who is expert to provide counsel, help navigate the system, and avoid the frauds.\"",
"Sap just developed a fraud detection module for their ERP suite in conjuction with EY. It offers live fraud scanning so you can stop a flagged transaction before a transfer is carried out. I saw a presentation an it looks pretty powerfull although it is only in the early stages.",
"You need to know your costs. Some are fixed. Review them. There are some expenses that are variable. Review the amount and if it is reasonable. Review your large orders. Are they increasing? Ask him how he thinks people will steal from the company. Did he see a large order and the customer will default?",
"I would also consider unnecessarily complex investment strategies a big warning sign as they can easily hide poor investment advice or a bad strategy. This is especially the case when it comes to retail investment as complex strategies can have so many moving parts that you, as someone with a day job, can't spend enough time on it to keep an eye on everything and you only spot issues when it's too late. Other bugbears:",
"If you see something that looks like a sales pitch, be skeptical, even if they sound informed, say things which resonate with your concerns and promise to alleviate your problems. Watch out in particular for people who pontificate about matters which are tangentially related to the investment (e.g. populist anti-Wall-Street sentiment). Beware limited-time opportunities, offers, and discounts. I'm specifically talking about your email pitches, Motley Fool. They're shameful. Remember you're allowed to change your mind and go back on something that you've said a few minutes ago. If anyone tries to trick you into agreeing to go along with them by taking what something you've said and manipulating it, or uses logic to demonstrate that you must buy something based on things you've said, tell them you're not comfortable, head for the door and don't look back. Don't be afraid of embarrassment or anything like that. (You can investigate whether your position is in fact logically consistent later.) Run away from anyone who resents or deprecates the notion of a second opinion. Don't ever go along with anything that seems shady: it may be shadier than you know. Some people thought Bernie Maddoff was doing some front-running on the side; turns out it was a Ponzi scheme. (Likewise the Ponzi scheme that devastated Albania's economy was widely suspected of being dirty, but people suspected more of a black-market angle.) Beware of anyone who is promising stability and protection. Insurance companies can sell you products (especially annuities) which can deliver it, but they're very expensive for what you get. Don't buy it unless you seriously need it.",
"So, first -- good job on making a thorough checklist of things to look into. And onto your questions -- is this a worthwhile process? Even independent of specific investing goals, learning how to research is valuable. If you decided to forgo investing in stocks directly, and chose to only invest in index funds, the same type of research skills would be useful. (Not to mention that such discipline would come in handy in other fields as well.) What other 80/20 'low hanging fruit' knowledge have I missed? While it may not count as 'low hanging fruit', one thing that stands out to me is there's no mention of what competition a company has in its field. For example, a company may be doing well today, but you may see signs that it's consistently losing ground to its competition. While that alone may not dissuade you from investing, it may give you something to consider. Is what I've got so far any good? or am I totally missing the point. Your cheat sheet seems pretty good to me. But a lot depends on what your goals are. If you're doing this solely for your education and experience, I would say you've done well. If you're looking to invest in a company that is involved in a field you're passionate about, you're on the right track. But you should probably consider expanding your cheat sheet to include things that are not 'low hanging fruit' but still matter to you. However, I'd echo the comments that have already been made and suggest that if this is for retirement investments, take the skills you've developed in creating your cheat sheet and apply that work towards finding a set of index funds that meet your criteria. Otherwise happy hunting!",
"First utilize a security screener to identify the security profiles you are looking to identify for identifying your target securities for shorting. Most online brokers have stock screeners that you can utilize. At this point you may want to look at your target list of securities to find out those that are eligible for shorting. The SHO thresold list is also a good place to look for securities that are hard to borrow to eliminate potential target securities. http://regsho.finra.org/regsho-Index.html Also your broker can let you know the stocks that are available for borrowing. You can then take your target securities and then you can look at the corporate filings on the SEC's Edgar site to look for the key words you are looking for. I would suggest that you utilize XBRL so you can electronically run your key word searched in an automated manner. I would further suggest that you can run the key word XBRL daily for issuer filings of your target list of securities. Additional word searches you may want to consider are those that could indicate a dilution of the companies stock such as the issuance of convertible debt. Also the below link detailing real short interest may be helpful. Clearing firms are required to report short interest every two weeks. http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/short-interest.aspx",
"This study introduces XBRL-enhanced digit analysis as a possible new approach to identify firm-year observations suspect of having manipulated earnings. Based on all available XBRL 10-K filings submitted to the SEC between 2009 and 2012, we find that firms likely to have managed earnings exhibit a higher amount of abnormal digit frequencies compared to other firm-years. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2297355",
"I look at the following ratios and how these ratios developed over time, for instance how did valuation come down in a recession, what was the trough multiple during the Lehman crisis in 2008, how did a recession or good economy affect profitability of the company. Valuation metrics: Enterprise value / EBIT (EBIT = operating income) Enterprise value / sales (for fast growing companies as their operating profit is expected to be realized later in time) and P/E Profitability: Operating margin, which is EBIT / sales Cashflow / sales Business model stability and news flow",
"I look at the following ratios and how these ratios developed over time, for instance how did valuation come down in a recession, what was the trough multiple during the Lehman crisis in 2008, how did a recession or good economy affect profitability of the company. Valuation metrics: Enterprise value / EBIT (EBIT = operating income) Enterprise value / sales (for fast growing companies as their operating profit is expected to be realized later in time) and P/E Profitability: Operating margin, which is EBIT / sales Cashflow / sales Business model stability and news flow",
"\"IMO, what it seems like you've done is nothing more than having screened out a company worth further investigation. The next step would be a thorough analysis of the company's past financials and current statements to arrive at your own opinion / forecast of the immediate and far future of the company's prospects. Typically, this is done by looking at the company's regulatory filings, and maybe some additional searching on comparison businesses. There are many sources of instruction for how one might \"\"value\"\" or \"\"analyze\"\" a company, or that provide help on \"\"reading a balance sheet\"\". (This is not an easy skill to learn, but it is one that will prove invaluable over a lifetime of investing.) It is possible that you'll uncover a deteriorating business where the latest selling, and subsequent drop in price that caused the high yield, is well-deserved. In which case, you know to stay away and move on to the next idea. On the other hand, you might end up confident that the company is not suffering from a drop in sales, rise in expenses, growing debt payments, loss of \"\"moat\"\", etc. In which case, you've found a great investment candidate. I say candidate because you still may decide this company isn't for you, even if the financials are right, because you might find better opportunities for an equal, or acceptable, return at lower risk while you're researching. As to the yield being high when there are no problems with the fundamentals of the business, this may simply be because of panic selling during this past few week's downturn, or some other sort of temporary and superficial scare. However, be warned that the masses can remain irrational, and thus the price stay suppressed or even drop further, for longer than you're willing to wait for your ROI. The good news is that in that case, you're being well compensated to wait at a 11+% yield!\"",
"What this abbreviated balance sheet tells you is that this company has negative equity. The liabilities are greater than the value of the assets. The obvious problem for the company who wants to do business with you is that they are going to have a real hard time accessing credit to pay off any debts that they incur with doing business with you. In this case, the recommended course would be to ask them put cash up front instead of putting them on account. You don't really need to look at the income statement to see that they are currently underwater. If their income statement turns out to be splendid, then you can wait for them to get their liabilities under control before you set up an account for them.",
"\"The following is only an overview and does not contain all of the in-depth reasons why you should look more deeply. When you look at a stock's financials in depth you are looking for warning signs. These may warn of many things but one important thing to look for is ratio and growth rate manipulation. Using several different accounting methods it is possible to make a final report reflect a PE ratio (or any other ratio) that is inconsistent with the realities of the company's position. Earnings manipulation (in the way that Enron in particular manipulated them) is more widespread than you might think as \"\"earnings smoothing\"\" is a common way of keeping earnings in line (or smooth) in a recession or a boom. The reason that PE ratio looks so good could well be because professional investors have avoided the stock as there appear to be \"\"interesting\"\" (but legal) accounting decisions that are of concern. Another issue that you don't consider is growth. earnings may look good in the current reporting period but may have been stagnant or falling when considered over multiple periods. The low price may indicate falling revenues, earnings and market share that you would not be aware of when taking only your criteria into account. Understanding a firm will also give you an insight into how future news might affect the company. If the company has a lot of debt and market interest rates rise or fall how will that effect their debt, if another company brings out a competing product next week how will it effect the company? How will it effect their bottom line? How much do they rely on a single product line? How likely is it that their flagship product will become obsolete? How would that effect the company? Looking deeply into a company's financial statements will allow you to see any issues in their accounting practices and give you a feel for how they are preforming over time, it will also let you look into their cost of capital and investment decisions. Looking deeply into their products, company structure and how news will effect them will give you an understanding of potential issues that could threaten your investment before they occur. When looking for value you shouldn't just look at part of the value of the company; you wouldn't just look at sales of a single T-shirt range at Wallmart when deciding whether to invest in them. It is exactly the same argument for why you should look at the whole of the company's state when choosing to invest rather than a few small metrics.\"",
"\"Be wary of pump and dump schemes. This scheme works like this: When you observe that \"\"From time to time the action explodes with 100 or 200% gains and volumes exceeding one million and it then back down to $ 0.02\"\", it appears that this scheme was performed repeatedly on this stock. When you see a company with a very, very low stock price which claims to have a very bright future, you should ask yourself why the stock is so low. There are professional stock brokers who have access to the same information you have, and much more. So why don't they buy that stock? Likely because they realize that the claims about the company are greatly exaggerated or even completely made up.\"",
"Every listed company needs to maintain book of accounts, when you are investing in companies you would have to look at what is stated in the books and along with other info decide to invest in it.",
"In addition to evaluating the business (great answer), consider the potential payoff. If bonds pay off in the 5-10% range, the S&P500 has averged 10.5%. You should be expecting a payoff of 15-20% to invest in something riskier than the stock market. That means that if you invest $10k, then in 5 years you'll need to get out $25K (20% returns over 5 years). If you get less than this much in 5 years, the risk-to-reward ratio probably rules this out as a good investment.",
"He gets upset if I insist on bringing an extra person to help him out but then he complains about his work load and how he's running the company alone. Why complain if I offered him an assistant? I wish my boss would've offered me an assistant when I worked at companies. He refuses to take paid vacations. If he does take a vacation he'll tell me 2 to 3 weeks in advance. My red flag is he never ever takes a paid vacation. If he does take a paid vacation he plans it out a few weeks in advance. This is the perfect way to cover up anything.",
"\"zPesk has a great answer about dividends generally, but to answer your question specifically about yield traps, here are a few things that I look for: As with everything, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is. A 17% yield is pretty out of this world, even for a REIT. And I wouldn't bet on it holding up. Compare a company's yield to that of others in the same industry (different industries have different \"\"standards\"\" for what is considered a high or low yield) Dividends have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is cash flow. Look at the company's financial statements. Do they have sufficient cash flow to pay the dividend? Have there been any recent changes in their cash flow situation? How are earnings holding up? Debt levels? Cash on hand? Sudden moves in stock price. A sudden drop in the stock price will cause the yield to rise. Sometimes this indicates a bargain, but if the drop is due to a real worry about the company's financial health (see #2) it's probably an indication that a dividend cut is coming. What does their dividend history look like? Do they have a consistent track record of paying out good dividends for years and years? Companies with a track record of paying dividends consistently and/or increasing their dividend regularly are likely to continue to do so.\"",
"\"Pump-and-Dump strategy is happening everywhere. Less so in developed market. I can tell an experience from Emerging Market perspective. Usually several securities brokers work together to pump several \"\"penny\"\" stocks (5 - 7 stocks). They conspire together and searching for several investors, who have money and willing to participate in this scheme. These investors will then agree to invest (usually with Margin from securities) to start pumping the stocks. The stocks will be pumped until several Research Analysts take interest in it. Once the news were spread out regarding these highly speculative stocks. The investors gradually dumps the stocks (with help of their brokers). The things that you need to keep an eye for: - Low trading volume in the previous 3 - 6 months (relative to their peers) - Low P/E ratio with unremarkable earning growth - No positive catalyst or material news regarding the company - Stocks have high momentum (observe on weekly rather daily returns) Pump-and-dump usually last between 3 months to 6 months.\"",
"\"To expand on the above, go to the \"\"Investor Relations\"\" part of the website if they're public, and take a look at how they explain themselves to their shareholders. You'll learn a lot very quickly about everything you'd need for the interview.\"",
"Here are the basic questions I usually ask any new business startup: Do these numbers/answers seem reasonable to you and is some benchmark available that allows you to see how likely this is? Remember, particularly in Internet-based advertising ventures, the client may be indirect. The person who clicks on a Google context-based link is not directly Google's client. The person who decided to host AdWords code on their site is the direct client. You're also going to want to see a Gant chart or some process chart indicating exactly what needs to be done, at what cost and by whom. Answers to these questions give a sense of not only how seriously they are taking the business, but also how organised. My final question: who is your first client? They need either someone who is going to contract the service, or have a clear indication of where income is going to come from, on their first day of trading. Their task is to sell their idea to you by proving that it will return on your investment and be profitable. From the strength of these answers you can gauge the value of your investment to them, how critical it is, how risky the opportunity and - ultimately - the stake and returns you should expect.",
"* Absolutely agree with /u/IsAnAlpaca * You /must/ not agree to this without seeing his balance sheet. * That means assets and liabilities, but also ask for the last 12 months' cash flow * Inability or unwillingness to provide any of those things is a HUGE no-go red flag.",
"@ Daniel Anderson shared interesting insights. In my research I learned a few things Some interesting data on fraud trends AFP Payments Fraud and Control Survey 2016 As a consumer, at the very least I'd improve awareness of I'd also learn about basic types of fraud And for the techies out there, I'd recommend learning about layered security (There's no way the customer service is going to talk about this)",
"\"The hardest part seems to be knowing exactly when to sell the stock. Well yes, that's the problem with all stock investing. Reports come out all the time, sometimes even from very smart people with no motivation to lie, about expected earnings for this company, or for that industry. Whether those predictions come true is something you will only find out with time. What you are considering is using financial information available to you (and equally available to the public) to make investment choices. This is called 'fundamental analysis'; that is, the analysis of the fundamentals of a business and what it should be worth. It forms the basis of how many investment firms decide where to put their money. In a perfectly 'efficient' market, all information available to the public is immediately factored into the market price for that company's stock. ie: if a bank report states with absolute certainty (through leaked documents) that Coca-Cola is going to announce 10% revenue growth tomorrow, then everyone will immediately buy Coca-Cola stock today, and then tomorrow there would be no impact. Even if PwC is 100% accurate in its predictions, if the rest of the market agrees with them, then the price at the time of IPO would equal the future value of the cashflows, meaning there would be no gain unless results surpassed expectations. So what you are proposing is to take one sliver of the information available to the public (have you also read all publicly available reports on those businesses and their industries?), and using that to make a high risk investment. Are you going to do better than the investment firms that have teams of researchers and years of experience in the investment world? You can do quite well by picking individual stocks, but you can also lose a lot of money if you do it haphazardly. Be aware that there is risk in doing any type of investing. There is higher than average risk if you invest in equities ('the stock market'). There is higher risk still, if you pick individual stocks. There is yet even higher risk, if you pick small startup companies. There are some specific interesting side-elements with your proposal to purchase stock about to have an IPO - those are better dealt with in a separate question if you want more information; search this site for 'IPO' and you should find a good starting point. In short, the company about to go public will hire a firm of analysts who will try to calculate the best price the public will accept for an offering of shares. Stock often goes up after IPO, but not always. Sometimes the company doesn't even fill its full IPO order, adding a new type of risk to a potential investor, that the stock will drop on day 1. Consider an analogy outside the investing world: Let's say Auto Trader magazine prints an article that says \"\"all 2015 Honda Civics are worth $15,000 if they have less than 50,000 Miles.\"\" Assume you have no particular knowledge about cars. If you read this article, and you see an ad in the paper the next day for a Honda Civic with 40k miles, should you buy it for $14k? The answer is not without more research. And even if you determine enough about cars to find one for $14k that you can reasonably sell for $15k, there's a whole world of mechanics out there who buy and sell cars for a living, and they have an edge both because they can repair the cars themselves to sell for more, and also because they have experience to spot low-offers faster than you. And if you pick a clunker (or a stock that doesn't perform even when everyone expected it would), then you could lose some serious money. As with buying and selling individual stocks, there is money to be made from car trading, but that money gets made by people who really know what they're doing. People who go in without full information are the ones who lose money in the long run.\"",
"Pump-and-dump scams are indeed very real, but the scale of a single scam isn't anywhere near the type of heist you see in movies like Trading Places. Usually, the scammer will buy a few hundred dollars of a penny stock for some obscure small business, then they'll spam every address they have with advice that this business is about to announce a huge breakthrough that will make it the next Microsoft. A few dozen people bite, buy up a few thousand shares each (remember the shares are trading for pennies), then when the rise in demand pushes up the price enough for the scammer to make a decent buck, he cashes out, the price falls based on the resulting glut of stock, and the victims lose their money. Thus a few red flags shake out that would-be investors should be wary of:",
"In my experience, any kind of equity you may be offered by the company is just a carrot. Your offer may be written in such a way that your potential ownership represents, say, 1% of the company today. But if the company goes for a round of financing your ownership percentage can get diluted. If this happens a couple of times and the terms of financing aren't very favorable then your percentage can go from that 1% down to 0.001%, making the equity worthless. I've known people who heard their company was being bought and thought they might get some kind of payoff. Come to find out the company hadn't done all that well and there wasn't anything to pay out after the main investors got some money back. (The main investors took a loss.) For obvious reasons, management wasn't keeping the staff up to date about the fact that they were operating in the red and their options were worthless. Some people grumbled about lawyers and filing lawsuits, but at the end of the day, there wasn't any money to be won. Keep this in mind. As to your question regarding what to look out for:",
"\"The recommendation is not to make the investment. In general, a company does not have to sell their shares to you or allow you to become an investor, because, as you have stated, it is a private company not quoted on the stock market. If everyone were trustworthy, you could buy the tools for $11000 -- so that you own the tools -- and sign a lease of the tools to the company whereby they pay you $X/month. The lease should be reviewed by a lawyer before it is signed, and perhaps give the buyer the right to demand back the tools at any time. However, even this arrangement is very risky, because the \"\"company\"\" could simply steal or damage the tools and disappear. It is not an investment that I would make, because it sounds too good to be true. $2800/mo steady cash flow for $11,000 invested. No, I don't think so. The following information may also be useful, either to you, or future readers: If you still want to make this investment, then you should know that: The offering for sale of shares by companies located in the USA is subject to a wild array of complex laws. This is true in many other countries as well. These laws, called securities laws or regulations, can require certain disclosures, require that investors have a high net worth so that they can afford to lose the money or conduct their own investigations and legal actions, or require that the investors know the company founders personally, and can prohibit or limit resale by the buyer/investor. Promoters who say you can still invest and are ignoring or disobeying the securities laws are being at least negligent, but more likely are dishonest and probably criminal. Even if you trust in the investment, can you trust negligent managers to do a good job executing that investment? What about dishonest managers? What about criminals and thieves?\"",
"Just don't buy any kind of paper and you will be fine :-) And don't forget most of these 'blue-chip companies' sell marketing garbage which have no real market. Finally, make all decissions slooooowly and after extensive research.",
"Good post - just to note to self to add my comments this weekend A couple thoughts that came to mind (sorry, was working on an idea this weekend): * When comparing companies, reviewing accounting policies in detail for any substantive differences. A notable example would be telecom companies who expense wireless subsidies vs. capitalizing them - obviously makes a large difference in a EBITDA-based * I always approach a company from a SOTP perspective... hidden assets or otherwise, many businesses have various segments, which if they can be reliably broken off, provide good insight into underlying op performance * If appropriate (i.e. will never be reinvested), tax-adjusting cash balances that are offshore * Cyclical industries, always compare on a mid-cycle basis * Dynamic schedules (i.e. at various prices) for dilutive instruments and proceeds thereof. For most large caps this is not relevant, but for certain industries it is much more popular (e.g. resource, tech)",
"Financial health is typically assessed with 3 things. Balance Sheet Cash Flow Analysis Profit & Loss Statement That should give you a pretty solid view on where the business has been, where it is now, and where it is headed. You also want to see any specific contracts currently in-place. Things like leases for property or facilities or any long term customer contracts. I also often like to look at the last year's tax information. Pay attention to Retained Earnings, that'll tell you about the long term functioning of the business from a historical perspective. Source: Am M&A guy",
"If your partner starts cheating you or you have a doubt on it, don’t go directly and blame him/her. Before taking such step, first start noticing your partner’s behavior and make full proof of that. You can also hire investing agencies that help you in partner background checks.",
"Also keep note - some companies have a combined CEO/Chairman of the board role. While he/she would not be allowed to negotiate contracts or stock plans, some corporate governance analysts advocate for the separation of the roles to remove any opportunity for the CEO to unduly influence the board. This could be the case for dysfunctional boards. However, the alternate camps will say that the combined role has no negative effect on shareholder returns. SEC regulations require companies to disclose negotiations between the board and CEO (as well as other named executives) for contracts, employee stock plans, and related information. Sometimes reading the proxy statement to find out, for example, how many times the board meets a year, how many other boards a director serves on, and if the CEO sits on any other board (usually discouraged to serve on more than 2) will provide some insight into a well-run (or not well-run) board.",
"I'd start with learning how to read a company's financial statement and their annual report. I would recommend reading the following: All three books are cheap and readily available. If you really want to enhance your learning, grab a few annual reports from companies' websites to reference as you learn about different aspects of the financial statements.",
"I don't see balance sheet in what you're looking at, and I'd definitely suggest learning how to read a balance sheet and looking at it, if you're going to buy stock in a company, unless you know that the recommendations you're buying on are already doing that and you're willing to take that risk. Also, reading past balance sheets and statements can give you an idea about how accurate the company is with their predictions, or if they have a history of financial integrity. Now, if you're going the model portfolio route, which has become popular, the assumption that many of these stock buyers are making is that someone else is doing that for them. I am not saying that this assumption is valid, just one that I've seen; you will definitely find a lot of skeptics, and rightly so, about model portfolios. Likewise, people who trade based on what [Person X] does (like Warren Buffett or David Einhorn) are assuming that they're doing the research. The downside to this is if you follow someone like this. Yeah, oops. I should also point out that technical analysis, especially high probability TA, generally only looks at history. Most would define it as high risk and there are many underlying assumptions with reading the price movements by high probability TA types.",
"So you think there is a business that can take $X and in two weeks turn it into $10X plus their profit. That means that in two weeks you can turn $1,000 into $10,000. So every two weeks you add a zero, in six weeks you add 3 zeros. In 12 weeks total your $1,000 is now $1,000,000,000; and in a few weeks after that you are richer than Bill Gates. All Guaranteed! Run away.",
"\"First paragraph is very true. But you also have to take into consideration that the adviser and the company are 2 different \"\"things\"\" to look into. For the adviser, quickest and easiest way is to do a Facebook search. The point of this is to see how transparent they are with their personal life. Even companies are now relying on Facebook to see how they \"\"really\"\" are. I wouldn't care if the person has lots of photos with booze and girls, but I would be concerned if they are using FB for spamming purposes, have pictures with drugs, or hints that they don't like their job and want to move on to something else. Second paragraph is spot on as well. But I would rather want to know if the company cold calls or not... which leads in to your last statement. For one adviser, more than 100 clients is a red flag. This could mean that they push savings plans left and right, they don't contact their current clients, and/or they may not have the ability to assist clients should they get many queries. A few good questions to ask: 1. How do you make your salary? 2. Besides this plan you are selling me, what other types of products do you work with and show me several examples? 3. How many other advisers are in your firm? 4. How many clients does your colleagues and boss have? 5. How often do you cold call? 6. Who else cold calls in your office? 7. How does your company get new clients OTHER than referrals? Go interrogation style and ask the above questions several times using different phrases.\"",
"The Art of Short Selling by Kathryn Stanley providers for many case studies about what kind of opportunities to look for from a fundamental analysis perspective. Typically things you can look for are financing terms that are not very favorable (expensive interest payments) as well as other constrictions on cash flow, arbitrary decisions by management (poor management), and dilution that doesn't make sense (usually another product of poor management). From a quantitative analysis perspective, you can gain insight by looking at the credit default swap rate history, if the company is listed in that market. The things that affect a CDS spread are different than what immediately affects share prices. Some market participants trade DOOMs over Credit Default Swaps, when they are betting on a company's insolvency. But looking at large trades in the options market isn't indicative of anything on its own, but you can use that information to help confirm your opinion. You can certainly jump on a trend using bad headlines, but typically by the time it is headline news, the majority of the downward move in the share price has already happened, or the stock opened lower because the news came outside of market hours. You have to factor in the short interest of the company, if the short interest is high then it will be very easy to squeeze the shorts resulting in a rally of share prices, the opposite of what you want. A short squeeze doesn't change the fundamental or quantitative reasons you wanted to short. The technical analysis should only be used to help you decide your entry and exit price ranges amongst an otherwise random walk. The technical rules you created sound like something a very basic program or stock screener might be able to follow, but it doesn't tell you anything, you will have to do research in the company's public filings yourself.",
"You need to look at the financial statements, talking to the executives, and have some sort of discussion about price. Then you would have to do due-diligence to make sure that they are not hiding stuff. Bear in mind, the company isn't going to go through all of this unless you can convince them that you have the means to complete the transaction.",
"A cautionary tale: About 25 years ago I decided that I should try my hand at investing in some technology companies. I was in the computer biz but decided that I might suffer from myopia there, so I researched some medical startups. And I did some reasonably good research, given the available resources (the Internet was quite primitive). I narrowed things down to 4-5 companies, studying their technology plans, then researched their business plans and their personnel. In the end I picked a drug company. Not only did it have a promising business plan, but it had as it's CEO a hotshot from some other company, and the BOD was populated buy big names from tech companies and the like. AND the company had like $2 of cash for every $1 of outstanding share value, following their recent IPO. So I sold a bit of stock I had in my employer and bought like $3000 worth of this company. Then, taking the advice I'd seen several places, I forgot about it for about 6 months. When I went back to look their stock value had dropped a little, and the cash reserves were down about 20%. I wasn't too worried. 6 months later the cash was down 50%. Worrying a little. After I'd had the stock for about 2 years the stock price was about 10% of what I'd paid. Hardly worth selling, so I hung on for awhile longer. The company was eventually sold to some other company and I got maybe $50 in stock in the new company.",
"Great answers. Here's my two cents: First, don't forget to look at the overall picture, not just the dividend. Study the company's income statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement for the last few years. Make sure they have good earnings potential, and are not carrying too much debt. I know it's dull, but it's better to miss an opportunity than to buy a turkey and watch the dividends and the share price tank. I went through this with BAC (Bank of America) a couple of years ago. They had a 38-year history of rising dividends when I bought them, and the yield was about 8%. Then the banking crisis happened and the dividend went from $2.56/share to $0.04, and the price fell from $40 to $5. (I stuck with it, continuing to buy at lower and lower prices, and eventually sold them all at $12 and managed to break even, but it was not a pleasant experience) Do your homework. :) Still, one of the most reliable ways to judge a company's dividend-paying ability is to look at its dividend history. Once a company has started paying a dividend there is a strong expectation from shareholders that these payments will continue, and the company's management will try very hard to maintain them. (Though sometimes this doesn't work out, e.g. BAC) You should see an uninterrupted stream of non-decreasing payments over a period of at least 5 years (this timeframe is just a rule of thumb). Well-established, profitable companies also tend to increase their dividends over time, which has the added benefit of pushing up their share price. So you're getting increasing dividends and capital gains. Next, look at the company's payout ratio over time, and the actual cost of the dividend. Can the projected earnings cover the dividend cost without going above the payout ratio? If not, then the dividend is likely to get reduced. In the case of CIM, the dividend history is short and erratic. The earnings are also all over the place, so it's hard to predict what will happen next year. The company is up to its eyeballs debt (current ratio is .2), and its earnings have dropped by 20% in the last quarter. They have lost money in two of the last three years, even though earning have jumped dramatically. This is a very young company, and in my opinion it is too early for them to be paying dividends. A very speculative stock, and you are more likely to make money from capital gains than dividends. AAE is a different story. They are profitable, and have a long dividend history, although the dividend was cut in half recently. This may be a good to buy them hoping the dividend comes back once the economy recovers. However, they are trading at over 40 times earnings, which seems expensive, considering their low profit margins. Before investing your money, invest in your education. :) Get some books on interpretation of financial staments, and learn how to read the numbers. It's sort of like looking at the codes in The Matrix, and seeing the blonde in the red dress (or whatever it was). Good luck!",
"\"Let's say you see a café. You're looking to buy a café so you walk into one and ask the manager how much profit he makes in a year. He says $N and you walk out and think to yourself, \"\"I'd be willing to pay $500,000 for this café.\"\" You arrange to meet again to discuss purchasing the business (and he's looking for someone to purchase it). You go into the store again the following day and the manager says, \"\"Sorry, I told you we make $N. I've checked the numbers and it's actually only $0.8N (20% lower than what you thought).\"\" Are you still willing to buy the café for $500,000 as well? No, of course you're not. I think that this is a sufficient analogy to public companies.\"",
"\"Don't do this if haven't talked about investments and don't learn quickly. Don't do this if you don't like cold calling. Don't do this if they want you to pump and dump. Don't do this if you don't think you can convince gamblers to invest with you. Don't do this if you have a better opportunity. I checked their website. Maybe double check with FINRA and SIPC to see that they're really members if you're really skeptical and you're still interested. Just dial and keep asking until you get a better answer than \"\"If they say so then yes.\"\" Oh, and don't do this if they're giving you a shitty deal on commissions. Ask for a tour of the premises too.\"",
"Ask for at least 10 references. Ask for 10 because it will be harder for them to refer you to ringer references like their family or friends.",
"From what you have written, it could be a boiler room company. These operate with fancy website and have proper book keeping systems but are elaborate scams. How did you find about this broker. If there was a seller when you purchased the shares, there is no reason you can't be seller",
"If you're researching a publicly traded company in the USA, you can search the company filings with the SEC. Clicking 'Filings' should take you here.",
"Reading and analyzing financial statements is one of the most important tasks of Equity Analysts which look at a company from a fundamental perspective. However, analyzing a company and its financial statements is much more than just reading the absolute dollar figures provided in financial statements: You need to calculate financial ratios which can be compared over multiple periods and companies to be able to gauge the development of a company over time and compare it to its competitors. For instance, for an Equity Analyst, the absolute dollar figures of a company's operating profit is less important than the ratio of the operating profit to revenue, which is called the operating margin. Another very important figure is Free Cash Flow which can be set in relation to sales (= Free Cash Flow / Sales). The following working capital related metrics can be used as a health check for a company and give you early warning signs when they deviate too much: You can either calculate those metrics yourself using a spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) or use a professional solution, e.g. Bloomberg Professional, Reuters Eikon or WorldCap.",
"If anyone offers you guaranteed better than average returns, run. They are either lying to you or to themselves. (Claiming that they will try to beat the market is more credible, but that becomes a matter of whether there is any reason to believe that they'll succeed.) If anyone sends you an unsolicited stock tip, run. They wouldn't be doing so if it wasn't an attempt to manipulate you or the market or both. Most likely its a pump-and-dump attempt.",
"I use 10-K and 10-Qs to understand to read the disclosed risk factors related to a business. Sometimes they are very comical. But when you see that risk factor materializing you can understand how it will effect the company. For example, one microlending company's risk factor stated that if Elizabeth Warren becomes head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau we will have a hard time... so we are expanding in Mexico and taking our politically unfavorable lending practices there. I like seeing how many authorized shares there are or if there are plans to issue more. An example was where I heard from former employees of a company how gullible the other employees at that company were and how they all thought they were going to get rich or were being told so by upper management. Poor/Quirky/Questionable/Misleading management is one of my favorite things to look for in a company so I started digging into their SEC filings and saw that they were going to do a reverse split which would make the share prices trade higher (while experiencing no change in market cap), but then digging further I saw that they were only changing the already issued shares, but keeping the authorized shares at the much larger amount of shares, and that they planned to do financing by issuing more of the authorized shares. I exclaimed that this would mean the share prices would drop by 90%-99% after the reverse split and you mean to tell me that nobody realizes this (employees or the broad market). I was almost tempted to stand outside their office and ask employees if I could borrow their shares to short, because there wasn't enough liquidity on the stock market! This was almost the perfect short but it wasn't liquid or have any options so not perfect after all. It traded from $20 after the reverse split to $1.27 I like understanding how much debt a company is in and the structure of that debt, like if a loan shark has large payments coming up soon. This is generally what I use those particular forms for. But they contain a lot of information A lot of companies are able to act they way they do because people do not read.",
"You need to understand the business and the books as an owner do it for your parents also the manager could be the issue but it could a lot of things I’d like to see the quarterlies for the last 3 Years and a few other things like monthly statements payrolls some accounts etc... to do the math. it could be a partner? The only way to know this is to follow the paper trail.",
"If you don't have a good knowledge of finance, maybe you should not put too much money in individual stocks. But if you really want to invest, you can just compare the rate of return of the most known stocks available to you (like the one from the S&P for the US). The rate of return is very simple to compute, it's 100*dividend/share price. For example a company with a current share price of 50.12 USD that delivered a dividend of 1.26 USD last year would have a rate of return of 100 * 1.26/50.12= 2.51% Now if you only invest in the most known stocks, since they are already covered by nearly all financial institutions and analysts: If you are looking for lower risk dividend companies, take a sample of companies and invest those with the lowest rates of return (but avoid extreme values). Of course since the stock prices are changing all the time, you have to compare them with a price taken at the same time (like the closing price of a specific day) and for the dividend, they can be on several basis (yearly, quartely, etc..) so you have to be sure to take the same basis. You can also find the P/E ratio which is the opposite indicator (= share price/dividend) so an higher P/E ratio means a lower risk. Most of the time you can find the P/E ratio or the rate of return already computed on specialized website or brokers.",
"I recall at the time that people on investment boards were circulating lists of companies audited by AA, as a - quite reliable - indication that they were fraudulent. I have had a lot of dealings with their offshoot AA Consulting, now known as Accenture. These dealings have not, to put it mildly, given me any reason to think that AA's culture was very ethical. And if you cannot trust an auditor, they are worthless.",
"Both Scottrade and ING Direct (CapitalOne) have physical branches. Scottrade are wide-spread, ING/CapitalOne are less common (in California where I live, I have a bunch of Scottrade branches around where I live, but the only ING presence I know of is in LA on Sepulveda at Santa Monica). So one way to verify the company is legit is to go to their physical location and talk to the people there. Similarly, you can find physical locations in major metropolitan areas for many other web-based discount brokers. In my area (SF Bay Area) we have Scottrade, ETrade, Fidelity, TD Ameritrade, and that's just those I've actually seen with my own eyes. You can just walk in and talk to the people there about their options and their web operations. It is hard and unlikely for a sting operation to set up a web of brick-and-mortar offices across the nation. Even Madoff had only one or two offices. Of course I totally agree with Chris's answer, especially with regards to the SSL certificates' verification and spoofing and phishing avoidance.",
"\"Investing in a business can be daunting and risky, so it is not for everyone. The most common pitfalls are mentioned here: Beyond that: It all sounds a bit like \"\"Don't trust anyone\"\" and sadly, this is true when there's a lot of money involved. So be prepared and do your homework, this sometimes will save you more money than you gain with your investments :) Good luck!\"",
"To evaluate any advice, this lists some of the things to consider: There are good advisors out there. There are also Bernie Madoffs who give the entire industry a black eye. In the end, the best path is to educate yourself, read as much as you can before you invest. Better to lose a bit by staying out of the market than to lose it all by getting scammed.",
"I can't address the psychology of trust involved in your question, but here are some common sense guidelines for dealing with your issue. Make sure you know who you are talking to. Call the company you need to speak to via a publicly available phone number. An email or something you got in a letter might be from a different source. If you use a website, you should be sure you are on the correct website. Keep careful records. Make good notes of each phone call and keep all emails and letters forever. Note the time, name and/or ID of the person you spoke to and numbers called in addition to keeping notes on what actions should be done. Keep your faxing transmission receipts and shipping tracking numbers too. If you are nervous, ask them why they want the info. The fraud department should be able to explain it to you. For example, they probably want your social because that is how your credit report is identified. If they are going to fix a credit report, they will need a social. It is doubtful they would have a good explanation why they need your mother's maiden name. Ask for secure transmission, or confirm they have it. Postal mail isn't so secure, but I'll go out on a limb and say most fax machines today are not really fax machines, but software that deals in PDFs. At some point you will have to realize you will have to transmit something. No method is perfect, but you can limit your exposure. Help them do their jobs. If you are (understandably) nervous, consider their motivations: corporate profit. BUT that could very well mean not running afoul of the law and (with any luck) treating customers the best way they know to earn business. If you stymy the fraud department, how can they help you? If the ID theft was serious enough, document your issue for future law enforcement so you getting pulled over for speeding doesn't result in you going to jail for whatever crime the other person did. Perhaps the fraud department you are dealing with can assist there. Finally, while you work with fraud departments to clear up your name and account, work on the other end to limit future damage. Freeze your credit. See if you bank or credit card have monitoring. Use CreditKarma.com or a similar if you cannot find a free service. (Please don't ever pay for credit monitoring.)",
"A true story, from a friend's company, one of the largest electronics company in the world. The company decided that if the difference is less than $25,000, then ignore it. And went on to fire many people in accounting. Six months later on, one old-timer found many many reports that show less than $25,000 difference. Do you understand what happened here?",
"\"You are probably going to hate my answer, but... If there was an easy way to ID stocks like FB that were going to do what FB did, then those stocks wouldn't exist and do that because they would be priced higher at the IPO. The fact is there is always some doubt, no one knows the future, and sometimes value only becomes clear with time. Everyone wants to buy a stock before it rises right? It will only be worth a rise if it makes more profit though, and once it is established as making more profit the price will be already up, because why wouldn't it be? That means to buy a real winner you have to buy before it is completely obvious to everyone that it is going to make more profit in the future, and that means stock prices trade at speculative prices, based on expected future performance, not current or past performance. Now I'm not saying past and future performance has nothing in common, but there is a reason that a thousand financially oriented websites quote a disclaimer like \"\"past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance\"\". Now maybe this is sort of obvious, but looking at your image, excluding things like market capital that you've not restricted, the PE ratio is based on CURRENT price and PAST earnings, the dividend yield is based on PAST publications of what the dividend will be and CURRENT price, the price to book is based on PAST publication of the company balance sheet and CURRENT price, the EPS is based on PAST earnings and the published number of shares, and the ROI and net profit margin in based on published PAST profits and earnings and costs and number of shares. So it must be understood that every criteria chosen is PAST data that analysts have been looking at for a lot longer than you have with a lot more additional information and experience with it. The only information that is even CURRENT is the price. Thus, my ultimate conclusive point is, you can't based your stock picks on criteria like this because it's based on past information and current stock price, and the current stock price is based on the markets opinion of relative future performance. The only way to make a good stock pick is understand the business, understand its market, and possibly understand world economics as it pertains to that market and business. You can use various criteria as an initial filter to find companies and investigate them, but which criteria you use is entirely your preference. You might invest only in profitable companies (ones that make money and probably pay regular dividends), thus excluding something like an oil exploration company, which will just lose money, and lose it, and lose some more, forever... unless it hits the jackpot, in which case you might suddenly find yourself sitting on a huge profit. It's a question of risk and preference. Regarding your concern for false data. Google defines the Return on investment (TTM) (%) as: Trailing twelve month Income after taxes divided by the average (Total Long-Term Debt + Long-Term Liabilities + Shareholders Equity), expressed as a percentage. If you really think they have it wrong you could contact them, but it's probably correct for whatever past data or last annual financial results it's based on.\"",
"The best source of financial statements would be from the company in question. On corporate websites of public listed companies, you can find such financial statements uploaded in the Investor's Relations section of their website. If their company does not have an online presence, another alternative would be to go to the website of the exchange the company is trading in (e.g. NYSE or NASDAQ) for financial data.",
"Sales are useless. Profit determines value. Others made good suggestions, but make sure you don't personally guarantee anthing. Understand your requirements to continue having the investor involved. Understand who has approval authority and decision making authority, ie are you a hired gun or the managing owner? Finally, probability of success is low, so do your homework, bust your ass, and understand when you will wall away (ie if you aren't profitable in 3 years, or below $500k in rev, etc)",
"The three places you want to focus on are the income statement, the balance sheet, and cash flow statement. The standard measure for multiple of income is the P/E or price earnings ratio For the balance sheet, the debt to equity or debt to capital (debt+equity) ratio. For cash generation, price to cash flow, or price to free cash flow. (The lower the better, all other things being equal, for all three ratios.)",
"First and foremost, I would warn about having to shell out your own money for start-up, inventory, or other sunk costs. If I have to significant amounts of goods and stockpile them, that would be a warning. Some goods-based MLM have significant start-up costs. Along with this - how realistic are your time expectations. Is this to be a part-time occasional endeavor - or your full-time occupation? Do you know enough people that you believe you can recruit, as it is the pyramid that makes you the money, not the goods themselves. Secondly, market research. Companies that I would consider real franchise-like companies generally either have, or demand you do, significant market research in an area before you start. They don't want the good name of their company tarnished by having a venue close down. MLM generally don't care as much (generalization). Similarly, are there others in the same neighborhood/town already in the scheme? If so, and depending on the size of your community, many of your potential target recruits may already either be in the scheme, or already scared/annoyed. Third, and last for my list are any kind of pressure tactics. Again - franchisee companies and their ilk generally want a long-term relationship with the right people - not just more and more people as part of the pyramid. MLM and the like tend to want expand at all costs.",
"Try to find the P/E ratio of the Company and then Multiply it with last E.P.S, this calculation gives the Fundamental Value of the share, anything higher than this Value is not acceptable and Vice versa.",
"Do a common size analysis to compare to its competitors. Also run a rqtio analysis to the industry. Explain the commonalities and differences as it pertains to the business. A lot of big banks publish research on public companies and where they're headed in terms of financials. They are usually published for a fee but you can sometimes find them for free online. It would be useful to talk about the current financial landscape like yellen, rate hikes etc if you wanna go there.",
"Firstly, call up the company and speak to them over the phone. The right questions must be asked as this will make great difference. Questions are important because you would be able to get every possible information, so that you take the right decision.",
"\"(I answered a similar question before.) Essentially, you shouldn't trust a site you find on the Internet merely because it looks professional and real. Before signing up with any new service provider you found online, you should verify the authenticity of both the organization itself and their web site address. Even if the name displayed by a web site represents a legitimate brokerage firm, any site you happen to come across on the Internet could be an elaborate spoof of a real company, intended to capture your personal details (or worse). First, to check if a brokerage firm is in fact registered to trade securities – in the United States – you can consult FINRA's BrokerCheck online service. This might be the first of many checks you should undertake ... after you convince yourself that FINRA is legitimate. A meta-problem ;-) Then, if you want to know if the web site address is authentic, one way is to contact that broker offline using the contact information found from a trusted source, such as the FINRA BrokerCheck details. Unfortunately, those details do not currently appear to contain the broker's web site URL. (Else, that could be useful.) Another thing to look at is the site's login or sign-up page, for a valid SSL certificate that is both issued to the correct legal name of the brokerage firm as well as has been signed by a well-known certificate authority (e.g. VeriSign). For a financial services firm of any kind, you should look for and expect to see an Extended Validation Certificate. Any other kind of certificate might only assert that the certificate was issued to the domain-name owner, and not necessarily to an organization with the registered legal name. (Yes, anybody can register a domain with a similar name and then acquire a basic SSL certificate for that domain.) FWIW, Scottrade and ShareBuilder are both legitimate brokers (I was aware already of each, but I also just checked in the FINRA tool), and the URLs currently linked to by the question are legitimate web site addresses for each. Also, you can see their EV certificates in action on secured pages here and here. As to whether your investments with those brokers would be \"\"safe\"\" in the event of the broker failing (e.g. goes bankrupt), you'll want to know that they are members of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (Wikipedia). (Of course, this kind of protection doesn't protect you if your investments simply go down in value.) But do your own due diligence – always.\"",
"I've never understood why the auditing procedure is privatized in the first-place. The conflicts of interest seem much too inevitable. Shouldn't the SEC or some other governing body perform the audits? If an accounting firm's bottom-line is profit and not objective analysis, how can we expect it to not to ignore things here and there if it is good for business?",
"If you do your homework on the front end, so can find reliable, quality suppliers. You can avoid scams and fraud. And you can then avoid the path of last resort, the Alibaba Fair Play Fund. And the Fair Play Fund is not a bad thing - it helps compensate users who have lost money - but avoiding it is critical.",
"Mostly we invest in companies to make money. The money can be paid to as in the form of dividends that are a share of the profit. Or the company can convince enough people that it will make a lot higher profit next year, so its stock prices increases. Clearly a company that reinvests its 20% profit from one shop to open an 2nd shop is doing well and is a good investment. But, But, But... we only have the companies word for it! A dividend paying company finds it a lot harder to hide bad news for long, as it will not have the money in the bank to pay the dividends.",
"for buying: High PE, low debt, discount = win. a company with high debt (in relation to revenues and cash on hand) will have to pay interest and pay off the debt, stunting their growth. and just like a normal person, will barely be able to pay their bills and keep borrowing and might go bankrupt determining discount is just looking for a technical retracement to a support level or lower. (but if you dont enter at the support level, you most likely missed the best entry)",
"On first glance it sounds to good to be true. From what I understand bridge loans are for people waiting on other loans. In this case I would presume a housing developer would take this loan if something were to go wrong and their first choice of funding went wrong. Not anything wrong with that in and of itself but the coupon is way, way too big not to draw attention. Examine the financial statements of the credit institutions and the companies they're giving credit to would be the only solution. The terms of the bond should be dictated by all information available, therefore if the return is this lucrative then there must be a large degree of risk associated with it.",
"\"Well, everyone knows that a lot of funds have a strict policy to own a market-cap based part of shares from all listed companies above a certain threshold. Now, if I would go and inflate my share price and market cap, they would be forced to buy in; you can argue that this is \"\"just exploiting a weakness of the market\"\", but for me that's simply fraud.\"",
"You can use the Securities Exchange Commission's EDGAR search engine to search all available SEC related filings. https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html Top tip: use the fast search on the right to search for the company ticker rather than by company name.",
"\"This is several questions wrapped together: How can I diplomatically see the company's financial information? How strong a claim does a stockholder or warrantholder have to see the company's financials? What information do I need to know about the company financials before deciding to buy in? I'll start with the easier second question (which is quasi implicit). Stockholders typically have inspection rights. For example, Delaware General Corporate Law § 220 gives stockholders the right to inspect and copy company financial information, subject to certain restrictions. Check the laws and corporate code of your company's state of incorporation to find the specific inspection right. If it is an LLC or partnership, then the operating agreement usually controls and there may be no inspection rights. If you have no corporate stock, then of course you have no statutory inspection rights. My (admittedly incomplete) understanding is that warrantholders generally have no inspection rights unless somehow contracted for. So if you vest as a corporate stockholder, it'll be your right to see the financials—which may make even a small purchase valuable to you as a continuing employee with the right to see the financials. Until then, this is probably a courtesy and not their obligation. The first question is not easy to answer, except to say that it's variable and highly personal for small companies. Some people interpret it as prying or accusatory, the implication being that the founders are either hiding something or that you need to examine really closely the mouth of their beautiful gift horse. Other people may be much cooler about the question, understanding that small companies are risky and you're being methodical. And in some smaller companies, they may believe giving you the expenses could make office life awkward. If you approach it professionally, directly, and briefly (do not over-explain yourself) with the responsible accountant or HR person (if any), then I imagine it should not be a problem for them to give some information. Conversely, you may feel comfortable enough to review a high-level summary sheet with a founder, or to find some other way of tactfully reviewing the right information. In any case, I would keep the request vague, simple, and direct, and see what information they show you. If your request is too specific, then you risk pushing them to show information A, which they refuse to do, but a vague request would've prompted them to show you information B. A too-specific request might get you information X when a vague request could have garnered XYZ. Vague requests are also less aggressive and may raise fewer objections. The third question is difficult to say. My personal understanding is some perspective of how venture capitalists look at the investment opportunity (you didn't say how new this startup is or what series/stage they are on, so I'll try to stay vague). The actual financials are less relevant for startups than they are for other investments because the situation will definitely change. Most venture capital firms like to look at the burn rate or amount of cash spent, usually at a monthly rate. A high burn rate relative to infusions of cash suggests the company is growing rapidly but may have a risk of toppling (i.e. failing before exit). Burn rate can change drastically during the early life of the startup. Of course burn rate needs the context of revenues and reserves (and latest valuation is helpful as a benchmark, but you may be able to calculate that from the restricted share offer made to you). High burn rate might not be bad, if the company is booming along towards a successful exit. You might also want to look at some sort of business plan or info sheet, rather than financials alone. You want to gauge the size of the market (most startups like to claim 9- or 10-figure markets, so even a few percentage points of market share will hit revenue into the 8-figures). You'll also have to have a sense for the business plan and model and whether it's a good investment or a ridiculous rehash (\"\"it's Twitter for dogs meets Match.com for Russian Orthodox singles!\"\"). In other words, appraise it like an investor or VC and figure out whether it's a prospect for decent return. Typical things like competition, customer acquisition costs, manufacturing costs are relevant depending on the type of business activity. Of course, I wouldn't ignore psychology (note that economists and finance people don't generally condone the following sort of emotional thinking). If you don't invest in the company and it goes big, you'll kick yourself. If it goes really big, other people will either assume you are rich or feel sad for you if you say you didn't get rich. If you invest but lose money, it may not be so painful as not investing and losing out the opportunity. So if you consider the emotional aspect of personal finance, it may be wise to invest at least a little, and hedge against \"\"woulda-shoulda\"\" syndrome. That's more like emotional advice than hard-nosed financial advice. So much of the answer really depends on your particular circumstances. Obviously you have other considerations like whether you can afford the investment, which will be on you to decide. And of course, the § 83(b) election is almost always recommended in these situations (which seems to be what you are saying) to convert ordinary income into capital gain. You may also need cash to pay any up-front taxes on the § 83(b) equity, depending on your circumstances.\"",
"lol- yeah, I know how banks work. My point is EVERY transaction should be recorded somewhere. Banks have both internal and external auditors who's only job it is to monitor the transactions to make sure everything adds up. It just doesn't make sense that the CEO of the company would have so little idea of what is going on. Shades of Enron to me.",
"I think in such situations a good rule of thumb may be - if you are asked to pay significant sums of money upfront before anything is done, stop and ask yourself, what would you do if they don't do what they promised? They know who you are, but usually most you know is a company name and phone number. Both can disappear in a minute and what are you left with? If they said they'd pay off the debt and issue the new loan - fine, let them do it and then you pay them. If they insist on having money upfront without delivering anything - unless it's a very big and known and established company you probably better off not doing it. Either it's a scam or in the minuscule chance they are legit you still risking too much - you're giving money and not getting anything in return.",
"If anyone could reliably pick winners, they could make more money by investing in those winners than by selling their advice. Generally, when someone sends you unsolicited hype about stocks, that's because they're trying to pump the price up so they can dump their own shares before it collapses again. Also note that, these days, it's remarkably easy to run the scam where you sell half your customers buy advice and the other half sell advice on the same stock. Each time, some of the customers drop out in disgust (half, minus whoever decides to give you another chance) and the rest pay you for the next iteration. You can make a lot of money before you run out of suckers. That, all by itself, is good reason to be skeptical about anyone who doesn't publish their full history so it can be audited for such shenanigans.",
"\"In general, if you think something even MIGHT be a scam, the answer is\"\"yes\"\".\"",
"In the case of an investment strategy, if you don't retain custodianship over your funds, or at least determine who is the custodian, then walk away. You should be able to get accurate account statements from a trustworthy third party at all times.",
"Promotion of any stock should be treated with extreme suspicion, since the purpose is generally to make money for the promoter, not to inform the public.",
"\"For this to work, those who control the dilution must also control their salaries because the only way for them to be paid off when it's the corporation itself selling is to gain access to the proceeds. When a corporation sells newly issued equity, the corporation itself owns the money. To at least have the appearance of propriety, the scammers must be paid those proceeds. Both actions imply that the board is captured by the scammers. There are many corporations that seem to do this even with persistently large market capitalizations. The key difference between this and pump-and-dump is that its a fraudulent group of investors selling in this case instead of the corporation itself. A detailed simple example Corporations are mandated by law to be little oligarchies; although, \"\"republic\"\" is now becoming more appropriate with all of the new shareholder rights. A corporation is controlled at root by the board of directors who are elected by the shareholders. The board has no direct operational control, as that is left to the \"\"king\"\", the CEO; however, the board does control what everyone wants access to: the money. Board members have all sorts of legal qualitative mandates on how to behave, and they've functioned fairly decently efficiently over the long run, but there are definitely some bad apples. Boards are somewhat intransigent since it's difficult to hold board elections, and usually only specific board members are put up for election by a shareholder vote, so a bad one has the potential to really get stuck in there. Once a bad one is in there, they don't care because they know it will be tough to get them out, so they run roughshod over the company's purse. Only the board can take action on major funding such as the CEO's operating budget, board compensation, financing, investment, etc, some with shareholder approval, some without. The corporation itself owns all of those assets, but the board controls them. In this example, they scheme with most likely the top executive, but a rubber stamp top executive could allow a lower rung to scheme with the board, but the board is always constant until the law is changed. Because there's no honor amongst thieves, the board votes which can require some combination of executive and shareholder approval are taken very close together: sell shares, increase salaries to key executive schemers, increase board compensation. The trusting shareholders believe this is in the best interests of the company at large so go along. So the money flows from existing & new shareholders to the corporation now controlled by a malicious board and then finally to the necessary malicious executive and the vital malicious board.\"",
"\"1. Most of the information you want can be found in the annual report of the company. Go to their official website, look for shareholders information and then download the annual report. This will answer: \"\"number of issued stock, voting rights, if there is more than one kind of stock, etc. In summary all the legal and formal details of a given stock. 2. After reading the annual report, check on investors websites to see if you can find analyst reports written on this company. You can sometimes find them in some free newsletters. These reports will complete the information you have found in the annual report like \"\"if the dividends are always paid, etc.\"\"\"",
"The only certain way is to have the issuer confirm it. You'd think there would be a better way, but no there isn't. I suggest you read this story about what can happen even if you are the innocent victim trying to cash a fraudulent Cashier's Check. The consequences included some jail time and huge attorney fees for this unlucky person.",
"It does raise the question of whether investment bank analysts are doing their job when advising clients on IPOs. Sadly, no one, and I literally mean not a single person, reads a registration statement in its entirety. That's why I find this criticism of the JOBS Act particularly stupid. The problem isn't that enough information isn't getting out, it's that too few investors and analysts actually do anything with it.",
"As an employee of one of these firms, us auditors are the bread and butter while consulting work is sexy and just the flavor of the week. And now that my personal rant is over, I definitely agree with the point of the article. But you must understand that any Channel 1 audit client will not be allowed to receive any consulting from the same firm. In fact, often times when fraud happens one of the Big 4 will hire another firm to investigate, just look at what's unfolding with MF Global."
] |
[
"\"Given that such activities are criminal and the people committing them have to hide them from the law, it's very unlikely that an investor could detect them, let alone one from a different country. The only things that can realistically help is to keep in mind the adage \"\"If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is\"\", and to stick to relatively large companies, since they have more auditing requirements and fraud is much harder to hide at scale (but not impossible, see Enron). Edit: and, of course, diversify. This kind of thing is rare, and not systematic, so diversification is a very good protection.\"",
"Most of the information we get about how a company is running its business, in any market, comes from the company. If the information is related to financial statements, it is checked by an external audit, and then provided to the public through official channels. All of these controls are meant to make it very unlikely for a firm to commit fraud or to cook its books. In that sense the controls are successful, very few firms provide fraudulent information to the public compared with the thousands of companies that list in stock markets around the world. Now, there is still a handful of firms that have committed fraud, and it is probable that a few firms are committing fraud right now. But, these companies go to great lengths to keep information about their fraud hidden from both the public and the authorities. All of these factors contribute to such frauds being black swan events to the outside observer. A black swan event is an event that is highly improbable, impossible to foresee with the information available before the event (it can only be analyzed in retrospect), and it has very large impact. The classification of an event as a black swan depends on your perspective. E.g. the Enron collapse was not as unexpected to the Enron executives as it was to its investors. You cannot foresee black swan events, but there are a few strategies that allow you to insure yourself against them. One such strategy is buying out of the money puts in the stocks where you have an investment, the idea being that in the event of a crash - due to fraud or whatever other reason - the profits in your puts would offset the loses on the stock. This strategy however suffers from time and loses a little money every day that the black swan doesn't show up, thanks to theta decay. So while it is not possible to detect fraud before investing, or at least not feasible with the resources and information available to the average investor, it is possible to obtain some degree of protection against it, at a cost. Whether that cost is too high or not, is the million dollar question.",
"Even without fraud, a company can get into serious trouble overnight, often through no fault of their own. That's part of the hazard of being part owner of a company -- which is what a share of stock is. As a minority owner not involved in actually running the business, there really isn't a lot you can do about that excep to play the odds and think about how that risk compares to the profit you're taking (which is one reason the current emphasis on stock price rather than dividends is considered a departure from traditional investing) and, as everyone else has said, avoid putting too much of your wealth in one place."
] |
10628
|
What happens with the “long” buyer of a stock when somebody else's short fails (that is, unlimited loss bankrupts short seller)
|
[
"588116"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"588116",
"434788",
"376136",
"45065",
"283982",
"487329",
"366484",
"80894",
"389501",
"384015",
"500534",
"176822",
"336018",
"354815",
"206342",
"293767",
"129454",
"374331",
"418336",
"148728",
"348735",
"519781",
"75965",
"254474",
"591694",
"251711",
"101343",
"350095",
"187568",
"523729",
"209359",
"520098",
"41468",
"532171",
"122050",
"33159",
"103147",
"84761",
"333674",
"53749",
"551463",
"553110",
"498056",
"163670",
"357583",
"210887",
"558921",
"511280",
"334473",
"476224",
"352588",
"255978",
"342972",
"295511",
"478833",
"103130",
"142110",
"228058",
"458546",
"3463",
"458907",
"315871",
"550879",
"520079",
"397325",
"280111",
"367928",
"316037",
"318750",
"501372",
"473776",
"10090",
"94690",
"8913",
"163290",
"444854",
"73723",
"240215",
"130651",
"35102",
"405206",
"357739",
"428786",
"224069",
"4854",
"166227",
"345368",
"369359",
"524254",
"313544",
"137898",
"47276",
"333496",
"63971",
"388571",
"217042",
"456183",
"349147",
"49794",
"281533"
] |
[
"Unless I am missing something subtle, nothing happens to the buyer. Suppose Alice wants to sell short 1000 shares of XYZ at $5. She borrows the shares from Bob and sells them to Charlie. Now Charlie actually owns the shares; they are in his account. If the stock later goes up to $10, Charlie is happy; he could sell the shares he now owns, and make a $5000 profit. Alice still has the $5000 she received from her short sale, and she owes 1000 shares to Bob. So she's effectively $5000 in debt. If Bob calls in the loan, she'll have to try to come up with another $5000 to buy 1000 shares at $10 on the open market. If she can't, well, that's between her and Bob. Maybe she goes bankrupt and Bob has to write off a loss. But none of this has any effect on Charlie! He got the shares he paid for, and nobody's going to take them away from him. He has no reason to care where they came from, or what sort of complicated transactions brought them into Alice's possession. She had them, and she sold them to him, and that's the end of the story as far as he's concerned.",
"Not really. The lender is not buying the stock back at a lower price. Remember, he already owns it, so he need not buy it again. The person losing is the one from whom the short seller buys back the stock, provided that person bought the stock at higher price. So if B borrowed from A(lender) and sold it to C, and later B purchased it back from C at a lower price, then B made profit, C made loss and A made nothing .",
"In the case of regulated, exchange-traded options, the writer of an options contract is obliged to maintain a margin with their broker, and the broker is obliged to maintain a margin with the clearing house. (Institutional writers of options will deal directly with the clearing house.) In the event that the writer is unable to make a daily margin call, the broker (or clearing house) may automatically close out (all of) their positions using existing margin held. If there was a shortfall, the broker (or clearing house) would be left to persue the client (writer) to make good on their obligations. None of this effects the position of the original buyer of the options contract. Effectively, the buyer's counterparty is their broker's clearing house account.",
"You would generally have to pay interest for everyday you hold the position overnight. If you never close the position and the stock price goes to zero, you will be closed out and credited with your profit. If you never close the position and the stock price keeps going up and up, your potential loss is an unlimited amount of money. Of course your broker may close you out early for a number of reasons, particularly if your loss goes above the amount of capital you have in your trading account.",
"\"He sold at 25 cents per pound and then as the price rises, the cash he has will buy less and less which could trigger a margin call as you are missing the \"\"short\"\" part of his position which is rather important here. From Investopedia: A margin account also allows your brokerage firm to liquidate your position if the likelihood that you will return what you've borrowed diminishes. This is part of the agreement that is signed when the margin account is created. From the broker's perspective, this increases the likelihood that you will return the shares before losses become too large and you become unable to return the shares. If you sold at 25 cents per pound and the price goes up, at some point you may be forced to buy to cover the position as brokers don't like to lose their money. As another example of a short going bad, \"\"Devastated\"\" Trader Crushed By Soaring Biotech, Starts Online Begging Campaign To Fund $106,000 Margin Call notes in part: However where this story gets abusrdly entertaining, or woefully tragic, depending on one's perspective, is that one trader, Joe Campbell, was on the wrong side of last night's massive surge. As the RutRho blog, which noticed it first explains, a \"\"dummy\"\" E-trader, Joe Campbell, decided to go $35,000 short KBIO \"\"and now owes $ETFC a wonderful $106K.\"\"\"",
"Well, if the short seller has to pay the dividend out of their pocket, what happens to the dividend the company paid out ?? Sounds like there are 2 divdends floating around, the short's, and the company's, but only 1 share of stock.",
"For every seller, there's a buyer. Buyers may have any reason for wanting to buy (bargain shopping, foolish belief in a crazy business, etc). The party (brokerage, market maker, individual) owning the stock at the time the company goes out of business is the loser . But in a general panic, not every company is going to go out of business. So the party owning those stocks can expect to recover some, or all, of the value at some point in the future. Brokerages all reserve the right to limit margin trading (required for short selling), and during a panic would likely not allow you to short a stock they feel is a high risk for them.",
"The broker would give you a margin call and get you to deposit more funds into your account. They wouldn't wait for the stock price to reach $30, but would take this action much earlier. More over it is very unrealistic for any stock to go up 275% over a few hours, and if the stock was this volatile the broker would be asking for a higher margin to start with. What I am really worried about is that if there were any situation like this you are not considering what you would do as part of your risk management strategy. Before writing the option you should already have an exit point at which you would buy back the option to limit your losses.",
"If the underlying is currently moving as aggressively as stated, the broker would immediately forcibly close positions to maintain margin. What securities are in fact closed depends upon the internal algorithms. If the equity in the account remains negative after closing all positions if necessary, the owner of the account shall owe the broker the balance. The broker will close the account and commence collections if the owner of the account does not pay the balance quickly. Sometimes, brokers will impose higher margin requirements than mandated to prevent the above eventuality. Brokers frequently close positions that violate internal or external margin requirements as soon as they are breached.",
"http://www.investopedia.com/university/shortselling/shortselling1.asp 'Therein lies the major risk of short selling, the fear of infinite losses. While the maximum loss for a long investor is the amount invested in a security, the maximum loss for a short seller is theoretically infinite, since there is no upper limit to a stock’s price appreciation. This risk is compounded by the fact that during a short squeeze or buy-in...' Never have shorted a stock. Too intimidated by that!",
"Yes, it can buy back the call, but much before stock hits the $30 mark. Let us say you got 1$ from selling the call. So the total money in your account is 4$ + 1 $ = 5 $. When stock hits 10$ (your strike), the maintenance margin is 5$. As soon as stock goes past 10, your maintenance margin is violated. So broker will buy back your call (at least IB does that, it does not wait for a margin call). Now if the stock gapped up from 8 to 30,then yes, broker will buy it back at 30, so your account will have a negative balance. Assume the call cost 20$ when stock hit 30, your balance is: 5 - (30-10) = -15. Depending on broker, I suppose they will ask you to bring your account balance back up to positive. If they don't do that, they risk going out of business.",
"2 things may happen. Either your positions are closed by the broker and the loss or profit is credited to your account. Else it is carried over to the next day and you pay interest on the stocks lent to you. What happens will be decided by the agreement signed between you and your broker.",
"\"Learn something new every day... I found this interesting and thought I'd throw my 2c in. Good description (I hope) from Short Selling: What is Short Selling First, let's describe what short selling means when you purchase shares of stock. In purchasing stocks, you buy a piece of ownership in the company. You buy/sell stock to gain/sell ownership of a company. When an investor goes long on an investment, it means that he or she has bought a stock believing its price will rise in the future. Conversely, when an investor goes short, he or she is anticipating a decrease in share price. Short selling is the selling of a stock that the seller doesn't own. More specifically, a short sale is the sale of a security that isn't owned by the seller, but that is promised to be delivered. Still with us? Here's the skinny: when you short sell a stock, your broker will lend it to you. The stock will come from the brokerage's own inventory, from another one of the firm's customers, or from another brokerage firm. The shares are sold and the proceeds are credited to your account. Sooner or later, you must \"\"close\"\" the short by buying back the same number of shares (called covering) and returning them to your broker. If the price drops, you can buy back the stock at the lower price and make a profit on the difference. If the price of the stock rises, you have to buy it back at the higher price, and you lose money. So what happened? The Plan The Reality Lesson I never understood what \"\"Shorting a stock\"\" meant until today. Seems a bit risky for my blood, but I would assume this is an extreme example of what can go wrong. This guy literally chose the wrong time to short a stock that was, in all visible aspects, on the decline. How often does a Large Company or Individual buy stock on the decline... and send that stock soaring? How often does a stock go up 100% in 24 hours? 600%? Another example is recently when Oprah bought 10% of Weight Watchers and caused the stock to soar %105 in 24 hours. You would have rued the day you shorted that stock - on that particular day - if you believed enough to \"\"gamble\"\" on it going down in price.\"",
"+1 to YosefWeiner. Let me add: Legally, technically, or at least theoretically, when you buy stock through a broker, you own the stock, not the broker. The broker is just holding it for you. If the broker goes bankrupt, that has nothing to do with the value of your stock. That said, if the broker fails to transfer your shares to another broker before ceasing operation, it could be difficult to get your assets. Suppose you take your shoes to a shoe repair shop. Before you can pick them up, the shop goes bankrupt. The shoes are still rightfully yours. If the shop owner was a nice guy he would have called you and told you to pick up your shoes before he closed the shop. But if he didn't, you may have to go through legal gyrations to get your shoes back. If as his business failed the shop owner quit caring and got sloppy about his records, you might have to prove that those shoes are yours and not someone else's, etc.",
"While the issuer of the security such as a stock or bond not the short is responsible for the credit risk, the issuer and the short of a derivative is one. In all cases, it is more than likely that a trader is owed securities by an agent such as a broker or exchange or clearinghouse. Legally, only the Options Clearing Corporation clears openly traded options. With stocks and bonds, brokerages can clear with each other if approved. While a trader is expected to fund margin, the legal responsibility is shared by all in the agent chain. Clearinghouses are liable to exchanges. Exchanges are liable to members. Traders are liable to brokerages. Both ways and so on. Clearinghouses are usually ultimately liable for counterparty risk to the long counterparty, and the short counterparty is ultimately liable to the clearinghouse. Clearinghouses are not responsible for the credit risk of stocks and bonds because the issuers are not short those securities on the exchange, thus no margin is required. Credit risk for stocks and bonds is mitigated away from the clearing process.",
"If the buyer exercises your option, you will have to give him the stock. If you already own the stock, the worst that can happen is you have to give him your stock, thus losing the money you spend to buy it. So the most you can lose is what you already spent to buy the stock (minus the price the buyer paid for your option). If you don't own the stock, you will have to buy it. But if the stock skyrockets in value, it will be very expensive to buy it. If for instance you buy the stock when it is worth $100, sell your covered call, and the next day the stock shoots to $1000, you will lose the $100 you got from the purchase of the stock. But if you had used a naked call, you would have to buy the stock at $1000, and you would lose $900. Since there is no limit to how high the stock can go, there is no limit to how much money you may lose.",
"There is no margin call. Inverse ETFs use derivatives that would lose value in the case you describe though this doesn't force a margin call as you may be misunderstanding how these funds are constructed.",
"\"By their agreements with the central counterparty - in the US, the exchange or the Options Clearing Corporation, which interposes itself between the counterparties of each trade and guarantees that they settle. From the CCP article: A clearing house stands between two clearing firms (also known as member firms or participants). Its purpose is to reduce the risk a member firm failing to honor its trade settlement obligations. A CCP reduces the settlement risks by netting offsetting transactions between multiple counterparties, by requiring collateral deposits (also called \"\"margin deposits\"\"), by providing independent valuation of trades and collateral, by monitoring the credit worthiness of the member firms, and in many cases, by providing a guarantee fund that can be used to cover losses that exceed a defaulting member's collateral on deposit. Exercisers on most contracts are matched against random writers during the assignment process, and if the writer doesn't deliver/buy the stock, the OCC does so using its funds and goes after the defaulting party.\"",
"Not sure if I follow your question completely. Re: What if some fraud takes place that's too big even for it to fund? SIPC does not fund anything. What it does is takes over the troubled brokerage firm, books / assets and returns the money faster. Refer to SIPC - What SIPC Covers... What it Does Not and more specifically SIPC - Why We Are Not the FDIC. SIPC is free for ordinary investors. To get the same from elsewhere one has to pay the premium. Edit: The event we are saying is a large brokrage firm, takes all of the Margin Money from Customer Accounts and loses it and also sell off all the stocks actually shown as being held in customer account ... that would be to big. While its not clear as to what exactly will happens, my guess is that the limits per customers will go down as initial payments. Subsequent payments will only be done after recover of funds from the bankrupt firm. What normally happens when a brokrage firm goes down is some of the money from customers account is diverted ... stocks are typically safe and not diverted. Hence the way SIPC works is that it will give the money back to customer faster to individuals. In absence of SIPC individual investors would have had to fight for themselves.",
"\"Assuming these are standardized and regulated contracts, the short answer is yes. In your example, Trader A is short while Trader B is long. If Trader B wants to exit his long position, he merely enters a \"\"sell to close\"\" order with his broker. Trader B never goes short as you state. He was long while he held the contract, then he \"\"sold to close\"\". As to who finds the buyer of Trader B's contract, I believe that would be the exchange or a market maker. Therefore, Trader C ends up the counterparty to Trader A's short position after buying from Trader B. Assuming the contract is held until expiration, Trader A is responsible for delivering contracted product to Trader C for contracted price. In reality this is generally settled up in cash, and Trader A and Trader C never even know each other's identity.\"",
"The answer depends on whether the company involved has 'limited liability'. Most, but not all public and listed companies and corporations have this, but not all so it is worth checking and understanding what you are getting involved with. The expression 'limited liability' means that the owners (shareholders) of a company have a liability up to the amount of the face value of the shares they hold which they have not yet paid for. The difference is usually minor but basically it means that if you buy $10 of shares you have no liability, but if the company gives you $10 of shares, and you pay them (in cash or kind) $5, then you still have a liability of $5. If the company fails, the debtors can come after you for that liability. An 'unlimited liability' company is a different animal altogether. Lloyds insurance is probably the most famous example. Lloyds worked by putting together consortiums to underwrite risk. If the risk doesn't happen, the consortium keeps the premiums, if it does, they cover the loss. Most of the time they are very profitable but not always. For example, the consortiums which covered asbestos caused the bankruptcies of a great many very wealthy people.",
"\"When the buyout happens, the $30 strike is worth $10, as it's in the money, you get $10 ($1000 per contract). Yes, the $40 strike is pretty worthless, it actually dropped in value today. Some deals are worded as an offer or intention, so a new offer can come in. This appears to be a done deal. From Chapter 8 of CHARACTERISTICS AND RISKS OF STANDARDIZED OPTIONS - FEB 1994 with supplemental updates 1997 through 2012; \"\"In certain unusual circumstances, it might not be possible for uncovered call writers of physical delivery stock and stock index options to obtain the underlying equity securities in order to meet their settlement obligations following exercise. This could happen, for example, in the event of a successful tender offer for all or substantially all of the outstanding shares of an underlying security or if trading in an underlying security were enjoined or suspended. In situations of that type, OCC may impose special exercise settlement procedures. These special procedures, applicable only to calls and only when an assigned writer is unable to obtain the underlying security, may involve the suspension of the settlement obligations of the holder and writer and/or the fixing of cash settlement prices in lieu of delivery of the underlying security. In such circumstances, OCC might also prohibit the exercise of puts by holders who would be unable to deliver the underlying security on the exercise settlement date. When special exercise settlement procedures are imposed, OCC will announce to its Clearing Members how settlements are to be handled. Investors may obtain that information from their brokerage firms.\"\" I believe this confirms my observation. Happy to discuss if a reader feels otherwise.\"",
"@MichaelBorgwardt gave an excellent answer. Let me add a little analogy here that might help. Suppose you bought a car from Joe's Auto Sales. You pay your money, do all the paperwork, and drive your car home. The next day Joe's goes bankrupt. What affect does that have on your ownership rights to your car? The answer is, Absolutely none. Same thing with stocks and a stock exchange. A stock exchange is basically just a store where you can buy stock. Once you buy it, it's yours. That said, there could potentially be a problem with record keeping. If you bought a car from Joe's Auto Sales, and Joe went out of business before sending the registration paperwork to the state, you might find that the state has no record that you legally own the car and you could have difficulty proving it. Likewise if a stock exchange went out of business without getting all their records properly updated, their might be an issue. Actually I think the bigger concern here for most folks would be their broker and not the stock exchange, as your broker is the one who keeps the records of what stocks you own long term. In practice, though, most companies are responsible enough to clean up their paperwork properly when they go out of business, and if they don't, a successor company or government regulators or someone will try to clean it all up.",
"\"I think the question, as worded, has some incorrect assumptions built into it, but let me try to hit the key answers that I think might help: Your broker can't really do anything here. Your broker doesn't own the calls you sold, and can't elect to exercise someone else's calls. Your broker can take action to liquidate positions when you are in margin calls, but the scenario you describe wouldn't generate them: If you are long stock, and short calls, the calls are covered, and have no margin requirement. The stock is the only collateral you need, and you can have the position on in a cash (non-margin) account. So, assuming you haven't bought other things on margin that have gone south and are generating calls, your broker has no right to do anything to you. If you're wondering about the \"\"other guy\"\", meaning the person who is long the calls that you are short, they are the one who can impact you, by exercising their right to buy the stock from you. In that scenario, you make $21, your maximum possible return (since you bought the stock at $100, collected $1 premium, and sold it for $120. But they usually won't do that before expiration, and they pretty definitely won't here. The reason they usually won't is that most options trade above their intrinsic value (the amount that they're in the money). In your example, the options aren't in the money at all. The stock is trading at 120, and the option gives the owner the right to buy at 120.* Put another way, exercising the option lets the owner buy the stock for the exact same price anyone with no options can in the market. So, if the call has any value whatsoever, exercising it is irrational; the owner would be better off selling the call and buying the stock in the market.\"",
"\"The correct answer to this question is: the person who the short sells the stock to. Here's why this is the case. Say we have A, who owns the stock and lends it to B, who then sells it short to C. After this the price drops and B buys the stock back from D and returns it to A. The outcome for A is neutral. Typically stock that is sold short must be held in a margin account; the broker can borrow the shares from A, collect interest from B, and A has no idea this is going on, because the shares are held in a street name (the brokerage's name) and not A. If A decides during this period to sell, the transaction will occur immediately, and the brokerage must shuffle things around so the shares can be delivered. If this is going to be difficult then the cost for borrowing shares becomes very high. The outcome for B is obviously a profit: they sold high first and bought (back) low afterwards. This leaves either C or D as having lost this money. Why isn't it D? One way of looking at this is that the profit to B comes from the difference in the price from selling to C and buying from D. D is sitting on the low end, and thus is not paying out the profit. D bought low, compared to C and this did not lose any money, so C is the only remaining choice. Another way of looking at it is that C actually \"\"lost\"\" all the money when purchasing the stock. After all, all the money went directly from C to B. In return, C got some stock with the hope that in the future C could sell it for more than was paid for it. But C literally gave the money to B, so how could anybody else \"\"pay\"\" the loss? Another way of looking at it is that C buys a stock which then decreases in value. C is thus now sitting on a loss. The fact that it is currently only a paper loss makes this less obvious; if the stock were to recover to the price C bought at, one might conclude that C did not lose the money to B. However, in this same scenario, D also makes money that C could have made had C bought at D's price, proving that C really did lose the money to B. The final way of seeing that the answer is C is to consider what happens when somebody sells a stock which they already hold but the price goes up; who did they lose out on the gain to? The person again is; who bought their stock. The person would buys the stock is always the person who the gain goes to when the price appreciates, or the loss comes out of if the price falls.\"",
"For the lenders to sell their positions they need buyers on the other side. For a large brokerage that means they should always be able to find another lender. For many contracts the client may have no idea they are a lender as lending is part of their agreement with the broker",
"\"If you don't use leverage you can't lose more than you invested because you \"\"play\"\" with your own money. But even with leverage when you reach a certain limit (maintenance margin) you will receive a margin call from your broker to add more funds to your account. If you don't comply with this (meaning you don't add funds) the broker will liquidate some of the assets (in this case the currency) and it will restore the balance of the account to meet with his/her maintenance margin. At least, this is valid for assets like stocks and derivatives. Hope it helps! Edit: I should mention that\"",
"\"What will happen if the stock price just continues to decline? Nothing. What would happen if folks just stop trading it? Nothing. What if the company goes private? Then they will have to buy you out based on some agreed upon price, as voted by the board and (potentially) approved by the shareholders. Depending on the corporation charter, the board may not be required to seek the shareholders' approval, but if the price the board agreed upon is unreasonable you can sue and prevent the transaction. How do they decide the fair value of the outstanding stocks? Through a process called \"\"valuation\"\", there are accounting firms which specialize in this area of public accounting.\"",
"Nobody is going to short sell stocks through a lender that forces people to buy in as soon as it is getting good for them.",
"But by closing the short position the broker would still be purchasing shares from the market no? Or at least, someone would be purchasing the shares to close the short position. So, why doesn't the broker just let Client A keep their short position open and buy shares in the market so that Client B can sell them...I know it sounds a bit ridic, but not much more so to me than letting Client A borrow the shares to begin with!",
"When you short a stock, you can lose an unlimited amount of money if the trade goes against you. If the shorted stock gaps up overnight you can lose more money than you have in your account. The best case is you make 100% if the stock goes to zero. And then you have margin fees on top of that. With long positions, it's the other way around. Your max loss is 100% and your gains are potentially unlimited.",
"\"A derivative contract can be an option, and you can take a short (sell) position , much the same way you would in a stock. When BUYING options you risk only the money you put in. However when selling naked(you don't have the securities or cash to cover all potential losses) options, you are borrowing. Brokers force you to maintain a required amount of cash called, a maintenance requirement. When selling naked calls - theoretically you are able to lose an INFINITE amount of money, so in order to sell this type of options you have to maintain a certain level of cash in your account. If you fail to maintain this level you will enter into whats often referred to as a \"\"margin-call\"\". And yes they will call your phone and tell you :). Your broker has the right to liquidate your positions in order to meet requirements. PS: From experience my broker has never liquidated any of my holdings, but then again I've never been in a margin call for longer then a few days and never with a severe amount. The margin requirement for investors is regulated and brokers follow these regulations.\"",
"The obvious thing would happen. 10 shares change owner at the price of $100. A partially still open selling order would remain. Market orders without limits means to buy or sell at the best possible or current price. However, this is not very realistic. Usually there is a spread between the bid and the ask price and the reason is that market makers are acting in between. They would immediately exploit this situation, for example, by placing appropriately limited orders. Orders without limits are not advisable for stocks with low trading activity. Would you buy or sell stuff without caring for the price?",
"\"An important thing that many people fail to realize is that the number of shares outstanding in a stock, times the current market price of those shares, does not represent anything related to the total value of those shares. If a company has one million shares outstanding and its total value is $10 million, then the real worth of each share is $10. If few people feels like buying or selling, but a few people think the company is worth $50 million and offer $50/share, that could raise the market price to $50/share, but it wouldn't mean that the company became worth five times as much; it would merely mean the stock was overpriced. If, after the price went to $50/share, all the owners of the stock put in stop-loss orders at $45. Note that the real $10/share \"\"real value\"\" of their stock would never have changed. If the people who thought the stock was worth $50 decided to get out of the market, and nobody else was willing to offer more than $10, that would instantly drop the price to $10. The fact that a million shares of stock have stop-loss orders at $45 wouldn't magically generate buyers for those stocks at that price. Indeed, unchecked stop-loss orders would have the reverse effect, since many people who would have been willing if not eager to buy the stock if it had been available for less than $10/share would instead be trying to sell it below that price. It's too bad people think that the number of shares outstanding times the current market price represents some kind of \"\"meaningful quantity\"\". If the present cash value of all future payouts associated with a share of stock is $10, then someone who buys a share of stock for less than that makes money off the seller; someone who pays more loses money to the seller. Many people think they can lose money to the seller and still come out okay if the price goes higher, but what that really means is that they're hoping to find a bigger sucker--a game where it's guaranteed that some people will have losses they don't recoup.\"",
"In this example, Client A has to buy shares to return them to Client B for his sale (closing Client A's short position). Client B then sells the shares. The end result is there are no shares within the brokerage clientele anymore, so Client A can't borrow them anymore. The broker is just an intermediary, they wouldn't go out and acquire securities on their own for the benefit of a client wanting to short it, as they would be taking on the risk of the opposite position. This would be in addition to the risk they already take on when allowing people to short sell -- which is that Client A won't have the money to buy the shares it owes to Client B, in which case the broker has to make Client B whole.",
"From Wikipedia: If a company with limited liability is sued, then the claimants are suing the company, not its owners or investors. A shareholder in a limited company is not personally liable for any of the debts of the company, other than for the value of their investment in that company. Summarized, no, if you buy stock from the regular stock market like NYSE, you're not personally liable for any debt or fraud that happens.",
"The original option writer (seller) can close his short position in the contracts he wrote by purchasing back matching contracts (i.e. contracts with the same terms: underlying, option type, strike price, expiration date) from any others who hold long positions, or else who write new matching contract instances. Rather than buyer and seller settling directly, options are settled through a central options clearing house, being the Options Clearing Corporation for exchange-listed options in the U.S. See also Wikipedia - Clearing house (finance). So, the original buyer of the put maintains his position (insurance) and the clearing process ensures he is matched up with somebody else holding a matching obligation, if he chooses to exercise his put. I also answered a similar question but in more detail, here.",
"When you set up a short sale for equities you are borrowing stock from someone else; typically another client at the broker. The broker usually buries an agreement to let your shares be borrowed for short sales in your account details. So if Client A wants to short a stock, he borrows stock from Client B to do the short sale (it's usually not this direct as they can borrow from many clients). If Client B then wants to sell his shares; if the broker can't shift around assets to find another client's shares to let Client A borrow; then he has to close the short position out because he doesn't have the shares in the brokerage to let Client A borrow to short anymore.",
"Different brokerages have different house rules for margin requirements and margin calls. You will likely get a margin call giving you a small amount of time to deposit the required funds to bring your account balance up to the required margin requirements. In reality, a stock that falls from $50 to $4 in a short period will probably become unmarginable. In short, yes, you will owe the broker for the loss.",
"As mentioned in the comments: According to the message from the exchange all trades at or below $5.86 that were executed in NASDAQ between 09:38:00 and 09:46:00 ET got canceled. If the short doesn't fall into those criteria but the long does, though luck the long is invalid, the short is valid. Traders that got the short end of the stick in the end, should contact their brokers and inquire about this situation. Depending on the terms of the broker the short might get canceled as well. If not, then it's up to the market. The trader can keep or close the short. IMO, what the person in question should have done is hold on to the trade and see what happens at the end of the trading day. He should've realized something was wrong when the price went from 8.xx to 0.8x.",
"The options market requires much more attention to avoid the situation you're describing. An overnight $10 ask will remain on the books most likely as Good-Til-Canceled. The first to bid the low order gets it. If traders are paying attention, which they probably are then they will bid at $10. If not, they will bid immediately at $20. If they crossed the order, it would be filled at their higher than $10 bid. This is all governed by the exchange where the ask is posted, and most implement price-time priority.",
"\"There are situations where you can be forced to cover a position, particular when \"\"Reg SHO\"\" (\"\"regulation sho\"\") is activated. Reg SHO is intended to make naked short sellers cover their position, it is to prevent abusive failure to delivers, where someone goes short without borrowing someone else's shares. Naked shorting isn't a violation of federal securities laws but it becomes an accounting problem when multiple people have claims to the same underlying assets. (I've seen companies that had 120% of their shares sold short, too funny, FWIW the market was correct as the company was worth nothing.) You can be naked short without knowing it. So there can be times when you will be forced to cover. Other people being forced to cover can result in a short squeeze. A risk. The other downside is that you have to pay interest on your borrowings. You also have to pay the dividends to the owner of the shares, if applicable. In shorter time frames these are negligible, but in longer time frames, such as closer to a year or longer, these really add up. Let alone the costs of the market going in the opposite direction, and the commissions.\"",
"Unlike the stock market which offers growth long term, the derivatives market is a zero sum game. This phrase is how one describes a poker game. 7 people walk in, and walk out with the same total amount of money (note, the 7th guy is the 'house', and with nothing at risk, he gets his cut). No money is created, the total value doesn't change. When I buy or sell an option, there is someone on the other side of that trade with a gain or loss equal and opposite to my position. At option expiration, or a repurchase that closes an open contract, the whole series of trades resulted in no net gain of wealth. The huge losses were spread among the banks, the investors, the insurance companies, and the government. By government, I mean the taxpayer. You paid your share, my friend, as did I. Welcome to Money.SE. Get to 150 rep, and vote in the election.",
"\"Long here does not mean you wish for the underlying stock to increase in value, in fact, as the chart shows, just the opposite is true. \"\"Long means you bought the derivative, and you own the option. The guy that sold it to you is at your mercy, he is short the put, and it's your decision to put the stock to him should it fall in value. The value of the put itself rises with the falling stock price, you are long the put and want the put, itself, to rise in value.\"",
"Short-term, the game is supply/demand and how the various participants react to it at various prices. On longer term, prices start to better reflect the fundamentals. Within something like week to some month or two, if there has not been any unique value affecting news, then interest, options, market maker(s), swing traders and such play bigger part. With intraday, the effects of available liquidity become very pronounced. The market makers have algos that try to guess what type of client they have and they prefer to give high price to large buyer and low price to small buyer. As intraday trader has spreads and commissions big part of their expenses and leverage magnifies those, instead of being able to take advantage of the lower prices, they prefer to stop out after small move against them. In practise this means that when they buy low, that low will soon be the midpoint of the day and tomorrows high etc if they are still holding on. Buy and sell are similar to long call or long put options position. And options are like insurance, they cost you. Also the longer the position is held the more likely it is to end up with someone with ability to test your margin if you're highly leveraged and constantly making your wins from the same source. Risk management is also issue. The leveraged pros trade through a company. Not sure if they're able to open another such company and still open accounts after the inevitable.",
"If the price had dropped to $4 from $50, and you had $5000 to start with on your account, you will be left with $400 in your account if you closed the position now. So you would not be in debt if this was the only possition you had open.",
"Answers here are correct but I'll offer an extremely (overly) simple explanation that should help you in understanding the more detailed answers. When most people own stock they do so through a broker. Unless you jump through some hoops, the broker keeps the shares in the name of the brokerage. This is called holding the stock in street name. When you sell short through a brokerage, the broker is letting you borrow a certain number of shares owned by someone else and sell them for cash now. At some point, you need to repay this loan with the same number of shares you borrowed. Ideally, you want the stock to drop to $0. The reason you might be forced to purchase the stock is that the actual owner(s) of the stock want to sell. If the broker has too many people wanting to sell, you will need to repay some of all of the loan (in shares) i.e. purchasing shares at the current market price.",
"One thing no one else has touched on is the issue of time frame. If I'm looking to hold my shares over the next few years, I don't mind riding out a few short-term bumps, while the short-seller is looking to make a quick profit on some bad news. Sure, I could sell and rebuy, but that's a lot of hassle, not to mention commissions and tax issues.",
"You can buy a put and exercise it. The ideal option in this case will have little time premium left and very near the money. Who lent you the shares? The person that sold you the option! In reality, when you exercise, assignment can be random, but everything is [supposedly] accounted for as the option seller had to put up margin collateral to sell the option.",
"The market maker will always take it off your hands. Just enter a market sell order. It will cost you a commission to pull the loss into this year. But that's it.",
"You're assuming options traded on the open market. To close open positions, a seller buys them back on the open market. If there's little on offer, this will drive the price up.",
"Short sellers have to pay interest on the borrowings to the shareholders. Although many times brokers don't pass on these earnings to the shareholders, this is the exchange.",
"You can D/K a trade if it is not confirmed in a timely manner. Also, UBS chose not to sell on the first day they waited hoping and got burned. So that first day loss argument doesn't stand here, it can't due to a technical error. My post states that it had to be a large holding for some time.",
"When you buy a stock, the worst case scenario is that it drops to 0. Therefore, the most you can lose when buying a stock is 100% of your investment. When you short a stock, however, there's no limit on how high the stock can go. If you short a stock at 10, and it goes up to 30, then you've lost 200% on your investment. Therefore shorting stocks is riskier than buying stocks, since you can lose more than 100% of your investment when shorting. because the price might go up, but it will never be as big of a change as a regular price drop i suppose... That is not true. Stocks can sometimes go up significantly (50-100% or more) in a very short amount of time on a positive news release (such as an earnings or a buyout announcement). A famous example occurred in 2008, when Volkswagen stock quintupled (went up 400%) in less than 2 days on some corporate news: Porsche, for some reason, wants to control Volkswagen, and by building up its stake has driven up the price. Hedge funds, figuring the share price would fall as soon as Porsche got control and stopped buying, sold a lot of VW shares short. Then last weekend, Porsche disclosed that it owned 42.6 percent of the stock and had acquired options for another 31.5 percent. It said it wanted to go to 75 percent. The result: instant short-squeeze. The German state of Lower Saxony owns a 20 percent stake in VW, which it said it would not sell. That left precious few shares available for anyone else. The shorts scrambled to cover, and the price leaped from about €200, or about $265, to above €1,000.",
"Doesnt mean that equity or even debt holders wouldn't lose their investment. Those money and banking texts are presently useless post GFC given the incredible moral hazard and how all of the traditional bankruptcy rules were ignored.",
"Your question has 6 questions marks along with comments on what you'd like to know. Yes, there are stocks that are tough to short, a combination of low float, high current short positions, etc. Interest charged on the position rises in a supply/demand fashion. To unwind the position, there's always going to be stock available to buy. A shortage of willing sellers will cause the price to go up, but you'll see a bid/ask and the market will clear, i.e. The buy order fills.",
"\"He didn't sell in the \"\"normal\"\" way that most people think of when they hear the term \"\"sell.\"\" He engaged in a (perfectly legitimate) technique known as short selling, in which he borrows shares from his broker and sells them immediately. He's betting that the price of the stock will drop so he can buy them back at a lower price to return the borrowed shares back to his broker. He gets to pocket the difference. He had about $37,000 of cash in his account. Since he borrowed ~8400 shares and sold them immediately at $2/share, he got $16,800 in cash and owed his broker 8400 shares. So, his net purchasing power at the time of the short sale was $37,000 + $16,800 - 4800 shares * $2/share. As the price of the stock changes, his purchasing power will change according to this equation. He's allowed to continue to borrow these 8400 shares as long as his purchasing power remains above 0. That is, the broker requires him to have enough cash on hand to buy back all of his borrowed shares at any given moment. If his purchasing power ever goes negative, he'll be subject to a margin call: the broker will make him either deposit cash into his account or close his positions (sell long positions or buy back short positions) until it's positive again. The stock jumped up to $13.85 the next morning before the market opened (during \"\"before-hours\"\" trading). His purchasing power at that time was $37,000 + $16,800 - 8400 shares * $13.85/share = -$62,540. Since his purchasing power was negative, he was subject to a margin call. By the time he got out, he had to pay $17.50/share to buy back the 8400 shares that he borrowed, making his purchasing power -$101,600. This $101,600 was money that he borrowed from his broker to buy back the shares to fulfill his margin call. His huge loss was from borrowing shares from his broker. Note that his maximum potential loss is unlimited, since there is no limit to how much a stock can grow. Evidently, he failed to grasp the most important concept of short selling, which is that he's borrowing stock from his broker and he's obligated to give that stock back whenever his broker wants, no matter what it costs him to fulfill that obligation.\"",
"\"In addition to JoeTaxpayer's answer there are articles that describe the writing of options as \"\"being the casino\"\". When you write, or sell to open an option, you are selling one of the most desirable things in the world to sell: a depreciating asset. Writing options are not without risk, but they can be a very conservative strategy. Who wins these massive losses? Sometimes run of the mill investors, myself being one of them.\"",
"If the share is listed on a stock exchange that creates liquidity and orderly sales with specialist market makers, such as the NYSE, there will always be a counterparty to trade with, though they will let the price rise or fall to meet other open interest. On other exchanges, or in closely held or private equity scenarios, this is not necessarily the case (NASDAQ has market maker firms that maintain the bid-ask spread and can do the same thing with their own inventory as the specialists, but are not required to by the brokerage rules as the NYSE brokers are). The NYSE has listing requirements of at least 1.1 million shares, so there will not be a case with only 100 shares on this exchange.",
"You seem to think that stock exchanges are much more than they actually are. But it's right there in the name: stock exchange. It's a place where people exchange (i.e. trade) stocks, no more and no less. All it does is enable the trading (and thereby price finding). Supposedly they went into mysterious bankruptcy then what will happen to the listed companies Absolutely nothing. They may have to use a different exchange if they're planning an IPO or stock buyback, that's all. and to the shareholder's stock who invested in companies that were listed in these markets ? Absolutley nothing. It still belongs to them. Trades that were in progress at the moment the exchange went down might be problematic, but usually the shutdown would happen in a manner that takes care of it, and ultimately the trade either went through or it didn't (and you still have the money). It might take some time to establish this. Let's suppose I am an investor and I bought stocks from a listed company in NYSE and NYSE went into bankruptcy, even though NYSE is a unique business, meaning it doesn't have to do anything with that firm which I invested in. How would I know the stock price of that firm Look at a different stock exchange. There are dozens even within the USA, hundreds internationally. and will I lose my purchased stocks ? Of course not, they will still be listed as yours at your broker. In general, what will happen after that ? People will use different stock exchanges, and some of them migth get overloaded from the additional volume. Expect some inconveniences but no huge problems.",
"\"If you can't find anyone to lend you the shares, then you can't short. You can attempt to raise the interest rate at which you will borrow at, in order to entice others to lend you their shares. In practice, broadcasting this information is pretty convoluted. If there aren't any stocks for you to buy back, then you have to buy back at a higher price. As in, place a limit buy order higher and higher until someone decides to sell to you. This affects your profit. Regarding the public ledger: This functions different in different markets. United States stock markets have an evolving body of regulations to alleviate the exact concerns you detailed, but Canada's or Dubai's stock markets would have different provisions. You make the assumption that it is an efficient process, but it is not and it is indeed ripe for abuse. In US stocks, the public ledger has a 3 business day delay between showing change of ownership. Many times brokers and clearing firms and other market participants allow a customer to go short with fake shares, with the idea that they will find real shares within the 3 business day time period to cover the position. During the time period that there is no real shares hitting the market, this is called a \"\"naked short\"\". The only legal system that attempts to deter this practice is the \"\"fail to deliver\"\" (FTD) list. If someone fails to deliver, that means there is a short position active with fake shares for which no real shares have been borrowed against. Too many FTD's allow for a short selling restriction to be placed, meaning nobody else can be short, and existing short sellers may be forced to cover.\"",
"TD will only sell the stock for you if there's a buyer. There was a buyer, for at least one transaction of at least one stock at 96.66. But who said there were more? Obviously, the stocks later fell, i.e.: there were not that many buyers as there were sellers. What I'm saying is that once the stock passed/reached the limit, the order becomes an active order. But it doesn't become the only active order. It is added to the list, and to the bottom of that list. Obviously, in this case, there were not enough buyers to go through the whole list and get to your order, and since it was a limit order - it would only execute with the limit price you put. Once the price went down you got out of luck. That said, there could of course be a possibility of a system failure. But given the story of the market behavior - it just looks like you miscalculated and lost on a bet.",
"There would be small generic risk that the company stock goes down real fast by more than 15% in a specific event to the company [fraud, segment company operates suffers a shock, etc] or a generic event to the stock market like recent events of Greece etc.",
"according to the Options Industry council ( http://www.optionseducation.org/tools/faq/splits_mergers_spinoffs_bankruptcies.html ) put options the shares (and therefore the options) may continue trading OTC but if the shares completely stop trading then: if the courts cancel the shares, whereby common shareholders receive nothing, calls will become worthless and an investor who exercises a put would receive 100 times the strike price and deliver nothing. The reason for this is that it is not the company whose shares you have the option on that you have a contract with but the counterparty who wrote the option. If the counterparty goes bankrupt then you may not get paid out (depending on assets available at liquidation - this is counterparty risk) but, unless the two are the same, if the company whose shares you have a put option on declares bankruptcy then you will get paid",
"\"To summarize, there are three basic ways: (3) is the truly dangerous one. If there is a lot of short interest in a stock, but for some reason the stock goes up, suddenly a lot of people will be scrambling to buy that stock to cover their short position -- which will drive the price up even further, making the problem worse. Pretty soon, a bunch of smart rich guys will be poor guys who are suddenly very aware that they aren't as smart as they thought they were. Eight years ago, such a \"\"short squeeze\"\", as it's called, made the price of VW quadruple in two days. You could hear the Heinies howl from Hamburg to Haldenwanger. There are ways to protect yourself, of course. You can go short but also buy a call at a much higher price, thereby limiting your exposure, a strategy called a \"\"straddle\"\", but you also reduce your profit if you guessed right. It comes down to, as it always does, do you want to eat well, or to sleep well?\"",
"\"No. If the share price drops to $0, it's likely that the company is in bankruptcy. Usually, debt holders (especially holders of senior debt) are paid first, and you're entitled to whatever the bankruptcy proceedings decide to give holders of equity after the debt holders are paid off. More often than not, equity holders probably won't get much. To give an example, corporate bankruptcy usually involves one of two options: liquidation or reorganization. In the US, these are called Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 bankruptcy, respectively. Canada and the United Kingdom also have similar procedures for corporations, although in the UK, reorganization is often referred to as administration. Many countries have similar procedures in place. I'll use the US as an example because it's what I'm most familiar with. In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the company is liquidated to pay its debts. Investopedia's article about bankruptcy states: During Chapter 7 bankruptcy, investors are considered especially low on the ladder. Usually, the stock of a company undergoing Chapter 7 proceedings is usually worthless, and investors lose the money they invested. If you hold a bond, you might receive a fraction of its face value. What you receive depends on the amount of assets available for distribution and where your investment ranks on the priority list on the first page. In Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the company is turned over to a trustee that guides it through a reorganization. The Investopedia article quotes the SEC to describe what happens to stockholders when this happens: \"\"During Chapter 11 bankruptcy, bondholders stop receiving interest and principal payments, and stockholders stop receiving dividends. If you are a bondholder, you may receive new stock in exchange for your bonds, new bonds or a combination of stock and bonds. If you are a stockholder, the trustee may ask you to send back your stock in exchange for shares in the reorganized company. The new shares may be fewer in number and worth less. The reorganization plan spells out your rights as an investor and what you can expect to receive, if anything, from the company.\"\" The exact details will depend on the reorganization plan that's worked out, local laws, court agreements, etc.. For example, in the case of General Motor's bankruptcy, stockholders in the company before reorganization were left with worthless shares and were not granted shares in the new company.\"",
"It would be nice if the broker could be instructed to clear out the position for you, but in my experience the broker will simply give you the shares that you can't afford, then freeze your account because you are over your margin limit, and issue a margin call. This happened to me recently because of a dumb mistake: options I paid $200 for and expected to expire worthless, ended up slightly ITM, so they were auto-exercised on Friday for about $20k, and my account was frozen (only able to close positions). By the next Monday, market news had shifted the stock against me and I had to sell it at a loss of $1200 to meet the margin call. This kind of thing is what gives option trading a reputation for danger: A supposedly max-$200-risk turned into a 6x greater loss. I see no reason to ever exercise, I always try to close my positions, but these things can happen.",
"You are long the puts. By exercising them you force the underlying stock to be bought from you at your strike price. Let's say your strike it $100 and the stock is currently $25. Buy 100 shares and exercise 1 (bought/long) put. That gives you $7500 of new money, so do the previous sentence over again in as many 'units' as you can.",
"Absolutely true, but in a bankruptcy situation the best OP can do is win a judgment for breach of contract/fiduciary duty/whatever against Refco, and then get a levy on some assets. He's still just a lien creditor who will be paid after all the secureds in bankruptcy. As MF Global is demonstrating once again, whatever regulations there are to keep clients' money in brokerages sequestered ain't cutting it.",
"If you get selected for exercise, your broker will liquidate the whole position for you most likely Talk to your broker.",
"Because someone smarter than you by 50 IQ points (a quant) will depart their larger position long before you have a chance to see it coming. Your stop losses are useless as the market will open with the issue below your sell price. Your trade even if place at the same mine would settle after theirs. don't piss in the tall grass with the big dogs. If they are wrong or right does not matter you will be haircut or whipsawed.",
"This is your best answer so far. A detail left out is that derivatives are mostly known for the amount of leverage allowed, which is typically about 20-1, or 5% down. This is legal because it's generally assumed that someone is not going to buy or sell the underlying asset, that they will offset their long or short position long before the contract's delivery date. Your derivative broker(typically futures instead of forwards, because they're a standardized size, traded on an exchange and more liquid) will call you when you lose about half of your 5% to tell you to either transfer some money to cover your position or to ask you to exit your position at a loss. Fowards are traded through clearinghouses, not exchanges, and they can be for any underlying asset, for any delivery date, for any price, so long as parties agree on it. Just think of it as a contract.",
"The day trader in the article was engaging in short selling. Short selling is a technique used to profit when a stock goes down. The investor borrows shares of a stock from someone else and sells them. After the stock price goes down, the investor buys the shares back and returns them, pocketing the difference. As the day trader in the article found out, it is a dangerous practice, because there is no limit to the amount of money you can lose. The stock was trading at $2, and the day trader thought the stock was going to go down to $1. He borrowed and sold 8,400 shares at $2. He hoped to buy them back at $1 and earn $8,400 profit. Instead, the stock went up a lot, and he was forced to buy back the shares at $18.50 per share, or about $155,400. He had had $37,000 with E-Trade, which they took, and he is now over $100,000 in debt.",
"If you didn't have a stop loss set (or trailing stop loss) then an equally random spike in the other direction could have obliterated your account and put you in debt to the broker, depending on the terms of that broker, as these are highly leveraged positions. Market anomaly? If your currency bet was unrelated to the fed's interest rate decision today, then you should probably just stop trading.",
"The dividend goes to he who owns the stock when it goes ex-div. A buyer (the call buyer who exercises) will not exercise unless the stock plus dividend are in the money. Otherwise they'd be buying the stock at a premium. I like the scenario your friend doesn't. If I can find a high dividend stock and sell the call for a decent price, I may get a great return on a stock that's gone down 5% over a year's time. If it goes up and called away, that's fine too, it means a profit.",
"You haven't said why you think you will gain at $41, but the graph never lies. Take it one piece at a time: At $41, your stock will lose a big chunk of value. Your short calls will expire. Your puts will gain a bit of value. The stock's loss outweighs the option gains.",
"I will answer my own question. After calling my broker, they explained me this:",
"\"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or \"\"going short.\"\" When you use money to buy shares, it is called \"\"going long.\"\" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything. Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share. You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000. You are both long and short in the stock for $2000. At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds. You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share. Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000. However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares. Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest. Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share. Your long shares have lost $1000 in value. However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares. However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything. Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time. However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame. The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting. Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time. You are only attempting to hedge your bets. And it doesn't work. A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position. And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future. This, however, doesn't really change things much. Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term. Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess. And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain. You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop. You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon. Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short. However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position. And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up. You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain.\"",
"\"Oh please. Most of the unsecured creditors who get screwed in bankruptcy are large banks. They know the risk going in which is why unsecured lends at a high interest rate. Yes, trade creditors often do get screwed but it's a cost of doing business -- it's why a vendor needs to monitor its receivables and watch for signs of insolvency and adjust the terms of trade accordingly. You should have made sure you were covered by brokerage insurance before handing money to a company like that. The \"\"I'm the little guy\"\" argument is just weak.\"",
"\"The margin rules are also more complicated. A simple buy on a non-margin account will never run into margin rules and you can just wait out any dips if you have confidence the stock will recover. A \"\"simple\"\" short sell might get you a call from your broker that you have a margin call, and you can't wait it out without putting more money in. Personally I have trouble keeping the short sale margin rules straight in my head, at least compared to a long sale. I got in way over my head shorting AMZN once, and lost a lot of money because I thought it was overvalued at the time, but it just kept going up and I wanted it to go down. I've never gotten stuck like that on a long position.\"",
"Michael gave a good answer describing the transaction but I wanted to follow up on your questions about the lender. First, the lender does charge interest on the borrowed securities. The amount of interest can vary based on a number of factors, such as who is borrowing, how much are they borrowing, and what stock are they trying to borrow. Occasionally when you are trying to short a stock you will get an error that it is hard to borrow. This could be for a few reasons, such as there are already a large amount of people who have shorted your broker's shares, or your broker never acquired the shares to begin with (which usually only happens on very small stocks). In both cases the broker/lender doesnt have enough shares and may be unwilling to get more. In that way they are discriminating on what they lend. If a company is about to go bankrupt and a lender doesnt have any more shares to lend out, it is unlikely they will purchase more as they stand to lose a lot and gain very little. It might seem like lending is a risky business but think of it as occurring over decades and not months. General Motors had been around for 100 years before it went bankrupt, so any lender who had owned and been lending out GM shares for a fraction of that time likely still profited. Also this is all very simplified. JoeTaxpayer alluded to this in the comments but in actuality who is lending stock or even who owns stock is much more complicated and probably doesnt need to be explained here. I just wanted to show in this over-simplified explanation that lending is not as risky as it may first seem.",
"While I am not an advocate of shorting anything (unlimited downside, capped upside), you can:",
"How so? If i sell short, then i make a profit only if the price goes down so i can buy back at a lower price. Yes, but if the price is going up then you would go long instead. Shorting a stock (or any other asset) allows you to profit when the price is going down. Going long allows you to profit when the price is going up. In the opposite cases, you lose money. In order to make a profit in either of those situations, you have to accurately assess which way the price will trade over the period of time you are dealing with. If you make the wrong judgment, then you lose money because you'll either sell for a lower price than you bought (if you went long), or have to buy back at a higher price than you sold for (if you went short). In either case, unless the trader can live with making a short-term loss and recouperating it later, one needs a good stop-loss strategy.",
"\"You need to interpret \"\"security\"\" appropriately in Wikipedia's definition. You should think of it as saying: to be long in a put, means the holder of the position owns the put and will profit if the price of the put goes up And what makes the price of the put go up? -- the price of the underlying stock going down.\"",
"Nominal. What you say is true, but I'm guessing it would be too complicated to modelate. Plus, a shareholder of a very large company would not necessarily experience said loss if he/she sells the stock in small chunks at a time.",
"First off, you should phone your broker and ask them just to be 100% certain. You will be exercised on the short option that was in the money. It is irrelevant that your portfolio does not contain AAPL stock. You will simply be charged the amount it costs to purchase the shares that you owe. I believe your broker would just take this money from your margin/cash account, they would not have let you put the position on if your account could not cover it. I can't see how you having a long dated 2017 call matters. You would still be long this call once assignment of the short call was settled.",
"\"If you sell a stock you don't own, it's called a short sale. You borrowed the shares from an owner of the stock and eventually would buy to close. On most normal shares, you can hold a short position indefinitely, but there are some shares that have a combination of either a small float or too high a short position that shares to short are not available. This can create a \"\"short squeeze\"\" where shorts are burned by being forced to buy the stock back. Last - when you did this, you should have instructed the broker that you were \"\"selling to open\"\" or \"\"selling short.\"\" In the old days, when people held stock certificates, you were required to send the certificate in when you sold. Today, the broker should know that wasn't your intention.\"",
"as in, the person you made the agreement with can no longer fulfill the contract's requirements. It's the same thing as if they went bankrupt, you would have to pursue legal channels to recover your dues. Granted in an FX forward you would only have to deliver your part at expiration, so you could hold out if you *know* the counterparty is dead/bankrupt.",
"> Fourth, even if they ever did go bankrupt, since you already used up your share of their bonds, the other firms can't blame you for that, because you honestly went about using them with no knowledge that the firm would go bankrupt ever. What if you had knowledge it would, and did this as a scam? The mere possibility of the above would limit the third-hand user's willingness to accept bonds from unknown companies. It's that simple.",
"\"If you own a stake large enough to do that, you became regulated - under Section 13(d) of the 1934 Act and Regulation (in case of US stock) and you became regulated. Restricting you from \"\"shocking\"\" market. Another thing is that your broker will probably not allow you to execute order like that - directed MKT order for such volume. And market is deeper than anyone could measure - darkpools and HFTs passively waiting for opportunities like that.\"",
"With every loser there is a winner on trades like that. There were some other large hedge funds that figured out what they were doing, and basically just added fuel to the fire and are now making great money as a result. Had the bet reversed, JPM would have been the winner. Check [THIS](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/business/how-boaz-weinstein-and-hedge-funds-outsmarted-jpmorgan.html?pagewanted=all) out.",
"Presumably you mean to ask what happens if State Street files chapter 7 bankruptcy, since not all bankruptcy proceedings end in liquidation. SPY is a well known ticker, I can't imagine that there wouldn't be an eager bank willing to pay to pick up that ticker and immediately acquire all the assets related to it. The most likely scenario is that another bank would assume control of the ticker and assets, and the shares would continue trading as they always have. A less likely scenario is that no other financial institution wanted to acquire SPY, and the shares would be liquidated and the proceeds would go to the owners of shares of the ETF. Since the underlying assets are in companies that have actual value, the shares shouldn't trade at much of a discount prior to liquidation. Additionally, if there is a black swan event, there will probably be losses on the underlying assets, so it might even be helpful if the SPY fund was tied up in legal proceedings while everyone gets their heads straight in the market.",
"\"Your strategy fails to control risk. Your \"\"inversed crash\"\" is called a rally. And These kind of things often turn into bigger rallies because of short squeezes, when all the people that are shorting a stock are forced to close their stock because of margin calls - its not that shorts \"\"scramble\"\" to close their position, the broker AUTOMATICALLY closes your short positions with market orders and you are stuck with the loss. So no, your \"\"trick\"\" is not enough. There are better ways to profit from a bearish outlook.\"",
"I'm not sure I understand your question. If the stock price is at an all-time high, everyone who owns the stock is 'in the money'. Of course, they won't actually realise a capital gain until they sell the stock. Similarly, if the stock becomes worthless (the company shuts down after declaring bankruptcy, etc.), everyone who owns the stock is out whatever they paid for the stock.",
"\"Number 2 cannot occur. You can buy the call back and sell the stock, but the broker won't force that #2 choice. To trade options, you must have a margin account. No matter how high the stock goes, once \"\"in the money\"\" the option isn't going to rise faster, so your margin % is not an issue. And your example is a bit troublesome to me. Why would a $120 strike call spike to $22 with only a month left? You've made the full $20 on the stock rise and given up any gain after that. That's all. The call owner may exercise at any time. Edit: @jaydles is right, there are circumstances where an option price can increase faster than the stock price. Options pricing generally follows the Black-Scholes model. Since the OP gave us the current stock price, option strike price, and time to expiration, and we know the risk free rate is <1%, you can use the calculator to change volatility. The number two scenario won't occur, however, because a covered call has no risk to the broker, they won't force you to buy the option back, and the option buyer has no motive to exercise it as the entire option value is time premium.\"",
"\"Look at the link to the SIPC. I don't know exactly what you mean by \"\"runs out of funds,\"\" but the SIPC will replace shares of stock stolen from your account, and up to $100,000 in cash. The real risk is when a shady brokers sells you shares in a stock that becomes worthless, that's when \"\"buyer beware\"\" kicks in. No help there.\"",
"\"And the absolutely brilliant punchline: who do these regulators and leaders\"\" think will be the purchasers of said debt? Why other systemically important, TBTF banks of course! Which means that, in the by now quite familiar \"\"daisy-chaining\"\" of counterparties and collateral, once one bank fails, its exposure via collateral, repo and certainly, funding of other bank balance sheets, everything will promptly freeze as risk reprices, a la Lehman bonds.\"\"\"",
"\"What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? I imagine supply would outweigh demand and the stock would fall. Yes this is the case. Every large \"\"Sell\"\" order results in price going down and every large \"\"Buy\"\" order results in price going up. Hence typically when large orders are being executed, they are first negotiated outside for a price and then sold at the exchange. I am not talking about Ownership change event. If a company wants a change in ownership, the buyer would be ready to pay a premium over the market price to get controlling stake.\"",
"I'm just began playing in the stock market. I assume you mean that you're not using real money, but rather you have an account with a stock simulator like the one Investopedia offers. I am hopeful that's the case due to the high level of risk involved in short selling like you're describing. Here is another post about short selling that expands a bit on that point. To learn much more about the ins and outs of short selling I will point again to Investopedia. I swear I don't work for them, but they do have a great short selling tutorial. When you short sell a stock you are borrowing the stock from your broker. (The broker typically uses stock held by one or more of his clients to cover the loan.) Since it's basically a loan you pay interest. Of course the longer you hold it the more interest you pay. Also, as Joe mentioned there are scenarios in which you may be forced to buy the stock (at a higher price than you sold it). This tends to happen when the stock price is going against the short sell (i.e. you lose money). Finally, did anyone mention that the potential losses in a short sell are infinite?",
"\"You are likely making an assumption that the \"\"Short call\"\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \"\"write\"\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\""
] |
[
"Unless I am missing something subtle, nothing happens to the buyer. Suppose Alice wants to sell short 1000 shares of XYZ at $5. She borrows the shares from Bob and sells them to Charlie. Now Charlie actually owns the shares; they are in his account. If the stock later goes up to $10, Charlie is happy; he could sell the shares he now owns, and make a $5000 profit. Alice still has the $5000 she received from her short sale, and she owes 1000 shares to Bob. So she's effectively $5000 in debt. If Bob calls in the loan, she'll have to try to come up with another $5000 to buy 1000 shares at $10 on the open market. If she can't, well, that's between her and Bob. Maybe she goes bankrupt and Bob has to write off a loss. But none of this has any effect on Charlie! He got the shares he paid for, and nobody's going to take them away from him. He has no reason to care where they came from, or what sort of complicated transactions brought them into Alice's possession. She had them, and she sold them to him, and that's the end of the story as far as he's concerned."
] |
2384
|
Tax: 1099 paper form
|
[
"435835"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"435835",
"77990",
"277812",
"345942",
"586026",
"122185",
"489898",
"585356",
"466213",
"196920",
"72209",
"360756",
"427442",
"39125",
"31793",
"211869",
"335833",
"390102",
"284085",
"490997",
"406789",
"80789",
"51761",
"406042",
"196399",
"232566",
"537763",
"445052",
"505341",
"449116",
"57707",
"382908",
"458231",
"362933",
"244104",
"287398",
"174025",
"471257",
"599842",
"581345",
"505761",
"151810",
"100452",
"237331",
"301453",
"208216",
"327078",
"105046",
"34099",
"587639",
"599496",
"197546",
"249687",
"211147",
"46737",
"380226",
"466678",
"578196",
"135688",
"148104",
"288438",
"585023",
"341960",
"69333",
"223042",
"219156",
"72321",
"313012",
"452896",
"350555",
"568165",
"106673",
"416117",
"4457",
"57229",
"405777",
"417866",
"55407",
"454184",
"355679",
"467704",
"11569",
"3778",
"408434",
"90290",
"382295",
"1011",
"442146",
"304479",
"487728",
"183688",
"566607",
"299258",
"51621",
"5433",
"402686",
"216404",
"304888",
"416476",
"28633"
] |
[
"You can print them on any IRS-approved paper, you don't have to use pre-printed forms. The IRS publishes specifications for paper that is approved for use for these kinds of forms (109*, W*, etc). Here's the reason why it is important: Even the slightest deviation can result in incorrect scanning, and may affect money amounts reported for employees. Note that some portions of these forms are in different color (1099-MISC copy A). This is important, and using incorrect color will affect the IRS OCR mechanisms. Forms for individuals are less complicated with regards to technical specifications, because individuals must file them, and as such any complication will unnecessarily burden the citizenry. All the 109*, W* etc forms are not legally required to be filed by all citizens. You're only required to file them if you chose to do business, or chose to employ others. As such, using professional software and special forms is a cost of doing your business, and not a tax as it would be had it been mandatory to everyone. Mistakes in individual forms due to OCR failure or something else will be noticed by the taxpayers (less/more refund, etc) or through the internal matching and cross-check. However, forms 109* and W* feed that matching and cross-check system and are considered source of truth by it, and as such their processing must be much more reliable and precise.",
"Is it right that I request form W-9 or form W-8BEN (for non U.S. citizens) from the affiliate users before sending them payments? Not just OK. Required. I know that I have to send form 1099, but I don't know where does this form should go to. Should I send it to the IRS or the affiliate user or both? Both. There's also form 1096 that you need to send to the IRS. Read the instructions. Should I send form 1099 once a year or each time I make a payment to the affiliate? Once a year. Read the instructions. Do I have to send form 1099 when the money earned by the affiliate hit a certain threshold or I have to send it anyway? $600 or more requires the form, but you can send for any amount. Read the instructions. Is there any other forms or documents to request from or send to the affiliate user or the IRS? There may be additional forms. Especially if the recipient is a foreign person and you withhold taxes. Talk to your tax adviser.",
"There are many different types of 1099 forms. Since you are comparing it to a W-2, I'm assuming you are talking about a 1099-MISC form. Independent contractor income If you are a worker earning a salary or wage, your employer reports your annual earnings at year-end on Form W-2. However, if you are an independent contractor or self-employed you will receive a Form 1099-MISC from each client that pays you at least $600 during the tax year. For example, if you are a freelance writer, consultant or artist, you hire yourself out to individuals or companies on a contract basis. The income you receive from each job you take should be reported to you on Form 1099-MISC. When you prepare your tax return, the IRS requires you to report all of this income and pay income tax on it. So even if you receive a 1099-MISC form, you are required to pay taxes on it.",
"Am I required to send form 1099 to non-US citizens who are not even residing in the US? Since they're not required to file US taxes, do I still have to send the form to them? That's tricky. You need to get W8/W9 from them, and act accordingly. You may need to withhold 30% (or different percentage, depending on tax treaty they claim on W8). If you withhold taxes, you also need to file form 1042. I suggest you talk to a tax professional. Is it fine to expose my ITIN (taxpayer identification number) to individuals or companies who I send the form to them. Since the form requires me to write my TIN/EIN, what would be the risks of this and what precautions should be taken to avoid inappropriate/illegal use? No, it is not OK. But if you pay these people directly - you don't have much choice, so deal with it. Get a good insurance for identity theft, and don't transact with people you don't trust. One alternative would be to pay through a payment processor (Paypal or credit cards) - see your next question. I send payments via PayPal and wire transfer. Should I send form 1099-MISC or 1099-K? Paypal is a corporation, so you don't need to send 1099 to Paypal. Whatever Paypal sends to others - it will issue the appropriate forms. Similarly if you use a credit card for payment. When you send money through Paypal - you don't send money directly to your business counterparts. You send money to Paypal.",
"Forms 1099 and W2 are mutually exclusive. Employers file both, not the employees. 1099 is filed for contractors, W2 is filed for employees. These terms are defined in the tax code, and you may very well be employee, even though your employer pays you as a contractor and issues 1099. You may complain to the IRS if this is the case, and have them explain the difference to the employer (at the employer's expense, through fines and penalties). Employers usually do this to avoid providing benefits (and by the way also avoid paying payroll taxes). If you're working as a contractor, lets check your follow-up questions: where do i pay my taxes on my hourly that means does the IRS have a payment center for the tax i pay. If you're an independent contractor (1099), you're supposed to pay your own taxes on a quarterly basis using the form 1040-ES. Check this page for more information on your quarterly payments and follow the links. If you're a salaried employee elsewhere (i.e.: receive W2, from a different employer), then instead of doing the quarterly estimates you can adjust your salary withholding at that other place of work to cover for your additional income. To do that you submit an updated form W4 there, check with the payroll department on details. Is this a hobby tax No such thing, hobby income is taxed as ordinary income. The difference is that hobby cannot be at loss, while regular business activity can. If you're a contractor, it is likely that you're not working at loss, so it is irrelevant. what tax do i pay the city? does this require a sole proprietor license? This really depends on your local laws and the type of work you're doing and where you're doing it. Most likely, if you're working from your employer's office, you don't need any business license from the city (unless you have to be licensed to do the job). If you're working from home, you might need a license, check with the local government. These are very general answers to very general questions. You should seek a proper advice from a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for your specific case.",
"Form 1127 (updated link) should be filed in paper (with the supporting documents) to the IRS office that has jurisdiction in the area where you live. From the instructions (see the link above): File Form 1127 with the Internal Revenue Service (Attn: Advisory Group Manager), for the area where you maintain your legal residence or principal place of business. See Pub. 4235, Collection Advisory Group Addresses, to find the address for your local advisory group. However, if the tax due is a gift tax reportable on Form 709, send Form 1127 to: Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Center Cincinnati, OH 45999",
"\"Whenever you do paid work for a company, you will need to fill out some sort of paperwork so that the company knows how to pay you, and also how to report how much they paid you to the appropriate government agencies. You should not think of this as a \"\"hurdle\"\" and you shouldn't worry that you haven't been employed for a long time. The two most common ways a company pays an individual are via employee wages, or \"\"independent contractor\"\" payments. When you start a relationship with a company, if you are going to become an employee, then you will out a W4 form, and at the end of the year you will receive a W2 form. If you are an independent contractor, (which you would be considered in this case), you will fill out form W9 and at the end of the year you will receive a 1099. This is completely normal and you have nothing to worry about. All it means is that if you make more than a certain amount (typically $600) in a year, you will receive a 1099 in the mail or electronically. The 1099 form basically means that they are reporting that amount to the IRS, and it also helps you file your tax return by showing you all the numbers you need on one form. Please remember that when you are paid as an independent contractor, no taxes are withheld on your behalf, so you may owe some tax on the money you make. It's best to set aside some of your income so you are prepared to pay it come tax time next year.\"",
"\"In the U.S., Form 1040 is known as the tax return. This is the form that is filed annually to calculate your tax due for the year, and you either claim a refund if you have overpaid your taxes or send in a payment if you have underpaid. The form is generally due on April 15 each year, but this year the due date is April 18, 2016. When it comes to filing your taxes, there are two questions you need to ask yourself: \"\"Am I required to file?\"\" and \"\"Should I file?\"\" Am I required to file? The 1040 instructions has a section called \"\"Do I have to file?\"\" with several charts that determine if you are legally required to file. It depends on your status and your gross income. If you are single, under 65, and not a dependent on someone else's return, you are not required to file if your 2015 income was less than $10,300. If you will be claimed as a dependent on someone else's return, however, you must file if your earned income (from work) was over $6300, or your unearned income (from investments) was over $1050, or your gross (total) income was more than the larger of either $1050 or your earned income + $350. See the instructions for more details. Should I file? Even if you find that you are not required to file, it may be beneficial to you to file anyway. There are two main reasons you might do this: If you have had income where tax has been taken out, you may have overpaid the tax. Filing the tax return will allow you to get a refund of the amount that you overpaid. As a student, you may be eligible for student tax credits that can get you a refund even if you did not pay any tax during the year. How to file For low income tax payers, the IRS has a program called Free File that provides free filing software options.\"",
"\"You file taxes as usual. W2 is a form given to you, you don't need to fill it. Similarly, 1099. Both report moneys paid to you by your employers. W2 is for actual employer (the one where you're on the payroll), 1099 is for contractors (where you invoice the entity you provide services to and get paid per contract). You need to look at form 1040 and its instructions as to how exactly to fill it. That would be the annual tax return. It has various schedules (A, B, C, D, E, F, H, etc) which you should familiarize yourself with, and various additional forms that you attach to it. If you're self employed, you're expected to make quarterly estimate payments, but if you're a salaried employee you can instruct your employer to withhold the amounts you expect to owe for taxes from your salary, instead. If you're using a tax preparation software (like TurboTax or TaxAct), it will \"\"interview\"\" you to get all the needed information and provide you with the forms filled accordingly. Alternatively you can pay someone to prepare the tax return for you.\"",
"From the 1099 instructions: File Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, for each person to whom you have paid during the year Your accounting method doesn't matter. You file 1099 for the year you paid the money.",
"\"1099's and other official tax forms are often reported to the IRS by the issuer, whether or not you include a copy in your return. You should not neglect to include this income in your 2016 return in an attempt to balance out the two tax years. It's up to you whether or not you feel like filing an amended 2015 return to recover over-payment of taxes from that tax year. You have up to three years to amend tax returns using form 1040X. Since you couldn't have furnished a 1099 for this when you filed your 2015 return (otherwise you wouldn't be in receipt of it for tax year 2016), I'm assuming you reported it simply as \"\"Other Income\"\" and therefore would have been [over] taxed your marginal rate on it. From irs.gov: When to amend a return. You should file an amended return if you need to correct your filing status, number of dependents, total income, tax deductions or tax credits. The instructions for Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, list additional reasons to amend a return.\"",
"No, do not file a Form 1099. You should not issue a form to yourself and you have no separate entity to issue one. The reporting obligation is Form 1040, plus Schedule C. You may have followed a wrong turn somewhere in the TurboTax questionnaire or it may not have picked up the subtleties of your situation. The business income is already yours. Some writers use vehicles to hold their royalties and pay themselves. The questionnaire may have been trying to get at this issue or may have wrongly assumed it. There are special rules around such entities, so getting an adviser is a good idea. For now, just file Schedule C, remember to deduct your costs (e.g. cost to print the books), and pay your self-employment tax.",
"There are two parts in this 1042-S form. The income/dividends go into the Canada T5 form. There will be credit if 1042-S has held money already, so use T2209 to report too.",
"\"Form W-9 (officially, the \"\"Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification\"\") is used in the United States income tax system by a third party who must file an information return with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It requests the name, address, and taxpayer identification information of a taxpayer (in the form of a Social Security Number or Employer Identification Number). A W-9 is typically required when an individual is doing work, as a contractor or as an employee, for a company and will be paid more than $600 in a tax-year. The company is required to file a W-2 or a 1099 and so requests a W-9 to get the information necessary for those forms. I cannot say if it is incompetence on the part of the accounting department or a deliberate ploy to make the refund process more onerous, but do not comply. Politely nsist on a refund without any further information. If the company refuses, request a charge-back from the credit-card company, file a complaint with the consumer-protection department of the state where the company is located, and write a bad review on Yelp or wherever else seems appropriate.\"",
"Depends whom the 1099 was issued to. If it was issued to your corporation - then its your corporation's income, not yours. Why would it go to your tax return? Your corporation and you are two separate legal entities. You will have to file the 1120S, whether you have corporate income or not, it has to be filed each year. So why make a mess of your reporting and not just report the corporation income on its return and your personal income on your own return? If you no longer use the corporation and all the 1099's are issued to you personally, then just dissolve it so that you won't have to file an empty 1120S every year and pay additional fees for maintaining it.",
"is it possible to file that single form aside from the rest of my return? Turbotax will generate all the forms necessary to file your return. I recommend you access these forms and file them manually. According to the IRS in order to report capital gains and losses you need to fill out Form 8949 and summarize them on Form 1040 D. Add these two forms to the stack that turbotax generates. Add the total capital gains to line 13 of the Form 1040 which turbotax generated, and adjust the totals on the form accordingly.",
"The deadline to mail is February 15. However, if the form is being prepared by a middleman (i.e. Wells Fargo) then they have until March 15th (on page 24). Also, if you haven't received your 1099 form by February 14, you may contact the IRS and they will contact and request the missing form on your behalf. I know that's a lot of information, but to answer your question, yes, there are situations where March 15th is the deadline instead of February 15th.",
"According to the Form W-8BEN instructions for Part II, Line 10: Line 10. Line 10 must be used only if you are claiming treaty benefits that require that you meet conditions not covered by the representations you make on line 9 and Part III. For example, persons claiming treaty benefits on royalties must complete this line if the treaty contains different withholding rates for different types of royalties. In tax treaties, some of the benefits apply to every resident of a foreign country. Other benefits only apply to certain groups of people. Line 10 is where you affirm that you meet whatever special conditions are necessary in the treaty to obtain the benefit. If you are claiming that Article 15 of the U.S.-India Tax Treaty, you could use Line 10 to do this. It is important to remember that this form goes to the company paying you; it does not actually get sent to the IRS. Therefore, you can ask the company themselves if filling out Line 9 only will result in them withholding nothing, or if they would need you to fill out Line 10.",
"You need to file IRS Form 1040-NR. The IRS's website provides instructions.",
"Why was I sent both 1042-S and 1099. Which amount is the right amount that has been withheld. Generally, each tax form you get will be about a separate income; for instance, you might get a 1099-DIV for dividends you earned from an investment and then a 1099-B for the profit or loss on selling that investment, in which case you'd report them both to the IRS. In this case, you've also had money withheld as a non-resident alien, which is why you've been issued a 1042-S. So you need to report both amounts to the IRS.",
"\"Littleadv is incorrect because receiving a 1099 means she will be taxed self-employment tax on top of federal income taxes. Your employer will automatically withhold 7.65% of payroll taxes as they pay you each paycheck and then they'll automatically pay the other half of your payroll tax (an additional 7.65%) to bring it to a total of 15.3%. In other words, because your wife is technically self employed, she will owe both sides of payroll tax which is 15.3% of $38k = $5,800 on TOP of your federal income tax (which is the only thing the W-4 is instructing them about what amount to withhold). The huge advantage to a 1099, however, is that she's essentially self-employed which means ALL of the things she needs to run her business are deductible expenses. This includes her car, computer, home office, supplies, sometimes phone, gas, maintenance, travel expenses, sometimes entertainment, etc - which can easily bring her \"\"income\"\" down from $38k to lets say $23k, reducing both her federal income tax AND self-employment tax to apply to $15k less (saving lets say 50% of $15k = $7.5k with federal and self employment because your income is so high). She is actually supposed to pay quarterly taxes to make up for all of this. The easy way to do this is each quarter plug YOUR total salary + bonus and the tax YOU have paid so far (check your paystubs) into TurboTax along with her income so far and all of her expenses. This will give you how much tax you can expect to have left to owe so far--this would be your first quarter. When you calculate your other quarters, do it the exact same way and just subtract what you've already paid so far that year from your total tax liability.\"",
"I got notice from Charles Schwab that the forms weren't being mailed out until the middle of February because, for some reason, the forms were likely to change and rather than mail them out twice, they mailed them out once. Perhaps some state tax laws took effect (such as two Oregon bills regarding tax rates for higher incomes) and they waited on that. While I haven't gotten my forms mailed to me yet, I did go online and get the electronic copies that allowed me to finish my taxes already.",
"You are correct that you do not need to file under a certain circumstances primarily related to income, but other items are taken into account such as filing status, whether the amount was earned or unearned income (interest, dividends, etc.) and a few other special situations which probably don't apply to you. If you go through table 2 on page 3 and 4 of IRS publication 501 (attached), there is a worksheet to fill out that will give you the definitive answer. As far as the 1099 goes, that is to be filed by the person who paid you. How you were paid (i.e., cash, check, etc., makes no difference). You don't have a filing requirement for that form in this case. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf",
"Are the amounts in those boxes taxes that have already been removed? Yes. If they are, how do I report these totals? When I entered the information from the 1099-MISC, it only asked for the total, and didn't ask for (what I thought were) the taxes already taken out. It should appear on your 1040 line 64 (and similar line on your State tax return). If the program doesn't ask for all the 1099 fields (which is stupid), you can add it as additional taxes paid in the Credits section, somewhere in the area where they ask about estimated payments etc.",
"I can't find specific information for Form 1099-DIV for this tax year. However, I found this quote for next tax season that talks about Form 1099-B: Due date for certain statements sent to recipients. The due date for furnishing statements to recipients for Forms 1099-B, 1099-S, and 1099-MISC (if amounts are reported in box 8 or 14) is February 15, 2018. [emphasis added] I know many brokerages bundle the 1099-DIV with the 1099-B, so one might assume that the deadlines are the same. February 15 seems consistent with the messages I got from my brokerages that said the forms will be mailed by mid-February.",
"The IRS instructions do not specify how to connect the forms, just that you should not staple the check to the form (likely because it goes to a different location for processing). I have always either stapled or paper-clipped them together, however I would assume that the receiving department does not care, otherwise it would be explicit in the instructions.",
"Form 1099-misc reports PAYMENTS, not earnings. This does not imply the EARNINGS are not taxable in the year they were earned.",
"He has included this on Schedule D line 1a, but I don't see any details on the actual transaction. It is reported on form 8949. However, if it is fully reported in 1099-B (with cost basis), then you don't have to actually detail every position. Turbotax asked me to fill in individual stock sales with proceeds and cost basis information. ... Again, it seems to be documented on Schedule D in boxes 1a and 8a. See above. I received a 1099-Q for a 529 distribution for a family member. It was used for qualified expenses, so should not be taxable. Then there's nothing to report. I believe I paid the correct amounts based on my (possibly flawed) understanding of estimated taxes. His initial draft had me paying a penalty. I explained my situation for the year, and his next draft had the penalties removed, with no documentation or explanation. IRS assesses the penalty. If you volunteer to pay the penalty, you can calculate it yourself and pay with the taxes due. Otherwise - leave it to the IRS to calculate and assess the penalty they deem right and send you a bill. You can then argue with the IRS about that assessment. Many times they don't even bother, if the amounts are small, so I'd suggest going with what the CPA did.",
"Normally you could either head down to the office supply store and pick up a copy of a tax program, or you could head over to the IRS office and pick up the instructions and forms. However, in your case you should be talking to a tax lawyer. The unfiled taxes are bad enough but you own a business outside the USA and most likely have bank accounts also. That brings you into the realm of FATCA.",
"\"You would put your earnings (and expenses, don't forget) on Schedule C, and then do a Schedule SE for self-employment tax. http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98846,00.html 1040ES isn't used to compute taxes, it's used to pay taxes. Generally you are supposed to pay taxes as you go, rather than when you file. There are exceptions where you won't be penalized for paying when you file, \"\"most taxpayers will avoid this penalty if they owe less than $1,000 in tax after subtracting their withholdings and credits, or if they paid at least 90% of the tax for the current year, or 100% of the tax shown on the return for the prior year, whichever is smaller\"\" from http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc306.html i.e. there's a safe harbor as long as you pay as much as you owed the year before. If you owe a lot at the end of the year a second time in a row, then you get penalized.\"",
"\"Depending on what you need to explain, you can submit your electronic return without the supplemental information and subsequently mail a Form 8453 with the additional information. This is helpful for form 8489, for example, where you need to list every transaction reported by your stock broker on a 1099-B. See https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8453.pdf for more details on this form. If the information you need to submit an attachment for doesn't follow one of the options on that form, you will likely need to file a paper return or use a paid tax preparation service/application. Limitations of FreeFile are explained here, along with a list of forms that are available: https://www.irs.gov/uac/List-of-Available-Free-File-Fillable-Forms The \"\"Attaching Statements\"\" and \"\"Write-in information\"\" sections seem like they might apply to your situation. Attaching Statements - If you need to add statements and you can't use Form 8453, U.S. Individual Income Tax Transmittal for an IRS e-file Return, to mail that information, you will not be able to use this program to efile your return Identity Protection PIN's (IP PIN) - This program only supports the entry of a Primary taxpayer's IP PIN. If the spouse or dependents have an IP PIN, you cannot use this program to efile the return. Writing In Information - Your ability to \"\"write in\"\" additional information to explain an entry is generally limited to the 1040 forms and some of the more frequently submitted forms. If you need to write in additional information on a form, other than the 1040 series, you may not be able to use this program to efile your tax return. E-filing Forms - To efile forms, (except Form 4868) they must be attached to a 1040 series form (1040, 1040A or 1040EZ). Form Limitations - There may be Known Limitations of forms you plan to complete. Please review them. A form limitation may keep you from completing or e-filing your return.\"",
"Can I work on 1099 from my own company instead of on W2? The reason is on W2 I can't deduct my commute, Health Insurance and some other expenses while on 1099 I think I can able do that. Since I am going to client place to work not at my own office, I am not sure whether I should able to do that or not. If you have LLC, unless you elected to tax it as a corporation, you need neither 1099 nor W2. For tax purposes the LLC is disregarded. So it is, from tax perspective, a sole proprietorship (or partnership, if multiple members). Being a W2 employee of your own LLC is a bad idea. For all these above expenses, which can I use company's debit/credit card or I need to use only my personal debit/credit card? It would be better to always use a business account for business purposes. Doesn't matter much for tax per se, but will make your life easier in case of an audit or a legal dispute (limited liability protection may depend on it). If I work on 1099, I guess I need to file some reasonable taxes on quarterly basis instead of filing at year end. If so, how do I pay my tax on quarterly basis to IRS? I mean which forms should I file and how to pay tax? Unless you're a W2 employee, you need to do quarterly estimate payments using form 1040-ES. If you are a W2 employee (even for a different job, and even if it is not you, but your spouse with whom you're filing jointly) - you can adjust your/spouse's withholding using form W4 to cover the additional tax liability. This is, IMHO, a better way than paying estimates. There are numerous questions on this, search the site or ask another one for details.",
"Instead of SSN, foreign person should get a ITIN from the IRS. Instead of W9 a foreigner should fill W8-BEN. Foreigner might also be required to file 1040NR/NR-EZ tax report, and depending on tax treaties also be liable for US taxes.",
"\"Actually, if you don't care about paying a bit more, either hire an accountant and dump the paper on them, or (may be cheaper but a bit more work) spring for tax software. Modern tax programs can often download most of your data directly. If you don't care about claiming deductions you can skip a lot of the rest. I'm perfectly capable of doing my taxes on paper or in a spreadsheet... but I spring for tax software every year because I find it a _LOT more pleasant. Remember that most of the complexity does come from policies intended to reduce your taxes. When you call for simplification, you may not like the result. It's better than it was a decade or two ago. I used to joke that the battle cry of the next revolution would be \"\"No Taxation Without Proper Instructions!\"\"\"",
"If you've been using TurboTax, let me suggest a compromise: Let TTax fill out the forms, but then print them out and go through it again by hand. If you don't get the same numbers, investigate why. If you do, you can probably conclude that you could do it by hand if you really want to, especially if you have the previous year's returns as a reference. (I've gone through every version of this from before personal tax software existed thru hand-constructed spreadsheets to commercial software and e-filing (federal only; I refuse to pay for something that reduces THEIR work). I can't use the free online version -- my return's got complications it won't handle -- and I'm uncomfortable putting that much data on a machine I don't control, so I'm still buying software each year. I COULD save the money, but it's worth a few bucks to me to make the process less annoying.) Late edit: Note that a self-constructed spreadsheet is one answer to the annoyance of pencil and paper -- you're still doing all the data manipulation yourself, but you're recording HOW you manipulated it as you go, and if numbers change you don't have to redo all the work. And it avoids raw math errors. It does require that you enter all the formulas rather than just their results, and figuring out how to express some things in stylesheet form can be a nuisance, but it isn't awful... and once you've done it (assuming you got it right) updating it for the next year is usually not hard unless you've introduced a completely new set of issues.",
"\"I would advise against \"\"pencil and paper\"\" approach for the following reasons: You should e-file instead of paper filing. Although the IRS provides an option of \"\"Fillable Forms\"\", there's no additional benefit there. Software ensures correctness of the calculations. It is easy to make math errors, lookup the wrong table It is easy to forget to fill a line or to click a checkbox (one particular checkbox on Schedule B cost many people thousands of dollars). Software ask you questions in a \"\"interview\"\" manner, and makes it harder to miss. Software can provide soft copies that you can retrieve later or reuse for amendments and carry-overs to the next year, making the task next time easier and quicker. You may not always know about all the available deductions and credits. Instead of researching the tax changes every year, just flow with the interview process of the software, and they'll suggest what may be available for you (lifetime learners credit? Who knows). Software provides some kind of liability protection (for example, if there's something wrong because the software had a bug - you can have them fix it for you and pay your penalties, if any). It's free. So why not use it? As to professional help later in life - depending on your needs. I'm fully capable of filling my own tax returns, for example, but I prefer to have a professional do it since I'm not always aware about all the intricacies of taxation of my transactions and prefer to have a professional counsel (who also provides some liability coverage if she counsels me wrong...). Some things may become very complex and many people are not aware of that (I've shared the things I learned here on this forum, but there are many things I'm not aware of and the tax professional should know).\"",
"You are right that even if you do not receive a 1099-MISC, you still need to report all income to the IRS. Report the $40 on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ. Since your net profit was less than $400, you do not need to file Schedule SE. From the IRS web site: Self-Employment Income It is a common misconception that if a taxpayer does not receive a Form 1099-MISC or if the income is under $600 per payer, the income is not taxable. There is no minimum amount that a taxpayer may exclude from gross income. All income earned through the taxpayer’s business, as an independent contractor or from informal side jobs is self-employment income, which is fully taxable and must be reported on Form 1040. Use Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship) to report income and expenses. Taxpayers will also need to prepare Form 1040 Schedule SE for self-employment taxes if the net profit exceeds $400 for a year. Do not report this income on Form 1040 Line 21 as Other Income. Independent contractors must report all income as taxable, even if it is less than $600. Even if the client does not issue a Form 1099-MISC, the income, whatever the amount, is still reportable by the taxpayer.",
"Here's a description. The relevant discussion for tax year 2010 starts on page 22 of the 1040 instructions.",
"Fill out the form manually, using last year's return as an example of how to report these gains. Or experiment with one of the low-priced tax programs; I've been told that they are available for as little as $17, and if your alternative is doing it manually, spending a bit of time checking their results isn't a huge problem. Or run the basic TTax, and tell it to add the appropriate forms manually. It supports them, it just doesn't have the interview sections to handle them. (@DanielCarson's answer has more details about that.) Or...",
"\"The forms get updated every year, and the software providers need to get approved by the IRS every year. \"\"Form is not yet finalized\"\" means that this year form hasn't been approved yet. IRS starts accepting returns on January 31st anyway, nothing to be worried about. Why are you nearing a deadline? The deadline for 1120 (corporate tax return) is 2 and 1/2 months after your corp year end, which if you're a calendar year corp is March 15th. If your year end is in November/December - you can use the prior year forms, those are finalized.\"",
"Just type in the forms as they are, separately. That would be the easiest way both to enter the data without any mistakes, and ensure that everything matches properly with the IRS reports.",
"\"It's not quite as bad as the comments indicate. Form 1040ES has been available since January (and IME has been similarly for all past years). It mostly uses the prior year (currently 2016) as the basis, but it does have the updated (2017) figures for items that are automatically adjusted for inflation: bracket points (and thus filing threshhold), standard deductions, Social Security cap, and maybe another one or two I missed. The forms making up the actual return cannot be prepared very far in advance because, as commented, Congress frequently makes changes to tax law well after the year begins, and in some cases right up to Dec. 31. The IRS must start preparing forms and pubs -- and equally important, setting the specifications for software providers like Intuit (TurboTax) and H&RBlock -- several months ahead in order to not seriously delay filing season, and with it refunds, which nearly everyone in the country considers (at least publicly) to be worse than World War Three and the destruction of the Earth by rogue asteroids. I have 1040 series from the last 4 years still on my computer, and the download dates mostly range from late September to mid January. Although one outlier shows the range of possibility: 2013 form 1040 and Schedule A were tweaked in April 2014 because Congress passed a law allowing charitable contributions for Typhoon Haiyan to be deducted in the prior year. Substantive, but relatively minor, changes happen every year, including many that keep recurring like the special (pre-AGI) teacher supplies deduction (\"\"will they or won't they?\"\"), section 179 expensing (changes slightly almost every year), and formerly the IRA-direct-to-charity option (finally made permanent last year). As commented, the current Congress and President were elected on a platform with tax reform as an important element, and they are talking even more intensely than before about doing it, although whether they will actually do anything this year is still uncertain. However, if major reform is done it will almost certainly apply to future years only, and likely only start after a lag of some months to a year. They know it causes chaos for businesses and households alike to upend without advance warning the assumptions built in to current budgets and plans -- and IME as a political matter something that is enacted now and effective fairly soon but not now is just as good (but I think that part is offtopic).\"",
"A 1040X is the form and instructions you need. Don't worry you can rescind the $3 presidential campaign contribution for both you and a spouse.",
"If you're under audit - you should get a proper representation. I.e.: EA or CPA licensed in California and experienced with the FTB audit representation. There's a penalty on failure to file form 1099, but it is with the IRS, not the FTB. If I remember correctly, it's something like $50 or $100 per instance. Technically they can disqualify deductions claiming you paid under the table and no taxes were paid on the other side, however I doubt they'd do it in a case of simple omission of filing 1099 forms. Check with your licensed tax adviser. Keep in mind that for the IRS 2011 is now closed, since the 3-year statute of limitations has passed. For California the statute is 4 years, and you're almost at the end of it. However since you're already under audit they may ask you to agree to extend it.",
"\"According to this link http://taxes.lovetoknow.com/federal-income-tax/w9-tax-form: The very last line on the personal information section refers to \"\"account numbers.\"\" Here, the taxpayer lists any accounts they have with the IRS to pay back taxes or pre-payments for anticipated tax liability obligations. This information is optional and is inapplicable in many situations.\"",
"\"Hearing somewhere is a level or two worse than \"\"my friend told me.\"\" You need to do some planning to forecast your full year income and tax bill. In general, you should be filing a quarterly form and tax payment. You'll still reconcile the year with an April filing, but if you are looking to save up to pay a huge bill next year, you are looking at the potential of a penalty for under-withholding. The instructions and payment coupons are available at the IRS site. At this point I'm required to offer the following advice - If you are making enough money that this even concerns you, you should consider starting to save for the future. A Solo-401(k) or IRA, or both. Read more on these two accounts and ask separate questions, if you'd like.\"",
"\"Does he need to file a tax return in this situation? Will the IRS be concerned that he did not file even if he received a 1099? No. However, if you don't file the IRS may come back asking why, or \"\"make up\"\" a return for you assuming that the whole amount on the 1099-MISC is your net earnings. So in the end, I suspect you'll end up filing even though you don't have to, just to prove that you don't have to. Bottom line - if you have 1099 income (or any other income reported to the IRS that brings you over the filing threshold), file a return.\"",
"It is perfectly legitimate to adjust your 1099-B income by broker's fees. Publication 17 (p 116) specifically instructs taxpayers to adjust their Schedule D reporting by broker's fees: Form 1099-B transactions. If you sold property, such as stocks, bonds, or certain commodities, through a broker, you should receive Form 1099-B or substitute statement from the broker. Use the Form 1099-B or the substitute statement to complete Form 8949. If you sold a covered security in 2013, your broker should send you a Form 1099-B (or substitute statement) that shows your basis. This will help you complete Form 8949. Generally, a covered security is a security you acquired after 2010. Report the gross proceeds shown in box 2a of Form 1099-B as the sales price in column (d) of either Part I or Part II of Form 8949, whichever applies. However, if the broker advises you, in box 2a of Form 1099-B, that gross proceeds (sales price) less commissions and option premiums were reported to the IRS, enter that net sales price in column (d) of either Part I or Part II of Form 8949, whichever applies. Include in column (g) any expense of sale, such as broker's fees, commissions, state and local transfer taxes, and option premiums, unless you reported the net sales price in column (d). If you include an expense of sale in column (g), enter “E” in column (f). You can rely on your own records and judgment, if you feel comfortable doing so. Brokers often make incomplete tax reporting. This may have been simpler from their perspective if the broker fees were variable, or integrated, or unknown for a number of clients party to a transaction. If a taxpayer has documentation of the expenses that justify an adjustment, then it's perfectly appropriate to include that in the calculations. It is not necessary to report the discrepancy, and it may increase scrutiny to include a written addendum. The Schedule D, Form 8949, and Form 1099-B will probably together adequately explain the source of the deduction.",
"Since there's no taxable income (inheritance is not taxed to you), you do not need to amend. The executor used the correct form. Note, I'm not a tax adviser or a licensed professional. For a tax advice advice contact a CPA/EA licensed in your state.",
"Publication 15 is the IRS guide for business. https://www.irs.gov/uac/about-publication-15 They will be deposited electronically at https://www.eftps.com/eftps/ Form 941 is the one you will be using: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/depositing-and-reporting-employment-taxes The other ones are for special circumstances. I would recommend that you have a chat with an accountant.",
"Why would the IRS be coming after you if you reported the income? If you reported everything, then the IRS will use the 1099 to cross-check, see that everything is in order, be happy and done with it. The lady was supposed to give you the 1099 by the end of January, and she may be penalized by the IRS for being late, but as long as you/wifey reported all the income - you're fine. It was supposed to be reported on Schedule C or as miscellaneous income on line 21 (schedule C sounds more suitable as it seems that your wifey is in a cleaning business). But there's no difference in how you report whether you got 1099 or not, so if you reported - you should be fine.",
"One of the triggers for audit is when the IRS can't match 1099 income to the tax return. Whoever got the 1099 in her name should include that income on her return.",
"You wouldn't fill out a 1099, your employer would or possibly whoever manages the stock account. The 1099-B imported from E-Trade says I had a transaction with sell price ~$4,500. Yes. You sold ~$4500 of stock to pay income taxes. Both the cost basis and the sale price would probably be ~$4500, so no capital gain. This is because you received and sold the stock at the same time. If they waited a little, you could have had a small gain or loss. The remainder of the stock has a cost basis of ~$5500. There are at least two transactions here. In the future you may sell the remaining stock. It has a cost basis of ~$5500. Sale price of course unknown until then. You may break that into different pieces. So you might sell $500 of cost basis for $1000 with a ~$500 capital gain. Then later sell the remainder for $15,000 for a capital gain of ~$10,000.",
"In the end, I filled out the form with a foreign TIN (my UK National Insurance Number) on line 6, as well as a short sentence detailing my claim for 0% tax withholding according to the relevant section of the UK-US tax treaty. It looks like this was good enough; the prize money arrived in my account a few days ago, and it seems that no tax was withheld!",
"\"If you file the long-form Form 2210 in which you have to figure out exactly how much you should have had withheld (or paid via quarterly payments of estimated tax), you might be able to reduce the underpayment penalty somewhat, or possibly eliminate it entirely. This often happens because some of your income comes late in the year (e.g. dividend and capital gain distributions from stock mutual funds) and possibly because some of your itemized deductions come early (e.g. real estate tax bills due April 1, charitable deductions early in the year because of New Year resolutions to be more philanthropic) etc. It takes a fair amount of effort to gather up the information you need for this (money management programs help), and it is easy to make mistakes while filling out the form. I strongly recommend use of a \"\"deluxe\"\" or \"\"premier\"\" version of a tax program - basic versions might not include Form 2210 or have only the short version of it. I also seem to remember something to the effect that the long form 2210 must be filed with the tax return and cannot be filed as part of an amended return, and if so, the above advice would be applicable to future years only. But you might be able to fill out the form and appeal to the IRS that you owe a reduced penalty, or don't owe a penalty at all, and that your only mistake was not filing the long form 2210 with your tax return and so please can you be forgiven this once? In any case, I strongly recommend paying the underpayment penalty ASAP because it is increasing day by day due to interest being charged. If the IRS agrees to your eloquent appeal, they will refund the overpayment.\"",
"The line you are referring to says 5 U.S. taxpayer identification number (SSN or ITIN), if required (see instructions) It does not appear to be required in your case.",
"The I-9 form is required because you are working. It is kept by the employer as proof that you have the proper documents to work. If the government was to inspect their records they can be fined if they don't have those document, in fact they have to keep them for several years after your employment is done. A w-4 form is a federal tax form. There also was probably a state version of the form. When you completed the w-4 it is used by your employer to determine how much in taxes need to be withheld. Employers don't know your tax situation. Even though you are on work study, you still could have made enough money over the summer to pay taxes. But if this is your only job, and you will not make enough money to have to pay taxes, you can fill out the form as exempt. That means that last year you didn't make enough money to have to pay taxes, and you don't expect to make enough to have to pay taxes this year. If you are exempt, no federal income tax will be withheld. They might still withhold for social security and medicare. The state w-4 can also be used to be exempt from state taxes. If they withhold any income taxes you have to file one of the 1040 tax forms to get that income tax money back. You will have to do so for the state income tax withholding. A note about social security and medicare. If you have an on campus job, at the campus you attend, during the school year; they don't withhold money for social security and medicare. That law applies to students on work study jobs, and on non-work-study jobs. for single dependents the federal threshold where you must file is: > You must file a return if any of the following apply. Your gross income was more than the larger of— a. $1,000, or b. Your earned income (up to $5,850) plus $350.",
"\"The contract he wants me to sign states I'll receive my monthly stipend (if that is the right word) as a 1099 contractor. The right word is guaranteed payment, which is what \"\"salary\"\" is called when a partner is working for a partnership she's a partner in. Which is exactly the case in your situation. 1099 is not the right form to report this, the partnership (LLC in your case) should be using the Schedule K-1 for that. I suggest you talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser (EA/CPA) who are licensed in your State, before you sign anything.\"",
"\"If you don't want to get income tax taken out of your check, then get a 1099 job and stop blubbering like a baby. You are not doing your case any help. If fact, I am more positive that \"\"anti-taxers\"\" are out of their gourd.\"",
"I don't like keeping my tax information online. Personally, I buy TaxCut from Amazon for $25-30. I store my info securely on resources under my control. Call me a luddite or a weirdo, but I also file using paper, because I don't see the advantage of paying for the privilege of saving the government time and money.",
"I typed my information into both last year, and while they were not exactly the same, they were within $10 of each other. For my simple 2009 taxes they were not different in any meaningful way.",
"You'll have to file an amended tax return for that tax year. Filing an Amended Tax Return",
"To start with, I should mention that many tax preparation companies will give you any number of free consultations on tax issues — they will only charge you if you use their services to file a tax form, such as an amended return. I know that H&R Block has international tax specialists who are familiar with the issues facing F-1 students, so they might be the right people to talk about your specific situation. According to TurboTax support, you should prepare a completely new 1040NR, then submit that with a 1040X. GWU’s tax department says you can submit late 8843, so you should probably do that if you need to claim non-resident status for tax purposes.",
"\"There could be a few reasons for this, my first guess is that you didn't report the distribution on your return (indicated on line 15 of your 1040, pictured below), the IRS got a copy of the 1099-R, and assumes it's all taxable (or maybe the 1099-R indicates the full amount is taxable). If a 1099-R doesn't have an amount populated for 'taxable amount' it doesn't mean the distribution isn't taxable, and without any indication that it's not taxable the IRS assumes it is. It's not taxable if it's a withdrawal of your contribution. Here's a snippet from How to Calculate the Taxable Amount of an IRA Withdrawal: Withdrawals from a Roth IRA Since Roth IRA contributions are made on an after-tax basis, qualified withdrawals are completely tax-free. A \"\"qualified\"\" Roth withdrawal includes the following: If your 1099-R indicates a taxable amount, then you might need to contact the issuer to understand why. If it does not indicate a taxable amount and you failed to record the distribution on your return, you just need to file an amended return that shows the distribution on line 15a and shows no taxable amount on 15b along with a completed Form 8606. You may not need additional documentation to support of your claim that it's not taxable, but if you do it would be any statement showing that your contributions over the years exceed your withdrawal. What a 1040 with a non-taxable IRA withdrawal would show: Note: There'd also be a completed Form 8606, the 1040 lines above just show if it was entered in. The easiest path forward is probably to file an amended return using turbotax since you filed with them originally. I haven't dealt with an IRS letter in a few years, I can't recall if you need to contact them or simply file the amended return, but they're pretty good about including instructions so the letter probably indicates what you need to do. Don't delay in taking action, as the IRS can and will garnish wages if they are owed (or think they are owed) money. Update: OP contacted IRS and they didn't even want an amended return, just the completed Form 8606, so it's worth calling the IRS first with these letters.\"",
"The key for you this year (2015) be aggressive in paying the taxes quarterly so that you do not have to do the quarterly filings or pay penalties for owing too much in taxes in future years. The tax system has a safe harbor provision. If you have withheld or sent via the estimated quarterly taxes an amount equal to 100% of the previous years taxes then you are safe. That means that if you end to the IRS in 2015 an amount equal to 100% of your 2014 taxes then in April 2016 you can avoid the penalties. You should note that the required percentage is 110% for high income individual. Because you can never be sure about your side income, use your ability to adjust your W-4 to cover your taxes. You will know early in 2016 how much you need to cover via withholding, so make the adjustments. Yes the risk is what you over pay, but that may be what you need to do to avoid the quarterly filing requirements. From IRS PUB 17: If you owe additional tax for 2014, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2015. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2015 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2015, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2015 tax return, or 100% of the tax shown on your 2014 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2014 tax return must cover all 12 months. and Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty.",
"\"If you want an \"\"account statement\"\" from the IRS listing the taxes due and paid and confirming a zero balance remaining, you want what they call a Tax Account Transcript. It sounds like you tried to submit this online, but yes, it would require the actual taxpayer to submit it. The other option would be to fill out Form 4506-T requesting the Form 1040 Tax Account Transcript, have the taxpayer sign it, and mail it in. Presumably whatever method you used to have her sign the Form 1040 you prepared for her you could also use to have her sign the 4506-T. Another option could be to try to request the transcript over the phone. I don't know what authentication they require, or if you would need to have been listed on the 1040 as an authorized Third Party Designee. According to the IRS Transcript FAQ Page: Q19. What if I’m unable to use Get Transcript by Mail? If you are unable to use Get Transcript by Mail, you may try our automated phone transcript service at 800-908-9946 and also receive your transcript by mail. Please allow 5 to 10 calendar days for delivery. But unless there's a reason to think that the tax account wasn't credited properly or the IRS is sending another bill or the like, I don't think there's a lot of point in doing so. In general, the fact that the check cleared the bank should be sufficient documentation that the amount was paid.\"",
"Form 10-K is filed by corporations to SEC. You must be thinking of form 1065 (its schedule K) that a partnership (and multi-member LLC) must file with the IRS. Unless the multi-member LLC is legally dissolved, it must file this form. You're a member, so it is your responsibility, with all the other members, to make sure that the manager files all the forms, and if the manager doesn't - fire the manager and appoint another one (or, if its member managed - chose a different member to manage). If you're a sole member of the LLC - then you don't need to file any forms with the IRS, all the business expenses and credits are done on your Schedule C, as if you were a sole propriator.",
"\"You are not the only one with this problem. When Intuit changed their pricing and services structure in 2015 a lot of people got angry, facing larger fees and having to go through an annoying upgrade just to get the same functionality (such as Schedule D, capital gains). You have several options: (1) Forget Turbo Tax and just use paper forms. That is what I do. Paper is reliable. (2) Use forms mode in Turbo Tax. Of course, that may be even more complicated than simply filing out paper forms. (3) Use a different service. If your income is below $64,000 the IRS has a free electronic filing service. Other online vendors have full taxes services for less than Turbo Tax. (4) Add the amount to ordinary income. Technically, as long as you report the income, you cannot be penalized, so if you add the capital gain to your ordinary income, then you have paid taxes on the income. Even if they send you a letter, you can send an answer that you added it to ordinary income and that will satisfy them. Of course you pay a higher rate on your $26 if you do that. (5) If you are in the 15% or below income bracket you are exempt from capital gains, and you can omit it. Don't believe the nervous Nellies who say the IRS will burn your house down if you don't report $26 in capital gains. Penalties are assessed on the percentage of TAXES you did not pay (0.5% penalty per month). Since 0.5% of $0 is $0 your penalty is $0. The IRS knows this. The IRS does not send out assessment letters for $0. (6) Even if you are above the 15% bracket, there is likelihood it is still a no-tax situation (see 5 above). (7) Worst case scenario: you are making a million dollars per year and you omit your $26 capital gains from your return. The IRS will send you an assessment letter for about $10. You can then send them a separate check or money order to pay it. In all honesty I have omitted documented tax items, like taxable interest, that the IRS knows about many times and never gotten an assessment letter. Once I made a serious math error on my return and they sent me an assessment letter, which I just paid, end of story. And that was for a lot more than $26. The technical verbiage for something like this in IRS lingo is CP-2000, underreported income. As you can see from this official IRS web page, basically what they do is guess how much they think you owe and send you a bill. Then you pay it. If you do so in time, you don't even get a 0.5% interest penalty on your $6.75 owed or whatever it is. (8) Go hog wild. As long as you are risking an assessment on your $26, why not go hog wild and just let the IRS compute all your taxes for you? Make a copy of your income statements, then mail them to the IRS with a letter that says, \"\"Hi, I am Mr. Odinson, my SSN is XXX-XX-XXXX. My address is XYZ. I am unable to compute my taxes due to a confused state of mind. I am hereby requesting a tax assessment for the 2016 tax year.\"\" Make sure you sign and date the letter. In all probability they will compute the full assessment and send you a bill (or refund).\"",
"I'm not sure why you're confusing the two unrelated things. 1040ES is your estimated tax payments. 941 is your corporation's payroll tax report. They have nothing to do with each other. You being the corporation's employee is accidental, and can only help you to avoid 1040ES and use the W2 withholding instead - like any other employee. From the IRS standpoint you're not running a LLC - you're running a corporation, and you're that corporation's employee. While technically you're self-employed, from tax perspective - you're not (to the extent of your corporate salary, at least).",
"Capital gain distribution is not capital gain on sale of stock. If you have stock sales (Schedule D) you should be filing 1040, not 1040A. Capital gain distributions are distributions from mutual funds/ETFs that are attributed to capital gains of the funds (you may not have actually received the distribution, but you still may have gain attributed to you). It is reported on 1099-DIV, and if it is 0 - then you don't have any. If you sold a stock, your broker should have given you 1099-B (which is not the same as 1099-DIV, but may be consolidated by your broker into one large PDF and not provided separately). On 1099-B the sales proceeds are recorded, and if you purchased the stock after 2011 - the cost basis is also recorded. The difference between the proceeds and the cost basis is your gain (or loss, if it is negative). Fees are added to cost basis.",
"\"I'm mostly guessing based on existing documentation, and have no direct experience, so take this with a pinch of salt. My best understanding is that you need to file Form 843. The instructions for the form say that it can be used to request: A refund or abatement of a penalty or addition to tax due to reasonable cause or other reason (other than erroneous written advice provided by the IRS) allowed under the law. The \"\"reasonable cause\"\" here is a good-faith confusion about what Line 79 of the form was referring to. In Form 843, the IRC Section Code you should enter is 6654 (estimated tax). For more, see the IRC Section 6654 (note, however, that if you already received a CP14 notice from the IRS, you should cross-check that this section code is listed on the notice under the part that covers the estimated tax penalty). If your request is accepted, the IRS should issue you Notice 746, item 17 Penalty Removed: You can get more general information about the tax collection process, and how to challenge it, from the pages linked from Understanding your CP14 Notice\"",
"This sounds like a rental fee as described in the instructions for the 1099-MISC. Enter amounts of $600 or more for all types of rents, such as any of the following. ... Non-Employee compensation does not seem appropriate because you did not perform a service. You mention that your tax-preparer brought this up. I think you will need to consult with a CPA to receive a more reliable opinion. Make sure to bring the contract that describes the situation with you. From there, you may need to consult a tax attorney, but the CPA should be able to help you figure out what your next step is.",
"You are confused about a couple of terms: For example you work for company A: As to the 1098-T: It is likely that you or your parents will use the 1098-T. You don't have to file a copy with the IRS. You and your parents need to determine who should be reporting the educational expenses: you or your parents.",
"From WePay (GoFundMe's payment processor) support. I received only gifts and donations. Will I receive a Form 1099-K? As of 2015, the IRS has clarified that WePay is not required to send a Form 1099-K with respect to payments that are made solely as gifts or donations. The purpose of Form 1099-K is to report payments for the provision of goods or services, which may be subject to tax. Gifts and donations typically are not reported as income by recipients, so it is not necessary to send them a Form 1099-K. https://support.wepay.com/hc/en-us/articles/203609483-Tax-Reporting",
"Your clients should not send you 1099-MISC if they paid with a credit card. You can refer them to this text in the instructions for the form 1099-MISC: Payments made with a credit card or payment card and certain other types of payments, including third party network transactions, must be reported on Form 1099-K by the payment settlement entity under section 6050W and are not subject to reporting on Form 1099-MISC. See the separate Instructions for Form 1099-K. By sending out the 1099-MISC, your clients are essentially saying that they paid you directly (check or cash) in addition to the payment they made with a credit card (which will be reported on 1099-K). In case of an audit, you'll have trouble convincing the IRS that it didn't happen. I suggest asking the clients not to do this to you, since it may cost you significant amounts to fight the IRS later on. In any case, you report on your tax return what you really got, not what the 1099 says. If you have two 1099's covering the same income - there's no legal obligation to report the income twice. You do not have to pay twice the tax just because you have stupid clients. But you may have troubles explaining it to the IRS, especially if you're dealing with cash in your business. If you want to avoid matching issues, consider reporting all the 1099s, and then subtracting the duplicates and attaching a statement (the software will do it automatically when you add the description in the miscellaneous item) about what it is.",
"(do I need to get a W9 from our suppliers)? Will PayPal or Shopify send me a 1099k or something? Do not assume that you'll get paperwork from anyone. Do assume that you have to generate your own paperwork. Ideally you should print out some kind of record of each transaction. Note that it can be hard to view older transactions in PayPal, so start now. If you can't document something, write up a piece of paper showing the state of the world to the best of your knowledge. Do assume that you need separate receipts for each expenditure. The PayPal receipt might be enough (but print it in case the IRS wants to see it). A receipt from the vendor would be better (again, print it if it is online now). A CPA is not strictly necessary. A CPA is certified (the C in CPA) to formally audit the books of a corporation. In your case, any accountant would be legally sufficient. You still may want to use a CPA, as the certification, while technically unnecessary, still demonstrates knowledge. You may otherwise not be in a position to evaluate an accountant. A compromise option is to go to a firm that includes a CPA and then let them assign you to someone else to process the actual taxes. You are going to have to fill out some business tax forms. In particular, I would expect a schedule C. That's where you would show revenues and expenses. You may well have to file other forms as well.",
"\"Payment gateways such as Square do not normally withhold tax. It is up to you to pay the appropriate tax at tax time. That having been said, Square does report your payments to the IRS on a form 1099-K if your payments are large enough. According to Square, you'll get a 1099-K from them if your total payments for the year add up to $20,000 AND more than 200 transactions. Whether or not they report on a 1099-K, you are required to pay the appropriate taxes on your income. So now the question becomes, \"\"Do I have to pay income tax on the proceeds from my garage sale?\"\" And the answer to that question is usually not. When you sell something that you previously purchased, if you sell it for more than you paid for it, you have a capital gain and need to pay tax on that. However, generally you sell things in a garage sale at a loss, meaning that there is no tax due. If you make more than $20,000 at your garage sale and the IRS gets a 1099-K, the IRS might be curious as to how you did that with no capital gain. So if you sell any big ticket items (a bulldozer, for example), you should keep a record of what you paid for it, so you can show the loss to the IRS in the event of an audit.\"",
"According to pages 6 & 7 of the instructions for form 1040 in 2009 AMT was only temporarily patched for the year. Congress can't politically afford to drastically cut AMT exemptions by 30 to 40%, and may even retroactively change it, if it isn't passed by the end of the year (despite the constitution forbidding ex post facto laws) : What’s New for 2009 ... Alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amount increased. The AMT exemption amount has increased to $46,700 ($70,950 if married filing jointly or a qualifying widow(er); $35,475 if married filing separately)... What’s New for 2010 ... Alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amount. The AMT exemption amount is scheduled to decrease to $33,750 ($45,000 if married filing jointly or a qualifying widow(er); $22,500 if married filing separately). So, if you are married, and several regular tax deductions push your income below the AMT exemption amount of $45,000, it's quite possible you would be required to pay AMT, even if you didn't last year. There is a work sheet for AMT in the instructions for line 43, but the IRS also provides an AMT calculator. According to page 146 (E-8) of the instructions for form 1040 AMT is paid as: the smallest amount you are allowed to report as your taxable income (Form 1040, line 43). It is also the smallest amount you are allowed to report as your alternative minimum taxable income (AMTI) on Form 6251, line 29. If the [AMT calculation] is larger than your taxable income would otherwise be, enter the amount from column (c) on Form 1040, line 43 [or ...] Form 6251, line 29. As always, congress finds ways to further complicate things by making a few credits and losses deductible against the absolute minimum you're expected to pay taxes on, making the AMT a misnomer.",
"I'm not sure how this gets entered in TurboTax, but this income from the company should be included in the Schedule C (or C-EZ) Line 1 Gross Receipts total, along with all of your 1099-MISC income from your business and any other income that your business took in. You don't need a 1099 from them, and the IRS doesn't care (at least from your perspective) if you got a 1099 or not; in fact, they probably expect you to have some non-1099 income. We don't know why the company chose not to issue 1099 forms, but luckily it isn't your concern. You can fill out your tax return properly without it. Note: This answer assumes that you didn't have any tax withheld from your checks from this company. If you did have tax withheld, you'll need to insist on a 1099 to show that.",
"\"If one looks at the \"\"Guide to Information Returns\"\" in the Form 1099 General Instructions (the instructions that the IRS provides to companies on how to fill out 1099 and other forms), it says that the 1099-B is due to recipient by February 15, with a footnote that says \"\"The due date is March 15 for reporting by trustees and middlemen of WHFITs.\"\" I doubt that exception applies, though it may. There's also a section in the instructions on \"\"Extension of time to furnish statements to recipients\"\" which says that a company can apply to the IRS to get an extension to this deadline if needed. I'm guessing that if you were told that there were \"\"complications\"\" that they may have applied for and been given this extension, though that's just a guess. While you could try calling the IRS if you want (and in fact, their web site does suggest calling them if you don't receive a W-2 or 1099-R by the end of February), my honest opinion is that they won't do much until mid-March anyway. Unfortunately, you're probably out of luck being able to file as early as you want to.\"",
"They are a business. You're not a corporation. They paid you more than $600 during the year, so they're supposed to send 1099 to you and the IRS about it. They need your taxpayer certification (W9) for that. They were supposed to ask for it before they paid you, but yes - they're supposed to ask for it.",
"You are expected to file 1099 for each person you pay $600 a year. I.e.: not a one time payment, but the total over the course of the year. Since we don't know how much and what else you paid - we cannot answer this question. The real question you're asking is that if you're treating the enterprise as a hobby, whether you're supposed to file 1099s at all. The answer to that question is yes. You should talk to your tax adviser (a EA/CPA licensed in your state) about this, and whether it is the right thing for you to do treating this as a hobby at all.",
"Why is the US still working with paper checks when Europe went digital about a decade ago? Tax filing is just another area in which the US is lagging. Modernizing it costs money, and the US is quite close to bankruptcy (as seen by the repeated government shutdowns). Also, the US tax code is quite complicated. For instance, I doubt there's anyone who has a full and complete list of all allowed deductions. Some comments wonder about multiple incomes. This doesn't require tax filing either. My local tax authority just sends me a combined statement with data from 2 employers and 2 banks, and asks me to confirm the resulting payment. This is possible because tax number usage is strictly regulated. SSN abuse in the US presumably makes this problematic.",
"You can have multiple W2 forms on the same tax return. If you are using software, it will have the ability for you to enter additional W2 forms. If you are doing it by paper, just follow the instructions and combine the numbers at the correct place and attach both. Similarly you can also have a 1099 with and without a W2. Just remember that with a 1099 you will have to pay the self employment tax ( FICA taxes, both employee and employer) and that no taxes will be withheld. You will want to either adjust the withholding on your main job or file quartely estimated taxes. Travel reimbursement should be the same tax exempt wise. The difference is that with a 1098, you will need to list your business expenses for deduction on the corresponding tax schedule. The value on the 1099 will include travel reimbursement. But then you can deduct your self employment expenses. I believe schedule C is where this occurs.",
"I think you're making a mistake. If you still want to make this mistake (I'll explain later why I think its a mistake), the resources for you are: IRS.GOV - The IRS official web site, that has all the up-to-date forms and instructions for them, guiding publications and the relevant rules. You might get a bit overwhelmed through. Software programs - TurboTax (Home & Business for a sole propriator or single member LLC, Business for more complicated business), or H&R Block Business (only one version that should cover all) are for your guidance. They provide tips and interactive guidance in filling in all the raw data, and produce all the forms filled for you according to the raw data you entered. I personally prefer TurboTax, I think its interface is nicer and the workflow is more intuitive, but that's my personal preference. I wrote about it in my blog last year. Both also include plug-ins for the state taxes (If I remember correctly, for both the first state is included in the price, if you need more than 1 state - there's extra $30-$40 per state). Your state tax authority web site (Minnesota Department of Revenue in your case). Both Intuit and H&R Block have on-line forums where people answer each others questions while using the software to prepare the taxes, you might find useful information there. As always, Google is your friend. Now, why I think this is a mistake. Mistakes that you make - will be your responsibility. If you use the software - they'll cover the calculation mistakes. But if you write income in a wrong specification or take a wrong deduction that you shouldn't have taken - it will be on your head and you're the one to pay the fines and penalties for that. Missed deductions and credits - CPA's (should) know about all the latest deductions and credits that you or your business might be entitled to. They also (should) know which one got canceled and you shouldn't be continuing taking them if you had before. Expenses - there are plenty of rules of what can be written off as an expense and how. Some things should be written off this year, others over several years, for some depreciation formula should be used, etc etc. Tax programs might help you with that, but again - mistakes are your responsibility. Especially for the first time and for the newly formed business, I think you should use a (good!) CPA. The CPA should take responsibility over your filing. The CPA should provide guarantee that based on the documents you provided, he filled all the necessary forms correctly, and will absorb all the fees and penalties if there's an audit and mistakes were found not because you withheld information from your CPA, but because the CPA made a mistake. That costs money, and that's why the CPA's are more expensive than using a program or preparing yourself. But, the risk is much higher, especially for a new business. And after all - its a business expense.",
"Since you were a nonresident alien student on F-1 visa then you will be considered engaged in a trade or business in the USA. You must file Form 1040NR. Here is the detailed instruction by IRS - http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Taxation-of-Nonresident-Aliens",
"\"You will be filing the exact same form you've been filing until now (I hope...) which is called form 1040. Attached to it, you'll add a \"\"Schedule C\"\" form and \"\"Schedule SE\"\" form. Keep in mind the potential effect of the tax and totalization treaties the US has with the UK which may affect your filings. I suggest you talk to a licensed EA/CPA who works with expats in the UK and is familiar with all the issues. There are several prominent offices you can find by Googling.\"",
"Yes, you can send in a 2012 1040-ES form with a check to cover your tax liability. However, you will likely have to pay penalties for not paying tax in timely fashion as well as interest on the late payment. You can have the IRS figure the penalty and bill you for it, or you can complete Form 2210 (on which these matters are figured out) yourself and file it with your Form 1040. The long version of Form 2210 often results in the smallest extra amount due but is considerably more time-consuming to complete correctly. Alternatively, if you or your wife have one or more paychecks coming before the end of 2012, it might be possible to file a new W-4 form with the HR Department with a request to withhold additional amounts as Federal income tax. I say might because if the last paycheck of the year will be issued in just a few days' time, it might already have been sent for processing, and HR might tell you it is too late. But, depending on the take-home pay, it might be possible to have the entire $2000 withheld as additional income tax instead of sending in a 1040-ES. The advantage of doing it through withholding is that you are allowed to treat the entire withholding for 2012 as satisfying the timely filing requirements. So, no penalty for late payment even though you had a much bigger chunk withheld in December, and no interest due either. If you do use this approach, remember that Form W-4 applies until it is replaced with another, and so HR will continue to withhold the extra amount on your January paychecks as well. So, file a new W-4 in January to get back to normal withholding. (Fix the extra exemption too so the problem does not recur in 2013).",
"You may be able to find the answers to your question on the IRS web site: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98263,00.html Specifically, using this form to estimate taxes for salary: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120w.pdf and this form to estimate taxes for dividends: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf",
"I strongly recommend that you talk to an accountant right away because you could save some money by making a tax payment by January 15, 2014. You will receive Forms 1099-MISC from the various entities with whom you are doing business as a contractor detailing how much money they paid you. A copy will go to the IRS also. You file a Schedule C with your Form 1040 in which you detail how much you received on the 1099-MISC forms as well as any other income that your contracting business received (e.g. amounts less than $600 for which a 1099-MISc does not need to be issued, or tips, say, if you are a taxi-driver running your own cab), and you can deduct various expenses that you incurred in generating this income, including tools, books, (or gasoline!) etc that you bought for doing the job. You will need to file a Schedule SE that will compute how much you owe in Social Security and Medicare taxes on the net income on Schedule C. You will pay at twice the rate that employees pay because you get to pay not only the employee's share but also the employer's share. At least, you will not have to pay income tax on the employer's share. Your net income on Schedule C will transfer onto Form 1040 where you will compute how much income tax you owe, and then add on the Social Security tax etc to compute a final amount of tax to be paid. You will have to pay a penalty for not making tax payments every quarter during 2013, plus interest on the tax paid late. Send the IRS a check for the total. If you talk to an accountant right away, he/she will likely be able to come up with a rough estimate of what you might owe, and sending in that amount by January 15 will save some money. The accountant can also help you set up for the 2014 tax year during which you could make quarterly payments of estimated tax for 2014 and avoid the penalties and interest referred to above.",
"I just want to point out something that seems to be generally true: If you are supposed to report something to the IRS, and you don't, the IRS will probably send you a letter assuming the maximum possible tax liability, and it's up to you to prove that scenario is incorrect. In your case you obviously owe no tax, but since you didn't report it, the IRS simply assumed that you do owe tax until you prove otherwise. You're one form away from fixing the issue. I have first hand experience that this is also true if you forget to report an HSA distribution. I received a letter considering my entire distribution as if it was for non eligible medical expenses. This made the amount taxable and had an additional 20% penalty to boot. Of course I have medical receipts for all of the distributions which makes them not taxable, and had I simply put the correct number on my return to begin with I wouldn't have had to fill out the additional form to correct my mistake.",
"I am currently dealing with the same issue of having a 1099 reported to the wrong person. I applied for the square account for my son's business but used my information, which I realized now was a BIG mistake. I did contact Square by email yesterday, which was Saturday, not expecting to hear from them until Monday, or possibly not at all (wasn't hearing a lot of good things about Square's customer service). She was most helpful and while the issue isn't completely taken care of, I do feel better about it. She just had me update the taxpayer information number which then updated the 1099 form.",
"From the IRS web site: So if your income was reported to the IRS (by the payer, not you) using one of the forms above, the IRS would have a record of it, regardless of whether you filed a tax return or not.",
"I know nothing about this, but found this link which suggests for H&R Block specifically: I kept searching and I found the section. It's at the end in the Credits section under 'other backup withholding'. Hopefully this helps someone else in the future.",
"W9 is required for any payments. However, in your case - these are not payments, but refunds, i.e.: you're not receiving any income from the company that is subject to tax or withholding rules, you're receiving money that is yours already. I do not think they have a right to demand W9 as a condition of refund, and as Joe suggested - would dispute the charge as fraudulent.",
"You should include the checks you received from the company, invoices you sent, bank statements showing the deposits, and your receipts, if any, you issued to the company. You'd be surprised to know that this is a fairly common tax fraud. You can also try and sue the company or its successor for the missing amounts, but if it has been dissolved it may be difficult. As with any non-trivial tax issue - I suggest you get a professional advice from a EA/CPA licensed in your State. You may need representation before the IRS - only EA, CPA or an Attorney may represent you in IRS proceedings (including audit and correspondence).",
"Generally stock trades will require an additional Capital Gains and Losses form included with a 1040, known as Schedule D (summary) and Schedule D-1 (itemized). That year I believe the maximum declarable Capital loss was $3000--the rest could carry over to future years. The purchase date/year only matters insofar as to rank the lot as short term or long term(a position held 365 days or longer), short term typically but depends on actual asset taxed then at 25%, long term 15%. The year a position was closed(eg. sold) tells you which year's filing it belongs in. The tiny $16.08 interest earned probably goes into Schedule B, typically a short form. The IRS actually has a hotline 800-829-1040 (Individuals) for quick questions such as advising which previous-year filing forms they'd expect from you. Be sure to explain the custodial situation and that it all recently came to your awareness etc. Disclaimer: I am no specialist. You'd need to verify everything I wrote; it was just from personal experience with the IRS and taxes.",
"Only your contributions count. There should be no ambiguity in what you contributed to the IRA. The IRA should have sent you a Form 5498 at the beginning of the next year detailing what you contributed that year. This is important because there are limits on how much you can contribute to an IRA per year. You don't need to fill out the form in a following year if you've made no nondeductible contributions (or Roth IRA conversions or any of the other stuff on the form) that year.",
"If your dad would have won money on the slot machines(And the amount was high), the casino would have given him a W2G to fill out right there and taxes would have been deducted. However, table games including Poker does not have any such rule. You will have to account for your winnings(And losses) at the end of the year. So, it is ok if you sign that paper, as you do not owe the IRS any money yet. You will still need to file your taxes as a non resident alien at the end of the year and attach the form W2G with it and pay your dues.",
"\"I think I found the answer, at least in my specific case. From the heading \"\"Questar/Dominion Resources Merger\"\" in this linked website: Q: When will I receive tax forms showing the stock and dividend payments? A: You can expect a Form 1099-B in early February 2017 showing the amount associated with payment of your shares. You also will receive a Form 1099-DIV by Jan. 31, 2017, with your 2016 dividends earned.\""
] |
[
"You can print them on any IRS-approved paper, you don't have to use pre-printed forms. The IRS publishes specifications for paper that is approved for use for these kinds of forms (109*, W*, etc). Here's the reason why it is important: Even the slightest deviation can result in incorrect scanning, and may affect money amounts reported for employees. Note that some portions of these forms are in different color (1099-MISC copy A). This is important, and using incorrect color will affect the IRS OCR mechanisms. Forms for individuals are less complicated with regards to technical specifications, because individuals must file them, and as such any complication will unnecessarily burden the citizenry. All the 109*, W* etc forms are not legally required to be filed by all citizens. You're only required to file them if you chose to do business, or chose to employ others. As such, using professional software and special forms is a cost of doing your business, and not a tax as it would be had it been mandatory to everyone. Mistakes in individual forms due to OCR failure or something else will be noticed by the taxpayers (less/more refund, etc) or through the internal matching and cross-check. However, forms 109* and W* feed that matching and cross-check system and are considered source of truth by it, and as such their processing must be much more reliable and precise."
] |
9808
|
Selling To Close
|
[
"40702",
"557582",
"431946"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"490620",
"121158",
"217837",
"416307",
"152719",
"449280",
"219762",
"345368",
"31465",
"250873",
"485424",
"320101",
"362473",
"557582",
"293959",
"352588",
"519745",
"27401",
"3095",
"69696",
"107045",
"199966",
"551286",
"40702",
"92695",
"501372",
"278729",
"279185",
"89460",
"476224",
"507097",
"303724",
"84761",
"382339",
"253866",
"123320",
"407602",
"368348",
"211509",
"414636",
"55535",
"55893",
"226984",
"438974",
"292045",
"322284",
"582562",
"81353",
"318185",
"317365",
"388718",
"120082",
"444405",
"154665",
"432111",
"429378",
"276314",
"165917",
"545284",
"215878",
"536647",
"271048",
"160169",
"92267",
"490170",
"377117",
"166307",
"521133",
"513734",
"301757",
"314478",
"233379",
"258531",
"501931",
"362762",
"390864",
"305676",
"557877",
"361238",
"387147",
"92670",
"139438",
"499877",
"279401",
"382568",
"102316",
"307155",
"388754",
"75024",
"365331",
"292159",
"516227",
"402593",
"547553",
"118360",
"281533",
"294522",
"272091",
"350276",
"47053"
] |
[
"You sell any investment because you need to do something else with the money -- rebalance your investments, buy something, pay off a debt....",
"Futures exchanges are essentially auction houses facilitating a two-way auction. While they provide a venue for buyers and sellers to come together and transact (be that a physical venue such as a pit at the CME or an electronic network such as Globex), they don't actively seek out or find buyers and sellers to pair them together. The exchanges enable this process through an order book. As a futures trader you may submit one of two types of order to an exchange: Market Order - this is sent to the exchange and is filled immediately by being paired with a limit order. Limit Order - this is placed on the books of the exchange at the price you specify. If other participants enter opposing market orders at this price, then their market order will be paired with your limit order. In your example, trader B wishes to close his long position. To do this he may enter a market sell order, which will immediately close his position at the lowest possible buy limit price, or he may enter a limit sell order, specifying the price at or above which he is willing to sell. In the case of the limit order, he will only sell and successfully close his position if his order becomes the lowest sell order on the book. All this may be a lot easier to understand by looking at a visual image of an order book such as the one given in the explanation that I have published here: Stop Orders for Futures Finally, not that as far as the exchange is concerned, there is no difference between an order to open and an order to close a position. They're all just 'buy' or 'sell' orders. Whether they cause you to reduce/exit a position or increase/establish a position is relative to the position you currently hold; if you're flat a buy order establishes a new position, if you're short it closes your position and leaves you flat.",
"why sell? Because the stock no longer fits your strategy. Or you've lost faith in the company. In our case, it's because we're taking our principal out and buying something else. Our strategy is, basically, to sell (or offer to sell) after the we can sell and get our principal out, after taxes. That includes dividends -- we reduce the sell price a little with every dividend collected.",
"\"Can anyone explain what each of them mean and how they're different from each other? When you \"\"buy to open\"\", you are purchasing an option and opening a new position. When you \"\"sell to open\"\", you are creating a brand new options contract and selling it. \"\"Covered\"\" means that you have assets in your account to satisfy the terms of the options contract. A \"\"covered call\"\" is a call option for which you own shares of the underlying stock that you will sell to the buyer at the option's strike price if he exercises the option. If you previously made a \"\"sell to open\"\" trade to create a new position, and you want to close the position, you can buy back the option. If you previously made a \"\"buy to open\"\" trade, you can \"\"sell to close\"\" which will sell back your option and close your position. In summary:\"",
"Buy it at the close. That way you won't lose money (even if marked to market) on the day.",
"\"You seem to have it right. You will be selling what's known as a covered call. When you sell the call, you enter it as \"\"sell to open\"\" and the system should see that you own the stock. You need to be approved for options trading, not all accounts are. As far as this particular trade goes - No, the stock doesn't necessarily get called away the day it's in the money, but it can be. If the stock closes just in the money around the time of expiration are you ok will selling it for the strike price? Remember, the option buyer is taking a small risk, the cost of this option, hoping the stock will go far above that price.\"",
"In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-). In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.",
"\"If you sell a stock you don't own, it's called a short sale. You borrowed the shares from an owner of the stock and eventually would buy to close. On most normal shares, you can hold a short position indefinitely, but there are some shares that have a combination of either a small float or too high a short position that shares to short are not available. This can create a \"\"short squeeze\"\" where shorts are burned by being forced to buy the stock back. Last - when you did this, you should have instructed the broker that you were \"\"selling to open\"\" or \"\"selling short.\"\" In the old days, when people held stock certificates, you were required to send the certificate in when you sold. Today, the broker should know that wasn't your intention.\"",
"\"Honestly, I wonder if the other answerers aren't overthinking it. Their answers are detailed and correct, but what your coach may be saying is this: When you have bought a stock, on cash or margin, and you are watching it rise you are evaluating when you sell on the price of the stock you are seeing. In reality, you should look at the bid (price buyers will give you for the stock) and ask (price sellers will charge you for the stock) prices. If the stock is going up, odds are the price of the stock is very close to the ask price because it is purchases that are driving it up, but that's not what you're going to get when you sell. You're going to get something around the bid price. If the spread between the two is large (i.e. a volatile stock) this could be many cents or more lower than the ask price. Therefore, what your coach may mean by \"\"Selling on Ask\"\" is you're using the stock price when it's equal or close to the ask price to decide when to sell, instead of letting the stock peak and drop (when its price will approach the bid price) or letting the trailing bid offers catch up to your desired sell point and selling then (i.e. letting the stock point grow PAST your sell point, dragging the bid price up with it). Just a thought, but that sounds like a term a coach would come up with to mean selling and getting less than you thought you were going to from the sale. (I know it's a necro reply, but the Interwebs are immortal and people come via Google... I did)\"",
"The best thing to do to avoid this is not to sell as you've described. What purpose does it solve? If you're speculating, set a price at which you want to cash out and put a limit order. If you're a long term investor, then unless something fundamental has changed - why would you sell?",
"If you sold bought a call option then as you stated sold it to someone else what you are doing is selling the call you bought. That leaves you with no position. This is the case if you are talking about the same strike, same expiration.",
"\"The two dimensions are to open the trade (creating a position) and to buy or sell (becoming long or short the option). If you already own an option, you bought it to open and then you would sell it to close. If you don't own an option, you can either buy it to open, or sell it (short it) to open. If you are already short an option, you can buy it back to close. If you sell to open covered, the point is you're creating a \"\"covered call\"\" which means you own the stock, and then sell a call. Since you own the stock, the covered call has a lot of the risk of loss removed, though it also subtracts much of the reward possible from your stock.\"",
"\"Seems like you are concerned with something called assignment risk. It's an inherent risk of selling options: you are giving somebody the right, but not the obligation, to sell to you 100 shares of GOOGL. Option buyers pay a premium to have that right - the extrinsic value. When they exercise the option, the option immediately disappears. Together with it, all the extrinsic value disappears. So, the lower the extrinsic value, the higher the assignment risk. Usually, option contracts that are very close to expiration (let's say, around 2 to 3 weeks to expiration or less) have significantly lower extrinsic value than longer option contracts. Also, generally speaking, the deeper ITM an option contract is, the lower extrinsic value it will have. So, to reduce assignment risk, I usually close out my option positions 1-2 weeks before expiration, especially the contracts that are deep in the money. edit: to make sure this is clear, based on a comment I've just seen on your question. To \"\"close out an options position\"\", you just have to create the \"\"opposite\"\" trade. So, if you sell a Put, you close that by buying back that exact same put. Just like stock: if you buy stock, you have a position; you close that position by selling the exact same stock, in the exact same amount. That's a very common thing to do with options. A post in Tradeking's forums, very old post, but with an interesting piece of data from the OCC, states that 35% of the options expire worthless, and 48% are bought or sold before expiration to close the position - only 17% of the contracts are actually exercised! (http://community.tradeking.com/members/optionsguy/blogs/11260-what-percentage-of-options-get-exercised) A few other things to keep in mind: certain stocks have \"\"mini options contracts\"\", that would correspond to a lot of 10 shares of stock. These contracts are usually not very liquid, though, so you might not get great prices when opening/closing positions you said in a comment, \"\"I cannot use this strategy to buy stocks like GOOGL\"\"; if the reason is because 100*GOOGL is too much to fit in your buying power, that's a pretty big risk - the assignment could result in a margin call! if margin call is not really your concern, but your concern is more like the risk of holding 100 shares of GOOGL, you can help manage that by buying some lower strike Puts (that have smaller absolute delta than your Put), or selling some calls against your short put. Both strategies, while very different, will effectively reduce your delta exposure. You'd get 100 deltas from the 100 shares of GOOGL, but you'd get some negative deltas by holding the lower strike Put, or by writing the higher strike Call. So as the stock moves around, your account value would move less than the exposure equivalent to 100 shares of stock.\"",
"Absolutely. There is no requirement that an option be in-the-money for you to close out a position. Remember that there are alwayes two sides to a trade - a buyer and a seller. When you bought your option, it's entirely possible that someone else was closing out their long position by selling it to you.",
"\"Unless you want to own the actual shares, you should simply sell the call option.By doing so you actual collect the profits (including any remaining time-value) of your position without ever needing to own the actual shares. Please be aware that you do not need to wait until maturity of the call option to sell it. Also the longer you wait, more and more of the time value embedded in the option's price will disappear which means your \"\"profit\"\" will go down.\"",
"You're assuming options traded on the open market. To close open positions, a seller buys them back on the open market. If there's little on offer, this will drive the price up.",
"Yes, selling premium is selling an option that contains premium over it's intrinsic value. Out-of-the-money options contain no intrinsic value, at the money and near the money options contain premium over the intrinsic value. The deeper in-the-money go, the less premium there is.",
"\"With stocks, you can buy or sell. If you sell first, that's called 'shorting.' As in \"\"I think linkedin is too high, I'm going to short it.\"\" With options, the terminology is different, the normal process is to buy to open/sell to close, but if you were shorting the option itself, you would first sell to open, i.e you are selling a position to start it, effectively selling it short. Eventually, you may close it out, by buying to close. Options trading is not for the amateur. If you plan to trade, study first and be very cautious.\"",
"What is essential is that company you are selling is transparent enough. Because it will provide additional liquidity to market. When I decide to sell, I drop all volume once at a time. Liquidation price will be somewhat worse then usual. But being out of position will save you nerves for future thinking where to step in again. Cold head is best you can afford in such scenario. In very large crashes, there could be large liquidity holes. But if you are on upper side of sigmoid, you will be profiting from selling before that holes appear. Problem is, nobody could predict if market is on upper-fall, mid-fall or down-fall at any time.",
"You said the decision will be made by EOD. If you've made the decision prior to the market close, I'd execute on the closing price. If you are trading stocks with any decent volume, I'd not worry about the liquidity. If your strategy's profits are so small that your gains are significantly impacted by say, the bid/ask spread (a penny or less for liquid stocks) I'd rethink the approach. You'll find the difference between the market open and prior night close is far greater than the normal bid/ask.",
"Rich's answer captures the basic essence of short selling with example. I'd like to add these additional points: You typically need a specially-privileged brokerage account to perform short selling. If you didn't request short selling when you opened your account, odds are good you don't have it, and that's good because it's not something most people should ever consider doing. Short selling is an advanced trading strategy. Be sure you truly grok selling short before doing it. Consider that when buying stock (a.k.a. going long or taking a long position, in contrast to short) then your potential loss as a buyer is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero) and your potential gain unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're lucky!) Whereas, with short selling, it's reversed: Your loss can be unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're unlucky!) and your potential gain is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero.) The proceeds you receive from a short sale – and then some – need to stay in your account to offset the short position. Brokers require this. Typically, margin equivalent to 150% the market value of the shares sold short must be maintained in the account while the short position is open. The owner of the borrowed shares is still expecting his dividends, if any. You are responsible for covering the cost of those dividends out of your own pocket. To close or cover your short position, you initiate a buy to cover. This is simply a buy order with the intention that it will close out your matching short position. You may be forced to cover your short position before you want to and when it is to your disadvantage! Even if you have sufficient margin available to cover your short, there are cases when lenders need their shares back. If too many short sellers are forced to close out positions at the same time, they push up demand for the stock, increasing price and deepening their losses. When this happens, it's called a short squeeze. In the eyes of the public who mostly go long buying stock, short sellers are often reviled. However, some people and many short sellers believe they are providing balance to the market and preventing it sometimes from getting ahead of itself. [Disambiguation: A short sale in the stock market is not related to the real estate concept of a short sale, which is when a property owner sells his property for less than he owes the bank.] Additional references:",
"\"Yes, selling premium is just selling options. It's usually used to talk about out-of-the-money options without coverage from underlying securities which you expect to expire worthless. More \"\"sophisticated\"\" ways to sell premium would include selling options strangles or straddles which allow you to sell more premium if you have more specific beliefs about the price action.\"",
"The person may just want to get out of that position in order to buy a different stock, he or she feels may go up faster. There is really a lot of reasons.",
"Yes, if there is liquidity you can sell your option to someone else as a profit. This is what the majority of option trading volume is used for: speculative trading with leverage.",
"Yes there will be enough liquidity to sell your position barring some sort of Flash Crash anomaly. Volume generally rises on the day of expiration to increase this liquidity. Don't forget that there are many investment strategies--buying to cover a short position is closing out a trade similar to your case.",
"If you get selected for exercise, your broker will liquidate the whole position for you most likely Talk to your broker.",
"It's not quite identical, due to fees, stock rights, and reporting & tax obligations. But the primary difference is that a person could have voting rights in a company while maintaining zero economic exposure to the company, sometimes known as empty voting. As an abstract matter, it's identical in that you reduce your financial exposure whether you sell your stock or short it. So the essence of your question is fundamentally true. But the details make it different. Of course there are fee differences in how your broker will handle it, and also margin requirements for shorting. Somebody playing games with overlapping features of ownership, sales, and purchases, may have tax and reporting obligations for straddles, wash sales, and related issues. A straight sale is generally less complicated for tax reporting purposes, and a loss is more likely to be respected than someone playing games with sales and purchases. But the empty voting issue is an important difference. You could buy stock with rights such as voting, engage in other behavior such as forwards, shorts, or options to negate your economic exposure to the stock, while maintaining the right to vote. Of course in some cases this may have to be disclosed or may be covered by contract, and most people engaging in stock trades are unlikely to have meaningful voting power in a public company. But the principle is still there. As explained in the article by Henry Hu and Bernie Black: Hedge funds have been especially creative in decoupling voting rights from economic ownership. Sometimes they hold more votes than economic ownership - a pattern we call empty voting. In an extreme situation, a vote holder can have a negative economic interest and, thus, an incentive to vote in ways that reduce the company's share price. Sometimes investors hold more economic ownership than votes, though often with morphable voting rights - the de facto ability to acquire the votes if needed. We call this situation hidden (morphable) ownership because the economic ownership and (de facto) voting ownership are often not disclosed.",
"\"Simplest way to answer this is that on margin, one is using borrowed assets and thus there are strings that come with doing that. Thus, if the amount of equity left gets too low, the broker has a legal obligation to close the position which can be selling purchased shares or buying back borrowed shares depending on if this is a long or short position respectively. Investopedia has an example that they walk through as the call is where you are asked to either put in more money to the account or the position may be closed because the broker wants their money back. What is Maintenance Margin? A maintenance margin is the required amount of securities an investor must hold in his account if he either purchases shares on margin, or if he sells shares short. If an investor's margin balance falls below the set maintenance margin, the investor would then need to contribute additional funds to the account or liquidate stocks in the account to bring the account back to the initial margin requirement. This request is known as a margin call. As discussed previously, the Federal Reserve Board sets the initial margin requirement (currently at 50%). The Federal Reserve Board also sets the maintenance margin. The maintenance margin, the amount of equity an investor needs to hold in his account if he buys stock on margin or sells shares short, is 25%. Keep in mind, however, that this 25% level is the minimum level set, brokerage firms can increase, but not decrease this level as they desire. Example: Determining when a margin call would occur. Assume that an investor had purchased 500 shares of Newco's stock. The shares were trading at $50 when the transaction was executed. The initial margin requirement on the account was 70% and the maintenance margin is 30%. Assume no transaction costs. Determine the price at which the investor will receive a margin call. Answer: Calculate the price as follows: $50 (1- 0.70) = $21.43 1 - 0.30 A margin call would be received when the price of Newco's stock fell below $21.43 per share. At that time, the investor would either need to deposit additional funds or liquidate shares to satisfy the initial margin requirement. Most people don't want \"\"Margin Calls\"\" but stocks may move in unexpected ways and this is where there are mechanisms to limit losses, especially for the brokerage firm that wants to make as much money as possible. Cancel what trade? No, the broker will close the position if the requirement isn't kept. Basically think of this as a way for the broker to get their money back if necessary while following federal rules. This would be selling in a long position or buying in a short sale situation. The Margin Investor walks through an example where an e-mail would be sent and if the requirement isn't met then the position gets exited as per the law.\"",
"You put in a market order when you want to sell to whomever raises their hand first. It results in the fastest possible liquidation of your stock. It's appropriate when you need to sell now, regardless of price. An example of when to use it: It's 3:55 PM, the market's going to close in 5 minutes and you need to sell some stocks to make some kind of urgent payment elsewhere. If instead you have a limit order in place, you might not reach the limit price before the market closes, and you'll still own the stock, which might not be what you want.",
"The market maker will always take it off your hands. Just enter a market sell order. It will cost you a commission to pull the loss into this year. But that's it.",
"You should know when to sell your shares before you buy them. This is most easily done by placing a stop loss conditional order at the same time you place your buy order. There are many ways to determine at what level to place your stop losses at. The easiest is to place a trailing stop loss at a percentage below the highest close price, so as the price reaches new highs the trailing stop will rise. If looking for short to medium term gains you might place your trailing stop at 10% below the highest close, whilst if you were looking for more longer term gains you should probably place a 20% trailing stop. Another way to place your stops for short to medium term gains is to keep moving your trailing stop up to just below the last trough in an existing uptrend.",
"\"In my view, it's better to sell when there's a reason to sell, rather than to cap your gains at 8%. I'm assuming you have no such criteria on the other side - i.e. hold your losses down to 8%. That's because what matters is how much you make overall in your portfolio, not how much you make per trade. Example: if you own three stocks, equal amounts - and two go up 20% but one falls 20%. If you sell your gains at 8%, and hold the loser, you have net LOST money. So when do you actually sell? You might say a \"\"fall of 10%\"\" from the last high is good enough to sell. This is called a \"\"trailing\"\" stop, which means if a stock goes from 100 to 120, I'll still hold and sell if it retraces to 108. Needless to say if it had gone from 100 to 90, I would still be out. The idea is to ride the trend for as long as you can, because trends are strong. And keep your trailing stops wide enough for it to absorb natural jiggles, because you may get stopped out of a stock that falls 4% but eventually goes up 200%. Or sell under other conditions: if the earnings show a distinct drop, or the sector falls out of favor. Whenever you decide to sell, also consider what it would take for you to buy the stock back - increased earnings, strong prices, a product release, whatever. Because getting out might seem like a good thing, but it's just as important to not think of it as saying a stock is crappy - it might just be that you had enough of one ride. That doesn't mean you can't come back for another one.\"",
"When you set up a short sale for equities you are borrowing stock from someone else; typically another client at the broker. The broker usually buries an agreement to let your shares be borrowed for short sales in your account details. So if Client A wants to short a stock, he borrows stock from Client B to do the short sale (it's usually not this direct as they can borrow from many clients). If Client B then wants to sell his shares; if the broker can't shift around assets to find another client's shares to let Client A borrow; then he has to close the short position out because he doesn't have the shares in the brokerage to let Client A borrow to short anymore.",
"try to sell if today's google stock goes above 669$ This is Relative/Pegged-to-Primary Order with a Limit Price of $669 and an offset from National Best Offer of $0.00, but it is no different than an Market Order if the market price is $669 to begin with. do not sell if the stock keeps climbing beyond 669 unless there is a down tick of 20cents is seen This is a Trailing Stop Order with a Trailing Amount of $0.20. It sells if the market price dropped $0.20 from the peak. The two orders are contradictory. From your comments, I think the following is what you want: Submit Trailing Stop Order when market price is above $669. Cancel Trailing Stop Order before the end of the day and Submit Relative/Pegged-to-Primary Order to Sell.",
"Your math shows that you bought an 'at the money' option for .35 and when the stock is $1 above the strike, your $35 (options trade as a contract for 100 shares) is now worth $100. You knew this, just spelling it out for future readers. 1 - Yes 2 - An execute/sell may not be nesesary, the ooption will have time value right until expiration, and most ofter the bid/ask will favor selling the option. You should ask the broker what the margin requirement is for an execute/sell. Keep in mind this usually cannot be done on line, if I recall, when I wanted to execute, it was a (n expensive) manual order. 3 - I think I answered in (2), but in general they are not identical, the bid/ask on options can get crazy. Just look at some thinly traded strikes and you'll see what I mean.",
"\"The question is, how do I exit? I can't really sell the puts because there isn't enough open interest in them now that they are so far out of the money. I have about $150K of funds outside of this position that I could use, but I'm confused by the rules of exercising a put. Do I have to start shorting the stock? You certainly don't want to give your broker any instructions to short the stock! Shorting the stock at this point would actually be increasing your bet that the stock is going to go down more. Worse, a short position in the stock also puts you in a situation of unlimited risk on the stock's upside – a risk you avoided in the first place by using puts. The puts limited your potential loss to only your cost for the options. There is a scenario where a short position could come into play indirectly, if you aren't careful. If your broker were to permit you to exercise your puts without you having first bought enough underlying shares, then yes, you would end up with a short position in the stock. I say \"\"permit you\"\" because most brokers don't allow clients to take on short positions unless they've applied and been approved for short positions in their account. In any case, since you are interested in closing out your position and taking your profit, exercising only and thus ending up with a resulting open short position in the underlying is not the right approach. It's not really a correct intermediate step, either. Rather, you have two typical ways out: Sell the puts. @quantycuenta has pointed out in his answer that you should be able to sell for no less than the intrinsic value, although you may be leaving a small amount of time value on the table if you aren't careful. My suggestion is to consider using limit orders and test various prices approaching the intrinsic value of the put. Don't use market orders where you'll take any price offered, or you might be sorry. If you have multiple put contracts, you don't need to sell them all at once. With the kind of profit you're talking about, don't sweat paying a few extra transactions worth of commission. Exercise the puts. Remember that at the other end of your long put position is one (or more) trader who wrote (created) the put contract in the first place. This trader is obligated to buy your stock from you at the contract price should you choose to exercise your option. But, in order for you to fulfill your end of the contract when you choose to exercise, you're obligated to deliver the underlying shares in exchange for receiving the option strike price. So, you would first need to buy underlying shares sufficient to exercise at least one of the contracts. Again, you don't need to do this all at once. @PeterGum's answer has described an approach. (Note that you'll lose any remaining time value in the option if you choose to exercise.) Finally, I'll suggest that you ought to discuss the timing and apportioning of closing out your position with a qualified tax professional. There are tax implications and, being near the end of the year, there may be an opportunity* to shift some/all of the income into the following tax year to minimize and defer tax due. * Be careful if your options are near expiry! Options typically expire on the 3rd Friday of the month.\"",
"Note that the rules around wash sales vary depending on where you live. For the U.S., the wash sale rules say that you cannot buy a substantially identical stock or security within 30 days (before or after) your sale. So, you could sell your stock today to lock in the capital losses. However, you would then have to wait at least 30 days before purchasing it back. If you bought it back within 30 days, you would disqualify the capital loss event. The risk, of course, is that the stock's price goes up substantially while you are waiting for the wash sale period. It's up to you to determine if the risk outweighs the benefit of locking in your capital losses. Note that this applies regardless of whether you sell SOME or ALL of the stock. Or indeed, if we are talking about securities other than stocks.",
"Don't sell. Ever. Well almost. A number of studies have shown that buying equal amounts of shares randomly will beat the market long term, and certainly won't do badly. Starting from this premise then perhaps you can add a tiny bit extra with your skill... maybe, but who knows, you might suck. Point is when buying you have the wind behind you - a monkey would make money. Selling is a different matter. You have the cost of trading out and back in to something else, only to have changed from one monkey portfolio to the other. If you have skill that covers this cost then yes you should do this - but how confident are you? A few studies have been done on anonymised retail broker accounts and they show the same story. Retail investors on average lose money on their switches. Even if you believe you have a real edge on the market, you're strategy still should not just say sell when it drops out of your criteria. Your criteria are positive indicators. Lack of positive is not a negative indicator. Sell when you would happily go short the stock. That is you are really confident it is going down. Otherwise leave it.",
"\"This is actually a very complicated question. The key reading in this area is a seminal paper by Almgren & Chriss, \"\"Optimal Execution of Portfolio Transactions\"\" (2000). They show that there's a tradeoff between liquidating your portfolio faster and knowing the value with more certainty, versus liquidating more slowly (and likely for a higher price) but with less certainty. So for example, if you sold your entire position right now, you would know almost certainly how much you would get for the position. Or, you could sell off your position more slowly, and likely get more money, but you would have less certainty about how much you would get. The paper is available online at http://www.courant.nyu.edu/~almgren/papers/optliq.pdf\"",
"In the US you specify explicitly what stocks you're selling. Brokers now are required to keep track of cost basis and report it to the IRS on the 1099-B, so you have to tell the broker which position it is that you're closing. Usually, the default is FIFO (i.e.: when you sell, you're assumed to be closing the oldest position), but you can change it if you want. In the US you cannot average costs basis of stocks (you can for mutual funds), so you either do FIFO, LIFO (last position closed first), or specify the specific positions when you submit the sale order.",
"If the position starts losing money as soon as it is put on, then I would close it out ,taking a small loss. However, if it starts making money,as in the stock inches higher, then you can use part of the premium collected to buy an out of money put, thereby limiting your downside. It is called a collar.",
"Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.",
"\"The settlement date for any trade is the date on which the seller gets the buyer's money and the buyer gets the seller's product. In US equities markets the settlement date is (almost universally) three trading days after the trade date. This settlement period gives the exchanges, the clearing houses, and the brokers time to figure out how many shares and how many dollars need to actually be moved around in order to give everyone what they're owed (and then to actually do all that moving around). So, \"\"settling\"\" a short trade is the same thing as settling any other trade. It has nothing to do with \"\"closing\"\" (or covering) the seller's short position. Q: Is this referring to when a short is initiated, or closed? A: Initiated. If you initiate a short position by selling borrowed shares on day 1, then settlement occurs on day 4. (Regardless of whether your short position is still open or has been closed.) Q: All open shorts which are still open by the settlement date have to be reported by the due date. A: Not exactly. The requirement is that all short positions evaluated based on their settlement dates (rather than their trade dates) still open on the deadline have to be reported by the due date. You sell short 100 AAPL on day 1. You then cover that short by buying 100 AAPL on day 2. As far as the clearing houses and brokers are concerned, however, you don't even get into the short position until your sell settles at the end of day 4, and you finally get out of your short position (in their eyes) when your buy settles at the end of day 5. So imagine the following scenarios: The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 2. Since your (FINRA member) broker has been told to report based on settlement date, it would report no open position for you in AAPL even though you executed a trade to sell on day 1. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 3. Your sell still has not settled, so there's still no open position to report for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 4. Your sell has settled but your buy has not, so the broker reports a 100 share open short position for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 5. Your sell and buy have both settled, so the broker once again has no open position to report for you. So, the point is that when dealing with settlement dates you just pretend the world is 3 days behind where it actually is.\"",
"Yes you can, provided if buyers are available. Normally high liquidty stocks can be sold at market prices a little higher or lower.",
"\"When the strike price ($25 in this case) is in-the-money, even by $0.01, your shares will be sold the day after expiration if you take no action. If you want to let your shares go,. allow assignment rather than close the short position and sell the long position...it will be cheaper that way. If you want to keep your shares you must buy back the option prior to 4Pm EST on expiration Friday. First ask yourself why you want to keep the shares. Is it to write another option? Is it to hold for a longer term strategy? Assuming this is a covered call writing account, you should consider \"\"rolling\"\" the option. This involves buying back the near-term option and selling the later date option of a similar or higher strike. Make sure to check to see if there is an upcoming earnings report in the latter month because you may want to avoid writing a call in that situation. I never write a call when there's an upcoming ER prior to expiration. Good luck. Alan\"",
"\"You have to calculate the total value of all shares and then ask yourself \"\"Would I invest that amount of money in this stock?\"\" If the answer is yes, then only sell what you need to sell. Take the $3k loss against your income, if you have no other gains. If you would not invest that amount of cash in that stock, then sell it all right now and carry forward the excess loss every year. Note at any point you have capital gains you can offset all of them with your loss carryover (not just $3k).\"",
"Your broker should be able to answer this. Many brokers will buy it from you for the cost of a commission, if there's no legit buyer.",
"When you sell a stock that you own, you realize gains, or losses. Short-term gains, realized within a year of buying and selling an asset, are taxed at your maximum (or marginal) tax rate. Long term-gains, realized after a year, are taxed at a lower, preferential rate. The first thing to consider is losses. Losses can be cancelled against gains, reducing your tax liability. Losses can also be carried over to the next tax year and be redeemed against those gains. When you own a bunch of the same type of stock, bought at different times and prices, you can choose which shares to sell. This allows you to decide whether you realize short- or long-term gains (or losses). This is known as lot matching (or order matching). You want to sell the shares that lost value before selling the ones that gained value. Booking losses reduces your taxes; booking gains increases them. If faced with a choice between booking short term and long term losses, I'd go with the former. Since net short-term gains are taxed at a higher rate, I'd want to minimize the short-term tax liability before moving on to long-term tax liability. If my remaining shares had gains, I'd sell the ones purchased earliest since long-term gains are taxed at a lower rate, and delaying the booking of gains converts short-term gains into long-term ones. If there's a formula for this, I'd say it's (profit - loss) x (tax bracket) = tax paid",
"You have no guarantees. The stock may last have traded at $100 (so, the market price is $100), but is currently in free-fall and nobody else will be willing to buy it for any more than $80. Or heck, maybe nobody will be willing to buy it at all, at any price. Or maybe trading on this stock will be halted. Remember, the market price is just what the stock last traded at. If you put in a 'market order', you are ordering your broker to sell at the best available current price. Assuming someone's willing to buy your stock, that means you'll sell it. But if it last traded at $100, this doesn't guarantee you'll sell at anything close to that.",
"\"Most of the time* you're selling to other investors, not back to the company. The stock market is a collection of bid (buy offers) and asks (sell offers). When you sell your stock as a retail investor at the \"\"market\"\" price you're essentially just meeting whatever standing bid offers are on the market. For very liquid stocks (e.g. Apple), you can pretty much always get the displayed price because so many stocks are being traded. However during periods of very high volatility or for low-volume stocks, the quoted price may not be indicative of what you actually pay. As an example, let's say you have 5 stocks you're trying to sell and the bid-side order book is 2 stocks for $105, 2 for $100, and 5 for $95. In this scenario the quoted price will be $105 (the best bid price), but if you accept market price you'll settle 2 for 105, 2 for 100, and 1 for 95. After your sell order goes through, the new quoted price will be $95. For high volume stocks, there will usually be so many orders near the midpoint price ($105, in this case) that you won't see any price slippage for small orders. You can also post limit orders, which are essentially open orders waiting to be filled like in the above example. They ensure you get the price you want, but you have no way to guarantee they'll be filled or not. Edit: as a cool example, check out the bitcoin GDAX on coinbase for a live example of what the order book looks like for stocks. You'll see that the price of bitcoin will drift towards whichever direction has the less dense order book (e.g. price drifts upwards when there are far more bids than asks.)\"",
"\"I'm not sure what you expect in terms of answers, but it depends on personal factors. It pretty well has to depend on personal factors, since otherwise everyone would want to do the same thing (either everyone thinks the current price is one to sell at, or everyone thinks it's one to buy at), and there would be no trades. You wouldn't be able to do what you want, except on the liquidity provided by market makers. Once that's hit, the price is shifting quickly, so your calculation will change quickly too. Purely in terms of maximising expected value taking into account the time value of money, it's all about the same. The market \"\"should\"\" already know everything you know, which means that one time to sell is as good as any other. The current price is generally below the expected acquisition price because there's a chance the deal will fall through and the stock price will plummet. That's not to say there aren't clever \"\"sure-fire\"\" trading strategies around acquisitions, but they're certain to be based on more than just timing when to sell an existing holding of stock. If you have information that the market doesn't (and assuming it is legal to do so) then you trade based on that information. If you know something the market doesn't that's going to be good for price, hold. If you know something that will reduce the price, sell now. And \"\"know\"\" can be used in a loose sense, if you have a strong opinion against the market then you might like to invest based on that. Nothing beats being paid for being right. Finally, bear in mind that expected return is not the same as utility. You have your own investment goals and your own view of risk. If you're more risk-averse than the market then you might prefer to sell now rather than wait for the acquisition. If you're more risk-prone than the market then you might prefer a 90% chance of $1 to 90c. That's fine, hold the stock. The extreme case of this is that you might have a fixed sum at which you will definitely sell up, put everything into the most secure investments you can find, and retire to the Caribbean. If that's the case then you become totally risk-averse the instant your holding crosses that line. Sell and order cocktails.\"",
"ML is a brokerage firm. Tell them to sell. If you can't or don't know how to do it on-line - call them and do it over the phone. Your citizenship might come in effect when tax are withheld, you need to fill form W8-BEN if you haven't done so yet. If US taxes are withheld, you can file 1040NR to request refund, or get it credited against your local tax liabilities.",
"Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.",
"Opened Long - is when you open a long position. Long means that you buy to open the position, so you are trying to profit as the price rises. So if you were closing a long position you would sell it. Closed Short - is when you close out a short position. Short means that you sell to open and buy back to close. With a short position you are trying to profit as the price falls. Scaled Out - means you get out of a position in increments as the price climbs (for long positions). Scaled In - means you set a target price and then invest in increments as the stock falls below that price (for long positions).",
"I do this often with shares that I own - mostly as a learning/experience-building exercise, since I don't own enough individual stocks to make me rich (and don't risk enough to make me broke). Suppose I own 1,000 shares of X. I don't expect my shares to go down, but I want to be compensated in case they do go down. Sure, I could put in a stop-loss order, but another option is to sell a call above where the stock is now (out-of-the-money). So I get the premium regardless of what happens. From there three things can happen: So a covered call essentially lets you give up some upside for some compensation against downward moves. Mathematically it's roughly equivalent to selling a put option - you make a little money (from the premium) if the stock goes up but can lose a lot if the stock plummets. So you would sell call options if:",
"\"This is called a Contingent Order and is set up so if one order is filled (in this case) the other order is cancelled. It's a common desire that one would wish to have a stop-loss in place but also a targeted sell price for their in-the-money sell point. Your broker will tell you all you need to know about how to enter this, if you explain you'd like to place a contingent order. (As Victor noted below, your specific order would be a \"\"One Cancels Other\"\" or \"\"OCO\"\") Great first question, welcome to Money,SE.\"",
"Selling options is a great idea, but tweak it a bit and sell credit spreads on both sides of the market, i.e. sell OTM bear call spreads and OTM bull put spreads. This is also known as an iron condor, and limits risk, and allows for much more flexibility.",
"You could always maintain a limit order to sell at a price you're comfortable with.",
"\"Obviously a stock that's hit a high is profit waiting to be taken, be safe, take the money, Sell Sell Sell!! Ah.. but wait, they say \"\"run your winners, cut your losers\"\", so here this stock is a winner... keep on to it, Hold Hold Hold!!!!! Of course, if you're holding, then you think it's going to return even higher.... Buy Buy Buy!!!! So, hope that's clears things up for you - Sell, Hold, or maybe Buy :-) A more serious answer is not ever to worry about past performance, if its gone past a reasonable valuation then consider selling, but never care about selling out just because its reached some arbitrary share price. If you are worried about losses, you might like to set a trailing stop and sell if it drops, but if you're a LTBH type person, just keep it until you feel it is overvalued compared to its fundamentals.\"",
"The price doesn't have to drop 5% in one go to activate your order. The trailing aspect simply means your sell trigger price will increase if the current value increases (it will never decrease).",
"None of your options or strategies are ideal. Have you considered looking at the stock chart and making a decision? Is the price currently up-trending, or is it down-trending, or is it going sideways? As Knuckle Dragger mentions, you could just set a limit price order and if it does not hit by Friday you can just sell at whatever price on Friday. However, this could be very damaging if the price is currently down-trending. It may fall considerably by Friday. I think a better strategy would be to place a trailing stop loss order, say 5% from the current price. If the stock starts heading south you will be stopped out approximately 5% below the current price. However, if the price goes up, your trailing stop order will move up as well, always trailing 5% below the highest price reached. If the trailing stop has not been hit by Friday afternoon, you can sell at the current price. This way you will be protected on the downside (only approx. 5% below current price) and can potentially benefit from any short term upside.",
"\"There are two ways you can \"\"cash in.\"\" 1) Buy enough additional shares to bring your share total to 100, then exercise the put. 2) Sell the put in the open market for a profit.\"",
"Yes, theoretically you can flip the shares you agreed to buy and make a profit, but you're banking on the market behaving in some very precise and potentially unlikely ways. In practice it's very tricky for you to successfully navigate paying arbitrarily more for a stock than it's currently listed for, and selling it back again for enough to cover the difference. Yes, the price could drop to $28, but it could just as easily drop to $27.73 (or further) and now you're hurting, before even taking into account the potentially hefty commissions involved. Another way to think about it is to recognize that an option transaction is a bet; the buyer is betting a small amount of money that a stock will move in the direction they expect, the seller is betting a large amount of money that the same stock will not. One of you has to lose. And unless you've some reason to be solidly confident in your predictive powers the loser, long term, is quite likely to be you. Now that said, it is possible (particularly when selling puts) to create win-win scenarios for yourself, where you're betting one direction, but you'd be perfectly happy with the alternative(s). Here's an example. Suppose, unrelated to the option chain, you've come to the conclusion that you'd be happy paying $28 for BBY. It's currently (June 2011) at ~$31, so you can't buy it on the open market for a price you'd be happy with. But you could sell a $28 put, promising to buy it at that price should someone want to sell it (presumably, because the price is now below $28). Either the put expires worthless and you pocket a few bucks and you're basically no worse off because the stock is still overpriced by your estimates, or the option is executed, and you receive 100 shares of BBY at a price you previously decided you were willing to pay. Even if the list price is now lower, long term you expect the stock to be worth more than $28. Conceptually, this makes selling a put very similar to being paid to place a limit order to buy the stock itself. Of course, you could be wrong in your estimate (too low, and you now have a position that might not become profitable; too high, and you never get in and instead just watch the stock gain in value), but that is not unique to options - if you're bad at estimating value (which is not to be confused with predicting price movement) you're doomed just about whatever you do.",
"The 'normal' series of events when trading a stock is to buy it, time passes, then you sell it. If you believe the stock will drop in price, you can reverse the order, selling shares, waiting for the price drop, then buying them back. During that time you own say, -100 shares, and are 'short' those shares.",
"\"You should distinguish between the price and the value of a company: \"\"Price is what you pay, value is what you get\"\". Price is the share price you pay for one share of the company. Value is what a company is worth (based on fundamental analysis, one of the principles of value investing). I would recommend selling the stock only if the company's value has deteriorated due to fundamental changes (e.g. better products from competitors, declining market) and its value is lower than the current share price.\"",
"When you are a certain age you will be able to tap into your retirement accounts, or start receiving pension and social security funds. In addition you may be faced with required minimum distributions from these accounts. But even before you get to those points you will generally shift the focus of new funds into the retirement account to be more conservative. Depending on the balances in the various accounts and the size of the pension and social security accounts you may even move invested funds from aggressive to conservative investments. The proper proportion of the many different types of investments and revenue streams is open to much debate. During retirement you will be pulling money out of retirement accounts either to support your standard of living or to meet the required minimum distributions. What to sell will be based on either the tax implications or the required distributions that will still maintain the asset allocation you desire. If your distributions are driven by the law you will be selling enough to meet a specific required $ figure. You will either spend that money or move it into a low interest savings account or a non-retirement investment account. If trying to meet your standard of living expectations you will be selling funds that allow you to keep your desired asset allocation but still have enough to live on. Again you will be trying to meet a specific $ figure. Of course you may decide at anytime in retirement to rebalance based on changes to your lifestyle, family obligations, or winning the lottery.",
"Depending on the day and even time, you'd get your $2 profit less the $5 commission. Jack's warning is correct, but more so for thinly traded options, either due to the options having little open interest or the stock not quite so popular. In your case you have a just-in-the-money strike for a highly traded stock near expiration. That makes for about the best liquidity one can ask for. One warning is in order - Sometime friday afternoon, there will be a negative time premium. i.e. the bid might seem lower than in the money value. At exactly $110, why would I buy the option? Only if I can buy it, exercise, and sell the stock, all for a profit, even if just pennies.",
"My broker offers a service to transfer the shares where you only pay commission once. Therefore say if standard commission is £10, then you don't end up paying £20 (10 for selling + 10 for buy back). You'll have to be okay with the spread though. Hope this helps.",
"\"There are a few things you are missing here. These appear to be penny stocks or subpenny stocks. Buying these are easy.... selling is a total different ball game. Buying commissions are low and selling commissions are outrageous. Another thing you are missing in this order is... some trading platform may assume the \"\"AON\"\" sale. That is All Or None. There was an offer of 10k shares @ .63. The buyer only wanted 10k what was the broker to do with the other 20k? Did you inform the broker that partial sales where acceptable? You may want to contact your broker and explain this to them. The ALL OR NONE order has made plenty of investor a little unhappy, which seems to be your new learning experience for the day. Sorry, school of hard knocks is not always fun.\"",
"Simply if your stock is still rising in price keep it. If it is falling in price sell it and pay off your mortgage. To know when to do this is very easy. If it is currently rising you can put a trailing stop loss on it and sell it when it drops and hits your stop loss. A second easy method is to draw an uptrend line under the increasing price and then sell when the price drops down below the uptrend line, as per the chart below. This will enable you to capture the bulk of the price movement upward and sell before the price drops too far down. You can then use the profits (after tax) to pay down your mortgage. Of course if the price is currently in a downtrend sell it ASAP.",
"\"And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position. When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here. In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them. If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from. Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest). Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy. Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800. In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question). It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement. Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money. If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a \"\"margin call\"\" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses. And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin). When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go. There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position. You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs.\"",
"\"Selling short is simply by definition the selling, then later re-buying of stock you don't initially own. Say you tally your entire portfolio balance: the quantity of each stock you own, and your cash assets. Let's call this your \"\"initial position\"\". We define \"\"profit\"\" as any increase in assets, relative to this initial position. If you know a particular stock will go down, you can realize a profit by selling some of that stock, waiting for the price to go down, then buying it back. In the end you will have returned to your initial position, except you will have more cash. If you sell 10 shares of a stock valued at £1.50, then buy them back at £1.00, you will make a £5.00 profit while having otherwise returned to your previous position. If you do the same, but you initially owned 1000 shares, sold just 10 of those, then bought 10 back, that's still a profit of £5.00. Selling short is doing the same thing, but with an initial and ending balance of 0 shares. If you initially own 0 shares, sell 10, then buy 10 back, you return to your initial position (0 shares) plus a profit of £5.00. (And in practice you must also pay a borrowing fee to do this.) The advantage of selling short is it can be done with any stock, not just those currently owned.\"",
"\"The current price is $8.05. If you want the right to sell it to someone (put it to the buyer) for $10, you have to pay $2. Since you're looking at an expiration that's so close, the \"\"in the money\"\" value is nearly the same as what it trades for. The JAN 2013 sells for nearly $3.\"",
"I believe this depends on the broker's policies. For example, here is Vanguard's policy (from https://personal.vanguard.com/us/whatweoffer/stocksbondscds/brokeragedividendprogram): Does selling shares affect a distribution? If you sell the entire position two days or more before the dividend-payable date, your distribution will be paid in cash. If, however, you sell an entire position within the two day time frame of the security's payable date, the dividend will be reinvested, resulting in additional shares. Selling these subsequent shares will require another sell order, which will incur additional commission charges. Dividends which would have been reinvested into less than one whole share will be automatically liquidated into cash. If you want to guarantee you receive no fractional shares, I'd call your broker and ask whether selling stock ABC on a particular date will result in the dividend being paid in shares.",
"For exchange contracts, yes. A trader can close a position by taking an offsetting position. CME's introduction to Futures explains it quite well (on page 22). Exiting the Market Jack entered the market on the buy side, speculating that the S&P 500 futures price would move higher. He has three choices for exiting the market:",
"I sold it at 609.25 and buy again at 608.75 in the same day If you Sold and bought the same day, it would be considered as intra-day trade. Profit will be due and would be taxed at normal tax brackets. Edits Best Consult a CA. This is covered under Indian Accounting Standard AG51 The following examples illustrate the application of the derecognition principles of this Standard. (e) Wash sale transaction. The repurchase of a financial asset shortly after it has been sold is sometimes referred to as a wash sale. Such a repurchase does not preclude derecognition provided that the original transaction met the derecognition requirements. However, if an agreement to sell a financial asset is entered into concurrently with an agreement to repurchase the same asset at a fixed price or the sale price plus a lender's return, then the asset is not derecognised. This is more relevant now for shares/stocks as Long Term Capital Gains are tax free, Long Term Capital Loss cannot be adjusted against anything. Short Term Gains are taxed differentially. Hence the transaction can be interpreted as tax evasion, professional advise is recommended. A simple way to avoid this situation; sell on a given day and buy it next or few days later.",
"\"In general there are two types of futures contract, a put and call. Both contract types have both common sides of a transaction, a buyer and a seller. You can sell a put contract, or sell a call contract also; you're just taking the other side of the agreement. If you're selling it would commonly be called a \"\"sell to open\"\" meaning you're opening your position by selling a contract which is different from simply selling an option that you currently own to close your position. A put contract gives the buyer the right to sell shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to put the shares on someone else. A call contract gives the buyer the right to buy shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to call on someone for shares. \"\"American\"\" options contracts allow the buyer can exercise their rights under the contract on or before the expiration date; while \"\"European\"\" type contracts can only be exercised on the expiration date. To address your example. Typically for stock an option contract involves 100 shares of a stock. The value of these contracts fluctuates the same way other assets do. Typically retail investors don't actually exercise their contracts, they just close a profitable position before the exercise deadline, and let unprofitable positions expire worthless. If you were to buy a single call contract with an exercise price of $100 with a maturity date of August 1 for $1 per share, the contract will have cost you $100. Let's say on August 1 the underlying shares are now available for $110 per share. You have two options: Option 1: On August 1, you can exercise your contract to buy 100 shares for $100 per share. You would exercise for $10,000 ($100 times 100 shares), then sell the shares for $10 profit per share; less the cost of the contract and transaction costs. Option 2: Your contract is now worth something closer to $10 per share, up from $1 per share when you bought it. You can just sell your contract without ever exercising it to someone with an account large enough to exercise and/or an actual desire to receive the asset or commodity.\"",
"\"This answer relies on why you are holding shares of a company in the first place. So let's address that: So does this mean you would like to vote with your shares on the directions the company takes? If so, your reasons for selling would be different from the next speculator who only is interested in share price volatility. Regardless of your participation in potential voting rights associated with your share ownership, a different reason to sell is based on if your fundamental reasons for investing in the company have changed. Enhancements on this topic include: Trade management, how to deal with position sizes. Buying and selling partial positions based on price action while keeping a core long term position, but this is not something \"\"long term investors\"\" generally put too much effort in. Price targets, start your long term investment with a price target in mind, derived from a future market cap based on your initial fundamental analysis of the company's prospects. And finally, there are a lot of things you can do with a profitable investment in shares.\"",
"Yes You could write a covered call and the stock gets called away at the price + premium. You could convince someone to buy it regardless of the market price.",
"\"Write means sell to open. It is called that because options writers are creating (i.e. writing) new contracts. No such thing as \"\"reading\"\" an option.\"",
"I am close to retirement and sell cash secured puts and covered calls on a regular basis. I make 15 % plus per year from the puts. Less risky than buying stocks, which I also do. Riskier than bonds, but several times the income. Example: I owned 4,000 shares of XYZ, which I bought last year at 6.50 and was at 7.70 two months ago. I sold 3,000 shares, sold 10 Dec puts @ 7.50 (1,000 shares) for $.90 per share and sold 10 Dec calls at 10.00 for $.20. Now I had cash from the sale of 3,000 shares ($23,100) plus $900 cash from the sale of the puts, plus $200 cash from the sale of the calls. Price is now at 6.25. Had I held the 4,000 shares, I would be down $5,800 from when it was 7.70. Instead, I am down $1,450 from the held 1,000 shares, down $550 on the put and up $200 on the calls. So down $1,800 instead of down $5,800. I began buying XYZ back at 6.25 today.",
"Investopedia defines it in the following way: It's essentially a market order that doesn't get entered until the last minute (or thereabouts) of trading. With this type of order you are not necessarily guaranteed the closing price but usually something very similar, depending on the liquidity in the market and bid-ask for the security in question. Traders who believe that a security or market will move more heavily during the last few minutes of trading will often place such an order in the hopes of having their order filled at a more desirable price.",
"\"The reason for selling a stock \"\"short\"\", is for when you believe the stock value will decrease in the near future. Here is an example: Today Exxon-Mobile stock is selling for $100 / share. You are expecting the price to decrease, so you want to short the stock, which means your broker (i.e. eTrade, etc) allows you to borrow shares without paying money, and those shares are transferred into your account, and then you sell them and receive money for the sale. But you didn't actually own those shares, you only borrowed them, so you need to return the shares to your broker sometime in the future. Let's say you borrow 10 shares @ $100, and you sell them at the market price of $100, you receive $1,000 in your account. But you owe your broker 10 shares, which you need to return sometime in the future. A few days later, the share price has decreased to $80. Now you can buy 10 shares from the market at a total cost of $800. You get 10 shares, and return those shares to your broker. Since you originally took in $1,000, and you just paid out $800, you keep a resulting profit of $200\"",
"\"Writing options means \"\"selling\"\" options and \"\"put\"\" options are contracts to sell a defined security (the underlying), at a specific date (expiration date) and at a specific price (strike price). So, writing put options simply mean selling to others contracts to sell. Your profit is limited to the premium but your loss may be unlimited in a falling market.\"",
"\"You should check with your broker for details, but you can generally specify which \"\"lot\"\" you are selling. where I've seen it, that's done by concurrently sending a \"\"letter of instruction\"\" documenting your choice of lot concurrent with the sale, but different brokers may handle this differently. I would think this should work for the case that you describe. (In addition, the default rule used by your broker is \"\"probably\"\" first-in-first-out, which will do what you want here.) Note that this may come into play even in a margin account to the extent that you might want to specify a lot in order to obtain (or set yourself up for later benefit of) favorable tax treatment under the long-term capital gains rules\"",
"Assignment risk. In your example, if someone exercises OTM call, your account could be assigned. In that case, if you do nothing, you could lose more money than there is in the account. The broker won't do it for you because there is more than one way to handle the assignment. For example, you might choose to exercise the long call, or buy a different call and exercise that. Selling the long call may be enough to satisfy any resulting margin call.",
"This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.",
"\"The question you are asking concerns the exercise of a short option position. The other replies do not appear to address this situation. Suppose that Apple is trading at $96 and you sell a put option with a strike price of $95 for some future delivery date - say August 2016. The option contract is for 100 shares and you sell the contract for a premium of $3.20. When you sell the option your account will be credited with the premium and debited with the broker commission. The premium you receive will be $320 = 100 x $3.20. The commission you pay will depend on you broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple drops to $90 and your option is exercised, either on expiry or prior to expiry. Then you would be obliged to take delivery of 100 Apple shares at the contracted option strike price of $95 costing you $9,500 plus broker commission. If you immediately sell the Apple shares you have purchased under your contract obligations, then assuming you sell the shares at the current market price of $90 you would realise a loss of $500 ( = 100x($95-$90) )plus commission. Since you received a premium of $320 when you sold the put option, your net loss would be $500-$320 = $180 plus any commissions paid to your broker. Now let's look at the case of selling a call option. Again assume that the price of Apple is $96 and you sell a call option for 100 shares with a strike price of $97 for a premium of $3.60. The premium you receive would be $360 = 100 x $3.60. You would also be debited for commission by your broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple shares rises to $101 and your option is exercised. Then you would be obliged to deliver 100 Apple shares to the party exercising the option at the contracted strike price of $97. If you did not own the shares to effect delivery, then you would need to purchase those shares in the market at the current market price of $101, and then sell them to the party exercising the option at the strike price of $97. This would realise an immediate loss of $400 = 100 x ($101-$97) plus any commission payable. If you did own the shares, then you would simply deliver them and possibly pay some commission or a delivery fee to your broker. Since you received $360 when you sold the option, your net loss would be $40 = $400-$360 plus any commission and fees payable to the broker. It is important to understand that in addition to these accounting items, short option positions carry with them a \"\"margin\"\" requirement. You will need to maintain a margin deposit to show \"\"good faith\"\" so long as the short option position is open. If the option you have sold moves against you, then you will be called upon to put up extra margin to cover any potential losses.\"",
"Assuming that you have capital gains, you can expect to have to pay taxes on them. It might be short term, or long term capital gains. If you specify exactly which shares to sell, it is possible to sell mostly losers, thus reducing or eliminating capital gains. There are separate rules for 401K and other retirement programs regarding down payments for a house. This leads to many other issues such as the hit your retirement will take.",
"A trailing stop will sell X shares at some percentage below the current market price. Putting in this order with a 10% trailing stop when the stock price is $50 will sell the stock when it hits $45. It's a market order at that point (see below). A stop order will sell the stock when it reaches a certain price. The stop order becomes a market order when the magic price is hit. This means that you may not sell it at or below your price when the order is executed. But the stock will sell faster because the trader must execute. A stop limit order is the same as a stop order, except the stock won't be sold if it can't be gotten for the price. As a result, the sell may not be executed. More information here.",
"\"Scenario 1 - When you sell the shares in a margin account, you will see your buying power go up, but your \"\"amount available to withdraw\"\" stays the same until settlement. Yes, you can reallocate the same day, no need to wait until settlement. There is no margin interest for this scenario. Scenario 2 - If that stock is marginable to 50%, and all you have is $10,000 in that stock, you can buy another $10,000. Once done, you are at 50% margin, exactly.\"",
"(buy these when you expect the price to go down) You 'lock in' the price you can sell at. If the price goes down below the 'locked-in' price, you buy at the new low price and sell at the higher 'locked-in' price; make money. (buy these when you expect the price to go up) You 'lock in' the price you can buy at. If the price goes up above the 'locked-in' price, you buy at the 'locked-in' price and sell at the new higher price, make money.",
"how does the trading company know which one I want to sell? It doesn't need to know. You just sell one. From taxation point of view depending on the country / tax jurisdiction, it can be only be FIFO or specific stock.",
"\"Most of the investors who have large holdings in a particular stock have pretty good exit strategies for those positions to ensure they are getting the best price they can by selling gradually into the volume over time. Putting a single large block of stock up for sale is problematic for one simple reason: Let's say you have 100,000 shares of a stock, and for some reason you decide today is the day to sell them, take your profits, and ride off into the sunset. So you call your broker (or log into your brokerage account) and put them up for sale. He puts in an order somewhere, the stock is sold, and your account is credited. Seems simple, right? Well...not so fast. Professionals - I'm keeping this simple, so please don't beat me up for it! The way stocks are bought and sold is through companies known as \"\"market makers\"\". These are entities which sit between the markets and you (and your broker), and when you want to buy or sell a stock, most of the time the order is ultimately handled somewhere along the line by a market maker. If you work with a large brokerage firm, sometimes they'll buy or sell your shares out of their own accounts, but that's another story. It is normal for there to be many, sometimes hundreds, of market makers who are all trading in the same equity. The bigger the stock, the more market makers it attracts. They all compete with each other for business, and they make their money on the spread between what they buy stock from people selling for and what they can get for it selling it to people who want it. Given that there could be hundreds of market makers on a particular stock (Google, Apple, and Microsoft are good examples of having hundreds of market makers trading in their stocks), it is very competitive. The way the makers compete is on price. It might surprise you to know that it is the market makers, not the markets, that decide what a stock will buy or sell for. Each market maker sets their own prices for what they'll pay to buy from sellers for, and what they'll sell it to buyers for. This is called, respectively, the \"\"bid\"\" and the \"\"ask\"\" prices. So, if there are hundreds of market makers then there could be hundreds of different bid and ask prices on the same stock. The prices you see for stocks are what are called the \"\"best bid and best ask\"\" prices. What that means is, you are being shown the highest \"\"bid\"\" price (what you can sell your shares for) and the best \"\"ask\"\" price (what you can buy those shares for) because that's what is required. That being said, there are many other market makers on the same stock whose bid prices are lower and ask prices are higher. Many times there will be a big clump of market makers all at the same bid/ask, or within fractions of a cent of each other, all competing for business. Trading computers are taught to seek out the best prices and the fastest trade fills they can. The point to this very simplistic lesson is that the market makers set the prices that shares trade at. They adjust those prices based (among other factors) on how much buying and selling volume they're seeing. If they see a wave of sell orders coming into the system then they'll start marking down their bid prices. This keeps them from paying too much for shares they're going to have to find a buyer for eventually, and it can sometimes slow down the pace of selling as investors and automated systems notice the price decline and decide to wait to sell. Conversely, if market makers see a wave of buy orders coming into the system, they'll start marking their ask prices up to maximize their gains, since they're selling you shares they bought from someone else, presumably at a lower price. But they typically adjust their prices up or down before they actually fill trades. (sneaky, eh?) Depending on how much volume there is on the shares of the company you're selling, and depending on whether there are more buyers than sellers at the moment, your share sell order may be filled at market by a market maker with no real consequence to the share's price. If the block is large enough then it's possible it will not all sell to one market maker, or it might not all happen in one transaction or even all at the same price. This is a pretty complex subject, as you can see, and I've cut a LOT of corners and oversimplified much to keep it comprehensible. But the short answer to your question is -- it depends. Hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"First, it depends on your broker. Full service firms will tear you a new one, discount brokers may charge ~nothing. You'll have to check with your broker on assignment fees. Theoretically, this is the case of the opposite of my answer in this question: Are underlying assets supposed to be sold/bought immediately after being bought/sold in call/put option? Your trading strategy/reasoning for your covered call notwithstanding, in your case, as an option writer covering in the money calls, you want to hold and pray that your option expires worthless. As I said in the other answer, there is always a theoretical premium of option price + exercise price to underlying prices, no matter how slight, right up until expiration, so on that basis, it doesn't pay to close out the option. However, there's a reality that I didn't mention in the other answer: if it's a deep in the money option, you can actually put a bid < stock price - exercise price - trade fee and hope for the best since the market makers rarely bid above stock price - exercise price for illiquid options, but it's unlikely that you'll beat the market makers + hft. They're systems are too fast. I know the philly exchange allows you to put in implied volatility orders, but they're expensive, and I couldn't tell you if a broker/exchange allows for dynamic orders with the equation I specified above, but it may be worth a shot to check out; however, it's unlikely that such a low order would ever be filled since you'll at best be lined up with the market makers, and it would require a big player dumping all its' holdings at once to get to your order. If you're doing a traditional, true-blue covered call, there's absolutely nothing wrong being assigned except for the tax implications. When your counterparty calls away your underlyings, it is a sell for tax purposes. If you're not covering with the underlying but with a more complex spread, things could get hairy for you real quick if someone were to exercise on you, but that's always a risk. If your broker is extremely strict, they may close the rest of your spread for you at the offer. In illiquid markets, that would be a huge percentage loss considering the wide bid/ask spreads.",
"\"You are likely making an assumption that the \"\"Short call\"\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \"\"write\"\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\"",
"It this a real situation or is it a made up example? Because for a stock that has a last traded priced of $5 or $6 and volume traded over $4M (i.e. it seems to be quite liquid), it is hardly likely that the difference from bid to ask would be as large as $1 (maybe for a stock that has volume of 4 to 5 thousand, but not for one having volume of 4 to 5 million). In regards to your question, if you were short selling the order would go in exactly the same as if you were selling a stock you owned. So your order would be on the ask side and would need to be matched up with a price on the bid side for there to be a trade.",
"If you know you have picked a bad stock, the sooner you sell the better. There is a tendency to hold a bad stock in the hope that it will pick up again. Most of us fall into this trap. The best way one needs to look at things are;",
"I think the best answer that doesn't make the buyer look like a moron is this. Buyer had previously sold a covered call. They wanted to act on a different opportunity so they did a closing buy/write with a spread of a couple cents below asking for the stock, but it dipped a couple cents and the purchase of those options to close resolved at 4 cents due to lack of sellers.",
"\"If you really believe in the particular stocks, then don't worry about their daily price. Overall if the company is sound, and presumably paying a dividend, then you're in it for the long haul. Notwithstanding that, it is reasonable to look for a way out. The two you describe are quite different in their specifics. Selling sounds like the simpler of the two, but the trigger event, and if it is automatic or \"\"manual\"\" matters. If you are happy to put in a sell order at some time in the future, then just go ahead with that. Many brokers can place a STOP order, that will trigger on a certain price threshold being hit. Do note, however, that by default this would place a market order, and depending on the price that breaks through, in the event of a flash crash, depending on how fast the brokers systems were, you could find yourself selling quite cheaply. A STOP LIMIT order will place a limit order at a triggered price. This would limit your overall downside loss, but you might not sell at all if the market is really running away. Options are another reasonable way to deal with the situation, sort of like insurance. In this case you would likely buy a PUT, which would give you the right, but not the obligation to sell the stock at the price the that was specified in the option. In this case, no matter what, you are out the price of the option itself (hence my allusion to insurance), but if the event never happens then that was the price you paid to have that peace of mind. I cannot recommend a specific course of action, but hopefully that fleshed out the options you have.\""
] |
[
"Yes, if there is liquidity you can sell your option to someone else as a profit. This is what the majority of option trading volume is used for: speculative trading with leverage.",
"Absolutely. There is no requirement that an option be in-the-money for you to close out a position. Remember that there are alwayes two sides to a trade - a buyer and a seller. When you bought your option, it's entirely possible that someone else was closing out their long position by selling it to you.",
"At the higher level - yes. The value of an OTM (out of the money) option is pure time value. It's certainly possible that when the stock price gets close to that strike, the value of that option may very well offer you a chance to sell at a profit. Look at any OTM strike bid/ask and see if you can find the contract low for that option. Most will show that there was an opportunity to buy it lower at some point in the past. Your trade. Ask is meaningless when you own an option. A thinly traded one can be bid $0 /ask $0.50. What is the bid on yours?"
] |
684
|
Beyond RRSP deductions, how does a high income earner save on taxes?
|
[
"441120"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"196807",
"97233",
"477940",
"12822",
"441120",
"200131",
"160555",
"549401",
"51086",
"122222",
"354965",
"145787",
"81599",
"6103",
"177736",
"8859",
"495864",
"312626",
"168906",
"98868",
"451314",
"406324",
"443757",
"53028",
"512238",
"118603",
"318954",
"162176",
"577582",
"454082",
"578317",
"520584",
"434252",
"568771",
"297966",
"257703",
"483620",
"83177",
"314056",
"550526",
"99716",
"405342",
"255101",
"97842",
"446226",
"444266",
"363591",
"263724",
"557361",
"297652",
"68636",
"175679",
"300721",
"413694",
"318242",
"60750",
"540834",
"296345",
"111967",
"556976",
"544439",
"586756",
"345219",
"106611",
"48203",
"43350",
"290019",
"141458",
"102732",
"134047",
"500744",
"110114",
"417257",
"358275",
"576736",
"202645",
"257274",
"499279",
"585764",
"376781",
"181652",
"138835",
"509111",
"507871",
"442741",
"44187",
"444568",
"423873",
"564627",
"468047",
"4830",
"510676",
"34887",
"251564",
"418951",
"355897",
"101578",
"114643",
"361510",
"1666"
] |
[
"Revenue Canada allows for some amount of tax deferral via several methods. The point is that none of them allow you to avoid tax, but by deferring from years when you have high income to years when you have lower income allows you to realize less total tax paid due to the marginal rate for personal income tax. The corporate dividend approach (as explained in another answer) is one way. TFSAs are another way, but as you point out, they have limits. Since you brought TFSAs into your question: About the best and easiest tax deferral option available in Canada is the RRSP. If you don't have a company pension, you can contribute something like 18% of your income. If you have a pension plan, you may still be able to contribute to an RRSP as well, but the maximum contribution amount will be lower. The contribution lowers your taxable income which can save you tax. Interest earned on the equity in your RRSP isn't taxed. Tax is only paid on money drawn from the plan because it is deemed income in that year. They are intended for retirement, but you're allowed to withdraw at any time, so if you have little or no income in a year, you can draw money from your RRSP. Tax is withheld, which you may or may not get back depending on your taxable income for that year. You can think of it as a way to level your income and lower your legitimate tax burden",
"The issue only arises when the investments grow in size. A small amount won't trigger the higher tax rates. If the amount is large enough, then consider using either: Insurance products that are 'segregated', or RRSPs in your own name after your business pays you wages, or Gifting to other family members.",
"Consider the individual who pays $1,000,000 in taxes. His/her income must be substantial. That is what one should aim for. Investments for the most part, do not lower ones taxes. In one of John Grisham's novels, tax shelters are being discussed. Sorry, I do not remember which book. The discussion goes something like this: There are a few investments which can lower your taxes. Purchase a house. Mortgage interest on your principle residence is deductible (if you itemize deductions). If you don't itemize, focus on increasing income to the point where itemizing benefits you. In general, businesses have more deductions than individuals. Own a small business. You (or your accountant) will discover many deductions. Hint: the company should lease a car/truck, many meals are now deductible. This is not the reason to own a business.",
"avoid corporation tax There aren't many avenues to save on corporation tax legally. The best option you can try is paying into a generous pension for yourself, which will save some corporation tax. Buying a house You can claim deduction for the mortgage payments, but profits on selling the house will require paying capital gains tax on the profit. You can rent it out, this will be decided between your mortgage provider and your company, but the rent will go towards as income. Buying a car Not worth it. You will have to pay Class 1A NI contribution for benefits in kind. Any sane accountant will ask you to buy the car yourself and expense the mileage. Any income generated from the cash you have is taxable. Even the interest being paid on your money is taxable.",
"That's not especially high income, and while I can't speak for Canadians, most of us south of the border just pay the tax. There are tax-advantged retirement savings plans, and charitable donations are often offset by a tax credit, and there are some tax incentives for mortgages, and so on.. but generally the right answer is to just accept that the income tax money was never yours to begin with.",
"The $250K and up are not one homogeneous group. The lower end of this group benefits from normal Schedule A itemized deductions, e.g. mortgage interest, property tax, state income tax, and charitable donations. As you mention, 401(k) ($17k employee contribution limit this year), but also things like the dependent care account ($5k limit) and flexible spending account, limited usually up to $2500 in '14. The 529 deposits are limited to the gifting limit, $14K in 2014, but one can gift up to five years' deposits up front. This isn't a tax deduction, but does pull money out of one's estate and lets it grow tax free similar to a Roth IRA. The savings from such accounts is probably in the $15k - $20K range given the 20 or so year lifetime of the account and limited deposits. At the higher end, the folks making the news are those whose income is all considered capital gains. This applies both to hedge fund managers as well as CEOs whose compensation included large blocks of stock. This isn't a tax deduction, but it's how our system works, the taxation of capital gains vs. ordinary income.",
"\"There is nothing legal you can do in the United States to avoid the tax burden of income earned as an employee other than offsetting it with pre-tax contributions (which it sounds like you're already doing), making charitable contributions, or incurring investment losses (which is cutting off your nose to spite your face). So that $660K can't be helped. As for the $80K in stock dividends, you could move those investments into \"\"growth\"\" companies rather than \"\"value\"\" companies. Growth companies are those that pay less in dividends, where the primary increase in wealth occurs only in share price increase. This puts off your tax bill until you finally sell your shares, and (depending on how the tax laws are at that time) your tax bill will be lower on those capital gains than they are currently on these dividends. Regarding rental income I know nothing, but I think you're entitled to depreciate your property's value over time and count that against the taxes you owe on the rents. And you can deduct all the upkeep expenses. As with employment income, intentionally incurring rental losses to lower your tax bill is not logical: for every dollar you earn, you only have to give about 50 cents to the government, whereas for every dollar you lose, you've lost a dollar.\"",
"Keep in mind that chasing after tax savings tends to not be a good way of saving money. What is a good strategy? Making sure that you take all the deductions you are entitled to. What is a bad strategy: You asked for a book recommendation. The problem is that I don't know of any books that cover all these topics. Also keep in mind that all books, blogs, articles, and yes answers to questions have a bias. Sometimes the bias can be ignored, other times it can't. Just keep looking for information on this site, and ask good specific questions about these topics.",
"\"The primary tax-sheltered investing vehicles in Canada include: The RRSP. You can contribute up to 18% of your prior year's earned income, up to a limit ($24,930 in 2015, plus past unused contribution allowance) and receive an income tax deduction for your contributions. In an RRSP, investments grow on a tax-deferred basis. No tax is due until you begin withdrawals. When you withdraw funds, the withdrawn amount will be taxed at marginal income tax rates in effect at that time. The RRSP is similar to the U.S. \"\"traditional\"\" IRA, being an individual account with pre-tax contributions, tax-deferred growth, and ordinary tax rates applied to withdrawals. Yet, RRSPs have contribution limits higher than IRAs; higher, even, than U.S. 401(k) employee contribution limits. But, the RRSP is dissimilar to the IRA and 401(k) since an individual's annual contribution allowance isn't use-it-or-lose-it—unused allowance accumulates. The TFSA. Once you turn 18, you can put in up to $5,500 each year, irrespective of earned income. Like the RRSP, contribution room accumulates. If you were 18 in 2009 (when TFSAs were introduced) you'd be able to contribute $36,500 if you'd never contributed to one before. Unlike the RRSP, contributions to a TFSA are made on an after-tax basis and you pay no tax when you withdraw money. The post-tax nature of the TFSA and completely tax-free withdrawals makes them comparable to Roth-type accounts in the U.S.; i.e. while you won't get a tax deduction for contributing, you won't pay tax on earnings when withdrawn. Yet, unlike U.S. Roth-type accounts, you are not required to use the TFSA strictly for retirement savings—there is no penalty for pre-retirement withdrawal of TFSA funds. There are also employer-sponsored defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) retirement pension plans. Generally, employees who participate in these kinds of plans have their annual RRSP contribution limits reduced. I won't comment on these kinds of plans other than to say they exist and if your employer has one, check it out—many employees lose out on free money by not participating. The under-appreciated RESP. Typically used for education savings. A lifetime $50,000 contribution limit per beneficiary, and you can put that all in at once if you're not concerned about maximizing grants (see below). No tax deduction for contributions, but investments grow on a tax-deferred basis. Original contributions can be withdrawn tax-free. Qualified educational withdrawals of earnings are taxed as regular income in the hands of the beneficiary. An RESP beneficiary is typically a child, and in a child's case the Canadian federal government provides matching grant money (called CESG) of 20% on the first $2500 contributed each year, up to age 18, to a lifetime maximum of $7200 per beneficiary. Grant money is subject to additional conditions for withdrawal. While RESPs are typically used to save for a child's future education, there's nothing stopping an adult from opening an RESP for himself. If you've never had one, you can deposit $50,000 of after-tax money to grow on a tax-deferred basis for up to 36 years ... as far as I understand. An adult RESP will not qualify for CESG. Moreover, if you use the RESP strictly as a tax shelter and don't make qualified educational withdrawals when the time comes, your original contributions still come out free of tax but you'll pay ordinary income tax plus 20% additional tax on the earnings portion. That's the \"\"catch\"\"*. *However, if at that time you have accumulated sufficient RRSP contribution room, you may move up to $50,000 of your RESP earnings into your RRSP without any tax consequences (i.e. also avoiding the 20% additional tax) at time of transfer. Perhaps there's something above you haven't considered. Still, be sure to do your own due diligence and to consult a qualified, experienced, and conflict-free financial advisor for advice particular to your own situation.\"",
"Apply as many deductions as you are legally entitled to. Those are taxes you may never ever pay. Then turn around and put any more monies above the maximum retirement contributions into a taxable account. But this time invest in tax efficient investments. For example, VTI or SPY will incur very minimal taxes and when you withdraw, it will be at lower tax rate (based on current tax laws). Just as you diversify your investments, you also want to diversify your taxes.",
"As far as broad principles, I think that you are on track. The only suggestion I would have is to look into HSAs. They are another great tax-advantaged account, accessible to those with high incomes.",
"Probably the biggest tax-deferment available to US workers is through employee-sponsored investment plans like the 401k. If you meet the income limits, you could also use a Traditional IRA if you do not have a 401k at work. But keep in mind that you are really just deferring taxes here. The US Government will eventually get their due. :) One way which you may find interesting is by using 529 plans, or other college investment plans, to save for your child's (or your) college expenses. Generally, contributions up to a certain amount are deductible on your state taxes, and are exempt from Federal and State taxes when used for qualifying education expenses. The state deduction can lower your taxes and help you save for college for your children, if that is a desire of yours.",
"Seek professional advice as duffbeer703 has suggested already. Very important! Consider incorporating. If your income will fluctuate year to year, you can keep profit in the corporation, taxed in its hands at the Canadian small business rate, since such corporate income below $500,000 would likely qualify for the small business deduction. You could pay retained earnings to yourself as dividends over more than one year in order to lessen the personal tax burden. If you don't incorporate, all your profits in the year they are earned are taxed at personal income tax rates, and with our progressive income tax system, taking the tax hit all in one year can be expensive. However, if this project is a one-off and you're not likely to continue working like this, you might not want the overhead of a corporation. Taxes aside, there are also legal issues to consider vis-a-vis incorporating, or not. A professional can help you make this decision. Yes, you can claim deductions for reasonable business expenses, whether or not you are incorporated. No, you can't do free work on the side and claim it as donations. It's nice to volunteer, but you wouldn't get a charitable tax credit for your time, only for money or goods donated. Consider opening an RRSP so you can start saving for retirement and get a tax deduction for any contributions you make. This is but one strategy to reduce your tax. There are others. For instance, if you are a student, you perhaps have some unused tuition credits that you could claim in your first year with higher income. Oh, and seek professional advice! ;-)",
"\"You're asking explicitly about $250K+ wage earners. Well, believe it or not, but this is the most discriminated group of people in the US tax code. This is what is called \"\"the upper middle class\"\". People who still have to work for a living, but treated as if they're rich (I don't consider people who must work to keep up their life style as rich). Many of the deductions cannot be taken by them. Lets go over the list Keith made: You mentioned losses - you cannot deduct gambling losses (in excess of gambling income), and you cannot deduct passive (rental real estate, for example) losses. While for rental real estate there's a small amount of losses you could deduct, it phases out well below the $250K line (can be deducted against passive income, or when disposed of the property). 529 plans are not deductible (in fact, its a gift subject to the gift tax). Bottom line, being a high earner with wages only means you pay the most tax. You either find a way to become self employed and have a lot of business deductions on your schedule C/1120S, or switch to capital gains. You can marry an unemployed partner, it will make your life slightly easier.\"",
"My first question to you is if you itemize? If not the charitable contributions will not do any good. Along these lines, donating unused items to Goodwill or similar can help boost your charitable giving. The bottom line is that the 401K is one of the few real deductions high earners have. If you anticipate earning similarly next year, you could both contribute the max. You still have some time before the end of the year, can you get more in your wife's account? Does your state have income tax? You might be able to deduct sales tax for larger purchases if you made any. However, I would not justify a large purchase just to write off the sales tax. Conventional wisdom will tell you that you should have a large mortgage in order to deduct the interests. However, it does not make sense to pay the bank 10K so you can get 3K back from the government. That seems pretty dumb. If you did not do additional withholding, you probably will have to pay a significant amount plus penalty if you owe more than $1000. You still have time to make one more quarterly payment, so you may want to do so by January 15th. For next year I would recommend the following: The funny thing about giving is that it rarely helps the recipient, it does so much more for the giver. It helps you build wealth. For myself I like to give to charities that have a bent to helping people out of poverty or homelessness. We have two excellent ones here in Orlando, FL: Orlando Rescue Mission and Christian Help. Both have significant job training and budgeting programs.",
"Welcome to the real world :-) There really aren't all that many ways for ordinary employees to lower taxes. You could put more in your 401k, buy a house (for the mortgage interest deduction, which lets you deduct some other things instead of taking standard deduction), or move to a different state to get rid of the state tax.",
"So. You might be looking at the world of investing after tax deductions are gone. Buy index funds, or a few stable stocks of your choice. (Index funds have minimal turnover, so you won't realize as many uncontrollable tax events throughout the year). The top long-term capital gains rate is presently 15% (will it go up to 20% soon? who knows! it might. That's up to Congress and Obama, really.) If you can control when you realize it (say, in a year when you don't have a lot of other income) the tax consequences aren't toooo horrible. (It also helps if you live in a state that doesn't tax the gains themselves, e.g. not California?) Or buy real estate, if you don't own the house where you live already (and your lifestyle permits). You shouldn't expect impressive capital appreciation, but you don't have to pay tax on the imputed rent (the rent money you avoid paying by owning the place yourself).",
"Use your line of credit (LOC) to purchase more investments (non RRSP). That way, all of your LOC interest use to purchase those investments becomes tax deductible. Then use the money from your tax return to pay down the LOC.",
"\"Does your company offer a Medical Savings Account? That can allow you to reduce your taxable income. You normally have to join during \"\"open season\"\". Another option is Medical and Dental Expenses above 7.5% of your adjusted gross income. This is a high hurdle to meet, and only reduces your taxes by the tax rate x the amount your bills exceed 7.5%\"",
"If your annual income is less than $45000 or so (and you expect this to change for the better in the future), it's not worthwhile to put that in an RRSP -- save your contribution room for the future years where you will gain more of a tax deduction. There's no real downside in investing in a TFSA (what you withdraw this year can be put back in next year), so any surplus funds that you do not anticipate needing this year can be put in a TFSA to earn a bit more than the equivalent investment outside of a shelter.",
"Without more information about what tax bracket you are in, I cannot make a recommendation about what your best option is, but here are a few things to consider:",
"Based on your comment that you do not itemize your deductions, I think that's probably the next step for you to consider. Many of the suggestions that we would give require that you itemize. If you are not familiar with the potential deductions it would probably be worth your while to visit with a local tax professional and discuss your expenses including what changes you could make to minimize your tax bill. Ultimately becoming eligible for the 401(k) if possible will allow you access to the biggest avenue for reducing tax liability. It sounds like you are already prioritizing and saving for retirement through your IRA, but most earners in the 25% bracket can't put the recommended 15% into savings (with tax advantages) through an IRA.",
"Depending on the size of the donation, you may be able to reduce taxes further by donating appreciated assets, such as stock or fund shares that have gone up a lot. That lets you dodge the capital gains tax on redeeming the shares, and if you're donating to a tax-exempt organization they don't have to pay that tax either. And as @JoeTaxpayer has confirmed, you still get to deduct the current value of the donation, not just the basis value of those shares. So if you're donating anyway, this comes close to being Free Money in exchange for some slightly annoying paperwork. (Yet another benefit of long-term investing!) Of course folks in the top brackets sometimes set up their own tax-exempt foundations so they can decouple taking the tax break from deciding what to do with the donation.",
"\"With these income levels you cannot deduct any IRA contribution. I.e.: you cannot save pre-tax, as you want. But you still can contribute to IRA (as a non-deductible contribution), and using the \"\"loophole\"\" transfer the contribution to Roth (you are probably over the limit to be able to contribute to Roth directly). For pre-tax contributions - max out your 401k.\"",
"Can you make use of an HSA (health savings account) or a medical FSA (flexible spending account)? Depending on your medical coverage, one of these may be available to you. Buying a house usually does the trick, between property tax and interest, it's not tough to have quite a bit in deductions. Of course, you need to want a house in the first place.",
"The only way you can save taxes is by starting a limited company, not paying yourself any salary, so you pay 20% corporation taxes, you can take I think £5000 a year dividends tax free, and leave the rest in the company account, and don't touch it until you make less money.",
"Without knowing specifics about your personal situation, there are two items to consider: 1. Pre-pay as many items as possible this year. (rent/lease, insurance premiums, etc.) to reduce your profit on paper in this tax year. 2. If you don't have a retirement plan for yourself, look into it as a way to put some money aside for retirement pre-tax. If your accountant can't help with this, perhaps find a financial planner. Congrats though, great problem to have!",
"If you're maxing out your 401k, just save in tax-efficient investments like stocks and tax efficient funds. If you live in a state with income taxes, look at municipal bond funds for some tax-free income. In 2011, be careful with bond funds and look for short duration funds.",
"Make sure you are hitting the actual max of the 401k. Most think it is 18K, but that is the amount you can contribute into either pre-tax or roth. On top of this, you can also contribute using an after-tax contribution (treated differently from Roth). Total amounts up to 54k (since you are under 50). One thing I would look into for ways to beat interest rates in bank accounts and CDs is Municipal Bond funds, given your high income. I have seen some earning almost 6% tax-free YTD. These also give you liquidity. Definitely keep your 3 mo salary in the bank, but once you get over that while maxing out your 401k, this is a pretty good way to make your money work for you, without crushing you come tax time. Building that muni bond fund account gradually, you can eventually use that account to pay for things like car payments, mortgage, rent, vacation, etc. Just be sure if you go with a mutual fund, that you are aware of any surrender charge schedules. I have seen this done with C Shares, where you can withdraw your investment without penalty after 1 year. Let me know if this is unclear or you would like any additional information. Best of luck!",
"\"This scheme doesn't work, because the combination of corporation tax, even the lower CCPC tax, plus the personal income tax doesn't give you a tax advantage, not on any realistic income I've ever worked it out on anyway. Prior to the 2014 tax year on lower incomes you could scrape a bit of an advantage but the 2013 budget changed the calculation for the tax credit on non-eligible dividends so there shouldn't be an advantage anymore. Moreover if you were to do it this way, by paying corporation tax instead of CPP you aren't eligible for CPP. If you sit with a calculator for long enough you may figure out a way of saving $200 or something small but it's a lot of paperwork for little if any benefit and you wouldn't get CPP. I understand the money multiplier effect described above, but the tax system is designed in a way that it makes more sense to take it as salary and put it in a tax deferred saving account, i.e. an RRSP - so there's no limit on the multiplier effect. Like I said, sit with a calculator - if you're earning a really large amount and are still under the small business limit it may make more sense to use a CCPC, but that is the case regardless of using it as a tax shelter because if you're earning a lot you're probably running a business of some size. The main benefit I think is that if you use a CCPC you can carry forward your losses, but you have to be aware of the definition of an \"\"allowable business investment loss\"\".\"",
"It is important to remember that the tax brackets in the U.S. are marginal. This means that the first part of your income is taxed at 10%, the next part at 15%, next at 25%, etc. Therefore, if you find yourself just on the edge of a tax bracket, it really does not make any difference which side of that line you end up falling on. That having been said, of course, reducing your taxable income reduces your taxes. There are lots of deductions you can take, if you qualify. Depending on what type of health insurance coverage you have, a Health Savings Account (HSA) is a great way to shelter some income from taxes. Charitable contributions are also an easy way to reduce your taxes; you don't really personally benefit from them, but if you'd rather send your money to a good cause than to Uncle Sam, that's an easy way to do it.",
"IANAL (and nor am I an accountant), so I can't give a definitive answer as to legality, but AFAIK, what you propose is legal. But what's the benefit? Avoiding corporation tax? It's simplistic – and costly – to think in terms like that. You need to run the numbers for different scenarios, and make a plan. You can end up ahead of the game precisely by choosing to pay some corporate tax each year. Really! Read on. One of the many reasons that self-employed Canadians sometimes opt for a corporate structure over being a sole proprietor is to be able to not pay themselves everything the company earns each year. This is especially important when a business has some really good years, and others, meh. Using the corporation to retain earnings can be more tax effective. Example: Imagine your corporation earns, net of accounting & other non-tax costs except for your draws, $120,000/year for 5 years, and $0 in year 6. Assume the business is your only source of income for those 6 years. Would you rather: Pay yourself the entire $120,000/yr in years 1-5, then $0 in year 6 (living off personal savings you hopefully accumulated earlier), subjecting the $120,000/yr to personal income tax only, leaving nothing in the corporation to be taxed? Very roughly speaking, assuming tax rates & brackets are level from year to year, and using this calculator (which simplifies certain things), then in Ontario, then you'd net ~$84,878/yr for years 1-5, and $0 in year 6. Overall, you realized $424,390. Drawing the income in this manner, the average tax rate on the $600,000 was 29.26%. vs. Pay yourself only $100,000/yr in years 1-5, leaving $20,000/yr subject to corporation tax. Assuming a 15.5% combined federal/provincial corporate tax rate (includes the small business deduction), then the corp. is left with $16,900/yr to add to retained earnings in years 1-5. In year 6, the corp. has $84,500 in retained earnings to be distributed to you, the sole owner, as a dividend (of the non-eligible kind.) Again, very roughly speaking, you'd personally net $73,560/yr in years 1-5, and then on the $84,500 dividend in year 6, you'd net $73,658. Overall, you realized $441,458. Drawing the income in this manner, the average tax rate on the $600K was 26.42%. i.e. Scenario 2, which spreads the income out over the six years, saved 2.84% in tax, or $14,400. Smoothing out your income is also a prudent thing to do. Would you rather find yourself in year 6, having no clients and no revenue, with nothing left to draw on? Or would you rather the company had saved money from the good years to pay you in the lean one?",
"You could use HBB and other similar funds that exchange distributions for capital gains. There's HXT and HXS which is Canada and US equity markets. The swap fee + mer is a little more than some funds except for HXT which is very cheap. There's a risk for long term holders that this may eventually get banned and you're forced to sell with a gain at the wrong time, but this won't matter much if you're planning on selling in a few years. You have to pay the capital gains tax eventually. Note, the tax on distributions is really a long term drag on performance and won't make a big difference in the short term.",
"Not as you suggest. Since you are sole prop, you are taxed on a cash basis. Within reason, you can prepay vendors - so temp to hire through an agency might appear more attractive than direct hire. But there needs to be a justification other than avoidance of taxes. So pre-paying 100k on 12/25 would look fishy as fuck. Plus your quality of candidate will suffer if you need anything other than low skill labor. Look at your other fully deductible expenses - anything you can prepay-prepay. For example, I set my liability insurance renewal January 15 to provide optionality. But it just shifts one year into another .. Means fuckall if you are in the same marginal bracket next year. The IRS has also relaxed depreciation on office technology. Computers are now fully deductible rather than being capitalized. @ 500k revenue you should have a CPA and legal counsel. Simply incorporating isn't tax magic. The purpose is to limit yourersonal liability, not a tax shelter - but shitty things happen once you have employees, don't create the potential for a disgruntled employee lawsuit put your shelter at risk of court judgment. That said, assuming you aren't dumping a hypothetical on the Internet, congrats - for all the headaches, having employees is the ultimate leverage .. it's like a xerox machine for your labor (including loss of fidelity with each copy) ..",
"To piggyback on a comment that @enderland posted, if you have some extra cash saved, something worth considering is to evaluate your current retirement accounts to determine future tax liability. In Canada, there exist Roth IRA-like Tax Free Savings Accounts (TFSA) which are pre-taxed (meaning that you pay all taxes up front when you deposit monies to this account rather than when you withdraw them during retirement after they have grown in interest). Depending on the type of account your retirement funds are currently held in, it might be financially advantageous of you to save your extra money in a short term savings account, transfer your current retirement savings from a post-tax account to a TFSA and use that extra money to pay off any immediate tax liability incurred as a result of the transfer. You will have to run the numbers yourself to determine if your retirement account setup, balance and interest justifies this route but given your age there is a fairly high chance that you can end up saving many tens of thousands of dollars in taxes that might be otherwise be due when you retire.",
"\"How can I avoid this, so we are taxed as if we are making the $60k/yr that we want to receive? You can't. In the US the income is taxed when received, not when used. If you receive 1M this year, taking out 60K doesn't mean the other 940K \"\"weren't received\"\". They were, and are taxable. Create a pension fund in the corporation, feed it all profits, and pay out $60k/yr of \"\"pension\"\". I doubt that the corporation could deduct a million a year in pension funding. You cannot do that. You can only deposit to a pension plan up to 100% of your salary, and no more than $50K total (maybe a little more this year, its adjusted to inflation). Buy a million dollars in \"\"business equipment\"\" of some sort each year to get a deduction, then sell it over time to fund a $60k/yr salary. I doubt such a vehicle exists. If there's no real business purpose, it will be disallowed and you'll be penalized. Your only purpose is tax avoidance, meaning you're trying to shift income using your business to avoid paying taxes - that's illegal. Do crazy Section 79 life insurance schemes to tax-defer the income. The law caps this so I can only deduct < $100k of the $1 million annually, and there are other problems with this approach.\\ Yes. Wouldn't go there. Added: From what I understand, this is a term life insurance plan sponsored by the employer for the employee. This is not a deferral of income, but rather a deduction: instead of paying your term life insurance with your own after tax money, your employer pays with their pre-tax. It has a limit of $50K per employee, and is only available for employees. There are non-discrimination limitations that may affect your ability to use it, but I don't see how it is at all helpful for you. It gives you a deduction, but its money spent, not money in your pocket. End added. Do some tax avoidance like Facebook does with its Double Irish trick, storing the income in some foreign subsidiary and drawing $60k/yr in salary to be taxed at $60k/yr rates. This is probably cost-prohibitive for a $1MM/yr company. You're not Facebook. What works with a billion, will not work with a million. Keep in mind that you're a one-man business, things that huge corporations like Google or Facebook can get away with are a no-no for a sole-proprietor (even if incorporated). Bottom line you'll probably have to pay the taxes. Get a good tax professional to help you identify as much deductions as possible, and if you can plan income ahead - plan it better.\"",
"The above is very true, but the biggest bang for your buck can also be in the RESP, assuming you qualify for the grant of 20% per year...it's hard to beat free money from the government...in this account, your investment grows, and the growth and grant is taxed in the hands of the child when it is withdrawn. (Normally, they dont have much income at this point, so pay little or no tax) However, you do not get any income tax deduction or tax break at the time you make the deposit.",
"In my opinion, I would: If the income is from this year, you can tax shelter $59,000 plus somewhere between $50,000 and $300,000 depending on age, in a 401(k) and defined benefit plan. This will take care of the current tax burden. Afterwards, set aside your remaining tax liability in cash. The after-tax money should be split into cash and the rest into assets. The split depends on your level of risk tolerance. Build a core portfolio using highly liquid and non-correlated ETFs (think SPY, TLT, QQQ, ect.). Once these core positions are locked in. Start lowering your basis by systematically selling a 1 standard deviation call in the ETF per 100 units of underlying. This will reduce your upside, extend your breakeven, and often yield steady income. Similarly, you can sell 1 standard deviation iron condors should the VIX be high enough. Point is, you have the money to deploy a professional-type, systematic strategy that is non-correlated, and income generating.",
"This question is indeed rather complicated. Let's simplify it a little bit. Paying down your mortgage makes sense if your expected return in the rest of your portfolio is less than the cost of the mortgage. In many cases, people may also decide to pay down their mortgage because they are risk-averse and do not like carrying debt. There's no tax benefit to doing so, though; Canada doesn't generally allow you to write off mortgage interest, unlike the U.S. As to keeping money in the corporation or not, I'm not going to address that. I don't have a firm enough understanding of corporate taxation. Canadian Couch Potato advises treating all of your investment assets as one large portfolio. That is what you are trying to do here. However, let's consider a different approach. If you do not have enough money to max out your RRSP or TFSA, you may choose to keep your TFSA for an emergency fund, where the money is kept highly liquid. Keep your cash in an interest-bearing TFSA, or perhaps invest it in the money market, inside your TFSA. Then, use your RRSP for the rest of your investment money, split according to your investment goals. This is not the most tax-efficient approach, but it is nice and simple. But you are looking for the most tax-efficient approach. So, let's assume you have enough to more than max out your TFSA and RRSP contributions, and all of your investments are going toward your retirement, which is at least a decade away. Because you are not taxed on your investment income from RRSPs (until you withdraw the money) or TFSA, it makes sense to hold the least tax-efficient investments there. Tax-advantaged investments such as Canadian equities should be held in your investment accounts outside of TFSA and RRSPs. Again, the Canadian Couch Potato has a great article on where to put your investment assets. That article covers interest, dividends, foreign dividends, and capital gains, as well as RRSPs, RESPs, and TFSAs. That article recommends holding Canadian equities in a taxable account, REITs in a tax-sheltered account (TFSA or RRSP), bonds, GICs, and money-market funds in a tax-sheltered account (as these count as interest). The article goes into rather more detail than this, and is worth checking out. It mentions the 15% withholding tax on US-listed ETFs, for example. In addition to that website, I recommend the following three books: The above three resources strongly advocate passive indexed investments, which I like but not everyone agrees with. All three specifically discuss tax implications, which is why I include them here.",
"That plan wouldn't save you any money because tax brackets don't work that way. All of your earnings up to each level are taxed at that rate. You aren't taxed at the highest rate on all of the money. In your example you pay... If you reduce your income to $37,4000 you pay... In the end you'd be spending $100 to save $20. The only way you conceivably come out ahead by donating to charity (not counting the good karma for doing so) is if you own the charity and it is a way for you to funnel money to yourself and write it off.",
"The only ways to increase your after-tax income are to increase your tax-deferred savings (401k), increase your tax deductions, or increase your pre-tax income. Increasing tax-deferred savings is great for the long term, but will usually not result in a bigger paycheck (though net pay including the savings will go up). This is, however, probably your best bet for reducing current tax liability. Increasing deductions usually involves spending money--on charity, mortgage interest, other taxes, etc. So, while you may reduce your tax liability, you probably won't end up with more money in your pocket. Also, if you are single and aren't paying a mortgage, it probably won't be easy to exceed the Standard Deduction. Which pretty much leaves you with asking for a raise, getting a better paying job, or taking on a second job to increase your top-line income.",
"\"If you only have to pay 23k federal taxes on 100k, that means you are in the long term capital gains tax rate, which is the lower of the tax rates available. First you get your federal income tax marginal tax rate, and then find the matching long term capital gains tax rate. For example, if your marginal federal income tax rate is 28%, your capital gains tax rate would be 15%. Or rather, if the amount of the gain would put you in the 28% rate, then your long term capital gains tax rate is 15%. You can reduce that by having more losses. If you have anything else invested anywhere that is taking a loss, then you can sell that this year and it will offset the other gains you have realized. The only note is that your losses have to be long term capital losses too. Tax loss harvesting takes this to an extreme where you sell something at a loss to lock in the tax loss, but you didn't really want to get rid of that investment, so then you buy a nearly identical investment. ie. if you owned shares of \"\"Direxion Tech Sector ETF\"\" and it was at a loss, you would sell that and then immediately buy \"\"ProShares Tech Sector ETF\"\", the competing product that does the exact same thing. Then there is charity. This still requires spending money and you not having it any longer. If you feel that a cause can use the money more directly than the US government, you can donate an appreciated asset to the charity - not report a gain and also take a charitable deduction.\"",
"\"(Disclaimer: I am not an accountant nor a tax pro, etc., etc.) Yes, a Canadian corporation can function as a partial income tax shelter. This is possible since a corporation can retain earnings (profits) indefinitely, and corporate income tax rates are generally less than personal income tax rates. Details: If you own and run your business through a corporation, you can choose to take income from your corporation in one of two ways: as salary, or as dividends. Salary constitutes an expense of the corporation, i.e. it gets deducted from revenue in calculating corporate taxable income. No corporate income tax is due on money paid out as salary. However, personal income taxes and other deductions (e.g. CPP) would apply to salary at regular rates, the same as for a regular employee. Dividends are paid by the corporation to shareholders out of after-tax profits. i.e. the corporation first pays income tax on taxable income for the fiscal year, and resulting net income could be used to pay dividends (or not). At the personal level, dividends are taxed less than salary to account for tax the corporation paid. The net effect of corporate + personal tax is about the same as for salary (leaving out deductions like CPP.) The key point: Dividends don't have to be paid out in the year the money was earned. The corporation can carry profits forward (retained earnings) as long as it wants and choose to issue dividends (or not) in later years. Given that, here's how would the partial income tax shelter works: At some point, for you to personally realize income from the corporation, you can have the corporation declare a dividend. You'll then have to pay personal income taxes on the income, at the dividend rates. But for as long as the money was invested inside the corporation, it was subject only to lesser corporate tax rates, not higher personal income tax rates. Hence the \"\"partial\"\" aspect of this kind of tax shelter. Or, if you're lucky enough to find a buyer for your corporation, you could qualify for the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption on proceeds up to $750,000 when you sell a qualified small business corporation. This is the best exit strategy; unfortunately, not an easy one where the business has no valuable assets (e.g. a client base, or intellectual property.) * The major sticking-point: You need to have real business revenue! A regular employee (of another company) can't funnel his personally-earned employment income into a corporation just to take advantage of this mechanism. Sorry. :-/\"",
"Income and Capital are taxed separately in the uk. You probably can't get dividends paid gross even in ISA's you pay the basic rate of tax on dividends only higher rate tax payers get tax benefit from dividends. What you could do is invest in splits (Spilt capital investment trusts ) in the share class where all the return comes as capital and use up some of your yearly CGT allowance that way.",
"\"First off, high five on the paycheck. There are a few retirement issues to deal with. 401k issues - At that income level, you will probably fall into the \"\"Highly Compensated Employee\"\" category, which means things get a little more complicated, both for you and your employer. (Wikipedia link) IRA issues - As you already realized, you make too much to directly open and contribute to a Roth IRA. You can open a Traditional IRA, however. Your income is already over the limit for Traditional IRA deduction (bummer), so it would seem there is little point to opening an IRA at all. However, there is a way to take advantage of a Roth IRA, even at your income level. It is possible to convert a Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. There used to be income limits on the ability to do the conversion, which would have normally made this off limits to you. Starting in 2010, the income limit is removed, so you can do this. Basically, you open a Traditional IRA, max it out, then convert it to a Roth. Since there was no income deduction, you shouldn't have to pay any more taxes. (link) Disclaimer: I've never tried this, nor do I know anyone who has, so you might want to research it a bit more before you try it yourself.\"",
"There is no way you can directly defer that capital gains tax. If you sell a property that is not your principal residence, it will be taxed in the year in which it was sold. It doesn't matter what you do with the proceeds - that tax will get paid. Now, if you had adequate RRSP contribution room you could certainly put some money there, and would get a deduction on your tax return that would offset this capital gains tax. For example, if you sold a property for $300K that was originally purchased for $200K, then you would incur capital gains tax of $50K (assuming you were not claiming CCA deductions). If you took $50K of your proceeds and put it in an RRSP, it would offset the tax you pay now, and essentially defer the tax on that $50K of income until you withdraw - hopefully at a lower marginal tax rate. A spousal RRSP would work the same, except it would be taxed at your spouse's marginal tax rate when withdrawn. Either way, you need to have sufficient contribution room in the RRSP for this to work. Check your Notice of Assessment to see how much room you have available.",
"If you were looking to maximize your ability to save in a qualified plan, why not setup a 401K plan in Company A and keep the SEP in B? Setup the 401K in A such that any employee can contribute 100% of their salary. Then take a salary for around 19K/year (assuming under age 50), so you can contribute and have enough to cover SS taxes. Then continue to move dividends to Company A, and continue the SEP in B. This way if you are below age 50, you can contribute 54K (SEP limit) + 18K (IRA limit) + 5500 (ROTH income dependent) to a qualified plan.",
"Given you other question and your resulting marginal tax rate, you may want to optimize where you hold each type of security. If you still plan to have a regular investment account, it's hard to beat the low tax rate of Canadian dividends. In a TFSA, you won't pay tax on the dividend income, and you won't get a dividend tax credit either. For some people in BC this actually costs them money as they have negative marginal dividend tax rates. For you it seems to be 6%. Contrast this with any other holding in your regular account, interest at full marginal rates, and cap gains at half that. Dividends still win in a regular account.",
"Consider doing things that will allow for tax deductions, such as short selling. The IRS has regulations on this as well. And consider that Futures are taxed more favorably than other kinds of investments. (60% taxed as long term, 40% taxed as short term)",
"Ditto Rocky. Also: Break the sale up over several tax years so that you don't have a spike in your income pushing you into a higher tax bracket. Don't sell it until you retire, when you're probably in a lower tax bracket. (If you're 20, this may be impractical.) Get some other deductions, like medical expenses, charity, etc. Failing that, maybe a couple of other ideas that neither of us thought of, I think the real answer is: suck it up and pay the taxes. If there was a way to reduce your taxes just by checking the right box on a tax form or some such, everybody would do it and the government wouldn't collect any taxes.",
"It turns out that my logic was faulty. I wasn't aware that RRSP contributions and RRSP deductions are independent. There's no reason to split up my RRSP contributions across the two years. In my original plan, I was going to defer some RRSP contributions until 2017 so that they wouldn't be deducted from my 2016 income. This isn't necessary — nothing is forcing me to deduct the entire RRSP contribution on my taxes this year. I can still follow the plan I described in my question and max out my RRSP contribution this tax year by only deducting part of the contribution on this year's taxes",
"Put in the maximum you can into the 401(k), the limit should be $16,500 so long as the highly compensated rules don't kick in. Since you cannot deduct the traditional IRA, it's a great option to deposit to a traditional IRA and immediately convert that balance to a Roth account. That puts you at $21,500/yr saved, nearly 18%. There's nothing stopping you from investing outside these accounts. A nice ETF with low expenses, investing in a stock index (I am thinking SPY for the S&P 500) is great to accumulate long term.",
"This is ideal placement for your allocation to income investments or those with nonqualified dividends: bonds, REITS, MLPS, other partnerships, and so forth. These are all taxed at income rate, generally throw off more income than capital gains, so you get the deferment without losing the cap gains rate.",
"\"The \"\"hire a pro\"\" is quite correct, if you are truly making this kind of money. That said, I believe in a certain amount of self-education so you don't follow a pro's advice blindly. First, I wrote an article that discussed Marginal Tax Rates, and it's worth understanding. It simply means that as your income rises past certain thresholds, the tax rate also will change a bit. You are on track to be in the top rate, 33%. Next, Solo 401(k). You didn't ask about retirement accounts, but the combined situations of making this sum of money and just setting it aside, leads me to suggest this. Since you are both employer and employee, the Solo 401(k) limit is a combined $66,500. Seems like a lot, but if you are really on track to make $500K this year, that's just over 10% saved. Then, whatever the pro recommends for your status, you'll still have some kind of Social Security obligation, as both employer and employee, so that's another 15% or so for the first $110K. Last, some of the answers seemed to imply that you'll settle in April. Not quite. You are required to pay your tax through the year and if you wait until April to pay the tax along with your return, you will have a very unpleasant tax bill. (I mean it will have penalties for underpayment through the year.) This is to be avoided. I offer this because often a pro will have a specialty and not go outside that focus. It's possible to find the guy that knows everything about setting you up as an LLC or Sole Proprietorship, yet doesn't have the 401(k) conversation. Good luck, please let us know here how the Pro discussion goes for you.\"",
"mb's answer for FSA was dead on. You also mention child care - The child care credit comes with a phaseout based on income, the Dependent care account alows you to set aside up to $5K pretax money to covers these costs. It's pre-FICA and medicare as well, so the savings can be 33% pretty easily.",
"The numbers you have quoted don't add up. For Rs 30,000 / month is 3,60,000 a year. The tax should be around 11,000 again this will be reduced by the contributions to PF. You have indicated a tax deductions of 18,000. There are multiple ways to save taxes. Since you are beginner, investments into section 80C should give you required tax benefits. Please read this article in Economic Times",
"how does a single employee LLC bring in 500k? I mean if you want to have it in a low-tax environment, you can probably invest it in something and then pull them out? I don't think you can put away pre-tax earnings to then use on salary costs.",
"\"From Rich Dad, Poor Dad. 3 Major Things: With rental real estate, in addition to mortgage interest, you also deduct property taxes, and must claim depreciation (cost of house / 27.5 years) Business Expenses. For example, buy a yacht and put it in a charter fleet. Deduct interest on the loan, depreciation of the asset, property taxes, upkeep of the boat. Your \"\"business\"\" earns profit from chartering the boat, which if I recall correctly is taxed at a lower rate. You get to go sailing for free. Then there was the concept of subdividing the businesses. If you own a restaurant, create another business to own the property, and the equipment used in the company. Then lease the equipment and rent the land to the restaurant. Now admittedly I thought this was like the Daylight Savings plan of tax avoidance, I mean now aren't you essentially having two companies paying half the taxes. I am sure there are well paid CPAs that make the math happen, perhaps using insurance plans.. Perhaps each business funds a \"\"whole life\"\" insurance account, and contributes vast amounts into that. Then you take a loan from your insurance account. Loans of course are not income, so not taxed. The third way is to create your own bank. Banks are required to have reserves of 9%. Meaning if I have $100 dollars, the FDIA allows me to loan $1,111. I then charge you 20% interest, or $222/yr. Now how much can I loan? ...well you can see how profitable that is. Sure you pay taxes, but when you print your own money who cares? Most of this is just gleamed from books, and government publications, but that was my general understanding of it. Feel free to correct the finer points.\"",
"How is not different? You want to retire early; hence, you will save what you deem necessary to retire early. On the other hand, if you turn your retirement savings into capital gains; that's good. Nonetheless, if you start to earn capital gains that is detrimental to the economic value of the state; then, your taxes should be at higher rate to compensate for that. Everyone encourages business; rarely anyone would encourage a monopoly. Earning wealth is good business, hoarding wealth is a monopoly.",
"There are few things going on here: My advice would be: with 75k income and a regular pay check there isn't a whole let you can do to adjust your tax burden. It's unlikely that any adviser will save enough money to warrant professional advice and the associated cost. Use off the shelf software for tax return and tax planning.",
"\"As was stated, households earning over $250k/yr don't all get their income one way. Below that threshold, even in the six figure range, most households are in one of two categories; salary/wage/commission workers, and those living off of nest eggs/entitlements (retired, disabled, welfare). Above $250k, though, are a lot of disparate types of incomes: Now, you specifically mentioned wage earners above $250k. Wage earners typically have the same \"\"tax havens\"\" that most of us do; the difference is usually that they are better able to make use of them: In other words, there are many ways for a high-end wage earner to live the good life and write a lot of it off.\"",
"Your approach sounds solid to me. Alternatively, if (as appears to be the case) then you might want to consider devoting your tax-advantaged accounts to tax-inefficient investments, such as REITs and high-yield bond funds. That way your investments that generate non-capital-gain (i.e. tax-expensive) income are safe from the IRS until retirement (or forever). And your investments that generate only capital gains income are safe until you sell them (and then they're tax-cheap anyway). Of course, since there aren't really that many tax-expensive investment vehicles (especially not for a young person), you may still have room in your retirement accounts after allocating all the money you feel comfortable putting into REITs and junk bonds. In that case, the article I linked above ranks investment types by tax-efficiency so you can figure out the next best thing to put into your IRA, then the next, etc.",
"I'm not familiar with Canadian taxes, but had your question been written about the United States, I'd advise you to at least consult for a couple of hours with an accountant. Taxes are complex, and the cost of making a mistake generally exceeds the cost of getting professional advice.",
"\"Retirement accounts often can be invested with pretax money, with the exception of Roth accounts that use post-tax and have tax-free growth if you follow the rules, rather than after tax money as well as provide a shelter so that you aren't having to pay annual taxes on dividends and other possible distributions. Another point would be to consider how much money you'd be investing as some funds may have institutional versions that can be much cheaper than others, e.g. compare Vanguard's index funds that the 500 Index in Investor shares, Admiral shares and institutional forms where the tickers would be VFINX, VFIAX, VINIX, VIIIX to consider. Some companies may have access to the institutional funds that aren't what you'd have unless you are investing millions of dollars upfront. Lastly, if there isn't an employer plan and you make a ton of cash, you may not qualify for a deductible IRA or Roth IRA contribution for something else that may happen if you want to start playing with, \"\"What if.\"\"\"",
"You have many options, and there is no one-size-fits-all recommendation. You can contribute to your IRA in addition to your 401(k), but because you have that 401(k), it is not tax-deductable. So there is little advantage in putting money in the IRA compared to saving it in a personal investment account, where you keep full control over it. It does, however, open the option to do a backdoor-rollover from that IRA to a Roth IRA, which is a good idea to have; you will not pay any taxes if you do that conversion, if the money in the IRA was not tax deducted (which it isn't as you have the 401(k)). You can also contribute to a Roth IRA directly, if you are under the income limits for that (193k$ for married, I think, not sure for single). If this is the case, you don't need to take the detour through the IRA with the backdoor-rollover. Main advantage for Roth is that gains are tax free. There are many other answers here that give details on where to save if you have more money to save. In a nutshell, In between is 'pay off all high-interest debt', I think right after 1. - if you have any. 'High-Interest' means anything that costs more interest than you can expect when investing.",
"You should very much nail down your planned expenses and profit. However beyond that you may have some better options to avoid taxation assuming all your plans go well. You should take into account the ability to avoid taxes on the sale of a primary residence. You could build the spec house, then move into the spec house. You could then sell the primary (avoiding any profit less than $500k filing jointly, assuming you meet the Home Sale Tax Exclusion requirements). You can then in another two years or so sell the spec house if you want and again avoid up to $500k in profit. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-250000500000-home-sale-tax-exclusion.html",
"\"I'm being taxed at a 40% rate, then I can give $500,000 to charity, write it off, and save $200,000 on my taxes. That's a net loss of $300,000. I may have paid less taxes, but it cost me 300 grand. Your logic is correct. However, here's another way to think about it. Suppose you are being taxed at a 40% rate. You wish to purchase $500,000 worth of diamonds. How much do you have to make in income to do so? You need to make $833,333 in income, pay 40% of that ($333,333) in taxes, and then spend the $500,000 on the diamonds. But to spend that $500,000 on a charitable donation, you only need to make an income of $500,000, taxed at a rate of 0%, because donations to charity count against your taxable income. Or, yet another way to think about it, is that if you make $833,333 in income, you can spend it on $500,000 worth of diamonds, or $833,333 worth of charitable contributions; effectively you get to purchase $333,333 worth of charitable contributions \"\"for free\"\" over the equivalent purchase that is not a charitable donation.\"",
"\"Not really, no. The assumption you're making—withdrawals from a corporation are subject to \"\"[ordinary] income tax\"\"—is simplistic. \"\"Income tax\"\" encompasses many taxes, some more benign than others, owing to credits and exemptions based on the kind of income. Moreover, the choices you listed as benefits in the sole-proprietor case—the RRSP, the TFSA, and capital gains treatment for non-registered investments—all remain open to the owner of a small corporation ... the RRSP to the extent that the owner has received salary to create contribution room. A corporation can even, at some expense, establish a defined benefit (DB) pension plan and exceed individual RRSP contribution limits. Yes, there is a more tax-efficient way for small business owners to benefit when it comes time to retirement. Here is an outline of two things I'm aware of: If your retirement withdrawals from your Canadian small business corporation would constitute withdrawal from the corporation's retained earnings (profits), i.e. income to the corporation that had already been subject to corporate income tax in prior years, then the corporation is able to declare such distributions as dividends and issue you a T5 slip (Statement of Investment Income) instead of a T4 slip (Statement of Remuneration Paid). Dividends received by Canadian residents from Canadian corporations benefit from the Dividend Tax Credit (DTC), which substantially increases the amount of income you can receive without incurring income tax. See TaxTips.ca - Non-eligible (small business) dividend tax credit (DTC). Quote: For a single individual with no income other than taxable Canadian dividends which are eligible for the small business dividend tax credit, in 2014 approximately $35,551 [...] could be earned before any federal* taxes were payable. * Provincial DTCs vary, and so combined federal/provincial maximums vary. See here. If you're wondering about \"\"non-eligible\"\" vs. \"\"eligible\"\": private small business corporation dividends are generally considered non-eligible for the best DTC benefit—but they get some benefit—while a large public corporation's dividends would generally be considered eligible. Eligible/non-eligible has to do with the corporation's own income tax rates; since Canadian small businesses already get a big tax break that large companies don't enjoy, the DTC for small businesses isn't as good as the DTC for public company dividends. Finally, even if there is hardly any same-year income tax advantage in taking dividends over salary from an active small business corporation (when you factor in both the income tax paid by the corporation and the individual), dividends still allow a business owner to smooth his income over time, which can result in a lower lifetime average tax rate. So you can use your business as a retained earnings piggy bank to spin off dividends that attract less tax than ordinary income. But! ... if you can convince somebody to buy your business from you, then you can benefit from the lifetime capital gains exemption of up to $800,000 on qualifying small business shares. i.e. you can receive up to $800K tax-free on the sale of your small business shares. This lifetime capital gains exemption is a big carrot—designed, I believe, to incentivize Canadian entrepreneurs to develop going-concern businesses that have value beyond their own time in the business. This means building things that would make your business worth buying, e.g. a valued brand or product, a customer base, intellectual property, etc. Of course, there are details and conditions with all of what I described, and I am not an accountant, so please consult a qualified, conflict-free professional if you need advice specific to your situation.\"",
"\"Call me rude, but I would be less concerned with taxes and more concerned with increasing your income. Double your income and say \"\"fuck you\"\" to the taxes! Also, I'm no expert on taxes, but a corporation would not prevent you from having income so you would likely be passing the profits through and still paying the same income tax rate.\"",
"\"First of all congrats... very nice work indeed.. Secondly, i do not offer this as legal advise.. lol.. anyhow.. you need to make sure to hang on to as much as possible, being a single earner, our Uncle (Sam) is going to want what's due... That being said, you should probably look into investments, for starters, purchase a primary residence or start a business, or purchase a primary residence and use that as a business residence (both).. what you basically want are write-offs.. you need to bring your \"\"taxable\"\" income as low as possible so you pay minimal taxes.. in your case, you're in danger of paying a hefty sum in taxes... i'm sure you can shield yourself with various business expenses (a car, workplace, computers, etc.. ) that you could benefit from, both professionally and individually.. and then seriously bro... making 250k leads me to believe you've got at least more than half a brain, and that you're using more than half of that.. so dude.. get an accountant... and one you can trust.. ask your parents, colleagues, people you've worked with in the past.. etc.. there are professionals who are equally as talented in helping you keep your money as you are in making it.. -OR- you could get married, make sure your wife stays at home and start popping out kids asap... those keep my taxable (and excess) income pretty low.. LOL!!! I'm going to add to this... as a contractor, i've generally put any \"\"estimated\"\" taxes into some kind of interest accruing account so i can at least make a little money before i have to give it away.. in your case, i'd say put away at least 2/3's into some kind of interest earning account.. start by talking to your personal banker wherever your money is.. you'll be surprised at how nice they treat you... you ARE going to have to pay taxes.. so until you do, try to make a little money while it sits.. again, nice problem to have!\"",
"\"Get an accountant. Now. There are many subtle things that you do not know especially if you are just starting with your own corporation. There is also an issue of corporate tax return that you will have to face pretty soon. You should be looking for accountant that does accounting for corporations, there are companies specializing in small business. I do not think you can \"\"just\"\" transfer money to your personal account. They have to be treated as dividends and treated as such for income tax purposes. Or, as you described, you may pay yourself a salary, but then you have to pay CPP and EI on top of that. When you pay yourself dividends your corporation will need to issue T5 slip for you (accountant will do that) that you will need to use when preparing personal tax return. If you pay yourself salary, corporation will need to give you T4 In terms of tax treatment, if we do not take RRSP contributions dividend tax treatment will leave little bit more money in your hands. I'd say if you have RRSP room and/or TFSA room, pay yourself dividends and then do contributions as you see fit, if you need RRSP room, pay yourself salary. TFSA room does not depend on the type of income, so if you have room there, consider filling it first.\"",
"All data for a single adult in tax year 2010. Roth IRA 401K Roth 401k Traditional IRA and your employer offers a 401k Traditional IRA and your employer does NOT offer a 401k So, here are your options. If you have a 401k at work, you could max that out. If you make close to $120K, you could reduce your AGI enough to contribute to a Roth IRA. If you do not have a 401k at work, you could contribute to a Traditional IRA and deduct the $5K from your AGI similar to how a 401k works. Other than that, I think you are looking at investing outside of a retirement plan which means more flexibility, but no tax advantage.",
"You might want to bring this fancy new IRS rule to your employer's attention. If your employer sets it up, an After-Tax 401(k) Plan allows employees to contribute after-tax money above the $18k/year limit into a special 401(k) that allows deferral of tax on all earnings until withdrawal in retirement. Now, if you think about it, that's not all that special on its own. Since you've already paid tax on the contribution, you could imitate the above plan all by yourself by simply investing in things that generate no income until the day you sell them and then just waiting to sell them until retirement. So basically you're locking up money until retirement and getting zero benefit. But here's the cool part: the new IRS rule says you can roll over these contributions into a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA with no extra taxes or penalties! And a Roth plan is much better, because you don't have to pay tax ever on the earnings. So you can contribute to this After-Tax plan and then immediately roll over into a Roth plan and start earning tax-free forever. Now, the article I linked above gets some important things slightly wrong. It seems to suggest that your company is not allowed to create a brand new 401(k) bucket for these special After-Tax contributions. And that means that you would have to mingle pre-tax and post-tax dollars in your existing Traditional 401(k), which would just completely destroy the usefulness of the rollover to Roth. That would make this whole thing worthless. However, I know from personal experience that this is not true. Your company can most definitely set up a separate After-Tax plan to receive all of these new contributions. Then there's no mingling of pre-tax and post-tax dollars, and you can do the rollover to Roth with the click of a button, no taxes or penalties owed. Now, this new plan still sits under the overall umbrella of your company's total retirement plan offerings. So the total amount of money that you can put into a Traditional 401(k), a Roth 401(k), and this new After-Tax 401(k) -- both your personal contributions and your company's match (if any) -- is still limited to $53k per year and still must satisfy all the non-discrimination rules for HCEs, etc. So it's not trivial to set up, and your company will almost certainly not be able to go all the way to $53k, but they could get a lot closer than they currently do.",
"\"Depending on what your other deductions are and the amount you are wanting to donate, you can save some money by \"\"batching\"\" deductions into every other year. For example, if you are single in 2015, the standard deduction is $6,300. This means the first $6,300 in deductions you have basically don't \"\"matter\"\" because the standard deduction is larger. You only \"\"count\"\" itemized deductions greater than $6,300. Let's imagine you are donating $10k in 2015 and 2016 and have no other itemized deductions. If you donate in both years, you basically get a net deduction of ($10,000 - $6,300) * 2 = $7,400 over the standard deduction. However, if you donate $10k in 2015 and the next $10k on Dec31, 2015, then you now have donated $20k in 2015 and $0k in 2016. This affects your taxes because you now get ($20,000 - $6,300) = $13,700 in \"\"bonus\"\" deductions. You still get the full $6,300 standard deduction in 2016 as well. This can be a significant impact on your taxes (especially if you are married as the married deduction is double the single or have minimal other itemizable deductions)..\"",
"I agree that best is subjective and will not give investment advice. However, the tax deductible part can be dealt with quite swiftly. If you need tax deductibility right now, at the expense of later, put it into an RSP account. If you don't need tax deductibility right now, put it into a TFSA. Assuming you have room in either of these vehicles, I would suggest using just an RSP or TFSA cash savings account for now at ING Direct. Three reasons: You get the immediate benefit of having put it somewhere, and in the case of the RSP, an immediate tax deductibility. You don't have to worry about rushing into a specific investment and can give yourself time to figure out your goals and portfolio composition. (Read about the Couch Potato portfolio for a starting point.) You can transfer your money from them for free and still keep it registered in whichever plan it is in. The last point is the most important for my suggestion. The ability to quickly park the cash in a registered account and to move it for free using the appropriate form at a later date. Most places have a sneaky transfer-out fee. ING may not be the only place that doesn't, but I haven't looked into many other places about this. You might find something else that works the same way. And please, don't ever use GIC and high return in the same sentence.",
"For stocks, bonds, ETF funds and so on - Taxed only on realised gain and losses are deductible from the gain and not from company's income. Corporate tax is calculated only after all expenses have been deducted. Not the other way around. Real estate expenses can be deducted because of repairs and maintenance. In general all expenses related to the operation of the business can be deducted. But you cannot use expenses as willy nilly, as you assume. You cannot deduct your subscription to Playboy as an expense. Doing it is illegal and if caught, the tours to church will increase exponentially. VAT is only paid if you claim VAT on your invoices. Your situation seems quite complicated. I would suggest, get an accountant pronto. There are nuances in your situation, which an accountant only can understand and help.",
"\"There are ways to mitigate, but since you're not protected by a tax-deferred/advantaged account, the realized income will be taxed. But you can do any of the followings to reduce the burden: Prefer selling either short positions that are at loss or long positions that are at gain. Do not invest in stocks, but rather in index funds that do the rebalancing for you without (significant) tax impact on you. If you are rebalancing portfolio that includes assets that are not stocks (real-estate, mainly) consider performing 1031 exchanges instead of plain sale and re-purchase. Maximize your IRA contributions, even if non-deductible, and convert them to Roth IRA. Hold your more volatile investments and individual stocks there - you will not be taxed when rebalancing. Maximize your 401K, HSA, SEP-IRA and any other tax-advantaged account you may be eligible for. On some accounts you'll pay taxes when withdrawing, on others - you won't. For example - Roth IRA/401k accounts are not taxed at all when withdrawing qualified distributions, while traditional IRA/401k are taxed as ordinary income. During the \"\"low income\"\" years, consider converting portions of traditional accounts to Roth.\"",
"In the case you propose, a taxable windfall, your best hope is to marry someone who has his/her own loss of about the same amount. This advice would work if your gain is a 10 bagger, as you suggest, but not for a lottery. In the dot com bubble, I heard of more than one couple that got married under these conditions. As far as other gains, it would be tough to contrive a situation that would give you such a tax offset without taking on a huge risk, far greater that the $133K in tax you might save.",
"I brought this up to my CPA. She said don't do it. People used to do it, but now they're cracking down. Is it unfair? Yes. But it's the government so don't mess with them.",
"You can defer RRSP deductions to future years. So, if you purchase $20,000 in RRSPs this year but had no income, you could use this to offset your income next year when you are making, say, $100,000. For more details, see Deferring claim of significant purchase of RRSPs Note that I strongly advise you ensure you have sufficient emergency funds prior to purchasing RRSPs.",
"If you have self-employment income you can open a Solo 401k. Your question is unclear as to what your employment status is. If you are self-employed as an independent contractor, you can open a Solo 401k. You can still do this even if you also earn non-self-employment income (i.e., you are an employee and receive a W-2). However, the limits for contributions to a Solo 401k are based on your self-mployment income, not your total income, so if you have only a small amount of self-employment income, you won't be able to contribute much to the Solo 401k. You may be able to reduce your taxes somewhat, but it's not like you can earn $1000 of self-employment income, open a Solo 401k, and dump $5000 into it; the limits don't work that way.",
"If you expect to pay tax on dividends move dividend producing assets into your ISA. If have a lot of investments you can Look at Zeros (zero dividend preference share) issued by splits (split capital trusts), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_capital_investment_trust",
"No there is no way to have untaxed earnings. Single Member LLC are taxed on your personal taxes. Partnership LLC is taxed on your and your partners personal taxes. An C-Corp LLC has its own tax bracket. An S-Corp is taxed on your personal taxes (but does not get taxed as self-employment taxes). At $500,000, YOU SHOULD BE AN S-CORP or C-CORP to save on self-employment taxes.",
"PSB taxed at higher rates. PSB is taxed at 39.5% in Ontario, as the article mentioned. But if you pay all the net income to yourself as salary, you expense it and zero it out on the corporate level. So who cares what tax rate it is if the taxable income is zero? No-one. Same goes for the US, by the way. Personal Service Corporations are taxed at flat 35% Federal tax rate. But if you pour all the income into your salary - its moot, because there's no net income to pay tax of. If it's too complicated to figure out, maybe it would be wise to hire a tax accountant to provide counsel to you before you make decisions about your business.",
"You don't seem to have any particular question to be answered. Your understanding of RRSPs seems to be very good. Have you considered whether you might be better off putting your retirement savings into a TFSA instead? Both types can protect your growth from taxation (provided you reinvest the refund from the RRSP). The main way in which the RRSP is better than TFSA is that you can pay the tax on the contribution at a time when your income is lower, and thus have a lower marginal tax rate. Most people retire with a lower income than during their earning years, but it's a matter of tax brackets. If you think you'll be in the same bracket (same marginal tax rate) when you retire, then the TFSA and RRSP work out even in that regard. So in your case, the question you want to ask yourself is: when I retire, will I have an income (including CPP, OAS, pension payments, etc) that exceeds $45,282 worth of today's dollars? If so, your RRSP holds no advantage over the TFSA. In fact, the RRSP may even be worse, since the withdrawals count as income and reduce the amount of OAS and perhaps GIS payments that the government gives you - at least under current regulations. If you're unsure, I suggest you try this calculator from taxtips.ca that runs both scenarios and helps you see which one is more beneficial. It even factors in the OAS/GIS clawbacks.",
"You can't max out your retirement savings. There are vehicles that aren't tax-advantaged that you can fund after you've exhausted the tax-advantaged ones. Consider how much you want to put into these vehicles. There are disadvantages as well as advantages. The rules on these can change at any time and can make it harder for you to get your money out. How's your liquid (cash) emergency fund? It sounds like you're in a position to amass a good one. Don't miss this opportunity. Save like crazy while you can. Kids make this harder. Paying down your mortgage will save you interest, of course, but make sure you're not cash-poor as a result. If something happens to your income(s), the bank will still foreclose on you even if you only owe $15,000. A cash cushion buys you time.",
"There are some great answers on this site similar to what you asked, with either a non-jurisdictional or a US-centric focus. I would read those answers as well to give yourself more points of view on early investing. There are a few differences between Canada and the US from an investing perspective that you should also then consider, namely tax rules, healthcare, and education. I'll get Healthcare and Education out of the way quickly. Just note the difference in perspective in Canada of having government healthcare; putting money into health-savings plans or focusing on insurance as a workplace benefit is not a key motivating factor, but more a 'nice-to-have'. For education, it is more common in Canada for a student to either pay for school while working summer / part-time jobs, or at least taking on manageable levels of debt [because it is typically not quite as expensive as private colleges in the US]. There is still somewhat of a culture of saving for your child's education here, but it is not as much of a necessity as it may be in the US. From an investing perspective, I will quickly note some common [though not universal] general advice, before getting Canadian specific. I have blatantly stolen the meat of this section from Ben Miller's great answer here: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing Once you have a solid financial footing, some peculiarities of Canadian investing are below. For all the tax-specific plans I'm about to mention, note that the banks do a very good job here of tricking you into believing they are complex, and that you need your hand to be held. I have gotten some criminally bad tax advice from banking reps, so at the risk of sounding prejudiced, I recommend that you learn everything you can beforehand, and only go into your bank when you already know the right answer. The 'account types' themselves just involve a few pages of paperwork to open, and the banks will often do that for free. They make up their fees in offering investment types that earn them management fees once the accounts are created. Be sure to separate the investments (stocks vs bonds etc.) vs the investment vehicles. Canada has 'Tax Free Savings Accounts', where you can contribute a certain amount of money every year, and invest in just about anything you want, from bonds to stocks to mutual funds. Any Income you earn in this account is completely tax free. You can withdraw these investments any time you want, but you can't re-contribute until January 1st of next year. ie: you invest $5k today in stocks held in a TFSA, and they grow to $6k. You withdraw $6k in July. No tax is involved. On January 1st next year, you can re-contribute a new $6K, and also any additional amounts added to your total limit annually. TFSA's are good for short-term liquid investments. If you don't know for sure when you'll need the money, putting it in a TFSA saves you some tax, but doesn't commit you to any specific plan of action. Registered Retirement Savings Plans allow you to contribute money based on your employment income accrued over your lifetime in Canada. The contributions are deducted from your taxable income in the year you make them. When you withdraw money from your RRSP, the amount you withdraw gets added as additional income in that year. ie: you invest $5k today in stocks held in an RRSP, and get a $5k deduction from your taxable income this year. The investments grow to $6k. You withdraw $6k next year. Your taxable income increases by $6k [note that if the investments were held 'normally' {outside of an RRSP}, you would have a taxable gain of only 50% of the total gain; but withdrawing the amount from your RRSP makes the gain 100% taxable]. On January 1st next year, you CANNOT recontribute this amount. Once withdrawn, it cannot be recontributed [except for below items]. RRSP's are good for long-term investing for retirement. There are a few factors at play here: (1) you get an immediate tax deduction, thus increasing the original size of investment by deferring tax to the withdrawal date; (2) your investments compound tax-free [you only pay tax at the end when you withdraw, not annually on earnings]; and (3) many people expect that they will have a lower tax-rate when they retire, than they do today. Some warnings about RRSP's: (1) They are less liquid than TFSA's; you can't put money in, take it out, and put it in again. In general, when you take it out, it's out, and therefore useless unless you leave it in for a long time; (2) Income gets re-characterized to be fully taxable [no dividend tax credits, no reduced capital gains tax rate]; and (3) There is no guarantee that your tax rate on retirement will be less than today. If you contribute only when your tax rate is in the top bracket, then this is a good bet, but even still, in 30 years, tax rates might rise by 20% [who knows?], meaning you could end up paying more tax on the back-end, than you saved in the short term. Home Buyer Plan RRSP withdrawals My single favourite piece of advice for young Canadians is this: if you contribute to an RRSP at least 3 months before you make a down payment on your first house, you can withdraw up to $25k from your RRSP without paying tax! to use for the down payment. Then over the next ~10 years, you need to recontribute money back to your RRSP, and you will ultimately be taxed when you finally take the money out at retirement. This means that contributing up to 25k to an RRSP can multiply your savings available for a down payment, by the amount of your tax rate. So if you make ~60k, you'll save ~35% on your 25k deposited, turning your down payment into $33,750. Getting immediate access to the tax savings while also having access to the cash for a downpayment, makes the Home Buyer Plan a solid way to make the most out of your RRSP, as long as one of your near-term goals is to own your own home. Registered Pension Plans are even less liquid than RRSPs. Tax-wise, they basically work the same: you get a deduction in the year you contribute, and are taxed when you withdraw. The big difference is that there are rules on when you are allowed to withdraw: only in retirement [barring specific circumstances]. Typically your employer's matching program (if you have one) will be inside of an RPP. Note that RPP's and RRSP's reduce your taxes on your employment paycheques immediately, if you contribute through a work program. That means you get the tax savings during the year, instead of all at once a year later on April 30th. *Note that I have attempted at all times to keep my advice current with applicable tax legislation, but I do not guarantee accuracy. Research these things yourself because I may have missed something relevant to your situation, I may be just plain wrong, and tax law may have changed since I wrote this to when you read it.",
"Let's say your marginal tax rate is 33%. For every dollar you put in an RRSP, you'll get 33 cents back on your taxes, while the whole amount grows tax free inside the investment. If you can afford it, money in an RRSP generates a lot of free money.",
"Go to a good bookstore and find a book about saving on income tax. Unlike other countries, where filling in your tax returns usually means you have to pay extra money, in Germany filling in your tax return usually means that you will be paid money, and the more tax deductible items you can fill in, the more money you will get back. At the very least, ask some German colleagues about the most typical tax deductible items. They love getting taxes back.",
"Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax.",
"Yes, you could avoid capital gains tax altogether, however, capital gains are used in determining your tax bracket even though they are not taxed at that rate. This would only work in situations where your total capital gains and ordinary income kept you in the 0% longterm capital gains bracket. You can't realize a million dollars in capital gains and have no tax burden due to lack of ordinary income. You can potentially save some money by realizing capital gains strategically. Giving up income in an attempt to save on taxes rarely makes sense.",
"The biggest issue is your lack of diversification. Your real estate investments have performed quite well so far, but you have also likely enjoyed a period of unprecedented growth that is not sustainable. In the long term, stocks have always outperformed real estate investments, which tend to track more closely to the inflation rate. You need more balance for when when the real estate market cools off. You don't mention tax-deferred retirement savings accounts. You should prioritize your attention to these to keep your income tax low. Consider selling one of your investment properties if you can't adequately fund the 401k.",
"\"Paying yourself through a corporation requires an analysis of a variety of issues. First, a salary paid to yourself creates RRSP contribution room as well as CPP contributions. Paying yourself a dividend achieves neither of those. By having a corporation, you will have to file a corporate (T2) tax return. The corporation is considered a separate legal entity from you. As an individual, you will still need to file a personal (T1) tax return. Never just \"\"draw\"\" money out of a corporation. This can create messy transactions involving loans to shareholders. Interest is due on these amounts and any amounts not paid within one calendar year are considered as wages by Canada Revenue and would need to be reported as income on your next T1 return. You should never withhold EI premiums as the sole owner of a corporation. You are considered exempt from these costs by CRA. Any amounts that have been remitted to CRA can be reclaimed by submitting a formal request. The decision on whether to take a salary or dividends normally requires some detailed analysis. Your accountant or financial advisor should be able to assist in this matter.\"",
"question #2 - yes, 25% of your 1099 income. Good idea. It adds up quickly and is a good way to reduce taxable income.",
"\"The $100,000 is taxed separately as \"\"ordinary income\"\". The $350,000 is taxed at long-term capital gains of 15%. Capital gains is not taxed at 20% until $415,050. Even though $100,000 + 350,000 = $450,000, only $350,000 can be taxed at capital gains. The total ordinary income tax burden will be $31,986 if single, in California. Caveat: By creating a holdings corporation (C-corp), you can section 351 that $100,000 into the C-corp for tax deferment, which won't be taxed until you take money from the corporation. Since you will hold 100% of the voting stock, all distributions will be considered pro rata. Additionally, you can issue yourself a dividend under the rules of 26 USC §§243-246 (a greather-than-80% shareholder who receives a dividend can write-off 100% of said dividend). As long as that dividend doesn't trigger §§1.243-246 of The Regulations by keeping the distribution just under 10% of E&P i.e. $10,000. Wages are deductible against basis so pay yourself $35,000 and keep $55,000 in the corporation and you can decrease the total liabilities down to $22,000 from $31,000, which includes the CA franchise tax. You don't have to pay yourself any money out a corporation to use the money.\"",
"\"First, point: The CRA wants you to start a business with a \"\"Reasonable expectation of profit\"\". They typically expect to see a profit within 5 years, so you may be inviting unwanted questions from future auditors by using a breakeven strategy. Second point: If the goal is to pay as little tax as possible, you may want to consider having the corporation pay you as little as possible. Corporate income taxes are much lower than personal income taxes, according to these two CRA links: How it works is that your company pays you little as an outright salary and offers you perks like a leased company car, expense account for lunch and entertainment, a mobile phone, computer, etc. The company owns all of this stuff and lets you use it as part of the job. The company pays for all this stuff with corporate pre-tax dollars as opposed to you paying for it with personal after-tax dollars. There are specifics on meals & entertainment which modify this slightly (you can claim 50%) but you get the idea. The actual rate difference will depend on your province of residence and your corporate income level. There is also a requirement for \"\"Reasonable Expenses\"\", such that the expenses have to be in line with what you are doing. If you need to travel to a conference each year, that would be a reasonable expense. Adding your family and making it a vacation for everyone would not. You can claim such expenses as a sole proprietor or a corporation. The sole-proprietorship option puts any after-expense profits into your pocket as taxable income, where the corporate structure allows the corporation to hold funds and limit the amount paid out to you. I've seen this strategy successfully done first-hand, but have not done it myself. I am not a lawyer or accountant, consult these professionals about this tax strategy before taking any action.\"",
"First you need to distinguish between short-term and long-term capital gains. In an IRA you can use investment strategies that incur short-term capital gains without being taxed as ordinary income. As mentioned in a comment above, with a Roth IRA, you can invest now at your low income tax rates and withdraw all gains without incurring any taxes at retirement time. You can also pull out your contributions penalty free before retirement age (59 1/2) if you've had the account for more than 5 years. You only pay taxes and penalties on the earnings. You can also make withdrawals for education expenses and you have one lifetime exclusion of $10,000 for a down-payment on a house.",
"I was once the personal assistant to two wealthy NYC sisters. They did not pay for anything. For example, if we were riding the subway, I would pay, and be reimbursed by the Company. They had multiple residences and investment properties. Each property was purchased through a separate Limited Liablity Corporation, and paid for by the Company. When they purchased, donated or sold art, it was through their family Foundation. Their income primarily came from a draw of funds from the family estate, although one of them worked as an architect, which provided further income.",
"If your employer offers a 401k retirement plan then you can contribute a portion of your salary to your retirement and that will lower your effective income to remain in the 15% bracket (although as others have pointed out, only the dollars that exceed the 15% bracket will be taxed at the higher rate anyway). AND if your employer offers any kind of 401k matching contribution, that's effectively a pay-raise or 100% return on investment (depending on how you prefer to look at it).",
"\"http://www.investopedia.com/articles/mortgages-real-estate/08/tax-deductible-mortgage-canada.asp > This strategy is not for everyone. Borrowing against your home is psychologically difficult, and if the investments don't yield expected returns, this strategy could yield negative results. By re-borrowing the equity in your home, you are also removing your \"\"cushion\"\" of safety if the real estate (or investment) markets take a turn for the worse. By creating an income-producing portfolio in an unregistered account, there can also be additional tax consequences - so always consult with a professional financial advisor to determine whether this strategy is for you, and if it is, have it tailor-made to you and your family's personal financial situation.\""
] |
[
"That's not especially high income, and while I can't speak for Canadians, most of us south of the border just pay the tax. There are tax-advantged retirement savings plans, and charitable donations are often offset by a tax credit, and there are some tax incentives for mortgages, and so on.. but generally the right answer is to just accept that the income tax money was never yours to begin with."
] |
7467
|
Stocks are traded on secondary markets?
|
[
"193312"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"193312",
"163987",
"584350",
"408546",
"516078",
"505379",
"433806",
"301985",
"182462",
"517323",
"12027",
"179258",
"107227",
"260023",
"565568",
"438974",
"322771",
"505244",
"257457",
"574820",
"186184",
"186392",
"519663",
"295445",
"434596",
"510753",
"434212",
"120447",
"420551",
"396985",
"404339",
"561205",
"226197",
"566553",
"580364",
"26203",
"321639",
"365465",
"62653",
"598295",
"560273",
"332323",
"878",
"346669",
"467352",
"10726",
"94336",
"163333",
"365926",
"307008",
"343638",
"593445",
"559635",
"334849",
"537222",
"60314",
"101408",
"371720",
"137984",
"120271",
"225877",
"37558",
"488546",
"116846",
"218842",
"288977",
"134430",
"189979",
"211441",
"151802",
"131788",
"34080",
"47738",
"390817",
"51063",
"350110",
"3463",
"78053",
"357706",
"455168",
"421724",
"428018",
"192600",
"253024",
"124188",
"79410",
"272585",
"543927",
"584295",
"535525",
"257656",
"381665",
"130303",
"98654",
"251100",
"307828",
"485757",
"201361",
"502607",
"516561"
] |
[
"NYSE and Nasdaq are secondary markets where stocks are bought or sold. The process of creating new stocks via IPO or private placements etc are called Private Market.",
"\"Very often, the word secondary market is used synonymously with the stock market as we all know it. In this case, the primary market would be the \"\"closed\"\" world of VCs, business angels, etc to which stock market investors do not have access, e.g. the securities are not trading on a public stock market.\"",
"\"When there is a trade the shares were both bought and sold. In any trade on the secondary market there has to be both a buyer and a seller for the trade to take place. So in \"\"lasttradesize\"\" a buyer has bought the shares from a seller.\"",
"\"With regards to \"\"the stock market,\"\" there are actually two markets involved here: PRIMARY MARKET Value is created in the primary market where capital is exchanged for a residual interest in an opportunity. As a theoretical example, if a person operating solo (or with a small team) were to discover or create a breakthrough product, such as an retro-aging pill, that person likely wouldn't have the financial means to fully capitalize on his new-found idea. Others with more capital may also soon discover his idea or improve upon it and exploit it before he has a chance to. For a real life example, a person studying at a California university during the 1990s discovered a method to index internet webpages and was approached by some students after a talk on the subject. He returned to his native southern Europe country seeking funds to develop the web-indexing business and failed to do so. Two of the students that approached him found capital readily available from investors in their campus sphere; their business is today one of the biggest in the world. They had exchanged part of their residual interest for capital to develop their business. The primary market of the stock market works mostly same in creating value. It is also dependent upon the secondary market. SECONDARY MARKET The secondary market indicates the day-to-day value of an enterprise. That market allows shareholders to manage their risk appetites and the enterprise's operators to execute their shareholders' interest for gains. In most cases, a secondary market reference will be used for pricing a primary market issuance. Without that reference, capital would be allocated less efficiently creating additional costs for all involved, issuers and investors. Consider what would happen if you sought to purchase a house and the mortgage lenders had no indication what the property was worth. This would make capital very expensive or possibly deny you access to credit. By having an indication, all involved are better off. That is value creating. There are some large developed economies' equity markets, such as that in Germany, where many large enterprises stay privately held and credit financing, mostly from banks, is used. The approach has proven successful as well. So why do some nations' financial markets still rely on capricious stock markets when private credit financing may do just fine in many cases? It's largely a matter of national culture. Countries such as the Netherlands, the UK and the US have long had active equity markets in continuous use that investors have trusted for centuries. CONCLUSION When leaders of an enterprise wish to grow the business to a large size with investment from the stock market, they aren't limited by the size of their banks' capital. Those leaders and their prospective investors will rely on the secondary market to determine values. In addition, if the leaders raise equity instead of debt capital, they are usually accorded more flexibility to take risks since shareholders usually have their own flexibility to transfer those risks to other investors if for any number of reasons they choose to do so. Stock markets create value in many other ways. The above are the main ways.\"",
"I work at BATS Chi-X Europe and wanted to provide some clarity/answers to these questions. BATS Chi-X Europe is a Recognised Investment Exchange, so it is indeed a stock exchange. Sometimes the term “equity market” could be used when explaining our business, but essentially we are a stock exchange. As some background, BATS Chi-X Europe was formed by the acquisition of Chi-X Europe by BATS Trading in November 2011. At the time of the acquisition, each company operated as a Multilateral Trading Facility (MTF) for the trading of pan-European equities via a single trading platform. The category of MTF was introduced by MIFID (markets in Financial Instrument Directive) in 2007, which introduced competition in equities trading and allowed European stocks, to be traded on any European platform. Until 2007, many European stocks had to be traded only their local exchanges due to so-called “Concentration Rules”. Following the acquisition, BATS Chi-X Europe became the largest MTF in Europe, offering trading in more than 2,000 securities (2,700 securities by September 2013) across 15 major European markets, on a single trading platform. In May 2013, BATS Chi-X Europe received Recognised Investment Exchange status from the UK Financial Conduct Authority, meaning that BATS Chi-X Europe has changed from an MTF status to full exchange status. In response to question 1: The equities traded on BATS Chi-X Europe are listed on stock exchanges such as the LSE but also listed on the other European Exchanges. The term “third party” equities is not particularly useful as all stock trading in Europe is generally a “second hand” business referred to as “secondary market” trading. At the time of listing a firm issues shares; trading in these shares after the listing exercise is generally what happens in equity markets and these shares can be bought and sold on stock exchanges across Europe. Secondary market trading describes all trading on all exchanges or MTFs that takes place after the listing. In response to question 2: BATS Chi-X Europe trades over 2,700 stocks on its own trading platform. When trading on BATS Chi-X Europe, orders are executed on their own platform and will not end up of the LSE order books or platform. The fact that a stock was first listed on the LSE, does not mean that all trading in this stock happens via the LSE. However settlement process ensures that stocks end up being logged in a single depository. This means that a stock bought on BATS Chi-X Europe can be offset against the same stock sold on the LSE. In response to question 3: As noted above, BATS Chi-X Europe received Recognised Investment Exchange (RIE) status from the UK Financial Conduct Authority in May 2013, meaning that BATS Chi-X Europe has changed from an MTF status to full stock exchange status. As an exchange / RIE, BATS Chi-X Europe is authorised to offer primary and secondary listings alongside its existing business. According to the Federations of European Securities Exchanges (FESE), BATS Chi-X Europe has been the largest equity exchange in Europe by value traded in every month so far in 2013. In August, 24.1% of European equities trading in the 15 markets covered were traded on BATS Chi-X Europe. In July and August, the average notional value traded on BATS Chi-X Europe was around €7.2 billion per day. Hope this information is helpful.",
"\"> If the only function of the stock market is investment and provide capital to companies, why have a secondary market at all? > Maybe we shouldn't, I don't know Are you (and the 8 upvoters) for real? What do you think would happen to the \"\"primary\"\" market if initial investors had no way of converting their investments back into currency when they needed to? Seriously, this isn't fucking [rocket surgery](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I).\"",
"\"1) Are the definitions for capital market from the two sources the same? Yes. They are from two different perspectives. Investopedia is looking at it primarily from the perspective of a trader and they lead-off with the secondary market. This refers to the secondary market: A market in which individuals and institutions trade financial securities. This refers to the primary market: Organizations/institutions in the public and private sectors also often sell securities on the capital markets in order to raise funds. Also, the Investopedia definition leaves much to be desired, but it is supposed to be pithy. So, you are comparing apples and oranges, to some extent. One is an article, as short as it may be, this other one is an entry in a dictionary. 2) What is the opposite of capital market, according to the definition in investopedia? It's not quite about opposites, this is not physics. However, that is not the issue here. The Investopedia definition simply does not mention any other possibilities. The Wikipedia article defines the term more thoroughly. It talks about primary/secondary markets in separate paragraph. 3) According to the Wikipedia's definition, why does stock market belong to capital market, given that stocks can be held less than one year too? If you follow the link in the Wikipedia article to money market: As money became a commodity, the money market is nowadays a component of the financial markets for assets involved in short-term borrowing, lending, buying and selling with original maturities of one year or less. The key here is original maturities of one year or less. Here's my attempt at explaining this: Financial markets are comprised of money markets and capital markets. Money is traded as if it were a commodity on the money markets. Hence, the short-term nature in its definition. They are more focused on the money itself. Capital markets are focused on the money as a means to an end. Companies seek money in these markets for longer terms in order to improve their business in some way. A business may go to the money markets to access money quickly in order to deal with a short-term cash crunch. Meanwhile, a business may go to the capital markets to seek money in order to expand its business. Note that capital markets came first and money markets are a relatively recent development. Also, we are typically speaking about the secondary (capital) market when we are talking about the stock or bond market. In this market, participants are merely trading among themselves. The company that sought money by issuing that stock/bond certificate is out of the picture at that point and has its money. So, Facebook got its money from participants in the primary market: the underwriters. The underwriters then turned around and sold that stock in an IPO to the secondary market. After the IPO, their stock trades on the secondary market where you or I have access to trade it. That money flows between traders. Facebook got its money at the \"\"beginning\"\" of the process.\"",
"Stock trades are always between real buyers and real sellers. In thinly-traded small stocks, for example, you may not always be able to find a buyer when you want to sell. For most public companies, there is enough volume that individual investors can just about always fill their market orders.",
"For the second part, no most NYSE trades are done electronically.",
"The stock market is just like any other market, but stocks are bought and sold here. Just like you buy and sell your electronics at the electronics market, this is a place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares or stocks or equity, no matter what you call it. What are these shares? A share is nothing but a portion of ownership of a company. Suppose a company has 100 shares issued to it, and you were sold 10 out of those, it literally means you are a 10% owner of the company. Why do companies sell shares? Companies sell shares to grow or expand. Suppose a business is manufacturing or producing and selling goods or services that are high in demand, the owners would want to take advantage of it and increase the production of his goods or services. And in order to increase production he would need money to buy land or equipment or labor, etc. Now either he could go get a loan by pledging something, or he could partner with someone who could give him money in exchange for some portion of the ownership of the company. This way, the owner gets the money to expand his business and make more profit, and the lender gets a portion of profit every time the company makes some. Now if the owner decides to sell shares rather than getting a loan, that's when the stock market comes into the picture. Why would a person want to trade stocks? First of all, please remember that stocks were never meant to be traded. You always invest in stocks. What's the difference? Trading is short term and investing is long term, in very simple language. It's the greed of humans which led to this concept of trading stocks. A person should only buy stocks if he believes in the business the company is doing and sees the potential of growth. Back to the question: a person would want to buy stocks of the company because: How does a stock market help society? Look around you for the answer to this question. Let me give you a start and I wish everyone reading this post to add at least one point to the answer. Corporations in general allow many people come together and invest in a business without fear that their investment will cause them undue liability - because shareholders are ultimately not liable for the actions of a corporation. The cornerstone North American case of how corporations add value is by allowing many investors to have put money towards the railroads that were built across America and Canada. For The stock market in particular, by making it easier to trade shares of a company once the company sells them, the number of people able to conveniently invest grows exponentially. This means that someone can buy shares in a company without needing to knock door to door in 5 years trying to find someone to sell to. Participating in the stock market creates 'liquidity', which is essentially the ease with which stocks are converted into cash. High liquidity reduces risk overall, and it means that those who want risk [because high risk often creates high reward] can buy shares, and those who want low risk [because say they are retiring and don't have a risk appetite anymore] can sell shares.",
"You don't have to go through an exchange. That wasn't the problem. It was that the people trading on them wouldn't be willing to take your offer. An exchange can't just list a company. They need that company's consent and the company need's the exchange's consent. I don't know if you're aware of this but that was also an entirely new disaster during Facebook's IPO. Computer glitches didn't help. What you're talking about is a called a secondary market, kind of. Stock exchanges offer those too, especially for options. That's the typical stock footage you see of guys on wall street yelling and screaming while throwing paper up in the air.",
"In the world of stock exchanges, the result depends on the market state of the traded stock. There are two possibilities, (a) a trade occurs or (b) no trade occurs. During the so-called auction phase, bid and ask prices may overlap, actually they usually do. During an open market, when bid and ask match, trades occur.",
"popularity that you are referring to is just known as liquidity when discussing markets. More liquid securities tend to trade more shares per day and have very tight bid/ask spreads as many investors are buying and selling the shares at one time. Some larger securities, especially on exchanges, further enhance liquidity by providing market makers. These are individuals on the NYSE, for example, that will make the market in large securities by handling large orders and providing liquidity through their own book of capital. The individuals on the floor on the NYSE you often see on TV are those market makers. However, as trading becomes more electronic, market markers are becoming less and less required. A previous comment suggested pink sheets are risky companies. This is not entirely factual. While the majority of pink sheets are very highly risky companies, many very solid international companies trade their ADRs (American Depository Receipt) on the pink sheets to avoid the high cost of setting up a large exchange at the NYSE and register and report through the SEC. As a TD Ameritrade user, I would be willing to help you out if you have any other questions.",
"Every company has Stocks. For the stocks to be traded via some stock exchange, the companies must follow the eligibility criteria and guidelines. Once done, these are then listed on the stock exchange and can be traded. The advantage [amongst others] of listing is liquidity and stocks can easily be bought and sold. Some small companies or closely held companies may not want to list on stock exchange and hence are not traded. This does not mean they can't be bought and sold, they can be outside of the market, however the deals are complex and every deal has to be worked out. During the course of time a stock that is traded on a stock exchange, would either fail to meet the criteria or voluntarily choose not to be traded and follow the delisting process [either by stock exchange or by company]. After this the stocks are no longer traded on the exchange.",
"\"The Auction Market is where investors such you and me, as well as Market Makers, buy and sell securities. The Auction Markets operate with the familiar bid-ask pricing that you see on financial pages such as Google and Yahoo. The Market Makers are institutions that are there to provide liquidity so that investors can easily buy and sell shares at a \"\"fair\"\" price. Market Makers need to have on hand a suitable supply of shares to meet investor demands. When Market Makers feel the need to either increase or decrease their supply of a particular security quickly, they turn to the Dealer Market. In order to participate in a Dealer Market, you must be designated a Market Maker. As noted already, Market Makers are dedicated to providing liquidity for the Auction Market in certain securities and therefore require that they have on hand a suitable supply of those securities which they support. For example, if a Market Maker for Apple shares is low on their supply of Apple shares, then will go the Dealer Market to purchase more Apple shares. Conversely, if they are holding what they feel are too many Apple shares, they will go to the Dealer Market to sell Apple shares. The Dealer Market does operate on a bid-ask basis, contrary to your stated understanding. The bid-ask prices quoted on the Dealer Market are more or less identical to those on the Auction Market, except the quote sizes will be generally much larger. This is the case because otherwise, why would a Market Maker offer to sell shares to another Market Maker at a price well below what they could themselves sell them for in the Auction Market. (And similarly with buy orders.) If Market Makers are generally holding low quantities of a particular security, this will drive up the price in both the Dealer Market and the Auction Market. Similarly, if Market Makers are generally holding too much of a particular security, this may drive down prices on both the Auction Market and the Dealer Market.\"",
"Yes you can, provided if buyers are available. Normally high liquidty stocks can be sold at market prices a little higher or lower.",
"You can check whether the company whose stock you want to buy is present on an european market. For instance this is the case for Apple at Frankfurt.",
"\"- In a quote driven market, must every investor trade with a market maker? In other words, two parties that are both not market makers cannot trade between themselves directly? In a way yes, all trades go through a market maker but those trades can be orders put in place by a \"\"person\"\" IE: you, or me. - Does a quote driven market only display the \"\"best\"\" bid and ask prices proposed by the market makers? In other words, only the highest bid price among all the market makers is displayed, and other lower bid prices by other market makers are not? Similarly, only the lowest ask price over all market makers is displayed, and other higher ask prices by other market makers are not? No, you can see other lower bid and higher ask prices. - In a order-driven market, is it meaningful to talk about \"\"the current stock price\"\", which is the price of last transaction? Well that's kind of an opinion. Information is information so it won't be bad to know it. Personally I would say the bid and ask price is more important. However in the real world these prices are changing constantly and quickly so realistically it is easier to keep track of the quote price and most likely the bid/ask spread is small and the quote will fall in between. The less liquid a security is the more important the bid/ask is. -- This goes for all market types. - For a specific asset, will there be several transactions happened at the same time but with different prices? Today with electronic markets, trades can happen so quickly it's difficult to say. In the US stock market trades happen one at a time but there is no set time limit between each trade. So within 1 second you can have a trade be $50 or $50.04. However it will only go to $50.04 when the lower ask prices have been exhausted. - Does an order driven market have market makers? By definition, no. - What are some examples of quote driven and order driven financial markets, in which investors are commonly trading stocks and derivatives, especially in U.S.? Quote driven market: Bond market, Forex. Order driven market: NYSE comes from an order driven market but now would be better classified as a \"\"hybird market\"\" Conclusion: If you are asking in order to better understand today's stock markets then these old definitions of Quote market or Order market may not work. The big markets in the real world are neither. (IE: Nasdaq, NYSE...) The NYSE and Nasdaq are better classified as a \"\"hybird market\"\" as they use more then a single tactic from both market types to insure market liquidity, and transparency. Markets these days are strongly electronic, fast, and fairly liquid in most cases. Here are some resources to better understand these markets: An Introduction To Securities Markets The NYSE And Nasdaq: How They Work Understanding Order Execution\"",
"> Stock markets are supposed to be about investment and providing capital to companies for operations and research. High frequency trading is only about gaming the market and nothing else. Arguments that this provides more capital or liquidity don't make any sense because the speed of trading is such that listed companies cannot take advantage and only high frequency traders are served. I used to feel this way about derivatives but a commentator on reddit disabused me of that notion - http://www.reddit.com/r/Entrepreneur/comments/11bqnk/what_you_wont_see_on_the_front_page_of_reddit_the/c6lnqow If the only function of the stock market is investment and provide capital to companies, why have a secondary market at all?",
"All securities must be registered with the SEC. Securities are defined as (1) The term “security” means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a “security”, or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing. thus currencies are not defined as securities. While OTC transactions of securities is not outright forbidden, there are numerous regulations issued by the SEC as a result of the 1943 Exchange Act and others that make this difficult and/or costly. Many other securities are exempted from registration thus trade in a way that could be called OTC. Different countries have variances upon US law but are very similar. Any security could be traded OTC, but law prohibits it expressly or in such a way to make it relatively expensive; further, stock options are so tightly regulated that expiration dates, expiration intervals, strike intervals, and minimum ticks are all set by the authorities.",
"\"In general, I think you're conflating a lot of ideas. The stock market is not like a supermarket. With the exception of a direct issue, you're not buying your shares from the company or from the New York Stock Exchange you're buying from an owner of stock, Joe, Sally, a pension fund, a hedge fund, etc; it's not sitting on a shelf at the stock market. When you buy an Apple stock you don't own $10 of Apple, you own 1/5,480,000,000th of Apple because Apple has 5,480,000,000 shares outstanding. When a the board gets together to vote on and approve a dividend the approved dividend is then divided by 5.48 billion to determine how much each owner receives. The company doesn't pay dividends out to owners from a pot of money it received from new owners; it sold iPhones at a profit and is sending a portion of that profit to the owners of the company. \"\"When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets.\"\" The statement does have backing. It's backed by the US Judicial system. But there's a difference between owning a company and owning the assets of the company. You own 1/5,480,000,000 of the company and the company owns the company's assets. Nevermind how disruptive it would be if any shareholder could unilaterally decide to sell a company's buildings or other assets. This is not a ponzi scheme because when you buy or sell your Apple stock, it has no impact on Apple, you're simply transacting with another random shareholder (barring a share-repurchase or direct issue). Apple doesn't receive the proceeds of your private transaction, you do. As far as value goes, yes the stock market provides tons of value and is a staple of capitalism. The stock market provides an avenue of financing for companies. Rather than taking a loan, a company's board can choose to relinquish some control and take on additional owners who will share in the spoils of the enterprise. Additionally, the exchanges deliver value via an unbelievable level of liquidity. You don't have to go seek out Joe or Sally when you want to sell your Apple stock. You don't need to put your shares on Craigslist in the hope of finding a buyer. You don't have to negotiate a price with someone who knows you want to sell. You just place an order at an exchange and you're aligned with a buyer. Also understand that anything can move up or down in value without any money actually changing hands. Say you get your hands on a pair of shoes (or whatever), they're hot on the market, very rare and sought after. You think you can sell them for $1,000. On tonight's news it turns out that the leather is actually from humans and the CEO of the company is being indicted, the company is falling apart, etc. Your shoes just went from $1,000 to $0 with no money changing hands (or from $1,000 to $100,000 depending on how cynical you are).\"",
"This is too lengthy for a comment. The following quoted passages are excerpted from this Money SE post. Before electronic trading and HFTs specifically, trading was thin and onerous. No. The NYSE and AMEX were deep, liquid and transparent for nearly 75 years prior to high frequency trading (HFT), in 2000 or so. The same is true for NASDAQ, but not for as many years, as NASDAQ is newer, being an electronic market. The point is that it existed, and thrived, prior to HFT. The NASDAQ can be active and functional, WITH or WITHOUT high frequency trading. This is not historically true, nor is it true now: Without a bid or ask at any given time, there could be no trade... Market makers, also known as specialists, were responsible for hitting the bid and taking the offer on whatever security they covered. They had a responsibility assigned to them by the exchange. Yes, it was lucrative! There was risk, and they were rewarded for bearing it. There is a trade-off though. Specialists provided greater stability on a systemic level, although other market participants paid for that cost. Prior to HFT, traders who were not market makers were often bounded by, boxed in, by the toll paid to market makers. Market makers had different, much higher capital and solvency requirements than other traders. Most specialists/market makers had seats, or shared a seat on the NYSE or AMEX. Remember that market makers/specialists are specific to stock markets, whereas HFT is not. If this is true, then we are in trouble: HFTs have supplanted the traditional market maker Why? Because trading volume is LOWER now than it was in the 1990's! EDIT In the comments, I noticed that OP was asking about the difference between I suggest reading this very accurate, well-written answer to a related question, The spread goes to the market maker, is the market maker the exchange? That explains the difference between",
"I understand what you mean, but for the general population the technicalities of secondary market is fundamentally a grey area. However, in my opinion, leading financial institutions such as GS, I expect them to make prudent decisions that is both ethical & sustainable for the society as whole, even though it might not be feasible all the time.",
"Also important to keep in mind is the difference in liquidity. The stock could be very liquid in 1 exchange but not in another. When times get bad, liquidity could dry up 1 one exchange, which results in a trading discount.",
"In general stock markets are very similar to that, however, you can also put in limit orders to say that you will only buy or sell at a given price. These sit in the market for a specified length of time and will be executed when an order arrives that matches the price (or better). Traders who set limit orders are called liquidity (or price) makers as they provide liquidity (i.e. volume to be traded) to be filled later. If there is no counterparty (i.e. buyer to your seller) in the market, a market maker; a large bank or brokerage who is licensed and regulated to do so, will fill your order at some price. That price is based on how much volume (i.e. trading) there is in that stock on average. This is called average daily volume (ADV) and is calculated over varying periods of time; we use ADV30 which is the 30 day average. You can always sell stocks for whatever price you like privately but a market order does not allow you to set your price (you are a price taker) therefore that kind of order will always fill at a market price. As mentioned above limit orders will not fill until the price is hit but will stay on book as long as they aren't filled, expired or cancelled.",
"The stock exchange here serves as a meeting place for current shareholders who want to sell their shares to someone else. This has nothing to do with liquidation, which is a transaction between the company and its shareholders. A company does not have to be listed on an exchange to make distributions to shareholders.",
"A stock exchange is a marketplace where people can bring their goods [shares] to be traded. There are certain rules. Stock Exchange does not own any shares of the companies that are trading in. The list of who owns with stock is with the registrar of each company. The electronic shares are held by a Financial Institution [Securities Depository]. So even if the exchange itself goes down, you still hold the same shares as you had before it went down. One would now have to find ways to trade these shares ... possibly via other stock exchange. This leaves the question of inflight transactions, which again would be recorded and available. Think of it similar to eBay. What happens when eBay goes bankrupt? Nothing much, all the seller still have their goods with them. All the buyers who had purchased good before have it when them ... so the question remains on inflight goods where the buyer has paid the seller and not yet received shipments ...",
"There is indeed a market for single stock futures, and they have been trading on the OneChicago exchange since 2002. Futures are available in 12,509 individual stocks, according to the exchange's current product listing. One advantage they offer over trading the underlying stock is the significantly higher leverage that is available, combined with the lack of pattern day trader rules that apply to stocks and similar securities. Single stock futures have proven to be something of a regulatory challenge as it has been unclear whether their oversight is the remit of the SEC/FINRA or the CFTC/NFA.",
"The easiest route for you to go down will be to consult wikipedia, which will provide a comprehensive list of all US stock exchanges (there are plenty more than the ones you list!). Then visit the websites for those that are of interest to you, where you will find a list of holiday dates along with the trading schedule for specific products and the settlement dates where relevant. In answer to the other part of your question, yes, a stock can trade on multiple exchanges. Typically (unless you instruct otherwise), your broker will route your order to the exchange where it can be matched at the most favorable price to you at that time.",
"The Greek Piraeus Bank offers such services for trading stocks in Athens Stock Exchange (ASE) and in addition 26 other markets including NASDAQ, NYSE and largest European ones (full list, in Greek). Same goes for Eurobank with a list of 17 international markets and the ability to trade bonds. BETA Securities has also an online platform, but I think it's only for ASE. Some other banks (like National Bank of Greece) do have similar online services, but are usually restricted to ASE.",
"I was wondering what relations are between brokerage companies and exchanges? Are brokers representing investors to trade on exchanges? Yes...but a broker may also buy and sell stocks for his own account. This is called broker-delaer firm. For individual investors, what are some cons and pros of trading on the exchanges directly versus indirectly via brokers? Doesn't the former save the investors any costs/expenses paid to the brokers? Yes, but to trade directly on an exchange, you need to register with them. That costs money and only a limited number of people can register I believe. Note that some (or all?) exchanges have their websites where I think trading can be done electronically, such as NASDAQ and BATS? Can almost all stocks be found and traded on almost every exchange? In other words, is it possible that a popular stock can only be found and traded on one exchange, but not found on the other exchange? If needed to be more specific, I am particularly interested in the U.S. case,and for example, Apple's stock. Yes, it is very much possible with smaller companies. Big companies are usually on multiple exchanges. What are your advices for choosing exchange and choosing brokerage companies? What exchanges and brokerage companies do you recommend? For brokerage companies, a beginner can go with discount broker. For sophisticated investors can opt for full service brokers. Usually your bank will have a brokerage firm. For exchanges, it depends...if you are in US, you should send to the US exchanges. IF you wish to send to other exchanges in other countries, you should check with the broker about that.",
"Let's clarify some things. Companies allow for the public to purchase their shares through Initial Public Offering (IPO) (first-time) and Seasoned Public Offering (SPO) (all other times). They choose however many shares they want to issue depending on the amount of capital they want to raise. What this means is that the current owners give up some ownership % in exchange for cash (usually). In the course of IPOs and SPOs, it can happen that the public will not buy all shares if there is very little interest, but I would assume that the more probable scenario if very little interest is present is that the shares' value would take a big drop on their issuance date from the proposed IPO/SPO price. After those shares are bought by the public, they are traded on Exchanges which are a secondary and (mostly) do not affect the underlying company. The shares are exchanged from John Doe to Jane Doe as John Doe believes the market value for those shares will take a direction that Jane Doe believes in the opposite. Generally speaking, markets will find an equilibrium price where you can reasonably easily buy-sell securities as the price is not too far from what most participants in the market believe it should be. In cases where all participants agree on the direction (most often in case of a crash) it can be hard to find a party to make a trade with. Say a company just announced negative news with long-lasting effects on the business there will be a surge in sell orders with very few buyers. If you are willing to buy, you will likely very easily find a trading partner but if you are trying to sell instead then you will have to compete for the lowest price against all other sellers. All that to say that in such cases, while shares are technically sellable / purchasable, the end result can be that no shares are purchasable.",
"\"The answer is partly and sometimes, but you cannot know when or how. Most clearly, you do not take somebody else's money if you buy shares in a start-up company. You are putting your money at risk in exchange for a share in the rewards. Later, if the company thrives, you can sell your shares for whatever somebody else will pay for your current share in the thriving company's earnings. Or, you lose your money, when the company fails. (Much of it has then ended up in the company's employees' pockets, much of the rest with the government as taxes that the company paid). If the stockmarket did not exist, people would be far less willing to put their money into a new company, because selling shares would be far harder. This in turn would mean that fewer new things were tried out, and less progress would be made. Communists insist that central state planning would make better decisions than random people linked by a market. I suggest that the historical record proves otherwise. Historically, limited liability companies came first, then dividing them up into larger numbers of \"\"bearer\"\" shares, and finally creating markets where such shares were traded. On the other hand if you trade in the short or medium term, you are betting that your opinion that XYZ shares are undervalued against other investors who think otherwise. But there again, you may be buying from a person who has some other reason for selling. Maybe he just needs some cash for a new car or his child's marriage, and will buy back into XYZ once he has earned some more money. You can't tell who you are buying from, and the seller can only tell if his decision to sell was good with the benefit of a good few years of hindsight. I bought shares hand over fist immediately after the Brexit vote. I was putting my money where my vote went, and I've now made a decent profit. I don't feel that I harmed the people who sold out in expectation of the UK economy cratering. They got the peace of mind of cash (which they might then reinvest in Euro stocks or gold or whatever). Time will tell whether my selling out of these purchases more recently was a good decision (short term, not my best, but a profit is a profit ...) I never trade using borrowed money and I'm not sure whether city institutions should be allowed to do so (or more reasonably, to what extent this should be allowed). In a certain size and shortness of holding time, they cease to contribute to an orderly market and become a destabilizing force. This showed up in the financial crisis when certain banks were \"\"too big to fail\"\" and had to be bailed out at the taxpayer's expense. \"\"Heads we win, tails you lose\"\", rather than trading with us small guys as equals! Likewise it's hard to see any justification for high-frequency trading, where stocks are held for mere milliseconds, and the speed of light between the trader's and the market's computers is significant.\"",
"The other answer has some good points, to which I'll add this: I believe you're only considering a company's Initial Public Offering (IPO), when shares are first offered to the public. An IPO is the way most companies get a public listing on the stock market. However, companies often go to market again and again to issue/sell more shares, after their IPO. These secondary offerings don't make as many headlines as an IPO, but they are typical-enough occurrences in markets. When a company goes back to the market to raise additional funds (perhaps to fund expansion), the value of the company's existing shares that are being traded is a good indicator of what they may expect to get for a secondary offering of shares. A company about to raise money desires a higher share price, because that will permit them to issue less shares for the amount of money they need. If the share price drops, they would need to issue more shares for the same amount of money – and dilute existing owners' share of the overall equity further. Also, consider corporate acquisitions: When one company wants to buy another, instead of the transaction being entirely in cash (maybe they don't have that much in the bank!), there's often an equity component, which involves swapping shares of the company being acquired for new shares in the acquiring company or merged company. In that case, the values of the shares in the public marketplace also matter, to provide relative valuations for the companies, etc.",
"\"This is a misconception. One of the explanations is that if you buy at the ask price and want to sell it right away, you can only sell at the bid price. This is incorrect. There are no two separate bid and ask prices. The price you buy (your \"\"bid\"\") is the same price someone else sells (their \"\"sell\"\"). The same goes when you sell - the price you sell at is the price someone else buys. There's no spread with stocks. Emphasized it on purpose, because many people (especially those who gamble on stock exchange without knowing what they're doing) don't understand how the stock market works. On the stock exchange, the transaction price is the match between the bid price and the ask price. Thus, on any given transaction, bid always equals ask. There's no spread. There is spread with commodities (if you buy it directly, especially), contracts, mutual funds and other kinds of brokered transactions that go through a third party. The difference (spread) is that third party's fee for assuming part of the risk in the transaction, and is indeed added to your cost (indirectly, in the way you described). These transactions don't go directly between a seller and a buyer. For example, there's no buyer when you redeem some of your mutual fund - the fund pays you money. So the fund assumes certain risk, which is why there's a spread in the prices to invest and to redeem. Similarly with commodities: when you buy a gold bar - you buy it from a dealer, who needs to keep a stock. Thus, the dealer will not buy from you at the same price: there's a premium on sale and a discount on buy, which is a spread, to compensate the dealer for the risk of keeping a stock.\"",
"First, the stock does represent a share of ownership and if you have a different interpretation I'd like to see proof of that. Secondly, when the IPO or secondary offering happened that put those shares into the market int he first place, the company did receive proceeds from selling those shares. While others may profit afterward, it is worth noting that more than a few companies will have secondary offerings, convertible debt, incentive stock options and restricted stock that may be used down the road that are all dependent upon the current trading share price in terms of how useful these can be used to fund operations, pay executives and so forth. Third, if someone buys up enough shares of the company then they gain control of the company which while you aren't mentioning this case, it is something to note as some individuals buy stock so that they can take over the company which happens. Usually this has more of an overall plan but the idea here is that getting that 50%+1 control of the company's voting shares are an important piece to things here.",
"Most stocks are not actively trades by lots of people. When you buy or sell a stock the price is set by the “order book” – that is the other people looking to trade in the given stock at the same time. Without a large number of active traders, it is very likely the pricing system will break down and result in widely changing prices second by second. Therefore for the market to work well, it need most people to be trading at the same time.",
"\"Very simple. You open an account with a broker who will do the trades for you. Then you give the broker orders to buy and sell (and the money to pay for the purchases). That's it. In the old days, you would call on the phone (remember, in all the movies, \"\"Sell, sell!!!!\"\"? That's how), now every decent broker has an online trading platform. If you don't want to have \"\"additional value\"\" and just trade - there are many online discount brokers (ETrade, ScotTrade, TD Ameritrade, and others) who offer pretty cheap trades and provide decent services and access to information. For more fees, you can also get advices and professional management where an investment manager will make the decisions for you (if you have several millions to invest, that is). After you open an account and login, you'll find a big green (usually) button which says \"\"BUY\"\". Stocks are traded on exchanges. For example the NYSE and the NASDAQ are the most common US exchanges (there's another one called \"\"pink sheets\"\", but its a different kind of animal), there are also stock exchanges in Europe (notably London, Frankfurt, Paris, Moscow) and Asia (notably Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo). Many trading platforms (ETrade, that I use, for example) allow investing on some of those as well.\"",
"\"You are correct that a share of stock in a company has zero intrinsic value. Even if the company typically pays dividends, there's no guarantee that it will continue to do so. A share's only worth comes from: So that's one step better than a Ponzi scheme, because in a Ponzi scheme there's not actually any value present behind the scenes, making option (2) literally impossible. In this way company stock is similar to paper money. It's only worth something because people believe it's worth something. Slightly better than company stock is company bonds. Since a bond is a contract between you and the company, if the company should go out of business then bondholders at least get to stand near the front of the line when the company's assets are liquidated. I work in finance, and the vast majority of my colleagues agree that the secondary stock market (what the average citizen simply calls \"\"the stock market\"\") is a giant confidence game. And yet it's so profitable to believe in the value of equities the way everyone else does, that we all happily pretend these ones and zeroes we move around have actual value.\"",
"Apart from making money from the price difference, some stocks also give dividends, or bonus issues. For long term investors whom are looking for steady income, they may be more interested with the dividend pay-out instead of the capital-appreciation.",
"yes, there does need to be demand. on heavily traded stocks, there is no reason to be concerned. on thinly traded equities, you will want to check the market depth before placing a sell. the company is likely not the one that is buying your shares on the open market.",
"Stock trading (as opposed to IPO) doesn't directly benefit the company. But it affects their ability to raise additional funds; if they're valued higher, they don't need to sell as many shares to raise a given amount of money. And the stockholders are part owners of the company; their votes in annual corporate meetings and the like can add up to a substantial influence on the company's policies, so the company has an interest in keeping them (reasonably) happy. Dividends (distributing part of the company's profits to the stockholders) are one way of doing so. You're still investing in the company. The fact that you're buying someone else's share just means you're doing so indirectly, and they're dis-investing at the same time.",
"Will there be a scenario in which I want to sell, but nobody wants to buy from me and I'm stuck at the brokerage website? Similarly, if nobody wants to sell their stocks, I will not be able to buy at all? Yes, that is entirely possible.",
"The OTC market is a marketplace, the location it definitely relied on the purchaser marketplace. The OTC market is mostly used to exchange bonds among the two occasions and all this technique are executed by way of manner of the third celebration. They are able to also be used to alternate equity, such because of the OTC QX and purple marketplaces within the USA. The minamargroup is the Florida, USA situated agency, who elements their purchase investor relation with to present organization into to make new ones. OTC way it's far a protection traded in some context other, changing between parties or groups inclusive of New York Stock trade.",
"Depends on how you measure liquidity. There's papers out there that approach this very question. Measured in order book spreads for a consolidated $100m trade, I'd say the second biggest market is FX swaps, followed or par'd by the money market (government bonds). If you disallow OTC venues, it's most definitely exchange listed government bonds. If, however, you happen to think in terms of sheer volume per time, the most liquid market phase could be considered the NYSE closing auction, as you can move billions in a matter of minutes, or expressed in speed terms: several m$/s (million dollars per second). You should pick a definition and we can provide you with a more accurate list of candidates and actual data.",
"Is my observation that the currency exchange market is indirect correct? Is there a particular reason for this? Why isn't currency traded like stocks? I guess yes. In Stocks its pretty simple where the stock is held with a depository. Hence listing matching is simple and the exchange of money is via local clearing. Currency markets are more global and there is no one place where trades happen. There are multiple places where it happens and is loosely called Fx market place. Building a matching engine is also complex and confusing. If we go with your example of currency pair, matches would be difficult. Say; If we were to say all transactions happen in USD say, and list every currency as item to be purchased or sold. I could put a trade Sell Trade for Quantity 100 Stock Code EUR at Price 1.13 [Price in USD]. So there has to be a buy at a price and we can match. Similarly we would have Stock Code for GBP, AUD, JPY, etc. Since not every thing would be USD based, say I need to convert GBP to EUR, I would have to have a different set of Base currency say GBP. So here the quantity would All currencies except GBP which would be price. Even then we have issues, someone using USD as base currency has quoted for Stock GBP. While someone else using GBP has quoted for Stock USD. Plus moving money internationally is expensive and doing this for small trades removes the advantages. The kind of guarantees required are difficult to achieve without established correspondence bank relationships. One heavily traded currency pair, the exchange for funds happens via CLS Bank.",
"\"listed simultaneously in New York, London, and maybe even some Asian markets - is this correct? If the exchanges are not connected, then in primary market the shares are listed. On other exchanges, the \"\"Depository Receipts\"\" are listed. i.e. the Company will keep say 100,000 shares with the primary stock exchange / depository. Based on this it would create new instruments \"\"Depository Receipts\"\". They can be 1:1 or whatever ratio. hypothetically, if I want to buy all of the company's stock Even if it is on one exchange, buying all stocks would trigger various regulatory aspects of Companies Act, or Stock Exchange rules. This is not simple or easy like clicking some buttons and buying everything. That is, let's say that in New York the company has listed 1000 shares, and in London only 10 shares, each worth 10 USD Market capitalization is sum of all outstanding shares into value.\"",
"Yes for every order there is a buyer and seller. But overall there are multiple buyers and multiple sellers. So every trade is at a different price and this price is agreed by both buyer and seller. Related question will help you understand this better. How do exchanges match limit orders?",
"You can execute block trades on the options market and get exercised for shares to create a very large position in Energy Transfer Partners LP without moving the stock market. You can then place limit sell orders, after selling directly into the market and keep an overhang of low priced shares (the technical analysis traders won't know what you specifically are doing, and will call this 'resistance'). If you hit nice even numbers (multiples of 5, multiples of 10) with your sell orders, you can exacerbate selling as many market participants will have their own stop loss orders at those numbers, causing other people to sell at lower and lower prices automatically, and simultaneously keep your massive ask in effect. If your position is bigger than the demand then you can keep a stock lower. The secondary market doesn't inherently affect a company in any way. But many companies have borrowed against the price of their shares, and if you get the share price low enough they can get suddenly margin called and be unable to service their existing debt. You will also lose a lot of money doing this, so you can also buy puts along the way or attempt to execute a collar to lower your own losses. The collar strategy is nice because it is unlikely that other traders and analysts will notice what you are doing, since there are calls, puts and share orders involved in creating it. One person may notice the block trade for the calls initially, but nobody will notice it is part of a larger strategy with multiple legs. With the share position, you may also be able to vote on some things, but that solely depends on the conditions of the shares.",
"\"I think you've got basics, but you may have the order / emphasis a bit wrong. I've changed the order of the things you've learned in to what I think is the most important to understand: Owning a stock is like owning a tiny chunk of the business Owning stock is owning a tiny chunk of the business, it's not just \"\"like\"\" it. The \"\"tiny chunks\"\" are called shares, because that is literally what they are, a share of the business. Sometimes shares are also called stocks. The words stock and share are mostly interchangeable, but a single stock normally means your holding of many shares in a business, so if you have 100 shares in 1 company, that's a stock in that company, if you then buy 100 shares in another company, you now own 2 stocks. An investor seeks to buy stocks at a low price, and sell when the price is high. Not necessarily. An investor will buy shares in a company that they believe will make them a profit. In general, a company will make a profit and distribute some or all of it to shareholders in the form of dividends. They will also keep back a portion of the profit to invest in growing the company. If the company does grow, it will grow in value and your shares will get more valuable. Price (of a stock) is affected by supply/demand, volume, and possibly company profits The price of a share that you see on a stock ticker is the price that people on the market have exchanged the share for recently, not the price you or I can buy a share for, although usually if people on the market are buying and selling at that price, someone will buy or sell from you at a similar sort of price. In theory, the price will be the companies total value, if you were to own the whole thing (it's market capitalisation) divided by the total number of shares that exist in that company. The problem is that it's very difficult to work out the total value of a company. You can start by counting the different things that it owns (including things like intellectual property and the knowledge and experience of people who work there), subtract all the money it owes in loans etc., and then make an allowance for how much profit you expect the company to make in the future. The problem is that these numbers are all going to be estimates, and different peoples estimates will disagree. Some people don't bother to estimate at all. The market makers will just follow supply and demand. They will hold a few shares in each of many companies that they are interested in. They will advertise a lower price that they are willing to buy at and a higher price that they will sell at all the time. When they hold a lot of a share, they will price it lower so that people buy it from them. When they start to run out, they will price it higher. You will never need to spend more than the market makers price to buy a share, or get less than the market makers price when you come to sell it (unless you want to buy or sell more shares than they are willing to). This is why stock price depends on supply and demand. The other category of people who don't care about the companies they are trading are the high speed traders. They just look at information like the past price, the volume (total amount of shares being exchanged on the market) and many other statistics both from the market and elsewhere and look for patterns. You cannot compete with these people - they do things like physically locate their servers nearer to the stock exchanges buildings to get a few milliseconds time advantage over their competitors to buy shares quicker than them.\"",
"\"In the US there is only one stock market (ignoring penny stocks) and handfuls of different exchanges behind it. NYSE and NASDAQ are two different exchanges, but all the products you can buy on one can also be bought on the other; i.e. they are all the same market. So a US equities broker cannot possibly restrict access to any \"\"markets\"\" in the US because there is only one. (Interestingly, it is commonplace for US equity brokers to cheat their customers by using only exchanges where they -- the brokers -- get the best deals, even if it means your order is not executed as quickly or cheaply as possible. This is called payment for order flow and unfortunately will probably take an Act of Congress to stop.) Some very large brokers will have trading access to popular equity markets in other countries (Toronto Stock Exchange, Mexico Stock Exchange, London Stock Exchange) and can support your trades there. However, at many brokers or in less popular foreign markets this is usually not the case; to trade in the average foreign country you typically must open an account with a broker in that country.\"",
"\"Brokerages offer you the convenience of buying and selling financial products. They are usually not exchanges themselves, but they can be. Typically there is an exchange and the broker sends orders to that exchange. The main benefit that brokers offer is a simpler commission structure. Not all brokers have their own liquidity, but brokers can have their own allotment of shares of a stock, for example, that they will sell you when you make an order, so that you get what you want faster. Regarding accounts at the exchanges to track actual ownership and transfer of assets, it is not safe to assume thats how that works. There are a lot of shortcomings in how the actual exchange works, since the settlement time is 1 - 3 business days, depending on the product (so upwards of 5 to 6 actual days). In a fast market, the asset can change hands many many times making the accounting completely incorrect for extended time periods. Better to not worry about that part, but if you'd like to read more about how that is regulated look up \"\"Failure To Deliver\"\" regulations on short selling to get a better understanding of market microstructure. It is a very antiquated system.\"",
"Tradable is a much broader term than marketable. For example, some programmers/developers sell their services online, hence programming is a tradable service. However, it is not a security nor is it marketable since it cannot readily be converted to cash. All marketable securities are, by definition, tradable.",
"In a simple statement, no doesn't matter. Checked on my trade portal, everything lines up. Same ISIN, same price(after factoring in FX conversions, if you were thinking about arbitrage those days are long gone). But a unusual phenomenon I have observed is, if you aren't allowed to buy/sell a stock in one market and try to do that in a different market for the same stock you will still not be allowed to do it. Tried it on French stocks as my current provider doesn't allow me to deal in French stocks.",
"If a company's shares trade in multiple exchanges, the prices in every exchange are very near to each other, otherwise you could earn money by doing arbitrage deals (buying in one, selling in the other) - and people do that once it becomes worth it. Which stock exchange you use is more a convenience for the buyer/seller - many investment banks offer only something local/near, and you have to go to specific investment banks to use other exchanges. For example, in Germany, it is easy to deal in Frankfurt, but if you want to trade at the the NASDAQ, you have to run around and find a bank that offers it, and you probably have to pay extra for it. In the USA, most investment banks offer NASDAQ, but if you want to trade in Frankfurt, you will have run around for an international company that offers that. As a stock owner/buyer, you can sell/buy your shares on any stock exchange where the company is listed (again, assuming your investment broker supports it). So you can buy in Frankfurt and sell in Tokyo seconds later, as nothing needs to be physically moved. Companies that are listed in multiple stock exchangs are typically large, and offer this to make trading their shares easier for a larger part of the world. Considering your 'theoretical buy all shares' - the shares are not located in the exchanges, they are in the hands of the owners, and not all are for sale, for various reasons. The owners decide if and when they want them offered for sale, and they also decide which stock exchange they offer them on; so you would need to go to all exchanges to buy them all. However, if you raise your offer price in one exchange only slightly, someone will see the arbitrage and buy them in the other locations and offer them to you in your stock exchange; in other words, for a small fee the shares will come to you. But again, most shares are typically not for sale. It's the same as trying to buy all Chevy Tahoes - even if you had the money, most owners wouldn't know or care about you. You would have to go around and contact every single one and convince them to sell.",
"Wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_exchanges",
"The Money Market is a place where one trades Instruments. The market is similar to that of the Stock Market. The instruments traded in Money Markets include Short Term Debt Instruments as well as FX Swap Instruments and Mortgage & Asset Backed Securities. The FX & Mortgage Securities are not Debt instruments per se. They also include other custom created instruments that are traded. The definition of Short Term debt is any guaranteed instrument with a maturity of less than a year. These instruments are used in various transactions, including retail and the Money Market is not the only place these are traded.",
"Most of stock trading occurs on what is called a secondary market. For example, Microsoft is traded on NASDAQ, which is a stock exchange. An analogy that can be made is that of selling a used car. When you sell a used car to a third person, the maker of your car is unaffected by this transaction and the same goes for stock trading. Still within the same analogy, when the car is first sold, money goes directly to the maker (actually more complicated than that but good enough for our purposes). In the case of stock trading, this is called an Initial Public Offering (IPO) / Seasoned Public Offering (SPO), for most purposes. What this means is that a drop of value on a secondary market does not directly affect earning potential. Let me add some nuance to this. Say this drop from 20$ to 10$ is permanent and this company needs to finance itself through equity (stock) in the future. It is likely that it would not be able to obtain as much financing in this matter and would either 1) have to rely more on debt and raise its cost of capital or 2) obtain less financing overall. This could potentially affect earnings through less cash available from financing. One last note: in any case, financing does not affect earnings except through cost of capital (i.e. interest paid) because it is neither revenue nor expense. Financing obtained from debt increases assets (cash) and liabilities (debt) and financing obtained from stock issuance increases assets (cash) and shareholder equity.",
"\"We're in agreement, I just want retail investors to understand that in most of these types of discussions, the unspoken reality is the retail sector trading the market is *over*. This includes the mutual funds you mentioned, and even most index funds (most are so narrowly focused they lose their relevance for the retail investor). In the retail investment markets I'm familiar with, there are market makers of some sort or another for specified ranges. I'm perfectly fine with no market makers; but retail investors should be told the naked truth as well, and not sold a bunch of come-ons. What upsets me is seeing that just as computers really start to make an orderly market possible (you are right, the classic NYSE specialist structure was outrageously corrupt), regulators turned a blind eye to implementing better controls for retail investors. The financial services industry has to come to terms whether they want AUM from retail or not, and having heard messaging much like yours from other professionals, I've concluded that the industry does *not* want the constraints with accepting those funds, but neither do they want to disabuse retail investors of how tilted the game is against them. Luring them in with deceptively suggestive marketing and then taking money from those naturally ill-prepared for the rigors of the setting is like beating up the Downs' Syndrome kid on the short bus and boasting about it back on the campus about how clever and strong one is. If there was as stringent truth in marketing in financial services as cigarettes, like \"\"this service makes their profit by encouraging the churning of trades\"\", there would be a lot of kvetching from so-called \"\"pros\"\" as well. If all retail financial services were described like \"\"dead cold cow meat\"\" describes \"\"steak\"\", a lot of retail investors would be better off. As it stands today, you'd have to squint mighty hard to see the faintly-inscribed \"\"caveat emptor\"\" on financial services offerings to the retail sector. Note that depending upon the market setting, the definition of retail differs. I'm surprised the herd hasn't been spooked more by the MF Global disaster, for example, and yet there are some surprisingly large accounts detrimentally affected by that incident, which in a conventional equities setting would be considered \"\"pros\"\".\"",
"You cannot trade in pre-IPO shares of companies like Facebook without being an accredited investor. If a website or company doesn't mention that requirement, they are a scam. A legitimate market for private shares is SecondMarket.",
"Keep in mind that the exchanges do not hold, buy, or sell the stock - people (or funds) do. All the exchange does is facilitate the sale of stock from one entity to another. So the shares outstanding (and market cap) for a company are set regardless of how many exchanges the stock is listed on. The company typically indicates the number of shares outstanding in its financial statements. I do not know if the exchange itself keeps track of shares outstanding; it may just report whatever the company publishes. So theoretically, if you wanted to buy all of the stock of a company, you could do it all in one exchange, provided that all the existing holders of the stock were willing to sell you their shares. There are many issues with that, though, which I don't think are germane to your question.",
"\"Market cap is speculative value, M = P * W, where W is stock (or other way of owning) percentage of ownership, P - price of percentage of ownership. This could include \"\"outside of exchange\"\" deals. Some funds could buy ownership percentage directly via partial ownership deal. That ownership is not stock, but fixed-type which has value too. Stock market cap is speculative value, M2 = Q * D, where D is free stocks available freely, Q - price of stock, in other words Quote number (not price of ownership). Many stock types do NOT provide actual percentage of ownership, being just another type of bond with non-fixed coupon and non-fixed price. Though such stocks do not add to company's capitalization after sold to markets, it adds to market capitalization at the moment of selling via initial price.\"",
"Recommended? There's really no perfect answer. You need to know the motivations of the participants in the markets that you will be participating in. For instance, the stock market's purpose is to raise capital (make as much money as possible), whereas the commodities-futures market's purpose is to hedge against producing actual goods. The participants in both markets have different reactions to changes in price.",
"\"When people talk about \"\"the price\"\" of a stock, they usually mean one of the following: Last price: The price at which a trade most recently took place. If someone sold (and someone else bought) shares of XYZ for $20 each, then until another trade occurs, the last price of the stock will be quoted at $20. Bid price: The highest price at which someone is currently offering to buy the stock. Ask price: The lowest price at which someone is currently offering to sell the stock. As you can see, all of these are completely determined by the people buying and selling the stock.\"",
"Prices quoted are primarily the offer prices quoted by the numerous market makers on the stock exchange(s) willing to sell you the stock. There is another price which generally isn't seen on these websites, the bid prices, which are lower prices quoted by buyers and market makers willing to buy your shares from you. You wouldn't see those prices, unless you login to your trade terminal. How meaningful are they to you depends on what you want to do buy or sell. If you want to buy then yes they are relevant. But if you want to sell, then no. And remember some websites delay market information by 15 minutes, in case of Google you might have seen that the volume is delayed by 15 minutes. So you need to consider that also while trading, but mayn't be a concern unless you are trying to buy out the company.",
"Depending on your broker, you can buy these stocks directly at the most liquid local exchanges. For instance, if you are US resident and want to to buy German stocks (like RWE) you can trade these stocks over InteractiveBrokers (or other direct brokers in the US). They offer direct access to German Xetra and other local markets.",
"When you are placing an order with an online broker you should already know what exchange or exchanges that stock trades on. For example if you look up under Yahoo Finance: Notice how News Corp is traded both on the ASX and the Nasdaq. The difference is the shares traded on the ASX have the extension .AX, that is how you know the difference between them. When you are putting orders in with your online broker you will need to select the exchange you wish your order to go to (if your broker allows trading on multiple exchanges). So you should always know which exchange your order goes to.",
"I didn't say only the IPO I just said public offerings. Trades between secondary investors would be taxed at a higher level. I also understand the difference between loaning money to a company and investing in equity. Personally I think that loans are underused in today's investment world because people are too focused on getting the most out of the few big winners.",
"\"As others have noted, your definition of \"\"market price\"\" is a bit loose. Really whatever price you get becomes the current market price. What you usually get quoted are the current best bid and ask with the last transaction price. For stocks that don't trade much, the last transaction price may not be representative of the current market value. Your question included regulation (\"\"standards bureau\"\"), and I don't think the current answers are addressing that. In the US, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) provides some regulation regarding execution price. It goes by the designation Regulation NMS, and, very roughly, it says that each transaction has to take the best available price at the time that it is executed. There are some subtleties, but that's the gist of it. No regulation ensures that there will be a counterparty to any transaction that you want to make. It could happen, for example, that you have shares of some company that you're never able to sell because no one wants them. (BitCoin is the same in this regard. There is a currently a market for BitCoin, but there's no regulation that ensures there will be a market for it tomorrow.) Outside of the US, I don't know what regulation, if any, exists.\"",
"Do you simply get call options you can sell on an options exchange? No, you don't get call options that you can sell on an options exchange. Rather, you get rights that you can (generally) sell on the stock exchange. The right issue is in essence a call option – in that it behaves like one, but it is not considered a standardized option contract. is there a special exchange where such rights issues are traded? No. It will normally be done on the stock exchange.",
"Let's say that you bought a share of Apple for $10. When (if ever) their stock sold for $10, it was a very small company with a very small net worth; that is, the excess of assets over liabilities. Your $10 share was perhaps a 1/10,000,000th share of a tiny company. Over the years, Apple has developed both software and hardware that have real value to the world. No-one knew they needed a smartphone and, particularly, an iPhone, until Apple showed it to us. The same is true of iPads, iPods, Apple watches, etc. Because of the sales of products and services, Apple is now a huge company with a huge net worth. Obviously, your 1/10,000,000th share of the company is now worth a lot more. Perhaps it is worth $399. Maybe you think Apples good days are behind it. After all, it is harder to grow a huge company 15% a year than it is a small company. So maybe you will go into the marketplace and offer to sell your 1/10,000,000th share of Apple. If someone offers you $399, would you take it? The value of stocks in the market is not a Ponzi scheme, although it is a bit speculative. You might have a different conclusion and different research about the future value of Apple than I do. Your research might lead you to believe the stock is worth $399. Mine might suggest it's worth $375. Then I wouldn't buy. The value of stocks in the market is based on the present and estimated future value of living, breathing companies that are growing, shrinking and steady. The value of each company changes all the time. So, then, does the price of the stock. Real value is created in the stock market when real value is created in the underlying company.",
"Yes, it would be incorrect to refer to BATS Chi-X Europe as a market maker. Market makers make markets on BATS Chi-X Europe, which is a stock exchange.",
"These markets are independent, just like any other stock market. For example, there are stocks on the Milan stock exchange that are also on the New York stock exchange and have different historical prices. Remember, this is all about offer and demand. The Hong Kong stock exchange has the Hong Kong Dollar as its currency, which is anchored to the USD. Also, there is more trade going on, on the Hong Kong stock exchange. As for the answer, I don't know whether these stocks are exactly the same. I guess they should be, but maybe somebody else could answer that.",
"The worth of a share of stocks may be defined as the present cash value of all future dividends and liquidations associated therewith. Without a crystal ball, such worth may generally only be determined retrospectively, but even though it's generally not possible to know the precise worth of a stock in time for such information to be useful, it has a level of worth which is absolute and not--unlikely market price--is generally unaffected by people buying and selling the stock (except insofar as activities in company stock affect a company's ability to do business). If a particular share of stock is worth $10 by the above measure, but Joe sells it to Larry for $8, that means Joe gives Larry $2. If Larry sells it to Fred $12, Fred gives Larry $2. The only way Fred can come out ahead is if he finds someone else to give him $2 or more. If Fred can sell it to Adam for $13, then Adam will give Fred $3, leaving Fred $1 better off than he would be if he hadn't bought the stock, but Adam will be $3 worse off. The key point is that if you sell something for less than it's worth, or buy something for more that it's worth, you give money away. You might be able to convince other people to give you money in the same way you gave someone else money, but fundamentally the money has been given away, and it's not coming back.",
"It's an over-the-counter stock quote system. Read all about it. Or visit it.",
"\"Because I feel the answers given do not wholely represent the answer you are expecting, I'd like to re-iterate but include more information. When you own stock in a company, you OWN some of that company. When that company makes profit, you usually receive a dividend of those profits. If you owned 1% of the company stock, you (should) recieve 1% of the profits. If your company is doing well, someone might ask to buy your stock. The price of that stock is (supposed) to be worth a value representative of the expected yield or how much of a dividend you'd be getting. The \"\"worth\"\" of that, is what you're betting on when you buy the stock, if you buy $100 worth of coca cola stock and they paid $10 as dividend, you'd be pretty happy with a 10% growth in your wealth. Especially if the banks are only playing 3%. So maybe some other guy sees your 10% increase and thinks, heck.. 10% is better than 3%, if I buy your stocks, even as much as 6% more than they are worth ($106) I'm still going to be better off by that extra 1% than I would be if I left it in the bank.. so he offers you $106.. and you think.. awesome.. I can sell my $100 of cola shares now, make a $6 profit and buy $100 worth of some other share I think will pay a good dividend. Then cola publicises their profits, and they only made 2% profit, that guy that bought your shares for $106, only got a dividend of $2 (since their 'worth' is still $100, and effectively he lost $4 as a result. He bet on a better than 10% profit, and lost out when it didn't hit that. Now, (IMHO) while the stock market was supposed to be about buying shares, and getting dividends, people (brokers) discovered that you could make far more money buying and selling shares for 'perceived value' rather than waiting for dividends to show actual value, especially if you were not the one doing the buying and selling (and risk), but instead making a 0.4% cut off the difference between each purchase (broker fees). So, TL;DR, Many people have lost money in the market to those who made money from them. But only the traders and gamblers.\"",
"You seem to think that stock exchanges are much more than they actually are. But it's right there in the name: stock exchange. It's a place where people exchange (i.e. trade) stocks, no more and no less. All it does is enable the trading (and thereby price finding). Supposedly they went into mysterious bankruptcy then what will happen to the listed companies Absolutely nothing. They may have to use a different exchange if they're planning an IPO or stock buyback, that's all. and to the shareholder's stock who invested in companies that were listed in these markets ? Absolutley nothing. It still belongs to them. Trades that were in progress at the moment the exchange went down might be problematic, but usually the shutdown would happen in a manner that takes care of it, and ultimately the trade either went through or it didn't (and you still have the money). It might take some time to establish this. Let's suppose I am an investor and I bought stocks from a listed company in NYSE and NYSE went into bankruptcy, even though NYSE is a unique business, meaning it doesn't have to do anything with that firm which I invested in. How would I know the stock price of that firm Look at a different stock exchange. There are dozens even within the USA, hundreds internationally. and will I lose my purchased stocks ? Of course not, they will still be listed as yours at your broker. In general, what will happen after that ? People will use different stock exchanges, and some of them migth get overloaded from the additional volume. Expect some inconveniences but no huge problems.",
"\"Joke warning: These days, it seems that rogue trading programs are the big market makers (this concludes the joke) Historically, exchange members were market makers. One or more members guaranteed a market in a particular stock, and would buy whatever you wanted to sell (or vice-versa). In a balanced market -- one where there were an equal number of buyers and sellers -- the spread was indeed profit for them. To make this work, market makers need an enormous amount of liquidity (ability to hold an inventory of stocks) to deal with temporary imbalances. And a day like October 29, 1929, can make that liquidity evaporate. I say \"\"historically,\"\" because I don't think that any stock market works this way today (I was discussing this very topic with a colleague last week, went to Wikipedia to look at the structure of the NYSE, and saw no mention of exchange members as market makers -- in fact, it appears that the NYSE is no longer a member-based exchange). Instead, today most (all?) trading happens on \"\"electronic crossing networks,\"\" where the spread is simply the difference between the highest bid and lowest ask. In a liquid stock, there will be hundreds if not thousands of orders clustered around the \"\"current\"\" price, usually diverging by fractions of a cent. In an illiquid stock, there may be a spread, but eventually one bid will move up or one ask will move down (or new bids will come in). You could claim that an entity with a large block of stock to move takes the role of market maker, but it doesn't have the same meaning as an exchange market maker. Since there's no entity between the bidder and asker, there's no profit in the spread, just a fee taken by the ECN. Edit: I think you have a misconception of what the \"\"spread\"\" is. It's simply the difference between the highest bid and the lowest offer. At the instant a trade takes place, the spread is 0: the highest bid equals the lowest offer, and the bidder and seller exchange shares for money. As soon as that trade is completed, the spread re-appears. The only way that a trade happens is if buyer and seller agree on price. The traditional market maker is simply an entity that has the ability to buy or sell an effectively unlimited number of shares. However, if the market maker sets a price and there are no buyers, then no trade takes place. And if there's another entity willing to sell shares below the market maker's price, then the buyers will go to that entity unless the market's rules forbid it.\"",
"What prevents a company from doing secondary public stock offerings on regular basis? The primary goal of a company doing secondary public offering is to raise more funds, that can be utilized for funding the business. If no funding is needed [i.e. company has sufficient funds, or no expansion plans], this funding creates a drag and existing shareholder including promoters loose value. For example with the current 100 invested, the company is able to generate say 125 [25 as profit]. If additional 100 is taken as secondary public offering, then with 200, the company should mark around 250, else it looses value. So if the company took additional 100 and did not / is not able to deploy in market, on 200 they still make 25 as profit, its bad. There are other reasons, i.e. to fight off hostile acquisition or dilute some of promoters shares etc. Thus the reasons for company to do a secondary PO are few and doing it often reduces the value for primary share holders as well as minority share holders.",
"\"Yes! What you are describing is an \"\"off-exchange\"\" trade and can be done using stock certificates. Here, you will privately negotiate with the seller on a price and delivery details. That is the old-school way to do it. Many companies (about 20% of the S&P 500) will not issue paper certificates and you may run a hefty printing fee up to $500 (source: Wikipedia, above). Other other type of private-party transactions include a deal negotiated between two parties and settled immediately or based on a future event. For example, Warren Buffet created a deal with Goldman Sachs where Warren would have the choice to purchase GS shares in the future at a certain price. This was to be settled with actual shares (rather than cash-settled). Ignoring that he later canceled this agreement, if it were to go through the transaction would still have been handled by a broker transferring the shares. You can purchase directly from a company using a direct stock purchase plan (SPP). Just pick up the phone, ask for their investor relations and then ask if they offer this option. If not, they will be glad for your interest and look into setting it up for you.\"",
"Many exchanges trade the same securities. An order may be posted to a secondary exchange, but if the National Best Bid and Offer data provider malfunctions, only those with data feeds from that exchange will see it. Only the data provider for the primary exchange where a stock is listed provides the NBBO. Missing orders are very common with the NBBO data providers. NASDAQ's order consolidator has had many failures over the past few years, and the data provider's top executive has recently resigned. Brokers have no control over this system. A broker may be alerted to a malfunction by an accountholder, but a broker may only inform the relevant exchange and the relevant data provider.",
"No, the stock market and investing in general is not a zero sum game. Some types of trades are zero sum because of the nature of the trade. But someone isn't necessarily losing when you gain in the sale of a stock or other security. I'm not going to type out a technical thesis for your question. But the main failure of the idea that investing is zero sum is the fact the a company does not participate in the transacting of its stock in the secondary market nor does it set the price. This is materially different from the trading of options contracts. Options contracts are the trading of risk, one side of the contract wins and one side of the contract loses. If you want to run down the economic theory that if Jenny bought her shares from Bob someone else is missing out on Jenny's money you're free to do that. But that would mean that literally every transaction in the entire economy is part of a zero sum game (and really misses the definition of zero sum game). Poker is a zero sum game. All players bet in to the game in equal amounts, one player takes all the money. And hell, I've played poker and lost but still sometimes feel that received value in the form of entertainment.",
"Stock A last traded at $100. Stock A has 1 million shares outstanding. No seller is willing to sell Stock A for less than $110 a share. One buyer is willing to buy 1 share for $110. The order executes. The buyer pays the seller $110. Stock A's new price is $110. An $110 investment increased the market cap by $10 million. Neat trick (for all who own Stock A).",
"Verify if a local bank offers to participate in different stock markets - big companies like apple or facebook often gets traded on different markets - like Xetra (germany) or SIX (Switzerland). That being said I'd recommend you to rethink this strategy and maybe using some products offered by your bank - for 1000$ you will quickly drown in fees (my bank requires 40$ for every trade. If you buy and sell them you already lost nearly 10% of your investment)",
"Yes, on the settlement the stock is yours to sell with no risk of freeride or day trading applying.",
"On NYSE it isn't the equity which is listed but is an ADR(American Depositary Receipt). Source A negotiable certificate issued by a U.S. bank representing a specified number of shares (or one share) in a foreign stock that is traded on a U.S. exchange. ADRs are denominated in U.S. dollars, with the underlying security held by a U.S. financial institution overseas. ADRs help to reduce administration and duty costs that would otherwise be levied on each transaction. Else people would make a killing on the arbitrage opportunity. Frankly speaking arbitrage opportunities are more or less non existent. They occur for maybe seconds or milliseconds and the HFT firms and banks trade on it to remove the arbitrage.",
">Why not give extra tax breaks for the sale of stock purchased during a public offering (since that goes to helping the company) but not for secondhand (less necessary) trading Because secondary trading determines how easy it is for companies to raise additional money and it also allows the company to manipulate private vs publicly held stakes in their company. >Should we give big tax breaks to people who lend businesses money? There's a difference between lending money and investing in a corporation. Furthermore the income tax code when it comes to lending money via bonds is a complete mess. Corporate bond coupons are taxed like regular income (although the principal return is, of course, tax free). Federal and munis are taxed differently. There is also the advantage that you do get a tax break in the event of default, so any additional risk you take on has some marginal tax benefits.",
"3) Isn't strictly true, as off market swaps do trade quite regularly. For example, if the company has a bad credit rating, an off market swap is often executed to cover the credit costs (and essentially the cost of the bank's capital Under BASEL III.) Hence a bank shouldn't trade at mid.",
"There are two terms that are related, but separate here: Broker and Market Maker. The former is who goes and finds a buyer/seller to buy/sell shares from/to you. The latter (Market Maker) is a company which will agree to partner with you to complete the sale at a set price (typically the market price, often by definition as the market maker often is the one who determines the market price in a relatively low volumne listing). A market maker will have as you say a 'pool' of relatively common stock (and even relatively uncommon, up to a point) for this purpose. A broker can be a market maker (or work for one), also, in which case he would sell you directly the shares from the market maker reservoir. This may be a bad idea for you - the broker (while obligated to act in your interest, in theory) may push you towards stocks that the brokerage acts as a market maker for.",
"No, it's not even remotely accurate in the current sense. Both markets have counterparties directly executing against one another, and both have auctions. The auction mechanics are different (with NYSE's Specialist/DMM model) but during normal market hours there isn't much difference.",
"There are still human brokers on the floor primarily due to tradition. Their numbers have certainly dwindled, however, and it's reasonable to expect the number of floor traders to decrease even more as electronic trading continues to grow. A key reason for human brokers, however, is due to privacy. Certain private exchanges such as dark pools maintain privacy for high profile clients and institutional investors, and human brokers are needed to execute anonymous deals in these venues. Even in this region, however, technology is supplanting the need for brokers. I don't believe there is any human-broker-free stock exchange, but Nasdaq and other traditionally OTC (over the counter) exchanges are as close as it gets since they never even had trading floors.",
"\"It's not a ponzi scheme, and it does create value. I think you are confusing \"\"creating value\"\" and \"\"producing something\"\". The stock market does create value, but not in the same way as Toyota creates value by making a car. The stock market does not produce anything. The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. The only other cash flow is in through dividends and out when businesses go public. & The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. Earnings are the in-flow that you are missing here. Business profits DO flow back into the stock market through earnings and dividends. Think about a private company: if it has $100,000 in profits for the year then the company keeps $100,000, but if that same company is publicly traded with 100,000 shares outstanding then, all else being equal, each of those shares went up by $1. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. You can't go to an Apple store and try to pay with a stock certificate, but that doesn't mean the certificate doesn't have value. Using your agriculture example, you wouldn't be able to pay with a basket of tomatoes either. You wouldn't even be able to pay with a lump of gold! We used to do that. It was called the barter system. Companies also do buy shares back from the market using company cash. Although they usually do it through clearing-houses that are capable of moving blocks of 1,000 shares at a time.\"",
"The core issue is to understand what 'selling a share' means. There is no special person or company that takes the share from you; you are selling on the open market. So your question is effectively 'can I find a guy on the street that buys a 10$-bill for 11$ ?' - Well, maybe someone is dumb enough, but chances are slim.",
"outstanding shares are the shares(regular shares) that are still tradable in the market, where the firm in question is listed. The term is primarily used to distinguish from shares held in treasury(treasury stock), which have been bought back(buybacks) from the market and aren't currently tradable in the market. Wikipedia is a bit more clearer and mentions the diluted outstanding shares(used for convertible bonds, warrants, etc) which is used to calculated diluted EPS.",
"In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.",
"The futures market trades 24 hours a day, 5.5 days a week. S&P 500 futures market continues trading, and this gives pricing exposure and influences the individual stocks when they resume trading in US session.",
"I stumbled on the same discrepancy, and was puzzled by a significant difference between the two prices on ETR and FRA. For example, today is Sunday, and google shows the following closing prices for DAI. FRA:DAI: ETR:DAI: So it looks like there are indeed two different exchanges trading at different prices. Now, the important value here, is the last column (Volume). According to Wikipedia, the trading on Frankfort Stock Exchange is done today exclusively via Xetra platform, thus the volume on ETR:DAI is much more important than on FRA:DAI. Obviously, they Wikipedia is not 100% accurate, i.e. not all trading is done electronically via Xetra. According to their web-page, Frankfort exchange has a Specialist Trading on Frankfurt Floor service which has slightly different trading hours. I suspect what Google and Yahoo show as Frankfort exchange is this manual trading via a Specialist (opposed to Xetra electronic trading). To answer your question, the stock you're having is exactly the same, meaning if you bought an ETR:BMW you can still sell it on FRA (by calling a FRA Trading Floor Specialist which will probably cost you a fee). On the other hand, for the portfolio valuation and performance assessments you should only use ETR:BMW prices, because it is way more liquid, and thus better reflect the current market valuation.",
"\"I assume that mutual funds are being discussed here. As Bryce says, open-ended funds are bought from the mutual fund company and redeemed from the fund company. Except in very rare circumstances, they exist only as bits in the fund company's computers and not as share certificates (whether paper or electronic) that can be delivered from the selling broker to the buying broker on a stock exchange. Effectively, the fund company is the sole market maker: if you want to buy, ask the fund company at what price it will sell them to you (and it will tell you the answer only after 4 pm that day when a sale at that price is no longer possible unless you committed to buy, say, 100 shares and authorized the fund company to withdraw the correct amount from your bank account or other liquid asset after the price was known). Ditto if you want to sell: the mutual fund company will tell you what price it will give you only after 4 pm that day and you cannot sell at that price unless you had committed to accept whatever the company was going to give you for your shares (or had said \"\"Send me $1000 and sell as many shares of mine as are needed to give me proceeds of $1000 cash.\"\")\"",
"No, Mark is right, if you place a market order there will always be someone to buy or sell at the market price. Only if you place a limit order on the price can it not sell or be bought. Just research on your computer and you will find your answer. You must be specify about open order or limit order when asking.",
"The stock market is no different in this respect to anything that's bought or sold. The price of a stock like many other things reflects what the seller is prepared to sell it at and what the buyer is prepared to offer for it. If those things match then a transaction can take place. The seller loses money but gains stocks they feel represent equivalent value, the reverse happens for the buyer. Take buying a house for example, did the buyer lose money when they bought a house, sure they did but they gained a house. The seller gained money but lost a house. New money is created in the sense that companies can and do make profits, those profits, together with the expected profits from future years increase the value that is put on the company. If we take something simple like a mining company then its value represents a lot of things: and numerous other lesser things too. The value of shares in the mining company will reflect all of these things. It likely rises and falls in line with the price of the raw materials it mines and those change based on the overall supply and demand for those raw materials. Stocks do have an inherent value, they are ownership of a part of a company. You own part of the asset value, profits and losses made by that company. Betting on things is different in that you've no ownership of the thing you bet on, you're only dependent on the outcome of the bet."
] |
[
"NYSE and Nasdaq are secondary markets where stocks are bought or sold. The process of creating new stocks via IPO or private placements etc are called Private Market."
] |
6713
|
Will my father still be eligible for SNAP if I claim him as my dependent?
|
[
"147853",
"357571"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"147853",
"295562",
"192120",
"113632",
"692",
"106735",
"357571",
"43647",
"473523",
"212091",
"545497",
"15319",
"175540",
"280788",
"4167",
"162202",
"367102",
"245365",
"200603",
"148204",
"283113",
"323284",
"24277",
"4495",
"451588",
"79655",
"472122",
"79091",
"256789",
"40300",
"460775",
"432638",
"291079",
"469601",
"36481",
"307246",
"481114",
"284746",
"473530",
"455529",
"470066",
"495321",
"474433",
"23309",
"286245",
"599485",
"214690",
"574386",
"43494",
"236177",
"204703",
"278653",
"39734",
"15322",
"162294",
"404102",
"484799",
"348615",
"267128",
"199617",
"320362",
"204187",
"458934",
"164572",
"276538",
"244707",
"274901",
"366865",
"495282",
"185077",
"281166",
"361821",
"463874",
"367558",
"352851",
"221502",
"147999",
"408327",
"431101",
"565313",
"444172",
"349674",
"282010",
"377714",
"120312",
"495467",
"522423",
"436611",
"106084",
"84171",
"59317",
"510232",
"406235",
"197938",
"437405",
"105570",
"229134",
"194136",
"430407",
"400927"
] |
[
"\"It seems that counting your father as your dependent shouldn't, in itself, cause him to be ineligible for SNAP. Eligibility requirements for SNAP can be found on this FNS page. There are upper limits on the \"\"countable resources, such as a bank account\"\" that the beneficiary's household may have, and on that household's income. (There are some other requirements, too.) From what I can tell from your question, your father shouldn't be part of your household for SNAP purposes, because: Everyone who lives together and purchases and prepares meals together is grouped together as one household. If you're transferring him money, I assume he's living and eating somewhere else, so it seems you are not part of his household. According to the IRS's Publication 501, your father is not required to be part of your household for IRS purposes to be your dependent. The test to qualify is that a non-child dependent must either: Live with you all year as a member of your household, or Be related to you in one of the ways listed under Relatives who do not have to live with you. However, by the \"\"Special rule for parent\"\", you may be able to use your father as your qualifying person (dependent) to be able to file as \"\"head of household\"\", so long as you pay more than half their support, and \"\"more than half the cost of keeping up a home that was the main home for the entire year for your father\"\". I don't know if in this case the IRS would consider your father \"\"part of your household\"\" or not. Even if the IRS considered your father part of your household based on the way you filed your taxes, I think it's possible, as the IRS and FNS are two different entities, that the definition of your father's household for SNAP purposes could be different from the IRS's.\"",
"If she claims you as a dependant she may be able to claim your education expenses also and depending on tax bracket (hers and yours) they may be worth more to her than they are to you. Having her claim you may also affect your eligibility for financial aid however, if she has been claiming you so far with no negative effect on your eligibility then that may not matter next year either.",
"\"The IRS isn't going to care how you filed for benefits - they're effectively the high man on the totem pole. The agency that administers the SNAP program is the one who might care. File the 1040 correctly, and then deal with SNAP as you note. Do deal with SNAP, though; otherwise they might be in trouble if SNAP notices the discrepancy in an audit of their paperwork. Further, SNAP doesn't necessarily care here either. SNAP defines a household as the people who live together in a house and share expenses; a separated couple who neither shared expenses nor lived together would not be treated as a single household, and thus one or both would separately qualify. See this Geeks on Finance article or this Federal SNAP page for more details; and ask the state program administrator. It may well be that this has no impact for him/her. The details are complicated though, particularly when it comes to joint assets (which may still be joint even if they're otherwise separated), so look it over in detail, and talk to the agency to attempt to correct any issues. Note that depending on the exact circumstances, your friend might have another option other than Married Filing Jointly. If the following are true: Then she may file as \"\"Head of Household\"\", and her (soon-to-be) ex would file as \"\"Married Filing Separately\"\", unless s/he also has dependents which would separately allow filing as Head of Household. See the IRS document on Filing Status for more details, and consider consulting a tax advisor, particularly if she qualifies to consult one for free due to lower income.\"",
"First, you need to see if you actually qualify as a dependent under IRS rules; in short: While there may be exceptions to the cohabitation rule, I am not sure what those could be. The takeaway is that if your parent is wishing to claim you as a dependent, they must be responsible for supporting the majority of your living expenses (e.g. food and shelter). If this is the case, then the next question is to look at how the impact of the exemptions play out. In your situation, I would guess that your mother is correct: your taxable income is likely to be so low that if you do not take an exemption for yourself, you probably would still have zero or minimal tax liability; but if you mother claims you as a dependent, she will be able to take a deduction. In the case of your grants and loans, the loans should not be taxable income since these need to be repaid (presumably, with future earnings). Federal grants may be taxable--basically, the portion of the grant that is used solely for paying educational expenses toward a specific degree (tuition and books) is non-taxable, but the remainder may be subject to tax. As for tax credits, you would need to see how much you would get and how they would apply to you. The bottom line is, there are too many variables to say for certain what the best approach would be, so both your and your mother's returns must be prepared under each scenario (you as her dependent, versus you claiming a personal exemption).",
"If she lives by herself, my guess would be that she qualifies as a household of one. Either way, her monthly income is below the threshold, so she should be eligible. Per the linked website The only way to determine if your household is eligible for SNAP benefits is to apply. I'd say it's worth a try.",
"Your parents would not be able to claim her as a dependent as multiple people are not allowed to claim a single person as a dependent. Utilize the IRS website to show who you are and are not allowed to claim (https://www.irs.gov/uac/Who-Can-I-Claim-as-a-Dependent%3F).",
"This may be best handled by an expert. Look for somebody recommended by a church, homeless shelter, food pantry, office of unemployment, office of disability, or Veterans services to advise you on maximizing support for your father. You want to know what type of help you can give without causing the overall level of support to drop. You may even find there are other avenues of assistance.",
"I know this is rather late, but with your income it is almost certainly better for your mother to claim you as a dependent. I was in a similar situation this last year, I didn't get the full weight of the tax break because my taxes went down to zero with this exemption along with claiming myself as a dependent. I used Turbotax to run both our taxes both ways to verify, the difference was about 1000 dollars saved for my parents to claim me as a dependent vs claiming myself as a dependent. If you are unsure it doesn't take long to run the numbers through Turbotax, TaxACT, or some similar software.",
"No, you can not claim any sort of tax benefit. The main problem is that your parent is not living with you, though even if they were, they would also have to be dependent on you. I cannot find a good definition of 'dependant', but from what I can find, they must have only a trivial amount of income and must rely on you for at least 50% of their living expenses. Useful links include: Note that your parent may (but probably won't) be required to pay taxes on the money you submit to them. I have no experience whatsoever with Indian tax law, just pointing this out as a possibility.",
"Since you aren't contributing enough to count your parent as a dependent, there is no tax benefit to you for helping them. Gift tax is paid by the giver when total gifts to an individual exceed $14k/year and the lifetime exclusion of $5.49M has been exceeded. If your annual gifts exceed $14k (subject to change, as is the lifetime exclusion amount) then you have to file Form 709 with your return, but you will not pay gift tax unless you've both exhausted the lifetime exclusion and gift over $14k/year. If you pay medical bills directly, that amount does not count toward the $14k/year limit, so you could likely assist in excess of $14k/year and still avoid having to file the extra form. Most assistance programs are income-based, and gifts do not count toward income, but you'll want to check on the specific requirements for programs they are enrolled in.",
"\"Yes, you will have to file taxes. Each peson gets a standard deduction. By \"\"claiming you\"\", your parents are applying your standard deduction to their taxes, meaning that you cannot use that same deduction on your taxes. You still must pay taxes on your income. This generally works out best overall, assuming that your parents are in a higher tax bracket (have a higher income) than you.\"",
"\"3) NOT to claim her as my dependent. No additional tax return (since she is NOT my dependent), but also no penalty. My end of year balance would be $0 No. Not claiming her as a dependent does not save you from being responsible for her penalty. You are responsible for her penalty if she is your dependent (i.e. she meets the conditions for being your dependent), regardless of whether you claim her on your tax return or not. If you have the option of claiming her or not, then she is your dependent, and you are responsible for her penalty. 26 CFR 1.5000A-1(c)(2)(i): For a month when a nonexempt individual does not have minimum essential coverage, if the nonexempt individual is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of another individual for the other individual's taxable year including that month, the other individual is liable for the shared responsibility payment attributable to the dependent's lack of coverage. An individual is a dependent of a taxpayer for a taxable year if the individual satisfies the definition of dependent under section 152, regardless of whether the taxpayer claims the individual as a dependent on a Federal income tax return for the taxable year. [...] Form 1040 instructions, Line 61: [...] If you had qualifying health care coverage (called minimum essential coverage) for every month of 2015 for yourself, your spouse (if filing jointly), and anyone you can or do claim as a dependent, check the box on this line and leave the entry space blank. Otherwise, do not check the box on this line. If you, your spouse (if filing jointly), or someone you can or do claim as a dependent didn’t have coverage for each month of 2015 you must either claim a coverage exemption on Form 8965 or report a shared responsibility payment on line 61. [...] So you cannot check the box and must report exemptions for your sister, or report a shared responsibility payment. Form 8965 instructions, Definitions, \"\"Tax household\"\": For purposes of Form 8965, your tax household generally includes you, your spouse (if filing a joint return), and any individual you claim as a dependent on your tax return. It also generally includes each individual you can, but don't, claim as a dependent on your tax return. [...] Your sister is part of your tax household regardless of whether you claim her, and you must compute her shared responsibility payment for any months she did not have insurance and did not qualify for an exemption.\"",
"No they do not. From form 1040 instructions, a single, non-blind dependent under age 65 must file if the following are true: You must file a return if any of the following apply. There is no return required for receipt of a gift.",
"\"Are you working for a company that offers a Dependent Care Account? You may be able to withhold up to $5000/yr pre tax for care for you child. If you cover more than half her expenses, she is your dependent. You can't \"\"double dip.\"\" If she is your dependent, she cannot be the care provider for purposes of the DCAS, see Pub 503 top of p7 \"\"Payments to Relatives or Dependents.\"\" How do you think a business would change your situation? The DCA is a small tax break, if you have no business now, this break isn't something that should drive this.\"",
"\"I am not aware of any place that the tax forms ask, \"\"How many people live in your house?\"\" They ask how many dependants you have, and not everyone who lives in your house is your dependant. There are very specific rules about that. If your girlfriend is being claimed as a dependent on her parents' tax return, then she cannot also be claimed on anyone else's return, and there's no need to investigate further. To claim someone as a dependent, they have to meet a number of conditions. I am not a lawyer. See IRS Publication 17. But the gist of it is that they must, (a) either be a relative (there's a list of what sorts of relatives qualify) or live with you all year; (b) Living with you must not violate local law; (c) Must make less than $4000 per year; and (d) You must provide over half of their support. Your girlfriend may meet the \"\"live with you all year\"\" or maybe not. But the real stumper is likely to be (d). Unless your parents are paying her tuition, they almost certainly don't meet this test.\"",
"Your parents would file their taxes as they normally do. It would be as if your parents were landlords renting a room to your girlfriend. She would not be claimed on their taxes. If your girlfriend pays rent to your parents (through her parents or otherwise) it would be claimed as rental income. The household size wouldn't change because even though your girlfriend is living with your parents they are not financially responsible for her. Example: A landlord would not claim renters as dependents or in household size on their taxes.",
"Essentially obamacare act is forcing me NOT to claim my sister as my dependent (although I provide > 51% for her). No, that's not what it's doing. It's forcing you (or her) to get insurance. So, as a big sister I can provide for her, but NOT claim her as my dependent. Do I understand everything correctly? The exemption (that gave you that $1K back) can only be claimed by you, she cannot claim it. So by not claiming her you're giving that up. Her medical bills will probably be on you as well, so it would be in your best interest to have her insured. If you want to dump her on the taxpayer in case of a medical emergency - then yes, it will cost you the tax benefit of the additional exemption and the HOH deduction (depending on your tax rates, probably a couple of thousands of dollars). Either way you'll pay.",
"You are only responsible for IRS debt that you owe from returns that you have filed for yourself. The back taxes that your dependent owes are between him and the IRS.",
"It only matters for purposes of the dependent, so if you are clearly at 50%, then you don't need to calculate this cost. If it is close to not being 50%, then you will have to allocate between your sister and mother. To calculate support costs, you can of course include the costs incurred for transportation, per Pub 17 p 34. If you and your sister have an arrangement where she uses the car and in exchange she shoulders extra costs for your mother, then that's legitimately your expense for your mother (as long as this is a true agreement, then it was money she owed you but paid directly to the vendors and creditors that you would have paid). Note that there is a simpler avenue. If your sister agrees that you will claim your mother as dependent, and nobody else provides any substantial support (10%+ of costs), then she can just agree that it's you who will claim her. If you like, such an agreement may be attached to your taxes, possibly using Form 2120. As a general rule, though, you do not need to use 2120 or any other agreement, nor submit any support calculations. If your sister verbally agrees that she hasn't and won't claim your mother, then it's unlikely to cause any problems. Her signed agreement not to claim your mother is merely the most conservative possible documentation strategy, but isn't really necessary. See Pub 17, p 35 on Multiple Support Agreements for more info.",
"Are you actually supporting both your mother and father? Is the account joint? Is your mother aware of the gift and has control over the money same as your father? If you cannot answer (and provide support) yes to all these questions, then I doubt you could make such a claim. If the fact that the bank account is only in your father's name is a mere technicality for whatever reason, and the money is in fact intended, controlled by and benefits both of your parents, then I believe you can. See more details about gift tax in the IRS publication 950.",
"It appears that this is the case. From IRS Publication 969, Health Savings Accounts and Other Tax-Favored Health Plans Qualified medical expenses are those incurred by the following persons. You and your spouse. All dependents you claim on your tax return. Any person you could have claimed as a dependent on your return except that: The person filed a joint return, The person had gross income of $3,700 or more, or You, or your spouse if filing jointly, could be claimed as a dependent on someone else's 2011 return.",
"I don't see how allowing usage of your vehicle is less support than giving money to buy their own vehicle. If that's the only vehicle your mother has - then you're supporting her. Quantifying that support may be difficult though, but if you are providing her all of her needs - it doesn't matter. If she does have income of her own, I do not think that you can put the actual amount you're paying as part of the calculation towards the 50% rule since she would otherwise have bought a much cheaper car. But if you pass the 50% threshold even without the car payments - then you're fine either way.",
"I suppose if you consider tax liability, and when you moved back in with your parents they started claiming you as a dependent on their taxes, but otherwise single-filer means you are your own household regardless of who rents to you.",
"Up to RS50,000 is exempt from gift taxes. In the US, if one provides more than half the expenses for a relative, they may be a dependent. I don't know the India rules.",
"You don't get any tax benefit. When you are helping a relative or a friend in such situations the income is just gone. The only way to get around this is if you contribute to a charity, and they give it to your mom. You can then deduct the contributions to that charity. However, the IRS has cracked down on such situations and it probably is not worth pursuing. By the recent tax rules, that charity can use those contributions in which every way they choose, they cannot guarantee they go to your mom. Given that you are closed to your allowed exclusion (14K for 2017), I would work to keep your number under that. If you are married, you each get that exclusion so you can give up to 28K. I can't really speak to the reduction of benefits part as I am knowledgeable and more details on the type of transfer payments she receives would be germane to the discussion.",
"\"If they allowed people to skip reporting the funds \"\"even though I might not intend to use this money to help my kids through college\"\", then children of a Billionaire would be eligible for financial aid. In addition you might have reported all your income to the IRS, but the rest of the government isn't able to see that information.\"",
"Yes. Basically, I see it as a huge giveaway to corporate interests when we have to do things like step in and pay for food for their workers (e.g. SNAP), enabling a business to keep their own wages low. It's basically a wealth transfer to shareholders. A full-time worker should be able to cover their nutritional needs from their salary.",
"For the record, I am the original question-asker and I'm reporting back to say that the approach described in the accepted answer did not work. I am adding a new answer, rather than commenting on the accepted answer, because of the length of explanation required. I applied for an ITIN by filing a W-7 with all appropriate documentation, including a birth certificate, death certificate, and consular recognition of birth abroad (i.e., proof of U.S. citizenship). The IRS rejected the application, saying that people who are eligible for SSNs can't have ITINs. That placed me in an untenable situation, because even though the IRS said she was eligible for an SSN, the Social Security Administration said they never issue SSNs to dead people as a matter of policy. So: Insult was added to injury. It is true that I should have applied for an SSN while she was alive, in which case it would have been a simple matter. I just paid the extra tax that was due because of her not counting as a dependent during the years for which I was filing. The amount was not worth fighting over further, or renouncing my U.S. citizenship. Moral of story: Live, in all ways, as if there is no guarantee your children will be alive tomorrow. Because there is no such guarantee.",
"Yes, you'll be able to get the money by submitting legitimate receipts for care for your child, and at tax time you'll pay the tax on the extra $3600.",
"\"The author really glosses over the impact of changes pertaining to \"\"return to work\"\" requirements/qualification. [In Georgia, some recipient groups have been reduced by 60%](http://www.myajc.com/news/breaking-news/more-will-have-work-keep-food-stamps/pu0Y9SASOVxc5QwEzJJLdJ/). I'd be cautious about celebrating this kind of report being connected to people rising out of poverty status. The more obvious conclusion is that the reductions owe more to people simply being excluded from SNAP.\"",
"And you have yet to explain how it would matter how they use the benefits they are entitled to. If they didn't spend any of the money they were given it would stay on their card. If they bought food and didn't eat it, it would sit on their shelves. What if they bought food and let someone who was hungry eat it at their house? Are these people abusing the system as well? What you don't seem to understand is ITS THEIR ENTITLEMENT. They can do with it as they please, it would be smart to use it to eat food but guess what some people have drug problems and or likely a mental issue. Apparently in your worldview poor people don't get to have freedom? These people would get it either way if they spent it on food or drugs. Not to mention we are talking about a very small percentage of people and an even smaller pittance of money. We have THOUSANDS of tanks we paid hundreds of millions of dollars for each just sitting in the fucking desert that replaced the already working tanks we already had that we do not need. Yet here you are concerned about some person at the lowest rank of society trading 15 dollars on a snap card for cigarettes.",
"Only for farmers markets and only 3 bucks at a time. Kind of like a stupid screw up typical of government. This won't devastate folks and if the markets are solely dependent on these subsidies they will need to close. Maybe the meals on wheels should buy more local produce instead.",
"There are too many qualifying questions like martial status, dependent status, annual income, etc. Your answer is most likely in the Form Pub 970 you referenced: Adjustments to Qualified Education Expenses If you pay qualified education expenses with certain tax-free funds, you cannot claim a deduction for those amounts If the grant is tax free, you can not claim deductions up to that amount. Even if you were able to expense all the educational expenses you list, I doubt you can exceed the grant disbursement disbursement amount. I'm not a tax professional, so take my advice for what it is worth.",
"Here's an answer received elsewhere. Yes, it looks like you have a pretty good understanding the concept and the process. Your wife's income will be so low - why? If she is a full-time student in any of those months, you may attribute $250 x 2 children worth of income for each of those months. Incidentally, even if you do end up paying taxes on the extra $3000, you won't be paying the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare (7.65%) or state disability on those funds. So you still end up saving some tax money. No doubt, there's no need to remind you to be sure that you submit all the valid receipts to the administrator in time to get reimbursed. And a must-have disclaimer: Please be advised that, based on current IRS rules and standards, any advice contained herein is not intended to be used, nor can it be used, for the avoidance of any tax penalty that the IRS may assess related to this matter. Any information contained in this email, whether viewed or subsequently printed, cannot be relied upon as qualified tax and accounting advice. ... Any information contained in this email does not fall under the guidelines of IRS Circular 230.",
"a) He can loan you the money tax free he can even give you and your wife 29k a year tax free. Many people do a loan for lets say 100k and then they forgive the load 14.5k a year to avoid the taxes. b) Yes when they see that deposit they will give you a hard time potentially. I got a hard time for my Real Estate tax refund. c) Just putting stress on the family potentially.",
"No. You already received the deduction, since that lost FSA money was pre-tax. You can't double dip. However if your FSA amount was less than your actual expenses, you can file on the difference. Example: $4500 actual expenses, $3000 FSA (lost). You can get the dependent care credit based on $1500.",
"I'm guessing you're asking about the US. Please add a location tag to your question. Unfortunately you cannot claim expenses paid for someone other than yourself or your dependents. In IRS publication 970, that deals with education credits, they give the following guidance: Expenses paid by others. Someone other than you, your spouse, or your dependent (such as a relative or former spouse) may make a payment directly to an eligible educational institution to pay for an eligible student's qualified education expenses. In this case, the student is treated as receiving the payment from the other person and, in turn, paying the institution. If you claim an exemption on your tax return for the student, you are considered to have paid the expenses. Also, you should keep the gift tax in mind: your help to your friend is only exempt from gift tax if you pay the tuition directly (i.e.: you write the check to the school cashier, not to your friend). If you give the money to your friend, it is subject to gift tax (which you have to pay). In some cases, someone who is not family may in fact qualify to become your dependent. For that he must live with you (in the same household), and be supported by you and not have any significant income. If that's the case with you and your friend, you might be able to claim him as a dependent and get some significant tax benefits, including the education credits. Consult your tax adviser if its relevant to your situation.",
"They're wrong. The IRS instructions (pub 969) specifically say: To be an eligible individual and qualify for an HSA ... You [must] have no other health coverage except what is permitted under Other health coverage, later. So no, he is not eligible for HSA if he keeps your coverage. Here's what the same IRS Publication 969 has to say about the excess contributions (contributions in excess of what is allowed): Generally, you must pay a 6% excise tax on excess contributions. See Form 5329, Additional Taxes on Qualified Plans (including IRAs) and Other Tax-Favored Accounts, to figure the excise tax. The excise tax applies to each tax year the excess contribution remains in the account. You may withdraw some or all of the excess contributions and not pay the excise tax on the amount withdrawn if you meet the following conditions. You withdraw the excess contributions by the due date, including extensions, of your tax return for the year the contributions were made. You withdraw any income earned on the withdrawn contributions and include the earnings in “Other income” on your tax return for the year you withdraw the contributions and earnings. The 6% excise tax is on top of any other tax (like the regular income tax) that he has to pay on the money.",
"\"What kind of financial aid? Today, most \"\"financial aid\"\" consists of loans. Methinks it better for you to be ineligible for \"\"financial aid\"\" and be able to pay enough that they can cover the difference with their own sweat (their own income) rather than deliberately spending the money and forcing them to take out \"\"low interest\"\" student loans to pay part of the bill. Have you played with FAFSA to see what happens?\"",
"I would go here and play with the FASFA financial aid calculator to see if you qualify for grants, which is probably your ultimate objective. It would seem to me that qualified retirement contributions do not count towards eligibility provided you are younger than 59.5, and even then it would be questionable.",
"You said your mother-in-law lives with you. Does she pay rent, or are you splitting the cost of housing? That would also have to figured into the equation. If you had a business you would now have to declare the expense on your business taxes. This would also then be income for her, which she would have to account for on her taxes. Remember there are both state and federal taxes involved. Regarding expenses like diapers. If the MIL had the business she could deduct them as a business expense. If you have the business it would greatly complicate the taxes. Your business would be essentially covering your personal expenses. If your MIL was not a business the cost of diapers would be paid by you regardless of the working situation of you and your spouse. To claim the tax credit: You must report the name, address, and taxpayer identification number (either the social security number, or the employer identification number) of the care provider on your return. If the care provider is a tax-exempt organization, you need only report the name and address on your return. You can use Form W-10 (PDF), Dependent Care Provider's Identification and Certification, to request this information from the care provider. If you do not provide information regarding the care provider, you may still be eligible for the credit if you can show that you exercised due diligence in attempting to provide the required information. The IRS will be looking for an income tax form from your MIL that claims the income. Getting too cute with the babysitting situation, by starting a business just for the purpose of saving money on taxes could invite an audit. Also it is not as if you just claim 3000 and you are good to go. You can only claim a percentage of the expenses based on the household AGI, the more the make the more you have to have in expenses to get the full 3000 credit, which mil cause more taxes for your MIL. Plus the whole issue with having to pay social security and other taxes on a household employee. It might be best to skip the risk of the audit. Claiming your MIL as a dependent might just be easier.",
"\"If you earn $160 a week for 26 weeks, are unable to claim yourself, have no other income at all, you will earn $4,160, which falls under the standard deduction, in your case a bit over $4,500; per publication 17, it is $350 above your earned income, to a maximum of $6300 as of 2016. (H/t Hart CO for the reminder.) In that case, if you paid no taxes (at all) last year (either did not file or filed and had 0 tax paid, so got a 100% refund), you could legitimately claim \"\"exempt\"\" by writing that on line 7. However, you would be very close to owing taxes, so if you have any unearned income (interest from bank accounts, dividends from your non-sheltered college fund, etc.), you would possibly owe taxes. You're also going to owe taxes if you have another ~$2150 of earned income from any other source (including things like mowing lawns, tutoring, etc.). Keep all of that in mind if you have any other sources of income other than the above.\"",
"Check out personal finance. But, my guess is no. Given you are married and you were prepared to contribute $x out of the entire family pot, why don't they just contribute $x from their portion of the entire family pot? Net effect should be similar or identical. (I'm not an accountant nor married, so enjoy the grain of salt).",
"I am unsympathetic. His mother made a conscious choice to evade taxes that would have provided her with at least a minimal security when she was too old to work. First while as business owner she should have been paying self employment tax on the income they made through the restaurant and his other merchant activities. Second while working in her own career selling Mary Kay and side work she should have paid her taxes on her income from that. There is a part of me that says good on you for getting by with out getting caught. But her ultimate failure was to plan for her future. She should have known she would be ineligible for SSI and saved for her retirement. Instead she choose to spend her money while benefiting from the government services that the rest of us pay taxes for. Now we will provide her with medicaid as well as welfare benefits. She has placed her son in the unenviable situation of having to either provide for his mother because she failed to do the minimum planning for herself or turn his back on her. He might be able to find a sympathetic prosecutor who would prosecute her for tax evasion. The government would take care of her needs(food and housing) and she would get her medical care taken care of. He could also move to Alaska. The oil industry provide residents of Alaska with a stipend, there is lots of work for people willing to work hard, and the compensation for that work is pretty good and would likely put him in a position where he is able to provide care for his mother.",
"A tenant is a tenant regardless of your relationship to them, and as long as the property is classified as an investment property, you can claim depreciation and regular business losses just as you would on any property with any tenant.",
"\"There are two types of insurance, which causes some confusion. Social Security Disability Insurance (which you indicate you have) is insurance you can receive benefit from if you earn enough \"\"work credits\"\" (payroll taxes) prior to your disability onset. It is not a needs-based program. Supplemental Security Income is a need-based program which does not consider your work history. To qualify for this, your total assets need to be lower than some threshold and your family income also below some threshold. If you inherit a home, or money, I doubt this would jeopardize your SSDI qualification, since your qualification was based on a disabling condition and work history. If you inherit an income property, which you manage (i.e. you become a landlord), this may jeopardize your claim that you are unable to work. Even if you are not making an \"\"income\"\" as the landlord, but the work your are performing is deemed to have some \"\"value\"\" this too could jeopardize your claim. All of this can be very complicated, and there are some excellent references on the web including SSA website, and some other related websites. Finally, if you become able to work while on SSDI, your benefit may/will end depending on the level of work you are able to perform. But just because you are able to work again does not mean you need to repay past benefits received (assuming your condition has not been falsified). Your local social security office, or the social security main office both offer telephone support and can also answer questions regarding your concern. Here are a couple relevant links:\"",
"Gifts from your parents are not treated as income for tax purposes. You should not include that in your subsidy calculation. If you are here on a student-visa and have been in the US for less than 5 years, then you are considered a non-resident alien, and you are not required to buy a qualified plan through the insurance marketplace. You might be able to get a cheaper student plan through your school, but the subsidy might be enough that it's still worth it when calculated correctly. If you are a resident-alien or you are a citizen of the US, then you are required to get coverage, though you can choose not to purchase coverage and pay the tax for not having creditable coverage. That tax cannot be collected by the IRS unless you have already had federal tax withheld. They can only confiscate your tax return money to recoup that money. I don't have enough information to recommend one way or the other what you should do, but I would bet that if you recalculated your subsidy without including your parents income it would cover the majority of the cost. You should also consider applying for Medicaid if you meet the eligibility requirements in your state.",
"As Dilip commented, the Social Security web site is pretty comprehensive. Understanding Supplemental Security Income SSI Income has the details you are looking for. It's a convoluted equation. You lose SSI at a pretty fast rate as earned income rises. The system is not kind to those who qualify for SSI but try to earn some money to cover their needs.",
"There would be no point to claim the gift exemption because a gift from a spouse that you file jointly with wouldn't be considered income. It would be the same as if you moved money from one bank account to another.",
"\"Having dealt with with Social Security, state agencies, and banks more than I'd care to, I would urge you to do the following: 1) Get a 100% clear answer on whether or not you are listed as \"\"joint\"\" or \"\"authorized user/signer\"\" for an account. This will probably require a call to the bank, but for less than an hour of you and your friend's time you will save yourself a whole lot of hassle. The difference is like this: if you worked at a business that added you as an authorized user for a credit or debit card, this would allow you to use the card to buy things. But that doesn't make the money in the bank yours! On the other hand if you are listed as \"\"joint\"\", this regards ownership, and it could become tricky to establish whether its your money or not to any governmental satisfaction. 2) You are completely correct in being honest with the agency, but that's not enough - if you don't know what the facts are, you can't really be honest with them. If the form is unclear it's ok to ask, \"\"on having a bank account, does being listed as an authorized user on someone else's account count if it isn't my money or bank account?\"\" But if you are listed as holding the account jointly, that changes the question to: \"\"I am listed as joint on someone else's checking account, but it isn't my money - how is that considered?\"\" To Social Security it might mean generating an extra form, or it might mean you need to have the status on the account changed, or they might not care. But if you don't get the facts first, they won't give you the right answers or help you need. And from personal experience, it's a heck of a lot easier to get a straight and clear answer from a bank than it is from a federal government agency. Have the facts with you when you contact them and you'll be ok - but trust me, you don't want them guessing!\"",
"The request for your parent's income comes from Form 8615, Tax for Certain Children Who Have Unearned Income. I typically see this form appear as I'm doing my daughter's taxes and start to enter data from stock transactions. In other words, your earned income is your's. But if you are a dependent, or 'can be,' the flow avoids the potentially lucrative results from gifting children appreciated stock, and have them take the gain at their lower, potentially zero cap gain rate. I suggest you grab a coffee and thumb through Pub 929 Tax Rules for Children and Dependents to understand this better. From page 14 of the linked doc - Parent's return information not available. If a child can’t get the required information about his or her parent's tax return, the child (or the child's legal representative) can request the necessary information from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). How to request. After the end of the tax year, send a signed, written request for the information to the Internal Revenue Service Center where the parent's return will be filed. (The IRS can’t process a request received before the end of the tax year.) It also suggests that you file for an extension for the due date of your return. Include payment for the tax you expect to pay, say by plugging in $200K for parent income as an estimate. My parents' accountant tells them I do not need it. Well, a piece of software told you that you do, and 3 people on line who collectively qualify as experts documented why. (Note, I am not full of myself. This board operates via the wisdom of crowds. Members DStanley, and Ben Miller, commented and edited to help me form a well documented response that would be tough to argue against.)",
"Quick get a Social Security Number for the child. You will need it before you file your taxes early next year. If you don't have a SSN for your child you will not be able to claim them as a dependent. If you applied for one already, many do so at the hospital, then wait for it to arrive. The next step is to open a savings account with the child's SSN. Then have your parent write the check in the child's name and deposit it into the account. If it is written in the child's name already then you don't need a new check from them. If the check is large, you may run into problems if you take a check in the name of a minor and try and deposit it into your account. The bank would have no idea that the person is related to you.",
"No, you may not deduct the charitable contributions of your children. The Nest covers this in detail: The IRS only allows you to deduct charitable contributions that you personally funded, whether the contribution was made in your name or in someone else's. If your child or dependent makes a donation to a charity, you are not allowed to claim it as a tax deduction. This is true even if your dependent does not claim the contribution on his own tax return because he opts for the standard deduction rather than itemizing or claims exemption. Now, had you constructed the transaction differently, it's possible you could've made the contribution in your child's name and thus claimed the deduction. Allowance is technically a gift, and if she agrees to forgo allowance in exchange for you making a contribution, well, the IRS can't really complain (though they might try if it were a large amount!). Contributions in the name of someone else, but funded by yourself, are deductible: [Y]ou can deduct contributions you make in someone else’s name. So if you donated a certain amount of money to XYZ charity in your child’s name, for example, you would be able to deduct this amount on your taxes, as long as the deduction requirements are met. You will need to keep accurate records of the payment along with the receipt from the organization to prove you financed the donation.",
"As a 19 year old if she can get SSDI instead of SSI her benefit amount will be calculated by her parents' contributions ... if either parent is deceased or over 62 then she qualifies for SSDI instead of SSI and I believe she would receive the full benefit amount. I'd guess that would be something in the $1400+ range. I see no reason why you couldn't get married either way ... at least not from a financial perspective. I'd be worried about being on the hook for her medical expenses. Therapy, meds, hospital visits, side-effects, etc ... that's a good way to spend the rest of your life owing millions.",
"You would be surprised. I work in a grocery store where poor customers use a food stamps card to buy their groceries but pull out a debit card for a $60 carton of cigarettes and a $20 case of beer. They use the money they should be using for food on other things because they get an EBT card.",
"This is a good question and you seemed troubled by this and this person's choices in life. And that is the rub, they are choices. They know how to make them, they know the consequences, and they know how to work around them. Its a skill you probably don't have (and don't want to have). In the end they will survive. If you go to a fast food store in a popular retirement location you will see plenty of elderly people working. They might live in low income housing, receive some financial assistance, and utilize other charities such a food banks. They might depend on family and friends. There is also the ugly, it is not a fairy tale that some supplement their diets with pet food. There is of course social security. The amount is very low for most workers, but the amount is almost inconsequential. They would spend it all anyway and still be short despite the predictability of the income and a time frame with predictable expenses. Budgeting is a skill. So I have a friend that deals with this himself, and is helping an elder relation. He and his wife provide some help, but when it started there was a endless stream of requests. His policy now is: No more help unless he works out a budget with the person requesting help. I've used his ideas myself, and by using this it becomes clear on who is in actual need and who is just looking for the next handout. You can feel good about yourself for helping an actual needy person or guiltless say no.",
"Since you are not (yet) legally married, he is a stranger to you and strictly speaking you don't need to worry about the tax impact of his income yet. File on your income alone. That said, you may have to address the money transfer aspect at a later date as banks are getting skittish around money laundering regulations. It's really best if he has his own account for this, especially given you are not married. The worst case scenario is that his income gets frozen due to money laundering regulations and the deposits in your account get treated as (unreported) monetary gifts to you. Again, you should be able to argue out of this but separate accounts make it much easier to do so.",
"Generally speaking, you'll be able to keep it. Your spending ability may be reduced though. The published eligibility criteria aren't necessarily carved in stone anyway. Some road-warrior types with platinum cards who don't necessarily spend $250k a year will get the card offered to them.",
"It will not affect your tax bracket so long as he files his taxes. It will not affect your credit negatively so long as the joint account takes out no debts. If it does take out debts, then someone would need to pay them to avoid negative credit. Ideally debts should take signatures from both of you (ask the bank). The IRS will not automatically assume that the only reason that two people might have a joint account is illegal activities. If he withdraws money from the account in such a way to cause an overdraft, you might be responsible for it. However, it sounds like he isn't supposed to be withdrawing money from that account. So that's a potential problem but not a guaranteed problem. Make sure that you have the power to close the account without him (so if you break up later, you can take your name off unilaterally). Realize that you might have to pay a little to close the account if he overdraws it. If possible, have the bank refuse overdrafts. Consider a savings account rather than a checking account. The rules may better fit what you want to do. In particular, if you are limited to transfers, that's safer than checks. Schedule a time to talk to someone at the bank about the account. Ask them to leave plenty of time because you have questions. Explain what you want and let them tell you how to structure the account.",
"There is no document that I know of that stipulates otherwise. This can also be corroborated by the fact that RESP withdrawals are considered as income in the name of the student. Thus, so long as the student pays tuition and receives a T2202A slip from the educational institution, they should be able to claim tuition, education, and textbook amounts.",
"\"You'd need to talk with an attorney familiar with Social Security, or an appropriately qualified SSA representative to be sure - but all signs point to the idea that unfortunately Social Security does not work the way your father was told it would. And if he doesn't file to receive benefits the reality is actually much worse than \"\"throwing away free money\"\"! However, this is not due to a complete misunderstanding of the system! Social Security does work the way he thinks in some instances, just that the rules don't apply to his exact situation! First of all, retroactive benefits come in a few forms: File and suspend to get a lump only if you really need it - BEFORE the age of 70 only! In this method you apply for retirement, but you tell the SSA to suspend/delay your benefits. You are entitled to full lump sum of the payments you deferred...but at a cost of getting lower monthly benefits permanently (and that also lowers spousal and dependent children's benefits, too - if those could apply to your dad). But note that at the age of 70, Social Security will stop deferring the payments and start paying you the full maximum retirement benefit monthly, with no lump sum. This is a kind of emergency insurance policy for those who want to try to defer retirement benefits, but who want the opportunity to cash out and get the money they would have been getting \"\"just in case\"\". You can get up to 6 months of retroactive benefits, such as if you wait past your exact retirement age to apply for benefits. But no more: \"\"we cannot pay retroactive benefits for any month before you reached full retirement age or more than 6 months in the past\"\". As for after-death benefits, an estate can only get benefits that were already due to be paid, which generally means a person died and did not get their benefits for that month, so SSA can re-issue a check to the estate following these rules. But as a person cannot be due a lump sum payment after age 70 (for more than 6 months at most), the estate will only be able to get at most 1-6 months of payments (and 6 months is doubtful - you'll need to ask a lawyer if that much would even be possible). If your father was below 70 and wanted to file-and-suspend, the question of lump on death would be more complex and I don't know that answer - but once you are past 70 this doesn't matter any more as you aren't due a lump anymore. Given the above, we've established pretty clearly that if you don't claim your benefits within 6 months after age 70, any months of payment you would have gotten are just forfeited to the system. But if you claim the benefits and stick them in the bank, can they be taken? Well, if a lawsuit is really a worry, then yes these accumulated funds can required to pay a debt - but this potential for loss can be protected against without forfeiting the benefits entirely! This is not very common, but if your father doesn't need the money now he may be able to deposit some of the money into a special partially-lawsuit protected format of the Roth IRA (which has no age limits) as detailed here. If he never gets sued, that's OK - it's still his money! If he passes away, the value goes to his estate and does not disappear. And he doesn't forfeit any of his earned retirement benefits. Finally, I would like to share one last thing with you and your father. These benefits aren't free - he has been paying a portion of his paycheck for decades into Social Security, and now he is eligible for the maximum amount of benefits per month that he will qualify for - and if he wants to keep working he loses no benefit and the amount could potentially even go up. That's up to him. But not filing for benefits now will mean that all this money he's been paying in for decades will just be lost - they'll basically just be a tax he's paid out to other retirees. His estate (which means you kids) won't get any of it, either. That'd just be a waste for everyone involved. If you have continued doubts or questions, I wouldn't hesitate to consult a specialist lawyer or talk with the SSA directly to make sure this is all correct. It's his money, and he has earned his benefits for many years. I very much hope he gets to enjoy as much of them as he can!\"",
"The taxes that are deducted from you paycheck are estimated from the expected annual income you receive from the employer. In the same way, the employer will deduct from that expected annual income the tax deductions you would get for the number of dependents you specify. Hence your net income will be lower, your annual tax obligation also, which can than be calculated down to the period of your paycheck.",
"The program has not existed long, so the effects likely modest. The goals were to help local growers and to get people eating healthier food. I know seniors living on $800 a month total. Most of that goes to rent. They eat the cheap microwave meals, as fresh fruit and vegetables are too expensive. Their main meal is provided by meals on wheels, which is also on Republican's radar to cut.",
"working full time for low wages, does force a family to take government assistance. It is a way my business and others who pay a living wage while still paying our taxes subsidized the mega businesses destroying america like walmart. Sorry but if you have a family cant get another job with better pay and have to work 40 hours for min wage, you are going to use government assistance.",
"Did you become a homeowner in this case? Would you be paying property tax as a homeowner somehow? Were you the homeowner of your apartment? No. Are you a homeowner of your parent's home? No. I do not believe that living at your parent's house makes you a homeowner or someone counted as a homeowner for statistical purposes.",
"They are entitled to a benefit for things for survival, This is not a UBI. If they have enough food to be giving it away, the system isn't working properly. You think because they're (the abusers of the system) are being a useless member of society that they are entitled to have these benefits, which legally they are, but this should not be a long term solution for millions of people, which it is. Are we talking about a small amount of people, from what google says its a pretty big issue. We have a military, start your own rant thread about that if you want to talk about that or better yet, go join the military and fix it from the inside out.",
"Sit down with professional with knowledge about eldercare issues. Know how your options regarding the property ownership can impact the services they qualify for. Even making a change in ownership can impact their eligibility for certain programs. Some of which can reach back to events in the recent past. Also if you own it but she will get some of the profits when you sell, she could still be considered an owner, which can impact eligibility for programs. This is in addition to the issues with the lender, the IRS, and your estate.",
"Smart parents not wanting to get stuck with a student loan or co-signing on a loan. because rent is so high Are you able to live with your parents? Is there anyway to reduce the cost of rent like renting a room? Can you move somewhere where the rent is cheaper? working 25 hours per week Working 25 hours per week and taking 6 hours is a pretty light schedule. It is not even 40 hours per week. What is stopping you from working 40 hours and paying for school from your salary? In my own life I created a pretty crappy situation for myself when I was a young man. I really wanted to go to a prestigious university, but ended up going to a community college, and then to a university that was lesser known in a less expensive area. I had to work like crazy, upwards of 50 hours per week. I also took a full load in a difficult degree program. You probably don't have to go to the extremes that I went through, but you can work more. Most adults work at their jobs well more than 40 hours per week, then come home and continue to work (on the house, raising kids, trying to start a side business, etc...). So you might as well become an adult now. There are ways to become independent from your parents for FAFSA like have a baby, get married, or join the military. I'd only recommend the last one as you will also receive the GI Bill. Another option is to try and obtain a job that offers financial aid.",
"\"It depends on other factors like your income, \"\"need\"\" and other assets. Parents are expected to contribute 6% of their assets, students at least 35%. 529s and ESAs (which I think may be in the process of being phased out) count as parental assets, which may or may not be a good thing. If this is a significant chunk of money, you need to talk to a professional deeply familiar with the financial aid process. Colleges are rapacious for your money, and you can easily \"\"overpay\"\" for a child's education, particularly if you send your kid to a private school.\"",
"This is a topic you need to sit down and discuss with your parents. Income taxes probably aren't going to be a big issue, and will be refunded in April. Social Security and Medicare will not be refunded, but start you on the road to qualifying for them in the future. How much of you expenses you will now cover will be a family decision; how much of your college expenses you will be responsible for will also need to be discussed. These topics need to be understood before it is time to apply to schools in the fall of your senior year of high school. It is nice to know that you are at least thinking about saving money for your future and for emergencies.",
"a. Depends on whether it is a gift (no tax, but need to file gift tax form against his lifetime exclusion) or a loan (in which case he needs to charge fair market interest, which he can forgive as a gift with no gift tax form, but for which will need to pay tax on the forgiven income. b. This is a definite possibility. Probably depends on the specific lender, but I would imagine this might be questioned, especially if there is an expectation of paying him back. c. Relationships. I would always avoid mixing family and finances in this way. Do you want your family gatherings to be tainted by owing him money? What if you fall on hard times? What if you go on a nice vacation instead of paying him back faster?",
"If the child is a dependent the question is moot. It is accepted that the parent will pay for some, most, or all of the tuition. There is no tax issue for a current student. The payment of tuition helps them qualify as a dependent. There is no need to transfer the money to the child's account; it can be sent directly to the school. If the money is to be used in the future there are accounts such as 529s pre-paid accounts, and Coverdell savings accounts that can be used. All have pluses and minuses, all can impact taxes, and all can impact financial aid calculations.",
"Wrong, the whole point is to help people who need it. The only reason they need the help is because their employer refuses to pay them accordingly. The food stamp program was not created to help coincide with a business model, it was created to make sure people who couldn't afford to eat were able to eat. If Walmart can't make it on it's own then a company like Walmart doesn't deserve to exist. If we had some sort of law requiring businesses to pay higher wages than minimum wage when these businesses meet some sort of requirement then we wouldn't have this problem.",
"Yes, it's considered the students asset, regardless of the custodian aspect. I don't know how you'd propose to put it in a retirement account, even with the earned income to facilitate this, the limit is $5500/yr. The larger issue is parental income. That and parental assets. Tough to game that part of the system to get aid. In the end, one should look to scholarships, both merit and non merit based to maximize college support.",
"Sorry to hear about your spouse's health issues. May he have a speedy and, as far as possible, full recovery. The Patient Protectection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, aka Obamacare) is now the law of the land. Among its many provisions are that insurers may no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, they may not put lifetime caps on benefits, and they may not charge different premiums based on any criteria except age cohort and geographic area (i.e. rates may be higher for 50 year olds than 30 year olds, but sick and healthy 50 year olds living in the same area pay the same). If he gets government health coverage because he's on disability, this may not matter. On the other hand, you might find it better to put him on your employer's policy, because you like the coverage better, the employer covers part of the dependent premium, or some other reason. In any case, they can't discriminate against him or you based on his condition. ETA: Rates may vary by geography as well as age.",
"I was in that same situation years ago with my parents. One way she could apply for a loan in her name without her parents is if she is not currently living with them she shouldn't need them to cosign if she doesn't have bad credit. But if she isn't living with them and they aren't financing her room and board they can't claim her as a dependent so if she really wants to stick it to them she can go and try to politely explain how the loans work and tell them if they don't cosign for her then she will apply on her own (which she can only do while not living with them I believe but not sure) and they will HAVE to STOP claiming her as a dependent on their taxes. If they don't agree she can put her foot down and force them to stop claiming her and tell them she will file her own application anyway and if they continue claiming her and get in trouble for it it's their own fault cause she warned them to stop first. They may agree to cosign rather than lose her as a dependent if it makes that big of a difference on their taxes, if they don't then she can forcefully punish them financially and their taxes will go up. Those were my choices when my parents refused to cosign for me to live at school but that was back in 1999-2000 and things may have changed since then, things also change state by state and I live in PA.",
"To answer the last question first: there are no tax consequences to you. If your family member is married (or has a joint owner of the funds), and so are you, each of them can give each of you the $14K annual gift, which would be $56K. The remainder of the $70K would be subject to either (1) Gift Tax for the tax year in which it was given, or (2) applied to the lifetime exclusion. Either way would require filing a form with the IRS.",
"If you file your taxes jointly, she can pay for you. The money can be spent on any taxable dependent can for qualified expenses. The rules for how much money can be contributed to the account are based off of the number enrolled. Since your spouse has your children enrolled, she can contribute the higher family limit (current $6250 in 2012) but that has no bearing on how she spends the money so long as the expense is a qualified one. She could not pay for a cousin's expenses if that cousin is not listed on her taxes. Because your wife has the HSA, you are not allowed to contribute to an FSA, so be careful with whatever insure you being provided by the university.",
"\"If the account is really only in your father's name and not even \"\"in trust\"\" for you, then you can't touch it, I'm afraid. And taking your family to small-claims court is something of a nuclear option. Hiitting sympathetic family members for a loan may be the best course here;. Anything you do to try to force cooperation is likely to be a \"\"nuclear option\"\" as far as getting back on peaceable terms with your family goes. If you must resort to that, i'd suggest asking whether the local department of youth services, or s religious figure or someone else your father respects, could persuade him to cooperate. He might be more willing to listen to someone else.\"",
"\"It depends on whether your goal is to \"\"teach a man to fish\"\" or setup an ongoing system where his neighbor is required to keep giving him fish every day for the rest of his life. From my point of view a true solution involves getting people standing on their own two feet, not relying on the government for handouts the rest of their life.\"",
"You've already counted the cost. It will cost your family ~$10,000 per month until your father dies, or until there's no money left, to enable him to pretend that he is a successful business owner. I'd ask him when he thinks business is going to pick up again. He may be honest with himself. Or, ask him to consider what will happen if he outlives the money that's going out the door. Ask him if he would like to be bankrupt on top of needing to close his business. (I don't view asking those questions as being unloving, by the way.)",
"Does allowing family to stay at the rental jeopardize my depreciation? No, accumulated depreciation that hasn't been deducted reduces your basis in the event of sale. That doesn't go anywhere. Accumulating more may not be allowed though. If the property is no longer rental (i.e.: personal use, your family member lives there for free), you cannot claim expenses or depreciation on it. If you still rent it out to your family member, but not at the fair market value, then you can only claim expenses up to the rental income. I.e.: you can only depreciate up to the extent the depreciation (after all the expenses) not being over the income generated. You cannot generate losses in such case, even if disallowed. If you rent to your family member at the market rate (make sure it is properly documented), then the family relationship really doesn't matter. You continue accumulating expenses as usual.",
"Stupid article. People on government assistance typically don't have a great deal of money to begin with, and there aren't exactly many items on Amazon that are at 'dollar store' level prices..and unless one is house-bound level of disabled, you really can't fill a whole grocery list by shopping at Amazon as you could running down to Walmart or Save a Lot.",
"\"According to the FAFSA info here, they will count your nonretirement assets when figuring the EFC. The old Motley Fool forum question I mentioned in my comment suggests asking the school for a \"\"special circumstances adjustment to your FAFSA\"\". I don't know much about it, but googling finds many pages about it at different colleges. This would seem to be something you need to do individually with whatever school(s) your son winds up considering. Also, it is up to the school whether to have mercy on you and accept your request. Other than that, you should establish whatever retirement accounts you can and immediately begin contributing as much as possible. Given that the decision is likely to be complicated by your foreign income, you should seek professional advice from an accountant versed in such matters.\"",
"Like for example I use transferwise to send $x to my dad's account in India, would it show my name as the depositor ? That would depend from bank to bank, it may or may not show your name. Would it be considered as income for my dad ? Assuming your parents are Indian Residents for tax purposes. No. It would be considered as Gift. Gifts between father and son are tax free in India and there is no limit. Any special care/precaution to take before using such services ? Not really. Just to be safe, keep a copy of the transfer instruction / details of debit to you account etc, so that if there is enquiry you have all the data handy. Edit: Clarifying the comment, if you are Resident Alien in US for tax purposes, you would be liable to Gift Tax [Not your parents as they are Indian Residents and would follow Indian tax rules]. As per IRS the liability of Gift tax is on Donor subject to limit of $14000 per year per Donee. So you and your wife can gift your father and mother $14000 each. i.e. $56000 each year. Anything more will be taxable or can be reduced from the overall estate limit.",
"The IRS' primary reference Pub 519 Tax Guide for Aliens -- current year online (current and previous years downloadable in PDF from the Forms&Pubs section of the website) says NO: Students and business apprentices from India. A special rule applies .... You can claim the standard deduction .... Use Worksheet 5-1 to figure your standard deduction. If you are married and your spouse files a return and itemizes deductions, you cannot take the standard deduction. Note the last sentence, which is clearly an exception to the 'India rule', which is already an exception to the general rule that nonresident filers never get the standard deduction. Of course this is the IRS' interpretation of the law (which is defined to include ratified treaties); if you think they are wrong, you could claim the deduction anyway and when they assess the additional tax (and demand payment) take it to US Tax Court -- but I suspect the legal fees will cost you more than the marginal tax on $6300, even under Tax Court's simplified procedures for small cases.",
"And how is that abuse, those are their benefits. If they choose to use them to do drugs or eat food they would still get them either way. These people are NOT entitled to them. If they bought the food and didn't eat it, is that abuse too? I fully understand that's not the intent but at the end of the day how you choose to use the benefits you are entitled to is on you, land of the free right?",
"I'm not an expert, just giving my opinion. If you are an owner of a bank account that does not make you liable for their debts unless also cosign on their loans. I would in this join custody of the if only to assist your parents in financial decision making.",
"Yes, you can be on a different plan from your dependents. The only real benefit to having everyone on the sale plan is the Family Deductible and Family Out of Pocket Maximum; which are both generally two times the Individual amounts for the same plan. When you have just two people on the plan, this combination doesn't do anything. When you have three or more people on the same plan you can realize the benefit of combining everyone under one plan. Once one person in the family meets their deductible, any combination of the other family members can meet the rest up to the Family deductible; same goes for the out of pocket max.",
"If you can still work or have income to support yourself, I would wait. contrary to some media reports, Social Security has enough money to cover full benefits for a number of years to come, and there are solutions that don't involve cutting payouts. And as mentioned before it is likely you'll be grandfathered in if there are cuts.",
"This depends on the nature of the income. Please consult a professional CPA for specific advise.",
"Keep in mind that lenders will consider the terms of any loans you have when determining your ability to pay back the mortgage. They'll want to see paperwork, or if you claim it is a gift they will require a letter to that effect from your relative. Obviously, this could effect your ability to qualify for a loan.",
"Assuming the funds are being transferred for his treatment, Yes it should be added to your income and taxed at the bracket you fall into. This is same as a person walking into your clinic and paying you cash/cheque/credit card to get treated.",
"Yes you are eligible even if your spouse is enrolled in Medicare. As long as YOU are not enrolled in Medicare you can contribute to an HSA. You may use the money to pay the cost of qualified medical expenses for you and your spouse. Here are some resources with additional information: HSA FAQ's HSA Resources",
"Your friend would have only been liable for a tax penalty if he withdrew more 529 money than he reported for qualified expenses. That said, if he took the distribution in his name, it triggers a 1099-Q report to the IRS in his name rather than his beneficiaries. This will likely be flagged by the IRS, since it looks like he withdrew the money, but didn't pay taxes and penalties on it, not the beneficiary. In other words, qualified education expenses only apply to the beneficiary, not the plan owner/contributor. In this case, the IRS would request additional documentation to show that the expenses were indeed qualified. To avoid this hassle, it's easiest to make sure the distribution is payed directly to the beneficiary rather than yourself. Once he or she has the check, then have them sign the check over to you or transfer it into your account. Otherwise you trigger an IRS 1099-Q in your name rather than your beneficiary.",
"Require it to survive? hat has that got to do with anything? That is absolutely not the point at all. It is a bridge to the next job. People should not have to sell their homes and move on, especially in this environment, simply because they went without a job for several months more than they expected. If you don't want to collect what is owed to you, then that is fine. Do not assume that counts for others. I know people who live in rich households who pay rent and do not eat at the table with others. They show up in these statistics and could use the help even though it may not seem like it. That isn't the point. And it really isn't clear what the point is when the proposal appears to be causing people to mix their lives up in order to save the government a couple of million over the course of a year. What is disingenuous is to set up an unemployment insurance system and then expect it to be conditional based on all kinds of criteria. One thing you might not be keeping in mind is that the existing system has a error rate of around 20% varying a bit between states. That means around 1 in 5 that are owed insurance payments and sign up never get anything, and around 1 in 5 that are owed nothing for whatever reason end up getting full payments anyway. The more criteria you add to the mechanism the higher that error rate goes. You are quibbling over details that the existing system lacks the capacity to handle.",
"\"To receive unemployment benefits, you must be registered with an employment agency and be actively seeking work, and be willing to accept work should it be offered to you. As a full-time Cornell University student, as you describe yourself, this does not seem a likely scenario. Also, you need to have established a state of residence. It is not clear to me that you have done so, given your travel between the South Pacific, Ithaca, New York, North Carolina etc. You should check with your local state unemployment office in New York State, or perhaps North Carolina, although I don't know if you satisfy residency requirements in either state. They will be able to confirm however. Are your parents claiming you as a dependent on their federal income taxes? If so, I do not believe that you will be able to file for unemployment benefits, regardless of your student status at Cornell University. One more issue to consider: Have you filed tax returns for the income you received from your television production work? I am uncertain of the amount, as you said that you worked for two 4-month intervals making $10,000. That implies $20,000 of earnings over two years. Yet your bullet point number 7 states that you made \"\"10 grand each of the four months\"\". If that means that you made $10,000 per month for four months, then you earned $40,000 per summer, for a total of $80,000 for two summer's worth of work. I don't think unemployment benefits are intended for individuals in your situation.\"",
"In the US, gift tax always falls on the donor, never the recipient, and gifts are not taxable income to the recipient. The IRS could raise questions if there is an employer-employee relationship between donor and recipient; your employer cannot give you money or property (e.g. a Rolex watch) or benefits (e.g. a house to live in rent-free) and claim that it is a gift, so that you do not have to pay income tax on that money. But, your parents need to be careful; that $14K per person is the exemption for the whole year and once they give you that, anything extra (birthday present, Christmas present etc) is subject to gift tax (for them) though you can still enjoy your gifts without any tax issue.",
"I am by no means an expert in this, but I did a little research and came across this page on the SSA site -- Can You Be Entitled To Benefits Retroactively? You may be entitled to monthly benefits retroactively for months before the month you filed an application for benefits. For example, full retirement age claims and survivor claims may be paid for up to six months retroactively. In certain cases, benefits involving disability up to 12 months may be paid retroactively. (This is not true of the special age 72 payments (see §§346-348), black lung benefits (see Chapter 22), medical insurance (see Chapter 24), or SSI (see Chapter 21).) SSA Handbook (emphasis mine) Based on this, it sounds like he may be mistaken. I recommend speaking to a SSA rep to get a solid answer on this though. Not everything on the internet is true.",
"Better for you and for me, yes, but not for the disadvantaged without benefactors. That's the situation I was in. I just wish social security wasn't spent on the elderly, when they have so little left to contribute to our society and economy, in terms of new business, growth, and constructing the future."
] |
[
"\"It seems that counting your father as your dependent shouldn't, in itself, cause him to be ineligible for SNAP. Eligibility requirements for SNAP can be found on this FNS page. There are upper limits on the \"\"countable resources, such as a bank account\"\" that the beneficiary's household may have, and on that household's income. (There are some other requirements, too.) From what I can tell from your question, your father shouldn't be part of your household for SNAP purposes, because: Everyone who lives together and purchases and prepares meals together is grouped together as one household. If you're transferring him money, I assume he's living and eating somewhere else, so it seems you are not part of his household. According to the IRS's Publication 501, your father is not required to be part of your household for IRS purposes to be your dependent. The test to qualify is that a non-child dependent must either: Live with you all year as a member of your household, or Be related to you in one of the ways listed under Relatives who do not have to live with you. However, by the \"\"Special rule for parent\"\", you may be able to use your father as your qualifying person (dependent) to be able to file as \"\"head of household\"\", so long as you pay more than half their support, and \"\"more than half the cost of keeping up a home that was the main home for the entire year for your father\"\". I don't know if in this case the IRS would consider your father \"\"part of your household\"\" or not. Even if the IRS considered your father part of your household based on the way you filed your taxes, I think it's possible, as the IRS and FNS are two different entities, that the definition of your father's household for SNAP purposes could be different from the IRS's.\"",
"This may be best handled by an expert. Look for somebody recommended by a church, homeless shelter, food pantry, office of unemployment, office of disability, or Veterans services to advise you on maximizing support for your father. You want to know what type of help you can give without causing the overall level of support to drop. You may even find there are other avenues of assistance."
] |
3594
|
If I were to get into a life situation where I would not be able to make regular payments, do lenders typically provide options other than default?
|
[
"246882",
"554171",
"525247",
"490294"
] |
[
1,
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"490294",
"554171",
"598313",
"525247",
"246882",
"501433",
"30623",
"177028",
"443728",
"450427",
"141005",
"243627",
"455488",
"14511",
"489401",
"19793",
"422770",
"94586",
"2519",
"152446",
"326225",
"493900",
"532669",
"175782",
"96666",
"567206",
"491680",
"23420",
"491127",
"425157",
"54027",
"247778",
"520026",
"353268",
"395379",
"327441",
"19479",
"527582",
"310871",
"466342",
"452562",
"3092",
"178127",
"305520",
"209063",
"120816",
"515815",
"141320",
"397538",
"373730",
"366215",
"120717",
"533028",
"205652",
"386611",
"263934",
"439003",
"517299",
"537716",
"183237",
"289450",
"77044",
"107699",
"61014",
"357553",
"290325",
"171931",
"344573",
"378872",
"35922",
"500034",
"365988",
"51148",
"329137",
"165824",
"352638",
"291914",
"315275",
"233892",
"80840",
"587682",
"472527",
"178028",
"430911",
"491350",
"357447",
"249643",
"379023",
"453941",
"442241",
"177915",
"22592",
"30311",
"116700",
"339976",
"239611",
"401093",
"181816",
"361698",
"384175"
] |
[
"Some lenders will work with you if you contact them early and openly discuss your situation. They are not required to do so. The larger and more corporate the lender, the less likely you'll find one that will work with you. My experience is that your success in working out repayment plan for missed payments depends on the duration of your reduced income. If this is a period of unemployment and you will be able to pay again in a number of months, you may be able to work out a plan on some debts. If you're permanently unable to pay in full, or the duration is too long, you may have to file bankruptcy to save your domicile and transportation. The ethics of this go beyond this forum, as do the specifics of when it is advisable to file bankruptcy. Research your area, find debt counselling. They can really help with specifics. Speak with your lenders, they may be able to refer you to local non-profit services. Be sure that you find one of those, not one of the predatory lenders posing as credit counselling services. There's even some that take the money you can afford to pay, divide it up over your creditors, allowing you to keep accruing late/partial payment fees, and charge you a fee on top of it. To me this is fraudulent and should be cause for criminal charges. The key is open communication with your lenders with disclosure to the level that they need to know. If you're disabled, long term, they need to know that. They do not need to know the specific symptoms or causes or discomforts. They need to know whether the Social Security Administration has declared you disabled and are paying you a disability check. (If this is the case, you probably have a case worker who can find you resources to help negotiate with your creditors).",
"For insight on what will happen, I suggest looking at the situation from the lender's perspective: If your setbacks are temporary, and you are likely to get back on your feet again, they will protect their investment by making accommodations, and probably charging you extra fees along the way. If your financial hardship seems irredeemable, they probably try to squeeze you for as much as possible, and then eventually take your house, protecting their investment as best they can. If they are going to foreclose, they may be reluctant to do it quickly, as foreclosure is expensive, takes man power, and looks bad on their books. So it may get pushed off for a Quarter, or a fiscal year. But if you are asking if they'll help you out from the goodness of their heart, well, a bank has no heart, and creditors are interested in ROI. They'll take the easiest path to profit, or failing that, the path to minimum financial losses. The personal consequences to you are not their concern. Once you realize this, it may change your thinking about your own situation. If you think you have a path to financial recovery, then you need to make that clear to them, in writing, with details. Make a business case that working with you is in their own best interests. If you cannot make such a case, recognize that they'll likely squeeze you for as much as possible in penalties, fees, interest payments, etc, before eventually foreclosing on you anyway. Don't play that game. If your home is a lost cause financially, plan how to get out from it with the smallest losses possible. Don't pay more than you need to, and don't throw good money after bad.",
"You should look into the Income Contingent Repayment and Income Sensitive Repayment plans to see which one you may qualify for. Another possibility would be to start taking courses part time at another college so that you can qualify for a deferment. I'm not sure that you can qualify for a deferment if you are currently in default. I've found that negotiating did not work in my case, as the collectors' BATNA would result in them getting more money if they refused to negotiate. I also found that every time the student loans went into default, 30% was added to the balance in fees.",
"The answer is generally yes. Depending on your circumstances and where you live, you may be able to get help through a federal, state, or lender program that:",
"I would say generally, the answer is No. There might be some short term relief to people in certain situations, but generally speaking you sign a contract to borrow money and you are responsible to pay. This is why home loans offer better terms then auto loans, and auto loans better than credit cards or things like furniture. The better terms offer less risk to the lender because there are assets that can be repossessed. Homes retain values better than autos, autos better than furniture, and credit cards are not secured at all. People are not as helpless as your question suggests. Sure a person might lose their high paying job, but could they still make a mortgage payment if they worked really hard at it? This might mean taking several part time jobs. Now if a person buys a home that has a very large mortgage payment this might not be possible. However, wise people don't buy every bit of house they can afford. People should also be wise about the kinds of mortgages they use to buy a home. Many people lost their homes due to missing a payment on their interest only loan. Penalty rates and fees jacked up their payment, that was way beyond their means. If they had a fixed rate loan the chance to catch up would have not been impossible. Perhaps an injury might prevent a person from working. This is why long term disability insurance is a must for most people. You can buy quite a bit of coverage for not very much money. Typical US households have quite a bit of debt. Car payments, phone payments, and either a mortgage or rent, and of course credit cards. If income is drastically reduced making all of those payments becomes next to impossible. Which one gets paid first. Just this last week, I attempted to help a client in just this situation. They foolishly chose to pay the credit card first, and were going to pay the house payment last (if there was anything left over). There wasn't, and they are risking eviction (renters). People finding themselves in crisis, generally do a poor job of paying the most important things first. Basic food first, housing and utilities second, etc... Let the credit card slip if need be no matter how often one is threatened by creditors. They do this to maintain their credit score, how foolish. I feel like you have a sense of bondage associated with debt. It is there and real despite many people noticing it. There is also the fact that compounding interest is working against you and with your labor you are enriching the bank. This is a great reason to have the goal of living a debt free life. I can tell you it is quite liberating.",
"I would contact your loan servicing company explain the situation and see if you can renegotiate terms. They may be able to drop the interest rate or lengthen the schedule to reduce the payment amount. I wouldn't default on the loan as that would likely hinder coming to/working in the US in the future. Not knowing your financial situation or country, could you attempt to obtain financing in your own country in order to pay off the US based loan? I would at least attempt to make some sort of payment while you attempt renegotiation, refinancing or pursue a job in the US, even if it technically puts or keeps you in default of the loan. Making any payment at least shows the willingness to pay back the loan, and you're not intentionally defaulting on your obligation.",
"From my understanding by paying your bills more than 5 days late will not lead you into bankruptcy or stop you from getting a new loan in the future, however it may mean that lenders offer you credit at a higher interest rate. This of course would not help you as you are already struggling with your finances. However, no matter how bad you think things might be for you financially, there are always things you can do to improve your situation. Set a Budget The first thing you must do is to set a budget. List down all sources of income you receive each month, including any allowances. Then list all your sources of expenses and spending. List all your bills such as rent, telephone, electricity, car maintenance, credit card and other loans. Keep a diary for a month for all your discretionary spending - including coffees, lunches, and other odd bits and ends. You can also talk with your existing lenders and come to some agreement on reducing you interest rates on your debts and the repayments. But remember any reduction in repayments may increase your repayment period and the total interest you have to pay in the long term. If you need help setting up your budget here are some links to resources you can download to help you get started: Once you set up your budget you want your total income to be more than your total expenses. If it isn't you will be getting further and further behind each month. Some things you can do are to increase your income - get a job/second job, sell some unwanted items, or start a small home business. Some things you can do to reduce your expenses - make coffees and lunches at home before going out and buying these, pay off higher interest debts first, consolidate all your debts into a lower interest rate loan, reduce discretionary spending to an absolute minimum, cancel all unnecessary services, etc. Debt Consolidation In regards to a Debt Consolidation for your existing personal loans and credit cards into a single lower interest rate loan can be a good idea, but there are some pitfalls you should consider. Manly, if you are taking out a loan with a lower interest rate but a longer term to pay it off, you may end up paying less in monthly repayments but will end up paying more interest in the long run. If you do take this course of action try to keep your term to no longer than your current debt's terms, and try to keep your repayments as high as possible to pay the debt off as soon as possible and reduce any interest you have to pay. Again be wary of the fine print and read the PDS of any products you are thinking of getting. Refer to ASIC - Money Smart website for more valuable information you should consider before taking out any debt consolidation. Assistance improving your skills and getting a higher paid job If you are finding it hard to get a job, especially one that pays a bit more, look into your options of doing a course and improving your skills. There is plenty of assistance available for those wanting to improve their skills in order to improve their chances of getting a better job. Check out Centrelink's website for more information on Payments for students and trainees. Other Action You Can Take If you are finding that the repayments are really getting out of hand and no one will help you with any debt consolidation or reducing your interest rates on your debts, as a last resort you can apply for a Part 9 debt agreement. But be very careful as this is an alternative to bankruptcy, and like bankruptcy a debt agreement will appear on your credit file for seven years and your name will be listed on the National Personal Insolvency Index forever. Further Assistance and Help If you have trouble reading any PDS, or want further information or help regarding any issues I have raised or any other part of your financial situation you can contact Centrelink's Financial Information Service. They provide a free and confidential service that provides education and information on financial and lifestyle issues to all Australians. Learn how to manage your money so you can get out of your debt and can lead a much more comfortable and less stressful life into the future.",
"That's tricky. Typically you lock in the minimum monthly payment when you close the loan. You can pay more but not less. Options:",
"First I'd call and make sure there's not some kind of mistake. If that fails, look into reapplying for forbearance. I'm not sure what you got it for before, but I added up your expenses (which you say is more than your income) and from your stated SL payments, it's more than 20% of your income. That should qualify you for a mandatory forbearance. If not, it should definitely get them to approve a financial hardship forbearance. Before either of those, try to get a deferment though as a financial hardship (not the same as a hardship forbearance, but same principle). If none of that works, ask for an income based repayment plan. It'll stretch out your loans but will relieve some of the pressure now. Best of luck!",
"Standard Repayment can be quite burdensome. Fortunately, it looks like FedLoan Servicing offers a variety of payment plan options, and even provides a calculator that you can use to compare them given your adjusted gross income and current loan balances. This won't reduce that $420 to $0 but it may bring it down significantly. I agree with @littleadv that you need legal advice to answer your other questions. That being said, I can tell you that it is possible to go into deferment and/or forbearance at any time (not only before you start making regular payments) as long as you meet the criteria. Otherwise, it may be worth looking through other questions and answers on here about lowering expenses and increasing income. There is a lot of good advice for people in similar situations to yours. If you are truly in hardship, even with a full-time job, you may qualify for supplemental nutrition insurance, a.k.a. food stamps. Best of luck.",
"It sounds like there are no provisions in the loan document for how to proceed in this case. I would view this as creating a brand new loan. The amount owed is going to be (Principal remaining + interest from 2 years + penalties). If you created a new loan for 13 years, that would not be how I would expect a lender to behave. I would expect most repayment plans to be something like make double payments until you are caught up or pay an extra $1000 per month until caught up and then resume normal payments.",
"\"I am lucky enough to have chosen a flexible mortgage that allows me to change payment amounts at certain, very lenient intervals (to a minimum amount). So when I was laid off, the first thing I did was call my bank to lower my payments to a level that allowed me some breathing room, at my new, lower income. If and when my family's income increases, I'll re-adjust my payments to a higher amount. But if you're concerned about the \"\"what if\"\"s in this economy, I'd definitely choose a mortgage that allows for flexibility so that you don't lose your house if you don't have to, particularly if your situation is temporary.\"",
"You can often convert the outstanding balance of a HELOC into a fixed-rate home equity loan, generally with the same bank. Doing this can open possibilities to extend the term allowing for lower monthly payments, but resulting in a larger overall payoff cost. Most HELOCs allow for an interest-only payment or in some cases no-payment at all if you still have unused available credit. Not advising that you do this. If you are struggling with the size of the payment converting to a fixed-rate, fixed-term loan may be what you need. The key will be getting the term such that you can manage both the principal and interest that will be included in the payment.",
"They were kind and let you extend the repayment time on the loan. But that does mean additional interest accumulated during that additional time. You agreed to this; you can't change the contract now. What you can do is find the money to pay off the loan faster, to reduce the total amount of interest you'll be charged.",
"One option is to try to get a month ahead on your mortgage payments. Rather than using the current month's rent to pay the current month's mortgage payments, try to use the previous month's rent to pay the current month's mortgage payments. This should allow you to pay on time rather than late but not unacceptably late.",
"Sounds like you are drowning in debt. Why not just stop paying? It will ruin your credit, but eventually you might be able to settle for much less than you owe and a reasonable interest rate. You will then have a long road to recover you credit, but IMHO this road is much longer and stressful. Hey, you are paying a high interest rate because you are EXPECTED to default. If you were expected to pay back your rates would be lower!",
"Run the numbers in advance. Understand what are the current rates for an additional 2nd mortgage, what are the rates for a brand new mortgage that will cover the additional funds. Understand what they are for another lender. Estimate the amount of paperwork involved in each option (new first, new 2nd, and new lender). Ask the what are the options they can offer you. Because you have estimated the costs in money and time for the different options, you can evaluate the offer they make. What they offer you can range from everything you want to nothing you would accept. What they offer will depend on several factors: Do they care to keep you as a customer?; Do they expect you to walk away?; are they trying to get rid of mortgages like the one you have?; Can they make more money with the plan they are offering you? You will be interested in the upfront costs, the monthly costs, and the amount of time required for the process to be completed.",
"Sounds like you are stuck. These are your options: increase limit Not going to happen. You said you don't qualify. You also won't convince them to let you access more borrowing power by arguing that you can't pay now. No responsible lender would take that bet. negotiate balance Unlikely. This sounds like mostly real debt, not fees. They generally won't write off real debt except if you are in default. They will only negotiate if they think you can't pay. Note that this will probably hurt your credit, as they will report that you didn't pay your debt. pay down balance This is your best and only real option. If you can't afford to pay down the balance you can't afford to borrow more. I am sorry for your situation; it is frustrating. I know how that feels. It is a textbook example of the risk associated with debt. Even if you plan to pay the balance every month, when the unexpected happens, you pay the price.",
"\"The first thing I'd do is to find out your credit (FICO) score. If you have a good one, try to get another card with a lower rate. Then call up the lender, point to your good score, and your alternatives. If you have a bad score, do nothing. \"\"Let sleeping dogs lie.\"\"\"",
"\"If the default happens through mass monetary inflation rather than openly (\"\"We're not paying interest on our bonds\"\") then make sure you pay off your house. There may not be a very long window to do so. If the currency becomes worthless, then it depends on what you have of value that would be accepted by the lender as payment. If you don't have anything, the lender will take it back, as they're probably entitled to on the notes.\"",
"Note that this kind of entry on your credit record may also affect your ability to get a job. Basically, you're going on record as not honoring your commitments... and unless you have a darned good reason for having gotten into that situation and being completely unable to get back out, it's going to reflect on your general trustworthiness.",
"Think about your priorities in life. Everybody is a little different. In my case I have a wife and child, so these are priorities for me, and you might have your own depending on your story. So if I lost my job, and I have no more money coming in (unemployment insurance runs out, savings depleted) then the bank can have the house. I personally would probably drop the house long before it came to that point. The first thing you do is talk to your creditors and work out a deal. At the same time I would stop paying for ALL unnecessary things (cable TV, extra cell phones, automobiles, leaving light bulbs on and turning the heat up over putting on a sweater). If I can't get a good deal from the creditors, I would stop paying the mortgage, find a place to live (family, friends, cheap apartment) while the credit is still good. My advice is to get yourself setup while your credit is good and you have SOME money in the bank. Waiting until the bank decides to foreclose is probably going to make your harder.",
"I defaulted on my federal loans, as have over 8 million others. I have a ton of money in savings from not having paid the loans for several years. I work for myself, so all they can do is make calls asking me to sign up for their payment plans.",
"I have an example that may be interesting for your question. My grandfather had a tennis club around 35 years ago, and some other businesses. Some investments went bad and he was heading for bankruptcy due to the tennis club's expensive payments. So he asked to renegotiate a variable rate rather than a fixed rate, even though the interest rates were going up, not down. The idea was that if the current situation is going to bankrupt you, taking a chance might be better. As an analogy, if you can't swim and you'll drown in 6 feet of water, it doesn't matter that you're taking the risk to go deeper. You might have to take that chance to survive. He did keep the tennis club in the end but that's irrelevant here. For student loans, if I'm not mistaken, declaring bankruptcy doesn't free you of all their debt, so it may not be applicable. And this situation is when renegotiating, not when negotiating the first time. because obviously if you're in trouble financially, taking a loan you know you can't repay is suicide.",
"You could look into refinancing with a bank or credit union. But to weed out options quickly, use a service like LendingTree, which can vet multiple options for you a whole lot more quickly than you could probably do yourself. (I don't work for, or get any benefit from LendingTree.) Whatever you do, try to do all the applying within a short span of time, as to not negatively affect your credit score (read here) by creating extraneous inquiries. Then again, if your credit sucks, you might not qualify for a re-fi. If you are turned down, make your payments on time for six months or so, and try again.",
"\"Let me give you some advice from someone who has experience at both ends - had student loan issues myself and parents ran financial aid department at local university. Quick story of my student loan. I graduated in debt and could not pay at first due to having kids way too early. I deferred. Schools will have rules for deference. There are also federal guidelines - lets not get specific on this though since these change every year it seems. So basically there is an initial deferment period in which any student can request for the repayments to be deferred and it is granted. Then there is an extended deferment. Here someone has to OK it. This is really rather arbitrary and up to the school/lender. My school decided to not extend mine after I filled out a mound of paperwork and showed that even without paying I had basically $200 a month for the family to live off past housing/fixed expenses. Eventually they had to cave, because I had no money so they gave me an extended deferment. After the 5 years I started paying. Since my school had a very complex way to pay, I decided to give them 6 months at a time. You would think they would love that right? (On the check it was clearly stated what months I was paying for to show that I was not prepaying the loan off) Well I was in collections 4 months later. Their billing messed up, set me up for prepayment. They then played dumb and acted like I didn't but I had a picture of the check and their bank's stamp on the back... They couldn't get my loan out of collections - even though they messed up. This is probably some lower level employee trying to cover their mistake. So this office tells creditors to leave me alone but I also CANNOT pay my loan because the credit collection agency has slapped a 5k fee on the 7k loan. So my loan spent 5 years (kid you not) like this. It was interest free since the employee stopped the loan processing. Point being is that if you don't pay the lender will either put your loan into deferment automatically or go after you. MOST (not all) schools will opt for deferment, which I believe is 2 years at most places. Then after that you have the optional deferment. So if you keep not paying they might throw you into that bucket. However if you stop paying and you never communicate with them the chances of you getting the optional deferment are almost none - unless school doesn't know where you live. Basically if you don't respond to their mail/emails you get swept into their credit collection process. So just filling out the deferment stuff when you get it - even if they deny it - could buy you up to 10 years - kid you not. Now once you go into the collection process... anything is game. As long as you don't need a home/car loan you can play this game. What the collection agency does depends on size of loan and the rules. If you are at a \"\"major\"\" university the rules are usually more lax, but if you are at the smaller schools, especially the advertised trade/online schools boom - better watch out. Wages will be garnished very soon. Expect to go to court, might have to hire an attorney because some corrupt lenders start smacking on fees - think of the 5k mine smacked on me. So the moral of the story is you will pay it off. If you act nice, fill out paperwork, talk to school, and so on you can probably push this off quite a few years. But you are still paying and you will pay interest on everything. So factor in that to the equation. I had a 2.3% loan but they are much higher now. Defaulting isn't always a bad thing. If you don't have the money then you don't have it. And using credit cards to help is not the thing to do. But you need to try to work with the school so you don't incur penalties/fees and so that your job doesn't have creditors calling them. My story ended year 4 that my loan was in collection. A higher up was reviewing my case and called me. Told her the story and emailed her a picture of their cashed check. She was completely embarrassed when she was trying to work out a plan for me and I am like - how about I come down tomorrow with the 7k. But even though lender admitted fault this took 20+ calls to agencies to clear up my credit so I could buy a house. So your goal should be:\"",
"Maybe. As other have said, doing this deliberately is fraud, but almost impossible to prove unless you've lied on the loan documents or discussed your plans with witnesses. The lender may consider negotiating a partial write-down of the loan, but that is far from their only option. Depending on the details of the loan agreement they may be able to garnish your wages, seize your property, or walk into your business with a sheriffs' deputy and empty your cash register. They may also be able to add their costs for recovering the money to your debt.",
"All new loans must be originated from the direct loan program. In most cases, the Stafford loan is better, as the rate is lower (6.8% vs. 7.9% for the PLUS loan). There aren't many viable alternatives for most people. Private student loans exist, but carry significantly higher rates and worse payment terms. The exceptions are programs that exist for professions like medicine and dentistry. Credit cards usually carry higher rates and limited credit lines, but you have the option of negotiating the balance down or declaring bankruptcy to discharge the debt if you are unable to repay.",
"Several answers already addressed the issue that you wouldn't want to get into this situation in the first place, but looking forward the problem is that you want to spend 2000, whilst you don't have it (or at least not 3200). Besides finding a way to get more loans/credit than you already have, you can consider whether you could survive without spending the 2k in question.",
"You could do that once, maybe, if the lender negotiates rather than going to court and taking you for everything you have plus having you wages garnished for the next several decades. And in the process, you would destroy your credit rating, making it impossible to borrow again any time soon. Doing this deliberately is fraud ... But worse than that, it's blatently stupid. You are likely to lose far more than you could gain.",
"If you have a minimum monthly payment amount of $190, then you have to make a payment every month. If you pay only every 3 months (even if you pay 3 times the minimum amount, or much more), you would not be making the minimum monthly payment for each month: one month would get the minimum monthly payment, plus a lot more, then the following 2 months you would be in default because you didn't pay the minimum amount for that month! Interest is usually accrued daily, so you want to make the payments as early as possible. Pay back as much as you can afford each month, as soon as the money comes in. When computing how much you can afford, if you haven't already done so, it may be a good idea to keep a little bit aside (at least the first few months, to build up a little security pillow), just in case you need it (you won't be able to get money back from those overpayments if you need any money for an emergency).",
"It's sad. My mother lost her job after a brutal divorce. BOA bought up Countrywide, then when my mother pleaded for assistance BOA said they could not help her unless she was behind/in default of her mortgage. She tried to do a deed-in-lieu with a lawyer and BOA refused to accept the deed-in-lieu many times. Then BOA sold her mortgage to Green Tree (?) and they refused her deed-in-lieu as well. This went on for over 2 years and they foreclosed on the house. I told my mother to sue because they should have accepted her deed-in-lieu because it was approved by the court in her bankruptcy but she was tired of trying to save her house that she just walked away. 6 months after she left and moved in with my sister Green Tree called her offering a refinance at a lower rate and a mortgage payment that was less than a typical car payment. Now 5 years later my mom is just going to pay cash for her house and never do a mortgage again.",
"You could do a voluntary repossession. While a repossession never looks good on your credit a voluntary repossession is slightly better. A good friend of mine had a situation like this about 11 years ago. She was in an accident didn't have replacement coverage insurance and was left with a large chunk of debt on a wrecked vehicle that she then rolled into a new car. In the end it came down to the simple fact that she could not afford a car loan on a vehicle that never was worth as much as she owed. Since the car was worth less than the loan she really couldn't sell it to fix the problem. She called and arranged a voluntary repossession. She stopped making payments, and parked the car till they came and picked it up. (Took about 4 months and 20 phone calls from her for them to come get it.) In the mean time, I purchased her a much older used but decent car for a couple thousand and she paid me back over the next year. The total she paid me back was less than the money she would have paid in the 4 months it took them to come get the car. In fact by the time they picked up the car she had paid back over half on the car I bought her. Yes the repossession did stay on her credit for seven years but during that time she was approved for a mortgage, cellphone plans, and credit cards etc. Therefore I don't know that it did that much damage to her credit. When her car was sold at auction by the repo company it sold for much less than the loan amount. Technically she was on the hook for the remaining amount. The outstanding balance on the loan was then sold several times to several different collection agencies. Over the years since then she has gotten letters every now and then demanding she pay the amount off, she ignores these. Most of these letters even included very favorable terms (full forgiveness for 20% of the amount) At this point the statute time has run out on the debt so there is no recourse for anyone to collect from her. The statute time limit varies from state to state. Some states it is as long as 10 years in others it is as short as 3 years. What this means is that counting from the date of the repossession, incurrance of debt, last payment, or agreement to pay whichever is later if the statute period has elapsed and the lender/collector has not filed a suit against you by the end of the period then they have effectively abandoned the debt and cannot collect. Find out what that period of time is in your state. If you can avoid the collection agencies till that period runs out you are scott free. You just have to make sure that you do not ever send them any money, or agree to pay them anything as this resets the calendar. If you do not want to wait for the calendar to run out if you wait long enough you will probably be offered favorable terms to pay only a fraction of the remaining amount, you just have to wait it out. Note, I normally would not endorse anyone not paying off their debts. However sometimes it is necessary and it is for this type of situation that we have things like this and bankruptcy.",
"You could walk away from your mortgage. When you signed the mortgage you and the bank agreed that if you stopped making payments the bank would get the house. Give them the house. Of course this would be a huge hit to your credit score and you would probably not be able to obtain another mortgage at a decent rate for at least 7 years. You may have trouble obtaining other financing as well (i.e. auto loans). If you plan on moving to an apartment and don't need to finance car purchases this may be OK.",
"I've kind of been there myself. I stretched my finances for the deposit on a house, and lived off my credit card for a few months to build up what I was short on the deposit. Add some unexpected car repairs, and I ended up with £10k on the card. The problem I had then was that interest on the card ran at around 20%, and although I could meet the interest payments I couldn't clear the £10k. I simply went and talked to my bank. In the UK there are some clear rules about banks giving customers a chance to restructure their debts. That's the BANK doing it, not some shady loan-shark. We went through my finances and established that in principle it was repayable. So I got a 2-year unsecured loan at around 5%, cleared the card, and spent the next 2 years paying off a loan that I could afford. My credit score is still aces. Forget the loan-sharks. Talk to your bank. If they're crap, talk to another bank. If no bank is going to help you, consider bankrupcy as per advice above. Debt restructuring companies are ALWAYS a con, no exceptions.",
"\"Bankruptcy should be your last option, and you will find that BK will not resolve most of your problems, and create many more problems. There are two kinds of BK that are available to the average person, Ch13 debt repayment and Ch7 liquidation. Both have severe repercussions and lasting effects on your credit (7-10 years, after discharge). And the calculations required under the 2005 BAPCPA are complex and may require help to understand. Ch7 liquidation is the more severe course, and the trustee would liquidate assets that exceed exemptions (vary by state) to pay your creditors. Ch13 debt repayment is hard, and only 20-25% of those who pursue that route complete the debt repayment plan. Your credit score for either course would suffer greatly (200-250 points) and would remain reduced for years, especially since you would have to rebuild credit. And the law is flawed both in design and execution as there is no reward for successful debt repayment, few finish their repayment plan (20-25%), the mean recovery for unsecured creditors in repayment is zero (thus does not help creditors), and leaves the debtor with damaged credit for years (not a fresh start). Although you may have made some decisions that have placed you in a difficult position, you can find solutions to resolve these problems. You may find that simply learning to make better choices will improve your situation. Take a financial education course (such as the Dave Ramsey course), and learn how to budget, and make better choices. The LearnVest website offers a simple way to budget by dividing budgeting into only three (3) categories with suggested percentages for each, essentials (<50%), financial priorities (>20%), and lifestyle (<30%). The damage to your credit from the derogatory effects of BK would linger for years, but the damage from poor payment history declines much quicker, and loses most of the effect after 2 years (and should you keep the accounts open, leaves you with good history and longer account history), thus the effects decline to minimal after as little as 2 years of good behavior/payment history. Make a plan that prioritizes the debts, and how you will resolve the problem, and work the plan. Based upon the income and debts you mention, the situation you have may not be as bad as it appears. You may be getting bad advice, especially from a debt settlement company that might be more interested in their fees than in your problem. Since you \"\"want to play fair and continue with payments, but when people start to get greedy like this I am ready to just stop caring\"\", you really need two things, a plan, and a friend, someone who you can talk to honestly and openly, and who can support you as you work through the plan you make. Since you \"\"would prefer the option that will give me the most peace of mind and allow me to start saving money as soon as possible\"\", you need to find an approach that fits your goals. Your statement that you \"\"don't plan on ever using credit again\"\", fits with the Dave Ramsey philosophy and resonates with many of us who have learned that those who grant credit are often harsh masters. Now that you have provided more information, the advice below expands upon the above reflecting upon your specific situation. Since you make $62K/year, you may be close to the median income, and the BAPCPA (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) has a presumption of abuse for filing Ch7 when you have above median income (for your state, check the law). As you may be pushed into Ch13 debt repayment anyway, examine what you could do to repay the debt (over 5 years, 60 months, as that would be a Ch13 repayment duration). Since you have $8K of revolving (unsecured?) debt, that would be repaid in Ch13 over 60 months at about $133/month (no interest), but you would also be paying 10% to the trustee. There might be some portion of your auto debt which is unsecured, and also be repaid unsecured, suppose that is $3000. That would add another $50/month to the plan. The car could be repaid over 60 months (including interest), so you might be repaying $300/month for the car (estimate), although the payment could be higher or lower depending upon how much of the value of the car is unsecured. The trustee might object that the car is too expensive (depends upon the value, and the trustee), and require be liquidated. Since BK excludes relief for student loans, you might find yourself paying the student loans at the same payment. Your $62K income suggests that you have about $4200/month (guess, after taxes). The mortgage payment is higher than 25% ($1050-1100 would be ideal for your income). But after your mortgage payment you should still have about $3900. Even with $300 for credit card debt, $500 for car, and $400 for student loans (guessing), that leaves $2700 for essentials (utilities, food), lifestyle (cellphone, entertainment), and savings. You might find a friend who is good at budgeting who would be willing to help you craft a budget and be your \"\"responsibility partner\"\" to help you stick to the budget. Here is a sample plan (your mileage may vary), Essentials (50%, $2100): $2180 Financial (30%, 1230): $1250 Lifestyle (20%, 840): $500 (pick up slack here, as you have high debt load)\"",
"You can take a out loan against your 401k, which means you won't be penalized for the withdrawal. You will have to pay that amount back though, but it can help since the interest will be lower than a lot of credit card rates. You could refinance your home if you can get a reasonable interest rate. You could also get a 0% APR balance transfer credit card and transfer the balance and pay it off that way. There are a lot of options. I would contact a Credit Counselor and explore further options. The main objective is to get you out of debt, not put you more in debt - whether that is refinancing your mortgage, cashing in an annuity, etc.",
"Two choices: 1. Sell everything you have and move to North Korea. 2. Questions regarding loans, refinancing, mortgages, credit cards, investing and anything else that may be related to personal finance should be directed towards the subreddit /r/personalfinance. You will receive a probation (temporary ban) for disregarding this rule.",
"I have this exact same issue. Event the dollar amounts are close. Here is how I am looking at the problem. Option 1: Walk away. Goodbye credit for 7+ years. Luckily I can operate in cash with the extra $800 per month, but should I have a non medical emergency I might be SOL. With a family I am not sure I am willing to risk it. What if my car dies the month after I quit paying and the bank chooses to foreclose? What if my wife or I lose our job and we have no credit to live? Option 2: Short sale. Good if I can let it happen. I might or might not be on the hook for the balance depending on the state. If I am on the hook, okay, suck but I could live. If I am not on the hook, it is going to hurt my credit the same as foreclosure. It isn't easy, you need an experienced real estate agent and a willing bank. Option 3: Keep paying. I am going for this. At the moment I can still afford the house even though it is at the expense of some luxuries in my live. (Cable TV, driving to work, a new computer). I am wagering the market fixes itself in the next several years. Should the S hit the fan in most any manner, the mortgage is the first thing I stop paying. I don't know what other options I have. I can't re-fi; too upside down. I can't sell; the house isn't worth the mortgage (and I don't have the cash for the balance). I can't walk away; the credit hit wouldn't be worth the monthly money gain. I have no emotions about the house. I am in a real bad investment and getting out now seems like a good idea, but I am going to guess that having the house 10 years from now is better than not. I don't care about the bank at all, nor do I feel I owe them the money because I took the loan. They assumed risk loaning me the money in the first place. The minute it gets worse for me than for the bank; I will stop paying. Summary Not much to do without a serious consequence. I would suggest holding out for the very long term if you feel you can. The best way to minimize the bad investment is to ride it out and pray it gets better. I am thinking I am a landlord for the next 10 years.",
"Another option, not yet discussed here, is to allow the loan to go into default and let the loaning agency repossess the property the loan was used for, after which they sell it and that sale should discharge some significant portion of the loan. Knowing where the friend and property is, you may be able to help them carry out the repossession by providing them information. Meanwhile, your credit will take a significant hit, but unless your name is on the deed/title of the property then you have little claim that the property is yours just because you're paying the loan. The contract you signed for the loan is not going to be easily bypassed with a lawsuit of any sort, so unless you can produce another contract between you and your friend it's unlikely that you can even sue them. In short, you have no claim to the property, but the loaning agency does - perhaps that's the only way to avoid paying most of the debt, but you do trade some of your credit for it. Hopefully you understand that what you loaned wasn't money, but your credit score and earning potential, and that you will be more careful who you choose to lend this to in the future.",
"It depends on your equity(assets - liabilities). If you have a lot of equity, banks will be happy to lend you money because they now they can always seize your assets. If you don't have a lot of equity another option is to go to hard money lenders. They charge high rates and some of them lend-to-own, but is an option. And consider what Pete said, you might be a little optimistic.",
"To littleadv's comment, walking away may be the best option. If your numbers are as described, any ideas we could offer on earning or raising cash would be best to use as money to live on, not to pay down a loan on an under water house. the double wide you propose to buy will like cost less than your HELOC balance. I'd see if you could buy that home first, renting the house, and only default after you're in the new place.",
"\"The comments are getting too much, but to verify that you are not insane, you are being bullied. It sounds like this is a sub-prime loan, of which you are wisely trying to get out of. It also sounds like they are doing everything in their power to prevent you from doing so. For them you are a very profitable customer. This might take some legwork for you, but depending on how bad they are violating the law they might be willing to forgive the loan. What I am trying to say, it might be very worth your while! Your first step will be looking for any free resources at your disposal: Just be cautious as many \"\"credit representation\"\" type business are only offering loan consolidation. That is not what you need. Fight those bastards!\"",
"\"You also want to make sure that the loan is being re-amortized (sometimes called \"\"recasting\"\"). Without this, you are still responsible for the interest payments according to the original amortization table. If you re-amortize the loan with a principal that is lower than on the table, you will reduce the amount of interest you owe each period, which means that if you maintain the same payment you will pay less in total interest. It's important to realize that most people re-amortize to reduce the payment amount but not the term. Also, not all loans can be re-amortized, and some banks limit how often it can be done.\"",
"My advice to you? Act like responsible adults and owe up to your financial commitments. When you bought your house and took out a loan from the bank, you made an agreement to pay it back. If you breach this agreement, you deserve to have your credit score trashed. What do you think will happen to the $100K+ if you decide to stiff the bank? The bank will make up for its loss by increasing the mortgage rates for others that are taking out loans, so responsible borrowers get to subsidize those that shirk their responsibilities. If you were in a true hardship situation, I would be inclined to take a different stance. But, as you've indicated, you are perfectly able to make the payments -- you just don't feel like it. Real estate fluctuates in value, just like any other asset. If a stock I bought drops in value, does the government come and bail me out? Of course not! What I find most problematic about your plan is that not only do you wish to breach your agreement, but you are also looking for ways to conceal your breach. Please think about this. Best of luck with your decision.",
"I suppose it depends on the circumstances, but I wouldn't advise it. If you default on a loan to the bank it might ruin your credit, if you default to a family member it has the potential for much more damage in the form of fostering bad feelings and hurt the relationship.",
"As someone with a lot of student loan debt, I can relate - the first thing you should do is read the promissory note on your current loans - there might be information there you can use. For govt loans (stafford, etc) made after July 1, 2006 the interest rate is going to be fixed and even a federal direct consolidation is not going to lower the rates themselves. If anything, consolidation will just increase the repayment period, which means you'll end up paying more in the long run. Most private Loans usually offer variable interest rates, which today are quite low. But unless your financial situation is very comfortable and stable, consolidating out of federally guaranteed loans into private loans might not be the best path. You might lose options like deferment, forbearance, and maybe even things like a death benefit (if you die, your loans die with you). related - if you have a co-signer you don't get that death benefit! But refinancing into a variable rate private loan is going to push a lot of risk to you in terms of interest rate inflation, etc. Most financial professionals will agree that interest rates can only go up in the long run. Keep in mind, student loans are completely unsecured - meaning lenders are taking a fairly large risk in loaning money (and probably why the fed govt has to guarantee most of them). I've heard of people borrowing against their home equity to pay down student loan debt - but I can't think of a reason you'd want to substitute secured for unsecured debt and possibly lose the loan interest tax deduction. The bottom line is you're unlikely to find an alternative lending source at a lower interest rate for an unsecured student loan. Another option may be the income based repayment plan. If you qualify, it caps student loan monthly payments at 15% of your discretionary income (discretionary is your income minus whatever the poverty threshold income amount is). And if that 15% doesn't even cover the interest on the loans, the govt picks up the tab for the difference (for up to 3 years). You have to re-qualify every year by sending in all sorts of documentation, but if you somehow stay on IBR for 25 years, your loans are then forgiven. Obviously the downside here is that you are probably paying little to no principal, but if you do the math and determine that your IBR payment would be next to nothing, and your current situation is barely paying interest-only... well, maybe IBR isn't a bad thing for a couple of years (or 25 if you think you will never have a larger income). Personally, I went through all these options as well and decided that my best option was to just earn more money... a 2nd job or side project here and there helps me pay down the debt faster, and with less risk, than moving to private variable rate loans.",
"I wouldn't like to say either way what you should do, not being an financial advisor or lawyer, but I did find an interesting article on nytimes.com: Walk Away From Your Mortgage! that you might also find helpful to frame your decision. It has some interesting information on defaults, it says this: Mortgage holders do sign a promissory note, which is a promise to pay. But the contract explicitly details the penalty for nonpayment — surrender of the property. The borrower isn’t escaping the consequences; he is suffering them. In some states, lenders also have recourse to the borrowers’ unmortgaged assets, like their car and savings accounts. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond found that defaults are lower in such states, apparently because lenders threaten the borrowers with judgments against their assets. But actual lawsuits are rare. And given that nearly a quarter of mortgages are underwater, and that 10 percent of mortgages are delinquent, White, of the University of Arizona, is surprised that more people haven’t walked. He thinks the desire to avoid shame is a factor, as are overblown fears of harm to credit ratings. Probably, homeowners also labor under a delusion that their homes will quickly return to value. White has argued that the government should stop perpetuating default “scare stories” and, indeed, should encourage borrowers to default when it’s in their economic interest. This would correct a prevailing imbalance: homeowners operate under a “powerful moral constraint” while lenders are busily trying to maximize profits. More important, it might get the system unstuck. If lenders feared an avalanche of strategic defaults, they would have an incentive to renegotiate loan terms. In theory, this could produce a wave of loan modifications — the very goal the Treasury has been pursuing to end the crisis.",
"\"It can be difficult when all your disposable income is spoken for. Your options depend on how good your credit is and how flexible your expenses are. I don't have all the answers without more details (possibly not then). However, couple of points of advice: Paying off that credit card debt (and not adding any more to it) is your #1 priority. You should make minimum payments to every other debt until you have done that because the interest on it will kill you in the mean time. It is always optimal to pay the maximum to your highest interest debt and minimum to all other debts. 11% doesn't sound very good on your house loan. You may want to consider refinancing. That is, if you can get a lower rate. You may also want to get a longer term loan (if you have enough discipline to use the extra income to actually pay off your credit card and then the put it toward the house when the cards are paid off). Look at options to increase your income, at least temporarily. Second jobs and such. When your finances are more in order, you can back off. The debt \"\"trap\"\" is behavioral. We humans tend to increase our spending until we can't any more. But the reason we can't spend any more is that we have increased our debt until we have no flexible income. Then we are stuck for a long time and have few options. The only way out (long term) is to change our habits so that we don't increase spending each time we pay down a debt or get an increase to our income. Financial discipline is the only way to have financial security. Almost always the first step is to pay off credit cards and stop maintaining a balance (always pay off every card at the end of each month). Then start paying off other debts from highest interest rate to lowest. This is a hard challenge and one most of us face at some point in our lives. Good luck!\"",
"No, you were not the stupid one. Yes many of these mortgage companies will only work with you if you are behind. . . no idea why, but I will say that yes I have seen it. You do not have to deal with the stress. . . . working with mortgage companies is not a fun proposition, they don't know what they are doing half the time. You can leave and move whenever you want. . . even if their payments are better now who knows how long till they can actually see the place for enough to move. I work in bankruptcy I have seen the stresses this causes. . . it is not fun, even if they are doing better now, try not to envy them, it is not fun.",
"Do you have any legal options? Not really. Citi is under no obligation to refinance your loan on your terms. But that goes both ways, and you are under no obligation to refinance with Citi! Get more quotes from another lender. It'll feel really good when you find a lender that wants your business. You might get a better deal. And think how good it will feel to cut ties with Citi!",
"If you can't sell it, refinance the bugger. Even if you can knock the interest rate down to 8% and take out a 3-year loan, you'll save about $100 per month. Or really kill the payment (but pay more interest) by taking out another 6-year. A 6-year at 9% on $12k is only $215/month. My credit union routinely advertises specials on car loans. It shouldn't be difficult to get out of the usurious loan you have now. As for others' advice about getting another job, having been a PhD student I hesiate to suggest that you get another one, because your job is probably your life right now. But can your wife (or even you) start a blog on a subject that interests you? A few posts a week add up over time, and pretty soon you have a real asset that can be another basket to put your eggs in.",
"I know there are plenty of people who have to deal with the stress and know it isn't pleasant...but it's hard to see how much worse it is as far as stress goes because I have to pay $1950 in rent each month and don't get the option to default and if I do, I don't get to wait for 8 months while the banks get their paperwork in order to evict me. I want to believe that in the end I will come out ahead but either I've been incredibly smart with my life decisions or incredibly naive...",
"Whatever you choose for a remedy (my first impulse is to suggest bankruptcy) you should protect your retirement plans. These are immune from most collection actions, the exception being govt debts (e.g. taxes) and student loans. The sad part is that the student loans won't go away except by paying them off. Miss one payment and it will hound you for 10 years. Bankruptcy will stop you from getting a home loan for only two years. Unless you have the discipline to live like a monk for a decade it sounds like you're headed for a train wreck. The kids will have to cut back to junior college or some other method of reducing costs and as hard as it sounds, don't cosign for any more student loans. Kids are more resilient than you think and they'll probably come up with their own solutions like scholarships, work study and off campus jobs. I hate to keep beating the bankruptcy horse but at least that way you could still keep your house and car. Otherwise you risk losing either or both from missed payments. I actually hope that you can avoid bankruptcy so I suggest first you talk to a financial adviser or bankruptcy attorney to see if this is in fact right for you. But if it's just the shame of the scarlet letter B then consider that pride doesn't keep a roof over your head or food in your belly.",
"JoeTaxpayer mentioned a budget. Staying on top of your spending will be the result of getting out from under this debt. You may have Excel on your PC now, if not Open Office is free which has a program that handles finance applications. There is budgeting software for free out there. Youneedabudget.com is a lot better but cost a little. It keeps me from spending money I don't necessarily have as I can see a result month to month from having outflow of cash. As Joe mentioned - no more lattes in the near future which will help you pay off this debt which will be a bigger relief than a fashion statement. Having used budgeting software and attempted to stay in budget has been useful. I still over spend a little on food and can see the ramifications immediately. In short, try creating and sticking to a budget no matter the urge. As far as insolvency is concerned I'd struggle with paying it down before I do that. The thought passed my mind but I bit the bullet. DO NOT walk away from the debt however. That isn't a good idea Either. Budget and bite.",
"I wish this was the case in Canada. I lost about 60k on my home in one year and have to sell now to move for work. In the US I could simply default and the bank takes the loss. In Canada if I default, CMHC pays the bank, then I'm sued by CMHC and stuck with the bad debt. Simply put - here the onus of repayment is on the lender, not the lending institution. It sounds good until you are the one looking at losing your shirt.",
"If your parents can afford to shell out $1,250 a month for 5 years, they would pretty much have the debt paid off, provided the credit card companies don't start playing games with rates. If that payment is too high, maybe you could kick in $5k every few months to knock the principal down. If they think the business can keep puttering along without losing more money, that may be the way to go. Five years is long enough that the business or property may have recovered some value. Another option, depending on the value of the home, could be a reverse mortgage. I don't know how the economy has affected those programs, but that might be a good option to get the debt cleared away. My grandfather was in a similar position back in the 70's. He owned taverns in NYC that catered to an industrial clientele... the place was booming in the 60s and my grandfather and his brother owned 4 locations at one point. But the death of his brother, post-Vietnam malaise, suburban exodus and shutting of industry really hurt the business, and he ended up selling out his last tavern in 1979 -- which was a dark hour in NYC history and real estate values. A few years later, that building sold for a tremendous amount of money... I believe 10x more. I don't know whether there was a way for his business to survive for another 5-7 years, as I was too young to remember. But I do remember my grandfather (and my father to this day) being melancholy about the whole affair. It's hard to have to work part-time in your 60's and be constantly reminded that your family business -- and to some degree a part of your life -- ended in failure. The stress of keeping things afloat when you're broke is tough. But there's also a mental reward from getting through a tough situation on your own. Good luck!",
"You say you are underwater by $10k-15k. Does that include the 6% comission that selling will cost you? If you are underwater and have to sell anyway, why would you want to give the bank any extra money? A loss will be taken on the sale. Personally i would want the bank to take as much of that loss as possible, rather than myself. Depending on the locale the mortgage may or may not be non-recourse, ie the loan contract implies that the bank can take the house from you if you default, but if 'non-recourse' the bank has no legal way to demand more money from you. Getting the bank to cooperate on a short sale might be massively painful. If you have $ in your savings, you might have more leverage to nego with the bank on how much money you have to give them in the event the loan is not 'non-recourse'. Note that even if not 'non-recourse', it's not clear it would be worth the banks time and money to pursue any shortfall after a sale or if you just walk away and mail the keys to the bank. If you're not worried about your credit, the most financially beneficial action for you might be to simply stop paying the mortgage at all and bank the whole payments. It will take the bank some time to get you out of the house and you can live cost-free during that time. You may feel a moral obligation to the bank. I would not feel this way. The banks and bankers took a ton of money out of selling mortgages to buyers and then selling securities based on the mortgages to investors. They looted the whole system and pushed prices up greatly in the process, which burned most home buyers and home owners. It's all about business -my advice is to act like a business does and minimize your costs. The bank should have required a big enough downpayment to cover their risk. If they did not, then they are to blame for any loss they incur. This is the most basic rule of finance.",
"Others have covered the usual vehicles for getting money out of a property. There's another category of home loan called a hard money loan. It would take a lot of inquiries to find a hard money loan given your needs, but chances are its doable. The terms can be onerous, and hard money lenders don't mess around when it comes to foreclosing after a few missed payments. It's an off-the-radar industry and the private lenders and specialized trustees operate together with strike-force precision. Trustees normally should be trust-able by borrower and lender, but in the case I describe below, one man owned the small company that lent, and the small company that acted as trustee. Borrower beware. Yet, if your credit score and income are dismal, but your home equity is great, hard money is the only way to borrow against your home. In making hard money loans, lenders don't consider your credit score or income, just how much equity is in the property. I daresay they hope you'll default. They don't always hang onto the loans. If you look like a payer instead of someone they can foreclose on, they might sell the loan to someone who wants a stable monthly income. You don't know a thing about that person. A Cautionary Tale: *Check out HankandHelen.blogspot.com for a currently-unfolding saga, in which an elderly couple's grandson convinced them to let him take title to their house, borrow against it, invest the proceeds, and share the profits. It didn't work that way. He went through hard-money lenders. He borrowed $360,000 and then $65,000. Those were mysteriously paid off (total mystery at this point), and he borrowed $47,000. About a year later, he lost the house by defaulting the $47,000 loan. He was only about $2000 behind in payments when the trustee issued a notice of default, followed by a notice of sale. The trustee put the place up for auction, which didn't require a court order: that's the way it is in California and many western states, and a few others. The hard money lender bought the loan at auction for $83,000, and a home worth about $800,000 no longer belonged to the grandson. A fundraiser brought in about $120,000 and the couple bought a mobile home in a mobile home park. The acre of land and swimming pool they used to own will be for sale soon, or possibly demolished for a mansion to be built. (House in the area go for about $2.5M when improved with very large, new houses.)* I poke around PropertyShark.com when I see a house bought cheaply at a foreclosure auction. Quite often the (former) borrower had inherited the house, treated it like a piggy bank, defaulted, and boom--no more house. It never makes sense to put a house at risk for a small amount like $5000. If you can't pay those credit card bills, the lenders can hound you and maybe get a court order to extract something from your checking account every month, but they can't take your belongings. When you sign a deed of trust or mortgage, you're giving a third party the right to kick you out of your home and take possession of it. You don't have any say in the matter. You might go to court, and say whatever you feel like saying, but if you owe many payments and can't pay them immediately, you're very likely to be out of luck. Someone mentioned paying off credit card balances with the highest interest rates first. That's done by throwing whatever cash you have at them while paying the minimum on the lower-rate balances. That's financially sound, but there's a technique that turns out to be more motivating for some, which is attacking the lowest balance first. It leads to the quickest reduction in the number payments you're required to make every month, and quickly lets you add the money you were applying to the smallest balance to the payment you make on the next-smallest balance. (Close each card as you pay it off if you don't want to accumulate debt again.) P.S. I don't know what your home's feed is, so I didn't address that. If it's some kind of rental income, every lender I have encountered credits 75% of the current monthly rent toward your gross income. They assume there will be vacancies and other costs.",
"You should definitely pay the remaining loan amount as quickly as possible. A loan in bad debts means that Bank has written it off books as its a education loan and there is no collateral. The defaults do get report to CIBIL [Credit Information Bureau India] and as such you will have difficulties getting credit card / new loans in future. Talk to the Bank Manager and ask can you regularize the loan? There are multiple options you would need to talk and find out; 1. You can negotiate and arrive at a number. Typically more than the principal outstanding and less than interest and penalties charged. 2. You can request to re-do the monthly payments with new duration, this will give you more time. 3. May one time large payment and subsequent amount in monthly payments. At the end its Bank's discretion whether to accept your terms or not.",
"\"How much is rent in your area? You should compare a rental payment versus your mortgage payment now, bearing in mind the opportunity cost of the difference. Let's say that a rental unit in your area that has the same safety & convenience as your house costs $1600 per month to rent, and your mortgage is $2400. By staying in the house, you are losing that $800 month as well as interest earned on banking that money (however, right now, interest rates are negligible). Factor in total cost of ownership too, meaning extra utilities for one or the other (sometimes houses are cheaper, sometime not), property insurance and taxes for the house (if they aren't already in escrow through your mortgage) and generic house repair stuff. If the savings for a rental are worth more than a couple hundred a month, then I suggest you consider bailing. Start multiplying $500-1000 per month out over a year or two and decide if that extra cash is better for you than crappy credit. Also, this is not the most ethical thing, but I do know of one couple who stopped paying their mortgage for several months, knowing they were going to give the house back at the end. They took what they would have spent in mortgage payments during that time into a savings account, and will have more than enough cash to float for the few years that their credit is lowered by the default. Also something to consider is that we are in a time of ridiculous numbers of people defaulting. As such, a poor credit score might start to be more common among people with decent incomes, to the point where a \"\"poor\"\" score in 5 years is worth about the same as an \"\"average\"\" score today. I wouldn't count on that, but it might soften the blow of your bad credit if you default.\"",
"There are different options here. Either way, ensure that you have a paper trail of all your payments. When in doubt, speak to a lawyer, there are many who offer free consultations.",
"What if you felt you were cheated by the bank? What if you had something terrible unexpected happen to you financially? Also a loan is not a promise. A loan is a contract. The contract has outs for all parties. I never understood why people felt a loan was a promise. Many people were sold home mortgages that they did not understand. Of course it is their fault for not understanding what they were getting into.",
"There are loan options for those in your situation. It is very common. I am a licensed loan officer nmls 1301324 and have done many loans just like this. Your schooling is counted as your work history Contrary to popular belief. We want to write loans and guidelines are easing. Banks are a different story and their loan officers aren't licensed. If you talk to a bank you aren't getting an educated loan officer. They also have what are called overlays that make guidelines stricter.",
"\"You're welcome to throw in the towel and stop paying any time you want. You'll just suffer the consequences of doing so. It sounds like you're concerned about losing your job \"\"in the next few years.\"\" What are you doing to stem this off? Are you building up a side income? Are you building up portable skills -- ones that can be used anywhere? If you think you have a few years left, use them. Build something up. You may be able to recover more quickly, or last longer until you find a new job. Some of my blogging friends have been at it about as long as I have, and they're in high-five, low-six figures now. For blogging. Some did it even faster. All it takes is time. Your expenses for starting a blog are $10/month plus cutting out two hours of TV / drinking / anything else consumer-ish to learn more about your favorite interest, write about it, and interact with the online community. That's just one idea. Season to taste or choose a different meal altogether. Are you frugal? Are you looking for ways to cut expenses? If you can find extra money to save a little bit more and knock out just one of those debts (say, the car), you'll be able to throw that payment at the student loan. Then they'll both be gone, and you can save up a cushion for yourself faster. I just think it's a little weak to give up when you're not really in trouble yet. You're tight, but you can get through that.\"",
"Have you considered social lending (for example: Lending Club)?",
"What to do when institutions stop lending you money, or lend at high rates? Live within your means! Your friend has shown financial behavior that indicates he's a bad credit risk. If he cleans up his act, banks will lend to him at reasonable rates again. Not a whole lot he can do except build his credit again. He didn't lose it overnight, and he won't get it back overnight either.",
"Honestly, the best way to manage this risk is to manage your savings appropriately. Many experts recommend that maintain a reasonably liquid account with 6-9x your minimum monthly expenses for just this occurrence. I know, easier said than done. Right? As for insurance, I can only speak for what is the case in the US. Here, most mortgages will require you to get PMI insurance until you have at least 20% equity in your house. However, that insurance only protects the BANK from losing money if you can't pay. It doesn't save you from foreclosure or ruining your credit. Really, the type of insurance you are talking about is Unemployment insurance which all states in the US make available to workers via deductions from their paycheck. The best advice, I suppose, is to keep your expenses low enough to cover them with an unemployment check until you have accumulated enough savings to get through a rough patch. That may mean buying a less expensive home, or just waiting until you have saved a bigger down payment. If you didn't plan ahead, and you are already in the house, another option might be to extend your mortgage. For example from a 20 to a 30 year to reduce your payments to a manageable level. A more risky option might be to convert to a variable rate loan temporarily, which typically carries a lower interest rate. However, it might be hard to secure a new loan if you don't currently have an income.",
"Typically, this is not an option, as the monthly payments are fixed. It depends on the willingness of your financing bank for such a change. You probably will have to refinance (with them or another lender); which is not a bad thing, as you even can get a lower interest rate potentially (as of Jan 2017 - this will change). Consider too: It could be a better solution to instead invest the 25000, and use the investment returns to fill up the difference every month. Certainly more effort, but you probably come out ahead financially.",
"It will take a bit of sacrifice. First, I'd review spending. Between you and all your family, try to separate the 'needs' from the 'wants' and cut out 75% of the 'wants.' Second, there's almost always part time work that can help raise extra money. Even if it's a small fraction of your current hourly pay, every bit you and your family can throw at that 30% debt will help get rid of it and help you get to the point when you can refinance the mortgage.",
"This is something that will vary from situation to situation. What is the secured debt? What is the interest rate? Does your retirement account have a match? What are your other financial obligations? How much money do you have available after meeting all of your minimum financial obligations. All of these are very important factors in deciding what the best course of action would be.",
"Umm actually asking to be refinanced at a lower rate *IS* asking them to forgive/give up part of the mortgage. Peoples greed in getting themselves into upside down mortgages are why we have problems, not the banks not helping them out enough.",
">You default on a loan, student or otherwise, by not paying. Student Loan debt, backed by the government, means the government can garnish any wages you make, or otherwise put liens against property you own to secure the debt. You have no say in the matter.",
"\"Pay it off. If necessary, get a loan so you can pay it off; that's what refinancing is all about and your favorite bank or credit union would be happy to help you with this. If that isn't sufficient to make the car affordable you may need to sell it, take the loss, and learn from the experience. Sorry, but you made an agreement and it's up to you to find a way to meet your end of the bargain. (If you had decided you didn't like this loan within a few days of signing, you might have been able to back out under \"\"cooling off period\"\" laws. But those only allow a very limited time for reconsideration.)\"",
"I'm pessimistic about most things, so: They can't REPO the degree and the knowledge, but they can sure REPO the CAR, so pay off the car. My suggestion would be to pay off the vehicle, because no matter what the future holds (good or bad) you will need a vehicle to get around. Although, I recently found out from the comment below that student loans are a recourse debt that won't be forgiven. Not even with bankruptcy. Most collection agencies will take pennies in the dollar for debt, but not with student loans.",
"\"There are a number of bona fide reasons to consider here. If there is a cost to discharging a security packet, or a mortgage, it may not be convenient if we are advanced in the repayment schedule. Early exit fees may apply, or the interest may be \"\"pre-determined\"\". As a rule of thumb, when we are talking about rates above 10% p.a. then arrangements should be short (bridging finance - keep it short and charge 'em heaps), and for personal arrangements, small.\"",
"Some types of loans allow for reamortization (recasting) - which does exactly what you're talking about (making a big payment and then refiguring the monthly amount rather than the overall lifespan), without requiring any kind of a fee that refinancing does. Not every, or even most, mortgages, allow for recasting. And most that do offer recasting, may limit the recasting to a once-a-loan type of thing. So check beforehand, and make those big payments before you do any recasting. (Most banks and mortgage servicing companies may not advertise or even speak about recasting options unless you specifically ask your loan officer.)",
"\"A lot of your options depends on the type of debt you have. If you're single, young, and have lots of credit card debt then don't discount bankruptcy. It's definitely not an \"\"appealing\"\" thought I'm sure, but it's an option. One thing I did was completely cut myself off from most forms of credit (credit cards and personal credit loans). I know my weaknesses. I will never, ever, ever, get another credit card. I'm probably older than you are and have lived with debt for a long time. I'm pretty much debt free; at least from debts that are not covered 100% by assets. It took a long time. Keep your spirits up. Maybe try contacting a credit councilor; one of the real ones that aren't paid for by credit card companies. I've known people that took that route.\"",
"If you are now in a better position to pay your debts, the wise move for your long-term credit is to consolidate any high-interest debt that remains and pay it off as quickly as possible. This may not be possible depending on your situation, but one way to get such consolidation loans is to have a parent with good credit cosign as guarantor on the consolidation loan. The only way your credit will recover is if you establish a good history of payments over the next seven years. Frankly I wouldn't cosign a loan with a family member who made the same decisions you have made, because I wouldn't want to put my own credit at risk, but I might loan the money directly, which would ease the pain for that family member, but it wouldn't help their credit going forward. This may not be a popular opinion, but without any details, it's hard for me to agree that any of your creditors are being greedy when they threaten a judgment. They loaned you the money in good faith, and now you are attempting to negotiate a change of terms. Are they greedy because the interest rates are too high? Maybe you were a bad risk when they loaned the money and the rates reflected the risk of losing some portion of the money. The fact that you are trying to discharge some portion of that debt vindicates any high rates charged.",
"Talk to your parents, and find out if you are reducing the debt or not. Find buyers, sell the place now and get out the deal. Of course you will have to wait to get a good price on it. Short term you haven't lost that much, but long term you will. Take your 25%, and use it as a down payment on a regular bank mortgage. Lesson learned move on.",
"You have the 2 properties, and even though the value of property B is less than the amount you owe on it hopefully you have some equity in propery A. So if you do have enough equity in property A, why don't you just go to the one lender and get both property A and B refinanced under the same mortgage. This way hopefully the combined equity in both properties would be enough to cover the full amount of the loan, and you have the opportunity to refinance at favourable rate and terms. Sounds like you are in the USA with an interest rate of 3.25%, I am in Australia and my mortgage rates are currently between 6.3% to 6.6%.",
"Yep, basically no loans for me for at least two years and new credit cards are at a higher interest rate then I'm comfortable with. That's fine. I have two cars that are fully paid for, just paid off one credit card last week and will have the other one paid off before the end of the year. And I have a savings account with a positive balance. All of this happened by moving to a different house where my rent is $1,500 per month cheaper than I was paying on a house.",
"\"Assuming the numbers you gave are forecasted 2013 annual income, you should really use an average and give the lender 1 number, as long as you can provide documentation to back it up. Lenders aren't as sophisticated as considering your monthly income fluctuations into their underwriting algorithm. If you're not tied down to your existing lender, I highly recommend you to shop around. There isn't an \"\"universal lending requirement\"\". You'll be surprised at how flexible they are. Not as a recommendation to get around the rules, but just finding a lender that'll work with your situation. Try personal finance forums such as FatWallet or Slickdeal to find low-cost lenders: http://goo.gl/vIojT\"",
"A good resource for this type of help is the National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC). They provide free and low-cost credit counselors who can... Most importantly, avoid those for-profit debt consolidation companies. They are ripoffs.",
"I am sorry for your troubles, but impressed with your problem solving skills. Keep going, things will get better. Your best hope is to find a place that does manual underwriting. If they do computer generated stuff, then you will be kicked for sure. If you can show 20% down, and have some savings, and have some history of paying bills, then you might be approved. Here in Florida, RP Funding still does manual underwriting. Another one that is mentioned is Church Hill mortgage. Also you might check with local credit unions. Of course your best bet to be approved is to be open and state upfront the challenges. You have to find someone that has the ability to think, has the ability to see passed the challenges, and has the authority to do so.",
"I'm 40 and been carrying student debt for nearly 20 years. Because of life events and various circumstances I've had to defer several times. This means my balance history looks like a rollercoaster. At this point I just consider the Department of Education to be akin to heroin addiction. I feed it as regularly as I can. It starts to get painful when I can't. It requires an ever increasing amount to get that fix. I'm financially fucked and it's my fault. And one day it'll probably kill me. But I just keep trying. What choice do I have?",
"In a perfect the world, the most ideal solution would be to find a way to pay back all of your debt so that your credit will not be affected any further. Unfortunately, it does not work this way most of the time. Debt settlement is where you work with a creditor to settle your a credit card debt for less than the full amount owed. This could be a very viable solution for you instead of filing for bankruptcy. However, there are many scams out there when it applies to debt settlement so you must tread carefully. Debt settlement can only occur when you're behind on your payments. If you are currently paying off your payments successfully, the creditor has no obligation to settle when they think you should be able to pay it fully back.",
"EDIT: new ideas based on the full story. I wouldn't worry about the price history. While it is certainly true that some buyers might try to leverage that information against you, the bottom line is the price is the price. Both the buyer and the seller have to agree. If the initial listing was too high, then lower the price. If that isn't low enough, then readjust down. I see no harm in moving the price down over time repeatedly. In fact, I thin that is a good tactic to getting the most for the house. If you happen to have the luxury of time, then keep lowering that price until it sells. Don't fret how that behavior appears. You can lower the price as often as you like until it sells. I am not a real estate agent, and I am a terrible negotiator, but I would lower the price every quarter until it sells. You can't go down to fast (a buyer might wait you out) and you can't wait to long as you stated. Also, if you house is priced inline with the neighborhood, you can at least get offers and negotiate. Buy asking for such a premium (25%) folks might not even make an offer. You simply need to decide what is more important, the selling price or the time frame in getting it sold. If you house doesn't sell because the market doesn't support your price, then consider keeping it as a rental. You can do it yourself, or if you are not interested in that (large) amount of work, then hire a rental management company to do it for a fee. Renting a home is hard work and requires attention to detail, a good amount of your time and much labor. If you just need to wait a couple of years before selling, renting it can be a good option to cover your costs while you wait for the market to reach you. You should get advice on how to handle the money, how to rent it, how to deal with renters, and the the laws are in your jurisdiction. Rent it out to a trusted friend or family member for a steal of a deal. They save money, and you get the luxury of time waiting for the sale. With a real estate lawyer you hire, get a contract for a lease option or owner finance deal on the house. Sometimes you can expand the market of people looking to buy your house. If you have a willing purchaser will bad credit, you can be doing them a favor and solving your own issue. It costs money and you will make less on the sale, but it could be better than nothing. Take heed, there is a reason some people cannot get a traditional loan on their own. Before you extend your good name or credit think about it. It is another hassle for sure. This won't help if you have to pay off a mortgage, but you could donate it. This is another tricky deal that you really need to speak with a lawyer who specialize in charitable giving. There are tax benefits, but I would make any kind of a deal where tax deductions are the only benefit. This is common enough these days. If you are unable to pay for the mortgage, it benefits you and the bank to get into a short sale arrangement. They bank gets probably more money than if they have to foreclose (and they save money on legal fees) and you can get rid of the obligation. You will do a deed in lieu or the short sale depending on how the market it and what the house can be sold for. You and the bank will have to work it out. This will ruin for a credit for a while, and you will not likely qualify to get a new mortgage for at least a few years. You can stop paying your mortgage, tell the bank and they will foreclose. This is going to ruin your credit for a long time as well as disqualify you from mortgages in the near future. Don't do this. If you are planning a foreclosure, take the time to contact your bank and arrange a short sale or a deed in lieu. There isn't really any excuse to go into foreclosure if you are having problems. Talk to the bank and work out a deal.",
"I have been through default in Ukraine august 1998. That was a real nightmare. The financial system stopped working properly for 1 month, about 30% of businesses went bankrupt because of chain effect, significant inflation and devaluation of currency. So, it is better to be prepared, because this type of processes result in unpredictable situation.",
"A traditional bank is not likely to give you a loan if you have no source of income. Credit card application forms also ask for your current income level and may reject you based on not having a job. You might want to make a list of income and expenses and look closely at which expenses can be reduced or eliminated. Use 6 months of your actual bills to calculate this list. Also make a list of your assets and liabilities. A sheet that lists income/expenses and assets/liabilities is called a Financial Statement. This is the most basic tool you'll need to get your expenses under control. There are many other options for raising capital to pay for your monthly expenses: Sell off your possessions that you no longer need or can't afford Ask for short term loan help from family and friends Advertise for short term loan help on websites such as Kijiji Start a part-time business doing something that you like and people need. Tutoring, dog-walking, photography, you make the list and pick from it. Look into unemployment insurance. Apply as soon as you are out of work. The folks at the unemployment office are willing to answer all your questions and help you get what you need. Dip into your retirement fund. To reduce your expenses, here are a few things you may not have considered: If you own your home, make an appointment with your bank to discuss renegotiation of your mortgage payments. The bank will be more interested in helping you before you start missing payments than after. Depending on how much equity you have in your home, you may be able to significantly reduce payments by extending the life of the mortgage. Your banker will be impressed if you can bring them a balance sheet that shows your assets, liabilities, income and expenses. As above, for car payments as well. Call your phone, cable, credit card, and internet service providers and tell them you want to cancel your service. This will immediately connect you to Customer Retention. Let them know that you are having a hard time paying your bill and will either have to negotiate a lower payment or cancel the service. This tactic can significantly reduce your payments. When you have your new job, there are some things you can do to make sure this doesn't happen again: Set aside 10% of your income in a savings account. Have it automatically deducted from your income at source if you can. 75% of Americans are 4 weeks away from bankruptcy. You can avoid this by forcing yourself to save enough to manage your household finances for 3 - 6 months, a year is better. If you own your own home, take out a line of credit against it based on the available equity. Your bank can help you with that. It won't cost you anything as long as you don't use it. This is emergency money; do not use it for vacations or car repairs. There will always be little emergencies in life, this line of credit is not for that. Pay off your credit cards and loans, most expensive rate first. Use 10% of your income to do this. When the first one is paid off, use the 10% plus the interest you are now saving to pay off the next most expensive card/loan. Create a budget you can stick to. You can find a great budget calculator here: http://www.gailvazoxlade.com/resources/interactive_budget_worksheet.html Note I have no affiliation with the above-mentioned site, and have a great respect for this woman's ability to teach people about how to handle money.",
"Same thing as for any debt: bank sues you, you lose, you are in an even deeper hole because you now owe them for the cost of the court case, your credit rating goes into the toilet, you may even have trouble retaining/finding a job. Being stupid is always more expensive.",
"The article made it seem like a lot of these were frivolous purchases, but I doubt there's any clear data on the percent that were someone's primary vehicle, etc. Usually if you default on a new-car loan you can still get a high-interest loan for a used car that will still be a lot less than your old payment.",
"\"You're in good shape as long as your income stays. Your only variable-rate debt now is your private student loan. I think you'd be wise to pay that down first, and you sense that already. Worst-case, in the event of a bankruptcy, student loans usually cannot be discharged, so that isn't a way out. Once that loan is gone, apply what you were paying to your other student loan to knock that out. You might investigate refinancing your home (to another 30-year fixed). You may be able to shave a half-percent off if your credit is stellar. Given the size of the mortgage, this could be several thousand out of pocket, so consider that when figuring out potential payback time. Consider using any \"\"free time\"\" to starting up a side business (I'm assuming you both have day jobs but that may not be a correct assumption). Start with what you know well. You and your wife are experts in something, and have passion about something. Go with that. Use the extra income from that to either pay down your debts faster, or just reinvest in the business so that you can offset the income on your taxes. Again, you're in good shape. Just do what you can to protect and grow your income streams.\"",
"\"Will the proportion of my payments towards interest eventually go down? Yes. Today would be a good day to do a web search for \"\"amortization schedule\"\". You will quickly learn how to compute precisely how much of each payment goes to interest and how much goes to principal given different payment choices. Would it be wiser to spend more each month on loan payments? That depends on your goals and resources, which we know nothing about. If you have extra money you could spend it on debt reduction, or you could spend it on an investment that pays more money in growth or dividends than the interest you'd save. Or you could decide that the longer you have that loan, sure, the more interest you'll pay, but inflation will make future money less valuable. Basically, by taking out a loan you have chosen to gamble that the thing you bought with the loaned money will be worth the cost of the interest payments in the future, adjusted for inflation. The bank on the other hand is gambling that you're good for the debt and that they can make a reasonable profit off it. If you have more money to gamble with, which bet is the wisest one is really up to you. would it be smarter to try to pay off one loan before the other? If you want to pay off a loan early then always choose the loan with the higher interest rate. should I start making bi-weekly payments instead of monthly? That's roughly equivalent to paying off the principal by one additional payment a year. There are two reasons to do so. The first is that the total interest will be lower and the loan will be paid off faster. You can work out exactly how much with your new found skill at amortization computation. The second is the simple convenience of knowing that your budget for each pay period is the same. That convenience is worth something; is it worth the amount extra you'll be paying every year? Again, this is for you to decide. Work out how much extra you're paying per year and how much you're saving in the long run, and compare that against the benefit.\"",
"Yeah, just ran across one talking about making payments for 20 years and getting screwed. I feel terrible that these people were taken advantage of, but I also want to grab these people by the lapel, shake them, and ask them what the hell they were thinking :|",
"\"The most important thing in my view is flexibility, to avoid running into problems. One useful thing in the UK would be an arranged overdraft. You go to your bank, and they'll agree that you can overdraw your account by a certain number of pounds, depending on your income etc. It will cost you a very high interest rate, but only for each day where you are overdrawn. So paying a bill two days before your salary comes in isn't too bad. Obviously avoid using the overdraft if you can, having an overdraft while not using it is free. It's meant for an emergency; being regularly overdrawn is expensive. But once it is arranged with your bank, an arranged overdraft is much much cheaper than bouncing cheques etc. and possibly high fees for overdrawing your account. And it takes the pressure of you. Now things to need before you get a loan (again, UK): The real interest rate that you are paying is called APR. That's the number that counts, and that cannot be manipulated. No \"\"payday loans\"\" to avoid getting yourself into deep, deep trouble. No loan sharks, obviously. If you buy things with \"\"interest free credit\"\", that's (a) included in the price, so you pay more, and (b) if you miss paying by one day they'll hit you with huge interest payments, and some will try this intentionally. Interest rate depends on loan amount. I once had to borrow 20% more than I needed because it reduced the interest rate by half... The 20% went straight into a savings account. Credit cards and overdrafts are much more expensive than loans. Mortgage is again cheaper than a loan usually. Make sure that you only use money from sources that charge the least amount. Make sure you pay back regularly so cheap sources stay available to you. Just do yourself a favour and if at all possible, spend less instead of getting a loan.\"",
"Get a Bankrupsy lawyer. They'll tell you to stop paying the bills and use the money to pay their fee. Yes... You do need to pay in advance. I can tell you honestly that it was the best thing that ever happened to me. Think about it this way... When you loan someone moneyyou're placing a bet that they'll pay you back. You try to keep the dos in your favor by using credit ratings etc but sometimes you win and sometimes you lose that bet. It's nothing personal. It's business. The casino doesn't feel bad when you lose your bets and your money and you don't expect them to. The person placing the bet knows what they're doing and knows all about the risks, etc. it's a calculated risk. Again... It's just business and it's nothing personal. It's also not nesessairly a failure. Depending on the situation... Bankrupsy is an excellent business decision. Big business do it all the time. Sometimes bankruptcy is a very smart decision and not going bankrupt is the worst decision you can make. My only regret with my own bankruptcy is that I didn't do it sooner. I could have saved the family years of unnecessary hardship and I could have gotten it over with much sooner. Don't be emotional. Be smart and do the smart thing.",
"\"Pete B mentioned adjusting your payments using the Debt Snowball Method and I agree it is one possible solution, another being the Debt Avalanche Method. Here is a link that describes both. There was a time in my past when I had 17 credit lines open totaling about $12,000. If I had paid them the way the banks asked (minimum monthly payments) it would have taken decades to pay off. Then I was shown these two techniques and as a result I was able pay them down rapidly and close all but 2 lines within 5 years. Like others I am going to say that if you already own your house free and clear never Never NEVER put a loan on it unless the loan is (a) to improve the house, or (b) a life & death emergency. If you get sick or fired and miss even a single payment on a HELOC you could lose your house forever and that just plain sucks. Not only will you then be forced into renting a place (money down the drain) but your credit rating will take such a huge hit it will be years (if ever) before you can even try and buy a new home. Debts come and go, as do the \"\"toys\"\" and other things we buy with that debt. Homes are security & stability for tomorrow. Never give that up for a little ease & comfort today. UPDATE: I had to go looking for it but here is some software that I used all those years ago to figure out my strategy for paying down all my credit bills. It's a bit clunky but it's super easy to use plus it has some other variations on snowball and avalanche methods as well. I definitely found it helpful.\"",
"Short-term, getting a balance transfer will help. It'll reduce the interest you pay. You can also reduce the interest you pay on your cars if you are able to consolidate your debt into a personal loan. To your question about debt consolidation companies, as far as I know, that's all they do. However, long-term, there's only two ways to stay on top of debt: increase your income, or reduce your spending. Basically, if you can't or won't get a raise or a job that pays more (or a second job), you need to cut back on your spending. You might need to do something radical, like move somewhere with cheaper rent (as long as increased travel costs doesn't offset the saving). But you'll be much better off in the long run if you step back and take a look at your situation now, and make adjustments accordingly.",
"\"Without knowing the details of your financial situation, I can only offer general advice. It might be worth having a financial counselor look at your finances and offer some custom advice. You might be able to find someone that will do this for free by asking at your local church. I would advise you not to try to get another loan, and certainly not to start charging things to a credit card. You are correct when you called it a \"\"nightmare.\"\" You are currently struggling with your finances, and getting further into debt will not help. It would only be a very short-term fix and have long-lasting consequences. What you need to do is look at the income that you have and prioritize your spending. For example, your list of basic needs includes: If you have other things that you are spending money on, such as medical debt or other old debt that you are trying to pay off, those are not as important as funding your basic needs above. If there is anything you can do to reduce the cost of the basic needs, do it. For example, finding a cheaper place to live or a place closer to your job might save you money. Perhaps accepting nutrition assistance from a local food bank or the Salvation Army is an option for you. Now, about your car: Your transportation to your job is very much one of your basic needs, as it will enable you to pay for your other needs. If you can use public transportation until you can get a working car again, or you can find someone that will give you a ride, that will solve this problem. If not, you'll need to get a working car. You definitely don't want to take out another loan for a car, as you are already having trouble paying the first loan. I'm guessing that it will be less expensive to get the engine repaired than it will be to buy a new car at this point. But that is just a guess. You'll need to find out how much it will cost to fix the car, and see if you can swing it by perhaps eliminating expenses that aren't necessary, even for a short time. For example, if you are paying installments on medical debt, you might have to skip a payment to fix your car. It's not ideal, but if you are short on cash, it is a better option than losing your job or taking out even more debt for your car. Alternatively, buying another, functional car, if it costs less than fixing your current car, is an option. If you don't have the money to pay your current car loan payments, you'll lose your current car. Just to be clear, many of these options will mess up your credit score. However, borrowing more, in an attempt to save your credit score, will probably only put off the inevitable, as it will make paying everything off that much harder. If you don't have enough income to pay your debts, you might be better off to just take the credit score ding, get back on your feet, and then work to eliminate the debt once you've got your basic needs covered. Sorry to hear about your situation. Again, this advice is just general, and might not all apply to your financial details. I recommend talking to the pastor of a local church and see if they have someone that can sit down with you and discuss your options.\""
] |
[
"I would say generally, the answer is No. There might be some short term relief to people in certain situations, but generally speaking you sign a contract to borrow money and you are responsible to pay. This is why home loans offer better terms then auto loans, and auto loans better than credit cards or things like furniture. The better terms offer less risk to the lender because there are assets that can be repossessed. Homes retain values better than autos, autos better than furniture, and credit cards are not secured at all. People are not as helpless as your question suggests. Sure a person might lose their high paying job, but could they still make a mortgage payment if they worked really hard at it? This might mean taking several part time jobs. Now if a person buys a home that has a very large mortgage payment this might not be possible. However, wise people don't buy every bit of house they can afford. People should also be wise about the kinds of mortgages they use to buy a home. Many people lost their homes due to missing a payment on their interest only loan. Penalty rates and fees jacked up their payment, that was way beyond their means. If they had a fixed rate loan the chance to catch up would have not been impossible. Perhaps an injury might prevent a person from working. This is why long term disability insurance is a must for most people. You can buy quite a bit of coverage for not very much money. Typical US households have quite a bit of debt. Car payments, phone payments, and either a mortgage or rent, and of course credit cards. If income is drastically reduced making all of those payments becomes next to impossible. Which one gets paid first. Just this last week, I attempted to help a client in just this situation. They foolishly chose to pay the credit card first, and were going to pay the house payment last (if there was anything left over). There wasn't, and they are risking eviction (renters). People finding themselves in crisis, generally do a poor job of paying the most important things first. Basic food first, housing and utilities second, etc... Let the credit card slip if need be no matter how often one is threatened by creditors. They do this to maintain their credit score, how foolish. I feel like you have a sense of bondage associated with debt. It is there and real despite many people noticing it. There is also the fact that compounding interest is working against you and with your labor you are enriching the bank. This is a great reason to have the goal of living a debt free life. I can tell you it is quite liberating.",
"For insight on what will happen, I suggest looking at the situation from the lender's perspective: If your setbacks are temporary, and you are likely to get back on your feet again, they will protect their investment by making accommodations, and probably charging you extra fees along the way. If your financial hardship seems irredeemable, they probably try to squeeze you for as much as possible, and then eventually take your house, protecting their investment as best they can. If they are going to foreclose, they may be reluctant to do it quickly, as foreclosure is expensive, takes man power, and looks bad on their books. So it may get pushed off for a Quarter, or a fiscal year. But if you are asking if they'll help you out from the goodness of their heart, well, a bank has no heart, and creditors are interested in ROI. They'll take the easiest path to profit, or failing that, the path to minimum financial losses. The personal consequences to you are not their concern. Once you realize this, it may change your thinking about your own situation. If you think you have a path to financial recovery, then you need to make that clear to them, in writing, with details. Make a business case that working with you is in their own best interests. If you cannot make such a case, recognize that they'll likely squeeze you for as much as possible in penalties, fees, interest payments, etc, before eventually foreclosing on you anyway. Don't play that game. If your home is a lost cause financially, plan how to get out from it with the smallest losses possible. Don't pay more than you need to, and don't throw good money after bad.",
"The answer is generally yes. Depending on your circumstances and where you live, you may be able to get help through a federal, state, or lender program that:",
"Some lenders will work with you if you contact them early and openly discuss your situation. They are not required to do so. The larger and more corporate the lender, the less likely you'll find one that will work with you. My experience is that your success in working out repayment plan for missed payments depends on the duration of your reduced income. If this is a period of unemployment and you will be able to pay again in a number of months, you may be able to work out a plan on some debts. If you're permanently unable to pay in full, or the duration is too long, you may have to file bankruptcy to save your domicile and transportation. The ethics of this go beyond this forum, as do the specifics of when it is advisable to file bankruptcy. Research your area, find debt counselling. They can really help with specifics. Speak with your lenders, they may be able to refer you to local non-profit services. Be sure that you find one of those, not one of the predatory lenders posing as credit counselling services. There's even some that take the money you can afford to pay, divide it up over your creditors, allowing you to keep accruing late/partial payment fees, and charge you a fee on top of it. To me this is fraudulent and should be cause for criminal charges. The key is open communication with your lenders with disclosure to the level that they need to know. If you're disabled, long term, they need to know that. They do not need to know the specific symptoms or causes or discomforts. They need to know whether the Social Security Administration has declared you disabled and are paying you a disability check. (If this is the case, you probably have a case worker who can find you resources to help negotiate with your creditors)."
] |
8874
|
When can you adjust for (and re-allow) a disallowed year-end (December) wash-sale loss?
|
[
"403025"
] |
[
1
] |
[
"151037",
"140267",
"292762",
"161155",
"436530",
"596518",
"517577",
"403025",
"571124",
"232540",
"338754",
"377944",
"407602",
"177674",
"113948",
"350080",
"330848",
"177798",
"536610",
"132966",
"150809",
"376800",
"537212",
"416789",
"155616",
"137251",
"261902",
"60590",
"187761",
"50250",
"476224",
"132111",
"511066",
"524708",
"438419",
"584917",
"212394",
"152960",
"390864",
"358602",
"275340",
"362060",
"457059",
"540292",
"23217",
"400730",
"221715",
"17184",
"84228",
"171819",
"279606",
"552255",
"306460",
"161076",
"207929",
"322284",
"38287",
"318321",
"285135",
"551398",
"46625",
"530631",
"304918",
"483394",
"462291",
"219762",
"110282",
"436044",
"554784",
"219472",
"266898",
"378523",
"408742",
"598646",
"585023",
"415815",
"490176",
"43049",
"191704",
"55893",
"590010",
"19183",
"179398",
"474981",
"17795",
"105046",
"477597",
"231590",
"11122",
"430718",
"481284",
"474384",
"216404",
"399583",
"411034",
"428318",
"335375",
"33117",
"588372",
"248619"
] |
[
"Disallowed losses due to the wash sale rule are added to the basis of the repurchased shares. In your example, on day two you paid $0.70 per share. Then the disallowed $0.30 loss from the previous day gets added to the basis, making your total basis $1.00 per share. When you sell at the end of the day for $1.00 per share, your net gain/loss is zero. Furthermore, you can recapture disallowed losses by selling the last lot of ABC, completely divesting yourself of all holdings in ABC for at least 31 days. Even if that last lot was a loss, when taking into account the increased basis from previously disallowed wash sale losses, you can claim the loss fully on this last, non-wash sale.",
"\"Strangely enough, you have a wash sale, but, for the fact that you sold the shares and then more than 30 days passed, you can take the loss. I mistakenly used the phrase \"\"and ended the year with no shared of the stock\"\" elsewhere, and was corrected, as one can sell at a loss up to 12/31, and have until the end of January to create a wash condition. In your case, the facts in June combined with you ending the year with no shares removes any doubt, a wash sale, but one that's fully closed out. Note - while Vicky's answer is correct, it should go on to say that once the stock is not owned for 30 days, the wash sale loss is permitted.\"",
"Yes. On December 10, you have a wash sale. As long as you don't buy the stock back for 30 days after that, the wash is of no consequence. In other words, you don't have a wash issue if you don't own the stock for 30 days.",
"Is wash rule applicable for this? No - because you made a gain on the sale. You paid $13,500 for the stock and sold it for $14,250. The wash rule prevents you from claiming a loss if you buy the same stock again within 30 days. You have no loss to claim, so the rule does not apply.",
"\"From Pub 550: More or less stock bought than sold. If the number of shares of substantially identical stock or securities you buy within 30 days before or after the sale is either more or less than the number of shares you sold, you must determine the particular shares to which the wash sale rules apply. You do this by matching the shares bought with an equal number of the shares sold. Match the shares bought in the same order that you bought them, beginning with the first shares bought. The shares or securities so matched are subject to the wash sale rules. You must match \"\"beginning with the first shares bought.\"\" If only activity 1 & 4 happened, you'd have bought and sold stock with no wash sale. If you remove activity 1 & 4 from consideration because they are a \"\"normal\"\" or non-wash sale transaction, then the Activity 2 or Activity 3 trigger a wash sale. The shares in lot 1 are sold for disallowed loss, so the disallowed basis would be added to shares in lot 2 because lot 2 was purchased before lot 3. (hat tip to user662852 who had much better wording) Second example: Activity 5, 7, and 8 all together would not be a wash sale. The addition of activity 6 creates a wash sale. The shares in Activity 5 are sold for a disallowed loss in Activity 7 & 8 because of the wash sale triggering purchase in Activity 6. Activity 6 is where you add the disallowed basis because they are the \"\"first shares bought\"\" that cause the wash sale rule to be triggered.\"",
"I was not able to find any authority for the opinion you suggest. Wash sale rules should, IMHO, apply. According to the regulations, you attribute the newly purchased shares to the oldest sold shares for the purposes of the calculation of the disallowed loss and cost basis. (c) Where the amount of stock or securities acquired within the 61-day period is less than the amount of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of, then the particular shares of stock or securities the loss from the sale or other disposition of which is not deductible shall be those with which the stock or securities acquired are matched in accordance with the following rule: The stock or securities acquired will be matched in accordance with the order of their acquisition (beginning with the earliest acquisition) with an equal number of the shares of stock or securities sold or otherwise disposed of. You can resort to the claim that you have not, in fact, entered into the contract within 30 days, but when you gave the instructions to reinvest dividends. I don't know if such a claim will hold, but to me it sounds reasonable. This is similar to the rules re short sales (in (g) there). In this case, wash sale rules will not apply (unless you instructed to reinvest dividends within the 30 days prior to the sale). But I'd ask a tax professional if such a claim would hold, talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state.",
"You sold all shares? The potential wash sale effect goes away after 30 days from the dividend date. Selling all shares of a stock where a wash existed effectively negates the wash and you can take the loss.",
"Disallowed losses are created when you buy a stock */- 30 days of a sale at a loss. When you sell and have no shares left, the loss is taken. You can't have no shares and leftover disallowed loss.",
"\"According to Wikipedia this is still a wash sale: In the USA wash sale rules are codified in \"\"26 USC § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities.\"\" Under Section 1091, a wash sale occurs when a taxpayer sells or trades stock or securities at a loss, and within 30 days before or after the sale:\"",
"Well it would appear that you had a wash sale that canceled out a loss position. Without seeing the entire report, I couldn't tell you exactly what was happening or how you triggered § 1091. But just from the excerpted images, it appears as though your purchase of stock was layered into multiple tranches - perhaps you acquired more of the stock in the 61-day period than you sold (possibly because of a prior holding). If in the 61-day period around the sale of stock (30 days before and 30 days after), you also acquire the same stock (including by contract or option), then it washes out your loss. If you held your stock for a while, then in a 61-day period bought more, and sold some, then any loss would be washed out by the acquisition. Of course it is also a wash sale if your purchase of the stock follows your sale, rather than precedes it. Your disallowed loss goes into the basis of your stock holding, so will be meaningful when you do have a true economic sale of that stock. From IRS Pub 550: A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you: Buy substantially identical stock or securities, Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade, Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement account (IRA) or Roth IRA. If you sell stock and your spouse or a corporation you control buys substantially identical stock, you also have a wash sale. Looking at your excerpted account images, we can see a number of positions sold at a loss (sale proceeds less than basis) but each one is adjusted to a zero loss. I suspect the fuller picture of your account history and portfolio will show a more complicated and longer history with this particular stock. That is likely the source of the wash sale disallowed loss notations. You might be able to confirm that all the added numbers are appearing in your current basis in this stock (or were reflected upon your final exit from the stock).",
"Yes. Wash rules are only for losses.",
"Brokerage->Brokerage 13-16 The loss from the previous purchase will be added to the cost basis of the security for the second purchase. Since you sold it at a loss again it would increase your losses. Your loss from the first sale will be disallowed. Your loss will be added to the cost basis of the next purchase. Your gains will be taxed on the total of the cost basis which will reduce your gains. Which you will taxed 'less'. Your gains will be taxed. Your loss is allowed. You will be taxed on both. Wash Sales really only applies to losses. If you sell for gain, the tax man will be happy to take his share. From my understanding, it does not matter if it is IRA or Brokerage, the wash sale rule affects them all. Check this link: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02",
"Note that the rules around wash sales vary depending on where you live. For the U.S., the wash sale rules say that you cannot buy a substantially identical stock or security within 30 days (before or after) your sale. So, you could sell your stock today to lock in the capital losses. However, you would then have to wait at least 30 days before purchasing it back. If you bought it back within 30 days, you would disqualify the capital loss event. The risk, of course, is that the stock's price goes up substantially while you are waiting for the wash sale period. It's up to you to determine if the risk outweighs the benefit of locking in your capital losses. Note that this applies regardless of whether you sell SOME or ALL of the stock. Or indeed, if we are talking about securities other than stocks.",
"You add the wash sale loss to your cost basis for the other transaction so you would have two entries in your schedule d reporting 1.) Listing the $2000 loss as a wash 2.) The cost basis for your second transaction is thus $1000+$2000 = $3000 so when it was sold for $2000 you now have a reportable loss of $1000. For more information see here.... http://www.ehow.com/how_5313540_calculate-wash-sale.html",
"Yes, an overall $500 loss on the stock can be claimed. Since the day trader sold both lots she acquired, the Wash Sale rule has no net impact on her taxes. The Wash Sale rule would come into play if within thirty days of second sale, she purchased the stock a third time. Then she would have to amend her taxes because claiming the $500 loss would no longer be a valid under the Wash Sale rule. It would have to be added to the cost basis of the most recent purchase.",
"Great question! It can be a confusing for sure -- but here's a great example I've adapted to your scenario: As a Day Trader, you buy 100 shares of LMNO at $100, then after a large drop the same day, you sell all 10 shares at $90 for a loss of $1,000. Later in the afternoon, you bought another 100 shares at $92 and resold them an hour later at $97 (a $500 profit), closing out your position for the day. The second trade had a profit of $500, so you had a net loss of $500 (the $1,000 loss plus the $500 profit). Here’s how this works out tax-wise: The IRS first disallows the $1,000 loss and lets you show only a profit of $500 for the first trade (since it was a wash). But it lets you add the $1,000 loss to the basis of your replacement shares. So instead of spending $9,200 (100 shares times $92), for tax purposes, you spent $10,200 ($9,200 plus $1,000), which means that the second trade is what caused you to lose the $500 that you added back (100 x $97 = $9,700 minus the 100 x $102 = $10,200, netting $500 loss). On a net basis, you get to record your loss, it just gets recorded on the second trade. The basis addition lets you work off your wash-sale losses eventually, and in your case, on Day 3 you would recognize a $500 final net loss for tax purposes since you EXITED your position. Caveat: UNLESS you re-enter LMNO within 30 days later (at which point it would be another wash and the basis would shift again). Source: http://www.dummies.com/personal-finance/investing/day-trading/understand-the-irs-wash-sale-rule-when-day-trading/",
"\"According to page 56 of the 2015 IRS Publication 550 on Investment Income and Expenses: Wash sales. Your holding period for substantially identical stock or securities you acquire in a wash sale includes the period you held the old stock or securities. It looks like the rule applies to stocks and other securities, including options. It seems like the key is \"\"substantially identical\"\". For your brokerage / trading platform to handle these periods correctly for reporting to IRS, it seems best to trade the same security instead of trying to use something substantially identical.\"",
"\"Edited: Pub 550 says 30 days before or after so the example is ok - but still a gain by average share basis. On sale your basis is likely defaulted to \"\"average price\"\" (in the example 9.67 so there was a gain selling at 10), but can be named shares at your election to your brokerage, and supported by record keeping. A Pub 550 wash might be buy 2000 @ 10 with basis 20000, sell 1000 @9 (nominally a loss of 1000 for now and remaining basis 10000), buy 1000 @ 8 within 30 days. Because of the wash sale rule the basis is 10000+8000 paid + 1000 disallowed loss from wash sale with a final position of 2000 shares at 19000 basis. I think I have the link at the example: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2014_publink100010601\"",
"\"The wash sale rule only applies when the sale in question is at a loss. So the rule does not apply at all to your cases 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16, which all start with a gain. You get a capital gain at the first sale and then a separately computed gain / loss at the second sale, depending on the case, BUT any gain or loss in the IRA is not a taxable event due to the usual tax-advantaged rules for the IRA. The wash sale does not apply to \"\"first\"\" sales in your IRA because there is no taxable gain or loss in that case. That means that you wouldn't be seeking a deduction anyway, and there is nothing to get rolled into the repurchase. This means that the rule does not apply to 1-8. For 5-8, where the second sale is in your brokerage account, you have a \"\"usual\"\" capital gain / loss as if the sale in the IRA didn't happen. (For 1-4, again, the second sale is in the IRA, so that sale is not taxable.) What's left are 9-10 (Brokerage -> IRA) and 13-14 (Brokerage -> Brokerage). The easier two are 13-14. In this case, you cannot take a capital loss deduction for the first sale at a loss. The loss gets added to the basis of the repurchase instead. When you ultimately close the position with the second sale, then you compute your gain or loss based on the modified basis. Note that this means you need to be careful about what you mean by \"\"gain\"\" or \"\"loss\"\" at the second sale, because you need to be careful about when you account for the basis adjustment due to the wash sale. Example 1: All buys and sells are in your brokerage account. You buy initially at $10 and sell at $8, creating a $2 loss. But you buy again within the wash sale window at $9 and sell that at $12. You get no deduction after the first sale because it's wash. You have a $1 capital gain at the second sale because your basis is $11 = $9 + $2 due to the $2 basis adjustment from wash sale. Example 2: Same as Example 1, except that final sale is at $8 instead of at $12. In this case you appear to have taken a $2 loss on the first buy-sell and another $1 loss on the second buy-sell. For taxes however, you cannot claim the loss at the first sale due to the wash. At the second sale, your basis is still $11 (as in Example 1), so your overall capital loss is the $3 dollars that you might expect, computed as the $8 final sale price minus the $11 (wash-adjusted) basis. Now for 9-10 (Brokerage->IRA), things are a little more complicated. In the IRA, you don't worry about the basis of individual stocks that you hold because of the way that tax advantages of those accounts work. You do need to worry about the basis of the IRA account as a whole, however, in some cases. The most common case would be if you have non-deductable contributions to your traditional IRA. When you eventually withdraw, you don't pay tax on any distributions that are attributable to those nondeductible contributions (because you already paid tax on that part). There are other cases where basis of your account matters, but that's a whole question in itself - It's enough for now to understand 1. Basis in your IRA as a whole is a well-defined concept with tax implications, and 2. Basis in individual holdings within your account don't matter. So with the brokerage-IRA wash sale, there are two questions: 1. Can you take the capital loss on the brokerage side? 2. If no because of the wash sale, does this increase the basis of your IRA account (as a whole)? The answer to both is \"\"no,\"\" although the reason is not obvious. The IRS actually put out a Special Bulletin to answer the question specifically because it was unclear in the law. Bottom line for 9-10 is that you apparently are losing your tax deduction completely in that case. In addition, if you were counting on an increase in the basis of your IRA to avoid early distribution penalties, you don't get that either, which will result in yet more tax if you actually take the early distribution. In addition to the Special Bulletin noted above, Publication 550, which talks about wash sale rules for individuals, may also help some.\"",
"From the IRS Section 1091. Loss from Wash Sales of Stock or Securities Section 1091(a) provides that in the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law),or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or 3 securities, then no deduction shall be allowed under § 165 The document is not long, 4 pages, and should be read to see the intent. It's tough to choose the one snippet, but the conclusion is this is the definitive response to that question. A purchase within an IRA or other retirement account can create a wash sale if such a purchase would be a wash sale otherwise, i.e. the fact that it's a retirement account doesn't avoid wash rules.",
"You are not allowed to pick and choose what years to take a loss once the stock/fund is sold. While I realize it might be too late for you to do anything now, in the future if members should read this, they might consider doing a Roth conversion during that year they will have $3000 in losses. This way they will show some income that can be offset by that loss, effectively getting a free conversion to the Roth.",
"The top long-term capital gains tax rate will rise to 20% effective 1 Jan, 2011, unless Congress decides to do something about it before then. (Will they? Who knows!! There's been talk about it, but, well, it's Congress. They don't even know what they're going to do.) Anyway. The rules about when you can sell stock are mostly concerned with when you can realize a capital loss: if you sell a stock at a loss and then re-buy it for tax purposes within 30 days, it's a wash sale and not eligible for a deduction. However, I don't believe this applies to any stocks once you realize a gain - once you've realized the gain and paid your tax for it, it's all yours, locked in at whatever rate. Your replacement stock will be subject to short-term capital gains for the next year afterwards, and you might need to be careful with identifying the holding period on different lots of your stock, but I don't believe there will be any particular trouble. Please do not rely entirely on my advice and consult also with your tax preparer or lawyer. :) And the IRS documentation: Special Addendum for Nov/Dec 2012! Spoiler alert! Congress did indeed act: they extended the rates, but only temporarily, so now we're looking at tax hikes starting in 2013 instead, only the new top rate++ will be something like 23.8% on account of an extra 3.8% medicare tax on passive earnings (brought to you via Obamacare legislation). But the year and the rates' specifics aside, same thing still applies. And the Republican house and Democratic senate/President are still duking it out. Have fun. ++ 3.8% surtax applies to the lesser of (a) net investment income (b) income over $200,000 ($250k if married). 20% tax rate applies to people in the 15% income tax bracket for ordinary income or higher. Additional tax discounts for property held over 5 years may be available. Consult tax law and your favorite tax professional and prepare to be confused.",
"Yes, the newly bought shares will have a long-term holding period, regardless of when you sell them. In addition, it's only a wash sale if you sold the first shares for a loss; it's not a wash sale if you sold them for a gain. Wikipedia mentions this: When a wash sale occurs, the holding period for the replacement stock includes the period you held the stock you sold. Example: You've held shares of XYZ for 10 years. You sell it at a loss but then buy it back within the wash sale period. When you sell the replacement stock, your gain or loss will be long-term — no matter how soon you sell it. Charles Schwab also mentions this: Here's a quick example of a wash sale. On 9/30/XX, you buy 500 shares of ABC at $10 per share. One year later the stock price starts to drop, and you sell all your shares at $9 per share on 10/4/XY. Two days later, on 10/6, ABC bottoms out at $8 and you buy 500 shares again. This series of trades triggers a wash sale. The holding period of the original shares will be added to the holding period of the replacement shares, effectively leaving you with a long-term position.",
"Equal sized gains and losses in alternating years would lead to an unjust positive tax. On the contrary. If I can take my gains at the long term rate (15%) in even years, but take losses in odd years, up to $3000, or let them offset short term gains at ordinary rate, I've just gamed the system. What is the purpose of the wash sale rule? Respectfully, we here can do a fine job of explaining how a bit of tax code works. And we can suggest the implication of those code bits. But, I suspect that it's not easy to explain the history of particular rules. For wash sale, the simple intent is to not let someone take a loss without actually selling the stock for a time. You'd be right to say the +/- 30 days is arbitrary. I'd ask you to keep 2 things in mind if you continue to frequent this board -",
"Once you own no shares for 31 days, it's game over. Even though the accounting has wash sales to consider, in the end, gains and losses all cancel to one net position of break even, gain or loss. It's when there are shares remaining at the end of a period of time that the wash sale rules really impact the numbers.",
"You are correct. She cannot claim the initial loss of $1,000 on her taxes, she can only report the $500 profit. However, the IRS does allow her to add the $1,000 loss to the basis cost of her replacement shares. e.g.",
"\"The IRS rules are actually the same. 26 U.S. Code § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities In the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law), or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or securities, then no deduction shall be allowed... What you should take away from the quote above is \"\"substantially identical stock or securities.\"\" With stocks, one company may happen to have a high correlation, Exxon and Mobil come to mind, before their merger of course. With funds or ETFs, the story is different. The IRS has yet to issue rules regarding what level of overlap or correlation makes two funds or ETFs \"\"substantially identical.\"\" Last month, I wrote an article, Tax Loss Harvesting, which analyses the impact of taking losses each year. I study the 2000's which showed an average loss of 1% per year, a 9% loss for the decade. Tax loss harvesting made the decade slightly positive, i.e. an annual boost of approx 1%.\"",
"You need to give specific dates! In the United States, you have three years to file an amended tax return. https://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Ten-Facts-about-Amended-Tax-Returns Did the restaurant fail in 2012? If so, that's probably the year to take the loss. If you need to amend your 2012 return, which you filed in 2013, you should have until 2016 to file this. The exact date may be based on when you filed 2012 taxes!",
"Wash sale applies. If you purchase shares within 30 days of that Feb 3 sell date, the wash sale kicks in, preventing the loss on that sale, and deferring it into the new shares.",
"In addition to the adjustment type in NL7's answer, there are a host of others. If there are any adjustments, form 8949 is required, if not, the gains can be separated into short and long-term and added together to be entered on Schedule D. Anything requiring an adjustment code in column F of the 8949 requires an entry in column G. Some other example entries for column F include: (see the 8949 instructions for a complete list) **A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you: Buy substantially identical stock or securities, Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade, Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement account (IRA) or Roth IRA. (from Pub17)",
"The market maker will always take it off your hands. Just enter a market sell order. It will cost you a commission to pull the loss into this year. But that's it.",
"\"Yes- you do not realize gains or losses until you actually sell the stock. After you sell the initial stocks/bonds you have realized the gain. When you buy the new, different stocks you haven't realized anything until you then sell those. There is one exception to this, called the \"\"Wash-Sale Rule\"\". From Investopedia.com: With the wash-sale rule, the IRS disallows a loss deduction from the sale of a security if a ‘substantially identical security' was purchased within 30 days before or after the sale. The wash-sale period is actually 61 days, consisting of the 30 days before and the 30 days after the date of the sale. For example, if you bought 100 shares of IBM on December 1 and then sold 100 shares of IBM on December 15 at a loss, the loss deduction would not be allowed. Similarly, selling IBM on December 15 and then buying it back on January 10 of the following year does not permit a deduction. The wash-sale rule is designed to prevent investors from making trades for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes.\"",
"\"For restricted stock, I think the vesting date meets the requirements of the second wash sale trigger from IRS Pub 550: Wash Sales: Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade I base this on these two quotes from IRS Pub 525: Restricted Property: any income from the property, or the right to use the property, is included in your income as additional compensation in the year you receive the income or have the right to use the property. - Until the property becomes substantially vested, it is owned by the person who makes the transfer to you, usually your employer. So on the vest date: The transfer is taxable Ownership is transferred to you That seems close enough to \"\"a fully taxable trade\"\" for me. Maybe this changes if you pay the tax on the stock on the grant date. See Pub 525: Restricted Property: Choosing to include in income for year of transfer. Obviously, if this is important you should consult your tax advisor. Technicalities aside, I don't think it passes the sniff test. You're getting salable shares when the restricted stock vests. If you're selling other shares at a loss within 30 days of the vesting date, that smells like a wash sale to me.\"",
"Based on the statement in your question you think it should have been on the 2014 W-2 but it was included on the 2015 W-2. If you are correct, then you are asking them to correct two w-2 forms: the 2014 form and the 2015 form. You will also have to file form 1040-x for 2014 to correct last years tax forms. You will have to pay additional tax with that filing, and there could be penalties and interest. But if you directed them on the last day of the year, it is likely that the transaction actually took place the next year. You will have to look at the paperwork for the account to see what is the expected delay. You should also be able to see from the account history when it actually took place, and when the funds were credited to your account. or you could just pay the tax this year. This might be the best if there is no real difference in the result. Now if you added the sale to your taxes lat year without a corresponding tax statement from your account, that is a much more complex situation. The IRS could eventually flag the discrepancy, so you may have to adjust last year filing anyway.",
"Looks like there are no specific rule in India to prevent Wash sales. See the link below. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/personal-finance-news/investors-can-rejig-portfolio-book-short-term-loss-to-save-tax/articleshow/7812788.cms?intenttarget=no",
"When you get into reading Revenue Rulings and Treasury Regulations - I'd suggest hiring a professional to do that for you. Especially since you also need to assure that the new stock does indeed qualify as QSBS. However, from the revenue ruling you quoted it doesn't sound like there's any other requirement other than reporting the subsequent purchase as a loss on your schedule D. I wouldn't know, however, if there are subsequent/superseding revenue rulings on the matter since 1998. Professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) would have the means and the ability to research this and give you a proper advice.",
"\"I'll try to answer using your original example. First, let me restate your assumptions, slightly modified: The mutual fund has: Note that I say the \"\"mutual fund has\"\" those gains and losses. That's because they occur inside the mutual fund and not directly to you as a shareholder. I use \"\"realized\"\" gains and losses because the only gains and losses handled this way are those causes by actual asset (stock) sales within the fund (as directed by fund management). Changes in the value of fund holdings that are not sold are not included in this. As a holder of the fund, you learn the values of X, Y, and Z after the end of the year when the fund management reports the values. For gains, you will also typically see the values reported on your 1099-DIV under \"\"capital gains distributions\"\". For example, your 1099-DIV for year 3 will have the value Z for capital gains (besides reporting any ordinary dividends in another box). Your year 1 1099 will have $0 \"\"capital gains distributions\"\" shown because of the rule you highlighted in bold: net realized losses are not distributed. This capital loss however can later be used to the mutual fund holder's tax advantage. The fund's internal accounting carries forward the loss, and uses it to offset later realized gains. Thus your year 2 1099 will have a capital gain distribution of (Y-X), not Y, thus recognizing the loss which occurred. Thus the loss is taken into account. Note that for capital gains you, the holder, pay no tax in year 1, pay tax in year 2 on Y-X, and pay tax in year 3 on Z. All the above is the way it works whether or not you sell the shares immediately after the end of year 3 or you hold the shares for many more years. Whenever you do sell the shares, you will have a gain or loss, but that is different from the fund's realized losses we have been talking about (X, Y, and Z).\"",
"\"Summary of accepted answer: Your \"\"loss\"\" will not count as a loss (to the IRS). Which means no tax deduction for a \"\"short-term capital loss\"\" (on that sale). Instead, the IRS simply pretends like you had paid less for the stock to begin with.\"",
"I sold it at 609.25 and buy again at 608.75 in the same day If you Sold and bought the same day, it would be considered as intra-day trade. Profit will be due and would be taxed at normal tax brackets. Edits Best Consult a CA. This is covered under Indian Accounting Standard AG51 The following examples illustrate the application of the derecognition principles of this Standard. (e) Wash sale transaction. The repurchase of a financial asset shortly after it has been sold is sometimes referred to as a wash sale. Such a repurchase does not preclude derecognition provided that the original transaction met the derecognition requirements. However, if an agreement to sell a financial asset is entered into concurrently with an agreement to repurchase the same asset at a fixed price or the sale price plus a lender's return, then the asset is not derecognised. This is more relevant now for shares/stocks as Long Term Capital Gains are tax free, Long Term Capital Loss cannot be adjusted against anything. Short Term Gains are taxed differentially. Hence the transaction can be interpreted as tax evasion, professional advise is recommended. A simple way to avoid this situation; sell on a given day and buy it next or few days later.",
"The way the wash sale works is your loss is added to your cost basis of the buy. So suppose your original cost basis is $10,000. You then sell the stock for $9,000 which accounts for your $1,000 loss. You then buy the stock again, say for $8,500, and sell it for $9,000. Since your loss of $1,000 is added to your cost basis, you actually still have a net loss of $500. You then buy the stock again for say $10,500, then sell it for $9,500. Your $500 loss is added to your cost basis, and you have a net loss of $1,500. Since you never had a net gain, you will not owe any tax for these transactions.",
"No, there's nothing special in mutual funds or ETFs. Wash sale rules apply to any asset.",
"I am not an accountant, but I have a light accounting background, despite being primarily an engineer. I also have a tiny schedule C business which has both better and worse years. I am also in the United States and pay US taxes. I assume you are referring to the US Form 1040 tax return, with the attached Schedule C. However little I know about US taxes, I know nothing about foreign taxes. You are a cash-basis taxpayer, so the transactions that happen in each tax year are based on the cash paid and cash received in that year. You were paid last year, you computed your schedule C based on last year's actual transactions, and you paid taxes on that income. You can not recompute last years schedule C based on the warranty claim. You might want to switch to an accrual accounting method, where you can book allowances for warranty claims. It is more complex, and if your business is spotty and low volume, it may be more trouble than it is worth. At this point, you have two months to look for ways to shift expenses into next year or being income into this year, both of which help offset this loss. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on. This article on LegalZoom (link here) discusses how to apply a significant net operating loss (NOL) in this year to the previous two years, and potentially carry it forward to the next two years. This does involve filing amended returns for the prior two years, showing this year's NOL. For this to be relevant, your schedule C loss this year must exceed your other W2 and self-employment income this year, with other tests also applied. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on.",
"\"There are different schools of thought. You can ask the IRS - and it would not surprise me if you got different answers on different phone calls. One interpretation is that a put is not \"\"substantially identical\"\" to the disposed stock, therefore no wash is triggered by that sale. However if that put is exercised, then you automatically purchase the security, and that is identical. As to whether the IRS (or your brokerage firm) recognizes the identical security when it falls out of an option, I can't say; but technically they could enforce it because the rule is based on 30 days and a \"\"substantially identical\"\" stock or security. In this interpretation (your investor) would probably at least want to stay out of the money in choosing a strike price, to avoid exercise; however, options are normally either held or sold, rather than be exercised, until at or very close to the expiration date (because time value is left on the table otherwise). So the key driver in this interpretation would be expiration date, which should be at least 31 days out from the stock sale; and it would be prudent to sell an out of the money put as well, in order to avoid the wash sale trigger. However there is also a more unfavorable opinion - see fairmark.com/capgain/wash/wsoption.htm where they hold that a \"\"deep in the money\"\" option is an immediate trigger (regardless of exercise). This article is sage, in that they say that the Treasury (IRS) may interpret an option transaction as a wash if it's ballpark to being exercisable. And, if the IRS throws paper, it always beats each of paper, rock and scissors :( A Schwab article (\"\"A Primer on Wash Sales\"\") says, if the CUSIPs match, bang, wash. This is the one that they may interpret unfavorably on in any case, supporting Schwab's \"\"play it safe\"\" position: \"\"3. Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities...\"\" . This certainly nails buying a call. As to selling a put, well, it is at least conceivable that an IRS official would call that a contract to buy! SO it's simply not a slam dunk; there are varying opinions that you might describe as ranging from \"\"hell no\"\" to \"\"only if blatant.\"\" If you can get an \"\"official\"\" predetermination, or you like to go aggressive in your tax strategy, there's that; they may act adversely, so Caveat Taxfiler!\"",
"Is this possible and will it have the intended effect? From the US tax perspective, it most definitely is and will. Is my plan not very similar to Wash Sale? Yes, except that wash sale rules apply for losses, not gains. In any case, since you're not a US tax resident, the US wash sale rules won't apply to you.",
"It was not 100% clear if you have held all of these stocks for over a year. Therefore, depending on your income tax bracket, it might make sense to hold on to the stock until you have held the individual stock for a year to only be taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Also, you need to take into account the Net Investment Income Tax(NIIT), if your current modified adjusted income is above the current threshold. Beyond these, I would think that you would want to apply the same methodology that caused you to buy these in the first place, as it seems to be working well for you. 2 & 3. No. You trigger a taxable event and therefore have to pay capital gains tax on any gains. If you have a loss in the stock and repurchase the stock within 30 days, you don't get to recognize the loss and have to add the loss to your basis in the stock (Wash Sales Rules).",
"Yes. As long as the stock is in a taxable account (i.e. not a tax deferred retirement account) you'll pay gain on the profit regardless of subsequent purchases. If the sale is a loss, however, you'll risk delaying the claim for the loss if you repurchase identical shares within 30 days of that sale. This is called a wash sale.",
"\"If you bought them, you can sell them. That does not preclude you from buying again later. You might get yourself into a situation where you need to account for a so-called \"\"wash sale\"\" on your taxes, but your broker should calculate that and report it on your 1099-B at the end of the year. There's nothing illegal about this though - It's just a required step in the accounting of capital gains for tax purposes.\"",
"\"When a question is phrased this way, i.e. \"\"for tax purposes\"\" I'm compelled to advise - Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog. In theory, one can create a loss, up to the $3K, and take it against ordinary income. When sold, the gains may be long term and be at a lower rate. In reality, if you are out of the stock for the required 30 days, it will shoot up in price. If you double up, as LittleAdv correctly offers, it will drop over the 30 days and negate any benefit. The investing dog's water bowl is half full.\"",
"First, I believe that you can't just divide the losses over a number of years. I know that would be ideal as it might let you use the losses to only offset 25% income. A loss that gets you below zero taxable income would carry forward to the next year. That said, I think it would be a great strategy to use the loss to offset a Roth conversion, in your case, from the traditional 401(k) to Roth 401(k). Keep in mind, as you've seen from using the 2016 tax year TurboTax, you should be able to make a fairly good estimate for your 2017 return. This could effectively use all of the loss to offset 25% income. I'd look at the current projection and convert say 75-80% of the target amount immediately, then in November when the 2017 software comes out, convert the rest to get as close to your goal as you can.",
"\"There some specific circumstances when you would have a long-term gain. Option 1: If you meet all of these conditions: Then you've got a long-term gain on the stock. The premium on the option gets rolled into the capital gain on the stock and is not taxed separately. From the IRS: If a call you write is exercised and you sell the underlying stock, increase your amount realized on the sale of the stock by the amount you received for the call when figuring your gain or loss. The gain or loss is long term or short term depending on your holding period of the stock. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010630 Option 2: If you didn't hold the underlying and the exercise of the call that you wrote resulted in a short position, you might also be able to get to a long-term gain by buying the underlying while keeping your short position open and then \"\"crossing\"\" them to close both positions after one year. (In other words, don't \"\"buy to cover\"\" just \"\"buy\"\" so that your account shows both a long and a short position in the same security. Your broker probably allows this, but if not you, could buy in a different account than the one with the short position.) That would get you to this rule: As a general rule, you determine whether you have short-term or long-term capital gain or loss on a short sale by the amount of time you actually hold the property eventually delivered to the lender to close the short sale. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010586 Option 1 is probably reasonably common. Option 2, I would guess, is uncommon and likely not worthwhile. I do not think that the wash sale rules can help string along options from expiration to expiration though. Option 1 has some elements of what you wrote in italics (I find that paragraph a bit confusing), but the wash sale does not help you out.\"",
"Reading IRS Regulations section 15a.453-1(c) more closely, I see that this was a contingent payment sale with a stated maximum selling price. Therefore, at the time of filing prior years, there was no way of knowing the final contingent payment would not be reached and thus the prior years were filed correctly and should not be amended. Those regulations go on to give an example of a sale with a stated maximum selling price where the maximum was not reached due to contingency and states that in such cases: When the maximum [payment] amount is subsequently reduced, the gross profit ratio will be recomputed with respect to payments received in or after the taxable year in which an event requiring reduction occurs. However, in this case, that would result in a negative gross profit ratio on line 19 of form 6252 which Turbo Tax reports should be a non-negative number. Looking further in the regulations, I found an example which relates to bankruptcy and a resulting loss in a subsequent year: For 1992 A will report a loss of $5 million attributable to the sale, taken at the time determined to be appropriate under the rules generally applicable to worthless debts. Therefore, I used a gross profit ratio of zero on line 19 and entered a separate stock sale not reported on a 1099-B as a worthless stock on Form 8949 as a capital loss based upon the remaining basis in the stock sold in an installment sale. I also included an explanatory statement with my return to the IRS stating: In 2008, I entered into an installment sale of stock. The sale was a contingent payment sale with a stated maximum selling price. The sales price did not reach the agreed upon maximum sales price due to some contingencies not being met. According to the IRS Regulations section 15a.453-1(c) my basis in the stock remains at $500 in 2012 after the final payment. Rather than using a negative gross profit ratio on line 19 of form 6252, I'm using a zero ratio and treating the remaining basis as a schedule-D loss similar to worthless stock since the sale is now complete and my remaining basis is no longer recoverable.",
"The loss for B can be used to write off the gain for A. You will fill out a schedule 3 with cost base and proceeds of disposition. This will give you a $0 capital gain for the year and an amount of $5 (50% of the $10 loss) you can carry forward to offset future capital gains. You can also file a T1-a and carry the losses back up to 3 years if you're so inclined. It can't be used to offset other income (unless you die). Your C and D trades can't be on income account except for very unusual circumstances. It's not generally acceptable to the CRA for you to use 2 separate accounting methods. There are some intricacies but you should probably just use capital gains. There is one caveat that if you do short sales of Canadian listed securities, they will be on income account unless you fill out form T-123 and elect to have them all treated as capital gains. I just remembered one wrinkle in carrying forward capital losses. They don't reduce your capital gains anymore, but they reduce your taxable income. This means your net income won't be reduced and any benefits that are calculated from that (line 236), will not get an increase.",
"No one can advise you on whether to hold this stock or sell it. Your carried losses can offset short or long term gains, but the long term losses have to be applied to offset long term gains before any remaining losses can offset short term gains. Your question doesn't indicate how long you have to hold before the short term gains become long term gains. Obviously the longer the holding period, the greater the risk. You also must avoid a wash sale (selling to lock in the gains/reset your basis then repurchasing within a month). All of those decisions hold risks that you have to weigh. If you see further upside in holding it longer, keep the investment. Don't sell just to try to maximize tax benefits.",
"Your 1&2 are the end of that chapter. You can't convert for that year again, and must wait 30 days to convert in the new tax year. For example, each year for over a decade, I've helped my mother in law with this. In May, we convert a chunk of money/stock to Roth. In April, I'll recharacterize just enough so she tops off her 15% bracket but doesn't hit 25%. 30 days later, the new conversion happens. All the Roth money is money now taxed at 15%, which, in an emergency, a need for a lot of cash, will avoid the potential of 25% or higher, tax. You see, your 3 never really happens.",
"I agree, one should not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. The only question should be whether he'd buy the stock at today's price. If he wishes to own it long term, he keeps it. To take the loss this year, he'd have to sell soon, and can't buy it back for 30 days. If, for whatever reason, the stock comes back a bit, he's going to buy in higher. To be clear, the story changes for ETFs or mutual funds. You can buy a fund to replace one you're selling, capture the loss, and easily not run afoul of wash sale rules.",
"\"You have to calculate the total value of all shares and then ask yourself \"\"Would I invest that amount of money in this stock?\"\" If the answer is yes, then only sell what you need to sell. Take the $3k loss against your income, if you have no other gains. If you would not invest that amount of cash in that stock, then sell it all right now and carry forward the excess loss every year. Note at any point you have capital gains you can offset all of them with your loss carryover (not just $3k).\"",
"I don't believe in letting the tax tail wag the investing dog. You have a stock you no longer wish to hold for whatever reason? Sell it. But to sell a loser, hoping it doesn't rise by the time you wish to re-buy it in 30 days is folly. This effort may gain you $50 if done right. No, it's not worth it either way.",
"My understanding is that losses are first deductible against any capital gains you may have, then against your regular income (up to $3,000 per year). If you still have a loss after that, the loss may be carried over to offset capital gains or income in subsequent years As you suspect, a short term capital loss is deductible against short term capital gains and long term losses are deductible against long term gains. So taking the loss now MIGHT be beneficial from a tax perspective. I say MIGHT because there are a couple scenarios in which it either may not matter, or actually be detrimental: If you don't have any short term capital gains this year, but you have long term capital gains, you would have to use the short term loss to offset the long term gain before you could apply it to ordinary income. So in that situation you lose out on the difference between the long term tax rate (15%) and your ordinary income rate (potentially higher). If you keep the stock, and sell it for a long term loss next year, but you only have short-term capital gains or no capital gains next year, then you may use the long term loss to offset your short-term gains (first) or your ordinary income. Clear as mud? The whole mess is outlined in IRS Publication 550 Finally, if you still think the stock is good, but just want to take the tax loss, you can sell the stock now (to realize the loss) then re-buy it in 30 days. This is called Tax Loss Harvesting. The 30 day delay is an IRS requirement for being allowed to realize the loss.",
"\"The IRS has been particularly vague about the \"\"substantially identical\"\" investment part of the wash rule. Many brokers, Schwab for instance, say that only identical CUSIPs (exactly the same ETF) matter for the wash rule in their internal calculations, but warn that the IRS might consider two ETFs over the same index to be substantially identical. In your case, the broker has chosen to call these a wash despite even having different underlying indices. Talking to the broker is the first step as they will report it to the IRS. Though technically you have the final say in your taxes about the cost basis, discussing this with the IRS could be rather painful. First though it is probably worth checking with your broker about exactly what happened. There are other wash sale triggers that frequently trip people up that may have been in play here.\"",
"On line 21 of Schedule D, you write the smaller of So, in your case, since your Line 16 shows a loss of more than $3000 on Line 21, you write 3000 on Line 21 (the parentheses indicating that is it a negative number are already included on the form). Also, you write (3000) on Form 1040 Line 13. The rest of the loss is a carryover to next year (be sure to fill out the Capital Loss Carryover Worksheet where the carryover to next year is computed). Summary: you cannot write 0 on Line 21 of Schedule D and carry over the entire loss to next year. You must deduct $3000 this year and carry over the rest of the loss to next year.",
"\"'Note that \"\"to keep an investor from lowering their tax bill\"\" is not an explanation'. Well, yes it is. In fact it is the only explanation. The rule plainly exists to prevent someone from realizing a loss when their economic situation remains unchanged before/after a sale. Now, you might say 'but I have suffered a loss, even if it is unrealized!' But, would you want to pay tax on unrealized gains? The tax system still caters to reducing the tax impact of investments, particularly capital investments. Part and parcel with the system of taxing gains only when realized, is that you can recognize losses only when realized. Are there other ways to 'artificially' reduce taxable income? Yes. But the goal of a good tax system should be to reduce those opportunities. Whether you agree that it is fair for the government to prevent this tax-saving opportunity, when others exist, is another question. But that is why the rule exists.\"",
"\"It sounds like this is an entirely unsettled question, unfortunately. In the examples you provide, I think it is safe to say that none of those are 'substantially identical'; a small overlap or no overlap certainly should not be considered such by a reasonable interpretation of the rule. This article on Kitces goes into some detail on the topic. A few specifics. First, Former publication 564 explains: Ordinarily, shares issued by one mutual fund are not considered to be substantially identical to shares issued by another mutual fund. Of course, what \"\"ordinarily\"\" means is unspecified (and this is no longer a current publication, so, who knows). The Kitces article goes on to explain that the IRS hasn't really gone after wash sales for mutual funds: Over the years, the IRS has not pursued wash sale abuses against mutual funds, perhaps because it just wasn’t very feasible to crack down on them, or perhaps because it just wasn’t perceived as that big of an abuse. After all, while the rules might allow you to loss-harvest a particular stock you couldn’t have otherwise, it also limits you from harvesting ANY losses if the overall fund is up in the aggregate, since losses on individual stocks can’t pass through to the mutual fund shareholders. But then goes to explain about ETFs being very different: sell SPY, buy IVV or VTI, and you're basically buying/selling the identical thing (99% or so correlation in stocks owned). The recommendation by the article is to look at the correlation in owned stocks, and stay away from things over 95%; that seems reasonable in my book as well. Ultimately, there will no doubt be a large number of “grey” and murky situations, but I suspect that until the IRS provides better guidance (or Congress rewrites/updates the wash sale rules altogether!), in the near term the easiest “red flag” warning is simply to look at the correlation between the original investment being loss-harvested, and the replacement security; at correlations above 0.95, and especially at 0.99+, it’s difficult to argue that the securities are not ”substantially identical” to each other in performance. Basically - use common sense, and don't do anything you think would be hard to defend in an audit, but otherwise you should be okay.\"",
"If you do this, you own a stock worth $1, with a basis of $2. The loss doesn't get realized until the shares are sold. Of course, we hope you see the stock increase above that price, else, why do this?",
"What might make more sense is to 'capture' your losses. Sell out the funds you have, move into something else that is different enough that the IRS won't consider it a wash sale, and you can then use those losses to offset gains (you can even carry them forward) You would still be in the market, just having made a sort of 'sideways move'. A month or two later (once you are clear of wash sale rules) you could shift back to your original choices. (this answer presumes you are in the US, or somewhere that lets you use losses to offset gains)",
"Using a different cost basis than your broker's reporting is NOT a problem. You need to keep your own records to account for this difference. Among the other many legitimate reasons to adjust your cost basis, the most popular is when you have two brokerage accounts and sell an asset in one then buy in another. This is called a Wash Sale and is not a taxable event for you. However from the perspective of each broker with their limited information you are making a transaction with tax implications and their reported 1099 will show as such. Links: https://www.firstinvestors.com/docs/pdf/news/tax-qa-2012.pdf",
"In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-). In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.",
"This answer assumes you're asking about how to handle this issue in the USA. I generally downvote questions that ask about a tax/legal issue and don't bother providing the jurisdiction. In my opinion it is extremely rude. Seeing that you applied for an LLC, I think that you somehow consider it as a relevant piece of information. You also attribute some importance to the EIN which has nothing to do with your question. I'm going to filter out that noise. As an individual/sole-proprietor (whether under LLC or not), you cannot use fiscal years, only calendar years. It doesn't matter if you decide to have your LLC taxed as S-Corp as well, still calendar year. Only C-Corp can have a fiscal year, and you probably don't want to become a C-Corp. So the year ends on December 31, and whether accrual or cash - you can only deduct expenses you incurred until then. Also, you must declare the income you got until then, which in your case will be the full amount of funding - again regardless of whether you decided to be cash-based or accrual based. So the main thing you need to do is to talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) and learn about the tax law relevant to your business and its implications on your actions. There may be some ways to make it work better, and there are some ways in which you can screw yourself up completely in your scenario, so do get a professional advice.",
"Your final tax basis could not be determined until June 14, 2012, the first day of separate trading of all four securities that you received from the GM bankruptcy reorganization.",
"\"After much research, the answer is \"\"a\"\": recompute the tax return using the installment sales method because (1) the escrow payment was subject to \"\"substantial restrictions\"\" by virtue of the escrow being structured to pay buyer's indemnification claims and (2) the taxpayer did not correctly elect out of the installment method by reporting the entire gain including the escrow payments on the return in the year of the transaction.\"",
"If you received a distribution to buy, build, or rebuild a first home and the purchase or construction was canceled or delayed, you generally can contribute the amount of the distribution to an IRA within 120 days of the distribution. This contribution is treated as a rollover contribution to the IRA. This is from my friend, Publication 590. See Page 51, next to 'TIP' in second col.",
"Capital losses do mirror capital gains within their holding periods. An asset or investment this is certainly held for a year into the day or less, and sold at a loss, will create a short-term capital loss. A sale of any asset held for over a year to your day, and sold at a loss, will create a loss that is long-term. When capital gains and losses are reported from the tax return, the taxpayer must first categorize all gains and losses between long and short term, and then aggregate the sum total amounts for every single regarding the four categories. Then the gains that are long-term losses are netted against each other, therefore the same is done for short-term gains and losses. Then your net gain that is long-term loss is netted against the net short-term gain or loss. This final net number is then reported on Form 1040. Example Frank has the following gains and losses from his stock trading for the year: Short-term gains - $6,000 Long-term gains - $4,000 Short-term losses - $2,000 Long-term losses - $5,000 Net short-term gain/loss - $4,000 ST gain ($6,000 ST gain - $2,000 ST loss) Net long-term gain/loss - $1,000 LT loss ($4,000 LT gain - $5,000 LT loss) Final net gain/loss - $3,000 short-term gain ($4,000 ST gain - $1,000 LT loss) Again, Frank can only deduct $3,000 of final net short- or long-term losses against other types of income for that year and must carry forward any remaining balance.",
"You need to submit an updated return. The problem is that once three years have passed you can't update the return to get any kind of refund, but if they are going after you for the sale price of the stocks, not knowing the cost, your goal is to show them there was no gain, and in fact you'd have had the loss if you were aware of the account. This is less than ten years back, so the broker should be able to give you the statements pretty easily.",
"No, the 120 days rule only applies in cases of delay or cancellation. If the purchase went through and you got additional money elsewhere - you cannot re-deposit the distribution back. See IRC Sec. 72(t)(8)(E): If any distribution from any individual retirement plan fails to meet the requirements of subparagraph (A) solely by reason of a delay or cancellation of the purchase or construction of the residence, the amount of the distribution may be contributed to an individual retirement plan as provided in section 408 (d)(3)(A)(i) (determined by substituting “120th day” for “60th day” in such section)",
"\"From Intuit: \"\"Yes, but there are limits. Losses on your investments are first used to offset capital gains of the same type. So short-term losses are first deducted against short-term gains, and long-term losses are deducted against long-term gains. Net losses of either type can then be deducted against the other kind of gain.\"\" \"\"If you have an overall net capital loss for the year, you can deduct up to $3,000 of that loss against other kinds of income, including your salary, for example, and interest income. Any excess net capital loss can be carried over to subsequent years to be deducted against capital gains and against up to $3,000 of other kinds of income.\"\" So in your case, take the loss now if you have short term gains. Also take it if you want to take a deduction on your salary (but this maxes at 3k, but you can keep using an additional 3k each year into the future until its all used up). There isn't really an advantage to a long term loss right now (since long term rates are LOWER than short term rates).\"",
"You'll have to file an amended tax return for that tax year. Filing an Amended Tax Return",
"If you made a contribution to a Traditional IRA for Year X (whether made during Year X or made in Year X+1 before the due date of your tax return for Year X), then you can withdraw the contribution and any gains on that contribution by the due date of your tax return. If the contribution was deductible, then of course you must not take a deduction for it in on your tax return for Year X (or any other year for that matter). As for the gains (if any) that were withdrawn, they are taxable income to you for Year X (not X+1, even if the withdrawal occurred in Year X+1). Publication 590a says You generally can make a tax-free withdrawal of contributions if you do it before the due date for filing your tax return for the year in which you made them. This means that, even if you are under age 59-1/2, the 10% additional tax may not apply. and later in the same Publication If you have an extension of time to file your return, you can withdraw them tax free by the extended due date. You can do this if, for each contribution you withdraw, both of the following conditions apply. - You did not take a deduction for the contribution. - You withdraw any interest or other income earned on the contribution. You can take into account any loss on the contribution while it was in the IRA when calculating the amount that must be withdrawn. If there was a loss, the net income earned on the contribution may be a negative amount. Later, the document says You must include in income any earnings on the contributions you withdraw. Include the earnings in income for the year in which you made the contributions, not the year in which you withdraw them. and The 10% additional tax on distributions made before you reach age 59-1/2 does not apply to these tax-free withdrawals of your contributions. However, the distribution of interest or other income must be reported on Form 5329 and, unless the distribution qualifies as an exception to the age 59-1/2 rule, it will be subject to this tax. Since you have a loss on the contributions that you are withdrawing, there is no interest or other income that needs to be reported.",
"\"Individuals most definitely can have NOL. This is covered in the IRS publication 536. What is the difference between NOL and capital loss? NOL is Net Operating Loss. I.e.: a situation where your (allowable) expenses and deductions exceed your gross income. Basically it means that you have negative income for that year, for tax purposes. Capital loss occurs when the total amount of your capital gains reported on Schedule D is negative. What are their relations then? Not all expenses and deductions that you usually put on your tax return are allowed for NOL calculation. For example, capital loss is not allowed. I.e.: if you earned $2000 and you lost in stocks $3000 - you do not get a $1K NOL. Capital losses are excluded from NOL calculation and in this scenario you still have non-negative income for NOL purposes even though it is offset in full by capital loss deduction and your \"\"taxable income\"\" line is negative. The $1K that was not allowed - gets carried forward to the next year using the Capital Loss Carryover Worksheet in the instructions to Schedule D. You calculate your NOL using form 1045 schedule A. You can use the form 1045 to apply the NOL to prior 2 years, or you can elect to apply it only to future years (up to 20 years). In what cases, capital loss can be NOL? Never.\"",
"Is it true that you cannot amend a tax return to include both a futures loss carry back and a Schedule C at the same time? No, it is not true. You can include all the changes necessary in a single amended return, attaching statement explaining each of the changes. However you're talking about two different kinds of changes. Futures loss carryback is a Sec. 1212 carryback and not a correction of an error. Adding Schedule C would be a correction of an error. I'm guessing your CPA wants to separate the two kinds to avoid the situation where the IRS refuses to accept your correction of an error and by the way also doesn't accept the Sec. 1212 carryback on the same return. Or the CPA just wants to charge you twice for amendments.",
"The short answer is no - the CGT discount is only applied against your net capital gain. So your net capital gain would be: $25,000 - $5,000 = $20,000 Your CGT discount is $10,000 You will then pay CGT on $10,000 Of course you could sell ABC in this financial year and sell DEF next financial year. If you had no other share activities next financial year than that net capital loss can be carried forward to a future year. In that case your net capital gain this year would be $25,000 Your CGT discount is $12,500 You will then pay CGT on $12,500 Next year if oyu sell DEF, you'll have a $5000 net capital loss which you can carry forward to a future year as an offset against capital gains. Reference: https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Capital-gains-tax/Working-out-your-capital-gain-or-loss/Working-out-your-net-capital-gain-or-loss/",
"Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.",
"What JoeTaxpayer means is that you can sell one ETF and buy another that will perform substantially the same during the 30 day wash sale period without being considered substantially the same from a wash sale perspective more easily than you could with an individual stock. For example, you could sell an S&P 500 index ETF and then temporarily buy a DJIA index ETF. As these track different indexes, they are not considered to be substantially the same for wash sale purposes, but for a short term investing period, their performance should still be substantially the same.",
"\"If your sole proprietorship losses exceed all other sources of taxable income, then you have what's called a Net Operating Loss (NOL). You will have the option to \"\"carry back\"\" and amend a return you filed in the last 2 years where you owed tax, or you can \"\"carry forward\"\" the losses and decrease your taxes in a future year, up to 20 years in the future. For more information see the IRS links for NOL. Note: it's important to make sure you file the NOL correctly so I'd advise speaking with an accountant. (Especially if the loss is greater than the cost of the accountant...)\"",
"You mentioned that the 1099B that reports this sale is for 2014, which means that you got the proceeds in 2014. What I suspect happened was that the employer reported this on the next available paycheck, thus reporting it in the 2015 period. If this ends up being a significant difference for you, I'd argue the employer needs to correct both W2s, since you've actually received the money in 2014. However, if the difference for you is not substantial I'd leave it as is and remember that the employer will not know of your ESPP sales until at least several days later when the report from the broker arrives. If you sell on 12/31, you make it very difficult for the employer to account correctly since the report from the broker arrives in the next year.",
"\"You have multiple issues buried within this question. First, we don't know your tax bracket. For my answer, I'll assume 25%. This simply means that in 2016, you'll have a taxable $37,650 or higher. The interesting thing is that losses and gains are treated differently. A 25%er's long term gain is taxed at 15%, yet losses, up to $3000, can offset ordinary income. This sets the stage for strategic tax loss harvesting. In the linked article, I offered a look at how the strategy would have resulted in the awful 2000-2009 decade producing a slight gain (1%, not great, of course) vs the near 10% loss the S&P suffered over that time. This was by taking losses in down years, and capturing long term gains when positive (and not using a carried loss). Back to you - a 15%er's long term gain tax is zero. So using a gain to offset a loss makes little sense. Just as creating a loss to offset the gain. The bottom line? Enjoy the loss, up to $3000 against your income, and only take gains when there's no loss. This advice is all superseded by my rule \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" For individual stocks, I would never suggest a transaction for tax purposes. You keep good stocks, you sell bad ones. Sell a stock to take a short term loss only to have it recover in the 30 day waiting period just once, and you'll learn that lesson. Learn it here for free, don't make that mistake at your own expense.\"",
"You should apply for 83(b) within 30 days. 10 months is too late, sorry.",
"It is perfectly legitimate to adjust your 1099-B income by broker's fees. Publication 17 (p 116) specifically instructs taxpayers to adjust their Schedule D reporting by broker's fees: Form 1099-B transactions. If you sold property, such as stocks, bonds, or certain commodities, through a broker, you should receive Form 1099-B or substitute statement from the broker. Use the Form 1099-B or the substitute statement to complete Form 8949. If you sold a covered security in 2013, your broker should send you a Form 1099-B (or substitute statement) that shows your basis. This will help you complete Form 8949. Generally, a covered security is a security you acquired after 2010. Report the gross proceeds shown in box 2a of Form 1099-B as the sales price in column (d) of either Part I or Part II of Form 8949, whichever applies. However, if the broker advises you, in box 2a of Form 1099-B, that gross proceeds (sales price) less commissions and option premiums were reported to the IRS, enter that net sales price in column (d) of either Part I or Part II of Form 8949, whichever applies. Include in column (g) any expense of sale, such as broker's fees, commissions, state and local transfer taxes, and option premiums, unless you reported the net sales price in column (d). If you include an expense of sale in column (g), enter “E” in column (f). You can rely on your own records and judgment, if you feel comfortable doing so. Brokers often make incomplete tax reporting. This may have been simpler from their perspective if the broker fees were variable, or integrated, or unknown for a number of clients party to a transaction. If a taxpayer has documentation of the expenses that justify an adjustment, then it's perfectly appropriate to include that in the calculations. It is not necessary to report the discrepancy, and it may increase scrutiny to include a written addendum. The Schedule D, Form 8949, and Form 1099-B will probably together adequately explain the source of the deduction.",
"If you take the profit or loss next year, it counts on next year's taxes. There's no profit or loss until that happens.",
"For every document that the IRS posts, there will be a correlating instructions page. This would be the instructions for the 1099-B, here. Furthermore, as you will be reporting this on Form 8949, as a substitute for previously used Schedule D; instructions are here.This article explains that the best course of action is to donate the shares as the cost basis would switch to FMV (fair market value) of the assets today. But as this did not happen, I would recommend contacting the purchasing company directly. Being a share holder, and by purchasing the shares from the source, the accounting department should still have recorded the date of purchase along with the price sold. It may take effort to prove who you are, but if their accounting records are well documented, this will not be an issue. If nothing else, claim a 100% capital gain on the entirety of the sale, and pay the tax. That is stated here.",
"\"Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer nor a tax-expert This page on the HMRC site lists several pages that appear to be relevant, starting with CG78401 - Foreign currency: delayed remittances and on to CG78408 - Foreign currency: example which seems pertinent to your case [paraphrased]: A property bought in 1983 is sold for a [taxable] gain in one tax-year (1986/87) but the proceeds cannot be released/remitted to the UK until later (1991/92), by which time currency fluctuations have created a second [taxable] gain. The size of the first gain (selling the property) is determined by the exchange rate in effect at the time of the sale but because of local restrictions, this can be deferred. The size of the second gain (currency movement) is determined by the change in exchange-rate between the time of the sale and the time of conversion. In your case, the first \"\"gain\"\" was actually a loss, so I believe you should be able to use this to offset any tax due second gain. This page states that losses can be claimed up to four years after the end of the tax-year in which they were incurred, so you are probably still OK. (The example makes application under TCGA92/S279 to defer the gain made on the original sale [because of the inability to transfer funds], but as I understand it, this is primarily to avoid a tax liability in that year. Since you made a loss on the sale, there wouldn't have been a tax liability, so there would be no need to defer it).\"",
"\"According to the IRS, you must have written confirmation from your broker \"\"or other agent\"\" whenever you sell shares using a method other than FIFO: Specific share identification. If you adequately identify the shares you sold, you can use the adjusted basis of those particular shares to figure your gain or loss. You will adequately identify your mutual fund shares, even if you bought the shares in different lots at various prices and times, if you: Specify to your broker or other agent the particular shares to be sold or transferred at the time of the sale or transfer, and Receive confirmation in writing from your broker or other agent within a reasonable time of your specification of the particular shares sold or transferred. If you don't have a stockbroker, I'm not sure how you even got the shares. If you have an actual stock certificate, then you are selling very specific shares and the purchase date corresponds to the purchase date of those shares represented on the certificate.\"",
"Typically that applies if the broker Form 1099-B reports an incorrect basis to the IRS. If the Form 1099-B shows incorrect basis relative to your records, then you can use 8949, column (g) to report the correct basis. The 8949 Instructions provide a brief example. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i8949--2013.pdf Although you have an obligation to report all income, and hence to report the true basis, as a practical matter this information will usually be correct as presented by the broker. If you have separate information or reports relating to your investments, and you are so inclined, then you can double-check the basis information in your 1099-B. If you aren't aware of basis discrepancies, then the adjustments probably don't apply to you and your investments can stick to Schedule D.",
"From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(1)i): ... if a taxpayer sells or transfers shares of stock in a corporation that the taxpayer purchased or acquired on different dates or at different prices and the taxpayer does not adequately identify the lot from which the stock is sold or transferred, the stock sold or transferred is charged against the earliest lot the taxpayer purchased or acquired to determine the basis and holding period of the stock. From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(3): (i) Where the stock is left in the custody of a broker or other agent, an adequate identification is made if— (a) At the time of the sale or transfer, the taxpayer specifies to such broker or other agent having custody of the stock the particular stock to be sold or transferred, and ... So if you don't specify, the first share bought (for $100) is the one sold, and you have a capital gain of $800. But you can specify to the broker if you would rather sell the stock bought later (and thus have a lower gain). This can either be done for the individual sale (no later than the settlement date of the trade), or via standing order: 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(8) ... A standing order or instruction for the specific identification of stock is treated as an adequate identification made at the time of sale, transfer, delivery, or distribution.",
"Generally stock trades will require an additional Capital Gains and Losses form included with a 1040, known as Schedule D (summary) and Schedule D-1 (itemized). That year I believe the maximum declarable Capital loss was $3000--the rest could carry over to future years. The purchase date/year only matters insofar as to rank the lot as short term or long term(a position held 365 days or longer), short term typically but depends on actual asset taxed then at 25%, long term 15%. The year a position was closed(eg. sold) tells you which year's filing it belongs in. The tiny $16.08 interest earned probably goes into Schedule B, typically a short form. The IRS actually has a hotline 800-829-1040 (Individuals) for quick questions such as advising which previous-year filing forms they'd expect from you. Be sure to explain the custodial situation and that it all recently came to your awareness etc. Disclaimer: I am no specialist. You'd need to verify everything I wrote; it was just from personal experience with the IRS and taxes.",
"In a comment on this answer you asked It's not clear to me why the ability to defer the gains would matter (since you never materially benefit until you actually sell) but the estate step up in basis is a great point! Could you describe a hypothetical exploitive scenario (utilizing a wash sale) in a little more detail? This sounds like you still have the same question as originally, so I'll take a stab at answering with an example. I sell some security for a $10,000 profit. I then sell another security at a $10,000 loss and immediately rebuy. So pay no taxes (without the rule). Assuming a 15% rate, that's $1500 in savings which I realize immediately. Next year, I sell that same security for a $20,000 profit over the $10,000 loss basis (so a $10,000 profit over my original purchase). I sell and buy another security to pay no taxes. In fact, I pay no taxes like this for fifty years as I live off my investments (and a pension or social security that uses up my tax deductions). Then I die. All my securities step up in basis to their current market value. So I completely evade taxes on $500,000 in profits. That's $75,000 in tax savings to make my heirs richer. And they're already getting at least $500,000 worth of securities. Especially consider the case where I sell a privately held security to a private buyer who then sells me back the same shares at the same price. Don't think that $10,000 is enough? Remember that you also get the original value. But this also scales. It could be $100,000 in gains as well, for $750,000 in tax savings over the fifty years. That's at least $5 million of securities. The effective result of this would be to make a 0% tax on capital gains for many rich people. Worse, a poorer person can't do the same thing. You need to have many investments to take advantage of this. If a relatively poor person with two $500 investments tried this, that person would lose all the benefit in trading fees. And of course such a person would run out of investments quickly. Really poor people have $0 in investments, so this is totally impractical.",
"I wrote an article about this a while ago with detailed instructions, so I'll link to it here. Here's a snippet about how to use the Roth IRA loophole and report it properly: You don’t have any Traditional/Rollover IRA at all. You deposit up to the yearly maximum (currently $5500) into a traditional IRA. In your case, you re-characterized, which means you essentially deposited. The fact that it lost money may help you later if you have extra amounts in Traditional IRA. You convert your traditional IRA to become Roth IRA ($5500 change designation from Traditional IRA to Roth IRA). You fill IRS form 8606 and attach it to your yearly tax return, no tax due. You have a fully funded Roth IRA account. If you have amounts in the Traditional IRA in excess to what you contributed last year - it becomes a bit more complicated and you need to prorate. See my article for a detailed example. On the form 8606 you fill the numbers as they are. You deposited to IRA 5500, you converted 5100, your $400 loss is lost (unless you have more money in IRA from elsewhere). If you completely distribute your IRA, you can deduct the $400 on your Schedule A, if you itemize.",
"Interesting. How would they account for it? Monthly? And if so do they modify the cost basis for each lot for the month and then restate? It's hard to imagine they do that. I have a million questions regarding this topic do you know where in the regs it is covered?",
"\"Once again I offer some sage advice - \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" Michael offers an excellent method to decide what to do. Note, he doesn't base the decision on the tax implication. If you are truly indifferent to holding the stock, taxwise, you might consider selling just the profitable shares if that's enough cash. Then sell shares at a loss each year if you have no other gains. That will let you pay the long term gain rate on the shares sold this year, but offset regular income in years to come. But. I'm hard pressed to believe you are indifferent, and I'd use Michel's approach to decide. Updated - The New Law is simply a rule requiring brokers to track basis. Your situation doesn't change at all. When you sell the shares, you need to identify which shares you want to sell. For older shares, the tracking is your responsibility, that's all.\"",
"If this was a public corporation (stock) and the investment was made in a non-registered account, then you can claim a capital loss. Capital losses are claimed against capital gains (not income), and can be carried back 3 years or carried forward indefinitely. Here's an article I've written on how to claim capital losses that may help.",
"Your administrator will pull from last year's funds first, before automatically moving on to the new year. The procedures are under guidelines from the IRS so it should be pretty standard. You likely only have to submit the claim once, but your administrator may have a special grace period form to fill out.",
"Conversions must be done during the calendar year. This would apply to both IRA and 401(k) accounts. For IRAs, deposits may be made until 4/15, and the same holds for Solo 401(k) accounts. For conversions, the IRA permits a recharacterization, basically, a do-over, which reverses the conversion, any or all, in case you have any reason it should not have been done. That has a deadline of 10/15, i.e. 4/15 plus 6 month extension. The 401(k) conversion has no such provision. Simple answer 12/31 of the given year."
] |
[
"Disallowed losses are created when you buy a stock */- 30 days of a sale at a loss. When you sell and have no shares left, the loss is taken. You can't have no shares and leftover disallowed loss."
] |
8779
|
How does a defined contribution plan work
|
[
"180571",
"209730"
] |
[
1,
1
] |
[
"12614",
"420511",
"436897",
"180571",
"539112",
"460905",
"592032",
"98018",
"209730",
"403514",
"471259",
"84967",
"38532",
"242556",
"244412",
"290105",
"264023",
"481475",
"165305",
"325113",
"200898",
"154178",
"79083",
"522438",
"24231",
"591383",
"248536",
"15841",
"360533",
"417257",
"427997",
"218823",
"554140",
"449828",
"187498",
"203232",
"549223",
"2369",
"183643",
"560241",
"486367",
"257674",
"367556",
"349847",
"18239",
"20485",
"62281",
"49614",
"530703",
"42301",
"490497",
"191447",
"323355",
"289064",
"52438",
"399543",
"258440",
"239341",
"97805",
"58103",
"463892",
"452592",
"39071",
"87529",
"408233",
"408724",
"336917",
"505617",
"312369",
"300665",
"53544",
"560497",
"498444",
"511945",
"394549",
"435463",
"506182",
"168561",
"559883",
"169232",
"170717",
"294676",
"519750",
"349208",
"160786",
"19190",
"392752",
"555377",
"431203",
"353009",
"107520",
"536374",
"576391",
"30597",
"240259",
"181515",
"1219",
"181652",
"404587",
"514357"
] |
[
"Defined Benefit - the benefit you receive when you retire is defined e.g. $500 a month if you retire at age 65. It is up to the plan administrators to manage the pension fund, and ensure that there is enough money to cover the benefits based on the life expectancy of the retiree. Defined Contribution - the amount you contribute to the plan is defined. The benefit you receive at retirement depends on how well the investments do over the years.",
"In short, defined contribution plans yield different amounts of return based on the market whereas defined benefit plans yield predetermined amounts defined based on factors such as salary and years of service.",
"As others have explained defined contribution is when you (or your employer) contributes a specified amount and you reap all the investment returns. Defined benefit is when your employer promises to pay you a specified amount (benefit) and is responsible for making the necessary investments to provide for it. Is one better than the other? We can argue this either way. Defined benefit would seem to be more predictable and assured. The problem being of course that it is entirely reliant upon the employer to have saved enough money to pay that amount. If the employer fails in that responsibility, then the only fallback is government guarantees. And of course the government has limitations on what it can guarantee. For example, from Wikipedia: The maximum pension benefit guaranteed by PBGC is set by law and adjusted yearly. For plans that end in 2016, workers who retire at age 65 can receive up to $5,011.36 per month (or $60,136 per year) under PBGC's insurance program for single-employer plans. Benefit payments starting at ages other than 65 are adjusted actuarially, which means the maximum guaranteed benefit is lower for those who retire early or when there is a benefit for a survivor, and higher for those who retire after age 65. Additionally, the PBGC will not fully guarantee benefit improvements that were adopted within the five-year period prior to a plan's termination or benefits that are not payable over a retiree's lifetime. Other limitations also apply to supplemental benefits in excess of normal retirement benefits, benefit increases within the last five years before a plan's termination, and benefits earned after a plan sponsor's bankruptcy. By contrast, people tend to control their own defined contribution accounts. So they control how much gets invested and where. Defined contribution accounts are always 100% funded. Defined benefit pension plans are often underfunded. They expect the employer to step forward and subsidize them when they run short. This allows the defined benefits to both be cheaper during the employment period and more generous in retirement. But it also means that employers have to subsidize the plans later, when they no longer get a benefit from the relationship with the employee. If you want someone else to make promises to you and aren't worried that they won't keep them, you probably prefer defined benefit. If you want to have personal control over the money, you probably prefer defined contribution. My personal opinion is that defined benefit plans are a curse. They encourage risky behavior and false promises. Defined contribution plans are more honest about what they provide and better match the production of employment with its compensation. Others see defined benefit plans as the gold standard of pensions.",
"\"The end result is basically the same, it's just a choice of whether you want to base the final amount you receive on your salary, or on the stock market. You pay in a set proportion of your salary, and receive a set proportion of your salary in return. The pension (both contributions and benefit) are based on your career earnings. You get x% of your salary every year from retirement until death. These are just a private investment, basically: you pay a set amount in, and whatever is there is what you get at the end. Normally you would buy an annuity with the final sum, which pays you a set amount per year from retirement until death, as with the above. The amount you receive depends on how much you pay in, and the performance of the investment. If the stock market does well, you'll get more. If it does badly, you could actually end up with less. In general (in as much as anything relating to the stock market and investment can be generalised), a Defined Benefit plan is usually considered better for \"\"security\"\" - or at least, public sector ones, and a majority of people in my experience would prefer one, but it entirely depends on your personal attitude to risk. I'm on a defined benefit plan and like the fact that I basically get a benefit based on a proportion of my salary and that the amount is guaranteed, no matter what happens to the stock market in the meantime. I pay in 9% of my salary get 2% of my salary as pension, for each year I pay into the pension: no questions, no if's or buts, no performance indicators. Others prefer a defined contribution scheme because they know that it is based on the amount they pay in, not the amount they earn (although to an extent it is still based on earnings, as that's what defines how much you pay in), and because it has the potential to grow significantly based on the stock market. Unfortunately, nobody can give you a \"\"which is best\"\" answer - if I knew how pension funds were going to perform over the next 10-50 years, I wouldn't be on StackExchange, I'd be out there making a (rather large) fortune on the stock market.\"",
"\"The specific \"\"State Pension\"\" plan you have linked to is provided by the government of the U.K. to workers resident there. More generally speaking, many countries provide some kind of basic worker's pension (or \"\"social security\"\") to residents. In the United States, it is called (surprise!) \"\"Social Security\"\", and in Canada most of us call ours \"\"Canada Pension Plan\"\". Such pensions are typically funded by payroll deductions distinct & separate from income tax deducted at source. You can learn about the variety of social security programs around the world courtesy of the U.S. Social Security Administration's own survey. What those and many other government or state pensions have in common, and the term or concept that I think you are looking for, is that they are typically defined benefit type of plans. A defined benefit or DB plan is where there is a promised (or \"\"defined\"\") benefit, i.e. a set lump sum amount (such as with a \"\"cash balance\"\" type of DB plan) or income per year in retirement (more typical). (Note: Defined benefit plans are not restricted to be offered by governments only. Many companies also offer DB plans to their employees, but DB plans in the private sector are becoming more rare due to the funding risk inherent in making such a long-term promise to employees.) Whereas a defined contribution or DC plan is one where employee and/or employer put money into a retirement account, the balance of which is invested in a selection of funds. Then, at retirement the resulting lump sum amount or annual income amounts (if the resulting balance is annuitized) are based on the performance of the investments selected. That is, with a DC plan, there is no promise of you getting either a set lump sum amount or a set amount of annual income at retirement! The promise was up front, on how much money they would contribute. So, the contributions are defined (often according to a matching contribution scheme), yet the resulting benefit itself is not defined (i.e. promised.) Summary: DB plans promise you the money (the benefit) you'll get at retirement. DC plans only promise you the money (the contributions) you get now.\"",
"Defined Benefit Plans: Defined benefit plans are disappearing because of their high cost to the companies that provide them. When an employee retires, the company must pay his pension for the rest of his life, even longer if the pension includes a survivor option. Thus the company's financial burden grows as more employees retire. By law, they must provide a fund that has sufficient resources to pay all present and future pensions. Low interest rates, such as we have now, place a greater burden on the amount that must be in these funds. For these reasons, most companies, including large ones like IBM and Lockheed Martin, have discontinued their pension plans and provide only defined contribution plans. Defined Contribution Plans: These require the company to only make contributions while the employee is working. Once the employee retires, the company's responsibility ends. Usually these plans employ a 401K type savings plan for which the employee contributes and the companies matches some or all of that contribution. Comparison: Although a fully company paid pension plan is the best, it is now almost unavailable. The defined contribution plan, if it includes company matching, can be a viable alternative if the investments are chosen wisely and perform as expected. Of course, this is not guaranteed but is probably the best option that most working people have at this time.",
"Direct answers to your questions: contribute 6%, and put it in the Target Date Fund (probably Target Date Fund 2050).",
"The simple answer is that with the defined contribution plan: 401k, 403b, 457 and the US government TSP; the employer doesn't hold on to the funds. When they take your money from your paycheck there is a period of a few days or at the most a few weeks before they must turn the money over to the trustee running the program. If they are matching your contributions they must do the same with those funds. The risk is in that window of time between payday and deposit day. If the business folds, or enters bankruptcy protection, or decides to slash what they will contribute to the match in the future anything already sent to the trustee is out of their clutches. In the other hand a defined a benefit plan or pension plan: where you get X percent of your highest salary times the number of years you worked; is not protected from the company. These plans work by the company putting aide money each year based on a formula. The formula is complex because they know from history some employees never stick around long enough to get the pension. The money in a pension is invested outside the company but it is not out of the control of the company. Generally with a well run company they invest wisely but safely because if the value goes up due to interest or a rising stock market, the next year their required contribution is smaller. The formula also expects that they will not go out of business. The problems occur when they don't have the money to afford to make the contribution. Even governments have looked for relief in this area by skipping a deposit or delaying a deposit. There is some good news in this area because a pension program has to pay an annual insurance premium to The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation a quai-government agency of the federal government. If the business folds the PBGC steps in to protect the rights of the employees. They don't get all they were promised, but they do get a lot of it. None of those pension issues relate to the 401K like program. Once the money is transferred to the trustee the company has no control over the funds.",
"It is comparing apples to oranges. From govt or institution point of view defined contribution is better than defined benefits as they don't have to carry obligations. Although defined benefit sounds good, one can't guarantee it will be enough when you retire compared to inflation. It often becomes political issue. Defined contribution puts you in charge.",
"\"How will contribution limits rise? Contribution limits are raised based on COLA. COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) is a number based on CPI (Consumer Price Index) which is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The IRS publishes these limits annually and a simple search term to find them each year is \"\"415 limits\"\" because section 415 lists how much the various qualified plans can set aside each year. CPI is a heavily managed and very political number. It is the number that is cited when the media talks about \"\"inflation.\"\" Since it drives increases in salaries, deductions, Social Security and pension payments, there is very heavy pressure to keep the number smaller than it really is. My next step was to calculate how long that money will last One traditional rule-of-thumb is to withdraw 4% of your balance each year. Another alternative is to purchase annuities. While younger people think that annuities are horrible investments, they appeal to older people because they protect the annuitant from excessive risk of losing your capital. When you are 30, and another 2008 comes along wiping out half your savings, you have time to re-earn that money. When you are 60, and another 2008 comes along wiping out half your savings, you have very few years to recover that money. So an annuity pushes that risk onto insurance companies. If you think you will die in your 90s, then an annuity is going to be a good investment (the insurance company will be betting that you won't be living that long). I have a simple spreadsheet that I use to calculate estimated projected balances and compare them to actual performance. Don't forget that when you reach 50, the amount you can contribute goes up due to \"\"catch up contributions.\"\" There are 2 views of the same tab in this picture. There are 3 growth rates: pessimistic, nominal and optimistic. You can change the numbers to suit your own projections of future growth. Other tabs on this spreadsheet include measurements of actual performance by my 401k and IRA accounts. At the end of the year, I replace the numbers in columns F, G & H with the actual end-of-year dollar amounts. This way, future estimates do not get too far unhinged from reality. If you need more sophisticated planning, such as Monte Carlo analysis to attempt to cope with inflation, I recommend the book Engineering Your Retirement. The book is aimed at younger engineers, so there is a bit more math than the average person would want.\"",
"\"Hahaha, that sounds good but in real life pensions are almost never fully funded and almost never fully funded when starting off. That is why the post office is almost always losing money. They're required by law to pre-pay some crazy number like 70% of pension and retiree obligations up front which sucks up all resources. When a employee opens a pension plan their employer starts contributing a target amount dependent on the stated benefits and the actuarial projections. The market doesn't always go up and the actuaries are not always correct with lifespans either. You take the risk of losing that pension if you work for a bad company, same as if you invest in an employee stock option plan. You can usually take a lump-sum payout, but who would do that when you can get \"\"guaranteed\"\" money.\"",
"My employer matches 6% of my salary, dollar for dollar. So you have a great benefit. The self-directed side has no fees but $10 trades. No option trading. Yours basically allows you to invest your own funds, but not the match. It's a restriction, agreed, but a good plan.",
"\"Your contribution limit to a 401(k) is $18,000. Your employer is allowed to contribute to your 401(k), usually a \"\"matching contribution\"\". That matching contribution comes from your employer, so is not subject to your personal contribution limit. A contribution to a regular 401(k) is typically made with pre-tax money (i.e. you don't pay payroll taxes on the money you contribute) so you pay less taxes for the current tax year. However when you retire and you take money out, you pay taxes on the money you take out. On one hand, your tax rate may be lower when you have retired, but on the other hand, if your investments have appreciated over time, the total amount of tax you pay would be higher. If your company offers a Roth 401(k) plan, you can contribute $18,000 of after tax money. This way you pay the tax on the $18,000 today, as you would if you did not put the money in the 401(k), but when you take the money out at retirement, you would not have to pay tax. In my opinion, that serves as a way to pay effectively more money into your 401(k). Some firms put vesting provisions on the amount that they match in your 401(k), e.g. 4 years at 25% per year. So you have to work 1 full year to be entitled to 25% of their matching contribution, 2 years for 50%, and 4 years to receive all of it. Check your company's Summary Plan Description of the 401(k) to be sure. You are not allowed to invest pre-tax money into a Traditional IRA if you are already contributing to a 401(k) plan and have reached the income limits ($62,000 AGI for single head of household). You are allowed to contribute post-tax money to a Traditional IRA plan if you have already contributed to a 401(k), which you can then Roll-over into a Roth IRA (look up 'backdoor IRA'). The IRA contribution limit applies to all IRA accounts over that calendar year. You could put some money in a traditional IRA, a Roth IRA, another traditional IRA, etc. so long as the total amount is not more than the contribution limit. This gives you an upper limit of 5.5k + 18k = 23.5 investments in retirement accounts. Note however, once you reach age 50, these limits increase to 6.5k (IRA) + 24k (401(k)). They also are adjusted periodically with the rate of inflation. The following approach may be more efficient for building wealth: This ordering is the subject of debate and people have different opinions. There is a separate discussion of these priorities here: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? Note however, a 401(k) loan becomes payable if you leave your company, and if not repaid, is an unauthorised distribution from your 401k (and therefore subject to an additional 10% tax penalty). You should also be careful putting money into an IRA, as you will be subject to an additional 10% tax penalty if you take out the money (distribution) before retirement, unless one of the exceptions defined by the IRA applies (e.g. $10,000 for first time home purchase), which could wipe out more than any gains you made by putting it in there in the first place. Your specific circumstances may vary, so this approach may not be best for you. A registered financial advisor may be able to help - ensure they are legitimate: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov\"",
"\"If you aren't already contributing the maximum allowable amount, by all means do so. If you are already contributing the maximum, it doesn't matter that much when you make those contributions. Making fixed monthly contributions is done mostly for budgeting reasons. Most of us can't predict fund performance well enough to optimize our contributions (by which I mean, contributing more early if you think the market is going up, but waiting if you think it will go down, following the \"\"buy low\"\" strategy). As for employer matching, check with your company to see how they compute matches. They may match contributions for the year, even if those matching funds are only paid up to a maximum per paycheck. (For example, if you contribute 200% of the match for the first 6 months, then contribute nothing for the remaining 6 months, you may still receive the same matching funds per pay period as if you were contributing 100% throughout the year.)\"",
"My understanding is that to make the $18,000 elective deferral in this case, you need to pay yourself at least $18,000. There will be some tax on that for social security and Medicare, so you'll actually need to pay yourself a bit more to cover that too. The employer contribution is limited to 25% of your total compensation. The $18,000 above counts, but if you want to max out on the employer side, you'll need to pay yourself $140,000 salary since 25% of $140,000 is the $35,000 that you want to put into the 401k from the employer side. There are some examples from the IRS here that may help: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401-k-plans I know that you're not a one-participant plan, but some of the examples may help anyway since they are not all specific to one-participant plans.",
"I would hire an accountant to help set this up, given the sums of money involved. $53,000 would be the minimum amount of compensation needed to maximize the 401k. The total limit of contributions is the lesser of: 100% of the participant's compensation, or $53,000 ($59,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2015 and 2016. and they don't count contributions as compensation Your employer's contributions to a qualified retirement plan for you are not included in income at the time contributed. (Your employer can tell you whether your retirement plan is qualified.) On the bright side, employer contributions aren't subject to FICA withholdings.",
"\"when you contribute to a 401k, you get to invest pre-tax money. that means part of it (e.g. 25%) is money you would otherwise have to pay in taxes (deferred money) and the rest (e.g. 75%) is money you could otherwise invest (base money). growth in the 401k is essentially tax free because the taxes on the growth of the base money are paid for by the growth in the deferred portion. that is of course assuming the same marginal tax rate both now and when you withdraw the money. if your marginal tax rate is lower in retirement than it is now, you would save even more money using a traditional 401k or ira. an alternative is to invest in a roth account (401k or ira). in which case the money goes in after tax and the growth is untaxed. this would be advantageous if you expect to have a higher marginal tax rate during retirement. moreover, it reduces tax risk, which could give you peace of mind considering u.s. marginal tax rates were over 90% in the 1940's. a roth could also be advantageous if you hit the contribution limits since the contributions are after-tax and therefore more valuable. lastly, contributions to a roth account can be withdrawn at any time tax and penalty free. however, the growth in a roth account is basically stuck there until you turn 60. unlike a traditional ira/401k where you can take early retirement with a SEPP plan. another alternative is to invest the money in a normal taxed account. the advantage of this approach is that the money is available to you whenever you need it rather than waiting until you retire. also, investment losses can be deducted from earned income (e.g. 15-25%), while gains can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate (e.g. 0-15%). the upshot being that even if you make money over the course of several years, you can actually realize negative taxes by taking gains and losses in different tax years. finally, when you decide to retire you might end up paying 0% taxes on your long term capital gains if your income is low enough (currently ~50k$/yr for a single person). the biggest limitation of this strategy is that losses are limited to 3k$ per year. also, this strategy works best when you invest in individual stocks rather than mutual funds, increasing volatility (aka risk). lastly, this makes filing your taxes more complicated since you need to report every purchase and sale and watch out for the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules. side note: you should contribute enough to get all the 401k matching your employer offers. even if you cash out the whole account when you want the money, the matching (typically 50%-200%) should exceed the 10% early withdrawal penalty.\"",
"I have had pension programs with two companies. The first told you what your benefit would be if you retired at age X with Y years of service. Each year of service got you a percentage of your final years salary. There was a different formula for early retirement, and there was an offset for social security. They were responsible for putting enough money away each year to meet their obligations. Just before I left they did add a new feature. You could get the funds in the account in a lump sum when you left. If you left early you got the money in the account. If you left at retirement age you got the money that was needed to produce the benefit you were promised. Which was based on current interest rates. The second company had a plan where they published the funding formula. You knew with every quarterly statement how much was in your account, and what interest it had earned, and what benefit they estimated you would receive if you stayed until retirement age. This fund felt almost like a defined contribution, because the formula was published. If most people took the lump sum that was the only part that mattered. Both pension plans had a different set of formulas based on marriage status and survivor rules. The interest rates are important because they are used to determine how much money is needed to produce the promised monthly benefit. They are also used to determine how much they need to allocate each year to cover their obligations. If you can't make the math work you need to keep contacting HR. You need to understand how much should be flowing into the account each month.",
"In addition to the prior answer, talking from experience, you get into trouble if you surpass the contribution limit and your employer continues to deposit money above the IRS maximum allowed. When that happens, you have until April to take out the excess contribution and earned interest on that chunk of money and included in your tax return or else you get a steep tax penalty in addition to being double taxed ( for the current and next tax year). Also from experience, payroll departments will most likely get this wrong and it will end up in a compliance mess with you picking up the tab on your tax bill. Don't let it happen!!!",
"In the UK you have an allowance of £40,000 per annum for tax relief into a pension. This amount includes both your and your employer's contributions. If you earn more than £150,000 per annum this allowance starts to reduce and if you earn less than the allowance, your allowance is limited to what you earn. You can also carry over unused allowance from up to 3 years previously. If you stick within this allowance you won't pay tax on your pension contributions, if you go over the excess will be subject to tax. Salary exchange normally lets you avoid the National Insurance value of your contribution being taxed. If you paid your own money into your pension (without going through salary exchange), your contributions would have the 20% basic rate of tax credited to them and if you're a higher rate taxpayer you could reclaim the difference between the basic rate of tax and the higher rate of tax you pay but the National Insurance you've paid on your own money would not be reclaimable. You can't get the money back you've paid into your pension till you are are 58 (given that you are 27 now), the minimum age has risen from its historic 55 for your age group. That's the pension trade off, you forgo tax now in the expectation that, once retired, you will be paying tax at a lower rate (because your income will be lower and you are much less likely to be subject to higher rate taxation) in return for locking in your money till you're older. Your pension income will be subject to tax when you eventually take it. There are other options such as ISAs which have lower annual limits (£20,000 currently) and on which your contributions do not attract tax relief, but which are not taxed as income when you eventually spend them. ISAs and pensions are not mutually exclusive so if you have the money, you can do both. It's up to you to determine what mix of savings will be appropriate to generate income for your eventual retirement. If you are living in some other country when you retire your pension will be paid net of UK tax. You might then be able to claim (or pay) any difference between that and your local tax rate depending on what agreement exists between the UK government and the other country's government.",
"In addition to JoeTaxpayer's thorough answer, I just want to tackle one particular question that was also asked: ...all employer contributions are pretax? There are a few main reasons that employer contributions go into the traditional bucket instead of the Roth bucket: The only way an employer could logically contribute to your Roth directly would be by increasing your W2 wages by the same amount, but if they did that then you could just contribute to your own Roth with the extra money (up to the annual limit which is currently $18K).",
"Having money held from one paycheck hardly counts as being covered by a retirement plan in my book! It's not your book that counts, it's the Congress' book called the Internal Revenue Code. No, you cannot rescind a contribution after the fact. Maybe during the year you can do something with employer balancing it out, but not after the year is closed. (That, by the way, is different for IRAs where you can actually do re-characterization until the tax day of the next year)",
"\"All right, I will try to take this nice and slow. This is going to be a little long; try to bear with me. Suppose you contribute $100 to your newly opened 401(k). You now have $100 in cash and $0 in mutual funds in your 401(k) (and $100 less than you used to somewhere else). At some later date, you use that money within the 401(k) to buy a single share of the Acme World All-Market Index Fund which happens to trade at exactly $100 per share on the day your purchase goes through. As a result, you have $0 in cash and exactly one share of that fund (corresponding to $100) within your 401(k). Some time later, the price of the fund is up 10%, so your share is now worth $110. Since you haven't contributed anything more to your 401(k) for whatever reason, your cash holding is still $0. Because your holding is really denominated in shares of this mutual fund, of which you still have exactly one, the cash equivalent of your holding is now $110. Now, you can basically do one of two things: By selling the share, you protect against it falling in price, thus in a sense \"\"locking in\"\" your gain. But where do you put the money instead? You obviously can't put the money in anything else that might fall in price; doing so would mean that you could lose a portion of your gains. The only way to truly \"\"lock in\"\" a gain is to remove the money from your investment portfolio altogether. Roughly speaking, that means withdrawing the money and spending it. (And then you have to consider if the value of what you spent the money on can fluctuate, and as a consequence, fall. What's the value of that three weeks old jug of milk in the back of your refrigerator?) The beauty of compounding is that it doesn't care when you bought an investment. Let's say that you kept the original fund, which was at $110. Now, since that day, it is up another 5%. Since we are looking at the change of price of the fund over some period of time, that's 5% of $110, not 5% of the $100 you bought at (which was an arbitrary point, anyway). 5% of $110 is $5.50, which means that the value of your holding is now at $115.50 from a gain first of 10% followed by another 5%. If at the same day when the original fund was at $110 you buy another $100 worth of it, the additional 5% gain is realized on the sum of the two at the time of the purchase, or $210. Thus after the additional 5% gain, you would have not $210 (($100 + $100) + 5%), nor $205 (($100 + 5%) + $100), but $220.50 (($110 + $100) + 5%). See how you don't need to do anything in particular to realize the beauty of compounding growth? There is one exception to the above. Some investments pay out dividends, interest or equivalent in cash equivalents. (Basically, deposit money into an account of yours somewhere; in the case of retirement plans, usually within the same container where you are holding the investment. These dividends are generally not counted against your contribution limits, but check the relevant legal texts if you want to be absolutely certain.) This is somewhat uncommon in mutual funds, but very common in other investments such as stocks or bonds that you purchase directly (which you really should not do if you are just starting out and/or feel the need to ask this type of question). In that case, you need to place a purchase order yourself for whatever you want to invest the dividend in. If you don't, then the extra money of the dividend will not be growing along with your original investment.\"",
"With an annuity, you invest directly into an annuity with money you have earned as wages/salary/etc. You pay for it, and trade your payments into the annuity for guaranteed payments from the annuity issuer in the future. The more you pay in before the annuity payments begin, the more you will receive for your annuity payment. With a pension, most often you invest implicitly, rather than directly, into the pension. Rather than making a cash contribution on a regular basis, it is likely that your employer has periodically invested into the pension fund for you, using monies that would otherwise have been paid to you if there were no pension system. This is why your pension benefits are often determined based on years of service, your rate of pay, and similar factors.",
"If one makes say, $10K/mo, and the company will match the first 5% dollar for dollar, a 10%/mo deposit of $1K/mo will see a $500/mo match. If the employee manages to request 90% get put into the 401(k), after 2 months, he's done. If the company wished, they could continue the $500/mo match, I agree. They typically don't and in fact, the 'true up' you mention isn't even required, one is fortunate to get it. Many companies that match are going the other way, matching only after the year is over. Why? Why does any company do anything? To save money. I used to make an attempt to divide my deposit over the year to max out the 401(k) in December and get the match real time, not a true up.",
"If they're not matching, and their profit-sharing has nothing to do with how much you invest, then I'd say don't bother with the company 401k at all. If you need to at least have an account open to get the profit sharing, then contribute the bare minimum. Having your retirement account through your company forces you to follow their standards, choose from their funds, use their broker, etc. It also means that when you leave the company, you either have to move your money anyway, or else have an account through a company you don't work for, which I wouldn't feel all that comfortable doing anyway. If you open a retirement account through your bank or a private financial planner, then it's yours, and you can contribute what you want, when you want, and buy the securities that you want. Your account executive is there to service you, not your company.",
"According to the IRS, you can still put money in your IRA. Here (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Retirement-Topics-IRA-Contribution-Limits) they say: Can I contribute to an IRA if I participate in a retirement plan at work? You can contribute to a traditional or Roth IRA whether or not you participate in another retirement plan through your employer or business. However, you might not be able to deduct all of your traditional IRA contributions if you or your spouse participates in another retirement plan at work. Roth IRA contributions might be limited if your income exceeds a certain level. In addition, in this link (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/IRA-Deduction-Limits), the IRS says: Retirement plan at work: Your deduction may be limited if you (or your spouse, if you are married) are covered by a retirement plan at work and your income exceeds certain levels. The word 'covered' should clarify that - you are not covered anymore in that year, you just got a contribution in that year which was triggered by work done in a previous year. You cannot legally be covered in a plan at an employer where you did not work in that year.",
"I have worked for companies that have done this. One did have a match and the other did not. When they figured their profit at the end of the year a portion was given to the employees as a 401K deposit. retirement-topics-401k-and-profit-sharing-plan-contribution-limits Total annual contributions (annual additions) to all of your accounts in plans maintained by one employer (and any related employer) are limited. The limit applies to the total of: elective deferrals employer matching contributions employer nonelective contributions allocations of forfeitures The annual additions paid to a participant’s account cannot exceed the lesser of: 100% of the participant's compensation, or $54,000 ($60,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2017; $53,000 ($59,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2016. So as long as everything stays below that $54,000 limit you are good. In one case the decision was made by the company for the employee, the other company gave us the option of bonus check or 401K. I heard that most of the employees wanted the money in the 401K.",
"This is an older question but things have changed. Its a common misconception on what the contribution cap is. A few things. In 2014, the IRS did not adjust the maximum contribution from the previous year which include 401(k) accounts, 403(b) accounts, most 457 plans, and Thrift Savings Plans, will be $18,000, up $500 from $17,500. Savers and investors aged 50 or older can take advantage of a catch-up contribution. In 2015, taxpayers who meet this age-based criterion can contribute an additional $6,000 above the regular maximum of $18,000, thus you can contribute a maximum of $24,000 into these tax-advantaged accounts. The total contribution limit, including employer contributions, has increased to $53,000 You can actually contribute up to 53k (including matching) so the exact amount you contribute from your actual income may end up being more or less than 24k. If you get a poor employer match you can actually contribute more but it would go in as after tax dollars and not claim the tax deduction. Note: after tax does NOT equal Roth. However if your a high salaried individual you can use this as a potential loop hole for funding a Roth IRA. Chances are if your making enough money to contribute 53k Total Contributions then your not going to qualify for a roth. However once you retire (or possibly before depending on the plan withdraw terms) you can roll the after tax money into a Roth IRA. This is a gray area on the tax policy. The IRS may come back and change their mind about this. If considering this option talk to a tax adviser.",
"You might want to bring this fancy new IRS rule to your employer's attention. If your employer sets it up, an After-Tax 401(k) Plan allows employees to contribute after-tax money above the $18k/year limit into a special 401(k) that allows deferral of tax on all earnings until withdrawal in retirement. Now, if you think about it, that's not all that special on its own. Since you've already paid tax on the contribution, you could imitate the above plan all by yourself by simply investing in things that generate no income until the day you sell them and then just waiting to sell them until retirement. So basically you're locking up money until retirement and getting zero benefit. But here's the cool part: the new IRS rule says you can roll over these contributions into a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA with no extra taxes or penalties! And a Roth plan is much better, because you don't have to pay tax ever on the earnings. So you can contribute to this After-Tax plan and then immediately roll over into a Roth plan and start earning tax-free forever. Now, the article I linked above gets some important things slightly wrong. It seems to suggest that your company is not allowed to create a brand new 401(k) bucket for these special After-Tax contributions. And that means that you would have to mingle pre-tax and post-tax dollars in your existing Traditional 401(k), which would just completely destroy the usefulness of the rollover to Roth. That would make this whole thing worthless. However, I know from personal experience that this is not true. Your company can most definitely set up a separate After-Tax plan to receive all of these new contributions. Then there's no mingling of pre-tax and post-tax dollars, and you can do the rollover to Roth with the click of a button, no taxes or penalties owed. Now, this new plan still sits under the overall umbrella of your company's total retirement plan offerings. So the total amount of money that you can put into a Traditional 401(k), a Roth 401(k), and this new After-Tax 401(k) -- both your personal contributions and your company's match (if any) -- is still limited to $53k per year and still must satisfy all the non-discrimination rules for HCEs, etc. So it's not trivial to set up, and your company will almost certainly not be able to go all the way to $53k, but they could get a lot closer than they currently do.",
"\"typically, your employer will automatically stop making contributions once you hit the 18k$ limit. it is worth noting that employer contributions (e.g. \"\"matching\"\") do not count towards the 18k$ employee pre-tax contribution limit. however, if you have 2 employers during the year their combined payroll deductions might exceed the limit if you do not inform your later employer of the contributions you made at your former employer (or they ignore the info). in which case, you must request a refund of \"\"excess contributions\"\" from one of the plans (your choice). you must report the refund as taxable income on your taxes. if you do not make this request by the time you file your taxes, the tax man will reject your filing and \"\"adjust\"\" your return with more taxes and penalties. sometimes requesting a refund of excess contributions might cause your employer to remove \"\"matching\"\" funds, but i am not clear on the rules behind that. there are some 401k plans that allow \"\"supplemental after-tax contributions\"\" up to the combined employee/employer limit (53k$ in 2015 and 2016). it is a rare feature, and if your company offers it, you probably already know. however, generally it is governed by a separate contribution election that only take effect once you hit the employee pre-tax contribution limit (18k$ in 2015 and 2016). you could ask your hr department to be sure. 401k plans can be changed if there is enough employee demand for a rule change. especially in a small company, simply asking for them to allow dollar based contributions instead of percent based contributions can cause them to change the plan to allow it. similarly, you could request they allow \"\"supplemental after-tax contributions\"\", but that might be a harder change to get.\"",
"\"Both are saying essentially the same thing. The Forbes articles says \"\"as much as 20% [...] up to a maximum of $50,000\"\". This means the same as what the IRS page when it says the lesser of a percentage of your income or a total of $53,000. In other words, the $53k is a cap: you can contribute a percentage of your earnings, but you can never contribute more than $53k, even if you make so much money that 20% of your earnings would be more than that. (The difference between 20% and 25% in the two sources appears to reflect a difference in contribution limits depending on whether you are making contributions for employees, or for yourself as a self-employed individual; see Publication 560. The difference between $50k and $53k is due to the two pages being written in different years; the limits increase each year.)\"",
"Sending your money off to do the heavy lifting is a way of saying that compound returns can do the bulk of your retirement investing work. Check out the image below, I swiped this from a quick google search so I cannot claim graphic credit. But as you can see the earning potential of your money as you approach retirement is many times higher than your annual contributions. With the aim of having your money earn interest/returns to pay your annual living expenses, replacing your previous annual income. https://i.stack.imgur.com/fpZPN.jpg I tried to post the image but do not have enough rep.",
"\"Your retirement PLAN is a lifelong plan and shouldn't be tied to your employer status. Max out your 401(k) contribution to the maximum that your employer matches (that's a 100% ROI!) and as much as you can afford. When you leave the work force rollover your 401(k) to an IRA account (e.g.: you can create an IRA account with any of the online brokerage firms Schwab, E-Trade, Sharebuilder, or go with a brick-and-mortar firm like JP Morgan, Stifel Nicolaus, etc.). You should have a plan: How much money do you need/month for your expenses? Accounting for inflation, how much is that going to be at retirement (whatever age you plan to retire)? How much money do you need to have so that 4.5% of that money will provide for your annual living expenses? That's your target retirement amount of savings. Now figure out how to get to that target. Rule #1 Invest early and invest often! The more money you can sock away early in your career the more time that money has to grow. If you aren't comfortable allocating your investments yourself then you could go with a Targeted Retirement Fund. These funds have a general \"\"date\"\" for retirement and the assets are allocated as appropriate for the amount of risk appropriate for the time to retirement.\"",
"Most companies put the company match in your account each paycheck, but your are not generally vested for the match. If you leave before the specified time period then they pull back part of the matching funds. I knew somebody who did something similar back in the 1980's with their 401K. They put in 8% of their paycheck after taxes; a 100% match was deposited; then they pulled out the employees contribution every quarter. They did this for the 10 years I knew them. It avoided any tax implications, and they were still saving 8% of their pay for retirement.",
"If you had a retirement plan at any time in 2013 you are considered covered by an plan. Are You Covered by an Employer's Retirement Plan? You’re covered by an employer retirement plan for a tax year if your employer (or your spouse’s employer) has a: Defined contribution plan (profit-sharing, 401(k), stock bonus and money purchase pension plan) and any contributions or forfeitures were allocated to your account for the plan year ending with or within the tax year; IRA-based plan (SEP, SARSEP or SIMPLE IRA plan) and you had an amount contributed to your IRA for the plan year that ends with or within the tax year; or Defined benefit plan (pension plan that pays a retirement benefit spelled out in the plan) and you are eligible to participate for the plan year ending with or within the tax year. Box 13 on the Form W-2 you receive from your employer should contain a check in the “Retirement plan” box if you are covered. If you are still not certain, check with your (or your spouse’s) employer. The limits on the amount you can deduct don’t affect the amount you can contribute. However, you can never deduct more than you actually contribute. Additional Resources: Publication 590, Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs)",
"Your annual contributions are capped at the maximum of $5500 or your taxable income (wages, salary, tips, self employment income, alimony). You pay taxes by the regular calculations on Form 1040 on your earned income. In this scenario, you earn the income, pay taxes on the amount you earn, and put money in the Roth IRA. The alternative, a Traditional IRA, up to certain income levels, allows you to put the amount you contribute on line 32 of Form 1040, which subtracts the Traditional IRA contribution amount from your Adjusted Gross Income (line 37) before tax is calculated on line 44. In this scenario, you earn the income, put the money in the Traditional IRA, reduce your taxable income, and pay taxes on the reduced amount.",
"So I learned that your employer CAN force you to make employee contributions. However, this source seems to think that the mandatory employee contributions do not count against the 402(g) limit of $18,000.",
"These are treasury stocks allocated to the plan. If necessary, a company issues new shares (depending on a company it may require shareholders or only board approval).",
"The tax deferred status of a 401k plan helps you in theory because your tax rate will be lower once you retire and start drawing the money. This theory could prove incorrect. Also the money you add to a 401k lowers your taxable income today so you end up paying less taxes to the government right now. Depending on where you are in the tax bracket scale that could have the affect of lowering your tax bracket which will save you money in other areas. Each person's situation is different by my general theory is to contribute towards retirement in the following order: Hope this helps.",
"As you point out, the main benefits of a pension/retirement account over a traditional cash/taxable account are the legal and tax benefits. Most Western countries establish a specific legal definition for an account which is often taxed less or not at all relative to taxable accounts and which contains some protection for the owner in case of a bankruptcy. The typical drawbacks for investing within such structures are limited investment choice, limited withdrawal rights (either in terms of age or rate of withdrawal), and maximum contributions. The benefits are usually very clear, and your decision whether or not to open a pension/retirement account should depend on a careful weighing of the benefits and drawbacks. As to whether you may end up with less than you started, that depends on what you invest in. As with all of finance, you must take more risk to get more return. Although the choices inside a pension/retirement account may be worded somewhat differently, they are usually fundamentally no different than some of the most popular investments available for ordinary taxable accounts.",
"\"Pretty simple actually. This is a state-run defined benefit plan, where the benefit is calculated based on the length of the employment and the contributed amounts. This is what in the US is known as the Social Security. This is a defined contribution plan, where the employee can chose the level of risk based on certain pre-defined investment guidelines (more conservative or more aggressive). In Poland, it appears that there's a certain amount of the state-mandated SS tax is transferred to these plans. Nothing in the US is like that, but you can see it as a mandatory IRA with a preset limited choice of mutual funds to invest into, as an analogy. The recent change was to reduce the portion of the madatory contribution that is diverted to this plan from 7+% to 2.3% (on account of expanding the contribution to (1)). Probably the recent crashes of the stock markets that affected these accounts lead to this decision. This is voluntary defined contribution plan, similar to the US 401Ks. This division is actually pretty common, not unique to Poland. I'd say its the \"\"standard\"\" pension scheme, as opposed to what we're used to in the US.\"",
"\"There are two types of 401(k) contributions: \"\"elective contributions,\"\" which are the part put in by the employee and \"\"nonelective contributions,\"\" which are the part put in by the company. Elective contributions are summed across all the plans she is contributing to. So she can contribute $18,000 minus whatever she put in her 403(b). Additionally she can contribute 20% of the net profit of the company (before the elective contributions) as nonelective contributions (these contributions must be designated as such). You will notice that the IRS document says 25%, but that's what you can do if her business is incorporated. For a sole proprietorship, nonelective contributions ends up being limited at 20% of profit. Additionally, the sum of these two and her contribution to her 403(b) cannot exceed $53,000. Example: line 31 of her schedule C is $30,000 and she has contributed $10,000 to her 403(b). Maximum contribution to her solo 401(k) is ($18,000 - $10,000) + 0.2 * $30,000 = $14,000 Her total contributions for the year are $10,000 from her 403(b) plus $14,000 in her solo 401(k). This is less than $53,000 so this limit does not bind. If she made a ton of 1099 money, her contribution maximum would follow the above until it hit $53,000 and then it would stop there. The IRS describes this in detail in Publication 560, which also has a worksheet for figuring out your maximum explicitly. It's unpleasant reading and the worksheets are painful, but if you do it right, it will end up being as I just described it. Using the language of that publication, hers is a \"\"qualified plan\"\" of the \"\"defined contribution\"\" variety.\"",
"Your total salary deferral cannot exceed $18K (as of 2016). You can split it between your different jobs as you want, to maximize the matching. You can contribute non-elective contribution on top of that, which means that your self-proprietorship will commit to paying you that portion regardless of your deferral. That would be on top of the $18K. You cannot contribute more than 20% of your earnings, though. So if you earn $2K, you can add $400 on top of the $18K limit (ignoring the SE tax for a second here). Keep in mind that if you ever have employees, the non-elective contribution will apply to them as well. Also, the total contribution limit from all sources (deferral, matching, non-elective) cannot exceed $53K (for 2016).",
"Here's an Irish government publication that should give you some background information to get you started. In a nutshell, you get tax benefits, but cannot withdraw money without penalty until you reach retirement age.",
"Deposits are contributions. You deposit say, $5000, and over time you have $6000. The $5000 can be withdrawn any time with no issue. It's tracked via form 8606. With this in mind, I wrote an article The Roth Emergency Fund, suggesting that since one can withdraw deposits with no issue, the Roth can be used to hold emergency money.",
"\"Click on the ? icon next to \"\"Employer Plan\"\". This is used to determine if you can deduct your annual contributions from your taxes. For more information on how an employer plan can affect your IRA tax deduction, see the definition for non-deductible contributions. So, we look there: The total of your Traditional IRA contributions that were deposited without a tax deduction. Traditional IRA contributions are normally tax deductible. However, if you have an employer-sponsored retirement plan, such as a 401(k), your tax deduction may be limited. The $20K difference between $272K and $252K just happens to be $15% of $132,500 which is the amount of your non-deductible contributions.\"",
"\"401k plans are required to not discriminate against the non-HCE participants, and one way they achieve this is by limiting the percentage of wages that HCEs can contribute to the plan to the average annual percentage contribution by the non-HCE participants or 3% whichever is higher. If most non-HCE employees contribute only 3% (usually to capture the employer match but no more), then the HCEs are stuck with 3%. However, be aware that in companies that award year-end bonuses to all employees, many non-HCEs contribute part of their bonuses to their 401k plans, and so the average annual percentage can rise above 3% at the end of year. Some payroll offices have been known to ask all those who have not already maxed out their 401k contribution for the year (yes, it is possible to do this even while contributing only 3% if you are not just a HCE but a VHCE) whether they want to contribute the usual 3%, or a higher percentage, or to contribute the maximum possible under the nondiscrimination rules. So, you might be able to contribute more than 3% if the non-HCEs put in more money at the end of the year. With regard to NQSPs, you pretty much have their properties pegged correctly. That money is considered to be deferred compensation and so you pay taxes on it only when you receive it upon leaving employment. The company also gets to deduct it as a business expense when the money is paid out, and as you said, it is not money that is segregated as a 401k plan is. On the other hand, you have earned the money already: it is just that the company is \"\"holding\"\" it for you. Is it paying you interest on the money (accumulating in the NQSP, not paid out in cash or taxable income to you)? Would it be better to just take the money right now, pay taxes on it, and invest it yourself? Some deferred compensation plans work as follows. The deferred compensation is given to you as a loan in the year it is earned, and you pay only interest on the principal each year. Since the money is a loan, there is no tax of any kind due on the money when you receive it. Now you can invest the proceeds of this loan and hopefully earn enough to cover the interest payments due. (The interest you pay is deductible on Schedule A as an Investment Interest Expense). When employment ceases, you repay the loan to the company as a lump sum or in five or ten annual installments, whatever was agreed to, while the company pays you your deferred compensation less taxes withheld. The net effect is that you pay the company the taxes due on the money, and the company sends this on to the various tax authorities as money withheld from wages paid. The advantage is that you do not need to worry about what happens to your money if the company fails; you have received it up front. Yes, you have to pay the loan principal to the company but the company also owes you exactly that much money as unpaid wages. In the best of all worlds, things will proceed smoothly, but if not, it is better to be in this Mexican standoff rather than standing in line in bankruptcy court and hoping to get pennies on the dollar for your work.\"",
"One of the strengths of 401K accounts is that you can move from investment X in the program to investment Y in the program without tax consequences. As you move through your lifetime you will tend to want to lower risk by investing in funds that are less aggressive. The only way this works is if there is an ability to move funds. If there were only one or two funds to pick from or that you were locked in to your initial choices that would be a very poor 401K to be enrolled in. On your benefits/401K website you should be able to adjust three sets of numbers: Some have you enter the current money as a percentage others allow you to enter it in dollars. They might limit the number of changes you can do in a month to the current money balances to avoid the temptation to try and time the market. These changes usually happen within 1 business day. Regarding new and match money they could limit the lowest non zero percent to 5% or 10%, but they might allow numbers as low as 1%. These changes take place generally with the next paycheck.",
"You can only contribute up to 5% of your salary? Odd. Usually 401(k) contributions are limited to some dollar amount in the vicinity of $15,000 or so a year. Normal retirement guidelines suggest that putting away 10-15% of your salary is enough that you probably won't need to worry much when you retire. 5% isn't likely to be enough, employer match or no. I'd try to contribute 10-15% of my salary. I think you're reading the rules wrong. I'm almost certain. It's definitely worth checking. If you're not, you should seriously consider supplementing this saving with a Roth IRA or just an after-tax account. So. If you're with Fidelity and don't know what to do, look for a target date fund with a date near your retirement (e.g. Target Retirement 2040) and put 100% in there until you have a better idea of what going on. All Fidelity funds have pretty miserable expense ratios, even their token S&P500 index fund from another provider, so you might as let them do some leg work and pick your asset allocation for you. Alternatively, look for the Fidelity retirement planner tools on their website to suggest an asset allocation. As a (very rough) rule of thumb, as you're saving for retirement you'll want to have N% of your portfolio in bonds and the rest in stocks, where N is your age in years. Your stocks should probably be split about 70% US and 30% rest-of-world, give or take, and your US stocks should be split about 64% large-cap, 28% mid-cap and 8% small-cap (that's basically how the US stock market is split).",
"Back in the late 80's I had a co-worked do exactly this. In those days you could only do things quarterly: change the percentage, change the investment mix, make a withdrawal.. There were no Roth 401K accounts, but contributions could be pre-tax or post-tax. Long term employees were matched 100% up to 8%, newer employees were only matched 50% up to 8% (resulting in 4% match). Every quarter this employee put in 8%, and then pulled out the previous quarters contribution. The company match continued to grow. Was it smart? He still ended up with 8% going into the 401K. In those pre-Enron days the law allowed companies to limit the company match to 100% company stock which meant that employees retirement was at risk. Of course by the early 2000's the stock that was purchased for $6 a share was worth $80 a share... Now what about the IRS: Since I make designated Roth contributions from after-tax income, can I make tax-free withdrawals from my designated Roth account at any time? No, the same restrictions on withdrawals that apply to pre-tax elective contributions also apply to designated Roth contributions. If your plan permits distributions from accounts because of hardship, you may choose to receive a hardship distribution from your designated Roth account. The hardship distribution will consist of a pro-rata share of earnings and basis and the earnings portion will be included in gross income unless you have had the designated Roth account for 5 years and are either disabled or over age 59 ½. Regarding getting just contributions: What happens if I take a distribution from my designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period? If you take a distribution from your designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period, it is a nonqualified distribution. You must include the earnings portion of the nonqualified distribution in gross income. However, the basis (or contributions) portion of the nonqualified distribution is not included in gross income. The basis portion of the distribution is determined by multiplying the amount of the nonqualified distribution by the ratio of designated Roth contributions to the total designated Roth account balance. For example, if a nonqualified distribution of $5,000 is made from your designated Roth account when the account consists of $9,400 of designated Roth contributions and $600 of earnings, the distribution consists of $4,700 of designated Roth contributions (that are not includible in your gross income) and $300 of earnings (that are includible in your gross income). See Q&As regarding Rollovers of Designated Roth Contributions, for additional rules for rolling over both qualified and nonqualified distributions from designated Roth accounts.",
"Employer match doesn't incur FICA tax (social security, medicare) for you at all - either current year or when you withdraw. All you have to pay is income tax when you withdraw after retirement age. (Disclaimer - I'm not tax professional but has done my research)",
"The deadline for contributing to a 401K is the last paycheck paid in December. That may not be the last pay period that ends in December. For example if the last pay period ends on Friday the 30th and you get paid on Thursday January 5th, that check is the first in the new year. The US government has rules regarding how quickly the money needs to be sent to the 401K trustee. It is possible that the money may get there after the first of the year, but the important date for you is the date of the last paycheck in December. The company form to set the contribution rate (it could also be on a website) will have a deadline to determine if the rate makes the next check or the one after that. The form will also have a maximum amount as a percentage of the check. Some could allow up to 100% but yours might not. So how much you can put in with the last paycheck or two is up to company policy and your pay rate. The company forms or website will describe how the company match works. If you were try and put as much as possible into a few checks, it is possible to hit the $18,000 yearly limit in just a small part of the year. In some companies that would mean that you could miss out on company match money, because that would never be more than x% of each check. For example if you were to put $3,000 per check with a base pay of $5,000 every two weeks and if the maximum company match was 5%. After 6 checks you would be done: you would have put in $18,000 and the company would have put in $250 x 6 or $1,500. If you were to spread the money over all 26 checks you would still put in $18,000 but the company would have put in $6,500.",
"\"If you are the sole owner (or just you and your spouse) and expect to be that way for a few years, consider the benefits of an individual 401(k). The contribution limits are higher than an IRA, and there are usually no fees involved. You can google \"\"Individual 401k\"\" and any of the major investment firms (Fidelity, Schwab, etc) will set one up free of charge. This option gives you a lot of freedom to decide how much money to put away without any plan management fees. The IRS site has all the details in an article titled One-Participant 401(k) Plans. Once you have employees, if you want to set up a retirement plan for them, you'll need to switch to a traditional, employer-sponsored 401k, which will involve some fees on your part. I seem to recall $2k/yr in fees when I had a sponsored 401(k) for my company, and I'm sure this varies widely. If you have employees and don't feel a need to have a company-wide retirement plan, you can set up your own personal IRA and simply not offer a company plan to your employees. The IRA contribution limits are lower than an individual 401(k), but setting it up is easy and fee-free. So basically, if you want to spend $0 on plan management fees, get an individual 401(k) if you are self-employed, or an IRA for yourself if you have employees.\"",
"\"Highly Compensated Employee Rules Aim to Make 401k's Fair would be the piece that I suspect you are missing here. I remember hearing of this rule when I worked in the US and can understand why it exists. A key quote from the article: You wouldn't think the prospect of getting money from an employer would be nerve-wracking. But those jittery co-workers are highly compensated employees (HCEs) concerned that they will receive a refund of excess 401k contributions because their plan failed its discrimination test. A refund means they will owe more income tax for the current tax year. Geersk (a pseudonym), who is also an HCE, is in information services and manages the computers that process his firm's 401k plan. 401(k) - Wikipedia reference on this: To help ensure that companies extend their 401(k) plans to low-paid employees, an IRS rule limits the maximum deferral by the company's \"\"highly compensated\"\" employees, based on the average deferral by the company's non-highly compensated employees. If the less compensated employees are allowed to save more for retirement, then the executives are allowed to save more for retirement. This provision is enforced via \"\"non-discrimination testing\"\". Non-discrimination testing takes the deferral rates of \"\"highly compensated employees\"\" (HCEs) and compares them to non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs). An HCE in 2008 is defined as an employee with compensation of greater than $100,000 in 2007 or an employee that owned more than 5% of the business at any time during the year or the preceding year.[13] In addition to the $100,000 limit for determining HCEs, employers can elect to limit the top-paid group of employees to the top 20% of employees ranked by compensation.[13] That is for plans whose first day of the plan year is in calendar year 2007, we look to each employee's prior year gross compensation (also known as 'Medicare wages') and those who earned more than $100,000 are HCEs. Most testing done now in 2009 will be for the 2008 plan year and compare employees' 2007 plan year gross compensation to the $100,000 threshold for 2007 to determine who is HCE and who is a NHCE. The threshold was $110,000 in 2010 and it did not change for 2011. The average deferral percentage (ADP) of all HCEs, as a group, can be no more than 2 percentage points greater (or 125% of, whichever is more) than the NHCEs, as a group. This is known as the ADP test. When a plan fails the ADP test, it essentially has two options to come into compliance. It can have a return of excess done to the HCEs to bring their ADP to a lower, passing, level. Or it can process a \"\"qualified non-elective contribution\"\" (QNEC) to some or all of the NHCEs to raise their ADP to a passing level. The return of excess requires the plan to send a taxable distribution to the HCEs (or reclassify regular contributions as catch-up contributions subject to the annual catch-up limit for those HCEs over 50) by March 15 of the year following the failed test. A QNEC must be an immediately vested contribution. The annual contribution percentage (ACP) test is similarly performed but also includes employer matching and employee after-tax contributions. ACPs do not use the simple 2% threshold, and include other provisions which can allow the plan to \"\"shift\"\" excess passing rates from the ADP over to the ACP. A failed ACP test is likewise addressed through return of excess, or a QNEC or qualified match (QMAC). There are a number of \"\"safe harbor\"\" provisions that can allow a company to be exempted from the ADP test. This includes making a \"\"safe harbor\"\" employer contribution to employees' accounts. Safe harbor contributions can take the form of a match (generally totaling 4% of pay) or a non-elective profit sharing (totaling 3% of pay). Safe harbor 401(k) contributions must be 100% vested at all times with immediate eligibility for employees. There are other administrative requirements within the safe harbor, such as requiring the employer to notify all eligible employees of the opportunity to participate in the plan, and restricting the employer from suspending participants for any reason other than due to a hardship withdrawal.\"",
"Does your employer provide a matching contribution to your 401k? If so, contribute enough to the 401k that you can fully take advantage of the 401k match (e.g. if you employer matches 3% of your income, contribute 3% of your income). It's free money, take advantage of it. Next up, max out your Roth IRA. The limit is $5000 currently a year. After maxing your Roth, revisit your 401k. You can contribute up to 16,500 per year. You savings account is a good place to keep a rainy day fund (do you have one?), but it lacks the tax advantages of a Roth IRA or 401k, so it is not really suitable for retirement savings (unless you have maxed out both your 401k and Roth IRA). Once you have take care of getting money into your 401k and Roth IRA accounts, the next step is investing it. The specific investment options available to you will vary depending on who provides your retirement account(s), so these are general guidelines. Generally, you want to invest in higher-risk, higher-return investments when you are young. This includes things like stocks and developing countries. As you get older (>30), you should look at moving some of your investments into things that less volatile. Bond funds are the usual choice. They tend to be safer than stocks (assuming you don't invest in Junk bonds), but your investment grows at a slower rate. Now this doesn't mean you immediately dump all of your stock and buy bonds. Rather, it is a gradual transition over time. As you get older and older, you gradually shift your investments to bond funds. A general rule of thumb I have seen: 100 - (YOUR AGE) = Percentage of your portfolio that should be in stocks Someone that is 30 would have 70% of their portfolio in stock, someone that is 40 would have 60% in stock, etc. As you get closer to retirement (50s-60s), you will want to start looking at investments that are more conservatie than bonds. Start to look at fixed-income and money market funds.",
"You can contribute to both but the total contribution is capped: More than one plan. If you contribute to a defined contribution plan (defined in chapter 4), annual additions to an account are limited to the lesser of $53,000 or 100% of the participant's compensation. When you figure this limit, you must add your contributions to all defined contribution plans maintained by you. Because a SEP is considered a defined contribution plan for this limit, your contributions to a SEP must be added to your contributions to other defined contribution plans you maintain. Source: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p560.pdf on page 6.",
"\"Close... Warning, I may be off a bit here; I'm sure someone will correct me if so. Traditional 401k or IRA: money goes in pre-tax (so, yes, you avoid paying tax on it now), grows untaxed, taxes are due when you retire and start taking money back out of the account -- but your income, including these withdrawals, is likely to be lower than your peak earning years so your tax rate will be lower. You don't avoid all the tax, but you delay it and hopefully reduce it, and by doing so there's more money in your account earning returns. Roth 401k or IRA: money goes in after taxes (you do pay income tax now). However, all returns on the money are untaxed (I believe), and you pay no tax when you're eligible to withdraw the funds. Either or both kinds of 401k may be eligible for some percentage of matching funds from your employer (there are some incentives for them to offer this benefit). I believe that even if you're doing a Roth 401k, the matching funds legally have to go in as traditional plan. And yes, as that implies, it is possible to split your contribution between the two styles. Note: the matching funds are \"\"free money.\"\" If your plan offers a match, it is highly recommended that you contribute enough to your 401k to capture the maximum match.\"",
"If your employer does not offer contribution matching, and you don't like the range of investment options provided by the company 401k, then you probably are better off investing in your own IRA instead. In an IRA held at a bank or brokerage, you can invest in multiple stocks or funds and move money around within the IRA pretty freely in most cases. If your company is doing well and is actually sharing profit into the 401k, you might consider leaving your 5% contribution to the 401k where it is and put the other 5% you are planning to contribute into a new IRA of your own. This straddles the risk of you losing money if your company 401k tanks (or profit sharing dries up) and your missing out on profit sharing if it continues to pay well.",
"\"The \"\"Deferral\"\" for the 401k means that you're not collecting your pay immediately, but instead diverting it to a retirement account (Roth 401k in this case). This article defines deferral well: What is the difference between a regular 401(k) deferral (pre-tax) and a Roth 401(k) deferral? Under either a regular 401(k) deferral or a Roth 401(k) deferral, you make a deferral contribution by electing to set aside part of your pay (by either a certain percentage or a certain dollar amount). For a regular 401(k) deferral, the taxable wages on your W-2 are reduced by the deferral contribution; therefore, you pay less current income tax. However, you will eventually pay tax on these contributions and earnings when the plan distributes the regular 401(k) deferrals and earnings to you. The result is that the tax on the regular 401(k) deferrals and earnings is only postponed. A Roth 401(k) deferral is an after-tax contribution, which means you must pay current income tax on the deferral. Since you have already paid tax on the deferral, you won’t pay tax on it again when you receive a distribution of your Roth 401(k) deferral. In addition, if you satisfy cer tain distribution conditions, then you won’t have to pay tax on the earnings either. This means that the distribution of the Roth 401(k) earnings can be tax free not just tax postponed. Traditionally, this deferred compensation typically was directed to a 401k, but now that Roth 401k is another available option, deferred compensation can be directed there as well.\"",
"Your employer's matching contribution is calculated based on the dollar amounts you end up putting in. The nature of your 401(k) contribution—whether pre-tax or Roth after-tax—doesn't matter with respect to how their match gets calculated, and their match always goes into a pre-tax account, even if you are contributing after-tax. The onus is on you to choose a contribution amount that maximizes your employer match regardless of the nature of your contribution. Maximizing your employer match using Roth after-tax contributions will eat up more of your annual gross salary, but as long as you are willing to do that then you won't leave free employer match money on the table. Roth after-tax contributions don't get the tax deduction inherent in a pre-tax contribution. The tradeoff is that you end up with less take-home pay per period if you contribute the same number of dollars on a Roth after-tax basis to your 401(k) as opposed to on a pre-tax basis. For instance, to make a maximum $18,000 Roth after-tax contribution to a 401(k), it's going to cost you a lot more than $18,000 of your annual gross salary to net the same $18,000 number. (On the flip side, the Roth money is worth more in retirement than pre-tax money, because it won't be subject to taxes then.) However, 401(k) plan contribution amounts are almost always expressed as a percentage of gross salary, i.e. in pre-tax terms, even when electing to make after-tax contributions! So when electing after-tax, one is implicitly accepting that the contribution will cost more than the percentage of gross salary, because you'll need to pay the tax on a gross amount that would yield the same number of dollars but as an after-tax amount.",
"You are already doing everything you can. If your employer does not have a 401(k) you are limited to investing in a Roth or a traditional IRA (Roth is post tax money, traditional IRA gives you a deduction so it is essentially pre tax money). The contribution limits are the same for both and contributing to either adds to the limit (so you can't duplicate). CNN wrote an article on some other ways to save: One thing you may want to bring up with your employer is that they could set up a SEP-IRA. This allows them to set a % (up to 25%) that they contribute pre-tax to an IRA for everyone at the company that has worked there at least 3 years. If you are at a small company, maybe everyone with that kind of seniority would take an equivalent pay cut to get the automatic retirement contribution? (Note that a SEP-IRA has to apply to everyone equally percentage wise that has worked there for 3 years, and the employer makes the contribution, not you).",
"If you are working for a small company, the expense ratios on the funds in the 401k account are likely much higher than you can get with a similar IRA. Depending on your income, whether you are married and want to contribute to a spouse's IRA, your limit on what can be contributed to an IRA may vary, but the compelling reason to contribute to a 401k is that the contribution limit is higher ($17,500 vs $5,500 for people on the lower end of the income scale) so you may need to contribute to a 401k to meet your retirement savings goals.",
"Maximum FSA contribution amounts are set by the IRS. For tax year 2015 you are allowed to place no more than $2,550 (and same maximum for 2016) in an FSA account, tax-free. Your employer's plan year is not relevant to the IRS for this purpose. It's important to note that one interesting benefit to FSA accounts is the full amount of your annual contribution is available to you on the first day of the plan year; it is not a money-in money-out plan.",
"Those aren't distributions, they're contributions. Distribution is when the money comes out of the retirement accounts. Here is the best source (the IRS) for information about tax advantaged retirement plans.",
"You can't be doing it yourself. Only your employer can do it. If the employer doesn't provide the option - switch employers. The only way for you to do it yourself is if you're the employer, i.e.: self-employed.",
"\"It seems I can make contributions as employee-elective, employer match, or profit sharing; yet they all end up in the same 401k from my money since I'm both the employer and employee in this situation. Correct. What does this mean for my allowed limits for each of the 3 types of contributions? Are all 3 types deductible? \"\"Deductible\"\"? Nothing is deductible. First you need to calculate your \"\"compensation\"\". According to the IRS, it is this: compensation is your “earned income,” which is defined as net earnings from self-employment after deducting both: So assuming (numbers for example, not real numbers) your business netted $30, and $500 is the SE tax (half). You contributed $17.5 (max) for yourself. Your compensation is thus 30-17.5-0.5=12. Your business can contribute up to 25% of that on your behalf, i.e.: $4K. Total that you can contribute in such a scenario is $21.5K. Whatever is contributed to a regular 401k is deferred, i.e.: excluded from income for the current year and taxed when you withdraw it from 401k (not \"\"deducted\"\" - deferred).\"",
"Be sure to consider the difference between Roth 401K and standard 401K. The Roth 401K is taxed as income then put into your account. So the money you put into the Roth 401K is taxed as income for the current year, however, any interest you accumulate over the years is not taxed when you withdraw the money. So to break it down: You may also want to look into Self Directed 401K, which can be either standard or Roth. Check if your employer supports this type of account. But if you're self employed or 1099 it may be a good option.",
"Congratulations on your raise! Is my employer allowed to impose their own limit on my contributions that's different from the IRS limit? No. Is it something they can limit at will, or are they required to allow me to contribute up to the IRS limit? The employer cannot limit you, you can contribute up to the IRS limit. Your mistake is in thinking that the IRS limit is 17K for everyone. That is not so. You're affected by the HCE rules (Highly Compensated Employees). These rules define certain employees as HCE (if their salary is significantly higher than that of the rest of the employees), and limit the ability of the HCE's to deposit money into 401k, based on the deposits made by the rest of the employees. Basically it means that while the overall maximum is indeed 17K, your personal (and other HCE's in your company) is lowered down because those who are not HCE's in the company don't deposit to 401k enough. You can read more details and technical explanation about the HCE rules in this article and in this blog post.",
"US corporations are allowed to automatically enter employees into a 401K plan. A basic automatic enrollment 401(k) plan must state that employees will be automatically enrolled in the plan unless they elect otherwise and must specify the percentage of an employee's wages that will be automatically deducted from each paycheck for contribution to the plan. The document must also explain that employees have the right to elect not to have salary deferrals withheld or to elect a different percentage to be withheld. An eligible automatic contribution arrangement (EACA) is similar to the basic automatic enrollment plan but has specific notice requirements. An EACA can allow automatically enrolled participants to withdraw their contributions within 30 to 90 days of the first contribution. A qualified automatic contribution arrangement (QACA) is a type of automatic enrollment 401(k) plan that automatically passes certain kinds of annual required testing. The plan must include certain features, such as a fixed schedule of automatic employee contributions, employer contributions, a special vesting schedule, and specific notice requirements. You generally have a period of time to stop the first deposit. One I saw recently gave new employees to the first paycheck after the 60 day mark to refuse to join. You also may be able to get back the first deposit if you really don't want to join. If you don't want to participate look on the corporate website or the Fidelity website to set your future contributions to 0% of your paycheck. Keep in mind several things: Personally I'm against any type of government sponsored investments or savings. I can save money on my own and I don't care about their benefits. Some companies provide an annual contribution to all employees regardless of participation in the 401K. They do need to establish an account to do that. Again that is free money Does it mean if I never contribute any money so I will have 0 I might go below 0 and owe them money in case they bankrupt or do bad investments? Even in total market collapse the value of the 401K could never go below zero, unless the 401K was setup to allow very exotic investments.",
"A matching pension scheme is like free money. No wait, it actually IS free money. You are literally earning 100% interest rate on that money the instant you pay it in to the account. That money would have to sit in your credit card account for at least five years to earn that kind of return; five years in which the pension money would have earned an additional return over and above the 100%. Mathematically there is no contest that contributing to a matching pension scheme is one of the best investment there is. You should always do it. Well, almost always. When should you not do it?",
"You're contributing 98.2% of your contributed amount (deducting 1.8%) each month and at the end of the year, deducting a flat 15 pounds. The easiest way to do this is to use a spreadsheet. But you're missing some key information. What is your expected growth rate and what is your expected inflation rate? Is this a taxable account where you deduct (for example, 35%) of the growth annually for taxes or is this a non-taxable account?",
"There are two steps. First you take the age at retirement and annual benefit. Say it's $10,000/yr. You can easily look up the present value of a $10k/yr annuity starting at age X. (I used age 62, male, at Immediate Annuity. It calculates to be $147K. You then need to look at your current age and with a finance calculator calculate the annual deposits required to get to $147K by that age. What I can't tell you is what value to use as a cost of money until retiring. 4%? 6%? That's the larger unknown.",
"You asked some direct questions, here are some direct answers: 10% of your salary is a popular rule of thumb. An IRA account is something to consider, you can open one with any of the major discount brokers and select an S&P 500 index fund for your investment. You can let it sit. That's the beauty of an index fund, it simply matches the market and you don't have to worry about trying to beat the market because you ARE the market! The average annual return for the S&P 500 Index has been around 10% (since inception). That's no guarantee, and some years are more or less and up or down. Over the long run, it goes up.",
"\"The company itself doesn't benefit. In most cases, it's an expense as the match that many offer is going to cost the company some percent of salary. As Mike said, it's part of the benefit package. Vacation, medical, dental, cafeteria plans (i.e. both flexible spending and dependent care accounts, not food), stock options, employee stock purchase plans, defined contribution or defined benefit pension, and the 401(k) or 403(b) for teachers. Each and all of these are what one should look at when looking at \"\"total compensation\"\". You allude to the lack of choices in the 401(k) compared to other accounts. Noted. And that lack of choice should be part of your decision process as to how you choose to invest for retirement. If the fess/selection is bad enough, you need to be vocal about it and request a change. Bad choices + no match, and maybe the account should be avoided, else just deposit to the match. Note - Keith thanks for catching and fixing one typo, I just caught another.\"",
"Ask the folks administering your plan. They're the ones who define and implement the available choices for that specific plan.",
"One small note: If you have an employer sponsored account and get let go you might have an issue. You would lose any funds in the account as of the day of your unemployment if you don't have enough expenses to use it all up! So if you put in a lot every month because you have a large planned expense like root canal or operation then you could lose it all. This happened to me.",
"On my quarterly statement and the 401K plan website I can see the vesting for various categories. They total all these up and report the total balance and the vested balance. If I do the math I discover that the vested balance is equal to A + B + D + (60% of C) For my company at least, if I was to leave now I would get 60% of the Company match, which does include significant gains. This document for the Department of Labor discuss many aspects of 401K plans including vesting. In a defined contribution plan such as a 401(k) plan, you are always 100 percent vested in your own contributions to a plan, and in any subsequent earnings from your contributions. However, in most defined contribution plans you may have to work several years before you are vested in the employer’s matching contributions. (There are exceptions, such as the SIMPLE 401(k) and safe harbor 401(k), in which you are immediately vested in all required employer contributions. You also vest immediately in the SIMPLE IRA and the SEP.) Currently, employers have a choice of two different vesting schedules for employer matching 401(k) contributions, which are shown in Table 2. Your employer may use a schedule in which employees are 100 percent vested in employer contributions after 3 years of service (cliff vesting). Under graduated vesting, an employee must be at least 20 percent vested after 2 years, 40 percent after 3 years, 60 percent after 4 years, 80 percent after 5 years, and 100 percent after 6 years. If your automatic enrollment 401(k) plan requires employer contributions, you vest in those contributions after 2 years. Automatic enrollment 401(k) plans with optional matching contributions follow one of the vesting schedules noted above.",
"You are close to understanding, but it looks like you are slightly off: regular 401K - The amount you contribute is taken out of your taxable income for tax purposes in the tax year you earn it. However, when you take it out at retirement that withdrawal counts as income for tax purposes. (You pay the tax on the money later) Roth 401K - The amount you contribute is not taken out of your taxable income for tax purposes in the tax year you earn it. However, when you take it out at retirement that withdrawal will not as income for tax purposes. (You pay the tax on the money now.) Additional benefit: You don't pay tax ever on the gains.",
"A good general rule is to save 15% of your income for retirement. As for where you put it: Put as much as it takes to maximize your employer match into your 401(k), but no more. The employer match is free money, and you can't beat free money If you still haven't put in 15%, put the rest into a Roth IRA. By historical standards, taxes are pretty low today. They are almost certainly going to be higher in retirement, especially since you likely won't have the deductions in retirement that you may have now (kids, mortgage, etc). If you've maxed our the allowed contribution for your Roth and still haven't saved 15%, put the rest in a traditional IRA.",
"In the US, the key to understanding the benefits of retirement accounts is to understand capital gains taxes and how they work. Retirement accounts are designed for making investments throughout your career, then after several decades of contributions, withdrawing that money to pay for your needs when your full-time employment has concluded. Normally when you invest money in a brokerage account, if the value of your investment increases, and you sell in less than a year, those investments are considered short-term gains and taxed as ordinary income. If you hold that same investment for over a year, the same investment is taxed at a lower capital gains rate (depending on which tax bracket you are in during that year, the amount due could be up to 20%, but much lower than your regular income tax rate). When you place your money in a retirement account, you are choosing to either pay the tax due on the income when you put it in the account, or put the money in tax free and pay the tax when you withdraw (these are called tax-deferred accounts). When you have money invested several decades, the raw dollar amount increases greatly, but inflation is also reducing the value of those dollars. Imagine you bought some bonds that payed 4% over 40 years, but inflation was 2% during those same years. When you sell those bonds 40 years later, you will owe capital gains on the entire gain even though half of the gain came from inflation. Retirement accounts allow you to buy and sell according to your investment needs and goals without any consideration about whether the gains are short-term or long-term, and they also allow you to pay taxes just once, either when you put it in, or when you take it out, with no worries about whether you're paying taxes on inflated gains.",
"If you are earning a salary, go for Roth IRA. You can contribute $5500 (2013 limits) every year . Once you open a account , let say Fidelity or Vanguard, you should invest based on risk appetite into some funds. the advantage is that your money grows tax free and when you are 25- 30 years old and need money for down payment of house, you can pull the money out with out any penalty. The gains you have made will continue to be in that account till the time your retire, growing every year.",
"If your employer offers a 401(k) match, definitely take advantage of it. It's free money, so take advantage of it!",
"401K accounts, both regular and Roth, generally have loans available. There are maximum amounts that are based on federal limits, and your balance in the program. These rules also determine the amount of time you have to repay the loan, and what happens if you quit or are fired while the loan is outstanding. In these loan programs the loan comes from your 401K funds. Regarding matching funds. This plan is not atypical. Some match right away, some make you wait. Some put in X percent regardless of what you contribute. Some make you opt out, others make you opt in. Some will direct their automatic amounts to a specific fund, unless you tell them otherwise. The big plus for the fund you describe is the immediate vesting. Some companies will match your investments but then only partially vest the funds. They don't want to put a bunch of matching funds into your account, and then have you leave. So they say that if you leave before 5 years is up, they will not let you keep all the funds. If you leave after 2 years you keep 25%, if you leave after 3 years you keep 50%... The fact they immediately vest is a very generous plan.",
"JoeTapayer has good advice here. I would like to add my notes. If they give a 50% match that means you are getting a 50% return on investment(ROI) immediately. I do not know of a way to get a better guaranteed ROI. Next, when investing you need to determine what kind of investor you are. I would suggest you make yourself more literate in investments, as I suggest to anyone, but there are basic things you want to look for. If your primary worry is loss of your prinicipal, go for Conservative investments. This means that you are willing to accept a reduced expected ROI in exchange for lower volatility(risk of loss of principal). This does not mean you have a 100% safe investment as the last market issues have shown, but in general you are better protected. The fidelity investments should give you some information as to volatility or if they deem the investments conservative. Conservative investments are normally made up of trading bonds, which have the lowest ROI in general but are the most secure. You can also invest in blue chip companies, although stock is inherently riskier. It is pointed out in comments that stocks always outperform bonds in the long term, and this has been true over the last 100 years. I am just suggesting ways you can protect yourself against market downturns. When the market is doing very well bonds will not give you the return your friends are seeing. I am just trying to give you a basic idea of what to look for when you pick your investments, nothing can replace a solid investment adviser and taking the time to educate yourself.",
"My two-cents, read your plan document or Summary Plan Description. The availability of in-service withdrawals will vary by document. Moreover, many plans, especially those compliant with 404(c) of ERISA will allow for individual brokerage accounts. This is common for smaller plans. If so, you can request to direct your own investments in your own account. You will likely have to pay any associated fees. Resources: work as actuary at a TPA firm",
"\"Why? Simply: because it has been mandated as law, and so you may have no choice in the matter whether to contribute or not. Quoting from GOV.UK – Workplace pensions: ‘Automatic enrolment’ A new law means that every employer must automatically enrol workers into a workplace pension scheme if they: Next: even if you think you will work \"\"until you die\"\", you can still access the money saved in the pension scheme when you attain the required minimum age for withdrawals under your scheme. For instance, that may be age 55, but it may also vary by scheme. Becoming fully retired — as in stopping all work — is not a requirement to access retirement income from your pension scheme. In the eyes of a pension scheme, retirement is typically when you elect to take your income benefits according to the established rules of the scheme. Quoting from nidirect – Working past State Pension age: Continuing in work and your workplace pension If you reached the age at which you can start claiming your workplace pension scheme, you don't need to stop work in order to claim. You have a number of options, including taking some of the pension you've built up while continuing to work for the same employer. As to why things are set up this way: While some younger folk may, today, expect to continue working until death, for a variety of reasons that isn't always possible. Two typical such reasons are: disability, and involuntary unemployment (i.e. willing and able but still can't land the next job). Moreover, plans change. Young workers with health and vitality may expect they'll always feel invincible, but end up learning otherwise over time, and may come to appreciate the savings that were forced upon them. The \"\"forced savings\"\" aspect of state and state-sponsored pension schemes are meant to provide some safety net for those later years when it is a strong possibility that one can't continue to work. The alternative is to be a 100% burden on family and/or society.\"",
"An experienced individual wouldn't ask such questions. I don't say this to take a jab at you, but to provide context. The matter is much more complicated than a simple answer to your question could accomplish. The short answer is no, not necessarily; but it depends on the details. Generally, if the employer matches, it's suggested that you take advantage of the match. It's free money. That said, it comes with some strings attached, like a vesting schedule. It's not yours right away, necessarily. Choices are limited in a 401k, but we should still come out ahead with that free money. The investment choices available in a 401k are also a part of the details. If they meet your needs you should certainly consider the 401k even if the employer doesn't match. There is also the matter of one's particular tax situation, which is certainly an involved matter. A 401k can certainly be a part of judicious tax planning. It's a matter of working out the details. Continuing this theme of details and coming back to the employer match: if the employer doesn't mach, I would make sure that I'm maxing out an IRA before considering the 401k. If the employer matched, I would probably contribute to take advantage of that match. However, it quickly becomes complicated here. I'm accustomed to employer matching up to some percentage of pay, which typically works out to be less then the anual contribution limits for a 401k. So, I my plan for such a situation is to contribute up to the employer match in the 401k, then max out an IRA, and then return to the 401k to finish contributing up to its yearly maximum. There is plenty for you to consider in order to come up with a plan of action. While it's certainly complicated, it's accessible to most people. You don't have to be a genius. In fact, eggheads are regularly trounced by the markets.",
"James, money saved over the long term will typically beat inflation. There are many articles that discuss the advantage of starting young, and offer: A 21 year old who puts away $1000/yr for 10 years and stops depositing will be ahead of the 31 yr old who starts the $1000/yr deposit and continues through retirement. If any of us can get a message to our younger selves (time travel, anyone?) we would deliver two messages: Start out by living beneath your means, never take on credit card debt, and save at least 10%/yr as soon as you start working. I'd add, put half your raises to savings until your rate is 15%. I can't comment on the pension companies. Here in the US, our accounts are somewhat guaranteed, not for value, but against theft. We invest in stocks and bonds, our funds are not mingled with the assets of the investment plan company.",
"Some companies allow you to make a post-tax contribution to the 401K. This is not a Roth contribution. This can be money beyond the 18,000 or 24,000 401k limit. The best news is that eventually that money can be rolled into 1 Roth-IRA. Not all companies allow this option. One company I worked for did this automatically when you hit the annual max. Of course that was made more complex if you had multiple employers that year.",
"Interesting. The answer can be as convoluted/complex as one wishes to make it, or back-of-envelope. My claim is that if one starts at 21, and deposits 10% of their income each year, they will likely hit a good retirement nest egg. At an 8% return each year (Keep in mind, the last 40 years produced 10%, even with the lost decade) the 10% saver has just over 15X their final income as a retirement account. At 4% withdrawal, this replaces 60% of their income, with social security the rest, to get to nearly 100% or so replacement. Note - I wrote an article about Social Security Benefits, showing the benefit as a percent of final income. At $50K it's 42%, it's a higher replacement rate for lower income, but the replacement rate drops as income rises. So, the $5000 question. For an individual earning $50K or less, this amount is enough to fund their retirement. For those earning more, it will be one of the components, but not the full savings needed. (By the way, a single person has a standard deduction and exemption totaling $10150 in 2014. I refer to this as the 'zero bracket.' The next $8800 is taxed at 10%. Why go 100% Roth and miss the opportunity to fund these low or no tax withdrawals?)",
"\"Re: Specifically, am I right in that everything I put on these is deducted from tax, or are there other rules? and Am I correctly understanding this as \"\"anything above £3,600 per year will not be deducted from your tax\"\"? Neither interpretation seems quite right… Unless what you mean is this: The contributions (to a pension, or to the share-save scheme) are deducted from your pay before it is taxed. That's how it works for employer-run pension schemes. In other words, you are paying the gross amount you earn into the pension, not the amount after tax. It's a tax-efficient way to save, because: compared to other forms of saving: (The bit about the £3,600: you can ignore this assuming you're earning more than £3,600 a year.) What happens to the pension if you decide to move back to France or another country? In some cases you can transfer tax free. Worst case, you'd pay some tax on the transfer but not more than 25%. [See here for the current rules: https://www.gov.uk/transferring-your-pension/transferring-to-an-overseas-pension-scheme. Re: the share scheme, if by 'salary exchange' you mean salary sacrifice (where your gross pay is officially reduced by that amount e.g. £150 a month), that's even more tax-efficient, because it saves you paying the National Insurance contribution too (approx 9% of the pay packet). Conclusion: Saving into pension and company share save schemes is supremely tax-efficient and, provided you're OK with your money being locked away until you're 57 (pension) or tied up in company shares, it's understandably many people's priority to make use of these schemes before considering other forms of saving where you pay into them from your salary after tax. Now, about this: I am trying to understand how much I should put into it Should I put money into these, or should look for another way to save (how will this work out if I go back to France or another country)? Nobody here can advise you what to do since individuals' goals and circumstances are different and we don't know enough of the picture. That said: FWIW, I'll tell you what I might do based solely on what you've told us in the question… First, I'd definitely contribute 6% to the company pension. This gets you the full employer match. That's free money (plus, remember the tax relief = more free money). If you're 27, a total of 12% salary into a pension a year is a decent rate to start saving for retirement. Actually, 14% would be generally advisable, and maybe more still – it's generally a case of 'the more the better' especially while young, as you have time for growth and you don't know what later priorities might change / financial needs might arise. Nevertheless, you said you might move overseas. So in your position I would then:\"",
"You should be saving as much money as you can afford in your 401k up to the maximum allowed. If you don't contribute at least 6%, then you are essentially throwing away the match money that your employer is offering. Start out with the target date fund. You can always change your investment option later once you learn more about investing, but get started saving right away and get that match!",
"\"Ah, I see what you mean, then. But if you die at 57, being hit by a bus, those self-invested funds won't help the general social welfare of the union. Instead 1/3 would go to some estate tax, and the rest are left to the designated appointee of your choosing. This soulless system helps the general populace a bit more directly. That is the theory, anyways. *edit: what I mean to say is, you still perceive that money as your own, like some compulsory retirement savings plan. I see it more as tax revenue,math little to no guarantee I will personally benefit from it directly any more than the general benefit it provides to This Great Union.\"\"\"",
"401k contributions are exempt from employee and employer FICA withholding. The employer withholding is approximately 7% of the gross. The closer the employer match ratio is to 7%, the closer it is to paying for itself. Example: Assuming an employee is match-maximizing and in very round numbers grosses 100,000 per year. A 50% match schedule is about $350 cheaper per employee than a 100% match schedule: Default non participant: The employee will see about 7000 deducted for FICA, and the employer will pay 7000 to FICA if they don't participate. First case: the match is 100%, 1-for-1 to a 5% cap, the employee will deduct 5000, and have 6650 withheld for FICA. The employer will pay 6650 to FICA. The total employer cost of withholding and match is 11,650. Second case: If the match is 50%, 1-for-2 to a 5% cap, the employee will deduct 10000, and have 6300 withheld for FICA. The employer will pay 6300 to FICA. The total employer cost of withholding and match is 11,300.",
"Pensions in the UK are a real free-for-all. A few years ago, the government introduced stakeholder pensions to try and simplify things, but if anything it's just made things more complex. To give you an idea, everyone has access to a Basic state retirement pension, but there's also SERPS (state earnings related pension scheme) and the State second pension provided by the government. Then in the private sector there are the aforementioned Stakeholder pensions, Self Invested Personal Pensions, Final salary occupational pension schemes and Money purchase occupational pension schemes. For a good summary, take a look at this excellent Times article and for more details, have a look at the Pensions in the United Kingdom Wikipedia page or browse around the Which? retirement section or the moneysavingsexpert pensions pages. The main things to look out for are whether your company offers a defined benefits scheme, or a money purchase scheme where they offer pay additional contributions or offer to match your additional contributions. Either of these are likely to be better than just buying a money purchase scheme pension privately.",
"You can contribute to a Traditional IRA instead of a Roth. The main difference is a contribution to a Roth is made with after tax money but at retirement you can withdraw the money tax free. With a Traditional IRA your contribution is tax-deductible but at retirement the withdrawal is not tax free. This is why most people prefer a Roth if they can contribute. You can also contribute to your work's 401k plan assuming they have one. And you can always save for retirement in a regular account.",
"If you have self-employment income you can open a Solo 401k. Your question is unclear as to what your employment status is. If you are self-employed as an independent contractor, you can open a Solo 401k. You can still do this even if you also earn non-self-employment income (i.e., you are an employee and receive a W-2). However, the limits for contributions to a Solo 401k are based on your self-mployment income, not your total income, so if you have only a small amount of self-employment income, you won't be able to contribute much to the Solo 401k. You may be able to reduce your taxes somewhat, but it's not like you can earn $1000 of self-employment income, open a Solo 401k, and dump $5000 into it; the limits don't work that way.",
"The general idea of the PRPP is so that small business who cannot afford to offer a plan alone will be able to pool resources with others along with self-employed to create voluntary, defined-contribution pension plans that would be managed by private sector financial institutions. The PRPP concept would offer more options to individuals as well as small and medium-sized businesses - Tax Rules for Pooled Registered Pension Plans You can also find an overview here THE NEW PRPP – A Pension for the Pension-Less",
"You cannot withdraw funds from a 401(k) while still employed with your company. To access your contributions, that would be treated as a loan against the 401(k), in which case you'd pay an upfront fee, and then have to repay the amount loaned, plus interest, over a set period of time. (In essence, you are paying back yourself.) Typically, there is also a minimum amount you must take out as a loan. Should you leave the job and still have an outstanding loan against your 401(k), it will be treated as a withdrawal after a certain date, at which point a 10% penalty plus taxes applies, unless you pay back the full amount of the loan remaining before that certain date. Your friends should seriously consider contributing the minimum amount necessary to get that full 50% matching amount. It's free money. As you said, it's like leaving money on the table."
] |
[
"\"The end result is basically the same, it's just a choice of whether you want to base the final amount you receive on your salary, or on the stock market. You pay in a set proportion of your salary, and receive a set proportion of your salary in return. The pension (both contributions and benefit) are based on your career earnings. You get x% of your salary every year from retirement until death. These are just a private investment, basically: you pay a set amount in, and whatever is there is what you get at the end. Normally you would buy an annuity with the final sum, which pays you a set amount per year from retirement until death, as with the above. The amount you receive depends on how much you pay in, and the performance of the investment. If the stock market does well, you'll get more. If it does badly, you could actually end up with less. In general (in as much as anything relating to the stock market and investment can be generalised), a Defined Benefit plan is usually considered better for \"\"security\"\" - or at least, public sector ones, and a majority of people in my experience would prefer one, but it entirely depends on your personal attitude to risk. I'm on a defined benefit plan and like the fact that I basically get a benefit based on a proportion of my salary and that the amount is guaranteed, no matter what happens to the stock market in the meantime. I pay in 9% of my salary get 2% of my salary as pension, for each year I pay into the pension: no questions, no if's or buts, no performance indicators. Others prefer a defined contribution scheme because they know that it is based on the amount they pay in, not the amount they earn (although to an extent it is still based on earnings, as that's what defines how much you pay in), and because it has the potential to grow significantly based on the stock market. Unfortunately, nobody can give you a \"\"which is best\"\" answer - if I knew how pension funds were going to perform over the next 10-50 years, I wouldn't be on StackExchange, I'd be out there making a (rather large) fortune on the stock market.\"",
"It is comparing apples to oranges. From govt or institution point of view defined contribution is better than defined benefits as they don't have to carry obligations. Although defined benefit sounds good, one can't guarantee it will be enough when you retire compared to inflation. It often becomes political issue. Defined contribution puts you in charge."
] |
8456
|
What typically happens to unvested stock during an acquisition?
|
[
"257853",
"510875",
"486333"
] |
[
1,
1,
1
] |
[
"257853",
"376314",
"555276",
"469036",
"510875",
"104188",
"575741",
"492428",
"187776",
"340730",
"145864",
"255045",
"475560",
"102436",
"451613",
"235779",
"142401",
"207253",
"87331",
"518340",
"259560",
"361507",
"261487",
"595787",
"505673",
"159703",
"515942",
"190261",
"103437",
"541368",
"567244",
"361482",
"139387",
"232207",
"248393",
"143655",
"396180",
"178497",
"186869",
"39345",
"518088",
"81721",
"214946",
"83012",
"400644",
"81924",
"56118",
"511066",
"558233",
"123595",
"544800",
"575875",
"453829",
"199206",
"31037",
"352757",
"238903",
"174321",
"499286",
"38808",
"265111",
"220147",
"519781",
"409818",
"517516",
"134972",
"163396",
"200756",
"15635",
"15030",
"374867",
"481339",
"218695",
"38711",
"57534",
"391156",
"595605",
"511240",
"384213",
"417838",
"511528",
"576503",
"201127",
"171072",
"266613",
"23355",
"295258",
"237718",
"325818",
"432080",
"317711",
"591385",
"393439",
"238215",
"514231",
"217124",
"223070",
"261522",
"147805",
"135798"
] |
[
"\"This is a great question. I've participated in a deal like that as an employee, and I also know of friends and family who have been involved during a buyout. In short: The updated part of your question is correct: There is no single typical treatment. What happens to unvested restricted stock units (RSUs), unvested employee stock options, etc. varies from case to case. Furthermore, what exactly will happen in your case ought to have been described in the grant documentation which you (hopefully) received when you were issued restricted stock in the first place. Anyway, here are the two cases I've seen happen before: Immediate vesting of all units. Immediate vesting is often the case with RSUs or options that are granted to executives or key employees. The grant documentation usually details the cases that will have immediate vesting. One of the cases is usually a Change in/of Control (CIC or COC) provision, triggered in a buyout. Other immediate vesting cases may be when the key employee is terminated without cause, or dies. The terms vary, and are often negotiated by shrewd key employees. Conversion of the units to a new schedule. If anything is more \"\"typical\"\" of regular employee-level grants, I think this one would be. Generally, such RSU or option grants will be converted, at the deal price, to a new schedule with identical dates and vesting percentages, but a new number of units and dollar amount or strike price, usually so the end result would have been the same as before the deal. I'm also curious if anybody else has been through a buyout, or knows anybody who has been through a buyout, and how they were treated.\"",
"Vesting typically stops after you quit. So, if your plan vests 20% per year for 5 years, and you received a one-time stock grant as part of this plan (i.e., ignoring the fact that these often involve new grants each year that vest separately), and you were hired in 2014 and leave at the end of 2016, then you vested 20% in 2015 and 20% in 2016, so would have 40% of the stock vested when you quit, and would never have more than that.",
"I would ask your HR or benefits department to be certain, but here's how I read that without any specific knowledge of the situation: What is right to receive the RSU consideration? Company A was bought by Company B. You had unvested Restricted Stock Units in A, which is now gone. B is saying that you now have the right to receive consideration equivalent to the value of those RSUs in A. Since B is private, there's no publicly traded stock, so it will likely be in cash, but read the rest of the paperwork or talk to HR to be certain. For example, if you had 100 RSUs vesting next year and the price of stock in A was $50 when the company was bought, those RSUs would be worth $5,000. B is give you the right to consideration for those RSUs, hopefully for somewhere around $5,000. That consideration is unvested, meaning you must stay employed until the vesting period in order to claim that right. If you are fired without cause (i.e. laid off), you will receive those unvested claims as compensation. I assume the same will be applicable if employee leaves the company Probably not. In any situation, if you voluntarily leave a company, any unvested stock, RSUs, options, etc. are forfeited.",
"\"I'd early-exercised 75% of my grant at $5 and (later) exercised the remaining portion at $2. So did you actually pay the money and got \"\"X\"\" unvested shares? I'll be leaving the company; and they'll be unwinding half of the grant, so I'll get some money back, but now the question is: Do they pay me back from the $5 shares or the $2 shares? This would depend on what your contract says on unvested shares. There can be numerous combinations. More Often these are forfeited. i.e. you are not granted the shares. At times if you have paid then the guideline would give the details what would happen; i.e. only half vest and are priced at market and you are forced to encash them.\"",
"I've been through two instances where I worked for a public company that was merged (for stock) into another company. In both cases the options I had were replaced with equivalent options in the merged company with the number of shares and strike price adjusted at the same rate as the actual stock was converted, and the vesting terms remained essentially the same. In other words, the options before and after were in essence equivalent.",
"This should all be covered in your stock grant documentation, or the employee stock program of which your grant is a part. Find those docs and it should specify how or when you can sale your shares, and how the money is paid to you. Generally, vested shares are yours until you take action. If instead you have options, then be aware these need to be exercised before they become shares. There is generally a limited time period on how long you can wait to exercise. In the US, 10 years is common. Unvested shares will almost certainly expire upon your departure of the company. Whether your Merrill Lynch account will show this, or show them as never existing, I can't say. But either way, there is nothing you can or should do.",
"\"You were probably not given stock, but stock options. Those options have a strike price and you can do some more research on them if needed. Lets assume that you were given 5K shares at a strike of 20, and they vest 20% per year. Assume the same thing in your second year and you are going to leave in year three. You would have 2K shares from your year 1 grant, and 1K shares from your year 2 grant, so 2K total. If you leave no more shares would be vested. If you leave you have one of two options: To complicate matters subsequent grants may have different strike prices, so perhaps year two grant is at $22 per share. However, in pre-public companies that is not likely the case. For a bit of history, I worked at a pre-ipo company and we were all going to get rich. I was given generous grants, but decided to leave. I really wanted to buy my options but simply didn't have the money. Shortly after I left the company folded, so the money would have been thrown away anyway. When a company is private the motivate their employees with tales of riches, but they are not required to disclose financial data. This company did a very good job of convincing employees that all was fine, when it wasn't. Also I received options in a publicly traded company. Myself and other employees received options that were \"\"underwater\"\" or worth far less than the strike price. You could let them expire so one did not owe money, but they were worthless. Hopefully that answers your question.\"",
"An employer can decide that the employee funds are automatically vested. The new company could have had a more aggressive vesting schedule and grandfathered in all the employees of the company they acquired. This could have been part of the purchase negoaitaions. I would be surprised if they did it for employees that left years ago, especially if they were beyond the return period. I wouldn't keep money in a plan with a former employer just in case it happens. Check the plan documents to see all the verbiage regarding vesting here is a paragraph from one: You will receive one year of vesting service for each calendar year during which you complete 850 or more hours of service. Once you have five years of service, your account is fully vested and any future Company contributions made to your account will be immediately vested. Full vesting also occurs at age 59½, total disability or death while employed by the Company. If you leave the Company prior to 100% vesting, any unvested portion of your Plan account will be forfeited.",
"Generally speaking: when a company buys another company it's a complex agreement that spells out many things, including how the acquiring company is paying for the target company. These are the most common form of payment: 1. Cash. Shareholders of the target company get cash. 2. Shares. Shareholders of the target company get shares of the acquiring company. 3. A combination of 1 and 2 above.",
"When your options vest, you will have the option to buy your company's stock at a particular price (the strike price). A big part of the value of the option is the difference between the price that your company's stock is trading at, and the strike price of the option. If the price of the company stock in the market is lower than the strike price of the option, they are almost worthless. I say 'almost' because there is still the possibility that the stock price could go up before the options expire. If your company is big enough that their stock is not only listed on an exchange, but there is an active options market in your company's stock, you could get a feel for what they are worth by seeing what the market is willing to buy or sell similar exchange listed options. Once the options have vested, you now have the right to purchase your company's stock at the specified strike price until the options expire. When you use that right, you are exercising the option. You don't have to do that until you think it is worthwhile buying company stock at that price. If the company pays a dividend, it would probably be worth exercising the options sooner, (options don't receive a dividend). Ultimately you are buying your company's stock (albeit at a discount). You need to see if your company's stock is still a good investment. If you think your company has growth prospects, you might want to hold onto the stock. If you think you'd be better off putting your money elsewhere in the market, sell the stock you acquired at a discount and use the money to invest in something else. If there are any additional benefits to holding on to the stock for a period of time (e.g. selling part to fit within your capital gain allowance for that year) you should factor that into your investment decision, but it shouldn't force you to invest in, or remain invested in something you would otherwise view as too risky to invest in. A reminder of that fact is that some employees of Enron invested their entire retirement plans into Enron stock, so when Enron went bankrupt, these employees not only lost their job but their savings for retirement as well...",
"\"As the comments above have been trying to get across, the prospective employer is offering to pay you for the bonus/unvested compensation that you would be losing by jumping ship right now to go work for them. They are not offering to buy any securities that you already hold, regardless of whether they're profitable or unprofitable. Example 1. You participate in your current company's 401(k), and your company matches your contributions at 50%. However, the matching funds are not yours immediately; they vest in 20%/year increments until you have been at the company for 5 years. Let's say you've been there for 3 years and have contributed $50K to the plan. Your company has matched you at $25K, but only 60% of that ($15K) has vested. If you leave right now for the new employer, you're leaving $10K behind. So the new employer might offer to \"\"buy out\"\" (i.e. pay you) that $10K to help encourage you to switch now. You might then counter their offer by pointing out that if you stay where you are that $10K is coming to you tax-deferred, whereas their $10K signing bonus would be taxed. So you ask for $15K instead. Example 2. You work for a Wall Street investment bank. Each December you receive a performance bonus. Since you began working there, your three yearly bonuses have been (in chronological order) $500K, $750K, and $1M. It's June, so you've worked halfway towards your next bonus. You have a lot of incentive to NOT leave your current employer. A competing employer may offer to \"\"buy you out\"\" of your anticipated bonus by giving you a $1.25M signing bonus (since you'd almost certainly not be eligible for a performance bonus during your first year there). You might negotiate with them and say \"\"I'm on track for $2M this year\"\", and then they would figure out if you're really worth that much to them. So you can see this all has to do with the prospective employer trying to compensate you for any income you're already counting on receiving from your current employer. By jumping ship now you would be foregoing that guaranteed/expected income, so the competitor wants to remove that anchor that might be holding you back from making the move. Stocks/options that you already own are irrelevant to the prospective employer. Since you wouldn't be giving those up by changing jobs, there's no reason for them to factor into the equation.\"",
"As littleadv says it depends on the local laws. Normally one shouldn't be too worried. Typically the stocks given to the employees are a very small portion of the overall stocks ... the owners would not try to jeopardize the deal just so that they make an incrementally small amount of money ... they would rather play safe than get into such a practice.",
"\"Recently, I asked about what the company valuation is and how many shares does my 4% represent.CFO told me that there is no point to talk about \"\"shares\"\" or \"\"stock\"\" since the company is not public. Is it right? No, it is wrong. Shares and stocks exist regardless of how they can be traded. Once a company is formed, there are stocks that belong to the owners in the proportion of the ownership. They may not exist physically, but they do exist on paper. As an owner of 5% of the company, you own 5% of the company stocks. I asked if my investor portion equity will be subjected under a vesting schedule, CFO said yes. That doesn't make sense to me, because I bought those 4%? Aren't those supposed to be fully vested? I agree to my employee equity to be vested. Doesn't make sense to me either, since your money is already in their pocket. But I'm not sure if its illegal. If that's what is written in the signed contract - then may be its possible to have that situation. But it doesn't make much sense, because these shares are granted to you in return to your money, not some potential future work (as the 1% employee's portion). You already gave the money, so why wouldn't they be vested? Best to read the contract upon which you gave them your money, I really hope you have at least that and not just gave them a check....\"",
"Vesting As you may know a stock option is the right to acquire a given amount of stock at a given price. Actually acquiring the stock is referred to as exercising the option. Your company is offering you options over 200,000 shares but not all of those options can be exercised immediately. Initially you will only be able to acquire 25,000 shares; the other 175,000 have conditions attached, the condition in this case presumably being that you are still employed by the company at the specified time in the future. When the conditions attached to a stock option are satisfied that option is said to have vested - this simply means that the holder of the option can now exercise that option at any time they choose and thereby acquire the relevant shares. Dividends Arguably the primary purpose of most private companies is to make money for their owners (i.e. the shareholders) by selling goods and/or services at a profit. How does that money actually get to the shareholders? There are a few possible ways of which paying a dividend is one. Periodically (potentially annually but possibly more or less frequently or irregularly) the management of a company may look at how it is doing and decide that it can afford to pay so many cents per share as a dividend. Every shareholder would then receive that number of cents multiplied by the number of shares held. So for example in 4 years or so, after all your stock options have vested and assuming you have exercised them you will own 200,000 shares in your company. If the board declares a dividend of 10 cents per share you would receive $20,000. Depending on where you are and your exact circumstances you may or may not have to pay tax on this. Those are the basic concepts - as you might expect there are all kinds of variations and complications that can occur, but that's hopefully enough to get you started.",
"Having stock options means that you have worked for and rightfully earned a part of the company's capital appreciation. Takeover of the company would indicate someone is interested in the company (something should be valuable). It would be unwise to not strike before the period lapses since the strike price is always lower than market price and takeovers generally increases stock values ... it is capital gains all the way my friend. Good luck. *observations not in professional capacity. pls consult a professional for investment related advice.",
"I have had this happen a couple of times because of splits or sales of portions of the company. The general timeline was to announce how the split was to be handled; then the split; then a freeze in purchasing stock in the other company; then a freeze in sales; followed by a short blackout period; then the final transfers to funds/options/cash based on a mapping announced at the start of the process. You need to answer two questions: To determine if the final transactions will make the market move you have to understand how many shares are involved compared to the typical daily volume. There are two caveats: professional investors will be aware of the transaction date and can either ignore the employee transactions or try and take advantage of them; There may also be a mirroring set of transactions if the people left in the old company were awarded shares in your company as part of the sale. If you are happy with the default mapping then you can do nothing, and let the transaction happen based on the announced timeline. It is easy, and you don't have to worry about deadlines. If you don't like the default mapping then you need to know when the blackout period starts, so you don't end up not being able to perform the steps you want when you want. Timing is up to you. If the market doesn't like the acquisition/split it make make sense to make the move now, or wait until the last possible day depending on which part they don't like. Only you can answer that question.",
"It depends. If you accept the offer, then your stock will cease existing. If you reject the offer, then you will become a minority shareholder. Depending on the circumstances, you could be in the case where it becomes illegal to trade your shares. That can happen if the firm ceases to be a public company. In that case, you would discount the cash flows of future dividends to determine worth because there would be no market for it. If the firm remained public and also was listed for trading, then you could sell your shares although the terms and conditions in the market would depend on how the controlling firm managed the original firm.",
"According to this article: With an all-stock merger, the number of shares covered by a call option is changed to adjust for the value of the buyout. The options on the bought-out company will change to options on the buyer stock at the same strike price, but for a different number of shares. Normally, one option is for 100 shares of the underlying stock. For example, company A buys company B, exchanging 1/2 share of A for each share of B. Options purchased on company B stock would change to options on company A, with 50 shares of stock delivered if the option is exercised. This outcome strongly suggests that, in general, holders of options should cash out once the takeover is announced, before the transactions takes place. Since the acquiring company will typically offer a significant premium, this will offer an opportunity for instant profits for call option holders while at the same time being a big negative for put option holders. However, it is possible in some cases where the nominal price of the two companies favours the SML company (ie. the share prices of SML is lower than that of BIG), the holder of a call option may wish to hold onto their options. (And, possibly, conversely for put option holders.)",
"As far as I know, the AMT implications are the same for a privately held company as for one that is publicly traded. When I was given my ISO package, it came with a big package of articles on AMT to encourage me to exercise as close to the strike price as possible. Remember that the further the actual price at the time of purchase is from the strike price, the more the likely liability for AMT. That is an argument for buying early. Your company should have a common metric for determining the price of the stock that is vetted by outside sources and stable from year to year that is used in a similar way to the publicly traded value when determining AMT liability. During acquisitions stock options often, from what I know of my industry, at least, become options in the new company's stock. This won't always happen, but its possible that your options will simply translate. This can be valuable, because the price of stock during acquisition may triple or quadruple (unless the acquisition is helping out a very troubled company). As long as you are confident that the company will one day be acquired rather than fold and you are able to hold the stock until that one day comes, or you'll be able to sell it back at a likely gain, other than tying up the money I don't see much of a downside to investing now.",
"\"It seems like this was a \"\"stock for stock\"\" transaction. That is, your company was acquired, not for cash, but for the stock of Company X in a deal that your company's board of directors \"\"signed off\"\" on. Your company no longer exists, and that's why your stock was cancelled. The acquirer will be sending you an equivalent amount of stock in their Company, X. You don't need to worry about taxes, only accounting, because this is a \"\"non-cash\"\" transaction. What this means that your cost basis in the stock of Company X will be what you paid for the original company's stock (not its value on the day of the merger, which may be higher or lower than what you paid).\"",
"\"I'm in the US, so there may be idiosyncrasies with UK taxes that I'm not familiar with, but here's how I've always treated stock I get as compensation. Suppose the vested shares are worth X. If I had X in cash, would I buy my company's stock as an investment? Usually the answer is no, not because I think the stock will tank, but because there's better things I can do with that cash (pay off debt, unfortunately). Therefore I sell the shares and use the cash for something else. You have stock options. So suppose the stock value is X but you can buy it for Y. You can either: Therefore, the math is the same. If you had X in cash, would you buy your company's stock as an investment? If so, then option 2 is best, because you can get X in stock for a lower cost. (Option 3 might be better if the gain on the stock will be taxed higher, but they're pretty much equivalent if there's no chance that the stock will drop below Y) If not, then option 4 is best since you will likely get more than X-Y from selling the options that by exercising them and selling the stock (since options have time value). If option 4 is not a possibility, then option 1 is best - you pocket X-Y as \"\"income\"\" and invest it however you see fit.\"",
"The tax cost at election should be zero. The appreciation is all capital gain beyond your basis, which will be the value at election. IRC §83 applies to property received as compensation for services, where the property is still subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. It will catch unvested equity given to employees. §83(a) stops taxation until the substantial risk of forfeiture abates (i.e. no tax until stock vests) since the item is revocable and not yet truly income. §83(b) allows the taxpayer to make a quick election (up to 30 days after transfer - firm deadline!) to waive the substantial risk of forfeiture (e.g. treat shares as vested today). The normal operation of §83 takes over after election and the taxable income is generally the value of the vested property minus the price paid for it. If you paid fair market value today, then the difference is zero and your income from the shares is zero. The shares are now yours for tax purposes, though not for legal purposes. That means they are most likely a capital asset in your hands, like other stocks you own or trade. The shares will not be treated as compensation income on vesting, and vesting is not a tax matter for elected shares. If you sell them, you get capital gain (with tax dependent on your holding period) over a basis equal to FMV at the election. The appreciation past election-FMV will be capital gain, rather than ordinary income. This is why the §83(b) election is so valuable. It does not matter at this point whether you bought the restricted shares at FMV or at discount (or received them free) - that only affects the taxes upon §83(b) election.",
"A buy out is agreed by shareholders. Plus most countries have regulation protecting minority interest. Depending on the terms of buy out, you may get equivalent shares of buyer company or cash or both.",
"Its important that you carefully read the agreement, if you accept the job. The options agreement will usually specify the vesting schedule, the strike price, and the number of options you will have. When you start vesting options, you can choose to buy stock at the strike price. When you do exercise the options, your employer will likely withhold state and federal income tax. The strike price will hopefully be well below the market price. Unlike stock, when your employment ends, you usually are not able to hold on to your options. There's typically a small window of time in which you can exercise your options. You should read this part of the agreement carefully and plan accordingly.",
"Unfortunately, the money that is not vested is not yours. It belongs to your employer. They have promised to give it to you after you have been with the company for a certain length of time, but if you aren't still with the company after that time, no matter what the reason, the money never becomes yours. Sorry to hear about this. It would have been nice if your company had waived the vesting requirement like this guy's employer did, but I don't think they are required to do so, unfortunately. If it's a lot of money, you could ask an attorney, but as @JoeTaxpayer said, AT&T and IBM probably know what they are doing.",
"How you are taxed will depend on what kind of stock awards they are. The value will be determined by the company that issues it, and appropriate tax forms will be sent to you to include with your taxes. The way the value is determined is an accounting question that is off-topic here, but the value will be stated on your stock award paperwork. If you are awarded the stock directly then that value will be taxed as ordinary income. If you are awarded options, then you can purchase the stock to start the clock on long-term capital gains, but you will not incur any tax liability through the initial purchase. If the company is sold privately and you have held the stock for over 1 year, then yes, it will be taxed as a long-term capital gain. If you receive/exercise the stock less than 1 year before such an acquisition, then it will be considered a short-term capital gain and will be taxed as ordinary income.",
"This is only one of a series of questions your friend needs to understand. They will also need to know what happens to: vacation balances; the vacation earning schedule; retirement fund matching; the pension program; all the costs and rules regarding health, dental and vision;life insurance amounts. Some of these can be changed immediately. Some will not be changed this year because of IRS regulations. Everything can be changed by the next year. But there is no way to know if they will change a little a possible or as much a possible. It will depend on if they are buying the company, or if the company is going out of business and the new company is buying the remnants. They may also be essentially terminating the employees at the old place, and giving them the first opportunity for interviews. If they are essentially quitting they will not have to continue paying into the plan. The bad news is that their last day of work is also probably their last day to incur expenses that they can pay for with the flexible plan. If They are being purchased or absorbed the company will likely make no changes to the current plan, and fold them into the plan next year. I have been involved with company purchases and company splits, and this is how it was handled.",
"The NY company's board of directors are your agents and fiduciaries. I'll call them your agents below. The acquiring company entered into some contract that your agents negotiated. Whatever the acquiring company owes you in terms of money, equity, or specific communication is based on what your agents dealt for in the sale contract. Best ask your agents what they got for you.",
"Here is how it should look: 100 shares of restricted stock (RSU) vest. 25 shares sold to pay for taxes. W2 (and probably paycheck) shows your income going up by 100 shares worth and your taxes withheld going up by 25 shares worth. Now you own 75 shares with after-tax money. If you stop here, there would be no stock sale and no tax issues. You'd have just earned W2 income and withheld taxes through your W2 job. Now, when you sell those 75 shares whether it is the same day or years later, the basis for those 75 shares is adjusted by the amount that went in to your W2. So if they were bought for $20, your adjusted basis would be 75*$20.",
"I've seen many buyouts in my own portfolio, including the company I worked for. There have been several different scenarios: The terms of the deal are subject to the deal -- frankly whatever makes sense to the buyer and that is accepted by the seller. So sometimes brokers charge reorganization fees. check into those for your broker. I've not seen one in a while, but my brokerage account is substantial, and often that's a perk they offer higher-value accounts. Also watch out for taxes. The transaction where my employer was bought by another publicly traded company -- we got bit because the IRS treated it as a taxable transaction, and all our RSUs were effectively sold and then repurchased. So we ended up with a big tax bill (capital gains) without any cash to offset the big tax bill. I suspect its because my old employer was a US based company, whereas the new company is not.",
"When the deal closes, will it be as if I sold all of my ESPP shares with regards to taxes? Probably. If the deal is for cash and not stock exchange, then once the deal is approved and closed all the existing shareholders will sell their shares to the buyer for cash. Is there any way to mitigate this? Unlikely. You need to understand that ESPP is just a specific way to purchase shares, it doesn't give you any special rights or protections that other shareholders don't have.",
"Stock awards by employers are treated and taxed as salary. I.e.: you pay ordinary rate income tax, FICA taxes, State taxes etc. The fact that you got your salary in shares and not cash is irrelevant for tax purposes. Once you got the shares and paid your taxes on them, the treatment is the same as if you got the salary and immediately bought the shares. Holding period for capital gains tax purposes starts at the time you paid your taxes on the award, which is the time at which you get full ownership (i.e.: vesting time, for the restricted stocks). When you sell these stocks - you treat the sale as any other stock sale: you check the holding period for capital gains tax rates, and you do not pay (or get refund) any FICA taxes on the sales transaction. So bottom line: You got $10K salary and you bought $10K worth of company stock, and you sold it at $8K half a year later. You have $10K wages income and $2K short term capital loss.",
"\"A little terminology: Grant: you get a \"\"gift\"\" with strings attached. \"\"Grant\"\" refers to the plan (legal contract) under which you get the stock options. Vesting: these are the strings attached to the grant. As long as you're employed by the company, your options will vest every quarter, proportionally. You'll become an owner of 4687 or 4688 options every quarter. Each such vest event means you'd be getting an opportunity to buy the corresponding amount of stocks at the strike price (and not the current market price which may be higher). Buying is called exercising. Exercising a nonqualified option is a taxable event, and you'll be taxed on the value of the \"\"gift\"\" you got. The value is determined by the difference between the strike price (the price at which you have the option to buy the stock) and the actual fair market value of the stock at the time of vest (based on valuations). Options that are vested are yours (depending on the grant contract, read it carefully, leaving the company may lead to forfeiture). Options that are not vested will disappear once you leave the company. Exercised options become stocks, and are yours. Qualified vs Nonqualifed - refers to the tax treatment. Nonqualified options don't have any special treatment, qualified do. 3.02M stocks issued refers to the value of the options. Consider the total valuation of the company being $302M. With $302M value and 3.02M stocks issued, each stock is worth ~$100. Now, in a year, a new investor comes in, and another 3.02M stocks are issued (if, for example, the new investor wants a 50% stake). In this case, there will be 6.04M stocks issued, for 302M value - each stock is worth $50 now. That is called dilution. Your grant is in nominal options, so in case of dilution, the value of your options will go down. Additional points: If the company is not yet public, selling the stocks may be difficult, and you may own pieces of paper that no-one else wants to buy. You will still pay taxes based on the valuations and you may end up paying for these pieces of paper out of your own pocket. In California, it is illegal to not pay salary to regular employees. Unless you're a senior executive of the company (which I doubt), you should be paid at least $9/hour per the CA minimum wages law.\"",
"does it still count as a capital gain or loss? Yes. Is it essentially treated like you sold the stock at the price of the buy-out? Yes. Do you still get a 1099-B from your broker? Yes.",
"ISOs (incentive stock options) can be closed out in a cashless transaction. Say the first round vests, 25,000 shares. The stock is worth $7 but your option is to buy at $5 as you say. The broker executes and sells, you get $50,000, with no up front money. Edit based on comment below - you know they vest over 4 years, but how long before they expire? It stands to reason the longer you are able to hold them, the better a chance the company succeeds, and the price rises. The article Understanding employer-granted stock options (PDF) offers a nice discussion of different scenarios supporting my answer.",
"\"An option is a financial instrument instrument that gives you the right, but not the obligation, to do some transaction in the future at a given price. An employee stock option is a kind of \"\"call option\"\" -- it gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy the stock at a certain price (the \"\"exercise price\"\", usually set as the price of the stock when the option was granted). The idea is that you would \"\"exercise\"\" the option (buy the stock at the given price as provided by the option), if the value of the stock is higher than the exercise price, and not if it is lower. The option is gifted to you. But that does not mean you get any stock. If and when you choose to exercise the option, you would buy the stock with your own money. At what time you can exercise the option (and how many shares you can exercise at a given time) will be specified in the agreement. Usually, you can only exercise a particular share after it has \"\"vested\"\" (according to some vesting schedule), and you lose the ability to exercise after you no longer work for the company (plus perhaps a grace period), or after the option expires.\"",
"\"I don't think its a taxable event since no income has been constructively received (talking about the RSU shareholders here). I believe you're right with the IRC 1033, and the basis of the RSU is the basis of the original stock option (probably zero). Edit: see below. However, once the stock becomes vested - then it is a taxable event (not when the cash is received, but when the chance of forfeiture diminishes, even if the employee doesn't sell the stock), and is an ordinary income, not capital. That is my understanding of the situation, do not consider it as a tax advice in any way. I gave it a bit more though and I don't think IRC 1033 is relevant. You're not doing any exchange or conversion here, because you didn't have anything to convert to begin with, and don't have anything after the \"\"conversion\"\". Your ISO's are forfeited and no longer available, basically - you treat them as you've never had them. What happened is that you've received RSU's, and you treat them as a regular RSU grant, based on its vesting schedule. The tax consequences are exactly as I described in my original response: you recognize ordinary income on the vested stocks, as they vest. Your basis is zero (i.e.: the whole FMV of the stock at the time of vesting is your ordinary income). It should also be reflected in your W2 accordingly.\"",
"Stock options represent an option to buy a share at a given price. What you have been offered is the option to buy the company share at a given price ($5) starting a given date (your golden handcuffs aka vesting schedule). If the company's value doubles in 1 year and the shares are liquid (i.e. you can sell them) then you've just made $125k of profit. If the company's value has gone to zero in 1 year then you've lost nothing other than your hopes of getting rich. As others have mentioned, the mechanics of exercising the option and selling the shares can typically be accomplished without any cash involved. The broker will do both in a single transaction and use the proceeds of the sale to pay the cost of buying the shares. You should always at least cover the taxable portion of the transaction and typically the broker will withhold that tax anyways. Otherwise you could find yourself in a position where you have actually lost money due to tax being owed while the shares decline in value below that tax. You don't have to worry about that right now. Again as people have mentioned options will typically expire 10 years from vesting or 90 days from leaving your employment with the company. I'm sure there are some variations on the theme. Make sure you ask and all this should be part of some written contract. I'm sure you can ask to see it if you wish. Also typical is that stock option grants have to be approved by the board which is normally a technicality. Some general advice:",
"A lot may depend on the nature of a buyout, sometimes it's is for stock and cash, sometimes just stock, or in the case of this google deal, all cash. Since that deal was used, we'll discuss what happens in a cash buyout. If the stock price goes high enough before the buyout date to put you in the money, pull the trigger before the settlement date (in some cases, it might be pulled for you, see below). Otherwise, once the buyout occurs you will either be done or may receive adjusted options in the stock of the company that did the buyout (not applicable in a cash buyout). Typically the price will approach but not exceed the buyout price as the time gets close to the buyout date. If the buyout price is above your option strike price, then you have some hope of being in the money at some point before the buyout; just be sure to exercise in time. You need to check the fine print on the option contract itself to see if it had some provision that determines what happens in the event of a buyout. That will tell you what happens with your particular options. For example Joe Taxpayer just amended his answer to include the standard language from CBOE on it's options, which if I read it right means if you have options via them you need to check with your broker to see what if any special exercise settlement procedures are being imposed by CBOE in this case.",
"Good questions. I can only add that it may be valuable if the company is bought, they may buy the options. Happened to me in previous company.",
"Since the 2 existing answers addressed the question as asked. Let me offer a warning. You have 10,000 options at $1. You've worked four years and the options are vested. The stock is worth $101 when you get a job offer (at another company) which you accept. So you put up $10k and buy the shares. At this moment, you put up $10K for stock worth $1.01M, a $1M profit and ordinary income. You got out of the company just in time. For whatever reason, the stock drops to $21 and at tax time you realize the $1M gain was ordinary income, but now the $800k loss is a capital loss, limited to $3000/yr above capital gains. In other words you have $210k worth of stock but a tax bill on $1M. This is not a contrived story, but a common one from the dotcon bubble. It's a warning that 'buy and hold' has the potential to blow up in your face, even if the shares you buy retain some value.",
"Coincidentally just read a nice post on this topic: http://thefinancebuff.com/no-tax-advantage-in-rsu.html In short, sell the stock as soon as it vests and treat it as a cash bonus. Assuming you're in the US and the stock is possible to sell (public company, no trading window restrictions, you have no material nonpublic information, etc.) What do you do with a cash bonus? If you have no savings, an emergency fund would be good, then start on retirement savings perhaps... it sounds a bit like you could use some broad general financial planning info, my favorite book for that is: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/B0013L2ED6 One exception to selling immediately could be if the company stock is hugely undervalued, but it probably isn't, and it's probably too hard to determine.",
"\"Simply put, yes. I bought that call. I was betting the shares would rise in value by Jan 2018, and chose the $130 strike. With a strike nearly a year away, I paid a premium that was all time value as the shares traded at Now the shares are replaced by $128. The time value has gone to zero, and there is no intrinsic \"\"in the money\"\" value. If the shares were bought at $140, the time value stills drops to zero, but the option is closed at $10 in the money. My answer was for a cash deal. In a case where the old shares are replaced by new shares or a combination of shares and money, the options terms are changed to reflect the combination of new assets for old. Update based on disclosure that it's Monsanto we are discussing. Bayer and Monsanto have announced that they signed a definitive agreement under which Bayer will acquire Monsanto for USD 128 per share in an all-cash transaction. Based on Monsanto’s closing share price on May 9, 2016, the day before Bayer’s first written proposal to Monsanto, the offer represents a premium of 44 percent to that price. You can see that the deal has been in the works for some time now. Further research shows they expect the deal to close by \"\"the end of 2017\"\". It's not a done deal. This is why the options are still trading. Now the shares are replaced by $128. The time value has gone to zero, and there is no intrinsic \"\"in the money\"\" value. If the shares were bought at $140, the time value stills drops to zero, but the option is closed at $10 in the money. My answer was for a cash deal. In a case where the old shares are replaced by new shares or a combination of shares and money, the options terms are changed to reflect the combination of new assets for old. Update based on disclosure that it's Monsanto we are discussing. Bayer and Monsanto have announced that they signed a definitive agreement under which Bayer will acquire Monsanto for USD 128 per share in an all-cash transaction. Based on Monsanto’s closing share price on May 9, 2016, the day before Bayer’s first written proposal to Monsanto, the offer represents a premium of 44 percent to that price. You can see that the deal has been in the works for some time now. Further research shows they expect the deal to close by \"\"the end of 2017\"\". It's not a done deal. This is why the options are still trading.\"",
"\"I was told by the lawyers there was no tax consequence because the two numbers were the same. That is correct. However, a tax professional tells me that since the start-up stock was \"\"realized\"\" there invokes a taxable event now. That is correct. I'm now led to believe I owe cap-gains tax on the entire 4 year vest this year That is incorrect. You owe capital gains tax on the sale of your startup stock. Which is accidentally the exact same amount you \"\"paid\"\" for the new unvested stocks. There's no taxable event with regards to the new stocks because the amount you paid for them was the amount you got for the old stocks. But you did sell the old stocks, and that is a taxable event.\"",
"In the real world, there are only two times you'll see that 5% become worth anything - ie, something you can exchange for cash - 1) if another company buys them; (2) if they go public. If neither of these things happen, you cannot do anything with the stock or stock options that you own.",
"\"I believe that your option contracts will become \"\"non-standard\"\" and will be for a combination of ACE stock and cash. The allocation between stock and cash should follow that of the acquisition parameters of the underlying - probably with fractional shares converted to cash. Hence 1 call contract for 100 shares of CB will become 1 call contract for 60 shares of ACE + $6293 cash + a cash correction for the 0.19 fractional share of ACE that you would have had claim to get. The corrections should be 0.19 sh x $62.93/sh.\"",
"Let's work from the inside out. Options are not stock. Options are a contract that give you the right to own the stock. For options to have value they have to be exercised. Straight line means that each quarter 1/16th of the option grant becomes yours and the company cannot take it away. Four quarters in a year times four years is 16 quarters. 'Grant' means they are giving you the options at no cost to you. 'Nonqualified' means that there is nothing you have to do, or be, in order to get the options. (Some options are only for management.)",
"\"For restricted stock, I think the vesting date meets the requirements of the second wash sale trigger from IRS Pub 550: Wash Sales: Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade I base this on these two quotes from IRS Pub 525: Restricted Property: any income from the property, or the right to use the property, is included in your income as additional compensation in the year you receive the income or have the right to use the property. - Until the property becomes substantially vested, it is owned by the person who makes the transfer to you, usually your employer. So on the vest date: The transfer is taxable Ownership is transferred to you That seems close enough to \"\"a fully taxable trade\"\" for me. Maybe this changes if you pay the tax on the stock on the grant date. See Pub 525: Restricted Property: Choosing to include in income for year of transfer. Obviously, if this is important you should consult your tax advisor. Technicalities aside, I don't think it passes the sniff test. You're getting salable shares when the restricted stock vests. If you're selling other shares at a loss within 30 days of the vesting date, that smells like a wash sale to me.\"",
"I've been offered a package that includes 100k stock options at 5 dollars a share. They vest over 4 years at 25% a year. Does this mean that at the end of the first year, I'm supposed to pay for 25,000 shares? Wouldn't this cost me 125,000 dollars? I don't have this kind of money. At the end of the first year, you will generally have the option to pay for the shares. Yes, this means you have to use your own money. You generally dont have to buy ANY until the whole option vests, after 4 years in your case, at which point you either buy, or you are considered 'vested' (you have equity in the company without buying) or the option expires worthless, with you losing your window to buy into the company. This gives you plenty of opportunity to evaluate the company's growth prospects and viability over this time. Regarding options expiration the contract can have an arbitrarily long expiration date, like 17 years. You not having the money or not isn't a consideration in this matter. Negotiate a higher salary instead. I've told several companies that I don't want their equity despite my interest in their business model and product. YMMV. Also, options can come with tax consequences, or none at all. its not a raw deal but you need to be able to look at it objectively.",
"It depends on the timing of the events. Sometimes the buying company announces their intention but the other company doesn't like the deal. It can go back and forth several times, before the deal is finalized. The specifics of the deal determine what happens to the stock: The deal will specify when the cutoff is. Some people want the cash, others want the shares. Some will speculate once the initial offer is announced where the final offer (if there is one) will end up. This can cause a spike in volume, and the price could go up or down. Regarding this particular deal I did find the following: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/expedia-to-acquire-orbitz-worldwide-for-12-per-share-in-cash-300035187.html Additional Information and Where to Find It Orbitz intends to file with the SEC a proxy statement as well as other relevant documents in connection with the proposed transaction with Expedia. The definitive proxy statement will be sent or given to the stockholders of Orbitz and will contain important information about the proposed transaction and related matters. SECURITY HOLDERS ARE URGED TO READ THE PROXY STATEMENT CAREFULLY WHEN IT BECOMES AVAILABLE AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE SEC, AS WELL AS ANY AMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS TO THOSE DOCUMENTS, BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION. The proxy statement and other relevant materials (when they become available), and any other documents filed by Expedia or Orbitz with the SEC, may be obtained free of charge at the SEC's website, at www.sec.gov. In addition, security holders will be able to obtain free copies of the proxy statement from Orbitz by contacting Investor Relations by mail at ATTN: Corporate Secretary, Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 1000, Chicago, Illinois 60661.",
"Both you and the Company were probably benefitted by this decision. Specifically an option grant that was not FRV or more would require you to recognize the option as income whether you had exercised it or not. Additionally a host of other 409A tax issues/penalties could have been levied against you as an employee recipient. I certainly appreciate your concern about a change in compensation, but this is one where Corporate America likely saved your bacon.",
"No, unvested money returns to the employer, its not yours. They should send you W2 which will only show the actual (vested) monies you got.",
"At the most basic level, the employee is getting a share of ownership in the company and would get a percentage of the sales price. That said, as littleadv alluded to, different share classes have different priorities and get paid in different orders. In a bankruptcy, for example, some classes almost never get paid in practice because they are so far down the ladder of priority. The first step you should take would be to try to clarify what you are getting with the company itself. Failing that, contact a financial professional or an attorney in your area who can read the terms and give you a better understanding of the contract before you sign.",
"It's still the purchase price or the price at which the shares are purchased or granted. This Investopedia article describes how the price is used for tax purposes: The amount that must be declared [for tax purposes] is determined by subtracting the original purchase or exercise price of the stock (which may be zero) from the fair market value of the stock as of the date that the stock becomes fully vested. Restricted stock awards are similar to stock options. The employer promises to grant the employee a certain number of shares upon the completion of the vesting schedule. The price at which the shares are purchased (or granted, if the price is zero) is the exercise price.",
"My friend Harry Sit wrote an excellent article No Tax Advantage In RSU. The punchline is this. The day the RSUs vested, it's pretty much you got $XXX in taxable income and then bought the stock at the price at that moment. The clock for long term gain starts the same as if I bought the stock that day. Historical side note - In the insane days of the Dotcom bubble, people found they got RSUs vested and worth, say, $1M. Crash. The shares are worth $100K. The $1M was ordinary income, the basis was $1M and the $900K loss could offset cap gains, not ordinary income above $3000/yr. Let me be clear - the tax bill was $250K+ but the poor taxpayer had $100K in stock to sell to pay that bill. Ooops. This is the origin of the 'sell the day it vests' advice. The shares you own will be long term for capital gain a year after vesting. After the year, be sure to sell those particular shares and you're all set. No different than anyone selling the LT shares of stock when owning multiple lots. But. Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog. If you feel it's time to sell, you can easily lose the tax savings while watching the stock fall waiting for the clock to tick to one year.",
"\"I highly doubt this was a mistake. In the event of a corporate merger/buyout, changes to employee 401(k) plans are usually hashed out as part of the M&A agreement. The choices made in the agreement depend on numerous factors, so it may be difficult to predict what happens to your plan in situations like this. A quick online search reveals a few articles, e.g. this one from expertplan.com, that list the three most common consequences for retirement plans: It sounds like the company that purchased your employer agreed to immediately vest employees in employer 401(k) contributions as part of the purchase agreement. Without knowing the details of the merger/buyout, I can't say this for sure, but this sounds like a plausible way to keep employees of the purchased company content. Rather than roll it over, does it make sense to wait for that company to be purchased, in the hopes that a similar \"\"mistake\"\" occurs? Since this doesn't sound like a mistake, but rather a part of the buyout agreement, I don't think it's something you should count on in the future. It may be very likely, or it could be a relatively rare occurrence that happened to be part of this purchase agreement. I don't believe the Employee Retirement Income Security Act regulates what can or can't be done to your 401(k) in a buyout, except that the company is required to inform you of any changes (and obviously, the new 401(k) plan must conform to ERISA as well).\"",
"The sale of shares on vesting convolutes matters. In a way similar to how reinvested dividends are taxed but the newly purchased fund shares' basis has to be increased, you need to be sure to have the correct per share cost basis. It's easy to confuse the total RSU purchase with the correct numbers, only what remained. The vesting stock is a taxable event, ordinary income. You then own the stock at that cost basis. A sale after that is long or short term and the profit is the to extent it exceeds that basis. The fact that you got these shares in 2013 means you should have paid the tax then. And this is part two of the process. Of course the partial sale means a bit of math to calculate the basis of what remained.",
"Generally speaking, if the acquiring company buys less than 50% of the target, the acquirer would not claim any income until there was a dividend or the equity stock appreciated. With a dividend, the acqiring company would participate in and book earnings on the cash received. Without a dividend, equity stock of the target should theoretically rise to reflect higher retained income and the acquirer would book an unrealized gain to gross profit (I think). If the acquiring company buys more than 50% of the target, it is likely all revenues and expences would be consolidated and included in the acquiring company's respective accounts as if it was one cohesive whole. Any residual stake in the target owned by a third party would be reflected in a Minority Interest expense on the acquiring company's income statement.",
"Is the Grant Date or the Vest Date used when determining the 12-month cutoff for long-term and short-term capital gains? You don't actually acquire the stock until it's vested, so that is the date and price used to determine your cost basis and short-term/long-term gain/loss. The grant date really has no tax bearing. If you held the stock (time between vesting and sale) for more than one year you will owe long-term CG tax, if less than one year you will owe short-term CG tax.",
"I do not know for sure so do not quote me on this. But I would assume that you will get paid out to what the value of the buyout is. Example if your company has 100 private shares and you own 1 share (1%), and the company sells for $1,000,000. Your share will be worth 1% of the $1 million.",
"This happened to me recently. What became the final offer was a cash buy-out of all of our shares rather than a conversion. The cash buy-out was higher than the company's original asking price and than the stock ever went on the market before hand. I was extremely pleased to have held on to the stock until the end. That said, it sounds like your situation is different. You can't necessarily time this sort of thing. You can just make your best decision and determine to be happy with the way it all plays out.",
"Options granted by an employer to an employee are generally different that the standardized options that are traded on public stock option exchanges. They may or may not have somewhat comparable terms, but generally the terms are fairly different. As a holder of an expiring employee option, you can only choose to exercise it by paying the specified price and receiving the shares, or not. It is common that the exercise system will allow you to exercise all the shares and simultaneously sell enough of the acquired shares to cover the option cost of all the shares, thus leaving you owning some of the stock without having to spend any cash. You will owe taxes on the gain on exercise, regardless of what you do with the stock. If you want to buy publicly-traded options, you should consider that completely separately from your employer options other than thinking about how much exposure you have to your company situation. It is very common for employees to be imprudently overexposed to their company's stock (through direct ownership or options).",
"\"When the buyout happens, the $30 strike is worth $10, as it's in the money, you get $10 ($1000 per contract). Yes, the $40 strike is pretty worthless, it actually dropped in value today. Some deals are worded as an offer or intention, so a new offer can come in. This appears to be a done deal. From Chapter 8 of CHARACTERISTICS AND RISKS OF STANDARDIZED OPTIONS - FEB 1994 with supplemental updates 1997 through 2012; \"\"In certain unusual circumstances, it might not be possible for uncovered call writers of physical delivery stock and stock index options to obtain the underlying equity securities in order to meet their settlement obligations following exercise. This could happen, for example, in the event of a successful tender offer for all or substantially all of the outstanding shares of an underlying security or if trading in an underlying security were enjoined or suspended. In situations of that type, OCC may impose special exercise settlement procedures. These special procedures, applicable only to calls and only when an assigned writer is unable to obtain the underlying security, may involve the suspension of the settlement obligations of the holder and writer and/or the fixing of cash settlement prices in lieu of delivery of the underlying security. In such circumstances, OCC might also prohibit the exercise of puts by holders who would be unable to deliver the underlying security on the exercise settlement date. When special exercise settlement procedures are imposed, OCC will announce to its Clearing Members how settlements are to be handled. Investors may obtain that information from their brokerage firms.\"\" I believe this confirms my observation. Happy to discuss if a reader feels otherwise.\"",
"\"When you exercise your options, you come up with cash to buy the shares. This makes you an owner of the company for shares at the share price your options let you have. Ideally, your share price is at a significant discount to what the company is worth. Being a shareholder, you gain from any share price appreciation in a sale. The only thing the \"\"60-day window\"\" applies to is whether you come up with the cash to buy fast enough, or your shares get permanently deleted from the company finances, where everyone else potentially makes more, you make nothing. The sale of the company is based on whenever the sell finalizes, which is between your company and the acquiring company.\"",
"I am not required to hold any company stock. I also have an ESOP plan carrying a similar number of shares in company stock. So if it were to be sold, what would the recommendation be to replace it? I can move the shares into any option shown, and have quite a few others. Not dealing with any huge amounts, just a 4.5% contribution over three years (so far).",
"The company may not permit a transfer of these options. If they do permit it, you simply give him the money and he has them issue the options in your name. As a non-public company, they may have a condition where an exiting employee has to buy the shares or let them expire. If non-employees are allowed to own shares, you give him the money to exercise the options and he takes possession of the stock and transfers it to you. Either way, it seems you really need a lawyer to handle this. Whenever this kind of money is in motion, get a lawyer. By the way, the options are his. You mean he must purchase the shares, correct?",
"What you will probably get is an option to buy, for £10,000, £10,000 worth of stock. If the stock price on the day your option is granted is £2.50, then that's 4,000 shares. Companies rarely grant discounted options, as there are tax disincentives. The benefit of the stock option is that when you exercise it, you still only pay £10,000, no matter what the 4,000 shares are now worth. This is supposed to be an incentive for you to work harder to increase the value of the company. You should also check the vesting schedule. You will typically not be able to exercise all your options for some years, although some portion of it may vest each year.",
"This is not right. Inferring the employee stock pool’s takeaway is not as easy as just taking a fraction of the purchase price. As an example, that wouldn’t account for any preferred returns of other ownership classes, among other things. All considered though, it’s reasonable to assume that the employee stock pool will get some premium. Best of luck.",
"\"The simplest thing to do here is to speak to your employer about what is allowed. This should be spelt out in your company's \"\"Stock Options Plan\"\" documentation. In particular, this document will include details of the vesting schedule. For example, the schedule may only allow you to exercise 25% in the first year, 25% in the second year, and the remainder in the third year. Technically I can see no reason to prevent you from the mix-and-match approach you are suggesting. However, this may not be the case according to the schedule specification.\"",
"Advantage: more money. The financial tradeoff is usually to your benefit: Given these, for having your money locked up for the average length of the vesting periods (some is locked up for 3 months, some is locked up for nearly 0), you get a 10% return. Overall, it's like a 1.5% bonus for the year, assuming you were to sell everything right away. Of course, whether or not you wish to keep the stock depends on how you value MSFT as an investment. The disadvantage lies in a couple parts:",
"Does this make sense? I'm concerned that by buying shares with post tax income, I'll have ended up being taxed twice or have increased my taxable income. ... The company will then re-reimburse me for the difference in stock price between the vesting and the purchase share price. Sure. Assuming you received a 100-share RSU for shares worth $10, and your marginal tax rate is 30% (all made up numbers), either: or So you're in the same spot either way. You paid $300 to get $1,000 worth of stock. Taxes are the same as well. The full value of the RSU will count as income either way, and you'll either pay tax on the gains of the 100 shares in your RSU our you'll pay tax on gains on the 70 shares in your RSU and the 30 shares you bought. Since they're reimbursing you for any difference the cost basis will be the same (although you might get taxed on the reimbursement, but that should be a relatively small amount). This first year I wanted to keep all of the shares, due to tax reasons and because believe the share price will go up. I don't see how this would make a difference from a tax standpoint. You're going to pay tax on the RSU either way - either in shares or in cash. how does the value of the shares going up make a difference in tax? Additionally I'm concerned that by doing this I'm going to be hit by my bank for GBP->USD exchange fees, foreign money transfer charges, broker purchase fees etc. That might be true - if that's the case then you need to decide whether to keep fighting or decide if it's worth the transaction costs.",
"There's an odd anomaly that often occurs with shares acquired through company plans via ESPP or option purchase. The general situation is that the share value above strike price or grant price may become ordinary income, but a sale below the price at day the shares are valued is a capital loss. e.g. in an ESPP offering, I have a $10 purchase price, but at the end of the offering, the shares are valued at $100. Unless I hold the shares for an additional year, the sale price contains ordinary W2 income. So, if I see the shares falling and sell for $50, I have a tax bill for $90 of W2 income, but a $50 capital loss. Tax is due on $90 (and for 1K shares, $90,000 which can be a $30K hit) but that $50K loss can only be applied to cap gains, or $3K/yr of income. In the dotcom bubble, there were many people who had million dollar tax bills and the value of the money netted from the sale couldn't even cover the taxes. And $1M in losses would take 300 years at $3K/yr. The above is one reason the lockup date expiration is why shares get sold. And one can probably profit on the bigger companies stock. Edit - see Yelp down 3% following expiration of 180 day IPO lock-up period, for similar situation.",
"RSU are taxed when vested, based on their value at that point, as salary. If you don't sell to cover, you need to pay the taxes, if you sell to cover - you sell the portion that is worth the taxes (brokers do that automatically, and remit the taxes on your behalf). Once paid your taxes, it becomes a regular stock position - short term gains if you sell within a year after vesting, long term if you wait for more than a year. The consideration whether to wait or sell is as with any other investment, them being previously restricted has no meaning. You calculate the gain for each position, so the fact that you have more than one position is not a problem. The RSU income and the taxes paid will appear on your W2, so when the broker reports proceeds, you can show the basis and thus calculate the gain. See this question for some useful answers on how to report the RSU sale on your taxes.",
"Fidelity has a good explanation of Restricted Stock Awards: For grants that pay in actual shares, the employee’s tax holding period begins at the time of vesting, and the employee’s tax basis is equal to the amount paid for the stock plus the amount included as ordinary compensation income. Upon a later sale of the shares, assuming the employee holds the shares as a capital asset, the employee would recognize capital gain income or loss; whether such capital gain would be a short- or long-term gain would depend on the time between the beginning of the holding period at vesting and the date of the subsequent sale. Consult your tax adviser regarding the income tax consequences to you. So, you would count from vesting for long-term capital gains purposes. Also note the point to include the amount of income you were considered to have earned as a result of the original vesting [market value then - amount you paid]. (And of course, you reported that as income in 2015/2016, right?) So if you had 300 shares of Stock ABC granted you in 2014 for a price of $5/share, and in 2015 100 of those shares vested at FMV $8/share, and in 2016 100 of those shares vested, current FMV $10/share, you had $300 in income in 2015 and $500 of income in 2016 from this. Then in 2017 you sold 200 shares for $15/share:",
"There are two dates that matter for vesting in this situation: If you left the company on 12/31/16, you would be entitled to none of the company contributions. If you left on 1/1/17, you would be entitled to all $20k. This is sometimes known as a cliff vesting schedule. Some companies do a stair step - 20% after year 1, 40% after year 2, etc. This is known as graded vesting. But, that is not the case based on the language here.",
"\"I can see two possibilities. Either a deal is struck that someone (the company itself, or a large owner) buys out the remaining shares. This is the scenario @mbhunter is talking about, so I won't go too deeply into it, but it simply means that you get money in your bank account for the shares in question the same as if you were to sell them for that price (in turn possibly triggering tax effects, etc.). I imagine that this is by far the most common approach. The other possibility is that the stock is simply de-listed from a public stock exchange, and not re-listed elsewhere. In this case, you will still have the stock, and it will represent the same thing (a portion of the company), but you will lose out on most of the \"\"market\"\" part of \"\"stock market\"\". That is, the shares will still represent a monetary value, you will have the same right to a portion of the company's profits as you do now, etc., but you will not have the benefit of the market setting a price per share so current valuation will be harder. Should you wish to buy or sell stock, you will have to find someone yourself who is interested in striking a deal with you at a price point that you feel comfortable with.\"",
"\"Yes, you would pay no taxes at the time of purchase. In fact, this is not uncommon. Many early employees of startup companies are offered stock options that can be \"\"early-exercised\"\" (exercised before they vest). In such a case, an employee who exercises immediately upon grant (and assuming the exercise price of the option is the FMV at the time of grant) purchases the stock at FMV, and there no no tax paid when filing 83(b) election.\"",
"Probably not. If you were at a small company and asked such a question, you'd get advice and links to erisa or other case law, etc. it's safe to say that a Fortune 500 company such as IBM is going to have their facts in order, and not going to run afoul of the rules in these cases (vesting rules and takeover of other company). I was in a company that cancelled its pension program. Those of us with the required years got the option of a lump sum payout, those with less than 5 years had no vested value and got nothing. One month longer employment, in the case of a particular coworker, would have given him a lump sum worth nearly 6 months pay.",
"If the company's ownership is structured similarly to a typical start-up then an 1% employee ownership in a company which sells for 1 million will yield far less than 10k due to various liquidation preferences of the investors, different share classes, etc. It's pretty hard to get a specific number because it depends a lot on the details of earlier fundraising and stock grants. That said, unless the company is circling the drain and the sale was just to avoid BK, the share price you get should be higher unless the share class structure and acquisition deal are completely unfair.",
"\"The main thing is the percentage of the company represented by the shares. Number of shares is meaningless without total shares. If you compute percentage and total company value you can estimate the value of the grant. Or perhaps more useful for a startup is to multiple the percentage by some plausible \"\"exit\"\" value, such as how much the company might sell for or IPO for. Many grants expire when or soon after you leave the company if you don't \"\"cash out\"\" vested shares when you leave, this is standard, but do remember it when you leave. The other major thing is vesting. In the tech industry, vesting 1/4 after a year and then the rest quarterly over 3 more years is most common.\"",
"You're asking whether the shares you sold while being a US tax resident are taxable in the US. The answer is yes, they are. How you acquired them or what were the circumstances of the sale is irrelevant. When you acquired them is relevant to the determination of the tax treatment - short or long term capital gains. You report this transaction on your Schedule D, follow the instructions. Make sure you can substantiate the cost basis properly based on how much you paid for the shares you sold (the taxable income recognized to you at vest).",
"\"An option without the vesting period and the price at which one can exercise the option is of not much value. If vesting is determined by board, then at any given point in time they can change the vesting period to say 3, 5, 10 years any number. The other aspect is at what price you are allowed to exercise the option, ie if the stock is of value 10, you may be given an option to buy this at 10, 20 or 100. This has to be stated upfront for you to know the real value. On listing if the value is say 80, then if you have the option to exercise at 10, or 20 you would make money, else at 100 you loose money and hence choose not to exercise the option. However your having stuck around the company for \"\"x\"\" years in anticipation of making money would go waste. Without a vesting period or the price to exercise the option, they are pretty much meaningless and would depend on the goodwill of the founders\"",
"Here's an article on it that might help: http://thefinancebuff.com/restricted-stock-units-rsu-sales-and.html One of the tricky things is that you probably have the value of the vested shares and withheld taxes already on your W-2. This confuses everyone including the IRS (they sent me one of those audits-by-mail one year, where the issue was they wanted to double-count stock compensation that was on both 1099-B and W-2; a quick letter explaining this and they were happy). The general idea is that when you first irrevocably own the stock (it vests) then that's income, because you're receiving something of value. So this goes on a W-2 and is taxed as income, not capital gains. Conceptually you've just spent however many dollars in income to buy stock, so that's your basis on the stock. For tax paid, if your employer withheld taxes, it should be included in your W-2. In that case you would not separately list it elsewhere.",
"I don't know the legal framework for RSUs, so I'm not sure what is mandatory and what is chosen by the company issuing them. I recently reviewed one companies offering and it basically looked like a flat purchase of stock on the VEST date. So even if I got a zillion shares for $1 GRANTED to me, if it was 100 shares that vested at $100 on the 1st, then I would owe tax on the market value on the day of vest. Further, the company would withhold 25% of the VEST for federal taxes and 10% for state taxes, if I lived in a state with income tax. The withholding rate was flat, regardless of what my actual tax rate was. Capital gains on the change from the market value on the VEST date was calculated as short-term or long-term based on the time since the VEST date. So if my 100 shares went up to $120, I would pay the $20 difference as short term or long term based on how long I had owned them since the VEST. That said, I don't know if this is universal. Your HR folks should be able to help answer at least some of these questions, though I know their favorite response when they don't know is that you should consult a tax professional. Good luck.",
"The stockholders of company A vote to approve or disapprove the buy out. That is the only control you have on the price: Vote to approve or disapprove. If the deal is approved then you get the money, or stock in B, or both, in accordance with the terms of the deal. It will arrive into your account automatically.",
"The vesting date. Look at publication 525, under stock options, where they talk about ESPP: Your basis is equal to the option price at the time you exercised your option and acquired the stock. The timing and amount of pay period deductions do not affect your basis.",
"\"First, you mentioned your brother-in-law has \"\"$100,000 in stock options (fully vested)\"\". Do you mean his exercise cost would be $100,000, i.e. what he'd need to pay to buy the shares? If so, then what might be the estimated value of the shares acquired? Options having vested doesn't necessarily mean they possess value, merely that they may be exercised. Or did you mean the estimated intrinsic value of those options (estimated value less exercise cost) is $100,000? Speaking from my own experience, I'd like to address just the first part of your question: Have you treated this as you would a serious investment in any other company? That is, have you or your brother-in-law reviewed the company's financial statements for the last few years? Other than hearing from people with a vested interest (quite literally!) to pump up the stock with talk around the office, how do you know the company is: BTW, as an option holder only, your brother-in-law's rights to financial information may be limited. Will the company share these details anyway? Or, if he exercised at least one option to become a bona-fide shareholder, I believe he'd have rights to request the financial statements – but company bylaws vary, and different jurisdictions say different things about what can be restricted. Beyond the financial statements, here are some more things to consider: The worst-case risk you'd need to accept is zero liquidity and complete loss: If there's no eventual buy-out or IPO, the shares may (effectively) be worthless. Even if there is a private market, willing buyers may quickly dry up if company fortunes decline. Contrast this to public stock markets, where there's usually an opportunity to witness deterioration, exit at a loss, and preserve some capital. Of course, with great risk may come great reward. Do your own due diligence and convince yourself through a rigorous analysis — not hopes & dreams — that the investment might be worth the risk.\"",
"There are two things to consider: taxes - beneficial treatment for long-term holding, and for ESPP's you can get lower taxes on higher earnings. Also, depending on local laws, some share schemes allow one to avoid some or all on the income tax. For example, in the UK £2000 in shares is treated differently to 2000 in cash vesting - restricted stocks or options can only be sold/exercised years after being granted, as long as the employee keeps his part of the contract (usually - staying at the same place of works through the vesting period). This means job retention for the employees, that's why they don't really care if you exercise the same day or not, they care that you actually keep working until the day when you can exercise arrives. By then you'll get more grants you'll want to wait to vest, and so on. This would keep you at the same place of work for a long time because by quitting you'd be forfeiting the grants.",
"There are a number of ways this can result. In a broad ETF, such as SPY, the S&P 500 spider, the S&P index will have 500 stocks no matter what, so a buyout would simply result in a re-shuffling of the index makeup. No buyout will happen so quickly that there's no time to choose the next stock to join the index. In your case, if the fund manager (per the terms of the prospectus) wishes to simply reallocate the index to remove the taken-over stock that's probably how he handle it. Unless of course, the prospectus dictates otherwise. In which case, a cash dividend is a possible alternative.",
"If the contributions were yours, they are vested immediately. Otherwise, there are some rules laid out on the Department of Labor website: ww.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/wyskapr.htm",
"This really comes down to tax structuring (which I am not an expert on), for public companies the acquiror almost always pays for the cash to prevent any taxable drawdown of overseas accounts, dividend taxes suck, etc. For a private company, first the debt gets swept, then special dividend out - dividends received by the selling corporate entity benefit from a tax credit plus it reduces the selling price of the equity, reducing capital gains taxes.",
"\"Your employer should send you a statement with this information. If they didn't, you should still be able to find it through E*Trade. Navigate to: Trading & Portfolios>Portfolios. Select the stock plan account. Under \"\"Restricted Stock\"\", you should see a list of your grants. If you click on the grant in question, you should see a breakdown of how many shares were vested and released by date. It will also tell you the cost basis per share and the amount of taxes withheld. You calculate your cost basis by multiplying the number of released shares by the cost basis per share. You can ignore the ordinary income tax and taxes withheld since they will already have been included on your W2 earnings and withholdings. Really all you need to do is report the capital gain or loss from the cost basis (which if you sold right away will be rather small).\"",
"Now assume these shares are vested, held for at least 1 year, and are then sold for $5 each. Everything I've read implies that the grantee now owes long-term capital gains taxes on the difference, which would be 10k * ($5 - $1). No. That's exactly what the SO is NQ for. Read more on the differences between ISO and NQSO here. Now assume these shares are vested, held for at least 1 year, and are then sold for $5 each. Everything I've read implies that the grantee now owes long-term capital gains taxes on the difference, which would be 10k * ($5 - $1). At this point you no longer have NQSO, you have RSU. If you filed 83(b) when you exercised, then you pay capital gains tax when they vest. If you didn't - its ordinary income to you. NQSO is a red herring here since once exercised they no longer exist. If you didn't file 83(b), then when the stock vests the difference between the FMV at vest and the money you spent on it when exercising (if any) is considered wages and taxed as ordinary income (+FICA etc). From that point the RSU becomes a regular stock investment and the capital gains clock starts ticking.",
"You'd likely be subject to a lock-up period before you could sell the shares along with possibly having other rules about how you could sell your shares as you'd likely be seen as an insider that may have information that gives you an unfair advantage for selling the stock possibly. Depending on how far in advance you hold the shares, you may or may not have adjustments in the valuation and number of shares as some companies may do a split or reverse split when preparing for an IPO. A company I worked for in the late 1990s had an IPO and my stock options had a revised strike price because of a reverse stock split that was done prior to the IPO.",
"As part of this acquisition 96% of the shareholders accepted an offer for their shares This means that most of the shareholder agreed for the sale. If this was less than specified percentage, the deal would not have gone through. To make it easier, there were 2 options present to shareholder, full exchange of shares of Infinera or part shares and part cash. I failed to do so as I was unwell at the time So you cannot now choose the option. There will be a default option of getting the equivalent shares in Infinera. What options are available to me now? Contact Infinera investor relations and ask them.",
"\"Check how long you have to hold the stock after buying it. If you can sell reasonably soon and your company is reasonably stable, you're unlikely to lose and/or be taxed and/or pay enough in fees to lose more than the 30% \"\"free money\"\" they're giving you. Whether you hold it longer than the minimum time depends partly on whether you think you can better invest the money elsewhere, and partly on how you feel about having both your salary and (part of) your investments tied to the company's success? The company would like you to \"\"double down\"\" that way, in the theory that it may make you mors motivated... but some investment councelors would advise keeping that a relatively small part of your total investments, basically for the same reasons you are always advised to diversify.\"",
"Yes. You incur income tax on the RSU on they date they vest. At this point you own the actual shares and you can decide to sell them or to hold them. If you hold them for the required period, and sell them later, the difference between your price at vesting and the sales price would be taxed as long term capital gains. Caution: if you decide to hold, you are still liable to pay income tax in the year they vest. You have to pay taxes on income that you haven't made yet. This is fairly dangerous: if the stock goes down, you may lose a lot of this tax payment. Technically you could recover some of this through claiming capital losses, but that this is severely restricted: the IRS makes it much easier to increase taxes through gains than reducing taxes through losses.",
"Like others have already said, it may cause an immediate dip due to a large and sudden move in shares for that particular stock. However, if there is nothing else affecting the company's financials and investors perceive no other risks, it will probably bounce back a bit, but not back to the full value before the shares were issued. Why? Whenever a company issues more stock, the new shares dilute the value of the current shares outstanding, simply because there are now more shares of that stock trading on the market; the Earnings Per Share (EPS) Ratio will drop since the same profit and company value has to be spread across more shares. Example: If a company is valued at $100 dollars and they have 25 shares outstanding, then the EPS ratio equates to $4 per share (100/25 = 4). If the company then issues more shares (stock to employees who sell or keep them), let's say 25 more shares, then shares outstanding increase to 50, but the company's value still remains at $100 dollars. EPS now equates to $2 per share (100/50 = 2). Now, sometimes when shareholders (especially employees...and especially employees who just received them) suddenly all sell their shares, this causes a micro-panic in the market because investors believe the employees know something bad about the company that they don't. Other common shareholders then want to dump their holdings for fear of impending collapse in the company. This could cause the share price to dip a bit below the new diluted value, but again if no real, immediate risks exist, the price should go back up to the new, diluted value. Example 2: If EPS was at $4 before issuing more stock, and then dropped to $2 after issuing new stock, the micro-panic may cause the EPS to drop below $2 and then soon rebound back to $2 or more when investors realize no actual risk exists. After the dilution phase plays out, the EPS could actually even go above the pre-issuing value of $4 because investors may believe that since more stock was issued due to good profits, more profits may ensue. Hope that helps!",
"Often buyouts are paid for by the buyer issuing a load of new shares and giving those to the seller to pay them. Sometimes it could be all shares, sometimes all cash, or any mix in-between. If you believe in the future of the buyers' business model, you'll often get a load of shares at a discounted rate this way. If you do not believe in the buyers' future then you're getting shares that you think may be worth little or nothing some day, so cash would be better.",
"\"It depends on how big the dilution is. Could be a good trade. Do the math yourself, many times nobody else has as all the employees think they are going to get rich because \"\"options\"\" :)\""
] |
[
"\"This is a great question. I've participated in a deal like that as an employee, and I also know of friends and family who have been involved during a buyout. In short: The updated part of your question is correct: There is no single typical treatment. What happens to unvested restricted stock units (RSUs), unvested employee stock options, etc. varies from case to case. Furthermore, what exactly will happen in your case ought to have been described in the grant documentation which you (hopefully) received when you were issued restricted stock in the first place. Anyway, here are the two cases I've seen happen before: Immediate vesting of all units. Immediate vesting is often the case with RSUs or options that are granted to executives or key employees. The grant documentation usually details the cases that will have immediate vesting. One of the cases is usually a Change in/of Control (CIC or COC) provision, triggered in a buyout. Other immediate vesting cases may be when the key employee is terminated without cause, or dies. The terms vary, and are often negotiated by shrewd key employees. Conversion of the units to a new schedule. If anything is more \"\"typical\"\" of regular employee-level grants, I think this one would be. Generally, such RSU or option grants will be converted, at the deal price, to a new schedule with identical dates and vesting percentages, but a new number of units and dollar amount or strike price, usually so the end result would have been the same as before the deal. I'm also curious if anybody else has been through a buyout, or knows anybody who has been through a buyout, and how they were treated.\"",
"I've been through two instances where I worked for a public company that was merged (for stock) into another company. In both cases the options I had were replaced with equivalent options in the merged company with the number of shares and strike price adjusted at the same rate as the actual stock was converted, and the vesting terms remained essentially the same. In other words, the options before and after were in essence equivalent.",
"\"I worked for a small private tech company that was aquired by a larger publicly traded tech company. My shares were accelerated by 18 months, as written in the contract. I excercised those shares at a very low strike price (under $1) and was given an equal number of shares in the new company. Made about $300,000 pre tax. This was in 2000. (I love how the government considered us \"\"rich\"\" that year, but have never made that amount since!)\""
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.